will then ask for scripture evidence to prove a doctrine which must carry with it, and in it, the most certain conviction. As the scriptures are but a record of those events which were revealed and brought to pass in former dispensations, it cannot reasonably be expected that they should contain doctrines which were not to be made manifest until the fulness of time came, unless it were by types and shadows, or the mysterious revelations of prophecy, which are but imperfectly understood, if understood at all, before the fulfilment takes place. Yet the spirit of the scriptures, if not pointedly expressive on these subjects, is in every respect, conformable thereto, without a single instance of any thing to the contrary.* CHAPTER III. The subject continued, in which further objections are stated and answered, & the doctrine of continence and celibacy confirmed. WE shall proceed to answer a few more objections which are frequently advanced against the doctrine of celibacy and conti nence. Objection 6. The primitive christians did not all live lives of celibacy, but many of them lived in a state of matrimony, as we find in the New Testament, and the apostle Paul tolerated them in it, as appears in his first epistle to the Corinthians, chapter 7th, where he gives directions concerning husbands and wives. Were not these people christians? Answer. If they were christians, the same apostle calls them carnal, and severely reproves them for their carnality. But as the time had not then arrived for a full revelation of the man of sin to be made, and as that revelation was necessarily connected with the second coming of Christ; therefore these Corinthian christians, who were with so much difficulty persuaded to renounce their former licentious practices, were tolerated in living, in some measure, according to the course of the world. The same toleration was also extended to other gentile churches; but the church at Jerusalem seems to have preserved a greater measure of purity than any other. And tho it is clearly evident that the primitive christians had received a far greater measure of divine light than had ever before been revealed on earth; yet while they were still under the vail of the flesh, they could not have a full sight of that way of redemption which they still waited for; and therefore they were justified in walking in obedience to that degree of light which they had received; and as this was all they could then do, God required no more of them. * See Acts ii 34. 1 Pet. iii, 19. & iv 6. Rev. vi. 9, 10, 11. † See 1 Cor. iii. 1 to 4. But the apostle Paul evidently saw further; he clearly saw that a day of further light and greater purity must necessarily take place, at the second appearing of Christ. Peter and John, and doubtless others, had similar views, and looked forward to a day of greater purity and holiness. But they also saw that a falling away would first take place, in which Antichrist would rise and exercise great power and dominion: "For that day shall not come, except there come a falling away first."* The falling away of the primitive church, which was attended with the introduction of a flood of corruption, in morals and manners, was the occasion of those dark and deceitful doctrines which have blinded the eyes of the professors of christianity to the present day. In every age, the great object of the spirit of. Antichrist, in all his works, has been to counterfeit the religion of Christ. And what more effectual method could he devise, than to attach erroneous meanings to the names of christian doctrines, and blend them with practices which have not the most distant connection with the pure gospel of Christ? Hence arose that universal deception which supposes that generation and regeneration are perfectly consistent with each other; that christains may practice the generation of the flesh, and at the same time be subjects of the regeneration of the spirit; that is, that they may at once live according to the flesh and walk according to the spirit, regardless of the apostle's testimony that, "these are contrary the one to the other." Hence also, the resurrection of the soul from the fallen nature of the flesh, is understood to mean, a resurrection of the natural body of flesh and bones, from the mouldering ruins of the grave. The names of these, and many other doctrines of the gospel, are retained, while the real substance is wholly perverted and lost in antichristian darkness. This is undoubtedly the principal cause that modern professors of christianity do not discover the real distinction between the flesh and the spirit, and see the utter impossibility of following Christ in the regeneration of the spirit, while living in the practical generation of the flesh. Hence all those christians, so called, whether of primitive or modern times; who, under their christian profession, have lived in the practical works of generation, can be viewed in no other light than as carnal christians; and with all their christianity, they can never gain complete possession of the Kingdom of Heaven, until they are completely purified from the nature of the flesh and all its corrupt and debasing propensities. And tho in consequence of having obeyed the light which they had received, they may be free from condemnation; yet they cannot find their redemption short of passing through the purifying fire of the gospel. * 2 Thess. ii. 8. † Gal. v. 17. * Objection 7. The doctrine of celibacy appears to be condemned by the scriptures, particularly in Paul's epistle to Timothy, where he gives the following testimony in plain terms: "Now the Spirit "speaketh expressly, that in the latter times some shall depart "from the faith, giving heed to seducing spirits and doctrines of "devils;-forbidding to marry, and commanding to abstain from "meats."* Answer. Perhaps no passage found in the sacred writings has furnished a more popular argument against a life of continence than this. It is indeed considered by many as sufficient to condemn the doctrine of celibacy altogether; and it is often urged as a testimony of condemnation against every religious society whose faith leads them to maintain such a life, however far they may be from "forbidding to marry," or "commanding to abstain from meats." But a little examination will readily show that it furnishes not the smallest proof against a life of conscientious celibacy, either in a society or an individual. The objectors evidently suppose that the apostle's expression is to be understood in a literal sense; otherwise it would be useless to advance it as an argument in their favor; and therefore, for the sake of a fair examination, we will admit their literal construction. Forbidding and commanding then, according to this sense, must necessarily imply power to enforce what is thus forbidden and commanded; otherwise no effect could be produced thereby; and of course the prediction of the apostle would have been of little or no importance. In order therefore to render the passage applicable to any society or denomination of people, that society must not only positively forbid to marry, and command to abstain from meats, but it must actually enforce its commands and prohibitions by a power sufficient to effect the object. It must also fill up the whole character described by the apostle; otherwise the charge must fail in its application: for there can be no real consistency in the charge, unless it be applied to a people in whom that character is fully displayed; and certainly it cannot, with any consistency, be applied to the United Society. With this Society, a life of continence and celibacy is a matter of conscience, proceeding from their religious faith, and therefore needs no "forbidding to marry” in the case; because the cross of self-denial is a voluntary act; and surely the apostle's prediction cannot apply to any such people. Protestant writers have generally charged this, "forbidding to marry” upon the Church of Rome; and if we are to consider the apostle's expressions in a literal sense, there appears to be some four * Tim. iv, 1 kz 3. P dation for the charge.* It is stated by bishop Newton that, "As long 66 ago as the year 386, Siricius held a council of eighty bishops at "Rome, and forbade the clergy to cohabit with their wives. This "decree was confirmed by Innocent at the beginning of the fifth century; and the celibacy of the clergy was fully decreed by Gregory VII. in the eleventh century; and this hath been the "universal law and practice ever since." These facts are confirmed by other ecclesiastical writers. We find in Mosheim, that Pope Gregory, in the year 1074, assembled a council at Rome, in which it was decreed, "That the sacerdotal orders should ab"stain from marriage; and that such of them as had already "wives, or concubines, should immediately dismiss them, or quit "the priestly office." But these things afford no evidence against the doctrine of christian celibacy and continence, but rather the contrary. For these measures being adopted at such an early period of the apostacy, evidently show that the purity of the primitive church at Jerusalem, in this respect, was well known in the church of Rome; and that their object was to preserve the appearance of it in that church. But the lordly rulers of that corrupt church, having lost the true spirit of the gospel, by which that purity was maintained in the primitive church, attempted to make a show of sanctity and deceive the world, by counterfeiting this purity. And being wholly destitute of the true Spirit of Christ, which leads to purity, and of that divine love which governed the primitive church, they were under the necessity of enforcing their doctrines by arbitrary decrees. Thus their counterfeit purity and continence became a matter of compulsion, not of choice; and was therefore contrary to the very spirit of the gospel, which allows liberty of conscience to every soul. But with all their arbitrary decrees and compulsive power, which were professedly designed to restrain the corruptions of the ecclesiastical orders, and to preserve and maintain purity among the dignitaries of their church, they never could reach the source of human corruption, nor restrain the libidinous passions of man. Their established fasts, including what they call lent, or forty * It is but just to remark here, that the R. Catholics plausibly deny "forbidding to marry;" because it is not only allowed among the people at large, but is made one of their sacred institutions, and classed among their seven sacraments, and consequently is held in higher estimation by them, than by the protestants. The protestants on the other hand, scoff at the popish sacrament of marriage, and call it "a bastard sacrament," and say it is not any sacred rite at all; yet they themselves will call it a Divine institution, and often talk of solemnizing holy marriage. Newton's Dessertations on the Prophecies, vol 2. P. 99. days abstinence from animal food, are considered by protestants as of the same arbitrary character; "commanding to abstain from meats. With a view to keep up the appearance of sanctity, after they had entirely lost the real power of the gospel, it seems they enjoined upon their subjects these days of abstinence, with other religious ceremonies, and thus required them to observe ordinances which, for want of true faith, they otherwise never would have observed as religious duties. But even admitting that their religious ordinances were of Divine authority, as they pretended, what could they gain by compulsive obedience? Forbidding and com manding, for the sake of enforcing religious duties, where there is no faith to induce a willing obedience, will answer no good purpose. God must have a willing people to worship him, or they never can worship to his acceptance. But the United Society can have no occasion for any such coercive laws; nor will the faith of the Society admit of any compulsive or hypocritical obedience. Nor can any obedience which does not proceed from faith, be of any use: for without faith it is impossible to please God. Religion must be a matter of free and conscientious choice, or it cannot profit any soul. It is the true Spirit of Christ in the soul which must and does enable any one to bear the cross of self-denial. Without this, all " forbidding and commanding" is arbitrary and useless. Hence the charge of " forbidding to marry," even when viewed according to the sense in which the objectors understand the apostle's testimony, can by no means apply to the United Society, who consider marriage, as practised by the world of mankind, to be merely a civil right, sanctioned by the laws of every ciyilized nation, and with which the Society has never had any inclination to interfere. Can any reasonable person suppose that the apostle, in that prediction, alluded to a life of conscientious celibacy, when he himself lived such a life, and plainly declared that he would that all men were even as himself? Surely the apostle would not condemn himself, and live in opposition to the dictates of his own prophetic spirit. If we are to understand the expression, commanding to abstain from meats, in a literal sense, protestants can charge nothing upon the papists that will not apply with equal force to themselves. "To observe days of fasting (say they) we judge both scriptural and 66 rational; and a religious fast requires total abstinence from food.” And what did the papists more? But the United Society maintain no such principle; and therefore the charge, considered in a literal sense, cannot possibly apply to this Society. And if the charge fail in respect to meats, it must of course fail in respect to marriage: for in the apostle's prediction, they are connected, and both are made to apply to the same class of people. |