given on the subject in which it was destined to be used; and, consequently, for the same reason, that same style would have always been selected for the purpose of treating the same subject ; which is contrary to what we meet with in fact. If, however, it should be alleged that the Holy Ghost suggested to each of the inspired penmen a style precisely similar to his own natural one, this is a defence which will destroy itself, by undermining the miracle which it would attempt to establish; for when a man writes in his own style, he does only what is usual, natural, and ordinary, and a thing cannot be both ordinary and miraculous at the same time.

The contents of the New Testament are likewise adverse to the opinion that the subject matter of it, in all its parts, was furnished by the inspiration of the Holy Spirit. For, first, the writers of it describe themselves as having gained much, at least, of the information they give us by the ordinary methods of acquiring intelligence. And again, if this opinion were true, we should be obliged to conclude that the Holy Spirit was sometimes employed on matters which had no relation to the business of religion, or to the nature of his own sacred offices, and with regard to which a serious mind would revolt from the idea of supposing any thing like a direct suggestion of the Deity. How, for example, can we

reconcile it to our feelings of devotional propriety, to think that St. Paul was particularly inspired, to desire his correspondent to prepare him a lodging, or to bring him a garment which the apostle had left at Troas. But, lastly, there are some passages of the New Testament which, even more clearly than those last referred to, do not admit the possibility of having been communicated by inspiration, as where the apostolic writers barely express their wishes, it being a contradiction in terms to assert that the wish of one person can be suggested to him by another-to be a wish of his own it must of course be the offspring of his own mind.

The truth of the hypothesis, then, of a plenary suggestion, whether of words or of matter in the New Testament, may well be questioned from such considerations as these, and chiefly from the fact that God does nothing in vain; an adherence to which principle we conceive to form the other limit within which the true notion of inspiration must be comprehended. It remains that we explain and confirm, as we proposed to do, that which appears to be the most unexceptionable theory on this subject.

SERMON VII.

ON THE INSPIRATION OF SCRIPTURE.

2 TIM. iii. 16.

All Scripture is given by inspiration of God.

If the arguments which we have already advanced on the doctrine of Scriptural inspiration, are allowed to be conclusive, we have succeeded in proving thus much-that the true account of the inspiration granted to the authors of the New Testament, to qualify them for the office of writing it, must be consistent on the one hand with that general principle, that God does nothing in vain, and must yet suppose, on the other, that Divine assistance of some kind was employed in the composition of every part of the Christian Scriptures, except where, by the nature of the case, it was inadmissible, in order to make them, what they were intended to be, a perfect rule of

faith, and an ultimate standard of authority. We have now, therefore, to propose a theory on this subject which has been espoused by many very learned men 1, and which alone appears to possess the necessary conditions just enumerated. It is that which asserts that the sacred writers acted under what is called a "plenary superintending inspiration," by which is to be understood that, without having either their language or their subject dictated to them, necessarily and universally, they were yet, in every instance, so guided and directed, sometimes, probably, by a suggesting, and sometimes by a restraining influence, that their works, as they came out of the hands of their respective authors, were absolutely faultless, in regard to the accuracy both of facts and doctrines.

The advantages of this theory are many and great; it was constructed on the principle and for the purpose, of avoiding the difficulties inseparable from each of the extreme opinions formerly noticed, and that object it has certainly attained; for, while it secures to us every thing requisite for the firm establishment of our faith, and the due regulation of our conduct, it relieves us from the necessity of endeavouring to elucidate what we cannot understand-to select where we have no

! As Simon, Whitby, and Doddridge.

ground for preference-and to prove by abstract reasoning, what is plainly contradicted by positive facts. Thus, for example, the advocates for the system we are now considering are under no obligation, for the defence of their tenets, to enter upon any abstruse speculations on the nature of inspiration as it is in itself, or the different modes in which it may act upon its subject, for the truth or falsehood of the doctrine is quite independent of all metaphysical subtilties, or the results which may be drawn from them on these particular topics. Neither are they compelled to decide, dogmatically and definitively, whether the inspiration of suggestion is to be absolutely excluded from the sacred canon, or whether some parts of that book might not have been written by its means; and still less are they bound to show what precise portions of Holy Writ were furnished by this more especial aid of the Spirit. The opinion which supposes all parts of the book alike, to have equally undergone, if we may so express it, the ordeal of Divine supervision, and to have received the stamp of Divine approbation, as being entirely correct, evidently implies, that if suggestion were at any time wanted, either to provide a remedy for the lapses of memory, or to supply intelligence which could not otherwise be obtained, it was of course granted; but the mere approbation of the whole work by Divine authority settles its character of