of the matters constituting the substance of revelation, a reason why they might come to the mind independently of human language, seeing that all such language in relation to such themes must be, to a great extent, the language of analogy and accommodation? In our view, it is enough that the inspiration which gives us the substance of revelation should so influence the mode of conveyance as to secure accuracy and truthfulness. It is, no doubt, revelation as written, that is before us as the inspired word of God; but the language is merely the vehicle of the thought, and may itself have been the result of nothing beyond a very general superintendence or direction.

Nor do we find that the texts of Scripture generally appealed to in support of the verbal theory are adequate to sustain it. The term "word," and "words," so common in Scripture, are often grossly misunderstood in this connection. When

our Lord says, "The words that I speak unto you, they are spirit, and they are life," no one can doubt that the term "words" is used to denote, not the language, but the substance or matter of his teaching. So, by the expressions-the word of the Lord-the word of God-we are to understand, not the words in which the Divine Being speaks, or in which his prophets speak, but the message, the thought, which so comes to us.

Not to

see this, is to be spell-bound by a most wretched literalism. We believe that

66

ALL Scripture is given by inspiration of God," but not all in the same sense,very little of it in the sense which regards the words, as well as the thoughts, as having come to us from a supernatural agency. Whatever the sacred writers teach as truth, we regard as truth. Everything of that nature takes the Divine authority along with it—but everything beyond that may take with it nothing more than the Divine guidance, superintendence, or permission. Nor is 1 Cor. ii. 13 really more to the purpose of this theory: "Which things also we speak, not in the words which man's wisdom teacheth, but which the Holy Ghost teacheth." Here the words taught by the Holy Ghost stand in contrast to the words taught by human wisdom. Now, what is meant by this teaching of human wisdom? Does it mean the teaching of mere words? The reference is not so much to mere words, as to language, style-mauner in the largest sense -to the literary, elaborate, and artistic style of oratory and authorship taught in

the philosophical schools of those times. The meaning accordingly is, that the influence of the Holy Spirit, in so far as it was present with the apostles in relation to their manner as teachers, was with them to dispose them towards the simple and natural manner becoming their function ;-not for the purpose of giving them, word by word, the terms they should use, nor to qualify them for emulating the artificial, ornate, and rhetorical style observable in the secular authorship and oratory of that day. There was a Divine influence which affected their manner as teachers, but it did so by affecting their character as men, imparting, through that medium, to everything they did, the signs of sincerity and nature. Nor must we hesitate to say, that if inspiration had extended to the very words of Scripture, the Bible could scarcely have presented those different modes of statement, in relation to the same facts and truths, on which the sceptic has founded his charges of discrepancy and contradiction. It may be true that these alleged differences are greatly exaggerated, and often imaginary, but a dictation descending to words would have left no place for such diversities in more extended forms of expression and statement. In short, we do not see how the doctrine of inspiration is to be saved in reference to any part of Scripture, if it is to be extended thus literally to every part. Revelation, in any form, is imperilled to the last degree, by identifying it in this manner with the mint and cummin of mere phrases and words. If this oneness of manner and diction had been necessary or expedient in a revelation, then the Bible should have come to us bearing, like the Koran, the impress of one mind only. But the Holy Spirit, in speaking to us through diversities of times, and circumstances, and agencies, has declared explicitly that it is not so much one manner, as "divers manners," that befits a communication from the Deity to our race.

But we must now proceed further, and say, that the influence we intend by the word Inspiration, includes a difference as to mode and degree. Professor Gaussen, indeed, insists, that there is not the least warrant in Scripture for regarding any one portion of Scripture as being inspired more than_another, or differently from another. In our view, such a manner of writing, on such a subject, betrays great wilfulness. In Exod. xxiv. 12, xxxi. 18, xxxii. 15, 16; Deut. xi. 5, we are told

that the precepts of the Decalogue were "written by the finger of God." Will it be said that all Scripture has come to us in this manner? But when God did employ human agency, how did he employ it? If in one mode, what was it? If in more than one, can we know the difference? We are charged with presumption in asking such questions-with attempting to make distinctions on a subject confessedly above our comprehension. Now, we admit that it does not become us to make distinctions on this subject; but if there be distinctions already made, and by the great Source of Inspiration himself, it becomes us to be carefully observant of what has been so done. Rea

son and analogy suggest, that the influence we designate by the word Inspiration would be varied in its mode and degree, according to the special purposes to be accomplished from time to time by it. Thus viewed, we should say it will lack nothing necessary to its efficiency, neither will it be in anything superfluous. Sometimes it may act with special force on one faculty, sometimes on another, and sometimes on the susceptibility of the man generally, both mental and physical. In its humblest measure, we suppose it to be supernatural; but this it may be, and still vary greatly. God never resorts to miracle without occasion, nor beyond occasion. Now, almost everything in Scripture is of a nature to sustain this view of inspiration. The manner in which the sacred writers speak of each other is to this effect, suggesting the prominence of the human element in all inspired writing. Thus, of the Old Tes tament writers, it is-"as David saith" -"as Esaias saith"-" as Moses saith." So Peter of Paul-" as Paul hath written." In like manner we speak daily of what has come to us, both by prophets and apostles, in terms which, instead of ignoring the human element in Scripture, seem to recognize nothing else. The language we cite we give as that of Moses or Malachi, of Paul or John. Such are our expressions concerning the sacred penmen, whatever may be the nature of our theory concerning their inspiration.

It is clear, moreover, from the contents of the Scriptures, that there must have been a wide difference both in the nature and the measure of the influence under which they were written. Very much of what is given us by the sacred writers is given from their natural memory and observation, and no influence of a supernatural kind could have been necessary

to enable them to place such things on record. Such influence may have been present with them so far as to have guided them in their selection from such materials, but could not have been necessary beyond that point. Surely Paul might write to a friend to bring a cloak with him, and certain parchments, without being under the influence requisite to enable him to give his revelations of the Man of Sin. He could not have discoursed to the Corinthians as he has done on the resurrection, without coming under a supernatural and special teaching; but he needed not that same teaching to qualify him for stating to the churches of Galatia that he went into Arabia, after his conversion, before going to Jerusalem. In the one of these cases, there could be no need of any direct inspiration at all; in the other, everything was dependent on it. In Nature and Providence, the presence of the Divine power is every where regulated by the natural exigency. It is always to the occasion and necessity, both in kind and degree. It is so in the ordinary operations of grace. God worketh in us to will and to do, but it is in a mauner so apportioned and so adjusted, as to enable us to work out our own salvation with fear and trembling. Why, then, should it be deemed unreasonable-almost irreligious -to suppose that the spirit of Inspiration came to men in old time after this manner? Assuredly there must be some safe halting-place between the position taken by those who leave no place to the supernatural element in revelation, and those who leave-or, at least, seem to leave-no place to the natural. Among the writers who do not hold that inspiration extended, in the manner alleged, to the very words of Scripture, and who, while they hold that all the parts of Scripture are in a sense inspired, do not hold that all those parts are inspired in the same sense, are such men as Baxter and Doddridge, Stennett and Parry, Pye Smith and Hartwell Horne, Knapp and Dick, Wilson and Henderson. The eminent learning, judgment, and piety of these men should suffice to protect them against rash imputation on this subject. They are not infallible. We do not vouch for the strict consistency or accuracy of every statement made by them; but no man whose opinions are entitled to any consideration can hesitate to admit that the authors named have earned a right to speak with some decision on this question, and that their known attachment to

evangelical truth was such as to warrant us in believing that, had they found the more stringent theory of inspiration in the Scriptures, they would have been among the most resolute in the avowal of it.

In attempting to determine the kinds or degrees of the spiritual influence peculiar to the experience of the inspired writers, we may mention, as the highest form of it, direct revelation. All prophecy must have been of this nature. So must it have been also with all those facts which constitute the special doctrines of revelation. The Incarnation, the Atonement, and the work of the Holy Spirit-these are all facts. Reason may approve the moral purpose which these facts are intended to subserve, but the facts themselves must, from their very nature, have been the discoveries, not of reason, but of revelation. That God should manifest himself through Christ-that Christ should die for the purpose of securing pardon to the guilty -and that the Holy Spirit should be given to regenerate human spirits-these doctrines, while in a sense truths, are all truths embodied in facts. That the Divine Being should in some way reveal himself more fully to men-that he should in some way pardon the guilty, and renew the depraved, might have been conceived as possible; but men could not have known that the Deity would so do, and in this manner, except by revelation. These are the facts which Paul received as the truths that had come to him, "not of man," nor by man, but "by revelation of Jesus Christ." In Eph. iii. 1—5 we read thus: "For this cause I, Paul, the prisoner of the Lord Jesus Christ for you Gentiles, if ye have heard of the dispensation of the grace of God which was given me to youward, how that by revelation he made known unto me the mystery (as I wrote afore in few words, whereby when ye read ye may understand my knowledge in the mystery of Christ), which in other ages was not made known to the sons of men, as it is now revealed unto the holy apostles and prophets by the Spirit." It is in the face of such language that some men tell us they cannot find a passage in the New Testament in which the sacred writers profess to give forth their doctrine or sentiments to mankind under a Divine influence or direction. If to be able to boast of "revelations of the Lord" is not to be divinely assisted and guided—to be inspired-we know not what can be

so described. That Christ is enthroned in heaven-that he rules in his church while thus exalted-that he will come at the appointed time to judge the world— these points, and a multitude like them, are of such a nature, that no man could have authority to announce them as truths, except on the ground of having been supernaturally assured of them. Jesus himself could not so have spoken except by the light of prophecy; and Paul, who had not attended the ministry of Jesus, could so have spoken only by revelation from him, or by the Holy Spirit. The ends which these facts were designed to subserve may be strictly consonant with reason, but the facts themselves are such as cannot be classed among the discoveries of reason. Paul foretold the great "falling away," because the Spirit had spoken expressly to that effect. What had been a mysterya something veiled-thus ceased to be so; and, thus placed among the common objects of our knowledge, might be described by our common language.

Next in importance to Inspiration in the way of direct revelation, we may place inspiration in the way of Divine Guidance. Our Lord promised the Holy Spirit to the Apostles, that by his influence they might be led into all truth, The word employed to denote this operation of the Spirit signifies to lead to a road, and, analogically, to teach or instruct. In the Septuagint, it is used to express the Hebrew terms which denote to show the way, to lead in a way, to cause to walk. Thus, by the coming of the Holy Spirit the misconceptions of the Apostles were to be removed, and they were to see the truth they did not see before, or to see truth more clearly than before. To this end, it was not necessary, for the most part, that the aid vouchsafed should amount to a revelation; it was enough that it should have been an influence giving a right direction and a measure of help to their thoughts. The doctrines, the duties, the facts set forth by them were to be seen in their true lights, and the influence promised was influence sufficient to that purpose. This influence came to aid the consciousness proper to the man, not to supersede it.

We see enough in the Scriptures to warrant us in believing that this Divine "revelation," and this Divine “guidance," included a special purification and elevation of the mental and spiritual faculties, The memory, the perception,

the sympathy with spiritual truth being thus aided, all that was needed would, in respect to many things, be secured. Reason suggests that where such influence would be sufficient, such influence only would be vouchsafed. The Apostles, when expressing themselves in the language of ordinary Christian men, speak of some things in respect to which their memory failed them; of others in respect to which they did not see or feel as they could wish: but when giving forth Divine truth in their writings or in their ministry, they always speak with the confidence of men who know that what they deliver as truth is truth.

The most limited sense in which the term inspiration may be used is in reference to mere Superintendence. In many connections no further presence of the Divine Spirit would be necessary than might suffice to guard against mistake. Men act with their natural freedom in such cases, but the Spirit is so present, that the result, though so largely of man, may be said to be, in a sense, truly of God.

If the materials which constitute our Bible were of one kind, it would be reasonable to account the inspiration through which we have received them as being in that respect like them-of one kind. But so great a diversity as to matteraccording to all the analogies of nature and grace-implies a diversity as to the mode of the influence affecting it. Not a little of the difficulty felt in relation to the doctrine of inspiration, is difficulty arising from misconception as to its proper limits and purpose. It is not designed to constitute each inspired writer a strict type of all the rest, in the sense commonly understood. We regard the doctrinal truth presented to the mind of the inspired writers as being always in substance the same; but this, it is manifest, was quite consistent with leaving each writer at liberty to contemplate that truth from different points, or in different relations, according to their respective individualities of character. The influence which was consistent with leaving to the sacred writers a diversity in style, was consistent with leaving to them a diversity much more considerable. In reference to the Gospels, it is well known that exception has been taken to these narratives, on the ground that the Christ presented in them is not so much the same Christ as another. The objection is not valid; but it would not have become so common, if there had not been

appearances to give it some plausibility. It is unquestionable that our fullest conception of the character of Christ must be derived, not from any one of the Gospels taken separately, so much as from the whole taken conjointly. In respect to the deeper truths most characteristic of the nature and mission of our Lord, we might spare Matthew and Mark better than Luke, and even Luke better than John. It is the same as regards the apprehension of the doctrine of Christ on the part of the authors of the Apostolical Epistles. It is clear the evangelists were not obliged to look at the character of Christ from exactly the same point. One might regard that marvellous manifestation more in its external aspects -another, more in relation to the inner mysteries which lay beneath it; but though the lights and phases of the presentation were different, the great subject was the same. In like manner, the doctrine of Christ, as presented by the Apostles, does not come before us with all the parts in the same prominence or shadow. The truth is one, but the mode and measure in which the respective parts of the great scheme are developed, that is not one. In James the doctrinal element is very briefly given; it is to the practical that he aims to impart a sharpness and power of his own. In Peter, the two elements are in something nearer equal proportions; but he does not present the evangelical verities with the depth and emphasis of John, and still less in the manner of Paul. John's sympathies lie considerably on the side of the contemplative and devotional; Paul's affinities connect his spirit with a wider range of doctrinal truth, and, in a large degree, with the more robust and practical tendencies of the Gospel.

Now, the Divine Being might have avoided all these varieties, as coming thus from the hallowed individualities of the sacred writers, by employing some one eminently full and gifted spirit to have given us a single Gospel, leaving us to deduce our Christianity from the one document of the one man. But such a course, while it would have precluded some of the objections now familiar to us, would have been open to others perhaps much more formidable. These varieties are in the writings of inspired men, because they are in the humanity to which those writings are addressed. By this means, not only may each mind have its own truth, but have its own truth in its own way,—that is, adapted to its indi