1st. Their arguments in behalf of tradition are (1.) Scripture authorizes it, 2 Thess. ii., xv; iii., 6. (2.) The early fathers asserted its authority and founded their faith largely upon it. (3.) The oral teaching of Christ and his apostles, when clearly ascertained, is intrinsically of equal authority with their writings. The Scriptures themselves are handed down to us by the evidence of tradition, and the stream can not rise higher than its source. (4.) The necessity of the case. a, Scripture is obscure, needs tradition as its interpreter. b, Scripture is incomplete as a rule of faith and practice; since there are many doctrines and institutions, universally recognized, which are founded only upon tradition as a supplement to Scripture. (5.) Analogy. Every state recognizes both written and unwritten, common and statute law.

2d. The criterion by which they distinguish between true and false traditions is Catholic consent. The Anglican ritualists confine the application of the rule to the first three or four centuries. The Romanists recognize that as an authoritative consent which is constitutionally expressed by the bishops in general council, or by the Pope ex-cathedra, in any age of the church whatever.

3d. They defend the traditions which they hold to be true. (1.) On the ground of historical testimony, tracing them up to the apostles as their source. (2.) The authority of the Church expressed by Catholic consent.

4. By what arguments may the invalidity of all ecclesiastical tradition, as a part of our rule of faith and practice, be shown?

1st. The Scriptures do not, as claimed, ascribe authority to oral tradition. Tradition, as intended by Paul in the passage cited, (2 Thess. ii., 15, and iii., 6,) signifies all his instructions, oral and written, communicated to those very people themselves, not handed down. On the other hand, Christ rebuked this doctrine of the Romanists in their predecessors, the Pharisees, Matt. xv., 3, 6 ; Mark vii., 7.

2d. It is improbable à priori that God would supplement Scripture with tradition as part of our rule of faith. (1.) Because Scripture, as will be shown below (questions 7-14), is certain, definite, complete, and perspicuous. (2.) Because tradition, from its very nature, is indeterminate, and liable to become adulterated with every form of error. Besides, as will be shown below

(question 20), the authority of Scripture does not rest ultimately upon tradition.

3d. The whole ground upon which Romanists base the authority of their traditions (viz., history and church authority) is invalid. (1.) History utterly fails them. For more than three hundred years after the apostles they have very little, and that contradictory, evidence for any one of their traditions. They are thus forced to the absurd assumption that what was taught in the fourth century was therefore taught in the third, and therefore in the first. (2.) The church is not infallible, as will be shown below (question 18.)

4th. Their practice is inconsistent with their own principles. Many of the earliest and best attested traditions they do not receive. Many of their pretended traditions are recent inventions unknown to the ancients.

5th. Many of their traditions, such as relate to the priesthood, the sacrifice of the Mass, etc., are plainly in direct opposition to Scripture. Yet the infallible church affirms the infallibility of Scripture. A house divided against itself can not stand.

5. What is necessary to constitute a sole and infallible rule of faith?

Plenary inspiration, completeness, perspicuity, and accessibility.

6. What arguments do the Scriptures themselves afford in favor of the doctrine that they are the only infallible rule of faith?

1st. The Scriptures always speak in the name of God, and command faith and obedience.

2d. Christ and his apostles always refer to the written Scriptures, then existing, as authority, and to no other rule of faith whatsoever.-Luke xvi., 29; x., 26; John v., 39; Rom. iv., 3; 2 Tim. iii., 15.

3d. The Bereans are commended for bringing all questions, even apostolic teaching, to this test.-Acts xvii., 11; see also Isa. viii., 16.

4th. Christ rebukes the Pharisees for adding to and perverting the Scriptures.-Matt. xv., 7-9; Mark vii., 5-8; see also Rev. xxii., 18, 19, and Deut. iv., 2; xii., 32; Josh. i., 7.

7. In what sense is the completeness of Scripture as a rule of faith asserted?

It is not meant that the Scriptures contain every revelation which God has ever made to man, but that their contents are the only supernatural revelation that God does now make to man, and that this revelation is abundantly sufficient for man's guidance in all questions of faith, practice, and modes of worship, and excludes the necessity and the right of any human inventions.

8. How may this completeness be proved from the design of Scripture?

The Scriptures profess to lead us to God. Whatever is necessary to that end they must teach us. If any supplementary rule, as tradition is necessary to that end, they must refer us to it. 'Incompleteness here would be falsehood." But while one sacred writer constantly refers us to the writings of another, not one of them ever intimates to us either the necessity or the existence of any other rule.-John xx., 31; 2 Tim. iii., 15-17.

9. By what other arguments may this principle be proved?

As the Scriptures profess to be a rule complete for its end, so they have always been practically found to be such by the true spiritual people of God in all ages. They teach a complete and harmonious system of doctrine. They furnish all necessary principles for the government of the private lives of Christians, in every relation, for the public worship of God, and for the administration of the affairs of his kingdom; and they repell all pretended traditions and priestly innovations.

10. In what sense do Protestants affirm and Romanists deny the perspicuity of Scripture?

Protestants do not affirm that the doctrines revealed in the Scriptures are level to man's powers of understanding. Many of them are confessedly beyond all understanding. Nor do they affirm that every part of Scripture can be certainly and perspicuously expounded, many of the prophesies being perfectly enigmatical until explained by the event. But they do affirm that every essential article of faith and rule of practice is clearly

revealed in Scripture, or may certainly be deduced therefrom. This much the least instructed Christian may learn at once; while, on the other hand, it is true, that with the advance of historical and critical knowledge, and by means of controversies, the Christian church is constantly making progress in the accurate interpretation of Scripture, and in the comprehension in its integrity of the system therein taught.

Protestants affirm and Romanists deny that private and unlearned Christians may safely be allowed to interpret Scripture for themselves.

11. How can the perspicuity of Scripture be proved from the fact that it is a law and a message?

We saw (question 8) that Scripture is either complete or false, from its own professed design. We now prove its perspicuity upon the same principle. It professes to be (1.) a law to be obeyed; (2.) a revelation of truth to be believed, to be received by us in both aspects upon the penalty of eternal death. To suppose it not to be perspicuous, relatively to its design of commanding and teaching, is to charge God with dealing with us in a spirit at once disingenuous and cruel.

12. In what passages is their perspicuity asserted?

Ps. xix., 7, 8; cxix., 105, 130; 2 Cor. iii., 14; 2 Pet. i., 18, 19; Hab. ii., 2; 2 Tim. iii., 15, 17.

13. By what other arguments may this point be established? 1st. The Scriptures are addressed immediately, either to all men promiscuously, or else to the whole body of believers as such.Deut. vi., 4-9; Luke i., 3; Rom. i., 7; 1 Cor. i., 2; 2 Cor. i., 1; iv., 2; Gal. i., 2; Eph. i., 1; Phil. i., 1; Col. i., 2; James i., 1; 1 Peter i., 1; 2 Peter i., 1; 1 John ii., 12, 14; Jude i., 1 ; Rev. i., 3, 4; ii., 7. The only exceptions are the epistles to Timothy and Titus.

2d. All Christians promiscuously are commanded to search the Scriptures.-2 Tim. iii., 15, 17; Acts xvii., 11; John v., 39.

3d. Universal experience. We have the same evidence of the light-giving power of Scripture that we have of the same property

in the sun. The argument to the contrary is an insult to the understanding of the whole world of Bible readers.

4th. The essential unity in faith and practice, in spite of all circumstantial differences, of all Christian communities of every age and nation, who draw their religion directly from the open Scriptures.

14. What was the third quality required to constitute the Scriptures the sufficient rule of faith and practice?

Accessibility. It is self-evident that this is the preeminent characteristic of the Scriptures, in contrast to tradition, which is in the custody of a corporation of priests, and to every other pretended rule whatsoever. The agency of the church in this matter is simply to give all currency to the word of God.

15. What is meant by saying that the Scriptures are the judge as well as the rule in questions of faith?

"A rule is a standard of judgment; a judge is the expounder and applier of that rule to the decision of particular cases." The Protestant doctrine is

1st. That the Scriptures are the only infallible rule of faith and practice.

2d. (1.) Negatively. That there is no body of men who are either qualified, or authorized, to interpret the Scriptures, or to apply their principles to the decision of particular questions, in a sense binding upon the faith of their fellow Christians. (2.) Possitively. That Scripture is the only infallible voice in the church, and is to be interpreted, in its own light, and with the gracious help of the Holy Ghost, who is promised to every Christian (1 John ii., 20-27), by each individual for himself, with the assistance, though not by the authority of his fellow Christians. Creeds and confessions, as to form, bind only those who voluntarily profess them, and as to matter, they bind only so far as they affirm truly what the Bible teaches, and because the Bible does so teach.

16. What is the Romish doctrine as to the authority of the church as the infallible interpreter of the rule of faith and the authoritative judge of all controversies?

The Romish doctrine is that the church is absolutely infalli