Those Christians then which have lived since the apostles' death, and never obtained the wish of St. Augustin, to see either Christ upon earth, or St. Paul in the pulpit, have believed the writings of Moses and the prophets, of the apostles and evangelists, in which together is fully comprehended whatsoever may properly be termed matter of divine faith; and so "the household of God is built upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets" (Eph. ii. 20.), who are continued unto us only in their writings, and by them alone convey unto us the truths which they received from God, upon whose testimony we believe. And therefore he which put their writings into the definition of faith, considering faith as it now stands with us, is none of the smallest of the schoolmen. From whence we may at last conclude, that the true nature of the faith of a Christian, as the state of Christ's Church now stands, and shall continue to the end of the world, consists in this, that it is an assent unto truths credible upon the testimony of God delivered unto us in the writings of the apostles and prophets." On the Creed, Art. i.

25. HOPKINS, BISHOP OF DERRY.

"The devil hath, in these our days, busied himself to bring a reproach upon Scripture, through the whimsies and giddiness of those, who have pretended most acquaintance in it. But let not this be any discouragement: for this ariseth not directly from the influence which the Scripture hath on them, which is the rule of truth only; but from the pride and self-conceit of a few notionists, who wrest it to their own perdition: and though they boast much of Scripture to countenance their opinion; yet Scripture misunderstood and misapplied, is not Scripture. Indeed there is no other way to discern truth from error, but only by the Scripture rightly understood; and there is no way rightly to

understand it, but diligently to search it." Sermon on Col. iii. 16.

26. TILLOTSON, ARCHBISHOP OF CANTERBURY.

"To say the Scripture is to be interpreted by oral and practical tradition, is no more reasonable than it would be to interpret the ancient books of the Law, by the present practice of it; which every one, that compares things fairly together, must acknowledge to be full of deviations from the ancient law. Rule of Faith, part i., § 4., c. 9.

Only I think fit to acquaint him, once for all, with a great secret of the Protestant doctrine,.... .....that when they say the Scriptures are the Rule of Faith, or the means whereby Christ's doctrine is conveyed down to them, they mean by the Scriptures books written in such words as do sufficiently express the sense and meaning of Christ's doctrine.

And to satisfy him that we are not absurd and unreasonable in supposing the Scriptures to be such a book, I would beg the favour of him to grant me these four things, or shew reason to the contrary.

First, That whatever can be spoken in plain and intelligible words, and such as have a certain sense, may be written in the same words.

Secondly, That the same words are words are as intelligible when they are written as when they are spoken. Thirdly, That God, if he please, can indite a book in as plain words as any of his creatures.

Fourthly, That we have no reason to think that God affects obscurity, and envies that men should understand Him in those things which are necessary for them to know, and which must have been written to no purpose cannot understand them. Ibid., part ii., § 3,

if we

c. 4, 5

Doctrines and practices which must be acknowledged to have been innovated, have made the same pretence to uninterrupted Tradition." Ibid., part iii. §9, c. 1.

27. STILLINGFLEET, BISHOP OF WORCESTER.

"As the matters themselves are of an excellent nature, so is the manner wherein they are revealed in the Scriptures; and that, (1.) In a clear and perspicuous manner; not but there may be still some passages which are hard to be understood, as being either prophetical, or consisting of ambiguous phrases, or containing matters above our comprehension: but all those things which concern the terms of man's salvation, are delivered with the greatest evidence and perspicuity. Who cannot understand what these things mean, "What doth the Lord require of thee, but to do justly, and to love mercy, and to walk humbly with thy God?" that "without faith it is impossible to please God"; that "without holiness none shall see the Lord"; that "unless we be born again, we can never enter into the kingdom of heaven." These and such like things are so plain and clear, that it is nothing but men's shutting their eyes against the light can keep them from understanding them. God intended these things as directions to men; and is not he able to speak intelligibly when he pleases? He that made the tongue, shall he not speak so as to be understood without an infallible interpreter; especially when it is his design to make known to men the terms of their eternal happiness? Will God judge men at the great day for not believing those things which they could not understand? Strange, that ever men should judge the Scriptures obscure in matters necessary, when the Scripture accounts it so great a judgment for men not to understand them! "If our Gospel be hid, it is hid to them that are lost; in whom the god of this world

hath blinded the minds of them which believe not, lest the light of the glorious Gospel of Christ should shine unto them." Sure Lot's door was visible enough, if it were a judgment for the men of Sodom not to see it; and the Scriptures then are plain and intelligible enough, if it be so great a judgment not to understand them." Origines Sacræ, book iii., c. vi., § 8.

28. BURNET, BISHOP OF SALISBURY.

"When this whole matter is considered in all its parts, such as, 1st, That nothing is to be believed as an article of faith, unless it appears to have been revealed by God; 2dly, That oral tradition appears, both from the nature of man, and the experience of former times, to be an incompetent conveyer of truth; 3dly, That some books were written for the conveyance of those matters, which have been in all ages carefully preserved and esteemed sacred; 4thly, That the writers of the first ages do always argue from, and appeal to, these books; and, 5thly, That what they have said without authority from them has been rejected in succeeding ages; the truth of this branch of our Article is fully made out.

The great objection to this is, that the Scriptures are dark; that the same place is capable of different senses, the literal and the mystical; and therefore, since we cannot understand the true sense of the Scripture, we must not argue from it, but seek for an interpreter of it, on whom we may depend. All sects argue from thence, and fancy that they find their tenets in it; and therefore this can be no sure way of finding out sacred truth, since so many do err that follow it.In answer to this, it is to be considered, that the Old Testament was delivered to the whole nation of the Jews; that Moses was read in the synagogue, in the hearing of the women and children; that whole nation

was to take their doctrine and rules from it; all appeals were made to the Law and to the Prophets among them and though the prophesies of the Old Testament were in their style and whole contexture dark, and hard to be understood; yet when so great a question as this, who was the true Messias? came to be examined, the proofs urged for it were passages in the Old Testament. Now the question was, how these were to be understood? No appeal was here made to tradition, or to Church authority, but only by the enemies of our Saviour. Whereas he and his disciples urge these passages in their true sense, and in the consequences that arose out of them. They did in that appeal to the rational faculties of those to whom they spoke. The Christian religion was at first delivered to poor and simple multitudes, who were both illiterate and weak: the Epistles, which are by much the hardest to be understood of the whole New Testament, were addressed to the whole Churches, to all the Faithful or Saints; that is, to all the Christians in those Churches. These were afterwards read in all their assemblies. Upon this it may reasonably be asked, were these writings clear in that age, or were they not? If they were not, it is unaccountable why they were addressed to the whole body, and how they came to be received and entertained as they were. It is the end of speech and writing, to make things to be understood; and it is not supposable, that men inspired by the Holy Ghost either could not or would not express themselves so as that they should be clearly understood. It is also to be observed, that the new dispensation is opposed to the old, as light is to darkness, an open face to a veiled, and substance to shadows. Since then the Old Testament was So clear, that David, both in the 19th, and most copiously in the 119th Psalm, sets out very fully the light which the laws of God gave them in that darker state, we