bly in our favour. I say, the weight of patristical testimony, as I make no pretensions to the consent of all the Fathers on these or any other points, still less to so clear and consistent a testimony from all of them in our favour as would alone entitle us to claim that consent. And should there even be found, in some of those from whom we shall hereafter quote, observations in other parts of their works which appear not altogether consistent with what they have clearly expressed in the passages we have cited, still if our views are evidently maintained by them in those passages, and the principle there contended for, shall appear, upon that examination which we challenge, consistent with the general tone of their remarks and mode of arguing, then such apparent inconsistency, however it may be accounted for, is not sufficient to make such authors our opponents; or even to deprive us of the evidence in our favour afforded by the passages we shall quote; especially when we consider that the testimony given in our favour is in general expressed in a direct recognition of the claims of Scripture. It is but what we might expect from human nature that voluminous authors, especially those engaged in various controversies, may appear sometimes to have spoken somewhat inconsistently with that which they have plainly expressed elsewhere. And we must ever recollect how their works have been exposed to corruption, and the opportunity afforded to heretics and pseudo-catholics of all kinds to palm upon the world spurious and corrupted works in their name.

And as it respects the general character of their views on the subject, it is admitted by Mr. Newman himself that while upon the supposition of their holding the views he advocates (which he takes it for granted they did,) it is difficult to see why they should not have made "tradition" a sufficient informant in matters of necessary faith, independent of Scripture, yet they did not do so;1 a tolerably clear proof that he has altogether misapprehended the mind of the Fathers.

Nor, indeed, is it easy to see why the early Church, if it held the views of our opponents, should have been so careful and diligent as we find it to have been in multiplying the copies of the Scriptures, translating them into all languages, and circula

4. That it is a necessary part of the divine rule of faith and practice, because of the obscurity of Scripture even in some of the fundamental articles, which makes Scripture insufficient to teach us even the fundamentals of faith and practice.

5. That it is only by the testimony of patristical tradition that we are assured of the inspiration of Scripture, what books are canonical, and the genuineness of what we receive as such.

1 Lect. pp. 342, 3. See vol. i. pp. 430, 1.

ting them as the gospel of our salvation. The Divine Scripture, Augustine tells us, was diffused far and wide by the various translations made of it that it might become known to the nations to their salvation.1

SECT. II. ON THE TRACTATORS' DOCTRINE OF CATHOLIC CONSENT BEING A DIVINE INFORMANT SUPPLEMENTARY TO AND INTERPRETATIVE OF SCRIPTURE.

It is obvious that where so important a doctrine is held as that Scripture is but an obscure and imperfect informant even on the highest points of faith, and that our interpretation of it must be gathered from the consentient testimony of the whole primitive Church as a practically infallible witness of the oral teaching of the Apostles, we may expect it to be brought forward in a very direct way, and to occupy a prominent place in the instructions of those who maintain it. If, then, the Fathers generally had held this doctrine, we should surely not have been left to gather it by inferences from passages only indirectly bearing upon it, but have had it distinctly placed before us as a necessary direction for our guidance. But it is undeniable that the Fathers generally have given us no such direction. If they had, we should not have been sent to Vincent, a monk of Lerins, as the great authority for this doctrine, but to some earlier and more estimable writer; though, by the way, even Vincent himself (as we shall show presently) is not answerable for all that our opponents have stretched his rule to mean.

There are, indeed, (as we have already had occasion to observe) appeals made by Irenæus, Tertullian and Origen, to the consent of the Apostolical Churches in favour of certain doctrines; and that consent they urge as a sufficient testimony to show that such doctrines were preached by the Apostles. How far these appeals support our opponents' cause we shall consider when we come to review the statements of those authors under our next head, and hope to show that they are altogether inadequate for that purpose.

Moreover, it is evident that some of those who lived near the times of the Apostles received the reports of individuals as sufficient testimony of the oral tradition of the Apostles on various points. Thus, for instance, we are referred by Irenæus to such

Innotesceret gentibus ad salutem. Aug. De doctr. Christ. lib. ii. c. 5. Op. tom. iii. col. 21.

*S

reports in proof of the apostolicity of the doctrine he advocated on the subject of the millennium. And statements are made by others on other points respecting the oral teaching of the Apostles, grounded upon similar testimony. But it was soon found even at that early period that a ready entrance was thus afforded into the Church to errors of all kinds. We have already shown that even the catholic Fathers were led into error by such reports. And the heretics frequently made them the foundation of their extravagances. It was on this account, indeed, chiefly, namely from the heretics pleading a private tradition of this kind in proof of the apostolicity of their errors, that the early Fathers appealed to the tradition of the apostolical churches in support of the orthodox faith. The Fathers did not point to this tradition as anything supplementary to Scripture, nor ever dreamed of saying that the Scripture needed such tradition as its interpreter, for, on the contrary, they always referred to Scripture as manifestly and clearly teaching their doctrine, but only as an additional proof in favour of the orthodox faith in a few of the most elementary points, to those who pretended a "tradition" from the Apostles coming to them through certain individuals in favour of their errors; and who said (as Irenæus tells us) that without a knowledge of that tradition Scripture could not be rightly interpreted.

So thought our opponents' own witnesses Bishop Patrick' and Bishop Taylor. The words of the latter are so well worth the consideration of our opponents that I will here subjoin them.

"In the first ages of the Church, the Fathers disputing with heretics did oftentimes urge against them the constant and universal tradition of the Church; and it was for these reasons— 1. Because the heretics denied the Scriptures . . . 2. The heretics did rely upon this topic for advantage, and would be tried by tradition, as hoping because there were in several churches contrary customs there might be differing doctrines, or they might be plausibly be pretended; and therefore the Fathers had reason to urge tradition and to wrest it from their hands who would fain have used it ill... To such as these there were but two ways of confutation; one was, which they most insisted upon, that the Holy Scriptures were a perfect rule of faith and manners, and that there was NO NEED OF ANY OTHER TRADITION; the other, that the traditions which they pretended were false; and that the contrary was the doctrine which all the Churches of God did preach always. Now thus far tradition was useful to be pleaded; that is, though the heretics would not admit the doctrine of Christianity as it was consigned in

1 See his Treatise on Tradition.

Scripture, yet they might be convinced that this was the doctrine of Christianity, because it was also preached by all bishops and confessed by all churches."

991

In the Catholic Church itself that doctrine, which in one age had been through such reports attributed to the Apostles, I mean the millennial doctrine of Irenæus and others, was in another spoken of as the offspring of ignorance and folly.

It is evident, then, that many at least of the Fathers, even if they chose to avail themselves of such reports where they were consonant with their own views, did not in the abstract regard such testimony as of any authority. Nor, indeed, do the Tractators themselves appear to contend for the authority of "traditions" so derived.

The only testimonies that could be adduced in support of the doctrine of our opponents would be such as declared that in all important points there was a universal consent among all the teachers of the Catholic Church, and appealed to such consent as a "practically infallible" informant of the oral teaching of the Apostles.

I shall now, then, proceed to point out some passages in various of the early Fathers showing that the doctrine of the Tractators was not recognized by them. A more stringent proof perhaps will be found in the positive statements occurring under our next head as to the claims of Scripture, but it may be desirable to show first, that the notion of catholic consent being a divine informant supplementary to and interpretative of Scripture, and forming a necessary part of the rule of faith even in the highest points, was altogether unknown to them.

JUSTIN MARTYR. (fl. a. 140.)

Can we suppose, for instance, that Justin Martyr held such a view, who says, "There are some I admitted of our community (yerous) who confess that he [Jesus] is Christ, but affirm that he is a man, born of men; with whom I do not agree, nor should I even if the great majority of those who are of my own religion should say so, since we are commanded by Christ himself to be ruled by, not the doctrines of men, but those preached by the blessed prophets and taught by him.""

1 Taylor's Rule of Consc. ii. 3. 14. Works, xiii. 116.

2 Εισι τινες, ω φίλοι, έλεγον, από του ἡμετέρου γένους ὁμολογοῦντες αυτον Χριστον είναι, άνθρωπον δε εξ ανθρωπων γενόμενον αποφαινομενοι οἷς ου συντίθεμαι, ουδ' αν πλείστοι ταυτά μοι δοξάσαντες είποιεν, επειδή ουκ ανθρωπείοις δίδαγμασι κεκελεύσμεθα ὑπ' αυτου του Χριστου πείθεσθαι, αλλά τοις δια των μακαρίων προφητών κηρυχθείσι και δι' αυτου διδαχθωσι. JUST. MART. Dial. cum Tryph. § 48. pp. 144, 5. ed. Ben. (ed. Col. p. 267.)

ORIGEN. (A. a. 230.)

Let us proceed to Origen. We have already noticed the creed which he considered himself able to establish, by the consent of the Apostolical Churches at that time. So much, then, we will leave for the present undisputed. But does this embrace all the vital articles of the faith? No; for Origen himself was unorthodox as to some of the highest. This creed, as it respects any of the questions now at issue in the Church, is practically useless. And as to anything beyond this, Origen not only makes no claim for the consent of the various Churches, but expressly speaks of it as open ground. And in his reply to Celsus he says, "Celsus remarks that they [i. e. the earliest Christians] were all of one mind; not observing in this that from the very beginning there were differences among believers respecting the meaning of the books that were believed to be divine.' And further on, accounting for the variety of sects among Christians, of which Celsus had complained, he says that this arose "from many of the learned among the heathen being desirous of understanding the Christian faith; from which it followed that, from their understanding differently the words which were believed by all to be divine, there arose heresies, taking their names from those who were struck with the first principles of the word, but were somehow moved by some probable reasons to entertain different views of it, one from another." Clearly, then, Origen knew nothing of that traditive interpretation of Scripture, delivered by Catholic consent, which our opponents pretend to find sixteen centuries later. And as to the state of the Church in Origen's own time, he himself tells us, "Many of those who profess to believe in Christ, disagree, not only in small points, and those of no moment, but also in important points, and those of the highest moment." And this difference of opinion existed among those who were in the Catholic Church; for again he says, "I wish that those only who are without the Church were deceived; it would be easy to avoid the seduction. But now they who profess to belong to the Church, are deceived and misled, even on the necessary points; as their dissension is a witness. Since even those who are within the Church are misled. . . . It is bad to find any one erring in points of morals; but I think it is much worse to err in doctrines, and not to hold that doctrine which is agreeable to the most true rule of the Scriptures . . . . . Every one that is perfect... and that has his senses exercised for understanding the truth, will necessarily, in his inquiries, fall in with many doc

1 See vol. i. pp. 182 &s.

3 See vol. i. p. 244.

* See vol. i. p. 244. 4 See vol. i. p. 182.

294