one of the least of the commandments of the law and the prophets, does not mean merely to live in the neglect of it, but to weaken its authority: the word in the original is the same as in the passage just quoted from John, and means literally to loosen, or dissolve, that is, to take away its obligation. The unlawfulness of this, we find, in regard to the least of the commandments of all the law and the prophets, Jesus Christ most decidedly affirms what then are we to think of those who tell us, that "it is not to be supposed that they [meaning Moses and the prophets,] were even thus inspired [meaning, even according to the lowest notions of inspiration,] in every fact which they related, or in every precept which they delivered.” Did not Bishop Tomline see, when he penned these awful words, that he was herein "loosing," or destroying the authority of, at any rate, some of the least of the commandments," and was thus setting his authority in opposition to the authority of Jesus Christ, who so solemnly recognizes the whole as the immovable Word of God.

3. But perhaps it may be objected, that the title, "Word of God," is nevertheless only applicable to such parts of the Scriptures as contain precepts expressly delivered in the name of God. We do not, however, find that Jesus Christ makes any such distinction; so that we have divine authority for denying that any such distinction exists. Besides, what a door for uncertainty would this throw open! If the writers who recorded those precepts which they deliver in the name of God, were not inspired throughout, they might as easily err in this part of their duty as in any other; and thus it would be impossible for us to know whether what they delivered as divine precepts were really such or not. However, we are not left

to decide this question by our own reasonings; for, in addition to the unlimiting declarations of Jesus Christ, the Apostle Paul gives us the strongest assurance we can possibly require, as to the entire inspiration of the whole.

He says, "All Scripture is given by inspiration of God:"* and it is here to be noted, that the five words, "given by inspiration of God," have but one word [θεοπνευστος], answering to them in the original; and that is one so expressive, that it conveys all that our translators have stated, with that addition of force which results from condensation. A single word might be framed in English to convey the same meaning, but it would sound harsh, as being unusual we however might say, "All scripture is God-breathed:" which indeed is just the same in sense as 'given by inspiration of God;" only the word "inspiration," being derived from a Latin, and not an English root, does not convey to English ears the primary meaning that belongs to it, which is that of breathing-in. Nothing then can be more conclusive than this passage for the full inspiration of the whole of the Word of God. All Scripture was inspired, or breathed-into the writers, by God, -was the result of a divine afflatus, which took such entire possession of the inspired penmen, that it was not they who wrote, further than as to the mere motion of the fingers, but God himself who wrote with their hands. This is what is included in the idea of "Inspiration of God;" and to restrict it to any thing short of this, is to charge the Apostle with having spoken at random, without understanding the meaning of his language.

Paul however does not stand alone in this testimony. He is supported in it by Peter, who affirms the same doctrine, though in quite different terms. "Prophecy," says he, came not in old time by the will of man, but holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost." It is here to be remembered, that the Jews called the writers of the historical books" prophets," as well as those of what we call the prophetical books; as is known to every one who has seen a Hebrew bible. Now

of all these holy men, the Apostle affirms, that they spake, not by the will of man, but as they were moved by the Holy Ghost clearly excluding their own will, and of course their own understanding, from any concern in the matter. And here also it will be useful to attend to the force of the principal original word. The Greek term [pegouevo] translated "moved," is one that conveys a much stronger idea than that of the gentle sort of impression to which we apply the term "moved :" it means carried away,-rap!,-transported ;-taken altogether out of themselves, and possessed entirely by the power of God. So positive is the language of the heaven-taught writers on the subject of divine inspiration; and so decisive is the testimony which they bear to the plenary inspiration of the Sacred Scriptures.

Such being the strength and unequivocal nature of the expressions in which the inspiration of the Sacred Scriptures is affirmed by infallible authority, it really seems extraordinary how they who undertake to explain the divine books, should ever have thought of limiting their inspiration to so low a degree of it, as is unworthy of the name altogether and it can only be accounted for by the reason before assigned; that being pressed by the Deist with the difficulties which some passages present, and not reflecting that these should lead to a higher mode of interpretation, the Christian advocates have seen no way of maintaining the general credibility of the sacred penmen, but by allowing their liability to little mistakes. It would however be but a sorry expedient for the preservation of a country situated like Holland, when threatened with an inundation from the fury of the ocean, should they who have the care of the dykes, fearing lest these should be washed away, purposely make a gap in them, as a means of averting the destructive effects of the waves here, every one secs, that the country, though in a more gradual manner, would equally be drowned; but the dykes,

though no longer of any use, might possibly be preserved. By admitting only such an inspiration as does not exclude fallibility, religious establishments may perhaps for a time be preserved: but the objects for which they were instituted will be undermined and subverted. Infidelity will be confirmed and extended; and the Faith that reinains, being emptied of its spirituality, will differ from infidelity in little but in name. Religion will degenerate into a cold morality, which Deism may supply almost as well.

4. Such laxity, however, did not characterize the sentiments of former times. Though now it is otherwise, the general belief once was, that inspiration really is inspiration; and they who wrote upon it did not attempt to define the thing, to be something entirely different from what is expressed by the name. This might be proved by copious evidence, if necessary; but it will be quite sufficient here to give the statements of Bishop Marsh, in the Notes to the third Chapter of his translation of Michaelis; for though he had such low ideas of the nature of inspiration, at least as far as regards the inspiration of the Evangelists, when he formed his singular theory of the origin of the three first gospels, he seeins, when he translated the first part of the Work just mentioned, which was several years previously, to have been inclined to favour the higher views of the subject at least he had, and has, too much integrity to keep them out of sight. He there, complaining of his Author for not himself giving a definition of Inspiration, says, that "some understand an inspiration of words, as well as ideas, others of ideas alone; a third class understand by inspiration an intervention of the Deity, by which the natural faculties of the sacred writers were directed to the discovery of truth; and a fourth class assume a kind of negative intervention, by which they were prevented from falling into material error; some again assume a total inspiration, declaring that the supernatural influence of the Deity was extended to the most minute

historical accounts, while others suppose that it was confined to certain parts of Scripture." And, as the authorities for the opinion, that inspiration extends both to words and ideas, he gives "most of the German divines of the last [or seventeenth] century, and many in the present" [the eighteenth-for this was written in 1793]. The author whom he translates,-Michaelis,-seems very unsettled in his own mind, both respecting what he should determine inspiration to be, and what books in the Bible he should regard as possessing it; it appears, however, that where it exists at all, he thought it must be plenary, applying to this subject a passage of Paul, which in our translation stands thus: "We speak not in words which man's wisdom teacheth, but which the Holy Ghost teacheth, comparing natural things with spiritual "* which declaration he renders thus: "We deliver doctrines in words taught by the Holy Ghost, explaining inspired things with inspired words." I do not quote this version by Michaelis as adopting it, or as accepting his application, in the context, of the doctrine he appears to mean to deduce from it; but only as evidence, of what this great scholar's opinion of inspiration really was hereupon Bishop Marsh justly remarks, "It seems, then, that he understands a verbal inspiration, agreeably to the sentiments of many ancient Fathers, and many modern divines, who have considered the Apostles and Evangelists merely as passive instruments. is true," the Bishop adds, (and we shall consider the sentiment in the sequel,) "that this hypothesis renders it difficult to account for the great variety of style observable in the Greek Testament on the other hand, several writers, especially Ernesti, contend, that it is difficult to abstract an inspiration of ideas from an inspiration of words." Assuredly, it is difficult and this avowal from the celebrated Ernesti, will perhaps be felt as the more valuable,

* 1 Cor. iv, 13.

It