class of miracles. It was of the nature of a sign, designed not so much for instruction and edification, as for the conviction of unbelievers. It by no means follows that such direct verbal suggestion was the exclusive or common mode of inspiration. Revelations were often made in the form of images addressed to the internal sense, or of immediate inward illumination, or by a combination of these modes with language. Isaiah's vision of Jehovah enthroned in the temple will furnish a good illustration. He heard the words of the seraphim and of God himself, and these he has faithfully recorded. But what he saw was a part of the revelation, as well as what he heard. The seraph that applied to his lips a live coal from the altar explained to him the meaning of the transaction; but the transaction itself, with all the rest of the vision, was described by him from what he saw, not from words which he heard. He chose his own words, under the illumination of the Holy Ghost, so that in spirit, form, and matter they were agreeable to his will; and why need we go any further? God had endowed his servant with the capacity of describing clearly and faithfully what he saw, as well as what he heard. There can be no reasonable objection to supposing that the Spirit now made use of this endowment, not in vain show, but in reality; so that the prophet's words were properly his own, and at the same time the words of the Spirit, as containing the record of a revelation made by him which was in all respects according to his mind. As a second illustration, we may take Joseph's interpretation of Pharaoh's dreams.3 The dreams themselves contained a revelation from God; but their contents needed to be interpreted. So far as appears from the narrative, Joseph received from the Holy Spirit, the moment he heard the dreams, a divine illumination as to their meaning, which he proceeded to unfold in words which were as really his own as were Pharaoh's; only that Pharaoh spoke without, and he with, the illumination and guidance of the Spirit. 11 Cor. xiv. 22. See further in Appendix, Note B. 8 Gen. xli. 2 Isa. vi. The words of Elisha to Gehazi: "Went not my heart with thee, when the man turned again from his chariot to meet thee,"1 imply that he received the knowledge of the transaction not by an inward suggestion of the Spirit in the form of language, but by an inward vision. The Spirit showed Elisha, not only what Gehazi had done, but how he ought to be treated; and under his illumination he addressed to his servant words which were properly his own, chosen and arranged by himself, — and, at the same time, the words of the Spirit in the sense above explained. Let us consider, secondly, the very common case of emotions; purposes, etc., expressed by the sacred writers under the inspiration of the Holy Ghost. Here all are agreed that the inward exercises described belong, in the full and proper sense of the words, to the writers themselves, else they would want reality. Why, then, should they not be allowed to express them, each in his own way and manner? When the Psalmist, in the fulness of his soul, exclaims: "Oh, how love I thy law! it is my meditation all the day," there is no valid reason for denying that in the selection of these words "his agency was in any degree exerted," as if God, who had endowed him with the gift of speech, could not trust him to use it, even under his plenary illumination and guidance as if the chief concern of the Holy Ghost were not that the right thing should be said in the right way, but that men should understand that he gave the writer the words in their exact order and number. - It remains to consider, thirdly, those sacred writings which are occupied mainly with the narratives of events previously known to the authors through the ordinary channels of knowledge. The inspiration of these, as has been shown in previous Articles, is included in the inspiration of the writers. We do not think it profitable to raise any abstract questions concerning the different degrees and modes of divine influence that were needed. That Paul might make to the Galatians a statement of his visits to Jerusalem and the dis1 2 Kings v. 26. cussions connected with them, it was obviously not necessary that he should receive the same kind and measure of help as when he unfolded to the Corinthians the doctrine of the resurrection. It is sufficient to say of him and the other inspired penmen, that whatever assistance each needed he received. If his judgment needed divine illumination for the selection of his materials, it was given. If he needed to be raised above narrowness and prejudice, or to have the meaning of the facts which he recorded unfolded to his understanding, and thus to the understanding of those for whom he wrote-in a word, whatever kind and measure of divine aid was needed, it was granted. Thus the historical books of scripture, not less than the others, being written under the illumination and guidance of the Holy Ghost, become a part of the infallible rule of faith and practice contained in the Bible; not less so than if God himself had spoken them from heaven, as he did the ten commandments. Thus far we have considered the theory of verbal inspiration on the side of its alleged necessity. There are some objections to it, two of which will now be briefly noticed. First, the objection from the diversity of style and manner in the writings of scripture has often been urged, and never fairly met. It is obvious to all that the peculiar genius of each author had full scope that he thought and wrote like himself as perfectly as if he had not been under the influence of God's Spirit. We may compare the books of the Bible to a grove consisting of different kinds of trees, all green and beautiful, but each unlike the rest in form and texture. Here is an oak standing by the side of a pine. The former is oak throughout-oak in the form and texture of its leaves, in its bark, in its wood, in its juices, in the form of its limbs, in the spread of its roots; and, just so, its neighbor is pine throughout. To apply the figure: The Epistles of Paul are throughout Pauline - Pauline in the choice and collocation of the words, in the structure and connection of the sentences, in the shape and course of the argument. He writes and reasons like himself, and like no other man; and in all these particulars he is exceedingly unlike the bosom disciple. Yet Paul and John alike write as they are moved by the Holy Ghost, and their writings are alike the word of God. The problem before us is to explain this blending together, in the case of each writer, of the divine with the human element, without detriment to either. It is no real explanation to say, with Carson: "If it is possible for the Almighty to utter his own thoughts, reasonings, and words in the style of the writers whom he employs, and through the operation of their faculties, the objection is nugatory." This is confounding possibility with probability. It is reasoning after the fashion of some writers in respect to the various organic relics of past geological ages. It was possible, they tell us, for the Almighty, when he created the earth, to sprinkle all these things into the different layers. of its crust. Undoubtedly. So it is possible for him to make a tree half-way cut down (to human appearance), with the chips lying near it, and an axe lying by with a nick in its edge, and the marks of the nick impressed on the tree and on the chips. But to assume that he ever did so would be to overturn the foundations of all reasoning from the analogy of his works. Our inquiry is not what Almighty power could do, but what we have reasonable ground for believing that he has done. And here, at least in cases where we have not the clear authority of scripture, the general laws of his procedure, as revealed to us in nature and in revelation, must be our guide. Nor is it, again, a satisfactory answer to say, with Lord, that not only must the thoughts "be inspired in words familiar to the writers, because they could receive, understand, and be conscious of the inspired thoughts only in words which were previously known and familiar to them,” but also "in words which in style and idiom were natural and familiar to the writers."2 He makes it alike necessary to the comprehension of the inspired thoughts—that is, the 1 Refutation of Dr. Henderson, p. 68. 2 Page 105 compared with pp. 101-103. thoughts infused into the minds of the writers by inspiration -that they should be "in words familiar to the writers," and that they should be in the "style and idiom" of each; or, as he elsewhere expresses it, "in words, idioms, and phrases suitable to his peculiar habit and style of thinking."1 But why this necessity? The Sermon on the Mount was not delivered in "the style and idiom" of each hearer present. Yet it was not for this reason unintelligible; and, if God could speak intelligibly, he could inspire thoughts intelligibly without copying each one's style and idiom. If we were defending this view of verbal inspiration, we should do it on the ground of congruity. We should maintain not the necessity, but the suitableness, of God's adapting the inspired thoughts to each one's style and idiom. But neither would this be an adequate answer to the objection. For the theory in question takes from the individuality of the sacred writers in respect to style and manner all its substance, and leaves only an empty show. According to the canon of verbal inspiration already quoted: "If they [the words] were selected by men - if men's agency was in any degree exerted in their selection, ..... if the act of selecting the words was their act, then the words selected were their words," it follows that the style and idiom, not less than the individual words, were from the Holy Ghost. When he spake by Paul, he imitated Paul's style and manner; and so when he spake by Peter, James, or John. If a friend dictates to me a discourse in my style, my writing it down at his dictation does not make it my style. The words and style are his, not mine. When we read the Epistle to the Romans, the impression is irresistible that the apostle's individuality – his peculiar turn of mind and method of reasoning — has full scope; that he is, indeed, plenarily illuminated by the Divine Spirit, yet so that he continues to think and reason in his own way in reality, not in appearance only. We adopt, accordingly, what has been called the "dynamical" view of inspiration, or, to use the words of Lee, "that which 1 Page 103. |