Calvin's Marriage and the Death of His Wife
CELIBACY OF THE CLERGY.
The vow of celibacy of the clergy or priesthood, although contrary to divine institution, is of very ancientdate. Astarte or Ashéaroth, the Assyrian queen, who lived about 1800 years before Christ, and who professed to be the Queen of Heaven, after whom the Virgin Mary is so named and worshipped, had an extensive priesthood, over whom was placed a pontiff. This order was divided into certain classes or ranks, the higher of which took the vow of celibacy.* Thus it may be seen that this doctrine of Rome, like most of the others introduced by her, came from pagan idolatry. She, however, imposes universal celibacy on all her clergy, from the pope to the lowest deacon and subdeacon.
The advocates for this usage pretend that a vow of perpetual celibacy was required in the ancient church asa condition of ordination, even from the earliest apostolic ages. But the contrary is evident from numerous examples of bishops and archbishops, who lived in a state of matrimony without any prejudice to their ordination. Neither is it true that they were required, as stated by the Papists, to enter into this state after their ordination. It is true that some few, but not all, of the holy fathers, after their conversion, voluntarily put away their wives, perhaps because their wives, remaining unconverted pagan idolaters, were found to be unequal yoke-fellows. Cyprian, for instance, who was martyred in the year 258, resolved, from his conversion, upon a state of celibacy. But Ceacilius, on the other hand, the minister of the Church of Carthage, who in 246 was instrumental in his conversion, lived in a state of matrimony, and at his death committed to Cyprian the care of his family.
Novatus, presbyter of Carthage, was complained of by Cyprian because he had struck and abused his wife, which caused her so to suffer as to prove that this priest did zo/live in a state of celibacy. Velens, presbyter of Philippi, mentioned by Polycarp and Chaeremon, both had wives. It was when the church became corrupt, and when her bishops
* See ‘ Babylonianism,” by Rev. J. W. Straten. Price 1d. Partridge, etc., Paternoster Row
‘Hy and ministers, inflated with pride, strove to assimilate the Church of God to the worship of Ashtaroth, in order-to swell their ranks by the influx of the pagans, that this custom was from time to time introduced.
In the Council of Nice, A.D. 325, the motion was made to oblige the clergy to abstain from all conjugal society with their wives, but Paphnutius, a famous Egyptian bishop, and one who himself never was married, vigorously declaimed against it, upon which it was unanimously rejected. Certain it is that, whatever motive has induced the Church of Rome to impose this yoke upon her clergy, it. has, in connection with the confessional, led to a vast amount of immorality and murder, and it is as unscriptural as it is wicked.
MARRIAGE IS HONOURABLE IN ALL.
It was instituted before sin entered into the world, ‘“‘The Lord God said, It is not good that the man should be alone:” ‘‘Enoch who walked with God,’ Abraham the friend of God; Isaac and Jacob; Moses, who saw God face to face, and Aaron the high priest, were all married. Caiaphas the high priest (John xvii. 13) and Peter himself (Matt. viii. 14) were married; and Paul asks: ‘‘ Have we not the power to lead about a sister, a wife, as well as other Apostles ?” (1 Cor. ix. 5.) ‘A bishop then must be blameless, the husband of one w/e,” said Paul, “having his children in subjection with all gravity” (1 Tim. iii. 2, 4).
It is not in the least surprising that the Church of Rome should discourage the reading of Holy Scripture. Divine revelation completely condemns her human and unholy dogmas, and distinctly foretells her departing from the faith. ‘Now the Spirit speaketh expressly,”’ we read, ‘‘that in the latter times some shall depart from the faith, giving heed to seducing spirits and doctrines of devils; speaking lies in hypocrisy; having their conscience seared with a hot iron; FORBIDDING TO MARRY.”
SERVETUS and his association with Calvin must next come under our consideration, and we are glad that there are records in existence sufficient to enable us to come at the facts of this perplexing part of the Reformer’s life. And we hope to deal faithfully and impartially as far as we can gather up the evidences of the case,