prudential as that of Rome, should have enjoined this absurd exigetical law, and that any reasonable man should consent to be governed by it.

Now, I think you will agree with me that we have reached thus far in our investigation:-that the introduction of the Apocrypha into the Biblical Scriptures was not sanctioned by either Christ or His Apostles, or even by the early church; that, indeed, it was not until nearly the commencement of the fifth century that it was received by any portion of the church, and then by only the African portion; and that, therefore, the voice of antiquity is against its reception into the inspired canon. I have also shown that oral traditions are not only not authoritative, but are entirely fabulous; and have asserted, without fear of successful contradiction, that no saying or miracle of Christ or His Apostles not found in the New Testament has ever been disclosed by the Catholic Church on indubitable testimony. And lastly, that the Fathers disagree amongst themselves as to some of the most important passages of Holy Writ, and therefore give an uncertain sound, rather than a sure word of testimony. We are driven back from these shifting sources of doctrinal instruction to the pure truth of God. They furnish no sure foundation upon which we can build our hopes, and in the midst of that which is so changeful and uncertain, we feel that we are only safe when we plant ourselves upon this rock-the Holy Bible. "I profess plainly," said the immortal Chillingworth, "that I cannot find any rest for the sole of my foot but on this rock only. I see plainly that there are popes against popes, councils against councils,

some Fathers against others, the same Fathers against themselves; a consent of the Fathers of one age against a consent of the Fathers of another age, the church of one age against the church of another age. . . In a word, there is no sufficient certainty, but of Scripture only, for any considering man to build upon. This therefore, and this only, I have reason to believe; this will I profess, and according to this will I live. Propose me any thing out of this book, and require whether I believe it or no; and seem it ever so incomprehensible to human reason, I will subscribe it with hand and heart, as knowing no demonstration can be stronger than this; God hath said so, therefore it is true.' In other things I will take no man's liberty of judgment from him, neither shall any man take mine from me. I will think no man the worse man nor the worse Christian, I will love no man the less, for differing in opinion from me. And what measure I mete to others, I expect from them again. I am fully assured that God does not, and therefore that men ought not to require any more of any man than this, to believe the Scripture to be the Word of God, to endeavor to find the true sense of it, and to live according to it."

PROTESTANTISM ASSERTS THE ABSOLUTE SUFFICIENCY OF THE HOLY SCRIPTURES FOR THE GUIDANCE OF THE CHURCH IN ALL MATTERS OF DOCTRINE AND

PRACTICE.

On this subject, the standards of the churches of England and Scotland, with which all other Protestant churches agree, are sufficiently explicit.

The Sixth Article of the Church of England reads thus:

"Holy Scripture containeth all things necessary to salvation so that whatsoever is not read therein, nor may be proved thereby, is not to be required of any man, that it should be believed as an article of Faith, or be thought requisite or necessary to salvation. In the name of the Holy Scripture we do understand those Canonical Books of the Old and New Testament, of whose authority was never any doubt in the Church."

Not less clear and peremptory are the ninth and tenth sections of the first chapter of the Westminster confession :

"The infallible rule of interpretation of Scripture is the Scripture itself; and therefore, when there is a question about the true and full sense of any Scripture, (which is not manifold, but one,) it must be searched and known by other places that speak more clearly.

"The Supreme Judge, by whom all controversies of religion are to be determined, and all decrees of councils, opinions of ancient writers, doctrines of men, and private spirits are to be examined, and in whose sentence we are to rest, can be no other but the Holy Spirit speaking in the Scripture."

But why need I refer to ecclesiastical standards, since the Word of God abundantly declares its own sufficiency. I appeal to a few of the many texts which may be adduced in support of this assertion. The first occurs in the 8th chap. of Isaiah, ver. 20. "To the law and to the testimony; if they speak not according to this Word it is because there is no light in them."

་

(Vulgate) "There will not be to them the morning light." Here the people of Israel were commanded to test even a prophet's message. แ "They have Moses and the prophets, let them hear them. . . . If they hear not Mosés and the prophets neither will they believe if one rise again from the dead." "But though we or an angel from Heaven preach a Gospel to you besides that which we have preached to you, let him be anathema.” "The Holy Scriptures are able to make thee wise unto salvation,"-" to instruct thee to salvation.” And if this could be said of the Old Testament, much more may it be said of the New. What want I more than to be instructed to salvation? What work of supererogation is that which requires that I receive as truth necessary to salvation, more than that which is able to make me wise unto salvation? For myself I want no more than this-only give me the incorruptible seed of the Word, which is able to save my soul, and I want naught beside. No! I will not wander away from this sure word of prophecy, I will not put in its place any word of man, no tradition shall have with me the same authority as the written word of the Living God, and when I am in doubt of its meaning I will go to no uninspired authority, but following the apostolic maxim, I will compare Scripture with Scripture; no private interpretation shall satisfy me, no interpretation of Bishop, or Cardinal, or Priest; the Scripture is its own, its best interpreter, and will make all things plain. Our Roman Catholic friends sometimes say that the Protestant rule of faith is the Bible explained by every man's private judgment. This is not a fair representation;

-our rule of faith is the Bible alone, without note or comment, or any thing indeed, extrinsic from itself. This is the only standard of appeal which the Protestant can recognize. As long as he keeps within the circumference of the Bible he is on impregnable ground; but the instant he goes beyond the Bible, and allows that the opinion of Henry, or Scott, or Wesley, or the comments of the Anglican, or Scottish, or any other church, are part and parcel of the rule of faith, he has left the munition of rocks-he is unsafe, and is in momentary danger of being carried away with every wind of doctrine.

PROTESTANTISM ASSERTS IT TO BE THE PRIVILEGE OF EVERY MAN TO APPROACH THIS SOURCE OF TRUTH, The Bible, and TO DRAW FREELY FROM ITS STREAMS.

There is presumptive evidence that the Divine Author of the Holy Scriptures intended the Bible for all men. Moses promulged the law of God and the will of God to the Israelites generally: Joshua did the same: Ezra, after the return from Babylon, followed in this respect his great exemplar Joshua: The prophets spoke to the people generally in the vulgar tongue, and wrote in the vulgar tongue: Christ spoke to the multitudes, addressing to them, (as, for instance, in his sermon on the Mount,) some of the sublimest mysteries, and some of the hardest sayings of the Christian religion: Peter addressed the multitudes in Jerusalem on the day of Pentecost, and Paul preached almost daily to large assemblies of Jews and Greeks. They as well