Abbildungen der Seite
PDF
EPUB

CELIBACY OF THE CLERGY.

I. Demonstration of the necessity of abolishing a constrained Clerical Celibacy, exhibiting the Evils of that Institution, and the Remedy. By the Right Rev. Diogo Antonio Feijó, Senator and ex-Regent of the Empire of Brazil, Bishop elect of Marianna, &c. &c.Translated from the Portuguese, with an Introduction and Appendix: By Rev. D. P. Kidder, A. M.-One vol. 18mo.-Philadelphia, Sorin & Ball, 1844.

II. The Variations of Popery: By Samuel Edgar. Second edition, one vol. 8vo.; London, R. B. Seeley and W. Burnside, 1838.

SOON after the establishment of the present form of government in Brazil, an attempt was made by several of her leading statesmen and clergy, to abolish clerical celibacy, perhaps the most prolific source of corruption in the Roman church. One of the principal advocates of this reform was M. Feijó; himself a priest and member of the Chamber of Deputies, subsequently Regent of the Empire, and now a senator for life. He wrote the work of which the title is placed first at the head of this article, a treatise of great importance, both from its intrinsic character and its origin. It was printed for private circulation, and would probably have been lost to the world had not the Rev. Mr. Kidder, a missionary of the Methodist Episcopal Church in the United States, during his residence in Brazil, become acquainted with its distinguished author, and received from him the copy from which he has made the translation before us. "The Roman Catholic," says Mr. Kidder, "will here find a frank and fearless discussion of an important branch of his church polity, substantiated at every step by venerated names and acknowledged authorities. The argument itself is accompanied by all the authority due to a bishop nominated to the extensive diocese of Marianna. The Protestant will here discover an independence of thought, and a liberality of views, that he was perhaps little prepared to expect from a Roman Catholic bishop. The theologian is here furnished with a sound argument, and extensive series of references to ancient authors in point, and also to facts, the

validity of which, in this controversy, can no longer be questioned; and at the compendium of the subject in discussion. same time, with a complete historical The curious reader, moreover, will not fail to be interested in the style of argumentation, in the opinions advanced upon a variety of questions in ecclesiastical history, and especially in some facts respecting the widely extended Empire of Brazil, that are incidentally interwoven and illustrated. Especially at this crisis, when active inquiry is aroused upon this and other kindred topics; when some are endeavouring to clothe the assumptions of the present day in the ghostly traditions of the past, and others are eager to rend the antiquated veil and reduce every assumption to its proper merits; it will be fitting for all to peruse the testimony of one perfectly at home among the fathers, and at the same time qualified to speak from experience upon the question he discusses. While some are gravely contemplating the propriety of a return to clerical celibacy, and its counterpart, auricular confession; it may be well for them and others to pursue a candid inquiry into the origin and applications of the former institution in past ages. Indeed, it can not be amiss for any to listen to the voice of lamentation spontaneously raised on account of the wide-spread and almost irrepressible evils arising from the immoralities of men at whose hands we are told we must receive absolution, or be excluded from the kingdom of heaven; nor to be admonished by the fate of those who have been reduced to the extremity of suing for the restoration of those natural rights, of which a spiritual despotism has deprived them, and of pleading for the intervention of the civil authority as the only hope of securing reform."

The Bishop of Marianna dedicates his work to the representatives of the nation, for whose benefit it seems to have been expressly written. "To whom," he exclaims, rather than to you, friends of my country, protectors of public liberty, and zealous defenders of the rights of Brazilian citizens, ought I to dedicate this

brief essay; the offspring of my respect to justice, of my veneration to religion, and of my love to humanity?" "All Brazil," he says, further on, knows the necessity of abolishing a law that never was, is not, and never will be observed. All Brazil is witness of the evils which the immorality of the transgressors of that law entails upon society. Without probity, there is no execution of law; without the execution of law, there is no justice; without justice, there is no civil liberty; and without civil liberty, there is an end to public happiness. Legislators deign to accept the efforts of one of your number; reflect upon the important truths which he offers to your contemplation, and be unwilling to bear the mighty responsibility which will rest upon you if you retard the revocation of a law which is the source of public immorality."

Earnestly commending to our readers the treatise of M. Feijó, by translating which, Mr. Kidder has done the Protestant cause so essential a service, we turn to a work no less deserving of favourable notice, for its learning, candour and ability, "The Variations of Popery," by Mr. Edgar, for a general discussion of this important subject.

The celibacy of the clergy, as our readers must all be aware, has for centuries been established in the Romish communion. The bishop, the priest and the deacon are, in the Popish theology, forbid to marry. This connexion, indeed, is allowed to the laity.-The institution, in the system of catholicism, is accounted a sacrament, and, therefore, the sign and means of grace and holiness. The Council of Trent, in its twenty-fourth session, declares this ceremony one of the sacraments, by which, according to its seventh session, "all real righteousness is begun and augmented." The same is taught in the Trent Catechism, published by the command of Pope Pius. But, wonderful to tell, the council as well as the catechism prescribes, in sheer inconsistency, a renunciation of an institution which conveys true sanctity as a necessary qualification for the priesthood.

The advocates of Romanism, however,

[blocks in formation]

*

vary on the decision of the question, whether this celibacy be divine or human, or even useful. One party in the Popish community account the interdiction a divine appointment. These make the prohibition a matter of faith and moral obligation, which, unlike a question of mere discipline, neither the pope nor the universal church can change or modify. Commanded by God, and sanctioned by his Almighty fiat, no earthly power can repeal the enactment, which, according to this system, must remain for ever without alteration. This opinion was patronized by Jerome, Epiphanius, Major, Clichtovius, Gabutius, Siricius and Innocent.* This party, however, was never considerable in number or influence.

A second party reckons the celibacy of the clergy a human constitution. These, in general, esteem the prohibition a question not of faith but of discipline, prescribed not by God but by man, and capable of being altered or even repealed by human authority. These are numerous, and include the majority of the Popish communion: and the opinion has been patronized by many theologians of influence and learning, such as Aquinas, Cajetan, Soto, Bellarmine, Valentia, Bossuet, Du Pin, Gother and Milner.

The partisans of this opinion, however, are subdivided into two factions, distinguished by a slight shade of difference. One of these factions accounts the matrimonial interdiction apostolical, estab lished by the inspired heralds of the gospel, and continued in uninterrupted succession till the present day. This forms a close approximation to the former system, and seems to have been advocated, with some variation and inconsistency, by Jerome, Chrysostom, Siricius, Innocent, Gregory, Bellarmine, Godeau and Thomassin. The other faction reckons the regulation merely ecclesiastical or human, and a matter of mere expediency, and capable of dispensation or recision according to utility. This system has been countenanced by Aquinas, Cajetan, Antoninus and Gratian. The marriage of the clergy, says Gratian, is forbidden

* Jerom. adv. Jov. Epiph. H. 48. Major, D. 24. Clich. c. 4. Bell, I. 18. Gibert, 1. 109. †Thomassin, I. 43. Anton. c. 21.

1

neither by evangelical or apostolical authority. Similar statements have been made by Aquinas and Cajetan.*

A third party account sacerdotal celibacy not only ecclesiastical or human, but also useless or hurtful. The opposition to the prohibition, even in the bosom of the Romish communion, has in every age been persevering and powerful. This hostility will, in glowing colours, appear in the ensuing details. The privation has been discountenanced by many of the ablest patrons of Romanism, such as Panormitan, Erasmus, Durand, Polydorus, Alvarus and Pius. The celibacy of the clergy, says Pius the Second, is supported by strong reasons, but opposed by stronger. The edicts of Siricius and Innocent, by which the privation was first enforced, were rejected by many of the clergy. Gregory's tyranny on this topic met with decided hostility. His attempt was, by many, accounted an innovation and produced a schism. Many chose to renounce the priesthood rather than submit to pontifical despotism, violate their conjugal engagements, or relinquish the objects of their affections. The German emperor and clergy supplicated Pope Pius the Fourth for a repeal of the enactments against sacerdotal matrimony, and supported their petition with the most irrefragable arguments, such as the novelty of privation and its dreadful consequences on morality. Augustine, the Bavarian ambassador at Trent, petitioned against clerical celibacy, which, he declared, "was not of divine right or,commanded by God." His speech, on the occasion, met, even in the Council of Trent, with attention and even applause. The French king and clergy at Poissy issued a similar petition to the pope in 1561, enforced by similar reasons. Many of the Popish errors, indeed, may, in theory, be as absurd as clerical celibacy. But none, in practice, has been attended with such odious and appalling effects in the demoralization of man. The rankest and most disgusting debauchery, originating in the unna

Aquin. II. Q. 88. A. II. P. 311. Caje

tan, 1. 121. Bell. 1. 19. Godeau, 2. 154.

Bruys, 3. 398. Bell. 1. 1110. Du Pin, 3. 336. 522. Erasm. 1. 422. Platina in Pius, 2. Paolo, 2. 680.

tural interdiction, has, in the Romish communion, disgraced sacerdotal dignity and stained the annals of civil and ecclesiastical history.

The celibacy of the clergy, in all its forms, is a variation from the Jewish theocracy delivered in the Old Testament. The Jews countenanced neither celibacy nor maidenhood, and the Jewish nation contained neither unmatrimonial priests nor cloistered nuns. The patriarchs, Abraham, Isaac and Jacob, were married, and had a numerous offspring. Prior to Moses, the first-born of the Hebrews possessed both civil and ecclesiastical authority, and was prince and priest; but was not debarred connubial enjoyments. Moses, the celebrated legislator of Israel, was married and had a family. The holy prophets of Palestine, such as Noah, Joseph, Samuel, David, Isaiah and Ezekiel, formed this connexion, and became the parents of sons and daughters. The Levitical priesthood were allowed the same liberty. Matrimony, indeed, among the Israelitish clergy, could hardly be called a bare permission, but amounted in one sense to a command. The priesthood, among the descendants of Abraham, was hereditary. The sons of the Aaronical priests succeeded, in consequence of their birthright, to the administration of the sacerdotal functions.* An injunction therefore seems, in this manner, to have been laid on the minister of the Jewish establishment in favour of that institution, by which, according to the divine appointment, the priestly office was transmitted to their posterity and successors, who presided in the worship of Jehovah and the religion of Canaan.

Sacerdotal celibacy is a variation from the Christian dispensation revealed in the New Testament. The Christian Revelation affords express precept and example for the marriage of the clergy. Paul, addressing Timothy and Titus, represents the bishop as "the husband of one wife." The same is said of the deacon. Matrimony, therefore, according to the book of God, does not disqualify for the episcopacy or the deaconship. The inspired

* Crab. 1. 417. Chrysostom, 1. 268. 568. et 2. 298. Bell. I. 18.

penman also characterizes "forbidding to marry" as "a doctrine of devils." The interdiction of the conjugal union, according to apostolical authority, emanated not from God but from Satan. The prohibition and its practical consequences among the Romish clergy are worthy of their author. All who are acquainted with the annals of sacerdotal celibacy reflect with disgust on an institution, which, in its progress, has been marked with scenes of filthiness that have disgraced ecclesiastical history, the Popish priesthood and our common species."Take away honourable wedlock," says Bernard, "and you will fill the church with fornication, incest, sodomy and all pollution." Erasmus, who was well acquainted with its effects, compared it to a pestilence.* These authors have drawn the evil with the pencil of truth, and emblazoned the canvas with a picture taken from life.

The apostles have left examples as well as precepts in favour of matrimony. All the apostles, says Ambrosius, except John and Paul, were married. Simon, whose pretended successors have become the vicegerents of heaven, was a married man, and the sacred historians mention his mother-in-law. Peter and Philip, say Clemens and Eusebius, had children. Paul was married, according to Clemens, Ignatius and Eusebius; though the contrary was alleged by Tertullian, Hilary, Epiphanius, Jerome, Ambrosius and Augustine.†

The celibacy of the clergy, varying in this manner from the Christian dispensation, is also a variation from ancient tradition. The interdiction of sacerdotal matrimony is unknown to the oldest monuments of the church, the mouldering fragments of Christian antiquity and the primeval records of ecclesiastical history. No vestige of the prohibition is to be found in the long lapse of three hundred years after the era of redemption. Its warmest patrons can produce no testimony of its existence for three ages after the epoch of the incarnation; nor any,

* Bernard, Serm. 66. P. 763. Tim. III. 2. 12. et IV. 3. Titus, I. 6. Erasm. 1. 442.

Amb. in 2 Corin. ii. Matth. viii. 14. Clem. 535. Strom. 3. Euseb. iii. 30, 31. Calm. 22. 410.

indeed, possessing the least authority, till the days of Jerome and Epiphanius in the end of the fourth century. The monk of Palestine and the Bishop of Salamis are the first witnesses which could be produced by all the learning and research of Bellarmine or Thomassin; and even their attestation is contradictory and inconsistent with cotemporary history.

This lengthened period was enlightened and adorned by a succession of apostolical and Christian authors; and all are silent on this theme, or bear testimony to the unconfined freedom of matrimony. The inspired writers were followed by the apostolical men, Hermas, Clemens, Barnabas, Polycarp and Ignatius. These again were succeeded by a long train of ecclesiastical authors, such as Justin, Irenæus, Clemens, Origen, Tertullian, Minucius, Athenagoras and Cyprian. But none of these mention, in express or implied phraseology, any connubial restriction on the clergy and the omission is not supplied by a single pontifical edict or synodal canon prior to the fourth century.

Many documents of antiquity, on the contrary, remain, which testify their unrestrained liberty to form and enjoy the nuptial connexion. and which are conclusive and above all suspicion. A few of these may be subjoined, taken from Dionysius, Clemens, Origen, and the apos tolic canons.

Dionysius, about the year one hundred and seventy, affords one decisive testimony to the marriage of the priesthood in his day. The interesting relation is preserved by Eusebius. Dionysius, according to the father of ecclesiastical history, was Bishop of Corinth. He was esteemed for his wisdom and piety; and did not confine his valuable labours to his own diocese, but extended them to other parts of Christendom. He wrote to the Lacedemonians, Athenians, Nicomedians, Gortinians, Amastrians and Gnossians, for the purpose of enforcing truth and peace. His letter to the Gnossians was on the subject of sacerdotal celibacy. Pinytus, a Cretan bishop, actuated by ignorance or presumption, urged the necessity of abstinence in all its rigour on the clergy of his diocese. Dionysius, having heard

of the unconstitutional attempt, wrote to the Gnossians and admonished Pinytus to regard the weakness of man, and to .lay no such heavy burden on the clergy. Pinytus, convinced of his error, bowed to the wise and well-timed counsel, and replied to his Corinthian monitor in strains of eulogy and admiration. The relation is conclusive against sacerdotal celibacy in the days of the Cretan and Corinthian bishops. Dionysius, famed for superior information on ecclesiastical laws, condemned the injurious and, unwarranted innovation. Pinytus pleaded no authority for his opinion, and acquiesced in the other's decision without hesitation. Had the interdiction of priestly wedlock been apostolical or even ecclesiastical, and continued in the church in uninterrupted succession from the establishment of Christianity, the one would not have advised its abolition, nor the other have admitted his determination with so much submission.*

Clemens, who flourished about the year 200, testifies to the same effect. "God," says the catechist of Alexandria, "allows every man, whether priest, deacon or layman, to be the husband of one wife, and to use matrimony without reprehension. What can the enemy of matrimony say against procreation, when it is permitted to a bishop, that ruleth well his own house, and who governs the church?" This is clear and satisfactory. The use, as well as the contract of marriage was, in the beginning of the third century, lawful both for the clergy and for the laity. The connubial state and its enjoyments extended, in the days of Clemens, to the pastor as well as to the flock. Clemens was a man of extensive erudition both in philosophy and theology, and therefore could not, on this topic, be mistaken in the existing regulations of his day.

Origen, who flourished about the middle of the third century, is another witness. Origen's testimony is quoted by Bellarmine in favour of sacerdotal celibacy; but certainly with little judgment.

Euseb. IV. 23. Niceph. IV. 8. Mendoza, II. 60.

† Clem. Alexan. 1. 552. Tim. III. 4.

His argument recoils on its author. “The duties of matrimony," says Origen, cited by Bellarmine, "hinder the continual sacrifice, which, it appears to me, should be offered only by such as devote themselves to constant and perpetual continency." "* This evinces just the contrary of what the cardinal intended. Some who ministered at the altar, according to Origen's words, were married, and he complained that their connubial engagements prevented their due and regular attendance on the sacred duty. He does not mention or pretend any ecclesiastical law or injunction, requiring the observation of clerical celibacy. He only speaks his own private opinion as a matter of expediency. His language bears testimony to the fact, that married men, in the third century, officiated at the altar, and to the non-existence of any ecclesiastical canon or usage enforcing clerical abstinence. He pleads only his private judgment in behalf of his opinion. His prepossessions against all nuptial engagements are well known, and prompted him to use a remedy in his own person, contrary to all law human and divine. He armed himself against temptation, by a mutilation which was interdicted by the twenty-second apostolical and first Nicene canons: and, one would expect, by selfpreservation. This shows the insignificance of his opinion on this as on other topics of faith and discipline. Bellarmine must have been possessed by the demon of infatuation, when he appealed to Origen's judgment.

The fifth apostolical canon is to the same purpose. This enactment " pronounces excommunication and, in case of contumacy, deposition against the bishop, priest, or deacon, who, under pretext of religion, puts away his wife." The canon, notwithstanding the scribbling of Binius, plainly supposes clerical matrimony and forbids separation. These canons, indeed, were compiled neither by an apostolic pen nor in an apostolic age. Turriano, it is true, ascribed them to the apostles. Baronius and Bellarmine retained fifty of them and rejected thirty

* Origen, Hom. 23. Bell. I. 1114. Labb. 1. 20. Bin. 1. 6. Crabb, 1. 15.

« ZurückWeiter »