The "Teaching of the Apostles."
By Ellet Joseph Waggoner
CHARACTER OF EARLY WRITINGS IN GENERAL.
THE admirers of this document have been led to put unlimited confidence in it, as a production fully equal to the New Testament, because the same manuscript in which it was found contains the two epistles of Clement of Rome, the epistle of Barnabas, and the epistles of Ignatius. We shall therefore devote a little attention to them to see if proximity to them materially enhances its value. But first we wish to show the general character of the writings ascribed to the early Fathers. In the preceding article we quoted testimony from Mosheim, which showed that forgery, interpolations, and the palming off of spurious writings, were common practices even in the early part of the second century. So, then, however much credit for honesty and orthodoxy we may be inclined to give to the Fathers themselves, we cannot depend with any certainty on their perverted writings. It is impossible to distinguish the genuine from the false. But this need not cause us any concern, since they were not inspired, and, consequently, their testimony is of no more authority on any subject than that of anybody else. When we want information concerning a question of morals or of Christian duty, we must go to the Holy Scriptures—the inspired word of God. That alone is a sure guide. In his "Ecclesiastical History," Book I., Cent. II., Part II., chap. III., sections 5 and 6, after having spoken of the works of several of the Fathers, among which he mentions certain writings of Clement of Alexandria, Tatian, Justin Martyr, and Theophilus of Antioch, Dr. Mosheim says, "All these works are lost." He then continues:— "But this loss is the less to be regretted, since it is certain that no one of these expositors could be pronounced a good interpreter. They all believed the language of Scripture to contain two meanings, the one obvious, and corresponding with the direct import of the words, the other recondite, and concealed under the words, like a nut by the shell; and neglecting the former, as being of little value, they bestowed their chief attention on the latter; that is, they were more intent on throwing obscurity over the sacred writings by the fictions of their own imaginations, than of searching out their true meaning." In the next section he says: "It is therefore not strange that all sects of Christians can find in what are called 'the Fathers,' something to favor their own opinions and systems." And in section 8 of the same chapter, after having mentioned several other writers, among them Irenæus and Tertullian, Mosheim says:— "In these disputants there was something more of ingenuousness and good faith, than in those who undertook the support of truth in the following centuries. For the convenient wiles of sophistry, and the dishonorable artifices of debate, had not yet gained admittance among Christians. Yet a man of sound judgment, who has due regard for truth, cannot extol them highly. Most of them lacked discernment, knowledge, application, good arrangement, and force. They often advance very flimsy arguments, and such as are suited rather to embarrass the mind than to convince the understanding." This is the character of the writings which contain the strongest arguments that can be found for the observance of Sunday. But we quote from Mosheim once more. In the tenth section of the chapter above referred to, he states that learned men are not agreed as to the estimation in which these Fathers should be held, and says:— "To us it appears that their writings contain many things excellent, well considered, and well calculated to enkindle pious emotions; but also many things unduly rigorous, and derived from the Academic and Stoic philosophy; many things vague and indeterminate; and many things positively false, and inconsistent with the precepts of Christ. If one deserves the title of bad master in morals, who has no just ideas of the proper boundaries and limitations of Christian duties, nor clear and distinct conceptions of the different virtues and vices, nor a perception of those general principles to which recurrence should be had in all discussions respecting Christian virtue, and therefore very often talks at random, and blunders in expounding the divine laws, though he may say many excellent things, and excite in us considerable emotion; then I can readily admit that in strict truth this title belongs to many of the Fathers." Much more of this sort of testimony might be cited from Mosheim, who certainly cannot be called a prejudiced witness, but this is sufficient. And writers of this class are they whom we are asked to accept as authority for Sunday-keeping, and as competent expositors of the teaching of the apostles. We beg to be excused. When we can find no better authority for the observance of a day of rest, than they are, we will be our own authority. We cannot close this article with anything more to the point, and more worthy of general acceptance, than the following paragraph from "The Ancient Church," by Dr. Wm. Killen, Professor of Ecclesiastical History and Pastoral Theology to the General Assembly of the Presbyterian Church in Ireland. After having noticed the erroneous and absurd expositions of the Fathers, he says:— "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 [and far more]. 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. Jehovah is jealous for the honor of his word, and he has inscribed in letters of light over the labors of his most ancient interpreters—'CEASE YE FROM MAN.' The 'opening of the Scriptures,' so as to exhibit their beauty, their consistency, their purity, their wisdom, and their power, is the clearest proof that the commentator is possessed of 'the key of knowledge.' When tried by this test, Thomas Scott or Matthew Henry are better entitled to confidence than either Origen or Gregory Thaumaturgus. The Bible is its own safest expositor. 'The law of the Lord is perfect, converting the soul; the testimony of the Lord is sure, making wise the simple.'" —Period II., Section I., Chapter I., last paragraph. In our next article we shall notice the writings in whose immediate company the "Teaching" was found.