if while being a member he should take orders, then his seat should be vacant. And if one while so disqualified shall sit or vote in the House he forfeits 5001. for every day he so acts. And he moreover is incapable thereafter of holding any benefice or office of profit under the Crown.1 This enactment, however, has nothing to restrain the dissenting clergy in any respect. A kindred enactment in 1836 related to municipal offices in England. No person in holy orders, and moreover no regular minister of a dissenting congregation, can be a councillor or alderman of any municipal borough in England or Wales. It is however now enacted, that a clergyman of the Church of England may, by a deed of relinquishment, divest himself of the clerical character, and thus he may avoid the penalties of these Acts, which disable him from entering Parliament or becoming an alderman; for he can then do as he pleases. 3 Celibacy of the clergy.-One law affecting the daily life of the clergy once gave immense difficulty to synods and courts, and reflects little credit on the insight into human nature which the rulers of the Church displayed for centuries. In all ages the sacred calling of priests has suggested some antagonism between its earnest pursuit and the ordinary relations of the married state, and this was felt before the Christian era by various communities. The Jews, the Brahmins," the Buddhists, the Egyptians, the Greeks and Romans, more or less enforced the celibacy of their priests. Yet in some ancient Greek cities the office of high priest was hereditary in a particular gens.8 The Assyrians, Babylonians, Persians, Mexicans, Aztecs, Incas of Peru, and the Ashantees, had a hereditary priesthood maintained for the most part by the people. The doctrine of celibacy was a refinement which grew up in early medieval times, for the earliest Christians had no such tendencies. The apostolical canons deposed a clerk who avowed such sentiments as one who had a seared 1 Ibid. The action must be within twelve months. Will. IV. c. 76, § 28. 3 33 & 34 Vic. c. 91, § 4. 12; Epiph. Pan. Haeres, 13, 14, 16; Philast. Haer. P. 5 Inst. Menu, b. vi. st. 1-32. 6 Hardy's East. 25&6 • Math. xix. I. No. 8. Mon. p. 8. 7 Diod. Sic. b. i. c. 80. 8 1 Grote's Gr. 194. 9 1 Ġeffcken, Ch. & State, 20; Bowditch's Ashant. 264. 3 conscience. And for a like reason, if a clergyman abstained from flesh, he was held bound to eat occasionally herbs boiled with flesh, otherwise he was liable to be degraded. The object of this was, however, rather to avoid the suspicion of the Priscillian heresy.2 The kindred question of digamy even in the laity was also deemed so serious, that it was a good ground for refusing communion, at least for a time, though the reason was left rather vague. A law of Justinian made it a qualification for the episcopate, that the candidate should have neither wife nor children to distract his thoughts, and possibly divert the wealth of the Church. It has been noticed how St. Augustine preached on the paramount claims of chastity, and the monastic spirit grew and spread amongst the laity. As patrons sprung up eager to build and found churches, it was seen to be a hateful and unseemly prospect, that the clergy once in possession should come to look on their sacred employment as a mere chattel interest descendible to their children as a portion and assignable for money. The first canon prescribing and enforcing sacerdotal celibacy is said to have been promulgated under Pope Siricius in 385.5 Another canon sixteen years later ordered priests already married to be separated from their wives. And a law of Honorius in 420 also prohibited priests from indulging in concubinage. From the fifth to the seventh century disobedient priests on this score exercised the vigilance of successive councils. Yet in the seventh century the clergy had their wives as they have now.6 The Popes of the eleventh century rigorously 1 Can. Apost. 50, 52. Chr. Ant. b. xv. c. 4. Celib. 67. 2 Concil. Bracar. I. c. 32. • Const. 42, § 1; Cod. 1, 3. 3 Bing. 5 Lea's 6 Theod. Can. A.D. 673; 1 Wilk. 41. Monks and nuns were at last prohibited from marrying.-Concil. Chalced. c. 4, 7, 16. Perhaps Spain led the way in discovering the so-called incompatibility between the honest service of priests at the altar and their marriage in the household. At Elvira, in 305, it was declared by a council that no priest shall serve till he had first put away his wife. In Castile, the code went so far as to deprive the married priest of his benefice, and to declare that the wife shall be sold as a slave.-Siete Part. p. i. tit. 6. The Neapolitan Code, while ignoring the validity of a priest's marriage, yet gave a status of quasi legitim icy to his children, so as to allow them to share in the parent's property. -Lea on Celibacy, 346. sentenced married priests to deposition and their wives to slavery. But at the same time the vicious compromise originated, in accordance with a canon of the Synod of Lillebone, whereby on paying a fine called cullagium, the clergy should be left to their own devices in this respect.1 This state of things, subject to incessant denunciations on the one hand and apologies on the other hand, continued till the sixteenth century.2 Hence also arose the irregular marriages of priests, with their attendant scandals.3 The Reformation opened the eyes of mankind to all these absurdities. Erasmus declared, that since all other measures had proved fruitless to extinguish these evils, the only mode of securing a virtuous clergy was to remove the prohibition of marriage; and in 1560 the Emperor Ferdinand had the courage to undertake to argue the matter with the Pope. But the leaders of the clergy were deaf to remonstrance; and the Council of Trent, after solemn debate in 1563, agreed, that any man who advocated such a doctrine as the marriage of priests was to be subjected to anathema.5 Celibacy of clergy in England.-The British and Irish Church shared in the general tendencies of the time, though some have tried to establish, that the early Saxon Church was wiser than to lean to celibacy so much. It has even been said, that in no country did the rules of celibacy meet with so little attention as in England. In 769 Archbishop Egbert of York recognised the wholesome canon against priestly marriages.8 Dunstan, a hundred years later, tried to deprive priests who were unchaste,—a punishment which they resisted. St. Elfric, Archbishop of Canterbury, still later, was also zealous in the same 10 but the supposed evil grew, and in the time of 1 "As the clergy were prohibited by the laws of celibacy from becoming a caste, they became a corporation."-Guiz. Civ. Eur. 2 Lea, Celib. 271. cause; 3 The most noted of these irregular marriages was that of Abelard and Héloïse. 4 SIR WILLIAM SCOTT said that "it was one of the best effects of the Reformation, that, by introducing the clergy to the charities of domestic life, they had obtained a practical knowledge of its duties." -36 Parl. Hist. 474. 62 Thorpe, Anc. L. 472. 8 Lea's Celib. 167. 9 1 Spelman, 479. 5 Concil. Trid., Sess. 24, Matr. 7 2 Hallam, Mid. Ag. c. 7. 10 A.D. 1006; 2 Thorpe, Anc. L. 345. Edward the Confessor great laxity in practice was observed.1 To go no further back than the Council of Winchester in 1076, it was then declared generally, that priests had no business with wives, and none were to be admitted to orders unless they took a pledge not to marry.2 And in 1107 the Council of London enjoined, that a married priest who performed mass was to be deprived, and his children forbidden to inherit the father's benefice.3 At length, in 1129, the king summoned a great assembly of bishops and priests to consider the immorality of the times; and it was ordered that, if priests then serving in cures did not put away their wives, they must be ejected. Yet all this ended in the fine already mentioned, called cullagium, being accepted, for dispensing with these virtuous, self-denying ordinances. In another century and a half, priests had ceased to marry, but clandestine concubinage became too prevalent.5 In 1485 a statute of Henry VII. specially ordered religious men convicted of incontinence to be imprisoned. Wolsey tried in vain to enforce the punishment of priests for concubinage, which induced him to obtain a bull for the confiscation of monasteries, and endowing with these spoils his colleges of Christchurch and Ipswich. A general visitation of monasteries soon followed under the authority of Henry VIII., and Parliament passed Acts suppressing some hundreds of houses said to be possessed of great revenues.8 But though monachism was rudely torn up by the roots, the celibacy of the clergy was left alone, as being still unquestionable. In 1539 a statute of Henry VIII. made it a penal offence for priests to marry, or even to teach the doctrine, that it was lawful for them to marry. To preach against this statute was to incur a sentence of death without benefit of clergy, and even to hold opinions contrary was forfeiture of land and goods. And priests who per 21 Wilkins, 367. 1 Lives, Ed. Conf. 432. 3 Ibid. 382. 53 Wilkins, 240. In Ireland the same evils were conspicuous.-2 Wilkins, 502. 6 1 Hen. VII. c. 4. 7 3 Wilkins, 669, 678, 704. 8 The total number of monasteries suppressed by Henry VIII. was 645; colleges 90; charities and free chapels 2,374; hospitals 110. The rest were swept away by Edward VI.-37 Hen. VIII. c. 4; 1 Ed. VI. c. 14; Lea's Celib. 470. sisted in having wives were liable to be executed as felons.1 The accession of Edward VI. led to an Act abrogating all these extravagant canons and laws. But Mary's Parliament in turn restored them, and deprived thousands of unfortunate priests who had meanwhile acted on the temporary leave allowed.3 Elizabeth refused to go the length of Edward VI., and, while declining to declare such marriages legal, declined also to enforce the prohibition which was kept standing. Her Injunctions to the clergy in 1559, while admitting that priests might marry, yet seemed to regard the sanction of the bishop and two justices as necessary to give becoming decorum to so perilous a step. Her prejudice, it is said, against married priests long survived, though in the 39 Articles it was found expedient to declare, that priests had liberty of marriage like their neighbours. And no traces of any restriction have ever since been revived. Some recreations of the clergy restrained.—An early council of the Church laid it down that it was foreign to the business of bishops and presbyters to keep dogs and hawks for hunting; and a violation of this rule was ground of suspension for three months. Yet this prohibition against hunting seemed not observed by the bishops. Lord Coke points out, that the canon law prohibited spiritual persons to hunt, yet that the common law allowed them "to use the recreation of hunting to make them fitter for the performance of their duty and office." And he said, in the time of Edward I. at the bishop's death his kennel of hounds had to be given up to the king, in order that the king might give his licence to the bishop's will taking effect. It was no doubt found to be impossible to enforce each or any of these matters literally, and no statute now interferes with the judgment of individuals. The canons of 1603 do not allude to hunting, but repeat the caution which had long been given by councils of the Church, and 2 1 Ed. VI. c. 12, 8 1 31 Hen. VIII. c. 14; 1 Parl. Hist. 540. § 2; 2 & 3 Ed. VI. c. 21. 3 1 Mary, st. 2, c. 2. 12,000 priests were deprived at this time.-Lea, Celib. 495. 42 Burnet App. 332. The archbishop of the day complained to Queen Elizabeth, that the House of Commons gave liberty to marry contrary to the canons.-Strype's Whitgift, 206. 5 4 Wilk. 186; 1 Neal's Pur. 128. 7 4 Inst. 309. 8 Ibid. 338. 6 Concil. Agath. c. 55. |