The Novelty of Popery Opposed to the Antiquity of True Christianity, Book 7 · Controversy 4 · Chapter 3
CHAP. 3. Another text of the Apoſtle Paul, 1 Tim. 4. againſt the prohibition of marrying. Examination of the Cardinals anſwers.
THe Apoſtle Paul ſpeaks thus, 1 Tim. 4.1. The Spirit speaks expreſly, that in the latter dayes ſome ſhall depart from the faith, giving heed to ſeducing spirits and doctrines of Devils; speaking lies in hypocriſie, having their conſcience ſeared with a hot iron: Forbidding to marry. That holy Apoſtle ſaith, that forbidding to marry is a doctrine of Devils.
Cardinal du Perron anſwers,Pag. 699, 700. that Saint Paul ſpeaks there hiſtorically of the Legaliſts, that would have the Law obſerved with the Goſpel, and forbad the uſe of meats forbidden by the Law, and the uſe of marriages forbidden by the Law, that is of marriages contracted with other perſons, but ſuch as were deſcended from Abrahams family.
Thoſe Legaliſts, who were alſo called Nazarenes, of whom the Cardinal ſpeaks, were in the Apoſtles time. Againſt them, Saint Paul writ the Epiſtle to the Galatians, and part of that to the Coloſsians. That ſect did vaniſh a little after the Apoſtles time. Whence it is evident, that it is not of them that Saint Paul ſpeaks in this text. For he ſpeaks of ſome ſeducing ſpirits that ſhould come in the latter dayes, and that were not yet come when he was writing. In the latter dayes (ſaith he) ſome ſhall depart from the faith, &c. ſpeaking in the future. He that ſaith that ſome perſons are to come thereby, ſignifieth that they are not yet come. Wherefore the Cardinal miſtruſting that anſwer, hath recourſe to the ordinary ſhift, that Paul ſpeaks of thoſe that condemned marriage in it ſelf, as the Eneratites and Manicheans, who dogmatized that marriage was an inſtitution of the Devil.
It is true, that they that maintain marriage to be evil of its nature, do wickedly, and are condemned by the Apoſtle. But therefore they that condemn marriage out of ſcruple or ſuperſtition, or out of an opinion of ſuperarrogation, are not excuſeable, but have part in the ſame condemnation. For Paul calls generally and without diſtinction, all that forbid marriage, ſeducing ſpirits, teaching doctrines of Devils. Whoſoever brings exceptions to the general rules of Gods Word, muſt draw them out of the ſame Word of God, not forge them in his brains. Did the Word of God except the Clergy from that rule, or thoſe that forbid marriage for exerciſe, or out of affectation of greater holineſs, or to make works of ſuperarrogation; it were well done to alleadge that exception. But theſe men bring nothing out of the Word of God, and themſelves confeſs that their Celibat is not of divine inſtitution. So, as by divers wayes, ſeveral perſons may come to the ſame precipice, likewiſe by divers wayes and for divers ends and conſiderations, ſeveral perſons may tranſgreſs the ſame Commandment, and come to the ſame condemnation.
The Cardinal is miſtaken, when he ſaith that the Manicheans did abſolutely condemn marriage in it ſelf, as evil by its nature, and an inſtitution of the Devil. Auſtin freeth them of that blame,(a)Auguſt. Epiſt. 74. Auduores qui appellantur apud eos & carnibus veſcuntur, & agros colunt, & ſi voluerint uxores habent, quorum nihil faciunt qui vocantur Electi. They that are called Auditours, among the Manicheans, eat fleſh, plow the land, and have wives if they liſt; of which things nothing is done by thoſe that are called Elect. Thoſe Auditours were the people; and thoſe Elect were a few perſons, who among the Manicheans, by auſterity of life, affected a greater holineſs. Themſelves complained, that they were wronged in the report and opinion of men, as Auſtin ſaith,(b)Idem lib. 2. de moribus Eccleſiae & Manicheorum, chap. 18. Hic non dubito vos eſſe clamaturos invidiamque facturos, capitatem perfectam vos vehementer commendare atque laudare, non tamen nuptias prohibere, quandoquidem Auditores veſtri quorum apud vos ſecundus eſt gradus, ducere atque habere non-prohibentur uxores. Here I make no doubt (ſpeaking to them) that you will exclaim, to make us odious, that you greatly commend and praiſe perfect chaſtity, but yet forbid not marriage, ſeeing that your Auditours, which are in a ſecond degree amongſt you, are not forbidden to marry, and to have wives. That is very far from believing, that marriage was of the Devils inſtitution. Thus in the Council of Gangra, Euſtach Biſhop of Sebaſtia was condemned, becauſe he prohibited eating of fleſh, and contemned married Prieſts; although he proteſted that he did it,(c)Sozom. Book 3. ch. 13. foreign. not out of diſdain, but out of a pious exerciſe, according to God, as we learn of Sozomenus.
I will ſay more. That whoſo will take the pains to read the Decrees of the Popes Syricius and(d)Innocent. Diſt. 82. Can. Propoſuiſti. Innocent, ſhall find that the Hereticks that condemned matrimony, as evil and polluted by its nature, have not ſpoken of it in ſuch odious terms as the Popes have done: For they not only forbid the habitation of Clergymen with their wives, as a thing contrary to their vow; but alſo forbid to admit unto holy Offices, thoſe that dwell with their wives, becauſe it is written, Be ye holy, for I am holy, as though there were no holineſs in marriage, and becauſe it is written, unto the pure all things are pure, but unto them that are defiled and unbelieving nothing is pure; and they that are in the fleſh cannot pleaſe God; as if married perſons were impure, unbelieving, and debarred from the poſſibility to pleaſe God; wickedly wreſting that which in the Word of God, is ſaid againſt the prophane in general, to uſe it againſt the marriage of Clergy-men. And the ſame Pope Syricius (e)Ibid. Can. Plurimos.calls the habitation of a Clark with his wife a crime, & turpem coitum: And married Prieſts, ſectatores libidinum & praeceptores vitiorum, followers of whoredom and teachers of vices. To theſe expreſſions the practiſe is ſuitable. For why do they exact of a man the vow of perpetual Celibat, before they admit him into the Clergy? Why is a married man excluded from all Orders of the Church, but that they hold the marriage of a Clark unlawfull of its nature, and incompatible with the holineſs of Eccleſiaſtical miniſtery? They are the very words of Pope Innocent, That it is not lawfull to receive into the ſacred Offices thoſe that uſe carnal acquaintance with their wives, becauſe it is written, Be ye holy, for I am holy, ſaith the Lord. This ſentence is of the Old Teſtament, when Prieſts were married by Gods commandment, and is not ſaid to the Prieſts only; but to all the people.
The Cardinal giveth a third anſwer,(f)Ibid. Can. Propoſuiſti. Neque eos fas ſit ad officia ſacra admitti qui exercent etiam cum uxore carnale conſortium, quia Scriptum eſt Sancti eſtote quoniam ſanctus ſum, dixit Dominus. (g)Ch. 28. pag. 700.that the Roman Church doth not forbid marriage, becauſe it is in every mans liberty to chooſe celibat or matrimony, and that no body is conſtrained to the miniſtery of the Church or to monaſtical profeſſion.
I anſwer, that in the Roman Church there is a conſtraint to the celibat three wayes, 1. He that finding not himſelf fit for civil buſineſſes, nor capable of a great labour, ſees no other way to paſs his life with ſome honour and commodity then by ſerving the Church, is conſtrained to make that vow, which he takes half willing, and half unwilling, and he will do it becauſe neceſſity lyeth upon him to have that will. 2. Then many are caſt into Monaſteries, not by their choyce, but by the will of their parents, or from their infancy have mitres ſet on their head, and great Church-livings beſtowed upon them, ſo that they have not their free choyce when they come to the age of chooſing, and when nature is moſt prone to corruption. 3. But the greateſt conſtraint is in them, that have vowed and acknowledging themſelves incapable to keep their vow, and being unable to contain, yet are kept againſt their will under the yoke of that vow againſt the Apoſtles command, if they do not contain, let them marry; For humane inſtitution hath prevailed over Gods commandment.