of ruins, nor that in Egypt, which was but a very inconsiderable place in those days and in which no monuments of antiquity give us the least hint that St. Peter ever preached.

But if the Scripture had been entirely silent in this matter, we have it proved by universal tradition, which is the means by which we come to the knowledge of the Scripture itself. And indeed there is a more universal tradition for St. Peter's being at Rome, than there is for many parts of the Scripture which Protestants receive; for whereas many of the ancient fathers have called in question some books of Scripture - for instance, the Revelation, the Epistle to the Hebrews, etc., and there is scarce any part of the Bible or New Testament but what has been rejected by some heretics of old; yet we cannot find that St. Peter's being at Rome was ever called in question by any single man, infidel or Christian, Catholic or heretic, for thirteen or fourteen hundred years after Christ; though all heretics and schismatics, as being always enemies of the Church of Rome, would have been most glad to have called in question this succession of St. Peter (which the bishops of Rome ever gloried in), had not the matter of fact been out of dispute.

The ancient fathers that have attested St. Peter's being at Rome, besides many others, are, St. Irenæus, l. 3, c. 3; St. Denys, bishop of Corinth; Caius and Origen, alleged by Eusebius in his Church History, p. 71, 78; Tertullian, 1. de Præscript, c. 36, and in Scorpiaco, c. 5; St. Cyprian, Epist. 52 and 55; Arnobius, 1. 2, contra Gentes; Lactantius, 1. de morte Persecutorum, c. 2; Eusebius, 1. 2, Hist. c. 14, p. 52; 1. 3, c. 4, p. 74; St. Athanasius, in Apolog. de fuga sua, p. 331; St. Cyril of Jerusalem, Catech. 6, p. 54; St. Ambrose, 1. 4; Hexam. c. 8; St. Jerome, de Scriptoribus Eccles. in Petro and in Marco, and in his Chronicon ad Annos 43 and 69; Sulpitius Severus 1. 2; Hist. St. Augustine, 1. de hærc, 1, Epist. 53, 1. 2. contra Lit. Petil, c. 51; St. John Chrysostom, tom. 5, Hom. 12; Orisitus, 1; 7, c. 6; St. Peter Chrysologus, Epist. ad Eutych; St. Optatus, 1. 2, contra Parmenia; Theodoret, in Epist. ad Rom. and 1. 1, Hæret. Fab. c. 1, etc.

2

CHAPTER XVII.

Of the Celibacy of the Clergy.

Q. What is the reason why the Catholic clergy are not allowed to marry?

A. Because at their entering into Holy Orders, they make a solemn promise to God and the Church to live continently. Now the breach of such a promise as this would be a great sin; witness St. Paul (1 Tim. v. 11, 12), where speaking of widows that are for marrying, after having thus engaged themselves to God, he says: "They have damnation, because they have cast off their first faith"; that is their solemn engagement made to God.

Q. But why does the Church receive none to Holy Orders but such as are willing to make this solemn engagement?

A. Because she does not think it proper that they, who by their office and function ought to be wholly devoted to the service of God, and the care of souls, should be diverted from these duties by the distractions of a married life. (1 Cor. VII. 32, 33.) "He that is unmarried, careth for the things that belong to the Lord, how he may please the Lord: but he that is married, careth for the things that are of the world, how he may please his wife."

Q. But was it always the law of the Church that the clergy should abstain from marriage?

A. It was always a law in the Church that bishops, priests, and deacons shall not marry after having received Holy Orders; and we have not one example, in all antiquity, either in the Greek or Latin Church of any such marriage; but, it has been at some times, and in some places, as at present among the Greeks, permitted for priests and deacons, to continue with their wives which they had married before their ordination, though even this was disallowed by many ancient canons.

The 27th of the Apostolic canons allows none of the clergy to marry but those that are in the minor Orders, that is, lectors and cantors. The Council of Neocæsarea, which was more ancient than that of Nice, in its first canon, orders that if a priest marries he would be deposed. The Council of Ancyra, which was held about the same time, orders the same thing with regard to deacons, except they protested at the time of their ordination that they could not live unmarried, and were therefore presumed to be dispensed with by the bishop. (Council Ancyra, Can. 10.)

The great Council of Nice, in the third canon forbids clergymen to have any women in their house, except it be mother, sister, or aunt, etc., a caution which would never have been thought of if they had been allowed to have wives.

In the West the Council of Illiberis, which was held about the close of the third century, canon 33 commands bishops, priests, deacons and sub-deacons to abstain from their wives, under pain of degradation. The second Council of Arles (can. 2) ordains that no married man be made priest, unless he promise conversion, that is to live continently. The second Council of Carthage (can. 2) ordains that bishops, priests and deacons should live continently, and abstain from their wives; and this because the Apostles so taught, and all antiquity observed. Ut quod Apostoli