37. A doctrine so repugnant to reason, so directly opposed to the dictates of benevolence, humanity and justice, cannot be believed by any well-regulated and well-balanced mind. Hence, the wise and good of all ages, whenever and wherever this doctrine has been known, have rejected it.

CHAPTER XXII

ON THE AUTHORITY OF THE APOSTOLIC AND CHRISTIAN FATHERS.

THOSE early converts to Christianity, who distinguished themselves in defending and publicly teaching the Christian religion, and who lived before the year 120, and who by possibility might have associ ated with some of Christ's apostles or evangelists, are called the "Apostolic Fathers." Those who succeeded them, and lived after the year 120, up to the time of the establishment of Popery, are called the "Christian Fathers." In the various controversies, on religious points of doctrine, which have agitated the Christian church, the disputants have been in the habit of appealing to the authority of these fathers. In the course of the controversy between Universalists and Limitarians, the authority of these men has sometimes been appealed to as sufficient to settle the point in dispute. Both parties have appealed to their opinions with great confidence; as if what they believed and taught was a matter of great consequence. Now, it appears to us that more importance has been attached to the question, What did the Apostolic and Christian Fathers think, and how did they believe? than it is really deserving of. A few of our reasons for so thinking will now be given. 1st. We will speak of the Apostolic Fathers. 2d. Of the Christian Fathers.

I. The Apostolic Fathers are Clemens, Romanus, Ignatius, Polycarp, Papius, Barnabas, and Hermas. These are all whose writings. have come down to us. That their opinions are deserving of but little weight, is evident from the following facts: 1. There is no

proof that either of them ever associated with any of Christ's apostles or evangelists. If they did, one thing is certain, they have not in their writings mentioned one of the historians of Christ. See Dodwell's Diss. on Irenus. 2. It is said that Clemens and Ignatius were acquainted with the apostles; and that Polycarp was the disciple of John; but of this there is no direct proof. Allowing it to be true, however, all this might be, and yet they not learn anything from the apostles respecting the great point in dispute now between Limitarians and Universalists. The circumstances of times then made it necessary that the doctrine that Jesus was the true Messiah, and the Sent of God, should be the prominent and fundamental doctrine taught; and but little was said about anything else. Besides, the writings of Clemens, Ignatius and Polycarp, afford no proof of the doctrine of endless misery. It is thought that they believed in a limited resurrection, and that none except the righteous would be raised from the dead. If so, they held an opinion at variance with that taught by the apostle Paul; and, of course, could not have learned it either from him or from the teachings of Christ. 3. The writings of these men prove that they were "men of but little learning; and, for the most part, of as little judgment; and whoever reads them, expecting to find them either instructive or edifying, will rise from their perusal in disappointment, if not with disgust.' The epistle of Clemens is the best of them all, and " contains but one instance of those absurd allegories which abound in the succeeding fathers." The writings of Ignatius "contain some puerile conceits, betray a fondness for the Eastern fables concerning the angelic world, and are filled with earnest injunctions of the most unreserved submission of reason, faith and practice, to the CLERGY; whose authority is often likened, expressly, to that of GOD and JESUS CHRIST." Polycarp's writings evince "a more regular and intelligent mind than most of the ecclesiastical writings of that age. The author is guilty of one exception to his general moderation, when he exhorts his brethren to be 'subject to the elders and deacons, as unto God 999 and CHRIST.' Papius formed a collection of idle tales and foolish notions, and published them to the world as the authoritative instructions of Christ and his apostles; and succeeding fathers adopted some of its fictions," The epistle of Barnabas " was composed by some Jewish Christian of mean abilities, for the purpose of >epresenting the Mosaic law and other parts of the Old Testament

as containing a hidden account of Christ and his religion. The alle gorical and mystical interpretations of which the epistle mostly consists present an extraordinary instance of blind stupidity aiming at discoveries." "Understand, children," says he, "these things more fully that Abraham, who was the first that brought in circumcision, performed it, after having received the mystery of three letters, by which he looked forward in the spirit to Jesus. For the scripture says that Abraham circumcised three hundred and eighteen men of his house. But what then was the mystery that was made known to him? Mark, first, the eighteen; and, next, the three hundred. For the numeral letters of ten and eight are IH. And these denote Jesus. And because the cross was that by which we were to find grace, he, therefore, adds three hundred; the numeral letter of which is T, the figure of the cross. Wherefore, by two letters he signified Jesus, and by the third, his cross. He who has put the ingrafted gift of his doctrine within us, knows that I never taught to any a more CERTAIN TRUTH; but I trust ye are worthy of it." one of the important discoveries our author communicates." If he never taught a greater truth than this, then everything else he taught was, by his own confession, a lie. Strange as it may seem, learning, such as Justin

"Such is

the later fathers, even those of undoubted Martyr, Irenæus, Clemens Alexandrinus, &c., appear to have been, by no means, insensible to the charms of their kind of nonsense." "The last, as well as the longest, of the works of the Apostolic Fathers, so called, is that effusion of second childishness, The Shepherd of Hermas. It was written at Rome by a brother of the bishop of that city; but it betrays an ignorant and imbecile mind, in absolute dotage. The author relates pretended visions, and introduces instructions which he received from an angel, who occasionally appeared to him, as he asserts, in the habit of a shepherd. But the conversation he attributes to his celestial visitants is more insipid than we commonly hear from the weakest of men." See Ancient History of Universalism, Chap. I.

II. Of the Christian Fathers, the most distinguished are the following: Justin Martyr, Titian, Hegesippus, Irenæus, Athanagorus, Theophilus, Clemens Alexandrinus, Tertullian, Origen, Demetrius, Alexander, Heracles, Ambrosius Firmilian, Gregory Thaumaturgos, Athanodorus, Cyprian, Dionycus, Nepos Methodius, Arnobius, Lactantius, Paul of Samosata, Pamphilus, Eusebius, Athanasius, Greg

ory Nazienzen, Gregory Nyssen, Didymus, Basil, Apollinarius, Epiphanius, Jerome, Evagrius, Theophilus, Ambrose, Chrysostom, Augustine, Isodorus Rufinus, Anastasius, Theodosius, Augustine Theodorus, Theodoret, Synesius, Jerome, and Hilary. That the opinion of these men on any important point is not deserving of any great weight, and ought not to be considered sufficient to settle any disputed subject of great importance, is evident from the following facts:

1. They were not inspired men. We might as well, therefore, appeal to the opinions of John Calvin, Martin Luther, and a host of others who have lived since their day, as to appeal to the opinions of either the Christian or Apostolic Fathers. Yea, we may as well trust to our own opinions as to trust to theirs.

2. In relation to some very important points, they differed among themselves. If we appeal to their testimony, then, we can prove Calvinism to be true, and we can prove it to be false. We can prove Arminianism to be false, and we can prove it to be true. We can prove Universalism to be a doctrine of devils, and we can prove it to be the truth of God. Who cannot see that such testimony defeats itself?

3. The Christian Fathers were no more competent, nor any better qualified, to understand the scriptures of the Old and New Testament, than we are at the present day. Indeed, they were not as much so, as their writings prove. The most distinguished of them were converts from some one of the various schools of heathen philosophy; and when they came over to Christianity, they brought many of their philosophical opinions with them. These they incorporated and blended with the Christian religion, and made up a system of theology, composed partly of Christianity and partly of heathen philosophy. They were in the habit of allegorizing and mystifying the Scriptures, instead of understanding them in their plain and obvious sense. This, of course, would have an effect to bewilder their minds, and prevent the light of truth from shining into their understandings. They were comparatively ignorant of the peculiar style and phraseology of the Hebrew language, which style was adopted by Christ and his apostles; and they were ignorant of all just rules of interpretation. By the aid of the light which has been thrown upon the various sciences since the days of these fathers, we enjoy better means and greater facilities for arriving at the true sense and meaning of the Scriptures than they did.