FAITH, RULE OF
464
FAITH AND REASON
Church writers. According to the Protestant view, the tireek and Roman doctrine of the rule of faith takes awaj' Clirist, and jnits an ecclesiastical corpora- tion in his place. Bnt Trotcstantism does not den}' the value of tradition in transmitting Christian doc- trine : its value is inestimable. But it is not author- itative or final ; it is a servant, not a master. In fact, the question of tiie rule of faith is closely connected with that of the true idea of the Church, or, indeed, identical with it in the last analj'sis. So, at tlie fourth session of the Council of Trent, when the question of Scripture and tradition came up for discussion, Vin- cent Lunel. one of the members of the council, a Fran- ciscan, " thought it would be preferable to treat of the Church in the first instance, because Scripture derived its authority from the Church. Ho added that if it were once established that all Christians are bound to obey the Church, everything else would be easy, and that ttiis was the only argument that would refute the heretics." While Protestantism leads to Christ through the Scriptures, and through Christ to the Church, IJonie pretends to lead through the Church to Christ and the Scriptures ; the authority of the Protestant doctrine being its conformity with revealed truth, that of the Roman Catholic system the assumed infallibility of the Church. In causis spiritualibus necesstmo ad- mittcnd'is a'iquis supremus judex coniroverslarum (in spiritual things there must needs be some final and su- preme judge to decide controverted questions) is the old postulate of those who contend for a visiljle Church endowed with God's own infallibility. Grant them their postulate, in their own sense of it, and the whole theory of '• Church principles," as the modern success- ors of Hildo!u-and complacently name their dogmas, will inevitably follow. On the other hand, let it be settled that the Scriptures, and the Scriptures alone, constitute thj true rule of Christian faith and prac- tice, and we shall have done forever with the juggling priestcraft which has so long disgraced Christianit}', and which finds its only hope of support in ecclesiasti- cal tradition. The question is a vital one. It is not a mere matter of detail, about which mjn can differ at pleasure ; it is the Rubicon which separates Protest- antism from Popery. It involves "a choice between the Gospel of Christ as declared by himself and his apostles, and that deadh' apostasy which Paul in his lifetime saw threatening — nay, the effects of which, during his captivity, had nearly supplanted his own gospel in the Asiatic churches, and which he declares would come speedily with a fearful power of h"ing wonders" (Stanlej'-, Life of Arnohl, ii, 110). The Churcli of God, according to the Protestant, is built upon the " foundation of the prophets and the apostles, Christ himself being the chief corner-stone ;" accord- ing to the traditionist, upon the sands of antiquity as well. From the beginning men have mule the word of God of none effect through their traditions. See BiDLE, Use of; Fathers; Ixfallif.ility; Protes- tantism; Romanism; and especiallj' Tradition.
Literature. — Besides the authors already named in the course of this article, see Winer, Comp. Darstelbmff, ISCiC, p. 27; Nitzseh, System d. chri.<tL Lehre, § 36-39; Daille, Iii///it Use of the Fathers (Philada. 1812', 12mo) ; Elliott, D'lineation of Ronvmism, bk. i, chap, i and iii; Jeremy Taylor, Dissuasive from Poperij (Helier's ed.), N, 38:5 sq. ; Chemnitz, Examen Concilii Tridentini ; Chillingworth, Reliffum of Protestants (Philadel. 1838\ 8vo; jNIarsh, Comparative Vieiv of the Churches of Eng- land and Rome (Cambridge, 1811, 8vo) ; Stillingfleet, Protes'aiit Grounds of Faith {Works, Loud. 1700, vols. iv, V, and vi) ; Knapp, Chri-ttian Tkcol. § vii ; Goode, Divine Rn'e of Faith and Practice (2d ed. Lond. 1853, 3 vols. 8vo) ; Peck, Appeal from Tradition to Scripture (New York, 1844, 12mo, reviewed by ]M'Clintock-in the Biblical Repositorr/, Jan. 1840, art. 2); Edinb. Rev'ew, April, 1S43; Ligl'itfoot, Works, vi, 54; Rosenuiiiller, Di Orifj. Theolorj. cap. .\i, § 35; Holdcn, Authoii'ij of
Tradition (Phil. 1841) ; Hawkins, Dissert, on Tradition (Oxf. 1819, 8vo) ; Burnet, On 39 Articles; Browne, On 39 Articles ; Forbes, On 39 Articles (each on art. vi).
FAITH AND REASON. Religion and science express in the abstract and in the concrete the two op-' posite poles of human knowledge, between which there must always be discrepance, and has usually been dis- cord. In all ages in which there has been any nota- l)le activity of intelligence there has been a contro- versj', more or less violent, between the claims of religious authority and the pretensions of human rea- son. The acrimony of the strife has been increased, and the importance of appeasing it has been augment- ed by every extension of the domain of precise, cohe- rent, systematic reasoning. Every creed accepted by a cultivated and speculative community has been in turn assailed by a spirit of speculative scrutiny, which has gradually encroached upon the sacred domain, and has ultimate!}' denied all validity to doctrines not established by the processes of ratiocination, or discov- ered and confirmed by direct observation and experi- ment. The primeval theology of the Hindoos, the capricious and graceful fantasies of the Greek mythol- ogy, the stern solemnitj' of the Roman Fasti, the arbi- trary credulities of Islamism, have all experienced this phase of hostility, as well as Christianity, in the various periods and forms of its dissemination. But never has this war been more deadly in mode or in menace than in this current age, when the foundations of revealed truth are undermined by insidious ap- proaches, and when science erects its multitudinous batteries against all the ramparts of the Christian faith.