conversari, quæ est Ecclesia Dei vivi, columna et firmamentum veritatis: pro modulo meo capio quod vobis appono; ubi aperitur, pascor vobiscum; ubi clauditur, pulso vobiscum.

versation as a sacred teacher in the house of God, which is His Church, the pillar and ground of Truth.*

This passage is produced by Dr. O'Connell as a proof that St. Augustine "reprobates the individual examination of holy Scripture." The question, therefore, before us is, does it really prove this? St. Augustine is here speaking of the words of the Gospel, in which we are told that the Jews sought to kill our blessed Lord," because He had not only broken the Sabbath, but also said that God was His Father, making Himself equal with God." And in reference to our Lord's reply to this accusation, (John, v. 19,) he remarks, that it was intended to excite their minds, and disturb their preconceived opinions, in order that they might become sensible of their ignorance, or their malice, and be led to seek to the true Physician--" Adversus hanc eorum calumniam, venientem vel de ignorantia, vel de malitia, loquitur Dominus non omnino quod capiant, sed unde agitentur et conturbentur, et fortasse vel conturbati medicum quærant." The Jews, in fact, as he afterwards intimates, had reasoned from true principles: (for it was clearly a fearful blasphemy for a man to make himself equal with God;) but they did not know that our Lord, although a man, was also very God. St. Augustine therefore says, (what is fearfully true,) that heresies and other perverse doctrines, ensnaring souls and casting them into hell, have their foundation in a bad interpretation of the good Scriptures, and in a bold and daring assertion of what is thus wrongly understood. But what is his conclusion from this? If he had been of Dr. O'Connell's mind, he ought, one would think, to have inferred, "therefore let us beware of all individual examination of those good Scriptures from which evil interpretations are so easily drawn." But instead of this he argues, "Therefore let us be cautious, let us suspect ourselves, let us remember that in these things we are but as children, let us adhere to the only safe rule, which is this, to receive as wholesome food, whatsoever we are able to understand in accordance with the faith we have been taught; and to suspend our judgment in whatsoever we are unable to reconcile with that faith, believing, however, that whether we can understand it or no, the Scripture nevertheless is good and true."

This is a brief paraphrase of the passage quoted by Dr. O'Connell, which contains assuredly no reprobation of individual examination of the Scriptures: it is part of a short sermon on

* Dr. O'Connell appends to this passage the following reference to the works of St. Augustine: "Trac. T. 3. c. xviii. in Joan Evg." This ought to be, In Joann. Evang. Tract, xviii. n. 1. (Opp. Ed. Bened. tom. iii. part 2. p. 429.)

the text, "The Son can do nothing of Himself, but what He seeth the Father do,"-words which at first sight, and in the hands of a rash or presumptuous interpreter, might seem inconsistent with our faith in the Deity of our Lord; and therefore St. Augustine exhorts his hearers, in reference to such mysterious sayings of the Scripture, to remember that in these things we are but as children; and to believe that even though we should be unable to reconcile them, the Scripture is always capable of being reconciled with the faith, and the faith with the Scripture.

The only thing reprobated here is the spirit of rash and daring dogmatism, which would presumptuously draw hasty inferences from a mysterious or difficult passage of Scripture, not waiting to compare it with other passages, or with the fundamental principles of the Christian faith. But Dr. O'Connell, as usual, assumes, that there can be no individual examination of Scripture, without this kind of gross abuse which no person contends for or defends, least of all the church of England. The rule of soundness (regula sanitatis) of St. Augustine is our rule also we earnestly impress it upon all who are engaged in the study of the Scriptures, and we exemplify it in the soundness and moderation of our formularies and doctrines; nay, we hold that not even the church itself, much less individuals, " may so expound one place of Scripture that it be repugnant to another."* Nor are we insensible to the danger of those who, in carnal pride and self-conceit, undertake to interpret the Scriptures for themselves: "The unlearned and unstable, (saith St. Peter,)" to use the language of one of our Homilies, "pervert the holy Scripture to their owne destruction. Jesus Christ, (as St. Paul saith) is to the Jewes an offence, to the Gentiles foolishnes: But to God's children, aswell of the Jewes as of the Gentiles, He is the power and wisedome of God. The holy man Simeon saith, that He is set forth for the fall and rising againe of many in Israel. As Christ Jesus is a fall to the reprobate, which yet perish through their owne default: so is His Word, yea the whole Booke of God a cause of damnation unto them through their incredulity. And as He is a rising up to none other than those which are God's children by adoption, so is His Word, yea the whole Scripture, the power of God to salvation to them only that doe believe it. Christ himselfe, the Prophets before Him, the Apostles after Him, all the true ministers of God's holy word, yea every word in God's Booke, is unto the reprobate, the savour of death unto death."+

* Art. 20.

† An information for them which take offence at certaine places of the holy Scripture; Part II.

προς ἀπόδειξιν καὶ ἔλεγχον αὐτῶν, τὸ μηδεπώποτε ἐν ταῖς ἐκκλησίαις ταῦτα παρά τινος εἰρῆσθαι, οἷον δὴ τὸ κειμένον ἐν ταῖς αὐτοῦ ἐξηγήσεσιν.

such opinions as we find in his exposi tions are not expressed by any one in the churches.

It is evident, therefore, to every one who is capable of forming an opinion on the subject, that Messrs. Berington and Kirk were mistaken in supposing these words to have been spoken against John of Antioch. And the additional mistakes which Dr. O'Connell has built upon this error, may serve him as a warning of the danger of following blindly in the track of others, without any "individual examination" of the passages they have quoted from the Fathers. In this case, although the original blunder is not his own, yet Dr. O'Connell has made himself thoroughly responsible for it: inasmuch as he gives this and all his other quotations with the air of one who had them from his own stores of learning, immediately from the original writers: nor does he so much as once mention Messrs. Berington and Kirk (notwithstanding his deep obligations to their labours) from one end of his pamphlet to another.

But whether the words in question relate to John of Antioch or to Nestorius (Dr. O'Connell may, perhaps, say) is a minor matter, having no bearing on the argument, for the sake of which the passage is quoted. The testimony of St. Cyril against the individual examination of the Scripture is the same, whichever of these patriarchs be the object of his censure.

It is not easy, however, to understand what this testimony is, notwithstanding that Dr. O'Connell has printed in italics the words, "demonstration and refutation of these things." There does not seem to be in the passage any reference to the Scriptures at all, much less any condemnation of "individual examination" of them. St. Cyril does not say, that the errors of Nestorius originated in "the individual examination of the Scriptures," or that they were in any way derived, or pretended to be derived, from the Scriptures: but simply that it was sufficient for their refutation that they were wholly new, and unknown to the church.

It

And that this may be said without any condemnation of the individual examination of the Scripture is evident from this, that it is the very same argument which we ourselves employ in refutation of Romanism, Socinianism, and other errors. grieves us that the truth in Christ should be corrupted, by the addition of scholastic subtleties, and mediæval superstitions; and we think it enough for the refutation of such additions that they are not to be found in the faith or practice of the primitive church in its best and purest ages.

But Dr. O'Connell seems to use the term “individual examination of the Scriptures" in a sense peculiar to himself, and for

which nobody contends. He appears to think that there can be no individual examination of the Scriptures, unless "the individual" is assumed to be thoroughly ignorant, guiding himself solely by his own whims and conceits, and systematically despising all helps, either from human learning or from the judgment of Christian antiquity. He takes for granted always that the individual who undertakes to examine the Scriptures for himself must necessarily set at nought the faith, together with the authority of the church, and of every other guide or teacher, and form his conclusions as to the true signification of holy Scripture entirely from the accidental bent or inclination of his own mind.

But who is there who advocates or recommends such an examination of Scripture as this? Certainly not the church of England.

X.-ST. JEROME.

The remark just made will be still more evident from the next quotation, which Dr. O'Connell takes from St. Jerome, and introduces to us without any more exact reference to the writings of that Father than the following:

"Speaking of his Commentaries on the Scriptures, he observes."

The extract which follows occurs in the well known Epistle of St. Jerome, addressed to Paulinus, which is prefixed to all editions of the Latin Vulgate Bible, and begins with the words Frater Ambrosius."*

Dr. O'Connell has sadly garbled the words of his author; but I shall lay before the reader his translation, if translation it may be called, in juxtaposition with the original.

Hæc a me perstricta sunt breviter (neque enim Epistolaris angustia evagari longius patiebatur) ut intelligeres te in Scripturis sanctis, sine prævio et monstrante semitam non posse ingredi. Taceo de Grammaticis, Rhetoribus, Philosophis, Geometris, Dialecticis, Musicis, Astronomis, Astrologis, Medicis, quorum scientia mortalibus vel utilissima est, et in tres partes scinditur, rò δόγμα, τὴν μέθοδον, τὴν ἐμπειρίαν. Ad minores artes veniam, et quæ non tam λόγῳ, quam manu administrantur. Agricolæ, cæmentarii, fabri, metallorum, liguorumve cæsores, lanarii quoque et fullones, et cæteri qui variam supellectilem et vilia opuscula fabricantur, absque doctore non possunt esse quod cupiunt.

It is Epist. 50 in the Bened. edition of St. Jerome's works, and in the edition of Vallarsius, Ep. 53, tom. i. p. 270.

Quod medicorum est

Promittunt medici, tractant fabrilia fabri.

Sola Scripturarum ars est, quam sibi omnes passim vindicant,

Scribimus indocti, doctique, poemata passim.

Hæc garrula anus, hanc delirus senex, hanc sophista verbosus, hanc universi præsumunt, lacerant, docent, antequam discant. Alii adducto supercilio, grandia verba trutinantes, inter mulierculas de sacris literis philosophantur. Alii discant, proh pudor, a feminis, quod viros doceant: et ne parum hoc sit, quadam facilitate verborum, immo audacia edisserunt aliis, quod ipsi non intelligunt. Taceo de mei similibus, qui si forte ad Scripturas sanctas post sæculares literas venerint, et sermone composito aurem populi mulserint, quidquid dixerint, hoc legem Dei putant: nec scire dignantur, quid Prophetæ, quid Apostoli senserint; sed ad sensum suum incongrua aptant testimonia; quasi grande sit, et non vitiosiosimum docendi genus, depravare sententias, et ad voluntatem suam Scripturam trahere repug

nantem.

Quod medicorum est Permittunt [sic] medici, tractant fabrilia fabri.

The science of the Scriptures is the only one which all persons claim indiscrimi nately as theirs,

Scribimus indocti, doctique, poemata passim.

This the babbling old woman, this the doting old man, that the wordy sophist take upon themselves-tear to shreds-teaching before they themselves have learned. Some weighing out long periods with uplifted eyes, talk philosophy to a crowd of young females, concerning or out of the Scriptures, philosophantur de Scriptura .

As if it

was something great, instead of being most censurable, to distort sentences, and force the reluctant Scripture to their own conceits.*

Here, it will be seen, St. Jerome inveighs with his usual eloquence, not against "individual examination of the Scriptures," but against ignorance, against presumption, against abuses in the interpreting of the Scriptures, which no sane person has ever attempted to defend. This, however, is the sophistry from which Dr. O'Connell is unable to disentangle himself; and because he finds in the writings of the Fathers, eloquent denunciations of such abuses, he at once concludes that this is equivalent to a reprobation of "individual examination of the Scriptures."

But St. Jerome was so far from reprobating the individual examination of the Scripture, that the very letter from which the above quotation is taken, was written to recommend to

I am unwilling to divert the reader from the main question at issue by stopping to point out minor inaccuracies. However, it may perhaps be worth noting that St. Jerome was not speaking of his own Commentaries on the Scripture in connexion with the foregoing extract; as Dr. O'Connell appears to have thought. The reader will also observe that the omissions very much impair the sense in many places. Thus the words which follow the first omission, "whose knowledge is of the greatest utility to the world," have reference, not to grammarians, geometricians, rhetoricians, or logicians, but to physicians, of whom Dr. O'Connell takes no notice; and they ought to be rendered, "whose science is of the greatest use to mortals." These, however, are trifles of no importance, except so far as they may lead us to doubt whether Dr. O'Connell was ever guilty of an individual examination of the Fathers; and therefore we may fairly question his competency to instruct the Church of England in patristic theology.