Chapter I: Part 1

Transcriber’s Notes

Obvious typographical errors have been silently corrected. Variations in hyphenation and accents remain but all other spelling and punctuation remains unchanged.

Footnote 1219 is missing. The footnote from a different edition has been included for information.

More doubtful typographical errors:

Page 341 They succeeded in making way with him. way changed to away.

Footnote 1620 reads L’Esaminatore, 15 Ott. 1867. This has been changed to 15 Oct.

The footnotes are located at the end of the book.

Italics are represented thus _italic_.

SACERDOTAL CELIBACY

IN THE

CHRISTIAN CHURCH.

AN

HISTORICAL SKETCH

OF

SACERDOTAL CELIBACY

IN THE

CHRISTIAN CHURCH.

BY

HENRY C. LEA.

SECOND EDITION, ENLARGED.

Οὐ γαρ θεου ἐστι κινειν ἐπι τα παρα φυσιν.

ATHENAGORÆ _pro Christianis Legatio_.

BOSTON
HOUGHTON MIFFLIN AND COMPANY
New York 11 East Seventeenth Street
The Riverside Press, Cambridge
1884

Entered according to Act of Congress, in the year 1884, by
HENRY C. LEA,
in the Office of the Librarian of Congress. All rights reserved.

DORNAN, PRINTER.

PREFACE.

The following work was written several years since, simply as an historical study, and with little expectation of its publication. Recent movements in several portions of the great Christian Church seem to indicate, however, that a record of ascetic celibacy, as developed in the past, may not be without interest to those who are watching the tendencies of the present.

So far as I am aware, no work of the kind exists in English literature, and those which have appeared in the Continental languages are almost exclusively of a controversial character. It has been my aim to avoid polemics, and I have therefore sought merely to state facts as I have found them, without regard to their bearing on either side of the questions involved. As those questions have long been the subject of ardent disputation, it has seemed proper to substantiate every statement with a reference to its authority.

The scope of the work is designedly confined to the enforced celibacy of the sacerdotal class. The vast history of monachism has therefore only been touched upon incidentally when it served to throw light upon the rise and progress of religious asceticism. The various celibate communities which have arisen in this country, such as the Dunkers and Shakers, are likewise excluded from the plan of the volume. These limitations occasion me less regret since the appearance of M. de Montalembert’s “Monks of the West” and Mr. W. Hepworth Dixon’s “New America,” in which the student will probably find all that he may require on these subjects.

Besides the controversial importance of the questions connected with Christian asceticism, it has seemed to me that a brief history like the present might perhaps possess interest for the general reader, not only on account of the influence which ecclesiastical celibacy has exerted, directly and indirectly, on the progress of civilization, but also from the occasional glimpse into the interior life of past ages afforded in reviewing the effect upon society of the policy of the church as respects the relations of the sexes. The more ambitious historian, in detailing the intrigues of the court and the vicissitudes of the field, must of necessity neglect the minuter incidents which illustrate the habits, the morals, and the modes of thought of bygone generations. From such materials a monograph like this is constructed, and it may not be unworthy the attention of those who deem that the life of nations does not consist exclusively of political revolutions and military achievements.

PHILADELPHIA, May, 1867.

* * * * *

In reprinting this work such changes have been made as further reading and reflection have seemed to render advisable. The first two and the last sections have been wholly rewritten, and numerous additions have been made throughout the volume. To accommodate as far as possible the considerable amount of matter thus introduced, I have omitted from the footnotes all extracts which merely verified without illustrating the text.

PHILADELPHIA, December, 1883.

CONTENTS.

A. D. PAGE

Influence of the church on modern civilization 17

Effect of celibacy in moulding its destiny 19

I.—ASCETICISM.

Character of early Judaism 21

Oriental and Hellenic influences 23

Growth of asceticism 25

Pauline Christianity 26

Admission that celibacy is of post-apostolic origin 28

II.—THE ANTE-NICENE CHURCH.

Early ascetic tendencies 31

Exaggerated in the heresies 33

Influence of Buddhism 34

Objection to second marriages 36

c. 150 “Digami” rejected from the ministry 37

Application of the Levitical rule 38

Growth of asceticism—self-mutilation 40

Vows of virginity and their results 41

c. 280 Influence of Manichæism 43

Condemnation of marriage 45

305 First injunction of celibacy, by the Council of
Elvira 50

314 Disregarded elsewhere 51

III.—THE COUNCIL OF NICÆA.

Growing centralization of the church 52

325 The first general council 53

It prohibits the residence of suspected women 53

The story of Paphnutius 56

325-350 Married priests not as yet interfered with 58

IV.—LEGISLATION.

348-400 Enforcement of voluntary vows 59

Prohibition of female ministry 60

362 Reaction—the Council of Gangra 61

384 Celibacy adopted by the Latin church 64

385 Decretal of Siricius 65

V.—ENFORCEMENT OF CELIBACY.

Resistance to enforced asceticism 67

390 Jovinian 69

404 Vigilantius 70

390-419 The church of Africa yields 73

401 Compromise of the Cis-Alpine church 75

Popular assistance in enforcing celibacy 77

Effect of enforced celibacy on clerical morals 78

General demoralization of society 81

VI.—THE EASTERN CHURCH.

Divergence between the East and the West 83

381 Compulsory celibacy unknown in the East 84

400 Council of Constantinople—Antony of Ephesus—Synesius 85

430 First enforcement of celibacy in Thessaly 86

Celibacy not obligatory 86

528-548 Legislation of Justinian 86

680 The Quinisext in Trullo—Discipline unchanged 88

900 Final legislation of Leo the Philosopher 90

The Nestorians—clerical marriage permitted 91

The Abyssinian church 92

VII.—MONACHISM.

Buddhist model of monachism 94

Apostolic order of widows 96

Devotees in the primitive church—no vows irrevocable 97

250-285 Paul the Thebæan and St. Antony 97

350-400 Increase of monachism 98

Early systems—vows not irrevocable 101

Greater strictness required of female devotees 103

c. 400 Marriages of nuns still valid 104

450-458 Conflicting legislation 105

Strictness of the Eastern church—Political necessity
of controlling monachism 106

390-456 Monks confined to their convents 108

532-545 Justinian renders monastic vows irrevocable 108

Disorders of Western monachism 109

528 St. Benedict of Nursia—vows not irrevocable
under his rule 111

590-604 Gregory I. enforces the inviolability of vows 113

Continued irregularities of monachism 115

VIII.—THE BARBARIANS.

The Church and the Barbarians 117

The Merovingian bishops 118

The Spanish Arians 120

589-711 Neglect of discipline in Spain 121

557-580 State of discipline in Italy 122

Dilapidation of ecclesiastical property 123

590-604 Reforms of Gregory the Great 123

IX.—THE CARLOVINGIANS.

Demoralization of the VII. and VIII. centuries 126

Reorganizing efforts of the Carlovingians 128

742-755 Labors of St. Boniface 131

Resistance of the married clergy 132

755 Pepin-le-Bref undertakes the reform 134

Sacerdotal celibacy reëstablished 135

Reforms of Charlemagne and Louis-le-Débonnaire—Their
inefficiency 135

840-912 Increasing demoralization under the later Carlovingians 139

874 Legal procedures prescribed by Hincmar 140

893 Sacerdotal marriage resumed 142

X.—THE TENTH CENTURY.

Barbarism of the tenth century—Debasement of
the papacy 144

Tendency to hereditary benefices—Dilapidation of
church property 145

938 Leo VII. vainly prohibits sacerdotal marriage 148

952 It is defended by St. Ulric of Augsburg 153

925-967 Unsuccessfully resisted by Ratherius of Verona
and Atto of Vercelli 150

Opposing influences among prelates 152

Relaxation of the canons 154

942-1054 Three Archbishops of Rouen 155

Indifference of Silvester II. 157

Celibacy practically obsolete 158

XI.—SAXON ENGLAND.

Corruption of the ancient British church 159

Asceticism of the Irish and Scottish churches 160

597 Celibacy introduced among the Saxons by St.
Augustin 161

Disorders in the Saxon nunneries 163

747, 787 Councils of Clovesho and Chelsea 164

Neglect of discipline in the ninth and tenth centuries 165

964 St. Dunstan undertakes a reformation 166

964-974 Energy of Edgar the Pacific 168

975 Reaction after the death of Edgar 170

1006 Failure of Dunstan’s reforms 171

1009 Council of Enham—Sacerdotal polygamy 172

1032 Legislation of Cnut 173

Sacerdotal marriage established 175

XII.—PETER DAMIANI.

1022 Council of Pavia—Efforts to restore discipline 178

1031 Council of Bourges 179

Clerical marriage and profligacy 180

Revival of asceticism—San Giovanni Gualberto 183

1046 Henry III. undertakes the reformation of the
church—Clement II. 184

St. Peter Damiani 185

1049 Leo IX. 187

Damiani’s Liber Gomorrhianus 188

Reformatory efforts of Leo—Councils of Rheims
and Mainz 188

1051-1053 Attempts to reform the Italian clergy 189

Failure of the Reformation 190

1058 The Papacy independent—Damiani and Hildebrand 192

1059 Appeal to the laity for assistance 194

1059 Council of Melfi—Deposition of Bishop of Trani 197

1060 Damiani endeavors to reform the prelates 198

The persecuted clergy organize resistance 199

1061 Schismatic election of Cadalus 200

He is supported by the married clergy 201

1063 Renewed efforts of Alexander II. and Damiani 202

Their failure 204

XIII.—MILAN.

Milan the centre of Manichæism 207

1045 Election of an archbishop—four disappointed competitors 209

Marriage universal among Milanese clergy 210

Landolfo and Arialdo excite the people 211

1056 Popular tumults—Plunder of the clergy 212

1058 The Synod of Fontaneto defends the married
priests 212

A furious civil war results 213

1059 Damiani obtains the submission of the clergy 213

1061 Milan embraces the party of Cadalus 215

Death of Landolfo—Erlembaldo takes his place 215

1062 His success 216

1066 Excommunication of Archbishop Guido—Martyrdom
of Arialdo 216

1067 Compromise and temporary truce 217

1069 Guido forced to resign—War between Gotefrido
and Azzo for the succession 218

1075 Death of Erlembaldo—Tedaldo archbishop in spite
of Gregory VII. 219

Influence of celibacy on the struggle 220

1093-1095 Triumph of sacerdotalism 221

Similar trouble throughout Tuscany 222

XIV.—HILDEBRAND.

1073 Election of Gregory VII.—His character 223

Necessity of celibacy to his scheme of theocratic
supremacy 225

1074 Synod of Rome—Repetition of previous canons 227

Attempts to enforce them throughout Europe—Resistance
of the clergy 228

Three bishops—Otho of Constance—Altmann of
Passau—Siegfrid of Mainz 229

1074 Gregory appeals to the laity 232

Resultant persecution of the clergy 234

1077 Violent resistance of the married clergy 236

Political complications 237

1085 Papalists and Imperialists both condemn sacerdotal
marriage 239

XV.—CENTRAL EUROPE.

Depression of the Catholic party—Sacerdotal marriage
connived at 241

1089 Urban II. renews the persecution 242

1094 Contumacy of the German priesthood 243

1105 Deposition of Henry IV.—Germany restored to
Catholic unity 244

1118-1175 Sacerdotal marriage nevertheless common 245

1092-1257 First introduction of celibacy in Hungary 248

1197-1279 Introduction of celibacy in Poland 251

1213-1248 Disregard of the canons in Sweden 252

1117-1266 Their enforcement in Denmark 253

1219-1271 Their neglect in Friesland 254

XVI.—FRANCE.

1056-1064 Efforts to introduce sacerdotal celibacy 255

1074-1078 Contumacy of the clergy 256

1080 William the Conqueror intervenes—First allusion
to licenses to sin 257

Successful resistance of the Norman and Breton
clergy 258

1076-1094 Troubles in Flanders 259

Confusion caused by the attempted reform 262

1095 Council of Clermont—Its canons disregarded 263

Condition of the monastic establishments 264

Hereditary transmission of benefices 265

Miracles invoked in aid of the reform 266

1119 Calixtus II. commences a new reform 267

Resistance of the Norman priesthood 268

Abelard and Heloise—Standard of morals erected
by the church 269

1212 Continuance of clerical marriage 270

XVII.—NORMAN ENGLAND.

1066 Canons not enforced by William I. 271

1076 First effort made by the Council of Winchester 272

1102 St. Anselm undertakes the reform—Council of
London 273

Resistance of the priests—Failure of the movement 275

1104 Henry I. uses the reform as a financial expedient 276

1108 He enforces outward obedience 277

1126 Stubborn contumacy of the priesthood 279

1129 Henry again speculates on clerical immorality 280

1138-1171 Disorders of the English church 281

Consorts of priests no longer termed wives 283

1208 King John discovers their financial value 283

Venality of the ecclesiastical officials 284

“Focariæ” still universal 285

1215 Indignation of the clergy at the reforms of Innocent
III. 286

1237 Cardinal Otto and the Council of London 288

Popular poems concerning the reform 289

1250-1268 Gradual extinction of clerical marriage in England 290

Robert Grosseteste, Bishop of Lincoln 292

Fruitless legislation against concubinage 293

12th-15th C. Sacerdotal marriage in Wales 293

XVIII.—IRELAND AND SCOTLAND.

Degradation of the Irish church prior to the
twelfth century 295

1130-1149 Reforms of St. Malachi—Influence of Rome 296

Monastic character of the reformed church 297

1186-1320 Condition of the church in the English Pale 298

Degeneration of the Scottish Culdees 299

1124-1153 David I. reforms the church and reestablishes
celibacy 300

1225-1268 Immorality of the Scottish clergy 301

XIX.—SPAIN.

11th Cent. Independent barbarism of the Spanish church—Marriage
universal 302

1068-1080 Encroachments of Rome—sacerdotal marriage condemned 303

1101-1129 Reforms of Diego Gelmirez—Marriage not interfered
with 305

1260 Legislation of Alfonso the Wise—Concubinage
universal 308

1323 Concubinage organized as a safeguard by the laity 310

Corruption throughout the middle ages 311

XX.—GENERAL LEGISLATION.

1123 Marriage now first dissolved by Holy Orders 313

1130 The innovation not as yet enforced 314

1139 Sacerdotal marriage formally declared void by the
Second Council of Lateran 315

1148 Confirmed by the Council of Rheims—Denied by
Gratian 316

1150 The new doctrine receives no obedience 318

1158-1181 Alexander III. insists upon it 319

But excepts immoral ecclesiastics 320

Conflict of rules and exceptions 322

1206-1255 Case of Bossaert d’Avesnes 323

Alexander III. proposes to restore clerical marriage 325

1187-1198 Efforts of the popes to enforce the canons 326

1215 Fourth Council of Lateran—Triumph of Sacerdotalism 327

XXI.—RESULTS.

Recognition of the obligation of celibacy 330

Increase of immorality 331

13th-15th C. Fruitless attempts to restrain corruption 333

1231 Recognition of children of ecclesiastics 335

1225-1416 Efforts to restrict hereditary transmission 338

1317 Recognition of concubinage 339

Successful resistance to reform 340

12th-15th C. Morals of the papal court 341

Influence on society of sacerdotal celibacy 346

Influence of monachism 357

XXII.—THE MILITARY ORDERS.

1120 Knights of St. John vowed to celibacy 362

1128 Knights of the Temple vowed to celibacy 362

1175 Knights of St. James of the Sword allowed to
marry 363

1441 Marriage permitted to the Order of Calatrava 364

1496 And to the Orders of Avis and Jesus Christ 365

1167 Order of St. Michael allowed to marry once 365

Reforms attempted in the Order of St. John 366

The Teutonic Knights 366

XXIII.—THE HERESIES.

Asceticism of mediæval Manichæism 367

Difficulty of combating it 369

1146 Antisacerdotalism—The Petrobrusians and Henricians 370

1148 Éon de l’Étoile 371

c. 1160 The Waldenses 372

1294 Antisacerdotalism of the Franciscans—The Fraticelli 375

1341 John of Pirna 378

1377 Wickliffe 378

1394 The Lollards denounce clerical celibacy 381

1415-1438 The Hussites—They maintain ascetic celibacy 382

1411-1414 Brethren of the Cross—Men of Intelligence 385

1488-1498 Savonarola 386

XXIV.—THE FIFTEENTH CENTURY.

Demoralization of the sacerdotal body 388

1418 Futile efforts of the Council of Constance 390

1422 Efforts of Martin V. 392

Undiminished corruption and symptoms of revolt 393

1435 The Council of Bâle attempts a reform 395

Impotence of the Basilian canons—Venality of
the papal court 396

1484-1500 Condition of the church in Italy, France, England,
Spain, Germany, and Hungary 398

1496 Relaxation of monastic discipline 402

1476 John of Nicklaushausen 405

Sacerdotal marriage advocated as a remedy 405

1479 John of Oberwesel 407

1485 Heresy of Jean Laillier 408

XXV.—THE REFORMATION IN GERMANY.

Irreverential spirit of the sixteenth century 410

1510 Complaints of the Germans against the church 411

Immobility of the church 412

Popular movement—Luther and Erasmus 413

1518 Official opposition to the abuses of the church 416

1517-1520 Luther neglects the question of celibacy—his
gradual progress 417

1521 First examples of sacerdotal marriage 419

Approved by Carlostadt—Disapproved by Luther 419

1522 Zwingli demands sacerdotal marriage—Luther
adopts it 421

1524 Efforts of the church to repress the movement 423

Popular approbation—Protection in high quarters 424

1523-1524 Emancipation of nuns and monks 425

1525 Marriage of Luther 425

Causes of popular acquiescence in the change 427

Extreme immorality of the clergy 427

Admitted by the Catholics to justify heresy 430

1522-1526 Erasmus advocates clerical marriage 432

Assistance from ambition of temporal princes 434

1530 Efforts at reunion—Confession of Augsburg 435

Failure of reconciliation—League of Schmalkalden 438

The Anabaptists 438

1532-1541 Partial toleration—Difficulties concerning the
Abbey lands 439

1548 The Interim—Sacerdotal marriage tolerated 441

1552 The Reformation established by the Transaction
of Passau 443

XXVI.—THE ANGLICAN CHURCH.

Conservative tendencies of England 444

1500-1523 John Colet and Sir Thomas More 445

1524 Difficulties of the situation—Wolsey undertakes
the destruction of monachism 447

1528 General suppression of the smaller houses 448

1532 Henry VIII.’s quarrel with Rome 449

1535 General visitation of monasteries, and suppression
of most of them 451

Popular opinions—The Beggars’ Petition 453

1536 Popular discontent—The Pilgrimage of Grace 455

1537-1546 Final suppression of the religious houses 456

Fate of their inmates 460

1535-1541 Irish monastic establishments destroyed 461

Henry still insists on celibacy 461

Efforts to procure its relaxation 463

1537 Uncertainty of the subject in the public mind 465

1539 Henry’s firmness—Act of the Six Articles 466

Persecution of the married clergy 469

1540 Modification of the Six Articles 471

1547 Accession of Edward VI.—Repeal of the Six
Articles 472

1548-1549 Full liberty of marriage accorded to the clergy 473

Armed opposition of the people 474

1552 Adoption of the Forty-two Articles 475

Difficulty of removing popular convictions 476

1553 Accession of Queen Mary—Legislation of Edward
repealed 477

1554 The married clergy separated and deprived 478

Suffering of the clergy in consequence 480

England reconciled to Rome—Church lands not
recalled 482

1555 Cardinal Pole’s Legatine Constitutions 483

1557 More stringent legislation required—Revival of
the old troubles 485

1558 Accession of Queen Elizabeth 486

1559 Delay in authorizing marriage—Uncertainty of
the married clergy 487

Elizabeth yields, but imposes degrading restrictions
on clerical marriage 488

1563 The Thirty-nine Articles—Increased emphasis of
permission to marry 490

Elizabeth maintains her prejudices 491

Disrepute of sacerdotal marriage—Evil effects on
the Anglican clergy 494

XXVII.—CALVINISM.

1559-1640 The Huguenot Churches 498

The Reformation in Scotland 501

Corruption of the Scottish church in the sixteenth
century 501

1542-1559 Efforts at internal reform—their fruitlessness 504

Marriage assumed as a matter of course by the
Protestants 506

Temporal motives assisting the Reformation 507

Poverty of the Scottish church establishment 508

Influence of celibacy on the struggle 509

1560 No formal recognition of clerical marriage thought
necessary 512

XXVIII.—THE COUNCIL OF TRENT.

1524-1536 Efforts at internal reform 514

Universal demand for a general council—Convoked
at Mantua in 1536 519

1542-1547 Assembles at Trent—it labors to separate, not to
reunite the churches 520

1551-1552 Reassembles at Trent—is again broken up 521

1562 Again assembles for the last time 522

1536 Paul III. essays an internal reform without result 522

1548 Charles V. tries to reform the German church 524

1548-1551 Local reformatory synods—their failure 525

1560 Clerical marriage demanded as a last resort 529

Clerical corruption urged as the reason 530

1563 The French court joins in the demand 533

1560 The question prejudged 533

1563 The council makes celibacy a point of faith 536

Attempts a reformation 538

1563-1564 The German princes continue their efforts 539

Essays of Cassander and Wicelius 542

1564 Maximilian II. renews the attempt 543

His requests peremptorily rejected 544

XXIX.—THE POST-TRIDENTINE CHURCH.

Reception of the Council of Trent except in
France 546

1566-1572 Pius V. endeavors to effect a reform 547

1568-1570 Labors of St. Charles Borromeo at Milan 550

1565-1597 Reforms vainly attempted by Italian councils 552

1569-1668 Condition of the church in Central Europe 553

Marriage still practised until 1628 556

Clerical immorality still a justification of heresy 556

1560-1624 Condition of the church in France 558

The residence of women conceded 561

The church in the Spanish Colonies 562

Abuse of the confessional 566

Abuse of the power of absolution 575

Influence of the casuistic spirit 578

XXX.—THE CHURCH AND THE REVOLUTION.

Sacerdotal marriage obsolete—Grandier, Du Pin,
Bossuet 581

1758-1800 The eighteenth century—Controversy reopened 582

1783 Joseph II. proposes to permit sacerdotal marriage 583

1760-1787 Clerical immorality undiminished 585

1789 The French Revolution 588

1789-1790 Confiscation of church property—Suppression of
monachism 589

1791 Celibacy deprived of legal protection—Marriage
of priests 590

1793 Marriage becomes a test of good citizenship 592

Persecution of the unmarried clergy 592

Resistance of the great body of the clergy 594

1795-1797 Married clergy repudiated by their bishops 595

1801 Celibacy restored by the Concordat 595

1801-1807 Clerical marriage continues—Napoleon decides
against it 597

XXXI.—THE CHURCH OF TO-DAY.

1815-1883 Vacillating policy in France as to clerical marriage 599

1821-1866 Various movements in favor of clerical marriage 601

Immobility of the church 603

1878 The Old Catholics adopt clerical marriage 604

Civil marriage laws opposed by the church 605

Celibacy not likely to be disturbed 607

1820-1867 Suppression of monastic orders 608

Vigor and improvement of modern monachism 611

Its influence in the field of education 616

1880 Suppression of unauthorized orders in France 621

Influence of celibacy on clerical morality 624

Its influence on the social organization 638

NOTE.

On Celibacy as a matter of faith under the Council
of Trent 640

SACERDOTAL CELIBACY.

The Latin church is the great fact which dominates the history of modern civilization. All other agencies which moulded the destinies of mediæval Europe were comparatively isolated or sporadic in their manifestations. Thus in one place we may trace the beneficent influence of commerce at work, in another the turbulent energy of the rising Third Estate; the mortal contests of the feudal powers with each other and with progress are waged in detached and convulsive struggles; chivalry casts only occasional and evanescent flashes of light amid the darkness of military barbarism; literature seeks to gain support from any power which will condescend to lend transitory aid to the plaything of the moment. Nowhere do we see combined effort, nowhere can we detect a pervading impulse, irrespective of locality or of circumstance, save in the imposing machinery of the church establishment. This meets us at every point, and in every age, and in every sphere of action. In the dim solitude of the cloister, the monk is training the minds which are to mould the destinies of the period, while his roof is the refuge of the desolate and the home of the stranger. In the tribunal, the priest is wrestling with the baron, and is extending his more humane and equitable code over a jurisdiction subjected to the caprices of feudal or customary law, as applied by a class of ignorant and arbitrary tyrants. In the royal palace, the hand of the ecclesiastic, visible or invisible, is guiding the helm of state, regulating the policy of nations, and converting the brute force of chivalry into the supple instrument of his will. In Central Europe, lordly prelates, with the temporal power and possessions of the highest princes, joined to the exclusive pretensions of the church, make war and peace, and are sovereign in all but name, owing no allegiance save to Emperors whom they elect and Popes whose cause they share. Far above all, the successor of St. Peter from his pontifical throne claims the whole of Europe as his empire, and dictates terms to kings who crouch under his reproof, or are crushed in the vain effort of rebellion. At the other extremity of society, the humble minister of the altar, with his delegated power over heaven and hell, wields in cottage as in castle an authority hardly less potent, and sways the minds of the faithful with his right to implicit obedience. Even art offers a willing submission to the universal mistress, and seeks the embodiment of its noblest aspirations in the lofty poise of the cathedral spire, the rainbow glories of the painted window, and the stately rhythm of the solemn chant.

This vast fabric of ecclesiastical supremacy presents one of the most curious problems which the world’s history affords. A wide and absolute authority, deriving its force from moral power alone, marshalling no legions of its own in battle array, but permeating everything with its influence, walking unarmed through deadly strife, rising with renewed strength from every prostration, triumphing alike over the savage nature of the barbarian and the enervated apathy of the Roman tributary, blending discordant races and jarring nations into one great brotherhood of subjection—such was the Papal hierarchy, a marvel and a mystery. Well is it personified in Gregory VII., a fugitive from Rome, without a rood of ground to call him master, a rival Pope lording it in the Vatican, a triumphant Emperor vowed to internecine strife, yet issuing his commands as sternly and as proudly to prince and potentate as though he were the unquestioned suzerain of Europe, and listened to as humbly by three-fourths of Christendom. The man wasted away in the struggle; his death was but the accident of time: the church lived on, and marched to inevitable victory.

The investigations of the curious can hardly be deemed misapplied in analyzing the elements of this impalpable but irresistible power, and in examining the causes which have enabled it to preserve such unity of action amid such diversity of environment, presenting everywhere by turns a solid and united front to the opposing influences of barbarism and civilization. In detaching one of these elements from the group, and tracing out its successive vicissitudes, I may therefore be pardoned for thinking the subject of sufficient interest to warrant a minuteness of detail that would otherwise perhaps appear disproportionate.

The Janizaries of the Porte were Christian children, recruited by the most degrading tribute which tyrannical ingenuity has invented. Torn from their homes in infancy, every tie severed that bound them to the world around them; the past a blank, the future dependent solely upon the master above them; existence limited to the circle of their comrades, among whom they could rise, but whom they could never leave; such was the corps which bore down the bravest of the Christian chivalry and carried the standard of the Prophet in triumph to the walls of Vienna. Mastering at length their master, they wrung from him the privilege of marriage; and the class in becoming hereditary, with human hopes and fears disconnected with the one idea of their service, no longer presented the same invincible phalanx, and at last became terrible only to the effeminate denizens of the seraglio. The example is instructive, and it affords grounds for the assumption that the canon which bound all the active ministers of the church to perpetual celibacy, and thus created an impassable barrier between them and the outer world, was one of the efficient instruments in creating and consolidating both the temporal and spiritual power of the Roman hierarchy.

I.

ASCETICISM.

The most striking contrast between the Mosaic Dispensation and the Law of Christ is the materialism of the one, and the pure spiritualism of the other. The Hebrew prophet threatens worldly punishments, and promises fleshly rewards: the Son of Man teaches us to contemn the treasures of this life, and directs all our fears and aspirations towards eternity. The exaggeration of these teachings by the zeal of fervent disciples led to the ascetic efforts to subjugate nature, which present so curious a feature in religious history, and of which those concerning the relations of the sexes form the subject of our consideration.

This special phase of asceticism was altogether foreign to the traditions of Israel, averse as they were to all restrictions upon the full physical development of man. Enjoying, apparently, no conception of a future existence, the earlier Hebrews had no incentive to sacrifice the pleasures of the world for those of a Heaven of which they knew nothing; nor was the gross polytheism, which the monotheistic prophets combated, of a nature to lead to ascetic practices. The worship of Ashera—probably identical with the Babylonian Beltis or Mylitta—undoubtedly consecrated the sacrifice of chastity as a religious rite, and those who revered the goddess of fertility as one of the supreme deities were not likely to impose any restrictions on the exercise of her powers.[1] We see, indeed, in the story of Judah and Tamar, and in the lamentation of the daughter of Jephthah, that virginity was regarded almost as a disgrace, and that child-bearing was considered the noblest function of woman; while the institution of levirate marriage shows an importance attributed to descendants in the male line as marked as among the Hindu Arya. The hereditary character of the priesthood, moreover, both as vested in the original Levites, and the later Tsadukim and Baithusin, indicates conclusively that even among the orthodox no special sanctity attached to continence, and that the temporary abstinence from women required of those who handled the hallowed articles of the altar (_I. Samuel xxi. 4-5_) was simply a distinction drawn between the sacerdotal class and the laity, for in the elaborate instructions as to uncleanness, there is no allusion made to sexual indulgence, though the priest who had partaken of wine was forbidden to enter the Tabernacle, and defilement arising from contact with the dead was a disability (_Levit. x., xxi., xxii._),[2] while the highest blessing that could be promised as a reward for obedience to God was that “there shall not be male or female barren among you” (_Deut. vii. 14_). In fact, the only manifestation of asceticism as a religious ordinance, prior to the Second Temple, is seen in the vow of the Nazirites, which consisted merely in allowing the hair to remain unshorn, in the abstinence from wine and in avoiding the pollution arising from contact with the dead. Slender as were these restrictions, the ordinary term of a Nazirate was only thirty days, though it might be assumed for life, as in the cases of Samson and Samuel; and the vows for long terms were deemed sufficiently pleasing to God to serve as means of propitiation, as in the case of Hannah, who thus secured her offspring Samuel, and in that of Helena, Queen of Adiabene, who vowed a Nazirate of seven years if her son Izaces should return in safety from a campaign.[3] The few references to the custom in Scripture, however, show that it was little used, and that it exercised no visible influence over social life during the earlier periods.

When the conquests of Cyrus released the Hebrews from captivity, the close relations established with the Persians wrought no change in this aspect of the Jewish faith. Mazdeism, in fact, was a religion so wholesome and practical in its character that asceticism could find little place among its prescribed observances, and the strict maintenance of its priesthood in certain families who transmitted their sacred lore from father to son, shows that no restrictions were placed upon the ministers of Hormadz, or athravas,[4] though in the later period of the Achæmenian empire, after the purity of ancient Mazdeism had become corrupted, the priestesses of the Sun were required to observe chastity, without necessarily being virgins.[5] With the conquests of Alexander, however, Judaism was exposed to new influences, and was brought into relation at once with Grecian thought and with the subtle mysticism of India, with which intercourse became frequent under the Greek empire. Beyond the Indus the Sankhya philosophy was already venerable, which taught the nothingness of life, and that the supreme good consisted in the absolute victory over all human wants and desires.[6] Already Buddha had reduced this philosophy into a system of religion, the professors of which were bound to chastity—a rule impossible of observance by the world at large, but which became obligatory upon its innumerable priests and monks, when it spread and established itself as a church, thus furnishing the prototype which was subsequently copied by Roman Christianity.[7] Already Brahmanism had invented the classes of Vanaprasthas, Sannyasis, and others—ascetics whose practices of self-mortification anticipated and excelled all that is related of Christian Antonys and Simeons—although the ancestor worship which required every man to provide descendants who should keep alive the Sraddha in honor of the Pitris of his forefathers postponed the entrance into the life of the anchorite until after he should have fulfilled his parental duties:[8] and we know from the references in the Greek writers to the Hindu gymnosophists how great an impression these customs had made upon those to whom they were a novelty.[9] Already the Yoga system had been framed, whereby absorption into the Godhead was to be obtained by religious mendicancy, penances, mortifications, and the severest severance of self from all external surroundings.[10] All this had been founded on the primæval doctrine of the Vedas with respect to the virtue of _Tapas_, or austere religious abstraction, to which the most extravagant powers were attributed, conferring upon its votaries the authority of gods.[11] With all the absurdities of these beliefs and practices, they yet sprang from a profound conviction of the superiority of the spiritual side of man’s nature, and if their theory of the nothingness of mortal existence was exaggerated, yet they tended to elevate the soul, at the expense, it must be confessed, of a regard to the duties which man owes to society.

The influences arising from this system of religious philosophy, so novel to the Semitic races, were tardy is making themselves felt upon the Hebrews, but they became gradually apparent. The doctrine of a future life with rewards and punishments, doubtless derived from Chaldean and Mazdean sources during the Captivity and under the Persian Empire, slowly made its way, and though opposed by the aristocratic conservative party in power—the Tsadukim or Sadducees (descendants of Zadoc, or just men)—it became one of the distinctive dogmas of the Beth Sopherim or House of Scribes, composed of religious teachers, trained in all the learning of the day, sprung from the people, and eager to maintain their nationality against the temporizing policy of their rulers.[12] At the breaking out of the Maccabean revolt against Antiochus Epiphanes we find the nation divided into two factions, the Sadducees, disposed rather to submit to the Hellenizing tyranny of Antioch, and the Chassidim (the Assideans of the Authorized Version), democratic reformers, ready for innovation and prepared to die in defence of their faith. In the triumph of the Hasmonean revolution they obtained control of the state, and in the development of the Oral Law by the scribes, supplementing the Torah or Written Law, they engrafted permanently their doctrines upon the ancestral belief. With the tenet of spiritual immortality, there followed as a necessary consequence the subordination of the present existence to life hereafter, which is the direct incentive to asceticism. The religious exaltation of the stormy period which intervened between the liberation from Antioch and the subjugation to Rome afforded a favorable soil for the growth of this tendency, and rendered the minds of the devout accessible to the influences both of Eastern and of Western speculation. How powerful eventually became the latter upon the Alexandrian Jews may be estimated from the mysticism of Philo.

With their triumph over Antioch, the name of the Chassidim disappears as that of an organized party, and in its place we find those of two factions or sects—the Perushim (Pharisees) or Separatists, who maintained an active warfare, temporal and theological, with the Sadducees, and the Essenes, mystics, who bound themselves by vows, generally including the Nazirate, and withdrew from active life for the benefit of spiritual growth and meditation.

The Essenes cultivated the soil and sometimes even lived in cities, but often dwelt as anchorites, using no artificial textures as clothing, and no food save what was spontaneously produced. They mostly practised daily ablutions and admitted neophytes to their society by the rite of baptism after a novitiate of a year, followed by two years of probation. Among those who did not live as hermits, property was held in common, and marriage was abstained from, and it is to this latter practice doubtless that reference was made by Christ in the text “There be eunuchs which have made themselves eunuchs for the kingdom of heaven’s sake.” The Essenes enjoyed high consideration among the people; their teachings were listened to with respect, and they were regarded as especially favored with the gifts of divination and prophecy. There can be no doubt that John the Baptist was an Essene; James of Jerusalem, brother of Jesus, was a Nazirite and probably an Essene, and Christ himself may reasonably be regarded as trained in the principles of the sect. His tendencies all lay in that direction, and it is observable that while he is unsparing in his denunciations of the Scribes, and Pharisees, and Sadducees, he never utters a word of condemnation of the Essenes.[13]

It is thus easy to understand the refined spirituality of Christ’s teachings, and the urgency with which he called the attention of man from the gross temptations of earth to the higher things which should fit him for the inheritance of eternal life. Yet his profound wisdom led him to forbear from enjoining even the asceticism of the Essenes. He allowed a moderate enjoyment of the gifts of the Creator; and when he sternly rebuked the Scribes and Pharisees for imposing, in their development of the Oral Law, burdens upon men not easily to be borne by the weakness of human nature, he was far indeed from seeking to render obligatory, or even to recommend, practices which only the fervor of fanaticism could render endurable. No teacher before him had ventured to form so lofty a conception of the marriage-tie. It was an institution of God himself whereby man and wife became one flesh. “What therefore God hath joined together let not man put asunder;” and though he refrained from condemning abstention from wedlock, he regarded it as possible only to those whose exceptional exaltation of temperament might enable them to overcome the instincts and passions of humanity.[14]

When the broad proselyting views and untiring energy of Paul, the apostle of the Gentiles, were brought to bear upon the little circle of mourning disciples, it was inevitable that a rupture should take place. No one in the slightest degree familiar with the spirit of Judaism at that day can have difficulty in understanding how those who still regarded themselves as Jews, who looked upon their martyr, not as the Son of God, but, in the words of Peter, as “Jesus of Nazareth, a man approved of God among you, by miracles and wonders and signs which God did by him in the midst of you,” and who held, as is urged in the Epistle of James, firmly to their Master’s injunction to preserve every jot and tittle of the Law, should regard with growing distrust and distaste the activity of the Pharisee Paul, who, like other Pharisees, was ready to encompass land and sea to gain one proselyte, and, more than this, was prepared to throw down the exclusive barriers of the Law in order to invite all mankind to share in the glad tidings of Salvation.[15] The division came in time, and as the Gentile church spread and flourished, it stigmatized as heretics those who adhered to the simple monotheistic reformed Judaism which Christ had taught. These became known as the Ebionim, or Poor Men, Essenes, and others, who followed Christ as a prophet inspired by God, who accepted all of the apostles save Paul, whom they regarded as a transgressor of the Law, holding their property in common, honoring virginity rather than marriage, but uttering no precept upon the subject, and observing the Written Law with rigid accuracy. They maintained a quiet existence for four centuries, making no progress, but exciting no antagonism save on the part of vituperative heresiologists, whose denunciations, however, contain no rational grounds for regarding them otherwise than as the successors of the original followers of Christ.[16]

Meanwhile, Pauline Christianity, launched on the tumultuous existence of the Gentile world, had adapted itself to the passions and ambitions of men, had availed itself both of their strength and of their weakness, and had become a very different creed from that which had been taught around the Sea of Galilee, and had seen its teacher expiate on Calvary his revolt against the Oral Law. In its gradual transformation through the ages, from Essenic and Ebionic simplicity to the magnificent sacerdotalism of the Innocents and Gregories, it has felt itself bound to find or make, in its earliest records, some precedent for every innovation, and accordingly its ardent polemics in modern times have endeavored to prove that the celibacy of its ministers was, if not absolutely ordained, at least practised from the earliest period. Much unnecessary logic and argument have been spent upon this subject since the demand which arose for clerical marriage at the Reformation forced the champions of the church to find scriptural authority for the canon which enjoins celibacy. The fact is that prior to the sixteenth century the fathers of the church had no scruple in admitting that in primitive times the canon had no existence and the custom was not observed. The reader may therefore well be spared a disquisition upon a matter which may be held to be self-evident, and be contented with a brief reference to some of the authorities of the church who, prior to the Reformation, admitted that in primitive times marriage was freely permitted to the ministers of Christ.

No doctor of the church did more than St. Jerome to impose the rule of celibacy on its members, yet even he admits that at the beginning there was no absolute injunction to that effect; and he endeavors to apologize for the admission by arguing that infants must be nourished with milk and not with solid food.[17] In the middle of the eleventh century, during the controversy between Rome and Constantinople, Rome had no scruple in admitting that the celebrated text of St. Paul (_I. Cor. ix. 5_) meant that the apostles were married, though subsequent commentators have exhausted so much ingenuity in explaining it away.[18] A century later Gratian, the most learned canonist of his time, in the “Decretum,” undertaken at the request of the papal court, which has ever since maintained its position as the standard of the canon law, felt no hesitation in admitting that, before the adoption of the canon, marriage was everywhere undisturbed among those in orders, as it continued to be in the Greek church.[19] The reputation of St. Thomas Aquinas as a theologian was as unquestioned as that of Gratian as a canonist, and the Angelic Doctor admitted as freely as the canon lawyer that compulsory celibacy was an innovation on the rules of the primitive church, which he endeavors to explain by an argument contradictory to that of St. Jerome, for he says that the greater sanctity of the earlier Christians rendered them superior to the asceticism requisite to the purity of a degenerate age, even as no modern warrior could emulate the exploit of Samson in throwing himself amid a hostile army with no other weapon than a jaw-bone. He even admits, what other authorities have denied, that Christ required no separation between St. Peter and his wife.[20] There were in the thirteenth and fourteenth centuries few more learned men than Giraldus Cambrensis, whose orthodoxy was unquestioned, and who, as Archdeacon of St. David’s, vigorously sought to enforce the rule of continence upon his recalcitrant clergy. Yet in a strenuous exhortation to them to mend the error of their ways in this respect, he admits that clerical celibacy has no scriptural or apostolic warrant.[21] That this was universally admitted at the time is manifested by Alfonso the Wise, of Castile, about the middle of the thirteenth century, asserting the fact in the most positive manner, while forbidding marriage to the priests of his dominions, in the code known as Las Siete Partidas.[22]

Gerson, indeed, who, like most of the ecclesiastics of his time, attributes to the Council of Nicæa the introduction of celibacy, seems inclined to justify the change assumed to have been then made, by alluding to the forged donation of Constantine. That the temporalities of the church could only be entrusted to men cut off from family ties was an axiom in his day, and though he does not himself draw the conclusion, he clearly regarded the supposed accession to the landed estates of the church as a satisfactory explanation of the prohibition of marriage to its ministers in the fourth century.[23] Shortly afterwards, Pius II., one of the most learned of the popes, had no scruple in admitting that the primitive church was administered by a married clergy.[24] Just before the Reformation, Geoffroi Boussard, dean of the faculty of theology of Paris, published, in 1505, a dissertation on priestly continence, in which he positively assumes, as the basis of his argument, that the use of marriage was universally permitted to those in holy orders, from the time of Christ to that of Siricius and Innocent I.; and this may be assumed to be the opinion of the University of Paris, for Boussard formally submitted his tract to that body, and its approbation is to be found in the fact that he was subsequently elevated to its chancellorship, and was sent as its delegate to the Council of Pisa.[25]

Even after the Reformation, unexceptionable orthodox authority is found to the same effect. In 1564, Pius IV. admitted it in an epistle to the German princes, and explained it by the necessity of the times.[26] Zaccaria, probably the most learned of Catholic polemics on the subject, endeavors to reconcile his belief in the Apostolic origin of clerical celibacy with the indubitable practice of the primitive church, by suggesting that while the Apostles commanded the observance of the rule by the clergy in general, yet in special cases they discreetly dispensed with it to avoid greater scandals; and that with the gradual increase of these dispensations the clergy came at length to assume the indulgence as a matter of course without asking for special licenses.[27] More logical is the argument brought forward by a priest named Taillard, resisting in 1842 some efforts made to introduce priestly marriage in Prussian Poland. He coolly reasons that if celibacy was not enforced in the primitive church, it ought to have been—“if the celibacy of the priesthood be not from the beginning of Christianity, it ought to have been there, for, as our holy religion comes from God, it should contain in itself all the means possible to elevate the nations to the highest point of liberty and happiness.”[28]

II.

THE ANTE-NICENE CHURCH.

Although no thought existed in the mind of Paul, and of his co-laborers in founding the church of the Gentiles, of prohibiting to his disciples the institution of marriage, there was a distinct flavor of asceticism in some of his teachings, which might readily serve as a warrant to those whose zeal was greater than their discretion, to mortify the flesh in this as in other ways. The Apostle, while admitting that the Lord had forbidden the separation of husband and wife, said of the unmarried and widowers:

“It is good for them if they abide even as I. But if they cannot contain let them marry, for it is better to marry than to burn.”

And though in one passage he seems to indicate a belief that woman could only be saved by maternity from the punishment incurred by the disobedience of Eve, in another he formally declares that “he that giveth her in marriage doeth well; but he that giveth her not in marriage doeth better,” thus showing a marked preference for the celibate state, in which the devout could give themselves up wholly to the service of the Lord.[29]

The Apostle’s discussion of these subjects shows that already there had commenced a strong ascetic movement, raising questions which he found hard to answer, without on the one hand repressing the ardor of serviceable disciples, and on the other, imposing burdens on neophytes too grievous to be borne. He foresaw that the former would soon run beyond the bounds of reason, and he condemned in advance the heresies which should forbid marriage;[30] but that the tendency of the faithful lay in that direction was inevitable. In those times, no one would join the infant church who did not regard the things of earth as vile in comparison with the priceless treasures of heaven, and the more fervent the conviction, the more it was apt to find expression in mortifying the flesh and purchasing salvation by the sacrifice of passions and affections. Such especially would be the tendency of the stronger natures which lead their fellows; and the admiration of the multitude for their superior virtue and fortitude would soon invest them with a reputation for holiness which would render them doubly influential.

There was much, indeed, in the teaching of the church, and in its relations with the Gentiles, to promote and strengthen this tendency. The world into which Christianity was born was hopelessly corrupt. Licentiousness, probably, has never been more defiant than amid the splendors of the early Empire. The gossip of Suetonius and the denunciations of Juvenal depict a society in which purity was scarce understood, and in which unchastity was no sin and hardly even a reproach. To reclaim such a population needed a new system of morality, and it is observable that in the New Testament particular stress is laid upon the avoidance of fornication, especially after the faith had begun to spread beyond the boundaries of Judea. The early Christians thus were a thoroughly puritan sect, teaching by example as well as by precept, and their lives were a perpetual protest against the license which reigned around them.[31] It therefore was natural that converts, after their eyes were opened to the hideous nature of the prevailing vices, should feel a tendency to plunge into the other extreme, and should come to regard even the lawful indulgence of human instincts as a weakness to be repressed. Civilization, indeed, owes too much to the reform which Christianity rendered possible in the relations of the sexes, for us to condemn too severely even the extravagances into which it was sometimes betrayed.

That it was becoming not uncommon for Christians to follow a celibate life is shown by various passages in the early fathers. St. Ignatius alludes to abstinence from marriage in honor of God as a matter not uncommon, but which was wholly voluntary and to be practised in humility and secrecy, for the virtue of continence would be much more than counterbalanced by the sin of pride.[32] The Apologists, Justin Martyr about the year 150, Athenagoras about 180, and Minucius Felix about 200, all refer to the chastity and sobriety which characterized the sect, the celibacy practised by some members, and the single marriage of others, of which the sole object was the securing of offspring and not the gratification of the passions. Athenagoras, indeed, condemns the exaggerations of asceticism in terms which show that already they had made their appearance among the more ardent disciples, but that they were strongly disapproved by the wiser portion of the Church. Origen seems to regard celibacy as rather springing from a desire to serve God without the interruptions arising from the cares of marriage than from asceticism, and does not hesitate to condemn those who abandoned their wives even from the highest motives.[33] The impulse towards asceticism, however, was too strong to be resisted. Zealots were not wanting who boldly declared that to follow the precepts of the Creator was incompatible with salvation, as though a beneficent God should create a species which could only preserve its temporal existence by forfeiting its promised eternity. Ambitious men were to be found who sought notoriety or power by the reputation to be gained from self-denying austerities, which brought to them followers and believers venerating them as prophets. Philosophers were there, also, who, wearied with the endless speculations of Pythagorean and Platonic mysticism, sought relief in the practical morality of the Gospel, and perverted the simplicity of its teachings by interweaving with it the subtle philosophy of the schools, producing an apparent intoxication which plunged them either into the grossest sensuality or the most rigorous asceticism. Such were Julian Cassianus, Saturnilus, Marcion, the founder of the Marcionites, Tatianus, the heresiarch of the Encratitians, and the unknown authors of a crowd of sects which, under the names of Abstinentes, Apotactici, Excalceati, etc., practised various forms of self-mortification, and denounced marriage as a deadly sin.[34] Such, on the other hand, were Valentinus and Prodicus who originated the mystic libertinism of the Gnostics; Marcus, whose followers, the Marcosians, were accused of advocating the most disgusting practices, Carpocrates who held that the soul was obliged to have experience of all manner of evil before it could be elevated to God; Basilides whose sectaries honored the passions as emanating from the Creator, and taught that their impulses were to be followed. Even the Ebionites did not escape the taint, if Epiphanius is to be believed; and there was also a sect advocating promiscuous intercourse, to whom the name of Nicolites was given in memory of the story of Nicholas, the deacon of the primitive church, who offered to his fellow-disciples the wife whom he was accused of loving with too exclusive a devotion—a sect which merited the reproof of St. John, and which has a special interest for us because in the eleventh century all who opposed clerical celibacy were branded with its name, thus affording to the sacerdotal party the inestimable advantage of stigmatizing their antagonists with an opprobrious epithet of the most damaging character, and of invoking the authority of the Apocalypse for their destruction.[35]