teaching their flocks; the more vain and ambitious, absorbed and occupied their time in preparing treatises. If all the fathers who signalized the age, had committed their sentiments to writing, we might then have had a fair representation of the theology of the Church of the fathers; but, as only a few have done so, (many of their writings being mutilated or lost,) and these not the most devoted, and spiritually minded, I contend, that it is as unjust to judge of the theology of the three first centuries by the writings of the few fathers, who are its only surviving representatives, as it would be to judge of the theology of the nineteenth century, by the sermons of Mr. Newman, the treatise of Mr. Palmer, or the various productions of the late Edward Irving. It is admitted, moreover, by Roman Catholic divines, that some of the fathers have erred, that not a few of them have broached heresies, and that they must be read in the light of "the Church," in order to their being read safely. But let me observe, that those called the fathers, are not strictly and properly the fathers at all. The advantage taken by the advocates of their writings, as the exponents of primitive theology, is this-that they are the men who lived near the apostles, and are covered with the hoar of a thousand years; and that it becomes us, the mere youths and striplings of a day, to defer to the grey hairs, and reverence the experience of a remote and venerable age. Now I contend, that the gifted divines of the present age are the true fathers of the Christian Church, and that Augustine, and Jerome, and Chrysostom, were but the beardless boys, in comparison, of the Christian dispensation. My reason for this strange, and apparently to a Roman Catholic, extravagant assertion, is, I think, a very just one. The great majority of the fathers, probably nine-tenths of them, never saw an apostle. Twenty or two hundred years after the death of an apostle, are about equal, in as far as the knowledge of his views is concerned. What do we know of Martin Luther, after the lapse of three hundred years, except what we gather from his written and accredited biography? What more did our fathers know of him, a hundred years ago? How much do we know of John Wesley, except from his writings? Scarcely any thing; and a person living a thousand years hence, will be just as likely to understand and estimate properly the character of that remarkable man, as a person living only a hundred years after his death. The length of the intervening period makes no difference, if there is no personal contact with the individual. The fathers had the same Bible that we have, the same eyes that we have, the same judgments, the same promise of the Holy Spirit to guide them; up to this point we are perfectly on a par, and what is the point of difference between them and us? It is this: we have, in addition, all the biblical criticism, the physical illustrations, the philosophical facts, the historical evidence, which have been accumulated by an induction of seventeen centuries. All the advantage, therefore, is on our side, as interpreters of the Bible; and I contend that, à priori, Matthew Henry and Scott are more likely to be sound expositors of Scripture, than the most illustrious of the fathers. And I am prepared to demonstrate, by reference to the documentary evidence, that in the Commentaries of Henry and Scott, in the sermons of Robert Hall and Bradley, Hare, Chalmers, the Bishop of Chester, and other divines in the present age, we have more luminous expositions of Christian theology, than in the splendid orations of the golden-mouthed Chrysostom, or in the comments of Augustine, or in the more acrimonious and voluminous discussions of Jerome. I do not mean to say, that there is nothing good in the fathers; quite the reverse; I venture to assert, that in the homilies of Chrysostom, there are some of the most exquisite gems of Christian theology, an eloquence the most fervid, the impress of a genius the most glowing, feelings the most earnest and intense, and powers of reasoning which would do credit to the most gifted divine of the age in which we live; in Augustine, also, the most orthodox of the fathers, there is much evangelical and vital religion, much that may refresh and edify the mind of any reader; whilst in Jerome, though too notorious for controversial bitterness, there is much powerful, vigorous, and eloquent writing. But when I have made all these admissions, I contend, without being guilty of a foolish idolatry of the nineteenth century, that they are no more to be compared with the leading divines of the age in which we live, than the schoolmen of the dark ages with Lord Bacon, Sir Isaac Newton, and other philosophers who flourished in the era of induction. I have said I must draw upon your patience; but I am quite sure that the importance of the extracts I have to bring before you, will make up for the apparent tedium. The first few have appeared in print; the great mass have not; they have been taken carefully from the original documents, faithfully translated, and the Greek and Latin originals are at hand; you may, therefore, depend upon them as authentic. What I wish to show you is, first, that the fathers are contradictory expositors of Scripture; and next, that they are superstitious and fanatical commentators upon Scripture. And the inference I wish to draw from all this is, that they are not trustworthy commentators; and next, that the position of the Roman Catholic Church, as announced in the creed of Pope Pius IV., is wholly untenable :-" Nor will I ever take and interpret the Holy Scriptures otherwise than according to the unanimous consent of the fathers." The first passage to which I will direct your attention, is one of the best known in the whole word of God; it is what is called the Lord's Prayer. One would suppose, that if there be a part of Scripture on which all interpreters would be unanimous, and to which the Romish pre-requisite of Patristic unanimity is applicable, it would be this; that one meaning would pervade the commentaries upon every clause. I will read to you, however, an account of the opinions of the fathers upon it, taken from the writings of Cardinal Bellarmine, one of the most illustrious divines and authorities in the Romish Church. 1. The first clause is, "Our Father, who art in heaven." Every one of you knows perfectly what that means. But Cyril, Ambrose, and Augustine, understand "heaven to mean the souls of all believers; Gregory Nyssen, Chrysostom, and the monk Bernard, hold that "heaven" means literally heaven. Now here are three fathers against three on the interpretation of the very first clause of the Lord's Prayer. 2 I take the next clause, "Hallowed be Thy name." Tertullian means, 66 ." and and Cyprian say this May we persevere in holiness;' Cyril, Chrysostom, and Jerome say, it means, " May God's name be glorified." Here so many fathers take one opinion, and so many precisely the opposite. 3. "Thy kingdom come." Ambrose says, this means exclusively and only the kingdom of grace. Tertullian, Cyprian, and Augustine say, it means the kingdom of glory, and not the kingdom of grace at all. 4. "Thy will be done on earth as it is in heaven." Tertullian and Augustine say, "heaven means the spirit, and "earth" means the flesh; Cyprian says, "heaven" means the faithful, and "earth" means unbelievers; and the other fathers say, that "heaven" means just heaven, and "earth" means just earth. Now observe here, again, so many fathers for the first, one for the second, and the rest for a third and totally distinct opinion. Are these "unanimous" interpreters of the meaning of God's word? 5. 66 Give us this day our daily bread." Chrysostom says, this means our bodily nourishment. Jerome, Ambrose, and Cyril say, that it means only our spiritual nourishment. 6. "Forgive us our trespasses, as we forgive them that trespass against us." Tertullian, Cyprian, Gregory Nyssen, understand this to be, that all, both sinners and saints, need forgiveness. Augustine holds that it means, Forgive us our venial sins only, but not our mortal sins. Chrysostom holds, that even after baptism, it denotes that there is a place for penance and for indulgence. Now observe, here are three different interpretations of the same passage, and each maintained by equally illustrious fathers of the Christian Church. 7. "Lead us not into temptation." Hilary and Jerome differ a little from Tertullian, Cyprian, and Chrysostom, with respect to this clause. 8. "Deliver us from evil." Gregory Nyssen, Cyril, Chrysostom, Theophylact, and all the Greek fathers hold that this means, Deliver us from Satan; but Cyprian and Augustine, and all the Latin fathers hold that it means, Deliver us from evil in general. Such is the exposition of the Lord's Prayer, excavated' from the writings of the fathers; and it proves, that if you expect unanimity in the interpretation of the plainest portions of Scripture by the fathers, you expect that which is not to be found. I take another passage-Genesis iv. 23, "I have slain a man to my wounding, and a young man to my hurt." Upon this text, in the Douay Bible there is the following note. "It is the tradition of the Hebrews, that Lamech, in hunting, slew Cain, mistaking him for a wild beast; and that, having discovered what he had done, he beat so unmercifully the youth by whom he was led into the mistake, that he died of the blows." In the fourth century, Pope Damasus wrote to Jerome, requesting him to impart to him the meaning of certain passages of Holy Writ, and of the above passage among the rest. Pope Damasus' letter is published with Jerome's works. Jerome in his reply says, "Methusaleh begat Lamech, who being the seventh from Adam, not spontaneously, as it is written in a certain Hebrew book, slew Cain, as he afterwards confesses, for I have slain a man to my wounding,' &c." Thus, Jerome adopts the Hebrew tradition, and believes that Lamech slew Cain; and the Douay expositors record the same tradition. When we refer, however, to Chrysostom, we find that he evidently took a very different view of the matter; for he thus interprets the meaning of God's declaration to Cain (in cap. iv. Gen. hom. xix.)—"Have you feared lest you should be killed? Be of good courage, that shall not happen. For he who does this shall expose himself to a seven-fold penalty." When, again, we refer to Augustine, we find him quite at variance with Jerome; for he compares the mark set upon the Jews and their preservation, with the mark set upon Cain and his preservation; and the comparison could not have been justly instituted, if Cain had eventually been slain by Lamech. Augustine's words are as follows: (Enarr. in Psalm 39.) "For Cain, the elder brother, who slew the younger brother, received a mark, 'lest any man should slay him;' as it is written in Genesis, God placed a mark upon Cain, that nobody should slay him. Therefore, the Jewish nation itself remains. Cain has not been slain, he has not been slain, he has his mark." When we consult Basil (Epist. 260. class 2.), we find that he expressly refers to the tradition that Lamech slew Cain, and affirms that it was not true: 66 some think that Cain was slain by Lamech, as if he had lived until that time in order that he might yield a longer punishment; but it is not true." Here are authorities against authorities among the fathers; and yet the Roman Catholic is never to interpret Scripture, "except according to the unanimous consent of the fathers." As that unanimity does not exist upon the two passages of Scripture which I have read to you, every Roman Catholic is bound, on his own principles, to attach no meaning to them at all. There is another passage, which the Roman Catholic Church has made very much of, as defensive of the doctrine of purgatory, but which, upon the same principle, must be discarded altogether as utterly incapable of any interpretation at all. 1 Corinthians, iii.-" According to the grace of God that is given to me, as a wise masterbuilder, I have laid the foundation, and another buildeth thereon. But let every man take heed how he buildeth thereupon. For other foundation can no man lay than that is laid, which is Jesus Christ. Now if any man build upon this foundation, gold, silver, precious stones, wood, hay, stubble, every man's work shall be manifest; for the day shall declare it, because it shall be revealed by fire, and the fire shall try every man's work, of what sort it is. If any man's work abide, which he hath built thereupon, he shall receive a reward: if any man's work shall be burned, he shall suffer loss; but he himself shall be saved, yet so as by fire." Now I will extract the epitome, which Cardinal Bellarmine gives of the difficulties of this passage, and the differences of the Fathers : "The difficulties of this passage are five in number. 1. What is to be understood by the builders? 2. What is to be understood by gold, silver, precious stones, wood, hay, stubble? 3. What is to be understood by the day of the Lord? 4. What is to be understood by the fire, of which it is said, that in the day of the Lord it shall prove every one's work? 5. What is to be understood by the fire, of which it is said, he shall be saved, yet so as by fire? When these things are explained, the passage will be clear. "The first difficulty, therefore, is, who are the architects who build upon the foundation? The blessed Augustine, in his book on faith and works, c. 16, and in his Enchiridion,' c. 68, and elsewhere, thinks that all Christians are here called by the apostle architects, and that all build upon the foundation of the faith either good or bad works. Chrysostom, Theodoret, Theophylact, and Ecumenius, appear to me to teach the same upon this passage. Many others teach that only the doctors and preachers of the gospel are here called architects by the apostle. Jerome insinuates this in his second book against Jovinianus. The blessed Anselm and the blessed Thomas hold the same opinion on this passage, although they do not reject the former opinion. Many more modern think the same, as Dionysius the Carthusian, Lyra, Cajetan, and others. "The other difficulty is rather more serious, for there are six opinions. Some, by the name of foundation, understand a true but an ill-digested faith; by the name of gold, silver, and precious stones, good works; by the names of wood, hay, and stubble, mortal sins. Thus Chrysostom upon this place, who is followed by Theophylact. The second opinion is, that Christ, or the preaching of the faith, is to be understood by the name of foundation; that by the names of gold, silver, precious stones, are to be understood Catholic expositions, as the commentary of Ambrose and even Jerome seem to teach. The third opinion, by the name foundation, understands living faith; and by the name of gold, silver, and precious stones, understands works of supererogation, &c. Thus the blessed Augustine, in his book on faith and works, lib. 6. The fourth opinion is that of those who explain by gold, silver, &c., to be meant good works; by hay, stubble, &c., venial sins. Thus the blessed Gregory, in the fourth book of his dialogues, c. 39, and others. The fifth is the opinion of those who understand by gold, silver, &c., good hearers; and by stubble, &c., bad hearers. Thus Theodoret and Ecumenius. The sixth opinion, which we prefer to all, is, that by the name of foundation is to be understood Christ as preached by the first preachers; by the name of gold, silver, &c., is to be understood the useful doctrine of the other preachers, who teach those who now received the faith; but by. the name of wood, hay, &c., is to be understood the doctrine, not indeed heretical, or bad, but singular, of those preachers who preach catholically to the Catholic people, without the fruit and usefulness which God requires. "The third difficulty regards the day of the Lord. Some understand by the name of day, the present life or the time of tribulation. Thus Augustine, in his book of faith and works, c. 16, and Gregory, in the fourth book of his dialogue, c. 39. . But all the ancients seem to have understood by that day, the day of the last judgment, as Theodoret, Theophylact, Anselm, and others. Some "The fourth difficulty is, what is the fire, which in the day of the Lord shall prove every one's work? Some understand the tribulations of this life, as Augustine and Gregory, in the places noted; but these we have already rejected. Some understand eternal fire; but that cannot be, for fire shall not try the building of gold and silver. . . . understand it to be the pains of purgatory; but that cannot be truly said. First, because the fire of purgatory does not prove the works of those who build gold and silver; but the fire of which we are speaking, shall prove every man's work what it is. Secondly, the apostle clearly |