It is at least evident, then, that such a rule of faith as Dr. Pusey and his party propose to us, can be made use of only by the learned. For, even were these volumes translated into all the languages spoken by Christians, I suppose it will be granted that such an investigation can only be carried on by learned And it would be a rather curious inquiry, by the way, how many there are even among the learned, who are really acquainted with their rule of faith, if patristical tradition forms. part of it.

men.

What, then, is the unlearned man to do? What is he to do? He is to learn from his "priest," the "tradition" delivered in these volumes; and he is to put his faith in the interpretation of the Scriptures so given him, as a divine interpretation, derived from the oral teaching of the Apostles. And if, perchance, he should think the interpretation thus given him, not to be what appears to him the meaning of the Scriptures, he is to put his faith in the interpretation, and not in what appears to him to be God's truth; for such is Mr. Newman's express direction. I pass on to observe

II. That all the doctrines of the Christian faith are as plainly delivered in the Scriptures as, to our knowledge, they are revealed.

Assuming that the arguments adduced on our last head have been satisfactory, and that the reader is disposed to admit that all the essential and fundamental points of faith are clearly and plainly delivered in the Scriptures, we have here only to consider the case of those which are not to be classed among the fundamental points of faith.

Now here even Vincent of Lerins seems to hesitate as to making a claim to any well-authenticated report of Apostolical tradition, anything which can be looked upon as delivering to us with certainty the oral teaching of the Apostles; and our opponents themselves are somewhat self-contradictory in their statements; in some places making a claim to the possession of testimony of a certain and indubitable kind, and in others apparently admitting that we cannot be altogether certain of the correctness of the testimony we possess on these points, though this admission is accompanied with the intimation that we must "either believe or silently acquiesce in the whole" of what the "prophetical tradition" of the Church (as Mr. Newman calls it) delivers to us.

That on these points much valuable information is to be ob

1 See Newman's Lect. p. 299, and Keble's serm. pp. 36, 7.

2 See Newman's Lect. pp. 249 and 300.

We

tained from the writings of the antient Church, is what I am far from prepared to deny, but, on the contrary, firmly maintain. But what I ask is, How can you in any case verify a doctrine, or interpretation, or statement, as an Apostolical tradition? We have already shown the impossibility of doing so. have shown that the tests proposed by our opponents are altogether fallible and nugatory. We have shown that there is no certain and indubitable report of any divine revelation but the Holy Scripture.

However obscure, therefore, any of the less fundamental doctrines or statements of Scripture may be considered to be, there is no plainer report of them than what we find there, that can come to us with any authority to bind the conscience to belief. They are as plainly delivered in the Scriptures, as, to our knowledge, they are revealed.

I proceed to show

III. That the best and only infallible expositor of Scripture is Scripture; or, in other words, that the best mode of judging of the sense of any passage is by a comparison of it with the testimony of Scripture in other parts; first, by comparing it with the context, with passages similarly worded, with such plain places of Scripture as can illustrate its meaning, and with all that is stated in Scripture respecting the subject treated of; and secondly, by considering it in connection with the whole scheme of doctrine clearly revealed in Scripture.

We take it for granted, that we have sufficiently demonstrated that patristical tradition cannot be considered a divine informant. Whatever, then, may be its value as a help to us in obtaining a knowledge of Christian doctrine, it must be placed in a very different rank to an inspired guide. It partakes of the imperfection of human nature. It is mixed with the dross of human imagi

nations.

Moreover, "the things of God knoweth no one but the Spirit of God." It is not by any peculiar powers of mind or extent of human learning, that the mysteries of God's word are to be developed. They can be known only as far as they are revealed, nor can any powers of man furnish us with a further insight into them than the Divine declarations afford us; for all beyond that is the offspring of the human imagination. Nevertheless there is, as experience shows us, a strong inclination in men to be wise above what is written; to attempt to fathom mysteries beyond their reach, and explain fully and without reserve even those more hidden spiritual truths of which the word of God contains only some intimations, and thus bring out a system which shall be complete in all its parts; and in this attempt they are in danger at every step of being led astray by the prejudices of human

nature, the bias of preconceived notions, the flights of an erratic imagination. Look at Origen, for instance, who lived at a period when, according to our opponents, the savour of Apostolical oral tradition was yet fresh in the Church. With human commentators, therefore, we must be always on our guard.

It seems obvious, then, that our first inquiry in the interpretation of Scripture should be, What has God said on this matter elsewhere in Scripture? Is there any other passage in the word of God, that either in the sentiment conveyed, or in the expréssion used, is similar to the one before us? Whether the difficulty lies in the precise meaning of the terms used, or in the doctrine intended to be conveyed, there is no mode of solving the difficulty equally efficacious or satisfactory with that of putting together the parallel passages of Scripture, and judging from them as a whole what is the mind of God in the particular passage under consideration. For here alone we have the infallible records of divine teaching, the mind of the Spirit.

And while we compare it with the parallel passages, we must remember not to take an insulated view of the doctrine which it seems to inculcate, but to contemplate it in its position in the great scheme of Scripture doctrine, so as more clearly to see its true form and proportions, and ascertain that our notions of it are such as to give it that harmony with the whole which beyond doubt it possesses.

Such was the course pursued by the Fathers at the Council of Nice. When desirous of accurately describing the divine nature of the Son in opposition to the errors of the Arians, they, as we are told by Athanasius, "collected together out of the Scriptures these words, the brightness, the fountain, and the river, and the image of the substance, and that expression, In thy light shall we see light,' and that, I and my Father are one;' and then at last they wrote more plainly and compendiously, that the Son was consubstantial with the Father, for all the previous expressions have this meaning."

This is precisely an exemplification of that for which we are here contending. The views of the Nicene Fathers were not derived (as those of the heretics were, and almost always are,) from one or two insulated passages of Scripture, still less from patristical tradition, but from a general consideration of the whole testimony of Scripture upon the point; and from this they deduced the faith, and interpreted each particular passage.

This, indeed, is a common rule of interpretation in other works, especially those that have come down to us from a remote period. There are often particular trains of thought, and par

1 Athanas. ad Afr. Episc. Epist. § 6. See the passage, c. 10, below.

ticular modes of expression, characteristic of particular authors; and there is no mode of arriving at the sense of an author so efficient or satisfactory, as that of judging (if possible) from the collation of similar passages. This rule, then, applies with tenfold force to Scripture, for both as to the author and the subject it is a work altogether sui generis. It alone claims to be inspired. It alone was written at the dictation of the Holy Spirit. It alone delivers with authority divine truth.

The light, therefore, which we thus derive is altogether pure; it is divine light. The interpretation, as far as it goes, is an inspired interpretation. There is no uncertainty in it; no allowance to be made for human imperfection; no room for exceptions and limitations in our reception of it. We may embrace it with more confidence than we would a friend, whose love and faithfulness it was impossible to call in question; while everything else is to be received only as one towards whom we are bound to observe caution and reserve. Whatever mistakes may be made here, they are owing entirely to our own imperfection and prejudices, while with any other guide we have not only our own imperfection and prejudices to contend with, but those of our guide too.

Moreover, whatever weight may be attached by any to what the Fathers have delivered, it is allowed by all, (as we have already observed,) that as it respects the words Scripture only is inspired. This again very strongly tends to show that Scripture is the best interpreter of Scripture. For other interpreters may make use of words very open to an unorthodox meaning, though well intended by the writer. While opposing one error, they may use words leaning to the opposite, as we have already seen to have been continually the case with the Fathers. But by a comparison of Scripture with itself, we may see the same doctrine expressed in different phrases, and illustrated by various allusions, all inspired, and therefore free from the least error, or inclination to error, if only fairly and honestly taken; and in this variety of phrase and illustration we have an inspired commentary upon the text whose meaning we are seeking.

Further, as it respects the efficiency of this mode of interpretation, we must observe, that all the great doctrines of Christianity (which are those with which we are here principally concerned) lie in a small compass, and were the great subjects of the Apostles' preaching. Having, then, four different accounts of our Lord's life and doctrine, and so many Epistles addressed on different occasions to various Churches, we have these doctrines placed before us in the New Testament in so many various ways and different phrases, yet all indited by the omniscient Spirit, that we have ample scope afforded us for using with suc

cess such a mode of interpretation. Not to mention that in the Old Testament also we have an adumbration of much that is of the highest moment in the Christian faith. Hence it is said by Clement of Alexandria, that the Scriptures are to be expounded according to "the ecclesiastical rule," and "the ecclesiastical rule," he tells us, "is the consent and harmony of the Law and the Prophets with the covenant [or, testament] delivered by the advent of our Lord." And any one who looks into the writings of the earliest Fathers, will see that this comparison of the statements of the two Testaments was one of their chief guides in the interpretation of Scripture.

Nay, we have some remarkable testimonies on this head in the writings of some of the Romanists themselves, when, forgetting their controversies, they gave utterance to their unbiassed judg

ment.

Thus Joseph a Costa, the Jesuit, says," Nothing appears to me to explain Scripture equally with Scripture itself. Therefore the diligent, attentive, and frequent reading and meditation, and collation of the Scriptures, always appeared to me the very best of all guides for understanding it. For passages of Scripture are best understood from each other. . . that which is clear explains that which is obscure, and that which is certain explains that which is doubtful." And thus speaks Salmero on the Epistles of St. Paul,-" The best rule for understanding and explaining the more obscure passages of Paul is to compare the parallel passages that treat of the same subject with one another; for one elucidates the other.'

993

Let us test this method of interpreting Scripture by Scripture by an example.

Take the text, "This is my body this is my blood of the New Testament." (Matt. xxvi. 26, 28; Mark xiv. 22, 24.) Our opponents would here send us to the Fathers, painfully to track out in their works the language which they have used respecting the eucharist, and ascertain from this source whether the Romanists interpret these words rightly or not. Now it will not be denied that the Romanists pretend to make out a case from the Fathers in favour of their view. So that at once we

1 See ch. 10 below.

2 Nihil perinde Scripturam mihi videtur aperire atque ipsa Scriptura. Itaque diligens attenta frequensque lectio tum meditatio et collatio Scripturarum, omnium summa regula ad intelligendum mihi semper est visa. Nam ex aliis Scripturis aliæ optime intelliguntur... obscuram aperta, dubiam certa interpretatur. Jos. a Costa. De Christo revel. lib. iii. c. 21.

3 Optima illa regula est ad obscuriores Pauli locos intelligendos et explicandos, si loci similes qui de eadem re edisserunt inter se conferantur, nam unus solet alterum illustrare. Salm. sup. Ep. Paul. libr. i. disp. 10.