CELIBACY is the state of a person who lives without contracting marriage. This state may in itself be considered under three different headings: 1. in relation to the human species; 2. in relation to society; 3. in relation to Christian society. But before considering celibacy in itself, we shall briefly outline its fortunes, and the major changes it has undergone among mankind. Monsieur Morin, of the Académie des Belles-Lettres, reduces its history to the following propositions. Celibacy is as old as the world; it is as extensive as the world; it will last as long as the world and infinitely longer.

A brief history of celibacy : Celibacy is as old as the world, if it is true, as some authors of ancient or modern law claim, that our earliest ancestors did not lose their innocence until they ceased to be celibate; and that they would never have been expelled from paradise, if they had not eaten of the forbidden fruit; an action which, in the modest and figurative style of the Scriptures, designates, according to these authors, nothing other than the contravention of celibacy . They derive the proofs of this grammatical interpretation from the awareness of their nakedness which immediately followed upon the sin of Adam and Eve; from the idea of irregularity attached virtually everywhere in the world to the sexual act; from the shame that accompanies it and the remorse it occasions; from the original sin which is passed on by this means; and finally from the state to which we shall return on quitting this life, in which there will be no husbands nor wives, and which will be an eternal state of celibacy .

It is not my place, M. Morin says, to accord to this opinion the comments it deserves: it is singular; it appears to be contrary to the letter of Scripture; and that is sufficient reason to reject it. Scripture tells us that Adam and Eve lived in paradise as brother and sister; as the angels live in heaven; and as we shall one day live there: that is sufficient; and this was the the first, perfect state of celibacy . To know how long it lasted is an entirely frivolous question. Some say a few hours, others a few days; and there are others who, basing themselves on mystical reasons, on I know not what traditions of the Greek Church, and on the date of Cain’s birth, describe this interval as thirty years.

Jewish scholars regard this first celibacy as having been followed by another, which lasted longer; for they claim that Adam and Eve, being ashamed of their crime, did penance for it for a hundred years, without having any relations with each other; a conjecture which they establish from the birth of Seth, their third son, whom Moses states was born to them only when they were a hundred and thirty years old. But if truth be told, only Abel can be said to have had the honour of remaining celibate all his life. Whether his example was followed in the succeeding generations, and whether the sons of God who allowed themselves to be corrupted by the daughters of men were not a kind of religious order, which fell into disorder, is something we cannot say; it is not impossible. If it is true that there were in those days women who made proclaimed their sterility, as it appears from a fragment from the so-called book of Enoch, there might also have been men who professed it, but appearances are against that. The important thing in those days was to people the world; the law of God and of nature put every condition of person under a kind of necessity to contribute to the increase of the human race; and it may be presumed that those who lived in those times made it their chief occupation to obey this precept. Everything that history teaches us about the Patriarchs of those days, says M. Morin, was that they took wives themselves, and gave wives to others: that they begot sons and daughters, then they died, as if they had no more important task to do.

Matters were rather similar during the first centuries after the flood. There was much land to be worked, and few workmen; so it was important to beget as many children as possible. In those days, men’s honour, nobility, and power lay in the number of their children: a man was certain in this way to attract great consideration to himself, to be respected by his neighbours, and to be recorded in history. Jewish history has not forgotten the name of Jair , who had thirty sons serving him; nor has Greek history failed to record the names of Danaus and Aegyptus, one of whom had fifty sons and the other fifty daughters. Childlessness in those days was regarded as in some sense shameful for either sex, and as an unequivocal mark of God’s curse; on the other hand, an authentic proof of his blessing was to have a great number of children round one’s table. Celibacy was a kind of sin against nature; today it is not the same.

Moses can scarcely be said to have allowed men to choose whether or not to marry. Lycurgus exposed bachelors to public infamy, there was even a particular rite among the Lacedemonians, whereby women led them naked to the feet of the altars, and obliged them to make honorable amends to nature, accompanied by a very severe punishment. These republicans went even further in their precautions, publishing rules against those who married too late in life, opsigamia and against husbands who did not carry out procreation with their wives, kakogamia .

Thereafter, when human beings were more numerous, the penal laws were softened. Plato, in his republic, tolerates celibacy until the age of thirty-five; but once this age is passed, he merely bans bachelors from employment, and consigns them to the last rank in public ceremonies. The Roman laws, which followed on the Greek, were also less punitive towards celibacy ; but the censors were entrusted with the task of preventing this kind of solitary life, since it was prejudicial to the state, coelibes esse prohibento . In order to make it the object of obloquy, they would not allow bachelors to make wills or testify as witnesses in court, and this was the first question put to those who came to swear an oath: ex animi sententia, tu equum habes, tu uxorem habes ? in your soul and conscience do you have a horse, do you have a wife? But the Romans were not content to punish them in this world, their theologians also threatened them with extraordinary punishments in the underworld. Extrema omnium calamitas et impietas accidit illi qui absque filiis a vita discedit et doemonibis maximas dat poenas post obitum : it is the greatest of impieties and the ultimate misfortune to depart this world without leaving children in it: the demons will inflict cruel torments on these people after their death.

Despite all these temporal and spiritual precautions, celibacy continued to make progress; the laws are themselves evidence of this. People do not set out to invent laws against offences which only exist in theory; as for knowing where and how it began, history tells us nothing: we must presume that simple moral reasons, and particular tastes, prevailed against so many penal, financial or stigmatizing laws, as well as over qualms of conscience. No doubt at first there were more pressing reasons, namely physical causes; these lay behind those contented and calm temperaments whom nature dispenses from putting into practice the great rule of multiplying; there have been such in every period. Our [western] authors give them pejorative names; Orientals on the contrary, call them eunuchs of the sun or eunuchs of heaven , made by the hand of God, honourable titles which must not only console them for the misfortune of their state, but also authorize them before God and men to glory in their state, as being the result of special grace, which relieves them of a good part of the sollicitudes of everyday life, and transports them at a stroke into the midst of the path of virtue.

But without examining seriously whether it is an advantage or a disadvantage, it is clear that these blessed men were the first to take the path of celibacy : this way of life no doubt originated with them, and was possibly first named by them; since the Greeks called the affected persons in question koloboi , which is not very distant from coelibe s. Indeed, celibacy was the only path the koloboi could take to obey the orders of nature for their peace of mind, honour, and in order to remain within the rules of good faith. If they did not choose it themselves, the laws imposed it on them as a necessity; the law of Moses was categorical. The laws of other nations were scarcely more favourable to them: if they allowed such men to take wives, their wives were also permitted to leave them.

Men in this equivocal state, a rare one at first, being despised by both sexes, found themselves exposed to various mortifications, which reduced them to an obscure and retired life. But necessity soon suggested to them different ways of escaping from it, and making themselves more acceptable: freed from the anxious movements of love for others or self-love, they subjected themselves to the wills of other people with singular devotion; and they were found to be so useful that everyone wanted to own them; those men who owned none such created them, by a drastic and most inhuman operation: fathers, masters, sovereigns, claimed the right to reduce their own children, slaves or subjects to this ambiguous state, and the entire world, which had at first known only two sexes, was astonished to find that gradually it had become divided in to three, of roughly equal size.

These involuntary celibates were succeeded by those who chose it freely, thus increasing greatly the number of the first. Men of letters and philosophers from taste, athletes, gladiators and musicians for professional reasons, very many out of libertinage, and a few out of virtue, chose the path that Diogenes considered so pleasant that he was surprised that his choice did not become more fashionable. Some occupations were obliged to observe celibacy , such as dyers of scarlet, the baphiari. Ambition and politics further swelled the ranks of the celibate : these bizarre men were treated with consideration by the grandees themselves, who were keen to be remembered in their wills, while fathers of families, by contrast, from whom nothing could be hoped, were forgotten, neglected and scorned.

We have so far seen that celibacy was first forbidden, then tolerated, next approved, and finally commanded: it was not long before it became an essential condition for those who dedicated themselves to serving at the altars. Melchisedech was a man without a family or genealogy. Those who destined themselves to the service of the temple and cult of the law were dispensed from marriage. Girls had the same freedom. We are told that Moses sent away his wife, after receiving the law from the hands of God. He He ordered those about to make sacrifices, when their turn to officiate at the altar was approaching, to sequester themselves from their wives for several days Following him, the prophets Elijah, Elisha, Daniel and his three companions, lived a life of continence. The Nazarenes, and the better part of the Essenes, are described by Josephus as a marvellous nation, having discovered the secret that Metellus Numidicus aspired to, how to perpetuate the race without marriage, without childbirth, and without having intercourse with women.

Among the Egyptians, the priests of Isis, and most of those who were in the service of their gods, took a vow of chastity and to make assurance doubly sure, they were prepared for it in childhood by surgeons. The Gymnosophists, the Brahmins and the Hierophantes among the Athenians, a large proportion of the disciples of Pythagoras, and those of Diogenes, the true Cynics, and in general all the men and women who devoted themselves to the service of goddesses, observed the same practice. In Thrace, there was a considerable society of celibate religious, known as ktistai or creators , because of their capacity to reproduce without the aid of woman. Among the Persians, celibacy was obligatory for those girls destined for the service of the sun. The Athenians had a house of virgins. Everyone knows about the Vestal Virgins of Rome. Among our ancient Gauls, nine virgins, thought to have received from heaven extraordinary understanding and grace, guarded a famous oracle on a small island named Sené , on the Armorican [Breton] coast. Some authors even claim that the entire island was inhabited only by unmarried girls, of whom some went from time to time to visit the neighbouring coasts, from which they brought back tiny embryos, in order to preserve the species. Not all of them went: it may be presumed, Monsieur Morin says, that they drew lots, and that those who were unfortunate enough to draw a losing ticket were obliged to take the fatal bark which would expose them to the mainland. These consecrated virgins were much venerated: their house had certain privileges, among them that they could not be punished for any crime, without having first of all lost their quality of virginity.

Celibacy had its martyrs among the pagans, and their stories and fables are full of virgins who have unselfishly preferred death to the loss of their honour. The story of Hippolyta is well-known, as is her resurrection by Diana, patron goddess of the unmarried. All these things, and an infinity of others, were sustained by the principles of belief. The Greeks regarded chastity as a supernatural grace, and sacrifices were not regarded as complete without the intervention of a virgin: they could be commenced, libare, but not completed without them, litare . The Greeks had some magnificent words, sublime ideas and speculations of great beauty concerning virginity; but when one explores the secret conduct of all these celibates and all the virtuosi of pagan times, one finds, according to M. Morin, nothing but disorder, boasting and hypocrisy. Starting with their goddesses, Vesta, the most ancient, was [actually] represented with a child – where had she found him? Minerva had her Erichtonius, a fling with Vulcan, and temples in which she was identified as a mother. Diana had her squire Virbius, and her [beloved] Endymion; the pleasure she took in contemplating the latter asleep speaks volumes, certainly too much for a virgin. Myrtilus accuses the Muses of having a weakness for a certain Megaleon, and endows all of them with children whom he lists by name. It was perhaps for this reason that the Abbé Cartaud called them ‘Jupiter’s chorus girls’. The virgin gods, so-called, were scarcely better than the goddesses, witness Apollo and Mercury.

Priests, not excepting those devoted to Cybele, did not have the general reputation of leading a regular life: not every Vestal Virgin who sinned was buried alive. For the honour of their philosophers, M. Morin is silent about them, and thus concludes the history of celibacy as it was in its cradle, infancy, and in the arms of nature: a state very different from the high degree of perfection in which we see it today: a change which is not astonishing; for the latter is the product of grace and the Holy Spirit; the former was but the imperfect offspring of unregulated, debauched and depraved nature, the sad fallout from marriage and virginity. See [ Mémoires de l’Académie des Inscriptions , volume IV, p. 308, Histoire critique du célibat ]. All the foregoing is purely and simply the analysis of this work. We have suppressed a few verbose passages; but we have scarcely ever allowed ourselves freedom to change a single one of the expressions in what we have used; the same will be the case in the rest of this article; we are not putting forward any of our own views; we will simply content ourselves with faithfully reporting not merely the opinions, but the very words of [other] authors, and have drawn here only on sources which would be approved of by all respectable people. After showing what history tells us about celibacy , we shall now consider it through the eyes of Philosophy and set out what various writers have thought on the subject.

On celibacy considered in itself. 1. With regard to the human race . If some historian or traveller were to give us a description of a thinking being, entirely isolated, without any superior, equal, or inferior, sheltered from any thing that might move the passions, the sole member of his species in other words, we should unhesitatingly say that this singular creature must be sunk in melancholy: for what consolation could he find in a world which is but a vast solitude to him? If one were to add that despite appearances, he enjoys life, is aware of the happiness of existing, and finds within himself some felicity; then we should conclude that he is not entirely a monster, and that relative to himself, his constitution is not entirely absurd; but we should never go so far as to say that he is good . But if one were to insist, objecting that of his kind he is perfect; and therefore that we are wrong to refuse him the attribute of being good, since what does it matter whether he has something - or nothing - to do with other people? we should have to accept the word, and recognize that such a being is good , if, nevertheless, it is possible that he should be perfect in himself, without having any relation or connection to the universe in which he is placed .

But if one were to discover in the long term, some system in nature, of which the species of automaton in question might be considered to be a part; if one could see, in its structure, links attaching him to beings similar to himself ; if his physical formation were to indicate a chain of useful creatures, which could only increase and survive by using the faculties he had received from nature; he would immediately lose any claim to the title of good with which we have gratified him. For how could this title suit an individual who, by his inaction and solitude, would so directly contribute towards the ruin of his species? Is not the conservation of the species one of the essential duties of the individual? And does not every individual who reasons, and who is properly constituted, become guilty if he neglects this duty, unless, that is, he have been dispensed from it by some authority superior to that of nature. See [ Essai sur le mérite et sur la vertu ].

I add, unless he have been dispensed from it by some authority superior to that of nature, so that it should be quite clear that we are not speaking here of celibacy consecrated by religion ; but of the celibacy which imprudence, misanthropy, frivolity, or libertinage produce every day; of that where the two sexes, corrupting each other by the very sentiments of nature, or stifling within themselves those feelings without any necessity, reject a union which ought to make them better people, [preferring] to live in either sterile isolation, or in unions which make them ever worse people. We are not ignorant of the fact that he who gave man all his members may dispense him of the use of certain among them, or even forbid it, and indicate that this sacrifice is pleasing to him. We do not deny that there is a certain bodily purity which nature, left to herself, would never have countenanced, but which God has judged necessary in order to approach in more worthy state the holy places which he inhabits, and to officiate in a more spiritual manner at his altars. If we do not find within ourselves the germ of such purity, it is, so to speak, because it is a virtue that comes through revelation and faith.

On celibacy considered 2. In relation to society . Celibacy of the kind religion has not sanctified cannot be contrary to the propagation of the human species, as we have just demonstrated, without being being harmful to society. It harms society by impoverishing and corrupting it. By impoverishing it , if it is true, as one can hardly doubt, that the greatest wealth of a state must lie in the number of its subjects; that one must number the multitude of labouring hands among the objects of prime necessity in commerce; that, since not all new citizens can become soldiers, given the balance of peace in Europe, neither can they, for the good order of things, waste their time in idleness, they would therefore work the earth, people the manufactures, or become navigators. By corrupting it, because it is a rule drawn from nature, as the illustrious author of De l’Esprit des Lois justly remarked, that the more one reduces the number of potential marriages, the greater the harm to those already contracted; and the fewer married people there are, the less fidelity there is in marriage, just as the more thieves there are, the greater the number of thefts. The ancients were so well aware of these advantages [of marriage] and set such a high price on the natural faculty of marrying and having children, that their laws had provided that it should not be removed [from anyone]. They regarded such deprivation as a certain means of reducing a people’s resources, and of increasing its debauchery. So when someone inherited a legacy on condition that he remained celibate , or when a master made a freed slave swear that he would not marry or have any children, the Papian law in Rome annulled both the condition and the oath. The Romans considered that where celibacy was regarded as pre-eminent, the state of marriage would be stripped of honour, and consequently among their laws, we meet none which contains an express abrogation of the privileges and honours they had placed on marriage and the number of children.

Of celibacy considered, 3. in relation to Christian society . Since the worship of the gods requires continual attention and singular purity of body and spirit, most peoples have been inclined to make the clergy a separate body of people; thus among the Egyptians, the Jews and the Persians, there were certain families consecrated to divinity and to the temples. But it was not only thought appropriate to keep the priesthood separate from business and worldly commerce; there were some religions which went further, and relieved them of the burden of a family. It is claimed that such was particularly the spirit of Christianity, even in its earliest days. We shall now provide a brief exposition of its discipline, so that the reader can judge for himself.

It must be admitted that the rule of celibacy for bishops, priests and deacons is as old as the church. However, there is no divine law in the writings of Scripture which forbids the ordination of married persons as priests, or forbids priests to marry. Jesus Christ did not lay down any precepts on the subject; what Saint Paul says, in his epistles to Timothy and Titus, on the continence of bishops and deacons, tends only to forbid bishops to have several wives at one time, or successively: oportet episcopum esse unius uxoris virum . And the actual practice of the early centuries of the Church is quite clear: no difficulty was raised about ordaining married men as priests or bishops. It was merely forbidden to marry after taking orders, or to re-marry after the death of a first wife. An exception was made in the case of widows. It cannot be denied that both the spirit and the letter of the Church ruling was that its principal ministers should live a life of strict sexual abstinence, and that the Church has always endeavoured to enforce the law. Nevertheless, the practice of ordaining married men as priests persisted, still survives in the Greek Orthodox Church, and has never been positively condemned by the Church of Rome.

Some people believe that the third canon of the first Council of Nicaea imposes the obligation of celibacy on members of the higher clergy. But Father Alexandre proves, in a special dissertation, that the Council did not intend to forbid priests regular relations with the women they had married before their ordination; that in the canon referred to, the objection is only to women named as subintroductae and agapetae , not to legitimate spouses; and that it was not only the higher but also the lower clergy whom the council forbade to cohabit with agapetae . From which this learned Theologian concluded that what was forbidden was concubinage, not legally contracted marriage dating from before taking orders. Indeed he draws support from the well-known story of Paphnutius, which other authors appear to have treated as a fable only because it is not at all favourable to the celibacy of the clergy.

The Council of Nicaea, therefore, by all accounts, referred only to marriage contracted after ordination, or to concubinage; but the ninth canon of the Council of Ancyra expressly permitted men who were being ordained deacons, and who were not yet married, to contract marriage thereafter; so long as they had registered an objection, at the time of their ordination, to the obligation to remain celibate . It is true that this indulgence was not extended either to bishops or priests, and that the council of Neocaesarea , held shortly after Ancyra, formally pronounced presbyterum, si uxorem acceperit, ab ordine deponendum , although the marriage was not therefore null, according to a comment by Father Thomassin. The Council in Trullo, held in the year 692, confirmed, in its canon xiii, the practice of the Greek Church, and the Roman Church did not insist, at the Council of Florence, that it should abandon it. However, we should not fail to acknowledge that certain of the Greek priests were monks, and did maintain celibacy , and that it is normal to oblige [Greek] patriarchs and bishops to enter the monastic life before being ordained. It is also relevant to say that in the West, celibacy was enforced on the clergy by the decrees of the Popes Siricius and Innocent; the decree of the former dates from 385; that Saint Leo extended this law to subdeacons; that Saint Gregory had imposed it on the deacons of Sicily; and that it was confirmed by the councils of Elvira, late third century, canon xxxiii; of Toledo in 400; of Carthage in 419, canon iii and iv; of Orange in 441, canons xxii and xxiii; of Arles in 452; of Tours in 461; of Agde in 506; of Orleans in 538; by the capitularies of our kings, and various councils of the Western Church; but especially by the Council of Trent; although, following representations from the Emperor, the duke of Bavaria, the Germans and even the king of France, it continued to be proposed that priests be allowed to marry, and a plea was made to the Pope after the Council. Priestly celibacy had long had opponents: Vigilantius and Jovian had argued against Saint Jerome; Wycliff, the Hussites, the Bohemians, Luther, Calvin, and the Anglicans all shook off the yoke and during our own wars of religion, the Cardinal of Chatillon [Odet de Coligny], Spifame the bishop of Nevers, and certain clerics of the second rank, dared to marry publicly; but their examples had no followers.

When compulsory celibacy was general in the Catholic Church, clerics who broke the rule were first forbidden to exercise the functions of their order for life, and were considered as laymen. Justinian, (leg. 45. Codex de episcopis & clericis ) later expressed the wish that their children should be illegitimate, and should not be eligible to inherit or receive legacies; and finally it was ordered that such marriages should be annulled and both parties obliged to do penance; from which we can see that infractions had become more serious as the law became entrenched. At first, if a priest married, he was expelled from the clergy, but the marriage was allowed to stand; as time went by, orders were considered a prohibitive obstacle to marriage; today, a simple tonsured cleric [not a priest] who marries can no longer enjoy the privileges of the clergy regarding jurisdiction and exemption from public taxes. He is considered to have renounced the clergy and his rights by entering into marriage. Fleury , Institution au Droit ecclésiastique,. vol. I. Ancienne et nouvelle discipline de l’Eglise , by Father Thomassin.

It follows from this historical summary, says the late M. L’Abbé de Saint- Pierre, speaking not as a polemicist but as a Christian writer on politics, and as a simple citizen of a Christian society, that the celibacy of the priesthood is merely a matter of discipline; that it is not essential to the Christian religion; that it has never been regarded as one of the foundations of the schism between ourselves and the Greek Church or the Protestant; that it was once a matter of freedom in the Latin Church; and that, since the Church has the power to change any point of discipline having been instituted by human agency, and if the states within the Catholic Church would receive great benefits, were it to revert to this ancient liberty, without suffering any effective damage, then it would be desirable for it to do so; and that the question of such benefits is less a matter of theology than of policy, and is a matter more for [secular] sovereigns than for the Church, which would therefore not be called upon further to pronounce on it.

But are there advantages in restoring to the clergy the ancient freedom to marry? That is something which so struck the Tsar, when he travelled throughout France incognito , that he could not imagine how, in a state where he had encountered such good laws and wise institutions, a practice should have been allowed to persist for so many centuries which was, on one hand, of no importance to religion, and on the other, caused so much prejudice to Christian society. We shall not discuss whether the Tsar’s astonishment was well founded, but there is something to be gained from analysing the text by M. the Abbé de Saint- Pierre, which is what we shall now proceed to do.

Advantages of the marriage of the priesthood 1. If forty thousand parish priests had forty thousand children in France, these children would undoubtedly be better brought up [than others] and the state would thereby gain subjects and respectable people, while the church would gain as many faithful members. 2. Since members of the clergy would, because of their calling, make better husbands than other men, forty thousand women would be happier and more virtuous. 3. There are very few men for whom celibacy is not a hardship to observe; therefore it may happen that the church becomes enmired in scandal on account of a priest who cannot observe the rule of continence, whereas other Christians derive no useful benefit from the man who remains continent. 4. A priest would be no less deserving before God for tolerating the faults of his wife and children, than he would by resisting the temptations of the flesh. 5. The burdens of marriage are of some utility to the men who can support them, whereas those of celibacy are of no use to anyone. 6. A parish priest who was the father of a family would be of more assistance to more people than a celibate priest. 7. Those members of the clergy who find the practice of celibacy exceedingly onerous would not be able to assume they had given satisfaction in every way, [simply] when they had nothing of this kind to reproach themselves with. 8. A hundred thousand married priests would found a hundred thousand families; which would mean ten thousand more inhabitants [of France] a year; and even if that figure were only five thousand, it would still produce a million more French people within two hundred years. Therefore it follows, that had it not been for the celibacy of the priesthood, there would have been four million more Catholics, even reckoning since the age of François I, representing a considerable sum of money, if it is true, as an Englishman has calculated, that each man is worth more than nine pounds sterling to the state. 9. Noble dynasties would be able to find bishops within their own families: descendants who would be able to carry on the line; etc. See Ouvrages de morale et de politique by M. L’Abbé de Saint-Pierre, vol. II, p. 146.

Means of restoring to the clergy the liberty to marry : It would be necessary firstly, to form a committee [ une compagnie ] which would consider the obstacles, and think of ways of removing them. Secondly, to negotiate with the leaders of the Roman Catholic Church [in France] and form a confederation with them; Thirdly, to negotiate with the Court of Rome [the Vatican], since the Abbé de Saint-Pierre argues that it would be better to use the Pope’s authority than that of a national council; although, according to him, a national council would doubtless mean that the procedures would be accomplished more quickly; and although, according to many theologians, such a tribunal would suffice for a matter of this kind. Now here are the objections which the Abbé de Saint-Pierre himself proposes against his project and the answers he makes to them

First objection: The Italian bishops could be married, like St Ambrose; and the cardinals and the Pope could also be married men, as St Peter was.

Reply : Yes indeed: M. l’ Abbé de Saint-Pierre sees no harm in following these examples, nor any inconvenience arising from the Pope and cardinals having respectable wives, virtuous children, and well-disciplined families.

Second objection : The people have become accustomed to revering those who are celibate , and it is proper that that reverence should be preserved.

Reply : Those Dutch and English Protestant pastors who are virtuous are no less respected by the people for being married.

Third objection : Priests, on account of their celibacy , have more time to devote to their functions of their calling than they would if married.

Reply : Protestant ministers find ample time to have children, to bring them up, and to manage their families, as well as taking care of their parishes. It would be insulting to our priests not to presume that they could do equally well.

Fourth objection : younger priests, aged thirty, would have five or six children, they would sometimes have little income from their function, not much in the way of fortune, and could consequently find themselves in financial straits.

Reply : The man who presents himself for ordination is already recognized as a wise and sensible person: he is obliged to have his patrimony; he will have his living; his wife’s dowry may be respectable. Experience shows that those priests who are the sons of poor parents are no greater a burden on their parish or the church. In any case, why should it be necessary for one section of the clergy to live in luxury, while others languish in poverty? Would it not be possible to envisage a better distribution of church revenues?

Fifth objection : The Council of Trent regards celibacy as a more perfect state than marriage.

Reply : There are ambiguities to be avoided in the words state , perfect , and obligation . Why should we desire a priest to be more perfect than Saint Peter himself? The objection proves too much, and as a result proves nothing. My argument, says the Abbé de Saint Pierre, is purely political, and consists of three propositions: 1. Celibacy is simply an ecclesiastical discipline, which the Church is at liberty to alter. 2. It would be advantageous to Roman Catholic states if this discipline were indeed altered. 3. Pending a national or general council, it would be appropriate for the Vatican to receive in return for granting dispensation from celibacy , a fixed sum of money, payable by those who seek it.

Such is the system outlined by M. l’Abbé de Saint-Pierre, which we have described because the overall design of our publication requires it, and we leave judgment to those qualified to pass judgement on these important questions. But we cannot dispense ourselves from noting, in passing, that the citizen-philosopher proposed in only one edition, published in Holland, and in a bad copy, an objection which very readily arises, and which is not among the least important: that is, the inconvenience of livings made hereditary, an inconvenience which is already only too sharply felt, and which will become more widespread. Should therefore all claims and adjudications be abolished, and should the attribution of all livings be referred to higher orders? This would not perhaps be a worse state of affairs, and a bishop who knows his diocese, and the good subjects within it, is as well qualiified to appoint someone to a vacant living as a dying cleric, besieged by a crowd of interested friends or relations: how great the number of simonies and scandalous lawsuits that would be prevented!

In order for this article to be complete, we should mention monastic celibacy , but we shall content ourselves with observing, along with the celebrated M. Melon: 1. That there would be infinite benefit for society and for its individuals, if the prince would make strict use of the power he enjoys to enforce observation of the law that would forbid entering into monastic orders before the age of twenty-five; or, to use the idea and the expression of M. Melon, which would not allow an individual to dispose of his liberty before the age at which one is allowed to dispose of his property. See further under articles on Marriage, Monk, Virginity, Vows, etc. 2. We will add, along with a modern author whom one cannot read or admire too much, that celibacy has the potential to become harmful, to the extent that the number of celibates might be too numerous, and consequently that of lay people not numerous enough. 3. That human laws, being made to speak to the mind, should issue precepts and not advice; and that religion, being made to speak to the heart, should issue many counsels and few precepts: so that when, for example, it [religion] lays down rules not for the good, but for the best; not for what is good, but for what is perfect; it is appropriate that these should be counsels and not laws; for perfection does not touch the universal mass of men or things; and moreover, if these are laws, an infinite number of extra laws would be necessary to make sure the first are observed; that experience has demonstrated these principles; that when celibacy , which was only a counsel in Christianity, became an express law for a certain category of citizens, it became necessary to create new laws every day to bring men to observe them; consequently the legislator exhausted himself and society, in the effort to make men execute by precept something that those who love perfection would have accomplished themselves if it had been a counsel. 4. That it is in the nature of human understanding to love, in matters of religion, whatever supposes an effort, just as in matters of ethics, we love speculatively anything that bears the character of severity; and thus celibacy was fated to be, as indeed transpired, more acceptable to the peoples for whom it was least appropriate, and for whom it might have the worst consequences; being retained in the southern countries of Europe where, by reason of the climate, it was more difficult to observe; and being proscribed in the countries of the North where passions were less heated; it was admitted where there was a lower number of inhabitants, and rejected in places where there were many.

These observations are so fine and true that they cannot be repeated in too many places. I have derived them from the excellent work by M. le Président de M...; the preceding observations come from either M. Fleury, Father Alexander, or Father Thomassin; add to that material provided for me by the Mémoires de l’Académie des Inscriptions , et the political writings of M. l’ Abbé de Saint-Pierre and M. Melon, and hardly any of the sentences remaining in this article are my own; even those are taken from a work which has been praised in the Journal de Trévoux (February 1746.) In spite of my reliance on these authorities, I should not be surprised if it meets with criticisms and contradictors; but it may also happen that – as in the Council of Trent, it was, according to report, the younger clerics who rejected most forcefully the proposal that priests should be married – it may be those unmarried men who most need wives, and who have the least knowledge of the authors I have cited, who will most vociferously criticize its principles.