CELIBATE, the same with celibacy; but it is chiefly used in speaking of the single life of the Popish clergy, or the obligation they are under to abstain from marriage. In this sense we speak of the law of celibate. Monks and religious persons take a vow of celibate, and, what is more, of chastity.

The church of Rome imposes a universal celibacy on all its clergy, from the pope to the lowest deacon and subdeacon. The advocates for this usage pretend that a vow of perpetual celibacy was required in the ancient church as a condition of ordination, even from the earliest apostolic ages. But the contrary is evident, from numerous examples of bishops and archbishops, who lived in a state of matrimony, without any prejudice to their ordination er their function. It is generally agreed that most of the apostles were married; some say all of them, except St Paul and St John; while others say St Paul himself was married, because he writes to his yoke-fellow, whom they interpret to mean his wife. Be this as it may, in the next ages after the apostles we have accounts of divers married bishops, presbyters, and deacons, without any reproof or mark of dishonour set on them, for instance, Valens, presbyter[7:6:272] of Philippi, mentioned by Polycarp, and Chaeremon, bishop of Nilus. Novatus was a married presbyter of Carthage, as we lcarn from Cyprian, who himself was also a married man, as Pagi confesses; and so was Caecilius, the presbyter who converted him, and Numidius, another presbyter of Carthage. The reply which the Romanists give to this is, that all married persons, when they came to be ordained, promised to live separate from their wives by consent, which answered the vow of celibacy in other persons. But this is not only said without proof, but against it; for Novatus, presbyter of Carthage, was certainly allowed to cohabit with his wife after ordination, as appears from the charge which Cyprian brings against him, that he had struck and abused his wife, and thereby caused her to miscarry. There seems indeed to have been in some cases a tendency towards the introduction of such a law by one or two zealots; but the motion was no sooner made than it was quashed by the authority of wiser men. Thus Eusebius observes, that Pinytus, bishop of Gnossus in Crete, was for laying the law of celibacy upon his,brethren; but Dionysius, bishop of Corinth, wrote to him that he should consider the weakness of men, and not impose that heavy burden on them. In the council of Nice, in the year 325, the motion was renewed for a law to oblige the clergy to abstain from all conjugal society with their wives, whom they had married befoi ’ e their ordination; but Paphnutius, a famous Egyptian bishop, and one who himself was not married, vigorously declaimed against it, upon which it was unanimously rejected. Thus Socrates and Sozomen tell the story; and all that Valesius, after Bellarmin, has to say against it is, that he suspects the truth of it. The council of Trullo, held in 692, made a difference in this respect between bishops and presbyters; allowing presbyters, deacons, and all the inferior orders, to cohabit with their wives after ordination; and giving the Roman church a smart rebuke for the contrary prohibition, but at the same time laying an injunction upon bishops to live separate from their wives, and appointing the wives to betake themselves to a monastic life ’, or become deaconesses in the church. And thus was a total celibate established in the Greek church as to bishops, but not as to any others. In the Latin church a similar rule was established, but by slow degrees in many places; for in Africa even bishops themselves cohabited with their wives at the time of the council of Trullo. The celibacy of the clergy, however, appears of ancient standing, and if not of command and necessity, yet of counsel and choice. But as it is clearly neither of divine nor apostolical institution, it is not at first easy to conceive from what motive the court of Rome could have persisted so obstinately in imposing this institution on the clergy. But we are to observe that this was a leading step to the execution of the project formed of making the clergy independent of princes, and rendering them a separate body to be governed by their own laws. In effect, while priests had children, it was difficult to prevent their dependence on princes, whose favours have such an influence upon private men; but having no family, they were more at liberty to adhere to the pope.