which, according to Origen, the apostles "transmitted to us very clearly" (manifestissime tradiderunt) because necessary to the salvation of mankind (quæcumque necessaria crediderunt); and these form the groundwork of Christianity, and the germs out of which dogmatic theology has developed itself.

Of these developments two classes can be distinguished-a class of developments of revealed truths, contained clearly in the Bible; and a class of truths not found there, or, at least, not in a clear and undisputed manner. Of the first class of truths the germ is divine, the development is human; of the second class, both the germ and the development are human. In the former case the intellect of man works upon the revealed truth directly, and taking it as its proper object; in the latter it has an indirect bearing upon it, and operates about it, by way of analogy. An example of the first class are the dogmatic definitions concerning the divine Person of Christ; an example of the latter are the definition of the Immaculate Conception of the Virgin Mary, or of the papal primacy and infallibility. As the germ which, in the latter case, gives rise to a later development is

purely human, so it is not to be wondered at if it is not found by scholars and doctors, either in the Scripture or in the early tradition of the Church. St. Bernard, St. Anselm of Canterbury, and St. Thomas certainly had examined pretty thoroughly the contents of revelation; yet not one of those three very eminent men was able to discover in it the truth of the Immaculate Conception of Mary. The reason is obvious. They could not discover it because it was not there; but it was in the heart of the Christians who loved Mary, and in the minds of those doctors who thought it very convenient that the Mother of the Redeemer should partake in an especial manner of the fruit of redemption by being exempted from the original sin. On this principle, I should not wonder at all if, after a few years, St. Joseph also should be declared to have been conceived without original sin. His devotees already think so, and print books to this effect. The Roman Church may define it. The idea is growing, and may ripen. Only it will be a human, not a divine, belief.

CHAPTER VIII

DOCTRINAL UNITY IN THE ROMAN CHURCH

I

HAVE said, more than once, that the Church cannot reveal a new truth or dogma. This is so important that it must be kept always before one's eyes, as on it depends the issue of this treatise. According to the view held by all Christian doctors, the later Church can never know what the early Church did not. The revelation given once for all to the apostles cannot be either diminished or added to. It is a "faith once for all delivered," and it is thus of the very essence of the Christian revelation that, as originally given, it is final. St. Paul repeats and reiterates that if any one announces a new dogma he is to be anathematised. General Councils cannot frame new articles of faith, and whatever is new to Christian theology in substance is, by that very fact,

Even

proved not to be of the faith, quod semper, quod ubique, quod ab omnibus-according to the formula of Vincent of Lerins.

What is, then, the function of the Church with regard to the teaching of dogmas? Its function is twofold: first to search the Scriptures, or tradition, if perchance there may be something in them which escaped the studies of the ancients; then to explain what has been already revealed. This is its duty. It belongs to God only to reveal new articles of faith.

I shall not delay about the first function. If it was possible in the early centuries of the Church to overlook the contents of the Scriptures it is more difficult now, although by no means impossible; and no one can tell what surprises Holy Writ may keep in store for us, as its contents are almost infinite. Its second function is to explain what has been already revealed, and here the theory of development finds its proper place.

Now in the Scriptures and tradition there is the article of faith, the dogma, not its explanation and interpretation. The explanation was left to the Church, to General Councils, to Christian divines. The articles of faith were delivered by the apostles very

as

distinctly (manifestissime tradiderunt), Origen says, but they did not give also their explanation, in order that "those pious Christians who had received from the Holy Ghost the gifts of knowledge, of wisdom, and of tongues might exercise their talents in the interpretation of the mysteries of faith delivered unto them. . . . He, therefore, who wishes to set up a body or a series of Christian doctrines in a scientific way must make use of the aforesaid articles of faith as elements and foundation stones, velut elementis ac fundamentis hujusmodi uti'; examining very carefully each assertion, whether it is necessary and true, and upon them build up his book with the help of other assertions, examples, and reasons found in the Scriptures, and reasons and inferences drawn out of his own investigation" (De Principiis, lib. i. n. 49).

What Origen says the Catholic divine ought to do he first set the example of, and before and after him the Church did and still continues to do. Out of the articles of faith, as first principles, or foundation stones, she builds up the explanations of the Christian dogmas.