says Mr. Scott, if, like Augustine, he had afterwards published his retractions. Many of his assertions, which now appear rash and unscriptural, might in that case have been accounted for, however they might not have altogether admitted of a sound explanation. In Chrysostom, as in the other fathers, we meet at every turn with the grand point respecting preventing grace, and the question whether the will to that which is good be from nature or from grace. This is a point, however, about which there is now no question between Calvinists on the one hand, and F.vangelical Anti-calvinists on the other. It is as much the tenet of the pious Arminian as it is of the Calvinist, that all good is from God, and that salvation from first to last is wholly of grace. When, however, Chrysostom talks of " willing and running that we may obtain the assistance and favour of God, so that he may co-operate with us, and stretch out his hand, and conduct us to the end;" though he joins with our church in excluding co-operation till there is a willing mind, he evidently ascribes that willing mind entirely to man.. Hence the learned Basnage, though the commends this eloquent father on other accounts, censures him for alJowing too much to human power and human liberty in the perform ance of religious actions. There cannot be a stronger proof of the justice of this censure, than the strange assertion which is to be met with in these quotations from Chrysostom, that the Apostle Paul, in expressing, as he so frequently does, his entire dependence on the grace of God, did not intend to be understood simply and literally, but as speaking with a humility, which, though decent and becoming, was by no means strictly felt, or absolutely required! Let us take another specimen of this celebrated father's divinity. "If faith," says he, "be a grace, and be given by the Spirit only, and be no merit of your own, neither those who disbelieve will be punished, nor those who believe praised: for such is the nature of graces given, that they have no crowns, no rewards," &c. &c. Upon which Mr. Scott remarks, "That Chrysostom should write such a passage in the fourth century is wonderful; but far more so, that it should be thus quoted in our days; for quotation must imply a degree of approbation, unless the contrary be avowed. In point of doctrine, Pelagius never wrote any thing more obnoxious. . So far from God's not rewarding his own gifts and graces, he rewards nothing else." Again: "Faith," says Chrysostom, is the merit of the virtue of him who believeth." Surely this is as contrary to the doctrine of the Church of England, and to the Bishop of Lincoln's own sentiments,> as it can be to Calvinism. Оле thing, therefore," says Mr. Scott, "I suggest to our opponents as a caution; that if they wish to have Calvinism and Christianity consider ed as so inseparably connected that you cannot refute the one without greatly endangering the subversion of the other, they have nothing to do, but to oppose us with such arguments as are found in these quotations from Chrysostom." p. 502. In the same strain of reasoning, this learned father speaks of Abraham as living before the time of grace; and asserts, that "unless he had first shewn things from himself, he would not have enjoyed things from God. Having first given proof of his own inherent virtue in all things, he was on that account thought worthy of the assistance of God !"" Whither,” exclaims Mr. Scott, with just surprise," are these quotations meant to conduct us? When Dr. Buchanan came within fifty or sixty miles of Juggernaut, he was aware of his # approach to that centre of idolatrous cruelty and abomination, by the multitude of human bones, which lay unburied by the road-side. And really, though we may seem at great distance from the more scandalous abominations of Popery, yet these passages remind me, and I think will remind many of my readers, that we are in the vicinity of Popery, and in the direct road to it." p. 507. Theodoret brings up the rear of this embattled host of fathers; but the points introduced in the quota tions from that learned writer are so similar to those which have been frequently noticed, and are treated with so little strength of argument, or precision and perspicuity of language, that we do not think it at all necessary to advert to them particuJarly. The view given of the ancient fathers of the Christian church in the preceding sketch of the quota tions from their writings, which have been introduced into the Calvinistic controversy by the Bishop of Lincoln, has, however, been so unfavourable to their character as theologians, that we cannot but add a few explanatory remarks in closing this account of their opinions. These venerable men have, as we before observed, been most unfairly and disadvantageously compelled to enter the lists as opponents of what the Bishop has thought proper to term Calvinism, but which comprises, as we have already shewn, the very essence of Christianity. In the first place, whatever may be their sentiments, it is perfectly clear that the Church of England has declared nothing, in any of her authorised documents, which implies her considering the writings of the Fathers as an authoritative criterion of religious truth. In fact, the Reforma tion from Popery was founded on, an appeal from uninspired and falli ble Fathers, to inspired and infallible Prophets, Evangelists, and Apostles. We would not, however, be understood to mean, that the aggregate testimony of the fathers of the Christian church is against most of the tenets which it is now too much the custom to stigmatise by the name of Calvinism. We have already referred, in our Review of the Bishop of Lincoln's work, to the "Consensus Patrum," subjoined to the " Corpus et Syntagma" of the Protestant Confessions, which will be hereafter noticed; and Mr. Scott hints, that although for the present, disclaiming human authority, be had declined attempting any evidence from the Fathers, he should not hereafter, if a proper call were made for it, shrink from adducing proofs from them on the more essential part of the system which he defends. The truth is, and it is no less honourable to the character of the Fathers, than to the early ages of Christianity, that, until the time of Augustine, the doctrines of predestination and grace had never been the subjects of formal controversy, except as the Christian writers had been sometimes compelled to oppose the errors and abominations of heathen fatal. ism, and philosophical pride, or the impieties and absurdities of gross heretics and enthusiasts: and we doubt not, that, if we had leisure and inclination, neither of which, we must fairly confess, falls at present to our lot, we could, by an examination of the passages quoted, by the Bishop of Lincoln, account for many of them in this view, in a satisfac tory manner; and abate much of the apparent contrariety of their opinions to the general tenets of all the Protestant churches, as far, at least, as they respect the doctrines of original sin, and salvation by grace through faith. Those, however, who are best acquainted with the writ ings of the Fathers, know that it is not to them, that we must apply for profound or accurate reasonings on controverted points of divinity. "Les premiers Chrétiens," says the Abbé du Fresnoy, "n'étoient rien moins que philosophes; c'étoient des gens du monde que la grace touchoit, et qui s'abbandonoient aux seules maximes de l'Evangile." In a similar, but more distinct strain, Bishop Burnet*, when speaking of a learned clergyman of the Church of Scotland, who had materially assisted History of His Own Times, vol. i. p. 302. 8vo. him in his theological studies, has the following pertinent observations: "He had read the Fathers much; and gave me this notion of them, that in speculative points, for which writers of controversy searched into their works, they were but ordinary men but their excellency lay in that which was least sought for, their sense of spiritual things, and of the pastoral cure. In these he thought their strength lay." This is indeed their character and their praise. We do not pretend to any very extensive acquaintance with the writings of those venerable and excellent men; but we well remember the delight with which in earlier years, and amidst academic bowers, we imbibed from the pages of Ambrose, of Chrysostom, of Augustine, to enumerate no others, the sublimest lessons of wisdom and piety; and with what emotions of interest and pleasure we have ever met with Occasional quotations from all the Fathers, in the works of our great English divines, more especially in those of Hooker and Hall, of Usher and Stillingfleet, of Leighton and Pearson; and yet more recently and copiously in the ecclesiastical history of Mr. Milner. It is thus, after all, that these ancient authors should be consulted and read; not for the purpose of defending the tenets, either of Calvin or Arminius, but to confirm our faith, to elevate our minds above the allurements of the world, to animate our zeal in the service of Christ; to regulate our practice; and to increase our love of Him, whom they boldly confessed amidst dangers and persecutions, from which many a modern Chris-with a view to exhibit a striking tian, who is proud of the superior correctness of his creed, would, it is to be feared, shrink with apprehension and dismay. For purposes like these, the Fathers may be perused, not only with safety, but with profit; but we deprecate the resort which has been too frequently made to them for the weapons of controversial warfare, and earnestly hope, that so fruitless a pursuit will, not withstanding the recent example of the Bishop of Lincoln, be for ever abandoned. But, though we had almost for gotten it, we have not yet done with quotations from the Fathers. The sixth chapter of the "Refutation" contains another series, "for the purpose of proving that the earliest heretics maintained opinions greatly resembling the peculiar tenets of Calvinism." We have already expressed our decided disapprobation of this most disingenuous and futile attempt to fix an odious stigma on a theological opponent. And yet, we doubt not, that it is considered by some, if not by the Right Re verend author himself, as the coup de grace, which, if the repeated blows inflicted on them in the preceding chapter, should happen to prove ineffectual, might kindly release the poor Calvinists from further torment. If the subject were not too serious to admit of it, we could afford our readers no little amusement in the examination of this very curious and novel chapter. We must confess, however, that a severer feeling is predominant in our minds; and that a fairer occasion for the unsparing exercise of the critical knife has seldom presented itself. Yet even here, Mr. Scott has shewn so much Christian moderation and forbearance, that it will, perhaps, be better to impose on our "pen the restraint of which he has set so honourable, and, amongst controversialists, so rare an example. The passages which the Bishop of Lincoln has selected from the Fathers respecting the early beretics, likeness of Calvinism, are, in truth, utterly below criticism: yet, as Mr. Scott has taken the trouble to make some remarks on them, we shall present our readers with the result of his examination. He ob serves, in the first place, that, according to the Bishop's own concession, Christianity began to be "corrupted even in the apostolic age:" consequently, that subsequent tes ་ 2 timonies are of no authority, but the appeal must be exclusively made to the Divine Oracles. He then very justly replies to the remark in the Refutation," that "some of the first heretics maintained opinions in a high degree resembling what are now called Calvinistic doctrines;" that no doubt any one may find this; that there are many opinions in these quotations from the Fathers, and even in his own observations, which resemble some of the doctrines maintained by Papists; and that no heretic or papist either renounces all truth, by running into some errors, or spoils the truth which he retains with his errors. We must otherwise renounce some of the most essential doctrines of the Gospel; since they are frequently held by those who, in some points, are doubtless heretical. The Bishop of Lincoln would, however, no doubt, allow this, and only insist on some supposed resemblance between the early heretics and the Calvinists, as to what may be termed the essence of their doctrine. It is the chief object, therefore, of Mr. Scott to shew, that the odious tenets of these ancient heretics are so far distant from resemblance to those of Calvinists, that contrariety may be far more justly predicated concerning them. The principal points in which this veryoriginal resemblance is supposed to consist, relate to the impious absurdities of Simon Magus and the Valentinians. But what, we would seriously ask, has the blasphemous doctrine of the hypocrite first named, that "those who trust in him and his Helena, should have no further care; and that they are free to do what they like; for that men are, saved according to his grace, but not according to just works," to do with the tenets of Calvinism? Can such a quotation as this be deemed argumentative? Does it prove any thing, except the extreme boldness and prejudice of the author; who, * Query: The grace of God, or of Simon Magus? presuming, it may be fairly con cluded, on high station and autho rity in the church, has ventured to obtrude it on a liberal and enlightened age? Again: the Valentinians affirm, says the Bishop of Lincoln, quoting from Irenæus, that they themselves shall be entirely and completely saved, not by their own conduct, but because they are spiritual by nature." But is this the opinion of Calvinists, who say, that all are corrupt by nature, and that there is " no difference, except by the renewing grace of God?" Surely, exclaims Mr. Scott, this is not re semblance, but contrariety! In a subsequent passage, a description of the grossest Antinomianism of these Valentinian heretics is left to the consideration of the reader, as affording another point of resemblance between them and Calvinists; to which Mr. Scott replies: "There. have been, and are, antinomian Calvinists; and at least as many, in proportion, antinomian opposers of Calvinism. But Calvinists, in general, abhor Antinomianism as much, at least, as Anti-calvinists do; and we scruple not to fix the stigma of hypocrisy on any man, who calls himself a Calvinist, and habitually lives in known violation of the Divine law, or neglect of known duty.""I insert below the Latin note" (with which we will not pollute our page), "concerning the abominable licentiousness of these Valentinians, in which it must be supposed the Calvinists resemble them; else why is it quoted? To which it suffices to say, Thou shalt not bear false witness against thy neighbour." There is a great deal more of the impious and unintelligible jargon," which we have briefly noticed in other quotations, respecting these and other wretched heretics of the early ages; whose works, happily for the Christian church, were de stroyed by the zeal of the orthodox fathers. But we are convinced that our readers are already wearied and . disgusted by this worse than solemn trifling. Not a quotation is made by the Bishop from any Calvinistic writer, in order to shew how far the tenets of Calvinism coincide with the heretical nonsense which his Jordship has brought forward; for which omission a very obvious and substantial reason might be assignéd. But enough is done by these odious quotations, as Mr. Scott observes, to assure a prejudiced or unlearned reader, on high authority, that modern Calvinists resemble the most obnoxious of ancient heretics, though he cannot well perceive in what respects. "Nothing,” says this calm and temperate writer," that so much as appears to resem ble our sentiments, as avowed in our publications, has been alleged. Whatever similarity may at first glance be supposed, will, on careful consideration, be found to arise from the supposition (which is most ungrounded), that we deny man's free agency and responsibility: or that we are avowed Antinomians, and claim to ourselves, as the favourites of Heaven, the privilege (if it be one) of living in wickedness, without fear of damnation. I shall only add, that the whole accusation of this chapter is entirely ansubstantiated, and every impartial person (nay, many who are in some respects not wholly impartial), will bring in the verdict 'Not guilty."" Vol. ii. pp. 590, 591. We will only add, that if the information contained in the sixth chapter of the "Refutation," was intended to be presented to the world as a discovery, it has unhappily arrived a few hundred years too late. Discoveries of this kind cannot now be attended to. What the early reformers and standard divines of the English church, to say nothing of others, were not able to detect, we are perfectly satisfied will not be brought to light by any prelate of the nineteenth century. Nor do we believe, that even Calvin himself will be suspected, by any sound theologian, of having retailed the ancient errors and absurdities of Simon Magus, Valentinus, Marcion, and Basilides. We come, at last, in the seventh chapter, to a set of quotations, which, though somewhat strangely introduced in point of order, certainly have more the appearance of a direct reference to the professed subject of the Bishop of Lincoln's work, than any others that have been noticed. These are from the writings of Calvin; and undoubtedly, bad his lordship simply intended to refute such of the doctrines of Calvin as he deemed erroneous, nothing could be more to the purpose than a selection of this kind. But, as Mr. Scot justly observes, since this was by no means the exclusive object of the Right Reverend author, which evidently appears to have been that of refuting modern Calvinists, and more particularly those who are indiscriminately termed the Evangelical Clergy, it may be doubted how far it is fair to bring forward the most objectionable passages from the works of Calvin, as if uniformly maintained by those who are now stigmatised as his disciples. Not insisting, however, on this objection, or on the singular method of reserving the tenets which were undertaken to be refuted, till the refutation of them was nearly closed, Mr. Scott proceeds, in his usual manner, to comment on the quotations thus adduced. In doing this, Mr. Scott professes to feel no sort of difficulty arising from the circumstance of his holding the doctrines of personal election and final perseverance, in common with Calvin; because, as he affirms, he neither derived them from the writings of that eminent reformer, nor holds them precisely as he did; but rather, as he conceives, in strict accordance with the tenets of the Church of England. In his observations, therefore, on the passages selected by the Bishop of Lincoln from the works of Calvin, Mr. Scott is so far from vindicating all the sen timents of that writer, that he very frequently gives them up to the censure of his Right Reverend opponent, and unequivocally declares his own decided dissent from them. Without entering into detail, as we have |