NEGATIVE STATEMENTS OF THE DOCTRINE.

That our view may be cordially accepted, or even candidly examined, it is important that it should be clearly understood. Hence we beg leave, in further explanation, to submit several negative statements concerning it, to avoid misapprehension.

Our business is to get at the facts. This is the true scientific method. We propose to apply the principle of exclusion. In many scientific questions, the beginning of progress is found in ascertaining what a thing is not. Heat, for example, we know is not matter, it is not the same with electricity, or light, it is not ponderable, etc. So in other things. Some negative statements may clear the way for future consideration and argument.

A. Inspiration is not to be explained as to the Mode of the Divine Influence.

It will be perceived that we have given no Theory of Inspiration, nor attempted to show how it was accomplished. This omission was not from accident or neglect. We expressly avoid and refuse it. The question is one of fact, not of theory. The Scriptures omit to give any theory, any ac count of the mode of inspiration, any explanation of the phenomenon. They assert it as a fact; they do not tell how it was accomplished. Upon the supposition that it is supernatural, as we have affirmed, it is impossible that there should be any legitimate or adequate theory of it devised by human intellect.

Much of the difficulty supposed to overhang the subject arises from ill-judged attempts at conceiving or describing how God inspired men, forgetful of the fact that every supernatural phenomenon is above explanation, and that both revelation and inspiration are so, just as really as the multiplication of the five loaves, or the turning of the water into wine.

As to revelation, we do not know how it was imparted. How would one go about to discover the nature of the divine operation involved? Except the prophet himself, who received the revelation, what man could testify on the subject? There is no other possible point of contact by which it can be brought within the sphere of human observation. And even to the prophet was it not still a mystery? Do not all the indications point towards that conclusion? Possibly he did not know; certainly we do not know.

So too the inspiration is not explicable by us, any more than the condition of the withered hand, at the instant that it was healed, and restored to activity by supernatural power. If the change in the hand or arm was properly supernatural, no explanation as to how it was done can make it more intelligible, no lack of explanation more incredible. Just so as to the inspiration. We have no reason to suppose that it was understood as to the nature or mode of its operation, even by those who enjoyed it; much less can it be intelligible to others, who never experienced it; and certainly those who had it never undertook to explain its nature for our enlightenment.

Even spiritual illumination, which seems nearer to us, which has been promised to every age, and which we trust we have individually experienced, is very imperfectly explicable by us. We know the effects, not the way in which the Spirit operates to produce them.

"The wind bloweth where it listeth, and thou hearest the sound thereof, but canst not tell whence it cometh, and whither it goeth; so is every one that is born of the Spirit.” And if this new birth is inscrutable to us, how can we theorize on the other influences, which we have never enjoyed?

B. Inspiration is not Mechanical.

A view, that is justly chargeable as Mechanical, appears to have been expressed by some of the writers subsequent to the Reformation, such as Quenstedt, heretofore quoted, Calovius, Voetius, and the Formula Consensus Helvetica. They do not leave room for any conscious or voluntary activity of the writers whom the Holy Spirit employed, but regard them as mere machines. They were driven into this extreme, probably, by two causes.

They were so anxious to claim and defend the divine authorship, that they overlooked the human authorship; just as, in vindicating the divine sovereignty and efficiency, some Calvinists then and since have overlooked or denied human freedom and responsibility.

Besides, they were in vigorous and deadly conflict with the Papacy; and in antagonism to the claim of an infallible, inspired Church, uttering in every syllable the voice of God, they were eager to set up, in the most uncompromising form, the counter authority of an inspired, infallible Bible, so purely divine as to exclude all human will or authorship.

It is of this view that Farrar speaks so harshly and in such denunciatory terms (Hist. of Interpretation, Preface, p. xx), unfortunately, however, confounding it with the current or orthodox view, which is not legitimately liable to such charges. He allows himself to say, “ From it every mistaken method of interpretation, and many false views of morals and sociology, have derived their disastrous origin. . . . It sprang from heathenism, and it leads to infidelity.”

Prof. Geo. T. Ladd, in like manner, while exercising a marked and admirable courtesy towards all other opponents, never wearies of severe and caustic expressions against the “ Post-Reformation Dogma,” its “ dreadful pressure (II. 182), its “ monstrous assumptions " (II. 152), the “ stolid predisposition to maintain the Post-Reformation Dogma" (II. 247), etc.

Some of the early Christian writers, commonly called Fathers, used expressions which have been understood to imply that they regarded inspiration as mechanical. But they seem to have used them as illustrations, and in a rhetorical way, rather than as meaning to be strictly interpreted. For example, they spoke sometimes of the inspired man as a pen in the hand of God, or a lyre touched by the musician. Another illustration sometimes used was that of the amanuensis or copyist. But we are not solicitous either to vindicate their soundness, or to gain the weight of their great names for our opinions. What does the Word of God teach?

There is no Scriptural ground for either of these figures of speech. The inspired writer is not de scribed either as the pen or the penman. The Bible does not represent verbal dictation to an amanuensis as the method adopted, either in revelation or inspiration. So far as there is any analogy apparent, the case of dictation to a penman is more like revelation than inspiration. The act of committing to writing that which is dictated differs very much from what we understand to have occurred in writing or speaking what is inspired. The difference is this: that there is, where we dictate, no control over the will of the amanuensis; and also that there is no aid to his memory, reflection, imagination, or power of expression, on the supposition of his being willing but unable to give accurately what had been communicated to him. Both the control, and the imparted power which we believe to belong to inspiration are lacking.¹

At Sinai the people, as well as Moses, heard audible words uttered from the midst of the fire Though we have no idea how it was done, we unhesitatingly believe this, because it is distinctly so recorded. (Exodus xix. 19; x. 1, 19, 22; Deuteronomy iv. 33, 36; v. 4, 22.) This was dictation, if you please to call it so, but there is no indication that the people were inspired to record what they heard. In like manner, distinct words from heaven were spoken at the Baptism of Jesus (Matthew iii. 7), at the Transfiguration (Matthew xvii. 5), at Jerusalem during the feast (John xii. 28), and to Paul near Damascus (Acts xxvi. 14–18.) So much we know as to some direct divine utterances. But it is not our belief that this was the method by which the revelations recorded in the Bible were generally given.²

Many of the instructions recorded by Moses and by the prophets are prefaced by the words:“ The Lord spake unto Moses, saying"; or, “ The Word of the Lord came to Jeremiah "; or, “ Thus saith the Lord to Cyrus.” But that there was in these cases any audible voice uttered, I do not see stated or fairly implied.³

The Scriptures observe a guarded silence on this matter. There is generally no hint of the mode of the divine action in imparting, or of the mental activity in receiving and uttering the message. This silence of Scripture is not without significance. It leads to the inference that there is nothing in the communications of human beings with one another that really and fully resembles it. We must stop short then at the boundaries where the Bible descriptions stop, and not attempt to be wise above what is written.

C. Inspiration was not destructive of Consciousness, Self-control, or Individuality.

This has often been imputed to the doctrine commonly held, but not justly. There was a heathen idea of that sort as to their oracles. And some of the early heretics, the Montanists especially, fell into similar views. But it has not been at any time the doctrine of the great body of intelligent Christians. It certainly is not the doctrine that we maintain, or that is found in the Bible.

The individuality of the sacred writers, as well as their intelligent, voluntary action, was not superseded by the Spirit's influence; but both these were employed.

Every man has a combination of peculiarities which distinguish him from others. That is his individuality. It arises from various sources, from birth, education, environment, one's own will, habit, the grace of God. But from whatever source or sources it originates, it influences his whole being. It moulds his thoughts, feelings, expressions. Now this is the material on which we suppose that Inspiration acted. As in Regeneration, Spiritual Illumination does not destroy the old faculties and substitute others, but changes the direction of the currents that flow in the old channels, so in Inspiration. If the sacred writers are Hebrew, they speak Hebrew; if Greek, they speak Greek; if Hebrew-Greek, they use Hebrew-Greek. One of them is naturally warm, ardent, impulsive, another majestic, deliberate, solemn; one is cultivated, an other rude; one pours forth a trumpet strain, another breathes notes soft and enchanting as an Æolian harp. So of all other peculiarities arising from constitution, habits, age, country, etc. Amos, a gatherer of sycamore fruit, Isaiah, brought up at court, Peter, the Galilean fisherman, Paul, the pupil of Gamaliel, each writes in his own style, under the influence of the same Spirit.

This marked individuality is manifest in every part of the Scriptures; it is the most obvious and primary fact that presents itself to the careful student. It must never be lost sight of.

D. Inspiration is not merely a Natural Elevation of the Faculties, analogous to the Stimulus of Passion and Enthusiasm, or to Poetic Genius.

Many assert inspiration, meaning by it, however, no more than this. But that is keeping the word, and practically renouncing the doctrine. If the only inspiration which the Bible has is that which is common to all Christian men, or even to all men of genius, whether godly or not, or even to all men, as some say, it cannot furnish us with any in fallible or authoritative guidance. To make our doctrine clear, and the grounds of it, we must consider at length some distinctions as to that most momentous of theological topics, the Influence of the Holy Spirit.

There are three spheres or provinces in which the Bible teaches that the Spirit operates:

a. That of Nature, including influences over in animate things, as where the Spirit of God moved (was brooding) upon the waters (Genesis i. 2); upon animals, in their creation and renewal (Psalm civ. 30); and over the human mind and soul, yet falling short of any saving influences. These last are sometimes styled the common operations of the Spirit, because shared by believers and unbelievers, by regenerate and unregenerate. Such are the influences which restrain bad men from evil, and urge occasional impulses towards good, even in the worst.

b. The sphere of Grace, where the Spirit operates in originating spiritual life, i. e. in regeneration; and in sustaining and elevating it, or in preservation and sanctification. In these, not all men, but all the saved, and they only, share. This influence is needed, and is bestowed to accompany the Word, and make it effective. It is not limited to the natural or moral influence of the truth itself. It is a personal, vital energy, quickening the soul that was dead in trespasses and sins, and illuminating the religious understanding of God's children.

c. The sphere of the Supernatural, where the Spirit operates either directly, or by enabling men to perform superhuman wonders. These are of two kinds, — wonders of power, commonly called signs or miracles, and wonders of knowledge, commonly called prophecies, which were usually the effect of Revelation and Inspiration conjoined.

Often the Spirit united all these forms of the supernatural in one person, as well as the precedent influences of grace; so that He created and kept the man in being, then converted and renewed him, then communicated the truth to him by rev elation, then enabled him to work miracles to at test it; and, still further, gave the supernatural accuracy and authority in recording it which could pertain to none but an inspired man. But these different influences were not always united. Some times they were, but not invariably; and even when occurring together, they can be profitably distinguished and considered separately.

Each of these was distinct both in object and result. On men in general, and still more on the lower creatures, the Spirit of God acted and still acts, with no intention to clothe them with authority, or even to make them holy, but to sustain them in being and activity. And as the object in view differs, so the result differs.

In the first case, accordingly, i. e. in the realm of Nature, the result is continued existence, including activity and all that is involved in physical life. And the design is no wider or larger than the result. In the second case, the realm of Grace, the result is salvation. No infallibility is secured to true Christians in general, no absolute exemption from error is promised or is produced; only God's faithfulness is pledged, and secures that they shall not fall finally or fatally away. In the third case, that of the Supernatural, including both revelation and inspiration, as well as the working of evidential signs, there is a commission to speak and act in the name and by the authority of God.

It would be wrong to say that, in the influences of grace, the men whom God actuates and moves are thereby rendered infallible. That would imply the personal infallibility and absolute sanctity of every truly converted person. It is no less an error to say that, in the supernatural realm, the men whom He actuates and moves are not infallible and authoritative as to the things for which they were commissioned. To secure that was the very object of the influence. The only question of importance is to ascertain when the divine influences belong to the one class, and when to the other. This must be decided by the evidence appropriate to such facts, and cannot be ascertained except by considering the divine promises and the actual results in each case, the claims made, and the sanction or attestation given to the truth of the claims.

Bezaleel, the architect of the tabernacle, and Samson, the giant champion, were moved by the Spirit. But when we consider the design and the result accomplished, we perceive that he endowed the one with inventive power to devise and execute skilful works in gold and silver for the honor of God in his movable temple, and the other with supernatural strength to fight and destroy the Philistines; but he gave neither of them, so far as we learn, any commission to speak or to write for him. By an entirely different sort of influence their respective contemporaries, Moses and Samuel, were moved to speak in God's name, and so, even as other holy men of God, they “ spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost.”

While therefore we freely grant that all good in any man proceeds from the influences of God's Spirit upon him, this does not imply that the influence is the same in all men because the source is the same; or that we must confound all the saving impressions and drawings of the Spirit with the higher influence which produces infallibility in teaching, and confers divine authority in giving commands.

We have dwelt specially, and with some repetition, on these points, because it is not uncommon for the opponents of the stricter views of Inspiration to err, and to lead the unwary into error just here, by confounding these three spheres in which the Spirit operates, and the different influences appropriate to them.

F. D. Maurice, a profound admirer of Coleridge, and prone to recognize the inward light, rather than an objective revelation, as the source of the divine Word and the fountain of all good, virtually denies any special supernatural agency in the Inspiration of the Bible. He says, for instance, “ We must forego the demand we make on the con sciences of the young, when we compel them to say that they regard the inspiration of the Bible as generically distinct from that which God bestows on his children in this day.” Because the English Liturgy very properly says, it is “ God's holy inspiration that enables us to think those things that be good,” — using the word inspiration, not technically, but in that general sense in which it expresses any influence of the Spirit, — he asks: “ Ought we in our sermons to say, Brethren, we beseech you not to suppose the inspiration of Scripture to at all resemble that for which we have been praying; they are generically and essentially un like; it is blasphemous to connect them in our minds, and the Church is very guilty for having suggested the association.”

The object of this somewhat extravagant appeal is obvious. It is to lead to the inference that, if Christians now may err, so inspired men may have done. If the influence from which all good thoughts and all right works do proceed does not, as every body well knows, secure ordinary Christians from mistake or confer infallibility, he would have us NEGATIVE STATEMENTS OF THE DOCTRINE. 75 infer, neither does the inspiration which the sacred writers enjoyed.

But it is an utter fallacy thus to blend all spiritual influences as if they were one, merely because they may be included under a common name. They may be alike, and yet unlike. It may be no blasphemy “ to connect them in our minds," and yet it may be perfectly possible and important to distinguish them in our minds, — and to connect or compare them for the express purpose of distinguishing them.

As Pantheism, making God and the Universe identical, destroys His distinctness from what He created, and so ignores His Personality, so this theory of Inspiration, by blending all the voices that proceed from God, and raising each to the same pitch and force, prevents us from hearing any. All proper distinction between the Bible and other religious books written by good men is annihilated. A new term of reproach, Bibliolatry, is invented wherewith to stigmatize those that reverence the supreme authority of God's Word. And in these strange times into which we have fallen, it is openly affirmed that some of the leading Deists are ministers of the Church of England, and officiating publicly at her altars. However that may be, it is certain that on the Continent some of the leading opponents of vital Christianity and most energetic assailants of the veracity of the Bible, some who deny that it differs in any essential feature from the Koran or the Zendavesta, are not only ministers of the established churches, but selected and eminent instructors in their theological schools, and trainers of their rising ministry.

The Rev. John Macnaught, a disciple of Maurice, goes indeed further than his leader, and blends in one all the three forms of spiritual influence which we have described. He concludes it to be “ the Bible's own teaching on the subject of Inspiration, that everything good in any book, person, or thing is inspired; and that the value of any inspired book must be decided by the extent of its inspiration, and the importance of the truths which it well or inspiredly teaches. ” Of course each man is him self the judge of this value. Accordingly, he says that “ Milton and Shakespeare and Bacon, and Canticles and the Apocalypse, and the sermon on the mount, and the eighth chapter to the Romans are, in our estimation, all inspired; but which of them is the most valuable inspired document, or whether the Bible, as a whole, is not incomparably more precious than any other book, — these are questions that must be decided by examining the observable character and tendency of each book, and the beneficial effect that history may show that each has produced.” (Macnaught on Inspiration, pp. 192–196.)

Hence he has no difficulty in discovering not only books, but inspired books, in the running brooks, sermons in stones, and good in everything. There is a true inspiration, he assures us, in the instinct of the owl; inspiration is heard in the rushing of the wind; it is seen in the springing of a blade of grass; it murmurs in the streams that flow among the hills; the hinds of the field calve by inspiration. And therefore, because there is no evidence of infallibility attaching to these phenomena of nature, Mr. Macnaught argues that there is no such thing as infallibility attaching to the words or writings of God's inspired prophets and evangelists. Hence a considerable part of his book is occupied, as are many of the commentaries of some German critics, in an elaborate attempt to display the errors of Scripture, and to show that to a large extent the Bible, though admitted to be inspired, ought not to be believed! Of what value is such inspiration?⁴

E. The Inspiration which the Bible affirms does not imply that those who enjoyed it had perfect Knowledge on all Subjects, or on any Subject, but only that they had Infallibility and Divine Authority in their Official Utterances.

It was limited to the end for which it was given, limited by the very nature of the object in view, viz. the communication of divine truth on certain topics by divine authority. It rendered its recipient infallible in nothing else, and authoritative in nothing else. It did not render him omniscient.

Overlooking this obvious but important distinction has led to serious mistakes on both sides of this controversy. The opponents of our doctrine of Inspiration seem to understand us to maintain that inspired men were personally, absolutely, and universally infallible; and they have naturally and forcibly protested against such a view. We agree with them in such a protest. But not all the advocates of Inspiration have clearly perceived the distinction, and accordingly some have fallen into embarrassment, and into erroneous and inconsistent statements as to this point.

Inspiration had nothing to do with Paul's skill or awkwardness as a tent-maker. It did not affect the elegance of his delivery as a speaker, favorably or otherwise. It did not become (as some imagine our doctrine to presuppose) a characteristic in the common affairs of life. It did not preserve its most eminent characters from mistakes in conduct, nor exempt them from sinful feelings at different times, and from the constant need of prayer for forgiveness, and the perpetual, watchful struggle against sin.

Inspiration did not imply the communication to the man of any truth other than that which he was to impart on God's authority to others; not of all truth on all subjects, nor even of all that may be true on any subject. And of course it is not maintained that it secured his infallibility on such subjects, or at such times, as he was not called on to speak with divine authority. The extent of the inspiration was not necessarily beyond that of the revelation; it might even stop short of it, as when things were made known to Paul which he was not permitted to utter. (2 Corinthians xii. 4.)

Again, inspired men did not know the full meaning of what they themselves taught. We are expressly informed that the prophets “ sought and searched diligently ” concerning the very salvation which they foretold, “ searching what time, or what manner of time the Spirit that was in them did point unto. " They ministered not to themselves, but to those of later days. (1 Peter i. 10–12.)

This idea may be illustrated, in some degree, by the case of a telegraph operator, who can accurately transmit messages which he does not understand. His apprehension of its meaning has nothing to do with the exactness of the transcript received at the other end of the wire, or with the clear interpretation of the cipher in which it is conveyed.

Accordingly, inspired men, who were the organs of communications concerning the coming glory of Christ and of his kingdom, were still allowed to die without the sight; and not only so, but without fully understanding the things they spoke. But they waited for those things, delighted in them, longed for them, desired to look into them. They ministered to men of a later dispensation, to whom the key was given by the Saviour's own hand to unlock the dark sayings of their predecessors, so that it could at last be clearly discerned that from beginning to end “ the testimony of Jesus is the spirit of prophecy. ” (Revelation xix. 10.)

A man might grow in knowledge, though inspired. Peter seems to have done so in regard to the meaning of Joel's prophecy. He had been long familiar with it, no doubt; but apparently he did not understand it till he received the fulness of the Spirit on the day of Pentecost. Nor did he even then completely apprehend the relation of the Gen tiles to the Church of Christ. His understanding of that matter was made more full and clear by the communications at Joppa and Cæsarea. Not only might one know more than another, yet not be any more truly inspired, for there are no degrees in infallibility; but the same man at one time would know more than he himself knew at an earlier time. Thus there were all diversities of gifts, but the same Spirit.

F. Inspiration did not imply Exemption from Error in Conduct, nor great Elevation in Spiritual Attainments.

This is true also of Revelation, as well as of Inspiration. Thus Abimelech, as well as Abraham, received divine communications, i. e. had revelations given; Pharaoh was thus favored, as well as Joseph; Sarah and Hagar, as well as Huldah and Hannah: though the former were not instructed to utter authoritatively, or to record what they received.

So others besides pious men were sometimes, though rarely, authorized to speak for God, i. e. were inspired. Balaam is a striking example of this; seeing the truth, declaring the future, yet dying an enemy of Israel, fighting and plotting basely against the very triumph he had foretold. So, too, the old prophet in Bethel, and the disobedient prophet that had come out of Judah (1 Kings xiii.), and Caiaphas, who spake “ not of himself ” (i. e. not from himself, not of his own suggestion), but prophesied as to Christ's dying for the people (John ii. 51).

John and Paul, though perhaps more eminently pious and zealous than others of the Apostles, had no higher measure of authority than other inspired men. Excellence of character was not alone a sufficient attestation of divine authority to speak, nor was imperfection of character a disproof of one's genuine inspiration.

The most eminent and holy of the inspired men were not free from sin, and in some cases from conspicuous and glaring sin. The names of Moses, David, and Peter at once occur to the mind, and make it unnecessary to discuss this point further.

G. Inspiration is not inconsistent with Mistakes in the subsequent Transcription of the Sacred Writings.

The inspiration which we affirm is that of the original text of Scripture, and therefore does not deny that there may have been errors in copying. We have no assurance, nor the slightest reason to suppose, that the supernatural guardianship which insured the correctness of the original record was continued and renewed every time anybody under took to make a copy of it. The accuracy of our present copies is a separate question, dependent on the ordinary rules of historical evidence in such matters. That is what is examined in the science of Text Criticism.

There has been indeed a providential guardian ship over the Word, by which it has been preserved remarkably incorrupt, and singularly attested as being substantially the same that proceeded from the original writers. The results of the Herculean labors of modern critics make it evident that, in about a dozen important passages, and in very many unimportant ones, there is reasonable ground for correcting the commonly received text. In a number of others, there is room for discussion as to the true reading. But when all these known errors are corrected, and all those doubtful readings are set aside, it is evident that there is no change as to any leading doctrine or fact of the Gospel.

The difference is somewhat as if out of a bucket of rain -water from the cistern a teaspoonful were taken, and then its place supplied by another tea spoonful of river-water. The contents of the bucket would be practically unaltered.

If it be said, that these are very trifling and in significant results to be obtained by all the labors of the eminent text critics who have been toiling for centuries, — of Bengel and Griesbach, of Tischen dorf and Tregelles, of Westcott and Hort, — we reply that it is no trifle to be assured upon such competent authority, after so painstaking an investigation, that the variations from the originals, or from the manuscript copies nearest to the originals, are so slight. Thus it is that the plain reader may eat his Gospel bread in peace, undisturbed by the apprehension that chaff or poison may have been somewhere ground up with the wheat.

It is objected that some adherents of the strict doctrine of Inspiration used to affirm the absolute immaculateness of the modern copies of the Scripture, Hebrew points and all; and that they were logically bound to do so; that no other ground is consistent or tenable.

We do not deny that there have been some wild and unfounded assertions on the subject, just as there is even now, with some ignorant persons, an assumption of the infallibility and equality with the original of some particular translation, as the Vulgate, or King James's, or Luther's. But we are not responsible for such statements; and they are by no means implied in our doctrine, as will be shown when we come to consider this topic in our Third Part, Objections to Inspiration.

It is objected, that, if we concede errors in the commonly received text, and the possibility that still other passages are now doubtful and may be found erroneous, this concession weakens greatly the argument for infallible inspiration. “ Why so strenuous for exact inspiration of the words, when you admit there may have been errors of transcription? What do you gain? ”

We answer, we gain all the difference there is between an inspired and an uninspired original; all the difference between a document truly divine and authoritative to begin with — though the copies or translations may have in minute particulars varied from it — and a document faulty and unreliable at the outset, and never really divine.

H. Inspiration does not imply the Truth of Opinions or Sayings stated in Scripture, but not sanctioned.

There is an obvious distinction between what is recorded and what is taught or enjoined. Errors may be stated, only to be condemned and refuted. This position is so nearly self-evident that it is hard to make it plainer than the simple statement; yet it has been often and strangely overlooked.

The Bible might have presented God as the only speaker, — all the words His words, all the acts His acts. On the other hand, it presents a record which introduces men, bad and good, angels, even Satan, speaking and acting according to their own nature. It gives history, dialogue, reasoning, poetry, prayer. It is inspired as a record of these things, but records them as the opinions or sayings of those to whom they are ascribed, — not of God, unless it is in some way indicated that they are by authority of God.

Thus the serpent says, “ Ye shall not surely die ”; the fool says in his heart, “ There is no God "; the wicked say, “ It is a vain thing to serve God.” The Bible records these as the lies of those who uttered them.

The same thing is true of every history, inspired and uninspired. D’Aubigné's Reformation gives the sentiments of Papists and of Reformers, the cruel and false decisions of the former, as well as the heroic and truthful utterances of the latter. Did any mortal ever doubt which of the two he sanctioned or approved?

The Book of Job contains a protracted discussion between Job and three of his friends, as to the great mysteries of God's providential government. The doctrine and spirit of the three friends, Eliphaz, Bildad, and Zophar, are distinctly stated as their, and not God's, view of the matter. They are clearly and distinctly condemned by the Al mighty himself, as not right, so that His wrath was kindled against them (Job xlii. 7). Yet it is from this book that so great a man as Coleridge attempts to draw an argument against the doctrine of Inspiration. “ What! ” says he; “ were the hollow truisms, the unsufficing half-truths, the false assumptions and malignant insinuations of the supercilious bigots who corruptly defended the truth, — were the impressive facts, the piercing outcries, the pathetic appeals, and the close and powerful reasonings with which the poor sufferer (smarting at once from his wounds and from the oil of vitriol which the orthodox liars for God were dropping into them) impatiently, but nobly and uprightly, controverted this truth, while in will and spirit he clung to it, — were both dictated by an infallible intelligence? ” He objects, and justly, against the manner in which both classes of passages are indiscriminately “ recited, quoted, appealed to, preached upon, by the routiniers of desk and pulpit ”; but this heedless misuse and perversion of Scripture must not be set to the account of the doctrine of Inspiration, which authorizes no such disregard of plain language and of common sense.

In like manner, we find in Scripture quotations from various sources or documents. For example, in Acts we have a copy of the celebrated letter of Claudius Lysias, and a report of the plausible speech of the orator Tertullus, — both remarkable for their skill in the art of “ putting things,” and their quiet assumption of things that were most probably not so. Does the Bible indorse the truth fulness of what is asserted in these documents, or simply present these as what Lysias wrote and what Tertullus said?⁵

I. Inspiration does not imply the Propriety of Actions recorded, but not approved. In narrating the actions of men, three or four different courses are adopted in Scripture.

a. Sometimes actions are recorded with express approval. As to them, of course, there is no question now.

b. Sometimes they are recorded, and distinctly condemned. This is usually in the immediate connection, so as to leave no room for mistake or misconception. So David's great sin in the matter of Uriah (2 Samuel xi. 2-27), Peter's dissembling at Antioch (Galatians ii. 11-14), and his denial of our Lord (Matthew xxvi. 69–75). Sometimes the act is recorded, and the censure is more distinctly given afterwards, as in the case of the sin of Moses and Aaron at Kadesh (Numbers xx. 10-12, 24; Deuteronomy iii. 26; xxxii. 50–52).

c. The sins both of good men and of bad men are often recorded, without any distinct censure except by the consequences indicated in the history. The greatest crimes and the highest virtues are described, often without a word of eulogy or blame, to indicate the emotions of the narrator with respect to them. Yet the judgment of God as to them is indubitable.

Abraham's faith is mentioned, sometimes with and sometimes without special commendation. His lack of faith at other times is recorded, and the condemnation, though not distinct or immediately expressed, is sufficiently indicated by the resulting events. A still clearer case of this kind is in the cluster of sins in Isaac's misgoverned and divided family, where the evil of each of the parties in the transaction is vividly brought to view in the providential retribution which is subsequently detailed.

d. Sometimes it is left doubtful whether actions so recorded are blamed or approved. Some of the principal instances of this sort will come up for consideration in the reply to objections, in Part Third; cases in which it is difficult to decide whether the actions were not wrong, or were not commended, such as Jael's slaying Sisera, Jephthah's offering his daughter to the Lord, Rahab's concealing the spies, etc. But all that is important for us now to settle is the principle, obvious and undeniable, that the Bible is not accountable for the propriety of actions recorded, but not ap proved.

1) Dictation to an amanuensis is not teaching. (Compare 1 Corinthians ii. 13, “ Words which the Holy Ghost teacheth.”) He may write dictated words of wisdom, without possessing any of the wisdom from which they proceed, without receiving any instructions, and without even thinking about the import of what he writes. The Holy Scriptures were not written after this manner. — JOHN L. DAGG, Article in Alabama Baptist.

2) The manifoldness of Scripture, in comparison with the work of a single author, is well brought out by Dean Stanley in his description of the Koran. “ It is as the Old Testament might be if com posed of the writings of the single prophet Isaiah, or Jeremiah; or the New Testament, if it were composed of the writings of the single Apostle Paul. It is what the Bible as a whole would be, if from its pages were exeluded all individual personalities of its various writers, all differences of time and place and character. . . . The Koran rep resents not merely one single person, but one single stage of society. It is, with few exceptions, purely Arabian. It is what the Bible would be, if all external influences were obliterated, and it was wrapped up in a single phase of Jewish life. The Koran “ stays at home '; the Bible is the book of the world, the companion of every traveller, read even when not beloved, necessary even when unwelcome. ” – History of the Eastern Church, p. 372.

3) How did God communicate these things to them? If I may be pardoned for adopting the expression of a fair German friend, de scribing how they answer some questions in Saxony, I would say, “ Ich kann es ganz genau sagen: Ich weiss nicht,” – “ I can tell that exactly: I do not know."

4) An argument of the same kind as Macnaught's is suggested by Harvey Goodwin in the Hulsean Lectures for 1855, on the ground of the analogy between man's creation and the Bible. Because “ God breathed into his nostrils the breath of life, and man became a living soul” (Genesis ii. 7), he affirms, " an inspired work of God this, if ever there was one ” (p. 86). From which he proceeds to argue that it is unwise and dangerous to infer infallibility in the Bible, when man, also “ inspired,” is certainly fallible. The words employed in the original for breath of life and spirit of life are entirely different, and never confounded. And so the analogy breaks down at the very first step.

5) Inspiration, as we have repeatedly had occasion to say, left the inspired historians under the power and regulation of the same laws and influences that guide other authors in their compositions, with the single exception of supernaturally preserving them from error. It is quite compatible, then, with the free development of the individuality of the sacred penmen as authors, and with their using for the purposes of their authorship the means and the materials and the helps which other authors use in composing their productions. It is compatible with using their own eyesight, and narrating what they saw, if spectators of the events they had to chronicle. It is compatible with searching out the facts and studying the reports of other men, and the traditions handed down, if through such means they might have perfect knowledge of the events re corded. It is compatible with adopting, by means of quotation from other authors, or reference to existing documents, the facts they had to narrate, if taught by supernaturalition to do so, for the purposes of their composition. There is nothing in all this inconsistent with the supernatural inspiration of God present and co-operating with them in their work; unless, indeed, it is believed that the divine and the human co-operation in all cases and under all circumstances is impossible. — BANNERMAN, 535.

That every word of Scripture has been inspired, does not imply that every speech or sentiment recorded there should be inspired. The letter of Claudius Lysias was not inspired, but it is inserted in the Scriptures by inspiration, and for a purpose useful for the edification of the people of God. — ALEXANDER CARSON, V. 83.