(somewhere else perhaps making us amends for it,) he is to bear the odium of it; and not only he, but all his predecessors and successors for so many centuries, all that pass under the name of Fathers: for the design is to show, that the Fathers in general were very weak men. It would be tedious to enter into a detail of the texts said to be misinterpreted. Therefore I shall only observe, as follows, upon the examination I have made. 1. That some of the interpretations found fault with, are true and just interpretations, blamed without reason, and brought in for show, or to make bulk. 2. Several others are doubtful, and may claim candid allowances. 3. Some are misreported, or represented otherwise than the good Fathers intended. 4. Most of the blameable ones are of the allegorical kind: and they very often are not so properly interpretations, (for the Fathers generally admitted a literal interpretation besides, of the same texts,) as a kind of moral or spiritual uses or improvements raised upon the texts, for the practical edification of the people. The design seems to have been much the same (only employed upon a nobler subject) with what several pious persons have attempted, in endeavouring to turn every common incident of life, every thing they hear, read, or see, to some spiritual improvement, by apposite reflections or meditations. The reader may find a specimen of such spiritual exercises as I speak of, in the very pious and ingenious Mr. Boyle, in his treatise entitled, Occasional Reflections upon several Subjects. Such a kind of exercise I take many of those allegorical comments (those especially of the tropological kind) to have been. They were well meant, and had their use, though often carried too far; but, in strictness, they were not interpretations of Scripture, but rather pious meditations upon Scripture. I am sensible that some of them were intended as interpretations: but, in the general, and for the most part, I conceive, they were rather what I have said. 5. But supposing that the Fathers sometimes, or often mistook in their interpretations of Scripture, (in such texts more

especially upon which no fundamental doctrine of the Church depended, nor perhaps was concerned in,) what can be supposed to follow from such a concession? Nothing, so far as I can yet apprehend, that will at all affect our present question. It may be allowed, and cannot indeed justly be denied, that modern Critics and Divines, of the first rank, having the light of the Fathers before them, and greater skill in the languages, and many additional helps which the Fathers wanted, are better textuaries, upon the whole, than the ablest of the ancients were, or than all the Fathers together, because they contain them, in a manner, or the best things in them, with additional improvements. But admitting all this, it concludes nothing against the use or value of the ancients, but supposes it all the time. Besides, the stress is not laid upon any critical acumen of the Fathers in interpreting every particular text, but upon their faithfulness in relating what was the doctrine of the Church, as to the prime things, in their times, or before, and upon their interpretation of some remarkable and leading texts (such for instance as John i. 1.) upon which chiefly the fundamental doctrines were conceived to rest. From whence it is manifest, that the learned collector of erroneous comments (supposing his representations just, which they often are not) has shot wide of the mark: and indeed he was sensible of

• Eruditionem patribus, aut sagacitatem in sequelis colligendis, potiorem nullam asserimus quam coævis aliis eorundem temporum scriptoribus: sed nec potiorem illis antiquis in universum, quam junioribus nostris. Quin bonas literas studiosius excultas a nuperis nostris Ecclesiæ Reformatoribus libenter agnoscimus: nec in philosophia modo, sed in antiquitate, in ipsis etiam linguis illorum temporum vernaculis: sed et pressiorem nostris et solidiorem argumentandi methodum agnoscimus quam sit alia illa laxior, et sophistica, et declamatoria, quæ non apud putres duntaxat, sed et alios corundem temporum scriptores erat receptissima. Itaque, exceptis illis quæ ad fidem pertinent, aut quæ ad propriorum temporum historiam; in aliis facile ferimus dissentientes, judicantesque de corum ratiociniis juniores. Sed vero in coævis scriptoribus intelligunt coævi etiam idiotæ, quæ lateant remotiorum seculorum etiam eruditissimos. Dodwell. Dissert. in Iren. in prefat. sect. 15.

it; however notwithstanding he thought fit to publish his collection. He acknowledges our meaning to be no more than this; that Scripture be interpreted by the general doctrine of the ancient Church, in the prime things 9. But then he runs on to call it imposing a sense upon Scripture, instead of taking one from it; making the Fathers speak for Christ, instead of permitting Christ to speak for himself, and the like. Now indeed, if every man that should undertake to interpret Scripture out of his own head, were infallibly certain to make Christ speak for himself, and were in no manner of danger of imposing a sense upon him, there would be some weight in such reasoning: but did Socinus, did Arius, did Sabellius, did Valentinus, or an hundred more, succeed so well in that way, that that should be recommended as the only safe way of delivering the mind of Christ? It is granted on all hands, that Scripture should speak its own sense, and that no foreign sense ought to be imposed upon it but then one of the best rules we can think of to secure to it its own sense, and to exclude all foreign senses, is to keep to the old sense (while the words will bear it, much more if they require it) which obtained from the beginning, among the churches favoured in a very par

:

P Nec hoc in animum induxisse hos patrum antistites existimo (quod eorum verba præ se ferunt) nempe sacras Scripturas interpretandas esse juxta sensum quem patres de is speciatim, verbisque conceptis exhibuerunt, quemque nos in hoc opere protulimus; sed tantum eas interpretandas esse juxta doctrinam quam existimant apud primævos patres obtinuisse. Quod quidem non est sensum Scripturæ ex verbis Scripturæ accipere, sed sensum patrum Scripturis adferre, &c. Whitby, Dissert. præf. p. 19.

This matter is very clearly and accurately expressed by Mr. Thorndike.

Est enim magnopere advertendum, cum definiendam ex traditione Ecclesiæ Scripturæ sententiam dico, non hoc me velle quasi teneri possit sensus Scripturæ traditione (quis enim putet Scripturarum scientiam, omni literarum genere constantem, traditione teneri posse?) sed quod recusandum sit, tanquam a vero Scripturæ sensu alienum, quicquid in traditionem incurrit: quod est dicere, intra fines traditionis continendam esse interpretationem Scripturæ. Thorndike de Ration. Fin. Contr. p. 147. Compare Sherlock, Socin. Contr. p. 78.

ticular manner by the illustrious presence of the Spirit of God'.

VII. It has been sometimes objected, that there have been Fathers against Fathers, Councils against Councils, and warm contests amongst the ancient Doctors themselves; particularly about the time for observing Easter, and about heretical baptisms. All which we allow, but further plead, that the more they differed in rituals, or matters of discipline, (things of slighter concern,) the more regard is to be paid to them in the greater matters wherein they all agreed. For if they would not suffer any innovation, or the appearance of any, even in the smaller matters, but were exceeding jealous of every thing that looked new, and were prepared to oppose any person or persons, how considerable soever in station, age, or dignity, rather than admit a novelty; how can we imagine that they should all so unanimously agree in the doctrine of our Lord's Divinity, if it were not old doctrine, the faith which was once delivered unto the saints? Their differences in inferior matters serve to strengthen the plea drawn from their unanimity in this, and so are an argument on our side, rather than any objection against us.

▾ The very judicious and learned Ger. Vossius speaks excellently well on this head.

Ante omnia quidem scrutandum, quid Deus dicat in verbo suo: sed ne perperam illud interpretemur, quando omnes ad errorem sumus proclives, attendere etiam debemus, non modo quid unus et alter, sed omnino quid constanter docuerit Ecclesia Dei. Quantopere enim repugnat perspicuituti Scripturæ, si ita exaratæ credantur, ut ab Apostolorum excessu, ne in præcipuis quidem fidei capitibus, ipsi eas Ecclesiarum doctissimi ceperint autistites! Quantum item adversetur bonitati Dei et amori erga nos, si per tot secula, ad Scripturarum intelligentiam defuisse statuamus Spiritum Dei, viris licet pietate et sanctimonia præcellentibus, ecclesiæque semper commendatissimis, atque eo melioribus quo apostolicis propiores erant temporibus. Voss. in Epist. ad Forbes. præfix. Histor. Instruct. A. D. 1645.

66

* Daillé himself argues in like manner as we here do.

"As for those differences in opinion which are sometimes found amongst "them, touching some certain points of religion, some whereof we have formerly set down; these things are so far from taking off any thing from "the weight of their testimonies, as that, on the contrary, they add rather very much to the same. For this must acquit their consenting, of all sus

VIII. It has been objecteds, that our sixth Article condemns the method of interpreting Scripture by antiquity, or, at least, supersedes it; because it says, HOLY SCRIP

TURE CONTAINETH ALL THINGS NECESSARY TO SALVATION; so THAT WHATSOEVER IS NOT READ THEREIN, NOR MAY BE PROVED THEREBY, IS NOT TO BE REQUIRED OF ANY MAN, THAT IT SHOULD BE BELIEVED AS AN ARTICLE OF FAITH, OR NECES

SARY TO SALVATION. The Article says nothing but what is perfectly right, and perfectly consistent with all we have been pleading for. We allow no doctrine as necessary, which stands only on Fathers, or on tradition, oral or written: we admit none for such, but what is contained in Scripture, and proved by Scripture, rightly interpreted. And we know of no way more safe in necessaries, to preserve the right interpretation, than to take the ancients along with us. We think it a good method to secure our rule of faith against impostures of all kinds; whether of enthusiasm, or false criticism, or conceited reason, or oral tradition, or the assuming dictates of an infallible chair. If we thus preserve the true sense of Scripture, and upon that sense build our faith, we then build upon Scripture only; for the sense of Scripture is Scripture". Suppose a man were to prove his legal title

"picion that some persons might have, that it proceeded from some com"bination, or some correspondence and mutual intelligence." Daillé, Use of the Fathers, part ii. c. 6. p. 186. Conf. Bevereg. Cod. Can. Vindicat. in Procem. s. 5.

S Whitby, Dissert. p. 4.

So the great Casaubon, speaking both for himself and for the Church of England; and at the same time for Melancthon, and Calvin also.

Opto cum Melancthone et Ecclesia Anglicana, per canalem antiquitatis deduci ad nos dogmata fidei, e fonte sacræ Scripturæ derivata. Alioquin quis futurus est novandi finis?—Etsi omnis mea voluptas est et sola, versari in lectione sacræ Scripturæ, nullam tamen inde me hausisse propriam sententiam, nullam habere, neque unquam, ùv O rv, esse habiturum. Magni Calvini hæc olim fuit mens, cum scriberet præfationem suam in Commentarium Epistolæ ad Romanos; non debere nos iv rois xugiwrátois, a consensu Ecclesiæ recedere. A. D. 1611. Casaub. Epist. 744. Dan. Heinsio, p. 434. edit. 3. Roterodami.

"We reverently receive the unanimous tradition or doctrine of the