he testimony of Scripture was no really inspired etic testimony; consequently, not about Himself. sen Lord misled, as much as when walking, before eath, on the earth. And Christians are to believe But He goes a step further. He uses divine over their minds as to it. "Then opened He understandings, that they might understand the ures; and said unto them: Thus it is written, and behoved Christ to suffer"; opened divinely their tanding to understand forgeries, or even, if you the rhapsodies of patriotic bards and pious comns from old legends. Is not that singular? We o truth as to Christ and what He did, if this be what is ascribed to Him as risen and divinely ng on men's minds was never pressed in in respect mposture. The utmost foundation was an obscure patched up, into a false story, and He not only , when risen, all about it, but opened divinely nderstandings to understand it!

her, the Lord Himself quotes, as His reply to the Scriptures with the emphatic declaration: "It en." And when even Satan sets about, conse, to use Scripture, He does not leave this ground,

"it is written," again. Impossible to give a riking testimony to where truth and power were ound to baffle the enemy. He was led of the o this solemn conflict, that He might bind the nan and deliver men, spoiling his goods. But ory was founded on a forged imposture, somehat Jeremiah's fanaticism and Huldah and the iest's deceit got up to try and work a reformation: ain. So they tell us. I suppose the Devil must een a prejudiced Jew, too, to let himself be in this way! He was more blind and easily than we are led to suppose.

John the Baptist too! He was misleading the for he quotes the Scriptures as testifying of himut that was all a mistake. How many am I to them? In Matthew half the things which he re fulfilments of prophecies. Some expressly so se. But this was all a delusion. it

When Jonas and Solomon are cited by the Lord, God knows what the cases are worth. When the Lord contrasted one of the ten commandments as the commandment of God with man's tradition - He made a gross mistake in condemning the Scribes thus. It was no more such than the tradition. It may have been a more respectable tradition; but the ground which the Lord laid it on was all a blunder. The very point He insists upon and which He declares was of such weight as to make all their worship vain was a grave mistake. It was not to be believed, that they were really spoken or given of God at all. The appeal to Esaias was a mistake, and His own judgment equally so.

The appeals of the Lord to the Scripture are, I need not say, incessant. "Did ye never read in the Scriptures the Stone which the builders rejected," etc.

This was a prophecy just going to be fulfilled through their conduct towards Him? Was His appeal just?

When David in Spirit calls the Son of David his Lord, was it inspired or not? When the Scribes and Pharisees, evil as they were, sat in Moses's seat, they were to be listened to. Why? If Moses had not authority as a Divine testimony. Their fathers had killed the Prophets but they were no Prophets at all, if we are to listen to our new masters. When the Lord appeals to Daniel as speaking of the abomination of desolation, and presses on them to give intelligent attention, all this was a mistake, or a wilful deception. Of all Prophets, Daniel, they tell us, was the most false and unreal. I do not go any further. I have cited sufficient of this class of texts to shew that the authority of the Old Testament (Moses in particular, but Psalms and Prophets too), is so interwoven with the whole text and substance of the New Testament that if it goes the New goes with it; and the authority of Christ, His being really the Christ, too (for then His testimony and judgment are not worthy c credit), and Christianity itself. And this applies to Him, quite as much when risen and operating by divine power and supposing that He opened man's understanding divinely to understand forgeries and imposture. This may do for rationalists, but not for men in their senses.

And I pray the reader to remark, that we have not the expression "the word of God," as to which men might cavil, but "the Scriptures."

Moses and Elias appeared in glory. Can we believe hat this was no sanction to the places they held in Old Testament Scriptures?

The Lord declares that Moses gave the commandment s to divorce, but because of the hardness of their hearts. All a mistake! Nor had he any need to blame or excuse him. David himself, He tells us, said, by the Holy Ghost, that Christ was to sit on God's right hand. Was this inspired? or what is Christ's authority here? They might have read in the books of Moses of God's appearance in the bush, a proof of the resurrection-all a fable. The son of man was to go, as it was written. He could have prayed, and had twelve legions of angels; but how, then, should the Scriptures be fulfilled that thus it must be. It governs the Lord's own mind in the most solemn moment on which all hang, if Christianity is true, as in His early conflicts with Satan. When Jerusalem was encompassed with armies, they were the days of vengeance, that all things that were written might be fulfilled. But these were only idle threats of zealous Jehovists: so they would have us believe. Zacharias, filled with the Holy Ghost, prophesied and declared that the raising up Christ was, as had been spoken by the mouth of God's holy Prophets, since the world began. Here we get threefold delusion. In Luke - who says Zachariah spoke by the Holy Ghost; in Zachariah - who declared the coming of Christ was fulfilling the Prophets; in the supposition that they were God's holy Prophets. This was so far from being the Holy Ghost, that it was Jewish prejudice; and the Prophets themselves were fanatics or guilty of pious frauds! This is a comfortable basis for a religion and laying down your life for the truth of it. Elias and Eliseus, Christ quotes according to this history; but His quotations of them are constant, and as applied to Himself and owning the Prophets, and the law as distinct as in a passage alread referred to in another view: "These are the words which I spake unto you while I was yet with you, that all things must be

fulfilled which were written in the Law of Moses, and in the Prophets, and in the Psalms, concerning me." Here the well-known division of the Hebrew Scriptures is given. The Lord (and remark He is risen here) puts His seal upon them, and treats them as to be fulfilled as having spoken of Himself. The risen Lord treats them as inspired, and as prophecies of Himself. And then, 2 we saw before, He opened their understandings to under

stand them.

The Scripture, the Lord declares to us cannot be broken. Here men would have Him speak according to Jewish notions. Did He come then to sanction them. and to deceive men? In John they (the Jews) are always treated as reprobate; and this is the chapter where He is taking His sheep out of their fold. So the Evangelist treats Esaias as inspired in the judgment pronounced on Israel, and declares the Glory seen in Esaias vi to be Christ's Glory, and chap. liii. to apply to Christ. In the most solemn of all hours that Jesus passed or earth, Jesus, intelligently aware that all things written of Him as to His path here were accomplished, says, "that! the Scripture might be fulfilled, I thirst," and then, the last word being fulfilled, gives up His own Spirit. But all this, for our new teachers, is a mistake and a delusion! And what comes of Christianity and of Christ? That Joha should quote other Scriptures then as fulfilled, is of small moment comparatively, save that it takes away al foundation as to any divine authority in any Christian documents.

---

That the Bereans searched the Scriptures, to see if Paul was right, commended in the account we have of it, was all a mistake! It was no way of judging of it at all. They ought to have judged of Paul by their own minds, and the Scriptures themselves by the same measure. When Peter refers to Ps. xvi. as a proof of Christ's resurrection, all such prophetic statement of facts, or reliance on Scripture, is unfounded. That Pentecost was a fulfilment of Joel,- this is all a mistake. Pentecost was a comparatively modern invention; faith in prophecies-a delusion of the Jews. I refer to these cases, to show that the Lord and the Apostles systematically,

constantly, and as of divine obligation, refer to the Scriptures as of authority, as inspired prophecy, and make Christianity a fulfilment of them. Its truth is inseparably involved in it; its character is a fulfilment of them, though there be more in it. Christ Himself is declared to be a minister of the circumcision for the Truth of God, to confirm the promises made to the Fathers. But, all this is a mistake. That is, the promulgation of Christianity as alone it was promulgated was all error. Christ, Peter assured them, was the Prophet that Moses had spoken of. This was all a mistake-Moses never wrote it-it was a legend; and he never spoke of Christ at all. Peter was misleading the Jews, when he called them the Children of the Prophets and of the Covenant which God made with Abraham.All was delusion. It was no true history at all; not authentic; and Prophets were patriotic, but deceived themselves, persuaded themselves, like any modern fanatic, that they were inspired.

But this is the only promulgation of Christianity which we have; and what comes of it and of Christ Himself too, when it is the only testimony. So the second Psalm is quoted. To Him give all the Prophets witness. All a mistake! Stephen's speech is a tissue of legendary and unauthentic inventions; resisting the Holy Ghost,the Jews never were guilty of at all. They had judged justly in not believing Moses and the Prophets. The mistake was in Christ and His Apostles. Peter and the dying Stephen were only deluding themselves and others. When Philip opened his mouth and taught the docile Eunuch out of Isaiah and other Scriptures, as prophecies about Jesus; this was a mistake. He was baptized as a fiction. That the Spirit caught away Philip..... Who then is to believe? When Gentiles were admitted, Peter declares: to Him gave all the Prophets witness. All a mistake! Paul, in Antioch, recites briefly the history of Israel given by Moses, Judges, etc, and declares God's promise there referred to Jesus the Son of David, declares that the Jews' conduct in putting the Lord to death was by the Jews not knowing the voice of the Prophets, which yet they fulfilled, that they fulfilled all that was