These conclusions are inevitable if we admit the truth of the premisses. Mr. Mill has urged them in his posthumous essays with an unsparing logic. The only mode of escaping from the inference which he draws is one which will be accepted by every theist, namely, by denying the validity of his assumption that the impress of perfection must of necessity be stamped on all the works of a perfect Creator.

From these reasonings I draw the following conclusion. It is impossible that the same à priori principles which are unsound when applied to the structure of the universe can be safe guides as to the nature and extent of the supernatural assistance which God must have vouchsafed in the communication of a Revelation. In each case an abstract theory has been laid down that God must act in this or that particular manner. In the one it is assumed that if a God of infinite power, wisdom and benevolence has made the universe, He was bound to realize our highest conception of those attributes in every portion of His creative work. This we know, as a matter of fact, that He has not done, and hence it has been inferred that if the evidence justifies our recognizing the existence of a God at all, it is only of one who is subject to limitations. On the other hand, it has

works of a perfect Creator. It is assumed (by Mr. Mill) that if a God of infinite power, wisdom and benevolence has made the universe, He was bound to realize our highest conception of those attributes in every portion of His creative work. This we know as a matter of fact He has not done."

The reader will see, on comparing this professedly continuous quotation with my own words as printed above, that it is actually made up of no less than three separate sentences, wrenched from their context in three distinct paragraphs; and not only so, but the Professor has, by the unwarrantable insertion of the three words" by Mr. Mill," limited my application of the false assumption in question to that writer, whereas the whole context shows that I intended it to apply equally to the advocates of the popular theories of Inspiration. He then goes on to say: "In Mr. Mill's statement, of which the unsparing logic is praised by the Lecturer," &c. Now, this praise of Mr. Mill's unsparing logic on my part is a purely visionary creation of the Professor's own imagination, and has no existence in fact; on

been assumed that if a God, who is perfectly wise and veracious, has made a revelation, he was bound to exclude from its record every vestige of human imperfection, and to impress on every portion of its contents the stamp of infallibility.

At this point the two arguments, while continuing to rest on the same abstract principles, diverge in opposite directions. It is assumed that the Bible is such a revelation. On the principles above stated the inference is justly drawn, that no trace of error or imperfection can exist in any portion of its contents. This being so, the advocates of this theory are compelled to adopt one of the two following courses, either to deny the truth of every discovery in science, history, or criticism, which is at variance with the received opinions respecting the contents of Scripture; or to adopt some mode of interpretation which shall bring the Scriptures into harmony with the new facts. The adoption of the latter course is perfectly legitimate, except when theologians are compelled by the exigencies of their position to put interpretations on Scripture which are inconsistent with the obvious meaning of its writers. Still the principle is a correct one, for if the Universe and the Bible are both

the contrary, my whole argument on pp. 448, 449, is founded on the principle that the implied premiss which alone can give any validity to Mr. Mill's reasoning, is unsound; while I fully admit that if this premiss is true, Mr. Mill's argument is unanswerable. But I have distinctly denied the truth of this premiss, as Professor Birks himself states ("the Lecturer affirms this premiss to be unquestionably false"). Professor Birks says on the contrary, "it is rather a truth expressly revealed;" but in making this affirmation he introduces the conception of the future, a question wholly outside the argument of Mr. Mill and my self, which as the reader will observe, deals exclusively with the past and present condition of the Universe. As to the origin of such a misrepresentation, there are but two possible alternatives; either the quotations, with the Professor's remarks on them are the result of a carelessness which is scarcely credible, or of a reckless disregard of fact. May the cause of true religion not suffer from the advocacy of such defenders!

Revelations from the same God, it may fairly be assumed that fresh discoveries in the one would throw light on the meaning of the other. The only danger of it arises from the temptations to which it exposes theologians to put nonnatural interpretations on the Bible.

Still however it is in the highest degree desirable that we should take our stand on principles which will save us from the danger of having to make any more retreats from untenable positions before the steady advance of scientific knowledge. The only sure mode of accomplishing this is to adopt the principle laid down by Butler, that all theories of inspiration, as far as they are based on à priori principles, are unsafe guides to the realities of things, and that the only way in which light can be thrown on this question is, not by laying down how God must have acted, but by inquiring how he has acted, and thus bending our theories of inspiration into conformity with the facts and phenomena of the Bible, and not the latter into conformity with our theories. By pursuing this course we shall be able to welcome truth from whatever quarter it may come.

Assuming therefore that the à priori principles above referred to are utterly invalid as guides to the realities of things, it follows that the only mode of throwing light on this difficult question is,

First,

To ask the sacred writers whether they have made any such definite assertions as to the nature of their own inspiration as would enable us to construct a theory which would be applicable to the entire Bible,

Secondly,

In the absence of any such affirmations on their part to apply the principle of induction to its contents, in precisely the same manner as we do to any other subject of investigation, and to propound a theory which will cover the existing facts. Other road to truth on this subject there is

none.

Such a method is in conformity both with common sense

and with sound philosophy. Surely nothing is more absurd than on mere abstract principles to attribute to the writer of a Book of Scripture such a degree of divine assistance as he himself apparently disclaims. Let us take an illustration from St. Luke's Gospel. If the verbal or mechanical theory, or any of its modifications, is correct, every word in this Gospel must be the dictation of the Divine Spirit. Yet in the preface the information as to the sources whence the author derived his materials is of a most definite character. He tells us that he instituted a careful investigation into the truth of the facts which he has narrated; and that while he was not an eye-witness of them himself, he has compiled his narrative from the testimony of those that were; and he adds that the purpose he had in view was that his readers might know the certainty of the things in which they had been instructed.* Yet notwithstanding these affirmations, the exigencies of theory have induced persons to affirm that the contents of this Gospel were dictated by the Divine Spirit. I fully admit that there is nothing in his assertions inconsistent with the idea that the author was possessed of one or more of the supernatural endowments referred to in the Pauline epistles, as extensively bestowed on the members of the Apostolic Church, and which may have aided him in his inquiries and imparted additional strength to his natural faculties; but it is plain that it can not have been of such a nature as to have superseded their use or rendered human sources of information unnecessary.

It becomes therefore a matter of the greatest importance to ascertain whether the Bible contains any such definite assertions as to the degree of the supernatural assistance

* Επειδήπερ πολλοὶ ἐπεχείρησαν ἀνατάξασθαι διήγησιν περὶ τῶν πεπο ληροφορημένων ἐν ἡμῖν πραγμάτων, καθὼς παρέδοσαν ἡμῖν οἱ ἀπ ̓ ἀρχῆς αὐτόπται καὶ ὑπηρέται γενόμενοι τοῦ λόγου· ἔδοξε καμοί, παρηκολουθηκότι ἄνωθεν πᾶσιν ἀκριβῶς, καθεξῆς σοι γράψαι, κράτιστε Θεόφιλε, ἵνα ἐπιγνῷς περὶ ὧν κατηχήθης λόγων τὴν ἀσφάλειαν.-(Luke i, 1-4.)

afforded to its authors as will enable us to found on them a theory which will accurately define the extent of their inspiration. Such an inquiry may safely be confined to the New Testament, because it distinctly affirms that the enlightenment possessed by the apostles and prophets of the New Dispensation was greatly in excess of that possessed by the most enlightened men of the old. Now although the writers of the New Testament habitually cite the Old Testament as a divine book, and affirm that God spake in it on various definite occasions, yet not a single passage exists in which they lay down the degree of supernatural enlightenment possessed by its authors, or inform us how far a human element entered into its composition.* Several writers of the Old Testament also distinctly appeal to historical docu

*It may be objected that the assertion is very common that the Holy Spirit spake in and by the prophets, as in such passages as "who by the mouth of thy servant David hast said" (Acts iv. 25); and "Well spake the Holy Ghost by Esaias the prophet unto our fathers," &c. (Acts xxviii. 25); and many others. These passages unquestionably affirm that in each specific instance the prophets spake under a divine influence; yet they leave us without information as to its precise character or limits. Still less is it possible from such passages to construct a theory of inspiration which shall be applicable to the entire Bible. Besides, a great number of these passages leave us without any means of accurately judging whether in each case the prophet spake by special suggestion or from a general enlightenment, by which he was able to penetrate into the mind of God. Still further, such assertions leave us without any information on the point which is all-important in reference to modern controversies, viz., how far the divine influence conveyed an illumination on points which were only collateral to, and not of the essence of, the prophetic utterance. But whatever opinion we may form as to the extent of divine illumination which such passages attribute to the prophets on particular occasions, it is evident that to infer from them that the same illumination presided over the composition of every part of the Bible, including the whole of the historical books, Proverbs, Ecclesiastes, and the Canticles, is to erect a pyramid of theory on an apex of fact. But still further, the quotations made by the writers of the New Testament from the Old have a very important bearing on the entire subject. They afford the strongest proof that they only attributed