men, and is the product of the circumstances which surround them. All that has the appearance of being casual and contingent arises from the divine adaptation of the instructions relating to the Messiah to the varying wants of those who were to be thus gradually trained to a proper apprehension of his character. With all the seeming divergence in the modes of his presentation by the different prophets, and the apparent inconsistency even of the characters separately ascribed to him, the fact that they all meet in Jesus Christ, and are seen, by the key furnished by his wonderful person, to be in perfect harmony with one another, shews beyond question that all this sprang from the mind of one who knew the end from the beginning. (4) The prophets often largely adopt both the ideas and language of antecedent revelations. There is the same free variety here as in other features of the scheme which we are considering. The relation referred to sometimes consists in a resumption and further unfolding of the same themes. Thus, as an ancient prophecy approaches the time of its fulfilment, it may be reproduced with new enlargement and additional emphasis. Or an idea which is only faintly suggested by one prophet, may be expanded more and more by those who follow after, until it attains a magnitude and is invested with an importance such as could scarcely have been anticipated from its earliest form. A prophecy may be repeated in precise words from another prophet (compare Isa. ii. 2-4, Micah iv. 1-3), or with the adoption of much of its language it may be freely modified in form and arrangement, and receive large additions. Compare Jer. Ixix. 7, &c. and Obadiah; Jer. xlviii. and Isa. xv. xvi. This may even be done with application to a new subject, as in the book of Revelation the fall of the great Antichristian power is described in terms which are largely borrowed from the Old Testament predictions of the overthrow of Babylon. It is really an old enemy revived in a new dress, and the spirit of the ancient prophecy demands its destruction. Figures and symbols are likewise freely borrowed, e. g., the symbols of Ezekiel's visions and of that of Zechariah are chiefly drawn from the Levitical institutions or the ritual. Or the coincidence with antecedent revelations may be found principally in isolated phrases and in allusions to expressions and forms of speech. All this may appear in one form in one prophet, and in another form in another, and to a quite different extent in different prophets. Some of the older writers thought it necessary to assume in all these cases an entire independence of one writer upon another, and that the words, even where they might be precisely the same through long periods, were directly suggested by the Others of later date, less Holy Spirit to the minds of both. careful of the credit of the prophets, or of the perfection of their inspiration, have charged these coincidences to servile imitation, and a want of originality on the part of the borrower; as though, unable to mark out a new course of thought for himself, he was content with a tame repetition of what had been already said before. Neither of these opinions is well founded. The true doctrine of the inspiration of the prophets does not deny, but affirms the continued operation of the natural powers of their own minds, only elevated, assisted, and preserved from all error, both in the matter and the form of their communications. The familiar words of earlier scriptures would offer themselves no less readily to them because of their inspiration; in fact, there were special reasons why they should be chosen in preference. Words of the Spirit, in his earlier revelations, flow naturally from from the mouth of the organs of the same Spirit in later times. It is a mark of their oneness, an external sign of their inward unison. It serves to link them all together as parts of the same continuous revelation. It is a recognition of the authority of their predecessors, by which later prophets give the sanction of their own inspiration to earlier predictions, and likewise draw sanction from them for their own. At the same time, this gradual disclosure of future events, or gradual unfolding of the same truths by successive instruments, each delivering all that was given him to deliver, while yet the earliest outline implicitly involves all that was to come after, shews that the prophets were conducting a scheme which, so far from originating, they only themselves partially comprehended. The mind which draughted the early suggestions, which are so carefully and accurately expressed, must have been at the same time conscious of the idea in its full and final form, and have designed these later evolutions of it. In other words, the infinite intelligence of God must have both sketched the entire scheme, and assigned to each prophet his particular part in carrying it forward. An incidental advantage of some importance arising from this relation of the sacred writers to those who have preceded them, is the evidence it affords of the canonicity and genuineness of the earlier books of Scripture. There can be no better evidence that a book was in existence and was regarded as of divine authority, than the fact of its being quoted or alluded to as such. Thus, in addition to other incontestable arguments in favour of the Mosaic origin of the Pentateuch, one of great force may be derived from this indirect but sure testimony to its existence in all the subsequent inspired writings. Its impress is indelibly left upon the entire history and literature of the chosen people. The facts of the Pentateuch are everywhere assumed, its institutions shewn to be in operation, and its language cited or referred to in a manner and to an extent which places its existence and authority beyond reasonable contradiction. The testimony rendered in its favour by Hosea, Amos, and Micah, has been exhibited in detail by Hengstenberg and by Caspari, and may serve as illustrations of this method of argument and specimens of the fulness of evidence bearing upon this point which the prophetic writings afford. A like defence may be made, and in fact has been made, by other writers, of the disputed chapters in Isaiah, which are used by Jeremiah and other prophets with the same frequency and freedom as his unquestioned writings. This method of argument has, however, been pushed both by the advocates and the opponents of the genuineness of the inspired writings to an extravagance and excess which is little suited to win favour from sober minds. The coincidence of two writers upon a single expression, or a few isolated expressions, may leave it quite doubtful which was the original, or which borrowed from the other. And the attempt to settle all such cases with absolute precision by fixed rules, in themselves of doubtful truth or applicability, e. g., that the briefer form or the more difficult expression establishes priority, lead to arbitrary and insecure results, and such as no sane man would think of relying upon for a moment in the case of modern compositions. The fact is, that with all the apparent definiteness in the principles professed, there is so much that is indefinite in the phenomena themselves, and so much that may with equal plausibility be alleged on either side, that different critics will in the same case arrive at precisely opposite conclusions, and will prove from the same data a given writer to be earlier or later than another, according as they have predetermined to do. Another abuse to which this relation has led, is that of critical alterations of the text with a view of bringing these parallel passages into more precise conformity. This has arisen from the failure to observe that when the prophets incorporate into their own discourses or writings the language of antecedent revelations, they do so with the full consciousness of their own equal inspiration, and consequently use entire freedom in modifying it to their immediate purpose. Minute variations where there is a general resemblance are not consequently to be referred to faulty transcription and one text corrected by the other. Both are original, and both alike authoritative and inspired. All experience shews how much more likely transcribers were to err in the opposite direction than in the one here assumed. The tendency is much stronger to assimilate texts which had originally a slight diversity, than to create or increase a divergence. The fact that these trifling variations have been perpetuated with such absolute uniformity, is an argument, therefore, not of error, but of the strictest accuracy. ART. IX.—Mr Russell's Letter to the Bishop of Oxford. A Letter to the Right Reverend the Lord Bishop of Oxford, upon the Defence 1862. THE Controversy originated by the publication of " Essays and Reviews" has by no means died out, nor do we see any likelihood of its early extinction. The suits still pending in the Court of Arches, presided over by Dr Lushington, keep alive both the literary and the ecclesiastical excitement occasioned by this new irruption of heresy, or rather infidelity, upon the English Church; and in whatever way these suits may terminate, the excitement will probably be greatly increased. If the essayists and reviewers are virtually or formally condemned, a whole host of sympathizers, both outside the church and within, will start up to defend them, or even to cast in their lot with them, as brave, outspoken, and persecuted men. If, on the other hand, the decision of the ecclesiastical judge be of such a nature as to shield them in their position within the Church of England, the friends of scriptural truth in that church will feel called upon afresh to vindicate the faith against the assaults of internal enemies that carry on the war with legal impunity. The existing controversy cannot, indeed, stop at present, or at an early date, but must go on to its natural close, and will have, we trust, a triumphant issue. The gauntlet having been boldly flung down by divines and dignitaries of the Church of England who challenge the received doctrines of the Bible, and strike at the very foundations of the Christian religion, the summons to the conflict cannot be disregarded by the friends of divine truth; and the battle, so defiantly provoked, must be fought out to the last. Nobly has that battle already been kept up by many well-accredited champions. The "Essays and Reviews" have received abler and more elaborate answers than, from their intrinsic merits, they deserve. Though the objections and arguments they contain are even to the common eye obviously trite and superficial, or sophistical and inconclusive, their authors have been formally encountered and decisively vanquished on their own ground, and with their own weapons, by a number of learned and able opponents. Yet the errors and heresies they have ventilated, and the unclean spirit they have cast abroad over the land, have told to a large extent upon the English press and people. An infidel poison is at work both in the church and in general society, producing symptoms of a sinister kind, and threatening the most deadly consequences. The professed opponents of Christianity rejoice in what they call a new accession of strength to their numbers and their arguments, while many alarmed and anxious friends have been trembling for the citadel of the faith. We have no wish to add to that alarm, or to exaggerate the danger of the assaults that have come from enemies in the guise of friends. We are well aware that the heart of the Christian people of England is sound; that the recognised heads of the English Church are, with scarcely an exception, the defenders of scriptural orthodoxy; and that the common sense and honourable feeling of the country have revolted from the treachery and dishonesty of the essayists and reviewers. The Bible, and the great doctrines of the Bible, are, by the great majority of all denominations, more prized, if possible, than ever. But there is not the less need of vigilance, zeal, and controversial power on the part of those to whom we look as champions of the faith. It must be remembered that the "Essays and Reviews" have had an enormous circulation, that they are written with considerable literary skill, that they have all the air of new and important contributions to truth, and that their influence among many classes, and in various quarters, is undoubted and decidedly pernicious. Though the work itself, therefore, has been refuted over and over again, yet its fruits, literary and moral, of doctrine and of practice, must be constantly detected and exposed; the new advocates of its views must be encountered wherever they spring up; and thus the controversy, as a painful necessity, must be carried on for the vindication of truth and the exposure of error. The publication of Bishop Colenso's work on the Pentateuch cannot fail to form a new element of strife, and to add fresh keenness to the existing warfare. That work, superficial as it is, and destitute of real learning, is eagerly welcomed by the rationalizing portion of the English clergy, and is sure to be largely circulated in quarters where it is fitted to do most harm. Another apparent triumph is given to the vaunted friends of intellectual freedom and theological progress; another great scandal offends the moral sense of all who are zealous for the honour of God's word, and expect common honesty in the conduct of dignitaries of the English Church. Bishop Colenso has done his best to pour oil upon the flame of controversy, and to give that flame a still more destructive character. He has made a burnt-offering of the Pentateuch, and is doubtless ready to treat a large portion of the other Scriptures in a similar way. What will be the immediate consequences of the step he has taken, it is yet impossible to tell. Convocation will censure |