It is for

is amidst a mass of human errors and inaccuracies. you to separate the gold from the dross. You must first decide what is religious and what is not strictly religious truth, and then you may eliminate God's word from man's word." Would he not justly answer, "I cannot first decide which is and which is not religious truth; it is for this very purpose that I go to the Bible to decide for me?"

It may, however, seem to some of our readers unnecessary thus to argue upon a point upon which all orthodox Christians are agreed. But it is a question whether they are thus agreed; or, rather, it is a question whether the majority have really and deeply thought upon the subject at all. At a clerical meeting the other day, the subject of "Inspiration" was discussed; and the four theories stated above were proposed, the only difference being that the third theory, though exactly the same in purport, was smoothed down in expression. It is a positive fact, that the majority of the clergy present gave their opinion in favour of the third theory. We believe that they would have all shrunk with horror from the consequences which might have been legitimately drawn from their view; but this proves to us that the subject is one which, at this time especially, requires to be constantly sifted.

Once admit the fallibility of the Bible, and you pave the way for the introduction of the "goddess Reason's" worship. You grant all that Rationalism requires.

We conclude, then, that the Bible not only contains, but is, the word of God; and that "the human writers were never so left to themselves, as not to have the Holy Spirit presiding over them and keeping them from error."

Having thus attempted to show that the position of those who would make reason the arbiter of revelation is untenable, we must now consider how far our own position is tenable. We hold that the whole of the Bible was written under the direct influence of the Holy Spirit. We will try to state as fully and as impartially as we can the objections urged against this theory. It is alleged (1) that this doctrine of inspiration is totally incompatible with the new discoveries of science; that geology and astronomy alike are at variance with the physical facts recorded in Holy Scripture; that all attempts to reconcile the two accounts have failed; (2) that, consequently, scientific men are daily leaving the ranks of believers, and that Christianity will soon be abandoned to a few ignorant and bigoted fanatics. (3) It is further stated that this lamentable result is being brought about by the unwarranted assumptions of those who defend the popular theory of inspiration; that their view is not borne out by Scripture itself; that the Bible contains nothing which could lead the impartial inquirer, unbiassed by preconceived notions, to suppose that its writers were not as

liable to error as other men in ordinary subjects; (4) that any attempt to handle the question of scriptural inspiration freely, is received in such a damnatory spirit, that many who would fain speak out are afraid to do it; and that hence, throughout the length and breadth of the land, there is spreading a smouldering scepticism, which is worse, because it is more dishonest, than open infidelity.

Let us briefly examine the force of these allegations. (1.) It is, of course, impossible, in the short compass of a single article, to consider in detail the apparent discrepancies between scriptural and scientific statements. Neither, indeed, do we think such a consideration necessary for our purpose. For we contend that no amount of mere inaccuracies in science would prove that the authors, when they wrote them, were not under the influence of the Holy Spirit. Nay, the very nature of the case would not lead us to expect scientific accuracy; for any book written for the people at large must be written in popular language, otherwise it is wholly unintelligible to those for whom it is intended. If, then, the Holy Spirit had directed the writers of the Bible to speak of scientific phenomena as they actually were, and not as they appeared to be, their language would have been understood by none except those who were first fully instructed in physical science. But the Bible was not intended to teach men physical science; it is, therefore, we contend, a proof of the wisdom of the Holy Spirit to suffer the writers of Scripture to adopt the popular language on such subjects. Is not this what is done daily? If (argues an able writer in the Quarterly) a natural philosopher, whose object did not require strict philosophical accuracy, were to speak of the "sun rising" and the "sun setting," would you therefore conclude that he understood not the true theory of the motion of the heavenly bodies? No one would do so for a moment. And why should we deal otherwise with the writers of Scripture? Why, when they adopt the current phraseology, should we say that the Holy Spirit had ceased to guide them, and not that He had directed them to write in a way intelligible to those for whom they were writing? Granting, then, for the sake of argument, that all attempts to reconcile Scripture with science have failed; granting that it is fair to dogmatize upon questions connected with geology-a science yet in its infancy-still we say that no amount of difficulties of this kind can confute our theory.

(2.) The next objection is not, we think, founded upon fact. It surely is not true that the majority of scientific men have ceased, or are ceasing, to be believers at all, because we require them to believe so much. On the contrary, we think that a long list of names, eminent in the scientific world, might be produced, from Sir Isaac Newton downwards, whose faith has

never been shaken by the marvellous discoveries of science; and we much doubt whether an equally eminent and numerous list could be produced on the other side.

(3.) The assertion that we claim for Scripture a higher degree of inspiration than the Bible itself warrants, is to us the most unintelligible statement of all. What are we to understand by such expressions as-"All Scripture is given by inspiration of God;" "Holy men spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost;" "Ye received it not as the word of men, but as it is in truth the word of God"? We cannot say what "nonnatural sense may be put upon such texts as these; but surely, in their ordinary acceptation, they assert as distinctly as language can do that the influence of the Holy Spirit pervades the Bible.

(4.) The next objection is so plausible, and so liable to take hold upon the minds even of thoughtful and earnest men, that it claims from us a more lengthy consideration than the rest. One of the greatest blessings derived from the reformation was the spirit of free religious inquiry which it promoted. The fetters which had long bound men's minds in spiritual thraldom were then broken, and the great truth asserted, that the Bible need not fear to see the light of day; that it was alike the privilege and the duty of every Christian to come directly to the fountain-head, and not to be content with receiving biblical instruction merely through the medium of human channels. When, then, it is hinted that any attempt is being made to check the freedom of religious discussion, men's minds are at once roused to arm themselves against this invasion of their dearly-bought privileges. When it is affirmed that the defenders of plenary inspiration are obliged to have recourse to invective because argument fails them; that they are forced to entrench themselves behind the high wall of authority and traditional interpretation, because they are afraid to meet the enemy in the open field, it is seen that such a course is totally contrary to the spirit of our reformed church. Now, in order to answer this objection, we must first define clearly what is meant by this "freedom" which we are accused of impeding; for in the religious, as well as in the political constitution, the sacred name of freedom may be abused and perverted. In religion, as well as in politics, there is a spurious form of liberty, which breaks down every sacred barrier, runs riot into every kind of excess, and ends, at last, in a worse slavery than that which it attempted to shake off. And it is, we fear, this kind of religious liberty, and not that won for us at the reformation, for which the objectors to plenary inspiration are anxious. Their great cry is, that the Bible must be treated exactly like any other book; that all those hallowed feelings which fill the believer's soul when he reads the message from his God must

be laid aside, and that the book must be approached in the same cold, hard, captious spirit in which a reviewer would take up some new publication for the purpose of criticism. Now, taking the advocates of a partial inspiration upon their own ground; supposing that in the Bible God's word is mingled with man's word; that "the bright spiritual truth within is encrusted by dark patches of human passion and human error," even upon this hypothesis Scripture should claim some better treatment than an ordinary book would receive. For who is to draw accurately the line of demarcation between the human and the divine element in Scripture? Who, for example, will undertake to show us which parts of the Pentatench are merely the crude, obsolete notions of a Hebrew enthusiast; which the voice of the living God? While, then, there is any danger of confounding the human with the divine part of the Bible, there is surely danger of irreverence in handling freely that which should be accepted submissively. And if it be true that the practical effect of such free handling is to destroy all that reverence with which the Bible should be received; if it be true that a stepping-stone to infidelity is thus made; that unwary minds, making unguarded concessions on this point, have lost inch by inch every foot of ground on which to rest their faith, and so have been forced to abandon it altogether, is it strange that such dangerous doctrines should be denounced in the very strongest language? God forbid that the inquiries or suggestions of any earnest mind should be met in a damnatory spirit! The defenders of inspiration will never attain their object by making a breath of Christian charity. But there is a point at which forbearance degenerates into weakness; and if souls can be stayed in their fatal descent into the abyss of scepticism, they must not complain of the roughness of the grasp which snatches them from the danger. The middle ground between belief and scepticism is quite untenable: when a full trust in the Bible as God's word is once lost, an inexorable logic must lead the mind to abandon one point after another, until faith becomes a dead thing.

Doubtless there are many sincere lovers of the gospel, and earnest inquirers after truth, whose faith in the entire inspiration of the Bible is sometimes clouded. May we not say that this is the peculiar temptation to which they are subjected? Satan may, perhaps, have found them impervious to other assaults, and he is now attacking them on their weakest side. They have learned, by God's grace, to resist the tempter when he appeals to the animal part of their nature, and he now comes in a more subtle and insidious form appealing to their intellect. Surely the strength of such souls as these is in prayer rather than in speculation. God will not leave them to grapple with the sore trial alone and unaided. They have trusted too much

to their own intellect, and have ventured into too deep water; but if, when they are sinking beneath the troublous waves of doubt and perplexity, they cry with the earnest, heartfelt cry of Peter, "Lord, save us !" the same merciful hand will be stretched forth to support them, and the same merciful accents will be heard, "O ye of little faith, wherefore did ye doubt?" And surely this is, after all, the grand secret for gaining clear views of scriptural truth. If the Bible be a message from God, it will be best understood by those who ask most earnestly for the aid of Him who gave it. Not that we would depreciate the value of intellectual aids in interpreting Holy Scripture. Reason is the highest of God's gifts to man, and it cannot be more nobly employed than in elucidating God's truths. But how often do we find that the simple, prayerful mind will catch a right meaning which the prayerless philosopher has sought in vain! How often now, as of old, are "these things hidden from the wise and prudent, and revealed unto babes!" How often do men of vast intellect, who have lost themselves in the mazy labyrinths of curious speculation, and who have tried by the aid of reason to fathom questions which lie far deeper than human reason can penetrate, return at last, wearied with "the heat and the dust of controversy," to the simple, child-like faith, from which they have wandered, and realize the deep truth which Jesus taught when He "called a little child unto Him and set him in the midst of them, and said, Verily I say unto you, Except ye be converted, and become as little children, ye shall not enter into the kingdom of heaven." Let us take heed, lest we lose sight of the truth that on many points our confessed ignorance is our best wisdom.

O. H. J.

KILVERT'S LIFE AND WRITINGS OF BISHOP HURD.

Memoirs of the Life and Writings of the Rt. Rev. Richard Hurd, D.D., Lord Bishop of Worcester.

Kilvert, M.A. Bentley, 1860.

By the Rev. Francis

It is a curious thing to meet this old-world book coming fresh from the press, and entering the libraries among the literature of the day. It arrives likes a wandering and belated guest, who reaches the place of entertainment when the company to which he belonged is gone; introduced into a busy and animated throng, who wonder where he comes from, who know little of his subjects, and find his manners strange. Yet, for our part, we are pleased to go and sit down by him, and hear what he has to tell; not from mere civility, but from a genuine interest in such waifs and strays of assemblies which