The Novelty of Popery Opposed to the Antiquity of True Christianity, Book 7 · Controversy 4 · Chapter 2
CHAP. 2. That the Apoſtle Paul, 1 Cor. 7. obligeth incontinent Clarks to marry. Confutation of the Cardinals reaſons.
THis advantage we have in this point, that our Adverſaries confeſs that the Celibat of Prieſts and other Eccleſiaſticall men, is not commanded in the Word of God. It is then a tradition, and a Law taken from the unwritten Word. I would charitably believe, that the Pope and his Clergy maintain that doctrine and practiſe with ſo much eagerneſs, becauſe they will tend Gods ſervice with leſs diſtraction, but that I ſee the great profits which the Pope reaps by it, the Celibat being very fit for the preſervation of the Patrimony of the Church, and for keeping the Clergy in ſubjection under the power of his Holineſs: Alſo that I ſee how the ſame that forbids marriage, permits fornication, and that by barring the Clergy from marriage, both natural and unnatural vices have overflown the Clergy.(a)2a 2ae Qu. 88. Art. 11. Thomas the Angelical Doctor acknowledgeth, that the Celibat of Clarks is but of humane right, not of divine inſtitution.(b)Bell l. de Clericis c. 18. ſect. At B. Thom. Nunc ſolum breviter probandum eſt non jure divino, ſed hamano duntaxat prohibitum eſſe conjugium. Bellarmine doth the like after him.
Since then marriage is of divine inſtitution, but the Celibat of humane inſtitution, it is a wonder that humane inſtitution prevails over the commandment of God; and that the fornication of a Prieſt, is held to be a far lighter ſin, then if he had taken a lawful wife. But let us hear what the Word of God ſaith of this.
1 Cor. 7.2. To avoid fornication, let every man have his own wife, and let every woman have her own husband. Note, that the Apoſtle ſaith every man, that one may not except Prieſts and Fryars; and that he ſaith, to avoid fornication; Then a Prieſt ſubject to fornication is obliged to marry.
The ſame Apoſtle in the ninth verſe of the ſame Chapter, ſaith, If they cannot contain, let them marry, for it is better to marry then to burn. Then if a Prieſt cannot contain, he is obliged by the Apoſtles command to marry. Cyprian practiſed that rule. For in his time, about the year 250. of Chriſt, when Monaſteries were not yet, ſome Virgins living in their Fathers houſe, made a vow of perpetual Virginity, which afterwards were found in bed with men, yet proteſting that they did no harm with them. Of thoſe women, Cyprian makes this judgement, in the 62. Epiſtle to Pomponius, (c)Quod ſi ex fide ſe Chriſto dedicaverunt pudice & caſte ſine ulla fabula perſeverent, &c. Si autem perſeverare nolunt vel non poſſunt, melius eſt nubant quàm in ignem deliciis ſuis cadant.If they have dedicated themſelves unto Chriſt, let them continue to live chaſtly and honeſtly, without raiſing tales about themſelves; and being thus ſtrong and firm, let them expect the reward of Virginity. But if they will not, or cannot perſevere, it is better for them to marry, then to fall into the fire by their voluptuouſneſs. He will have ſuch women, that will not or cannot contain, to break their vow and marry. Now I cannot conceive, why a vow made unto God by a young woman, in her fathers houſe, by her parents conſent, muſt be leſs binding, then if ſhe had been vailed by a Biſhop. For the ſtrength of the vow lyeth not in that Ceremony, but in the obligation not to lie unto God.
*Pag. 688, 689.To this Cardinal du Perron gives three anſwers.
Firſt he affirmeth, that when the Apoſtle ſaith, If they contain not, let them marry, for it is better to marry then to burn; he giveth that order by way of counſel, not by way of precept. Sure, when the Cardinal writ this, his mind was ſomewhere elſe, for he conſidered not that counſel, when it is diſtinguiſhed from precept, is not an order, ſo that by ſaying that St. Paul gave an order by way of counſel, he ſpeaks things contradictory. Beſides, one might that way elude all the Commandments of God, and diſpenſe himſelf from them; ſaying, God commands me not to believe in Chriſt, or to obey my father, or not to be a murtherer, only he counſelleth me ſo. When the words of God are imperative, as in this place, If they contain not, let them marry; then to take his words for counſels, is a manifeſt impiety. Alſo this Prelate ought not to have been ignorant, that Gods counſels ought to be taken for commands by thoſe that fear him. Thus Prov. 1. Heavenly Wiſdom denounceth Gods judgements to the prophane, that ſet at nought his counſel. And Luk. 7.30. the Phariſees are condemned for rejecting the counſel of God. Rev. 3.18. Chriſt ſaith to the Church of Laodicea, I counſel thee to buy of me gold tryed by the fire. A counſel which the Church of Laodicea could not reject, but to their perdition.
The Cardinal uſeth another ſhift:Pag. 697, 698. He ſaith that this counſel is given only to thoſe that had made no vow of Celibat, and that were free. Of which vow he produceth an example (and repeats it often) of the widows that had dedicated themſelves to the ſervice of the Church in the Office of Deaconeſſes, and then married, breaking their vow. Of theſe widows St. Paul ſaith, 1 Tim. 5.12. that they had damnation, becauſe they had caſt off their firſt faith. But the Cardinal is much miſtaken, if he think that the faith mentioned in this place, is the vow of a ſingle life; for the Apoſtle ſpeaks of the vow given by thoſe women to conſecrate their whole life to the ſervice of the Church, in the Office of Deaconeſſes. It is ſo far then, that the Apoſtle would oblige them never to marry after that promiſe, that on the contrary he commands them, if they be yet young, to marry notwithſtanding their promiſe: For ſpeaking of the ſame widows, he ſaith, v. 14. I will that the younger women marry, bear children, &c. But that for the time to come, they ſhould not be conſtrained to abandon their Church-ſervice for marrying, and to violate their faith and ſervice, he forbids that any woman be received into that charge, or (as our Adverſaries ſpeak) to make that vow, before ſhe be threeſcore years old. Let us ſuppoſe then, that theſe widows Deaconeſſes, had made a vow never to marry, how comes it that the Apoſtle will have thoſe of their number that were young to marry, and not to keep their vow? Why doth he forbid that any be admitted to make that vow, if ſhe be under threeſcore years of age? Why doth the Roman Church go directly againſt that command, admitting young Girls to make that vow, before they can know the deſires of nature? Why do they condemn the Apoſtle, who forbids young widows to keep that pretended vow? But the plain truth is, that the Apoſtle ſpeaks not here of the vow of a ſingle life, for at threeſcore years of age that vow would be ridiculous.
Here the Cardinal pronounceth a ſentence both ſevere and raſh, abſolutely affirming that thoſe widdows, that had violated their faith, were damned. Saint Paul ſaith not that he ſaith only, that they had [that](d)The Tranſlator craves leave to ſay here, that our Engliſh verſion, Having damnation, needs a mild conſtruction, foreign may here ſignifie judgement, as Mat. 7.2. and the ſenſe of the text may be, that theſe widows are condemned in the judgement of godly perſons, for breaking their faith and promiſe. condemnation, that they had caſt off their firſt faith. He condemneth them as guilty, but pronounceth not an abſolute ſentence of eternal damnation againſt them. He takes not the hope of pardon from them that repent.
What then, may one ſay? do you teach men to break their vows? are you preachers of diſloyalty? Before I anſwer, I would wiſh our Adverſaries to anſwer their own Canons, which ſay,(e)C. 22. qu. 4. cap. in malis. In malis promiſſionibus frange fidem. In voto inhoneſto frange conſilium. In ill promiſes break thy faith. Perform not what thou haſt imprudently vowed. That promiſe is impious, which is fulfilled by ſin. For things ill, to vow, are worſe yet to perform. He that vowed to be unfaithful, muſt he keep his vow that he may be faithful? He that vowed to kill his father, muſt he be a Parricide for fear of offending God? Or if one promiſeth that which is not in his power, as to take the Moon; or a thing ridiculous, as never to walk abroad, but with a green cap and a mealy face, or a thing to him unknown, as they that from their childhood vow things which they know not; or that make a vow grounded upon a perſwaſion, that God will give them that which he hath promiſed to none: Muſt all ſuch vows be performed?
Then eſpecially the vow is evil, when one cannot fulfill it, without breaking another vow which was good, neceſſary to ſalvation, and to which all are naturally bound. Then vows muſt be kept, when they are of good and righteous things, not diſhoneſt, not abſurd, not harmful to others, not hurtful to our ſalvation, and ſuch as are within the compaſs of our power.
If the vow of ſingle life be examined upon theſe rules, it will appear that it is a vow which ought not to be made, and to which thoſe that conſecrate themſelves to the holy Miniſtry, ought not to be tyed. Alſo that many who have made that vow, are obliged by Gods commandment to break it. For they that wanting the gift of continence, make a vow not to marry, go againſt Gods command by his Apoſtle, If they contain not, let them marry; and to avoid fornication, let every one have his wife. That vow alſo is contrary to a precedent vow, to which we are bound by our birth, by our Baptiſm, and by our ordinary prayers; even to the vow which every Chriſtian makes to obey God.
Then it is a raſh part to vow that which is not in our power. Now the continence, not only of body, but of ſpirit, free from all deſires and carnal concupiſcences, is a gift which is not in our power, and which God giveth but to few perſons: Neither hath he promiſed to give it to thoſe that ask it, becauſe it is not neceſſary to ſalvation. Whoſoever voweth continence, doth raſhly preſuppoſe, that God will give it him, and will beſtow a grace upon him, which he did not beſtow upon many Saints, Prophets, Apoſtles, and Martyrs. He doth, as if he vowed never to be ſick, and never to have the deſires which are natural unto all men. A man burning with incontinence, who voweth unto God never to marry, is like a ſick man that voweth never to uſe the remedies which God preſents unto him. He ſaith to God ſilently, Lord I promiſe thee to diſobey thy Word. And yet he will have that diſobedience allowed him as a work of ſuperarragation, and a greater perfection then to fulfill the Law of God. If then he hath made that vow without knowledge, as thoſe that are caſt into Monaſteries, before they be acquainted with the ſtings of concupiſcence, when he comes by age to ſee himſelf engaged in a dangerous vow, which kindleth his luſt, and barreth him from the means to quench it, he muſt break that vow which he made ignorantly, and get out of Satans ſnares. Hierom, the great enemy of marriage, found it ſo; for in his Epiſtle to Euſtochium, he confeſſeth, that among the auſterities and faſts, he had his heart among fair maids, and burnt with incontinence. Bernard confeſſeth the ſame, in the Book of the inward houſe, chap. 29. & 36. In Caſſian, in Collation 12. chap. 9. and in Collation 2. chap. 23. and in Collation 22. chap. 2. the Monks, Moſes, German, and Theonas confeſs, that after their faſts and prayers they had nocturnall pollutions: And to allay their heat, they permit in their rules things diſhoneſt to relate.
Pag. 688.The Cardinals third anſwer is, that the gift of continence which the Apoſtle Paul ſpeaks of, is not the poſſibility of containing, belonging to the general grace, which the School-men call ſufficient. Otherwiſe the acts of incontinence ſhould not be ſo inexcuſable, and ſhould not be ſins, being committed by perſons that had not the power not to commit them. But he underſtands by the gift of continence, the act of containing, belonging to the efficacious grace, which not only enableth to do, but cauſeth to do. What a deal of dark gibriſh in a clear matter? But it is this Prelates cuſtom, when truth preſſeth him, to hide himſelf in darkneſs. I let alone for the preſent that School diſtinction, truly ridiculous, which forgeth a grace to be able to do without doing; a grace to be able to contain, but not to contain, which is an uſeleſs grace. Then a ſufficient grace, which yet hath no efficacy; for therefore it is inſufficient, becauſe it hath no efficacy. And that falſe maxime which he ſets down, that ſins are no ſins, when they are committed by perſons that have not the power not to commit them. Upon that ſcore the Devil ſhould never ſin, for he is altogether uncapable and unable to do any good. And drunkards, who by a long habit cannot leave their intemperance, ſhould not ſin by their exceſs in drinking. In him that by his fault hath brought himſelf to the unableneſs of doing good, and to the neceſſity of ſinning, that very neceſſity encreaſeth the ſin, as Ariſtotle (f)Ariſtot. Ethic. l. 3. c. 7. foreign.teacheth, That thoſe perſons are damnable, and wilfully vicious, who by cuſtom have brought upon themſelves the neceſſity of doing ill.
But to fetch M. du Perron out of his dark hiding place, the ſumm of his diſcourſe is, that when Paul ſaith, If they contain not, let them marry; by not containing, he underſtands, not being incontinent in their deſire and luſt, but committing the act of fornication. And to the ſame purpoſe when Paul ſaith, It is better to marry then to burn; by burning, he underſtands not being tempted with fervent concupiſcence, but bringing that temptation to act. This man cuts his throat with his own ſword; for if not containing, ſignifieth here fornicating: And if the Apoſtle commandeth them that contain not, to marry, all fornicating Prieſts and Fryars are of neceſſity bound to marry, and (as the ſame Apoſtle ſaith) to avoid fornication, every one ought to have his wife. By the way, how can burning be interpreted fornicating, ſeeing that by fornicating, men ſeek to quench their burning? Who knows not that in all languages, unchaſt love is called burning, (g)Formeſum paſtor Coridon ardebat Alexin.eſpecially when one cannot compaſs the end of his deſire.
To conclude, If he to whom God hath given continence, makes a vow not to marry, as long as he hath that gift, and is not tempted with carnal deſires, he doth wiſely and righteouſly to keep his vow, and not to marry. But if he fall into ill deſires, and ſee himſelf in danger of falling; that man not being able to quench his luſt without marriage, ought to marry to obey Gods command. Wherefore it is more expedient not to make that vow. A wiſe man will miſtruſt his ſtrength, and not put himſelf in danger to break his vow. And they that will oblige all thoſe to that vow, that will conſecrate themſelves unto the ſervice of the Church, are the cauſes of many evils, and oppoſe Gods Ordinance.
I paſs by the abuſe of the Franciſcans and other Monks, who when they enter into the Monaſticall life, make the vow of perpetual continence, not to God alone, but alſo to the Patron of their Order, as Saint Francis and Saint Dominick, When a Dominican Novice becomes Profeſs, he makes the vow in theſe words, I make a vow to God, and to the Bleſſed Virgin Mary, and to all the Saints, to yield obedience to ſuch or ſuch a Prelate, &c. Againſt the Word of God, Pſalm 50.14. Offer unto God thanksgiving, and pay thy vows unto the moſt High. For vowing is an action of latria, and of the higheſt Religious ſervice, as(h)Thomas 2a 2ae Qu. 88. Art. 5. Thomas teacheth. And(i)Cajetan. in notis in illum locum Thomae. Cajetan after him; who to excuſe thoſe vows made unto the Saints, ſaith, that the Saints are Gods by participation. (k)Bellar. de Cultu. Sanctor. l. 3. c. 9. §. Praeterea Cum ſcriberentur Scripturae, nondum coeperat uſus vovendi Sanctis. Et §. ſecundâ, Votum non convenit Sanctis niſi quatenus Dii ſunt per participationem. At ſanctos cum Chriſto regnantes certò ſcimus eſſe tales.Bellarmine ſaith the ſame; and freely acknowledgeth, that when holy Scriptures were written, it was not yet the cuſtom to make vows unto the Saints. For the Apoſtles had not attained yet that meaſure of inſtruction.