of Nehemiah consists exclusively of the names of those who sealed the covenant, not to mention many other chapters, equally barren of interest and instruction. We have also the language of Job's three friends, of whom it is declared, that they did not speak of God the thing that was right,-of Job himself, when he cursed the day of his birth; of Abraham and Isaac, when they resorted to the language of duplicity and falsehood in denying their wives; of David, who although often magnanimous in forgiving personal injuries, sometimes indulged himself in vindictive expressions when referring to the enemies of his country; and to crown all, of Satan, who is introduced as a speaker in the books of canonical Scripture. Surely, all these persons, Satan not excepted, did not speak under the influence of the Holy Spirit.

It would be easy to show that the term Scripture is used as well for a part as for the whole of the Old Testament, and sometimes for a single text. Thus, it is related by the Evangelist John, (ii. 22,) that after Jesus was risen from the dead, his disciples "believed the Scripture;" that is, the portion of Scripture to which he had called their attention after he had cleansed the temple.

Perhaps, the most apposite illustration of the restricted sense that ought to be put on the word "all," although no qualifying language is used in connexion with it, may be found in 1 Tim. vi. 10. "The love of money is the root of all evil." Strictly speaking, this is not so; for the love of money sometimes prevents men from doing evil; particularly from indulging in licentious excess, and in expensive vices. Justice to our apostle therefore requires that we interpret his

language so as to make it agree with facts, as well as with the scope of his argument. By all evil, then, we shall understand all such evil as he had been describing; viz. "temptation and a snare, and many foolish and hurtful lusts, which drown men in destruction and perdition." In other words, the love of money, situated as christian professors then were, had been the occasion of all the evils which he had either distinctly specified, or referred to in general terms.

It is believed that no exception will be taken, by any professor of christianity, against this construction of the passage; if so, as Paul's declaration in regard to the inspiration of all Scripture has been construed agreeably to the same principle of interpretation, it is a fair presumption that the principle is a sound one, and that the application made of it has in both cases been correct.

According to the view now given of the language of Paul relative to the inspiration of Holy Scripture, the passage chiefly relied on in support of that position is irrelevant, as well as insufficient; for Paul does not say that all Scripture is written, but that "all Scripture is given by inspiration of God;" such as the communications made to patriarchs and prophets, and the language of those holy men who spake as they were moved by the spirit of God; extending the sense of the passage so as to embrace the New Testament, we may add, of our blessed Lord more especially, to whom "the spirit was given without measure;" and of his apostles, who were led by the same spirit "into all truth." Much more than what is contained in our Bibles was "given by inspiration of God." In John xxi. 25, it is clearly intimated that we have only an

inconsiderable part of the history and discourses of our Lord. The same remark may be extended to the preaching of the apostles. But it required no divine inspiration to qualify the authors of the books of Scripture for reducing to writing what they already knew, and they make no pretensions to inspiration as writers. The truth of Scripture does not depend on such inspiration, but on the extent and accuracy of their information, and on their fidelity in communicating what they have related. When therefore we read such passages as the following, 1 Cor. ii. 15. "Which words we speak, not in the words which man's wisdom teacheth, but which the Holy Ghost teacheth;" we regard them as a declaration on the part of Paul and his fellow labourers, that they spake under the direction of the spirit of God; but this circumstance, so far from proving their inspiration as writers, ought to satisfy us that no inspiration was necessary to enable them to write their discourses.

It has been repeatedly said that those, who deny the inspiration of the Scriptures, do not always speak of them with due respect. But this censure can only be attached to those who express themselves improperly in relation to the sacred writings. It affords no good reason for adopting a hypothesis respecting the inspiration of their authors, which is not warranted by their own language. When Luke assigns, as the reason why he wrote his gospel, that he had a more perfect understanding of what he was about to narrate than many preceding writers, it is much more respectful to that Evangelist to admit the competency of his information as a historian, than to impute to him a species of illuanination to which he made no pretensions.

Exceptions have been taken to the strong language which has sometimes been used by those who have argued against the inspiration of the writers of the books of Scripture, as if they exalted their own reason above Scripture; it not being recollected, very probably, that language equally bold had been employed by men in high reputation for orthodoxy, and even by some of the sacred writers. An example, in proof of each of these assertions, will now be given. The first is taken from Dr. Sherlock's work on the use of reason in the construction of Scripture. "Suppose," says he, "that the natural construction of the words import such a sense as is contrary to some evident principle of reason? Then I won't believe it. How, not believe Scripture? No, no, I will believe no pretended revelation which contradicts the plain dictates of reason." This passage is by the author in his own name, as question and

answer.

Whatever may be thought of this language, it is believed that as yet it has not been exceeded, if at all equalled by any writer of a different class.

The other example is from Gal. i. 8. "But though we, or an angel from heaven preach any other gospel unto you than that ye have received, let him be accursed."

It may be proper to remark that there is an essential difference between the meaning of words which are similar to each other, or even identically the same, when employed for different purposes, and dictated by an opposite spirit. On the part of our apostle, his language now quoted is expressive of a settled persuasion of the truth and value of that gospel which he had preached to the Galatians. With this view he puts a

case, the strongest that can be imagined, that himself, or an angel from heaven, might preach another gospel; but that were such an event to happen, any such preacher ought to be rejected; plainly implying, however, that nothing could be more improbable. The excellent character of Dr. Sherlock, and the fact that he wrote ably and zealously in defence of christianity, entitle him to the benefit of a similar remark, bold as his mode of expression may appear. Although it is not intended to vindicate any rash assertions, or even any language which is in the smallest degree improper; yet, surely, it would be unfair and unjust to impute that to irreverence for the holy Scriptures, which is only intended to declare, in a decided manner, a firm persuasion that certain explanations of Scripture language ought not to be received as expressive of its true meaning. The feelings of some persons are peculiarly ardent; this sometimes causes them to speak and write without considering whether their words may not be liable to misconstruction, so that their intentions may be mistaken and misrepresented.

On such occasions, party zeal has prompted those who are under its influence to lay hold on some unguarded expression, and the work of defamation has been carried on in the name of the Lord. As if the alleged, or even the real indiscretion of one, two, or more persons, furnished satisfactory evidence against the soundness of any position, which they had endeavoured to maintain; and as if those who held a contrary opinion were absolved from the obligation to respect those precepts, which forbid us to judge and condemn one another.