case there was a distinction.

a

If the individual had been once married before his baptism, and once subsequent to it, this was considered as a single marriage, that which took place while he was in a state of heathenism being overlooked; and Jerome, speaking of such persons, says, "the number of them in that time could not be "reckoned, as more such bishops might be "found than were at the council of Arimini." In process of time canons were made against the marriage of persons in holy orders, but they were merely provincial laws, passed principally in the Roman and African synods, the constant renewal of which plainly proves they were not much attended to. Thus, at the ordination of Synesius, he declared publicly that he would continue to live still with his wife, and expressed a hope that he might have a large family.

In the Eastern Church the priests are usually married before they are ordained, and continue to live with their wives afterwards without any censure. In the Western Church we find men

с

a See Hieron adv. Jovin. 1. 1.

See Conc. Tol. can. 1. and Conc. Carth. can. 2.

Synesius was chosen Bishop of Ptolemais in Egypt, about the year 410, and previously to his consecration he made the declaration alluded to in the text, notwithstanding which he was ordained by Theophilus, Patriarch of Alexandria.—See Epist. 105. ad. Evop.

4 In the sixth canon of the sixth general council, it is decreed, that if any who comes to be ordained, wishes to join himself to "a wife with the bond of marriage, let him do it before he is or"dained deacon, subdeacon, or priest, and then receive orders."

tion made in the Gallican and Spanish synods of Episcope and Presbyteræ, the wives of the bishops and priests. In England, in the Saxon times, the clergy in most of the cathedrals were married, and when Dunstan, who had prevailed upon King Edgar to favour the monks in opposition to the married clergy, pressed them to forsake their wives, they preferred being turned out of their benefices, to which the monks succeeded. In fact, celibacy was not imposed upon all the clergy till Gregory VIIth's time, at the end of the eleventh century. His design was to bring the clergy into dependence upon the papacy, and in order to effect his object, he called the married clergy Nicolaitans, being well aware that an odious name produces great effects in an ignorant age. But so far was this measure from being approved of, or submitted to, that the writers of the time condemn it as a new and rash step, and contrary to the tenor of the Holy Fathers. In England Lanfranc imposed celibacy only on those who lived in towns or at cathedrals, and connived at those who served in villages. Anselmf

743.

a See Conc. Turon. can. 13. and 19: Conc. Rom. can. 5. an.

b See Collier's Eccl. Hist. v. 1. B. 3, cent. 10. p. 184.

This decree was passed in the 3rd and 4th canons of a synod

held at Rome, A. D. 1074.

See Hoveden. Annal. par. 1. p. 262.

This decree was passed in the synod of Winchester, A. D. 1976. f See Hen. Huntindon Hist. 1. 7.

however, extended it to all, yet he himself is forced to lament that unnatural lusts were quite common; a complaint which had likewise been made by Petrus Damiani, in Gregory's time. The same consequences, are said by Bernard' to have prevailed even among the bishops in France. The abbot Panormitanb was led, by observing them, to wish that the clergy had been left free to marry, and Pope Pius II. admitted, that though there might have been good reasons for imposing celibacy on the clergy, there were far better reasons for leaving them at liberty. In fine, to avoid these more enormous crimes, dispensations for concubinage became so common, that instead of offending the world, they were considered as marks of temperance and modesty.

These dreadful effects, which flowed from imposing celibacy on the clergy, fully warrant us in not acquiescing in such a restriction. It is not however denied, that on the other hand evil effects may attend an unrestrained freedom on this subject. The married state naturally involves men in the cares of life, and brings with it temptations both to luxury and covetousness. Still, as these effects are produced by the general corruption of human nature, which insinuates itself even into our best actions, we must

* See Serm. 66. in Cantic. • See Platina in vita ejus.

See Panor. de Cler. Conjug.

not take away those liberties which God has allowed, and impose rules upon men which are unsanctioned by his word, more particularly when we see before us the destructive consequences which have attended those rules in past ages. At the same time, as " he who marries does well, he who marries not does better," provided he lives chastely, and unaffectedly adopts so strict a course of life, in order that "he may give himself wholly to the ministry of the "word and to prayer," (Acts, vi. 4.) While, on the contrary, he who gives way to the temptations in which the married state involves him, brings a scandal on the Reformation which permitted this liberty.

66

II. The Article states, that clergymen are not commanded to vow the estate of single life.

To illustrate this declaration we shall consider the question, 1st, with respect to the making such a vow; and 2dly, with respect to keeping it when made.

1st. It is unlawful to make a vow of single life. This appears, (1.) from the nature of a vow. No vows ought to be made, except in cases that are either absolutely in our power, or in which we may procure such assistance as may enable us to perform them. Now, we have a fœderal claim upon the promises which Christ has made us, of internal assistance, to enable us to fulfil the conditions he has imposed upon

us, and consequently we may vow to observe those conditions in dependance upon that promise. But if men will make resolutions which are not within those conditions, they can then have no reason to expect God's help; and if they are not so absolutely masters of themselves as to be able to stand without it, it is undeniable that they ought not to make a vow, which they cannot keep by their own natural strength, and in which God has not promised to aid them. (2.) It appears from the dangers to which it exposes the individual who makes it. Our Saviour has taught us to pray that we may not be led into temptation; a prayer to which a vow of a single life is in direct opposition. For a variety of different temptations will arise from it, which will even be increased by the existence of that vow, as our nature generally struggles most where it is most restrained. It is certain, that every man who dedicates himself to the service of God ought to endeavour to free himself from the embarrassments of life, that he may thus be enabled to labour more effectually. But because both his temper and his circumstances may so change, that what is an advantage to him at one time of his life may be a snare to him at another, he ought therefore to continue in that liberty in which God has left him free, that he may act as he shall find it to be most expedient for himself and for the work of the Gospel.