Volume 2

A dictionary of Christian antiquities : being a continuation of the 'Dictionary of the Bible' / edited by William Smith and Samuel Cheetham ; illustrated by engravings on wood.

Date:: [between 1890 and 1899?]

Credit: A dictionary of Christian antiquities : being a continuation of the 'Dictionary of the Bible' / edited by William Smith and Samuel Cheetham ; illustrated by engravings on wood. Source: Wellcome Collection.

47/1016 (page 1099)

$Thomassin, Natalis Alexander, the Bollandist Stilting, and Zaccaria assert that married asce- ticism prevailed from the beginning by aposto- lical precept, but they have no ground for their assertion. Tillemont acknowledges that for the first four or five hundred years it was not re- quired, and De Marca argues that it grew up insensibly as a voluntary practice, and was first made binding by pope Siricius at the end of the 4th century. The first authority on the question is Cle- ment of Alexandria, who, in contrasting the practice of the church with that of the heretics of his day, speaks plainly of priest, deacon, and layman as “ ai/€TriX-f}irTU}S ydincf} (Stromat. lib. iii. 12, Op. p. 352, ed. Potter, Oxf. 1715), by which words he desig- nates cohabitation,® and towards the end of the same book he writes; Tt trphs ravTas €Xov(Ti rds vo/xodcaias oi t^u (nropdv Kal r^v yeueaiy fxvcraTTdfxeuoi] iirel Kal rhv ’ETriV/coTrov rov oXkov Ka\u>s TrpoiardfjLcvov vop.oBeri7 rr\s ’E/cKATjcrtas lL(pr}y€7a'dai’ oIkov de KvpiaKhv fiids yvvaiKhs (rvy((rTij<Ti cv^vyia. His argument would be futile if he did not look upon the bishop, not only as married, but specifically as begetting children (Strom, iii. c. xviii.. Op. p. 562). The opposite view w'as taken by Origen, as might be expected from the deed for which he is noted (Horn, xxiii. in Kum.^ Op. tom. ii. p. 358); by Epiphanius, though he allows that a different practice prevailed (Haeres. lix. 4, Op. tom. i. p. 496) ; by St. Jerome (adv. Jovin. lib. i.. Op. tom. iv. p. 175). The Apostolical Canons forbid bishops, presbyters, and deacons to separate from their wives on the pretext of piety on pain of deposition (can. vi.) ; but about a quarter of a century later was passed by the Spanish council of Elvira (a.d. 305) a canon which is regarded as the earliest injunction on the clergy to cease coha- bitation (can. xxxiii.).^ An attempt was made to force this discipline on the whole church at the council of Nicaea, a.d. 325, but it was frus- trated by the firmness of Paphnutius. The spirit that dictated the attempt was not, however, ex- tinguished. It became a fashion with some to hold aloof from the ministrations of a married presbyter in the holy communion, to such an extent that the council of Gangra, held about A.D. 350, had to anathematize those that did so (can. iv.). Pope Siricius’s letter to Himerius (Hard. Condi, tom. i. p. 849), if genuine (it is so counted), gave expression and .sanction to this unw-holesome feeling, a.d. 385.8 A council held ® The Latin translation of the passage is as follows; “ Jam yero unius quoque u.xoris virum utiqiie admittit, seu sit Presbyter, seu Diaconus, seu Laicus, utens matri- monio ciira reprehensionem. Servabitur autem per fliiorum procreationem.” Binierim is driven into saying that “ utens” applies only to “ laicus, ” maintaining that otherwise the reading would be“utentes” and “serva- buntur” (Denkiviii digkeiten, vi. 2s9). ^ According to Its grammatical construction this canon deposes from the ministry all clergy who refuse to live in wedlock with their wives. It is generally supposed that the wording is confused, and that it intends to pro- hibit w hat it seems to order. If it were construed gram- matically it would be similar in its character to the fourth canon of the council of Gangra, mentioned a lew lines lower down in the text. s The canons of a supposed council held at Rome by Siricius, a.:;. 386, the ninth of which “advises (suademus) at Carthage under Genethlius, in 387 or 390, binds bishops, priests, and Levites to abstain from their wives (can. ii.), and the canon that it passed to this effect was taken into the Codex Canonum Ecclesiae Africanae (Hefele, viii. §§ 106, 121). Socrates, who wrote a.d. 439, names Heliodorus, bishop of Trica, as the person who had introduced into Thessaly the novelty of de- posing clergy who lived with their wives, and he speaks of that custom prevailing in his day in Thessalonica, and in Macedonia and Hellas ; but he declares it contrary to the otherwise universal custom of the Eastern church, where bishops and priests were left at liberty to act as they pleased in this respect, “ for many of them have had children by their lawful wives during the time that they are bishops” (Hist. Ecdes. v. 22, Op. p. 242, Oxon. 1844). The argument draw n from the incontrovertible fact that popes were the sons of clergymen, and that well-known bishops and priests were married, and that sons and daughters of bishops and presbyters are fre- quently referred to in the canons of councils, is generally eluded by assuming that, though mar- ried, the clergy did not cohabit with their w'ives after ordination ; but the historian’s statement cannot be thus put aside, confirmed as it is by overwhelming evidence. Gregory Nazianzen, his sister and brother, were probably born while their father was now a bishop : it is certain that they were born after their father was a priest (Carm. de Vita sua, 1. 502); Cyprian charges Novatus, a priest, wdth cruelty to his W'ife, which caused her miscarriage (Epist. xlix.); and Synesius, as we know, only accepted his bishopric on the understanding that he was to be in no w^ay separated from his wife. Never- theless, as time proceeded, the liberty not only of cohabiting wnth, but of having, wives was extinguished, so far as bishops were con- cerned, in the East and West alike. Not so with regard to presbyters. In their case the discipline of the two halves of Christendom became more and more divergent. The East never yielded the right of their clergy being fathers of families if married before ordination. The council in Trullo speaks on this point with decision and warmth : —“As we know that the Roman church has ruled that candidates for the diaconate or the presbyterate are to make profession that they will no longer cohabit with their wives, we ob- serving the ancient canon of apostolical perfection and order, declare the marriages of all in holy orders are to be henceforth accounted valid, and we refuse to forbid cohabitation, and will not deprive them of conjugal intercourse at proper times. Therefore, if a man is found fit to be ordained subdeacon, deacon, or presbyter, he is not to be refused on the ground of cohabiting with his wife. Nor at the time of ordination is anyone to be required to profess that he will abstain from intercourse with his lawful wife ; lest we thus do dishonour to marriage, which was instituted by God and blessed by His pre- sence, the gospel declaring aloud, ‘ What God hath joined together, let not man put asunder,’ and the apostle teaching, ‘ Marriage is honourable Priests and Levites not to live with their wives,” and the fourth and fifth forbid the marriage of a clergyman with a widow, are spurious. They are given by Hefele (viii. 5 105).$