The Novelty of Popery Opposed to the Antiquity of True Christianity, Book 7 · Controversy 4 · Chapter 7
CHAP. 7. What was the belief of the Antient Church about the marriage of the Miniſters of the Church. The reaſons and allegations of Cardinal du Perron are examined, and ſome of his falſifications obſerved.
THE queſtion about the Celibat of Eccleſiaſtical men is the point about which the Fathers diſſent moſt, not only the one from the other, but each one from himſelf. Canons of Councils are found pointed one againſt another; and the ſame Fathers that commend the Celibat, yet acknowledge that it was not practiſed by many. Then the cuſtoms of Countreys were diverſe; The Greek and Oriental Churches commonly receiving married perſons into the ſacred Orders, and not ſeparating them from their wives after their Ordination. And as humane Laws brought in without authority of Gods word, will get ſtrength and take root by the length of time; So we find that in the end of the fourth age, and in the fifth, the Laws of the celibat were ſtrengthened in ſome places, and that from other places alſo God raiſed oppoſitions againſt them. And that as the Popes power increaſed, that yoke grew heavier upon the Clergy of the Weſt, whence great troubles and tumults aroſe in Chriſtendom.
We deny not, that in the writings of the Fathers virginity is much exalted, and that they exhort them that have vowed virginity to keep their vow. But in the three firſt ages, and very far within the fourth, none was conſtrained to make that vow before he was received to the ſacred Orders, and commonly Prieſts were married and dwelt with their wives, although they that lived in celibat were held by many to go beyond others in holineſs. We find alſo that other Churches condemned the example and the Laws of the Roman Church, when they began to take wives from Prieſts, and to impoſe the yoke of celibat upon them. Of this it is eaſie to bring a multitude of inſtances. I will bring but ſome of the moſt pregnant.
Among the Canons of the Apoſtles, or thoſe that are ſo called, The fifth is this,(a)foreign. Let not the Biſhop or the Prieſt put away his wife under pretence of piety. If he put her away, let him be excommunicated; If he perſiſt, let him be depoſed.
The Council of Ancyra aſſembled about the year of the Lord 308. ſpeaks thus in the tenth Canon,(b)foreign. All Deacons that are eſtabliſht in their charges, if they have declared in their reception, and ſaid that they have need to marry, and cannot remain as they are, Let them continue in their ſervice after they are married, becauſe they had permiſſion from the Biſhop; But they that have ſaid nothing of that [intent] and have undertaken in their ordination to remain ſo, (that is, unmarried) if they come after that to marry, let them be deprived of their Deaconſhip. The Cardinal hath tranſlated foreign having been received, not knowing that foreign hath an active ſignification, and hath no other active but the verbum medium. The Canon ſaith not, that they were received upon condition of not marrying, but that themſelves undertook it, and bound themſelves to it. Obſerve, that this Council believed, that a Deacon after his ordination could marry, ſo that he had permiſſion from the Biſhop.
In the Council of Nice held in the year 325. ſome made a motion, that wives ſhould be taken from Prieſts and Biſhops; and that they ſhould not be allowed to lye together. To which Paphnutius Biſhop of Thebaid in Aegypt, who had one eye put out, and the ham-ſtrings of one of his legs cut off, for the teſtimony of the Goſpel, did vigorouſly oppoſe himſelf, as Sozomenus relates,(c)Sozom. book 1. chap. 23. foreign, &c. Others (ſaith he) thought that Laws ought to be brought in to forbid Biſhops and Prieſts, Deacons, and Sub-deacons to lye with their wives, whom they had married before they were conſecrated. But Paphnutius the Confeſſor aroſe and oppoſed it, calling marriage precious, and habitation with their own wives chaſtity. And gave counſell to the Synod not to eſtabliſh that Law, becauſe it was a thing hard to bear, which might cauſe both them and their wives to live incontinently. Socrates ſaith the like; that when the motion was made of removing wives from Biſhops, Prieſts, and Deacons.(d)Socrat. lib. 1. cap. 11. foreign, &c. Paphnutius riſing in the midſt of the Aſſembly, cryed out that they ſhould not lay a heavy burden upon ſacred men, ſaying that the very bed is honourable, and the unpolluted marriage, leſt that by an exceſs of rigor they ſhould rather do harm to the Church, for all cannot bear that diſcipline, and be untoucht from all deſires. Only he was of that opinion, that he that had taken the ſacred Orders being unmarried, ſhould remain as he was according to the antient tradition, and that he ſaid being not married. His advice was followed by the Council.
Suidas in the word Paphnutius relates the ſame hiſtory in the ſame words,(e)foreign. and addeth with Socrates, that the whole Aſſembly of Biſhops believed the words of Paphnutius, and left it to every ones liberty to do what he would in that point.
Gelaſius Cyzicenus who writ the Acts of the Council of Nice makes a relation altogether conformable to that of the alleadged Authors, and addeth in chap. 33.(f)Nemo, ut opinor, in caſtitate ſervabitur, ſi mariti ſinguli ſuis privantur uxoribus. Virovum cum ſuis uxoribus conſuetudinem ego praeclaram continentiam eſſe dico, nec poſſe ſeparari eam quam Deus conjunxit, & quam ſemel cum lector aut cantor aut laicus eſſet, uxorem duxit. None I think ſhall be ſaved in chaſtity (ſaid Paphnutius) if every husband be deprived of his wife: for I ſay that the habitation of husbands with their wives is an excellent continence, and that a woman which God hath conjoyned [with a husband] cannot be ſeparated, when a man hath married her when he was a Reader, a Chaunter, or a Lay-man. Wherefore he ſaith that the Council left it to the will of the Clarks to abſtain if they would from their wives by mutual conſent.
See alſo Caſſiodorus (g)Caſſiod, hiſt. tripartitae lib. 2. cap. 14.and Nicephorus Caliſtus (h)Niceph. Calliſt. l. 8. cap. 9. Synodum rogavit ut eam legem non perferret. Gravem enim utrisque ſacerdotibus ſcilicet & conjugibus eorum, atque etiam fortaſſe vitae parum pudicae cauſam fore. Vide Polydorum Virgigilium lib. 5. de Inventoribus rerum cap. 4. ubi hanc hiſtoriam confirmat.who obſerveth that Paphnutius ſaid, that if ſacred perſons were forbidden the uſe of their wives, that Law ſhould cauſe both the Prieſts and their wives to lead an unchaſte life. But becauſe then ſome Biſhops and Prieſts to get the reputation of a more exact holineſs were not married, but inſtead of a lawfull wife, kept at home a woman whom they called(i)foreign. De Agapetis Hier. ad Euſt ochium. a well beloved, or Aſſociate, which was covered with the title of holy love, or of ſome alliance (a thing ſubject to obloquy and ſiniſter interpretation) the Synod made a Canon whereby it was forbidden to Eccleſiaſtical perſons to keep thoſe Aſſociates in their houſes, and command to have no other women about them, but ſuch as were unſuſpected, as a Mother, a Siſter, and an Aunt. The words of the Canon are,(k)foreign. The great Synod hath wholly forbidden, that it be permitted to any Biſhop, Prieſt, or Deacon, or any of the Clergy, to have an aſſociate; but only his Mother, or Siſter, or Aunt, or thoſe only perſons that are out of all ſuſpition.
To anſwer that hiſtory of Paphnutius, and fence himſelf againſt the authority of the Council of Nice, (l)Chap. 20. of the third Obſervation pag. 705.the Cardinal laboureth and ſweateth hard. He accuſeth that hiſtory of untruth, as invented by Socrates, not conſidering that ſo he accuſeth the Roman Decree of falſhood wherein the ſame hiſtory is inſerted,(m)Diſt. 31. Can. Nicena. and that he giveth the lye to ſo many witneſſes, which we have produced. He ſaith then that there are ſix recuſations againſt that Hiſtory, but he brings but five.
The firſt is, that Socrates was a Novatian, and by conſequent not to be believed. Which I have ſhewed to be a calumny, and brought diverſe teſtimonies of Socrates, whereby he accuſeth the Novatians of ſchiſm, and reckons them among hereticks. That objection of the Cardinal is againſt him, for the Novatians profeſt a preciſer holineſs then the Orthodox, and therefore would rather have been contrary to Paphnutius who diſallowed the rigour of that yoke. Yet let us ſuppoſe that Sacrates was an heretick, for ſince in the point of the Celibat of Clarks the Novatians diſſented not from the Orthodox, a Novatian hiſtorian cannot be ſuſpected in this hiſtory. Beſides, it is with little reaſon that he falls out with Socrates and medleth not with ſo many other witneſſes which we have brought, who ſay the ſame as Socrates. It ſeems that the Cardinal had read none but Socrates upon that queſtion.
He ſaith in the ſecond place, that the Grecians unanimouſly hold the relation of Socrates to be falſe as for Epiſcopacy; but he alleadgeth no Author for that but Cedrenus a new Writer, who ſaith that Paphnutius hindred the Council of Nice who would forbid to the Clarks the conjugal acquaintance with their wives, and decreed that Biſhops only ſhould obſerve it. But we ſhall hereafter ſee an Author of far greater authority then Cedrenus even(n)Balſamon. in Can. 5. Apoſtolorum. foreign. Balſamon, of all the Grecians the moſt verſed in Councils, and Eccleſiaſtical Canons, who ſaith that before the Council of Trull held in the year 692. Biſhops alſo might keep their wives. Juſtinian and the Council of Trull, which du Perron alleadgeth after to invalid the relation of Socrates, are to no purpoſe, for they ſpeak not of Paphnutius, nor of the Council of Nice.
In the third place, the Cardinal ſaith that Socrates is manifeſtly convinced of falſeſhood by the act of the Council of Nice which (deſigning what ſort of women the Council alloweth to lodge in the Biſhops houſe, as the Mother, the Siſter, the Aunt) excludeth the wife from that number; and thereby will perſwade us that the Council forbids the Biſhop to have his wife at home. This is an extream ignorance to have ſo ill underſtood the word foreign which ſignifieth an Aſſociate. This Cardinal believed, that when the Canon of the Council of Nice, which I have here produced, forbids the Biſhop to keep an Aſſociate at his houſe, by that Aſſociate the Biſhops wife muſt be underſtood. One muſt be very little verſed in Antiquity to be ignorant, that theſe women which they called foreign were ſtrangers not wives. Ruffinus in the firſt book of his hiſtory chap. 6. ſo tranſlateth this Canon of the Council of Nice, (o)Ne quis Epiſcoporum caeterorumque Clericorum cum extraneis mulieribus habitet, praeterquam cum matre, &c.Let none of the Biſhops or other Clarks dwell with ſtrange women, ſaving only his Mother, his Siſter, or his Aunt, which are very near perſons, where he termeth ſtrangers thoſe which in Greek are called foreign or Aſſociates. The firſt Council of Carthage ſpeaketh the ſame language in chap. 3.(p)Nullis lic. at ab affectu abſtinentibus carnali apud extraneas pariter commorari. Let it not be lawfull [to them that have a paſtoral charge] who abſtain from carnal affection, to dwell with ſtrange women; For the occaſions of ſin muſt be cut off. And the fourth Council of Toledo, Can. 42.(q)Quidam Clirici legitimum non habentes conjugium, extranearum mulierum interdicta ſibi conſortia appetunt. Some Clarks being not married, ſeek the company of ſtrange women, or of their maids, which is forbidden unto them. Hierom in Epiſt. 22. to Euſtocheum ſhews plainly enough that thoſe women were no wives.(r)Ʋnde in Eccleſias peſtis Agapetarum in—troiit? Unde ſine nuptiis aliud nomen uxorum? Ʋnde novum concubinarum genus? Which way (ſaith he) is that plague of Agapets [or well beloved women] crept into the Church? Whence came that other new name of wives without marriage? Yea, whence came that new kind of concubines? And Epiphanius in the ſixty third hereſie,(ſ)Epiph. haer. 63. num. 2. foreign. Vide Petavium in Epiph. pag. 331. We call Agapets the Aſſociate women. Euſebius in the ſeventh book of his hiſtory chap. 22. puts that among the crimes of Paulus Samoſatenus, that he had about him a company of unmarried women, not without ſuſpition of lying with them. The Law of the Emperours Honorius and Theodoſius is formall to this purpoſe,(t)Cod. de Epiſc. & Clericis lege 19. Quicunque & cujuſcunque gradus ſacerdotio fulciuntur vel clericatus honore cenſentur, extranearum ſibi mulierum interdicta conſortia hac tantum eis facultate conceſſa, ut matres filias atque Germanas intra domorum ſepta contineant. All that are promoted to any degree of Prieſthood, or honoured with Eccleſiaſtical Office muſt know, that the aſſociation of ſtrange women is interdicted unto them, being only permitted to have their Mothers, Daughters and Siſters within their houſes. Wherefore Juſtinian in the 123. Novell chap. 29. alleadging the words of that Canon of Nice, inſtead of foreign, and in the Latin ſuperinductam, hath put foreign that is, brought in, or crept in from abroad. Among the verſes of Gregory Nazianzen there is an Epigram againſt theſe foreign, Aſſociates, (u)foreign.where he ſaith that he knows not whether the perſons ſo aſſociated be married or not married. In a word, who ſo will believe that thoſe Agapets or aſſociate women were married women, ſheweth himſelf very ignorant in Antiquity.
Out of all this it is made evident, that this Canon of the Council of Nice, is made only againſt unmarried Biſhops who kept Aſſociates inſtead of Wives. Photius teacheth that very expreſly in his Nomocanon, ſetting down this Canon in theſe words.(x)Photius Nomocanone Tit. 8. de Paroch. cap. 14. foreign. Apud Balſamonem pag. 99. Let no Clark that hath no wife, keep an aſſociate at home, ſaving only his Mother, his Siſter. &c. The ſecond Council of Tours hath the like Canon,(y)Cap. 14. Epiſcopum Epiſcopam non habentem nulla ſequatur turba mulierum. Let no troop of women follow a Biſhop that hath not a Biſhoppeſs.
Alſo the Cardinal goeth about to convince Socrates of untruth for ſaying, that the Council of Nice being perſwaded by Paphnutius made no new order about that point. If (ſaith he) that diſſuaſion had been true, the Council neither could nor ought to abſtain from it: For that Law which he ſaith to have been oppoſed by Paphnutius had been made already by many particular Councils, as by the Eliberin Council where the ſame Oſius, that preſided in the Council of Nice, had been preſent. Nay, the clean contrary followeth. For ſince Socrates, Sozomenus, Gelaſius, Caſſiodorus, Nicephorus, and Suidas, of whom the firſt four are antient witneſſes that Paphnutius ſpake of that Law of Celibat as of a new Law and a yoke which had not been before, we may certainly affirm that as yet there was no ſuch Law. Neither could the Cardinal produce any Council more antient then that of Nice for that Law: for the Eliberin Council which he alleadgeth preſcribes the contrary. The words of the Canon are,(z)Placuit in totum p…ohibere Epiſcopis Presbyteris Diaconibus & Subdiaconibus poſitis in Miniſterio abſtinere ſeſe à conjugibus & non genenerare filios, &c. We thought it good to forbid altogether Biſhops, Prieſts, Deacons, and Subdeacons eſtabliſht in the Miniſtery to abſtain from their wives and from begetting children. Can more expreſs terms be deviſed to condemn Clarks that make conſcience to come near their wives, and to beget children? Truly, if that Canon ought to be taken in a quite contrary ſenſe, as the Cardinal will have it, and if thereby the marriage of Clarks had been forbidden, Hoſius who was both preſent and Preſident in the Council of Nice, and who had been before one of the Eliberin Council would have contradicted Paphnutius. Would he not have told him, You erre ſaying that this Law of Celibat is a new Law, and not eſtabliſhed before, ſeeing that it was eſtabliſhed in the Eliberin Council, where I was preſent? This is then the difference: The Eliberin Council ſaith, It is ordained that prohibition be made to Biſhops to abſtain from their wives, but Cardinal du Perron maintains that prohibere ſignifieth commanding or enjoyning to abſtain, which is an horrible licentiouſneſs.Pag. 703. Yet he defends himſelf with a text of St. Paul, 1 Tim. 4.3. prohibentes abſtinere à cibis, which (ſaith he) ſignifieth commanding to abſtain from meats: But that's falſe. For there is in the text prohibentium nubere, abſtinere à cibis: The word prohibentium, belongs to the precedent clauſe. And better it is, in the ſecond clauſe, abſtinere a cibis, to ſupply a convenient word to the Apoſtles intention, and tranſlate commanding to abſtain from meats, as alſo the Doctors of Lovain have done in their French verſion. Thus when Virgil ſaith, that(a)Ipſe Quirinali lituo parvaque ſedebat Succinctus trabea. Evander ſate clad with a ſhort robe, and with a crookod ſtaff, he means not that Evander was clad with a ſtaff.
Note alſo, that this Eliberin Council was held in Spain, and that in Spain ſince that Council Biſhops were married, and begot children in the time of their Epiſcopacy, as we ſhall ſee hereafter by the example of Carterius.
The Cardinals fourth anſwer whereby he labours to weaken the authority of that hiſtory of Paphnutius, is, that the conſtitution made in the Eliberin Council, before the Council of Nice was repeated again after the Council of Nice in many ſubſequent Councils. This Cardinal having ſaid, That the Law of the Celibat had been already made by many particular Councils before the Council of Nice, could not bring any Council but that of Eliberis which commands the clean contrary, as we have ſhewed. Now he brings Councils much later then that of Nice, wherein he ſaith that this Law was confirmed, which againſt truth he pretends to have been conſtituted in the Eliberin Council; But what doth that for the weakning of the relation of Socrates about the diſſuaſion of Paphnutius? Who knows not, that in points of diſcipline and Eccleſiaſtical order ages will alter, and cuſtoms will vary? He alleadgeth then the ſecond Council of Carthage, held about the year of our Lord 390. that is, ſixty five years after the Council of Nice, and but a particular Council of ſome Provinces of Africa. But in the ſame time, both in Greece, and in all the Eaſt, Prieſts were married, and kept their wives which they had married before their ordination. The ſame I ſay of the firſt Council of Toledo, and of(b)The Cardinal hath quoted in the margent the firſt Council of Arles inſtead of the ſecond. the ſecond Council of Arles, if the Acts that are extant be true: For we have them only in the Latin Tomes of the Councils, the firſt of which hath almoſt nothing certain but the Canons which the Greek Church hath preſerved for us. Neither is it like that thoſe petty Councils which are put a little after the Council of Nice, would have oppoſed themſelves unto that venerable Univerſal Council which had rejected thoſe that would bring in that Law of the Celibat, and had left that to every mans liberty.
In the Roman Decree Diſt. 28.(c)Can. Aſſumi. a Canon of the third Council of Arles is alleadged, ſaying that a married Prieſt muſt not be admitted, unleſs he promiſe converſion. Which is not found in that Council of Arles in the Tomes of Collen of the year 1567. But in the elder Editions of the year 1538. at Collen, and of 1551. and in that of Bartholomew Caranza, there is the clean contrary. For the Canon ſpeaks thus, Aſſumi aliquem ad ſacerdotium non poſſe in conjugii vinculo conſtitutum non oportet, niſi fuerit promiſſa converſio. That is, It is a thing that muſt not be, that a man being in the bond of matrimony ſhould not be received to the Prieſthood, unleſs he promiſe converſion before. So little truſt there is to be put in thoſe Latin Canons of Councils which are not found in the Greek.
It is very conſiderable, that a few years after the Council of Nice a Council was held at Gangra, whoſe Canons (though but of a provincial Council) were of ſo much authority that they were inſerted in the Code of the Univerſal Church, and approved by the Univerſal Councils that followed, eſpecially by the ſixth Council aſſembled again in the Palace of Trull to make Canons. For ſuch is the ſecond Canon,(d)Concil. in Trullo Can. 2. foreign. We ratifie all the ſacred Canons of the holy Fathers, &c. thoſe of Neoceſarea, as alſo thoſe of Gangra. Now of that Council this is the fourth Canon,(e)foreign. If any make a difference of a married Prieſt, as if none ought to partake of the oblation when he doth the ſervice, let him be anathema. There is in the Greek foreign, which ſignifieth a married Prieſt, not one that hath been married. So doth the Apoſtle ſpeak 1 Cor. 7.10. foreign, to them that are married, not to them that have been, as our Cardinal (after Bellarmin) would perſwade us pag. 708. And Theodoret ſaith,(f)Libro foreign, cap de matrimonio. that St. Peter was called to the Apoſtleſhip foreign out of the company of married perſons, not of thoſe that had been married.
The Roman Decree(g)Diſt. 28. Can. Si quis. tranſlateth this Canon, presbyterum conjugatum, a married Prieſt. And Socrates in book 2. cap. 33. ſpeaking of the condemnation of this Euſtathius by the ſame Council ſaith, He commanded that the communion of a Prieſt, foreign, that had a wife, ſhould be avoided like a crime. Truly although the Greek tongue ſhould ſuffer that interpretation, yet the occaſion upon which that Canon was made, doth not admit it. For the Preface of that Council ſheweth, that this Council was aſſembled againſt Euſtathius Biſhop of Sebaſtia in Armenia, who among many errors taught wives to forſake their husbands, and to ſhave themſelves, and commanded faſting upon the Lords day, and forbad eating of fleſh,(h)foreign. The Latin tranſlateth in domibus conjugatorum. and diſſuaded Chriſtians from praying in the houſes of married perſons,(i)foreign. deſpiſing married Prieſts, and teaching men not to be partakers of the holy myſteries touched by their hand. Which errors the Council condemning, addeth in the end, We admire virginity when it is with humility, and honour the honeſt cohabitation of matrimony. Where it is clear, that perſons that live in matrimony, are underſtood, not they that ſometimes lived in that ſtate.
The Cardinal adds places of Euſebius, and Epiphanius which he hath falſified as we ſhall hereafter ſee. And thoſe places ſpeak neither of the Council of Nice, nor of Paphnutius, of whom it is in queſtion in this place; We ſhall ſee what authority thoſe Fathers may have whom he alleadgeth.
About the time of the ſame Council the Emperour Conſtantin made a Law which is the ſecond in the title de Epiſcopis & Clericis, and ſpeaks thus(k)Clerici ad parangariam praeſtationem non vocentur, nec eorundem facultates atque ſubſtantiae. Omnibus Clericis haec praerogativa ſuccurrat, ut & conjugia clericorum & liberi immunes ſemper ab hujuſmodi muneribus perſeverent. Let not Clarks be obliged to the expenſes of publick meſſengers or poſts, nor their goods and eſtates. Let this prerogative ſerve for all the Clarks that their wives and children, both ſons and daughters be exempted from ſuch charges.
The eighth Canon of the Council of Neoceſarea commands a Clark(l)foreign. to ſend his wife away, if ſhe hath committed adultery after his ordination. For that Council which forbids(m)Can. 1. Prieſts to marry after their ordination, permits them to keep their wives which they had married before their ordination. Which cuſtom the Greek Church hath alwayes obſerved, and obſerveth to this day.
The Council of Chalcedon in the fourteenth Canon(n)foreign. forbiddeth Readers and Singers to marry with wives of diverſe religion. And in the ſixteenth Canon power is given to the Biſhop to give permiſſion to marry to perſons that have vowed virginity.
Pope Syricius Can. Quiſquis, in the eighty fourth Diſtinction ſpeaks thus,(o)Quiſquis clericus aut viduam vel ſecundam daxerit uxorem, omnis Eccleſiaſticae dignitatis privilegio mox denudetur. Let any Clark that ſhall marry a widdow or a ſecond wife be immediately deprived of all priviledges of Eccleſiaſtical dignity. That Canon permits not only married perſons to be Clarks, but the Clarks alſo to marry. This agreeth with the Council of Tela or Tellene, where there is a Decretal Epiſtle of that Syricius, containing nine Canons, of which this is the fourth,(p)Ʋt mulierem id eſt viduam clericus non ducat uxorem. Let not a Clark marry a widow. The twelfth Canon of the third Council of Carthage ſaith,(q)Ʋt filii vel filiae Epiſcoporum vel quorumlibet clericorum gentilibus vel haereticis aut ſchiſmaticis matrimonio non conjungantur. Let not the ſons or daughters of Biſhops, or other Clarks whatſoever, be joyned in matrimony with Pagans, or Hereticks, or Schiſmaticks. And in the Epiſtle of Innocent the I. to Victricius, Let not the Clark marry a widow.
Socrates in the fifth book, chap. 22. ſpeaks thus, I have obſerved another cuſtom in Theſſalia, That one that is made a Clark is degraded, if after he was made Clark, he lye with the wife which he had married before he was a Clark. Whereas in the Eaſt, they that are famous (r)foreign.and the Biſhops themſelves, abſtain altogether [from their wives] if they will, but they do it not being conſtrained by any Law: For many among them in the time of their Epiſcopacy have begot children of their lawful wives. He addeth that Theodorus or Heliodorus, Clark of Triba or Trixa, the ſame that writ the love-book called Ethiopica, brought that cuſtom into Theſſalia.
The Cardinal in the ſame twentieth Chapter, brings many Texts of Hierom againſt marriage. Which is not fair dealing, for he knoweth how much Hierom was blamed for that, as himſelf confeſſeth in his Apology to Pammachius. We need not repeat the ſlanderous and reviling words of that Father againſt marriage, of which we brought ſome before: Wherefore his words in this queſtion are of no weight. But that which is moſt obſervable, is, that himſelf in the firſt Book againſt Jovinian, where he dealeth ſo unworthily with matrimony, acknowledgeth nevertheleſs that in his time Biſhops were married. If (ſaith he) Samuel brought up in the Tabernacle did marry, what doth that to the prejudice of Virginity? (ſ)Quaſi non hodie plurimi ſacerdotes habeant matrimonia, & Epiſcopum Apoſtolus deſcribat unius uxoris virum habentem liberos cum omni caſtitate.As though many Biſhops in our dayes were not married. Seeing that the Apoſtle deſcribes the Biſhop, the husband of one wife, having children with all chaſtity. And in the ſame place, Married men are choſen, I deny it not. Again,(t)Frequenter in ordinatione ſacerdotali virgo negligitur, maritus aſſumitur. Many times in the Ordination of a Prieſt, a Virgin is neglected, a married man is taken.
Yea the ſame Hierom in the Epiſtle to Oceanus praiſeth Carterius a Biſhop in Spain, that being a Biſhop, he begot children of a ſecond wife. Carterius (ſaith he)(u)Ille in uxore optavit liberos, tu in meretrice ſobolem perdidiſti; illum naturae & benedictioni Dei ſervientem dicenti creſcite, &c. cubiculorum ſecreta texerunt, te ſubantem ad coitum publica facies execrata eſt. Ille quod licebat verecundo pudore celavit, tu quod non licebat impudenter oculis omnium ingeſſiſti. Illi ſcriptum eſt, honorabiles nuptiae, &c. deſired to have children by his wife, but thou applying thy ſelf to an harlot, haſt loſt thy race. He was hid in the ſecret of his chamber, whileſt he ſerved nature and the bleſſing of God, who ſaith, Increaſe and multiply, and fill the earth: But thou in thy libidinous heat waſt deteſted by the looks of the people. He did cover with an ingenuous ſhamefac'tneſs that which was lawful, but thou haſt impudently expoſed unto the eyes of all, that which was unlawful. For him it is written, that marriage is honourable, and the bed undefiled: But for thee it is ſaid, that Whoremongers and Adulterers God ſhall judge.
In the ſame place ſpeaking of married Biſhops,(x)Epiſcopos ſigillatim ſi voluero nominare, tantus numerus congregabitur ut Ariminenſis Synodi multitudo ſuperetur. If I would name all the Biſhops one by one, I might aſſemble ſo great a number, that it would go beyond the number of the Synod of Ariminum. In which Council there was above ſix hundred Biſhops.
The ſame Doctor in the ſame Epiſtle, expounding the Text of Saint Paul, Let the Biſhop be the husband of one wife; ſaith,(y)Apoſtolus praecepit ne eandem licentiam Eccleſiae ſibi vindicent ſacerdotes, ne bina pariter & trina conjugia ſortiantur, ſed ut ſingulas uno tempore uxores habeant. the Apoſtle commands that the Biſhops of the Church take that licence no more, and forbids them to have two or three marriages together, but will have them to keep but one wife at once.
Epiphanius, in the Hereſie of the Novatians, which is the 59. ſaith, that where the Eccleſiaſtical Canons are exact and ſtrict, a man begetting children, is not received into Eccleſiaſtical Orders. But in the ſame place he acknowledgeth that theſe Orders were not practiſed every where.(z)foreign. Thou wilt tell me (ſaith he) that yet in ſome places, Prieſts, Deacons, and ſub-Deacons beget children. To which he anſwereth, that this is done, not by the rules, but by the looſneſs of men;(a)foreign. and becauſe they found not perſons enough that might fill up the charges, becauſe of the great number. The Cardinal alleadgeth this place according to his wonted faithfulneſs,Falſification of the Cardinal. for he falſifies it, and clips from it what diſpleaſeth him. He tranſlateth for his own conveniency foreign, ſincere, whereas it ſignifieth exact and ſtrict, and clips this clauſe, Thou wilt tell me, that yet in ſome places Prieſts and Deacons, &c. beget children; Alſo that which Epiphanius ſaith, that for want of others, Prieſts that beget children are choſen.
The ſame Epiphanius in the Hereſie of the Apoſtolicks, which is the 61. praiſeth thoſe that vow perpetual Virginity, yet acknowledging that ſuch a vow hath no ground in Scripture, but in tradition. He ſaith that a Virgin that breaks her vow, ſinneth grievouſly: Yet he declareth, that it is better for her to break that vow, and to marry, then to fall into fornication.(a)foreign, &c. It is better (ſaith he) to have one ſin then many. It is better if a man be faln off from his courſe, to take a wife openly, according to the Law, and being decayed from Virginity, after a long pennance, be brought in again into the Church, &c. then every day to be wounded with ſecret arrows, and by the vice ſuggeſted by the Devil.
And now ſince we ſpeak of falſifications, the Cardinal in the ſame twentieth Chapter, bringing his fifth recuſation againſt the Hiſtory of Paphnutius, quoteth a Text of Euſebius, which is found in the ſeventh Chapter of the firſt Book of Evangelical demonſtration. There is according to the Greek,(b)foreign. The Heralds of the word of piety, for the preſent, neceſſarily ſtudy to keep themſelves retired from matrimony, becauſe they tend better things, employing themſelves to the divine, and not carnal generation of children. The Cardinal contented not himſelf to omit theſe words, for the preſent, whereby Euſebius ſignifies, that they that abſtained from matrimony, did it in conſideration of the preſent time: But he hath tranſlated alſo foreign, diſſolution, to perſwade that they that conſecrated themſelves to the holy Miniſtry, forſook their wives, and made a diſſolution of Matrimony: A thing forbidden by Chriſt, Matth. 19.6. & 9. And by Paul, 1 Cor. 7.11. Indeed foreign, ſignifies not diſſolution, but retirement from ſociety, in the ſame ſenſe as the Hermites are called in Greek Anachorets, that is, living a retired life far from ſociety, but that word ſignifieth not makers of diſſolution; in the ſame ſenſe as in the firſt Book of Herodian, foreign, ſignifieth, a place of retirement, far from communication; but that doth not import any diſſolution. Euſebius then ſaith, that in his time many Chriſtians, the Paſtors of the Church eſpecially, did not marry, that they might tend their office with more liberty. Which is very commendable in them that have the gift of continence. And it is credible, that God at that time gave it to more perſons then he doth now. But they did it by a voluntary abſtinence, without any binding Law: For of that Law or Rule, Euſebius ſpeaks not. If there had been ſuch a Law, Paphnutius would not have ſpoken in full Council againſt that Law (that ſome would have brought in) as new and intolerable. And the Synod would not have followed his advice.
But in the ſame time lived Athanaſius, who in the Epiſtle to Dracontius hath theſe words,(c)foreign. Many Biſhops never were married, but there are Monks that are Fathers of children. As on the other ſide, we have known Biſhops that were Fathers of children, and Monks altogether without iſſue, and Clarks that faſted, and Monks that drunk. (d)foreign.For it is permitted ſo to do, and it is not forbidden to do otherwiſe.
Theodoret ſpeaks thus,(e)Theodoret. ſumma divinorum dogmatum, cap. de Virginitate, foreign, &c. foreign. The Lord God made no Laws about Virginity, for he knew that to be above nature. And in the ſame place, The divine Apoſtle ſaith of Virginity, I have no commandment of the Lord, for the Lord gave no Law about Virginity. (f)foreign.And in the following Chapter, The firſt of the Apoſtles was called out of the company of married perſons.
Auſtin in the book of Hereſies, in the Hereſie of the Apoſtolicks,(g)In ſuam communionem non reciperent untentes conjugibus, & res proprias poſſidentes, quales habet Ca…holica Eccleſia monachos & Clericos quamplurimos. They receive not into their communion, thoſe that make uſe of wives, and that have propriety of goods: Of which ſort of men the Catholick Church hath many, both Monks and Clarks. We have heard before Chryſoſtom ſaying, in his ſecond Homily upon the Epiſtle to Titus, that marriage is ſo honourable, that with it men may riſe even to the Epiſcopal See.
In the twenty eighth Diſtinction of the Roman Decree, Can. De Syracuſana, Pope Pelagius, though he followed the courſe of his predeceſſors, Syricius and Innocent, ſworn enemies to the marriage of Clarks, yet the people of Saragoſſa, being deſirous of a certain Biſhop that had a wife and children, granted him unto them, upon condition that he ſhould not beſtow the goods of the Church upon his wife and children.(h)Uxor ſuperſtes & filii per q…os Eccleſiaſtica ſolet p…riclitari ſubſtantia. For (ſaith he) wife and children are they, by whom the Church goods uſe to be endangered. Thereby ſhewing two things; the one, that then there were Prieſts married, and that the marriage of a Biſhop was not held a thing of its nature unlawful, ſince it was permitted to ſome. The other, that the true reaſon which moved the Popes to make that conſtitution in the Roman Church (for the Greek Church never received it) was the preſervation of Eccleſiaſtical goods.
Iſidorus in the beginning of the ſecond Book of Eccleſiaſtical Offices, brings this rule of the antient Fathers,(i)Contubernia extranearum foeminarum nullatenus appetant, Caſtimoniam quoque inviolati corporis perpetuò conſervare ſtudean…, aut certe unius matrimonii vinculo foederentur. Let not Clarks deſire to keep ſtrange women at home. Let them ſtudy to keep the perpetual chaſtity of an inviolate body; or let them, at leaſt be allyed with the bond of one marriage. It is evident, that by thoſe ſtrange women, thoſe Agapets or Aſſociates are underſtood, which the Council of Nice prohibited. And note, that this rule permits not only to make married men Clarks, but Clarks to marry, as(k)Tertul. lib. de pudic. c. 8. Licebat Apoſtolis nubere. ſect. 54. Tertullian, told us before, that it was lawful for the Apoſtles to marry.
Baronius an. 453. brings a Synod of Anjou, which ſaith among other things,(l)Non niſi unius uxoris viri, iidemque virginibus copulati, diaconi vel Presbyteri ordinentur. Let none be ordained Prieſts or Deacons, but ſuch as are husbands of one only wife, and that have married Virgins. That conſtitution was ſtill kept in Gauls, in the ninth age. For Hinckman in his Epiſtle to the Clergy, and the people of Tournay, ſpeaks thus,(m)p. 590, Nec unquam ordinationes praeſumat illicitas, ne bigamum aut qui virginem (ſi de conjugatis ag…ndum eſt) non eſt ſortitus uxorem. Let him not preſume to make unlawful Ordinations. Let him not receive a bigame to Orders, nor him that married a woman that was not a Virgin; if it be in queſtion of married perſons. And in the Epiſtle to the Clergy and people of Beauvais, (n)Non recipitur ad clerum qui maritus viduae fit.That man is not received into the Clergy that marrieth a widow.
Du Haillan in the life of Charles the Simple, ſaith, that in that Kings reign a Council was held in France, in which it was permitted unto Prieſts to marry Virgin wives.
This is the 43. Canon of the Council of Toledo, The Clarks that have married without the Biſhops counſel, or taken widows, or divorced women, or whores for their wives, muſt be ſeparated by their own Biſhop.
Pope Innocent the firſt, in the fourth Epiſtle to Felix Biſhop of Nocera, ſpeaks thus, It is forbidden in the Law unto the Prieſt, to have a woman that was a widow; or one of a ſordid condition. The ſame in the Epiſtle to Victricius, chap. 4. Ʋt viduam Clericus non ducat uxorem. Let not a Clark marry one that was a widow.
Above all, the thirteenth Canon of the Council of Conſtantinople, reaſſembled at Trull, is expreſs to this purpoſe, Whereas we have heard, that in the Roman Church this is given for a rule, that ſuch as are to be honoured with the Order of Deacon or Prieſt, muſt openly promiſe that they ſhall joyn no more with their wives; We according to the antient rule of the exact Diſcipline and Order of the Apoſtles, will that hereafter the co-habitation of ſacred men, made according to the Laws, remain firm, not ſeparating them in any wiſe from touching their wives, nor depriving them of their mutual company in convenient time; ſo that if any be found worthy to be Ordained ſub-Deacon, or Deacon, or Prieſt, (o)Clerici qui ſine conſultu Epiſcopi ſui uxores duxerint, aut viduam aut repudiatam vel meretricem in conjugium receperint, ſeparari eos à proprio Epiſcopo oportebit.he ſhall not be kept off from that degree upon pretence of his cohabitation with his lawful wife: And at the time of his Ordination, no promiſe ſhall be required from him, that he ſhall abſtain from the lawful habitation with his own wife, for fear that by that means we be conſtrained to wrong and diſgrace matrimony, which God hath inſtituted, and bleſt with his preſence, ſeeing that the Goſpel cryeth up, That which God hath joyned, let not man ſeparate. The thing moſt to be obſerved in that Canon, is that the Church of Rome is by name condemned in it.(p)Can. ſextum Diſt. 3. de Conſecratione. Sextam Synodum recipio cum omnibus Canonibus ſuis. Pope Adrian approveth the Canons of that Council, as doth alſo the ſecond Council of Nice.
It is true, that in the ſame Council marriage is forbidden to Biſhops. But Balſamon Patriarch of Antioch, upon the fifth Canon of the Apoſtles, ſpeaks thus,(q)foreign. Before the VI. Council, which was held in the Palace of Trull, Biſhops were permitted to keep their wives, even after they had the Epiſcopal dignity beſtowed upon them. And he addeth, that in Africa, Lybia, and other places, they are allowed to cohabit with their wives.
That I may not amplifie this matter further, I will ſhut up this diſcourſe with a place of Gregory the I. who writ in the year 595. when the Law of the Celibat of the Clergy was ſtrengthened in thoſe places, where the Biſhop of Rome had power. In the IV. Book of his Dialogues, chap. I. he ſpeaks of the wives of Prieſts, which he calls Presbyteras, Prieſteſſes; and ſaith that a Prieſt of Nurſia abſtained from touching his wife.(r)Habent quippe ſancti viri hoc proprium. Nam ut ſemper ab illicitis longè ſint, à ſe plerunque licita abſcindunt. For (ſaith he) holy men have this property, to cut off themſelves from lawful things, that they may alwayes be far from the unlawful.
The ſame Pope in the twenty fourth Epiſtle of the third Book,(ſ)De ordinationibus vero vel de nuptiis clericorum, nullus quicquam praemii praeſumat accipere. forbids to receive money for the Ordination, or for the marriage of Clarks. Theſe Popes, though fully bent upon planting the Law of Celibat with all their power, yet were often forced to give place unto nature; and conſcience did many times put them to the rack, and made them confeſs the truth: So far that Pius the II. was ſaying, that(t)Sacerdotibus magna ratione ſublatas nuptias, majori reſtituendas videri. for great reaſons marriage had been taken from Prieſts, but that for greater reaſons it ſhould be reſtored to them, as Platina ſaith.
The words of Polydorus Virgilius, are notable in the fifth Book of the Inventors of things, chap. 4. The Apoſtle Saint Paul hath preſcribed to our Prieſts the manner how they ought to contract matrimony, writing thus unto Timothy, The Biſhop muſt be blameleſs, the husband of one wife; And a little after, Let the Deacons be the husbands of one wife only. That which is permitted to Biſhops, is alſo granted to Prieſts, ſeeing that upon Hieroms teſtimony we have ſaid in another place, that Prieſts in old time were called Biſhops. Of ſub-Deacons he ſaith nothing, who in thoſe dayes were not a ſacred Order.