Maclear and Williams on Article XXXII: Of the Marriage of Priests

Byshops, Priestes, and Deacons, are not commaunded by Gods lawe eyther to vowe the estate of single lyfe, or to abstayne from manage. Therefore it is lawful] also for them, as for all other Christian men, to mary at their owne discretion, as they shall iudge the same to serue better to godlynesse.

i. Connection. At first sight it seems a violent transition from the subject treated of in the last Article to the question of the Celibacy of the Clergy. But the transition is not really so violent as it seems1. The idea that Masses could be offered for the quick and dead for the remission of pain or guilt, went far to sustain the notion that the Priest was to be so far different from other men that family ties were incompatible with his position.

ii. Title and Language. Both the Title and Lan- guage of the Article have undergone a change. The original Latin title in 1553 was Ccelibatus ex vcrbo Dei prcecipitur nemini, or, in English, ” The state of single life is commaunded to no man by the worde of God.” This was altered in 1 563 to ” De Coniugio Sacerdotum ” ” Of the

marriage of Priestes.” Moreover whereas the Article ori- ginally consisted of a single clause containing a negative statement that the state of single life without marriage is not enjoined to be vowed by Bishops, Priests, and Deacons, nor are they by God’s law compelled to abstain from Matrimony; this was strengthened in 1563 by the positive additional statement that it is lawful for them, as for all other Christian men, to marry at their own discretion, as it may seem to serve better to godliness1.

iii. Early History. In the earliest and purest ages of the Church the idea of prohibiting Clerical marriage does not seem to have occurred to the minds of the holiest of men. Thus (a) S. Polycarp speaks of Valens, a Priest, and his wife, as though the fact was by no means strange2. (b) Eusebius mentions Chaeremon, Bishop of Nilus, a man of great age, as flying from the Decian persecution together with his wife3, and tells us how, during the Diocletian persecution, Bishops and Priests were urged to have pity on their wives and children, and for their sakes to offer sacrifice4, (c) Before long, however, an exaggerated esteem for celibacy crept into the Church, but it was opposed by Councils and Canons. Thus the Council of Ancyra, A.D. 314, decreed that those, who, at the time of Ordination as Deacons, declared their intention to marry, should be allowed to do so, and to remain in the Ministry, but it forbade the marriage of those, who at the time of Ordi- nation bound themselves by vows of continence6. Again, the very important Council of Gangra, A.D. 314, anathe- matises those who hold aloof from the ministrations at the Holy Communion of a married Priest6, (d) An attempt

[…]

was indeed made to enforce celibacy on the Clergy at the Council of Nicaea, A.D. 325, but it was frustrated by the firmness of Paphnutius, an eminent Egyptian prelate, him- self unmarried, who earnestly protested against putting so heavy a burden on the Clergy, saying it ought to suffice that they should not marry after Ordination, and should not be required to separate from their wives1.

iv. Later Developments. Gradually, however, the spirit which at first exhibited itself only to be condemned in heretical communities2, stifled the healthier feeling, and at length the liberty not only of cohabiting with but of having wives was refused, so far as Bishops were concerned, in the East and West alike. In the case of Priests the practice of the two halves of Christendom became more and more divergent. In the East Bishops were required to observe celibacy, but Priests and Deacons might live with their wives. In the West the rule against Clerical marriage grew more and more rigid3, Spain leading the way. But there was a long struggle between the natural feelings of the Clergy and the increasing rigour of Church discipline. In 1074 Gregory VII. held a Council at Rome which condemned the marriage of Priests under the name of concubinage. Two years afterwards Archbishop Lanfranc held a synod of English Bishops at Winchester, which forbade Canons to have wives, and decreed that in future

3 Edicts of Innocent I. in the year A.D. 405, and of Leo I. in the year A.D. 443, enjoined the strictest con-

tinence. It was far however from receiving universal obedience. ” The great Church of Milan, claiming the authority of its greatest bishop, S. Ambrose, and bearing the repute of having the best clergy in Italy, was content with the ancient rule which permitted only one marriage to a cleric ” : Cheetham, First Six Cen- turies, p. 351 ; see also Milman’s Latin Christianity, Bk. vi., c. 3.

Priests should not marry; while such Priests as lived in the country and were already married, might retain their wives1. Under Anselm, the successor of Lanfranc, it was finally decreed A.D. 1102 that in England no one should be ordained either Priest, Deacon, or Sub-deacon who did not profess celibacy, and this decree was confirmed by the Council of London, A.D. 11082.

v. The Teaching of Scripture. When we ask what is the teaching of Scripture on the subject we notice that in the Old Testament times the Priests were not only allowed, but encouraged to marry (Lcvit. xxi. 13, 14). More- over the office even of the High-priest was made hereditary, and he was confined in the choice of a wife to a virgin belonging to his own people (Levit. xxi. 13)3. In the New Testament, whereas, considering the avvfulness of His Mission, we might have expected that our Lord would have imitated the example of John the Baptist and incul- cated the extremest asceticism, we find that He committed the keys of His Kingdom to S. Peter, who was himself a married man (Mark i. 30), and He was pleased to perform His first miracle at a marriage-feast in Cana of Galilee (John ii. 1 — 11). In Apostolic times we find S. Paul affirming that what was true of S. Peter was true

Trent in

one Canon condemns those

who woul

. ZV Sacr. Matfimon. Can.

‘X’3 The

jricsts were not so much re-

stricted it

their choice as the High-

priest. They were only prohibited

from marrying prostitutes and divorced women (Levit. xxi. 7). According to the spirit of the Mosaic economy, marriage was regarded as the in- dispensable duty of every man, nor was it imagined that it involved any drawback to the attainment of a high degree of holiness. The Essenes were the first to propound any doubts as to the propriety of marriage. Some of them avoided it altogether, others availed themselves of it under special restrictions. Similar views were held by the Therapeutic.

also of the other Apostles and the brethren of the Lord1 (i Cor. ix. 5). Further in his Pastoral Epistles he specially directs that bishops and deacons should be the husbands of one wife (i Tim. iii. 2, 12; Tit. i. 6), and he lays down special rules concerning the conduct of their wives (i Tim. iii. n), and the management of the children and house- hold (i Tim. iii. 4). Moreover he makes the forbidding to marry a sign of the apostasy of the latter days, and as having its origin in the hypocrisy of men that speak lies, seared in their own conscience as with a hot iron (1 Tim. iv. 2, 3), while on the other hand he speaks of marriage as con- secrated to “such an excellent mystery, that in it is signified and represented the spiritual marriage and unity betwixt Christ and His Church” (Eph. v. 23 — 32). Unless, then, we are to suppose that S. Paul was mistaken from the outset, it is clear that he did not consider that estate to be unfit for the Christian Priesthood, which Christ Himself had honoured with the glory of His first miracle2.

vi. Special Passages. There are, indeed, passages of Scripture which appear to give a preference to the single rather than the married life. Thus after our Lord on one occasion had condemned the too common facility of divorce, and had declared the marriage tie inviolable, the disciples remarked that, this being so, it was not expedient to marry3 (Matt. xix. 10). In reply our Lord did not say it was not expedient. He simply remarked that all men could not receive this saying (Matt. xix. 11), and abstained from laying down any universal rule. And similarly S. Paul,

2 It must of course be remembered that the sacrifice of home made in obedience to Divine vocation, is a very strong recognition of the excellence of home-tics, lor it is the essence of sacri-

fice to surrender by dedication what is best.

3 Nothing could more clearly prove the revolution in thought brought to pass by Christ than this. Even the dis- ciples feel that such a principle would make the yoke of marriage unbear- able.

while he tells the Corinthians that under certain circum- stances it would be good for a man to remain unmarried (i Cor. vii. i), yet has no idea of imposing on whole bodies of men that which his Master said all men could not receive. He admits that every man hath his own gift from God, one after this manner, and another after that (i Cor. vii. 7), and declares that he has no desire to cast a snare on the conscience of any man, or to strain human nature beyond what it can bear (1 Cor. vii. 35).

vii. Conclusion. The proposition, then, that the

Notes

• See F. D. Maurice, Sermon on the Articles, Art. XXXII. ; Cheetham, First Six Centuries, p. 135.
• E[>ist. Polyc, c. xi. Canon of the Spanish Council of
• Euseb., Hist. Eccles., vi. c. 42. Elvira, A.D. 305, is regarded as the
• Euseb., Hist. Eccles., viii., c. 9. earliest, which enjoined on the clergy ’ Concil. Ancyr., Can. x. to cease cohabitation with their wives.
• Socrat. Hist. Eccles., i. c. n ; Sozomen, Hist. Eccles., i. c. ■23; Stanley’s Eastern Church, Lect. v. 3.
• “The ascetic views of the Essenes, of the Montanists, of the Gnostics, and of other sects external to the Church affected more or less the Church itself.” Bp Browne, On the Articles, p. 752.
• Wilkin’s Concil., i. p. 367 ; Giese- ler, Church History, iii. 205 — 207, n. 4. ” The marriage of the clergy dis- credited on every hand, was gradually disused, and died away entirely at the middle of the thirteenth century.” Hardwick, Middle Aire, p. 241. a Ibid. p. 387. The Council of
• ” Licebat et Apostolis nubere et uxores circumducere.” Tertull. De Exhort. Castitat., c. 8.