without Precedent (fays Sigibert Chron, ad An. 1074.) « and, as many thought, out of an indiscreet Zeal contrary « to the Opinion of the holy Fathers. But Hildebrand was not obey'd in this in England for above a hun- « dred Years after. For our ancient Records fay

r

Hift. Petroburg. An. 1127. apud Spelman) all these « Decrees avail'd nothing. For the Priests by the King's « Confent, had ftill their Wives as formerly. pag. 176. «

L. Sr, it is not at all material, whether Pope Hildebrand was or was not the first that impofed Vows of a fingle Life upon the Clergy. For fuch a Vow could only inforce the Obligation they were already under by the ancient Canons of the Church, which had never been repeal'd; and fo it obliged them to nothing, but what they were obliged to before. Just as if a Vow to keep the Fast of Lent were now impofed upon Roman Catholicks, no Man could legally infer from it, that it was therefore a new Thing, or a Duty they were not strictly obliged to comply with independently of fuch a Vow. All there fore we can gather from that Fact and the other related by Spelman (if it be litterally true, which may be question'd) all, I fay, we can gather from it is, that in the 11th and 12th Century great irregularities were practifed by many of the inferiour Clergy› who kept their Concubines, and call'd them Wives, but were no more so, than Kate Bores was the Lawful Wife of Martin Luther. And to shew they were regarded by the Church no otherwise than as Concubines, befides many other Synodal Decrees against them in other Places, there was a general Sy. nod held at London by the Pope's Legate in the very Year mention'd by Spelman, in which feveral Canons were made for the Reformation and Celibacy of the Clergy, fays Mr Echard in his Hiftory of England, L. 2. C. 1. pag. 174. But the fame Author adds, that they II. Part.

Mm

$.436 were not much regarded (as the very Laws of God are but little regarded by Libertines) till fome few Years after An. 1129. the King defirous to fettle the Celibacy of the Clergy in a Synod call'd on Purpose; through the Weakness of the Archbishop (as Mathew Paris expreffes it) obtain'd Power to have the fole Execution of this Law himself; but instead of Reftraining the pretended Abufe, he punish'd them in their Purses, and receiving Sums from a great many of them he permitted them to enjoy their Wives as formerly.

Now this Relation of Mr Echard gives a very dif ferent turn to the whole Matter from that of Spel man. For what he calls the King's Confent, is here fairly reprefented as a bare Connivance, into which the King was brided by large Sums of Money: and the fevere Laws made by the two Synods, Mr E. chard fpeaks of, against those of the Clergy who kept Concubines tho they call'd them Wives, is a Proof, that the Bishops affembled in thofe Synods regarded it as a finful Abuse, which food highly in Need of a Reformation: and in Effect they who practifed it were always branded with the infamous Name of Concubinarians, which is but a fofter Word for what we call in plain English, Whoremasters.

» G. My Lord, Gregory the Great said, that it was » lawful for fuch of the Clergy, as could not contain, to marry. (Refp. ad Interrog. 2m. Aug. Cant.) and » Pins II. faid the fame, that they may be allow'd to » marry. Platina. pag. 176.

L. Sr, I must here accufe you of very foul Dealing in both thefe Quotations. As to Pope Gregory, you have falfified him by Stifling that Part of his Words, which fully explain his meaning. They are thefe. If there be any of the Clergy, WHO ARE NOT IN HOLY ORDERS, and cannot contain, they ought t☛ marry. Now there are great Numbers in our Cler

gy, who are neither Priests, Deacons, nor Subdeacons, but only in leffer Orders; who therefore are free to return to the World and marry. And fo St Gregory's Words instead of Allowing the Marriage either of Priests, Deacons, or Subdeacons, who are all in holy Orders, imply a Prohibition of it according to this Maxim, exceptio confirmat legem: becaufe ic would be meer Trifling to limit a Law, that is not in Force.

As to the Words of Pius II. (for which -you quote Platina in his Life) they feem to import no lefs, than that Pope Pius being confulted as Head of the Church, whether Priests that could not contain might marry, had anfwer'd ex Cathedra, that they might whereas I can find no fuch Thing. 'Tis true, Platina at the End of that Pope's Life entertains his Reader with many pleasant Sayings used by him in common Converfation, amongst which this is one. That there was great Reafon for the prohibiting of Priests but greater for allowing it again. pag. 401, printed London, An. 1688. Now if the fame Pope in a pleasant Mood had faid, that there was great Reafan for Prohibiting the Plurality of Wives but greater for Allowing it again, it would have been full as good an Argument for Poligamy, as his other Saying is for the Marriage of Priests.

to marry,

G.

M's

§. 44.

Other Objections answer'd.

Y Lord, your great Canonift Panormisan a Says, there is as great Reason to allow Priefts a to marry now as ever there was to restrain it. Let St « Bernard bear Witness in his Time what Reason 4. there was for Allowing it, he fays, There are many c

6.44 » who cannot be hid for their Multitude, nor do seek 10 »be conceal'd for their impudence, who being restrain'd from the Nuptial Remedies, run into all Filthineß. »Bern, de conv, ad Cler. C. 29. And another fays,

that few in thofe Days were free from Fornication: » Glof. ad Gratian. Dift. 82. C. s. And Mathew PA» ris tells, that the Pope thought it almost a Miracle that a Candidate for a Bishoprick was faid to be » a pure Virgin. Whence the Gloß ad Gratian: in the Place juft before quoted calls Fornication but a s venial Sin; and it is tolerated, if not allow'd. ibid. » Dift. 34. C.7. However it was reckon'd a lefs Sin » in a Prieft than Marriage. For this Reafon deadly Sin is added to Fornication in our Litany. p.176.

"

$177.

L. Sr, as to Mathew Paris's Tale of what a certain Pope thought, and Gratian's Saying, that few were free from Fornication; I wonder you can lay a Stress upon fuch trifling Stuff. But fuppofe the Thought of the one, and the Saying of the other deserved a ferious Regard, all that can be gather'd from them, as likewife from the Words of Panormitan and St Bernard is, that in the Time they speak of, there was a great Loofenefs and Corruption amongst the Clergy. But do's it fuffice to make a Law unrealonable, because there are many Tranfgreffors against it If fo, I fear the Decalogue will be thought unreasonable too, fince Millions tranfgrefs daily against it's facred Laws. I own however there are Inconveniences either in allowing or prohibiting the Marriage of Priests. But of two Evils the leffer is to be chofen. And when our Church is convinced, that it is a leffer Evil to allow them to marry, I doubt not but the will change her Difcipline in this as she has fometimes done in other Things.

But your Representing it to be the Doctrine of

277 our Church, that Fornication is but a venial Sin, nay that it is tolerated, if not allow'd by us, is rank Ca lumny. For tho there were fuch a ridiculous Glofs upon Gratian a Writer of no Authority amongft us (which however I cannot find, tho I have read over both the Diftinctions you refer me to) it will not excufe your flanderous Suggeftion, that it is the Doctrine of our Church. Nay I am fure you know this to be a Calumny as well as myself. Or if you pretend ignorance, pray examine our Catechifms, or Books of Inftruction upon the 6th Commandement, and shew me one if you can, that calls Fornication a venial Sin, or fays, it is tolerated, if not allow'd.

As to what you add, that Fornication is reckon❜d by our Church a les Sin in a Prieft than Marriage, you utterly mistake the Question in fuppofing, that our Priests may be truly and validly married, which we deny. For 'tis our Doctrine, that when a Priest pretends to marry, he only makes Marriage a Cloak to cover habitual Sacrilege and Adultery; which doubtlefs is more grievous, that a Sin cafualy committed with a fingle Perfon.

This is the exprefs Doctrine of St Chryfoftom, who writes thus to one Theodore a faln Monk, that had married. Marriage, (says he) is a just and lawful Thing, I grant it ---- but now it is not a Thing in your Power. For being once join'd to your heavenly Spouse, to leave him, and fall into the Embraces of a Wife, is Adultery. Give it a thousand Times if you please the Name of Marriage, I say it is as much Worse than Adultery, as God is better and greater than Womankind. ad Theod. lapfum.

G. But why was Celibacy enjoin'd to Priests? « And why is Marriage a greater Sin than Fornica- « tion? Because the first is a Breach of the Command