IL In the Early Church. — ^At an early period virgin- ity came to be held in honor in the Church. Several passages of the N. T. (e. g. Matt xix, 10, 12 ; 1 Cor. vii, 7, 88) in which voluntary virginity for ** the king- dom of heaven's" sake is commended under certain circumstances, were interpreted as favoring asceticism and as depreciating marriage. Moreover, in the old Pagan times celibacy had b^n held in honor (e. g. the
Vestal Virgins). Wherever dnalistic ideas of a good and evil principle, and of matter aa tile seat of evil, prevailed, there it was natural that aaoetic notioiis of virginity should arise. An undue regard for virgiD- ity, and corresponding depreciation of marriage, began to appear strongly about the middle of the aecoiid ceo- tury, and reached their height in the fourth. Few of the so-called fethers escaped from extravagant notMm and opinions on this subject ; in feet, their errors here have done more, perhaps, than any other cause to weaken their autiiority as guides for the Church (see Taylor, A ncient Chrittianity^ passim). But no enforced celibacy of the clergy was known in the Church im- mediately following the apostolic age. Bin^iam col- lects the fects carefully (Orig. Ecdee, bk. iv, ch. v) to the following efiTect. In the age immediately succeed- ing that of the apostles we read of the wiv^ of Valens, presbyter of Philippi (Polycarp, Ep. ad PkU^. ii, 11), of Chceremon, bishop of NUus (Euseb. vi, c 42), of No- vatus, presbyter of Carthage (Cyprian, Ep, 49), of Cyp^ rian himself, of Caicilius, who converted him (Pont Vit, CypJ)j and of several other bishops and presbyters. But it has been said by the advocates of celibacy that married persons promised to separate themselves from their wives as soon as they should receive ordinatioB. The history of Novatus distinctly proves the contraxy. He was accused, long after he was a presbyter, of hav- ing caused the miscarriage of his wife by a passionate blow. In feet, throughout the first three centuries we read of no enforced celibacy. Chiysostom expressly combats the notion that the clergy, peculiarly, wei^ required to live unmarried (Ep.l ad Cor, : Horn, XIX ad 1 Cor. vii, 1). But the first step towards clerical celibacy was taken in the disapproval of second mar- riages. ** Yet so late as the beginning of the third century there were many clergymen in the Catludic Church who were married a second rime. This ap- pears from the accusation of Tertnllian, who asks the Catholics, with Montanistic indignation : * Quot enim et bigam prasident apud rot, insuUoHtet utique apot- tolot . . . Digamue tinguitf digamut offereV Second marriage thus seems to him to disqualify for tiie ad- ministration of the sacraments of baptism and the Lord's Supper. Hippolytns, in the PhUoBopkownena, reproaches the Roman bishop Callistus with admit- ting to sacerdotal and episcopal ofiice those who were married the second and even the third time, and allow- ing the clergy to marry after having been ordained. The next step was the di: approval of even one mar- riage for the clergy, but not yet the prohibition of it. The priesthood and marriage became more and more incompatible in the prevaUing view. The Montantrts shared in this feeling ; among the oracles of the proph- etess Prisca is one to the efl'ect, *Only a holy (that is, an unmarried) minister can administer in holy things.* Even those fethers who were married, like the presby- ter Tertnllian and the bishop Gregory of Nyssa, gave decided preference to virginity. The apostolical con- stitutions and some provincial* councils accordingly prohibited priests not only from marrying a widow, cr a divorced woman, or a slave, and firom second mar- riage, but also fr^m contracting marriage after ordma- tion. The Synod of Ancyra, in 814, allowed it to dea- cons, but only when they expressly stipulated for it before taking orders. The rigoristic Spanish Council of Elvira (Illiberis), in 805, went ferthest It appears even to have forbidden the continuance of nuptial in- tercourse after consecration upon pain of deposition'' (Schaff, Church Etst. i, § 96).
Phileas, bishop of Thomis, and Philoromus, had both wife and children, and were on that account urged by the heathen magistrate to deny the faith and save them- selves (Euseb. lib. vi, cap. 42 ; lib. viii, cap. 9). Euse- bius (iv, 28) tells us how Pinytus, bishop of Gnoesns, in Crete, being desirous to enforce celibacy, was re- buked by Dionysius, bishop of Corinth. In the great 0>uncil of Nicsa it was proposed to enact a law to
CELIBACY
178
CELffiACY
dMt efhd, but Paphnotiin, an Egypttan blahop, him- self anouiried, resolutely withstood it as an innova- tion, declared that marriage is honorable ^* in all men," end dedred that the ancient tradition of the Church thoold continne to be observed, viz. that those who be- fore ordination were nnmarried should continue to be •0 (Socrates, £r.£Li, 11; Sozomen, ^. IT. i, 28). The only reply which Bdlarmine and Valesius give to this stiAement is to suspect the veracity of the historians ; in which they are followed by Thomassin, who, cautious sod judicions as he is, scruples not to say that Socrates sod Sozomen are not such irreproachaUe writers, nor ci such weight, that we need believe their word hi a matter of such importance. In opposition to all this, Roman writers allege the testimony of Epiphanius and Jerome, and the tenth canon ofAncynt which forbids deacons who did not, at ordination, declare their inten- tion to marry, to do so afterwards. But all these tes- dmonies are subsequent to the third century ; and the Council of Gangra, held probably about 879, long after that of Ancyra, anathematizes those who separate from the communion of a married priest : ^^Si quU ducernU pnAgUr¥m eonjugatum^ tattquam oeccuione nuptianun quod oferrt mm debeat et a6 ejut oblaiione ideo »e ciuU- wt, anaikema tif' (Canon iv). See Wilson, The Doc^ trmt of the ApotttoUc Fatkers (Liverpool, 1845), p. 178 iq. ; and the article Eustathius.