being inspired, they declare their being entirely inspired: whence we conclude that it must indeed

be so.

This doctrine is, certainly, of all truths, one of the most simple and evident, to those who are subject to the testimony of the Scriptures. We may, doubtless, have heard modern theologians represent this doctrine as full of incertitude and difficulties; but men who have sought to study it only by the light of God's Word, have neither met with these difficulties, nor fallen into this incertitude. Nothing is more clearly or more frequently taught in Scripture, than its own inspiration. And thus, men of olden time were entirely unacquainted with the doubts and difficulties entertained by the doctors of our age. With them the Bible was from God, or was not from God. tiquity presents, on this point, an admirable unanimity. But since the moderns, in imitation of the Talmudist Jews and rabbins of the middle age, have imagined learned distinctions between four or five different derees of inspiration, who can be astonished that incertitude and difficulties multiply before them? They contest what the Scriptures teach, and they explain what they do not teach. We can understand their perplexity; but the fault lies in their own temerity.

An

This testimony, which the Scriptures bear to their own inspiration, is so evident, that one might be astonished to witness, among Christians, diversities of opinion on a subject so well defined. The evil, however, is but too well explained by the power of prejudice. The minds of men, being already prepossessed with the objections which have been made, pervert the Scripture from its natural meaning, and endeavour to reconcile it with the difficulties which perplex them. They deny, in spite of the Scriptures, their full inspiration, as the Sadducees denied the resurrection, because they found the miracle inexplicable; but we must remind

them that Jesus answered, "Ye do err, because YE KNOW NOT THE Scriptures, NEITHER THE POWER OF GOD." (Mark xii. 24, 27.) It is therefore, on account of this too general disposition of the human mind, that we have judged it best not to set before the reader our scriptural proofs, until we have carried him through a closer examination of the objections which are opposed to us; and this will be the subject of the succeeding chapter.

The Individuality of the Sacred Writers.

The individuality of the sacred authors, deeply stamped upon the books which they have written, seems to many persons irreconcilable with a plenary inspiration. It is impossible (they tell us) to read the Scriptures without being struck with the differences of language, thought, and style, which their authors severally exhibit. We are told the following conclusions must be drawn from the fact:

1. If it were God who alone and unceasingly spoke in the Scriptures, we should see, in their various parts, a uniformity which does not exist.

2. It must, therefore, be admitted, that two different powers have acted, at the same time, upon the sacred authors, whilst they composed the Scriptures,-the natural power of their individuality, and the miraculous power of inspiration.

3. From the conflict, or the concurrence, or the balanced action of these two powers, there must have resulted a variable and gradual inspiration; sometimes full, sometimes imperfect, and often even reduced, to the feeble measure of a mere supervision.

4. The variable power of the Divine Spirit, in this united action, must have proportioned itself to the importance and difficulty of the matters treated of by the sacred author. It may even have abstained from interfering, where the judgment and memory of the

writer could suffice, because God does not perform useless miracles.

All these hypotheses and conclusions suppose that there are, in the Scriptures, some passages devoid of importance, and others infected with errors.

It is, therefore, to this objection that we now reply. 1. We begin by declaring that we fully admit the alleged fact, while we wholly reject the false conclusions which are derived from it. So far are we from being unmindful of these human features, impressed throughout upon the sacred writings, that, on the contrary, it is with profound gratitude, and ever-increasing admiration, that we regard this living, actual, dramatic character, which shines with so much power and beauty throughout the Book of God. Yes (and we gladly, in this point, concur with the objectors), in one place we have the phraseology, accent, and voice of a Moses, in another, of St. John; here of Isaiah, there of Amos; here of Daniel, and there of Peter, Nehemiah, or Paul. We recognise, we hear, we see them; it is impossible to be mistaken. This fact we admit, we delight to contemplate it, we admire it greatly; and we see in it (as we shall have occasion to reiterate) a proof of the divine wisdom which has indited the Scriptures.

2. Of what consequence, to the fact of Divine Inspiration, is the absence or the co-operation of the affections of the sacred writer? Cannot God either use or dispense with them? He who can give voice to a statue, can he not make a child of man speak according to his will? He who, by a dumb animal, rebuked the madness of a prophet, could he not convey to a prophet the sentiments or words which he judged best adapted to the plan of his revelations? He who called forth from the wall an inanimate hand to record the terrible denunciation, MENE, MENE, TEKEL, UPHARSIN, could he not equally direct the intelligence of his apostle? Will you explain to us how the flow of ideas, recollections and emotions of the sacred writers

would deprive them of any particle of their Inspiration; and will you tell us why this should not itself be one of its elements? Between the fact of individuality, and the conclusion which you would draw from it, there is an abyss, which your understanding can no more fathom in combating Divine Inspiration, than can ours in explaining it.

Was there not much individuality in the wicked Caiaphas, when, abandoning himself to the suggestions of his evil heart, full of bitter wrath, and having no thought of uttering the words of God, he exclaimed in the Jewish council: "Ye know nothing at all, nor consider that it is expedient for us that one man should die for the people"? (Jno. xi. 49-51.) Surely we have abundant individuality in these words, and yet it is further written: "This spake he not of himself, but being high-priest that year," he unwittingly spoke as a prophet, proclaiming that Jesus should come "to gather together the children of God that were scattered abroad."

Why, then, should not the same Spirit employ the devout affections of his saints to proclaim the words of God, as well as make use of the hypocritical and wicked thoughts of his most bitter enemies?

3. When it is objected to any passage, that the style of Moses, Luke, Ezekiel, or John, cannot, therefore, be that of God, it would seem to indicate that the operation of the Holy Ghost may be recognised by the cast of the sentences.

4. It must not be forgotten, that in the varied actings of God's sovereignty the employment of second causes is not excluded. On the contrary, it is in their subjection that He delights to display his infinite wisdom. In the field of creation He gives us vegetation by the combined employment of the elements,-of heat, humidity, electricity, air, light; and by the mechanical attraction and multiplied agency of capillary vessels and organs. In the field of providence He

accomplishes the development of his vast designs by the unexpected concurrence of millions of human wills, alternately intelligent and submissive, or ignorant and rebellious. "Herod, Pilate, with the Gentiles and the people of Israel (all moved by various motives), were gathered together," He tells us, "to do what his hand. and his counsel determined before to be done."

In the field of prophecy it is, also, in like manner, that He brings about the fulfilment of his predictions. For instance; long before the period of action, he prepares a warlike prince in the mountains of Persia, and another in the heights of Media: and having designated the former by name two hundred years previously, he unites them, at the time determined, with ten other nations, against the Chaldean empire; he enables them to surmount a thousand obstacles, and, finally, brings them into the mighty Babylon, just at the expiration of the seventy years which had so long been assigned as the term of the Jewish captivity.

Even in the field of miracles, He is, moreover, pleased to employ second causes. He might here limit himself to saying, "Let it be," and it would be; but his purpose is, even in the employment of inferior agents, to show us that it is He alone who gives power to the weakest among them. To divide the Red Sea, He did not alone command Moses to lift up his rod and stretch out his hand over the waters; but He caused them to go back by a strong east wind, which blew all that night. To cure the man who was born blind, He makes clay and anoints his eyelids.

In the field of redemption, instead of converting a soul by a simple act of his will, He presents him with motives; He inclines him to read the gospel, and sends him the messengers of its glad tidings: and thus it is, that whilst it is He "who works in us to will and to do of his good pleasure," it is He who "of his own will begets us by the word of truth."

And why should it not be thus too in the field of