ARTICLE XXXII De conjugio Sacerdotum. Episcopis, Presbyteris et Diaconis, nullo mandato divino præceptum est, ut aut cœlibatum voveant, aut a matrimonio abstineant. Licet igitur etiam illis, ut cæteris omnibus Christianis, ubi hoc ad pietatem magis facere judicaverint, pro suo arbitratu matrimonium contrahere. Of the Marriage of Priests. Bishops, Priests, and Deacons are not commanded by God's law either to vow the estate of single life, or to 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 better to godliness. In its present form this Article only dates from 1563, when it was entirely rewritten by Parker. The corresponding Article in the series of 1553, as originally drafted, ran as follows: "Cælibatus ex verbo Dei præcipitur nemini. "Episcopis, Presbyteris, et Diaconis non est mandatum ut cælibatum voveant, neque jure divino coguntur matrimonio abstinere, si donum non habeant, tametsi voverint, quandoquidem hoc voti genus verbo Dei repugnat." It is found in this form in the MS. signed by the six royal chaplains; but before publication the last clause (placed above in italics), with its deliberate encouragement to priests to break the vows which they had taken, was omitted, so that the Article in English was simply this: "The State of Single Life is commanded to no Man by the Word of God. 'Bishops, priests, and deacons are not commanded to vow the state of single life without marriage, neither by God's law are they compelled to abstain from matrimony." The language of the Article has not been traced to any earlier source, though there is a very lengthy Article on the same subject headed like our own, "De conjugio Sacerdotum," in the Confession of Augsburg; and the prohibition of matrimony to the clergy is condemned as a suggestion of the devil in the Reformatio Legum Ecclesiasticarum.2 There are two main statements in the Article, each of which requires separate treatment. 1. There is no prohibition of the marriage of the clergy in Scripture. 2. It is lawful for the clergy to marry if they think it advisable. I. There is no Prohibition of the Marriage of the Clergy in Scripture. Bishops, priests, and deacons are not commanded by God's law, either to vow the estate of single life, or to abstain from marriage. This subject admits of the briefest treatment, for the statement made in the Article will scarcely be denied by the most ardent advocate of the rule of clerical celibacy; nor has the Roman Church ever committed herself to the assertion that it is more than an ecclesiastical law. There is certainly no single passage of Holy Scripture which can be cited as containing any command to the clergy either to "yow the estate of single life," or to "abstain from marriage." On the contrary, the injunctions of S. Paul distinctly contemplate the ordination of married men, and contain no hint that they are 1 Confessio Augustana, Pars II. art. ii. Ref. Legum Ecclesiast., De Hares. c. 20. expected to abstain from the use of marriage: "The bishop must be without reproach, the husband of one wife, temperate, sober-minded," etc. (1 Tim. iii. 2). "For this cause left I thee in Crete, that thou shouldest . . . appoint elders in every city, as I gave thee charge: if any man is blameless, the husband of one wife, having children that believe," etc. (Titus i. 5, 6). "Let the deacons be husbands of one wife, ruling their children and their own houses well" (1 Tim. iii. 12). So elsewhere he claims for himself" the right "-although he was content to forego the exercise of it" to lead about a wife that is a believer, even as the rest of the apostles, and the brethren of the Lord, and Cephas" (1 Cor. ix. 5). These texts are conclusive. There is plainly nothing unscriptural in the existence of a married clergy; and we may pass on to the consideration of the next subject. II. It is lawful for the Clergy to marry if they think it advisable. 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. For the existence in early days of a married clergy there is abundant evidence. But in considering it, two distinct questions present themselves which require separate treatment. (a) Was the use of marriage permitted to those clergy who had married before their ordination? and (b) was marriage after ordination permissible? The two questions must be examined separately; for it is not fair to quote, as is sometimes done, passages which imply the existence of a married clergy, as if they necessarily involved the fact that marriage was permitted to those who had previously entered into holy orders. (a) There is no room whatever for doubting that during the first three centuries the use of marriage was ireely allowed, and many allusions to the existence of a married clergy might be cited. E.g. Clement of Alexandria says that S. Paul certainly admits the husband of one wife," whether he be presbyter, or deacon, or layman, using marriage blamelessly "; and the sixth of the Apostolical Canons" forbid bishops, presbyters, and deacons to separate from their wives upon the pretext of piety, on pain of excommunication and deposition.2 In the fourth century, for the first time, we find objection to this raised in the West, especially in Spain, which has throughout taken the lead in advocating strictness. Thus, at the Council of Elvira, at which Hosius was present (A.D. 306), the clergy were positively forbidden to live in wedlock with their wives. A canon enforcing the same prohibition was pressed (not improbably by Hosius himself) on the Council of Nicea (325) for its acceptance as a rule of the universal Church. It was, however, rejected at the earnest entreaty of the Bishop Paphnutius, himself an unmarried man, and the stricter rule has never received the sanction of the whole Church. In spite of this, we trace a growing feeling in various quarters against the ministrations of a married clergy. The Council of Gangra (350) endeavoured to check it by condemning those who held aloof from the ministrations of such. But in the West the feeling made rapiu progress, and before the close of the fourth century 1 Ναὶ μὴν καὶ τὸν τῆς μιᾶς γυναικὸς ἄνδρα πάνυ ἀποδέχεται κἂν πρεσβύτερος τ κἂν διάκονος κἂν λαικὸς ἀνεπιλήπτως γάμῳ χρώμενος.—Stromateis, III. xii. 90. 2 Apost. Can. vi. : Επίσκοπος ἢ πρεσβύτερος ἢ διάκονος τὴν ἑαυτοῦ γυναῖκα μὴ ἐκβαλλέτω προφάσει εὐλαβείας· ἐὰν δὲ ἐκβάλλῃ, ἀφοριζέσθω· ἐπιμένων δὲ, καθαιρείσθω. Conc. Illib. Can. xxxiii.; cf. Dale, Synod of Elvira, p. 197. 2 began to obtain official sanction from the Church. A Council held at Carthage, under Genethlius, in 387 or 390, commands the bishops, priests, and deacons to separate from their wives;1 and later Councils in Spain and France3 insist upon the same rule. In the East, with partial exceptions, the stricter rule was never enforced. Socrates tells us that in the fifth century the custom of the Church in Greece, Macedonia, and Thessaly was peculiar, as those clergy who continued the use of marriage after ordination were degraded; whereas elsewhere in the East there was no rule against this, and "there have been among them many bishops who have had children by their lawful wives during their Episcopate." In process of time this liberty was no longer conceded to bishops, but for priests and deacons it has remained intact to the present day. The Council in Trullo (692) speaks strongly on the subject, and notes the divergence between the East and West in this matter. As we know that the Roman Church has ruled that candidates for the diaconate or the presbyterate are to make profession that they will no longer live with their wives, we, observing the ancient canon of apostolical perfection and order, declare that the marriages of all in holy orders are to be henceforth accounted valid, and we refuse to forbid cohabitation, and will not deprive them of conjugal intercourse at proper times. Therefore, if a man is found fit to be ordained subdeacon, deacon, or priest, he is not to be refused on the ground of living with his wife. Nor at the time of ordination is any one to be required to profess that he will abstain from inter1 Canon ii. Hefele, op. cit. p. 390. I. Toledo (Canon i.) in 400, Hefele, p. 419; and IX. Toledo (Canon x.) in 655, Hefele, iv. p. 473. * II. Arles (Canon xliv.) in 452, and I. Mâcon (Canon xi.), Hefele, P. 404. Socrates, H. Ę. V. c. xxii, |