A DISCOURSE CONCERNING THE CELIBACY OF THE CLERGY.  
At OXFORD Printed, Anno 1687.   

CONTENTS.  

1. CElibacy a better state than Marriage. §. 1.  
A holiness of the Body, as well as of the Soul. §. 2.  
As a holiness of it, that is opposite to fornication; so that is opposite to Marriage. §. 2.  
To the married, on pious occasions, forbearance of the acts of marriage advised. §. 3.  
Forbearance of second marriages commended; in some cases, enjoined. §. 4.  
2. Having a greater reward in the world to come. §. 5.  
Continency especially necessary for the Clergy. §. 6.  
That it is the gift of God. §. 7.  
Given to very many. §. 8.  
For some space of time, at least, to all.  
That none, from not exercising the act of continency, can say, he hath not the power. §. 9  
That he, who, having this gift, doth not exercise it, in living unmarried, sinneth not. §. 10.  
Whether the gift of Continency (supposing it to be given only to some) may by them be certainly known.  
That though all have not, yet all may have, the gift of continency. And that God denies it none, at no time, they using the means. §. 12.  
That it may be vowed. §. 15.  
Yet it more difficult, than the matter of any other vow. §. 25.  
Therefore not hastily to be vowed. §. 26.  
Yet not unlawful for the Church, and very beneficial to restrain the sacred function of the Ministry to single persons. §. 27.    

Ambros. de Viduis.— Scit Creator omnium affectus esse varios singulorum; & ideo praemiis virtutem provocavit, non infirmitatem vinculis alligavit.— Sunt spadones, qui se castraverunt &c: sed hoc non omnibus imperatur, sed ab omnibus flagitatur. — De Virginibus 3. l.— Dominus, qui sciret praedicandam omnibus integritatem, imitandam paucis, Non omnes (inquit) capiunt verbum istud. Hierom contra Vigilantium 2. Ep.— Exortus est subito Vigilantius, qui damnandas dicat esse vigilias, etc. continentiam haeresin; pudicitiam, libidinis seminarium dicat etc. (dicat)— proh nefas! Episcopos sui dicitur sceleris habere consortes etc. qui nisipraegnantes uxores viderint Clericorum, etc. Christi Sacramenta nontribuunt. Quid facient Orientis Ecclesiae? Quid Aegypti, & Sedis Apostolicae? Quae aut virgines Clericos accipiunt, aut continentes: aut, si uxores habuerint, mariti esse desistunt.— Conc. Trident. Sess. 24.9. Can.— Si quis dixerit, Clericos in sacris Ordinibus constitutos posse matrimonium contrahere, non obstante lege Ecclesiastica vel voto,— anathema sit. cum Deus id [donum castitatis] recte petentibus non deneget, nec patiatur nos supra id quod possumus, tentari. Bellarmin. de Clericis. 1.18. c.— B. Thomas diserte docet, votum continentiae esse annexum Ordinibus sacris ex solo Ecclesie decreto, ac proinde dispensabile esse,— quod ego verissimum puto. Again, ibid.— In tota Scriptura nullum tale extat praeceptum, [viz. ut Sacerdotes non ducant uxores.] — Ib.— Ecclesia Romana multis jam saeculis permisit Graecis sacerdotibus usum uxorum, quas ante Ordinationem duxerant, ut patet ex c. Cum olim de Clericis conjugatis.   


CONCERNING CELIBACY.  
§. 1 I. IT must be granted, concerning Celibacy; That it is a better condition of life than Marriage, for prayer and fasting, 
Celibacy a better state than Marriage.  and all other service of God without distraction, and so for gaining the Kingdom of Heaven (Matt. 19.12.); for works of charity to our neighbour; for avoiding covetousness, worldly cares and impediments, (and this in all, not only in afflicted, times;) for enjoying our liberty, (1 Cor. 7.4.) which, when we can have, we are rather to use it. 1 Cor. 7.21. See for these 1 Cor. 7.1, 8, 26, 32. to the 37, 38. Lu. 14.20.— 1 Cor. 7.5.   

II. As there is a purity and holiness of the body, as well as of the soul, §. 2 (see 2 Cor. 7.1.— 1 Thes. 4.4.— Jud. 23. compared with 8. and 2 Pet. 2.10, 14) opposite to fornication and uncleanness, 
A holiness of the body as well as of the soul.  [which uncleanness is more especially opposed to holiness than other vices, (see Rom. 6.19. 1 Thes. 4.7.— Eph. 5.3.) and hath a natural shame and guilt upon it, which makes it seek privacy beyond any other sin whatsoever; (see the shame of our First Parents upon the first appearance of concupiscence, Gen. 2.25. compared with Gen. 3.10.)] and enjoined to be observed in reference to Christ, he being now the husband of the body, and it his spouse, (see 1 Cor. 6.20. compared with 13, 18, etc.): 
As a holiness of it that is opposite to fornication; so, that is opposite to marriage  so there seems to be a greater degree of this purity of the body opposite to Matrimony. See 1 Cor. 7.34. and Rev. 14.4. where defilement with women is opposed to virginity, as another defilement is opposed to matrimony; Heb. 13.14. the marriagebed is undefiled, that is, with sin; (for this was appointed, as for a means of propagation to Adam innocent, so for a remedy against fornication (1 Cor. 7.2.) to man fallen, and troubled with concupiscence): yet the virgin's-bed, it seems, is more undefiled, more Angellike in respect of corporeal purity: [undefiled] being opposed to an imperfection of chastity virginal, as well as to the sin of lust; to the act of concupiscence, as well as to prohibited copulations: therefore (hereafter) not to marry, nor be given in marriage, but to be like the Angels of God, is reckoned as a thing more honourable for the body. Lu. 20.35. And concupiscence, one cause now of marriage, and which, could it be remedied, the Apostle would not advise so many to marriage, was not known by Adam when perfect; and was a thing, when appearing upon his fall, which he was ashamed of, and sought to hid, as his posterity ever since do, those acts, even of the lawful bed. To a higher degree (then) of this primogeneal virginal purity of the body I suppose that expression relates, 1 Cor. 7.34. The virgin careth etc. that she may be holy both in body, and in spirit.  
§. 3 And for this reason it seems to be, that we find abstinence from the acts of (if I may so call it) lawful lust advised (for the better performance of holy duties, 
To the mared, on pious occasions, forbearance, of the acts of marriage advised.  or in times of humiliation etc.) even to those, who are in the state of marriage, (as doubtless conjugal chastity also hath many degrees in it, and in some men is far more pure than in others, and the permissions of matrimonial privileges very easily transgressed. See Exod. 19.15.— three days sanctification, and not coming at their wives;— 1 Sam. 21.4.— women kept from them about three days, and the vessels of the young men holy, i. e. from their wives;— Zech. 7.3. where we see, that, in times of more earnest addresses to God, this separation from carnality was continued. Neither is this only Old-Testament-ceremonial holiness: but see 1 Cor. 7.5. a place parallel to these; Defraud ye not one the other except it be with consent for a time, that ye may give yourselves to fasting and prayer. Where it may be noted, that as fasting hath no good correspondence with the acts of the conjugal bed, (sine Cerere etc.) so these also are as prejudicial to fasting, and its companions. And suitable to these Scriptures were the Decrees of the ancient Church:— Diebus orationis, & jejuniorum, & praeparationis ad Eucharistiam a conjuge abstinendum. And this, because carnal pleasures are some way or other always enemies to spiritual exercises; either proceeding to excess, and so rendering us faulty; or too much either heightening, or also debilitating our temper, and so making us undisposed; or dividing, and diverting some portion of that love, and of those intentions to things inferior, which are always all incomparably best spent upon, and consecrated to, God the supreme good.  
§. 4 Again, we find, after one marriage, the abstaining from a second both commended, (see Lu. 2.36) and, to some persons, to wit, 
Forbearance of second marriages commended; in some cases enjoined.  those entertained in the pious or holy Services of God, or the Church, enjoined: as appears in the widows of the Church, 1 Tim. 5.9. of whom it is there required, that such widow have been the wife of one man; which words being capable of several senses, either that she have not had two husbands at once, or not two successively; again, not two successively, either by a divorce from the former, or upon the death of the former: seeing that no woman might have two husbands at one time, nor any women at all were allowed remarrying upon divorce; (see 1 Cor. 7.11.) it follows, that the Apostle's widow must be understood to be such, as had not had a second husband after the first dead. For this injunction seems to have something singular in it, the same caution being given no where to any, but only to Church-officers, and servants. Nor is it probable (as some against the current of Antiquity interpret it) that the Apostle here restrained only the admission of such a widow as had causelessly turned away her husband, and unlawfully married another man, (which is granted was done sometimes, but seldom and without any permission of Moses law; (see Mar. 10.12) or, as had many husbands at the same time, (of which there are some rare examples amongst the heathen,) because such things cannot well be imagined (though possible) to have happened in the Church; or when they happened, not to have been severely punished with excommunication; as we see the incestuous Corinthian was. And the Apostle seems here rather to require something of extraordinary example and goodness above others, in such as were thus to be devoted to the Church's Service, and maintained by her Charity, than only to caution, that they should not be of the worst wicked amongst Christians. Which is further confirmed by St. Paul's displeasure against those Church-widdows that remarryed, ver. 11. And if this interpretation be admitted for the widows, much more may it, upon the like expression [a husband of one wife] for the Bishops of the Church, 1 Tim. 3.2. and for the Deacons, 1 Tim. 3.12.   

§. 5 III. Tho Celibacy, as it occasions larger fruits of righteousness to many, 
Having a greater reward in the world to come.  yet if a married condition also produceth the same, it hath no pre-eminence in this beyond wedlock: yet, as in itself, it is a stronger resistance of the lusting of the flesh, and a greater subduer of the natural concupiscence, which all have less or more; whose importunities it heroically repelleth, whilst the married only lawfully satisfies them; thus, it seems worthy of, and so to have promised to it, a higher reward and crown in the world to come, and is one of the eminentest of all the virtues; as not moderating, but subduing the most violent of passions. See Esai. 56.4, 5. where Eunuches, who as dry trees under the law were much disparaged, (Deut. 23.1.) yet under the Gospel have ample promises beyond those who beget children.— See Matt. 19.12. where the Kingdom of heaven being inheritable without it, the using of this means seems to be for something singular in that Kingdom, as well as for the more easy or certain attaining it. But however this be, those who grant there several degrees of glory, proportioned to those here of sanctity, must give the highest to Virgins; because if supposed only equal with the rest in all other graces, they are granted in one to be superior. See Act. 21.9. where Virgin seems to be a term of honour.   

§. 4 
Continency especially ne●●ss●●y or the Clergy.  IU. Single life, being so advantageous for having our liberty (freed from any other conjugal fetters) to bestow ourselves wholly on Christ, and to wait upon him without distraction, freed from cares, and holy in body and spirit; seems, though worthy to be sought for by all, yet so necessary to none as to those of the Clergy, so far as they find themselves capable of it: that perfection, which others, as it were unnecessitated thereto, attain by it, being their constant duty and profession as it were; especially, that; to give themselves unto prayer, [1 Cor. 7.5.— Act. 6.4.] and to wait upon the Lord without distraction, [v. 35.] and to take a special care of the poor. Act. 6.3.   

§. 5 
That it is the gift of God.  V. 'tis plain, that this Continency, and the power of living a single life, is the gift of God; both 1. such a cool and moderate temper, and calm passions as do not so eagerly provoke and kindle the fire of lust in us; and 2ly. the grace to be able to abstain and quench these fires, when we are provoked, if we will use the means; and 3ly. the actions or means, which we use, by them to procure the grace to abstain, (as prayer, mortifications of the body, avoiding all temptations, constant and diligent employment,) are the gift of God. For so also are all other good things said to be, both natural, and moral, and spiritual; even all those things which we have most in our power, and which our industry most procures; and the powers themselves, and every action of them. So, to be rich, to be honourable; the condition of a freeman, or of a servant, etc. are the gift of God. See 1 Cor. 7.17.— Deut. 8.17, 18.— .3.27. And if we cannot, of ourselves think a good thought, much less refrain the most violent of our lusts, except from the gift of the Almighty.   

VI Taking this ability to contain, 
§. 8 n. ●. Given to very m●●●.  not for a power of being freed from all concupiscence, and from the first motions of lust; (for so none at all have this power,) but for a power to suppress these first motions, and quench these lesser sparks, before they break out into a flame, 1. either into fornication, therefore [v. 2.] marriage is opposed to fornication, as it is [ver. 9] to burning; or, 2ly. into uncleanness, [which uncleanness, contradistinct from fornication, is no small guilt, but every where marcheth along with it as its fellow in the catalogue of those sins that exclude us from heaven, (see Gal. 5.19. Eph. 5.3. Col. 3.5. 2 Cor. 12.21. etc. some kinds of this uncleanness being advanced above any other sin, except that in Spiritum Sanctum; see 2 Pet. 2.10. Rom. 1.24. Eph. 4.18, 19 Rev. 22.15.] or 3ly. into morose delectation, fomenting first, and heating ourselves by it, before we put it out, [see 1 Cor. 7.9. expounded by the 2.] in respect of which, virginal continency in several persons is less or more pure: This power, I say, thus understood, (i. e. of being able to contain, if they be not wanting to themselves,) is given to very many; nay, for some time at least, to every one. For this I suppose granted; that whenever marriage, or the use of it, is unavoidably hindered, or by God himself also prohibited, there also is given by him the power to contain. And this happens in very many instances; before, in, and after, marriage.  

For 1. before marriage, 
§. 8. n. 2. For some space of time 〈◊〉 least, to All  there being many ceremonies to be observed in it, many surprisals of lust seize upon youth that are more liable to it, when in an unripe age (of 12, 13, 14, years old perhaps), which for the present, that way, cannot be remedied, who many times may not marry without the licence of their Superiors; as it happens to youth yet under the power of their parents, (to whom the Apostle allows a power in disposing of them, 1 Cor. 7.36. etc. and 'tis there to be noted, that he considers much more the father's inclinations, towards her single life, or marriage, than the virgins); and to servants, not yet made free from their Masters. Besides that, many other causes of delaying marriage may intervene, as when it is not permitted to any at certain times of the year set aside for humiliation; Lent, &c: So, when external impediments occur; as being in a journey, or imprisoned, or upon the Sea, &c, and in many other cases; and these happening most-what in the age too wherein concupiscence is in its greatest strength; here, if some have not the power of continency, nor yet of the remedy, marriage, how will incontinency become a guilt?   

2. 
§. 8. n. 3.  Again, in the state of marriage, there is necessary power of continency always required in respect of concupiscence toward any person whatsoever (notwithstanding the many temptations the world presents) saving one, i e. his wife; and toward all absolutely, when any sickness happens to that one party, to which we are confined; or when any casual debility, though never recoverable; so also, in all necessary absence about the affairs of life, in journeys, in being taken captive by the Turks, or others, &c, we must allow this gift. Else how can husbands, when busied abroad by employments, embassies, warfares, &c, be secure of the honesty of their wives? or how can the State, who many times permit not their wives to follow them, lawfully make such a separation, by which they shall necessitate them to sin? So, when the woman is menstruous, and after childbirth, before she is churched, at least to those that were under Moses his law. See Leu. 18.19.— 20.18. Ez●c. 18.6. which abstinence in the birth of a maidchild was enjoined for eighty days, almost a quarter of the year. See Leu. 12.5. etc.   

3. 
§. 8. n. 4.  And so after marriage dissolved, we must allow this gift to all that are (justly or unjustly) divorced, who are prohibited under pain of adultery a second contract, all or most of them; to the Bishops; to the widow's forenamed. Add to this; that of those that marry, few (if we examine things well) do it, because they want the power of continency, but for other reasons; as appears, in many forbearing marriage, as long as their places or other secular respects consist not with it; and presently, when quit of these, engaging in it: and in most, wedding after the heat and concupiscence of their youth is already in the wane and declination. And when we see so many, without marrying, at length reclaimed from former vicious courses, and becoming in a singular manner continent, we have reason to presume, that God was not wanting to them, in affording the like power to them before; but they rather wanting to the grace of God, §. 9 
That none from not expressing the act of continency, ●●n say, he hath not the sewer.  and to themselves.    

VII. Since many that certainly have from God the power to contain, (as the divorced, the one party when the other is debilitated, etc.) yet do not, or with some difficulty (yea more than the never-married have, because otherwise accustomed,) and not without temptations to the contrary, do, contain; none can gather (neither the delinquent, or others) from not containing, or from some difficulty therein, that he hath not power from God to contain, unless also he use the means; nor, in using the means, can he certainly know it yet, unless certain that he hath used all the means, and in that manner these as he ought; (hence none can say, that any of those, who, vowing chastity, proved afterward incontinent, had not power to contain;) or if he perceiveth that as yet he hath not the power, yet knows he not, whether for the future he may receive it; as many do, that of debauched, without marriage, at length become chaste. Therefore can none gather from an act of uncleanness or fornication committed by him, that he cannot have the gift of continency for the future; or that absolutely from one such experience of himself he is obliged to marry. But it remains still true concerning him, as well as others; that, as it is melius nubere, quam uri; so 'tis melius continere, quam nubere; if then at length he shall seriously attempt to quench such burning with prayers, solitude, fasting, &c, the prime and more noble, rather than by wedlock, the second, and much inferior, remedy.   

§. 10 
That he who having this gift doth not exercise it in living unmarried, sin●eth not.  VIII. It seems, that he that hath, and yet doth not exercise, the gift of Continency, nor practise our Saviour's precept or advice of Celibacy, Matt. 19.12. doth not sin in so doing. For then marrying, to some persons, would be a sin. Which 1. the Apostle saith, it is not, even to those, whom, upon the gift of continency, he adviseth to Celibacy. See 1 Cor. 7.27, 28, 36, 38.— and Heb. 13.4. 2. If it were; it would follow, (since there is no divorcement upon any such title,) that there would be a sin which a man was bound to live in, and having committed it once, to commit it always; and whether would not the children here also be illegitimate, where the marrying is unlawful. 3. Then Celibacy can be recommended to no persons in respect of any times of distress, (as yet we find it was by the Apostle 1 Cor. 7.26.) since, after puberty, all men sin, either in marrying, or else in abstaining: for those who have not the gift of continency in the most afflicted times, aught to marry; and the other, in the most prosperous, to forbear. 4. Those, 
Whether the gift of continency (supposing it to be g●v●n only ●o ●●me) can by them &c certainly known.  whom such supposed precept of Celibacy should oblige, must someway certainly know it; else how can they either forbear, or repent of, a sin, which they know not when they commit. And, as soon as they know it, they are bound, either presently to marry, if they find they have not the gift of continency; or for ever to abstain, if they have: so that those who marry not, as soon as capable of marriage, and marry afterward, either sin in marrying then, or sinned in not marrying before. 5. But how any one can certainly know this gift in him, I see not. First, by what signs shall he know if he hath it? In being free from temptation? So none is. In overcoming them? But who foreknows the success of future conflicts? May not he marry then, if much tempted, to prevent sinning? May he not marry, unless he first burn? But then in marrying before burning, perhaps he hath the gift; and so sins in marrying. But if by the effect only of resisting, or yielding to, a temptation, we know the gift; it follows, that none can know he wants the gift, but by (at lest once) sinning, yet, to prevent which sin none may, first, marry. 2. Again, how shall he know if he have not this gift? by burning or any one act of any uncleanness? 1. None can argue from not exercising the act of continency, that he hath not the power, (as is showed before §. 9) till he knows whether this failing proceeds from the absence, or from his own ill managing, of God's gift. For that it oft proceeds from our ill husbandry of grace, is manifest in many of those mentioned before §. 7. who having certainly from God the power to contain, yet are many times very incontinent. If in this case therefore he should go and marry, having the gift, but abusing it, what thus would this be, but a multiplying of sins, the sin of lust begetting the sin of wedlock? 2. If thus, after any such uncleanness, all (as being denied the gift of continency) were obliged to marry, than all, who remain not in a pure virginity, would be sinners in a single life.  
But then; 
§. 11. n. 1.  these are likewise fit things to be known; whether the gift once had may not aferward be withdrawn? for if so; at several times, to the same person to marry, or live single, may be a sin. Again, whether not being given at first, it may be given afterward? for then, after some act of incontinency we need not cast ourselves presently into the bonds of marriage; upon the hopes we have, from our prayers &c, of recovering this gift: neither indeed is every one by the Apostle, after burning, bound to marry, (unless he find himself refractory, and unwilling to use the means to quench such burning, as well as to remove all occasions of this flame, apt from his temper, temptations, &c, continually to break out again,) because he is not by this certain, that for the future he may not by the grace, and other means used, be freed from ever falling again into this fire. Since many, after such burning, have attained, without marrying, to the highest degree of Continency. As S. Austin, after long incontinency, received this gift, so soon as he humbly, and earnestly, and mortifiedly sought it.  
Now if this once be granted from what is premised; 
§. 11. n. 2.  that marriage to no person (I mean in relation to his power to contain) is a sin, nor celibacy to any absolutely necessary; it follows, our Saviour's advice Matt. 19.12. is not a precept or command of absolute duty to any, under pain of sinning if he not observe it; but only a Counsel of greater perfection, under the penalty (if I may so say) hereafter of a less reward if he not practise it. (See 2 Cor. 9.6.) Note, that by counsel or precept of perfection, (wherever this expression is found referring to celibacy, abandoning of riches, &c,) I mean this: The advising us of, and to, a means, whereby we may, more easily, and free from impediments, attain the diminishing of sin, and the increase of virtue and grace in us; in which greater purity from sin, and greater practice of holy duties and habits of grace, and not in the means prescribed, consists that degree of perfection, to which we by this means attain: which perfection also may, possibly, but not so easily, be acquired without it.   

§. 12 
That though all have no●, yet all may have, the gift of continency: and that God denies it to none, a● no time, a● no time, they using the means.  IX. Next: It seems also, to be a counsel or precept of greater perfection, not only to some particular persons, (as some others in the next place would limit it,) but to all; and that, though every one hath not, (Matt. 19.11.) yet every one may have this gift of Continency (and so may practise the precept or counsel of celibacy) if he please to use those means and endeavours, upon which God gives it; and that every one may make himself an Eunuch, if he please, for the kingdom of heaven. (1). For, first, were it a singular gift gratuitally given only to some men; then, as we have showed before, that it is necessary for those, to whom we hold it is given as a precept of duty, by some signs certainly to discern it, for their avoiding of sin; so 'tis necessary also to these to whom we hold it is given as a counsel of perfection, to know it, for their endeavouring to do that which may more please God; that such gracious gifts may not be bestowed in vain, and their salvation suffer much impediment; if men endeavour not, or their endeavour be not only in vain, but displeasing to God, ne quis incontinentia laborans, dum coelibatum appetit, cum Deo luctetur, saith Calvin; and exposing them to sin, if God give not.  
Now the difficulties of discerning any such thing, see before: yet without discerning which (unless all be capable of this gift) there can be no alacrity in our endeavours; nor will any labour to make themselves Eunuches. Especially, when one sees any evident signs, or also hath once felt the effects of incontinency, none should dare any further to defer marriage, or any further entertain any endeavour of attaining this gift contrary to such indications of God's denial of it to him; yet is this much contrary to the practice of many holy men. (2.) There seems no sufficient reason, to make this grace, which is conversant about the strongest of all passions, and the very root of sin; upon which depend so many excellent advantages in serving God &c, (confessed by all,) and granted also to be given to all, at all times, when the remedy of marriage cannot (as often it can not) be had; to make this grace, I say, when there is opportunity of marrying, then only, a gratuital grace given to some; others being denied it, though never so earnest after it. And thus to restrain this grace, only upon such a pretence, because though denied the gift of continency, they have a sinless way of satisfying their concupiscence: when as indeed this appointed remedy of marriage (as it refers to incontinency, not to progeny) may argue only the difficulty in some, not the impossibility in any, of attaining this gift; and, being instituted for a help of our weakness, ought not to be made an argument of the restraint of God's goodness and bounty. Again; no reason, to make this prace only particular to some few; when as all other graces whatsoever, conversant about the like object, i. e. the moderating and subduing of our passions, are proclaimed to be general; and all men capable of them, who are not wanting to God and themselves. So we do not say that any are necessitated to be immoderate in meat, or drink, or sleep, in the love of riches, or honour, but, upon doing their endeavour, grace sufficient to be given to all, to bridle the appetite, and master the affections; only the extremities of concupiscence it is that we affirm some men are dis-enabled upon any means whatsoever to suppress. When as meanwhile it must be granted, that to those singular favourites, to whom God pleaseth to give it, it is, both gotten by means; else why are any said to make themselves Eunuches? and preserved by means: for none that have the gift (as those who in marriage have their bedfellows sick or absent) are free from temptations, and do only by means and resistance overcome them; which means experience shows to be powerful, not only for subduing lust in men, but in the brute beasts also. Whereas therefore there are two sorts of God's gifts to us; 1. some to the obtaining of which is required our endeavour joined or subservient to God's both preventing and assisting grace, or aid; such as are Faith, Hope, Charity, Patience, etc. which, though always God s gifts, yet may be said in some sense to be in our power also, in as much as we are to presume, that God denies them to none, by his aid rightly first seeking and labouring for them. 2. Others given gratis by him without any cooperation of ours, (though we may also desire and pray for them. 1 Cor. 14.1.) Note that there is not any other of those usually called gratiae gratis datae, (which are divided to every man as the Spirit pleaseth, mentioned 1 Cor. 12.) any way like unto this of continency. 1. They being not conversant about passions, or bettering ourselves, but edifying and profiting others. 1 Cor. 12. ver. 7.— 2. Not by our means procured, or conserved, but conferred without our cooperation or endeavour; therefore we find no exhortations to the practice of them, as if they were in our power, as we find to continency: 1 Cor. 7. We find it not said concerning them, There be Prophets that have made themselves Prophets, or,— He that can receive them, let him receive them. 3. Those who have them sinning, if they be not used: the contrary of which is proved in continency. 4. Lastly, neither is there any thing said of continency, as restraining it to some particular person; which is not said of those other gifts, and graces of God of the first kind, as particularly of that of Faith. See 23. §. (3). Concerning the other great precepts or counsels for attaining perfection, as that in particular by quitting superfluous riches (and so by this, all the cares and temptations of them,) (of which may be said, what is said of marrying, 1 Cor. 7.34. and v. 30, 31. compared with 29.— 2 Tim. 2.4.) so often recommended, See Matt. 19.21. presently after the recommending of continency, v. 12. and both of them to be done for the Kingdom of Heaven. See likewise Lu. 12.33. Lu. 3.11.— 6.35.— Matt. 5.42.— Lu. 16.9.11.— Matt. 19.29. compared 27. (where, as we must grant, that, though marriage be lawful, yet the continent doth better; so, though possession of riches is lawful, yet he that parts with, and bestows, most of wealth superfluous upon the poor, doth better, than he that keeps or spends more of it upon himself:) Concerning this counsel, I say, we do not contend, but that all are capable of receiving it: and yet our Saviour, upon occasion of the young man's not receiving so hard a saying, and so difficult a lesson, seems to put the same difficulty in it, as in continency: for when he breaks out upon it, [verily I say a rich man shall hardly enter into the kingdom etc. and again, Camels shall as easily be threaded thro' Needles, ver. 23, 24. see 1 Cor. 1.26.] he saith only, (if we well observe,) It is hard for rich men to receive this saying, [go and sell,] i. e. of parting with their superfluous wealth. For, be this hardness of rich men's entering into heaven, from their trusting in their riches, or from having continual temptations of excess, and fuel for all their lusts ministered by wealth; or from continual cares and distractions from them, Matt. 13.22. (which also he names, from marriage, 1 Cor. 7.35): all is presently remedied in receiving this saying, (yet foolish men take no notice of it,) sell that ye have, [i. e. superfluous,] and give it away in alms, (where the charity is not so much to others, as to ourselves.) For in parting with his riches, he is sure at once to part with his trust in them, cares, temptations of them, for no man trusts in, or is tempted with, what he hath not. I have stayed the longer upon this general offer of the gift of continency on God's part; because the conceit of it as of a private gift is very discouraging (as we see by their practices, where this doctrine is taught,) for the attempting that heavenly condition of life (so much recommended by our Saviour, and St. Paul) after they first believe, that for some men no means can procure it; and then, by the strong assaults of their lusts (from which none are free) believe that themselves are such. And hence, whilst we are in suspense, whether there be a possibility of it, or no, in respect of us, (as there is to none a possibility, who are destitute of the gift) we cast all our care, not upon mortifying and refraining our lust; but upon the observance of the Symptoms of this gift, and the several rise and heights of our lusts, accordingly to shape to ourselves that future condition of life, to which our present seems to lead us. And all this without cause, whereas we may make ourselves what we are not; and God's providing a remedy for an innocent satisfying of that concupiscence, which cannot (by our deficiency) otherwise be allayed, was by reason of our ordinary weakness, not of our absolute necessity; to whom he (in some times) indulged a facile changing also of those to whom men were joined: but it likewise not for their necessity, but for the hardness of their hearts. Matt. 19.8.— Whereas now it is a fruit of the Evangelical perfection, that husbands (by mutual consent) do separate from their wives (without taking others) for the Kingdom of God, (Lu. 18.29. compared 28.) always secure of the gift of continency from God, (if resolute in their endeavours of preserving it): Else this would be an act most unlawful, which our Saviour makes so heroical, and promiseth to it so great a reward.  
It seems therefore, that God, this gift being so advantageous to his service, §. 13 (see parag. 1.) and so common, (see par. 7.) not denied upon repentance and prayer &c to many grievous sinners, after long contrary habits, without their using the remedy of marriage; that God, I say, denies not this power to any at all, who first have power over their own will; decree and stand steadfast in their heart; 1 Cor. 7.37. resolutely undertake and offer this their singleness to God for such an end, as is so much approved by him; and then practise also the means conducing to it, which are observed (as abstinency, for example,) naturally to cure the burn of lust, even in brute beasts.  

§. 14 Which thing to confirm yet further, both from the Scriptures, and from the primitive times of the Church: first, had God denied this gift to any, [1.] it seems that St. Paul could not justly have blamed the widows, when some of them young, for remarrying; whose marriage, he saith, was out of wantonness, and that they had damnation, for having cast off their first faith and promise, (i. e. of living single, and attending wholly to those charitable duties &c.) which they had made to Christ, and the Church: but if God had not given them the power of observing their vow, the Apostle should have allowed their remarrying, and blamed their vowing; who ordered also for the future, that such young women should no more be admitted to such vows or duties, for public service of the Church; not because they could not, but ordinarily would not, abstain.   

§. 15 [2.] Neither would our Saviour have recommended the like resolution and attempt, in those, who, he saith, made themselves Eunuches for the Kingdom of Heaven, Matt. 19.12. if he would not also be assistant to them with his grace; as he approved their purpose, and design; to which also they were alured by his Encomiums of that happier condition. Nor would he have (and that in the general) commended those, who leave the pleasures of marriage for the Kingdom of God's sake, that is, for the better serving God in any way, (see 1 Cor. 7.34, 35.) or, those who have forsaken their wives, (i. e. by mutual consent, 1 Cor. 7.4, 5.) see Lu. 18.29. compared with Matt. 19.29. There is none that hath left, (or, every one, that hath forsaken,) wife etc. who shall not receive etc. Forsaken, i. e. as the Apostles did, in local separation from them, (see Matt. 19.27.) unless continency were a gift; which all pious purposes, using the means for conserving it, and intending God's glory in it, may presume upon. Tho, where we do not subdue our lust, S. Paul as much prohibits any long separation, as our Saviour here encourageth it. See 1 Cor. 7.5.   

§. 16 [3.] Neither would S. Paul have approved the same resolution in those, who could master so far their own will: 1 Cor. 7.37. who doubtless, what he praiseth in the father, (who yet might be necessitated to go against his will, by the virgin's incontinacibility) he would much more have approved in the virgin. Neither is that need (ver. 36.) necessity absolute, as appears by what follows, [do what he will,] the other doing better.   

§. 17 [4.] The prohibition likewise in the primitive times, (though not in all Churches, that no married person might be admitted to sacred Orders, or, that every one, upon these received, must separate from his wife, yet) that none single, when entering into holy Orders, (I mean of Priesthood) might afterward marry, shows the persuasion of Antiquity to be; either that continency was denied to none using the means, or else, that, it being a special gift only to some, every one, before taking Orders, or making a Vow, might certainly know, not only, whether he had the gift for the present, but whether he might also persevere therein to his death, (forasmuch as concerned God the Donor thereof.) But here it is unintelligible, how such assurance can arise, only to some particular persons; nor can any direct, how such a special gift, not only for the present, but the future also, may be discerned. Meanwhile concerning the prohibitions and practice of Antiquity, see and compare together Can. Apostol. 27.— Conc. Chalcedon. can. 13.15.— Constantinop. in Trullo. can. 6.12, 13. compared Can. Apost. 6: In brief, you will find the issue to be much-what to this purpose: That no Presbyter may marry after his taking Orders, nor Bishop after his Consecration: That of those who, being before married, are admitted afterward into holy Orders, some Churches required that they should ever after (by mutual consent, [which was known before Orders conferred]) abstain from their wives; as the Roman-Church: Some, that Bishops only should abstain universally; and simple Presbyters, only abstain then when they were to officiate; as the Greek Church.— See likewise Provincial Councils celebrated about the time of the Nicene Council, and approved afterwards by the Constant. Conc. in Trullo. can. 2.— Ancyran. Conc. can. 10.— Neocaesar. can. 1:— &c,  
§. 18 But I think it best, for saving the labour of seeking, to set you down some of them: which you will find so clear, as that I think nothing can be replied to them.— Apostol. Canon. 27. In nuptiis autem qui ad Clerum evecti sunt, Praecipimus ut, sivoluerint, uxores accipiant, sed lectores cantoresque tantummodo; not the higher Orders of Bishop, Presbyter, Deacon, etc.— Conc. Ancyranum (before the first Council of Nice) Can. 10.— Diaconi quicunque cum ordinantur, si in ipsa ordinatione protestati sunt, dicentes, velle se habere uxores, n●● posse se continere, (where posse is taken as expounded §. 24.) high postea si ad nuptias venerint, maneant in ministerio, propterea quod his Episcopus licentiam dederit. Quicunque sane tacuerunt & susceperunt manus impositionem, professi continentiam, si postea ad nuptias venerint, a ministerio cessare debebunt. [But note, that, si protestati sunt, is here said of Deacons only.]— Conc. Naeocaesar. (before Nice) c●n. 1.— Presbyter si uxorem duxerit, ab ordine suo illum deponi debere.— Conc. Nicaenum can. 3.— Omnibus modis interdixit sancta Synodus; neque Episcopo, neque Presbytero, etc. omnino licere habere secum mulierem extraneam, nisi forte sit mater, aut soror, aut avia, aut amita, vel matertera. In his namque solis personis, & harum similibus omnis, quae ex mulieribus est, suspicio declinatur. Whereas might they have entertained a wife, neither would there have been cause of such suspicion; nor would it have been reasonable, nor safe, to deprive their wives of all Women-attendance or Society. As for the story of Paphnutius in this Council, [which makes so great a noise amongst us; so that this instance stands for a bulwark against all the other evidence, in this point, of Antiquity, (see Calvin Institut. 4. l. 12. c. 26. and generally all our writers,)] this is the All of it: That, motion being made by some in the Council, that the married Presbytery, (i. e. such as were married before made Presbyters) should after their Ordination be separated from their wives: [which separation the Greek Church allows not to this day; and of which the 6th of those called Canons Apostolical, saith thus, (notwithstanding that the same Canons prohibit marriage after Ordination except to Lectores & Cantores:) Episcopus aut Presbyter uxorem propriam nequaquam sub obtentu religionis abjiciant: (Some conceive this to be meant, * without her consent; others, * not for cohabitation, but for maintenance only:) Si vero rejecerit, excommunicetur.— And Concil. Gangrense, because some held it unlawful to receive the Communion from a Presbyter formerly married, was necessitated to make this Canon. 4.— Quicunque discernit, a Presbytero, qui uxorem habuit, (here 'tis habuit, not habet,) quod non oporteat eo ministrante de oblatione percipere, Anathema sit.] That, such a motion being made, I say, Paphnutius, a Reverend Bishop, and a Confessor, though never married, withstood it, saying, Grave jugum, etc. neque a singulorum uxoribus fortasse eam castimoniae normam posse servari. But now mark what follows:— Illud satis esse, ut qui in Clerum ante ascripti erant quam duxissent uxores, high secundum veterem Ecclesiae Traditionem deinceps a nuptiis se abstinerent; non tamen quenquam ab illa quam jampridem, cum laicus erat, uxorem duxisset, sejungi debere. The story is in Socrates Eccl. Histor. 1. l. 8. c. and in others from him. Sozomen. 1. l. 22. c. Judge now what cause there is, to urge Paphnutius for the marrying of the Clergy, after H. Orders received by them when as single. I go on.— Conc. Romanum under Silvester, in the time also of Constantine the Great, Can. 7.— Nullum autem Subdiaconorum ad nuptias transire praecipimus, ne aliquam praevaricationem sumpserit.— Elibertin. Council. about the same time in Spain; Can. 33. Placuit in totum prohibere Episcopis, Presbyteris, Diaconis, ac Subdiaconis, positis in ministerio, abstinere se a conjugibus suis, & non generare silios. Quod quicunque fecerit, ab honore Clericatus exterminetur. Which Canon plainly shows; That at that time in the Western, though not in the Eastern, Churches, not only marriage after Holy Orders was forborn, but abstinence from their wives, by those who were married before, was commonly practised; since he, who should do the contrary, was so highly punished.— Conc. Arelatense secundum under the same Silvester. Can. 2.— Assumi aliquem in Sacerdotium in vinculo conjugii constitutum, nisi fuerit praemissa conversio, non oportet. Two Councils, in which S. Austin was present, * 1. Conc. Carthag. 2. Can. 2.— Placuit & condecet sacro-sanctos Antistites & Dei Sacerdotes, necnon & Levitas (i e. Deacons &c, continentes esse in omnibus etc. ut quod Apostoli docuerunt, & ipsa servavit antiquitas, nos quoque custodiamus. Ab universis Episcopis dictum est, omnibus placet, ut Episcopi, Presbyteri, &c, pudicitiae custodes etiam ab uxoribus se abstineant. Hence S. Austin, (Confess. 10. l. 30. c.) speaking of his continency, before obliged by Priesthood to it, saith,— Et quoniam dedisti factum est, & antequam dispensator Sacramenti tui fierem. And * 2. Conc. Africanum cap. 37.— Praeterea cum de quorundam Clericorum quamvis erga uxores proprias incontinentia referretur; placuit Episcopos, & Presbyteros, & Diaconos, secundum priora statuta etiam ab uxoribus continere. Quod nisi fecerint, ab Ecclesiastico removeantur officio. Caeteros autem Clericos ad hoc non cogi, sed secundum uniuscujusque Ecclesiae consuetudin●m observari debere.— These were before the third General Council.— Add to these the fourth General Council of Chalcedon. Can. 13.— Quoniam in quibusdam provinciis concessum est Psalmistis & Lectoribus, (se Apost. Can. 27. quoted before,) uxores ducere, constituit sancta Synodus prorsus cuiquam ex his non licere alterius sectae accipere uxorem, etc. Where 'tis plain, that other Clergy besides Psalmists and Readers might not marry at all.  
§. 19 Hitherto I have kept within the times of the first four General Councils, to which we promise much conformity, I will join to these a Canon or two in Constantinopol. Conc. in Trullo, reckoned by the Eastern Church for a part of the sixth General Council, though it was not consented to by the Roman Patriarch; Can. 6.— Quoniam in Apostolicis Canonibus dictumest, cor●m qui non ductae uxore in Clerum promoventur, solum lectores & cantores uxorem posse ducere, & nos hoc servantes decernimus, ut deinceps nulli penitus Hypodiacono, vel Diacono, vel Presbytero, post sui Ordinationem, conjugium centrahere liceat. etc. Canon. 12. Jubet omnino Antistites, (i. e. Bishops,) postquam sunt ordinati, a propriis uxoribus secedere: and here they take notice of the 6th. Apostol. Canon, quoted before in the last §, and yet advance beyond it: quoniam Apostoli (say they) come sides inciperet, ad fidelium imbecillitatem se magis demittebant etc.— Can. 13.— decernunt, Presbyteros a prioribus suis legitimis uxoribus non separari, sed eo tempore quo sacrificant; & expellentes suas uxores pietatis praetextu, excommunicandos. And this (say they) notwithstanding the contrary custom of the Roman Church. Thus the Council in Trullo. And ever since have the same laws and customs been preserved in the Eastern Churches, as we may see in the Answer of Jeremias Patriarch of Constantinople, in Epilogo to the Reformed, soliciting his approbation of their innovation in this matter, and remembering him of the Apostle's rule, Melius est nubere quam uri,— and his order,— Oportet Episcopum esse unius uxoris virum: to which he replies this;— Proinde & nos illis sacerdotibus, qui in virginitate persistere non possunt, priusquam tamen consecrentur, & Sacerdotes [i. e. futuri] siant etc. Ille autem [Sacerdos, entering into Orders, or others vowing Virginity] qui semel virginitatem professus est, virgo permaneat, nec jam illi ullam amplius licentiam post votum susceptum nubendi damus. Nemo enim mittens manum ad aratrum, & respiciens retro, idoneus est consequendo coelesti regno. [Here is Priests, after their consecration, or others vowing Virginity; for ever after denied marriage.]— This the modern law of the Greek Church; and if the prohibiting them afterward, makes them the more, who intent Priesthood, to take wives before, and so many of the Greek Clergy de facto are married, to enjoy this liberty more than for necessity; yet this is an abuse no ways countenanced by their Ecclesiastical Canons. Much less may we imagine that they are obliged by any such law (ne periculo fornicandi se exponant) to take wives before they may enter into this Holy profession, so contrary both to the Apostle's Counsel, 1 Cor. 7. and the Church's former Injunctions, when-as even all secular employments have at least the liberty of a single life; and the Reformed themselves, so great friends to marriage, yet impose no such yoke upon their Clergy, nor hath any that I know of entertained such a fancy save Vigilantius.  
Out of the Canons then recited above you may observe, 1. That the Greek Church, who acknowledge and practise these Canons in this point to this day, allow indeed the use of their wives, except when they officiate, (but what if they officiate every day, as many Priests do?) to Priests married before Ordination, but not so to Bishops; but permit not that any Ordained unmarried may afterward marry at all. 2ly. Again, That those married persons, who were to be made Presbyters in the Roman Church, and Bishops in the Oriental, might not separate from their wives without consent, received from the wives before such Ordination or Consecration of them. 3ly. That such continency was annexed to Holy Orders only by Ecclesiastical Constitution, and was rather Lex Continentiae, than Votum: which therefore hath been capable of many dispensations, and the Canons about it somewhat differing; and the Clergy more restrained by some of them than by others. But this seems to be a received ground amongst them all in those primitive times, that Continency is a general gift, at least in potentia remota, i.e. which is by God denied to none using the means, and rightly preparing himself for it, etc. Else how could they prudently make such laws, strictly prohibiting marriage for such a number of men, involving also the Deacons, and Subdeacons', upon penalty of degradation from their office, (which laws you see, the Reformed, because they hold continency a particular gift, only possible to some, generally decry.) How could they allow of a separation (by consent once given) of a man and his wife for ever, required, in the Roman Church, of all; in the Eastern, of Bishops; notwithstanding what the Apostle saith, 1 Cor. 7.5? unless you will say, that the Church-Officers in time of Ordination could discern who had this gift, who not. Or, that there was no party coming to be ordained, or consenting to such a separation, but was able to discern it in himself, and that not only for the present, but always for the future; and likewise that none would present himself, that knew he had it not.  
§. 20 Neither doth the Apostle's declaring from the Spirit, 1 Tim. 4.1. etc. that in the latter times there should arise Apostates &c, forbidding to marry, and commanding to abstain from meats, any way prejudice these injunctions and practices of ancient Church, (nor consequently of the latter times, herein following only her example.) 1. Because the Apostle, by opposing to such error, that every creature and ordinance of God is good, (according to Gen. 1.31. and 2.23, 24.) and therefore being sanctified first, by the word of God and prayer, may lawfully be used, (see 1 Tim. 4.3, 4, 5.) showeth, that he means such Apostates, as abstain from, or prohibit, marriage and meats, as in themselves unlawful, and unclean, and contaminating. Which thing can neither be objected to the ancient, nor modern Church-practice, using abstinence from some meats for the chastisement of the body, not for any uncleaness in the food; and not forbidding marriage to any single person absolutely, but only upon his voluntary undertaking such an employment, with which they imagine a married condition not so well to suit. In which case if necessary abstinence from marriage be a fault, the Apostle himself may seem to comply with it in those expressions of his 1 Tim. 5.11.12.— 2ly. Because experience hath manifested the Apostle's prophecy to have been most eminently fulfilled in other persons of these latter times, (whom these Fathers even in these points most vehemently resisted,) affirming downright all marriage, especially with reference to procreation of children [therefore the married were advised by them, in such manner to use their wives, as to avoid this, (see S. Aust. de moribus. Manich. 18. c.)] to be unlawful, and the work or design of the Devil, as likewise flesh-diet to be unclean and defiling. Animata abominantes interdicunt (saith Epiphanius haer. 47.) none continentioe gratia, neque honestoe vitae, sed ob timorem, & imaginations ut non contaminentur ab animatorum esu. Vino vero omnino non utuntur, Diabolicum esse dicentes.— And S. Austin contra Faust. 30. l. 5. c. Ipsam creaturam immundam dicitis, quod carnes Diabolus operetur faeoulentio●e materia, mali.— And de haeres. 46. c. Non vescuntur carnibus, tanquam de mortuis vel occisis fugerit divina substantia.— Vinum non bibunt, dicentes, fell esse principum tenebrarum. Such were some of the Gnostics, Encratites, Montanists, Marcionites, and in the last place the Manichees, being as it were the last extract and quintessence of all those former gross errors, not a little potent even in S. Austin's times; who, not holding all things to have been created by the same good God, but this lower world by an evil principle, or by the Prince of darkness, as they call him, affirm, in the begetting of a man, that the Soul, which they account to be a part of the substance of God himself, becomes fettered and imprisoned in the walls or handiwork of the devil, i.e. the body, from which it is again released only by death; (therefore was marriage, occasioning such imprisonment, forborn by all their elect; and though this permitted to their auditors, yet (saith Austin) it was, non dicences non esse peccatum, sed peccantibus veniam largientes, propterea quod illis necessaria ministrabant. con. Faust. Man. 30. l.) Likewise that the same part of God was continually more defiled, and enclosed by such and such gross nourishments of the body. And when of such errors they were accused by the Fathers, it was ordinary with them to recriminate the Orthodox with the same things; both for their frequent abstinencies from flesh, and some other fruits; and for their (to some persons at least) recommending virginity; who in this matter were answered by them after the same manner, as the Protestants, objecting the same things, are now by the Church of Rome. See concerning this the contest between Faustus the Manichee and S. Austin, (cont. Faust. Manich. 30. l.) and see concerning such Heretics in the Church before the Manichees, Irenaeus adv. Haeres. 1. l. 22. c. there, of Saturninus and Basilides, he saith, Nubere autem & generare, a Satana dicunt esse. Multi autem ex iis & ab animalibus abstinent etc.— See Clem. Alexand. Strom. 3. near the beginning. Marcionistae quidem dicunt malam esse naturam ex mala materia etc.— qua quidem ratione nolentes implere mundum, qui factus est a Creatore, volunt abstinere a nuptiis, resistentes suo Creatori etc.— See much what the same relation with that of Irenaeus, in Epiphan. Haeres. 23. and 46. and 47. Continentiam hic (i.e. Tatianus) praedicat, asserens nihil differre matrimonium a scortatione, sed idem esse. Haer. 46. And the judgement of the Father's commenting on this place of Timothy, applies it to the same men. See S. Ambrose, or the Author of those Comments in his works. Doctrina, saith he, quae nunc in Marcionistis, (quamvis pene defecerint,) vel Patricianis, aut maxim in Manichaeis denotatur. Hi enim & Christum natum negant, & nuptias prohibent, & abstinendum a cibis tradunt.— Chrysostom. de Manichaeis, &. Encratistis, & Marcionistis, omnique illorum officina hic loquitur etc.— After whom see Dr. Hammond on 1 Tim. 4. note b. and the authorities there cited by him. And in the last place consider what Mr. Mede himself (Apostasy of the latter times, p. 113.) granteth; namely, That errors about marriages and meats were no novelties in the Apostles own times, as the diligent Reader may easily collect out of their own Epistles: which makes it improbable, that he would specify the apostasy of latter times in these alone. Thus much Mr. Mede. Neither will that expression [in latter times] (the like expressions to which are found in many other places; see 2 Tim. 3.1.— 4.3.— 2 Pet. 3.3.— 1 Jo. 2.18.— Judas 18.— 2 Thes. 2.3.) carry the purpose of this prophecy beyond the days of these ancient Herericks. For first, this expression doth not seem in the Apostle's drift so to indicate the future times, as altogether to exclude the present; they reckoning even their own times also a part of the last times, (see 1 Pet. 1.20. Heb. 1.2. Act. 2.17. 1 Jo. 2.18. 1 Cor. 10.11.) and therefore, when they describe such wicked persons, advising those they writ to for the present to beware of them, to resist them, to teach contrary doctrine, etc. See 1 Tim. 4.6. etc. 2 Tim. 3.14.— 4.2. 2 Pet. 3.2. 1 Jo. 4.1. Or, 2ly. if they do; yet thus, either we must free the Father's times from any such imputation, as living before these latter times here prophesied of, (and consequently in all future times we must absolve all those, who in these matters affirm no more than the Fathers did,) or, if these latter times involve the days of the Fathers also, (as Mr. Mede fancies them to begin about 360, or 410, (Apostasy p. 84.) yet in the same times we find also these heretic's contemporaries with, and much combated by, the Fathers. And therefore whether the prophecy (eyeing those times) is likely to mean them, [i. e. the asserters of marriage and meats to be in themselves utterly unlawful and unclean,] or to mean the Fathers rather, their Antagonists in these points, I leave to the Readers judgement.   

§. 21 [5ly.] The same persuasion, in Antiquity, of the universality of this gift to all seeking it, may be gathered from the vowing 1. of virginity, much used, allowed, recommended by them. Of which also we find something in the ancient Councils. See Conc. Ancyran. before that of Nice, Can. 19 Quotquot virginitatem pollicitam praevaricati sunt, professione contempta inter digamos haberi debebunt. Here the practice thereof appears.— Conc. Elibertin. about the same time with that of the Nicene, Can. 13. Virgins quae se Deo dedicaverunt, si pactum perdiderint virginitatis, atque libidini servierint, non intelligentes quid amiserint, placuit nec in fine dandam eis esse Communionem etc.— Conc. Romanum at the same time under Silvester, Can. 10. Nullus Episcoporum virginem sacratam maritali consortio (i.e. to receive the veil, and the solemnity of her marriage unto Christ) expetierit benedicere, nisi eam probaverit 72 annorum esse constitutam, ubi probabitur judicium verae pudicitiae, ut in 72 annis requirens Virum Christum pudicitia custodita, uncta vertice introducatur ad nuptias Christi, velamen capitis ferens, non cordis, (alluding, I suppose, to 2 Cor. 3.) This admission was not, of her to vow at 72 years, who was sacrata before, but of her, having so long faithfully kept her vow, to such an honour as this ceremony imports. In this same time, namely of the Emperor Constantine, were some former Roman-laws, prejudicial to Celibacy, abrogated by him for their sakes, who had vowed to keep their virgin-chastity inviolate. Euseb. de vita Constant. 4. l. 26. c.— Concil. Carthaginense 3. Can. 33.  virgines sacrae, si privatae fuerint parentibus, a quibus custodiebantur, providentia Episcopi, vel Presbyteri, ubi Episcopus absens est, in Monasterio virginum vel gravioribus foeminis commendentur, ut simul habitantes invicem se custodiant, ne passim vagantes Ecclesiae laedant aestimationem.— And Carthag. 4. Can. 104. Si quae viduae quantumlibet adhuc in minoribus annis positae, & matura aetate a viro relictae, se devoverunt Domino, & veste Laicali abjecta, sub testimonio Episcopi & Ecclesiae religioso habitu apparuerint, postea vero ad nuptias soeculares transierint, secundum Apostolum, damnationem habebunt, quoniam fidem castitatis, quam Domino voverunt, irritam facere ausae sunt. Tales ergo personae sine Christianorum communione maneant, etc. And afterward. De talibus ait Apostolus: Quum luxuriatae fuerint nubere volunt, habentes damnationem etc. These two Councils were before the fourth General Council of Chalcedon, and both subscribed by St. Austin. Lastly, see Conc. Chalced. with which I will conclude; Can. 14. Diaconissam non debere ante annos 40 ordinari statuimus, & hoc cum diligenti probatione, si vero— postea se nuptiis tradiderit, injuriam faciens gratioe Dei, haec Anathema sit cum eo qui in nuptiis illius convenerit.— And Can. 15. Siqua virgo se dedicaverit Deo, similiter Monachus, non licet eis nuptiis jungi. Si vero inventi fuerint hoc facientes, maneant excommunicati.  
§. 22 Again, in the Fathers nothing is more frequent, and that in the most ancient. S. Ignatius in Ep. ad Tharsenses, & ad Antiochenses, making mention of Virgin's Deo sacrae in his time. In the first, after Viri diligite sponsas vestras, etc. he saith, Eas, quae in virginitate, honorate ut sacras Christi; eas, quae in honestate viduas, ut altare Dei, etc. In the second,— Populus subjiciatur Presbyteris & Diaconis. Virgins cognoscant, cui consecraveruntseipsas. This in the copies approved by Archbishop Usher, and Dr. Hammond. Tertullian and S. Cyprian before A. D. 300, writ Tracts; one de velandis virginibus (i.e. sacris,) That they should cover their faces with veils, etc. where he mentions votum continentiae— viderit ipsum continentiae votum, p. 200.— and distinguisheth between virgins hominum, and virgins Dei.— Ambiunt virgines hominum adversus virgines Dei, etc. p. 193.— and near the end he saith to such Non mentiris nuptam. Nupsisti enim Christo; illi tradidisti carnem tuam: illi sponsasti maturitatem tuam, etc. And of those who should offer to pull off this veil, he saith; O sacrilegae manus, quae dicatum Deo habitum detrahere potuerunt! etc.— The other, de disciplina & habitu virginum (i.e. sacrarum,) of whom he saith there:— Quae se Christo dicaverunt, & a carnali concupiscentia recedentes tam carne quam ment se Deo voverunt,— and that they were flos Ecclesiastici germinis &c gaudere per illas, atque in illis largiter florere Ecclesiae matris gloriosam foecunditatem; and that those of them who afterward yield to lust, are adulterae Christi.— And see his Epistle to Pomponius, about some that lived unchastly, after that exfide se Christo dicaverant, sanctitati suaese destinarant, propter regna coeborum se castraverant, etc. To these, that you may know that anciently also those who lived Monastic lives made vows thereof, (the contrary of which some endeavour to persuade us,) I will add only two other testimonies: one out of S. Basil, praesat. constitut. Monast. Nuptias velut compedes fugit; vitam suam Deo consecrat, & castitatem profitetur, ut neque facultas ipsi sit conversionis ad nuptias: the other out of S. Austin, in Psalm. 75. upon [Vovete & reddite Domino Deo nostro.]— Alii virginitatem ipsam ab ineunte aetate vovent etc. isti voverunt plurimum.— Alius vovet relinquere omnia sua distribuendo pauperibus, & ire in communem vitam, in societatem sanctorum; magnum votum vovit.— Nescio quae castimonialis nubere voluit. Aliquid mali voluit? mali plane. Quare? Quia jam vove●at Domino. Quid enim dixit de talibus Apostolus Paulus? (Cum dicat, viduas adolescentulas nubere si velint,) Quid autem ait de quibusdam, quae voverunt, & non reddiderunt? habentes, inquit, damnationem, quia jam fidem irritam fecerunt. Nemo ergo positus in Monasterio Frater dicat; Recedo de Monasterio. Neque enim soli, qui sunt in Monasterio perventuri sunt in regnum coelorum:— Respondetur ei; sed illi non voverunt, tu vovisti. And concerning the married, by consent vowing continency, and obligation afterward for ever to observe it, see S. Austin's 199 Epistle to Ecdicia. The argument of which Epistle I will transcribe you.— Mulier quaedam [i. e. this Ecdicia] inscio marito susceperat votum Continentiae. Post tamen maritus assensus est, & continenter cum ea vixit, non sinens tamen ut Monachae vestem sumeret. Tandem inscio marito facultates omnes duobus [Monachis] veluti pauperibus erogavit, cum haberet filium puerum ex eodem viro. Maritus suspicans eos Monachos esse ex eorum numero, qui penetrant & praedantur domos alienas, resiliit a proposito, & coepit maechari.— Now in this Epistle St. Austin blames Ecdicia indeed, for all the things above named, which she had done without the consent of her husband, commanding her to submit, and ask his pardon, etc. but as to the vow of Continency, to which they had once both consented (notwithstanding his fornicating,) he holds them both for ever obliged to it, and exhorts her, at least, to perseverance therein.— Quod enim (saith he) Deo p●riconsensu ambo voveratis, perseveranter usque in finem reddere ambo debuistis; a quo proposito si lapsus est ille, tu saltem constantissime persevera. Thus Herald As for other quotations of Fathers, I refer you to the Controvertists: instead of which I will set you down the confessions concerning them of Calvin, Instit, 4. l. 12. c. 27. s.— Secuta sunt deinde tempora, (he means after the Conc. Nicen.) quibus invaluit nimis superstitiosa coelibatus admiratio, etc. Haec, quia videbantur reverentiam Socerdotio conciliare, magno plausu etiam antiquitus recepta esse fateor. Now the reason, why he censures not the times till after Nice, is the story of Paphnutius, from which he gathers, those former times Conjugium in Sacerdotio tolerasse, not observing, or concealing, that it was only Conjugium contracted before Ordination. Himself meanwhile condemning the Canons which these times approved; quibus vetitum est, ne matrimonium contraherent, qui pervenissent ad sacerdotii gradum. (Sect. 27. & Sect. 29.28.) Nulla omnino conditione dandum esse locum iis Canonibus censeo, qui vinculum Coelibatus Ecclesiastico ordini injiciunt. Concerning vows of single life, (13. c. 17. §.) Hoc, inquiunt, ab ultima memoria fuit observatum, ut se alligarent continentiae voto, qui totos se Domino dicare vellent. His Answer. Fateor ●erre antiquitus quoque receptum fuisse hum morem: sed eam aetatem sic ab omni vitio liberam fuisse non concedo, ut pro regula habendum sit quicquid tunc factum est.— And the confession of Pet. Martyr de Coelibatu & Votis.—  quod verum est fateamur, eos in hac causa habemus iniquiores. Statim enim ab Apostolorum temporibus nimium tribui coeptum est Coelibatui. And of St. Austin he saith; Iste vir Dei scribit (speaking of Vows) ut homo deceptus. Now the objections which are made, by the opposers of the law of Celibacy, for those entering into Holy Orders; or of vows of Celibacy, for other persons, out of the Canons of Councils, or the writings of the Fathers, are not against any thing here affirmed: but either, concerning some, who, having wives before Ordination, were not obliged afterward to abstain from them, (allowed still by the Greek Church, except to Bishops only), * or concerning marriages contracted after Ordination or Vows, that such are not irrita; of which opinion S. Austin is clearly, De bono Viduitatis, c. 8, 9, etc. a thing granted by all after only simple vows; and after solemn, disputed still; whether such persons, who have so solemnly delivered, and made over themselves in a particular espousal to God, are made illegitimate for any Secular marriage afterward jure Divino, or only jure Ecclesiastico. (See Bell. de Monach. 2. l. 34. c. sect. Respond: convenit.—) For the Church hath always claimed much power (as being not restrained by the Levitical law, qua talis, but only by that of Nature, nor prescribed any thing by Christ) in ordering the matters of marriage; and in hindering some persons from marrying, (even not to making the marriage illicitum to be done, but irritum when done,) who are not restrained there from by the Divine law, or the law of Nature. See if you please the discourses of this in Estius 4. sent. 40. d. 3. s. etc.— 28. d. sect. 4, 8, 9 * or, concerning those, who, after vowing continency, live in fornication and uncleanness, that such, notwithstanding their vow formerly made, had better marry than thus offend. Which is granted by all, after a simple vow: (hear what Bellarm. saith, (the Monach. 2. l. 34. c. sect. Est autem.—)— Licet sine peccato contrahi nequeunt, tamen verae nuptioe sunt: & ideo aliquo modo minus malum est nubere post votum ejusmodi, quam assidue fornicari, tum ob sidem conjugii, tum ob prolem legitimam, tum ob alia bona, etc.) * But let it be granted them after a solemn also: but if from hence they would prove the lawfulness of marriage after vowing continency, the places they produce will no way bear it. They are three, much pressed: one of S. Cyprian, Epistola ad Pomponium 62. Quod si ex fide se Christo di●averunt, pudice & caste sine ulla fabula perseverent; ita fortes & stabiles praemium viginitatis expectent: si autem perseverare nolunt, aut non possint, melius est ut nubant, quam in ignem delictis suis cadant. The second of S. Hierom, Ep. ad Demetriadem 8. Sanctum Virginum propositum & coelestis Angelorumque familiae gloriam quarundam non bene se agentium nomen infamat; quibus aperte dicendum est, ut aut nubant, si se non possint continere; aut contineant, si nolunt nubere. The third of S. Austin, de sancta Virginitate, 34. c. upon that of the Apostles, 1 Tim. 5. Nubere volunt.— Hae igitur (he speaks of those who have vowed chastity) quae nubere volunt, & ideo non nubunt, quia impune non possunt, (quae melius nuberent, quam urerentur) quas poenitet professionis, & piget confessionis, nisi correctum cor dirigant, & Dei timore rursus libidinem vincant, in mortuis deputandae sunt. etc. 1 Tim. 5.6.— But in these places the Fathers, only, of two evils, if one of them they will do, wish rather the less to be done; and prefer marriage, being in itself, though not to them after a vow, lawful, before living in fornication, and other uncleanness, neither to them after vows, nor before in itself, lawful: therefore they say, si nolunt continere, or perseverare, nubant. Which marriage yet none at all allow lawful; namely to none who can keep their vows. As for the non possunt, they speak if not of them as no way able to keep their vow, (for then indeed I grant, marriage would be lawful, if the vow of virginity were impossible to be kept,) but of them as, by their own fault (which they may redress [therefore S. Austin saith, nisi correctum cor dirigant, &c,]) impotent. Which may clearly appear (to any who delight not rather to make the Fathers to contradict themselves, even where their speeches are most easily reconciled) both by the same Fathers allowing these perpetual vows, and their holding in all the possibility of continency; shown before. Of which also hear S. Hierom, (comment. in Matt. 19 c.) upon [Non omnes capiunt.] Nemo putet sub hoc verbo vel fatum vel fortunam introduci: quod hi sunt virgins, quibus a Deo datum sit, aut quos quidam casus ad hoc adduxerit: sed his datum est, qui petierunt, qui voluerunt; qui ut acciperent laboraverunt. Omni enim petenti dabitur, & pulsanti aperietur, etc.— Qui potest capere, capiat; qui potest pugnare, pugnet; superet, ac triumphet.— And adversus Jovinianum 2. l. 19 c. to this Apostate Monk, who equalled a virginal and conjugal state, he saith: Virgins tuoe, quas prudentissimo consilio quod nemo unquam legerat nec audierat, de Apostolo docuisti [melius est nubere, quam uri] occultos adulteros in apertos verterunt maritos. Non suasit hoc Apostolus, non electionis vas; Virgilianum eonsilium est,  
Conjugium vocat, hoc praetexit nomine culp●m:  
See S. Austin (Confess. 6. l. 11. c.)— Putabam me miserum fore nimis, si foeminae privarer amplexibus: & medicinam misericordiae tuoe ad eandem infirmitatem sanandam non cogitabam, quia expertus non eram: & propriarum virium credebam esse continentiam, quarum mihi non eram conscius; cum tam stultus essem, ut nes●irem, sicut scriptum est, (Wisdom, seu Sapient. 8. c. 21.) Neminem esse posse continentem, nisi tu dederis. Vtique dares, si gemitu interno pulsarem aures tuas, & fide solida in te jactarem curam meam.— (De adulterinis Conjugiis 2. l. 20. c.) Solemus eyes [qui propter adulterium dimissis conjugibus suis, alias volunt ducere, & quum prohibentur, infirmitatem nobis carnis opponunt] proponere etiam continentiam Clericorum; qui plerumque ad eandem sarcinam subeundam capiuntur inviti, eamque sus●eptam usque ad debitum finem, Domino adjuvante, perducunt. Dicimus ergo eye; Quid si & vos ad hoc subeundum populorum violentia caperemini, nun susceptum caste (i.e. in celibacy) custodiretis officium, repent conversi ad impetrandas vires a Domino, de quibus nunquam antea cogitastis? See the like in Psalm. 137. Nemo praesumat viribus suis reddere quod voverit: Qui te hortatur, ut voveas; ipse adjuvat, ut reddas. So other Fathers also. Chrysost. Comment. in Matt. 19 His datum est qui sponte id eligunt: Quod ideo dixit, ut ostenderet, superiore nobis auxilio opus esse; quod quidem omnibus paratum est, si volumus in hae lucta evadere superiores. Add to this that place of S. Austin in Psal. 75. quoted before §. 22. and that 104. Can. of Conc. Carthag. 4. subscribed by him, quoted before §. 21. with some others there to the same purpose, where they deny marriage lawful to Votaries, and Anathematise them. To which I will add that of S. Ambrose ad Virginem lapsam, 5. c. Quae se spopondit Christo, & sacrum velamen accepit, jam nupsit; jam immortali juncta est vivo, & jam si voluerit nubere communi lege conjugii adulterium perpetrat.— And that of S. Chrysostom, spoken by way of caution to young Theodorus deserting his Monastic life. Paraen. 2.— Honorabile, inquit, connubium, & cubile immaculatum. Sed tibi jam non est integrum jura connubii servare; coelesti enim sponso semel junctum illum relinquere, & uxoris laqueis implicari, adulterii crimen incurrere est. Quamvis millies hoc ipsum nuptias voces, ego tamen & adulterio (that is, the adultery of another man who hath not vowed, not his, as I conceive him) illud tanto pejus affirmo, quanta major ac melior mortalibus Deus. Nunc autem nihil in te penitus tui juris est.— Nam si mulier proprii corporis non habet potestatem, sed vir: multo magis high, qui Christo potius, quam sibi vivunt, ditionem corporis sui habere non possunt. So S. Austin, who holds not the marriages of Votaries to be null, or no true marriages, (see de bono Vidutiatis, c. 8, 9, 10, 11.) yet saith in the same place, c. 11. Non possum quidem dicere foeminas a proposito meliore lapsas si nupserint adulteria esse, non conjugia: sed plane non dubitaverim dicere lapsus & ruinas a castitate sanctiore, quae vovetur Deo, adulteriis esse pejores. Si enim ad offensionem Christi pertinet, cum membrum ejus fidem non servat marito, quanto gravius offenditur, cum illi ipsi non servatur fides in eo, quod oblatum exigit, qui non exegerat offerendum? This in answer to those places, wherein 'tis pretended, the Fathers held marriage lawful after vows; or continency to seem not possible. But the Apostle sufficiently decides this business (at least as the Fathers understood him) in 1 Tim. 5. who affirms his young votaries to have damnation, (i.e. great guilt upon them,) for breaking their former faith or vow by marrying. Now this denying of marriage, the remedy of incontinency, to all such as have passed a vow, argues that the Fathers held the gift of continency denied to none such. Which if it be true, the only considerable objection (that I know of) against a Monastic life is here also removed. For as concerning the other two vows, * That (commonly called) of Poverty, provided, that one remain still either possessed of what in humane probability is enough to supply him with necessaries, or have a trade or a profession (amongst which I reckon preaching of the Gospel one) wherewith from time to time to get his living, (for the labourer is worthy of his hire, as our Saviour told his disciples, when he sent them abroad to preach without any provision), and may in reason presume he shall receive it; and * That of Obedience, provided, it be engaged only for things lawful, about which lawfulness, when any doubt happens, he is to be guided by the Church's, not his private Superiors judgement: (Which I think, in no Monastical institution that ever was, can be showed to be peremptorily denied to any, for the ordinary plea of many of the Roman Doctors is contrary; namely, that no Authority less than infallible (which Superiors are not) can oblige to absolute obedience and submission to their judgement in matters credible or practicable in order to our salvation (See Notes of Infallibly;) Thomas those who are under Authority are prudentially advised, rather to submit in all things to their Superiors (most likely) better judgements, than (with very little sign of humility) indulge their own; and causelessly afflict their Society with appeals and contests:) These two vows, I say, thus qualified, are not liable to any just exceptions. And indeed the former we see done frequently amongst us, in many parting for ever with their estates (only what is necessary reserved) to their Son: why not then to the poor? and the latter in Servants promising, of also swearing obedience to their Matters; why not to a Spirtual Superior?  
§. 23 Neither is there (besides the examples we have of this vowing both in Scriptures and the Fathers) as seems to me any argument to be drawn from reason, why we may not presume on God's assistance, and enablement of us, to perform such vow; either because it is vowing of a thing not absolutely necessary to salvation; or because we are not certain of our ability, and command of our will, to use the means, which ability also we have not from ourselves, but from God. For 1. are not most of our vows (yet these granted lawful) about things, which, as some way advantageous, yet, are not absolutely necessary to our salvation? as the vowing, * of abstinence from the further use of some sensual, though lawful pleasure, formerly to us an occasion of sin; * of giving such a propotion of alms (suppose half of our estates) to the poor, (such a one was Ananias his vow, Act. 5. whose fault, so much aggravated by S. Peter, seems to be more in his keeping back part, after his devoting it to God, than in pretending, by a lie, to bring it all: see the inference ver. 3. But Peter etc.) * of using every day two or three times of prayer extraordinary; * of not drinking wine, because of many former temptations by it to excess. And 2ly, is not the performance of all these only by the power God gives us, (who cannot think a good thought, much less curb the least appetite, without him,) and therefore we give him thanks also for the performance of them? 3. And again, make we not in baptism a vow of things necessary to salvation, i.e. of repentance, and of faith? but the expressions concerning which in Scripture are the same as those concerning continency. to wit, that they are not given to all: [See Jo. 6.37, 39, 64, 65.— 2 Tim. 2.25.— Matt. 13.11. It is given unto you to know the mysteries of the kingdom of heaven, but to them it is not given.] Not as if God absolutely denied such a gift to them, but only upon their non-preparation, and other obstacles, which by their own fault hindered them from receiving it; for so our Saviour expounds himself in the next words, ver. 12. For whosoever hath, to him shall be given. In the same manner may it be said of continency; non omnibus datur; but habenti (i.e. to men using those endeavours and preparations towards it, which God hath given them power to use) dabitur. (Jo. 12.39.— Eph. 2.8. compared 2 Thes. 3.2. Act. 13.48. (For which expressions if we make the vow of continency unlawful, why not the other? Now who is there that may not lawfully vow, to repent of his sins, to believe in God to his lives end, to observe God's commands, & c? (118. Ps. 106.108. v.) yet as S. Austin saith, Nemo praesumat viribus suis reddere quod voverit. Qui te hortatur ut voveas, ipse adjuvat ut reddas. [In Psalm. 137.] Here it is said; there is not the same reason: because Faith is a thing necessary to salvation, not so Virginal Continency, therefore we cannot justly have the same confidence, that God, surely not wanting to us in necessaries, must needs supply us also in superfluities. Resp. Doubtless, since God, as he hath commanded duty, so also hath advised perfection, as not in the one, so neither in the other, is he wanting in his gift, to those that seek it; especially the latter undertaking (as higher) deserving more encouragement. Else why is not [petenti dabitur] restrained also to necessaries? and why may a man lawfully make vows in other things, that he conceives profitable, but acknowledgeth are not absolutely necessary to his salvation, (as in the things mentioned before, as also in other rules of perfection, 1 Cor. 9 Luk. 12.33. Matt. 19.29.) if he may not presume on God's assistance in such things only profitable, without which he is able of himself to do nothing profitable. 4. Again, I know not why, if we may safely vow the keeping of any of God's commandments, and may make a covenant with our eyes, not to look upon a woman to lust after her, why, I say, we may not also, to guard our passion from being set on fire, and from burning; since the former seems to be the more difficult.  
§. 24 5. To which this further may be added: That Continency, as any other thing advantaging us in God's Service, from Vows receives a much higher value, which may invite us to such pious engagements) than without it; whilst it proceeds from an affection more confirmed and steadfast in good. A resolute vow having the virtue of an habit; and to act good, as it were necessarily, being Angelical: and he that vows offering up and sacrificing to God, not the act only of continency with others for the present; but the power or faculty thereof for ever; and the fruit, together with the tree that bears it. Therefore find we frequent exhortations and examples of vowing in Scripture: see Ps. 76.11. Jon. 1.16. Is. 19.21. etc. And very expedient doubtless it is (after some trial and experience of our having a reasonable command over ourselves, and of our not suffering a very tyrannical mastery of our passions) to pass a vow in such matters to fortify ourselves against temptations, and the mutability of our inclinations; by which the less former tye we have of ourselves, the easilier we are seduced. Faelix necessitas, quae ad melior a compellit, saith S. Austin of Vows.  
As for those places of the Apostle which are urged, against vowing, at least before sixty, or for leave given to marry, though it be after vows, upon incontnency; [as 1 Tim. 5.9. Let not a widow be taken into the number under 60 years old:— and 14. I will therefore, that the younger women marry etc. and 1 Cor. 7.9. If they cannot contain let them marry: and v. 35. I speak not that I may cast a snare upon you.] In answer to them, I take this first for granted; that all those (young or old) who have the power to be continent, may safely vow it; since the reason given by the Reformed, why it may not be vowed, is, because it is a thing not in our power. Again, I say, that if these places prove, either that continency before 60. may not be vowed, or marrying after a vow may be lawful, upon this reason, because some persons before sixty, and after vowing, cannot contain; then the Apostle will be made to contradict himself. For according to this he could not say of the Juniors, (whose particular gift of continency he could not know, but had rather reason to presume, from the miscarriage he saw in them, that they had it not,) that they had damnation, for marrying; or for not keeping their vow or promise to Christ, which they could not keep; but damnation, for making such a vow, which they must necessarily break. For, Non est peccatum violare, quod servare impossibile est; and it was as lawful to break such a vow, as unlawful to make it. But yet notwithstanding this, the Apostle plainly saith, damnation they had for marrying, and for breaking this promise, not for making it. I conclude therefore, that the Apostle's advice here of marriage is not * to Votaries, nor absolutely to all other younger women: for so his volo juniores nubere hear would be contrary to his volo omnes esse sicut meipsum, 1 Cor. 7.7. and would lay an obligation on all young folks to marry: But * to those that are in such a manner qualified, as those were that miscarried: so qualified; not from want of power from God to contain, but want of will, and of a steadfast purpose to make use of that power, (as S. Paul describes it 1 Cor. 7.37.) which instability of the will, and proneness to incontinency (that is in some much more than in others) every one ought well to examine before they vow; that so they may make use of the lawful remedy, which in the second place God hath provided for it, namely marriage; if they do not aspire to the higher cure thereof by prayer, and mortifications. See Dr. Hammond in his Paraphrase, expounding it thus, [That those who have not attained to such gravity of mind, and command over themselves, do, in that case, betake themselves to a married life:]— So, in that text, [if they cannot contain, let them marry.] (Where note, that our Translation renders, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, If they cannot contain; and so Matt. 19.11. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, All men cannot receive this saying etc. without rule or precedent, that I know of: for the Vulgar hath it, omnes non capiunt: & si non se continent.) The advice is not, to any that have an obligation to contain, (though actually perchance they do not so), as it is not to the married; though one party be sick, absent, or impotent; nor to those who have vowed, it being proved, that such may contain, from the Apostle's saying, they have damnation in marrying; who yet actually non se continebant: But the advice is to those only, that are free from any obligation against marriage; that if they perceive themselves so affected, as that they have much temptation, and no steadfast purpose to contain, if they have gotten (which yet is by their own defect) so little power and mastery over their will, (which mastery is acquired by some pains and practice) as that they cannot (not cannot possibly but cannot without much difficulty) contain, (for we say we cannot do a thing, though in our power, which we can hardly do): that then they should make use of the common remedy allowed by God for it. All which weaknesses, since they are by industry remediable, excuse none from continency, who have already made any engagement to it. To the 3d. place, 1 Cor. 7.35. I grant a vow rashly undertaken to be a dangerous snare: rashly, I say, i.e. without well proving before it what mastery we have over our carnal inclinations. Lastly, for the admission of none under sixty, the Apostle seems to prescribe this age with respect to their impotency then to get their living, and liableness to want, (see ver. 4, and 16.) and to their staydness and gravity, [see v. 13, 14.] as much or more than to their continency, in which a lesser age would have rendered them secure. But suppose the Apostle chief to have reference to this, yet was it not done as if any lesser age hath not a power of continency; or experiencing their ability to live single, might not also resolve it: but because the Church had not the same means to be assured of their inclinations, and was much concerned in her first growth, after the experience too of some miscarriages, thus to prevent all scandal. But later Church, upon experience of the chaste behaviour of such persons from the power of more discipline, due restraint, amp; c. thought not herself obliged by this rule fitted for the Apostles days. But as S. Paul, from the lapsibility of younger women, admitted them at 60: so the 4th. General Council of Chalcedon, Can. 14. cum diligenti probatione admitted them at forty.    

X. As God hath encouraged us to single life by recommending it; § 25 
Yet it more difficult, than the matter of any other Vow.  and denies the power to none at all, taking the pains, and using the means, that are necessary to procure it; So I grant, that the act and exercise of Continency, and purity, is much more difficultly attained, than any other matter of a Vow whatever; and the sin, which the undiscreet attempters thereof fall into, if they miscarry, very abominable. Therefore is there nothing in all the Scripture recommended with so much caution, and putting men in mind of their own abilities, as this: which appears both in our Saviour's limitations, Matt. 19.11, 12. and in the Apostle's proceeding so tenderly in this point, and with such cautious and suspended steps, (see 1 Cor. 7.2, 6, 7, 25, 28, 35, 36.) tho much commending it, yet warily recommending it: looking doubtless as onone side at the heavenly perfection of this virtue, so on the other at the heinousness and filthiness of those crimes, and the great peril of those snares, that men, avoiding, and obstinate against, the common merciful remedy of marriage, were endangered to fall into, in an unmodified pursuit of this grace. More difficultly, I say, is this grace attained, both by reason of this strong impression made in our nature by the most wise providence, for the necessary use of propagation; and by reason of the concupiscence of the flesh; which, as it was the first exorbitancy appearing in Adam, (They saw that they were naked, Gen. 3.7. being only a modest expression of the rising of concupiscence; compared with Gen. 2.25. therefore followed by shame); so retains it its strength in all his sons, beyond any other passion whatsoever: to which likewise one person (and in him one age of his life) may have yet a far greater pronity than another, by the greater heat of their constitution; natural impetuosity of their passion; more liberal diet; much rest and vacancy from employment; conversation amongst tempting objects, etc. so that such, without extreme difficulty, cannot contain, as it also many times happens even to them after divorce, &c, (who, all grant, have from God the power of containing, if they will use their best endeavours). And in respect of the great strength of the temtations of lust, beyond all other, and of these great impediments in some, more than in others, (i.e. the natural temper, age, condition of life, former habits, &c, and of most men's averseness to undergo those rigours and mortifications, which procure and preserve continency, &c,) I conceive it is; that our Saviour answered his forward disciples voting, upon his discourse, that none should marry; * that to all this was not given, and that some only could receive it; and so the Apostle by the same spirit, * that every one hath his proper gift of God, one after this manner, and another after that, 1 Cor. 7.7. and * that there was a necessity to some parents of giving their virgin in marriage, (ver. 36, 37.) therefore he saith, it is not given to all, i. e. without such painstaking as some other gifts are; Nor do all receive it:] For tho power to contain is given to any who use the means, subdue their passions, etc. yet few there are, who can without much difficulty and resolution so master their will, subdue their passions; few, who have a temper naturally so calm, or artificially so rebated, that they can arrive to such a power. And so, every one hath his proper gift of God, etc.] i. e. First, in respect of gifts of nature; men are of several tempers and abilities, some inclined more to one passion, as enamour'dnes, some to another, [as continency,] some more, some less, subject to be tempted; some fitted for one sort of life, some another; which all yet are the distributions of God, (see 1 Cor. 7.17.) So that some can more easily, some not without almost insuperable difficulty, contain; for we say, we cannot do, though a thing in our power, what we can hardly do, or which is very troublesome to us to effect. See Luke 14.20. 2 Cor. 8.3.— Such phrases are not unfrequent in Scripture, Jo. 13.36. Luke 14.26, &c, to 34. Jo. 6.65. spoken in things, of which we do not deny an absolute possibility, whilst by prayer &c may be attained stronger inclinations; but yet in them we suppose to some a present impotency, and impromptitude of their will, and waywardness of their inclinations; especially where the thing requires a strong conatus, and a stout spirit, as Peter's dying for Christ; their forsaking friends, and all they had, for Christ. Luk. 14.26. and 33. Their believing in Christ, especially at that time, when appearing to them in such weakness of our flesh; none of these things (tho) being absolutely impossible to them. 2ly, in respect of gifts of grace every man hath his proper gift of God; some, superior; some, inferior, graces; some, Virginal, some only conjugal, chastity, (1 Cor. 7.9.) according to every man's capacity, (Matt. 25.15.) or endeavours: which not premised, the grace is not bestowed. For we must know, that God always gives not his habitual graces at first, but excites and assists our endeavours for them; and afterwards crowns these endeavours with them. And hence, because most do not well employ God's former grace, (in which he is not wanting to those, whom he questions for want of the latter) the other happen to be given but to a very few. Sec Matt. 13, 11. concerning that necessary grace of Spiritual illumination, [To you it is given; to them it is not given;] and Jo. 12.39. concerning faith; [Therefore they could not believe.] See §. and so Mar. 6.5. concerning the favours of God, that he is ready to do for us, but we are uncapable of receiving; [And he could there do no mighty work.] In all which the deficiency is not to be understood to proceed from the want of will in God to give, but from the want of preparation in them to receive. (See Matt. 13.11. compared with 12. Mar. 6.5. compared with 6.) If they receive not, because God gives not; Matt. 19.11. and if God gives not, because they do not by prayer, and other means, prepare themselves for it; it follows, the prime reason, why they receive not, is because they are unmortified, or unprepared. Now the exhortation ver. 12. He that is able to receive it, let him etc. See Mat. 20.22. plainly supposeth, * that God gives it to those that are able; and the instance in some that make themselves Eunuches, proveth, * that men also make themselves able; able, by God's concurrence, and preventing and assisting aid, or grace, from whom is all ability. Which ability also supposes that he gives to some, not others, only in the same sense as he gives faith, and other graces; (see Eph. 2.8. compared with 2 Thess. 3.2.) yet notwithstanding, as all may both pray for faith, and upon their endeavour presume they shall receive it; and may promise and vow unto God to be faithful; so notwithstanding the former expressions (if no other reason be alleged) we may say the same of Continency; That it is a gift attainable by all, as it is a gift by few attained. Thus much concerning the grace. But 3ly, in respect of the faculty itself, and the using of it well, in our endeavours to attain such a grace, 'tis true also, that our being willing to do a thing is frequently called God's gift; and there is nothing, of which we can say, 'tis our fault or infirmity that we do it not, but that we may as truly say, it is God's gift, if we do it. (See Phil. 2.13. Jer. 10.23. Prov. 16.1. Ex. 4.11. 2 Chron. 18.31.— 10.15.— Ezr. 6.22 Matt. 13.11.) Therefore also this our desiring such a grace to be given us, or our entertaining such a grace offered us, is also in some sense another gift or grace of God to us, without which we should not have possessed his other grace; and so, our own endeavour, as well as the grace we seek for, is all gift and grace, though we should go in infinitum; till we also find (as the most ordinary doctrine of the School is) that the first motion of the will to embrace God's grace is also the grace, gift, or work of God in us: else if this motion of the will were from itself, in any sense contradistinct to that of being from God, then there would be some good in us, not from God; then something, which we had not received; and so, place for merit, and boasting; contrary to Rom. 4.2, 4.— 3.17. But I conceive, 'tis not said of these first gifts of God, (i.e. of his first excitings of the will; his both preventing and assisting aids and helps of the will, in its using the means to attain his further, and richer, habitual, and inherent graces,) that non omnibus data sunt; but of those other second graces, which are given but to few, because the means, and his former commoner aids are used by few: of which it is said, that, only to him that hath, shall be given. Of those first aids therefore we may safely say, that they are so far common to all, (to whom is come the sound of the Gospel, and who shall be judged at the last day by the Gospel) that it is their fault, in any duties, which are absolutely commanded them, and their defect, in any counsels of perfection, if they, by not making use of them, come short of such duty or perfection; and, that any thing being thus said to be God's gift hinders not, but that it likewise may be said also to be in man's power, (meaning a power, in man, but, from God,) as long as the tender of such a gift is made to him, and ability also to acquire it given to him. But of this more in my Notes of Grace. Yet since, there are some that allow not the means to attain faith, or other duties commanded, common to all to whom the Gospel is preached, (therefore P. Martyr, 3. class. 7. c. Commun. locorum. argues thus: Magis videretur debere commune esse omnibus hominibus donum essicacis vocationis ad sidem in Christum, quam donum ad Coelibatum.— Sed inter illos qui eandem praedicationem audiunt, non omnes a Deo trahuntur. Where he quotes Jo. 6.44. Nemo venit ad me:) Let but so much be granted from them, of the means to attain continency, as is, to attain faith; and this will serve our turn, without reasoning the point any further in this place; for then see what will follow §. 23. In granting therefore, that the using of the means also to obtain graces from God is the gift of God; yet we affirm, that it is only by their own default (for which see Luk. 12.57. Matt. 11.21. Mar. 12.34. Matt. 23.37. Jer. 18.4.— 8.10.) if in things absolutely commanded, and their own defect, if in things recommended for their greater perfection, that such do not use the means, and that they may use them if they will. Because these must consist together, i.e. * that we can do no good (small or great) but from God; and * that we have freewill to do good, and if we do not good, 'tis by our own default; and * that when we do any good, 'tis not without our own endeavour. Else we should be free from sin in not observing the divine exhortations; and there would be no vice, nor virtue; and consequently no (just) punishment, or reward. See concerning this S. Austin, De Gratia & libero Arbitrio 4. cap. Nunquid non liberum arbitrium Timothei est exhortatus Apostolus, dicens, Contine teipsum? 1 Tim. 5.23.— Et in hac re potestatem voluntatis ostendit, ubi ait, Non habens necessitatem; potestatem autem habens suae voluntatis, ut servet virginem suam. 1 Cor. 7.37. Et tamen non omnes capiunt verbum hoc, sed quibus datum est, etc.— Itaque ut hoc verbum, quod non ab omnibus capitur, ab aliquibus capiatur, & Dei donum est, & liberum arbitrium etc. Neither will this be sufficient to hinder a vow, because it is only of God's gift (that we are willing to use the means) to keep and fulfil it. For also we cannot do any thing he commands, unless he gives us the will; and yet may we vow to do any thing he commands.   

§ 26 
Therefore not hastily to be vowed.  XI. And in respect of these considerations, as all aught to endeavour and covet this the most happy condition of life, and many men are much wanting to their own perfection, the Service of God, and of the Church, etc. who, out of neglect to this gift, and not out of, or from, any strength of temptation cast themselves into the impediments of marriage, and might receive it, and do not: so I conceive it is not so safe for any, who are not very well practised first in mortification, and experience in much piety and devotion, to vow it. Not safe; not out of any diffidence in God, as if he would be wanting in his assistance proportionable to our endeavour; but in reference to the flesh, lest it should happen, in this chiefest piece of its strength, if we do not find that we have a strong command over ourselves, to overmaster us; and our good resolution become a snare to us, 1 Cor. 7.35. beginning to build, and not able to finish. In which S. Paul's wariness may be a sufficient precedent to ours; who, * finding the young widows after such purposes (by their own fault indeed) remarrying, and * considering the greatness of internal and external temptations incident to youth, (thro' the indulgent discipline the infancy of the Church was then capable of, not so restrained as latter times have since provided,) ordered that none under sixty should be admitted into public service upon such strict bonds and obligations. And indeed in the business of continency, in which some degree of burning is in the most pure, it is very hard, till long experience hath as it were assured us, at any one time exactly to measure our own strength, constancy, and steadfastness, whether we shall be able to contain for the time to come; and, by the intervening of new temptations &c. (unless we resolve wholly to shut up ourselves from them) our future, is not easily judged by our present, complexion. And as, when I look at the heavenliness of a single life, I would advise all men to abstain; so when at the great difficulty of such a purity, as shall not be contaminated with one uncleanness, than which the Apostle adviseth rather to marry, I would counsel all men to marry; [See Conf. 2. l. 3. c. how S. Austin complains of his parents not preventing by marriage the many exorbitances of his wanton youth:] seeing the single person much hazards a great sin, whilst he attempts as great a glory. But yet the zealous Servant of God can do all thro' Christ that strengtheneth him. Nor shall he in this be tempted above his power, 1 Cor. 10.13. if he first tempt not himself; and the reward is well worthy the pains.   

§. 27 
Yet not unlawful for the Church, and very beneficial, to restrain the sacred function of the Ministry to single persons.  XII. 'tis not only lawful, but of singular benefit, that those offices more nearly conversant about the public service of God, or the Church, should be discharged only by single persons, wholly sequestered from the world. Which if the Apostle saw fitting in the ministering widows, the Deaconesses, (Rom. 16.1.) how much more is it in the Clergy? Tho he, loath to lay such a hard burden on the tender shoulders of the Infancy of the Church, therefore nourished by him with milk, rather than strong meat; * when there was not so much choice of Pastors, and they of necessity to be admitted to such functions much sooner than the widows; and * when single life and Eunuchism was as yet, especially to the Jew, a strange proposal, (which may partly be the reason, why he, who became all things to all men, in the 1 Cor. 7. recommends single life so modestly, and after the way of delivering only his advice and judgement, (a phrase unusual in his other doctrines,) see 1 Cor. 7.6, 8. compared with the 10, 25, 40,) restrained then the Clergy only to one wife. Yet (where there is sufficient plenty of single persons that are worthy, and not else) it seems no way unlawful or unjust, if the Church (which is * in this left to her liberty (for S. Paul, restraining the Clergy only to one wife, obligeth them not by this, to have a wife) and * hath power to establish what the H. Scriptures no way prohibit) shall ordain (which is a means to make many more zealous of this excellent gift) * that single persons only shall be admitted into such employments, or at least into those functions amongst these of the more eminency and moment; and if these persons should afterward engage in marriage, * that they shall no longer stay in the same office. Which wisdom, since the world frequently shows in many other places of less consequence, they cannot be excused for omitting it in the Church-affairs, to which it is most proper.  
Neither do I see what hurt or scandal can come thereof, if only the Ecclesiastical Canons were strictly executed: 1. If none, but after long probation of their temperance, continency, gravity, mortification, were admitted into such sacred employments, (see what trial the Apostle requires before such admission, 1 Tim. 3. and elsewhere, [not a novice, lest he fall into the temptation of the Devil; one of a good report, and found blameless; even the Deacons to be proved, before they use that office, 1 Tim. 3.10.]) 2. If all necessary restraints from the ordinary occasions and temptations of incontinency were used to such persons after admitted. 3. If the Church's censures were vigorously executed against the offenders.  
Else, as Celibacy is better than Marriage, so Marriage is always honourable; but unchaste celibacy, especially in the Ministers of Christ, most abominable, and for ever void of excuse. And even after such vows, (in which petenti dabitur, nec patietur Deus nos supra id quod possumus tentari,) yet if such a one will not contain, I conceive (supposing no Ecclesiastical law to intervene, which may render marriage to such, when contracted, invalid, or not to be a marriage) he sins much less in marrying, i. e. in doing a thing in itself lawful, but against his vow, than in fornication, i.e. in doing a thing eternally unlawful, being against God's command: for the one fault is against God's law, the other only against his own. And if some, in comparing marriage with some one act of fornication or uncleaness, may affirm the first to be more opposite to a vow, than the latter; as rendering one uncapable of observing his vow at all for the future, which the latter doth not: yet in this all will agree, that even to a Votary the living in Marriage, than living in continual Fornication, or other uncleaness, is a life to God less offensive. S. Austin de Bono Viduitatis, 9 c.— Non quia ipsae nuptiae vel talium, i.e. voventium, damnandae judicantur, sed damnatur propositi fraus, damnatur fracta voti fides, etc.— Postremo damnantur tales, non quia conjugalem fidem posterius inierant, sed quia continentiae primam fidem irritam fecerunt.   
FINIS.