CELIBACY. 



117 



to the human standard, Christianity directed men's 

 views to heaven, and idealised human nature. St 

 Paul (I Cor. 7) recommends virginity, without con- 

 demning matrimony. The Catholic church respects 

 matrimonial chastity, but esteems virginity a higher 

 virtue, as a sacrifice of the pleasures of this life to 

 purity of soul, as the victory of the moral nature over 

 the physical. With these sublime views of tliis vir- 

 tue, it is not wonderful tliat it was required of the 

 priests who officiate in the high mystery of the eu- 

 charist. From the time of the apostles, it became a 

 custom in the church for bishops, priests, and dea- 

 cons to renounce the joys of matrimonial love at 

 their consecration, and to devote themselves entirely 

 to the duties of their office. One point only was 

 disputed, whether clergymen were to be merely prc- 

 liibited from marrying, or whether even those who 

 were married before their consecration, should be re- 

 quired to separate themselves from their wives. At 

 the general council of Nice, several bishops proposed 

 that the bishops, priests, and deacons, who had re- 

 ceived the holy consecration, should be directed, by 

 an express ordinance, to give up their wives. But 

 Paphnutius, bishop of upper Thebais, contended that 

 cohabitation with a wife was a state of chastity. It 

 was sufficient, he said, according to the ancient tradi- 

 tions of the church, that clergymen should not be per- 

 mitted to marry ; but he who had been married before 

 his consecration ought by no means to be separated 

 from his lawful wife. As it became the general opi- 

 nion, that a clergyman could not marry, it soon became 

 the general practice to refuse consecration to married 

 men. By this means, uniformity was effected. As for 

 the bishops, it soon became a matter beyond dispute. 

 After the institution of monachism had become firmly 

 established, and the monks were regarded with ven- 

 eration, on account of their vow of perpetual chasti- 

 ty, public opinion exacted from the secular clergy the 

 same observance of celibacy. The holy father Epi- 

 phanius assures us that, by the ecclesiastical laws, 

 celibacy was commanded, and that, wherever this 

 command was neglected, it was a corruption of the 

 church. The particular council of Elvira command- 

 ed all bishops, presbyters, deacons, and subdeacons, 

 to abstain from their wives, under penalty of exclu- 

 sion from the clergy. In the Western church, celi- 

 bacy was rigorously required. Pope Cyricius, at the 

 end of the fourth century, forbade the clergy to mar- 

 ry, or to cohabit with their wives, if already married. 

 At the same time, the monks received consecration, 

 which increased the conformity between them and the 

 secular clergy still further, and indirectly obliged the 

 latter to observe celibacy. Several popes and par- 

 ticular councils repeated this injunction. The em- 

 peror Justinian declared all children of clergymen il- 

 legitimate, and incapable of any hereditary succes- 

 sion or inheritance. The council of Tours, in 566, 

 issued a decree against married monks and nuns, de- 

 claring that they should be publicly excommunicate 

 ed, and their marriage formally dissolved. Seculars 

 deacons, and subdeacons, who were found to dwell 

 with their wives, were interdicted the exercise of 

 spiritual functions for the course of a year. In Spain, 

 the bishops were ordered to enforce celibacy upon 

 their abbots, deacons, &c., once a-year, in their ser- 

 mons ; for, in that country, many priests, formerly 

 Arians, and newly converted, refused to give up their 

 wives, conformably to the requisitions or the Catho- 

 lic church. 



As in other points, in this, also, the Greek church 

 dissented from the Roman. The (Trullan) council 

 of Constantinople, in 692, in its thirteenth canon, 

 declares, " Having heard that the Roman church has 

 ordered the priests and deacons to relinquish their 

 .awful wives, we, assembled in this council, hereby 



decree, that priests and deacons, according to the 

 ancient custom of the church, and the institution of 

 the holy apostles, may live with their wives like th 

 laity. We hereby forbid any one to refuse the con- 

 secration of a priest or deacon on account of his be- 

 ing married, and cohabiting with his wife, after he 

 has requested consecration. We will by no means 

 be unjust to marriage, nor separate what God has 

 united." These regulations are still in force in the 

 Greek church ; and, while celibacy is required of the 

 bishops and monks, priests and deacons, if married 

 before consecration, are allowed to continue in the 

 state of matrimony. 



This is not a reason for saying that the Roman 

 church introduced celibacy ; she lias only retained it, 

 as an old apostolical tradition, to which she has add- 

 ed the rule, not to consecrate married men unless the 

 wife enter a religious order. As no one has a right 

 to demand to be consecrated a priest, the Roman 

 church has, by this addition, violated no one's right. 

 The Western church had new reasons for enjoining 

 celibacy, when the system of benefices began to be 

 organized. At first, the officers of the church lived 

 on the voluntary gifts of the faithful. When the 

 church acquired wealth, lands, and tithes, the revenue 

 and estates of all the churches belonging to the dio- 

 cese of a bishop were considered as one whole, the 

 administration and distribution of which depended on 

 the bishop. But, in the seventh, eighth, and ninth 

 centuries, a particular sum was taken from the com- 

 mon stock for each officer, the bishop not excepted. 

 This constitution of the church was similar to that of 

 the state, in which feudatories performed military 

 and other services, in consideration of the usufruct of 

 certain lands. Even the name was the same. The 

 possessions of the feudatories were called benefices, 

 as well as those of the clergy. If the clerical bene- 

 fices and employments had oecome hereditary, as was 

 the case with the lay benefices, we should have seen 

 a hereditary ecclesiastical caste, similar to that of the 

 nobility, which has been transmitted to us from the 

 middle ages, as a caste of warriors and civil officers. 

 We should have seen hereditary priests, hereditary 

 bishops, and a hereditary pope. The ruinous conse- 

 quences, moral and political, which would have re- 

 sulted from such a state of things, are easily conceiv- 

 ed. All the feelings and principles of a pure and di- 

 vine religion would have disappeared in such an em- 

 pire of priests. The most absolute despotism would 

 have been established over the nations, and every at- 

 tempt of the commons to attain a higher stand hi po- 

 litical society would have been frustrated. When 

 the canons in Wales afterwards abandoned celibacy, 

 it was soon observed that they had succeeded in mak- 

 ing their benefices hereditary, by intermarriages be- 

 tween their sons and daughters. The fate of Wales 

 would have been that of all the Christian nations of 

 the West, if the marriage of priests had been al- 

 lowed. 



Whilst, however, the church persevered in com- 

 manding celibacy, she had to struggle with the oppo- 

 sition of a corrupt clergy. The council of Narbonne, 

 in 791, forbade the clergy to have any females living 

 with them, even such as former rules had permitted. 

 The same was ordered by the council of Mentz, 888. 

 By the council of Augsburg, every clergyman was 

 forbidden, under penalty of dismission, either to mar- 

 ry, or to cohabit with his wife, if already married, or 

 to retain female companions who had been introduc< 

 ed under the name of sisters (subintroductas) and 

 the bishop was authorized, when suspicious women 

 were found in the houses of clergymen, to drive them 

 out with whips, and cut off their hair. In the coun- 

 cil of Canterbury, Jung Edgar himself delivered a 

 speech on the scandalous life of the clergy, whose 



