DIDACTIC SUMMARY OF THE THEOPNEUSTIC DOCTRINE.

WE have now defined and refuted; it remains for us to prove. But it must be done by the word of God alone. If God, reveals himself, it is for him to tell us, in this very revelation, to what extent he has designed to do it. Far be from us all vain hypotheses on such a subject. They could contain nothing more than our own phantasies, which might dazzle the eye of our faith, but could not enlighten it. The great question is, the entire question; what do the Scriptures say 4.

It has been asked if the Bible is inspired even in its language. We have affirmed that it is. In other words, (for we have cheerfully consented to reduce our entire thesis to this second expression, equivalent to the first), it is asked if the men of God have given us the Scriptures exempt from all error, great or small, positive or negative. Our answer to this, is affirmative.

The Scriptures are composed of books, of phrases and of words. Without making any hypothesis upon the manner which God has adopted for dictating the one and the other, we maintain, with the Scriptures, that this word. is of God; without any exception,—and if any one should still ask us, how God dictated all the words of his book to the sacred writers, we should delay our answer, until some one should show us how God dictated all its thoughts; and we should remind him of that child who said to his father: “My father where did God get his colors to paint all the cherries, such a beautiful red?” “My child, I will tell you, when I shall have learned how he painted all the leaves such a beautiful green.” That is all our thesis.

But, what have we done to establish it? We have not yet proved it; the Bible alone can do that. Let us then review what we have accomplished.

Section I.—RETROSPECT.

To exhibit the doctrine more clearly, we have thought that before coming to its proofs, it would be useful to examine the different objections which it has encountered, and the hypotheses which have often been substituted for it. For that purpose, we have first endeavored to put our finger upon the original error of all those false systems which evade inspiration, by pretending to explain it.—It is the book, we have said, that is inspired; it is of the book we treat, and not of the writers. We may dispense with believing in the inspiration of the thoughts; but we cannot dispense with believing in that of the language. If the words of the book are dictated by God, what are the thoughts of the writer to me? He might have been an idiot, but that which came from his hand, must still be the Bible; whereas, if the thoughts, and not the words were given, it is not the Bible that he gives me, it is little more than a sermon.—Yet we have taken great care to qualify. The Scriptures are entirely the word of man, and the Scriptures are entirely the word of God, This, in our view, is one of their sublimest features. Admire them, O man! ~ for they have spoken for thee and like thee; they have come to meet thee, all clothed with humanity; the eternal Spirit (in this respect at least, and in a certain degree,) has made himself man, to speak to thee, as the eternal Son has made himself man, to redeem thee. To this end he chose, before all time, men “subject to like: passions” with thee. For that, he foresaw and he prepared their character, their circumstances, their style, their manner, their time, their path; and it is through this that the gospel is the tenderness and sympathy of God, as it is the “‘ wisdom and power of God.” Yet we have been obliged to consider the objections. The individuality of the writers so constantly impressed on the sacred books, has been particularly alleged as an evidence that their inspiration was intermittent, imperfect, and mixed with the fallible thoughts of human wisdom. Very far from overlooking the fact thus objected, we have both admitted it, and adored in it alike, the wisdom and the goodness of God. But of what importance to the fact of the Theopneusty, is the absence or concurrence of the emotions of the sacred writers? God can employ them or dispense with them. When he speaks to us, must he not do it in the manner and style of men? And if the Almighty makes use of second causes in all his other works, why should he not do it in Theopneusty? Besides, we have said, this individuality, thus objected, shows itself equally in the parts of the Scripture the most incontestably dictated by God. This system of a gradual and intermittent inspiration presents at once the characteristics of complication, temerity and puerility; but that above all, which condemns it, is, that it is directly contrary to-the testimony which the Scriptures give of themselves. After all, let no one think that the employment of the personal knowledge and feelings of the writers was accidental. No; _all these different writers were chosen before the foundation of the world, for the work to which they were destined; and God prepared them all for it, like St. Paul, from their birth. Oh! how admirable are the sacred books in this very respect; how incomparable they appear; how quickly we recognise in them the abundance of that divine power, which caused them-to be written!

Some have also objected the necessity of translations, and their inevitable imperfection; others, the numerous variations in the ancient manuscripts from which the Bible has been printed. We have answered, that these two facts can in no way affect the question with regard to the primitive text;—were the apostles and the prophets commissioned to give us a Bible entirely inspired and without any mixture of error? That is the question; but at the same time we have been able to triumph with the Church, in view of the condition of these sacred manuscripts and the astonishing insignificance of the variations. The providence of the Lord has watched over the inestimable deposit.

Again, it is objected against verbal inspiration, that the Apostles have, in the New Testament, made use, and such use of the version of the Septuagint: but we have, on the contrary, reminded you that in the sovereign and independent manner in which they have employed it, you have a new proof of the agency of that Spirit who led them to speak.

Finally, it has even been objected, that after all, these are errors in the Scriptures; and these errors have been cited. We have denied the fact. Because some statement in some sentence has not at once been comprehended, the word of God has immediately been blamed for it. We have wished to give some example of the imprudence and error of these reproaches; but at the same time, we have hastened to come directly to this objection, to show its authors that they can attack the inspiration of the language, only by imputing error to the thoughts of the Holy Spirit. What rashness! in saying of the Bible, as Pilate did of Jesus Christ, “what evil hath it done?” they bring it to their judgment-bar! what will you then do to those who buffet it, who spit upon it, and who say to it; “prophesy; who is he that smote thee?” Ah! come down from your tribunal, come down! The language of the Scriptures has been accused of erroneous expressions, which betray in the sacred authors, an ignorance, elsewhere very pardonable, it has been said, of the constitution of the heavens and of the phenomena of nature. But here as elsewhere, the objections examined more closely, are changed into subjects of admiration; for, in making us grind the diamonds of the Holy Scriptures, they have made us bring out unexpected beauties, which but serve to discover to us new reflections of its divinity. Whilst you cannot find in the Bible any of those errors which abound in the sacred books of all the heathen nations, and in all the philosophers of antiquity, it betrays in a thousand ways, in its language, the science of the Ancient of days; and you will immediately recognise, both by the expressions which it employs, and by, those which it avoids, that this language was, for thirty centuries, in an intelligent and profound harmony with the eternal truth of facts. That which you have known since yesterday, it says, I did not mention to you, but I knew it from eternity.

The words of St. Paul too have been objected to; when the Apostle distinguishes that which the Lord says, from that which he himself says. We believe we have showed that, on the contrary, he could not have given a more convincing proof of his inspiration, than the boldness of such a distinction; since, with an authority totally divine, he was there revoking the laws of the Old Testament.

That was not all; we have had to reply to other objections, which present themselves rather under the form of systems, and which would pretend to exclude from inspiration, a part of the book of God.

Some have been willing to admit the anion of the Bible, and to dispute only that of its language; but we have suggested, first, that there exists so necessary a dependence of the thoughts upon the words, that a complete inspiration of the first, without a full inspiration of the latter, cannot be conceived of. We have desired to show how irrational such a conception would be: and to this end, we have pointed out its illusion, since those who make it, find themselves forced, the moment they would sustain it, to attack the thoughts of the Scripture, as well as its language, and to impute errors to the sacred writers.

We have elsewhere reproached this fatal system with being nothing else than a human hypothesis; fantastically assumed, without being authorized by any thing in the word of God.

It also inevitably leads, we have said, to the more contemptuous suppositions concerning the word of God; whilst at the same time, it does not remove a single difficulty from our mind: since after all, it only substitutes for one inexplicable operation of God, another which is no less so.

But again, we have added: what is the use of this system, since it is incomplete, and since by the admission even of those who sustain it, it is applicable only to one part of the Scriptures? Others again have sometimes wished to concede to us the full inspiration of certain books, but to exclude from it the historical writings. We have showed not only that every distinction of this kind is gratuitous, rash, opposed to the terms of the Scriptures; but also, that these books are perhaps, of all the Bible, those whose inspiration is the most attested, the most necessary, the most evident; those which Jesus Christ has cited with the greatest respect; those which most powerfully search the heart, and which tell the secrets of the conscience. They foretell the most important future events, in their least details; they constantly announce Jesus Christ; they describe the character of God; they teach doctrines; they legislate; they reveal. They shine with a divine wisdom, \both in that which they say, and in that which they meme in their prophetic reserve, in their sublime moderation, in their plenitude, in their variety, in their brevity. To write them, we repeat, required more than men, more than angels.

It has generally been asked, if we could discover any divinity in certain passages of the Scriptures, too vulgar to be inspired. We believe we have showed how much wisdom, on the contrary, shines in these passages, when, instead of judging them hastily, we seek in them the teachings of the Holy Spirit.

Finally, we have entreated the reader to go directly to the Scriptures, and to consecrate to studying them by themselves, with prayer, the time which he may recently have employed in judging them; and we have warranted him, upon the testimony of all the Church, and from a threefold experience, that the divine inspiration of the least parts of the Holy Scriptures shall quickly reveal itself to him, if he can study them with respect.

We have desired that this Book should not wear so theological an aspect, that christian women and other persons unacquainted with certain theological studies, or with the sacred languages, should fear to undertake the perusal of it. At the same time we should fail to accomplish one part of our design, if the doctrine had not been stated, on some points, with more precision. We shall then ask that, to avoid being led, under another form, to too extended developments, we may be permitted to state it here, more didactically, and to review it in a short catechism. We shall do scarcely more than indicate the place of the points already stated, and we shall give a little expansion to those only of which we have not yet spoken..

Section II.—SHORT CATECHETICAL ESSAY ON THE PRINCIPAL POINTS OF THE DOCTRINE.

I. What do we then understand by Theopneusty?

Theopneusty is the mysterious power exercised by the Spirit of God over the authors of the Holy Scriptures, to make them write them, to guide them in the employment of even the words they were to use, and thus to preserve them from all error.

II. What is said of the spiritual power which was exercised over the men of God, while they were writing their sacred books?

It is said that they were carried or impelled (φερόμενοι) not by a human will, but by the Holy Spirit; so. that they presented at that time the things of God, “not with the words which man’s wisdom teacheth, but which the Holy Ghost teacheth.”¹ God, saith the apostle,² at sundry times, and in divers manners, (πολυμέρῶς καί πολυτρόπῶς) has spoken BY THE PROPHETS;” sometimes in granting them the understanding of that which he was leading them to say; sometimes without giving it to them; sometimes by dreams³ and by visions,⁴ which he afterward led them to relate; sometimes by words given internally (λόγω ενδιάθετῳ,) which he led them immediately to utter; sometimes by words sent externally, (λόγῳ προφορικῳ,) which he led them to repeat.

III. But what was passing in their heart and in their understanding, whilst they were writing?

We do not know. This fact, moreover, subjected to great varieties, could be for us, neither an object of science nor of faith.

IV, Besides; have not the modern authors who have written upon this subject, often distinguished in the Scriptures, three or four degrees of inspiration 2

This is a vain divination; and this supposition, moreover, is in contradiction with the Word of God, which knows but one kind of inspiration. There is nothing true in this question, except the suggestion of what men have done.

Do we not see at the same time, that the men of God were profoundly instructed, and often even profoundly moved by the ‘holy things which they were teaching, the future things which they were predicting, and past events which they were relating?

They might be, without doubt; they were so most generally; but it was possible that they should not be; and when they were thus instructed, it was in very different degrees, of which we remain ignorant, and the knowledge of which is not required of us.

VI. What must we then think of those definitions of Theopneusty, in which the Scriptures seem to be represented as the merely human expression of a purely divine | revelation; for instance, that of Baumgarten,⁵ who says that inspiration is only the means by which revelation, at first immediate, became mediate, and arranged itself in a book (medium quo revelatio immediata, mediata facta, tngque libros relata est)?”

These definitions are not exact, and may give rise to false ideas of Theopneusty.

I say that they are not exact. They contradict facts. Immediate revelation does not necessarily precede inspiration; and when preceding it, is not its measure. The vacant air has phrophesied;⁶ a hand coming out of the wall has written the words of God;⁷ a dumb animal reproved the folly of a prophet;⁸ Balaam prophesied against his will; Daniel, without comprehending it; and the Corinthian Christians, without even knowing the words which the Holy Spirit had put upon their lips.⁹

Still farther, I say that these definitions engender or conceal false notions concerning Theopneusty. They suppose, in fact, that inspiration is but the natural expression of a supernatural revelation, and that the men of God had only to record humanly, in their books, that which the Holy Spirit had made them see divinely in their understanding. Inspiration is more than that. The Scriptures are not only the thought of God, elaborated by the Spirit of man, to diffuse itself through the words of man; they are the thought of God, and the word of God.

VII. The Holy Spirit having, in every age, enlightened the elect of God, and having, moreover, imparted to them, in ancient times, miraculous powers; in which of these two orders of spiritual gifts must we rank Theopneusty?

We must place it in the order of gifts extraordinary and entirely miraculous. The Holy Spirit, in all ages, enlightens the elect by his powerful and internal influence, testifies to them of Jesus,¹⁰ anoints them from the holy One, teaches them all things, and convinces them of all truth.¹¹ But, besides these ordinary gifts of illumination and of faith, the Holy Spirit has bestowed extraordinary gifts upon men charged with promulgating and writing the oracles of God. The Theopneusty is one of these gifts.

VIII. Is then the difference between illumination and inspiration in kind, or only in degree 2

The difference is in ‘kind, and not merely in degree.

IX. Yet have not the Apostles received from the Holy Spirit, in addition to inspiration, illumination in an extraordinary measure, and in its most eminent degree?

In its most eminent degree, is what no one can affirm; in an extraordinary degree, is what no one can contradict. The Apostle Paul, for example, had not “received the gospel from man, but by revelation of Jesus Christ.’¹²

He wrote “ALL HIS LETTERS,” Saint Peter tells us,¹³ not only with words which the Holy Ghost teacheth,¹⁴ as were THE OTHER SCRIPTURES (of the Old Testament,) according to the wisdom given unto him.”¹⁵ He had the knowledge of the mystery of Christ.¹⁶ Jesus Christ had not promised to his Apostles to give them a mouth only, but also wisdom to testify of him.¹⁷ David, when he seemed but to speak of himself, in the Psalms, knew that it was of the Messiah that his words must be understood; “because he was a prophet, and knew that of the fruit of his loins according to the flesh, God would raise up Christ to sit on his throne.”¹⁸

X. Why then should we not say, that Theopneusty is only illumination in its highest and most abundant degree?

Beware of saying it; for you would then have an idea of inspiration narrow, confused, contingent, and always uncertain. In fact;

1. God, who has-often united both these gifts in the same man, has likewise often designed to separate them, to show us that they differ essentially one from the other, and that when united, they are still independent. Every true Christian has the Holy Spirit;¹⁹ but every Christian is not inspired; and aman may speak the words of God, without having received either the affections or the vivifying lights which they impart.

2. It can be showed clearly by a great number of examples, that the one of these gifts was not the measure of—the other, and that the theopneusty of the prophets, held no more proportion to their intelligence than to their holiness.

3. So far was the one of these gifts from being the measure of the other, that it can even be affirmed, that the theopneusty appears the more clearly, the more the   illumination of the sacred writer is inferior to his inspiration, when you see the prophets, the most enlightened of the Spirit of God, bending over their own pages, after having written them, and seeking to understand the meaning of that which the Spirit who was in them, had  just made them express, it must become evident to you, that their theopneusty was independent of their illumination.

4. In supposing even the illumination of the prophet elevated to its highest degree, it was at the same time, never at the height of the divine thought: and there might be, in the word that has been dictated to them, much more meaning than the prophet yet saw. David, without doubt, in singing his psalms,²⁰ knew that they pointed to “Him who was to be raised up of the first. of his loins to sit on his throne forever.” The greater part of the prophets like Abraham their father, saw the day of Christ; they rejoiced in it;²¹ “they sought what, or what manner of time the Spirit which was in them did signify, when it testified beforehand the sufferings of Christ and the glory that should follow;”²² . . . and yet, our Savior tells us that the simplest christian, the least (in knowledge) in the kingdom of God, knows more concerning it, than the greatest of the prophets.²³

5. These gifts differ from one another by essential characteristics which we. shall presently point out.

6. Finally, it is always the inspiration of the book which is presented to us as an object of faith, never the internal state of him who writes it. His knowledge or his ignorance does not affect in the least the confidence which I owe his words; and my soul ought always to look not so much to his knowledge, as to the God of all holiness, who speaks to me by his mouth. The Lord designed, it is true, that the greater part of his historians should be also the witnesses of that which they related. This was without doubt, in order that the world might hear them with more confidence, and might not be able to excite reasonable doubts as to the truth of their narratives. But the Chureh, in her faith, looks much higher, the intelligence of the writers is to her imperfectly known and comparatively indifferent: that which she knows, is their inspiration. She never goes to look for the source-of it in the bosom of the prophet; it is in that of her God. “Christ speaks in me,” says St. Paul to her; “and God hath spoken to our fathers by the prophets.”²⁴ “Why then look ye upon us,” say all the sacred writers to her, ‘Cas though it were by our power, or our holiness that we had done this work?”²⁵ Look up!

XI. If there exist then, a specific difference between the two spiritual graces of inspiration and illumination; in what must we say that it consists?

Although you could not say, yet you would not be the less obliged, for the preceding reasons, to declare that this difference exists. In order to be able thoroughly to answer this question, you must understand the nature and the mode of both these gifts; whilst the Holy Spirit has never explained to us, neither how he pours the thoughts of God into the understanding of a christian, nor how he places the word of God on the lips of a prophet. At the same time, we can here point out two essential characteristics, by which thee two operations have always showed themselves distinct. One of these characteristics relates to their duration, and the other to their degree.

As to the duration, the illumination is continued; while the inspiration is intermittent; as to the measure, illumination has degrees, whilst inspiration does not admit them.

XII. What do we understand by continued illumination and intermitted inspiration?

The illumination of a saint by the Holy Spirit is a permanent work. When it has commenced for him at the day of his new birth, it then goes on increasing, and accompanies him-with its light to the very end of his career. This light, without doubt, is but too much obscured by his unfaithfulness and his negligence; but it never more entirely withdraws from him. ‘“His path,” saith the wise man, ‘is as the shining light, that shineth more and more unto the perfect day.”²⁶ “When it has pleased God, who separated him from his mother’s womb, to reveal his Son in him,²⁷ he preserves even to the end, the knowledge of the mystery of Jesus Christ, and can always explain its truths and its glories. As “it is not flesh and blood that have revealed these things to him, but the Father,”²⁸ this anointing which he has received of the holy one,²⁹ abides in him, says St. John, and he has no need that any one teach him: but as the same anointing teacheth him of all things, and is truth, and is no lie, and even as it has taught him, they shall abide in him.” Illumination then abides with the believer; but it is not thus with miraculous gifts, nor with Theopneusty, which is one of these gifts.³⁰

As to miraculous gifts, they were always intermittent among the men of God, if we except Jesus only. The Apostle Paul, for example, who at one time resuscitated Eutychus, and through whom God performed acts of extraordinary power, so that handkerchiefs and garments that had touched him only, healed the sick on whom they were laid; at other times could neither comfort his colleague Trophimus, nor his dear Epaphroditus, nor his son Timothy.³¹ Such is the case with Theopneusty, which is merely the most excellent of miraculous gifts. It was exercised only at intervals in the prophets of the Lord. The prophets, and even the Apostles, who (as we shall show) were prophets and more than prophets,³² did not prophesy so often as they themselves desired. ‘Theopneusty was granted them at intervals; it descended upon them according to the will of the Holy Spirit (καθὡς τὸ πνεῦμα ἐδίδου ὰυτοις ἀπθέγγεσθαι); for “prophecy came not by the will of man,” says St. Peter, “but they were filled with the Holy Ghost, and spake as the Spirit gave them utterance.”³³ God spake by the prophets (έν τοῖς προφήταις), says St. Paul, when he willed, at different times, and by different ways (πολυμέρῶς, πολυτρόπως). “On such a day and at such a time,” it is often written, “the word of Jehovah came to such a one ( זוהי דבר יהזח אלי).” “The tenth year, at the twelfth day of the tenth month, the word of Jehovah came to me,” said the prophet.³⁴ “In the fifteenth year of the reign of Tiberias, the word of God came to-John, son of Zacharias.” (ἐγένετο ῥήμα Θεοῦ ἐπι Ιωάννην);³⁵ “and on the eighth day, Zacharias, his father, was filled with the Holy Spirit, and prophesied, saying. .”³⁶

Thus then, we should not think that the divine infallibility of the language of the prophets (and even of the Apostles), continued beyond the time of accomplishing their miraculous task, or that in which the Spirit made them speak independently of Theopneusty, they were most frequently illuminated, sanctified, guarded by God as every holy believer in our day might be; but then, they spake no longer as “moved by the Holy Ghost;” their words might still be worthy of the most respectful attention; but it was then a saint who spake; it was no longer God: they had again become fallible.

XIII, Can we cite examples of this fallibility of their language, independently of Theopneusty?

Such examples are numerous. In the Scriptures we often see men, who were for a time the mouth of Jehovah, afterward becoming false prophets, and falsely pretending, after the Spirit had ceased to speak by them, that they still uttered the words of the most High; “although the Lord had not sent them, neither commanded them, nor spoken unto them.” “They spake a vision of their own heart, and were then no more the mouth of the Lord.”³⁷

Without even speaking here of those wicked men, any more than of the profane Saul, of Balaam, who were for a long time numbered among the prophets, can it be thought that all the words of king David are infallible during the whole of that long year which he passed in adultery?. Yet these, say the Scriptures, are “the last words of David, the sweet singer of Israel: the Spirit of the Lord spake by me, and his word was in my tongue.”³⁸ Can it be thought that all the words of the prophet Solomon were still infallible, when he fell into idolatry in his old age, and the safety of his soul became a problem to the Church of God? Yet farther, to come down to the holy apostles and prophets of Christ (Eph. iii. 5), can it be thought that all the language of Paul himself was infallible, and that he could still say; “Christ spake by him, while there was a sharp contention (παροξυσμός) between him and Barnabas?³⁹ Or, when mistaking in the midst of the Council, the person of the high priest, he “insulted the prince of his people,” and cried; God shall smite thee thou whited wall! Or yet again, as (some doubt may rest on the character of this reproof,) can it be thought that all the words of the holy apostle Peter were infallible, when at Antioch, he showed himself “so reprehensible” (κατεγνωσμένος); when he feared the messengers of St. James; when he used hypocrisy; and when he compelled the apostle Paul, “to resist him face to face in the presence of all, because he walked not uprightly according to the truth of the Gospel,” (οὐκ ἢν ορθοποδησας)?

 XIV. What inference should we draw from this first point of difference between illumination and inspiration, as to the duration of these gifts?

We must conclude:

1. That these two operations of the Holy Spirit differ in essence, and not in degree only;

2. That the infallibility of the sacred writers has depended not on their illumination (which, although granted in an extraordinary measure to some among them, was nevertheless common to all the saints,) but, on their Theopneusty only;

3. That the Theopneustic words, having been all miraculous, are all likewise the words of God;

4. That our faith in each portion of the Bible, being no longer founded on the illumination of the writers, but on the inspiration of their writings, need never give itself to the perplexing study of their internal state, of the degree of their light, or of their sanctification; but must lean on God in every thing, on man in nothing.

XV. If the illumination and inspiration of the prophets and apostles has varied so much in the duration of these gifts, how has it been as to the degree to which they possessed them?

Illumination has degrees; Theopneusty cannot admit them, a prophet is more or less enlightened of God; but his word is not more or less inspired. It is inspired, or it is not; it is of God, or it is not of God. In it there is neither measure nor degree, neither increase nor decrease. David was illuminated of God; John the Baptist was so far more than David; a simple christian may be so in a higher degree than was John the Baptist; an apostle still exceeded this christian; and Jesus Christ is yet in this, superior to this apostle. But the inspired word of David, what do I say 2 the inspired word of even Balaam, is of God equally with that of John the Baptist, of Paul, or of Jesus Christ! IT IS THE WORD OF GOD. The most illuminated saint cannot speak by inspiration; while the most wicked, the most ignorant and the most impure of men can prophesy; for “he speaks not of himself (ἀφ’ εαυτοῦ, οὐκ ἐ ιπεν), but by Theopneusty (ἀλλὰ προφήτεύσαι.)⁴⁰ In a truly regenerated man are always found the divine and the human spirit, which act at the same time, the one enlightening, the other obscuring; and illumination will increase in proportion as the action of the Divine Spirit surpasses that of the human. These two elements have also existed in the prophets, and above all, in the apostles. But thanks to God, our faith in the language of the Scripture depends not on the unknown issue of the conflict between the flesh and the spirit in the soul of the sacred writers. Our faith ascends directly to the heart of God.

XVI. Can great evil result from the doctrine according to which, the language of inspiration would be but the human expression of a superhuman revelation; and if we may so express ourselves, but a natural reflection of a supernatural illumination?

One of these two evils must ever result from it: either the oracles of God will be brought down to a level with the words of the saints; or these will be raised to a level with the Scriptures. This is a fatal consequence, the alternative of which is reproduced in every age. It was inevitable. All truly regenerated men, being enlightened by the Holy Spirit, it follows, according to this doctrine, that they all possess, though in different degrees, perhaps, the element of inspiration; so that, according to the arbitrary idea you shall have formed of their spiritual condition, you will be inevitably led, now to assimilate them to the sacred writers, now to raise them to the rank of men inspired from above.

XVII. Can instances be produced of religious communities, where the first of these evils has been realized? I mean, where men have been led, by this means, to lower the Scriptures to a level with the words of the saints?

All the theories of the learned among the Protestants, which suppose some mixture of error in the Scriptures, are founded upon this doctrine;—from Semler and Ammon, to Eichhorn, Paulus, Gabler, Schruster, and Restig;—from Mr. De Wette, to the more respectful systems of Michaëlis, of Rosenmüler, Scaliger, Capellus, John Le Clerc, or Vossius. According to these systems, the divine light, by which the intellect of the sacred writers was illuminated, might experience a partial eclipse, by the unavoidable influence of their natural infirmities, of a defect of memory, of an innocent ignorance of a popular prejudice; so that their writings bear the mark of it, and we can there discover where the shades have fallen.

XVIII. Can we show that there are also religious societies, in which the second of these evils has been consummated; I mean, where, from having chosen to confound inspiration with illumination, they have raised saints and learned men to the rank of the theopneustic, or inspired men?

For specimens of this, we might adduce, above all others, the Jews and the Latins.

XIX. What have the Jews done?

‘They have regarded the rabbins of the ages succeeding the period of the dispersion, as gifted with an infallibility, that has placed them on a level with (if not above), Moses and the prophets. ‘They have, without doubt, attributed a species of divine inspiration to the sacred writings; but they have forbidden any explanations of the oracles, except those furnished by their traditions. They have called the immense body of those commandments of men, the oral law, (תזרח שכעל פה) the doctrine, or the Talmud, (תלמזר) distinguishing it as Mishna, or Second Law, (משגה) and as Gemanah; complement, or perfection, (גמזא). They have proclaimed it as transmitted by God to Moses, by Moses to Joshua, by Joshua to the prophets, by the prophets to Esdras, by Esdras to the Doctors of the great Synagogue, and by these to the Rabbis Antigonus, Soccho, Shemaia, Hillel Schammai; until, at last, Judas the holy committed it to the Traditions, or Repetitions of the law, (משגזת, δευτέρωσεις,) which, in later times, with their Commentary, or Complement, (the Gemarah,) formed the Talmud of Jerusalem, and then that of Babylon.

“One of the greatest obstacles we find among the Jews,” says the missionary M’Caul, “is their invincible prejudice in favor of their traditions and commentaries; so that we cannot persuade them to purchase our Bibles without notes or comments.”⁴¹

“The law, they say, is salt; the Mishna, pepper; the Talmuds, spices.” “The Scriptures are water; the Mishna, wine; the Gemarah, spiced wine.” “My son,” says Rabbi Isaac, “learn to pay more attention to the word of the Scribes, than to the word of the law.” “Turn your children, (said Rabbi Eleazar, upon his death-bed, to his scholars, who were asking him the way of life,) turn your children from the study of the Bible, and put them at the feet of the Sages.” ‘* Learn, my son, (says Rabbi Jacob,) that the words of the Scribes are more excellent than those of the Prophets.”⁴²

XX. “And what has resulted from these enormities?

By them, millions and millions of immortal souls, however far they have wandered on the earth, however wearied and heavy laden, however despised and persecuted in every place, have been able to carry, among all the ‘nations of the world, the book of the Old Testament untouched and complete, and not to cease reading it in Hebrew, every Sabbath, in thousands of synagogues, ‘for eighteen hundred years; . . . . yet without being able to recognise in it, that Jewish Messiah whom we all adore, and the knowledge of whom would be their instant deliverance, as it is one day to be their happiness and their glory!

“And Jesus said unto them, full well ye reject the commandment of God, that ye may keep your own traditions.”⁴³

XXI. And what have the Latins done?

They have considered the fathers, the popes, and the Councils of the successive ages of the Church of Rome, as endowed with an infallibility which puts them upon the level, if not above, Jesus, prophets and apostles. They have, it is true, greatly differed from each other upon the doctrine of the inspiration of the Scriptures; and the faculties of Douay and Louvain, for example, have set themselves strougly⁴⁴ against the opinion of the Jesuits, who were unwilling to see in the operation of the Holy Spirit, any thing more than a direction, which preserved the sacred writers from error; but they have all forbidden any other explanation of the Holy Scriptures, than that which is according to the traditions.45 They believed they had aright to say, in all their Councils, with the apostles and prophets of Jerusalem; “It hath seemed good to the Holy Spirit and to us.” They have declared that it belonged to them to judge the true sense of the Holy Scriptures. They have called the immense body of these human commandments, the oral Law, unwritten traditions, the unwritten Law. They have styled them, transmitted from God, and dictated by the mouth of Jesus Christ, or of the Holy Spirit, by a continual succession.

“Seeing,” says the Council of Trent,⁴⁶ “that the saving truth, and the discipline of manners is contained in the written books and the unwritten traditions, which having been received by the Apostles, from the mouth of Jesus Christ, or the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, in the succession of time, have been handed down even to us; following the example of the Apostolic Fathers, the Council receives with the same affection and reverence (pari pietatis et reverentie affectu,) and honors all the books of the Old and New Testament, (seeing God is their author,) and likewise the traditions concerning faith and practice, as having been dictated by the mouth of Jesus Christ or of the Holy Spirit, and preserved in the Catholic Church by a perpetual succession?” “If any one does not receive the said books entirely, and with all their parts, as holy and canonical, as they have been accustomed to be read in the Catholic Church, and in the ancient vulgar translation,” (that of Jerome,⁴⁷ which abounds, especially in Job and the Psalms, in very serious and very glaring faults, and has even been abundantly corrected in after times by other Popes), “or, in good earnest, despises the said traditions, let him be. accursed!”

They have also put the bulls of the Bishop of Rome and the decrees of their synods above the Scriptures. “The Holy Scriptures,” they say, “do not contain all that is necessary to salvation, and are not sufficient.”⁴⁸ “They are obscure.”⁴⁹ ‘It is not for the people to read the Holy Scriptures.⁵⁰ We must receive with obedience of faith, many things that are not in the Scriptures.”⁵¹ We must serve God according to the traditions of the elders.⁵²

The Bull Exsurge of Leo. X.⁵³ puts in the number of Luther’s heresies, his saying: “that it is not in the power of the church or Pope to establish articles of faith.’

The Bull unigenitus⁵⁴ condemns forever, as being “respectively false, captious, scandalous, rash, pernicious, suspected of heresies, savoring of heresies, heretical, impious, blasphemous, etc.” the following propositions: “It is useful, at all times, in all places and for all sorts of persons to study the Scriptures, and to know their spirit, their piety and their mysteries,” (upon 1 Cor. xvi. 5.)⁵⁵ “The reading of the Holy Scriptures by a man of business, shows that it is for all the world,” (upon Acts, viii. 28.)⁵⁶ “The holy obscurity of the word of God is not a reason why the laity should not read it,” (on Acts, viii. 31.”) “The Sabbath ought to be sanctified by the reading of books of piety, and especially of the Holy Scriptures. It is the milk which God himself, who knows our hearts, has given them. It is dangerous to attempt to wean him from it,” (on Acts, xv. 21.) “Itis an illusion to imagine that the knowledge of the mysteries of religion ought not to be communicated to that sex, (the female sex) by the reading of the holy books, after that example of the confidence with which Jesus shows himself to this woman, (the Samaritan woman).” ‘It is not from the simplicity of woman, but from the proud science of man, that the abuse of the Scriptures has arisen, and that have arisen the heresies, (on John iv. 26). ‘It is, to shut the mouth of Jesus Christ to christians, to snatch from their hands the holy book, or to keep it closed to them, in. depriving them of the means of understanding it, (1 Thes. v.2.)” “To forbid the reading of the Bible to christians, is to refuse the light to the children of light, and to inflict on them a kind of excommunication, (Luke, xi. 33.)⁵⁷

More recently, in 1824, the Encyclical letters of Pope Leo XII., complain grievously of the Bible Societies, “‘ which violate say they, the traditions of the Fathers, and the Council of Trent, in scattering the Scriptures in the vulgar languages of all the nations.” (‘Non vos later, venerandi fratres, Societatem quamdam, dictam vulgo Brsticam, per totum orbem audacter vagart, que, spretis S. S. Patrum traditionibus (!!!) et contra notissimum Tridentini concilii decretum, in id collatis viribus ac modis omnibus intendit, ut in vulgares linguas nationum omnium sacra vertantur vel potius perverlantur Biblia.”) “In order to turn away this pest,” adds he, ‘“our predecessors have published many constitutions, . . . tending to show how pernicious to faith and practice is this perfidious invention! (ut ostendatur quantoperé fidei et moribus vaferrimum hocce inventum noxium sit!’)

XXII. And what is the result of these enormities?

It is that, by them, millions and millions of immortal souls in France, in Spain, in Italy, in Germany, in America, even in the Indies, although they possess every where, the books of the Old and New Testaments uninjured and complete, although they have not ceased to read them in Latin every Sabbath, in thousands of temples, during twelve hundred years, . . . have been turned away from the fountain of life; have given, like the Jews, “more attention to the words of the scribes than to those of the law,” have turned away their children, according to the counsel of Eleazar, “from the reading of the Bible, to place them at the feet of the wise men;”’ have found, with Rabbi Jacob, “the words of the scribes more excellent than those of the prophets.” It is thus that they have been able to maintain for twelve centuries, doctrines the most contrary to the word of God,⁵⁸ upon the worship of images;⁵⁹ upon the exaltation of the priesthood; upon their forced celibacy; upon their auricular confessions; upon the absolution which they dare to give; upon the magical power which they attribute, even to the impurest of them, of creating their God by three Latin words, opere operato; upon an ecclesiastical priesthood of which the Scriptures have never spoken; upon the invocation of the dead; upon the spiritual preéminence of the city which the Bible has called Babylon; upon the unknown tongues in worship; upon the celestial empire of the blessed but humble woman, to whom Jesus himself said; “* Woman, what have I to do with thee?” upon the mass; upon the forbidding the cup to the laity; upon the forbidding the Scriptures to the people; upon the indulgences; upon purgatory; upon the universal episcopacy of an Italian priest; upon the forbidding of meats; so that just as they annul the only priesthood of the Son of Man, in establishing other priesthoods by thousands; just as they annihilate his divinity in recognising thousands of demi-gods or dead men, present in every place, hearing every where the most secret prayers of men, protecting cities and kingdoms, accomplishing miracles in favor of their adorers;... they in the same manner annihilate the inspiration of the Scriptures, in recognising by thousands, other writings which share its divine authority, and which surpass and engulf its eternal infallibility!

It is against just such pretensions made by the heretics of his day, that St. Irenaeus said; “when, we would convince them by the Scriptures, they treat the Scriptures as if they were imperfect, or wanting authority, or uncertain, and as if the truth could not be found there without the aid of tradition, because the latter was given, not by writing, but by the living voice.”⁶⁰

“Well do ye make void the commandment of God by your tradition!” said the Savior. Benè irritum facitis præceptum Dei, ut traditionem vestram servetis!” (Mark vii. 9).

XXIII. Without pretending in any way to explain how the Holy Spirit may have dictated the thoughts and the words of the Scriptures (since the knowledge of this mystery is neither given, nor required), what may we recognise in this divine action?

Two things; first, an impulse, that is an action upon the will of the men of God, to lead them to speak and to write; and secondly, a suggestion, that is to say, an action upon their understanding and upon their organs; to produce, first, within them, more or less exalted notions of the truth which they were about to utter; and again without them, human expressions the most divinely adapted to express the eternal thought of the Holy Spirit.

XXIV. Must we yet admit that the sacred writers were but the pens, the hands, the secretaries of the Holy Spirit 2

They have been, without doubt, the pens, the hands, the secretaries; but they have been almost always, and in different degrees, living pens, intelligent hands, docile secretaries, moved and sanctified by the truths they uttered. In order that even in these cases, our faith might rest on God, and not lean upon man, the Holy Spirit has chosen on many other occasions, to employ ignorant hands, inert pens, and secretaries without light and without holiness.

XXV. At the same time, has not the word of God often been written in reference to particular occasions?

Yes, without doubt; and the occasion was as much prepared by God, as the writer. “The Holy Spirit,” says Claude,⁶¹ “used the pen of the evangelists,... and of the prophets. He furnished them the occasions of writing; he gave them the desire and the strength for it; the matter, the form, the order, the arrangement, the expression, are of his immediate inspiration and of his direction.”

XXVI. But may we not clearly recognise, in the greater part of the sacred books, the individual character of the writer?

We are careful not to overlook it; and on the contrary, we admire this feature. The individual character so far as it comes from God, and not from sin and the fall, was prepared and sanctified of God, for the work to which God had destined it.

XXVII. Ought we then to think that every part of each one of the sacred books of the holy Scripture was equally inspired of God?

The Scripture, in describing itself, admits no distinction. All the sacred books, without any exception, are the word of the Lord. THE ENTIRE SCRIPTURE, says Saint Paul (πάσα γρἀφη), IS INSPIRED OF GOD.

This declaration, we have already said, is susceptible of two constructions, according as we prefer to place the verb understood before or after the Greek word which we here translate by inspired of God. Both these constructions irrefutably establish that, in the thought of the apostle, all, without exception, in each book of the Scriptures, is indited by the Spirit of God. In fact, in both, the apostle equally attests that these SACRED LETTERS (τα ἵερἀ γράμματα), of which he had just spoken to Timothy, are all, theopneustic Scriptures.

Now, we know that in the days of Jesus Christ, the whole church designated ONLY ONE AND THE SAME COLLECTION OF BOOKS, as the Scripture, or the Scriptures, or the holy letters, or the law and the prophets, (γράφη,⁶² or ἡ γράφη,⁶³ or ἁι γραφαὶ,⁶⁴ or ὁ νόμος καί οὶ προφήται,⁶⁵ ’τοίι ἵερα γράμματα).⁶⁶ They were the 22 Sacred Books which the Jews received from their prophets, and about which they were perfectly agreed.⁶⁷

This entire and perfect theopneusty of the Jewish Scriptures was so entirely, in the days of Jesus Christ, the doctrine of all this ancient people of God (as it was that of Jesus Christ, of Timothy, and of St. Paul), that we read this testimony of it in the Jewish general, Josephus (who had already attained to his thirtieth year,⁶⁸ at the epoch when the apostle Paul was writing his second epistle to Timothy). Never, says he, in speaking of “the 22 books”⁶⁹ of the Old Testament, which he calls τα ίδίά τράμματοε, as St. Paul here calls them τα ἴεροε γράμματα, “Never, although so many ages have already passed away, has any one dared either To TAKE Away from it, or TO ADD to it, or TO TRANSPOSE any part of it;⁷⁰ for it is for ALL THE JEWS, as a thought born with them (ΠΑΣΙ δε συμφὺτον ἐστιν), from their earliest infancy,⁷¹ to call them THE INSTRUCTIONS OF GOD, to abide in them, and, if necessary, to die with joy to maintain them.”

“They are given us (he says again) by the inspiration which comes from God (κατὰ τήν ἐπίπνοιαν τήν άπό τοῦ θεοῦ).. But as to the other books composed after the time of Artaxerxes, they are not regarded as worthy of the same faith.”⁷²

We do not cite these passages of Josephus here as an authority for our faith, but as a historical testimony, which shews us in what sense the Apostle Paul spoke, and which attests to us that in mentioning the Sacred letters (τά ἲερα γράμματα), and in saying that they are all Theopneustic writings, he would attest to us, that in his eyes, there was nothing in the Sacred books, which was not dictated by God.

Now, since the books of the New Testament are ἵερα γράμματα), holy Scriptures, the Scripture, the holy letters, as well as those of the Old; since the Apostles have placed their writings, and St. Peter, for example, has placed ALL THE EPISTLES OF PAUL (πάσας τας έπιστολας), in the same rank as THE OTHER SCRIPTURES (ὡς καί τας λοιπας ΓΡΛΦΑΣ); we must infer thence that all is inspired of God, in all the sacred books of both the Old and the New Testament.

XXVIII. But if all the sacred books (τά ἲερα γράμματα) are theopneustic, how can we recognise such or such a book as sacred, and another as not sacred 2

It is in a great measure a question altogether historical.

XXIX. Yet have not the Reformed Churches maintained that it was by the Holy Spirit that they recognised the divinity of the sacred books; for example, the confession of faith of the Churches of France, does it not say in its fourth article, that, “we know these books are canonical, and a very sure rule for our faith, not so much by the common accord and consent of the Church, as by the testimony and persuasion of the Holy Spirit, which enables us to distinguish them from the other ecclesiastical books?

This maxim is perfectly true, if you apply it to the whole collection of the sacred books. In this sense the Bible is evidently a book ἀυτόπισιος, which has need only of itself to produce belief in its divinity; for to him who studies it “with sincerity and as before God”,⁷³ it presents itself with evidence and by itself, as a miraculous book; it reveals the secrets of the conscience; it discerns the thoughts and intentions of the heart. It has foretold the future; it has changed the face of the world; it has converted souls; it has created the church. It produces thus in the hearts of men, “a testimony and an interior persuasion of the Holy Spirit,” which attests its inimitable divinity, independently of any human testimony. But we do not think that any one can confine himself to this mark, to discern such or such a book, such or such a chapter, such or such a verse of the word of God, and to establish its celestial origin. We ought to admit as divine the entire code of the Scriptures, before each of its parts can have proved to us by itself, that it is of God. It is not for us to judge this book; it is this book that shall judge us.

XXX. Yet has not Luther said⁷⁴ in starting from a principle laid down by St. Paul⁷⁵and by St. John,⁷⁶ that “the touchstone by which we may recognise certain Scriptures as divine, is this; do they preach Christ, or do they not preach him? And, among the moderns, has not Dr. Twesten said “that the different parts of the Scriptures are more or less inspired, just in proportion as they partake of the character of preaching; and that inspiration ‘extends to words and historical. statements only in that which relates to the christian conscience, in that which comes from Christ, or that which serves to show us Christ”⁷⁷

Christ is, without doubt, the way, the truth, and the life; the spirit of prophecy without doubt, is the witness of Jesus:⁷⁸ but this touchstone in our hands, may indicate falsely: 1st, because many writings speak admirably of Christ, without being inspired; 2dly, because although every thing, in the inspired Scriptures, relates to Jesus Christ, we cannot at first, detect this divine character; and, 3dly, in fine; because we ought to BELIEVE, before SEEING it, that “all Scripture is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness; that the man of God may be perfect, thoroughly furnished unto every good work.”⁷⁹

XXXI. What reasons have we then for recognising as sacred, the books which now form the collection of the Scriptures?

For the Old Testament, we have the testimony of the Jewish Church; and for the New Testament, the testimony of the Universal Church.

XXXII. What are we here to understand by the testimony of the Jewish Church?

We must understand the consent of all the Jews, Egyptians and Syrians, Asiatics and Europeans, Sadducees and Pharisees,⁸⁰ ancient and modern, good and bad.

XXXIII. What reason have we for holding as divine, the books of the Old Testament, which the Jewish Church has given. us as such?

It is written that “the oracles of God were committed to them:”⁸¹ which signifies that God, in his wisdom, chose them to be, under the almighty control of his providence, sure depositories of his written word.

XXXIV. Should our faith then depend on the Jews?

The Jews have often fallen into idolatry; they have denied the faith; they have killed their prophets; they have crucified the King of kings; they have hardened their hearts for nearly two thousand years; they have filled up the measure of their sins, and “wrath is come upon them to the uttermost.”⁸² Yet, “the oracles of God were committed to them;” and, although these oracles condemn them; although a veil remains upon their hearts when they read the Old Testament;⁸³ although they have, for ages, despised the word of God, and adored their Talmud; they HAVE NOT BEEN ABLE not to give us unharmed and complete the book of the Scriptures; and the historian Josephus might yet say of them, that which he wrote of them eighteen hundred years ago: “after that so many ages have already passed away (τοσούτοῢ γαρ αἴωνος ἤδη παρωκηκότς,) no one, among the Jews, has dared to ADD, RETRENCH or TRANSPOSE any thing in the Holy Scriptures.”⁸⁴

XXXV. What have then been the security, the cause and the means of this fidelity of the Jews?

We shall answer to this question very briefly. Its security has been the promise of God; its cause has been the providence of God; and its means has been the concurrence of the five following circumstances:

1st. The religion of the Jews, which has carried even to superstition, their respect for the letter of the Scriptures;

2d. The indefatigable labors of the Masorites, who have watched over it with so much care, even in its least accents;

3d. The rivalship of the Jewish sects, none of which would ever have authorized the unfaithfulness of. the others;

4th. The extraordinary dispersion of this people into all the countries of the world, long before the destruction of Jerusalem; for “Moses of old time hath in every city, (pagan) them that preach him, being read in the synagogues every Sabbath day;”⁸⁵

5th. Finally, the innumerable multitudes of the copies of the sacred book, scattered among all nations.

XXXVI. And as to the New Testament, what must we now understand by the testimony of the Catholic Church?

We must understand by it, the universal consent of the ancient and modern churches, Asiatic and European, good and bad, which call on the name of Jesus Christ; that is to say, not only the faithful sects of the blessed Reformation, but the Greek sect, the Arminian sect, the Syriac sect, the Roman sect, and the Unitarian sects.⁸⁶

XXXVII. Should our faith then be founded upon the Catholic church?

All the churches have erred or have. liable to error. Many have denied the faith, persecuted Jesus Christ in his members, denied his divinity, annihilated his cross, reéstablished the worship of statues and of graven images, exalted the priests, shed the blood of the saints, prohibited the Scriptures to the people, destroyed by fire the people of God who desired to read them in their native tongue, established in the temple of God, him who sits there as God, overruled the Scriptures, worshiped traditions, made war on God, and cast the truth to the ground. Notwithstanding all this, the new oracles of God have been entrusted to them, as those of the Old Testament were to the Jews. And although these oracles condemn them, although they have for ages despised the Scriptures, and almost adored their traditions, they HAVE NOT BEEN ABLE not to give us unharmed and complete the book of the Scriptures of the New Testament; and we may say of them, that which Josephus has said of the Jews: “after that so many ages have passed away, never has any one in the churches dared to add any thing to or take anything from the holy Scriptures; they have been compelled, in spite of themselves, to transmit them to us in their integrity.”

XXXVIII. Yet, has there not been, in Christianity, a powerful sect, which for three hundred years, has introduced into the canon of the Scriptures, apochryphal books, disavowed of the Jews,⁸⁷ (as even the pope Saint Gregory attests,)⁸⁸ and rejected by the fathers of the ancient church,⁸⁹ (as attests Saint Jerome?⁹⁰)

That, it is true, was done for the Latin sect, by the fifty-three persons who composed on the 8th April, 1546, the famous council of Trent, and who pretended to represent THE UNIVERSAL CHURCH OF. JESUS CHRIST.⁹¹ But they have done it only for the Old Testament, which was entrusted to the Jews, and not to the Christians. Neither this council, nor any of the churches, even the most corrupted and the most idolatrous, HAVE EVER been able to add one single apochryphal book to the New Testament. It is thus the Jews HAVE NEVER BEEN ABLE to introduce a single human book into the Old Testament, and have ever excluded from it those which the fifty-three ecclesiastics of Trent have pretended to add to it in the name of the Universal church.

XXXIX. And what has been the security, the cause and the means of this fidelity of the Universal church in transmitting to us the oracles of God in the New Testament?

We shall answer this question briefly.

Its guarantee has been the promise of God; its cause has been the Providence of God, and its means has been especially the concurrence of the following circumstances:

1. The religion of the ancient christians, and their extraordinary respect for the sacred text; a respect which showed itself on. every occasion, in their churches,⁹² in their councils,⁹³ in their oaths,⁹⁴ and even in their domestic customs;⁹⁵

2. The labors of learned men, in different ages, for the preservation of the sacred text;

3. The abundant quotations of the Scriptures made by the fathers of the church;

4. The mutual jealousy of the sects into which the Christian church has been subdivided;

5. The versions made from the earliest ages in many ancient languages;

6. The number and the abundant dissemination of the manuscripts of the New Testament;

7, The dispersion of the new people of God, to the very extremities of Asia, and to the farthest limits of the west.

XL. Does it then result from these facts, that the authority of the Scriptures for us, is, as Bellanmii⁹⁶ has declared, founded upon that of the church?

The doctors of Rome, it is true, have gone so far as to say that, without the testimony of the Church, the Scriptures would have no more authority than Titus Livy, than the Koran, or than the fables of Esop;⁹⁷ and Bellarmin, having doubtless a horror of these impious sentences, has wished to distinguish the authority of the Scriptures in itself and in reference to us (quoad se et quoad nos). In this last sense, he says, the Scriptures have no authority but by the testimony of the Church. Our answer shall be very simple.

Every manifestation having three causes, an objective, a subjective, and an instrumental cause; we may say also, that the knowledge which we receive of the authority of the Scriptures has first, for its objective cause, the Holy Bible itself, which proves. its divinity by its own beauty and by its own works; in the second place, for its subjective or efficient cause, the Holy Spirit,⁹⁸ which confirms and seals to our souls the testimony of God; and thirdly, in fine, for its instrumental cause, the Church, not the Roman, nor the Greek, more ancient than the Roman, nor even the Syrian, more ancient than both, but the universal Church.

The pious Saint Augustine expresses this threefold cause in his book against the epistle of Manicheus called fundamenti.⁹⁹ Speaking of the time when he was yet a Manichean, he says,¹⁰⁰ ‘I should not have believed the Gospel, if I had not been led to it by the authority of the Church;” but he is careful to add: “Let us follow those who invite us to believe, at once, while we may not yet be in a condition to see; so that being rendered more capable by the very exercise of faith, we may deserve to comprehend what we now simply believe. Then it will no longer be man, it will be God himself within us, who will strengthen and illuminate our soul.’

Here then the church is a servant, not a mistress; a depositary, not a judge. She exercises an office, not an authority; ministerium, non magisterium.¹⁰¹ She gives her testimony, not her sentence. She discerns the canon of the Scriptures, she has not made it. She has recognised their authenticity, she has not constituted it.. And as the men of Shechem believed in Jesus Christ, not from the report of the sinful, but penitent woman, who called them to him; so we say to the Church; now, we believe not because of thy saying; we have heard him ourselves, and know that this is indeed the Christ, the Savior of the world. We have believed then per eam, and not propter eam; by means of her, and not because of her. We found her on her knees; she showed us her master; we have recognised him, and we have ourselves knelt with her. If I mingle in the last ranks of an imperial army, if I request them to point out to me their prince, to conduct me to him, they will do in respect to him, for me, what the Church does for the Scriptures. They will not call their regiment the ecumenical army; and above all, they will not say that their emperor has authority by their testimony alone, whether as it regards themselves or us; whether it be guoad se or quoad nos (as says Bellarmin.) The authority of the Scriptures is in no way founded on-the authority of the Church; it is the Church which is founded on the authority of the Scriptures.

XLI. If the authenticity of the Scriptures is proved in great measure by history; how is their Theopneusty then established?

By the Scriptures alone.

XLII. But is such an argument rational? Is it not begging the question, and is it not proving inspiration by inspiration?

There would be a begging of the question, if, to prove that the Scriptures are inspired, we should invoke their own testimony, as if they were inspired. But we must beware of proceeding thus. We consider the Bible, first, simply as a historical document, worthy of our respect by its authenticity, and by means of which we may know the doctrine of Jesus Christ, as one would learn that of Socrates by the books of Plato, or that of Leibnitz, by the writings of Wolff. Now, this document declares to us in every page, that the whole system of the religion which it teaches; is founded on the great fact of a miraculous intervention of God in the revelation of its history, and of its doctrines.

The learned Michaëlis himself, whose views of inspiration are so lax, declares that the authenticity of the apostolic writings necessarily results from their inspiration.

There is no middle ground, says he; if their narrative is true, they are inspired; if they were not inspired they could not be sincere; but they are sincere; therefore they are inspired, There is then, nothing in such a train of si oc that can wear the appearance of ‘begging the question.’

XLIII. If it is by the Bible itself that the doctrine of a certain inspiration in the sacred books is established, how can it be proved that this inspiration is universal, and that it has extended even to the minutest details of their instructions?

If it is the Scriptures that teach us their own Theopneusty, it is they alone also that can teach us in what this Theopneusty consisted. ‘To admit their inspiration, on their own testimony alone, we must be well assured that they are authentic; but to admit their full inspiration, something more is needful; for we can invoke their testimony as a witness already recognised as divine; they are no more merely authentic books, which shall say to us: I am inspired; they are authentic and inspired books, which shall say to us: I am altogether inspired. ‘The Scriptures are inspired, we affirm, because, being authentic and true, they declare themselves inspired; but the Scriptures are also plenarily inspired, we add, because, being inspired, they say that they are so totally and without any exception.

It is then simply a doctrine that the Bible here teaches us, just as it teaches us all other doctrines. And just as we believe that Jesus Christ is God, and that he became man, because the Bible tells us so; thus also we believe that the Holy Spirit is God, and that he has dictated all the Scriptures.

XLIV. Who are the writers who have opposed the doctrine of inspiration?

Before enumerating them here, we ought to make a general observation; it is that, with the alone exception of Theodore of Mopsuesta, that philosophical theologian, whose numerous writings, so deeply stained with Pelagianism, were condemned for their Nestorianism, in the fifth universal Council, (Constantinople, 553,) and whose principles on the subject of Theopneusty were very loose; with the exception, we say, of Theodore of Mopsuesta, there cannot be cited, in the long course of the first. EIGHT CENTURIES OF CHRISTIANITY, one single writer, who was ignorant of the plenary inspiration of the Scriptures; if he is not in the bosom of the most violent heresies which have tormented the Christian Church; I mean, among the Gnostics, the Manicheans, the Anomians, and the Mohammedans. St. Jerome himself, who has sometimes indulged himself, when speaking of the style of certain parts of the sacred books, in a language, the temerity of which must be reproved by all pious men,¹⁰² yet maintains, even for such passages, the entire inspiration of all the parts of the Holy Scriptures;¹⁰³ and he sees even there, under what he ventures to call the grossness of the language, and the apparent folly of the reasonings, intentions of the Holy Spirit, full of skill and of depth. And if, transporting ourselves from the days of St. Jerome to four hundred years later, we come to the celebrated Agobard, whom Dr. Du Pin pretends to make: the first of the Fathers of the Church that have abandoned the doctrine of a verbal inspiration,¹⁰⁴ it is quite unjustly, says Dr. Ruddelbach, that such an accusation is brought against that bishop. It is true that, in disputing against the Abbey Fredegise,¹⁰⁵ concerning the latitude permitted to the Latin translators, in regard to the words of the sacred text, he maintained that the dignity of the word of God consists in the power of the meaning, and not in the pomp of the words; but he took care to add, that “the authority of the Apostles and Prophets remains unimpaired, and that it is not permitted to any one to believe that they could have placed a letter otherwise than they have done; because their authority is stronger than heaven and earth.”¹⁰⁶

If then we would arrange, in the order of time, the men who have set themselves against the entire theopneusty of our sacred books, we must place:

In the second century; the Gnostics, (Valentinius, Cerdon, Marcion his pupil, &c.,) they believed in two equal, independent principles, contrary and co-eternal, the one good and the other bad; the one, Father of Jesus Christ; the other, author of the law; and by maintaining this theory, they rejected the Pentateuch, while admitting, in the New Testament, the Gospel of Luke and one portion of the epistles of Paul.

In the third century; Maneus or Manicheus, who styling himself the paraclete, promised by Jesus Christ, corrected the books of the Christians, and added to them his own.

In the fourth century; the Anomians or ultra-arians (for Arius himself spoke more reservedly,) who maintained, with Aetius, their head, that the Son, a created intelligence, unlike the Father,¹⁰⁷ inhabited a human body without a human soul, They spoke of the Scriptures with a degree of irreverence equivalent to the denial of their entire inspiration. “When they are pushed by Scripture reasons, says St. Epiphanus, they escape by this language: It is as man that the Apostle has said these things or those:” “why do you oppose to me the Old Testament?” What adds the holy bishop? “It was a necessary consequence,” says he, “that those who deny the glory of Christ, deny still more that of the Apostles.”¹⁰⁸

In the fifth century; Theodore of Mopsuesta, head of the school of Antioch, ‘an able philosopher and a learned theologian, but rash. Of his numerous works, there remain to us only fragments preserved by different authors. His books, we have said, were condemned (two hundred years after his death,) at the council of Constantinople. They cited, there, for example, his writings against Appoloniarius, when he said, that the Book of Job is but a poem proceeding from a pagan heart:—that Solomon had without doubt received λόγον γνώσεως but not λογον σοφίας; that the Canticles are but a long and insignificant epithlamium, without prophetic, historical, or scientific character, and in the style of the Sympasion of Plato, ete. etc.¹⁰⁹

In the seventh century; Mohammed (whose false religion is rather a heresy of Christianity, and who speaks of Christ at least as honorably as do the greater part of the Socinians), Mohammed recognised and quoted often as inspired, the books of the Old and New Testament, but he pronounced them corrupt, and, like Maneus he added his own. In the twelfth and thirteenth centuries; as it appears, there arose and was formally stated first among the Jewish talmudists, the theory of modern divines, who have chosen to classify different passages of the Holy Scriptures under different degrees of inspiration, and to reduce theopneusty to proportions more: or Jess natural. It was under the double influence of the Aristotelian philosophy and of the theology of the Talmud, that the Jews of the middle ages, in this respect very different from the ancient Jews,¹¹⁰ imagined this theory. It was-in the time of Solomon Jarchi,David Kimchi, of the Averroes, of Aben-Ezra,Joseph Albo, and above all, of Moses Maimonides, that Spanish Jew who was called the eagle among the learned. Maimonides borrowing the vague terms of peripateticism, taught that prophecy is not the exclusive product of the action of the Holy Spirit; but that in the same manner when the intellectus agens (the intellectual influence in man) associates itself more intimately with the reason, it gives birth to the secta sapientum speculatorum; and that when this agent operates on the imagination, there arises from it the secta politicorum, legislatorum, divinatorum, and prestigiatorum; so likewise when this superior principle exerts its influence in a more perfect manner, and at once on these two faculties of the soul, it produces the secta prophetarum. Almost all the modern learned Jews have adopted the ideas of Maimonides; and this appears likewise to have been the modern theory of M. Schleiermacher on inspiration. It is by starting from these principles that the learned have admitted several degrees of inspiration in the prophets. Maimonides sometimes numbered eight, sometimes eleven. Joseph Albo reduced them to four, and Abarbanel to three. They applied these distinctions. of the different degrees of inspiration to the division of the Old Testament into Law, Prophets and Hagiographies (תורה גבואים כתובים) The Kethubim, according to him, had not received the spirit of prophecy (רזח גבואה) but only the Holy Spirit, (רוח הקדש), which in his estimation was but a faculty of man, by which he uttered words of wisdom and holiness.¹¹¹

The modern German School of the adversaries of inspiration appears then to be but a reproduction of the theory of the rabbins of the thirteenth century, or is merely borrowed from the Talmudist doctors of our day.

In the sixteenth century, Socinus,¹¹² and Castellio¹¹³ of maintained that the sacred writers failed sometimes in memory, and were liable to: error on subjects of small importance.

In the seventeenth century, three ranks of adversaries according to the celebrated Turretin,¹¹⁴ fought against inspiration. There were beside the unbelievers properly called (atheos et gentiles); 1. the fanatics (enthusiaste), who accused the Scriptures of imperfection, to exalt their own revelation; 2. the followers of the Pope, (pontéficii) who feared not, said he, to betray the cause of Christianity, by alleging the corruption of the original text, (fontium) in order to raise their Vulgate translation; 3. rationalists of different classes, (libertini) who while remaining in the church, ceased not to shake the authority of the Scriptures, by objecting to difficult passages and apparent contradictions, ἄπορα καί ἐναντιωφανῆ.

In the last half of the eighteenth century, this third class of opponents increased greatly in Germany. Semler gave the first impulse to what he termed the liberal interpretation of the Scriptures; he put aside all inspiration, denied all prophecy, and regarded every miracle as allegory or exaggeration.¹¹⁵ At a later period, Ammon established positive rules for this impious manner of explaining miraculous facts.¹¹⁶ A legion of writers equally rash, Paulus, Gabler, Schuster, Restig, and many others made an abundant practical application of these principles ‘in their writings. Eichhorn, more recently, has reduced the rationalist doctrine of prophesy to a system.¹¹⁷ Mr. de Wette, in his preliminary manual appears to have seen no real prediction in the prophets, and to discover no other difference between those of Israel and those of the pagan nations, than the spirit of morality and sincerity which characterises the monotheism, and which purified (he says) the Hebrew prophecies, while it was wanting in the seers among the Pagans.¹¹⁸ Mr. Hug, in his introduction to the writings of the New Testament,¹¹⁹ says nothing about inspiration. Michaëlis admits’ it for one part of the Scriptures, and rejects it for the other. So did Le Clerc, in the last century.¹²⁰ Rosenmiiller is still more unequal.

In these latter years, however, among the Germans, the more respectful theologians have admitted different degrees of inspiration in the different parts of the Scriptures, distinguishing at the same time, the passages which, they say, do not relate to salvation; and pretending to see in them, as formerly did Socinus and Castellio, faults of memory and errors, on subjects, say they, of trivial importance.

Among the English, we have also recently seen men, otherwise respectable, permit themselves to rank under different classes of inspiration, the a sentences of the word of God.

XLV. Can we cite many illustrious. writers in the church, who have maintained the plenary inspiration of the Scriptures? It is the uniform doctrine of THE ENTIRE CHURCH up to the days of the reformation. “Scarcely,” says Rudelbach, “is there a single point in respect to which there has prevailed, in the first eight centuries of the Church, a greater and more cordial unanimity.”¹²¹

We recommend to the reader desirous of seeing these historical testimonies, the dissertation recently published, upon this subject by the learned writer of Glauchau that we have just named. ‘The author, first passing in review the first eight hundred years of the Christian era, establishes, by very numerous citations from the Greek and Latin fathers, the following principles:

1. The ancient Church teaches with a unanimous voice, that all the canonical writings of the Old and the New Testament ARE GIVEN BY THE HOLY SPIRIT of God; and that it is upon this foundation alone, and independently of the fragmentary understanding of them which human imperfection can acquire, that, the Church based her faith in the perfection of the Scriptures..

2. The ancient Church, in consequence of this first principle, maintains as firmly the INFALLIBILITY of the Scriptures, as their sufficiency (αύταρκεῖαν and as their plenitude. She does not only attribute to their sacred authors the axiopisty, a credibility fully merited, but also the autopisty, that is to say, a right to be believed independently of their circumstances, or of their personal qualities, and on ‘account of the infallibility and heavenly authority which has caused them to speak.

3, The ancient Church considering all Scripture. as the word of God addressed to man and dictated by the Holy Spirit, has always maintained, that in it is found NOTHING ERRONEOUS, nothing useless, nothing superfluous; and that. in this divine work as in that of creation, we may always recognise in the midst of the richest abundance, the greatest and wisest economy. Each word then has its end, its design, its sphere of action. “Nihil otiosum, nee sine signo, neque sine argumento, apud eum” (Irenaeus; πᾶν ῥῆμα . . . ἐργαζόμενον τό ἑαυτοῦ ἕργου” (Origen). It is in establishing and defending with power, both these features of the Scriptures, that the ancient Church has made known the high and the deep idea that she had of their theopneusty.

4. The ancient Church has always maintained that the doctrine of the Holy Scripture is EVERY WHERE THE SAME, and that the Spirit of the Lord proclaims one and the same testimony throughout. She has powerfully opposed this science falsely so called, (1 Tim. vi. 20), which already in the first ages, presented beled in the doctrine of the Gnostics, and which, pretending to attribute imperfection to the Old Testament, imagined contradictions between one apostle and another.

5. The ancient Church believed that inspiration should, above all, be considered a passive state; and still, as a state in which the human faculties, FAR FROM BEING STIFLED or laid aside by the action of the’ Holy Spirit, were raised by its power, and filled with its light. She has often compared the souls of the apostles and prophets ‘‘ to a stringed instrument, that the Holy Spirit should touch, and draw thence the divine harmony of life.” (Athenagorus.)¹²² “Their task was simply to present themselves to the powerful action of the Holy Spirit, so that his divine plectrum descending from heaven upon the human viol, caused it to reveal to us the knowledge of the mysteries of heaven (Justin Martyr.”)¹²³ But in their sight, this viol, passive as it was in respect to the action of God, was still a heart of man, a soul of man, an intellect of man, renewed by the Holy Spirit, and filled with divine life.

6. The ancient Church, while maintaining this continuous action of the Holy Spirit, in the composition of the Scriptures, powerfully repulsed the false notions that certain among the learned, chiefly among the Montanists, sought to propagate, concerning the active influence of the Spirit of God and the passive state of the spirit of man in the theopneusty; as if the prophet ceasing to be master of his senses, had been in the condition the pagans attribute to their sybils (μανία or ἕκστασει). While the Cataphrygians maintained that an inspired man loses his senses under the overwhelming influence of divine powers (excidit sensu, obumbratus scilicet virtute divina)¹²⁴ the ancient Church believed, on the contrary, that the prophet does not speak in a state of ecstacy (non loquitur ἕκστασει), and that by this test we may distinguish true from false prophets. This was the doctrine of Origen against Celsus (lib. vii. c. 4); also of Miltiades, Tertullian, Epiphanus, Chrysostom, Basil and Jerome against the Montanists.¹²⁵

7. The ancient Church, seeking, by OTHER DEFINITIONS which we shall not point out here, to render the idea of theopneusty clearer, and relieve it of the difficulties by which it was sometimes obscured, showed again by this means how dear this doctrine was to her.

8. The ancient Church believed that, in order to merit the name of the action of God, inspiration eught to extend To THE WorDs, as well as the things.

9. The ancient Church,—by its constant mode of QUOTING the Scriptures, to establish and defend its doctrines;—by its manner also of expounding them and of COMMENTING on them;—and finally, by the use of them which she recommends to all Christians without exception, as a privilege and a duty; the ancient Church by these three habits of her life, shows (still more strongly, if possible, than by direct declarations,) how profoundly she was attached to a verbal inspiration.

And it is not only by her exposition of the word, that the ancient church shows us to what point the entire inspiration of the Scriptures was for her an indisputable axiom; she shall show it to you still more strongly, if you will follow her in her attempts to RECONCILE THE APPARENT CONTRADICTIONS in the gospel narratives. Whenever she attempts an explanation, she does not insist on it; but she hastens to conclude that, whatever the value of her explanation, a reconciliation of these passages exists necessarily, and that the difficulty is only apparent; because its origin is in our ignorance, and not in the Scriptures. ‘‘ Whether it be so, or not (says she with Julius Africanus), is of no moment, the gospel remains entirely true (τό μέντοι Ἔυαγγέλιον πάντως ἀληθεύει)!¹²⁶ That is always her conclusion upon the perfect solubility of all the difficulties which may be found in the word of God.

10. The ancient Church was so strongly attached to the doctrine of the personality of the Holy Spirit, and of his sovereign action in the composition of all the Scriptures, that she never found any difficulty in admitting at the same time the greatest variety and the greatest liberty in the phenomena, in the occasions, in the persons, in the characters, and in all the exterior circumstances, under the concurrence of which, this work of God was accomplished. At the same time that she recognised with St. Paul that, in all the operations of this Spirit, “it is one and the self same Spirit who divideth to every man severally as he will;”. (1 Cor. xi. 11), she equally admits that, in the work of theopneusty, the divine efficiency is exercised in the midst of great liberty in respect to the human manifestations.. And let it be well observed that, in the ancient Church, you never see one class of writers adopting one of these views (that of the divine causality and sovereignty), and another class attaching themselves exclusively to the other (that of human personality and of the diversity of the occasions, of the affections, of the lights, of the style and other circumstances of the writer). “If it were thus,” says Rudelbach, “one might justly accuse us of having ourselves forced the solution of the problem, instead of exposing with fidelity the views of the ancient Church.” But no; on the contrary, you will often see one and the same author exhibit both these points of view at once and without scruple: the action of God and the personality of man. This we see, for example, in Jerome; who, in speaking of the peculiarities of the sacred writers, is always fixed in the notion of a word poured by God into their minds. This we see again in Irenaeus, who, while insisting more than any other upon the action of God in the inspiration of the Scriptures, is the first of the fathers of the Church who relates to us in their details, the different personal circumstances of the evangelists. You will find the same in Augustine; you will find it even in that father of ecclesiastical history, Eusebius of Cæsarea, who gives so many details upon the few authors of the gospels; and who at the same time avows, on the plenary inspiration of the canonical Scriptures, the most rigorous principles.

11. The ancient church shows us still more completely by two other signs, her idea of inspiration; on the one side, by the care she has taken to ESTABLISH THE RELATIONS of the doctrine of the theopneusty with the doctrine of the gifts of grace; on the other, by the care she has taken to PRESENT THE PROOFS of inspiration.

12. Finally, if the ancient church presents this spontaneous (ungesuchte) and universal harmony in the doctrine of inspiration, it cannot be believed, as some imagine, that this great phenomenon belongs to some particular system of theology, or can be explained by such a system. Nor must this admirable harmony be regarded as the germ of a more complete theory which was afterwards to establish itself in the church. No, the very oppositions which from time to time, were made by the heretics of the first centuries, and by THE NATURE OF THE ANSWERS which were made by the ancient Church, on the contrary, show us clearly that this doctrine was ‘profoundly rooted in the conscience of the church. All the time that the fathers, in defending any truth by passages of the Bible, were forcing their adversaries to defend themselves only by denying the plenary inspiration of these divine testimonies, the Church has regarded the question as settled. The adversary assumed the place of a judge; there was nothing more to say to him, he denied the Scriptures to be the word of God! what could be done, but show him the deformity of his own argument, and to say to him: see where you are! as one shows to a man who has disfigured himself, his image in a glass. This is what the fathers have done.

Such are the facts; such is the voice of the Church.

We had at first collected, with the intention of giving it here, a long series of passages, taken first from Irenaeus,¹²⁷ from Tertullian,¹²⁸ from Cyprian,¹²⁹ from Origen,¹³⁰ from Chrysostom,¹³¹ from Justin Martyr,¹³² from Epiphanius,¹³³ from Augustine,¹³⁴ from Athanasius,¹³⁵ from Hilary,¹³⁶ from Basil the great,¹³⁷ from Gregory the great,¹³⁸ from Gregory of Myssa,¹³⁹ from Theodoret,¹⁴⁰ from Cyril of Alexandria,¹⁴¹ from the most esteemed Fathers of the succeeding ages; and finally from the holiest writers of the reformation.¹⁴² But we have at once perceived that all these names, if we gave merely names, would present themselves merely as a vain appeal to human authority; and that if we gave them with their quotations, they would too much extend this. chapter.

Eagerly then, we hasten to quote the greatest of teachers, our master Jesus Christ, and to make him heard when he speaks of the Scriptures, and above all, heard when he quotes them. Among the most ardent defenders of their verbal inspiration, we know no man who has ever expressed himself with more respect for the totally divine authority and permanence of their least expressions, than the man Jesus. And we do not fear to say that, if any modern writer should quote the Bible for the statement of some doctrine in the manner of Jesus Christ, he must immediately be ranked among the highest partisans of the doctrine we defend.

1) 2 Pet. i. 21. 1 Cor. ii. 13.

2) Hebrews i. 1.

3) Numb. xii, 6. Job xxxiii, 15. Daniel i, 17; xi, 6; vii, 1. Gen.. xx, 6; xxxi, 10. 1 Kings iii, 5. Matt. i, 20; ii, 12-22. Acts ii, 17.

4) Num. xii, 6; xxiv, 4; Job vii, 14; Gen. i, 15; iii, 3; Psalms lxxxix, 26; Matt. xvii, 9; Acts ii, 17; ix, 10, 12; x, 3, 17, 19; xi, 5-3 xii, 9; xvi, 9; 10; 2 Cor. xii, 1, 2.

5) De discrimine revelat. et inspirationis.

6) Gen, iii, 14, &c. iv, 6; Exod. iii, 6, &c. xix, 3, &c.; Deut. iv, 12; Matt. iii, 17, xvii, 5, &c.;

7) Dan. v, 5.

8) 2 Peter ii, 16.

9) 1 Cor. xiv.

10) John xv. 26.

11) 1 John ii. 20, 27. John xiv. 16, 26; vii. 38, 39,

12) Gal. i. 12-16; 1 Cor. xv. 3.

13) 2 Peter iii. 15, 16.

14) 1 Cor. ii. 13.

15) 2 Peter iii. 15, 16.

16) Eph. iii 3.

17) Luke xxi. 15.

18) Acts ii. 30.

19) John ii. 20, 27; Jer. xxxi. 34; John vi. 43.

20) Act. ii. 30.

21) John viii. 56.

22) 1 Pet. i, 11.

23) Mat. xi. 11; Michaëlis Introd. tom. i. page 116-129. Fr, Translat. (This author thinks that, in this passage, the least means the least prophet.)

24) 2 Cor. xiii. 3; Heb. i. 1, (ἴν).

25) Act. iii, 12. 21

26) Prov. iv. 18;

27) Gal. i. 15.

28) Gal. i. 16.

29) 1 John ii. 20-27.

30) 1 Cor. xiv. 1.—Acts xx. 10. °

31) 1 Tim. iv-20.—Phil. ii. 27.—1 Tim. v. 23.

32) Eph. iii. 4,5; iv. 2.—Rom. xvi. 25-27.

33) Acts ii. 4.

34) Jer. i. 1; xxix. 1, and elsewhere.

35) Luke iii. 1,2..

36) Luke 1, 59-67—41, 42.

37) Jer. xiv. 14; xxiii. 11,16; Ezek. xiii. 2, 3.

38) 2 Sam. xxiii. 1, 2.

39) Acts: xv. 39.

40) John xi. 51.

41) Letters from Warsaw, March 22, 1827.,

42) In the Jerusalem Talmud.—Engel. method., at the word Juifs.

43) Mark vii. 9, 13, and Matt: xv, 3, 9.

44) Censure of 1588.

45) Council of Trent, Sess: 4, 2d. decree of 28th April, 1546: Bellarmin, De Eccl. lib. iii. cap. 14; lib. iv. cap. 3, 5, 6, 7, 8. Coton, lib. ii. Cap. 24,34, 35.. Du Perron contre Tilenus.

46) Council of Trent: 1st decree. Session 4.

47) It was in vain that at the Council, the Abbey Isidor Clarius represented that there was rashness in attributing inspiration to a writer who himself declared that he had none; Fra Paolo, Tom. 1, liv. ii, Sec. 51.

48) Bellarmin de verbo Dei, lib. iv.

49) lib. iii’ Charon, Veritè 3. Coton lib. 2. Cap. 19. Bayle Traitè.

50) Bellarmin, de verbo Dei, lib. ii. cap. 19.

51) Bellarmin, lib. iv. Cap, 3. Coton, lib. ii. Cap. 24. Du Perron contre Tilenus.

52) Bellarmin, lib. iv, Cap 5. Coton, lib. ii. cap. 34,35. Council of Trent, Sess. 4.

53) 1520 Counc. Harduini, T. ix. p. 1893.

54) Of Clement XI. of September 8, 1713.

55) Propos. 79.

56) Prop. 80.

57) Prop. 82, 83, 84, 85.

58) Exodus, xx. 4, 5. ii

59) Quisquis elanguerit erga venerabilium imaginum adorationem (τροσκύνησιν) hune anatematizat sancta nostra et universalis synodus! (was it written to the Emperor, in the name of all the Second Council of Nice.) (Cone. tom. vii. p. 583.)

60) Adv. Hæres. lib. iii. cap. 2.

61) Claude, posthumous works, vol. iv. p. 228.

62) 2 Peter, 1-20; John, xix. 37.

63) John x. 35; xvii. 12.

64) John v. 39.—Matt. xxi. 42; xxvi. 54—Rom. xv. 4—1 Cor. xv. 3.

65) Acts xxiv. 14; Luke xvi. 29, 31, 17; Matt. v. 17, 18; John x. 34.

66) 2 Tim. iii, 14, 15.

67) See Krebs & Lœsner or 2 Tim. iii. 15.

68) He was born in the year 37. See his life. Edit. Aurelize Allobr, p. 999.

69) Against Appion, lib. 1, p. 1037. Δῦο μόνα πρός τοῖς ἕικοσι Βυβλία.

70) Οὐτε ΠΡΟΣΘΕΙΝΑΙ τις οὐδεν, οὔτε ΑΦΕΛΕΙΝ αὑτῶν, οὔτε ΜΕΤΑΘΕΝΑῙ τετολμῆκεν.

71) Εὐθὺς ἐκ της πρῶτῆς γενέσεως ὀνομάζειν αὐτα ΘΕΟΥ ΔΟΓΜΑΤΑ. According to others; from the first generation.

72) Πίστεως δε οὐχι ὁμὸίας ἡξιωται

73) 2 Cor. ii. 17.

74) In his preface to James and Jude.

75) 1 Cor. iii. 9, 10. 1 John, iv. 2.

76) Ob sie Christum treiben, oder nicht,

77) Vorlesungen über die Dogmatik, 1829, I. B. p. 421-429.

78) John xiv. 6. Rev. xix. 10.

79) 2 Tim. iii 16.

80) See Josephus, against Appion, book 1. p. 1037.—Philo in Eichhorn.—Joseph in Nov. Repert., p. 239.—De egypticis Judeis. cf. Eichhorn. Einleitins. A. T.P. I.§ xxi. p. 73, 89,91, 113, 114, 116.—De Sadduceis, § xxxv. p. 95.—Et Semler (App. ad liberal. V. T. interpret, p. 11.—Eichhorn., Allg. Bibl. der. bibl. Literal T. iv. p. 275, 276.

81) Romans iii. 2.

82) Thess. xi. 16.

83) 2 Cor. iii. 15.

84) See this quotation at the xxvii. question.

85) Acts xv. 21. Josephus often attests the same fact.

86) We believe that we may employ the name Church after the example of the Scriptures, as designating sometimes every thing gathered in the Gospel nets, sometimes only that which is pure and living. And as to the name sect (ἅιρεσις Acts xxiv. 14; xxvi. 5; xxviii. 21), after the example of the apostle, we employ it here neither in a good nor a bad sense.

87) Josephus against App. liv. i. 8. Eusebius E. H. book iii. ch. 9, 10.;

88) Exposition of Job, Hist. of Counc. of Trent by Fra Paolo, tom. i. liv. 2, Sect. 47.

89) Origen (Eusebius E. H. liv. iv. c. 26). Athanasius (Paschal letter). St. Hilary (prologue in Psalmos. p. 9, Paris, 1693). St. Epiphan., Lardner, vol. iv. p. 312. St. Gregory Nazianzen (Carm. 33, Op. tom. ii. p. 98).

90) Preface to book of Kings; or Prologo. Galeato. See Lardner, vol. 5, p. 16-22.

91) Forty-eight bishops and five cardinals, all or almost all Italians. Fra Paolo, t. i. liv. 2, § 57.

92) Photius contr. Manich., i. t. 1; apud Wolf. anecd., p. 32, sq.—J. Ciampini rom. vetera monum., i. p. 126, sq.

93) Cyrill., Alex. in Apol. ad Theodos., imp. Act. Concil. ed. Mansi. t. vi. col. 579; vii. col. 6; ix. col. 187; xii. col. 1009, 1052, al.

94) Corb. byz., i. p. 422, al.

95) See St. Jerome, pref. on Job: St. Chrysost. Hom. 19, De Statuis, The women, says he, were accustomed to suspend copies of the gospels on the necks of their children. See the 68th canon of the vi. Counce. in Trullo.

96) Lib. ii. de Conciliis, c. 12,

97) Hosius contra Brentium, lib. iii. Eckius, de auth. Ecclesice, Bayle Tractat. i. catech. 9,12. Andradius, lib. iii. Defens Conc. Trident. Stapleton adv. Whitaker, lib. i. c. 17.

98) Isa. liv, 13, lix, 21.

99) Edition of Mabillon, vol. viii.

100) Evangelio non crederem (according to the African custom, for credidissem, as confess, lib. ii. c. 8: Si tune amarem, for amavivissem) nisi me ecclesiæ commoveret (commovisset) authoritas (ch. 5.) Eos sequamur qui nos invitant priùs credere, quum nondum valemus intueri, ut ipsà fide valentiores facti, quod eredimus intelligere mereamur, non jam hominibus, sed ipso Deo intrinsecùs mentem nostram firmante et illuminante (c. 14).—Opera August:, Paris, Mabillon, t. viii.

101) Turretin: Theol, elenct. vol. 1. loc. 2 ques. 6.

102) Qui solecismos in verbis facit, qui non potest hyperbaton reddere sententiamque concludere—(Comment. on Titus, lib. 1. ad cap. i. 1.)—and on Eph. lib. ii. (ad cap, iii. 1.) See also his Comment. on Galatians.

103) Proem. on Philemon; Comment. on Galat. lib. ii.

104) Du Pin of the Sorbonne, Proleg on Bible, lib. 1. v. 256.

105) Agobard, adv. Fredeg., lib. c. 9-12.

106) Rudelbach, Zeitschrift, 1st number, 1840, page 48.

107) Ανομοις; thence their names.

108) Ephiphan., advers. her. lxx, vi.—Aetii salutat. confut., vi.

109) Acta concilii Constantinop. ii. collat. iv, 65,71, apud Harduin. Acta concilii, tom. iii, p. 87-89,

110) See Josephus against Appion, lib. i. c. 7, 8; and Philo, ed. Heschel, p. 515 et p. 918.

111) Moses Maimonides, more nebuchim, part ii, ch. 37 and 45. Rudelbach (ut supra); p. 53.

112) De Author, Script.

113) In Dialogis.

114) Theol. elenctic., loc. 2, quest. 5.

115) Preface of the Compendium de Schultens, on the Proverbs, by Vogel. Halle, 1769, p. 5.

116) De interpret, narrationum mirab, N. T. (preface to his Ernesti,)

117) Einleitung in das Alte Testament; 4th edit. Gœting. 1824. tome. iv. p: 45.

118) Zweyte verbessete Auflage. Berlin, 1822, p. 279, Lehrbuch. Ammerkungen:

119) Einleitung, ete:, 2d edit: 1821.

120) Sentiments of some Dutch Theologians, Letter xi, xii. La Chambr. Traité dela Religion, tome iv. p. 159 and following:

121) Kaum istirgend ein Punct, woriber im Alterthume eine groessere und freudigere Einstimmigkeit herrschte. (Zeitschrift von Rudelbach und Guerike, 1840. 1st vol. p.1 to 47: Die Lehre von der Inspiration der heiligen Schrift, mit Beriicksichtigung der neiisten Untersuchungen dariiber, von Schleiermacher, Twetsen und Steudel.)

122) Legatio pro Christianis, c. 9.

123) Ad Grecos cohortatio, c. 8.

124) Tertullian, adv. Marcion, lib. iv, ch. 22.

125) Hieronym. Proem. in Nahum. Præfat. in Habacuc, in Esaiam. Epiphan, adv. hæreses, lib. 2. Hæres, 48. c. 3.

126) In his letter to Aristides; upon the harmony of the gospels relating the two genealogies of Christ. (Euseb. E. H. lib. i. c.7).

127) Advers, hæreses, lib. ii, e. 47.—Lib. iii, c. 2.—Lib. iv, ¢. 34.

128) De anima, c. 28.—Advers. Marcion., lib. iv, c. 22. De Prascrip. adv. heret., c. 25.—Advers. Hermog., c. 22.

129) De opere et eleemos., p. 197-201.—Adv. Quirin., Adv. Judeos, preefat.

130) Homil. xxxix in Jerem. (already quoted above, ch. iv, sect. i.)—Homil. ii, in eumd. (cap. xix and L.)—Homil. xxv, in Math. ~—Ejusd. Philocalia, lib. iv—Commentar. in Mattheum., p. 227428. (edit. Huet.)—Homil. xxvii, on Numb.—In Levit., hom. v.

131) Homil. xlix on John.—Homil., xl, on John., v.—Homil., ix, on 2 Tim. iv.—Serm. 53, de util. lect. script.—3. de Lazarod.

132) Apol., I, c. 33 and 35, 50; 51.—Dialog. contr. Tryph., ¢c. 7.-—Ad Græcos cohort., c. 8.

133) Σῦυτομος λόγος περῖ πιςεως—De Doct. Christi, lib. ii, c.9.—De Pastor., cap. 2.—Epist. xlii.

134) Epist. xcvii, (ad Hieron.)—De unitate Ecclesie, c. iii, t. ix, p. 341 (Paris, 1694.)

135) Contra Gentes, t. I, p. 1.—De Incarnat. Christi (Paris, 1627.)

136) Ad Constant. Aug., p. 244.—De Trinit., lib. viii, (Paris 1652).

137) Comment. on Isa. t. I, p. 379 (ed. Bened.)—Hom. xxix advers. calumniantes S. Trinit.—In Ethicis regul. xvi, lxxx, cap.

138) Moralia in Job, preefat., c. i.

139) Dialog. de animé et resurr., tom. I, edit. greecolat., p. 639.—De cognit. Dei cit. ab Euthymio in Panoplia. Tit. viii.

140) Dial. I, Ατρεπτ—Dial. IL, Ασυγχυτ—In Exod. Qu. xxvi. —In Gen., Qu. xlv.

141) Lib. vii; cont. Jul. Glaphyrorum in Gen., lib. ii.

142) See Lardner, vol. II, p. 172, 488, 495.—Haldane, Insp. of H, Scrip., p. 167 to 176.