the same with celibacy; but it is chiefly used in speaking of the single life of the Popish clergy, or the obligation they are under to abstain from marriage. In this sense we say the law of celibate. Monks and religious take a vow of celibate; and what is more, of chastity.

The church of Rome imposes an universal celibacy on all its clergy, from the pope to the lowest deacon and subdeacon. The advocates for this usage pretend that a vow of perpetual celibacy was required in the ancient church as a condition of ordination, even from the earliest apostolic ages. But the contrary is evident from numerous examples of bishops and archbishops, who lived in a state of matrimony, without any prejudice to their ordination or their function. It is generally agreed that most of the apostles were married. Some say all of them, except St Paul and St John. Others say St Paul himself was married, because he writes to his yoke-fellow, whom they interpret his wife. Be this as it will, in the next ages after the apostles, we have accounts of divers married bishops, presbyters, and deacons, without any reproach or mark of dishonour set on them; e.g., Valens, presbyter of Philippi, mentioned by Polycarp; and Chæremon, bishop of Nilus. Novatus was a married presbyter of Carthage, as we learn from Cyprian; who himself was also a married man, as Pagi confesses; and so was Caecilius the presbyter who converted him; and Numidius, another presbyter of Carthage. The reply which the Romanists give to this is, that all married persons, when they came to be ordained, promised to live separate from their wives by consent, which answered the vow of celibacy in other persons. But this is not only said without proof, but against it. For Novatus presbyter of Carthage was certainly allowed to cohabit with his wife after ordination; as appears from the charge that Cyprian brings against him, that he had struck and abused his wife, and thereby caused her to miscarry. There seems indeed to have been, in some cases, a tendency towards the introduction of such a law by one or two zealots; but the motion was no sooner made than it was quashed by the authority of wiser men. Thus Eusebius observes, that Pinytus, bishop of Gnothus in Crete, was for laying the law of celibacy upon his brethren; but Dionysius bishop of Corinth wrote to him, that he should consider the weakness of men, and not impose that heavy burden on them. In the council of Nice, anno 325, the motion was renewed for a law to oblige the clergy to abstain from all conjugal society with their wives, whom they had married before their ordination; but Paphnutius, a famous Egyptian bishop, and one who himself never was married, vigorously declaimed against it, upon which it was unanimously rejected. So Socrates and Sozomen tell the story; to which all that Valesius, after Bellarmine, has to say, is, that he supposes the truth of it. The council in Trullo, held in 692, made a difference in this respect between bishops and presbyters; allowing presbyters, deacons, and all the inferior orders, to cohabit with their wives after ordination; and giving the Roman church a smart rebuke for the contrary prohibition, but at the same time laying an injunction upon bishops to live separate from their wives, and appointing the wives to betake themselves to a monastic life, or become deaconesses in the church. And thus was a total celibate established in the Greek church as to bishops, but not any any others. In the Latin church, the like establishment was also made, but by slow steps in many places. For in Africa, even bishops themselves cohabited with their wives at the time of the council of Trullo. The celibacy of the clergy, however, appears of an ancient standing, if not of command and necessity, yet of counsel and choice. But as it is clearly neither of divine nor apostolical institution, it is at first hard to conceive from what motive the court of Rome persisted so very obstinately to impose this institution on the clergy. But we are to observe that this was a leading step to the execution of the project formed of making the clergy independent of princes, and rendering them a separate body to be governed by their own laws. In effect, while priests had children, it was very difficult to prevent their dependence on princes, whose favours have such an influence on private men; but having no family, they were more at liberty to adhere to the pope.