You will perhaps be told hereafter, (I am speaking now to the younger men,) that quite fatal to this view of the question, is the state of the Text of Scripture: that no one can maintain that the words of Scripture are inspired, because no one can tell for certain what the words of Scripture _are_; or something to that effect. Now I will not stop to expose the falsity of this charge against the text of Scripture; (which is implied to be a very corrupt text, whereas, on the contrary, it is the best ascertained text of any ancient writing in the world.) Rather let me remind you, once and for ever, how to refute this silly sophism,--the transparent fallacy of which one would have thought unworthy of exposure before men of trained understandings; but that one hears it urged so often and so confidently. See you not that the state of the text of the Bible has no more to do with the Inspiration of the Bible, than the stains on yonder windows have to do with the light of GOD'S Sun? Let me illustrate the matter,--(though it surely cannot need illustration!)--by supposing the question raised whether Livy did or did not write the history which goes under his name. _You_, (suppose,) are persuaded that he _did_,--_I_, that he did _not_. So far, we should both understand, and perhaps respect one another. But what if I were to go on to condemn your opinion as untenable, because of the corrupt state of Livy's _text?_ Would you not reply that I mistook the question entirely: that _you_ were speaking of the _authorship of the work_,--not about the _fate of the copies!_ ... Suppose, however, I were to contend that Livy may indeed have furnished the matter of his history, but that the form of expression must needs have been supplied by some one else; _still_ on the same ground of the corrupt state of the historian's text. What would you think of me _then?_--a man who not only confounded two things utterly dissimilar,--(the authorship of a book, and the amount of care with which it had been transcribed and printed;)--but who was for distinguishing the mind of the writer from the expression of that mind; the _thoughts_, from the _words_ which are essential to their transmission! A hopelessly illogical person, surely!