inspired. The Bible is said to be inspired, in no other sense than the government of the Israelites might be termed inspired-that is, the persons who wrote the Bible, and those who were appointed to govern God's people of old, were divinely commissioned and miraculously qualified, so far as was needful, for their respective employments.

This being so, the inspiration of Scripture is not, by the strict rule of division, opposed to the inspiration of persons; but forms one branch of that multifarious ministry in which those persons were engaged. It is nevertheless convenient to distinguish it, as I have done, from all other inspired agency, in examining the nature of the proofs on which it rests: and this for two reasons. I. It comprises that portion of the sacred ministry which is permanent, and is addressed immediately and especially to us. The acts and preaching of prophets, apostles, and other extraordinary dispensers of God's word, constituted their ministry to those of their own age; their writings form their ministry to us also and to all ages. II. Scripture contains the only authentic record of all other inspired agency; and thus

becomes the channel through which all other is proved. It is the more important too to observe this distinction; because the inspiration of the author in writing, is liable to be confounded, in the reader's view, with the inspiration of those whose acts he is recording: and this especially, if the writer was himself an actor in the scenes he has narrated. The questions, for example, which relate to the inspiration of the Pentateuch, and of Moses performing the part which is ascribed to him in that portion of Scripture, are quite distinct.

The proof requisite for establishing the divine authority of any writings, when (as in the case of the Bible) the testimonial miracles of the authors can be no longer witnessed, is either, I. That some miracle be implied in the authorship; or, II. That there be satisfactory testimony that the writers were persons who performed miracles; or, III. That there be satisfactory testimony, that the writings were recognised as works of inspiration, by persons who must have been assured of this on the evidence of miracles.

In the application of these positive proofs, the question of antecedent probability is, of course,

no less important than when inspiration is claimed for a living person. This a priori presumption is in the case of Scripture very strong; and the inquirer who has not estimated its force, does not deal fairly with the testimony to miracles. That God should have committed his Revelations (supposing Him to have made any) to the uncertain channel of oral tradition, or uninspired record, is, of itself, a monstrous supposition. If we grant that Revelation exists, we may reasonably expect to find its truths preserved certainly and infallibly somewhere. The Roman Catholics insist much on this view; and urge it in favour of the claims of Papal infallibility. And undoubtedly they are right so far, that the antecedent probability of an infallible guide, should lead us to examine well the claims of any authority which pretends to be that guide. They claim the benefit of this antecedent probability, and they should be allowed it. Only let us carefully remember what the use and value of it is-it recommends to our notice the appropriate proof, and that proof is miracle. Let each successive Pope perform sensible testimonial miracles; and then there may be a question, whether he, or Scripture, or both,

be infallible. It is antecedently probable, nay certain, that Revelation would be left infallibly to be communicated to all in every age. This does not prove that Scripture is that infallible medium of Revelation, any more than it proves the Pope to be; but it recommends to our notice the miraculous evidence that exists for the one, and does not for the other.

§. 3. External proofs of Scriptural inspiration.

It is not my purpose to pursue the details of the argument, by which our Scriptures are either traced to authors who worked testimonial miracles; or else, are shewn to have had their inspiration recognised by persons who must have been satisfied by miraculous evidence; but merely to point out the principles on which this chain of external evidence, as it is called, hangs together. The details, if not already familiar to the reader, will be found in Lardner's Gospel Credibility, Jones's Canon of the New Testament, and other works of easy access to all. The course of argument usually pursued amounts to this.

The primitive Church was assured of the inspiration of our Scriptures by the miracles of those who wrote the New Testament, and bore witness to the Old; and again, by the miracles of those, who, not being themselves authors, yet received and recommended both the Old and New Testament as works of inspiration. To us this proof is conveyed by the intervention of many links of evidence. We first satisfy ourselves, through human testimony of various kinds, that the authors and qualified approvers of Scripture wrought miracles; and so, join the early Church, in admitting the divine authority of the Scriptures on the evidence of these miracles.

This argument, it is plain, is made up of numerous links of proof. It is plain too, that the greater portion of these proofs, we cannot, be we ever so highly-gifted or industrious, examine for ourselves; but must admit them on the authority of others. For example, in order to prove that the Epistle to the Hebrews is an inspired work, we first ascertain, perhaps, that it was known to the Church as the work of Paul the apostle, at a time when the Church was competent to give testi