pretence to a degree of purity beyond the rules set us in the Gospel, and is plainly laying an arbitrary yoke upon them, since the Author of our religion, who knew best what human nature is capable of, has not thought fit to impose it upon those whom he sent upon a commission requiring much greater elevation of soul, and more freedom from the embarrassments of worldly concerns, than can be pretended to be necessary for the settled offices of the Church.

(2) It produces evil results. It forms combinations among the clergy; it prevents them from having separate interests of their own, and abstracts them from civil society, in which they have no concern, since they give no pledges to it. Hence it was, that in ages in which the papacy intended to engage the priesthood in its interests against the civil powers, as their persons were preserved by the immunity and exemptions of the clergy, so it was further necessary to free them from any such appendages as would leave them in subjection to secular princes. This, combined with the belief of their power to make God, and forgive sin, rendered them invulnerable, and capable of undertaking any thing that was committed to them. though such circumstances may recommend this rule to a crafty body of men, who are only famous for their refined policy, yet "we have not so learned Christ," nor "to handle the word of

But

God," or the authority that he has trusted to us, “deceitfully.”

Roman Catholics, however, object to our doctrine that it produces evil consequences; that it imposes no restraint upon men's passions, and presents them with temptations to covetousness. But though some inconveniences may attend our doctrine, yet much worse results attend that of our opponents; and if it be undeniable that not only common irregularities, but even unnatural lusts have been the visible consequences of the law of celibacy, we think it better to trust human nature with the lawful use of that in which God has not restrained it, than to adopt that which has given occasion to abominations, that cannot be mentioned without horror. As for the temptation to covetousness, supposing it is thus produced, still it is not so violent nor so unavoidable on the one hand, as those we have alluded to are on the other; and it is certainly more reasonable to expect divine assistance to preserve men from temptation when they are using the liberty which God has allowed them, than when by pretending to a higher purity than he has commanded, they involve themselves in greater snares. But besides it is evident that covetousness is rather an effect of men's tempers than of their marriage, since the instances of a ravenous covetousness, and of a restless ambition in behalf of their kindred, have appeared as often in the unmarried as in the married clergy..

3. It may be observed that the law of celibacy was not sanctioned by the early ages. In the first ages of Christianity, Basilides and Saturninus,* and after them Montanus and Novatus, and the sect of the Encratites, condemned marriage as a state of libertinism, unbecoming the purity of Christians. Against these we find the Fathers asserted the lawfulness of marriage to all persons, without making any distinction between the clergy and the laity. The show of sanctity, however, that appeared in Montanus and his followers, seems to have excited the Christians of that time to emulate them in those things which had gained reputation for them. Thus many of Tertullian's writings, which were composed after he became a Montanist, exalt celibacy in such high terms as must, from the character he had, have rendered succeeding ages favourable to it. Still as it would have caused great and just prejudices against the Christian religion, if those who had entered into the service of the Church

b

a See Mosheim's Hist. cent. ii. c. v. "Encratites" was a name expressive of great temperance.

Tertullian was a man of a peculiarly austere disposition, and it is supposed that this austerity, without any other proof, led many to include him in the number of Montanus's followers. Under this impression he was excommunicated from the Church, which instead of humbling, seems to have excited his proud spirit, and withdrawing himself from the communion of the orthodox, he entered in reality into the sect of the Montanists. This is the account given by Dr. Cave, in his Lives of the Prim. Fath. p. 209.

a

had forsaken their wives, therefore great care was taken to prevent it. Those who did so upon their entering into orders, were severely condemned by the Apostolical Canons, and by the councils of Gangra and Trullo, in the fourth and seventh centuries. There are a few instances of bishops and priests who married after they were ordained; but it must be admitted that it was unusual for men once in orders to marry. It is however certain, that many bishops in the purest ages lived still with their wives, as the Fathers both of Gregory Nazianzen and St. Basil; and among the

b

Poictiers, there is a letter

works of Hilary of written by him in his

It is there decreed, that "no bishop, priest, or deacon, should forsake his wife on pretence of religion, upon pain of deposition." See Can. Apost. can. 5.-See also Conc. Gang. can. 1. and Conc. Trull. can. 3. The latter council was held A. D. 692, in a room of the Emperor's palace at Constantinople, called Trullus, whence it derived its name.

Gregory was made Bishop of Nazianzum, soon after the council of Nice, and subsequently to this Gregory Nazianzen was born.-See Greg. Naz. in Carm. de vit. Sua. The statement made in the text relative to St. Basil, does not seem so indisputable. Dr. Cave says, that the supposition of his father having been a Bishop, does not derive the least support from the ancients.-See Hist. Lit. p. 192. It is certain, however, that his brother Gregory continued to live with his wife, though he was bishop of Nyssa.-See Niceph. Hist. Eccl. 1. 1. c. 19.

ters.

This letter has been supposed to be spurious by several wri. The fact, however, which Bishop Burnet desires to establish, is proved from other sources.-See Venant. Fortunatus in Sur, de prob. Sanct. Hist. p. 264.

exile to his daughter Abra, in which he refers her to her mother's instruction in those things which, in consequence of her age, she could not then understand; which shows that she was then very young, and therefore was probably born after he was a bishop.

In the Council of Nice it was proposed that the clergy should separate from their wives, which was opposed by Paphnutius, though himself unmarried, as laying an unreasonably heavy yoke upon them. Heliodorus, the author of the first romance, having been on that account accused of levity, proposed, in order to remove the imputation, that clergymen should be obliged to live from their wives; an obligation which the historians tell us, had never been imposed upon them before. It is evident, therefore, that in those days the married state was not thought unbecoming the purity of the sacred functions. A single marriage was never considered an obstacle to a person being made a bishop or priest. It is true that no man was admitted to orders who had been twice married; yet even in this

He was banished into Phrygia, by the Emperor Constantius, on account of his opposition to the Arians.-See Cave's Hist. Lit. P. 164.

b See Socrat. Hist. Eccl. l. 1. c. 11.

< Heliodorus was Bishop of Trica in Thessaly, into which province he endeavoured to introduce celibacy at the latter end of the fourth century.-See Socrat. 1. 5. c. 21.