CHAPTER IV.

TESTIMONY OF THE FATHERS.

THE most respectable and authentic writers in the Christian church, who lived during the first four or five centuries after Christ, are emphatically styled, by ecclesiastical historians, by way of eminence, the Fathers. The writings of these venerable men have been much resorted to in this controversy. Many, even of those who acknowledge the feebleness and insufficiency of the arguments in support of Episcopacy from Scripture, believe that the fathers speak decidedly in its favour. Whatever doubts may attend the evidence in support of this system drawn from other sources, here, they imagine, there can be no question. For the sake of such persons, and to enable every reader to decide how far many positive declarations which are made by the friends of Episcopacy are entitled to credit, it becomes necessary to inquire what these early writers attest on the subject before us.

Before we proceed, however, to this branch of our subject, it is proper to pause and ask, what is the character of the fathers, and how far we may regard their writings with confidence? Were they inspired men? Far from it. It is impossible for any intelligent man, whose understanding is not absolutely blinded by prejudice, to open the pages of any one of them without seeing evidence enough that they were not guided by

the unerring Spirit of wisdom. Were they, for the most part, sound and judicious theologians? No; the praise of this must also be denied them. Of the whole number there was but a single man who held and taught a tolerably consistent and scriptural system. Most of the rest, though some of them were men of talents, learning, and eloquence, were chargeable with so many serious errors, that they would be poor guides indeed for Bible Christians. When we open their numerous and ponderous volumes, we find so much weakness; so much miserable superstition; so much crude thinking; so many important mistakes concerning Christian doctrine and practice, as to make it perfectly evident, that if it were safe or proper to take any uninspired writers as guides, in spiritual things, it would be neither proper nor safe to take them. Those who wish to see a learned and able account of the real character and proper use of the fathers, will be gratified by a perusal of a work on that subject by the celebrated John Daillé, a distinguished Protestant minister of France; and also of another work of great erudition and ability, on the same subject, by the famous Andrew Rivet, a Protestant divine of the highest reputation, also of France. The admirable work of Daillé, ought to be in the hands of every one who wishes thoroughly to examine this subject. It was received and read with the highest approbation by the celebrated Chillingworth, a well known. Episcopal divine of England.

But, as Presbyterians, we protest against appealing to any uninspired guides in relation to the question before us. The Bible-the Bible, is the only infalli ble rule of faith and practice. This is the only sta

tute book of the Redeemer's kingdom that we are acquainted with; and we insist on the question before us being decided by this standard. What is it concerning which the fathers are brought forward to bear witness? It is the assertion that Episcopacy, in the prelatical sense of that word, is an institution of Jesus Christ. Now, if it be an institution of Jesus Christ, it is, doubtless, in the Bible; and if it be really there, we, having the Bible in our hands, are as good judges of what it contains as the fathers were. By holy Scripture the fathers themselves are to be tried; and, therefore, to all arguments drawn from the authority of the fathers, we might return the same answer which the venerable Augustine did, when pressed with the authority of Cyprian. "His writings," says he, "I hold not to be canonical, but examine them by the canonical writings, and in them whatever agrees with the word of God, I accept with his praise; what agrees not, I reject with his leave."

Suppose it could be shown, that all the fathers, without any exception, do testify that prelacy existed every where in fifty years after the last apostle? We know, indeed, that no such fact, nor any thing like it, can be shown, as we shall by and by see; but suppose it could be shown-still if prelacy is not to be found in the New Testament, it would be only showing that the church very early became corrupt-and certainly nothing more. The truth is, if we do not find prelacy in the Bible, we are not bound to tell how or when it arose. That is the province of its advocates, not ours. We may, perhaps, be able to throw some light on that subject in a future chapter. But even if we were wholly unable to do so; if the order

of which we speak, makes no part of the sacred canon, it is, surely, not incumbent on us to say by whose folly, or ambition, or oversight, it crept into the church.

To illustrate our meaning by an example: Suppose it were shown-as it doubtless may be, from the fathers that administering milk and honey, and exorcism, and the sign of the cross, and anointing with oil, were added, pretty generally, to baptism before the close of the second century; and that the persons baptized were clothed in long white garments; and suppose that testimony equally concurrent and strong could be produced, that, quite as early, the practice of praying toward the east was extensively prevalent; and suppose it were argued from the acknowledged early existence of these superstitious practices, that they existed in the time of the apostles, and were authorized by them; every candid reader of the Bible and of early ecclesiastical history, would perceive the conclusion to be as illegitimate in reasoning, as it is false in fact.

Now, the argument of our Episcopal brethren, that Episcopacy, in their sense of the term, is an apostolical institution, because the fathers of the second and third centuries, with one voice, speak of it as really existing in their day-even if the alleged fact could be made out, that the early fathers do thus speak, (which we know cannot be,) would be essentially defective as an argument. It would still no more prove that this fact existed in the days of the apostles, than proving that the existence of the superstitious additions to baptism just mentioned, in the days preceding those of Tertullian and Cyprian, shows that our Saviour or his inspired apostles authorized those additions.

But, say the friends of Episcopacy, if we take this ground, if we refuse to resort to the testimony of the fathers for deciding a point which the Bible leaves somewhat uncertain, then how shall we establish a number of things which we consider as very impor tant in Christian practice? For example, say they, how shall we vindicate the divine authority of the first day Sabbath, or of infant baptism, without resorting to the testimony of the fathers, who bear testimony to the early practice of the church in respect to these two institutions? Nay, they ask with confidence how we could obtain evidence in favour of the sacred canon itself, without resorting to the testimony of the fathers to ascertain the fact, and some of the circumstances of its reception?

To this it is replied, that if it were really so, that a divine warrant for infant baptism, and the Christian Sabbath is not to be found in the Bible, but that we are under the necessity of going to the fathers for this warrant; then every intelligent and consistent Christian will say, Give them up; instantly discard them. We ought not to retain them an hour. But it is not true that these important institutions cannot be established by the Bible alone, or that we are compelled to resort to the fathers for our warrant to observe them. On the contrary, the divine right of infant baptism, and of the observance of the first day of the week as the Christian Sabbath, can be decidedly and fully established from Scripture alone. We should have in the Bible an ample foundation for both, if every shred of uninspired antiquity had been committed to the flames a thousand years ago.

The same remark, in substance, may be applied to the testimony in behalf of the canon of the New Tes