What God had honoured with his primary bleffing, they were to deprecate what he commanded, they were to avoid.

As to the genuineness of thefe two epiftles, the reader may find what is faid on that fubject by Wetstein (Vol. II. Prolegom. at the end of the volume), who feems to entertain very little doubt of the matter.'

"Who feems' caut ou fly and artfully faid! Mr. Madan waves the honour of delivering his own fentiments on the fubject. He confines himfelf to Wetstein's opinion. Not that he hath, in a moment of modefty, deviated from his accustomed track. No! He hath only kept to his old ground with a double portion of referve and care:-for, by fheltering himself under the shadow of a refpectable authority, he hath fo dexterously managed the bufinefs, as to anfwer two ends. The first is his own fecurity, in cafe he fhould be afked this queftion"How could you, Mr. Madan, produce a teftimony from works which are manifeftly fpurious;-which have been proved to be fpurious by the ftrongest evidence, both internal and external, that a matter of this fort could require?" Mr. M. if thus queftioned, would inftantly avail himself of his own caution, and would reply that " he gave no opinion of his own refpecting the authenticity of thefe Epiftles; he only quoted Wetftein." But for what reafon did he omit to quote Dr. Lardner? Why did he not even hint at that greater authority? Why, when he fpoke of Wetstein's having little doubt of the matter,' did he avoid dropping one word that might lead his readers even to furmife that others had their doubts? Who would imagine that this fubject fhould have been examined with the minuteft care in a learned and critical differtation, written profeffedly on it, by the great man whofe name we have juft mentioned? Who would imagine, that all Wetftein's arguments had been proved futile, and his authorities invalid, to the general fatisfaction of the learned-But it was for the intereft of Thelyphthora to keep this matter as much as poffible out of fight; for, by this appeal to St. Clement, the Author artfully attempts (and this was his other and chief defign) to overthrow the credit of the very firft Fathers of the Chriftian church; and, by making them vouchers for celibacy, invalidate their teftimony with respect to marriage of every kind.

Mr. M. however, hath been fo unfortunate as to fumble on the very threshold of his argument. A venerable Father of the first century is charged with the extravagance of the third and he, who in general wrote with the fimplicity of an Apoftle, is made anfwerable for the jargon of a Monk.

The only genuine epiftle of St. Clement of Rome, is that which he addreffed to the Corinthians; and which was difcovered at the end of the famous Alexandrian MS. of the New Teftament, and published by the order of Charles I. (to whom

it was fent as a prefent by Cyril, the Greek Patriach), about the middle of the laft century, by his Librarian, Patrick Young; and afterwards by Colomefius, Cotelerius, Le Clerc, and others. This is the only Epiftle that was acknowledged to be genuine by the most ancient Fathers. Irenæus, Dionyfius of Corinth, Hegifippus, Clemens of Alexandria, Origen, and Cyril refer only to this. Eufebius exprefsly fays, that this alone was regarded as authentic; and of the authenticity of this Epiftle there was no difpute. [Vid. Ecclef. Hift. lib. iii. cap. 34.] But the teftimony of Jerome is ftill more remarkable; for in his Catalogue of illustrious Writers, he fays, that "Clement wrote in the name of the church of Rome to the church of Corinth an Epistle of a most edifying nature. . . . . There is also a fecond Epiftle which is reported to have been written by him, but which is totally rejected by the ancients." [Quæ à veteribus reprobatur. Vid. Cat. Scr. ill. c. 15.]

The teftimony of Jerome then, with refpect to the two Epiftles published by Wetstein, muft of courfe fall to the ground: though it may be fomewhat difficult to account for a particular expreffion of this writer in his Reply to Jovinian, which Wetstein hath produced, and Mr. M. quoted, as the chief authority to corroborate the genuinenefs of the Syriac Epiftles; viz. that " Clement had written Epiftles to thofe who had made themselves eunuchs for the kingdom of heaven; and throughout the greateft part of them had treated of the purity of virginity." [Omnemque penè fermonem fuum de Virginitatis puritate contexuit. Adv. For T. 4.1

Now, in the Epiftle acknowledged even by Jerome himself to have been the only one that was generally admitted as authentic by the ancients, we fee no trace of fuch a doctrine: at least, it is fo faint and equivocal, that it could not have been produced as a proof by any writer who was not violently bent on supporting a darling hypothefis at any rate; and whofe fancy had magnified into an evidence, what fcarcely amounted to a conjecture. This only will account for Jerome's hyperbole :- a mode of fpeaking feldom unknown to an angry difputant; and for which this writer was pretty remarkabic (as Dr. Grabe obferves) in his books against Jovinian. Hieronymus acriter difputans contra errorem Joviniani, hyperbolicè ait-" Clementem omnem penè fermonem, &c." Quales hyperbolicæ locutiones in ipfius fcriptis, inque ipfo illo contra fovinianum, haud infrequentes occurrunt. (Vid. Grabii Spicel. tom. i. p. 204.) Dr. Cave makes the fame remark in his Hijieria Literaria. (Vid. p. 19. Edit. 1688.)

Epiphanius, who is produced as the fecond and latt evidence in fupport of the authenticity of the Epiftles publifhed by Wetftein, fimply remarks, that" Clement in his circular Epiftles

Αυτος γαρ παρθονταν διδάσκει, και αυτοί οι δεχρίαι, Harel, 30.

2

taught

taught Virginity, which the Ebionites did not admit of." This is very far from a teftimony to the genuineness of these Epiftles which we are now confidering. The first Epistle of St. Clement to the Corinthians, which was univerfally acknowledged and received as the genuine production of that excellent Father; and the fecond, which alfo bore his name, though it was generally rejected as fpurious, might be, and most probably were, the very Epiftles which Epiphanius referred to. But how did they teach virginity? Only as St. Paul taught it. Or, rather, we might fay-they do not teach it in language half fo ftrong as the Apofle. They do not teach it at all, in the manner in which Mr. Madan hath reprefented it. There is not a fingle word to difcourage marriage in either of them.-As to the firft, which alone deferves to be appealed to as evidence, it fpeaks of marriage as a divine appointment, and particularly noticeth the bleffing that was pronounced on it, at its original inftitution. (Vid. cap 33.) It gives exhortations to hufbands and wives, without the flightest or moft diftant infinuation, that fuch a connection was lefs pure, or lefs honourable, than virginity. It admonisheth young perfons to cultivate the general virtues of the Chriftian life, without once hinting at the excellence of celibacy, or offering one fingle argument or motive to encourage it. (Vid. cap. x. & 21.)

In short, there is not the fainteft ray of resemblance between this Epiftle and thofe publifhed by Wetflein, either in form or fentiment. They must have been penned by a different writer, and in a different age. They bear no trace of the apoftolic times: and must have been the production of a period when some scandalous practices and indecent modes of life had been introduced among the religious, which were totally unknown to the first Christians.

But what is the virginity that is really inculcated by this excellent Father?-Nothing more than that purity of heart and conduct which is fo effential to the character of a true Chriftian. It enforces no rigid and unnatural maxims of continence and mortification. It lays no harsh restraints on the common appetites and paffions of human nature. It proposes no patterns of imitation but thofe which the Scriptures had before recommended, either as examples of faith, patience, humility, holinefs, conftancy, or zeal. It admonithes Chriftians to cultivate no other virtues but those which had been before commanded; and fpeaks of no duties but thofe which the Scriptures had repeatedly enforced. The fins it accules had been confidered as fins before: nor doth it make any thing unlawful which the word of God had left indifferent.

Dr. Lardner fuppofes, that the frequent admonitions to purity which we find in this Epiftle, might have led Jerome (who

M 3

was

was interefted, from a motive the very reverfe of Mr. Madan's, to make the most of what appeared in any degree favourable to the rigidnefs of his own fyftem) to clafs St. Clement among the advocates for virginity. This learned writer hath produced a number of paffages which Jerome might be fuppofed to have had in his eye. We have examined them all with particular attention; and are convinced, that if Jerome confidered them as proofs of his doctrine of virginity, he muft have viewed them through the thickeft mifts of prejudice.

The ftrongest expreffion that hath occurred to us in this Epiftle, and which Jerome, perhaps, only confidered in a detached and parnal light, is the following: "Let not him who is chale in the ficfh be lifted up with pride; knowing that it is another who conferred on him the power of continence." But is there any thing in this wife and falutary caution that is in the flighteft degree inconfiftent with the rules of Chrift or his Apofties? Is there one word in it that looks like a difcouragement of marriage? By no means! The caution doth not refpect those who live in a fingle ftate only. It is perfectly applicable to that marriage which is honourable in all :- that which is entered into, not from thofe groffer motives by which lewdnefs is chiefly influenced; but on thofe nobler and more refined principles, where love, and friendship, and religion blend their powers, to render the union equally conducive to domestic happinefs and the honour of Chriftianity.

Now, that the expreffion, chaste in the flesh (ayvos ev Ty σagni) doth not preclude marriage, but is perfectly confiftent with it, when it is confirmed and hallowed by the influence of thofe principles we have juft mentioned, is evident from the direction that is given by St. Clement to husbands, in which a fimilar expreffion is made ufe of. "Let us (fays he) direct our wives in the pactice of what is good; and let them fhew forth an amiable pattern of CHASTITY.” [το αξιαγαπητον της ΑΓΝΕΙΑΣ «θος edgarJwoav. Cap. 21.] And that the word tranflated contience (Eyxpareix) doth not aliude particularly to a state of celibacy or virginity, is evident from the concluding part of this Epiftle, in which the Divine benediction is implored for all Chriftians; and the particular virtues of CONTINENCE (yaTea) and CHASTITY (aya) as well as faith, humility, peace, &c. &c. are earneftly folicited for every foul (macy ux) that invoketh the holy name of God. In fhort, the words here, as in the New Teftament, mean nothing more than a general habit of purity and moderation; and this, and this only, is the virginity inculcated by St. Clement *.

We

In this large fenfe, continence is most excellently defined by Clemens Alexandrinus : & μονον γαρ περί τα αφροδίσια αλλα και περί τα ΑΛΛΑ

We have been the longer in examining this purious teftimony, because it ftands at the very head of all the other testimonies, and was defigned to give the moft ftriking force to the inference that the Author would deduce from them in favour of the lead

ing principle in this volume.

Deprived of the fanction of St. Clement's authority, he hath not the name of one fingle apoftolic Father to adorn his page. St. Clement ftands a folitary advocate for virginity in Mr. Madan's flender and erroneous hiftory of the first century. Not one contemporary brother to f.cond him in his warfare against marriage nor a fingle fifter to chaunt at her mattins the renown of his atchievements! We wonder we had not been prefented with the Acts of Paul and Thecla. They would have furnifhed him with illuftrations ftill more replete with impious picty, and afforded him the moft delectable occafions for a difplay of that wit which grows fo frifky, and fports itfelf fo frothily, whenever he comes in the way of virginity! But now, alas! poor Clement ftands alone;-unfeconded, unprotected!-though the chafte Thecla, "burfting glorious" from the bonds of a carnal betrothment, offers him her virgin-hand to be the companion of his warfare!

Mr. Madan, not being a man of ceremony, hath, at one bound, leaped over a whole century!—and in the fame page hath united Clement of Rome with his name-fake of Alexandria: -whom, with infolent difdain, he calls- this Clemens ;'-and, with alf the coarseness of a vulgar and illiberal buffoon, ranks fome of that great man's hiftorical relations with Mother Goofe's Tales!'

The Author hath totally omitted the Epifties of Ignatius and Polycarp; together with that very ancient one attributed to St. Barnabas. He doth not fo much as mention the name of Hermas. Indeed, as he could find nothing in the writings of thefe men, that any way tended to confirm his argument, he wifely pafled them over in profound filence.

We ipeak of thofe Epiftles of Ignatius which have been generally acknowledged. In that more doubtful one infcribed to Polycarp (and which, indeed, Mr. M. hath referred to in a former volume, under the article of horrid fuff"), we meet with the following expreffion: "If a man, for the fake of honouring Chrift, and his example of purity, is able to continue in a virgin ftate, he hath his liberty: but let him ufe it without oftentation; for if he boats, he is undone." The expreffion is delicate and rational; and the fentiment it conveys is perfectly confiftent with the cleareft and moft explicit rules of Chrift and

σε επιθυμεί η ψυχη κακως εκ αρκεμένη τους αναγκαίοις η εγκράτεια αναστρέφεται Vid. Strom. Lib. iii, ad Init.

M 4

his