count of it; as a fpecimen of poetical imagery and exaggeration, it can alone be reconciled with our juft notions of infpiration. The calamities mentioned are temporal, and the supposed object probably did not exist; in fact, he seems an imaginary character, brought forward to heighten the melancholy description.

Having examined fome of the material objections against inspiration, let us now see what the infpired writers teftify of themselves. The well known paffage in 2 Tim. c. iii. v. 16. informs us, that all scripture is given by inspiration of God. This is plain, full, and fatisfactory. No various reading is offered to elude the force of the affertion. It must be conclufive concerning books then extant. If it be faid, that St. Paul did not include his own epistles, we have other proofs for the inspiration of them. The following paffages will prove the point: He therefore that defpifeth, defpifeth not man, but God, who bath alfo given unto us his holy Spirit. Ye know what commandment we gave you by the Lord Jesus. For this caufe alfo thank we God without ceafing, because when ye received the word of Gad, which ye beard of us, ye received it not as the

word

word of man, but as it is in truth the word of God, which effectually worketh alfo in you that believe. Our gofpel came not unto you in word. only, but also in power, and in the Holy Ghoft, and in much affurance, or, as it may be rendered, with power, and with the Holy Ghost, and with full evidence, the truth of it being confirmed by every proof that truth can have. We have received not the Spirit of the world, but the fpirit which is of God, that we might know the things which are freely given us of God. Which things also we speak, not in the words which man's wisdom teacheth, but which the Holy Ghoft teacheth, comparing Spiritual things with fpiritual. I certify you, brethren, that the Gospel, which was preached of me is not after man. For I neither received it of man, neither was I taught it but by the revelation of Jefus Chrift. Nor do the folemn appeals made to the Almighty for the truth of what he fays, at all invalidate this idea of inspiration. They are intended to make a ftronger and a more lafting impreffion. The Almighty is: faid in fcripture to swear by himself. Is this neceffary to the performance of his promises, or to the certainty of his declarations? It is a condefcenfion to human infirmity, and a compliance with human customs: it is a momenD 2

tous

tous admonition of his juftice, faithfulness and truth. Similar to which is the design of adminiftering oaths one to another. The witnefs of our thoughts, words and actions, is always prefent with us, and care is taken that he may not be abfent from our remembrance.

There were indeed particular cafes of temporary convenience or expediency, in which the apostle gives his own advice and opinion, without that plenary authority from God, which was confined to matters of greater importance. The cases themselves fufficiently explain the reason of this, and may teach Christians in general not to confound subordinate duties with fuch as are binding in all ages, and under all circumftances. Of the degree of conviction, with which St. Paul delivers his fentiments on these fubjects, it is not necessary to decide with precision. He speaks as one who had obtained mercy of the Lord to be faithful, as one who conceives that he should be extremely ungrateful to the bishop of our fouls, if he did not always confult the true interest of the Church. See I Cor. vii. 2 Cor. viii.

But should we for a moment suppose that St. Paul and the other Apoftles did not speak

by

by the immediate guidance of the Spirit, it will not therefore follow, that their opinions, as mere men, fhould be lefs conclufive than the opinions of such as call them in question. The Apostle of the Gentiles had a vigorous and comprehenfive mind: he was acquainted with all the comments and all the refinements upon the law he was converfant with the Grecian poets and with the Grecian customs; he understood their philofophy. He was not liable to the charge of credulity, for his prejudices had turned the contrary way. Under fuch circumftances a fober minded critick would not hastily charge him with error and sophistry, with a misconstruction of prophecies, or an improper application of them. Much less would he suppose that an epistle, which is to be confidered as the model of our argumentation with the Jews, fhould be fo figurative as to have types without antitypes, fhadows without correfponding fubftance, mentioning facrifices without any folid meaning, but to beguile rooted prepoffeffion into compliance, and reducing the Saviour of the world to the quality of a mere martyr and a mere man. But what miferable fubterfuges will not fome have recourse to, when a paffage, quoted in the first chapter from the

D 3

hundred

1

hundred and fecond pfalm, afferting the divinity of Chrift, and the creation of the world by him, shall be placed in a parenthesis or be deemed a digreffion.

Of the prophecies and expreffions quoted from the Old Teftament in the New, fome are adduced in direct proof, fome by way of accommodation. Yet perhaps this accommodation is less frequent than is generally fuppofed. It is doubted by an eminent and a very diffident critick, whether the fecond pfalm has any reference at all to David.* And it may also be doubted, whether the prophecy applied to the children in Bethlehem, and that applied to Judas in the acts, were not designed to foretel each of those horrid crimes.

The industry of the learned has proved to us that paffages are quoted in substance, but not always in words, that they are quoted from the tranflation of the Septuagint, and that every attempt to fettle an exact agreement must be unsuccessful, for no collation of MSS will bring about what never fubfifted nor was

See Merrick on the Pfalms.

+ See Dr. Randolph's preface to his edition of paffages quoted from the Old Teftament in the New.

ever