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.