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 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

See his Treatise on Tradition.

of Christianity as it was consigned in 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." 1

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 (yevous) who confess that he [Jesus] is Christ, but affirm that he is a man, born of men; with 1. Taylor's Rule of Consc. ii. 3. 14. Works, xiii. 116.

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

ORIGEN ( 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. 2 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

1 Εισι τινες, ω φίλοι, έλεγον, απο του ἡμετερου γένους ὁμολογούντες αυτόν Χριστον είναι, ανθρωπον δε εξ ανθρωπων γενομενον αποφαινομενοι· οἷς ου συντι θεμαι, ουδ' αν πλείστοι ταύτα μοι δοξάσαντες ειποιεν' επειδη ουκ ανθρώπειοις δια δαγμασι κεκελευσμεθα ὑπ ̓ αυτού του Χριστου πείθεσθαι, αλλα τοις δια των ματ καριων προφητων κηρυχθείσι και δι' αυτού διδαχθεισι. JUST. MART. Dial. cum Tryph. § 48. pp. 144, 5. ed. Ben. (ed. Col. p. 267.) $ See vol. i.

2 See vol. i. pp. 226 &s.

P.

311.

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 enquiries, fall in with many doctrines opposed to one another, and will hear many professing to know the truth, and different traditions respecting it." What then, I ask, would have been Origen's opinion of the doctrine of our opponents, that there was universal consent among all the teachers of the Catholic Church, in all the important doctrines of Christianity, for the first four or five centuries?

JEROME. (fl. a. 378.)

"While,"

Again, what is the testimony of Jerome? saith he, "the blood of Christ was yet but recently shed in Judæa, it was maintained that the Lord's body was but an appearance," &c. And after enumerating several cases of error, he points out, as other instances, that "To 2 See vol. i. p. 226.

See vol. i. p. 311.

3 See vol. i. p. 432.

the angel of Ephesus there is imputed the loss of love. In the angel of the Church of Pergamos the eating of things offered to idols, and the doctrine of the Nicolaitans, are blamed;" &c.,' showing that he held that there were many, even at that time, in the nominal Catholic Church, involved in serious error. And as to any notion that he could have supported the doctrine of our opponents as to the truth having been delivered in the catholic consent of the writers of the preceding ages, it is summarily overthrown by his language respecting the testimony of those writers on the great question that formed the subject of the Arian controversy. He admits fully that their works contain erroneous statements; and when asked how he accounts for it, he replies," It may be that they merely erred or wrote with another meaning, or their writings were gradually corrupted by unskilful copyists; or certainly before that that meridian dæmon, Arius, arose in Alexandria, they may have spoken some things innocently and incautiously; and that cannot escape the calumny of perverse men." He, then, who wrote thus, could not have supposed that the Catholic consent of these writers formed part of the rule of faith.

AUGUSTINE. (fl. a. 396.)

Let us pass on to Augustine. Having stated that to the Scriptures alone he had learned to give such honour as to suppose the writers of them certainly inerrable, he adds, respecting all other authors,-" But others, however distinguished they may be for holiness and learning, I so read as not to think anything true, because they thought it to be so, but because they are able to persuade me, either by those canonical authors, or by some probable reason, that it is agreeable to the truth." Now these words are quite irreconcileable with the notion that Augustine supposed the consent of those writers formed part of the rule of faith, and was a practically infallible informant of the oral tradition of the Apostles.

See vol. i. p. 431.

2 See vol. i. p. 371.

3 See vol. i. p. 282.