The Novelty of Popery Opposed to the Antiquity of True Christianity, Book 7 · Controversy 4 · Chapter 6
CHAP. 6. Anſwer to the reaſons and teſtimonies which the Cardinal brings againſt the marriage of Clarks.
THE Cardinal having confeſt that the action of matrimony, which hath no other end but to get iſſue,Pag. 695. is free from ſin, ſaith nevertheleſs, that in that action there is much imperfection, and that it works a total ſubverſion and ſinking down of reaſon. To which I anſwer, that how great ſoever mans imperfection be in that point, yet Gods inſtitution, and his eſpecial command covers that defect; God regarding more his ordinance, then our imperfection. If he that drinks in his burning thirſt hath all his ſenſes ſo diverted from all other thoughts, that it is impoſſible for him to pray to God at that time, or to attend any holy meditation, it followeth not that ſuch a diverſion is vicious, or that Clarks muſt be forbidden to drink when they are dry.
The Cardinal addeth, that by that action original ſin is communicated. It is true, that without that action original ſin would not paſs to poſterity, for mankind ſhould periſh, and there would be no poſterity. But that doth nothing againſt matrimony, which is more antient then ſin; And by the ſame reaſon they that attend Gods ſervice ought not to eat, becauſe by meat the life of the wicked, and the ſin which is in the world, is maintained.
He ſaith next, that God did alwayes put off thoſe that exerciſed the act of matrimony from dealing and partaking with his myſteries, unleſs they were purified before.
That is altogether falſe, and no ſuch thing is to be found in Gods word. If it were true, God would have commanded the Paſtors of the Chriſtian Church to abſtain altogether from their wives, becauſe they ought continually to attend Gods ſervice. And God would have forbidden thoſe that are married among his people to be partakers of the Lords holy table, unleſs they had purified themſelves before by ſome eſpecial ceremonies; For as for the purity of the conſcience, it ought to be continual. Of purification after the marriage bed Chriſt and his Apoſtle ſpake not a word. Wherefore the Cardinal alleadgeth no examples but out of the ceremonial Law, though he knew it to be aboliſht by the preaching of the Goſpel. He ought by the ſame reaſon to have ſpoken of the touching of a dead man, and of the like pollutions which by the Law of Moſes hindered a man from adminiſtring holy things. Yet let us ſee what examples he brings.
All the time (ſaith he) that the Prieſts of the Law attended the ſervice of the Temple, they abſtained from the uſe of their own wives. This is altogether falſe.
Of ſuch a conſtitution there is not one word in the Old Teſtament. Yea, the contrary is clearly proved by ſeveral texts. The High Prieſt every day burnt the incenſe, and ordered the lamps in the Holy place, as it is commanded, Exod. 27.21. & 30.7.(a)Aug. Qu. in Leviticum. qu. 31. In tabernaculum neceſſe erat quotidie introire & accedere ad altare propter continuam ſervitutem, The ſame High Prieſt made the continual morning and evening ſacrifice in the Temple. And the ordinary food of the Prieſts was the ſhoulder and the breaſt of the ſacred victims, and the offerings of the people, and the ſhew bread. By the Cardinals rule Aaron and his ſucceſſors till David ought not, and could not be married. It is true, that David inſtituted four and twenty courſes of Prieſts ſerving by turns, every one a fortnight in a year. Of that order was Zachariah father to John the Baptiſt, who, becauſe he lived far from Jeruſalem was conſtrained to leave his family all the time of his ſervice. But the High Prieſt with his wife and children were lodged in the very Temple (as it may be ſeen 2 Chron. 22.11, 12.) and abſented not himſelf from his wife.
The Cardinals next allegation is, that when God would give his Law to his people of Iſrael, he commanded them to abſtain from their wives. But is the abſtinence of three dayes to any purpoſe to prove the perpetual Celibat? By the ſame reaſon if God had commanded in his Law to abſtain from eating, certain dayes, one might infer that the Clergy muſt not eat all. Legal abſtinences are no rules under the Goſpel. Note alſo, that the alleadged abſtinence for three dayes from the uſe of women, was not for the Prieſts only, but for all the people. Wherefore we might with more probability infer, that God requireth no greater abſtinence in that point from the Clergy, then from the people.
The Cardinal alleadgeth alſo that when David and his followers deſired to eat the ſhew-bread, Abimelech the Prieſt asked them whether they were pure from women, that is (as the Cardinal expounds it) from touching their lawfull wives.
The abſurdity of this expoſition is evident. For if for lying with his own wife a man was made uncapable or unworthy of eating the ſhew-bread, the Prieſts were to abſtain for ever from their wives, ſeeing that the ſhew-bread was their ordinary bread. Either then by thoſe women, other women then lawfull wives are underſtood, or the Prieſt Abimelech asking David (b)1 Sam. 21.4.whether his men had kept themſelves at leaſt from women, meant the abſtinence from the marriage bed in the time of their ſeparation, in which women were declared polluted according to the Law: and ſo may Hierom be underſtood, who upon the twelfth chapter of Matthew, underſtands that queſtion of the Prieſt to Davids men of the uſe of their lawfull wives.
But in this point Hieroms authority is of no weight, ſeeing that he was a mortal enemy to matrimony. For if we muſt be ruled by him, we muſt ſay, that marriage is aſhame, that married perſons are veſſels to diſhonour, and that the fruit of marriage is death, but that the fruit of virginity is eternal life, and that they that are in the fleſh, that is, the married perſons (for ſo he expounds it) cannot pleaſe God. Yet let us receive the Cardinals interpretation; For what ſtrength can there be in that argument? The ſhew-bread was not to be given to thoſe who a day or two before had lien with their wives: Ergo, Monks, Deacons, and Prieſts muſt never marry. Will any man that is in his right ſenſe approve that conſequence?
This is all that the Cardinal could find in the Old Teſtament for the perpetual celibat. For he was aſhamed to uſe Bellarmins proofs, who proveth that the Clarks of the Chriſtian Church muſt never marry, becauſe the Prieſts of the Old Teſtament had a girdle about their loyns, and wore drawers.
Pag. 695.The Cardinal having alleadged texts of Scripture with ſo little reaſon, to amend the matter, he alleadgeth fables and Pagan hiſtories, ſaying, that Hippolitus ſaluted Venus afar off, and that Alexander in that act acknowledged that he was no God but man, and that the Kings of Taprobana were depoſed whenſoever they married. If thence it may be gathered that God in his word prohibited the Clarks to marry, let any man judge. May it not rather be hence gathered, that a mans cauſe is weak, when he is brought to uſe fables, and Pagan ſtories.
Pag. 695.From the Old Teſtament the Cardinal paſſeth to the New, and ſaith, that marriage turneth away the affection of Miniſters from the love which they owe unto the Church, and divides and transfers it to the love of their children and family, as St. Paul ſaith, 1 Cor. 7.32. He that is unmarried, careth for the things that belong to the Lord, how he may pleaſe the Lord, But he that is married, careth for the things that are of the world, how he may pleaſe his wife, and is divided.
I anſwer, that if the care of children diſtracteth the care which a Paſtor ought to have of the Church, the burning luſt of thoſe that live in an incontinent Celibat doth far more diſtract them. If in the one there be diſtraction, in the other there is profanatian of the Miniſtery, and rebellion againſt God. That diſtraction did not hinder the Apoſtle Paul from commanding a Biſhop to inſtruct and breed his children in the fear of God. The Prophet Iſaiah who begot children in the time of his propheſie and divine revelations, was no leſs carefull of the Church for that. The ſame I ſay of Moſes, of Samuel, of St. Peter, and of ſo many faithfull Paſtors of whom we will ſpeak hereafter. This alſo will ſerve for an anſwer to the Cardinals allegation of Rom. 12.8. where the Apoſtle commandeth, that he that ruleth, ſhould do it with diligence. Note alſo, that Paul ſpeaking of the diſtraction from Gods ſervice through the care of wife and children, ſpeaks not of Paſtors only, but of the people in general.
To that reaſon he addeth an evident untruth: That St. Peter, Matth. 19. ſaith to Chriſt upon a diſcourſe about women, Behold, we have forſaken all and followed thee, thereby inferring, that Peter had forſaken his wife to follow Chriſt. But it is moſt falſe, that Peter ſaid that unto Chriſt upon a diſcourſe about women. Theſe words of Peter are in verſe 27. now from verſe 13, to ver. 27. there is not a word of women and marriage. It is true, that in ver. 29. Chriſt addeth Every one that hath forſaken Houſes, or Brethren, or Siſters, or Father, or Mother, or Wife, or Children, or Lands, for my names ſake, ſhall receive an hundredfold, and ſhall inherit eternal life. Chriſt took occaſion of ſaying that upon Peters words, Behold we have forſaken all, and followed thee: But Peter did not ſay that upon the ſubject of women. Beſides, it is wreſting Chriſts words, to limit to the Clergy only that which Chriſt ſaid unto all; for all without exception are obliged to forſake Houſes, Lands, Wives, Children, Fathers, Mothers, yea, and their own life, when they cannot keep it without breaking their faith unto Chriſt, and renouncing the profeſſion of the Goſpel. Wherefore Houſes, Lands, Fathers, Mothers, Wives, and Children are here put in the ſame rank. Whence it is made plain, that as Paſtors are not obliged by their charge to forſake their fields, their houſes, and their children, no more are they obliged to forake their wives. Only in caſe of perſecution, and when a man muſt either loſe theſe things, or forſake Chriſt, he muſt loſe all theſe things to follow Chriſt. So doth Auſtin expound it in the Epiſtle to Hilary, which is the eighty ninth,(a)Occurrit aliquando neceſſitatis articulus, ut aut uxor dimittatur, aut Chriſtus. Sometimes there happens a point of neceſſity, that one muſt leave either his wife or Chriſt. And Baſil in the eighth interrogation of the more general rules, expounding that text, ſaith, that God commandeth(b)foreign. to leave theſe things, when they oppoſe his commandments.
The Cardinal ſhuts up his proof by a text out of Matth. 19. where Chriſt ſpeaks of thoſe that made themſelves Eunuchs for the Kingdom of heaven. But he abuſeth the Readers, going about to perſwade them, that theſe words are ſaid only of Monks and Clarks who have vowed virginity or perpetual celibat, ſeeing that Chriſt ſpeaks of every godly man that leads a chaſte life, and abſtains from the luſt of women, to ſerve God with more liberty. But every one that makes the vow of celibat is not of thoſe Eunuchs, ſeeing that many with that vow lead an unchaſte life. And Chriſt ſpeaks not there of a vow, but of a ſeparation from bodily pleaſures, which is commendable in Lay-men that have the gift of continence, as well as in Clergy-men.
In vain doth he go about to ſecond that text with another, Iſa. 56.4. Thus ſaith the Lord, unto the Eunuchs that keep my Sabbaths, and chooſe the things that pleaſe me, &c. Even unto them will I give in my houſe, and within my walls a place and a name better then of ſons and of daughters. Our Adverſaries, and Cardinal du Perron after others, wreſt this text to an Allegory. Theſe Eunuchs (if we may believe them) are thoſe that have vowed never to marry. And that name better then of ſons and daughters, is the glory given in Paradiſe unto works of ſuperarrogation, that is, a degree above the vulgar ſouls, and the plebeian Saints. But there is no need of an Allegory, where the literal ſenſe is plain. The ſtrangers and the Eunuchs by the Law of Moſes were excluded from entring into the houſe of God. The Prophet Iſaiah foretells, that theſe diſtinctions ſhall be taken away by the vocation of the Gentiles, and by the preaching of the Goſpel; and that neither Nation, nor bodily imperfection ſhall be a hinderance to any man from entring into Gods Church. And the Spirit of God declareth, that by that reception into the Church, their condition ſhall be better then of thoſe that are ſons and daughters, and natural children, that is, then the Iſraelites.
Of the Canon of Neoceſarea which the Cardinal addeth out of order, as if it were a text of Scripture, we ſhall ſpeak hereafter.