another, and at all events cannot be read altogether, it follows that, during their gradual perusal, unavoidable prejudice or perplexity will often attach to the Fathers, and to the Catholic Faith, and to those who are enforcing the latter by means of the former. And thus Editors of the Fathers are pretty much in the condition of Architects, who lie under the disadvantage, from which Painters and Sculptors are exempt, of having their work exposed to public criticism through every stage of its execution, and being expected to provide symmetry and congruity in its parts independent of the whole.

Such are the circumstances in which we find ourselves, open to remark for every opinion, every sentence, every phrase, of every Father, before its meaning, relevancy, importance, or bearings are ascertained; before it is known whether it will be, as it were, hidden by others, or completed, or explained, or modified, or unanimously witnessed. And since the evil is in the nature of the case itself, we can do no more than have patience, and recommend patience to others, and with the racer in the Tragedy look forward steadily and hopefully to the event,—ΤΩ ΤΕΛΕΙ πίστιν égwv,-when, as we trust, all that is inharmonious and anomalous in the details, will at length be practically smoothed. Meanwhile, as regards the condition of the reader himself, we consider that we shall sufficiently provide for his perplexity by reminding him of his duty to take his own Church for the present as his guide, and her decisions as a key and final arbiter, as regards the particular statements of the separate Fathers, which he may meet with; being fully confident, that her judgment which he begins by taking as a touchstone of each, will in the event be found to be really formed, as it ought to be, on a view of the testimony of all.

In expressing, however, these thoughts, it is obvious to anticipate an objection of another sort which is likely to be urged against our undertaking, to the effect that all these dangers and warnings are gratuitous, Scripture itself contain

ing sufficient information concerning the doctrines, principles, and mind of the Apostles, without having recourse to the difficult and, as has been above confessed, the anxious task, whether ultimately successful or not, of collecting the object of our inquiry from the writings of the Fathers. This is not the place to treat of an objection, to which much attention has been drawn for several years past; yet thus much may be observed in passing:-If the sufficiency of Scripture for teaching as well as proving the Christian faith be maintained as a theological truth, the grounds in reason must be demanded, such as are independent of that inquiry into history which it is brought forward to prohibit. If it is urged as a truth obvious in matter of fact, and practically certain, then its maintainers have to account for the actual disagreement among readers of Scripture as to what the faith, principles, and temper of the Apostles were. And if it be urged on the authority of the sixth Article of our Church, then they must be asked, why if this Article contained a reason against deferring to Antiquity, the Convocation of 1571, which imposed it, at the same time, as is well known, ordered all preachers to teach according to the Catholic Fathers, and why our most eminent Divines, beginning with the writers of the Homilies themselves, have ever pursued that very method.

Nothing can be more certain than that Scripture contains all necessary doctrine; yet nothing, it is presumed, can be more certain either, than that, practically speaking, it needs an interpreter; nothing more certain than that our Church and her Divines assign the witness of the early ages of Christianity concerning Apostolic doctrine, as that interpreter.

Without, however, entering into a question which our Church seems to have determined for us, a few words shall be devoted to the explanation of a verbal difficulty by which it is often perplexed. An objection is made, which, when analyzed, resolves itself into the following form.

"Either Antiquity does or does not teach something over and above Scripture: if it does, it adds to the inspired word;-if it does not, it is useless.-Does it then or does it not add to Scripture?" And, as if shewing that the question is a difficult one, of various writers who advocate the use of Antiquity, one may be found to speak of the writings of the Fathers as enabling us to ascertain and revive truths which have fallen into desuetude, while another may strenuously maintain, that they impart the knowledge of no new truths over and above what Scripture sets before us. Now, not to touch upon other points suggested by this question, it may be asked by way of explanation, whether the exposition of the true sense of any legal document, any statute or deed, which has been contested, is an addition to it or not? It is in point of words certainly; for if the words were the same, it would be no explanation; but it is no addition to the sense, for it professes to be neither more nor less than the very sense, which is expressed in one set of words in the original document, in another in the comment. In like manner, when our Saviour says, "I and My Father are One," and Antiquity interprets "One" to mean "one in substance," this is an addition to the wording, but no addition to the sense. Of many possible means of interpreting a word, it cuts away all but one, or if it recognizes others, it reduces them to harmony and subordination to that one. Unless the Evangelist wished his readers to be allowed to put any conceivable sense upon the word, the power of doing so is no privilege; rather it is a privilege to know that very meaning, which to the exclusion of all others is the true meaning. Catholic Tradition professes to do for Scripture just which is desirable, whether it is possible or not, to relieve us from the chance of taking one or other of the many senses which are wrong or insufficient, instead of the one sense which is true and complete.

But again, every diligent reader of the Bible has a certain

idea in his own mind of what its teaching is, an idea which he cannot say is gained from this or that particular passage, but which he has gained from it as a whole, and which if he attempted to prove argumentatively, he might perplex himself or fall into inconsistencies, because he has never trained his mind in such logical processes; yet nevertheless he has in matter of fact a view of Scripture doctrine, and that gained from Scripture, and which, if he states it, he does not necessarily state in words of Scripture, and which, whether after all correct or not, is not incorrect merely because he does not express it in Scripture words, or because he cannot tell whence he got it, or logically refer it to, or prove it from, particular passages. One man is a Calvinist, another an Arminian, another a Latitudinarian; not logically merely, but from the impression gained from Scripture. Is the Latitudinarian necessarily adding to Scripture because he maintains the proposition, “religious opinions matter not, so that a man is sincere,” a proposition not in terminis in Scripture? Surely he is unscriptural, not because he uses words not in Scripture, but because he thereby expresses ideas which are not expressed in Scripture. In answer then to the question, whether the Catholic system is an addition to Scripture, we reply, in one sense it is, in another it is not. It is not, inasmuch as it is not an addition to the range of independent ideas which Almighty God intended should be expressed and conveyed on the whole by the inspired text: it is an addition, inasmuch as it is in addition to their arrangement, and to the words containing them,-inasmuch as it stands as a conclusion contrasted with its premisses, inasmuch as it does that which every reader of the Scriptures does for himself, express and convey the ideas more explicitly and determinately than he finds them, and inasmuch as there may be difficulty in duly referring every part of the explicit doctrine to the various parts of Scripture which contain it.

Nothing here is intended beyond setting right an ambiguity of speech which both perplexes persons, and leads them to think that they differ from others, from whom they do not differ. No member of the English Church ever thought that the Church's doctrine was an addition to Scripture in any other sense than that in which an individual's own impression concerning the sense of Scripture is an addition to it; or ever referred to a supposed deposit of faith distinct from Scripture existing in the writings of the Fathers, in any other sense than in that in which asking a friend's opinion about the sense of Scripture, might be called imputing to him unscriptural opinions. The question of words then may easily be cleared up, though it often becomes a difficulty; the real subject in dispute, which is not here to be discussed, being this, how this one true sense of Scripture is to be learned, whether by philological criticism upon definite texts,—or by a promised superintendence of the Holy Ghost teaching the mind the true doctrines from Scripture, (whether by a general impression upon the mind, or by leading it, piecemeal text by text into doctrine by doctrine;) -or, on the other hand, by a blessing of the Spirit upon studying it in the right way, that is, in the way actually provided, in other words, according to the Church's interpretations. In all cases the text of Scripture and an exposition of it are supposed; in the one the exposition comes first and is brought to Scripture, in the other it is brought out after examination into Scripture; but you cannot help assigning some exposition or other, if you value the Bible at all. Those alone will be content to give no sense to Scripture, who think it matters not whether it has any sense or not. As to the case of a difference eventually occurring in any instance of importance, between what an individual considers to be the sense of Scripture and that which he finds Antiquity to put upon it, the previous question must be asked, whether such difference is likely to arise. It will not arise in the case of the majority, nor again in the case of serious, sensible, and humble minds;