FOOTNOTES:
1 Amos ii. 7.—Deut. xxiii. 18.—Micah i. 7.—Herod. I. 199.—Cf. Kuenen, Religion of Israel, I. 92-3, 368.—Rawlinson’s Essay X. on Herod. I.—Luciani de Syria Dea vi.
2 When the Church assumed that marriage was incompatible with the ministry of the altar, it was somewhat puzzled to reconcile the hereditary character of the high priesthood with the morning and evening sacrifice required of the high priest (Exod. XXX. 7-8). For ingenious special pleading to explain this away, see St. Augustin, Quæstt. in Pentateuch. III. lxxxii. and Retractt. II. lv. 2.
3 Num. VI. 2-21.—Judges XIII-XVI.—I. Sam. I. 11.—Lament. IV. 7-8.—Amos II. 11-12.—I. Macc. III. 49.—Mishna, Tract. Nazir.
4 Yasht-Kordah 10.—Bahram Yasht 46.—Sad-der, Porta C.—Philost. de Vit. Sophistt. I. 10.
5 Justin. Historiar. X. ii.
6 Kapila’s Aphorisms I. 1 (Ballantyne’s Translation).—Sankhya Karika XLV., LXVI., LXVIII. (Colebrook & Wilson’s Translation).—For the intercourse between India and the West, see A. Weber, “Die Verbindungen Indiens,” etc., in “Indische Skizzen.”
7 Surangama Sutra (Beal’s Catena, pp. 348-9).—Davids and Oldenberg’s Vinaya Texts, Part I. p. 4.—Hodgson’s Essays on the Languages, etc., of Nepal and Tibet, pp. 63, 68-70.—Hardy’s Eastern Monachism, pp. 50 sqq.
8 Manava Dharma Sastra IV. 257; VI. 1-81. Yet the Sutta Nipata, a Buddhist scripture of unquestioned antiquity, states that of old the Brahmans practised celibacy up to the forty-eighth year. (Sir M. C. Swamy’s Translation, p. 81.) Cf. Strabon. Lib. XV., and Clement. Alexand. Stromat. Lib. III.
9 See Bisse’s edition of Palladius de Gentibus Indiæ.—Diog. Laert. Proœm.—Philost. de Vit. Apollon. Tyan.—Porphyr. de Abstinent. IV. 17.
10 A. Weber, Hist. Ind. Lit., pp. 163, 237-9.—Wilson’s Vishnu Purana, I. 164.—Garrett’s Class. Dict. India, p. 753.
11 Rig Veda, VIII. VIII. 48 (Langlois’ Translation).—Muir’s Sanskrit Texts, IV. 160 sqq.—Harivansa Lect. XXXII.—Hitopadesa (Lancereau’s Translation, pp. 178-9, and note to p. 160). The same follies were common to Buddhism. See Fah-Hian (Beal’s Buddhist Pilgrims, pp. 101-2).—Eitel’s Handbook of Chinese Buddhism, pp. 33, 76.—Rogers’s Buddaghosha’s Parables, p. 59.—How nearly Christian extravagance reached these altitudes may be seen by reference to the Umbilicani or Quietist monks of Mt. Athos, in the fourteenth century, who became suffused with divine light after prolonged contemplation of their navels (Basnage, in Canisii Thes. Monument. Eccles. IV. 366, sqq.—Dupin, Bibl. des Auteurs Eccles. XI. 96.—Beal’s Catena, p. 151).
12 A very good exposition of the Pharisaic revolution will be found in Cohen, Les Pharisiens, 2 vols. 8vo., Paris, 1877.
13 Josephi Vit. 2.—Ejusd. Antiq. XV. x. 5; XVII. xiii. 3; XVIII. i. 5.—Ejusd. Bell. Jud. II. viii. 2, 3, 4, 5, 7, 12.—Euseb. H. E. II. 23, ex Hegesippo.—Hippol. Refut. Omn. Hæres. IX. xiii.-xxii.—Philastr. Lib. de Hæres. ix.—Matt. xix. 12.—Porphyr. de Abstinent. IV. 11-13.—Philo probably obtained from the Essenes the ideal which he embodied in his account of the supposititious Therapeutæ (Philon. Lib. de Vit. Contempl. pp. 690-1, Ed. 1613).
14 Matt. xxxiii. 3.—Luc. xi. 46.—Matt. xi. 4-10.
15 Acts ii. 44-6.—James ii. 10.—Matt. v. 17-19; xxiii. 15.—Cf. Galat. ii. 7.
16 Irenæi contra Hæres. I. xxvi. 2.—Hippol. Refut. Omn. Hæres. VII. xxii.—Tertullii Præscript. xlvii.—Euseb. H. E. III. xxvii.—Epiphan. Panar. Hæres. XXX.—Hieron. Comment. in Matt. II. xii. 2.—It is possible that “them which say they are Jews and are not,” condemned in Rev. ii. 9; iii. 9, were Ebionites. The Talmud represents the Jewish doctors, after the destruction of Jerusalem, as consorting familiarly and disputing with the Ebionite Christians (Cohen, II. 238-9).
17 Hieron. adv. Jovin. I. 34.
18 Gratiani Decret. P. I. Dist. XXXI. c. xi.
19 Gratiani Comment. in Can. 13. Dist. LVI. See also Comment. in Dist. XXXI.
20 Summa II. ii. Quæst. 186 Art. 4 § 3.
21 Gemma Eccles. II. vi.
22 Casar solien todos los clérigos antiguamiente en el comienzo de la nuestra ley, segunt lo facien en la ley vieja de los judios: mas despues deso los clérigos de occidente, que obedecieron siempre á la eglesia de Roma, accordaron de vevir en castidat.—Las Siete Partidas I. vi. 39.
23 Dial. Sophiæ et Naturæ Act. 4.
24 Non erravit ecclesia primitiva quæ sacerdotibus permisit uxores.—Ænei Sylvii Epist. CXXX. (ap. Zaccaria, Storia Polemica del Celibato Sacro, Roma, 1775, p. 354).
25 Boussard’s tract “De continentia Sacerdotum sub hac quæstione nova. Utrum papa possit cum sacerdote dispensare ut nubat,” was several times reprinted. The edition before me is that of Nürnberg, 1510.
26 Le Plat, Concil. Trident. Monument. VI. 337.
27 Zaccaria, op. cit. p. 65. It is curious to observe how, in his anxiety to explain the neglect of the church for these assumed Apostolic commands, Zaccaria proceeds to show that the orders of the Apostles were never received as absolutely binding, as for instance in regard to the prohibition of eating blood and animals dead through strangulation (Ib. p. 116).
28 Taillard, Le Célibat des Prêtres, Gnesen, 1842.
29 1. Cor. vii. 8-9, 38.—1. Tim. ii. 14-15.
30 1. Tim. iv. 3.
31 Quid enim enumeremus infinitam multitudinem eorum qui ab incontinenti intemperataque vita abducti sunt quum hæc ipsa didicissent?—Just. Mart. Apol. II.
32 “Si glorietur, perditur: et si videri velit plus Episcopo, corruptus est.”—Ad Polycarp. cap. v. (Cureton’s Corpus Ignat. p. 10.) This is the received Latin text, but the weight of authority seems to incline rather to the reading πλήν τοῦ ἐπισκόπου than πλέον (Cureton, p. 228—Petermann’s Ignatius, 274-5). The difference, however, is of little moment to our present purpose.
33 Just. Mart. Apol. II.—Athenagor. pro Christianis Legat.—M. Minuc. Felicis Octavius.—Origenis Comment. in Matt. XIV. 24-5.
34 So widely spread had these doctrines become by the end of the second century that Clement of Alexandria devotes the third book of his Stromata to their discussion and refutation. It is not worth while to examine their peculiarities minutely here. The curious reader can find all that he is likely to want concerning them in Irenæus, Hippolytus, Clement, Epiphanius, and Philastrius, without plunging further into the vast sea of controversial patristic theology.
35 Apocalyps. II. 6, 14, 15, 20.—Irenæi contr. Hæres. I. xxvi.—Hippolyti Ref. omn. Hæres. IV. xxiv.—Clem. Alex. Stromat. Lib. III.—Epiphan. Hæres. XXV.—The injustice thus inflicted on the memory of the worthy Nicholas is recognized by the Apostolical Constitutions (Lib. IV. c. viii.). In 1679, E. P. Rothius published a dissertation (De Nicholaitis), in which a vast mass of curious learning is brought to the vindication of the apostolic deacon.
36 Rufin. Hist. Eccles.—Euseb. IV. 23.
37 Hieron. adv. Jovin. Lib. I. c. 42.
38 Compare Beal’s “Romantic Legend of Sakhya Buddha from the Chinese Sanscrit,” pp. 33 sqq., with the Protevangelion, the Gospel of the Infancy, the Gospel of Nicodemus, etc.
Somewhat similar to the Buddhist legend is the assertion of the Jainas that their great Tirthankara, Mahavira, selected the womb of Brahamani Devanandi, wife of Rishabha Datta, as his place of birth; but Sakra, indignant that he should be born in the Brahman caste, caused him to be transferred to Trisala, wife of the Kshatriya Siddhartha (Kalpa Sutra, Bk. I. ch. i. Stevenson’s Translation, pp. 24, 38). Concerning the comparative priority of Jainism and Buddhism, see Thomas’s “Jainism, or the early Faith of Asoka,” London, 1877.
In this connection, it is perhaps worth while to note the Mazdean belief in Saoshyans, the future Messiah, who, as in Judaism, is to overcome the evil powers at the end of the world, and preside over the resurrection of mankind, and who is to be born of a virgin, Eredhat Fedri. (Vendidad, Fargard XIX. 18; Bundehesh XXX. XXXII. 8, 9; Haug’s Essays, Ed. 1878, pp. 313-14). The mode of his conception as related in the Bundehesh, may be compared with the less decent speculations of Sanchez as to that of Christ.
39 Beal’s Buddhist Tripitaka, pp. 114-5.
40 Marini, Missioni di Tumkino, Roma, 1663, pp. 125, 481, 490 sq.
41 “Quare vel ut natus est unusquisque nostrum manet, vel nuptiis copulatus unicis, secundæ enim decorum quoddam adulterium sunt.” Athenag. pro Christ. Legat.—“Unius matrimonii vinculo libenter inhæremus, cupiditate procreandi aut unam scimus aut nullam.” M. Minuc. Felicis Octavius.—“Ut ii qui lege humana bis conjugium ineunt peccatores sunt apud præceptorem nostrum.” Justin. Mart. Apol. II.—I. Cor. vii. 39.
42 Concil Neocæs. ann. 314 c. 7.—Concil. Laodicens. ann. 352 c. 1.—Gelasii PP. I. Epist. IX. Rubr. ad cap. xxii.—Cf. Hieron. Epist. XLVIII. apologeticus, c. 18.—Ejusd. Comment. in Jeremiam Prolog. Even in modern times the priest who pronounces a benediction on a second marriage commits an offence subjecting him to punishment (Rodriguez, Nuova Somma de’Casi di Coscienza, Venez. 1609. P. I. cap. ccxl. No. 4).
43 Val. Max. II. i. 3.—Plut. Quæstt. Roman. 105.—Diod. Sicul. XII. 14.—Tertull. Lib. di Exhort. Castit. xiii.—Auli Gellii X. 15.
44 Tertull. Lib. di Exhort. Castit. VII.; de Monogam. xi.—Concil. Eliberit. xxxviii.
45 Hippol. Ref. omn. Hæres. IX. vii.—Hieron. Epist. LXIX. ad Oceanum.—Constit. Apostol. VI. 17.—Canon. Apostol. xvii., xviii., xix.
46 I. Tim. iii. 2, 11, 12—Tit. i. 6.—Origenis Comment. in Matt. XIV. 23. The polygamy practised by the Jews from the earliest times was continued after the Dispersion. Justin Martyr taxes them with it (Dial. cum Tryphone), and Theodosius, in 393 endeavored to suppress it (Const. 7 Cod. Lib. II. Tit. ix.) by a law, the preservation of which by Justinian, after an interval of nearly a century and a half, shows that the necessity for the prohibition still existed. Even among some of the eastern Christians the precept was required, if we may believe some ancient Arabic canons, which pass under the name of the Council of Nicæa (Decret. ex quatuor Regum libris can. v. ap. Harduin. Concil. I. 511).
This explanation of St. Paul’s injunction is adopted by Theophylact (Comment. in I. Epist. ad Timoth.) and is expressed in the paraphrase “non plures habens uxores quam unam,” in a tract of uncertain date, attributed to St. Cyprian or St. Augustin (De XII. Abusionibus Seculæ cap. x. ap. Opp. S. Cypriani Mantissa p. 49, Oxon. 1682). This is likewise the view put forward by the Church of Geneva in 1563 when replying to certain queries of the Huguenot Synod of Lyons (Cap. XXI. Art. x. ap. Quick, Synodicon in Gall. Reform. I. 49). Origen’s discussion of the matter (Comment. in Matt. XIV. 23-4) shows how doubtful he considered it.
In fact, if the text is to be construed with rigorous exactness, it would exclude all unmarried men from the episcopate, and this seems to be the sense attributed to it in the Apostolic Constitutions (Lib. II. c. ii.), which in commenting upon it do not appear to contemplate bachelors as eligible.
47 Levit. XXI. 13-14.—Innocent. PP. I. Epist. xxii. c. 1.—Epistt. Leon. PP. I. ap. Harduin. Concil. I. 1767, 1772, etc.
48 Concil. Eliberit. can. 65.—Concil. Neocæsarens. c. 8.—Concil. Tarraconens. ann. 516. can. 9.—Boussardus de Continent. Sacerdot. Prop. 6., Nuremb., 1510.
49 Constit. Apostol. VI. 17.—Canon. Apostol. VI. XVII. XVIII. XIX. XXVII.
50 Porphyr. de Abstinent. II. 46, 61; IV. 20.—Cf. Jambl. de Mysteriis IV. xi.—Damasceni Vit. Isidori 311.
51 For the influence of Buddhism on Neo-platonism, Gnosticism, and Manichæism, see A. Weber, Indische Skizzen, pp. 63, 91.
52 Origenis Comment. in Matt. XV. 1-3.—Just. Martyr. Apolog. II.—Epiphan. Hæres. LVII.—Can. Apostol. XXII. XXIII. XXIV.—Concil. Nicæn. c. i.—Concil. Arelatens. II. ann. 452 c. vii., etc.—Sexti Philos. Sent. IX.—At the close of the twelfth century the canons were relaxed by Clement III. in favor of a priest of Ravenna whose ascetic ardor had led him to follow the example of Origen, and who was permitted to retain all the functions of the priesthood except the ministry of the altar (Can. iv. Extra, I. XX.). In the sixteenth century, Ambrosio Morales, a Dominican, took the same effectual means to extinguish his passions and was in consequence expelled from the Order, as required by the canons. He betook himself to literature and died in 1590 at the age of sixty, while professor of eloquence in the University of Alcalà (De Thou, Lib. XCIX.). The practice has perpetuated itself to the nineteenth century in a Russian sect, which Catherine II. and her successors endeavored in vain to repress. In 1818 Alexander II. ordered the enthusiasts banished to Siberia, but the ardor with which they courted martyrdom rendered their zeal dangerously contagious and they were left in obscurity, in the hope of their dying out (Pluquet, Dict. des Hérésies, s. v. Mutilés de Russie). This proved equally ineffectual, for a recent traveller describes them under the name of Skopsis as a large tribe inhabiting the Caucasus, where they flourish in spite of the most energetic measures of repression on the part of the government—imprisonment, banishment to Siberia, conscription, and even the death penalty being powerless to overcome their fanaticism (Brugsch, Reise der Preussischen Gesandschaft nach Persien, 1860-1, ap. London Reader, Jan. 3, 1863). Buffon (Hist. Nat. de l’Homme, ap. Helsen, Abus du Célibat des Prêtres, p. 52) states that he was acquainted with a priest who had adopted this mode as the only one to preserve his virtue.
53 Cyprian, de Habit. Virgin.—That such laxity was indulged in by professed virgins is the more remarkable since promiscuous bathing was forbidden to every one by the Apostolic Constitutions, Lib. I. c. x.
54 Tertull. de Virgin. veland. c. XV.
55 Cyprian. Epist. IV. ad Pomponium.
56 Concil. Antioch (Harduin. Concil. I. 198). Cf. Lactant. Divin. Instit. VI. XIX.—Extravagances of this kind long continued to be a favorite exercise with enthusiasts. In 450 the anchorites of Palestine are described as herding together without distinction of sex, and with no garments but a breech-clout; while others who frequented the cities exhibited their self-control by appearing in the public baths with women. (Niceph. Callist. H. E. XIV. 50.)
57 Constit. Apost. II. i. ii.—Statut. Eccles. Antiq. CIV.
58 Chronique de Tabari, Ed. Rothenberg, II. 90. It is curious to observe that Persian tradition represented Manes as a Chinese magician and an excellent painter, who constructed figures that were able to move, and thus deceived the people. After gaining the confidence of the monarch, he was vanquished in controversy with the chief Mobed, and was flayed alive. (Mohl’s Livre des Rois, V. 379-81.)
59 Lib. XVI. Cod. Theod. Tit. v. l. 7.—Cf. Concil. Quinisext, c. 95.
Scythianus, the precursor of Manes, is said by Epiphanius (Hæres. LXVI.) to have visited India and to have brought from there certain books of magic, which must have been Buddhist, as Buddhism was at that period supreme in the Peninsula. His disciple, Terbinthus, the link between him and Manes, assumed the name of the Buddha.
60 Ephræmi Syri Hymn. II. (Wegnern, Manichæorum Indulgentias, Lipsiæ 1827)—Thomas’s Sassanian Inscriptions, p. 65.—Mainyo-i-khard, West’s Ed. XVI. 16 sq. and West’s note p. 160; Glossary p. 64.—Haug’s Essays, Bombay Ed. p. 239.—Shayast la-Shayast XVII. 2 (West’s Pahlavi Texts, Pt. I. p. 382 and West’s note p. 284).—Dadistan-i Dinik, ch. XXVIII.-XXX. (Pahlavi Texts, II. 58 sqq.)—Plutarch de Isid. et Osirid. 46.—Justin. Mart. Apolog. II.
61 Leon. PP. I. Serm. XLII. cap. 5.
62 Epiphan. Hæres. LXVI.—The same doctrine was held by the Patricians, according to Philastrius, P. III. No. 15.
63 Hieron. adv. Jovin. I. 3.—Ejusd. Epist. ad Eustoch. c. 5.
64 Augustin. Epist. LXXIV. ad Deuterium—Ejusd. contra Faustum Lib. XXX. c. iv.
65 Cyprian. de Habit. Virgin.—Synod. II. S. Patric. c. 18.
66 Hieron. adv. Jovin. I. 2, 26.—Ejusd. Epistt. L. LI. LII.
67 Augustin. de Concupisc. et de Nuptiis.—Ejusd. de Bono Conjugali c. x.—Panzini (Confessione di un Prigioniero, p. 193) is not far wrong in suggesting that the learned doctors who thus decry marriage are guilty of the blasphemy of addressing their creator—“Vergognatevi di avere inventato un modo così turpe per darci l’esistenza!”
68 Sulpic. Sever. Dial. II.
69 In Mag. Bib. Pat. T. V. P. II. pp. 652, 658.
70 Gregor. P.P. I. Regist. Lib. XI. Epist. lxiv. Respons. 10; Lib. III. Epist. lxv.
71 Theodor. Penitent. Lib. I. c. xiv. 1, 2, 3. (Haddon & Stubbs’s Councils, III. 187.)
72 Epiphan. Exposit. Fid. Cathol.
73 Constit. Apostol. Lib. IV. c. 14; VI. 11, 14, 26, 27, 28; VIII. 30.
74 Lactant. Instit. Divin. VI. xvi. xxiii.
75 The fiftieth canon was omitted by Dionysius Exiguus, but was subsequently admitted by the church, notwithstanding that it proves in the clearest manner the full enjoyment of marriage by all grades of the clergy. The sixth canon (numbered fifth in the full collection) which prohibits the separation of ecclesiastics from their wives, was likewise accepted, although in the eighteenth century Cabassut stigmatizes it as heretical.
76 Conc. Carthag. IV. c. 1.
77 Thus Tibullus (Lib. I. El. I.)—
Cf. Juvenal, VI. 534-5.—Ælii Lamprid. Alex. Sever. XXIX.—Porphyr. de Abstinent. II. 50; IV. 6, 7.—Arriani de Epictet. Disertt. Lib. III. c. xxi.—I. Cor. vii. 5.
78 Diod. Sicul. I. 80.—Hieron. adv. Jovin. II. 13.—Plut. de Isid. et Osirid. 2.—Lucian. de Syria Dea XV.—Sil. Ital. Punicor. III. 21-8.—Cf. Virg. Æneid. VI. 661.—Pausan. VII. XXV. 8. Egyptian customs in this respect may perhaps be traced to the vow of continence made by Isis after the death of her husband-brother, Osiris (Diod. Sicul. I. 27). The Emperor Julian’s neo-platonic explanation of the Syrian asceticism (Orat V.) is not without analogy to some of the rhapsodies of the fathers in the praise of virginity.
79 Juliani Imp. Orat. V.—Tertull. de Monogam. xvii.; ad Uxorem I. 6; de Exhort. Castit. xiii.—Hieron. adv. Jovin. I. 26.—Pausan. IX. xxvii. 5.—Sueton. Octav. xxxviii.
80 Concil. Eliberitan, can. 27, 33.—The 29th canon of the first council of Arles held in 314, if genuine, marks the extension of the movement eastward, but as it is contained in but one MS., Mansi supposes it probably to belong to some subsequent and forgotten synod. It is almost identical with Concil. Telensis ann. 386 can. 9; and, whatever be its date, its phraseology evidently indicates that it records the first introduction of the rule in its locality.
81 Concil. Ancyran. ann. 314 can 9.—Concil. Neocæsar. ann. 314 can 1, 8.
82 Euseb. Demonstr. Evang. I. ix.
83 I give the version of Dionysius Exiguus: “Interdixit per omnia magna synodus, non episcopo, non presbytero, non diacono, nec alicui omnino qui in clero est, licere subintroductam habere mulierem; nisi forte matrem, aut sororem, aut amitam, vel eas tantum personas quæ suspiciones effugiunt.”
An Arabic version of the Nicene canons specially limits the prohibition to bishops, and to unmarried priests and deacons.—“Decernimus ut episcopi non habitent cum mulieribus.... Idem decernitur de omni sacerdote cœlibe, idemque de diaconis qui sine uxore sunt.” (Harduin. Concil. I. 463.)—This expresses nearly the discipline of the Greek church.
84 Concil. Ancyrens. can. 18.
85 Pudet dicere, proh nefas! triste sed verum est. Unde in ecclesias Agapetarum pestis introiit? unde sine nuptiis aliud nomen uxorum? immo unde novum concubinarum genus? Plus inferam. Unde meretrices univiræ? eadem domo, uno cubiculo sæpe tenentur et lectulo: et suspiciosos nos vocant si aliquid extimemus. Frater sororem virginem deserit, cœlibum spernit virgo germanum, fratrem quærit extraneum: et cum in eodem proposito esse se simulent, quærunt alienorum spiritale solatium, ut domi habeant carnale commercium. (Epist. XXII. ad Eustoch. c. 5.) It should be observed that celibacy had become the rule of the church at the time when Jerome wrote thus.
86 Accusant nimirum eos qui in ecclesia dilectas appellatas, aliunde introductas ac cohabitantes fœminas habent.—Panar. Hæres. LXIII.
87 Hieron. Epist. ad Oceanum de Vit. Cleric.
88 When, during the demoralization of the tenth century, the council of Augsburg made a spasmodic effort to revive the neglected rule of celibacy, it endeavored to include the lower orders of the clergy within its scope. Ratramnus of Corvey also does not fail to point out that such was the incontrovertible meaning of the Nicene canon, which in his time was universally considered to refer to marriage.
89 Siricii Epist. 2.—Innocent. ad Victricium, ad Exuperium, &c.
90 Lib. XVI. Cod. Theod. Tit. ii. l. 44.
91 The learned and orthodox Zaccaria, concludes that the Nicene canon was only intended to forbid the irregular connexions with agapetæ, whence he ingeniously argues that as the Council of Nicæa did not in any way forbid priestly marriage, the origin of the rule of celibacy is to be assigned to the Apostles.—Storia Polemica, p. 90.
92 Pseudo-Concil. Roman. sub. Silvest. can. xix. (Migne’s Patrol. VIII. 840.)
93 Socrat. H. E. Lib. I. c. 11.—Sozomen. H. E. Lib. I. c. 22.
94 Bernald. Altercat. de Incont. Sacerd.
95 Monumenta Gregoriana (Migne’s Patrol T. CXLVIII. p. 1378).
96 Verum quidem est, quod ob ministrorum Dei defectum in primitiva ecclesia conjugati admittebantur ad sacerdotium, ut ex canonibus apostolorum et Paphnutii responso liquet, et in Concilio Nicæno.—(Respons. Pii. IV. ap. Le Plat, Concil. Trident. Monument. VI. 337.)
97 Sed præ cæteris omnibus Socrates et Sozomenus ac Theodoretus totius antiquitatis judicio celebrati sunt, qui ab iis temporibus exorsi, in quibus Eusebius scribendi finem fecerat, ad Theodosii junioris tempora opus suum perduxerunt.—H. Valesii Præfat.
98 Theodoret. Hist. Eccles. Lib. I. c. 7.
So also Rufinus (Hist. Eccles. Lib. X. c 4): “Fuit præterea in illo concilio et Paphnutius homo Dei, episcopus Ægypti partibus, confessor, etc.,” but he makes no allusion to the incident related by Socrates and Sozomen.
99 Act. Concil. Nicæn. II. xxxii. (Harduin. I. 438).—Hist. Tripart. II. 13.—Chr. Lupi Opp. I. 239 (Venet. 1724).
100 Epist. ad Dracontium.
Baronius labors hard to break the force of this assertion, but his arguments seem to me successfully controverted by Calixtus. (De Conjug. Cleric. Ed. 1783, pp. 261-74.) The chapter devoted to this question by Zaccaria (Storia Polem. Lib. I. cap. vii.) is an example of desperate special pleading.
102 Concil. Laodicens. can. xi.