Part 33

As Priests and Deacons are commanded, by the Seventh Article of this Letter, to abstain from Marriage, and this is the first Opportunity that has offered of mentioning the Celibacy of the Clergy, a short Digression on such a material Point of Discipline in the Church may not, perhaps, be unacceptable to the Reader. The laying of this heavy Burdens on the Shoulders of the Clergy, a Burden too heavy for most of them to bear, as Experience has shewn, was first moved in the Council of _Elvira_, held about the Year 300. according to the most probable Opinion; and, being warmly promoted by the celebrated _Osius_ of _Cordoua_, and _Felix_ of _Acci_, now _Guadix_ in _Andalusia_, who presided at that Assembly, it passed into a Law; and all Bishops, Presbyters, Deacons, and Subdeacons, were commanded, on Pain of Deposition; _to abstain from Wives; and the begetting of Children_. These are the very Words of the 33d Canon of that Council[1238]. That, till this time, the Clergy were allowed to marry, even in _Spain_, is manifest from the 65th Canon of the same Council, excluding from the Communion of the Church, even at the Point of Death, such Ecclesiastics, as, knowing their Wives to be guilty of Adultery, should not, upon the first Notice of their Crime, immediately turn them out of Doors[1239]. How long the 33d Canon continued in Vigour, is uncertain; nay, it may be questioned whether it ever took place: if it ever did, it was out of Date, or at least not generally observed by the _Spanish_ Clergy, in the Time of _Syricius_, as evidently appears from the Words of his Letter, or Answer to _Himerius_ of _Tarragon_. I said, by the _Spanish_ Clergy, for no such Injunction had yet been laid on the Ecclesiastics of any other Country or Nation. About Fifteen Years after, was held the Council of _Ancyra_, in which it was decreed, That _if any Deacon did not declare at his Ordination, that he designed to marry, he ought not to be allowed to marry after but might, if he made such a Declaration, because, in that Case, the Bishop tacitly consented to it_. The Council of _Neocæfarea_, which assembled soon after that of _Ancyra_, and consisted, in great Part, of the same Bishops, commanded _such Presbyters as married after their Ordination to be degraded_. In the Year 325. was held the Council of _Nice_; and, in that great Assembly, it was moved, perhaps by _Osius_, who acted a chief Part there, that Bishops, Presbyters, Deacons, and Subdeacons, should be debarred from all Commerce with the Wives they had married before their Ordination. But this Motion was warmly opposed by _Paphnutius_, who had himself ever led a chaste and single Life, and was one of the most eminent and illustrious Prelates, at that time, in the Church. He represented, that the Burden they proposed laying on the Clergy, was too heavy; that few had sufficient Strength to bear it; that the Women, thus abandoned by their Husbands, would be exposed to great Dangers; that Marriage was no Pollution, but, according to St. _Paul_, commendable; that those therefore, who were not married, when first admitted to the Sacerdotal Functions, should continue in that State; and such as were, should continue to live with their Wives. Thus _Sozomen_[1240], _Socrates_[1241], and _Suidas_[1242][N22].

Footnote N22:

I am not unapprised, that this Account is rejected by _Baronius_[N22.1], and _Bellarmine_[N22.2], as fabulous; but, notwithstanding the Pains they have both taken to make it appear incredible, _F. Lupus_ allows it to be true[N22.3], though a no less zealous Stickler for the Discipline of the Church of _Rome_ than either of them. _Ruffinus_, I own, takes no Notice of this Transaction, as _Valesius_ well observes. But has no true Transaction been, either wilfully or ignorantly, omitted by that Writer? _Valesius_ well knows, that many have; and had he perused that Author with a little more Attention, he would not have so positively affirmed, that no one ever named _Paphnutius_ among the Bishops of _Egypt_, who assisted at the Council of _Nice_, since he is named among them by _Ruffinus_, and with great Commendations[N22.4].

Footnote N22.1:

Bar. ad ann. 58. n. 21.

Footnote N22.2:

Bell. de cler. l. 1. c. 20.

Footnote N22.3:

Lup. in can. p. 114.

Footnote N22.4:

Ruf. l. 1. c. 4.

_The Advice of_ Paphnutius _was applauded by the whole Assembly_, add the above-mentioned Historians, _and the Point in Dispute was left undecided_. In the Year 340. it was decreed, in the Council of _Arles_, that, _no Man, incumbered with a Wife, should be admitted to Holy Orders, unless he promised, with his Wife’s Approbation and Consent, to abstain for ever from the conjugal Duty_.

This is all I can find in the antient Records concerning the Continence or Celibacy of the Clergy, before the Time of _Syricius_. And hence it is manifest, that both _Crichtonæus_ and _Melanchthon_ were greatly mistaken; the former in affirming, which many have done after him, that Celibacy was first imposed upon the Clergy by _Syricius_[1243]; and the latter by confidently asserting, that Celibacy was not required of the Ministers of the Gospel by any Council, but by the Popes, in Opposition to all Councils and Synods[1244]. It must be owned, however, that this Law was not so generally observed before the Time of _Syricius_, as it was after. For it was not long after his Time before it became an established Point of Discipline in most of the Western Churches, not in virtue of his Letter, or of those which his Successors writ to the same Purpose, but because it was injoined by the Synods of each particular Nation. Thus it was established in _Africa_ by the Council of _Carthage_ in 390. in _Gaul_ by one held at _Orleans_, by Two at _Tours_, and one at _Agde_; in _Spain_, by Three held at _Toledo_; in _Germany_, by the Councils of _Aquisgranum_, or _Aix la Chapelle_, of _Worms_, and of _Mentz_. We know of none in _Britain_: and that it did not even begin to take place here till the Arrival of _Austin_, in the Sixth Century, may be sufficiently proved from the Letters of that Monk to _Gregory_, and _Gregory_’s Answer to him; but of that more hereafter[N23].

Footnote N23:

I cannot forbear taking notice here of an inexcusable Mistake in the _Ecclesiastical History of_ England, _by_ Nicolas Harpsfeld, _Archdeacon of_ Canterbury, a Work in great Request abroad. That Writer tells us, that _Restitutus_ Bishop of _London_ assisted at the Council of _Arles_, and signed the above-mentioned Canon, forbidding a Man incumbered with a Wife to be admitted to Orders, unless he promised, with her Consent, to refrain from all Commerce with her after his Ordination. He leaves us to infer from thence, that this Canon was received in _Britain_[N23.1]. But surely _Harpsfeld_ must never have seen either the Subscriptions, or the Acts of that Council. Had he seen the Subscriptions, he had hardly omitted Two _British_ Bishops out of Three. For, besides the Name of _Restitutus_, I find among the Subscriptions, the Names of _Adelphus de colonia Londinensium_, that is, as is commonly believed, of _Colchester_, and of _Hibernus_ of _Eboracum_, or _York_. Had he seen the Acts, he had never been guilty of such a gross Mistake as to ascribe the above-mentioned Canon to the Council of _Arles_, at which _Restitutus_ assisted, since that Council was held against the _Donatists_ of _Africa_, in the Year 314. and not the least Mention was made there of the Celibacy of the Clergy[N23.2]. The Second Council of _Arles_ was held about Twenty-six Years after, and of that Council the said Canon is the Second.

Footnote N23.1:

Harp. Hist. Eccles. Anglican. p. 26.

Footnote N23.2:

Concil. t. 1. p. 1426-1429.

[Sidenote: _The present Practice of the Church of_ Rome, _with respect to this Point_.]

As to the present Practice and Doctrine of the Church of _Rome_, with respect to this, in their Opinion, most essential Point of Ecclesiastical Discipline, no Man is allowed, after his Ordination, to marry, or to cohabit with the Wife he had married before: nay, in order to prevent all possible means even of any clandestine Commerce between them, the Woman must, by a solemn Vow of Chastity, renounce all Claims on her Husband, and, retiring into a Monastery, bind herself by a second Vow to continue there, without ever once going out, on any Pretence whatsoever, so long as her Husband lives, who cannot be admitted so much as to the Rank of a Subdeacon, till she is secured by these TWO VOWS. Such is the present Practice of the Church of _Rome_, though Subdeacons were allowed to marry long after the Time of _Syricius_, who, in his Letter, mentions only Deacons and Presbyters, and does not even oblige them to part with their Wives, but only excludes them from rising to a higher Degree in the Church. Pope _Leo the Great_, chosen in 440. was the first who extended the Law of Celibacy to the Subdeacons, commanding them, in a Letter, which he writ about the Year 442. to _Rusticus_ Bishop of _Narbonne_, to abstain, as well as the Deacons, Presbyters, and Bishops, from all Commerce with their Wives. But this Law was observed by very few Churches. In the Time of Pope _Gregory the Great_, that is, in the Latter-end of the Sixth Century, it had not yet taken place, even in _Sicily_, though reckoned among the _Suburbicarian_ Provinces: it was first introduced into that Island by him; but he allowed those to cohabit with their Wives, who had been ordained without a previous Promise to live continent, though he would not suffer them to be raised to a higher Degree without such a Promise. _Bellarmine_[1245], and the other Divines of the Church of _Rome_, to soften the Odium, which the hard, and commonly impracticable Command she lays on her Clergy, must reflect on her, represent Continency as a Virtue to be easily acquired. Their Ascetics seem better acquainted with the Difficulties and Struggles attending the Practice of that Virtue, than their Divines; for they prescribe, as the sole Means of attaining it, constant Prayer, frequent Fasting, macerating the rebelling Flesh with all kinds of Austerities, and principally the avoiding of all Female Company. And, if these be the sole Means of attaining it, I leave the Reader to judge how few of their Clergy do attain it.

[Sidenote: _In the primitive Church, married and unmarried Men raised indiscriminately to Ecclesiastical Dignities._]

No one is so little versed in the History of the Church, as not to know, that in the Three first Centuries of the Christian Religion, married and unmarried Men were indiscriminately raised to the Episcopal, and every other Ecclesiastical Dignity; nay, _Jerom_ writes, that in his Time, that is, in the Fourth Century, the former were, the most part, preferred to the latter, not in regard of their greater Merit, but because, in such Elections, the unmarried Men were outnumbered by the married, who chose to be governed by one in their own Station of Life[1246]. It is hence manifest, that Marriage was not thought, in _Jerom_’s Time, inconsistent with, or any Bar to, the Episcopal Dignity. And why should it? since, excepting St. _John_, the Apostles themselves were all married, as we are told, in express Terms, by _Ignatius_ the Martyr[1247], who was their Contemporary and Disciple, and whose Authority ought, on that Consideration, to be of greater Weight than that of all the other Fathers together. _But such of the primitive Clergy_, says _Bellarmine_[1248], _as were married before their Ordination, abstained ever after from the Use of Matrimony: let our Adversaries produce, if they can, but a single Evidence of a Presbyter or Bishop’s having any Commerce with their Wives_. It lies upon him to shew they had not. We know nothing to the contrary, and therefore may well suppose, that, pursuant to the Advice given by the Apostle to all Husbands and Wives, _they came together_ after Ordination as they did before, _lest Satan should tempt them for their Incontinency_.

[Sidenote: _Celibacy recommended by the Fathers_:]

The Fathers, it is true, out of a mistaken Notion of an extraordinary Merit attending Celibacy in this Life, and an extraordinary Reward reserved for it in the other, began very early to recommend it to Persons of all Ranks and Stations, but more especially to the Clergy, as the principal Excellence and Perfection of a Christian. By their Exhortations, and the Praises they were constantly bestowing on Virginity, Celibacy, and Continence, many among the Clergy, and even some of the Laity, were wrought up to such a Pitch of Enthusiasm, as to mutilate themselves, thinking they could by no other means be sufficiently qualified for the unnatural, but meritorious, State of Celibacy. And, what is very surprising, this Practice became so common in the End of the Third, and the Beginning of the Fourth, Century, that the Fathers of _Nice_ were obliged to restrain it by a particular Canon. They enacted one accordingly, excluding for ever from the Priesthood, such _as should make themselves Eunuchs, the Preservation of their Life or Health not requiring such a Mutilation_. By the same Canon they deposed and degraded all, who should thus maim themselves after their Ordination[1249]. But tho’ the Fathers warmly recommended Celibacy to the unmarried Clergy, and Continence to the Married, neither was looked upon as an Obligation, till late in the Fourth Century, and not even then in all Places; for _Epiphanius_, who lived till the Beginning of the Fifth, writes, that though _Men still begetting Children_ were excluded by the Ecclesiastical Canons from every Dignity and Degree in the Church, yet they were in some Places admitted as Subdeacons, Deacons, and Presbyters, because those Canons were not yet universally observed[1250]; so that, according to _Epiphanius_, it was not by the Apostles [Sidenote: _never injoined by the Apostles_:] (as the Divines of the Church of _Rome_ pretend), but by the Ecclesiastical Canons, that this Obligation was laid on the Clergy; and, in his Time, those Canons were not yet universally complied with, nor indeed many Ages after: nay, in the _Greek_ Church, the Clergy are to this Day allowed to cohabit with the Wives they married before their Ordination; and, in this Kingdom, Celibacy was not universally established till after the Conquest, as I shall have Occasion to shew in the Sequel of the present History.

[Sidenote: _deemed by Pagans the highest Degree of Sanctity_.]

The abstaining from lawful, as well as unlawful Pleasures, was deemed, by the antient Pagans, especially in the East, the highest Degree of Sanctity and Perfection. Hence some of their Priests, in Compliance with this Notion, and to recommend themselves to the Esteem of the People, did not only profess, promise, and vow an eternal Abstinence from all Pleasures of that Nature, as those of the Church of _Rome_ do, but put it out of their Power ever to enjoy them. Thus the Priests of _Cybele by becoming Priests ceased to be Men_, to borrow the Expression of _Jerom_; and the _Hierophantes_, who were the first Ministers of Religion among the _Athenians_, rendered themselves equally incapable of transgressing the Vows they had made, by constantly drinking the cold Juice of Hemlock[1251]. A _Stoic_, called _Cheremon_, introduced by _Jerom_ to describe the Lives of the _Egyptian_ Priests, tells us, among other things, that, from the time they addicted themselves to the Service of the Gods, they renounced all Intercourse and Commerce with Women; and, the better to conquer their natural Inclinations, abstained altogether from Meat and Wine. Several other Instances might be alleged to shew, that Celibacy was embraced and practised by the Pagan Priests, long before the Birth of the Christian Religion; and, consequently, that it was not Religion, but Superstition, that first laid the Priesthood under such an Obligation. The Church of _Rome_ has borrowed, as is notorious, several Ceremonies, Customs, and Practices of the Pagans, and perhaps the Celibacy of the Priesthood among the rest: I say, _perhaps_, because it might have been suggested to her by the same Spirit of Superstition that suggested it to them: for where-ever the same Spirit prevails, it will ever operate in the same manner, and be attended with the same, or the like Effects. Thus we find the same Austerities practised by the Pagans in the _East-Indies_, and other idolatrous Nations, that are practised and recommended by the Church of _Rome_; and yet no Man can imagine those Austerities to have been by either borrowed of the other. There is almost an intire Conformity between the Laws, Discipline, and Hierarchy of the antient _Druids_, and the present _Roman-Catholic_ Clergy; nay, the latter claim the very same Privileges, Prerogatives, and Exemptions, as were claimed and enjoyed by the former[1252]: and yet we cannot well suppose them to have been guided therein by their Example. Celibacy was discountenanced by the _Romans_, who nevertheless had their _Vestals_, instituted by their Second King at a time when, the new City being yet thinly inhabited, Marriage ought in both Sexes to have been most encouraged: and the same Spirit, which suggested to that superstitious Prince the Institution of the _Vestals_, suggested the like Institutions to other Pagan Nations, and to the Church of _Rome_ that of so many different Orders of Nuns.

How much better had the Church of _Rome_ consulted her own Reputation, had she either, in Opposition to the Pagan Priesthood, allowed her Clergy the Use of Matrimony, or, by a more perfect Imitation of their Discipline, with the Law of Celibacy, prescribed the like Methods of observing it! How many Enormities had been prevented by either of these Means, the World knows. But none of her Clergy have the Observance of their Vows so much at Heart as to imitate either the _Athenian_ or the _Egyptian_ Priests: and as for those of _Cybele_, they are so far from conforming to their Practice, that a Law subjecting them to it has kept them out of Protestant Kingdoms, when the Fear of Death could not.

[Sidenote: _The Celibacy of the Clergy a bad Institution._]

If every Law or Institution is to be judged good or evil, according to the Good and Evil attending them, it is by daily Experience but too manifest, that the forced Celibacy of the Clergy ought to be deemed of all Institutions the very worst. Indeed all sensible Men of that Church know and lament the innumerable Evils which the Celibacy of her Clergy occasions, and must always occasion, in spite of all Remedies that can be applied to it. But she finds one Advantage in it, which, in her Eyes, makes more than sufficient Amends for all those Evils, _viz._ her ingrossing by that means to herself all the Thoughts and Attention of her Clergy, which, were they allowed to marry, would be divided between her and their Families, and each of them would have a separate Interest from that of the Church. Several Customs and Practices, once warmly espoused by that Church, have, in Process of Time, been abrogated, and quite laid aside, on account of the Inconveniences attending them; and this, which long Experience has shewn to be attended with more pernicious Consequences than any other, had, but for that political View, been likewise abolished.

[Sidenote: _Another Letter of_ Syricius.]

Another Letter, universally ascribed to _Syricius_, has reached our Times. It is written in a very perplexed and obscure Style; bears no Date; is not to be found either in _Dionysius Exiguus_, or any antient Code; and is addressed to _all the Orthodox dwelling in different Provinces_[1253]: which is manifestly a Mistake, since _Syricius_ desires those, to whom it is addressed, to confirm it with their Subscriptions, which cannot be understood but of _Bishops_. However, as it is received by all as genuine, I shall not take upon me to reject it as spurious. The Subject of this Letter is the Ordination of the Ministers of the Church; and the First Article is against those who pretend to pass from the Vanities of the World to the Episcopal Dignity. _Syricius_ writes, that they came often to him, attended with numerous Retinues, begging him to ordain them; but that they had never been able to prevail upon him to grant them their Request. In the Second Article he complains of the Monks, who were constantly wandering about the Country, and on whom the Bishops chose rather to confer holy Orders, and the Episcopal Dignity itself, than to relieve them with Alms. The Third and last Article forbids a Layman or Neophyte to be ordained either Deacon or Presbyter. If this Letter be genuine, _Syricius_ was the first Bishop of _Rome_ who styled himself _Pope_, as _Papebrok_ well observes[1254]; for the Title of his Letter, as transmitted to us, runs thus; _Pope Syricius to the Orthodox_, &c. The Word imports no more than Father, and it was antiently given, out of Respect, to all Bishops, as I have observed elsewhere; but I have found none before _Syricius_ who distinguished themselves with that Title.

[Sidenote: Jerom _retires from_ Rome.]

_Jerom_ continued at _Rome_ some Months after the Death of his great Patron _Damasus_. But, finding himself obnoxious to the _Roman_ Clergy, for the Liberty he had taken in some of his Writings to censure their effeminate and licentious Lives, and, on the other hand, not being countenanced and supported by _Syricius_, as he had been by his Predecessor, he thought it adviseable to abandon that City, and return to _Palæstine_. Some pretend, but without sufficient Authority, that _Syricius_ joined the rest in reviling and persecuting him.

[Sidenote: _The Usurper_ Maximus _writs to_ Syricius.]

_Baronius_ has inserted, in his Annals[1255], a Letter from the Usurper _Maximus_, who reigned in _Gaul_; from which we learn, that _Syricius_ had writ first to him, exhorting him to continue steady in the Catholic Faith, being, perhaps, apprehensive lest he should suffer himself to be imposed upon by the _Priscillianists_, who were very numerous in _Gaul_; and complaining to him of the undue Ordination of a Presbyter named _Agricius_. _Maximus_, in his Answer, pretends great Zeal for the true Faith, and promises to assemble the Bishops of _Gaul_, and of the Five Provinces, meaning _Gallia Narbonensis_, to examine the Affair of _Agricius_. He assures _Syricius_, that he has nothing so much at Heart as to maintain the Catholic Faith pure and uncorrupted; to see a perfect Harmony established among the Prelates of the Church, and to suppress the many Disorders which had prevailed at the Time of his Accession to the Empire, and would have soon proved incurable, had they been neglected. He adds, that many shocking Abominations of the _Manichees_, meaning no doubt the _Priscillianists_, had been discovered, not by groundless Conjectures and Surmises, but by their own Confession before the Magistrates, as _Syricius_ might learn from the Acts. For _Maximus_ caused the Ringleaders of that Sect to be put to Death this very Year, convicted before the Magistrates of the grossest Immoralities[N24]. These were _Priscillian_ himself, _Felicissimus_, and _Armenus_, Two Ecclesiastics, who had but very lately embraced his Doctrine; _Asarinus_ and _Aurelius_, Two Deacons; _Latronianus_, or, as _Jerom_ calls him, _Matronianus_, a Layman; and _Enchrocia_, the Widow of the Orator _Delphidius_, who had professed Eloquence in the City of _Bourdeaux_ a few Years before. These were, by the Order of _Maximus_, all beheaded this Year at _Treves_. The rest of _Priscillian_’s Followers, whom they could discover and apprehend, were either banished or confined.

Footnote N24: