The whole treatise of the cases of conscience distinguished into three bookes: the first whereof is revised and corrected in sundrie places, and the other two annexed. Taught and deliuered by M. W. Perkins in his holy-day lectures, carefully examined by his owne briefes, and now published together for the common good, by T. Pickering Bachelour of Diuinitie. Whereunto is adioyned a twofold table: one of the heads and number of the questions propounded and resolued; another of the principall texts of Scripture vvhich are either explaned, or vindicated from corrupt interpretation.

CHAP. XIIII.

Of Vowes.

THe Seuenth head of the Out∣ward worship of God, is con∣cerning a vowe. All the Que∣stions whereof may be redu∣ced to these foure.

I. Question. What is a Vowe?

Ans. A Vowe, is a promise made to God of things lawfull and possible. I call it a pro∣mise, to distinguish a vowe from a single pur∣pose. For a purpose may be chaunged, but a vowe lawfully made cannot. Againe, there is great difference betweene these two: for in a vowe, there is first, a purpose to doe a thing: secondly, a binding of our selues to doe that we pupose. For this cause I tearme it a promise, because it is a purpose with a bond, without which there can be no vowe made.

In the next place I adde, a promise made to God; not to Saint, Angel, or Man. The rea∣sons are these. First, a vowe is properly the worke of the heart, consisting in a purpose. Now God alone knowes the heart, and he

alone is able, to discerne of the purpose and intent of the same which no Angel, Saint, or other creature can possible doe. Secondly, when the vow is made, none can punish and take revenge of the breach therof, but God. Thirdly, in the old Testament, the Iewes ne∣uer vowed, but to God; because the vowe was a part of Gods worshippe: Deut. 23. 21. When thou shalt vowe a vowe vnto the Lord thy God, thou shalt not bestack to pay it; for the Lord thy God, will surely require it of thee, and so it should be sinne vnto thee. Where by the way, we may take notice, of the superstition of the popish Church, that maketh vowes to Saints and Angels, which is in effect to make thē gods, & to worship thē as the Iewes worshipped God in the old Testament.

II. Question. Whether a vowe, be now in the newe Testament, any part of Religion, or Gods worship?

The answere is threefold.

First, if a vowe be taken for a promise of morall obedience; the answer is, that a vowe is indeed the worship of God, and so shal be, to the ende of the world. For as God (for his part) promiseth mercie, in the couenant of grace, so wee in Baptisme, doe make a vowe, and promise of obedience to him, in all his commandements; and therefore Peter cal∣leth

Baptisme a stipulation, that is, the pro∣mise of good conscience to God. This pro∣mise once made in Baptisme, is renewed so oft as we come to the Lords Supper, and fur∣ther continued in the daily spirituall exerci∣ses of Invocation, and Repentance.

But it may be said, we are already bound to the obedience of the Law by order of di∣uine Iustice; therefore we cannot further binde our selues. Ans. He that is bound by God, may also bind himself. Dauid though he was boūd by god in conscience, to keepe the Law, yet he binds himselfe freely by oath, to helpe his own weaknes, & to keepe himselfe from falling, when he saith, I haue sworne, and will performe it, that I will keepe thy righteous iudgements, Psal. 119. 106. And the same bond is no lesse necessary and behooffefull for vs, if we consider how prone and readie we are to fall from the worshippe of God.

The second Answere. If a vowe be taken for a promise of some ceremoniall dutie, as of Sacrifices and Oblations, or of giuing house, lands, and goods to the Temple; then we must put a difference betweene the Olde Testament and the New. In the Old Testa∣ment, the vow of such duties, was part of Gods worshippe; but in the Newe it is not, and that for these Reasons.

First, The Iewish ceremonies were to the Iewes, a part of Gods worshippe, but to vs Gentiles they are not; cōsidering they are all

in Christ abolished, and none of them doe now stand in force by Gods Law to vs. Thus the Passeover was a ceremonie, or seruice, ap∣pointed by God to be obserued of the Israe∣lites and their posteritie, Exod. 12. 24. 25. and therefore stood as a part of Gods wor∣shippe to them for a perpetuall ordinance. But to vs in the new testament, both it and other Legall ceremonies are abrogated, and we haue onely two Sacraments to be admi∣nistred and receiued, as seales of the Promi∣ses of God, and parts of his worshippe, Bap∣tisme, and the Supper of the Lord.

Secondly, that which is not commended vnto vs by God, in the name of worshippe, is no worshippe to vs. Now, the ceremonies of the Iewes, are no where commended vnto vs in that name; and therefore it is a vaine thing for any man to vowe the obseruation thereof.

Thirdly, vowes of ceremoniall duties, did, in a peculiar manner, and vpon speciall re∣spects, pertaine to the Iewes. Hereupon, when they vowed House, Lands, Goods, &c. to the vse of the Temple, this they did, as beeing the Lords Tenants, of whome alone they helde their possessions: and hereby they ac∣knowledged and also testified their Homa∣ges and Seruices due vnto him. And this particular respect concerneth not the Church and people of the New Testament: whence it followeth, that they are not tyed

by the same bond, to performe worship vn∣to God, by the vowes of Ceremonies, gifts, oblations, and sacrifices.

The third and last part of the Answer. If a vowe be taken for a promise, of some bodi∣ly and outward worke, or exercise; as fasting, giuing of almes, abstaining from certaine meates and drinkes, &c. then it is not any part of Gods worship, but onely an helpe, stay, and furtherance of the same. For first, we haue libertie of conscience in Christ, to vse or not to vse, all indifferent things. Now Gods worship is not a thing of that nature, but absolutely necessarie. Secondly, Paul, 1. Tim. 4. 8. affirmeth, that bodily exercise profiteth little, but godlines is profitable for all things: In which words, he opposeth godlines to bodi∣ly exercise, and therefore godlines, or the worship of God, consisteth not in them.

But the words of Dauid are alleadged to the contrarie, Psal. 76. 11. Vowe and performe vnto the Lord your God. Where we haue a dou∣ble command, one to make Vowes, another to pay them. To which I answer: first, if Da∣uid speaketh of the vowe of all moral duties, then the Commandement concerneth euery man; because the thing commanded, is a part of Gods worship. For it is as much as if he had said, Vow thankefull obedience vnto God, and performe it. Againe, if the place be meant, of the vow of ceremoniall duties, then it is a commandement peculiar to the

old Testament, and so bindes the Iewes one∣ly: howbeit not all of them, but onely such as had iust cause to make a vow: for other∣wise they had libertie to abstaine from vow∣ing, Deut. 23. 22. When thou abstainest from vowing, it shall be no sinne vnto thee. Of one of these two kinds, must the place alleadged necessarily be vnderstoode, and not of the third, which is of bodily exercise: for then it should reuerse Christian libertie in the vse of things indifferent, which no Commande∣ment can doe.

By light of this Answer, we may discerne the errour of the Popish Church, which ma∣keth Vowes a part of Religion, and the Wor∣ship of God. Nay further, it teacheth that some vowes, as namely those of Pouertie, Continencie, Regular Obedience to this or that Order, are workes of merit and supere∣rogation, tending to a state of perfection, e∣uen in this life; and deseruing a further de∣gree of glorie in heauen, then the worke of the Morall Law.

III. Question. When a Uow made, doth binde, and when not?

Before I giue answer to the Question, I will lay downe this Ground.

In making of a lawfull Vow, foure Condi∣tions are to be obserued.

The first, concerneth the person of him that voweth; that he be a fit person. His fit∣nesse may be discerned by two things. First, if he be at his owne libertie, (as touching the things whereof he makes his vow,) and not vnder the gouernment of a superiour. Thus in the Old Testament, if a daughter had made a vow, without the consent or allow∣ance of her father, it might not stand in ef∣fect. Numb. 30. 4, 5. Secondly, if the partie keepe himselfe within the compasse of his calling generall and particular. Hence it fol∣lowes, that Vowes of going a Pilgrimage, to worship this or that Idol, in this or that place, (for example, S. Iames of Compostella, and the Ladie of Loretto, &c.) are vtterly vnlawfull; because such persons, by this practise, doe leaue their calling and condition of life, and take vpon them a calling, not warranted by the Lord.

The second Condition is, concerning the Matter of a Vow. It must be Lawfull, Possi∣ble, and Acceptable to God. Hereupon it followes, that there be foure things, which cannot be the matter of a Vow. The first, is Sinne. Thus the Iewes bound themselues with a Vow, that they would neither eate, nor drinke, till they had killed Paul, Act. 23. 12, 14. This their vow was nothing els, but a threat∣ning of God himselfe: and therefore vtterly vnlawfull. Secondly, Trifles, and light mat∣ters; as, when a man voweth, not to take vp

a straw, or such like. And this is a plaine mocking of God. Thirdly, things impossi∣ble; as to flie, or to go on foote to Ierusalem. Fourthly, things meerely necessarie; as to die, which cannot be auoided.

The Third, is touching the Forme of a Vowe. It must be voluntarie, and free. And that it may be so, three things are necessarily required. First, that it be made in Iudgement, that is, with reason and deliberation. Next, that it be done with consent of will. And thirdly, with libertie of conscience.

Hence it appeares, that the Vowes of chil∣dren, mad-men, and fooles, or such as are ta∣ken vpon rashnes, or constraint; also the vow of perpetuall abstinence from things simply indifferent, are all vtterly vnlawfull. For, the first sort are not done vpon iudgement, the next without due consideration, and the last are greatly preiudiciall to Christian liber∣tie.

The fourth concernes the Ende; which is, not to be a part of Gods worship, but onely a stay and proppe to further and helpe vs in the same. Nowe there be three particular Ends of a vow. First, to shew our selues thāk∣full to God for blessings receiued: secondly, to preuent sinne to come, by keeping so brie∣tie and moderation: thirdly, to preserue and increase our faith, prayer, repentance, and o∣bedience.

This Ground beeing laide, the Answer to

the Question propounded is this. When in vowing, we obserue the conditions prae-re∣quired, the vow is lawfull, and consequently binds the partie vowing, so as if he keepe it not, he dishonoureth God. But when the saide Conditions, doe not concurre in the a∣ction of vowing, it becomes vnlawfull, and the partie remaineth free, and not bound to performance.

Here by the way, a Question of some mo∣ment is made; Whether Iephte vpon his Vow, did offer his Daughter in Sacrifice or no? considering that it is plaine, euen by the light of Nature, as also by the doctrine be∣fore taught, that a man is bound by the vow which he maketh.

This Question admitteth sundrie answers, according to the diuers opinions and iudge∣ments of men, vpon the place written, Iudg. 11. And my purpose is not to examine that which others haue brought in way of resolu∣tion, but briefly to deliuer that which I take to be the truth. I answer therefore that Ieph∣te did not offer his Daughter in Sacrifice vp∣on his vowe; but onely dedicated her vnto God, after the manner of the Nazarites, to the ende of her daies; to lead her life apart in a single estate. The truth of this answer will appeare by these reasons.

First, in the 37. verse of the chapter, the daughter of Iephte craues leaue of her fa∣ther, to goe apart into the mountaines, for

two moneths space, to bewaile her virgini∣tie. Where it may be obserued, that she went not to deplore the losse of her life, but her future estate and condition, because shee was (vpō her fathers vow) to liue a perpetuall sin∣gle life. And why? surely, because (as the text saith, vers. 39.) she had not knowne a man; & it was accounted a curse in Iudea, for a wo∣man alwaies to liue vnmarried.

Secondly, in the last verse it is said in our common English translation, that the daugh∣ters of Israel went yeare by yeare, to lament the daughter of Iephte: But I take it, it may be as well, or better translated out of the He∣brue, they went to * 1.1 talke or conferre with her, and so to comfort her: and that this interpretati∣on may not, seeme strange, the very same word is obserued in this sense, Iudg. 5. 11. there shall they * 1.2 talke or conferre of the righ∣teousnesse of the Lord. Now if they went yeare by yeare to comfort her, then shee was not put to death.

Thirdly, Iephte is commended by the holy Ghost, for the excellencie of his faith, Heb. 11. 32. and that out of the same historie. Now the commendation of his faith, and the vn∣naturall murther of his daughter, cannot stand together.

But it will be said, that Iephte vowed, that whatsoeuer came out of his dores to meete him should be the Lords, & he would offer it for a burnt offring, v. 31. Ans. The words may

more truly be read thus; or I will offer it in sa∣crifice. And the meaning of the vowe was this: That thing which first meeteth me, if it be a thing to be sacrificed, I will sacrifice it: if not. I will dedicate it to the Lord. For it seems to consist of two parts, wherof the lat∣ter is coupled to the former, by a discretiue coniunctiō, as the Grāmarians speake. In this manner, the word is els where taken, so as it may either way be expounded. In the fourth commandement, Exod. 20. 10. in our com∣mon translation it is read, thou and thy sonne, and thy daughter, but out of the Ebrwe, it may be translated either and, or or.

It will be said againe, that Iephte rent his cloathes, because his daughter mette him, when he returned from the victorie. Ans. That was in regard of her vowed virginitie: which was a curse among the Iewes. And besides, he had but one daughter, and by this meanes of sacrif••ing her all hope of poste∣ritie after him was cut off.

But it seemes, that Monasticall vowes of virginitie, by this example are lawfull. Ans. Indeed the custome of vowing virginitie be∣ganne in those dayes, but they thought it not a state of perfection, but rather an estate of miserie, as may appeare, in that he rent his cloaths, when she mette him, and the daugh∣ters of Israel went to comfort her, as being now in a woefull and miserable estate.

Vpon these Reasons, I conclude, that

Iephte did not offer vp his daughter in sa∣crifice, but onely set her apart, to liue a single life, to the honour and seruice of God. And Iephte might knowe euen by the light of nature, that it was a finne to vow h•…•… daugh∣ters death, and a double sinne to kill her.

IV. Question. Whether Monasticall, or Monkish vowes binde or no?

To this the Papists answer affirmatiuely, placing the greatest part of their Religion, in practise and observance of these vowes.

That we may know them the better, they are in number three. The first is, the vowe of continency, whereby a man renounceth Ma∣riage for euer, and voweth vnto God perpe∣tuall virginitie. The second, of Voluntarie Povertie, which is, when a man giueth ouer all propertie of his goods, and bindes him∣selfe to liue by begging. The third is, of Re∣gular obedience, when a man resignes him∣selfe in conscience, to be ruled by another, and to keepe some deuised order, in all acti∣ons and duties pertaining to religion.

Now the Question beeing, whether these vowes binde or no? I answer in a word, they doe not, and that for these reasons.

I. First, they are flat against the law of God, which I make manifest in the particu∣lars.

The vowe of perpetuall chastitie, is ex∣pressely against Gods commandement. 1. Cor. 7. 9. If they cannot abstaine, let them marry: for it is better to marrie then to burne. To this text the Papists answer, three waies.

First they say, that this place of scripture, is onely a diuine permission, and not a com∣mandement: we reply againe directly, that it is a plaine commandement: For the intent of the Holy Ghost in that text, and in the whole Chapter is, to ordaine a necessarie remedie for incontinencie, which Paul calls burning, and for the auoiding of fornication, which brings destructiō to the soule. And for that purpose, he speaks not in permitting mā∣ner, but in imperatiue tearmes, Let thē marry.

Secondly, they answer, that the words concerne onely incontinent persons, that commit fornication. We on the other side affirme, that they are not only giuen to them that liue incontinently, but to all persons, which are subiect to burning, which burning may be without incontinencie.

For the better vnderstanding whereof, let it be considered, that there be three distinct degrees of lust in man. The first is, when the temptatiō is first receiued into the mind. The secōd, when the same temptation preuaileth, though with some resistāce & trouble of the minde & conscience, which also (though no outward offence as yet follow) is a degree of burning. The third is, whē the temptation so

far preuaileth, that the heart & will are over∣come, and the duties of religion for the time vtterly hindred: This is the highest and worst kind of burning. And if we consider these degrees well, it will easily appeare, that there may be burning without incontinent liuing.

Thirdly, they answere; that this text spea∣keth not of persons that are free, but of those alone, who are bound from Mariage by solemne vow: we contrariwise affirme and hold, that the words are generall, and plain∣ly directed to all persons, bound by vowe or otherwise; and that appeares by vers. •…•…5. where he saies, I speake not this to tangle you in a snare. These words doe shewe, that Pauls mind was, touching the vow of perpetuall virginitie. For he leaues euery man accor∣ding to Gods ordinance, to his owne liber∣tie, willing none by vowe to binde himselfe from the vse thereof.

Now for the vow of Regular Obedience, that also is against the word of God. 1. Cor. 7. 27. Ye are bought with a price, be not the ser∣uants of men. Where the Apostle forbiddes vs, to subiect our hearts and consciences, to the lawes and ordinances of men, in matters of Religion; and consequently ouerthrow∣eth the vowe of Regular obedience. For in that a man bindes himselfe to be ruled (in all things belonging to Gods worship) accor∣ding to the will and pleasure of his Superi∣or, yea to eate, drinke, sleepe; to be cloathed.

&c. according to a certaine rule giuen and prescribed by him; whereas in regard of con∣science we are bound onely vnto God.

Lastly, the vowe of voluntarie Pouertie, is also a plaine abuse of Gods owne ordinance and appointment, Deut. 15. 4. that there should be no begger in Israel.

But it may seeme, that this law is not per∣petuall. For in the New Testament we read, that there were beggers, as namely one, that was laide at the gate of the Temple, daily to aske almes, Act. 3. Ans. This Law neither was then, nor is now abrogated by God, but the obseruation of it (at that time, and since) was much neglected. And the neglect of prouision for the poore, is the cause of beg∣ging; and the vowe of perpetuall pouertie, still remaines as a manifest breach of Gods holy ordinance, notwithstanding any thing that may be pretended to the contrarie.

II. The second reason followes. Monkish vowes, as they are against Gods commande∣ment, so are they also against the Libertie of Conscience, which we haue by Christ touch∣ing the vse of the creatures, and ordinances of God: as riches, mariages, meates, drinkes, and apparell. Stand fast, saith the Apostle, in the libertie wherewith Christ hath made you free, Gal. 5. 1. Againe, Let no man iudge you in meat, or in drinke, or inrespect of an holy day, Coloss. 2. 16. In these places, there is granted vnto man, a free vse of all things indifferent, so it

be not in case of offence.

Now in Monkish vowes, those things which God hath made indifferent, and put in our libertie, are made necessarie: whereas no ordinance of man, can make things simply necessarie, and parts of Gods worship, which he himselfe hath made indifferent, and left free to the will of man. And hence it was that the forbidding of meates and mariage, were tearmed by the Apostle, The doctrine of Deuills, 1. Tim. 4. 1.

But (will some say) doth not the ciuill Magistrate in our Common-wealth, forbid the vse of some meates? Ans. He doth. But by his commandement he takes not away the libertie that we haue in the vse of things indifferent, but doth onely moderate it, for the common good, which he may doe law∣fully.

III. The third reason. Some of them are out of the power and abilitie of him that voweth; as the vowe of perpetuall chastitie in single life. For our Sauiour saith, All men cannot receiue this word, but they to whome it is giuen, Matth. 19. 11. that is, Continencie is a gift of God, whereof all men are not capa∣ble, but those onely to whome he giueth it, when, and as long as it pleaseth him; neither is it denied vnto some, because they wil not, but because they are not able.

Against this, the Papist obiecteth, that we may receiue any good gift of God, if we

pray for it: for Christ hath saide, Aske, and ye shall receiue, Matth. 7. 7. Ans. It is false. Gods gifts are of two sorts. Some are common to all that beleeue, and necessarie to saluation; as Faith, Repentance, Obedience, the Feare of God. Some againe are speciall gifts, not giuen to all, nor needs full to saluation, but peculiar onely to some; as health, wealth, continen∣cie, single life, &c. Now the promise of our Sauiour, Aske, and ye shall receiue, is meant of things necessarie to saluation, and not of par∣ticular and speciall gifts. For some may pray for them, and yet neuer receiue them. Thus Paul praied thrise, that the pricke in his flesh, the messenger of Satan, might be remooued from him, yet he was not heard, nor his peti∣tion graunted. And why? Because that which he prayed for, was not a common gift necessarie to saluation, but a speciall grace, for the time of the temptation, wherewith he was pre∣sently assaulted; whereupon Answer was gi∣uen, My grace is sufficient for thee.

And hence we learne, in what manner, to aske things at the hands of God, when wee pray. Such as are necessarie to saluation, we may aske absolutely and simply; but things that are lesse necessarie, with this condition; If it may stand with the good will and plea∣sure of God.

Againe, the Papist alleadgeth an example of two married persons; the one whereof beeing smitten by the hand of God with the

dead palsie, the other must needes pray for the gift of continencie. Ans. In this case a married partie may aske it, and by Gods mercy obtaine it, because now there remains vnto him or her no other remedie. But it is not so with single persons, considering that they haue an other remedie, which is Mari∣age: and therefore they may not looke, or hope to obtaine such a gift.

Thirdly, they say, God hath giuen to all men sufficient aide and strength, that if they will vse the meanes, they may haue the gift of chastitie. For sufficient grace is giuen to all, though not effectuall. Ans. It is false: there is neither sufficient, nor effectuall grace giuen to all, to liue a single life; but it is a rare and speciall gift giuen onely to some. Paul to Timothie, willeth younger women, not to indeauour to forbeare, when they haue not the gift, but in want thereof to marrie, 1. Tim. 5. 14. Where he takes it for graunted, that they had no such power giuen them of God, to liue in perpetuall chastitie, though they would.

IV. The fourth Reason. Popish vowes doe abolish that order, which God hath set in the Societie of mankinde, to wit, that men should not onely serue him in the duties of the first Table, out in the duties of the se∣cond, by seruing of men, Gal. 5. 13. By loue serue one another. Againe, Rom. 13. 10. Loue is called the fulfilling of the Law; because the

law of God is practised, not apart by it selfe, but in and with the loue of our neighbour. From this order it followeth, that euery man, beside the Generall calling of a Christian, must haue some particular kinde of life, in the which he must walke, and therein doe seruice to men: Which if he refuse to doe, he must not eate, according to the Apostles rule, 2. Thess. 3. 10.

Now these vowes make a separation be∣tweene these two: for they bring men into a generall calling, but they vtterly frustrate and make void the particular, and the duties of it; so as a man keeping them, cannot be seruiceable to man, either in Church or Com∣monwealth. Besides, by the vow of pouer∣tie, the Apostles rule is disanulled, 1. Tim. 5. 16. which is, that if a man be able to main∣taine himselfe, or haue any kinred able to doe it, he should not be chargeable to the Church; and so there might be sufficient almes to them that are truly poore.

V. The fift Reason. They bring in againe Iudaisme: for Iewish religion by Gods ap∣pointment, stood in bodily rites, and out∣ward ceremonies, actions, and gestures, yea in outward things, as garments, meats, drinks. And their rule was, Touch not, tast not: from all which we are wholly freed by Christ.

VI. Sixtly, these vowes are Idolatrous and superstitious: for they are made and ob∣serued with an opinion of Gods worship, of

merit, and of the state of perfection: whereas nothing can be made Gods worship, but that which himselfe commandeth. And bo∣dily exercises are vnprofitable, as Paul saith, and therefore they can not be meritorious. And further, to dreame of a state of perfecti∣on beyond the Law of God, is to make the Law it selfe imperfect: whereas contrariwise, the Law of the Lord is perfect, righteous, and pure, Psal. 19. 7, 8.

VII. Lastly, these vowes are against the preseruation of Nature: for by them, special∣ly that of perpetuall chastitie, men are brought to destroy euen their owne bodies and liues, which they are bound to preserue and maintaine. Ephes. 5. 29. No man euer yet hated his owne flesh, but nourisheth and cherisheth it. The Apostle, euen in his daies, noted it as a fault, in the voluntarie religion, that was then taken vp by some; that for the mainte∣nance thereof, they spared not their owne bodies, Coloss. 2. 23. And like vnto that, is the practise of Popish Votaries, which tendeth to the ruine and ouerthrow of nature, and life it selfe.

These be the Reasons. In the next place, we are to consider the Allegations that are commonly made, in the fauour and defence of Popish vowes.

And first it is obiected: In the Old Testa∣ment, Vowes were a part of Gods worship: therfore they are so to be holdē in the New.

Ans. There is great difference betweene them. For first, they had their warrant out of Gods word; these haue not so: nay there be expresse testimonies of scripture against these Vowes.

Secondly, in their vowes, there was al∣waies right reserued to superiours, to reuerse them, if they liked them not. But in Mona∣sticall vowes, all right is taken from superi∣ours. For children are permitted to vow; and their promises must stand against parents consent. And wiues (according to Popish doctrine) may vow, against the expresse con∣sent of their husbands.

Thirdly, they were not perpetuall, but cea∣sed with the ceremoniall Law. But these are supposed to haue a perpetuall equitie, that must continue till the ende of the world.

Secondly, they alleadge that which is written, Matth. 19. 12. Some haue made them∣selues chast for the kingdome of heauen. Ans. The meaning of the text is not, that some haue vowed single life, but that there are some, who beeing assured that they haue the gift of continencie, vpon that gift, doe en∣deauour to maintaine their present estate, that so they may the better serue God, and aduance his kingdome, both in themselues and others.

Thirdly, they obiect, 1. Tim. 5. 12. where Paul speakes of certaine young women, which haue damnation, because they haue bro∣ken

their first faith: that is, (as they interpret it) their vow of single life. Ans. The words are not to be vnderstood, of the faith of the vowe; but either of that faith and promise, which was made to God in their Baptisme, or the faith and promise of seruice and re∣leefe to be performed to the poore; and for the breach of either of these, they may be said to incurre damnation.

Fourthly, they say, Christ himselfe was a begger, and therefore why may not we also be beggers? Ans. Though Christ was poore, yet was he no begger. For he kept a familie, and had a treasure. Iudas was the steward of his familie, and bare the bagge, Ioh. 13. 29. Againe, there is mention made of 200 pence, Ioh. 6. 7. which in likelihood was in the bagg that Iudas kept: yea, of the money which he had, the Disciples are saide to buie meate, Ioh. 4. 8. And though it were graunted, that Christ was a begger, yet it followes not, that we should be so. For his pouertie was expia∣torie, and part of his sufferings. So saith the Apostle, He beeing rich, for our sakes became poore, that we through his pouertie might be made rich, 2. Cor. 8. 9.

Fiftly, they alledge, that the Disciples for∣sooke all, and liued in pouertie; and their ex∣ample is propounded for our imitation. Ans. They forsooke all indeede, yet how? not for euer, but for a time; and that not by vowe, but onely in affection and disposition of their

hearts. For after they had forsaken all, we read, that they came to their nets and boates againe, Ioh. 21. 3. Againe, the Apostle Paul speakes of himselfe and the rest, when he saith, Haue we not power to lead about a wife bee∣ing a sister? 1. Cor. 9. 5. By which it is plaine, that they put not away their wiues.

Sixtly, Mat. 19. 21. If thou wilt be perfite (saith Christ to the young man) goe, sell all that thou hast, and giue to the poore, and thou shalt haue treasure in heauen, and come and followe me. Here (saith the Papist) our Sauiour prescribes perpetuall pouertie, by expresse counsell. Ans. The words are no counsell, but a speciall Commandement of triall, directed to this yoūg man. And the ende of it was, to discouer vn∣to him, his secret pride, and hypocrisie, in that he boasted, that he had kept all the com∣mandements, when as indeed he knew not what they meant.

Lastly, they obiect the example of the Re∣cabites, who according to the commande∣ment of their father Ion adab, would drinke no wine, nor dwell in houses, nor build, nor plant, nor sowe, Ierem. 35. and the Lord ap∣prooueth their practise. Ans. They did o∣bey their fathers command in these things, as beeing things indifferent, but not as parts of Gods worshippe in the doing where of they pla∣ced Religion. And they obeyed it carefully, for this ende, that they might inure them∣selues vnto hardshippe. Secondly, this their

obedience, touching these things, stood not by any vowe, much lesse was it perpetuall. For then they should haue obserued all the things which they vowed, equally, which they did not; for they dispensed with their fathers voluntarie iniunction for dwelling in Tents; and as we read vers. 11. They came vp, for feare of the Chaldeans, that were in the land, and dwelt at Ierusalem.

And so much touching Popish Vowes, whereof to conclude, this may be said; That they are all, but a meere will-worship, stan∣ding vpon no ground or warrant of Gods word, and therefore of no force, to bind the consciences of men, but are to be holden, as they are in truth, wicked and abhomina∣ble.

Notes

• * 1.1

  Le-thannoth So it is ex∣pounded by the Hebrewe Doctors. Quintil. in Iud. 11. 40.
• * 1.2

  Iethannu.