PENITENTIAL AUSTERITIES

[The following Essay was written in reply to a Letter from a Protestant correspondent requesting an answer to the reasoning of Dr. Paley, in his Evidences of Christianity, respecting austerities, and appeared in the columns of the United States Catholic Miscellany, for 1824.]

SECTION I

We did not, in establishing this Miscellany, give, directly or indirectly, any pledge that we would admit into its columns attacks upon the doctrines or practices of the Roman Catholic Church; nor did we promise to take up for explanation such doctrines or practices as we might be called upon to explain or to defend. We left ourselves at perfect liberty to take up what doctrine we pleased, and at such time as we may think proper; for though we trust we should be able to defend any of our tenets at any moment, considerations of delicacy or of prudence may suggest to us reasons for postponement. We are led to these remarks, in order that the insertion of the following letter should not be quoted as a precedent to oblige us on future occasions to comply with a like request. We must in all cases, be considered at full liberty to use our own discretion.

66 'CHARLESTON, July 28, 1824.

"To the Editor of the United States Catholic Miscellany.

"Sir:-I am a Christian from conviction, an Episcopalian from choice. I have found much pleasure and great improvement in reading the works of Dr. Paley. To his enlightened and rational piety, I hope you would not object. He, sir, has had opportunities of knowing the practices of your communion; yet, sir, no one of your divines has ever, that I could learn, attempted to answer his clear, dispassionate, and dignified condemnation of many of your errors. I take the liberty of sending you one of many passages of his, which I have marked, as finely illustrating true, sober, rational, and devotional Christianity: such, sir, as I find it in the Reformed Episcopalian Church; and reproving in a clear and dignified way, void of asperity, and evincing truth, the changes which men have made in the doctrines of God. Believe me, sir, I am actuated by no hostile feeling, nor am I led to this by any idle curiosity. Should you think that publishing or noticing the passage, or this letter, would be productive of any unpleasant altercation, you would oblige me by your silence; should you think otherwise, may I beg of you to publish the passage and your answer, for I am impelled by more than curiosity to ask, is it possible that anything can be clearer than the Doctor's reasoning?

“You would oblige me by not using my manuscript in any way to lead to a discovery, which I feel it would be indelicate to attempt, as the question is not personal. You will destroy it when you read it; and if you publish it, copy, or procure its being copied by a friend. I am, sir, respectfully,

NO MONK.

"Our Lord enjoined no austerities. He not only enjoined none as absolute duties, but he recommended none as carrying men to a higher degree of Divine favour. Place Christianity in this respect, by the side of all institutions which have been founded in fanaticism, either of their author, or of his first followers; or rather compare, in this respect, Christianity as it came from Christ, with the same religion after it fell into other hands; with the extravagant merit very soon ascribed to celibacy, solitude, voluntary poverty; with the rigours of an ascetic, and the vows of a monastic life; the hair shirt, the watchings, the midnight prayers, the obmutescence; the gloom and mortification of religious orders, and of those who aspired to religious perfection."-Extract from Paley's Evidence of Christianity, Part ii. chap. ii. 3d division, paragraph ii.

We have thus far complied with the wish of our correspondent, for we confess ourselves to be of opinion, that all our differences admit of friendly discussion; and from the style of his letter, we do believe he is not influenced by any hostile feeling. We shall now proceed to comply with the second part of his request, namely, to give our answer. The desire of his concluding paragraph has been religiously attended to.

We must premise that frequently a short objection requires a long answer, and Dr. Paley's charge upon our church, in this paragraph, though comprised in a few words, contains a great deal of matter; it will require many paragraphs in return. We do not recollect to have seen any work by a Catholic divine in answer to the Doctor's charges. We have not for the Doctor all the respect which our correspondent appears to feel. But the question for examination is not, whether Paley did or did not know the practices of our communion-nor whether the Church of England, or the Protestant Episcopal Church of America, is more rational, more pious, more sober than ours: the only question to be examined, we believe, is, whether the Doctor's assertions are true in fact. To that we shall confine ourselves.

We take Dr. Paley's first assertion, "Our Lord enjoined no austerities," to be so extremely vague, that we must lay it aside for the present, until we shall come to its precise meaning, after having examined other portions of his sentence. We then proceed to the second assertion: "He not only enjoined none as absolute duties, but he recommended none as carrying men to a higher degree of divine favour." These two assertions are all that he has regarding our divine Lord.

Now, our object is to inquire what the Doctor means by "austerities." We believe we are correct when we say that he ranks "celibacy," "solitude," "voluntary poverty," and so forth, under the head of "austerities." Let us then ask, did our blessed Lord not recommend celibacy to some persons? We take the Doctor's own version of the Bible, that is King James's version, as it is usually styled, and we say that it puts us upon very inferior ground, on account of the imperfection of its translation, especially in those very passages which we now want. Still, we will not shrink from using those very passages, incorrect as we believe the translation to be.

In chapter xix. of St. Matthew's Gospel, the Pharisees consult our blessed Lord upon the subject of marriage. After his answer we read in verses:

10.

His disciples say unto him, if the case of the man be so with his wife, it is not good to marry.

11. But he said unto them, all men cannot receive this saying, save they to whom it is given.

12. For there are some eunuchs which were so born from their mother's womb; and there are some eunuchs which were made eunuchs of men; and there be eunuchs which have made themselves eunuchs for the kingdom of heaven's sake. He that is able to receive it, let him receive it."

Now, we believe the meaning of the passage to be this. Our blessed Lord had brought back marriage to its original state, the indissoluble union of one man with one woman. Upon which, some of his hearers said this was so difficult a situation from its bond, that it would not be good to marry; of course whoever remained unmarried, was to continue in a state of celibacy. Our Lord proceeds farther, and shows that some persons are obliged to remain in this state from natural causes, some from their defective birth, others from subsequent injury. Thus, he shows that it is not an unusual, nor, perhaps, an unhappy state. But he has already informed them that all could not, or, as our translation has, would not enter upon this state in preference to a married state, which was not only lawful, but sanctified; there would, however, be exceptions, and the exceptions would consist, amongst others, of those who would remain in as perfect a state of celibacy as they who had been previously alluded to; but would, themselves, voluntarily choose this state for a special reason, viz., the kingdom of heaven's sake; and he recommends it in these words, according to that version, in stronger according to ours: "He that is able to receive it, let him receive it.'

Thus, it is clear that our Lord did state, without condemnation, the fact that persons did, for the "kingdom of heaven's sake," that is for a high degree of divine favour, place themselves in a state in which others

were not placed; there was a distinction drawn by our Lord between two classes, verse 11, "All cannot receive this saying;" that is, all cannot do this which we speak of. He does not say, "no one can do it,' but he says, "all cannot do it." Then some can do it; yes, for he shows the exception, verse 11, "save to whom it is given." Then some can do what all cannot do. What is it they can do which all cannot? Verse 10 informs us, "It is not good to marry." Yes, says the Lord, all cannot avoid marriages, but some to whom it is given can avoid it; the distinction is then clear. But why will they refrain? verse 12 informs us, "there be eunuchs which have made themselves eunuchs for the kingdom of heaven's sake." Thus, these persons do not abstain from such causes as the other two enumerated before, but voluntarily "they made themselves so;" not by unjustifiable injury to themselves, but by voluntary abstinence, for obtaining a higher degree of divine favour. If they were not to obtain a higher favour for a higher sacrifice, the act would be irrational. Our Lord distinctly approves and recommends it by his permission, we would almost call it a command, to those some to whom it is given. Verse 12, "He that is able to receive it, let him receive it. Let those who feel that it is given to them to abstain from marriage, live in celibacy-all cannot, some can. Let those who can do so, remain in that state, for the kingdom of heaven's sake.

With respect to translation, we feel the objection much stronger in the next passages which we shall produce, but we shall waive that. Our correspondent will not, we trust, think that we go too far in saying, that we have reason to believe our Lord did recommend to some persons, though certainly not to all, a state of celibacy-nor will he think us unreasonable, we presume, in our belief, that when to those he held out a special prospect, the kingdom of heaven's sake, it was to carry them to a higher degree of the divine favour, without undervaluing the state of marriage.

We purposely abstain at present from adducing many arguments, from various other topics which would, we have no doubt, materially aid in establishing the fact, that our Lord did recommend celibacy to some persons, upon the very ground that the Doctor writes he did not, as we wish to be as concise as possible. But we shall adduce one from the first Epistle of St. Paul to the Corinthians.

The Doctor informs us in his Hora Paulina, chapter iii., No. 1: “It appears that this letter to the Corinthians was written by St. Paul, in answer to one which he had received from them; and the seventh and some of the following chapters, are taken up in resolving certain doubts and regulating certain points of order concerning which the

Corinthians in their letter had consulted him." We differ with the Doctor in the exposition which we next quote, but shall suppose him to be perfectly correct. Enumerating the doubts, and so forth, he writes, "the rule of duty and prudence relative to entering into marriage, as applicable to virgins and widows." We merely beg leave to observe what, if the Doctor could answer, we believe he would admit, that the context makes it plain, virgins of both sexes are meant.

Now, it will be admitted that St. Paul knew the spirit of our Lord's precepts and advice. Let us then hear what he answers:

I Corinthians chapter vii., verse 25. "Now concerning virgins, I have no commandment of the Lord: yet I give my judgment, as one that hath obtained mercy of the Lord to be faithful.''

Upon this we shall merely remark that it is plain the Apostle testifies that there was no command to marry. Hence that entering into the marriage state, or leading a life of celibacy are equally within the free choice of every Christian. This, we believe, is the meaning of the Apostle in verse 28.

"But, and if thou marry thou hast not sinned, and if a virgin marry she hath not sinned."

And also of the following verses, viz., 36 and 37:

"But if any man think that he behaveth himself uncomely towards his virgin, if she pass the flower of her age, and need so require; let him do what he will, he sinneth not, let them marry.

"37. Nevertheless, he that standeth steadfast in his heart, having no necessity, but having power over his own will, and hath so decreed in his heart that he will keep his virgin, doeth well."'

Thus, we say, the Apostle distinctly informs us that there is no command of the Lord for celibacy; no command for marriage. Therefore a life of celibacy is not forbidden by our Lord. Indeed, unless we mistake, we have before shown from his own words, that he recommended it to some, not to all. But the Apostle now proceeds to give his "judgment," and in what capacity? We see that he gives it as one that hath obtained mercy of the Lord to be faithful.-That is as a public interpreter of the divine will, through the mercy of God is a faithful interpreter thereof.

"26. I suppose therefore that this is good for the present distress. I say, that it is good for a man so to be.

"27. Art thou bound unto a wife? seek not to be loosed. Art thou loosed from a wife? seek not a wife.

66

28. But, if thou marry, thou hast not sinned; and if a virgin marry, she hath not sinned. Nevertheless, such shall have trouble in the flesh: but I spare you. 29. But this I say, brethren, the time is short: it remaineth that both they that have wives be as though they had none.