formation of that manna to a miracle'. For the Israelites, indeed, it was necessary, that the inadequacy, or, at least, the absence, of natural causes should have been apparent from the circumstances themselves; but we are bound, independently of such considerations, independently of any argument founded on the quantity of manna produced, or on circumstances which preclude the possibility of natural causes having operated on the waters of the Red Sea, to admit the miracle in each case; that is, if we have admitted, in the first instance, the inspiration of the historian who so represents these facts. Suppose, again, the mere human wisdom of a great national leader was likely to have suggested a discipline of forty years' toil and privation for a degenerate bost, destined to win a settlement by conquest; if Scripture tells us, that in the case of the Israelites it was a punishment inflicted by divine command', to God we are bound to ascribe

See Exod. xvi. especially ver. 4. and 32. Compare also with the narrative the allusions to it in other Scriptures; for example, Psalm lxxviii. 23, 24, 25. where it is called “the corn of heaven," and "angels' food."

'See Numbers xiv. 28-35. Deuteronomy ii. 14, 15.

the otherwise seeming device of man.

What

avails it to prove that there have been hail-stones in natural storms, sufficient to have destroyed armies, as was that of the Amorites"? or, that the jaws and stomach of any fish are naturally so capacious as to admit and contain a man, as the whale did Jonah? Scripture tells us, that in these particular instances the events came to pass by miraculous interference; and whether in the course of nature similar events have occurred or not-ever could occur or not-is a question altogether irrelevant, when we are considering our obligation to view these events related in Scripture as miracles.

§. 7. Uninspired authority.

As far as regards the object proposed in this inquiry, the inquiry might rest here. The proofs requisite for establishing inspiration, the nature and the extent of that holy interference, and the

"Joshua x. 11. See also ver. 8. where the miraculousness of the event is further implied by the prophecy that foretold it. * Jonah i. 17.

authority which the Bible especially derives from it, all these points have now been successively examined. Still the application of the whole view will be incomplete, unless, together with the estimate of inspired authority, we make an estimate likewise of the character and authority which may attach to mere human compositions. It is not enough to have ascertained and admitted the claims of Scripture. Those claims may be injured, not only by ignorance or denial of them, but by communicating them to other writings. The rash critic, who deals with the word of God as if it proceeded from man alone, is not the only profaner of the oracles of the "jealous God." To raise human compositions to a level with Scripture is practically the same, as to bring down Scripture to the level of uninspired authorship; even as it is practically the same thing, whether we dig down an eminence, or raise the adjacent ground to its level. We censure the enthusiast for confounding inspiration with the suggestions of his own mind, and regard his notions as impious and blasphemous; and we are perhaps justified in our censure. But how does his impiety or blasphemy differ from his, who appeals

indifferently to Scripture and to any human authority, however sanctified by time and circumstances? Surely the only difference is, that, in the one case, an uninspired person usurps that authority which God has conferred, by inspiration, on apostles, and prophets, and others his commissioned agents; whilst, in the other case, it is that same authority conferred likewise by inspiration on the Scriptures, which is usurped by uninspired writings. The enthusiast, in short, insults the majesty of God speaking through his living servants, the other insults Him, as speaking through their writings. It is the characteristic of a protestant Church not merely to deny the authority of any man to “ speak as God;" but the authority of any man's writings to speak as the Scriptures of God.

The charge of placing on a level traditional divinity and Scripture is most strictly applicable, it is true, to the Romanists. But let us not suppose, that, provided only we do not equal their folly and wickedness in degree, we cannot be implicated at all in their guilt. The builders of this Babel of human pride and strength may raise

y See Whately's "Errors of Romanism," ch. iv.

the tower, some nearer than others, to the heavens; but the first stone constitutes the offence. Whenever we appeal, on questions of faith and duty, to human authority, for the same purpose as we do to Scripture-whenever we seek to prove, in short, the correctness of our faith by man's word-it is not requisite that we should place it on an exact level with Scripture in order to incur the guilt of dividing our allegiance between the human and the divine author. We have forthwith violated the distinct and sovereign character of the Bible; and, like Israel worshipping the golden calf which their own hands had made, we plead in vain that we have done it in honour of Jehovah-in solemn acknowledgment of the supreme authority of his word.

In truth, much practical error has been fostered, if not caused, in this instance, by the ambiguity of a word. We speak of the authority of the Scriptures, the authority of the Church, the authority of the fathers and orthodox divines of later ages, meaning throughout these several applications of the word authority, a claim on Christians or Churchmen to assent to the decisions of Scripture of the Church-of fathers and other