though, it must be confessed, in a very cautious manner, some views on the subject of the inspiration of the sacred writers, which we believe are far from being true and Scriptural. We are compelled to believe that this venerable teacher in Israel has advocated loose views on this all-important subject, and we feel compelled to withstand him, notwithstanding the great respect we have for his powers and attainments.

The doctrine of a verbal inspiration of the sacred writings we had supposed was the doctrine of all orthodox divines, and the doctrine which has been generally received in the evangelical churches. and that not the thoughts only were inspired, but the writing; that the sacred writers were not merely in an inspired state, but were moved and excited to action in writing by the Holy Ghost. 2 Peter i, 21. But such does not seem to be the view of Prof. Stuart. He asserts that inspiration is a state and not an act. And that the reader may see we do not join on a false issue with the professor, we will quote his own statements.

"The result of all my researches into the nature of inspiration is a full belief that its influence is rather to be considered as resulting in a state than in an act. What I mean, is, that by inspiration the state or condition of him who is the subject of it is affected; his mind is enlightened respecting things proper to be said, of which he was before totally or partially ignorant; his views and affections are elevated; his powers of mind are in a degree quickened and heightened; things sensual, and deluding, and degrading, recede, and for the time being cease to annoy him; and his judgment, as to what he is to communicate, becomes not only more discerning, but more sound and safe. The inspired John, for example, is the same individual as the uninspired John, and retains all the innocent peculiarities of his character and habitudes; but the inspired John is elevated, enlightened, quickened, keen of discernment, even to such a degree that future things can be seen from his elevated condition; and he is so guided by all the combinations of influence upon him, that he will communicate nothing but truth. Were I to choose a simile for illustration, I should say that the inspired man ascends an intellectual and moral eminence, so high that his prospect widens almost without bounds, and what is altogether hidden from ordinary men is more or less distinctly within his view."Vol. i, p. 107.

Here we have the views of this venerable teacher and expounder of God's word in respect to the theopneusty, or divine inspiration, of the Holy Scriptures. We read the extract above, together with several pages which follow, with mingled feelings of surprise and regret. The paragraphs on this subject are written with much caution, and we feared, on the first reading, that our impressions of his doctrine might be erroneous. But on carefully re-reading

what he has written on this subject, our impressions became still stronger that Prof. Stuart gives up the doctrine of a verbal inspiration; and even scarcely admits that which is technically called the inspiration of illumination. The professor says, "the inspired man ascends an intellectual and moral (?) eminence;" not that he is taught by the Spirit of God, but he is elevated in respect to his understanding, and improved in respect to his moral powers. Inspiration is a "state" of the sacred writer's soul, and not the "act" of the Holy Spirit. The "inspired writer is not the mere passive instrument of the Spirit of God," so as to write "what is dictated to him verbatim et literatim." The office of the Spirit of God is not so much to teach man what to write, as to elevate his soul, so as to prepare him to write the truth.

With Prof. Stuart truth seems to be that which is inspired, and not the words and costume of the sacred writers. For an illustration of his views he refers to the eighteenth Psalm for an example. He remarks:

"If we peruse attentively the eighteenth Psalm, we shall soon see that the picture there given of the descent of the divine Majesty, of his bowing the heavens, shaking the earth, riding upon a cherub, surrounding himself with dark clouds, and lightning, and thunder, scattering the enemies of David by hailstones and coals of fire, laying bare the deepest abysses of the sea, and drawing the chosen king out of many waters—that all this is plainly costume. The simple truth that lies under all these symbols, is, that God appeared for David, that is, manifested his favor toward him, oftentimes and in an extraordinary manner, and delivered him from enemies and persecutors. No one who well understands the nature of poetry and the use of symbols will object to this view; and surely no one can regard all this as in any measure derogatory to the dignity and truthfulness of the sacred writings."-Vol. i, p. 170.

He proceeds now to apply these views to the Apocalypse, and asks the following questions, which, it is evident in the professor's mind, should be answered in the affirmative :—

"Is the Apocalypse now only a more protracted series of symbols, which are of the like nature? Are the visions themselves and all the objects of them merely the drapery thrown around the body of truth that lies within? Do all these things depend merely on the judgment and imagination of the writer, as to the manner in which he should develop the views which he entertained ?"—Vol. i, p. 170

"All these things," that is, the symbols and the visions, and of course the language in which they are conveyed,-"all these things depend merely on the judgment and imagination of the writer." Let it be remarked, he says they depend merely on the judgment and imagination of the writer. This we conceive to be next door

to a total denial of the inspiration of the Holy Scriptures,-or of the inspiration of them in a proper sense. "It is enough," says the professor, "that he (the sacred writer) is guarded from error, and that truths beyond his natural powers are impressed upon his mind." And even then, when the sacred writer would reveal "truths beyond his natural powers," he only "ascends an intellectual and moral eminence." By what means this is done we are not distinctly informed.

To say the least of these views of inspiration by Prof. Stuart, they are exceedingly loose, and in our opinion decidedly dangerThis is not the time for us who love and reverence the Bible as the word of God, to give an uncertain sound on this subject.

ous.

There is a numerous class of persons who are mostly made up of German theologians, (we might better say, perhaps, German Neologians,) such as Schleiermacher, Dewette, and many others, both of Germany and of this country, who reject all miraculous inspiration, and attribute to the sacred writers what Cicero attributes to the poets; afflatum spiritus divini, "a divine action of nature, an interior power like the other vital forces of nature." Prof. Stuart does not belong to this class, but seems to approach nearer to those who hold to the inspiration of superintendence and elevation, where the thoughts of the writers are preserved from error, while their language is altogether human.

It is to this latter view that we must earnestly object. In regard to the other view referred to above, though we consider it altogether erroneous, we do not consider it important at present to travel out of our way to refute it. We have to do especially at present with the author of the Commentary on the Apocalypse. That his views are wrong on this subject we as fully believe as we believe those of Dewette and Schleiermacher are wrong; and wrong at this point, that he does not admit a full, a plenary inspiration of the very words and imagery, as well as the thoughts, of the sacred writers.

In confirmation of this doctrine of inspiration we need only refer to a few plain passages of the Scriptures themselves. In 2 Peter i, 21, it is said, The prophecy came not in old time by the will of man; but holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost. By "prophecy in old time," is meant the Old Testament Scriptures. These (ov TоTE) never came by the will of man,man's will had nothing to do in originating them; neither were they written by man's will, but holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost. That is, holy men even uttered the words of their prophecy as they were moved (pepoμevo, being borne

along, as a vessel is moved or borne on the waters by the wind) by the Holy Ghost. Here is involved not only verbal inspiration, but also passivity in him who is inspired; both of which ideas. Prof. Stuart does not seem to admit.

Again, in the Second Epistle to Timothy iii, 16, the apostle Paul declares that "all Scripture," Haoayρapn, all the sacred writing is, deoπvevotos, by divine inspiration. But how can the writing be said to be by divine inspiration, if the words are not inspired as well as the thoughts? It is for this reason that the sacred writings are called ai ypapai, the Scriptures, by way of eminence, because the very writing is given of God. But if this passage be not thought perfectly conclusive, we would adduce the declaration of the apostle Paul to the Corinthians, ii, 13: "Which things also we speak, not in the WORDS which man's wisdom teacheth; but which the Holy Ghost teacheth." Thus we find, remarks Mr. Watson, that the claim which the sacred writers make on this subject is, that they were in truth what they have been aptly called, "the penmen of the Holy Ghost;" and that the words, in which they clothed "the wisdom given unto them," were "words taught" by the Holy Spirit.

Prof. Stuart also objects to passivity in the inspired writer. It is not necessary to suppose that the sacred writers were always, or even generally, passive in their prophetic communications; but as a fact, it appears to have been the case sometimes. Job tells us "he uttered what he understood not." Job xlii, 3. Daniel also

tells us, that when he wrote his last pages he did not himself know what the Spirit had caused him to write. Dan. xii, 8, 9. When Caiaphas uttered his prophecy, it is said, "He spake not of himself," that is, he was a passive instrument in the hand of God, having neither the knowledge nor understanding of what God made him speak. John xi, 51. When Balaam went three times to the summit of the rock to curse Israel; and three times words of blessing proceeded from his lips in spite of himself, "because the Most High had met him and put these words in his mouth." Num. xxiii, 16. The language of the prophets, "The hand of the Lord was strong upon me,” Ezek. iii, 14; "I was carried out in the Spirit of the Lord," Ezek. xxxvii, 1; "and I was carried away in the Spirit," Rev. xvii, 3; are phrases which show the power of the Spirit, and the comparative weakness of the prophet in moments of inspiration. Mr. Watson judiciously remarks, that "the same force of inspiration, so to speak, was not probably exerted upon each of the sacred writers, or upon the same writer throughout his writings, whatever might be its subject. There is no necessity that

we should so state the case in order to maintain what is essential to our faith, the plenary inspiration of each of the sacred writers. It is sufficient that every thought and every word be communicated under the influence and direction of the all-wise Spirit."

That this is, and ever has been, the doctrine of the orthodox body of the church in every age may be clearly proved. Our limits, however, will not permit us to enter upon this extensive field of investigation. We must content ourself to refer the reader to a late admirable work on the theopneusty of the Holy Scriptures, by S. R. L. Gaussen, professor of theology in Geneva, which was ably reviewed in a late number of this Quarterly, for full satisfaction on this interesting subject.

If these views, expressed above, be correct, we must conclude that our learned and excellent author of the Commentary on the Apocalypse has wandered to some length from the true doctrine on the subject of the inspiration of the Holy Scriptures. In a late work on the Old Testament Canon, Professor Stuart has labored to show that some of the inspired books have been lost. His low views of inspiration may serve to account for so extraordinary an hypothesis. On some future occasion we intend, Providence permitting, to enter upon an examination of this last-named work. At present it would be drawing us too far from the original object of this paper.

The principles of interpretation, as laid down by Prof. Stuart as applicable to the Apocalypse, we believe, are the only true ones. He very ably shows the folly of those interpreters who would make the images and symbols of this book a mere syllabus of civil history. "John was no chronicler of civil events. He was no soothsayer like those of Delos and Delphos. Such things, and such only, as relate to the spiritual welfare and prosperity of the church are the objects of his prophetic vision." Some writers on the thirteenth chapter of the Apocalypse have seen in the first beast the city of Rome, the pope and his adherents; and in the second beast the Church of England!

"But a multitude of expositors are not content with finding even minute ecclesiastical matters in the Apocalypse. They must needs find profane as well as sacred history. The Goths, the Vandals, the Huns; petty kingdoms and states of remote ages; battles fought centuries after John was dead; local famine even, and pestilence, earthquakes,

Theopneusty, or, the Plenary Inspiration of the Holy Scriptures, by S. R. L. Gaussen, professor of theology in Geneva. Translated by E. N. Kirk. New-York: John S. Taylor & Co., 145 Nassau-street.