succession. It is not true, that he who can trace his genealogy to Paul or Peter, therefore must preach truth; but it is true, that the minister who preaches truth, whether he can trace it or not, is a successor of the apostles and an ambassador of the Lord Jesus Christ.

The next lesson we learn from this is, that our Lord and the apostles received the Old Testament Scriptures from the hands of these very men. Now you know it is an argument of the present day, which Dr. Wiseman, especially, wields on all occasions, and sometimes with effect-that the Protestants received the Bible from the Church of Rome, and that we ought therefore to take the Church of Rome's interpretation of the Bible. The proper reply to this is very obvious. Suppose we received the Bible from the Church of Rome, (which I deny, and can disprove,) it does not follow that we are to take her opinion of its contents. Our Lord and his apostles received the Old Testament from these men in this very synod or sanhedrim of Pharisees, but they repudiated their interpretation of it; they took the book in all its perfection, but they repudiated the interpretation the ecclesiastics of the day put upon it. So with us. If we received the New Testament from the Church of Rome, we accept the document, thankful that God made so unfaithful a guardian convey to us so precious a deposit, regretting that she was so blind while she carried in her hand so bright a lantern; but when she says, "You must take our interpretation," we answer, "We must treat you as the apostles treated the Pharisees and scribes; we will take the document, but we will not see or hear what the pope says about the Bible, but what the Bible says. about him." It is our prerogative to read the Bible at first hand; let us never forget that. If there be one truth that our Protestant forefathers sealed with their blood it is this: that I am God's child, and I must hear my Father's grand

voice in the original, and not in words reflected in priestly, and conciliar, and patristic echoes, from generation to generation. When I want to know the truth, I must tell Duns Scotus, Thomas Aquinas, Pio Nono, and Gregory the Sixteenth, all the fathers, councils, and schoolmen, to stand at the bottom of the hill, while, like the patriarch of old, I ascend alone to the sun-lit top, and hold sweet communion with my God and my Saviour's God, with my Father and his Father.

Next, I would notice how calculated are prepossession, and prejudice, and passion to tell on and influence the mind. These men's judgments were warped by their passions; they knew what was true, but their hearts would not let them receive it. Does not this suggest the true spirit of much of the infidelity of the present day? It is not that men need new heads, but new hearts; it is not deficiency of light, but deficiency of love and grace, and divine power in their hearts and consciences. Nobody can determine by any calculus he can use how much the judgment is the scholar of the heart. How frequently do we believe to be true that which our passions or prejudices bid us wish to be true! and how few men are there who, in the cold light of reason, can come to cold conclusions, irrespective and independent of their hearts and passions and feelings. Therefore what we need the Holy Spirit to do is, not to give us new Bibles, but new hearts wherewith to read them; it is not to give us more light, for I say we have far more light and far more evidence that the Bible is true, than any jury in the Old Bailey ever had for the conclusion that a prisoner was guilty; and if the evidence we have for the truth of this book is not sufficient to prove it, innocent men have heen sacrificed for the past four or five centuries by the sentences of our judges, and the whole world has proceeded upon a supposition, an imagination, a fancy.

Let us pray, then, that the Spirit of God may give us not new judgments only, or new lights only, though both may be useful, but new hearts, new sympathies, and thus make all things new.

Lastly, let us learn, that if there be no infallibility in popes, there is no infallibility in general councils, in presbyteries, in general assemblies. If we are not to call the pope our master, we must be taught to call no council our master. We must set aside the council as a decisive authority; we may take its reasoning, or its suggestions, or its prescriptions, but we are to bring all that the ablest and the most gifted assert, all that the most venerable council propounds, to the law and to the testimony; if they speak not according to it, it is because there is no truth in them. Let us ever remember that the visible church is not always Christ's true church. The visible church in the days of our Lord had been utterly apostate; it has become apostate since. The true church was composed of Joseph of Arimathea and Nicodemus, and the rest in that sanhedrim constituted the apostasy. The true church still consists of all the true members of the body of Christ, and all beyond and besides are only portions of the apostasy. At present the tares are mingled with the wheat; the day comes when the tares shall be gathered into bundles, and cast into everlasting fire, and they that are the wheat shall shine forth in the kingdom of their Father, like the stars, for ever and Amen.

ever.

343

LECTURE XIX.

THE WITHERED HAND.

And it came to pass, that he went through the corn-fields on the sabbath day; and his disciples began, as they went, to pluck the ears of corn. And the Pharisees said unto him, Behold, why do they on the sabbath day that which is not lawful? And he said unto them, Have ye never read what David did, when he had need, and was an hungred, he, and they that were with him? How he went into the house of God in the days of Abiathar the high priest, and did eat the shewbread, which is not lawful to eat but for the priests, and gave also to them which were with him? And he said unto them, The sabbath was made for man, and not man for the sabbath: therefore the Son of man is Lord also of the sabbath. And he entered again into the synagogue; and there was a man there which had a withered hand. And they watched him, whether he would heal him on the sabbath day; that they might accuse him. And he saith unto the man which had the withered hand, Stand forth. And he saith unto them, Is it lawful to do good on the sabbath days, or to do evil? to save life, or to kill? But they held their peace. And when he had looked round about on them with anger, being grieved for the hardness of their hearts, he saith unto the man, Stretch forth thine hand. And he stretched it out: and his hand was restored whole as the other. And the Pharisees went forth, and straightway took counsel with the Herodians against him, how they might destroy him.-MARK ii. 23–28; iii. 1–6.

BEFORE proceeding to explain the interesting and instructive facts recorded in the passage I have chosen, I may just state that there is, what is very important, another version of this same transaction, differing only in words, though fuller in some portions of the narrative, in Matt. xii. "At that time Jesus went on the sabbath day through the corn; and his disciples were an hungred, and began to pluck the ears of corn, and to eat. But when the Pharisees saw it, they said unto him, Behold, thy disciples do that which is not lawful to do upon the sabbath

day. But he said unto them, Have ye not read what David did, when he was an hungred, and they that were with him; how he entered into the house of God, and did eat the shewbread, which was not lawful for him to eat, neither for them which were with him, but only for the priests? Or have ye not read in the law [here is the additional illustration] how that on the sabbath days the priests in the temple profane the sabbath, and are blameless? But I say unto you, that in this place [this also is additional] is one greater than the temple. But if ye had known what this meaneth, I will have mercy, and not sacrifice, ye would not have condemned the guiltless. For the Son of man is Lord even of the sabbath day. And when he was departed thence, he went into their synagogue: and, behold, there was a man which had his hand withered. And they asked him, saying, Is it lawful to heal on the sabbath days? that they might accuse him. And he said unto them, What man shall there be among you, that shall have one sheep, and if it fall into a pit on the sabbath day, will he not lay hold on it, and lift it out? How much then is a man better than a sheep? Wherefore it is lawful to do well on the sabbath days. Then saith he to the man, Stretch forth thine hand. And he stretched it forth; and it was restored whole, like as the other. Then the Pharisees went out, and held a council against him, how they might destroy him."

We thus perceive that the two narrators of the transaction that occurred on the very same day, were not in any way in communication one with the other, or copyists the one of the other's narrative. We have here (putting altogether out of question, for the moment, that each was inspired) the independent versions of one transaction, as it presented itself to two distinct persons, told each in his own way, and according to the impression made at the