Bicknell on Article XXXII: Of the Marriage of Priests

As regards the ‘custom of the primitive Church,’ the facts are beyond dispute. Primitive liturgies were always in the native tongue and such still exist in many languages. Rome itself originally used a Greek liturgy which was translated into Latin when the Church there became Latin-speaking. The ‘ Kyrie eleison ’ still remaining in the Roman Mass is a relic of this state of things. Latin only came to be used in public worship through- out the West as the language of the Empire. It continued to be used for convenience sake as being the common language of educated people. During the period of change and uncertainty this was an advantage, but in the present order of things this advantage is more than counterbalanced by its disadvantages. The custom of the primitive Church no less than practical experience supports the change.

Of the Marriage of Priests.

Bishops, Priests, and Dea- cons, are not commanded by God’s Law either to vow the estate of single life or abstain from marriage. Therefore it is lawful also for them, as for all other Christian men, to marry at their own discretion, as they shall judge the same to serve

De conjugio Sacerdotum.

Hpiscopis, presbyteris, et diaconis nullo mandato divino praeceptum est, ut aut coeliba- tum voveant, aut a matrimo- nio abstineant. Tacet igitur etiam illis, ut caeteris omnibus Christianis, ubi hoc ad pieta- tem magis facere judicaverint, pro suo arbitratu. matrimo-

better to godliness. mum contrahere.

This Article was written by Parker in 1563. Notice that ‘sacer- dotum’ is the equivalent of priests. Deacons are clearly regarded as priests in the making. Bishops possess the priesthood in addition to their special authority.

(6) The Church of England has exercised her disciplinary authority on a second point, the marriage of the clergy. The first half of the Article is true beyond dispute. No passage of Scripture commands bishops, priests and deacons ‘ either to vow the estate of single life or to abstain from marriage.’ It is true that our Lord pronounced a blessing on those ‘ who made them- selves eunuchs for the kingdom of heaven’s sake’ (Mt. 1912). St. Paul, too, regarded the celibate life as preferable, since it gave the opportunity for undistracted service of God; he did not forbid marriage, but discouraged it in view of ‘ the present distress,’ ¢.e. the threatening outlook for the Church at Corinth which he regarded as the prelude to the second coming of Christ (1 Cor. 7).* On the other hand, we find throughout the New Testament the fullest recognition of the sacredness of marriage.

• Tn vv. ’-? he seems to be answering a question of the Corinthians, ‘ Are the relations between married persons to continue after conversion?’ v. 7? gives his answer. Continency is a special gift to the individual to fit him for a special work. Where it has not been given, normal relations must continue. In vv. °-9 and v. ?° ff. he turns to the case of the unmarried. He regards it as best that if possible they should remain as they are, but the same principle holds good as before. His whole teaching is governed by his expectation of the Parousia. This would make the birth of children superfluous,

The presence of Christ at Cana (Jn. 2! ff.) and His teaching on divorce (Mk. 10° ff., etc.) attest its sanctity. St. Paul in Eph. 5238 finds in marriage the most fitting symbol of the union between Christ and the Church. In 1 Tim. 48 ‘forbidding to marry’ is classed among the ‘doctrines of devils.” So, too, in Heb. 134 marriage is to be ‘ had in honour among all’ (ep. also 1 Pet. 3”).* In 1 Cor. 9° St. Paul claims the right to ‘lead about a wife that is a believer, even as the rest of the apostles and the brethren of the Lord and Cephas.’ This implies that the majority of the apostles and the brethren of the Lord were married men, as indeed we should expect, since celibacy was almost unknown among the Jews (cp. Mk. 1°°). Again, in the Pastoral Epistles one of the conditions required of those to be ordained deacon (1 Tim. 3) or bishop (1 Tim. 3?, Tit. 158) is that they should be the ‘husband of one wife.’ There is no reason to suppose that St. Paul insisted on marriage as a preliminary to ordination : such a condition would have excluded himself. But it is evident that he expected that normally the clergy would be married men.f

Since, then, Scripture lays down no law of celibacy, the mar- riage of the clergy is one of those matters that a particular Church can decide for itself. The Church of England lays down no restrictions about the marriage of the clergy either before or after ordination. ‘Jt is lawful also for them, as for all other Christian men, to marry at their own discretion, as they shall judge the same to serve better to godliness.’ When we turn to the history of the early Church we find indisputable evidence for the ordina- tion of married men, but little if any for marriage after ordination. Though we hold that a national Church is perfectly competent to make its own rules equally about either case, in studying history we must keep the two questions distinct.

During the first three centuries there is abundant evidence of the existence of a married clergy and of their continuing to have children after ordination. Indeed the sixth of the Apostolic

• The language of Rev. 14* is metaphorical. See Swete, ad loc.

{ The exact meaning of was yuvaixds dvjp is disputed. Probably it means no more than ‘ faithful to one wife,’ a very necessary condition in those days. Others take it to mean that the man must not have married a second time. Certainly in later days there was a prejudice in the Church against second marriages, and in 1 Tim. 5° évés dvipds yuri clearly means a woman who has not married again. On tbe other hand, Gentile opinion disapproved of second marriages among women but not among men.

Canons ordered the deposition of any bishop, priest or deacon who separated from his wife ‘ under the pretence of piety.” On the other hand, it seems to have been an unwritten custom of the Church that clergy should not marry after ordination. No undisputed instance of such a marriage can be produced. About 220 Hippolytus vehemently attacked Callistus for saying that any one of the clergy who married ‘ might remain in the clergy as not having sinned.’ Such a decision was clearly an innovation. Before the close of the third century the general custom of the Church found expression in the 25th of the Apostolic Canons, that forbade marriage after ordination to all above the order of subdeacon. At the Council of Ancyra (314) a special exception was made in the case of deacons who at the time of ordination gave notice of their intention to marry. At another council, held about the same date at Neo-Caesarea, a canon was passed deposing priests who married after ordination. The need of a special canon suggests that offenders were numerous.

In the fourth century we find the beginnings of the cleavage of custom between Hast and West. Partly owing to a develop- ment of St. Paul’s teaching which regarded celibacy as a higher state, partly owing to a false dualism that viewed marriage as defilement,* partly owing to certain practical advantages, a feeling grew up in favour of celibacy, especially among the laity who did not have to practise it. It was part of a general move- ment that exalted asceticism. As so often, Spain led the way in advocating strictness of discipline. At the Council of Elvira (305) the excited feelings roused by the recent persecution of Diocletian led to the passing of a canon forbidding priests to live in wedlock with their wives. The Council of Nicaea was only preserved from passing a similar canon by the protests of the Egyptian Confessor Paphnutius, himself an unmarried man. Henceforth the Eastern Church, with certain local and temporary exceptions, has maintained the traditional custom of the early Church.{ The parochial clergy are men married before ordina-

*This idea is found as early as Origen and is in flat contradiction to Scripture.

• See Socrates, H.H. i. c. ii.

t The Council of Gangra in Cappadocia (358) anathematized those who held aloof from the ministrations of married clergy. On the other hand, in the fifth century the clergy in Achaia, Macedonia and Thessaly were required to refrain from the use of marriage. This, however, did not affect the general

tion.* Only monks are celibate. The only modification is that since the Council of Trullo (692) bishops have been definitely required to give up living with their wives, and in practice they are usually chosen from the monks. Even at the opening of the fifth century this was becoming the rule for bishops, and Synesius of Cyrene, who insisted on retaining his wife, was an exception to the general custom.

In the West clerical celibacy was enforced with greater strict- ness. The Popes used their influence in this direction. The first authentic decretal, issued by Pope Siricius in 385 to the bishop of Tarragona, forbade the marriage of priests and deacons. The same principles as those of Elvira are laid down by the Council of Carthage (390) and by later councils in France and Spain with varying strictness. Despite Papal decrees and decisions of councils the rule was far from universally observed. Gregory VII in 1074 found it necessary to reassert it with unprecedented severity, partly to forbid the enrichment of clerical families. In England the application of Gregory’s rule was modified by the common-sense of Lanfranc. In future no married men were to be ordained, but married priests were not compelled to send away their wives. Not till 1102, under Anselm, did celibacy become the absolute and universal law of the English Church. But it is one thing to pass such laws, quite another thing to enforce them. ‘Throughout the whole period from Pope Siricius to the Reformation… the law was defied, infringed, eluded. It never obtained anything approaching to general observance, though its violation was at times more open, at times more clandestine.’ f

At the time of the Reformation the abuses of the system were so gross that no reform was more urgently demanded than the

practice of the Eastern Church. Even bishops had children after their con- secration (Socrates H.#. v. 22).

• In the Eastern Church it is part of the work of theological colleges to find wives for their unmarried students, usually from the daughters of the clergy. We are told that the arrangement works well.

• Milman, Latin Christianity, vol. 1, p. 160. Cp. vol. 3, pp. 440-441. The Church of Milan deliberately and openly retained a married clergy till 1058. Even the great Archibishop Heribert was married and after his death canonized ! They claimed to continue the tradition of St. Ambrose, in independence of Rome. So, too, Bishop Wordsworth shows that there were eminent clerical families in England and that the Church in Wales hardly pretended to enforce celibacy (The Ministry of Grace, pp. 235-238).

legalization of clerical marriage. The laity desired it in defence of their own families. Celibacy was, however, enforced during the reign of Henry VIII by the Six Articles and the King’s Book, although Cranmer had recently married a wife. Not till 1547 did Convocation repeal all canons against such marriages. In 1549 Parliament definitely legalized clerical marriage. In 1559 Elizabeth’s injunctions required the clergy to obtain the sanction of their bishops before marriage. At the Council of Trent strenuous efforts were made especially by the Emperors to obtain a dispensation at least for the clergy in their own empire. These efforts failed and the Council of Trent forbade clerical marriage. By this rule the Church of Rome is still bound. She would seem to admit, however, that it is a question not of divine command but of ecclesiastical discipline. In the case of the Uniat churches, 7.e. the Greek churches in communion with Rome, she allows a married clergy in accordance with the custom of the Eastern Church. Thus the points at issue between our- selves and Rome are really the right of a national Church to legislate for herself on such matters and also the expediency of such a change.*

The root of the trouble has been the failure to realize that the unmarried life is quite definitely a vocation, and that as being a vocation it comes from God to some people only and cannot be made to order. Protestantism as a rule has fallen into the opposite error of minimizing the need and the desirability of unmarried clergy or of bodies of men who have voluntarily bound themselves to live under rule nacommunity. But it is evident that there are certain types of work both at home and in the mission field that can only be efficiently carried out by such men. The slum parish, where a married priest can hardly live and bring up a family, often calls for unmarried clergy. So, too, abroad the missions of the Roman Church are often both more economical and more successful than non-Roman missions, because of the abundance of monastic orders and the enforced celibacy of the clergy. In some parts at least of the mission field married missionaries are at once less effective and more expensive. For

the maintenance of Christianity in a settled country, professedly Christian, a married clergy is very often desirable. For aggres- sive work in a heathen or hostile land a celibate clergy is almost essential. The comfortableness of Anglicanism has seriously interfered with its missionary spirit. If, then, we believe that there is work that can only be done by celibate priests, we are bound to believe also that some are called by God to fulfil it. As St. Paul teaches, the vocation to a life of celibacy is a gift from God. With its hardships and temptations it is to be accepted as coming from Him. There will be those who will freely undertake it ‘for the Kingdom of Heaven’s sake.’ By it they will be freed from worldly cares and ties and thus able to devote themselves unreservedly to special kinds of work. We may be thankful for the revival among ourselves of the monastic life. At the same time, even if we regard such a life as in a sense higher than that of the married priest, we must remember that only God can call to it. Vocations cannot be manufactured even at the bidding of the Church. For those who receive the call, it is God’s call to them and they are bound to believe that He will give them grace to fulfil it. To force celibacy on all who have a vocation to the priesthood is neither right nor wise. As is proved by the state of the Roman Church to-day, no less than by that of the Western Church in the Middle Ages, it opens the way to grave moral scandals. The best that can happen is that in place of clerical marriage there arises a more or less tolerated system of concubinage. We must not judge of the effects of compulsory celibacy by the state of the Roman Church in England, where it is seen at: its best, but by its effects in other lands where it is comparatively free from criticism or competition. It is only one instance of the impossi- bility of making men holy by laws imposed purely from outside. No doubt a certain efficiency is gained by it. An unmarried clergy can live more economically, adapt themselves better to new circumstances and above all are more easily manceuvred. It fits in admirably with the quasi-military organization of the Roman Church. But these advantages are gained at a terrible cost. On the other hand, the Anglican Church has yet to learn the due place to be given to celibacy.

At the same time we must recognize to the full that there is no less a vocation to the married life. In many parts of England

and of the mission field what is sorely needed is the sight of Christian family life. The Christian home is one of the great advertisements of the Gospel. There is nothing in marriage that cannot be consecrated to the service of God. To maintain the opposite is not Christian, but Manichaean. If the existence of a married clergy has its dangers, the history of England shows that it also brings its blessings.* Neither Catholic custom nor commonsense contradict the present rule of the English Church, which leaves the clergy free to marry or not ‘as they shall judge the same to serve better to godliness.’ The Catholic Church needs the peculiar gifts and excellencies both of married and unmarried priests. On the Monastic ideal see : Church, St. Anselm, c. 3. On the general subject see : Art. “‘ Celibacy ” in Smith’s D.C.A. Wordsworth, Ministry of Grace, c. iv. Cp. also Milman, Latin Christianity, vol. ix. pp. 35-38.

Notes

• There is, however, a certain ambiguity about the decree of the Council of Trent. Some have held that it makes the denial that clergy can marry a matter of faith and, therefore, irreformable. But the language is capable of a milder interpretation. See C.H.S. Lectures, vol. i. p. 69.