1. Now, the first thing which strikes one in this theory, is its extreme vagueness. We hardly know what we have to consider; for nothing is definitely stated. Neither are we informed how many of the phenomena of Inspiration, this view is intended to explain. Again, does the theory apply equally to the Old Testament and to the New? If it does apply equally to the Old Testament, (and I can see no possible reason why it should _not_,) then, I apprehend this theory will be found _practically_ to run up into, and to identify itself with, that last described[418]. For a guidance _which has failed to guide_, has been no guidance at all; and since whole chapters of the Old Testament will occur to every one's memory which may be thought to have no connexion whatever with 'Christian Doctrine,'--to conduce wondrous little to the 'making men wise unto Salvation,'--it will follow that Inspiration is, according to this theory, in effect, of the nature already described,--namely, a quality which can never be predicated of any passage of Scripture with entire certainty. The larger part of the Old Testament in fact, by this theory, is exhibited in the light of a common book; having no pretension to be regarded as part of the Inspired Canon. But if this theory simply shirks the question of the Old Testament, then, those who are inclined to accept it, are bound to explain why there should be one theory of Inspiration applicable to the Old Testament, and another for the New:--in which difficulty, I must candidly profess that I am not able to render any assistance at all. It is clearly not allowable to overlook the intimate connexion which subsists between the two great divisions of Holy Scripture; the habitual references of the Writers of the New Testament to the writers of the Old,--Moses, David, Isaiah, and the rest;--or rather, _to the utterance of the_ HOLY GHOST, _speaking by the mouth of those writers_. Whatever may have been the Inspiration of the Authors of the New Testament must be assumed to have been that of the Authors of the Old Testament also. 2. But further,--(to confine our remarks to the Scriptures of the New Testament; which, it is manifest, the view under consideration specially contemplates;)--however plausible in the abstract a theory may sound, which would account for a Chronological difficulty,--the insertion of what seems to be a wrong name,--a quotation made with singular license,--an unscientific statement,--the apparent inconsistency of two or more accounts of one and the same transaction, in respect of lesser details,--a (supposed) inconclusive remark, or specimen of reasoning which seems to be fallacious;--on the supposition that it is not the office of Inspiration to enlighten the understanding on points like these, or to preserve the pen from error;--however plausible, I say, this theory, abstractedly considered, may appear;--it will be found that it will not bear the searching test of a practical application.