VIrginity is a thing so plausible, and if true so venerable; so countenanced by Antiquity, and admir'd by the Unthinking Multitude; so highly subservient to the Secular Interest, and out­ward Grandeur of the Clergy: That among all the Arti­fices wherewith the Church of Rome upholds a sinking and decaying Cause, it is no wonder, if She more espe­cially make use of this. It might justly deserve our reve­rence, and excite our Emulation, if her Clergy made good their glorious Pretences of Virginity by a real and unspotted Chastity: But since when we departed from [Page 2] the Church of Rome, we resumed that ancient priviledge of Mankind, of believing our Senses; since Reason and Revelation assures us, that so great a part of Mankind cannot, and Experience demonstrates that it doth not en­joy a Perfection so extraordinary; since an enforced Ver­tue, and servile Piety, is neither acceptable to God, nor venerable to Men: We slight their Virginity, because im­pos'd; and do not believe it, because we do not see it. The Plea indeed of Antiquity is not only specious, but in some measure true. In the Ancient Church, they re­tained an infinite esteem and veneration for Virginity: Many extolled it as the glory, and some made it even the business of Christianity; it was an unusual abstinence from lawful and permitted Pleasures, that procured them Admiration from the Heathen, and Honour from their Fellow-Christians. But then they really performed, what they generously undertook: Their Celibacy was no less chast than voluntary; their Piety was fully adequate to their Zeal, and both perhaps in some things greater than their Knowledge. Yet should we even do violence to our Reason, and force our Nature to imitate the Examples, and receive the Doctrine of those great and holy Persons, if either their Consent or their Practice had been univer­sal. But on the contrary, the Imposition of it hath been condemned by the most Famous Councils, and Greatest Writers, never used in the Eastern Church, not introduced in the Western till almost two hundred years after Christ, enjoyned but in some few Provinces of that, and even in those not universally practis'd; and all this without doing injury to the sacred Bond of Marriage, and ever leaving open a refuge for incontinent Persons. Not so the Church of Rome, which not only adviseth, but imposeth Celibacy; in many of the Clergy have dissolved Marriage, in all de­scrieth it as Heresie, defineth it to be worse than Fornica­tion, and to none allows a remedy for Incontinency. To demonstate the Injustice of the Church of Rome herein, and her departure from the Doctrine and Practice of the An­cient Church, shall be the Subject of this present Trea­tise.

[Page 3]It is no small presumption of Errour, when the Defen­ders of any Opinion agree not in the merits of the Cause they undertake. In the Church of Rome, there are Four Opinions about the Celibacy of the Clergy: The first, that it is of Divine Right, Instituted and Commanded by God. So In 4. Disp. 2 [...]. Qu. 2. Jo. Major, de contin. sacerd. c. 4. Clichtovaeus, and de dogma­tic. charact. l. 2. Turrian teach, that God hath forbidden Bishops, Priests, Deacons, and Sub-deacons (whom we shall hereafter comprehend under the general Name of the Clergy, unless when we manifestly distinguish them) to Marry, or use their Wives already married. The second is that of Bellarmine, Valentia, Vasquez, Becanus, Aquinas, and the far greater part of the Roman Divines, that it is not properly of Di­vine, but of Apostolick Right, as being instituted by the Apostles, and ever since constantly and invariably pra­ctised by the Church; that a Vow of Continence should be annexed to Holy Orders; and consequently, that Mar­riage thereby becomes unlawful to the Clergy, without a Dispensation. The third, without any respect to Divine or Apostolical Institution and Practice of the Ancient Church, whether they be here had or not, thinks it suffi­cient that the Church hath Power to impose a Vow of Con­tinence upon the Clergy, and that such a Vow being once taken, all use of Marriage is become unlawful, and sub­sequent Contracts invalid. This seems to be the Opinion of many of the Canonists, and the Council of Sess. 24. Can. 9. Trent; which ventured to define no more than this, that Clergy­men or Regulars, after a solemn profession of Continence, cannot Marry, or if they do, that their Marriage is un­lawful. Lastly, the more moderate Divines maintain, that it is neither of Divine nor Apostolical Right, but deriveth all its Obligation from Ecclesiastical Institution; which as well as the Vow annexed to it, will cease to ob­lige, as soon as the Church shall please; although in the mean while she hath sufficient reason to continue her Insti­tution. Against these Opinions, I shall prove these Four Propositions.

• [Page 4]I. Celibacy of the Clergy was not instituted either by Christ or his Apostles.
• II. It hath nothing excellent in it, and bringeth no real advantage to the Church or to the Christian Religion.
• III. The Imposition of it upon any Order of Men, is unjust, and contrary to the Law of God.
• IV. It was never universally imposed or practsed in the Ancient Church.

I. First then, that Celibacy was not instituted either by Christ o [...] his Apostles. By Celibacy, we mean a perpe­tual abstinence from the use of the Nuptial Bed in those already Married, and not Contracting of Marriage in single Persons, after taking of Holy Orders, or making a Vow of Chastity. That such Celibacy was not at all en­joyned by Christ, nor by the Apostles, as of Divine Right, is sufficiently proved from the dissent of our Adver­saries herein. For it is the received Opinion of the Church of Rome, that nothing can be a matter of Faith, such as this would be, if it had been commanded by Christ; which is doubted and disputed of among the Doctors of the Church. Now this is denied by the Maintainers of the Second and Fourth Opinions: As for the Third, that according to the usual artifice of the latter Popish Coun­cils, is so obscurely proposed, that it neither directly favours nor opposeth it. Besides, neither Scripture or Tradition can be offered for this claim of Divine Institu­tion. The former is not so much as pretended to, or if it be, we shall examine it afterwards: The latter cannot justly be, since none but an universal Tradition of all past and present Ages is sufficient to convey down a matter of Faith; whereas here the greatest part even of the present Church deny it. But I will not insist upon disproving this, as well because it is disowned by the greatest part of our Adversaries, as because all the Arguments to be produced against the other Opinions, will with much more force be valid against this. I will only observe, that if this Opinion be either false or uncertain, the Infallibility of the Church of Rome is wholly overthrown; since many [Page 5] Popes and Councils in the Eleventh Age, determined the Celibacy of the Clergy to be of Divine Institution, and the lawfulness of their Marriage to be downright Heresie.

Controv. Tmo. Il. l. 1. 18, 19. Bellarmine therefore, and with him the more Lear­ned of the Church of Rome, decline this Plea, and assign to this Celibacy a bare Institution of the Apostles, acting herein without any particular or express Commission from our Lord, but by them prescribed and advised as merito­rious itself, and convenient to the Church; punctually herein followed and obeyed by the Church in all Ages. Whether the Church, and more especially the Ancient, did conform its discipline to this pretended Institution of the Apostles, we shall enquire hereafter; and by proving that it did not, prove also that the Apostles made no such Institution: Since the Primitive Church cannot be suppo­sed to have immediately degenerated from the Instructions and Admonitions of her Founders and great Doctors. But to pass by that, I observe, that whether the Apostles instituted Celibacy, and ordained a Vow of Continency to be annexed to Holy Orders, is a Question of Fact, and consequently cannot be infallibly determined by the Church; but must be by them clearly proved, either from express Texts of Scripture, or an universal and invariable Tradition. That there is no such Tradition, we shall [...]hew in some measure presently, and more largely here­after. For Scripture, we desire to know, where those plain Admonitions of Celibacy to the Clergy are to be found. For we are in no ways obliged to prove the Ne­gative; Marriage being not forbidden to the Clergy by the Moral Law, and therefore to be esteemed Lawful to them, till a manifest Prohibition shall be produced. Bellarmine indeed urgeth that Precept of the Apostie, Tit. 1. 8. that a Bishop be sober and temperate, [...]. But, not to say that Bellarmine herein forsakes his own Principle, and maketh Ceiibacy to be of Divine Institution, since St. Paul speaketh this, 1 Cor. 7. 25. not only as one that had obtai­ned Mercy of the Lord to be Faithful, but also, Tit. 1. 1. as an Apostle of Jesus Christ: These words serve not the pur­pose, as designing neither Continence nor Chastity, but [Page 6] Abstinence from Drunkenness and Coveteousness, and are opposed the first to [...], and the second to [...] in the former Verse. Or if we should with In Ioc. St. Chrysostom interpret [...] in this place, of an universal Temperance, we must remember, that such a Temperance is nothing else but a Moderation in the use of all lawful Pleasures. [...], saith Strom. l. 3. Clemens Alex. [...]. He is universally Temperate, not who abstaineth from all things, but who moderately useth those things, which he judgeth lawful. Or Lastly, if we should against all reason interpret [...] Chast and Continent: Yet the Fathers unanimously teach, that these Vertues are not incompatible with the moderate use of Marriage, as we shall prove hereafter. In the mean while let it be observed, that Act. 24. 25. St. Paul reason'd before Fae­lix [...], of Righteousness and Temperance; and yet cannot be supposed to have for­bidden him the embraces of his Wife. As for Bellarmine's other Text, 2 Tim. 2. 4. No man that warreth, en­tangleth himself with the affairs of this life: It is suffi­cient these words are addressed not only to Clergymen, but to all Christians. Whether a Married state doth necessarily entangle Persons in the Affairs of this Life, more then Celibacy, shall be enquired hereafter.

We come now to that great Store-house of the Asser­tors of Celibacy, the VII Chap. of the 1 Epist. to the Corinthians: And here a few Observations might have prevented many Mistakes; as first, That the Apostle was so far from imposing Virginity upon any Order of Men, that he seemeth to have foreseen the danger of such Mistakes, and therefore to have inserted these Cautions of them: Ver. 6. But I speak this by permission, and not of command. Ver. 23. Ye are bought with a price, be not ye the servants of men. Ver. 35. And this I speak for your own profit, not that I may cast a snare upon you. Secondly, To those who are already Married, he adviseth not a total, but a temporary Abstinence: Ver. 5. Defraud not one the other, except it be with consent for a time, that you may give yourselves to fasting and prayer, and [Page 7] come together again, that Sata [...] tempt you not for your inconti­nency. Ver. 20. Let every man abide in the same calling wherein he was called. Ver. 27. Art thou bound unto a wife? seek not to be loosed. Thirdly, That of those who are already Unmar­ried, he adviseth Virginity to them only who have the Gift of Continence. Ver. 37. Nevertheless he that standeth sted­fast in his own heart, having no necessity, but hath power over his own will, and hath so decreed in his heart, that he will keep his virgin, he doth well. Ver. 8, 9. I say therefore to the unmarried and widows, it is good for them if they abide even as I. But if they cannot contain, let them marry: for it is better to marry than to burn. Fourthly, That this advice of Virginity was given not for the attainment of any greater merit, but meerly for reasons of Convenience, and the urgent Necessi­ties of those times. Ver. 26. I suppose therefore that this is good for the present distress. Ver. 28, 29. Such shall have trouble in the flesh, but I spare you. But this I say, brethren, the time is short. Ver. 32. But I would have you without carefulness. Fifthly, That this Advice was directed not only to the Clergy, but to all Christians in general. The Apostle no where restrains his discourse to the former, but all along addresseth himself to the whole multitude of Believers. If any one of these Observations be true, as they are all most cer­tainly, then no advantage can be drawn out of this Chap­ter for the cause of Celibacy, now in Controversie.

But our Adversaries are not only destitute of Reason and Revelation in favour of this Opinion, but we have also many strong Arguments against it. For to pass by the greatest of all, the Silence of Scripture, and the con­trary Practice of Antiquity; the first manifested already, the latter to be proved hereafter: Many of the Greatest Divines of the Roman Church do expresly confess, that the Celibacy of the Clergy is neither of Divine nor Apo­stolical Institution. This all those Popes, Councils and Do­ctors, hereafter to be produced, who allow the Marriage of Priests in the Greek Church to be lawful, must have held, unless they be supposed to have betrayed the Doctrine and Tradition of the Church. All those Divines likewise who have admitted or allowed a total abrogation of the Laws [Page 8] of Celibacy, could not believe it to have a Divine or Apostolical Original. However I shall produce some few, who expreslly denied it. As first, the Canon Law, which may be looked upon as the sence of the whole Church of Rome for some Ages. So then Gratian, Copula sacerdotalis nec legali, nec e [...]angelica vel apostolica auihoritate pro­hibe [...]ur, ecclesiastica [...]amen lege peni [...]us interdicitur, Caus. 26. qu. 2. c. 1. The Marriage of Priests is Forbidden neither by Legal, nor Evangelical, nor Apostolical Au­thority; and yet is wholly Forbidden by the Ecclesiastical Law. And, Ecclesia post apos [...]olica cons [...]ituta quaedam consilia perfectionis addidit, ut­pote de continentia ministrorum, Caus. 35. qu. 1. in fin. The Church, after the Apostolical Insti­tutions, hath added some counsels of Perfection, as that of the Continence of Ministers. Constituo sacerdotum caelibatum non esse juris divini, aut quoquam modo ab Apostolis pr [...]ceptum, sed tantum cons [...]ltum.—Si nulla lex, aut nulla essent vota monastica, liceret sacerdotibus aut mona­chis nube [...]e, Concil. Tom. XIV. p. 1551. Joannes, a Ludegna, in a Speech made in the Council of Trent, and Printed among the Acts of that Council, determineth and largely proveth, that the Celibacy of the Clergy is nei­ther of Divine Right, nor in any sence commanded by the Apostles, but only advised by them: And that, if there was no Laws of the Church, or Monastick Vows, Priests or Monks might lawfully Marry.

Besides, if the Opinion of those Divines be true, who maintain that Christ superadded no Evangelical Counsels to the Moral Law; Celibacy can be neither of Divine nor Apostolical Institution, unless we suppose that the Apo­stles immediately adulterated that most pure and simple Religion, which they had received from their Master. And indeed, this seemeth highly rational, most consonant to the Honour of God, and adapted to the Nature of Man. That Religion was most be [...]itting the Wisdom of the Deity to prescribe for the last and most perfect Rule of Mankind, which was most pure and simple: And this seems to have been the great End of Christ's coming into the World, to free us from the bondage of the Ceremonial Law, and estate us in that perfect liberty, if not of Will, yet at least as to the objects of Choice, in which we were at first Created: whereas had he prescribed a perpetual Con­tinence to all those who aim an Perfection, as is preten­ded, [Page 9] without altering their Natures at the same time, and by an extraordinary Miracle, enduing all, who desire it, with the Gift of Continence: This alone would have debased the excellency of his Religion; and have been an Imposition more grievous and burthensom, more difficult and intolerable, than all the Rites and Ceremonies of the Mosaick Law. And then in respect of us, it became the Wisdom and Goodness of our Supreme Law-giver, to give us a Religion, not as to Angels or Spiritual Beings, but in a way most consentaneous to our Natures, and and agreeing to our Imperfections. That can neither refine, nor perfect our Nature, which is Preternatural; and if in this Mortal State, while enchained in a Body, surrounded with frailties, and endued with passions, we affect the impassibility of Angels, and the perfection of Spirits, we may be called Ambitious, but I know not whether Pious.

But this is not all. The Apostle not only forbids not, but even expresly permitteth Marriage to the Clergy. For laying down the necessary Qualification of a Bishop, the highest and most perfect Degree of the Clergy, he proposeth this as as one, that 1 Tim. 3. 2, 4. he be blameless, the husband of one wife. One that ruleth well his own house, having his children in subjection, with all gravity. Of a Priest, that Tit. 1. 6. he be blameless, the husband of one wife, having faithful children. Of a Deacon, that 1 Tim. 3. 12. he be the husband of one wife, ruling his children, and his own house well: And further, looketh upon it as no small mark and testimony of the ability and worthiness of the Candidates of any of these Sacred Offices, if they have ruled their own Houses well, and by their precepts and examples taught their Wives and Children the practices of all Vertues. And in ano­ther place, 1 Cor. 2. 2. to avoid Fornication, allows to every Man his own Wife, maketh no exceptions. That is a lamentable refuge of some, who seek to elude the force of the former places, by pretending that the Apostle means here by the word [...], he who hath been the Husband of one Wife, but is not now, being become a Widdower, or at least unable for the exercises of the Bed. [Page 10] For besides that, the Tim. 3. 2. Apostle giveth Rules for the ver­tuous Carriage of Deacons Wives; besides that, this In­terpretation is uncertain, which is sufficient to our pur­pose, that it is contrary to the sence of all Mankind, and the Vulgar acceptation of the word Husband, that it seemeth repugnant to the following Precept, of ruling their Houses well, and is certainly repugnant to the Explication of the Fathers: The Practice of the An­cient Church do manifestly evince the falseness of it, wherein it cannot be denied many Persons were admitted to Sacred Orders, who had Wives then alive and dwelling with them. And in the Apostolical Constitutions, the Apostles are introduced thus spea­king, [...]. lib. 6. cap. 17. We have ordered, that a Bi­shop, Priest and Deacon, be the Hus­band of one Wife, whether their Wives be alive, or whether they be dead.

To pass by therefore this unreasonable Interpretation, there are three other Explications of this word [...], all of them back'd with great Reasons and Authorities. First, That the Apostle means no more thereby, than that the Persons admitted into Holy Orders, should not have two wives at the same time. Secondly, That he should not have successively two Wives, much less three or four, one after the death of another. Thirdly, That he should not have two Wives living at the same time, one Married after the Divorce of another. The first Inter­pretation was generally followed by the Greek, the second by the Latine Fathers; although Hom. X. in 1 Ep. ad Tim. & Hom. II. in Ep. ad Tit. St. Chrysostom espouseth both, and Ep. 83. ad Oceanum, comm. in Ioc. l. 1. adv. Jovin. St. Hierom in so many several places admits all three. Which of them be the truest, is of no great mo­ment to the present business, since each of them destroy the Opinion of our Adversaries, and leave to the Clergy a liberty of Marriage. However, be­cause the second Interpretation, if admitted, may in some measure prejudice that Principle which we shall hereafter lay down, that all cannot contain, and that God and [Page 11] Nature hath provided no other remedy for incontinent Persons, than Marriage, which consequently must be reiterated as often as necessity shall require: I shall say somewhat to it, and oppose first, the contrary Opinion of all the Greek Fathers. Secondly, the Authority of the whole Catholick Church, who admitted Bigamist Bishops and Priests, or those who had married one Wife after the death of another, and that in great numbers, as we shall hereafter occasionally demonstrate; so that if the Apostle had forbidden all such to be admitted into these Sacred Offices, the Universal Church had erred in a matter of the greatest moment. Thirdly, the third Interpretation seems far more consonant to Reason, the Analogy of the Scripture, and the Circumstances of those Times. For that ought not to exclude any Man from this Sacred Dig­nity, which is so far from being a Crime, that in many cases it becomes Necessary; and if Marriage be allowed to all Men, to avoid Fornication, if any Man's Wife dieth, before either his years, or the peculiar favour of God hath reprieved him from the temptations of Incon­tinence; that Man, although a Priest or Bishop, may, withouthe least injury to the strictest Rules of Piety or Religion, contract a second Marriage. Bigamy in him, as Comm. in 1 Ep. ad Tim. cap. 3. Theodoret invincibly argues, will become involun­tary, and conseqnently not derogate from his character either of Priest or Christian. Besides, it was an abuse very frequent in that Age, both among the Jews and Gentiles, to Divorce their Wives upon the slightest occa­sions, or the least discontent; an abuse which argued in all an inconstant and unjust, and in many a lustful Mind; and therefore although com­mitted before their Conversion, ren­dred such Persons unworthy of this Sacred Character. This Interpreta­tion therefore is embraced by Theo­doret, who, after he had affirmed the same Opinion to be maintained by many Others, and asserted it by many Reasons, concludeth thus, [...]. Loc. c. 14. They seem to me to be in the right, who [Page 12] hold, that the Apostle here teacheth him to be worthy of Episcopal Ordination, who liveth chastly with one only Wife. For he hath not herein rejected second Marriages, which he hath in many cases even commanded to be contracted. Considering then these and such like Arguments, I receive the Interpretation of these Writers. St. Chry­sostom also in Hom. 2. in Ep. ad Tit. one place explains it the same way. And St. Hierom, when freed from the passion of Disputing against Jovinian, enclined to the same Opinion. For pro­posing Comm. in Ep. ad Tit. c. 1. Tom. IX p. 245 the Examples of two Bishops, whereof the one shall have lost his Wife in his youth, and overcome by the necessity of the flesh shall marry another, bury her after some time, and ever after contain; the other shall enjoy the company of but one Wife, even till his death: He determineth the former to be the better, more chaste, and more continent. And in another place, Ep. 83. ad Oceanum. in init. resolving Oceanus his Question, Whether Carterius, a Spanish Bi­shop, who had married one Wife before, and a second after Baptism, had not thereby violated the Apostle's Injunction, of a Bishop's being the Husband of one Wife? He pronounceth, That he had not. Lastly, The contrary Opinion is built upon a false Foundation. For, not to say that it was first set on foot by Tertullian, after he was become a Montanist, and from him received by the Latin Fathers; it relyeth wholly upon these Two false Suppositions. First, That according to any other sence, the Precept of the Apostle would have been unnecessary, the Roman Laws never allowing Polygamy. Secondly, That the Apostle maketh use of the same Phrase, when he commands 1 Tim. 5. 9. a Widdow to be chosen, the wife of one husband, [...], although no Laws or civilized Nations ever permitted Women to have two Husbands at the same time. But both these Reasons vanish, when opposed to our Third Interpretation. For Divorce was permitted by the Roman as well as Jewish Laws, for many other causes besides that of Adultery, which alone was allowed by Christ: So that whosoever had put away his Wife for any other cause, and married another, might truly be said to have two Wives: and any Woman, who had married again after such an unlawful Divorce, had truly two Husbands.

[Page 13]Having thus refuted the pretence of Divine or Aposto­lical Institution, I proceed to the Second Proposition, That the Celibacy of the Clergy hath nothing excellent in itself, and produceth no real Advantage either to the Church or the Christian Religion, beyond Marriage. And here I am not ignorant, what Panegyricks and En­comiums of Virginity have been composed by many of the Antients, and almost all the Writers of the Barba­rous Ages. This was a large field for them, wherein to display their Rhetorick, a subject so specious in itself, and glorious in its Title, that 'tis no wonder it hath been the Theme of so many luxuriant Wits; many of which have little less than Deify'd it, and equall'd its Merits to the collection of all other Christian Vertues. I shall not here undertake, nor is it necessary to make an harangue upon the Praises of Marriage, much less to depress the Excel­lencies of the Virgin state; it will suffice to shew the weakness and invalidity of the contrary Arguments, and thereby reduce both Marriage and Virginity to that Equi­librium, wherein Nature first placed them, and our Sa­viour left them.

First then, I observe, That this extraordinary affection and reverence of Virginity, was first started and intro­duced by a Heretick, Tertullian; who deceived by the Enthusiasms of Montanus, endeavoured to resine the Chri­stian Religion, and advance it into a System of Angelick Perfection. He led the way to the Writers of the Latin Church; who receiving this prejudice from him, propa­gated it in some measure among the Greeks, although it never was by them embraced with that zeal, and pursued with that fervour, which always accompanied it in the Western Church. Secondly, it may be observed, That this extravagant veneration of Virginity prevailed proportio­nably to the decay of Learning, and encrease of Ignorance in all Ages. The Reputation of Celibacy was ever then highest, when Knowledge was at its lowest ebb. Particularly in the Tenth and Eleventh Ages, the most scandalous and barbarous periods of Time, that ever the Church waded through; when Learning seemed banished [Page 14] out of the whole World, then Celibacy triumphed every where, and was look'd upon as the Consummation of all Vertues; Marriage of the Clergy decried and abolished, and more Monasteries founded, than in all the Ages either before or since. Thirdly, This Opinion was first pro­duced, and ever after advanced and maintained by a gross Mistake; that there is somewhat of impurity or sinfulness in the use of Marriage, and that Chastity cannot be re­tained in a Married state.

That the Admirers of Celibacy among the Antients were guilty of this Mistake, we shall have hereafter occa­sion to observe; and although the more Learned Writers of the Church of Rome are ashamed of such a Proposition, yet do they constantly fall back and recurr to it, when they assign the Reasons of imposing Celibacy upon the Clergy. So Bellarmine, after he had before disowned it, when his purpose requires it, doubts not to say, In actu vero conjugii negari non potest, quin admixta sit quaedam impuritas & pollutio, non quae peccatum sit: sed quae ex peccato tamen nata sit. Controv. Tom. II. lib. 1. cap. 19. It cannot be denied, that some impurity and pollution inter­venes in the act of Marriage; not what is a sin, but what ariseth from sin. If by this Pollution and Impurity, he means a Natural one, we grant it; but then that affects not the Soul, nor depreciates the worth of Marriage: if a Moral one, that will indeed be truly and properly a Sin; but this he dares not say. Besides, his Distinction of a Sin, and a Consequence of a Sin, is wholly vain. For, if in all Use of Marriage, the effect of a Sin interveneth, then cannot Marriage be used without some precedent sin: A Proposition so false and erroneous, that the Use of Mar­riage was intended for our first Parents in the state of In­nocence, and would have been practis'd to this very day, had they never fallen. Nay farther, whether fallen or not fallen, it was their Duty to make use of Marriage for the Propagation of Mankind; and even for some Ages after the Creation, it was so far from being meritorious, that it was Unlawful to continue Virgins. But if by the ante­cedent sin, which produceth this Pollution in the Act of Marriage; Bellarmine means, only the Original de­pravity [Page 15] of our Nature: if it be a Necessary effect of this depravity, then God cannot in Justice, and will not in Mercy impute it to us; if it be not a Necessary effect of it, then Marriage may be used without it, and his Pro­position will fall to the ground.

However, because this ever was, and is still the great Engine of the Patrons of Virginity, wherewith they gained Applause in the World, and blinded the eyes of unwary People, it will not be amiss to clear this matter a little further, and demonstrate that a true and proper Chastity and Continence may be observed in Marriage; which will also overthrow most of the Authorities pro­duced out of the Writings of the more moderate and disinteressed Fathers, as insinuating no more than an Advice of Chastity in the Use of Marriage. If this Proposition seemeth either harsh or like a Paradox, it is only because we are unacquainted with it, and our judgment anticipa­ted by false notions of Chastity, which consists as well in a moderate and well regulated Use of Matrimonial Acts, as in a total Abstinence from them; nay, the for­mer will always be a Vertue, the latter sometimes a Sin, (as in the Infancy of the Creation, and if one married Person totally abstaineth without the consent of the other) and in most cases but a thing indifferent, and then only a Vertue, when it administers occasion and opportunity to a greater good, than is the Propagation of Mankind, and vertuous Education of Children for the future Service of God. Such Cases did often happen in the Beginning of Christianity, and the Times of Persecution; but in the calm and flourishing estate of the Church, are more rarely to be found. So that in all others, Chastity in the notion of a total Abstinence, is a thing wholly indifferent, even although such Abstinence should be true and perfect. But alas! the far greater part of Mankind are not capable of such an Abstinence, which consisteth not only in the preserving the Body from actual Pollution and unlawful Pleasures, for that may be a matter of Necessity as well as Choice, and is common to thousands who shall never see the Glories of Heaven; but also in refraining the Mind [Page 16] from the desires, and even the thoughts of Uncleanness, and preventing the circles of an inward Fire. Such a Man may truly be said to retain a pure and unspotted Vir­ginity; but then I doubt, that at the same time he will be the Phoenix of his Age. And then after all, if he want either Abilities or a Will to employ himself in Vertue and the Service of God, to greater advantage than he could have done in a Married state, his Celibacy will be devoid of all merit, and become wholly indifferent.

On the other side, the conservation of a true Chastity, is both possible and easie in Marriage; if it be not fre­quent, that ariseth from the corruption of Mankind, not any desicience or imperfection of Marriage. Now that Chastity and Continence may be here found and practised, the Apostle assureth us, when he saith, Heb. 13. 4. [...], Marriage is honourable in all men, and the bed uudefiled, or impolluted, directly contrary to Bellarmine's Proposition. The Apostle is herein followed by almost all the Fathers. I shall producce some of them: and first the Great Paphnutius, who when in the Council of Nice the Celibacy of the Clergy was proposed, under the pretence of advancing Chastity, [...]. So­crat. l. 1. c. 11. pronounced the embraces of a lawful Wife to be Chastity, and was therein applauded by the whole Council. So Clemens Alex. [...]. Strom. l. 3. Just Men under the Old Law, begat Chil­dren, Marrying (or using Marriage) incontinently. [...]. Ibid. What, may we not use Marriage continently? and not go about to dissolve that, which God hath joyned. [...] Ibid. He also who marrieth for the sake of Procreation of Children, ought to use continence, so as not to lust even after his own Wife, whom he ought to love, begetting Children with an honest and chaste will. Lactantius, Sed sicut faeraina castitatis vinculis obligata est, ne aliud concupiscat, ita vir eadem legetenetur, quo (quia) Deus & viro uxorem unius corporis compage solidavit. Epitome, cap. 8. As the Woman is bound by the Laws of Chastity, to lust after no other [Page 17] Object; so is the Husband bound by the same Law; because God hath joyned the Husband to his Wife, by the union of one Body. St. Ambrose, Sunt ergo virginitatis praemia, sunt merita viduitatis, est etiam conjugali pu­dicitiae locus. Epist 82. ad Vercell. Virginity hath its rewards, Widdowhood its me­rits; there is also place for conjugal Chastity. The Qui unius uxoris virum [...] esse, non quo exortem excludat conjugii, nam hoc supra legem praecepti est: sed ut conjugali castimonia servet ablutionis suae gratiam. Ibid. ante Med. Apostle com­mands a Bishop to be the Husband of one Wife; not that he excludeth an un­married Man, for that is not the sence of his Precept, but that by conjugal Chastity he may preserve the grace given him in Baptism.

If then Chastity is common both to Marriage and Celi­bacy, the latter can have no intrinsick Excellence beyond the former: Nor indeed do our more judicious Adversa­ries pretend to that. Few are guilty of so foul an errour, except some zealous and unlearned Monks. The Excel­lence therefore of it is wholly accidental, and consists only in affording greater advantages of Piety, Knowledge, and Beneficence, than Marriage. This therefore is next to be examined. Let us then consider any one as a Man, a Christian, and a Priest. If in the first quality, as a Member and Citizen of Mankind, that estate will de­serve the preheminence, which is most communicative of good, and beneficial to the whole Universe. The benefits of Celibacy are indirect, accidental, and rare; those of Marriage, direct, natural, and frequent. If as a Chri­stian, that state will be most eligible, that more imme­diately procureth the grace and favour of God; this Ce­libacy directly affords to none; Marriage conferrs on all, in the Opinion of the Church of Rome, who make it a Sacrament. If as a Priest, that state is preferrable, which giveth the greater and more diffusive Example to the Laity. A Vertuous Celibacy will be indeed Exemplary to Virgin Laicks, the smallest and most inconsiderable part of the Church: But then a prudent and religious conduct of Marriage will serve as a Rule for other married Per­sons, the far greater part of the Laick Church.

[Page 18]Thus far the Merits of both are at least equal. If we recurr to the Authority of Examples, we may begin at Pa­radice, and the first state of Mankind. Here we sind a married Couple even in the state of Innocence, and the very first Blessing given by God unto Mankind, to be this, Gen. 1. 28. Be fruitful, and multiply. And as it can be no laudable. Ambition, to desire to exceed the Piety and Innocence of Paradice, so neither can it be any great Perfection, to defeat the first Blessing of the Creation. If we descend hence until the Times of Moses, we shall find all the Pa­triarchs both before and after the Flood, to have pleased. God, and served their Generations at the same time. All this while Celibacy hath no Example, nor any one Presi­dent. If we look into the Mosaick Law, Marriage was there expresly permitted, and indirectly commanded to the Priest, since none but their own Posterity could be admitted into that Order. I am not ignorant that the Patrons of Celibacy urge mightily the Three days Absti­nence Exod▪ 19. 15. from their Wives, imposed upon the People, in preparing themselves to receive the Law of God in Mount Sinai. But this was enjoyned not only to the Priests, but to all the People; was a short and temporary, not a total and perpetual Abstinence; served only to typifie that inseparable Purity of Mind and Body, which was to flourish in the Church of Christ; and was a meer Rite and Ceremony, unworthy of the dignity and simplicity of the Christian Religion. Again, if we consider the Saints and Prophets of the Old Testa­ment, [...]. Mat. Hom. 56. in fine. St. Chrysostom will tell us, that all the Prophets had Wives and Fa­Families, as Esaias, Ezekiel, and the Great Moses; and yet sufferd therby no diminution of their Vertue. Or if we take our measures from the vene­rable Examples of Christ and his Apostles, we may learn both from their Doctrine and Practice, that the Perfection of a Christian state consists not in an idle and contem­plative, but in an active and benefactive state. That most, if not all the Apostles were Married, we shall prove here­after; [Page 19] and if our Saviour chose a Single state, wherein to pass his life on Earth, Clemens Alex. shall answer for us, Strom. l. 3. p. 446. That He had his proper Spouse, the Church; that He was no ordinary Man, who should either want an help, or be subject to the temptations of Incontinency; that it was not necessary for him to continue his Species by Pro­creation, who was himself God, blessed for evermore. And then if we cast our eyes upon the Worship and Opi­nion of the Gentiles, we shall find Celibacy in no great esteem among them, and Marriage not only allowed to their Priest, but even made necessary to some of them; insomuch as the Pontifex Maximus among the Romans, could continue no longer in his Office, than his Wife liv'd. Adv. Jo­vin. l. 1. in sin. St. Herom indeed, and after him all the Cham­pions of Celibacy, alledge the Exmple of the Hiero­phantae of Athons. But had that good Father in the heat of his Disputation, considered the Character of those Priests, he would not have ventured to produce their Example. For if we may believe the Relations of Lucian, and the more Ancient Christian Writers, those Hierophantae of Greece practised in their secret Rites and Mysteries, the most abominable Lusts and Villanies of the Pagan Su­perftition. In speaking of this matter, I will further observe, that there was but one great Order of Priests among the Heathens, which professed Virginity, those of Cybele or Isis (for as for the Vestal Virgins, they were permitted to marry, when their time of Service was expired,) and but one Sect of Philosophers, that decried and contemned Marriage, the Vid. Cl [...]m. Alex. Str [...]m. l. 2. p. 421. Epicureans, and of these the first were the most Infamous and Incontinent of all Priests, the latter the most Debauched and Voluptuous of all Philosophers.

Lastly, If we consult Reason (for Scripture we have before examieed, and Tradition we shall hereafter,) neither will that declare in favour of Celibacy. That will only teach us, that state is more Noble, which most advanceth the Happiness of Life, and gives the greatest assistance to the Perfection of our Nature. For neither Marriage nor Celibacy have of themselves any intrinsick [Page 20] Merit, at least not Celibacy, as we before proved: Neither of them doth immediately and directly illuminate the Understanding, refine the Reason, or purge the Will. Now the Happiness of Human Life, and the Perfection of Nature, consists in the tranquility and imperturbation of the Mind, whereby it is sitted for the Contemplation of her Creator, and the Exercise of all more noble and su­blime Vertues. This Tranquility, next to Habits of Vice in the Soul, is chiefly interrupted by immoderate and ungoverned Passions in the Body, although even those Habits were produced at first by the intemperance of these Passions. The greatest and most vehement of our Passi­ons, are those of Desire, and among them the propensity to the continuation of our Species obtains thefirst place. A a right Use of Marriage satisfies this propensity, allays its violence, secureth the Mind from all tempests on that side. This Celibacy can do only in those who have the Gift of Continence, who perhaps are not the thousandth part of Mankind; if those be excepted, to whom not God or Vertue, but some defect of Nature, hath given a reprieve from this Passion. In the rest, Celibacy, especially when enforced, will be only the occasion of perpetual, or at least intermitting tempests, which instead of a sweet Serenity, will introduce into the Mind a turbulent Commotion, dissorder all her Thoughts, and deprive her of all Happiness: Or if we should grant, which is most false, that Celibacy well governed, is in all able to give the Mind the same tranquility, and secure her from all pertur­bations arising from the passion of Desire; yet still the Merits and Advantages of Marriage and Celibacy will be equal, even in this Consideration.

There remains then only arguments of temporal con­venience, and outward decorum of the Church. And here though it might suffice to observe that arguments of convenience are of no validity against a probability of un­lawfulness, much less against an express Divine Permission; yet shall I briefly examine the Reasons of this kind pro­duced by our Adversaries. They may be reduced to three Heads: A greater immunity from secular cares and world­ly [Page 21] business, and thereby a better opporunity to attend the Service of God, and execute the Duties of their Office: Secondly, A certain indecency in the use of Marriage, which renders it incompatible or at least inconvenient, to the Sacerdotal Office: Thirdly, The better administra­tion of the goods and revenues of the Church. As for the First that might indeed with some colour have been pleaded in the infancy of the Gospel, when many of the Clergy were designed as itinerant Preachers, for the pro­pagation of the Faith; although it was then so far from being necessary, that many of the Apostles did in their travels lead about with them, if not their wives, which is most probable, yet at least women. But now when the Faith is planted, and the Clergy have particular limits assigned them wherein to execute their Office; that rea­son ceaseth. Another case may happen wherein this ar­gument may take place; in times of Persecution, when 'tis of great advantage and interest to the Church, that her Clergy give examples of patience and constancy to their flock, and is very probable that a man will embrace Martyrdom with a greater resolution and unconcernedness when freed from the solicitude of Wife and Children, whose consideration and perhaps importunities might tempt him to Prevarication; but then Celibacy is here al­so so far from being necessary, that it will augment the Merits and the Glory of Martyrdom to break through those Obstacles, and slight those Considerations. However, certain it is, that in the Peaceable and Flourishing Times of the Church: this Reason is of no Validity. Hence appear­eth, with how little Reason our Adversaries urge that so much celebrated Text of St. Paul, 1 Cor. 7. 32. He that is Unmarried, careth for the things that belong to the Lord, how he may please the Lord. An admonition by the Apostle adapted to those times of Persecution; as appears by the Preface of it: But I would have you (speaking to all Christians) without Care­fulness. For otherwise, Marriage does not necessarily in­volve more Carefulness or Disquiet, than Celebacy. If a greater Anxiety doth ordinarily attend it, that pro­ceeds not from the nature of Marriage, but the abuse of [Page 22] Men. And therefore Clemen, Alex. [...]. Strom. l. 3. answers to the Ancient Hereticks urging this very Text against Mar­riage: What then? Cannot those who please their Wives in a lawful way, give thanks to God? May not a Married Man, together with his Marriage, care for the things that belong to the Lord? Further, these Texts do no more prove the Necessity or Convenience of Priests Celibacy, than it doth of all other Christians. Nor can it be here pretended, that the Clergy are more peculiarly devoted to the Service of God, and therefore more par­ticularly obliged to this Duty. For, first, That would suppose some Excellency in Celibacy, which we have pro­ved cannot be found; and then the Priests under the Old Law, were no less solemnly Dedicated to God, who yet were not debarred Marriage. Besides, the Church of Rome excludes not those from holy Orders, who have ei­ther Buried their Wives, or vow a perpetual Abstinence from them, although they may have many Children then alive: As if an equal Solicitude and [...]. Clem. Alex. Stom. l. 3. in init. Anxiety were not required to pro­vide for Children begotten before as after Ordination. Not to say that the Ancient Hereticks made use of the same Plea, and shunned Marriage, to avoid the trouble of provi­ding Necessaries for a Family; and that the Apostle was not ignorant of this inconvenience, if it be any, and yet thought it not sufficient to enjoyn Celibacy to the Clergy. But in truth it is a meer Chimaera, a Figment, and a vain Suspicion. For to use St. Chrysostom's words [...], &c. Hom. XXI in Genes. Marriage doth not only not hinder the Practice of Divine Philosophy, if we will be sober, but also administers to us great Assistance in it, by culming the turbulencies of. Nature, and not per­mitting it to be tossed in tempests, but preparing it a haven, wherein to ride securely. Wherefore God hath herein granted a Priviledge to [Page 23] Mankind. Again, if a Priest or Bishop must therefore be Unmarried, that he may decline the Cares and Troubles of the World; then certainly with much more reason he ought not to intermeddle in Secular Business, and the Government of whole Provinces. For who can imagine that the government of a single Family involves more care and trouble, than the administration of St. Peter's Patri­mony? Lastly, I appeal to the Experience of the whole World, Whether the Regulars of the Church of Rome, who to their Vow of Continence have added another of Retirement from the World, do not busie themselves in Secular Matters, exercise Merchandise, and heap up Riches, beyond the Clergy of the Church of England?

The Second Reason alledged by our Adversaries, is a certain indecency and impurity in the act of Marriage, which renders it unfitting for a Preist to proceed from the late embraces of his wife to the administration of holy things. So that because the Clergy of the Christian Church do either daily administer the Sacraments, and offer up Scrifices of praise and thansgiving to God, in the name of all the people; or at least ought to be alwaies ready and prepar'd to do it: They ought therefore per­petually to abstain from conjugal Duties. This was ever the chief Argument and Foundation of Celibacy. Popes and Councils in enjoyning it to the Clergy, seldom make use of any other than this; and all the enemies of Preists Marriage from the times of Origen to this day, have cer­tainly plac'd it in the front of their Arguments. Yet after all it is a shameful and most foolish Sophism. For, if by this indecency and impurity in the use of Marriage, they mean a moral one; that is absolutely false, and flat He­resie: The very opinion of the Marcionites, Encratites, and other more absurd Hereticks. But if they mean only a natural impurity, that in no ways renders any man less sit for the Service of God, nor ought to exclude him from the administration of holy things, any more than the other more frequent evacuations of Nature. So gross a conceit is unworthy the simplicity of the Christian Religion, and makes it degenerate into the dregs of Judaism. Besides, [Page 24] if we should suppose a natural impurity somewhat indecent in the Clergy (which yet is foolish to imagine of a secret and hidden impurity, such as this is) yet will it be infinitely outweighed by the inevitable danger of a moral tupitude to which Preists are expos'd by enforc'd Celibacy. Lastly, this Argument of the daily celebration of Mass and conse­crating of the Eucharist, affects not Deacons nor Subdea­cons; and is entirely overthrown by the practice of the Church in the Apostolick and Primitive times; when all Baptized Christians daily receiv'd the Eucharist, and yet cannot be suppo'sd either to have been enjoyn'd or have used perpetual abstinence from their wives.

The Third Reason is the better Oeconomy of the goods and revenues of the Church; which our Adversaries would not have expended upon wife and children, but in publick acts of charity. This might indeed with some pretence be urg'd, if all the unmarried Clergy employed the su­perfluity of their Revenues upon Piety and Charity, or none of the married Clergy did it, or if the well ordering of Families and good Education and decent provision for children were not of advantage to the Publick. But these are equally false. And then in vain are wives and children removed, when nephews and other relations can gain access. The examples of the Court of Rome, especial­ly for the last two hundred years, demonstrates that Popes have employed themselves with greater zeal and fervour to the aggrandizing of their Families, than ever the married Clergy of the Reformed Churches did to the enriching of their Posterity.

Thus have we examined the pretended advantages of the Clergies Celibacy, and found them to be null and vain. But suppose them valid, and really as great as they are represented to us by our Adversaries. If after all it hath in other respects no less disadvantages, Celibacy will yet remain indifferent, both in its nature and conve­nience. To pass by therefore the inconvenience of Ce­libacy in general, as that it ordinarily produceth Morosness, Pride and Uncharitableness, to say nothing worse, when affected and chosen as a matter of Merit, [Page 25] as [...]. Strom. l. 3. Clemens Alex. of old obser­ved: I shall consider only the par­ticular inconveniences arising from the enforced Celibacy of the Clergy, and mention but Two of them; but those so great and sensible, that each of them infinitely outweigheth all the pretended advantages of it. The First is the inevitable and most certain danger of open Incontinence in many of the Clergy, and thereby introducing a horrible Scandal into the Church of Christ, which may alone more effectually obstruct Piety and Vertue among the Laity, than the Preaching of all together can promote it. For all ignorant Christians, which are the far greater part of the Church, are led more by Examples than Reason, and assent to the Christian Re­ligion meerly for the authority of their Pastors that Pro­pose it. So that the Scandal caused by the Lust of one Incontinent Priest, is more dangerous to the Church, than the Celibacy of an hundred Chaste Priests can be ad­vantageous to it. Now that forced Celibacy betrays the Clergy to open Incontinency, let St. Bernard speak. Tolle de ecclesiae honorabile connu­bium & torum immaculatum, nonne re­ples eam concubinariis, incestuosis, semi­nistuis, mollibus, masculorum conoubito [...] i­bus, & omni denique genere immundorum? Serm. 66. in Cantica post. init. Take from the Church honourable Marriage, and the Bed undefiled; Do you not fill it with Fornicators, incestuous Persons, Abu­sers of themselves, Sodomites, and all kind of uncleanness? This Experi­ence hath also sadly demonstrated, as we may hereafter shew. The Second inconvenience of forced Celibacy, is that it deprives the Church of the service of many Pious and Learned Men; who either being already married, will not consent to separate themselves from ther Wives; or being yet single, will not receive Orders upon the terms of Celibacy, as either finding that they have not the Gift of Continency, or doubting whether they shall always have it. The lamentable Effects of this Truth in England and Germany, in the Eleventh and Twelfth Ages, we shall afterwards have occasion to mention.

[Page 26]Lastly, Suppose that Celibacy had all the aforementio­ned Advantages, and none of the Inconveniences; yet still if Marriage hath peculiar advantages, which Celibacy wants, both will remain indifferent, and neither to be preferred. That Marriage hath such, cannot be denied. For not to say, that Marriage, in the Opinion of the Church of Rome, actually confers Grace, and was chosen by Christ to be a Type of his Mystical Union with the Church; not to urge the precedent Arguments, nor pro­duce a-new the Authority of St. Chysostom; not to say, that the vertuous Marriage of a Priest may be highly exem­plary to his People, since the Effects of it are visible and manifest in the prudent Govern­ment of his Family, and the pious [...]. Clem. Alex. Snrom. l. 3. Education of his Children; whereas Continence, which is the Perfection of Celibacy, is a Vertue of the Soul, invisible, and hidden from the Eyes of Men, and so can­not be properly Exemplary. To pass by all this, I will I will alledge only the Authority of Clemes Alex. in these words. [...], &c. Strom. l. 3. Mar­riage, as well as Celibacy, hath its pe­culiar offices and duties pleasing to God, God, I mean the care of Children and Wife. Whence the Apostle commandeth those to be chosen Bishops, who from the vertuous government of their own Fami­lies, have learned to preside over the Church well. [...] &c. Strom. l. 7. And in truth, a Man approveth not himself in chusing a single Life; but he transcends the ordi­nary rank of Men, who useth Mar­riage, and the procreation of Cildren, and the government of a Family, without immoderate affection or anxiety; and notwithstanding the care of his House, is unalterable from the love of God, and bravely resists all the temptations of Wife and Children, Servants and Possessions.

[Page 27]Having thus proved that the Celibacy of the Clergy was neither instituted by Christ nor his Apostles, and hath no excellence in it self, or convenience to the Church: I proceed to the Third Proposition, That the Imposition of it upon any Order of men, is unjust and repugnant to the Law of God. And here because the possibility of Continence in all will intervene as the main Question, I will divide my Discourse, and prove,

• I. That the Church hath no Authority to Inhibit Mar­riage to the Clergy, even supposing that all can contain.
• II. That all cannot contain, and consequently that to impose Celibacy upon any Order of men, made up of all Ages, Constitutions and Humours, is directly contrary to Reason, Justice, and the Law of God.

I. First then, the Church hath no Authority to forbid Marriage to the Clergy, even supposing that all men may by due diligence obtain the gift of Continence. This may be evidently deduc'd from what was last proved. For the Church cannot challenge a greater Authority than the Apostles had. But their Authority, as we are assured by 2 Cor. 10. 8. St. Paul, was given them only for Edification and not for Destruction. Not that the Imposition of Celibacy tends not to the edification of the Church, we have already proved, that it naturally tends to the destruction of many members of the Church is manifest. For in so numerous a Body as the Clergy is, 'tis morally impossible that many of them should not neglect those means whereby the gift of Continence may be acquired, and thereby falling into Inconinency lose their own Souls, and by their Scandal and Example draw many into Perdition with them: Whereas had Marriage been permitted them, both would in all probability have been prevented. Indeed if the edification arising from the imposition or prohibition of any thing indifferent be obvious and evident, and the de­struction either none, or dubious and uncertain; or even if the edification be uncertain, so as there be not the least [Page 28] danger of destruction; or perhaps even although both edification and destruction were equally dubious; the decrees of the Church in all these cases ought to take place: For otherwise a door would be left open for the obstinate contradiction of foolish and unreasonable men. But in this case the edification produced by the Celibacy of the Clergy is, as we have proved, none, or at least, infinite­ly dubious: Whereas the danger of destruction, which may be caused by it, is most certain, manifest, and appa­rent. Secondly, The Church cannot totally deprive any man of the liberty of enjoying any lawful and natu­ral pleasures; nor take from him any of those comforts and benefits, which nature and the right of creation first gave him and intended for him. She may restrain and limit the use of them as to time and place, but can by no means totally abollish it. So the Church may forbid flesh to be eaten, or Marriage to be contracted at some certain seasons of the year; but as she cannot enjoyn to any man a perpetual abstinence from flesh; so neither can she totally forbid Marriage to any order of men. For this is contrary to the very genius and constitution of the Christian Religion; whose peculiar glory is the simplicity of it, and the entire conformity in all the Agenda of it to the law of nature. Thirdly, Whatsoever may be pre­tended for inhibiting Marriage to the unmarried Clergy, the Church most certainly cannot dissolve the Marriage of those, who never made any vow of of continence, and were lawfully married before the prohibition of the Church: Since our Saviour expresly saith Mat. 19. 6. What God hath joyned together, let no man put asunder. Yet the Church of Rome did this in the Eleventh and Twelfth Ages, when many Popes and Councils commanded the married Cler­gy to be separated from their wives upon pain of Excom­munication, not permitting them to retain their wives, by relinquishing their Offices, and retiring into Lay Com­munion: Although the Clergy in their Remonstrance offered to Nicolas II. protested that they had never made any vow of Continence, and could not contain without the use of Marriage. I know it is pretended, that the [Page 29] Clergy in receiving Orders, are supposed to have made a Tacite and Interpretative Vow of Chastity. But the vanity of that pretence, I shall manifest immediately. Other Reasons might be produced, but these are sufficient.

II. All Men cannot contain, and therefore to impose Celibacy upon any Order of Men is injust, and contrary to the Divine Law. For all Persons who cannot contain, have a right to Marry by the Law of Nature, that they may not be necessitated to Sin; and are commanded to Marry by the Law of God. Cor. 8. 9. But if they cannot con­tain, let them Marry: For it is better to Marry, than to Burn. In imposing Celibacy therefore upon the Clergy, the Church of Rome forbids many to Marry, whom God commands to do it. Now that all Men cannot contain, appears from this very place of the Apostle, which Insi­nuates that in some Persons, there is no Medium between Marriage and Burning; but it is evident beyond all con­tradiction from the Reason of this Permission of Marri­age assigned in the precedent Verse: Ver. 7. For I would that all Men were even as myself: (that is, Continent.) But every Man hath his proper Gift of God; one after this manner, and another after that. Our Saviour expresly Teacheth the same thing, when to the Apostles objecting; That if the the Case were so, it is not good to Marry. He answer­ed, Mat. 19. 11, 12. All Men cannot receive this saying, save they to whom it is given. And, He that is able to receive it, let him re­ceive it. God hath obliged himself indeed by Promise, to Confer upon us all Graces necessary for the performance of our Duty, and attainment of Salvation; but the gift of Continence is not of this Nature, since God hath pro­vided Marriage for a remedy of Incontinency; which if we will not make use of, the danger lieth at our own Doors, God is no further obliged. Indeed, if through any Accident, which disables either of the Married Per­sons, Marriage fails to be a remedy of Incontinency, (which our Adversaries frequently Object) God must be them supposed to have obliged himself to bestow the gift of Continence when duly asked, because in that case he hath provided no other Remedy. So that the Argument [Page 30] of the Council of Trent, that, God will not deny this Gift (c) Sess. 24. Can. 9. to those that rightly ask it, as having promised, not to suffer us to be tempted above what we are able; is wholly Impertinent. Since God thereby obliged himself to no more than with the Temptation also to make a way to escape, not that way which we best like, for that is not promised, and is highly unreasonable, but which Himself pleaseth: And that he hath abundantly done, in Assigning the easie and natural way of Marriage. As for Bellarmine's Argument, That whosoever desireth the gift of Continence, thereby to form a Habit of it, and that God will not be wanting to Crown our honest endeavours with a perfect Possession of it: That is many ways false. For, first, A desire of Continence rather supposeth, that we yet want it. Then it is not an Honest Endeavour to covet all kind of Divine Gifts, but only those which are Necessary; as it would not be laudable now to desire the gift of Tongues, meer­ly for Ostentation. 1 Cor. 7. 17. But as God hath distributed to eve­ry Man, so let him Walk. Lastly, God Crowns not all even Honest Desires with with a grant of them. For suppose any Man should out of the abundance of his Cha­rity desire the gift of Miracles, meerly to cure the Dis­eases, relieve the Necessities, and remove the Errours of Mankind, without any admixture of Interest or Ambi­tion therein; yet would it be Irrational to expect the performance of it. As for that place (which is urged by some) I would that all Men were even as myself. That no more proves the possibility of Continence in all, than that other place: 1 Cor. 14. 5. I would that ye all speak with Tongues; doth, that all can obtain the gift of Tongues.

The Ancients thought the same thing. So St. Ambrose, Virginitas in voto magis est quam in magisterie. De Virginib. l. 1 Virgi­nity is rather in our Wish, than in our Power. St. Hirome, even when di­sputing for Celibacy, freqently grants that all cannot contain; more espe­cially in these words: Noli metuere ne omnes virgines siant: difficilis res est Virginitas, & ideo quia rara, difficilis. Multi vocati, pauci electi, Incipere plurimorum est, perseverare pau­corum. Si omnes Virgines esse▪ possent, nunquam & Dominus diceret. Qui potest capere, capiat; & Apostolus in suadendo non trepidaret. De Virginibus autem pracep­tum Domini non habeo. Adv. Jovin. l. 1. c. 21. Fear not [Page 31] that all will become Virgins. Virginity is a difficult thing, and therefore rare, because difficult. Many are called, but few cho­sen: Many begin, but few can persevere. If all could be Vir­gins, our Lord would never have said, He that is able to re­ceive it, let him receive it. And the Apostle would not have doubted in persuading it, nor said, Now concerning Virgins, I have no Commandment from the Lord. St. Bernard, Utinam magis turrim inchoaturi fe­dentes computarent, ne forte sumptus non habeant ad perficiendnm. Utinam qui con­cinere non valent, perfectionem temerariè prositeri, aut coelibatui dare nomina vere­rentur. Sumptuosa siquidem turris est, & verbum grande, quod non omnes capere possunt. Esset autem sine dubio melius nu­bere quam uri. De Convers. ad Cleric. cap. 29. Would to God, they who begin this Tower would sit down, and better compute the Costs, least per­haps they have not sufficient to finish it. Would those who cannot contain, would dread rashly to profess Perfection, or undertake Celibacy. For the Tower is Costly, and the Saying is great, which all cannot receive. It were undoubted­ly better for them to Marry, than to Burn. Upon this account they thought Virginity not lawful to be comman­ded, and even in its nature incapable of Imposition. So the Author of the Commentaries upon of St. Paul's Epistles, extant among St. Ambrose's Works, whom all agree to have been Hilary, Deacon of Rome, under Pope Liberius, delivers his Opinion. Ideo non delet quis constringi, ne ab licito prohibitus, illicita admittat: Sed ipse sibi eligat quid sequatur. Comm. in 1. Ep. ad Cor. cap. 7. For that reason none ought to be obliged to Conti­nence, least being restrained from what is lawful, he commit things unlawful. But let him chuse for himself, what he will follow. St. Hierom, Ne (que) tamen alicui necessitatem im­ponit aut laqueum.—Quia ultra homi­nes est, & quodammodo impudentis erat adversum naturam cogere, alioque modo dicere, Volo vos esse, quod angeli sunt. Adv. Helvid. cap. 10. The A­postle in persuading Virginity, lays not a necesity or a snare upon any. For that is beyond the power of Men, and would be as it were impudence to compel against nature, and say in other words; I would have you be, what An­gels are. Noli igitur admirari, si inter ti­tillationem carnis, & incentiva vitiorum, angelorum vitam non exigimur sed doce­mur. Adv. Jovin. l. 1. Wonder not therefore, if amidst the proneness of the flesh, and incentives of Vices, we are not Com­manded but Taught the Life of An­gels. St. Ambrose, Sola est enim Virginitas, qu [...] sua­deri potest, imperari non potest, res magis voti quam praecepti. Exhort. ad Virgines post init. 'Tis Virgi­nity [Page 32] alone which can be perswaded, cannot be commanded; a matter rather of Wish than Precept. Clemens Alex. [...]. Strom. l. 3. Of necessity there­fore Marriage must not be forbidden. Theodoret upon those words, Tim. 4. 13. In the latter days, some shall depart from the faith—Forbidding to marry, saith. [...]. Comm. in loc. The Apostle blames not here Celibacy or Continence, but con­demneth those who compel to use them. Pope Gregory I. Mihi durum atque incompetens vi­detur, ut qui usum continentiae non inve­nit, neque castitatem ante promisit, com­pellatur à sua uxore separari, atque per hoc, quod absit, in deterius cadat. l. 1. ep. 42. It seemeth harsh and unfit to me, that he who hath not obtained a habit of Continence, or pro­mis'd Chastity, should be compelled to separate from his Wife, and thereby fall into worse crimes, which God forbid. The Second Council of His autem quibus voluntas propria desiderium nubendi persuaserit, concessam ab Apostolis licentiam auferre non possu­mus. Can. 2. Toledo, Anno 531. declare, That they have no power to take away from those who desire to marry, the permission granted by the Apostles. Lastly, Papa etiam cum majore parte con­cilii non poterit indicere continentiam certo generi personarum post promotionem eis resistentibus & reluctantibus: quia co [...]ti­nentia est res, quae potest persuaderi, im­perari autem non. Caus. 32. qu. 1. cap. Integritas. Panor­mitan determines, The Pope, even with the greater part of a Council, can­not enjoyn Continence to any Order of Persons after their promotion, if they resist and refuse; because Continence is a thing which can be perswaded, but cannot be commanded. Upon the same Prin­ciple, of the Impossibility of Continence in many, pro­ceeded most of those many Fathers, whom we shall pre­sently produce for the validity of Marriage Contracted after a Vow of Continence. I deny not, that many of the Fathers believed it possible for all to obtain the Gift of Continence; but that doth not in the least prejudice my Argument. For the Church cannot lawfully impose Ce­libacy upon any, unless it be a point of Faith, that all can contain; which the Dissent of those Doctors I have al­ready produced, evidently manifest it is not.

[Page 33]If it be objected, that the acquisition of Continence is possible to all, by the use of frequent Watchings, long Fasts, and other great austerities: I answer, first, it may be perhaps justly questioned, whether it be lawful to afflict the body with those austerities, which are in some Persons necessary to the attainment of Chastity. For the Soul ought sweetly to guide and direct, not tyrannize over the Body; which was given as a Companion, not a Slave to it. Here, as in all other Actions, Reason ought to pre­scribe limits to the government of the Soul. Now such a Mortification as is necessary to destroy Lust in inconti­nent Persons, will at the same time destroy their Health, and consequently more hinder the service of God, the practice of Vertue, the exercise of Piety,, than a single Life can promote it, or Marriage would obstruct it. Secondly, If it should be lawful for the Soul voluntarily to exercise this Arbitrary Power upon the Body, yet most certainly it is unlawful for the Church to impose any thing, which will induce a necessity of offering violence to Nature, weakning the energy of the Soul, heaping diseases upon the Body, and dissolving the harmony of Both. Thirdly, All are not able to undergo these Au­sterities; and when undergon, they are not always suf­ficient to prevent Incontinency. The frequent repetition of them, demonstrates this; which would be useless and foolish, if the disease did not as often recurr. Not Watch­ings or Fastings, not Whippings or even Emasculation it­self, practised of old by Origen, a [...]d the Valesian Hereticks, and in the last Age by Thuan. Hist. l. 99. in sin. Ambrosius Morales, can wholly eradicate in some this peccant humour. It must needs have been a very violent passion, the indignation of which could extort so severe a remedy; which when it was used, did effectually indeed preserve the Body, but not in the least diminish the Lust of Mind. Animus est enim qui aut S [...]nctifi­cat aut pol [...]uit Corpus. Quid enim pro­dest Corpus mund [...]m habere, & animam pollutam? Cum merito animae aut honora­tur Corpus aut damnatur. Hilarius Diac. Comm. in 1 Epist. ad Cor. c. 7. Yet it is the Mind which either sanctifies or pollutes the Body. For what doth it profit to have the Body clean, and the Soul polluted, whenas the Body is either saved or damned by the merits [Page 34] of the Soul. As for all other severities, how ineffectual they are, in some Constitutions, Hist. Lau­siac. c. 22. Palladius relates a memorable Story of Moses, a most Famous Abbot in the Desarts of Egypt, afterwards made Bishop of the Ara­bians; whom Palladius calls, the Blessed; Theodoret, Hist. Eccl. l. 4. c. 20. the Divine Moses, who from his Youth perpetually vexed with temptations of Incontinency, could not free himself from them by all the austerities which Wit could invent, or Nature endure; and therefore all his life was forced to abstain from receiving the Sacrament; till in his Old Age [...]. he was by an extraordinary Miracle delivered from them. Upon which Palladius makes this Remark: For in truth Concupiscence is perfectly untameable.

But the great Plea of the Writers of the Church of Rome, remains behind, which must be more largely dis­cussed. They pretend that the Church imposeth Celi­bacy, or a Necessity of Continence, upon no Man: That she hath annexed it indeed to the four Superior Orders of the Clergy, but then forceth none to enter into those Orders: That the Unlawfulness of the Clergies Marriage, is not so much founded in the Prohibition of the Church, or Incompatibility of Marriage with Holy Orders, as in the Vow of Continence, which all either do make, or are supposed to make, when they receive those Orders. To this I shall Oppose, and in order Prove these Three Propositions.

• I. This Plea cannot justly be used by the Church of Rome, nor will excuse her Practice.
• II. A Vow of Continence obligeth not in case of insupe­rable Incontinence, and then may not only lawfully, but must necessarily be violated.
• III. Whether lawfully or unlawfully, necessarily or unnecessarily violated, if Marriage be Contracted after a Vow of Continence, it is firm and valid, and cannot be rescinded.

[Page 35]I. For the First, That this Plea neither belongs to, nor availeth the Church of Rome, it appeareth many ways. As First, Although it should be granted the Church of Rome directly imposeth Celibacy upon none; yet it can­not be denied that she forbiddeth all who have once made a Vow of Continence, ever after to violate it, although in case of Incontinence; when the impossibility of ob­serving it any longer without actual sin, maks the viola­tion of it become necessary and commanded by the Law of God. Secondly, She hath actually and often imposed Continence upon those who never vowed it; as when she first enjoyned Celibacy to the Clergy, and renewed that Injunction when become obsolete. Nor can she at this day be excused from the same Imposition, since a nume­rous society of Clergymen are necessary to the being and continuance of the Church, and she hath enjoyned Celi­bacy to all who will be Members of this Society; although it be uncertain, whether there be so many continent Per­sons in the Church, as are necessarily required to exe­cute the Ministery of it; much more, whether among all continent Christians there be so many both worthy and willing to receive Orders, as may serve the necessities of the Church. Thirdly, Whether the Church com­mands any to make a Vow of Continence, or forbids them to violate it when made? Both equally defeat all the great Advantages and glorious Merits which are preten­ded to be in Celibacy. For nothing can be either accep­table or meritorious, which is not purely voluntary, neither commanded nor punished by any human Laws. Otherwise it can never appear, whether the Action pro­ceeds from the Dictates of the Will, or rather from the Awe of that Command, and the Fear of that Punishment. And therefore St. Hierom introduceth Christ thus speaking, Mihi illi Eunuchi placent, quos castravit non necessitas sed voluntas. l. 1. adv. Jovin. Those Eu­nuchs please me, which Will, not Ne­cessity, hath emasculated. Whereas in the Church of Rome, none can be admitted into the Four Great Orders, nor yet in the Three Lesser Orders enjoy any Ecclesiastical Benifices or Privileges of Clergy­men, [Page 36] unless they Vow perpetual Continence. Nor is it permitted to the former ever to violate their Vow, by Contracting of Marriage, although they should resign their Preferments, and depart from the Execution of their Office. Fourthly, which is chiefly to be respected, It can never appear that any Vow is truly made by those who are ordained, if the Church commandeth all such to make that Vow. For a Vow is the peculiar, volun­tary, and free act of him that Voweth, as being a Pro­mise made to God, and consisteth in the internal Action of the Soul, which necessarily supposeth an Intention of Vowing. So that if any Person pronouncing the Form of the Vow, should either not mind what he saith, or at the same time resolve the contrary of what he saith; the first is guilty of Negligence, the second of a Lye; but neither can truly be said to have Vowed, and therefore if they afterwards Marry, do violate no Vow. This Sco­tus, Durandus, Dorbellus, Paludanus, and other Divines of the Church of Rome, do expresly teach; and for this very reason maintain, that Marriage is unlawful to the Clergy, not upon the account of any Vow annexed to their Orders, but meerly for the authority of the Church's Prohibition.

As for a tacit and interpretative Vow, which many recurr to, supposing a Vow of Continence to be insepa­rably annexed to Orders; so that these cannot be received but that at the same time a Vow must be supposed to have been made; that is wholly vain. This refuge was invented as well to avoid the Reason last mentio­ned, as to solve an Objection drawn from the Practice of the Church of Rome, which even for the last Six Hun­dred years have not always required an explicit Vow, nor doth at this day, although many Popes have enjoyned it to be openly and expresly made; but their Decrees meet­ing with great Opposition, they were forced to let them fall, and recurr to this Expedient of an Interpretative Vow. This Vow must be annexed to Orders, either by Divine Right, or only by the Command of the Church. If the former, that were indeed sufficient, but then it is [Page 37] absolutely false, as we proved in the first Proposition; and Bellarmine Decretam, quo votum an­nexum est ordi­nibus, non qui­dem proprie di­vinum est. Con­troy. Tom II. l. c. 18. expresly acknowledgeth; and may be further evinced by this Argument, that then neither the Church nor the Pope could grant a Dispensation of Marriage to any of the Clergy. If it be annexed only by Ecclesiastical Right or Command of the Church, then our former Argument will return with more force. For he who in receiving of Orders shall omit to make that tacit Vow, will not be guilty of so much as a Lye or Dissi­mulation. He neglected indeed the command of the Church; but a Vow he neither made, nor pretended to make. So that there remains only a presumptive Vow; the truth of which resides in every mans breast and consci­ence: So that none ought to be excluded from Marriage by a Vow, even supposing it valid and inviolable, but those who shall confess they made it. And therefore the Author of the Gloss Decret. Greg. l. 3. tit. 3. cap. Cum olim. upon the Decretals of Gregory IX. pro­fesseth that himself, and many other Doctors with him, cannot imagine how the Clergy of the Western Church can be said to be obliged by Vow to Continence. This were enough to silence the Plea of a tacit Vow: yet I shall add somewhat more, as first, The II. Council of Toledo Decrees that none be looked upon to have vow­ed (c) Cau. 1. Continence, but those who being asked by the Bishop promise it, Coram tota plebe, before the whole Congrega­tion: And all Councils which command a Vow to be taken by the Clergy at their Ordination, order it to be made openly in the face of the whole Church.

Secondly, in the Primitive Church many were Ordained violently and against their wills. So St. Augustine Multi u [...] Episcopatum suscipiant, tenentur inviti, perducuntur, includuntur, custodiuntur, patiuntur tanta quae nolunt, donec cis adsit voluntas suscipiendi operi [...] boni. Ep. 204. in init. tells Donatus, That many were apprehended to be ordained Bishops, kept in bold a­gainst their wills, dragged, shut up, and imprisoned, and suffer all this unwilling­ly, till they be forced to receive Ordina­tion. So was St. Augustine himself Possid. in­Vit. Aug. ca. 4. seized npon violently by the people of Hippo, dragged to their Bishop Valerius, and ordained amidst abundance of [Page 38] tears. So Epiphanius ordained Paulinianus Brother of St. Hierom, as himself confesleth. For seeing him present at (a) Epist. ad Jo. Hier inter Hieronym Opp. Tom. II. P. 156. Divine Service, without the least apprehension of any such violence intended against him, he commanded the Dea­cons to apprehend him, and hold his mouth with their hands, and in that posture ordained him Deacon; and im­mediately after he had with many Intreaties perswaded him to do somewhat at the Altar belonging to the Office of a Deacon, commanded him to be anew apprehended, and in the same manner ordained him Priest. Now shall such Clergy-men as these be thought to have made a tacit Vow of Continence at their Ordinations, or must they forfeit all right of marrying, or if already married, must their marriage be dissolved, and against their will by the violence of others.

Thirdly, Almost all the Divines of the Church of Rome agree that Children are capable of receiving Holy Orders. Many Examples of it have been seen in that Church; and at this day Alvarez. Hist. AEthiop. great numbers of Children are ordained Priests and Deacons in the Abyssine Church.

Fourthly, Greg. Nys­sen. in vita ejus P. 976. Gregory Thaumaturgus was ordained Bishop of Neocaesarea by Phadimus of Amasea, absent, and not so much as dreaming of it. Now shall either he or those Children be presumed to have made a Vow of Continence at their Ordination, when the first were not capable of making a Vow, the second did not know that he was or­dained?

Lastly, Supposing this Vow to have been openly and explicitely made, granting it to have been intended, and none of all these many necessary Circumstances wanting, yet will it not oblige, if it be not accepted by God. For that the Vow is made to God, not to the Church, all agree; so that if it be not accepted by God, it becomes only a simple Resolution of the Mind, which every man hath a right to change as he shall see good. Now we cannot be assured God accepts this Vow, unless it be either for some excel­lency and holiness in Celebacy, or because himself com­manded it, both which we before disproved. Nay, ra­ther [Page 39] seeing it draws many into open Incontinency, and ex­poseth all to the danger of it, it is prejudicial to the ho­nour of God, to imagine that he accepts, much less delights in such Vows: At least there is no promise of acceptance, and therefore the Obligation of these Vows will ever be uncertain.

I pass to the Second Proposition, that a Vow of Con­tinence obligeth not in case of insuperable Incontinence. For no man can be obliged by Vow, or even the greatest Authority upon Earth to commit a sin, which in this case will be inevitable, unless the Vow be violated. And that cases of insuperable Incontinence without the use of Mar­riage may and do often happen, I proved before, when I demonstrated that all cannot contain. And certainly if in temporal Affairs no Vow, Contract or Promise obli­geth in case of a natural impossibility, much more will it not oblige in case of moral impossibility; by how much the Vertues of the Soul are of more concern than the con­veniencies of the Body. But I will not further enlarge upon this Argument, which is in it self so evident; I choose rather to observe, that it is highly probable that not only in case of impossibility, but even of great and apparent difficulty a Vow of Continence ceaseth to oblige. For first, all the Defenders of the Pope's dispensing pow­er proceed upon this foundation, that Circumstances may alter the Obligation of a Vow; and that when a greater good is to be attained, it ceaseth to oblige. And indeed this is highly reasonable: For if circumstances can alter the nature of Actions as to Vice and Vertue, which is on all hands granted, then a Vow which in some circumstan­ces may be laudable, or at least lawful, may in others be­come unlawful, or at least not obligatory. Now in case of violent, although perhaps not insuperable, tempta­tions of Incontinence after a Vow of Chastity, the circum­stances of him that Vows are altered; and by violating the Vow, a greater good may be attained, serenity of Mind, freedom from unruly Passions, and an escape from the danger of Sin. Not in this only, but in many other cases also, the diversity of circumstances may change the [Page 40] Obligation of a Vow. Whence Aquinas determines, That Quia in his quae ad seipsum pertinent de facili fallitur homo in judicanda, talia vota congruentius secundum arbitrium su­perioris sunt vel servanda vel prae [...]er­mittenda, ita tamen quod si ex observa­tione tali [...] voti magnum & manifestum gravamen sentiret, & non esset facultas ad superiorem recurrendi, non deberet ho­mo tale votum servare. Aquin. 2. 2. qu. 88. art. 2. in sin. Be­cause in matters belonging to himself, a Man is easily deceiv'd in judging; it is most fit such Vows should be either ob­served or omitted, according to the plea­sure of his Superiour, yet so, that if any great or manifest inconvenience should arise from the observation of such a Vow, and there were no opportunity of recurring to the Su­perior, a Man ought not to keep such a Vow. Secondly, It is acknowledged even in the Church of Rome, that a Vow of Continence made by one married Person without the con­sent of the other, is null and void, and that because of the danger of Incontinency, to which the other party is thereby exposed. Wherefore Lib. 9. Ep. 44. Gregry I. commanded the Husband of Agathosa, who had entred into a Monastery without her consent, to be taken thence, although Pro­fessed, and be forced to live with her. But if the danger of another's Damnation produced by a Vow of Conti­tinence, can dissolve the Obligation of it, certainly much more will the danger of any one's own Damna­tion produce the same effect. Thirdly, If it be true what Lib. 2. Tract. 8. Disp. unica, sect. 5. numb. 51. Salas the Jesuite teacheth, That a Fryar Pro­fess'd of any approved Order, who shall have a probabi­lity of Divine Revelation, that God dispenseth with his Vow to enable him to Marry, may Marry, and make use of this probable, though doubtful Dispensation; certainly he who after Continency Vowed in the taking of Orders, shall find himself assaulted with any grievous temptations of Incontinence, may make use of the same remedy, having more than a probable, even a plain and undoubted Revelation of the Lawfulness of it, in those words, 1 Cor. 7. 2, 9. Nevertheless, to avoid fornication, let every man have his own wife; and it is better to marry than to burn. So that in many cases it is Lawful, in some Necessary, to break this Vow.

[Page 41]Thirdly, Whether Lawfully or Unlawfully, Necessa­rily or Unnecessarily violated, if a Marriage be Contra­cted after a Vow of Continence, it is firm and valid as any other, and cannot be rescinded. For Marriage is a thing of Natural and Divine Right, whose continuance, when once Contracted, is commanded by the Laws of God, and first Principles of Reason; whereas Vows of Continence are but of human Instituion, as we have proved; or at the most, but of Evangelical Counsel, as all our Ad­versaries confess; and therefore must in all cases give place to a matter of Natural Right, and Divine Preeept. Apu [...] Catholicos nunqu [...]m dubium fuit, quin votum continentiae simpl [...]x sit impedimentum impediens contrahendu [...], non tamen dirimens contractum. De Ma­trim, cap. 21. Bellarmine acknowledgeth this, and affirms it to be the constant Opinion of all Catho­licks, that a simple Vow hinders the Contracting of Marriage, but dissolveth it not when Contracted; altho' a solemn Vow he would per­swade us doth. But since the difference between a Solemn and a Simple Vow, consists meerly in an External Act, in pronouncing outwardly with words, what the Mind in­wardly resolves. This distinction is wholly vain: For that External Act addeth nothing Essential to the Vow; and although a Solemn Vow only can subject any Man to the Censures of the Church, and Punishment of the State, yet a Simple Vow doth equally oblige in Conscience; so that all the use that can be made of such a distinction, is this, that such a Contract is not valid in the present Canon or Civil-Law, although it be a true Marriage in the Eyes of God, which is sufficient for our purpose, and will make the annulling of it to be unlawful in the Sight of God, although lawful in Human Judicatures. However, the contrary of this, was the only thing which the Coun­cil of Trent adventured to define in the Cause of Celibacy, most unhappy in their Choice; for that in all the depen­dent Questions of Vows, Marriage and Celibacy, there is none more apparently false, nor any one opposed by so constant and uninterrupted a Tradition from the Apostles Times to the Days of Hildebrand, when such Marriages were first declared to be null and void, if we except two [Page 42] or three obscure or inconsiderable Councils about the Year D. CCCC. All the Fathers before that time, who treat of this Matter, not one excepted, allow their vali­dity; and even after that time, all the more Famous Di­vines and Canonists till the Council of Trent. Some Pro­vincial Councils indeed, after the Year D. ordered those who had Contracted such Marriages, to be separated from each other; but that was not for any invalidity, which they supposed to be in those Marriages, but in way of Penance, to expiate the guilt of the Violation of their Vows, and the Scandal given to the Church; as may appear from all those Canons which Loc. cit. Bellarmine al­ledgeth in Defence of the Decree of Trent. Sometimes also a Separation of such Married Persons was comman­ded, or rather permitted, only thereby to enable the Man to be re-admitted into the Ministry. As for the Council of Can. 16. Chalcedon, commanding all who Contract Marriage after a Vow of Continence, to be Excommunicated, pro­duced by Bellarmine, who might have added many such like Canons of other Councils. They rather prove the validity of these Marriages, because contented to inflict the Punishment of Excommunication, they proceed not to a Dissolution of them; especially since the Council of Chalcedon in the close of that Canon, leaveth to every Bishop a Power of Remitting even that Punishment. But that Excommunication doth not suppose the invalidity of these Marriages, evidently appears from the Canons of all those many Councils (as Aurelianense II. Can. 19. Ar­vernense Can. 6. Toletanum IV. Can. 63. Nicaenum Can. Arab. 53. Arelatense I. Can. 11.) which Excommunicated those Christians which Married Jews or Gentiles; al­though none will deny those Marriages to have been per­fectly valid, and further ordered the Married Persons to be separated; which also proves, that a Sentence of Separation doth not simply imply the invalidity of any Marriage.

To manifest then the constant Tradition of the Church to have been contrary to the Definition of the Council of Trent, I might produce a long Bead-roll of Councils, Popes, [Page 43] and Emperours, who in the their Canons, Decrees, and Laws, have inflicted upon the Clergy, who Married after a Vow of Continence, no other punishment than that of Degradation, and some no more than an Incapacity of rising to higher Dignities in the Church. All these by permitting the use of such Marriages must necessarily be supposed to have owned the validity of them. But be­cause their Authority, however certain, yet is indirect; I will content myself with those, who if not in terminis, yet at least directly, assert the validity of these Marriages. I begin then with St. Paul, who giveth these Instructions to Timothy concerning the Deaconnesses of the Church: 1 Tim. 5. 9, 11, 12, 14. Let not a widdow be taken into the number under threescore years old. But the younger widdows refuse; for when they have begun to wax wanton against Christ, they will marry: Having damnation (in the Greek [...], which is too severely tran­slated) because they have cast off their first faith; I will there­fore that these marry. These Deaconnesses were Wo­men, chosen out of the Widdows, to attend the Service of the Church; who, maintained with the Revenues of the Church, were with some peculiar Ceremonies set apart, and as it were Ordained to that Office; whom de­cency and the Custom of the Church permitted not to Marry again, because thereby they must have quitted their Offices, and so defeated the end of their solemn Dedica­tion to the Church; or as the Apostle termeth, have cast off their first faith. In taking upon them therefore this Office, they obliged themselves not to Marry again, and therefore as to a Vow of Continence, were in the same condition with the Clergy of the Church of Rome. Now at this time in the Church of Ephesus, some young Wid­dows had imprudently been chosen into the number of Deaconesses, who either not being able or not willing to contain, had some of them Married, and others (as the Apostle seems to imply) had given Scandal by their loose carriage. The Apostle therefore ratifies the Marriages of those who were already Married, and giveth free leave to the rest to Marry. But for the future, commands that none be admitted into that Order under Threescore years [Page 44] old, at which age there is no danger of Incontinency. Now that the Apostle treateth here of these Deaconesses, or Widdows who had promised to the Church to observe Continence, appeareth as well from the Context, as from the common Interpretation of the Fathers, many of whom De Monah. l. 2. c. 24. Bellarmine reckons up, and embraceth their Opinion.

After the Apostle, succeed the Fathers. St. Clemens Alex. the great Defender of Marriage, and most Learned of all the Writers of the Three first Centuries: [...]. Strom. lib. 1. Second Marriage, af­ter a Promise of Continence, is unlaw­ful, not in the Contract, but in the breach of Promise. Si autem pers [...]verare nolunt, vel non possunt, melius est nubi int, quam in ignem delictis suis cadant. Epist. 62. ad Pomponium. St. Cyprian, speaking of Virgins that had profes­sed Chastity: But if they will not or cannot persevere, it is better they should Marry, than fall into Incontinency by their faults. Epipha­nius, although otherwise a great Bigot of Virginity, speaking of those who after a Solemn Vow of Continence, and undertaking a Monastick Life, find themselves tem­pted with Lusts, gives them this advice: [...]. Haeres. 41. in fine. It is better to commit one sin (by violating the Vow) than ma­ny (by indulging a wandring Lust,) it is best for him who cannot perform his undertaking, openly to Marry a Wife according to the Law. St. Basil, blaming some Virgins, who after they had solemnly de­voted themselves to God, and vowed perpetual Chastity, behaved themselves unseemly, saith, [...], &c. lib. de verâ Vir­ginit. P. 728. It were much better for them being married to a Husband, to receive from him directions of life, and recompence the benefits of his government, by assi­sting him in the care of the Family, and educating a succession of hopeful Chil­dren, and so preserve her Chastity, although it were only to avoid the Jealousie of her Husband. There is extant among St. Chrysostom's Works, two Elo­quent [Page 45] and Passionate Treatises, written by him whilst young, to his Friend Theodorus, afterwards the Great and Learned Bishop of Mopsuestia, who in his youth having entred into a Monastick Life, had in the twentieth year of his age quitted it for the love of Hermione, a fair Vir­gin, whom he resolved to Marry. Here Chrysostome em­ployeth all the strength of his Rhetorick to exaggerate the heinousness of his Sin committed, in violating his Vow made to God; yet no where adventures to declare, that his Marriage would be invalid; gives it the name of Marriage, and not of Adultery; and although he equals the Sin of it to that Crime, and by a Metaphor calls it Adultery; yet he plainly distinguisheth it from formal Adultery, more especially in these words; [...]. Paraen. 2. ad Theodor. laps. cap. 2. Marriage you will say is lawful; so say I; Marriage is honourable, saith the Apostle, and the bed undefiled; but for­tnicators and adulerers God will judge. But it is not permitted to you to celebrate the Rites (or rather use the lawful­ness) of Marriage. For when one is joyned to a heavenly Spouse, to part with him for a Wife, and joyn himself to her, this is Adultery, although you should ten thousand times call it Mar­riage; and by so much worse than A­dultery, by how much God is greater than Men. Wonder not if Marriage is con­demned equally with Adultery, when God is despised. Here the Crime indeed is sufficiently aggrava­vated, but placed wholly, as may be observed, not in the use of his intended Marriage, but in violating his first Faith pledged to Christ in his Vow of Continence. Calls his intended Contract, Marriage; grants that when Married, Hermione will be his Wife: And in the close of his Passage, plainly distinguisheth his Crime from Adul­tery. Wherefore the Latine Translation in Fronto Du­caeus his Edition, renders it thus; Wonder not if such a Marriage is compared to Adultery. The same Father in [Page 46] another place saying, [...] adv. vitup. vit. Monast. l. 3. c. 13. That some Monks in his time quitting their Profession, Contracted Marriage, passeth the same Censure on them; always proceeding upon this ground, That they who make a Vow of Chastity, do there­by as it were joyn themselves in Marriage to Christ, and therefore by a subsequent Marriage become as it were guilty of Adultery. Upon which account also many other Fathers in their Rhetorical Flights, give to these Mar­riages the Title of Adultery. But if we come to close and strict Reasoning, De bono viduit. c. 10. St. Augustine will tell us for them, That as this Marriage with Christ, is not True, but only Spiritual; so neither is this Adultery True and Real, but only Spiritual and Mystical. This Father pro­fessedly handles this Question, refutes all the contrary Objections, and having said, that Damnantur tales, non quia conju­galem fidem posterius inierunt, sed quia continentiae primam fidem irritam fece­runt—Fit autem per hanc minus inconsideratam opinionem, qua putant lap­sarum à sancto proposito faeminarum, si nupserint, non esse conjugia, non parvum malum, ut à maritis separentur axores quasi adulterae sint, non uxores; & cum volunt eas separatas reddere continentiae, faciunt maritos earum adulteros veros, cum suis uxoribus vivis alteras duxerint. Ibid. Such Persons are condemned, not because they afterwards Con­tracted a Marriage, but because they violated their former Promise of Cha­stity: Determines in these words; No small an evil ariseth from this incon­siderate Opinion of the invalidity of Marriage of holy Virgins which quit their Profession. For hereby Wives are separated frrom their Husbands, as if they were Adulteresses, not Wives; and they who would by separating of them, reduce them to Conti­nence, make their Husbands become true Adulterers, if while these are alive they marry other Wives. Wherefore Gratian contracteth the sence of St. Augustine's Argument, and truly represents it thus: Quidam nubentes post votum asse­runt adulteros esse. Ego autem dico, quod gravitur peccent, qui tales dividunt. Dist. 27. cap. 2. Some affirm those who Marry after a Vow, to be Adulterers; but I say they grie­vously sin, who Separate such Persons. I might produce many other places of St. Augustine to the same purpose, especially where, sp [...]aking of Professed Virgins, which although Inconti­nent, [Page 47] adventured not to Marry, partly for Shame, and partly for fear of Punishment: He giveth his Opinion thus; Hae igitur, quae nubere volunt, & ideo non nubunt, quia impune non possunt, quae melius nuberent quam urerentur, id est quam occulta flamma concupiscentiae vasta­rentur, quas paenitet professionis, & piget confessionis. l. de sanct. virginit. c. 24. These who long to Marry, and yet do not Mar­ry, because they cannot do it unpunished; it is better they should Marry than Burn, that is, than be scorched with the secret flames of Lust, who repent their Pro­fession, and are grieved at their Promise. St. Hierome, writing to a Consecrated Virgin, who leaving her Mo­ther, lived with an unmarried Clergyman, and was suspected to maintain an unlawful familiarity with him, giveth her this advice, either to return to her Mother or Marry her Lover. Why are you afraid to return to her? Si virgo es, quid times diligentem custodiam? Si corrupta, cur non palam nubis? Secunda post, naufragium tabula est, quod male caeperis, saltem hoc reme­dio temperare. Epist. 47. de vitando suspecto contubernio. If you be still a Virgin, why need you fear a close Consinement? If Debauched, why do you not publickly Marry? That will be the next refuge after Shipwrack, to extenuate at least your Crime by this Remedy. A Pas­sage so much the more Memorable, because of this Couple, the one was a Clergyman, the other a Nun; and yet St. Hirome not only alloweth, but adviseth their Marriage. The Council of Ancyra, in the Year, 314. Decreed, that [...]. Can. 19. Those who having vowed Virginity, falsifyed their Promise, should be placed in the rank of Bigamists. But none will say that Bigamy is unlawful, much less that it is Adultery. I might mention many other Coun­cils, which inflicted only a Temporary Penance on those Marriages. Pope Leo I. Decreed, that a Unde qui (ex Monachis) reli [...] singularitatis professione, ad militiam, vel ad nuptias devoluius est, public [...] paeni­tentae satisfactione purgandus est; quia etsi innocens militia, & [...] potest esse conjugium, electionem tamen m [...]liorum deseruisse transgressio est. Epist. 92. a [...] Rusticum Narbon. cap. 12. Monk, who forsaking the profession of Continence, either became a Soldier, or Married, should expiate his Fault by Publick Penance; because although Warfare may be Innocent, and Marriage honest, yet it is a Crime to forsake the better Choice. Pelagius [Page 48] the Heretick, who in the matter of Vows and Marriage, was as Orthodox as any, in his Epistle to Demetrias the Virgin, falsly ascribed both to St. Hierome, and St. Augustine, saith, Aut nubant si se non possunt conti­nere, aut con [...]ineant si nolunt nubere, in­ter Opp. Heronymi & Aug. Let the Consecrated Virgins either Marry if they cannot contain, or con­tain, if they will not Marry. Pope Gelasius, in the end of the Fifth Century, defineth thus: Si quae (viduae) propria volun­tate professam castitatem mutabili mente [...]alcaverint, periculi earum intererit, quali Deum debeant satisfactione placare. Si­cut enim si se forsitan continere non pote­rant, nullatenus nubere vetabantur, sic habita secum deliberatione promissam Deo pudiciti [...] sidem debuerunt custodire. Nos autem talibus nullum laqueum debemus injicere, sed solum, &c. Epist. ad Lu­cania Episc. cap. 21. If a­ny Widows shall through Inconstancy, violate their profession of Chastity wil­lingly undertook; it concerns them to take care with what satisfaction they may appease God. For as if they could not perhaps contain, they were not at all forbid­ben to Marry; so when they have once deliberately promised Chastity to God, they ought to have kept it, yet ought not we to lay a Snare (or impose a Necessity) upon any such: But proposing to them the merits of Continence, and danger of breaking of a Vow, leave the matter to their own Conscience. In the Seventh Age, Theodorus Archbishop of Canterbury, in his Penitential, which was the Canon Law of the Church of England for some Ages, ordered, that Si vir simplex votum virginitatis habens adjungitur uxori, non dimittat uxo­rem, sed tribus annis p [...]niteat. apud Gra­tian. Dist. 27. c. 3. If any Man having a simple Vow of Virginity, married a Wife; he should not put away his Wife, but only do Penance. In which words, lest Bellarmine's distinction of a Simple and Solemn Vow should be thought to take place, it may be observed, that Naldus, in his Annotations upon Gratian, confesseth the word Simplex is wanting in all the Manu­script Copies. In the end of the Eleventh Age, even after the Decrees of Hildebrand were published, Epist. 218. Ivo Bishop of Chartres, the greatest Canonist of his Age, re­lates how a Canon of the Church of Paris Contracted Marriage; and maintains, that that Marriage neither can, nor ought to be dissolved. In the next Age, Gratian the Compiler of the Canon Law (consirmed by Euge­nius III. and at this day in use in the Church of Rome) is [Page 49] express for the validity of these Mar­riages. Si vero Diaconus à ministerio ces­sare voluerit, contracto man imonio licite potest uti. Nam etsi in ordinatione sua casti­tatis votum ob [...]ulerit; tamen tanta est vis in Sacramento conjugii quod nec violatione voti potest dissolvi ipsum conjugium. Dist. 27. cap. 1. If a Deacon (saith he) will lay down his Office, he may lawfully use Marriage when once Contracted. For although he made a Vow of Cha­stity at his Ordination, yet so great is the force of the Sacrament of Marriage, that not even by the violation of the Vow, can the Marriage be dissolved. In the Thirteenth Age, Inno­cent III. and the whole Can. 14. Concil. Tom. Xl. p. 168. Lateran Conncil, acknowledged the Marriage of Priests, in some Western Provinces, to be firm and valid, and the Use of it to be lawful. In the Fifteenth Age, Epist. 307. AEneas Sylvius, afterwards Pope, by the Name of Pius II. and the most Learned of all that have sat in St. Peter's Chair for these last Thousand years, being, when Cardinal of Siena, desired by a Priest of his Acquain­tance, who found he could no longer contain, to obtain for him a Dispensation from the Pope to Marry; retur­ned him Answer, That the Pope refused it, and at the same aime gave him this advice. Credimus te uti non insulso consilio, si quum nequeas continere, conjugium quae­ris, quamvis id prius cogitandum fuerat, antequam initiareris sacris ordinibus. Sed non sumus dii omnes qui futura prospicere voleamus. Quan [...]o huc ventum est, ut Iegi carnis resistere nequeas, melius est nu­bere quam uri. Ibid. I acknowledge you do not act im­prudently, if when you cannot contain, you seek to Marry; although that ought to have been considered, before you en­tred into Holy Orders. But we are not all Gods, to soresee future Necessities. Seeing the case is so, that you cannot any longer resist the law of the slesh, it is better to Marry than to Burn. Thus we have proved, that the Doctrine of the Invalidity of Marriages Con­tracted after a Vow of Continence, was unknown in the first Ages of Christianity, opposed in the last, and not universally received in the Church of Rome, until defi­ned with an Anathema by the Council of Trent; which thereby left the Controversie in a worse condition than they found it.

[Page 50]Having thus dispatched the Controversial, I pass to the Historical part of my Design; and therein will evince, that the Celibacy of the Clergy was looked upon as a thing Indifferent in the Two first Centuries, Proposed in the Third, Magnified in the Fourth, and in some Places Imposed in the Fifth, yet so, as that even that Imposition did infinitely differ from the present Doctrine and Disci­pline of the Church of Rome; that however Commanded in some Provinces of the West, it was no where univer­sally Practised; that in a few Ages this Imposition became obsolete; this Yoke intolerable, and Marriage univer­sally prevailed, till condemned and forbidden by the Popes of the Eleventh Age; that even their Decrees and Ca­nons became ineffectual by an universal Opposition of the whole Church; and the lawfulness of Marriage in the Clergy was aftewards allowed and permitted by many Popes, and one General Council of the Roman Church; that all this while Celibacy never was imposed or practi­fed in the Eastern Church from the Apostles time; but the Imposition of it was rejected by one, and condemned by another Council of the Universal Church; and obtai­ned not even in the West, till the Ambition and Usur­pation of the Popes drawing to themselves the Disposi­tion of all greater Ecclesiastical Preferments, Poverty became necessary to the Married Clergy; which caused Marriage to be wholly laid aside by them about Two Hun­dred years before the Reformation. The Proof of these things shall be the Subject of the remaining part of my Discourse. But first I shall premise these few Conside­rations.

I. Although the Ancient Church should have im­posed, or universally practised Celibacy, yet the Obli­gation of that Law, and Authority of that Example, would be no reasonable, much less necessary Motive to the present Church to continue the Imposition; since the Reasons which might have induced the Antients to enjoyn or use it, are long since ceased. Those Reasons were to [Page 51] make the Clergy more ready and willing to renounce the Pleasures of the World, and suffer Martyrdom in Times of Persecution, and by their brave Example incite the Laity to the same generous Constancy of Mind. In the flourishing and peaceable Times of the Churches, there could be no other reason of enjoyning it, than to pro­cure an extraordinary Veneration to the Clergy, by their Abstinence from permitted Pleasures, and thereby facili­tate and promote the common Edificacion of the Church. As for the Reasons of some Admirers of Celibacy, who were led aside with false Prejudices, and pre-conceived Errours; they vanish together with the detection of their falsity, and do no longer oblige than those Errours are maintained. But as for the other more solid Reasons, Providence has annulled the first, by giving rest unto the Church; and an universal decay of Piety, as well in Clergy as Laity, hath defeated the second: Since what perhaps was before Exemplary, is now become a Scandal to the whole Christian World. This Cassander inge­nuously confesseth in these words; Nam causae ille, quibus Majores ad constitutionem hanc faciendam inductos esse diximus, non solum hodie cessarunt, sed etiam in contrarium sunt conversae. Nam primo videmus hoc decreto usque adeo casti­tatem & continentiam in clero non consir­mari, [...] per illud ad omne libidinis & sla­gi [...]ii genus fenest [...]a aperta esse videatur: item usque adeo non refraenatam in Clero avaritiam, ut etiam fraena magis [...] esse videantur. Consult. Art. 23. For those Reasons wherewith the An­tients were induced to make this Consti­tution, are not only now ceased, but are even become opposite. For first, we see that by this Decree Chastity and Continence is so far from being promoted in the Clergy, that thereby a door is rather opened to all kind of Lust and Villany: and Coveteousness in the Cler­gy so far from being restrained by it, that it seems hence to have received no small encrease.

II. To Confute our Adversaries pretence of Antiquity, and establish my Design, it is sufficient to produce the Authority of some Fathers, who thought the Imposition of Celibacy unlawful or inconvenient to the Church; to alledge the Testimony of some Historians, assuring us that Marriage was in their Time used indifferently by the Clergy; and propose the Examples of some [Page 52] Married Clergy: Althogh some Fathers and Writers were of a contrary Opinion, or the greater part of the Clergy perhaps practised Celibacy. For this will undenia­bly prove, that both Marriage and Celibacy were left in­different to all; that neither was a Point of Faith, an In­stitution of Christ or his Apostles. or a matter of Uni­versal Practice. Whereas our Adversaries pretending herein to an uninterrupted Tradition, and constant Pra­ctice of the whole Church in all Ages, must to that end produce a perfect consent of all Doctors, Historians and Writers; and an universal Practice of all Times. If any one Writer occur, not condemned; or any one Example not censured by the Church; the Plea of Tradition must fall. Some indeed of the Roman Church, as Erasmus and Cassander, pretended not to so Universal a Tradition and Practice; but then they were so far from Defend­ing the present Constitutions of the Church of Rome, by the Authority of the Antients, that they were open Enemies to the Imposinion of Celibacy. However, the Dissent of ancient Doctors and Councils, and the diverse Practices of private Clergymen, will manifestly demon­strate, that Celibacy was neither universally imposed nor practised in the Ancient Church, as it is at this day in the Church of Rome; but that, as well as Marriage, left in­different both to Clergy and Laity, if not in some particular Provinces, yet at least in the Universal Church.

III. The numbers of the Married Clergy in the An­cient Church, ought not to be estimated only from the accounts of them which we find in Ecclesiastical History of Monuments of Antiquity. For the Relation of Wives or Children, add neither Ornament nor Use to History, nor have any part in it, unless upon extraordinary occa­sions, which rarely happen. It concerns not Posterity to know, whether Aristotle or Plato were Married; since neither Marriage nor Celibacy will inhaunce their Ver­tue, or diminish their Worth. And if mention of Wives be rarely found in Civil, much less will it in Eccle­siastical [Page 53] History. For Women sometimes bear a share in Civil Matters; but in publick Acts of Religion, and Af­fairs of the Church, it is even unlawful for them to inter­meddle. So that if but a few Examples of Marriage in the Clergy of the Ancient Church can be produced; we may thence reasonably conclude, that the Married Clergy were then very numerous.

IV. The Reader may observe, that almost all those places, which we shall produce out of the Ancient Doctors for the lawfulness of Marriage in the Clergy, and against the Imposition of it, are taken either from their dogmatical Treatises, which were written delibe­rately, and in a sedate temper of Mind; or from their Harangues of Virginity, where the very force of Truth extorted from them those Confessions. Whereas the Testimonies made use of by our Adversaries, for the Ne­cessity or Convenience of Celibacy in the Clergy, are for the most part drawn either from these Encomiastick Discourses of Virginity, where they employed all the force of their Eloquence to magnisie the Merits of that State, and recommend it to the World; or from their Polemick Writings against the Adversaries of Celibacy, wherein they were more intent to Destroy Errour, than Establish Truth. And no wonder, if in both these Oc­casions, corrupted with Prejudice, or transported with Passion, they bent the Bow to much, and receded from that Exactness of Truth, which is seated in the middle way.

To these Observations, I may add the Confession of many Great Men in the Church of Rome; who allow Ce­libacy, neither to have been imposed, nor universally practised in the Antient Church. To pass by then Cas­sander, Erasmus, and the more moderate Divines of that Church, I will produce only Gratian and Mendosa; the last De consirm. Cont Illiber▪ l. 2. c. 66. of which acknowledgeth that Marriage was always allowed to the Clergy, and every where thought indif­ferent, till forbidden by the Council of Illiberis in the [Page 54] Fourth Age: the first goeth further in these words: Sive ergo Presbyter, sive Diaconus, sive Subd. fuerit, Ex hac authoritate appa­ret, quod in praefatis ordinibus constituti [...]icite matrimonio uti possunt.—Tempore Ancy [...]anae Synodi nondum erat introducta continentia ministrorum altaris. Dist. 28. cap. 13. From this Au­thority (an Epistle of Pope Pelagius in the Sixth Age) it appeareth, that the Clergy of the aforementioned Order, Priests, Deacons, and Sub-deacons, might then lawfully use Marriage. And in the time of the Council of Ancyra (in the Fourth Age) the Continence of the Ministers of the Altar was not yet intro­duced. Although perhaps by this last Passage only Dea­cons and Subdeacons are understood. However, in ano­ther place he speaks more generally: Cum ergo ex sacerdotibus nati in summos pontifices supra leguntur esse pro­moti; non sunt intelligendi de fornica­tione, sed ex legitimis conjugiis nati; quae sacer dotibus ante prohibitionem ubi­que licita erant, & in Orientali Ecclesia usque [...]odie eis licere probatur. Dist. 56. cap. 13. When therefore we read that the Sons of the Clergy are promoted to be Popes or Bishops; they are not to be thought to have been born of Fornicati­on, but of lawful Marriage, which was every where permitted to the Clergy before the prohibition, and is to this day permitted to them in the Eastern Church.

Having premised these few preliminary Observations, I proceed to Matter of Fact; and begin with the Apo­stles: than whom none better knew the intention of their Master, or the convenience of the Church, and were the best Pattern of the Clergy for all future Ages. St. Basil seems to have believed that all the Apostles were married, where speaking of the excellency of of Marriage [...]. Serm. de ab­dicat. rerum post init. he brings in the Example of Peter and the rest of the Apostles. The Interpolater of Ig­natius his Epistles (who lived in the beginning of the Sixth Age) in like manner produceth the Examples of Peter, Paul, and [...]. Epist. ad Philadelph. the other Apo­stles, or as the Latin Translator (an­tienter than Ado Viennensis, who flourished in the year 875.) renders it, Reliqui Apostoli. Ibid. the rest of the Apostles. The Author of the Commentary upon the [Page 55] Epistles of St. Paul in St. Ambrose's Works (who was Hilary a Deacon of Rome) excepts Omnes Apostoli, ex­ceptis Joanne & Paulo, uxores habuerunt. Comm. in Epist. ad Cor. cap. 11. St. Paul and St. John, and affirms all the rest to have been married.

That St. Peter was married we are assured by the Au­thority of the Holy Scripture: Matth. 8. 14. That he had a Daughter by her the antient Book of his [...] or Travels, Quamquam legatur in [...] & uxor ejus (Petri) & filia. apud Hieron. adv. Jovin. lib. 1. writ before the times of Origen, manifest; to whom the latter Legendary Writers give the name of Petronilla. St. Peter is kniwn to have had a Wife; and the begitting of Children hindred him not from ob­taining precedency among the Apostles, saith the abovementioned S. Petrus uxorem habuisse cog­noscitur, & primatum ut acciperet in [...]er Apostolos, non ei obstitit gencratio filio­rum, inter August. Opp. Tom. IV. prope fin. Hilary in his Questions upon both Testa­ments, falsly ascribed to St. Austin: For that he was the Author of them is abundantly demonstrated by the learned Garnerius, Appendix ad par. 1. Opp. Marii Merc. Dissert. 1. cap. 8. That he led about his Wife with him in his Travels and Preaching. St. Paul plainly intimates in these words: Cor. 9. 5. Have we not power to lead about a sister, a wife, [...], as well as other Apostles (or rather, as the rest of the Apostles, [...]) and as the brethren of the Lord, and Cephas? Our Adversaries indeed pretend, that by [...] in this place is to be understood not a Wife, but an assistant Wo­man, commonly of the richer and more aged sort, carried about by the Apostles to minister to their necessities, pro­vide them maintenance, and serve them in the quality of Deaconesses: And thus it must be acknowledged the greatest part of the Antients did interpret it. However, I will oppose to that Opinion some considerable, and perhaps convictive Arguments. As first, the ordinary acception of the word [...] both in the Septuagint and the New Testament, where the name Wife is never de­signed by any other word. Secondly, this Interpretation [Page 56] was by the Antients received from Tertullian, who first proposed it in his Book of Monogamy, which he writ af­ter he was become a Montanist. Thirdly, the contrary Opinion of all the Catholicks in Tertullian's time, For in his Exhortations to Chastity, writ likewise after his fall, decrying the excellency of Marriage, he introduceth the Catholicks thus objecting to him, Licebat & Apestolis [...]ubere, & uxores ci [...]cumducere, cap. 8. It was lawful even for the Apostles to marry, and to lead about their wives with them. And indeed Clemens A­lexandrinus, the most Learned and Orthodox of all the Writers of the three sirst Centuries; expresly interprets Strom. l. 3. this place of Wives; and further adds, That St. Peter had several Children by his Wife. Not to mention Cardinal Humbert in latter Ages, who, Respons. ad Nicet. Pectorat. apud Baron. Annal. Tom. XI. p. 720. although a bitter Enemy of Priests Marriage, allows and follow­eth this Interpretation. That is more considerable, which Eusebius Lib. 3. c [...]p. 30. relates from the same Clemens, that St. Peter saw his Wife suffer Martyr­dom, and standing by her exhorted her generously to un­dergo it; which alone might demonstrate, that she accom­panied him in all his Travels: Since, excepting St. Stephen, and St. James the Great, none suffered Death for the Christian Faith, till the latter end of Nero's Reign, when St. Peter was wholly employed in the West.

The Marriage of St. Paul, however, commonly denied by the Antients, and universally by the Moderns, is at­tested by great Authorities. Clemens Alexandrinus, the Disciple of Pantaenus, who (by the Testimony of Photius) Cod. 118. had those for his Masters, who had seen and con­versed with the Apostles, and who himself writ within 125 years after the death of St. Paul, and had travelled into Palaestine; expresly affirms Strom. l. 3. it. From him Eu­se [...]ius Hist. Eccl. l. 3. c. 30. receiving this Tradition, transcribeth and ap­proveth it. These two Authorities are sufficient alone to create a probability. However, I will observe that ma­ny still retained the same Opinion in the end of the Fourth Age. So St. Hierom Epist. de custod. virgin. ad Eustoc [...]ium. assureth us some believed in his [Page 57] time. St. Chrysostom Hom. 13. in Philipp. acknowledgeth the same thing, and adds that many in his time maintained, St. Paul di­rected those words to his Wife ( Philipp. 4. 3.) I intreat thee also, true yoke-fellow, [...]. For those words in the Attick dialect, the most elegant of the Greek Tongue, may be translated, my faithful Wife. Nay, in the Sixth Age the Interpolator of Ignatius's Epistles hath these words: [...]. Epist. ad Phila­delph. In praising Virginity, I do not blame all other holy Men, because they used Mar­riage. For I desire only to be thought worthy of God to be placed at their feet in the kingdom of heaven; as of Abra­ham, Isaac; Jacob, Joseph, and the other Prophets, as of Peter and Paul, and the other Apostles, who used Mar­riage. This place the Ancient Latin Interpreter, who lived about the Eighth Age, hath retained and translated with advantage: It is a foolish, as well as impudent Pretence, which the Writers of the Church of Rome alledge to defeat the Authority of this Testimony: They maintain that the name of St. Paul was foisted in by the fraud of some latter Greeks, at least Reformed Printers: and therefore the Index Expurgatorius commands his name to be wiped out of all Editions, yet have they no other Foundation for this consident Calumny, than the Authority of two Manu­script Copies, which they pretend to be very antient, the one of Matthias Corvinus, King of Hungary; the other of Magdalen Colledge in Oxford, taken up upon the Credit of an Irish [...]ugitive. Whereas the first was never seen since the days of Ambrosius Camaldulensis, who lived 250, years since; the other Bishop Usher Not. in [...]gnat. Epist. cap. 17. saw, and found to be no older than the year 1490. That the Reformed Printers corrupted not this place, appears from all the Editions before the Reformation, particular­ly those of Fabor Stapulensis Paris 1498. Strasbourg 1502. and Jod. Clichtovaus Paris 1515. and many Editions set [Page 58] forth by Papists since the Reformation; wherein the name of St. Paul is found. The Greeks are no less cleared from all fraud herein by the consent of the Latin Copies, particularly of one 800. years old in Baliol Colledge in Ox­ford, mentioned by Dr. James, Corrupt. of the Fathers, par. 2. p. 57. wherein although some zealous Romanist had blotted out the name of St. Paul, and the other Apostles, yet they had done it so slightly, that the words were still easily legible.

Now whether St. Peter led about his Wife with him, or St. Paul was married, is not of so great moment to our case, as is the Conclusion, which may be evidently drawn from the belief, entertained by some of the Antients, both of the one and of the other. For even if we should grant their Opinion to have been erroneous; yet it manifestly demonstrates, that in their time, the Celibacy of the Cler­gy was neither believed to have been instituted by the Apostles, nor universally practised by the preceding Ages, nor the use of Marriage inconvenient, much less incom­patible to the Priesthood. Had any of these Opinions been generally received in their time; it is impossible they should have been so stupid, as to believe the Apo­stles had done a thing contrary to their own Institution, or the laudable practise of succeeding Ages, or the Dig­nity of their Office.

Of the other Apostles, St. Philip had Three Daugh­ters, whom by the Testimony of [...]. Strom. l. 3. Clemens Alex. he Married to so many Husbands. Of the Four Virgin Daughters of Philip the Dea­con, we read in the Act. 21. 9. Acts of the Apostles. The Mar­riage of Nicholas the Deacon, is Famous in Ecclesiastical History; which because the Mis-representation of it gave occasion to many Errours, and the Imposers of Celibacy in the Eleventh Age, constantly traduced the Marriage of Priests with the Title of Nicolaite, Heresie, it will not be amiss here to rectifie. Clemens Alex. the most Ancient [Page 59] of all who mention it (for Lib. 1. cap. 27. St. Irenaeus saith only, That the Nicolaites came from Nicolas the Deacon) relateth it it thus: Strom. l. 3. Nicolas having a very beautiful Wife, became unreasonably Jealous of her: for which being rebuked by the Apostles, that he might purge himself of all Suspi­cion of Jealousie, he brought his Wife into the midst of the Company, and giving up his Right to her, gave free leave to any one to marry her; not that he intended any such thing, but only to shew by that Bravado, how far he was from Jealousie. This indeed was a rash and imprudent Act, which gave neither Example nor just Oc­casion to those execrable things which afterwards the Nicolaites practised, and some credulous Persons believed to have been committed by Nicolas; whom Loc. cit. Clemens affirms to have been truly Chaste, and have used the com­pany of none but his own Wife; by whom he had one Son, and several Daughters, all Persons of Exemplary Vertue and Modesty. Hist. Eccl. l. 3. c. 29. Eusebius, De Haeres. cap. 5. St. Augustine, and Haeret. Fab. l. 3. c. 1. Theodoret, relate the Story the same way. Only Haeres. 25. in init. Epiphanius relates in a different manner; That Nicolas having vowed perpetual Abstinence from his Wife, was allured by the Charms of her Beauty to return to her Embraces, and violate his Vow; and afterwards not only became unreasonably Jealous, but fell into all kind of Uncleanness, and founded the Heresie of the Nicolaites. This Relation Epiphanius seems to have received from the impure Gnosticks, with whom he conversed in his Youth; and as he was a Person infinitely credulous, and of weak judgment, blindly to have followed it. How­ever, his Authority in a matter of this nature, is of no moment, when opposed to Clemens and Eusebius, judicious and more ancient Writers.

From the Apostolick Times, I proceed to the Doctrine and Practice of succeeding Ages, till the Council of Nice. Of the two first Ages, few Monuments of the Church are now extant; and in them not the least foot-step of Celi­bacy imposed or generally used by the Clergy, to be [Page 60] sound. Rather Clemens Alex. as­sures us, that [...]. Strom. l. 3. [...]. Ibid. [...] (Apostolus) [...]. Ibid. [...] Ibid. Every Christian in his time, might as himself pleased, either chose or omit Marriage. That all, none excepted, had power to make use of that Marriage which the Gospel permitted them, first Marriage; where he plainly speaks of the Clergy: for second Marriage was never for­bidden to the Laity. But the fol­lowing words are more remarkable: The Apostle very well approveth the Husband of one Wife, although he be a Priest, or a Deacon, or a Lay-man, if he useth his Marriage unblameably: for he shall be saved by Procreation of Children. And what will the Condem­ners of Marriage say to these Precepts, since the Apostle commandeth him to preside over the Church in quality of Bishop, who governeth his own House well, and the Marriage of one Wife representeth the Church of Christ. Indeed, about the Year 170. Piny­tus, Bishop of Gnossus, in Creete, had, under pretence of a greater Perfection and Purity, endeavoured to impose Celibacy upon his Clergy: Which when Dionysius the Famous Bishop of Corinth heard, he writ an Epistle to him, representing the injustice of his at­tempt, and persuading him, [...]. Eusebius Hist. Eccl. lib. 4. cap. 23. not to impose so heavy a burthen, as Ne­cessity of Continence, upon the Brethren; but to have regard to the infirmity of many. That by the Brethren in this place, only the Clergy are meant, appears evidently from the Character which Euse­bius gives of Pinytus, That he was a Pious and Orthodox Person: Whereas had he imposed Celibacy upon all the Faithful, he had been guilty of a gross and most erroneous Heresie. To this I might add the Confession of the most [Page 61] Learned De confirm. Concil. Illib. l. 2. c. 66. Mendoza, and many others, if so clear a Matter wanted any further Illustration. That Pinytus yielded to the Admonition of Dionysius, and quitted his attempt, we are assured by Rescribent, sententiam quidem con­silii melioris, amplectitur. Hist. Eccl. lib. 4. cap. 23. Russinus, who saith, That Pinytus writing back to him, embraced the Opi­nion of his better counsel. In the Third Age, Origen plainly insinuates, That First Mar­riage was in his Time indifferently permitted to the Clergy; Sicut ab Ecclesiasticis dignitatibus, non solum for­nicatio, sed & nuptiae repel­unt. Nequeenim Episcepus, nec Presbiter, nec Diaconus, nec vidua possunt esse Digami. Hom. 17. in Luc. prope sine. Not only Fornication (saith he) but also (Second) Marriage, excludeth from Ecclesiastical Dignities. For neither a Bishop, nor Priest, nor Deacon, nor Deaconness, can be Digamists. Himself indeed was agreat Admirer of Celibacy; but that we shall speak to hereafter.

Of the Practice of the Church in these Three first Ages, not a few Examples may be produced. For, to pass by the Apostles and Deacons already mentioned, Epist ad Philipp. prope sine. St. Po­lycarp professeth himself to be very sorry for Valens Presby­ter, of Philippi, and his Wife. That Tertullian Presbyter, of Carthage, was married, all ackowledge; that he abstained from his Wife, after his entrance into Holy Orders, is a meer Fiction of the Papists; which however contemned by some Reformed Divines, may be refuted by Tertullian's own words. For in his Two Books directed to her, to perswade her to continue a Widow after his death; or if through the infirmity of the Flesh we cannot do that, yet at least to marry none but a Chri­stian, he hath these words: Quare facultatem continentiae, quantum p [...]ssumus, non deligamus? Qu [...]m primum obvenerit, imbibamus; ut quod in matrimonio non valemus, in viduitate sectemur. Amplectenda occasio est quae, ademit, quod necessit as imperabat. Ad Uxor. l. 1. prope sin. edit. Basil. 1528. per B. Rhenanum. Why should we not love the Perfection of Con­tinence, as much as we are able? As soon as it offers itself, let us embrace it, that what we are not now able to do whilest Married, we may perform in Widowhood. That occasion ought to be laid hold of, which depriveth us of those Pleasures, that Necessity [Page 62] before commanded. A little before Tertullian's time, Adv. Haeres. l. 1. c. 9. Ire­naeus relates how Marcus the Haeresiarch being entertained by a Catholick Deacon in Asia, who had a handsom Wife, debauched her both in Body and Mind, and ran away with her. In the Decian Persecution, Chaeremon, Bishop of Nile, in Egypt, fled into the Mountains of Arabia, ( a) together with the Companion of his life, or as Valesius [...]. Euseb. lib. 6. cap. 42. truly translates it, Cum con­j [...]ge fugiens. With his Wife. Among the Articles of Misdemeanour, whereof Epist. 49. ad Cornelium. St. Cyprian accuseth No­vatus Presbyter, of Carthage, and Author of the Novatian Schism in Africk, one is, that he kick'd his Wife great with Child, and caused her to Miscarry. That St. Cyprian himself was married, and lived with his Wife after the the receiving of Holy Orders, we may learn from In vit. Cy­priani. post init. Pon­tius his Deacon, who speaking of his eminent Vertues, and extraordinary Piety, whilst yet Presbyter, saith, That neither Want nor Sorrow could discourage him; neither the Persuasions of his Wife, nor the Sufferings of his own Body, could divert him from neglecting the care of his estate, to attend the Exercises of his Religion. Caecilius, Presbyter of Car­thage, who had converted St. Cyprian to the Christian Faith, at his death, Id Ibid. recommended his Wife and Chil­dren to his Care and Protection. Inter Cy­priani Epist. num. 18. Caldonius, in an Epistle to St. Cyprian, reckons Faelix, a Presbyter, and Victorin his Wife, among the Confessors of Africa. In the Diocle­sian Persecution, Phileas, the most Holy Bishop of Thmuis, in Egypt, and Philoromus, being brought Euseb. l. 8. c. 9. before the Heathen Judge, to receive Sentence of Martyrdom, were desired by him to take Pity, if not of themselves, yet at least of their Wives and Children, and prevent the Ruin of their Families, by sacrisicing to Idols; although those brave Martyrs slighted his Admonitions, and scorned such ignoble Considerations.

However, Celibacy and the Merits of Virginity, began to be highly extolled, and gained great Reputation in the Third Age. Many Causes concurred to advance this Reputation, as the Convenience of the Church at that time, the Mistakes of Catholick, and Artifices of Here­ticks, [Page 63] I shall begin with the last, and observe, that in all the numerous train of Heresies, from the Apostles time to the Council of Nice, scarce was there any one which did not condemn Marriage, or at least decry the Dignity of it, and cry up Celibacy as the most Perfect and most Vertuous state, and the nearest way to Heaven. Which alone is no small Prejudice to the Doctrine and Practice of the present Church of Rome, that the imagi­nary Excellencies of Celibacy were unknown to the World, till discovered by the grossest and most foolish Hereticks that ever infected the Christian Church. I do not hereby accuse the Church of Rome of their Heresie, yet cannot but take notice, that in urging Celibacy to her Clergy, she proceeds upon the same Principles with them, a greater Perfection, and more refined Piety, an unusal abstinence from all Pollutions of the Flesh, and Pleasures of the World: That some of them enjoyned not Celibacy to all their Followers, but only persuaded it to those who aimed at Perfection; and that the Heresie of Eustathius, condemned by the Council of Gangra, was in terminis revived by the Popes and Councils of the Ele­venth Age.

Saturnilus, Disciple of Menander, led the dance; [...]. Theod. Haeret. Fab. l. 1. c. 3. He first called Marriage the Doctrine of the Devil: and was herein followed by an infi­nite rabble of Hereticks, Nicolaites, Cerinthians, the Sects of Marcus, Basildes, Carpocrates, Isidorus, Marcion, Cassian, Tatian, and many others, who absolutely rejected Marriage, as unlawful and impure, and beneath the dignity of a spiritual and more perfect Chri­stian. To this end, they pretend no less specious Rea­sons, than are at this day alledged by the Patrons of Ce­libacy, as, Vid. Clem. Alex. Strom. l. 3. in init. that being freed from the Cares of a Fa­mily, they might attend the better to Acts of Devotion and Piety: That [...], i. e. [...]. Id. Strom. l. 3. it was a noble Attempt, and worthy [Page 64] the ambition of a Christian to surmount all the inclinati­ons of the Flesh, and by afflicting of it intirely subject it to the Soul: not to yeild to the unruly Passions of the Bo­dy, but rather by such a Mortification increase the per­fections of the Soul with Faith and Knowledge. Nor were these their only Reasons: They also pretend to Tra­dition, and although immediately after the Apostles deaths, intitled their horrid Doctrines to those Sacred Names; and to confirm their Plea forged Gospels, Acts, and Histories under the Apostles names, injurious to Marriage, and consonant to their own Opinions. But so gross a Heresie, however, backed with great and spe­cious pretences, survived not the middle of the Third Age. When that declined, other more subtil and refined Here­ticks arose in their stead, who indirectly and obliquely oppose Marriage, yet upon the same topick of greater Pu­rity and Perfection. Thus the Montanists condemned all se­cond Marriages; and reviled the Catholicks, who defended them, with the opprobious Title of Pry [...]hici or Carnal Men. Thus the Novatians revolted from the Church, and accused her of licentionsness, because she admitted to Communion those Digamists, who after a Divorce of one Wife, for what­soever cause, even for that of Adultery, had married another. Lastly, thus the Manichees, although enjoyn­ing Celibacy to none, nor forbidding Marriage to any, through a mistaken Impurity in the use of it, excluded all married Persons from the rank of their Elect, or more perfect Christians, and permitted it only to their Hearers, or inferiour order of their Sect. And when all these He­resies were every where exploded by the Catholick Church; the Reputation of Celibacy still found entertainment in the World, as being more speciously and cunningly pro­posed, especially by the Eustathian Hereticks, who aflixed it only to the Clergy, and refused to communicate with married Priests, imagining the Sacraments by them ad­ministred to be wholly ineffectual.

Thus did the Celibacy of the Clergy gradually advance from a gross and foolish Heresie to a regular and well [Page 65] formed errour: And however, these antient Hereticks committed the most abominable Villanies, and un­natural Lusts under pretence of absolute Purity and Continence, so that what Pope Leo Conjugalem copulam detestantur, quia non est illic libertus turpitudinis, ubi & pud [...]r matrimonii servatur, & spes so­bolis, Epist. 93. ad Turrib. cap. 7. said of the Priscillianists, might justly be applied to them all: They detested Marriage, because there is no liberty for uncleanness, where the Cha­stity of the Nuptial Bed, and the hope of Posterity is preserved; notwithstanding their promiscuous Fornications, and brutish Lusts, which gave scandal to the very Heathens: The glorious pretence of Chastity and Perfection gained infinite applause in the World, and drew multitudes of Sectators after them. The very name of Encratites or continent Persons, common to all these Hereticks, com­manded Veneration from [...] people; and all were apt to admire an imaginary Perfection, which they found themselves so much wanted. It seems ever to have been the unhappiness of Mankind to be deluded with excesses of Vertue; although all such naturally degenerate into Vices, or at least into things indifferent. Thus a rash and pre­cipitate boldness is admired beyond a moderate aud well­governed valour; and Enthusiasm ever gains greater esteem than a sober and rational Devotion. Thus among the Speculative Sects of Heathen Philosophy Platonists, among the Moral Sects, Stoicks and Cynicks, obtained the great­est applause; meerly because the first pretended to an ex­traordinary, and perhaps, impossible abstraction of the Mind from corporeal and sensitive Objects; and the latter boast­ed of a perfect Immunity from all Passions, and the ex­ercise of a tyrannical command over the Body: And both seemed to trample under foot the considerations of Flesh and Blood, and surmount the ordinary Capacity of Man­kind. Such prejudices as these recommended Celiba­ [...]y to the World, and advanced the pretentions of these antient Hereticks: Who although they corrupted not the whole Church with the Poison of their Errour, yet they almost every where introduced false Notions of Mar­riage [Page 66] into the Minds of Men; and although they could not cause it to be universally condemned, yet at least pro­cured it to be generally despised. And indeed never did any Heresie prevail in the Church, which did not leave some tincture of it self, even in the Minds of Catholicks. Thus it may be observed, that there is not one Writer in the Fifth Age, wherein some touch either of Pelagianism, or Predestinatism may not be discovered. How far the Heresie of these Encratites prevailed, and secretly corrupted the Judgment of Catholicks, I shall next en­quire.

First then, The Relicks of the Eustathian Heresie so far prevailed among the Catholicks, that many of them be­lieved it highly indecent for him to meddle with the Ad­ministration of Sacred Things, who indulged himself the liberty of Marriage, as if he had contracted some Impu­rity thereby, and made himself unworthy of the holy Office: an Errour common to all the Patrons of Celiba­cy, which proceeded so far in the time of Gregory Nazian­zen, that many would not willingly receive Baptism, or the Eucharist from married Priests; but much farther in the time of Hildebrand, and once again advanced into the formal Heresie of the Eustathians. From the Montanists the Catholicks received their dislike of second Marriages, one of the most palpable Errours of Antiquity; since what the Apostle expresly alloweth, and in some Cases adviseth, most of the Ancients decry as scandalous and inconvenient, oft-times as a tolerable Evil, and some­times even as a grievous sin. Tertullian hath written whole Books against it. Athenagoras▪ [...], Legat, [...]hrist. prope fin. calls it a decent Adultery. Ori­gen Puto digamum, licet bonam habeat conversationem, & caeteris virtutibus polleat, non esse tamen de Ecclesia. Hom. 17. in Luc. in sin. maintains that a Digamist, however otherwise a person of good con­versation, and adorned with all other Vertues not to belong to the Church. I might add many other Fathers and Councils, who imposed a te­dious Penance upon Digamists: but the thing is sufficiently [Page 67] notorious. This prejudice against Digamy was first taken up in the end of the Second Age. Before that time second Marriage was thought indifferent, and wholly innocent. Hermes Et dixi, si vir vel mulier alicujus decesserit, & nupserit aliquis eorum; nunquid peccat: Qui nubit, non peccat, inquit. Pastor, lib. 2. Mandat. 4. Sect. 4. in [...]he First Age had determined the lawfulness of it; and Clemens Alex­andrinus Storm. lib. 3. in the next pleads largely for it. From the Gnosticks the Catholicks received an errone­ous Opinion of some Impurity and Sinfulness, or at least Imperfection in the use of Mar­riage. They scrupled not to use the Authority of Books forged by those Hereticks in prejudice of Marriage, such as the Gospel of the Egyptians, the Acts of Paul and Tecla, and the like; and in some measure adopted their Errours. Thus Origen, and one of the most early Favourers of Celibacy, writeth thus of Marriage, Ego autem licet non usquequaque pronunciem, puto tamen quod sunt non­nulla etiam communium hominum gesta, quae quamvis peccato careant, non tan [...] digna videantur, quibus interesse putemus Spiritum Sanctum ut verbi gratia dixerim, connubia legitima carent quidem peccato, nec tamen tempore illo, quo conjugales actus geruntur, praesentia Spiritus Sancti dabitur; etiamsi Propheta esse videatur, qui officio generationis obsequitur. Hom. 6. in Num. Although I will not positively pro­nounce, yet I suppose these are some ordinary actions of Men, which however they be free from sin, are not worthy to be honoured with tbe presence of the Holy Gospel: for instance, lawful Mar­riage is not indeed sinful; yet while conjugal Acts are performed, the Holy Ghost will not be present; although he seems to be a Prophet, who performs them. St. Hierom, the great Patron of Celibacy, in the next Age, goeth farther, and disputing against Jovinian, doth in some places make Marriage not only sinful, but even damnable. If it be good, saith he, Si b [...] ­num est mulie­rem non tan­gere, malum est ergo tangere; nihil enim bono contrarium est, nisi malum. Adv. Jovian. l. 1. Quamdiu impleo mariti officium, non impleo Christiani. Jubet enim Apostolus, ut sem­per oremus; si semper orandum est, nunquam ergo conjugio serviendum: quoniam quotiescunque uxori debitum reddo orare possum. Ibid. Puto quod & [...] sinis mors. Ibid. Nuptiae terras replent virgini [...]as Paradisum. Ibid. Et sicut baben [...]ibus uxores tollit licentiam dimicendi eas, sic virginibus nubendi amputat facultem. Ibid. Tolerabllius est uni homini prosti [...]tam esse quam multis. Ibid. for a Man not to touch a Woman, then it is evil to touch her: For nothing is contrary to Good, but Evil. While I per­form [Page 68] the Duty of a Husband, I do not the Duty of a Christi­an. For the Apostle commandeth we should always pray. If so, we must never serve the ends of Marriage. For as often as I do that, I cannot pray. I suppose that the end of Marriage is eternal Death. The Earth indeed is filled by Marriage, but Paradise by Virginity. And as the Apostle permits not those who are already married to put away their Wives; so he forbid­eth Virgins to marry. Marriage is permitted only as a reme­dy of Lust; it being more tolerable to be prostituted to one man than many. Nor did this Errour expire with those He­resies, from whence they rose. About the year 600. when Augustin, Archbishop of Canterbury, desired of Pope Gregory some Instructions for his new Converts in England, and Rules of Ecclesiastical Discipline, he gave him this for one. Vir autem cum propria conjuge dor­miens, nisi lotus aqua intrare Ecclesiam non debet sed neque lotus statim intrare debet. apud Bedam. Hist. Eccl. l. 1. c. 27. A Man after he hath laid with his own Wife, ought not to enter into the Church, till he hath washed himself with water, nor must then immediately en­ter. Whereas Clemens Alexandrinus Strom. lib. 3. praising the Simplicity of the Christian Religion, instanceth in this very Ceremony; which although used of old by the Jews, he saith was no where practised in his time by the Christians. Many other erroneons Opinions obtained in the antient Church, which proceeded from no other cause but this. I will observe but one more: their Opinion of the lawfulness of Self-murder to prevent the loss of Vir­ginity, imagining somewhat of Sinfulness and Impurity was inseparably annexed even to the natural act of Gene­ration. So Eusebius Hist. Eccl. l. 8. c. 44. & alibi. bestows large Encomiums upon some Virgins and Matrons, who had laid violent hands up­on themselves to prevent the Lust of Heathens: And Ald­helmus Propria manuperire non licet, absque eo ubi castitas periclitatur lib. de Virginit. in Orthodoxogr, p. 1694. citeth a Sentence of some Father more antient than himself: Self-murder is unlawful, unless when Chastity is endangered: which he consirms, and illustrates with ma­ny Reasons and Examples.

[Page 69]Such weaknesses of the Antients had deserved indeed to be buried in Oblivion; if they had not influenced their Practice, and laid the Foundations of an Errour, which continueth even to this day, that Marriage is a state Unbe­fitting, and Celibacy therefore Necessary to the Clergy: An Opinion first taken up upon those Prejudices which we have just now mentioned, and maintained upon the Au­thority of those who are led away with these Mistakes. So that to take away the Plea of Antiquity from the Church of Rome, in the case of Celibacy, it were sufficient to shew, that the Antients received and embraced it meerly for the sake of these Prejudices and Mistakes: Which we have already done. For these were the great and only Ar­guments of Celibacy, for the first Thousand years; while none were yet so foolish as to imagin it to be of Divine or Apostolical Institution. The pre-conceived Opinions of the impurity of Marriage in all, and great indecency of it in those who administred Holy things, tended di­rectly to introduce the Celibacy of the Clergy. For these Reasons, Unde mihi videtur quod illius so­lius est sacrificium offerre indesinens, qui indesinenti & perpetuae se devoverit casti­tiati. Hom. 28. in Num. O­rigen and Demonstr. Evang. l1. c. 9. in fine. Eusebius, who were the only Orthodox Writers before the Council of Nice, who openly pre­fer the Celibacy of the Clergy to their Marriage, desired it might be introduced. For they rather faintly wished the thing, than dogmatically used it; and by their Wishes manifest, that it was not yet introduced. As for their unreasonable prejudice against Digamy, that con­tributed no less to the cause of Celibacy, than the other Mistakes, For the unlawfulness of Digamy once sup­posed, the force of the Apostles Precept of Marriage to all who could not contain, became wholly enervate; since a Man is no less subject to Incontinence after enjoy­ment of a Wife for some few years, perhaps days, than he was before he ever married. Besides, all the Pa­trons of Celibacy failed not to make use of this Argu­ment: That if Second Marriage be unlawful or inde­cent to the Laity, even First Marriage will be so to the [Page 70] Clergy; it being usual for them who disallowed Second Marriage in all, to think First Marriage only a tolerable evil, and permitted in some; as Divorce was formerly to the Jews. And then it was a natural order of Super­stition, first to forbid Second, and then all Marriage to the Clergy. Therefore we may observe, that in the beginning of the Third Age, Ad Uxo­rem. l. 1. c. 7. Tertullian affirms Di­gamy to have been forbidden to the Clergy both by Apo­stolical Tradition, aud the Discipline of the Church, and to be generally discussed by them in his time, as a scanda­lous Imperfection, if not a Crime. But we no where find Marriage forbidden to the Clergy, till the time of the Apostolick Canons, first published in the end of this, or beginning of the next Age.

These Mistakes and Prejudices, and Reasons of Celiba­cy founded upon them, were common to both Churches; but there was one Reason peculiar to the Western Church, which however it may seem light, was of great efficacy: and that was the unhappy Fall of Tertullian into Monta­nism. That Great and Learned Person, naturally en­dowed with an ardent Genius, of a severe and inflexible temper of Mind, infinitely zealous for all outward appearances of religious Mortification, and after his Fall prompted with that Enthusiastick Spirit, which was the peculiar Character of the Montanists, set himself to advance the Opinion of his Sect with all imaginable vigour. The unlawfulness of Digamy, was the chief Tenet of that Sect, and that founded upon an erroneous Supposition of some Imperfection in the Use even of First Marriage. In maintaining and recommending these Er­rours to the World, Tertullian employed all the force of his Wit and Eloquence to debase the dignity of Mar­riage, and extoll the merits of a Single-life, whether Widowhood or Virginity. The extraordinary reverence and esteem which his great Learning and apparent Zeal procured to him in succeeding Ages, mightily propagated his Errours, and corrupted his Readers with false Preju­dices and Notions of Marriage and Virginity. For altho' it [Page 71] had been reasonable and sufficient to say of him, what St. De Ter [...]ul­liano nihil ali­ud dico, quam Ecclesiae homi­nem non fuisse. Adv. Helvid. Hierome once said, when pressed hard with his Autho­rity, He was a Schismatick, no Writer of the Church: Yet few considered that; the persuasive force of his Eloquence was more sensible than the remembrance of his Schism; and then few enquired which Books he writ before, and which after his Fall; or rather it was a common Errour, that he writ very few after, and almost all before his Fall. Whereas in truth he writ before his Fall only the Three little Treatises of Baptism, Repentance, and Prayer; not the Twentieth part of his Works now ex­tant. To this Reputation of Tertullian, and the ill Effects of it, contributed not a little the infinite esteem and ve­neration which St. Cyprian had for his Writings; while unwary Persons imagined, that the deference, which that blessed Martyr paid to his Learning and Zeal, was an effect of the soundness and orthodoxy of his Doctrine. However, certain it is, that the Fall of Tertullian advanc'd and encreas'd the former Prejudices; and this I take to be the only reason, why Celibacy ever prevailed more in the Western than in the Eastern Church.

All these Prejudices were in themselves unlawful. But there were other Reasons of preferring Celibacy in the Ancient Church; which might have been allowed, if not attended with such fatal Consequences. And first, many Catholicks openly espoused the cause of Celibacy, and others winked at their Policy, meerly to prevent the Delusion of more simple Catholicks, by the no less glo­rious than fraudulent Pretences of the Encratites: Quia sciunt virginale vocabulum glo­riosum, sub ovium pellibus lupos tegunt. Christum mentitur Antichristus, & turpi­tudinem vitae falso uominis honore conve­stiunt. Epist. ad Eustoch. de custod. Virgin. Who (to use St. Hierome's words) because they knew the name of Virginity was venera­ble, covered the Wolves under Sheeps­cloathing. Antichrist pretended to act the part of Christ, and veiled the un­cleanness of their Lives, with the false honour of that usurped Name. They esteemed it a laudable Policy to prevent the Mischief, by proposing to the Practice of Men that [Page 72] very Perfection, which the Hereticks so much boasted of, and the Multitude were apt to admire, as being always casier led with great Pretences, than sober Truth. A not unlike Policy with this, was afterwards used by Socrat. l. 6. c. 8. St. Chrysostome against the Arians; when fearing the People would be seduced by their Enthusiastical singing of Hymns, he set up the same way of singing of Hymns among the Catholicks, and thereby prevented the design of the Arians; a Stratagem, as the [...]. Historian obser­veth, and may be applied to our case; which however specious, was the Occasion of very ill Consequences.

While Celibacy thus gained ground by the Artisice of Hereticks, and Connivance of Catholicks, few interposed themselves to undeceive Mankind, and stop the torrent of these vulgar Prejudices; as well because the immoderate esteem of Celibacy seem'd a Matter of no great moment, while it was forcibly imposed upon none, nor made ne­cessary to any; as because the dis-favour and unjust suspi­cions of the Multitude would probably have attended such an undertaking: While unreasonable Men would have esteemed such a Person as a Libertine, an Enemy of re­fined and more severe Religion, and thought him to have therein pleaded only for his own Passions and Inclina­tions. And when Celibacy became once universally esteemed, and great numbers of Lay-men vowing Vir­ginity, voluntarily abstained from Marriage, who by their supposed Sanctity and specious Abstinence, drew to them­selves the eyes and admiration of all Men; the Clergy also were necessitated to make some advances in the Use of Celibacy, that they might not suffer loss of Repu­tation, and seem less Vertuous and Spiritual than Lay­men. Hence St. Hierome frequently urgeth the Celibacy of the Clergy, by the Example of Lay-Virgins, affirming it to be highly indecent that the Laity should exceed the Clergy even in voluntary Acts of Piety and Mortification. This Reason afterwards received great advantage from the wonderful encrease of Monkery, and Vows of Con­tinence, [Page 73] in the Fourth and Fifth Ages; insomuch that Ut penè jam major in Eccles [...]is om­nibus virginum apud vos quam mulierum numerositas habeatur. Apud Augustin. lib. 30. Faustus the Manichee objected to St. Austin, that the immoderate Commendation of Virginity had among the Catholicks produced this Effect, that in all their Churches there seem'd to be a greater number of professed Virgins, than mar­ried Women. No wonder then, if Reverence attending the unmarried, and Contempt the married Clegry, Celi­bacy prevailed in the Church, and Marriage by being dis-esteeemed became also dis-used; especially since Am­bition contributed not a little to it. For from the end of the Fourth Age, the Bishops and greater Clergy were gene­rally chosen out of the Monks, and thereby Celibacy be­came the nearest way to Preferment.

But to return to the Third Age; the frequent Perse­cutions of that time, did not a little advance the Cause of Celibacy; it being highly convenient to the Church, that the Clergy should shew an Example of Constancy and Re­solution to all other Christians, which it was believed they would more readily perform, when freed from the en­cumbrances of a married state, and not with-holden with the temptations of Wife and Children. For the fury of the Heathen Persecutors generally fell most heavy upon the Clergy, and sometimes was directed against them only: So that to be promoted to any eminent Place in the Church, was to be exposed to certain Martyrdom. For this reason, as Eusebius somewhere relates, in the Choice of Bishops, single Persons were commonly prefer­red before married Men, in Times of Persecution. And then Celibacy was no grievous and intolerable burthen, when attended with a continual Expectation of Death, and being hurried away to Execution. To which may be added, that few were then received into the Priesthood, but aged Men, who by a long course of Vertue, had given sufficient proof of their Continence and unspotted Cha­stity. Whereas in the Church of Rome, Boys were admit­ted to Profess or make a Vow of Continence at Fourteen, [Page 74] Girls at Twelve years of age, till the Council of Trent, which reduced it to Sixteen.

All these Reasons concurred in the First Ages, to en­crease the esteem of Celibacy, and prejudice the Marriage of the Clergy. The way was opened, by forbidding Second Marriage to the Clergy, and receiving none into Holy Orders, who had married twice after Baptism. For if a Man married once before, and again after Baptism, he was commonly reputed no Digamist. This Prejudice against Second Marriage encreased so far, that all were made uncapable of Holy Orders, who had married Wi­dows; lest they should seem to countenance thereby the supposed scandal of Digamy. I mean not hereby, that Second Marriage was forbidden to the Clergy by any Council, or Orders denied to all Digamists, none excepted; for neither the one nor the other of those Suppositions is true, but only that it became the general and ordinary practice of the Church, not to permit Second Marriage to those already ordained, nor Orders to those already twice married. In the same manner a Custom was introduced, and by the end of the Third Age established in the Church, that the Clergy might indeed freely retain their Wives married before the reception of Orders, but not marry after Orders once received. Not that this was yet forbidden by any Canon, nor practised without Exception, (for the contrary of that we shall immediately demon­strate,) but only was the usual and more ordinary Disci­pline of the Church: Whence both the Prohibition of Di­gamy, and Marriage after Orders to the Clergy, were inserted among the Apostolical Canons, wherein that is the Sixteenth, this the Twenty fifth [...]. Canon. These Apostolical Ca­nons were not the Constitutions of any Council, much less Precepts and Institutions of the Apostles, but only the Customs and Usages of the Eastern Church, in the end of the Third and beginning of the Fourth Age; which seem to have been collected about that time by some private Hand, however then authorized by the [Page 75] Use, and afterwards confirmed by the Decree of the Church.

This Custom of the Ancient Church, however it may seem almost equivalent to an Imposition of Celibacy, was yet far from it. For first it was not so strict and universal, as to admit no Exception. Marriage was permitted to many, even after the reception of Orders, as we shall shew by and by from the Canon of Ancyra; and allowed in­differently to all, if they receded from the Execution of their Office, and returned to Lay-Communion in order to it; as we shall also hereafter prove. Secondly, If any Person to be ordained were not yet married, and did in the least suspect he should not be able afterwards to con­tain without Marriage; he was not only permitted, but even advised by the Church, first to Marry, and then to receive Orders: So that they frequently married, whilest Candidates of the Priesthood, and already designed to that Holy Office, perhaps but some few days before their admittance into it. So the Sixth General Council renew­ing this very Apostolick Canon, forbid any to marry after Orders once received; and adds, [...] Can. 6. But if any one who comes to be ordained, hath a mind to joyn him­self unto a Wife with the bond of Mar­riage, let him do it before he be or­dained Deacon, or Sub-deacon, or Priest, and then- receive Orders. Thirdly, By allowing to the Clergy the free Use of Mar­riage contracted before their Ordination, they acknow­ledged both the lawfulness and decency of their Mar­riage, whether contracted before or after Ordination. For if there be any indecency in Marriage, which makes it unbecoming the dignity and holiness of the Priesthood, it must be in the Use of it, as all confess; and if so, the Use of Marriage, contracted before as well as after Ordi­nation, will become indecent. For the Contract itself is a thing most honest and decorous, so far from carrying any impurity and indecency along with it, that the Churh of Rome believeth it to be a Sacrament. What were the [Page 76] particular Reasons why the Antient Church permitted to the Clergy the Use of the one Marriage, and disallowed the other, may be probably reduced from what we have already said. For those Men who were led away by the Mistakes and Prejudices produced in the Church by the Heresie of the Encratites, endeavoured at least to introduce this Custom; when they despaired of a total Abrogation of the Clergies Marriage, and perhaps thought that into­lerable in itself, or inconvenient to the Church. And then those who otherwise clearly perceived the falshood of these Prejudices, contented themselves with silence, and con­nived at the Introduction of this Custom, as well for fear of a Popular Odium and Dis-esteem, as because they were convinced by the Reasons last mentioned, that such a Custom, if it proceeded no farther, was little less than equivalent to a total Permission of Marriage. To which may be added, that the Rites of Marriage being anciently, especially among the Greeks, always celebrated with great Riot and Luxury, continued for many days together; it was thought unbefitting the gravity of a Clergyman to be present at, much more to be chief Actor in such licen­tious Solemnities. Upon which account, the Councils of Can. 54. Laodicea, and Can. 39. Agatha, forbid the Clergy to be present at Nuptial Feasts; although the Can. 24. Quinisext Council restrained that Prohibition only to the Iudicrous and more trifling part of the Solemnity.

In some of the Clergy, these Prejudices of the Excel­lency of Celibacy, and the Inconvenience of Marriage to the dignity of their Order, prevailed so far, that upon pretence of Continence and greater Purity, they sequestred their Wifes, although unwilling, from their bed, and sometimes from their society. The superstitious and scan­dalous conduct of these Men was universally condemned and censured by the Church: Whence among the Aposto­lick Canons, this is one; [...]. Can. 5 Let no Bishop, Priest or Dea­con put away his Wife upon pretence of Religion. If he doth, let him be excomunicated; and if he continue obstinate, be degra­ded. Our Adversaries indeed pretend, that this Canon was not opposed to a denial of Nuptial Duties by the Clergy [Page 77] to their Wives, but to a denial of Maintainance, and turn­ing them out of doors to beg their Living. But the vanity of this Plea is evident. For not to say that the constant ac­ceptance of the word [...] imports no more than a seque­stration from the Bed, the Canon in the sense of our Adver­saries would be useless and trifling. For we do not find, nor can imagin, that so great an abuse ever obtained in the Church, as that the Clergy should eject their inno­cent Wives, and expose them to want and poverty. Whereas that many removed them from their Bed, and believed their embraces unlawful after Orders received, is already clearly proved, and on all sides confessed. The Errour of the Impurity of Marriage had so far obtained in the Minds of many, that it was necessary for the Church to interpose her Judgment, and vindicate the Cause of injured Marriage. For as Aristenus [...]. Syntagm. Alphabet. lit. [...]. cap. 16. truly paraphrases this Canon, A Clergyman by sequestring his Wife from his Bed seem to accuse Mar­riage, as if he thought the lawful plea­sures of it to be impious. The same saith Zonaras Comm. in Can. upon this Canon. This was also the occasion of the like Precept in the Apostolick Constitutions (a Work of the same Age and Authority with the Canons) where the Apo­stles are introduced thus speaking: [...]. lib. 4. c. 13. He which maketh a Vow of Virgi­nity, (which we leave to every ones choice, only advise that it be not done rashly and lightly) let him demonstrate his profession to be sincere, and un­dertaken for a better opportunity of Piety, not for dislike of Marriage. The same Precept may be found in the inter­polated Epistle of St. Ignatius to the Philadelphinas. But what clears the Matter beyond all doubt, is, that when the Council of Nice rejected the motion of those who pro­posed a total Celibacy of the Clergy, and upon the per­suasions of Paphnutius permitted to them the use of Wives married before Ordination, they formed a Decree to that [Page 78] purpose in the very words of this Apostolick Canon [...]. Gelasius Cyzic. Hist. Concil. Nicaen. l. 2. c. 32. That the Clergy ought not every one to put away his Wife.

In the beginning of the Fourth Age, Celibacy received great Advances from the increase of Errours and Preju­dices taken up in the former Age, and the length and a sharpness of the last Prosecution begun by Dioclesian, and continued by Maximus and Licinius, which infused melan­choly thoughts into all Christians, and an unusual reve­rence for all shews of Austerity and Mortification. Then was Marriage first forbidden to Priests and Bishops after Ordination by a judiciary Act of the Church, but that formed in a Provincial and inconsiderable Council, whose Canons were never taken notice of, or ratified by any subsequent Councils, or even Popes, till the midst of the Ninth Age: I mean the Council of Neocasarea, which in the year 314. made this Canon, [...]. Can. 1. If a Presbyter marry, let him be deposed from his Order; but if he commit Fornication or Adultery, let him be cast out of the Church, and put to Penance. Where it may be ob­served. 1. That this Canon forbids not the use of Wives married before Ordination. 2. That it forbids not to Deacons and Subdeacons to contract Marriage even af­ter Ordination. 3. That it manifestly distinguisheth between Fornication and Marriage after Ordination. 4. That it doth not command a Separation from Wives so Married, but only a dimission of the holy Office.

However, the pretentions of Celibacy received no small check from the Council of Ancyra, held the same year: A Council of far greater Esteem and Authority, which was ratified and confirmed by many subsequent Councils and Popes, particularly by Leo the First, Apud [...], Dist. 20. cap. 1. and whose Canons were received into the antient Code of Canons in the Primitive Church. The Fathers of this Council con­sidering the inconveniencies of forced Celibacy and [Page 79] right, which all men have to Mar­riage, Decreed, [...], &c. Can. 10. That if Dea­cons yet unmarried protested of the time of their Ordination, their intentions and necessity of Marrying, as not being able to continue Unmarried; they might Marry after their Ordination, and con­tinue in their Office. But if they made no such Protestation of their Ordination, and afterwards Mar­ried, they should relinquish their Office. The pretentions of Baronius and Binius, that in both Cases Deacons Marrying after their Ordination, were obliged to lay down their Office, deserveth not to be considered, since nothing could be invented more directly contrary to the plain words of the Canon. It is more considerable that Aristenus Comm. in Can. 6. Con­cili VI. ex­tends this Canon also to Presbyters, reading it [...], and affirms that by vertue of it, both Pres­byters and Deacons were always allowed Marriage in the Greek Church after Ordination, if they had not neglect­ed to make their Ptotestation; till this Permission was repealed by the Quinisext Council in the year 692. That this Canon took place in the Western Church appears not particularly, except from the universal approbation of the Acts of this Ancyran Council; although somewhat like it was enacted in the Eleventh Council of Toledo Can. 1. in the year 531. To which we may add what Sir H. Spelman relates in the British Councils, Tom. 1. p. 43. that Restitutus Bishop of London, returning from the Council of Arles, in the year 314. brought with him into England the Canons of that Council, amongst which one was this very Canon of the Council of Ancyra. Indeed, no such Canon is now found in the Acts of the Council of Arles published by Sirmond: but then we are to remember that these Acts are not intire, and perhaps not genuin.

The Decree of Ancyra was indeed favourable to the Marriage of the Clergy, but the restless Importunities and scandalous Practices of the Sectatours of Celibacy obliged the Church to proceed yet farther, and declare it self more openly in favour of their Marriage. For Eustathius, [Page 80] Bishop of Sebastea in Armenia, and first Founder of a Mo­nastick Sozom. l. 3. c. 14. l. 4. c. 24. Life in Armenia and Cappadocia, had formed a new, but then plausible Heresie, that Holy Things, and the Sacraments of the Church, ought not to be Administred by the married Clergy, and that the People ought not to com­municate from their hands. With this Doctrine he had drawn great numbers into Schism, and created no small di­sturbance in the Church. Upon which account the Coun­cil of Gangra met about the year 324. who condemning this Hercsie, and deposing the Author of it, pub­lished this following Canon: [...]. Can. 4. If any one separates from a married Priest, as if it were unlawful to com­municate, when he officiates; let him be Anathema. A Canon the more con­siderable for the Authority of the Council which made it. For this was ever most reputed of all particular Councils in the antient Church, confirm­ed by many general Councils and Popes, and recieved in­to the antient Code of Canons.

This was the Progress and Condition of Celibacy in the Eastern Church before the Council of Nice. In the West, if we except perhaps that of Arles (for the Roman Synods under Pope Sylvester are confessedly spurious) no Councils had determined any thing in it, but that of Eli­beris in the year 305. which ordain­ed Placuit in totum prohiberi E­piscopis, Presbyteris, & Diaconibus, vel omnibus, Clericis positis in mini­sterio, abstinere se à conjugibus suis & non generate silios. Quicunque vero fe­ceret, ab honore Clericatus exterminetur. Can. 33. that Bishops, Priests and Dea­cons, and all the Clergy placed in the Ministry (or while they Minister) should abstain from their Wiues, and not attend to procreation. If any doth, let him be deposed from the Order of the Clergy. Here to pass by the Opini­on of those mentioned by Albas Pinae [...]s, Not. in Can. who expound­ed the words of this Canon in their Grammatical Sense, for the Latin runs thus: We absolutely forbid the Clergy to abstain from their Wives; in which case it will be coinci­dent with the Fifth Apostolick Canon: our Adversaries maintain that it is to be understood of a total abstinence [Page 81] of the Clergy from their Wives. If we should grant this, it would not much prejudice our Cause, since this was that foolish Council, which forbids Can. 34. Candles to be lighted in Church-yards in the day time, least the Souls of the dead Saints should be disquieted: a Council of so little Reputation, that it never was confirmed by any Pope or Council to this day. But I doubt not to evince, that this Canon is to be thus understood only of a temporary absti­nence of the Clergy, while they performed their Office in their turns. For the Clergy had not then as now each one his Parish assigned him wherein to officiate; but all of one City, at least in the lesser Cities, belonging to one Church, supplied the necessities of the Church in Order, and re­lieved one the other by turns. That this Canon is to be thus understood, appeareth. 1. From the plain words of it, where Positis in ministerio must either signifie this, or be wholly impertinent; since all the Clergy, by the very nature of their Office, are placed in the Ministry of the Church. 2. Otherwise total Abstinence will be enjoyn­ed to Subdeacons, Readers, Exorcists and Acolythi, as well as to Bishops, Priests and Deacons; and so Albaspinaeus Loc. cit. omnibus omni­no Clericis. explains the words in totum prohiberi, it is forbidden, saith he, to all Clergy-men whatsoever. Whereas Subdea­cons were never forbidden the use of Marriage, till the middle of the Fifth Age; and the three inferiour Orders are not at this day forbidden it in the Church of Rome. 3. When a total Abstinence of Bishops, Priests and Deacons was proposed in the Council of Nice, all the Historians of that Council express it by saying, some endeavoured to in­troduce [...], a new and unheard of Law: and Paphnu­tius opposing it, pleaded that the Church ought not to be burdened with new Impositions, but that the universal Tradition and practice of it was to be preserved. Now if this total Abstinence had twenty years before been im­posed by the Council of Eliberis, all those Historians had mistaken; and Hosius, Bishop of Corduba, who had been present in the Council of Eliberis, and presided in that of Nice, would not have suffered the Fathers to be led away with the false representations of Paphnutius.

[Page 82]Celibacy was not yet arrived at its Crisis, universally in­deed applauded, but no where imposed; yet had the un­reasonable affection of it in many Clergy-men, and an im­moderate Ambition of the honour of Virginity in many Lay Persons, already introduced two of the most enormous Scandals, that ever the Church laboured under from the A­postles to this day, I mean Emasculation, and [...]. These [...] were unmarried Women, commonly those who had vowed perpetual Virginity, taken into the house as Domestick Assistants by Clergy-men, who had ei­ther never married, or buried their Wives; or unmarried Men, commonly of the Clergy taken into the House, in the same Quality, by Women or Virgins, who had vowed Con­tinence. We want a proper English word to express them, and therefore must be content to call them House-keepers: they were called by the Greeks, [...] and [...], but most commonly [...], which name was first given Euseb. l. 7. c. 30. by the people of Antioch to the House-keepers of Paulus Samosatenus, their Bishop and his Clergy; by the Latins they were termed Subintroductae, Adscititiae, Extraneae, Ali­enae, Dilectae, Sorores, Commanentes, and Focariae. They were taken in by most under pretence of Piety to encou­rage and assist one another by Spiritual Conference and Exhortations, but by all upon pretence of Domestick As­sistance, that the Men might defend the Women from all injuries, to which otherwise that weak Sex is exposed; and the Women might provide Necessaries for the Men, and take care of their Families. Some perhaps made good their Pretences by a sober and prudent Conversation: but the greatest part indulged to themselves the most inward Fami­liarities of Man and Wife, and made them even the Com­panions of their sleep, where they used all the Embraces, Caresses, and Allurements of the Nuptial Bed, save only Carnal Knowledge. And all this they openly maintained to be lawful; and thought it not injurious to their Pro­fession of Virginity, and the integrity of their Chastity. But some proceeded farther, and by visible effects discover­ed the Approaches of a nearer Familiarity, and more [...]lose Embraces, to their own Shame, and the great Scandal of the Church. Others finding or fearing, they should not [Page 83] be able to contain in the midst of so great Temptations. ( For can a Man take Fire into his Bosom, and not be burnt; Prov. 6. 27. as the Fathers frequently applied to this Case) emasculated themselves, that they might at least prevent all visible Scandal, when they could not extinguish the Fire of their Minds. Thus did Socrat. l. 2. c. 26. A. tha [...]as. Ap [...]. de fuga. Leontius the Arian, Bishop of An­tioch, for the love of Eustolium his Paramour: and that the abuse was frequent even among the Catholicks, appears from all the Writers of those times, especially, the Au­thor of the Book, De singularitate Clericorum, and St. Basil's Treatise of true Virginity, where he eloquently describes and bewails the scandalous familiarity of these Eunuchs and House-keepers.

See two egregious Scandals, the immediate effects even of a voluntary Celibacy in the antient Church, greater than any which the Church now suffers in the dregs of time. We needed not say any more of them; if the unreasonable wills of our Adversaries did not necessitate us to clear the Matter a little farther. They maintain that by these, [...] were meant also the Wives of the Clergy; a pretence, which however shameless and foolish, was the main Engine of advancing Celibacy in the latter Age; when the Authority of all those Councils, which had for­bidden House-keepers to the Clergy was produced against their Marriage; and the ignorance of those Ages had sit­ted them for a miserable Delusion by such Impostures. To pass by then the Confession of some learned Writers of the Church of Rome, and the constant practice of the Eastern Church, which always forbids House-keepers, but never Wives to the Clergy. I will only oppose a few Pas­sages of the Antient Writers. St. Cyprian lamenting the folly of many consecrated Virgins, who had entred into the Families, and even into the Beds of unmarried Clergy­men, saith, Denique quam graves multorum rui­nas hinc fieri videmus, & per hujusmo. li illicitas & periculosas conjunctiones corrumpi plurimas virgineis cum summo animi nostri dolore conpiscimus. Epist. 62. ad Pomponium. Lastly, how grievous falls of many do we see hereby produced; and with extreme grief behold the corruption of many Virgins, by these unlawful and dangerous familiarities. Wherefore, if they desire the reward of Virginity, let them be [Page 84] Virgins in good earnest; but if they will not, or cannot contain, let them Marry. The Author of the Book, De Singulari­tate Clericorum hath these words: Ut quid sibi adhibuit mulierem, qui ducere contemsit uxorem.—Ita is qui despexit vinculum nuptiarum, & ali­ [...]er vinculis faemineis obligatur; quamvi [...], &c. ante med. Why hath he taken a House-keeper, who scorned to marry a Wife; So he who despised the Bond of Marriage, and yet retains the familiarity of Women, although he be not actually polluted, yet enjoy them by Imagination, Sight, Conversation and So­ciety. St. Gregory Nazianzen pro­fesseth [...]. Carm. de Virginit. he knows not whether to call them married or unmarried Persons; since in an unmarried State they per­formed the Duties of Marriage. St. Chrysostom in like manner saith, They are neither Wives nor Concubines, but a middle kind unknown to former Ages; and thus bespeaks them: [...], &c. Hom.▪ 1. contra [...]. If you desire to have Men dwell with you, you ought not to have chosen Virginity, but to have married. For it had been much better so to have married, than thus to profess Virginity. For such a marrige neither God con­demns, nor Man blames; for 'tis an ho­nourable State, injurious to none, scanda­lous to none. But this Virginity, performed in the company of Men, is accused by all Men as worse than open Fornication, Lastly, thus St. Hierom describes them, Pudet dicere, proh nefas! Triste, sed verum est. Unde in Ecclesiam Aga­petarum pestis introiit? unde sine nuptiis aliud nomen uxorem? immo unde novum concubinarum genus. Plus inferam, unde meretrices univirae? Eadem domo, uno cubiculo, saepe u [...]o tenentur & lectulo: & suspiciosos nos vocant, si aliquid exis [...]i­mamus. Epist. ad Eustoch [...]de custod. Virgin. I am ashamed to speak it; it is sad but true. Whence did this plague of House-keepers enter into the Church? Whence without Marriage another name for Wives? yea, whence this new kind of Concubines? I will say more; whence these Whores tied to the oompany of one Man? They lodge in the same House, in one Chamber, and oft-times in one Bed, and yet they call us unreasonably suspicious, if we think any thing amiss. Such then were these [...] first in­troduced [Page 85] in the middle of the Third Age, and notwith­standing the frequent Prohibitions of Councils, and De­climations of Fathers, continued in the Church, but with greatest Scandal about the Year 400. till at last they degenerated into open Concubines in the Church of Rome; in which state the Reformation found them generally then thought Lawful, or at least a venial Sin; although none since hath dared to defend them. They were forbidden in the Ancient Church by the Councils of Can. 27. Eliberis, Can. 19. Ancyra, Can. 3. Nice, the Can. 3. First, and Can. 17. Third of Carthage, the Can. 5. Third of Constantinople, the Can. 18. Second of Nice, Can. 39. Aquisgran, and many others; and by the Emperor Justinian in his Novel 123. Novels. As for Emascu­lation, that was severely forbidden by the Apostolick Can. 21. Canons, and the Council of Can. 1. Nice, and seems to have been dis-used before the Year 500.

Upon occasion of these [...], it will not be here inconvenient to speak somewhat of the Book de Singularitate Clericorum, which we just now cited. This Book, how­ever in its Title it may seem to oppose the Marriage of the Clergy, is one of the most pregnant Evidences of the Use of it in the Ancient Church, that is now extant. It is by some ascribed to Origen, by others to St. Augustin, but by most to St. Cyprian. However, all Learned Men now agree, that it belongs to none of them. The late Learned Editors of St. Cyprian's Works, at Oxford, conjecture it to have been written about the time of Bede. Rather it was most certainly written before the middle of the Fifth Age, because the Author of it makes use of the old Italick Ver­sion, which was in use in the Latin Church before St. Hie­rom's Translation. Most probably therefore it was writ in the Fourth Age. The scope of it is to decry and re­form the abuse of House-keepers, which (as the Author saith) Non du­rant sine faemi. nae sodalitate dormtre. was then become so scandalous in the Church, that the unmarried Clergy could not endure to sleep without the company of a Woman. If in the heat of Disputation he lets fall any thing injurious to Marriage, it is such as opposeth no less the Marriage of the Laity than of the Clergy; and indeed the former part of the Treatise is [Page 86] nothing else but a Satyr against Women. But the design of the Author, and the lawfulness and use of the Clergies Marriage in his time, may be evidently collected from many places. I will produce one or two of them, premi­sing this Observation, that the Author ranks those Wo­men also among the [...], who lived in the House with married Clergymen, if they had no Relation of Kindred or Marriage to them: That the company of near Relati­ons was never denied to the Clergy, since proximity of Blood, and the dictates of Nature, sufficiently secured their Honour; and that all other Women but Relations and Wives are by this Author termed Alienae and Extraneae, Strange Women. [...]ui nunc pro dimittendis faeminis, alienis adhaerent; quid facerent, si liberos & uxores projicere jubeantur? Aut quando valebunt pro Christo renunciare cogna [...]is, qui mulierculas non suas praeponunt Christi preceptis? Post Med. If then (saith he) the Clergy instead of putting away their Wives so fondly adhere to Strange Wo­men; What would they do, if they were commanded to put away their Wives and Children? Or how will they be able to renounce their Kindred for Christ, who preferr to the Commands of Christ, Women en­deared to them by no other Obligations? And in another place, Rogo vos, Clerici, quantum va­leo,—Si quis habet matrem, vel fi­liam, vel sororem, vel conjugem, vel cog­natam; sic [...]abeat, ut nulla ancilla inter­sit, neque alia ingrediatur extranca, &c. prope fine. I affectio­nately entreat you, O Clergymen, if any of you hath a Mother, a Daughter, a Sister, a Wife, or a Kinswoman li­ving with you; ye so save her, that no Waiting-maid live with them, nor any other Strange Woman have access; lest you be suspected to retain your Relations with you for this only reason, that ye may under that Pretence take Strange Women into your houses. If they cannot want the service or assistance of Maids, or the company of Friends of their own Sex; it is better that they should remove into another house, than that ye should entertain Strange Women for their sakes: For as it would be unfit that a Clergyman should deprive them of the necessary assistance of their Sex; so it is indecent that they should injure his Reputation, by bringing su­spicious Women into his company. To which may be added the Testimony before cited; wherein the Author upbraids to those Clergymen who could not live without House­keepers, the [...] [...] to marry Wives.

[Page 87]We are now come to the great and Famous Council of Nice, wherein the Cause of Celibacy was debated and decided. I will represent the whole matter, in the words of Socrates the Historian; ( c) It seemed good to some Bishops to in­troduce (n) [...], &c. Hi [...]. Eccl. l. 1. c. 11. a new Law into the Church, That the Clergy, I mean Bishops, Priests and Deacons, should not lay with their Wives, which they had married being yet Lay-men. And when the thing was proposed to he consulted of, Paphnutius standing up in the midst of the Assembly of the Bishops, contended vehemently that so heavy a Yoke ought not to be imposed upon the Clergy, saying, that even Marriage was undefiled (or chaste) and the Use of it honourable; that they should take heed of rather injuring the Church by this excess of Severity: For that all could not contain, neither perhaps could the chastity of every one's Wife be preserved, (or as Sozomen expresseth it, For that it was a thing very hard to be borne, and would perhaps be the cause of Incontinence both to themselves and to their Wives.) But he asserted the company of a lawful Wife to be Chastity; that it was sufficient that he who was first Ordained, should not Marry after it, according to the Ancient Discipline of the Church; but that none ought to be separated from that Wife which he had before married, while he was yet a Lay-man. And this he said, being himself unmarried, and brought up from his Youth in a Monastick and Ascetick Life. The whole Council yielded to the Arguments of Paphnutius, and therefore ceased any farther Debate, leaving it to the will of every one, whether they would abstain from the company of their Wives or not. L. 1. c. 23. Sozomen and L. 8. c. 19. Nicephorus relate it almost in the same words, In voce [...]. Suidas in the very same, Hist. Tri­part. l. 2. c. 14. Cassidiorus in the like words; and so do Panorm. l. 3. c. 88. Ivo Carno­tensis, Dist. 31. cap. 12. Gratian, and Syntagm. Alphab. lit. γ. cap. 2. Blastares, and who is ancienter than them all, except the two first, Hist. Con [...]. Nic. l. 2. c. 32. Gelasius Cyzicenus, who transcribed the Acts of that Council out of a Copy which had belonged to Dalmatius, Bishop of Cycicum, who was present in the Ephesine Council, in the Year 431. So that they who doubt of the Truth of this History, may with equal reason deny the Existence of the Nicene Coun­cil, [Page 88] since both are attested with the same Authorities. Yet is this done by many Writers of the Church of Rome, par­ticularly Barronius, Bellarmine, and especially Turrian, whose trifling Arguments the Learned De confirm. Concil Illiber. l. 2. c▪ 66. M [...]ndosa relates and confutes.

More general and notorious hath been the fraud of the Church of Rome, in pretending that the Third Canon of this Council, made against the House-Keepers, was di­rected against their Marriage. Of this Imposture, the Popes and Councils of the Eleventh Age made great use, never failing to back their Decrees with the Authority of the Council of Nice. The Canon is conceived in these words: [...]. Can. 3. The Great Synod hath wholly forbidden to all Bishops, Priests, Deacons, and all the Clergy, to have a House-keeper, unless she be a Mother, or a Sister, or an Aunt, or those Persons only who are lia­ble to no Suspicion. That wives are not hereby forbidden to the Clergy, would be impertinent to demon­strate, if the unreasonableness of our Adversaries did not require it. First then, The Authority of all the Histo­rians last mentioned, prove this. For if the Council had by this Canon forbid Wives to the Clergy, the Advice of Paphnutius would not have been followed, but rejected. Secondly, We before proved that [...] were a sort of Women far different from Wives, who were never ranked in the number of them. Thirdly, The constant Practice of the Greek Church demonstrates it, which ever allowed to the Clergy the society of their Wives, from the Council of Nice to this day. Fourthly, Other­wise Marriage would have been forbidden to the In­feriour Orders also, contrary to the Practice of the Universal Church in all Ages. For the Canon after men­tion of Bishops, Priests and Deacons, subjoyns [...], a Prohibition to every one of the Clergy. Fifthly, The Emperor Theodosius Junior, repeating and re-inforcing this very Canon, after a Permission of the Co­habitation [Page 89] of Mothers, Sisters, or Aunts with the Clergy, in the very words of the Canons, subjoyns; Illas etiam non relinqui castitatis hortatur affectio, qu [...] ante sacerdotium maritorum legitimum meruere conjugium. Nec enim Clericis incompetentur adjunctae sunt, qu [...] dignos sacerdotio vi [...]os sui con­versatione fecerunt. Cod. Theodos. l. 16. tit. 2. lez. 44. Those also, chase love, requireth not to be forsaken which were lawfully married before the Ordination of their Husbands: For they are not un­fittingly joyned to Clergymen, who by their discreet Conversation made their Husbands worthy of the Priesthood. And (c) [...]. Comm. in S. Basilii Epist. ad Gregor. Balsamon thus Comments upon this Canon; ( d) Read the Canon of the Nicene Synod, which forbid House­keepers to be retained. By House-keepers, the Canon, which is the Third of that Synod, meaneth Women taken into the houses of unmarried Clergymen, and dwelling with them. Lastly, to omit the Confession of other Learned Roma­nists, De consirm. Concil. Illib. l. 2. c. 66. Mendoza not only granteth, but proveth, that in this Canon, House-keepers were forbidden only to those Clergymen, who never had married Wives, or had lost them by death.

The Determination of the Council of Nice settled the Matter, and put an end to the Controversie about Celi­bacy in the Eastern Church. Thence forward is a pro­found Silence in the Acts of the Eastern Synods, concern­ing the Marriage or Celibacy of the Clergy, till the Quini­ext Council in the Year 692. where Bishops were forbidden the Use of Marriage, which till then was permitted to them as well as to the inferiour Clergy. Of that Council we shall speak more largely hereafter. In the mean while, the general Custom which obtained in the Eastern Church, of permitting to the Clergy the Use of Marriage contracted before, but not after Ordination, received some little va­riation. Three several ways, which deserve to be next ob­served. First then, A total abstinence of the Clergy from Socrat. l. 5. c. 22 their Wives, was introduced into the Province of Thessaly by Heliodorus, Bishop of Trica, under the Reign of Arcadius, in the end of the Fourth, or beginning of the Fifth Age. So that the Clergy accompanying with their Wives after Ordination, were deposed. The same Custom obtained in the Provinces of Thessalonica, Achaia, and Macedonia, in the time of Socrates, in the middle of the Fifth Age, [Page 90] but in no other Part of the Eastern Church, as he obesrveth. How long this Custom continued in any of these Provin­ces, is uncertain. Secondly, Towards the end of the Fourth Age, it became very usual for Bishops both in the Eastern and Western Church, when they were assumed to that Dig­nity, publickly to Vow perpetual Abstinence from their Wives. This they did voluntarily, not necessitated to it by any Law, as [...]. loc. cit. Socrates observeth; that they might raise to themselves the greater Reputation of Holiness among the People, and equal the supposed Continence of unmarried Bishops. In this case, it was not permitted to them to return to the embraces of their Wives. If they did, the Fact was esteemed Scandalous, and sometimes punished with the Censures of the Church. Thus among the Seven Heads of Accusation, for which Antoninus, Bishop of Ephesus, was deposed by St. Chrysostome in a Synod in the Year 400. one was, Quod cum Uxori propriae abre [...]un­ciasset, rursus cum illa congressus est, fili­osque suscepit. Pallad. in vit. Chrysost. c. 13. ex versione Ambrosii Camald. That after he had vowed Abstinence from his Wife, he accompanied with her again, and had Children by her. Thus Urbicus, Bishop of Clermont, in France, about the same time, vowing Continence at his Consecration, and afterwards begetting a Daughter of his Wife, did Greg. Tu­ron. Hist. Franc. l. 1. c. 44. voluntary Penance for it. For this reason also Macliau, Bishop of Vannes, was Excomunicated Id. l. 4. c. 4. by the Bishops of Bretagne, for that having, when persecuted by his Brother Chanao, Prince of Bretagne, fled to Vannes, and there disguising himself, professed Chastity, and after­wards made Bishop, he had upon the Death of his Brother, resumed his Wife, together with the Principality. Thirdly, which is most considerable, A Custom was afterwards in­troduced in the Eastern Church, whereby It was lawful (to use the words of [...]. Syntagm. Alphab. lit. [...]. cap. 2. Blastares) for Priests any time within Ten years, to be reckoned from their Ordination, to marry lawful Wives. This Custom continued till the end of the Ninth Age, when it was repealed by Novel 3. Leo the Emperor, from whose Constitution it appears that this Custom was then become Universal, although that instead of Ten years, reads Two years.

In the Western Church, the cause of Celibacy lay dor­mant till the end of the Fifth Age, neither countenanced [Page 91] nor opposed by any publick Constitutions of the Church. However, in the mean while it gained infinite Veneration in the minds of Men, and thereby made way for a publick Imposition of it. This was attempted by Pope Siricius, in the Year 385. a simple Pope, as Ep [...]st. 16. St. Hierome, A Man of inconsiderate Zeal, as Vir parum considerati zeli. Vid Paulini, par. 2. ad cal­cem Opp. Paul. Anverp. 1632 p. 680. Sacchinus the Jesuite calls him. He in an Epistle to Himerius, Bishop of Tarragon, in Spain, dated this Year, after a long Harrangue against the Cler­gies Use of Marriage, drawn from the old Mistake of an unworthiness to administer things contracted by the suppo­sed impurity of Marriage, commandeth Epist. 1. cap. 7. Priests and Deacons thence forward to abstain from the company of their Wives, upon pain of Deposition from their Offices. From the Preface of this Constitution it appears, that the Use of Marriage was then indifferently used by the Cler­gy, and defended as Lawful against the Oppugners of it. I understand (saith Plurimos enim sacerdotes Christi atque Levitas, post longa consecrationis suae tempora, tam de conjugibus pro­priis, quam etiam de turpi coitu [...]obo­lem didicimus procreasse, & crimen s [...]um hac praescriptione defendere, quia, &c. ibid. Siricius) that many Priests and Deacons have a long time after their Ordination, had Children, as well by their own Wives as by Fornication, and defend this their Doing by Prescription, because in the Old Testament Mar­riage was permitted to the Priests. It seems to have been by this time become a general Custom in the particular Church of Rome, and all the greater Churches of Italy, for Bishops, Priests and Deacons to abstain from the company of their Wives. This they did voluntarily, there being yet no Ecclesiastical Constitution to enforce it; and in that case removed their Wives out of their Families, and lived sepa­rately from them. That this was voluntarily, is manifest as well because no Command of any such Abstinence as yet made by the Church can be produced, as from several Ex­amples of the Italian Clergy of this time, who enjoyed the company of their Wives after Ordination, as we shall here­after prove. That this Custom extended not into the re­moter Provinces, is manifest from the words of St. Ambrose, who writ about this time, and persuading this total Absti­nence to his Clergy of Milan, saith, In pleri [...] (que) abditioribus lo­cis cum mini­ste [...]ium gere­rem, vel etiam sacerdotium [...]i­lios suscepe­rum, & id tan­quam usu vete­ri desendunt. De Ossic. l. 2. c. 50. In many remoter places, the Clergy beget Children in the time of their Deaconship, or even Priesthood, and this they defend by Ancient Custom; where the last words are very remarkable.

[Page 92] Siricius therefore seduced with the common Prejudices of that Age, and imagining it to be no small Crime in the Clergy of Spain, not to canform to the Customs of Rome, interposed his Authority, and commanded them to do that, which he saw they would never perform of their own accord. The embracing of the Vulgar Prejudices about Celibacy, are not the only argument of Siricius his simpli­city. This very Epistle carrieth other evident tokens of it along with it. For to omit the many Superstitious Cau­tions about the Marriage of the Inferior Clergy, he for­bids Marriage to all Persons whatsoever, who had ever done publick Penance for Fornication. A Command which wholly evacuates the Apostles Precept of Marriage, making Chap. 5. Fornication an impediment of Marriage, which by the Apostle was assigned as a remedy of it. The next year, Si­ricius writing to the Bishops of Africa, pursueth the same design; but here remembring that he acted out of his own Patriarchate, he presumeth not to command, but only ad­viseth Celibacy. Suademus ut sacerdotes & levitae cum uxoribus suis non codant. hortor, moneo, rogo. Epist. 4. I persuade, advize, admonish, intreat, that Priests and Deacons would not accompany with their Wives: And all upon the same topick of the Incongruity of conjugal Embraces with the Priestly Office. Let us now see what effect this Command of Siricius had in Spain, or his Admo­nition in Africk. In Spain, the first Council of Toledo was held in the Year 400. which decreed, Can. 1. That those Dea­cons who had not abstained from their Wives after Ordi­nation, should continue in their Office, but be made inca­pable of ever rising to the Priesthood; and in like manner Priests who had not abstained, should be incapable of the Episcopal Dignity; inflicting on them no further Punish­ment. The same Command had it seems been sent by Siricius to the Bishops of Piemont, who meeting in a Council at Turin. An. Dom. 397. made a Can. 6. Canon of the same nature with that of Toledo, only debarring the Clergy, who would not submit to a total Abstinence, from ascending to higher Dignities in the Church. In Africa the Pope received a Repulse. The Eleventh Council of Carthage was in the year 390. wherein a mo­tion was made by Faustianus the Popes Legat, that Bishops, Priests and Deacons should be enjoyned Conti­nentes esse in omnibus, Can. 2. to total Ab­stinence. [Page 93] The Synod would not yeild to that, but only decreed, Ut Episcopi, Presby. & Diac. vel qui Sacramenta contrectant, pudicitiae cu­stodes, etiam ab uxoribus se abstineant, ut in omnibus & ab omnibus pudicitia custodi­atur, qui altari deserviunt. Can. 2. ex edit. Holsten. That Bishops, Priests and Deacons, or those, who administred the Sacraments, should always preserve Chastity, and when they ministred at the Altar, even abstain from their Wives. For that the Antients be­lieved Chastity not to be inconsi­stent with the use of Marriage, we before proved. And this partial Abstinence of the Clergy in the time of their waiting at the Altar, fully satisfied Siricius his Argument, which proceeded upon the in­decency of performing the Duties of Marriage and the Administration of Holy Things, at the same time. That this is the trne sense of the Canon, we shall demon­strate by proving that the Canon, which we shall next re­late, meant no more. For that both are to be understood in the same sense, all agree. In the year therefore 398. was held the Fifth Council of Carthage, which made this following Canon Placuit Episcopos Presb. & Diac. secundum propriastatuta etiam ab uxoribus continere. Quod nisi fecerint, ab Ecclesi­astico removerantur officio. Cateros au­tem Clericos ad hoc non cogi, sed secundum unius cujusque Ecclesiae consuetudinem ob­servari debere. Can. 3. Be it en­acted, That Bishops, Priests and Dea­cons abstain even from their Wives in their own courses. Which if they do not, let them be deposed. But that the rest of the Clergy be not compelled to do this, but the customs of every particular Church are to be observed. Bellarmin, Binius, and other Wri­ters of the Church of Rome maintain that a total Absti­nence is here enjoyned to the Clergy, contrary to the plain sense of the Canon. For this they alledge only the Au­thority of St. Austin, De Adult. conjug. l. 2. c. 20. and tht Decree of Gratian, which instead of Secundum propria statuta (wherein the stress of the Canon lieth) reads Secundnm priora Statuta, according to former Constitutions. As for the Authority of Dist. 32. cap. 13. Gratian, that is of no Moment, when opposed to the constant Agree­ment of all the Latin Copies of the Acts of this Council. Nor even can we be assured that Gratian's Copy read it Secundum priora Statuta, since it is very usual with him to represent the Antient Monuments of the Church, not ex­actly in their own Words, but accommodated to the Sen­timents and Practice of his own time. As for St. Austin, [Page 94] his Authority indeed would be sufficient; for he was pre­sent in the Council: but he saith nothing of it in the place alledged, only proposeth to the Laity, who hardly endured to be restrained to the Embraces of one Woman, the Example of the Clergy, who practised a total Asti­nence. For this infers no more than that some or many of the Clergy did totally abstain; which none denieth, and we readily grant. The confutation of our Adversa­ries Reasons were sufficient in this case. However, I will produce some further Reasons in confirmation of that sense of the Canon, which we follow, and the words do naturally import. First then, The Antient Greek Code Can. 70. of the Canons of the African Church compsosed before the time of the Sixth Council, followeth this sense, translating the Words into Question, by [...], in their proper courses, or times of waiting. Secondly, the Fathers of the Quinisext Council commanding Priests and Deacons wholly to contain [...]. Can. 13. in the time of the Administration of Holy Things, profess they herein follow and ratifie this Canon of the Council of Cartharge. And that they did not mistake or misrepresent the sense of it, appears from the Subscripti­ons of Peter, Patriarch of Alexandria, and his African Bishops, to the Acts of the Quinisext Council; which they would never have done, had they been conscious, that the Canons of their own Church were therein falsified and misrepresented. Lastly, Balsamon Annot. in Can., Zonaras Annot. in Can., Aristenus Annot. in Can., and Blastares do thus unanimously explain it only of a partial Abstinence of the Clergy from their Wives, when they celebrate the greatest Festivals and So­lemnities of the Church. I will pro­duce only the words of Blastares [...], &c. Syntagm. Alphab. lit. γ. cap. 18.. When the time calls them to the Admi­nistration of Holy Things, and partici­pation of the Sacraments; then ought they to abstain even from the company of their own Wives, manifesting their continence by their Works. But the fourth Canon of this Code (which is the second of the Eleventh Council of Carthage beforementioned) and others like it being obscure­ly worded, and Commanding the Clergy, administring Holy Things, to abstain from their Wives, gave occasion to the La­tins [Page 95] to require those, who are to be ordained, to put away their Wives. Or if we should grant that this is the sense or these Ca­nons; themselves would be more worthy to be put out of the num­ber of Sacred Canons, than the Apostolick Canons of those of other Councils, which decreed the direct contrary to them, if they be taken in the sense of the Latins.

In the end of this Age, Helvidius and Jovinian, in the be­ginning of the next Vigilantius appeared in defence of Marriage, against the exorbitant pretention of Celibacy. What their particular Opinions were, is not well known; nor may we safely believe St. Hierom, their professed Adver­sary, in representing of them; since all the World knows how much he hath misrepresented Ruffinus. However, certain it is all of them were guilty of some Errours. Hilvidius thought the V. Mary to have had several Children by her Husband Joseph, after the Birth of Jesus; Jovinian August. de Haeres cap. 82. main­tained the equality of all sins, & impeccability of regenerate persons. Vigilantius believed it convenient for the present State of the Church, which received great prejudice from the incontinence of the unmarried Clergy, that none should be admitted into Orders which were not married; that so all danger of future scandal might be prevented. All these we willingly grant to have been Errours, but not Heresies. The first might be owing to a mistake of Histo­ry, the last of Policy; and the second indeed was noto­riously false, but far from the Contagion of Heresie. As for their common Opinion about Marriage, it seems to have been no more than this, that the intrinsick merits of Marriage and Celibacy were both equal; which however branded with the name of Heresie by St. Hierom, is a most certain Truth. If they believed the accidental Merits of both to be equal, which it can be never proved that they did; this indeed was a mistake (for Persons, who have the gift of Continence, may do greater service to God and the Church, in an unmarried, than in a married State) but a mistake that neither injured Faith, nor was repugnant to Revelation. Indeed Jovinian had a peculiar Errour of a grosser nature, that the violation of a Vow of Continence was a thing indifferent, even in those who could contain. For we willingly allow, that when a Vow of Continence can without any great difficulty or danger be preserved, it ought in no case to be violated. However, that any of [Page 96] them were formal Hereticks, can by no means be proved. Rather it is most certain, that Vigilantius, not only drew se­veral Hierom. adv. Vigil in init. Catholick Bishops into the same Opinion with him­self, who thereupon conferred Orders to none but married Non ordinant Diaconos, nissi prius uxores duxerint nulli caelibi creden­tes pudicitiam. Men, but that he lived and died in the Communion of the Catholick Church. St. Hierom indeed loadeth them all with the most opprobious names, and termeth them the worst of Hereticks: but his Prejudice and Passion is too well known to be herein trusted.

In opposition to these Men, St. Hierom writ several Tracts; which in truth are so many Panegyricks of Celi­cy, and invectives against Marriage: Here he adopts and reinforceth all the prejudices and mistakes of the former and present Age: particularly so far urged the supposed Impurity of Marriage, that he asserts it to be a Sin, and ex­cludes married Persons from all hopes of Salvation; as we before proved by producing several places, to which might be added many more. This was an Errour far greater than any of those which he opposed; and which, if dogmatical­ly proposed, and pertinaciously maintained, would be down­right Heresie. But we charitably suppose, those harsh ex­pressions were rather the effects of his Passion, than the pro­ducts of his Judgment. And if he hath exceeded all bounds and limits of Reason in depressing Marriage, no less hath he in exalting Celibacy. This himself acknowledgeth, when upon a review of his Book against Helvidius, he con­fesseth Rhetori­cati sumus, & in morem de­clamatorum Paululum lu­simus. Adv. Hilvid. in fine. he plaid the Oratour too much, and extended his Rhetorick beyond the bounds of severe Truth. This his Errours about Marriage, and proceeding upon false prejudices, may justly invalidate St. Hieroms Authority in the case of Celibacy, which yet he no where saith is neces­sary for the Clergy, but only highly eonvenient and deco­rous to the dignity and holiness of their Order. It may be some further Diminution to his Authority in this case, that all these extravagant Encomiums of Virginity seem to have proceeded only from an immoderate desire of repairing thereby his injured Reputation, and the honour of his Name suffering under unjust suspicions of too great familiarity with the Lady Paula; which had proceeded so far, and ta­ken such deep root in the Minds of the Romans, that he was forced to leave Rome in disgrace; when he was design­ed by all men to succeed Damasus in the Popedom.

[Page 97]Upon Occasion of St. Hierom, I will here say somewhat of Epiphanius, who alone, besides him, of all the Writers of this time, seems fond of the Celibacy of the Clergy: Although he not only alloweth, but even adviseth Marriage to them in case of insuperable Incontinence. His great Af­fection and Veneration of St. Hierom made him ready to receive whatsoever was proposed by him: And then his weak Judgment enabled him not to discover the Sophistry and Mistakes of his Reasoning. Of the Imbecillity of his Judgment Photius [...]. Cod. 122. long since observed, That in his great Work against Heresies, he had done Injury to Truth, by a weak De­fence of it.

In the beginning of the Fifth Age Pope Innocent I. re­newed and confirmed the Constitutions of his Predecessour Siricius, in Two Epistles, one Epist. 2. cap. 9. to Victricius, Bishop of Roan, written in the Year 404. the other Epist. 3. cap. 1. to Exuperius, Bishop of Tholouse, in the Year following. In both he al­ledgeth and enforceth only the old Argument of the Impu­rity of Marriage, which made it incompatible with the daily Administration of Holy Things performed by the Clergy. He commandeth Priests and Deacons (for Sub­deacons he mentions not) who abstained not from their Wives in Obedience to the Constitution of Siricius, to be deposed; except perhaps they had been ignorant of the Constitution. For in that case he would only have them obliged to Continence for the future. That these, and indeed all the first Twenty Six Epistles of this Pope are spu­rious, many learned Men have endeavoured to prove with many Arguments. But I will not insist on that. It is not improbable that he made such a Decree. Celiba­cy was then fitted to the Genius of the Age, and particular­ly of the See of Rome. After Innocent, Pope Leo I. carri­ed on the Design yet further, and in an Epistle Epist. 84. cap. 4. to Ana­stasius Bishop of Thessalonica, forbid the use of Marriage to Subdeacons also, thereby perfecting the System of Celiba­cy at this Day used in the Church of Rome. The same [Page 98] Constitution he re-inforced in an E­pistle Epist. 92. cap. 3. Lex continentiae eadem est Ministris Altaris, quae Episcopis atque Presbyteris. to Rusticus Bishop of Nar­bon, prescribing the same Law of Continence to the Ministers of the Altar (viz. Deacons and Subdeacons) as to Bishops and Priests.

These were the Decrees of the Popes of R [...]me, which were o [...]t-times renewed, and sometimes relaxed by the following Popes. As for the Western Councils of this, and the following Ages, they were all Provincial, and pretended to no Authority out of their own Provinces. The Council of Orange was the first, which ever imposed total Abstinence upon the Clergy. It was a Convention of no more than Seventeen Bishops, in the Year 441. who then made this Canon. Si quis post acceptam benedictio­nem leviticam cum uxore sua incontinens invenitur, ab officio abjiciatur, Can. 23. If any one af­ter he hath received Deacons Orders, be found incontinent with his Wife; Let him be deposed from his Office. Providing in the following Canon, that this Punishment extend not to those, who had retained the use of their Wives before this Canon was made. Whence it may be gathered, that total Abstinence was not yet enjoyned to the Clergy of the Galli­can Church by any Publick Authority, and that the Decrees of Pope Innocent, directed to the Bishops of Roan and Tho­louse, as acting out of his own Patriarchat, had not been re­ceived. The Second Council of Arles, in the Year 452. comes next, which in the Second Canon forbids any married Man to be ordained Priest, who doth not vow Continence; in the Forty Third Canon extends the same to Deacons; in the Forty Fourth Canon forbids to Deacons the use of Marriage in the Words of the Council of Orange; in the Third Canon, forbids Bishops, Priests and Deacons to keep their VVives with them in the same House, unless they also have vowed Continence, upon pain of Excommuni­cation. This Punishment was thought too great, and was therefore moderated by the First Council of Tours, A. D. 461. who enjoyning Can. 1. total Abstinence from their VVives to Priests and Deacons, enact Can. 2. withal, That if any Priest or Deacon use the Company of his VVife, he [Page 99] be not excommunicated, but only reduced to Lay-Com­munion. In the year 506. the Council of Agatha received Can. 9. and confirmed the Constitutions of Siricius and Inno­cent about the Continence of Priests and Deacons; and further enjoyn Can. 10. 16 that their VVives be not permitted to dwell with them, although they also promise Continence. The like did the Council of Girona ordain in the year 517. In the year 531. the Second Council of Toledo decreed Can. 1. That those who from their Childhood were by their Pa­rents dedicated to the Holy Office, and were to that end brought up at the Charge of the Church, should, when they came to the Age of Eighteen, be asked publickly by the Bishop in the face of the Church, VVhether they were willing to oblige themselves never to marry. If they were, then they might be ordained Subdeacons, and gradually arise to the higher Offices of the Church. If not, then they might have leave to marry; and whensoever both married Parties should promise Continence, the Husband should be received into Orders. Here is the first mention of a Vow of Continence exacted of those that were to be ordained, that can be found in Ecclesiastical History. And here also it was first forbidden to Subdeacons to marry VVives after their Ordination, (for this concerned not those Subdea­cons who married before Ordination) whereas in all the precedent Councils it was left free to Subdeacons, as well as to the other inferiour Orders, to enjoy their Wives married either before or after their Ordination to that Office. The Council of Clermont, Anno 535. complaining Can. 13. that many Priests and Deacons, notwithstanding the Prohibition of the Church, had used the Company of their Wives, and begotten Children of them, commands all such to be degraded from their Office. The Fourth Council of Orleans, in the year 541. ordered Can. 17. That Priests and Deacons should not be permitted to dwell with their Wives, upon pain of Deposition, thereby to take away ever all suspicion of forbidden Commerce. The Third Council of Orleans had before, in the year 538. forbid Can. 2. the use of Marriage not only to Priests and Deacons, but also to Subdeacons. The Fifth Council of Orleans A. D. 549. com­mands Can. 4. Cujuslibet loci vel ordinis. all Clergy-men, of whatsoever Dignity or Or­der, [Page 100] who return to the Embraces of their Wives after Ordination, to be for ever degraded, and reduced to Lay-Communion. The Council of Auxerre, in the year 578. enjoyn Can. 20. 21 Priests, Deacons, and Subdeacons, upon pain of Deprivation, not to accompany with their Wives, calling that a carnal Sin. The First Council of Mascon, in the year 581. repeat Can. 11. and renew the Canon of the Council of Clermont. The Third Council of Lyons, in the year 583. forbids Can. 1. the use of Marriage to Bishops, Priests, Deacons and Subdeacons, and the cohabitation of their Wives, to the three first Orders. In a French Coun­cil, about the year 620. all Marriage and cohabitation of Women was forbidden Can. 8. 12. Concil. Tom. V. p. 1656. to Priests and Deacons. In the Fourth Council of Toledo, Anno 633. it was ordered Can. 27. That Priests and Deacons should promise Continence be­fore their Bishop, when they were inducted into their Li­vings and Preferments. The Eighth Council of Toledo, in the year 653. laments Can. 5, 6. the Obstinacy of many Priests and Deacons, retaining their Wives, and even marrying after Ordination, against the Canons of the Church; and severely forbids it for the future. In the year 868. the Council of Worms commanded Can. 9. Bishops, Priests, Dea­cons, and Subdeacons, to abstain from their Wives, upon pain of Deprivation. Many other Councils between the year 600, and a 1000. forbid the Cohabitation of all Wo­men, and consequently also of VVives, to the Clergy: And many others permit only Mothers, Sisters, and Aunts to dwell with the Clergy, rejecting all other VVo­men under the Name of Extraneae; wherein they seem to have mistaken the meaning of the Third Canon of the Council of Nice. Lastly, some Councils proceeded so far, as to inhibit to the Clergy the Cohabitation of all VVo­men whatsoever, even Mothers, Sisters, Aunts, and the nearest Relations, permitted by the Council of Nice. Thus did the Council of Mentz Can. 10. in the year 888. ob­serving that some Priests had committed Incest with their own Sisters, (see the effects of enforced Celibacy:) And the Council of Metz, Can. 5. in the same year, upon the same Account. The next year Riculfus Bishop of Soissons [Page 101] published his Constitutions, Concil Tom. IX. p. 416. wherein Cap. 14. he not only re­newed the Canon of these Two last Councils, but also for­bid the Clergy to talk with VVomen in private, or even speak to them without some VVitness standing by.

These were the Progresses and Gradations of Celibacy in the VVestern Church from the Council of Nice to the times of Hildebrand. Proposed it was by some Doctors of great Authority, enforced by Popes, and enjoyned by Councils; yet could not all these Authorities effectually recommend to the Practice of the Clergy a Doctrine so contrary to the first Notions of Reason, and common In­clinations of Mankind. The frequent and continual Re­petition and renewing of Decrees and Canons to the esta­blishment of it, argue the universal Opposition which it met with in the World, every later Decree manifesting that the former was unsuccessful. And indeed most of these Con­stitutions are ushered in with a Preface of the Obstinacy of the Clergy in retaining their VVives, against the ex­press Prohibitions of the Church. All the aforementioned Councils were Provincial; and Popes had not yet claimed the Government of the whole Church. So that all these Decrees affected not the Eastern Church at all; nor those Parts even of the VVestern Church, which were neither subject to the Roman Patriarchat, nor the Jurisdiction of the particular Councils. And even in those Churches which were then subject to either of them, the Laws of Celibacy were never universally receiv'd and obeyed; and at last so far neglected and grown obsolete, that in the be­ginning of the Eleventh Age, Marriage of the Clergy was as freely used, and as generally practised in most parts of the VVestern Church, as it is at this day in the Reformed Churches. This I come next to prove; where I might justly have omitted to speak of the Eastern Church, if our Adversaries did not pretend an universal Practice of Celi­bacy in the Eastern as well as Western Church, till the time of the Quinisext Council. The Refutation of this Pretence will necessitate us to speak in general of the Pra­ctice and Discipline of the antient universal Church in the [...]ase of Celibacy.

[Page 102]And first to take away all Prejudice, which may possess the Reader, that it is impossible, at least improbable, that a Custom, persuaded by many Doctors, commanded by Popes and Councils successively in several Ages, and which divers of the Fathers affirm to have been universally pra­ctised in their time, should never be generally used by the Clergy. I will produce an Example of a matter of Dis­cipline of far less moment, which was urged and enjoyned with greater Advantages and Authorities, and the univer­sal Practice of it attested by more VVriters; which yet after all never generally obtained in the Church, and was indeed disused in all Ages. I mean the case of Bigamists, who by an early custom of the Church, begun before the end of the Second Century, were excluded from the Cler­gy. This Exclusion is commanded by the Apostolick Ca­nons, Can. 16. by the Apostolick Constitutions, l. 6. c. 17. by St. Basil's Canonical Epistle Can. 12. to Amphilochius, by the Councils of Valence, Can. 1. Agatha, Can. 1. Fourth of Arles, Can. 3. Third of Constantinople, Can. 3. of Rome Can. 2. under Pope Hilarus, of Aquisgran, Can. 9. and infinite others; by the Popes Siricius, Epist. 1. Innocent, Ep. 2. c. 5. Leo, Ep. 87. c. 1 Gelasius, Ep. 9. c. 22., and Gregory, l. 2. Ep. 25. Tertullian, ad uxor. l. 1. c. 7. saith, The Ordination of Bigamists is forbid­den by Apostolical Tradition, and the Discipline of the Church. Origen Hom. 17. in Luc. affirmeth, that in his time Bishops, Priests, and Deacons, could not be Bigamists. St. Ambrose asserts Epist. 82. ad Vercell. this Prohibition to have been confirmed by the Council of Nice. Pope Innocent Ep. 4. c. 2. saith, No question ought to be made of it, it being manifestly of Divine Institution. Pope Leo, Ep. 84. c. 4. That this Precept was ever held sacred, and Ep. 87. c. 1. that n [...]ither Law nor Gospel will permit such to be admitted into the Clergy. Epipha­nius, Haeres. 59. c. 4. In truth, the holy Command of God, after the coming of Christ, receives not into the Clergy those, who after the death of their first Wife, contract a second Marriage. St. Hierom, Adv. Jovin. l. 1. A Bigamist cannot be chosen into the Clergy, and Epist. ad Geront. de Monog. A Layman is not chosen into the Clergy, if he be a Bigamist. St. Augustin, De bono conjug. ca. 18. It is not lawful to ordain any but the Husbands of one Wife. Hilary the Deacon, Com. in 1 Tim. 3. 12. No Bigamist is or­dained. And by all the same Authorities, he who hath kept a Concubine, is made uncapable of the Clergy.

[Page 103]After so many and so great Authorities, the common Tradition of both Churches, Command of General Coun­cils, and Belief of Divine Institution (all which Advan­tages the Celibacy of the Clergy wanted) who can imagin any otherwise, than that this point of Discipline was [...]ni­versally received and practised without exception or limi­tation? yet nothing less. Textullian objects this to the Ca­tholicks, as a main argument of his Separation and De­parture to the Montanists, that they admitted Bigamists even to the Episcopal Dignity. Among you, saith he, Quot enim & Bigami praesident apud vos? De Monog. ca. 12. how ma­ny Bigamists preside? And when Theodoret ordained Count Irenaeus, a Bigamist, then in Disfavour at Court, Bishop of Tyre, and his Enemies, laid hold of that pretence to accuse him of the Violation of the Canons; he defends [...]. Epist. 110. ad Domnum. himself by the Authority of all the Bishops of Phoenicia, who gave their Suffrage to the Ordination; by the Example and Tradition of his Predecessours; by the Examples of A­lexander Patriarch of Antioch, and Praylius of Hierusalem, who had or­dained Bishops; Diogenes and Domni­nus, both Digamists; that he followed herein custom and famous Men, celebrated for their Knowledge and Piety; and that Proclus, Patriarch of Constantinople, the Metropoli­tans of Pontus, and all the Bishops of Palestine, had not only allowed, but also commended this Ordination; and not the least doubt made of the lawfulness of it. Lastly, St. Augustin was ordained Bishop of Hippo by the common Consent of all the Bishops of Africa, who had far exceed­ed Confess. l. 6. c. 15. the supposed Scandal of Digamy, by an open Co­habitation of two Concubines successively. And, which deserved the first place, St. Hierom answering the doubt of Oceanus, whether Carterius, a Digamist, were Canoni­cally ordained Bishop, saith, Miror au­tem te unum protraxisse in medium cumo­m [...]is mundus his ordinationibus plenus sit, non dico de Presbyteris, non de inferiori gradu. Ad Episcopos venio, quos si sigillatim voluero nominare, tantus numerus congregabitu [...], ut Arimi­ne [...]sis Synod [...] multitudo superetur. Epist. ad Ocean. I wonder you produced the ex­ample of no more than one, whenas the whole World is full of these [Page 104] Ordinations. I speak not of Priests, nor of the inferiour Or­ders, I come to Bishops, whom, if I should name singly, so great a number would arise, that the multitude of the Synod of Ariminum (the most numerous Council which had been then held) would be exceeded.

That the Laws of Celibacy were no less disobeyed, and all the antient Testimonies of the universal Practice of it, are no less wide mistakes, I come next to prove; and will begin with the Eastern Church. St. Athanasius, not long after the Council of Nice, writing to Dracontius, a Holy Monk, rebukes him for declining the Episcopal Office, and refutes the Reasons of his Refusal, the chief of which was, That in the Episcopal Dignity he could not live so retiredly, as he desired, but must be forced to lead a secular kind of Life. In answer to this, Athanasius shews him, that as to that, nothing can be performed in the one State, which may not in the other; and that when a Bishop, he may as well use the retiredness of a Monk, as many Monks do the usual Freedom of a Bishop; and produceth this Instance, [...]. Prope fin. For many Bishops have not marri [...]d at all, and ma­ny Monks have been Fathers of Children. As we have known Bishops Fathers of Children, and Monks having no Posteri­ty. For both are alike lawful to each Order, neither the one nor the other is forbidden to them. A more express Passage than this cannot be conceived, where he affirms many Bishops to have gotten Children after their Conse­cration, and by the Instance insinuates, That this was ve­ry usual with the Bishops of that time. That this Procre­ation of Children was performed by them while Bishops, not before, is most evident; since otherwise the Instance of Athanasius would have been highly impertinent. For Dracon­tius, in declining the Episcopal Dignity, did not dread the Life of Bishops, before they were made Bishops, that be­ing the State wherein himself then was, and desired to con­tinue, but the supposed incumbrances of a Bishop's Life, af­ter he was made Bishop.

[Page 105]In the year 357. the Emperor Con­stantius made a Law, Omnibus Clericis hujusmodi prae­rogativa succurrat, ut conjugia clerico­rum, ac liberi, &c. Cod. Theodos. lib. 16. tit. 2. l. 14. That all Clergymen should enjoy this Priviledge, that their Wives and Children, and Ser­vants of both Sexes, and their Children also, (that is, the whole Family of Clergymen) should be al­ways exempt Tribute, and all publick Burdens. There are three or four other Laws in the Theodosian Code, made in favour of the Wives and Children of the Clergy, which it is not here necessary to repeat. About the year 375. some Superstitious Christians had conceived so great a Ve­neration of Celibacy, that they despised the Married Cler­gy, and would rather defer Baptism for many years toge­ther, than be baptized by Bishops and Priests who abstain­ed not from their Wives. These St. Gregory Nazianzen sharply rebukes, Say not, saith he, [...]. Orat. XL. in Baptisma cap. 25. a Bishop shall baptize me, or if a Presbyter, at least one of those who are unmarried, and one of those that profess Continence, and thereby imitate the Life of Angels. Hence it is manifest, that many Presbyters abstained not from their Wives; for this was the occasion of those foolish Christians Scrupilosity, supposing some impurity to be in the use of Marriage. Had the married Priests renounced the company of their Wives, they had been no less conti­nent than the unmarried ones. And therefore it was not simply their Marriage, but their use of it, which those Persons disliked.

About the same time Epiphanius writ his Panarium, where­in opposing the Chastity and Continence of the Catholick Clergy to the Heretick, call'd Apostolici, saith, that Con­tinence even from their own Wives was universally obser­ved by them; but then is forced to qualifie his Boast with this Clause, [...]. Hae­res. 59. cap. 4. This is done chiefly where the Ecclesiastical [Page 106] Canons (or rather Customs, for no such Canons were yet made) are accurate. But you will certainly say to me, that in some places Priests, Deacons and Subdeacons do yet beget Chil­dren. This is done not according to the Canon (or Rule of ut most Perfection) but by the negligence of Men increasing with time, and by reason of the multitude of the Clergy, there being not found a sufficient number of continent Persons. Here it may be observed that this Custom of voluntary Continence was not introduced in some places; that where it was in­troduced, it obtained not universally, which may be ga­thered from the word chiefly; and lastly, that even there it was a Novel Introduction. For speaking of those Cler­gy, who did not abstain, he saith, they yet beget Children: But after all, we are not to rely much upon his Testimony even in a matter of Fact. The good Man, who was far from an accurate Writer, seemeth to have taken his Mea­sures wholly from his Native Country of Palestine, where­in he was very much conversant, even after he was Bishop, which Province was at that time [...]illed with Monks and Monkish Clergy, who flocked thither out of reverence to the Holy Places. The Author indeed of the Homilies up­on Job, amongst St. Chrysostom's Works, testifies Hom. 11. prope fin. that in his time the use of Marriage was forbidden to Bishops; and therefore Bellarmin fails not to make use of his Autho­rity. But first this concerns not the inferiour Clergy, and then these Homilies belong not to St. Chrysostom in the Judgment both of Fronto Ducaeus, and Sir H. Savil; but seem to have been written after the Quinisext Council; when Continence was first imposed upon the Bishops in the Greek Church.

In the middle of the Fifth Age, Socrates the Histo­rian writ, who observeth it as a peculiar Custom of Thessalia, Macedonia, and Achaia, that the Clergy there abstained from their Wives, therein dissenting from the Custom of the rest of the Eastern Church, saith indeed, that many abstained from the use of Marriage in other [Page 107] parts of the East, but that [...]. Hist. Eccl. l. 5. c. 22. All who did this, did it of their own accord, even Bishops doing it only voluntarily, not necessitated to it by any Canon. For ma­ny of them in the time of their Bishop­rick have begotten Children of their law­ful Wives. So plain a passage needs no Comment. In a few Ages this vo­luntary Abstinence of Bishops became universal in most Provinces of the East: although the Bi­shops of Africk, Libia, and some other places retained, as formerly, the use of Marriage. Therefore in the end of the Seventh Age the Quinisext Council took advantage from this voluntary Abstinence to impose a necessary Ab­stinence (c) Can. 12. upon all Bishops; and obliged the Bishops of Afri­ca herein to conform themselves to the general Custom. They inflicted no Censure upon the African Bishops for re­taining the Company of their Wives, nor so much as blame them; but rather term them [...]. most religious Bishops, and profess they impose Abstinence upon them on­ly [...]. for the better Edification of the People.

Till that Council the Bishops of the East freely enjoy­ed the use of Marriag. This we have prov'd by the pre­ceeding Testimonies, and may be further evinced by the Authority of Balsamon, the greatest Canonist of the Ea­stern Church, whose words are these, [...]. Comm. in Can. 5. Apost. Before the Sixth Synod held in Trul­lo, it was lawful for Bishops to have Wives, even after their Consecration, as well as Priests and Deacons, who are ordained after Marriage. So that Euty­chius, Annal. Alex. 1. 1. Patriarch of Alexandria, is grosly mistaken, when he terminates the Marriage of Bishops at the times of [...]he Council of Nice, if he doth not rather mean that till then they all retained their Wives; but after that time [Page 108] they began a voluntary Abstinence; which sense indeed his words do more naturally import. As for the Marriage of the inferiour Clergy, that was so commonly used at that time in the Eastern Church, that in Armenia they had taken up a custom of admitting none into the Clergy, but the Sons of the Clergy. This was indeed a great Abuse, and worthy of redress; which was therefore abolished by the Quinisext Council, Can. 33. as coming too near to Jewish Su­perstition.

From general Testimonies I pass to particular Instances and Examples of the Marriage of the Eastern Clergy after the Council of Nice. In that Council was present Spyri­don, Bishop of Trymithus in Cyprus, celebrated by all the Writers of those times, for his Holiness, Miracles, and Gift of Prophecy. Of him Sozomen saith, [...]. l. 1. c. 11. He had Wife and Children, and yet was not thereby in the least hindred or rendred less fit and successful in the Ad­ministration of holy things. This Note plainly intimates, that he used the company of his Wife, while Bishop: Otherwise the Observation would have been trifling, since a married Bishop not using his Marriage, is in the same condition with an unmarried one. Presently after the Council of Nice, Gregory was made Bishop of Nazianzum. He had married a Wife a little before, by whose means he was converted to the Ca­tholick Faith, and who lived with him to an extream old Age; for they were both present at the Funeral of their Son Caesarius, when Gregory had been now Bishop Forty Years. He had by her, after he was made Bishop, Two Sons, Gregory Nazianzen, and Caesarius, and most pro­bably one Daughter, for Nazianzen seems to have been older than his Sister, but most certainly was many years older than his Brother Caesarius; yet that himself was born after his Father was made Bishop, he assures us in his Life, where he introduceth his Father thus speaking to him, [...]. Carm. de Vit. suâ post init. You have not yet run through so many years of your [Page 109] Life, as I have years of my Pastoral Charge. Baronius Annal. ad An. 371. af­firms this to have been spoken hyperbolically, that the use of Marriage was then forbidden to Bishops by the Canons and Constitutions of the Universal Church, and these Ca­nons most religiously observed both in the East and West; that it may be demonstrated from Arguments of Chrono­logy, Nazianzen was born before the Council of Nice, when his Father was not yet Baptized. The first Argu­ment is already confuted by the precedent Testimonies; the second ariseth to no more than this, that Nazianzen was Thirty Years old when St. Basil parted from Athens, that Basil studied at Athens with Julian, who by the Testi­mony of Ammianus Marcellinus, Lib. 15. was come thither in the year 354. and that consequently Nazianzen was born in the year 324. the year before the Council of Nice.

This Chronology of Baronius, Jac. Capellus Annot. in 1 Tim. 3. saith he hath refuted in his History of the Church. I have not that Book now by me, and therefore not knowing whether he hath made good his Promise, must offer some conside­rations to the Reader in opposition to Baronius his Argu­ment. First then, uncertain Arguments of Chronology, formed at this distance of time, ought not to invalidate the clear Testimony of Nazianzen, who best knew when himself was born. Secondly Nazianzen saith not he was thirty years old, when Julian came to Athens, but when Basil parted thence. Now Basil not only might, but most probably did stay several years at Athens, not only after the Arrival, but even after the Departure of Julian: At least most certainly he departed not before Julian, who left Athens in the end of the year 355. For St. Basil tells Ad. Jul. Epist. 208. Julian, that they had learned together at Athens, [...], Theology, and all the better sorts of Li­terature, and throughly searched the Holy Scriptures. This was a Labour of more than a few Months, and therefore Basil cannot be supposed to have left Athens before Julian, who stayed there but little more than a year. Thirdly, [...]. Nazianzen saith not he was thirty years old, when Basil left Athens, but almost thirty; and that in a Poetick [Page 110] Work, where being not able to express the just time of his Age, he was forced to make use of a round number, which may admit a Latitude of two or three years. And it is most certain that his Father was made Bishop presently af­ter the Council, as himself assures [...]. Orat. fun. in Patrem. us. So that even Arguments of Chronology make it probable Nazi­anzen was born after his Fathers Or­dination; to which his own Testi­mony being added, make it most certain. And then his Brother Caesarius was so much younger than himself, that in his Funeral Oration upon him, he frequently calls him a young Man, and often laments his untimely Death, al­though his Father had been then Bishop above Forty Years.

In the year 362. Basilius, Presbyter of Ancyra, and Eupsychius of Caesaria in Cappadocia, [...]. Sozom. l. 5. c. 11. Who had newly married a Wife, and was yet as it were a Bridegroom, suffered Martyrdom. It appears not directly from the words of the Historian, whe­ther the later was of the Clergy: But the words of Atha­nasius will put it past all doubt, who numbring Adv. Ari­an. Orat. 1. p. 121. the Writers of this time which opposed Arianism, mentions Eupsychius Bishop of Cappadocia, of which Caesaria was the Metropolis; if he means the same Eupsychius, which is not improbable. However if this be uncertain, most cer­tain it is, that St. Gregory, Bishop of Nyssa, was married, and lived with his Wife Theosebia till her Death. This Nicephorus [...]. Hist. Eccl. l. 1. c. 19. testifieth, saying, that when he was Bishop, he retained the Society of his Wife, and (whose Autho­rity is far greater than Nicephorus's) Nyssen's intimate Friend, Nazianzen, who writing to Nys­sen a consolatory Letter Epist. 95. [...]. upon the Death of his Wife, saith, She had always lived with him, a [...]d mutually shared with [Page 111] him all the comforts of Life; and calls her truly holy, the wor­thy Wife and Companion of a Bishop.

I will produce but one example more, but that so preg­nant and express, that it might alone teach us what was the Discipline of the Eastern Church in that Age. About the year 410. Synesius was, for the repute of his great Learning, chosen Bishop of Ptolemais in Egypt. He was then married, and had a Wife, whom he professed to love passionately. It seems the voluntary Abstinence from the use of Marriage, which some Bishops of the East had un­dergone, was become an universal Custom among the Bi­shops of Egypt, so that the People expected that a marri­ed Man promoted to the Episcopal Dignity, should re­nounce the Pleasures of Marriage. And there was a par­ticular Reason, why this Custom should generally obtain in Egypt, rather than in any other Provinces of the East. Egypt was then the great School and Nursery of Monastick Discipline, which had probably at that time more Monks residing in it, than the whole VVorld besides. The Bi­shops of Egypt were almost all taken out of these Monks, and consequently so great a Veneration for Celibacy pos­sessed the Egyptians, that those few married Bishops which were among them, could by no other means conserve the Reverence and esteem, which was due to their Character, than by a voluntary renunciation of their Marriage: Sy­nesius therefore, that he might not deceive the expecta­tion of the People, and willing to de­cline the burden, professed▪ [...]. Epist. 105. ad Evo­pium fratrem. open­ly, and declared to all, That he would neither totally separate himself from the Company of his Wife, nor yet (separa­ting himself only in appearance) enjoy her Company by stealth, like an Adulte­rer. For this would be unlawful, and that unjust. But that he both intended and de­sired to have many and handsom Children. Notwithstanding this Profession, he was ordained by Theophilus, Patriarch [Page 112] of Alexandria, than whom none better knew the Canons of the Church, and who hath left some learned Monu­ments of his Skill in that kind.

I proceed next to the Practice of the VVestern Church, where St. Hierom writing against Jovinian, acknowledgeth that Celibacy was not then generally entertained by the Clergy, many of whom retained the use of Marriage. If Samuel, saith he, Si Samuel nutritus in tabernacu­lo duxit uxorem quid hoc ad prejudicium Virginitatis, quasi non hodie quoque plu­rimi Sacerdotes habeant matrimonia?—Eliguntur mariti in Sacerdotium, non nego, quia non sunt tanti Virgines, quanti necessarii sunt Sacerdotes. Adv. Jovin. l. 1. c. 13. (whose Example you object) being brought up in the Tem­ple, married a Wife; what doth this pre­judiceVirginity? As if at this day also ma­ny Priests used not Marriage. And after­wards, Married Men are chosen into the Priesthood, I do not deny it: but then the reason is, because there are not so mayn Vir­gins (or continent Persons) as are necessary to supply the Office of the Priesthood. For all cannot contain. Where it is evident these married Priests renounced not the enjoyment of their Mar­riage after Ordination. For then they must have been suppo­sed to be continent Persons. A little before his time, Hi­lary, Deacon of Rome, writ his Questions upon both Te­staments, wherein he hath these words, Hinc Apostolus eum, qui uxorem habeat, si in caeteris servet mandata, Sa­cerdotem fieri posse ac debere ostendit. In­ter Augustini Opp. prope fin. Hence the Apostle sheweth, that a married man, if in all other things he keeps the Commandments, both may and ought to be ordained Priest. This was written few years before Siricius his Decree, and proves that the Imposition of Celibacy was then so little thought of in the Church, that it was believed unlawful, and re­pugnant to Apostolical Institution. That this Priest ab­stained not after Ordination, is manifest: For then he would therein also have observed the Commands, whe­ther of God or of the Church. VVhen St. Augustin writ against Faustus the Manichee, in the beginning of the Fifth Age; no Imposition of Celibacy was yet introduced, or so much as taken notice of in the Church of Africa. For Fau­stus thus defends the Manichees immoderate Veneration of [Page 113] Virginity, and dis-esteem of Marri­age. Et tamen hoc nobis primo respon­deatis velim, utrum omnino Virgines fa­cere Doctrina sit Daemoniorum, an solum prohibitionem facere nubendi? Si per prohibitionem nihil ad no [...]. Nam & ip­si tam stultum indicamus inhibere volen­tem, quam nefas est & impium nolentem cogere. August. advers. Faust. lib. 30. In the first place I would glad­ly be answered in this, whether in any case to cause persons to continue Virgins, be the Doctrine of Devils, or only if it be done by a prohibition of Marriage. If the la­ter, it concern s us not. For we also think it as foolish to forbid those who are willing, so unlawful and impious to compel those who are unwilling: VVe persuade, but force none. Here two things may be obser­ved. First, that in the Controversie between the Catho­licks and Manichees about Marriage, it was granted on both sides, that a prohibition of Marriage to any Persons was unlawful, impious, and a Doctrine of Devils: And then that no such Prohibition was in use among the Catholicks, which Faustus confesseth, and pretendeth that his Party is no less innocent from any such unlawful Imposition. Si­ricius, in imposing Celibacy upon the Clergy, pleads nei­ther any Divine Institution, nor precedent custom of the Church; but only the indecency of Marriage in them. Ra­ther Innocent renewing the Imposition, confesseth it was no part of Ecclesiastical Discipline before Siricius his Decree. For commanding those who had disobeyed Siricius his Con­stitution, to be deposed, he subjoins, Nam si ad aliquos forma illa ec­clesiasticae vitae quae ab Episcopo Siricio ad Provincias commeavit, non probabitur per­venisse, his ignorationis venia permittetur, ita ut de caetero penitus incipiant abstine­re. Epist. 3. cap. 1. But if it shall be proved that the form of Ecclesiastical Life, which the Bishop Siricius sent into the Provinces, came not to the knowledge of any; their Ignorance shall be pardoned, provided they abstain for the future. If Celibacy had been now long since setled in the Church by Ecclesiastical Ca­nons, and become a matter of constant Discipline, none could have pleaded, none would have deserved Pardon for their Ignorance. In Africa the repulse given to Pope Si­ricius, and afterwards the constancy of those Bishops in defending their Liberty against the Usurpations of Inno­cent, had so far discouraged the Popes of Rome, that de­spairing of being able to introduce Celibacy into that [Page 114] Church, they thought it sufficient, if they could only hinder the Ordinations of Bigamists, and those who had married VVidows, which were frequent in Africa. There­fore Leo, in his Epistle to the African Bishops, complaining of this Abuse, saith, The Apostolick Precept of the Monogamy of a Bishop was ever held so sacred, Ut etiam de muliere Sacerdotis eligendi eadem intelligatu [...] servanda con­di [...]io, ne forte illa, &c. Epist. 87. ca. 1. that the same condition is to be observed concerning the Wife of a Bishop to be cho­sen; lest she perhaps before she was mar­ried to him should have had a former Husband. Of total Ab­stinence from their Wives he maketh not the least menti­on. And indeed all the Cautions and necessary qualifica­tions, which the antient Church required to be found in the Wives of the Clergy, would have been wholly unne­cessary, if upon the Ordination of their Husbands they must immediately have ceased to be Wives. But, which is further to be observed in this Passage of Leo, the anti­ent Editions of his Decretal Epistles, and particularly those in Crabbe's Collection of the Councils, Colon. 1538. and 1551. instead of eligendi read eligendâ; and then the Sense will be, that the same condition is to be observed in the choice of a Bishop's or Priest's Wife; and consequent­ly in the Church of Africk it was permitted, and by Leo thought not unlawful for the Clergy to contract Marriage even after Ordination. That they used Marriage after Ordination, we are assured by the Fathers of the Qui­nisext Council [...]. Can. 12.

And indeed the more sober and moderate Popes seem never to have intended their Constitutions about Celibacy should be urged upon the Clergy out of the Roman Patriar­chat; nor did they calculate them for the universal Church. It was Innocent alone, of all the antient Popes, who equalled the Ambition of his later Successors, and en­deavour'd to make the Roman Patriarchat as extensive as the Roman Empire. This Patriarchat tookin but a small part of the Western Church, and even that was sometimes contracted [Page 115] into narrower Bounds by the Invasions of the Barbarians, who by their Success of Arms alienating many Provinces from the Government of the Roman Prefect, withdrew them at the same time from the Jurisdiction of the Roman Patriarch. Hence it was that Sicily, being in possession of the barbarous Nations, when P. Leo made his Decree about the Celibacy of Subdeacons, the Clergy of Sicily thought not themselves ob­liged by it, nor took any notice of it. At least it met with no Obedience in that Church, till the Island was in the next Age recovered to the Roman Empire. And then it obtain­ed not in Vertue of Leo's Constitution, but because enfor­ced by a Decree of Pope Pelagius II. about the year 588. Till then the Subdeacons of Sicily neither obeyed the Con­stitution, nor were obliged to do it, as Pope Gregory confesseth in his Repeal of Pelagius his Decree. Three years since, saith he, Ante triennium Subdiac [...]ni omni­um ecclesiarum Siciliae prohibiti fuerant, ut more Romanae e [...]cl. nullatenus suis ux­oribus miscerentur. Quod mihi durum atque incompetens videtur, ut qui usum ejusdem continentiae non invenit, neque castitatem ante promisit, compellatur a sua uxore separari. Lib. 1. Epist. 42. the Subdeacons of all the Churches of Sicily were commanded to ab­stain from their Wives in conformity to the custom of the Church of Rome. Which seem­eth hard and unmeet to me, that he, who is not used to such Continency, and never before promised Chastity, should be com­pelled to be separated from his Wife. He makes no mention of Leo's Decree, rather owns that Celibacy was not commanded to the Subdeacons of Sicily before Pelagius his Constitution, but expresly asserts that Celibacy was not before then used by them, and that then they first began to abstain from their Wives. The Isle of Corsica was never subject to the Ro­man Patriarchat, as appears from an antient Notitia of the several Patriarchats of the Church, published by the learn­ed Dr. Beverege, Pandect. Can. Tom. 2. in Not. p. 135. and from Nilus Doxopatrius, Notit. Patr. inter Moynii Var. Sacra. p. 217. and therefore neither received nor were obliged by either the Constitutions of Popes about Celibacy, or the Canons of those Provincial Councils before mentioned, wherein none of their Bishops were present. Upon this account Pope Gregory I. expresly allows to the Clergy of Corsica the use [Page 116] of Marriage. We will, Praeterea volumus, ut Sacerdotes, qui in Corsica commorantur, prohiberi debeant, ne cum mulieribus conversentur, excepta duntaxat matre, sorore, ve [...]uxore, quae caste regenda est. Lib. 1. Ep. 50. saith he, that the Priests, (Sacerdotes, by which word Bishops as well as Presbyters are designed) which dwell in Corsica, be forbidden to converse with Women, ex­cept only a Mother, Sister, or Wife, who ought to be chastly govern'd. That the Church of Milan was not subject to the Roman Patriarchat is fully proved by a Learned Divine Dr. Cave's Discourse of Antient Church▪ Go­vernment, cap. 5. § 2. of our Church. And this was the reason why, when once the voluntary Zeal of Celibacy, which had possessed the Clergy of Milan in the time of St. Am­brose, grew cold and expired, Marriage was publickly used by the Clerg [...] of that Church without any Interrupti­on, till the times of Hildebrand; as we shall hereafter oc­casionally shew. The same was the Case of the Church of England, which owing no Obedience to the antient Papal Constitutions, and not intermedling in the Councils, which decreed Celibacy, retained to her Clergy the free use of Marriage, till by the Procurement and Artifices of Anselm, she forbid it in a National Synod in the Twelfth Century; as we shall hereafter more largely prove.

This was the Case of Celibacy in those Provinces, which were not influenced by the Authority of the Roman Patri­arch, nor had obliged themselves by any Synodical Act. Let us now view the State of those Provinces, which were the Stage of those several Councils we before numbred, viz. Spain, France, and Germany in the Ninth Age. That the so often repeated Canons of the Spanish Councils were unsuccessful, appears from St. Isidore, Bishop of Sevil, a­bout the year 600. who in his Book of Ecclesiastical Offi­ces, describing the several Duties of the Clergy, saith, Clerici castimoniam invi [...]lati cor­poris perpetuo conservare studeant, aut certe unius matrimonii vinculo foede­rentur. Lib 2. c. 2. Let Clergymen endea­vour perpetually to preserve the Chastity of their Bodies inviolable; or at least be joyned with the Bond of one Marriage. And indeed how hardly the inferiour Clergy of Spain brooked the necessity of Celibacy imposed on them by their Bi­shops [Page 117] in several Synods, is evident from the Policy of Vei­tiza, King of Spain, in the year 702. who, conscious of his own Wickedness and Tyranny, and fearing the Clergy, in revenge of it, might excite the Populacy to Jo. Vasaus Chron. Hispan. take up Arms and dethrone him, resolved to oblige the Clergy, and gain their affections by some extraordinary Favour, which might be received by them with universal Applause; and therefore by publick Edict gave them Li­berty to marry Wives, or retain them already mar­ried.

In the Churches of France and Germany, Celibacy most certainly was not universally practised by the Clergy in the end of the Eighth Age, when Pope Adrian offered to Charles the Great his Collection of Canons fitted for the Government of the Churches in his Kingdoms. The Sixth Canon of that Collection is taken out of the Aposto­lick Canons, and is conceived in these words, Presbyter uxorem suam a guber­na [...]ione sua non abjiciat, sed caste regat. Concil. Tom. 4. p. 1801. Let not a Presbyter put his Wife out of his Eamily, but chastly govern her. As for France, Boniface, Arch­bishop of Mentz, and Pope Zachary's Legat there, had complained Modo autem maxima ex parte per civitates (Galliae) Episcopales sedes traditae sunt adul [...]eratis Clericis. Epist. ad Zachar. Pont Concil. Tom. 6p. 149 [...]. not many years be­fore, That the Episcopal Sees were for the most part bestowed upon Adulterate Clergymen. For so he calls the mar­ried Clergy. The universal freedom of Marriage, which the German Clergy pressed in the times of Hildebrand, argue the Canons of the Council of Worms, Mentz, and Metz, in the Ninth Age, to have been unsuccessful, and never fully received in that Church. Nay, at the same time a Famous Bishop of Germany, who lived and died with the reputation of a Saint, did strong­ly oppose all imposition of Celibacy. This was Hulderi­cus or Udalricus, Bishop of Augspurg, who in his Epistle to Pope Nicholas I. demonstrates to him the Injustice of his Decree against the Marriage of the Clergy, and per­suades [Page 118] him to revoke it. No such Decree indeed of Ni­cholas is now extant; however Gratian Dist. 32. cap. 4. citeth a De­cretal Epistle of his to Odo, Archbishop of Vien, wherein he forbids Marriage to the Four Superiour Orders of the Clergy. As for the Decree against hearing the Masses of married Priests, which Gratian produceth in the next Chapter, that most certainly belongeth to Nicholas II. although the last Collectors of the Councils have ranked it among the Decrees of Nicholas I. Most probably then Nicholas had directed into Germany a Decretal of the same nature with that, to Odo, and sollicited the recep­tion of it by his Emissaries, whose Diligence and Artifices at last gained the Point in the Council of Worms, the year after Nicholas his Death. This Decree therefore Hul­dericus opposeth in a learned and passionate Epistle, Inter Or­thodoxogr. Basil. 1569. p. 481. wherein he represents to the Pope, that the Marriage of the Clergy is not only lawful in it self, but ought neces­sarily to be permitted. For that all cannot contain, and that none ought to be necessitated to Incontinence. That Marriage of the Cle [...]gy was used in the Old Law, left in­different by Christ, permitted by the Apostles, countenanced by the ancient Canons of the Church, and continued by the Council of Nice. That the Imposi­tion of Celibacy had produced in the Honestius esse pluribus occulte impli­cari, quam aperte in hominum vultu & conscientja cum una ligari. Clergy the most enormous sorts of Lusts, Incest, Sodomy, and the most exeerable Villanies. That these Lusts were openly acted by those very Men, who detested the chaste Marriage of the Clergy; who when they could not contain themselves, imposed it violently upon their Fellow-servants, and were not ashamed to maintain, that it is more honest to accompany with many Women in private, than to be tied to one in the Face and View of Men. That nothing can be more unjust, than when Christ saith, He that is able to receive it, let him receive it; to oppose, He that cannot receive it, let him be Anathema. That this is the Heresie which the Apostle of old foretold [Page 119] would arise in the later times, speaking Lies in Hypo­crisie, and forbidding to marry. That the Chastity which these Men so much pleaded for, might no less be obtained in a married, than in a single State, and with less danger be preserved. Here we may observe that the Champions of Celibacy in this Age had so far im­proved the antient Mistakes of the Impurity of Mar­riage, that they maintained the open use of it to be a greater Sin than Fornication. And then Huldericus plainly intimates, that Celibacy was never yet introdu­ced into the Church of Germany. For he alloweth that those, who have made a Vow of Continence, ought in no case to violate it, but may be even forced to per­form it, but pleads that the Clergy had made no such Vow.

Bellarmine, to avoid the Authority of this Epistle, maintains DeCleric. l. 1. c. 22. it is spurious, and endeavours to confirm his pretence from Chronology, and to prove there was no Huldericus Bishop of Augspurg contemporary with Pope Nicholas. That there was but one of that Name Bi­shop of that See, who was created Bishop in the year 924. or 903. and died in the Eighty Third year of his Age, and Fiftieth of his Episcopacy; and that there were two Hulderici, Bishops of Augspurg, is a meer Invention of the Magdeburg Centuriators. To this may be answered, that Bellarmin doth no less gratis deny, than the Centuri­ators do affirm the existence of two Hulderici; and in that case the Authority of the Manuscript Copies is suf­ficient to satisfie us. Besides, this is no obscure Writing found out and obtruded on the VVorld since the Re­formation. It was famous, and noted more than Six Hundred years since. For Bertoldus of Constance, in his Continuation of Hermannus Contractus, relates, Ad. An. 1079. p. 349. Edit. Franco­furt. 1670. That Gregory VII. in a Synod held at Rome, in the year 1079. condemned the Epistle of St. Udalricus to Pope Nicholas about the Marriage of the Clergy. And AEneas Sylvius Transivi­mus Augustam S. Udalricus huic praesedit, qui Papam ar­guit de Concu­biuis. Lib. de Morib. Ger [...]. p. 1053. owns the truth of the whole matter, when relating his Journey through Germany, We passed through Augspurg, [Page 120] saith he; St. Udalricus was Bishop of this City, who oppo­sed the Pope in case of the Clergies Concubines. For so they called the VVives of the Clergy after the days of Hildebrand. Lastly, that there was an Huldericus, Bi­shop of Augspurg, contemporary to Pope Nicholas, may be proved from the Authority of Jacobus de Voragine, who saith, Legend. Aur. cap. 202. Edit. Argen­tin. 1496. St. Udalricus died after many Miracles in the year 900. the Eighty Third of his Age, and Fiftieth of his Conse­cration, by which Computation Huldericus both preced­ed and survived the Popedom of Nicholas.

Thus we have proved that the Laws of Celibacy were never universally received in the antient Western Church, in some Provinces even not imposed, and in none practi­sed. The matter will be farther cleared by particular examples of married Clergymen. The marriage of Restitutus, Bishop of London, in the beginning of the Fourth Age, is attested by three accurate and learned VVriters of our British Antiquities, Bale, De Script. Angl. Cent. 10. cap. 5. Bishop Godwin, De Praesul. Ang. p. 227. and Sir H. Spelman Concil. Angl. Tom. 1. p. 43. In the middle of that Age St. Hilary, Bishop of Poictiers, is known to have been married. For to omit the Epistle to his Daughter Abra, which I deny not to be spurious; this is evinced by the Authority of Venantius Fortunatus, his Successor, who writ his Life, Apud Sur. Jan.. 13 and therein relates, that Hilary had a Wife and a Daughter living, when he was promoted to the Episcopal Order, which both continu­ed to cohabit with him. That when he was banished by Constantius into Asia, he left his Daughter Abra, to­gether with her Mother, at Poictiers. That returning from Banishment, he persuaded her to devote her self to God, and profess perpetual Virginity. Which when the Mother saw, she never ceased to sollicit her Husband, till he gave her leave also to dedicate her self to God, and make a Vow of Continence. A Passage which most evidently demonstrates, that she had hitherto enjoyed the Company of her Husband, and all the Pleasures of a chaste Marriage, and had not vowed Continence at his Assumption to the Episcopal Order.

[Page 121]S. Paulinus Bishop of Nola, comes next; whose Ex­ample is most remarkable, as well because he was one of the sincerely pious men of all Antiquity, whom St. Martin Sup. Sev [...]r. de vit. Martin. cap. 26. was wont to propose as the Pattern of all Perfection; as because he was made Bishop in the Roman Patriar­chate, not long after the Promulgation of Siricius his Con­stitution, and seems to have been persecuted by that Pope, meerly for retaining the company of his Wife, in opposi­tion to his Decrees. He was descended from the greatest Family of Rome, had born the Consulship, and was in all respect the second Person of the Empire; when quitting all secular Honours in the year 393. he was ordained Priest at Barcetona in Spain. His Wife Therasia then lived with him, the inseparable Companion of all his Travels, and his whole Life. Paulinus was then in the 40th year of his Age, and she somewhat younger; yet did they con­tinue to live together in the same House, and in the same Cell, till separated by Death. After some stay there, Paulinus returned with his Wife to Rome; where he was received with infinite Applause by the Common People, but with great Rudeness by Pope Siricius, whose Pride and Churlishness Paulinus Epist. 1. ad Sever. p. 10. himself complains of. The occasion of this Deportment of Siricius, seems to have been the prejudice which he feared his Constitution of the Continence of Priests and Deacons might suffer from the cohabitation of Paulinus with his Wife; the Example of a Person so illustrious, and so highly reputed for Sanctity, being alone sufficient to restore Marriage to its due e­steem. Retiring thence to Nola in Campania, he was not long after made Bishop of that place. That his Wife lived with him in the same little Cell, even after his Consecration, Sacchinus Vit. Paulin. in init. confesseth: and indeed is most evident. St. Ambrose Virum se­quitur & exi­guo illic conju­gis contenta cespite solatus se religionis & charitatis di­vitiis. Epist. 36. ad Sabin. speaking of Paulinus's Re­tirement at Nola, saith, His Wife accompanied him, and con­tented there with the voluntary poverty of her Husband, com­forted her self with the riches of Piety and Charity. Many of his Epistles written from Nola, are directed in both their names, having this Inscription, Vid Epist. 2▪ 26. 30. 31. 35. 41. 42. 44. 45. 46. Paulinus & Therasia Peccatores: and almost all are dictated in the plural num­ber. [Page 122] St. Augustin and St. Hierom, in their Epistles to Paulinus (written after his assumption to the Episcopal Office, for their acquaintance began late) never fail to salute his Wife Therasia; and St. Augustin Epist. 34. invited them both together into Africa. And Gregory Turonensis De glor. Confess. cap. 107. re­lates a memorable Passage of them, That when dwelling together in their little Cottage at Nola, Therasia once hin­dring the prodigal Charity of her Husband, by over­much Frugality, diminished the Blessings of Heaven to them both: That he made any Vow of Continence from his Wife at his Ordination, can never be proved. Rather St. Hierom plainly intimates the contrary, that he denied not himself the Pleasures of Marriage, at least was not reputed to do it; when in his Epistle to him, he doubteth whether, although equalling the Perfections and Piety of a Monastick life, he may properly call him a Monk, Quoniam sanctae sororis tuae ligatus & vinculo, & non penitus expedi­to pergis gra­du. Epist. 13. ad Paulinum. because he was yoaked with the Bonds of Marriage, and thereby was hindred from practising the utmost Perfections of a Monastick Profession.

Among Paulinus his Epistles there are two Epist. 30. 31. directed to Aper a Presbyter, and Amanda his Wife; who in the same manner renouncing the Honours and Riches of the World, lived together in a common Retirement, so far from forsaking the Duties of Marriage, that in that state they gave Education to a numerous Off-spring of Chil­dren. That Prosper, commonly reputed Bishop of Rhe­gium, was married, is manifest from his Poem dedicated to his Wife. Sidonius Apollinaris Bishop of Clermont, had married, while a Lay-man, Papianilla Daughter of Avitus the Emperour: and that she lived with him after his Or­dination, appears from an Epistle Lib. 5. Ep. 16. written to her, when absent, about the common affairs of their Family, under the Reign of Nepos, who was made Emperour in the year 474. two years after Sidonius his Consecration: and from the authority of Gregory Turonensis, Hist. Franc. l. 2. c. 22. who re­lates that Sidonius, when Bishop, used to take his Plate out of the house by stealth and give it to the Poor, which his Wife was wont to redeem with Money. His Prede­cessour in that See, Namatius, built Id. l. 2. c. 17. the Cathedral [Page 123] Church of Clermont; and at the same time his Wife built the Church of St. Stephen in the Suburbs. But a more e­minent Example of the Practice of the Gallican Church at that time, is the Election of Simplicius Bishop of Bour­ges. The Bishops of the Province not agreeing in the choice of a Bishop, committed the disposition of the whole matter to Sidonius, giving him a power of Nomination. Sidonius then going to Bourges, nominated Simplicius a married man, whom in a Speech he thus recommended to the People: Vxor illi de Palladiorum stirpe de­scendit, qui aut literarum aut altarium Ca­thedras cum sui ordinis laude tenu [...]vunt. Sane, &c. Oratio post Epist. 9. lib. 7. His Wife is descended from the Family of the Palladii, who have possessed the Chairs either of Professours or Bi­shops, with great Commendation of their Order. In truth, because the person of a Matron requires a modest and brief mention, I dare constantly [...]verr, that wo­man is not unworthy of her Relation to the Clergy of both Fa­milies (he had before said, that Simplicius also descended of the Race of Priests) either that wherein she was born and brought up, or that whither she was removed by Marri­age. They both educate their Children prudently and vertu­ously. In the name therefore of th [...] Father, Son, and Holy Ghost, Simplicius is he, whom I pronounce shall be your Bi­shop. To what purpose was all this Commendation of Simplicius his Wife, or what did it concern the People what manner of woman she was, if immediately upon his Ordination she must have retired from his Family, and cease to be his Wife? And then, which is most obser­vable, Sidonius pronounced him Bishop, without giving him any previous notice of it, when neither his nor his Wifes resolutions of a total future abs [...]inence from the use of their Marriage, could be supposed to be known, and therefore must be supposed not to have been required of them. As for his willingness to accept the Bishop­rick, they enquired not after that; since in that Age they thought it lawful to force men to take upon them the Pa­storal charge; but never thought it lawful to force them to put away their Wives, and abjure the Duties of Mar­riage.

[Page 124]In the next Age Venantius Fortunatus mentions Carm. l. 1. c. 11. the Posterity of Emelius Bishop of Burdeaux, and in one almost whole Book Carm. l. 1. celebrates the Praises of Leontius his Suc­cessour, and Placidina his Wife, descended from Si [...]onius of Clermont, who adorned with Hangings the Churches which her Husband built. Some few years before, Sido­nius Apollinaris, Son of the same Sidonius, had Greg. Tur. Hist. Franc. l. 3. c. 2. ob­tained his Fathers Bishoprick by the Intrigues of his Wife Placidina. In the same Age, or towards the end of the former, Gerhardus or Genebaldus the first Bishop of Laon, having at his Ordination separated himself from his Wife, the Niece of St. Remigius, afterwards changed Fascic. Temp. ad an. 494. his Re­solutions; and resuming her society, begat St. Latro of her, who succeeded him in his Bishoprick. Many other married Bishops of these and the succeeding Ages might be reckoned, but these are sufficient to shew, that neither the Constitutions of Popes, nor Canons of Councils, ever gained universal Reception in any part of the Western Church, the use of Marriage being still retained by many Bishops, eminent both for Piety and Learning. So true is it, what Polydore Virgil Aliis super aliis promul­gatis legibus, non ante Po [...] ­tificatum Gre­gorii VII. con­jugium adimi occidentalibus Sacerdotibus potuit. De in­vent. rer. l. 4. c. 4. confesseth, that notwith­standing the frequent repetition of the Law of Celibacy, Mar­riage could never be wrested from the Western Clergy, before the Popedom of Gregory VII.

Many other Arguments might be produced to demon­strate, that the use of Marriage was retained by the Clergy of the antient Church; which however they be less direct than those already mentioned, yet are they no less conclu­sive. Of this kind is the Practice of all those Hereticks and Schismaticks, who departing from the Western Church be­fore Celibacy was introduced, retained the use of Marriage to their Clergy. It being the custom of all Hereticks, whose Errours were meerly speculative, to preserve that Ecclesiastical Discipline, which the Church then used when they departed from her, but not think themselves obliged by any subsequent Decrees of it. Thus the Goths and Vandals being infected with A [...]ianism, under the Reign of Valens, before any imposition of Celibacy was attempted in the Church; and afterwards seating [Page 125] themselves in Spain, took no notice of the Decrees of the Catholick Councils against the Marriage of the Clergy. Hence it was, that when towards the end of the sixth Age they began to be converted apace to the Orthodox Faith, most of their Clergy were found to be married; which forced the third Council of Toledo, in the year 589. in a manner to dispense with them in this Canon, Compertum à S. Concilio Episcopos, Presb. & Diac. venientes ex haeresi, carnali adhuc desiderio [...]xoribus copulari. Ne ergo de caetero fiat hic praecipitur, ut, &c. Can. 5. It is observed by the H. Synod, that the Bishops, Priests, and Dea­cons, returning to the Church from Heresie, do yet retain the use of their Wives. That it may not there­fore be done for the future, it is ordered, that they be separated from their Wives. But if any will not condescend to that, let him be reduced to the Order of Readers (the fifth Order of the Clergy). As for those who have all along been subject to the Canons of the Church, if any of them accompany with their Wives, let them be more severely punished. Here the Council teacheth us, what was the general Practice of the Arian Clergy at that time; and acknowledgeth, that they were not obliged by any precedent Ecclesiastical Canons about Celibacy: whereas the Arians always confessed, they were obliged by all Constitutions of the Catholick Church made before their departure from it. The second Coun­cil of Caesarangusta or Caragosa, in the year 592. made a not-unlike Canon, Can. 1. although somewhat more severe. For they commanded the converted Arian Clergy, who would not part with their Wives, to be reduced to Lay­Communion.

The Rules prescribed by many Councils to the Clergy, for the government of their Wives, are a no less certain Argument of their cohabitation with them. The Coun­cil of Eliberis, Can. 65. Neocaesarea, Can. 8. and some others, com­mands, that if any Clergy-mans Wife commits Adultery, after [...]. the Ordination of her Husband, and he knows of it, he shall be bound to put her away. But [...]. if he will continue to cohabit with her, he shall be incapable of executing his Office, saith the Canon of Ancyra; he shall Et scierit eam maritus su [...]s maechari. be excommunicated, saith that of Eliberis. This Canon doth not only prove, [Page 126] beyond all contradiction, the cohabitation of the Clergy with their Wives after Ordination, but also it is most ma­nifest, that they abstain not from the company of their Wives, by that proviso, if her Husband knows that she commit Adultery, which otherwise would have been im­pertinent. For it cannot well be imagined that the Adul­tery of any mans Wife, with whom he accompanieth not himself, should escape his knowledge. A Synod held in Ireland by St. Patrick, in the year 450. or 456. decreed, Can. 6. Et uxor ejus si non vetato ca­pite ambulave­rit. Spelman. Concil. Anglic. Tom. 1. p. 52. That if any Clergy-man, from a Sexton to a Priest, should be seen without his Coat, or if his Wife walked abroad with­out a Veil upon her head; they should be both of them contem­ned by the Laity, and separated from the Church. Where it would have been highly unjust to punish the Clergy for the light carriage of their Wives, if at their Ordination they renounced the company of their Wives, and thence­forth ceased to have any power over them. The first Coun­cil of Toledo, in the year 400. ordered, Si quorum­cun (que) Clerico­rum uxores peccaverint. Can. 7. That if the Wives of any Clergy-men were scandalous in their carriage (or rather were false to their Beds) their Husbands should have power to keep and imprison them in their houses, and in [...]lict any arbi­trary punishment upon them, which extended not to death. But themselves should not so much as eat with them, unless they first did penance. Whence it appears, that before the fault committed, they might have eaten with their Wives, and even after the fault, may again receive them to the usual familiarity of a Wife, if they will [...]irst do penance; which was in conformity to the antient Canons of the Church, which enjoyned, that if the Adultery of even any Lay-mans Wife was notorious; he should either be bound to put her away, or if he will retain her, first to do penance, lest he should otherwise seem to have con­sented to and connived at her Adultery.

An evident Argument of the use of Marriage per­mitted to the Clergy, may be also drawn from the vio­lent and forcible Ordinations of Bishops, Priests, and Deacons, which were frequent in the antient Church. For many of these persons, thus violently and against their wills ordained, were married, whose resolutions to [Page 127] abstain from their Wives, could not then be known, and as all acknowledge, could not be forced. Or if they should condescend to such a renunciation of the pleasures of Marriage, yet was it uncertain, whether their Wives would con [...]ent to it. Who if they should dissent, they ought not to be defrauded of their Husbands Embraces, as all will grant: and therefore total abstinence was not universally used by the Clergy, while such violent Or­dinations were in use. I will produce but two Exam­ples of them. Paulinus, as himself Epist. 6. ad Sever. p. 101. relates, being pre­sent in the Church of Barcelona upon Christmas-day, was suddenly laid hold on by the people, dragged to their Bishop Lampius, then officiating at the Altar, and ordain­ed by him: his Wife Therasia not knowing of it till it was done. In Africa, about the same time, Pinianus an illustrious Nobleman of Rome, but more famous for his Piety, going with his Wife Melania to visit St. Augustin, August. Epist. 225. was beset in the Church of Hippo by the people, and forced to divert their present intentions, by promising them under Hand and Seal, before many Witnesses, that if they would now dismiss him, he would in due time enter into Priests Orders among them. This he did, his Wife Melania being not only unwilling, but even weep­ing and protesting against it, as loath to descend from the pomp of a Roman Lady, to the humility of a Priests Wife.

The Titles which were antiently bestowed upon the Vid. Can. 13. 19. Concilii Turon. 2. anno 567. Wives of the Clergy, are no mean Argument of their cohabitation and continued use of Marriage. The Wives of Bishops, Priests, Deacons, and Subdeacons, are fre­quently Can. 21. Con­cilii Antissio­dorensis anno 578. in the Councils called Bishopesses, Priestesses, Deaconesses, and Subdeaconesses; Titles which argue they did not immediately cease to be Wives, upon the Can. 1, & 2. Concilii Ro­mani an. 721. can. 5. Concilii Rom. an. 743. promotion of their Husbands to those several Orders, nor lose all relation to them. Rather the first of these Ca­nons enjoyn, That a Bishop having no Bishopess (no Wife) shall not keep any number of women in his Family; which plainly intimates, that he might admit women into his Family, if he had a Wife to preside over them, and by her prudent government secure their sobriety.

[Page 128]Lastly, Children are the visible Effects of Marriage; and those many Sons of the Clergy, which were emi­nent in the ancient Church, manifest there were many more, who neither deserved nor obtained any place in History, and that the Marriage of the Clergy was then both frequent and honourable. I will produce the chief of them. In the First Age we have Petronilla, Daughter of St. Peter, four Virgin-Prophetesses, Daughters of Philip the Evangelist, and three Daughters of St. Philip the Apostle. In the Second Age Marcion the degenerate Son of a Pious Euseb. l. 7. c. 30. and Orthodox Bishop. In the Third Age Domnus Son of Dometrianus, Bishop of Antioch, was made Bishop of that See, upon the deprivation of Paulus Samosatenus. In the Fourth Age Probus and Metrophanes were the Sons, and in order Successours of Dometius Bishop of Bizantium. Eustathus Bishop of Sebastea was Son of Eulalius Bishop of Caesarea in Cappadocia. St. Gregory Nazianzen Bishop of Constantinople, and Caesarius Count of the Empire and Questor of Bithynia, both Sons of Gregory Bishop of Na­zianzen. Sozomen L. 8. c. 6. mentions a great Officer in the Court of Theodosius the Emperour, son of Helladius Bishop of Caesarea in Cappadocia. Flavius Dexter, Praefectus-Praeto­rio of the East, was the son of Pacianus Bishop of Barce­lona. Abra, daughter of St. Hilary. Eulampia, daughter of Anicius, a Presbyter and Mother of Philostorgius the Hi­storian. Apollinaris, the learned Bishop of Laodicia, son of the no less learned Apollinaris, Presbyter of Laodicia. Evagrius Ponticus, Arch-deacon of Constantinople, son of a Presbyter of Iberia. Pope Anastatius, Son Liber Pon­tif. of Maxi­mus a Presbyter. In the Fifth Age there was Julianus Bishop of Ecla in Campania, son of Memor Bishop of Capua, and his Wife Ia daughter of AEmilius Bishop of Beneventum. St. Patrick, son of Calphurnius a Deacon. Leporius, Presbyter of Marseilles, son of Sulpicius Severus Presbyter of France, (as some think.) That Sulpicius was married, is evident from his Epistle to Bassula his Mother­in-law. Pope Boniface I. son Pallad. Hist. Lausiac. cap. 130. of Secundus, Presbyter of Rome. Theodulus, son of St. Nilus, Presbyter of Elusa. Auspiciola, daughter of Salvian, Presbyter of Marseilles. [Page 129] Photina, an holy virgin daughter of Theoctistus, Presbyter of L [...]odicea. Salonius and Verarius, sons of Eucherius, Arch­bishop of Lyons, and both Bishops in their Father's life­time. Gelasius Cyzicenus, Archbishop of Caesarea in Pala­stine, son of a Presbyter in Cyzicum. Alcimus Avitus, Archbishop of Vien, and Apollinaris, Bishop of Valence, sons of Isicius, Archbishop of Vien. Superventor, a Clergy­man of France, son Concil. tom. 3. p. 1492. of Claudius, a Bishop. Pope Foe­lix III. son of Foelix, Presbyter of Rome, (so the Liber Pon­tificalis) or of Valerius, a Bishop of Africa (so Gratian Dist. 56. c. 2.) Radulphus de Diceto, saith Imag. Hi­stor. ad Ann. 1161. Pope Gelasius I. was son of Valerius, a Bishop. In the end of this Age, Leontia, daugh­ter Victor. Vit. de persecut. Vandal. lib 5. of St. Germanus, a Bishop in Africa, suffered Mar­tyrdom at Carthage. In the Sixth Age Pope Silverius was son of Pope Hormisda. Pope Agapetus, son of Gordianus, Presbyter of Rome. Epiphanius, Patriarch of Constanti­nople, praised by Justinian Novell. 3. in fine. the Emperour for his descent from a Priestly Family. Chronopius, Bishop of Perigord, descended from Ordo Sacer­dotum cui flu­xit utroque parente. Venit ad haeredem Pontificalis apex. Venant. Fort [...]n. in Epi­taph. Chronopii carm. 1. 4. Bishops both by Father and Mother's side. Nonnosus, the Historian, son of Abraamius, a Presby­ter. Sidonius Apollinaris, Bishop of Clermont, son of Sido­nius, Bishop of that place. Archadius, Senator of Clermont, son of Sidonius, junior. Latro, Bishop of Laon, son of Ger­ [...]ardus, Bishop of the same place. Syagrius, son of Deside­ratus, Bishop of Verdun. Pope Gregory I. great Grand­child of Pope Foelix IV. In the Seventh Age we find Pope Deusdedit, son of Stephen, Subdeacon of Rome. Pope Theodorus, son of Theodorus, suffragan Bishop of Hierusalem. Samuel, the British Historian, son [...] a­pud Baleum. Cent. 1. c. 77. of Beulanus, Presby­ter of Britain. In the Eighth Age we have Anchises, son of Arnulphus, Bishop of Mets, Progenitor of the Caroline Family. St. Florebert, son and successour of St. Hubert, Bishop of Leige. Gerbilo, son and successour of Geroldus, Archbishop of Worms. In the Ninth Age, Pope Hadrian II. son of Talarus, an Italian Bishop. Pope Marinus, son of Palumbus, a Presbyter. Pope Stephen VI. son of John, Presbyter of Rome. In the Tenth Age, Pope John XIII. son of John, an Italian Bishop. Pope John XV. son of Leo, Presbyter of Rome. Joannes Cameniata, the Histo­rian, [Page 130] son of a Presbyter of Thessalonica: As for John XI. base fon of Sergius III. in this, and Hadrian IV. Bastard of Robert Parson of Langley in Hartfordshire, in the Twelfth Age, they peculiarly belong to the Church of Rome, to whose Celibacy they owed their being, and to whose shame they possess'd their Thrones.

In the end of the Seventh Age, that undisturbed free­dom of Marriage, which the Eastern Clergy had hither­to enjoyed, suffered some little diminution in the Quini­sext Council. This was a Council assembled at Constan­tinople, in the Year 692. to supply the defects of the Fifth and Sixth General Councils, of which the last was held but eleven years before, and neither of them had made Canons for the better government of the Church, being wholly taken up with the determination of Matters of Faith. To remedy this defect the Quinisext Council was called, which in truth was nothing else but a continua­tion of the Sixth Council, almost the same Bishops being present in both; and therefore the Canons of it are com­monly cited under the name of the Sixth Council. A voluntary abstinence from the use of Marriage, was now become common to all the Bishops of the East; which is not at all to be wondred at, for that custom was alrea­dy taken up, which at this day continueth in the Ea­stern Church, of chusing the Bishops, not out of the Se­cular Clergy, but out of Monasteries. This voluntary Abstinence therefore being now become universal, was in this Council formed into a Law, upon occasion of the Bishops of Africa and Libya, who still retained the use of Marriage. This the Council inhibited Can. 12. to them and all other Bishops for the future, professing they did it not [...]. in derogation of the ancient Apostolical Discipline, but for the greater edification of the Church: whereby they acknow­ledge, that the use of Marriage was permitted even to Bi­shops by the Apostles, and that permission continued down in the Church till their times.

As for the Marriage of Priests, and all the other infe­riour Clergy, the Council only commanded an abstinence from the use of it in the time of the celebration of the [Page 131] more sacred Mysteries of Religion, at which times it had been forbidden also to Laymen by the Canons of many Councils. Thus only renewing the Third Canon of the Fifth Council of Carthage, in all other things they left to the Clergy the free use and enjoyment of their Mar­riage. And not only so, but condemned also the pra­ctice of the Church of Rome in these words: [...], &c. Can. 13. Whereas in the Church of Rome, we understand it is prescribed in form of a Canon, that those who are to be invested with the Order of Priest or Deacon, should promise perpetual abstinence from their Wives: we following the ancient Canon of Apostolical Truth and Discipline, enact, that the lawful cohabitation of the Cler­gy with their Wives cease not to be accounted valid, not daring to dissolve the union between them and their Wives, nor depri­ving either of the convenient Society (or Embraces) of the other. Lest we should thereby be unavoidably injurious to Mar­riage, which God ordained, and blessed with his own presence; the Holy Gospel pronouncing this Sentence, What God hath joyned together, let no man put asunder; and the Apostle teaching us, that Marriage is honourable, and the bed unde­filed; and again, Art thou bound unto a Wife? seek not to be loosed. If any one therefore shall presume against the Apo­stolical Canons, to deprive the Clergy of the lawful company of their Wives, let him be deposed.

This Council was ever held sacred, and the Constitu­tions of it about the Marriage of the Clergy continued down in the Greek Church without variation to this very day. That it was an Oecumenical Council the Greeks always believed, and the Latins have sometimes confes­sed. For the Church of Rome acknowledgeth the Third Constantinopolitan Council to have been General, of which the Quinisext was no more than an Appendix, and there­fore always accounted part of it. The interval of eleven years doth no more prejudice the identity of the two Councils, than almost twice that number of years be­tween [Page 132] the first and last Session of the Council of Trent can hinder them from being esteemed parts of the same Council. Besides, the Church of Rome doth at this day receive the Definitions of the Second Council of Nice, and accounts it Oecumenical. But this Council expresly confirmed the Sixth General Council, and therein also the Quinisext Council. For that they accounted the latter to be a part of the former, and consequently confirmed both together, is manifest; because citing the Eighty second Canon of the Quinisext Council, they call it [...]. Act. 4. p. 234. the defi­nition of the Holy and Oecumenical Sixth Council. Or, last­ly, If the express approbation of a Pope be required to make a Council General, neither is that here wanting. For Pope Hadrian I. in his Epistle to Tarasius, Patriarch of Constantinople, citing the same Canon, calls it, In sextae Synodi divinè & legaliter praedicatis Ca­nonibus. one of the divine and lawfully enacted Canons of the Sixth Synod. The Greek Translation is more express, which runs thus: [...]. Concil. Tom. VII. p. 122. I re­ceive all the Decrees of this holy Sixth Council, with all the Consti­tutions and Canons divinely enacted by it. However, that the Church of Rome hath approved this very Custom of the Eastern Church, of permitting to the Clergy the use of Marriage, appeareth from the Decretal of Pope Stephen, cited by Gra­tian in these words: Aliter se Ori [...]ntalium habet traditio Ecclesiarum, a­liter hujus S. Rom. ecclesiae nam, &c. Dist. 31. c. 14. The Tradition of the Eastern Churches is different from that of the holy Church of Rome. For in them Priests, Deacons and Subdeacons are joyned in Marriage, (Matrimonio copulantur, i. e. enjoy the use of Marriage, as Mendoza De confirm. Conc. Illib. l. 2. c. 66. hath learnedly proved the mean­ing of those words to be) But in this or the Western Churches, none of the Clergy, from a Subdeacon to a Bishop, hath liberty to use Marriage. Here the Pope expresly con­fesseth the use of Marriage by the Clergy, to have been always the Tradition and Practice of the Eastern Church. And if so, it must have been also sometimes of the Western. For being never practised in the East, it could not be of A­postolical institution; and therefore must have been intro­duced in the West by some subsequent Decree of the Church.

[Page 133]This was the state of Celibacy in the Christian Church for the first thousand years. No-where imposed in the better and purer Ages of Christianity, introduced into the Roman Patriarchate by a rash Pope, commanded by many Provincial Councils of the West, but in no place universally observed; the imposition of it always disused, and at last condemned in the Eastern Church; and the practice of it in these latter Ages, become obsolete in the West. It will not now be amiss to look back a little, and make some Observations upon the Authors, and advance of Celibacy; whereby we may the better judge, how far the Authority and Example of those times ought herein to influence and direct the practice of the present Age.

First then, the Celibacy of the Clergy was hitherto e­steemed by all, a matter of meer Discipline, first intro­duced for reasons of Decency, Convenience, and suppo­sed Edification; which have not only long since ceased, but Celibacy is now become a Snare to the Clergy, and a Scandal to the whole Church. So that the obligation of the Laws of Celibacy, even in those particular Chur­ches where it was antiently introduced and commanded, have long since ceased. The pretence of Divine or A­postolical Institution, was not heard of, till the days of Hildebrand, and is but faintly maintained in these times. That the antient Imposers of Celibacy never thought of this pretence, is evident, because they never made that plea. This we before observed, particularly of the De­crees of Siricius and Innocent, and may be affirmed of all Popes and Councils, which favoured or commanded Ce­libacy in those times. Not to say that some Councils, as the Quinisext II. of Toledo, and others, expresly acknow­ledge the permission of Marriage to the Clergy to be of Apostolical Institution.

II. The Example of the antient Church in this case, is not only not conclusive, but even of no authority; it nei­ther necessitates nor recommends Celibacy to the present Church. For all the deference which we ow to the Au­thority and Example of these times, proceeds from a [Page 134] probable supposition, that the antient Church had greater and better opportunities of knowing the mind of Christ, the intentions of the Apostles, and the exigences of the Church, than the present Age can pretend to, as being more removed from the Fountains head, and animated with a less vigorous and impartial zeal for the knowledge of Truth, and increase of Piety. But when this supposi­tion becomes not only improbable, but is evidently false; when we are assured the practice of the antient Church was occasioned and introduced by prejudices and mistakes, false notions of Piety, and gross errours about the nature of things; imitation would not only be not laudable, but even foolish, and perhaps unlawful; lest the continuance of such a practice should uphold the errours which first produced it. At least, when these mistakes are discover­ed, these prejudices removed, the authority of this exam­ple will vanish with them. That this was the case of Celibacy in the antient Church, we have all along obser­ved and proved; and need not here repeat our Argu­ments.

III. If we should allow the usage of the antient Church [...]o be in all cases a Rule and Pattern to the present Age, yet will Celibacy receive no advantage from it. The Marriage of the Clergy may put in a larger and much better Plea of antiquity, as being able to produce the practice of the Universal Church in the four first Ages of Christianity, of the whole Eastern, and many parts of the Western Church to this day, and alledge the Suffrage of two General Councils, the first and fourth, which confirmed and allowed it. Whereas the imposition of Celibacy was unknown to the first and better Ages, not universally practised in the latter, rejected by one, and condemned by another General Council, and never con­firmed by other than Provincial Synods, whose Acts may be annulled; and Decrees abolished by the single authority of any particular Church. And certainly if, what most of our Adversaries pretend, the tradition and practice of the present Universal Church be the only certain method of knowing the Opinion and Doctrine of all precedent [Page 135] Ages, the lawfulness and convenience of the Clergies Marriage must have been the belief of the antient Church: since all the Eastern Churches, the greatest part of the Universal Church, not to speak of the Refor­med Churches in the West, do at this day permit the use of Marriage to the Clergy, and maintain the impositio [...] of Celibacy to be unlawful. Which also is no small pre­judice to the cause of the Church of Rome, if there be a­ny truth or solidity in that grand Argument of our Ad­versaries, that in the case of two dissenting Churches, when the one openly condemneth the practice of the other, and receiveth not the same severe Sentence from her Adversary, Truth and Justice must necessarily ly on that side. For however the Greek Church hath always condemned, as impious and unjust, the imposition of Ce­libacy in the Latin Church, the Latines never dared to return the same Sentence upon the permission of Marri­age to the Clergy in the Greek Church. Rather the pra­ctice of the Eastern Church hath been allowed and ratifi­ed by the publick Authority of the Church of Rome. For to omit the great Later an Council under Pope Innocent the Third, wherein our Adversaries confess that permis­sion of Marriage was continued to the Greek Priests, thus Pope Nicolas the First answered to the Inquiry of the Bulgarians: Consulendum decernitis, utrùm Presby­terum habentem uxorem debeatis sustentare, & honorare, an d vobis projicere: quo re­spondemus, licet ipsi valde reprehensibiles sint. d [...]jicere [...]um à vobis non debetis. Cap. 70. Concil. Tom. 8. p. 540. You ask whether you ought to maintain and honour a Priest, having a Wife, or to remove him from you. To which we an­swer, That although they be very blameable, you ought not to cast them off. And Bellarmine De Cl [...]r. lib. 1. cap. 21. ac­knowledgeth, that although the Roman Church approves not herein the practice of the Greek Church, and judgeth it to be an abuse, yet she per­mits it to the Greeks; so that if they had no other errours, a Peace might easily be accorded between the two Churches.

IV. The practice of the ancient Church in the imposi­tion of Celibacy, was various and divers; and conse­quently [Page 136] neither Celibacy it self can be of Apostolical In­stitution, nor the antient practice of it be a fixed Rule to succeeding Ages. The great variation of the Canons of those several Councils, which enjoyned Celibacy, we be­fore observed; and might add the alterations introduced into the practice of the Greek Church by the Quinisext Council, and Novels of Leo the Emperour. But I will here insist only upon the case of Subdeacons, who in the present Church of Rome are no less forbidden the use of Marriage, than the superiour Clergy. Not to the anti­ent Church. Siricius and Innocent left Marriage free to them. Pope Leo the First endeavoured to impose Celiba­cy upon them; but his Decree gained no acceptance. Ma­ny Councils after that time, permitted Marriage to them. Palagius the Second forbid it to the Subdeacons of Sicily: but his Successour Gregory repealed that prohibition. That Continence was not yet commanded to Subdeacons, nei­ther in Spain nor Sicily, at the time of the third Council of Toledo, Anno 589. Baronius Annal. ad an. 589. and Binius Not. in Concil. affirm, may be evidently deduced from the fifth Canon of that Council. In England, Augustin Archbishop of Canterbury had consulted Pope Gregory, whether Clergy-men not be­ing able to contain, might marry; and whether when married, they ought to resume a secular Life. Gregory returned answer, that Clerici ex­tra sacros or­dines constitu­ti. Respons ad Interrogat. 2. August. apud Bedam Hist. Eccl. l. 1. c. 27. Clergy-men who were not in Holy Orders, if they could not contain, might marry, and ought still to be maintained from the Revenues of the Church, and be em­ployed in sacred Functions. By Clergy-men not in Holy Or­ders, an antient Saxon Homily produced by Mr. Whelock, Not. in B [...]d. in loc. understands all besides Deacons, Priests, and Bishops. And even after the time of Hildebrand, Pope Urban the Se­cond, in the Council of Beneventum, prescribed Conti­nence to Bishops, Priests, and Deacons, but not to Sub­deacons; to whom the Fathers of the Council asfirm, Can. 1. Celibacy was neither imposed by the Primitive Church, nor commanded by the Apostles. Lastly, Gratian con­tends, Dist. 28. ca [...]. 13. that neither Deacons nor Subdeacons ought to be restrained from contracting and using Marriage.

[Page 137]V. Whatsoever Popes and Councils in the antient Church forbid Marriage to the Clergy, did at the same time for­bid to them the company of Concubines, with much greater and severer penalties. Which doth not only de­monstrate, that they believed not the use of Marriage by the Clergy, to be equal to the crime of Fornication; but also takes away from the Church of Rome all just title to any plea of antiquity in the imposition of Celibacy; since she hath sometimes openly permitted the use of Concu­bines to the Clergy, and always in these latter Ages af­fixed greater punishments to the Marriage, than to the Concubinacy of the Clergy. And therefore the Gloss upon the Canon-Law Dist. 34. cap. 7. observeth, that Fornication is less disadvantageous to the Clergy, than Marriage; be­cause in many cases Marriage would exclude a man from Orders, or deprive him when ordained; when a Forni­cator might be admitted into and continued in the sacred Office.

VI. The antient Church, in imposing Celibacy upon the Clergy, ever left open a Refuge for incontinent persons, and thereby prevented the danger of their incontinence and scandal of the Church. And not only those who could no longer contain, but even all who desired Marriage, were permitted to contract it, by quitting the sacred Office, and retiring to Lay-Communion; maintained still by the Revenues of the Church, and sometimes allowed to rank themselves among the three inferiour Orders. Thus the Councils of Orleans I. of Tours, and many others in the Western Church. In the East, no other punishment than deprivation, was ever inflicted upon the superiour Clergy contracting Marriage. So the Council of Neocaesarea, and the Novels Novel. 6. cap. 5. of Justinian the Emperour. And even this punishment of total Deprivation, Leo Novel. 79. the Emperour thought too severe, and therefore moderated it, decreeing, That Priests, Deacons, and Subdeacons, con­tracting Marriage after Ordination, should only be de­posed from that degree wherein they were before their Marriage, and be reduced to a lower Station among the Clergy, using in the mean while the Habit of the Clergy, [Page 138] and attending to the administration of holy things, al­though acting in a lower Sphere. And this Balsamon Comm. in Can. 5. Conc. 6. proposeth, as the constant practice of the Greek Church in his time. In the West however, many Popes and Councils of the fifth, sixth, and seventh Ages, commanded the Clergy contracting Marriage, to be ex­communicated and separated from their Wives: these furious Decrees vanished and grew obsolete in the next Ages: and Deprivation was thought a sufficient punish­ment of Marriage, when Isidore Mercator forged the De­cretals about the beginning of the ninth Age; as appea­reth from a spurious Decree of Pope Lucius, cited by Gra­tian, Dist. 81. cap. 19. and from the Canons of the Councils of Worms and Mentz, towards the end of this Age. I may add, that no more than a temporary Deprivation seems then to have been sometimes used. For the spurious Acts of the second Roman Council, under Pope Silvester, forged by the same Mercator, decrees, Nemo Pres­byter à die su­scepti Sacerdo­tii conjugium in [...]at: sin fa­ciat, honore per decennium privetur. Can. 19. That no Presbyter shall contract Marriage from the day of his Ordination, if he doth, let him be deprived of his dignity for ten years. Thus did the antient Church allow a Remedy to the Incontinence of the unmarried Clergy; and perhaps cannot properly be said to have forbidden Marriage to any, since none was by her Constitutions rendered incapable of Marri­age, nor totally debarred from it. Not so the present Church of Rome, which maintaineth Marriage contra­cted after Ordination, to be in it self unlawful, and no other than the sin of Fornication and Adultery; nay, much worse than both, in the judgment of Cardinal Q [...]od Sac [...]r­dotes fiant mariti, multò esse gravius peccatum, quàm fi pluri­mas domi me­r [...]trices alant. Sleidan. Com. lib. 4. Campegius, who to the Embassadours of Strasbourg com­plaining of the open Concubinacy of their Clergy, and desiring Marriage might be permitted to them as a Re­medy of it, answered, That the Marriage of Priests was a much greater sin, than if they kept many Concubines in their house. For that these were perswaded they did well, but the others both knew and confessed their sin. And lest we should imagine this to be only the product of a rash and preci­pitate judgment, Costerus Enchrid. Controv. c. 19. the Jesuit proposeth and defendeth the same Proposition.

[Page 139]VII. The scandalous and bad effects, which too great an affectation, much more the imposition of Celibacy, produced in the antient Church, might justly deter the present Age from imitating that Example, and thereby continuing and augmenting the same scandals. The horrible and sad abuses of Eunuchs and House-keepers, we have before described; whose ill examples have done greater injury, and given deeper wounds to the honour and reputation of the antient Church, than ever the af­fected or imposed Celibacy of the Clergy brought lustre or advantage to it. And if in those times when the first zeal of Christianity was not yet expired, when Piety and Vertue were excited by Miracles, and fomented by Persecutions; when a generous renunciation of the World, and contempt of all Sublunary Pleasures, was the common practice, and seem'd to be the very genius of Christianity: if under all these advantages Celibacy could not make good its glorious pretences, nor promote that, for which it was at first intended, true Virginity: if then the voluntary practice of it betrayed the Church to open scandals and manifest inconveniencies, in vain do we hope in this degenerate state of Christianity, to attain a perfection which former and latter Ages wanted, and introduce among the unmarried Clergy such an uniform exemplariness of Continence and Chastity, as may pro­mote among the Laity the great ends of Holiness and Pu­rity, and advance the true interests of the Church. It may be a laudable ambition, to surpass the Vertue of for­mer times; but little less than madness, to attempt that which the Experience of so many Ages hath demonstra­ted to be impossible.

VIII. If it be imprudent to imitate a practice, from which naturally floweth so many Scandals and Abuses, no less unsafe is it to place this imitation upon a matter, which seems to have been the great Stumbling block of Antiquity, and chief Fountain of her grossest Errours. I mean Marriage, about which the many false Opinions that obtained in the Church, evince that most Christians had false notions of the nature and institution of it. And [Page 140] here, not to repeat what I before observed of the gene­rally-supposed impurity, and by some believed sinfulness of Marriage; to omit the annulling and separation of Marriages contracted betwixt Christians and Infidels, and the perpetual prohibition of Marriage to those who had done penance for Fornication; to pass by the Decree of Pope Gregory the First, of admitting no married man into the Church, after he hath accompanied with his Wife, till he hath washed himself with water; and the per­mission Apud Gra­ [...]. Cuus. 32. qu. 7. cap. 18. given by Pope Gregory the Third, to all of marrying a second Wife, when the first, although alive, is disabled by sickness, age, or any accident, from perform­ing the Duties of Marriage; and many other Decrees, Practices, and Opinions of the antient Church about Marriage, which all sober Casuists will allow to be gross and pernicious Errours: I will mention only a few ex­travagant Canons relating to the Marriage of the Clergy. The 17th Apostolick Canon, and third of the Quinisext Council, command, that none be admitted into the Cler­gy, or if admitted, that he be deposed, who hath married two Wives after Baptism, or one which hath been a Wi­dow, or a divorced woman, or a Whore, or a Servant, or a Stage-player. The Council of Auxerre, in the year 578. forbid Can. 22. the Widows of a Priest, Deacon, or Subdea­con, to marry after the death of their Husbands. The second Council of Mascon, in the year 585. extended Can. 16. the same prohibition to the Widows of Exorcists and Acolythi. The Council of Bourges, in the year 1031. decreed, Can. 8. That the Sons of Priests, Deacons, and Subdeacons, born after their Ordination, should by no means be admitted into the Clergy: Because Quia ta­les & omnes alii qui de non legitimo conju­gio sunt nati, semen maledi­ctum in di­vinis Scriptu­ris appellantur. such, and all others who are not born of lawful Marriage, are called a cursed Seed in holy Scripture. The same Council farther commanded, Can. 19. That none should give his Daughter in Marriage to a Priest, Deacon, or Subdeacon, or to their Sons: and in the next Canon forbid all to marry the Daughter of a Priest, Deacon or Sub-Deacon, or their Wi­dows; because Quia de­testabile est. that would be detestable. Here Celiba­cy or a perpetual abstinence is enjoyned, not only to the [Page 141] Clergy themselves, but also to their Wives, Sons, and Daughters: as if either all these must be supposed to have the gift of continence; or it concerned the interest of the Church, they should be necessitated to a single life. Such unnecessary cautions about the Marriage of the Clergy, and unlawful prohibition of it to their posterity, could be no other than the effects of some gross mistakes or foolish superstition.

IX. It is no small prejudice to the cause of Celibacy, that all the great Patrons and Defenders of it could not themselves preserve that Virginity, which they either ad­mired or imposed. They had not only suffered under, but even yielded to, the temptations of Incontinence, and could never themselves obtain that perfection, which they recommended to the practice of mankind. In these men I will not say a satiety and glut of unlawful pleasures procured a contempt of lawful enjoyments; but certain­ly an injudicious repentance and abhorrence of the for­mer was prejudicial to a right esteem of the latter. For when these persons, many of whom afterwards were eminent for holiness, reflected upon the greatness of their crime, and their violation of the divine laws of chastity, no wonder if in exaggerating the one, and seeking to compensate the other, they misplaced the guilt of their crime, by removing it from the unlawful use of those pleasures to the very nature of them; and then imagining no sacrifice too great to appease the divine anger, endea­voured to promote and preserve that chastity in others, which they had prostituted themselves, and by restrain­ing many from lawful pleasures, expiate the guilt of their own unlawful enjoyments. This is manifest from the example of all those, who were the main Authors of ur­ging and imposing Celibacy for the first 1100 years, I mean Tertullian, Eustathius, Heliodorus, Epiphanius, St. Hie­rom, Dunstan, Hildebrand, Lanfranc, and Anselm; to whom we may add the Founders of the four great Mo­nastick Orders in the Church of Rome. I begin with Tertullian, who acknowledgeth, De spectac. c. 19. de Re­surrect. c. 59. that in his youth he had been guilty of all the debaucheries of the age, and [Page 142] laboured under a total corruption of manners. Eustathius was Sozom. l. 4. c. 24. six times deposed by so many several Synods, for his scandalous and enormous Vices. Heliodorus was Neceph. l. 12. c. 34. de­prived of his Bishoprick by a Synod of Thessalia, for wri­ting a lascivious Romance. Epiphanius inveighled in his youth by the artifices and Iusts of the Gnostick Women, as himself Haeres. 26. p. 99. confesseth. St. Hierom acknowledgeth he had lost his Virginity (although it was for many ages ce­lebrated by the Roman Church in her publick Offices) For thus he writes: Virginitatem in coelum fero, non quia habeam, sed quia magis mirer, quod non ha­beo. Ingenua & verec [...]nda confessio est, quo ipse careas, id in aliis praedicare. Apolog. ad Pammach. Ep. 50. in fine. Scitis lubricum adolescentiae iter, in quo & ego lapsus sum. Ad Chromat. Epist. 43. I extoll Virginity to the skies, not because I possess it, but because I the more ad­mire that, which I want. It is an ingenuous and modest confession to commend that in others, which your self want. And in another place, speaking of the danger of Incontinence, to which youth is subject, You know, saith he, the slippery path of youth; in which I also fell. Dunstan was by many vehemently suspected of Incontinency; and the Adulter [...]es of Hilde­brand, with the Countess Mathildis, are insinuated by the Historians of that time. Paul the 14th, Abbot of St. Al­bans was Matth. Pa­ris, Hist. Ab­bat. Alban. p. 49. generally supposed to be the base Son of Lanfran [...]. Anselm, however celebrated by the Monkish Historians as an undoubted Virgin, himself confesseth and deplores the loss of his Virginity. For in an ancient Manuscript, in the King's Library at St. James's, are ex­tant Twenty three Prayers of Anselm: of which the Twelfth (not to be found in the printed Collection of his Prayers among his Works) is entitled, A Lamentation of the Loss of his Virginity. Therein at large he bewails his fault, and confesseth his crime, but more especially in these words: O sornicatio sordidatrix [...] meae, perditrix anim [...] meae, unde mis [...]ro subrep­fisti!—Tu namque anima mea, perfida Deo, adultera Christi, libenter de sublimitate virginitatis es demersa in barathrum sorni­ [...]ationis. O fornication, the defiler of my mind, the destroyer of my soul, whence hast thou stol [...] upon me, miserable man! For thou my soul, perfidious to God, and adul­teress against Christ, voluntarily fal­ling down from the sublimity of virginity, art plunged into the [Page 143] sink of fornication. Of the Founders of the four great Orders, Francis, by the confession of Walsingha [...], was in his youth unchast, and indulged to himself the most li­centious pleasures; as did Ignatius Loyola also by the ac­knowledgement of Ribadeneira In vit­ejus.. As for Benedict and Dominick, if they escaped the unlawful embraces of Wo­men, yet could they not avoid the violent temptations and desires of them. For remedy of which the first was forced frequently to rowl his naked body upon thorns, and the latter Theodoric. de Apold. in vit. ejus. to whip himself thrice every night with an iron chain.

Thus have we brought down the History of [...]elibacy to the times of Hildebrand, or the middle of the Eleventh Age: when although the Marriage of the [...]lergy was once again become frequent, and connived at over all the West, yet the fatal ignorance and stupidity of the precedent age had prepared the way to a renewed impo­sition of Celibacy, by anticipating the judgments of men with false prejudices and notions of the nature of Mar­riage and Celibacy. All the mistakes of ancient times were then resumed and with advantage improved: and the supposition of some hidden impurity in the use of Marriage, had so far prevailed, that it gained belief and reception even among the married Clergy. For this I take to have been the only reason of that abuse, frequent in the Ninth Age, (which Elfric complaineth of in his Epistles to Wulfin and Wulfstan) whereby the Priests ad­ministring the Eucharist, communicated not themselves. Besides all these errours and mistakes, and the miserable ignorance and barbarity of those times, which prepared the minds of men: there concurred another great rea­son, which induced the Popes to impose Celibacy upon the Clergy. The Popes of the Eleventh Age, especially Hildebrand, or Gregory the Seventh, had formed a design of subjecting the whole Christian World to the obedi­ence of the See of Rome, as well in Temporals as in Spi­rituals. To this end nothing could be more subservient than to withdraw the Clergy from the Allegiance due to their Princes and Affection to their Countries, and tye [Page 144] them up wholly to the interest of the Court of Rome. This could not be accomplisht while Marriage was per­mitted to the Clergy, since the consideration of Wives and Children endeared their Countrey to them, and were so many Pledges of Fidelity to their Natural Princes. This Obstacle therefore was to be removed, and the Cler­gy to be invested with a perfect liberty of blindly pursuing the dictates of the See of Rome. This observation may be hence confirmed, that the same Hildebrand endeavour­ed to subject Temporal Princes to the Papal power, and to deprive the Clergy of the use of Marriage. For altho some Popes of this Age attempted the imposition of Ce­libacy before Hildebrand, yet was the whole attempt de­signed and managed by him, who is known to have ex­ercised an absolute Tyranny in Rome more than twenty years before he was made Pope.

Pope Leo the Ninth led the way: who although he made no formal Decree, at least not any now extent, against the Marriage of the Clergy in the West, sent Legates to Constantinople, in the year 1054. Cardinal Hum­bert, who fiercely contending there with the Greeks, both by Writings and Disputations, among other heads of ac­cusation, charged them with the Heresie of the Nicolaites, for permitting Marriage to the Clergy, and pronounced an Anathama against them. How foolish and false this accusation was, is evident from what we before said touch­ing the History of Nicolas the Deacon. The cause of the Greek Church was defended by Nicetas Pectoratus, a Regular Priest, who, besides the common right of man­kind, the divine permission, and the necessity of it, al­ledgeth the constant Practice and Tradition of the Greek Church in all precedent Ages in favour of the Clergies Marriage. In the year 1056. the Council of Tholouse was held by the command and by the Legates of Pope Victor the Second, which commanded Can. 7. Priests, Deacons, and all other Clergymen possessing Ecclesiastical Digni­ties, to abstain from their Wives, upon pain of Depriva­tion and Excommunication. The next year Pope Ste­phen the Ninth held Leo Ost [...] ­ens. Chron. Cas­ [...]. l. 2. c. 98. several Synods at Rome against [Page 145] the Marriage of the Clergy; whose Acts are lost. The Clergy generally despised these Censures and Canons, and retained their Wives in opposition to them. This obliged the Popes to invent and make use of new strata­gems. None could be more effectual than to forbid the Laity to hear Mass and receive the Sacraments from the hands of the married Clergy. This was indeed the very formal Heresie of the Eustathians condemned of old by the Council of Gangra; but the advantage which it might bring to the See of Rome, did abundantly in their esteem compensate the danger and contagion of its errour. Pope Nicolas the Second, therefore in a Synod held at Rome, in the year 1059. decreed, Can. 3. that none should hear the Mass of a Priest, whom he undoubtedly knew to have a Concubine, (for such the imposers of Celebacy in this Age would have the Wives of the Clergy to be esteemed) or a House-keeper. And that whatsoever Priests, Deacons or Subdeacons after the Constitution of Leo the Ninth, concerning the chastity of the Clergy, had openly married a Concubine, or put her not away when married, should be deposed from his Office and lose his Revenues. In this Canon it may be observed, that a general and uninterrupted use of Marriage by the Clergy is acknowledged to have obtained in the West immediately before the Constitution of Leo the Ninth, and that the universal opposition of the Clergy to the imposition of Celibacy had forced the imposers of it to mitigate the Penalties of Marriage, and inflict only de­privation upon the married Clergy. This Canon was renewed and confirmed by the Council of Tours Can. 6. in the year 1060. by the Roman Synod Can. 3. under Alexander the Second in the year 1063. and the latter part of it by the Council Roan of Can. 15. in the year 1072. But all these Decrees were only the rash efforts of a furious zeal for Celibacy, and met with no success or obedience, till reinforced by Hildibrand, now become Pope Gregory the Seventh, whose violent genius left neither any force nor fraud unattempted to compleat his designs. He in a Sy­nod held at Rome in the year 1074. commanded, Can. 3, 4. Lambert. Schaf [...]ab. ad A [...]n. 1074. that [Page 146] the Clergy should either put away their Wives, or be deposed: and that none for the future should be ordain­ed, who vowed not perpetual continence and a single life. But when the Clergy chose rather to lye under the sen­tence of Anathema (as Simeon Dunelmensis D [...] gift▪ Reg. Angl. and Hove­den A [...]nal. par. 1. p. 262. relate) or (as Bromton C [...]ron▪ ad Ann. 1074. hath it) when they con­temned his censures, he renewed the next year the Decrees of his predecessours, that none should hear Mass from nor communicate with a married Priest. These Con­stitutions he vigorously endeavoured to put in exec [...]tion by force of Arms, Threats, and Flattery, thundering out Excommunications against those Bishops who blind­ly employed not their whole power and interest to exe­cute his commands. By these violent methods he ob­tained the confirmation of his Decrees from the Council of Poictou Can. 9. in the year 1078. of Islebonne Can. 3. the same year of Quintilineburg Can. 3. in the year 1085. and many other Provincial Councils. Most of the succeeding Popes pursued the same Design, and many Councils seconded them in it, as that of Melphi Can. 2. in the year 1089. Clermont Can. 9. 1095. and others not worthy a parti­cular relation.

The force and violence which these Popes and Bi­shops used to separate the Clergy from their Wives, is known to all who have conversed in the Histories of those times. But their frauds and impostures, gross ig­norance and trifling prejudices deserve a more particular consideration. The mistakes and errors of precedent Ages, which they adopted and improved, need no repe­tition. I will insist upon those only which were peculiar to this and the former Age. An universal ignorance had fitted the minds of men to be abused and deceived; and the Patrons of Celibacy failed not to make use of this advantage. They pretended the Marriage of the Clergy to be in it self null and void; and therefore in their Decrees and Canons gave to the Wives of the Cler­gy no other name than that of Concubines; and ever termed their Marriage, Adultery, Concubinacy, and Invttera­tum morbum fornicationis Clericorum. Gregor. VII. l. 2. Epist. 30. the inveterate Disease of Fornication of the Clergy. Many had [Page 147] before forbid Marriage to the Clergy; but none had yet dared to call the use of it Fornication, which Clemens Alex. [...]. [...]. l. [...]. affirms to be an opposition of the Law and Gospel, and no other than downright Blasphemy. Then was the Third Canon of the Council of Nice alledged in against the Marriage of the Clergy; and all the spurious Decre­tals of ancient Popes, the late Forgeries of Isidore Merca­tor, produced in favour of the imposition of Celibacy: which fraud is at this day continued by the Writers of the Church of Rome, who are not ashamed to cite the Epi­stles of Pope Calixtus the First, the Roman Council un­der Pope Silvester, the Acts of Paul and Tecla, the Hi­story of Abdias, and many other spurious Writings, the product of latter Ages or foolish Impostors. Another ar­tifice was then set on foot, which nothing but the highest impudence could devise or maintain, and that was to ac­cuse the Greek Church of imposing Marriage upon the Clergy, pretending the 13th Canon of Quinisext Council had decreed none should be admitted into Priests Orders, who had not first married a Wife. This calumny also is espou­sed by the present Writers of the Church of Rome, and particularly Bellarmin De Cleric. l. 1. c. 19. who could not but know the falseness of it, and that Marriage is no where made neces­sary to the Clergy, but in the Church of Russia. The imputation of Heresie to the defenders of the Clergies Marriage was started in this Age, and the opprobrious titles of Nicolaites fastned on them. This new Heresie is thus described by Petrus Damiani, the great Agent of the Popes in the cause of Celibacy. Nicolaitae autem dicuntur Clerici, qui contra castitatis ecclesiast. regulam faeminis admiscentur. Qui planè tunc fornicatores sunt, quùm foedi commercii copulas ineunt: tunc Nicolaitae jure vocantur, quùm hanc le­tiferam pestem velut ex authoritate defendunt. Epist. ad Hildebrand. & Joannem in vitâ Opp. praefixâ. The Nicolaites are those Clergy­men, who against the rule of eccle­siastical chastity accompany with Wo­men: who then truly become forni­cators▪ when they adde Marriage to this unlawful Society; and are then deservedly called Nicolaites, when they defend, as lawful, this mortal Heresie. Lastly, to crown these Impostures, Miracles were forged, as the most proper artifice to impose upon mankind in a [Page 148] superstitious Age, when that cause was triumphant, not which was most rational, but whose followers could by a pretence of Miracles delude the World with greater art and impudence. Hence the admired Fable of the 1100 Vir­gin Martyrs, the imposture Polydor. Virgil. Hist. Angl l. 6. in fin. of the Crucifix in the Synod of Canterbury, openly giving its Vote for Dunstan, against the married Clergy; and Capgrave. the whole Colledge of mar­ried Priests of Elingen turned into Eels, when by the fa­vour of the Emperour they retained their Wives against the threats and curses of the Pope, with a thousand other ridiculous tales which might terrifie the married Clergy, amuse the credulous multitude, and advance the interest of the greedy Monks; who then built their fortunes apace upon the ruins of the secular Clergy. But to give an evident testimony of the Frauds and Impostures which promoted Celibacy in this Age, I will instance in Concil. Tom. X. p. 315. an Anonymous Author of this time, whom the Colle­ctors of the Councils thought worthy to insert into their Edition; and who, if I be not mistaken, was the first that ever dared affirm the Celibacy of the Clergy to be of Divine or Apostolical Institution. This Writer in an Apology for the Decrees of Hildebrand, published in the Roman Synod, Anno 1074. pleads the cause of the Imposi­tion of Celibacy. In his Plea he alledgeth the Third Ca­non of Nice, the First of Neocaesarea, and the Decretals of Silvester. Whatsoever is said by St. Hierom, or other ancient Fathers, against the Housekeepers, he applies to the Wives of the Clergy. Affirms, Nicolas the Heresiarch to have been the first Author and Introducer of the Cler­gies Marriage. Reckons Paulus Samosatenus (condemned and deposed by the Synod of Antioch for his scandalous use of Housekeepers) among the defenders of their Mar­riage. Urgeth all the spurious Decretals of ancient Popes, Alexander the First, Clement, and others, and doubts not to affirm from Clemens. Alex. that Nicolas the Deacon prostituted his Wife to the lust of all persons; whenas that learned Father relates the direct contrary, as we before shewed.

[Page 149]No wonder then, if amidst so gross ignorance and shameless impostures, when the interest of the See of Rome required, and the ambition of the whole Mo­nastick Order promoted it; when forged Decretals were received, and foolish Miracles believed; when antient Canons were securely falsified, and the practice of other Churches mis-represented; when the Bishops and ruling part of the Clergy were either taken out of Monasteries, or otherwise at the devotion of the Court of Rome; Ce­libacy triumphed, and the Marriage of the Clergy was decried and run down. The lamentable and scandalous effects of these proceedings, are at large related by the Historians of those times; which I will here only briefly touch. Matthew Paris Hist. Ma­jor ad an. 1074. and Radulphus de Diceto Abbreviat. Chron. ad an. 1074. having related Pope Gregory the Seventh's prohibition of Marriage to the Clergy, use these words: Hence arose so great a scandal, that not even in the time of any Heresie had the Church ever been divided with a more grievous Schism; one Party contending for Justice, the othe [...] [...]gainst it. Be­sides, few of the Clergy preserving Continence, some dissembling their Lust either for Gain or Vain-glory; but many aggrava­ting their Incontinence with Perjury and continual Adultery: The Laity refused to receive the Sacraments from married Priests, burnt the Tythes due to them, and oftentimes trod un­der foot the Body of our Lord consecrated by them, and oft­times voluntarily spilt the consecrated Bloud upon the ground. In Germany, as Nauclerus Chrono­graph. vol. 3. generat. 37. relateth, upon the prohibi­tion of hearing the Masses of married Priests, the Laity were forced to administer the Sacraments themselves, and baptize their own Children. This scandal arose much higher in England, where when the same prohibition was by the procurement of Anselm enacted in a National Sy­nod, all Divine Service was, for want of unmarried Priests, generally discontinued in Parochial Churches, and the Church-doors overgrown with Thorns. As for the scan­dalous incontinence and uncleanness of the Clergy, that is not much to be admired, being the natural effect of imposed Celibacy. But it may be justly wondred, that while the Pope engaged with so much violence a­gainst [Page 150] the Marriage of the Clergy, they willingly over­look'd and conniv'd at their Fornications and prodigious Impurities of Life. This Petrus Damiani Epist. ad Nicolaum II. himself as­sures us, and affirms it to be the custom of the Church of Rome, in his time, severely to exact other points of Ecclesiasti­cal Discipline, but to connive at and dispense with the Lust of the Clergy: which was then become so brutal and notori­ous, that he writ a Book, entituled Gomorrhaeus, particularly upon that subject. This alone might justifie what we be­fore observed, that the Church of Rome imposed Celiba­cy upon the Clergy, not for increase of Piety, or advance­men [...] of Purity, but only for temporal ends, and secular advantages.

However, the Marriage of the Clergy wanted not De­fende [...]s in this Age to maintain its right against the ca­lumnies and tyranny of its Adversaries. The Decrees of the Popes were condemned by some Councils, universally opposed by the Clergy of all Nations, and gained not success till a long and sharp contention. In the year 1061. the Bishops of Lombardy, by the instigation of Gui­bert Damian. de Legat. ad Henric. Bishop of Parma, met in a Council at Basil, wherein they annulled the Decrees of Pope Nicolas, and decre [...]d, That no Pope should be obeyed, who would not [...] and yield to their Infirmities. About the same time the Clergy of Laon being urged by Petrus Damiani Ad. Epist. ad Cunipertum. to put away their Wives, produced in their defence a Decree of the Council of Tribur, which permitted the use of Marriage to the Clergy. Several Councils were he [...]l at T [...]ibur in this Age; of whose Acts we have little or no account left, and therefore cannot [...] the time of this Council. The Synod of [...] we shall mention afterwards, when we come to the Affairs of England. In the year 1080. Gregory the Seventh was con­demned and deposed in the Council of Brixia, as well for other crimes, as because h [...] had [...] Divor [...]es between married persons, (to use the words of the Historian Conradus Ursperg. Chron. or had violently separated the married Clergy from their Wives. To these we may add the Council of Beneven­tum, held eleven years after by Urban the Second, which [Page 151] permitted Marriage to Subdeacons, as we before obser­ved: and the great Lateran Council under Inno [...]ent the Third, of which more hereafter.

If many Bishops disliked, annulled, and mi [...]igated the Papal Decrees of Celibacy; with much mor [...] violence, although with less authority, did the inferiour Cle [...]gy op­pose this unjust Imposition. Particularly [...] Hilde­brand published his Decrees, the Historian saith, [...], bominem planè hae­r [...]ticum & vesani dogmatis esse clamitantes, qui ob [...]itus [...] Chri [...]ti, &c. Lamber­tus [...]. ad [...] 1074. The Cl [...]rgy were in a rage, crying out, the [...] was plainly a Heretick, and main­tainer of mad Opinions; who for­getting those words of Christ, All [...] t [...]is, and [...]e that cannot contain, let him marry, would by a violent exacti­on compel men to live the life of Angels; and while he stopped the wonted course of Nature, let loose the Reins to a promis [...]uous Lust. [...] the learned Monk of Gemblac [...], writ to Henry Archdeacon of Leige, a peculiar T [...]eatise or Apolo­gy against those who s [...]andered or condemned the Masses of married Priests, (as himself Catal. Script. Eccl. in fine. tells us) which is now lost. The same Author in another place give [...]h Novo ex­emplo & incon­siderato praej [...] ­dico contra SS. Patr [...]m sententiam. Chron. ad an [...] 1074. this judgment of the Decree of Pope Gregory, That it was made by an unheard-of Example, and inconsiderate prejudice a­gainst the Doctrine of the Holy Fathers. Matthew Paris Hist. ad [...] an. 1074. useth the same words. In Germany the Clergy opposed the Papal Decrees with great courage and animosity, re­jected the perswasion of their Bishops, wanted little of tearing in pieces the Popes Legate who proposed to them the imposition of Celibacy; and when at last by the vio­lence of their Adversaries forced to submit, chused rather to quit their Office than their Wives. In France the Clergy of Laon rejected the Sollicitations of Petru [...] Damia­ [...]i. Of England we shall speak more largely afterwards. In Italy, Damia [...]us being sent to Milan by Nicolas the Se­cond, in the year 1059. to subject that See to the Obedi­ence of the Church of Rome, and the Clergy to the Yoak of Celibacy, could effect neither, without great commo­tions. For as himself writ back to the Pope, the people and Clergy contended with great heat, that the Ambrosian [Page 152] See owed no Obedience to the Bishop of Rome, and that the Law of Celibacy was unjust and intolerable.

Mr. Fox in his English Martyrology Tom. 2. p. 466. hath publish­ed two antient Latin Apologies for the Marriage of the Clergy, under the name of Volusianus Bishop of Carthage, both directed to Pope Nicolas. The first, which is short, is nothing else but the Epistle of Huldericus, before men­tioned, which hath been often published. The second, is far longer, was never elsewhere published; and seems to have been the Remonstrance or Apology of all the mar­ried Clergy of the Western Church, offered to Pope Ni­colas the Second, and the other Bishops of the Church, who endeavoured to impose Celibacy, presently after the Roman Synod, in the year 1059. which forbid the Laity to hear Mass from the married Clergy. The Author of it writes far more elegantly, and argues more strongly than Huldericus: and indeed, abating some allegorical in­terpretations of Scripture, the peculiar Genius of those A­ges, it may be accounted a rational and exact Treatise. The sum of it is this: That Continence is the peculiar Gift of God, not bestowed upon all; which therefore cannot be commanded. That no Vow or Gift is grate­ful to God, but what is voluntary, not compelled. That it savoured of Judaism, to impose such burdens upon men under the Gospel. That the Governours of the Church were not invested with an arbitrary power, nor could lay such grievous impositions on the Clergy, against their will. That this Yoak was imposed for vain ostentation, and worldly ends. That although many of the inferiour Clergy were awed by Force, Authority, Threats, or A­nathema's, to submit to this Imposition, yet they unwil­lingly underwent the burden of Celibacy, and hated the cross laid upon them, because they bore it rather to their destruction than salvation. That from the imposition of Celibacy, greater inconveniencies arose; Sodomy, A­dultery, Fornication, Incest, and other horrid Lusts. That Marriage is the only Remedy assigned by God to incontinent persons; which they who contemn and af­fect a greater shew of perfection, commonly fall into pre­cipices. [Page 153] That the Apostle commandeth, that to avoid Fornication, every man should have his own Wife; and expresly teacheth, all have not the Gift of Continence. That the Apostles advice of Virginity, was temporary, himself professing that he cast no snare upon us. That as for themselves, they professed they could not contain without the use of Marriage, and therefore by the Pre­cept of the Apostle had a right to marry. That it was a vain and false pretence, that this Indulgence was given by the Apostle only to the Laity, and not to the clergy. That the Yoak of Celibacy was unlawful and intolera­ble, condemned of old by Dionysius Corinthius, and Paph­nutius. Lay not therefore, we beseech you, this heavy burden upon us, which we are not able to bear; nor violate the Reve­rence due to Holy Orders and the sacred Mysteries, for our sakes. Certainly, you render both contemptible in the sight of men, whilst you forbid the Sacraments to be received from our hands. A Prohibition directly contrary to the antient Canons; which define, that the Sacraments lose not their efficacy by the unworthiness of him that administers them. By these Authori­ties and Reasons you ought to be perswaded, and neither remove us from the sacred Office, nor deprive the Laity of the benefit of the Sacraments. Concluding with a protestation, that they could not contain without Marriage, nor obtain Continence any otherwise than by the peculiar Gift of God.

Thus the married Clergy wanted neither learning nor courage to defend the justice of their Cause, and how­ever they were overborn by the violence of the Court of Rome, and prevailing interest of the Monastick Order, yet many of them retained their Wives for some Ages after the times of Hildebrand; although from his Popedom the marriage of the Clergy gradually decreased, and at last was born down by an universal Celibacy. For some time after that, the Priests of Germany publickly cohabited with their Wives, saith Aventinus, Annal. Boior [...]m lib 5. p. 564. edit. Ingolstad. 1554. as other Christians did, and begat Children; as appears from the Records of Grants made by them to Churches, Priests, or Monks; wherein their Wives by name subscribe as Witnesses together with their [Page 154] Husbands, and are called by the honest name of Priestesses. Presbyt [...]rissae. This constancy of the Clergy in retaining their Wives, was the only reason of the frequent renovations of the Laws of Celibacy by the Popes and Councils of the 12th and 13th Ages. These Laws seem not to have been in­troduced into Dalmatia, till the year 1199. when a Coun­cil being held there by the Popes Legates, this Canon Can. 2. was made: Whereas the Priests of God ought to live conti­nently, they are said to hold both their Wives and Churches in the parts of Dalmatia and Dioclia. Wherefore we enact, That Clergy-men having Wives married before Ordination, live with them and resign their Benefices; but that those who have Wives married after Ordination, dismiss their Wives, and retain their Benefices. To pass by other Councils, I will produce only the great Lateran Council under Innocent the Third, in the year 1215. which not only allowed the Marriage of the Clergy, when contracted, to be valid, but also permitted Marriage to the Clergy of some Pro­vinces, wherein the Laws of Celibacy had not yet been received. The first appeareth from the 31 Canon, con­ceived in these words: To abolish a great Corruption, which N [...] Canonico­rum filii, ma­ximè spurti. Can. 31. hath been introduced in divers Churches, we straightly forbid, that the Sons of Prebendaries, especially their Bastard Sons, be made Prebendaries in the secular Churches, wherein their Fa­thers were instituted. Where by excluding especially the Bastard Sons of the Clergy, it is acknowledged that their Children born in Marriage are not Bastards. The latter is no less evident from the 14th Canon, which enjoyning Continence to the Clergy, adds this Proviso: But whereas Gravius puni­antur, cùm le­gitimo matri­monio uti pos­sint. Can. 14. many of the Clergy, according to the custom of their Countries, have not renounced their Wives, if any of these commit Forni­cation or Adultery, let them be more severely punished, because they can make use of lawful Marriage. The latter Writers of the Church of Rome, to [...]lude the Authority of a Council, so much reverenced by them, declaring in favour of the Clergies Marriage, would have this clause under­stood of the Greek Clergy; but produce not the least shew of Reason for their pretence. No mention is made of the Greek Clergy either before or after: nor did the [Page 155] Fathers of the Council, in forming this Canon, any more dream of them than of the Clergy of the Abyssine Church. Lastly, almost the whole 17th Title of the first Book of Decretals of Gregory the Ninth, is made up of Epistles written by Alexander the Second, to the Bishops of Eng­land, about admitting or not admitting the Sons of Priests into the Benefices of their Fathers, without any interme­diate Successour. In these Epistles Bastardy is no-where objected to the Sons of the Clergy, but only the danger which may accrew to the Church, if Ecclesiastical Bene­fices should descend like a Lay Inheritance from Father to Son. And this danger the Pope sometimes dispensed with. For it is manifest from the 9th Chapter, that he had given a Faculty to the Archbishop of York, of indu­cting the Sons of the Clergy into the Benefices of their Fathers, immediately after the death or cession of the latter. The 12th Chapter hath these words: Clement III. An à potifici­bus generati valeant ad sa­cros ordines promoveri—Si ex legitimo matrimonio sunt procreati, licitè possunt. to the Archbishop of Cassels. Whereas your Brotherhood in­quired of us, the Sons of Priests (or Bishops) may be promo­ted to Holy Orders, if they be adorned with knowledge and sobriety; know that if they be born of lawful Marriage, and there be no other Canonical Impediment, they may lawfully as­cend to Holy Orders. Where it is manifest, that the Sons of which Pope Clement speaks, were born after the Ordi­nation of their Fathers; for none was ever so mad as to doubt whether the Sons of Clergy-men born before their Ordination, were capable of Holy Orders. But if any scruple remains, the 14th Chapter will remove it, which is this: We understand that N. begotten in Priesthood, born In Sacerdotio genitus, de uxore legitimâ natus & con­ceptus. and conceived of a lawful Wife, desires to be admitted into Holy Orders. Wherefore let it be done Thus did Popes, Gene­ral Councils, and the practice of the Church, after the times of Hildebrand, acknowledge the lawfulness of the Clergies Marriage, and connive at it; till the Papal am­bition drawing the disposition of all Ecclesiastical Prefer­ments to themselves, and allowing the use of Concubines to the Clergy, Marriage was at last forced to yield to the more advantageous and easie way of Fornication.

[Page 156]It remains that we speak somewhat more particularly of the state of Celibacy in the Church of England, which more peculiarly concerns us, and probably the last of all the Churches in the West, submitted to the imposition of it. The Church of England being no part of the Roman Patriarchate, nor intervening by her Bishops in those Western Councils which enjoyned Celibacy, took no no­tice of, nor gave any obedience to the Decrees of Popes, or Constitutions of Councils in that matter; but allowed an uninterrupted freedom of Marriage to the whole body of her Clergy, till the end of the tenth Age, and to the far greater part of them till the beginning of the twelfth Age. Elfric Epist. ad Wulfin. Episc. Concil. Tom. 9. p. 1003. indeed, a great Zealot of the Mona­stick Order, in which he was brought up, disliked and opposed the Marriage of the Clergy, yet so that from his words it is manifest the Marriage of the Clergy generally obtained in England, and himself rather wished than ho­ped for an abolition of it. In opposing it he joyned the prejudices of Antiquity to the impostures of latter Ages. From hence he received the poor pretence of the prohi­bition of Marriage to the Clergy by the Council of Nice, in the third Canon: from thence his detestation of second Marriages, against which he had conceived such unrea­sonable prejudice, that he forbid Ibid. Can. 9. Priests to be pre­sent at the solemnities of those Marriages, or even to be­stow a blessing on them. Nay, the Clergy of the Church of England enjoyed at that time so great a liberty of Mar­riage, that even the Monks enjoyed the same freedom: and, as the old Manuscript Chronicle of Winchester rela­teth, Apud Spelman. Con­cil. Anglic. Tom. 1. p. 434. all the Monasteries of England, except Gla­stenbary and Abendon, were nothing else but Colledges of married Priests, till King Edgar drove them thence, and planted Monks in them. This was done by King Edgar about the year 974 at the instigation, and by the artifi­ces of Dunstan, who held divers Synods for that purpose, and had sharp disputes with the married Clergy posses­sing the Monasteries: where his frequent recurring to tricks and impostures, related by the Monkish Historians under the name of Miracles, manifest that Reason and [Page 157] Justice failed him, and that in both he was overpowered by the married Clergy. But the favour of the Prince gave to Dunstan the advantage of obtaining his design, who, as Malmsbury relateth, De Gest. Pontif. Angl. l. 1. when he gave the Clergy their choice, either to quit their Wives, or their Monasteries, forsook their Places, and left them empty to the Monks. Alferus indeed, Prince of Mercia, drove out the Monks a­gain, and replaced the married Clergy; but they soon lost their recovered possession with the fall of that Prince. However, this Violence of Edgar and Constitutions of Dunstan touched not the Secular Clergy, whether Paro­chial Priests, or Prebendaries of Cathedral and Collegiate Churches. They yet enjoyed the use of Marriage with no less perfect freedom than before. And therefore among King Edgar's Canons one is, Can. 30. apud Lamb [...]r­dum. that if a Mass-Priest com­mits Fornication, or violate his Marriage, he fast 10 years, and always bewail his crime; if a Deacon, 7 years; if an inferiour Clergyman, 6 years; if a Layman, 5 years. Not only the Secular Clergy, but even many Regulars, who lived sepa­rately out of Monasteries, enjoyed then the benefit of Marriage; (as many Nuns do Alarviz. at this day in the Abyssine Church) whence Sir Henry Spelman Concil. A [...] ­glic. Tom. I. p. 530. observeth, that their Wives are frequently called Monachae and Mo­niales, Nuns.

Afterwards Pope Gregory the Seventh imposing Celibacy upon the whole Clergy, and seconding his imposition with reiterat [...]d commands to all Bishops to execute his Decrees, Lanfranc Archbishop of Canterbury endeavoured to introduce Celibacy into the Church of England. But perceiving the attempt to be impossible, by reason of the constant and unanimous opposition of the Clergy, he was contented in the Council of Winchester, in the year 1076. to make this Decree only. Nullus Canonicus uxorem habeat. Sa­cerdotum verò in castellis vel in vicis habitan­tium hab [...]ntes uxores non cogantur ut dimit­tant, non [...]abentes interdicantur ut habeant. Concil. Tom. X. p. 351. Let no Prebendary have a Wife. But of the Priests, who live in Towns and Villages, those who have Wives shall not be com­pelled to put them away, those who have not, shall be forbidden to marry any. Thus Lanfranc [Page 158] prepared the way for the more resolute undertakings of his successour Anselm: who, not contented with a par­tial Celibacy, attempted to debar the whole body of the Clergy from the use of Marriage, which they had hither­to enjoyed.

So common and general was the Marriage of the Cler­gy in the Church of England at that time, that Pope Pa­schal the Second, in an Epistle Quia in anglorumregno tanta hujusmo­di plenitudo est, ut major & melior Cleri­corum pars in hâc specie cen­seatur, apud Eadmer. Hist. Nov. l. 4. p. 91. to Anselm, giving him a Dispensation to admit the Sons of the Clergy into Holy Orders, assigns this reason of it; because there is so great a number of this kind in the Kingdom of England, that they make up the greater and better part of the Clergy. And in­deed many great and illustrious Members of the Clergy, the sons of Priests, who lived at this time in England, may be produced out of History. Herebertus Losinga, Bi­shop of Norwich, was Malmsbur. de gest. Pontif. Angl. l. 2. the son of Robert Losinga a Clergyman, afterwards Abbot of Winchester. Rithmarch was Godvinus de Praesul. Angl. p. 605. son and successour of Sulgheim, Bishop of St. Da­vids. Thomas, Archbishop of York, was Id. par. 2. p. 23. the son of a Norman Priest, as also Id. par. 2. p. 23. his brother, Samson, Bishop of Worcester, whose son, Thomas, succeeded Id. par. 2. p. 23. his Uncle in the Archbishoprick of York. Henry, Archdeacon of Hun­tington, the Historian, was the son of Nicolas, Priest of Lincoln, who for his great Piety and Learning was called, Stella Cleri. Hen. Huntind. Hist. l. 7. The Star of the Clergy. Richard, Archdeacon of Coven­try, was the son and successour of Robert, Bishop of Chester, (or of Coventry and Lichfield, which See was then placed at Chester) upon which Radulphus de Diceto maketh this observation: Non igitur vel à sacris ordinibus, vel à parochialibus curis, vel ab [...]cclestis cathedrali­bus, vel etiam ab ipso papatu filii sacerdotum, si probabilis vitae fuerint, sunt arcendi. Imag. Histor. ad Ann. 1161. Not therefore ei­ther from Sacred Orders, or from Pa­rochial Cures, or from Bishopricks, or from the Popedom it self, are the Sons of the Clergy to be debarred if they be of an honest life. It cannot be here imagined, that all these persons were born before the ordination of their Fathers. For first Clergymen were then ordained young; and then the contrary can be plainly demonstrated of many of them. For Eadmerus Hist. Nov. l. 1. p. 7. relates, that Lanfranc going to Rome in the year 1071. [Page 159] impleaded Thomas Archbishop of York, and Remigius Bi­shop of Lincoln, before the Pope, that neither of them were canonically promoted to their Bishopricks; because they were the sons of Priests, and consequently made in­capable of Holy Orders by the Canons. Which inca­pacity was never extended to the sons of the Clergy, born before their ordination. Besides the learned Selden Spicileg. ad Eadmer. p. 195. observes, there was no such express Canon then made, nor ever heard of, before the Council of Clermont in the year 1095. and therefore the incapacity of the sons of the Clergy to Holy Orders could arise only from their supposed bastardy, being the fruits of the use of Marriage after ordination, which the Hildebrandine Popes and Coun­cils had defined to be fornication.

This was the state of the Clergies Marriage in the Church of England, till the times of Anselm, who being educated in a Monastery, and a dependant of the Court of Rome, endeavoured to introduce the Papal Laws of Celibacy into England. His attempts of this kind I will represent in the words of our Historians. Henry de Knyghton Prius no [...] prohibita [...]. De Ev [...]nt. Angl. l. 2. c. 8. saith, Anselm forbid Wives to the Clergy at Leicester in the year 1102. which before were not forbidden to them. Simon Dunelmensis, Hist. [...]e g [...]st. Reg. Angl. ad Ann. 1102. In the year 1102. Concu­bines (or Wives) were forbidden to Priests in the Synod of London. Whence many of them shut up the doors of their Churches, omitting all Divine Service. Henry Huntin­don Histor. l. 7., In the year 1102. Anselm forbid Wives to the Priests. Which seemed most chast to some, to others dangerous, lest while they affected a purity beyond their power, they should fall into horrible uncleanness, to the great scandal of the Christian Religion. Matthe [...] Paris Hist. ad Ann. 1102. repeateth very near the same words. The same prohibition was Simeon, Dunelm. ad Ann. 1108. renewed by An­selm in a Synod in the year 1108. In the year 1125. John, Cardinal of Crema, was sent into England by the Pope upon the same design, who, holding a Synod at London, perswaded the Clergy, in a set speech, to dismiss their Wives, and live continently; but he being caught Huntindon, l. 7. Hov [...]den, Annal. par. 1. p. 274. that very night in the act of fornication, was dismissed with shame. In the year 1129. a great Council was held [Page 160] at London, (to use Matthew Paris, Hist. ad Ann. 1129. and Bromton's Chron. ad Ann. 1129. words) wherein Concubines (or Wives) were forbidden to the Clergy, and the exe [...]ution of the wh [...]le matter left to King Henry. Which thing ended afterwards with great disgrace. For the King took an infinite Sum of Money of the Priests, to redeem their Wives. Then the Bishops repented of the power granted by them to the King, when it was too late.

Thus the King, by selling Licences to the married Clergy, defeated all the Decrees of these Synods. The same had Henr. Knyghton, l. 2. c. 7. William Rufus before done in respect of the married Prebenda [...]ies, after the prohibition of Lanfranc. Which made the Author of the Saxon History of Peter­borough Apud Spel­man. Concil. Angl. Tom. II. p. 36. say of these Councils of Anselm and others against the Marriage of the Clergy, All these Councils a­vailed nothing [...] the Clergy, by the favour of the King, en­joy yet their Wives, as they did before. This may be fur­ther confirmed from the frequent repetion of this prohi­tion in subsequent Synods, which would have been unne­ [...]essary, if the Decre [...]s of former Councils had been re­ceiv'd [...]nd observ'd. In the year 1138. the Decree of Pope Gregory was Ricard [...]s Hagustad. de gest. Steph. Re­gis. Gervas. Tilber. Chron. renewed in the Synod of London. In the year 1175. it was [...]nacted Gerv [...]s. Til­ber. Chron. ad. Ann. 1175. in the Council of Westminster, that whosoever in the degree of Subdeacon, and upwards, contracted Marriage, should leave their Wives, al­though unwilling and refusing. And indeed Anselm himself in an Epistle Lib. 3. Ep. 110. to Ernulphus, complains, that notwith­standing his frequent proh [...]bitions the King still suffered the Clergy to enjoy their Wives as freely as they did in his Father and Lanfranc's times. The Clergy yet retain­ed the use of Marriage for some Ages in the Church of England, although not with so much freedom, nor in so great number, as before the times of Anselm. In the Ap­pendix Concil. Tom. X. p. 1633. to the Third Council of Lateran, in the year 1179. may be found many Epistles of Alexander the Third to the Bishops of England; from which it appear­eth, that an infinite number of the Clergy then in England had Wives, and even married them after ordination. And the Pope himself doth in some measure allow their Mar­riage, by decreeing Can. 4., that if [...] contract Mar­riage, [Page 161] if they were before such persons, as it might be feared, lest instead of one they should abuse many women, their Mar­riage should be dissembled, and their Co [...]abitation with their Wives connived at: because a less evil is to be tolerated, that a greater may be avoided. Which reason will equally agree to all Orders of the Clergy. In the beginning of the Thirteenth Age Innocent the Third writ [...]. Greg. l. 3. tit. 3. cap. 5. to the Bishop of Norwich, that he understood many Clegymen of his Diocess contracted Marriage and retained their Benefices. The Synod of London, in the year 1237. complains Can. 15. that many Clergymen privately contracted Marriage, and retained their Wives. Three years after the Synod of Worcester commands Ca [...]. 34. the Archdeacons to inquire after married Priests. Towards the end of the Age, John Peacham, Archbishop of Canterbury, published a Constitution Ly [...]vodi Provinciale, lib. 1. fol. 23., that the sons of the Clergy should not succeed immediately to their Fathers in their Benefices; which must be understood of the legi [...]imate sons of the Clergy. For Bastards were ever forbidden to succeed either mediately or immediately, and indeed to be re­ceived into Holy Orders. In a word, Mr. Fox unde­niably demonstrates [...]. Angliae, Tom. II. p. 484. from ancient Deeds, Evidences, and Records, wherein Estates are given, setled, or int [...]il­ed upon Clergymen and their Wives, and Heirs lawfully begotten of their Wives; or wherein they together with their Wives sell Estats [...] that the use of Marriage was yet retained by the Clergy of England in the middle of th [...] 14th Age.

We might perhaps carry yet much farther the continu­ance of the Marriage of the Clergy in the Western Church, and that not only to the Reformation, but even to this day. For many of the more sober Clergy of the Church of Rome finding they could not cont [...]in without the use of Marriage, and the Church permitting to them, or conniving at the use of Concubines, have, under colour of keeping Concubines, secretly married wives, and thereby both satisfied their own consciences, and a­voided the censures of the Church. Or if they either could not or dared not [...]se the Ceremonies of the Church [Page 162] in their contract of Marriage; yet at least they obliged themselves and pledged their faith to their Con [...]ubincs never to forsake them, and always to be true to their Bed, receiving the same assurance from them. By this reci­procal Promise a true and perfect Marriage is formed in the sight of God, although the publick Ceremonies of the Church do not intervene. So St. Augustin De bono conjug., Ifidote Apud Gra­tian. Dist 34. c. 5. and Gratian Dist. 34. c. 5. plainly determine: and therefore such Concubines are expresly allowed by the first Council of Toledo Con. 17. in the year 400. and Justinian Novell. 18., and were per­mitted to Christians, till forbidden by Eeo the Philoso­pher Novell 89.. Now that both these cases of Marriage were continued down in the Church of Rome, we are assured by Alvarus Pelagius De Planct [...] Eccl. l. 2. art. 53., who complained to Pope John XXII. that many Priests, and other persons in holy Or­ders, especially in Spain, Asturia, Gallieia, and other places, publickly, and sometimes by publick Writing, promised and swore to Women, chiefly those who were well descended, that they would never put them away; and gave them Joynt [...]res of the Goods and Possessions of the Church; and sometimes pub­lickly married them, in presence of their Kindred and Friends, with a solemn Banquet, as if they were their lawful Wives. About the year 1240. Otho, the Pope's Legate, coming into England, published his Constitutions for the Govern­ment of this Church. Among them one Constit. 5. is particu­larly directed against the [...] Marriage of the Clergy. After the Reformation Cassander Optimi qui­que ac religio­fissimi sacerdo­tes, Consult. art. 23. relateth, that all the best and most religious Priests, perceiving their in­firmity, and [...]etesting the fou [...]ess of Formeation, If they dare not publickly, at least privately, enter into Marriage. Thus we find Marriage yet retained by the better and more reli­gious part of the Roman Clergy. But then what shall we say of that Church, which so far alloweth Concubina­cy, that, for the sake of it, she connives at the violation of her so much admired Celibacy; and to whom a cha [...]e Marriage of the Clergy can recommend it self under no other name, than that of Fornication.

Thus have we brought down the History of the Impo­sition of Celibacy, to its Final Period, I mean the Uni­versal [Page 163] Reception of it in the Western Church, towards the end of the Fourteenth Age: when the Marriage of the Clergy fell from a general into a total disuse, and was thenceforth compelled to take refuge in the name and disgrace of Fornication. What a deluge of Lusts and Impurities overflowed the Christian World, when Celibacy became triumphant, and Marriage was exploded, may easily be imagined. Such deplorable Scandals of the Church I should willingly pass under silence and not pro­voke the anger of our Adversaries, by the rehearsal of so sad a truth, if the nature of my design did not require me to say somewhat of it, which yet I will propose with all modesty and brevity. I will not here upbraid to our Adversaries the noted Tragedy of Pope Gregory's Fish­ponds, although related by Haldericus Epist. ad Nicol. Pont. more than 800 years since: nor the more famous story of Pope Joan, although attested by more than twenty eight Historians Vid. God­vinum Catal. Cardinal. Angl. before the Reformation: I will not object to them the Incredible Bestialities and Horrible Lusts of the Popes of the Tenth Age, nor insist upon the Infamous Impurities of private Churchmen, I will produce only a few Gene­ral Testimonies of the Writers of latter times. Alvarus Pelagius, Bishop of Silva in Portugal, in the beginning of the Fourteenth Age, wisheth De Planctu Eccl. l. 2. art. 27., that the Glergy had never vowed Chastity, especially the Clergy of Spain, wherein the Sons of the Laity were not much more numerous than the Sons of the Clergy. About the same time Durandus, junior De modo celebr. Conc. Gen. par. 2. rubr. 10. Bishop of Mimatum in France, proposing means for the reformation of the Church, adviseth, among other things, that it were ordered, that Publick Stews might not be kept near great Churches, nor in the Court of Rome next to the Palace of the Pope, nor in other Places near the Houses of Bishops. In the next Age Gerson De Vitâ spirit. anim [...]e. Lect. 4. Cor. 14. Prop. 3. affirms, that either incontinent Priests must be tolerated, or none can be had; and there­fore that it were more convenient for the Church, that Concubines should be publickly permitted to the Clergy, than that the L [...]ity should be forbidden to hear the Masses of incontinent Priests. ( Glemangis De corrupt. Ecll. statu. p. 15. §. [...]. relates, that in many Diocesses, the Priests, giving a set and determinate price [Page 164] to their Bishops, publickly and openly kept Concubines. This scandal of selling Licenses of Concubinacy to the Clergy proceeded so far, that in Germany the Bishops and their Officers not only granted those Licences for a cer­tain sum of money, to all who asked them; but also forced those Clergy-men to take them, who neither desi­red no [...] intended to make use of them. In Switzerland it Sleidan. Com­ment. lib. 3. was the custom in many Cantons in the times of Popery, that whensoever they received a new Pastour, they obli­ged him to take a Concubine, that he might not attempt the chastity of Virgins and Matrons.

The same reason induced the Senate of Rome, when Pius V. intended to put down the publick Stews, to inter­cede Thuanus Hist. lib. 39. and petition for the continuation of them, as well to gratifie the Clergy who incited them, as to prevent greater scandals; justly fearing the honour of their Wives and Daughters, if the Lust of the unmarried Clergy were di­verted from the wonted channel. To say no more, the Adulteries, Fornications, Sodomies, and Bestialities, disco­vered in our Monasteries at their dissolution, are an evi­dent demonstration of this sad truth. The Author of O­nus Ecclesi [...], who was John Suffragan Bishop of Saltzburg, and writ just before the Reformation, saith, Cap. 21. There were very few Gurates in Germany, who did not wallow in the filth of Conoubinacy; and that Sunt pro­ptala, ut ipsa loca Veheris. cap. 22. The Nunneries in his time were as publickly prostituted as the common Stews. And lest we should imagin the Romish Clergy to have observed a greater Purity since the Reformation, than before, the Fornications and Incest of Paul III. the So [...]omies of Juli­us III. and incestuous Commerce of Innocent X. with his Brothers Wife Olimpia, are yet fresh in the memory of all men; of the latter of which, Abbot Gualdi Life of Donna O­limpia. confes­feth, that the Histories of former Ages cannot produce a scandal so enormous, or an unlawful love so immode­rate; which made him for her sake to forfeit both the Reputation of his Person, and the Honour of the Church. I will produce but one Example more, but that related by the Doctors of the Sorbon, Moral Practice of the Jesuits. and consequently un­deniable to our Adversaries. In a Visitation made in the [Page 165] year 1619. by the Bishop of Serzane, at the command of Pope Paul V. it was found that among the Ecclesiasticks of three large Provinces, Stiria, Carinthia, and Carniola, (who had all been bred up under the severe Discipline of the Jesuits) there were found only six Priests, who kept not Concubines. Nor did the imposition of Celibacy in­fect only the Morals of the Roman Clergy, but also cor­rupted their judgment; and by that means introduced far greater scandals into the Church: when Concubi­nacy and other unnatural Lusts being become universal, they employed their Wits to prevent their own shame, by proving those Villanies not to be unlawful. For to pass by an Encomium or Apology of Sodomy, published by John Casa Archbishop of Beneventum, and Legate of the Pope; to omit the Complaint of Gualter Mapes, Hanc mulieribus proponit maximam; Quòd nulla salvabitur ad horam ultima [...], C [...]lorum nec i [...]gredi poterit januam, Ni de corpore d [...]t suo decimam. Apocalypsis Gollae Pontif. That the Priests insinuated into silly wo­men a fear of damnation, if they denied their Embraces to them: it cannot be denied that many latter Casuists of the Church of Rome have asserted, That Fornication committed only for the sake of Health, or e­vacuation of an extimulant Humour, is not unlawful: and that most of them teach, that simple Fornication is no deadly sin. I will alledge only one instance of these scandalous Maxims, but that proceeding from the Head of the Romish Church, and related by Wesselus Apud Wol­fium Lect. Me­morab. Cent. 1 [...]. p. 836. Fiat, ut peti­tur. of Gro­ningen a learned and pious Divine of that Church. Pope Sixtus IV. out of the fulness of Apostolick power, gave a License to the whole Family of the Cardinal of St. Lucia, to commit Sodomy in the three hotter months of the year, with this clause: Let it be done, as it is desired.

The sense and scandal of so many Lusts, Impurities, and Bestialities, daily committed by the unmarried Clergy, induced many great and learned men of the Church of Rome, to advise the abrogation of the Laws of Celibacy, and permission of Marriage to the Clergy. Panormitan Credo pr [...] bono & falute animarum quòd esset hoc salu­bre statutum. In cap. cum o­lim de Cler. coning. giveth his opinion in these words: It is enquired whether the present Church can enact, that a Clergy-man may contract [Page 166] Marriage, as the Greeks do. I answer, It may. And I do not only believe that the Church hath a power of decreeing this; but I also believe, that this would be a wholsom Consti­tution for the good and salvation of Souls. Pope Pius II. con­fessed, Platina in Vitâ ejus. That there were indeed former causes why Mar­riage should be taken from the Clergy, but now much greater causes why it ought to be restored. Polydor Vergil delivers his Judgment thus: Illud dix [...]rim tantum ab suisse, &c.—proinde forsitan tam è republicâ Christianâ quàm ex ordinis usu esset; ut tandem à li­quando jus publici Matrimonii Sacerdotibus restitueretur, &c. De Invent. rer. lib. 5. cap 4. This I will affirm, That this enforced Chastity is so far from surpassing conjugal Chastity, that even the guilt of no crime ever brought greater disgrace to the Holy Order, greater damage to Religion, or greater grief to all good men, than the stain of the Clergies Lust. Wherefore it would perhaps be the interest as well of Christianity as of the Holy Order, that at last the Right of publick Marriage were restored to the Clergy; which they might rather chastly pursue without Infamy, than defile themselves by such brutal Lusts. Erasmus hath the like words: Si quis perpendat horum temporum sta­tum, quotam hominum portionem Monachorum greges occupent, &c. Annotat. in Ep. 1. ad Tim. cap. 3. If any consider the state of these times, how great a part of Mankind the multitudes of Monks take up, how great a part the Colledges of Priests and Clergy­men; and then consider how few, out of so great a number, truly preserve Chastity of Life, with how great scandal most of them are openly incestuous and incontinent, into what kinds of Lusts innumerable of them degenerate: he will perhaps con­clude it to be more convenient, that those who do not contain, may have the freedom of publick Marriage, which they may purely and chastly, without infamy, maintain, rather than that they should commit unhappy and shameful Lusts. The World hath now many unmarried men, but few chast; although nei­ther is he chast, who useth not the company of a woman, because it is forbidden. But I very much fear, that the Revenues of the Church makes more Clergy-men at this day Eunuchs, than Piety doth: while we are afraid lest our Possessions should be intercepted by Wife and Children, or at least nothing added to [Page 167] them by married Clergy. Cassan­der Quare si unquam tempus fuit antique al [...]uj [...]s consuetudinis immutandae; cortè haec tempora hujus, quamvis prisci, moris immuta­tionem aliquam essiagitare videntur. Consult. art. 23. saith, That if ever there was a time to change any old Cu­stom, certainly these times seem to require some alteration of this, how­ever antient, Custom. Lastly, all Princes and States before the Council of Trent, in their Petitions and Remonstrances for Reformation of the Church, never omitted to require the permission of Mar­riage to be restored to the Clergy. In the time of the Council, and after the conclusion of it, Ferdiand II. and Maximilian II. the Emperours, Sigismund Augustus King of Poland, Albertus Duke of Bavaria, and other Princes, earnestly desired the same thing by their Embassadours. But that Council too well knew the interests of the Church of Rome, to grant a Petition of that nature. Ra­ther by defining that Marriage contracted after a Vow of Continence, is neither lawful nor valid, they have per­haps put the case beyond all remedy, and taken from the Church all possibility of ever restoring Marriage to the Clergy. For if Marriage after a Vow be in it self unlaw­ful, the greatest Authority upon Earth cannot dispense with it, nor permit Marriage to the Clergy, who have already vowed Continence.

If in the precedent Discourse I have said any thing in­jurious to the honour of true Virginity, I here retract it, and profess that a great veneration is due to that state of life, when a matter of choice, not of force, and that both in the entrance into it, and continuance of it; when un­dertaken for the increase of Piety, and advancement of divine Glory, not for any secular ends and advantages; when taken up by those who have the Gift of Conti­nence, not affected by such as cannot contain. We be­lieve there is somewhat in those words of our Saviour, He that is able to receive it, let him receive it. And with Clemens Alexandrinus, [...]. Strom. l. 3. in initio. We reverence the happiness of the [Page 168] Gift of Continence in those to whom it is bestowed by God; we admire Monogamy, and the decency of one Marriage: yet assert, that we ought to indulge with, and bear the burdens of others, lest he who thinks he standeth firmly, should fall. We dislike not the Virginity of the Romish Clergy, but slight the pretence, and condemn the imposition of it. Expe­rience demonstrates the one to be false, and Reason the other to be unlawful. We affect not the name, but the purity of Virginity; and while we impose Celibacy up­on none, nor deny Marriage to any, we promote a volun­tary Continence in many, and secure a real Chastity in all, of the Clergy.