in the instructions given to them, as to record them without any mixture of error. And, consequently, the Holy Spirit must, agreeably to the promise of our Lord to his apostles, have brought them to their "remembrance."

Still, there are parts of the sacred volume, which no efforts of genius could invent, no flights of imagination could reach to, no deductions of reason could prove. A dreadful tempest, the rolling waves of the sea, the mountain capped by the clouds, the sun shining in his strength, the moon 66 walking in brightness," and the stars, whether planetary or fixed, with a thousand other objects in nature, convey to us a faint idea of the power, wisdom, and ubiquity of the Deity; while the air, the earth, the water, confessedly teem with his benevolence. But who could have hit upon the "gift of his only begotten Son," as the best means of illustrating his perfections, of demonstrating his moral government, of marking the magnitude of the offences committed

against him; and, at the same time, of exciting gratitude and love in the cold heart of man, that moral Siberia of the universe? Who could have first traced the connexion between the sacrifice of Christ, and the forgiveness of sin?between the resurrection of one, and the resurrection of all? and between the proclamation of these truths by the persons employed, and the reformation of the world? If " eye hath not seen, nor ear heard, neither have entered into the heart of man, the things that God hath prepared for them that love him," much less could human wisdom have "devised means, that his banished be not expelled from him." The scheme of redemption, must, therefore, in all its ramifications, have been immediately "revealed" to the respective writers. Nor can less be affirmed of those prophecies which are distributed through their writings, because events (especially such as those foretold in the Scriptures, the fulfilment of which, in several instances, depended exclusively

on divine interference) yet future are alike unknown to the philosopher and the peasant.

The term inspiration is, therefore, a kind of generic term, including all the species of assistance received by the sacred writers. Less than that attributed to them in the definition is inconsistent with the plenary inspiration of the Scriptures; nor can more, it would seem, be unobjectionably maintained; while this is sufficient to comprise all their parts, places the faith of a Christian on the firmest basis possible, and secures an entire veneration for them by stamping the whole with divine authority: since it is not the mere revealing of a truth, but the divine sanction, which renders it authoritative. Having, therefore, ascertained that sanction, we are bound to reverence it no less than if, as the Hebrews did the law, we had received it graven on stone from the flaming summits of a mountain, or it were written in legible characters by the finger of God in the heavens.

Before, however, this branch of the subject be dismissed, it may not be improper to offer a few remarks on the extent of the writer's inspiration. Whether the words, as well as the sentiments of Scripture, are divine, has long been a question among the learned. That words should, in every instance, have been dictated does not appear to have been requisite. Nor, in point of fact, if they copied from the public records of the Jews any, or all, of the genealogies and histories, could it have been the case. And, if that extraordinary assistance of the Spirit which was given to the unpremeditated discourses of the apostles did not prevent the Jewish Sanhedrim from "perceiving them to be unlearned men," much less can we affirm, with respect to their writings, that, in every instance, their words were inspired.

That words were, however, in some instances, dictated there seems no reason to doubt. Because, as the writers themselves did not at all times fully understand

the import of what they recorded, (without a special revelation for that purpose,

see 1 Pet. i. 12,) how could they possibly compose a regular discourse on a subject which they did not understand, if they were not directed in their choice of words as well as of sentiments?

St. Paul, moreover, expressly affirms, when speaking of what had been revealed to him and his fellow apostles, “which things also we speak, not in words which man's wisdom teacheth, but which the Holy Ghost teacheth."

And most of the prophecies, containing the names of persons, places, and things, which could no more have been known, at the time, than the exact meaning of the prophecies themselves, prove that words were sometimes inspired as well as sentiments.

Nor can the objections usually urged, arising from variety of style or from the different manner in which the same subjects are recorded, in any degree affect

3 1 Cor. ii. 13.