Hey on Article XXXII: Of the Marriage of Priests

1. If one could give the natural principles of any subject, they would connect all tacts, and — the best Key to the Hifory of men’s practice. For all practice 1s only the operation of natural principles in different circumstances. — With a view to illustrating facts after this manner, I have some- times prefixed to my historical observations, some attempt at a description of Nature; and the plan seems to suit our present subject.

In the Appendix to the First Book, I have spoken something of monastic Life; have endea- voured to describe it, and account for it; I now only observe, that the contemplative abstemious Monk differs from the ’ Man of the World, very materially; he differs, as to the refinement of his passions, and particularly as to the more warm, rapturous, affectionate kind ot Piety. Ac the fame time, he has his peculiar faults —Waith regard to. Marriage, which on this Article is our chief con-

BB 2 | cern,

cern, he is farther removed from it, than one who maintains a constant intercourse with mixed companies.

But amongst men of the world, there may be a great difference in respect of marriage, and of motives for engaging in it. One man may be so situated, that it would be a desireable thing for him to marry merely on prudential * motives; an alliance would enable him to accomplish the ends which he has chiefly in view. Another 1s much attracted to marriage; he esteems it a great good; but he is afraid of losing what he esteems a still greater good; he is afraid of losing a good service, a good Fellowship, &c. besides (for that must always be s{uppoled, in order to make single life rightly chosen) that he shall be able to resist ali temptations peculiar to celibacy.

Now suppose these men all to fix their views solely on the good of promoting religion, at the time they have marriage in view: the Monk would engage in single life with readiness, in order to promote it; would probably condemn marriage, or at least highly applaud continence; and would feel himself elated and purified. The man of the world, in the first situation, would perceive, that, in his own way, he could best promote religion by affociating with himself a certain female part- ner, and following a certain plan. The other, would tend forcibly towards a married state, but he would fee, that, in his case, connexions and incumbrances would impede him so much, that he could not freely exert himself; could not, 3 5

whole,

It is reckoned prudent for a Man-midwife to be a married man; anda candidate for a Chaplaincy of a Society of Females: as Magdalens, Asylum, &c.—Or prudence may be pleaded against marrying : Le Mariage est une chose tres serieuse; on

ne peut pas trop-y penser: Heureux celui qui y pense toute a vie. |

BOOK Iv. ART. XXX1T. SECT. IT, 389

whole, do that good, in promoting religion, which he particularly meditated. We need proceed no farther in order to fee, how men might be situated, in respect of marriage, upon the first propagation of the Christian Religion. |

It has been before observed, that men could scarcely, at first, enter into Christianity, without being agitated : they must be under continual alarms; their views must be fixed on heaven!” objects; their affections set on things above: where their treasure was, there would their heart be allo. This is a disposition very unfavourable to mar- riage; or to allowing it its due share of praise; and the prevalence of the oriental Philosophy would make it more unfavourable*. Such a temper would regard the marriage of Priesis, as a want of self- government, as a degradation of the sacred cha- rater. Now if we conceive this temper working forcibly through a number of ages, and always combated by the natural propensity to marriage, and by the more ordinary feelings of common sense and active life, we shall have a general sketch of the History before us. | 2 11, Though the sacred writers themselves seem to me perfectly free from every thing flighty, yet in the Apo/ffolic Age Christians began to find, or fancy, that atteritions to their Wives, prevented their being such good Christians as they might be. And, in some cases, both partners were of the same mind: they separated, at bed, though not at board; so that the wife became a fort of Ser. —Hermas, at the beginning of his first / on, speaks of a woman, whom he had begun to love as 4 Sister,

d Mosheim says, that malignant Spiriis were thou ght to have most influence over married people, quarto, Vol. 1. page 137. BB 3

390 BOOK IV. ART. XXXIT, SECT. 11.

Sister, and he is afterwards*® told that lus /ife must be his Ser.

Basilides is placed by Cave in the year 112; many strange things have been said of him; but in Lardner’s Book of Herefies they are compared, and a sober judgment formed out of them. That judgment is“, that Basilides valued continence, not on monastic principles, absolutely, in itself, but only with regard to the good effects it would produce in any particular juncture; on the ground of its utility in any particular circumstances :—if it produced the greatest good, in any case, in Ha case, it was to be commended and practised; otherwise it was not necessary or required. This fell so far short of the high notions of some sects of Christians, that it was accounted heretical.

The Manickeans only tolerated marriage even in what they called their Auditors, in their elect, they did not even tolerate it.— The Manicheans are placed as first flourishing about the end of the third Century.

It seems clear that, however some might be admired for not marrying, some of the Clergy did marry, or were married men, during the whole of the three first centuries. Yet I suppose that attempts were continually on foot to prevent their marrying, or to make them separate themselves from their wives.

During these three first Centuries, there arose a custom for men to have women constantly with them, who were called /#5introduced women;

mulieres

© Second Vision.— See the Note at the beginning of Hermas’s firt Vision. Edit. Russell.

4 Her. Basilides, Sect. 12. —Lardner’s Works, Vol, g. page © Vol. 1. page 349. or Append, to Book 1. Set. 1v. 7. * See Bingham, 4. 5. 5.

BOOK Iv. ART, xxxII. SECT, III, 391

mulicres subintroductæ; in the Greek Churches, ovieioaxro :— their employments and characters are not entirely agreed about: Lardner® lays, they « were not wives, nor concubines, but persons maintained as objects of Charity, or else for the sake of domestic affairs.” Bishops, and men of great eminence, entertained these women; some very innocently, I do not doubt; but it seems probable, that the connexion would be a snare for others, if any times of peace or quiet came on.— This Mulier subintroducta seems to have been a sort of continuation of the Sifter-wife of Hermas. 111. At the Council of Nice, in 325, it was proposed, that such Ministers as had wives, should put them away; the conduct of Papsinutius, an Egyptian Bishop of some eminence, on the occa- sion, was spirited and liberal: though bred up a Monk himself, unmarried, and remarkable for his chaste conduct, he cried out in the Assembly, that he would not agree to the putting of such a yoke upon the neck of the Disciples ;”—that co- habiting with a virtuous wife, was chastity itself ; —and that he could by no means agree to anything more than that the unmarried Clergy should con-

tinue

s Lardner’s Works, Vol. 3. page 82, Note.—The idea of marriage without cohabitation was nor very uncommon in the times of which we are speaking. Nor was it wholly unknown to the Heathens. See the Life oe Hypatia in Suidas ; or Lardner’s - Works, Vol. 9. page 83.— Some Christians have run into the folly of performing what may be called feats of chastity or continence: that is, have exposed themselves voluntarily to very great temptations in order to boast of their power of overcom- ing them. Sec the accounts of D’ Arbrissel, founder of the Abbey of Fontevraud, who died in the year 1117. Bayle’s Dict. under Fontevraud, Gibbon’s Hist. quarto, Vol. 1. Chap. 1 5. page 485. e Suidas from Socrates, 1, 11, and Sozom. 1. 23. Bingham, 4- 5. 7. from the same, + |

i Acts XV. IQ,

B 54

tinue single. He had weight to stop the imposition of the restraint proposed.

At this famous Council a Canon* was made against the subintroduced women, which I will read,

The general turn of the Religious, was to celi- bacy; and fine eulogiums were written upon chastity, and other Ascetic perfections, by Tertul- lian, Ambrose, and most of the Fathers: though Tertullian did write two Books Ad Uxnorem; to his own wife. |

iv. The first check which this humour met with, was from Jovinian, a Monk of Milan, in the fourth Century; we have mentioned his idea, that Satan has not power to seduce a true Christian, under the sixteenth Article!; but he was more famous for holding”, that wives may be as good Christians as Virgins can be. Lardner considers him as having been of the same opinion with Basilides; as already“ described. — Vigilantius, a Presbyter of Gaul, in the fifth Century, is spoken of with Jovinian; they both opposed several grow- ing customs of Christians, which had arisen from a too great luxuriance of Piety,—Jerom is very in- dignant against Vigilantius, whom he describes as saying, that no Clergyman ought to remain un- married. This notion he amplifies and exag- gerates thus; et nisi (Episcopi) pregnantes uxores viderint Clericorum, infantesque de ulnis matrum vagientes, Christi Sacramenta non […] not ordain them). |

| The

• Councils, by Labbe, or others. In English, Lardner’s Works, Vol. 3. page 82. Note. |

1 Art. xv1. Sect. 1x.

m Bower’s Life of Siricius.

n The opinion is Beausobre’s, but adopted by Lardner; Works, Vol. . page 285. ;

7 Jerom adv, Vigilant. C. 1. last Vol. but one, page 281, 2d Tome.

BOOK IV. v. VI. 393

The Pope, by whom Jovinian and his followers were condemned, was Siricius, who died in the year 398: he is usually said to be the first who forbade the marriage of his Clergy; but I suppose many of them were married after his time.

The //rnggle between lofty notions of religious purity, and ordinary ones of natural propensities, seems never? to have intermitted; but we must not attempt more than to mark its principal ap- pearances. |

v. Gregory VII. called Hildebrand, who died in 1085, is spoken of as having the most completely and universally effected the celibacy of the Clergy. —Those before him are thought to have been superstitious in discouraging marriage; he to have done it from motives of policy. — Vet it is owned, I suppose, that he was a man of strict purity in private life, and sincerely zealous for the Reforma- tion of manners”.

vi, In England, according to Fox, Marriage of Priests was first forbidden by Auselm, Arch- bishop of Canterbury, in a Council at London.— In another Council, held in the year 1104, five years* before his death, at Winchester, there 1s a

reference

P Intermediate decisions were made in the sixth general Coun- cil, held at Constantinople 580, called Quinisextum, or in Trullo, (or Trulla): Cave, Vol. 1. page 605. —Dupin’s Com- pendium, Vol. 2. page 295,

4 Burnet on the Article. Bishop Hallifax on Prophecy, page 352—355,—Comber’s Advice, page 15. 43.— Fox’s Mar- tyrol, Vol. 2. page 463. |

= The particular year when Priests first gave a promise of ccli- bacy, and Bishops took an oath to ordain no married man, is said by Fox to have been 1067; but Comber mentions 1074: both speak from ancient historians.

Fox, Vol. 2. page 463. 483. the date of the former Coun- eil I do not find in Fox :—Of which Henry Huntington says, In quo prokibuit Sacerdotibus Anglorum uxores antea non prohubitas,” Prohibiting is not preventing. But Cave does

| not

reference to a former one held at London; but Henry I*. connived at the Priests’ marrying; and there has been much conniuancè at this offence, at different times.

VII. St. Bernard, called the last of the Fathers, died 1153; I was surprized to fee how strongly he inveighs against depriving the Priests of the liberty of marrying*. He was perfectly ortliodor, Head of one great Monastery (Clairvaux) and founder of 160 others,

VI1l. The Nlarriage of Priests was, about the time we are {peaking of, very unpopular in Eng- land; it occasioned viots, in which the sacred elements, consecrated by married Priests, were thrown into the dirt, and trodden under foot.— The Priests who had wives, were called by the opprobrious name of Nicolaitans“.

1x. Pope Pius II. called Aneas Sylvius before he came to the Popedom, died in 1464.; he is famous? for having said, Marriage was for great reasons forbidden Priests, and for greater is to be restored to them.” — By greater, intimating the danger not only of such incontinence as he himself had been guilty of, but also of unnatural vices.

„

not clear up these matters, so I leave them: He has no Council at Winchester in 1134.—And it appears that Lancfranc held a council against the Marriage of Priests in 1076.

Cave says, that in 1102 Anselm held a Council at London, but he does not mention marriage of Priests, in his account of it. There seems to have been a great deal of buiiness under- taken at tllis Council. |

© See an original record to this purpose in John Fox, Vol, 1. page 253.—A proclamation of Anselm’s.

uv See Fox, Vol. 2. page 483.— Comber’s Advice, page 43.

• Fox, Vol. 2. page 465. 479.— Rev. ii. 6. 15.

Y Burnet on the Article, — Comber, page 42.— Baxter 01 Councils, page 448.—Fox, Vol. 2, page 466, —Bower’s Lives of the Popes. |

= Baxter on Councils, page 448,

BOOK IV. ART. xxxII. SECT. X——XII. 39g

x. In the Greek Church we are informed, by Brerewood, in one part of his book, that no mar- riaage* is allowed after Ordination; and in another“ passage, that the Ryans, in particular, ordain only thole who are married. — Neither of these rules allows a Clergyman to marry a second time. Indeed second marriages have been declared against by many sets of Christians*; probably with a view to 1 Tim. iii. 2. The husband of one wife.”

x1. In the twenty-fourth Session of the Coun- cil of Trent, the Marriage of Priests was discussed, but there is only one Canon against it (the ninth), which contains nothing remarkable. The next Canon anathematizes all those, who do not hold, that single life 1s better and more happy (or more blessed, melius et beatius), than married life.—Jn the Trent Catechism I see nothing on the subject; perhaps because the Catechism was only for the

ople ; which realon will extend to the Necessary 1%

x11. At the time of the Reformation, men stood disposed as 1s described by Bishop Burnet at the beginning of his Exposition of this Article; the were remarkably attentive to the mischiefs which might arise, either from a continuance of the Clergy in that single state, to which many scandalous irregularities seemed to be owing ; or from reduc- ing persons of sacred characters to the level of ordinary men, and setting them in the light of

slaves Brerewood on Languages, page 127. d Page 137. © See Dr. Redman’s opinion in Strype’s Cranmer, page 157. — John Fox, Vol. 1. page 36.— Dr. Thomas, Bishop of Lin- coin in 1757, was said to be married to his fourth wife, and to ve, as a motto of a ring, If I survive, I’ll make it five”) — The same story has been told of others; it is only mentioned

here as proving, that a succession of marriages were not disre- putable even to a Prelate.

396 BOOK iv. ART, XXXII. SECT. XI1,

slaves to sensual appetites. It will appear pro- bable, from what has been said, that men fond stand fo affected, in such a conjuncture.

Amongst the propositions of Wichlisse and Hus condemned at the Council of Constance*, I do not fee any relating to the Marriage of Priests.

The Reformed Churches declare“ against forbid. ding Priests to marry. Some mix the marriage of Priests with that of Laymen; but the Confession of Augsburg has a separate chapter for the marriage of Priests: amongst other evils of the prohibition, it mentions, that some good men, by their con- flicts with the weakness of their nature, have been reduced to a state of desperation, That writing of Bishop Jervel’s, which is called part of the Enyli/ Confession, I will read; as it contains much good matter in* a {mal! compass. The first page of that of Augsburg (on this subject) is worth reading,— The Helvetic in one place, says, that single men, supposing them virtuous and easy, are more fit for taking care of sacred things, than those who are distracted by the cares of a? Family :—and, a little after, condemns those who condemn second marriages,

One of the Six Articles 1s, © Priests may not marry by the Law of God.“ - J Fox in his Martyrology, (or Acts and Monuments“, &c.) has given a particular History, and a great deal of

| argument,

4 Art. xx1. Se. 11, |

© Incasting my eye over the Confessions in the Syntagma, J did not see the subje& in the French, Dutch, or Scotch; not in the Polish ; but it may possibly be in any of them, though 1 believe it is not. i a

Syntagma, page 117. 3

5 Synt. page 84. — Aßptiores autem hi sunt curandis rebus divinis, quam qui privatis famiiiæ negotiis distrahuntur.— This must depend upon circumstances.

b Vol. 2. |

BOOK IV, ART» XXXIT. SECT. XII. 397

argument, on this and every other of these six Articles of Henry VIII.

King Edward VI. in 1552, ratified the marriages of the Clergy, and made, by Act of Parliament, their children legal i4eritors.— And in the Refer- matio Legum there is a chapter in favour of Matri- mony, which is warm in defence of the marriage of the Clergy. Archbishop Cremer was married; and in his Life by Strype we find some good things on our present subject.

la the reign of Queen Mary Popery was re- stored, and the Queen gave injunctions to the Bishops, amongst other things, © to remove all married clergymen from their […] in consequence, © all the married Clergy throughout the kingdom were deprived.”

Queen Elizabeth did restore the Protestant Reli- gion, but, in some things, she was not fo forward about it as some of her subjects. It seemed a thing of course that the Clergy should again be allowed to marry ; but Elizabeth refused to au- thorize their marriage, openly, by Law; she was indeed willing to conntue at it, but that would not secure /zgitimary of children.. Her backward- nels caused the trouble of particular acts, as I understand, of /egi/imation. How desirous she was to clog and impede all clerical marriages, appears from her Injunctions in 1559®; in which she orders, that no Priest shall marry any woman except he have the consent of his Bybop, two neighbouring Justices, and the woman’s Parents. It

i Strype’s Life of Cranmer.— See Dr, Redman’s opinion, page 157. —Cranmer’s, page 161. Neal, Vol. 1. page 60.— John Fox, Vol. 1. page 36. Strype’s Annals, Vol. 1. page 80.—I think Archbishop Parker had a Son legitimated, by Act of Parliament, —Neal, Vol. x. page 117. * Sparrow’s Collection, page 76. Cap. 29.

398 BOOK IV. ART. xxx II. SECT. XIII, XIV,

If no Parents, the consent of Relations; if no Relations, of Master or Mistress : besides Banns, &c. — These impediments argue either a strong pre. judice in the Queen, or an opinion, that the mar. riage of the Clergy was still unpopular.

XI111. Dupin is very tolerant about the mar. riage of Priests: he allows „that Priests may marry, where the Laws of the Church do no prohibit it.“

Here ends our Hi/ory.

XIV. The Explanation will be much shorter,

In the Title, the word “ Prizffs,” I consider as a generic term, including all orders of ecclesiastical Ministers. In the Article, all those orders are specified, which subsist in our Church.

Not commanded :” to see the force of this, we should examine with what it is confetent ; suppole any one should be of opinion that single lite is better for Priests than married life; (melius et beatius) that it is recommended in Scripture, that it will be rewarded, &c. &c. still he might agree, that it is not commanded.”

« By God’s Lau, —this is the expression of one of the fix Articles of Henry VIII. and may allude to them: suppose any one thought celibacy of Priests was commanded by the Canon Law, the Law of the Church, or the Law of England, or even the Law of Nature, still he might assent to this Article, except he thought 1t was commanded by Scripture. Only it should be understood, that if Scripture was found to refer to any other Law, or ratily it, then its being commanded by that Law, would be the fame as its being commanded by Scripture. Indeed the Law of Nature is God’s Law; but the scripture seems here to be meant.

Either * Third Append, to Mosheim.

L BOOK IV. ART. XXXIT. SECT: xv. 399

« Either to vor the estate of single life, or to ahstain from marriage; — that is, either to abstain in consequence of a vow, or without vowing. I suppose, that the Romish Clergy do take a vow of celibacy upon Ordination; as our Clergy used to do in the time of Az/c/m®, and ever since, probably, till the Reformation. |

« As for all other Christian men,” —does this make it necessary for us to prove, that it is lawful for Christians in general to marry?—the Title is only of Priests; but if Priests may marry, Laymen may, @ fortiori. And the scriptural expressions are common to all sorts and conditions of men. This clause beginning © therefore,” was added in 1 562, so means something against monastic Life . in

eneral. | 95

« As they shall judge,“ &c. this does not seem properly a part of our Article : however, it is a good moral direction, and tends to shew the rea- sonableness of the liberty allowed; and that it is of an honourable, worthy sort: - and does it not imply, that our Church prefers neither single nor married life absolutely? but either, which, in any particular case, 1s best for a man’s morals? in which he will be the % Man?

xv. Next comes the Progf.—1I see but one pro- Position.

Priests are allowed, by Scripture, to marry.”

Matt. viii. 14. Shews that St. Peter was married.

Acts xx1. 9. implies that St. Philip was also

married. |

Acts xvilii. 2. shews the fame of Aquila®. Also

1 Cor. xvi. 19.

I venture * John Fox, Vol. 2. page 483. | Aquila seems to have been accompanied by his wife Pris- culla. while employed in teaching Christianity. He also seems, from Acts xviii, 26. to have been more than an ordinary

teacher ;

400 BOOK IV. ART. XxxII. SECT. xv.

venture to add, for the present, 1 Cor. ix. 5. It does not shew that Paul was mar. ried ; but, according to our version, that he claimed a right to marry; and that those who were called our Lord’s Brothers, were married; that is, James?, Simon, &c.—So much | for Precedents. Matt. xix. 12. at the end, implies, that some are, in some sense, unable to live single: therefore there can be no command to do so.—Priests are not excepted,

1 Cor. vil. 2. 9. implies, that to marry may some- times be a duty: and no exception

is made.

Eph. v. 32. and preceding, might be considered; I would submit, whether St. Paul would have used his Allegory about Christ and the Church, his Spouse, if it was unlawful for St. Paul, or any other minister of the Church,

| to marry.

In 1 Tim. iii. 2. 4. and Titus 1. 6. it is plainly implied, that Ministers may be married. And from 1 Tim. iv. 3. it appears, that * forbidding to marry,” was one of the marks of evil times.

Heb. xiii. 4. shews, that © marriage is honour- able in all:“ who shall presume to make an ex- ception ? compare 1 Cor. vii. 2. Shall not a minister connect himself as those were connected, who were fixed upon for Ministers ?

The Jewi/h Priests did marry undoubtedly.

It

teacher; especially considering that Apollos, to whom he ex- pounded the way of God more perfectly, was himself 2 teacher.

2 See Art, v1, Sect. xx v.

BOOK IV, ART. XXXI1. SECT. XVI. XVII. 401

If it should appear, from any part of Scripture, that we are made judges of the evils of continuing single, it then becomes scriptural to apply every thing which History and experience have taught us.

xvI. This may sussice for direct proof; on this Article we must have some indirect. Not but some of the arguments of our adversaries are again fri- volous; I thall content myself without proving, that St. Peter did cohabit with his* wife; or that there was such a thing in the Latin Church as a man’s retaining a wife after his appointment to the Ministry :—Yet there are some difficulties which are worthy of a solution, 1f we can suggest one.

xV11, It is urged that ads\Þyv yuaine, in 1 Cor. ix. 5. is not rightly translated, a Sifter, a Wifez it should be a Chrifian woman :—and fo indeed Mr. Locke understands it; one to wait upon an Apostle, and provide those things for him, which in modern times are provided at Inns.— The context is not about a right to marry, but about a right to have accommodations provided. —Our marginal trans- lation of yuvav,ĩ, is, woman. — I feel diffident about two substantives put together; they seem to make an uncommon, or singular, expression; yet ad wang should mean something more than adam fingly; why is yuvans added? if the expression had been used by St. Peter, instead of St. Paul, I should have understood it of his wife; and 1 should have taken the meaning of aden pm from what we said about Hermas’s* Sifter-wife.

Peter

• Rheni, Test. on Matt. viii. 14. and on 1 Tim. iii. 2. ’ * Se. 11.— Perhaps one should not omit observing, that Hamines Christiani, means the same as Christiani without homi- nes; let the observation apply as it may.—But Fulke on Rhem. est, 1 Cor. ix. 5. makes a difference between yuaire adr\Þny and a $$ yuraina. And fo, between mulierem sororem, which is the expression of the vulgate, and /ororem uxorem, which he thinks right,

VOL, Iv. Ce

Peter is said to have done that which Paul claimed ; a right to do : whom could Peter lead about but . his wife? Paul was single*, and did not do the thing which he claimed a right to do; certainly he might have led about a Christian Yoman.—Is the meaning this? might I not, if I pleased, put the Converts to the expence of maintaining not only me, but a female companion ? For if I had a Wife, as Peter has, I might take her with me, as he does; not for the sake of conjugal endearment, that would impede my proper business, but as a sort of Ser. If it were quite sure that all the persons of whom Paul speaks in this passage, were married”, I should be apt to conclude, that he meant by

uv ,., a Wife.

However, if x Cor. ix. 5. should not make for the marriage of Priests, it can make nothing against it.

XVIII. But it may be urged, that Matt. xix. 11, 12, and 1 Cor. vii. seem to recommend celi- bacy as something superior to married life ; as more pure and perfect. I answer, this has been“ thought, yet without reason, as far as I can judge. But, though that were the meaning of these scriptures,

yet

t 1 Cor. vii. 7. bh u Some have said that all the Apostles were married, except Paul ; but I fancy they use this verse as proof: taking for gromes that yu here means wife. Clemens Alexandrinus ays, that the Apostles who led about with them a Sister, a Wife, might make them useful in teaching women religion in private. And fo, the doctrine of the Lord might enter into

the closet of women, without any reprehension or evil | suspicion.” Fulke on Rhem, Test, 1 Cor. ix. 5. from Clem. Alex. Strom. lib. 3». :

P. S. The notion of Clemens Alex. seems like my own; | that the Apostles led about wives, not © as Wives, but as Sisters;” as assistants, Might not an Apostle take with him sometimes a real Sifter? if particularly well qualified for in- structing females ?

• See John Fox, Vol, 1, page 3.

BOOK IV. ART. xxxII. SECT. XVIII. 403

yet the passages cannot be thought, by recom- mending, to command men to live single ;—rather the contrary; a measure is recommended because it cannot be commanded ; they make no difference between Clergy and Laity, and it is absurd to think, that it is so much as recommended to all men to live single.— But let us consider the sense of the two passages.

Matt. xix. 11, 12. and 1 Cor. vii. may be taken together. — Difficulties and obstacles lie in the way to marriage; a man 1s alarmed with not being able to get a Divorce (Matt. xix. 9, 10.)—or he is afraid, that if he marries, he shall not be able (1 Cor. vii.) to execute the trust committed to him, of promoting a new Religion of divine original, Or if he really, at bottom, wishes to marry, he proposes his difficulties as if he was led by them to desire a single life: perhaps under some degree of self-deceit. He asks? advice. His adviser re- plies, as supposing him sincere, Marriage is an affair about which I can give you no advice upon the whole; at least upon the whole I dare not advise you against it: you mult judge for yourself; the decision depends in a great measure upon your own feelings; and those it is impossible for me to enter into with such exactness as to direct yau properly: all that the best adviser can do, is only to suggest particular considerations; you must after- wards complete the deliberation.—So far I can suggest; that you need not make yourself wxeasy as if it were an indispensille duty to marry; ex- perience shews that it is not; for it shews, that Nature has* disqualified some persons, 1n body, or in mind; and others, men of the best characters,

have Y Matt. xix. 10. —1 Cor. vii. 1.

[…]

404 BOOK Iv. XVIII,

have found it the greatest good to give themselves up to promote the interests of Religion : these, by serting their affections on things above, may be said to have disqualified themselves: you may therefore be perfectly easy on that head; it is no more expected that all men should propagate their species, than that all plants or animals should. — But perhaps you may w#f to marry, and may really be afraid lest, by marrying, you should involve yourself in difficulties inextricable*; or lest you should encumber yourself, and divert your affections, fo that you cannot exert yourself freely, in performing the works of virtue or piety*, which you meditate, I repeat, I cannot, I dare not ad- vise you not to marry, on the whole; but I will mention anything that occurs to me: were you to marry, you might fall into some […] I can tee that things are so situated, that you might have trouble in* the ,“ if you had a family to conduct; I can also inform you, that I feel no dissatisfaction with my own* situation as a single man; and as to the things of religion, certainly the fewer worldly and domestic* cares you have, the less distracted will be your attention; and so I could go on suggesting particular motives ; but after all, you must determine: if you ask, why, I answer, because you only can judge whether it is safe for your morals* to live a single life: that is the principal thing to be considered, and you can only judge of your security by your habits and your feelings: every motive must be subservient to motives of duty: were I to press you to live a single life, and you fell into /in, I should 9

85 | able

Matt. xix. . b x Cor. vii. 32. 34, 35 ·

© Verse 26. 3 Verse 28. © Verle 7, 8. | E Verse 2.

f Verse 33. 35.

able to console myself for having cast a snare®* upon you; —for having given you advice when you was not * able to receive* it :”—able, J mean, as every one must conceive me to mean, without its ruining your principles. —Noz whatever good there may be in avoiding, marriage, in any Circum- stances, whatever evils marriage might occasion, they are not to be compared to evils of being per- petually tormented by sinful passions; it must always be © better to marry than to burn*.”—If you feel yourself weak, do not attempt arduous tasks : „ marriage’ is honourable in all,” and yet men may in some situations rightly prefer a single state ; and whatever virtue any man practices, in any state, he should consider it as the gu f Gad; (Matt. xix. 11.— 1 Cor. vii. 7.) But God forbid that any

principle of ambition, though of the most laudable

fort, should ever induce you to avoid marriage, if you cannot conduct yourself rightly in a single condition; if you cannot fully resolve to do the

duties

t Verse 35. i Matt. xix. 12.

• 1 Cor. vii. 9. 1 Heb. xiii. 4.

= Why is virtue in single life here said to be the Gif? of God,. and not virtue in married life? because that would not have been to the present purpose. The question probably is, may IT live gle, notwithstanding fome dangers of single life? the answer is, yes, if you think you shall have the vrrtues of single life; but every man has not these particular virtues ; which, when referred to God, 3s, it is not given to every man to live in single life. Sappose the question bad been, may I n.

notwithstanding some dangers of a married hte? (those of

immoderate anxiety, worldly-mindedness, &c.] the answer would be just the same; yes, if you think you shall have the

wirtzes of a married life; but every man has not those parti- cular virtaes ; or, it is not given to every man to live well in a married life.— St. Paul seems to conceive, that one man ma (from his temper, habits, &c.) be most virtuous in a single state, another in a married state. Every man bath his proper (peculiar) gift of God; one after this manner, and another after that,” (ver. 5.) |

— n . 3 2 a

• ; <=”, = 2 —

—

— << — […] _——

406 BOOK Iv. ART. XXXI1T., SECT. XVIII.

duties of it, and keep yourself unspotted from its corruptions.

Such is the meaning which the two passages objected (Matt. xix. 11, 12. and 1 Cor. vii.) con- vey to my mind. They do not seem to give any absolute preference, or ascribe any general per- section to a single state; but only to direct men how to conduct themselves in case they are thrown into any situations which seem to them to be favourable to celibacy :—that abstinence from mar. riage is desireable in such particular situations, on some particular accounts, is a thing taken for granted, or supposed.

If any one examines 1 Cor. vii. on the ground here described, let him take notice when St. Paul 2 from authority, and when speaks gf himself, He speaks his private judgment in verles 6. 10, 25. 40.— And it might be well to compare Col. ii. 20 — 23. according to the explanation of it before” given.—And to consider, that when St. Paul says, (ver. 1.) © It is good for a man not to touch a woman;” he must say it with a view to some par- ticular situations; said wniversally, it could not be true; nor can it more be called universal than, “let every man have his own wife,“ ver. 2.— We may add, that recommending occasional abstinence after marriage®, presupposes marriage, and is no dis- couragement to marry; rather an encouragement to very pious people ; as it shews them, that conjugal duty and piety are not incompatible. | If my idea of Matt. xix. 11, 127. and of 1 Cor. vii. be just, deliberations on marriage, as right or

| wrong,

n Art. xiv. SeQ, 111. o x Cor. vii. 5

I might have made 7wo cases of these, but the same reasons applying to both, there must have been some tautology. In both I can fancy some /e1f-deceit, though answers are given on the same footing as if the proposals to live single had been quite

sincere:

BOOK IV. ART. XxxI I. SECT. XVIII. 407

wrong, ought to turn upon principles of moral utility, in each person’s particular circumstances.— We may therefore observe, that it may be much eater to © attend upon the Lord without dis- traction,“ in married Life, nozw, than during the

first propagation of the Gospel.— That times of

danger differ greatly from times of security : that the former call generally for fing/e Ministers, the latter for married; as danger leflens the strength of the pashons now under consideration, and security increases it. And that it may often happen, that a single state may be best adapted to the duties of fudy and contemplation, and a married state to the ordinary pastoral duties; in which a wife or a

daughter may perform some of Offices of an

ancient Deaconess : Such observations as these ma

be made, and may be of some use ; yet they should

always be understood as capable of variation and modification

sincere : unless any one should allow something of a refined raillery in the answer given by Christ himself.

In the first case, I can fancy a pee vid Jews (Art. vii. Sect. xIv. or Vol. 3. page 78.) vexed that he cannot follow his caprice in divorcing ; and urging, with same petulance; one had better not marry at all than be fettered in this way! think- ing this a sufficient objection to our Saviour’s striftnels ;—yet speaking, as a disciple (Matt. xix. 10.), who would be reckoned to give up all for Christ, and persuading himself that he really would. His Lord answers, do not be uneasy; you are not — to marry, if you do not approve it; and so on, as

re. x |

In the second case, I can fancy a convert, who would wil- lingly persuade himself that he is very zealous for the cause of Christianity, struck with the interruption which it would give to his domestic enjoyments if he devoted himself wholly to pro- moting it. He hopes, (though he is scarce conscious of such an hope) that St. Paul will tell him to marry at all events; but he expresses his difficulty by proposing to live /ingle : St. Paul treats his proposal candidly, but seriously : and takes the occasion of giving good advice, generally useful; but does not (as per- haps had been expected) wholly reject the proposal.

1 Verle 35.

2 — . ** EIT

— - Bn

oO * 2 […] 2 _ — — -

[…] 4 = XR 2 […] A 8 _— od 7 en _ % 2 4 2 X a […] 4

[…] 6 * ra […] ras — E — 1 -. -

LES

408 BOOK iv. ART. xxxII. SECT. xIX.

modification from the circumstances and disposi- tions of particular men.

In short, if some situations are best filled by ministers who are married, and others by the un- married; and if a sense of duty may rightly impel some ministers to marry, and others to remain single; neither a state of celibacy nor of marriage should be forbidden. And if anything whatsoever makes restraints pernicious, that 1s enough for the purpose of our Article.

Let those marry, who judge it best to do fo; as many may {till remain single as find, that a single life will, in their peculiar circumstances, “ serve better to godliness,” either in preventing moral evil, or in promoting spiritual good.

xix. Not to conclude without some Application, I will just observe, that Dupin is, on this Article, so tolerant, as to leave no room for dispute, or for reconciliation.

One might conclude with the end of the Homily *© against Adultery.

r Homilies, page 104. octavo.