Green on Article XXXII: Of the Marriage of Priests

In the latter part of our present Article (added in 1563) it is to be noted that clerical marriage is positively declared lawful, whereas previously it had been merely stated negatively that no Divine command could be urged against it.

§ 2.— OBJECT.

To dispel the error that there is anything sinful or contrary to God’s law in the marriage of clergy, and to declare that Priests are free to marry, even as laymen are.

2 L

The estate of celibacy was held in high esteem among Christians from a very early period. Widows, monks, or nuns who took vows of celibacy were considered to be embracing a

higher mode of life. But such celibate life was, at the same

time, regarded as a special vocation (cf. S. Matt. xix. IO—I2 ;

I Cor. vii. 7, 8, 38—40), only allowed on condition of strict

chastity, and to be forced upon no one, nor on any account to be made a subject of boasting. As early as the third century it was urged that the celibate life should be adopted by the clergy in general, and at the Council of Nicasa (a.d. 325) it was proposed that clergy should be obliged to live apart from their wives whom they had married before their ordination. The proposition was not agreed to, owing to the opposition of Paphnutius, an aged confessor and himself a celibate, and in the result the Council simply prohibited second marriages on the part of the clergy. The Trullan Council, held at Constantinople (a.d. 692), declared that priests and deacons might live with their wives, as the laity do, according to the ancient custom and ordinance of the Apostles. To this decision the Eastern Church has adhered, allowing priests and deacons to live in marriage ; only a priest living in celibacy, however, may be chosen as a bishop. In the Western Church various attempts were made by the Popes to enforce celibacy ; e.g., by Leo IX. (1048-1054), Nicolas II. (1058-1061), and by Alexander II. (1061 — 1073), who issued an excommunication against all those who should attend a Mass celebrated by a priest having a wife or concubine. A decree to the like effect was also issued by Gregory VII. (Hildebrand) in 1074, the rule of celibacy for the clergy forming part of the great scheme of that famous Pope for the reorganisation of the Church. Under Anselm, as Archbishop of Canterbury, it was ruled in this country (1102) that no one should be ordained who did not profess celibacy. In 1215 a Canon of the Fourth Lateran Council required celibacy, and from this time forward the Popes made persistent efforts to enforce the rule, so that by the beginning of the sixteenth century the idea that the clergy should live a celibate life had gained such hold that freedom for them to marry was not conceded without considerable opposition.

The Augsburg Confession (Part II. Art. II.) claimed free¬ dom for the clergy to marry upon the ground of ( a ) the Law of God, which no law of man can alter ; ( b ) the custom of the Primitive Church; and ( c ) the impure single life of the clergy

which had in fact followed upon the absolute prohibition of their marriage.

In 1538, when certain representatives of the Lutheran Re¬ formers came from Germany to confer with English divines, the rule of celibacy had not been formally abrogated in this country, and the deputies freely censured the enforcement of clerical celibacy, together with other remnants of Mediaevalism, such as Communion in one kind, which were still at that time sanctioned in England. In view of their strictures, the third Article of the Statute of Six Articles (1539) laid down that priests may not marry.

Permission was given for clergy to marry by the Ecclesias¬ tical authorities in the first year of Edward VI., and this was confirmed by an Act of Parliament in the year following.

§ 3. — EXPOSITION.

( 1 .) The negative side of the matter : —

There is no Divine command for celibacy of clergy.

Bishops, Priests, and Deacons, are not commanded by God’s Law, either to vow the estate of single life, or to abstain from marriage.

It is stated in the New Testament that marriage is honourable in all (Heb. xiii. 4). Some of the Apostles themselves were married men ( e.g ., S. Peter, S. Mark i. 30; 1 Cor. ix. 5), and the qualifications for the Ministry as given by S. Paul in the Pastoral Epistles have in view a married clergy (1 Tim. iii. 2, 5, 12; Tit. i. 6). We may add that the forbidding to marry is even mentioned as characteristic of the apostasy of later times (1 Tim. iv. 1—3). (2.) The positive side of the matter: —

The same freedom is claimed in this matter for the

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 better to godliness.

Clergy and laity are alike free to marry, and the same high principle is set before each as the ground of action.

In dealing with the subject of Matrimony, the twenty-fourth Session of the Council of Trent (November 11, 1563) laid down the following Canon : —

[…]

matrimonium contrahere, contractumque validum esse non ob¬ stante lege ecclesiastica vel voto ; et oppositum nil aliud esse quani damnare matrimonium, posseque omnes contrahere matri- monium, qui non sentiunt se castitatis, etiam si earn voverint, habere donum ; anathema sit, cum Deus id recte petentibus non deneget, nec patiatur nos supra id quod possumus tentari.”

The opinions of some of the leading Reformers on the Con¬ tinent, and the statements of the chief Continental Confessions, on the subject of the Celibacy of the Clergy may be briefly noted.

Luther himself held very strong opinions on the matter, which he expressed in language characteristically vehement and some¬ what unguarded. Monastic vows of celibacy he denounced as impious, and though he himself had taken such vows, he did not scruple to break them, adding to the scandal of his conduct by marrying one who had taken vows as a nun.

The Augsburg Confession speaks very strongly of the ini¬ quity of the system of enforcing celibacy as practised at the time : —

[…]

Cf. also Tetrapolitan Confession, Cap. XII. :

“ Proinde nemini obsistere potuimus, qui vitam monasticam, indubitatam jam Satanae servitutem, cum Christiana mutare voluisset. Sicut nec aliis ex ordine ecclesiastico, qui ductis uxoribus, genus vitae amplexi sunt, a quo proximis plus commodi, majorque vitae honestas, quam ab eo in quo erant, expectari potest. Denique nec eos qui apud nos, in verbi Dei ministerio, perseverarunt, arcere a jure conjugii, quicquid castitatis voverint, ob memoratas causas, nobis permisimus, cum divus Paulus praecipuus verae castitatis assertor, Episcopum quoque recipiat maritum.”

Bohemian Confession, Art. IX. :

“ Docent etiam, ut Sacerdotes negotiis saecularibus non occu- pentur, praesertim vero, ut ab statu conjugii liberi sint, quo aptiores sint et expeditiores ad serviendum proximi commodis et ecclesiae. Etenim conjugium multa secum adfert impedimenta, quae multos, quo minus bene respondeant suae vocationi, remo- rantur. Proinde nostri idoneos magis, habilioresque ad Mini- sterium ecclesiae existimant coelibes, si quibus tamen hoc pecu- liare donum a Deo datum fuerit.

“ Non quod Sacerdotes peccare putent, si matrimonium con- trahant, si id moneat necessitas, sintve ad hoc aliae justae rationes. Nam et Paulus aperte docet, ad ecclesiastica munia tractanda, unius uxoris viros eligendos esse.”

Calvin’s Institutes, IV. xii. 23 :

“Una in re plusquam rigidi sunt et inexorabiles, ne conjugium Sacerdotibus permittant. Quanta apud eos scortandi grassetur impunitas dicere nihil attinet, ac foetido suo coelibatu freti occal- luerunt ad omnia flagitia, haec tamen prohibitio clare ostendit quam pestiferae sint omnes traditiones, utpote quae non solum orbavit Ecclesiam probis et idoneis Pastoribus, sed horrendam invexit scelerum colluviem, multasque animas in gurgitem despe- rationis projecit. Certe quod sacerdotibus interdictum fuit con¬ jugium, id factum est impia tyrannide, non modo contra verbum Dei, sed etiam contra omnem aequitatem. Primum vetare quod Dominus liberum reliquisset, nulla ratione hominibus licuit. Deinde nominatim Deum cavisse verbo suo ne haec libertas in- fringeretur, clarius est quam ut longa demonstratione uti necesse fit.”

Saxon Confession, Art. XVIII. :

“ Scimus autem voluntatem Dei esse, ne prohibeatur conjugium ullis personis, quae sunt idoneae ad conjugium ; et quae extra conjugium non viverent absque periculo conscientiae : sicut Gen. ii.. Matt, xix., 1 Cor. vii., scriptum est. Ideo conceditur apud nos conjugium sacerdotibus, et aliis personis, quae pie in conjugio vivere malunt, quam in coelibatu habere sauciatas conscientias, ne Deum invocare et pie vivere possint.”

WuRTEMBURG CONFESSION, Art. XXI. :

“ Praeterea non dubitamus, quin qui sunt verae honestatis amantes, sentiant conjugium non tantum laicis, ut vocant, verum etiam ministris Ecclesiae liberum esse. Dicit enim Epistola ad Hebraeos : Honorabile connubium in omnibus, et thorus immacu- latus. Et Paulus probat conjugium in Episcopo, et adfirmat prohibitionem conjugii esse Spiritum erroris et doctrinam dae- moniorum… . Nec obstare debet votum castitatis, propterea

quod tale votum humana superstitione, sine auctoritate verbi Dei, et contra fidem susceptum, non agnoscatur a Deo.”

Second Helvetic Confession, Art. XXIX :

“ Qui coelitus donum habent coelibatus, ita ut ex corde, vel toto animo, puri sint ac continentes, nee urantur graviter, serviant in ea vocatione Domino, donee senserint se divino munere prae- ditos, et ne efferant se caeteris, sed serviant Domino assidue, in simplicitate et humilitate. Aptiores autem hi sunt curandis rebus divinis, quam qui privatis familiae negotiis distrahuntur. Quod is adempto rursus dono, ustionem senserint durabilem, memi- nerint verbi apostolici, Melius est nubere, quam uri, 1 Cor. vii.”

It will bo observed that the formularies above quoted for the most part use stronger language and go much further (with the exception of the Bohemian and Second Helvetic Confessions, both of which commend the celibate life for such as feel a call thereto) than our Article. Our Article simply says that priests are not Divinely commanded to “ vow the estate of single life.” The Continental Reformers, generally speaking, in expressing their abhorrence and detestation of the prevalent corruption of the monastic life, were impelled to regard all such vows as contrary to the law of God, and therefore null and void.