RIDLEY.

After these proofs of your diligence in reading the Bible, I am bound to offer my humble apology for having seemed for a moment to suspect the contrary. But tell me, what are these crabbed volumes? There are so many contractions in the type that I can scarcely read a line of it.

HERBERT.

These are my commentators—the ancient Fathers of the Church.

RIDLEY.

But why do you not rather consult

some of our modern English commentators? They would give you the pith of the whole matter in a couple of volumes, and save your time as well as your eyes.

ᎻᎬᎡᏴᎬᎡᎢ,

I do not think that my time can at present be better employed than in going to the fountain head of sacred literature, and tracing the stream from its source. I like to learn what was said and thought of our Lord and his Apostles by men who had seen and conversed with them, and by those who lived nearest to the same age. We need not believe the tradition that St. Ignatius was the child whom our Lord took up in

his arms and presented to his disciples; but we know that both he and Polycarp were disciples of St. John; and that Clemens was a fellow labourer with St. Paul. It appears to me not only highly interesting, but most useful and important, to know in what manner such men as these speak and write of the affairs of the early Church; and what testimony they give to the faith and practice of the age in which they flourished. Men who lived in the same state of society with the inspired Apostles, and understood the same language, could not but have, -even independently of actual communication with them,-facilities for coming at the sense of Scripture which we do not possess. And those who came after them, to the second and third generation, and even much later than that, living in times when the Church was purer and more united than at present,-appear to me entitled to a peculiar sort of deference which cannot be accorded to modern writers.

RIDLEY.

But do you not find strange-blunders, I was going to say, but I would not speak disrespectfully of such holy men-do you not often find much that is fanciful and imaginative in their writings?

HERBERT.

I am glad that you speak of them with respect. When I hear a person ridiculing the ancient Fathers, it always puts me in mind of Ham's treatment of his father Noah; for are not they our spiritual ancestors? Humanly speaking, would not the faith of Christ have perished, but for the zeal and holy courage with which they stood the brunt of the battle, and shed their blood for the truth? Surely, then, it argues a graceless and irreverent spirit, to laugh even at their failings. But I am not prepared to admit the sweeping accusations which are brought against them. What we may at first sight imagine to be wild fancies, are sometimes found to contain more depth of wisdom and holiness, than we at first supposed, and savour much of a divine original. However, I acknowledge that their imagination sometimes runs away with their judgment: but then you have the plain text of Scripture to bring them back to; in which respect they are but on a par with modern expounders of the Bible. The rationalistic speculation and party bias of later commentators, require to be confronted with the sacred text, no less than the imaginative flights of the old Fathers. I admit fully the merit of

the moderns; I admire their acuteness and industry; and certainly they have one thing in their favour,—that is, a knowledge of past controversy; which has taught them to speak guardedly on many subjects, upon which the Fathers, suspecting no guile, may have written rather loosely. But, in proportion to their greater caution, the theology of later writers has ceased to breathe the same free and wholesome freshness which characterizes the writings of the Fathers. There is in many of them a pedantic phraseology and affectation of systematic precision which is not found either in the Bible or the Fathers. There is an attempt to methodize religion and reduce it to one or two leading principles, which seems to me to exclude or cast into the back ground some of the highest views of scriptural truth. They arbitrarily fix on certain truths, which, no doubt, are principal objects of faith; but they pass by others of scarcely inferior value. This was the tone of Luther's mind when he called St. James's Epistle "an epistle of straw;"—an opinion which he afterwards found reason to retract. In the old Fathers I find no such arbitrary preference. There is an unsuspicious freedom in their writings, which harmonizes with the

spirit of Scripture; and I derive great satisfaction, and, I trust, improvement from the tone of feeling which they communicate. I seem to approach nearer to the fountain-head of truth; and to have arrived at those sources, from whence the reformers of our own Church derived their draughts of knowledge. I seem to attain a

clearer insight into the mind of the spirit, than when I lean on my own understanding only, or on the commentaries of modern days; and this is independent of their chief and positive value as witnesses of the events and opinions of the Church, when it was comparatively uncorrupted and undivided.

So now, my good friend, I hope I have given you reasons enough for my taking so much interest in these "dusty tomes" as you call them.

RIDLEY.

You have convinced me of their high value, as throwing light on Scripture. Still I do not see, why their opinion should be of more absolute authority than those of our own bishops. I do not see why Clemens or Irenæus should have more weight to compel my assent than Cranmer or Latimer, or our present Diocesans.

HERBERT.

Your observation is just, with regard to the