"Many will say to Me in that day, Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied in Thy name, and in Thy name done many wonderful works? And then will I profess unto them, I never knew you!"

From what has been just said it will appear that the character of that Divine influence, under which the Bible has been composed, was absolutely unique, and specifically different from those preventing and assisting graces of the Holy Ghost which have been the gift of Christ to His Church. I have not, for obvious reasons, thought it advisable to lay aside the established theological term, or to substitute for Inspiration' the word 'The

xapíopara would work), but the same Lord (Christ, the Lord of the Church, Whose it is to appoint all ministrations in it); and varieties of operations (effects of Divine Evépyetat), and the same God, Who works all of them in all persons (all the xapíopara in all who are gifted). Thus we have God the Father, the first source and operator of all spiritual influence in all: God the Son, the Ordainer in His Church of all ministries by which this influence may be legitimately brought out for edification: God the Holy Ghost, dwelling and working in the Church, and effectuating in each man such measure of His gifts as He sees fit."

The distribution of those gifts is thus described by the Apostle: "To one is given by the Spirit the word of wisdom; to another the word of knowledge; to another faith; to another the gifts of healing; to another the working of miracles; to another prophecy; to another discerning of spirits; to another divers kinds of tongues; to another the interpretation of tongues. But all these worketh (Evɛpyɛi) that one and the self-same Spirit, dividing to every man severally as He will."-ver. 8-11. The case of the Tyrian prophets, already quoted (Lecture i. p. 43), affords a striking illustration of this division of "spiritual gifts." On the other hand, in the persons of the different authors of Scripture, as such, those various gifts were combined and cooperated. Cf. their union in the persons of the Apostles after Pentecost, when they spoke with tongues, performed miracles, expounded, taught, &c., &c. In this fact consisted the pre-eminence of such men over all others:-rav ovv dкovoys (writes 8. Chrysostom), πρῶτον ἀποστόλους, δεύτερον προφήτας, τρίτον ποιμένας καὶ διδασκάλους, χαρίσματα ἰαμάτων, ἀντιλήψεις, κυβερνήσεις, γένη γλωσσῶν, μάθε ὅτι πᾶσα ή χορηγία τῶν λοιπῶν χαρισμάτων, ὥσπερ ἐν κεφαλῇ, τῇ ̓ΑποσTоλ ÉVATÓ KEITAL.-Homil. de util. lect. Script. t. ii. p. 77. For some additional remarks on this subject, see Appendix K.

1

1 S. Matt. vii. 22, 23. The remarks of S. Thomas Aquinas on this subject are as profound as they are philosophical. He is discussing the question: "Utrum bonitas morum requiratur ad Prophetiam." After stating the arguments urged in support of the affirmative, he adds: "Sed contra est, quod Matt. vii. 22, his qui dixerant: 'Domine, nonne in nomine tuo prophetavimus?' respondetur: 'Nunquam novi vos.' 'Novit' autem 'Dominus eos qui sunt Ejus,' ut dicitur 2 ad Timoth. ii. 19. Ergo prophetia potest esse in his qui non sunt Dei per gratiam. * * * Prophetia potest esse sine charitate: quod apparet ex duobus. Primo, quidem, ex actu utriusque. Nam Prophetia pertinet ad intellectum, cujus actus præcedit actum voluntatis, quam perficit caritas: unde et Apostolus, 1. ad Cor. xiii., Prophetiam connumerat aliis ad intellectum pertinentibus, quæ possunt sine caritate haberi. Secundo, ex fine utriusque: datur enim Prophetia ad utilitatem ecclesiæ, sicut et aliæ gratiæ gratis datæ, secundum illud Apostoli 1 ad Corinth. xii. 7: 'Unicuique datur manifestatio Spiritus ad utilitatem. Non autem ordinatur directe ad hoc quod affectus ipsius Prophetæ conjungatur Deo, ad quod ordinatur caritas. Et ideo Prophetia potest esse sine bonitate morum, quantum ad propriam radicem hujus bonitatis."-Summ. Theol., 2da 2dæ, qu. clxxii. art. 4. t. xxiii. p. 301.

opneustia,' which many writers seem inclined to prefer.' The distinction, however, to which I have adverted must be carefully borne in mind. The inspiration of the authors of the Bible was an energy altogether objective, and directed to supply the wants of the Church. The inspiration of the Christian is altogether subjective, and directed to the moral improvement of the individual. The sacred narrative decides this question. The histories of David' and Solomon, of Balaam' and Jonah,' of the

1 The word 'Theopneustia' has been formed from the adjective Oɛóπvevσrоs, which S. Paul applies to the Old Testament Scriptures-see infra, Lecture vi. The term 'Inspiratio' seems to have been used from the earliest times as expressive of the Holy Ghost's agency in the composition of Scripture. Thus the Vulgate translates 2 Tim. iii. 16-"Omnis Scriptura divinitus inspirata" (PeónνEVOTOS): and again 2 S. Pet. i. 21-"Spiritu Sancto inspirati (pepóμevoi), locuti sunt sancti Dei homines." The substantive occurs in its version of Job, xxxii. 8, "Spiritus est in hominibus, et inspiratio Omnipotentis (nn) dat intelligentiam;" where the LXX. has von de ПlaPTOK ÚTopor. The Vulgate, however, translates the same phrase in Job, xxxiii. 4, by "spiraculum Omnipotentis;" by which it also renders "the breath of life" (Gen. ii. 7). See Töllner, "Die göttl. Eingebung," s. 85 ff.

2 As further exemplifying this principle, it may not be amiss to observe that the influence of the Holy Spirit, in this sense, is represented in Scripture as the distinctive gift of the Christian dispensation. Our Lord has, indeed, expressly declared that the Holy Ghost co-operated in the composition of the Old Testament ("How then doth David in Spirit-Ev Пlveiμari-call Him Lord," &c.-S. Matt. xxii. 43); but we also read again: "This spake He of the Spirit (Epì тov Пvεúμaros), which they that believe on Him should receive (ô žμɛλhov λaμßávɛiv): for the Holy Ghost WAS NOT YET ( v v π w у ù ρ η v II vɛ vμ a) because that Jesus was not yet glorified."-S. John, vii. 39. Cf. the saying of Christ: "Verily I say unto you, among them that are born of women there hath not risen a greater than John the Baptist ["A prophet? yea, I say unto you and more than a prophet"-ver. 9]: notwithstanding, he that is least in the Kingdom of Heaven is greater than he."-S. Matt. xi. 11.

3 Referring to the occasion on which S. Paul had rebuked S. Peter, the question is put hypothetically by S. Augustine: "At enim satius est credere, apostolum Paulum aliquid non vere scripsisse, quam apostolum Petrum non rectè aliquid egisse." To which he replies: "Hoc si ita est; dicamus (quod absit) satius esse credere mentiri Evangelium, quam negatum esse a Petro Christum; et mentiri Regnorum librum quam tantum Prophetam, a Domino Deo tam excellenter electum, et in concupiscenda atque abducenda uxore aliena commisisse adulterium." * ** Immo vero Sanctam Scripturam, in summo et cœlesti auctoritatis culmine collocatam, de veritate ejus certus et securus legam * * potius quam, facta humana dum in quibusdam laudabilis excellentiæ personis aliquando credere timeo reprehendenda, ipsa divina eloquia mihi sint ubique suspecta.-Ad Hieron. Ep. lxxxii. t. ii. p. 191.

S. Augustine observes as to Balaam's character: "Postea illi et angelus loquitur, arguens et improbans ejus viam: quo viso tamen exterritus adoravit. Deinde ire permissus est, ut jam per ipsum prophetia clarissima proferretur. Nam omnino permissus non est dicere quod volebat, sed quod virtute Spiritus cogebatur. Et ipse quidem reprobus mansit."-Quæst. in Num. xlviii. lib. iv. t. iii. p. 549. S. Ambrose writes as follows: "Sed non mireris infusum auguri a Domino quod loqueretur, quando infusum legis in Evangelio etiam principi Synagogæ [scil. Caiapha] uni ex persequentibus Christum, quia oportet unum hominem mori pro populo. In quo nou prophetiæ meritum, sed adsertio veritatis est; ut adversariorum testimonio manifestaretur, quo perfidia non credentium vocibus suorum augurum redargueretur."— Epist. 1. t. ii. p. 994.

The case of Jonah illustrates, in a striking manner, the distinction which our Lord has drawn between "a prophet" and "a righteous man"-the chief forms of

disobedient Prophet' and S. Peter himself, all prove that personal excellence is not essential to the due reception, and perfect transmission of God's Revelation. Whatever may have been our anticipations on this subject, such facts cannot be disputed; and a moment's consideration will show that the fullest recognition of them not only does not derogate from, but, on the contrary, establishes the supreme authority of the Bible. On any other view, however we may exalt the personal excellence of the sacred writers, in that same degree must we diminish the obligation to regard what they have written as infallible. Infallibility does not admit of degrees. Now there was but ONE Who "was in all points tempted like as we are, yet without sin." Whenever, therefore, we attempt to estimate the amount of deference due to Holy Scripture by the amount of moral perfection to which its various authors have attained, we can no longer refuse to admit that imperfect views of doctrine, and partial, if not erroneous, representations of facts may-nay, must-exist in its pages; for we are at once encountered by the argument, the truth of which experience proves, and Scripture itself teaches, that the brightest purity, if enshrined in merely human form, will yet be clouded by the shadow which still rests upon the gates of Paradise."

Old Testament piety: "He that receiveth a prophet in the name of a prophet shall receive a prophet's reward; and he that receiveth a righteous man, in the name of a righteous man, shall receive a righteous man's reward."—S. Matt. x. 41. Cf. Olshausen, in loc.

11 Kings, xiii.

2 Hebr. iv. 15.

3 Mr. Maurice, in his volume of "Theological Essays," has devoted the thirteenth essay to the question of Inspiration. The chief topic there discussed is that distinction between the significations of the word 'Inspiration' which has been now considered; and on this subject Mr. Maurice's opinion is adverse to that which I have advocated. Í venture to think that this difference of opinion has arisen from one of those ambiguities of language which have tended to obscure the question of Inspiration to a greater extent, perhaps, than any other within the range of Theology. Mr. Maurice approaches this topic as follows: "Religious men, the most earnestly religious men, speak of themselves as taught, actuated, inhabited by a Divine Spirit. They declare that they could know nothing of the Scriptures except they were under this guidance. Is this the Inspiration which we attribute to the writers of the Old and New Testament, or is that different from it in kind?"-p. 321. Mr. Maurice then proceeds to observe that "the Church of England has used this very word 'Inspiration,'"-viz., in the Collect for the Fifth Sunday after Easter, and in the Communion Service, on which he asks: "Are we paltering with words in a double sense? When we speak of Inspiration, do we mean Inspiration? When we refer to the Inspiration of the Scriptures in our sermons, ought we to say, 'Brethren, we beseech you not to suppose that this Inspiration at all resembles that for which we have been praying. They are generically, essentially unlike."-p. 323. The use here of the word 'generically indicates, I apprehend, the source of Mr. Maurice's opinion on this subject. He appears to have thought that if the word 'Inspiration' implies two distinct kinds of influence, the reference of either

The very manner in which Scripture notices this inherent frailty of even the organs of Revelation, forcibly illustrates how the Divine element engaged in its composition has neutralized every tendency which is merely human. Take the case of S. Peter's denial of his Master. We can find in the Gospel narrative no stern denunciation of the act; no indignant allusion to its cowardice or its ingratitude: lightly as the glance of the Lord Himself fell upon the Apostle while he disowned Him, the pen of the sacred writers but touches on the occurrence, and passes on. Such failings are, in general, noticed, as we should say, in

"Can we con

to the Holy Ghost must exclude His agency in exercising the other. ceive," he asks, "any view of the Holy Scriptures which would have seemed to him [S. Paul] more dreadful, than one which, under color of exalting them, should set aside their own express testimony concerning the unspeakable gift which God had conferred on His creatures?" ** * "In solitary chambers, among bedridden sufferers, the words of these good men ["our Venns and Newtons"] have still a living force. The Bible is read there truly as an inspired book; as a book which does not stand aloof from human life, but meets it; which proves itself not to be the work of a DIFFERENT SPIRIT from that which is reproving and comforting the sinner, but of the same."-p. 333. Here the writer seems to have overlooked the bearing upon this question of S. Paul's express statement: "There are diversities of gifts, but THE SAME Spirit" (1 Cor. xii. 4). These words assuredly imply a specific difference in the manifestations of spiritual agency; and hence the following alternative does not convey an accurate statement of the opinion on which Mr. Maurice pronounces judgment: "Either we must set at nought the faith of those who have clung to the Bible, and found a meaning in it when the doctors could not interpret it; or we must forego the demand which we make on the consciences of young men, when we compel them to say that they regard the Inspiration of the Bible as GENERICALLY unlike that which God bestows on His children in this day."-p. 334.

Mr. Maurice's motive for dwelling on this question, of itself, accounts for the view which he has propounded: "I have appeared to protest against current theories of Inspiration because they fail to assert the actual presence of that Spirit whom it has been one of the standing articles of his [the Unitarian's] creed not to confess. I cannot deny this charge. I do think that our theories of Inspiration, however little they may accord with Unitarian notions, have a semi-Unitarian character; that they are derived from that unbelief in the Holy Ghost which is latent in us all, but which was developed and embodied in the Unitarianism of the last century."-p. 346. Mr. Maurice, in fact, conceives that the theories "about Inspiration current among our Evangelical and High Church teachers," and according to which the agency of the Holy Ghost in the composition of Scripture differs from the influences which He sheds upon Christians in every age,-have tended to prevent "a full assertion of that por tion of our creed which refers to the Person of the Comforter." Without considering whether this notion is well or ill founded, I would merely observe that the theory' advanced in these Discourses is certainly not obnoxious to the charge of casting a cloud over the Personal agency of the Holy Spirit.

"And the Lord turned, and looked upon Peter. And Peter remembered the word of the Lord, how He had said unto him, Before the cock crow, thou shalt deny me thrice. And Peter went out, and wept bitterly. And the men that held Jesus mocked him," &c.-S. Luke, xxii. 61-63. Compare the single remark which the Evangelists make use of when referring historically to the name of Judas Iscariot"who also betrayed Him," (S Matt. x. 4.); or, again, the narrative of the murder of S. John the Baptist (S. Matt. xiv. 3-12) which closes with the simple statement: "His disciples came, and took up the body and buried it, and went and told Jesus." So, too, in the Old Testament, the sin of Lot (Gen. xix. 30-38) is recorded without

the most cursory manner. The sinful act is dwelt upon, and the violation of the command of God by His ambassador is held up as an object of reprobation, in such cases only where there might be danger of misapprehension, or where the moral sense of itself might not at once reconcile the difficulty. Thus, in the thirteenth chapter of the first Book of Kings, we read how the "old prophet who dwelt in Bethel" seduced "the man of God" by whom, in the strength of the Spirit, the King of Israel had been braved beside the altar. At first, indeed, "the man of God" refused to disobey the express command of the Lord; but he is answered by the assertion, "I am a prophet also as thou art, and an angel spake unto me by the word of the Lord." Here there is plainly room for the utmost offence and misapprehension, which, the inspired historian, without any comment, at once dispels by the single phrase, "But he lied unto him.""

There are many other characteristics of the sacred volume which cannot fail, in like manner, to impress the mind with the deepest conviction of the unceasing presence and controlling influence of its Divine Author. Consider, for example, the superhuman wisdom with which the language of Scripture touches upon the institutions of the old Gentile world in their relation to Christianity. Need I mention here the often quoted instance of how the New Testament writers abstain from all direct reprobation of the great social crime of slavery? They confine themselves to pointing out the source, and inculcating the great prin

any comment. The incest of Reuben (Gen. xxxv. 22) is noticed with the single remark: "And Israel heard it." In 2 Kings, xvi. 10-16, an act of peculiar impiety is recorded as having been committed by King Ahaz and the High Priest Urijah: we are, no doubt, informed in the beginning of the chapter of the character of Ahaz; but were we unacquainted with the ordinances of the Mosaic Law, we assuredly could not have formed any adequate notion of the nature of his crime, from what the narrative itself unfolds.

Ver. 18. The importance of these facts will be at once seen, if we remember that the manner in which Scripture touches upon the morality of many actions related in its pages has been urged as an objection against a strict view of its inspiration. Thus, alluding to "the progressive character of the Scripture morality," and having asserted that an "imperfect morality is plainly discernible throughout the period of the Old Testament dispensation, and frequently embodied, too, in the Old Testament Scriptures," Mr. Morell observes: "These things, it is said, may be explained as being permitted by God for a time on account of the weakness of human nature, or, as our Saviour expressed it on one occasion, on account of the hardness of their hearts.' But surely it is one thing to suppose that God would tolerate these things, just as he tolerates sin in His creatures, while the struggle against evil is going on, and quite another thing to have them either justified (?) or spoken of as matters of moral indifference, in words dictated immediately by the Holy Spirit."-Philos. of Religion, p. 168.