Chapter XXVIII: Part 28

[11] Rig Veda, VIII. VIII. 48 (Langlois’ Translation).—Muir’s Sanskrit Texts, IV. 160 sqq.—Harivansa Lect. XXXII.—Hitopadesa (Lancereau’s Translation, pp. 178-9, and note to p. 160). The same follies were common to Buddhism. See Fah-Hian (Beal’s Buddhist Pilgrims, pp. 101-2).—Eitel’s Handbook of Chinese Buddhism, pp. 33, 76.—Rogers’s Buddaghosha’s Parables, p. 59.—How nearly Christian extravagance reached these altitudes may be seen by reference to the Umbilicani or Quietist monks of Mt. Athos, in the fourteenth century, who became suffused with divine light after prolonged contemplation of their navels (Basnage, in Canisii Thes. Monument. Eccles. IV. 366, sqq.—Dupin, Bibl. des Auteurs Eccles. XI. 96.—Beal’s Catena, p. 151).

[12] A very good exposition of the Pharisaic revolution will be found in Cohen, Les Pharisiens, 2 vols. 8vo., Paris, 1877.

[13] Josephi Vit. 2.—Ejusd. Antiq. XV. x. 5; XVII. xiii. 3; XVIII. i. 5.—Ejusd. Bell. Jud. II. viii. 2, 3, 4, 5, 7, 12.—Euseb. H. E. II. 23, ex Hegesippo.—Hippol. Refut. Omn. Hæres. IX. xiii.-xxii.—Philastr. Lib. de Hæres. ix.—Matt. xix. 12.—Porphyr. de Abstinent. IV. 11-13.—Philo probably obtained from the Essenes the ideal which he embodied in his account of the supposititious Therapeutæ (Philon. Lib. de Vit. Contempl. pp. 690-1, Ed. 1613).

[14] Matt. xxxiii. 3.—Luc. xi. 46.—Matt. xi. 4-10.

[15] Acts ii. 44-6.—James ii. 10.—Matt. v. 17-19; xxiii. 15.—Cf. Galat. ii. 7.

[16] Irenæi contra Hæres. I. xxvi. 2.—Hippol. Refut. Omn. Hæres. VII. xxii.—Tertullii Præscript. xlvii.—Euseb. H. E. III. xxvii.—Epiphan. Panar. Hæres. XXX.—Hieron. Comment. in Matt. II. xii. 2.—It is possible that “them which say they are Jews and are not,” condemned in Rev. ii. 9; iii. 9, were Ebionites. The Talmud represents the Jewish doctors, after the destruction of Jerusalem, as consorting familiarly and disputing with the Ebionite Christians (Cohen, II. 238-9).

[17] Hieron. adv. Jovin. I. 34.

[18] Gratiani Decret. P. I. Dist. XXXI. c. xi.

[19] Gratiani Comment. in Can. 13. Dist. LVI. See also Comment. in Dist. XXXI.

[20] Summa II. ii. Quæst. 186 Art. 4 § 3.

[21] Gemma Eccles. II. vi.

[22] Casar solien todos los clérigos antiguamiente en el comienzo de la nuestra ley, segunt lo facien en la ley vieja de los judios: mas despues deso los clérigos de occidente, que obedecieron siempre á la eglesia de Roma, accordaron de vevir en castidat.—Las Siete Partidas I. vi. 39.

[23] Dial. Sophiæ et Naturæ Act. 4.

[24] Non erravit ecclesia primitiva quæ sacerdotibus permisit uxores.—Ænei Sylvii Epist. CXXX. (_ap._ Zaccaria, Storia Polemica del Celibato Sacro, Roma, 1775, p. 354).

[25] Boussard’s tract “De continentia Sacerdotum sub hac quæstione nova. Utrum papa possit cum sacerdote dispensare ut nubat,” was several times reprinted. The edition before me is that of Nürnberg, 1510.

[26] Le Plat, Concil. Trident. Monument. VI. 337.

[27] Zaccaria, op. cit. p. 65. It is curious to observe how, in his anxiety to explain the neglect of the church for these assumed Apostolic commands, Zaccaria proceeds to show that the orders of the Apostles were never received as absolutely binding, as for instance in regard to the prohibition of eating blood and animals dead through strangulation (Ib. p. 116).

[28] Taillard, Le Célibat des Prêtres, Gnesen, 1842.

[29] 1. Cor. vii. 8-9, 38.—1. Tim. ii. 14-15.

[30] 1. Tim. iv. 3.

[31] Quid enim enumeremus infinitam multitudinem eorum qui ab incontinenti intemperataque vita abducti sunt quum hæc ipsa didicissent?—Just. Mart. Apol. II.

[32] “Si glorietur, perditur: et si videri velit plus Episcopo, corruptus est.”—Ad Polycarp. cap. v. (Cureton’s Corpus Ignat. p. 10.) This is the received Latin text, but the weight of authority seems to incline rather to the reading πλήν τοῦ ἐπισκόπου than πλέον (Cureton, p. 228—Petermann’s Ignatius, 274-5). The difference, however, is of little moment to our present purpose.

[33] Just. Mart. Apol. II.—Athenagor. pro Christianis Legat.—M. Minuc. Felicis Octavius.—Origenis Comment. in Matt. XIV. 24-5.

[34] So widely spread had these doctrines become by the end of the second century that Clement of Alexandria devotes the third book of his Stromata to their discussion and refutation. It is not worth while to examine their peculiarities minutely here. The curious reader can find all that he is likely to want concerning them in Irenæus, Hippolytus, Clement, Epiphanius, and Philastrius, without plunging further into the vast sea of controversial patristic theology.

[35] Apocalyps. II. 6, 14, 15, 20.—Irenæi contr. Hæres. I. xxvi.—Hippolyti Ref. omn. Hæres. IV. xxiv.—Clem. Alex. Stromat. Lib. III.—Epiphan. Hæres. XXV.—The injustice thus inflicted on the memory of the worthy Nicholas is recognized by the Apostolical Constitutions (Lib. IV. c. viii.). In 1679, E. P. Rothius published a dissertation (_De Nicholaitis_), in which a vast mass of curious learning is brought to the vindication of the apostolic deacon.

[36] Rufin. Hist. Eccles.—Euseb. IV. 23.

[37] Hieron. adv. Jovin. Lib. I. c. 42.

[38] Compare Beal’s “Romantic Legend of Sakhya Buddha from the Chinese Sanscrit,” pp. 33 sqq., with the Protevangelion, the Gospel of the Infancy, the Gospel of Nicodemus, etc.

Somewhat similar to the Buddhist legend is the assertion of the Jainas that their great Tirthankara, Mahavira, selected the womb of Brahamani Devanandi, wife of Rishabha Datta, as his place of birth; but Sakra, indignant that he should be born in the Brahman caste, caused him to be transferred to Trisala, wife of the Kshatriya Siddhartha (Kalpa Sutra, Bk. I. ch. i. Stevenson’s Translation, pp. 24, 38). Concerning the comparative priority of Jainism and Buddhism, see Thomas’s “Jainism, or the early Faith of Asoka,” London, 1877.

In this connection, it is perhaps worth while to note the Mazdean belief in Saoshyans, the future Messiah, who, as in Judaism, is to overcome the evil powers at the end of the world, and preside over the resurrection of mankind, and who is to be born of a virgin, Eredhat Fedri. (Vendidad, Fargard XIX. 18; Bundehesh XXX. XXXII. 8, 9; Haug’s Essays, Ed. 1878, pp. 313-14). The mode of his conception as related in the Bundehesh, may be compared with the less decent speculations of Sanchez as to that of Christ.

[39] Beal’s Buddhist Tripitaka, pp. 114-5.

[40] Marini, Missioni di Tumkino, Roma, 1663, pp. 125, 481, 490 sq.

[41] “Quare vel ut natus est unusquisque nostrum manet, vel nuptiis copulatus unicis, secundæ enim decorum quoddam adulterium sunt.” Athenag. pro Christ. Legat.—“Unius matrimonii vinculo libenter inhæremus, cupiditate procreandi aut unam scimus aut nullam.” M. Minuc. Felicis Octavius.—“Ut ii qui lege humana bis conjugium ineunt peccatores sunt apud præceptorem nostrum.” Justin. Mart. Apol. II.—I. Cor. vii. 39.

[42] Concil Neocæs. ann. 314 c. 7.—Concil. Laodicens. ann. 352 c. 1.—Gelasii PP. I. Epist. IX. Rubr. ad cap. xxii.—Cf. Hieron. Epist. XLVIII. apologeticus, c. 18.—Ejusd. Comment. in Jeremiam Prolog. Even in modern times the priest who pronounces a benediction on a second marriage commits an offence subjecting him to punishment (Rodriguez, Nuova Somma de’Casi di Coscienza, Venez. 1609. P. I. cap. ccxl. No. 4).

[43] Val. Max. II. i. 3.—Plut. Quæstt. Roman. 105.—Diod. Sicul. XII. 14.—Tertull. Lib. di Exhort. Castit. xiii.—Auli Gellii X. 15.

[44] Tertull. Lib. di Exhort. Castit. VII.; de Monogam. xi.—Concil. Eliberit. xxxviii.

[45] Hippol. Ref. omn. Hæres. IX. vii.—Hieron. Epist. LXIX. ad Oceanum.—Constit. Apostol. VI. 17.—Canon. Apostol. xvii., xviii., xix.

[46] I. Tim. iii. 2, 11, 12—Tit. i. 6.—Origenis Comment. in Matt. XIV. 23. The polygamy practised by the Jews from the earliest times was continued after the Dispersion. Justin Martyr taxes them with it (Dial. cum Tryphone), and Theodosius, in 393, endeavored to suppress it (Const. 7 Cod. Lib. II. Tit. ix.) by a law, the preservation of which by Justinian, after an interval of nearly a century and a half, shows that the necessity for the prohibition still existed. Even among some of the eastern Christians the precept was required, if we may believe some ancient Arabic canons, which pass under the name of the Council of Nicæa (Decret. ex quatuor Regum libris can. v. _ap._ Harduin. Concil. I. 511).

This explanation of St. Paul’s injunction is adopted by Theophylact (Comment. in I. Epist. ad Timoth.) and is expressed in the paraphrase “non plures habens uxores quam unam,” in a tract of uncertain date, attributed to St. Cyprian or St. Augustin (De XII. Abusionibus Seculæ cap. x. _ap._ Opp. S. Cypriani Mantissa p. 49, Oxon. 1682). This is likewise the view put forward by the Church of Geneva in 1563, when replying to certain queries of the Huguenot Synod of Lyons (Cap. XXI. Art. x. _ap._ Quick, Synodicon in Gall. Reform. I. 49). Origen’s discussion of the matter (Comment. in Matt. XIV. 23-4) shows how doubtful he considered it.

In fact, if the text is to be construed with rigorous exactness, it would exclude all unmarried men from the episcopate, and this seems to be the sense attributed to it in the Apostolic Constitutions (Lib. II. c. ii.), which in commenting upon it do not appear to contemplate bachelors as eligible.

[47] Levit. XXI. 13-14.—Innocent. PP. I. Epist. xxii. c. 1.—Epistt. Leon. PP. I. _ap._ Harduin. Concil. I. 1767, 1772, etc.

[48] Concil. Eliberit. can. 65.—Concil. Neocæsarens. c. 8.—Concil. Tarraconens. ann. 516. can. 9.—Boussardus de Continent. Sacerdot. Prop. 6., Nuremb., 1510.

[49] Constit. Apostol. VI. 17.—Canon. Apostol. VI. XVII. XVIII. XIX. XXVII.

[50] Porphyr. de Abstinent. II. 46, 61; IV. 20.—Cf. Jambl. de Mysteriis IV. xi.—Damasceni Vit. Isidori 311.

[51] For the influence of Buddhism on Neo-platonism, Gnosticism, and Manichæism, see A. Weber, Indische Skizzen, pp. 63, 91.

[52] Origenis Comment. in Matt. XV. 1-3.—Just. Martyr. Apolog. II.—Epiphan. Hæres. LVII.—Can. Apostol. XXII. XXIII. XXIV.—Concil. Nicæn. c. i.—Concil. Arelatens. II. ann. 452 c. vii., etc.—Sexti Philos. Sent. IX.—At the close of the twelfth century the canons were relaxed by Clement III. in favor of a priest of Ravenna whose ascetic ardor had led him to follow the example of Origen, and who was permitted to retain all the functions of the priesthood except the ministry of the altar (Can. iv. Extra, I. XX.). In the sixteenth century, Ambrosio Morales, a Dominican, took the same effectual means to extinguish his passions and was in consequence expelled from the Order, as required by the canons. He betook himself to literature and died in 1590, at the age of sixty, while professor of eloquence in the University of Alcalà (De Thou, Lib. XCIX.). The practice has perpetuated itself to the nineteenth century in a Russian sect, which Catherine II. and her successors endeavored in vain to repress. In 1818 Alexander II. ordered the enthusiasts banished to Siberia, but the ardor with which they courted martyrdom rendered their zeal dangerously contagious and they were left in obscurity, in the hope of their dying out (Pluquet, Dict. des Hérésies, s. v. _Mutilés de Russie_). This proved equally ineffectual, for a recent traveller describes them under the name of _Skopsis_ as a large tribe inhabiting the Caucasus, where they flourish in spite of the most energetic measures of repression on the part of the government—imprisonment, banishment to Siberia, conscription, and even the death penalty being powerless to overcome their fanaticism (Brugsch, Reise der Preussischen Gesandschaft nach Persien, 1860-1, _ap._ London Reader, Jan. 3, 1863). Buffon (Hist. Nat. de l’Homme, _ap._ Helsen, Abus du Célibat des Prêtres, p. 52) states that he was acquainted with a priest who had adopted this mode as the only one to preserve his virtue.

[53] Cyprian, de Habit. Virgin.—That such laxity was indulged in by professed virgins is the more remarkable since promiscuous bathing was forbidden to every one by the Apostolic Constitutions, Lib. I. c. x.

[54] Tertull. de Virgin. veland. c. XV.

[55] Cyprian. Epist. IV. ad Pomponium.

[56] Concil. Antioch (Harduin. Concil. I. 198). Cf. Lactant. Divin. Instit. VI. XIX.—Extravagances of this kind long continued to be a favorite exercise with enthusiasts. In 450 the anchorites of Palestine are described as herding together without distinction of sex, and with no garments but a breech-clout; while others who frequented the cities exhibited their self-control by appearing in the public baths with women. (Niceph. Callist. H. E. XIV. 50.)

[57] Constit. Apost. II. i. ii.—Statut. Eccles. Antiq. CIV.

[58] Chronique de Tabari, Ed. Rothenberg, II. 90. It is curious to observe that Persian tradition represented Manes as a Chinese magician and an excellent painter, who constructed figures that were able to move, and thus deceived the people. After gaining the confidence of the monarch, he was vanquished in controversy with the chief Mobed, and was flayed alive. (Mohl’s Livre des Rois, V. 379-81.)

[59] Lib. XVI. Cod. Theod. Tit. v. l. 7.—Cf. Concil. Quinisext, c. 95.

Scythianus, the precursor of Manes, is said by Epiphanius (Hæres. LXVI.) to have visited India and to have brought from there certain books of magic, which must have been Buddhist, as Buddhism was at that period supreme in the Peninsula. His disciple, Terbinthus, the link between him and Manes, assumed the name of the Buddha.

[60] Ephræmi Syri Hymn. II. (Wegnern, Manichæorum Indulgentias, Lipsiæ 1827)—Thomas’s Sassanian Inscriptions, p. 65.—Mainyo-i-khard, West’s Ed. XVI. 16 sq. and West’s note p. 160; Glossary p. 64.—Haug’s Essays, Bombay Ed. p. 239.—Shayast la-Shayast XVII. 2 (West’s Pahlavi Texts, Pt. I. p. 382 and West’s note p. 284).—Dadistan-i Dinik, ch. XXVIII.-XXX. (Pahlavi Texts, II. 58 sqq.)—Plutarch de Isid. et Osirid. 46.—Justin. Mart. Apolog. II.

[61] Leon. PP. I. Serm. XLII. cap. 5.

[62] Epiphan. Hæres. LXVI.—The same doctrine was held by the Patricians, according to Philastrius, P. III. No. 15.

[63] Hieron. adv. Jovin. I. 3.—Ejusd. Epist. ad Eustoch. c. 5.

[64] Augustin. Epist. LXXIV. ad Deuterium—Ejusd. contra Faustum Lib. XXX. c. iv.

[65] Cyprian. de Habit. Virgin.—Synod. II. S. Patric. c. 18.

[66] Hieron. adv. Jovin. I. 2, 26.—Ejusd. Epistt. L. LI. LII.

[67] Augustin. de Concupisc. et de Nuptiis.—Ejusd. de Bono Conjugali c. x.—Panzini (Confessione di un Prigioniero, p. 193) is not far wrong in suggesting that the learned doctors who thus decry marriage are guilty of the blasphemy of addressing their creator—“Vergognatevi di avere inventato un modo così turpe per darci l’esistenza!”

[68] Sulpic. Sever. Dial. II.

[69] In Mag. Bib. Pat. T. V. P. II. pp. 652, 658.

[70] Gregor. P.P. I. Regist. Lib. XI. Epist. lxiv. Respons. 10; Lib. III. Epist. lxv.

[71] Theodor. Penitent. Lib. I. c. xiv. 1, 2, 3. (Haddon & Stubbs’s Councils, III. 187.)

[72] Epiphan. Exposit. Fid. Cathol.

[73] Constit. Apostol. Lib. IV. c. 14; VI. 11, 14, 26, 27, 28; VIII. 30.

[74] Lactant. Instit. Divin. VI. xvi. xxiii.

[75] The fiftieth canon was omitted by Dionysius Exiguus, but was subsequently admitted by the church, notwithstanding that it proves in the clearest manner the full enjoyment of marriage by all grades of the clergy. The sixth canon (numbered fifth in the full collection) which prohibits the separation of ecclesiastics from their wives, was likewise accepted, although in the eighteenth century Cabassut stigmatizes it as heretical.

[76] Conc. Carthag. IV. c. 1.

[77] Thus Tibullus (Lib. I. El. I.)—

“Vos quoque abesse procul jubeo, discedite ab aris,
Queis tulit hesterna gaudia nocte Venus.
Casta placent Superis.”

Cf. Juvenal, VI. 534-5.—Ælii Lamprid. Alex. Sever. XXIX.—Porphyr. de Abstinent. II. 50; IV. 6, 7.—Arriani de Epictet. Disertt. Lib. III. c. xxi.—I. Cor. vii. 5.

[78] Diod. Sicul. I. 80.—Hieron. adv. Jovin. II. 13.—Plut. de Isid. et Osirid. 2.—Lucian. de Syria Dea XV.—Sil. Ital. Punicor. III. 21-8.—Cf. Virg. Æneid. VI. 661.—Pausan. VII. XXV. 8. Egyptian customs in this respect may perhaps be traced to the vow of continence made by Isis after the death of her husband-brother, Osiris (Diod. Sicul. I. 27). The Emperor Julian’s neo-platonic explanation of the Syrian asceticism (Orat V.) is not without analogy to some of the rhapsodies of the fathers in the praise of virginity.

[79] Juliani Imp. Orat. V.—Tertull. de Monogam. xvii.; ad Uxorem I. 6; de Exhort. Castit. xiii.—Hieron. adv. Jovin. I. 26.—Pausan. IX. xxvii. 5.—Sueton. Octav. xxxviii.

[80] Concil. Eliberitan, can. 27, 33.—The 29th canon of the first council of Arles held in 314, if genuine, marks the extension of the movement eastward, but as it is contained in but one MS., Mansi supposes it probably to belong to some subsequent and forgotten synod. It is almost identical with Concil. Telensis ann. 386 can. 9; and, whatever be its date, its phraseology evidently indicates that it records the first introduction of the rule in its locality.

[81] Concil. Ancyran. ann. 314 can 9.—Concil. Neocæsar. ann. 314 can 1, 8.

[82] Euseb. Demonstr. Evang. I. ix.

[83] I give the version of Dionysius Exiguus: “Interdixit per omnia magna synodus, non episcopo, non presbytero, non diacono, nec alicui omnino qui in clero est, licere subintroductam habere mulierem; nisi forte matrem, aut sororem, aut amitam, vel eas tantum personas quæ suspiciones effugiunt.”

An Arabic version of the Nicene canons specially limits the prohibition to bishops, and to unmarried priests and deacons.—“Decernimus ut episcopi non habitent cum mulieribus.... Idem decernitur de omni sacerdote cœlibe, idemque de diaconis qui sine uxore sunt.” (Harduin. Concil. I. 463.)—This expresses nearly the discipline of the Greek church.

[84] Concil. Ancyrens. can. 18.

[85] Pudet dicere, proh nefas! triste sed verum est. Unde in ecclesias Agapetarum pestis introiit? unde sine nuptiis aliud nomen uxorum? immo unde novum concubinarum genus? Plus inferam. Unde meretrices univiræ? eadem domo, uno cubiculo sæpe tenentur et lectulo: et suspiciosos nos vocant si aliquid extimemus. Frater sororem virginem deserit, cœlibum spernit virgo germanum, fratrem quærit extraneum: et cum in eodem proposito esse se simulent, quærunt alienorum spiritale solatium, ut domi habeant carnale commercium. (Epist. XXII. ad Eustoch. c. 5.) It should be observed that celibacy had become the rule of the church at the time when Jerome wrote thus.

[86] Accusant nimirum eos qui in ecclesia dilectas appellatas, aliunde introductas ac cohabitantes fœminas habent.—Panar. Hæres. LXIII.

[87] Hieron. Epist. ad Oceanum de Vit. Cleric.

[88] When, during the demoralization of the tenth century, the council of Augsburg made a spasmodic effort to revive the neglected rule of celibacy, it endeavored to include the lower orders of the clergy within its scope. Ratramnus of Corvey also does not fail to point out that such was the incontrovertible meaning of the Nicene canon, which in his time was universally considered to refer to marriage.

[89] Siricii Epist. 2.—Innocent. ad Victricium, ad Exuperium, &c.

[90] Lib. XVI. Cod. Theod. Tit. ii. l. 44.

[91] The learned and orthodox Zaccaria, concludes that the Nicene canon was only intended to forbid the irregular connexions with agapetæ, whence he ingeniously argues that as the Council of Nicæa did not in any way forbid priestly marriage, the origin of the rule of celibacy is to be assigned to the Apostles.—Storia Polemica, p. 90.

[92] Pseudo-Concil. Roman. sub. Silvest. can. xix. (Migne’s Patrol. VIII. 840.)

[93] Socrat. H. E. Lib. I. c. 11.—Sozomen. H. E. Lib. I. c. 22.

[94] Bernald. Altercat. de Incont. Sacerd.

[95] Monumenta Gregoriana (Migne’s Patrol T. CXLVIII. p. 1378).

[96] Verum quidem est, quod ob ministrorum Dei defectum in primitiva ecclesia conjugati admittebantur ad sacerdotium, ut ex canonibus apostolorum et Paphnutii responso liquet, et in Concilio Nicæno.—(Respons. Pii. IV. _ap._ Le Plat, Concil. Trident. Monument. VI. 337.)

[97] Sed præ cæteris omnibus Socrates et Sozomenus ac Theodoretus totius antiquitatis judicio celebrati sunt, qui ab iis temporibus exorsi, in quibus Eusebius scribendi finem fecerat, ad Theodosii junioris tempora opus suum perduxerunt.—H. Valesii Præfat.

[98] Theodoret. Hist. Eccles. Lib. I. c. 7.

So also Rufinus (Hist. Eccles. Lib. X. c 4): “Fuit præterea in illo concilio et Paphnutius homo Dei, episcopus Ægypti partibus, confessor, etc.,” but he makes no allusion to the incident related by Socrates and Sozomen.

[99] Act. Concil. Nicæn. II. xxxii. (Harduin. I. 438).—Hist. Tripart. II. 13.—Chr. Lupi Opp. I. 239 (Venet. 1724).

[100] Epist. ad Dracontium.

[101]

Οὐπω τοσουτον ἐκμεμετρηκας βιον,
Ὁσος διηλθε θυσιων ἐμοι χρονος.

Baronius labors hard to break the force of this assertion, but his arguments seem to me successfully controverted by Calixtus. (De Conjug. Cleric. Ed. 1783, pp. 261-74.) The chapter devoted to this question by Zaccaria (Storia Polem. Lib. I. cap. vii.) is an example of desperate special pleading.

[102] Concil. Laodicens. can. xi.

[103] Romans, XVI. 1. The number of women alluded to by St. Paul in this chapter shows how active they were in disseminating the faith. Junia he dignities with the title of Apostle.

[104] Atton. Vercell. Epist. viii.—Epiphanius (Hæres. LXXIX) denies that women had ever been permitted to rise beyond the diaconate, and asserts that their functions in that grade were simply to render to women such offices as decency forbade to men. In the West, the ordination of deaconesses was prohibited by Concil. Arausican. I. ann. 441 can. xxvi.; Concil. Epaonens. ann. 513 can. xxi., and Concil. Aurelianens. II. ann. 538 can. xviii., on account of disorders arising through the fragility of the sex, as was perhaps not unnatural, after the adoption of enforced celibacy. It was probably for the sake of order that St. Paul forbade women from teaching or asking questions in church (I Cor. xiv. 34, 35; I. Tim. ii. 11, 12).

[105] Declaratum est enim hos eosdem nuptias accusare et docere quod nullus in conjugali positus gradu spem habeat apud Deum.... In domibus conjugatorum nec orationes quidem debere celebrari, persuasisse in tantum ut easdem fieri vetent.... Presbyteros vero qui matrimonia contraxerunt sperni debere dicunt, nec sacramenta quæ ab eis conficiuntur, attingi.—Concil. Gangrens. Proœm.

So also Socrates—“Benedictionem presbyteri habentis uxorem, quam lege cum esset laicus duxisset, tanquam scelus declinandum præcepit.”—Hist. Eccles. Lib. II. c. 33.

After the specific condemnation of this latter doctrine by the undoubtedly orthodox council of Gangra, it is somewhat remarkable to see it enunciated and erected into a law of the church by Gregory VII. in his internecine conflict with the married priests. Thus the heresy of one age becomes the received and adopted faith of another.

[106] Concil. Gangrens. c. 4.—Si quis decernit presbyterum conjugatum tanquam occasione nuptiarum quod offerre non debeat, et ab ejus oblatione ideo se abstinet, anathema sit.—I give the Isidorian version adopted by Gratian, Dist. XXVIII. c. 15, and by Burchard, Lib. III. 75. That of Dionysius Exiguus is somewhat different.

Can. 10.—Si quis propter Deum virginitatem professus in conjugio positos per arrogantiam vituperaverit, anathema sit.—Can. 1 and 9 are directed against those who condemn marriage, and teach that it affords no chance of heaven.

[107] Concil. Gangrens. Epilog.

[108] Lib. XVI. Cod. Theod. Tit. ii. l. 20.

[109] So great was the influx of wealth to the church from the pious legacies of the faithful that it became an evil of magnitude to the state, and in 370 a law of Valentinian pronounced null and void all such testamentary provisions made by those under priestly influence (Lib. XVI. Cod. Theod. Tit. ii. l. 20)—a provision repeated in 390 (Ibid. l. 27) with such additional details as show its successful evasion during the interval. Godefroi, in his notes to these laws (T. VI. pp. 48-50, 60-64), has collected much curious matter bearing on the subject.

[110] Synod. Roman. ad Gallos Episc. Respons. c. 3.—The date of this synod is not certain, but the year mentioned in the text is the earliest to which it is assigned. By some authorities it has been attributed to 398, and Hardouin suggests that it may even have been held under Innocent I.

[111] “Certe idololatræ, ut impietates exerceant et dæmonibus immolent, imperant sibi continentiam muliebrem, et ab escis quoque se purgari volunt, et me interrogas si sacerdos Dei vivi spiritualia oblaturus sacrificia purgatus perpetuo debeat esse, an totus in carne carnis curam debeat facere?”

If all the postulates be granted, the reasoning is unanswerable, and as the precedents of the Old Testament have been relied upon in all arguments since the time of Siricius, it may be worth while to refer to the caution of Ahimelech before giving the shew-bread to David (I. Sam. 21) as one of the texts most constantly quoted, and to the residence of Zacharias in the Temple during his term of ministration (Luke I. 23), which was frequently instanced. These are certainly more germane to the matter than the linen breeches provided for Aaron and his sons (Exod. XXVIII. 42-3), by which the Venerable Bede assures us (De Tabernac. Lib. III. c. 9) “significatum esse sacerdotes Novi Testamenti aut virgines esse, aut contracta cum uxoribus fœdera dissolvisse.”

[112] Siricii Epist. I. c. 7.—It would seem from this decretal (cap. 8, 9, 10, 11) that even the rule excluding digami was wholly neglected. Siricius further (cap. 13) urges the admission of monks to holy orders, for the purpose of providing a priesthood vowed to chastity.

[113] Præterea, quod dignum, pudicum et honestum est, suademus ut sacerdotes et levitæ cum uxoribus suis non coeant, quia in ministerio divino quotidianis necessitatibus occupantur.... Qua de re hortor, moneo, rogo, tollatur hoc opprobrium quod potest etiam jure gentilitas accusare.—Concil. Telensis. c. 9.

[114] Quod eo non præterii quia in plerisque abditioribus locis, cum ministerium gererent, vel etiam sacerdotium, filios susceperent, et id tanquam usu veteri defendunt, quando per intervallo dierum sacrificium deferebatur.—Ambros. de Officiis Lib. I. c. 50.

[115] Tertullian has no scruple in asserting—“Et Christum quidum virgo enixa est, semel nuptura post partum.” (De Monog. c. 8). This belief was founded on the words of Matthew (I. 25), “καὶ οὐκ ἐγίνωσκεν αὐτὴν ἔως ὁυ ἔτεκετον ὑιὸν ἀυτῆς τὸν πρωτοτόκον, καὶ ἐκάλεσε τὸ ὄνομα ἀυτοῦ ἰησοῦν.”—“And he knew her not till she had brought forth her first-born son; and he called his name JESUS.” The restrictive “till” and the characterization of Jesus as the first-born of the Virgin (though the latter is omitted in the Sinaitic and Vatican MSS.) are certainly not easily explicable on any other supposition; nor is the difficulty lessened by the various explanations concerning the family of Joseph, by which such expressions as ἡ μήτηρ αὐτοῦ καὶ οἱ ἀδελφοί αὐτοῦ—fratres et mater ejus (Marc. III. xxxi.), or the enumeration of his brothers and sisters in Matt. XIII. 55-6, Mark VI. 3, or the phrase ἰάκωβον τὸν ἀδελφὸν τοῦ κυρίου—Jacobum fratrem Domini (Galat. I. 19)—are taken by commentators in a spiritual sense, or are eluded by transferring to the Greek a Hebrew idiom which confounds brothers with cousins. In the Constitutiones Apostolicæ occurs a passage—“Et ego Jacobus frater quidem Christi secundum carnem, servus autem tanquam Dei”—which seems to place it in an unmistakable light, if it be an extract from some forgotten Gospel, although it may only reflect the opinions of the third century when the collection was written or compiled.

The Bonosiacs were also sometimes called Helvidians.—S. Augustin. de Hæresibus § 84.—Isidor. Hispalens. Etymolog. Lib. VIII. c. v. § 57.

In an age which was accustomed to such arguments as “per mulierem culpa successit, per virginem salus evenit” (Rescript. Episcopp. ad Siricium), it is easy to appreciate the pious horror evoked by such blasphemous heresies.

St. Clement of Alexandria alludes to a belief current in his day that after the Nativity the Virgin had to submit to an inspection _ab obstetrice_ to prove her purity (Stromat. Lib. vii.)—a story which continued to trouble the orthodox until the seventeenth century.

The Buddhists eluded all these troublesome questions by making Queen Maya die seven days after the birth of Sakyamuni, and asserting that this was the case with the mothers of all the Buddhas.—Rgya Tch’er Rol P (Ed. Fou-a aux, p. 100).

[116] Epist. Siric. ap. Batthyani Legg. Eccles. Hungar. T. I. p. 210.

[117] Hieron. de Perpet. Virgin. B. Mariæ adv. Helvidium.

[118] Epist. XX.

[119] Concil. Arelatens. II. can. 17.—Concil. Aurelian. III. can. 31.

[120] Panar. Hæres. 78.—At the time of the Reformation the Bonosiac heresy naturally was revived. In 1523, at the Diet of Nuremberg, the Papal orator accused Osiander “quod prædicasset Beatam Virginem Mariam post Christi partum non mansisse Virginem” (Spalatini Annal. ann. 1523), but Osiander found few followers. At the Colloquy of Poissy, in 1561, the learned Claude d’Espense, doctor of Sorbonne, in arguing that there were many things the authority of which rested solely on tradition, and yet which were admitted as undoubted by all parties, instanced “que la Vierge Marie demoura vierge après l’enfantement, et plusieurs autres semblables par conséquent; ce qui a esté baillé de main en main par nos pères, ores qu’il ne soit escript, n’est pourtant moins certain et approuvé que s’il estoit temoigné par l’Escripture” (Pierre de la Place, Liv. VII.).

[121] Siricii PP. Epist. ii.

[122] Rescript. Episcopp. ad Siricium. (Harduin. Concil. I. 853.)

[123] Hieron. adv. Jovin.—Augustin. de Hæres. No. lxxxii.

[124] Augustin. Retractt. II. xxii. 1.

[125] Lib. XVI. Cod. Theod. Tit. V. l. 53. It is generally assumed from this law that Jovinian lived until 412. An expression of St. Jerome, however, (adv. Vigilant. cap. i.) would seem to show that he was already dead in 406, and critics have suggested either that there is an error in the date of the law or that another heresiarch is referred to.

[126] Exortus est subito Vigilantius, seu verius Dormitantius, qui immundo spiritu pugnat contra Christi spiritum, et martyrum neget sepulchra veneranda, dammandas dicat esse vigilias; nunquam nisi in Pascha alleluia cantandum; continentiam hæresim; pudicitiam libidinis seminarium. Et quomodo Euphorbus in Pythagora renatus esse perhibetur, sic in isto Joviniani mens prava surrexit; ut et in illo et in hoc diaboli respondere cogamur insidiis.—Hieron. adv. Vigilant. c. 1.

[127] Proh nefas! episcopos sui sceleris dicitur habere consortes: si tamen episcopi nominandi sunt qui non ordinant diaconos nisi prius uxores duxerint; nulli cœlibi credentes pudicitiam, immo ostendentes quam sancte vivant qui male de omnibus suspicantur; et nisi prægnantes uxores viderint clericorum, infantesque de ulnis matrum vagientes, Christi sacramenta non tribuant.... Hoc docuit Dormitantius, libidini fræna permittens, et naturalem carnis ardorem, qui in adolescentia plerumque fervescit, suis hortatibus duplicans, immo extinguens coitu fœminarum, ut nihil sit quo distemus a porcis, etc.—Hieron. adv. Vigilant. c. 2.

[128] Præterea quod dignum, pudicum et honestum est, tenere ecclesia omnino debet, ut sacerdotes et levitæ cum uxoribus non misceantur.... Maxime ut vetus regula hoc habet ut quisquis corruptus baptizatus clericus esse voluisset, spondeat uxorem omnino non ducere.—Innocent. PP. I. Epist. ii. c. 9, 10.

[129] Ut incontinentes in officiis talibus positi, omni ecclesiastico honore priventur, nec admittantur ad tale ministerium, quod sola continentia oportet impleri.—As for those who could be proved to have seen the epistle of Siricius—“illi sunt modis omnibus submovendi.”—Innocent. PP. I. Epist. iii. c. 1.

[130] The observance of the rule and its effects are well illustrated in the story of Urbicus, Bishop of Clermont, and his unhappy wife, as naïvely related by Gregory of Tours (Hist. Franc. L. I. c. 44).

[131] Ab universis episcopis dictum est: Omnibus placet, ut episcopi, presbyteri et diaconi, vel qui sacramenta contrectant, pudicitiæ custodes etiam ab uxoribus se abstineant.—Concil. Carthag. II. can. 2 (Cod. Eccles. African. can. 3).

[132] Aurelius episcopus dixit: Addimus fratres carissimi præterea, cum de quorundam clericorum, quamvis lectorum, erga uxores proprias incontinentia referretur, placuit, quod et in diversis conciliis firmatum est, ut subdiaconi, qui sacra mysteria contrectant, et diaconi et presbyteri, sed et episcopi, secundum priora statuta etiam ab uxoribus se contineant, ut tanquam non habentes videantur esse: quod nisi fecerint, ab ecclesiastico removeantur officio. Ceteros autem clericos ad hoc non cogi, nisi maturiori ætate. Ab universo concilio dictum est: Quæ vestra sanctitas est juste moderata, et sancta et Deo placita sunt, confirmamus.—Concil. Carthag. V. c. 3 (Cod. Eccles. Afric. c. 25).

The councils thus alluded to are probably the Roman Synods under Damasus and Siricius.

I give the version most favored by modern critics, but it should be observed that there is doubt concerning several important points. In the older collections of councils (_e. g._ Surius, Ed. 1567, T. I. p. 519-20) the canon indicates no compulsion for the orders beneath the diaconate, commencing “Placuit episcopos et presbyteros et diaconos” and ending “Cæteros autem clericos ad hoc non cogi sed secundum uniuscujusque ecclesiæ consuetudinem observari debere,” and this has probability in its favor, since the subdiaconate was not included in the restriction for nearly two centuries after this period, and the lower grades were never subjected to the rule.

The expression “secundum priora statuta” is probably the emendation of a copyist puzzled by the obscurity of “secundum propria statuta,” which latter is the reading given by Dionysius Exiguus. That it is the correct one is rendered almost certain by the Greek version, which is κατα τους ἰδιους ὁρους (Calixt. Conjug. Cleric, p. 350) which would seem to leave the matter very much to the preëxisting customs of the individual churches.

[133] De Adulterin. Conjug. Lib. II. c. 20.

[134] Faustinus episcopus ecclesiæ Potentinæ, provinciæ Piceni, legatus Romanæ ecclesiæ, dixit: Placet ut episcopus, presbyter et diaconus vel qui sacramenta contrectant pudicitiæ custodes ab uxoribus se abstineant. Ab universis episcopis dictum est: Placet ut in omnibus pudicitia custodiatur qui altari inserviunt (Cod. Eccles. African. can. iv.).

That strict rules were not enforced in the African church is rendered probable by another circumstance. Faustus the Manichæan, in defending the tenets of his sect on the subject of marriage and celibacy, enters into an elaborate comparison of their doctrines and practices with those of the Catholic church. In ridiculing the idea that the Manichæans prohibited marriage to their followers, he could not have omitted the argument and contrast derivable from prohibition of marriage by the Catholics, had such prohibition been enforced. His omission to do this is therefore a negative proof of great weight.—See Augustin. contra Faust. Manich. Lib. XXX. c. iv.

[135] Concil. Toletan. I. ann. 400 can. 1, 3, 4, 6, 7, 18, 19.

[136] Hi autem qui contra interdictum sunt ordinati, vel in ministerio filios genuerunt, ne ad majores gradus ordinum permittantur synodi decrevit auctoritas.—Concil. Taurinens. c. 8.

[137] Concil. Arausic. I. c. 22, 23, 24.

[138] Leon. PP. I. Epist. clxvii. Inquis. iii.

[139] Catalogus Sanctt. Hibern. (Haddan & Stubbs II. 292)—Confessio S. Patricii (Ibid. 308, 310)—Epist. S. Patricii (Ibid. 317)—Synod. S. Patricii can. 6 (Ibid. 329). The date of all these documents is of course somewhat conjectural, but I have assumed it safe to follow the conclusions of the painstaking and lamented Mr. Haddan.

[140] Innocent. PP. I. Epist. v.

[141] Greg. Turon. Hist. Franc. Lib. II. c. 1.

[142] Greg. Turon. de Glor. Confess. c. 76.

[143] Sunt alii (de mei ordinis hominibus loquor) qui ideo presbyteratum et diaconatum ambiunt ut mulieres licentius videant.—Epist. XXII. ad Eustoch. cap. 28.

[144] Epist. CXXV. ad Rusticum, cap. 6.

[145] Lib. XVI. Cod. Theod. Tit. ii. l. 44.

[146] Concil. Andegav. ann. 453 c. 4.

[147] Nullus diaconus vel presbyter vel episcopus ad cellarii secretum intromittat puellam vel ingenuam vel ancillam.—Concil. Arelatens. II. c. 4.

[148] Epist. Lupi et Euphronii. (Harduin. II. 792.)

[149] Whatever interest there might be in exhibiting in detail the varying legislation and the expedients of lenity or severity by turns adopted, would scarcely repay the space which it would occupy or relieve the monotony of retracing the circle in which the unfortunate fathers of the church perpetually moved. I therefore content myself with simply indicating such canons of the period as bear upon the subject, for the benefit of any student who may desire to examine the matter more minutely.

Concil. Turon. I. (ann. 460) c. 2, 3.—Agathens. (506) c. 9.—Aurelianens. I. (511) c. 13.—Tarraconens. (516) c. 1.—Gerundens. (517) c. 6, 7.—Epaonens. (517) c. 2, 32.—Ilerdens. (523) c. 2, 5, 15.—Toletan. II. (531) c. 1, 3.—Aurelianens. II. (533) c. 8.—Arvernens. I. (535) c. 13, 16.—Aurelianens. III. (538) c. 2, 4, 7.—Aurelianens. IV. (541) c. 17.—Aurelianens. V. (549) c. 3, 4.—Bracarens. I. (563) c. 15.—Turonens. II. (567) c. 10, 12, 13, 15, 19, 20.—Bracarens. II. (572) c. 8, 32, 39.—Autissiodor. (578) c. 21.—Matiscon. I. (581) c. 1, 2, 3, 11.—Lugdunens. III. (583) c. 1.—Toletan. III. (589) c. 5.—Hispalens. I. (590) c. 3.—Cæsaraugustan. (592) c. 1.—Toletan. (597) c. 1.—Oscensis. (598) c. 2.—Egarens. (614) c. unic.—Concil. loc. incert. (a. 615) c. 8, 12.—Toletan. IV. (633) c. 42, 44, 52, 55.—Cabilonens (649) c. 3.—Toletan. VIII. (653) c. 4, 5, 6, 7.—Toletan. IX. (655) c. 10.—Toletan. XI. (675) c. 5.—Bracarens. III. (675) c. 4.—Augustodunens. (690) c. 10.

[150] Salvian. De Gubernat. Dei Lib. VI. VII.

[151] Expurgat. Sixti Papæ c. VI. (Harduin. Concil. II. 1742).—Pagi (ann. 433, No. 19) casts doubt on the authenticity of the proceedings of this trial, and modern criticism (see “Janus” The Pope and the Council, p. 124) assumes it to be a fabrication of the early part of the sixth century, made for the purpose of vindicating the immunity of the clergy from secular law.

[152] Concil. Chalcedon. Act. X. (Harduin. II. 518-9).

[153] The strictness with which the Nicene canon was enforced is shown by an epistle of St. Basil, about the middle of the fourth century, in which he sternly reproves a priest named Paregorius, who at the age of 70 had thought himself sufficiently protected against scandal to allow to his infirmities the comfort of a housekeeper. The unlucky female is ordered to be forthwith immured in a convent, and, until this is accomplished, Paregorius is forbidden to perform his priestly functions. The whole is based on the authority of the council of Nicæa.—“Nec primo nec soli (tibi Paregori) sancivimus, non debere mulierculas cohabitare viris. Lege canonem, a sanctis patribus nostris in Nicæna synodo constitutum: qui manifeste interdixit, ne quis mulierculam subintroductam habeat. Cœlibatus autem honestatem suam in eo habet, si quis a nexu mulieris secesserit.”

[154] Hæres. LIX. c. 4.

[155] Quid faciunt Orientis ecclesiæ? Quid Ægypti et sedis Apostolicæ, quæ aut virgines clericos accipiunt, aut continentes: aut si uxores habuerint, mariti esse desistunt.—Lib. adv. Vigilant. c. 2.

[156] Sextum, quod dimissa uxore sua cum ea rursus congressus est, filiosque ex ea procreasset.—Palladii Dial. de Vit. S. Joan. Chrysost. cap. xiii.

[157] Synesii Epist. cv.

[158] Ejusd. Epist. cviii.

[159] Et si placet, quanto etiam melior sit addam, quanto cœlum terra, quanto hominibus angeli.—Lib. de Virgin. c. x.

[160] Socrat. H. E. Lib. V. c. 21.

[161] S. Isidor. Pelusiot. Epist. Lib. III. No. 75.

[162] Constit. 45 Cod. I. 3. This law is preserved by Photius (Nomoc. Tit. IX. c. 29), but Balsamon (Schol. ad. loc.) says that it is omitted in the Basilica.

[163] “Nihil enim sic in sacris ordinationibus diligimus quam cum castitate viventes, aut cum uxoribus non cohabitantes, aut unius uxoris virum, qui vel fuerit vel sit, et ipsam castitatem eligentem.” The lector could, by forfeiting his prospects of promotion, marry a second time, if pressed by overmastering necessity, but he was not allowed, under any excuse, to take a third wife.—Novell. VI. c. 5.—These provisions were repeated the following year in Novell. XXII. c. 42.

[164] Novell. CXXIII. c. 12.

[165] Basilicon III. i. 26.

[166] Balsamon. Schol. ad Nomocanon. Tit. I. c. 23.

[167] Novell. CXXIII. c. 14.

[168] Const. 42 § 1. Cod. i. 3.—Basilicon III. i. 26.

[169] Novell. VI. c. 1.

[170] Novell. CXXXVII. c. 2.—Basilicon III. i. c. 8.—Balsamon. Schol. ad Nomocan. Tit. i. c. 23.

[171] Leonis. Novell. Constit. II.

[172] Quinisext. can. 3.

[173] Ibid. c. 6.

[174] Ibid. can. 12, 48.—“Hoc autem dicimus non ad ea abolenda et evertenda quæ Apostolice antea constituta sunt, sed ... ne status ecclesiasticus ullo probro efficiatur.”

[175] Quinisext. c. 13, 30.

[176] Quinisext. c. 33.—The Armenian church in the middle ages, was excessively severe as to the chastity of its ministers. A postulant for orders was obliged to confess, and if he had been guilty of a single lapse, he was rejected. So a priest in orders if yielding to the weakness of the flesh out of wedlock was expelled, though they were not obliged to part with their wives, and the Greek rule permitting marriage in the lower orders was maintained.—Concil. Armenor. ann. 1362 Art. 50, 53, 93 (Martene Ampl. Collect. VII. 366-7, 403).

[177] Leonis Novell. Constit. III.—It is not improbable that this custom resulted from the iconoclastic schism of Leo the Isaurian and Constantine Copronymus, which occupied nearly the whole of the eighth century. These emperors found their most unyielding enemies in the monks. In the savage persecutions which disgraced the struggle, Constantine endeavored to extirpate monachism altogether. The accounts which his adversaries have transmitted of the violence and cruelties which he perpetrated are doubtless exaggerated, but there is likelihood that his efforts to discountenance celibacy, as the foundation of the obnoxious institution, are correctly reported. “Publice defamavit et dehonestavit habitum monachorum in hippodromo, præcipiens unumquemque monachum manutenere mulierem, et taliter transire per hippodromum, sumptis injuriis ab omni populo cumulatis” (Baronii Annal. ann. 766, No. 1). He ejected the monks from the monasteries, which he turned into barracks; some of the monks were tortured, others fled to the mountains and deserts, where they suffered every extremity, while others again succumbed to threats and temptations, and were publicly married—“alii corporeis voluptatibus addicti, suas etiam uxores circumducere non erubescebant” (Ibid. No. 28, 29).

[178] Synod. Montis Libani ann. 1736 P. II. c. v. No. 16, 17, Tab. I. No. 11; P. III. c. i. No. 11; P. IV. c. ii. No. 16.—Synod. Ain-Traz ann. 1835 c. xii. (Concil. Collect. Lacens. II. 134, 138, 262, 263, 366, 367, 585).

[179] London “Academy,” Nov. 13th, 1869, p. 51.—See also “The Russian Clergy,” by Father Gagarin, London, 1872 (London Athenæum, No. 2334. p. 72-3).

[180] For these details from the collection of Asseman I am indebted to the Abate Zaccaria’s Nuova Giustificazione del Celibato Sacro, pp. 129-30.

[181] The strange similarity between some of the teachings of the Bhagavad-gita and Christianity, and the apparent identity of the name and of some of the story of Krishna with those of Christ, would seem to need some such explanation as the above. The problem however is too complicated for discussion here.—See Weber’s Indian Literature p. 238 and Monier Williams’s Indian Wisdom p. 136. For the question of St. Thomas’s Indian Apostolate see Hohlenberg’s learned tract, “De Originibus et Fatis Eccles. Christ. in India Orientali.” Havniæ 1822.

[182] Hi omnes Nestoriani ... cum Jacobinis longe plures esse dicuntur quam Latini et Græci.—Jac. de Vitriaco Hist. Hierosol. cap. lxxvi.

[183] Calixt. de Conjug. Cleric. p. 415.—Osorii de Rebus Emmanuelis Regis Lusit. Lib. IX. (Colon. 1574 p. 305_a_).

[184] Parkyns’s Life in Abyssinia, chap. xxxi.—Mr. Parkyns sums up about 260 fast days in the year, most of them much more rigid than those observed in the Catholic church.

[185] Davids & Oldenberg’s Vinaya Texts, Part I. pp. 4, 8, 14, 16, 32, 35-7, 42, 47, 56.—Cf. Beal’s Catena pp. 209-14.—Burnouf, Introduction à l’histoire du Buddhisme indien. 2e Éd. pp. 245-8.

[186] Beal’s Chinese Pilgrims pp. xxxviii., xl., 155-9.—Schlagintweit’s Buddhism in Tibet, pp. 164-5.—Wheeler’s Hist. of India, III. 270.—Proc. Roy. Geog. Society, in London “Reader” Nov. 17, 1866.

[187] I. Tim. v. 3-14. cf. Act. IX. 39-41. In the time of Tertullian these women were regularly ordained (Ad Uxor. Lib. I. c. 7). This was forbidden by the council of Nicæa (can. 19) and by that of Laodicea (can. 11) in 372. In 451, however, we see by the council of Chalcedon (can. 15) that the ancient practice had been revived. The authorities on the question will be found very fully given by Chr. Lupus (Scholion in Can. 15 Concil. Chalced.—Opp. II. 90 sqq.). Even as late as the middle of the ninth century stringent rules were promulgated to punish the marriage of deaconesses (Capitul. Add. III. Cap. 75.—Baluz. I. 1191).

[188] Volo ergo juniores [viduas] nubere, filios procreare, matresfamilias esse, nullam occasionem dare adversario—I. Tim. v. 14.

[189] See Leon. I. Epist. lxxxvii. cap. 2. (Harduin. I. 1775). This was not so in the earlier periods. Tertullian (De Præscription. iii.), in alluding to the various classes of ecclesiastics, places the widows immediately after the order of deacons, and before the virgins.

[190] Nothing is so illogical as the logic resorted to in order to prove foregone conclusions. Donato Calvi (_apud_ Panzini, Pubblica Confessione di un Prigioneiro, Torino, 1865, p. 111) quotes the texts Matt. XIX. 12, Luke XIV. 33 and Matt. XIX. 21, 27, and then triumphantly concludes—“Ben lice conchiudere chiaramente da’sacri Vangeli raccogliersi fossero gli Apostoli veri religiosi coi tre voti della religione legati.”

[191] If further proof of this be required, beyond what has already been incidentally adduced, it is to be found in the 19th canon of the council of Ancyra, held about the year 314. By this, the vow of celibacy or virginity when broken only rendered the offender incapable of receiving holy orders. He was to be treated as a “digamus,” showing evidently that no punishment was inflicted, beyond the disability which attached to second marriages.

Even in the time of St. Augustin monks were frequently married, as we learn from his remarks concerning the heretics who styled themselves Apostolici and who gloried in their superior asceticism—“eo quod in suam communionem non reciperent utentes conjugibus et res proprias possidentes; quales habet Catholica [ecclesia] et monachos et clericos plurimos.”—Augustin. de Hæresib. No. XL.

Even Epiphanius, the ardent admirer of virginity, when controverting the errors of the same sect, declares that those who cannot persevere in their vows had better marry and reconcile themselves by penitence to the church rather than to sin in secret—“Melius est lapsum a cursu palam sibi uxorem sumere secundum legem et a virginitate multo tempore pœnitentiam agere et sic rursus ad ecclesiam induci, etc.”—Panar. Hæres. LXI.

We shall see hereafter how long it took to enforce the strict segregation of the cenobite from the world.

[192] St. Jerome vindicates for Paul the priority which was commonly ascribed to Antony, but he fully admits that the latter is entitled to the credit of popularizing the practice.—“Alii, autem, in quam opinionem vulgus omne consentit, asserunt Antonium hujus propositi caput, quod ex parte verum est: non enim tam ipse ante omnes fuit, quam ab eo omnium incitata sunt studia,” etc.—Hieron. Vit. Pauli cap. 1.—Epist. XXII. ad Eustoch. cap. 36.

Jerome also asserts that monachism was unknown in Palestine and Syria until it was introduced there by Hilarion, a disciple of St. Antony.—Vit. Hilarion. cap. 14.

[193] Instit. Divin. Lib. VI. cap. 10.—Cf. c. 17.

[194] As early as the commencement of the fourth century, we find Faustus, in his “tu quoque” defence of Manichæism, asserting that in the Christian churches the number of professed virgins exceeded that of women not bound by vows.—Augustin, contra Faust. Manich. Lib. XXX. c. iv.

[195] Propter luxum vanitatemque præsumptam.—Concil. Cæsaraug. I. ann. 381 c. vi.—Disobedience to the prohibition is threatened with prolonged suspension from communion.

[196] Cassiod. Hist. Tripart. Lib. I. c. 9.

[197] See Lib. XVI. Cod. Theod. Tit. ii. ll. 9, 10, 11, 14, etc. This evil had become so great by the time of Valens that in 365 that emperor declares “Quidam ignaviæ sectatores desertis civitatum muneribus, captant solitudines ac secreta, et specie religionis cætibus monizonton congregantur.” The most vigorous measures were requisite, “erui e latebris consulta præceptione mandavimus,” and he orders the culprits to be subjected again to their municipal duties under pain of forfeiture of all their property (Lib. XII. Cod. Theod. Tit. i. l. 63). In 376 the same emperor endeavored to enforce the obligation of military service on the crowds of vigorous men who filled the monasteries, and on their resistance a persecution arose in which many were killed—Hieron. Euseb. Chron. ann. 378.

[198] The lamentations of St. Cyprian have already been alluded to. In 305 the council of Elvira found it necessary to denounce perpetual excommunication against the “virgines sacratæ” who abandoned themselves to a life of licentiousness, while those guilty only of a single lapse were allowed restoration to communion on the deathbed, if earned by continual penitence (Concil. Eliberit. c. 13).

[199] Piget dicere quot quotidie virgines ruant, quantas de suo gremio mater perdat ecclesia: super quæ sidera inimicus superbus ponat thronum suum; quot petras excavet et habitet coluber in foraminibus earum. Videas plerasque viduas antequam nuptas, infelicem conscientiam mutata tantum veste protegere. Quas nisi tumor uteri, et infantum prodiderit vagitus, sanctas et castas se esse gloriantur, et erecta cervice et ludentibus pedibus incedunt. Aliæ vero sterilitatem præbibunt, et necdum sati hominis homicidium faciunt. Nonnullæ cum se senserint concepisse de scelere, abortii venena meditantur, et frequenter etiam ipsæ commortuæ, trium criminum reæ, ad inferos producuntur, homicidæ suæ, Christi adulteræ, necdum nati filii parricidæ—Hieron. Epist. XXII. ad Eustoch. c. 5.

[200] Concil. Carthag. I. c. 3.—Concil. Cæsaraugust. I. c. 8.

[201] Lib. IX. Cod. Theod. Tit. XXV. l. 2.

[202] Concil. Valent. I. ann. 374 can. ii.

[203] Postea vero in abruptum conscientiæ desperatione producti, de illicitis complexibus libere filios procreaverint, quod et publicæ leges et ecclesiastica jura condemnant.—Siricii Epist. I. c. 6.

[204] Regul. S. Pachom. c. 26, 79, 95.—The Rule which passes under the name of John, Bishop of Jerusalem, I believe is universally acknowledged to be spurious and therefore requires no special reference.

[205] Ibid. c. 29. This is in particularly striking contrast with mediæval monachism, which, as we shall see hereafter, considered the sacred precincts polluted by the foot of woman.

[206] Cassian. de Cænob. Instit. Lib. IV. c. 3, 4, 6, 6, 13.—Cassianus declares chastity to be the virtue by which men are rendered most like angels.

[207] De Monach. Decret. can. x. (Harduin. Concil. I. 498.)

[208] Nusquam missos, nusquam fixos, nusquam stantes, nusquam sedentes. Alii membra martyrum, si tamen martyrum, venditant; alii fimbrias et phylacteria sua magnificant ... et omnes petunt, omnes exigunt, aut sumptus lucrosæ egestatis, aut simulatæ pretium sanctitatis etc.—Augustin. de Opere Monachor. cap. 28.

[209] Cassian. Lib. V. c. 27, 28. The extravagant lengths to which this implicit subjection was habitually carried are further illustrated by Cassianus in Lib. IV. c. 10.

The same spirit is shown in the story told of St. Francis of Assisi, who took with him into the garden two novices to assist him in planting cabbages. He commenced by setting out the vegetables with their heads in the earth and their roots in the air. One of the novices ventured to remonstrate—“Father, that is not the way to make cabbages grow”—“My son,” interrupted the Saint, “you are not fitted for our order,”—and he dismissed the incautious youth on the spot.

[210] Synod. Roman, ann. 384 c. 1, 2.

[211] Siricii Epist. 1, c. 6.—A rather curious episode in monastic discipline is a law promulgated in 390 by Theodosius the Great prohibiting nuns from shaving their heads under severe penalties. “Feminæ quæ crinem suum contra divinas humanasque leges instinctu persuasæ professionis absciderint ab ecclesiæ foribus arceantur,” and any bishop permitting them to enter a church is threatened with deposition—Lib. XVI. Cod. Theod. Tit. ii. l. 27.

[212] De Bono Viduit. c. 10, 11.—It will be seen hereafter that in the twelfth century the church adopted as a rule of discipline the practices condemned by St. Augustin, and that in the sixteenth century the council of Trent elevated it into a point of faith.

[213] Innocent. Epist. ad Victricium. c. 12, 13.—The difficulty of the questions which arose in establishing the monastic system is shown in an epistle of Leo I. to the Mauritanian Bishops concerning some virgins professed who had suffered violence from the Barbarians. He decides that they had committed no sin, and could be admitted to communion if they persevered in a life of chastity and religious observance, but that they could not continue to be numbered with the holy maidens, while yet they were not to be degraded to the order of widows; and he further requires that they shall exhibit their sense of shame and humiliation. The problem evidently was one which transcended the acuteness even of Leo to solve—Leonis I. Epist. Episcop. per Cæsarien. Mauritan. cap. ii. V. (Harduin. I. 1775-6).

[214] Concil. Toletan. I. c. 16.

[215] Leo. Epist. ad Rusticum c. 12, 13, 14. So the second council of Arles, in 441 (can. 52), excommunicates the nun who marries until due penance shall have been performed, but does not indicate separation.

[216] Novell. Majorian. Tit. VI. This law continued in force for but five years, being abrogated in 463 by Severus.—Novell. Severi. Tit. I.

[217] For the ascetic extravagances which accompanied the development of monachism the reader is referred to the vigorous summary by Mr. Lecky in his History of European Morals.

[218] Socrat. Hist. Eccles. Lib. VII. c. 13, 14, 15.—Even before this, in the province of Africa, the political utility of such enthusiastic disciples had been recognized and acted on. At the council of Carthage, in 411, where the Donatists were condemned, the Imperial Commissioner, in pronouncing sentence, warned the Donatist bishops that they must restrain the turbulent monks within their dioceses—“Ii autem qui in præsidiis suis circumcellionum turbas se habere cognoscunt, sciant nisi eorum insolentiam omnimodis comprimere et refrenare gestierint, maxime ea loca fisco mox occupanda.”—Concil. Carthag. ana. 411 Cognit. III. cap. ult. (Harduin. I. 1190.)

[219] Concil. Chalced. c. 4, 7, 16. The most important of these, the fourth canon, was laid before the council by the Emperor in person.

[220] Lib. XVI. Cod. Theod. iii. 1.

[221] Lib. XVI. Cod. Theod. iii. 2.

[222] Const. 29 Cod. I. 3.

[223] Const. 53 § 1 Cod. I. 3.

[224] Novell. V. c. 4, 6.

[225] Novell. V. c. 8.

[226] Novell. CXXIII. c. 42.

[227] S. Theod. Studit. Testament. v. (Max. Bib. Pat. IX. I. 276).

[228] St. Benedict of Nursia, the real founder of Latin monachism, who quitted the world in 494, thus describes the wandering monks of his time: “Tertium vero monachorum teterrimum genus est Sarabaitarum ... qui bini aut terni, aut certe singuli sine pastore, non Dominicis sed suis inclusi ovilibus, pro lege eis est desideriorum voluptas; cum quidquid putaverint vel elegerint, hoc dicunt sanctum, et quod noluerint putant non licere. Quartum vero genus est monachorum quod nominatur gyrovagum, qui tota vita sua per diversas provincias ternis aut quaternis diebus per diversorum cellas hospitantur, semper vagi et nunquam stabiles, et propriis voluptatibus et gulæ illecebris servientes, et per omnia deteriores Sarabaitis: de quorum omnium miserrima conversatione melius est silere quam loqui.”—Regul. S. Benedicti c. 1.

[229] Cassiani de Cœnob. Instit. Lib. II. c. 8; Lib. V. c. 1, 15.

[230] Gelasii PP. I. Epist. IX. cap. xx., xxi.

[231] Symmachi PP. Epist. vi.