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 § 13 It seems therefore that God this gift being so advantageous to his service 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 be 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 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. Neocâ—sar 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 si voluerint 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—c posse se continere where posse is taken as expounded § 24. hi postea si ad nuptias venerint maneant in ministerio propterea quod his Ep scopus 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 depom debere Conc. Nicaenum can 3. Omnibus modis interdixit sancta Synods neque Episcopo neque Presbytero c. omnino licere habere secum mulicrem extraneam nisi forte sit mater aut soror aut avia aut
amita vel matertera In his namque solis personts 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 exeommunicetur 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 ministraâ—te 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 fort asse eam castimonioe normam posse servari But now mark what follows Illud satis esse ut qui iâ—â— 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 debâ—re 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 filios 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 constitucum nisi fuâ—rit 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 abstimeant Hence S. Austin Confess 10. l. 30. c. speaking of his continency before obliged by Priesthood to it saith Et quoniam dedisti factum â—st 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 prior a statuta etiam ab uxoribus continere Quod nisi fecerint ab Ecclesiastico removeantur officio Caeteros autem Cleri os ad hoc non cogi sed secundum uniuscujusque Ecclesiae consuetudin 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 Psalmiste 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 Trulio 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 dictum eâ—t eorâ—m qui non duct a 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 incipâ—ret ad sidelium 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 customs of the Roman â—hurch 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 fiant 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 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 forâ—icandi 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 Conons 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 contenting 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 â—â—eature and ordinance of God is good according to Gen. 1.31 and 2.23 24. and therefore being sanctified first by the â—ord 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 not 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 continentiae gratia neque honestae vitae sed ob timorem imaginationem ut non contaminentur ab animatorum esu Vino vero omnino non utuntur Diabolicum esse dientes And S. Austin contra Faust 30. l. 5. c. Ipsam creaturam immundam dicitis quod carnes Diabolus operetur faeculentioâ—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 Munichees 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 dicentes 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.