His Writings in Prose and Verse.

Damasusis ranked byJerom[1205]among the Ecclesiastical Writers, on account of the many small Pieces he writ, chiefly in Verse; for he had a particular Genius for Poetry, and was no despicable Poet, if some Compositions ascribed to him were truly his. He writ several Books, both in Prose and Verse, in Commendation of Virginity; but neither that, nor any of his other Works, has reached our Times, besides some Letters, and a few Epitaphs, Inscriptions, and Epigrams, which have been carefully collected byBaronius[1206], though it may be justly questioned whether the several Pieces ascribed to him by that Writer were written by him. A short History of the first Popes, styled,The Pontifical ofDamasus, and published together with the Councils, has long passed for the Work ofDamasus; but now evenBaroniusowns it not to be his; and most Critics are of Opinion, that it was written after the Time ofGregory the Great; nay, some ascribe it toAnastasius Bibliothecarius, who flourished in the Ninth Century[1207]. As for his Letters, those toAureliusofCarthage, toStephen, styled,Archbishop of the Council ofMauritania, toProsperPrimate ofNumidia, to the Bishops ofItaly, are all spurious, as well as the Letters to which some of them are Answers, and supposed to have been forged by that notorious ImpostorIsidorus Mercator[1208]. His genuine Letters are the Two, that are to be found among the Works ofJerom, to whom they were written; Two toAcholiusBishop ofThessalonica, published byHolsteniusin hisCollection of the antient Monuments of the Church ofRome[1209]; a Letter of great Length toPaulinusofAntioch, whereof the chief Heads are set down byTheodoretin his History, as are likewise those of his Letter to the Orientals concerningTimotheus, the favourite Disciple ofApollinaris. Several Letters from the Councils, that were held inRomein his Time, and at which he presided, are still extant, and may well be ascribed to him. The Two Letters toJeromare well worth perusing, being written in a pure, easy, and elegant Style, and with a great deal of Spirit, Vivacity, and even Gaiety, thoughDamasuswas then much advanced in Years, and overburdened with Cares and Business[1210]. In one of them he declares, that his only Delight was to read the Scriptures; and that all other Books, however well written, gave him rather Disgust than Pleasure.Jeromreturned toRomefrom the East in 382. withEpiphaniusBishop ofSalamis, andPaulinusofAntioch, to assist at the Council held there.|Jeromkept atRome,and employed by him.|The other Two returned to their Sees; butJeromcontinued atRome, being kept there byDamasus, who employed him in answering the Letters he received from the Councils of several Churches applying to him for his Advice[1211].Damasus, taken with his Learning and Erudition, and chiefly with the Knowlege he had of the Scripture, had long before lived in great Intimacy with him, and upon his leavingRomewrit frequent Letters to him, not thinking it beneath the Rank he held in the Church to consult him as his Master about the true Meaning of some difficult Passages in holy Writ[1212]. Thus in one of his Letters he desires him to explain the Parable of the Prodigal Son[1213], and in another to interpretthe WordHosanna, which he says was differently interpreted by different Writers, who seemed to contradict each other[1214]. In Compliance with this Request,Jeromwrit the Piece on that Subject, which is still extant. It was likewise at the Desire ofDamasusthat he corrected theLatinVersion of the New Testament, and revised atRometheLatinVersion of the Psalms, comparing it with theGreekText of theSeptuagint. But as to the Letter, with whichDamasusis supposed to have encouraged him to undertake that Work, it is evidently supposititious, and altogether unworthy of him.

Psalmody falsly as-cribed to him.

Anastasiusascribes toDamasusthe Custom of Singing, instead of Reading, the Psalms at Divine Service[1215]. But it is manifest fromAustin, that this Practice was brought from the East, and first complied with by the Church ofMilan[1216], in the Year 386. that is, Two Years after the Death ofDamasus. So long asDamasuslived,Jeromcontinued atRome; but as, by his Learning and exemplary Life, he was an Eye-sore to the lewd, ignorant, and haughty Clergy ofRome, or as he styles them,the Senate of Pharisees[1217], he thought it adviseable to abandon the City upon the Death of his great Friend and Protector, and retire toJerusalem, hoping to find there that Quiet and Tranquillity which he despaired of being able to enjoy while he dwelt withthe Scarlet Whore[1218], that is, while he lived atRome.|His Character.|As for the Character ofDamasus;Jeromstyles him,a Virgin Doctor of the Virgin Church; and, in his Letter toEustochium,a Man of great Excellence.Theodoretcommends him as a Man of a holy Life, as one who declined no Fatigue or Labour to support and maintain the Doctrine of the Apostles, and who struck theArianswith Terror, though he attacked them at a Distance[1219]. Elsewhere he calls him thefamous Damasus[1220], and places him at the Head of the most celebrated Teachers of Truth, who, till his Time, had appeared in the West[1221]. ThatGreekWriter could not be biassed in his Favour, thoughJeromperhaps was. The Orientals declared, in 431. that they followed the Example ofDamasus, and other Persons eminent for Learning[1222]; and the Council ofChalcedon, speaking of his Letter toPaulinusofAntioch, styles him the Honour and Glory ofRomefor Piety and Justice[1223]. The Church ofRomehonours him as a Saint, and his Festival iskept in some Places on the 10th, in others on the 11th ofDecember. But, after all, that he got the Pontificate by the most horrible Violence and Bloodshed; that he lived in great State; that he had frequent and grand Entertainments; that he kept a Table, which, in Sumptuousness, vied with the Tables of the Emperors themselves; and all this at the Expence of theRomanLadies, whose generous Contributions might have been applied to better Uses; is affirmed by contemporary and unexceptionable Writers. It is likewise manifest from the Letters ofJerom, that in his Time the Discipline of the Church was greatly relaxed; that the Observance of the primitive Canons was almost utterly neglected; and that Luxury, Ignorance, and Debauchery, universally prevailed among the Ecclesiastics atRome. And this Charge against his Clergy in some degree recoils upon him, since he appears to have carried the Papal Authority farther than any of his Predecessors, and therefore might have restrained and corrected them. Whether his Sanctity may not from all this be justly questioned, notwithstanding the favourable Testimony of some antient Writers, I leave the Reader to judge.

Year of Christ 384.bracket

Syricius, the Successor ofDamasus, according to the Pontificals, and some antient Monuments quoted and received byBaronius[1224], was a Native ofRome, the Son of oneTiburtius, had been first Reader, and afterwards Deacon, underLiberius, and, upon his Death, had zealously espoused the Cause ofDamasusagainstUrsinusand his Party.Damasusbeing dead, he was chosen in his room by the unanimous Acclamations of the wholeRomanPeople, being at that time Presbyter of the Church known by the Title ofthe Pastor, perhaps the most antient Church inRome[1225].Ursinus, who was still alive, did not fail, upon the Vacancy of the See, to revive his former Claim; but he was rejected with Scorn and Indignation.Valentinianthe younger, who then reigned inItalyunderthe Direction of his MotherJustina, received the News of this Election with great Joy; and, concluding from the Unanimity of the Electors, the Worth and Merit of the Person elected, confirmedSyriciusin his new Dignity, by a Rescript dated the 23d ofFebruary, and directed toPiaianus, at that Time either Prefect or Vicar ofRome[1226][N20].

N20.Damasusdied on the 10th or 11th ofDecember384. as I have related above; andSyriciuswas chosen the same Year, as we read in the Chronicle ofProsper.Anastasiustherefore, and the Author of the Pontifical published byBollandus, as well asBaronius, were certainly mistaken in affirming, upon what Grounds I know not, that, upon the Death ofDamasus, the See remained vacant for the Space of 31 or 36 Days[1].1. Anast. p. 21. Boll. Apr. t. 1. p. 32. Bar. ib. n. 5.

1. Anast. p. 21. Boll. Apr. t. 1. p. 32. Bar. ib. n. 5.

His Answer toHimeriusBishopofTarragon.

The first Thing I read ofSyriciusis his answering a Letter or Relation whichHimerius, Bishop ofTarragoninSpain, had sent toDamasusbyBassianus, a Presbyter of that Church, requiring the Advice of the Church ofRomeconcerning some Points of Discipline, and certain Abuses that prevailed inSpain.Damasusbeing dead before the Arrival ofBassianus,Syricius, who had succeeded him, caused this Relation or Letter to be read, and carefully examined, in an Assembly of his Brethren, that is, perhaps, of the Bishops who had assisted at his Ordination; and, having maturely weighed and considered every Article, he first acquaintedHimeriuswith his Promotion, and then returned to each the following Answers[1227]. The First was concerning the Sacrament of Baptism, which was by some Bishops ofSpainrejected as null and invalid, when conferred by anArianMinister. In Opposition to them,Syriciusalleges the Authority ofLiberius, and of the Council ofNice, the Practice of the Church ofRome, and that of all other Churches both in the East and West[1228].IsidorusofSevilletakes particular notice of this Point of Discipline, which he says was established by the Letter ofSyricius[1229]. By the Second Article he forbids the Sacrament of Baptism to be administred atChristmas, or theEpiphany, on the Feasts of the Apostles or Martyrs, or at any other Time butEaster, and during thePentecostof that Festival, meaning, in all Likelihood, allEastertime, or the Fifty Days betweenEasterandPentecost, orWhitsuntide; for such, adds he, is the Practice of the Church ofRome, and of all other Churches. From this Rule, however, he excepts Children, and all Persons, whoare any-ways in Danger[1230]. By the Third Article, he forbids granting the Grace of Reconciliation to Apostates, that is, forgiving and readmitting them to the Communion of the Church, except at the Point of Death[1231]. By the Fourth, a Woman, who, being betrothed to one Man, has received the Priest’s Blessing to marry him, is debarred from marrying another. The Fifth Article commands all Persons, who, being guilty of a Crime, have performed Penance for it, to be treated as the Apostates, if they relapse into the same Crime; and the Sixth, all religious Persons, whether Men or Women, guilty of Fornication, to be dealt with in the same Manner, and, moreover, to be excluded from partaking of the sacred Mysteries, that is, of the Eucharist, except at the Point of Death[1232]. How different is the present Practice of the Church ofRomefrom that of the same Church in the Fourth Century! which was perhaps even too severe.

Priests and Deacons obliged to observe Celibacy.

Syricius, by the Seventh Article of his Letter, obliges all Priests and Deacons to observe Celibacy; and as some had not paid due Obedience to that Command of the Church, he allows those who should acknowlege their Fault, and plead Ignorance, to continue in their Rank, though without Hopes of rising: but as for those who should presume to defend this Abuse as lawful, he declares them deposed and degraded from the Rank they held in the Church[1233]: PopeInnocentI. writing toExuperiusBishop ofToulouse, quotes and transcribes great Part of this Article[1234]. The Eighth, Ninth, Tenth, and Eleventh Articles describe at length the Life which those ought to have led, who are raised by the Clergy and People to the Episcopal Dignity, and the Steps or Degrees by which they should ascend to it. They ought first to have been Readers; at the Age of Thirty, Acolytes, Subdeacons, and Deacons; Five Years after, Presbyters; and in that Degree they were to continue Ten Years before they could be chosen Bishops. Those who had been married to Two Wives, or to a Widow, are absolutely excluded from ever sitting in the Episcopal See. Even the Lectors are forbidden, on pain of Deposition, to marry twice, or to marry a Widow[1235]. These, and several other less important Regulations,Syriciusdelivers as general Rules to be inviolably observed by all Churches, often declaring, that those who do not readily comply with them shall be separated from his Communion by the Sentence of a Synod, and strictly injoining the chief Prelates of each Province totake care they be punctually observed within the Bounds of their respective Jurisdictions, on Pain of being deposed, and treated as they deserve. He therefore desiresHimeriusto notify his Letter, not only to all the Bishops of his Diocese or Province, but likewise to those ofCarthagena,Bætica,Lusitania,Galicia, and to all the neighbouring Bishops, meaning perhaps those ofGaul; forInnocentI. supposes the Decrees of his PredecessorSyriciusto be known toExuperiusofToulouse[1236]; and in all Likelihood they were so to others in that Country.

This Letter is the First of all the Decretals acknowleged, by the Learned, to be genuine, and likewise the First in all the antient Collections of the Canons of theLatinChurch. It is quoted byInnocentI. andIsidoreofSeville, and is the only Letter of the many ascribed toSyricius, thatDionysius Exiguushas inserted in his Collection. It is to be found in FatherQuesnel’sRoman Code[1237]; andCresconiusquotes no other Decrees ofSyriciusbut what are taken from this Letter. It is dated the Third of the Ides ofFebruary, that is, the Eleventh of that Month 385.ArcadiusandBautobeing Consuls[N21].

N21. The JesuitPapebrokhighly extols this Letter[1], but, at the same time, does not think it quite pure and genuine, because the Date, says he, has been added to it; for the other Letters ofSyricius, and likewise those of his Predecessors, bear no Date. But can we conclude from thence, that they never had any? Some of the Letters ofInnocentI. are dated, and some without a Date, and he admits both. The Transcribers contented themselves, for the most part, with copying the Body of the Letter, and neglected the rest.Papebrokadds, that the Date ought to have been expressed thus:Arcadio Aug. et Bautone viro clar. Conss.and notArcadio et Bautone viris clarissimis, as it is in that Letter. But might not this Mistake be owing to the Ignorance of the Transcribers, who, finding, in the Original, only the Two Letters,V. C.which are to be met with in many antient Writings, set downviris clarissimis, instead ofviro clarissimo?Papebrokmust have observed the same Mistake in the Letter, which PopeInnocentI. writ to the Council ofMilevum[2], and which he allows to be altogether genuine. For Slips or Oversights of this Nature, hardly avoidable, no Piece ought to be condemned, or even suspected.1. Bolland. prop. p. 58.2. Concil. t. 2. p. 1289.

1. Bolland. prop. p. 58.

2. Concil. t. 2. p. 1289.

The Celibacy of the Clergy first proposed in the Council ofElvira.

As Priests and Deacons are commanded, by the Seventh Article of this Letter, to abstain from Marriage, and this is the first Opportunity that has offered of mentioning the Celibacy of the Clergy, a short Digression on such a material Point of Discipline in the Church may not, perhaps, be unacceptable to the Reader. The laying of thisheavy Burdens on the Shoulders of the Clergy, a Burden too heavy for most of them to bear, as Experience has shewn, was first moved in the Council ofElvira, held about the Year 300. according to the most probable Opinion; and, being warmly promoted by the celebratedOsiusofCordoua, andFelixofAcci, nowGuadixinAndalusia, who presided at that Assembly, it passed into a Law; and all Bishops, Presbyters, Deacons, and Subdeacons, were commanded, on Pain of Deposition;to abstain from Wives; and the begetting of Children. These are the very Words of the 33d Canon of that Council[1238]. That, till this time, the Clergy were allowed to marry, even inSpain, is manifest from the 65th Canon of the same Council, excluding from the Communion of the Church, even at the Point of Death, such Ecclesiastics, as, knowing their Wives to be guilty of Adultery, should not, upon the first Notice of their Crime, immediately turn them out of Doors[1239]. How long the 33d Canon continued in Vigour, is uncertain; nay, it may be questioned whether it ever took place: if it ever did, it was out of Date, or at least not generally observed by theSpanishClergy, in the Time ofSyricius, as evidently appears from the Words of his Letter, or Answer toHimeriusofTarragon. I said, by theSpanishClergy, for no such Injunction had yet been laid on the Ecclesiastics of any other Country or Nation. About Fifteen Years after, was held the Council ofAncyra, in which it was decreed, Thatif any Deacon did not declare at his Ordination, that he designed to marry, he ought not to be allowed to marry after but might, if he made such a Declaration, because, in that Case, the Bishop tacitly consented to it. The Council ofNeocæfarea, which assembled soon after that ofAncyra, and consisted, in great Part, of the same Bishops, commandedsuch Presbyters as married after their Ordination to be degraded. In the Year 325. was held the Council ofNice; and, in that great Assembly, it was moved, perhaps byOsius, who acted a chief Part there, that Bishops, Presbyters, Deacons, and Subdeacons, should be debarred from all Commerce with the Wives they had married before their Ordination. But this Motion was warmly opposed byPaphnutius, who had himself ever led a chaste and single Life, and was one of the most eminent and illustrious Prelates, at that time, in the Church. He represented, that the Burden they proposed laying on the Clergy,was too heavy; that few had sufficient Strength to bear it; that the Women, thus abandoned by their Husbands, would be exposed to great Dangers; that Marriage was no Pollution, but, according to St.Paul, commendable; that those therefore, who were not married, when first admitted to the Sacerdotal Functions, should continue in that State; and such as were, should continue to live with their Wives. ThusSozomen[1240],Socrates[1241], andSuidas[1242][N22].

N22. I am not unapprised, that this Account is rejected byBaronius[1], andBellarmine[2], as fabulous; but, notwithstanding the Pains they have both taken to make it appear incredible,F. Lupusallows it to be true[3], though a no less zealous Stickler for the Discipline of the Church ofRomethan either of them.Ruffinus, I own, takes no Notice of this Transaction, asValesiuswell observes. But has no true Transaction been, either wilfully or ignorantly, omitted by that Writer?Valesiuswell knows, that many have; and had he perused that Author with a little more Attention, he would not have so positively affirmed, that no one ever namedPaphnutiusamong the Bishops ofEgypt, who assisted at the Council ofNice, since he is named among them byRuffinus, and with great Commendations[4].1. Bar. ad ann. 58. n. 21.2. Bell. de cler. l. 1. c. 20.3. Lup. in can. p. 114.4. Ruf. l. 1. c. 4.

1. Bar. ad ann. 58. n. 21.2. Bell. de cler. l. 1. c. 20.

1. Bar. ad ann. 58. n. 21.

2. Bell. de cler. l. 1. c. 20.

3. Lup. in can. p. 114.4. Ruf. l. 1. c. 4.

3. Lup. in can. p. 114.

4. Ruf. l. 1. c. 4.

The Advice ofPaphnutiuswas applauded by the whole Assembly, add the above-mentioned Historians,and the Point in Dispute was left undecided. In the Year 340. it was decreed, in the Council ofArles, that,no Man, incumbered with a Wife, should be admitted to Holy Orders, unless he promised, with his Wife’s Approbation and Consent, to abstain for ever from the conjugal Duty.

This is all I can find in the antient Records concerning the Continence or Celibacy of the Clergy, before the Time ofSyricius. And hence it is manifest, that bothCrichtonæusandMelanchthonwere greatly mistaken; the former in affirming, which many have done after him, that Celibacy was first imposed upon the Clergy bySyricius[1243]; and the latter by confidently asserting, that Celibacy was not required of the Ministers of the Gospel by any Council, but by the Popes, in Opposition to all Councils and Synods[1244]. It must be owned, however, that this Law was not so generally observed before the Time ofSyricius, as it was after. For it was not long after his Time before it became an established Point of Discipline in most of the Western Churches, not in virtue of his Letter, or of those which his Successors writ to the same Purpose, but because it was injoined by the Synods of each particular Nation. Thus it was established inAfricaby the Council ofCarthagein 390. inGaulby one held atOrleans, by Two atTours, and one atAgde; inSpain, by Three held atToledo; inGermany, by the Councils ofAquisgranum, orAix la Chapelle, ofWorms, and ofMentz. We know of none inBritain: and that it did not even begin to take place here till the Arrival ofAustin, in the Sixth Century, may be sufficiently proved from the Letters of that Monk toGregory, andGregory’s Answer to him; but of that more hereafter[N23].

N23. I cannot forbear taking notice here of an inexcusable Mistake in theEcclesiastical History ofEngland,byNicolas Harpsfeld,Archdeacon ofCanterbury, a Work in great Request abroad. That Writer tells us, thatRestitutusBishop ofLondonassisted at the Council ofArles, and signed the above-mentioned Canon, forbidding a Man incumbered with a Wife to be admitted to Orders, unless he promised, with her Consent, to refrain from all Commerce with her after his Ordination. He leaves us to infer from thence, that this Canon was received inBritain[1]. But surelyHarpsfeldmust never have seen either the Subscriptions, or the Acts of that Council. Had he seen the Subscriptions, he had hardly omitted TwoBritishBishops out of Three. For, besides the Name ofRestitutus, I find among the Subscriptions, the Names ofAdelphus de colonia Londinensium, that is, as is commonly believed, ofColchester, and ofHibernusofEboracum, orYork. Had he seen the Acts, he had never been guilty of such a gross Mistake as to ascribe the above-mentioned Canon to the Council ofArles, at whichRestitutusassisted, since that Council was held against theDonatistsofAfrica, in the Year 314. and not the least Mention was made there of the Celibacy of the Clergy[2]. The Second Council ofArleswas held about Twenty-six Years after, and of that Council the said Canon is the Second.1. Harp. Hist. Eccles. Anglican. p. 26.2. Concil. t. 1. p. 1426-1429.

1. Harp. Hist. Eccles. Anglican. p. 26.

2. Concil. t. 1. p. 1426-1429.

The present Practice of the Church ofRome,with respect to this Point.

As to the present Practice and Doctrine of the Church ofRome, with respect to this, in their Opinion, most essential Point of Ecclesiastical Discipline, no Man is allowed, after his Ordination, to marry, or to cohabit with the Wife he had married before: nay, in order to prevent all possible means even of any clandestine Commerce between them, the Woman must, by a solemn Vow of Chastity, renounce all Claims on her Husband, and, retiring into a Monastery, bind herself by a second Vow to continue there, without ever once going out, on any Pretence whatsoever, so long as her Husband lives, who cannot be admitted so much as to the Rank of a Subdeacon, till she is secured by theseTwo Vows. Such is the present Practice of the Church ofRome, though Subdeacons were allowed to marry long after the Time ofSyricius, who, in his Letter, mentions only Deacons and Presbyters, and does not even oblige them to part with their Wives, but only excludes them from rising to a higher Degree in the Church. PopeLeo the Great, chosen in 440. was the first who extended the Law of Celibacy to the Subdeacons, commanding them,in a Letter, which he writ about the Year 442. toRusticusBishop ofNarbonne, to abstain, as well as the Deacons, Presbyters, and Bishops, from all Commerce with their Wives. But this Law was observed by very few Churches. In the Time of PopeGregory the Great, that is, in the Latter-end of the Sixth Century, it had not yet taken place, even inSicily, though reckoned among theSuburbicarianProvinces: it was first introduced into that Island by him; but he allowed those to cohabit with their Wives, who had been ordained without a previous Promise to live continent, though he would not suffer them to be raised to a higher Degree without such a Promise.Bellarmine[1245], and the other Divines of the Church ofRome, to soften the Odium, which the hard, and commonly impracticable Command she lays on her Clergy, must reflect on her, represent Continency as a Virtue to be easily acquired. Their Ascetics seem better acquainted with the Difficulties and Struggles attending the Practice of that Virtue, than their Divines; for they prescribe, as the sole Means of attaining it, constant Prayer, frequent Fasting, macerating the rebelling Flesh with all kinds of Austerities, and principally the avoiding of all Female Company. And, if these be the sole Means of attaining it, I leave the Reader to judge how few of their Clergy do attain it.

In the primitiveChurch, married andunmarried Menraised indiscrimin-ately to EcclesiasticalDignities.

No one is so little versed in the History of the Church, as not to know, that in the Three first Centuries of the Christian Religion, married and unmarried Men were indiscriminately raised to the Episcopal, and every other Ecclesiastical Dignity; nay,Jeromwrites, that in his Time, that is, in the Fourth Century, the former were, the most part, preferred to the latter, not in regard of their greater Merit, but because, in such Elections, the unmarried Men were outnumbered by the married, who chose to be governed by one in their own Station of Life[1246]. It is hence manifest, that Marriage was not thought, inJerom’s Time, inconsistent with, or any Bar to, the Episcopal Dignity. And why should it? since, excepting St.John, the Apostles themselves were all married, as we are told, in express Terms, byIgnatiusthe Martyr[1247], who was their Contemporary and Disciple, and whose Authority ought, on that Consideration, to be of greater Weight than that of all the other Fathers together.But such of the primitive Clergy, saysBellarmine[1248],as were married beforetheir Ordination, abstained ever after from the Use of Matrimony: let our Adversaries produce, if they can, but a single Evidence of a Presbyter or Bishop’s having any Commerce with their Wives. It lies upon him to shew they had not. We know nothing to the contrary, and therefore may well suppose, that, pursuant to the Advice given by the Apostle to all Husbands and Wives,they came togetherafter Ordination as they did before,lest Satan should tempt them for their Incontinency.

Celibacy recom-mended by the Fathers:

The Fathers, it is true, out of a mistaken Notion of an extraordinary Merit attending Celibacy in this Life, and an extraordinary Reward reserved for it in the other, began very early to recommend it to Persons of all Ranks and Stations, but more especially to the Clergy, as the principal Excellence and Perfection of a Christian. By their Exhortations, and the Praises they were constantly bestowing on Virginity, Celibacy, and Continence, many among the Clergy, and even some of the Laity, were wrought up to such a Pitch of Enthusiasm, as to mutilate themselves, thinking they could by no other means be sufficiently qualified for the unnatural, but meritorious, State of Celibacy. And, what is very surprising, this Practice became so common in the End of the Third, and the Beginning of the Fourth, Century, that the Fathers ofNicewere obliged to restrain it by a particular Canon. They enacted one accordingly, excluding for ever from the Priesthood, suchas should make themselves Eunuchs, the Preservation of their Life or Health not requiring such a Mutilation. By the same Canon they deposed and degraded all, who should thus maim themselves after their Ordination[1249]. But tho’ the Fathers warmly recommended Celibacy to the unmarried Clergy, and Continence to the Married, neither was looked upon as an Obligation, till late in the Fourth Century, and not even then in all Places; forEpiphanius, who lived till the Beginning of the Fifth, writes, that thoughMen still begetting Childrenwere excluded by the Ecclesiastical Canons from every Dignity and Degree in the Church, yet they were in some Places admitted as Subdeacons, Deacons, and Presbyters, because those Canons were not yet universally observed[1250]; so that, according toEpiphanius, it was not by the Apostles|never injoined bythe Apostles:|(as the Divines of the Church ofRomepretend), but by the Ecclesiastical Canons, that this Obligation was laid on the Clergy; and, in hisTime, those Canons were not yet universally complied with, nor indeed many Ages after: nay, in theGreekChurch, the Clergy are to this Day allowed to cohabit with the Wives they married before their Ordination; and, in this Kingdom, Celibacy was not universally established till after the Conquest, as I shall have Occasion to shew in the Sequel of the present History.

deemed by Pagans the highest Degree of Sanctity.

The abstaining from lawful, as well as unlawful Pleasures, was deemed, by the antient Pagans, especially in the East, the highest Degree of Sanctity and Perfection. Hence some of their Priests, in Compliance with this Notion, and to recommend themselves to the Esteem of the People, did not only profess, promise, and vow an eternal Abstinence from all Pleasures of that Nature, as those of the Church ofRomedo, but put it out of their Power ever to enjoy them. Thus the Priests ofCybele by becoming Priests ceased to be Men, to borrow the Expression ofJerom; and theHierophantes, who were the first Ministers of Religion among theAthenians, rendered themselves equally incapable of transgressing the Vows they had made, by constantly drinking the cold Juice of Hemlock[1251]. AStoic, calledCheremon, introduced byJeromto describe the Lives of theEgyptianPriests, tells us, among other things, that, from the time they addicted themselves to the Service of the Gods, they renounced all Intercourse and Commerce with Women; and, the better to conquer their natural Inclinations, abstained altogether from Meat and Wine. Several other Instances might be alleged to shew, that Celibacy was embraced and practised by the Pagan Priests, long before the Birth of the Christian Religion; and, consequently, that it was not Religion, but Superstition, that first laid the Priesthood under such an Obligation. The Church ofRomehas borrowed, as is notorious, several Ceremonies, Customs, and Practices of the Pagans, and perhaps the Celibacy of the Priesthood among the rest: I say,perhaps, because it might have been suggested to her by the same Spirit of Superstition that suggested it to them: for where-ever the same Spirit prevails, it will ever operate in the same manner, and be attended with the same, or the like Effects. Thus we find the same Austerities practised by the Pagans in theEast-Indies, and other idolatrous Nations, that are practised and recommended by the Church ofRome; and yet no Man can imagine those Austerities to have been byeither borrowed of the other. There is almost an intire Conformity between the Laws, Discipline, and Hierarchy of the antientDruids, and the presentRoman-CatholicClergy; nay, the latter claim the very same Privileges, Prerogatives, and Exemptions, as were claimed and enjoyed by the former[1252]: and yet we cannot well suppose them to have been guided therein by their Example. Celibacy was discountenanced by theRomans, who nevertheless had theirVestals, instituted by their Second King at a time when, the new City being yet thinly inhabited, Marriage ought in both Sexes to have been most encouraged: and the same Spirit, which suggested to that superstitious Prince the Institution of theVestals, suggested the like Institutions to other Pagan Nations, and to the Church ofRomethat of so many different Orders of Nuns.

How much better had the Church ofRomeconsulted her own Reputation, had she either, in Opposition to the Pagan Priesthood, allowed her Clergy the Use of Matrimony, or, by a more perfect Imitation of their Discipline, with the Law of Celibacy, prescribed the like Methods of observing it! How many Enormities had been prevented by either of these Means, the World knows. But none of her Clergy have the Observance of their Vows so much at Heart as to imitate either theAthenianor theEgyptianPriests: and as for those ofCybele, they are so far from conforming to their Practice, that a Law subjecting them to it has kept them out of Protestant Kingdoms, when the Fear of Death could not.

The Celibacy of the Clergy a bad Institution.

If every Law or Institution is to be judged good or evil, according to the Good and Evil attending them, it is by daily Experience but too manifest, that the forced Celibacy of the Clergy ought to be deemed of all Institutions the very worst. Indeed all sensible Men of that Church know and lament the innumerable Evils which the Celibacy of her Clergy occasions, and must always occasion, in spite of all Remedies that can be applied to it. But she finds one Advantage in it, which, in her Eyes, makes more than sufficient Amends for all those Evils,viz.her ingrossing by that means to herself all the Thoughts and Attention of her Clergy, which, were they allowed to marry, would be divided between her and their Families, and each of them would have a separate Interest from that of the Church. Several Customs and Practices, once warmly espoused by that Church, have, in Process of Time, been abrogated, and quite laid aside, on accountof the Inconveniences attending them; and this, which long Experience has shewn to be attended with more pernicious Consequences than any other, had, but for that political View, been likewise abolished.

Back to Index Next