which it is important to point out here; they differ totally from each other and are morally quite opposed to each other. Suppose that some one tried to prove God a liar. I answer that cannot be ! I condemn your reasoning as false, a priori. My judgment is sound, perfectly logical and philosophical (if you like to take that ground); because it is much more sure, nay, it is infallibly sure, that God cannot lie; whilst it is very possible, that your reasoning is false, even though I were unable to detect the fallacy. How many things there are as to which man wants the capacity for reasoning rightly! And this is the safeguard which God has given to the simpleminded, namely, a divine conviction with respect to those things which are beyond their reach-beyond the reach of man; while the philosopher who undertakes to explain them sinks in the mire. It is also what is called a priori reasoning, to say "God ought not to be so and so,” but of an entirely different kind. In the first case, I measure the folly of man by the certainty of what God is; in the second, I measure what God ought to be, taking man for my measure; which is necessarily false. "Thou thoughtest," said God, "that I was altogether such a one as thyself; but I will reprove thee, and set before thee the things which thou hast done." In the first case, I say God is true, therefore your argument which denies it must be false! In the second, I say, this is my thought, and God must be according to my thought. To measure man by the certainty of what God is, and to measure God by man are two very different things. This may be termed a priori reasoning. It is true, that it presumes there is the knowledge of God; and all men have not the knowledge of God. "He hides these things from the wise and prudent, and reveals them unto babes."

It is evident, that whatever may be the competency of of witnesses, from their own faithfulness, and from the ever interesting and important fact of their proximity to the circumstances they relate, and to the living source of Christian doctrine, yet to deny direct inspiration, and to put in its stead the competency of witnesses; is to substitute a merely human belief for a divine testimony. The aim of such a system is to shut out God.

But I pursue my subject. It is asserted (for without this it would be open infidelity) that Revelation is allowed, although not inspiration. That is to say, that the Apostles, or others, employed to communicate truth, had a Divine basis for their faith; but that other believers have not. For that is plainly the effect of this supposition. Truth has been revealed from heaven, that is, divinely communicated, to the Apostles and others; but since then there has been only a human testimonyhowever godly it may be, only human-no Divine basis, as to testimony, which, on God's part, could shield the church from error. I say on God's part, because no one disputes the possibility of man's falling into error through his own folly or negligence. The mere statement of this doctrine is almost its refutation; but it is needless to dwell further upon it, since it is formally contradicted in the word itself. "But God," says the Apostle, who carefully states the opposite of the notion which we combat, "God has revealed them unto us by his Spirit" (I suppose no one would venture to assert that the communications made through Paul were of a different character, or of another nature than those given through Peter or John or any other prophet). The reason the Apostle gives for this revelation is very striking! "For what man knoweth the things of a man, save the spirit of man which is in him? even so the things of God knoweth no man, but the Spirit of God. Now we have received not the spirit of the world, but the spirit which is of God, that we might know the things that are given to us of God." I was going to dwell upon this argument, forgetting that the Apostle had used it; I will now only insist on the force of what he says: "Without a divine communication there can be no faith." That which belongs to man, which is within the limits of his intelligence, may be known to man through sight, through reasoning, or through the testimony of man; but it is not so in the things of faith, in Divine thoughts and truths. God alone knows them, and God alone can make them known; consequently, man must be entirely ignorant of them, unless God reveal them. But He makes them known by His Spirit, that is, by Revelation; giving the Holy Ghost Himself, who reveals it in the heart. I

speak of the Apostolic work. The question then stands within very narrow limits. It is this: The Apostles, having received the knowledge of these things in a divine manner, did they communicate them to us in a manner, excellent indeed, but not inspired? God had revealed them to the Apostles by His Spirit; how did they communicate them? Was their inspiration what is termed "simply religious inspiration?" was it only that operation of the Spirit which is found in a spiritual preacher, and which leaves him still liable to error. Nothing can be more precise than the testimony of the Apostle on this point. Continuing the passage already quoted, he says, "which things also we speak, not in the words which man's wisdom teacheth, but which the Holy Ghost teacheth." Could the idea of inspiration be embodied in a form of words more absolutely definite than the expression, "words-which the Holy Ghost teacheth ?" Here then there is nothing equivocal. When the Apostle set forth the truths which the Holy Ghost had taught him, he used words which the Holy Ghost had also taught him; that is, it was God Himself speaking through the mouth of man. And remark here, that inspiration is asserted in cases where religious inspiration was impossible, as in that of Balaam, when "He took up his parable and spoke, having heard the words of God." Finally, Isaiah, Jeremiah, and so many others who have said to us, "Thus saith the Lord," "The word of the Lord came unto me, saying," etc., are all examples of positive, and properly-so-called inspiration. Nevertheless, the arguments which deny inspiration must be applied universally. Here, however, there is nothing doubtful. The prophets boldly proclaim their inspiration, and we have it in a written form. In examining this subject, one cannot honestly leave out the Old Testament, because the arguments (except, perhaps, that which relates to the Canon) apply to both; to the Old as to the New. Has the Old Testament authority, and has the New none? Is the Old Testament the Word of God, and not the New? It is very convenient to reason upon a subject and leave out that part of which the proofs are incontestable. Inspiration is a reality, and we possess the

absolute authority of God's own Word. The Prophets have affirmed it, the Lord has recognised it, i. e. that of this body of writings as it stands; and He has declared that nothing can invalidate its authority. The Apostle also has declared that these Scriptures were given by inspiration of God, and are capable of making us wise unto salvation. The principle of authority is true, the principle of inspiration is true. The question is limited to this; Is the New Testament inspired also? The Old Testament leaves no room for any argument which would make inspiration questionable. It affirms its own inspiration in all the prophetic part; and the words of the Lord and of the Apostles prove that of all the books it contains. This should be thoroughly understood. Inspiration is certain, the divine authority of the Word of God incontestable. This question alone remains. Is the New Testament a part of that Word? Principles which deny that which the Lord and the Apostles affirm, inspire no confidence in the judgment of any one who can entertain such false and even blasphemous principles. He who denies inspiration, denies that which the Lord and the Apostles maintain-for they maintain the inspiration of the Old Testament. He has, therefore, already destroyed all my confidence in his judgment; and I cannot listen to him when he tells me that the New Testament has not the authority of inspiration.

I will not multiply quotations to prove that the prophets assert the inspiration of their prophecies; because it recurs at the beginning of almost every separate prophecy; but I will point out the passages in the New Testament, which recognise the Scriptures of the Old as having this authority. Luke xxiv. 44, "All things must be fulfilled, which were written in the law of Moses, and in the Prophets, and in the Psalms, concerning me." Jesus here recognises the body of writings, called the Old Testament in its three parts-still thus entitled in the modern Hebrew Bibles. The Lord gives them equal authority, ver. 27, "And beginning at Moses, and all the prophets, He expounded unto them in all the Scriptures the things concerning Himself." John v. 39," Search the Scriptures, for in them ye think ye have eternal life,

and they are they which testify of me." "And the Scripture cannot be broken" (John x.35). These passages demonstrate that the Scriptures of the Old Testament were a body of writings recognised by the Lord, and that, in the detail of its present divisions, recognised as having absolute authority. But, to have their writings is something more, as to the form of communication, than having the truth spoken by word of mouth; even though it were by the mouth of the Lord Himself. John v. 47, "If ye believe not his writings, how shall ye believe my words?" The writings, then, were the object of faith, and consequently had the authority of the Word of God. "They have Moses and the Prophets, let them hear them”—“If they hear not Moses and the prophets, neither will they be persuaded, though one rose from the dead" (Luke xvi. 29, 31). When the Apostle preached the truth at Berea, the Jews-his hearers-"searched the Scriptures daily whether those things were so," that is to say, they made use of the Scriptures, as an authority, to judge the teaching even of an Apostle; and they are commended for so doing (Acts xvii. 11). The inspiration of the Old Testament is then demonstrated, its authority recognised by the Lord, and the whole-as we possess it-declared to be authentic, and to be clothed with an authority which nothing can invalidate.

The Scriptures, as a whole, are owned of God, as a distinct class of writings, having a certain authority; namely, that of HIS WORD. As it is written in Prov. xxx. 5,6-" Every word of God is pure: He is a shield unto them that put their trust in Him. Add thou not to His words, lest He reprove thee, and thou be found a liar." Finally, the Apostle Paul (2 Tim.iii. 16) gives a remarkable testimony to the same effect, and which clearly designates this class of writings; "All Scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness; that the man of God may be perfect, throughly furnished unto all good works." We have only therefore to learn whether the New Testament forms a part of "the Scriptures," or whether the Church is entirely without a divine communication entrusted to