Again:  the original prophets themselves were men of various characters and times and tribes.  God addresses men through their reason; he bound not down a seer “with bit and bridle, like the horse that has no understanding”—­but spoke as to a rational being—­“What seest thou?” “Hear my words;”—­“Give ear unto my speech.”  Was it not then likely that the previous mode of thought and providential education in each holy man of God should mingle irresistibly with his inspired teaching?  Should not the herdsman of Tehoa plead in pastoral phrase, and the royal son of Amoz denounce with strong authority?  Should not David whilst a shepherd praise God among his flocks, and when a king, cry “Give the King thy judgments?” The Bible is full of this human individuality; and nothing could be thought as humanly more probable:  but we must, with this diversity, connect the other probability also, that which should show the work to be divine; which would prove (as is literally the case) that, in spite of all such natural variety, all such unbiassed freedom both of thought and speech, there pervades the whole mass a oneness, a marvellous consistency, which would be likely to have been designed by God, though little to have been dreamt by man.

Once more on this full topic.  Difficulties in Scripture were expectable for many reasons; I can only touch a few.  Man is rational as he is responsible:  God speaks to his mind and moral powers:  and the mind rejoices, and moralities grow strong in conquest of the difficult and search for the mysterious.  The muscles of the spiritual athlete pant for such exertion; and without it, they would dwindle into trepid imbecility.  Curious man, courageous man, enterprising, shrewd, and vigourous man, yet has a constant enemy to dread in his own indolence:  now, a lion in the path will wake up Sloth himself:  and the very difficulties of religion engender perseverance.

Additionally:  I think there is somewhat in the consideration, that, if all revealed truth had been utterly simple and easy, it would have needed no human interpreter; no enlightened class of men, who, according to the spirit of their times, and the occasions of their teaching, might “in season and out of season preach the word, reprove, rebuke, exhort, with all long-suffering and doctrine.”  I think there existed an anterior probability that Scripture should be as it is, often-times difficult, obscure, and requiring the aid of many wise to its elucidation; because, without such characteristic, those many wise and good would never have been called for.  Suppose all truth revealed as clearly and indisputably to the meanest intellect as a sum in addition is, where were the need or use of that noble Christian company who are every where man’s almoners for charity, and God’s ambassadors for peace?