called a religious life. It has a direct bearing on the History of
those days. One must not praise him because he (in common with all
Christians of his day) held, no doubt, the belief that marriage was a
degradation in itself; that though the Church might mend it somewhat
by exalting it into a sacrament, still, the less of a bad thing the
better: --a doctrine against which one need not use (thank God) in
England, the same language which Michelet has most justly used in
France. We, being safe from the poison, can afford to talk of it
calmly. But I boldly assert, that few more practically immoral
doctrines than that of the dignity of celibacy and the defilement of
marriage (which was the doctrine of all Christian devotees for 1000
years) have, as far as I know, ever been preached to man. That is a
strong statement. It will be answered perhaps, by the patent fact,
that during those very 1000 years the morality of Europe improved
more, and more rapidly, than it had ever done before. I know it; and
I thank God for it. But I adhere to my statement, and rejoin--And
how much more rapidly have the morals of Europe improved, since that
doctrine has been swept away; and woman, and the love of woman, have
been restored to their rightful place in the education of man?

But if we do not praise Salvian, we must not blame him, or any one
else who meant to be an honest and good man. Such did not see to
what their celibate notions would lead. If they had, we must believe
that they would have acted differently. And what is more, their
preference for celibacy was not fancy, but common sense of a very
lofty kind. Be sure that when two middle-aged Christian people
consider it best to part, they have very good reasons for such a
solemn step, at which only boys or cynics will laugh. And the
reasons, in Salvian's case, and many more in his day, are patent to
common human understanding. Do not fancy that he had any private