ur only hope! What a wonderful contrast between the nan thus elevated to union with the Father and with the Son, and the pitiable, bewildered, confused and doubting skeptic, hunting for contradictions in the Bible, or absurdities, or for some excuse for refusing submission to the only Savior of men-the Lord Jesus the Christ! Let us learn to reverence, adore and praise him forever and ever. Let us join the grand throng which John saw, in his vision, in the Island of Patmos, in ascribing blessing, and glory, and honor, and thanksgiving to Him who sits on the throne, and to the Lamb, forever and ever. If we may not trust in Him, all is lost. To Him, and through Him, to the Almighty Father, let us ascribe all honor and praises forever and

ever.

SERMON No. II.

THEME-DIVINE AUTHORITY.

In this discourse I propose inquiring into the question of authority. Every government has a head, and the authority is in the head. The authority of an empire

is in the emperor; the authority of a kingdom is in the king; the authority of a State is in the governor; the authority in the kingdom of heaven is in the King. He is the Head of the body-the Church. When about to commission his embassadors-his ministers plenipotentiary-he said, "All authority in heaven and on earth is given to me." In view of this authority he said, "Go you, therefore, and teach all nations." The authority of our Lord came directly from the Father to him, and he gave it directly to the apostles. The Lord Jesus is the head over all things to the Church. He has, by inheritance, obtained a more excellent name than any of the angels in all the heavenly ranks; a name above every name that is named, that at the name of Jesus every knee should bow and every tongue confess that he is the Lord to the glory of God. There is no other name given under heaven or among men by which we can be saved. He is the supreme-the absolute authority in the kingdom of God.

There is not one particle of divine authority among men that did not come from him, either directly or indirectly, no matter whether claimed by individuals or

bodies of individuals. It is certainly a matter of no little importance to examine the grounds on which authority is claimed from Christ. It is admitted on all hands that the apostles had authority directly from Christ. This is not denied by any religious body. But how does any man now get authority, or on what is the authority of any man now grounded? The priests in the Papacy claim that they have a regular succession of popes, back from the present incumbent to the Apostle Peter, in Rome, who was the first pope. In ali their arguments the admission runs through and through, that the entire authority of their priesthood, the validity of every ordinance, and the Church itself, hangs on their supposed apostolic succession. As Dr. Watts [I think it is] says, on another subject:

"Great God! on what a slender thread

Hang eternal things."

Knock out this one prop, apostolic successio.1, and down falls the Romish priesthood, membership, and the whole papal superstructure, to rise no more. Yet not a man of them can prove that Peter was ever in Rome, much less that he was pope, specially when Paul “withstood him to the face, for he was to be blamed," and was not a whit behind the chief apostle, or that he ever performed any such funtions there as the Pope now does. Instead of a succession of popes back to the apostles, there is not a trace of a pope, cardinal, or archbishop, or the Papal Church at all, in the first three centuries, except in some of the prophecies referring to the apostasy. No man need talk of a succession of popes during a period when there was no pope on the face of the earth. This is as ridiculous as to try to trace the succession when there were rival popes in war with

each other for the papal crown, and when it was obtained by the force of the sword.

According to the admissions of the papal authorities, running through all their history, their debates among themselves and with other people, the entire validity of their religion, its whole authority, and their hope of heaven, hang on this succession! Yet there is nothing more certain in historic fact than that this claim to succession is as base a fiction as a pagan myth. They have no succession of office, ordinance, or Church, from the apostles.

The claim of the Greek Church is that they have a regular succession back to Peter and John in Greecean apostolic succession from their present ministry to Peter and John They claim to be Catholic, too. They, too, admit that their ministry, ordinances and Church rest on this succession, and without it would have no validity. If there is one link out of their chain of succession, all below it is invalid. This claim has no more to rest on than the papal succession, and there is no more in it. Yet their entire religion rests on it, and their hope of heaven!

The claim of the Church of England is that they have an unbroken succession back to Paul in England— that Paul established the Church in England, and they have an apostolic succession to him. Yet not a man in that Church can prove that Paul was ever in England, to say nothing of his establishing any Church there. Then there are long links out from the time of Paul to any account of the Church of England. That Church can pretty easily trace its history back to the Church of Rome, or trace its succession back to the Papal Church, but the traces of it become quite dim beyond that period. The arguments of that Church also carry the admission