that we have never found a deeper conviction of the inspiration of the writers of the New Testament from any external argument, than from that which is exhibited in the little work of Soame Jenyns, on the INTERNAL EVIDENCES. But this is not all; we would respectfully ask Dr. Woods, how the great body of sincere Christians obtain their conviction that the Scriptures are inspired? It will not be said, that their unwavering persuasion of this truth is merely the prejudice of education; and it is certain, that the majority of them have no distinct ideas of the external evidences of divine revelation. Their faith must depend on the view which they have obtained of the internal excellency of the truths contained in the Scriptures. Indeed, all genuine, saving faith, whether of the learned or unlearned, in our opinion, rests exclusively on this kind of evidence. It is true, that excellence of the Bible which is the result of divine illumination, cannot be exhibited as an argument to others, but it may be, and is, perfectly satisfactory and conclusive to the believer himself. And even to those who have no other light than their own reason, by which to judge of the excellency of the truths of the Bible, we are persuaded, that this species of evidence comes with more force, and more frequently results in an acknowledgment of the divine origin of Christianity, than any external evidences whatever. Some of the most remarkable instances of the conversion of infidels which we have ever known, have been produced simply by reading the word of God. We believe, therefore, that the Scriptures manifest themselves to be the word of God, by their majesty and purity; by the consent of all the parts, and the scope of the whole, which is to give all glory to God; by their light and power to convince and convert sinners, to comfort and build up believers unto salvation but the Spirit of God bearing witness by and with the Scriptures, in the heart of man, is alone able fully to persuade it, that they are the very word of God."* According to our judgment, therefore, Dr. Woods has spoken unguardedly, when he says, "Thus, every argument which has been urged in proof of inspiration, merely from the sublimity, the purity, the harmony and the efficacy of the Scriptures, will be found inconclusive." Indeed, we are so far from adopting this opinion, as to be persuaded, that if the Bible could be placed in the hands of intelligent, impartial men, who were

Larger Catechism.

sincerely in search of truth, without the least information of its origin and history, they might fairly and confidently come to the conclusion, that the writers must have been inspired. And if the Holy Spirit should accompany the reading of the Scriptures, an unwavering conviction of their divine inspiration would be produced, as we know by the experience of every day, in regard to all those pious persons, who believe without any acquaintance with the external evidence of divine revelation.

In regard to the remainder of this Lecture, which is much the larger part, we find nothing which we do not approve; and therefore, we shall content ourselves with giving a brief analysis of its contents. The object of the writer is, to remove some common mistakes, into which we are liable to fall, and to suggest some cautions against erroneous judgments on this subject.

In the first place, it is observed, "That we are not to suppose that we can exactly understand the manner in which the mind is affected by inspiration of God, or how any man knows, that he is under infallible guidance." Next, he lays it down as a caution, "That the influence of inspiration upon the writers of Scripture, was not confined to the revelation of new truths." Under this head he shows, that inspiration often serves to assist the memories of the writers to recollect what they had before known, to guide them in the selection of what is proper to be recorded, and to render them infallible in the communication of things, the knowledge of which was obtained in the common way. This remark, the writer justly considers of great importance, in judging of the inspiration of the historical books of the Old Testament.

The third caution is, "That it is no objection against the inspiration of the Scriptures, that they were written in a language completely human, and that they exhibit all the varieties in the mode of writing, which are common in other works."

The fourth is, "That it is not to be admitted as any argument against the doctrine of inspiration, that in writing the Scriptures, the sacred penmen evidently made use of their own faculties." The fifth, "That it is no objection to the inspiration of the Scriptures, that they contain many things which are, in themselves, of little value." This is a much more im

portant consideration than at first sight it appears to be; for, nothing is more likely to create a prejudice against the doctrine of inspiration, than observing, that the Bible contains an

account of many trivial things. The same prejudice is apt to arise, in regard to the works of creation and the dispensations of Providence, and there is a close analogy between the cases. Many things in themselves are of little or no importance, but every thing, as making a part of the whole, is important; and thus, revelation- would be less perfect than it is, if all events which seem trivial had been omitted. What the learned author has written on this subject is weighty, and deserves to be carefully perused. The sixth remark is, "That it is no objection to the inspiration of the Scriptures, that the real and full meaning of some passages was not known at the time they were written, or even that it remains unknown at the present time." The seventh is, that "instances of apparent disagreement among the different writers of the sacred volume, and of apparent contradiction in the same writers, are no valid objection against their inspiration." If the discrepancies are only apparent, and can be shown to be such, then the truth of the remark is self-evident, but seems to have been scarcely worthy of a distinct mention. But how shall the reader know, whether discrepancies and contradictions are real or only apparent? Until this can be ascertained, the rule here given is perfectly useless; for, while it is evident, that contradictions merely apparent prove nothing against inspiration, it is equally certain, that real contradictions would furnish the strongest evidence against the inspiration of the words in which they were found. But the true use of this caution is, to prevent hasty judgments from first appearances. There are in the Bible apparent discrepancies which can easily be reconciled by a little explanation; and there may be real contradictions in our copies, which may be owing to the mistakes of transcribers. Now, when such things are observed, there should not be a hasty conclusion that the book was not written by inspiration, but a careful and candid examination of the passages, and even when we cannot reconcile them, we should consider the circumstances under which these books have been transmitted to us, and the almost absolute certainty, that in so many ages, and in the process of such numerous transcriptions, mistakes must necessarily have occurred, and may have passed into all the copies extant.

The second Lecture in this little volume, treats a subject of great difficulty, and involves a very important principle of biblical interpretation. It relates to the manner in which citations are made from the Old Testament by the writers of the

New Testament. The objection is, "that in some instances the quotations do not agree with the original; and, that in other instances, the texts quoted are applied to subjects widely different from those to which they were originally applied." Where the quotations in the New Testament are real predictions from the Old, "there can" says our author, "be no difficulty." The real difficulty, however, is to ascertain which are predictions. If we follow the most obvious meaning of the words used, we shall conclude that all those passages cited from the Old Testament, with the formal declaration that they were fulfilled, in events recorded in the New Testament, are to be considered as predictions: but we are cautioned against the opinion that such words as "va anwan "that it might be fulfilled," and other phrases of the like kind, are always used to introduce a real prediction, which was then accomplished. "They are," says Dr. Woods, "often used, and with equal propriety,-I say not in the way of accommodation, because that word unhappily, has been employed by certain writers, to express a doctrine which I think utterly inconsistent with the character of Christ and his apostles-but to denote a mere comparison of similar events, to signify that the thing spoken of, answers to the words of a prophet, or that his words may justly be applied to it; and 80 may relate to what was said by an inspired writer, in describing a character which formerly appeared, or in relating an event which formerly took place, as well as to a real prediction. Accordingly, we might take a passage where it is said such a thing was done that it might be fulfilled which was spoken by the prophet, might express the same thing as such phrases as these, the declaration of the prophet had an accomplishment in what took place; or his words may be aptly applied to it, or they very properly express it; or his observation is true in reference to the present case; or this thing is like what the prophet describes." Such passages, according to our author's theory, are cited in the way of illustration. And he goes on to say, that "this mode of illustrating and impressing the truth, was common at the time the New Testament was written. "It is common too at the present time, and obviously proper at all times;" and therefore, he concludes, can be no objection against the inspiration of the New Testament writers. But as this is a principle of hermeneutics of great importance, let us hear the learned professor further in its explanation and vindication. VOL. III. No I.-B

"Now is it not the almost universal practice of good writers, to make quotations from previous writers, for the purpose of giving a varied and more impressive illustration of what they would teach? If there is any book which is held in high repute on account of its antiquity, the name of its author, or the excellence of its contents; from such a book quotations are frequently made. And they are made, not merely to prove a doctrine which is doubted or denied, but to give additional force to truths commonly received, and to obligations commonly acknowledged. Nor can any one doubt, that quotations from such a book are well adapted to produce such an effect. By their means, the particular truths affirmed become associated with circumstances, which impart to them a new interest, and a higher authority.

"These remarks apply with peculiar force to the writers of the New Testament with regard to their practice of quoting from the Old. All the circumstances which can ever be supposed to influence writers to quote freely from others, were combined in their case. They held the Scriptures of the Old Testament in the highest reverence. They were taught by the prophets, and by Christ himself, to regard those Scriptures as of divine authority; as the word of God; the guide of their life; the basis of all true religion. What stronger reason could they possibly have for making continual citations from their sacred books?

"Another circumstance which must naturally have influenced them to quote abundantly from the Old Testament, was, that they had so few books besides. And this is connected with another circumstance; namely, that they were in the habit of consulting their sacred books so constantly, and with such earnest and devout attention, that they became very intimately acquainted with them. The historical facts, the doctrines, precepts, promises, threats, and the language in which all these were conveyed;—the metaphors, similes, allegories, types, and all the peculiarities of style, found in the Scriptures, were perfectly familiar to the writers of the New Testament, and were wrought, as elements, into the habits of their minds. They imbibed not only the general spirit of their sacred books, but the mode of speaking, and the very mode of thinking, there exhibited. Whenever they undertook to treat any subject, they seemed immediately to recur to passages in the Old Testament, which either treated the same subject, or would supply some useful illustration of it. In many instances, they employed the language of the Scriptures, as their own; it being more familiar to them, and better suited to their purpose, than any other.

"Were the writers of the New Testament singular in this? Do not we proceed in the same manner? And is not the practice so familiar, that we often do it insensibly? In our letters, in