the Old Testament; we have nothing to do with that; the New Testament is our standard: the Old has passed away." Now this sentiment is a common one with many religious people. It is an erroneous idea, and has done great mischief. It has a slight basis of fact. The "first covenant dispensation of the law, or the old constitution of Israel, has been abolished; but it is far from being true that what God communicated through the prophets has been annulled. The New Testament itself shows this clearly. As we have already seen, Paul says, "The Scriptures are able to make thee wise unto salvation" (2 Tim. iii. 15). Now it must be remembered that this could only apply to the Old Testament. When Paul made the statement, the New Testament was not in existence. Consider then the import of the statement-the Scriptures of the Old Testament are able to make us WISE UNTO SALVATION. If this be true, how can it be correct to speak of the Old Testament having been done away?

And this statement of Paul's is by no means the only one to this effect. Hear what he said before Agrippa (Acts xxvi. 22)—

"Having, therefore, obtained help of God, I continue unto this day witnessing both to small and great, saying NONE OTHER THINGS than those which the prophets and Moses did say should come."

Now, if, in preaching the Christian faith, he said "none other things than those which Moses and the prophets did say should come," it is obvious that Moses and the prophets must contain the subject-matter of that faith. This is undeniable. It is borne out by the interesting incident narrated in Acts xvii. 11, where, speaking of the inhabitants of Berea, to whom Paul preached, it says:

"These were more noble than those in Thessalonica; and searched the Scriptures daily, whether those things were so; therefore, many of them believed."

If the Bereans were satisfied by a searching of the Old Testament, which were the only Scriptures in existence at the time of their search,

that what Paul said was true, is it not evident that what he said must in some form be contained in the Old Testament? Does it not follow that the Old Testament furnishes a basis for the things spoken by Paul? That Paul's faith as a Christian laid hold of the Old Testament, is evident from what he said before Felix, the Roman Governor :

"After the way which they call heresy, so worship I the God of my fathers, believing all things which are written in the law and in the prophets."-(Acts xxiv. 14).

In harmony with this individual attitude of Paul in the matter, we find that when he went to Thessalonica, he entered the synagogue, and "three sabbath days reasoned with them out of the Scriptures" (Acts xvii. 2), that is, out of Moses and the prophets, for there were no other Scriptures for him to reason out of. And when he called together the Jews at Rome, it is testified that "he expounded and testified the kingdom of God, persuading them concerning Jesus, both out of the law of Moses and out of the prophets, from morning till evening.' (Acts xxviii. 23).

The same fact, that the Scriptures of the Old Testament are accessory to the teaching of Christ and his apostles, is apparent in several other statements to be found in the New Testament. Peter exhorts those to whom he wrote in ver. 2, of iii. chap., 2nd epistle, "to be mindful of the words which were spoken before by the holy prophets?" and in the 19th verse of the first chap. of the same epistle, he says, 'We have also a more sure word of prophecy, WHERE

UNTO YE DO WELL THAT YE TAKE. HEED. Does not this settle the question? Jesus puts this statement into the mouth of Abraham in a parable (Luke xvi. 29, 31):

"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."

And it is recorded of him that during an interview with his. disciples, after his resurrection (Luke xxiv. 27), 'Beginning at

MOSES AND ALL THE PROPHETS, he expounded unto them in all the Scriptures the things concerning himself." If the Saviour himself appealed to the Old Testament in exposition of the things concerning him, and exhorted us to Moses and the prophets," what further need of argument?

"hear

It is obvious that those people fall into a great mistake who suppose that Christianity is something distinct from the Old Testament. So far from Christianity being distinct from the Old Testament it will be found that Christianity is rooted in the Old Testament. The Old Testamant lays the foundation of all that is involved in the New. The New Testament is simply an appendage to the Old, valuable beyond all price, and indispensable in the most absolute sense, but in itself, apart from the Old Testament, far from being sufficient to give us that perfection of Christian knowledge which constitutes a person "wise unto salvation." The two combined form the complete revelation of God to man, vouchsafed for his spiritual renovation in the present, and this constitutional perfection in the future. Divided, they are each inefficacious to "thoroughly furnish the man of God unto all good works."

We must request the reader to suspend his judgment on this point, and refrain from thinking too harshly of an idea which, though probably opposed to his dearest accustomed sentiments, is one that is sustained by the general teaching and emphatic declaration of the word of God, as will be shown in the succeeding lectures, to which, as a whole, the conscientious dissentient is referred for an answer to his objections.

Thus we bring the subject of the the present lecture to a conclusion

"The Bible: what it is, and how to interpret it." It was necessary to go into these details by way of preliminary to the investigation which shall be entered into in subsequent lectures - clearing away errors and misconceptions, and laying a distinct and sure foundation for what is to follow.

It only now remains for us to bespeak your sympathy with the subjects, and your patience with the necessarily somewhat dry and tedious process essential to their thorough treatment. It is a vital question, and worthy of all the labour which you can bestow upon it. We cannot be too particular in trying the evidence upon which our faith relies. We ought not to be content to take it second hand. We ought not in a day like this to simply accept what we have been taught at home, in the church and chapel, without ever giving it a thought whether it is right or wrong, or reckoning upon the awful consequences of error. Never mind if others do not consider it their business to study the Bible. Remember that the majority have always been in the wrong in all ages of the world. Look not at your neighbours, think not of your friends in this matter. They are in all probability like the world in general. They lack independence, and are subservient to their worldly interest. They cannot afford to deviate from orthodox sentiment and usage, and long conformity has deadened their power to judge of the evidence. With all their church-going and religious professsion, the anxiety of the majority of people centres in the present evil world. Act for yourselves. Do as Peter told a Jewish assembly to do in Jerusalem :"Save yourselves from this untoward generation.'

"

N nothing will Christendom ap

student further astray than in the ordinary theological view as to the nature of man. We ask this afternoon what the Bible teaches on the subject, and, getting the Bible answer, we shall seek to confirm that answer by an appeal to NatureGod's other great witness. Our argument may appear to savour of infidel tendencies, but we are confident this appearance will disappear in the eyes of such as can discriminate between intellectual caprice, and earnest conviction entertained for reasons that can be stated. proposition we have to maintain (and we bespeak your earnest consideration of the evidence in support of it) will be astounding to you at first. It is that the doctrine of the immortality of the soul is an untrue doctrine, which effectually prevents the believer of it from truly apprehending the truth concerning the work and teaching of Christ.

The

Consider, first, what the universal theory of the human constitution is. It is that in his proper essential being, man is a "spiritual," immaterial, and immortal being, living in a material body composed of organs necessary for the manifestation of his invisible and indestructible inner "self" in this external and material world. This organic body is not regarded as essential to man's identity or existence. His proper self is understood to subsist in the immaterial entity or divine spark called the soul or spirit. The organs composing

man

the body are looked upon as things which the man uses as a mechanic uses his tools—the external agencies by which the behests of "the inner are carried out. Mental qualities such as reason, sentiment, disposition, &c.—are set down as the attributes of the spiritual "6 essence which is supposed to constitute himself. The body is, of course, admitted to have a material derivation "from the dust of the ground," but the " essence is believed to have come from God himself to be, in fact, a part of the Deity—a spark, or particle, scintillated from the divine centre, having intelligent faculty and existence independently of the substantial organism with which it is associated. In accordance with this view, death is not considered to affect a man's being. It is regarded simply as a demolition of the material organism, which liberates the deathless, intangible man from the bondage of this "mortal coil," which having "shuffled off," he wings his way to spiritual regions, for eternal happiness or misery, according to "deeds done in the body."

Now, in opposition to this view, we shall show that, according to the Scriptures, man is destitute of immortality in every sense; that he is a creature of organized substance subsisting in the life-power of God, which he shares in common with every living thing under the sun; that he only holds this life on the short average tenure of three-score years and ten, at the end of which he gives it up to Him from whom he received

energised his muscles to the snapping of ropes, like thread-(Judges xv. 14); and inhaled by the nostrils of man and beast, it gives physical life-(Psalm civ. 30).

It is evident that there would be great difficulty in arriving at such a definition of "matter" as would sustain the argument under consideration. It is, in fact, only an arbitrary and, in modern times, discredited system of thought that has created the distinctions implied in the terms of metaphysics. Nature that is universal existence-is one; it is the incorporation of one primitive power; it is not made up of two antagonistic and incompatible elements. God is the source of all. In him everything exists; out of him everything is evolved. Different elements and. substances are but different forms of the same eternal essence or first cause- described in the Bible as "spirit" which God is; and in scientific language, by a diversity of superficial terms. The word "matter" only describes an aspect of creation, as presented to finite sense; it does not touch the essence of the thing, though intended so to do by the short-sighted, because unexperimental and unobservant, system which invented it.

But if difficult to fix the limits of unsentient matter, there is another difficulty which is equally fatal to the argument, viz., the difficulty of defining the process which is expressed by the word "think."

It would be necessary to define this process before it would be legitimate to argue that every form of matter is incapable of it; for unless defined, how could we say when and where it was possible or not possible? To say that matter cannot think is virtually to allege that the nature of thought is so and so, and the nature of matter so and so, in consequence of which they have no mutual relation. We have seen the impossibility of taking this ground with regard to "matter." Who shall define the modus operandi of thought? It can

only be done in general terms which destroy the argument now under review. Thought, in so far as it relates to human experience, is a power developed by brain organisation, and consists of impressions made upon that delicate organ through the medium of the senses, and afterwards classified and arranged by that function pertaining in different degrees to brain in human form, known as reason. This is matter of experience. It cannot be set aside as a fact, whatever reservation may be entertained as to the explanation of the fact. It is a fact that destroys the metaphysical argument, since it shows us what the argument denies, viz., that the matter of the brain electrically energised is capable of evolving thought.

The whole argument in question is based on a fallacy. It assumes a knowledge of "natures" capabilities impossible to man. Chemists can tell the number and proportion of elementary gases which enter into any compound; but who understands the essential nature of any one of The those elements separately?

more truly learned great minds become, the more diffident do they grow on this subject. They hesitate to be certain about almost anything in which the secrets of nature are involved. The progress of biological investigation during the last twenty years is eloquent on this subject. None but the ignorant or the superficial would be so unwise as to draw the line fixing the limit of the possible. What is nature? The sphere of omnipotence-the arena of God's operations. Shall we say that anything is impossible with God? True, inanimate matter, such as iron or stone, cannot think; but we know, experimentally, that there is such a thing as "living matter," and that living matter is sentient, and thinking by virtue of its organisation, which is only another phrase for its divine endowment. This is a matter of experience, illustrated in degrees in every department of the animal kingdom.