which seems unlikely and contrary to all reasonable expectation; and the eulogists of the primitive church tell us that which seems probable, and at a superficial glance natural; that which appeals at once to our credulity; and yet it is untrue. Paul taught, in the purest of the churches, that grievous wolves should enter in, not sparing the flock; and that while this evil happened from without, a worse evil should happen from within. For even of their own selves should men "arise speaking perverse things." The admonition was disregarded; but before the canon of revelation closed, God had a controversy with Ephesus, because she had already left her first love. So it was in other churches. The new testament writers all sound the same note of warning. There was to be a falling away first, and the Son of perdition was to be revealed; and this mystery of iniquity was even then at his dark satanic work. Even then there were many antichrists; and their power was to go on increasing till the real church, the true family of Jesus Christ, should be lost to the observation of man; and the woman clothed with the sun would fly for her life, and hide herself for ages in the wilderness. Are these representations consistent with those which teach us to respect the traditions of the primitive church as the voice of God? to regard its institutions as the perfect model for our own imitation? its writers as men who shared the miraculous gifts which qualified apostles and evangelists to do the work of God? They teach us to expect, upon the contrary, just what the history of the primitive church discloses; much profession, external triumphs, widening conquests of a nominal christianity, but underneath disease and rottenness. Many corruptions, almost universal apostasy, but withal a true church against which the gates of hell could not prevail: a church so few in number, so persecuted, so retiring, that its existence is often lost to the eye of man, while boastful historians not unfrequently revive the slanders of its enemies and represent the true church itself as nothing better than a nest of heresy.

Indeed the difficulties of writing a true history of the primitive church arise in no small degree from the quality of the materials we are compelled to use. Some of the earliest of the fathers were deeply infected with the errors against which Christ and the apostles had warned the church. We doubt if there be one of them, neither excepting Justin Martyr nor the saintly Polycarp, much less the rest of the apostolic fathers, who does not betray a feebleness of mind, not to say an uncertainty of doctrine, which bespeaks approaching calamity. Let any unprejudiced reader lay down St. Paul's epistle to the Corinthians and take up that of St. Barnabas, and tell us candidly whether, allowance being made for the difference which inspiration gives, the disciple, even supposing it were written by the real Barnabas, teaches precisely as Paul taught; whether the same doctrines have the same place assigned them; whether the proportions of the figures and the

Vol. 59.-No. 266.

M

keeping of the landscape are the same; if haziness does not obscure and even distort the canvas. If this be the case with the earliest authorities, we need not look for improvement as time passes on.

Dr. Killen, we perceive, has on several pages the running title, "Absurdities of the Early Fathers." Dr. Middleton was severely handled a hundred years since, for writing in this strain; and so far as he assailed the fathers for the want of veracity and good intentions, perhaps he was blameable to some extent. Those, however, who are disposed to censure Dr. Killen, are bound at least to disprove his statements, fortified as they are by references in the margin to the writings of the fathers themselves. Those who are smitten with the patristic malady must forgive us for introducing a few of these pages to their notice. They will show them the true character of the guides to whom they choose to

trust :

"The fathers of the second and third centuries were not regarded as safe guides even by their Christian contemporaries. Tatian was the founder of a sect of extreme teetotallers. Tertullian, who in point of learning, vigour, and genius, stands at the head of the Latin writers of this period, was connected with a party of gloomy fanatics. Origen, the most voluminous and erudite of the Greek fathers, was excommunicated as a heretic. If we estimate these authors, as they were appreciated by the early church of Rome, we must pronounce their writings of little value. Tertullian, as a montauist, was under the ban of the Roman bishop. Hippolytus could not have been a favourite with either Zephyrinus or Callistus (bishops of Rome), for he denounced both as heretics. Origen was treated by the Roman church as a man under sentence of excommunication. Stephen deemed even Cyprian unworthy of his ecclesiastical fellowship, because the Carthaginian prelate maintained the propriety of rebaptizing heretics.

"Nothing can be more unsatisfactory, or rather childish, than the explanations of holy writ sometimes given by these ancient expositors. According to Tertullian, the two sparrows mentioned in the New Testament signify the soul and the body; and Clemens Alexandrinus gravely pleads for marriage from the promise Where two or three are gathered together in my name, there am I in the midst of them.' Cyprian produces, as an argument in support of the doctrine of the Trinity, that the Jews observed the third, sixth, and ninth hours as their fixed and lawful seasons for prayer. Origen represents the heavenly bodies as literally engaged in acts of devotion. If these authorities are to be credited, the Gihon, one of the rivers of Paradise, was no other than the Nile. Very few of the fathers of this period were acquainted with Hebrew; so that, as a class, they were miserably qualified for the interpretation of the scriptures. Even Origen himself must have had a very imperfect knowledge of the language of the Old Testament. In consequence of their literary deficiencies, the fathers of the second and third centuries occasionally commit the most ridiculous blunders. Thus Irenæus tells us that the name Jesus in

Hebrew consists of two letters and a half, and describes it as signifying that Lord who contains heaven and earth. This father asserts also that the Hebrew word Adonai, or the Lord, denotes, unutterable and wonderful. Clemens Alexandrinus is not more successful as an interpreter of the sacred tongue of the chosen people; for he asserts that Jacob was called Israel, because he had seen the Lord God; and he avers that Abraham means the elect father of a sound. Justin Martyr errs egregiously in his references to the Old Testament; as he cites Isaiah for Jeremiah, Zechariah for Malachi, Zephaniah for Zechariah, and Jeremiah for Daniel. Irenæus repeats, as an apostolic tradition, that when our Lord acted as a public teacher he was between forty and fifty years of age. Tertullian says, that at the time of his crucifixion he was thirty years of age. The opinion of this same writer in reference to angels is still more extraordinary. He maintains that some of these beings, captivated by the beauty of the daughters of men, came down from heaven and married them; and that out of complaisance to their brides, they communicated to them the arts of polishing and setting precious stones, of preparing cosmetics, and of using other appliances which minister to female vanity. His ideas upon topics of a different character are equally singular. Thus, he affirms that the soul is corporeal, having length, breadth, height, and figure. He even goes so far as to say, that there is no substance which is not corporeal, and that God himself is a body." (pp. 385–387.)

Dr. Killen adds:

"It would seem as if the Great Head of the Church permitted these early writers to commit the grossest mistakes, and to propound the most foolish theories, for the express purpose of teaching us that we are not implicitly to follow their guidance. It might have been thought that authors, who flourished on the borders of apostolic times, knew more of the mind of the Spirit than others who appeared in succeeding ages: but the truths of scripture, like the phenomena of the visible creation, are equally intelligible to all generations. If we possess spiritual discernment, the trees and the flowers will display the wisdom and the goodness of God as distinctly to us as they did to our first parents; and if we have the "unction from the Holy One,' we may enter into the meaning of the scriptures as fully as did Justin Martyr or Irenæus. To assist us in the interpretation of the New Testament, we have at command a critical apparatus, of which they were unable to avail themselves."

With this view of the subject we entirely concur. However oracular their dicta, and however great their reputation, they are but superficial reasoners who argue, that because the fathers lived on the borders of apostolic times, they knew more of the "mind of the Spirit," or were in a condition for knowing more, than other Christians of later days. This argument must rest ultimately on one or more of three suppositions, all of which are false. First, that the New Testament is not inspired or secondly, that being inspired, it is incomplete: or thirdly, that the fathers were themselves inspired. As to the

first. Proximity of time and place would, no doubt, have given the early fathers a great advantage had the New Testament been an ordinary book and not a revelation. For they knew the writers of it; they conversed with them; they had been instructed by them. Now the author of a difficult book, with the slightest talent for oral teaching, is no doubt the best expositor of his own book. For the book is the fruit of his own brain: the result of his own deep thought; but it does not contain all that he has thought; there is a rich mine out of which he has dug the richest ore perhaps, but what is left is of the same kind, and of great value. He can explain his book; he can illustrate it by fresh examples; he can remove objections by adding fresh arguments, or putting the old arguments in a simpler form. But if the apostles could do this, they were, in the proper sense, the authors of the New Testament, and then the book was not inspired. It is not even necessary to insist on plenary, much less on verbal inspiration, in order to maintain this position. In whatever degree they were inspired, to that same degree they were disqualified from acting as interpreters. And this simply because they had nothing to tell beyond what they had been instructed to write. They had been secretaries, not authors; they had delivered their message, and they had no further instructions except to enforce attention to it. This is true of the simple and hortatory portions of the New Testament; and of course still more of its profounder lessons. In neither case had the apostles any advantage over other men as expositors of holy writ. They had delivered their message, and their work was done. If, with the aids of a critical apparatus, and other means within our reach, we of this age have mastered the Greek of the New Testament, neither Jerome nor Justin nor Polycarp himself had a single advantage we do not possess.

For let us take the contrary supposition, and admit that the inspired writers could, by their oral teaching, throw some light upon the New Testament, such as no other teachers can shed upon it. Then it follows, that to whatever extent they could do so, to that same extent the written revelation is incomplete. It wants oral teaching to render it intelligible; and for that very reason the oral teaching becomes a part of the revelation. The pupil who has been favoured with it knows more than he knew, or could have possibly known, without it. He knows more of the mind and will of God. He is in possession of an oral supplement, and the supplement is of as much value as the older record. Nay, it is of much greater value, because it is of a later date. It is the recent act of parliament passed in explanation of an ancient statute. Wherever there is a difficulty the act explains the statute, but the statute does not explain the act of parliament. If the traditions of the early fathers are supplementary to scripture, they are more than supplementary, simply

because they are the later of the two. They cannot stand precisely upon the same level: one or other must decide where a doubt remains; and the latter authority is of necessity the best.

It is perfectly gratuitous, however, to assume that the sacred writers themselves saw more in their own writings than other eminent Christians, taught by the Spirit of God, have seen in them in every age of the church. The doctrinal and practical precepts they delivered, we have every reason to conclude, wore precisely the same aspect to them as to other men. If they expounded them with more unction, it was simply because they were men of more piety. If they had more success, it was simply because the Spirit of God carried their words home to men's hearts with greater power. With regard to their prophetic writings, what single reason have we for supposing that they understood them better than we do? Nay, we are not afraid of the charge of rashness, when we say that the Christians of the nineteenth century probably understand them better than they did. What grounds have we to conclude that St. John could have interpreted the Apocalypse? or that St. Paul could have shed one further ray of light upon the nature of the resurrection body, the period of our Lord's return, or the identity of Antichrist with the man of sin? They spake on all these points as they were moved by the Holy Ghost, and when his motion within them ceased they were silent. They knew no more. They had nothing more to tell. We have the highest authority for asserting that the Old Testament prophets were not intrusted with the key to unlock their own predictions. What reason have we to believe that God's conduct was altered with respect to the prophets of the New Testament? The assumption, we repeat, is entirely gratuitous; and the precedents of the Old Testament are against it.*

The third supposition is, that the early fathers were themselves inspired. If so, we are entitled to ask for their credentials. What are the proofs of their claim? Here we can afford to be very generous. We will not press the question of internal evidences. We will raise no objection to their writings; only that we decline to challenge for them, as we do for the elder volume, the respect of scoffers and the admiration of infidels. We say not a word of their "absurdities," their contradictions of each other, and sometimes of themselves. We pass by all this, and simply ask for their credentials. Did they work a single miracle? Did they ever raise a Eutychus or slay an Ananias and Sapphira with the word of the Lord? Did they ever heal one lame man, or give sight to a blind one? Or did they, like St. Paul, lay claim to inspiration, and challenge contradiction? Did they do this bravely, as the apostle did; not before obsequious disciples, but in the face of their adversaries? Is it not notorious, on the con

* 1 Peter i. 11; and perhaps 2 Peter i. 20.