DISTINCTIONS TO BE NOTICED.

A. Inspiration distinguished from Kindred Topics.

The question before us is simply, In what sense is the Bible the Word of God? Is it strictly theopneustos, divinely breathed, or not? And if so, what does that expression imply?

The subject of Inspiration needs to be distinguished from certain kindred topics of great importance. It has complexity and extent enough of its own, without borrowing burdens from correlated subjects of investigation. But many students of the subject are unwarily misled by writers who create confusion in a bewildering display of their own learning, and who blend in inextricable dis order topics, each of which demands separate and elaborate study. The attempt is sometimes made to embrace at one view, in a brief discussion, all the manifold questions which arise in the study of the Canon, of Text Criticism, Higher Criticism, Hermeneutics, Biblical History, and its connection with Secular History. One hurried glance is given at all these subjects; and of course the only result is either the confidence of a shallow dogmatism, which experience shows may be found in the blind following of some Rationalist, as well as in adhering to Tradition; or else there is a vague impression of extreme mistiness and uncertainty. Let us name some of these subjects which demand and deserve distinct study, though often confounded with other topics, so as to complicate the discussion as to Inspiration.

a. The Genuineness of the Scriptures. — In this the question is one of authorship; whether the various books that make up the Bible were composed by the men claimed to be their authors; or, in those cases where no particular author is named, whether they originated at the time and in the circumstances alleged.

b. In Text Criticism, or Integrity of the Scriptures, the question is whether the books that we have are the same as the original; whether they have been correctly transcribed and faithfully pre served without material addition or diminution.

c. Higher Criticism is the name given of late to inquiries depending on style, on the mode of thought and expression of different writers, on the vocabulary, and tone employed, and various internal peculiarities, by which the age and circumstances and method of composition may be discovered. Of course these conclusions bear more or less directly on the authorship, and so are connected with the topic first named (Genuineness), but may extend beyond that question.

d. Authenticity of the Scriptures (sometimes styled Credibility), or the historical verity of the facts recorded. In that part of the subject the inquiry is, Did those events really occur, were those discourses delivered, were those miracles performed as stated? Is the Bible narrative a collection of myths, or legends, or deliberate fictions; or is it mainly history, with some intermixture of exaggerations and fables; or is it throughout a statement of facts?

e. The Canon of Scripture, or the question what books constitute the inspired volume. On the one side, some deny the authority of certain books commonly received, as Canticles and Esther, or He brews, James, and the Revelation. On the other, some, as the Romanists, affirm the divine authority of certain books known as the Apocrypha, such as Maccabees, Tobit, etc. Here the issue is not as to the nature of inspiration, but as to the claim that particular books have to be counted in the number of the inspired books.

f. The Rule of Faith, or the sufficiency of the Scriptures. The Rationalists claim that reason is the rule or standard of belief, either alone, or superior to or conjointly with the Bible; while Romanists and other Traditionalists affirm that the Church is inspired as well as the Bible, and its voice is the voice of God. Theoretically they allege it as only co-ordinate with the Bible, but practically they establish it as supreme above the Bible; and along with this they make the tacit assumption that they and those who agree with them are the Church, and they alone. Though admitting an infallible Bible, they put the supposed infallible interpreter in its place. Thus, as so often happens, extremes meet. Rationalism and Ecclesiasticism, diverging from the truth, run round the circle till they agree in establishing themselves as the sovereign arbiter; the one class accepting as true in the Bible only what "finds them,” that is, suits them; the other making the Church — that is, the Hierarchy, that is, themselves and their allies — the vicegerent of the Almighty, the custodian of truth and of salvation.

g. The Evidences of Christianity, or the manifold proofs by which the Christian system as a whole is shown to be true and divine.

While all these topics are interwoven naturally with the subject before us, they are distinct from it. And it will conduce both to brevity and to fairness and clearness of discussion, to keep them apart, and to confine ourselves now to the topic in hand.

B. Inspiration implies real Supernatural Interposition.

For the last hundred years there has been a growing tendency against the admission of any. thing supernatural. The sophisms of Hume had a wide influence, carrying out some unwarranted inferences from Locke's philosophy, and misusing certain of the metaphysical subtleties of the Scottish school; afterwards the Transcendental philosophy of Germany, the bold pretensions of Positivism, and the shadowy theories of Pantheism, all tended to furnish avenues of escape, for those who wished them, from the idea of a living, personal, omnipotent God, who interposes freely and effectively in human affairs.

A more powerful stimulus, however, has been given to the prevalence of these anti-supernatural notions, by the proneness of many students of physical science to apply their favorite methods of investigation to topics outside of their range, and to carry the assumptions which seem to be just in dealing with material phenomena into the domain of theology. Because they find, everywhere in the visible universe, law, order, universal principles, they have undertaken to dethrone the Lawgiver, and to exalt on his throne, in His place, Law itself. They deny that the Supreme Being can interpose in any way save that which they have ascertained, or are willing to allow, that he has heretofore done. And hence they deny that He can work a miracle.

Some true Christians have yielded to the force of this current, either unreflectingly, or with some vague idea of a compromise, by which they would gain the support of men of science for religion; and, without exactly denying miracles, have set them selves to pare down within credible limits the wonders recorded in the Bible. They will nibble away at the edge of a miracle, chip off a little here and a little there, and seem to imagine that they have re moved the difficulty by reducing its size or changing its form. Let us not be afraid of admitting the idea and the fact of a miracle. The whole system of Christianity is a stupendous series of miracles.

With those who deny this we are not now dealing. For them the question is not about Inspiration, but about the Existence, or else about the Providence, of God. The present discussion is designed for those who admit that there is a God, that he has communicated with men, and that the Bible is in some degree or extent his message.

C. Inspiration may be regarded as an Act, or as a Result.

It is an influence proceeding from God, and terminating in certain effects. These effects may be affirmed of the men who wrote and spoke, or of the books written. Both may be properly said to be inspired. Originally it was a question as to the men. Practically for us now the question is as to the books. Are they a message from God? If so, in what sense, and to what degree?

There are some who conceive that the subject is cleared of difficulty by limiting the inspiration to the writings. The men were not inspired, they say, but only their writings; not all they said or wrote, but just these writings. So Paul was not inspired, but the letters to the Ephesians and Ro mans were. It will be shown hereafter that not all the utterances or writings, not all the opinions or conduct, of the sacred writers are divinely sanctioned, but only their official utterances, their teachings and directions. Inspiration was not a personal and inseparable characteristic, attaching to everything they did or thought, but it was a divine gift, imparted for a special purpose; and there is no proof of its extending beyond the purpose for which it was given, — that of making them the accurate and authoritative messengers of God's will and truth to men. Still, in inspiring the record, it pleased God to inspire the men to record or utter it. And there is nothing ultimately gained, either to clearness of understanding or facility of proof, by attempting to omit the human link of the chain through which the influence passed. The Scriptures were inspired; the men of God who wrote them were inspired too, moved, borne along, by the Holy Spirit.

D. Inspiration implies both Divine and Human Authorship.

The distinction between the divine and the hu man authorship of the sacred writings is not to be denied in thought, nor ignored in our reasonings. But it is of still greater importance to recognize that both must be distinctly held by the advocates of a true inspiration.

A document or law might be so given from God as altogether to exclude human authorship, or the intervention of any human medium; and then, though divine, it would not be inspired. Such was the Decalogue as originally given. The words were uttered by the Divine Voice on Sinai, in the hearing of Moses as well as of the people; and he, as well as they, did “ exceedingly fear and quake. ” (Exodus xx. 19–22; Hebrews xii. 21.) They were then recorded by the finger of God upon tablets prepared by God. (Exodus xxxii. 16. Compare xxxiv. 1, 28.) The subsequent record of them by Moses was inspired.

The divine origin and authority of the Word is not to be affirmed, so as to exclude or impair the reality of the human authorship, and the peculiarities resulting there from. The Bible is God's Word to man, throughout; yet at the same time it is really and thoroughly man's composition. No at tempt should be made — and we shall certainly make none — to thrust aside or ignore the “ human element ” of the Scriptures, which is unmistakably apparent on their very face; no one should wish so to magnify the divine as to crowd this out, or almost out. This is one of the mistakes which good men have committed. Let both be admitted, recognized, accepted, thankfully and rejoicingly, each contributing to make the Bible more completely adapted to human needs, as the instrument of divine grace, and the guide for weak and wandering human souls.

The Word is not of man, as to its source; nor depending on man, as to its authority. It is by and through man as its medium; yet not simply as the channel along which it runs, like water through a lifeless pipe, but through and by man as the agent voluntarily active and intelligent in its communication. Both sides of the truth are expressed in the Scriptural language:“ Holy men spake as they were moved [ borne along ] by the Holy Spirit.” (2 Peter i. 21.) The men spoke; the impulse and direction were from God.

Theories have been devised, proceeding on various human analogies, and limiting the divine operation to make room for the human, or suspending the human to allow the intervention of the divine. There is a strong temptation to adopt such suggestions. It simplifies the matter so. If the book were human only, a collection of the thoughts, hopes, desires, guesses at truth, of certain wise men of ancient times, that would be an entirely intelligible supposition. If it were divine only, as the tables of stone, engraved by the finger of God, that would be a perfectly simple proposition. If it were of twofold, independent authorship, part by God and another part by man, the divinity contributing one portion and then retiring, while the human author acts alone, there would be perhaps no objection on the part of modern theorizers to recognize such an intermixture, and at any rate all would be intelligible enough; though there would be serious difficulty in determining which part was from above, and which of the earth, earthy.

But neither of these suggestions suits the actual phenomena. The Bible will not submit to lie upon this bed of Procrustes, to be crammed and crowded into these moulds of human theories. It is all unmistakably the work of man. It is all by singular and accumulated evidences declared to be the Word of God; all written by man, all inspired by God. Both points are proved by separate and sufficient evidence. If we undertake to go beyond, and to explain how this was accomplished, we leave what has been made known to us for the barren and uncertain fields of conjecture.

This full recognition of the human authorship of the Scriptures is of prime importance; for much of the force of the argument against a strict doctrine of Inspiration consists in proving this human authorship of the sacred writings, which we think is undeniable, and then inferring from that their fallibility. “ Human, therefore fallible,” they say; “ fallible, therefore false in some measure."¹ But this favorite line of argument seems to us to be more plausible than powerful. It is a mere assumption that their being human forbids their being also divine; that God cannot so inspire and use a human being as to keep his message free from error; that the human origin, under divine control, necessarily involves either falsity or fallibility. This seems to be perfectly plain: yet this fallacy underlies whole pages of vigorous denunciation and confident appeal."²

Such a double authorship, as we are led by the evidence (hereafter to be submitted) to attribute to the Bible, is a thing utterly unknown in any other book.

A human volume might be the joint composition of two writers, one preparing one part, and the other the remainder; or one suggesting the ideas, the other clothing them in the language finally adopted; or one writing originally, the other editing, enlarging, correcting; or each doing this re vision of the work of the other. But nothing like either of these is supposed or affirmed as to the divine and the human authorship of the Bible.

If it is objected that we cannot understand how this human and divine authorship was exercised, so that the two elements should be consistent with each other, and that we cannot believe what we cannot understand, we reply, —

1. That, if the two things affirmed were plainly incompatible with each other, logical contradictions, so that their union is inconceivable and impossible, the objection would have decisive weight.

2. But suppose that they are rather of such a nature that, while the combination is, from the nature of the case, not within our experience, and so it is not within our power to comprehend and explain their union, it is not beyond the power of God to effect it. The case then presents a very different aspect, analogous to many others, where we are compelled to admit the facts, while we are utterly unable to explain them. That they are, we know; how they are, we know not. As it has been often and justly said, a man who refuses to believe anything that he does not understand will have a very short creed.

We recur, then, to the statement that the Bible is throughout divine and human, all inspired by God, all written by man.

This is the current doctrine of Christian people, as set forth substantially by the great body of thoughtful and trusted expounders, of different denominations and of various shades of opinion, with some variations of language indeed, but with great general accord.

It is not fair to confound or identify this strict doctrine of Inspiration with the so-called “Post Reformation dogma” of mechanical inspiration, which (as we think) is not properly inspiration; and to sharpen the arguments directed against the current view by invectives at what some are pleased to style the traditional, uncritical, monstrous ideas of the advocates of Plenary or Verbal Inspiration. Some of them have undoubtedly been incautious in statement, or heated in discussion, and we need not attempt their vindication. But that does not impair their substantial agreement in the doctrine as here stated.

A few quotations from some leading authors may suffice on this point. It is not claimed that all the writers quoted would accept the views advocated by us in all their minutiæ, but as to the point now under discussion their statements are in thorough accord, and of great weight.

PHILIP SCHAFF (Presbyterian). The New Testament presents in its way the same union of the divine and human natures as the person of Christ. . . . The Bible is thoroughly human, though without error, in contents and form, in the mode of its rise, its compilation, its preservation and transmission; yet at the same time thoroughly divine, both in its thoughts and words, in its origin, vitality, energy, and effect. — History of the Christian Church, Vol. I. p. 93.

B. K. PEIRCE (Methodist). The Bible is not a specimen of the style of the Holy Spirit as a writer; but the different authors expressed in their own language, and by their own illustrations, the ideas poured into their minds from on high. . . . The Son of man was no less a perfect man, hungering, thirsting, sleeping, weeping, because he was the Son of God; and the Bible, with all its marks of human hands and weak ness, is none the less a revelation of the word and will of God. – The Word of God Opened, pp. 23, 24.

B. F. WESTCOTT (Episcopalian). The human powers of the divine messenger act according to their natural powers, even when these laws are supernaturally strengthened. Man is not converted into a machine, even in the hand of God. . . . The nature of man is not neutralized by the divine agency, and the truth of God is not impaired, but exactly expressed in one of its several aspects to the individual mind. — Introduction to the Study of the Gospels.

HENRY ALFORD (Episcopalian). The inspiration of the sacred writers I believe to have consisted in the fulness of the influence of the Holy Spirit specially raising them to and enabling them for their work, in a manner which distinguishes them from all other writers in the world, and their work from all other works. The men were full of the Holy Ghost: the books are the pouring out of that fulness through the men, the conservation of the treasure in earthen vessels. The treasure is ours in all its richness; but it is ours, as only it can D be ours, in the imperfections of human speech, in the limitations of human thought, in the variety incident at first to individual character, and then to manifold transcription and the lapse of ages. The men were inspired, and the books are the result of that inspiration. — Prolegomena to his Greek New Testament, p. 21.

EDWARD GARBETT (Episcopalian). If we say that the Bible is the true word of God, the term “ word " involves the human element, for it denotes at once the fact of a communication, and the channel through which it is made. If we say that the Bible is God's word, we express it yet more distinctly in the further term “ written "; written how but in human words, by human hands, through human materials, and for human readers? To talk of a revelation devoid of a human element is to use words devoid of sense. [ After referring to the analogy of the two natures in the personal word of God, he adds:] If we attempt to confound the divine and human element together, and say that the Scripture is neither human nor divine, but something made up of both, we are corrected by the plain facts of the case; for the distinct human element is palpably there in the language, imagery, and style; and the distinct divine element is also there in the all-pervading unity of design and sublimity of subject. . . . Nor are we any more able to separate the two elements than we are to confound them. For if we say that part of the Scripture is divine and part of it human, we are again contradicted by the facts; for in the part we acknowledge to be divine, the human element still survives. — God's Word Written, pp. 143-145.

E. P. HUMPHREY (Presbyterian). The subject may be opened by pointing out the two elements which coexist in the sacred records, the human and the divine. “Holy men of old spake," — there is the human; " as they were moved by the Holy Ghost," — there is the divine. Very instructive here is the resemblance between the combination of the divine and human in the person of Christ and in the Holy Scriptures. Both are expressly called by the sacred writers the Word of God; the first is the Word incarnate, the last is the Word written. Again, the manifestation of both proceeded from the Holy Ghost; the first by the way of a miraculous conception, the other by the way of a supernatural inspiration. Next, the Son of God came down from above, and took upon him human nature; even so saving truth was revealed from heaven, and was embodied in human language. Further, in the one person of our Lord two whole, perfect, and entire natures were inseparably joined together in one person, without con version, composition, or confusion; in like manner the Bible is one book, only one, wherein the two elements are inseparably combined in such manner that the divine does not absorb the human, nor does the human adulterate the divine. In Christ the two natures are so related that he is at once the Son of God and the Son of man; in the Scriptures the two elements coexist in such fulness that the whole book is God's word, and the whole is man's word. In neither case are we able to explain the mode of union, but we are not at liberty to solve the problem by rejecting either of its conditions.

We should bear in mind, however, that in Christ the manifestation of the divine is personal, but in the Bible it is verbal. Therefore we worship the incarnate Word as God over all; we do not worship the written word, but we bow to its authority as the only infallible rule of faith and practice. — Second General Council of the Presbyterian Alliance, Philadelphia, 1880.

J. A. SMITH (Baptist). One of the most beautiful and striking peculiarities of inspired Scripture is the presence there of the various human element, developing itself in all varieties of character and experience, and thus speaking to every reader the vernacular of his own heart and life. It is a different hand, we see, as well as a different theme, when Moses lays down the pen of history, and David takes up the harp of song. When Jeremiah mourns, or Ezekiel thunders from the Sinai of prophecy, it is not as when Isaiah blows glad trumpets. The beloved Apostle is known in the very first words he utters, while no one can mistake the profound and sententious Paul. Each writer is seen in his own proper character, and recognized by idiosyncrasies he is known to have possessed. “ But the manifestation of the Spirit is given to every one. The same divine power pervades all, brings its own gracious design out of each, and gives us in the end a unity as complete as the variety. — The Spirit and the Word, pp. 114, 115.

Quotations like these might be indefinitely multiplied.

E. Inspiration distinguished from Revelation.

The supernatural interposition by which the Bible has been given to man implies two things, or consists of two divine operations, which, though usually concurring, are distinguished in their nature, viz.:

Revelation, which is that direct divine influence that imparts truth to the mind.

Inspiration, which is that divine influence that secures the accurate transference of truth into human language by a speaker or writer, so as to be communicated to other men.³

These are not the same, not necessarily united, and ought not to be confounded. They have often been combined in the same person or writing. They must be combined, (as we think they are in the Bible,) in order to secure the infallible truth and divine authority we claim for it. But it is important to distinctness and accuracy of view to discriminate between them. To illustrate this distinction, we may refer, —

a. To those multitudes who heard Christ speak, and thus received a revelation, or to those who listened to the words uttered on Mount Sinai; for truth was presented to them in words by one who was God himself. But the hearers were not there fore inspired to record or relate these words upon divine authority, nor were they secured from forgetfulness or error if they attempted to make communications about them. Joseph, the husband of Mary, was warned of God in a dream as to his flight into Egypt and return to Galilee; but we are not informed that he was inspired to record the message.

b. Many inspired men wrote under inspiration things which they knew without revelation, but their record or utterance of these things was divinely controlled. So when Luke records the letter of Claudius Lysias (Acts xxiii. 26–30), probably transcribing it, or mentions the decree for the enrolment of the Roman empire for taxation, or when John and Paul record what they themselves said or saw, we have no need to assume revelation as the source of their knowledge.

This distinction may enable us to see more clearly what the precise difference is between the strict and the lax views of Inspiration among many who are really evangelical. Both agree that Christianity is true, notwithstanding all objections and difficulties. Both agree that Revelation is super natural, if given at all; and that it has been given; and this notwithstanding their confessed incapacity to understand or explain how it was given. But one class assume, or tend to assume, just at this point, that the writers were left to themselves mainly or altogether in recording what they knew. They allege a divine operation only in imparting to them knowledge on certain subjects; while the other class affirm a divine influence over the writers in their giving forth, as well as in receiving the truth. The former admit revelation freely, but are more or less uncertain or hesitating in affirming inspiration also. The latter affirm God's operation in both.⁴

F. Inspiration distinguished from Illumination.

It is important also to distinguish both Revelation and Inspiration from Spiritual Illumination, such as is common and necessary to all Christians. This last may be defined as that influence of the Holy Spirit under which all the children of God receive, discern, and feed upon the truth communicated to them. This is distinct from the influences before named (revelation and inspiration) in several particulars: —

a. It is promised to all believers, and therefore is what every Christian may expect and pray for.

b. It is dependent on conditions, which may or may not be fulfilled by the individual.

c. It admits of degrees, increasing or diminishing in the same person, and varying greatly as it is actually found in different persons.

d. It is closely connected with personal character.

e. It conduces to and secures salvation. Neither of these five points is true with respect to Revelation or Inspiration.

Spiritual Illumination is confounded with Inspiration by two large and important classes; on the one hand by the Roman Catholics, and on the other by the Rationalists generally. The former do it for the purpose of maintaining that the Church, not only of primitive but of modern times, has an inspiration equal to that which gave the Bible. While theoretically claiming for the Spirit, which is alleged to be residing in the Church, equal authority with the Bible, practically they exalt it to a superiority over the Bible; and they adroitly add the further unfounded assumption that they are this infallible Church

The latter class, claiming more or less to be the devotees of Reason, confound this common influence of the Spirit with the extraordinary operations of Revelation and Inspiration, in such a way as to attribute to the Apostles and to the inspired record all the variability, uncertainty, and deficiency which are readily discovered in good men everywhere, acting under the usual leadings of the Holy Spirit in common life.

That inspiration does not necessarily imply spiritual illumination in the sense explained, or insure the possession of saving grace, may be seen in the familiar instances of the prophet Balaam, of King Saul, of the high priest Caiaphas, who all spoke under divine influence, but, so far as we can judge, evidently without renewed hearts.

On the other hand, that spiritual illumination does not imply inspiration is apparent in the consciousness of every truly regenerated person to-day. It is a transparent fallacy to allege that, because the Spirit that works these two things is the same, therefore the operations are the same, — to assume that the Spirit can only act in one way on the children of God in different ages and circumstances. Yet this is what is tacitly assumed, as if unquestionable, by such men as Schleiermacher, Coleridge, Dr. Thomas Arnold, F. D. Maurice, and many others, writers of eminent ability and worthy of profound respect, with whom it is a painful duty to differ, but still an imperative duty.

The distinction we have indicated between Revelation, Inspiration, and Spiritual Illumination is not only obvious in the nature of the case, and required by the instances given, in which one of these influences is found without the other, but seems also suggested by the express language of the Apostle Paul in 1 Corinthians ii. 10-14. He speaks first (ver. 10) of the things naturally unknown which God has "revealed through the Spirit ”; then, secondly (ver. 12), of the “ Spirit which is of God ” being received that under its illumination “ we might know [that is, appreciate, accept] the things that are freely given to us by God," and without which “ the natural man (ver. 14) receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God ”; then, thirdly (ver. 13), of the power by which they uttered the things that had been revealed unto them, “ which things also we speak, not in words which man's wisdom teach eth, but which the Spirit teacheth. " Thus what we have termed Revelation, Spiritual Illumination, and Inspiration, are each presented by the Apostle in their proper relations and for their appropriate uses.

1) Falsehood was no part of man's original nature; and the presence of error was not essential to themselves being men, or to their writings being human writings. On the contrary, in being protected from liability to error, and exalted above the power of un truth, they were but restored in the hour of inspiration, in so far, to that condition of freedom from evil in which they were created in the beginning.... They were lifted up into a condition more appropriate to human nature, as it was designed and at first made to be, than any in which it would have been possible for them to have uttered or recorded error. — BANNERMAN, p. 436.

2) The doctrine of the plenary inspiration of the Bible, which regards it as all in one sense man's, and all in another sense God's, is the only view that gives full place to the human element in Scripture, all theories except itself more or less putting aside or impairing its perfection. Other views, such as that of an inspiration different in degree or kind as respects different truths or portions of Scripture, make the sacred volume to be, in some of its passages or statements, no more than partly human, just as they make it in others to be no more than partly divine. . .  Unless we are prepared to adopt the theory that the Bible is nothing but the composition of man, alone and exclusively, there is no other view except that of a plenary inspiration which conserves equally the divine and the human element in the recorded word. — BANNERMAN, pp. 446, 447.

3) Other definitions of Inspiration are as follows:

A. H. Strong. That special divine influence upon the minds of the Scripture writers in virtue of which their productions, apart from errors of transcription, and when rightly interpreted, together constitute an infallible and sufficient rule of faith and practice. — Systematic Theology, p. 95.

E. A. PARK. Inspiration is such an influence over the writers of the Bible that all their teachings which have a religious character are trustworthy.

W. C. WILKINSON. Inspiration is help from God to keep report of divine revelation free from error. Help to whom? No matter to whom, so the result is secured. The final result, viz. the record or report of revelation, this must be free from error. Inspiration may affect one or all of the agents employed.

G. T. LAD While Professor Ladd gives no formal de of Inspiration that I have observed, he states it as an element of the conception of Sacred Scripture held by the Church, — that “ Sacred Scripture owes its origin to that specific movement of the Divine Spirit within the human spirit which forms the necessary ethical condition of receiving and appropriating the truths of redemption by all members of the body of believers.” — Doctrine of Sacred Scripture, Vol. II. p. 271.

W. W. GARDNER. Inspiration consists in that actuating, con. trolling, and guiding influence of the Holy Spirit, under which God's chosen messengers spoke and wrote the original Scrip res. — Gardner on Inspiration, p. 2.

F. L. PATTON. The books of the Bible. . . .  were composed by men who acted under the influence of the Holy Ghost to such an extent that they were preserved from every error of fact, of doctrine, of judgment; and these so influenced in the choice of language that the very words they used were the words of God. — Patton on Inspiration, p. 92.

4) Both admit that, in a miraculous manner unknown to us, the rev. elation from God was conveyed to the mind of the prophet originally in a form of absolute purity and infallible truth. The point at which the divergence between the two views begins, is after the revelation was made by God, and made perfectly, and when it came to be re corded by man. According to the views of the advocates of plenary inspiration, the same supernatural power which guarded the revelation, in the act of being made to the prophet, from all incomplete ness and mistake, also presided over the act by which he recorded it in the Bible; so that the result of this second step in the process, no less than of the first, was miraculously guarded from error, and the product was a record marked by infallible truth and divine authority. — BANNERMAN, p. 98.