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 wape 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. 103.[a]

pp. 101

[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

errors. As both parties agreed in the main points, these lesser differences produced no controversy.-Among the modern scholastics, some seized upon those passages of the Fathers in which nothing more than a preservation from error was asserted. Others urged those in which the strictest notion of inspiration is exhibited; extending it to the writer's determination to write, to the choice of subjects and words, and to the order of both. The Christian world was divided between these two parties; in some provinces the former sentiment prevailed in others the latter. This last was the case in the Netherlands whence it came to pass that when the Jesuits had in public theses defended the looser notion of inspiration three propositions[a] were in 1586 condemned by the doctors of theology at Louvain and Douay although this condemnation did not meet with the approbation of the rest of the Catholics or of the Bishop of Rome himself. The council of Trent did not decide this scholastic dispute and by consequence many orthodox divines have defended the lower notion of inspiration. One, the most eminent among these, was Henry

Holden a doctor of the Sorbonne who contended that the divine assistance in preventing errors extended only to those parts which are either solely doctrinal or have a close and necessary connexion with doctrine.Some others who are mentioned by MELCHIOR CANUS, de Locis Theolog. L. II. c. x. have defended the opinion that inspiration did not prevent lesser errors the result of which is nearly the same with that of the one maintained by HOLDEN.

Most of the Protestants formed a very strict idea of inspiration, and defended it as late as the middle of the 18th century. But after the publication of the learned work of TOELLNER on inspiration in 1772, and of SEMLER'S examination of the Canon 1771-1773, many undertook to investigate the doctrine of inspiration, and gradually relaxed in their views of it, until at last they entirely banished the doctrine so that at present but few admit it.[b] Others attribute to the sacred books a sort of divine authority, only in this sense, that they contain certain divine truths. not at all solicitous whether they were committed to writing by divine authority or not.[c]

[a) The propositions are :

Ut aliquid sit scriptura sacra, non est necessarium, singula ejus verba esse inspirata.

Non est necessarium, ut singulæ veritates et sententiæ sint immediate a Spiritu Sancto ipso scriptori inspiratæ.

Liber aliquis, qualis est fortasse secundus Maccabæorum, humana industria sine assistentia Spiritus Sancti scriptus, si Spiritus Sanctus postea testetur, ibi nihil esse falsum, efficitur Scriptura Sacra.]

[6) It is hardly necessary to suggest to the reader, that, although the author expresses himself in general terms, his remarks are intended to apply to the Protestants of his own country. Tr.]

[c) Jahn enters more fully into the details of the history of the doctrine of inspiration, in his Germ. Introd. Th. I. S. 104–111.—A luminous statement of the various modifications of this doctrine is given by MOSHEIM, Elem. Theol. Dogmaticæ, Tom. I. pp. 127—145.—Rose, in his View of the present state of Protestantism in Germany, pp. 125, ss., gives a succinct account of the opinions upon this subject which have prevailed among certain German writers.- -An able view of the question may be found in STORR and FLATT's Biblical Theology, Vol. I. pp. 242-250. (Schmuckers Trans.) Tr.]

But

As no writer can be entirely free from error or the danger of erring, divine assistance for the prevention of error could not but be useful to the historical writers; but whether it was necessary is with many a matter of doubt, because history written by candid and well informed men is of itself possessed of sufficient authority. inasmuch as in the Bible the religious doctrine is in a great measure founded upon the history. or inseparably connected with it [a] it will readily be seen that the authority of the history affects that of the doctrine; and that the doubts which must necessarily arise respecting the correctness of the history were it merely human, would by consequence attach to the doctrine connected with it. If, for instance, the ancient Hebrews had considered the history of the creation as merely human, and consequently had presumed to entertain doubts respecting the facts related, this would soon have extended, in the general prevalence of idolatry, to errors respecting the Creator. Any hesitancy as to the truth of the account of the Exode, must soon have rendered suspicious to them the whole system of religion dependent on it. Moreover the peculiar divine plan which, as has already been remarked, extends throughout the whole history of the Hebrews, should rest on better

authority than would be afforded by a production merely human. These reasons however, prove the need of divine authority for those portions only of the history which are connected with some doctrine, or with events constituting essential parts of the divine plan; so that the opinion of Holden stated in the last section, might be thought correct were it not that Jesus and his apostles have attributed divine authority to the books in question, without making any such distinction. It might indeed be replied to this that this distinction, being otherwise well known, was taken for granted by them; but on the other hand, it would remain to be seen whether St. Paul, in Rom. xv. 4, does not assert that all parts of these books have a bearing upon religious doctrines.[b]

Whatever objections against the inspiration of these books are drawn from the difficulties occurring in their contents, may be removed by this single answer, that Jesus and his apostles were not ignorant of them, and nevertheless attributed divine authority to the books: they must, therefore, be removed in some other way. [Explanations of these difficulties are never wanting, and if they should not always prove entirely satisfactory, yet this does not constitute a ground of objection to the inspiration of the books, but must not unfrequently be placed solely to the account of our ignorance. The entire removal of many difficulties which formerly admitted of no satisfactory explanation, in consequence of the progress of oriental learning within the last fifty years, is sufficient proof of this.

-With respect to objections drawn from the disagreement of some expressions in the Bible with the established philosophical systems, it is enough to remark, that the sacred writers wrote conformably to their own situation, and to the modes of speaking then generally prevalent, and that it was neither their business nor their intention to afford instruction in natural philosophy. The question, whether all the sacred writers partook of an equal degree of inspiration, which has been much discussed, admits of no satisfactory determination, and is of no importance, since it is certain that all were by divine superintendence preserved from error, and nothing more is necessary to secure for them perfect confidence.]

[a) Compare MORI Dissertationes Theologica, Vol. II. p. 1–106., de Religionis notitia cum rebus experientiæ obviis et in facto positis copulata.]

[6) On the nature of the inspiration of the sacred historians, HORSLEY gives the following opinion: "GOD, even in the more immediate interpositions of his providence, acts by natural means and second causes, sở far as natural means and second causes may be made to serve the pur

pose. The influence, therefore, of the inspiring spirit on the mind of an historian, can be nothing more than to secure him from mistake and falsity, by strengthening his memory, and by maintaining in his heart a religious love and reverence for truth, that he may be incapable of omission through forgetfulness, and may be invincibly fortified against all temptations to forge, conceal, disguise, or prevaricate. That inspiration ever was the means of conveying the first knowledge of facts to an historian's mind is a very unreasonable supposition. It is to suppose an unnecessary miracle. For a miracle is always unnecessary where natural means might serve the purpose. And the supposition of an unnecessary miracle is always an unreasonable, and indeed a dangerous supposition. Unreasonable, because no evidence can prove it, and no plausible argument can be alleged for it; dangerous, because it leads to an unlimited and pernicious credulity." HORSLEY'S Dissertation on the Prophecies of the Messiah dispersed among the Heathen. P. 78. Am. ed. 1815. Tr.]

If revealed truth were contained in writings merely human, there would be continually room for doubt whether the writers had not erred through human frailty; and this would open the way for infinite difficulties and disputes. For as every man is pre-occupied with some particular opinions, and carried away by some ruling prejudice, each one would easily be brought to suspect the writer to be in error whenever his own favourite opinions and prejudices were opposed. To these suspicions his prepossessions would add such weight, especially if any particular occasion for it were afforded, that it would preponderate over the authority of the writer, and thus every one would reject that doctrine which might be disagreeable to him. And as different men embrace different opinions and are swayed by different prejudices, and each would question or reject those parts which were at variance with his own opinions and prejudices; the consequence would be, as Augustin has observed, that "the existence of falsehood in this high authority being once allow ed, no particle of these books would remain, which would not in some way or other, be thought in relation to morals, difficult, or in relation to faith, incredible." Ep. ad Hieronymum.