to believe, but he must have more positive and striking authority. It had a different effect in the case of the Sadducees, for we find it stated in the 34th verse,-" But the Pharisees hearing that he had silenced the Sadducees, came together." He put them to silence-by what?-THE

WRITTEN WORD.

I shall now call your attention to the 10th of Luke, 25th and 26th verses :

"And, behold, a certain lawyer stood up, tempting him, and saying, Master, what must I do to possess eternal life? But he said to him, What is written in the law? how readest thou?"

Observe the question the lawyer put; it was the most important question that a man could put-it was about his best and his eternal interests-it was about the way to obtain eternal life-and no question is of such momentous interest as that to every one of us. How did our Lord answer it? By a reference to tradition? By a reference to the authority of the Church? Not at all. But "what is written in the law? how readest thou?" and therefore our Lord declared the fact, that, if he had read in the written law, he might have found an answer to the question which he had put.

I shall next refer to the 16th chapter of Luke, and shall begin at the 27th verse. Previous to this verse our Lord gives us the history of the rich man and Lazarus, and we find from it the awful consequence of neglecting the Lord and his truth in our life-time; for we are told the rich man" lifted up his eyes, being in torments." When he found it was impossible that he himself could be benefited, now that he was in the state of everlasting misery, he is represented as addressing Abraham on behalf of his family, reasoning, doubtless, within himself, that if he could not succeed in his own case, he might be able to do something to save them. Then he says

"Father, I beseech thee that thou wouldest send him (i. e. Lazarus) to my father's house, for I have five brethren, that he may testify unto them, lest they also come into this place of torment."

What does Abraham answer? Then Abraham said, "They have Moses and the prophets (i. e. the written word), LET THEM HEAR THEM." (v. 29.) The rich man, like many at the present day, was not satisfied with this, and therefore he said (v. 30), "No, father Abraham, but if one went to them from the dead they will do penance," or they will repent," as we (in the authorised version) have it. But what was Abraham's second reply? Abraham

66

said to him, "IF THEY HEAR NOT MOSES and THE PROPHETS, neither will they believe if one rise again from the dead." Now here is a testimony given us that if the evidence of the Scriptures fails, a man would not be persuaded though one rose from the dead. If that be the case, I cannot see how the Scriptures are not a sufficient rule of faith, and the only one to which we must refer in such

matters.

The next passage is in the 24th chapter of Luke, verses 25-27. This chapter contains an account of the interview which our Lord had with two of his disciples after his resurrection, as they were going to Emmaus. entered into conversation with them, and we find he said in the 25th verse

-

He

"O foolish and slow of heart to believe in all things which the prophets have spoken. Ought not Christ to have suffered these things, and so to enter into his glory? And beginning at Moses and all the prophets, he expounded to them in all the Scriptures the things that were concerning him."

The disciples were in error respecting the character of Christ, and what was the cause of the error?-why, it was ignorance of the Scriptures. Our Lord says to them, Ought not Christ to have suffered these things?" and he reproves them, by referring to the written word, and beginning at Moses and all the prophets, he expounded to them IN ALL THE SCRIPTURES"-not from the testimony of oral tradition, nor from the authority of the Churchbut 66 IN ALL THE SCRIPTURES the things that were con

66

cerning him."

Then in the 44th verse of the same chapter Jesus said

"These are the words which I spoke to you while I was yet with you, that all things must needs be fulfilled, which are written in the law of Moses, and in the prophets, and in the Psalms, concerning me. Then he opened their understanding, that they might understand the Scriptures."

Here again we behold the only standard to which Christ referred-the three great divisions of the Jewish Scriptures, the Law, the Prophets, and the Psalms. There was no other authority brought forward by Him, but simply the written word.

I pass from Luke to the Acts of the Apostles, and I find in the opening of the 17th chapter, verses 1-3, as follows: :

"And when they had passed through Amphipolis and Apollonia they came to Thessalonica, where was a synagogue of the Jews. And Paul, according to his custom, went in unto them; and for three Sabbath days he reasoned with them out of the Scriptures; declaring and insinuating that the Christ was to suffer, and to rise again from the dead; and that this is Jesus Christ whom I preach to you."

Now here St. Paul went to dispute with the Jews, and what was the rule by which he guided his disputation? I suppose he told them that they should attend to the decisions of the Jewish Sanhedrim? I suppose he told them to attend to the tradition that had been handed down from father to son through the lapse of ages? No. He reasoned with them "out of THE SCRIPTURES" -out of the things that were written-that was the rule by which he disputed.

Again, in the 11th and 12th verses of the same chapter, speaking of the Bereans, the sacred historian says:

"These were more noble than those in Thessalonica, who received the word with all eagerness, daily searching the Scriptures, whether these things were so. And many indeed of them believed."

Now mark, 1st, what the Bereans did; they took the Scriptures as their rule; they "searched the Scriptures daily," to see whether the things that they heard were true or not. And, 2ndly, were they wrong in doing this? Ought they rather to have gone to some church, which should have propounded to them, by virtue of an infallible authority, what they ought to believe? Ought they to have attended to the declarations of oral tradition? No; they were perfectly right in looking to the Scriptures as their rule of faith, for the Evangelist speaking under inspiration says, 66 They were more noble than those in Thessalonica," because they thus searched the Scriptures. 3rdly, What was the result? Mark particularly this. The Scriptures, we are told, are not sufficient as a rule of faith -they do not contain all necessary truth to be believed. Now here we find the Bereans received the Scriptures as their rule of faith, and what is said of them? Many of them indeed believed." This was just the result of adhering to the written word as a rule of faith.

66

The 18th chapter of Acts, and the 28th verse, is the next to which I shall refer, where the writer, speaking. of Apollos, says—

"With much vigour he convinced the Jews openly, shewing by the Scriptures that Jesus is the Christ."

proved his propoIt was not by tracontended for its

First of all, mark here how Apollos sition, that" Jesus was the Christ." dition, though many among the Jews authority; but it was by the Scriptures-" Shewing by the Scriptures that Jesus is the Christ." 2ndly. Did this appeal fail? I suppose, if the Scriptures were not sufficient as a rule of faith, it would have failed; but we find it

C

did not, for we read that "with much vigour he convinced the Jews, shewing," &c. There again we see the only standard to which reference was made.

I shall now solicit your attention to the 24th chapter of Acts, and 14th verse. In this place Paul is making his defence before the Roman Governor, and in his speech he says,

"But this I confess to thee, that according to the sect which they call heresy, so I serve the Father and my God, believing all things which are written in the law and the prophets."

66

Now what did Paul believe?-just all the things that were written in the law and the prophets:" there was the only rule by which he regulated his faith, not admitting any other authority but the authority of the written word.

In the 26th chapter, and the 22nd verse, as we found the Apostle Paul before, in the last-mentioned chapter, making his defence in the presence of Felix, and bearing his testimony to the perfection of the written word and its sufficiency; so we now find him bearing his testimony before Agrippa, and in this address or speech of his he says,

Being aided by the help of God I stand unto this day, witnessing both to small and great, saying no other things than those which the Prophets and Moses did say should come to pass.'

In this passage the Apostle distinctly tells the assembly, that he said neither to small nor great any other things but those things" which the prophets and Moses," that is, which the written word, "did say should come to pass. This is another example to shew what was the Apostle's rule of faith, and what it was from which he derived the doctrines that he taught.

The next passage to which I shall advert is in the 15th chap. of Romans, and 4th verse. As I find my time is just expiring, this is the last verse to which I shall refer. The Apostle Paul wrote to the ancient church at Rome, and he speaks thus:

"What things so ever were written, were written for our learning: that through patience and comfort of the Scriptures, we might have hope."

Here, be it observed, first of all, that the written word is the preventative of ignorance, because the things written before" were written for our learning," says the Apostle. And then what is to be the result of looking to the written word as our standard and rule? That, through patience and the comfort of the Scriptures, we might have hope."

Now hope, to be true and genuine, presupposes the existence of faith. If, therefore, "through patience and comfort of the Scriptures," we may have hope, it follows that "through patience and comfort of the Scriptures" we may have faith; and therefore the Scriptures are sufficient as a rule of faith.

66

At present I shall go no further. I have stated distinctly, in the hearing of our friends present, what the Protestant rule of faith is; and I have guarded it against the interpretation which is generally attached to it by Roman Catholic controversialists. I would repeat, it is THE WRITTEN WORD ALONE, without the gratuitous addition, interpreted by each man's private judgment." In proof of this I have referred to texts which establish that the written word contains all things necessary to be believed for salvation. And then I have proved, by several passages, that the only law which the Jewish church had, and which our Lord and his apostles on every occasion recognized, was the written law, and that they referred to no other authority in furtherance and defence of the pretensions they put forth. So that the legitimate conclusion is, that we Protestants are right in receiving the Scriptures as a sufficient rule of faith, and the only rule, till it be distinctly proved on the other side that there is an additional rule, and till that rule be authenticated as having come from God.

THE REV. T. J. BROWN.

Mr. Chairman, Ladies and Gentlemen,-Before entering upon the subject with which I have charged myself, I feel it a duty to myself, as well as to my friends, some of whom are inclined to disapprove of my conduct in meeting in this public manner the gentlemen of the Reformation Society, I feel it due to myself and to them to state the motives which have induced me to engage in this public discussion, and which made me choose this place as the arena of controversy.

During the twenty years we have resided in this neighbourhood, we have endeavoured to cultivate a good understanding with our Protestant friends; we have endeavoured not to make religion a pretence for violating the duties which we owe to society-the duties of charity which we