The suruey of popery vvherein the reader may cleerely behold, not onely the originall and daily incrementes of papistrie, with an euident confutation of the same; but also a succinct and profitable enarration of the state of Gods Church from Adam vntill Christs ascension, contained in the first and second part thereof: and throughout the third part poperie is turned vp-side downe.

The 6. proposition.

The marriage of moonkes, and other votaries is true and lawfull matrimonie,* 1.1 and cannot be dissolued by the power of man. This proposition consisteth of two partes, as is appa∣rant. Touthing the latter part, no power vpon earth hath au∣thoritie to institute sacramentes, or to alter the same. For no inferiour hath authoritie ouer his superiour, no subiect ouer his Soueraigne, no creature ouer the creator. This point I haue prooued sufficiently, in my booke of Motiues. The diffi∣cultie therefore resteth in the former part, which it remaineth that I prooue.

The papistes assigne two kindes of vowes; to wit, votum simplex ac solenne, a single vow, and a vow solemne. They call that a solemne vow, which moonkes, friers, nunnes, and other religious persons make; and all the rest, they repute vowes simple. This distinction layd as a sound foundation, they e∣rect a manifold building thereupon, in maner and forme follow∣ing.

The first building.

Whosoeuer marrieth after the single vow of continencie, he or she sinneth mortally, but the mariage holdeth, and is of force. Thus teach all popish doctors with vniforme consent. Ange∣lus, Rosilla, Calderinus, Couarrunias, Paludanus, Maior, Silue∣ster; Nauarrus, Fumus, Scotus, Sotus, Aquinas, and the rest. I

will only alledge the wordes of ••umus in the name of all, who writeth in this manner;* 1.2 Secundum impedimentum est votum sim∣plex. Nam qui vouit castitatem simpliciter, si contrahat, morta∣liter peccat, violans fidem deo datam, tame•• tenet matrimonium. The second impediment is a single vow: for hee that voweth chastitie simply, if he afterward marry, committeth a mortall sinne in breaking his promise made to God, but yet the matri∣monie holdeth and is of force.

The second building.

Euery marriage of man and woman made after the solemne vow of approoued religion, is not only damnable in the partie contrahent, but also void and of no force at all. This likewise teach all popish doctors, Aquinas, Couarru••ias, Siluester, Na∣uarre, and the rest. Fumus hath these wordes.

* 1.3Tertium impedimentum est votum non quodcun{que} sed solenne religionis approbatae, siue fuerit professio expresse siue tacitè facta, quia impedit, ne quis possit contrahere matrimonium, & si contrahat, est nullum.

The third impediment is a vow; yet not euery one, but the solemne vow of approoued religion, whether profession bee made expressely or virtually, because it so hindereth as none can marrie; and if they doe marry, such matrimony is none at all. Where note, that the papistes call that only approoued religi∣on, which is confirmed by the pope or bishop of Rome.

The third building.

Matrimonie euen after the solemne vow of religion, is law∣full and of force; so it be done by and with the popes dispensa∣tion. This doctrine is taught vs, by many learned papists, An∣toninus, Richardus, Hugo, Innocentius, Couarruuias, and by the reall practise of sundry popes. Thus writeth Antoninus, whom I alledge in the name of the rest.

* 1.4Papa dispensare potest in statuto concilij vniuersalis. De voto solenni per professionem etiam patet, quod licet papa non possit facere quod professus non fuit professus, potest tamen facere quod non sit obligatus religioni, & ad votum religionis; quiae

in omni voto intelligitur, excepta authoritate papae. Infra; & communiter canonistae tenent quod papa potest dispensare in vo∣to solenni religionis, non quidem tantum vt sit religiosus & non seruet vota; sed de religioso potest facere laicum, ex magna cau∣sa vrgente.

The pope can dispense, in the decrees of a generall councell. It is also cleere, that he can dispense in a solemne vow by pro∣fession. For although the pope cannot make a professed person not to haue been professed, yet can he this doe,* 1.5 that the profes∣sed person shal neither be boūd to his religion, nor to his vow: because we must vnderstand, that in euery vow the popes au∣thoritie is excepted: and the Canonistes doe commonly holde, that the pope can dispense in the solemne vowe of religion, not only that one be still a religious person and keepe not his vow; but of a religious person hee can make a meere lay man, vpon an vrgent cause.

The fourth building.

A solemne vow hath not force of it selfe, and of it owne na∣ture, to dissolue matrimonie, and to make the solemne vota∣ries vncapable thereof: but all the force and efficacie it hath therein, is wholly deriued from the ordinance of the church of Rome. This teacheth their owne deere frier, and reuerend bi∣shop Iosephus Angles, whose doctrine is approoued by the late popes of Rome. Thus therefore doth Iosephus write:

Ratio praecisa ob quam votum solenne dirimit matrimonium contrahendum, & vouentes solenniter inhabilitat,* 1.6 est ecclesiae institutio; quae vt consanguineos intra quartum gradum, ita huiusmodi personas ad contrahendum inhabilitat. Definita est a Bonifacio 8. cap. vnico, de vo••o in 6. vbi solum constituit Rom. pontif. discrimen inter votum solenne, & matrimonium. Deinde quia possit ecclesia instituere, vt in mundo nullum sit votū solēne matrimoniū dirimens; quare voti solennitas est ab ecclesia, & nō a deo; ex nullo enim loco sacrae scripturae colligitur inhabilitas vouentis solenniter, vt contrahere non possit. Nam per traditio∣nem quae fit in voto solenni, non est ex iure diuino & naturali inhabilis vouens adalium statum▪ quia subdiaconus & diaconus tradunt se deo voto solenni castitatis & obedientiae, & tamen papa cum illis saepissimê dispensat, vt Soto concedit.

The precise reason, for which a solemne vow dissolueth ma∣trimonie to bee contracted,* 1.7 and disableth those that solemnely vow it, is the institution of the church (of Rome,) which as it inableth kinsfolkes within the fourth degree to contract mar∣riage, so doth it also the said votaries. Bonifacius the eight hath so defined, where the bishop of Rome onely appointeth the dif∣ference, betweene a solemne vow and matrimonie. Againe, be∣cause the church (of Rome) might make a law, that no solemne vow in the worlde should dissolue wedlocke; wherefore the so∣lemnitie of the vow is of the church, and not of God. For the inabilitie of the solemne vower, so as he cannot marrie, is not gathered out of any place of the holy scripture. For by the tra∣dition which is in the solemne vow, the person vowing is not inabled to another state, either by the law diuine, or law of na∣ture; because Deacons, and Subdeacons deliuer vp them∣selues to God, by the solemne vow of chastitie and obedience; and for all that, the pope often dispenseth with them, as Soto graunteth.

Nauarrus auoucheth constantly, and without blushing, that many popes haue dispensed, de facto, with professed moonkes, and that in the way of marriage; these are his wordes:

* 1.8Papa potest dispensare cum monacho iam professo, vt contra∣hat matrimonium; imò de facto multi papae dispensarunt.

The pope can dispense with a moonke already professed, that he may become a married man. For many popes, de facto, haue dispensed so.

Couarruuias, Richardus, Paludanus, Scotus, Caietanus, and Antoninus, hold the selfe same opinion.

The fift building.

The vow single is of one and the same nature with the vow solemne, not distinguished by any essentiall but meere acciden∣tall difference. For thus writeth their owne Iosephus Angles.

* 1.9Votum solenne & simplex, ex parte subiecti specie acciden∣tali differunt, propterea quod voti simplicis subiectum est ad cō∣trahendum matrimonium habile, licet contrahendo peccet. At verò subiectum voti solennis, est ad contractum matrimonialem

inhabile, transgressiones voti simplicis & solemnis eiusdem spe∣ciei sunt, etiamsi qui solenniter vouet grauius peccet: ratio est, quia specifica differentia actuum est penes obiecta; & cum idem sit vtriusque voti obiectum, nempe seruare continentiam, erunt actus eiusdem speciei, erit tamen voti solemnis transgressio gra∣uior, ratione perfectioris status.

The vow solemne and single differ accidentally in respect of the subiect,* 1.10 because the subiect of the single vow is able to con∣tract matrimonie, albeit he sinne in so contracting: but the sub∣iect of a solemne vow, is inabled to matrimoniall contract: the transgressions of the vowe single and solemne are of the same nature or kind, albeit hee that maketh the solemne vow, sinneth more grieuously: the reason is, because the specificall dif∣ference of acts, resteth in the obiects; and since there is one ob∣iect of both the vowes, to wit, to keepe chastitie▪ the acts shall bee of the same nature or kinde; neuerthelesse, the trans∣gression of the solemne vow shall be greater, by reason of the perfecter state.

Thus reasoneth Frier Ioseph, after the opinion of other po∣pish doctours: and his discourse is euident, because euerie specificall difference morall, ariseth of the obiects; and con∣sequently, since the obiect of vow single is one and the same with the vowe solemne, the difference betweene them can no way be essentiall.

The sixt building.

All secular Priests are so free from the solemne vow, annex∣ed by the church of Rome to ecclesiasticall orders, as their mar∣riage is perfect and of force, notwithstanding the supposed dis∣soluing impediment thereof. I proue it first, because Scotus, Nauarre, Iosephus Angles and others doe grant, that this vow is onely annexed by the ordinance of the church, as shall [ 1] appeare more at large in the ende of this chapter.

I prooue it secondly, because if the secular priests ••••e vo∣taries, their vowe must either be by the worde spoken, or by the deede done: not the first,* 1.11 because no such word can be pro∣ued; [ 2] neither the second, because if the art it selfe in taking or∣ders, shoulde be the vowe annexed; it would follow thereupon

necessarily, that the Greekes likewise should become votaries, as who doe the selfe same thing. Who for all that were neuer votaries, as Gratianus, Syluester, and other popish doctours do affirme. I proue it thirdly, because when two things are essentially and really distinguished, the grant of the one doth necessarily include the graunt of the other: and yet is the so∣lemne vow of chastitie,* 1.12 essentially and really distinct from sa∣cred orders; as I haue proued out of Iosephus in the fourth building, and as is apparant by Nauarre in his Enchiridion. Gratian their owne doctour maketh this case cleere: see his as∣sertion in the next chapter, in the answere to the first obiection.

The seauenth building,

The solemne vowe of chastitie imposed onely by the power of man, cannot alter the institution of God, and take away the liberty by him granted vnto man. For proofe hereof, their own deare fryer Antoninus, some time archbishoppe of Florence, shall suffice, who telleth our holy father the Pope, that God is his superiour, and that he therefore cannot alter any one i••te of his law: these are his expresse words.

* 1.13Quantum verò ad illa quae sunt de iure naturali vel diuino iurisdictio seu potestas papalis non se extendit, sic verò quod i∣sta possit mutare, vel etiam dare eis vim obligandi: & ratio est quia inferior non potest mutare leges superioris: Deus autem superior ad papam.

Concerning those things which are of the law of nature, or law diuine, iurisdiction or papall power doth not extend it self, so to wit, that the pope can change these things, or giue power obligatiue vnto them: and the reason is, because an inferi∣our cannot change the laws of his superior, and God is superi∣our [ 1] to the Pope. Franciscus a Victoria, and other learned Pa∣pists hold the same opinion, but Antoninus his testimonie is sufficient.

Notes

• * 1.1

  See the first pro∣position, and conferre it with this.
• * 1.2

  Fumus de matr. §. 55.
• * 1.3

  Fumus de matr. §. 8 & lib. 6. de vo••o cap. vnico.
• * 1.4

  A••ton p. 2. tit. 11 cap 2. §. 9.
• * 1.5

  What is it, that the pope cannot doe?
• * 1.6

  Iosephus Angl. in 4. s. p. 2. q. de vo∣to, att. 6. diffic. 1.
• * 1.7

  O wicked church of Rome? most happy are they, who are made free from thy brutish thral∣dome.
• * 1.8

  Nauarrus de iu∣diciis notab. 3. p. 275.
• * 1.9

  Ioseph. Angles in 4. q. de voto, ar. 6 diffic. 2.
• * 1.10

  These buildings and distinctions well obserued, poperie will receiue a deadly wound.
• * 1.11

  This dilemma catcheth the Pope by the nose.
• * 1.12

  Nauar. in e••chir. cap. 22. §. 18.
• * 1.13

  Anton. de potest. papae p. 3. Tit. 22. cap. 3. §. 1.