LE CLERC ON INSPIRATION. THERE are three sorts of things in holy writ, Prophecies, Histories, and Doctrines, which are not ascribed to particular revela tion. To begin with the first; God made himself known to the prophets after several manners; but it seems as if they might be reduced to these three. They had visions by day or by night; they heard voices; or they were inwardly inspired. It is not our business here to examine these things in themselves. We only inquire after what manner they have written that which they learnt by these visions, by these voices, or by these inspirations. Prophecies have been written by God's express command; by the prophets themselves, or by others. For we cannot tell whether the prophets themselves have always written, or dictated them; or whether their disciples have collected and written them as exactly as their memory would However it be, we cannot doubt but God made known to the prophets that which we find in their books, and that we ought to believe St. Peter, when he says, Prophecy came not in old time by the will of man, but holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost.* serve. To tell us that which appeared to them in Visions, whether it be they themselves that writ it, or others that heard them tell it; there needed nothing but a good memory. A man has no need of inspiration to relate faithfully what he has seen, especially when the impression it made upon him was strong; as commonly happened to those to whom God sent any vision. Hence it is observed, that every prophet has his particular style; by which it appears that they related what they had seen, 2 Pet. i. 21. as they used to relate other things. Their style was the same when they spake by the order of God, with that which they used in their ordinary discourse. The same judgment is to be made concerning the recital of the words they heard. There needed no more but a good memory to retain them. But we cannot be assured that they have always recited exactly the very words they heard, and not sometimes thought it sufficient only to tell us the sense. When God told them the name of some person, it was necessary they should retain the syllables of that name; as when God ordered Isaiah to foretel that Cyrus should give the Jews liberty to return into Palestine, it behoved Isaiah to remember those two syllables, Co-res. But there is no likelihood, that in the rest of his discourse, Isaiah has related word for Iword what he heard. The diversity of style does moreover prove, that the prophets expressed after their own manner the sense of what they heard. There is, for example, much difference between the styles of Isaiah and Amos. Isaiah's manner of writing is high and lofty. On the contrary, that of Amos is low and vulgar; and we find in it divers popular expressions and many proverbs, which sufficiently testify that this prophet, who was a shepherd, expressed after his own way what God had said to him. This is the opinion of St. Jerom, in the preface of his commentary on this prophet. The prophet Amos, saith he, was skilled in knowledge, not in language; for the same Holy Spirit spoke in him that spoke by all the prophets. This doctrine attributes clearly the expression to the prophets, and the thing itself to the Holy Spirit; which appears also by the remark he makes on Chap. III. saying, We told you that he uses the terms of his own profession and because a shepherd knows nothing more terrible than a lion; he compares the anger of God to lions. : St. Jerom should have said, according to the common opinion, that God made use, in speaking to Amos, of popular terms, and suitable to his profession, whereas he attributes plainly to the prophet the choice of the terms in which the prophecy is expressed. That words were dictated by God to the prophets, (says a late learned critic) as it cannot be denied to have been done sometimes, so it does not seem to have been done always: and hence it is, that accord |