in general were illiterate men: "We may here remark," says Mosheim," in general, that the apostolic fathers, and the other writers, who, in the infancy of the church, employed their pens in the cause of christianity, were neither remarkable for their learning, nor their eloquence. On the contrary, they express the most pious and admirable sentiments in the plainest and most illiterate style. This indeed, is rather a matter of honour, than of reproach to the christian cause; since we see, from the conversion of a great part of mankind to the gospel by the ministry of weak and illiterate men, that the progress of christianity is not to be attributed to human means, but to a divine power. 66 pre The method of teaching the sacred doctrines of religion, was at this time, most simple, far removed from all the subtle rules of philosophy, and all the cepts of human art. This appears abundantly, not only in the writings of the apostles, but also in all those of the second century, which have survived the ruins of time. Neither did the apostles, or their disciples, ever think of collecting into a regular system the principal doctrines of the christian religion, or of demonstrating them in a scientific or geometrical order. The beautiful and candid simplicity of these early ages, rendered such philosophical niceties unnecessary; and the great study of those who embraced the gospel, was rather to express its divine influence in their dispositions and actions, than to examine its doctrines with an excessive curiosity, or to explain them by the rules of human wisdom." t The same historian remarks, that, in the second century, "The christian system, as it was hitherto taught, preserved its native and beautiful simplicity, and was comprehended in a small number of articles. The public teachers inculcated no other doctrines than those that are contained in what is commonly called the Apostles' Creed: and, in the method of illustrating * Eccles. Hist., cent. i., part. 2, chap. ii., sect. 22. them, all vain subtleties, all mysterious researchse, everything that was beyond the reach of common capacities, were carefully avoided. This will by no means appear surprising to those who consider, that, at this time, there was not the least controversy about those capital doctrines of christianity, which were afterwards so keenly debated in the church; and who reflect, that the bishops of these primitive times were, for the most part, plain and illiterate men, remarkable rather for their piety and zeal, than for their learning and eloquence. "This venerable simplicity was not, indeed, of a long duration; its beauty was gradually effaced by the laborious efforts of human learning, and the dark subtleties of imaginary science. Acute researches were employed upon several religious subjects, concerning which ingenious decisions were pronounced; and, what was worst of all, several tenets of a chimerical philosophy were imprudently incorporated into the christian system." So. In the third century, "the famous question concerning the excellence and utility of human learning was debated with great warmth among the christians; and the contending parties in this controversy, seemed hitherto of equal force in point of numbers, or nearly Many recommended the study of philosophy, and an acquaintance with the Greek and Roman literature; while others maintained, that these were pernicious to the interests of genuine christianity, and the progress of true piety. The cause of letters and philosophy triumphed, however, by degrees; and those who wished well to them, gained ground more and more, till at length the superiority was manifestly decided in their favour."t How did these learned gentry explain christianity? "The christian doctors who had applied themselves to the study of letters and philosophy, soon abandoned Mosheim, cent. ii., part 2, chap. iii., sect. 1, 2. the frequented paths, and struck out into the devious wilds of fancy. The Egyptians distinguished themselves in this new method of explaining the truth. They looked upon it as a noble and glorious task, to bring the doctrines of celestial wisdom into a certain subjection to the precepts of their philosophy, and to make deep and profound researches into the intimate nature of those truths which the divine Saviour had delivered to his disciples. Origen was at the head of this speculative tribe. This great man, enchanted by the charms of the Platonic philosophy, set it up as the test of all religion, and imagined that the reasons of each doctrine were to be found in that favourite philosophy, and their nature and extent to be determined by it. It must be confessed, that he handled this matter with modesty and with caution; but he still gave an example to his disciples, the abuse of which, could not fail to be pernicious, and under the authority of which, they would naturally indulge themselves without restraint in every wanton fancy. And so, indeed, the case was, for the disciples of Origen, breaking forth from the limits fixed by their master, interpreted, in the most licentious manner, the divine truths of religion according to the tenor of the Platonic philosophy. From these teachers the philosophical, or scholastic theology, as it is called, derives its origin." How did they defend christianity? "The methods now used of defending christianity, and attacking Judaism and idolatry, degenerated much from the primitive simplicity, and the true rule of controversy. The christian doctors who had been educated in the schools of the rhetoricians and sophists, rashly employed the arts and evasions of their subtle masters in the service of christianity; and, intent only upon defeating the enemy, they were too little attentive to the means of victory, indifferent whether they acquired it by artifice or plain dealing. This method of disputing, which the ancients called oeconomical, and which had * Mosheim, cent. iii., part 2, chap. iii., sec. 1. victory for its object, rather than truth, was, in consequence of the prevailing taste for rhetoric and sophistry, almost universally approved." * Let the advocates for the necessity of human learning in ministers of the gospel, look at the above facts and be humbled. During the most pure and prosperous period of the church, its ministers were illiterate. When a learned ministry came into fashion, it was employed in corrupting the simplicity, and sullying the purity, of christian doctrine and manners. God made choice of illiterate men to propagate the christian faith, that the glory of their success might be attributed to his co-operation. And when churchmen have to contend with infidels, they employ this argument in a triumphant manner. But when uneducated men now turn many to righteousness, their success is ascribed to the devil, to novelty, to ranterism, or to anything rather than a divine influence! The introduction of human learning into the church of Christ, led its ministers to imitate the heathen orators, in a pompous enunciation of the subject of discourse, and the method of handling it; in an extravagant profusion of figure and metaphor for the sake of ornament; and in nicely adjusted and well turned periods, to give ease and grace to the whole composition. This new way of preaching soon became general, for the following reasons: First. It encouraged idleness. It is much easier to select and put together a few fine phrases, than to furnish valuable matter. Upon the new plan it was quite unimportant, whether the thoughts were vigorous or feeble,—they were lost in the language: was convulsed, and the earth groaned to her centre, whether the preacher was describing the death of an insect, or the dissolution of the universe. - nature Secondly. It encouraged pride. The preacher was admired and almost adored. If he only delivered unintelligible jargon, he had the reputation of being * Mosheim, cent. iii., p. 2, chap. iii., sect. 10. P learned, because he was not understood; and he felt all the self-importance and self-complacency of conscious. superiority. The general prevalence of this sort of preaching was the triumph of learning over common sense, and not over ignorance. The reader will be struck with the coincidence betwixt the preaching of these innovators and that of modern divines. The subject is pompously announced: "We shall first prove this point, and secondly, that. To establish the first particular, we shall call your attention to three things. And, first," etc. The discourse is decked out with the most splendid imagery, and set off with a few scraps of Latin from some heathen moralist or poet. The tone and gesture of the preacher are in unison with his sermon, and show that his object is not to convert his hearers, but to gain their admiration; their business, therefore, is to see how he acquits himself; and when the service is over, they observe one to another, "A fine man! A most excellent discourse! I dare say he has been college-bred! O! neighbour Clod, can you let me have a bushel of oats for my horse ?" Thus the fine man and his fine discourse are dismissed; for when no plain and pointed address is made to the conscience, the heart remains unaffected. The primitive preachers gave all the riches of the kingdom of God in unadorned language; their discourses were treasures in earthen vessels; their object was not to please, but to profit their hearers; not to exalt themselves, but Christ Jesus the Lord; they sent their auditors away not praising the preachers, but repenting of their sins, and steadfastly purposing to lead a new life. The bishops, when not railing against enthusiasts, will sometimes advise the clergy to study simplicity and perspicuity of style, that the poor may enjoy the benefit of their ministrations; but this is seldom attended to, for mental imbecility and vanity are both on the side of pomposity, while the grace of God and a vigorous intellect are necessary to enable a minister to conform to the primitive pattern. |