Sermon Preached 14 February 1607, Part 15
The fifteenth Wound.
THe next wound is this: That whereas God hath euer allowed and honoured marriage, in the old, and new Testament; and Concubines were neuer allowed in the olde, and absolutely condemned in the newe: Now comes popery, and makes it as lawfull to hauehave a Concubine as a Wife31The 15. wound; He that hath not a wife may hauehave a Concubine. and this is done by no priuate persons, but the Popes law it selfe. Thus saith the Canon;yDecret dist. 34. cap. 4. He that hath not a wife, but for a wife or instead of a wife, a Concubine, let him not for that be kept frō the Communion; yet so as that hee bee content with one woman, either a wife or a concubine.
Is not heere a piece of good licentious poperie? I know they say they hauehave this from the first councell of Toledo, which is ancient: true, but what if Spaine, not long ago conuerted to the faith, was not purged as yet from these dregs of heathenisme, and Iudaism; are they therefore fit to be taken vp by the Pope, and inserted in his law, as a Canon to binde and direct for euer? If they thinke that poore prouinciall Councel (but of 19. Bishops) bee a sufficient warrant for this decree, then why take they not all? and why put they it not downe a wife or a Concubine, as it pleaseth him; for so it is in the words of the CouncelzConcil. General. per Binniū. Col. 1607. tom. 1. pa. 560. In Concil. 1. Tolet. cap. 17..
I know also, that they hauehave coyned a distinction, whereby they would couer this wound, and say that a Concubine heere is to be taken for a woman whom a man hath, and keepeth with the affection of a Husband; onelyonly in outward fashion and solemnity shee is not a wife, nor publickly married: but I answere, the best of it is naught if we did graunt them all they say: but distinguish as they can, the wordes are so plaine, that the suttlest distinctiō they can deuise, wil be too short a cloak to couer the shame of it: nay the shame of this Canon is written in the fore-head of it: for the Rubrick or contents, written with red letters, is worse then the text it selfe;aVide decretū cum glossa, editionis lugdun. in fol. 1510 dist. 34. cap. 4. Is, qui non habet vxorē, loco illius debet habere concubinam. Hee that hath not a wife, ought, or at least may hauehave, a Concubine in her reome.
These be the very words in the impression at Lions, 1510. tho I confess the Diuines of Paris, hauing a little more care what past their hands, ashamed of the word debet (that is, ought to hauehave) put it out and put in liceat, that is, hee may hauehavebVide decretū edit… Parisiens. in fol. anni 1507. ibid. Is qui non habet vxorem, loco illius, concubinam habere liceat.: but take the best of all, and is it not bad inough? well let vsus goe forward; this wound is olde & wide, and deepe.
But is it yet healed? No, not to this day32The 15 woūd not yet healed… for stil by the Popes Canon law he that hath not a Wife may hauehave a Concubine.; for the Popes Canon law was of late yeares commaunded by the Pope to be corrected and purged, as well the Text as the Glosse: and is this amended, or lefte out as being false and filthy doctrin? No: other places indeed are altered, for the greater vantage and honor of the Pope: but this dishonorable Canon, so disgracefull to Gods lawe, stands vntouched in this new & last editiō of alcVide corpus iuris Canonici, authoritate Gregorij. 13. pōt max… emē datum et editum. 91. et 600.: only the Rubrick, or title, or Contents, wherof we spake before is altered thus; dIbid. dist. 34. cap. 4. Is qui non habet vxorem sed loco illius concubinam, a communione no… repellitur.Hee that hath not a wife, but for a wife a Concubine, is not repelled from the Communion.
Thus it is amended; but in a poore fashion, as wee may see. But what may the Church of Rome meane to amend the Rubrick or title, & not the Text? Surelie because they know manie a one hastily runnes ouer the Contents, and titles of books and Chapters, who neuer looke into the body of the bookes themselues. But take this wound healed as it is: Is this good diuinity at Rome, that he who hath no wife, but in a wiues steade keepes a Concubine, shal not for that be kept from the Communiō? Is not this a holy table of the Romish Sacrament, from which he shall not be forbidden that openly keeps a whore, in room of a wife? Certainly this wound is notably healed: let vsus then goe forward to the next.