GOD at first did not make a Pair, a Male and a Female, in Man­kind, as he did of the rest of living Creatures; but he made the one of the other, the Wo­man of the Man; and thus Male and Female created he them, for to continue the Species by propagati­on, and to be a mutual help and comfort each to other. The Angels, which each fill a Spe­cies, and are à posteriori Eternal, were not made Male and Female; and therefore the Hea­thens, who fansied their Deities, Male and Female, and worshipped many Godds, and ma­ny Goddesses, must be conceived to have wor­shipped dead Men and Women. The difference of the Sex was made for the supply or remedy of our Mortality.

When we shall come to be like the Angels of [Page 2]Heaven, then we shall neither Marry, nor be given in Marriage. Meat, Drink, Cloathing, and Marriage, are all provisions only for this state. In the Regeneration, there shall be no further need or use of them.

Our Creator made the Woman of the Man, to shew the near Union and Conjunction which should be betwixt the Man and his Wife. 1. God himself made the Woman, as of the Man, so for the Man, for his Comfort and Benefit, and to be one flesh with him. And since Adam had his Marriage ordained and celebrated by God himself in Paradise, and in the state of Inno­cency; Who are they that dispute against God, against his Ordinance and Institution? Such as of old, Montanus and Marcion, who condemned Marriage as uncleanness; and such as St. Jerom, who spoke unbecomingly of it; such as Papists, who forbid Bishops and Priests to Marry, and ra­ther tolerate them the having of a Concubine than a Wife.

I cannot prefer the Woman before the Man absolutely, although it be granted, she was made after the Man, and of the Man, and not of the common Earth immediately. And that Anatomists tell us of a finer Structure in the Body of the Woman than of the Man. For the Holy Scripture tells us, That the Man was not made for the Woman, but the Woman for the Man; and therefore sure the Man is the Head of [Page 3]the Woman, and to be preferred before her. The Light of Nature taught the very Heathens to prefer the Male before the Female. When the Poets would shame men, they call them Women. We read in Homer's Illid. B. [...]. In Virgil his Aeneids, B. 9. O merè Phrygie nequae enim Phryges. So Persius uses the word Troiades, Sat. 1. instead of Trojani.

Good reason then that Wives should be sub­ject to their own Husband; and that that Law of Ahasuerus should be an Oecumenial Law, viz. That every Man should bear rule in his own house.

The Holy Ghost in Scripture, 'tis observed, gives three Reasons of the subjection of the Wife to the Husband.

First; Because that Adam was first formed, then Eve; whereas other Creatures were created the Male and the Female together at the same time, 1 Tim. 2.13.

Secondly; Because the Woman was made to be a meet help and comfort for the Man, 1 Cor. 11.9.

Thirdly; Because the Woman was made or built out of the Man, 1 Cor. 11.8.

And as a sign of the subjection that was due from the Wife to the Husband, the Women in Eastern Countries us'd to wear a Vail on their Heads, and over their Faces, and in so doing, the Wife was said to have power on her Head, [Page 4]because she had a Vail, which did signifie that she was under the power of her Husband, and therefore she is commanded to fear her Husband, Ephes. 5.33. Which, saith Reverend Mr. Bains on that place, did meet with the lewdness of ma­ny Women, that think it their glory to know no awe; for pleasing, they stand on no such points; if they like not, they may leave, say they, let them get others do it better; to their Husbands moved, they will not stick to bid them go walk themselves: For fearing them they cannot; why should they make such bull-beggers of them, they are their Wives, not their Slaves? Should they be pointed at for Sheep all the Town over? These things (saith he) the Devil will round you in the ear with; But know, that you had better be God's Sheep, than the Devil's Shrews. — So he.

And Mr. John R [...]binson, in his Essayes, p. 126. saith, If the Husband pass the bounds of wisdom and kindness, yet must not she shake off the bond of submission; but must bear patiently the burthen which God hath laid upon the Daughters of Eve. The Woman in innocency was to be subject to the Man, but this should have been without all wrong on his part, or grief on hers; but she being first in trans­gression, hath brought her self under another subjecti­on; and, the same to her grievor, &c. in regard of her Husband, often unjust, but in regard of God, always most just; who hath ordained that her desire should be subject to her Husband, who by her seduction be­came [Page 5]subject to him. And albeit, many proud Women think it a matter of scorn and disgrace thus to humble themselves to God and their Hus­bands, and even glory in the contrary; yet they but glory in their shame, and in their Husbands shame also; and whilst they refuse a cross, chuse a sin of rebellion, both against God and their Hus­bands. Which shall not escape unpunished from God, though many fond Husbands nourish them therein, and by pampering and puffing them up by delicate Fare, costly Apparel, and Idleness, teach them to despise themselves and all others. So far my Author.

And let me here have leave to say, That the pride & peevishness of some Wives to their Hus­bands in our dayes, hath brought an ill report on Matrimony; and 'tis to be feared, hath frighted many from the remedy of Marriage, into the Disease of Adultery and Uncleanness. If Wives would, by their discretion, and by their meck and quiet Spirits, they might gain their Hus­bands love and affection, and they might do this kindness for those of their Sex that are un­married, they would raise and quicken the Mar­ket, so that Tradesmen that are well stock'd with Daughters, should not have cause to com­plain that their Daughters are the veriest Drug they have about them. Let the Wife make it her business to please her Husband in lawful things, and to the rest of her Endowments, of [Page 6]Parts, Parentage, Beauty, Education, Portion, add that which makes the rest, That they are not meer Cyphers in comparison and account; namely, Let her study to frame and compose her self what may be, viz. lawfully, to her Hus­band, in conforming her Manners to his. And let not the Husband delight to domineer over his Wife, or please himself in shewing alwayes his Authority, (which none but fools will do, saith Mr. J. Robinson). Nabal was, according to his Name, a very Fool, that was so churlish, that neither Wife nor any body else could speak to him. It was Abigails wisdom to bear patiently with him; as it was the wisdom of Socrates, that taught him to bear with his Zantippe, her daily home-brawlings, and thereby learned him to converse quietly and patiently with unreaso­nable, perverse, and peevish persons abroad.

The Husband should be able alway to guide, counsel, and direct the Wife, to go before her as a man of knowledge. His Wife he should use as a Comfort and Helper, not, (saith Sir Walter Rawleigh) as a Counsellor. When Adam in In­nocency, (he observes) and Solomon, the wisest of Temporal Princes, took counsel of their Wives, they both miscarried; no such wonder as lamenta­ble then that other men have been so allured to so many inconvenient and wicked practices by the per­swasions of their Wives, or other beloved Darlings. If Adam in the state of perfection, and Solomon [Page 7] the Son of David, God's chosen Servant, and him­self a man endowed with the greatest wisdom, did both of them disobey their Creator by the instigati­on, and for the love they bear to a Woman; It is not so wonderful, &c. that others have done the like. So he.

MArriage is honourable amongst all; our Saviour graced a Wedding with his pre­sence at Cana in Galilee, John 2. and there ma­nifested his Glory, by working that Miracle, of turning Water into Wine: By which those who enter into that state, might be put in mind, that their sorrows should be turned into joys. The Apostle St. Paul, Ephes. 5.32. makes Marriage a Mystery, and to set out the relation and love 'twixt Christ and his Church. And lastly, 'Tis thought Heaven is set out in Scripture by a Mar­riage-Feast, Mat. 22. and the Joys of Heaven represented by the joys of a Wedding, Rev. 19. The Nazarites that were whiter than Snow, by reason of their vow of Holiness, were not de­filed by their Marriage.

AS for the Qualifications of a Husband or Wife, I would advise all to look at true Religion in the first place, that those that marry, may be said to marry in the Lord. If I mi­stake not, this was that King James advised Prince Henry unto, v. B.Δ. 2 b.p. 72. &c. When Solomon married the Daughters of a strange god, then he fell to tolerate, if not to worship their Idols.

Next to Religion, I should commend a Suit­able Disposition, and a Conformity in Manners, [Page 30]that man and wife may delight in the society and converse one of another. And as I would not have a man or woman marry meerly o [...] chiefly by their eyes or fancies; so neither would I advise a marriage betwixt those that have an aversness or antipathy at first sight each to other. I would have a natural, free and un­enforced affection before marriage. When there is no other affection 'twixt parties than what is the fruit of Ratiocination, or Syllogisms, I would never perswade a marriage: Syllogistical love, such as is raised thus:

• Every man must love his wife:
• But this woman is my wife;
• Therefore I ought to love her.

And so on the part of the woman in reference to her husband.

• Every woman must love her own husband:
• This man is my husband;
• Therefore I must love him.

I say, this love goes so far about, that it is like to be long before it bring home affections. Nature is always at hand, and natural affecti­ons are up at first view; but Reason, Religion and Grace too, are sometimes to seek, or held off at distance by Passion. 'Tis true notwith­standing, [Page 31]that those that match meerly by the eye, many times meet with their match, an eye­sore, or a very thorn in their eye; and that beau­ty which was a Loadstone to attract their love, proves a snare to others, and a torment to them­selves, whilst it draws others eyes to the same object, and occasions jealousie. And if neither of these happen, as oftentimes both do, yet a disease, a sickness, or at least old age changes the beautiful [...], into a Chaos; and the most lovely countenance, into an object in which thou wilt say, I have no pleasure.

Next, let me advise you not to marry by the ear, not for honor, or great parentage, and no­ble Titles; for these without virtue and money, are of small value, an empty sound, a tinkling cymbal, yea, more discord than harmony for the most part in such matches, and hence ordinarily is the worst sort of marriage-musick. Impari­ty in birth and parentage makes odds, where all should be even; the one oft lords it in this case, and the other is but a servant, and a servant to to their fellow yoke-fellow, a servant, underling to all their high kindred, and often despised by their own servants. 'Tis in such families oft as 'tis in the Family of Hawks, the males are the underlings, and the females have the respect, the glory, the mastery.

I should further advise, not to marry by the hand or weight, meerly for money: To marry [Page 32]World or Mammon, this is next to marrying the Devil. 'Tis true, a wise Counsellor advised his Son to marry a wife with something, because nothing could be bought in the Market without money: Yet a mateh meerly for money, is not of Gods making, nor mans making, God never ap­pointed, nor ever approved of such matches; and I have seen a Picture of three marriages, one said to be made by God, another by Love, and a third by the Devil, and this third in the Picture was, when two old covetous wretches married together, that they might joyn house to house, land to land, and bag to bag. It was well observed by Mr. Herbert Palmer, in his lit­tle piece of making Religion ones business, that he never found in all the Scriptures, amongst all the ends of marriage, that God ordained mar­riage to make one rich. And if so, then if we will make that the chief end of marriage, which was never by our Maker and the Author of mar­riage, intended or designed any end at all, how much are we degenerated! how have we de­graded our selves, and sunk Gods Ordinance in­to earth, mire and dirt! If I mistake not, the Jews, and our Ancestors the Saxons, used to pur­chase their wives with gifts or dowries: Hence the custom with us, of laying Gold and Silver upon the Book, in the Solemnization of Matri­mony, and the Minister's giving it to the Bride; and perhaps also those words in the Office ap­pointed [Page 33]on the mans part, with a [...] [...]y [...] goods I thee endow; and the money given at that time, was an earnest of the rest. A good wife at any rate, is a good bargain. I had much ra­ther give money to buy a wife, then sell my self to purchase a rich one. Intolerabili nihil est quam faemina dives: he that marries for 100 s. & 1000 s. a 100, a 1000 to one but he is overwiv'd. As he that marries above himself for honour, is like a ship that hath too much sail for its ballast; so he that marries below himself for money, is like a ship over-laden, that hath too much burthen for its sails, and so is in danger of sinking. They that will be rich, fall into temptation, and a snare, and into many foolish and dangerous lusts, which drown men in perdition.

Well then, marry neither only or chiefly for beauty, by the eye; nor for honour, by the ear; nor for money or wealth, by the hand; but find out a meet helper, a suitable yoke­fellow, one whom you are sure you shall love, because you do love her, and that too for her Virtues and Qualifications, so decently lodged, that you cannot but be pleased to dwell with them.

To conclude this particular about the choice of a wife, and conversation with a wife, let me mind you what Wisdom it self adviseth, name­ly, To marry in the Lord, A woman that fear­eth God, of a meek and quiet spirit, in whose [Page 34]lips is the Law of kindness, in whom your heart can safely trust, a good housewife, that will look well to the ways of her houshold, and will not eat the bread of idleness, Prov. 31.

And that you may hope for such a blessing, the greatest earthly felicity; for your prepara­tion to marriage, take King James his advice to his Son Prince Henry, Keep your body clean and unpolluted, till you give it to your wife, to whom only it belongeth; for how can you justly crave to be joyned to a pure Virgin, if your body be pol­luted? why should the one half be clean, and the other defiled?

As for the time of your marriage, defer not to marry till your old age; for marriage was or­dained to quench the lust of youth. Marry not a woman unable, either through age, nature or ac­cident for procreation of children; neither mar­ry one of known evil conditions, or vicious edu­cation; for the woman is ordained to be a helper, and not a hinderer to man. Add hereunto as ac­cessions, as that wife Prince adviseth, if they may be had, Beauty, Riches, and Friendship by Alliance in your marriage; because Beauty en­creaseth your love to your wife, contenting you the better with her, without caring for others; and Riches and great Alliance, do both make her the abler to be a helper to you: Marry especi­ally to one of your own Religion, weigh and consider how you and your wife can be one [Page 35]flesh, and keep unity betwixt you, being mem­bers of two opposite Churches: Disagreement in Religion brings on with it, disagreement in manners. When you are married, saith the Royal Author, keep inviolably your promise made to God in your marriage; and for your behaviour to your wife, the Scripture can best give you counsel there­in: Treat her as your own flesh, command her as her Lord, cherish her as your helper, rule her as your pupil, and please her in all things reasonable, but teach her not to be curious in things that belongs her not. Ye are the head, she is the body; it is your Office to command, and hers to obey, but yet with such a sweet harmony, as she should be as ready to obey, as you to command; as willing to follow, as ye to go before: Your love being wholly knit unto her, and all her affections lovingly bent to follow your will. Three Rules he especially gives the Prince concerning his wife; Hold her at the Oeconomick Rule of the house, and yet all to be subject to your direction — Keep carefully good and chaste company about her; for women are the frailest Sex — And be never both angry at once, but when you see her in passion, you should with reason danton yours. B.Δ. 2 b. p. 82.

ONe great end of Marriage, is the peopling the world with mankind, especially plant­ing the Church with a holy Seed; because men and women, the individuals, dye, they seek law­fully and rationally, by marriage, the conservati­on of their kind; and because men cannot avoid death, and live ever here, they seek to live after death in their posterity; when they are dead in their own persons, they have a kind of Resur­rection in their children. Good and bad, Saints and sinners, and those of both Sexes too, are de­sirous of children; What wilt thou give me, saith Abraham, seeing I go childless? and this Eliezar of Damascus, a stranger, born in my house, is my heir; and, Give me children or else I dye, said Rachel.

Encrease and multiply, was one of Gods first blessings to his Creatures, after their first creati­on. Fruitfulness is generally reckoned a blessing, as Barrenness a curse in the holy Scripture. God our heavenly Father, that hath the key of the clouds, he keeps the key of the womb: he open­ed Sarahs womb, that she conceived a Son in her old [Page 37]age, and he fast shut up all the wombs in Abi­melech's Court. Hence it is, that children are an inheritance of the Lord, and that it is account­ed one of God's prerogatives, that he maketh the barren woman to keep house, and to be a joyful mother of children. And therefore be­cause the Patriarchs and Saints of the Lord were thus perswaded, they made their humble addresses and petitions at the Throne of Grace for children.

The Jews tell us, that Abraham and Sarah put up their joynt prayers to God for a Son; so did Hannab the Mother of Samuel, and we may probably guess, Zachary the Father of John the Baptist, whilst he ministred in the Temple and prayed; for we read, Luke 1.18. the Angel Gabriel said to him, Fear not, Zacharias, for thy prayer is heard, and thy wife Elizabeth, shall bear thee a son, and thou shalt call his name John: And truly, if God give a child in answer to prayers, 'tis to be hoped, that such child will answer the Parents prayers, and prove a bles­sing; and so did Isaac, Samuel and John the Bap­tist. I confess, that sometimes wicked men, who are described to be such, as call not upon God, have their fill of children, Psal. 17.14. and again, that they send forth their children like a flock; yea, and their children dance, Job 21.11. But yet I say, that children that are the fruit of prayers, are usually a double blessing; when as [Page 38]children bestowed on wicked Parents, who pray not for them, oft-times prove a dismal curse to them. In the one sort, God, as it were, lights in his servants Families a Candle, that their names be not put out in obscurity: In the other, he permits a fire to be kindled, and that to a kind of wild-fire, which soon consumes the whole house, with the timber thereof, and the stones thereof. 'Tis a blessing to be fruitful, and to have our name continued; on the contrary, 'tis a curse to be barren, and to have our names blotted out; and therefore God provided, that if the elder Brother dyed childless, the next Bro­ther was to raise up seed unto his Brother, and that was to be called after his Brothers name.

The causes of Barrenness, are oft-times:

1. Disobedience to Parents: 'Tis just and equal that they should dye childless, that do not honour their Parents, by whom, under God, they had their own Beings, Births and Lives.

2. Adultery and Ʋncleanness: Those who lie with other mens wives, are punished with Barrenness in their own wives.

3. Notorious Wickedness, and obstinate Rebelli­on against God: When a man is wicked over­much, well may God in wrath say, Write this man Childless, or, there shall no more of this mans seed be sown; and Job 18.19. He shall neither have son nor nephew among his people, not any remaining in his dwelling.

4. An inordinate desire of great things in this world, and of the continuance of our Name and Family, Psal. 49.

5. Persecuting of Gods Saints and Servants, or afflicting the poor and needy, Psal. 109.13. Let his posterity be cut off, let his name be wiped out. Certainly on the other side, Fruitfulness is a blessing; and as a good Wife is the best Earthly blessing without us, so are Children a special gift of God. See Psal. 113.9. & Psal. 127.3, 4. Children are an heritage of Jehovah; the fruit of the womb his reward, or wages. Hebr. As Barrenness is threatned and inflicted sometimes as a curse, so is Fruitfulness promised and be­stowed as a blessing; and yet God will be sought unto for this blessing. So did Abraham seek God for a Son, and obtained him: After Isaac had lived with his wife twenty years childless, they both (say the Jews) went to the Mount Mo­riah, and prayed there for a child, and God heard them.

I should not advise Polygamy, as a means to be fruitful, and to multiply our Progeny. One wife seems enough, and often too much for one man to govern; and 'tis observed, that some who have allowed or indulged themselves the liberty or licence of many Wives, have had the fewest Children. Solomon's Wives and Concu­bines made up a thousand, and yet we read but of three Children he had by them all.

2. Next to Prayer for Children, let me ad­vise a serious resolution to bring up your Chil­dren which God shall bestow on you, in the nurture and admonition of the Lord; resolve you and your Children will serve the Lord. Endeavour to be able to say to God at last, when you come to give account of these Talents, Of all thou hast given me, have I lost none: There is never a son or daughter of perdition amongst them, not a profane Esau, or a cursed Cham, nor a scoffing Ishmael, never a wandering Dinah, nor a mocking Michal; Lo, here am I, and the Chil­dren thou hast given me.

3. Love God's Worship, the place of his Wor­ship, and those that minister about holy things. It was to Hannah, praying at Shiloh; to Za­chary, ministring in the Temple; and to the Shunamitish woman, that so courteously enter­tained the Prophet Elijah; and to the Mariner and his Wife, that in Q Maries Reign hid that eminent Doctor and Confessor, Dr. Sands, af­ter Archbishop of York, to whom God gave Sons, after they had been childless a long time.

4. Be you your selves God's Children, his Sons and his Daughters, and he will give you Chil­dren, Sons and Daughters, or at least a name bet­ter then of Sons and Daughters, Isa. 58. & Psal. 128. Blessed are all they that fear God, and walk in his way—Thy wife shall be as the fruitful vine upon the walls of thine house—Thy children like [Page 41]Olive plants round about thy table—Yea, thou shalt see thy childrens children, and peace upon Israel. And this last Clause, brings to mind that saying of our Saviour, Luke 21.23. Wo unto them that are with child, and to them that give suck in those days. If you ask why? it fol­lows, For there shall be great distress in the land, namely, of Israel, and wrath upon this people. Else, save in case of war and desolation, or in case of trouble and persecution, as the times were like to be when St. Paul wrote to the Co­rinthians, 1 Cor. c. 7. Else, I say, Blessed are those wombs that bear, and the paps that give suck; the blessings of the breasts and of the womb, are the language of the Holy Tongue: And though in troublous times it is not good, i.e. expedient to touch a woman, yet in Serene times, and of Adam in Innocency, God said, it is not good for the man to be alone: And as we have a wo in Luke to those that are with child, so have we a Ve soli, a wo to him that is alone, in Ecclesiastes; distingue tempora & salves difficultatem, distin­guish the times when, or of which these things were spoken, and you will easily reconcile our Saviour's words and his Apostles, with those of Solomon's. The Hebrew word Ben, which sig­nifies a Son, comes from Banah, to build; and those Mothers who bring forth children, are said in Scripture to build up the house: So [...] prayed for Boaz his wife, [Page 42] Ruth, in this manner, The Lord make the wo­man that is come into thy house like Rachel, and like Leah, which two did build up the house of Israel; and I may say also, Which two did build up the Church of God. And if they built up God's Church on Earth, they made ready a peo­ple prepared for the Lord in Heaven: And as Jerusalem which is above, is said to be the Mo­ther of us all, so in another respect, Jerusalem that is below, I mean the Church on Earth, doth bring forth Sons and Daughters to God, and is the Mother of all the Children of men, that are indeed also the Children of God, and Members of the new Jerusalem in Heaven, or above.

CHildren, of themselves a blessing, prove a cross and a curse too, unto their Parents, if not cultivated or well managed by a good Education. Teach a Child the way he should go, and he'll not forsake it when he is old: ‘Quo semel est imbuta recens servabit [...]dorem Testa diu.’ Although ragged Colts prove often good horses, [Page 43]yet let the horses run till they are six or seven years old, wild and unbroken, it will be a hard matter to tame and manage them. 'Tis good that a man bear the yoke in his youth: Blaspheme not, saying, A young Saint will prove an old Devil; rather, a young Devil is like to prove an old Beelzebub. You may bend the Oak as well as the Osier, whilst it is young and tender: Now, now is the time, the season, the very nick, ar­ticle and joynt of time, when you may turn your Children which way you please. Oh then, now teach them, mind them to remember their Crea­tor in the days of their youth; bring them up in the nurture and admonition of the Lord. Let God have the first-fruits of their time, the flower of their age; dedicate them to God betimes, by engaging them to him and his service in the first place. God would have Children present­ed to him in the Temple at forty days old, our Saviour saith, Suffer little children to come unto me, and forbid them not, for of such is the king­dom of God: And our Lord was pleased with the Childrens Hosanna's, as he rode in Triumph to Jerusalem: Out of the mouth of babes and sucklings thou hast ordained or perfected praise, saith the Psalmist, Psal. 8.

God of old call'd to young Samuel again and again, whilst he was a Child, rather than to old Eli. We keep a day to Commemorate the young Infants of about two years old, that were [Page 44]murthered for the cause of Christ, as well as of St. Stephen the Protomartyr, and of St. Paul the aged, that were put to death for the name of the Lord Jesus. God of old seal'd the males amongst the Israelites at eight days old for his own, his peculiar Treasure. And if God will own your Children, why do not ye Parents pre­sent them to him? Children within the pale of the Church, God looks on as his Children: And if ye take his Children, your Sons and Daughters which you brought unto him, and offer them to Molock, to Baal, to Idols, or bring them forth, and up, to the Murtherer, or the Abaddon, the Destroyer of souls, by evil or careless Education, a thousand times better had it been they had never been born. How will Children in Hell curse their Parents, that by their evil counsel, or evil example, or want of good Precepts, and good Paterns, brought them to the place of torment? Oh therefore teach them, by instilling good Principles into them betimes, and guide them by your good exam­ple; always be able to say to them, Be ye fol­lowers of us, as we are of Christ; or, Walk so, as ye have us for an example; drop good and precious instructions daily into these narrow mouth'd Vessels, and when they are old, they will retain the good infused into them in their young days. Chasten them if they offend, if you love them, but in measure, that it may ap­pear [Page 45]you love them. Correct them, but not in anger, lest they be discouraged, lest you pro­voke them to wrath also; lest your bitterness to them, imbitter their spirits towards you. Teach them Affability, Courtesie, Gentleness, Humility, that as you love them, so may every body else; that so they may pass their time in peace and quietness, both at home, in their own bosoms, and abroad in the world.

Next after they are fitted by a competency of Learning, for some honest and suitable Calling, be sure you dispose of them accordingly, con­sidering what Bishop Sanderson hath left on Re­cord in one of his Sermons, that Idle Gentle­men, and idle Beggars, are the pests of the Com­monwealth: Let yours therefore be careful to maintain some honest Trades or Callings, that they be not unfruitful. These things are good and profitable unto men. Whereas the Grecians would have all Children to be bound to keep their Pa­rents when old, the Athenians put in this Ex­ception, Ʋnless their Parents had taught them no Trade whereby to get their living. Every man, saith Mr. Perkins, besides his general Calling as a Christian, must have some personal, particular Calling to walk in, either publick or private, ei­ther in the Church, or Commonwealth, or Family. Adam his personal Calling assigned him by God, was to dress and keep the Garden; and Christ [Page 46]the second Adam, lived with Joseph, saith Mr. Per­kins, in the calling of a Carpenter: And hereup­on it was, that the Jews said, Is not this the Carpenter, the son of Mary? Mark 6.3. Nor is it a calling to devote your Sons and Daughters to be Monks and Nuns in the Monasteries be­yond Seas. The ancient Church, saith the same Author, condemned all Monks for Thieves and Robbers, that besides the general duties of Prayer and Fasting, did not withal, employ themselves in some other Calling for their better mainte­nance,

Give your Children then Callings: If you ask what Callings? I answer, 1. according to their Natural inclinations: And secondly, ac­cording to their Natural parts and gifts. Those Children which excel in the gifts of the body, bring them up to Mechanical Arts; those Chil­dren which excel in gifts of the mind, bring them up to the Liberal Sciences, to Academical Learning, that they may be serviceable thereby in Church or Commonwealth. Athanasius that famous Bishop, was first put to Learning, because he was found by the Sea side, doing the part of a Minister amongst a company of little Chil­dren like himself, examining and baptizing them according to the solemn Order used in the Con­gregation. The Athenians, before they placed their Children in any Calling, did first bring them into a Publick Place, where Instruments of [Page 47]all sorts were laid; and they observ'd, with what kind of Instrument they took delight; to the like Art after did they apply them with good success. Christians may do well to follow the example of the Heathens in this so rational a practice: Choose Callings for your Children for which they are fitted, and to which they are inclined; they then will delight in ther Em­ployment, and their lives will be comfortable to them, their very Callings will be Recrea­tions.

After you have educated your Children, and trained them up in some honest Calling, pro­vide timely a suitable Match for them. 'Tis the Parents duty to dispose of their Children in Marriage; as appears plainly by these Scriptures, Deut. 7.3. Exod. 34.16. 1 Cor. 7.38. Where ob­serve, saith my Author, that the Commandment touching the Marriage of the Child, Mr. Perkins. is given to the Parent, not the Child. Thus Abraham took a wife for his son Isaac, and Isaac suffer'd himself to be disposed of by his Father; afterwards Isaac commanded his son Jacob to marry in the house of Laban, Gen. 28. and Jacob obeyed. I do not mean, that Parents may absolutely command their Child to marry this or that person, but to marry one thus or thus qualified, according to Rules of Scripture, and right Reason and Prudence, I say they may. Great is the power of Parents over their Chil­dren. [Page 48]In some Countrys, Parents have power of life and death over their Children. Amongst the Jews, the Parents might sell their Children, to free themselves out of debt; and in case Chil­dren were disobedient and incorrigible, their Pa­rents might bring them forth to be stoned to death by Gods Law.

And this brings us to treat of the next Head or Argument (viz.) The duty of Children towards their Parents, Honour thy Father and Mo­ther, saith the Law; Which is the first Command­ment with promise, saith the New Testament, Ephes. 5. Parents must have a double honour, namely, of Reverence, and of Maintenance; Thou shalt fear thy Mother and thy Father. And again, according to our Saviour's Interpretation, the Pharisees Corban non obstante, Children were bound to provide for their Parents, [...], to do or shew kindness to their Father and Mother; yea, those Christians who do not pro­vide for their own Parents, are worse than In­fidels. It is sad to think of what Luther ob­serves, That one Father will more willingly main­tain ten Sons, than ten Sons will maintain one Father: but where Children are unnatural to their Parents, God in just judgment suffers their Children to retaliate their unkindness unto themselves.

'Tis memorable, the Story of the Father, who being drawn by his Son to the threshold of the house, by the hair of the head, cryed to him, [Page 49] to draw him no further, for that he had drawn his Father no further; v. Robinsons Essays, p. 548. 'Tis observable, that Children are apt to slight their Mother most, and her especially in her old age. We are apt to break over the hedge where 'tis lowest; but the Law of God is a Mound and a Hedge in this Gap, charging us not to de­spise our Mother when she is old, Prov. 23.22. And there is a curse denounced against him, that set­teth light by father or mother, and all the people were to say, Amen to it, Deut. 27.16. How ter­rible is that place, Prov. 30.17. The eye that mock­eth at his father, and despiseth to obey his mother, the Ravens of the Valley shall pick it out, and the young Eagles shall eat it. And he that slights his Parents for the infirmities that accompany their old age, or for their wrinkles, or hoary hairs, is very unreasonable. The natural affection and kindness of the Stork to its Dam, may be a witness against such Children, such worse than unreasonable men and women. Aeneas is call'd Pius Aeneus by the Poet; and why? because he carried his Father Anchises upon his back, at the destruction of Troy. We must do what we can to hide our Parents nakedness: Remember Chams, or his son Canaans curse, who some say, first saw his Grandfather Noah, and went and told his Father, and is therefore cursed: We must think reverently of them, we must shew out­ward reverence to them, bow down to them, or [Page 50]rise up before them; we must speak awfully to them, and respectively of them: We must obey their just and lawful commands; if they say, Go, we must go; if, Come, we must come; if, Do this, we must do it. We must provide neces­saries for them if they want, afford them [...], we must thus honour or reward them for their kindness to us. The Jews have a saying, What honour is to be given to Parents? the answer is, To give them meat and drink, and to cloath them and cover them. Let's endeavour to procure their hearty prayers for blessings to God upon us and ours, and dread the thoughts of their ill Wishes, Curses or Imprecations.

'Tis memorable what St. Austin in his Civ. Dei, b. 22. cap. 8. relates, namely, Often Children, that being cursed by their Mother, went about quaking and trembling from one place to another like Vagabonds. And I have been very credibly told of a Son, that stamping on his Mothers grave, for madness because she had given him no more, thereby broke his leg. Though a man must love his Wife more than his Mother, yet he must reverence his Mother, rather than his Wife. We should honour our Parents living and dead, with Civil honour and respect; so Joseph fell on Jacob his Father, and kissed him when dead. Give them decent burial; so Ja­cob and Esau too, buried their Father Ifaac; and weep, or mourn, over them. David speaking of great [Page 51]sadness, saith, he bowed down heavily, as one th [...] mourned for his mother, Psal. 35.14. and Joseph when he buried his Father, it was with a great and solemn mourning, and of a long continu­ance, Gen. 50.10. If the widows made great la­mentation for the death of Dorcas, and shewed the Coats that she had made for them, Acts 9.39. how much more should Children weep and mourn for their deceased Parents, from whom under God they had their Beings, their Lives, Education, Food and Cloathing, and Portion and all.

IF God have given you Children, and taken them away again, yet be not like Rachel, weeping for her children, because they are not; Rather with Job say, The Lord hath given, and the Lord hath taken away, blessed be the name of the Lord, Job 1.21. Better, I think, to have had Children, though we see them go before us to their grave, than to have been always Child­less; for hereby God hath taken away the re­proach and curse of Barrenness, and hereby you have helped to fill Heaven, and your Children [Page 52]are not lost, but gone, or sent thither before you. Job who had all his other goods doubled, had not a double number of Children; and this reason some give of it, because these were not lost, Job should meet with them again in Heaven. If your Children dye in the womb, and never see the Sun, the Sun in the visible Heavens, yet may they for ever see the Sun of Righteousness in the highest Heavens; and surely 'tis a plea­sant thing always to behold this Sun, in the vi­sion and fruition of whom consists so much of our happiness. What though your children dye in the womb, or go out of the world presently after they are born into it, yet may they see God, notwithstanding the opinion of the Fa­ther, that Duras Infantum Pater; and not with­standing the hard-heartedness of the pretended Mother-Church of Rome, in this a Step-Mother, rather than a true Mother to her Children. The Hebrew Children that dyed before the eighth day; and consequently before they were circum­cised, and those Bethlemitish Children that were baptized in their own blood; and that child that being born, was also baptized and buried in the flames, being thrown into the fire again, the arms of that Midwife that delivered the Mar­tyred Mother of a live child, doubtless were not excluded Heaven for want of a Sacrament, which they did in no wise neglect or contemn, but could not have; these being comprehended in [Page 53]the Covenant made and sealed to, and with their Parents had a right and title to the heaven­ly inheritance, were of with God, and co-heirs with Christ.

Again consider, That God may have taken away your Children from the evil to come on the place where they lived. When Storms, Tem­pests and Troubles are abroad, you Parents call home your Children, and so doth God. God saith by his Providence in these cases to his Children, though your Children also, Come my Children, enter into your Chambers, and shut the door, till all these calamities be overpast. 'Tis a common saying, Quem diligit Dous moritur Ju­venis, he whom God loves, dyes young; and sometime, and in some cases, God calls the sins of Parents to remembrance, and slays their Children. If so it be, this is a Lamentation, and ought to be for a lamentation: But upon your Repentance, God may give other Children in room of them he hath taken from you, or himself be better than ten Sons, than all Sons and Daughters could be unto you. Learn of Aaron the Priest of the Lord, who when he had lost Nadab and Abihu, both in one day, and after an extraordinary manner, did not say, If it be so, why is it thus? but saith the Text, And Aaron held his peace, Levit. 10.3. he was dumb, and opened not his mouth, because God had done it. Jonah was angry because God had [Page 54]smitten and withered the Goard, that came up in a night, and perished in a night, but Aaron acquiesced in Gods handy-work, though he slew his two Sons by fire in an extraordinary manner, in all this Aaron sinned not, nor charged God foolishly. Behold, he taketh away, who can hinder him? Who will say unto him, what dost thou? If thou art either barren, or by the death of thy child childless, thou mayest do well to educate others Children, you may adopt some Kinsman, or Friend, or Neighbours Child, and cultivate them, and sow the seeds of Virtue and Learn­ing in them, and make such your heirs; else make the Church, or Poor your heirs, and do not prodigally therefore waste your Estates, or live idly and wastefully.

Again, If you have no Child, be humbled un­der the want of this blessing, for Children are so, and then encrease and abound more in your Devotions towards God; the less you are to care for the things of the world, the more reason you have, and the more care you should have, how to serve and please God, 1 Cor. 7.

IF Parents have Children, and they prove crosses to them, how great is that cross! If blessings, prove curses; if comforts, turn to sor­rows; and your light be darkned in the Heavens thereof, how great is that darkness! And yet this may be the case of a good man or woman; for Parents are Parents, as men and women, and not as Christians; and Grace and Virtue is not Ex traducè, is not propagated. A righteous Noah, had a prophane Cham; a good David, a rebellious Son Absolom. Of some Children we may say, Blessed is the womb that bare them, and the paps that gave them suck! of others, It had been good for them, and for their Parents too, if such children had never been born: 'Tis more to­lerable to have none, than wicked Children. It is the Speech and Protestation of King James in his Preface to his Book to the Prince, I protest before that great God, I had rather not be a Fa­ther, and Childless, than be a Father of wicked Children. I charge you (saith he) as ever you think to deserve my fatherly blessing, to follow and put in practise, so far as lieth in you, the Precepts [Page 56]hereafter following: And if ye follow the contrary course, I take the great God to record, that this Book shall one day be a witness betwixt me and you, and shall procure to be ratified in Heaven, the Curse that in that case here I give unto you. And I find in the life of Reverend Mr. Robert Bolton, that he had told his Children so much, both in the time of his sickness, and before, he verily believed that none of them durst think to meet him at that great Tribunal, in an unre­generate estate. I confess; 'tis a sad Meditation for a Parent to think of the life or death of a wicked Child. David, that was presently com­forted for the death of the young Child he had by Bathsheba, refused to be comforted for the death of Absolom, sorely lamenting, Oh Abso­som, my Son, my Son, I would to God I had dyed for thee, Oh Absolom, my Son, my Son, 2 Sam. 18.33. It is thought it was for the manner of his death, the ill condition he dyed in, and for his Soul, that he pierced his heart so deeply, and that he wept so sorely. Let good Parents that have bad Children, give them good counsel, and good example, and pray daily with all earnestness, for the return of their Prodigals. St. Austins Mother Monica, her Prayers for her Son, when a Manichee, were heard at last, and he was con­verted, and became one of the greatest and best Lights of the Church since the Apostles times. 'Tis thought one cause why Hezekiah wept so [Page 57]sore at the tidings of death was, because he was then Childless; but could the Prophet have told him, that he should have such a Son as Manasseth, that should commit such abominations, how needs must such tidings have made his ears to tingle, and pierce his heart thorough with many sorrows. Yet this may somewhat alleviate Pa­rents grief that have bad Children, Manasseth when he was in Chains, sought the Lord, and was found of him at the last, and that out of his loyns, by his Son Amon, came the Mirror of Kings, King Josiah. And if thou hast matter of sorrow from thy own immediate Child, thou mayest have abundant cause of rejoycing from thy Grandchild; thy Childrens Children may praise the Lord, and this may be part of thy happiness, thus to see thy Childrens Children, and peace upon Israel. And sith so it is, that sometimes godly Parents have ungodly Chil­dren, this should moderate your desire of Chil­dren, and your grief for the want of them. Let none be so impatient or passionate as Rachel, saying to God, or their own Husbands, Give me Children, or else I dye. It may further be considered, that if yet good Parents have divers towardly Children, yet if they have one pro­phane person, as Esau, it may break your hearts more than all the rest can comfort you. Like as in the Natural body, there is more grief by the aking of some one part, though but a tooth, than [Page 58]ease and comfort in all the rest that are found and well. And this consideration, though it ought not to make us judge Children no bles­sings, or not the gift of God, or to be lightly esteemed; yet may it put us upon being as earn­est, for to have our Children to be born again, as to be born at first; to have them Gods Chil­dren by Grace, as ours by nature; and to have his Image and likeness on their Souls, as ours on their bodies. When the Parents are in Co­venant with God, and endeavour their utmost to educate their Children in the fear of God, it usually follows, that their labour is not in vain in the Lord. The Israelites, the holy Scriptures tell us, their Sons and their Daughters, which they had born unto God, they sacrified unto Devils, Psal. 106. 37. Which in a Spiritual sense we do, saith one, if we either neglect instructing them, or praying to God for them; or walking exemplari­ly as we ought before them. or correcting them duly, or any such means as by which the seeds of Grace may grow and prosper in them, Rob. Ess. p. 532, 533.

ALL sin is accounted filthiness and un­cleanness, and compared to the filthiest things, Scum, Mire, Vomit; but this sin is sig­nanter, call'd the fin of Uncleanness; 'tis cal­ed also Abomination, Ezek. 22.11. and Neigh­ing, Jer. 5.8. These sins are usually secret sins, and therefore most frequently committed, plea­sing sins; stollen waters are sweet, and bread eaten in secret: and men are prone to forget these sins: the Whore wipes her mouth, and thinks all well. 'Tis observed, that the Sacrifice which was offer'd for the woman suspected of Adultery, was call'd an Offering of Memorial, because it was not offer'd to put away sin, but to bring it to mind, or to remembrance, if it was commit­ted. Adultery by God's Law, was punished with death, either, as the Rabbins say, by strang­ling, or they were to be thrust thorough with a Javelin, as Phineas executed Zimry or Cosby; or they were to be stoned with stones, if the Dam­sel that was defiled was betrothed; see Deut. 22.23, 24. or else by burning with fire, if she that played the Whore was a Priests Daughter, and [Page 60]in her Fathers house, Lev. 21.19. One expounds this, of hot Lead poured into her mouth: This punishment was called, Combustio animae; this punishment, they say, was used in after-times in imitation too of Gods punishing with Light­ning, whereby the outward parts are not hurt, and the inward burnt up, as in the example of Nadab and Abihu.

If any wonder at what was said before, (viz.) that the punishment of her that was betrothed, in case she was defiled or vitiated, that it was greater by God's Law, than of her that was married; Grotius gives this Reason, Because she was not in her husbands custody; as stealing a sheep out of the field, was punished more severely, than stealing a sheep out of the fold. Another Author gives these Reasons, 1. Because she gave away her Virginity, which her husband most esteemed. 2. She brake her promise in so doing, Deut. 22.23. 3. She wrought folly in her Fathers house, Deut. 22.19. 4. She was not only dishonest to her husband in her first love, but dishonoured also her first-born (whose honour and priviledge amongst the Jews was very great) and you must not say her punishment should be less, because she was not another mans wife, for she is called a neighbours wife, Deut. 22.24. and therefore she is said, v. 22. to be married to an husband, as if the party were her husband before: If so, we know God accounts Idolatry commited by his people Advltery, although [Page 61]the Church is but, as it were, espoused and be­trothed to him here, and the wedding and wedding-supper to be in Heaven.

Amongst the Nations, in some Countrys, Adul­tery was punished by the loss of both eyes; in some by death. Amongst the Egyptians, by cut­ting off the nose, if he vitiated a free woman. In some Country, illi virilia execantur: The which also, saith Alexander ab Alexandro, was used amongst the Romans. The same Author, Gen. D. l. 4. c. 1. tells us, The Partbians punish no crime more grievously; that Opilius Macrinus condemned such to be burnt with fire; and that amongst the Arabians and other Nations, Adultery was always punished capitally: That divers Phi­losophers have accounted Adultery a greater crime than Perjury. In the Christian Church of old, those that admitted such to Communion who had fallen after Baptism, excepted those who were guilty of Adultery, Murther and Idolatry. Many and great are the threats against such sin­ners in the holy Scripture; disgrace and disho­nour is threatned to their name, wasting and consumption to their bodies and estates, a dart shall strike through their liver: Lust is lodged in the Liver, and there it is especially punished; Whoremongers and Adulterers, especially, God will judge, Hebr. 13.4. Neither Fornicators, nor Idolaters, &c. shall inherit the Kingdom of God, 1 Cor. 6.9.

Dr. Heylin our Historiographer, writing of them any divisions in Hungary, into Romanists, Lutherans, Calvinists, Yet, saith he, all these dif­ferent parties do agree in this, to punish Adultery and Fornication with no less a punishment than death; the Father forcing his Daughter, the Hus­band his wife, and the Brother his Sister to the place of Execution, H. G. p. 542. King James in his Advice to the Prince, with much zeal dehorts him from this sin of Uncleanness, p. 74. &c. Hear God (saith this English Solomon, this King-Preacher) commanding by the mouth of St. Paul, to abstain from Fornication, declaring that the For­nicator shall not inherit the Kingdom of Heaven; and by the mouth of St. John, reckoning out Forni­cation amongst other grievous sins, that debars the Committers, amongst Dogs and Swine, from entry into that spiritual and heavenly Jerusalem. And because, saith he, sibbest examples touches us near­est, consider the difference of success that God grant­ed in the Marriages of the King my Grandfather, and me your own Father; the reward of his in­continency (proceeding from his evil Education) being the sudden death, at one time, of two plea­sant young Princes, and a Daughter only born to succeed him, whom he had never the hap so much as once to see or bless before his death; leaving a dou­ble curse behind him to the Land, both a Woman of Sex, and a new born Babe of age to Reign over them. And as for the blessing God hath bestowed [Page 63]on me, in granting me both a greater Continency, and the fruits following thereupon, you self and sib folks to you, are (praise be God) sufficient witnesses. And page 81. Have the King my Grand­fathers example before your eyes, who by his Adul­tery, bred the wreck of his lawful Daughter and Heir, in begetting that Bastard, who unnaturally rebelled, and procured the ruine of his own Sove­reign and Sister. And this brings to mind, that excellent Captain-General Gideon, who had by his Wives Threescore and ten Sons, and by his Concubine but one, viz. Abimelech, and he slew all these Threescore and ten Sons, except Joash, who escaped his hands, Judg. chap. 8 & 9. 'Tis a sin to beget a Bastard, and a shame to be born one. 'Tis noted on Job 31. 10. where Job saith, Let my wife grind unto another man, and let others bow down upon her; the Septuagint render the last words, Let my children be abased. Jeptha, though a valiant, and a gallant, and good man, yet is recorded the base Son of Gilead, Judg. 11.1. 'Tis a reproach to be thus born, in Scripture-Heraldry; notwithstanding I have been told, that William the Conquerer, King of England, did use to stile himself, Gulielmus Bastardus Rex Angliae, &c. God forbad a Bastard to enter into the Congregation of the Lord, to bear any Of­fice, until the tenth Generation, Deut. 23.3. Yet that such persons may not be discouraged, let them know we have one example, though [Page 64]but one, and that is the example of Jeptha, a Judge, and a valiant man, and one eminent for his Faith, Hebr. 11.32. ranked amongst David, Samuel and the Prophets. 'Tis a blot to be base born, but this may be taken away, in a great measure, by good Education. And then, saith one, this should be no more a blot unto them, than if they wanted a hand or a leg; and as we blame not the stollen seed, when it is sowen and groweth up, but those who stole the seed, so we should not blame the Child begotten out of Marriage (if he follow not his Fathers footsteps) but only his Fa­ther who begat him. There hath been, saith he, profitable men in the Church, who have been basely born, as Lumbard, Gratian, and Petrus Comestor, the Sons of one Whore, and Darius Nothus among the Persian Kings, and Hercules, Weem 3 Vol. p. 145. I know the Jews stood upon their Pan­tofles, and took it in great dudgion, that our Saviour should tell them, they did not act like the Children of Abraham; they retort present­ly, John 8.1. We are not born of fornication. Yet I should disswade from casting such an ones birth into his dish, or into his teeth, because never in his power to help it: And I should exhort such who are so base born, to endeavour to be born again, and then they are truly Noble and Ho­norable, the Sons of God, and Co-heirs with Jeptha the Saint of the Lord.

OF old they were accounted Bigamists, or Digamists, who had two Wives, not on­ly at one and the same time, but successively one after another; and such were enjoyned Penance by the Council of Laodicea, and Neo-Caesarea; and by the latter Council, a Presbyter was for­bidden to be present at the Wedding-feast, lest he should seem to consent to such Marriage; and Bigamists were not received to the Commu­nion without prayer and fasting, and repentance first enjoyned and exercised: And by the ancient Canons, Bigamists were not to be admitted to holy Orders, Concil. Andegavense, Can. 11. Concil. Romanum, an. 467. Can. 2. Concil. Arelatense, 3. Decr. 2. Concil. Hispalense 2. Cap. 4. and the same is forbidden in the Apostolical Canons, Can. 17. And by the same Canons, such as otherwise might be capable of being Bishops, Presbyters and Deacons, are made incapable of being such, if they married a Widow, or a Whore, or one [Page 66]that was cast out by her own Husband, aut ali­quam de iis quae publicis spectaculis mancipantur, Can. 18. or one that was a notorious frequenter of the Spectacles in that time.

By the Law of God, the High Priest was not to marry a Widow, or a divorced Woman, or prophane, or an Harlot; But he shall take, saith the holy Text, a Virgin of his own people to wife, Lev. 21.14. Another Priest was forbidden to take a Wife that was a Whore, or prophane, or any woman put away from her husband, Lev. 21.7. but was not forbidden to marry a Widow: If the woman was not a Daughter of Israel, or had married to one that it was not lawful for her to marry, or had beeen defiled by constraint or unwillingly, or had been suspected of Whore­dom by her Husband, though she had not been put to drink the water of Jealousie, yet by the Law (according to Matrimony) the Priest might not lawfully marry with her. The Priests of the old Law were not forbidden (except only the High Priest, a special type of Christ) to marry a Widow. The High Priest was not to marry a Widow, but a Virgin; ('tis thought) that so he might have her first love; and 2. lest she should prove with child, and bring in a strange seed into the Priesthood, provided against, Lev. 21.15. Again, he must not marry a divorced woman, because it was conjectured she was put away for some miscarriage or misdemeanor. [Page 67]3. He must not marry one defiled, either volun­tarily or violently, such a blot must not lie on his wife, lest it stain his Function. The Law allows the High Priest to marry, but a Virgin; Because, saith one, she may be more easily guided and ruled, and won to frame her self to duty and obedience. And in Ezek. 44.22. he was allowed to marry the Widow of a Priest; for it may be presumed, that such an one hath been already trained to Modesty, to Sobriety, to a chaste and sweet Be­haviour, beseeming the wife of a Priest. Now although the Ministers of the New Testament are not prohibited, but expresly allowed to marry; yet must their wives be grave, not slan­derers, sober, faithful in all things, and he that is in holy Orders, must be sure to order and rule his own house well, having his children in subjection with all gravity, 1 Tim. 3.4. & 11. This care being had, they being married, saith my Author, shall be as holy and honorable in their Function, as the Priests of the Old Testament, who being married, were said to have the Crown of God upon their heads, and to offer the bread of God, and to be after a special manner holy. And where 'tis said, 1 Tim. 3.2. & Tit. 1.16. that a Bishop must be the husband of one wife, &c. the meaning must be, that he must not be mar­ried to two wives at once, according to the cu­stom of the Jews, nor have a Concubine, toge­ther with a lawful wife, accordng to the pra­ctice [Page 68]of the Gentiles; or he might not marry a second woman, after he had put away the first, without any lawful cause: But it seems to be very improbable, that the Apostle should seclude from the Calling of a Bishop or Presbyter, one that married a second wife, after the death of his former. Observe, it is not said, that a Bishop must be such a one as hath been the husband of one wife in time past; but he useth the present time, both in Timothy and Titus. The High Priest himself under the Law, might have a wife af­ter his first wife, if she was dead; if he mar­ried a maid, which was a figure of Christs Spouse, the Church, which was to be presented holy, and as a chaste Virgin to Christ: By the same reason that they may drive Ministers from their wives, they may also deprive them of all use of wine; and they may deprive Ministers of all use of meat, and command them to fast always, that they may be fit to pray always, as well as alway to abstain from their wives: We never read, that the Levites that taught in the Synagogues (into the place of which our Churches succeed) were barred from the company of their wives. And consider, it may be as necessary to marry the second time, as the first, and sometime, and in some cases, perhaps more necessary [says Dr. Ha­mond.] The wife may dye presently after Mar­riage, and without Children, and the second Marriage in that case tending as much to the [Page 69]ends of Matrimony (Comfort of life, Propagati­on, remedy of Lust) as the former can be sup­posed to do; it would then be strange to debar a Bishop or Presbyter in such a condition. Chry­sostome and Theodoret, with divers others, plainly and clearly teach this place to be understood as we do, that a Bishop should not have two wives at once. Erasmus upon the place, disliked the then practice of the Church of Rome, in for­bidding Marriage to Bishops and Priests: Ad­mittitur, saith he, incestus, admittitur homicida, admittitur pirata, admittitur Sodomita, sacrile­gus parricida, deni (que) quis non? solus digamus ex­cluditur ab hoc honore, qui solus nihil admisit: And further, considering the times, and the ill consequence of the single life amongst their Clergy and Monks, he inclines to think they had better much to allow Matrimony to these per­sons: Nunc caelibes habet Mundus quamplurimos, castos perpaucos. Grotius saith, I confess, that amongst all Nations, second Marriages were less honoured, and amongst some, these were re­strained by punishments. And that Tertullian is fierce against second Marriages, condemning them as unlawful, and interprets this of the Apo­stle, against a Bishops being twice married. Not­withstanding which Authorities, let the Scripture and right Reason be heard, and what hath been premised on this Argument considered, and you will have good ground and cause, not to call [Page 70]good, evil; I meann not to condem second Mar­riages, whether in Lay-men or Clergy. And if a Bishop may, without sin, marry a second wife, after he has buried his former, surely then he may lawfully marry at first: If he cannot contain, let him marry, he sinneth not, only let him marry in the Lord, an honest, grave, sober person, that may adorn, and not blemish his ho­ly Function.

The Romanists say, there are three special Crowns reserved in Heaven; one for Martyrs, a second for Virgins, and a third for Doctors: The Virgins, overcome the flesh; the Martyrs, overcome the World; and the Doctors, overcome the Devil. They have no such Crown for married persons; but although they have none for them, God hath laid up for them a Crown of Righteousness, even the like Crown of Righteousness for every one that loves the appearing of Christ, the Judge of quick and dead, as that Virgin Apostle, as most say, the Doctor of the Gentiles, and eminent Martyr, St. Paul, 2 Tim. 4.7, 8. Virgi­nity, saith one, is not a Virtue in it self, and no more acceptable to God than Marriage is; and this he proves, Because all Virtues by Repentance may be restored: But Virginity cannot be restored, and therefore it is not a Virtue. Again, Because all Virtues in time and place are commanded: But Virginity is left free, and only Paul gives his ad­vice to it, 1 Cor. 7. therefore it is not a Virtue. [Page 71]The same Author saith, That Virginity is not good in it self, but good for another end; when a man having the gift of Continency, lives a single life, that he may be more fit or free to serve God. The Papists glossing on the Parable of the Sower, say, That Virginity bringeth forth an hundred-fold; Widowhood, seventy fold; and Marriage, but thirty-fold.

Great is the difference 'twixt the Ancient Church of God amongst the Jews, and the pre­sent Church of Rome in this matter; there in Psalm 78.63. The Virgins were not given in Mar­riage; or, were not praised, so the Hebrew sig­nifies: But in this Church, the Virgins which are not married are most praised. Celibacy is made here a state of Perfection, or Supereroga­tion and Meritorious; but if but one half be true which we find in our Chronicles, it had been happy for our Votaries, very many of them at least, that they had never known their Cells and Cloysters; they might have gone as near a way to Heaven out of the World, as out of their Monasteries. Bale, in his Book of the Acts of the Roman Bishops, saith. That when the Kings Vi­sitors in England, in the year, 1538. visited the Abbies, they found in some of their Styes, rather than Religious Houses, five, in some ten, in some twenty Sodomites and Adulterers; of which some kept five, some seven, some twenty Harlots. And a later Historian tells us, That Barkley Nuns were [Page 72]all with child at once, and how Sir Henry Colt caused a Buckstal to be set in the narrowest place of the Marsh, from Cheshnut Nunnery to Wal­tham Abby, and therein took the Monks of Wal­tham as they passed homewards in the night; and the next morning he brought and presented them to the King, namely, to King Hen. 8. who had often seen sweeter, but never fatter Venison; D.F.H. 6 b. p. 317. And 'tis reported that Dr. Smith, who disputed at Oxford against Peter Martyr, and who had written a Book for the Celibacy of Priests, was taken himself at Oxford in the man­ner, or in the very act. This is enough to prove, That 'tis much easier to make an Eloquent Speech, or write a Learned Book in Commen­dation of Single-life, and of Chastity in that condition, than to live so. If you Object the practice and praise of the Monks of Antient times: I answer, That the Monks of old times, and our present Votaries of the Church of Rome, are very different.

1. They lived single, without any Vow of Continency, these are Votaries.

2. They had Callings, and got their bread in the sweat of their brows; these live idle most of them, and like Drones, consume the honey which others have gathered.

3. They did not look upon that condition, as a state of greater perfection, and in it self Me­ritorious; these do.

4. Some of them, as I take it, had wives; and these not, but esteem it more lawful to have a Concubine than a Wife.

Those Monks were none of the Popes licen­sing or founding; these are. We read of 12000 Monks of Bangor, that were destroyed by the King of Northumberland, for not stooping to Austin the Monk, upon the instigation as (History tells us) of Austin. The Original of Monkery, or the Pattern or Platform of it, is not taken in the Mount; viz. in or from the holy Scriptures; al­though perhaps, some would pretend that they imitate Jeptha's Daughter, or Elijab, and Eli­zeus, or the Nazarites, or St. John Baptist, or the Children of Jonadab the Son of Rechab. But who hath required these things at their hands, now under the Gospel, to tread in the steps of those before-mentioned? and yet Jeptha's Daugh­ter bewailed her Virginity, and so 'tis thought did yearly the Daughters of Israel lament on her account, or for her sake. As for our Nazarites, they might marry, and some were married, as Sampson and Samuel. Again, the Monks and Anchorites of old, were necessitated to that Soli­tary life; these live so out of choice, volunta­rily obliging themselves to this course. Elijah, Elisha, and John the Baptist, were all extraor­dinary Persons and Prophets, had extraordina­ry Calls, and are not to be imitated by ordi­nary Christians. It is noted by Mr. Perkins, [Page 74]that Jerome saith, in the life of Hilarion, that there was no Monk in Syria, See his Do­ctrine of the Problem. be­fore Hilarion, who was the Foun­der of that Profession in that Pro­vince. And Chrysostome in the 25 Hom. ad Hebraeos, saith, That in Pauls time there was no sign nor step of any Monk. Monastical Profession began in the Church about 260 years after our Redemption, by Paul a Thebane; or rather, saith my Author, about the three hundredth year by Antony. These Monks, or Hermites, lived alone in Fields or Desarts.

Basil, 'tis said, first invented Monasteries, and was head of the Monks.

Basil, himself, Ep. 65. saith, That the Neo-Caesa­rians objected the Novelty of Monastical life against him. Besides, these Monks of old were Lay­men, and not Clergy-men; and Athanasius in his Epistle to Dracontius, saith, That he knew many, both Monks and Bishops that were married, and had Children. There were no Nuns, saith Mr. Perkins, until about two hundred years after Christ, and these lived continent and freely, pri­vately, out of Monasteries. In Rome, Marcella was one of the Nuns, about the year 400. vid. Hieron. in Epitap. Marcellae. St. Austine doth not approve of the idle lives of Monks. The Solitary life, saith one, is inferior to the common and ordinary life, because it is full of importunate co­gitations, &c. neither do we speak this out of bare [Page 75]conjecture, but have learned it of those who have tried it, to be true. Ivo Carnotensis. Ep 258.

I shall now give some Answer to the Objecti­ons against the married lives of the Clergy, or of men in holy Orders, taken from the Scriptures. The Scriptures that have been, are, or may most seemingly be alledged to the contrary are these, Those that are in the flesh cannot please God, Rom. 8.8. Be ye holy, for I am holy, 1 Pet. 1.16. De­fraud not one another, except it be by consent, for a season, that ye may give your selves to prayer and fasting, 1 Cor. 7.5. 'Tis good for a man not to touch a woman, 1 Cor. 7.1. He that is unmar­ried, careth how to please the Lord; but he that is married, careth how to please his wife, 1 Cor. 7.33. No man that is chosen to be a Souldier, intangleth himself with the affairs of this life, 2 Tim. 2.4. Whosoever hath left Father, or Mother, or Wife, or House, or Land, for my sake, or the Gospels, shall receive a hundred-fold in this life, Mat. 19.29. There are that make themselves Eunuchs for the Kingdom of Heaven; he that can receive it, let him receive it, Mat. 19.12. Younger widows re­ject; for when they wax wanton against Christ, they will marry, having damnation, because they have forsaken their first faith, 1 Tim. 5.11, 12. The unmarried woman careth for the things of the Lord, that she may be holy both in body and spirit; but she that is married, careth for the things of this world, how she may please her husband, 1 Cor. [Page 76]7.34. To these Objections from Scripture, I answer in general;

1. That the Scripture directly and plainly al­lows Marriage to Ministers, equally as to any sort of men, 1. Saying, That Marriage is honor­able among all men (and therefore amongst Clergy-men) and the bed undefiled, Hebr. 13.4.2. And again, Let every man have his own wife, 1 Cor. 7.2. and if every man, then a Priest, or Presbyter may lawfully have a wife. 3. A Bi­shop must be the husband of one wife; and one that hath his children in subjection, with all gravity, 1 Tim. 3.4.

2. I say, That the High Priest and Priests of the old Law, had liberty to marry; that Aaron the Saint of the Lord was married, and had Children; Nadab and Abihu, &c. that divers of the Apostles of our Lord and Saviour were actu­ally married; that St. Peter, whose Successor the Pope, or Bishop of Rome, claims to be, was married, our Saviour healing S. Peters wives Mother of a Feaver, Mat. 8.14, 15. Nor doth it any where appear, that they did wholly forsake society with their Wives, any more than their Houses, Trades, Ships, to which they certainly sometime after, at least for a time, returned.

3. That Scotus, Aquinas, Bellarmine, Fran­ciscus à Sancta Clara, divers in the Council of Trent, and of the Romish Church, hold, that [Page 77]the Celibacy, or single life of Priests, is not de Jure Divino; and therefore cannot be proved out of Scripture, either by Precept, Institution, or Example.

To the particular Scriptures, besides what hath been said before to several of them, I an­swer, That Rom. 8.8. Those that are in the flesh, cannot please God; must not be interpreted or un­derstood, those that are in Wedlock cannot please God; because we know, that many Patriarchs, Prophets, Apostles, were married, and yet pleased God; and Enoch walked with God, and God took him up to Heaven, that he saw not death; for before he was translated, he had this Testimo­ny, that he pleased God, Heb. 11.5. But by those that are in the flesh, must be meant, either those that adhere to the old Law, and slight the Go­spel; or else those that are in a state of Nature, in an unregenerate estate, never as yet renewed in the Spirit of their minds, but still remain car­nally minded, and drowned in the corruptions and sinful lusts of the flesh. To that of Peter, Be ye holy, for I am holy; it concerns all Chri­stians, and if Marriage and Holiness could not consist together, neither Lay-men nor Clergy­men should marry; and again, Moses and Aaron, and God's people of old, to whom these words were spoken, were married persons, and not commanded thereby to put away their wives. To the third, 1 Cor. 7.5. Defraud not one another, [Page 78]&c. that it is said to all indifferently Lay-men, as well as Clergy-men, and that it forbids to sepa­rate the man from the society of the woman, or his wife, wholly and perpetually, but only for a time, and that too, that they might give them­selves to fasting and prayer, and so come toge­ther again; and this too, was to be done by the mutual consent of man and wife.

Here may be condemned then, the Romanists barring persons in holy Orders from Marriage, or in case they have been married before, from Conjugal fellowship with their wives whilst they live, and that whether the wife will or no. We never read, that the Apostles so left their wives, nor that ever they asked their consent so to do; and their saying, that the Apostles, although they were married, yet after they were called to the Apostleship, never did accompany with their wives any more, is gratis dictum, a meer say-so, a fancy of their own brain, without any good ground or foundation from Scripture, or sound Reason, or good Authority. To the fourth Scripture, viz. That 'tis good for a man not to touch a woman. I answer, Good there, is taken for expedient, and that by reason of the present distress, and the danger of persecution; in a mar­ried state or condition in such times, they should meet with troubles. To the fifth, viz. 2 Tim. 2.4. I say, that Souldiers do not use, whilst they are engaged in Military imployment, to undertake [Page 79]and intangle themselves with merchandize or hus­bandry, &c. But this notwithstanding, the Apo­stle Paul did work with his hands to main­tain himself, that he might not be charge­able to the Church of Corinth, because of false Teachers, who would have taken advantage, if he had been chargeable to that Church. And nevertheless, the Romanists do allow persons in holy Orders, to be Justices of the peace, Lord Chancellors, Ambassadors of Princes: And the Apostle Paul did allow of the Apostle Peter his having a wife; and I have been told, that Ec­clesiasticks wives take on them, and off from their husbands, the cares of the Houshold and Family: so that by Marriage, they are freed from worldly cares, rather than immerst in them.

The case is not now with Clergy-men, as in the Apostles days; then the Church was poor and destitute, now she is rich, and her Officers are well provided with Houses, Glebe and Tythes, and necessaries for House-keeping and Hospitality; and now a House-keeper, especially in times of peace, may be as expedient, as it was inexpedient in the Apostles time, and days of persecution. To the sixth, viz. Mat. 19.29. I answer, That if the times be so, that a man cannot be a good Christian, or follower of Christ, except he leave or forsake his wife, house, lands, &c. then he must leave all, or deny all these [Page 80]things and relations, rather than deny Christ; and that this concerns the Laity, as well as the Clergy. If our Saviour had ever taught any such Doctrine, as to part man and wife for the sake of his Religion, and as part of his Religion, how would the Scribes and Pharisees have re­plied unto him from his own mouth, That which God hath joyned together, let not man put asunder. Besides, it no where appears, that the holy Apo­stles did wholly and perpetually forsake the so­ciety of their wives; but rather, when they were to fly, took them with them, in case they would accompany them in their travels. To the seventh Scripture, I say, He that hath the gift of Continency may, if he sees that Marri­age will prove a snare to him, and intangle him so in the cares of the world, that he shall not be free and able to serve God as he ought: I say, let not [...] marry; but this is far from proving, that all [...] in holy Orders, whether they have the gift or not, should vow Continency, or ab­stain from Marriage, in case of a mans not be­ing able to contain. The blessed Apostle, who knew the mind of his and our Lord, hath left us a general Rule, Notwithstanding to avoid For­nication, let every man have his own wife, 1 Cor. 7.2. To the eighth Scripture, viz. 1 Tim. 5.11, 12. I answer, That as therefore because younger widows were likely (after they had made promises to live to their lives end (as Dea­connesses, [Page 81]to minister to the Church; in attend­ing the sick and weak) to change their minds, and marry perhaps to Infidel husbands, and so be in danger of forsaking their Christian Religi­on, and prove a great scandal to Christianity, making it be ill thought of by the world; there­fore the Apostle Paul would not by any means have these younger widows admitted into such Offices, but only such widows as were above threescore years old, and so out of the danger of desires of marriage, or altering their conditi­on. So I could heartily wish, that no vow of Single life or Continency, might be put upon young persons of either Sex, upon pretence of admitting them to any Office, or of separating them to any special devotion, lest they be tempt­ed to break such their Vows. This is the right and best use we can make of this Testimony. To the ninth Scripture, viz. 1 Cor. 7.34. I say, that it doth not condemn Marriage, [...] unclean­ness or unholiness; but it imports and implies, that single persons, taken off from the care and sollicitude about the world, may more commo­diously serve God; and having the gift of Con­tinency, they may purely serve God with body and soul, not being overcome with any tempta­tion to Fornication or Uncleanness: Not but that he or she that is married, may and ought to be, and oft-times are pure, chaste and holy both in body and soul. Marriage is honourable [Page 82]amongst all, and the bed undefiled; and the mar­ried as well as unmarried, may keep their vessel in Sanctification and honour, 1 Thess. 4.4. To that about Carefulness, &c. I say, That if God call his servants to a married condition, he can and will, if sought unto, give Grace to over­come those lets, and bear these persecutions they meet withal, so, as they may turn to helps and furtherances in the Kingdom of God, and to a richer Crown of Glory in the same, than the Virgins come unto; which because they never wrestled with such mighty temptations, cannot wear the like Crown of Victory that they do, v. T. C. in loc.

The last place of Scripture that is alledged, is Rev. 14.4. These are they which are not defiled with women, for they are Virgins; these are they which follow the Lamb, whithersoever he goeth; these were redeemed from amongst men, being the first fruits unto God, and to the Lamb. By Virgins, we are to understand all those pure Christians, who had kept themselves pure from the Gnosticks Corruptions and Uncleanness, or from Idolatry, which is Spiritual Fornication; and have loyally adhered to Christ, the only Bridegroom of the Church, 2 Cor. 11.2. By those that are said not to be defiled with women, we must not understand those that are not married, as if they that were in that state were defiled with women; the Scripture reaches the contrary, Heb. 13.4. The [Page 83]Marriage-bed, is the bed undefiled; and Christ is followed wheresoever he goeth, not only by the blessed Saints that have led a single life, and were not married; but also by married persons, as Patriarchs, Apostles, Martyrs, and innumerable others, 1 Thess. 4.17. 'Tis observed, that there is nothing said of these Virgins, which agreeth not to all the faithful. 1. They have all the name of the Lamb, his Father, and written in their fore­heads; and all God's servants are sealed in their foreheads, Rev. 7.3. 2. All God's servants are to sing the new Song, Rev. 5.9, 10. all are re­deemed from the earth, by the blood of the Lamb, chap. 5.9. The believing Jews, they are all a kind of first-fruits unto God, James 1.18. Lastly, The Jesuites at Rhemes confess, that these are the same number of the Elect that were seal­ed, chap. 7. where in the Margent they note, That by the number there spoken of, are under­stood all the Elect, both of the Jews, and of the Gentiles, vid. T. C. in loc.

These Virgins then are those, that would not be polluted or defiled with the Idolatry, or Spi­ritual Fornication of the Whore of Babylon, mentioned in Verse 8. of the 14 Chapter of the Revelations. Whatever Papists or old Hereticks say against the lawful Conjugal society of man and wife, as if it were a work of the flesh; the holy Apostle Paul doth not rank or condemn it for a work of the flesh, in that black Catalogue [Page 84]of the works of the flesh, on Record, Gal. 5.19, 20, 21. But on the other side 'tis observa­ble, that those who decry Marriage, without a just cause, and cry up single life more than they have cause, as the Papists do, they are verily guilty of Idolatry, which is Spiritual Adultery or Fornication; witness their worship of the Cross with Religious worship; their worship of Images, of Saints, and particularly of the B. Virgin; their worship of Angels, with Invo­cation, with Adoration. They tell us a story, that at the Synod held at Winchester, when there was a difference 'twixt the married Clergy and the Monks, and Archbishop Dunstan had a mind to introduce the Monks, The Cross spake humano more, with mans voyce, against the married Priests. This was in the days of King Edgar, who began his Reign, 959. It seems then that there were married Priests in England in those days.

If it be Objected, That many Ancient Coun­cils have ordained Celibacy for Priests, as the first Elibertine Council, an. 310. or 311. Can. 33. The second Council of Cartharge, about the year 396. Can. 2.

Concilium Agathense, Can. 9. about the year, 506.

The third Council of Orleans, Can. 1. about the year 537. The fourth Council of Orleans, an. 547. Can. 17. &c.

My Answer is, That we have the holy Scri­ptures [Page 85]of the Old and New Testament, for the lawfulness of Priests or Presbyters marriage, the Canons of the Apostles, Can. 5. and the General Council of Nice, rejecting the Proposal about prohibiting of it; as also the sixth General Council of Constantinople, &c. in the year, 692. and the Council of Toledo, an. 400. chap. 4. & 7. which testifies that the Clergy had wives. I might also have alledged Concilium Gangrense, cap. 4. in or about the year, 324. which Ana­thematiseth those who held it unlawful to re­ceive the blessed Sacrament at the hands of a married Priest; and many Councils which for­bid Priests second Marriage, or to marry a wi­dow, &c. All which supposed it lawful for him to marry. Whatever the Canons decreed, cer­tain it is, that the Greek Church unto this day, allow of a married Clergy; and that divers Na­tions and Countreys, for a long time in the West, did not admit of this necessary Celibacy, but to­lerated their Clergy to be married. In England they had their wives, for above a thousand years, almost twelve hundred years after Christ. So in Ireland, till the days of Henry the second of England, who began his Reign, 1155.

Pope Pius II. who sate about the year, 1458. was a great man in the Council of Basil, his say­ing was, That Marriage was better for the Clergy than single life, and turned out divers cloystered Nuns to take their liberty.

De facto many Priests were married of old. So Novatus a Priest, permitted by Cyprian to live with his wife. Tertullian was married, as ap­pears by his Book written to his wife.

Gratian tells of the Sons of Presbyters and Bishops, that were promoted to the Papal Dig­nity, Dist. 56. So was Bonifacius the Pope, the Son of Jucundus the Presbyter; Foelix the Pope, the Son of Foelix the Presbyter; Agapetus the Pope, Son of Gordianus the Presbyter; Theodo­rus the Pope, Son of Theodorus the Bishop; and many more, he saith, there were; and addeth, we are not to understand them as born out of lawful Marriages, which were lawful to Priests, before the Prohibition, ibid. Chrysostom agreeth with Atha­nasius, and Clemens Alexandrinus, in 1 Tim. 3. and saith, That Marriage is in so high a degree honor­able, that men with it may ascend into the Episcopal Chairs, and yet live with their wives. For though it be a hard thing, yet it is possible so to perform the duties of Marriage, as not to be wanting in the performance of the duties of a Bishop.

Sozomen saith of Spiridion, that though he had a Wife and Children, yet he was not therefore any whit the more negligent in performing the du­ties of his Calling; and of Gregory Nyssen it is reported, that though he was married, he was no way inferior to his worthy Brother, that lived single: And howsoever in Thessaly; Thessalonica, Man­donia, they did not admit into the Ministry any [Page 87]single persons, yet all the Bishops of the East besides, were then left unto their own liberty; and though some went about to take away their liberty in some places, yet the worthiest men the Church had, stood in defence of it. So Sy­nesius, when they of Ptolemais would needs have him to be their Bishop (which thing he little desired) he made them acquainted with his present condition, and resolved purpose for the time to come: God (saith he) the Law, and the sacred hand of Theophilus, have given to me a wife, I therefore tell all men aforehand, and testifie unto all, that I will neither suffer my self to be altogether estranged and separated from her, neither will I live with her secretly as an Adulterer; for the one of these is no way pious and godly, and the other no way lawful: But I will desire and pray unto God, that exceeding many and most good and happy Children may be born unto me: Neither will I have him that is chief in ordaining of me, to be ignorant hereof. Synesius ad fratrem Ep. 105. [...], &c. This liberty the Council in Trullo impeached in respect of Bishops, but in respect of Presby­ters, [Page 88]it continueth in all the East Churches of the world unto this day, Greek, Armenian and Ethiopian; warranted unto them by the Canons of the Apostles judgement of Bishops, Canons of councils, &c. Dr. Field of the Ch. l. 5. p. 708. Some attempts were made in the East, by Eu­stathius Bishop of Sebastia; in Armenia and in the West by Siricius, and Innocent the first his Successor; and some Canons were made in the second, or rather last Council of Carthage to the contrary. Yet by degrees these Canons and Se­verities against the married Clergy lay dormant, being found a burthen too heavy for the Church to bear. We find, that in the time that Hilde­brand climb'd up into the Papal Chair, namely, anno 1075. and long before, that Priests had wives publickly: This was he, that was neither chosen by Emperor or Clergy, but intruded him­self; this was he, that threw the Sacrament in­to the fire; this was he, that forced the Em­peror, whom he had Excommunicated, to come with his Empress and Son bare footed, in the cold of Winter, to his Castle at Canusium, and there to wait three days fasting, until he might have audience; which at length was ob­tained by the mediation of Madam Matilda the Popes Minion, that left her husband to live with the Pope, vid. Plat. this was he, that Sainted his Predecessor Liberius the Arrian; and this was he, that restrained and forbad Priests Marriage; [Page 89]but by so doing, stirred up the whole Nation of Clergy-men against him, crying out, that he was an Heretick, and a man damnably erring in his judgement, &c. And it is so far from being true, that Bellarmine saith, That the Priests be­ginning to marry in Gregories days, was the cause of the great contempt of the Sacrament, and of the Confusions and Prophanations of Sacred things in those days, that it was clear contrary; as Nauclerus testifies, de Clericis, lib. 1. cap. 19. that it was an old and confirmed custom, that was not easily to be altered; and the Priests rather in Gregories time ceased, than began to marry, by reason of the attempts and endeavours of Gregory to restrain them from marriage; and the causes of the Confusions of those times, were occasioned ra­ther by the forbidding the Priests to marry, than by their beginning then to marry. And now since the Church of Rome hath forced this single life on Clergy men, very many Learned men of later times, have desired the Law of single life may be taken away.

Durandus in his Book de Modo celebrandi Con­cilii, proveth by many Reasons, that it were fit that the liberty of Marriages were again restored to Priests, in a General Council. Aeneas Syl­vius, after Pope Pius the second, was of this mind, So was Polydor Virgil and Erasmus; the first of these in Book 5. chap. 4. de Invent. rerum, saith thus, I dare confidently say, that it hath been [Page 90]so far from being true, that this inforced chastity hath excell'd that which is in Marriage: That no sinful crime hath brought greater disgrace to the Order of the Ministry, more evil to Religion, or made a greater and deeper impression of sorrow in all good men, than the stain of the impure lusts of Priests. Erasmus in Declam. de laudibus Matri­monii, affirms, that in his conceit, he should not ill deserve, nor take the worst course, for the fur­thering of humane affairs, and the right informing of the manners of men, which should procure li­berty of Marriage (if it might be) both for Priests and Monks: Read also his Annotations on the first Epistle to Timothy, chap. 3.1. And Sigis­mund the Emperor, a little before the Council of Basil, declar'd and published, That forasmuch as more evil cometh by the forbidding of Marriage than good, it were better and more safe to permit Clergy men to live in the state of Marriage, ac­cording to the custom of the Oriental Churches, than to forbid them so to live.

Antiochus aforementioned, a Figure of Anti­christ, Dan. 11.37. did not regard women, or the desire of women, or of wiving; and the Antichrist forbids to marry, and commands to abstain from meats. The ancient Romans liked and encouraged Marriage. Thus the Figure and Forerunner of Antichrist, he himself and his followers, decry wiving, and cry up single life; and by Fryers and Monks, the great Adorers of [Page 91]single life, and Observers of distinctions of meats, the Doctrine of Image-worship was brought and spread, and propagated in the Church; as is proved by Mr. Mede in his Apostacy of the latter times.

Some of these Hermites, Anchorites, or Monks and Coenobites, might be honest and good per­sons, abating them their errour about over­magnifying the single life; yet the generality of them he condemns as hypocrites: For the law­fulness of Marriage of persons in holy Orders, we have the Old and New Testament, and the practice of the Church, and the Doctrine of the Church at the Council of Nice; and after, till the time of Siricius, about the year, 385. Afterwards we have the Marriage of these al­lowed by all those Councils which forbid such persons to marry widows, such as Concilium Epaunen. Canon 2. Aurelianum the first Coun­cil, Can. 15. Concilium Toletanum 1.& ch. 1. the 3. And we find the Council of Carthage made di­vers Canons, about the Government of the Sons and Daughters of Bishops and Clergy-men, such as the 11. That they should not make or go to the Spectacula Secularia, c. 12. That their Sons and Daughters should not marry to Heathens, Here­ticks or Schismaticks, c. 14. That they suffer not their Sons to go free out of their power and Go­vernment, till they are assured of their manners, and of such age, ut possint ad eos propria perti­nere [Page 92]peccata. This Council was held, saith Coriolanus, 397. The first Council of Toledo, an. 400. c. 1. Ordains de Presbyteris & Deaclnis, si post ordinationem filios genuerint, ad altiorem gradum non ascendant. Yet they might continue in their station, though not rise higher in the Church.

In the year, 506. Consilium Agathense, in the time of Pope Symmachus, cap. 1. although Bi­gamists, and those that had married widows, be­ing Presbyters or Deacons, might not conse­crate or minister; yet they might retain the name of Presbyters and Deacons. Hence it is to be supposed, that Presbyters and Deacons, who were not Bigamists, nor had married widows, might consecrate and minister, notwithstand­ing their marriage.

If it be Objected, That there were endea­vours to make the Clergy content themselves without wives. I say, yet in many places it would not prevail; not in England, till above Eleven hundred years after Christ; not in Ireland, till the days of Henry the Second of England, who subdued Ireland. I read, that Celsus the great Apostle of Armagh, and High Primate of Ire­land, had both a wife and children, in the time of his Archbishopry, according to the usage of the Countrey, vid. Bernard in vita Malachiae. And we are told, that Pope Adrian, and Pope Alexander, did stir up Henry the Second to sub­due [Page 93] Ireland, because the people withstood their proceedings against the Marriage of Bishops and Priests.

It is certain de facto, that many Eminent Persons, in holy Orders, were actually marri­ed: So Gregory Nazianzen's Father was a Bi­shop, and begat him after he was Presbyter, if not after he was advanced to the Bishop­rick.

Gregory the Great, was Grandchild to Foelix Pope of Rome, who was Pope, 590. and he is said to have cancell'd his Decree against Priests Marriages, upon the finding of 600 Infants skulls in a fish-pond. Pope Adrian II. was Son to Bishop Tallerus, had a Daughter by his Wife Stephania, both which were killed after he was Pope, which was, an. 863.

Christopher Patriarch of Jerusalem, about the year, 900. had children, viz. two Sons, and two Daughters.

In Armenia, the Secular Priests are all en­joyned to marry, else they must not be admitted to the Priesthood, Ne (que) permittitur aliquis Sacer­dotium assumere qui uxorem non duxit. Berchard. p. 95. The Prebendaries of Cathedrals, out of which number they choose their Bishop, are not allowed to marry. In Biscay, they allow not any Priest to live in their Villages, except [...]he bring his Concubine with him, conceiving it impossible for them to keep their wives unto [Page 94]themseves, if the Curate hath not a woman of his own. D. H. G. p. 256. At the Council of Trent, the Emperor and Duke of Parma, made instance to the Pope, and said it would be of great moment, to grant that Priests that are se­parated because they are married, may be re­conciled, and retain their wives, and that here­after, where there is not a sufficient number of Priests married, men of good life and fame may be admitted to the Priesthood. Vid. History of the Council of Trent, p. 813. And we find in the History of that Council, that the more com­mon Opinion was, the Marriage of Priests might be dispensed withal. 'Tis true, that this was thought by some dangerous, because that marri­ed Priests would turn their affections and love to their wives and children, and by consequence to their house and Country; so that the strict dependance which the Clergy hath on the Apo­stolick See, would cease; and to grant Marriage to Priests, would destroy the Ecclesiastical Hier­archy, and make the Pope to be Bishop of Rome only. Council of Trent, p. 680. Yea, the famous saying of Pope Pius II. was then in the mouth of many, That Priests were by the Occidental Church forbid to marry, for good reason; but there was stronger reason to restore Marriage to them again. The two great Reasons urged at the Council were, Scandal given by incontinent Priests; and want of continent persons fit to [Page 95]exercise the Ministry, Hist. of C. Trent, p. 679, & 806. It was in the same Council alledged, that the Constitution of the Church, forbidding to marry might be taken away by the Pope; or, in case the Constitution remain still, the Pope may dispense with it: They alledged the examples of those who have been dispensed with; and the use of Antiquity, that if a Priest did marry, the Marriage was good, but the man was separated from the Ministry, C. T. p. 679. And whereas, as some thought; that persons who were bound to Continency by solemn Vow, could not be dispensed withal by the Pope; others maintain'd, that the Pope might dispense with these also, and marvelled at those, who granting the dis­pensation of simple Vows, did deny that of So­lemn, as if it were not most clear, that every So­lemnization is de Jure positivo. They brought places out of S. Austin, by which it doth mani­festly appear, that in his time, some Monks did marry; and howsoever it was thought, they offended in it, yet the Marriage was lawful; and St. Austine reprehendeth those who did se­parate them. And as for Marriage of Priests, Innocent II. was the first, that ordained there should be a nullity in the Marriage. This Pope sate in the Sea, 1130. Innocent III. who bore a heavy hand over our King John, and Inter­dicted the Kingdom for six years together, was the terrible man against Priests Marriages: [Page 96]Whereupon we have these Verses by an Oxford man.

This Pope Innocent, was Pope first, an. 1198. If we may credit History, divers Popes have had their Concubines. Sixtus IV. provided for his Concubine Tiresia shooes covered with Pearl; builded Stews at Rome, which brought him 2000 Duckets yearly in-come; he granted the Cardinal S. Lucia the use of unnatural lusts for three months in the year, June, July and Au­gust. Innocent the eight a Genoway, he had di­vers base children, Vid. B. Prid. Hist. and gave a great dowry to his Daughter Theo­dorina. 'Tis said of him,

Pope Alexander the sixth heaped all upon his Bastards, and carnally used his own Daughter Lucretia.

Hence those Verses:

This Pope entred on the Popedom, an. 1492. Paul the third prostituted his Sister Julia For­nesia to Alexander the Sixth, that he might be made Cardinal, committed incest with his own Daughter Constantia, and poysoned her husband Bosius Sforsia, to enjoy her the more freely; he became Pope, 1534. B. Prid. Hist. p. 145.

Yet I shall grant, 1. That single life is in some respects to be preferred, as most free ordinarily from trouble and care, and in times of persecu­tion, and to unfixed persons, as to their habita­tions, affording better opportunity to serve God, or to suffer for him, and fewer and lesser tempta­tions to deny him. 2. I grant, that those who have made a vow of Celibacy, before or at their entrance into the Ministry, or on some other oc­casion, [Page 98]if they have they have the gift of Continency, are bound to keep it. 3. That 'tis possible some Votaries of both Sexes, may be free from the gross vices and crimes charged on most of our Votaries, in the days of K. H. 8. at the dissolu­tion of Abbeys. 4. That in Colledges, for train­ing up youth in Learning, it is expedient, that those that are Tutors and Readers to youth, be, during such their employment, single. 5. That Presbyters or Priests, at times of extraordinary Humiliation, and at times of more solemn Cele­bration of the Lord's Supper, shall do well to observe the old Canons, that forbid the society of their Wives for a time.

But then I assert and avow with the Author to the Hebrews, chap. 13.4. 1. That Marriage is honorable among all men, and therefore among persons in holy Orders, and the bed undefiled: And therefore 2. That the society of a Clergy-man with his wife, whether he was married to her before his Ordination, or after, is lawful; no Adultery, no Uncleanness. 3. That for a person at his Ordination to make an absolute vow of single life for all his days, is a rash and un­lawful Vow. 4. That if a man have made such a Vow, and find he have not, nor cannot ob­tain the gift of Continency, in that case he ought to marry. 5. That the Marriage of Luther with Katherine Bora, on supposition they could not contain, was lawful. 6. That the Church [Page 99]of Rome sins grievously, to put a yoke upon the neck of the Disciples of Christ, that officiate in holy things, which neither we nor our Fathers were able to bear. 7. That the Church of Rome may, and ought to reverse and repeal her Laws, Canons or Constitutions, enjoyning Celibacy on the Clergy; so contrary to Scripture, the Apostles Canons, the Council of Nice, and the con­tinued practice of the greatest part of the Chri­stian Church to this day. 8. That that Church of Rome's admitting young Youths and Vir­gins to make and engage in absolute solemn Vows, that they will live all their days in Celi­bacy, is a great snare, a grievous sin, and con­trary to the Apostles advice concerning young widows, 2 Tim. 5.14. is opposite to the prime blessing, Crescite & multiplicamini, Increase and multiply; is a great scandal to Religion, is a damage to Kingdoms and States, where such are educated idle and useless to the Publick; is a weakning to their Countrey, a destruction of their Race and Family, an occasion of grievous and horrid lusts and wickednesses. 9. That Marriage, notwithstanding it is lawful to all Ranks, Orders and Degrees of men, and conse­quently to men in holy Orders, yet it is no Sa­crament. 10. That the Church of Rome, by advancing Matrimony to be a Sacrament, lays claim to the Administration of it, and to the judging and deciding Matrimonial causes, and [Page 100]so brings store of grist to her Mill. And by for­bidding Marriage to Priests, doth inrich the Church with that which should otherwise be expended on wives and children, and keeps the Clergy in a dependance on Rome, having no such near relation as wives and children to withdraw their affections from it. 11. That to assert that for a man in holy Orders (suppose he have made a Vow of Celibacy) to marry, and to accompany with his wife, is worse than Fornication, yea, than Adultery, is an erroneous and dangerous Position; contrary to the holy Scriptures, to sound Reason, to the Ancient Councils and Fa­thers; vid. Austine de Bono viduitatis: And if this Book be questioned, whether it be his or not, see his Epistle to one Bonifacius, who had vowed a Monastical, retired and single life, and yet afterwards did marry; his words are these, Thy wife hindereth me that I cannot exhort thee to this kind of life, without whose consent it is not lawful for thee to contain, &c. Of this opinion al­so was Jerome, the great Patron of Virginity, Ep. 47. de Suspecto contubernio vitando. Of the same judgement was Epiphanius, Haeres. 61. who indeed maketh it [...], i. e. a thing evil, and such as God will judge and punish, to forget, neglect, and not perform a Vow made to God; but not [...], i. e. a thing which casteth men into the condemnation of Hell fire, and plungeth them in everlasting destruction, as to [Page 101]live in Adultery. He thinks it better for a man (though he have committed a fault in breaking his Vow, which he may repent of, and be for­given) to marry, than by living in continual Adultery, to add one sin to another, and to plunge himself in endless destruction. And 'tis an absurd and irrational thing for any man to say, that 'tis better to burn, than to marry, be­cause either of his Vow, or of the Command of the Church; for neither a Vow of our own, nor any Command of the Church, can make void the Law of God: if he cannot contain, let him marry, and to avoid Fornication, let every man have his own wife. Our Saviour saith nothing to the contrary, when he saith, he that can receive it, let him receive it. We speak only of those who cannot receive it, who cannot contain; and in such case, we must not make void the Laws of God against Adultery and Fornication, in seeking to confirm or observe the Laws and Constitutions of the Church. In this case, Whe­ther it be better to obey God or man, judge ye. I shall not here go about to shew, that the Answers of Bellarmine and others, to the Authorities that are brought on our side, are but fig-leaves to cover the nakedness of their cause, and easily blown away; but I shall direct my Reader to Bp. Jewel his Defence of his Apology, Dr. Field of the Church, B. 5. ch. 57. to Mr. Cartwright, and Dr. Fulk's Answer to the Rhemist's Testam. [Page 102]on Matth. 8. and on 1 Tim. 3.8. to Calixtus de Conjugio Clericorum, to Bishop Hall's Honour of the married Clergy. Nor shall I go about to answer the particular sayings of some Fathers to the disparagement of Marriage. It sufficeth, that the Church of England hath the holy Scri­pture, and the Ancient Church on her side; the desires of many Learned, Worthy men that have been in the Church of Rome; the practice of the greatest number of Christian Churches in the world at this day; so far as to justifie the lawfulness of married men, to be admitted to holy Orders, and to officiate in and about holy things, notwithstanding their having wives; and that the blessing of God is, and hath been upon our married Clergy, no other Nation ex­celling them in Learning, Piety, or the gift of Preaching; that saying still holding good, not­withstanding their Marriage, Stupor mundi Cle­rus Britannicus. If it be objected, That this Marriage doth spoil our Charity and Hospitali­ty, and proves a temptation to Covetousness. I answer, That Solomon, Eccles. 4.7, 8. says, There is a vanity and dissatisfaction, and unprofitable­ness in heaping up riches, even by single persons. And 'tis observed by a sober and learned Casuist of our own [Mr. Capel] That single persons, and those that have but few children, oft-times prove more covetous, than those that are married, and have many children; alledging, that the latter are by [Page 103]daily and frequent experiences and layings out, habituated to part with money, and so a peny comes not (as from some others, like a drop of blood from their hearts. I say further, that great things have been done by the married Clergy, and other married persons in our days, if it were necessa­ry, we might instance in particulars. It hath been said, That Pater Noster built Churches, and Our Father pull'd them down; but it hath been proved and published to the world, that as many and great Acts of Piety and Charity have been done in England since the Reformation of Reli­gion, as in the like number of years in times of Popery. And whatever is or may be said or pre­tended to the contrary, as if the allowing of the marriage of the Clergy was an impoverishment of the Church and Country, and a damage to the Kingdom; I dare say, they that would remove the married Clergy, to bring in the Monks, could ne­ver be able to recompence the Churches, their Countrys, and the Kings and Kingdoms damage. Who can more earnestly pray for, and endea­vour the weal of their own King and Country, than those who have such great bonds and in­terests to desire and endeavour it? And who is like to be most at home amongst his own people, if not he that hath amongst them continually a wife, the desire of his eyes, and children, which he loves as his own eyes?