CHAP, �.] THB FITHBP.8. 16? so ? effects in ancient times; and dm it was better to imitate the ancients, who left the interpretation of Scripture at liberty. Others said that popular license was worse than tyranny. Maas said that the schoolmen had so well explained the doctrines of Scripture, that we need learn them no longer from Scripture; and the Lutherans obtained advantage ovei none but tho?e who studied the Bible. Such were the jarring 8entiments entertained 5y the doctors of the Church of Rome when the Cotmci] of Trent sat.'* 9. Tb g?m?J?mm? c?nserir. It i8 an immutable doctrine of the Chu?ch of Rome, that no rite, or doctrine, or interpretation of Scripture is from God, unless it have the unanimous consent of the fathers. To establish tl? consent they most have authenticated copies of the fathers, free from all additions and alterations. Then the tldrty-.five rodrams folio, or even more, containing many t/umsand pages, must be consulted. Next it most be infallibly shown, in reference to any points in debate, that there is no error, contradiction, o? doubtful sentiment in a?y one of them, but a unanimous consent to all the peculiarities of popery. The bare statement of such a mode of interpretation is its proper confutation. 10. Uses of tl? testimony of tl? f?tl?rs. Learned men are not agreed with regard to the degree of esteem that is due to the authors now mentioned and the other ancient moralists. Some represent them as the most excellent guides, while others place them in the lowest rank of instructers. Perhaps the following will comprise their just claims. As historians of their times, their testimony is very valuable in tracing out the history of the church. In their w?tings there are many sublime moral sentiments, well adapted to excite pious and religious affections; while on the other hand they abound with precepts of an excessive and unreasonable austerity, with stoical and academical dictates, with vague notions, and, what is yet worse, with decisions absolutely false, and contrary to the precepts of Christ. Now if by a bad or uncertain director in morals one is meant who fluctuates in uncertainty, or falls frequently into error in explaining the divine law, though he often delivers sub- lime instructions, then it must be confessed that this title belongs to many of the fathers. In reference to doctrines we are compelled to bring them to the standard of Holy Scripture, gladly receiving what they teach agreeably thereto, and rejecting what is unsound in the dogmas they have deli- vered. It is proper, however, to state, that as far as their authority is available, it is mainly on the side of orthodox Protestantism, and against the dogmas and principles of the Church of Rome, in those Points wherein they differ from Protestants. As expositors of Holy Scripture, as was shown above, though the fathers are chargeable with great defects, they are also Possessed of some rare excellences. In the interpretation of some passages of Scripture in controversy between us and the Church of Rome, their entire authority may be jusfiy claimed in our fayour. On the whole, to the new doctrine of the Council of Trent, which claims the unanimous consent of the fathers in the interpretation of
�
