of the Scriptures. We are to judge them by the analogy of nature; and, interpret them according to their own requirement. (Shore v. Wilson, 9th Clark & Fin., 515).

It is not to be lightly passed over, that a man of known moderation and learning-the Norrisian professor of divinity at Cambridge, has recently given the result of his investigation in the following words:-"With all the pains and ingenuity which have been bestowed upon the subject, no charge of error, even in matters of human knowledge, has ever yet been substantiated against any of the writers of Scripture."* This is the conclusion at which he has arrived as a matter of fact; an important testimony from a highly competent authority. It is not brought forward in support of any preconceived theory. On the contrary, he intimates, as at least possible, that there might have been infallible Divine teaching in all things spiritual and heavenly, whilst on mere matters of history or of daily life, prophets and evangelists might have been suffered to write as men. "Even if this were true," he 66 says, we need not be perplexed or disquieted, so we can be agreed that the Divine element was ever such as to secure the infallible truth of Scripture in all things Divine." Butler does not suggest any other view than what may be discovered in the facts of the case; he is satisfied simply to take what God has actually given and as He has thought fit to give; and he uses the analogies of nature so far as they may assist in judging of the revelation so given.

Lord Bacon in the " Advancement of Learning" has noticed the effect of using the Scriptures in another manner than that in which we may reasonably conclude that God had designed. "The school of Paracelsus and some others had pretended to find the truth of all natural philosophy in the Scriptures, scandalizing and traducing all other philosophy as heathenish "Aids to Faith," 318.-See also 417.

and profane." "But," saith he, "there is no such enmity between God's Word and His works. Neither do they give honour to the Scriptures, as they suppose, but much embase them. For to seek heaven and earth in the Word of God whereof it is said, 'Heaven and earth shall pass, but my word shall not pass,' is to seek temporary things amongst eternal. And as to seek divinity amongst philosophy is to seek the living amongst the dead, so to seek philosophy in divinity is to seek the dead amongst the living. The scope or purpose of the Spirit of God is not to express matters of nature in the Scriptures otherwise than in passage, and for application to man's capacity and to matters moral or divine. And it is a true rule, auctoris aliud agentis, parva auctoritas— what a man says incidentally about matters which are not in question has little authority."-Vol. III. p. 486; and see Vol. IV. pp. 66 and 89). It will be found, I think, that the primary purpose of the Scripture sufficiently justifies the occasional adoption of so much of the popular belief then current, as serves to illustrate or explain parts of the Divine message. Expressions there may be, which are obviously used in condescension to human infirmity, so as to be intelligible to the simple and humble; and yet these may also be pregnant with meaning that the highest culture may fail to' discover. The language of the sacred writers never offends the most profound philosophic truth, while it sometimes shews what now appears to have been then an insight into secrets of nature. Where the language is relative in its structure and seemingly imperfect, it is an accommodation adapted to the occasion, and subservient to the main purpose of the Divine message, that might have been obstructed, if not defeated, by the use of words which would have been unintelligible, or if intelligible would have seemed to be palpably untrue. There are other answers to seeming imper

fection and real obscurity, to which I need not further refer. But as I have touched on this subject, let me direct your attention to an important distinction drawn by Dr. Lee of Trinity College, in his valuable work on the Scriptures. "By revelation," he says, "I understand a distinct communication from God to man, either of such knowledge as man could not of himself attain to, because its subject matter transcends human sagacity or human reason; (such, for example, were the prophetical announcements of the future, and the peculiar doctrines of Christianity ;) or of information which, although it might have been attained in the ordinary way, was not, in point of fact, for whatever cause, known to the person who received the revelation. By inspiration, on the other hand, I understand that actuating energy of the Holy Spirit, in whatever degree or manner it may have been exercised, guided by which, the human agents chosen by God have officially proclaimed His will by word of mouth, or have committed to writing the several portions of the Bible." Now, what we have to deal with, in Butler's view of the question, is the actual result of all this Divine interposition. We have to use our best endeavours to secure a correct text and a faithful translation. The errors which have originated in human interference may be at last renewed by human industry and research. Be it remembered that objections and difficulties which have been left for a time without an answer, and some of which have seemed almost (if not altogether,) incapable of solution, have by the progress of knowledge and in the course of Providence been quite unexpectedly but fully cleared up. The essential character of the Scriptures suggests that we should at all times wait patiently on God; and the instances to which I have alluded may well encourage us to believe that in His own good time "the crooked shall be made straight, and the rough places plain." Let me add this-that

I do not myself remember to have met with any objection to the genuineness, the truthfulness, or the Inspired authority of the Bible, which has not already received or may not hereafter receive a sufficient solution.

It is in the habitual study of "the Holy Scriptures which are able to make you wise unto salvation through faith which is in Christ Jesus," that you will find the best antidote against the poison of scepticism. "In thy light shall we see light." May God who has caused all Holy Scriptures to be written for our learning, grant that we may in such wise hear them, read, mark, learn, and inwardly digest them, that by patience, and comfort of His Holy Word, we may embrace and ever hold fast the blessed hope of everlasting life, which He has given us in our Saviour Jesus Christ.

LECTURE VII.

THE MEDIATION OF CHRIST.

So far as we have gone, we find that the argument from analogy has been used by Butler in removing or obviating general objections suggested against the scheme of Christianity. There are also particular objections which are deserving of notice. One of these having been made against the whole Christian scheme, he deals with in the latter part of the fourth chapter, which was the subject of the last lecture. We come next to consider another of these particular objections, which though not made against the whole scheme professedly, yet would, if sustainable, undermine its very foundation, by removing the chief corner-stone-that act of Redemption, "whereby alone we obtain remission of our sins and are made partakers of the kingdom of Heaven." The purpose of Butler in the impressive and all-important chapter on which we are about to enter, is to shew that there are analogies of nature sufficient to remove objections which have been made against the Mediation of Christ. The proof of this great doctrine comes from Revelation; analogy does not pretend to offer proof, but proceeds to set aside preliminary difficulties which are suggested by the way