est consequendo coelesti regno Here is Priests after their consecration or others vowing Virginity for ever after denied marriage This the modern law of the Greek Church and if the prohibiting them afterward makes them the more who intend Priesthood to take wives before and so many of the Greek Clergy de facto are married to enjoy this liberty more than for necessity yet this is an abuse no ways countenanced by their Ecclesiastical Canons Much less may we imagin that they are obliged by any such law ne periculo fornicandi se exponant to take wives before they may enter into this Holy profession so contrary both to the Apostle's Counsel 1 Cor. 7. and the Church'es former Injunctions when-as even all secular imployments have at least the liberty of a single life and the Reformed themselves so great friends to marriage yet impose no such yoke upon their Clergy nor hath any that I know of entertained such a fancy save Vigilantius Out of the Canons then recited above you may observe 1. That the Greek Church who acknowledg and practise these Canons in this point to this day allow indeed the use of their wives except when they officiate but what if they officiate every day as many Priests do to Priests married before Ordination but not so to Bishops but permit not that any Ordained unmarried may afterward marry at all 2ly Again That those married persons who were to be made Presbyters in the Roman Church and Bishops in the Oriental might not separate from their wives without consent received from the wives before such Ordination or Consecration of them 3ly That such continency was annexed to Holy Orders only by Ecclesiastical Constitution and was rather Lex Continentiae than Votum which therefore hath bin capable of many dispensations and the Canons about it somewhat differing and the Clergy more restrained by some of them than by others But this seems to be a received ground amongst them all in those primitive times that Continency is a general gift at least in potentia remota i.e. which is by God denied to none using the means and rightly preparing himself for it c. Els how could they prudently make such laws strictly prohibiting marriage for such a number of men involving also the Deacons and Subdeacons upon penalty of degradation from their office which laws you see the Reformed because they hold continency a particular gift only possible to some generally decry How could they allow of a separation by consent once given of a man and his wife for ever required in the Roman Church of all in the Eastern of Bishops notwithstanding what the Apostle saith 1 Cor. 7.5 unless you will say that the church-Church-Officers in time of Ordination could discern who had this gift who not Or that there was no party coming to be ordained or consenting to such a separation but was able to discern it in himself and that not only for the present but always for the future and likewise that none would present himself that knew he had it not § 20 Neither doth the Apostle's declaring from the Spirit 1 Tim. 4.1 c. that in the latter times there should arise Apostates c forbidding to marry and commanding to abstain from meats any way prejudice these injunctions and practices of ancient Church nor consequently of the latter times herein following only her example 1. Because the Apostle by opposing to such error that every creature and ordinance of God is good according to Gen. 1.31 and 2.23 24. and therefore being sanctified first by the word of God and prayer may lawfully be used see 1 Tim. 4.3 4 5. sheweth that he means such Apostates as abstain from or prohibit marriage and meats as in themselves unlawful and unclean and contaminating Which thing can neither be objected to the ancient nor modern Church-practice using abstinence from some meats for the chastisement of the body not for any uncleaness in the food and not forbidding marriage to any single person absolutely but only upon his voluntary undertaking such an employment with which they imagin a married condition not so well to sute In which case if necessary abstinence from marriage be a fault the Apostle himself may seem to comply with it in those expressions of his 1 Tim. 5.11.12 2ly Because experience hath manifested the Apostle's prophecy to have bin most eminently fulfilled in other persons of these latter times whom these Fathers even in these points most vehemently resisted affirming downright all marriage especially with reference to procreation of children therefore the married were advised by them in such manner to use their wives as to avoid this see S. Aust de moribus Manich. 18. c. to be unlawful and the work or design of the Devil as likewise flesh-diet to be unclean and defiling Animata abominantes interdicunt saith Epiphanius haer 47. non continentioe gratia neque honestoe vitae sed ob timorem imaginations ut non contaminentur ab animatorum esu Vino vero omnino non utuntur Diabolicum esse dicentes And S. Austin contra Faust 30. l. 5. c. Ipsam creaturam immundam dicitis quod carnes Diabolus operetur faeoulentioâ—e materia mali And de haeres 46. c. Non vescuntur carnibus tanquam de mortuis vel occisis fugerit divina substantia Vinum non bibunt dicentes fel esse principum tenebrarum Such were some of the Gnosticks Encratites Montanists Marcionites and in the last place the Manichees being as it were the last extract and quintessence of all those former gross errors not a little potent even in S. Austin's times who not holding all things to have bin created by the same good God but this lower world by an evil principle or by the Prince of darkness as they call him affirm in the begetting of a man that the Soul which they account to be a part of the substance of God himself becomes fettered and imprisoned in the walls or handy-work of the devil i.e. the body from which it is again released only by death therefore was marriage occasioning such imprisonment forborn by all their elect and tho this permitted to their auditors yet saith Austin it was non dicences non esse peccatum sed peccantibus veniam largientes propterea quod illis necessaria ministrabant con Faust. Man 30. l. Likewise that the same part of God was continually more defiled and enclosed by such and such gross nourishments of the body And when of such errors they were accused by the Fathers it was ordinary with them to recriminate the Orthodox with the same things both for their frequent abstinencies from flesh and some other fruits and for their to some persons at least recommending virginity who in this matter were answered by them after the same manner as the Protestants objecting the same things are now by the Church of Rome See concerning this the contest between Faustus the Manichee and S. Austin cont Faust Manich. 30. l.
avia aut amita vel matertera In his namque solis personis harum similibus omnis quae ex mulieribus est suspicio declinatur Whereas might they have entertained a wife neither would there have bin cause of such suspicion nor would it have bin reasonable nor safe to deprive their wives of all Women-attendance or Society As for the story of Paphnutius in this Council which makes so great a noise amongst us so that this instance stands for a bulwark against all the other evidence in this point of Antiquity see Calvin Institut 4. l. 12. c. 26. and generally all our writers this is the All of it That motion being made by some in the Council that the married Presbytery i. e. such as were married before made Presbyters should after their Ordination be separated from their wives which separation the Greek Church allows not to this day and of which the 6th of those called Canons Apostolical saith thus notwithstanding that the same Canons prohibit marriage after Ordination except to Lectores Cantores Episcopus aut Presbyter uxorem propriam nequaquam sub obtentu religionis abjiciant Some conceive this to be meant * without her consent others * not for cohabitation but for maintenance only Si vero rejecerit excommunicetur And Concil Gangrense because some held it unlawful to receive the Communion from a Presbyter formerly married was necessitated to make this Canon 4. Quicunque discernit a Presbytero qui uxorem habuit here t is habuit not habet quod non oporteat eo ministrante de oblatione percipere Anathema sit That such a motion being made I say Paphnutius a Reverend Bishop and a Confessor tho never married withstood it saying Grave jugum c. neque a singulorum uxoribus fortasse eam castimoniae normam posse servari But now mark what follows Illud satis esse ut qui in Clerum ante ascripti erant quam duxissent uxores hi secundum veterem Ecclesiae Traditionem deinceps a nuptiis se abstinerent non tamen quenquam ab illa quam jampridem cum laicus erat uxorem duxisset sejungi debere The story is in Socrates Eccl. Histor. 1. l. 8. c. and in others from him Sozomen 1. l. 22. c. Judg now what cause there is to urge Paphnutius for the marrying of the Clergy after H. Orders received by them when as single I go on Conc. Romanum under Silvester in the time also of Constantine the Great Can. 7. Nullum autem Subdiaconorum ad nuptias transire praecipimus ne aliquam praevaricationem sumpserit Elibertin Concil about the same time in Spain Can. 33. Placuit in totum prohibere Episcopis Presbyteris Diaconis ac Subdiaconis positis in ministerio abstinere se a conjugibus suis non generare silios Quod quicunque fecerit ab honore Clericatus exterminetur Which Canon plainly shews That at that time in the Western tho not in the Eastern Churches not only marriage after Holy Orders was forborn but abstinence from their wives by those who were married before was commonly practised since he who should do the contrary was so highly punished Conc. Arelatense secundum under the same Silvester Can. 2. Assumi aliquem in Sacerdotium in vinculo conjugii constitutum nisi fuerit praemissa conversio non oportet Two Councils in which S. Austin was present * 1. Conc. Carthag 2. Can. 2. Placuit condecet sacro-sanctos Antistites Dei Sacerdotes necnon Levitas i. e. Deacons c continentes esse in omnibus c. ut quod Apostoli docuerunt ipsa servavit antiquitas nos quoque custodiamus Ab universis Episcopis dictum est omnibus placet ut Episcopi Presbyteri c pudicitiae custodes etiam ab uxoribus se abstineant Hence S. Austin Confess 10. l. 30. c. speaking of his continency before obliged by Priesthood to it saith Et quoniam dedisti factum est antequam dispensator Sacramenti tui fierem And * 2. Conc. Africanum cap. 37. Praeterea cum de quorundam Clericorum quamvis erga uxores proprias incontinentia referretur placuit Episcopos Presbyteros Diaconos secundum priora statuta etiam ab uxoribus continere Quod nisi fecerint ab Ecclesiastico removeantur officio Caeteros autem Clericos ad hoc non cogi sed secundum uniuscujusque Ecclesiae consuetudinâ—m observari debere These were before the third General Council Add to these the fourth General Council of Chalcedon Can. 13. Quoniam in quibusdam provinciis concessum est Psalmistis Lectoribus se Apost Can. 27. quoted before uxores ducere constituit sancta Synodus prorsus cuiquam ex his non licere alterius sectae accipere uxorem c. Where t is plain that other Clergy besides Psalmists and Readers might not marry at all § 19 Hitherto I have kept within the times of the first four General Councils to which we promise much conformity I will joyn to these a Canon or two in Constantinopol Conc. in Trullo reckoned by the Eastern Church for a part of the sixth General Council tho it was not consented to by the Roman Patriarch Can. 6. Quoniam in Apostolicis Canonibus dictumest corâ—m qui non duct ae uxore in Clerum promoventur solum lectores cantores uxorem posse ducere nos hoc servantes decernimus ut deinceps nulli penitus Hypodiacono vel Diacono vel Presbytero post sui Ordinationem conjugium centrahere liceat c. Canon 12. Jubet omnino Antistites i. e. Bishops postquam sunt ordinati a propriis uxoribus secedere and here they take notice of the 6th Apostol Canon quoted before in the last § and yet advance beyond it quoniam Apostoli say they cum sides inciperet ad fidelium imbecillitatem se magis demittebant c. Can. 13. decernunt Presbyteros a prioribus suis legitimis uxoribus non separari sed eo tempore quo sacrificant expellentes suas uxores pietatis praetextu excommunicandos And this say they notwithstanding the contrary custom of the Roman Church Thus the Council in Trullo And ever since have the same laws and customs bin preserved in the Eastern Churches as we may see in the Answer of Jeremias Patriarch of Constantinople in Epilogo to the Reformed soliciting his approbation of their innovation in this matter and remembring him of the Apostle's rule Melius est nubere quam uri and his order Oportet Episcopum esse unius uxoris virum to which he replies this Proinde nos illis sacerdotibus qui in virginitate persistere non possunt priusquam tamen consecrentur Sacerdotes i. e. futuri siant c. Ille autem Sacerdos entring into Orders or others vowing Virginity qui semel virginitatem professus est virgo permaneat nec jam illi ullam amplius licentiam post votum susceptum nubendi damus Nemo enim mittens manum ad aratrum respiciens retro idoneus
This in the copies approved by Archbishop Vsher and Dr. Hammond Tertullian and S. Cyprian before A. D. 300 writ Tracts one de velandis virginibus i.e. sacris That they should cover their faces with veils c. where he mentions votum continentiae viderit ipsum continentiae votum p. 200. and distinguisheth between virgines hominum and virgines Dei Ambiunt virgines hominum adversus virgines Dei c. p. 193. and near the end he saith to such Non mentiris nuptam Nupsisti enim Christo illi tradidisti carnem tuam illi sponsasti maturitatem tuam c. And of those who should offer to pull off this veil he saith O sacrilegae manus quae dicatum Deo habitum detrahere potuerunt c. The other de disciplina habitu virginum i.e. sacrarum of whom he saith there Quae se Christo dicaverunt a carnali concupiscentia recedentes tam carne quam mente se Deo voverunt and that they were flos Ecclesiastici germinis c gaudere per illas atque in illis largiter florere Ecclesiae matris gloriosam foecunditatem and that those of them who afterward yeild to lust are adulterae Christi And see his Epistle to Pomponius about some that lived unchastly after that exfide se Christo dicaverant sanctitati suaese destinarant propter regna coeborum se castraverant c. To these that you may know that anciently also those who lived Monastick lives made vows thereof the contrary of which some endeavour to perswade us I wil add only two other testimonies one out of S. Basil praesat constitut Monast Nuptias velut compedes fugit vitam suam Deo consecrat castitatem profitetur ut neque facultas ipsi sit conversionis ad nuptias the other out of S. Austin in Psalm 75. upon Vovete reddite Domino Deo nostro Alii virginitatem ipsam ab ineunte aetate vovent c. isti voverunt plurimum Alius vovet relinquere omnia sua distribuendo pauperibus ire in communem vitam in societatem sanctorum magnum votum vovit Nescio quae castimonialis nubere voluit Aliquid mali voluit mali plane Quare Quia jam voveâ—at Domino Quid enim dixit de talibus Apostolus Paulus Cum dicat viduas adolescentulas nubere si velint Quid autem ait de quibusdam quae voverunt non reddiderunt habentes inquit damnationem quia jam fidem irritam fecerunt Nemo ergo positus in Monasterio Frater dicat Recedo de Monasterio Neque enim soli qui sunt in Monasterio perventuri sunt in regnum coelorum Respondetur ei sed illi non voverunt tu vovisti And concerning the married by consent vowing continency and obligation afterward for ever to observe it see S. Austin's 199 Epistle to Ecdicia The argument of which Epistle I will transcribe you Mulier quaedam i. e. this Ecdicia inscio marito susceperat votum Continentiae Post tamen maritus assensus est continenter cum ea vixit non sinens tamen ut Monachae vestem sumeret Tandem inscio marito facultates omnes duobus Monachis veluti pauperibus erogavit cum haberet filium puerum ex eodem viro Maritus suspicans eos Monachos esse ex eorum numero qui penetrant praedantur domos alienas resiliit a proposito coepit maechari Now in this Epistle St. Austin blames Ecdicia indeed for all the things above named which she had done without the consent of her husband commanding her to submit and ask his pardon c. but as to the vow of Continency to which they had once both consented notwithstanding his fornicating he holds them both for ever obliged to it and exhorts her at least to perseverance therein Quod enim saith he Deo pâ—riconsensu ambo voveratis perseveranter usque in finem reddere ambo debuistis a quo proposito si lapsus est ille tu saltem constantissime persevera Thus He. As for other quotations of Fathers I refer you to the Controvertists instead of which I will set you down the confessions concerning them of Calvin Instit 4. l. 12. c. 27. s. Secuta sunt deinde tempora he means after the Conc. Nicen. quibus invaluit nimis superstitiosa coelibatus admiratio c. Haec quia videbantur reverentiam Socerdotio conciliare magno plausu etiam antiquitus recepta esse fateor Now the reason why he censures not the times till after Nice is the story of Paphnutius from which he gathers those former times Conjugium in Sacerdotio tolerasse not observing or concealing that it was only Conjugium contracted before Ordination Himself mean-while condemning the Canons which these times approved quibus vetitum est ne matrimonium contraherent qui pervenissent ad sacerdotii gradum Sect. 27. Sect. 29.28 Nulla omnino conditione dandum esse locum iis Canonibus censeo qui vinculum Coelibatus Ecclesiastico ordini injiciunt Concerning vows of single life 13. c. 17. § Hoc inquiunt ab ultima memoria fuit observatum ut se alligarent continentiae voto qui totos se Domino dicare vellent His Answer Fateor â—erre antiquitus quoque receptum fuisse hum morem sed eam aetatem sic ab omni vitio liberam fuisse non concedo ut pro regula habendum sit quicquid tunc factum est And the confession of Pet. Martyr de Coelibatu Votis Vt quod verum est fateamur cos in hac causa habemus iniquiores Statim enim ab Apostolorum temporibus nimium tribui coeptum est Coelibatui And of St. Austin he saith Iste vir Dei scribit speaking of Vows ut homo deceptus Now the objections which are made by the opposers of the law of Celibacy for those entring into Holy Orders or of vows of Celibacy for other persons out of the Canons of Councils or the writings of the Fathers are not against any thing here affirmed but either concerning some who having wives before Ordination were not obliged afterward to abstain from them allowed still by the Greek Church except to Bishops only * or concerning marriages contracted after Ordination or Vows that such are not irrita of which opinion S. Austin is clearly De bono Viduitatis c. 8 9 c. a thing granted by all after only simple vows and after solemn disputed still whether such persons who have so solemnly delivered and made over themselves in a particular espousal to God are made illegitimate for any Secular marriage afterward jure Divino or only jure Ecclesiastico See Bell. de Monach. 2. l. 34. c. sect Respond convenit For the Church hath always claimed much power as being not restrained by the Levitical law qua talis but only by that of Nature nor prescribed any thing by Christ in ordering the matters of marriage and in hindering some persons from marrying even not to making the marriage illicitum to be done but irritum