and the spirit of the ancient prophecy demands its destruction. Figures and symbols are likewise freely borrowed, e. g., the symbols of Ezekiel's visions and of that of Zechariah are chiefly drawn from the Levitical institutions or the ritual. Or the coincidence with antecedent revelations may be found principally in isolated phrases and in allusions to expressions and forms of speech. All this may appear in one form in one prophet, and in another form in another, and to a quite different extent in different prophets.

Some of the older writers thought it necessary to assume in all these cases an entire independence of one writer upon another, and that the words, even where they might be precisely the same through long periods, were directly suggested by the Holy Spirit to the minds of both. Others of later date, less careful of the credit of the prophets, or of the perfection of their inspiration, have charged these coincidences to servile imitation, and a want of originality on the part of the borrower; as though, unable to mark out a new course of thought for himself, he was content with a tame repetition of what had been already said before. Neither of these opinions is well founded. The true doctrine of the inspiration of the prophets does not deny, but affirms, the continued operation of the natural powers of their own minds, only elevated, assisted, and preserved from all error, both in the matter and the form of their communications. The familiar words of earlier Scriptures would offer themselves no less readily to them because of their inspiration; in fact, there were special reasons why they should be chosen in preference. Words of the Spirit in his earlier revelations, flow naturally from the mouth of the organs of the same Spirit in later times. It is a mark of their oneness, an external sign of their inward unison. It serves to link them all together as parts of the same continuous revelation. It is a recognition of the authority of their predecessors, by which later prophets give the sanction of their own inspiration to earlier predictions, and likewise draw sanction from them for their own. At the same time, this gradual disclosure of future events, or gradual unfolding of the same truths by successive instruments, each delivering all that was given him to deliver, while yet the earliest outline implicitly involves all

that was to come after, shows that the prophets were conducting a scheme which, so far from originating, they only themselves partially comprehended. The mind which draughted the early suggestions, which are so carefully and accurately expressed, must have been at the same time conscious of the idea in its full and final form, and have designed these later evolutions of it. In other words, the infinite intelligence of God must have both sketched the entire scheme, and assigned to each prophet his particular part in carrying it forward.

An incidental advantage of some importance arising from this relation of the sacred writers to those who have preceded them, is the evidence it affords of the canonicity and genuineness of the earlier books of Scripture. There can be no better evidence that a book was in existence and was regarded as of divine authority, than the fact of its being quoted or alluded to as such. Thus, in addition to other incontestable arguments in favour of the Mosaic origin of the Pentateuch, one of great force may be derived from this indirect but sure testimony to its existence in all the subsequent inspired writings. Its impress is indelibly left upon the entire history and literature of the chosen people. The facts of the Pentateuch are everywhere assumed, its institutions shown to be in operation, and its language cited or referred to in a manner and to an extent which places its existence and authority beyond reasonable contradiction. The testimony rendered in its favour by Hosea, Amos, and Micah, has been exhibited in detail by Hengstenberg and by Caspari, and may serve as illustrations of this method of argument and specimens of the fulness of evidence bearing upon this point which the prophetic writings afford. A like defence may be made, and in fact has been made, by other writers, of the disputed chapters in Isaiah, which are used by Jeremiah and other prophets with the same frequency and freedom as his unquestioned writings.

This method of argument has, however, been pushed both by the advocates and the opponents of the genuineness of the inspired writings to an extravagance and excess which is little. suited to win favour from sober minds. The coincidence of two writers upon a single expression, or a few isolated expres

sions, may leave it quite doubtful which was the original, or which borrowed from the other. And the attempt to settle all such cases with absolute precision by fixed rules, in themselves of doubtful truth or applicability, e. g., that the briefer form or the more difficult expression establishes priority, lead to arbitrary and insecure results, and such as no sane man would think of relying upon for a moment in the case of modern compositions. The fact is, that with all the apparent definiteness in the principles professed, there is so much that is indefinite in the phenomena themselves, and so much that may with equal plausibility be alleged on either side, that different critics will in the same case arrive at precisely opposite conclusions, and will prove from the same data a given writer to be earlier or later than another, according as they have predetermined to do.

Another abuse to which this relation has led, is that of critical alterations of the text with a view of bringing these parallel passages into more precise conformity. This has arisen from the failure to observe that when the prophets incorporate into their own discourses or writings the language of antecedent revelations, they do so with the full consciousness of their own equal inspiration, and consequently use entire freedom in modifying it to their immediate purpose. Minute variations where there is a general resemblance are not consequently to be referred to faulty transcription and one text corrected by the other. Both are original, and both alike authoritative and inspired. All experience shows how much more likely transcribers were to err in the opposite direction than in the one here assumed. The tendency is much stronger to assimilate texts which had originally a slight diversity, than to create or increase a divergence. The fact that these trifling variations have been perpetuated with such absolute uniformity, is an argument, therefore, not of error, but of the strictest accuracy.

ART. II.-The Presbyterian Historical Society.

THIS institution is capable of fulfilling a much needed and valuable office. Its usefulness cannot be confined to the Presbyterian portion of the Christian communion, but will extend to the whole church. The Presbyterian branch, with its clear and comprehensive Confession, its energy and enterprise, and its social influence, sustains, and must continue to sustain, a vital relation to the prosperity of the church at large; and her history cannot be truly and properly written without embracing the leading points of the church as a whole.

In the progress of human affairs, there arise many institutions and agencies which acquire little historical significance. They owe their origin mainly to superficial and transient causes, which are not a part of the life of the world, but only incidental to the circumstances of its progress. Others, on the contrary, though obscure and unimposing in their origin, and very imperfectly understood, as to their full import and value, even by their authors themselves, rise from the deeper motions of humanity, and mark an era of human advancement.

The former class reveal but little of the divine order of the world. Their chief use in history is to register some aberrations of human infirmity, and offer counsel and warning for the future. Some which really belong to this class, like sundry sects of the early ages of the church, have long periods of declining existence, amongst the lingering digressions in which human nature is allowed to indulge, while under the general influence of the redeeming power. They arise out of real progress in the world. They are in some sort indispensable to it, by a necessity of human infirmity. They may often claim a close connection with the truth, with the normal exercise of the human powers under the existing conditions, and even with the renewing work of the Holy Spirit; while yet they originate in a departure, already begun, from the true course of the church, embody more of evil than of good,

degenerate themselves, and become a hinderance to the progress of Christian civilization. They have their temporary use. They come of evil, indeed, and are mainly symptoms of the disease of sin; yet they have a utility, like some of the accommodating laws of Moses, which were given because best for the time. Still, humanity outgrows them, drops them for the more manly discipline, and repents of its childish contentment with that which was thus to be cast off.

The Greek church, in the great division, took a separate position, for reasons which indicated the beginning of a radical departure from the law of the Christian life; and from that point her course has been a decline, till it has proved that she took nothing with her from which she could contribute to the final glory of the church. The hideous accretions on the Papal church have become so large, that the whole system appears to be long outliving its usefulness, and to be only a huge obstruction to the progress of mankind. Many of the civil governments are good only for the present stress; and few of them have the qualities which will enter into the perfect civilization. They are therefore transient. Their end comes with the improvement of society, the growth of humanity in the world. They leave their record, and not much besides. Their record should be written. History is incomplete and unsatisfactory to posterity, unless it commemorates their existence, portrays their character, and shows how they came to be, to continue, and to serve their purpose. They are among the things that were; and so are the transient characteristics of the ages in which they stood. They even appear absurd, except in their living connection with those anomalous and evanescent conditions of society which produced and employed them, and finally left them to perish.

Whatever of human infirmity is implied in these facts, the church shares with the world. The church is in the world, and is joined with it under the general laws of the divine administration in relation to sin. The scene of conflict between sin and holiness is within her, and therefore she, above all, might be expected to present, in some most impressive ways, the contrast of these two opposite powers. Where else but in the church will there be endeavours to overcome sin? And there,