What does this Article assert'? With regard to the first point, what is the difference between the Church of England and the Church of Rome2? What is the meaning of the word canonical3 ? What are canonical Scriptures? Why is this term used? What do you mean by Apocryphal books?

The sufficiency of the Holy Scriptures for salvation. What does the Church of Rome assert to be necessary to salvation, besides the Holy Scriptures? What is tradition?? How may truths be handed down from age to age? If oral tradition is necessary for salvation, what must follow? Is all that is necessary for man to know revealed in Scripture? (John xx. 30, 31.) If traditions were also necessary, what might we expect? Is any thing to be gathered from the Scriptures themselves to lead us to suppose that they are incomplete? What does St. Paul exhort the Thessalonians to hold? (2 Thess. ii. 15.) What were the traditions which they had received by mouth from St. Paul"? Could they have con

1 That Holy Scripture contains all things necessary to salvation. It declares what are the Holy Scriptures, and gives the opinion of the Church with regard to the Books called Apocryphal.

2 The Church of Rome asserts that the Scriptures are incomplete without the admission of oral tradition.

3 That which may be taken as a rule.

4 To distinguish them from those books which may not be taken to establish any doctrine.

5 Books of doubtful origin and authority.

6 Oral tradition.

7 Something handed down from generation to generation. 8 Either orally, that is, by word of mouth, or in writing.

9 That the Scriptures are incomplete.

10 That the Scriptures would say so.

11 Those truths which he had taught by his preaching.

tained any thing necessary to salvation not to be found in the Holy Scriptures? Why? (2 Tim. iii. 16, 17.) How was the will of God made known. in the earliest ages of the world'? How did this mode of teaching accord with the circumstances of men at that time? What happened notwithstanding? When God set apart the Jewish nation, did He instruct them by tradition or by a written law? Did they mix up traditions with the Divine law? Were they condemned for so doing? (Mark vii. 13.) If a practice is condemned in the first dispensation, what may we infer1? reason does St. Luke assign for writing his Gospel? (Luke i. 4.) What kind of instruction was that to which he refers 5 ?

What

The Church of England rejects oral tradition. Is there no kind of tradition which she allows"? Mention some instances in which this kind of tradition is justly available to establish the truth 7. How has the Church determined the Canon of

1 It was written in the heart of man, and then handed down from father to son.

2 The great age to which men lived gave them time and opportunity to transmit or hand down the knowledge of the will of God from one to the other. For example; Methuselah lived 300 years in Adam's life-time, and Shem lived 100 years with Methuselah, and 100 with Abraham; so that there were but two links between Adam and Abraham.

3 The law and the knowledge of God were lost.

4 That it is condemned also in the second.

5 Catechetical instruction; instruction by sounding into the ear. 6 She allows and makes continual use of historical tradition, which is the authenticated evidence of facts.

7 The universal establishment of Episcopacy; the substitution of the Lord's day for theJewish Sabbath; the general prevalence of Infant Baptism, &c.

с

Scripture? What is the admission of Baxter on this point??

The Canonical Books of the Old and New Testament. Does our Saviour frequently allude to the Old Testament? What general testimony does He give in the Gospel of St. Luke? (Luke xxiv. 44.) How are the same words applied by Josephus3 ? By whose inspiration is all Scripture given? (2 Tim. iii. 16.) To what part of the Scriptures was this expression originally applied?

We have seen that there is full evidence to the Divine authority of the Old Testament in the New. How must we prove the Divine authority of the Books of the New Testament? Were most of the Books of the New Testament always acknowledged? What would you infer from the doubts which existed with regard to a few of them? Were the writers of these books inspired men? What do you infer? In what words does St. Paul declare this? (1 Thess. iv. 8.)

The Books called Apocryphal.-Were the books

1 By historical tradition, as she has received it from the fathers; by the evidence, i. e. of those who lived nearest the time in which those books were written.

2 Baxter admits with regard to certain books of the Old Testament, that he could never have known them "to be written by Divine inspiration, but by tradition;" meaning, of course, historical tradition. (Baxter, Preface to Second Part of Saints' Rest, § 6.)

3 To the whole Bible. (Joseph. cont. Apion. 1. i. § 8.)

4 We must show that they are-1, genuine, or written by those whose names they bear; 2, authentic, or containing true accounts; 3, inspired.

5 These doubts prove their correctness, showing the caution with which books were admitted into the Canon.

6 That their writings also were inspired.