the Greek and Latin church writers, would sufficiently secure the benefits to be derived, even from the perusal of the whole of them, thus saving the time and cost of doing so. But a moment's consideration will expose the fallaciousness of such a supposition; for even allowing the utmost discretion to him who undertakes the task of selection, on what principle, let it be asked, is that selection likely to be made? It must be replied that, at once the pious tastes of the editor, and his solicitude to provide, in the best manner he can, for the combined edification and pleasure of his readers (of the religious public such as it is) will prompt, nay compel him, to cuil the flowers of sacred literature, as he goes; and to leave, where he finds them, the weeds. In a word, he will gather, as most proper for his purpose, whatever an intelligent and pious reader would spontaneously distinguish, with a margin pencil line, as worthy of a second perusal. All this may be well enough, if the mere personal edification of the private Christian be in view; but what sort of provision is it, which is thus made for acquiring a safe and competent knowledge of the merits and character of the actors in church history? Miserably will any one be deluded who trusts himself to any such culled materials! I think more than a few of the passages I shall presently have occasion to cite, how pertinent soever they may be in regard to the questions at issue, are of a kind that would never have found a place in any selection from the fathers. Nay, these passages reveal facts which the compilers of church history have studiously concealed from their readers.

If we are anxious to know what the church was at any time, and what its teachers and masters were, then the more judicious (in one sense) such a selection may be, the more effectively will it lead us astray: the choicest

collection, made on any such principle, would be the most mendacious, regarded as TESTIMONY. Such a collection, considered as a material of history, is a splendid vapour, hovering as a glare of seductive light, over a swamp. Materials so brought together, are just what a body of evidence, produced in court, would be, if an advocate were allowed to bring forward every thing in which the witnesses are agreed, and to suppress every thing in which they differ. Yet it is precisely by the sifting of the discrepancies in testimony that truth is elicited.

So far as Christianity is the same in all ages, and in all hearts, truly admitting its influence, there must be very much, in the writings of all Christian men (whatever system they may have lived under) which, in the highest and best sense of the word, is catholic; and it is just this catholic element, or genuine portion of such writings, that recommends itself to our pious sympathies, meet it where we may, and which therefore will be seized upon by right-minded collectors of the golden sayings of good men. But now it is precisely toward the discordant portions of ancient Christian writings that the keen eye of historic industry should be directed. It is not the choice portions, but the refuse, not the sound, but the unsound, not the symmetrical, but the disfigured, not the wisdom, so much as the folly, that we have need to scrutinize, and to trace to its origin. Without a paradox it may be affirmed that, in labouring to know what the Christian body really was, in any age, it is what is (in a sense) impertinent, that will prove the most pertinent to our purpose. In a word, it is less the sameness, than the difference, which we should be looking for. Do we not well know that, in matters of religion, what appears the fairest, demands often the nicest sifting;

and that, to be credulous, is to be duped, until we are driven to doubt of every thing. Those, therefore, who know, in matters of church history, only what modern writers may please to have reported, stand exposed to a cruel shock, and a sad trial of their principles, should it ever happen to them to learn a little more.

Nor ought any translation to be confided in, as conclusive evidence, in historical disquisitions; for we have not merely to guard against wilful perversions of the sense of ancient authors, and the many oversights to which every translator is liable, but against the constant illusion of attributing, to certain words and phrases, necessarily employed by the translator, a modern instead of an ancient sense. A translation may be literal, or it may be free, and in fact the best possible in its kind, and yet may convey to the modern ear notions substantially dif fering from those which were attached to the equivalents, by the ancient writer, and his reader. And thus it is, and must be, because the language of every people is not a universal medium of ideas and notions, common to mankind; but is the instrument of a particular set of minds, nicely adapted to its occasions, and whenever employed by energetic writers, is much more specific, than generic; and therefore is insusceptible of translation, in the direct proportion in which it may be worth. translating.

The earliest Christian writers, who, most of them, can claim very little regard on account of any excellencies of style, or even of matter, but whose evidence is of the utmost consequence in ecclesiastical discussions, suffer peculiarly in a translation; for a false taste, and a dialect in which the most incongruous elements were mingledjumbled together, fill them with unpleasing turns of expression, which, when they come to be literally rendered

(and a free version is not in these instances admissible) make them absolutely repulsive, so that the perusal in a translation, is more wearisome than it seems in the original. The writers, inestimable as they are on account of their testimony (the preservation of which ought to be regarded as an instance of providential interposition, for subserving important ends) these writers are not to be known, to any good purpose, otherwise than in their own language. There is no alternative, in the present instance, but that of manfully addressing ourselves to a task of some labour and difficulty. The controversies upon which the church is now entering, are of vital consequence: the doubts propounded are inveterate, and any course that may be taken, at the suggestion of indolence and impatience, and which may seem at first to be summary and sufficient, will prove, as I venture to predict, to be as unavailing as trite and meager. At a time when, in the pursuit of secular interests, men in all professions are making unheard-of efforts, and are undergoing labours which our fathers did not dream of, ought it to be considered as a great thing if those to whom the preservation and defence of sacred truths are committed, should be expected to be fully masters of the subject they have. to do with? The perusal, through and through, of the Greek and Latin writers, of the first six centuries, is a labour not to be compared with those undergone, in the course of his education and early practice, by every accomplished lawyer.

Another common, but very unfounded impression, relative to the extant remains of Christian antiquity (the prevalence of which, at the present time, would leave a most dangerous advantage in the hands of those whom. we are to withstand) is to this effect: That the Greek and Latin fathers were men of intellect so slender, and

are generally either so inane, or so absurd, or so erroneous, that the perusal of them, except by a few curious antiquaries, is a sheer waste of time; or at least that it can never repay the toil. Or it is affirmed, that, so far as these writers were sound and judicious, the same sentiments, better expressed, may be met with much nearer home, and in our own language. Or, generally, that whatever accomplishments the ministers of religion. may possess, they may, in these days of benevolent activity, employ their time to better advantage than in brushing the dust from neglected folios. The course of events is hastening to offer a startling refutation of any such frivolous assumptions.

It is not, we may be sure, those who possess much of this indispensable learning, that in any such way set it at naught; and it is an acknowledged rule, in all walks of science and literature, that the scoffs and captious objections of the ignorant need not be seriously replied to know what you are speaking of, and then contemn it." Now the mere fact of applying any comprehensive terms, either of admiration or contempt, to a body and series of writers, stretching through seven hundred or a thousand years, and these writers, natives as they were of distant countries, some of them simple and rude, while others were erudite and accomplished, may be taken as a proof of heedlessness, regarding the matter in hand, sufficient to excuse a silent disregard of the objection it involves. These "fathers," thus grouped as a little band, by the objectors, were some of them men of as brilliant genius as any age has produced; some, commanding a flowing and vigorous eloquence, some, an extensive erudition, some, conversant with the great world, some, whose meditations had been ripened by years of seclusion, some of them the only historians of