given eternal life' (John x. 28. Rom. vi. 23) in his own blissful presence, where, consequently, there will be no more death' (Rev. xxi. 4). The view set forth specially by John seems to be, that Christians never properly die (John vi. 50; viii. 51. Comp. iv. 14; vi. 35; xiii. 8), but pass from this imperfect and shadowy to that perfect, true, and endless existence, so that they may even in this state lay hold on eternal life' (1 Tim. vi. 12, 19).

IMPART (L. in, 'into,' and pars, 'a part'), to give a part, or communicate, is in Luke iii. 11. Rom. i. 11, the meaning assigned to a Greek word which signifies to share with another. Comp. 'giveth' in Rom. xii. 8.

IMPERIOUS (L. impero, I command,' comp. Eng. 'empire'), in Ezekiel xvi. 30, denotes a commanding temper, the product of indulgence and self-will. The original signifies to bear rule' (Neh. v. 15).

IMPOSE (L. in, upon,' and pono, 'I place') is to put upon another as a tax or toll; so in Ezra vii. 24. Comp. 'cast' in Dan. iii. 20.

IMPOTENT (L. in, not,' and potens, 'powerful') signifies powerless,' being a literal translation of the Greek adunatos in Acts xiv. 8, but is rendered 'impossible' in Matt. xix. 26, could not do' in Rom. viii. 3, and weak' in xv. 1. 'Impotent' is also the translation of a word, asthenes, properly signifying without strength' (Acts iv. 9. Rom. v. 6), which is Englished by 'sick' (Matt. xxv. 39), 'weak' (xxvi. 41), and 'feeble' (1 Cor. xii. 22).

IMPOVERISH (L. in, 'into,' and pauper, 'poor') is to make poor' (Is. xl. 20).

IMPUTE (L. in, into,' and puto, 'I reckon'), according to its derivation and ordinary use, means, to place to the account (or credit) of a person;' hence to ascribe any thing or quality, whether good or bad. Spencer has these lines:

'Nathlesse he shortly shall again be tryde,. And fairely quite him of th' imputed blame; Else be ye sure, he dearly shall abide,

Or make you good amendment for the same.'

The Hebrew original, ghahshav, is rendered 'thought' (Gen. 1. 20), 'devise' (2 Samuel xiv. 14), 'count' (Genesis xv. 6), 'impute' (2 Sam. xix. 19), 'reckon' (Lev. xxv. 50). With a similar mercantile reference, corresponding words are used in the New Testament (Rom. v. 13; comp. Philem. 18; and James ii. 23; comp. Heb. xi. 19. Rom. ii. 3).

INCENSE (L. in, intensive, and candeo, 'I am in a glow'), a burnt-offering composed of odoriferous herbs (Exodus xxv. 6; XXX. 1). See FRANKINCENSE. The spicery of a mummy opened some years ago at Leeds, having been minutely examined, was found to consist of a mixture of cassia, myrrh, ladanon (an Oriental gum), and some other unknown aromatic herbs. The quantity

used weighed in its dry state twelve pounds. None of the ingredients were the produce of Egypt; but they are all obtained, at this day, from trees and shrubs indigenous to those districts of Arabia and Canaan which lie to the east of the desert of Sinai and the river Jordan. So large a demand for these articles in ancient Egypt created an extensive traffic across the desert. The Ishmaelites to whom Joseph was sold by his brethren were engaged in it (Gen. xxxvii. 25; comp. xliii. 11). The art of compounding spices, therefore, if unknown to the patriarchs, must have been practised in Egypt, where the Hebrews would, if needful, acquire the skill requisite for preparing incense. Indeed, the recipe for the holy anointing oil (Exod. xxx. 22-25) is curiously illustrated by the in seriptions on the beautiful obelisks at Karnac, where are seen figures of the members of the family of Thotmosis III. (whose reign, Osburn says, began 1736 A.C.) offering various ingredients to Amoun. The uppermost figure offers a vase of oil;' the next, 'myrrh; the third, incense' compounded of three parts of one unknown spice and five of another. The offering of the fourth is also a compound, containing frankincense mingled with five parts of another unknown drug.

Incense was offered to all the gods and introduced on every grand occasion, whenever a complete offering was made. The

incense burnt in the temples before the alter was made into small balls, or pastiles,

which were thrown by the hand into the censer, as seen in this cut.

appear that the Hebrews were acquainted with that country, at least any more than vaguely. Probably, India to them represented the farthest east, towards which trade was carried on, and from which merchandise was brought westward by the Arabian Gulf. The country whence these goods came may have been called Ophir, but Ophir to the Hebrews may have been in south-east Arabia, or, comprising these parts, it may have indefinitely extended eastward so as to reach Ceylon and India. The existence of the word in the Book of Esther seems to show that when it was written a knowledge of India, properly so called, had spread itself in Western Asia; for the Hebrew Hodu, with the Syrians Hendu, the ancient Persians Heando (English Hindoo), the Arabs Hind (comp. Scinde), or Hend, is only a form of the native name of India.

India is by some regarded as the cradle of the human race and the first nursery of civilisation, whence knowledge and the arts flowed towards the West, finding beds in Mesopotamia, Egypt, Palestine, Asia Minor, Greece, and Italy. Certainly, many points of resemblance may be traced between opinions prevalent in India and in Egypt. There is found in both a style of architectural sculptare, consisting of temples and figures of gods huge in size, hewn in the living rock. And so remarkable an affinity is there between the ancient sacred tongue of India and the Teutonic of Germany and England, that hence has been formed a class of languages termed the Indo-Germanic.

INFALLIBLE (L. in, 'not,' and fallo, 'I deceive'), that which cannot deceive or be deceived or mistaken. The word is found in the English version of Acts i. 3, without any corresponding term in the original; yet is it retained in the revised translation of Bartlett (People's Edition) and 'A Layman.' It is, however, omitted by Sharpe, who, ren lering the original exactly, gives 'many proofs;' so Wicklif, bi many argumentes;' Tyndale, by many tokens;' and Cranmer, by many

tokens.'

INFAMY (L. in, ‘not,' and fama, 'fame,' 'repute'), disgrace, stands in Prov. xxv. 10 for a Hebrew term rendered in Gen. xxxvii.

2, 'evil report;' Numbers xiv. 36, 'slander;' and Jer. xx. 10, defaming.'

INFINITE (L. in, 'not,' and finis, 'end'), that which is unlimited or boundless. The Hebrew language expresses the infinite, as ' numberless,' literally, no number' (Psalms cxlvii. 5). A similar form, without number,' is used to denote a great but undetermined number (Ps. xl. 12; cv. 31). Another way of expressing the infinite in Hebrew is to term it endless,' or ' without end' (Job xxii. 5).

INFIRMITY (L. in, not,' and firmus, 'strong'), want of strength, weakness (Ps. Ixxvii. 10; comp. Gen. xlviii. 1. Judg. xvi. 7).

INFLAMMATION (L. in, intens., and flamma, a flame'), a burning; so the body is said to be inflamed when affected with heat, swelling, redness, and pain. In Hebrew, the word rendered 'inflammation' signifies to burn (Deut. xxviii. 22; comp. Gen. xxxi. 36. Prov. xxvi. 23).

INFLUENCES (L. in, into,' and fiuo, 'I flow'), literally that which, by flowing into, impels, is a term used in Job xxxviii. 31 of the Pleiades. 'Sweet influences' is the rendering of a Hebrew word which some derive from a root signifying 'delight,' as in Prov. xxix. 17, explaining it in Job to refer to the season of spring, when the Pleiades, or the Seven Stars, make their appearance; others, from a root which conveys the notion of binding, construe the term, the bands of the Pleiades.' Bartlett's revised Bible renders,

'Canst thou bind the chain of Pleiades,

Or loose the bands of Orion?'

The word 'bands' is not infrequently applied in Persian poetry to the Pleiades, which, to use the allusion of Herder, seem to be bound to one another in sisterly union, and thus joyously to usher in the spring.

INHABITANTS, the, of Judea were different at different periods. See CANAANITES. At the present day they are Arabs, that is they speak the Arabic, though, with slight exceptions, they are probably all descendants of the old inhabitants of Syria. They are a fine, spirited race of men, and have given Mohammed Ali much trouble in subduing them, and still more in retaining them in subjection. They are said to be industrious for Orientals, and to have the right elements for becoming, under better auspices, a civilised, intellectual nation. It will, however, be found scarcely practicable to raise a people to a respectable social and moral state under a Turkish, Egyptian, or any other Mohammedan government. The inherent vices of the religious system enter, and, from their unavoidable connections, must enter, so deeply into the political administration, that any reform in government or improvement in the people, beyond tem

porary alleviations of evils too pressing to be endured, cannot reasonably be expected. The Turks and Syrians are about at the maximum of the civilisation possible to Mohammedans of the present time. The mercantile class is said to be little respected, and generally to lack integrity. Veracity is held very lightly by all. The people practise temperance and frugality, which may be denominated Oriental virtues. Their situation with regard to the physical means of comfort and subsistence, are in many respects favourable, and under a tolerable government would be almost unequalled. As it is, the Syrian peasant and his family fare much better than large portions of the labouring classes of Europe. The mildness of the climate, the abundance of land and its fertility, with the free and luxuriant pasturage that covers the mountains and the plains, render it nearly impossible that the peasant should not be well supplied with bread, fruit, meat, and milk. They almost always appear well clothed. Their houses, too, though often of a slight construction and mean appearance, must be pronounced commodious when compared with the dark, crowded apartments usually occupied by the corresponding classes in Europe. Agricultural wages vary a good deal in different parts of the country, but the average is not less than three or four piasters a day. With all these advantages, population is said to be on the decline-so active and destructive are the vicious tendencies of the reigning system of religion and government. Polygamy, military conscription, unequal and oppressive taxation, forced labour for the rulers, general insecurity of property, and the consequent discouragement of industry, are probably the principal causes of this deplorable result. There are other causes of depopulation, which are inseparable from general ignorance and barbarism. One of the most destructive, and at the same time most latent, is, probably, the want of medical knowledge and skill. There are no welltaught physicians; and in the hands of the ignorant pretenders, who always thrive un der such circumstances, diseases come armed with a fatal malignity unknown in civilised countries. The plague often sweeps unchecked over the country as well as the town, carrying off a tenth, a fifth, or a third of the inhabitants. The more common and milder diseases, which readily submit to proper treatment, often acquire the greatest virulence, through neglect and mismanagement, till they yield only to the great destroyer in the extent of their ravages. The appearance of the people is striking and, to a European, strange. They wear neither hats, bonnets, nor stockings; both sexes appear in loose flowing dresses, and red or yellow slippers. The men have red caps, with or

without turbans; the women are concealed by white veils, with the exception of the eyes. INHERITANCE (L. in, into,' and heres 'an heir'). See HERITAGE.

INIQUITY (L. in, ‘not,' and æquus, 'equal,' 'just'), that which is not equal (Ezek. xviii. 25), unjust or improper conduct, is represented by several Hebrew words conveying the idea of what is bad, worthless, &c. (Numb. xxiii. 21; comp. Job xi. 11, and Ps. x. 7),

INK. See Books, i. 189. INNOCENCY (L. in, 'not,' and noceo, 'I hurt,' injure'), harmlessness (Deut. xix. 10; comp. Numb. xxxii. 22).

INQUISITION (L. in, 'into,' and quæro, 'I seek'), searching into; so the Hebrew original in Esther ii. 23, from a root mean ing to seek' (Numb. xvi. 10), and in Deut. xix. 18, from another root of similar import (Lev. x. 16).

INSPIRATION (L. inspiro, I breathe into') is the translation (Job xxxii. 8) of a Hebrew word signifying and rendered 'breath' (Genesis ii. 7; vii. 22. 1 Kings xvii. 17), 'blast' (2 Sam. xxii. 16. Ps. xviii. 15), and 'soul' (Is. lvii. 16). The term is thus used of God's influence in communicating and destroying life (Job iv. 9), of that life itself and of the breath which is its index; also of the understanding, or rational powers, by which the human race is distinguished.

The theory which we decidedly prefer is that of plenary or verbal inspiration. By this we mean that not only has God given a revelation, but that He dictated or inspired the words in which this revelation has been communicated to us. We have the Bible not in words which man's wisdom selected, but in those which were chosen by the Holy Ghost. We prefer this theory of inspiration on three accounts. I. It is the only theory which is of the least value. II. It is the theory, which, viewed on all sides, is attended with the fewest difficulties. III The Scripture itself lays claim to verbal inspiration.

Various theories have been formed with reference to this subject. Some have taught that the sacred writers have given in the Bible a revelation which is true in substance, but in their own words, and that in composing their record, they were liable to misconceptions, mistakes, and errors, equally with other writers, honest but fallible. In short, they admit revelation, but deny inspiration, in the sense of a supernatural influence exercised by the Spirit on the mind of the man to whom the revelation was made in regard to the terms in which that revelation was to be com. municated, as well as in receiving the revelation itself. If the Bible is constructed in this fashion, it is not trustworthy. It does not answer its end. It was written to convey to us the will of God regarding matters of infinite importance, namely, the terms on which our sins may be pardoned, and on which we may

find acceptance and eternal life-matters on which no certainty less than absolute will suffice; but if the Bible be only an approximation to the truth, a Divine revelation largely blended with human weakness, preju dice, and error, what reliance can we place upon it? How shall we be able to distinguish between the substance which is of God, and the adjuncts and additions which are of man? How shall we know by what portions of Scripture to guide our conduct? Will we not be in danger of following the human injunction instead of the divine rule, and of building upon the error of the writer, instead of the truth of God? Can we hazard our eternal salvation on a ground so doubtful? Would we be willing to accept the writings of any of the Fathers as our supreme guide in time, and ground of trust for eternity? Their books contain the substance of the truth; and on the theory we are opposing we cannot assign a higher rank to the Bible; and so we must discard this theory. A revelation so communicated would be as good as no revelation at all.

Another theory of inspiration has been put forward, and is to this effect, that the sacred writers were exempt from error in their statements of religious truth, but liable to mistake in matters of fact, that is, in matters of history, science, and other subjects, forming no part of supernatural religion. This carries us a little way beyond the former thcory; but it stops short of giving us an infallible rule, or a certain ground of faith. Practically it amounts to no more than the other theory of inspiration. We must call in the exercise of our own judgment to distinguish between the religious and non-religious portions of the Bible, and can we be sure that we have accurately drawn the line? How shall we know when the sacred writers speak infallibly, and when merely fallibly; and may we not in some instances be building on a merely human foundation, when we think that we are resting on a Divine. Our reason must be the judge of what is or is not God's revelation, and so reason, not revelation, becomes our supreme authority. This theory, too, we discard as insufficient, in fact, as worthless.

men.

The theory which we adopt is that of plenary or verbal inspiration. We maintain that not only did God make a revelation of truth-of supernatural truth-to the sacred penmen, but He so influenced their minds that they used the very words in which He wished that revelation to be communicated to When they speak to us from the page of the Bible, it is us if God spake. Not the truths only, but the original words in which these truths are expressed, are a communication from God. We can accept no lower place for the Bible. It stands apart and above all other writings as a Book written by the finger of God. We claim this place for it on the following grounds:

I. A priori we should conclude that the Bible would possess verbal inspiration. If God was to take a revelation of his will to man, and to disclose the way of salvation to him, we should have inferred beforehand that the words as well as the truths of that revelation would be inspired. The Most High always employs such instrumentalities as are fitted to gain their end. What end was the Bible meant to serve? It was meant to be an infallible rule or guide to man, in attaining to a knowledge of God's will, and the enjoyment of eternal life. But a Bible, none of the words of which, or only some of the words of which, were inspired, would not have been such a rule or guide. To have put such a book into the hands of man would have been but to deceive him, by leading him to think that he had a sufficient rule for his guidance, while in reality he had no such thing-no rule which he could implicitly trust, no guide which he could follow at all times. A guide

who favours us with his instructions occasionally only, and who, at all times, leaves us doubtful whether it is he or some other who is speaking, is as good as no guide. Such a guide would the Bible have been lacking verbal inspiration, or possessing it only in parts. Therefore we are shut up to the alternative of no Bible, or a Bible plenarily and verbally inspired.

II. It may be doubted whether a revelation be possible, unless clothed in words. A revelation of events may be effected by presenting to the mind of him to whom it is made the outward forms or images of the events; but abstract ideas or truths cannot be conceived of unless presented in words, which are just their forms. If we watch our own mental processes, we will find that we use language as the instrument of thought, and that when we cease to employ this machinery we cease to think. Ideas may be suggested to us from without by their types or objects, but when we would summon up ideas in our own minds, when we would conceive, or reason about qualities, relations, conditions, and states, we must embody them mentally in words. And, accordingly, God's revelation to man progressed in proportion as a language was framed, in which that revelation might be received in the first place, and communicated in the next. The idea and the word that expressed it were suggested together.

III. The language of the Bible bears the impress of divinity. Many of its penmen were illiterate, and came to the execution of their task from the sheepfold or the field, and yet their writings are unrivalled in purity and power, in majesty and sublimity. How came it that without the discipline of the schools, without even an hour's practice, they reached a pitch of excellence which places them far above the mightiest genius of Greece and Rome? Whence their freedom and glowing

energy in handling themes, the very greatness of which was fitted to subdue the mind? They are equally at home in all themes, whether simple or profoundly abstruse, familiar or inexpressibly grand. Who taught them those words which go so deep into the heart, and wield such power over the conscience, and have power to transform the character? No one but God.

IV. Without inspired words the sense of revelation could not have been purely and accurately conveyed. Even in ordinary subjects a change of a word will often produce an entire change of sense. But here the subject-matter is supernatural, and if left to their own judgment, the sacred writers must inevitably, in places innnmerable, have chosen the wrong word, and fatally changed the sense. A slight verbal alteration will sometimes import into a passage an entirely different meaning. Prophecy, not less, necessitates the inspiration of the words. Whole epochs, with the events and characters which are to constitute them, are often depicted by a single word. The right word could no more be known than the event could be known. Besides, the sacred writers make numerous scientific allusions, but in language so skilfully selected, that while it was in accordance with the then popular notions, it is found, not in a single instance, to contradict any scientific fact which has since been established. How could this have happened without infallible superintendence? It is far harder to believe that this happened by chance than that it was the result of inspiration.

V. The wonderful preservation of the original text accords with and confirms the doctrine of verbal inspiration. We have already said that some fifteen hundred manuscript copies of the New Testament have been compared, and it is found that the verbal differences are astonishingly few, and that scarcely in a single instance do they make any difference in the sense. This miraculous care over the Bible is just what we would expect on the supposition that its words are inspired. But not so if its words are man's. This watchfulness would, in that case, have been uncalled for. Any change in the words would have been merely the substitution of one human term for another human term. The alteration might have been harmless, or even, in some instances, an improvement. But not so in the case of an inspired writing, and hence the care which was exercised about the words as well as the substance of revelation, and which has transmitted the original text to us, speaking generally, in a state of perfect purity.

VI. The Bible itself advances for its words the claim of inspiration. We cannot do better here than quote the words of Mr Robert Haldane: The word inspire signifies to breathe into, and literally corresponds to the original