be well supported, it would by no means invalidate either the truth or the Inspirations of these writings; because the books do not always declare their authors. They have, however, been transmitted through so regular a channel of evidence, by a people for whom they were especially written, and by whom they were religiously preserved, as to render their being written by those to whom they are ascribed, as indubitable as any thing of the kind can be. In some cases the authors may be considered as dubious and seeing that,

in these instances, the books are not imputed in Scripture to any individual, no objection can reasonably be made on this ground.

An objection is sometimes made to the supposed author, on account of his speaking of himself in the third person; but this cannot have much weight, when it is considered that it is a mode of writing not peculiar to the Scriptures, but one which has been adopted by various historians, whose works have been generally admitted without disputation.

Another more plausible reason for disputing the authors, arises from some places being mentioned by names, which appear to have been given to them subsequent to the alleged writer's existence; or from saying, that a place is called by a particular name "to this day," with other similar expressions. Now all this is easily obviated by considering, what is generally admitted, that, after the Babylonian captivity, Ezra revised the Jewish Scriptures; and it appears, that, in some instances, he either made use of modern names, or added remarks of his own to elucidate the history. He was a religious character, and one whom the Jews considered as acting under Divine direction; they therefore received his comments, and added them, if he did not do it himself, to the original text. This is a fact which the Jews acknowledge; and which accounts for the causes of this objection in

such a manner, as must, I apprehend, be satisfactory to every impartial mind.

The account of the death of Moses, at the end of Deuteronomy, was probably added by Joshua or Samuel, to complete the history of Moses, in those books that were written by him; and is a circumstance, which no reasonable man, who is acquainted with literary publications, would make a ground of objection to the authenticity of any book.

Nor are the objections to the truth of the matters related in the Holy Scriptures, of more weight than those alleged against their authenticity. They arise from some apparent inconsistencies of one part with another, and from a supposed difference, in some instances, from other histories.

In most cases, the inconsistencies objected are only in appearance; they may be, and indeed have been, removed by a critical examination of the subjects; and if we admit a few to have arisen from incorrectness in transcribers or translators, surely no wise man would consider such a circumstance as a reasonable ground, for rejecting even writings much less authenticated than these. As to the few variations from other writers, if they cannot otherwise be reconciled, a fair consideration of the probability, which of them had the best means of information, will, I believe, give a clear preference to the Sacred historian. But the Scriptures are, in general, found to be well supported by other authors; and it is worthy of observation, that the completion of prophecies recorded in various parts of Holy Writ, is confirmed by profane historians of good credit, who, it must be admitted, could have no inducement to give any unfair testimony in their favour. *

* For the truth of these assertions, see Grotius on the Truth of the Christian Religion, Book I. Sect. 16; Newton on the Prophecies; and Tomline on the Study of the Bible.

That some verbal difficulties should occur, in a collection of books, which were written from more than one thousand seven hundred, to upwards of three thousand years ago, and which contain a history of above four thousand years, is what may reasonably be expected; but that writings of such antiquity should come down to us so perfect as they appear to be, is cause of admiration; and, considering their interesting importance, of gratitude and praise.

Having, I hope, sufficiently obviated the most plausible objections, that are made against the truth and credibility of the Scriptures, the next circumstance to be considered is their Inspiration; by which I understand, that the writers or compilers were influenced by the Holy Spirit in communicating these writings. A considerable part of them, are given as express communications from the Almighty, to his servants and prophets: this, if we admit the truth of the relation, determines a large proportion of the Bible to be an Immediate Revelation; which is more, as to the degree, than is necessarily implied by the term Inspiration.

The reasons for considering these writings, as being given under that Divine Influence which is called Inspiration, are the following:

1.—The characters of the writers; all of whom, that we can ascertain, were men eminently endowed with Divine gifts; and who appear to have drawn up these writings for the use and edification of the Church of God; in doing which we may reasonably conclude, that His assistance would be sought for and afforded.

2. The character of Ezra; who, besides being the writer of at least one book, collected the various writings of the Old Testament, with the exception of two or three books not

B 5

then written.*

His character, gifts, and motives, all lead

us to the same conclusion as before; with this addition, that as the occasion, or the authors of some part of these writings, are not clearly ascertained, Ezra's compilation, under Divine Influence, gives an additional sanction to these books.

3. The testimony of the apostle Paul, who "All says: Scripture is given by Inspiration of God, and + is profitable

* These are Nehemiah and Malachi, and perhaps Esther, with part of Chronicles. They are generally supposed to have been added by Simon the Just.

+ I am aware, that some persons endeavour to set aside the force of this passage, by stating that one Greek manuscript omits the xa, in English and, and that some ancient Versions have no word equivalent to it; by which they would give a different meaning to the passage. In answer to this, it may be observed:

1. That for one Greek manuscript which wants the xal, or and, there are great numbers which have it; and that one is neither so ancient, nor of so good credit as most of the others, in the opinion of many critics. Now, to set all other manuscripts aside, and prefer a single and less authenticated reading, with two or three translations, which, though they may be ancient, can by no means be considered of equal validity with so many copies in the original tongue, would be an exercise of criticism, which nothing but a partial predilection to a preconceived opinion would adopt. Would these critics admit such arguments in favour of the authenticity of 1 John, v. 7 ?

2.The context requires a sense, which implies that the apostle considered that all which he had just called the Holy Scriptures were inspired. Ancient commentators, even those who have made use of the versions which have not the and, still consider the passage as implying, that the whole Scripture was Divinely inspired. So that, supposing (what however is not admitted) that the xa was not in the original, the sense is still the same. For the more clear elucidation of the subject, let us read the whole passage, as these objectors would render it: "From a child thou hast known the Holy Scriptures, which are able to make thee wise unto salvation, through faith which is in Christ Jesus. All Scripture, (or every writing,) given by Inspiration of God, is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness; that the man of God, may be perfect, thoroughly furnished unto all good works."

for doctrine," &c. When we consider the opportunities and abilities of the apostle, for judging in such a case, (to say nothing of his own Inspiration,) his testimony appears to be

Now, every one that reads this passage impartially, and considers the construction of the sentences correctly, must, I apprehend, admit that the Holy Scriptures, mentioned in the beginning of the paragraph, are included in the general observations respecting " All Scripture given by Inspiration," or that " All Scriptures given by Inspiration," only alluded to "The Holy Scriptures" mentioned just before. In either case the inference is clear, that the Scriptures of the Old Testament, which were all that were then called the Holy Scriptures, were considered by the apostle as Divinely inspired; and as answering to the character he gives in the 16th verse. It may be further observed, that without the xa, the passage may be translated thus: "All (or the whole) Scripture being Divinely inspired, is profitable," &c. Even the Latin Vulgate, which is one of the Versions brought forward as favouring the omission of the and, will bear this rendering: "Omnis scriptura, divinitus inspirata, utilis est," &c.

3. The sense is, however, more clear and unequivocal, by the well supported reading of the word xa, or and, as given in our translation. This sense contains the reason why the Holy Scriptures were able to make Timothy wise unto salvation; but supposing the meaning simply to be, that all Scripture which is Divinely inspired, is profitable, &c. without any connexion with the preceding verse, the position would become an unconnected truism; as no doubt could be entertained, that all Scripture which was Divinely inspired, was thus profitable. Besides, this meaning would leave Timothy, and every other reader, in uncertainty, which part of the Scripture was, and which was not Inspired; it offers no rule to distinguish them. But had this been the apostle's meaning, there was a fair occasion, and indeed a call upon him, to offer some means of distinction.

From all these considerations, I am induced to believe, that the construction given by our translators, is supportable, not only by all the Greek manuscripts, but by the just rules of criticism; and by every other reasonable consideration of which the subject is capable. See this matter farther discussed by Findlay, on the Inspiration of the Jewish Scriptures, in answer to Dr. Geddes.

For the sake of some of my readers, it may be proper to take notice of an objection, which has been made from Robert Barclay having, in his apology, quoted the passage without the and: " All Scripture given by Inspiration of God, is profitable, &c. In answer to this, it may be