Bolingbroke, and Hume, successively appeared_LECT. I. as the antagonists of revelation, and attempted, with a degree of acuteness, learning, and eloquence, which was only equalled by consummate cunning and sophistry, to invalidate its evidences, expose its doctrines, impugn its morality, and supersede its necessity. Yet, met as they were by Baxter, Halyburton, Clarke, Jones, Lardner, the Chandlers, Sherlock, Chapman, Doddridge, Butler, Campbell, and numerous other able apologists of Christianity, the influence of their writings was greatly checked; and till the period of the French Revolution, little was done to revive the controversy. Nor are the efforts that have since been employed of a character calculated to produce any effect on men of enlightened and reflecting minds. They can only prove dangerous to those whose means of information are scanty, or who have an awful interest to serve by succumbing to the principles of infidelity.

The result of the contest was very different on the continent, especially in Germany. Not only were some of our principal Deistical works translated into the language of that country at the time, without any thing of a counteractive tendency sufficiently powerful making its appearance; but the materials which they furnished have been the stores whence most of the modern means of attack on revelation have been supplied. Many of them, indeed, have been modelled into new forms, according to the various

LECT. I. systems of philosophy which have prevailed; but notwithstanding the strange metamorphoses of transcendentalism through which they have passed, they still retain a distinctness of features that sufficiently connects them with the family from which they sprang. Some of the strongest arguments that have been employed by Bahrdt, Teller, Löffler, Reimar, Paulus, Wegscheider, and Röhr, are to be found in the writings of our English Deists. It was from our native shores that the noxious breath of infidelity was wafted across the sea to empoison the atmosphere of German theology; so that to whatever extent that theology has become impregnated with its pestiferous qualities, and how loud soever we may be in our condemnation of its influence, we must not forget that British infidels are primarily the subjects of inculpation.

History of the dogma of

The history of the dogma of Inspiration, Inspiration. viewed in its more restricted acceptation, as applied to the Divine influence enjoyed by the sacred writers, or the consequent authority stamped upon the productions of their pens, is of much wider extent, and far more fruitful in scientific results. In the sketch with which it is proposed to occupy the remainder of the time allotted to this Lecture, it is not our intention to comprehend those views of the subject which are furnished by the Scriptures themselves, as the statements which they present, strictly belong

to the head of sacred proofs, which will come to LECT. I. be considered on a future occasion. It will be confined to the testimonies of men who lay no claim to extraordinary supernatural influence, or on whose behalf no such claim is advanced. In conducting this inquiry, we shall first examine the opinions held by the Jews, and then those which have been broached by Christian writers.

ticus.

The earliest recognition of the doctrine by Ecclesiasany uninspired Jewish writer is that found in the book of Ecclesiasticus, written about 180 years B.C. Besides references throughout this work to the revelations of the Divine will committed to the posterity of Abraham, there is a distinct ascription of the gift of prophecy to Moses, Joshua, Samuel, Nathan, Elijah, Isaiah, and other messengers of God; and λóyia, divine oracles, are particularly mentioned, ch. xxxvi. xlv. xlix.

λόγια,

In the writings of Philo, who flourished at Philo. Alexandria in the time of Christ and his ароstles, the subject is repeatedly treated of, and a decided opinion is expressed respecting the degree of sacred influence which was exerted on the penmen of Scripture, and the state of their minds during the continuance of celestial communications. That a writer so fertile in imagination, so prone to allegorize, and so deeply imbued with the Platonic philosophy, should at times have expressed himself in terms which imply a belief that others besides Moses and the

prophets, himself not excluded, were the subjects of Divine inspiration, cannot be deemed strange. Similar language is frequently to be met with in the earlier fathers. But that he drew a broad line of distinction between the inspiration of the former and that of the latter, is evident from the paramount authority which he uniformly ascribes to the sacred Scriptures, and the explicit manner in which he points out the source whence they emanated. In his book, "De Vita Mosis,” he divides inspiration into two species: épμnveía, Interpretation, and Tроonreía, Prophecy. Those who enjoyed the former received immediately from God either communications which were totally unexpected on their part, or communications in answer to questions put in order to obtain them. The latter he restricts to the ability to predict future events, which he unconditionally attributes to Divine influence, and considers those who were favoured with it to be also interpreters of the will of God, but subordinate or inferior to those who were such in a

pre-eminent sense. The prophetic state during an illapse he thus describes: "While our own "intellect shines with full effect, pouring into our whole soul a meridian splendour, and we are in a state of self-possession, we are not the subjects of inspiration; but in proportion as "it disappears, a divine ecstasy and prophetic phrensy falls upon us. For when the Divine

66

66

66

light shines, the human sets; and when the

66

“ former goes down, the latter rises. Thus it LECT. I. usually happens in prophecy. Our own in"tellect departs on the arrival of the Divine

Spirit, and on his departure it again returns ; " for it is not proper that the mortal and im“ mortal should dwell together. On which "account the disappearance of reason, and the "darkness which surrounds it, is followed by an "ecstasy and divine fury."* From this passage it clearly appears that Philo regarded the absolute cessation of mental activity on the part of the persons inspired as indispensable to their reception of supernatural influence. The same principle is repeatedly advanced when prophecy is the subject of discourse, but nowhere more explicitly than in his Third Book de Specialibus Legibus: "For a prophet," he says, "advances nothing whatever of his own; he is merely "the interpreter of another, by whom he is " actuated all the time he is speaking; and "while he is the subject of Divine enthusiasm,

* Ἕως μὲν οὖν ἔτι περιλάμπει καὶ περιπολεῖ ἡμῶν ὁ νοῦς, μεσημβρινόν οἷα φέγγος εἰς πᾶσαν τὴν ψυχὴν ἀναχέων, ἐν ἑαυτοῖς ὄντες, οὐ κατεχόμεθα· ἐπειδὰν δὲ πρὸς δυσμὰς γένηται, κατὰ τὸ εἰκὸς ἔκστασις ἡ ἔνθεος ἐπιπίπτει, κατοχωτική τε καὶ μανία. Ὅτε μὲν γὰρ φῶς ἐπιλάμψει τὸ θεῖον, δύεται τὸ ἀνθρώπινον, ὅτε δ' ἐκεῖνο δύει, τοῦτ ̓ ἀνίσχει καὶ ἀνατέλλει. Τῷ δὲ προφητικῷ γένει φιλεῖ τοῦτο συμβαίνειν· ἐξοικίζεται μὲν γὰρ ἐν ἡμῖν ὁ νοῦς, κατὰ τὴν τοῦ θείου πνεύματος ἄφιξιν, κατὰ δὲ τὴν μετανάστασιν αὐτοῦ, πάλιν εἰσοικίζεται. Θέμις γὰρ οὐκ ἔστι θνητὸν ἀθανάτῳ συνοικῆσαι· διὰ τοῦτο ἡ δύσις τοῦ λογισμοῦ καὶ τὸ περὶ αὐτὸν σκότος, ἔκστασιν καὶ θεοφόρητον μανίαν ἐγένησε. Quis Rerum Divinarum Hæres. Edit. Mangeii, Tom.i. p. 511.