which we may compare or try a thing, thus testing its correctness. A Rule of Faith, therefore, must be that measure by which we are to regulate not only the agenda, or things to be done, but also the credenda, or things to be believed.

Having thus briefly indicated what I consider the meaning of these terms, in order to avoid any further logomachia, or battle of words, between myself and my opponents, I advance at once to the subject under debate.

I assert that the Bible alone is a sufficient rule of faith, and I arrive at this conclusion for the following reasons:-1. Because the Bible bears testimony to its own sufficiency as a rule of faith; and the Bible being the word of God, its testimony must be true.

I have already observed that I thought it reasonable to expect that God would give unto man a revelation for his guidance; I further remark that it is also reasonable to expect that God would set his seal upon his own rule, that it might be known to be his, forasmuch as it is a device of the devil to counterfeit the true by the setting forth of the false.

God has indicated the true rule which men are to follow, and this he has done by the inspired pen of the Apostle Paul. Thus:• All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness: that the man of God may be perfect, thoroughly furnished unto all good works."*

A man cannot go beyond the point of perfection. That rule, therefore, which, if followed, is sufficient to make him perfect,perfect as to doctrine and practice, must be of itself sufficient, and needeth no additions; but scripture is profitable for doctrine, that the man of God may be furnished unto all good works; scripture, therefore, or the Bible, according to its own testimony, must be "alone a sufficient rule of faith."

66

The same inspired pen yet again declares, and that more conclusively, writing to Timothy ;-" From a child thou hast known the holy scriptures, which are able to make thee wise unto salvation through faith which is in Christ Jesus."+ Now I ask, what is the great end, the aim, the design, the termination of faith? Peter answers the question, and says:- Receiving the end of your faith, even the SALVATION OF YOUR SOUL." The salvation of the soul then is the great end of faith; and I say, fearless of contradiction, that that rule which maketh a man wise unto salvation is and must be of itself a sufficient rule; but the Holy Scriptures, according to the teaching of the inspired Apostle, are able to make wise unto salvation; they, therefore, must be "alone a sufficient rule of faith."

I might safely hang the whole controversy on these two texts, so explicit are they. But I pass from these, and pass over other texts of a similar kind, to advance my second reason for the conclusion I have arrived at, which is :—

2. Because our Saviour made the written word, and not any unwritten tradition, the ground of his appeal in all questions of dispute.

66

Thus when Christ, the lawful Prince of this world, stood face to face with that usurper, the Prince of Darkness, what was the weapon wherewith he smote him? Was it not the sword of the Spirit, which is the word of God? Did the devil tempt him to turn the stones into bread? "IT IS WRITTEN," was the rebuke given. Did the devil strive to persuade him to tempt God's providence? "IT 18 WRITTEN AGAIN," was the decisive answer returned. Did that evil one try his power once more by causing to flash before his eye the glories of the world, and promising the gift of all these if he would but fall and worship at his feet?"It is written," was the repeated reply, and the successful termination of these futile attacks. Thus through the potent pen of inspiration, and not by the voice of tradition, did Christ overcome the devil. It was by an appeal to the written word of God that Christ silenced all his questioning adversaries. Did the Pharisees murmur when they saw him eat with Publicans and sinners? He referred them to the prophet Hosea, where they would find a sufficient vindication of his conduct.

Again, were the disciples of Christ accused by the Pharisees of breaking the sabbath because they had plucked ears of corn on that day? Jesus defended them by referring the Pharisees to the first book of Samuel, saying: Have ye not read what David did when he was an hungred?" &c. Here again the appeal was to the written word of God.

66

So also when the Pharisees, seeking to entrap him, inquired concerning divorce, he did not refer them to the "Mishna," but to the Bible, saying, "Have ye not read ?" are ye not acquainted with the scriptures? if ye are, then ye ought to have understood the question ye propose for my solution. And not to multiply instances, let us take one example more, which is certainly a case in point. We read that a young man came to him, anxious for the salvation of his soul, and wishing to know what he should do to secure it. Now here was the Bible on the one hand, and here were the traditions of the elders on the other. If he had put his question to the Pharisees, like the Pharisees of modern times, they would have said: Listen to the voice of the Church, adhere strictly to the traditions of the elders, and thou shalt be saved. But what said Christ? "If thou wilt enter into life, keep the commandments." And where were these commandments to be found? On the page of God's written word. Yes! whatever may be the case of others, Christ always honoured the scriptures. When he first commenced his ministry, he unrolled the inspired volume, and read aloud some of the prophecies of Isaiah. When tempted by Satan, “It is written," and not "It is spoken," were the words he used. When his conduct was assailed by the Pharisees, or when his doctrine was called in question by the Sadducees, his appeal was ever to the holy scriptures; and what he did himself, he recommended unto others. If

the Jews had any doubt about the authenticity of his mission, as the Messiah, then said he, "Search the scriptures, for in them ye think ye have eternal life, and they are they which testify of me."

If Christ, then, accepted the Bible as a sufficient rule as it regarded himself-if he recommended the Bible as a rule of faith for others, I have the highest authority on my side I could have, and feel myself justified in saying that "the Bible alone is a sufficient rule of faith."

3. My third reason for the conclusion at which I have arrived is, because the Apostle Paul sanctioned that which our Saviour recommended, viz., the investigation of the scriptures for a knowledge of the truth.

The Apostle Paul passed from Thessalonica to Berea, where he entered the synagogue, and taught. The Jews heard attentively the word he spake. They were not hasty in their conclusion, but compared the doctrines of the Apostle with the revelations of the written word, and finding a harmony between them, they embraced the Christian faith. Now these people brought the teaching of the Apostle to the test. They had a rule, and to that rule they appealed, and were glad when they found the teaching of the Apostle agreed with that. But what did the Apostle say to all this? Did he tell those Bereans that they had no right to possess copies of the Bible; that they had still less right "to search them daily;" that it was not for them to interpret scripture, that they must receive all that he said as true, and ask no questions about it; that they were to resign their reason to his keeping, and trouble themselves no more with investigation; was this the language of St. Paul?

This would have been the language of those who have boasted themselves to be somebody in later ages; but Paul was "the least of the Apostles," "one born out of due season." A humble man was he; while the others claim to be God's vicegerent, Christ's vicar upon earth, yea, enthroned as God, to receive the homage of idolatrous multitudes. But what of the Bereans, who made the Bible their sole Rule of Faith? It is written, "These were more noble than those of Thessalonica, in that they received the word with all readiness of mind, and searched the scriptures daily, whether those things were so."

4. I advance, as a further reason for the conclusion I have come to, the fact that the early fathers of the Christian Church acknowledged the sufficiency of the Scripture as a Rule of Faith.

Thus we learn from ST. HIEROM that there were heretics in those days, who spake (as the Roman Catholics speak in our day) and said, "We are the sons of the wise, who did from the beginning deliver down to us the apostolical doctrine." But what was the declaration of the father himself? It was this:-"That the true sons of Judah adhere to the Scriptures." Can a Protestant go farther than this?

St. Chrysostom testifies to the clearness of the Scriptures on all essential points, saying:-"All things in the Divine Scriptures are plain and straight. Whatsoever things are necessary, are manifest."

This declaration is confirmed by the Roman Catholic historian, Dupin, who observes, "that the perusal (of the Bible) seldom causes any but the learned to fall into error; and that generally the simple have found in the Scriptures only instruction and edification."

St. Austin further declares the Bible's sufficiency when he writes: "Among those things which are plainly set down in Scripture, all those things are to be found which comprehend faith and good

manners.

The judgment of Constantine, as pronounced before the Council of Nice, was this; that "the books of the Evangelists and Apostles, and the oracles of the old prophets, do evidently teach us what we are to think of the Divine Majesty. Therefore, laying aside all seditious contention, let us determine the matters in question by testimonials out of the Divine writing."

What says Irenæus upon the point in dispute? "The method of our salvation we have not known by any others but those men by whom the gospel came to us, which then they preached; but afterwards, by the will of God, delivered it to us in the Scriptures, to be for the future the foundation and pillar of our faith."

What says Tertullian? Let Hermogenes, out of his storehouse of learning, show that it is written. If it be not written, let him fear that woe which is destined for those who either add to, or detract from, the Scriptures."

Out of the many that might be brought forward, I will call upon only one more witness, and that shall be St. Cyprian. What says he? Being opposed with an argument from tradition, he demands, Whence have you that tradition? Comes it from the authority of the Lord, and of the Gospel, or from the Epistles of the Apostles? For God testifies that we are to do those things which are written, &c. If it be commanded in the Gospel, or contained in the Epistles or Acts of the Apostles, then let us observe it as a Divine and holy tradition."

These citations need no explanation, and no comment; they are as clear and conclusive as can be. If they are not sufficient in numbers, then consult the unanswerable treatise of Tillotson, on the "Rule of Faith," from which source these quotations are mostly drawn, and you will find plenty and to spare. If it be objected that I have drawn from this writer, instead of going to the original, then I answer, You have to do with the citations themselves, and not my means of procuring them. Prove, what no one has yet proved, that the quotations are false, and my proposition falls to the ground. But if you cannot do this, be careful how you despise the voice of these ancient worthies, whom you profess to esteem. Ye who venerate the unauthenticated relics of the departed, cast from their jewelled shrines those trifles they contain, and learn to venerate rather the opinions of the holy fathers of the early Church, and enshrine them in your memory; and if you are not prepared to brand those fathers as heretics, then you must be prepared to assert

with them that "The Bible only is a sufficient Rule of Faith," for such we have found them to declare.

I have now consulted the mind of God upon this fundamental subject under dispute. I have found that His written word bears clear and decisive testimony to its own sufficiency as a Rule of Faith. I have shown that it was the practice of our great example, Jesus Christ, to appeal to the Scriptures in all matters of dispute; and that he recommended the study of the Scriptures to those who were in doubt as to the truthfulness of his mission. I have pointed out the fact that those who brought the teaching of the Apostle Paul to the test of the written word, and who studied the Scriptures in private, were commended for what they did. I have proved that the early Fathers made the Scriptures the ground of their appeal in all religious controversy, and that they acknowledged the excellency and the sufficiency of the written word. With such an array of witnesses at my side, I can take a bold and determined stand against those who would detract from the dignity and authority of God's own Book, by denying that it is of itself a sufficient Rule of Faith. Let my opponents silence the Spirit of God; silence Christ; silence his Apostles; silence the early Fathers of the Christian Church; and then, and not till then, will they silence me.

NEGATIVE ARTICLE.-I.

H. B.

AMONG the many topics which are the subject of controversy between Catholics and Protestants, there is, perhaps, not one which receives so little attention at the hands of the latter, as that of the Rule of Faith. And this is the more remarkable, since here is the very root of the differences which unhappily exist between us; so that, until this question is settled, it is quite useless to discuss others. Everything which is believed by either must be ultimately referred to the authority upon which it is believed. If a Protestant is asked for a proof of the doctrine of the Atonement, he instantly refers you to the Bible-his sole Rule of Faith. If a Catholic be asked the same question, he refers to the Church.

Here, then, is the explanation of the division of Catholic and Protestant. One rests his faith upon a book; the other, upon a body of men.

But Protestants are, in general, much more ready to argue about transubstantiation or indulgences than the Rule of Faith; and for the simple reason, that one is so much easier than the other, since they do possess some documentary evidence respecting the former, while they are totally destitute of any divine proofs of the latter. They habitually overlook any discrepancy in their own line of argument, and are usually only anxious to bring the Catholic to the test of the Bible, or rather-what is really the fact-their own interpretation of it.

The Church of England, in her Sixth Article, expresses most fully and clearly the Protestant belief on the subject. Holy Scripture

66