Scriptures has been elaborately displayed by Lardner; and that of the Ante-Nicene Fathers to the divinity of Christ, by Mr. Burton. Their evidence, from age to age, in favour of the main truths of the gospel, is of great importance, and especially their testimony on the Socinian controversy; and their deeply serious views of spiritual and eternal things, cannot be read without profit. Yet, as critics on the sacred text, they are inferior to writers since the Reformation; and, as final judges of divine truth, or as having any traditional authority to decide scriptural obscurities, they must be utterly renounced. Even from the beginning false philosophy (Col. ii. 8.) began to corrupt the church. An Usher might read the whole body of the Fathers with profit; but unless, as in his case, there be a special reason for doing so, there would be no adequate advantage, and many disadvantages in so extensive a study. Milner, in a private letter to Newton in 1771, says, there were some very great Christians among them, though most of them mixed gospel truths with strange whimsies. The mixture of Platonism with the gospel was a great evil.'

Little need be added respecting individual Fathers. The Epistle of Clement to the Corinthians, and the Epistles of Ignatius are beautiful specimens and remnants of Christian antiquity.

Justin Martyr, Tertullian, Cyprian, Chrysostom, Athanasius, and Augustine, shine as splendid lights in the early centuries. Their answers to the heathen of their day furnish us with ample materials for meeting the sophistries of infidels and heathen nations in our own times.

5. Men of the learning of Justin and Tertullian were doubtless used as important means of furthering the

L

gospel by their character, as men of superior understanding, and therefore not easily deluded, as well as by their treatises. To see them humbling themselves before the gospel, despising their former notions, and strenuously counteracting their influence, not only by their profession, but by their defences of this new Faith, must have had a prodigious influence. Though it seemed right that the gospel should be introduced to the world by poor and illiterate men, (1 Cor. 1. 26 -29.) yet in its farther advancement, in resisting the subtilty as well as malice of its enemies, it should avail itself of the best human help, of wisdom and learning, under the influence of divine blessing, to assail its adversaries with their own misdirected weapons.

Jerome's and Origen's invaluable labours in the restoration, preservation, and handing down to us the pure text of the word of God must not be overlooked; to their revisions and translations of that word how much are we now indebted for that invaluable gift, the Holy Scriptures.

The Author has been delighted with the little which he has read of Augustine. The humility, devotion, and unction of this Father; the acute, lucid, and happy way in which he meets his objectors; and the heavenly wisdom (James iii. 17.) running through his remarks, will always, notwithstanding the excess of allegorical interpretation and the defect of a clear statement of justification, make his writings valuable.

There are, in the voluminous works of the Fathers, many treatises that may be separately read with considerable advantage. Such as Justin Martyr's and Tertullian's Apologies, Cyprian's Letters, Augustine's Confessions, his City of God and Treatises against the

Pelagians, Origen's work against Celsus, Gregory's Pastor, Eusebius's Ecclesiastical History, and many delightfully devotional treatises in Bernard.

Justin Martyr's clear view of Justification may be seen in the following extract of his Epistle to Diognetus-He gave his Son a ransom for us; the holy for the transgressors, the good for the evil, the just for the unjust, the incorruptible for the corrupt, the immortal for mortals. For what else cover our sins but his righteousness? In whom else could we the unjust and the impious be accounted righteous, but in the Son of God only? O the sweet exchange! O the unsearchable contrivance! O the unexpected benefits, that the iniquity of many should be hid in a righteous one, and that the righteousness of one should justify many who were unjust.' 1

Chrysostom held the same doctrine distinctly, showing in the case of Abraham, (in his 2nd Hom. on the Epistle to the Romans,) that works of faith do not justify before God. 'The Apostle means to show that even Abraham was justified by faith; in which indeed there is the excellence of a mighty victory; for it is not indeed unlikely that one who has no good works should be justified by faith, but that a man adorned with beauteous deeds, should be just not thence, but from faith, is truly wonderful.' Abraham was indeed, as it regards the evidence of justification, justified by works; but as it regards the reason of his justification before God, it was simply from divine grace through faith, as Chrysostom shows.

1 See Justin Martyr's Works. Ed. Paris, fo. 1742. Some doubts has been raised whether the Epistle be his. Dupin considers it to be so, without certainly affirming it.

Chrysostom's work on the priesthood is valuable for the continual sentiments it brings before us of deeptoned responsibility in reference to the ministry, though not for its clear evangelical views. His Homilies also are said to be excellent specimens of the best mode of popular expository preaching.

Though we have gladly inserted the quotations just recited of decided statement of evangelical truth, yet the works of the Fathers do not, if the Author, with very limited information, may express an opinion, like the works of the Reformers, abound with such statements; and it must be admitted that there are many expressions from which the Romanists have strengthened themselves in their errors. Milner remarks that the doctrine of justification by faith was never fully and clearly exhibited to the church until the days of Luther. Augustine, one of the most evangelical of the Fathers, did not accurately understand this doctrine, frequently confounding justification and sanctification. 1

The works of the Fathers contain many commentaries on the scriptures: information respecting their character will be found in Mr. Conybeare's Lectures. Allegorical interpretation begun by Clemens, after Philo Judæus, and continued by Origen and those who succeeded him, was carried to such an excess as to render them very unsound interpreters of scripture. Jerome is more free from this excess than Augustine and several of the preceding Fathers, but errs on the other side, and as Luther says, 'studiously endeavours to draw every thing to a merely historical reading.'

1 See Milner, Vol. iii. p. 9. 462. 463.

Mr. Conybeare says of Augustine, His critical defects are obvious and glaring, but he who is insensible to the beauty, the piety, and the devotion, and spiritual feeling which are to be found in almost every page of his Commentary, must be to say no more, both uncandid and fastidious.' Luther certainly preferred his expositions to those of Jerome. '

Nicholas de Lyra, who flourished at the beginning of the 14th century, led the way to a more correct interpretation of scripture. Luther acknowledged himself much indebted to him.

The Pelagian Controversy was very important, as illustrating the doctrine of sanctification. The sentiments of Pelagius (who was a Welsh monk, and whose real name was Morgan) may be gathered from the Fathers. He denied original sin, and, allowing external grace to excite our endeavours, denied the internal work of the Spirit, and conceived good works to be meritorious, and perfection attainable. Pelagius's own expression is, in all there is free will by nature, but in Christians alone it is helped by grace.' SemiPelagianism afterwards arose; its language is, though man cannot persevere in virtue without divine grace, yet he can turn himself first to God.' 2

Milner has some excellent remarks in the passages referred to, on the subtilty of Satan in introducing

Conybeare's Lectures, 182. See also Milner, Vol. ii. p. 438. Vol. iv. 330.

Latius de Pelagianis, Jansenius, Augustine, and Usher, Historia Gotechali, contain much valuable information respecting this departure from the gospel. Vossius has been considered by some too partial to the Pelagians.

2 See Milner's History of the Church of Christ, Vol. ii. p. 368 -389.