and about us; though diffused throughout all space, overspreading the surface, or penetrating the contexture, of all bodies with which we are acquainted, depend upon substances and actions which are totally concealed from our senses. The Supreme Intelligence is so himself.

But whether these or any other attempts to satisfy the imagination, bear any resemblance to the truth, or whether the imagination, which, as I have said before, is the mere slave of habit, can be satisfied or not; when a future state, and the revelation of a future state, is not only perfectly consistent with the attributes of the Being who governs the universe but when it is more; when it alone removes the appearances of contrariety which attend the operations of his will towards creatures capable of comparative merit and demerit, of reward and punishment; when a strong body of historical evidence, confirmed by many internal tokens of truth and authenticity, gives us just reason to believe that such a revelation hath actually been made; we ought to set our minds at rest with the assurance, that in the resources of Creative Wisdom, expedients cannot be wanted to carry into effect what the Deity hath purposed: that either a new and mighty influence will descend upon the human world to resuscitate extinguished consciousness; or that, amidst the other wonderful contrivances with which the universe abounds, and by some of which we see animal life, in many instances, assuming improved forms of existence, acquiring new organs, new perceptions, and new sources of enjoyment, provision is also made, though by methods secret to us (as all the great processes of nature are), for conducting the objects of God's moral government, through the necessary changes of their frame, to those final distinctions of happiness and misery, which he hath declared to be reserved for obedience and transgression, for virtue and vice, for the use and the neglect, the right and the wrong employment of the faculties and opportunities with which he hath been pleased, severally, to intrust, and to try us.

INSPIRATION OF THE BIBLE.

(EDITOR.)

1. THE foregoing argument of Dr. Paley is submitted to all candid persons and especially to all who are accustomed to weigh evidence-as a demonstration of the HISTORICAL REALITY of the New Testament miracles. The authenticity and uncorrupted preservation of the Old Testament Scripures, and consequently the historical reality of the miracles therein recorded, are supported by evidence of their own; for a summary of which the student is referred to Horne's Introduction. But besides this independent evidence, the divine origin and authority of the Old Testament are certified by the writers of the New; and on that ground alone we are entitled to assume that the former, no less than the latter, is the Word of God. The divinity of both is founded on the signs and wonders which were wrought in attestation of their claims.

2. In order to meet all theoretical objections to this kind of proof, we attempted, in Note C to Preparatory Considerations, p. 42, to frame a definition of a miracle, and we also have given Dr. Chalmers' definition in the extract from his works appended as a Note to Chap. IX. of Part II., pp. 405, 406. These two definitions will not be found to conflict with each other. The point of main importance to the question is, whether or not the events which we call miraculous clearly indicate the interposition of Almighty power, or of Omniscient wisdomwhether or not we can affirm, from the thing done or said, that the hand of God is there outstretched to testify that the attendant revelation is true-that the voice of God is there

uplifted to declare the prophetic messenger a messenger from heaven.

3. The inquiry whether or not any work of superhuman power has ever been performed by evil spirits in attestation of a falsehood, or by any spirits inferior to God in attestation even of a truth, will, if answered in the negative, strengthen our position; but, if answered in the affirmative, will not invalidate it. This matter, therefore, although interesting in itself, we dismiss as irrelevant to our present conclusion. It is enough for us to know, not even that all, but that some of the Bible miracles are such as can be explained only by the intervention of divine power and knowledge.

4. Now, who but God can raise the dead, repair the limbs of the maimed, create food for thousands, and foretell the most unlikely occurrences centuries before they come to pass? And chiefly, by what other power than God's can we account for that most stupendous, yet most infallibly attested of all miracles, the resurrection of Jesus Christ from the dead? We say it has been proved that these miracles are HISTORICAL FACTS. Wherefore the conclusion is inevitable that the Revelation in support of which they were done is true; otherwise the God of truth is a deceiver, and works wonders to maintain a lie.

5. The Revelation being true, its declarations with regard to its own Inspiration must be accepted with all the rest. It can no more be fallacious on that point than upon any other which it discloses and upholds. Arguments may be drawn-and in all treatises on the subject good arguments have been drawn-from the nature of the case. Inspiration was necessary for the work that was to be done. But laying aside all à priori considerations, we prefer to take our views of inspiration entirely from the evidence furnished by the Scriptures themselves. This evidence may be very briefly stated.

6. So far as the New Testament is concerned, the evidence of its inspiration is threefold. I. It was promised to the apos

tles by our Lord. II. It is claimed by themselves. III. The claim was admitted by their disciples. Besides the general impression made on the mind of the reader by the whole strain of the New Testament, which seems to take the gift of inspiration for granted as a thing notorious, we cite in confirmation of our first proposition Matt. x. 19, 20; Luke, xxi. 15; John, xiv. 16, 17, 26, xvi. 12, 13, and xvii. 20, 21; Matt. xxviii. 19, 20; Luke, x. 16; Acts, xxvi. 12-18. In support of the second we cite 1 Cor. ii. 10, 12, 13 (see original); 1 Cor. xiv. 37; 1 Thess. ii. 13; 2 Pet. iii. 15; 1 John, ii. 6. It will be seen from Section VII. that the New Testament asserts, in the most unqualified terms, the inspiration of the Old; and both Paul and Peter rank their own writings with the books of the Old Testament-the former commanding that his own epistles be read in the churches where none but those books which the Jews believed to be inspired were ever read. See Col. iv. 16; Ephes. ii. 20; 2 Pet. iii. 2. In support of the third we quote 2 Pet. iii. 16, and refer to the early history of the Church, which proves the extreme care and jealousy with which the first Christians discriminated between the apostolic writings and the compositions of other Christians, even the most distinguished for their piety and gifts.

7. Propositions exactly similar may be predicated in the case of the Old Testament writers; and in addition to all, these claims are most fully indorsed by our Lord and his apostles. See John, x. 35; 2 Tim. iii. 16; 1 Pet. i. 11; 2 Pet. i. 21; Acts, i. 16, iv. 25, xxviii. 25.

8. But what does inspiration amount to? Without entering into the discussion of this question, which would require a volume to itself, and on which many volumes have been written, we feel ourselves safe-certainly we do not go be yond the bounds of fair interpretation and deduction—in saying, with Alford, that "The Inspiration of the Sacred Writers consisted in the fulness of the influence of the Holy Spirit, specially raising them to, and enabling them for, their work,

in a munner which distinguishes them from all other writers in the world, and their work from all other works. The men were full of the Holy Ghost; the books are the pouring out of that fulness through the men-the conservation of the treasure is in earthen vessels. The treasure is ours, in all its richness; but it is ours only as it can be ours-in the imperfection of human speech, in the limitations of human thought, in the variety incident, first to individual character, and then to manifold transcription and the lapse of ages. The men were inspired; the-books are the result of that inspiration. This latter consideration, if all that it implies be duly weighed, will furnish us with the key to the whole question."-Prolegom ena to New Testament, vol. i.

Many theologians go considerably further than the critic whom we have just quoted, and uphold not only the inspiration of the men, but the dictation of the very words. See Gaussen on the Inspiration of the Bible, translated by the Rev. E. N. Kirk, of Boston. But, as Paley has observed (p. 491), “The inspiration of the Scriptures, the nature, degree, and extent of this inspiration, are questions undoubtedly of serious discussion; but they are questions amongst Christians themselves, and not between them and others. The doctrine itself is by no means necessary to the belief of Christianity, which must, in the first instance at least, depend upon the ordinary maxims of historical credibility." If the doctrine itself be not necessary to the belief of Christianity, certainly either of the two opinions as to the degree and extent of inspiration to which we have alluded, will bear us out in the statement made in our introductory chapter on the Claims of Divine Revelation, namely, that the Bible is of supreme and decisive authority in all questions of religious faith and practice-teaching us, as from the throne of heaven, what man is to believe concern ing God, and what duty God requires of man.