Concerning the Right Use of the Fathers in Controversies, Book 2 · Chapter 5
CHAP. V.
Reaſon V. That the Fathers have ſtrongly contradicted one another, and have maintained Different Opinions, in Matters of very Great Importance.
BEſſarion, a Greek born, who was honoured with the Dignity of Cardinal, by Pope Eugenius IV. as a Reward of his earneſt deſires to, and the great pains he took in endeavouring a Reconciliation betwixt the Eaſtern and the Weſtern Church, in a Book which he wrote upon this Subject to the Council of Florence, Beſſar Orat. foreign, c. 2. p. 520, & 521. T. 4. Conc.will have the whole Difference, betwixt the Greek and Latine Churches, to be brought before the Judgment Seat of the Fathers.
And for as much as he knew, that unleſs the Judges did all agree, and were of one Opinion, the Cauſe (eſpecially in Matters of Religion,) neceſſarily remains undecided; he ſtrongly labours to prove, that he hath all the Fathers conſenting not only with him, but, (which is yet much harder to prove) that they are all of the ſame Opinion alſo among themſelves; inſomuch that he commands us, when ever there appeareth any contrariety in their Writings, that we ſhould accuſe our own ignorance, rather than blame them for contradicting each other.
We may conclude therefore, from what is here laid down by this Author, who was both as acute, and as Learned a man, as any was at this Council, that to render the Fathers capable of being the Judges of our Controverſies, it is neceſſary that they ſhould be all of the ſame Judgment and Opinion, in Point of Religion. And certainly, this is a moſt clear Truth: For, if there be any Contradiction amongſt them, or Diſſenting in Opinion, they will leave our Controverſies more Perplexed, rather than Decided; and in ſtead of Uniting, will rather Diſtract us, and rend us into many Parts.
That we may therefore be able to come to the knowledge of the Truth in this Particular, it will concern us firſt of all to examine, whether that which Beſſarion addeth hereupon, be true alſo, or not; namely, That the Opinions of the Fathers do never claſh one with the other, touching the Points of our Religion.
Now although this were ſo, yet would it not Neceſſarily follow from hence, that their Judgment muſt needs be therefore Infallible; foraſmuch as even an Error may, either by the Conſent of the ſeveral Parties, or by Accident, or elſe by ſome other the like means, happen to meet with an Unanimous Entertainment by ſeveral Perſons.
But now in caſe this ſhould prove to be falſe, then certainly we may make this Infallible Concluſion, That we ought to ſeek out for other Judges of our Controverſies, than the Writings of the Fathers. We ſhall therefore ſhew, by way of addition to the reſt of our Proofs, that this Aſſertion of his is more Bold than True; and, that there are very many Real Differences to be found among the Ancient Fathers, in Matters of Religion.
We have already touched before upon ſome of them, by the bye onelyonly, as lying in our way, ſpeaking of other Matters, and therefore we ſhall onelyonly lightly run them over again; as namely, firſt of all, That Diſagreement in Opinion of the moſt Ancient among the Fathers, Juſtine Martyr, Irenaeus, and Tertullian, on the one ſide; and Dionyſius Alexandrinus, Gregory Nazianzene, and S. Hierome on the other: the Firſt of theſe promiſing us very ſeriouſly the Delights and Pleaſures of a Thouſand years, and the Diamonds and the Saphires of a New Earthly Jeruſalem, with all its Glory and Proſperity: but the other very courſely, and in downright Terms reproving this their Conceit, as being an idle Fancy, fit to be entertained by Little Children, and Old Women only; and which ſeems to have been derived rather from the Dreams of the Jews, than from the Doctrine of the Apoſtles.
The like to this was that Difference betwixt the Biſhops of Aſia, and Pope Victor, about the Obſervation of Eaſter-day; and of Cyprian, and Stephen, about the Baptiſm of Hereticks: in all which Differences, the Heat was ſo high, as that it went on as far as to Excommunicating each other. If Beſſarion now could but make it appear to us, that theſe were not Real, but Seeming Contradictions onelyonly, I ſhould then make no queſtion at all, but that he would as eaſily reconcile Fire and Water, or whatever things elſe in Nature are the moſt Contrary the one to the other.
We have heard that Tertullian maintained, That the Soul was Ex Traduce, and was propagated from the Father to the Son, by the Natural Courſe of Generation; and that S. Auguſtine likewiſe enclined to the ſame Opinion: to whom, if we will believeaHieron. Ep. 82. T. 2. An certè ex traduce, ut Tertullianus, Apollinarius & maxima pars Occidentalium autumant. S. Hierome, we muſt add a very conſiderable number of the Weſtern Church alſo, who were all of the ſame Perſwaſion. But bId. Com. in Eccleſ. c. 12. T. 5. & Ep. 61. ad Pamm. T 2. p. 242. & alibi paſſim.S. Hierome rejects them all, and their Opinion, and ſays, That the Soul is created Immediately by God, at the very inſtant that it is united to the Body; adding withal, (as we have formerly noted unto you) That this is the Belief of the Church in this Point.
S. Hierome, and thoſe of his Faction held, That all that Reprehenſion uſed by S. Paul to S. Peter, which we find mentioned in the Epiſtle to the Galatians, was onelyonly a Feigned Buſineſs, purpoſely Acted betwixt the two Apoſtles, by an Agreement made betwixt themſelves. S. Auguſtine, with thoſe of his Side, maintains the contrary, and ſays, That the thing was Real, and was meant heartily and ſeriouſly, and as it is related by S. Paul; and that there was no Cunning, or Under-hand Dealing in the Buſineſs, or any Scene laid betwixt S. Peter and him. And S. Hierome purſued this Diſpute with ſo much heat and earneſtneſs, as that beſides thoſe Epiſtles of his, which are full of Gall and Choler, written againſt S. Auguſtine, touching this Particular, he yet in hiscVid. Com 4. in Eſ. T 4. p 378. & Com. 18. in eund p 485. Commentaries alſo, which were Pieces that he wrote in his Quieter Tempe…, many times takes occaſion to gird underhand at S. Auguſtine, upon this old Quarrel betwixt them. So that certainly he muſt needs be quite out of his Wits, whoever ſhall ſeriouſly go about to maintain, that theſe two Fathers were perfectly of One Opinion, and agreed upon this Point.dJuſtin. contr. Tryph. p. 333. foreign. Juſtine Martyr is of Opinion, that it was the Real Ghoſt of Samuel, that appeared to Saul, being raiſed up by the Enchantments of the Witch at Endor. ePſeudo. Juſt. l. Q. & R. Reſp. ad q. 52. foreign.Others ſay it was but a Fantaſm. fEpiph. in Panar. Expoſ. Fid. p. 1104.Some of them hold, That the meeting together of the Faithful at the Euchariſt thrice a week, is an Apoſtolical Tradition.gAuguſt. in Ep 118. ad Jan. T. 3. vid. Petav. in Epiph p. 354. Others believe the contrary.hVide Petav. p. 359. in Epiph, Eccl. Rom. …p. Socr. l. 5. c. 22. Auguſt. Ep. 86. & 118. Innoc. I. Ep. 1. c. 4. Some enjoyn us to Faſt on Saturdays; iIgnat. Ep. 4. ad Philip. Can. Apoſt. c. 68. Conſtit. Apoſt. l. 7. c. 24 Syn. Trull. Can. 55.others forbid the ſame, under the penalty of being accounted no leſs than the Murtherers of Chriſt. kIren. l. 2. c. 39.Some of them conceive, that our Saviour Chriſt ſuffered Death in the Fortieth or Fiftieth year of his Age:lTertul. Clem. Alex. Lactant. Afric. ubi ſupr. Others again would perſwade us, that he died in the Thirtieth or Thirty firſt year of his Age: Both which Opinions are manifeſtly contrary to the Text of the Goſpel, which tells us clearly, That after his Baptiſm, that is to ſay, after the Thirtieth year of his Age, he converſed above Three, and under Five years, upon the Earth. Some of them (as we are informed by theſemScholarius, Orat 3. T 4. Concil. Gen. p. 658, 659. Latinized Greeks) allow of theſe Terms, Cauſe, and Effect, in the Doctrine of the Trinity; but ſome others again do not ſo.
Some of them are of Opinion, That there is a certain Order, or Diſtinction of Priority, in the Perſons of the Trinity: others again there are, who will not endure to hear of this Expreſſion.
Thoſe of the Weſtern Church call the Son only, The Image of the Father; but the Greek Church maketh this Name extend to the Holy Ghoſt alſo. S. Baſil will not allow of the word foreign, in diſcourſing of the Son: Others again make uſe of it, without any ſcruple at all.
I doubt very much, whether Beſſarion had ever ſeen the Apologies and Invectives of S. Hierome, and of Ruffinus; who were yet both of them Fathers, and of good Repute too in the Church, both that of their own time, and of the Ages following; although they were not both of them of equal Eſteem. Neither do I believe he remembred that Quarrel that there was betwixt Theophilus and Epiphanius on the one part, and S. Chryſoſtome on the other.
For certainly, their Carriage toward each other in this their Debate, doth not ſhew them to have been ſo very good Friends, and ſo well agreed upon the Point debated. But now, to overthrow this Bold Aſſertion of his at once, we need go no further than to the very Point it ſelf, touching which he propoſed it. For, whom will he ever be able to perſwade, that All the Fathers have written and ſaid the very ſame things, touching the Proceſſion of the Holy Ghoſt? It is evident, that ſometimes they will have It to Proceed from the Son alſo; as S. Baſil by name hath expreſſed himſelf, in that Paſſage of his, which is alledged by the Latins out of his Book againſt Eunomius; (which Piece yet the Greeks ſay is forged:) and as the Fathers of the Weſtern Church have moſt expreſly declared themſelves in many places.Conc. Flor. Act. 20. T. 4. Conc. p. 454. But yet I cannot poſſibly ſee; how we can ſay, That they have All been of this Opinion.
I ſhall not here meddle with thoſe other Authorities, produced by the Greeks out of the Fathers; which their Adverſaries put by as well as they can, oftentimes moſt miſerably wreſting and ſtretching upon the Rack the Words and Meaning of the Fathers. But that Paſſage of Theodoret, in his Refutation of S. Cyril's Anathema's, is ſo clear and expreſs, as that nothing can be more.
nCyril. Anath 9. foreign.S. Cyril had ſaid, in his IX Anathema, That the Holy Ghoſt proceeded Properly from the Son. oTheodor. Refut. Anath 9 Cyril. Act. Conc. Eph foreign.Theodoret anſwereth, That it is both Impious and Blaſphemous to ſay, that the Holy Ghoſt hath its Subſiſtence from the Son, or by the Son. If he mean (ſaith he) that the Holy Ghoſt proceedeth properly from the Son, as heing of the ſame Nature with It, and as proceeding from the Father, we ſhall willingly agree with him, and ſhall receive his Doctrine as Sound and Pious: But if he mean, that the Holy Ghoſt hath its Subſiſtence from the Son, or by the Son, we muſt then reject it, as Impious, and Blaſphemous. He could not have thrown by this Propoſition of S. Cyril more bluntly, or in courſer Terms: And yet for all this ſo flat giving him the Lie, as it were, and his ſo inſolent rejecting of an Opinion that was then received by the Church, as the Latins pretend, pCyril. Reſp. ad Ref. Theod. Anath. 9. ibid. foreign.S. Cyril replies no more but this, That the Holy Ghoſt, altbough It proceed from the Father, yet nevertheleſs is not a Stranger to the Son, ſince He hath all things common with the Father. Why did he not cry out againſt him as an Heretick, as he many times elſewhere doth, with much leſs reaſon; if at leaſt you muſt needs have it granted you, that the Opinion of the Church at that time was, That the H. Ghoſt proceeded from the Son? Why did he not take it very ill at his hands, that he ſhould in ſo inſolent a manner reject as Impious and Blaſphemous, a Propoſition that was ſo Holy, and ſo True? Why did he not call the Whole Church in, to be his Warrant for what he had ſaid, if ſo be it had Really been the General Belief of the Church at that time? And how comes it to paſs, that in ſtead of all this, he rather returns ſo tame an Anſwer, as ſeems rather to betray his own Cauſe, and ſomething alſo to encline to the contrary Opinion of his Adverſary? For, it is evident, that neither Theoderet, nor yet any of the Modern Greeks ever held, That the Holy Ghoſt was a Stranger to, or was Unconcerned in the Son, ſeeing they all confeſs, That theſe three, to wit, the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghoſt, are One and the ſame God, who is Bleſſed for ever.
Whoſoever ſhall but diligently conſider theſe things▪ (for we cannot ſtand any longer upon the Examination of them) he cannot, in my Judgment, but confeſs that the Church had not as yet declared it ſelf, or determined any thing touching this Point; and, that theſe Doctors ſpake herein each Man his own Private Opinion only, and according as the Preſent Occaſion of Diſputation led him to ſpeak; where you ſhall have them contradicting one another, in like manner as is uſual in ſpeaking of things not as yet throughly examined, or expreſly determined: inſomuch that it would grieve a Man to ſee how the Greeks and the Latins toil and ſweat to no purpoſe, each of them labouring to bring over the Fathers to ſpeak to their Side, and fearfully wreſting their Words, whenſoever they ſeem to be but never ſo little ambiguous; and ever and anon accuſing one another of having corrupted the Ancients Writings, whenſoever they are found to ſpeak expreſly againſt them: and when all is done, leaving thoſe who either read or hear them without any Prejudice, very much unſatisfied; whereas it had been much more eaſie, to have honeſtly confeſſed at firſt, that which is but too apparent, that the Fathers, as in this, ſo in many other Points of Religion, have not all been of one and the ſame Perſwaſion.
And whereasqBeſſar. in Orat. Dogmat. ſive de Ʋn…one Extra. cap. 9. in Act. Conc. Flor. Seſſ. 28. T. 4. Conc. p. 551. Beſſarion, that he may clude this Teſtimony of Theodoret, affirms, That he was caſt forth of the Church for having denied that the Holy Ghoſt proceeded from the Son; and that he afterwards publickly confeſſed his Error, at the Council of Cbalcedon, where he was received into the Church again: all this, I ſay, is only a Piece of Grecian Confidence, which ſhews more clearly than all the reſt, how much this Man was carried away with his Paſſion, and the violence of his Affection to the Latin Church.
For, I beſeech you, in what Ancient Author had he ever read, that Theodoret was, I do not ſay, Condemned, or Excommunicated, but ſo much as Reproved, or Accuſed onelyonly, for having maintained any Erroneous Opinion touching the Proceſſion of the Holy Ghoſt? We have the Acts of the Council of Epheſus, where he was Excommunicated: We have the Letters of S. Cyril, wherein he again received into the Communion of the Church John Patriarch of Antioch, and all his Followers, of which number Theodoret was the Chief. We have the Council of Chalcedon, where Theodoret, after ſome certain Cryings out of his Adverſaries againſt him, was at length received by the whole Aſſembly as a Catholick Biſhop, and was admitted to ſit amongſt them. In which of all theſe Authentick Pieces is there ſo much as one word ſpoken, touching this Opinion of his, concerning the Point of the Proceeding of the Holy Ghoſt? S. Cyril himſelf, that is to ſay, thoſe of his Party, did not at all condemn what he ſaid, touching this Particular; but he rather contented himſelf in excuſing, or, if you pleaſe, in defending onelyonly his own Opinion. The Buſineſs for which Theodoret was queſtioned in the Councils of Epheſus, and of Chalcedon, had nothing in the World to do with this, touching the Proceſſion of the Holy Ghoſt: for, the Queſtion was onelyonly there, touching the Two Natures of our Saviour Chriſt, whom Neſtorius would needs divide into Two Perſons; John Patriarch of Antioch, Theodoret, and divers other Eaſtern Biſhops, favouring in ſome ſort his Perſon, or being indeed offended rather at the Proceeding of the Council of Epheſus againſt him; and withal rejecting ſeveral things that were contained in the Anathemas of S. Cyril.
Now with what face could this Man tell us, after all this, That Theodoret had been depoſed from his Biſhoprick, for having maintained an Erroneous Opinion touching the Proceſſion of the Holy Ghoſt? But enough of this.
I would in the next place fain know, how this Reconciler of Differences could compoſe that Debate betwixt the DCXXX Fathers of the Council at Chalcedon, and Leo Biſhop of Rome; and how he can reconcile the XXVIII Canon of the one, with thoſe many Epiſtles written by the other, touching this Point, to Anatolius Patriarch of Conſtantinople, to the Emperour Marcianus, and his Empreſs, to the Prelates who were there met together in that Council, and to the Patriarch of Antioch: the Fathers of this Council advancing the Throne of the Patriarch of Conſtantinople, above thoſe of Alexandria, and of Antioch, and making it equal even with that of Rome it ſelf: Pope Leo in the mean time ſending out his Thunderbolts againſt this Decree of theirs, and charging them as guilty of a moſt inſufferable Injury offered him. And when this our Conciliator ſhall have done his buſineſs at Chalcedon, if he pleaſe, he may paſs over into Africk, and there alſo Reconcile the Fathers of that Country to the Biſhops of Rome; the former of theſe forbidding their Clergy to make any Appeals to Rome; and the other in the mean time to their utmoſt endeavouring to prove, That it is their Proper Right, to have ſuch Appeals brought before them. And when he hath finiſhed this Work, our Greek may then in the next place try to remove all miſunderſtanding betwixt the Fathers of the Council of Francfort, and thoſe of the II. Council of Nice▪ touching the Point of the uſe of Images▪ the later of theſe Ordaining†Conc VII. Act 7. in d…fin. T. 3. Conc. p. 661. foreign. Ib. p. 662. foreign. That we ought to pay unto them Salutations, and Adoration of Honour, and that we ought to honour them with Incenſe and Lights: and the other, as every man knows, having not only rejected this Greek Council; but having written … expreſly, againſt it, by the Command of the Emperour Carolus Magnus.
Certainly he that ſhall but read the Fathers themſelves, will eaſily and quickly perceive, that they claſh and contradict each other, in moſt plain and irreconcileable Terms, and that there is no other way of bringing them honeſtly together, but by receiving every one of them, with his own private Opinions; imitating herein the marvellous Wiſdom of the Council of*Synod. Quiniſexta Can. 2. T. 3. Con. Conſtantinople in Trullo; which receiveth and alloweth of all in groſs, without diſtinction, both the Canons of the Apoſtles, and the whole Code of the Church Ʋniverſal, together with thoſe of Sardica, Carthage, and Laodicea; amongſt which notwithſtanding there are found ſtrong Contradictions.
As for Example, the†Synod. Sard. Can. 3. & 7. Council of Sardica will have the Right of receiving the Appeals of all Biſhops to belong to the See of Rome; whereas*Synod. Chalced. cap. 9. & 17. Chalcedon gives this Priviledge to that of Conſtantinople. The Council of†Synod Laod. Can. 59. Laodicea leaveth out of the Canon of the Scriptures, the Maccabees, Eccleſiaſticus, the Book of Wiſdom, Tobit, and Judith: *Synod Carthag. III. cap. 47.that of Carthage puts them in expreſly. But now theſe honeſt Fathers of Conſtantinople, to the end they may give content to all the World, take no notice at all 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, upon condition, that 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.
So that 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 touching the ſame.
For, ſeeing that I find them contradicting each other, in ſo many ſeveral Points of very great importance; how ſhall I be aſſured, that they are all unanimouſly agreed, touching thoſe Points which are now debated amongſt us?
Why may they not have had the ſame diverſity of Opinion, touching the Point of the Euchariſt, the Authority of the Church, the Power of the Pope, Free-will, or Purgatory, that they had in thoſe other Points which we have before preſented to the Readers view; which were of as great importance as theſe, and no leſs eaſie to be determined; as we have proved in the Chapter preceding?
Epiphanius and St. Hierome are as oppoſite in their Judgments, touching the Ancient Condition of Prieſts and Biſhops, as Theodoret and St. Cyril are, touching the Proceſſion of the Holy Ghoſt. Neither are ſome Opinions of Tertullian, and of Damaſcene; Theodoret, and of Euſebius Emiſenus; of Euſebius Caeſareenſis, and of the VII. Council, touching the Point of the Euchariſt, leſs oppoſite to each other; than are thoſe of Cyprian and of Stephen…, touching the Baptiſm of Hereticks: and ſo likewiſe in many other particulars.
Why then ſhould we take ſo much pains, and trouble our ſelves ſo to no purpoſe, in reconciling theſe men, and making them ſpeak all the ſame thing?
Why ſhould we ſo cruelly, and ſo uncivilly 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 at all to confeſs, that they have been of contrary Opinions, touching thoſe other Points of Religion; which are not at all now controverted amongſt us: How much greater harm, for Gods ſake, would it be, if we ſhould confeſs, that they have not any better agreed among themſelves, touching theſe Points now in debate?
But we ſhall not need to 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 Judges of our Controverſies.
I have formerly touched, though very lightly only, upon their Diverſity of Opinion, and Contrariety, in their Expoſitions upon the Scriptures, which yet is a buſineſs of no very ſmall conſideration.
For if we take them for our Judges, we ſhall neceſſarily then have occaſion every minute of having recourſe to them, touching the ſenſe of thoſe Paſſages of Scripture, about which we diſagree among our ſelves. If now there be as great Contrarieties, and Difference in Judgment touching theſe things among them, as there is amongſt our ſelves▪ what have we then left us to truſt to? This Paſſage for Example, in the Goſpel according to St. John, Joh. 10. 30. Ego & Pater unum ſumus.I and my Father are one, is of very great importance, in the Diſputes 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†Tertul. contr. Prax. c 22. Unum non pertinet ad ſingularitatem, ſed ad unitatem, ad ſimilitudinem▪ ad conjunctionem, ad delectionem Patris, qui Filium diligit, & ad obſequium Filii, qui Voluntati Patris obſequitur. Autor libri de Trin. cap 22. Orig. contr. Celſum, lib. 8▪ p. …93 ſome of them referring it to the Ʋnion of the Affection, and of the Will▪ and*Athanaſ. Greg. Nazianz. alii pene omnes paſſim. others again, to the Ʋ nity of Eſſence and of Nature.
So likewiſe this other paſſage in the ſame Evangeliſt;aJoh. 14. 28. My Father is greater than I, is very conſiderable alſo, in the Queſtion touching the Divinity of Jeſus Chriſt: And yet there arebEpiphan. Ancor. p. 23. 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, cJoh. 1. 14.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 havedAmbroſ. l. de Incar. Sacr. c. C. T. 2. p. 183. Athan. Ep. ad Epict. T. I. p. 587. & T. 2. p. 298. ſome of them expounding theſe words, by comparing them with thoſe paſſages in St. Paul, where it is ſaid thate2 Cor. 5 21. Chriſt was made ſin, and afGal 3. 13. Curſe for us: butgCyrill. Apol. Athan. I. T. 1. Conc. Gener. p. 515. St. Cyril ſaith, that we muſt take heed how we interpret the words ſo.
It would be an endleſs Task, if I ſhould here go about to reckon up all the Differences, and Contrarieties of Judgment, that are to be found in the Fathers.
Thoſe that 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 hath done, upon the Goſpels▪ Cardinal Tolet, upon St. John, Bened. Juſtinianus, upon the 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 …ame manner. And which is yet worſe than this, beſides this Contrariety and Difference of Interpretation, you will often meet with very many cold and empty 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.
For as much therefore as we many times 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 the making good of all thoſe Points, which are at this day maintained by the Church of Rome againſt the Proteſtants.