And the discrepancy we have thus shown to exist in their statements proves that we may have the consent of a number of Fathers to that which had not the consent of the Church in its favour, and consequently that with the scanty remains we possess of the writings of the antient Church, it is impossible to infer the consent of the Church in any case, for though a doctrine may be supported by many of the Fathers whose writings remain to us, and not directly opposed in the other writings known to us, yet this may be merely accidental from our not happening to possess other works of the Fathers, or having the opportunity to know the sentiments of others. in the primitive Church; of which we must ever recollect also we have but a partial and limited representation in the writings of those who chose to become authors, and who were many of them probably far less fitted to give a sober and judicious account of the faith of the Church, than many others who have left nothing behind them. Hence we must observe, that even if some of the Fathers whose writings happen to remain to us agreed together in any particular point, and the rest were silent, which is the very utmost that the boasted" catholic consent" of our opponents could amount to, this would be wholly insufficient to assure us of such a consent of the whole primitive church in the matter as could be to us a sure record of the teaching of the Apostles, or be on any ground a divine informant or authoritative guide.

But in fact, though the theory put forward by our opponents is, that "catholic consent" only can be relied upon, (a testimony, however, which by a voluntary self-deception they identify with the consentient witness of the few remains of the Fathers that happen to have come down to us) that which our opponents practically rely upon to prove this consent, is often the dictum of some half a dozen Fathers. In theory they hold it necessary to establish the consent of the Fathers, but their practice is totally different. And in truth, they must be well aware that otherwise they must give up their ground altogether, as both

their favourite Vincent of Lerins, and Bellarmine, will bear reluctant witness. For notwithstanding the magnificent rule proposed by Vincent, that we should be guided in our search after truth by what "everybody always everywhere" in the catholic church testified respecting it, we find in the latter part of his treatise, that his practical proof of the doctrine held by everybody always everywhere" may be derived from the testimony of less than a dozen authors. And Bellarmine candidly admits that of doctrine supported by the consentient testimony of all the Fathers, "an example is hardly to be found," (vix invenitur exemplum,) but he thinks that if a few Fathers of great name have supported it, and others when mentioning the subject have not contradicted it, that will do as well. And thus our "divine informant," "catholic consent," is practically the dictum of a few fallible men.

1

This evident failure of the theory, when reduced to practice, is probably the reason why the Tractators are so shy of drawing out the proofs of "catholic consent" and traditive interpretations of Scripture delivered by the unanimous voice of the primitive church. Certainly their success in the cases upon which they have ventured, has not, as we have just seen, been such as is likely to encourage them to enter further into particulars than may be necessary. But one might suppose that maintaining, as they do, that antiquity unanimously consents in the delivery of a certain system of theology, they would be anxious to bring before the public the proofs of such consent; and beyond doubt they would advance their cause much more, in the eyes of all impartial men, by so doing, than by those general and vague appeals and claims, accompanied with but few definite references, with which they usually content themselves.

Instead of flourishing high-sounding words against us

Videtur sufficere si aliquot Patres magni nominis expresse id asserant, et ceteri non contradicant cum tamen ejus rei meminerint. BELLARM. De V. D. lib. iv. c. 9.

about the infallibility of "the catholic church," and the certainty of what "everybody always everywhere" has believed, let them set themselves to produce the passages in which such tradition of doctrine or traditive interpretation of Scripture is delivered, and thus show its reception by everybody always everywhere." In this they might afford us some proof of that patristical learning for which they take credit; and of which they certainly have not yet favoured the public with any very abundant testimony. And to show them that we have no wish to be hard upon them, we will offer them a doctrine upon which to try their powers in such a research, which they have themselves very prominently put forward as derived from “tradition;" viz., the consubstantiality of the Son with the Father. Will any one of our opponents give us a Catena Patrum for this doctrine for the first few centuries, showing that during that period not only did no Father speak somewhat inconsistently with such a doctrine, but, on the contrary, that all delivered that doctrine with one consent? Let us see the evidence traced and drawn out. And be it remembered that it is to be so clear, as to counterbalance the (alleged) obscurity of Scripture in this point. It is not clear, say our opponents, in Scripture: but only go to church-tradition, and you will find that all the Fathers have clearly, and unambiguously, and with one consent, delivered it. I beg to ask, then, for the proofs upon which this statement rests. I do this by no means denying that it has been in my belief a truth held by the orthodox part of the visible church from the beginning, because I hold it to be a fundamental truth revealed in Scripture, and that we can find a stream of testimony in its favour, running down to us from the beginning. But I ask for the proofs of this boasted catholic consent for it. Suppose the attempt made. Will they include all those who have belonged to the visible church? No, they will say, we must go to the Fathers of the Catholic Church only, and not think that the agreement of such heretics as those that opposed the doctrine, is neces

sary. So, then, in the first step, the truth of the doctrine. to be established, is assumed. But suppose it granted that we are to go only to the Fathers of the catholic church. What evidence, I beg to ask, could we show that there was catholic consent for it in the first three centuries? Moreover, Arius appealed to tradition as in his own favour. And Athanasius, though he referred to the tradition of a few antient authors as in favour of the doctrine, does not claim catholic consent from the beginning in its favour; a claim, indeed, which, had he made it, could not have been alone a sufficient ground for faith to build upon; and as to Mr. Keble's notion that the Fathers at Nice affirmed that the doctrine there agreed upon had been taught in all their churches from the beginning, it has not the least particle of evidence to rest upon.

Or let them take the doctrine of the divinity of the Holy Spirit, and show us the proofs of catholic consent in its favour, for the first three centuries; and they will find, if they attempt it, that both Basil and Jerome will laugh at them for their pains; the one telling them that the doctrine was passed over in silence and left unexplained, and that some were unorthodox respecting it; and the latter, that many through ignorance of the Scriptures, and Lactantius among the number, erred respecting it. 1

66

1

Again, then, I say to our opponents, you talk about catholic consent and traditive interpretations of Scripture received by the catholic church" for the whole Christian faith, produce your proofs of such consent, deal no longer in vague generalities, but let us know how many and what points of doctrine can be thus proved, and present us with the proofs; and I will venture to say, that the leanness and partiality of the Catena,-where some ten or a dozen men will appear as the uncommissioned representatives of as many millions, and a few sentences (some probably ambiguous and equivocal) of fallible men, pretending to nothing more than to deliver what, to the best of their knowledge and belief, was the truth, will be deSee pp. 244, 5. above.

livered to us as an infallible interpretation of Scripture,will be the best answer in itself to all the claims made for "tradition."

SECT. V. CONSENT EVEN IN THE WRITINGS THAT REMAIN TO US, NOT TO BE EXPECTED.

From the extracts already given from the writings of the early Fathers, it is very evident that there was much division of sentiment among them, even upon the highest points of faith, and consequently some among them involved in very serious error. And I would ask, Are we to be surprised that such was the case, in a vast society consisting of an immense number of distinct and independent bodies, like the primitive church? It must ever be remembered that the church, as left by the Apostles, consisted of a great number of bishoprics, all independent of each other; and each bishop having no head or superior but the great Head of the church, to whom alone he was responsible. Archbishops, Patriarchs, and Popes were a creation of the church. There was no common earthly head, nor even any representative assembly, to act as a check upon the prejudices and fancies of men. Had there even been such checks, experience would hardly warrant us in expecting perfect unanimity in the teaching of such a number of men as the pastors of the church even then amounted to. For let me ask, Is there such consent, even among the teachers of any one single body of Christians at this day, however full and explicit their confession of faith may be? We have already seen that Mr. Newman confesses, nay, strongly urges, that it is not the case, even in our own church. Is it not, then, most unreasonable to assume that such must have been the case, in such a body as the primitive church?

For how was such unanimity to be obtained? True,