of Scripture, to disprove the doctrinal by reference to the preceptive. He might as well turn it the other way, and try to disprove the preceptive part by referring to the doctrinal. He referred us, forsooth, to our Lord's Sermon on the Mount, where he said," Blessed are the meek: for they shall inherit the earth; and "Blessed are the poor in spirit: for their's is the kingdom of heaven;" and "Blessed are they that mourn, for they shall be comforted ;" and so on. And because our Lord did not inculcate the Trinity, or his vicarious sacrifice, in connection with these precepts bearing upon moral conduct, we are, forsooth, to draw the conclusion that these doctrines are not taught in the New Testament. Because every doctrine is not taught in every part of Scripture-because the doctrinal does not appear in the preceptive portion, and the preceptive is not expressed in the doctrinal, we are, it seems, to come to the philosophical conclusion that those doctrines are not contained in the word of God! Now I should have thought it would have been the proper course to take-at least I should have taken it-to have grappled with the very passages which my opponent (had he held them) had quoted as the basis of those doctrines. And I would have investigated them, and examined them thoroughly, and endeavoured to have shown from them that his positions were unfounded. I would not have gone to the preceptive parts of the New Testament for the purpose of attempting to disprove the doctrinal parts of the New Testament.

Sophism, No. 5.-Mr. Barker very frequently referred to the disciples of Christ as specimens of what a Christian isspecimens in sentiment, specimens in experience. Why, he anust have known, I think, that the disciples, prior to the day of Pentecost, were more like Jews than Christians. They were under the common delusion of their countrymen with regard to a temporal king. See Luke, chap. 24, verse 21. They were ambitious of earthly honours; they contended with each other for earthly distinctions, and strove which among them should be greatest. Luke, chap. 22, ver. 24. Our Lord could not mistake the character of his followers; and he said respecting Peter that he savoured the things of men, and not the things of God. See Matthew, chap. 16, ver. 23. And it is not a very great proof, I conceive, of a Christian mind, to savour more of earth than heaven. Again, they were foolish and unbelieving in their notions. Hence our Lord rebuked them, and said,-"O fools, and slow of heart to believe all that the prophets have spoken." Luke, chap. 24, ver. 25. In fact, they were not converted; for our Lord says to them, -"Verily, verily, I say unto you,"- -an affirmation indicating great solemnity, and investing the statement with immense importance," Verily, verily, I say unto you, Except

ye be converted, and become as little children, ye shall not enter into the kingdom of heaven." Matt. chap. 18, ver. 3. I therefore, for one, should not have thought of referring to the views and experience of the disciples, prior to the day of Pentecost, for fair specimens of the sentiments and experience of the true Christian. Another reason why we cannot regard them as being proper specimens of the sentiments, the views, the experience, and the practice of the Christian, is this, that the Christian economy was not complete until the day of Pentecost, when the Holy Ghost descended upon the disciples. It is only from that period that the sentiments and practice of the apostle are to be regarded as a representation of the Christian. Our Lord had stated great truths, but their amplification and full manifestation were referred to the period when the Holy Spirit was given. Hence our Lord emphatically said,"I have yet many things to say unto you, but ye cannot bear them now. Howbeit when he, the Spirit of truth, is come, he will teach you all things," and "will guide you into all truth: for he shall not speak of himself; but whatsoever he shall hear, that shall he speak; and he will show you things to come. He shall glorify me: for he shall receive of mine, and shall show it unto you." And under the inspiration-the plenary inspiration (for I like these good, old-fashioned words)

the plenary inspiration of the Holy Spirit, they composed their epistles, they completed the canon of the Holy Scripture; and thus afforded the proper criterion by which to judge of Christian sentiment, of Christian experience, and of Christian practice.

Mr. Barker referred, I think it is-(I have left my Testament behind me, but I shall perhaps be able to quote from memory with sufficient accuracy)-he referred to the 20th chapter of John, and the 31st verse, where John says, "These things have I written that ye might believe that Jesus is the Son of God." True, but he did not say, that ye might believe that Jesus is the son of Joseph. He says, "these things have I written unto you that ye might believe that Jesus is the Son of God. And he explains what he means by the words "Son of God" in the first two verses of his gospel,-"In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. All things were made by him, and without him was not any thing made that was made.” But I shall have to dwell on this hereafter.

Mr. Barker referred to John's first epistle, 5th chapter, the 1st verse, where John says,- "Whosoever believeth that Jesus is the Christ is born of God." And that was quoted to show us that any one was a Christian who only believed on Jesus as the Christ. Now in this, and all such passages, there is much more implied than what is expressed. The meaning

of an inspired writer, or of any writer, must be determined by the context, and the general scope of the passage. A text must not be severed from its connection, and presented in an isolated form; for on that plan a perverted ingenuity may make the Holy Bible speak any sentiment which a depraved heart, or heretical creed, may dictate, or man's unholy passions suggest. It is this method which Satan adopts in quoting Scripture. When the arch fiend desires to deceive, he detaches a passage from the context, and presents it in a form and meaning never intended by the Holy Ghost. I would advise all persons, especially those who quote for public instruction, not to imitate the foul prince of darkness in quoting Scripture. Now let us just look at this passage. It is a good passage. I love the passage. I love every part of God's word; for I am sure all is consistent with itself, and I believe consistent with what are sometimes termed (in a way perhaps not very commendable) by some, "Orthodox notions." However, I hold orthodox notions; and I conceive the passage is perfectly in harmony with those notions. But let us analyse it. "Whosoever believeth that Jesus is the Christ is born of God." What, then, does it mean that an individual may believe in any way, or in any manner, that Jesus is the Christ, and yet be "born of God," and be a true Christian? No such thing. He must believe that Jesus is the Christ according to the dictates of the Holy Scriptures. I will furnish a few examples. "Whosoever believeth that Jesus is the Christ is born of God." Then, may a man reject the truth that Christ came in the flesh,-as Marcion did, for he denied that Jesus came in the flesh,-and yet be born of God? No; for though that great truth is not here expressed, it is implied, and is elsewhere asserted with equal precision and authority. Hence the apostle says, that "many deceivers are entered into the world who confess not that Jesus is come in the flesh. This is a deceiver and an antiChrist." So that it is quite as important to believe that Christ came in the flesh, as that Christ is the Messiah, or that Jesus is the Christ.

Take another example. The passage says, "Whosoever believeth that Jesus is the Christ is born of God." Well, but may he reject the doctrine that Christ is a propitiation for our sins? No; for though that truth is not here formally expressed, it is implied, and is elsewhere maintained with the same distinctness and authority. See the 2nd chapter of St. John's 1st Epistle, and the 2nd verse," And he is the propitiation for our sins and not for our's only, but also for the sins of the whole world." So that it is as essential for a Christian to believe that Christ is a propitiation for sin, as for him to believe that Jesus is the Christ. Take another example."Whosoever believeth in Jesus Christ is born of God." Well,

but may a man reject the truth of the resurrection of Christ! No; for though that is not here expressed, it is implied. It is a positive truth that must be believed, and is elsewhere maintained with the same distinctness and the same authority.Hence Paul, in his Epistle to the Romans, 10th chapter, and 9th verse, says, "If thou shalt confess with thy mouth the Lord Jesus, and shalt believe in thine heart that God hath raised him from the dead, thou shalt be saved." Now here faith in the resurrection of Christ is made essential, and the faith required is that of the heart; and besides faith, there is confession with the mouth. But in this passage Paul does not express the important doctrine that Christ died as a sacrifice for our sins. He is speaking of his resurrection. Are we, then, at liberty to reject this doctrine? No; for though not here expressed, it is implied, the same as it was in the passage from St. John; and is elsewhere maintained with the same positive authority. Witness the 3rd chapter of Romans, verses 25 and 26:-"Whom God hath set forth to be a propitiation through faith in his blood, to declare his righteousness for the remission of sins that are past, through the forbearance of God; to declare, I say, at this time his righteousness: that he might be just, and the justifier of him which believeth in Jesus." To declare, I say, "at this time." Here Paul gives it emphasis, brings it out with distinctness, places it before his readers as being of high importance ;-"To declare, I say, at this time his righteousness: that he might be just, and the justifier of him which believeth in Jesus." So that it is as important, on the apostle Paul's principle, to believe in the atonement of the Saviour, as it is important to believe in the resurrection of the Saviour. Take another example. In the passage I have referred to, there is no mention made of the ascension of the Saviour: but may that doctrine, or fact, be denied, and a man yet be a Christian? No; for though not expressed in any of those passages of Scripture which I have referred to, it is implied, and is elsewhere asserted with the same distinctness and authority. Hence, says our Lord, in the 24th chapter of St. Luke, and 26th verse," Ought not Christ to have suffered these things, and to enter into his glory?" And Paul says, that "he ever liveth to make intercession for us." So that it is important, in believing Jesus to be the Son of God, to have included in our faith all these great doctrines-that he came in the flesh, that he is a propitiation for our sins, that he rose from the dead, and that he ascended up to heaven. All these are implied in that simple, brief statement, "Whosoever believeth that Jesus is the Christ is born of God."

Now there is another doctrine-(for I might enlarge on this point, but I shall take only one more)--which appears to be

still further remote from the condition of salvation, as expressed by St. John. I refer to the general resurrection of the dead. Now, may a man disbelieve that doctrine, and yet be a true Christian? No; for though not expressed, it is implied in the brief passage which has been referred to from St. John. Our Lord himself said, "Marvel not at this: for the hour is coming, in the which all that are in their graves shall hear the voice of the Son of God, and shall come forth; they that have done good unto the resurrection of life; and they that have done evil unto the resurrection of damnation." May this doctrine be discarded, and may a man be accepted, because he merely believeth in our Lord and Saviour as the Messiah? No. I have shown before, that there were men in the apostolic times who did believe in the Messiah, but yet rejected the doctrine of the general resurrection of the dead--namely, Hymenæus and Philetus; but what character does Paul give of them? Is it that they were true Christian? No. It is that they "had erred from the faith;" that "they had made shipwreck of faith;" that "their word doth eat as doth a canker," and "had overthrown the faith of some." And as for themselves, they were expelled from the church of God, disowned as Christians, and branded as heretics.

Now these examples will explain the meaning of the brief text to which reference has been made; and I say that to believe in Jesus as the Son of God, means to believe in him as the Scriptures teach us to believe. It is, in fact, a brief and compendious formulary, designed to express the reception of Christ and his doctrine as taught by himself and his apostles; because it is understood that he who receiveth Christ receiveth his doctrine; and he who rejecteth Christ rejecteth his doctrine. Thus we come to our former conclusion, "He that believeth not God hath made him a liar ;" and thus down goes Mr. Barker's fundamental principle, "that every man is a Christian who believeth that Jesus is the Christ." No man can be a Christian while he rejects any doctrines which God has clearly revealed in his blessed word, even though he should believe in the Messiah, and profess to place himself under his instructions.

I had noted down Sophism, No. 7.-It referred to Mr. Barker's taking the liberty to dictate to me what I should speak about to-night. I had accepted of his subject-I had accepted of his plan-I had accepted of his time; and I thought it was rather going too far for him to dictate, the evening before, the course I should take the following evening. As this has been disclaimed, I shall not dwell upon it. However, I mean to take my own course; for I shall not spare that system of heresy which I have referred to. I shall go deep down into the subject-I shall draw the mantle off it—I shall employ •