them Apollos, the eloquent disciple of John, and taught him more perfectly the way of God (Acts, xviii., 2, 3, 26); and whose two names are never separated by St. Paul.—2 Tim., iv., 19; 1 Cor., xvi., 19.

The wife of a minister is necessarily an obstacle or an aid : There is no medium. Hence it is a law that he should have the ministry in his view in the choice of a wife. This, perhaps, is too rarely done. We engage ourselves before we are quite serious; and if it be otherwise, passion carries us away, and we see what does not exist.

As to the time of marriage-it is, perhaps, too much to wed at the same time a parish and a wife. Would it not be better not to bring too closely together these two acts, which, though not opposed to each other, are different ?*

§ 2. Government of the Family.

A bishop must be one that ruleth well his own house, having his children in subjection with all gravity; for if a man know not how to rule his own house, how shall he take care of the Church of God?"—1 Tim., iii., 4, 5.

It is scarcely natural that a minister should be devoted to his parish (jealous for it, with the jealousy of God), and be neglectful of his family; and seldom will this happen. How can one be a bad father and a good pastor, the pastorate being but a more extended paternity? How can the principle of charity, which makes a good pastor, coexist with the absence of the principle of affection, which makes a good father? How can that charity which concerns itself for strangers care nothing for those of its own household? How shall not the pastor be first the pastor of his own family? How can we imagine a zealous pastor who is an indifferent father, when

* On the manner of entering into the state of marriage, see l'Histoire de Lavater, by GESSNER, tome i., p. 303-305. The history of young Tobias is not more beautiful.

it is said that "he who cares not for his own is worse than an infidel ?"-1 Tim., v., 8.

We must nevertheless admit, strange as it may be, that one may have a kind of zeal for his parish, and not a proportional solicitude for his family; may suffer himself to be absorbed by the details of his office; may, perhaps, like better this external activity than to take care of his household. There are many badly bred children in priestly families, and the fathers of these children are not always (far from it) bad pastors.

66

It is a grave error to think that the parish should precede the family. The family is the first interest in respect to the pastor, as it is to every other man. If a pastor will not admit this, he would be wiser not to marry. What the family gains by our cares is profitable also to the parish; first, because the family," as Quesnel says, "is a little diocese where he makes trials of episcopal and ecclesiastical zeal, piety, and prudence ;" next, because the parish gains from these domestic cares by the edifying example which hence results, and by the pastoral spirit spread over all the members of the family. It loses, in the same proportion, by our domestic negligence, even though for the sake of it we should sacrifice our children: first, because it is not natural that a true blessing should rest upon the cares of a pastor, who, having no care for his household, is worse than an infidel; next, on account of scandal. Witness the example of the children of Eli.—1 Samuel, ii. In spite of Eli's wise and grave representations to his children (ii., 23, 25), we see, by the reproaches which they brought upon him (ii., 29), that, by his weakness, he was the cause of their deportment; and already, in chapter first, we perceive that he was not a spiritual man.*

We should guard against that united influence of the political spirit of the times and of certain ideas of reform, on

* Spiritual, it is to be presumed, is not to be understood here so as to imply that Eli was not, on the whole, a man of true piety.-Tr.

account of which children are apt to be brought up in a different spirit from the submissive one of which the apostle speaks.

§ 3. House and Household Economy of the Pastor.

A minister, in marrying, should know according to what general principles his house ought to be governed, and the wife whom he has married (the aid he has taken to himself) should learn them from him, if she has yet to learn them.

Without disparaging an honorable liberty, it is necessary that the order of his house, and the habits of the external life of his family, should be subordinated to the interests of his ministry. This is not a yoke which he imposes upon his wife, but principles that she should voluntarily adopt in virtue of an interest which she shares with him.

If there be not this concert, or if principles are observed only at the expense of the liberty of one of the parties, every thing will go wrong.

This being assumed, we believe that the internal affairs (the affairs of the domestic establishment) ought to satisfy propriety in two ways: by order and neatness, if the pastor be poor; by simplicity, if he be rich; which, certainly, does not mean that order may be wanting in a rich house, or simplicity in a poor one; still less, that one will have order simply because he is rich, or simplicity merely because he is poor, without seeking it by other means.

Order is the ornament, the attire, the luxury of poverty. Nothing is so sad as the appearance of riches, and pretensions to elegance in a poor house. But, on the contrary, order in poverty shows a firm soul, a serious character, a peaceful heart. Order and neatness among the poor are almost virtues, inspiring involuntary respect; and their absence greatly injures the influence of a poor pastor.

Simplicity is the only ornament which may properly at

tach itself to wealth; it is always in good taste, especially in a parsonage. The contrary presents too great a contrast with the functions of the pastor. But more than this: The parsonage a second poor-house in the parish. None is so much visited by the unfortunate. It requires but very little to offend their notice. What a rich man, or even one in easy circumstances, scarcely honors with the name of comfort, is for them luxury and show. If, at the house of a wealthy pastor, opulence may show itself, it must be only under a grave form, and there must be no appearance of fancy, of finery, or of sensuality. There is a luxury which addresses the senses, and another which addresses the mind and the imagination, and where matter is made subservient to thought.*

The

Entering much into society (I mean what are called assemblies, soirées, dinner parties, etc.) offends poverty, by the leisure which it wastes and by the expenditure which it incurs, or at least which it implies. The family of a pastor may have friends, whom they may see familiarly and frequently, but it is not proper that they should see the world. personal austerity of a pastor will not correct the impression which one will receive from worldliness in his wife and children. We do not recommend the government of a cloister. Whatever abuse may be made of the proverb, “Youth must have its way," it is not without truth. But without wishing to force nature, and while authorizing a proper liberty, it is still necessary that the pastor should have a well-governed house, and dissipated life in his family would be a real scandal.

We have elsewhere said that one of the prerogatives of a pastor is to belong to no particular class of society.† His wife and children must not deprive him of this prerogative, by courting the society of the gay world.

* Contention between the seriousness of a husband and the vanity of his wife, in the Vicar of Wakefield. + Page 70.

More care should be taken in the choice of Domestics than in any other House.—They should be persons who not only may suit in respect of the services we exact from them, but persons of good character, and disposed to enter into the spirit of our house.

Decency, dignity of manners in the interior, in language, in all respects, should be maintained. The way is to have self-respect.

Peace. The house of a pastor is a house of peace, not of contention and noise.

Simplicity of the Table, Sobriety.-Let no suspicion of intemperance or sensuality attach itself to pastors. The world instinctively discerns in them the first appearances of those vices which are opposed to the virtues that should characterize them.

Hospitality-This is put by St. Paul (Titus, i., 8; 1 Tim., iii., 2) in the number of the virtues of a bishop. Hospitality had then an importance which it has not now. In addition to her general well-known circumstances of need, Christianity was a wayfarer; zeal, persecution, agitated the Church; and, moreover, the condition of a wayfarer, though rich, was not agreeable; that of the poor was wretched. Christians are commended for having exercised hospitality, widows for having washed the saints' feet.-1 Tim., v., 10. We may cite many examples of the performance of this duty in the primitive Church; Aquila and Priscilla took Apollos into their house.-Acts, xviii., 2–13.

If this precept be now of any general application, it is particularly applicable to pastors. The more hospitality is neglected or avoided, the more should a pastor give an example of it, without, however, conniving in the least degree at that useless and pernicious abuse which is sometimes attempted to be made of it in the name of Christianity. For, decidedly, the form of it at least has changed. I should like to see a pastor exercise it toward the honorable poor of his parish with