A09365:1219
The Whole Treatise of the Cases of Conscience
The whole treatise of the cases of conscience distinguished into three books: the first whereof is revised and corrected in sundry places, and the other two annexed. Taught and delivered by M. W. Perkins in his holy-day lectures, carefully examined by his own briefs, and now published together for the common good, by T. Pickering Bachelor of Divinity. Whereunto is adjoined a twofold table: one of the heads and number of the questions propounded and resolved; another of the principal texts of Scripture which are either explained, or vindicated from corrupt interpretation.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.
Cambridge: printed by John Legat, 1606Cambridge: printed by Iohn Legat, 1606
Modern spelling is a reading aid: the words are the author’s, only the spelling is modernized. Original shows the page as printed, with the transcription marks.
And first it is objected: In the Old Testament, Vows were a part of Gods worship: therefore they are so to be holden in the New. ⟨p. 420⟩Ans. There is great difference between them. For first, they had their warrant out of Gods word; these have not so: nay there be express testimonies of scripture against these Vows.
And first it is obiected: In the Old Testament, Vowes were a part of Gods worship: therfore they are so to be holdē in the New. ⟨p. 420⟩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 vows, there was always right reserved to superiors, to reverse them, if they liked them not. But in Monastical vows, all right is taken from superiors. For children are permitted to vow; and their promises must stand against parents consent. And wives (according to Popish doctrine) may vow, against the express consent of their husbands.
Secondly, in their vowes, there was alwaies right reserued to superiours, to reuerse them, if they liked them not. But in Monasticall vowes, all right is taken from superiours. 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 consent of their husbands.
Thirdly, they were not perpetual, but ceased with the ceremonial Law. But these are supposed to have a perpetual equity, that must continue till the end of the world.