part of the preacher to insist on the infallibility of Apostles and Evangelists. Meanwhile, I suspect that he is not by any means without a suspicion that he is on a platform beset with _far greater dangers_, himself. He has walked a little this way, and that way; and his "common sense" has shewn him that there is an ugly precipice on every side. Nay; he perceives that the ground trembles, and cracks, and shakes,--and even yawns beneath his feet. For I request you to observe, that there is absolutely no middle state between Inspiration and non-inspiration. If a writing be inspired, it is Divine: if it be not inspired, it is human. It is absurd to shirk the alternative. _Some_ parts of the Bible, it is allowed, _are_ inspired; other parts, it is contended, are _not_. Let it be conceded then, for the moment, that the catalogue of the Dukes of Edom is _not_ an inspired writing; and let it be ejected from the Bible accordingly. We must by strict parity of reasoning, eject the xth chapter of Genesis, which enumerates the descendants of Japheth, of Ham, and of Shem, with the countries which they severally occupied,--that truly venerable record and outline of the primæval settlement of the nations! The ten Patriarchs before, and the ten after Noah: the many enumerations contained in the Book of Numbers: much of the two Books of Chronicles: together with the Genealogies of our SAVIOUR as given by St. Matthew and St. Luke. It is clear that the history of the Flood,--very much of it at least,--is of the same nature: a kind of calendar as it were, and record of dates.