entirely occupied with it. This long dissertation is somewhat more lucidly arranged than is usual with its author.—He tells us, that all the heretical notions upon marriage then existing might be divided into two classes; the one consisting of those who held licentious doctrines, the other of those whose rule of morals exceeded that of the Scripture, and who refused the gifts of providence through hatred to the Giver;24 both these he refutes. Against licentiousness, his doctrine is unexceptionable, and he quotes pertinent passages of Scripture, for the most part, in support of it.25 —But he also falls into the same error which he afterwards condemns he frames a stricter rule than the scriptural one. His net has so broad a cast, and so wide a sweep, that it is next to impossible that the consciences of married persons should not be entangled therein.26 Though in my judgment, no error has been more deeply fraught with disastrous consequences to society than this, I, of course, decline any lengthened remarks upon such a subject. But we may here notice, as one of its evil effects, the unnatural abomination of virgin marriages; which the present author certainly countenances,27 which Tertullian strongly recommends,28 and which appears to have attained to its perfection about the times of Jerome.29 24 3 Strom., § 5. 25 Idem, § 5, 14, 18. 26 See idem, § 11, and throughout there is a constant allusion to it. See also Pæd., lib. 2. c. 10, which is still worse. Something not very unlike it will also be found in Bishop Taylor's "Rules and Exercises of Holy Living," c. 2., § 3.—A book as a composition, exquisitely beautiful, but which would have proved more acceptable to the Church of Christ, had it contained more of the religion of the Bible, and less of that of the fathers. 27 3 Strom., § 6. 28 De Monog., c. 9. Upon the other class of errors his remarks are scriptural and sensible, for the most part: he boldly declares, that "if the law is holy, marriage is holy also; that marriage and fornication are as far asunder as God and the Devil; and that it is quite impossible that the apostolic injunctions to moderation and continence could be intended to abrogate or prohibit marriage, inasmuch as the same epistles contain also innumerable injunctions regarding the duties of the married state." 1930 It is plain from hence, that the schools of Alexandria and of Carthage, were at issue upon this point; and it is equally certain that the latter ultimately prevailed in good measure. Jerome, as we have seen, adopts all the opinions of Tertullian the Montanist upon this subject; though he attacks Montanus with great acrimony.31 Several other passages occur in the work before us to the same purport as that we have just quoted : but as they throw no new light upon the question, we content ourselves with merely referring to them:32-they are, with the abatement we have pointed out, scriptural and good. We should, however, give a very wrong impression of this father's opinions upon the subject, if we did not also quote his remarks upon the other aspect of it. Second marriages, in one place, he permits, with St. Paul; in another, he declares that monogamy is enjoined ;34 and stigmatises 30 3 Strom., § 12. 31 U. s., lib. 3., Ep. 11, ad Marcellam. 32 3 Strom., § 4, 6, 9, &c. 33 Idem, § 1. 34 Idem, § 12. By monogamy he means one marriage only, like Tertullian, as well as monogamy, as distinguished from polygamy; though he sometimes makes the distinction: μονογαμίαν καὶ τὴν περὶ τὸν ἕνα γάμον σεμνότητα, § 1 ; so also, § 12, πρὸς ἐντροπὴν δε καὶ ἀνακοπὴν τῶν εὐεπιφόρων εἰς τὸν δέυτερον γάμον. second marriage as fornication.35 I think his mind was by no means settled upon this question, and that he did not sufficiently distinguish between second marriages and polygamy. Upon the subject of celibacy, he has likewise fallen into the error we have noticed in the preceding authors.— He speaks of a profession of celibacy as a great grace, for which those to whom it is imparted should thank God, and not despise those who are married.36 He exhorts them to adhere to their choice and not deflect from it; and to encourage them in it, he tells them that "he who shall be able to extend and increase the severity of his course of life, shall thereby acquire greater dignity with God on account of his pure continence, perfected according to his word: but if he transgress the rule he hath chosen, the stricter that rule the greater will his failure be."37 His notion was evidently, that matrimony and celibacy were two separate vocations, in both of which it was in the power of men to serve God:-and though he equalises their capacities in this respect, to a much greater extent than Tertullian, he, nevertheless, gives the preference, for the purposes of religion, to celibacy: and that, not in order that the believer thus unencumbered, might go forth to preach the gospel, and endure hardness as a good soldier of Jesus Christ, but that he might be able to give himself more unreservedly to the contemplation of divine things, to harmonising the Greek philosophy with Christianity, and to the fantastical interpretation of Scripture, wherein, as he supposed, the true Christian Gnosis consisted. There is another fiction in Christianity, which originated in these notions; and Clement of Alexandria has the bad eminence of being the first author of account who has 37 § 12. 35 § 12. 36 § 18. promulgated it. We need not say that there is not a shadow of scriptural authority for the doctrine of the perpetual virginity of the mother of our Lord. That the common speech of the Jews used in the Gospels, which was never very precise in its definitions of degrees of relationship, may have left room for the construction of an opposite argument, is not the question; for, though I might be inclined to regard that argument as a highly artificial, and even fallacious one, I do not insist upon this point; but assuming what cannot readily be denied, that we have no revelation upon the subject, I would regard it under another aspect. The perpetual virginity, and its concomitant fables, the advanced age, previous marriage, and family of sons, of Joseph, the husband of Mary, are never mentioned, or hinted at, by Clemens Romanus, Barnabas, Ignatius, or Polycarp; and if their silence makes but little for our argument, it at any rate proves nothing against it. But the entire absence of all allusion to the perpetual virginity in the Shepherd of Hermas is, I think, more important, as evidence against its antiquity; there are so many places in the book where it would have served the author's purpose, that it is surprising, to say the least, he should not have made use of it. We now proceed to the second century. I cannot find even a hint at the perpetual virginity in Justin Martyr, though he frequently alludes to the miraculous conception in his works; and in a manner which shows him to have been by no means untainted with the error we are now considering.38 It is not alluded to in the writings of his pupils. 38 See Apol. I., p. 74. C., &c. Dial. cum Tryph., pp. 262. B., 290. B., 297. C., 327. C., &c. Irenæus follows Justin, in driving a comparison between the Virgin Eve, in whom all men died, and the Virgin Mary, in whose offspring all were made alive; but far from any hint at the perpetual virginity, he carries on the resemblance to the espousal of Joseph and Mary, which he compares with that of Adam and Eve.39 We have already seen that Tertullian was engaged in a controversy regarding virginity and second marriages ; and that many of his extant works were occasioned by it. Now, upon both these points, can we conceive of any thing more important or influential, than the example of the Virgin Mary? The absence, therefore, of all allusion to the perpetual virginity, on the part of the Montanists, and of even a hint, at the second marriage which, according to these fables, brought the birth of our Lord within the pale of the Divine Law, on the part of the Sensualists, is, perhaps, as strong a negative testimony against their doctrinal existence at the time, as could well be imagined. But what shall we say, when we find the same writer zealously defending the relationship of consanguinity between Christ, his mother, and brethren, in a comment upon Matt. xii. 47., against Apelles and other heretics, who denied it, for the purpose of impugning our Lord's humanity 240 nay, absolutely doubting that Mary was then a believer in her son's doctrine! and winding up a long train of reasoning, all to the same effect, with a denial of the perpetual virginity in good set c. 33., lib. 5. c. 19. 39 Iren. adv. Hær., lib. 3. 40 De Carne Christi, c. 7. In the same book he copies the two preceding authors in the parallel between Eve and Mary, c. 17, and though many circumstances in the fable we are combatting would have greatly aided his illustration, he does not allude to one of them. |