resies, gives us two discourses; in the one of which he notes down the order, customs, and discipline of the Church in his time: wherein I must say, that there are many things which much differ from the customs that are at this day observed by us on both sides. In the other is contained an exposition of the faith of the Church entered at large, which he calls "The pillar of the truth, the hope and assurance of immortality :". Τούτο το έρεισμα της ἀληθειας, ἡ ἐλπις και ἡ βεβαιωσις της ἀφθαρσίας.*

--

Yet of all those controversies which are at this day disputed amongst us, you shall there meet with one only; and that in the local descent of our Saviour Christ into hell which yet is an article of very small importance, as every one knows. In the acts of the sixth council we have a synodical epistle of Sophronius, patriarch of Jerusalem; wherein, as the usual custom was, he explains the faith, in a very ample and particular manner : and yet, notwithstanding, you shall not there meet with any of those points which are now controverted amongst us.

Those that search more closely into the business, will be apt positively to conclude from this their silence, that these points were not at that time any part of the doctrine of the Church: and certainly this kind of argument seems not to want reason. But as regards myself, it is sufficient that the truth of my assertion is confirmed; that it is, if not impossible, at least a very difficult thing to discover in what degree, either of necessity or probability, the ancient Fathers held each of those points, which are now disputed amongst us; seeing that they appear not at all, either in the expositions of their faith, or in the determinations of their councils, which are, as it were, the catalogues of those points of doctrine, which they accounted necessary.

* Epiphan. in Panar. 1. 3, et in Anacephal. + Concil. vi. Act. 2.

CHAPTER IX.

REASON IX.-WE OUGHT TO KNOW WHAT HAVE BEEN THE OPINIONS, NOT OF ONE OR MORE OF THE FATHERS, BUT OF THE WHOLE ANCIENT CHURCH: WHICH IS A VERY DIFFICULT MATTER TO DISCOVER.

THOSE Who make the most account of the writings of the Fathers, and who urge them the oftenest in their disputations, inform us, that the value of their sentiments in these matters arises from the fact, that they are so many testimonies of the general sense and judgment of the Church; to which alone these men attribute the supreme power of judging in controversies of religion. For if we should consider them severally, each by himself, and as they stand by their own strength only, they confess that they may chance to err; so that it will hence follow, that in order to make use of the testimonies of the Fathers, it is not sufficient for us to know whether such or such sentiments be truly theirs, and if so, what the meaning of them is; but we ought further also to be very well assured that they are conformable to the belief of the Church in their time in the same manner as in a court of judicature, the opinion of any single person of the bench is of no weight at all, as to the passing of judgment, unless it be conformable to the opinion of all the rest, or at least of the major part of those present.

Now observe how we are fallen again into new difficulties. Whence and by what means can we learn whether the whole Church, in the time of Justin Martyr, or of St. Agustin, or of St. Hierome, maintained the same opinions in every particular that these men severally did, or not? I confess that the charity of these men was very great; and that they very heartily

and constantly embraced the body and substance of the belief of the Church, in all particulars, that they saw apparently to be such. But where the Church did not at all express itself, and clearly declare what its sense was, they could not possibly, however great their desire of so doing, follow its authority as the rule of their opinions. Wheresoever therefore they treat of points which were long since decided, believed, and received, expressly and positively, by the whole Christian Church, either of their own age, or of any of the preceding ages, it is very probable that they did conform to what was believed by the Church: so that, in these cases, their sentiments may very well pass for a testimony of the judgment and sense of the Church: it being very improbable, that they could be either ignorant what was the public doctrine of the Church; or that knowing the same, they would not follow it. As for example, when Athanasius, St. Ambrose, St. Hierome, St. Augustin, and others, discourse on the Son of God, they speak nothing but what is conformable to the belief of the Church in general, because the belief of the Church had then been clearly and expressly delivered upon this point; so that whatsoever they say, as to this particular, may safely be received as a testimony of the Church's belief.

The same may be done in all the other points which have either been positively determined in any of the general councils, or delivered in any of the creeds, or that any other way appears to have been the public belief of the Church.

If the Fathers had but contained themselves within these bounds, and had not taken the liberty to treat of any thing, save what the Church had clearly delivered its judgment upon, this rule might then have been received as a general one; and, whatever opinion we found in them, we might safely have concluded it to have been the sense of the Church as existing in their time. But the curiosity of man's nature, together with the impudence of the heretics, and the tenderness of conscience, whether of their own or of others, and divers other reasons perhaps, having partly made them

willingly, and partly forced, and as it were constrained them to go on further, and to proceed to the search of the truth of several points, which had not as yet been established by the universal and public consent of all Christians; it could not be avoided, but that necessarily they must in these inquiries make use of their own proper light, and must deliver upon the same their own private opinions, which the Church, that came after them, has since either embraced or rejected.

I shall not here stand to prove my opinion, since it is a thing that is confessed on all hands, and whereof the Romanists make special use upon all occasions, in answering several objections brought against them out of the Fathers. As, for example, where cardinal Bellarmine excuseth the error of Pope John XXII. on the state of departed souls before the Resurrection;* by saying, that the Church, in his time, had not as yet determined any thing as to this particular. So likewise, where he applies the same salvo to that (in his judgment) unsound opinion of Pope Nicolas I., who maintained that Baptism, administered in the name of Jesus Christ only, without expressing the other persons of the Holy Trinity, was, notwithstanding, valid and effectual.† "This is a point (says Bellarmine) on which we find not the Church to have determined any thing." And, however dangerous and almost heretical the opinion of those men seem to him, who hold that the Pope of Rome may fall into heresy; yet does he permit Pope Adrian to hold the same, not daring to rank him among the heretics, because the Church had not as yet clearly and definitively expressed itself on this point.

The same Bellarmine, in another controversy of great importance, regarding the Canonical Books of the Old Testament, (finding himself closely put to it, by his adversary's urging against him the authority of St. Hierome, who casts Tobit, the Book of Wisdom, Eccle

* Bellarm. de Rom. Pont. 1. 4, c. 14. Sect. Respondeo in primis, &c.

+ Non invenitur ulla certa definitio Ecclesiæ de hac re.-Id. ibid. Sect. ult. ex his.

siasticus, and the Maccabees, out of the Canon, contrary to the judgment of the Church of Rome, which received them in), gets over this objection after the same manner. "I confess (says he) that St. Hierome held this opinion, because no general council had as yet ordained any thing regarding these books."

Seeing therefore that it is most clear, both from the confession of our adversaries, and from the consideration of the thing itself, that the Fathers have in their writings circulated many of their own particular opinions, digested out of their own private meditations, and which they had not learnt in the school of the Churchwho sees not, that before we give any certain credit unto their sentiments, we ought first to be assured of what nature they are? Whether they were their own particular opinions only, or the public feeling of their age since it is confessed by all, that those of the former kind are not always necessarily obligatory, but are such as oftentimes may, and sometimes ought to be rejected, without any scruple at all.

You may urge perhaps to a Protestant, that St. Hierome worshipped the relics of departed saints. How shall I know, (will he reply upon you again) whether this was his private opinion only, or not? If the authority of this Father, for want of being grounded upon some public declaration of the Church, could not bind Bellarmine to receive his opinion on the Canon of the Old Testament, why should this opinion of his, which is not any whit better grounded than the other, persuade me to the worship of relics? The same reply will he make, and many times with much more appearance of reason,concerning divers other testimonies produced out of the Fathers. So that, whether you would confirm your own faith, or whether you would wrest out of your adversary's hand this manner of reply, and make good all such allegations, it will behove you to make it clear, concerning any passage whatever that you shall urge out of a Father, that it is not his own private opinion, but was that of the Church itself wherein he lived: which, in my judgment, is a thing that is more difficult to be demonstrated, than