thing in one place, and a different thing in another? And above all, how can it have proceeded from Him who is "the same yesterday, to-day, and for ever?" It is not enough to answer, that these discrepancies do not affect the general truth of our religion, because a testimony may be substantially true although the witnesses do not agree in some subordinate points. Contradiction in minute matters is inconsistent with the idea of inspiration; and, instead of evading the objection, we must endeavour to meet it, if we would maintain the divine authority of the record. In some cases, the contradiction is only apparent, and is removed by an explanation of the passages. When Solomon says, "answer not a fool according to his folly;" and again, "answer a fool according to his folly ;"* the reasons subjoined to these injunctions show us that he viewed the case in different lights, and intimate that what would be proper at one time, would be improper at another. If "the strength of Israel will not lie, nor repent,' and it is affirmed that he repented having set Saul king over Israel,† there is no real opposition in these two statements. God does not repent in the sense of changing his counsels, but he repents in the sense of changing his dispensations; for, like a man who has altered his design, he reversed what he had formerly done. The apostle James seems to be at variance with Moses, because the one says, "Let no man say, when he is tempted, I am tempted of God," and the other tells us that the Lord "did tempt Abraham ;"‡ but the difficulty is removed by the simple observation, that James means by tempting, soliciting to sin, while Moses means, making trial of faith and obedience. It is acknowledged that there are some contradictions which it is impossible to reconcile; but as they may be accounted for by a false reading, candour requires that we should admit this solution; and, in some cases, it is absolutely necessary that we should, because the error is such, that it could not be committed by the original writer. For example, we read that Ahaziah was forty and two years old when he began to reign, although, in the preceding chapter, we are told that his father died at the age of forty, and besides, he was his youngest son. No man in his senses would thus contradict himself, and assert an absolute impossibility; and we therefore believe that the proper reading is twenty-two, as we find it in another book. In the same way we explain the different accounts of the age of Jehoiachin at the commencement of his reign, who is said, in Kings, to have been eighteen, and in Chronicles, to have been eight. From the same cause, too, Solomon is represented, in one place, as having forty thousand stalls for horses, and in another place, as having only four thousand. In a book so ancient as the Old Testament, and which has been so often transcribed, it is not surprising that some mistakes should have been committed; and without a miracle, they could not have been prevented. This is not a mere supposition, but a fact clearly established, by the collections which learned men have made of various readings; and there is no case, in which a transcriber was more liable to err than in numbers, especially if they were expressed not by words, but by letters or arbitrary marks. The following general remarks are applicable to historical and chronological dificulties, and may be successfully employed in many cases to remove them; "that in the Scriptures, as well as in other histories, the order of time is not always strictly observed; that the same persons and places have sometimes different names; and in the case of years and numbers of any kind, * Prov. xxvi. 4, 5. James i. 13. Gen. xxii. 1. 12 Kings xxiv. 8. 2 Chron. xxxvi. 9. † 1 Sam. xv. 11. 29. $2 Chron. xxii. 2. 2 Kings viii. 26. round numbers are used, or an even number is put for another, which was in a small degree deficient or redundant; that periods of time, as for example, the reigns of kings, have different dates, a king being reckoned to have commenced his reign, either at the death of his predecessor, or when he was associated with him in the government; that an event, which, from its similarity to another, is supposed to be the same, may be different, and is therefore related with some difference of circumstances; and that there may be an apparent discrepance in the relation of the same transaction by two or more writers, because one omits some particulars which have been mentioned by another, or adds particulars of which another has taken no notice.' By referring to different dates, we account for the difference in the number of years. When it is said, in one place, that Abraham's seed should be, for four hundred years, strangers in a land which was not theirs, and in another, that they were delivered from Egypt at the expiration of four hundred and thirty years; the date, in the first, is from the birth of Isaac; and in the second, from the call of the patriarch. I shall produce one instance of seeming contradiction, arising from a disregard of the order of time. According to John, Christ was anointed at Bethany six days before the passover, but Matthew does not speak of it till within two days of the feast. It was then that Judas offered to betray his Master; and in relating his treachery, Matthew recollected the event which compelled him to consummate his design, the rebuke which he received from Christ some days before, when he complained of the waste of the ointment. It is impossible to do more than to give you a specimen of the modes of reconciling different passages. The subject is extensive, and you must be referred to the authors who have treated it at length. The two genealogies of Christ are so widely different, that there is no way of accounting for them, but by the supposition, that Matthew gives his descent from David, in the line of Joseph, his reputed father; and Luke, his descent in the line of Mary his mother. Jesus, says Luke, was about thirty years of age, being To, not really, but as was supposed, the son of Joseph, whose true father was Jacob, but he is here called the son of Heli, because he was his son-inlaw, being married to Mary his daughter. The different accounts of the superscription on the cross may be reconciled by the circumstance, that it was written in different languages; whence one of the evangelists has given it from the Hebrew, another from the Greek, and another from the Latin. "This is Jesus, the king of the Jews;" "Jesus of Nazareth, the king of the Jews;""This is the king of the Jews." In like manner, with regard to the exclamation of the centurion, who said, according to Matthew, " Truly this was the Son of God;" but, according to Luke," Certainly this was a righteous man :" both accounts may be true, for he may have uttered both sentences, although each of these evangelists has chosen to give only one of them. No wise man will be surprised that we meet with difficulties in revelation; nor will they have any undue effect upon an honest mind. They certainly call for investigation, but no greater importance should be attached to them than they really possess. We should pronounce that man to be a fool, who, having complete evidence of a fact presented to him, should continue to entertain doubts of it, because there were some things connected with it which he was unable to explain. In cases of this kind, our judgment should be deter † Gen. xv. 13. Exod. xii. 40. Essay on Inspiration, p 297. | Matt. xxvii. 37. K mined by the preponderance of the evidence. If the arguments for the conclusion are superior to the arguments against it, we do not act rationally, but absurdly, when we withhold our assent. It must be a weak or a prejudiced mind which is influenced by some objections to reject Christianity, notwithstanding the abundant evidence by which its claims are established; and we have reason to suspect, that the heart is in fault still more than the head, and that in this case, men hate the light because their deeds are evil. LECTURE XI. INSPIRATION OF THE SACRED WRITERS. Inspiration claimed by the Writers of Scripture-Different Opinions respecting it-Plenary Inspiration-Degrees of Inspiration according to the Jews; According to Christian Divines : Superintendence, Elevation, Suggestion-Account of the different Degrees of InspirationIn what Sense the Scriptures are the Word of God-Did Inspiration extend to the Language?-Character of Persons inspired; Modes of Inspiration-Privilege of Moses. I HAVE endeavoured, in the preceding lectures, to prove the genuineness and authenticity of the Scriptures; that they were written by the persons to whom they are ascribed, and that their contents are worthy of credit. These two points are sufficient to establish the truth of our religion. It is not absolutely necessary to inquire, whether the sacred writers were supernaturally qualified for composing the records of revelation; because if their veracity and competence are ascertained, the facts which they attest furnish satisfactory evidence of the divine origin of Christianity. But however fully we might be convinced of the general truth of our religion, when we proceed to examine its nature, to investigate its doctrines, precepts, institutions, and promises, we could not have perfect confidence in the detailed account, although we should entertain no suspicion of the honesty of the writers, unless we had reason to believe that they were assisted in drawing it up, so as to commit no mistakes either in narrating or in reasoning, and to leave out nothing which was essential to the system. Our confidence would be the less, when, not to mention the difficulty, or rather the impossibility, which persons of the greatest talents must have felt, to avoid all error in an account so complicated, and embracing so great a variety of matter, we reflect that the sacred writers were men without education, unskilled in composition, and consequently inadequate to the task. It might have almost been assumed, a priori, that if God was pleased to give a revelation to the world, he would not expose it to the hazard of being misrepresented, corrupted, and mutilated, through the infirmity of those who should undertake to transmit it to succeeding generations; and that, by a continuation of the miraculous agency which a revelation implies, he would so influence their minds, that those who lived at a distance in respect of time and place, should have the same advantages for exactly knowing its contents, as they had to whom it was primarily delivered. And surely, to those who admit that miracles are wrought to attest revelation, it will not seem incredible that there should have been one miracle more, so obviously necessary, as the inspiration of the persons by whom it was committed to writing. The possibility of inspiration none but an atheist will deny; and it would be strange indeed if its probability should be called in question by any who bear the Christian name, while they are compelled to admit the fact in the case of he prophets. It is not, however, by reasoning, the solidity of which might be disputed, that we prove the inspiration of the Scriptures. We appeal to their own testimony, and might produce many passages in which it is explicitly asserted, or plainly implied. I shall quote the words of Paul, in the second Epistle to Timothy, because whatever attempt some critics have made to evade their force, they convey distinct information to those who are candidly disposed to receive it: "all Scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness."* I acknowledge that the apostle must be understood to speak only of the Jewish Scriptures, which Timothy had known from his childhood, for when he was a child no part of the Christian Scriptures had been published; but if the inspiration of the former is established, that of the latter will be readily conceded. It has been affirmed that the verse should be rendered thus-" Every writing divinely inspired is profitable ;" and it is thus converted into a general proposition, which does not vouch for the inspiration of any particular book, and leaves the question undecided, what books are inspired. This makes it a proposition which communicates no specific information, and is as superfluous as it would be to tell us that the sun gives light. It would have never entered into the mind of any man to suppose that a book really inspired was of no use. But although we should admit the translation, it goes farther than its authors intended; for while it was their design to destroy the evidence arising from the words, in behalf of the inspiration of the Jewish Scriptures, they still bear explicit testimony to it. The apostle had mentioned them in the preceding verse, and he now adds, "every inspired writing is profitable," evidently assigning the reason why these Scriptures were able to make Timothy wise unto salvation. It was their inspiration which made them profitable for doctrine, reproof, correction, and instruction in righteousness. We can conceive no reason for the mention of inspired writings in this connexion, but to attest the inspiration of the books of the Old Testament. Thus the translation turns out an abortive attempt to weaken or overthrow the authority of the Jewish canon. That it is a mistranslation, every person will see on consulting the original, πασα γραφη θεπνευστος και ωφέλιμος. The conjunction 2, which connects bands, clearly shows that both adjectives belong to the predicate of the proposition, and that on alone is the subject. No example can be produced where two adjectives are thus joined, of which the one belongs to the subject, and the other to the predicate. Had Paul meant to express the idea which these critics attach to his words, he would have left out the conjunction, or perhaps have substituted the verb of existence,, as a copulative. Πασα γραφη θεοπνευστος ωφελιμος, Οι, πασα γραφη θεόπνευστος εστιν ωφέλιμες. This, then, is the proper translation, every writing is divinely inspired, and is profitable; that is, every one of the writings referred to in the preceding verse, under the designation of the Holy Scriptures; and thus he asserts the inspiration of all the books contained in the sacred volume of the Jews. There are many other passages in which the inspiration of the Old Testament is asserted or implied. The books are called the "oracles of God,"t by which designation they are plainly referred to a divine origin, and distinguished from human compositions. They are frequently quoted under the name of Scripture, the writing by way of eminence; that is, the inspired writing, according to the words of Paul, which have been considered. Our Saviour appealed to them as containing the words of eternal life, and bearing testimony to him ;‡ and gave his sanction to them all, as arranged by the Jews in the three divisions of the Law, the Prophets, and the Psalms.§ When ⚫ 2 Tim. iii. 16. + John v. 39. Acts vii. 38. Rom. iii. 2. Heb. v. 12. 1 Pet. iv. 11. § Luke xxiv. 44. we look into the Old Testament itself, we find the claim of inspiration repeatedly and explicitly advanced. Moses affirms that he wrote part, at least, of the Pentateuch by the command of God ;* David tells us, that "the Spirit of the Lord spake by him, and his word was in his tongue," and all the prophets delivered their messages in the name of Jehovah. There are many particulars from which the same conclusion may be drawn, with respect to the books of the New Testament. It is evident that the writers were not left to their own unassisted faculties, from the promise of our Saviour, that the Father would send the Spirit in his name," who should teach them all things, and bring all things to their remembrance whatsoever he had said unto them." "Howbeit," he adds, "when he, the Spirit of truth, is come, he will guide you into all truth; for he shall not speak of himself, but whatsoever he shall hear, that shall he speak; and he will show you things to come." He likewise admonished them, when they were brought before magistrates and councils for his sake, to "take no thought what they should say, because it would be given them in that hour what they should speak ;"|| that is, proper sentiments and words would be suggested to them. We do not surely overstrain these promises, when we infer from them that they enjoyed the same supernatural assistance in composing their narrations and epistles; in which it was at least equally necessary, as these were to be the rule of faith and practice to the church in all ages. Accordingly, they did claim inspiration, not only by placing their own writings on a level with those of the prophets, but by many express declarations. Thus Paul tells us, in the name of his brethren, that they have received the Spirit of God, that they might know the things which were freely given them of God; "which things also we speak, not in the words which man's wisdom teacheth, but which the Holy Ghost teacheth." With respect to himself, he affirms that he had "the mind of Christ:"** that the things which he wrote were "the commandments of the Lord; that the gospel which he preached, he had received by the revelation of Jesus Christ;" and that whosoever despised the things which he and his brethren taught, despised not man but God, who had given to them the Holy Ghost.§§ John speaks thus of all the apostles: "We are of God, he that knoweth God heareth us; he that is not of God heareth not us. Hereby know we the Spirit of truth, and the spirit of error."|||| You observe that some of the passages now quoted refer directly to their writings, and that in them all it is assumed, that the apostles were supernaturally assisted in communicating the gospel to mankind, and consequently in committing it to writing as well as in preaching it. On the ground of these declarations, it has been generally admitted, that there is a specific difference between the sacred books and human compositions. Their inspiration has been generally acknowledged; but the question, how far it extends, has given rise to a diversity of opinions. Some have had the boldness to deny it altogether; and some have circumscribed it within very narrow limits. "I think," says Dr. Priestley, "that the Scriptures were written without any particular inspiration, by men who wrote according to the best of their knowledge, and who, from their circumstances, could not be mistaken with respect to the greater facts, of which they were proper witnesses, but like other men subject to prejudice, might be liable to adopt a hasty and ill-grounded opinion, concerning things which did not fall within the compass of their own knowledge, and which had no connexion with any thing that was so." It must strike you at once, that this is a direct contradiction of * Deut. xxxi. 19. 22. [ Matt. x. 19. + Gal. i. 12. +2 Sam. xxiii. 2. John xiv. 26. § John xvi. 13. |