« PreviousContinue »
the state of their minds. In representing Peter
not enjoying any assistance” when he fell
, the meaning of the words is evidently changed from that of external privilege to internal operation ; for it is a plain fact that the former continued with Peter, as well as with Judas. : It was, therefore, the internal operation of grace that Peter did not enjoy when he fell, -, in other words, he was left to himself. Nor is there any evidence that this was not the case always with Judas, as far as relates to real piety, When CHRYSOSTOM says, “ it is the
of God to give grace,” he must mean, in order to be consistent with himself, internal influence; since it is that, in connexion with a ready.will, of which “ virtue is composed," which must needs be inward
, This is further evident from its being represented as that “assistance” which Peter “did not enjoy” when his fall was occasioned; while he did enjoy every external assistance as at other times. Of inward grace, therefore, and a ready will, “ virtue is composed.” Consequently no exercise of will can be virtuous, which has not grace for its principle. Yet this principle itself, is not virtue, but the basis or principle of virtue, which influences the will to what is properly called virtue, or a virtuous action. Thus“ virtue is composed of these two. things;” and thus also “it is the part of God
to give grace, and of men to supply faith,” or to exercise belief.
19. We shall now, finally, examine what the same Father, CHRYSOSTOM, says upon human weakness. "“ In proof of what I have said, I ' will quote to you the words of Christ himself: ' he said to Peter, · Behold Satan hath desired ( to have you, that he may sift you as wheat; 'but I have prayed for thee, that thy faith fail 'not:' What does this sifting mean? To whirl ' about, to move, to shake, as when things are
sifted; but I, says he, prevented it, knowing * that you cannot bear temptation. For the
expression, that your faith may not fail, • shews that if he had permitted, his faith would ' have failed."'* This passage is explanatory of the preceding, shewing that the assistance which Peter“ did not enjoy,” was a partial not a total defect. The assistance so far continued as to preserve the existence of faith as a principle, but not so far as to preserve its victorious exercise. For while the principle, as well as the exercise of faith, admits of degrees of vigour, its existence depends, not on its own indefectible nature, much less on the potency of free-will, but on the power and continued influence of Christ. So great is human weak
* Refut. p. 459.
ness, even in the vessels of mercy, in proficients, in Peter the courageous, zealous, determined disciple of Christ, that “if he had permitted, his faith,” root and branch,“ would have failed." That he had free-will is certain : but free-will of itself is weak and unstable. If faith cannot stand its ground without the substratum of grace, assisting and upholding grace, -- how can free-will?
Quotations from the Father's doubtful in Expression, but
not in Meaning, against the Calvinists.
§ 1. Passages respecting two natures, from İGNATIUS, IREN ÆUS, and
ORIGEN, $ 2. Remarks on ancient Heretics who held two natures 3. On BARDESANES and VALENTINUS. § 4. Basilides and CARPOCRATES.
§ 5. MANES. § 6, 7. Observations on these Heresiarchs and their dogmas. $ 8. Quotations on Christ's purchase, from CLEMENT of Rome. $ 9,
From ATHANASIUS; and § 10. From JEROXE. § 11. Concerning human worthiness, from JUSTIN MARTYR. $ 12. Re
marks on JUSTIN; and § 13. On the term worthiness. f 14. Quotations on the same subject, from Cyril; also § 15, 16. From BASIL and CARYSOSTOM. § 17. These views compared with
scripture. § 18. On the insufficiency of Reason, from Justin MARTYR, § 19. Ona necessity of consequence, from Justin MARTYR. $ 20. The
subject continued, from JUSTIN, CARYSOSTOM and IRENÆUS. § 21. On man's right, from TERTULLIAN. $ 22. On Free Will and Power, from TERTULLIAN; also $ 23. From
ORIGEN, EUSEBIUS, and AUGUSTINE; and § 24, 25. From JUSTIN
§ 26. The same subject pursued, from ORIGEN. $ 27, 28. Remarks on his opinion about the beginning of receding
from good. $ 29–31. On Grace and Free agency, from IRENÆUS and HILARY. $32. On Faith, from IRENÆUS. $ 33. From CYRIL; and § 34. From
CHRYSOSTOM. 35. On Regeneration, from GREGORY Naz. and $ 36, 37. From
JUSTIN MARTYR. $38. On Election, from JEROME. $ 39. Concluding Reinarks.
ANY quotations are produced by the Bishop against the Calvinists, in which the Fathers reprobate the notion of two natures in man. And this is done, probably, because
we sometimes speak of two natures in the Christian, one corrupt and the other holy. We maintain that every true or spiritual Christian has a depraved nature from the first Adam, and a spiritual nature or principle from the second Adam.-How, indeed, any one can deny this statement without at the same time in pugning the authority of the inspired writings upon the point, is to me inconceivable: nor am I able to form a conjecture how the Bishop of Lincoln can controvert the sentiment we contend for, without condemning a great part of his own “Refutation.” --Let us, however, attend to some of the Fathers upon the subject of two natures in men. IGNATIUS: "" I do not speak of two natures of men, but
that the one man is sometimes of God, some• times of the devil. If any one be pious, he
is a man of God; but if any one be impious, ' he is a man of the devil, being made so, not
by nature, but by his own will."?? * This is an entire quotation. Another follows from IRENEUS: " " Subdividing souls themselves, they say that
some are by nature good, and some by nature ** bad.”?+ Again, from the last mentioned author: 15 • They (the Valentinians) say, that some
men are good by nature, and some bad." I Again, from CLEMENT of Alexandria we have this insulated extract: "" He (Valentinus) too,
* Refut. p. 288.
+ Ib. p. 514.
# Ib. p. 515.