for the breach of his faith and vows to his spouse. The Pope answers he will; and though by the law of God he be tied to that woman, yet because the keeping of that vow would hinder him from doing God better service in religion, this is a sufficient cause for him to dispense with his vow. This then is the case concerning which I inquire: 1. How does it appear that to enter into a monastery is absolutely a greater spiritual good than to live chastely with the wife of his love and vows? 2. I inquire, whether to break a man's vow be not of itself (abstracting from all extrinsical pretensions and collateral inducements) a very great sin? and if there were not a great good to follow the breach of it, I demand whether could the Pope dispense or give leave to any man to do it? If he could, then it is plain he can give leave to a man to do a very great evil; for without the accidentally consequent good, it is confessed to be very evil to break our lawful vows: but if he cannot dispense with his vow, unless some great good were to follow upon the breach of it, then it is clear he can give leave to a man to do evil, that good may come of it: for if without such a reason, or such a consequent good, the Pope could not dispense, then the consequent good does legitimate the dispensation; and either an evil act done for a good end is lawful and becomes good, or else the Pope plainly gives him leave to do that, which is still remaining evil, for a good end: either of which is intolerable, and equally against the apostle's rule, which is also a rule of natural religion and reason: No man must do evil for a good end. But then, 3. Who can' assure me, that an act of religion is better than an act of justice? or that God will be served by doing my wife an injury? or that he will accept of me a new vow, which is perfectly a breaking off an old? or that, by our vows to our wives, we are not as much obliged to God as by monastical vows before our abbot? or that marriage is not as great an act of religion if wisely and holily undertaken (as it ought to be), as the taking the habit of St. Francis? or that I can be capable of giving myself to religion, when I have given the right and power of myself away to another? or that I may not as well steal from a man to give alms to the poor, as wrong my wife to give myself to a cloister? or that he can ever give himself to religion, who' breaks the religion of vows and promises, of justice and ho nour, of faith and the sacramental mystery, that he may go

into religion? or that my retirement in a cloister, and doing all that there is intended, can make recompense for making my wife miserable, and, it may be, desperate and calamitous all her lifetime? Can God be delighted with my prayers which I offer to him in a cloister, when, it may be, at the same time my injured spouse is praying to God to do her justice and to avenge my perjuries upon my guilty head, and, it may be, cries aloud to God, and weeps and curses night and day? who can tell which is better, or which is worse? for marriage and single life, of themselves, are indifferent to piety or impiety; they may be used well, or abused to evil purposes; but if they take their estimate by the event, no man can beforehand tell, which would have been the greater spiritual good. But suppose it as you list, yet,

11. I consider, that when God says that " obedience is better than sacrifice," he hath plainly told us, that no pretence of religion, or of a greater spiritual good, can legitimate yow-breach, or disobedience to a divine commandment: and therefore, either the Pope must dispense in all laws of Christ, and without all reason; that is, by his absolute authority and supereminency over the law and the power that established it, or else he cannot dispense at all; for there is no reason, that can legitimate our disobedience.

12. But then, if we consider the authority itself, the considerations will be very material. No man pretends to a power of dispensing in the law of God but the Pope only; and he only upon pretence of the words spoken to St. Peter, "Whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth, shall be loosed in heaven"." Now did ever any of the apostles or apostolical men suppose, that St. Peter could, in any case, dispense with vow-breach, or the violation of a lawful oath? Was not all that power, which was then promised to him, wholly relative to the matter of fraternal correption? and was it not equally given to the apostles? for either it was never performed to St. Peter, or else it was alike promised and performed to all the apostles in the donation of the Spirit, and of the power of binding, and the words of Christ to them before and after his resurrection; so that, by certain consequence of this, either all the successors of the apostles have the same power, or none of the successors of St. Peter. Or • Matt. xviii. 18. John, xx. 25

"Matt. xvi. 19.

if the successors of St. Peter only, why not his successors at Antioch, as well as his successors at Rome? since it is certain that he was at Antioch; but it is not so certain that he was at all at Rome: for those things, that Ulricus Velenus says against it in a tractate on purpose on that subject, and published by Goldastus in his third tome, are not inconsiderable allegations and arguments for the negative. And suppose he was, yet it is as likely, that is, as certain as the other, that, after the martyrdom of St. Peter and St. Paul, there were two bishops or popes of Rome; as it is conjectured by the different catalogues of the first successions, and by their differing presidencies or episcopacies; one being over the circumcision, and the other over the uncircumcision (if, I say, they were at all, concerning which I have no occasion to interpose my sentence). But if either this gift was given in common to all the apostles, or if it was given personally to St. Peter, or if it means only the power of discipline over sinners and penitent persons, or if it does not mean to destroy all justice and human contracts, to rescind all the laws of God and man, to make Christ's laws subject to Christ's minister, and Christ's kingdom to be the Pope's: inheritance and possession," in alto Dominio," if those words of Christ to St. Peter, are so to be understood as that his subjects and servants shall still be left in those rights, which he hath given and confirmed and sanctified, then it follows undeniably, that St. Peter's power of the keys is not to be a picklock of the laws of his Master, but to bind men to the performance of them, or to the punishment of breaking them; and if by those words of "Whatsoever thou shalt loose," it be permitted to loose and untie the band of oaths and vows, then they may also mean a power of loosing any man's life, or any man's right, or any man's word, or any man's oath, or any man's obligation, solemn or unsolemn, when he hath really an interest or reason so to do, of which. reason himself only can be the warrantable judge: which things, because they are insufferably unreasonable, that pretence which infers such evils and such impieties, must be also insufferable and impossible.

13. I conclude therefore with this distinction: There is a proper dispensation, that is, such a dispensation as supposes the obligation remaining upon that person, who is to be dis-.

pensed with: but no man or society of men can, in this sense, dispense with any law of Christ. But there is a dispensation improperly so called, which does not suppose a remanent obligation, and therefore pretends not to take away any, but supposes only a doubt remaining, whether the law does, by God's intention, oblige or no. He that hath skill and authority and reason to declare, that, in such special cases, God intended not to oblige the conscience, hath taken away the doubt, and made that to become lawful, which, without such a declaration, by reason of the remaining doubt, was not so. This is properly an interpretation: but because it hath the same effect upon the man, which the other hath directly upon the law, therefore by divines and lawyers it is sometimes also a dispensation, but improperly.

14. But the other consequent arising from the first observations, which I made upon this rule, is this, that as there is no necessity that there should be any dispensation in the laws of Jesus Christ; so in those cases where there may be an improper dispensation, that is, an interpretation or declaration that the law in this case does not bind at all, no man must, by way of equity or condescension and expedient, appoint any thing that the law permits not, or declare that a part of the law may be used, when the whole is in the institution. For example: The Norwegians complained, that they could very seldom get any wine into their country, and, when it did come, it was almost vinegar or vappe: he who had reason and authority, might then certainly have declared, that the precept of consecrating did not oblige, when they had not matter with which they were to do it; because no good law obliges to impossibilities: but then no man of his own head might interpose an expedient, and say, Though you have no wine to consecrate and celebrate withal, yet you may do it in ale or meath;' nor yet might he warrant an imperfect consecration, and allow that the priests should celebrate with bread only. The reason is, because all institutions sacramental, and positive laws, depend not upon the nature of the things themselves, according to the extension or diminution of which our obedience might be measured; but they depend wholly on the will of the lawgiver, and the will of the supreme, being actually limited to this specification, this manner, this matter, this institution; whatso

́ever comes besides, it hath no foundation in the will of the legislator, and therefore can have no warrant or authority. That it be obeyed or not obeyed, is all the question and all the variety. If it can be obeyed, it must; if it cannot, it must be let alone. The right mother, that appeared before Solomon, demanded her child; half her own was offered; but that was not it which would do her good, neither would she have been pleased with a whole bolster of goats' hair, or with a perfect image of her child, or with a living lamb; it was her own child, which she demanded: so it is in the divine institution; whatsoever God wills, that we must attend to: and therefore, whatsoever depends upon a divine law or institution, whatsoever is appointed instrumental to the signification of a mystery, or to the collation of a grace or a power, he that does any thing of his own head, either must be a despiser of God's will, or must suppose himself the author of a grace, or else to do nothing at all in what he does,because all his obedience, and all the blessing of his obedience, depend upon the will of God, which ought always to be obeyed when it can, and when it cannot, nothing can supply it; because the reason of it cannot be understood; for who can tell why God would have the death of his Son celebrated by bread and wine? why by both the symbols? why by such? and therefore no proportions can be made; and if they could, yet they cannot be warranted.

15. This rule is not only to be understood concerning the express positive laws and institutions of our blessed Lawgiver; but even those which are included within those laws, or are necessary appendages to those institutions, are to be obeyed, and can never be dispensed withal, nor diverted by any suppletory or expedient. Thus to the law of representing and commemorating the death of our dearest Lord by the celebration of his last supper, it is necessarily appendant and included, that we should come worthily prepared,-lest that which is holy, be given to dogs, and holy things be handled unholiy. In this case, there can be no dispensation; and although the curates of souls, having the key of knowledge and understanding to divide the word of God rightly, have power and warrant to tell what measures and degrees of preparation are just and holy; yet they cannot give any dispensation in any just and required degree, nor, by their sentence, effect that a