But that those passages will bear another construction, and ought to be understood in another manner, has been satisfactorily argued by several writers, particularly by Haldane and Gaussen in their treatises on inspiration, and by Henderson in his lectures. And the writer of this article would take the liberty to refer also to his lectures on the same subject. his mode of operation to each of these casesagainst this no objection can be made. It is a fact, that the Scriptures exhibit specimens of all these different kinds of writing and these different modes of divine instruction. Still each and every part of what was written was divinely inspired, and equally so. It is all the word of God, and clothed with divine authority, as much as if it had all been made known and written in one way. Dr. Henderson, who labours perhaps with too much zeal against carrying inspiration to extreme lengths, still says that if those who hold to different It is perfectly consistent with the plenary inspiration here maintained, that God operated on the minds of inspired men in a variety of ways, sometimes by audible words, sometimes by direct inward suggestions, sometimes by outward visible signs, sometimes by the Urim and Thummim,modifications of inspiration intend that there are and sometimes by dreams and visions. This variety in the mode of divine influence detracted nothing from its certainty. God made known his will equally in different ways; and, whatever the mode of his operation, he made it manifest to his servants that the things revealed were from him. different modifications and degrees of authority given to Scripture, their opinion must meet with unqualified reprobation from every sincere believer. He insists that a diversity in the modes and degrees of divine operation did exist in the work of inspiration, and that this diversity was the result of infinite wisdom adapting itself to different circumstances. He thinks that, unless we admit such a diversity, we cannot form correct ideas of the subject. But he is confident that the distinction which he endeavours to establish is not in the slightest degree hostile to the divine authority of Scripture. He affirms that no part of that holy book was written without miraculous influence; that all parts were equally inspired; that in regard to the whole volume the great end was infallibly attained, namely, the commitment to writing of precisely such matters as God designed for the religious instruction of mankind; that the sacred penmen wrote what had for its object not merely the immediate benefit of individual persons or churches, but what would be useful to Christians in all future times; and that in regard to the most minute and inconsiderable things which the Scripture contains we are compelled to say, this also cometh from the Lord. But inspiration was concerned not only in making known the will of God to prophets and apostles, but also in giving them direction in writing the sacred books. They wrote as they were moved by the Holy Ghost. And in this, also, there was a diversity in the mode of divine influence. Sometimes the Spirit of God moved and guided his servants to write things which they could not know by natural means, such as new doctrines or precepts, or predictions of future events. Sometimes he moved and guided them to write the history of events which were wholly er partly known to them by tradition, or by the testimony of their contemporaries, or by their own observation or experience. In all these cases the Divine Spirit effectually preserved them from all error, and influenced them to write just so much and in such a manner as God saw to be best. Sometimes he moved and guided them to write a summary record of larger histories, containing The controversy among orthodox divines rewhat his infinite wisdom saw to be adapted to the specting what is called verbal inspiration, appears end in view, that is, the benefit of his people in to arise, in a great measure, from the different all ages. Sometimes he influenced them to make senses affixed to the phrase. Dr. Henderson, who a record of important maxims in common use, or is among the most candid and able writers opto write new ones, derived either from their own posed to the doctrine of verbal inspiration, seems reason or experience, or from special divine to understand the doctrine as denoting the immeteaching. Sometimes he influenced them to write diate communication to the writers of every word, parables or allegories, particularly suited to make and syllable, and letter of what they wrote, indea salutary impression of divine things on the pendently of their intelligent agency and without minds of men; and sometimes to record super- any regard to their peculiar mental faculties or natural visions. In these and all other kinds of habits-while those who most earnestly and sucwriting the sacred penmen manifestly needed cessfully contend for the higher views of inspiraspecial divine guidance, as no man could of him- tion, particularly Calamy, Haldane, and Gaussen, self attain to infallibility, and no wisdom, except consider the doctrine they maintain as entirely that of God, was sufficient to determine what consistent with the greatest diversity of mental things ought to be written for permanent use in endowments, culture, and taste in the writers, and the church, and what manner of writing would with the most perfect exercise of their intelligent be best fitted to promote the great ends of revela-agency, consistent with their using their own tion. memory, their own reason, their own manner of thinking, and their own language,-consistent, too, with their making what they were to write the subject of diligent and laborious study,―only insisting that it was all under the unerring guidance of the Divine Spirit. Some writers speak of different modes and different kinds, and even different degrees of inspiration. And if their meaning is that God influenced the minds of inspired men in different ways; that he adopted a variety of modes in revealing divine things to their minds; that he guided them to give instruction in prose and in poetry, and in all the different forms of composition; that he moved and guided them to write history, prophecy, doctrines, commands, promises, reproofs, and exhortations, and that he adapted In a controversy of such a character as this, we may often succeed in removing difficulties, and in presenting the subject in a light which will be satisfactory to all concerned, by laying aside an ambiguous word or phrase, and making use of one which will express the idea intended with clearness and certainty. The word verbal, in its most common senses, is not well suited to the present subject. According to the best philologists its first signification is, 'spoken, expressed to the ear in words, not written.' But no one supposes that when God inspired the sacred writers he generally spoke to them in audible words. It is, indeed, true, that he sometimes uttered articulate words in making known his will, as at Sinai, at the baptism of Christ, and on some other occasions. In such cases he did, properly speaking, make verbal communications, or give verbal instruction. But we should hardly call this verbal | inspiration. Who can suppose that this was commonly, if ever, the way, in which God inspired holy men of old while engaged in writing the Scriptures? Who can suppose that he taught them what to write by speaking words in their ears, as a man teaches his amanuensis? His influence was doubtless inward. He guided them in writing by an operation in their minds. 6 or that did not adequately give it expression ;' that the characteristic differences of style, so apparent among the sacred writers, were employed by the Holy Spirit for the purposes of inspiration, and were called forth in a rational way;' that the writers, being acted upon by the Divine Spirit, expressed themselves naturally; that while the divine influence adapted itself to whatever was peculiar in the minds of inspired men, it constantly guided them in writing the sacred volume.' He declares his belief that the Scriptures were written not under a partial or imperfect, but under a plenary and infallible, inspiration; that they were entirely the result of divine intervention, and are to be regarded as the oracles of Jehovah. Referring to 2 Tim. iii. 16, he says, We are here expressly taught the divine inspiration of the whole of the Old Testament Codex; that the Scriptures are inspired as written documents; that they are the result of the special and extraordinary influence of the Spirit, and The next meaning of verbal is 'oral, uttered contain whatever the Spirit caused to be written by the mouth; and this agrees no better with our for our instruction.' Referring to 1 Cor. ii. 13, subject. Other significations of verbal are, he says, 'It is past all dispute that the apostle sisting in mere words; respecting words only; here unequivocally ascribes both the doctrines literal,' as in a translation, having word answer- which he and his fellow-labourers taught, and ing to word. Neither of these senses is adapted their manner of propounding them, to the influto the subject. Now it would be nothing strange, ence of the same divine agent;' that the passage if applying this word to inspiration, and thus conveys the idea that the style, or mode of exgiving it an unusual sense, should occasion need-pression which they used, was such as they were less perplexity and confusion. For the sake of avoiding this evil, why would it not be expedient to employ such words as will convey the idea intended clearly and definitely; and, if necessary, to incur the inconvenience of using an exact explanation, instead of the word or phrase which causes the difficulty? • con instructed by the Spirit to employ ;' that in delivering their doctrines they were under the constant guidance of the Great Instructor, and clothed them in that garb which he directed them to use; that, in the passage alluded to, the apostle refers to the entire character of the style which the first teachers of Christianity were taught to use in announcing its all important doctrines.' The passage in Matt. x. 9, 10, he says, implies, that the subject matter of apology was to be supplied to the apostles; and they might be well assured that if this, which was the most important, was secured by divine instruction, the mere expression would not be wanting.' minds, our Lord says, it is not ye that speak, but the Spirit of your Father which speaketh in you. By his teaching and superintending influence, they would always be enabled to express themselves in a manner worthy of the divine cause which they were called to defend—a manner which they could never have attained by the exertion of their unassisted powers; so that, although these powers were not to be superseded, but employed, it was to be as the organs of the divine agency by which they were employed.' And he concedes that, as to all practical purposes, they were favoured with divine influence in composing their writings, as well as in their public speaking. The real question, and the whole question at issue, may be stated thus: did the work of the Divine Spirit in the sacred penmen relate to the language they used, or their manner of expressing their ideas; and if so, how far, and in what way? All those with whom we are concerned in the discussion of this question, hold that divine in-To remove all ground of hesitation from their spiration had some respect to the language employed by the inspired writers, at least in the way of general supervision. And Dr. Henderson shows, in various passages of his excellent lectures, that there is no material difference between him and those who profess to maintain higher ground. He allows that, to a certain extent, what is called verbal inspiration, or the inspiration of words, took place. In recording what was immediately spoken with an audible voice by Jehovah, or by an angel interpreter; in giving expression to points of revelation which entirely surpassed the comprehension of the writers; in recording prophecies, the minute bearings of which they did not perceive; in short, in committing to writing any of the dictates of the Spirit, which they could not have otherwise accurately expressed, the writers,' he alleges, were supplied with the words as well as the matter.' He says, that even when Biblical writers made use of their own faculties, and wrote each one in his own manner, without having their mental constitution at all disturbed, they were yet always secured by celestial influence against the adoption of any forms of speech, or collocation of words, that would have injured the exhibition of divine truth, 6 Our author says that on the day of Pentecost, when the apostles were filled with the Holy Ghost, and spake with other tongues, as the Spirit gave them utterance, verbal inspiration in the strictest sense of the term took place.' The immediate supply of words,' he holds, was in this and every similar instance absolutely necessary.' And he thinks that direct verbal inspiration was indispensably requisite in all instances in which prophets and apostles were employed to write what they did not clearly comprehend. The passages in which such terms as the word of God, the Lord spake, etc., occur, are, in this view, descriptive of immediate verbal communications. He supposes that, in all such cases, words were literally spoken, or audibly pronounced by God himself, or by an angel in his name. In this opinion, however, I think he is mistaken. For unquestionably the word of the Lord often, if not generally, came to the prophets in the way of dreams, or other modes of inward suggestion. The doctrine of a plenary inspiration of all Scripture in regard to the language employed, as well as the thoughts communicated, ought not to be rejected without valid reasons. The doctrine is so obviously important, and so consonant to the feelings of sincere piety, that those evangelical Christians who are pressed with speculative objections against it, frequently, in the honesty of their hearts, advance opinions which fairly imply it. This is the case, as we have seen, with Dr. Henderson, who says, that the Divine Spirit guided the sacred peumen in writing the Scriptures; that their mode of expression was such as they were instructed by the Spirit to employ; that Paul ascribes not only the doctrines which the apostles taught, but the entire character of their style, to the influence of the Spirit. He indeed says, that this does not always imply the immediate communication of the words of Scripture; and he says it with good reason. For immediate properly signifies, acting without a medium, or without the intervention of another cause or means, not acting by second causes. Now those who bold the highest views of inspiration do not suppose that the Divine Spirit, except in a few instances, so influenced the writers of Scripture as to interfere with the use of their rational faculties or their peculiar mental habits and tastes, or in any way to supersede secondary causes as the medium through which his agency produced the desired effect. In regard to this point, therefore, there appears to be little or no ground for controversy. For, if God so influenced the sacred writers that, either with or without the use of secondary causes, they wrote just what he intended, and in the manner he intended, the end is secured; and what they wrote is as truly his word, as though he had written it with his own hand on tables of stone, without any human instrumentality. The very words of the decalogue were all such as God chose. And they would have been equally so if Moses had been moved by the Divine Spirit to write them with his hand. The expression, that God immediately imparted or communicated to the writers the very words which they wrote, is evidently not well chosen. The exact truth is that the writers themselves were the subjects of the divine influence. The Spirit employed them as active instruments, and directed them in writing, both as to matter and manner. They wrote 'as they were moved by the Holy Ghost.' The matter, in many cases, was what they before knew, and the manner was entirely conformed to their habits; it was their own. But what was written was none the less inspired on that account. God may have influenced and guided an apostle as infallibly in writing what he had before known, and that guidance may have been as really necessary, as in writing a new revelation. And God may have influenced Paul or John to write a VOL. II. book in his own peculiar style, and that influence may have been as real and as necessary as if the style had been what some would call a divine style. It was a divine style, if the writer used it under divine direction. It was a divine style, and it was, at the same time, a human style, and the writer's own style, all in one. Just as the believer's exercises, faith and love, are his own acts, and at the same time are the effects of divine influence. In efficacious grace,' says Edwards, " we are not merely passive, nor yet does God do some and we do the rest. But God does all, and we do all. God produces all, and we act all. For that is what he produces, namely, our own acts. God is the only proper author and foundation: we only are the proper actors. We are, in different respects, wholly passive and wholly active. In the Scriptures, the same things are represented as from God and from us. God is said to convert men, and men are said to convert and turn. God makes a new heart, and we are commanded to make us a new heart-not merely because we must use the means in order to the effect, but the effect itself is our act and our duty. These things are agreeable to that text, "God worketh in you both to will and to do.”' The mental exercises of Paul and of John had their own characteristic peculiarities, as much as their style. God was the author of John's mind and all that was peculiar to his mental faculties and habits, as really as of Paul's mind and what was peculiar to him. And in the work of inspiration he used and directed, for his own purposes, what was peculiar to each. When God inspired different men he did not make their minds and tastes all alike, nor did he make their language alike. Nor had he any occasion for this; for while they had different mental faculties and habits, they were as capable of being infallibly directed by the Divine Spirit, and infallibly speaking and writing divine truth, as though their mental faculties and habits had been all exactly alike. And it is manifest that the Scriptures, written by such a variety of inspired men, and each part agreeably to the peculiar talents and style of the writer, are not only equally from God, but, taken together, are far better adapted to the purposes of general instruction, and all the objects to be accomplished by revelation, than if they had been written by one man, and in one and the same manner. This view of plenary inspiration is fitted to relieve the difficulties and objections which have arisen in the minds of men from the variety of talent and taste which the writers exhibited, and the variety of style which they used. See, it is said, how each writer expresses himself naturally, in his own way, just as he was accustomed to do when not inspired. And see too, we might say in reply, how each apostle, Peter, Paul, or John, when speaking before rulers, with the promised aid of the Holy Spirit, spoke naturally, with his own voice, and in his own way, as he had been accustomed to do on other occasions when not inspired. There is no more objection to plenary inspiration in the one case than in the other. The mental faculties and habits of the apostles, their style, their voice, their mode of speech, all remained as they were. What, then, had the divine Spirit to do? What was the work which appertained to Him? We reply, His work was so to direct the apostles in the use of their own talents с and habits, their style, their voice, and all their peculiar endowments, that they should speak or write, each in his own way, just what God would have them speak or write, for the good of the Church in all ages. The fact that the individual peculiarities of the sacred penmen are everywhere so plainly impressed on their writings, is often mentioned as an objection to the doctrine, that inspiration extended to their language as well as their thoughts. This is, indeed, one of the most common objections, and one which has obtained a very deep lodgment in the minds of some intelligent Christians. It may, therefore, be necessary to take some further pains completely to remove it. And in our additional remarks relative to this and other objections, it will come in our way to show that such a writer as Gaussen, who contends with great earnestness and ability for the highest views of inspiration, does still, on all important points, agree with those who advocate lower views of the subject. Gaussen says, 'Although the title of each book should not indicate to us that we are passing from one author to another; yet we could quickly discover, by the change of their characters, that a new hand has taken the pen. It is perfectly easy to recognise each one of them, although they speak of the same master, teach the same doctrines, and relate the same incidents.' But how does this prove that Scripture is not, in all respects, inspired? So far are we,' says this author, from overlooking human individuality everywhere impressed on our sacred books, that, on the contrary, it is with profound gratitude, and with an ever-increasing admiration, that we regard this living, real, human character infused so charmingly into every part of the Word of God. We admit the fact, and we see in it clear proof of the divine wisdom which dictated the Scriptures.' Those who urge the objection above mentioned are plainly inconsistent with themselves. For while they deny the plenary inspiration of some parts of Scripture, because they have these marks of individuality, they acknowledge inspiration in the fullest sense in other parts, particu. cularly in the prophecies, where this individuality of the writers is equally apparent. In truth, what can be more consonant with our best views of the wisdom of God, or with the general analogy of his works, than that he should make use of the thoughts, the memories, the peculiar talents, tastes, and feelings of his servants in recording his Word for the instruction of men? Why should he not associate the peculiarities of their personal character with what they write under his personal guidance? But, independently of our reasoning, this matter is decided by the Bible itself. All Scripture is divinely inspired,' and it is all the Word of God. And it is none the less the Word of God, and none the less inspired, because it comes to us in the language of Moses, and David, and Paul, and the other sacred writers. 'It is God who speaks to us, but it is also man; it is man, but it is also God.' The Word of God, in order to be intelligible and profitable to us, 'must be uttered by mortal tougues, and be written by mortal hands, and must put on the features of human thoughts. This blending of humanity and divinity in the Scriptures reminds us of the majesty and the condescension of God. Viewed in this light, the Word of God has unequalled beauties, and exerts an unequalled power over our hearts.' The objection to the plenary inspiration of the Scriptures, from the inaccuracy of the translations and the various readings of the ancient manuscript copies, is totally irrelevant. For what we assert is, the inspiration of the original Scriptures, not of the translations or the ancient copies. The fact that the Scriptures were divinely inspired, cannot be expunged or altered by any subsequent event. The very words of the decalogue were written by the finger of God, and none the less so because the manuscripts which transmit it to us contain some variations. The integrity of the copies has nothing to do with the inspiration of the original. It is, however, well known that the variations are hardly worthy to be mentioned. But if the copies of the Scriptures which we have are not inspired, then how can the inspiration of the original writings avail to our benefit? The answer is, that, according to the best evidence, the original writings have been transmitted to us with remarkable fidelity, and that our present copies, so far as anything of consequence is concerned, agree with the writings as they came from inspired men; so that, through the gracious care of divine providence, the Scriptures now in use are, in all important respects, the Scriptures which were given by inspiration of God, and are stamped with divine authority. In this matter, we stand on the same footing with the apostles. For when they spoke of the Scriptures, they doubtless referred to the copies which had been made and preserved among the Jews, not to the original manuscripts written by Moses and the prophets. It has been made an objection to the plenary inspiration of the writers of the New Testament, that they generally quote from the Septuagint version, and that their quotations are frequently wanting in exactness. Our reply is, that their quotations are made in the usual manner, according to the dictates of common sense, and always in such a way as to subserve the cause of truth; and therefore, that the objection is without force. And as to the Septuagint version, the apostles never follow it so as to interfere with the authority of the Hebrew Scriptures. Their references to the Old Testament are just such as the case required. There is a noble freedom in their quotations, but that freedom never violates truth or propriety. If any one, like Priestley and others of the same school, alleges, that there are in the Scriptures errors in reasoning and in matters of fact, he opens the door to the most dangerous consequences. Indeed he takes the ground of infidelity. And if any one holds, that some parts are inspired, while other parts are not inspired, then we ask, who shall make the distinction? And if we begin this work, where will it end? But our present concern is with those who deny that inspiration respected the language of Scripture. There are some who maintain that all which was necessary to secure the desired results, was an infallible guidance of the thoughts of the sacred writers; that with such a guidance they might be safely left to express their thoughts in their own way, without any special influence from above. Now, if those who take this view of the subject mean that God not only gives the sacred penmen the very ideas which they are to write, but, in some way, secures an infallible connection between those ideas and a just expression of them in words; then, indeed, we have the desired result-an infallible revelation from God, made in the proper language of the writers. But if any one supposes that there is naturally such an infallible connection between right thoughts and a just expression of them in language, without an effective divine superintendence, he contradicts the lessons of daily experience. But those to whom we refer evidently do not themselves believe in such an infallible connection. For when they assign their reason for denying that inspiration related to the language of the Scriptures, they speak of the different, and, as they regard them, the contradictory statements of facts by different writers-for example, the different accounts of the crucifixion and the resurrection, and the different accounts of the numbers of the slain in Num. xxv. 9 and 1 Cor. x. 8. Who, they say, can believe that the language was inspired, when one writer says that 21,000 were slain, and the other 23,000? But it is easy to see that the difficulty presses with all its force upon those who assert the inspiration of the thoughts. For surely they will not say that the sacred writers had true thoughts in their minds, and yet uttered them in the language of falsehood. This would contradict their own idea of a sure connection between the conceptions of the mind and the utterance of them in suitable words, and would clearly show that they themselves feel it to be necessary that the divine guidance should extend to the words of inspired men as well as their thoughts. But if Paul, through inadvertence, committed a real mistake in saying that 23,000 fell in one day, it must have been a mistake in his thoughts as well as in his words. For when he said 23,000, had he not the idea of that number in his mind? If, then, there was a mistake, it lay in his thoughts. But if there was no mistake in either of the writers, then there is nothing to prove that inspiration did not extend to the language. If, however, there was a real mistake, then the question is not, what becomes of verbal inspiration, but what becomes of inspiration in any sense. As to the way of reconciling the two statements above mentioned, but a few words can be offered bere. Some writers attempt to remove the difficulty in this manner. The first writer says, 21,000 were slain, meaning to include in that number all who died in consequence of that rebelbon. The other writer says, 23,000 fell in one day, leaving us to conclude that an addition of 1000 fell the next day. But it may perhaps be more satisfactory to suppose, that neither of the writers intended to state the exact number, this being of no consequence to their objects. The real number might be between 23,000 and 24,000, and it might be sufficient for them to express it in general terms, one of them calling it 24,000, and the other 23,000, that is, about so many, either of the numbers being accurate enough to make the impression designed. Suppose that the exact number was 23,579, and that both the writers knew it to be so. It was not at all necessary, in order to maintain their character as men of veracity, that they should, when writing for such a purpose, mention the particular number. The particularity and length of the expression would have been inconvenient, and might have made a less desirable impression of the evil of sin and the justice of God, than expressing it more briefly in a round number; as we often say, with a view merely to make a strong impression, that in such a battle 10,000, or 50,000, or 500,000 were slain, no one supposing that we mean to state the number with arithmetical exactness, as our object does not require this. And who can doubt that the Divine Spirit might lead the sacred penmen to make use of this principle of rhetoric, and to speak of those who were slain, according to the common practice in such a case, in round numbers? It is sometimes said that the sacred writers were of themselves generally competent to express their ideas in proper language, and in this respect had no need of supernatural assistance. But there is just as much reason for saying that they were of themselves generally competent to form their own conceptions, and so had no need of supernatural aid in this respect. It is just as reasonable to say that Moses could recollect what took place at the Red Sea, and that Paul could recollect that he was once a persecutor, and Peter what took place on the mount of transfiguration, without supernatural aid, as to say that they could, without such aid, make a proper record of these recollections. We believe a real and infallible guidance of the Spirit in both respects, because this is taught in the Scriptures. And it is obvious that the Bible could not be what Christ and the apostles considered it to be, unless they were divinely inspired. The diversity in the narratives of the Evangelists is sometimes urged as an objection against the position we maintain in regard to inspiration, but evidently without reason, and contrary to reason. For what is more reasonable than to expect that a work of divine origin will have marks of consummate wisdom, and will be suited to accomplish the end in view. Now it will not be denied that God determined that there should be four narratives of the life and death of Jesus from four historians. If the narratives were all alike, three of them would be useless. Indeed such a circumstance would create suspicion, and would bring discredit upon the whole concern. The narratives must then be different. And if, besides this useful diversity, it is found that the seeming contradictions can be satisfactorily reconciled, and if each of the narratives is given in the peculiar style and manner of the writers, then all is natural and unexceptionable, and we have the highest evidence of the credibility and truth of the narratives. We shall advert to one more objection. It is alleged that writers who were constantly under a plenary divine inspiration would not descend to the unimportant details, the trifling incidents, which are found in the Scriptures. To this it may be replied that the details alluded to must be admitted to be according to truth, and that those things which, at first view, seem to be trifles may, when taken in their connections, prove to be of serious moment. And it is moreover manifest that, considering what human beings and human affairs really are, if all those things which are called trifling and unimportant were excluded, the Scriptures would fail of being conformed to fact; they would not be faithful histories of human life: so that the very circumstance which |