tion, both refer-you must be careful to remember-to the covenant of grace, sealed with the blood of Christ. Neither of these dispensations, was at all grounded on the first, or old covenant of works, which, being broken, could not be renewed. But inasmuch as the Patriarchal, and the Mosaick or Jewish dispensations, looked forward to the death of the testator, (as our Saviour is expressly called in the epistle to the Hebrews) for this reason, and for this only, all the communications from God to man which took place under those dispensations, the inspired writings among the rest,—are called the old covenant, or the Old Testament. And for a like reason, all the divine communications and institutions which have been made since the death of Christ, under the gospel dispensation,-its inspired writings especially,—are called the new covenant, or the New Testament.

Thus, you perceive, the Bible consists of two testaments, each of which is an essential part of it; and therefore the language, which you sometimes hear, of the Bible and the Testament, is wholly incorrect-the Bible includes both Testaments.*

The sacred writings are also called, in the answer before us, "the word of God." The propriety of this appellation may be shown from the language of sacred writ. We there read, that "all scripture is given by inspiration of God,". and "The prophecy came not in old time by the will of man: but holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost." Hence it appears that the scriptures are, with eminent propriety, called the word of God; because they are, in fact, the words which God himself addresses to men;

* The first time that the author remembers to have seen or heard the phrase "The Bible and Testament," was in that wretched receptacle of vulgar blasphemy, Paine's "Age of Reason." Since then, however, he has observed its use, occasionally, both in oral and written speech. It is by no means unimportant to preserve the idea fully in the popular mind, that there is no Bible which does not contain the whole of God's revealed will; and that although it may be both lawful and expedient to publish detached parts of the sacred volume, yet that all the parts are of equal authority; and that neither the Old Testament without the New, nor the New without the Old, but both conjointly, constitute the Scriptures of truth, the Book of God,-the Bible.

although men were used as instruments to utter these words, in the languages in which the divine oracles are delivered to us. And it were well if this were so kept in mind, as that whenever we read the scriptures, or hear them read, we should recollect that the voice of God is then sounding in our ears. This would be to act, in some good measure, like those Thessalonians whom St. Paul commends-"For this cause also, (says he) thank we 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 who believe."

Here it may be proper to remark, that the second Person of the ever blessed Trinity is sometimes, in the New Testament, called by way of emphasis the Word of God:-because (says Parkhurst) "he hath always been the great Revealer to mankind of Jehovah's attributes and will; or because, as he himself speaketh, Matt. xi. 27, No one knoweth the Father save the Son, and he to whomsoever the Son will reveal Him." "The Divine Person (says Macknight) who has accomplished the salvation of mankind, is called the Word, and the Word of God, Rev. xix. 13, not only because God at first created, and still governs all things by Him, but because, as men discover their sentiments and designs to one another by the intervention of words, speech, or discourse, so God, by his Son, discovers his gracious designs, in the fullest and clearest manner to men: All the various manifestations which he makes of Himself in the works of creation, providence and redemption, all the revelations he has been pleased to give of his will, are conveyed to us through Him; and therefore he is by way of eminence fitly styled THE WORD OF GOD."

But though Christ our Saviour be the living word of God, and pre-eminently worthy of this appellation, as being the grand source and medium of all the divine communications made to intelligent beings, yet this is no reason why the communications made by his Spirit to holy men, and in their

language announced to the world, should not also be styled the word of God. By them, as we have seen, the Spirit of God did speak and we certainly ought to have no difficulty, and no hesitation, in calling what they spake, as recorded in the sacred writings, by the same appellation which is used freely and abundantly by themselves. The remainder of the time to which this discussion must be confined, would scarcely suffice to recite to you all the passages of the sacred volume, in which parts of it are called the word of God, or in which the whole of it is so denominated, or represented. I shall repeat a few texts, as specimens of a multitude of the same character. In the Old Testament, we read that Samuel said to Saul-"Stand thou still a while, that I may show thee the word of God-The word of God came to Shemaiah-The word of God came to Nathan-Every word of God is pureThe word of our God shall stand for ever-Wherewithal shall a young man cleanse his way? By taking heed thereto according to thy word"

In the New Testament, we find our Saviour charging the Scribes and Pharisees with "making the word of God of none effect by their traditions." We are told that "the word of God came unto John in the wilderness"-That the multitude pressed upon our Saviour "to hear the word of God"—That the seed, in a parable which he spake, was "the word of God." "My brethren (said he) are those which hear the word of God, and do it,"-And "blessed are they that hear the word of God and do it." We are told that the apostles"spake the word of God with all boldness"-that the "word of God increased in Jerusalem"-that "Samaria received the word of God"-that "the whole city came together to hear the word of God"-and that "faith cometh by hearing, and hearing by the word of God." Now, no one, it seems to me, can say that Jesus Christ is, in all these passages, referred to, as the word of God-without such a perversion of speech, and such a violation of the whole context, as must destroy the very use and import of language. Let none, then, have a scruple in calling the scriptures what they so frequently call themselves.

COLLEGE LIBRARY

NEW JERSEY

You have heard that the reason why the scriptures are called the word of God is, that they were given by divine inspiration-"holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost." To the nature and evidence of this divine inspiration I propose to call your attention distinctly, in the next lecture. The remainder of the present must be employed in saying something in answer to a previous inquiry, which it is natural to make, namely, whether the writings of the Old and New Testaments, as we now have them, may fairly be considered as containing a faithful record of what was originally the inspired word of God? Without pretending to enter fully into this subject, I will endeavour to give you a summary of the most important facts, and of other information in relation to it.

There are, you know, some writings, mentioned and referred to in the Old Testament-such as, "The book of the wars of the Lord, the book of Jasher, the book of Nathan the prophet, the book of Gad the seer"-and several others, which have not come down to us. It is not certain, and I think not probable, that these books were ever considered by the ancient Jews as of equal authority with those which have been preserved, and which are now acknowledged, both by Jews and Christians, as canonical scripture. Perhaps they were considered as good historical records, but not as possessing divine authority. This, however, is a doubtful point. But it is not doubtful, that since they have not been transmitted to us, they have not been judged by Him who has so wonderfully watched over the preservation of his revealed truth, to contain any thing important to be known in the church of Christ-From that church we cannot believe that her divine Head has permitted any information to be withheld, which her edification and comfort demand.

In regard to the books which compose what is called The Apocrypha, it may be sufficient to remark, that although the most of them appear to have been written by Jews, yet that none of them were written in the Hebrew language; that they were certainly written after the days of Malachi, with

whom, according to the universal testimony of the Jews, the spirit of prophecy ceased; that they never have been acknowledged by the Jews as canonical scripture; that the writers of them do not themselves lay claim to inspiration; that they certainly contain some things which are fabulous and contradictory; that they are never quoted or referred to by the writers of the New Testament; that they are manifestly devoid of that majesty and simplicity in the composition, which characterise the prophetick and historical writings of the Old Testament; and that they were not received as canonical, in the first three centuries of the Christian church. Although, therefore, the Romish church receives these boooks as canonical, they are, as such, rejected by all Protestant churches. The church of England directs them to be read "for example of life and instruction of manners;" but other reformed churches regard them merely as they regard other human compositions as containing some true history and some excellent maxims of wisdom, but still mingled with much error and imperfection.

There seems to be satisfactory evidence that the Canon of the Old Testament was settled by Ezra, down to his time, about 450 years before Christ. Ezra was himself an inspired writer; and therefore may be considered as giving authenticity to the whole which he reviewed. He probably added the last chapter of Deuteronomy, in which, if it were supposed to be written by Moses, he would be exhibited as giving an account of his own death and burial. Several other additions, in the opinion of the learned Dean Prideaux, were made by Ezra, which infidel writers have cavilled at, as affording ground for charging the Bible with forgeries and falsehoods. But if these additions-very useful to give us some important information-were made under the same infallible guidance with which the other parts of the sacred volume were written, and by a confessedly inspired writer, you perceive that this charge is utterly futile and groundless.

The books of Chronicles, Ezra, Nehemiah, Esther and Malachi, were probably placed in the sacred canon, by Simon