"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 perplexed 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 recognises 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 creed 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, text by text piecemeal 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 ascribe 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;

and where men are not such, it will be but one out of many difficulties. A person however, thus circumstanced, whether from his own fault or not, is in a difficulty; difficulties are often our lot, and we must bear them, as we think God would have us. We can cut the knot by throwing off the authority of the Fathers; and we can remain under the burden of the difficulty by allowing that authority; but, however we act, we have no licence to please our taste or humour, but we act under a responsibility.

Two main respects have been mentioned, in which the concordant testimony of the Fathers may be considered to throw light upon the sense of Scripture: on these a few words are now necessary with a special reference to S. Cyril,-first as regards the doctrine of Scripture, next as regards the interpretation of texts. Now it will be found that they are more concordant as to the doctrines themselves contained in Scripture, than as to the passages in which these are contained and their respective force; and, again, that they are more concordant in their view of the principles upon which Scripture is to be interpreted, than in their application of these principles, and their view of the sense in consequence to be assigned to particular texts. This was to be expected, as may easily be made appear.

There seems to have been no Catholic exposition of Scripture, no traditionary comment upon its continuous text. The subject-matter of Catholic tradition, as preserved in the writings of the Fathers, is, not Scripture interpretation or proof, but certain doctrines, professing to be those of the Gospel and since among these we find this, "that Scripture contains all the Gospel doctrines," we infer, that, according to the mind of the Fathers, those very doctrines which they declare to be the Christian faith are contained in and are to be proved from Scripture. But where they occur in Scripture cannot be ascertained from the Fathers, except so far as the accidental course of controversy has brought out their joint

PREFACE.

xvii witness concerning certain great passages, on which they do seem to have had traditionary information. The Arian and other heresies obliged them to appeal to Scripture in behalf of a certain cardinal doctrine which they held by uninterrupted tradition; and thus have been the means of pointing out to us particular texts in which are contained the great truths which were assailed. But while we are thus furnished with a portion of the Scripture proof of Catholic doctrine, guaranteed to us by the unanimous consent of the Church, it is natural also, under the circumstances above mentioned, that many of the discussions which occurred should contain appeals to Scripture of a less cogent character, and evidencing the exercise of mere private judgment upon the text in default of Catholic Tradition. The early Church had read Scripture not for argument but for edification; it is not wonderful that though holding the truth, and seeing it in the inspired text, and often seeing there what we fail to see, she should nevertheless be as little able to distribute exactly each portion of the truth to each of its places in the text, and to analyze the grounds of those impressions which the whole conveyed, as religious persons in the private walks of life may be now-a-days. Accordingly her divines, one by one, while they witness to the truth itself most sufficiently, as speaking from Tradition, yet often prove it insufficiently, as relying necessarily on private judgment.

For instance, the text, He that hath seen Me, hath seen the Father, is taken by S. Cyril, agreeably with other early writers, as a proof that Christ is in all things like (μoos v Tão) to the Father; (Lect. xi. 18.) and the text, Except a man be born of water and of the Spirit, as a proof of the necessity of Baptism. (Lect. iii. 4.) But though there are many of equal cogency, there are many also, about which there may be fairly difference of opinion, as when he interprets, Surely God is in thee, (Isai. 45, 14.) of the Indwelling of the Father in the Son. (Lect. xi. 16.)

C