equal to that of heaven from earth. The one required God; while for the other man sufficed. Let us therefore no more hear the question, Of what advantage to us is the verbal inspiration of the one, if we have not this inspiration in the other?-for between these two terms, which it is sought to equalise, there is almost infinity.

Of the Use made by the Sacred Writers of the
Septuagint Version.

It is insisted as follows:-We will admit that the fact of modern translations can in no degree affect the first inspiration of the Scriptures; but there is another point of importance to be considered.

The sacred authors of the New Testament, when they themselves quote in Greek the Old Testament Hebrew Scriptures, make use of the Greek translation called the Septuagint, executed at Alexandria two centuries and a half before Jesus Christ, which no one will now affirm to be an inspired work.

We are gratified in touching here upon this difficulty; because, like many others, a close examination changes objections into arguments.

An inquiry into the manner in which the apostles employed the Septuagint alone suffices to discover a striking indication of the verbal inspiration under which they wrote.

If a modern prophet were sent from God to the churches of our land, how think you would he proceed in quoting the Scriptures? Undoubtedly he would quote them in English, and from the authorised version, whenever the translation appeared to him sufficiently exact. But as often as the sense of the original did not appear to him to be conveyed with sufficient fidelity, he would be especially careful to supply his own translation. Sometimes, perhaps, he would do even more. The better to convey to us the exact sense in which he desired to apply such or such passages of

Scripture, he might paraphrase the quoted passage, and neither follow the letter of the original text nor that of the common translation.

This is precisely what the sacred writers of the New Testament have done with regard to the Septuagint.

Although the universal custom of the Greek Jews, throughout the East, was to read in the synagogues, and to cite in their discussions, the Old Testament from this ancient version, the apostles, by the three different ways in which they make their quotations, show us the independence of the spirit which guided them.

In the first place, when the Alexandrine translators appeared to them accurate, they did not hesitate to adopt what was familiar to the ears of their Greek auditors, and to quote literally the Septuagint version.

Secondly, (and this mode is very frequent,) when they are not satisfied with the rendering of the Septuagint, they correct it, and make their quotations from the original Hebrew, which they re-translate more exactly.

Thirdly, when they desire to indicate more clearly in what sense they quote this or that declaration of the Old Testament books, they paraphrase in quoting it. Compare, for example, Micah v. 2, and Matt. ii. 6; Mal. iii. 1, and Matt. xi. 10; Mark i. 2, and Luke vii. 27, &c.

These details will suffice for us to estimate the independence with which the Holy Ghost cites in the New Testament what he had aforetime caused to be written in the Old. We not only reply to the objection, but convert it into a witness.

The Various Readings found in the Original Text.

Other opponents say, We must leave the Translations; we admit that they in no wise affect the question of the first inspiration of the original text; but in this text itself there are numerous differences between the various ancient manuscripts which our churches consult,

L

.

and from which our printed editions are compiled. What becomes of verbal inspiration before the evidence of such a fact, and of what use is it to us?

Here again the reply is easy. We might repeat, with reference to the variations of the manuscripts, what we said respecting the translations-Do not confound two orders of facts which are absolutely distinct -that of the first inspiration of the Scriptures, and that of the actual integrity of the copies which have been made from it. If it were God himself who dictated the very letter of the sacred oracles, we have there a settled fact; and none of the copies which have been made from it, nor any translation of it, can annul this first act.

When a fact is consummated, nothing that follows thereupon can obliterate it from the history of the past. There are then before us two questions which must be most carefully distinguished. Was the entire Scripture divinely inspired? is the first question, and to this we must first apply ourselves. The second is, Are the copies made by learned men and monks, in later times, accurate?

This latter question can in no degree affect the former; do not therefore seek to subordinate the first to the second: they are altogether independent. A book is from God, or it is not from God. In the latter case, it would be vain for us to transcribe it a thousand times with accuracy: we could not make it Divine. And in the first case, equally vain would it be for us to make a thousand incorrect copies: our inability, inaptitude, or unfaithfulness could not at all invalidate the divinity of the original. The Decalogue, we will here repeat, was entirely written by the finger of Jehovah, on two tables of stone; but, supposing the manuscripts which have transmitted it to us do exhibit some variations, this latter fact would not prejudice the former. The sentences, words, and letters of the Ten Commandments would not the less have been written by God.

The inspiration of the first text, and the integrity of the subsequent copies, are two orders of facts absolutely different, and separated widely the one from the other. Be careful not to confound what right reason, time, and place require us to keep distinct.

It is by precisely analogous reasoning that the indiscreet admirers of the Apocrypha are reproved. The ancient oracles of God, they are told, were confided to the Jewish people, as in these last times the new oracles have been to Christians. If therefore the Book of Maccabees was simply a human book in the days of Jesus Christ, a thousand decrees of the Christian Church could never cause it to be transubstantiated into a Divine book.

The prophets wrote the Bible either with words of human wisdom, or with words given them by God. This is the question before us.

But you will perhaps say, Have they been faithfully copied from century to century, from manuscript to manuscript? This is doubtless important, but it is wholly a different question. Do not confound what God has separated.

It is undoubtedly true, it will be said, that the fidelity of a copy does not render the original Divine when it is not so; and .the inaccuracy of another copy does not render it human if it be not human. (This is not the point we aim to establish.) The fact of the inspiration of the sacred text in the time of Moses, or of St. John, cannot of course depend upon the copies which we have made from it in Europe or in Africa two or three thousand or less years after them; but if the second of these facts does not destroy the first, at least it renders it illusory, by depriving it of its value and utility.

Here then is the objection. The question has been shifted; it is no longer the inspiration of the first text, but a question of its present integrity. It was in the first place a question of doctrine: Is it declared in the

Bible, that the Bible is inspired even in its language? But now it is reduced to a mere question of history or criticism. Have the copyists transcribed accurately? Are the manuscripts faithful?

We might be silent on a subject of which we are not here commissioned to undertake the defence; but the answer is so easy, I will say more,—God has rendered it so triumphant, that we cannot forbear giving it. Moreover, the faith of the simple has been so often disturbed by a sort of scientific phantasmagoria, that it may be useful to expose the true nature of this objection. And although it takes us rather out of the field of our treatise, we must reply to it.

It was once specious; but in the present day it is regarded by all who have examined it as but a baseless illusion. The rationalists themselves have avowed that it is valueless, and must be renounced.

The Lord has miraculously watched over his word. Facts demonstrate this. In the first place, by constituting the Jews its depositaries, and afterwards the Christians; his providence thus charged itself with watching that the oracles of God should be faithfully transmitted to us. This has been done; and to attain this result, various causes were brought into operation, of which we shall have to speak hereafter. Recent researches of science have placed this fact in the light of day. Herculean labours have been undertaken to collect all the readings, or variations, which could be supplied, either by the diligent examination of the manuscripts of the sacred writings, preserved in the various libraries of Europe, the study of the most ancient versions, or the investigation of the innumerable quotations made from the sacred books throughout the writings of the Fathers of the church:—and this immense labour has furnished a result admirable in its insignificance,-imposing by its nullity.

All this labour has established so convincingly the astonishing preservation of the text, copied nevertheless