have been, e. g. that of Augustine, Athanasius, Ambrose, or Basil, is to be rejected in any point where it contradicts scripture. We consider all these writers as uninspired men, and therefore liable to mistakes and errors like other theologians. Therefore it involves a studied misrepresentation of our meaning and principle, when we are met by assertions or proofs that particular fathers have taught errors in faith or morality; that they were credulous; that their writings are in some points obscure ; that their criticisms or interpretations of scripture are sometimes mistaken; that they invented scholastic doctrines, and were tinged with false philosophy; that the later fathers were better theologians than the earlier; that there are fathers against fathers, and councils against councils, on some points". This is all calculated merely to excite pre с Whitby, Dissert. Præf. s. iv. p. 15, &c. For replies to this, and all the succeeding objections against the fathers, see Waterland on the importance of the doctrine of the Trinity, chap. vii, Melchior Canus de locis Theologicis, lib. vii, and Scrivenerus adv. Dallæum, and others cited by Waterland, Works, vol. v. p. 294. Daillé of the Right Use of the Fathers. e Whitby, Dissert. de Script. Interpret. Hampden, Scholast. Philosophy, passim. The imputation of scholasticism to the doctrines of the catholic faith, is a mere hackneyed artifice of deists and misbelievers. Under this pretence Steinbart the deist, professor of theology at Frankfort, assailed the christian doctrine (Rose, State of Prot. p. 70). He had been preceded by the Soci judice against an appeal to the doctrine of the church, by misrepresenting our design and principle in making it. Our answer to all these arguments is, that we do not appeal to the fathers as inspired and authoritative writers, but as competent witnesses of the faith held by christians in their days. If they are not to be trusted in this, they are not to be trusted in their testimony to the facts of christianity, and the external evidence of revelation is subverted. II. Pretended respect for religion. Under this head may be classed that mode of argument which rejects any appeal to the doctrine of the christian church, under pretence that the word of GOD alone ought to be the rule of our faith in opposition to all the doctrines of man; that the scripture constitutes a perfect rule of faith, needing nothing else; that it must necessarily be plain in all essential points, and that it is its own interpreter. The end of all this pretended reverence for scripture is, to obtain an unlimited liberty of interpreting it according to our own reason and judgment, even in opposition to the belief of all christians from the beginning'. But in asserting 'Whitby, Dissert. de Scriptur. Interpret. Præf. p. 8, 9, 10, 19. Socinus boasted that he ac knowledged no master; "Sed Deum tantummodo præceptorem habui, sacrasque literas."-Ep. ad Squarcialupum, App. t. i. p. 362. Accordingly he strenuously denies the authority of the fathers and councils, the primitive church, &c. t. ii. p. 617, 618. See Waterland's just remarks, Works, vol. v. p. 282. Oxford ed. Lindsay the Socinian, in his publication entitled the Catechist, asserts, that "every religious opin ion and practice is to be brought to the test of God's word," i. e. to the exclusion of councils, synods, bishops, presbyters, &c. Together with this he teaches that the true doctrine began to be corrupted very soon by heathen inventions, even from the times of the apostles; and that "Luther and Calvin left the dregs" of the Roman antichrist "behind." Evanson, another Socinian praised by Belsham, declares, that the gospels "contain gross and irreconcileable contradictions." Priestley regards the Mosaic narration of the crea this liberty to all men, it follows inevitably that no particular interpretation of scripture is necessary to salvation; that scripture has no divine meaning; that it is not a revelation. In short, tradition is thrown aside, under pretence of veneration for the scripture, in order that men may be enabled to distort, to misinterpret, and to destroy that very scripture. The same may be observed of that pretended zeal for the defence of the Reformation, which infidels, Unitarians, and other enemies of the doctrine and discipline of the church, allege, as a plea for rejecting all appeal to the doctrines of the universal church. "The doctrines of the tion and fall of man as a lame account. Belsham holds that the gospel teaches only the Deism of the French Theophilanthropists, except in the single fact of the resurrection of a human being; and engages that Unitarians shall show that whatever supports anything else is either interpolation, omission, false reading, mistranslation, or erroneous interpretation."-See Magee on Atonement, vol. i. p. 174, 175. ii. 437. Yet who are more loud than these Deists in decrying catholic tradition? The same may be observed of the Rationalist infidels. They all regard scripture as interpolated, treat the gospels as spurious productions, &c.-Rose, p. 100, &c. Some of them hold that the scriptures contain pious frauds and deceptions.—Ib. 117. Some impute to our Lord and his apostles deceptions for evil purposes.-Ib. 119. Others affirm that the apostles, as low and ignorant men, natives of a barbarous country, had not the power of relating every thing as it really happened: -Ib. 120. and that the only method of getting at truth, is to subject what they had written to a critical examination, to separate the "wheat in scripture from the chaff."-Ib. 121. This is Dr. Hampden's method with St. Paul. Scholastic Philosophy, p. 375. All these writers reject the doctrine of the fathers. k * Tindal the infidel declares that what he says is in defence of the Protestant religion, (p. 212.) that they who do not allow reason to judge in matters of opinion or speculation, (i. e. as to the truth of any doctrines, &c. alleged) are guilty of as great absurdity as the papists; (p. 178.) that if we do not allow reason to judge scripture in opposition to all authority, we cannot show the absurdity of the plea of the papists to implicit faith, p. 211. He cites "Hoadly, the strenuous assertor of our religious as well as civil rights," as saying that “Authority is the greatest and most irreconcileable enemy to truth and argument"-that "against authority there is no defence," &c. Reformation," they say, "cannot be defended if this appeal is allowed: popery must triumph." Excellent men! They will maintain the Reformation at all hazards: all evidence shall be pronounced worthless, if it be opposed to the interests of that sacred cause. But what is the end sought by all this pretended devotion? It is that every man may be permitted without any check, to interpret scripture in such a manner as to subvert all the doctrines of the Reformation whether positive or negative, to prove the Reformation itself needless, erroneous, bigotted, equally absurd as the system to which it was opposed, and more inconsistent. I charge these men with the grossest hypocrisy. Never was there a more daring attempt to palm an imposture on the credulous and unthinking, than this effort of Deists and heretics to set aside tradition under pretence of zeal for the Reformation. They are the opponents of the Reformation. They are the representatives of those whom the Reformation condemned. They reject its doctrines, they charge it with ignorance, bigotry, intolerance, errors as gross as those of popery. They have separated from its reformed institutions, as antichristian, and only exist by a perpetual attack upon them. The Reformation has no connexion with these men its defence belongs exclusively to those who maintain its doctrines, and adhere to its institutions: and they alone are the proper judges of the mode of argument suited to its interests. III. Statements directly untrue. Under this head may be included the palmary argu -p. 215. The assumption of authority by Protestants according to Tindal is inconsistent with the defence of the Reformation. p. 300. This hypocrisy cannot deceive any one possessed of common penetration. ment employed by all sects against any appeal to the tradition of the church universal, namely, that it was the principle of the Reformation to reject any such appeal; that its principle was, "the bible alone is the religion of protestants." Nothing can be more untrue than this assertion: the Reformation as a whole acknowledged and appealed to the authority of catholic tradition, though it denied the infallibility of particular fathers and councils". With equal veracity it is as See Part I. Chapter XII. Sect. 3. See also Mr. Rose's State of Protestantism, p. 35, &c. 2d ed. He observes that "it is this very circumstance (i. e. reverence for the fathers,) which has been made a subject of reproach against the early reformers by the modern school of theology," p. 37, and that this rationalist or infidel school assert that "down to the eighteenth century," "appeals were made only to the writings of the fathers whose ignorance, prejudices, and want of philosophical illumination, deprived their evidence and opinions of all value."-p. 39. If Luther and others occasionally opposed themselves to the opinions of particular fathers, and authority of the early church. Oper. t. i. p. 237. The Roman theologians themselves treat the fathers with too little ceremony where their sentiments are opposed to those of Rome. Medina accuses Jerome, Ambrose, Au |