a verification of the Church's theology from the Bible should have formed the conclusion of the treatise, and considers that its omission is a lacuna, though not one that affects the value of the rest. The same general answer will apply to both these criticisms.

A complete investigation and harmony of the Scriptural doctrine of the Atonement, as gathered from both the Old and New Testament-from prophecies, types, allusions; from the words of our Divine Lord, and the more explicit teaching of His inspired Apostles --would undoubtedly be in itself a most important work, and might, under different aspects, be regarded as a preface or as a supplement to the history of the development of that doctrine in the Church. But it would be quite a distinct work, requiring distinct preparation, and would suffice, if fully carried out, to fill a separate volume. No doubt many of the same authorities would have to be consulted in either case, but the method of using them would be different in an exegetical work from what belongs to a treatise occupied with tracing the history of a particular doctrine in its chronological sequence, while for the former purpose "the full resources of modern criticism," to adopt my reviewer's language, would of course have to be laid under contribution. Scriptural exegesis,

whether conducted mainly on patristic or critical principles or on both combined, differs both in its methods and its scope from the work undertaken in this volume. Its direct and primary object is to elicit from the sacred text, with the best assistance from ancient or modern interpreters that can be brought to bear on its illustration, that one consistent. view of the particular subject or document under consideration, which the writer conceives to be the true one. Authorities, however copiously quoted, are not referred to for their own sake, but in subordination to the leading purpose of the book, and in so far as they serve to promote it. But a writer engaged on the historical development of a doctrine is directly concerned with the systems of the successive schools or theologians under review, and only indirectly with his own estimate of the general outcome of their teaching in its relation to reason or to Holy Scripture. Still less is it his business to engage in the direct interpretation of Scripture himself. He is rather employed in supplying the materials for it. It would indeed be hardly possible to write without indicating any opinion of one's own on these points, and the more light can be incidentally thrown upon them the better, so long as the distinctive character of the work, as an historical

inquiry, is maintained intact. I have not, therefore, thought it beyond my province to lay down and enforce in the opening chapter of this volume certain guiding principles to be kept in mind during the subsequent inquiry, or to gather up in the final chapter what appear to me some of its more important results. But still it remains true that history is one thing and hermeneutics another. The same work cannot be at once exegetical, dogmatic, controversial, and historical. Something it may include of all these elements, but one or other must predominate, if it is to have any principle of coherence, and not to be a mere confused medley. I explained in the Preface to the former Edition of this work that the method of treatment adopted was "not controversial but historical," and that whatever it had indirectly of controversial or dogmatic aim was meant to be kept strictly subordinate to its original purpose, as a faithful record of successive schools of Catholic theology, and of their relation to the antagonistic systems of the Reformation. It was designed to be, in German phraseology, not Dogmatik but Dogmengeschichte.' To explore and harmonize the whole teaching of Scrip

'See Kuhn's Einleitung in die katholische Dogmatik, § 18; and cf. Preface to his Die Trinitätslehre.

ture on the subject, and present a definite view of the conclusions thus obtained-in other words, to discuss the true sense of Scripture on the doctrine of the Atonement, and expound my own estimate of itcould only be regarded as part of such an undertaking on the assumption that the New Testament writers stand to the Fathers in the same relation as the Fathers stand to the Schoolmen, instead of supplying the inspired data on which all later systems have been professedly based. To analyse and define the teaching of Scripture on a given doctrine is to define the true sense of that doctrine. If this be done at the commencement of an inquiry into its treatment by the doctors of the Church in successive ages, it must be done independently of their judgments. If it is done at the conclusion of such an inquiry, it may include an application of the results obtained; but still it is a supplement to the inquiry, not a part of it. While, therefore, it might have been quite possible to compress into a prefatory or supplementary chapter an abstract of the scriptural argument, it did not fall within my present design to do so, nor can I see that the completeness of that design is at all affected by the omission. To the majority of my readers, indeed, this explanation will probably appear superfluous; but

I am anxious to avoid even the semblance of indifference to the critical examination of the letter of Scripture in regard to Christian doctrine. It is, no doubt, a most important branch of theological inquiry, but it is not what is directly contemplated in this volume. And it is enough to do one thing at a time.

Exception has been taken in some quarters, and especially by one of my critics, the vehemence of whose denunciations is usually in an inverse ratio to the accuracy of his statements, to what I have said in the Fourth Chapter about Aquinas and the Schoolmen. In the present Edition, the passage has been enlarged, and in some measure recast, in order to guard as far as possible against misconstruction, but it remains substantially unchanged. No one, who has any acquaintance with the subject, would deny the keen intellectual acumen and the enormous industry of many of the scholastic writers; and it would be absurd to suppose that the devotion of such talents and labours, combined often with the most ardent piety, to the study of theology, could be barren of results. But, after making the fullest allowance for their real and important services in the consolidation of Catholic doctrine, especially as regards the Sacraments, it still remains true, as I have observed in the text, that the