any other sense, than as external miracles were sometimes employed as means of awakening attention, and affording conviction of the truth of important facts. Being convinced of what I believe to have been my former error on this point, I now feel no difficulty in exhorting sinners to immediate reformation in the very forms of speech adopted by the inspired teachers, without the least intimation, that special influences of the Spirit are essential to enable them to do what God requires. In this view of the matter, the Gospel appears consistent with itself, a gospel indeed, and equally simple is the path of duty both to the preacher and the hearer. Just as a kind parent calls on his disobedient and wandering children, to abandon their ways of vice and learn to do well, to do what they know is right, so God calls on his disobedient children. If a good parent has a prodigal son, in calling him to reformation, he does not teach him that he cannot cease his tippling and gambling, unless God shall first take away his disposition for such vices, and give a new disposition by supernatural influences of his Spirit; so God and his inspired teachers were equally silent in regard to any such intimations. Dependence on God may be as clearly taught and as deeply felt, without the doctrine of supernatural influences as with it. The doctrine, that in God we live, move, and have our being, and that all our sufficiency is from him, is a doctrine which is applicable to all our race, and as applicable in things secular as in things spiritual; and when properly understood it is adapted at once to humble and encourage; for if it implies that, while our sufficiency is of God, he grants a sufficiency commensurate with duty, not that he withholds sufficiency for the duties he requires, nor that he arbitrarily requires the same duty of all, while he grants sufficiency to but a part of his children. To whomsoever much is given, of him is much required, and of each is required according to the ability which is granted by God.

Suppose that, in the days of Pharaoh, straw was an essential ingredient for making the brick which he demanded of the men of Israel, that all the straw was in the hands of the king, that he required of each of the laborers a certain number of brick daily, while to some of them he granted the necessary straw, and to others this was denied: What would have been thought of the equity of the monarch?

Or suppose that all the men of Israel had by disobedience forfeited the king's favor, and exposed themselves to the penal

ty of death; that under the pretext of great clemency to these offenders he made them an offer of pardon, on condition that they should severally make for him a certain number of brick every day for six months, that they had all means and ability to comply, excepting the necessary straw, which was all wholly in the king's hands, and that to some he gave a full supply, while from others he wholly withheld the essential aid, without any other reason than that such was his sovereign pleasure : Who could have seen either mercy or equity in such a proceeding? Could those from whom the essential aid was denied be reasonably punished for non-compliance with the proposed offer? Would not the offer to them on such impossible conditions be rather an insult than act of mercy?

Shall we then dare to ascribe to God such a policy, and still call the statement of it "a doctrine of grace? And is it not amazing, that such a doctrine should have been deemed in the highest degree honorable to God?

To my views of the sinner's capacity to obey, some may be disposed to make such objections as the following.

1. That they tend to excite in the sinner a feeling of independence and sufficiency.

But how can this be, while they are taught, that all their sufficiency is of God, and daily granted according to his requirements? And why is there not equal ground for this feeling on the hypothesis, that special influences are actually given?

2. It may be objected, that on my hypothesis, those who obey the Gospel make themselves to differ from the disobedient; but on the other hypothesis, it is God who makes the obedient to differ from others.

I would here ask, "In what does the difference here referred to consist? Does it not consist in obedience on the one hand, and disobedience on the other? Most certainly it does. I have then further to ask, Does the objection mean, that God repents and obeys for the reforming sinner? If not, there surely is a sense, an important sense, in which the two classes of men make themselves to differ from each other. On the ground of this distinction their future rewards will be different; and on this ground we read; "Blessed are they that do his commandments." "But indignation and wrath, tribulation and anguish on every soul that doeth evil." "For every man shall be rewarded according to his works."

Still it is very true, that in the distribution of talents and priv

ileges in the present world, God often makes one to differ from another; but he applies a principle of equality, which covers the whole ground, as his requirements are in exact proportion to what each individual receives. No man has anything but what he receives, and no one is responsible for more than he receives. He who has ten talents, is accountable for ten; and he who has but one is accountable for one, and no more.

No one, who is accustomed to regard with much attention the history and tendencies of religious opinion, can fail of being convinced, that the question indicated above is soon to become the most absorbing question of Christian theology. The minds of men are in that position in reference to this subject, which cannot long be maintained. They must move one way or the other. They must attain to some sort of consistency, either by believing less, or by believing more. The authority of the Scriptures, and especially those of the Old Testament, must either become higher and stronger, or be reduced almost to nothing. It is vain to imagine that, with the present secret or open skepticism, or at least vague and unsettled notions, with which they are regarded, even by many who are defenders of a special revelation, they can be read and taught in our churches, schools, and families, as books sui generis, so as to command much of real reverence for themselves.

For ourselves, we are at no loss in deciding as to which direction opinions will ultimately tend. We are satisfied that the Scriptures are to open out their revelations with new light and beauty upon the human mind. Meanwhile, we think it time to raise the question, whether liberal Christians, in avoiding the blind dogmatism of the defenders of Calvinistic theories, the pharisaical tenacity with which they cling to the mere letter, unmindful of the spirit that giveth life, the absurd and fantastic criticism, by which the letter is made to bend and accommodate itself to newly discovered facts in natural or

moral science, have not been betrayed into the opposite error, and made concessions to an unbelieving age, which truth cannot warrant nor defend. So at least we think, and we bespeak the attention of candid and thoughtful men to the discussion of this subject; albeit we may take positions which at first they may not be disposed to allow.

We defend the doctrine of the plenary inspiration of the Scriptures, and we think we can show to the reader, if he will follow us, not only that this theory is rational in itself, but that it is the only theory which, for any practical purpose, can preserve the authority of the Scriptures from total subversion. And here, did we aim at completeness in the argument, it would be necessary to define at length what we mean by plenary inspiration, and what by the Scriptures. We understand plenary inspiration to mean, that the whole Scriptures, to which these words apply, are properly the word of God, and not of man; that they have no admixture of human error; that they are as fully and truly the expression of the Divine Mind, as a human composition is the expression of the human mind that produced it.

To the question, what are "the Scriptures" of which we understand such inspiration to be predicated, a full answer cannot be given, without going into the whole subject of the canon to an extent which is here impossible. We suppose that every enlightened mind, in the perusal of the Bible, observes a distinction, more or less clearly apprehended, in the character of different portions. Neither the Jew nor the Christian regards with the same feelings all the books of the Old Testament. Is there any rule to make the distinction clear and palpable? Most certainly there is one deducible from the language of the Saviour. When he refers in general to such of the Old Testament Scriptures, as he regards of divine authority, he quotes them as "the law," referring not specifically to the books of Moses, but the whole Divine record. (See John x. 34.) When he refers to those records, naming specific portions, he calls them "the law and the prophets," or "the law, the prophets, and the psalms." (Luke xxiv. 44.) These include the Mosaic books, the prophetical, and the psalms of David. These alone are quoted as authority in the New Testament, and these only should we defend as properly "the word of God," so far as relates to the elder Scriptures.

We understand a like distinction to hold, in respect to the New Testament, between the Gospels and the Epistles. We suppose every Christian makes it more or less clearly in his own mind; and we are quite sure it was made by the primitive Church, which regarded the Gospels as of pre-eminent authority. A distinction is palpable on a mere casual perusal of the books themselves. The Gospels embody the life and doctrines of the Saviour, and are addressed to the Christian Church, in all ages. The Epistles are addressed to particular Churches, to meet special cases and exigencies which arose and were soon forgotten. They are of high authority, from the known character and opportunities of the writers. We regard those writers with that reverence and deference that we should all the sayings and doings of those, who had been the Lord's personal followers, or received supernatural light. But their illumination was general. It was not for the special end of writing letters to those particular Churches. But the obvious design of the Gospels is different. Their style is different; the persons of the writers are lost sight of altogether. There is not, from beginning to end, the manifestation of individual feeling or opinion, of wonder, astonishment, or any human passion, such as breaks forth in the writings of Paul. Things of the most awful and overwhelming import are set forth with almost entire unconsciousness on the part of the writers. They are written for the whole Church, and for all times; not for persons or particular bodies of men. For whoever might have been the "excellent Theophilus," to whom Luke inscribes his narrative, he appears no where in the body of his writing, which plainly was not designed for private use. Moreover, the Gospels were constantly appealed to by the earliest Christian writers, as of full and pre-eminent authority. But we cannot find among the numerous quotations of Lardner, from the writers of the first two centuries, that the terms "sacred scriptures are more than once applied to the Epistles, and rarely if ever can we find that they are named as properly "the word of God."

We e can have no doubt as to the character of the Apocalypse, if we allow its own claims to inspiration. It purports to be a prophetical book, written under Divine illumination, and as such is widely distinguishable from all human compositions; or else it is a fancy-sketch, and no more sacred than the dreams of any uninspired man.