[79]. It may not be amiss perhaps to correct a chronological error that is in the epochs of this council of Carthage and the life of Tertullian. All the commentators and chroniclers place this council in the year 398, and the death of this learned man about the year 220 of our æra. According to them, he should have lived about a century and half before this council. After that, one is greatly surprised to find, in the works of this same Tertullian, his observations on this council of Carthage, and still more so, to find him speak of it as an epoch much earlier than that in which he was writing; for, when he condemns the supression of the word radat, he says it ought to be restored conformably to the fidelity of the old copies, juxta fidem veterum exemplarium, &c. The anachronism is more than two centuries.
Saint Epiphanius lived in the time of this council of Carthage: this was a very learned Saint. Let us see in his writings if the fathers of those days proclaim the proscription of long beards. With respect to the heretic Massalians he speaks thus. “Is there any thing more contrary to good morals than their customs? They cut off their beards, the mark of manhood, and wear very long hair. Nevertheless, the sacred expressions of the constitutions of the apostles dogmatically prescribe the rules that are to be observed with respect to the beard: it is forbidden to cut off any part of it, for fear lest men should at length get themselves quite shaved, and lay hold of the effeminate manners and luxury of abandoned rakes.”[[80]]
[80]. Sed deterius quiddam, ac contrarium ab illis geritur: siquidem isti barbam, hoc est, propriam viri formam, resecant; capillos vero, ut plurimum, prolixiores habent. Atqui quod ad barbam attinet in Apostolorum constitutionbus divino sermone, à degmate præscribitur, ne ea corrumpatur: hoc est, ne barba ponatur neve meretricius cultus & ornatus usurpetur, &c. St. Epiphanius against the heretic Massalians, sect. viii.
These reproaches, very conclusive in favour of the partisans of long beards, will be much more so, and silence the adversaries of that mark of manhood, if it be observed, that this same council of Carthage condemns as heretics those same Massalians whose shaved chins St. Epiphanius represents to be a crime. Is it likely that the Massalians should be condemned as heretics, and that at the same time the orthodox clergy should be required to imitate them, and follow a custom that is looked upon as the most scandalous of debauchery; such a law would be the height of inconsequence. It is much more reasonable to suppose, that, instead of the priests’ being ordered to have their chins shaved, they were forbidden to do it, that they might not look like the heretic Massalians. Besides, what could be opposed to the council of Barcelona, which was held some time after that of Carthage, a council that has never experienced any contradiction, and in which shaving the beard is again forbidden? We read in the third canon, Ut nullus Clericorum comam nutriat aut barbam radat. Let no clergyman keep up his hair or shave his beard.
We have demonstrated then the fraud of the antibearded priests, and proved that the word radat has been suppressed in the 44th canon. Clergymen therefore, by this council of Carthage, at which two hundred and fourteen bishops attended, are forbidden to cut off their beards, and the general opinion of the primitive church, on this point, is established.
If we did not know, that private interests can persuade men to contradict the best founded maxims, we should be greatly surprised no doubt to find learned men of distinction presume to write, that the general opinion of the primitive Church condemned long beards. At the head is cardinal Baronius (tom. i. ad. ann. 48). Let us refer the proselytes of this credulous writer of legends to le Mercure for April 1765; they will there find that a learned Jesuit, father Oudin in his inquiries concerning beards, proves, that this cardinal was a bad man, or that he would not read his St. Epiphanius.
The ordinances of the provincial synods and councils which have made use of this council of Carthage to justify their forbidding the clergy to wear long beards, should therefore be void of course: the edifice falls of itself when the foundation is undermined.
But let us return to the defenders of beards of the sixteenth century: Pierrius was not the only champion that appeared on this occasion. Adrian Junius, an ingenious physician, and distinguished for his learning, in his commentary on the hair of the head, says a great deal about clerical beards, with as much eloquence and more erudition than his predecessor; he relates every thing that had not been advantageously said before on the subject, and is not afraid to take a review of the opinions and examples of all the ancients; he establishes, that even when there should be neither law, constitution, nor council which ordered the priests to preserve their beards, they ought to do it, because it gives the wearer a grave, stern, respectable look, which becomes the ministers of the altar, and that their thus changing the nature of God’s work, in order to please mankind, is, for them, a very criminal piece of luxury.[[81]]
[81]. De comâ Commentarium Adriani Junii Honani, Medici, cap. ii. de rasurâ capillorum pariter & barbæ.
These works produced their effect: nevertheless pope Paul III. being displeased with the severe tone of Pierrius and the sharp reproaches which he threw out against the manners of the clergy of the age, would not seem to comply thereto; but without issuing a formal decree against beards, as was talked of, he contented himself with commanding a cardinal briefly to order the priests to get themselves shaved.[[82]]