those who introduced the rule. The church was daily receiving vast
accessions of property from the pious zeal of its wealthy members, the
death-bed repentance of despairing sinners, and the munificence of
emperors and prefects, while the effort to procure the inalienability
of its possessions dates from an early period.[109] Its acquisitions,
both real and personal, were of course exposed to much greater
risk of dilapidation when the ecclesiastics in charge of its widely
scattered riches had families for whose provision a natural parental
anxiety might be expected to override the sense of duty in discharging
the trust confided to them. The simplest mode of averting the danger
might therefore seem to be to relieve the churchman of the cares of
paternity, and, by cutting asunder all the ties of family and kindred,
to bind him completely and forever to the church and to that alone.
This motive, as we shall see, was openly acknowledged as a powerful
one, in later times, and it no doubt served as an argument of weight in
the minds of those who urged and secured the adoption of the canon.
It appears to me not unreasonable to suppose that all these various
motives lent additional force to the zeal for the purity of the
church, and to the undoubting belief in the necessity of perpetual
celibacy, which impelled the popes, about the year 385, to issue the
first definite command imposing it as an absolute rule of discipline
on the ministers of the altar. The question evidently was one which
largely occupied the minds of men, and the conclusion was reached
progressively. A Roman synod, to which the date of 384 is assigned,
answered a series of interrogatories propounded by the bishops of Gaul,
among which was one relating to the chastity of the priesthood. To this
the response was rather argumentatory and advisory in its character
than imperative; the continence of the higher grades of ecclesiastics
was insisted on, but no definite punishment was ordered for its
violation[110]—and no maxim in legislation is better understood than
that a law without a penalty expressed is practically a dead letter.
Allusion was made to previous efforts to enforce the observance in
various churches; surprise was expressed that light should be sought
for on such a question—for the Gallic prelates had evidently been in
doubt respecting it—and numerous reasons were alleged in a manner to
show that the subject was as yet open to argument, and could not be
assumed as proved or be decided by authority alone. These reasons may
be briefly summed up as consisting of references to the well-known
texts referred to in a previous section, together with a vague
assertion of the opinion of the Fathers to the same effect. Allusion
was made to the inconsistency of exhortations to virginity proceeding
from those who themselves were involved in family cares and duties, a
reasonable view when we consider how much of ecclesiastical machinery
by this time turned on monachism; and the necessity was urged of
bishops, priests, and deacons preserving the purity requisite to fit
them for the daily sacrifice of the altar and the ministration of
the sacraments. This latter point was based upon the assumption of a
similar abstinence being imposed by the old law on the Levites during
their term of service in the Temple, and the example of the pagan
priesthood was indignantly adduced to shame those who could entertain a
sacrilegious doubt upon a matter so self-evident.[111] The conclusion
arrived at was definite, but, as I have already remarked, no means were
suggested or commanded for its enforcement.
Not many months later Pope Damasus died, but the cause was safe in the
hands of his successor. Scarcely had Siricius ascended the pontifical
throne, when, in 385, he addressed an epistle to Himerius, Archbishop
of Tarragona, expressing his grief and indignation that the Spanish
clergy should pay so little regard to the sanctity of their calling
as to maintain relations with their wives. It is evident from the
tenor of the decretal that Himerius had been unable to enforce the new
discipline, and had appealed to Rome for assistance in breaking down
the stubborn resistance which he had encountered, for allusion is made
to some of the refractory who had justified themselves by the freedom
of marriage allowed to the Levites under the old law, while others had
expressed their regret and had declared their sin to be the result of
ignorance. Siricius adopted a much firmer tone than his predecessor.
He indulged in less elaboration of argument; a few texts, more or less
apposite; an expression of wonder that the rule should be called in
question; a distinct assertion of its application to the three grades
of bishops, priests, and deacons; a sentence of expulsion on all who
dared to offer resistance, and a promise of pardon for those who had
offended through ignorance, allowing them to retain their positions
as long as they observed complete separation from their wives, though
even then they were pronounced incapable of all promotion—such was the
first definitive canon, prescribing and enforcing sacerdotal celibacy,
exhibited by the records of the church.[112]
The confident manner in which the law is thus laid down as
incontrovertible and absolute might almost make us doubt whether
it were not older than the preceding pages have shown it to be, if
Siricius had not confessed the weakness of the cause by adopting a
very different tone within a year. In 386 he addressed the church
of Africa, sending it certain canons adopted by a Roman synod. Of
these the first eight relate to observances about which there was
at that time no question, and they are expressed in the curtest and
most decisive phraseology. The ninth canon is conceived in a spirit
totally different. It persuades, exhorts, and entreats that the three
orders shall preserve their purity; it argues as to the propriety
and necessity of the matter, which it supports by various texts,
but it does not assume that the observance thus enjoined is even a
custom, much less a law, of the church; it urges that the scandal of
marriage be removed from the clergy, but it threatens no penalty for
refusal.[113] Siricius was too imperious and too earnest in all that
he undertook for us to imagine that he would have adopted pleading and
entreaty if he had felt that he possessed the right to command; nor
would he have condescended to beg for the removal of an opprobrium if
he were speaking with all the authority of unquestioned tradition to
enforce a canon which had become an unalterable part of ecclesiastical
discipline.
It is observable that in these decretals no authority is quoted later
than the Apostolic texts, which, as we have seen, have but little
bearing on the subject. No canons of councils, no epistles of earlier
popes, no injunctions of the Fathers are brought forward to strengthen
the position assumed, whence the presumption is irresistible that none
such existed, and we may rest satisfied that no evidence has been lost
that would prove the pre-existence of the rule.
V.
ENFORCEMENT OF CELIBACY.
Celibacy was but one of the many shapes in which the rapidly
progressing sacerdotalism of Rome was overlaying religion with a
multitude of formal observances. That which in earlier times had been
the spontaneous expression of fervid zeal, or the joyful self-sacrifice
of ardent asceticism, was thus changed into a law, bearing upon all
alike, and taking no count of the individual idiosyncrasies which might
render the burden too heavy for the shoulders of the less fiery though
not less conscientious Christian. That it should meet with resistance
was to be expected when we consider that the local independence of
primitive times had not as yet been crushed under the rapidly growing
preponderance of the Roman see. In fact energetic protests were not
wanting, as well as the more perplexing stubbornness of passive
resistance.
St. Ambrose admits that although the necessity of celibacy was
generally acknowledged, still, in many of the remoter districts, there
were to be found those who neglected it, and who justified themselves
by ancient custom, relying on precautions to purify themselves for
their sacred ministry.[114] In this he gives countenance to the
tradition of the Leonistæ, simple Christians whose refusal to adapt
themselves to the sacerdotalism, which was daily becoming more rigorous
and indispensable, caused their expulsion from Rome, and who, taking
refuge in the recesses of the Cottian Alps, endeavored to preserve the
unadulterated faith of earlier times in the seclusion and privation of
exile.
All who revolted against the increasing oppression of the hierarchy
were not, however, content to bury themselves in solitude and silence,
and heresiarchs sprang up who waged a bold but unequal contest.
Bonosus, Jovinian, and Vigilantius are the names which have reached
us as the most conspicuous leaders in the unsuccessful attempt to
turn back the advancing spirit of the age, and of these Jovinian is
the foremost figure. Bonosus, who was Bishop of Sardica, acquired a
peculiarly sinister notoriety, for, in his opposition to the ascetic
spirit, he adopted a heresy of Tertullian and Photinus, and assailed
one of the chief arguments of the admirers of celibacy by denying
the perpetual virginity of the Virgin; whence his followers acquired
the euphonious title of Bonosiacs.[115] For this he was denounced by
Pope Siricius with all the vehemence which doctrines so sacrilegious
were calculated to excite,[116] and his followers were duly condemned
by the Council of Capua in 389, while the tireless pen of St. Jerome
was called into requisition to refute errors so unpardonable.[117]
Notwithstanding this they continued to flourish, for an epistle of
Innocent I. to Lawrence, Bishop of Segna, proves that the error was
openly taught on the eastern shores of the Adriatic in the early
part of the fifth century;[118] in 443 the Council of Arles shows
their existence in France by promising reconciliation to those who
should manifest proper repentance, and that of Orleans as late as 538
still contains an allusion to them.[119] The belief even extended to
Arabia, where a sect professing it is stigmatized by Epiphanius as
Antidicomarianitarians, whose conversion that worthy bishop endeavored
to secure by a long epistle, in which his labored explanations of the
stubborn text of Matthew are hardly more convincing than his hearty
objurgations of the blasphemous dogma, or his illustrative comparison
of the Virgin to a lioness bearing but one whelp.[120]
* * * * *
While Jovinian shared in this particular the error of Bonosus and
Helvidius, he did not attach undue importance to it. More practically
inclined, his heresy consisted principally in denying the efficacy
of celibacy, and this he maintained in Rome itself, with more zeal
than discretion. Siricius caused his condemnation and that of his
associates in a synod held about the year 390,[121] and succeeded in
driving him to Milan, where he had many proselytes. There was no peace
for him there. A synod held under the auspices of St. Ambrose bears
testimony to the wickedness of his doctrines and to the popular clamor
raised against him, and the wanderer again set forth on his weary
pilgrimage.[122] Deprived of refuge in the cities, he disseminated
his tenets throughout the country, where ardent followers, in spite
of contumely and persecution, gathered around him and conducted their
worship in the fields and hamlets. The laws promulgated about this
time against heresy were severe and searching, and bore directly upon
all who deviated from the orthodox formulas of the Catholic church,
yet Jovinian braved them all. The outraged church called upon its
most unscrupulous polemic, St. Jerome, who indulged in the customary
abuse which represented the schismatics as indulging in the grossest
promiscuous licentiousness and Jovinian as teaching them that all
things were permitted to those baptized in Christ, in contradiction to
St. Augustin who admits the sobriety and virtue of Jovinian, in spite
of his denying the efficacy of celibacy.[123] All this was insufficient
to put down the stubborn schismatics, who maintained their faith until
the church, wearied out with their obstinacy and unable to convert
or to silence them, appealed to the secular power for more efficient
assistance. Perhaps Jovinian’s long career of successful resistance
may have emboldened him; perhaps his sect was growing numerous enough
to promise protection; at all events, despite the imperial rescripts
which shielded with peculiar care the Apostolic city from the presence
of heretics, Jovinian in 412 openly held assemblages of his followers
in Rome, to the scandal of the faithful, and made at least sufficient
impression to lead a number of professed virgins to abandon their
vows and marry.[124] The complaints of the orthodox were heard by the
miserable shadow who then occupied the throne of Augustus, and Honorius
applied himself to the task of persecution with relentless zeal.
Jovinian was scourged with a leaded thong and exiled to the rock of
Boa, on the coast of Dalmatia, while his followers were hunted down,
deported, and scattered among the savage islands of the Adriatic.[125]
* * * * *
Nor was this the only struggle. A wild shepherd lad named Vigilantius,
born among the Pyrenean valleys, was fortunate enough to be the slave
of St. Sulpicius Severus, whose wealth, culture, talents, and piety
rendered him prominent throughout Southern Gaul. The earnest character
of the slave attracted the attention of the master; education developed
his powers; he was manumitted, and the people of his native Calagurris
choose him for their priest. Sent by Sulpicius as bearer of letters
to his friends St. Paulinus at Nola, and St. Jerome in his Bethlehem
retreat, Vigilantius had the opportunity of comparing the simple
Christianity of his native mountains with the splendid pageantry of
Rome, the elegant retirement of Nola, and the heated controversialism
which agitated the asceticism of Bethlehem. Notwithstanding the
cordiality of their first acquaintance, his residence with Jerome was
short. Both were too earnestly dogmatic in their natures for harmony
to exist between the primitive Cantabrian shepherd and the fierce
apostle of Buddhist and Mazdean Christianity, who devoted his life
to reconciling the doctrines of the Latin church with the practices
of Manichæism. Brief friendship ended in a quarrel, and Vigilantius
extended his experiences by a survey of Egypt, where the vast hordes of
Nitrian anchorites were involved in civil strife over the question of
Origenism. Returning through Italy, he tarried in Milan and among the
Alps, where he found the solution of his doubts and the realization of
his ideas in the teaching of Jovinian. He had left Gaul a disciple; he
returned to it a missionary, prepared to do battle with sacerdotalism
in all its forms. Not only did he deny the necessity of celibacy, but
he pronounced it to be the fertile source of impurity, and in his
zeal for reform he swept away fasting and maceration, he ridiculed
the adoration of relics, and pronounced the miracles wrought at their
altars to be the work of demons; he objected to the candles and incense
around the shrines, to prayers for the dead, and to the oblations of
the faithful.[126]
No doubt the decretals of Siricius had rendered compulsory the
celibacy of the priesthood throughout Gaul and Spain. The machinery
of the hierarchy may readily have stifled open opposition, however
frequent may have been the secret infractions of the rule. This may
perhaps have contributed to the success of Vigilantius. Even his
former master, St. Sulpicius Severus, and St. Exuperius, Bishop of
Toulouse, were inclined to favor his reforms. That they spread with
dangerous rapidity throughout Gaul from south to north is shown by
the fact that in 404 Victricius, Bishop of Rouen, and in 405 St.
Exuperius of Toulouse applied to Innocent I. for advice as to the
manner in which they should deal with the new heresy. It also counted
numerous adherents throughout Spain, among whom even some bishops were
enumerated. The alarm was promptly sounded, and the enginery of the
church was brought to bear upon the hardy heretic. The vast reputation
and authority of Jerome lent force to the coarse invective with which
he endeavored to overwhelm his whilom acquaintance, and though the
nickname of Dormitantius which he bestowed on Vigilantius was a sarcasm
neither very severe nor very refined, the disgusting exaggeration of
his adversary’s tenets in which he as usual indulged had doubtless
its destined effect.[127] Pope Innocent was not backward in asserting
the authority of Rome and the inviolable nature of the canon. In his
epistle to Victricius, he repeated the decretal of Siricius, but in a
somewhat more positive form;[128] while in the following year (405)
he confirmed the vacillating faith of Exuperius by declaring that any
violation of the strictest celibacy on the part of priest or deacon
subjects the offender to the deprivation of his position.[129] As in
the previous effort of Siricius, however, ignorance is admitted as an
excuse, entitling him who can plead it to retain his grade without hope
of preferment—and the test of this ignorance is held to be the canon of
385. This latter point is noteworthy, for it is a tacit confession of
the novelty of the rule, although Innocent labored at great length to
prove both its antiquity and necessity from the well-known texts of St.
Paul and the Levitical observances. Yet no intermediate authority was
quoted, and punishment was only to be inflicted on those who could be
proved to have seen the decretal of Siricius.
The further career of Vigilantius and his sectaries is lost in the
darkness and confusion attendant upon the ravages of the Alans and
Vandals who overran Gaul during the following year. We only know that
Sulpicius and Exuperius, frightened by the violence of Jerome and the
authority of Innocent, abandoned their protégé, and we can presume
that, during the period of wild disorder which followed the irruption
of the Barbarians, what little protection Rome could afford was too
consoling to the afflicted churches for them to risk its withdrawal
by resisting on any point the daily increasing pretensions of the
Apostolic See to absolute command.[130]
The victory was won, for with the death of Vigilantius and Jovinian
ended the last organized and acknowledged attempt to stay the progress
of celibacy in the Latin church, until centuries later, when the
regulation was already too ancient and too well supported by tradition
and precedent to be successfully called in question.
* * * * *
In Africa we find no trace of open resistance to the introduction
of the rule, though time was evidently required to procure its
enforcement. We have seen that Siricius, in 386, addressed an appeal
to the African bishops. To this they responded by holding a council
in which they agreed “conscriptione quadam” that chastity should
be preserved by the three higher orders. This apparently was not
conclusive, for in 390 another council was held in which Aurelius,
Bishop of Carthage, again introduced the subject. He recapitulated
their recent action, urged that the teaching of the Apostles and
ancient usage required the observance of the rule, and obtained the
assent of his brother prelates to the separation from their wives of
those who were concerned in administering the sacraments.[131] The
form of these proceedings shows that it was an innovation, requiring
deliberation and the assent of the ecclesiastics present, not a simple
affirmation of a traditional and unalterable point of discipline, and,
moreover, no penalty is mentioned for disobedience. Little respect,
probably, was paid to the new rule. The third and fourth councils of
Carthage, held in 397 and 398, passed numerous canons relating to
discipline, prescribing minutely the qualifications and duties of the
clergy, and of the votaries of the monastic profession. The absence
from among these canons of any allusion to enforced celibacy would
therefore appear to prove that it was still left to the conscience
of the individual. If this be so, the triumph of the sacerdotal party
was not long delayed, as might be expected from the rising influence
and authority of St. Augustin, whose early Manichæism led him, after
his conversion, to be one of the most enthusiastic admirers and
promoters of austere asceticism. We may not unreasonably assume that
it was through his prompting that his friend St. Aurelius, at the
fifth council of Carthage in 401, proposed a canon, which was adopted,
ordering the separation of the married clergy of the higher grades from
their wives, under pain of deprivation of office.[132] As before, the
form of the canon shows it to be an innovation.
That the rule was positively adopted and frequently submitted to is
shown by St. Augustin, who, in his treatise against second marriages,
states that, in arguing with those desirous of entering upon those
unhallowed unions, he was accustomed to strengthen his logic by citing
the continence of the clergy, who, however unwillingly they had in
most cases been forced to undertake the burden, still, by the aid of
God, were enabled to endure it to the end.[133] Yet it is evident
that its enforcement was attended with many difficulties and much
opposition, for, twenty years later, at another council of Carthage,
we find Faustinus, the Papal Legate, proposing that the three higher
orders shall be separated from their wives, to which the fathers of the
council somewhat evasively replied that those who were concerned in
the ministry of the altar should be chaste in all things. No attempt,
however, was apparently made to strengthen the resolution by affixing a
penalty for its infringement. It was a simple declaration of opinion,
and nothing more.[134]
Symptoms of similar difficulty in the rigid enforcement of the canon
are observable elsewhere. The proceedings of the first council of
Toledo, held in the year 400, shows not only that it was a recent
innovation which continued to be disregarded, but that it had given
rise to a crowd of novel questions which required imperatively to be
settled, as to the status of the several grades of clerks who were
guilty of various forms of disobedience[135]—the prototype and examplar
of innumerable similar attempts at legislation which continued for more
than a thousand years to occupy a good part of the attention of almost
every council and synod. The prelates of Cis-Alpine Gaul, assembled
in the council of Turin in 401, could only be brought to pronounce
incapable of promotion those who contravened the injunction which
separated them from their wives.[136] The practical working of this was
to permit those to retain their wives who were satisfied with the grade
to which they had attained. Thus the priest, who saw little prospect
of elevation to the episcopate, might readily console himself with the
society of his wife, while the powerful influence of the wives would
be brought to bear against the promptings of ambition on the part of
their husbands. The punishment thus was heaviest on the lower grades
and lightest on the higher clergy, whose position should have rendered
the sin more heinous—in fact, the bishop, to whom further promotion was
impossible, escaped entirely from the penalty.