rather brethren give all diligence to make your calling and election sure." If the calling here means simply being born again, and election the divine unalterable fiat of a past eternity, then the phraseology is most illogical, for the calling is put before the election; and then, if the election had been the divine unalterable fiat from all eternity, their giving "all diligence" could not have made it more sure or secure. But understanding that by the term "calling" is meant sanctification, and that election is the natural result thereof, then the injunction is most appropriate.

Some one, however, may here be ready to remark, “if the 'calling' be the result of predestination, as shown by St. Paul in Romans, how comes it that the order is here apparently reversed by St. Peter, who speaks of election as the result of the calling?" We answer that St. Paul in Romans is speaking of the divine work, and St. Peter is referring to the human experience of that work; and as election cannot be experienced till the finale, so there is no incongruity or difference between the two.

Many other texts distinctly show that the term "called," when used in this connection, is equivalent to sanctified, or separated from the power of sin, called to a higher standing, consecrated.

But the apostle goes on and declares, "Whom he called, them he also justified," every one of them. What does he mean? Seeing that the justifying arises out of the calling, or sanctification, being subsequent to it, and consequent upon it, it cannot, therefore, simply mean the "remission of sins that are past" when one emerges out of the bondage of sin into liberty through the new birth, for that is an event which precedes sanctification. It is not justification by faith, referred to in Romans v, 1; although it is the outcome of faith. Neither is it justification by conscience, although that is a most desirable thing, especially if the conscience has been sorely troubled, on account of sin. Neither is it justification by public opinion, although that too is not to be despised, and may be closely related to the others, and to faith. It is justification by God, at a time, and in a manner, that has not yet taken place; because the dead, small and great, have not yet been summoned to stand before God, as John saw them in prophetic vision eighteen centuries ago; when the books will have to be opened, and every one judged according to what the books may contain.

In Romans ii, 16, St. Paul says, "In the day when God shall judge the secrets of men by Jesus Christ, according to my gospel." In Eccles. xi, 9, it is said, "Rejoice, O young man, in

thy youth, and let thy heart cheer thee in the days of thy youth, and walk in the ways of thine heart, and in the sight of thine eyes, but know thou that, for all these things, God will bring thee into judgment." Ch. xii, 14, " God shall bring every work into judgment, with every secret thing, whether it be good or bad." Matt. xxv, 31-" When the Son of man shall come in his glory, and all the holy angels with him, then shall he sit upon the throne of his glory, and before him shall be gathered all nations, and he shall separate them one from another, as a shepherd divideth his sheep from the goats," &c.

Very frequent reference is made in Scripture to the day of judgment, especially in the epistles of St. Paul; and as it is so generally accepted as one of the certainties of human experience, we need not say more than that the fact of its taking place implies the public judicial justification of the righteous, as also the condemnation of the unrighteous. The term "justified," therefore, as used by the apostle in the passage under consideration, is as appropriate in reference to the affairs of that great day, as it is in the phrase "justification by faith."

The Saviour uses the same word in Matt. xii, 36, 37: “But I say unto you that every idle word that men shall speak they shall give account thereof in the day of judgment; for by thy words thou shalt be justified, and by thy words thou shalt be condemned." And as the apostle said that all whom God called, he justified-i. e., all the sanctified ones--and as St. Peter says that God "foreknows" them through the sanctification of their spirits, so all whom God foreknows will be acquitted at the great day; and having been acquitted, they will be glorified, one and all. Every one of them will get a "crown of glory that fadeth not away," (1 Pet. v, 4.) In 2 Cor. iv, 17, St. Paul calls it "a far more exceeding and eternal weight of glory."

There will then, but not till then, be a complete conformity to Jesus that "he may be the firstborn among many brethren." "Who shall change our vile body that it may be fashioned like unto his glorious body," (Phil. iii, 21.) "Beloved, it doth not yet appear what we shall be, but we know that when he shall appear we shall be like him, for we shall see him as he is."

Then will the whole company of the redeemed be able to sing: "Unto him that hath washed us from our sins in his own blood, and hath made us kings and priests unto God." Then will Jesus be able to say: "Behold I and the children which God hath given me," (Heb. ii, 13.) And then, and thereafter, will be fulfilled the Saviour's petition, "Father, I will that they whom thou hast given me be with me where I am, that they may behold my glory."

This will be the finale of Christianity,-the believer's des

tiny, "eternal in the heavens," which St. Paul looked at so frequently; which he admired so much; and concerning which he exhorted all believers so to run that they might obtain.

Peter regarded it as worth contending for; because he wrote -"give all diligence to make your calling and election sure." Jesus also is earnest about it, for he came on a special mission as the Captain of Salvation "to bring many sons unto glory" (Heb. ii, 10); and he said, "agonize to enter in at the straight gate." "In thy presence there is fullness of joy, at thy right hand there are pleasures for evermore."

A. K. W.-E.

THE AUTHORITY OF SCRIPTURE.*

IF we grant that there is a Supreme Being, Creator of the heavens and the earth, his right to command will readily be admitted. If we acknowledge that the consent of the noblest races of men gives us a reasonable ground for believing that the Bible is a revelation of the will of God, we are sure to recognize its authority to instruct, and decide between conflicting opinions. How is the preacher to know the truth apart from the Scriptures? The relation of the Christian ministry to the churches and the world depends on the authority which the ministers can justly claim. It is not a priestly prerogative, but a reasonable, persuasive power, as that of the speakers of the truth contained in the word of God, preachers with authority to call upon men to believe the Gospel. Bibliolatry is a term of reproach thrown at those who try all matters of faith by the written word of God. But it may be asked, If the Bible is not the only authoritative rule of faith, what is? Have we not to select either revelation or speculation? If we deny the supernatural in religion, we must give up revelation; for we understand by revelation the authoritative disclosure of truth for man's guidance, and instruction by God, through agents selected by him.

The canonical Scriptures have an authority not equalled by other writings. Authority may rest in the weight of testimony. But the authority of Scripture springs from its author. Those who grant that the Bible is the inspired word of God, cannot escape from the authority of the testimony of the sacred

*Part of the Inaugural Lecture delivered by the Rev. Professor Craig, M.A., at the opening of the E. U. Theological Hall, August 7th, 1877. As several contemporary newspapers have already given portions of this lecture, we are obliged to Professor Craig for liberty to insert a large section of it which has not yet appeared in print.-Ed. E. R.

writings. wisdom.

It is fixed by the Author, who is supreme in

But let us compare the terms of the antithesis-revelation and speculation. We speak in the plural of human speculations and divine revelations. Can we discover the relative authority of speculation and revelation? The former has no corporate existence in any book; the latter has a unity in the Bible. Speculation wants a unifying principle. The term points to the subjective character of speculation, the activity of the mind in theorising, cogitating, meditating, and imagining. The opinions resulting from this process of examination do not point to objective truth, so much as to the probable conjectures of this thinker and that philosopher. There may be truth in speculation, and not a little good. Speculation is the literary expression of minds contemplating ideas formed by the energy of the imagination and logical faculty according to the laws of association. It is, therefore subjective-ideal. Revelation is the collection of sacred writings which point to objects of thought, facts, and spiritual realities, disclosed by the drawing back of the veil by the power and wisdom of God. The things were in existence before they were revealed. Therefore, revelation is objective-real. Matters of faith we consider within the province of revelation.

Matters of opinion, unauthoritative except as the opinions of individuals, lie within the province of speculation.

Revelation leads us to look to what God makes evident. Speculation induces us to watch the changing forms of thought, the shadows of shadows," effects of thinking and dreaming, seen in the mirrors of the human mind. In the histories of philosophy we see the constant changes of speculation. In the abiding truth, in the word of God, we see the value of revelation.

There is no antagonism between reason and revelation. The antithesis is between matters of opinion without authority beyond themselves and matters of faith, which have secured the assent of the wise and good in past ages, resting on the authority of the word of God.

Men are under no obligation to spend much attention upon the province of speculation, although it is well to know philosophy; but we are all in duty bound to examine the Scriptures.

The state of the question concerning the authority of Scripture, after the Reformation controversies, three hundred years ago, is seen in the work of the Master of St. John's, Cambridge, Dr. Whitaker, who says-" Our sixteenth argument is this: Scripture, in the doctrine of religion, hath the rank and place of a

principle; all its declarations are, as it were, axioms and most certain principles, which neither can, nor ought to be, proved by other things, but all other things to be proved and confirmed by them. If this hold in human sciences, whereof men are the authors, much more does it hold in Scripture, whose author is the Holy Ghost, the Spirit of truth. Axioms themselves mutually demonstrate each other. In like manner, the Scriptures may be illustrated and commended by the voice of the Church, although they are in themselves most firm and certain principles which are proved by the authority of God himself, and fortify each other by their mutual testimony."*

But the weakness of this argument is, that it takes for granted that which is the main point disputed in the nineteenth century. However, in controversies with Christians who acknowledge the Bible to be the inspired word of God, the appeal must still be to its declarations as authoritative. Whitaker pleads pro authoritate atque avτоTIOтia sanctae scripturae. This self-evidencing power of Scripture persuades the reason when the truth is presented to the mind. There is an inner revelation as an effect of the study of the Word of God. The testimony is credible of itself. The sweetness and light in the Bible appeal more powerfully to the heart of man than any seal of outward authority. The truth reveals itself, Erskine and Campbell say; and its reasonableness is the best proof of its authority. But, however satisfactory this may be to those who see the truth, it carries little weight with those whose inner consciousness is not enlightened. Is their lack of spiritual discernment to be pitied as a natural defect, or deplored as a penal consequence of unbelief? Can their attention be secured by authority? Sir George Lewis defines authority as "the influence which determines the belief without a comprehension of the proof." That the Bible has exerted this influence for many generations cannot be doubted. Is it better to make this the ground of authority, and to lean more upon probable evidence than upon à priori reasoning from the fact that it is the Word of God? The Right Hon. Mr. Gladstone says:"The principle of authority I take to be this: that the mass and quality of assent to a proposition in some minds may be, without examination of the grounds, a legitimate ground of assent for other minds in matters of knowledge, and in matters of voluntary action." If we accept this we may claim for the Bible the assent of the most vigorous races of men, and the reverential homage of some of the noblest intellects. But this claim for authority might go too far, and be urged in favour of the *Disputatio de Sacra Scripturâ, 1610.

+ The Nineteenth Century, p. 902, July 1877.