Says that writer:—
“But it must by no means pass unnoticed, that the discussions instituted against the opposers of Christianity in this age, departed far from the primitive simplicity, and the correct method of controversy. For the Christian doctors, who were in part educated in the schools of rhetoricians and sophists, inconsiderately transferred the arts of these teachers to the cause of Christianity; and therefore considered it of no importance, whether an antagonist were confounded by base artifices, or by solid arguments. Thus that mode of disputing, which the ancients called economical, and which had victory rather than truth for its object, was almost universally approved. And the Platonists contributed to the currency of the practice, by asserting that it was no sin for a person to employ falsehood and fallacies for the support of truth, when it was in danger of being borne down.”—Ecclesiastical History, book 1, cent. 3, part 2, chap. 3, sec. 10. FACC 65.1
In his “Ecclesiastical Commentaries,” Mosheim also says:—
“By some of the weaker brethren, in their anxiety to assist God with all their might [in the propagation of the Christian faith], such dishonest artifices were occasionally resorted to, as could not, under any circumstances, admit of excuse, and were utterly unworthy of that sacred cause which they were unquestionably intended to support. Perceiving, for instance, in what vast repute the poetical effusions of those ancient prophetesses, termed Sybils, were held by the Greeks and Romans, some Christian, or rather, perhaps, an association of Christians, in the reign of Antoninus Pius, composed eight books of Sybilline verses, made up of prophecies respecting Christ and his kingdom.... Many other deceptions of this sort, to which custom has very improperly given the denomination of pious frauds, are known to have been practiced in this and the succeeding century. The authors of them were, in all probability, actuated by no ill intention, but this is all that can be said in their favor, for their conduct in this respect was certainly most ill-advised and unwarrantable. Although the greater part of those who were concerned in these forgeries on the public, undoubtedly belonged to some heretical sect or other, and particularly to that class which arrogated to itself the pompous denomination of Gnostics, I yet cannot take upon me to acquit even the most strictly orthodox from all participation in this species of criminality; for it appears from evidence superior to all exception, that a pernicious maxim, which was current in the schools not only of the Egyptians, the Platonists, and the Pythagoreans, but also of the Jews, was very early recognized by the Christians, and soon found amongst them numerous patrons, namely, that those who made in their business to deceive with a view of promoting the cause of truth, were deserving rather of commendation than censure.—Century 2, sec. 7. FACC 65.2
Let the reader refresh his memory with what has been written concerning heathen philosophy, and how it tended directly toward a lax condition of morals, and then when he learns that the so-called Christian Fathers made this heathen philosophy their constant study, he will not be surprised that they should have but little regard for strict truth. That some of the most renowned Fathers not only studied philosophy, but also were known as teachers of philosophy even after they professed Christianity, is not a matter of question. Mosheim, after showing, as we have quoted, how rapidly the church degenerated, says:—
“The external change thus wrought in the constitution of the church would have been, however, far less detrimental to the interest of Christianity, had it not been accompanied by others of an internal nature, which struck at the very vitals of religion, and tended, in no small degree, to affect the credit of those sacred writings on which the entire system of Christian discipline relies for support. Of these the most considerable and important are to be attributed to a taste for the cultivation of philosophy and human learning, which, during the preceding century, if not altogether treated with neglect and contempt by the Christians, had at least been wisely kept under, and by no means permitted to blend itself with religion; but in the age of which we are now treating, burst forth on a sudden into a flame, and spread itself with the utmost rapidity throughout a considerable part of the church. This may be accounted for, in some measure, from its having been the practice of the many Greek philosophers, who, in the course of this century, were induced to embrace Christianity, not only to retain their pristine denomination, garb, and mode of living, but also to persist in recommending the study of philosophy, and initiating youth therein. In proof of this, we may, from amidst numerous other examples, adduce in particular that of Justin, the celebrated philosopher and martyr. The immediate nursery and very cradle, as it were, of Christian philosophy, must, however, be placed in the celebrated seminary which long flourished at Alexandria under the denomination of the catechetical school. For the persons who presided therein, in the course of the age of which we are treating, namely, Pantaenus, Anthenagoras, and Clement of Alexandria, not only engaged with ardor in the cultivation of philosophy themselves, but also exerted their influence in persuading those whom they were educating for the office of teachers in the church, to follow their example in this respect, and make it their practice to associate philosophical principles with those of religion.”—Historical Commentaries, cent. 2, sec. 25. FACC 66.1
The same writer says of the Fathers of the second century:—
“The philosophers and learned men, who came over to the Christians in this century, were no inconsiderable protection and ornament to this holy religion by their discussions, their writings, and their talents. But if any are disposed to question whether the Christian cause received more benefit than injury from these men, I must confess myself unable to decide the point. For the noble simplicity and the majestic dignity of the Christian religion were lost, or, at least, impaired when these philosophers presumed to associate their dogmas with it, and to bring faith and piety under the dominion of human reason.”—Mosheim’s Ecclesiastical History, book 1, cent. 2, part 1, chap. 1, sec. 12. FACC 67.1
This is certainly a very mild view of the case. There can be no question but that the philosophers who came over to the church, bringing their philosophical dogmas with them, were an unmitigated curse to Christianity. “Dead flies cause the ointment of the apothecary to send forth a stinking savor.” So the heathen customs and manners of thought which these men incorporated into the Christian church, corrupted the whole body. Their very learning made them the more detrimental to true Christianity; for it -caused them to be looked up to as “leaders of Christian thought,” and their philosophy was but “vain deceit,” and their science only that which is “falsely so called.” FACC 68.1
This conclusion will be the more apparent when we remember that these men were ignorant of the Bible just about in proportion as they were skilled in “philosophy.” Dr. Killen gives a brief history of each one of the early Fathers, and then adds:—
“The preceding account of the Fathers of the second and third centuries may enable us to form some idea of the value of these writers as ecclesiastical authorities. Most of them had reached maturity before they embraced the faith of the gospel, so that, with a few exceptions, they wanted the advantages of an early Christian education. Some of them, before their conversion, had bestowed much time and attention on the barren speculations of the pagan philosophers; and, after their reception into the bosom of the church, they still continued to pursue the same unprofitable studies. Cyprian, one of the most eloquent of these Fathers, had been baptized only about two years before he was elected bishop of Carthage; and, during his comparatively short episcopate, he was generally in a turmoil of excitement, and had, consequently, little leisure for reading or mental cultivation. Such a writer is not entitled to command confidence as an expositor of the faith once delivered to the saints. Even in our own day, with all the facilities supplied by printing for the rapid accumulation of knowledge, no one would expect much spiritual instruction from an author who would undertake the office of an interpreter of Scripture two years after his conversion from heathenism. The Fathers of the second and third centuries were not regarded as safe guides even by their Christian contemporaries.... Tertullian, who, in point of learning, vigor, and genius, stands at the head of the Latin writers of this period, was connected with a party of gloomy fanatics. Origen, the most voluminous and erudite of the Greek Fathers, was excommunicated as a heretic. If we estimate these authors, as they were appreciated by the early Church of Rome, we must pronounce their writings of little value. Tertullian, as a Montanist, was under the ban of the Roman bishop. Hippolytus could not have been a favorite with either Zephyrinus or Callistus, for he denounced both as heretics. Origen was treated by the Roman Church as a man under sentence of excommunication. Stephen deemed even Cyprian unworthy of ecclesiastical fellowship, because the Carthagenian prelate maintained the propriety of rebaptizing heretics.” FACC 68.2