« הקודםהמשך »
his Apostle, St. Paul. The Author, whoever he was (though Ulher supposed him not to have been Ignatius), speaks of mar. riage in the next sentence with singular respect; and in opposia tion to Mr. Madan's licentious fyftem, recommends the inter, vention of the Bishop, which includes fome public and religious ordinance, in order that marriage may be enteret into from principles of piety, and not under the influence of lust. Cova o gonos XCTO suprov, un, XOTU ETT i Juubav.] Now this, of necellity, must be horrid fuff to a true Thelypbiborite!
In the * fragment of an Epiftle of Ignatius, preserved by that learned and industrious writer, Jol Damafcenus, of the eighih century, anu aifo quoted by Antorius, furnanied Me. lifla, of the twelith, we find virginity, to far from being recommended as a duty, that the church of Antioch, to whom it is addressed, are expressly charged noi to inapoie fuch a voke on any one. [TicpIevices suyou pedevt ENTIT.980.] And in the fame Epiftle, “ marriage is recommended to yourz men, before they are corrupted by The company of lewd women."
Thus in the earliest Fathers, or those who are honoured with the name of Apofiolical because they lived in the age of the Apostles, and were the immediate fuccefors), we meet with no injunction of celibaiki We meet not even with a recommendation of it :--at least no recommendation ct it, that can be compared with that bestowed on it by St. Paul, either in point of ex; essness or energy.
We read, indeed, in Justin Martyr's Apology, of some who, for the sake of pursuing the interesis of the Goipel with a greater degree of abstractedness froin the cares of life than a married ftate would admit of, or even justily, had kept themselves fingle, and remained uncorrupt examples of picty and virtue through a long series of years. Mr M. indulges himself in his accustomed raillery, whenever such chaste examples present themselves before him. He thinks they might have been much better employed ;
and so, we imagine, he would think of the virtuous Anna, whose continence and devotion are recorded as memorials of honour, in Luke ii. 36, 37.
The later Fathers, who ran into some absurd and extravagant opinions with respect to the dignity and excellence of a virginItate, yet, nevertheless, speak with high esteem of the institution of marriage ; and only discourage it when it interferes with the more essential interests of reli ion,
* Vid. Damafceni, lib. iii.
Damasceni lib. i, serm. 14. Dr. Grabe hath scarcely' any doubt of the genuine
Parall. cap. 27. & Anton. Melist.
Cimahe hinance cap: 370. Anthony ness of the above passages from Ignatius. Vid, Spiceleg. tom. ii. P. 24, 25.
Origen (whose violence on himself'Mr. Madan could not avoid taking notice of, for the triumph of Thelvphthora !)even Origen readily allows, that a “hely sacrifice is not confined to a virgin-state, but that the married may present the same facrifice, and equally acceptable to God, if they are pure and upright in other relpects.” In Epift. ad Rom. lib. ix.)
Yea, Si, Cyprian, who is inreringly be noted for his continency, and for having' said much oi the great advantages of virginity,' yet expressly declares, that “it is no where commanded as a dury, however (as by St Paul, for instance) it may have been recommended; nor is it (lays the good Father) imposed as a necefiary yoke, since the libery of chufing or refusing it is left." (Non jugum necessitatis imponit, quando manet voluntatis arbitrium liberum.---Traët. Ti, de Hab Virg. 1
We have a'ready mentioned the reason why Mr. Madan hath been so f»licitous to fix on the primitive Fachers the foul ligma of favouring virginity. He hath done it out of a principle of revenge and retaliation. Hai but hive of them written in favour of polygamy, he might have been gracious enough to have spared the rest for the five's sake. But now his only alternative is their total overthr: w, or the ruin of Thelyphthora. The case was critical and preiling; and who will wonder at the choice he made ?
He hath failed, however, in the most eflential part of his argument from antiquity; and, as we hinted at the conclusion of our jaft Article on this subject, by having recourse to a false and fpurious teftimony, in his very first on see on the ground of the Fathers, he hath done more injury to his cause than it is in the power of Dupin himielt to rectify.
That not one faint trace, no, not even the finteft Thadow of polygamy should be perceived in the Apostolic Father's, would be utterly unaccountable, if the practice of it had been customary among the Chilians of that age. That no explicit rules (unJers, indeed, we except those of Hermas, which are very strong) were laid down in their writings formally to prohibit the practice, affords a presumptive argument, at least, that it had no existence at that period among the profesors of Christianity. This, we think, is very clear from one circumstance, which deserves to be particularly noticed; and, as it is founded on an unexceptionable authority, we scruple not to lay very consis derable stress on it.
The circumstance we have in our eye is this;-as soon as the great Heretics arole in the second century, polygamy, with other monstrous enormities, was vindicated, and by many practised. It was at that period that the Catholic Fathers bore their strong and direct testimony against it. Occasion then called for such a
testimony: nor was zeal or knowledge wanting to support and credit it.
Irenæus (whose respectable name but barely occurs in this whole performance) treats of the errors of Tatian who had introduced a novel doctine, respecting the unlawf: Iness of marriage), in his first book of Herelies [Cap. 28. in Eat. Masuet.), and, in the same chapter, contrasts them with the opposite errors of Bafilides and Carpocrates, who pleaded for the lawfulness of polygamy.
The followers of Tatian “ were called * Continents, from the singular abftinence from marriage which they affected to teach and enforce; frustrating (says Irenæus) by the very pretence they made, the primitive delign of God in the creation; and obliquely accusing him, who, for the sake of propagating the human race, made both male and female.” This blafphemous tenet (as the excellent Father juftly calls it), though more par. ticularly and extensively propagated by Saturninus and Marcion, was originally introduced by Tatian, who had been a disciple of · Justin Martyr. Mr. Madan mentions the name of this old opposer of marriage from Bishop Newton's Dillertations (Vol.ii. p. 443.); and also takes care to inform his readers, that Tatian was the pupil of Justin Martyr. Now a person unacquainted with the original history from whence this account of Tatian was extracted, might be incautiously led to surmise, that the disciple borrowed his tenets from his master; especially if he fhould chance to recollect a certain passage in the 2d volume of Thelyphthora, where Justin Martyr is represented as an enemy to marriage, because he hud afferted in his Apology, “that among the Christians there were a + great many of either sex who, for sixty or seventy years, had kept themselves single and uncorrupt." On this passage Mr. M. remarks with mingled insult and joy • How glorioufiy would this have increased the devil's triumph over that primary command-Be fruitful and multiply, and replerii) the earth!' And, in immedite connection with the name of Tuitin, Mr. M. further obferves, that so early as the second century there were a set of people who called marriage a carnal thing, and unlawful for Christians under the Gospel.' (Vid. Thelyph. Vol. II. pag. 113, 114. 2d Edit.] But who were those people who thus dared to blaipheme the institution of God?They were the Heretics, who stood in the opposite class to he
* Οι καλεμενοι εγκρατεις αγαμιαν εκηρυξαν, αθετεντες την εχειαν πλασιν Ty Oso, &c. &c. Contra Hæref. lib. i. cap. 28. Edit. Paris, cap. 30. Edit. Gratii.
+ The epithet great, is an addition of the translator. Jolin says, X; TON/01 Twes xj 125 : -1.e. Many men and women.-- Apolog. primo P. 22. Ed. Tbirib,
retics ftill more corrupt and pernicious—the Polygamists. But Justin was equally the enemy of both : though, because Mr. Madan found him on no terms of friendship with the latter, he was determined to throw him out of that middle path whicle his wisdom and Christian piety had led him to adopt, and to rank him at the head of the former. Now this is an ir ítance of the groflest disingenuity, if Mr. Madan had read Irenæus, whose authority he quotes : and, without having read the writings of that learned Father, he was ill qualified to discuss an ecclefiaftical subject which related to the opinions and practices of the lecond century.
It ought then particularly to be remarked, in opposition to what Mr. Madan hath either suggested through ignorance, or would infinuate through craft and malice, that, in the very para Sage in which Irenæus relates that Tatian was a disciple of Justin Martyr, he observes with peculiar caution, and purpoiely, as it seems, with a view to prevent mistakes, and remove the appearance of suspicion, that che never avowed his doctrine respecting marriage as long as he continued the auditor of Justin; but that, after the martyrdom of that Father, he became an apoftate from the church; and, haughtily assuming to himself the consequence and authority of a master, from a presumption of his being superior to others, preached a doctrine of his own:particularly, that marriage was a carnal thing."
Now, in direct opposition to the rigid and sombrous principles of Tatian and his Continents, Irenæus places the licentious system of Bafilides and Carpocrates, who, by teaching the lawfulness of polygamy had ran into the contrary extreme. Alii autem rursus à Bafilide & Carpocrate occasiones accipientes, indifferentes coïtus et + MULTAS NUPTIAS induxerunt. i. e. “ Others, on the contrary, took occasion from Bafilides and Carpocrates to indulge themselves in indiscriminate lewdness, and to recommend the practice of polygamy.”.
Now here is a direst and explicit teftimony borne against polygamy by the pupil of Polycarp himself, who lived in the Apostolic age, and was the disciple of St. John the Evangelist.
* Tatiavy Tiros afwiws Tzviny Eldivsy2.cylos oro Brac pr;11zyo os losue axporn της γεγονως, εφοσον μεν συνην εκεινω ΟΥΔΕΝ εξεφηνε ΤΟΙΟΥΤΟΝ. μετα δε την εκεινε μαρίυριαν αποφας της Εκκλησίας, οιηματι διδασκαλε επαρθεις κ τυφώθεις, ως διαφερων των λοιπων, ιδιον χαρακτηρα διδασκαλεια συνεςησατο. ..... τον ganov Ti Soccer Toplucky avcemyopavocc. Vid. lib, i. cap. 23. Edit. Mall, cap. 31. Edit. Grab, et al.
+ The Greek compound to answer to those words must have been Foruyuor. Thus, in another part of Irenæus, yagos is rendered by the old Latin translator nuptiæ, which hath no fingular number. Accety gange MwCoews, per nuptias Moyfis. Lib. iv, cap. 20.
. But here we foresee an objection ; and it must be obviated, in order to prevent a momentary triumph which Mr. Madan might otherwise be disposed to affect ; for this Writer hath asserted, in the second volume of his Thelyphthora, page 125 (od edition), that 'a man's having two wives at once, and a man's marrying a second after the death of the first, were both esteemed by the ancient Christians and primitive fathers EQUALLY unlawful.' This is peremptorily at rted against the strongest evidence that can possibly be produced ; and the assertion is accompanied with the most insulting reflection on the learned and excellent Dr. Cave, for having endeavoured to soften the absurdities of those good folks as much as pollible.'
Now, perhaps, it will be said, that by the expression multas nuptias, or Tohuynuov, Irenæe is weant second or third marriages; if so, the good Father, by all-sting too much, hath, in reality, proved nothing: and, consequently Mr. Madan will say), the anti-polygamist, who allows of second marriages after the death of either of the parties, cannot avail himself of his authority.
· The objection is shrewd and plausible; but when fairly examined will prove to be groundless.
· Mr. Madin's unqualified affertion, that'polygamy and second marriages were by the ancient Christ ans and primitive Fathers esteemed equally unlawful,' is, as we faid above, rain and groundless. The ancients differed about the propriety and decorum of the latter, some allowing it freely ; others reluctantly; and many of the later Fathers not at all. But as to the unlawfulness of polygamy, it was never once called in question by any of them.
· When Tertullian lapsed into the errors of that gloomy fanatic, Montanus, he writ a treatise purpotely to condemn second marriages, which, in the earliest periods of the church, were practised among Christians, on the liberty expressly given them by St. Paul. This appears from Tertullian's treatise, But it gained no credit with the orthodox; and the author was confifidered as an apostate.
Some of the most rigid, whose strict sentiments of purity and fidelity led them to look on second marriages in an unfavourabie light, yet did not condemn them as criminal. Thry allowed them on the same principles on which they were allowed by St, Paul; though, like the Apostle, they did not highly respect them. They seemed to think that fecond marriages discovered a want of that refinement and delicacy of mind which is so ornamental in the profeflors of religion. They in some degree suspected the fincerity of the first attachment, when an inclination to engage in a second was either haftily or wantonly discovered. They thought the original union wanted that cement of the soul which ariseth from the united influence of love, honour, and