herself; and possesses only the Old Testament. And here I would notice the folly of a principle set forth by some of those who deny inspiration. It is said, that the claim to inspiration is necessarily limited to the Book which makes the claim; or, at least, to the writings of the same author. There is no sense in this assertion. Why could not an inspired author, or the Lord, declare all the other Books, or some amongst them, to be inspired? And, on the other hand, there is no necessity that the other writings of an author should be inspired, because one of them is so. The Lord sets His seal to the entire Old Testament; and Paul declares that all Scripture is given by inspiration of God. Does this only prove the inspiration of the Epistle to Timothy in which the assertion is found? Those who seek to overthrow the foundations of truth by such arguments as these, deserve chiding rather than refutation. In 2 Peter i. 19-21, we find, "the word of prophecy," "the prophecies of Scripture," which "holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost." There are persons who reject this Epistle; but I am not bound to own their authority. The style of the Epistle is not that of an impostor. Yet if not written by Peter, it is certainly the work of an impostor, for he calls himself the Apostle, and says it is his second Epistle. But I leave this. There is another point which must be noticed in this discussion. They maintain that we cannot avail ourselves of the New Testament, till the Canon is settled. Why not? Let us suppose (although I do not believe it of the Word) that a wilding is found in my garden, can I therefore make no use of the good trees which are in it? supposing the second Epistle of Peter were spurious, and that the Apocalypse deserved all that is said against it by certain authors, what has that to do with the Epistle of John, or that of Paul to the Romans. I might admit that one Epistle was questionable-which I do not admit-without, the least in the world, questioning the others.

I return to direct procfs. We have seen the inspiration, the authority, the Canon even, of the Old Testament fully proved; and the principles which deny inspiration itself, utterly overthrown. But we have seen more than

this. Paul received "by revelation" the truths he taught, and he communicated them in "words which the Holy Ghost teacheth," that is to say, by inspiration; consequently, it is certain that the early disciples had the truth communicated to them by inspiration, as the foundation of their faith. And the argument which denies inspiration to the New Testament, if true, would only prove that God had changed His mode of acting, and left the succeeding ages without this foundation, and without Divine basis for their faith: a change incredible enough. But when Paul says, "which things we speak" does he mean those things which he spoke by word of mouth only? And has he taught nothing by writing? We well know that he has taught by writing that which had been revealed to him; that is to say, that his writings for this purpose were inspired. He even says so, which would not have been necessary after the passage we have quoted from Corinthians. But God has favoured us with this additional proof. "How," he says, "How," he says, "by revelation He made known unto me the mystery, as I wrote afore in few words, whereby when ye read ye may understand my knowledge in the mystery of Christ ?" Should any say, "It may be so when fundamental truths are concerned, but not otherwise;" even this refuge is denied them by Scripture. In giving details for the inward regulation of a church (1 Cor. xiv. 36, 37), the Apostle says, "Came the Word of God out from you? or came it unto you only? If any man think himself to be a prophet or spiritual, let him acknowledge that the things that I write unto you are the commandments of the Lord. But if any man be ignorant let him be ignorant." The communications then of the Spirit to the church or to the world, were the "Word of God," and that which was written by the Apostle to direct the Saints, was "the commandment of the Lord." "For this cause," said the Apostle to the Thessalonians (1 Thes. ii. 13), "we thank God without ceasing, because, when ye received the Word of God, which ye heard of us, ye received it not as the word of men, but as it is in truth, the Word of God, which effectually worketh also in you that believe." Thus we see that the Apostle puts his writings on the footing of

commandments from the Lord, with the sorrowful consolation for those who cannot discern it, "If any man be ignorant, LET HIM BE IGNORANT." Now will any one tell me, that the Apostle, acting in the self-same character and addressing himself in the same manner in virtue of his Apostolic sanction and authority, to the Romans or to the Galatians, is less inspired than when he addresses the Corinthians? Such an argument deserves no other refutation than "if any man be ignorant, let him be ignorant " To say God has willed that the faith of the Ephesians and Corinthians, should rest upon Divine inspiration, and that of the Romans and Galatians on a human basis, deserves no serious answer. We have a particular class of writings; and this class of writings is called "The Scriptures." The sixteenth chapter of Romans defines this principle very clearly in ver. 26. "But now is made manifest [i. e. the mystery] and by the prophetic writings [see Greek] according to the commandment of the everlasting God, made known to all nations for the obedience of faith." This passage again points out that class of writings which we call the Scriptures. Writings which have the authority of a revelation, an oracle of God; they are "prophetic writings." In short, to sum up this part of the testimonies we possess, Peter in his second Epistle, recognising these writings as the Scriptures, tells us, when speaking of Paul's Epistles, that those who are "unlearned and unstable, wrest them, as they do the other Scriptures," proving that Paul's Epistles form a part of the Scriptures, a term very well understood and having the same meaning then as now; as the Lord's own words demonstrate. I know, indeed, as I have already said, that some reject this Epistle; but I do not accept their dictum as an authority.

The existence, then, of prophetic scriptures, of the scriptures of the New Testament, which have the authority of the Word of God, of the commandments of God, is most clearly proved. He who finds more authority in the words of the Lord's Apostle than in those of the adversaries of inspiration, he who reveres the Word of God and the revelations of God, will have no doubt on the subject. But, if there are the writings of John or Peter

making the same claim, addressing Christians in the same manner; and that in perfect accordance with the divine ministry committed to them; as, for instance, those of Peter to the circumcision, could a Christian say, "The writings of one apostle are inspired, but those of another are not; although entirely of the same nature, and although he speaks expressly in the name of his apostolate and as exercising the authority of his mission? I assume now their authenticity; and that they are really the writings they claim to be. We need not look for the words "I am inspired." We find in them the unequivocal expression of authority. The faith of Christians consequently clothes them with this authority. They announce the truth, as having a right to impose their thoughts, as such, and in fact imposing them. Take the first Epistle of Peter. Does he not speak with full authority as apostle? And when Paul said, "If any obey not our word by this Epistle, note that man and have no company with him;" had not that written word apostolic authority? When John said, “We are of God: he that knoweth God, heareth us; he that is not of God, heareth not us" (1 John iv. 6), exercising thus divine authority over the conscience, do you think he meant that these words pronounced so solemnly had not altogether the same authority? It would be a contradiction in itself, for if they rejected his words they did not hear him. One cannot attribute authority to his words spoken elsewhere, without attributing it to the words which claim that authority. If I say, "I command you to obey me," the command which I give, and the authority of that which I have already commanded, stand or fall together. I cannot believe the authority of Peter to be less great than that of John or of Paul. He was sent forth with the same authority by the Lord.

Well then what have we proved? That there is a class of writings called "the Scriptures" which are inspired, which possess absolute authority as the Word of God, recognised by the Lord and His apostles, and brought forward constantly by them with the greatest solemnity. We have found that a very large portion of the New Testament is spoken of as forming part of these Scriptures;

that there is a body of writings attached to the apostolic work, prophetic scriptures used by the command of God, a body of writings which has the authority of the Word of God. The question then is narrowed into very small dimensions. The assertion that there is no inspiration no Divine authority for the word, has been proved entirely false. It is in flagrant opposition to the authority of the Lord and the apostles; and seeks to overthrow that which they maintain. The only question is this, does such or such a book form a part of this inspired collection? A very important question; but which, by the very fact of its being asked, presupposes the existence and the authority of the Word of God; and only seeks not to confound human pretensions with the divine authority it reveres; the full value of which it seeks to preserve untouched and without alloy.

com

It will be felt that this is not the place for detailed proofs of the authenticity of each book of the New Testament: it would be to write an introduction to the New Testament. I will point out farther on, some general principles of the ways of God in this respect. The great question is decided. It did not consist in enquiring whether such or such a book were genuine, admitting the inspiration of the rest; but in ascertaining whether there be such a thing as inspiration at all. Now, inspiration has been proved; not only revelation, but inspiration. The revealed truth municated in words taught by the Holy Ghost. If this be so (mark it well) the system which denies it, bears the character not only of a false principle, but of a principle hostile to God and to His goodness, subversive of the truth He has condescended to make known to us, and of the very foundations of our faith. It is a very important thing to judge the source and the character of that which presents itself as truth. "Believe not every spirit, but try the spirits whether they are of God; for many false prophets are gone out into the world [to act]." Following this injunction of the apostle's-of the Holy Ghost's-I solemnly judge that the principle in question proceeds from Satan.

It were out