In the next chapter he proceeds to prove, "That the Mosaical writings were a most perfect rule, plain and easy to the antient Israelites," in which he observes, "Nothing can be made more evident than this truth is in itself, That the Israelites swerving from this rule was the cause of their departure from their God, and the occasion or cause of their swerving from it was this devilish persuasion which Satan suggested to them then as the Jesuits do unto the Christian people now, as that this law was too obscure, too hard, too difficult, to be understood, nor a complete. rule for their actions without traditions, or relying upon their priests or men in chief authority. This hypocrisy Moses did well foresee would be the beginning of all their miseries, the very watchword to apostasy." (ch. 6.)

And in the next chapter, "concluding the controversy," he says, "We may conclude this point with our Apostle, If the gospel be obscure,' or rather hid, for it is a light, obscure it cannot be, God forgive me if I used that speech, save only in our adversaries' person, it is hid only to such as have the eyes of their mind blinded by Satan the God of this world.' (2 Cor. iv. 3, 4.)" (ch. 7.)

I will only add two more passages on this point, occurring in the next section. "Our Saviour saw well how earnestly the Jews were set to pervert Scriptures for their purpose, how glad to find any pretence out of them either to justify their dislike of his doctrine, or wreak their malice upon his person. Yet doth not our Saviour accuse the Scriptures, though capable of so grievous and dangerous misconstruction, of obscurity or difficulty, or of being any way the occasion of Jewish heresy, or his persecution thence caused; nor doth he dissuade those very men which had thence sucked this poisonous doctrine, much less others, from reading, but exhorts them in truth and deed, not in word and fancy only, to rely on Scriptures as the rule of salvation. Search the Scriptures, for in them ye think,' and that rightly, to have eternal life.' Not intimating the least necessity of any external authority infallibly to direct them, he plainly teacheth it was the infernal distorture of their proud affections which had disproportioned their minds to this straight rule, and disenabled them for attaining true belief, which never can be rightly raised but by this square and line. It was not, then, the reading of Scriptures which caused them mistake their meaning and persecute him, but the not reading of them as they should. Err they did, not knowing the Scriptures, and know them they did not, because they did not read them thoroughly, sincerely, searching out their inward meaning. And thus, to read them afresh, as our Saviour prescribed them, laying aside ambitious desires, was the only remedy for to cure that distemper which they had in

66

curred by reading them amiss." (Sect. 3. c. 5.) They [i. e. the Romanists] except against Scripture, and say it cannot be the rule of faith, nor ought to be so taken of all Christians, because it is so obscure and apt to breed contentions among such as rely upon it. We have sufficiently proved that all obscurities, all contentions about the sense of Scriptures in points of moment arise hence, Because [sic] we do not admit of it for our only rule, all affection to men's persons, state, or dignity, all private quarrels laid apart. If the Jesuit could prove it should either continue obscure in points of faith, or minister matter of contentions to such as conform their lives to the elementary rules or easy precepts therein contained, their arguments were to some purpose. But while this they neither can nor go about to prove, they shall only prove themselves ridiculous atheists, albeit we grant them all they desire about the variety of opinions even in places of greatest moment among the learned." (Sect. 3. ch. 6.)

As it respects the fifth point, or the authority upon which we receive the Scriptures as the word of God, his sentiments may be judged of from the following extracts.

This point forms the chief subject of his first book on the Creed, and his views may be inferred from the very title of his first two books, which is, "The Eternal Truth of Scriptures and Christian belief thereon wholly depending, manifested by its own light." "The grounds or motions," he says, "of our assent unto objects supernatural may he comprised in these four propositions following, The first, The style or title of these sacred books pretending divine authority, bind all men to make trial of their truth, commended to us by our ancestors, confirmed to them by the blood of martyrs their predecessors; to use the means which they prescribe for this trial, that is, abstinence from things forbidden, and alacrity in doing things commanded by them. The second, Ordinary apprehension or natural belief of matters contained in Scriptures, or the Christian Creed, are of more force to cause men undertake any good, or abstain from any evil, than the most firm belief of ordinary matters or any points of mere natural consequence. The third, Objects and grounds of Christian belief have in them greater stability of truth, and are in themselves more apt to found most strong and firm belief than any other things whatsoever merely credible. The fourth, The means of apprehending the truth of Scriptures, and experiments confirming their divine authority, are both for variety of kinds and number of individuals in every kind, far more, and more certain, than the means of apprehending the grounds of any other belief or the experiments of any other teacher's authority. Some particulars of every kind, with the general heads or common places whence like observations may be drawn, we are now to present, so far as

they concern the confirmation of the truth of Scriptures in general."

Proceeding then to point out "the experiments confirming the truth of Scriptures," he says, "all may be reduced into these two general heads or kinds; they may be found either in the style or character of these writings themselves, the affections or dispositions of their writers, or in events or experiments, whatsoever the course of time affords, answerable to the rules set down in Scriptures." Of the the former kind he notices "the historical characters of sacred antiquities,"" the harmony of sacred writers," "the affections or dispositions of sacred writers ;" and then proceeds to point out at considerable length "the experiments and observations answerable to the rules of Scriptures," proving them to be what they profess to be; which he prefaces with the observation that, "The means of establishing our assent unto any part of Scripture must be from experiments and observations, agreeable to the rules in Scripture. For when we see the season and manner of sundry events, either related by others or experienced in ourselves, which otherwise we could never have reached unto by any natural skill; or generally, when we see any effects or concurrence of things which cannot be ascribed to any but a supernatural cause, and yet they fully agreeing to the oracles of Scriptures or Articles of belief, this is a sure pledge unto us that he who is the Author of truth, and gives being unto all things, was the Author of Scriptures.""

And having in the 2nd and 3rd sections treated of the experiments and observations external, drawn partly from heathen fables, partly from the revolution of states, or God's public judgments, especially of the Jews, all testifying the truth of the divine oracles, he treats in the 4th, " Of experiments in ourselves, and the right framing of belief as well unto the several parts as unto the whole canon of Scripture;" and these experiments he calls "the surest pledges of divine truths, without which all observations of former experiments are but like assurances well drawn but never sealed."

And the only notices of Church-tradition in this book are indirect allusions to it as offering a partial and introductory motive to the belief of Scripture as the word of God, which of course no one denies it to be, nor that it is one of a powerful kind. I pass on to the learned

1 Bk. 1. P. 1. sect. 2. c. 2.

2 Bk. 1. P. 2. sect. 2. c. 1.

z z*

ARCHBISHOP USHER.

The extract given by Mr. Keble is taken from his Sermon, "Of the universality of the Church of Christ." Now the only passage in it that gives even a semblance of support to Mr. Keble's views is where the Archbishop says, "That which in the time of the antient Fathers was accounted to be truly and properly catholic,' namely, that which was believed everywhere, always, and by all,' that in the succeeding ages hath evermore been preserved, and is at this day entirely professed in our Church. The remark (though placed by Mr. Keble immediately after a sentence preceding it by some pages, without any indication of matter intervening) is made in reply to the popular question of the Romanist, "Where was your Church before Luther?" To which Usher replies, "Our Church was even there where now it is. In all places of the world where the antient foundations were retained and these common principles of faith upon the profession whereof men have ever been wont to be admitted by baptism into the Church of Christ, there we doubt not but our Lord has his subjects, and we our follow-servants. For we bring in no new faith, nor no new church. That which in the time of the antient Fathers," &c. The passage therefore seems clearly to apply only to the "common principles of faith, upon the profession whereof men have ever been wont to be admitted by baptism into the Church of Christ ;" that is, those articles of the Creed that have been admitted, as far as we can find, by all Churches. And further, we must inquire whether the archbishop held this "consent," to be so ascertainable in the strict sense of the term, as to be a divine or practically infallible informant, either as perpetuating the oral teaching of the Apostles, or from the promises of Christ to the Church, and thus to form part of the rule of faith. For as we have already observed, the Rule of Vincent is, in a general sense, and to a certain extent, applicable and useful; and hence is often referred to by those whose views were widely dif ferent to those of our opponents.

For the answer to this question, then, I refer the reader to the following extracts from his works.

As it respects the first point of the system under review, we read in him thus.

"That traditions of men should be obtruded unto us for articles of religion, and admitted far parts of God's worship, or that ANY traditions should be accepted for parcels of God's word beside the holy Scriptures, and such doctrines as are either expressly therein contained, or by sound inference may be deduced from thence, I think we have reason to gainsay, as long as for the first we have this direct sentence from God him

self, Matt. xv. In vain do they worship me, teaching for doctrines the commandments of men, and for the second the express warrant of the Apostle, 2 Tim. iv. testifying of the holy Scriptures, not only that they are able to make us wise unto salvation, which they should not be able to do if they did not contain all things necessary to salvation, but also that by them the man of God, that is the minister of God's word (1 Tim. vi. 11), unto whom it appertaineth to declare all the counsel of God (Acts xx. 27), may be perfectly instructed to every good work; which could not be, if the Scriptures did not contain all the counsel of God, which was fit for him to learn, or, if there were any other word of God which he were bound to teach that should not be contained within the limits of the Book of God.”

So in his "Body of Divinity, or the Sum and Substance of Christian Religion," in reply to the question, "Where, then, is the word of God now certainly to be learned?" he says, "Only out of the Book of God, contained in the holy Scriptures, which are the only certain testimonies unto the Church of the word of God. John v. 39, 2 Tim. iii. 15."2

For the second and third positions the reader following.

may observe the

"The ground of our religion and the rule of faith, and all saving truth, is the word of God contained in the holy Scripture. "3

Again; in his Answer to the Jesuit, having intimated his desire that the points in difference should be determined by an appeal to the Scriptures, he adds, " And this we say, not as if we feared that these men were able to produce better proofs out of the writings of the Fathers for the part of the Pope, than we can do for the catholic cause, (when we come to join in the particulars, they shall find it otherwise,) but partly to bring the matter unto a shorter trial, partly to give the word of God his due, and to declare what that rock is upon which ALONE we build our faith, even the foundation of the Apostles and Prophets' (Eph. ii. 20); from which no sleight that they can devise shall ever draw us. The same course did St. Augustine take with the Pelagians; against whom he wanted not the authority of the Fathers of the Church, which if I would collect,' saith he, and use their testimonies, it would be too long a work, and I might peradventure seem to have less confidence than I ought in the canonical authorities from which we ought not to be withdrawn.' (Aug. De Nupt. et Concup. lib. ii. c. 29.) Yet was the

1 Answer to Jesuit's Chall. ch. 2. 4th ed. 1686. p. 24.

2 Article 1.

6

Article 1 of the Irish Articles of 1615, known to have been drawn up by Usher.