have been able to make of the African prelate, by a repeated perufal of his writings, especially his epiftles, I cannot fee any thing on which to ground this cenfure. He did nothing in general without the clergy and people. He was ever fedulous in promoting the good of the whole. The epifcopal character itself, through the gradual growth of fuperftition, though as yet at no very blameable height in the church, was naturally growing up to an excess of honour, and fome few expreffions favouring of haughtiness and afperity under particular provocation I have obferved in Cyprian. But ambition was not his vice. Candour would rather say he was in general influenced by a very fervent zeal, doubtless fupported in its exertions by a temper remarkably active and fanguine. But when I would look for any thing felfifh, proud, or domineering in his general conduct, I am ftruck with the steady tenor of gentleness, charity, and humility. In fine, had he not been a christian, one might have held him forth to the world as a great man; if it be the part of a great man to unite, in a large and capacious foul, the oppofite qualities which fo rarely meet in firm confiftence in the fame fubject; fpirit and mildness, magnanimity and mercy, fortitude and prudence, warmth of temper and accuracy of judgment, and particularly zeal and difcretion, each in a very high degree. In Origen's converfion we fee nothing remarkable. He received chriftianity more in a way of education. It is not utual with God to make use of fuch perfons for fuch extraordinary fervices, as thofe who like Cyprian in the prime of life have been selected from the world. Origen's views of the peculiar truths of christianity were, to fay no more, too faint and general, nor ever fufficiently diftinguished from moral and philo fophical fophical religion. He bore perfecution, when young, with much zeal and honefty; but he lived many years in peace and profperity. Sought after by philofophers, efteemed by courts, and honoured by the great, he lived a fcholaftic rather than an active life in the church, always fully employed indeed, but more like a fcholar than a minister, ever bent on promoting truth and holiness, so far as he knew them, but always leaving one in pain because of the defectiveness of his views. His laft fcenes are the best and most decifively christian. He fuffered perfecution with the patience and honesty of a martyr, and proved indeed whose disciple he was on the whole. Mofheim charges him with difhonefty in his arguments against Celfus, and fays that any one that has penetration and judgment may difcern it *. I have examined this tract, I cannot fay by any means with that care with which I have Cyprian's letters, as I do not think it deferves it; but I have examined it fo far as to be induced to diffent from Mosheim. Indeed great honefty of mind was, if I mistake not, a ruling feature of Origen's character. When will modern writers learn to fhew any candour toward the ancients, and ceafe to fuppofe all excellencies to be confined to thefe later ages? After this general review of these two men, and after it has been owned that integrity and fairness of mind were poffeffed by both in a very great degree, if it be asked wherein lay the fuperior virtue of Cyprian, I anfwer, befides what has been faid of the difference of their converfions, and above all of the work of God in their hearts all along. II. Cyprian * Mofheim's Eccl. Hiftory, Century 3, Chap. 3. II. Cyprian was poffeffed of a fimplicity to which Origen feems ever to have been a tranger. By fimplicity I mean here a genuine and unadulterated taste for the doctrine and spirit of the chriftian religion, just as it ftands in its real nature. It is poffible for a perfon very eminent in this gift, which is purely divine and fpiritual, not to know much more of evangelical truth than another far inferior in this refpect, because the light and means of information are very different in different ages of the church, and it is evident that the third century fuffered a decline in illumination. But where a man is deficient in knowledge, yet if his fimplicity of chriftian tafte be very ftrong, he will be filent on thofe fubjects which he understands not, at least you shall hear hardly any thing oppofite to any part of Divine truth. This is Cyprian's cafe. I cannot find, for inftance, that he understood the election of grace. Since Juftin's days the knowledge of it was departing from the church. But he oppofed it not. Origen, lefs humble and lefs fubmiffive to Divine instruction, and feeling more refources in his reafoning powers, dares to oppofe it by an oppofite ftatement of the doctrine *. In Cyprian this fimplicity appears in a fupreme degree. He never trifles with fcripture, or fets up his reafon against it. Void of the whole apparatus of Græcian philofophy, and poffeffed of what is much better, plain good fenie, he takes always the words of scripture in their first, obvious, and moft natural meaning, and thinks he has fufficiently proved his point, when he has fupported it by an appofite quotation. His fpirit bows to the Divine Word; and hence faith, patience, charity, heavenly-mindednefs have full dominion in his foul. *Philocalia xxi. Hence Hence his fentiments have a ftrength, a purity, a perfpicuity peculiarly inherent in thofe whofe religious tafte is altogether fcriptural. Here it is that he and Origen are oppofite, "toto Calo." The latter is full of platonic notions concerning the foul of the world, the tranfmigration of fpirits, free-will, the pre-existence of fouls, and allegorical interpretations without end. The first and fimple fense of fcripture he too often dares to reject entirely *. David's fin in the affair of Uriah he cannot admit. It feems he had not fuch strong and palpable proof of his own innate depravity, as to fuppofe it poffible for fo good a man to fall fo foully. He has recourfe therefore to a hidden abftruse sense. In his numberlefs comments on scripture, he constantly deals in fanciful allegories, and makes a fyftem of this fort which pervades the whole of the facred oracles; and while the juft and plain fenfe is much neglected, he covers the whole with the thick mift of mysticism and chimerical philofophy, and while he labours ftill to fupport the faith which was once delivered to the faints, he mixes it with much allegorical trafh, after the manner of his platonic master Ammonius, which will not incorporate with christian doctrine. Thus, by accommodating his interpretation to the then reigning literary tafte, he gained to himself indeed a celebrity of character among the heathen, even among the great and the noble, but threw all things into inextricable ambiguity. The quicknefs of his parts and his fuperior ingenuity hence entangled him only the deeper, and enabled him to move in the chaos of his own formation with an eafe and rapidity that rendered him unconicious of the difficulties in which he had involved himself. Philoc. Chap. 1, Page 20. One One remarkable confequence of this difference of character was, that while Origen could gain the favour of the great among the pagans, and be heard by them with patience, Cyprian could not be endured in his preaching or writings, but by real chriftians. And another is this, that while it is no eafy thing to vindicate the foundnefs of the former in chriftian principles, the latter stands in full perfpicuity chriftian throughout. Such is the difference between a man of fimplicity and a man of philosophy in religion; and one may on this occafion compare the effect of a philofophical and of a philological spirit. Origen had the former, Cyprian the latter. For eloquence was his forte, and he poffeffed all the powers of it in a very high degree, according to the taste of his age, which was far from being the beft. May it not be faid, that grammar, hiftory, criticism, ora tory taught and acquired, with a proper fubordi nation to Divine Grace, and regulated by common fenfe, are much lefs dangerous, and, in their way, more useful endowments for a minister of Chrift than philofophy of any kind, metaphyfical or natural? I mean not to exclude thefe from the education of persons who mean to be paftors, far from it. But this I must fay, that a lefs proportion of thefe and a greater proportion of thofe than what agrees with the prefent fashionable tafte, would be more advantageous to the church. The rea foning powers may find in the former an ufeful exercise and improvement, without the danger of prefumption fo ftrongly adhering to the latter. III. Having compared the lives and the fpirit of the men, let us now view a little the principles of each. Of Cyprian, after the many quotations already given from his writings, little need be. added. Nevertheless, as it has lain more in our way |