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-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.
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
deficiency otherwise be allayed was by reason of our ordinary weakness not of our absolute necessity to whom he in some times indulged a facile changing also of those to whome men were joyned but it likewise not for their necessity but for the hardness of their hearts Matt. 19.8 Whereas now it is a fruit of the Evangelical perfection that husbands by mutual consent do separate from their wives without taking others for the Kingdom of God Lu. 18.29 compared 28. always secure of the gift of continency from God if resolute in their endeavours of preserving it Else this would be an act most unlawful which our Saviour makes so heroical and promiseth to it so great a reward It seems therefore that God this gift being so advantageous to his service § 13 see parag 1. and so common see par 7. not denied upon repentance and prayer c to many grievous sinners after long contrary habits without their using the remedy of marriage that God I say denies not this power to any at all who first have power over their own will decree and stand stedfast in their heart 1 Cor. 7.37 resolutely undertake and offer this their singleness to God for such an end as is so much approved by him and then practise also the means conducing to it which are observed as abstinency for example naturally to cure the burnings of lust even in brute beasts § 14 Which thing to confirm yet further both from the Scriptures and from the primitive times of the Church first had God denied this gift to any 1. it seems that St. Paul could not justly have blamed the widdows when some of them young for remarrying whose marriage he saith was out of wantonness and that they had damnation for having cast off their first faith and promise i. e. of living single and attending wholly to those charitable duties c. which they had made to Christ and the Church but if God had not given them the power of observing their vow the Apostle should have allowed their remarrying and blamed their vowing who ordered also for the future that such young women should no more be admitted to such vows or duties for publick service of the Church not because they could not but ordinarily would not abstain § 15 2. Neither would our Saviour have recommended the like resolution and attempt in those who he saith made themselves Eunuchs for the Kingdom of Heaven Matt. 19.12 if he would not also be assistant to them with his grace as he approved their purpose and design to which also they were allured by his Encomiums of that happier condition Nor would he have and that in the general commended those who leave the pleasures of marriage for the Kingdom of God's sake that is for the better serving God in any way see 1 Cor. 7.34 35. or those who have forsaken their wives i. e. by mutual consent 1 Cor. 7.4 5. see Lu. 18.29 compared with Matt. 19.29 There is none that hath left or every one that hath forsaken wife c. who shall not receive c. Forsaken i. e. as the Apostles did in local separation from them see Matt. 19.27 unless continency were a gift which all pious purposes using the means for conserving it and intending God's glory in it may presume upon Tho where we do not subdue our lust S. Paul as much prohibits any long separation as our Saviour here encourageth it See 1 Cor. 7.5 § 16 3. Neither would S. Paul have approved the same resolution in those who could master so far their own will 1 Cor. 7.37 who doubtless what he praiseth in the father who yet might be necessitated to go against his will by the virgin's incontinacibility he would much more have approved in the virgin Neither is that need ver 36. necessity absolute as appears by what follows do what he will the other doing better § 17 4. The prohibition likewise in the primitive times tho not in all Churches that no married person might be admitted to sacred Orders or that every one upon these received must separate from his wife yet that none single when entring into holy Orders I mean of Priesthood might afterward marry shews the perswasion of Antiquity to be either that continency was denied to none using the means or else that it being a special gift only to some every one before taking Orders or making a Vow might certainly know not only whether he had the gift for the present but whether he might also persevere therein to his death forasmuch as concerned God the Doner thereof But here it is unintelligible how such assurance can arise only to some particular persons nor can any direct how such a special gift not only for the present but the future also may be discerned Meanwhile concerning the prohibitions and practice of Antiquity see and compare together Can. Apostol 27. Conc. Chalcedon can 13.15 Constantinop in Trullo can 6.12 13. compared Can. Apost 6 In brief you will find the issue to be much-what to this purpose That no Presbyter may marry after his taking Orders nor Bishop after his Consecration That of those who being before married are admitted afterward into holy Orders some Churches required that they should ever after by mutual consent which was known before Orders conferr'd abstain from their wives as the roman-Roman-Church Some that Bishops only should abstain universally and simple Presbyters only abstain then when they were to officiate as the Greek Church See likewise Provincial Councils celebrated about the time of the Nicene Council and approved afterwards by the Constant Conc. in Trullo can 2. Ancyran Conc. can 10. Neocaesar can 1 c § 18 But I think it best for saving the labour of seeking to set you down some of them which you will find so clear as that I think nothing can be replied to them Apostol Canon 27. In nuptiis autem qui ad Clerum evecti sunt Praecipimus ut sivoluerint uxores accipiant sed lectores cantoresque tantummodo not the higher Orders of Bishop Presbyter Deacon c. Conc. Ancyranum before the first Council of Nice Can. 10. Diaconi quicunque cum ordinantur si in ipsa ordinatione protestati sunt dicentes velle se habere uxores nâ—â— posse se continere where posse is taken as expounded § 24. hi postea si ad nuptias venerint maneant in ministerio propterea quod his Episcopus licentiam dederit Quicunque sane tacuerunt susceperunt manus impositionem professi continentiam si postea ad nuptias venerint a ministerio cessare debebunt But note that si protestati sunt is here said of Deacons only Conc. Naeocaesar before Nice câ—n 1. Presbyter si uxorem duxerit ab ordine suo illum deponi debere Conc. Nicaenum can 3. Omnibus modis interdixit sancta Synodus neque Episcopo neque Presbytero c. omnino licere habere secum mulierem extraneam nisi forte sit mater aut soror aut