Images de page

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 Fathers doubtful in Expression, but not in Meaning, against the Calvinists.

1. Passages respecting two natures, from IGNATIUS, IRENEUS, and ORIGEN. 2, Remarks on ancient Heretics who held two natures. VALENTINUS. 4. BASILIDES and §3. On BARDESANES 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 JEROME,

12. Re§ 14.

11. Concerning human worthiness, from JUSTIN MARTYR.

marks on JUSTIN; and § 13. On the term worthiness. Quotations on the same subject, from CYRIL; also 15, 18. From BASIL and CHRYSOSTOM. § 17. These views compared with scripture.

18. On the insufficiency of Reason, from JUSTIN MARTYR.

§ 19. On a necessity of consequence, from JUSTIN MARTYR. 20. The subject continued, from JUSTIN, CHRYSOSTOM and IRENEUS,

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 MARTYR.

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 Remarks.

§ 1. MANY 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 impugning 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: "They (the Valentinians) say, that some 'men are good by nature, and some bad."'‡ Again, from CLEMENT of Alexandria we have this insulated extract: ""He (Valentinus) too,

[ocr errors]

*Refut. p. 288: + Ib. p. 514.

Ib. p. 515.

'like Basilides, supposes a race (yevos) which is 'saved by nature." Of the same kind is the following passage from ORIGEN: ""Those who, coming from the schools of Marcion, and Valentinus, and Basilides, have been taught that 'there are different natures of souls."'†

[ocr errors]

§ 2. The reader may well express his surprise at the Bishop's conduct in producing these extracts against the Calvinists. Indeed the words

[ocr errors]

two natures" may be found occasionally in Calvinistic writers; but is there any similarity of sentiment, between them and the quoted heresies? Not the least. The Saturninians, Marcionites, Bardesanians, Valentinians, Basilidians, Carpocratians, &c. according to a corrupt philosophy, or rather a visionary hypothesis, held that two Creators formed two kinds of men, possessed of two natures directly opposite, according to the characters of the two Deities; that is, one benevolent, the other malignant. SATURNINUS held the doctrine of two eternal principles, one good and the other evil; that his world and its inhabitants were created by subordinate Deities; that the "nature" given to men by their immediate creator was a mere animal life; that the good eternal principle added to them another nature, which was a

[blocks in formation]

rational soul. Thus, according to this insane dreamer, every man had "two natures," derived from two Creators; and, to perfect his folly, he further held, that there are two kinds of men; the one kind, just mentioned, who are by

nature" well disposed; the other kind, formed by the evil deity, who are by "nature" wickedly disposed; and that the difference now subsisting among men, as good and bad, must arise from these causes.

§ 3. MARCION also had similar notions respecting two eternal principles, one good, the other evil, and a middle deity besides, who had himself two mixed natures, composed of something good and something bad. Mankind, he fancied, had "two natures," good, and bad; and this middle deity and the evil principle, were perpetually contending for dominion over these "two natures" respectively. BARDESANES also held that mankind had "two natures," one formed by the Supreme Being, the other by an evil principle, the prince and author of all wickedness and misery. From the former proceeded reason; from the latter, passion. To this he added, that all matter was of a "malignant nature," and consequently all human bodies, whose original framer was the evil principle. VALENTINUS, in like manner, maintained that mankind had "two natures," consisting of an

« PrécédentContinuer »