in its own divine order, and that these could not be changed without impairing its wholeness. Now, if the same succession of metaphor, illustration, and imagery, which is contained for example in the prophets, the discourses of Christ, or the Apocalypse, is called up to the mind by the letters of the English alphabet instead of the Greek, we do not see how their plenary inspiration is infringed.

Nevertheless the objection has some weight. All these we admit would not be likely to be perfectly transferred from one dialect to another. But the original perfect embodyment remaining, endless approximations may be made. What if in the earliest versions the English words and letters do not preserve perfectly the Divine drapery in which sacred truth is shadowed forth? The truth itself in its original and perfect form remains entire, and the world may approach it as fast and as far as they are qualified to receive it. The reader of the Bible receives at first but a small portion of its truths. They unfold before him forever. So of the translators, and there is no more practical necessity for their inspiration than for that of the readers. Nay, there is much less, for the translator may transfer from one language to another what he does not understand. We can attach very little of practical force to this objection.

2. Again it is objected, that the doctrine of plenary inspiration, to be available, must suppose the miraculous preservation of the record; whereas the Bible has been subject to the same accidents with other books, and we cannot suppose that we have an exact transcript of the inspired penmen themselves.

We cannot think that this objection has much weight; especially against those books of which plenary inspiration may be more reasonably claimed. The various readings almost uniformly pertain to mere matters of grammar, and scarcely ever to history, to reasoning, to doctrine, or fact; and whenever they do, the right reading is generally clearly determined. It is not a choice between one comparison and another, between one illustration and another, scarcely ever between one arrangement and another. And we cannot doubt that the increasing light of criticism will be sufficient for the exigency, whenever, in the progress of the race, its welfare shall be found to hang upon the difference between zai and de, or ós and ó.

3. Again it is objected, that each of the writers of the Old and New Testament preserves his own characteristics of style; whereas if the book had really been divinely composed, its style

would have been the same throughout. We answer, this is all too readily assumed. We might as well look for a uniform style in nature. If we found one tree or one landscape clothed in one kind of foliage, or covered with one species of flowers, we might as well argue that all others must wear the same appearance, else they could not be the work of the same Infinite Author. Is not this variety, if we may so say, the style of God? Is it not by endless variety that He adapts himself to all the conditions of man? We can see a most beautiful design in this very matter of diversity of style, and see it in exquisite harmony with analogy. Why did God inspire men at all to speak to humanity? Why did not his revelations drop down from the skies bearing the same uniform characteristics? For this reason, that he spake to this humanity in all its possible conditions, and the revelation must be adapted to all its changing states, from the most outward and sensual to the most inward and spiritual. He therefore spake to it through human minds, used the characteristics of human minds, without their imperfections, to clothe his truth and adapt it to the various wants of men. When He spoke to spiritual minds, he used a spiritual mind, when to the sensual, he used the sensual mind, and brought down his truth into its lowest forms of manifestation. The mind of St. John would not have been a fit medium for the communication of truth to Jews, nor would that of Moses have been fit to clothe the truth in the tender and celestial imagery of St. John. To the Hebrews he gave truth its more gross and outward forms of expression, for it was given to minds in a gross and outward For those of the new dispensation He used minds more ethereal, for He spake to another condition of mind. And who shall say that it was not for this very reason, that four gospels were given through the agency of four Revelators, instead of one, that the truth might be adapted in its style and composition to the various stages of man's spiritual life? Matthew and Mark dwell more upon outward facts; Luke and John, and especially the latter, upon the facts of the spiritual consciousness. Each has his own peculiar arrangement, and we cannot doubt that there were peculiar reasons for that arrangement, that Christianity might be contemplated in all its phases, according to the actual wants of the Christian mind. At any rate, the books which have been published called "Harmonies" in which the four narratives are broken up and combined anew, though they may be convenient for reference, instead of harmonizing the

state.

Gospels, seem to us to have jumbled and confounded them. If it be asked, Could not the Spirit of God have revealed his truth without employing various styles of human thought and expression? it might be asked in turn, Could he not do it in this very way, and has he not done it in a manner that shows forth his wisdom and goodness? Nay, can we conceive how otherwise he could have given his truth such various and perfect adaptation to all varieties of mind, and to our ever changing moral and spiritual condition?

4. Another class of objections is founded on some of the contents of the books themselves; passages that contain false morality or false philosophy, such as the imprecations in the Psalms, or the Mosaic account of the Creation, or again, passages which seem to contain inconsistencies of dates and genealogies. There are difficulties of this kind, which we should not undertake to remove, which indeed we should not be anxious to remove, being confident that they would remove themselves, if need be, so fast as the truths already open and manifest are converted into life. Carlyle says, "Do the duty that lies near thee, and thy next duty will have become clear." So he might say, Practise the truth that is plain and manifest, and the next truth will be unveiled and open. We should expect to find just such difficulties and obscurities in a Divine Revelation, just as there are difficulties and obscurities in the book of nature, confident nevertheless that, as in the latter case so in the former, they are underlaid by laws all-harmonizing and all-pervading. In regard to the cases cited, however, we feel no difficulty, for we do not believe that Moses, in the first and second chapters of Genesis, describes the physical creation, any more than he describes, in the third chapter, moral good and moral evil growing on trees in the shape of apples, or a serpent holding an argument with a woman. Nor do we believe the imprecations in the Psalms to be directed against the personal enemies of David, any more than we suppose that in the words "Strong bulls of Bashan beset me round" he intends to describe a personal bull-fight. The whole style, spirit, and imagery of these Psalms, the context of these very passages lead us to suppose, what the great mass of readers and interpreters of all ages have supposed, that they describe the struggles and conflicts of the soul with its spiritual foes. This we might say, even had the quotations from them by our Lord furnished no clue to their interpretation. But all this aside. Such objections as these, while we live in the

general light of the Scriptures, are lost and disappear; just as the spots on the sun's disk are not seen nor thought of while we live in that general sunlight that bathes the hemisphere in glory.*

But it is time for us to close this imperfect outline of an argument. And we do it in the full conviction, that few questions are more vital to the interests of religion than this. This subject must yet come up and be canvassed with that thoroughness and profundity which it deserves. We believe it will be found to have more direct and practical reference to the spiritual growth and prosperity of the denomination, than all questions about measures, social excitements and social action, which in view of the vast importance of right doctrine, as a solid rock on which to stand, may well be called "the flutter of the times."

E. H. S.

* It will be found, we think, on a candid examination, that what have been assumed as discrepancies and contradictions, will often be proved to be simply variations, such as we may well suppose might be dictated by infinite wisdom for the various adaptations of revealed truth. The inscription upon the cross, as recorded by the four Evangelists, has been assumed as a clear case of discrepancy. There is not the least discrepancy. Matthew reports, "This is Jesus the King of the Jews;" Mark, "The King of the Jews; Luke, "This is the King of the Jews;" John, "Jesus of Nazareth, the King of the Jews." Neither professes to report every thing that was written upon the cross. Suppose that there were no more than the following words, “This is Jesus of Nazareth, the King of the Jews," and the report of each of the narrators would be strictly and verbally true, each selecting such portion as it served his special purpose to record. We might as well put it down as inconsistency, that each, instead of making his own selection, did not relate every thing which the Saviour ever said or did.

E. E. 76ale.

A THANKSGIVING EXHORTATION FOR NEW YEAR'S

DAY.

OUR Russian allies are wrong. They begin their years in September; for, they say, were the earth made at any other season, how could Adam and Eve have lived till the harvest were ripe? This question, we may leave to others. Perhaps the antediluvian new year was celebrated in September. But for us, and with us, times and seasons and customs are changed, and are well changed; and our year shall begin on the first of January, and no where else.

For not till now, have we felt that the year is indeed renewed. Day-the half of time, which is to us almost the whole the bright banner of the year's glory, which is furled only as the year's strength falls way, has been growing less and less. We have received, day by day, less and less from the year's treasury of opportunities for active labor, and have had a right to feel that it was passing away, and that its resources were wasted. But now - just now, we are beginning to see that a change has come that another fold is blown out from the banner that another master has the charge of the treasury; and that day beautiful day — will not grow less and less forever. This change began, they tell us, more than a week ago, as a bright omen for Christmas; the darkness began to grow less and the light to grow brighter, just in time to be welcome to us. I honor the poetry, may I not say the sublimity of devotion, of those worthies of the church, who fixed the date of that anniversary; so that the sun himself, in his courses, as in speechless voice he sounds the praise of the Creator, should remind all men of the bright light with which the Almighty drove away earth and blackest darkness, and should be an omen of its still increasing brilliancy and power. I honor them for the spirit which would make all nature speak of that which filled their hearts. I have accepted, this year, the omen which they gave us. And now that a week more has fanned the little spark of prolonged day-light into such a flame, that we all fancy we perceive that the days are indeed longer, I would make the general feeling a general presage or promise of general use, of increased opportunity; and therefore it is,