Marriage with a Defense of the 32nd Article of the Church of England, Chapter 9

Marriage with a Defense of the 32nd Article of the Church of England · Chapter 9

p. 65CHAP. IX. Of Second Marriages, and of the Qualifications of Miniſters or Priests Wives.

OF old they were accounted Bigamiſts, or Digamiſts, who had two Wives, not only at one and the ſame time, but ſucceſſively one after another; and ſuch were enjoyned Penance by the Council of Laodicea, and Neo-Caeſarea; and by the latter Council, a Presbyter was forbidden to be preſent at the Wedding-feaſt, leſt he ſhould ſeem to conſent to ſuch Marriage; and Bigamiſts were not received to the Communion without prayer and faſting, and repentance firſt enjoyned and exerciſed: And by the ancient Canons, Bigamiſts were not to be admitted to holy Orders, Concil. Andegavenſe, Can. 11. Concil. Romanum, an. 467. Can. 2. Concil. Arelatenſe, 3. Decr. 2. Concil. Hiſpalenſe 2. Cap. 4. and the ſame is forbidden in the Apoſtolical Canons, Can. 17. And by the ſame Canons, ſuch as otherwiſe might be capable of being Biſhops, Presbyters and Deacons, are made incapable of being ſuch, if they married a Widow, or a Whore, or one p. 66that was caſt out by her own Husband, aut aliquam de iis quae publicis ſpectaculis mancipantur, Can. 18. or one that was a notorious frequenter of the Spectacles in that time.

By the Law of God, the High Prieſt was not to marry a Widow, or a divorced Woman, or prophane, or an Harlot; But he ſhall take, ſaith the holy Text, a Virgin of his own people to wife, Lev. 21.14. Another Prieſt was forbidden to take a Wife that was a Whore, or prophane, or any woman put away from her husband, Lev. 21.7. but was not forbidden to marry a Widow: If the woman was not a Daughter of Iſrael, or had married to one that it was not lawful for her to marry, or had beeen defiled by conſtraint or unwillingly, or had been ſuſpected of Whoredom by her Husband, though ſhe had not been put to drink the water of Jealouſie, yet by the Law (according to Matrimony) the Prieſt might not lawfully marry with her. The Prieſts of the old Law were not forbidden (except only the High Prieſt, a ſpecial type of Chriſt) to marry a Widow. The High Prieſt was not to marry a Widow, but a Virgin; ('tis thought) that ſo he might have her firſt love; and 2. leſt ſhe ſhould prove with child, and bring in a ſtrange ſeed into the Prieſthood, provided againſt, Lev. 21.15. Again, he muſt not marry a divorced woman, becauſe it was conjectured ſhe was put away for ſome miſcarriage or miſdemeanor. p. 673. He muſt not marry one defiled, either voluntarily or violently, ſuch a blot muſt not lie on his wife, leſt it ſtain his Function. The Law allows the High Prieſt to marry, but a Virgin; Becauſe, ſaith one, ſhe may be more eaſily guided and ruled, and won to frame her ſelf to duty and obedience. And in Ezek. 44.22. he was allowed to marry the Widow of a Prieſt; for it may be preſumed, that ſuch an one hath been already trained to Modeſty, to Sobriety, to a chaſte and ſweet Behaviour, beſeeming the wife of a Prieſt. Now although the Miniſters of the New Teſtament are not prohibited, but expreſly allowed to marry; yet muſt their wives be grave, not ſlanderers, ſober, faithful in all things, and he that is in holy Orders, muſt be ſure to order and rule his own houſe well, having his children in ſubjection with all gravity, 1 Tim. 3.4. & 11. This care being had, they being married, ſaith my Author, ſhall be as holy and honorable in their Function, as the Prieſts of the Old Teſtament, who being married, were ſaid to have the Crown of God upon their heads, and to offer the bread of God, and to be after a ſpecial manner holy. And where 'tis ſaid, 1 Tim. 3.2. & Tit. 1.16. that a Biſhop muſt be the husband of one wife, &c. the meaning muſt be, that he muſt not be married to two wives at once, according to the cuſtom of the Jews, nor have a Concubine, together with a lawful wife, accordng to the practice p. 68of the Gentiles; or he might not marry a ſecond woman, after he had put away the firſt, without any lawful cauſe: But it ſeems to be very improbable, that the Apoſtle ſhould ſeclude from the Calling of a Biſhop or Presbyter, one that married a ſecond wife, after the death of his former. Obſerve, it is not ſaid, that a Biſhop muſt be ſuch a one as hath been the husband of one wife in time paſt; but he uſeth the preſent time, both in Timothy and Titus. The High Prieſt himſelf under the Law, might have a wife after his firſt wife, if ſhe was dead; if he married a maid, which was a figure of Chriſts Spouſe, the Church, which was to be preſented holy, and as a chaſte Virgin to Chriſt: By the ſame reaſon that they may drive Miniſters from their wives, they may alſo deprive them of all uſe of wine; and they may deprive Miniſters of all uſe of meat, and command them to faſt always, that they may be fit to pray always, as well as alway to abſtain from their wives: We never read, that the Levites that taught in the Synagogues (into the place of which our Churches ſucceed) were barred from the company of their wives. And conſider, it may be as neceſſary to marry the ſecond time, as the firſt, and ſometime, and in ſome caſes, perhaps more neceſſary [ſays Dr. Hamond.] The wife may dye preſently after Marriage, and without Children, and the ſecond Marriage in that caſe tending as much to the p. 69ends of Matrimony (Comfort of life, Propagation, remedy of Luſt) as the former can be ſuppoſed to do; it would then be ſtrange to debar a Biſhop or Presbyter in ſuch a condition. Chryſoſtome and Theodoret, with divers others, plainly and clearly teach this place to be underſtood as we do, that a Biſhop ſhould not have two wives at once. Eraſmus upon the place, diſliked the then practice of the Church of Rome, in forbidding Marriage to Biſhops and Prieſts: Admittitur, ſaith he, inceſtus, admittitur homicida, admittitur pirata, admittitur Sodomita, ſacrilegus parricida, deni que quis non? ſolus digamus excluditur ab hoc honore, qui ſolus nihil admiſit: And further, conſidering the times, and the ill conſequence of the ſingle life amongſt their Clergy and Monks, he inclines to think they had better much to allow Matrimony to theſe perſons: Nunc caelibes habet Mundus quamplurimos, caſtos perpaucos. Grotius ſaith, I confeſs, that amongst all Nations, ſecond Marriages were leſs honoured, and amongst ſome, theſe were reſtrained by puniſhments. And that Tertullian is fierce againſt ſecond Marriages, condemning them as unlawful, and interprets this of the Apoſtle, againſt a Biſhops being twice married. Notwithſtanding which Authorities, let the Scripture and right Reaſon be heard, and what hath been premiſed on this Argument conſidered, and you will have good ground and cauſe, not to call p. 70good, evil; I meann not to condem ſecond Marriages, whether in Lay-men or Clergy. And if a Biſhop may, without ſin, marry a ſecond wife, after he has buried his former, ſurely then he may lawfully marry at firſt: If he cannot contain, let him marry, he ſinneth not, only let him marry in the Lord, an honeſt, grave, ſober perſon, that may adorn, and not blemiſh his holy Function.

The Romaniſts ſay, there are three ſpecial Crowns reſerved in Heaven; one for Martyrs, a ſecond for Virgins, and a third for Doctors: The Virgins, overcome the fleſh; the Martyrs, overcome the World; and the Doctors, overcome the Devil. They have no ſuch Crown for married perſons; but although they have none for them, God hath laid up for them a Crown of Righteouſneſs, even the like Crown of Righteouſneſs for every one that loves the appearing of Chriſt, the Judge of quick and dead, as that Virgin Apoſtle, as moſt ſay, the Doctor of the Gentiles, and eminent Martyr, St. Paul, 2 Tim. 4.7, 8. Virginity, ſaith one, is not a Virtue in it ſelf, and no more acceptable to God than Marriage is; and this he proves, Becauſe all Virtues by Repentance may be reſtored: But Virginity cannot be reſtored, and therefore it is not a Virtue. Again, Becauſe all Virtues in time and place are commanded: But Virginity is left free, and only Paul gives his advice to it, 1 Cor. 7. therefore it is not a Virtue. p. 71The ſame Author ſaith, That Virginity is not good in it ſelf, but good for another end; when a man having the gift of Continency, lives a ſingle life, that he may be more fit or free to ſerve God. The Papiſts gloſſing on the Parable of the Sower, ſay, That Virginity bringeth forth an hundred-fold; Widowhood, ſeventy fold; and Marriage, but thirty-fold.

Great is the difference 'twixt the Ancient Church of God amongſt the Jews, and the preſent Church of Rome in this matter; there in Pſalm 78.63. The Virgins were not given in Marriage; or, were not praiſed, ſo the Hebrew ſignifies: But in this Church, the Virgins which are not married are moſt praiſed. Celibacy is made here a ſtate of Perfection, or Supererogation and Meritorious; but if but one half be true which we find in our Chronicles, it had been happy for our Votaries, very many of them at leaſt, that they had never known their Cells and Cloyſters; they might have gone as near a way to Heaven out of the World, as out of their Monaſteries. Bale, in his Book of the Acts of the Roman Biſhops, ſaith. That when the Kings Viſitors in England, in the year, 1538. viſited the Abbies, they found in ſome of their Styes, rather than Religious Houſes, five, in ſome ten, in ſome twenty Sodomites and Adulterers; of which ſome kept five, ſome ſeven, ſome twenty Harlots. And a later Hiſtorian tells us, That Barkley Nuns were p. 72all with child at once, and how Sir Henry Colt cauſed a Buckstal to be ſet in the narroweſt place of the Marſh, from Cheſhnut Nunnery to Waltham Abby, and therein took the Monks of Waltham as they paſſed homewards in the night; and the next morning he brought and preſented them to the King, namely, to King Hen. 8. who had often ſeen ſweeter, but never fatter Veniſon; D.F.H. 6 b. p. 317. And 'tis reported that Dr. Smith, who diſputed at Oxford againſt Peter Martyr, and who had written a Book for the Celibacy of Prieſts, was taken himſelf at Oxford in the manner, or in the very act. This is enough to prove, That 'tis much eaſier to make an Eloquent Speech, or write a Learned Book in Commendation of Single-life, and of Chaſtity in that condition, than to live ſo. If you Object the practice and praiſe of the Monks of Antient times: I anſwer, That the Monks of old times, and our preſent Votaries of the Church of Rome, are very different.

1. They lived ſingle, without any Vow of Continency, theſe are Votaries.

2. They had Callings, and got their bread in the ſweat of their brows; theſe live idle moſt of them, and like Drones, conſume the honey which others have gathered.

3. They did not look upon that condition, as a ſtate of greater perfection, and in it ſelf Meritorious; theſe do.

p. 734. Some of them, as I take it, had wives; and theſe not, but eſteem it more lawful to have a Concubine than a Wife.

Thoſe Monks were none of the Popes licenſing or founding; theſe are. We read of 12000 Monks of Bangor, that were deſtroyed by the King of Northumberland, for not ſtooping to Auſtin the Monk, upon the inſtigation as (Hiſtory tells us) of Auſtin. The Original of Monkery, or the Pattern or Platform of it, is not taken in the Mount; viz. in or from the holy Scriptures; although perhaps, ſome would pretend that they imitate Jeptha's Daughter, or Elijab, and Elizeus, or the Nazarites, or St. John Baptiſt, or the Children of Jonadab the Son of Rechab. But who hath required theſe things at their hands, now under the Goſpel, to tread in the ſteps of thoſe before-mentioned? and yet Jeptha's Daughter bewailed her Virginity, and ſo 'tis thought did yearly the Daughters of Iſrael lament on her account, or for her ſake. As for our Nazarites, they might marry, and ſome were married, as Sampſon and Samuel. Again, the Monks and Anchorites of old, were neceſſitated to that Solitary life; theſe live ſo out of choice, voluntarily obliging themſelves to this courſe. Elijah, Eliſha, and John the Baptiſt, were all extraordinary Perſons and Prophets, had extraordinary Calls, and are not to be imitated by ordinary Chriſtians. It is noted by Mr. Perkins, p. 74that Jerome ſaith, in the life of Hilarion, that there was no Monk in Syria, See his Doctrine of the Problem.before Hilarion, who was the Founder of that Profeſſion in that Province. And Chryſoſtome in the 25 Hom. ad Hebraeos, ſaith, That in Pauls time there was no ſign nor ſtep of any Monk. Monaſtical Profeſſion began in the Church about 260 years after our Redemption, by Paul a Thebane; or rather, ſaith my Author, about the three hundredth year by Antony. Theſe Monks, or Hermites, lived alone in Fields or Deſarts.

Baſil, 'tis ſaid, firſt invented Monaſteries, and was head of the Monks.

Baſil, himſelf, Ep. 65. ſaith, That the Neo-Caeſarians objected the Novelty of Monaſtical life againſt him. Beſides, theſe Monks of old were Laymen, and not Clergy-men; and Athanaſius in his Epiſtle to Dracontius, ſaith, That he knew many, both Monks and Biſhops that were married, and had Children. There were no Nuns, ſaith Mr. Perkins, until about two hundred years after Chriſt, and theſe lived continent and freely, privately, out of Monaſteries. In Rome, Marcella was one of the Nuns, about the year 400. vid. Hieron. in Epitap. Marcellae. St. Auſtine doth not approve of the idle lives of Monks. The Solitary life, ſaith one, is inferior to the common and ordinary life, becauſe it is full of importunate cogitations, &c. neither do we ſpeak this out of bare p. 75conjecture, but have learned it of thoſe who have tried it, to be true. Ivo Carnotenſis. Ep 258.

I ſhall now give ſome Anſwer to the Objections againſt the married lives of the Clergy, or of men in holy Orders, taken from the Scriptures. The Scriptures that have been, are, or may moſt ſeemingly be alledged to the contrary are theſe, Thoſe that are in the fleſh cannot pleaſe God, Rom. 8.8. Be ye holy, for I am holy, 1 Pet. 1.16. Defraud not one another, except it be by conſent, for a ſeaſon, that ye may give your ſelves to prayer and faſting, 1 Cor. 7.5. 'Tis good for a man not to touch a woman, 1 Cor. 7.1. He that is unmarried, careth how to pleaſe the Lord; but he that is married, careth how to pleaſe his wife, 1 Cor. 7.33. No man that is choſen to be a Souldier, intangleth himſelf with the affairs of this life, 2 Tim. 2.4. Whoſoever hath left Father, or Mother, or Wife, or Houſe, or Land, for my ſake, or the Goſpels, ſhall receive a hundred-fold in this life, Mat. 19.29. There are that make themſelves Eunuchs for the Kingdom of Heaven; he that can receive it, let him receive it, Mat. 19.12. Younger widows reject; for when they wax wanton againſt Chriſt, they will marry, having damnation, becauſe they have forſaken their firſt faith, 1 Tim. 5.11, 12. The unmarried woman careth for the things of the Lord, that ſhe may be holy both in body and ſpirit; but ſhe that is married, careth for the things of this world, how ſhe may pleaſe her husband, 1 Cor. p. 767.34. To theſe Objections from Scripture, I anſwer in general;

1. That the Scripture directly and plainly allows Marriage to Miniſters, equally as to any ſort of men, 1. Saying, That Marriage is honorable among all men (and therefore amongſt Clergy-men) and the bed undefiled, Hebr. 13.4.2. And again, Let every man have his own wife, 1 Cor. 7.2. and if every man, then a Prieſt, or Presbyter may lawfully have a wife. 3. A Biſhop must be the husband of one wife; and one that hath his children in ſubjection, with all gravity, 1 Tim. 3.4.

2. I ſay, That the High Prieſt and Prieſts of the old Law, had liberty to marry; that Aaron the Saint of the Lord was married, and had Children; Nadab and Abihu, &c. that divers of the Apoſtles of our Lord and Saviour were actually married; that St. Peter, whoſe Succeſſor the Pope, or Biſhop of Rome, claims to be, was married, our Saviour healing S. Peters wives Mother of a Feaver, Mat. 8.14, 15. Nor doth it any where appear, that they did wholly forſake ſociety with their Wives, any more than their Houſes, Trades, Ships, to which they certainly ſometime after, at leaſt for a time, returned.

3. That Scotus, Aquinas, Bellarmine, Franciſcus à Sancta Clara, divers in the Council of Trent, and of the Romiſh Church, hold, that p. 77the Celibacy, or ſingle life of Prieſts, is not de Jure Divino; and therefore cannot be proved out of Scripture, either by Precept, Inſtitution, or Example.

To the particular Scriptures, beſides what hath been ſaid before to ſeveral of them, I anſwer, That Rom. 8.8. Thoſe that are in the fleſh, cannot pleaſe God; muſt not be interpreted or underſtood, thoſe that are in Wedlock cannot pleaſe God; becauſe we know, that many Patriarchs, Prophets, Apoſtles, were married, and yet pleaſed God; and Enoch walked with God, and God took him up to Heaven, that he ſaw not death; for before he was tranſlated, he had this Teſtimony, that he pleaſed God, Heb. 11.5. But by thoſe that are in the fleſh, muſt be meant, either thoſe that adhere to the old Law, and ſlight the Goſpel; or elſe thoſe that are in a ſtate of Nature, in an unregenerate eſtate, never as yet renewed in the Spirit of their minds, but ſtill remain carnally minded, and drowned in the corruptions and ſinful luſts of the fleſh. To that of Peter, Be ye holy, for I am holy; it concerns all Chriſtians, and if Marriage and Holineſs could not conſiſt together, neither Lay-men nor Clergymen ſhould marry; and again, Moſes and Aaron, and God's people of old, to whom theſe words were ſpoken, were married perſons, and not commanded thereby to put away their wives. To the third, 1 Cor. 7.5. Defraud not one another, p. 78&c. that it is ſaid to all indifferently Lay-men, as well as Clergy-men, and that it forbids to ſeparate the man from the ſociety of the woman, or his wife, wholly and perpetually, but only for a time, and that too, that they might give themſelves to faſting and prayer, and ſo come together again; and this too, was to be done by the mutual conſent of man and wife.

Here may be condemned then, the Romaniſts barring perſons in holy Orders from Marriage, or in caſe they have been married before, from Conjugal fellowſhip with their wives whilſt they live, and that whether the wife will or no. We never read, that the Apoſtles ſo left their wives, nor that ever they asked their conſent ſo to do; and their ſaying, that the Apoſtles, although they were married, yet after they were called to the Apoſtleſhip, never did accompany with their wives any more, is gratis dictum, a meer ſay-ſo, a fancy of their own brain, without any good ground or foundation from Scripture, or ſound Reaſon, or good Authority. To the fourth Scripture, viz. That 'tis good for a man not to touch a woman. I anſwer, Good there, is taken for expedient, and that by reaſon of the preſent diſtreſs, and the danger of perſecution; in a married ſtate or condition in ſuch times, they ſhould meet with troubles. To the fifth, viz. 2 Tim. 2.4. I ſay, that Souldiers do not uſe, whilſt they are engaged in Military imployment, to undertake p. 79and intangle themſelves with merchandize or husbandry, &c. But this notwithſtanding, the Apoſtle Paul did work with his hands to maintain himſelf, that he might not be chargeable to the Church of Corinth, becauſe of falſe Teachers, who would have taken advantage, if he had been chargeable to that Church. And nevertheleſs, the Romaniſts do allow perſons in holy Orders, to be Juſtices of the peace, Lord Chancellors, Ambaſſadors of Princes: And the Apoſtle Paul did allow of the Apoſtle Peter his having a wife; and I have been told, that Eccleſiaſticks wives take on them, and off from their husbands, the cares of the Houſhold and Family: ſo that by Marriage, they are freed from worldly cares, rather than immerſt in them.

The caſe is not now with Clergy-men, as in the Apoſtles days; then the Church was poor and deſtitute, now ſhe is rich, and her Officers are well provided with Houſes, Glebe and Tythes, and neceſſaries for Houſe-keeping and Hoſpitality; and now a Houſe-keeper, eſpecially in times of peace, may be as expedient, as it was inexpedient in the Apoſtles time, and days of perſecution. To the ſixth, viz. Mat. 19.29. I anſwer, That if the times be ſo, that a man cannot be a good Chriſtian, or follower of Chriſt, except he leave or forſake his wife, houſe, lands, &c. then he muſt leave all, or deny all theſe p. 80things and relations, rather than deny Chriſt; and that this concerns the Laity, as well as the Clergy. If our Saviour had ever taught any ſuch Doctrine, as to part man and wife for the ſake of his Religion, and as part of his Religion, how would the Scribes and Phariſees have replied unto him from his own mouth, That which God hath joyned together, let not man put aſunder. Beſides, it no where appears, that the holy Apoſtles did wholly and perpetually forſake the ſociety of their wives; but rather, when they were to fly, took them with them, in caſe they would accompany them in their travels. To the ſeventh Scripture, I ſay, He that hath the gift of Continency may, if he ſees that Marriage will prove a ſnare to him, and intangle him ſo in the cares of the world, that he ſhall not be free and able to ſerve God as he ought: I ſay, let not … marry; but this is far from proving, that all … in holy Orders, whether they have the gift or not, ſhould vow Continency, or abſtain from Marriage, in caſe of a mans not being able to contain. The bleſſed Apoſtle, who knew the mind of his and our Lord, hath left us a general Rule, Notwithſtanding to avoid Fornication, let every man have his own wife, 1 Cor. 7.2. To the eighth Scripture, viz. 1 Tim. 5.11, 12. I anſwer, That as therefore becauſe younger widows were likely (after they had made promiſes to live to their lives end (as Deaconneſſes, p. 81to miniſter to the Church; in attending the ſick and weak) to change their minds, and marry perhaps to Infidel husbands, and ſo be in danger of forſaking their Chriſtian Religion, and prove a great ſcandal to Chriſtianity, making it be ill thought of by the world; therefore the Apoſtle Paul would not by any means have theſe younger widows admitted into ſuch Offices, but only ſuch widows as were above threeſcore years old, and ſo out of the danger of deſires of marriage, or altering their condition. So I could heartily wiſh, that no vow of Single life or Continency, might be put upon young perſons of either Sex, upon pretence of admitting them to any Office, or of ſeparating them to any ſpecial devotion, leſt they be tempted to break ſuch their Vows. This is the right and beſt uſe we can make of this Teſtimony. To the ninth Scripture, viz. 1 Cor. 7.34. I ſay, that it doth not condemn Marriage, … uncleanneſs or unholineſs; but it imports and implies, that ſingle perſons, taken off from the care and ſollicitude about the world, may more commodiouſly ſerve God; and having the gift of Continency, they may purely ſerve God with body and ſoul, not being overcome with any temptation to Fornication or Uncleanneſs: Not but that he or ſhe that is married, may and ought to be, and oft-times are pure, chaſte and holy both in body and ſoul. Marriage is honourable p. 82amongst all, and the bed undefiled; and the married as well as unmarried, may keep their veſſel in Sanctification and honour, 1 Theſſ. 4.4. To that about Carefulneſs, &c. I ſay, That if God call his ſervants to a married condition, he can and will, if ſought unto, give Grace to overcome thoſe lets, and bear theſe perſecutions they meet withal, ſo, as they may turn to helps and furtherances in the Kingdom of God, and to a richer Crown of Glory in the ſame, than the Virgins come unto; which becauſe they never wreſtled with ſuch mighty temptations, cannot wear the like Crown of Victory that they do, v. T. C. in loc.

The laſt place of Scripture that is alledged, is Rev. 14.4. Theſe are they which are not defiled with women, for they are Virgins; theſe are they which follow the Lamb, whitherſoever he goeth; theſe were redeemed from amongst men, being the firſt fruits unto God, and to the Lamb. By Virgins, we are to underſtand all thoſe pure Chriſtians, who had kept themſelves pure from the Gnoſticks Corruptions and Uncleanneſs, or from Idolatry, which is Spiritual Fornication; and have loyally adhered to Chriſt, the only Bridegroom of the Church, 2 Cor. 11.2. By thoſe that are ſaid not to be defiled with women, we muſt not underſtand thoſe that are not married, as if they that were in that ſtate were defiled with women; the Scripture reaches the contrary, Heb. 13.4. The p. 83Marriage-bed, is the bed undefiled; and Chriſt is followed whereſoever he goeth, not only by the bleſſed Saints that have led a ſingle life, and were not married; but alſo by married perſons, as Patriarchs, Apoſtles, Martyrs, and innumerable others, 1 Theſſ. 4.17. 'Tis obſerved, that there is nothing ſaid of theſe Virgins, which agreeth not to all the faithful. 1. They have all the name of the Lamb, his Father, and written in their foreheads; and all God's ſervants are ſealed in their foreheads, Rev. 7.3. 2. All God's ſervants are to ſing the new Song, Rev. 5.9, 10. all are redeemed from the earth, by the blood of the Lamb, chap. 5.9. The believing Jews, they are all a kind of firſt-fruits unto God, James 1.18. Laſtly, The Jeſuites at Rhemes confeſs, that theſe are the ſame number of the Elect that were ſealed, chap. 7. where in the Margent they note, That by the number there ſpoken of, are underſtood all the Elect, both of the Jews, and of the Gentiles, vid. T. C. in loc.

Theſe Virgins then are thoſe, that would not be polluted or defiled with the Idolatry, or Spiritual Fornication of the Whore of Babylon, mentioned in Verſe 8. of the 14 Chapter of the Revelations. Whatever Papiſts or old Hereticks ſay againſt the lawful Conjugal ſociety of man and wife, as if it were a work of the fleſh; the holy Apoſtle Paul doth not rank or condemn it for a work of the fleſh, in that black Catalogue p. 84of the works of the fleſh, on Record, Gal. 5.19, 20, 21. But on the other ſide 'tis obſervable, that thoſe who decry Marriage, without a juſt cauſe, and cry up ſingle life more than they have cauſe, as the Papiſts do, they are verily guilty of Idolatry, which is Spiritual Adultery or Fornication; witneſs their worſhip of the Croſs with Religious worſhip; their worſhip of Images, of Saints, and particularly of the B. Virgin; their worſhip of Angels, with Invocation, with Adoration. They tell us a ſtory, that at the Synod held at Wincheſter, when there was a difference 'twixt the married Clergy and the Monks, and Archbiſhop Dunſtan had a mind to introduce the Monks, The Croſs ſpake humano more, with mans voyce, againſt the married Prieſts. This was in the days of King Edgar, who began his Reign, 959. It ſeems then that there were married Prieſts in England in thoſe days.

If it be Objected, That many Ancient Councils have ordained Celibacy for Prieſts, as the firſt Elibertine Council, an. 310. or 311. Can. 33. The ſecond Council of Cartharge, about the year 396. Can. 2.

Concilium Agathenſe, Can. 9. about the year, 506.

The third Council of Orleans, Can. 1. about the year 537. The fourth Council of Orleans, an. 547. Can. 17. &c.

My Anſwer is, That we have the holy Scriptures p. 85of the Old and New Teſtament, for the lawfulneſs of Prieſts or Presbyters marriage, the Canons of the Apoſtles, Can. 5. and the General Council of Nice, rejecting the Propoſal about prohibiting of it; as alſo the ſixth General Council of Conſtantinople, &c. in the year, 692. and the Council of Toledo, an. 400. chap. 4. & 7. which teſtifies that the Clergy had wives. I might alſo have alledged Concilium Gangrenſe, cap. 4. in or about the year, 324. which Anathematiſeth thoſe who held it unlawful to receive the bleſſed Sacrament at the hands of a married Prieſt; and many Councils which forbid Prieſts ſecond Marriage, or to marry a widow, &c. All which ſuppoſed it lawful for him to marry. Whatever the Canons decreed, certain it is, that the Greek Church unto this day, allow of a married Clergy; and that divers Nations and Countreys, for a long time in the Weſt, did not admit of this neceſſary Celibacy, but tolerated their Clergy to be married. In England they had their wives, for above a thouſand years, almoſt twelve hundred years after Chriſt. So in Ireland, till the days of Henry the ſecond of England, who began his Reign, 1155.

Pope Pius II. who ſate about the year, 1458. was a great man in the Council of Baſil, his ſaying was, That Marriage was better for the Clergy than ſingle life, and turned out divers cloyſtered Nuns to take their liberty.

p. 86De facto many Prieſts were married of old. So Novatus a Prieſt, permitted by Cyprian to live with his wife. Tertullian was married, as appears by his Book written to his wife.

Gratian tells of the Sons of Presbyters and Biſhops, that were promoted to the Papal Dignity, Diſt. 56. So was Bonifacius the Pope, the Son of Jucundus the Presbyter; Foelix the Pope, the Son of Foelix the Presbyter; Agapetus the Pope, Son of Gordianus the Presbyter; Theodorus the Pope, Son of Theodorus the Biſhop; and many more, he ſaith, there were; and addeth, we are not to underſtand them as born out of lawful Marriages, which were lawful to Prieſts, before the Prohibition, ibid. Chryſoſtom agreeth with Athanaſius, and Clemens Alexandrinus, in 1 Tim. 3. and ſaith, That Marriage is in ſo high a degree honorable, that men with it may aſcend into the Epiſcopal Chairs, and yet live with their wives. For though it be a hard thing, yet it is poſſible ſo to perform the duties of Marriage, as not to be wanting in the performance of the duties of a Biſhop.

Sozomen ſaith of Spiridion, that though he had a Wife and Children, yet he was not therefore any whit the more negligent in performing the duties of his Calling; and of Gregory Nyſſen it is reported, that though he was married, he was no way inferior to his worthy Brother, that lived ſingle: And howſoever in Theſſaly; Theſſalonica, Mandonia, they did not admit into the Miniſtry any p. 87ſingle perſons, yet all the Biſhops of the Eaſt beſides, were then left unto their own liberty; and though ſome went about to take away their liberty in ſome places, yet the worthieſt men the Church had, ſtood in defence of it. So Syneſius, when they of Ptolemais would needs have him to be their Biſhop (which thing he little deſired) he made them acquainted with his preſent condition, and reſolved purpoſe for the time to come: God (ſaith he) the Law, and the ſacred hand of Theophilus, have given to me a wife, I therefore tell all men aforehand, and teſtifie unto all, that I will neither ſuffer my ſelf to be altogether eſtranged and ſeparated from her, neither will I live with her ſecretly as an Adulterer; for the one of theſe is no way pious and godly, and the other no way lawful: But I will deſire and pray unto God, that exceeding many and moſt good and happy Children may be born unto me: Neither will I have him that is chief in ordaining of me, to be ignorant hereof. Syneſius ad fratrem Ep. 105. foreign, &c. This liberty the Council in Trullo impeached in reſpect of Biſhops, but in reſpect of Presbyters, p. 88it continueth in all the Eaſt Churches of the world unto this day, Greek, Armenian and Ethiopian; warranted unto them by the Canons of the Apoſtles judgement of Biſhops, Canons of councils, &c. Dr. Field of the Ch. l. 5. p. 708. Some attempts were made in the Eaſt, by Euſtathius Biſhop of Sebaſtia; in Armenia and in the Weſt by Siricius, and Innocent the firſt his Succeſſor; and ſome Canons were made in the ſecond, or rather laſt Council of Carthage to the contrary. Yet by degrees theſe Canons and Severities againſt the married Clergy lay dormant, being found a burthen too heavy for the Church to bear. We find, that in the time that Hildebrand climb'd up into the Papal Chair, namely, anno 1075. and long before, that Prieſts had wives publickly: This was he, that was neither choſen by Emperor or Clergy, but intruded himſelf; this was he, that threw the Sacrament into the fire; this was he, that forced the Emperor, whom he had Excommunicated, to come with his Empreſs and Son bare footed, in the cold of Winter, to his Caſtle at Canuſium, and there to wait three days faſting, until he might have audience; which at length was obtained by the mediation of Madam Matilda the Popes Minion, that left her husband to live with the Pope, vid. Plat. this was he, that Sainted his Predeceſſor Liberius the Arrian; and this was he, that reſtrained and forbad Prieſts Marriage; p. 89but by ſo doing, ſtirred up the whole Nation of Clergy-men againſt him, crying out, that he was an Heretick, and a man damnably erring in his judgement, &c. And it is ſo far from being true, that Bellarmine ſaith, That the Prieſts beginning to marry in Gregories days, was the cauſe of the great contempt of the Sacrament, and of the Confuſions and Prophanations of Sacred things in thoſe days, that it was clear contrary; as Nauclerus teſtifies, de Clericis, lib. 1. cap. 19. that it was an old and confirmed cuſtom, that was not eaſily to be altered; and the Prieſts rather in Gregories time ceaſed, than began to marry, by reaſon of the attempts and endeavours of Gregory to reſtrain them from marriage; and the cauſes of the Confuſions of thoſe times, were occaſioned rather by the forbidding the Prieſts to marry, than by their beginning then to marry. And now ſince the Church of Rome hath forced this ſingle life on Clergy men, very many Learned men of later times, have deſired the Law of ſingle life may be taken away.

Durandus in his Book de Modo celebrandi Concilii, proveth by many Reaſons, that it were fit that the liberty of Marriages were again reſtored to Prieſts, in a General Council. Aeneas Sylvius, after Pope Pius the ſecond, was of this mind, So was Polydor Virgil and Eraſmus; the firſt of theſe in Book 5. chap. 4. de Invent. rerum, ſaith thus, I dare confidently ſay, that it hath been p. 90ſo far from being true, that this inforced chaſtity hath excell'd that which is in Marriage: That no ſinful crime hath brought greater diſgrace to the Order of the Miniſtry, more evil to Religion, or made a greater and deeper impreſſion of ſorrow in all good men, than the ſtain of the impure luſts of Prieſts. Eraſmus in Declam. de laudibus Matrimonii, affirms, that in his conceit, he ſhould not ill deſerve, nor take the worſt courſe, for the furthering of humane affairs, and the right informing of the manners of men, which ſhould procure liberty of Marriage (if it might be) both for Prieſts and Monks: Read alſo his Annotations on the firſt Epiſtle to Timothy, chap. 3.1. And Sigiſmund the Emperor, a little before the Council of Baſil, declar'd and publiſhed, That foraſmuch as more evil cometh by the forbidding of Marriage than good, it were better and more ſafe to permit Clergy men to live in the ſtate of Marriage, according to the cuſtom of the Oriental Churches, than to forbid them ſo to live.

Antiochus aforementioned, a Figure of Antichriſt, Dan. 11.37. did not regard women, or the deſire of women, or of wiving; and the Antichriſt forbids to marry, and commands to abſtain from meats. The ancient Romans liked and encouraged Marriage. Thus the Figure and Forerunner of Antichriſt, he himſelf and his followers, decry wiving, and cry up ſingle life; and by Fryers and Monks, the great Adorers of p. 91ſingle life, and Obſervers of diſtinctions of meats, the Doctrine of Image-worſhip was brought and ſpread, and propagated in the Church; as is proved by Mr. Mede in his Apoſtacy of the latter times.

Some of theſe Hermites, Anchorites, or Monks and Coenobites, might be honeſt and good perſons, abating them their errour about overmagnifying the ſingle life; yet the generality of them he condemns as hypocrites: For the lawfulneſs of Marriage of perſons in holy Orders, we have the Old and New Teſtament, and the practice of the Church, and the Doctrine of the Church at the Council of Nice; and after, till the time of Siricius, about the year, 385. Afterwards we have the Marriage of theſe allowed by all thoſe Councils which forbid ſuch perſons to marry widows, ſuch as Concilium Epaunen. Canon 2. Aurelianum the firſt Council, Can. 15. Concilium Toletanum 1.& ch. 1. the 3. And we find the Council of Carthage made divers Canons, about the Government of the Sons and Daughters of Biſhops and Clergy-men, ſuch as the 11. That they ſhould not make or go to the Spectacula Secularia, c. 12. That their Sons and Daughters ſhould not marry to Heathens, Hereticks or Schiſmaticks, c. 14. That they ſuffer not their Sons to go free out of their power and Government, till they are aſſured of their manners, and of ſuch age, ut poſſint ad eos propria pertinere p. 92peccata. This Council was held, ſaith Coriolanus, 397. The firſt Council of Toledo, an. 400. c. 1. Ordains de Presbyteris & Deaclnis, ſi poſt ordinationem filios genuerint, ad altiorem gradum non aſcendant. Yet they might continue in their ſtation, though not riſe higher in the Church.

In the year, 506. Conſilium Agathenſe, in the time of Pope Symmachus, cap. 1. although Bigamiſts, and thoſe that had married widows, being Presbyters or Deacons, might not conſecrate or miniſter; yet they might retain the name of Presbyters and Deacons. Hence it is to be ſuppoſed, that Presbyters and Deacons, who were not Bigamiſts, nor had married widows, might conſecrate and miniſter, notwithſtanding their marriage.

If it be Objected, That there were endeavours to make the Clergy content themſelves without wives. I ſay, yet in many places it would not prevail; not in England, till above Eleven hundred years after Chriſt; not in Ireland, till the days of Henry the Second of England, who ſubdued Ireland. I read, that Celſus the great Apoſtle of Armagh, and High Primate of Ireland, had both a wife and children, in the time of his Archbiſhopry, according to the uſage of the Countrey, vid. Bernard in vita Malachiae. And we are told, that Pope Adrian, and Pope Alexander, did ſtir up Henry the Second to ſubdue p. 93Ireland, becauſe the people withſtood their proceedings againſt the Marriage of Biſhops and Prieſts.

It is certain de facto, that many Eminent Perſons, in holy Orders, were actually married: So Gregory Nazianzen's Father was a Biſhop, and begat him after he was Presbyter, if not after he was advanced to the Biſhoprick.

Gregory the Great, was Grandchild to Foelix Pope of Rome, who was Pope, 590. and he is ſaid to have cancell'd his Decree againſt Prieſts Marriages, upon the finding of 600 Infants skulls in a fiſh-pond. Pope Adrian II. was Son to Biſhop Tallerus, had a Daughter by his Wife Stephania, both which were killed after he was Pope, which was, an. 863.

Chriſtopher Patriarch of Jeruſalem, about the year, 900. had children, viz. two Sons, and two Daughters.

In Armenia, the Secular Prieſts are all enjoyned to marry, elſe they muſt not be admitted to the Prieſthood, Ne que permittitur aliquis Sacerdotium aſſumere qui uxorem non duxit. Berchard. p. 95. The Prebendaries of Cathedrals, out of which number they chooſe their Biſhop, are not allowed to marry. In Biſcay, they allow not any Prieſt to live in their Villages, except …he bring his Concubine with him, conceiving it impoſſible for them to keep their wives unto p. 94themſeves, if the Curate hath not a woman of his own. D. H. G. p. 256. At the Council of Trent, the Emperor and Duke of Parma, made inſtance to the Pope, and ſaid it would be of great moment, to grant that Prieſts that are ſeparated becauſe they are married, may be reconciled, and retain their wives, and that hereafter, where there is not a ſufficient number of Prieſts married, men of good life and fame may be admitted to the Prieſthood. Vid. Hiſtory of the Council of Trent, p. 813. And we find in the Hiſtory of that Council, that the more common Opinion was, the Marriage of Prieſts might be diſpenſed withal. 'Tis true, that this was thought by ſome dangerous, becauſe that married Prieſts would turn their affections and love to their wives and children, and by conſequence to their houſe and Country; ſo that the ſtrict dependance which the Clergy hath on the Apoſtolick See, would ceaſe; and to grant Marriage to Prieſts, would deſtroy the Eccleſiaſtical Hierarchy, and make the Pope to be Biſhop of Rome only. Council of Trent, p. 680. Yea, the famous ſaying of Pope Pius II. was then in the mouth of many, That Prieſts were by the Occidental Church forbid to marry, for good reaſon; but there was ſtronger reaſon to reſtore Marriage to them again. The two great Reaſons urged at the Council were, Scandal given by incontinent Prieſts; and want of continent perſons fit to p. 95exerciſe the Miniſtry, Hiſt. of C. Trent, p. 679, & 806. It was in the ſame Council alledged, that the Conſtitution of the Church, forbidding to marry might be taken away by the Pope; or, in caſe the Conſtitution remain ſtill, the Pope may diſpenſe with it: They alledged the examples of thoſe who have been diſpenſed with; and the uſe of Antiquity, that if a Prieſt did marry, the Marriage was good, but the man was ſeparated from the Miniſtry, C. T. p. 679. And whereas, as ſome thought; that perſons who were bound to Continency by ſolemn Vow, could not be diſpenſed withal by the Pope; others maintain'd, that the Pope might diſpenſe with theſe alſo, and marvelled at thoſe, who granting the diſpenſation of ſimple Vows, did deny that of Solemn, as if it were not moſt clear, that every Solemnization is de Jure poſitivo. They brought places out of S. Auſtin, by which it doth manifeſtly appear, that in his time, ſome Monks did marry; and howſoever it was thought, they offended in it, yet the Marriage was lawful; and St. Auſtine reprehendeth thoſe who did ſeparate them. And as for Marriage of Prieſts, Innocent II. was the firſt, that ordained there ſhould be a nullity in the Marriage. This Pope ſate in the Sea, 1130. Innocent III. who bore a heavy hand over our King John, and Interdicted the Kingdom for ſix years together, was the terrible man againſt Prieſts Marriages: p. 96Whereupon we have theſe Verſes by an Oxford man.

Priſciana Regula penitus caſſatur,

Sacerdos per hic & haec olim declinatur

Nunc per hic ſolum articulatur

Cum per noſtrum praeſulem hec amo veatur.

[Prid. Intro. to Hiſtri. 123.]

Old Priſcians Rule henceforth muſt hold no more,

'Twas hic & haec Sacerdos heretofore:

But now poor Hic muſt lie alone perforce,

For his dear Haec our Prelate doth divorce.

This Pope Innocent, was Pope firſt, an. 1198. If we may credit Hiſtory, divers Popes have had their Concubines. Sixtus IV. provided for his Concubine Tireſia ſhooes covered with Pearl; builded Stews at Rome, which brought him 2000 Duckets yearly in-come; he granted the Cardinal S. Lucia the uſe of unnatural luſts for three months in the year, June, July and Auguſt. Innocent the eight a Genoway, he had divers baſe children, Vid. B. Prid. Hiſt.and gave a great dowry to his Daughter Theodorina. 'Tis ſaid of him,

Octo Nocens pueros genuit totidem que puellas

Hunc merito poteris dicere Roma Patrem.

p. 97Eight Lads, and twice four Girls Nocens got,

And might not Rome him Father term? why not?

Pope Alexander the ſixth heaped all upon his Baſtards, and carnally uſed his own Daughter Lucretia.

Hence thoſe Verſes:

Hic jacet in Tumulo Lucretia nomine ſed re Thais, Alexandri, filia, ſponſa, nurus.

Lucrece by name here li…s, but Thais in life,

Pope Alexander's Child, Spouſe, and ſons wife.

This Pope entred on the Popedom, an. 1492. Paul the third proſtituted his Siſter Julia Forneſia to Alexander the Sixth, that he might be made Cardinal, committed inceſt with his own Daughter Conſtantia, and poyſoned her husband Boſius Sforſia, to enjoy her the more freely; he became Pope, 1534. B. Prid. Hiſt. p. 145.

Yet I ſhall grant, 1. That ſingle life is in ſome reſpects to be preferred, as moſt free ordinarily from trouble and care, and in times of perſecution, and to unfixed perſons, as to their habitations, affording better opportunity to ſerve God, or to ſuffer for him, and fewer and leſſer temptations to deny him. 2. I grant, that thoſe who have made a vow of Celibacy, before or at their entrance into the Miniſtry, or on ſome other occaſion, p. 98if they have they have the gift of Continency, are bound to keep it. 3. That 'tis poſſible ſome Votaries of both Sexes, may be free from the groſs vices and crimes charged on moſt of our Votaries, in the days of K. H. 8. at the diſſolution of Abbeys. 4. That in Colledges, for training up youth in Learning, it is expedient, that thoſe that are Tutors and Readers to youth, be, during ſuch their employment, ſingle. 5. That Presbyters or Prieſts, at times of extraordinary Humiliation, and at times of more ſolemn Celebration of the Lord's Supper, ſhall do well to obſerve the old Canons, that forbid the ſociety of their Wives for a time.

But then I aſſert and avow with the Author to the Hebrews, chap. 13.4. 1. That Marriage is honorable among all men, and therefore among perſons in holy Orders, and the bed undefiled: And therefore 2. That the ſociety of a Clergy-man with his wife, whether he was married to her before his Ordination, or after, is lawful; no Adultery, no Uncleanneſs. 3. That for a perſon at his Ordination to make an abſolute vow of ſingle life for all his days, is a raſh and unlawful Vow. 4. That if a man have made ſuch a Vow, and find he have not, nor cannot obtain the gift of Continency, in that caſe he ought to marry. 5. That the Marriage of Luther with Katherine Bora, on ſuppoſition they could not contain, was lawful. 6. That the Church p. 99of Rome ſins grievouſly, to put a yoke upon the neck of the Diſciples of Chriſt, that officiate in holy things, which neither we nor our Fathers were able to bear. 7. That the Church of Rome may, and ought to reverſe and repeal her Laws, Canons or Conſtitutions, enjoyning Celibacy on the Clergy; ſo contrary to Scripture, the Apoſtles Canons, the Council of Nice, and the continued practice of the greateſt part of the Chriſtian Church to this day. 8. That that Church of Rome's admitting young Youths and Virgins to make and engage in abſolute ſolemn Vows, that they will live all their days in Celibacy, is a great ſnare, a grievous ſin, and contrary to the Apoſtles advice concerning young widows, 2 Tim. 5.14. is oppoſite to the prime bleſſing, Creſcite & multiplicamini, Increaſe and multiply; is a great ſcandal to Religion, is a damage to Kingdoms and States, where ſuch are educated idle and uſeleſs to the Publick; is a weakning to their Countrey, a deſtruction of their Race and Family, an occaſion of grievous and horrid luſts and wickedneſſes. 9. That Marriage, notwithſtanding it is lawful to all Ranks, Orders and Degrees of men, and conſequently to men in holy Orders, yet it is no Sacrament. 10. That the Church of Rome, by advancing Matrimony to be a Sacrament, lays claim to the Adminiſtration of it, and to the judging and deciding Matrimonial cauſes, and p. 100ſo brings ſtore of griſt to her Mill. And by forbidding Marriage to Prieſts, doth inrich the Church with that which ſhould otherwiſe be expended on wives and children, and keeps the Clergy in a dependance on Rome, having no ſuch near relation as wives and children to withdraw their affections from it. 11. That to aſſert that for a man in holy Orders (ſuppoſe he have made a Vow of Celibacy) to marry, and to accompany with his wife, is worſe than Fornication, yea, than Adultery, is an erroneous and dangerous Poſition; contrary to the holy Scriptures, to ſound Reaſon, to the Ancient Councils and Fathers; vid. Auſtine de Bono viduitatis: And if this Book be queſtioned, whether it be his or not, ſee his Epiſtle to one Bonifacius, who had vowed a Monaſtical, retired and ſingle life, and yet afterwards did marry; his words are theſe, Thy wife hindereth me that I cannot exhort thee to this kind of life, without whoſe conſent it is not lawful for thee to contain, &c. Of this opinion alſo was Jerome, the great Patron of Virginity, Ep. 47. de Suſpecto contubernio vitando. Of the ſame judgement was Epiphanius, Haereſ. 61. who indeed maketh it foreign, i. e. a thing evil, and ſuch as God will judge and puniſh, to forget, neglect, and not perform a Vow made to God; but not foreign, i. e. a thing which caſteth men into the condemnation of Hell fire, and plungeth them in everlaſting deſtruction, as to p. 101live in Adultery. He thinks it better for a man (though he have committed a fault in breaking his Vow, which he may repent of, and be forgiven) to marry, than by living in continual Adultery, to add one ſin to another, and to plunge himſelf in endleſs deſtruction. And 'tis an abſurd and irrational thing for any man to ſay, that 'tis better to burn, than to marry, becauſe either of his Vow, or of the Command of the Church; for neither a Vow of our own, nor any Command of the Church, can make void the Law of God: if he cannot contain, let him marry, and to avoid Fornication, let every man have his own wife. Our Saviour ſaith nothing to the contrary, when he ſaith, he that can receive it, let him receive it. We ſpeak only of thoſe who cannot receive it, who cannot contain; and in ſuch caſe, we muſt not make void the Laws of God againſt Adultery and Fornication, in ſeeking to confirm or obſerve the Laws and Conſtitutions of the Church. In this caſe, Whether it be better to obey God or man, judge ye. I ſhall not here go about to ſhew, that the Anſwers of Bellarmine and others, to the Authorities that are brought on our ſide, are but fig-leaves to cover the nakedneſs of their cauſe, and eaſily blown away; but I ſhall direct my Reader to Bp. Jewel his Defence of his Apology, Dr. Field of the Church, B. 5. ch. 57. to Mr. Cartwright, and Dr. Fulk's Anſwer to the Rhemiſt's Teſtam. p. 102on Matth. 8. and on 1 Tim. 3.8. to Calixtus de Conjugio Clericorum, to Biſhop Hall's Honour of the married Clergy. Nor ſhall I go about to anſwer the particular ſayings of ſome Fathers to the diſparagement of Marriage. It ſufficeth, that the Church of England hath the holy Scripture, and the Ancient Church on her ſide; the deſires of many Learned, Worthy men that have been in the Church of Rome; the practice of the greateſt number of Chriſtian Churches in the world at this day; ſo far as to juſtifie the lawfulneſs of married men, to be admitted to holy Orders, and to officiate in and about holy things, notwithſtanding their having wives; and that the bleſſing of God is, and hath been upon our married Clergy, no other Nation excelling them in Learning, Piety, or the gift of Preaching; that ſaying ſtill holding good, notwithſtanding their Marriage, Stupor mundi Clerus Britannicus. If it be objected, That this Marriage doth ſpoil our Charity and Hoſpitality, and proves a temptation to Covetouſneſs. I anſwer, That Solomon, Eccleſ. 4.7, 8. ſays, There is a vanity and diſſatisfaction, and unprofitableneſs in heaping up riches, even by ſingle perſons. And 'tis obſerved by a ſober and learned Caſuiſt of our own [Mr. Capel] That ſingle perſons, and thoſe that have but few children, oft-times prove more covetous, than thoſe that are married, and have many children; alledging, that the latter are by p. 103daily and frequent experiences and layings out, habituated to part with money, and ſo a peny comes not (as from ſome others, like a drop of blood from their hearts. I ſay further, that great things have been done by the married Clergy, and other married perſons in our days, if it were neceſſary, we might inſtance in particulars. It hath been ſaid, That Pater Noſter built Churches, and Our Father pull'd them down; but it hath been proved and publiſhed to the world, that as many and great Acts of Piety and Charity have been done in England ſince the Reformation of Religion, as in the like number of years in times of Popery. And whatever is or may be ſaid or pretended to the contrary, as if the allowing of the marriage of the Clergy was an impoveriſhment of the Church and Country, and a damage to the Kingdom; I dare ſay, they that would remove the married Clergy, to bring in the Monks, could never be able to recompence the Churches, their Countrys, and the Kings and Kingdoms damage. Who can more earneſtly pray for, and endeavour the weal of their own King and Country, than thoſe who have ſuch great bonds and intereſts to deſire and endeavour it? And who is like to be moſt at home amongſt his own people, if not he that hath amongſt them continually a wife, the deſire of his eyes, and children, which he loves as his own eyes?

FINIS.

End of the text · Thomas Hodges, Marriage with a Defense of the 32nd Article of the Church of England (1673)