universe, creating the universe different from himself, and adding to his own existence, that I am compelled to deny that God. The Bishop said the sceptic is not only one who denies, but one who asks for evidence of an unreasonable kind. Suppose myself; am I a sceptic as to the Bible, according to the Bishop’s notion? When I examine the Bible, I find it is admitted that the common version is so bad that a better is now in hand. I find when I refer to the sources of this version there are only three sources—the Hebrew, the Samaritan, and the Septuagint. When I examine the Septuagint I find the Protestant writers such as Fulke and Whittaker, writing against Bellarmine and others, declaring that the Septuagint is corrupt from beginning to end. Dr. Irons says no one knows where the so-called Septuagint version was written, when it was written, nor by whom it was written, and it is clearly the work of different generations. When I examine the Greek of the Septuagint as against the Hebrew, I find words and verses in the one that are not in the other. As a sceptic is it unreasonable for me to ask the Bishop how he knows that one is better than the other? When I go to the Hebrew the difficulty is still greater. I say that not even the Bishop knows enough of the Hebrew to guide us with reasonable explanation. It is not enough to say that mere ignorant infidels do not know it. I find Spinoza, writing 200 years ago, declaring that Hebrew was a language utterly dead, that its grammars and lexicons were lost, that time, the great consumer, had blotted out the meaning of many words from the memory of man. Suppose that I have recourse to those professing some knowledge of Hebrew. Gesenius, Bellamy, Parkhurst, Newman, Eichorn, Bresslau, Ginsburg, give me different meanings for many of the same words on important points of theology. How am I to be satisfied? What objections will be reasonable? Suppose I try to be content with the ordinary Hebrew version, what then? I find that it is a version written with points, which points have not existed more than 1250 or 1300 years; and the text itself is of two characters. That which is written is not always read, and that which is read is not written. I find a clergyman of the Church like Dr. Irons admitting that the traditional reading of the Hebrew text is often of more value than the text. I find Christians saying this Hebrew is an ancient language, and when I try to trace it I find that before 2500 years back there is no trace of it at all. Moses could not have written in the Hebrew we have, for what to-day we call the Hebrew did not then exist. Who is to decide on this point as to the reasonableness of my scepticism? Am I to decide or my Lord Bishop? Let us consider this a little more. We have a Samaritan, a Septuagint, and Hebrew Bible, but in the Samaritan we have only the Pentateuch, and I find words and verses in the Samaritan not in the Septuagint, and not in the Hebrew, and I find