prophet's age, is highly deserving of notice.Those who maintain that the Hebrew prophets brought about the accomplishment of their own predictions, should show how Jeremiah effected this overthrow, with all its circumstances. For more concerning it, see Germ. Introd. Th. I. § 17. S. 82--84.[a]

[a) On the subject of this section, Part II. § 73-80 of this work may be profitably consulted. Tr.]

§ 18.

The Old Testament contains a divinely revealed religion. If the miracles, announced before their performance, cannot possibly have been fictitious; and if the prophecies, so remarkably clear and definite, were published many centuries before the occurrence of the events foretold; it is certain that neither could have been the performances of men left to themselves, and destitute of divine assistance and instruction; but they must, as the performers of the miracles and the prophets themselves asserted, have originated with the omnipotent and omniscient creator and ruler of the universe. But as it appears from the history, and is frequently expressly declared, (e. g. Ex. iv. 5, 8. s. vii. 5, 17. viii. 18. ix. 16, 29. x. 1. s. xix. 9. Num. xvi. 28. Isa. vii. 10-16. xxxviii. 7. s. xliv. 7. xlv. 5. s. xlviii. 3-16. Zech. ii. 9, 11. iv. 9. vi. 15,) that these extraordinary works and prophecies were given as testimonies that the men who performed them were commissioned with special mandates from the Deity, they certainly are evident proofs that those men received divine commands and revelations, and consequently, that the doctrine which they have taught in their books is divine. [a]

[a) Jahn in his German work adds a note of some length, in order to show the necessity and sufficiency of miracles and prophecy as proofs of a divine revelation. He takes notice also of the opinions of KLEUKER, who in his Prüfung der vorzüglichsten Beweise für die Wahrheit des Christenthums, I. Th. S. 276. ff. had maintained, that the miracles of the Old Testament had for their only object, partly the deliverance of the Hebrews, and partly the supply of certain wants of the times in which they occurred. But this is only their secondary object. Their primary object, the proof of a divine revelation, is often expressly noticed. See the texts above referred to. Tr.]

CHAPTER II.

ON THE DIVINE AUTHORITY AND CANON OF THE BOOKS OF THE

OLD TESTAMENT.

§ 19. Their divine authority or inspiration.

Although it has been proved, that the books of the Old Testament contain divine revelations, yet it cannot thence be concluded that these revelations, and every thing else related in those books, are of divine authority. Miracles and prophecies were not granted to all the writers of the Old Testament, nor were they performed for the purpose of proving the divine authority of their books.To constitute these books of divine authority then, it is necessary that their writers should have been preserved from all error by supernatural assistance. The divine assistance granted for the purpose of preventing error, is designated by the term INSPIRATION, a name long since received in the schools, but not exactly suitable for this assistance does not inspire or teach any thing, which is the office of revelation, but merely prevents the commission of error. It is of importance never to lose sight of this idea of inspiration, and carefully to guard against confounding it with that of revelation, an error into which men in other respects learned have not unfrequently fallen, and which has been instrumental in bringing reproach upon the doctrine of inspiration.

§ 20.

The nature of the argument for inspiration.

The divine assistance for the prevention of error is an internal supernatural operation, which can be known only to GoD and to him to whom it is revealed by GoD. The inspiration of a writer, therefore, can only be proved by divine testimony. Nevertheless, nothing more can be required than that a man. who has proved his divine

mission by miracles or prophecies, should assert that the book or books in question are free from error. Furthermore, it is not necessary that this divinely commissioned person should make such an assertion in express terms since perhaps no suitable occasion might be afforded him. It is sufficient if he uses and cites the books in question as divine, which is satisfactory evidence that he is himself convinced of their divine authority. The proof thus afforded becomes stronger, if in the age in which this person lived, divine authority should have been attributed to the books. Any suspicion of accommodation to vulgar prejudices that might arise in this case is destroyed by the very fact of his calling the books divine, or ascribing them to God or to the Holy Spirit, while himself was invested with the divine commission, since such conduct would be inconsistent with sincerity if he did not really believe them to be divine.

§ 21. Whether the Jews possessed any testimony respecting the inspiration of the Old Testament.

Not only the writers of the Talmud, but also PHILO, de Vita Mosis, Lib. II., JOSEPHUS, Contra Apion, Lib. I. c. viii., and the books of the New Testament, Jo. v. 39. x. 34. ss. Mat. xxii. 43. Ac. i. 16. xxviii. 25. Gal. iii. 16. Heb. i. 5. iii. 7. x. 15. xii. 25. &c., testify, that the inspiration of the Old Testament was an article of faith of the Jews in the time of Christ. They seem to have inferred it 1) from the fact that most of the writers of the Old Testament were prophets, whence they concluded, that men who spoke by divine authority, must also have written by the same, and in writing as well as in speaking, must have received a special divine assistance, which would seem to have been the more necessary, in those prophecies with respect to which the prophets confessed that their productions were unintelligible to themselves.-2) What added strength to this conclusion was, that some of the sacred writers were commanded to write by God himself, as Moses, Ex. xvii. 14. xxxi. 18. xxxii. 15. s. xxxiv. 1,27. s. Deut. ix. 10. s. x. 1. xxxi. 19, 25; Isaiah, c. viii. 1. xxx. 8; Habbakuk, c. ii. 2; Jeremiah, c. xxx. 2. xxxvi. 2; Ezekiel, c. xxiv. 2. xliii. 11, and Daniel, c. xii. 4: whence they rightly concluded, that God had either foreseen that these men would write without committing any errors, or by affording them his particular assistance.

had taken care that no errors should be admitted.3) The He brews seem to have received the other historical books as either written or approved of by prophets, since they were so firmly convinced of their perfect correctness as to neglect the coeval records from which they had been compiled.4) To the rest of the sacred books, the Hebrews seem to have attributed divine authority on the testimony of some prophet perhaps of Haggai Zechariah, or Malachi.All these reasons however are by no means sufficient for our purpose: we require some other more certain testimony of the divine authority of these books, which shall extend equally to them all.

§ 22. Testimony for the inspiration of the Old Testament.

The testimony necessary to prove the divine authority of all the books of the Old Testament is supplied by the New Testament. For whereas the Jews in the time of JESUS maintained the inspiration of these books he not only did not deny it but on the contrary constantly considered it as certain, recommended them to others and even called them in express words the divine law the divine scriptures, and the words of the Holy Spirit and of God; Mat. xi. 13. xv. 3-6. xix. 2—6. xxii. 31, 43. xxvi. 54. Lu. xvi. 16, 29, 31, xviii. 31. xxiv. 25 --27, 44-46. Mar. vii. 9, 13. Jo. v. 39, 46. x. 34. ss. -The tes timony thus given was so clear and free from all ambiguity, that it was impossible for the Apostles to mistake its sense. Accordingly, they make use of these books as of productions undoubtedly divine, and recommend them in the strongest terms to others as the divine scriptures and the words of GOD. This they did not as might have been the case, in connivance at the vain prejudices of the Jews converted to Christianity, but also when addressing the converted Gentiles, who had no prejudices on this subject which could have required any accommodation; Acts iii. 18. ss., 25. xxviii. 25. Rom. i. 2. iv. 2-24. Gal. iii. 8, 16. Heb. iii. 7. xii. 27. I Pet. i. 11. II Pet. i. 21. &c.—But of all similar passages that in II Tim. iii. 14—17. is most worthy of notice, since there, as is evident from the scope of the place, Paul asserts that all the books of the Old Testament were written with the divine assistance, convevorovs: comp. Germ. Introd. P. I. §. 22. S. 97-100.—That all the Apostles agreed in

their testimony to this effect, is testified by the ancient church, which taught by the Apostles themselves, with unanimous consent inserted the inspiration of the books of the Old Testament among its articles of faith. This appears from the most ancient creeds such as those contained in the Second Apology of JUSTIN MARTYR, in IRENAEUS Adv. Haer. L. I. c. 10. in ORIGEN'S Preface to his books Epe apxwv, and in the creed of GREGORY THAUMATURGUS and from the assent of a multitude of fathers to these creeds for proof of which see Du PIN Prol. sur la Bible. p, 48. ss. [On the Canon p. 49. ss.].If as many contend Jesus and his apostles in their declarations on this subject only intended to connive at the opinion of the Jews they at least could not have asserted that these writings were divine, and the word of GOD.—The supposition of some that the ancient Jews who were accustomed to refer all natural and eminent endowments immediately to God called certain books divine merely as an expression of excellence, and that Jesus and his Apostles used the apellation in that sense, is false; for this sense is entirely in opposition to the scope of St. Paul II Tim. iii. 14-17. not to mention that PHILO, de Vita Mosis. L. II., and JOSEPHUS. Cont. Apion. L. I. § 8., have accurately marked out the divine authority of their sacred books. Comp. Germ. Introd. P. I. § 22. pp. 101103.[a]

[a) On the hypothesis of accommodation See STORR. De Sensu Historico, passim; Opuscula Tom. I pp. 1–88. (translated and published separately at Boston, in 1817, by J. W. GIBBS.) and STORR and FLATT'S Biblical Theology, Vol. I. pp. 228-232. Schmucker's Trans. Tr.]

§ 23. The limits of Inspiration.

Neither Jesus nor his Apostles have determined how far the divine authority of the books of the Old Testament extends. Hence different sentiments on this point prevailed at an early date. Some of the Fathers defended the opinion that inspiration consisted merely in freedom from error: others asserted that every word was inspired so that the authors were mere instruments of the Holy Spirit : yet these last were not always consistent, but sometimes, forgetful of what they had elsewhere written, only contended for a prevention of