the Apostles; and happily, if any ambiguity might seem to attach to the letter of the rule, we may derive from our Lord's personal behaviour, and from the practice of the Apostles, such a comment upon it as must be amply sufficient for removing every doubt; at least, if our own minds be free from factitious excite

ments.

*

It is a remarkable circumstance that, of the four principal passages, relating to celibacy, in the New Testament, namely, Matt. xix. 12, Luke xx. 35, 1 Cor. vii. and Rev. xiv. 4, that one is the most frequently referred to by the ascetic writers, and is made to bear the greatest stress, which in fact is wholly irrelevant to the subject-I mean our Lord's assertion concerning the angels, as reported by Luke. But it is not difficult to divine the motive of this absurd preference. Our Lord's doctrine of celibacy, as given by Matthew, carries with it a definite restriction, which pointedly condemned the general practice of the Church, and especially its cruel usage of inciting children to devote themselves to a single life. Then again, Paul's lengthened disquisition on the subject involves so many principles of practical wisdom, and so much cool good sense, as made it dangerous to insist very long, or minutely, upon the passage; and then, as to the phrase occurring in the Apocalypse, besides that the book was not universally admitted as canonical by the early church, and is much less quoted by the ancient writers than other parts of the canon, the figurative, and as it seems, the true interpretation of the passage, as intending the faithful worshippers of God, uncontaminated by idolatry, was not unknown to the early expositors.†

But if only the absurdity involved in any such application of our Lord's language-Luke xx. 35, could be got over, then it afforded precisely the kind of support that was wanted in favour of the notion of a spiritual aristocracy, or class, answering to the gnostic TVεvμarikol, and to whom the epithet terrestrial angels' might be applied. To obtain the aid of this passage, reasoning such as this was to be resorted to-The 'marrying, and the being given in marriage,' is the condition of our present mode of

* To these texts Cyprian, who musters forces on this point, adds, Gen. iii. 16, Exod. xix. 15, and 1 Sam. xxi. 4. (Testim. iii. lib. 32.)

† See Origen, tom. iv. p. 3.-Benedictine. 1733.

existence; but it is not to be the condition of the future life; therefore-how sound the inference! those who, although actually belonging to this world, and not to the next, choose to renounce marriage, become, in doing so, angels, and are at once 'children of the resurrection.' As if we were to say-animal life is sustained by aliment; not so the angelic life; therefore to abstain from food, so far as possible, is, in the same degree, to make oneself an angel! Illusions so gross as these could never have overcome the good sense of the early church, if the broad road of absurdity had not first been opened before it by the gnostic heresies,

Our Lord's intention in this instance can hardly be misunderstood; for while his main purpose was to refute the sadducee, whose doctrine strikes at the very root of religion, he took the occasion also to reprobate those gross conceptions of the future life, then current among the Jewish people, whence alone the hypothetical objection propounded to him could draw any force. 'Your dilemma supposes that there will be marrying and giving in marriage, in heaven: absurd and grovelling thought!-know that the heavenly society is to be permanent, and therefore constituted on another principle: what becomes then of your assumed difficulty? The children of the resurrection shall be as the angels.'

So much for a passage of which more use was made than of any other, in recommending the practice of religious celibacy! Precisely in the same style of unscrupulous logic were the sanguinary measures of the papacy excused and recommended'Compel them to come in'-' I am not come to send peace on the earth, but a sword''it is better that one member perish' (that one heretic, or a thousand be burned) than that the whole body (the Church) be lost,' or damaged. Perhaps the surest indication, in the case either of an individual or a community, of abandonment to delusion, is the habit of perversely interpreting single phrases, or insulated passages of Scripture, in open contempt of its spirit and tendency. This practice, of which the pattern was set by Satan himself, has been the constant characteristic of those who have appeared to be 'led captive by him at his will.' In its entire ascetic doctrine, as well as in many other important points, one can hardly think any thing else than that the nicene

church, yielding itself to a strong delusion, was given over to believe a lie.'

Our Lord's direct affirmation, and his implied doctrine, as stated Matt. xix. 12, does really bear upon the question of religious celibacy, and demands therefore to be seriously considered. The jewish national feeling on the subject of marriage, which that people considered as a positive and universal duty, required, like other national prejudices, to be loosened and corrected, in order to make room for a higher and a more comprehensive religious system. Our Lord surely did not intend to condemn or disparage personal cleanliness when he affirmed that to eat with unwashen hands defileth not a man.' What he meant was to bring in a spiritual and genuine notion of purity, in the place of the national and rabbinical superstition of the Jews. He did not mean either to condemn, or to abrogate the worship of God in the jewish temple, when he affirmed that the time was come for establishing the worship of God on a broader and more spiritual basis than that of the Mosaic institute. Nor does he, as we may confidently assume, in the present instance, intend, either to throw discredit upon matrimony (which, here and elsewhere, he honours by a solemn sanction) or to speak of celibacy as if it were a holier and loftier condition; for to do this would have been to recognise that very principle of exterior and ceremonial purity against which he so strenuously, we might say vehemently, inveighed on various occasions. Although, in this particular point, the national prejudice of the Jews stood opposed to the ascetic doctrine, yet the general principle of sanctity, as attaching to visible observances, and of a merit, as belonging to classes of men, on the ground of peculiar abstinences, was altogether agreeable to the natural mind, and would have been readily listened to by the pharisees.

Our Lord seems to have intended, after condemning the flagitious practice of divorce as then prevalent among the Jews, and after giving the most emphatic sanction to the institution of marriage, to take the occasion, suggested by the query of the disciples At that rate is it good to marry?' for introducing a higher motive of conduct, belonging to the kingdom of heaven,' and which, in opposition to the jewish opinion and custom, might

lead certain individuals (who are so described as to preclude a fanatical misinterpretation of the rule) to separate themselves even from the lawful engagements of ordinary life, and so the better promote this kingdom in an evil world, unencumbered by any earthly ties. The sovereign motives of the new dispensation. were of such force that they might lead a man even to lay down life itself for Christ, or to surrender property and every social endearment; and, as a circumstance attending this sort of unsparing devotedness, an abstinence from marriage might be not only a lawful, but an acceptable sacrifice. 'Ye are not your own, but are bought with a price;-glorify God therefore with your body;'-' Present your bodies a living sacrifice unto God,' &c. These several injunctions, being only various consequences, all flowing from the one supreme reason and motive which the Gospel introduces, practically amount to this-be ready to die, be ready to suffer, be ready to labour, be content, whether full or empty, as to earthly enjoyments; and, in a word, hold every thing in subordination to the one principle of christian conduct; or, to say all at once- - let the same mind be in you which was in Christ Jesus, who pleased not himself.' This sovereign rule of behaviour may either make a man a martyr, or it may induce him to lead a single life; or it may impel him to traverse the globe, having no certain dwelling-place-when the doing so shall clearly, and in the judgment of good sense, tend to promote truth in the world. But on the contrary, the enthusiast or the fanatic who, for the mere purpose a selfish purpose, of snatching the martyr's crown, insults a persecuting power; or the ascetic, who, to no imaginable good purpose, inflicts torture upon himself, or passes his years, like a wild beast, in a cavern, or who adheres to celibacy as if it were an angelic excellence, and in doing so puts contempt upon the divine appointment-all such persons, puffed up by the selfidolizing conceits of an inflamed imagination, wholly misunderstood the rule (as they are plainly destitute of the principle) of christian self-denial. The course pursued under any such false impulses has in fact always diverged so widely from the line of christian simplicity, humility, and benevolence, as to make evident enough the originating error whence it resulted.

In our Lord's rule above referred to, there are very distinctly

to be observed, first, the well-defined and seriously propounded restriction All are not able to receive this word—if any man is able to receive it-if to any this ability has been given, let such receive it;' plainly pointing to a peculiarity of original temperament, such as that, having been well ascertained by the individual, he night act upon it without presumption. How frightfully and cruelly was this restriction contemned by those nicene writers and preachers, who not only so lauded the merits and honours of virginity as in fact to seduce tens of thousands into a snare fatal to their present happiness and to their souls; but moreover laboured with the utmost intensity to promote the flagitious practice of dedication to Christ (miserable misnomer) before the age of puberty, nay, from infancy! This practice was the foul stain of the nicene church. Even with our Lord's significant caution on their lips, we find the great writers of that infatuated age provoking the fanaticism of parents, and aiding to drive troops of helpless children and youths onward toward the precipice, and into that fiery abyss, the horrors of which themselves have described !*

But, in the second place, our Lord's rule points distinctly to a motive, which, after the restriction had been duly regarded, might justify this unusual course of life :-it was for the sake of the kingdom of heaven,' a phrase the meaning of which is put beyond doubt by a comparison of the places where it occurs, and by a consideration of the actual instances wherein its meaning was confessedly carried out into practice. Now if we compare this condition of the rule of celibacy with the ascetic institute, how was it set at nought! Let us admit the most favourable supposition possible, namely, that the ascetics were, in the large majority of instances, the most devoted and spiritually minded

* I have already, p. 164, referred to Gregory Nyssen and Augustine on this point; and of the style in which this practice was urged, a favourable specimen may be found in Chrysostom's third book, addressed to the opponents of the monastic life, tom. i. p. 92, et seq. It appears, both from Chrysostom and Basil, that children were received into the religious houses, and there trained in the ascetic discipline until their deliberate choice could be ascertained. Basil, Reg. Fusios. Inter. xv. But this education, if it disgusted many, must have availed with too many in inducing them rashly to profess, long before they could know what they were doing.