,transcribed from the #ahgg ,hatchards edition by ,david ,price1 email ccx#jgdpglaf4org ,,inspiration3 ,,its ,,nature ,,and ,,extent4 99 99 99 99 99 ,,by ,,the ,,rev4 ,e4 ,,hoare1 ,,vicar ,,of ,,trinity1 ,,tunbridge ,,wells1 ,,and ,,honorary ,,canon ,,of ,,canterbury4 99 99 99 99 99 ,second ,edition4 99 99 99 99 99 ,,london3 ,,hatchards1 ,,piccadilly4 #ahgg4 99 99 99 99 99 ,,london3 ,,printed ,,by ,,john ,,strangeways1 ,castle ,st4 ,leicester ,sq4 99 99 99 99 99 ,,contents4 ,,page ,,introduction #a ,,the ,,divine ,,element #g ,,the ,,human ,,element #cb ,,the ,,combination #cg ,,difficulties #dd ,,introduction4 ,,it is quite impossible to over-estimate the deep importance of this great subject1 for on our conclusions respecting it must depend our confidence in all the great mysteries of the ,gospel4 ,there is a sphere within which the human mind is capable of astonishing achievement1 and ,i would be the last to undervalue human intellect4 ,it has done vast things already1 and is doing great things now4 ,but there is a limit beyond which it has no power to pass2 a world in which it has no means of investigation2 an unseen kingdom which lies quite outside its range4 ,yet1 though unseen1 this kingdom is all important2 and1 though an undiscovered country1 it is one in which we are all most deeply concerned1 for we are all rapidly hastening thither1 and ,he who is our ,father1 our ,creator1 our ,redeemer1 our ,lord1 our life1 is the great and unseen ,head of it4 ,thus1 no science can ever inform us as to the nature of the ,godhead1 the plan of salvation1 or eternal life2 and it is altogether unphilosophical and unscientific to attempt to reduce such subjects to the ordinary rules of science and philosophy4 ,god's plan of salvation can only be known from ,god ,himself2 so that1 if ,he has not imparted to us all needful knowledge respecting it1 there is no human power that can ever supply the deficiency1 and we must live and die convinced of the soul's immortality1 but still in utter ignorance of the plan which ,god has arranged for its safety4 ,hence the inexpressible value of the inspired word of ,scripture4 ,it is the communication from ,god to man respecting the deep things of the unseen world4 ,it supplies that which lies beyond the reach of human investigation1 and gives us exactly that information which dying man requires4 ,it unfolds to us the eternal nature of ,god1 and the plan of salvation which ,he has prepared in tender mercy for a fallen world4 ,if therefore our ,bible fail us1 our whole hope fails with it1 and if we cannot rely on its sacred statements1 we are left without any trustworthy information as to all those great truths which most deeply concern us4 ,if we cannot rely on ,scripture as a communication from ,god we have nothing to take its place2 and all our present joy1 as well as our future hopes1 must melt away into utter ignorance respecting all that lies beyond the range of science1 and utter hopelessness as to all beyond this present world4 ,it is not my present object to attempt to prove the inspiration of ,scripture4 ,it is a great and noble subject1 and one which ,i should rejoice to investigate4 ,but it is not the subject of this paper4 ,my object is to examine the extent and nature of inspiration1 and to that ,i must exclusively confine myself4 ,i take it for granted therefore that inspiration is an admitted fact1 so that my only business is to consider how far it carries us1 and what security it gives us for certain1 reliable1 infallible truth1 in all the statements of the inspired word4 ,it has been said that #8,inspiration is that idea of ,scripture which we gather from the knowledge of it1' #e;a and an attempt has been made to show how by such a definition all difficulties are overcome4 ,i freely grant that such a theory does present a very easy and ready method of getting rid of difficulty1 for1 if we decide on reducing the authority of ,scripture to our own ideas respecting it1 it is not likely that there will be much left to embarrass us4 ,there is however one difficulty1 and that a most important one1 which it cannot solve4 ,it can give no solid foundation for the anxious soul to rest on1 and must leave us floating into eternity with no better support than a vague idea of our own creation4 ,st4 ,peter differs very widely from the author of that essay2 for though the author boldly asserts that #e;b #8for any of the higher or supernatural views of inspiration there is no foundation in the ,gospels or ,epistles1' ,st4 ,peter broadly and plainly asserts that #8,holy men of ,god spake as they were moved by the ,holy ,ghost4' 7#b ,pet4 i4 #ba47 ,here then we have the ,apostolic definition of the work of inspiration1 and by that definition we are taught that there are two distinct elements to be considered1 the divine and the human2 the divine1 for the ,holy ,ghost moved the writers2 and the human1 for the communication did not come as a direct voice from heaven1 but holy men spake as they were moved4 ,in order therefore fully to investigate the subject1 it will be necessary to examine 7#a7 the divine element1 7#b7 the human element1 and 7#c7 the combination of the two2 after which we may consider some of the difficulties which have been thought to lie against the doctrine4 ,,the ,,divine ,,element4 ,i ,,need scarcely say that this divine element is the great subject of modern controversy4 ,but ,i hope we may meet the points more especially agitated1 by considering four questions4 ,i4 ,does it extend over the whole book8 ,,ii4 ,is it equal8 ,,iii4 ,is it verbal8 ,,iv4 ,does it render the word infallible8 ,i4 ,does it extend over the whole book8 ,our first inquiry1 then1 must relate to the area covered by it2 or1 in other words1 to the question1 ,is the whole inspired8 ,were all the writers of ,scripture thus moved by the ,holy ,ghost8 or merely some of them1 and those in certain books only8 ,now1 taking the language of ,st4 ,paul in #b ,tim4 iii4 #af1 as our guide1 we have a clear and decisive answer2 for it is here written1 #8,all ,scripture is given by inspiration of ,god4' ,it is stated by ,dr4 ,lee #h that the word #8,scripture' occurs either in the singular or plural no less than fifty times1 and in every single instance it is employed solely with reference to that collection of writings which were regarded as the oracles of ,god4 ,everything therefore included in that collection is here declared to be 1 or given by inspiration4 ,the only possible question therefore is1 ,how much was included8 ,now1 whatever men may think of the doctrine of inspiration1 all must admit as an historical fact1 that when ,st4 ,paul wrote these words1 the whole of the ,old ,testament was included in the ,jewish canon4 ,the ,jews1 notwithstanding all their faults1 were admirable guardians of ,scripture1 and there was no doubt in the mind of any pious ,jew as to what books together formed his ,bible4 ,he was much clearer on that subject than many of our modern writers4 ,when therefore ,st4 ,paul spoke of #8,all ,scripture1' there is no doubt in the world that he included in his statement every line and letter of the ,old ,testament1 and he taught us in those words that the whole1 from first to last1 from the first of ,genesis to the last of ,malachi was given by inspiration of ,god4 ,in saying this1 ,i make no exception whatever with reference to the historical books4 ,i think it has been clearly shown that those historical writings which are not in the ,pentateuch are included in that part of ,scripture called the ,prophets4 ,in which case the language of ,st4 ,peter1 already quoted1 refers to history as well as prediction4 ,nay1 more6 ,i do not hesitate to say1 that if ,i were called upon to prove inspiration1 there is no portion of the whole volume on which ,i should be better pleased to meet an opponent than the historical portions of the ,old ,testament4 ,so strong is the argument in their favour1 that although by so saying ,i may startle some1 ,i am prepared1 after the most careful deliberation1 to affirm that ,i cannot separate them from the word of ,god without at the same time abandoning the whole of my ,christianity4 ,my reason for this statement is1 that our ,lord ,himself in ,his own teaching has most distinctly sanctioned them4 ,men cavil at the strange miracles recorded in them1 but1 while men cavil1 ,he refers to no less than nine of these miracles as facts4 ,the flood1 the destruction of ,sodom and ,gomorrah1 the death of ,lot's wife1 the burning bush1 the manna1 the brazen serpent1 the cure of ,naaman1 the preservation of the widow of ,sarepta1 and the rescue of ,jonah1 are all endorsed by ,his divine authority4 ,to the books of ,moses1 which are chiefly historical1 ,he perpetually refers as to the word of ,god1 describing their testimony as more worthy of credit than that of men risen from the dead4 ,and as for the much-despised first chapter of the book of ,genesis1 the speculation1 as we are now taught1 of some ancient ,hebrew ,descartes1 ,he actually quotes the #bgth verse as descriptive of the fact of creation4 ,i am brought therefore to the conclusion that if there is any portion of the whole volume which may pre-eminently be said to have the broad seal and stamp of our ,lord's authority placed upon it with ,his own hand1 that portion is the ,pentateuch4 ,all1 therefore1 ,i am thoroughly persuaded1 must rise and fall together4 ,if we believe in the ,lord ,jesus ,christ1 we must receive the books of ,moses as inspired ,scripture2 and never can we abandon them till we are prepared to admit that in ,his own sacred teaching the ,lord ,himself has misled ,his people1 or1 in other and plainer words1 till we cease to be believers in ,jesus4 ,but are we to limit this language of ,st4 ,paul to the ,old ,testament8 ,i think it has been clearly shown that we are not4 ,for although the canon of the ,new ,testament was not complete when ,st4 ,paul wrote these words1 we must remember that the second ,epistle to ,timothy was one of the latest epistles1 and that1 according to ,horne's list1 the whole of the ,new ,testament1 or very nearly the whole1 except the writings of ,st4 ,john1 were written at or about the time of its publication4 ,the only question is1 whether these writings were then regarded as ,scripture3 for1 if they were1 they were clearly included in the declaration that all ,scripture is given by inspiration of ,god4 ,now1 one thing is perfectly clear1 namely1 that ,st4 ,paul claimed the authority of ,scripture for his own epistles3 for after having carefully drawn the distinction between his private opinions and inspired decisions1 he distinctly says1 #8,yet not ,i1 but the ,lord' 7#a ,cor4 vii4 #aj74 ,it is equally clear that ,st4 ,peter classed the apostles with the prophets1 #b ,pet4 iii4 #b4 ,it is equally clear again1 that the ,gospel of ,st4 ,luke was already admitted as ,scripture1 for in #a ,tim4 v4 #ah1 ,st4 ,paul quotes two passages1 one from ,deuteronomy and one from ,st4 ,luke1 declaring of both equally that they were taken from ,scripture4 #8,for the scripture saith1 ,thou shalt not muzzle the ox that treadeth out the corn4 ,and1 ,the labourer is worthy of his reward4' 7,deut4 xxv4 #d2 ,luke1 x4 #g47 ,it is equally clear again1 that ,st4 ,paul's ,epistles were included by ,st4 ,peter in the canon2 for he clearly regarded them as ,scripture when he wrote his second epistle4 ,he saw some difficulties in them1 but that did not affect his opinion of their admitted inspiration1 when he said 7#b ,pet4 iii4 #ae1 #af71 #8,even as our beloved brother ,paul also1 according to the wisdom given unto him1 hath written unto you2 as also in all his epistles1 speaking in them of these things2 in which are some things hard to be understood1 which they that are unlearned and unstable wrest1 as they do also the other scriptures1 unto their own destruction4' ,new ,testament therefore1 as well as ,old1 was included in the declaration1 #8,all scripture is given by inspiration of ,god2' and the conclusion to which ,i am irresistibly brought is1 that we have no right to pick and choose amongst the various portions of the word of ,god4 ,i believe the whole to be arranged as a whole for the accomplishment of ,god's great purpose1 that the whole is included in #8the ,scriptures1' and that the parts are so interwoven one with another1 and so beautifully fitted into each other by ,god's divine hand1 that there will be found ultimately to be no intermediate path between receiving the whole as the word of ,god1 or sweeping away the whole1 and launching forth on a sea of scepticism1 without a ,bible1 without a ,saviour1 and1 as the last step1 without a ,god4 99 99 99 99 99 ,,ii4 ,is it equal8 ,i need scarcely say that many persons1 and some of them most excellent men1 have entertained the idea of a graduated scale of inspiration1 and hence the great importance of the question4 ,is it equal throughout8 ,or is it variable8 ,in attempting an answer to this question1 it is essential that we observe the wide distinction between the authorship and the subject-matter of the book1 for1 if not1 we shall soon get into confusion4 ,now ,christian brethren must not be startled by my stating that in the subject-matter there are the widest possible distinctions4 ,it appears indeed to consist of three distinct classes of subjects1 or rather three distinct kinds of matter4 ,in the first place1 there are direct communications1 communicated from heaven without the use of the mind of man4 ,of this class are the ten commandments1 the words1 #8,this is my beloved ,son in whom ,i am well pleased1' and the discourses of our ,lord4 ,such words were not given by inspiration1 for they did not pass through the medium of the human mind1 but came direct from heaven4 ,in them there was no inspiration1 but communication4 ,there is a second large class of passages which were given by inspiration4 ,the human mind was employed as the medium for conveying ,god's will and purpose4 ,this was the case with the prophets1 the ,psalms1 and other similar passages4 ,here was inspiration1 and the words so uttered were divine words1 though given through the human medium1 and not in direct communication4 ,but there is a third large class of passages in which there is neither inspiration nor communication4 ,there are various sayings and doings of uninspired men1 good actions and bad actions1 good words and bad words1 interspersed with miracles and other wonders of ,god's hand4 ,now no one supposes that all these persons spoke by inspiration1 and it is utterly unfair to quote such passages as inconsistent with the inspiration of ,scripture1 for no one asserts that they are inspired4 ,it is utterly unfair1 for example1 of ,mr4 ,coleridge to quote the language of ,job's friends1 and to attack the inspiration of the book by the assertion that it is impossible to believe them to be inspired4 ,of course it is1 for1 if we believed them to be inspired1 we should be flying in the face of the inspired book itself which records the divine communication1 #8,ye have not spoken of me the thing that is right' 7,job1 xlii4 #g47 ,we do not claim inspiration for those words1 but for the authorship of the book which declares that the speakers spoke those words1 and that in doing so they were wrong4 ,in the subject-matter then we have three divisions1 direct communications1 inspired writings1 and the miscellaneous sayings and doings of uninspired men4 ,but in addition to this there is the question of authorship1 which is clearly totally distinct from the matter1 and it is the inspiration of the author which makes the book the word of ,god4 ,whatever the matter be if the author is inspired the book becomes inspired scripture4 ,the sayings of uninspired men may be put on record by an inspired author1 and our ,heavenly ,father may have shown just as much mercy in directing ,his prophets to record the sins of bad men for our warning1 as the actions of ,his chosen servants for our guidance and encouragement4 ,now1 so far as the authorship is concerned1 we find no distinction whatever4 ,all alike is called #8,scripture2' all #8the word of ,god2' all is included in the statement1 #8,whatsoever things were written aforetime1 were written for our learning1 that we through patience and comfort of the scripture might have hope2' and all is stamped by divine authority in the words1 #8,all scripture is given by inspiration of ,god4' 99 99 99 99 99 ,,iii4 ,is it verbal8 ,i am now approaching a difficult subject1 and ,i should be sorry to speak rashly4 ,but at the same time1 ,i must not speak with hesitation1 for the more ,i have studied the subject the more firmly am ,i brought to the deliberate and fixed conviction that the whole book1 including words as well as thoughts1 is to be received by the believer as the word of ,god4 ,let me briefly state my reasons4 #a4 ,i can draw no other conclusion from the title given to it1 viz4 #8,the word of ,god4' ,when ,i find it especially mentioned as ,god's word2 when ,i meet with such a passage as #8,man shall not live by bread alone1 but by every word that proceedeth out of the mouth of ,god1' ,i find it hard to believe that the words are not included in the act of inspiration1 and that the divine inspiration extends no farther than to the thoughts4 ,if the expression were #8the truth of ,god1' or #8the will of ,god1' ,i could understand a reference to ,his mind without the necessity of applying inspiration to the language2 but ,i cannot exclude the idea of inspired words from that book whose title is #8the word of ,god4' #b4 ,i find certain quotations1 the whole value of which entirely depends on verbal accuracy4 ,in ,gal4 iii4 #af1 ,st4 ,paul quotes from ,gen4 xii4 #g1 and his whole argument turns on the distinction between the singular and plural number in one word contained in the promise made to ,abraham3 #8,he saith not1 and to seeds1 as of many2 but as of one1 ,and to thy seed1 which is ,christ4' ,so in ,matt4 xxii4 #cb1 our ,lord quotes the words spoken to ,moses in ,exod4 iii4 #f1 and rests his whole argument on the present tense of the substantive verb3 #8,i am the ,god of ,abraham1 and the ,god of ,isaac1 and the ,god of ,jacob4 ,god is not the ,god of the dead1 but of the living1' proving by that present tense that ,abraham was at that time an existing person awaiting the resurrection4 ,it may perhaps be said that both these instances occur in direct divine communications2 but we must remember that we have to consider the inspiration of ,moses who recorded that communication1 and surely the quotation proves that the historical inspiration of the author might be trusted for verbal accuracy4 #c4 ,there are many passages in which the words are quoted quite independently of the thoughts of the context4 ,as an illustration1 refer to our ,lord's quotation of ,isa4 lvi4 #g4 ,the whole of that passage refers simply to the admission of the sons of the stranger into the covenant4 ,the emphatic words of the prophecy are #8for all people1' and the one idea of the context is the admission of all people to the covenant4 ,but1 in unfolding this truth1 the prophet was led to express the prophecy in the words1 #8,my house shall be called a house of prayer2' and this expression our ,lord extracts from the prophecy1 and makes it the groundwork of ,his stern rebuke when ,he cleared the temple4 #d4 ,once more4 ,it seems perfectly clear that the prophets in many cases did not understand their own writings4 ,we are sometimes told that we must only understand the prophecies as the prophets themselves did4 ,but if we were to act on that rule1 it must follow that in many cases we could not understand them at all2 for we know1 in fact1 that ,daniel had to pray for an understanding of the prophecy just conveyed through his own lips1 and we are distinctly taught by ,st4 ,peter that the prophets inquired and searched diligently into the meaning of their own prophecies4 7#a ,pet4 i4 #aa47 #8,searching what1 or what manner of time the ,spirit of ,christ which was in them did signify1 when it testified beforehand the sufferings of ,christ1 and the glory that should follow4' ,this also ,i have no doubt is the meaning of the expression1 #8,no prophecy is of any private interpretation' 7#b ,pet4 i4 #bj71 1 #8,has not arisen out of private interpretation1' and is not the result of the writer's own thoughts1 #8but holy men of ,god spake as they were moved by the ,holy ,ghost4' ,but1 if this were the case1 the whole prophecy must depend on verbal accuracy4 ,if they were employed to speak words which had a certain deep1 hidden meaning1 unknown to themselves1 and intended by ,god to remain unknown until their meaning should be made manifest by fulfilment at the coming of the ,lord1 surely we must admit that it was the words and not the thoughts which ,god inspired4 ,the thoughts were actually withheld from the prophets1 but they were moved to utter words which required events then unknown to bring out their true meaning4 #e4 ,but it may be said that this applies to the predictive portions of ,scripture only1 and not to the historical4 ,it possibly may1 and the last argument clearly does4 ,but have we any thing to lead us to suppose that there is one kind of inspiration for the predictive1 and another for the historical portions8 ,are they not all spoken of as one book8 ,are not many of these verbal quotations included in the historical portions1 as e4g4 the promise made to ,abraham8 ,unless1 therefore1 it can be proved to me that there is such a distinction drawn by divine authority1 ,i feel it my privilege to regard the whole as one1 to receive the whole with equal reverence1 and to accept the whole1 prediction1 psalm1 history1 facts1 thoughts1 and words1 as the inspired ,word of the living ,god4 ,but after some measure of careful study1 ,i have been led to the conviction that the question of verbal inspiration is not the one really at issue4 ,for no one believes that1 if there be any inaccuracy1 it took place in the words only4 ,it must have taken place in the thoughts1 in the matter1 in the facts4 ,if1 e4g41 there is a variation between ,st4 ,matthew and ,st4 ,luke1 no one supposes that they meant to convey the same thoughts1 but made a mistake in accidentally selecting different words4 ,the real point of the controversy is the infallible accuracy of the matter4 ,and this leads to my last question4 99 99 99 99 99 ,,iv4 ,is it infallible8 ,on the answer to this question must depend our confidence in ,scripture4 ,some excellent men tell us it is infallible in so far as divine truth is involved4 ,but ,i freely confess that this does not satisfy my own mind4 ,i do not like that limitation4 ,i am prepared to receive the whole book as invested with infallible accuracy from ,god ,himself1 and in taking this view of the subject1 ,i feel the great satisfaction of believing that ,i am in harmony with the mind of ,st4 ,paul1 ,st4 ,peter1 and our great ,head ,himself4 ,for ,st4 ,paul's mind1 ,i would refer to his words in ,acts1 xxviii4 #be1 and ,heb4 x4 #ae4 ,in the ,acts he is quoting from ,isaiah1 and says1 #8,well spake the ,holy ,ghost by ,esaias the prophet1' and in the ,hebrews he is quoting from the prophet ,jeremiah2 but instead of saying1 #8whereof ,jeremiah is a witness to us1' he says1 without mentioning ,jeremiah1 #8,whereof the ,holy ,ghost also is a witness to us1' taking the word1 as it were1 out of the hands of fallible man1 and placing it in those of the infallible ,spirit4 ,these passages place inspiration on an equal footing with direct communication4 ,but if inspired writings were spoken of as the actual words of the ,holy ,ghost just as much as if they had been direct communications2 if inspiration was of such a character as to render the words the words of the ,spirit ,himself1 can we believe that those words were capable of error8 ,for ,st4 ,peter's testimony1 ,i would refer to his language in #b ,pet4 i4 #ai1 in the context of which passage he is assuring his hearers that he had not followed cunningly devised fables4 ,and now mark the threefold evidence which he produces4 ,first1 there is vision1 #8,we were eye-witnesses of his majesty4' ,secondly1 there is hearing1 #8,the voice from heaven we heard4' ,but lastly1 there is an evidence more clear1 more true1 more trustworthy1 than either the sight of his own eyes1 or the hearing of his own ears4 ,that evidence is ,scripture4 #8,we have also a more sure word of prophecy4' ,for the testimony of our ,lord ,himself1 refer to two passages1 the one referring to a nice point in a quotation from the ,psalms1 ,john1 x4 #ce2 the other to the whole word in its sanctifying power1 ,john1 xvii4 #ag4 ,now what is ,his language8 ,in the one1 #8,the scripture cannot be broken4' ,in the other1 #8,thy word is truth4' ,with these statements of our blessed ,lord1 ,i am content to leave this portion of our subject4 ,in these words of ,scripture1 ,i believe that ,god ,himself has spoken to man1 and therefore in the midst of all the world's disappointments1 and in all the failures of even the ,church of ,god1 we have here that on which the soul may calmly1 peacefully1 and fearlessly repose4 ,and whether we look at history or prediction1 at promises or judgments1 at prophecies understood by those who uttered them1 or language veiled in mystery until the divine purpose is developed in history1 we receive the whole as inviolable truth1 for all has the stamp of the ,spirit ,himself1 and all is given by inspiration of ,god4 ,we receive it1 we honour it1 we submit to it1 we acknowledge its divine authority1 and welcome with heartfelt thanksgiving its infallible promises4 ,yes1 we receive it not merely with the deepest conviction of our most deliberate judgment3 but we welcome it to our soul with all the deep feelings of a thankful heart1 and say with the inspired ,psalmist1 #8,thy word is very pure1 therefore thy servant loveth it4' ,,the ,,human ,,element4 ,,but there is a human element in the book as well as a divine4 #8,holy men spake as they were moved4' ,we shall take1 therefore1 a very partial view of the whole subject if we neglect to consider the action of the holy men as well as the moving of the ,holy ,ghost4 ,what then are the plain1 obvious facts of the case8 ,are they not that the books contain as much evidence of human mind1 and human character as if they were uninspired books8 ,the human authorship is as prominent and conspicuous as the divine1 and any theory of inspiration which excludes it is1 ,i cannot but think1 opposed to the facts of ,scripture4 #a4 ,there is distinctive character in the different writers4 ,compare ,st4 ,paul and ,st4 ,john1 ,st4 ,peter and ,st4 ,james1 ,jeremiah and ,ezekiel1 and you see the most transparent variety1 a variety which renders it impossible to suppose that they were merely pens1 machines1 or copyists4 #b4 ,there is the use of natural powers or gifts4 ,st4 ,paul was a well-educated1 intellectual man1 with great reasoning powers1 so he supported truth by argument4 ,david was a poet1 so he breathed out as the sweet psalmist of ,israel the hallowed outpourings of a sanctified heart4 #c4 ,there is the use of feeling4 ,all the emotions of the human heart may be found in ,scripture4 ,there is no deep feeling of which man is capable which is not expressed there4 ,there is love1 sorrow in some of its most tender and touching forms1 depression of spirits1 joy1 hope1 longing desire1 deep contrition1 calm faith1 and perfect peace4 ,all these you find1 not merely described by the inspired authors1 but forming part and parcel of the inspired word4 ,they are the very word itself1 and are expressed as naturally as if there were no such thing as inspiration4 #d4 ,there is the use of memory4 ,our ,lord's promise to ,his ,apostles in ,john1 xiv4 #bf1 applies clearly to this point1 and shows that the gift of the ,holy ,ghost1 so far from superseding memory1 would quicken it1 and give it the power of recalling with accuracy the words intrusted to it4 #8,he shall bring all things to your remembrance1 whatsoever ,i have said unto you4' #e4 ,there was also the use of personal experience1 as1 e4g41 when ,st4 ,john said1 #8,the word was made flesh1 and dwelt among us1 and we beheld his glory' 7,john1 i4 #ad72 and again1 #8,that which we have seen and heard declare we unto you4' 7#a ,john1 i4 #a1 #c7 ,and lastly1 and it is a very deeply interesting point1 there was the diligent use of collected information4 ,see ,luke1 i4 #a-c1 where ,luke does not claim to write original matter1 but to have received it from those who from the beginning were eye-witnesses1 and ministers of the word4 ,it was because he had a perfect understanding from them that he undertook to write out in order the events of the narrative4 ,it is clear1 therefore1 that in the composition of ,scripture there was the free use of the human mind4 ,the ,pentateuch is the word of ,moses as well as the word of ,god1 for when our ,lord quotes the fifth commandment in ,mark1 vii4 #aj1 ,he introduces it by the words #8,moses said2' although when ,he condemns ,his hearers for the breach of it1 he says1 they were #8making the ,word of ,god of none effect by their tradition4' 7,mark1 v4 #ac47 ,the human element is therefore as plain as the divine4 ,we have not in our ,bible a voice speaking from heaven in accents so strange to human ears that it could only serve to amaze and terrify2 but we have ,god's will presented to us through the medium of human language1 human feeling1 human thought1 and human inquiry2 human in all respects but one1 and that is1 as we have already found1 that it is free from human error4 ,,the ,,combination4 ,i ,,trust1 then1 that ,i have shown clearly the existence of the divine and human elements in ,scripture1 but it still remains for us to consider the third point1 namely1 ,,the ,,combination ,,of ,,the ,,two4 ,how is the union between the divine and human to be explained8 #a4 ,not by supposing that the writers were mere pens1 or machines4 ,this is sometimes termed the mechanical theory1 but it is clearly inconsistent with facts4 ,pens never think1 argue1 remember1 weep1 or rejoice1 and all these things were done by the writers of ,scripture4 #b4 ,not by supposing them to be mere copyists or amanuenses employed to write down the words of the ,spirit1 as ,baruch took down the words of ,jeremiah4 ,this may have been the case when they received direct communication1 as when ,moses wrote out the ten commandments at the dictation of ,god3 but it will not apply to inspiration1 as it gives no scope for variety of character4 ,the one dictating mind would be the only one to appear on such a theory4 #c4 ,we will not attempt to explain it by constructing any artificial theories as to the action of the ,spirit on the mind of men4 ,some have endeavoured to classify the modes in which they consider the ,spirit may have acted1 as1 e4g41 supervision1 elevation1 direction1 and suggestion4 ,all this may be right1 and it may be wrong2 for we are taught 7,heb4 i4 #a7 not merely that ,god spake in divers times1 but in divers manners unto the fathers by the prophets4 ,but all such distinctions are unsupported by ,scripture1 and therefore we may leave them4 ,my own belief is1 that the safest course for the believer is to take the word as he finds it1 and to attempt no explanation at all4 ,the fact is1 that the question lies in the midst of a class of subjects which have always baffled man's inquiry1 ,i mean those relating to the points of contact between the mind of ,god and the mind of man4 ,the real point is1 how has the mind of ,god acted on the mind of man1 and how can there be union in one book between his mind which is infinite and infallible1 and the mind of man which is finite and fallible8 ,that question ,i cannot solve4 ,but ,i cannot there leave the inquiry2 for it appears to me that we have an analogous case of the deepest possible importance1 ,i mean the corresponding union in the person of our blessed ,saviour4 ,remember1 then1 that there are two channels through which ,god has manifested ,his will1 viz41 the incarnate word1 and the written word2 and surely we are justified in expecting that there will be something of the same character in the two manifestations4 ,now1 how is it with the incarnate word8 ,in ,him there is a perfect ,godhead and a perfect manhood1 so that ,he becomes the perfect daysman between ,god and the sinner4 ,his ,deity does not neutralise ,his humanity1 for1 though ,himself the ,creator1 ,he was wearied1 ,he wept1 ,he prayed1 ,he trusted1 ,he died2 and so ,he can be touched with the feelings of those who in this suffering world are called to weep1 to suffer1 to pray1 and to die now4 ,but neither1 on the other hand1 did ,his humanity neutralise ,his ,deity1 for in the midst of ,his weakness ,he could rise in ,his omnipotence1 and bid the dead arise and the waves be still4 ,if you ask how it is that the one did not neutralise the other1 ,i cannot say4 ,all ,i know is that ,god so ordered it1 and that ,he so formed the union that the perfection of the ,godhead did not destroy the manhood1 nor the perfection of the manhood take one jot or one tittle from the attributes of the ,godhead4 ,and if men reply that they cannot understand it1 ,i can only say that they have no right to expect to do so1 for are we not assured in ,scripture1 #8,without controversy1 great is the mystery of godliness1 ,god was manifest in the flesh8' ,but now1 passing from the first manifestation of ,god's will to the second1 i4e4 from the incarnate ,word to the written word1 are we to be surprised if we meet with a similar union and a similar difficulty8 ,if1 in short1 we find the self-same combination of the divine and human elements8 ,can ,i wonder if it is presented to us in a form so divine that it is infallibly true1 and yet so human that it is full of the workings of the human intellect and human heart8 ,no1 ,i wonder not1 and ,i speculate not4 ,but1 as ,i thank ,god for an incarnate ,redeemer1 who has all the omnipotent and infinite attributes of ,god1 while at the same time ,he has so true a manhood that ,i may appeal to ,his sympathy on the ground of ,his experience of all the trials of the flesh1 so ,i thank ,god also that ,he has given us a ,bible so perfect1 so divine1 so authoritative1 so infallible1 that ,i may trust it without the shadow of a doubt as the unerring word of the living ,god1 while at the same time it is so completely human1 and thereby so exactly adapted to the human heart's requirements1 that ,i can welcome it as a word spoken for myself1 and admire the love of our ,heavenly ,father who has been pleased to combine in one book a perfect divinity and a perfect humanity1 the infallible truth of a perfect ,godhead combined by ,god's mysterious power with the heart-touching utterance of a true and perfect manhood4 ,,difficulties4 ,,but1 while we rejoice in the great doctrine of a complete1 plenary1 and infallible inspiration1 we should be wanting in ,christian candour if we were to ignore the existence of certain difficulties connected with the subject4 ,there are difficulties we freely acknowledge1 some of which have been felt1 not merely by sceptical1 but by devout and ,christian minds2 and these difficulties ,i now propose to consider4 #a4 ,the first of these has been already met4 ,it arises from the variety of mind and character in the inspired writers4 ,this is thought to be inconsistent with the divine inspiration of the whole book by one inspiring ,spirit2 and it would be a difficulty if we believed1 according to the mechanical theory1 that the writers were merely pens1 machines1 or copyists4 ,but on the principle that there is a perfect manhood combined with a perfect ,godhead1 instead of remaining a difficulty1 it becomes one of the chief beauties of the book1 and is the very thing that renders it so pre-eminently suited to the wants of the human heart4 #b4 ,a second difficulty arises from the idea that the language of ,scripture is opposed to modern science4 ,the principle of this difficulty is contained in the words1 #8,any true doctrine of inspiration must conform to all well-ascertained facts of history or of science4' #de ,now1 in the first place1 we enter our solemn protest against the ,scripture being regarded as a scientific treatise4 ,its object was no more to teach us science than to teach us medicine4 ,it is therefore utterly unfair to bring its language to the test of scientific experiments4 ,if the allusions of ,scripture to surrounding nature were not altogether in harmony with the discoveries of modern science1 it would not in the least affect my own idea of inspiration2 for in making use of men to convey ,his own divine message1 ,i could not expect anything but that our ,heavenly ,father should make use of such language as men understood at the time the book was written2 and it seems utterly unreasonable to suppose that ,he should render ,his revelation unintelligible to those to whom it was given1 by going out of ,his way to anticipate discoveries which were about to be made some thousands of years afterwards4 ,but1 though the ,scriptures are not given to teach science1 and no one has a right to doubt their inspiration because he does not find scientific accuracy in their language1 we are still prepared to meet the scientific man on his own ground1 and fearlessly to affirm that there is nothing in ,scripture opposed to the well-ascertained discoveries of science4 ,for mark well4 ,there is nothing in a miracle opposed to the laws of science4 ,science refers to those laws of nature which are within reach of our investigation2 but if1 at any time1 the ,creator should displace them1 either by the action of higher laws unknown to us1 or by the simple power of ,his will1 science knows nothing of that displacement4 ,it is the office of science to investigate existing laws2 but science knows nothing of any interruptions of those laws by the sovereign will of ,him who founded them4 ,such interruptions lie altogether beyond its province4 ,all1 for example1 that science can say is1 that we know of no law which could cause the sun to stand still on ,gibeon4 ,but does ,scripture ever assert that it was done by any law within our knowledge8 ,is it not represented as the act of ,god's omnipotence suspending known laws8 ,and is not that suspending power altogether beyond the reach of scientific inquiry8 ,the miracle therefore1 lies beyond the reach of science1 and cannot be opposed to it4 ,but as for the well-ascertained laws of nature and well-established scientific facts1 we fearlessly assert that there is nothing in ,scripture opposed to them4 ,let us consider for a moment the two cases most commonly quoted as involving contradiction3 the description of the sun standing still on ,gibeon1 and the ,mosaic account of the creation4 ,with reference to the former there are two objections urged4 ,the first is that of the infidel who denies the possibility of the miracle1 but with that ,i have nothing to do1 as ,i have already shown that miracles are not within the range of science4 ,the second is founded on the language of the narrative1 which is thought to imply an ignorance of the earth's rotation on its axis4 ,but really this is so childish that it is scarcely worth our notice4 ,is there any one in his senses who would have expected ,joshua to say1 #8,earth1 suspend your rotation round your axis2' or to have framed his language in any other way so as to describe that rotation8 ,and if ,joshua ought to have so expressed himself1 why do not astronomers and other learned men alter their own language now according to their own science8 ,or are we to suppose that after all they know nothing about astronomy1 because they speak like ignorant men1 and say1 like the rest of us1 #8the sun rises and the sun sets8' ,the other case1 however1 is more important1 for it is the object of the first chapter of the ,book of ,genesis to give an account of creation1 and it is perfectly reasonable therefore to expect to find it in harmony with geological facts4 ,but mark4 ,there is a great difference between being in harmony with geological facts1 and in harmony with every geological theory that is started4 ,we must confine the argument to what is known1 and we have nothing to do with what people think4 ,true science is a rigid thing1 and relates to facts1 not opinions4 ,when1 e4g41 people tell us that there could not be light before the sun1 they are thoroughly unscientific in so saying1 for they know nothing of the kind4 ,there is a vast amount of light at this present time quite independent of the sun1 and the idea that there could be none before it is nothing more than an unscientific conjecture4 ,no6 we must keep rigidly to facts1 to facts really established by trustworthy evidence2 and1 keeping stedfastly to such facts1 ,i have not the least shadow of anxiety respecting geological discovery4 ,on the contrary1 ,i believe that the first chapter of ,genesis will furnish us1 and is even already furnishing us1 with one of the grandest arguments ever yet produced for the divine inspiration of the book of ,scripture4 ,i cannot but think that that first chapter is placed in the forefront of the book in order to present us1 at the outset of the whole1 with an unanswerable evidence of the divinity of its origin4 ,for what is the present position of geology8 ,in the first place1 it is a very young science1 one of scarcely more than fifty years' growth4 ,the most profound geologists are most convinced how much there is still to be learned1 and they are learning more every day4 ,no really wise man therefore would give up the inspiration of ,scripture in deference to these present conclusions1 even if those conclusions should at first sight seem to be opposed to the inspired word4 ,but they are not opposed to it4 ,there may be a difference of opinion among ,christian men as to which is the right principle of harmony1 but there is no difficulty in harmonizing all geological facts with the plain1 literal1 straightforward1 honest interpretation of every sentence of the sacred record4 ,nay more6 ,there is one remarkable point of harmony clearly established1 viz41 this1 that in its great outlines the order of events recorded in the book of ,scripture is the same as the order as exhibited in the record of the rocks4 ,moses describes a certain order in creation4 ,three thousand years after ,moses1 learned men began to investigate the earth's crust1 and in the rocks which form that crust1 they have discovered the outlines of a certain order4 ,they have come to the conclusion that certain great events must have succeeded each other in the creation of the world4 ,here therefore you have two records1 one from the rocks1 and one from ,moses3 one only just now discovered1 and one given more than three thousand years ago4 ,but place them side by side4 ,do not be afraid of comparing them1 for truth is never afraid of investigation4 ,but in comparing them what do we find8 ,that the order in the rocks in all its broad features corresponds step by step with the order in the ,mosaic record2 and though there are still some minor difficulties1 still in the great1 grand1 broad facts there is a magnificent harmony4 ,but whence did ,moses learn that order8 ,the events must have taken place millions and millions of years before ever man trod this earth4 ,there were no geologists in his day to teach him4 ,how then could he have known the order of events which took place ages before man's being8 ,there is only one answer to be given1 and that is1 that he must have been taught it by ,god ,himself4 ,thus we may thank our modern geologists1 as many of them delight in believing1 for having in these days of infidelity dug out from the bowels of the earth a fresh and noble proof1 which had lain buried there for centuries1 that the first chapter of the ,book of ,genesis was given to ,moses by inspiration of ,god4 ,but we may go further still with reference to science1 and remark that there are many expressions in ,scripture remarkably in harmony with it1 and which almost appear to indicate a mind far in advance of the knowledge of the day4 ,take1 e4g41 the distinction drawn by ,moses between rain and dew in ,deut4 xxxii4 #b1 #8,my doctrine shall drop as the rain1 and my speech shall distil as the dew4' ,or the language of ,job respecting the weight of the atmosphere1 a scientific truth unknown till the days of ,galileo3 #8,to make the weight for the winds4' 7,job1 xxviii4 #be47 ,many similar passages might be quoted1 but these are sufficient to show that1 although it was not the purpose of the book to teach science1 there lay hidden within the book the germs of the truest science1 waiting there unobserved till scientific men should discover the facts1 and so by their science bring to light a fresh evidence of the divine inspiration of the book4 #c4 ,it is alleged that the sacred writers differed in some instances from secular historians4 ,the favourite instances adduced are the date of the governments of ,cyrenius in ,syria1 and that of ,lysanius at ,abylene4 ,the one is placed by ,josephus about eleven years after the birth of our ,lord1 and the other about the same distance of time before the commencement of ,john the ,baptist's ministry4 ,it is a real pleasure to find men fixing on such minute points1 and to see them obliged to leave unassailed the vast amount of accumulated evidence to the accurate fidelity of the sacred records4 ,i confess that the simple fact of their fastening on such points proves very clearly to my own mind that they have nothing very substantial on which to fasten4 ,suggestions have been thrown out1 which1 if true1 may meet the difficulty2 but with our limited information1 after an interval of one thousand eight hundred years1 it is impossible to be sure that they are correct4 ,but suppose there is a difference4 ,suppose the chronology of ,josephus is at variance with that of ,st4 ,luke4 ,suppose that one or the other is in error4 ,is it impossible1 ,i ask1 that ,josephus may be wrong8 ,is he infallible8 ,are his writings guaranteed from error8 ,and why should the ,christian tamely surrender the point1 and quietly submit to the conclusion that ,st4 ,luke is wrong and ,josephus right8 ,i protest against such a surrender1 and1 till there is clearer evidence than we have obtained at present1 ,i shall venture to believe that ,josephus is mistaken if in anything he really differs from the inspired word4 #d4 ,but ,i have left to the last that which to many minds is the greatest difficulty4 ,i mean the variations1 or as some would call them1 the apparent discrepancies1 between the sacred writers themselves4 ,now ,i have no wish to deny the existence of such variations1 though ,i dislike the term #8discrepancies1' for ,i do not believe there is discrepancy4 ,and in dealing with this difficulty1 there are1 ,i conceive1 three principles to be kept clearly in mind4 #a4 ,the narratives are very short and fragmentary in their character4 ,they never attempt to record the whole4 ,hence one gives one fragment1 and another a second1 and these fragments are often like the fossil bones of a skeleton4 ,ignorant men1 which we all are1 cannot fit them together2 but we must not on that account assert them to be contradictory2 for when the structure of the whole is once discovered1 they will all fit into their proper places1 and all the scattered fragments be combined in perfect symmetry4 #b4 ,there is the widest possible distinction between variation and contradiction4 ,if two writers give an account of the same event1 they will each regard it from their own point of view1 and describe it as it impressed themselves4 ,hence one will bring into prominence certain facts which are altogether omitted by another4 ,but such a variation is totally different from contradiction4 ,an excellent illustration of this is found in the case of the inscription over the cross1 a case which ,dean ,alford considers decisive against verbal inspiration4 ,now ,i am quite ready to admit that1 if there were contradiction1 it would be decisive4 ,but ,i deny that there is any contradiction whatever4 ,there is variation1 but nothing more4 ,all agree in the emphatic point--',the king of the ,jews1' and the only difference is that some give in addition a few more words than others4 ,but these added words are not at variance with each other4 ,on the contrary1 they all combine in one sentence1 which probably formed the real inscription4 ,that sentence is 4 #8,this is ,jesus of ,nazareth the king of the ,jews4' ,now1 supposing that to have been the real sentence1 so that each of the evangelists omitted some of the explanatory words1 while all preserved1 #8,the king of the ,jews1' which was the real point of the inscription1 there was no discrepancy or contradiction in such omissions1 nor anything to affect our full and complete reliance in the verbal accuracy of all the four evangelists4 #c4 ,it is also most important for us to remember that such variations are essential to the value of a fourfold testimony4 ,if ,god had seen fit to impart ,his truth by direct communication only1 then ,i freely grant that ,i should have expected a verbatim agreement in the narratives4 ,but in that case there would have been no employment of the human element4 ,nay more2 if the life of our ,lord had been so reported1 the evidence would have become single1 instead of fourfold4 ,even1 as it is1 it has been argued that the resemblance is so accurate as to show that the evangelists copied from one common tradition1 and must not be regarded as independent witnesses4 ,the variation therefore becomes almost as important to us as the agreement1 and1 instead of shaking our convictions1 confirms them4 ,that blessed ,redeemer is the corner-stone of our hopes1 and therefore1 instead of two witnesses1 which under the law were sufficient1 ,he has given us two pair of witnesses4 ,and in the inspiration of their words ,he has given so much scope to the human element that there are all the variations inseparable from independent testimony2 while1 on the other hand1 ,he has so guided1 directed1 and controlled the whole1 that1 notwithstanding all the cavils of sceptics1 there is no real contradiction in their statements4 ,there is variation enough to prove the independence of their evidence1 while there is such a depth in their complete agreement1 as can only be explained by the fact that they were taught by ,god's ,spirit to convey to us infallible truth4 ,other objections have1 ,i know1 been urged2 but all1 ,i firmly believe1 may be fully and fairly met by the principle that it has pleased ,god in ,his own wisdom to combine in the one book the divine and human element4 ,in some cases the mind of the man may be more conspicuous than the mind of the ,spirit1 while in others the mind of the ,spirit seems completely to overrule the mind of the author who wrote the words4 ,in some passages the thoughts are so far within man's compass that no inspiration appears to be necessary1 while in others they dive so deep into hidden mysteries that they far outstep the utmost range of the human intellect4 ,thus ,god has given us a record of what man has felt1 as well as a statement of ,his own hidden will4 ,he has given it through the medium of minds of the same nature as our own2 but by ,his own mysterious power ,he has given their writings such a divine authority that they claim our unwavering trust2 so that1 notwithstanding the cavils of infidels1 and the sneers of those who despise us as bibliolaters1 we heartily thank ,god for our ,bibles1 and receive as divine all that ,god has taught in them1 believing without reserve the statement of ,st4 ,peter1 that #8,holy men of ,god spake as they were moved by the ,holy ,ghost4' 99 99 99 99 99 99 99 99 99 99 99 99 99 99 99 ,,london3 ,printed by ,,john ,,strangeways1 ,castle ,st4 ,leicester ,sq4 99 99 99 99 99 ,,footnotes4 #e;a ,essays and ,reviews1 p4 #cdg4 #e;b ,ibid4 p4 #cde4 #h ,inspiration of ,holy ,scripture4 #de ,essays1 p4 #cdh4