receiving the appeals of all bishops to belong to the see of Rome, whereas Chalcedon gives this privilege to that of Constantinople.† The council of Laodicea leaves out of the canon of the Scriptures the Maccabees, Ecclesiasticus, the book of wisdom, Tobit, and Judith:‡ that of Carthage puts them in expressly.§ But now these honest Fathers of Constantinople, that they may satisfy all the world, take no notice whatever of these their differences; but receive each of them with their own particular canons and opinions, without obliging them to any one common rule; doing this, I believe, on condition that they themselves may not be required by those whom they thus admit to receive any more from them than they shall think convenient. I know no man that would not at this rate readily admit of, as canon, all the writings of the Fathers; provided that he might but have liberty to take or leave therein what he thought good. Thus we may very well from henceforth rest satisfied, that, notwithstanding Bessarion's resolution to the contrary, the Fathers have not always been of the same judgment in matters of religion and that consequently they ought not to be received by us as our judges on the matter. For seeing that I find them contradicting each other in so many various points of very great importance, how shall I be assured that they are all unanimously agreed on those points which are now debated amongst us? Why may they not have had the same diversity of opinion on the eucharist, the authority of the Church, the power of the Pope, freewill or purgatory, that they had in those other points which we have before presented to the reader's view; which were of as great importance as these, and no less easy to be determined, as we have proved in the preceding chapter?

Epiphanius and St. Hierome are as opposite in their judgments, on the ancient condition of priests and bishops, as Theodoret and St. Cyril are, on the procession of the Holy Ghost. Neither are some opinions

Synod. Sard. Can. 3 et 7. + Synod. Chalced. c. 9 et 17. Synod. Laod. Can. 59.

§ Synod. Carthag. 3, c. 47.

of Tertullian and of Damascene, of Theodoret and Eusebius Emisenus; of Eusebius Cæsarensis and of the seventh council, on the point of the eucharist, less opposite to each other, than are those of Cyprian and of Stephen on the baptism of heretics; and so likewise in many other particulars. Why then should we take so much pains and trouble ourselves to no purpose, in reconciling these men, and making them speak all the same thing? Why should we so cruelly and so uncourteously rack them as we do, to make them all of one opinion, and to say the same things, whether they will or no; and sometimes too against our own conscience; but certainly, for the most part, without any satisfaction to the reader? Why should we not rather honestly confess that their opinions were also different, as well as their words?

We make no scruple in affirming that they have been of contrary opinions, on those other points of religion, which are not at all now controverted amongst us. How much greater harm for heaven's sake would it be, if we should confess that they have not any better agreed among themselves, on these points now in debate? But we need not press this matter any further: it is sufficient for us that we have proved that they were of different opinions in point of religion; so that it clearly follows from hence, that we ought not to admit of their writings, as the proper judge's of our controversies.

I have heretofore adverted, though very lightly, to their diversity of opinion and contrariety in their expositions upon the Scriptures; which is, however, a business of no trifling consideration. For if we take them for our judges, we shall then necessarily have occasion every minute of having recourse to them, on the sense of those passages of Scripture on which we disagree among ourselves. If there be now as great contrarieties and difference in judgment on these things among them as there is amongst ourselves, what have we then left us to trust to? This passage, for example, in the gospel according to St. John, "I and my Father are One," is of very great importance in the disputes

* Ego et Pater unum sumus.-Ioh. x. 30.

against both Sabellius and Arius. Would you now know the true sense and meaning of these words, lest otherwise, by misinterpreting the same, you might chance to fall into the one or the other of these two precipices? If you have recourse to the Fathers in this case, you shall have some of them referring it to the union of the affection and of the will,* and others again, to the unity of essence and of nature.†

So likewise this other passage in the same Evangelist; My Father is greater than I," is very considerable also in the question on the divinity of Jesus Christ: and yet there are some among the Fathers who understand the words as spoken indefinitely of the Son of God, although the rest of them do ordinarily restrain them to his humanity. These words also of St. John, "The word was made flesh,"|| are of no small consideration in the disputes against Nestorius and Eutyches. Now if you bring the business before the Fathers, you shall have some of them expounding these words,¶ by comparing them with those passages in St. Paul, where it is said that Christ was made sin** and a curse for us:tt but St. Cyril says, that we must take heed how we thus interpret the words.‡‡

It would be an endless task if I should here attempt to enumerate all the differences and contrarieties of judgment to be found in the Fathers. Those who have a mind to see any more of them may have recourse to some of our late commentators, whose usual course is, to bring in all together the several interpretations of the Fathers upon those books which they comment upon as Maldonate has done upon the gospels; Cardinal Tolet upon St. John; Bened. Justinianus, upon the

* Unum non pertinet ad singularitatem, sed ad unitatem, ad similitudinem, ad conjunctionem, ad delectionem Patris, qui Filium diligit, et ad obsequium Filii, qui voluntati Patris obsequitur.-Tertul. contr. Prax. c. 22.-Autor libri de Trin. c. 22. Orig. contr. Celsum, lib. 8, p. 393.

† Athanas. Greg. Nazianz. alii pene omnes passim.

Epiphan. Ancor p. 23.

Iohn iv. 28. || Ioh. i. 14. Ambros. 1. de Incar. Sacr. c. 6. t. 2. p. 183. Athan. Ep. ad Epict. t. 1. p. 587, & t. 2. p. 298.

** 2 Cor. v. 21.

++ Gal. iii. 13.

+ Cyril. Apol. Athan. 1. t. 1. Conc. Gener. p. 515.

epistles of St. Paul, and others: where they will find that there is scarcely any one verse that the ancients have understood all of them after one and the same manner. What is yet worse than this, besides this contrariety and difference of interpretation, you will often meet with many frigid and vapid expositions: and it is very seldom that you shall find there that solid simplicity which we ought to expect from all those who take upon them the interpretation of the Holy Scriptures.

Thus, therefore, as we often meet with contrariety of judgment, as well in their expositions of the Scriptures as in their opinions, we may safely conclude that they are not of sufficient authority to be admitted as the supreme judges of our controversies: that contradiction which is often found amongst them, evidently shewing that they are not infallible judges, such as it is requisite that they should be, for establishing all those points which are at this day maintained by the Church of Rome against the Protestants.

291

CHAPTER VI.

REASON VI.-THAT NEITHER THOSE OF THE CHURCH OF ROME NOR THE PROTESTANTS ACKNOWLEDGE THE FATHERS FOR THEIR JUDGES IN POINTS OF RELIGION; BOTH OF THEM REJECTING SUCH OF THEIR OPINIONS AND PRACTICES AS ARE NOT SUITED TO THEIR TASTE: BEING AN ANSWER TO TWO OBJECTIONS THAT MAY BE MADE AGAINST WHAT IS DELIVERED IN THIS DISCOURSE.

THUS far have we laboured to prove that the writings of the Fathers have not authority enough in themselves to be received as definitive judgments upon our differences in religion. Let us now, in the last place, see how much regard they ought to have in this respect. For although a sentence of judgment should be good and valid in itself, as being pronounced by one who is a competent and lawful judge, duly and according to the forms of law; yet notwithstanding this would not serve to determine the controversy, if the authority of this judge be denied by either of the parties, (unless, as it is in worldly affairs, the law be armed with such a power, as to be able to force those who are obstinate to submit to reason): forasmuch as the question is here concerning religion, which is a holy and divine thing, to the embracing whereof men ought to be persuaded and not compelled, since force hath no place here. For although, perhaps, they could compel men outwardly to render some such respect to the writings of the Fathers, yet notwithstanding this would not serve to make any impression of the belief of the same in the heart of any one. The same divisions would still remain in the minds of men, which you are first of all to pluck up by the roots, if ever you intend to reconcile them to each