to men-Difficulty has frequently arisen on this subject from confounding revelation with inspiration.-As J. D. Michaelis remarks "the words inspiration and revelation are to be distinguished from each other; for the former (inspiration) has a more general meaning. While the latter (revelation) refers to those things only of which the sacred writers were ignorant before they were divinely taught. They who confound these words are accustomed to invent empty objections, as, how it were possible that things very well known to the sacred historians by ordinary means, should be revealed to them, which they pronounce to be absurd, as it well is; but yet the writers of the Bible might be moved by divine impulse to commit to writing matters with which they were before well acquainted, and these things might be so brought to their minds by the Holy Spirit that there should be no danger of erring."

This distinction is in exact accordance with the declaration of our Saviour to his disciples (John 14: 26. 16: 12, 13,) where the two-fold office of the Holy Spirit of bringing to remembrance things before known by other means, and of revealing new truths, is clearly recognised-The word inspiration by the custom of speech includes both these operations of the Spirit, the word revelation only the latter. Accordingly revelation may be defined that act of the Holy Spirit by which truths before unknown are communicated to men-and inspiration the act of the Holy Spirit by which not only unknown truths are communicated but by which also men are excited to publish truths for the instruction of others, and are guarded from all error in doing it. Thus it was revealed to the ancient prophets that the Messiah should appear, and they were inspired to publish the fact for the benefit of others. The affecting scenes at the cross of Christ were not revealed to the Apostle John, for he saw them with his own eyes-(John 19: 35). But he was inspired to write a history of this event, and by supernatural guidance was kept from all error in his record. It is therefore true, as the apostle Paul affirms (2 Tim. 3: 16), that every part of the Bible is given by inspiration of God, though every part of the Bible is not the result of immediate revelation.

Let this distinction be carefully kept in mind, and many objections, which are often urged with great confidence against the inspiration of certain parts of the Bible, and many difficulties which honest minds sometimes feel, vanish at once.

For convenience' sake we call the whole Bible a revelation

from God, because most of the truths it contains were made known by direct communication from God, and could have been discovered in no other way; and generally, it is only the incidental circumstances attending the communication of these truths that would be ascertained by the writers in the ordinary modes of obtaining information.

Inspiration therefore does not exclude diligent and faithful research on the part of the sacred writers (Luke 1: 1—4,) nor one sacred writer's quoting from another as (Micah 4. from Isaiah 2.) nor a sacred writer's making use of documents furnished by uninspired men for the ascertaining of facts (as the Book of Jasher and the Book of Jehovah's wars, Josh. 10: 13. Num. 21: 14,) nor the characteristic peculiarities of style and manner resulting from diversity of intellectual structure, education and other circumstances, such as we all observe when we compare Isaiah with Ezekiel, or John with Paul.

Having thus settled the notion of a revelation, we next inquire, what is essential to the perfection of a revelation? On this point difficulties often arise from the merely accidental association of ideas-many seeming to imagine that because the revelation itself is alleged to be perfect therefore there should be no accidental circumstances of imperfection attending its publication among men. But let us learn to distinguish the things that differ. What is a perfect revelation but perfect truth clearly communicated? In oral revelation the person who is the organ of communication may be young or old, elegant or rustic, his features may be beautiful or plain, his voice melodious or harsh, his manner easy, or awkward, his language ornamented or simple-and the perfection of the revelation not be in the least affected by any of these circumstances. In written revelation, then, is the form of the book at all essential to the perfectness of the revelation? or the binding? or the material of which the book is made? Must ink become unfading, and paper imperishable when used for the recording of a revelation, or the revelation itself become imperfect? Must writers, or copiers, or printers become exempt from human frailty so soon as they are employed about a book containing revelation? Must the manner and style of revelation be adapted to any particular set of circumstances, or conformed to any one standard of taste? In a book designed for general use, this would be obviously improper and absurd. The Chinese, the Esquimaux, the South Sea Islanders have as much right to claim

that the Bible should be throughout conformed to their peculiar circumstances and tastes as the Germans, the French or the English.

Revelation must bear the prevailing impress of the circumstances and tastes of the times and nations in which it was originally given. The Bible, however, though it bears the distinct impress of Asiatic manners, as it should do, is most remarkable for rising above all local and temporary peculiarities, and seizing on the great principles common to human nature under all circumstances.

In order to make a revelation perfect must its language be any other than human language? And if human language, is it not in itself necessarily imperfect language? The only question of any importance on this point is, can the meaning of revelation be accurately ascertained? We answer that the meaning of the Bible by the use of appropriate means can be ascertained with unfailing accuracy for all practical purposes, and these are the only purposes for which the Bible was given ;The language of the Bible is the language of men, otherwise it would be of no use to men. And it is to be understood just as all other human language is understood. It is addressed to the common-sense of men, and common-sense is to be consulted in its interpretation.

This is necessary because

(1) No human language has a distinct sound for every different idea. And the same word must have several meanings. In English for example the word letter has several different meanings; and which one is intended is always made plain to common sense by the connection in which it stands, and the nature of the subject to which it is applied.

"The child is learning its letters,"

"The merchant is writing his letters,"
"Dr. Johnson was a man of letters."

Who that has common sense ever thinks of confounding the different meanings of the word letters in these three sentences? The same use of words occurs in the Bible, and the meaning is to be ascertained in the same way.

Again: Common sense is to be consulted in the interpretation of the Bible, because

(2) Language is sometimes figurative and sometimes literal, and the connection, and nature of the subject must always determine which sense is intended.

The bird flies into its nest,

A man flies into a passion.

Is there any difficulty in determining which sense of the word flies is intended in each of the above sentences? So when we say of a mass of lead, that it has great weight, the nature of the subject shows that we use the phrase literally and mean that the mass is very heavy, but when we say of the opinion of a judge that it had great weight, in deciding a legal question, the nature of the subject shows that we use the phrase figuratively, and mean that his opinion had great influence.

As a

There is just the same sort of figurative language in the Bible, and it is to be understood by just the same means. further illustration of this point examine the first stanza of Gray's ode to Spring.

Lo where the rosy bosom'd hours
Fair Venus' train, appear!

Disclose the long expected flowers
And make the purple year—
The attic warbler pours her throat
Responsive to the cuckoo's note

The untaught harmony of spring;
While whispering pleasures as they fly
Cold Zephyrs through the clear blue sky
Their gather'd fragrance fling.

Here are as many figures as there are lines, and many of them as bold as any we find in the Bible, and yet how could the same ideas in any other way be expressed with so much clearness, vivacity and beauty? Figurative language is always not only more vivid and beautiful, but plainer, and more permanent than literal. For the objects of nature, from which the figures are drawn, remain always the same, while the meaning of words is perpetually changing. When the patriarch Jacob called his son Judah a lion's whelp, (Gen. 49: 9) he expressed a distinctive feature of his character in terms which could not then be mistaken, whose meaning no subsequent changes of language could ever obscure. Ideas, particularly, pertaining to intellectual and moral subjects, can seldom be expressed literally so as to be understood by the mass of mankind.

The language of common life abounds with figures; and the more illiterate and simple men are, the more frequent and free is their use of figurative language. This has always been reVOL. V. No. 18.

50

marked in respect to savage nations, and it is equally true of the illiterate classes among civilized people. Go among the common laborers and seamen of the Atlantic states, or the backwoods-men and boat-men of the West, and you will scarcely hear a literal expression. Almost every idea is expressed in the boldest figures. Hear an Ohio boatman bantering with his fellow, and if he threatens to put him into the river unless he is quiet, it is in language like this: "If you don't mind your eye, my sweet fellow, I'll spill you into the drink." Several causes combine to make the Bible particularly rich in figurative language. It is designed for common use and treats principally of moral and religious subjects which can be made plain to the commonest understanding by figurative expressions. written in the primitive ages, and among a simple people, and is the product of Asiatic mind, and on this account commends itself more readily to the common sense of men, and is less affected by those changes which take place in manners and language. But though figurative language is easily understood, it is also easily perverted; and most of the perverse interpretations of the Bible arise from the abuse of its figurative language, or of its terms whose meaning is ambiguous, till determined by the connection in which they stand. The difficulties of interpreting the Bible and the differences of opinion in regard to its meaning do not owe their origin to any intrinsic obscurity, but to habits of perverse interpretation, which unhappily have so long prevailed. The Bible is treated sometimes as if fancy and not reason were the proper organ to elicit its meaning; and at other times, because it is appealed to as authority, and the interpreter is not willing to yield a favorite opinion of his own, he adopts wrong principles of interpretation and talks about allegory, or the analogy of faith in order to force the sentiments of the Bible to a conformity with his own. opinions. Every book interpreted in this manner must give rise to various and contradictory opinions.-While the Greeks interpreted Homer allegorically, there was as much controversy about his meaning as there is now about the meaning of the Bible. But so soon as men became willing to let Homer speak for himself, and to take him as he meant, controversy ceased. So soon as we adopt the same course in regard to the Bible, the same result will follow, and not before. I will endeavor to illustrate my meaning by a few examples. Our Saviour says, "I am the true vine." Who ever thinks of understanding this