It is, however, a singular circumstance, that, in almost all theological controversies, both parties are desirous of having the fathers on their side. Considering the question, then, without prejudice or predilection, we may safely assume that the primitive fathers were men eminent for their piety and zeal, though occasionally deficient in learning and judgment; that they may be relied upon in general for their statements of facts, but not invariably for the constructions which they put upon them, unless in the expositions (by the Greek fathers) of the New Testament, with the language of which they were intimately acquainted; and that they are faithful reporters of the opinions of the Christian church, but not always the most judicious interpreters of Scripture. As repositories, therefore, of Christian antiquity, as preachers of Christian virtue, and as defenders of Christian doctrine, they may still be very advantageously consulted; especially if we do not expect that from them which they could not have. The fathers applied themselves to the reading of the Scriptures with undivided attention, with intense thought, and with holy admiration, as to that which was alone worthy to be studied. No part of Scripture was neglected by them; they were so earnestly intent upon it, that not a jot or tittle escaped them. This, with the advantages which they had (especially the Ante-Nicene fathers) in point of language and antiquities, could not fail to produce remarks which it must be very imprudent in any age to neglect. The mistakes, charged upon the fathers in their expositions of the Old Testament, originated in their being misled by the Septuagint version, which their ignorance of Hebrew, together with their contempt of the Jews, and their unwillingness to be taught that language by them, induced them to trust implicitly. And that excess of allegorical interpretation into which some of the ancients ran was probably occasioned by their studying, with a warm imagination, prophecies and types, parables and allusions, and by our Saviour's not developing the whole of his plan during his life-time.

It is obvious that the contemporary friends of any body of men must know the sentiments of those men more accurately and perfectly than even the most sagacious inquirers many ages posterior to them. Such of the primitive fathers, therefore, as conversed with the apostles, or with their immediate followers, are the most likely to know the true sense of their writings; and it is highly probable that the works of these fathers must contain traits and sentiments strongly illustrative of the doctrines of the Bible. The use, then, which is to be made of their writings, is precisely that which a discreet lawyer would make of all the best contemporary authors, who lived when Magna Charta was obtained. If in that celebrated code of civil rights any thing appeared obscure and difficult to be understood, he would consult the best authors of the age who had written upon the same, or upon any collateral subject; and especially contemporary authors, or those who immediately followed, if any of them had undertaken to illustrate and explain the whole or any part of that invaluable instrument. Magna Charta is to us, as Englishmen, what the word of God is to us as Christians: the one contains a copy of our civil rights and

privileges; the other, of our religious privileges and duties. Nor is it any diminution of the just and absolute authority of the holy Scriptures in our religious concerns, to consult the contemporary and subsequent writings of the fathers, in order to see how the Bible was understood in the several ages in which they lived; any more than it would be a diminution of the just and absolute authority of Magna Charta, in our civil concerns, to consult the contemporary and subsequent writings of lawyers and historians, in order to see how it was understood in the several ages in which they lived. Similar to this is the conduct of every prudent person in all the common occupations and concerns of life. Accordingly, Christians in all ages, and of every denomination, have eagerly claimed the verdict of the fathers. in their own behalf; and no one ever lightly esteemed their testimony, but those whose principles and doctrines the writings of the fathers condemned.1

The important testimony in behalf of the genuineness of the sacred writings of the New Testament, borne by the fathers of the Christian church, and especially by the Greek fathers, has been exhibited in detail in Vol. I. pp. 69-85.; and in p. 107. of the present volume, reference has been made to their writings as aids for determining various readings. It now remains to show, by one or two examples, the value of such of the fathers as are not professed commentators, and in whose writings passages of the Old and New Testaments incidentally occur, for the interpretation of Scripture. Such interpretations we find in the writings of Barnabas, Clemens Romanus, Ignatius, Justin Martyr, and others; whose testimonies to the divinity of Christ have been collected by Dr. Burton. The evidence of the early fathers on this fundamental topic of Christian doctrine is peculiarly important; for, "if the doctrine of the real nature of Christ was corrupted in the three first centuries, the writings of that period must show the progress of that corruption." And, on the other hand, "if no variation appears in the opinions of Christians, during that period, but the fathers of the three first centuries all deliver the same doctrine," and "with one consent speak of Christ as having existed from all eternity as very God, and that he took our human nature into the divine, we have surely good grounds for saying that there never was a time when this was not the doctrine of the church, and that it was the true and genuine doctrine which the apostles themselves preached.'

992

1. In John i. 3., the work of creation is expressly ascribed to Jesus Christ. To evade the force of this testimony to his deity, Faustus Socinus affirms that rà πávra, all things, in this verse, means the moral world—the Christian church; but to this exposition there are two objections. First, a part of these τà Tárra is in verse 10. represented as o koopos, the world; a term nowhere applied in the New Testament to the Christian church,

'Simpson, Plea for the Deity of Christ, p. 438.; Dr. Hey, Norrisian Lectures, vol. i. pp. 105-119.; Quarterly Review, vol. xiii. pp. 183-188. See also some admirable observations of the learned Dr. Gregory Sharpe, in his Argument in defence of Christianity, taken from the Concessions of the most ancient Adversaries, pp. 90-99.

Dr. Burton, Testim nies of the Ante-Nicene Fathers to the Divinity of Christ. (edit. 1829.) Pref. p. viii.

nor to men as morally amended by the gospel. Secondly, this very world, ỏ xóơμos, which he created, did not know or acknowledge him, avròv oúk yvw: whereas the distinguishing trait of Christians is that they know Christ, that they know the only true God and Jesus Christ whom he hath sent. Tù návra, then, which the Logos created, means (as common usage and the exigency of the passage require) the universe, the worlds, material and immaterial. In this passage, therefore, Jesus Christ is unquestionably called God; and this interpretation of it is corroborated by the following passage of Irenæus, who wrote A. D. 185:. :

"Nor can any of those things, which have been made, and are in subjection, be compared to the Word of God, by whom all things were made. For that angels or archangels, or thrones or dominations, were appointed by him, who is God over all, and made by his Word, John has thus told us; for, after he had said of the Word of God, that he was in the Father, he added, all things were made by him, and without him was not any thing made." 2

2. In Heb. i. 2., God is said to have created the worlds by his Son, δι' οὗ καὶ τοὺς αἰῶνας ἐποίησεν. Το evade the force of this testimony, some opposers of our Lord's divinity expound aiuvas as meaning new times, or that God by Christ created anew the world of mankind. But the construction will not justify either of these renderings; for it is evident, in the first place, from Heb. xi. 3., that aiveç does signify the worlds or world. Secondly, it is an undeniable fact, that the tenth verse of this chapter does ascribe the creation of the world to Christ. Thirdly, that dia does not denote merely an instrumental cause is evident from those passages in which it is also said of the Father, that all things were created di avτoũ, by him (Heb. ii. 10., Rom. xi. 36.), as also from the fact that dia and és are used interchangeably for each other. But, as Heb. i. 1, 2. relates to the person through whom God instructed us, namely the incarnate Logos or Word, the words, by whom also he made the worlds, must be understood thus: God created the world by the same person through whom he hath spoken unto us, inasmuch as this person is God himself and one with the Father, i. e. he created the world by himself. That this is the correct interpretation is confirmed by the testimony of Justin Martyr (who flourished about A. D. 150), or the author of the epistle to Diognetus, which is commonly ascribed to him, but which is, perhaps, yet earlier. Speaking of the special revelation of his will which God had made to Christians, he says, "This is no earthly invention which has been handed down to them, neither is it a mortal notion which they are bent upon observing so carefully, nor have they a system of human mysteries committed to them; but the omnipotent and all-creative and invisible God hath himself from heaven established the truth amongst men, and the holy and incomprehensible word, and rooted it in their hearts: not, as you might suppose, by sending to men any of his servants, either an angel or a prince, or one of those who administer the affairs of earth, or one of those who have the management of heavenly things intrusted to them, but the Framer and Creator of the universe himself, by whom he created the heavens, by whom he shut up the sea in its own bounds."

On this passage, Dr. Burton remarks: "We have here an express

Stuart, Letters to Channing, lett. iii. p. 89.

*Irenæus, adv. Hæres. lib. iii. cap. 8. §§ 2, 3. p. 183.; Burton, Testimonies, pp. 80, 81. Dr. B.'s reasonings upon the above-cited passage of Irenæus are very powerful. Schmucker, Biblical Theology, vol. i. pp. 425, 426.

♦ Epist. ad Diognet. 7, 8., ap. Justin. Op. Par. 1742, pp. 237, 238.; Burton, Testimonies, pp. 54, 55.

declaration that Jesus Christ was the Framer and Creator of the worlds. God created them by Jesus Christ, as is said in the epistle to the Hebrews, i. 2.; and, if the words quoted above are not sufficiently strong to exclude the idea of God having employed any subordinate agent, we find in the very next chapter the expression of God the Lord and Creator of the universe, who made all things and arranged them in order.' Thus, according to Justin's own words, God created the worlds by his Son; and his Son, by whom he created them, was God." 1

3. We have a striking confirmation of all those passages of the New Testament, in which the appellation and attributes of Deity are given to Jesus Christ, in the practice of the Christian church, mentioned by the father and ecclesiastical historian Eusebius; who, opposing the followers of Artemon (who asserted the mere humanity of Christ), first appeals to the evidence of Scripture, and to the works of Justin, Miltiades, Tatian, Clement, and many other fathers, in all of which divinity is ascribed to Christ, and then states the following fact: "Moreover, all the psalms and hymns of the brethren, written from the beginning by the faithful, celebrate the praises of Christ, the Word of God, and attribute DIVINITY to him." 2

It were not difficult to add other examples; but the preceding may suffice to show the value of the fathers, as aids for ascertaining the meaning of particular passages. The reader who is desirous of examining their important evidence on the cardinal doctrine of Christ's Divinity is referred to Dr. Burton's Testimonies, already cited; of whose elaborate and judicious work it has been truly said, that he "has brought before us a cloud of witnesses to prove that the faith delivered by our Lord to his apostles, and by the apostles to their successors, was essentially that which our church professes and cherishes." 3

[Care must be taken, in using the Greek fathers, not to run into one of two extremes. By some they have been made judges of the Scripture: by others their testimony has been entirely set aside. The truth is that, with much that is valuable, much that is frivolous and mistaken is to be met with. If we do not find in them the exact theological language of a later period, it must be recollected that, before the rise of errors, it was not necessary to express doctrines in the precise way which was afterwards usual. The time and circumstances in which an author lived exercise a material influence on his

train of thought and the terms he uses. The customs of a later age should not be forced into so-called explanation of Scripture argument. It would be, for instance, an unsafe deduction that, because Tertullian speaks of heretics who administered a kind of vicarious baptism to living men on behalf of those that were deceased', such a practice prevailed in St. Paul's days, and explains 1 Cor. xv. 29. An argu

Burton, Testimonies, p. 48. Some other testimonies may be seen in the Scripture Doctrine of the Trinity, briefly stated and defended, by the author of this Introduction, pp. 164-183. second edition.

2 Euseb. Eccl. Hist. lib. v. cap. xxviii.; Schmucker, Bib. Theol. vol. i. p. 413. The testimony of the heathen philosopher, Pliny, to the practice of the Christian churches in a province of Asia Minor in his day must not be overlooked. Carmen CHRISTO quasi DEO dicere secum invicem they were wont to......sing among themselves alternately a hymn to CHRIST as GOD. Epist. lib. x. Ep. 97.

3 British Critic and Quarterly Theol. Review, Oct. 1827, p. 303.

Tert. Op. Franek. 1597. De Resur. Carn. 48. and Adv. Marcion. lib. v. 10. pp. 339,

ment founded on this baptism for the dead would have had little weight against those with whom the apostle contends, and it would not have suited his context.']

SECTION IX.

ON HISTORICAL AND EXTERNAL CIRCUMSTANCES.

Historical circumstances defined.—I. Order.—II. Title.—III. Author.— IV. Date of the several books of Scripture.-V. The place where written. -VI. Occasion on which they were written.-VII. Ancient sacred and profane history. VIII. Chronology. IX. Biblical antiquities, in— cluding, 1. The political, ecclesiastical, and civil state; -2. Coins, medals, and other ancient remains-3. Geography;-4. Genealogy; — 5. Natural history; and, 6. Philosophical sects and learning of the Jews and other nations mentioned in the Scriptures.

HISTORICAL CIRCUMSTANCES are an important help to the correct understanding of the sacred writers. Under this term are comprised

-1. The Order; 2. The Title; 3. The Author; 4. The Date of each of the several books of Scripture; 5. The Place where it was written; 6. The Occasion upon which the several books were written. [These partly lie within the book or books of Scripture under examination, and partly are to be investigated from external sources. There are, however, other circumstances of great moment in interpretation which are altogether external. Among these we may reckon:] 7. Ancient sacred and profane history; 8. The Chronology or period of time embraced in the Scriptures generally, and of each book in particular; 9. Biblical antiquities, including the Geography, Genealogy, Natural History and Philosophy, Learning, and Philosophical Sects, Manners, Customs, and Private Life of the Jews and other nations mentioned in the Bible. How important a knowledge of these particulars is, and how indispensably necessary to a correct interpretation of the inspired volume, we are now to consider.

I. A knowledge of the ORDER OF THE DIFFERENT BOOKS, especially such as are historical, will more readily assist the student to discover the order of the different histories and other matters discussed in them, as well as to trace the divine economy towards mankind under the Mosaic and Christian dispensations.

This aid, if judiciously exercised, opens the way to a deep acquaintance with the meaning of an author; but, when it is neglected, many things necessarily remain obscure and ambiguous.

II. The TITLES are further worthy of notice, because some of them announce the chief subject of the book;

As Genesis, the generation of heaven and earth; Exodus, the departure of the Israelites from Egypt, &c.; while other titles denote the churches or particular persons for whose more immediate use some parts of the Scriptures were composed, and thus afford light to particular passages.2

On the use of the fathers in biblical interpretation, Davidson, Sacred Hermeneutics, shap. v. may be consulted.

Roberts, Clavis Bibliorum, or Key to the Bible, p. (35.)