proofs will be apt to be overstrained; but admit they are not; and that the facts are fairly represented; what considerate man will think himself able to form a true judgement of a character, when no more of it is laid before him than a collection of its blots and blemishes?

There were always some indeed, till late, who preserved their moderation, (which in matters where our interests are highly concerned, as in religion and politics, is not easy to do) and these were wont to say, 'that though we should indeed suppose the Fathers to be as fanciful divines, as bad critics, and as unsafe moralists, as DAILLE, WHITBY, and BARBEYRAC are pleased to represent them, yet this would take nothing from the integrity of their evidence: and what we want of them is only their testimony to facts.' But now, even this service is thought too much. The learned author of the "Free Inquiry" seems unwilling to allow them this small remnant of credit: which he has certainly much hurt by exposing their excessive credulity in point of false miracles. But, controversy apart, I see no reason why their veracity should be questioned, when they bear witness to the state of Religion in their own times, because they disgraced their judgement, in giving ear to every strange tale of monkish extraction. The most learned and virtuous divine of the barbarous ages is the VENERABLE BEDE: and the honestest as well as most discerning historian of those, or perhaps any age, is MATTHEW PARIS: yet their propensity to recount the wonderful exceeds all imagination. Neither learning, judgement, or integrity could secure them against the general contagion. Now if this disposition was in them (as is confessed) only the

vice of the times, is it not unjust to ascribe the same disposition in the Fathers, to the vice of the men?

But our folly has ever been, and is likely to continue, to judge of antiquity by a modern standard: when, if we would form reasonable ideas on this subject, we should compare the parts of it with one another. We examine the conceits of a Basil or an Austin, on the test of the improved reasoning of our own times. And we do well. It is the way to read them with profit. But when, from a contempt of their logic, which follows this comparison, we come to despise their other accomplishments of parts and learning, we betray gross ignorance or injustice. To know the real value of the Fathers, we should place them by their contemporaries, the Pagan writers of greatest fame and reputation; and if they suffer in their neighbourhood, e'en let them stay, where most of them already are, with the grocers. But it is a truth, none acquainted with antiquity can deny, how great a secret soever modern divines make of it, that as polite scholars, (and it is that which we now most affect to value), whether in eloquence, ethics, antiquity, or philosophy, the Christian writers have indisputably the first place.

Nay one may venture to say, there are some of them who have successfully rivalled the very best writers of antiquity. ST CHRYSOSTOM has more good sense than Plato, and you may find in LACTANTIUS almost as many good words as in Tully. So that if on the principles of a classical taste, we discard the Fathers, we should discard along with them the Pagan writers of the same ages; unless the wonderful Theology of the latter can atone for (what they both have

in common) their false rhetoric and bad reasoning. These imperfections, therefore, being common both to Gentile and Christian writers, it is plain they were the faults of the times, and not of the men. For whatever advantages the ancients might have over us in the arts of poetry, oratory, and history, it is certain that in the science of reasoning, as far as it concerns the discovery of moral truth, the moderns are infinitely superior.

Those who are not able to form a comparison between them, on their own knowledge, may be reconciled to this conclusion, when the peculiar hindrances, in the ancient world, to the advancement of moral truth, on the principles of a just logic, have been laid before them.

After about 26 pages on matters less relevant to our present subject, Warburton continues thus :

To conclude, my more immediate purpose in these observations was to justify the Fathers from the injurious contempt under which they now lie. I have said, the Fathers were at least equal, or rather superior to those Gentile writers, their contemporaries, whom we most admire: and I have explained the unhappy causes, (in which religion and reason suffered equally, as they always will suffer together) why the Fathers did not, in the exactness of their Logic, and in the purity of their Ethics, infinitely surpass them. But in the course of this apology, I have endeavoured to serve a greater purpose; which was to vindicate our holy religion from its supposed impotency and incapacity to direct and enlarge the reasoning faculties in the discovery and advancement of moral truth.

So far then as to the Genius and Literary Talents of the Fathers: their moral character is a distinct consideration; and would well deserve it. But I have already exceeded my limits. However, this I may venture to say, that the most prejudiced against them will never be able to prove, they had an immoral intention to deceive. *

If there be any learned man who thinks otherwise, I would advise him, before he attempts to make out this charge against them, to weigh well the force of the following remark, though made on somewhat a different occasion.

Whenever (says the admirable author of the ESPRIT DES LOIX), one observes, in any age or government, the several bodies in a community intent on augmenting their own authority, and vigilant to procure certain advantages to themselves, exclusive of each other's pretensions, we should run a very great chance of being deceived if we regarded these attempts as a certain mark of their corruptions. By an unhappiness inseparable from the condition of humanity, moderation is a rare virtue in men of superior talents. And as it is always more easy to push on force in the direction in which it moves, than to stop or divert its movement; perhaps, in the class of superior Geniuses, you will sooner find men extremely virtuous, than extremely prudent.

In a Note here is "See a very sensible and ingenious writer, the Reverend MR FREDERICK TOLL, on this head, p. 88. & seq., who (distinct from the merits of the cause) has with uncommon abilities & candor, defended the " Free Enquiry" of Dr Middleton.

BICKERSTETH.

In the "Prefatory Remarks" to the "Christian Fathers of the first and second centuries &c." by the Reverend E. BICKERSTETH, Rector of Watton, Hertfordshire, [small 8vo, Seeley and Burnside, 1838,] we find the following:

These primitive remains of early Christanity, by themselves, distinct from those of a later age, will, he doubts not, be specially interesting to more studious Christians. It was the remark of BENGELIUS, which, though too strongly expressed to be literally true, appears to have considerable foundation, The light of the Apostolic age was soon in the wane'; with the exception of a few of the most ancient Christian writings, which appeared immediately after the times of the Apostles, we are constrained to say of all the rest, that the true doctrine of Christ and concerning Christ, with that of love, moderation, and sobriety, is not discoverable among them; so manifestly are they tinctured with what is harsh, rigid, and austere ; the real depth of the divine oracles and mysteries, the sweet, soft, and gracious manner of the apostles, are no longer there; and as time advanced, the departure became still greater; and more striking. Yet their very severity and rigidity was overruled, to the forming a bulwark against the multiplied difficulties with which they had to contend, in maintaining the Christian faith.

The author has, however, some fears lest the fastidiousness of modern days should be excited; and