would hardly think it worth his while to announce respecting any writings, that they are not only from God, but, moreover, useful.

This objection (which it is surprising that orthodox commentators have not more frequently urged) appears to me conclusive against any view of the passage, which represents the Apostle, in his description of certain sacred books, as enumerating their excellencies in this order: 1st, their Divinity; 2nd, their utility.-Yet this view has been taken, I believe, by all who have adopted the altered translation. By embracing within our consideration the 13th, 14th, and 15th verses, a different distribution of the author's sentiments at once presents itself: v. 13.

I. He speaks of certain selfish impostors, who will do mischief by misleading the ignorant from the simplicity of the Christian faith.

II. With the credulity of these victims of deception, he contrasts the stability of Timothy's mind, well prepared against such seduction;

1. By the knowledge that Paul himself, the greatest living missionary of Christ, had been his instructor: v. 14.

2. By his early familiarity with such of the Hebrew scriptures, as were able to prepare him wisely for the religion of the Gospel,-to light his path of entrance into the peace and security of Christianity: v. 15.

Then having mentioned the importance of these writings to the personal faith of Timothy, as an individual, Paul proceeds (v. 16,) to affirm their additional importance to the public efficiency of his pupil, as a professed teacher of the Gospel among the Jews: and this I conceive to be the idea introduced by the word also: all divinely inspired scriptures are useful, not only as supports of your own faith, but also as instruments for convincing others. The order, therefore, in which the qualities of the sacred books alluded to are enumerated, is not, 1st, their Divinity; 2ndly, their utility: but, 1st, their usefulness to the individual disciple; 2ndly, their usefulness to the public instructor.

If then the amended translation truly expresses the meaning of the Apostle, he attempts to decide nothing respecting what books are divinely inspired; but simply points out the uses to which any books, shown to be inspired, may be applied. It is true that he could not have written the passage, if he had not held, that there were some writings for which this character might he claimed: and if we proceed to determine by conjecture, what writings were in his thoughts, we cannot be at any loss for probabilities to guide us. The only parts of the Hebrew scriptures to which Paul's description applies,—the only parts which could preserve in Timothy, and create in others, a belief that Jesus was the Messiah-were obviously those which had supported the expectation of a Messiah, viz., the prophetical books. These writings constituted the great store-house of arguments, to which the missionaries of the Gospel had recourse in reasoning with Jews: and the instances are very few in which appeal is made, by Christ or his Apostles, to any other portion of the Old Testament, except the Book of Psalms. Historical facts are indeed alluded

to, which are recorded in the Israelitish annals; but no authority is ascribed to these annals, beyond that which attaches to ordinary fidelity in narration.

The opinion of the Apostle cannot, then, be cited, except in favour of the prophetical writings. And the sense in which he understood these to be inspired, was probably very different from that in which modern theologians repeat the same affirmation. The whole extent of his doctrine we may conceive to have been expressed by the Apostle Peter, (2 Pet. i. 21): "Prophecy came not in old time by the will of man; but holy men of God spake, moved by the Holy Spirit;"-that those also who recorded these speeches, wrote by the Holy Spirit,-that in addition to the superhuman message, there was a superhuman report of it, is a notion of which no trace can be found in the apostolic writings. The whole amount, therefore, of Paul's doctrine is, that the Prophets had a præternatural knowledge of future events; and that their communications were recorded in the prophetic books. By the admission of these points, the theory of inspired composition obviously gains nothing.

In defence of the meaning which I have assigned, in the Lecture, to JEÓTVEVOTOS, I have only to refer to Schleusner, who enumerates poets among the persons to whom it may be applied. I shall probably be reminded, however, of the technical distinction whieh divines have established between "classical" and "theological" inspiration ;-and shall be asked, whether it must not be of the latter that the Apostle speaks. The distinction is altogether artificial and deceptive. It describes, not two meanings of the word inspiration, but two very different receptions which we give to its claims. When the writers of Greece or Rome intimate the pretensions of a poet, a Pythoness, or an augur to divine influence, and when the Israelites affirm the inspiration of their Prophets, the two claims are identical; both parties mean the same thing, viz., that the sentiments and feelings of their great national authorities have a superhuman origin: and the only difference (except that which attends the Polytheistic nature of one religion and the Monotheistic of the other) is, that we reject the first claim, and admit the second. And if we adopt the same signification of such phrases in classical and in Hebrew writings, is it not probable that in both they meant, neither quite so little as we ascribe to them in Pagan authors, nor quite so much as theologians extract from them in the Bible? They ascribe, indeed, a Providential origin to certain ideas; but in times and countries not enjoying much scientific cultivation, the distinction between the natural and the miraculous cannot be understood with any exactitude; nor will that, which is simply providential in its effects be discriminated with precision, from that which is supernatural in its cause. An interpreter who assigns to this consideration its proper weight, while he avoids melting away the Apostle's meaning into the supposed "classical" sense of inspiration, will not harden it into the rigid form of the "theological."

Note 5. "Experience in their noble and holy office."-Page 16. No passages are more frequently adduced to prove the unlimited inspiration of the Apostles, than the two, the true interpretation of which the foregoing passage is intended to suggest. And certainly an influence that should literally "teach them all things,"-"bring all things to their remembrance, whatsoever Christ had said to them,"-" guide them into all truth,”—“ show them things to come," would amount to the gift of universal infallibility. But the very strength of the expressions, so obviously hyperbolical, far from encouraging, absolutely forbids any such construction. Understand them literally, and they prove too much. The most orthodox upholder of the apostolic inspiration will not maintain that the twelve knew "all things," and were in possession of "all truth."-Some limitation then is inevitable. The promise is not all-comprehensive. There will be little hesitation in excluding from it subjects of physical, chemical, physiological, and metaphysical inquiry; that Paul was not acquainted with the Law of Gravitation, nor Peter with the Atomic Theory, will be readily admitted. We must further proceed to restrict their acquaintance with whatsoever things Christ had said to them; for they differ in their accounts of his discourses. And that they had foreknowledge of the "things to come," even within the limits of their own personal history is contradicted by Paul's assertion, that he went from city to city, "knowing nothing," but that everywhere "bonds and afflictions awaited him." Where is this exclusion of topics from the range of inspiration to stop? What title must be shown, in order that a subject may retain undisturbed possession? By what rule must we fix the line of demarkation, on one side of which every thing is infallible. The usual answer is, that the Apostles' inspiration extended to every subject, with which it befitted their mission that they should be familiar. -And then the theologian proceeds to state the matters, of which he thinks the Twelve ought not to have been ignorant; that is, he tells us what inspiration he would have given, if the decision had been in his hands. It is evident that by this means we make no approach to the solution of our historical question, but gain only a list of learned opinions about the fitness of things.-One divine cannot conceive it to be proper that St. Peter should misunderstand a Psalm; another feels a repugnance to the idea that St. Paul could err in logic; a third entertains insuperable objections to St. James having expected to witness a personal return of Christ to this world and upon no other evidence than the private feelings of individuals, one class of ideas after another is invested with the dignity of inspiration, or deprived of it. To say, it was fit that on certain topics the Apostles should be unerring; therefore they were so; is a species of reasoning, from a supposed propriety to an actual fact, which is altogether inadmissible. If fitness is to be the test of inspiration, what is to be the test of fitness? The whole advantage of inspiration disappears under the operation of this rule. Its peculiar function is, to communicate truths inappreciable by our natural faculties: but if, before we can be assured of its existence, we are to find out what truths are fit to be communicated, we have

already performed for ourselves the very office in which it proposes to aid us; and instead of appreciating a statement, because we hold it to be inspired, we hold that it is inspired, because we appreciate it.

The difficulty of laying down any rule for determining the extent of the Apostle's inspiration, seems to recommend strongly a cautious interpretation of our Lord's promises on the subject of their future lot. If by the "Holy Spirit which was to be their supporter or comforter, we understand their Divine Commission (including the miraculous powers, and such occasional communications as that which sent Peter to Cornelius,) all the demands of our Lord's concluding discourse appear to be satisfied. No preternatural influence upon the understanding is promised; and the natural operation of their mission was sufficient to produce all the enlightening effects, of which Christ speaks in the passages under consideration. It "guided them into all the truth,”it 66 taught them all things" which their Lord had found them yet unable to bear, such as the calling of the Gentiles and the abrogation of the Law: it brought to their remembrance "whatsoever things Christ had said," in reference to these topics, and which, at the time, had made no impression, because their import had not been comprehended. It"showed them,"expounded to them,-" things to come," events which, while Christ was speaking, were approaching, viz., his death, resurrection, and ascension; and which, until their effects began to develope themselves, would remain a mystery to the bewildered disciples.

NOTES TO LECTURE II.

Note 1. "Till they have received the Papal sanction."-Page 23. A marked caution may be observed in recent Roman Catholic writers in this country, when they speak on the subject of infallibility. Nevertheless, the view which I have given of the doctrine of their church on this point, will be found to receive the sanction of their most discreet representative, Mr. Charles Butler: "Every ecclesiastical cause," he says, "may be brought to him (the Pope) as the last resort, by appeal; he may promulgate definitions and formularies of faith to the universal church; and when the general body, or a great majority of her prelates, have assented to them either by formal consent or tacit assent, all are bound to acquiesce in them. 'Rome,' they say, in such a case, has spoken, and the cause is determined.'" In explaining the difference between the Transalpine and Cisalpine opinions on the question of Papal prerogative, Mr. Butler states, that the advocates of the former "ascribe to the Pope the extraordinary prerogative of personal infallibility, when he undertakes to issue a solemn decision on any point of faith. The Cisalpines affirm, that in spirituals the Pope is subject in doctrine and discipline to the Church,

and to a general council, representing her; that he is subject to the canons of the church, and cannot, except in an extreme case, dispense with them; that even in such a case his dispensation is subject to the judgment of the Church; that the bishops derive their jurisdiction from God himself immediately, and not derivatively through the Pope."-"They affirm that a general council may without, and even against the Pope's consent, reform the church. They deny his personal infallibility, and hold that he may be deposed by the church, or a general council for heresy or schism; and they admit, that in an extreme case, where there is a great division of opinion, an appeal lies from the Pope to a future general council." It is obvious from this statement that the Cisalpines transfer the infallibility, which they withhold from the Pope "personally" to the general council of Bishops who "derive their jurisdiction from God himself immediately."-Book of the Roman Catholic Church, Letter X. 6.

The Fathers of both the Greek and Latin churches speak in very magnificent terms of the inspiration of councils.

Symeon Stylites, the renowned ascetic, who, not content with eclipsing all rivals in achievements of fasting and seclusion, crowned his virtues by chaining himself to a rock for seven years, and living at the top of a pillar for thirty more, wrote a letter to the emperor Leo in behalf of the council of Chalcedon. The letter was composed about A.D. 460, and is preserved by Evagrius Scholasticus. The council of Chalcedon (the fourth general council) was held A.D. 451, for the purpose of rescinding all the acts of another of these inspired assemblies previously held at Ephesus; and in order to settle whether the nonsense of Flavianus, or that of Eutyches, respecting the number of natures in Christ, should be the orthodox essential to quiet in this world, and salvation in the next. The Ephesian convention (called by theological courtesy "the synod of robbers,") had manifested so holy a zeal for the Eutychian jargon, that Flavianus died of the blows which he there received from episcopal fists. The council of Chalcedon deposed and exiled his enemies. Of this assembly Symeon Stylites says: "In my declared attachment to the faith of the six hundred and thirty holy fathers assembled at Chalcedon, I take my stand upon an actual revelation by the Holy Spirit: for if the Saviour is present among two or three gathered in his name, is it conceivable, that among holy fathers, so numerous and eminent, the Divine Spirit should not be present throughout?" -Evagr. Hist. Eccles. II. 10.

Note 2. "Passive vehicles, no doubt, of wisdom not their own.”—Page 24.

The words of Socrates are these: νυκτομαχίας τε οὐδὲν ἀπεῖχε τὰ γινόμενα. οὐδὲ γὰρ ἀλλήλους ἐφαίνοντο νοοῦντες, ἀφ ̓ ὧν ἀλλήλους βλασφημεῖν ὑπελάμβανον.—Hist. Eccles. i. 23.

Note 3. "Mists and marshes of human corruption."—Page 24. For many admirable observations on ecclesiastical councils, see Jortin's