CHAP II.

REMARKS on the THIRD VOLUME of THELYPHTHORA;

Shewing that its LEADING POSITION is founded in ERROR.

TH

HIS volume is only a continuation of that illiberal invective against the Fathers, which had been begun,' with great acrimony, in the former volumes. The author's hatred of those primitive Saints is not to be wondered at :-their united voice against Thelyphthora has provoked his refentment; and as he cannot find one friend among them, he furiously attacks them all. • Indeed the cafe was critical ;-the only alternative left was to difcredit them, or to give up the cause of Thelyphthora :—who, then, will be surprised at the part he has taken!

It was justly obferved by a great Philofopher, when reafon is against a man, a

"man will be against reason." This obfervation is upon no occafion more strikingly applicable than to Madan's contempt of the primitive Fathers. In the course of things it might be expected, that he would attempt to invalidate a testimony that was conclufive against him but even if he could difcard it, he would not have advanced one step in proof of his fyftem, while he admits the authority and genuineness of the books of the New Teftament. It does not excite furprize, that those holy men, who were converfant with the Apoftles themselves, and taught no other doctrines but what they had learned from them, as will appear from a candid comparison of their writings, fhould, fo far from being high in the estimation of a man who teaches doctrines repugnant to both, become the objects of refentment, hatred, and abufe. But it is fhocking to reflection to find, that this resentment and abuse are carried to fuch lengths as be injurious to the caufe of Christianity, by throwing contempt upon the writers and writings of the New Teftament itself. It has been already observed, that" in a furi

to

ous onfet on the Fathers, he (Madan) for"gets how nearly they are connected with "the Apoftles; for, in fhooting indifcri

minately among the former, his arrow "frequently glances on the latter. But to cover Mofes, a zealous Polygamist would "make no fcruple of leaving St. Paul expofed; and to enjoy a laugh at the ex

pence of primitive virginity, would not "be folicitous to keep a chapter in the

Epiftle to the Corinthians clear of the "jeft*." As to the relations of this Madan, about the apoftolical Fathers and primitive Christians, they are just as much to be depended on as the hiftory of Tom Thumb, or that of Jack the Giant-killer.

WHOEVER reads the obfervations contained in Thelyphthora relative to the Fathers, cannot but feel horror for its author, as a Divine, a Scholar, and an Hiftorian. He feems to have no clear knowledge of the fentiments of the primitive Christian writers: he confounds one father with another, and hereby charges a venerable one of the first *Month. Rev. for September, 1781.

century with the extravagancies of the third, and he who writ with apoftolical fimplicity,' is made the author of Monkish jargon ;indeed, it is evident to a demonstration that he never read the writings of this Father; and without reading them he can be but ill qualified to discuss a subject relative to the opinions and practices of the first century. Befides, his quotations are partial, and confequently his conclufions erroneous, and a heap of misrepresentations :—his tranflations are often faulty, and his history is replete with wrong information. Indeed, the whole evidence-I mean in particular with respect to the first and second centuries, -is a compound of malice or ignorance.

THE writer whom Madan has almoft wholly copied is Du Pin, a French Ecclefiaftical Historian. But why, even if he was content with fecond-hand evidence, follow a Doctor of the Sorbonne? Why not attend to Cave, Lardner, and other learned and impartial writers? But if he is a lover of truth, and willing to inculcate it in a difcuffion of the opinions and practices of the primitive Christians,

Christians, I fhall recommend him (which is certainly the only fafe method) to refer immediately to the writings of those men, themselves; I mean fuch only as are admitted by the antient Chriftians to be genuine; whence conclusive evidence may most certainly be deduced. And I think this abfolutely neceffary, when I reflect, that later writers, attempting to accommodate them to their own systems, and viewing them through the thickest mists of prejudice, have totally mifrepresented them; which is no uncommon cafe with prejudiced and angry dispuBut perhaps the evidence of a Romanist representing the fentiments of the early Fathers in a detached and partial light, probably with a view of giving a fanction to clerical celibacy, might be the most agreeable to our author, because best calculated' for his purpose. However this be, I have. no doubt but that he had information enough relative to the apoftolical Fathers, to be convinced, they would be found no friends to his fyftem upon clofer acquaintance. Indeed he has evidently confidered them as formidable enemies, as appears from his vio

tants.