Whoever fets out in the Study of the Chriftian Myftery without the Conduct of the Fathers, feems to me to be failing into the Ocean without his Compafs, in danger of being toffed to and fro with every Wind of Doctrine, of Splitting upon new Plaufibilities, of beginning and ending with Socinus, Epifcopius, and fuch like prefumptuous and felf-fufficient Reafoners. But the Catholick Writers of the firft Three or Four Centuries, as they were faithful Guardians of the Gofpel depofited in their feveral Churches, fo were they much better appointed for the Interpretation of it, than any other diftant Succeffors; for in the firft Fervencies of Religion, the Profeffors minded nothing elfe but to provide for their Poor, to guard against Herefie and Innovation, and to live and dye by the Faith. Whereas the moderate and cooler Chriftians in after Ages, began to ftrike up a clofer Alliance with the World prefent, to mix Party and Preferment in Debates for Truth, to fish for Gold, and Silver, and worldly Grandeur from the Gofpel; and in a word, to have fome other Defigns than purely upon Heaven. Befides, the nearness to the Apoftles, their actual Acquaintance with fuch Men as heard the Apoftles expound their own Doctrines, their Familiarity with the Cuftoms, Traditions, and Phrafeology of the Times, and above all, the extraordinary Affiftances of the Holy Spirit in thofe early Days of Perfecution, are Advantages no modern Interpreter must pretend to.

Now the Catholick Doctors of the First Ages, I find to be all unanimous in the Doctrine of the Trinity, the Divinity of Chrift, the Neceffity of Church

4

Church-Communion, the Form of Church-Government, &c. In the next place, I confider the Nature of the Evidence this Unanimity is founded on, and I find it to be the fureft and most fatisfactory Kind of Evidence that can be, namely the Evidence of Senfes; for whether fuch and fuch were the Doctrines and Government of the Church in the time of thefe Writers, is not a Queftion of Right, but of Fact. Not whether thefe Doctrines and Government are True and Apoftolical, for of that hereafter; but whether the Catholick Church actually Taught and Govern'd on this wife at fuch a time or no; and therefore, the Imight justly, perhaps, diffent from a Martyr in Matters of pure Reafoning, yet I muft be ftrangely Fool-hardy to call in Queftion the Teftimony of his Senfes. For Inftance, I find Juftin Martyr and Tertullian, with all the rest of the holy Fathers about their Time, pofitively af ferting the Son of God, the Man Chrift Jefus, to be truly and properly God, and explaining his eternal Generation without any diminution of the Father, by a Ray from the Sun, or the Kindling of one Light from another. Now, perhaps, tho' I may not think their Reasoning or Similies bold exactly true in ev'ry Point, yet I am fure as to the Fact, viz. That the Divinity of Chrift was the Article they maintain'd, tho' they fbou'd differ in their Explications of it. For Dr. South and Dr. Sherlock have reafon'd very differently about the Principle of Individuation, with respect to the Perfons in the ever Blessed Trinity, yet this difference in the Modes of Explication affects not the Mystery it felf, which is

in truth inexplicable, but it proves the Trinity. to be the current Doctrine at the time of the DiSpute; and that Things may be, tho' we differ very much about the Manner of their Existence.

*

I find likewife fome difference between two very great Saints cotemporary with the Apostles, between Polycarp and Anicetus, about the Obfervation of Eafter. The First pleading the PraEtice of St. John for one Time, the fecond the Practice of St. Peter for another Time; from which unhappy Diffention I conclude that Eafter was certainly obferv'd, and that Polycarp and Anicetus were not Angels, but Men; and Men too of like Paffions with our felves, and withall, that they might both be in the right as to Fact ; it being the known Practice of the Apoftles to become all things to all Men in Matters of Indifferency, to comply with the Cuftoms of every Place they came in, as far as innocently they cou'd; and therefore Polycarp might very well know St. John out of this prudential compliance keep Eafter upon one Day at one Place, and Anicetus might know St. Peter keep it upon another Day in another Place for the fame Reafon. The Error then here committed was a Miftake in Judgment and not in Fact, a disproportion'd exceffive Zeal in a matter not worth the Contention. But is this fair Arguing, the Fathers were out in their Judgment, therefore they were out of their Senfes; they Reafon'd wrong, therefore they cou'd neither hear nor fee right, but if Infallibility of Judgment is necessary to make a competent Wit

nefs of Fact, there is not a competent Witness in the World. Befides, if fuch kind of Differences may be urg'd against the Teftimony of the Ancients, I know not what will become of the very Apostles themselves; for we find very great Differences between Peter, Paul and Barnabas. But thofe Enemies of our Church-Government, who make fo much of this Objection against the Fathers, wou'd do well to confider, whether they can think it credible that fuch boly Men fo violently tenacious of any the least thing they knew to be Apoftolick, fo over-zealous in fuch a petty difference of Time about the Obfervation of Eafter; whether they can really think it poffible, that Men fo extremely fcrupulous and ftirring against any Appearance of Innovation, fhou'd be universally Still and Silent in fo momentous a Change of ChurchGovernment, as that from a Parity of Prefbyters to a Superiority of Bishops, had they in the leaft fufpected any fuch Change or Alteration from the Fundamental Inftitution of the Apoftles, as the Objectors now complain of

But becaufe the Right Ufe of the Fathers is a Point of late much controverted, and wherein I think my felf particularly concern'd upon the Account of thefe Tranflations, I fball enter into the Merits of this Controverfie more diftinctly, and in order hereunto the first thing I attempt, fhall be to prove,

That the most rational and safest Method to understand the holy Scripture, is to confult the general Senfe of the Catholick Writers in the pureft Ages of the Church.

1

2dly, To answer the moft Material Objections against them.

And 3dly, To fhew the Unhappy Confequences of too lightly departing from them.

The first thing to be proved, is, That the most rational and fafeft Method to underftand the Holy Scriptures, is to confult the general Sence of the Catholick Writers in the pureft Ages of the Church.

The Holy Scripture then I take here for granted, to be a Rule, and the only perfect Rule of Faith and Manners; and the Perfection of it confifts herein, that it contains fully and plainly all Things neceffary to Salvation: Not that it is fo perfectly full in every Mode of Time, and Circumftance of Worship, as to leave no Room for any particular Laws herein to fucceeding Governours; nor fo perfectly perfpicuous, as to require nothing of Ingenuity and Application on the Learner's fide. For 'tis evident in Fact, that the Scriptures are not fo abfolutely perfect, from the foremention'd Difference between two Apoftolick BiShops about the Obfervation of Easter: Tis evident likewife from the Original Languages of the Bible, which require much Pains to underftand, as well as Honefty to apply them; and St. Peter himself tells us, that in St. Paul's Epifles, Some Things are hard to be understood, which they that are unlearned and unstable wreft, as they do alfo the other Scriptures, unto their own Deftruction. And as to Matters of Polity and Difcipline, which cou'd not be easily misunderstood in the firft Ages of the Church, they are now confeffedly much less plain

from