stories of Susanna, and of Bel and the Dragon, were certainly not there, as parts of the Book of Daniel; and the whole Book of Baruch was marked with a note of spuriousness, in a very early period. The present shamefully interpolated Book of Daniel was avowedly introduced in the second century, the genuine book, (which, itself, had been somewhat corrupted in a previous age) being then ejected. The third of Ezra, it is highly probable, did not exist in the Septuagint, when the early Latin version was made; i. e. in the second century. The third and fourth of Maccabees were (it can scarcely be doubted) introduced after the time of St. Jerome; i. e. later than the fourth century. These facts are valuable: they show how untenable is the argument that respect is due to any book from the simple circumstance of its being found in the Septuagint. The Septuagint of one period was not the Septuagint of another period. Even the

Canonical books of that version were introduced at successive times, the Pentateuch about B. C. 286, the Book of Esther not till B. C. 177, and the other books in intermediate periods. The Apocryphal portions were added from time to time, either according to the fancies of the transcribers, or for the convenience of particular churches which unadvisedly allowed these pieces to be introduced into their public services, "for edification:"

it is to this mischievous practice that we must attribute the subsequent veneration which was attached to them, and their imaginary claim to rank as Canonical writings.

From what has been already said, it will be evident that the inspiration of Scripture, and the consequent authority attaching to the contents of the sacred volume, are points which are involved in the determination of the particular books belonging to the Canon. fact, these subjects can never be

In

separated; for if, when we institute an inquiry about the Canon of Scripture, we take that term in any lower sense than a collection of inspired writings, of absolute divine authority, containing a revelation of the will of God, the BIBLE becomes annihilated, for the investigation would degenerate into a mere question about the genuineness and authenticity of certain books. However, the exact sense in which the word inspiration is to be understood, is a distinct subject; and has, particularly of late, been made a matter of much controversy: we cannot but think, that a dangerous laxity on one side, has been sometimes met by an absurd extravagance on the other.

The Socinian and Neologian schools so completely explain away, even when they do not unblushingly deny, the inspiration of Scripture, that, if their pernicious principles be admitted, the Bible can no longer be appealed to as a book of supreme authority. On their system, the historical records must by no means be implicitly trusted; the prophetic parts of Scripture must be considered, as little better than pious reveries, or elevated poetical strains; while the moral and doctrinal portions, must not be too literally pressed on the conscience or the belief of the present enlightened age, but must be judged of according to the circumstances of the times when they were written, with liberal allowance for the infirmities and prejudices of the writers. It is not our present business to combat such pernicious opinions; they are utterly subversive of revealed religion, and completely at variance with its clearest evidences.

Many persons who would shrink from the avowal of the infidel theory (-it deserves no better name —) which we have just noticed, have allowed themselves to entertain sentiments quite as irreconcilable with the divine authority of the Bible. Taking the liberty to ques

tion the inspiration of particular books, which, (by the singular abuse of terms) they, nevertheless, inconsistently recognize as forming part of the Canon, they virtually lay the axe to the root of the Scriptures as a revelation from God. Such dangerous opinions are very common; they were promulgated, a few years since, by a writer in the Eclectic Review, the pernicious tendency of, which was at the time exposed by a correspondent in our pages, (see C. G. 1825, p. 386) and which is now again made the subject of just reprehension in one of the works placed at the head of this article. (Carson, pp. 155176). It is not too much to say, that individuals who thus ingeniously speculate on the degree of authority which attaches to particular books of the Canon, are (however unintentionally) tampering with the inspiration of the Bible, and effectually undermining the truths of revelation.

Various shades of opinion, between the dangerous views just mentioned, and the admission of inspired authority as attaching to every part of the sacred volume, might be noticed, were it worth while to follow laxity of sentiment into all its modifications; but we decline so unprofitable a task, and proceed to state the view of inspiration which has been entertained by the great majority of the Christian community, and which we entirely adopt, as the only one which accords with the facts, and at the same time fully secures the divine authority of the charter of salvation. Our belief of the inspiration of the Bible may be comprehensively stated in the following propositions that all the books of the Old Testament comprehended in the Canon as preserved by the Jews, and of the New Testament, as recognized by the concurrent testimony of the Church of Christ in every age since the completion of its Canon, are of equal and

of absolute authority; constituting "a divinity breathed" (EOTVEVOTOS) (θεοπνευστος) Record, or a "Scripture given by inspiration of God," (2 Tim. iii. 16) that "holy men of old spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost;" that the Scriptures which proceeded from these divinely-gifted messengers of God; were without mixture of error either in matter of fact or doctrine :-and that they have, by a special providence, been preserved to the present day sub. stantially the same as they were originally written. We have purposely avoided introducing, into this general view of inspiration, any opinion on the much controverted points,-Whether the inspiration of different parts of Scripture differed in its degree,-Whether it was imparted to the minds of the sacred writers in different modes,and, What was the manner of communication? No doubt these are very interesting matters of inquiry, but as they may fairly admit of considerable differences of opinion, they ought never to be introduced into any definition of inspiration ; for we are persuaded that the subject has been much obscured by speculation and refinement on points which are by no means essentially connected with a sincere belief in the plenary inspiration and absolute authority of Scripture. It is perfectly true that parts of the sacred volume must have been written under an inspiration of immediate

SUGGESTION ; that part may have been composed by an inspiration of "ELEVATION," and part under an inspiration of “ SUPERINTENDENCE. Indeed, it is quite clear, that while the visions of prophecy could not have been presented to the eye of the seer without an immediate revelation, yet that a mere message from an apostle respecting his cloak and parchments, required nothing beyond the ordinary exercise of his own thoughts: but, between these manifestly distinct points there lie a multitude

of other points, which it would be presumptuous to attempt to define with precision; and it seems far better to abandon useless and perplexing distinctions about degrees of inspiration, and to rest contented with the undeniable truth, that the simplest facts, as well as the sublimest mysteries, have obtained their place in the volume of Scripture through the permission or direction, (though the mode and degree be unknown to us) of that unerring Spirit, who knew that it would be advantageous to record them, for the edification of his church in succeeding ages. • It would be altogether impertinent and insignificant to inquire,' says the pious Doddridge, how far did natural memory or natural reason operate, and in what particular facts or doctrines did supernatural agency prevail it is enough, if I know that what the author says or writes is true, though I know not particularly how he came by this or that truth; for my obligation to receive it arises from its being known truth, and not merely from its being made known this or that way.' We see no benefit to be derived from any classification of the degrees or modes of inspiration; on the contrary, it has led to unseemly controversy, in which statements of an incautious nature, or of questionable accuracy,

on

:

one side, have led to bitter invective and ridiculous extravagance on the other: and this brings us to a few remarks on the ultraism of such well-meaning writers as Mr. Haldane and Mr. Carson.

It might surely have been thought sufficient to admit the absolute authority of Scripture, as a divinely sanctioned record, without the necessity of allowing that every individual word, relating to the simplest statements or matter of fact, was infused into the mind of the writer by the Holy Spirit. But the authors we have just named, and mány other well-intentioned but ill-judging persons, insist upon the

extravagant notion, that to deny the inspiration of individual words, or of the arrangement of particular passages, is virtually to disbelieve the plenary inspiration of the sacred oracles. This uncharitable denunciation of unbelief against multitudes of the most pious and devoted members of the body of Christ, is without the slightest warrant from the Bible itself, and hinges on a dictatorial expositon of the words πασα γραφη θεοπνευςτος in 2 Tim. iii. 16. That this passage plainly declares that the whole of Scripture was divinely inspired," no person can doubt who submits himself reverently to the statements of the Word of God: but that it necessarily means that every syllable was dictated by the Holy Spirit, and that it is blasphemous to interpret it as implying that the minds of the writers were under a divine control, which kept them from error in their simplest statements of fact, and which imparted to them heavenly knowledge in matters beyond their natural comprehension,--is the gloss of a party, not the sound criticism of a candid expositor. Mr. Carson's book contains but little more than a perpetual chiming upon this unwarranted exposition, with wearisome repetition; and he modestly assumes for himself and his friends a perspicuity,' (such is his favourite phrase) which he denies to every theologian, who has not adopted the same conclusion as himself. His personalities against the Rev. D. Wilson and Dr. Smith, are truly disgusting. We readily admit that Mr. Wilson has made use of terms which are highly incautious, when he says of the Scriptures, the mind of man is working every where,'' these are the parts of man,' &c. &c. Such language is very inaccurate, and easily capable of abuse; but Mr. Wilson's real meaning is perfectly clear; he intended no more, than that the immediate suggestion of the Spirit for certain passages was un

necessary; he could not mean to affirm that his superintendence was ever dispensed with: and he would have shrunk from the uncandid paraphrase, the making of the Bible then, has been a part, nership business, in which God and man have had their distinct provinces.' (Carson. p. 3.) But if Mr. Wilson has adopted some inaccurate language in stating his views on inspiration, Mr. Carson has treated the subject absurdly and extravagantly. One example may suffice:

it requires as much inspiration to tell what o'clock it is by inspira tion, as to reveal the gospel itself; if all Seripture is given by inspira tion, the reference to Paul's cloak requires as much inspiration, as those passages that declare the way of salvation.' (Carson, p. 18.) These are the statements of less judicious defenders of Scripture,' which, as Doddridge observes in his day, have led some people to conclude that the Scriptures are not inspired at all;'-they are dangerous in the extreme; and though we would make no concession, to meet the prejudices of the infidel, we would place no stumbling-block in his way. It is true that all Scripture has been placed on record by men who were instructed and kept from error by a 'Divine breathing:' and that every word owes its introduction to the direction or permission of the allpresiding Spirit: but it is no doctrine of faith, that the kind and mode of inspiration were the same in every line; and Mr. Carson's assertion, that the narration of simple facts required as much' inspiration, as the declaration of doctrines, the utterance of prophecies, or the revelation of mysteries, is an unauthorised phraseology, which only tends to confuse the subject, to perplex the believer, and to confirm the prejudices of the infidel.

Mr. Haldane's views of the verbal inspiration of scripture are the same as those of Mr. Carson, but are expressed in a manner more

suited to Christian controversy. Both Mr. Haldane and Mr. Carson seem to have confounded a denial of the direct suggestion of the very words of every passage in scripture, with a denial of the equal and absolute authority of every part of the sacred volume as a record without error. It is not true (though we have recently seen the statement repeated in a religious journal generally distinguished by its candor) that a refusal to admit that the Spirit of God dictated the precise words of some passages of the Bible, is the same thing as to leave every man to receive or to reject just so much of scripture as he sees fit. If the Spirit presided over the whole, then the whole must be equally true, equally authoritative; whether, in reference to particular passages, that Divine Being suggested the very words in which they are expressed, or only superintended the

matter.

Another leading mistake of these writers is the idea that the subject of any record is so intimately combined with the particular terms in which it is conveyed, that the mind of God cannot be conveyed in the inatter of scripture, as a whole, unless His Spirit dictated every word, in particular. Now this is a postulate to which we cannot subscribe. It may be true with reference to those parts of revealed truth which were far above human comprehension; but it is clearly not true with regard to those simple statements of fact and of sentiment which were not matters of revela tion but of record. If the writer, while occupied on these, expressed himself in terms which it seemed good to the Holy Spirit to permit, the record (we may rest assured) was as free from error, and as worthy of acceptation, as if that Holy Being himself had suggested the very words. We are far indeed from affirming that the historical or any other parts of scripture required nothing more than the ex

ercise of memory or judgment in the writers; we only mean to deny the opposite dogma, that every word must be ascribed to a supernatural agency, and that a disbelief of this verbal inspiration is little better than infidelity. We here again fall back upon our position, that an inspiration of control and of superintendence (without presuming to define its nature or its limits) is amply sufficient to secure the authority of the Bible, and the reverence due to its contents, with regard to some passages where to assert universal suggestion would be attended with unanswerable difficulties.

Among these difficulties, we shall only notice two, which were long ago advanced, and which have never received a satisfactory reply. The variations of expression in the accounts given by different sacred writers of the same discourses,and the various readings which have been permitted to accumulate in the text of scripture,-cannot be reconciled with the theory of universal suggestion of the very words; while they fully accord with the more reasonable supposition that the precise expressions were, in many cases, left to the writers themselves, though they were superintended and preserved from error by the Spirit of Truth.

1. The variations of expression, by the four evangelists, which occur in their relation of identical discourses, absolutely forbids the idea of a verbal inspiration: if it be asserted of any one, it excludes the possibility of it with respect to the corresponding passages in the other narratives. It is admitted that an unimportant difference of words, of similar signification, by no means affects the credibility of a narrative; if the accounts substantially agree, a variation in the phraseology is perfectly consistent with integrity of relation. Nevertheless, all such variations of expression, and disarrangement of matter, in records.

JANUARY 1832.

which professedly relate the iden tical words of the speakers, evidently arise from imperfection of memory in the narrators.-It does not necessarily follow that the accounts are imperfect, or less conducive to the purposes for which they have been transmitted than they would have been had they verbally corresponded with the originals; and we are sure that no imperfection attaches to the scripture narratives on this account, because, (having been "given by inspiration,") no important error could have been permitted by that presiding Spirit which furnished the writers with whatever was needful for substantial accuracy of relation. But had the Holy Spirit dictated the very words of the gospel historians, it is inconceivable that any actual discourses-those of our Lord for instance-should have been recorded in two, three, or four different manners. It is replied to this objection, that the God of truth must not be forbidden to use a variety of expression perfectly allowable to man.' (Carson, p. 115) Such a reply is an unworthy evasion of the real difficulty. Verbal variations in different records of an actual discourse which it is of immense importance to relate accurately, is allowable in man, simply on the ground of the imperfection of his memory; were the identical words present to his mind, any departure from them would, in this case, imply a want of judgment or of integrity: but to claim a similar indulgence (the argument compels us reluctantly to use the term--) for the Spirit of God, is not only an unnecessary, but an irreverent hypothesis. We have heard it maintained by some pious but (we think) grievously mistaken defenders of verbal dictation, that the Holy Spirit may have adopted this variety of relation, for the very purpose of placing an apparent difficulty before us as an exercise of the faith of believers, and

F