those authors who have treated of it; and, whether or not they found what they sought, it surely was reasonable so to seek it, and cannot be condemned except by the event,-that is, by shewing that their expectation, however reasonable antecedently, is mistaken in fact, that after the search into history, no evidence is forthcoming concerning the text, nor yet the principles, nor even the temper which the Apostles inculcated.

A like expectation has actuated the present Publication; it has been conceived probable, to say the least, that the study of the writings of the Fathers will enable us to determine morally, to make up our minds for practical purposes, what the doctrines of the Apostles were, for instance whether or not they believed in our Lord's Divinity, or the general necessity of Baptism for salvation; or if not the doctrines, still what were their principles, as whether or not or how far they allowed of using secular means for advancing Christian truth, or whether or not they sanctioned the monarchical principle, or again the centralizing principle, or again the principle of perpetuity in Church matters, or whether they considered that Scripture should be interpreted in the mere letter, or what is called spiritually;—or at least what was their temper, for instance, whether or not it was what is now called in reproach superstitious, or whether or not exclusive, or whether or not opposed to display and excitement. On some or other of these points there are surely grounds for expecting information from the Fathers, sufficient for our practice, and therefore having claims upon it.

Recourse then being had to the writings of the Fathers, in order to obtain information as to this historical fact, viz. the doctrines, the principles, and the religious temper of Apostolical Christianity, so far we have little to do with the personal endowments of the Fathers, except as these bear on the question of their fidelity. Their being men of strictest lives and most surpassing holiness, would not prove that they knew what it was the Apostles taught; and, were they but

ordinary men, this need not incapacitate them from being faithful witnesses and serviceable informants, if they were in a position to be such. We should have but to take into account, and weigh against each other, their qualifications and disqualifications, for being evidence to a fact; we should have to balance honesty against prejudice, education against party influence, early attachments against reason, and so on. Thus we should treat them, taken one by one; but even this sort of personal scrutiny will be practically superseded, when we consult them, not separately, but as our Reformed Church ever has done, together; and demand their unanimous testimony to any point of doctrine or discipline, before we make any serious use of them: for, it stands to reason that, where they agree, the peculiarities of their respective nations, education, history, and period, instead of suggesting an indefinite suspicion against the subject-matter of their testimony, does but increase the evidence of its truth. Their testimony becomes the concurrence of many independent witnesses in behalf of the same facts; and, if it is to be slighted or disparaged, one does not see what knowledge of the past remains to us, or what matter for the historian. Viewing S. Cyril, for instance, as one of a body who bears a concordant evidence to the historical fact, that the Apostles taught that Christ is God', or that Baptism is the remedy of original sin", or that celibacy is not imperative on the clergy, whether he was Asiatic or African, of the Roman or the Oriental party, as little matters, as when we consider him as one of a company bearing witness to the historical fact, that the Apostles and their associates wrote the New Testament. Indeed, as the matter stands, there is something very remarkable and even startling to the reader of S. Cyril, to find in a divine of his school such a perfect agreement, for instance as regards the doctrine of the Trinity, with those Fathers who in his age were more famous as champions of it. Here is a writer, separated by

whatever cause from what, speaking historically, may be called the Athanasian School, suspicious of its adherents, and suspected by them; yet he, when he comes to explain himself', expresses precisely the same doctrine as that of Athanasius or Gregory, while he merely abstains from the particular theological term in which the latter Fathers agreeably to the Nicene Council conveyed it. Can we have a clearer proof that the difference of opinion between them was not one of ecclesiastical and traditionary doctrine, but of practical judgment? that the Fathers at Nicæa wisely considered that, under the circumstances, the word in question was the only symbol which would secure the Church against the insidious heresy which was assailing it, while S. Cyril', with Eusebius of Cæsarea, Meletius, and others, shrunk from it, at least for a while, as if an addition to the Creed, or a word already taken into the service of an opposite heresy, and likely to introduce into the Church heretical notions? Their judgment, which was erroneous, was their own; their faith was not theirs only, but shared with them by the whole Christian world.

At the same time it must be granted, that this view of the Fathers as witnesses to Apostolic truth not individually but collectively, clear and unanswerable as it is, considered as a view, is open to some great practical inconveniences, when acted on in such an undertaking as that in which the present Editors are engaged. For since, by the supposition, no one of the Fathers is necessarily right in all his doctrine, taken by himself, but may be erroneous in secondary points, each taken by himself is in danger, by his own peculiarities, on the one hand of throwing discredit on all together, on the other of perplexing those who by means of the Fathers are inquiring after Catholic truth. And whereas in any publication of this nature, they cannot appear all at once, but first one and then

y iv. 7. vi. 1. x. and xi. xii. 1.

z v. Hilar. Contr. Const. 3. 12. Athen.

de Synod. 12. (ed. Bened. Cyr. lii. B.) a vid. Bull. Defens. F. N. ii. 1.

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 4égwv,-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.