protested their renouncing any acknowledgment of the least degree of temporal power or jurisdiction as of right belonging to the Pope over any subject of his Majesties Sect. 5 See B. Bram p. 137 138. Answ We cannot be ignorant that Campian being asked if the Pope should send forces against the Queen whether he would take part with the Queen or the Pope openly professed and testified under his hand that he would stand for the Pope yea that his fellows being examined in like manner either refused to Answer or gave such ambiguous and prevaricatory Answers that some ingenuous Catholicks began to suspect that they fostered some tteachery that the Colledges or Seminaries of English Priests at Rome at Rhemes at Doway held that the Bishop of Rome hath supreme authority and most full power over the whole world yea even in temporal matters now whether you have changed these opinions or no we know not 2. How long you will hold to this whether after the declaration of the Pope to the contrary whether you will esteem his Majesty to have any subjects when absolved by the Pope from his obedience whether your acknowledgements be not with mental reservations and whether your intent be not as in Queen Elizabeths time it was acknowledged by some of your own party by reconciling in confession to absolve every one in particular from all oaths of allegiance and obedience to the Supream power See B. Bram. ib. and whether you do not yet think that faith with Hereticks may be broken when the good of the Catholick cause requireth it may be doubted and therefore you are too hasty in concluding that you acknowledge meerly a pure spiritual authority in the Pope have you the confidence to affirm it of your Italian Papists or Jesuits but to yield what you so confidently assert and so weakly prove you Catechise us thus Is this now dishonourable is it unsafe Answ Both. To whom Answ All Kings and people the whole Church of God You reply Catholick Princes protest against this opinion either of dishonour or danger Answ No such thing it being manifest that all Kingdoms and Republicks of the Roman communion do exempt themselves from this obedience to and jurisdiction of the Pope of Rome or at least plead for it when they have occasion Just Vind. c. 7. as is irrefragably evinced by Bishop Bramhal yea particularly when Pope Adrian would have had Hinemare a man condemned by three French Synods for a turbulent person and deposed sent to him to recieve justice the King of France asked him What hell vomited out this law what bottomless pit had belched it forth Yea further when the Bishops of France were summoned by the Pope to the Trent Council he finding that all things were done at Rome rather then at Trent doth not only contemn all these Papal Decrees but commands his Bishops to depart and leave the Council whether they were summoned by the Pope 2. Are they not ever and anon crying out of grievances complaining of the Popes usurpations and tyranny exhausting the wealth of their Kingdoms prodigality of indulgences c. and is it safe to admit that power which hath such pernitious attendants that power which albeit it should be purely spiritual is used almost everywhere in ordine ad temporalia to enlarge the Popes Coffers and the like 2. See B. â—am Just Vind. p. 161 162. They have more reason to acknowledge him then we they profess him to have been their Patriarch but t is beyond all question he hath no title to be ours 3. They may Protest against a truth esteem that not to be dishonourable which indeed is so as being a disclaiming of that power and care over Gods Church which he hath committed to them suffering a proud ambitious Prelate to rob them of the service they owe to Christ and tyrannize it over the Bishops they should protect and the faith they are stiled defenders of but he proceeds If only saith he to the dissenters from Catholick religion this be dishonourable Nero and Diocletian had reason on their sides when they persecuted a religion dishonourable and dangerous to the Roman Emâ—ire Answ But how will it appear to have been so was it begun and upheld by Treason Rebellions continual Blood-shed all manner of vice and wickedness as the Romans evidently was and is why forsooth neither St. Peter nor any other Apostle or Bishops but were as to their spiritual Authority independant on the Emperours Answ But what of all this did such intolerable extortions excessive rapines accompany the spiritual power of the Apostles or succeeding Bishops as do accompany this power of the Pope was there the same reason to resist a power proved to be derived from God by signs and wonders yea and manifestly tending to the confirming obedience to higher powers and to resist an evident usurpation and a tyrannical yoke unjustly put upon the neck of those that are by the law of God and nature and the constitutions of the Kingdom free from it which is found to tend to the subversion of the true faith and the enslaving of the Kingdom and was not the spiritual power of Bishops regulated by Christian Emperours albeit it was wholly independant upon Pagans And what if we acknowledge a pure spiritual authority in our Bishops over their Presbyters and Diocess to ordain Sect. 6 excommunicate make orders for decency c. we acknowledge such a power in the Pope over the Suburbicarian Provinces may not the Bishop of Canterbury as well require upon this account to exercise a jurisdiction over the Bishops in Spain France c. and say it would not be dishonourable to them to suffer such an usurpation as the Pope exerciseth over us because t is purely spiritual else would it be so to suffer their own Bishops to exercise the like authority Is there any statute that hinders the exercise of this authority by our Bishops is it contrary to the Oath of Supremacy rightly understood doth not Bishop Bramhal tell you 1. That this Oath was composed only by Papists Rep. p. 289 290 291 292 293. no Protestants having any hand in it 2. That they were zealous in defending the Doctrine contained in it 3. That there is no supremacy ascribed to his Majesty in that Oath but meerly Political and such as is essentially annexed to the Imperial Crown of every Soveraign Prince 4. The addition of spiritual causes is thus to be understood 1. Either by himself or by fit substitutes who are Ecclesiastical persons 2. Of these causes which are handled in the exterior Court not in the inner Court of Conscience 3. That as for other Ecclesiastical causes his power consists in seeing that Ecclesiastical Persons do their duties 4. That this is plainly evinced to be the sense of the Oath from the 37. art of the Church of England 5. That the same power is exercised by the King of Spain in Sicily a lay Chancellour in the Court
delivered for the proof of this we shall consider first his reasons secondly his testimonies thirdly his returns to what the Dr. brought to confute this Supremacy Well then to make it appear reasonable Sect. 2 he tells us That since General Councils the only absolute supream Authority Ecclesiastical either for want of agreement among Princes Pag. 45. or by the inconvenience of the long absence of Prelates or their great expences c. can very seldom be summond it would be impossible without an ordinary constant standing supream Authority to prevent Schism that is it is impossible the Church should subsist This Argument reduced into Syllogismes sounds thus That without which the Church cannot subsist ought in all reason to be granted But Without the supream jurisdiction of the Pope the Church cannot subsist Ergo. The major we pass as evident by its own light The minor is thus proved That without which it is impossible to prevent Schisms is that without which t is impossible the Church should subsist but this supream jurisdiction of the Pope is that without which t is impossible to prevent Schisms To give a satisfactory Answer to this it will be necessary to premise that Schism is a rupture of one part from another and that of the visible Church as appears because t is a crime punishable by the Ecclesiastical Magistrate which it could not be if it were a secession from the invisible Church only 2. This Schism may be either of one particular Church from another or of one member of that particular Church from the same Church and I hope our Author will not say that to the redressing of this Schism The Supream Authority of the Pope is necessary seeing he must necessarily permit this to these Rulers which he imagins inferiour to him and therefore must acknowledge them sufficient to redress the said miscarriages 3. The Schism of one particular Church from another may be either in things necessary to salvation or in things not necessary but of lighter moment Now then to answer to his Major if he intended it of Schisms of the former nature t is true for errors in things necessary to salvation destroy the very being of a Church In this sence therefore we grant the Major but deny the Minor If he understand it in the latter sence we deny the Major as holding that not every breach upon such slight accounts or circumstantial businesses doth dissolve the visible Church but it may subsist with such a breach if so be the essentials and vitals of Religion be still preserved and the Sacraments truly administred For if the Church of God remained at Corinth when there were divisions Sects emulations contentions quarrels and the practice of such things which were execrable to the very Heathens and of such whereof the Apostle expresly saith We have no such custom who dares deny them to be the Churches of God who differ from others only in circumstantials What would such men have said to the Galatians who so far adulterated the Gospel of Christ purely kept and preserved in other Churches that the Apostle pronounceth concerning them that they were bewitched and if they still persisted to joyn Circumcision and the Law together with Christ they were faln from Grace Christ would profit them nothing whom yet the Apostle acknowledgeth to be the Church of God writing to the Church which is in Galatia Secondly Suppose a Supream jurisdiction were necessary to the preventing Schisms must it needs be the Supremacy of the Pope why may it not as well be the Archbishop of Canterbury the Patriarch of Constantinople or one elected by the suffrages of particular Churches 3. We deny that the Authority of the Pope is necessary to this end even to the suppression of lesser Schisms yea or expedient for were it so then either of Schisms arising from breach of charity or difference of judgement Not the first for t is not possible for the Pope to insuse charity into any party or to use other means to effect it then rational motives from Scripture which any other man may do If it be expedient for difference of judgement seeing the Schisms that arise from that difference concern himself it would then 1. Be expedient that he should be judge in his own cause as for instance T is doubted whither the Pope of Rome hath any Authority delegated to him from Christ over the Universal Church whither t is expedient such an Authority should be admitted whither the Authority of a Pope should transcend that of a General Council whither the Religion the present Pope subscribes to and publickly maintains be true whither the contrary which he persecutes be false whither he be infallible in his sentence and Cathedra and whither the interpretation of Tues Petrus and Pasce Oves be to be sought from his mouth or no. Is it expedient will the Church of France say that he should judge in all these Causes the Church of England that in any and doth not reason say so to and what madness were it for each to hold so stifly the contrary if we could perswade our selves that it were thus or if this were so necessary that without the acknowledgement of such a power and submission to it it were impossible to prevent Schisms and the destruction of the Church thereby is it not wonderful that in the whole Scripture there should not be any thing directing us to go to the Church of Rome to have these Schisms which are so destructive to the Church prevented That the Apostle among all his charges to the Church of Corinth to break off their Schisms all the means to prevent it should neglect that without which it was not feasible that speaking of the damnable Doctrines that should spring up in the latter time we should have no Items where the truth was to be kept inviolable and whither to have recourse to avoid them If a Jesuit had been at St. Pauls elbow when after the rehearsal of those Doctrines he saith to Timothy If thou put the Brethren in mind of these things c. he would have added and sendest them to the Pope for Preservatives against them thou shalt then be a good Minister of Jesus Christ otherwise no Minister at all but an Heretick And when he tells them that perverse Teachers should arise and commends them thereupon to the Word of God a Jesuit would have told him that this was the way to make them Hereticks nothing more pernitious and that he should commend them to the Pope Yea 3. That the Scripture should exhort us on the contrary to run to the Law and to the Testimonies and tell us that if they speak not agreeable thereto there is no truth in them when we ought not to meddle with them especially so as to judge with the judgement of discretion what 's Truth and Errour that the Apostle should bid us try the spirits Yea try all things and hold fast the Truth and that directing us to
referred the judgement of that cause to the Pope And for this he cites Conc. Eph. p. 2. Art 5. in relat ad Caelestin But he might as well have cited Aristotle for there it not one Iota of any Bishop of Jerusalem in that place nor one syllable of any such affirmation of his nor any such reason alleadged to Caelestinus but there say they we deliberated of passing the same sentence upon him which he did upon them who were condemned of no crime but that we might overcome his temerity with long suffering albeit we might justly have done it or he would justly have suffered it yet have we referred it to the judgement of your Holiness Indeed Act. 4. The Bishop of Jerusalem saith that John ought presently to have had recourse to the Apostolick seat sitting with him viz. by his Legates in the Synod 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 But t is the Apostlique seat of Jerusalem not of Rome which he tells us he ought to have been directed and guided by Well then this John of Antioch being a Patriarch and Cyrill being his enemy they did well to stay their sentence against him till they knew the mind and had the suffrage of the Patriarch of Rome who was Prime of the Patriarchs But sure our Author did not so well in foysting in Rome for Jerusalem albeit Binnius was his warrant for it Add to this that even this fiction makes against them for had the Pope received an universal jurisdiction and that from Christ why doth the Bishop of Jerusalem omit the delegation of the power from Christ and sink down as low as custome why doth he particularize Antioch when not only that but all other Patriarchical Sees if we may believe our Adversaries were to be guided and directed by the See of Rome or by his Holiness We are told further Ibid Sect. 10. That when Dioscorus Patriarch of Alexandria in the Schismatical Council of Ephesus had deposed Flavian Bishop of Constantinople Flavian appealed to the Pope and this he did saith the Emperour Valentinian 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 according the custom of Synods To this it is Answered by the same Author Review l. 4. c. 4. s 11. Act 1. Con. Chal. Evag. l. 2. c. 2. Act. 3 Con. Chal. It is easie to make it appear that it was not so For first It is plain from the Acts that the appeal was put in simply by the word Appello without mentioning to whom 2. The Appealants presented a petition to the Emâ—epours tending to this offect that they would be pleased to refer the cause unto a Council 3. The Council passeth the judgement upon the case of the Appeal And 4. The Pope himself was condemned by that Synod He was one of the Plaintiffs against Dioscorus the head of it Whereupon it was said to his Legates by the Presidents of the Council of Chalcedon Act. 1. Con. Chal. Nichol. in Epist ad Michael Imperat. that they being accusers could not be judges Yea Pope Nicholas himself testifies that Dioscurus was not so much condemned for his Heresie as for daring to pass sentence against the Pope to what end then had it been to appeal to him seeing he himself was condemned and was a Plaintiff Indeed the Epistle of Valentinian tells us that he appealed to the Pope Ad Theodos in Praeamb Con. Chal. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 but it appears to have been no otherwise then to procure his intermediation to the Emperour for the Calling of a Synod and this he did 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 because it was the custome when contentions arose about the faith to Call Synods 2. What is said to be given to the Pope was only given to the Legates that so he might be acquainted with the business and know that he had appeall'd as appears from the 23. Ep. of Leo to Theodosius Because our Legates have stoutly stood it out against the Synod and this Bishop Flavian given them a bill of Appeal we beseech your Gentleness to command a General Synod to be Celebrated in Italy And thus we let him pass to the Council of Sardica Sect. 6 which hath a Canon to this effect Mr. C. p. 59. s 11. That in any Controversie between Bishops which could not be determined in their own respective Provinces the person aggrieved must appeal to the Bishop of Rome who might renew the process and appoint judges and when such a case happened till the Pope had determined the cause it was not permitted that another Bishop should be chosen in his place De Oec Pout l. 13. c. 7. But 1. Saith Chamier this Council was not Oecumenical but only made up of the Western Bishops For Sozomen L. 3. C. 10. tell us that the Bishops of the East and West could not agree but severally set forth their Decrees and therefore it useth not to be reckoned among the General Councils T is true as Sulpitius saith Sac. Hist l. 2. it was called from each part of the world but of the Eastern Bishops came but seventy six to Sardis and these saith Socrates would not once come into the sight of the Western Bishops but their conditions being denyed Confestim discedunt they presently depart 2. This Canon is manifestly contrary to the fifth of the General Council of Nice which refers the final determination of all causes of Bishops to the Primate or Patriarch which the Emperour also confirmeth and will have no man to have power to contradict the sentence which the Primate or Patriarch shall give 3. The Affricans took no notice of this Decree Dr. Field p. 566. and yet there were Bishops of Africa at the Council so that in likelihood this decree was not confirmed by subsequent practice acceptation and execution Yea they will'd the Pope to send no more any of his Clarks to dispatch causes at any mans suit for that this was the way to bring in the Smoaky puffe of worldly pride into the Church and in very earnest besought him not to be Eafie in admitting any Appeals brought from them 4. This Canon makes rather against them for by it all matters must be ended at home or in the next Province to that wherein they arise And the Pope may not call matters to Rome there to be heard but is only permitted in some cases to send a Presbyter having his authority and to put him in Commission with the Bishops of the Province that so he and they may jointly re-examine things formerly judged To which you may add 1. That it was not in the power of the Pope to command Appeals to himself but only to receive them when brought 2. That this power of Appealing was Ad Julium Romanum not ad Papam Romanum and therefore a personal priviledge which was to cease on the death of Julius 3. That the very same thing viz. the like power of Appealing to the Bishop of Constantinople was defined in the General Council of Chalcedon Caâ— 9.17 as you
of the like implicities Was it not the awe of Scripture they continually pretended Was it not because they had no instruments of sedition in their Pulpits to allarm them to war but had wholsome Texts of Scripture pressed upon them and may not we hope that the like practice of our Ministers may produce such Loyaltie Again may not we as well argue that the restraining of Scripture is thus pernicious What made the Irish Rebels destroy so many thousands in cold blood Was it not the restraining of that Scripture from them which saith Thou shalt not kill What made so many illiterate Papists be instrumental in the Gun-powder Treason Was it not the restraint of that Scripture which cries out touch not mine anointed which made the insurrection thereupon Was it not the restraint of the Scripture telling us that to resist is the ready way to procure Damnation to our selves Thirdly Sect. 5 To whom do we owe all these monsters of Heresie he so complains of Are they not all hatch'd by the Jesuit Have not some of them been Butchers some Smiths some Captains in the Army See the Jesuits Letter in Rushworth coll ct and done all that they could to invent and broach new Doctrines Was it not a Jesuit who tells us How some of their own Coat have re-incountred themselves how admirably in speech and gesture they could act the Puritan These these are they who have industriously led others to Hell industriously instructed them in damnable Doctrines studying how they might by damning so many Souls make way for their Idolatry and Tyranny Now seeing it is evident that it was not the common people that wrested these Scriptures of their own accord but Jesuits and others that taught them so to do what follows Not surely that Scripture should be hid from them but that all Jesuits Popish Priests men that can teach them what they know will infallibly lead them into Hell should be removed And as for the rebellions of the people if the Scripture had any hand in them it was onely thus as it was wrested by the Preachers These were the Trumpets of sedition who cried out so loudly Curse ye Meroz And had not these men wrested the Scripture the people would have been at quiet Now surely this Argument proves nothing against the permission of the publick use of Scripture but onely the wrested interpretations of it made by seditious Ministers and infers this onely that seditious Preachers ought most carefully to be prevented and most severely punished as Incendiaries of the State Again that you may see how instrumental the Holy Scriptures were in the promoting these Rebellions were not the forwardest in them viz. the Quaker Anabaptist c. to quit themselves of these enforcements of Obedience from Scripture forced either to throw off Scripture and run to the light within them or to present Impulses of the Spirit or thirdly to say they might comply with providence against precept Was there any thing more cogent to keep many thousands from such rebellion then that place of Saint Paul to the Romans c. Cap. 13. And how were the ringleaders of the people forced to winde and turn and squeeze it that they might perswade the multitude of the legality of their actions And yet at last could not by any means effect it but by telling them that the Parliament was equal to the King and so robbing him of his higher Power Yea Thirdly Sect. 6 Had the Scripture been kept from the common people and they had none of these Texts to go to how far more easily might their seditious Preachers have led them into rebellion What could they have had to return to their urgent sollicitations And do not these men well to pretend friendship to his Majesty who would have Scripture hid from his Subjects eyes that so they might have nothing to restrain them from the like enormities Fourthly Sect. 7 To argue from this accidental abuse of Scripture to the with-holding it is as ridiculous as may be For First How hard a thing is it to make a right use of the grace of God Do not the generality of men abuse it and turn it into wantonnesse And yet I hope this doth not hinder but the people may be made acquainted with it as revealed in the Gospel Yea Secondly Did not our Saviour know how likely the Jews were to reject and crucifie him to blaspheme his miracles and continue obstinate against all the evidences of his being the Messias And will our Author add that therefore he should not have been revealed unto them Thirdly who knows not how hard a thing it is for persons to have parts and not be proud of them to be in high places and not be partiall tyrannical or addicted to some vices which commonly attend such greatnesse Shall we therefore have no Magistrates Shall we have no endeavouring to procure the greatest talents Fourthly Yea on the same ground seeing the Common-Prayer and the Ceremonies were accidentally the cause of the War and we see by experience how unlike weak and unstable men are to make good use of them they must down too Lastly Seeing the power of Parliaments was so abused it would be necessary to dissolve them seeing preaching and instructing of the people was abused most of all It would be requisite a thing which the Papists heartily desire to hinder that Yea seeing that among the old Heresies scarce one was broach'd but by the Learned and our late swarms of monstrous opinions were evidently the products of Learned Men whether Jesuits or others If this Argument were good it would rather prove that Scripture should be with-held from the Learned then from the vulgar sort of people Fifthly Sect. 8 Were not the Jews as stupid and ignorant a people as any under the cope of Heaven and yet God requires of them that they should declare his precepts his word unto their Children that they should meditate on them sitting in their house and walking on their journey when they lay down and when they rose up that they should bind them for a sign upon their hands and as frontlets between their eyes that they should write them upon the posts of their houses and upon their gates Deut. 6.7 8 9. So earnest was God with them to be acquainted with his Word albeit it seemed not then so full of moral precepts so plain and intelligible as the greatest part of the New Testament Yea and the sweet singer of Israel commends it as that which will make wise not pervert the simple as that which is more to be desired then glod not rejected as poyson And our Saviour calls upon the Jews to search the Scriptures which if it were spoken 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as Saint Cyrill has it and the word Jews not limited by the Context fairly pleads then have we our Saviours command to the vulgar to read the Scripture But if it be spoken to the Pharisees as Stapleton restrains it
service Now that he for bids them 't is argued 1. Because he bids the Church Governours refuse them lest they should marry 2. He calls this marriage a casting off their first faith as all the Fathers Interpret it and tells them that it will procure their damnation Now saith he whether Widdows are esteemed by the Preacher to bee more nearly and perfectly consecrated to the Divine Service by the Office of Deaconesses then men by Priest-hood It is expected he the Dr. should declare Now albeit this stale Objection hath received variety of answers Yet wil not our Antagonist take notice of any of them 1. Then the learned Camero tells us In locum Vide Thes Salmur de voto con pt Post Sect. 36. the Papists would have the Apostle here to approve the vow of Continency and dis-allow the solution of it upon any terms but saith he this must not be granted For the Apostle discourseth of such Widdows who had devoted themselves to the Ministry of the Church promising the performance of those Offices which were proper for persons so devoted Now seeing there was no legitimate pretence for such as were so addicted to decline the further performance of these Offices but the necessity of marriage When they began 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which as Hesychius tells us is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to wax insolent and weary of this ministry to the Church partly for the labour and partly for the seeming vilenesse of it that they might become free they did pretend necessity of marriage as a covert of their pride and floath That therefore which the Apostle reproves in them is not their marriage but the using of it as the veil of their idleness and thence it is that he accuses them first of their insolency in vilifying that Ministry in which they were ingaged And herein is the wisdome of the Apostle Conspicuous that least he should seem to condemn simply the marriage of such He first shews wherein they had offended viz. not in that they married but that they did so out of such an end as knowing that such a pretence only was a just cause of rejecting the burden they had cast upon them For it could not be that she who was not sui juris but at the power of her Husband could bee able to perform the office of a Deaconess as then was requisite Now this interpretation is evidently contradictory to that of the Papists but that it is the truth I offer this Argument to evince Either the Apostle inveighs against the pretence of Marriage in these younger widdows or against their Marriage Not the latter therefore the former That it is not the latter I prove because the Apostle bids them marry Juniores volo nubere Verse 14. You will say with the Rhemists that he speaks of other widdows that had not yet enter'd into the Churches service not of those which had made this promise I Answ It must be extended to them also as may be proved First In that he requires that widdows should be blameless which condition could not well agree to younger widdows who were in danger of having 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 for doing that which is blame-worthy in violating such a promise Secondly He would have such widdows refused which were in danger to wax wanton against Christ to marry and so violate their promise to the Church but such were those younger widdows which had made this promise Verse 11 12. Nor can it here be said that it could not be free for them to go back from their promise For 1. There can be no reason assigned of such an assertion seeing it must be made with this tacit limitation if the Church will accept them and therefore if the Church see cause to refuse them they are ipso facto absolved 2. Be it they had vowed which cannot be proved yet that vow cannot be obligatory to performance which puts a person in a real danger of waxing wanton against Christ of having the condemnation of violating his first faith it being absolutely unlawful for any one to continue in such a condition and contrary to the Apostles precept of abstaining from all appearance of evil and therefore such a vow made to binde one in such a state is a bond of iniquity and consequently Null Thirdly The Apostle would have such widdows refused who were in danger to be idle tatlers busie bodies wanderers c. but such were younger widdows already made Deaconesses verse 13. Fourthly The Apostle would have things so managed as that no occasion might be given to the Adversary to speak reproachfully but this could not be if younger widdows already Deaconesses should not be refused as well as others Verse 14. Fifthly The Apostle would have that altered which might be an occasion of turning young women aside unto Satan but such was the keeping of them in that condition and had been already as the Apostle tells us v. 15. For some viz. of these young Widdows are already turned aside unto Satan But you will say that the Apostle plainly saith they are therefore blame worthy because they have left their first Faith I Answ 1. They are therefore blame-worthy because 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 out of Pride Sloath and Insolency they have broken their Faith Not if 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 they had left this office as being supposed to have made this promise only upon condition of the continuance of the gift of Continency seeing to make it absolutely we have proved unlawfull 2. By first Faith we may understand the Faith they took upon them when they first became Christians which because it bindes them not to be insolent but humble and ready to do the meanest office of love to their fellow-members not to be sloathful but to bee diligent in Gods service They that are guilty of these crimes may bee said to have made Null their Faith seeing it will be of no vertue nor efficacy to their souls 2. Others have long ago answered that the Apostle is to be understood not of any promise made to the Church but to God or Christ upon their entrance into Christianity and tell us that these women having haply moved with sorrow for their Husbands death cast themselves into the Colledge of Widdows and afterward finding themselves not to have the gift of Continence but to want the remedy of Marriage least they should be branded with the note of infamy inconstancy and lightness in departing from their purpose they chose rather to fall off from Christ unto Gentilism and Marry whence they are condemned of forsaking their first Faith not simply in that they would Marry but that they would do it cum abnegatione fidei Christianae religionis Obj. But you will say if they had a minde to Marry what necessity of doing it with Jews or Pagans Answ Because had they Married to Christians they would continually have been twited by them for their levity and inconstancy for their negligence in the office