really meant to reprove the apostles, two of whom (at least) Peter and Philip, were fathers, the latter moreover having given his daughters in marriage; or Paul, who asks-' Have we not power to lead about a sister, a wife, even as the other apostles?' Further on, our author, and with much copiousness, offers a eulogium of Woman-Woman, the helper and companion of man-Woman, the wife, and mother; and in all which there is nothing of the fulsome nonsense about virginity, which renders the perusal of the fathers, often, so nauseating; and he affirms too the equality of the sexes, in regard to piety and virtue. If, in fact, Cyprian and Tertullian had been writers of the ninth century, we might well, in comparing them with Clement, have pointed to the difference, vast and glaring as it is, and have thereby confirmed ourselves in the common notion, that popery was a gradual departure from the good sense and purity of the early times of the church. But in truth, these writers were the contemporaries of Clement, though younger men; and the elements of the christianity of the period is to be found in their works, not in his.

It is true that many of the fathers, or most of them, in their headlong course of fanaticism, and while beating the 'drum ecclesiastic,' to get recruits for the monastery, think it due to their reputation to pull in for a moment, once and again, and in so many words to disclaim the heresy of attributing the matrimonial institute to the devil. Yet the mere fact of their feeling it necessary to do so, is proof enough of the extent to which they were running. But Clement of Alexandria is almost the only extant writer, of the early ages, who adheres to common sense, and apostolic christianity, through and through. Those who, at a later date, ventured to protest against the universal error, were instantly cursed and put down as heretics, by all the great divines of their times; and were, in fact, deprived of the means of transmitting their opinions to be more equitably judged of by posterity.

It appears, or at least we should gather it from the language of Clement, that, at Alexandria, the quire of virgins had not, in his time, been regularly constituted, as a standing order in the church; for where this band had been so sanctioned, it always

took precedence of the corps of widows, and is mentioned, when they, as a part of the ecclesiastical system, are mentioned. But (Strom. lib. i.) where our author, in a formal manner, enumerates the three orders of the clergy (as he does once and again) presbyters, bishops, and deacons, he subjoins, and the widows.' Now in the Apostolic Constitutions, as well as in the canons of the ante-nicene councils, and generally, in the writers of the same period, where any enumeration of orders occurs, it is—' the virgins and the widows.'

In Clement's time, as he says, 'the wells of martyrdom were flowing daily; we may therefore présume that as much of general seriousness, and sincerity attached to the christian community then, as usually belonged to it; and yet what sort of description does he give us―altogether calm in its style of the usual appearances, on a sunday, at the church doors, when the congregation broke up? Why, one might imagine oneself to be loitering about the doors of a fashionable chapel, in London, Bath, or Brighton. A world of illusions is sometimes dispelled by a very few simple sentences: and I think that were certain devout and credulous worshippers of venerable antiquity,' and of the holy and ancient catholic church,' by chance to open upon the page of Clement which is now before me, having first been told that it described the breaking up of an assembly of the ' martyr church,' within a hundred years after the death of St. John, they would scarcely think themselves the same persons after having read it. Yet there is nothing extraordinary in this passage, there is no solemn lifting of a veil of mystery; absolutely nothing but an incidental allusion to facts of an ordinary kind ;it is a description which might find its counterpart in any age, or any country, and is worthy of being noted on no account but because it tends to dissipate the unphilosophical, and, as it now happens, the mischievous fancy about pristine purity,' and a golden age, to which we ungodly moderns should yield our judgments and conform our practices.

'Those who make profession of christianity,' says Clement, "should be all of a piece-they should, in the entire course of their lives, preserve a decorum and consistency, such as might agree with the exterior gravity to which they fashion themselves,

just while at church; and they should strive to be, not merely to appear, what they would pass for ;-so meek, so religious, so loving. But now, and how it is I hardly know, our folks, with change of place, change also their guise, and their modes of behaviour; and are something like polypi, which, as they say, resemble the rock on which they chance to fasten, and take their tinge from its colour. So these, the moment they get out of chapel, lay aside the demure and godly colour of sanctity, which they had worn while there; and, mingling in the crowd, are no longer to be distinguished from it. Or, as I ought rather to say, they then put off that well fashioned mask of gravity, which they had assumed, and are found to be such as they had not passed for. After having reverently waited upon God, and heard of him (in the church) they leave him there; and, out of doors, find their pleasure in ungodly fiddling, and love ditties, and what not-stage playing, and gross revelries. Thus, while they sing and respond, these (our people) who just before had been celebrating the glories of immortality, wickedly take their part in the most pernicious canticles ;- -as if saying, Let us eat and drink, for to-morrow we die. They indeed, not to-morrow, but now already, are dead unto God.'*

Much more, nearly to the same purport, might be cited, were it needful, from the pages of Clement. In a word, his was an unimpassioned mind; and while (so far as he understood it) he calmly and steadily insisted upon the inspired rule of morality, he saw things around him, just as they were, and speaks of them, just as he found them; and his testimony, about which there is nothing cynical, ought to be accepted as of the highest value, in correcting the false impression which is made upon our minds. by others, who, as they saw every thing in an artificial glare, se allowed themselves a wide license in describing the illusions of their own distempered sight. There are those, now, I do not doubt, who, determined to retain the fond fancy of a golden pristine age, will turn with resentment from a matter-of-fact writer like Clement, as if he did them a personal wrong in simply speaking the truth. For my own part, I can find no pleasure in any thing, bearing upon religion, but the plainest truth; and the plain * Pædagog. lib. iii.

truth, in relation to the early church, is just to this effect-That," although possessing, incidentally, certain prerogatives which render its testimony and judgment, on particular points, peculiarly important, even inestimable, it can advance no extraordinary claim to reverence, on the supposed plea of having possessed superior wisdom, discretion, or purity. And further, I am bold to express my belief that, if we exclude certain crazed fanatics of our times, the least esteemed community of orthodox christians, among us--which ever that may be, if taken in the mass, and fairly measured against the church catholic of the first two centuries, would outweigh it decisively in each of these qualities; I mean, in christian wisdom, in common discretion, in purity of manners, and in purity of creed. Nay, I am strongly tempted to think that, if our Oxford Tract divines themselves, and those who are used to take the law from their lips, and to learn church history at their feet, could but be blindfolded (if any such precaution, in their case were needed) and were fairly set down in the midst of the pristine church, at Carthage, or at Alexandria, or at Rome, or at Antioch, they would be fain to make their escape, with all possible celerity, toward their own times and country; and that thenceforward we should never hear another, word from them about ' venerable antiquity,' or the holy catholic church of the first ages. The effect of such a trip would, I think, resemble that produced sometimes by crossing the Atlantic, upon those who have set out, westward, excellent liberals, and have returned eastward, as excellent tories.

There is one very simple illusion, or, as one might call it, chronological fallacy, which it may seem almost an affront to common sense to mention; and yet I believe that more than a few are set wrong a fifty years or even more, in their notions of christian history in this very way. For instance, when the second century is spoken of, one may, without thought, admit the supposition that a period of something like two hundred years, dating from the death of the apostles, is intended; whereas the notions or practices referred to, as belonging to the second century, may have had place within the distance of one hundred years from the cessation of the apostolic influence; and in fact they may be as ancient as any thing concerning which we are

to derive our information from uninspired writers. It is thus with the practices with which we are now concerned; and which are as ancient as any other characteristics of ancient christianity.

I have referred, above, to Justin's statement concerning those who had dedicated themselves to the Lord, at a time when some of the apostles yet survived. Ignatius clearly alludes to the same practice, as then prevalent; and he does so in terms indicative of the false sentiments which have in all ages been the attendants of this ill considered endeavour to be 'religious over much.' 'If any one* be able to abide in purity (celibacy) in honour of the Lord's flesh, let him do so without boasting. If he boast, he is lost; or if he consider himself, on that account, to be more than the bishop, he perishes.'

It is not surmising too much to assume it as probable that, among the means resorted to by the self-willed and contumacious, for resisting the episcopal authority, and of which Ignatius was so zealous an advocate, this setting up for a fakir, was one, and perhaps it was one of the most efficacious. And as, at a later time, the confessors found themselves possessed of a credit with the populace which enabled them to defy legitimate authority, so, from the very first, whoever could be stark ascetic enough to make himself the idol of the rabble, became a leader of faction, overawing the bishops and presbyters. Unhappily these, and the long series of writers, favoured, instead of wisely repressing, the false pietism that subverted order as well as morals. I would not however omit to mention that Ignatius, as well as Hermas, fully vindicates matrimony, and honours woman.

To the same purport as in the passage cited above, but in terms just so far diversified as to carry a little more historical meaning, this father says to the Philippians, after exhorting husbands and wives to love each other, 'If any lead the life of purity (preserve virginity), or if any one practise continence (that is, either withdraw from husband or wife; or, being widowed, avoid a second marriage) let him not be lifted up in mind, lest he lose the reward.' Much is comprehended in these few words; as, first, and in general, a clear allusion to the then frequent practice Epist. ad Polycarp.

*