Works of Joseph Hall, Book 1 · Section 4 – Section 5
SECT. IIII.
HAuing then hitherto detected no error, no ignorance but his owne;Refut. p. 17. hee now deſcends to vntruths, and finds here ſo many miſtakings, lyes, falſifications, that a Reader would wonder by what Art I could couch ſo many of them in ſo ſmal a roome; and might verily thinke that I could out-ly the Legends, and out-iuggle a Ieſuit. But ere I hauehave done, theſe ſhall appeare to be but the fictions of a paſſionate fugitiue, the Man ſhall be cooler, I ſhall be innocent, and my Reader ſhall ſay, that if that forehead had not beene ſo oft croſſed it could not hauehave had ſo little ſhame.
My firſt vntruth is, that I auouch Saint Paul to call the ſingle life of Prieſts, A Doctrine of Deuils. Reader, Is my Detector awake? I ſaid, That to maintaine the vnlawfulneſſe of the Mariage of the Miniſter of God, is, according to Saint Paul, A Doctrine of Deuills; and now he would perſwade the World, I ſaid thus of the ſingle life of his Prieſts. What can wee make of this? That ſingle life is a Doctrine? If not truth, yet let him learne to ſpeake ſenſe. But that hee may not alwayes refute what I neuer affirmed; I muſt gheſſe at what he meant: He would elude this charge, with that ſtale ſhift, worne out with the Pens of his Predeceſſors, that Saint Paul is to bee vnderſtood according to Theodoret, of thoſe which call Mariage execrable:Nuptias execrabile. according to Saint Auſtin, that ſay, Mariage is euill, and of the Deuils making: according to Clemens Alexandrinus, Of thoſe that abhorre Mariage: Of Manichees, and other Heretikes, as Ambroſe and Epiphanius, from which Catholikes are ſo farre that they approue it for a Sacrament.
Firſt, the words of Saint Paul, are (foreign) forbidding to marry, not condemning Mariage. Then, we know well, what the Tacians, Ebionites, Encratites, Montaniſts, Marcionites, Manichees, Adamites, and Apoſtoliques held of Matrimonie. The Apoſtle brands them here: But what? Them only? Whiles he condemnes them, doth he free thoſe that partake with them? The Act is one, Forbiddance of Mariage; whether to ſome, or to more, or to al, S. Paul expreſſes not: The number doth not varie the quality. And if one be a part of all, then to condemne Mariage in ſome one kind of Men, can it be other then the partaking of an vniuerſall condemnation of it? This then only he hath gained, that ſome others hauehave beene deeper in this euill, then themſelues.
Obiect. But our Apostle ſpeakes of them which condemne Mariage as euill in it ſelfe.
Anſw. Be ye Holy. All things are cleane to the cleane.We take what he giues: No mans mouth ſhall condemne my Refuter, but his own. What was he that accuſed Mariage of Vnholineſſe, out of Sancti eſtote; of vncleanneſſe, out of Omnia munda mundis; of Contamination with carnall concupiſcence? Was it not his owne PopepInnoc. Exuperio Toloſ. Epiſ. Epiſt. 3. c. 1. Diſt. 82. Propoſuiſti. Innocentius? Who was hee that interpreteth of Mariage, the Text Rom. 8.8. Thoſe that are in the fleſh cannot pleaſe God, that called the maried Man, no leſſe then the Whoremonger, Sectatorem libidinum, Praeceptorem vitiorum; A follower of Luſt, a teacher of Vice; that ſaid, Mariage was a looſing the reynes to Luxury, an inhiation after obſcene luſts? was it not his Pope,qEad. Diſt. c. Plurimos ad. Himeriū Tarraca, Epiſt. …. Semo…e nam que differentiam peruerſi nominis Connubij, vnam eandem que rem effeciſti Adulterij & coniugij, Laur. Valla, Canon. Eccl. Later. l. 1. de Volupt. Siricius, the firſt Founder (if we may beleeue their now-defaced Gloſſe) or forced Continency?
Who was it that called Mariage a defiling with vncleane ſociety, and execrable contagion? Was it not his Councell ofrVxorum aut quarumcun que foeminarum immū dae ſocietate, & execrabili contagione turpari, Conc. Tol. 8. c. 5. cit. à C.E. p. 231. Toledo? Who was it that called Mariage (Spurcitias immundas) filthy beaſtlineſſe? Was it not hissVide Regiſt. Eccl. Wigornienſis, poſtea. l 3. Saint Dunſtan and Oſwald? Let him conſtrue this, and then tell me, what it is (if this be not) to condemne Mariage as tEſſendo il matrimonio vn ſtato Carnale: Pleaded in the Councell of Trent, Hiſt. Concil. p. 662.euill. Yet more, his owne example ſhall conuince him: He pleads out of Saint Auſtin, that this text, amongſt others, intends to ſtrike at the Manichees; now, the Manichees allowed Mariage to their Auditors, that is (Analogically) their Laity; forbad it to their Electi, that is, their Clergy; So farre approuing it in their layick-Clients, that no modeſt Penne may writeuAuguſt. de Haereſ ad Quod-vult-Deum. whence they fetched their Sacramentall Bread: Either then the Manichees muſt bee excluded, or Papiſts muſt be taken in for company into this doctrine of Deuils. It is true, they miſcall Mariage a Sacrament; So as wee may well wonder at theſe two extreames in one doctrine: and ſtudy in vaine how the ſame thing ſhould be Sacred in a Ceremonious inchoation, and in the reall conſummation morally impure; how a Sacrament ſhould bee incompatible with a ſacred Perſon: Theſe Sphyngian Riddles are for better Heads: With what Brow then can my Detector adde,*Refut. p. 19. That with Saint Chryſoſtome and Saint Auſtin, they do but compare mariage, they doe not condemne it; OnelyOnly teaching Mariage to be good, Virginity better; with Fulgentius not ſo comparing Virginity to Corne, that they count Mariage Cockle? In this where ſhould they find an aduerſary? But if Luxury, Filthineſſe, Vncleanneſſe, Contagion, Beaſtlineſſe, Vice, Obſcenity, be the ſtiles of good, we can well allow them to the honour of C. Es. Virginity, and are content our Mariages ſhould paſſe for euill.
SECT. V.
MY ſecond vntruth (he ſaith) is, That I make the ſingle Life of Prieſts the brand of Antichriſtianiſme. Shameleſſe mouth! Where did I euer ſay ſo? My words are; Were it not for this opinion, the Church of Rome would want one euident brand of her Antichriſtianiſme. Refut. p. 19.20.The life is one thing, the opinion another. Single life is good; the opinion of the neceſſity of ſingle life, and the vnlawfulneſſe of the Maried, is Antichriſtian. What can be more plaine? yet this wilfull ſlanderer tels the World, that I make the profeſſion of Continence, Antichriſtian: Whereas we doe willingly profeſſe, that true profeſſion of true Continency is truely laudable; that the forceable impoſition of it, as neceſſary to ſome ſtate of men, ſauours ſtrongly of that Man of ſin: Now, let my Reader iudge, whoſe vntruths my Aduerſary hath hitherto detected.
Neither can I …ate that word of mine, vnleſſe I would renounce the Apoſtle; who ſeemes purpoſely to decipher our Romaniſts by theſe lines: For, hauing immediately before deſcribed the condition of Biſhops, and Deacons, with their Wiues and Children (allowing them indifferently with others a maried eſtate) hee preſently (as foreſeeing that Point which would bee moſt ſubiect to contradiction) foretels, that the ſeducing ſpirits of Antichriſtianiſme would forbid mariage; and this hee fore-propheſies ſhall bee done in the latter, or (as their Vulgar and Rhemiſts turne it) in the laſt Times; and that by them, which ſhall ſpeake lyes in hypocriſie. Neither of which can ſo exactly agree to thoſe firſt Heretikes; who, as they were early in time,And if foreign may agree to all the Ages of the Church after Chriſt, yet moſt to the laſt, and that other addition ſeemes to ſtrengthen this ſenſe. ſo alſo groſſe in their Doctrine; wherein there was more open impiety, then ſecret diſſimulation.