Works of Joseph Hall, Book 1 · Section 18
SECT. XVIII.
MY Cauiller purpoſely miſtakes my rule of Baſil the Great,Refut. p. 90. 91. and my Text of the Great Apoſtle, whiles from both I reſolue thus. I paſſe not what I heare Men or Angels ſay, while I heare God ſay, Let him be the Husband of one Wife; he wil needs ſo conſtrue it, as if I tooke this of S. Pauls for a command, not for an allowance; As if I meant to imply from hence, that eueryevery Biſhop is bound to hauehave a Wife. Who is ſo blind as the wilfull? Their Leo bLeo ep. 87. aba… 85. Tam ſacra ſemper eſt habita iſta Praeceptio.calls theſe words a Preception, I did not: If hee knew any thing, he could not be ignorant that this ſenſe is againſt the ſtreame of our Church, and no leſſe then a Grecian errour. Who knowes not the extreames of Greece and Rome; and the Track of Truth betwixt them both? The Greeke Church ſaith, Hee cannot be in holy Orders, that is not maried: The Romiſh Church ſaith, He cannot bee in holy Orders, that is maried: The Church Reformed ſayes, Hee may bee in holy Orders that is maried, and conuertibly. Some good friends vvould needs fetch vsus into this idle Greciſme, and to the ſocietie of the old FriſonscEſpenc. lib. 1. de Contin. c. 1. and (if Saint Ierome take it aright) of Vigilantius, Eſpencaeus, and Bellarmine and our Rhemiſts free vsus. There is no leſſe difference betwixt them and vsus, then betwixt May and Muſt; Libertie and Neceſsitie. If then (Let him be the Husband of one Wife) argue that a Biſhop may bee a maried man, I hauehave vvhat I would, and paſſe not for the contrarie from Men and Angels. We willingly grant vvith Luther, that this charge is negatiue:Refut. p. 91, 92. Non velut ſanciens dicit, ſaith Chryſoſtome; But this negatiue charge implyes an affirmatiue allowance; we ſeeke for no more: As for the authorities which my Detector hath borrowed of his Vncles of Rhemes, they might hauehave beene well ſpared; He tels vsus, Saint Ierom ſayes, Qui v…am habuerit, non habeat; He who hath had one Wife, not hee that hath one; I tell him Saint Paul ſaithdTit. 1.6. (foreign)▪ If any man be the Husband of one Wife, not, If hee hauehave beene: LeteChryſoſt. in 1. Tit. homil. 2. Saint Chryſoſtome therein anſwer Hierome, and Epiphanius, and all other pretended oppoſites: Obſtruere prorſus intendit haereticorum era, qui nuptias damna…t, &c. He purpoſ'd in this to ſtop the mouthes of Heretikes, that condemned mariage, ſhewing that that eſtate is faultleſſe, yea, ſo precious, that with it a man might bee aduanced to the holy Epiſcopall Chaire. Thus he; whom their learnedfEſp. vbi ſupra Biſhop Eſpencaeus ſeconds; and by the true force of the Text cleareth this ſenſe againſt all contradiction. Nec enim Paulini de Epiſcopis, &c. For (ſaith he) thoſe places of S. Paul concerning Biſhops, Prieſts, and Deacons, cannot be ſo eluded, as that they doe onelyonly belong to men that hauehave beene ſometimes maried, and are now Widdowers and ſingle; but the Text doth plainely note out Husbands; and thoſe that are now found in the preſent eſtate of mariage; which is implyed, both by the word eſſe, and by vnius vxoris vir; that is, hauing one Wife, not (as ſome hauehave vnderſtood it) which hath had one; for (as Chryſoſtome hath noted) the Apoſtle would by the ſocietie of Mariage and Prieſthood, ſtop the mouthes of Heretikes that condemned mariage; whereto adde, That the Apoſtle amongst the vertues of a Biſhop reckons vp this, That he doth gouerne his owne houſe well, not, that he did gouerne it. Thus he. VntoUnto which let mee yet adioyne this other conſideration, that the Apoſtle deſcribes what manner of Wife a Biſhop ſhould hauehave; which as in other profeſſions he hath not done, ſo in this would hauehave beene vſeleſſe, if he had onelyonly aymed at an eſtate paſt, and not preſent.
Where it is a cunning tricke of the Rhemiſts, and their Vulgar, in ſtead of Their Wiues, to reade, The Women, quite beſide the Scope and Context of the Apoſtle: As to the ſame purpoſe; Whereas their Leo in the fore-cited Epiſtle ſayes, that this Precept of a Biſhop, to the Husband of one Wife, was alwayes ſo ſacred,*That the ſame condition is to be vnderſtood of her that is to be choſen for the wife of the Prieſt. Refut. p. 92, 93. vt etiam de muliere Sacerdotis eligenda, eadem intelligatur ſeruanda conditio; Bellarmine, and his Mates would needs face vsus out, that the Copies are corrupted, and contends to hauehave it read Sacerdotis Eligendi; of the Prieſt to be choſen, not, of the Wife; Whom our induſtrious and worthy Doctor Iames hath refelled both by the Preſſe, and the Pen; by the Coleine Edition and Manuſcript authoritie.
As for that hee cites from Hierome againſt Vigilantius, hee might hauehave found the Salue together with the Wound; Our Rhemiſts dare vsus from the imputation of his opinion. For the reſt. Nothing is more plaine, then that our Apoſtle (according to the iuſt interpretation of Chryſoſtom, Theoderet, Theophylact, and others) alludes to the looſe faſhion, as of the Greekes, ſo eſpecially of the Iewes, with whom Polygamy and remariages, after vniuſt diuorces, were in ordinarie vſe; Theſe the Apoſtolicall Spirit finds vnfit for the Man of God, whom he therefore charges to be onelyonly, The Husband of one Wife.
Refut. p. 94. 95.Neither doth it argue too much wit in my Refuter, to bring two Fathers vponupon the Stage for his purpoſe, and then to ſet them together by the eares with each other, Ambroſe (I meane) and Hierome; who in this which he cites them for, confute one another; Hierome (though otherwiſe a backe friend to Wedlocke) cenſuring the opinion of Ambroſe, as ſauouring too ſtrongly of Cainiſme, and ſuperſtition: Howeuer, euen the more vehement of the two, out of this place doth hold Mariage, compatible with holy Orders,Refut. p. 95. which is the onelyonly thing I required: So as ſtill, This one word ſhall confirme me againſt all impure mouthes: Impure, Not for preferring Continency, as my Cauiller vvill take it, but for deprauing of Mariage, by the foule titles of Fleſhlineſſe, and Senſualitie; ſuch as his owne;Ibid. a worſe we need not: Neither doth S. Ambroſe at all controll mee herein, whiles he teacheth that the Apoſtle doth not here inuite vsus to beget children in the Prieſthood; Habentem enim dixit filios, non facientem; wee did not challenge hence any command, we challenge an allowance, which we hauehave and proclaime: That I may not ſay, ſome Copies of Ambroſe runne (according as I hauehave learned of our eminent Doctor Fulke) Habentem filios, Eſpenc. l. Praecit.aut facientem; Hauing children, or begetting them: The difference is not worth ſtanding for; Let it paſſe after his owne reading. I could ſtop his mouth with the ingenuous anſwer of his Eſpencaeus: Habentem enim, &c. For he ſaid, Hauing children, not begetting them; Debellatum hiceſſet, &c. This Field were wonne, if either this were the Text, and not the Gloſſe, or they that thus interpret it, were Apoſtles; as they are not. Thus their owne Biſhop. But I need not call for any aide. The words of Ambroſe doe plainely driue againſt an inuitation, or command, which we do willingly diſclaime.