Ductor dubitantium, or, The rule of conscience in all her generall measures serving as a great instrument for the determination of cases of conscience : in four books / by Jeremy Taylor ...

Of the Marriages of Bishops and Priests.

Now concerning this,* 1.1 I shall first consider the purpose and influence of the Rule upon it. For if this be a stone of offence, if this law be di∣rectly and regularly a snare to consciences, it is certain it is an ungodly law, and of no obligation to the subjects of any Church. Now this relying upon experience and being best proved by the event of things, will be suf∣ficiently cleared by the testimony of those wise persons who have observed the evil, and wish'd a remedy by annulling the law.

Aeneas Sylvius,* 1.2 who was afterwards Pope Pius the second, said that the single life of the Clergy was upon good reason at first introduc'd,* 1.3 but that for better reason it ought now to be let alone and taken off. And of the same mind was Panormitan; saying that we are taught by experience that from this law of coelibate not continency but a contrary effect does follow: for the Priests doe not live spiritually, neither are they clean, but are pollu∣ted with unlawfull mixtures to their great sin and shame, whereas it were chastity if it were a society with their own wife. And indeed the scandal was so great, the stories so intolerable, their adulteries so frequent, their lusts so discovered, and the accidents so ridiculous, that the Clergy became the contempt and jest of buffoons and drunkards, and the pity and shame of wise and sober men. And it was a strange thing which in the history of the Council of Trent is told out of Zuinglius,* 1.4 that writing to the Cantons of the Suisses, he made mention of a law or edict made by the magistrates their predecessors, that every Priest should be bound to have his proper Concu∣bine, that he might not ensnare the chastity of honest women; adding, that though it seem'd a ridiculous decree, yet it could not be avoided, unlesse the word Concubine were chang'd into Wife, and the permission before given to unlawfull Concubinate might be given now to lawfull Marriage. And who please to see instances more then enough to verify the infinite scandals given by the unmarried Clergy generally, may be glutted with them in Henry Stephen's apology for Herodotus. * But if he be lesse relied upon, as being a friend to the complaining side,* 1.5 the testimony of Cassander will not so easily be rejected, saying, If ever there was a time for changing of an old custome, certainly these times require it; where all the best and most religious Priests acknowledging their infirmity, and abhorring the turpitude of perpe∣tual fornication, if publickly they dare not, yet privately they marry. And they that did not, did worse: for things (saith he) are come to that passe, that scarce one in an hundred abstains from the fellowship of women. And Al∣varus Pelagius telling sad stories of the incests,* 1.6 uncleannesse and fornications of the Priests and Friers, tells of their gluttony, their idlenesse and ease, their pride and arrogancy, their receiving boys into their houses and cloy∣sters, their conversation with Nunnes and secular women, that it is no wonder there is amongst them so impure a Clergy, that so many good men have complained, and all have been ashamed of it. And therefore

upon this account we may consider the evils which the Church suffers by such a law which permits their Clergy to walk in the fire, and commands them not to be burn'd; or rather not that so much, but they forbid them the use of cold water: I say, we may consider the intolerable scandals, the infinite diminution of spiritual good, the great loss and hazard of souls, when fornicators and adulterers, paederasts and the impurest persons shall by their sermons and common talk dishonour marriage, and at the same time put their polluted hands to the dreadful mysteries, and their tongues to sing hymns to God, and to intercede for the people, who the night before have polluted the temples of the Holy Ghost, and defiled them unto the ground. But I had rather these things were read in the words of other men, and therefore I shall remit the Reader that would see heaps of such sad complaints to the Via Regia of Weicelius, to Andreas Fricius Modrevius de Matrimonio presbyterorum, and in hisa 1.7 Apology,b 1.8 Albertus Pighius,c 1.9 Dominicus Soto, thed 1.10 Centum Gravamina Germaniae,e 1.11 John Ger∣son, f 1.12 Polydore Virgil. Many more might be reckoned, but these are wit∣nesses beyond exception; especially if we adde that the complaints were made by wise and grave men many ages together, and that their complaints were of an old canker in the Church, that could never be cured, because the spiritual Physitians did see, but would not take the cause away. For this thing we find complain'd of by S.g 1.13 Bernard, Rupertus Tuitiensis his contem∣porary, who compares the Clergy of that age to the Nicolaitans, whom God hated for their uncleanness, by the author of the book de singularitate Clericorum attributed to S. Cyprian, byh 1.14 Guilielmus Durandus in his book de modo concilii Generalis celebrandi, S. Hudelrichus Bishop of Auspurg, who wrote against the constrained single life of Priests to Pope Nicholas, i 1.15 Robert Holkot,k 1.16 Nicolaus de Clemangiis,l 1.17 Petrus de Alliaco,m 1.18 Tostatus, Platina in the life of Pope Marcellinus. The scandal must needs be notori∣ous and intolerable when so many persons of the ingaged party, of the Ro∣man Church, whence all this mischief came, durst so openly complain, and wish the annulling of the law of single life to the Clergy, or that the spirit of purity were given to all that minister to a pure religion, the religion of Jesus Christ. But the thing it self was it's own indication; it was a black cloud, and all good men abhorr'd it: for things came to that pass, that the Bishops Officials took annuities from all their parish Priests for licences to keep Concubines; and if they came to a continent person that told them he kept none, they replied, that yet he must pay, because he might if he would; as is reported by divers of their own, particularly by the Centum Gravamina, and by Espencaeus in Epist. ad Titum, cap. 1. I end this with the words of Martinus Peresius, Multis piis visum est ut leges de coelibatu tol∣lerentur propter scandala, Many pious persons have thought it necessary that the law of Priests single life should be taken away by reason of the scandals which it brings. For S. Paul was so curious, even in this very instance, that when he had but commended the ease and advantages of the single life to all Christians in regard of the present necessity,* 1.19 and the affairs of religion under persecution, he presently claps in this caution, I speak not this to lay a snare before you, sed vestro commodo: If any of you find it for your ease or advantage, well and good, but at no hand let it be a snare.

2. But that which next is considerable is,* 1.20 that this law is an intole∣rable burden. So said Paphnutius in the Nicene Council; he call'd it 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉; an excess of exactness: and therefore when some Bi∣shops

would have had it made into a law, he advis'd the contrary; Nolite gravare jugum Ecclesiasticorum, Lay not a load upon the Ecclesiastic state; for marriage is honourable in all men and the bed undefiled: adding, that all can∣not bear that institution of life that is void of all affections; and as he sup∣pos'd, no man should be sav'd in his chastity if husbands were depriv'd of their wives, but that such society was continence and chastity. So Gelasius Cyzice∣nus tells the story.* 1.21 And though Turrian the Jesuite would fain make the world not believe it; yet he hath prevail'd nothing. For it is not onely related by Gelasius, but bya 1.22 Ruffinus, by Socrates, Sozomen, by Aurelius Cas∣siodorus theb 1.23 Author of the tripartite history, byc 1.24 Suidas,d 1.25 Nicephorus Calli∣stus, and bye 1.26 Gratian. And the Synod did obey the Counsel. And therefore the third Canon of that Council cannot be understood by any learned man to be a prohibition to the Clergy to marry: it forbids a Bishop, a Priest or Deacon, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, to have a woman introduc'd, unless she be a Mother, a Sister, or an Aunt, that is one of whom there can be no suspicion. Mulierem extraneam, a woman that is not a domestic; sof 1.27 Ruf∣finus, g 1.28 Fulgentius Ferrandus, and theh 1.29 fourth Council of Toledo expound the word 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. For by that time the opinion of single life had prevail'd both by right and by wrong; for in the three hundred years of danger and persecution many that were under the cross would not intangle themselves with secular relations, but fight naked and expedite: but besides this, the Nicolaitans and the Encratitees and the Manichees and the Montanists and the Gnosticks and the Priscillianists had so disgrac'd marriage, and preten∣ded such purities to be in single life, that it was very easy in that conjunction of affairs to insinuate it into the zeale and affections of some less-discerning persons, who not being content to have marriage left at liberty as it was during the whole 300. years, would needs have it imposed: not discer∣ning in the mean time that amongst those who pretended to the purities of coelibate, some would yet bring women into their houses; so did the Hie∣racitae, as Epiphanius reports of them, pretending they did not marry them, but made them house-keepers:* 1.30 meer Platonics, or, as they call'd them, sisters; but they would kiss and embrace tenderly, and sometimes sleep together, but still would be thought Virgins, as we find in an epistle of S. Cyprian,* 1.31 where he commands such persons to be thrust from the Communion of the faithful, unless they would either marry, or leave the communion of their women (for that gloss had not yet invaded the perswasions of men which since hath prevail'd: Sacerdos-amplectens mu∣lierem, praesumitur benedicere, If a Priest imbrace a woman, it is to be pre∣sum'd he onely gives her a blessing.) And the same S. Chrysostom tells of them in some homily he made against those that brought in such women.* 1.32 They were the companions of their single life; so Budaeus renders the word: but it was usual amongst the Christians of those ages, Virgins to bring in men, and Monks to bring in women: but these were condemn'd by the Council of Nice; who yet did not prevail, but that they who might have wives or husbands had rather have such friends and companions, which ne∣vertheless gave infinite scandal and reproach. S. Gregory Nazianzen speaks of them with no good will or commendations at all,

〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉,

He neither knew how to call them* 1.33, whether married or unmarried, or between both; but at no hand was that kind of life to be commended: but much less was it to be indured that men by new laws should be crush'd to death or danger under an intolerable burden. This was the sense of the Nicene Council. And the same thing was affirmed by Dionysius Bishop of Corinth to Pinytus Bishop of Gnossus, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, the heavy yoke of abstinence ought not to be imposed upon the Brethren. And of this the* 1.34 Chancellor of Paris, a good man and a wise, discourses gravely.

Christ our most wise law-giver hath left rituals or Judicials to their choice of whom he said, He that heareth you, heareth me; but yet so that they should know they are set over others for edification, not for destruction: and that they should judge according to the law of God, which is the general rule for all the professors of Chri∣stian religion under Christ who is their General Abbat; not enlarging it, not restraining it, or making it harder then Christ expressed it when he said his yoke is easy and his burden light. For the Prelates of the Church have not power to bind their subjects to any things which are not delivered in the Evangelical law professed by all Christians; they have no other autho∣rity then Abbats have over their Monks, who, according to the doctrine of S. Thomas and other Doctors, cannot command their Monks any other thing then what they have professed in their Rule.

] Now whether this be a burden or no will need no inquiry, when there is not in all the laws of God so much difficulty as in this very thing; insomuch that without a special gift of God, it is impossible. I need not to prove this tell the sad stories of some Saints who have fallen foully by the sollicitations of their own nature; or how that youth, in which age many enter into holy Orders, is a state of flames and danger; that S. Hierom complains of it in his own particular, Scitis lubricum adolescentiae iter, in quo & ego lapsus sum, he lost his glory of a virgin body when he was young:* 1.35 but I consider that those persons who have undertaken it, and had eminent graces, and were persons of rare and exemplar sanctity, yet could not preserve their virgin without almost destroying their body. Evagrius the Priest us'd to goe into a well in a winters night, S. Bernard into a lake, to cool their burnings: S. Francis us'd to roll his naked body in snows, S. Omar in nettles, S. Benedict upon thorns, S. Martinian upon burning coals, to overthrow the strongest passion by the most violent pains. And were not that law intolerable that should command all Ecclesiastics to doe such things? They must doe these or worse: I speak of those who have not the gift of continence. For to say that all men have it, or may have it if they will labour and pray for it, is to speak against reason and* 1.36 Scripture and experience. It is easier to give our bodies to be burn'd for religion, then to live innocently in the state of per∣petual burning: and supposing those Saints now enumerated did by these violent remedies keep themselves from pollution, yet it is not certain that they took the better part when they chose ustulation before marriage, ex∣pressly against the Apostle, who not onely said, that it is better to marry then to fornicate, but, better to marry then to burn: and that these violen∣ces did cure their burning, is so false, that they doe suppose them afflicted with burnings, and that therefore they were constrain'd to use violent reme∣dies; for those which men invent are infinitely worse then that which God hath appointed; so easy it was by marriage to cure what they found scarce possible to keep from the extremest mischiefs, but not possible to doe in all degrees, by mortifications. And therefore S. Hierom speaking of Virgins

that did not doe honour to their virginity by real continence, he advis'd them,* 1.37 ut aut nubant si se non possunt continere, aut contineant si nolunt nubere, that they would contain if they will not marry, or marry if they cannot contain: not onely if they cannot contain from outward acts of uncleanness, but even from the secret desires of it, and from burnings. Quid enim prodest (saith he) corporis pudicitia animo constuprato?* 1.38 The chastity of the body is of no profit, if the desires be burning and dishonest.

Casso saltem delectamine Amare quod potiri non licet.

So the burning is well describ'd in the Comedy. Uri est illegitimo coitu aut foedis cogitationibus se polluere,* 1.39 said Alfonsus Virvesius, To burn, is to pollute our self with unlawful mixtures, or with filthy thoughts; and these desires are not to be cur'd by mortifications and corporal austerities. Nella guerra d' amor chi fuge vince, saith the Italian proverb. There is no contesting against this passion; even to dispute against it is a temptation, even to fast and to be hungry does enkindle the flame. Fames & sitis ex∣asperat & incendit animos, saith Seneca, Hunger and thirst make a man angry: and anger and lust are fed by the same fuel,

—mea cum deferbuit ira Nolo prognatam consule—

A spare and temperate diet gives no extraordinary maintenance to the desire, and therefore it was advis'd and practis'd in all ages: but there is enough of desire in ordinary; even that which maintains health will keep up that natural desire; and that which destroys health, destroys charity, and hinders us more in the service of God then it can set forward. And S. Hierom saies that he had known them of both sexes who have by too much abstinence turn'd mad,* 1.40 and lost their wits. They that from God's mercy have receiv'd strengths to live singly and purely, may use it as it serves best for God's glory and the interest of their souls, and their own in∣termedial comforts. But it is to be considered, that it is not onely a gift of God that some men can contain, but it is a peculiar gift that they will: and it is observed by wise and good men, that this desire hath or hath not re∣spectively been inspir'd by the spirit of God in several ages of the Church according to their present necessities; and when God gives the gift, then every thing wil help it forward. But in the present manners and cir∣cumstances of the world, as there is no public necessity of it, so there is no great care taken to acquire it; for there where the unequal laws of men have brought a necessity upon their Clergy, it is with them as with those of whom Epiphanius complains,* 1.41 Ut ne confundantur apud homines occultè scortantur, & sub solitudinis aut continentiae specie libidinem exercent, They pretend purity in public, and fornicate in private. And it is certain, that such courses are no fit means to invite the spirit of purity to invest and adorn the Church. Neither is prayer a certain way of obtaining this gift, any more then of the gift of a healthful or a strong body; for God requires it of none of us directly; if accidentally he does require it, he will give him wherewithall: but therefore the Apostle does not say, But if a man does not contain, let him pray, but let him marry. It is sufficient that God hath given a remedy that is easy and infallible to all that love God; and it is best to use that remedy which is best, and was by the best Physician provided for all that need. Oportet compati & commetiri doctrinam pro virium qua∣litate, & hujusmodi qui non possunt capere sermonem de castitate, concedere nuptias,* 1.42 said S. Cyril, Every ones strength must be measured, and so fit our

doctrines to their proportions, and to grant marriages to them who cannot receive the word of Continence.* 1.43 And therefore what S. Austin said of Widows may be exactly applied to Ecclesiastics, There are some that call them adulterous if they marry, and so pretend themselves purer then the do∣ctrine of the Apostle, who, if they would confess their name, mundanos potius se quam mundos vocarent, they would prove to be servants of interest rather then of purity. For they compel the Widows [the Ecclesiastics] to burnings, because they suffer them not to marry. But we are not to esteem them to be wiser then the Apostle Paul, who saith, I had rather they should marry then burn. And like to this is that of S. Hierom,* 1.44 Si quis consideret virginem suam, i. e. carnem suam, lascivire & ebullire in libidinem, nec refraenare se potest, duplex illi incumbit necessitas, aut capiendae conjugis, aut ruendi, He that considers his Virgin, that is, his flesh, and observes it troublesome and boyling into de∣sires, and cannot refrain himself, hath a double necessity upon him; either he must take a wife, or he must perish. * And therefore they that pre∣tend the gift of continence is in every mans power, should doe well to give God thanks that they find it so in their own, but yet they should also doe well to believe others who complain that they have it not.* 1.45 S. Bernard's wish was something to the same purpose of charity and security. Utinam qui continere non valent, perfectionē temerariè profiteri, aut coelibatui dare nomina vererentur; sumptuosa siquidem turris est, & verbum grande, quod non omnes capere possunt, I wish that they who cannot contain, would be afraid to pro∣fess perfection, and undertake single life: for this is a costly tower, and a great word that all cannot receive.* 1.46 Aeneas Sylvius having gotten a Lady with child, to his Father that was troubled at it he replies, in sua potestate non fuisse ut vir non esset, he could not help it: and when Origen had re∣solved to live continently, he found no course but one would doe it, even by making it impossible to be otherwise; and he was followed by many, particularly by the Valesii: and Leontius, who was afterwards chosen Bp. of Antioch by the Arrians, having a woman in his house, one of the 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 of which I spake before, being commanded to put her away, emasculated himself that he might have leave to sleep with her: but that uncharitable folly produc'd a good law against it. For what chastity is that, or what service of God is it for a man to offer to God a single life when he hath made himself naturally impotent?* 1.47 It is (that I may use S. Basil's expres∣sion) as if we should commend a horse for not hurting any man with horns. But I observe it for this purpose, to represent upon what terms the gift of continence was to be obtain'd by some who would fain, but by this act shewed plainly that they could not.

Propterea leges quae sunt connubia contra* 1.48 Esse malas …… prudentia patrum Non satis advertit … quid ferre recusat, Quid valeat Natura pati. Cervicibus (aiunt) Hoc insuave jugum nostris imponere Christus Noluit. Istud onus quod adhuc quamplurima monstra Fecit, ab audaci dicunt pietate repertum.

And therefore those laws that command single life to so many thousands of Priests, Italians, Spaniards, Frenchmen, which are none of the most conti∣nent nations of Europe, are a snare to those that cannot keep them, and a burden to them that would,* 1.49 and intolerable to both. So Origen complains

of some imperious and imprudent persons who in his time would be com∣manding single life and virginity; Non solum quae docent non faciunt, sed etiam crudeliter & sine misericordia injungunt aliis majora virtute ipsorum, non habentes rationem virium uniuscujusque, They not onely doe not what they teach, but cruelly and unmercifully injoyn to others things greater then their strength, not regarding the measure of every one. For it is a burden bigger then the weight of all the laws of Jesus Christ put together, except to such persons who are Eunuchs by nature, or have received a par∣ticular gift of God; of which they may make use as they finde other things concurring. For to be able to contain is one gift, and to be willing is another; and after all, that this can promote any end of religion is but accidental, and depends upon a special providence and Oeconomy of affairs. It may be useful in some times, and to some persons, and to some purposes; but of it self it is no act of religion, no service of God: and that's the next consideration.

3. The law of coelibate is an unreasonable law,* 1.50 and besides that it does very much mischief to souls, it does no good at all. For if single life have in it any greater purity or spirituality then chast marriages, yet even that single life is more acceptable when it is chosen and voluntary; and if it be involuntary and constrain'd, it is not pleasing to God: so that the law in this case does effect nothing but this, that they who are willing may loose something of the reward, or may be uncertain whether they doe or no; and they that are unwilling are constrained either to hypocrisy, which will bring them an evil reward, or to a burden and slavery which shall bring them none at all. But that which I intended is this,

4. That all this stirre is to no purpose;* 1.51 for Virginity is not more holy then chast marriage, and the one does not more advance religion then the other directly, but by accident, and in some circumstances, and as an in∣strument fitted for use in it's own time. For as S. Austin observes well, S. Paul does modestly dehort from marriage,* 1.52 not as from an evil, but as from a burden:] neither is his advice for all times, but for that present necessity; neither is it to the Clergy, but to all Christians; neither is it for religion, but for convenience; neither was it from the Lord, but from himself; no∣thing of the Gospel or spirituality, but a matter of prudence, and the ex∣terior conduct of affairs. For 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, marriage is honourable, it is so to all, and such mixtures have in them nothing that defiles, and he that is perfect in his constitution, if he be also so much a Virgin as to have nothing that defiles, is a rare person, but it may be not to be found; but if he be, yet he does arrive but to that state of things in which the married man is, even when he does actually use his greatest liberty, he is 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 undefiled. Which thing if the zelots in some of the first ages of the Church had rightly observed, they would not have been so fierce for single life upon the account of heretical principles. For they did it because they suppos'd marriage to be a pollution: and if they did not ex∣pressly condemn it upon that stock, yet they secretly suspected it, as not being confident of the truth of the Apostles words, but suffering themselves to be a little abus'd by heretical sermons, though they did not openly joyn in their communions and professions. The Council of Gangra notes such persons as these, that refus'd the communion from the hands of a married Priest; but in the fourth chapter pronounces anathema against

them:* 1.53 and S. Ignatius saies that they who call the society of married pairs corruption, and pollution, have the Devil that great Apostate dwelling in them. For what state of life can be purer then that which is undefiled? and from whence shall we take the measures of purity but from the foun∣tains of our Saviour, from the holy Scriptures, the springs of salvation? But to this the first ages of the Church gave apparent witness. Perfecti Christiani edunt, bibunt, contrahunt Matrimonium,* 1.54 said Clemens Alexan∣drinus, Perfect Christians eat and drink and make marriages: and there∣fore the 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, the perfect state of Orders is not at all impug∣ned or diminished by marriage.* 1.55 Sozomen tells of Bishop Spiridion, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, He was a plain man, he had wife and children, but not at all the worse, not at all hindred in Divine things. The same also is said of Gregory Bp. of Nazianzum the Father of S. Gregory the Divine, and S. Basil, Et si matri∣monio se vinxit,* 1.56 ita tamen in eo vixit ut nihil propeterea ad perfectam virtu∣tem ac Philosophiam consequendam impediretur. He comported himself so in the state of marriage, that he was not at all hindred for obtaining the perfection of vertue and [Christian] philosophy: and indeed what should hinder him? for marriage does not. Matrimonium non solum nihil nobis obstat ad philosophandum Deo,* 1.57 si voluerimus esse sobrii, sed & magnam adfert consolationem: comprimit enim insanum naturae impetum, nec turbari sinit quasi mare, sed efficit ut scapha feliciter in portum appellet; & ideo Deus con∣solationem hanc tribuit humano generi, For if men will be sober, marriage is not onely no hindrance to Christian philosophy, but also brings great aids and comfort. For it represses the mad violences of nature, and causes that we be not troubled like the enraged sea, but makes the vessel arrive safely to her port; and therefore God hath given this comfort to mankind.

For although it be true that,* 1.58 as S. Paul saies,* 1.59 the Married cares for the things of the world, the Unmarried for the things of the Lord; He, how he may please his wife, This, how he may be holy both in body and in spirit; yet this is so far from disparaging holy Marriage, or making it less consi¦stent with the dignity and offices ecclesiastical, that in the world there is not a greater argument to the contrary. For consider where every ones trouble, and where their danger lies. The Married hath more necessities and more affairs in the world, and relations to look after: which if he well provides for according to his power, he hath indeed suffered some secular trouble; but he hath done his duty, & he is safe. But the unmarried is alone, & with∣out those relations; & therefore they may if they will let the things of the world alone, and mind the present imployment, which then was the mini∣steries and attendancies Evangelical. But though they have less care of the things of this world; yet their care which lies in another scene is a good care indeed, but it is very great and tender, and hath in it very great danger.

—poenaeque graves in coelibe vita.* 1.60

The Unmarried takes care how she may be holy or clean in body and spirit. And this is a care not onely of greater concernment then that of secular supplies, but to most persons of extreme difficulty and danger. For it is to no purpose to be Unmarried, unless they remain pure in body and in spirit, that is, be free from carnal desires as well as unclean actions: and how great a care is requir'd to this, I need not say, because all men that have tried it know: but this care the Married need not know any thing of; for they have by God a remedy provided for them, and they are in the holy

state of marriage, without that care, holy both in body and mind; so that it is easy to say where the advantage lies. The one takes care to avoid want, the other to avoid damnation. The one hath troubles of this world, the other hath dangers of the other. The hardest province which the married man hath is how to please his wife; but his affairs are so well order'd, that he hath not such difficulties to please God as the other hath: which thing was long since observed by S. Gregory Nazianzen,* 1.61 that indeed single life is higher and better (if it be pure and undefiled) but it is more difficult and more dangerous, and Marriage, which looks not so splendidly, is yet much more safe.] But this comparison is true between persons married, and the unmarried that have the gift of continence; for even that gift does not exempt them from great dangers and great labours. But if there be any burning, if there be a fire within, it is ill dwelling in the house where there is no chimny; for that the smoak will fill every corner of the dwelling, and at least make a perpetual trouble. But between the married, and the unmarried that hath not the gift of continence, which is far the greatest part of mankind, there is no comparison at all. And therefore though in respect to that conjunction of affairs, to the beginnings of a persecuted religion, in which many of them were to live an ambulatory life, and suffer the spoiling of their goods, and be thrust out of their houses, the Apostle had great reason to take care lest by the greatness and superfetations of trouble they should be tempted to forsake, and be vext out of their reli∣gion: yet abstracting from that consideration,* 1.62 the married estate is much more secure for the state of souls, & propter eam quae in nuptiis est animi tranquillitatem (as S. Gregory Nazianzen affirms) and for that peace of mind which is in chast marriages, and is not in the state of single life with them who are perpetually fighting with a dangerous enemy, who is not alwaies resisted, and if he be, is not alwaies put to the worst. And there∣fore it was rightly observed of S. Clemens Alexandr. As [single life, or] Continence,* 1.63 so Marriage also hath proper gifts and ministeries which pertain unto the Lord: but at no hand ought it to be admitted that marriage does hinder the service of the Lord; it sets it forward very much, but hinders nothing; it may be burdensome to those who are to travel and pass from country to country, but to them who fix in a place, and who attend the ministeries of one people, it is no hindrance; and then to the direct service of God in our personal piety and spiritual safety it is a very great advan∣tage: concerning which who please may read S. Gregory concerning his mother Nonna, and the Epistles of Paulinus* 1.64 concerning Amanda the wife of Aper, who were to their husbands admirable advantages both in the affairs of the world and of religion. Sanctissimus Samuel filios genuit: non tamen justitiae suae merita minuit. Zecharias sacerdos vir justus in senectute sua genuit filium.* 1.65 Quâ ergo ratione accusatur, quod minimè obesse probatur? so S. Austin. To which adde the instance of S. Chrysostome upon those words of Isai, [I saw the Lord,] Quis ista loquitur? Isaias ille spectator coele∣stium Seraphim, qui cum conjuge commercium habuit, nec tamen extinxit gra∣tiam. Samuel the most holy Prophet, and Zechary that just Priest, and Isaiah that Seer who saw the celestial Seraphim, were not hindred from their greatest graces, favours and perfections by the state and offices of marriage. The event of this consideration I represent in the words of the same excel∣lent Doctor,* 1.66 Quamvis nuptiae plurimum difficultatis in se habeant, it a tamen assumi possunt ut perfectiori vitae impedimento non sint, Though marriage have in it very much difficulty (in respect of domestic cares) yet it may be

so undertaken that it may be no impediment to a life of perfection. For even in respect of secular cares and intrigues of business the single life, which seems in this to have advantage, is not alwaies found so innocent and dis∣in tangled, and yet some times even in this very regard a married man hath or may have advantages and ease and liberty:* 1.67 Videmus virgines de seculo cogitare, & Matrimonio junctos Dominicis studere operibus, said S. Ambrose, Men of single lives take care for the world, and we see them that are mar∣ried study the works of the Lord. And if it were otherwise, yet a law to command single life were very imprudent; unless they could secure that they who have no wives shall have no children. But as Lipsius said of the Roman Senate,* 1.68 who forbad their souldiers to marry, à Junone arcebant eos, non à Venere, Romanae leges, the Roman laws forbad Juno to them, not Venus, for Contubernii militibus semper jus, the souldiers alwaies might have women, but no wives; so it is amongst the Roman Prelates too much: but unless this also were so denied them, that they could have no children, or that they who have no children shall not be sollicitous to raise a poor family, or to increase a great, the law were very unreasonable as to this very pretence. For that things are otherwise there where single life is injoyn'd is too apparent, and it is complain'd of bya 1.69 Alvarus Pelagius 300 years agoe, and byb 1.70 Platina andc 1.71 Bonaventure, and it is notorious in all the Popes; divers particulars of which in the instance of Sixtus quintus are to be seen in the excellentd 1.72 Thuanus. I end this consideration with the excellent words ofe 1.73 Salvian, Novum prorsus est conversionis genus: licita non faciunt, illicita committunt. Temperant à conjugio, & non temperant à rapina. Quid agis stulta persuasio? peccata interdixit Deus, non matrimo∣nia. This is a new and a strange kind of conversion. They will not doe lawful things, but they commit unlawful: they abstain from marriage, but not from rapine. O ye fools, why are ye so perswaded? God hath forbidden sins, not marriages.

Although these considerations are a sufficient explication of this in∣stance of the Rule,* 1.74 and verify the first intention, that single life ought not by a law to be injoyn'd to any one order of men; yet because the instance is of great concernment beyond the limits of this Rule, I adde that the Apostles and the first ages of the Church not onely forbad that the Clergy should put away their wives, but left it indifferent for any man, or any or∣der of men to marry: and therefore that it ought not now to be done by the present guides of Churches, who have lesse reason so to doe; and if they had a greater reason, yet they have a lesse authority. But Christ and his Apostles left it free. Of this besides the matter and evidence of fact, there being no law of Christ or Canon of the Apostles to restrain it, but a plain supposition of liberty, and intimation of the thing done in the Epistles to Timothy and Titus, there needs no other testimony but that of Cratian.* 1.75 Copula sacerdotalis, vel consanguineorum, nec legali, nec Evan∣gelicâ, nec Apostolicâ authoritate prohibetur, Neither the Old Testament nor the New, neither Christ nor his Apostles have forbidden the marriage of Priests.* 1.76 To which agrees that of Panormitan; Continentia non est de substantia Ordinis, nec de jure Divino, To contain from marriage is not of Divine appointment, nor necessary to them that are in holy Orders. The same also is affirm'd by Antoninus, as who please may see in summa, part. 3. tit. 1. c. 21.

Now then nothing remains to be considered but the practice of the Church,* 1.77 which how far it can oblige, I have already discours'd: but sup∣pose it might in other cases, yet for the reasons above describ'd it ought to be altered in this; for if such a law may not bind, much lesse can the pra∣ctice; and yet if the practice might, here was no Catholick practice. For as for the whole Greek Church,* 1.78 the practice of that is drawn into a compen∣dium by Pope Stephen. Aliter se Orientalium traditio habet Ecclesiarum, aliter hujus S. R. Ecclesiae: Nam illarum Sacerdotes, Diaconi & Subdiaconi matrimonio copulantur. The tradition of the Eastern Churches is otherwise then that of the Roman Church: For their Priests and Deacons and Sub∣deacons are joyned in marriage.* 1.79 I shall therefore adde no more to this con∣fession but the Canon of the Council of Ancyra, which orders that if Dea∣cons in their ordination will professe that they cannot contain, and that they intend to marry, they may. But if then they professe otherwise, and doe against their profession, they must cease from their Ministery. And the practice is to this day, that the Greek and all the Eastern Priests; are if they please, married men, and most of them actually are so: though in the Ea∣stern Churches they always did exhort their Clergy to continence, yet they left it to their liberty, and they always took it.

In the Latine Church,* 1.80 from the time of Pope Siricius, and the second Council of Arles, which Binius makes about the same time, at the end of the fourth Age after Christ, there were some canons provincial injoyning single life to the Clergy; but the practice was ever against the Canon: and as for the first 400. years or thereabouts, all had liberty to be married if they pleas'd, so even afterwards they would take it, as they saw cause. This we find in S. Hierom, who to Jovinian, objecting the marriage of Samuel, answers, that this was no prejudice to the honour of the virgin-state, quasi non hodie quoque plurimi Sacerdotes habeant Matrimonia, & Apo∣stolus describat Episcopum unius uxoris virum;] for the Apostle describes a Bishop the husband of one wife, and even at this day most Priests are mar∣ried. S. Hierom did not contend that all Priests ought to be virgins; but that if they that could contain, would, it were much better. But by this, the matter of fact against the law was evident.* 1.81 S. Ambrose tells that in most remote or private Churches the Priests did use marriage: In plerisque abditioribus locis, cum ministerium gererent vel etiam sacerdotium, filios sus∣ceperunt. The clerical marriages were in his time almost universal: and therefore many endeavoured to persuade single life as much as they could, and from arguments they came to affirmations, and so to laws by little and little; but did not prevail. For when Petrus Damiani was sent from Rome into France to persuade the Priests to put away their wives, they defended themselves with the Canon of the Council of Tribur in Germany, and with the words of S. Paul,* 1.82 To avoid fornication, let every man have his wife; to which the Legate knew not what to answer. And when in the year 1074 Pope Gregory the seventh sent fierce letters to Germany about the same af∣fair, the Arch-Bishop of Mentz, to whose conduct the businesse was com∣mitted, did publish the letters, but durst not verify them; and neither by fair means nor by foul could cause the Priests to put away their wives. And in England till the year 1100 it was not prohibited to the Clergy to marry,* 1.83 saith Henry of Huntingdon: but then Anselme endeavour'd to put the Popes letters in execution;* 1.84 and 25 yeares after the Cardinal of Crema was sent over to the same purpose: but because he was taken in bed with an harlot,

he got nothing but shame and money, and so went away. But at last, after the attempts* 1.85 & pressures and tyranny and arts of an hundred and thirty years continuance (for it be∣gan in 970, and was not finished till An. Dom. 1100, as† 1.86 Polydor Virgil computes it) the Clergy was driven from their chast marriages, & they took themselves to Concubines, whom they could change or multiply, and they found themselves undistur∣bed in that; and so they rested, till God being long provok'd by their im∣purest services, awakened Christian Princes and Priests into liberty and ho∣linesse and reformation. For amongst the Canons which are called Apo∣stolical, the sixth severely forbids Bishops or Priests upon pretence of reli∣gion to put away their wives,] according to the words of Christ, What God hath joyned, let no man put asunder; and the words of the Apostle, De∣fraud not one another, unlesse it be by consent, and for a time. And therefore the Church of Rome, which makes orders to dissolve marriage, and com∣mands Priests which before were married to depart from their wives, speaks and does against the practice of the Ancient Churches, and against the de∣crees of Councils, and the Canons of the Apostles, and the expresse laws of Jesus Christ. I end this with the saying of those in Mantuan,

Tutius esse volunt quâ lex Divina sinebat Isse viâ, veterumque sequi vestigia Patrum, Quorum vita fuit melior cum conjuge, quam nunc Nostra sit exclusis thalamis & conjugis usu.

The old primitives and holy Bishops and Priests in the first ages liv'd bet∣ter with their wives, then now-a-days they doe without them; and there∣fore it were better to tread in their footsteps, and to walk in that way to which we are pointed by the law of God.

One thing I am to adde which is of material consideration.* 1.87 For every one observes in the story of the Church, that even then when they did per∣mit the Bishops and Priests to live with their wives and to get children, yet the Church did even then forbid Bishops or Priests to marry after their Ordination; and therefore many suppose that we might at least comply so far with the Catholick Church, according as it is set down in the constituti∣ons Apostolical attributed to S.* 1.88 Clement,

Non licere autem iis, si post ordina∣tionem sine uxore fuerint, ad nuptias transire: vel si uxores habuerint, cum aliis conjungi;

but they must be content with her whom they had at the time of their ordination; but after orders they must not marry: and Paphnutius in the Nicene Council, said that they did not doe it, and left it as suppos'd that it ought not. Of this I doe not know any one that hath given a reason, or considered it apart to any purpose; and therefore it will not be uselesse or unpleasant if I give a short account of it.

1. Therefore the Primitive Church chose her Priests and Bishops commonly of great age,* 1.89 of known vertue and holinesse. They were de∣signed to a publick and dangerous imployment, for some whole ages they were under persecution, and the way of the crosse was a great deletery to flesh and bloud; and therefore they might the rather require it of them whom in these dispositions they found fit to be taken into an imployment which would require a whole man, all his time and all his affections. Now if we consider that the married Priests and Bishops were commanded to re∣tain their wives, and the unmarried had been tried to be of a known and experienc'd continence, they might with much reason and great advantages

require that they should so remain; that is, they might ask their consent, and might trust their promise: for here was liberty, and but little danger. The Priests were few, and the unmarried much fewer, and their age com∣monly such as was past danger, and the publick affairs of the Church re∣quir'd it, and the men were willing; and then all was right.

2. The Greek Church,* 1.90 and generally the Churches of the East, did by Custome and tradition oblige their Priests to single life, if in that state they were ordain'd, because they took care that if they could not contain they should take a wife before their Orders, immediately if they pleas'd, and then enter into the Priesthood; as appears frequently in the Greek laws and Canons, and particularly in the third Novel constitution of the Em∣peror Leo the sixth. So that this was but a circumstance of law, introduc'd for that which they apprehended to be decent: and in matters of decency, opinion is the onely measure. But if they might marry immediately before their ordination and live with their wives, then it is evident they did not believe that either the offices or the state of marriage were against the offi∣ces and state of Priesthood.* 1.91 And this is affirm'd by Cajetan, Nec ordo in quantum ordo, nec ordo in quantum sacer, est impeditivus Matrimonii, Nei∣ther the order nor the appendant holinesse, that is, neither the office nor it's decency, are impeded by holy marriages.] And therefore he addes [that it can never be prov'd by reason or by authority, that if a Priest does contract mar∣riage, he does absolutely sin; because the Priesthood does not dissolve the mar∣riage, whether contracted after or before; stando tantum in iis quae habemus à Christo & Apostolis, that is, if we keep our selves within the limits of Christs Commandements, and the doctrine Apostolical.] And that's well enough; for if any Church or all Churches did otherwise, the Custome was not good for many reasons: it did dishonour to marriage, it made it to be secretly sus∣pected of some uncleannesse, it gave too much countenance to heretics who disparag'd it, it made a snare to those who promised continence and found it difficult or impossible, and at last it came to an intolerable mischief in the Church of Rome, it brought in divorces, which God hates; for they teach that Orders does dissolve Marriage, and that which Christ onely permitted in the case of adultery, they command in the case of ordina∣tion.

3. But because there are some persuasions that will not be mov'd un∣lesse they be shewn some precedents and practices of the Primitive Church,* 1.92 and will always suspect it to be ill for the superior Clergy to marry after ordination, unlesse you can tell them that some good men did so before them, for they rely more upon example then upon rule; therefore I shall represent that although the ancient Canons and practices did generally in∣joyne their Clergy not to marry after Orders, (before orders they might) yet this thing did not prevail, but Deacons, Priests and Bishops, good men and orderly, did after ordination use their liberty, as they found it necessary or expedient.* 1.93 This I have already remark'd in the case of Deacons, who are permitted by the Council of Ancyra to marry after ordination, if at their ordination they will not professe continence. But Bishops and Priests did so too: which is plainly gathered from those words of S. Athanasius to Dracontius, who refus'd to be made Bishop because he impertinently thought it was not so spiritual a state as that of Monks, since he saw the Bishops married men and full of secular affairs: S. Athanasius answer'd him, that he

might be Bishop for all that, and keep on his way as he was before: for if that did hinder him, he let him know, that all Bishops did not enter into the married estate, nor all Monks abstain. Multi quoque ex Episcopis Ma∣trimonia non inierunt; Monachi contrà liberorum patres facti sunt, Many Bishops did not contract marriages. Now if none did, his answer to Dra∣contius had been more full, and would not have been omitted; but therefore it is manifest that in his time some did. But Cassiodore gives an instance in a Bishop and Martyr that took a wife but a little before his Martyrdome,* 1.94 Eu∣psychius of Caesarea in Cappadocia. In illo tempore ferunt Martyrio vitam fini∣visse Eupsychium Caesareensem, ductâ nuper uxore, cum adhuc quasi sponsus esse videretur. He was first a Priest in Caesarea, but afterwards he was a Bishop; and so he is called by S. Athanasius, who mentions Sylvester and Protogenes Bishops of Dacia,* 1.95 and Leontius and Eupsychius Bishops of Cappadocia, of which Caesarea was the Metropolis. This Eupsychius having newly married a wife, while he was yet but as it were a bridegroom, gave up his life in Martyrdome for Christ. But this was no news in the Greek Church; For Pope Stephen having affirm'd that the Greek Priests, Deacons and Subdeacons are joyn'd in marriage, the gloss saies,* 1.96 Multi ex hac litera dixe∣runt quod Orientales possunt contrahere in sacris Ordinibus, Many from these words have affirmed that the Easterlings can marry in holy Orders. And it is also added by the glosse upon the same distinction, that the Greeks in their ordinations doe promise continence neither explicitly nor tacitly: and if that be true, there is no peradventure but very many of them marry after their consecrations. But because the Latin lawyers and Canonists are none of the best historians, we may better inform our selves in this particular from the Greeks themselves: amongst whom we find that for almost two hundred years together after the Synod in Trullo, the Greek Priests had after their Ordination two years time for probation whether they could bear the yoke of single life, and if they could not, they had leave to marry. For although the Canons in Trullo had permitted them onely to stay with the wives they had married before Orders, and commanded that they should take none after; yet the Canon prevail'd not, but the contrary custome of two years probation lasted till the time of the Emperor Leo the sixth, as appears in his third Novel constitution before cited. The words are these, Consuetudo quae in praesenti obtinet, iis qui in Matrimonio conjungi in animo est concedit, ut antequam Uxorem duxerint, Sacerdotes fieri possint, & deinde biennium ad perficiendam voluntatem jungi Matrimonio volenti praestituit. They took their Orders first, and then had two years time to consider whether they would marry or no. Now this being the custome of the whole Greek Church, in which the Bishops because of the ordina∣tions were engaged. it is evident it was not illegal or irregular, but an ap∣proved custome of the Church; though before the end of two hundred years after the Synod in Trullo it was decreed against by an Imperial law. What became of it afterwards I have had no opportunity to inquire; but I find contrary relations by several persons. That which I most rely upon is the relation of Erasmus, who in his Apology against the Parisians saies that in Venice he saw a Greek Priest marry a wife: and in the history of Johan∣nes Magnus I find these words, Wilhelmi Cardinalis prima cura & intentio fuit revocare Suecos & Gothos à schismate Graecorum in quod Presbyteri & Sacerdotes ductis publicè uxoribus consensisse videbantur, Cardinal William endeavoured to recover the Suedes and Goths from the schism of the Greeks, to which they seem'd to adhere when their Priests and Bishops did marry

wives publicly. By which it appears the Greeks did so, since the others by so doing complied with them. And the Metropolitan of Russia in Sigismundus Baro cals it a great error and sin in the Roman Church, that they reject the Priests who marry wives according to the laws. But the matter is not great; for the Church might doe what they saw cause for.

But in the Latine Church it will be harder to find examples of Priests marrying after Orders.* 1.97 Not but that there were very many that did; but that they durst not be known to doe it. But yet some notices we have even of this also. For Pope Innocentius the second observ'd that every where Bishops and Priests,* 1.98 and the Religious professed did marry wives after they had purpos'd the contrary, and by a Decretal restrains it. And Ivo Bishop of Chartres tels of a Prelate that had two harlots;* 1.99 but (as it should seem) being weary of that life, he prepar'd Matrimonial Tables for a third: and he tels also of a Canon in the Church at Paris who did actually con∣tract marriage,* 1.100 and the Bishop held it rate and firm, that it was good and could not be dissolv'd:* 1.101 and we find that Aeneas Sylvius being consulted by a Priest that was in the snare, he advis'd him actually to take a wife and marry. For what should hinder? The law of the Church was an evil law, made by an authority violent and usurp'd, insufficient as to that charge, it was not a law of God, it was against the rights and against the necessities of nature, it was unnatural and unreasonable, it was not for edification of the Church, it was no advantage to spiritual life: it is a law that is there∣fore against public honesty because it did openly and secretly introduce dis∣honesty; it had nothing of the requisites of a good law, it had no conside∣ration of humane frailty nor of humane comforts, it was neither necessary nor profitable nor innocent, neither fitted to time nor place nor person; it was not accepted by them that could not bear it, it was complain'd of by them that could; it was never admitted in the East, it was fought against and declaim'd and rail'd at in the West, and at last is laid aside in the Churches (especially) of the North, as the most intolerable and most unreasonable tyranny in the world; for it was not to be endur'd, that upon the pretence of an unseasonable perfection, so much impurity should be brought into the Church, and so many souls thrust down to hell. And therefore when the Latine Priests saw themselves so horribly insnar'd, they did secretly corrode the net, which openly they durst not tear in pieces.* 1.102 And the case is clear. Dominicus a Soto observing that the Church did not for a long time permit Priests to marry after Orders, argues thus. The Church admitted married men to be Priests, but did not ad∣mit Priests to be married men, meaning afterwards: which thing (saith he) relies upon no other reason but this, Because they suppos'd the use of the marriage-bed to be inconsistent with the office and dignity of a Priest or Bishop. For if they who were Bishops and Priests might use marriage, what hinders them but that they might after Orders enter upon marriage?] That's his argument. To which I reply, That it is true, the Church, which was aemula continentiae, desirous to promote continence, did set it forwards where she thought she might with safety, and therefore injoyn'd her Priests, which anciently could not be ordain'd till they were almost 40. years of age,* 1.103 to remain in that state in which their ordination found them: though even this was a snare also, and could not be observed, and was not (as I have pro∣ved) yet this was not because they disapproved the conjugal society; for

besides that the Scripture gives it a title of honour, and calls it purity; it was also declar'd to be chastity in the Nicene Council, who did therefore leave married Priests & Bishops to the use of it: and they who spake against the use of marriage in Priests and refus'd to pray with married Priests, were anathematiz'd in the Council of Gangra. And it is evident that those who were admitted in the state of marriage to holy Orders did 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 beget children. S. Gregory the Divine tels it of his Father, Gregory Nazianzen,

〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉,* 1.104 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉.

That he said he had been in holy Orders longer then the age of his son, and yet he had also a yonger son then this Gregory; for Caesarius was his yonger brother. Baronius contends fiercely against this instance to con∣vince the son of a Poetical fiction, or an hyperbole, or some other civil word for a lie. But let it be as it was; yet the thing it self was infinitely evi∣dent: for as Fabianus said, Bishops and Priests did for a thousand years to∣gether in the Church live with their wives, nullâ lege prohibente, no law forbidding it, that is, no law in force;* 1.105 and the Council of C P. decreed, Si quis praesumpserit contra Apostolicos Canones aliquos Presbyterorum & Dia∣conorum privare à contactu & communione legalis uxoris suae, deponatur. It is against the Canons Apostolical to forbid a Priest or Deacon the contact and society of his lawful wife; and he that shall presume to doe it, let him be depos'd. Now then the argument of Dominicus à Soto is very good. If Bishops and Priests might use marriage, what hinders them from con∣tracting marriage? There is no undecency in the thing, therefore no incon∣sistency with Orders. Since therefore it is certain that the married Bishops and Priests not onely in the Greek Church, but even in the Latine, in Ger∣many, in France, in England, where they kept their wives in despite of the Pope for a long time, did retain the liberties and societies of marriage; there can be nothing in the thing that can make it unfit for them to contract marriages, to whom it is fit to use them.

There is but one thing more which I think fit to be considered in this affaire,* 1.106 and that is, that there is a pretence of a vow of Continence annexed to holy Orders; and that therefore it is not lawful for Bishops and Priests to marry, when they have vowed the contrary. * This indeed concerns them who have made such a vow; but not them that have not. But who made it necessary that persons to be ordain'd should make such a vow? even they onely that made laws against the Clergies marriage; and because they durst not trust the laws which they made, they took order that men should be∣come a law unto themselves,* 1.107 that they might be insnar'd to purpose. This vow was onely introduc'd in the Latine Church, and injoyn'd to all her Clergy. Injoyn'd, I say, against the nature of a vow, which if it be not vo∣luntary, is no vow; which includes desire in its very name and nature. But Orders doe not include this vow in their nature, and it were intolerable that men should be forc'd from their wives against both their wills: that's a per∣secution, not an ordination, and it is so far from being for the advantage of the Church, that it is expressly against a Commandement of God, that what he hath joyn'd, any man should separate: and yet we find many in the primitive Churches by force made Priests and Bishops against their wills.

S. Augustin was taken at Tagasta and made Priest whether he would or no, but he was not married; but another good man was. Pinianus, the husband of Melania, was ordain'd against his will and the tears of his wife. Pauli∣nianus, the brother of S. Hierom, was first made Deacon by Epiphanius, and then made Priest, and they were forc'd to stop his mouth that he might not deny it. And can it be thought that these men did in this violence make a vow of single life? or can these be fitting circumstances for a vow? But I shall not insist upon the particulars of this: because if they should make such a vow, yet if they found it to be a snare, and impossible to be kept, they had not onely leave, but a necessity to break it. If the vow was con∣strain'd and prov'd impossible, it was the less sin in the taking, and none in the breach of it. But if it was voluntary, it was rash, unless they had been sure the thing had been in their power; and then if it proves not to be so, the fault is not in the breach but in the undertaking.* 1.108 Quod si perseverare nolunt, vel non possunt, melius est ut nubant, quam ut in ignem deliciis suis cadant; certè nullum fratribus aut sororibus scandalum faciant. So S. Cyprian advises the professed Virgins. If they will not, or cannot persevere, it is better that they marry, then fall into the fire and into burning; onely let them give no scandal,* 1.109 meaning by their unchast lives. And Epiphanius expressly, Melius est lapsum à cursu palam sibi uxorem accipere secundum leges. If a man have undertaken a load too heavy, and fals with it, it is better to lay it aside, and openly to take a wife.* 1.110 The same counsel is given by S. Hierom, by S. Austin, and by Alfonsus Virvesius a Divine of the Roman Church. To which I shall adde nothing of my own but this, That if the holy vow of marriage, appointed and confirm'd and accepted by God, may yet be dis∣pens'd with and annull'd, much more may the vow of virginity and single life. If the adultery of the wife makes the husbands vow and promise to be void; much more may his own adultery or fornication make void his vow of single life. If for the dishonour of his house, and the introduction of bastards into his temporal possessions, he is absolved from his vows of wedlock which God certainly did approve and appoint; much more may his vow be null when there is danger or ruine to his soul. A man may law∣fully live with an adulterous wife; and yet he may chuse, and his vow does not oblige him: but he cannot safely live with burnings, he cannot lawfully abide in fornication and uncleanness. For Who can dwell with the everlasting burning?

It were not unseasonable to consider the Ecclesiastical law against the second marriages of Priests, or the ordaining them who have married the second time. But this also relying upon the humor of men, who will be more pure then God, and more righteous then the law of Christ, and more wise then the Apostle, it may be determin'd by the same considerations. The law is a snare, * it is in an incompetent matter, * it is a restraint of that liberty which Christ hath left, * it cannot be fitted to time and place, and yet remain a law; because there are so many necessities to be served, and so many favourable cases to be consider'd, that the exceptions may be more then the Rule. * It may also be considered that to make second marri∣ages a cause of irregularity, or incapacity of receiving holy Order, is no∣thing but a secret accusation and an open reproach to marriage; * that it was not of use and avail in the primitive Church,* 1.111 Tertullian witnessing, apud vos digami ubique praesident, in the Catholic Church Bishops twice married doe every where govern; that Cauterius a Spanish Bishop was twice

married; that S. Hierom affirms that all the world was full of such or dina∣tions, not only of Deacons and Priests,* 1.112 but of Bishops, and that he could reckon so many as would excell the number of the Bishops conven'd in the Council of Ariminum; * that S. Augustin had fornicated with two several women, and yet he was made Priest and Bishop for all that; * and to deny that to holy marriages which is not denied to unholy fornications, will be a doctrine unfit for the honour of Christiana 1.113 schools; * that the second marriage is as holy as the first; * that it may be as necessary * and as usefull; * that it is al∣ways as lawfull; * that the Canon of the Apostle, that a Bishop should be the husband of one wife, is intended against plurality of wives at once, and marrying after divorces, both which were usual amongst the Jews and Greeks and Romans, and could not at first be taken away from the new-converted Christians; * that it was so expound∣ed by S. Chrysostom,* 1.114 Theodoret,b 1.115 S. Hierom, and divers others, but especi∣ally by the Greek Fathers; * that not onely the first marriages are blessed by God, but the second and the third, as S. Austin observes; * that S. Cle∣mens of Alexandria affirmed, that 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, Digamy after a vow to the contrary is an irregularity, not for the contact and conjunction, but for the lye; * that the Church of Rome does without scruple frequently ordain them that have been twice married, if they will pay the price appointed in the Chance∣ry tax,* 1.116 as is witnessed by one that knew very well; * that if the Apostle had forbidden it by a Canon, yet that Canon did no more oblige the descending ages of the Church then the other Canons which we see broken in every Church, according to their reason or their liberty; * that in the Primitive Church they were not very sollicitous about the affaires of marriage, be∣cause they suppos'd the end of all things was at hand:* 1.117 Crescite & multipli∣camini evacuavit extremitas temporis; * that it was a blot in the face of the Primitive Church that they would not blesse second marriages; * that it was most rationally and elegantly complained of by S.* 1.118 Bernard; * that se∣cond marriages are not a signe of incontinence but the cure, * or if they were a signe of an incontinent body, they are a sure signe of a continent mind, that will at no hand admit any uncleannesse; * that a great liberty per∣mitted is infinitely to be preferr'd before a little prevarication of a Divine law, * and therefore that second marriages are to be permitted to the Cler∣gy, rather then evil thoughts, or the circles of an inward fire; * that the prohibition of the ordination of persons after the second marriages did rely upon the opinions of holinesse that was in the Ecclesiastical order above the lay purity, and the unholinesse of marriage in respect of single life; * that in whatsoever sense the former can be true, yet the latter is a branch of Montanisme, and a product of the heresy of Tatianus; * that Theodoret did ordain Irenaeus that was twice married; * that he defends the fact by the consent and suffrages of the Bishops of Phoenicia, * & saies that he insisted in the footsteps of his Ancestors, * & produces for his precedent, Alexander of Constantinople, Acacius of Beroea, and Praylus of Caesarea, who ordained Domnus after his second marriage; * that the chief of the Diocese of Pontus did so, * and all the Bishops of Palestine; * that they accounted it holy ac∣cording to the opinion and doctrine of their Nation, * for so we read in Maimonides,

Although a man have fulfilled the precept concerning the multiplication of mankind,* 1.119 yet neverthelesse it is prescribed in the sayings of the Scribes, that no man should cease from the multiplication of his kind,

so long as he can well continue it; for whosoever shall adde a soul to Israel. is like him that buildeth up the world. And it is moreover in the sayings of the wise men, that a man should not keep a house without a wife, lest he be provok'd by lust.

* It may also be considered that he that burns had better marry, though he have been already married, and though he be a Bishop; * that the virgin or widow estate is no where commanded, but that in some cases marriage is, as in that of burning; * that in Scripture no cha∣stity or continence is requir'd of a Bishop but the Matrimonial; * that Abraham the Father of the faithfull was married again after the death of Sarah; * that S. Joseph the supposed Father of our B. Lord was by the Ancients said to be twice married; * and lastly, that it is confessed that the forbidding second marriages to the Clergy, and refusing to ordain such as have been twice married, is neither of the law of nature, nor any ar∣ticle of faith, nor any necessity of the Sacrament; it is onely a constitution of the Church, which as the Pope binds on, so he may take off as he please, as is affirmed bya 1.120 Aquinas,b 1.121 Durandus,c 1.122 Gabriel Vasquez and others: and therefore this law also ought to be cancell'd; but if it be not annull'd by expresse revocation, it is unjust, and unreasonable, and unnecessary, and a snare to consciences, and is not the circumstance of a thing commanded, but of that which ought to be left at liberty, and therefore is no measure or proper band of conscience; but to us it is an obligation neither in conscience nor in law. But

Haec ideo volui nostris intexere chartis,* 1.123 Ut quoties Patres….coeunt Sint memores, magno ad leges opus esse ferendas Ingenio, multis oculis, examine recto.

I have given these instances not onely to fix the Conscience in these great inquiries, but by these to explicate the measures of the Rule.

Notes

• * 1.1

  15.
• * 1.2

  16.
• * 1.3

  Platina in vita Pii 2••. & Sabel∣licus Ennead. 10. lib. 6. in c. cum olim. de cleric. con∣jugat.
• * 1.4

  Vide etiam Sleidan. lib. 3.
• * 1.5

  A••t. 23.
• * 1.6

  De Planctu Ec∣clesiae lib. 2. art. 73.
• a 1.7

  Cap. 20. lib. 4. de Eccles.
• b 1.8

  Controvers. 15. sub initio.
• c 1.9

  Lib. 7. de just. & jur. q. 6. art. 1.
• d 1.10

  Gravam. 75, & 91.
• e 1.11

  De vita spirit. animae, sect. 4. corol. 14. prop. 3.
• f 1.12

  De invent. ••erum lib. 5. c. 4.
• g 1.13

  Lib. de con∣versione ad cl••∣ricos, cap. 20.
• h 1.14

  part. 2. tit. 46.
• i 1.15

  183. lect. in Sapient.
• k 1.16

  De corrupto Eccles. statu.
• l 1.17

  De reforma∣tione Eccles.
• m 1.18

  Opusc. contr. Clericos con∣cubinar. concl. ult.
• * 1.19

  1 Cor. 7.
• * 1.20

  17.
• * 1.21

  In actis concil. Nicen. Paris. impress. cap. 3. p. 170. Acta ipsa è Vaticana Bibl. prodierū••; latina facta sunt ab Alfonso Pi∣sano & Rober. Balforeo Scoto.
• a 1.22

  Hist. l. 1. cap. 4.
• b 1.23

  Lib. 2. cap. 14.
• c 1.24

  Verb. Paph∣nutius.
• d 1.25

  Lib. 8. c. 19.
• e 1.26

  Cap. Nicena, dist. 31.
• f 1.27

  Hist. Eccl. lib. 1. cap. 6.
• g 1.28

  Cap. 122.
• h 1.29

  Cap. 41.
• * 1.30

  Haeres. 67. they were their gallants,* 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 apud Epiphan. haeres. 63.
• * 1.31

  Epist. 62.
• * 1.32

  Orat. 17, & Orat. 18. edit. Savil.
• * 1.33

  Videat lector qui velit plura de sensu hujus vocabuli & Canonis, Ga∣brielem Vasquiū in 3. disp. 247. c. 4. & Micha∣••lem Medinam lib. 2. de conti∣nentia, c. 21. & Georgium Calixtum de conjug. Cleric. p. 174.
• * 1.34

  De vita spirit, animae u•••• supra.
• * 1.35

  Epist. 43. ad Chromatium
• * 1.36

  1 Cor. 7. 7. Matth. 19. 11.
• * 1.37

  Ad Demetri∣ad. virg.
• * 1.38

  In Jeremiam lib. 2. cap. 7.
• * 1.39

  Philippicâ 18.
• * 1.40

  Epist. 8.
• * 1.41

  Lib. 6. haeres. 60.
• * 1.42

  In Levit. l. 15.
• * 1.43

  Lib. de agone Christian. cap. 31.
• * 1.44

  Contra Jovin. lib. 1.
• * 1.45

  De convers. ad Clericos cap. 29.
• * 1.46

  Epist. 15.
• * 1.47

  Extrem. libro de vera Virgin.
• * 1.48

  Baptista Man∣tuan. in vita Divi Hilarii.
• * 1.49

  In Matth. tract. 24.
• * 1.50

  18.
• * 1.51

  19.
• * 1.52

  De S. Virginit. c. 16.
• * 1.53

  Ad Philadelph.
• * 1.54

  Lib. 7. Strom.
• * 1.55

  Lib. 1. c. 11.
• * 1.56

  Greg. Naz. verba ex transl. Volaterrani.
• * 1.57

  S. Chrysost. hom. 21. in Gen.
• * 1.58

  20.
• * 1.59

  1 Cor. 7. 34.
• * 1.60

  Auson.
• * 1.61

  In fun. Gorgō.
• * 1.62

  In fun. Gorgō.
• * 1.63

  Stromat. 3.
• * 1.64

  Inter Epist. Augustini. Epist. 27. & 29.
• * 1.65

  ••uaest. Ve••. & N. Test. qu. 127.
• * 1.66

  In 1 ep. Tim. hom. ••0.
• * 1.67

  in 1 Cor. 7.
• * 1.68

  Ad 14. Annal. n. 74.
• a 1.69

  lib. de Planctu Eccl••s. 2. art. 15. A. D. 1330.
• b 1.70

  in Johan. 16.
• c 1.71

  4. dist. 27. art. 1. q. 3.
• d 1.72

  hist. lib. 100.
• e 1.73

  lib. 5. de Pro∣vident. Dei.
• * 1.74

  21.
• * 1.75

  26. qu. 2. cap. Sors.
• * 1.76

  de Cleric. con∣jug. cum olim.
• * 1.77

  22.
• * 1.78

  dictinct. 31. c. Aliter.
• * 1.79

  dist. 28. cap. 8.
• * 1.80

  23.
• * 1.81

  de Offic. lib. 1. cap. ult.
• * 1.82

  1 Cor. 7. 2. Baron. A. D. 1059. & A. D. 1065.
• * 1.83

  apud Baron. A. D. 1075.
• * 1.84

  Matth. Paris Hist. Anglor. A. D. 1125.
• * 1.85

  O bo••e Calixte, nunc omnis elerus edit te. Nam olim Presbyteri solent ••xoribus uti. Id praever∣tisti quondam cum Papa fuisti: Ergo tibi festum nunquam celebrabit honestum. Sic non nimis fa∣cunde, sed vere nimis questus est olim non nemo.
• † 1.86

  Lib. 6. Hist. Angl. A. D. 970. Vide 27. q. 1. cap. ut lex. & Clem. cap. li••e∣ras de filiis Pres∣byter. & Inno∣cent. c. ut cleri∣corum. de vita & honestate cleric.
• * 1.87

  24.
• * 1.88

  lib. 6. const. Apost. cap. 17.
• * 1.89

  25.
• * 1.90

  26.
• * 1.91

  in quodlib. contr. Luthe∣rum.
• * 1.92

  27.
• * 1.93

  Cap. 10.
• * 1.94

  Tripart. hist. lib. 6. cap. 14.
• * 1.95

  Orat. contr. Arianos.
• * 1.96

  Dist. 31. C. aliter
• * 1.97

  28.
• * 1.98

  27. q. 1. cap. ut lex.
• * 1.99

  Epist. 200.
• * 1.100

  Epist. 201.
• * 1.101

  Epist. 321. ad Johan. Fontem.
• * 1.102

  Lib. 7. de Just. & jure q. 6. art. 2.
• * 1.103

  Justinian. Nov. 123. cap. 13.
• * 1.104

  Carm. de sua vita.
• * 1.105

  Habetur 1. Dist. 3. c. Quoniam.
• * 1.106

  29.
• * 1.107

  Alexand. 3. cap. sanè de Cler. Conjug. Vide Cajetan. opusc. tom. 1. tract. 27.
• * 1.108

  Lib. 1. ep. 11.
• * 1.109

  Haeres. 60, & Haeres. 61.
• * 1.110

  Epist. ad De∣metriad. Lib. de Bono conjugal. & habetur dist. 27. c. quidam.
• * 1.111

  De Monogam.
• * 1.112

  Epist. ad Ocean.
• a 1.113

  Glossa in Dist. 34. can. Fraternitas han∣rem exhorruit. Ecce casus, ubi plus juris ha∣bet luxuria quam castitas: quia castus re∣pelleretur, si contraxisset cum secunda; sed fornicator non. Vide etiam S. August. Epist. 64.
• * 1.114

  in locum Apost. 1 Tim. 3.
• b 1.115

  ad Ocean. tom. 2. Lib. 3. cap. 2.
• * 1.116

  Spalat. l. 2. cap. 10. n. 75.
• * 1.117

  Tertull. ubi suprá.
• * 1.118

  Serm. 66. in Cantica.
• * 1.119

  Halach I sho••••. cap. 15.
• a 1.120

  Quodl. 4. Art. 13.
• b 1.121

  in Sent. 4. dist. 27. q. 4.
• c 1.122

  in 3. part. tom. 3. disp. 24. cap. 5.
• * 1.123

  Mantuan.