from without, into the minds of those who were to be the authors of the books of Scripture? Or, granting that the thoughts were given, why a necessity that the words not of prophets merely, but of historians, evangelists, and other scribes, should be directly dictated by a superior agent? It will be observed, at once, that our regard and reverence for Scripture depends entirely on the way in which these questions may be disposed of. If, with the apostle, we assent that it is all inspired, then must its claims on our deliberate attention be acknowledged as imperative, and we are bound to yield to it in every part with the docility of little children; but if, upon examination, it be found to be a mutilated and imperfect thing, an aggregate of human and divine composure, then let us sink at once into a state of hopeless insecurity; for instead of serving as a pendent lamp of radiance from the eternal throne, to guide by its unerring light earth's wanderers, does it only mock and terrify us by its uncer tain and bewildering glare.

As the inquiry into the plenary inspiration of the Scriptures has given rise to considerable controversy, we shall recapitulate, in as summary a way as possible, the reasonings of Dr. Chalmers upon this subject. He commenced by a general argument from analogy. In reply to the imagination which some may entertain, that certain parts of Scripture are so barren as to be unworthy the dictation of God, a hint was thrown out as to the way in which the Divinity stands related to the various parts of the volume of nature. There are wastes of water and of land, for instance, on our globe, which we might ima gine capable of being disposed to better advantage. There are specimens innumerable in the animal and vegetable world, in which we cannot see the developement of any great design, or any design at all; but we never on this account imagine that God had no purpose, or no plan in creating and upholding all things. When in external nature we behold that the minutest and the meanest objects are not unworthy of his notice and his power, we will not be disposed to disbelieve the Bible, because in many of its pages we can discern no meaning, or no point; as in those places, for example, where nothing is presented but an apparently unedifying nomenclature. Granting generally, that God is the author of the book, we shall no more detach him in our thoughts from the insignificancies which it may appear to present, than we

K

should detach him from those analogous appearances with which the world of nature evidently abounds.

The most interesting questions, however, upon this, it was remarked, may be reduced to too. The first involving the inquiry, whether inspiration extended to the language as well as to the thoughts of Scripture;-the object of the second being to ascertain whether the inspiration were universal, that is, whether it extended to the whole Bible, or a part of it. For a satisfactory answer to the first, reference was made to the various terms employed by the writers of the sacred books themselves, when speaking of their own effusion. These are hai graphai, the Scriptures; ta iera grammata, the Sacred Writings; ta logia tou theou, the Oracles of God; ho logos, tou theou, the Word of God: titles and ascriptions given to the ideas brought forth in writing, not as existing in the mind of the writer-references not to the truth as thought upon, but to the truth expressed. Thus we have the following quotations, where the first of these ascriptions is employed. "Ye err, not knowing the Scriptures." Search the Scriptures." "The Scripture cannot be broken.": "The Scripture must be fulfilled." "All Scripture is give by inspiration of God." In these and other passages it is not to the noemata, or ideal scheme of Scripture, that our attention is directed, it is to the doctrines as manually written and couched in words that our submission is demanded. We can take no cognizance of a doctrine as existing only in another's mind, and it is therefore to the Scripture, and the words of Scripture, that the above quotations, with a multitude of others, can alone apply.

There is another interesting method, it was observed, of arriving at the same conclusion,-it is that of tracing the subject matter of the Bible in its progress of descent from heaven. In its origina residence, it was essentially and necessarily pure. Our Lord delivered all that part of it which is recorded by his biographers, in perfect purity; and he brought it down to earth without an error, or without a flaw. He left it with his disciples at his departure, and he sent a heavenly messenger to make more ample revelations of his will. Who will deny that it existed pure in the minds of the apostles when infused by such an agent; but it had another stage to undergo in their 'communication of it, and it is here that the advocates of a partial inspiration are put upon the defensive." They

must be under the imputation, said Dr. Chalmers, of saying that the revelation is vitiated in its final landingplace; and that then, and not till then, it has been abandoned to itself. Strange! that the feebleness of humanity should be suffered then to gather around it. Strange! that this revelation should descend in purity to them, but flow out impurely unto us, for whose special use it was designed. It is then the same as if corrupted in the upper sanctuary itself, and as if the light that streamed in splendour from the throne of heaven, had been thus divested of its radiance!

It follows, of course, that Dr. Chalmers believes in the inspiration of the words, as well as of the truths of Scripture. He does not venture indeed to dogmatize upon the processs of the manufacture of holy writ, but he takes his stand upon the fact, that the result or product of the manufacture is all over instinct with divinity. He maintains with Haldane, and with Carson, whose writings on the subject he recommends, that the language of the Bible throughout, is the utterance of the voice of God; that the strength and impress of omnipotence is stamped upon all its testimonies.

It is

The question whether inspiration extended to the whole Bible, or a part of it, next presented itself. That it extended to the whole, was shown in the following manner. predicated of the Word of God, that it is "pure,"-that it contains but one ingredient of pure unmixed divinity. Again it is said, that whatsoever things are written, those were written for our learning; and it is declared, authoritatively, that though heaven and earth pass away, this word shall not pass away. If inspiration be a partial thing, all these emphatic testimonies go for nought, and the Bible is a mutilated communication. There is also a reigning character, it was observed, throughout all the doctrine and morality of Scripture, with which a partial inspiration is totally at variance., Whatsoever it announces as a principle, it announces in that uncompromising way that admits of no indulgence for its opposite. Thus it is written, "he that sinneth in one point is guilty of all;" "he that is unfaithful in that which is least, is, unfaithful also in that which is much;" 66 whosoever shall break one of these least commandments, he shall be called the least in the kingdom of heaven."-This rigid importance, given to jots and tittles, is a great characteristic of the Bible; and from the fact, that it will not suffer

an encroachment by a single hair-breadth on any of its principles, may we gather clearly and unhesitatingly, that it is a volume, not of partial, but of universal inspiration. There is, therefore, no amalgamation of the divine and human in the ingredients of this precious legacy,all its intimations have an equal claim and challenge upon our attention,-all having been completed under the direction of the same almighty and unerring Spirit.

Such is a brief outline of the arguments of Dr. Chalmers, upon this important subject. They are totally at variance with that false and meagre view that has been taken of it, by some of the avowed professors of Christianity. Loose notions of inspiration may be very palatable to the vitiated taste of Continentalists, and are indeed in perfect harmony with their random and pernicious theorizing. They may be congenial also to the wild and wayward fancies of our own modern speculators; and the liberal spirits of our day may count it rational, to throw a veil of loose incertitude over the plain and obvious phraseology of Scripture; and the Apostle Paul, that mightiest expounder of our precious faith, may be madly stigmatized as "inconclusive in his reasonings, and declamatory in his vindications of evangelic truth." But let it be remembered, that it is a daring and an impious thing to tamper thus with the pure Word of God, that Word of which our blessed Lord himself has said, that not one tittle of it shall pass away until the whole be fulfilled. Let the votaries of Neology and scepticism in every form, join hand to hand, and hold their Saturnalia and their riot on the page of Scripture, till they dissipate in imagination all that is precious there, and fritter all into nonentity; but let those who love the Bible, rally round the sacred standard, and in the consciousness that throughout, it is a Bible, let them cling tenaciously to all its reve lations. It contains no heterogeneous mixture, no foisted utterance of fallible humanity. And let no man, therefore, dare to sit in judgment upon any of its intimations, or be so audacious as to charge to the account of human weakness, or human foolishness, that which is essentially, and in all its parts, divine. It is the spirit of unbelief that works such arrogance as this-that very spirit which would dethrone the Deity from the dominion of the universe, and would leave a helpless world in dark and irremediable atheism.

*

We cannot conclude our observations on this subject;

without simply pressing a plain question,-Who are the real lovers of the Bible?-those who think with Dr. Chalmers, that it is all the product of inspiration; or those who are disposed to say of several of its compositions, that they are tinctured with the frailty of their authors ?--those who agree with Priestly, "that the Scriptures were written without any particular inspiration ;" or those who are convinced with Paul, that “all Scripture is given by inspiration of God."

We shall return to Dr. Chalmers in our next, and shall conclude our article by a rapid glance or two at the tone and characteristics of his teaching.

SIR,

UBIQUITY OF CHRIST.

TO THE EDITOR OF THE ORTHODOX PRESBYTERIAN.

I FIND, from the Belfast News-Letter of the 4th July, 1828, that in a debate which had taken place in the Synod of Ulster, at Cookstown, on the 28th of the preceding month, the Rev. Robert Stewart, of Broughshane, affirmed, that Arians denied the Ubiquity of the Lord Jesus Christ. At the close of his speech, the Rev. Henry Montgomery, Presbyterian Minister of Dunmurry, demanded, "on what authority he had asserted, that Ārians did not believe in the Omnipresence of the Saviour?", Mr. Stewart answered, on that of Dr. Drummond. Mr. Montgomery replied, that he did not agree with Dr. Drummond; that he believes the Saviour was present in all places; adding, that his presence was promised in Scripture," where two or three are gathered together in my name, there am I in the midst of them." Mr. Porter said that Dr. Drummond was a Humanitarian, that Arians did not agree with him.

The above very interesting and very extraordinary conversation, is copied verbatim from the News-Letter, and has never yet been denied or contradicted by any of the parties concerned.

Here, then, we have a distinct, unequivocal acknowledgment of the Ubiquity of Jesus Christ, made by the Rev. H. Montgomery; who, notwithstanding this open avowal of his Faith, on that most important point, yet publicly maintains, and openly teaches, that the LOGOS or "WORD," the Son of GOD, the SAVIOUR, is a created being; that there was a time when he did not exist; and that he