Trait 29.
TRAIT 29.
The respect he manifested for the holy estate of matrimony, while Christian prudence engaged him to live in a state of celibacy. SOME ministers have carried their disinterestedness to so high a pitch, that they have refused to enter into the marriage state, merely with this view; that being free from all superfluous care and expense, they might consecrate their persons more entirely to the Lord, and their possessions less reservedly to the support of the poor, whom they considered as their children, and adopted as their heirs. But all pastors are not called to follow these rare examples of abstinence and disinterested piety. When we examine into the life of a celebrated man, we generally inquire whether he passed his days in a state of marriage or celibacy, and what it was that determined his choice to the one or the other of these states. Such an inquiry is peculiarly necessary with respect to St. Paul, as many of the faithful, in the earliest ages of the Church, deluded by the amiable appearance of celibacy, embraced the monastic life,—a state to which the clergy and the religious of the Romish Church still dedicate themselves: whence those disgraceful accusations which divers philosophers have preferred against the Christian religion, as destructive of society in its very origin, which is the conjugal bond. But leaving the reveries of legend, if we seek for Christianity in the pure Gospel of Christ, we shall find this accusation to be totally groundless: since one view of the Christian Legislator, in publishing that Gospel, was to strengthen the nuptial tie, by declaring that an immodest glance is a species of adultery, by revoking the permission formerly given to the husband to put away his wife for any temporary cause of dissatisfaction, and by absolutely forbidding divorce, except in case of adultery. Matthew 5:28, 32. Nay, so far did this Divine Lawgiver carry his condescension in honour of the marriage state, that he was present at one of those solemn feasts, which were usually held upon such occasions, attended by the holy virgin and his twelve disciples. And not content with giving this public testimony of his respect for so honourable an institution, he accompanied it with the first miraculous proof of his almighty power.
St. Paul, it is true, passed the whole of his life in a state of celibacy; but he never enjoined that state to any person: and if he occasionally recommended it to some, to whom it was indifferent whether they married or not, it was chiefly on account of the distress and persecution of those times, 1 Corinthians 7:26. To engage the most pious persons ordinarily to live in a state of celibacy, is not less contrary to nature and reason, than to the spirit of the Gospel. This is to oppose the propagation of the best Christians, and the most faithful subjects. It is to suppose that those persons who join example to precept in the cause of virtue, and who, for that very reason, are peculiarly qualified for the education of children, are the only persons in the world who ought to have none. The absurdity of this opinion constrained the Apostle Paul publicly to combat it, by declaring to the Hebrews, that “marriage, and the bed undefiled, are honourable among all men,” Hebrews 13:4. He farther affirmed, that “a bishop must be the husband of one wife, one that ruleth well his own house, having his children in subjection with all gravity,” 1 Timothy 3:2, 4. And if he wished the Corinthians to continue in the state which he himself had chosen, on account of the peculiar advantages accruing from it, at that season, to the persecuted members of the Christian Church: “nevertheless, to avoid fornication,” he counselled, that “every man should have his own wife,” and “every woman her own husband,” 1 Corinthians 7:2. “I will,” saith he to Timothy, “that the younger women marry, bear children, and guide the house,” 1 Timothy 5:14. And lastly, he cautioned the same Christian bishop against the error of those who, in the last times, should “depart from the faith, giving heed to the doctrines of devils,” and “forbidding to marry;” earnestly exhorting his young successor to guard the brethren against a doctrine so fatal to the Church in particular, and so destructive of society in general, 1 Timothy 4:1, 6. But it may be urged—If St. Paul really entertained such high ideas of marriage, and represented it as the most perfect emblem of that strict union which subsists between Christ and his Church, why did he not recommend it by his example? I answer—Although St. Paul was never married, yet he expressly asserted his right to that privilege, as well as St. Peter, and some others of the apostles, 1 Corinthians 9:5, intimating, at the same time, that prudence and charity inclined him to forego his right in that respect. When a man is perpetually called to travel from place to place, prudence requires that he should not encumber himself with those domestic cares, which must occasion many unavoidable delays in the prosecution of his business. Or, if he derives his maintenance from the generosity of the poor, charity should constrain him to burden them as little as possible. This zealous apostle could not prevail upon himself to expose a woman and children to those innumerable dangers which he was constantly obliged to encounter. The first peril, from which he made his escape, was that which compelled him to descend from the wall of Damascus in a basket. Now, if a family had shared with him the same danger, what an addition would they have made to his affliction and care! Is it not evident that, in such circumstances, every man who is not obliged to marry, from reasons either physical or moral, is called to imitate the example of this disinterested apostle, from the same motives of prudence and charity? This indefatigable preacher, always on a mission, judged it advisable to continue in a single state to the end of his days. But, had he been fixed in a particular church; had he there felt how much it concerns a minister neither to tempt others nor be tempted himself; and had he known how much assistance a modest, provident, and pious woman is capable of affording a pastor, by inspecting the women of his flock—he would then probably have advised every resident pastor to enter into the marriage state, provided they should fix upon regenerate persons, capable of edifying the Church, in imitation of Phebe, a deaconess of Cenchrea and Persis, who was so dear to St. Paul on account of her labours in the Lord, Romans 16:1, 12; or copying the example of those four virgins, the daughters of Philip, who edified, exhorted, and consoled the faithful by their pious discourses, Acts 21:9. f1
The Christian doctrine on this point may be reduced to the following heads.
1. In times of great trouble, and grievous persecutions, the followers of Christ should abstain from marriage, unless obliged thereto by particular and powerful reasons, Matthew 24:19.
2. The faithful, who mean to embrace the nuptial state, should be careful, on no account to connect themselves with any persons except such as are remarkable for their seriousness and piety, 2 Corinthians 6:14.
3. If a man is married before he is converted; or if, being converted, he is deceived in choosing a woman, whom he supposes to be pious, but discovers to be worldly; instead of separating himself from his wife, in either of these cases, he is rather called to give all diligence in bringing her acquainted with the truth as it is in Jesus, 1 Corinthians 7:16.
4. Missionaries ought not to marry, unless there be an absolute necessity.
5. A bishop, or resident pastor, is usually called to the marriage state, 1 Timothy 3:12; Titus 1:6. Lastly, a minister of the Gospel, who is able to live in a state of celibacy “for the kingdom of heaven’s sake,” that he may have no other care, except that of preaching the Gospel, and attending upon the members of Christ’s mystical body; such a one is undoubtedly called to continue in a single state. For having obtained the gift of continence, he is dispensed from carnally giving children to the Church, because he begets her spiritual sons and daughters. And such a one, instead of being honoured as the head of a particular household, should be counted worthy of double honour, as a spiritual father in his Lord’s family, Matthew 19:12.