That most popular argument for the inspiration of a particular book, founded on testimony borne to the purity and integrity of the canon of Scripture, may be soon disposed of. When it has been proved that a book forms part of what is called the canon, it may follow that it forms part of Scripture. This will not carry us far when the question to be decided is, what are the claims of Scripture to inspiration ? There is one mode of proof, besides those already mentioned, which ought perhaps to be noticed, as being much in favour with some theologians, namely, an appeal to what is called the tradition of the church. There are some advocates of inspiration, in the strictest sense and most unlimited application of the term, who allow, or rather contend, that the proof of it rests mainly, if not entirely, on the testimony of tradition. An examination of the value of this testimony %souk' oblige us to ester mere largely, than would hero be expedient, on the inspertant question of reclossastieal tnelition generally. We shall cooteut ouredvess with saying that, in this case at least, we greatly doubt, for many reale au, the sufficiency of the witness, and are nut artis8e41, oven where it to the purpose, that its words have • s been rightly understood. flowerer this may be, It is plain that this mode of proof alas suppoees the question of the divine origin of the Christian religion to be independent and to have precedence of the question of inspiration.
We shall close this article with a brief notice of the three meat popular theories of inspiration, which are distinguished from each ether more in respect of the extent to which they attribute inspiration, than in respect of any difference In the meaning assigned to the word.
That which IA called verbal inspiration supposes each word in the Bible, as we now have it, with dime allowance made for mistakes of transcribers. to have been irresistibly dictated by the Spirit of Cod, the writers being only vehicles of words and thoughts not their own. This notion of inspiration has undoubtedly still its advocates ; but we are not aware that it is at present maintained by any divine of repute. Aeon-ding to another theory, somewhat modifying the former, the writers were allowed to exercise their own judgment in the choice of their words; but in the meaning of each sentence, from tho first verse of Genesis down to the last of the Revelations, they have been secured by supernatural interference from the least particle of error. This theory, which is not without support. front well.known theologians, represents perhaps more nearly than any other the popular creed. LaOly, there are many, and among-t them divines of great eminence and reputed orthodoxy, and not a few distinguished prelates of the English church, who limit the extent of inspiration as commonly received, and suppose that parts of Scripture may have been written with the liability to error incident. to ordinary histories; those for
instance which are purely historical, and contain no religious truth. As to the degree in which this limitation is to be admitted, and the number and length of pages to be excepted from the sanction of inspiration, there is of course room for diversity of opinions, which affords apparent ground for objection to the theory itself. The advocates of the two former theories contend that a latitude for choice is allowed which is capable of a dangerous abuse. The truth of the allegation cannot be disputed; but perhaps it is not possible by any device to exclude the danger which alarms them. The canon of Scripture has not been ascertained to us by an authoritative revelation, nor has the purity of the text been absolutely secured by providential interference. A liberty is thus left, which in these cases also may become dangerous to those who are willing to abuse it. Some however may think that the test of sincerity and right intention, and the means of probationary discipline which the allowance of such a measure of discretion affords, is apparently in harmony with what we hare been taught of Cod's moral government of the world. On the other hand it is objected to the advocates of the more rigid theories, that the faith of the believer is exposed to still greater danger by the forced con structions and violent treatment of the text which their systems have often induced them to employ.
It might perhaps have been expected that we should notice a certain damnification of the phenomena of Inspiration of which many theologian. are fond, certain distinctions in kind, under the titles of impulsive, suggestive, superintending, and many others. The truth is, we think them to be of very little value on any view of the subject. They seem to have been adopted by theologians who held the theory of plenary but not verbal inspiration, from a wish to remove the necessity of supposing a greater quantity or degree of miraculous agency than the occasion required.
We have drawn none of our materials from the writings of a class of theologians who, regarding the Scriptures as in some sense, not very clearly defined, vehicles of religious truth, exclude all notion of revelation which is not equally applicable to discoveries made by human intelligence, and who give no credit to assertions of miraculous interposition, whether in conveying knowledge or attesting facts. Whatever consideration may be due to the writers, some of whom are men of ingenuity and research, their speculations could hardly have an appropriate place in treating of the subjects to which this article is confined. Iltartossitsrt.