it

That it does not order that the clergy should teach whatsoever had been taught by Fathers; no; that would have been setting up a new rule of faith: neither does say that they shall teach whatsoever the Fathers had collected from Scripture; no; that would have been making them infallible interpreters or infallible reasoners. In page 18 of vol. ii, is as follows:

Our opponents, in deed, will find that the early Fathers, far from taking the tradition of earlier Fathers as part of their rule of faith, or supposing that the full doctrine was only to be found there, in this as in other points, made the Scriptures their rule.

LIBRARY OF THE FATHERS.

The second volume of the "LIBRARY OF THE FATHERS, translated by members of the English Church, and edited by the Rev. E. B. Pusey D. D., the Rev. J. Keble M. A., and the Rev. J. H. Newman B. D., Oxford, 8vo, 1839," consists of the "Catechetical Lectures of St Cyril." In the Preface, are about 16 pages on the claims of the Fathers of the Church on our Deference to them; as follows:

It must be said in the outset, that Authority is not put forth as the Use of the Fathers: it is dwelt upon thus prominently as an Use, about which many misapprehensions exist. These misconceptions may be referred to three heads. I. The Amount of Authority claimed. II. For whom. III. For what that Authority is claimed.

Here is quoted what was enacted at the Convocation 1571. The quotation from the Library of the Fathers continues:

Our Church however once solemnly met, did ascribe considerable Authority to the Fathers; and it will be plain, both from circumstances and from the tenor of the words which she used, that she therein neither derogated from her own legitimate authority, nor from the supreme authority of Holy Scripture. It is plain from the circumstances, because it was the Act of Convocation which enforced subscription to our Articles; an Act certainly widening their sense of the power of a particular Church; and one involving the claim of considerable authority; and these Articles decidedly recognizing Holy Scripture as the sole ultimate source of authority. In this very Convocation, in which she exerted her own authority, she secured also the legitimate authority of the Fathers. She then enacted

The Clergy shall be careful never to teach any thing from the pulpit to be religiously held and believed by the people, but what is agreeable to the doctrine of the Old and New Testament; and collected out of that same doctrine by the Catholic Fathers, and ancient Bishops.

There is no semblance of contrasting Scripture and the Fathers as coordinate authority.

Scripture is reverenced as paramount: the doctrine of the Old and New Testament is the source: the catholic Fathers and antient Bishops have but the office of collecting out of that same Doctrine. The Old and New Testament are the Fountain, the Catholic Fathers the Channel, through which it the Fountain has flowed down to us. The contrast then in point 4

vol. I.

of Authority, is not between the Scriptures and the Fathers, but between the Fathers and us. &c.

Scripture is the depository of the Will, of the Word of our heavenly Father, his Will, his Covenant; but since every thing conveyed in the language of men will be liable to be by men differently interpreted, it would of course be a merciful provision of Almighty God, if he has been pleased to give us, within certain limits, rules for understanding the Word. &c.

There can be no notion of appealing to fallible men, as of ultimate authority or setting up unduly the authority of one or others of the Fathers, as individuals, but as witnesses. &c.

It is not denied that there is diversity among the Fathers the very contrary is implied in the very distinction of what is Catholic, and what is not; but then, as Bishop BEVERIDGE well retorts the objection,

All the dissensions, which have been raised against them in certain points, take nothing from their superior authority on those points on which they agree; but rather, in an eminent degree, confirm it. &c.

No one Father is to be taken as our model or rule; for no one mind can embody within itself, the whole of the Catholic Faith in equal depth. &c.

MOSHEIM.

MOSHEIM, in his Ecclesiastical History translated by Dr Maclaine, in his second chapter on the Reformed Church, writes;

A considerable number of English Divines of the Episcopal Church appealed to the decisions of the

primitive Fathers; and maintained that the sacred writings ought always to be understood in that sense only which has been attributed to them by the ancient doctors of the rising Church.

To this passage in Mosheim is a note, it seems by DR MACLAINE, as follows:

These have been confuted by the learned Dr WHITBY, in his important work concerning the interpretation of Scripture; after the manner of the Fathers, which was published in London 1714, under the following title: "Dissertatio de Scripturarum interpretatione secundum Patrum Commentarios, &c. -In this Dissertation, which was the forerunner of the many remarkable attempts that were afterwards made to deliver the right of private judgment, in matters of religion, from the restraints of human authority, the judicious author has shewn, first that the Holy Scripture is the only rule of faith, and that by it alone we are to judge of the doctrines that are necessary to salvation: secondly, that the Fathers, both of the primitive times, and also of succeeding ages, are extremely deficient and unsuccessful in their explications of the sacred Writings; and thirdly that it is impossible to terminate the debates that have been raised concerning the Holy Trinity, by the opinions of the Fathers, the decisions of Councils, or by any tradition that is really universal. The contradictions, absurdities, the romantic conceits, and extravagant fancies, that are to be found in the commentaries of the Fathers, were never represented in such a ridiculous point of view as they are in this performance. The worst part of the matter is that

such a production as Dr WHITBY's, in which all the mistakes of these ancient expositors are culled out, and compiled with such care, is too much adapted to prejudice young students, even against what may be good in their writings; and thus disgust them against a kind of study, which, when conducted with impartiality and prudence, has its uses. It is the infirmity of our nature to be fond of extremes.

ERASMUS.

DUPIN states that Erasmus, in his work "The method of true Divinity," 1518, affirms that

The Holy Scripture may be understood without a commentary; yet recommends the reading of the ancient commentators, such as ORIGEN, and ST BASIL, ST GREGORY NAZIANZEN, ST ATHANASIUS, ST CYRIL, ST CHRYSOSTOM, ST JEROME, ST AMBROSE, and ST AUGUSTIN. But he advises those that read them to do it with judgement and discretion, though always with respect. They were men subject to failings; they were ignorant of some things, and mistaken in others; and many of the works that go under their names are supposititious.

WARBURTON.

BISHOP WARBURTON, in the first edition of his Julian, 8vo, 1750,-being on the earthquake &c. which defeated the