Beveridge on Article XXXII: Of the Marriage of Priests

he joins her again unto him: he had no sooner made one but divides him into two; and he had no sooner divided him into two but he unites them into one again, making them man and wife, and so one flesh. And God having thus ordained marriage in the estate of innocency for the mutual sociéty and comfort that one ought to have in the other, for the pro- pagating their posterity, and so the peopling of the world, it seemed to be written in the law of nature, as well as instituted by the law of God; and therefore it was that in all ages, since the creation of the world, all sorts and degrees of men, of what nation and condition soever, have still been permitted by God, and desirous themselves, to enter this holy estate of matrimony ; so that before and under the law, the priests, as well as the people, yea, the high priest himself, had this pri- vilege expressly granted to him. And if we cast our eyes upon the gospel, we shall there find expressly delivered what is here in this article so plainly asserted, even that it is lawful for bishops, priests, and deacons, as well as for other men, to marry at their own discretion. For St.Paul saith expressly, A bishop then must be blameless, the husband of one wife, 1 Tim.

Art. XXXII. Of the Marriage of Priests. 511

ii. 2. So that a bishop may be blameless and yet married, blameless and yet the husband of one wife; @though to have more than one wife at one and the same time, as some of the Jews had, is here forbidden. But seeing to have more wives than one is here forbidden, to have one wife is plainly permit- ted. And again; For this cause I left thee in Crete, that thou shouldest set in order the things that are wanting, and ordain elders in every city as I have appointed thee. If any one be blameless, the husband of one wife, having faithful children, &e. Tit. i. 5,6. So that here too a man, yea, one that is ordained, may be blameless, yet the husband of one wife; blameless, and yet have children; whence »both St. Chrysostome and (Eecumenius observe, that the apostle here stops the mouths of those heretics that condemn marriage, shewing that it is not an unholy thing, but so honourable that a man with it may ascend the holy throne of episcopacy. And so concern- ing deacons the apostle saith, Let the deacons be the husbands of one wife, ruling their children and their own houses well, 1 Tim. iii.12. And if they may be the husbands of one wife, it must needs be lawful for them to marry at their own dis- eretion. To this purpose also makes that of the same apostle, Nevertheless, to avoid fornication, let every man have his own wife, and let every woman have her own husband, 1 Cor. vii. 2. Now if every man may have his own wife, why not bishops, priests, and deacons, as well as others? Especially considering that marriage is honourable in all, Heb. xiii. 4; and if in all, then in ministers as well as others. Certainly the apostles them- selves thought it honourable in themselves as well as others, otherwise themselves would not have been married men. St. Ambrose saith, ¢ “‘ All the apostles are said to have had wives,

[…]

Arr.

512 Of the Marriage of Priests.

except St. John and St. Paul.” But Ignatius, that 4“ Peter and Paul and other of the apostles were married.” St. Basil, e« Peter and the other apostles.” Clemens Alexandrinus saith, ‘Peter and Philip begot children; and Philip gave his daughters to men in marriage: but Paul doth not stick in one epistle to make mention of his wife.”

And as the apostles were most of them married men them- selves, so do they decree, (supposing the canons attributed commonly to them to be really theirs, which of all the people in the world the papists, who are the sole oppugners of this truth, will not deny, I say, supposing this, the apostles them- selves decreed,) saying, §‘ Let not a bishop, priest, or deacon put away his wife under the pretence of religion; and if any one do put her away, let him be excommunicated, and if he persevere, deposed.” Upon which canon Zonaras saith, h« That if any one that is consecrated or ordained under pre- tence of religion shall put away his wife, let him be excommu- nicated ; but if he continues not taking her again, let him be deposed also; for that seems to reproach or condemn mar- riage, as if copulation brought uncleanness, whereas the serip- ture calls it honourable, and the bed undefiled : but the canons mind us of some bishops then that had wives, for the bishops had not then the lawful conjunction with their wives forbidden.

cuntur.

Ambros. in 2 Cor. ii. [2. vol. II.]

[…]

XXXII. And Balsamon: +“ Before the sixth general or Trullan council, it was lawful for bishops to have wives, even after their episcopal dignity, as the priests and deacons also that are ordained after marriage still have them.” So that the apostles here plainly determined, that it was not only lawful for men in orders to have wives, but unlawful for them to put their wives away under pretence of religion.

And if we consult the primitive church in this particular, we shall find it following of the apostles’ steps. It would be endless to number up the several passages we meet with in the Fathers, and the several examples of bishops priests and deacons we find to be married in the primitive church, which would help to confirm this truth now; but leaving both the judgments and examples of private men, we may bring many and famous councils that long ago subscribed to this truth. The council of Neocesarea: * “If the wife of any lay- man shall be manifestly convinced to have committed adul- tery, such a one cannot come into the ministry; or if she shall commit adultery after his ordination, he ought to put her away; but if he lives with her, he cannot perform the min- istry committed to him.” Where we may note, 1, that it is not a man’s having a wife, but a man’s wife’s committing of adul- tery, that should debar him from the ministry; and, 2, that it is lawful for one that is ordained still to keep his wife, unless she have committed adultery, for it is only upon that account that this council decreed she should be put away. The coun- cil at Gangra: 1‘ If any one shall separate himself from or judge concerning a priest that is married, as if when he offers or eonsecrates the sacrament he ought not to partake of the offering, let him be anathema ;.’ ™ which canon, as Balsamon

Of the Marriage of Priests. 513

[…]

Lah

514 Of the Marriage of Priests. Art.

observes, pronounces a curse against all such as do not indif- ferently receive of priests that have wives, viz. that do not as well receive the sacrament of them that have wives as of them that have none; plainly implying, that it is as lawful for a married as for an unmarried priest to administer the sacra- ments, and by consequence to be in the ministry. The coun- cil of Anguri or Enguri: ” “ Whosoever, being ordained dea- cons, did at their ordination testify and say, they must needs marry, not being able to continue as they are; such after marrying are still to continue in the ministry, because they were permitted by the bishop ;” and if a deacon may be con- tinued in his ministry, though married, there is no reason that either bishop or priest should be cast out of the ministry because married, for the one is in holy orders as well as the other.

The Trullan council speaks also fully to the purpose, the thirteenth canon whereof begins thus: °“ Forasmuch as we know that in the church of Rome it is delivered for a canon, that those which shall be thought worthy to be ordained deacons or presbyters shall profess that they will not be joined any more to their wives; we, following the old rule of the apostolical perfection and order, will that the lawful mar- riages or cohabitations of consecrated men with their wives be from henceforth confirmed, not dissolving their conjunction with their wives, nor depriving them of conversing with one another. But if any one be found worthy to be ordained a

[…]

Synod. |

[…]

oie

XXXII. Of the Marriage of Priests. 515

subdeacon, deacon, or priest, let. such a one by no means be forbidden to ascend that degree, because he dwelleth with his lawful wife. Neither let it be exacted of any one at the time

_ of his ordination, that he profess that he will abstain from the lawful conversation with his own wife.” And presently: p “ If any one therefore, being stirred up against the apostolical canons, shall dare to deprive any of those in their orders, we mean priests and deacons, of their conjunction and communion with their lawful wives, let him be deposed.”

To which we may also add that canon of the fifth council at Carthage, cited in this canon of the Trullan council, de- ereeing, That sub-deacons handling the holy mysteries, and deacons, and priests, (yea, and bishops too, as it is in the Carthaginian council itself, though not mentioned in the Trullan quotation of it,) do, in their proper turns, abstain even from their consorts. So that they were commanded to abstain from their wives when their course came to minister, as both ‘Balsamon and sZonaras explain the eanon, but not to be east from their ministry because they had wives.

To these we may add that of the council at Angiers, ¢ “Let none but such men as are the husbands of one wife only, and are joined to virgins, be ordained deacons or priests.” - Such as had more wives than one, according to the apostle’s rule, might not be ordained, but such as are the husbands of one may. And the first council at Toledo, ”“ It pleaseth us that

[…]

u Placuit ut diaconos, si vel in- tegri et casti sint et continentis vite, etiamsi uxores habeant, in ministerio constituantur. Concil, Tolet. 1. cap.

™

ART.

516 Of the Marriage of Priests.

deacons, if they be sound and chaste, and of a continent life, may be placed in the ministry, although they have wives.” So that their marriage was no hinderance to their ministerial function.

But the most remarkable passage is that of Paphnutius in the council of Nice, recorded by w Socrates, * Sozomen, Y Gela- sius Cyzicenus, 2 Nicephorus, and others. The relation which Socrates gives of it is this: *“ And let so much,” saith he, “‘ suffice to be spoken concerning that one thing of Paphnutius. But now I will declare what came to pass, by the means of his counsel, to the benefit of the church and the ornament of those that are ordained. It seemed good to the bishops (in the council of Nice) to bring a new law into the church, that those that are consecrated, I mean bishops, priests, and deacons, should not lie with their wives which they married when laymen. And they having propounded to consult about that matter, Paphnutius, standing up in the midst of the assembly, spake aloud, that so heavy a yoke should not be_ laid upon consecrated persons, saying, that the bed is honour- able and marriage undefiled ; that they must have a care lest they injure the church by too great severity, for all cannot bear the exercise of so much freeness from passion, neither could

w Socrata lete. 12, |

8 Telos No vie (Gs ay |

[…]

c, 33- [p. 438. vol. I.]

% Niceph. 1.8. ¢. 19. [vol. IL]

[…]

XXXII. Of the Marriage of Priests. 517

the continency of every man’s wife be so well preserved : but the use of a man’s lawful wife he called continency or chastity : but it is enough that they that come into the clergy do not marry according to the ancient tradition of the church: but that they should not be separated from those which before when laymen they had married. And this he said, having himself never touched a wife, nor scaree a woman; for from a child he was brought up in a monastery, and for his conti- neney was as famous as any. The whole assembly of sacred persons assented to the words of Paphnutius, and therefore they ceased from any further inquiry into this business, leaving every one to his liberty whether he will abstain from his wife or no. And so much concerning Paphnutius.” So far Socrates. From whence we may observe how this most renowned council that ever was since our Saviour’s time, assenting to Paphnutius’s words, or, as Sozomen expresseth it, b “approving of his counsel,” acknowledged that marriage was as lawful, and the bed as undefiled, and the use of their law- ful wives an act of continency and chastity even in bishops, priests, and deacons, of whom he only spake, as well as in any others; from whence it must needs follow, that it is as lawful for them as any others to marry.

And thus we see how the primitive church still acknowledged the truth of this doctrine, neither do we read it much opposed by any but the church of Rome and her complices. The first that set himself against it was pope ¢Siricius, after him Inno- cent the First, (John the Thirteenth, Leo the Ninth, and others; but the most implacable enemy was °*Gregory the

Seventh or pope Hildebrand,

[…]

about the year 1073; fabout

f Whilst Gregory the VIIth was pope of Rome, Lanfranc was pri- mate of England; in whose days there was a council assembled at Winchester, wherein, as the acts of the said council shew, Decretum est, ut nullus canonicus uxorem ha- beat, sacerdotes vero in castellis et in vicis habitantes habentes uxores non cogantur ut dimittant; non _ habentes interdicantur ut habeant. Et deinceps caveant episcopi, ut sa- cerdotes et diaconos non preesumant

7”

518 Of the Marriage of Priests. Art.

which time also it began to be prohibited here in England ; after him &Calixtus the Second, Alexander the Third, and others of the same rank; and as one of them succeeded an- other in the see of Rome, so still one excelled another in inveighing against this sacred truth, till at the length they are now come to that height as not to be ashamed to say, i« That it is a greater sin for a priest to marry, than for him to commit fornication or adultery ;” as if the pope strove to make good the apostle’s saying of himself, Who opposeth and exalteth himself above all that is called God, 2 Thess. ii. 4. God indeed hath forbidden to commit adultery, but the pope hath forbidden priests to marry, and therefore it must needs be a greater sin to marry than to commit adultery; for in that they transgress the command of the pope, whereas in this they only transgress the command of God; and what is, if this be not, to oppose and exalt himself above all that is called God? making it a greater sin to transgress his edicts, than the great God’s most sacred precepts. But let us not wonder at the propagation of this doctrine, for it is no more

ordinare, nisi profiteantur ut uxores non habeant. Concil. Winton. [p. 1559. par. i. vol. VI.} From which it appears, that the celibacy of priests did but begin at this time here in England to be commanded, and none were as yet forced to put away their wives but such as were canonici, even such as belonged to cathedral churches, they that lived in towns and villages were still per- mitted to keep theirs, though he also went further than any had done before. For though in the days of king Edgar, an. 964, Odo and Dun- stan, archbishops of Canterbury, Oswold of York, and Acthelwold, bi- shop of Winchester, and others, did endeavour it, yet there was never any law or decree made against the mar- riage of priests till this of Lanfrane, though this also permitted some to keep their wives. But not long after him, Anselm being got into the chair, he assembled a council at London, an. 1102, where it was de- creed, Ut nullus archidiaconus, pres-

[…]

Notes

• . [p. ggo. vol. I.] 4,12
• Polydor. Virgil. hist. Angl, 1. 6. [p. 119-]
• Calixt. sec. apud Gratian. dist. 247. [p. 131. Decr. Grat.] v. et Mat. Par. in Henr. I. [p.58.]