תמונות בעמוד
PDF
ePub

truth. Their declamations on this fubject difcover great refinement of fentiment: particularly the eloquent Chryfoftom's. He exprefsly fays, that "fecond marriages are not denied to Chriftians: they are only exhorted, if they have, the gift of continence, to be fatisfied with the firft." Hence he reasons on the ground of prudence, policy, and domeftic peace; but attempts not to enforce his arguments by any fanction of law, or any express declarations of the Gofpel. [Vid. Orat. de Uxore et Pulchritud.]

Mr. Madan, in the prefent volume, frequently mentions the oppofition that was made to fecond marriages by the Fathers; and going back to a very early period, produces the name of Clemens of Alexandria, and puts it at the head of the oppofition. This Clemens of Alexandria, whatever he might write in behalf of marriage felf, did not approve of fecond marriages. Dupin fays, that though he did not entirely condemn them, yet he blames them.' It is Mr. Madan's custom to deal chiefly in general affertions. To convince an impartial inquirer, it is neceffary to be particular. The question is-" how, and on what grounds, did this learned Father blame fecond marriages?" Now, the best answer we can give to the question is, to permit Cle-. mens to speak for himself.-After having treated of the opinions of Tatian, whole diftinctions refpecting the old and the new husband, tended, as Clemens remarks, to diffolve the law, as if it was the inftitution of another God, he hath the following expreffion; viz. "But although, from a condefcending regard to human infirmities, and the natural warmth of conftitution, the Apoftle gives a licence to any one to enter into a fecond marriage (becaufe fuch a one doth not thereby commit any trefpass with respect to his former covenant, for he is not forbidden by the law), yet he doth not arrive to that highest standard of Chriftian perfection which is propofed in the Gofpel."

If Clemens had fpoken half fo favourably of polygamy, as he hath of fecond marriages, his teftimony would have been appealed to; not as a flender tribute of mere fufferance, reluctantly given, but as a full and decifive evidence, beftowed with the warmth of friendship, in the clear day-light of conviction; and this Clemens, inftead of being defecrated to the company of Mr. Madan's Mother Goofe,' would have been exalted to a high dif tinction in Mofes's feat.

Mr. Madan's account of the first and fecond centuries is comprized within the fcanty limits of eight pages; though it was to the opinions and practifes of thofe centuries that we firft made

Και ει τιν ο αποτολος δι' ακρασίαν καὶ πυρωσιν, καλα συγγνωμην δευτες ε μεταδίδωσι γαμε (επει και ετος εκ αμαρτάνει μεν καλα διαθήκη, ο γαρ κεκωλύαι προς το νόμο) ο πλεροι δε ητε καλα το ευαγγέλιον πολιτείας, τον καία επίλυσης τελειλήλα. Clem. Strom, lib. iii. pag. 336. Edit. Lug. Bat. 1616.

our

our appeal and it is chiefly to the teftimonies of thofe writers who lived nearest to the age of the Apoftles that we now confine our inquiry.

Mr. M. quotes the writings but of four Fathers through this moft interefting period. As to his fidelity refpecting two of them, we have already faid enough to convince the world how Jittle it is to be depended on.

He next fpeaks of Tertullian, whom we readily refign to Mr. Madan, with the whole fect of the Montanifts, to be fcourged at pleafure: Though, indeed, the pleafure of fcourging will be much abated, when Mr. Madan reflects, that not one stroke will rebound on an orthodox Father; and that he is only chastifing those whom the men he hates have fufficiently lafhed already.

The venerable name that clofes the hiftory of the fecond century, is that of Athenagoras; and all that is faid of this ancient Apologift, is contained in the following words: Athenagoras commends virginity, condemns fecond marriages-calling them honest adultery.'

We truft we shall not trefpafs too far on the indulgence of our Readers, if we give this paffage a particular and critical examination. It is of confequence in the prefent argument; and we have fome obfervations to offer on it, which, if free, are, we hope, no way presumptuous; and, if novel, not groundless.

When we read the above paffage in Mr. Madan's book, and recollected the original in Athenagoras, we at firft supposed, that he had borrowed from fome Latin author, who had tranflated ευπρεπής μοιχεια, adulterium HONESTUM. We fufpected that Mr. Madan's ear had been caught by the found; and concluded, that the fame judicious guide would have led him to have transJated the honefta facies of Terence-" an honest countenance." While we were fmiling at the blunder, a conjecture croffed our minds, that poffibly Mr. Madan's ear was imposed on by the French word honnite; and that Dupin might make use of it in the fame fenfe as the Latins. At laft, after many idle fufpicions, that did little credit to Mr. Madan's knowledge of language, our doubts were thoroughly removed; and we difcovered that Mr. Madan had neither borrowed from Greek, Latin, or French, but, in good truth, from plain English! For the paffage quoted above is tranfcribed verbatim from an old and wretched tranflation of Dupin; and is a farther confirmation of what we hinted at in the beginning of this paper, that our Author's acquaintance with the Fathers feems to be wholly of the fecond-hand sort.

As the paffage referred to is the only one which hath even been pretended to be brought rom Athenagoras, in proof of the unlawfulness of a Chriftian's marrying a fecond wife after the death of the first, we fhall examine it diftinctly; inferting the

* Vid, Monthly Review for Nov. 1780, p. 337.

whole

whole of the original in the margin, for the inspection of the learned Reader *.

In the fenfe in which it hath been generally underflood, it contains a glaring abfurdity and contradiction. Even Dr. Cave, whom Mr. Madan, with equal elegance and good manners, calls the whitewasher of the Fathers,' hath the following fevere ftrictures on it, in his View of "Primitive Chriftianity."

[ocr errors]

"Hear (fays he) what one of their Apologifts fays of fecond marriages- Amongst us every man remains as he was born, or engageth himself in one only marriage; for, as for fecond marriages, they are but a more plaufible or decorous kind of adultery; our Lord affuring us, that, whosoever putteth away his wife, and marrieth another, committeth adultery :'-which text how perverfely he interprets, and how impertinently he applies to his purpofe, I am not willing to remember."

For our parts, we cannot fo readily difpenfe with the ingenuoufnefs and good fenfe of this eminent Father, as to fuppofe him guilty of the perverfanefs and impertinence here laid to his charge. It is at leaft an act of charity to endeavour to rescue him from fo heavy an accufation, both on his integriry and his understanding.

To us it is evident, that the whole paffage in difpute is levelled directly-not againft fecond marriages that are entered into in confequence of death; but folely against those which are entered into, in confequence of a divorce, that hath not the plea of fornication or adultery to fanctify it.

On the ground of this obfervation, we offer the following tranflation, with which we fhall interweave a paraphrafe, illuftrative of the whole paffage; and let Mr. Madan difpute, or contradict it, if he can.

"Every perfon [among the Chriftians] either continues in the ftate in which he was born, or remains in a fingle marriage: for a fecond [or double] marriage is but a fpecious adultery; BECAUSE he who PUTTETH AWAY HIS WIFE, fays Chrift, and marrieth another wife, committeth adultery. He [who is the Lawgiver of the Chriflians] neither allows a man to put away the wife, whofe virginity he had poff fled, nor to add another in marriage to her: FOR he that DEPRIVES HIMSELF [by his own act and deed, or by a voluntary divorce-which is the very crime our

Η οίνος τις ετέχθη μενειν, η εφ' ενι γαμω ο γαρ δεύτερος ευπρεπής εςι μοιχεία ως γαρ αν απόλυση, φησι, την γυναίκα αυτή, να γαμηση αλλην μοι χαίαι ετε απολύειν επίτρεπων ης έπαυσε τις την παρθέναν, ετε επιγαμείν ο γαρ επιτερων επείον της πρότερος γυναικός, και εν τέθνηκε, μοιχος επί παρακεκαλυμμε νος, παραβαίνων μεν την χειρά σε θεα (ότι εν αρχή ο θεός ενα ανδρα έπλασε και μια γυναίκα) λύων δε την σάρκα προς σάρκα κατά την ενωσιν, προς μίξιν το γενεές zowana.-Vid, Athenag. Legat. §. 27. pag. 130. Edit. Dechair.

I

Saviour

Saviour fo expressly condemns in the text just quoted;—or, in other words, he who RIDS HIMSELF] of his first wife, though the hath afterwards died [ yet his marrying another in confequence of an unlawful divorce, ftamps him with the crime of adultery, and], he is [in reality] a mafqued adulterer; for, indeed, he tranfgreffeth the appointment of God (fince in the beginning he made one man and one woman) diffolving [by the act of divorce], the union that fubfifted between flesh and fleth; and which was appointed to be the common medium of generation."

Is it not clear, that this whole paffage is pointed entirely against fecond marriages that take place under the fanction of a divorce? Athenagoras might, with great propriety, call fuch marriages Specious adultery; and the perfons who engaged in them, veiled adulterers. For the practice, here condemned, was fo common at the time that this Father writ his apology, both among the Jews and the Heathens, that it was by no means efteemed difreputable. The former pleaded the Law of Mofes ; the latter, the customs of the nations. But the excellent Apologift, in oppofition to this unjuft and flagitious practice, pleaded the law that was eftablifhed among Chriftians, and was regarded as their meature of juftice and purity. αλλ' εςιν νομος ημιν ος δικαιοσυνης μετρον εποίησεν • • • γυναίκα μεν έκαςος ημων, ην ηγάγετο κατα τες υφ' ημων τιθειμένες νομος. Now, what were thofe laws refpecting marriage? They were the following: That a man should have but one wife at the fame time:-that he fhould not put her away if he found her a virgin :-that if he did put her away, he loofened the very connection that was eftablished by the hand of God himself: that, if he married another in confequence of a divorce, even if the firft wife died after the divorce took place, he was to be regarded, by Chriftians, as intentionally an adulterer, notwithstanding the Jewish and the Roman law might give a fanction to his crime.

...

We have thus given what we apprehend to be the plain fenfe of Athenagoras, in a paffage which, we think, hath hitherto been generally misunderstood and mifapplied. Viewed in the light in which it is now placed, nothing is more confiftent with the univerfal tenor of the New Teftament, and that particular authority of our Lord, to which it makes a direct and formal appeal. Confidered in any other view, the quotation is impertinent, and the reafoning on it perverfe and ridiculous.

On the above paffage we would offer the following remarks: I. Athenagoras feems to confider fornication before marriage as an exception to the general prohibition of divorce by our Lord, as well as adultery afterwards. Many expofitors have fo interpreted our Saviour's words, as to include the fame exception; (Vid. Henry's Expof.) "He that putteth away his wife, except in cafe of fornication, &c. &c. Now an illicit con

nection

[ocr errors]

nexion with another man, previous to a woman's marriage with a lawful husband, was deemed by the Mofaic law to be a crime worthy of death; because it was an impofition of the groileft and most unpardonable kind. It carried with it an equal degree of hypocrify, indelicacy, and injuftice. In after-times, as the world became more corrupt, the feverity of this law was relaxed, and the crime was punished by an open and a moft ignominious divorce.-The Jewish law indeed cannot be revived in its full force, for reafons which it is not neceflary to mention. But we think, that if, the fact could be clearly and circumftantially proved, the woman who impofes herself as a virgin, on a man, after the violation of her purity, is in every view fubjected to the fhame and penalty of a divorce; and we know no law of Chrift or his apoftles that would forbid it. "If (fays Athenagoras) the man hath poffeffed himself of her virginity (or more literally deftroyed it, eñause any tapdɛviar), he fhall not put her away, after he hath made her a wife." But may we not infer, from this method of expreffion, that the good Father thought divorces allowable, if those who had been defiled by an unlawful commerce with other men, impofed themselves for virgins, and were married, in confequence of their being confidered as fuch?

II. It ought to be particularly obferved, that through the whole of the preceding paffage, the man alone is fpoken of as the agent. If it had been. defigned to. forbid or difcountenance fecond marriages, after the death of either of the parties, this reftriction would hardly have been preferved. The woman ought equally to have been admonished. Divorces, though not abfolutely confined to the men, yet most generally took place in confequence of their caprice, or cruelty, or luft, .or jealoufy.

66

III. Through the whole, the man is made answerable for the tranfgreffion actually and voluntarily committed by the difmiffion of his wife. Now we afk, if fuch a mode of expreffion could, with the flightest degree of propriety, or.on any principles of common fenfe, be applied to his lofing her by death? Could HE be faid, "to fend her away," to violate the inftitution of God,"-" to diffolve the connexion that fubfifted between him and his wife, for the fake of mutual cohabitation?" Certainly not!-The abfurdity is fo glaring that fo fine a writer as Athenagoras could not poffibly have failen into it. It is too ridiculous to charge the moft ignorant Monk of after-times with.

IV. To place the nonfenfe and contradiction of the paffage, when made to refer to fecond marriages (as Mr. Madan would reprefent,it), in its true light, we need only to tranflate it, according to its common acceptation,

REV. Sept: 1781:

N.

66

he

« הקודםהמשך »