Father, in the church, went as far in deciding a point of controversy, as an appeal to any sentence of the Stagyrite went to set at rest a knotty point of debate in the Aristotelian school. But by consistent Protestants those days are viewed. with an eye of pity, as days of darkness and superstition. What is truly scriptural, devotional, and rational, we should thankfully receive and improve; but what we may find in them of an opposite character, is by no means to be imposed upon us under the patronage of sainted or pompous titles, or by the argumentum ad verecundiam. Many of them were learned and pious, faithful and zealous; and these are our helpers, though not our masters. But many of them (and occasionally the very best) were fanciful rather than judicious interpreters of scripture; and in such instances therefore are not our guides to truth, but are rather beacons to warn us of our danger. To examine their defects is not a pleasant task; but the Bishop of Lincoln, by giving them so much publicity, has rendered some notice of them unavoidable, in a professed examination of his work.

§ 2. Some of these Fathers, after the most ample allowance made for their circumstances, speak of man as the cause of his own goodness and preservation, in an unjustifiable strain. Thus, for example, IRENEUS: ""But man, being

'endowed with reason, and in this respect like 'to God, being made free in his will, and 'having power over himself, is himself the cause ' that sometimes he becomes wheat, and some'times chaff" * It may be said, he contended against heretical fatalists, who ascribed to every one a fixed and unchangeable nature. Very true; but this is like opposing one heresy by advancing another. Man indeed has free-will, and "is himself the cause" of the sinfulness of his actions, whereby he becomes "chaff." But it is not true, that, in like manner, he "is himself the cause" of the goodness of his actions, whereby he becomes "wheat." The error consists in ascribing opposite effects to the same cause; and in confounding free-will with the proper cause of moral good or evil. If he meant to convey this idea-that our good and bad actions may be traced to free-will-we grant it: but we cannot admit this as the ultimate "cause of either, much less of good actions. We allow further, that the immediate cause of our actions, whether good or bad, is in ourselves, as either an efficient or a deficient principle; but then this is very different from saying that man " is himself the cause of his becoming wheat." The great fallacy consists in making man as much the cause of his good as of his evil: while the holy scrip

*Refut. p. 302.

tures very explicitly ascribe all our good to God, and all our evil to ourselves.* The same error is involved in the following sentence, by the same author: "But he has placed the power of choice in man, as also in angels, (for angels are endowed with reason,) that those 'who should obey might justly possess good, 'given indeed by God, but preserved by them'selves."† We think with the scriptures of truth, that God is our preserver; and that we are "preserved" or "kept by the power of God through faith unto salvation." The Lord is our keeper, our shepherd, our strong tower. If it had been said, it is our duty to preserve ourselves from the defilements of sin, to keep ourselves unspotted from the world, and in the love of God, it might be received as a scriptural truth. This, however, is widely different from asserting that the good received by men is "preserved by themselves."

§ 5. It appears to me that the following sentence in ORIGEN is not unexceptionable: ""But because these vessels of which we speak, are to 'be considered as rational, and endowed with 'free-will, every one is made a vessel of honour,

or a vessel of dishonour, not by accident or

*See James i. 14-18. 2 Cor. iv. 6-and 1 Cor. iv. 7. + Refut. p. 304.

'chance; but he who makes himself such, that 'he deserves to be chosen, is made a chosen vessel ' or a vessel of honour." * The author's design, I acknowledge, is to rouse the indolent sensualist, lurking under the covert of fatalism: but it seems to me that no design or occasion whatever can justify this mode of expression,-" he who makes himself such, that he deserves to be chosen." It appears equally offensive to Christian humility and philosophic truth. How How contrary in language and sentiment from the strong affirmation implied in St. Paul's interrogations: "Who maketh thee to differ from another? and what hast thou that thou didst not receive?"† Do not these questions clearly imply, that GoD makes one to differ from another in what is good and valuable; and that no one has any excellence but from him? But on the statement of Origen, a Christian may say, "I made myself to differ, I distinguished myself from all the undeserving ones." What though your will was active in worthy deeds, was it not the Spirit of God who gave you both the will itself and its goodness? "Be not high-minded-quench not the Spirit." Give unto God what belongs to him; "will a man rob God?"

4. Equally reprehensible, because unscrip

Refut. p. 339.

+ 1 Cor. vi. 7.

tural, is the following assertion of ATHANASIUS: "For the knowledge, and accurate compre'hension of the way of truth, we have need of nothing but ourselves."'* How different from the language, and how opposite to the meaning of an inspired apostle is this! "Not that we are sufficient of ourselves to think any thing as of ourselves; but our sufficiency is of God."† "But by the grace of God I am what I am; and his grace which was bestowed upon me, was not in vain; but I laboured more abundantly than they all: yet not I, but the grace of God which was with me." Had Paul been asked, Have you "need of nothing but yourself,”—would he not have contradicted ATHANASIUS in his presumptuous assertion? Had he been asked. how came you to obtain "the knowledge, and accurate comprehension of the way of truth," would he not have replied, "God, who commanded the light to shine out of darkness, hath shined in our hearts, to give the light of the knowledge of the glory of God, in the face of Jesus Christ?" || While the church of Rome blindly followed the sayings of the Fathers, it is no wonder, considering the selfish propensities of our depraved hearts, that they should err so widely from the truth, and blunder on the doctrine of human merit.