uncircumcised. Is any called in uncircumcision? let him not be
circumcised. Circumcision is nothing, and uncircumcision is
nothing, but the keeping of the commandments of God. Let every man
abide in the same calling wherein he was called. Art thou called
being a servant? care not for it: but if thou mayest be made free
use it rather. For he that is called in the Lord, being a servant,
is the Lord's freeman; likewise also he that is called being free,
is Christ's servant. Ye are bought with a price; be not ye the
servants of men. Brethren, let every man wherein he is called
therein abide with God."--1 Corinthians, vii. 18-24.
The whole of these seven chapters of the First Epistle of the Apostle
Paul to the Corinthians, is occupied with questions of Christian
casuistry. In the application of the principles of Christianity to the
varying circumstances of life, innumerable difficulties had arisen,
and the Corinthians upon these difficulties had put certain questions
to the Apostle Paul. This seventh chapter contains the apostle's
answer to many of these questions. There are however, two great
divisions into which these answers generally fall. St. Paul makes a
distinction between those things which he speaks by commandment and
those which he speaks only by permission; there is a distinction
between what he says as from the Lord, and what only from himself;
between that which he speaks to them as being taught of God, and that
which he speaks only as a servant, "called of the Lord and faithful."
It is manifestly plain that there are many questions in which _right_
and _wrong_ are not variable, but indissoluble and fixed; while there
are questions, on the other hand, where these terms are not fixed, but
variable, fluctuating, altering, dependent upon circumstances. As, for
instance, those in which the apostle teaches in the present chapter
the several duties and advantages of marriage and celibacy. There may
be circumstances in which it is the duty of a Christian man to be
married, there are others in which it may be his duty to remain
unmarried. For instance, in the case of a missionary it may be right
to be married rather than unmarried; on the other hand, in the case of
a pauper, not having the wherewithal to bring up and maintain a
family, it may be proper to remain unmarried. You will observe
however, that no fixed law can be laid down upon this subject. We
cannot say marriage is a Christian duty, nor celibacy is a Christian
duty; nor that it is in every case the duty of a missionary to be
married, or of a pauper to be unmarried. All these things must vary
according to circumstances, and the duty must be stated not
universally, but with reference to those circumstances.
These therefore, are questions of casuistry, which depend upon the
particular _case_: from which word the term "casuistry" is derived. On
these points the apostle speaks not by commandment, but by permission;
not as speaking by God's command, but as having the Spirit of God. A
distinction has sometimes been drawn with reference to this chapter
between that which the apostle speaks by inspiration, and what he
speaks as a man uninspired. The distinction, however, is an altogether
false one, and beside the question. For the real distinction is not
between inspired and uninspired, but between a _decision_ in matters
of Christian duty, and _advice_ in matters of Christian prudence. It
is abundantly evident that God cannot give advice; He can only issue a
command. God cannot say, "It is better to do this;" His perfections
demand something absolute: "Thou shalt _do_ this; thou shalt _not_ do
this." Whensoever therefore, we come to advice there is introduced
the human element rather than the divine. In all such cases therefore,
as are dependent upon circumstances the apostle speaks not as
inspired, but as uninspired; as one whose judgment we have no right to
find fault with or to cavil at, who lays down what is a matter of
Christian prudence, and not a bounden and universal duty. The matter
of the present discourse will take in various verses in this
chapter--from the tenth to the twenty-fourth verse--leaving part of
the commencement and the conclusion for our consideration, if God
permit, next Sunday.
There are three main questions on which the apostle here gives his
inspired decision. The first decision is concerning the sanctity of
the marriage-bond between two Christians. His verdict is given in the
tenth verse: "Unto the married I command, yet not I, but the Lord, Let
not the wife depart from her husband." He lays down this principle,
that the union is an indissoluble one.
Upon such a subject, Christian brethren, before a mixed congregation,
it is manifestly evident that we can only speak in general terms. It
will be sufficient to say that marriage is of all earthly unions
almost the only one permitting of no change but that of death. It is
that engagement in which man exerts his most awful and solemn
power,--the power of responsibility which belongs to him as one that
shall give account,--the power of abnegating the right to change,--the
power of parting with his freedom,--the power of doing _that_ which in
this world can never be reversed. And yet it is perhaps that
relationship which is spoken of most frivolously, and entered into
most carelessly and most wantonly. It is not an union merely between
two creatures, it is an union between two spirits; and the intention
of that bond is to perfect the nature of both, by supplementing their
deficiencies with the force of contrast, giving to each sex those
excellencies in which it is naturally deficient; to the one strength
of character and firmness of moral will, to the other sympathy,
meekness, tenderness. And just so solemn, and just so glorious as
these ends are for which the union was contemplated and intended, just
so terrible are the consequences if it be perverted and abused. For
there is no earthly relationship which has so much power to ennoble
and to exalt. Very strong language does the apostle use in this
chapter respecting it: "What knoweth thou, O wife, whether thou shalt
_save_ thy husband? or how knowest thou, O man, whether thou shalt
save thy wife?" The very power of _saving_ belongs to this
relationship. And on the other hand, there is no earthly relationship
which has so much power to wreck and ruin the soul. For there are two
rocks in this world of ours on which the soul must either anchor or be
wrecked. The one is God; the other is the sex opposite to itself. The
one is the "Rock of Ages," on which if the human soul anchors it lives
the blessed life of faith; against which if the soul be dashed and
broken, there ensues the wreck of Atheism--the worst ruin of the soul.
The other rock is of another character. Blessed is the man, blessed is
the woman whose life-experience has taught a confiding belief in the
excellencies of the sex opposite to their own--a blessedness second
only to the blessedness of salvation. And the ruin in the other case
is second only to the ruin of everlasting perdition--the same wreck
and ruin of the soul.
These then, are the two tremendous alternatives: on the one hand the
possibility of securing, in all sympathy and tenderness, the laying of
that step on which man rises towards his perfection; on the other hand
the blight of all sympathy, to be dragged down to earth, and forced to
become frivolous and common-place; to lose all zest and earnestness in
life, to have heart and life degraded by mean and
perpetually-recurring sources of disagreement; these are the two
alternatives, and it is the worst of these alternatives which the
young risk when they form an inconsiderate union, excusably
indeed--because through inexperience; and it is the worst of these
alternatives which parents risk--not excusably but inexcusably--when
they bring up their children with no higher view of what that tie is,
than the merely prudential one of a rich and honourable marriage.
The second decision which the apostle makes respecting another of the
questions proposed to him by the Corinthians, is as to the sanctity of
the marriage bond between a Christian and one who is a heathen. When
Christianity first entered into our world, and was little understood,
it seemed to threaten the dislocation and alteration of all existing
relationships. Many difficulties arose; such for instance, as the one
here started. When of two heathen parties only one was converted to
Christianity, the question arose, What in this case is the duty of the
Christian? Is not the duty separation? Is not the marriage in itself
null and void? as if it were an union between one dead and one living?
And that perpetual contact with a heathen, and therefore an enemy of
God, is not that in a relation so close and intimate, perpetual
defilement? The apostle decides this with his usual inspired wisdom.
He decides that the marriage-bond is sacred still. Diversities of
religious opinion, even the farthest and widest diversity, cannot
sanction separation. And so he decides in the 13th verse, "The woman
which hath an husband that believeth not, if he be pleased to dwell
with her, let her not leave him." And, "if any brother hath a wife
that believeth not, and she be pleased to dwell with him, let him not
put her away," v. 12.
Now for us in the present day, the decision on this point is not of so
much importance as the reason which is adduced in support of it. The
proof which the Apostle gives of the sanctity of the marriage is
exceedingly remarkable. Practically it amounts to this;--If this were
no marriage, but an unhallowed alliance, it would follow as a
necessary consequence that the offspring could not be reckoned in any
sense as the children of God; but, on the other hand, it is the
instinctive, unwavering conviction of every Christian parent, united
though he or she may be to a heathen, "My child is a child of God,"
or, in the Jewish form of expression, "My child is _clean_." So the
apostle says, "the unbelieving husband is sanctified by the wife, and
the unbelieving wife is sanctified by the husband: else were your
children unclean; but now they are holy," for it follows if the
children are holy in this sense of dedicated to God, and are capable
of Christian relationship, then the marriage relation was not
unhallowed, but sacred and indissoluble.
The value of this argument in the present day depends on its relation
to baptism. The great question we are deciding in the present day may
be reduced to a very few words. This question--the Baptismal
question--is this:--whether we are baptized because we _are_ the
children of God, or, whether we are the children of God because we are
_baptized_; whether in other words, when the Catechism of the Church
of England says that by baptism we are "made the children of God," we
are to understand thereby that we are made something which we were not
before--magically and mysteriously changed; or, whether we are to
understand that we are made the children of God by baptism in the same
sense that a sovereign is made a sovereign by coronation. Here the
apostle's argument is full, decisive, and unanswerable. He does not
say that these children were Christian, or clean, because they were
_baptized_, but they were the children of God because they were the
children of one Christian parent; nay more than that, such children
could scarcely ever have been baptized, because, if the rite met with
opposition from one of the parents, it would be an entire and perfect
veto to the possibility of baptism. You will observe that the very
fundamental idea out of which infant-baptism arises is, that the
impression produced upon the mind and character of the child by the
Christian parent, makes the child one of a Christian community; and,
therefore, as Peter argued that Cornelius had received the Holy Ghost,
and so was to be baptized, just in the same way, as they are adopted
into the Christian family and receive a Christian impression, the
children of Christian parents are also to be baptized.
Observe also the important truth which comes out collaterally from
this argument--namely, the sacredness of the impression, which arises
from the close connection between parent and child. Stronger far than
education--going on before education can commence, possibly from the
very first moments of consciousness, we begin to impress ourselves on
our children. Our character, voice, features, qualities--modified, no
doubt, by entering into a new human being, and into a different
organization--are impressed upon our children. Not the inculcation of
opinions, but much rather the formation of principles, and of the tone
of character, the derivation of qualities. Physiologists tell us of
the derivation of the mental qualities from the father, and of the
moral from the mother. But be this as it may, there is scarcely one
here who cannot trace back his present religious character to some
impression, in early life, from one or other of his parents--a tone, a
look, a word, a habit, or even, it may be, a bitter, miserable
exclamation of remorse.
The third decision which the apostle gives, the third principle which
he lays down, is but the development of the last. Christianity he
says, does not interfere with existing relationships. First he lays
down the principle, and then unfolds the principle in two ways,
ecclesiastically and civilly. The principle he lays down in almost
every variety of form. In the 17th verse, "As God hath distributed to
every man, as the Lord hath called every one, so let him walk." In the
20th verse, "Let every man abide in the same calling wherein he was
called." In the 24th verse, "Brethren, let every man wherein he is
called therein abide with God." This is the principle. Christianity
was not to interfere with existing relationships; Christian men were
to remain in those relationships in which they were, and in them to
develope the inward spirituality of the Christian life. Then he
applies this principle in two ways. First of all, ecclesiastically.
With respect to their church, or ecclesiastical affairs, he says--"Is
any man called being circumcised? Let him not become uncircumcised. Is
any man in uncircumcision? Let him not be circumcised." In other
words, the Jews, after their conversion, were to continue Jews, if
they would. Christianity required no change in these outward things,
for it was not in _these_ that the depth and reality of the kingdom of
Christ consisted. So the Apostle Paul took Timothy and circumcised
him; so, also, he used all the Jewish customs with which he was
familiar, and performed a vow, as related in the Acts of the Apostles,
"having shorn his head in Cenchrea; for he had a vow." It was not his
opinion that it was the duty of a Christian to overthrow the Jewish
system. He knew that the Jewish system could not last, but what he
wanted was to vitalize the system--to throw into it not a Jewish, but
a Christian feeling; and so doing, he might continue in it so long as
it would hold together. And so it was no doubt, with all the other
apostles. We have no evidence that before the destruction of the
Jewish polity, there was any attempt made by them to overthrow the
Jewish external religion. They kept the Jewish Sabbath, and observed
the Jewish ritual. One of them, James, the Christian Bishop of
Jerusalem, though a Christian, was even among the Jews remarkable and
honourable for the regularity with which he observed all his Jewish
duties. Now let us apply this to modern duties. The great desire among
men now, appears to be to alter institutions, to have perfect
institutions, as if _they_ would make perfect men. Mark the difference
between this feeling and that of the apostle, "Let every man abide in
the same calling wherein he was called." We are called to be members
of the Church of England--what is our duty now? What would Paul have
done? Is this our duty--to put such questions to ourselves as these?
"Is there any single, particular sentence in the service of my Church
with which I do not entirely agree? Is there any single ceremony with
which my whole soul does not go along? If so, then is it my duty to
leave it at once?" No, my brethren, all that we have to do is to say,
"All our existing institutions are those under which God has placed
us, under which we are to mould our lives according to His will." It
is our duty to vitalize our forms, to throw into them a holier, deeper
meaning. My Christian brethren, surely no man will get true rest, true
repose for his soul in these days of controversy, until he has learned
the wise significance of these wise words--"Let every man abide in the
same calling wherein he was called." He will but gain unrest, he will
but disquiet himself, if he says, "I am sinning by continuing in this
imperfect system," if he considers it his duty to change his calling
if his opinions do not agree in every particular and special point
with the system under which God has placed him.
Lastly, the apostle applies this principle civilly. And you will
observe he applies it to that civil relationship which of all others,
was the most difficult to harmonize with Christianity--slavery. "Art
thou called," he says, "being a servant? Care not for it." Now, in
considering this part of the subject we should carry along with us
these two recollections. First, we should recollect that Christianity
had made much way among this particular class, the class of slaves. No
wonder that men cursed with slavery embraced with joy a religion which
was perpetually teaching the worth and dignity of the human soul, and
declaring that rich and poor, peer and peasant, master and slave, were
equal in the sight of God. And yet, great as this growth was, it
contained within it elements of danger. It was to be feared, lest men,
hearing for ever of brotherhood and Christian equality, should be
tempted and excited to throw off the yoke by _force_, and compel their
masters and oppressors to do them right.
The other fact we are to keep in remembrance is this--that all this
occurred in an age in which slavery had reached its worst and most
fearful form, an age in which the emperors were accustomed, not
unfrequently, to feed their fish with living slaves; when captives
were led to fight in the amphitheatre with wild beasts or with each
other, to glut the Roman appetite for blood upon a Roman holiday. And
yet fearful as it was, the apostle says, "Care not for it." And
fearful as war was in those days, when the soldiers came to John to be
baptized, he did not recommend them to join some "Peace Association,"
to use the modern term; he simply exhorted them to be content with
their wages.
And hence we understand the way in which Christianity was to work. It
interferes indirectly and not directly with existing institutions. No
doubt it will at length abolish war and slavery, but there is not one
case where we find Christianity interfering with institutions, as
such. Even when Onesimus ran away and came to Paul, the apostle sent
him back to his master Philemon, not dissolving the connection between
them. And then, as a consolation to the servant, he told him of a
higher feeling--a feeling that would make him free, with the chain and
shackle upon his arm. And so it was possible for the Christian then,
as it is now, to be possessed of the highest liberty even under
tyranny. It many times occurred that Christian men found themselves
placed under an unjust and tyrannical government, and compelled to pay
unjust taxes. The Son of Man showed his freedom not by refusing, but
by paying them. His glorious liberty could do so without any feeling
of degradation; obeying the laws, not because they were right, but
because institutions are to be upheld with cordiality.
One thing in conclusion we have to observe. It is possible from all
this to draw a most inaccurate conclusion. Some men have spoken of
Christianity as if it was entirely indifferent about liberty and all
public questions--as if with such things as these Christianity did not
concern itself at all. This indifference is not to be found in the
Apostle Paul. While he asserts that inward liberty is the only true
liberty, he still goes on to say, "If thou mayst be free use it
rather." For he well knew that although it was possible for a man to
be a high and lofty Christian even though he were a slave, yet it was
not probable that he would be so. Outward institutions are necessary
partly to make a perfect Christian character; and thus Christianity
works from what is internal to what is external. It gave to the slave
the feeling of his dignity as a man, at the same time it gave to the
Christian master a new view of his relation to his slave, and taught
him to regard him "not now as a servant, but above a servant, a
brother beloved." And so by degrees slavery passed into freed
servitude, and freed servitude, under God's blessing, may pass into
something else.
There are two mistakes which are often made upon this subject; one is,
the error of supposing that outward institutions are unnecessary for
the formation of character, and the other, that of supposing that they
are _all_ that is required to form the human soul. If we understand
rightly the duty of a Christian man, it is this: to make his brethren
free inwardly and outwardly; first inwardly, so that they may become
masters of themselves, rulers of their passions, having the power of
self-rule and self-control; and then outwardly, so that there may be
every power and opportunity of developing the inward life; in the
language of the prophet, "To break the rod of the oppressor and let
the oppressed go free."
XIV.
_Preached January II, 1852._
MARRIAGE AND CELIBACY.
"But this I say, brethren, the time is short: it remaineth that
both they that have wives be as though they had none; and they
that weep as though they wept not; and they that rejoice as though
they rejoiced not; and they that buy, as though they possessed
not; and they that use this world as not abusing it: for the
fashion of this world passeth away."--1 Corinthians vii. 29-31.
The subject of our exposition last Sunday was an essential portion of
this chapter. It is our duty to examine now the former and the latter
portions of it. These portions are occupied entirely with the inspired
apostolic decision upon this one question--the comparative advantages
and merits of celibacy and marriage. One preliminary question,
however, is to be discussed. How came it that such a question should
be put at all to the apostle?