the precise words of the Old Testament in the New is justified by the advocates of this narrow hypothesis.

The nature of the case puts it beyond all controversy, that the very same terms could not have been employed in both cases, because the languages are different. Hence we are obliged to restrict ourselves to the point, whether a rigid adherence to the Hebrew terms, as far as the Greek would admit, was the very best mode of conveying their meaning, and consequently the one most likely to be adopted by the sacred writers. We are inclined to think, that such an exact imitation would have been exhibited, had the words of the Old Testament been inspired. They were the best that could have been used in every case, and the nearer a quotation of them comes to the original, the better suited would they have been to all purposes. If the sense was always one and the same, we do not see how the words expressing it, when literally inspired, could have varied more than the differing idioms of the two languages imperatively demanded. But if the same words were designed to convey several senses at the same time, as some incorrectly maintain, there is in that case a presumption in favour of very different words being employed in the New Testament. The sense of Scripture being always one-the meaning being unalterable, we cannot think of the Spirit suggesting to the writers the use of single terms bearing little similarity to the original Hebrew, without attributing to Him a measure of inconsistency. We make him vary from himself, in order to attain an object, which, for ought we can see, would be equally, if not better accomplished, by closely copying the best words presented in the Old Testament. If it be asserted, that a strict adherence to the Hebrew words was not best for the purpose of instructing the persons to whom the New Testament was addressed, the fact is admitted: but we maintain that it sufficiently refutes the sentiment that the original passages were inspired even to the very words, because, on such a supposition, the Holy Spirit would not have so far deviated from himself. The fact of the authors using such latitude as merely to convey the general sense of cited passages, is surely against the notion of an uniform suggestion of the Old Testament phrases to the minds of the Jewish writers. The argument which alleges, that the same words may not be the best in two separate places, and that therefore a cited passage may vary considerably in expression from the

original, seems to take for granted what ought to be proved. It is not sufficient merely to affirm, that the New Testament words, though differing from the Old, are inspired, and therefore the best in the circumstances, while the originals whence they are taken are also inspired, and consequently the best in the circumstances in which they were written. We admit, that two passages varying from one another in expression while agreeing in sense, may be the best for diverse purposes; but still it remains to be shewn, that the circumstance of their being the very best in both cases, proves them to have been directly imparted to the respective writers by the Holy Spirit. It will ever remain inexplicable by the supporters of verbal inspiration, that the words of the Septuagint became literally inspired as soon as they were taken from that version and transferred to the New Testament pages. The authors must have been deprived of self-consciousness, if in every instance they needed to be prompted to the use of the Greek version in citing from the Jewish scriptures. If they be robbed of that knowledge and discernment of the ancient canonical books implied in the various circumstances of their lives, they are degraded to automata acted upon by the Spirit in some such way as a musical instrument is touched by the hand of the performer. But we cannot deprive them of free-will, or the use of their reasoning powers, for the sake of a hypothesis. This were to purchase it at too dear a price. Whatever previous knowledge they possessed was employed by them as writers, and exerted its influence on their compositions. And had the very words of the Old Testament been in all cases inspired, we should have always expected literal quotation. No paraphrasing or looseness in citing should then have been- seen. The sacred writers would have been penetrated with too much reverence for the ipsissima verba to have forsaken them frequently. To aver that the same general meaning may be conveyed in two different modes of diction, each of them the very best in its own place, and thence to infer the inspiration of these respective costumes in the minutest parts and particles, is unnecessary, gratuitous, and illogical.

CHAPTER XII

ALLEGED CONTRADICTIONS OF SCRIPTURE.

THIS subject demands attention, not only on account of the difficulty it presents to the Biblical inquirer, but its important bearings on the character of Revelation in general. It has ever been a primary topic with the infidel, who endeavours by its aid to shake the whole system of revealed truth. To the plain and serious Christian it has occasioned distressing perplexity. If it be true that the Bible comes from God, and that he merely employed the writers in promulgating his will to man, it must be admitted, that the divine production cannot but be consistent with itself. If we believe in the perfect omniscience of Jehovah, it is not possible that he should prompt one writer to put forth a statement contrary to that of some other writer whom he had equally commissioned to communicate his purposes to men. All the ideas which we can rationally entertain of the Almighty ruler of Heaven and earth, forbid us to ascribe to Him imperfection of knowledge, or change of will. To suppose him subject to mutation is averse to the unbiassed decision of the judgment, and to every feeling of the heart. Increase of knowledge cannot be predicated of Jehovah. He who could call a world into existence by the word of his mouth, and beautify it with the richest costume, unquestionably knows the beginning from the end. He must be possessed of all wisdom. To conceive of him in any other character, is to undeify him, by denying those glorious perfections which man can so imperfectly scan. The feeble light which mortals enjoy, is indeed sufficient to point the mental eye to the throne of Him who is invisible; but it is wholly unable to pierce that vail of glory which encircles the pavilion of his presence. The theist must admit that God is consistent with himself.

When, therefore, we come to consider a written communication of his will, we expect perfect uniformity to prevail throughout all its parts. Human compositions bear upon them the marks

of fallibility. The same work 'may exhibit opposite sentiments. The productions of one individual are impressed with the stamp of progressive intellect; but the emanations of the Divine mind are totally free from all variableness. Hence, if we believe that the Deity has communicated a revelation to man, the absolute perfection of his nature warrants us to expect, that it will be not only worthy of himself, but consistent throughout. And here we are brought to another point of consideration, the inspiration of the persons whom he has thought fit to employ in making known his will to mankind. With the nature of the influence exerted on their minds, we need not concern ourselves. It is impossible to tell precisely what it was. It is sufficient to be well assured of the simple fact, that they were supernaturally and mysteriously enlightened, yet so as to be conscious of the animating energy, and of the source whence it came. Jehovah employed them as his servants to execute lofty purposes in the administration of his moral government, and thus to form a connecting link between heaven and earth. When we advance a step farther, and advert to their inspiration as writers, we are launched into the disputations of polemic theology. In opposition to Priestley, we believe that they were inspired as writers not less than witnesses. Some superintending care must have been exercised over them to prevent them falling into error. What may have been the degree of this inspiration, it belongs not to us to inquire at present. One thing is certain, that truth must have been directly communicated. The sublime songs of ancient prophets carried them far beyond the ages of a former dispensation, into the womb of futurity, where they beheld scenes of transcendent grandeur. Their spirits, transported into regions of light, saw things impossible for human intellect to discover. We take it for granted, that the sacred penmen were kept from falling into any inconsistency in their compositions, else their inspiration was absolutely valueless. The contents of each book which they wrote, form in themselves a harmonious whole. False statements, incorrect reasonings, absurd metaphors, unnatural images, can be attributed to them only by unbelievers.

Still farther, not only must the composition of each individual author be perfectly conformable to itself, but all the writings that constitute the one collection should be looked upon as agreeing. What is written by one prophet, will not clash with the utterances of another. The statements of one historian, will corro

borate those of another. The doctrines contained in the epistles of Paul, will correspond with the holy inculcations of John ;and the lessons delivered by Peter, advance nothing contrary to the teachings of James. If one holy man spake as he was moved by the Holy Ghost, all must have spoken under the same influence. If the writers of all the books were inspired, they received their communications from the same source. If any one of them have clearly contradicted another, the fault must be charged on the Deity, by whom they were supernaturally enlightened, and from whom they received authority to publish a message for the edification of men. God is true. In him are hid all the treasures of wisdom and knowledge. Since his perfect omniscience comprehends all things, he cannot but exercise a harmonising influence on the minds of his servants. Whatever he thus reveals, bears on it the impress of his own seal. The finger of the Almighty cannot be mistaken. It matters not whether he employ one individual or many to commit to writing what he is pleased to make known-whether the different parts of one great system of truth be assigned to one or a thousandwhether he speak to his creatures at sundry times and in diverse manners, or by one messenger, he is equally the author of each and every feature of the spiritual structure. Its magnificence is all his own. If it can be shewn that one stone in the edifice is misplaced or unseemly, weakening and disfiguring the fair proportions of truth, then must it be regarded as unworthy of the great Architect by whom it was designed. But this has never been demonstrated. Men of erudition and intellect have indeed attempted it, but they have miserably failed. Professing themselves wise they became fools.

Should irreconcilable and contradictory assertions be found in different parts of Scripture, it would not be philosophical at once to reject the books containing them. It should be previously ascertained, whether such things were really spoken or written by the authors themselves, or whether other hands have not corrupted the records. And should it even be ascertained, that they did come in that condition and form from the inspired penmen, we should not be justified by our puny and weak understandings in pronouncing an unfavourable verdict on the writers. It should be first investigated, whether our own ignorance may not stand in the way of reconciling certain passages. Our short-sighted vision may not have been sufficiently purified to discern the ut