the labour required to explore them; and not seldom is that labour lightened, by our contact with such as are distinguished for incomparable sublimity and beauty.

It is not enough, however, to regard the book as a remarkable composition. It is supposed to possess an inspired character, and to be invested with canonical authority. It is usually ascribed to the Apostle Paul. Independently of such arguments in favour of this opinion as it would be improper to present to you from this place, it may be observed, that there is much internal evidence in the writing itself to corroborate and support it. There are trains of abstruse thought; sudden and lengthened digressions; peculiarities of phrase; allusions to personal suffering; intimations of authority; strokes of pathos; abrupt practical appeals; and other distinguishing characteristics of what proceeded from the pen of that eminent Apostle and most extraordinary

man.

There is nothing, we conceive, incompatible with the inspiration of any writing, in referring, in this way, to peculiarities of style and manner characteristic of the writer-the human instrument through whom the ideas are conveyed, and from whom they derive, so to speak, the material in which they are embodied. Of the mode of inspiration, that is, of the way in which the

Infinite Mind adapted itself to the subordinate mind, so as to come into contact with it, and impart to it a portion of its own knowledgeof this, we can conceive nothing. We can infer, from general principles, the possibility of the fact itself; we believe its certainty, upon what appears to us indisputable evidence; but, of the manner in which it was effected, we are hopelessly ignorant. The possibility of the fact itself is sustained by the very same arguments which establish the Divine existence. He who made the mind, as he must necessarily understand its construction and capacities, must be able to have direct access to it if he please, and thus to communicate information, which could never be obtained in any other way. That this might be, it would be absurd to deny : that it has been we believe: but we believe it as a fact, the evidence of which is seen to be satisfactory, but the mode of which it is impossible to explain. We receive it, in short, just as we receive the appearances of nature, and the ultimate demonstrations of experimental science; which we know as facts, and as nothing else. The philosopher is well acquainted with the difference of the questions, what? how? as applied to the subjects of physical knowledge. He professes to furnish a reply only to the first. He observes, for example, or he tries

the action of element on element, matter on matter; he obtains a certain result; he knows both the facts,-both the preceding and the present condition or appearance of the substances, but he is lost in the link between them. He knows, as facts, the operation and the result; he can tell you what has been and what is; but he could not tell previous to experiment, that that result would follow and no other, because he knew not how the substances were constituted in relation to each, or how they would be mutually affected by contact he now can tell, since he has seen it, that in all similar cases, no other result will follow but that; yet still, he cannot tell how it is that it does so, because he cannot explain those secret and mysterious affinities, the actual existence, the activity, and the effects of which, are, as facts, substantiated by positive demonstration. The mode of the operation of matter on matter is just as inexplicable, as the mode of the operation of mind on mind; but evidence, plainly establishing the fact of either, is, of course, not to be resisted.

Such evidence we believe we have in support of the direct operation of the supreme, on created, intelligence; in other words, of the inspiration of the writers of the Old and New Testaments. That these men were distin

guished by some peculiar intercourse with heaven, is a statement, for which a greater variety, and larger and stronger masses of proof, can be brought, than for any moral proposition whatever. Amid all the mystery in which the nature of this intercourse is involved, one thing seems sufficiently established; namely, that inspiration, whatever were its mode, did not act, nor was it necessary for it to act, upon the style and language of its subject. We can conceive that it might secure all its ends without affecting these; and that, in some respects, it was better it should do so. It operated on the mind of the writer; on the stamina of his thoughts; on the substance and character of his conceptions; infusing new ideas, or recalling those previously possessed but, leaving the language, the vehicle of conveyance to others, to be such as the education and habits of the writer spontaneously supplied. Hence, the writings of prophets, evangelists and apostles, who all "spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost," present that variety of method, style, and illustration, which might be previously expected from the different character of the persons employed. And hence, too, it is reasonable to judge of the genuineness of any composition, attributed to a given writer, from its internal

resemblance to the undisputed productions of the same mind.

It may not be amiss, perhaps, farther to remark, though the observation is not necessary to our present argument, that the individual peculiarities of manner which distinguish the sacred penmen, considered in connexion with that perfect union of object, that inviolate consistency of principle and purpose, in which writers of all ranks and of every age so entirely coincide, furnishes an argument in support of that very inspiration, by which it might be imagined those peculiarities would themselves be destroyed. It seems to demand the agency of some one presiding intelligence, to preserve among so many persons so variously distinguished, and during such a series of changes and such a lapse of years, the perfect harmony for which their writings are remarkable. seems to strike the mind, that such an effect must necessarily be referred to divine superintendance. Perhaps, too, it might not be deemed altogether fanciful to observe, that thus the whole volume of Revelation presents a sort of correspondence to that of the universe. When viewed as a whole, and when as such it is compared with the undoubted work of the Supreme Wisdom, the same agent appearsand appears the same in both. We find him

the same in both.

It