{"collection":"scripture-revelation","full_text_available":true,"graph_url":"https://unchartedknowledge.5gfusion.net/v2/api/page/gutenberg_52151/graph","html_url":"https://unchartedknowledge.5gfusion.net/v2/page/gutenberg_52151","id":"gutenberg_52151","license":"Public Domain (US)","rights_basis":"gutenberg_metadata_copyright_false","source":"gutenberg","source_url":"https://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/52151","summary":null,"tags":["Bible -- Inspiration","Category: Religion/Spirituality"],"text":"Transcribed from the 1877 Hatchards edition by David Price, email\nccx074@pglaf.org\n\n\n\n\n\n                               INSPIRATION:\n                          ITS NATURE AND EXTENT.\n\n\n                                * * * * *\n\n                                    BY\n                            THE REV. E. HOARE,\n\n                    VICAR OF TRINITY, TUNBRIDGE WELLS,\n                    AND HONORARY CANON OF CANTERBURY.\n\n                                * * * * *\n\n                             Second Edition.\n\n                                * * * * *\n\n                                 LONDON:\n                          HATCHARDS, PICCADILLY.\n                                  1877.\n\n                                * * * * *\n\n                                 LONDON:\n                       PRINTED BY JOHN STRANGEWAYS,\n                         Castle St. Leicester Sq.\n\n                                * * * * *\n\n\n\n\nCONTENTS.\n\n                            PAGE\nINTRODUCTION                   1\nTHE DIVINE ELEMENT             7\nTHE HUMAN ELEMENT             32\nTHE COMBINATION               37\nDIFFICULTIES                  44\n\n\n\n\nINTRODUCTION.\n\n\nIT is quite impossible to over-estimate the deep importance of this great\nsubject, for on our conclusions respecting it must depend our confidence\nin all the great mysteries of the Gospel.  There is a sphere within which\nthe human mind is capable of astonishing achievement, and I would be the\nlast to undervalue human intellect.  It has done vast things already, and\nis doing great things now.  But there is a limit beyond which it has no\npower to pass; a world in which it has no means of investigation; an\nunseen kingdom which lies quite outside its range.  Yet, though unseen,\nthis kingdom is all important; and, though an undiscovered country, it is\none in which we are all most deeply concerned, for we are all rapidly\nhastening thither, and He who is our Father, our Creator, our Redeemer,\nour Lord, our life, is the great and unseen Head of it.  Thus, no science\ncan ever inform us as to the nature of the Godhead, the plan of\nsalvation, or eternal life; and it is altogether unphilosophical and\nunscientific to attempt to reduce such subjects to the ordinary rules of\nscience and philosophy.  God\u2019s plan of salvation can only be known from\nGod Himself; so that, if He has not imparted to us all needful knowledge\nrespecting it, there is no human power that can ever supply the\ndeficiency, and we must live and die convinced of the soul\u2019s immortality,\nbut still in utter ignorance of the plan which God has arranged for its\nsafety.  Hence the inexpressible value of the inspired word of Scripture.\nIt is the communication from God to man respecting the deep things of the\nunseen world.  It supplies that which lies beyond the reach of human\ninvestigation, and gives us exactly that information which dying man\nrequires.  It unfolds to us the eternal nature of God, and the plan of\nsalvation which He has prepared in tender mercy for a fallen world.  If\ntherefore our Bible fail us, our whole hope fails with it, and if we\ncannot rely on its sacred statements, we are left without any trustworthy\ninformation as to all those great truths which most deeply concern us.\nIf we cannot rely on Scripture as a communication from God we have\nnothing to take its place; and all our present joy, as well as our future\nhopes, must melt away into utter ignorance respecting all that lies\nbeyond the range of science, and utter hopelessness as to all beyond this\npresent world.\n\nIt is not my present object to attempt to prove the inspiration of\nScripture.  It is a great and noble subject, and one which I should\nrejoice to investigate.  But it is not the subject of this paper.  My\nobject is to examine the extent and nature of inspiration, and to that I\nmust exclusively confine myself.  I take it for granted therefore that\ninspiration is an admitted fact, so that my only business is to consider\nhow far it carries us, and what security it gives us for certain,\nreliable, infallible truth, in all the statements of the inspired word.\n\nIt has been said that \u2018Inspiration is that idea of Scripture which we\ngather from the knowledge of it,\u2019 {5a} and an attempt has been made to\nshow how by such a definition all difficulties are overcome.  I freely\ngrant that such a theory does present a very easy and ready method of\ngetting rid of difficulty, for, if we decide on reducing the authority of\nScripture to our own ideas respecting it, it is not likely that there\nwill be much left to embarrass us.  There is however one difficulty, and\nthat a most important one, which it cannot solve.  It can give no solid\nfoundation for the anxious soul to rest on, and must leave us floating\ninto eternity with no better support than a vague idea of our own\ncreation.\n\nSt. Peter differs very widely from the author of that essay; for though\nthe author boldly asserts that {5b} \u2018for any of the higher or\nsupernatural views of inspiration there is no foundation in the Gospels\nor Epistles,\u2019 St. Peter broadly and plainly asserts that \u2018Holy men of God\nspake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost.\u2019 (2 Pet. i. 21.)  Here then\nwe have the Apostolic definition of the work of inspiration, and by that\ndefinition we are taught that there are two distinct elements to be\nconsidered, the divine and the human; the divine, for the Holy Ghost\nmoved the writers; and the human, for the communication did not come as a\ndirect voice from heaven, but holy men spake as they were moved.\n\nIn order therefore fully to investigate the subject, it will be necessary\nto examine (1) the divine element, (2) the human element, and (3) the\ncombination of the two; after which we may consider some of the\ndifficulties which have been thought to lie against the doctrine.\n\n\n\n\nTHE DIVINE ELEMENT.\n\n\nI NEED scarcely say that this divine element is the great subject of\nmodern controversy.  But I hope we may meet the points more especially\nagitated, by considering four questions.\n\n  I.  Does it extend over the whole book?\n\n  II.  Is it equal?\n\n  III.  Is it verbal?\n\n  IV.  Does it render the word infallible?\n\nI.  Does it extend over the whole book?\n\nOur first inquiry, then, must relate to the area covered by it; or, in\nother words, to the question, Is the whole inspired?  Were all the\nwriters of Scripture thus moved by the Holy Ghost? or merely some of\nthem, and those in certain books only?\n\nNow, taking the language of St. Paul in 2 Tim. iii. 16, as our guide, we\nhave a clear and decisive answer; for it is here written, \u2018All Scripture\nis given by inspiration of God.\u2019  It is stated by Dr. Lee {8} that the\nword \u2018Scripture\u2019 occurs either in the singular or plural no less than\nfifty times, and in every single instance it is employed solely with\nreference to that collection of writings which were regarded as the\noracles of God.  Everything therefore included in that collection is here\ndeclared to be \u03b8\u03b5\u03bf\u03c0\u03bd\u03b5\u03c5\u03c3\u03c4\u03bf\u03c2, or given by inspiration.\n\nThe only possible question therefore is, How much was included?\n\nNow, whatever men may think of the doctrine of inspiration, all must\nadmit as an historical fact, that when St. Paul wrote these words, the\nwhole of the Old Testament was included in the Jewish canon.  The Jews,\nnotwithstanding all their faults, were admirable guardians of Scripture,\nand there was no doubt in the mind of any pious Jew as to what books\ntogether formed his Bible.  He was much clearer on that subject than many\nof our modern writers.  When therefore St. Paul spoke of \u2018All Scripture,\u2019\nthere is no doubt in the world that he included in his statement every\nline and letter of the Old Testament, and he taught us in those words\nthat the whole, from first to last, from the first of Genesis to the last\nof Malachi was given by inspiration of God.\n\nIn saying this, I make no exception whatever with reference to the\nhistorical books.  I think it has been clearly shown that those\nhistorical writings which are not in the Pentateuch are included in that\npart of Scripture called the Prophets.  In which case the language of St.\nPeter, already quoted, refers to history as well as prediction.  Nay,\nmore!  I do not hesitate to say, that if I were called upon to prove\ninspiration, there is no portion of the whole volume on which I should be\nbetter pleased to meet an opponent than the historical portions of the\nOld Testament.  So strong is the argument in their favour, that although\nby so saying I may startle some, I am prepared, after the most careful\ndeliberation, to affirm that I cannot separate them from the word of God\nwithout at the same time abandoning the whole of my Christianity.  My\nreason for this statement is, that our Lord Himself in His own teaching\nhas most distinctly sanctioned them.  Men cavil at the strange miracles\nrecorded in them, but, while men cavil, He refers to no less than nine of\nthese miracles as facts.  The flood, the destruction of Sodom and\nGomorrah, the death of Lot\u2019s wife, the burning bush, the manna, the\nbrazen serpent, the cure of Naaman, the preservation of the widow of\nSarepta, and the rescue of Jonah, are all endorsed by His divine\nauthority.  To the books of Moses, which are chiefly historical, He\nperpetually refers as to the word of God, describing their testimony as\nmore worthy of credit than that of men risen from the dead.  And as for\nthe much-despised first chapter of the book of Genesis, the speculation,\nas we are now taught, of some ancient Hebrew Descartes, He actually\nquotes the 27th verse as descriptive of the fact of creation.  I am\nbrought therefore to the conclusion that if there is any portion of the\nwhole volume which may pre-eminently be said to have the broad seal and\nstamp of our Lord\u2019s authority placed upon it with His own hand, that\nportion is the Pentateuch.  All, therefore, I am thoroughly persuaded,\nmust rise and fall together.  If we believe in the Lord Jesus Christ, we\nmust receive the books of Moses as inspired Scripture; and never can we\nabandon them till we are prepared to admit that in His own sacred\nteaching the Lord Himself has misled His people, or, in other and plainer\nwords, till we cease to be believers in Jesus.\n\nBut are we to limit this language of St. Paul to the Old Testament?  I\nthink it has been clearly shown that we are not.  For although the canon\nof the New Testament was not complete when St. Paul wrote these words, we\nmust remember that the second Epistle to Timothy was one of the latest\nepistles, and that, according to Horne\u2019s list, the whole of the New\nTestament, or very nearly the whole, except the writings of St. John,\nwere written at or about the time of its publication.  The only question\nis, whether these writings were then regarded as Scripture: for, if they\nwere, they were clearly included in the declaration that all Scripture is\ngiven by inspiration of God.  Now, one thing is perfectly clear, namely,\nthat St. Paul claimed the authority of Scripture for his own epistles:\nfor after having carefully drawn the distinction between his private\nopinions and inspired decisions, he distinctly says, \u2018Yet not I, but the\nLord\u2019 (1 Cor. vii. 10).  It is equally clear that St. Peter classed the\napostles with the prophets, 2 Pet. iii. 2.  It is equally clear again,\nthat the Gospel of St. Luke was already admitted as Scripture, for in 1\nTim. v. 18, St. Paul quotes two passages, one from Deuteronomy and one\nfrom St. Luke, declaring of both equally that they were taken from\nScripture.  \u2018For the scripture saith, Thou shalt not muzzle the ox that\ntreadeth out the corn.  And, The labourer is worthy of his reward.\u2019\n(Deut. xxv. 4; Luke, x. 7.)  It is equally clear again, that St. Paul\u2019s\nEpistles were included by St. Peter in the canon; for he clearly regarded\nthem as Scripture when he wrote his second epistle.  He saw some\ndifficulties in them, but that did not affect his opinion of their\nadmitted inspiration, when he said (2 Pet. iii. 15, 16), \u2018Even as our\nbeloved brother Paul also, according to the wisdom given unto him, hath\nwritten unto you; as also in all his epistles, speaking in them of these\nthings; in which are some things hard to be understood, which they that\nare unlearned and unstable wrest, as they do also the other scriptures,\nunto their own destruction.\u2019\n\nNew Testament therefore, as well as Old, was included in the declaration,\n\u2018All scripture is given by inspiration of God;\u2019 and the conclusion to\nwhich I am irresistibly brought is, that we have no right to pick and\nchoose amongst the various portions of the word of God.  I believe the\nwhole to be arranged as a whole for the accomplishment of God\u2019s great\npurpose, that the whole is included in \u2018the Scriptures,\u2019 and that the\nparts are so interwoven one with another, and so beautifully fitted into\neach other by God\u2019s divine hand, that there will be found ultimately to\nbe no intermediate path between receiving the whole as the word of God,\nor sweeping away the whole, and launching forth on a sea of scepticism,\nwithout a Bible, without a Saviour, and, as the last step, without a God.\n\n                                * * * * *\n\nII.  Is it equal?\n\nI need scarcely say that many persons, and some of them most excellent\nmen, have entertained the idea of a graduated scale of inspiration, and\nhence the great importance of the question.  Is it equal throughout?  Or\nis it variable?\n\nIn attempting an answer to this question, it is essential that we observe\nthe wide distinction between the authorship and the subject-matter of the\nbook, for, if not, we shall soon get into confusion.\n\nNow Christian brethren must not be startled by my stating that in the\nsubject-matter there are the widest possible distinctions.  It appears\nindeed to consist of three distinct classes of subjects, or rather three\ndistinct kinds of matter.\n\nIn the first place, there are direct communications, communicated from\nheaven without the use of the mind of man.  Of this class are the ten\ncommandments, the words, \u2018This is my beloved Son in whom I am well\npleased,\u2019 and the discourses of our Lord.  Such words were not given by\ninspiration, for they did not pass through the medium of the human mind,\nbut came direct from heaven.  In them there was no inspiration, but\ncommunication.\n\nThere is a second large class of passages which were given by\ninspiration.  The human mind was employed as the medium for conveying\nGod\u2019s will and purpose.  This was the case with the prophets, the Psalms,\nand other similar passages.  Here was inspiration, and the words so\nuttered were divine words, though given through the human medium, and not\nin direct communication.\n\nBut there is a third large class of passages in which there is neither\ninspiration nor communication.  There are various sayings and doings of\nuninspired men, good actions and bad actions, good words and bad words,\ninterspersed with miracles and other wonders of God\u2019s hand.  Now no one\nsupposes that all these persons spoke by inspiration, and it is utterly\nunfair to quote such passages as inconsistent with the inspiration of\nScripture, for no one asserts that they are inspired.  It is utterly\nunfair, for example, of Mr. Coleridge to quote the language of Job\u2019s\nfriends, and to attack the inspiration of the book by the assertion that\nit is impossible to believe them to be inspired.  Of course it is, for,\nif we believed them to be inspired, we should be flying in the face of\nthe inspired book itself which records the divine communication, \u2018Ye have\nnot spoken of me the thing that is right\u2019 (Job, xlii. 7.)  We do not\nclaim inspiration for those words, but for the authorship of the book\nwhich declares that the speakers spoke those words, and that in doing so\nthey were wrong.\n\nIn the subject-matter then we have three divisions, direct\ncommunications, inspired writings, and the miscellaneous sayings and\ndoings of uninspired men.  But in addition to this there is the question\nof authorship, which is clearly totally distinct from the matter, and it\nis the inspiration of the author which makes the book the word of God.\nWhatever the matter be if the author is inspired the book becomes\ninspired scripture.  The sayings of uninspired men may be put on record\nby an inspired author, and our Heavenly Father may have shown just as\nmuch mercy in directing His prophets to record the sins of bad men for\nour warning, as the actions of His chosen servants for our guidance and\nencouragement.  Now, so far as the authorship is concerned, we find no\ndistinction whatever.  All alike is called \u2018Scripture;\u2019 all \u2018the word of\nGod;\u2019 all is included in the statement, \u2018Whatsoever things were written\naforetime, were written for our learning, that we through patience and\ncomfort of the scripture might have hope;\u2019 and all is stamped by divine\nauthority in the words, \u2018All scripture is given by inspiration of God.\u2019\n\n                                * * * * *\n\nIII.  Is it verbal?\n\nI am now approaching a difficult subject, and I should be sorry to speak\nrashly.  But at the same time, I must not speak with hesitation, for the\nmore I have studied the subject the more firmly am I brought to the\ndeliberate and fixed conviction that the whole book, including words as\nwell as thoughts, is to be received by the believer as the word of God.\nLet me briefly state my reasons.\n\n1.  I can draw no other conclusion from the title given to it, viz. \u2018The\nword of God.\u2019  When I find it especially mentioned as God\u2019s _word_; when\nI meet with such a passage as \u2018Man shall not live by bread alone, but by\nevery word that proceedeth out of the mouth of God,\u2019 I find it hard to\nbelieve that the _words_ are not included in the act of inspiration, and\nthat the divine inspiration extends no farther than to the thoughts.  If\nthe expression were \u2018the truth of God,\u2019 or \u2018the will of God,\u2019 I could\nunderstand a reference to His mind without the necessity of applying\ninspiration to the language; but I cannot exclude the idea of inspired\nwords from that book whose title is \u2018the _word_ of God.\u2019\n\n2.  I find certain quotations, the whole value of which entirely depends\non verbal accuracy.  In Gal. iii. 16, St. Paul quotes from Gen. xii. 7,\nand his whole argument turns on the distinction between the singular and\nplural number in one word contained in the promise made to Abraham: \u2018He\nsaith not, and to seeds, as of many; but as of one, And to thy seed,\nwhich is Christ.\u2019  So in Matt. xxii. 32, our Lord quotes the words spoken\nto Moses in Exod. iii. 6, and rests his whole argument on the present\ntense of the substantive verb: \u2018I _am_ the God of Abraham, and the God of\nIsaac, and the God of Jacob.  God is not the God of the dead, but of the\nliving,\u2019 proving by that present tense that Abraham was at that time an\nexisting person awaiting the resurrection.  It may perhaps be said that\nboth these instances occur in direct divine communications; but we must\nremember that we have to consider the inspiration of Moses who recorded\nthat communication, and surely the quotation proves that the historical\ninspiration of the author might be trusted for verbal accuracy.\n\n3.  There are many passages in which the words are quoted quite\nindependently of the thoughts of the context.  As an illustration, refer\nto our Lord\u2019s quotation of Isa. lvi. 7.  The whole of that passage refers\nsimply to the admission of the sons of the stranger into the covenant.\nThe emphatic words of the prophecy are \u2018for all people,\u2019 and the one idea\nof the context is the admission of all people to the covenant.  But, in\nunfolding this truth, the prophet was led to express the prophecy in the\nwords, \u2018My house shall be called a house of prayer;\u2019 and this expression\nour Lord extracts from the prophecy, and makes it the groundwork of His\nstern rebuke when He cleared the temple.\n\n4.  Once more.  It seems perfectly clear that the prophets in many cases\ndid not understand their own writings.  We are sometimes told that we\nmust only understand the prophecies as the prophets themselves did.  But\nif we were to act on that rule, it must follow that in many cases we\ncould not understand them at all; for we know, in fact, that Daniel had\nto pray for an understanding of the prophecy just conveyed through his\nown lips, and we are distinctly taught by St. Peter that the prophets\ninquired and searched diligently into the meaning of their own\nprophecies. (1 Pet. i. 11.)  \u2018Searching what, or what manner of time the\nSpirit of Christ which was in them did signify, when it testified\nbeforehand the sufferings of Christ, and the glory that should follow.\u2019\nThis also I have no doubt is the meaning of the expression, \u2018No prophecy\nis of any private interpretation\u2019 (2 Pet. i. 20), \u1f30\u03b4\u03af\u03b1\u03c2 \u1f10\u03c0\u03b9\u03bb\u03cd\u03c3\u03b5\u03c9\u03c2 \u03bf\u1f50\n\u03b3\u03af\u03bd\u03b5\u03c4\u03b1\u03b9, \u2018Has not arisen out of private interpretation,\u2019 and is not the\nresult of the writer\u2019s own thoughts, \u2018but holy men of God spake as they\nwere moved by the Holy Ghost.\u2019  But, if this were the case, the whole\nprophecy must depend on verbal accuracy.  If they were employed to speak\nwords which had a certain deep, hidden meaning, unknown to themselves,\nand intended by God to remain unknown until their meaning should be made\nmanifest by fulfilment at the coming of the Lord, surely we must admit\nthat it was the words and not the thoughts which God inspired.  The\nthoughts were actually withheld from the prophets, but they were moved to\nutter words which required events then unknown to bring out their true\nmeaning.\n\n5.  But it may be said that this applies to the predictive portions of\nScripture only, and not to the historical.  It possibly may, and the last\nargument clearly does.  But have we any thing to lead us to suppose that\nthere is one kind of inspiration for the predictive, and another for the\nhistorical portions?  Are they not all spoken of as one book?  Are not\nmany of these verbal quotations included in the historical portions, as\n_e.g._ the promise made to Abraham?  Unless, therefore, it can be proved\nto me that there is such a distinction drawn by divine authority, I feel\nit my privilege to regard the whole as one, to receive the whole with\nequal reverence, and to accept the whole, prediction, psalm, history,\nfacts, thoughts, and words, as the inspired Word of the living God.\n\nBut after some measure of careful study, I have been led to the\nconviction that the question of verbal inspiration is not the one really\nat issue.  For no one believes that, if there be any inaccuracy, it took\nplace in the words only.  It must have taken place in the thoughts, in\nthe matter, in the facts.  If, _e.g._, there is a variation between St.\nMatthew and St. Luke, no one supposes that they meant to convey the same\nthoughts, but made a mistake in accidentally selecting different words.\nThe real point of the controversy is the infallible accuracy of the\nmatter.  And this leads to my last question.\n\n                                * * * * *\n\nIV.  Is it infallible?\n\nOn the answer to this question must depend our confidence in Scripture.\nSome excellent men tell us it is infallible in so far as divine truth is\ninvolved.  But I freely confess that this does not satisfy my own mind.\nI do not like that limitation.  I am prepared to receive the whole book\nas invested with infallible accuracy from God Himself, and in taking this\nview of the subject, I feel the great satisfaction of believing that I am\nin harmony with the mind of St. Paul, St. Peter, and our great Head\nHimself.\n\nFor St. Paul\u2019s mind, I would refer to his words in Acts, xxviii. 25, and\nHeb. x. 15.  In the Acts he is quoting from Isaiah, and says, \u2018Well spake\nthe Holy Ghost by Esaias the prophet,\u2019 and in the Hebrews he is quoting\nfrom the prophet Jeremiah; but instead of saying, \u2018whereof Jeremiah is a\nwitness to us,\u2019 he says, without mentioning Jeremiah, \u2018Whereof the Holy\nGhost also is a witness to us,\u2019 taking the word, as it were, out of the\nhands of fallible man, and placing it in those of the infallible Spirit.\nThese passages place inspiration on an equal footing with direct\ncommunication.  But if inspired writings were spoken of as the actual\nwords of the Holy Ghost just as much as if they had been direct\ncommunications; if inspiration was of such a character as to render the\nwords the words of the Spirit Himself, can we believe that those words\nwere capable of error?\n\nFor St. Peter\u2019s testimony, I would refer to his language in 2 Pet. i. 19,\nin the context of which passage he is assuring his hearers that he had\nnot followed cunningly devised fables.  And now mark the threefold\nevidence which he produces.  First, there is vision, \u2018We were\neye-witnesses of his majesty.\u2019  Secondly, there is hearing, \u2018The voice\nfrom heaven we heard.\u2019  But lastly, there is an evidence more clear, more\ntrue, more trustworthy, than either the sight of his own eyes, or the\nhearing of his own ears.  That evidence is Scripture.  \u2018We have also a\nmore sure word of prophecy.\u2019\n\nFor the testimony of our Lord Himself, refer to two passages, the one\nreferring to a nice point in a quotation from the Psalms, John, x. 35;\nthe other to the whole word in its sanctifying power, John, xvii. 17.\nNow what is His language?  In the one, \u2018The scripture cannot be broken.\u2019\nIn the other, \u2018Thy word is truth.\u2019\n\nWith these statements of our blessed Lord, I am content to leave this\nportion of our subject.  In these words of Scripture, I believe that God\nHimself has spoken to man, and therefore in the midst of all the world\u2019s\ndisappointments, and in all the failures of even the Church of God, we\nhave here that on which the soul may calmly, peacefully, and fearlessly\nrepose.  And whether we look at history or prediction, at promises or\njudgments, at prophecies understood by those who uttered them, or\nlanguage veiled in mystery until the divine purpose is developed in\nhistory, we receive the whole as inviolable truth, for all has the stamp\nof the Spirit Himself, and all is given by inspiration of God.  We\nreceive it, we honour it, we submit to it, we acknowledge its divine\nauthority, and welcome with heartfelt thanksgiving its infallible\npromises.  Yes, we receive it not merely with the deepest conviction of\nour most deliberate judgment: but we welcome it to our soul with all the\ndeep feelings of a thankful heart, and say with the inspired Psalmist,\n\u2018Thy word is very pure, therefore thy servant loveth it.\u2019\n\n\n\n\nTHE HUMAN ELEMENT.\n\n\nBUT there is a human element in the book as well as a divine.  \u2018Holy men\nspake as they were moved.\u2019  We shall take, therefore, a very partial view\nof the whole subject if we neglect to consider the action of the holy men\nas well as the moving of the Holy Ghost.  What then are the plain,\nobvious facts of the case?  Are they not that the books contain as much\nevidence of human mind, and human character as if they were uninspired\nbooks?  The human authorship is as prominent and conspicuous as the\ndivine, and any theory of inspiration which excludes it is, I cannot but\nthink, opposed to the facts of Scripture.\n\n1.  There is distinctive _character_ in the different writers.  Compare\nSt. Paul and St. John, St. Peter and St. James, Jeremiah and Ezekiel, and\nyou see the most transparent variety, a variety which renders it\nimpossible to suppose that they were merely pens, machines, or copyists.\n\n2.  There is the use of _natural powers or gifts_.  St. Paul was a\nwell-educated, intellectual man, with great reasoning powers, so he\nsupported truth by argument.  David was a poet, so he breathed out as the\nsweet psalmist of Israel the hallowed outpourings of a sanctified heart.\n\n3.  There is the use of _feeling_.  All the emotions of the human heart\nmay be found in Scripture.  There is no deep feeling of which man is\ncapable which is not expressed there.  There is love, sorrow in some of\nits most tender and touching forms, depression of spirits, joy, hope,\nlonging desire, deep contrition, calm faith, and perfect peace.  All\nthese you find, not merely described by the inspired authors, but forming\npart and parcel of the inspired word.  They are the very word itself, and\nare expressed as naturally as if there were no such thing as inspiration.\n\n4.  There is the use of _memory_.  Our Lord\u2019s promise to His Apostles in\nJohn, xiv. 26, applies clearly to this point, and shows that the gift of\nthe Holy Ghost, so far from superseding memory, would quicken it, and\ngive it the power of recalling with accuracy the words intrusted to it.\n\u2018He shall bring all things to your remembrance, whatsoever I have said\nunto you.\u2019\n\n5.  There was also the use of _personal experience_, as, _e.g._, when St.\nJohn said, \u2018The word was made flesh, and dwelt among us, and we beheld\nhis glory\u2019 (John, i. 14); and again, \u2018That which we have seen and heard\ndeclare we unto you.\u2019 (1 John, i. 1, 3)\n\nAnd lastly, and it is a very deeply interesting point, there was the\ndiligent _use of collected information_.  See Luke, i. 1\u20133, where Luke\ndoes not claim to write original matter, but to have received it from\nthose who from the beginning were eye-witnesses, and ministers of the\nword.  It was because he had a perfect understanding from them that he\nundertook to write out in order the events of the narrative.\n\nIt is clear, therefore, that in the composition of Scripture there was\nthe free use of the human mind.  The Pentateuch is the word of Moses as\nwell as the word of God, for when our Lord quotes the fifth commandment\nin Mark, vii. 10, He introduces it by the words \u2018Moses said;\u2019 although\nwhen He condemns His hearers for the breach of it, he says, they were\n\u2018making the Word of God of none effect by their tradition.\u2019 (Mark, v.\n13.)  The human element is therefore as plain as the divine.  We have not\nin our Bible a voice speaking from heaven in accents so strange to human\nears that it could only serve to amaze and terrify; but we have God\u2019s\nwill presented to us through the medium of human language, human feeling,\nhuman thought, and human inquiry; human in all respects but one, and that\nis, as we have already found, that it is free from human error.\n\n\n\n\nTHE COMBINATION.\n\n\nI TRUST, then, that I have shown clearly the existence of the divine and\nhuman elements in Scripture, but it still remains for us to consider the\nthird point, namely, THE COMBINATION OF THE TWO.\n\nHow is the union between the divine and human to be explained?\n\n1.  Not by supposing that the writers were mere pens, or machines.  This\nis sometimes termed the mechanical theory, but it is clearly inconsistent\nwith facts.  Pens never think, argue, remember, weep, or rejoice, and all\nthese things were done by the writers of Scripture.\n\n2.  Not by supposing them to be mere copyists or amanuenses employed to\nwrite down the words of the Spirit, as Baruch took down the words of\nJeremiah.  This may have been the case when they received direct\ncommunication, as when Moses wrote out the ten commandments at the\ndictation of God: but it will not apply to inspiration, as it gives no\nscope for variety of character.  The one dictating mind would be the only\none to appear on such a theory.\n\n3.  We will not attempt to explain it by constructing any artificial\ntheories as to the action of the Spirit on the mind of men.  Some have\nendeavoured to classify the modes in which they consider the Spirit may\nhave acted, as, _e.g._, supervision, elevation, direction, and\nsuggestion.  All this may be right, and it may be wrong; for we are\ntaught (Heb. i. 1) not merely that God spake in divers times, but in\n_divers __manners_ unto the fathers by the prophets.  But all such\ndistinctions are unsupported by Scripture, and therefore we may leave\nthem.\n\nMy own belief is, that the safest course for the believer is to take the\nword as he finds it, and to attempt no explanation at all.  The fact is,\nthat the question lies in the midst of a class of subjects which have\nalways baffled man\u2019s inquiry, I mean those relating to the points of\ncontact between the mind of God and the mind of man.  The real point is,\nhow has the mind of God acted on the mind of man, and how can there be\nunion in one book between his mind which is infinite and infallible, and\nthe mind of man which is finite and fallible?  That question I cannot\nsolve.  But I cannot there leave the inquiry; for it appears to me that\nwe have an analogous case of the deepest possible importance, I mean the\ncorresponding union in the person of our blessed Saviour.\n\nRemember, then, that there are two channels through which God has\nmanifested His will, viz., the incarnate word, and the written word; and\nsurely we are justified in expecting that there will be something of the\nsame character in the two manifestations.\n\nNow, how is it with the incarnate word?  In Him there is a perfect\nGodhead and a perfect manhood, so that He becomes the perfect daysman\nbetween God and the sinner.  His Deity does not neutralise His humanity,\nfor, though Himself the Creator, He was wearied, He wept, He prayed, He\ntrusted, He died; and so He can be touched with the feelings of those who\nin this suffering world are called to weep, to suffer, to pray, and to\ndie now.  But neither, on the other hand, did His humanity neutralise His\nDeity, for in the midst of His weakness He could rise in His omnipotence,\nand bid the dead arise and the waves be still.  If you ask how it is that\nthe one did not neutralise the other, I cannot say.  All I know is that\nGod so ordered it, and that He so formed the union that the perfection of\nthe Godhead did not destroy the manhood, nor the perfection of the\nmanhood take one jot or one tittle from the attributes of the Godhead.\nAnd if men reply that they cannot understand it, I can only say that they\nhave no right to expect to do so, for are we not assured in Scripture,\n\u2018Without controversy, great is the mystery of godliness, God was manifest\nin the flesh?\u2019\n\nBut now, passing from the first manifestation of God\u2019s will to the\nsecond, _i.e._ from the incarnate Word to the written word, are we to be\nsurprised if we meet with a similar union and a similar difficulty?  If,\nin short, we find the self-same combination of the divine and human\nelements?  Can I wonder if it is presented to us in a form so divine that\nit is infallibly true, and yet so human that it is full of the workings\nof the human intellect and human heart?  No, I wonder not, and I\nspeculate not.  But, as I thank God for an incarnate Redeemer, who has\nall the omnipotent and infinite attributes of God, while at the same time\nHe has so true a manhood that I may appeal to His sympathy on the ground\nof His experience of all the trials of the flesh, so I thank God also\nthat He has given us a Bible so perfect, so divine, so authoritative, so\ninfallible, that I may trust it without the shadow of a doubt as the\nunerring word of the living God, while at the same time it is so\ncompletely human, and thereby so exactly adapted to the human heart\u2019s\nrequirements, that I can welcome it as a word spoken for myself, and\nadmire the love of our Heavenly Father who has been pleased to combine in\none book a perfect divinity and a perfect humanity, the infallible truth\nof a perfect Godhead combined by God\u2019s mysterious power with the\nheart-touching utterance of a true and perfect manhood.\n\n\n\n\nDIFFICULTIES.\n\n\nBUT, while we rejoice in the great doctrine of a complete, plenary, and\ninfallible inspiration, we should be wanting in Christian candour if we\nwere to ignore the existence of certain difficulties connected with the\nsubject.  There are difficulties we freely acknowledge, some of which\nhave been felt, not merely by sceptical, but by devout and Christian\nminds; and these difficulties I now propose to consider.\n\n1.  The first of these has been already met.  It arises from the variety\nof mind and character in the inspired writers.  This is thought to be\ninconsistent with the divine inspiration of the whole book by one\ninspiring Spirit; and it would be a difficulty if we believed, according\nto the mechanical theory, that the writers were merely pens, machines, or\ncopyists.  But on the principle that there is a perfect manhood combined\nwith a perfect Godhead, instead of remaining a difficulty, it becomes one\nof the chief beauties of the book, and is the very thing that renders it\nso pre-eminently suited to the wants of the human heart.\n\n2.  A second difficulty arises from the idea that the language of\nScripture is opposed to modern science.  The principle of this difficulty\nis contained in the words, \u2018Any true doctrine of inspiration must conform\nto all well-ascertained facts of history or of science.\u2019 {45}\n\nNow, in the first place, we enter our solemn protest against the\nScripture being regarded as a scientific treatise.  Its object was no\nmore to teach us science than to teach us medicine.  It is therefore\nutterly unfair to bring its language to the test of scientific\nexperiments.  If the allusions of Scripture to surrounding nature were\nnot altogether in harmony with the discoveries of modern science, it\nwould not in the least affect my own idea of inspiration; for in making\nuse of men to convey His own divine message, I could not expect anything\nbut that our Heavenly Father should make use of such language as men\nunderstood at the time the book was written; and it seems utterly\nunreasonable to suppose that He should render His revelation\nunintelligible to those to whom it was given, by going out of His way to\nanticipate discoveries which were about to be made some thousands of\nyears afterwards.  But, though the Scriptures are not given to teach\nscience, and no one has a right to doubt their inspiration because he\ndoes not find scientific accuracy in their language, we are still\nprepared to meet the scientific man on his own ground, and fearlessly to\naffirm that there is nothing in Scripture opposed to the well-ascertained\ndiscoveries of science.\n\nFor mark well.  There is nothing in a miracle opposed to the laws of\nscience.  Science refers to those laws of nature which are within reach\nof our investigation; but if, at any time, the Creator should displace\nthem, either by the action of higher laws unknown to us, or by the simple\npower of His will, science knows nothing of that displacement.  It is the\noffice of science to investigate existing laws; but science knows nothing\nof any interruptions of those laws by the sovereign will of Him who\nfounded them.  Such interruptions lie altogether beyond its province.\nAll, for example, that science can say is, that we know of no law which\ncould cause the sun to stand still on Gibeon.  But does Scripture ever\nassert that it was done by any law within our knowledge?  Is it not\nrepresented as the act of God\u2019s omnipotence suspending known laws?  And\nis not that suspending power altogether beyond the reach of scientific\ninquiry?  The miracle therefore, lies beyond the reach of science, and\ncannot be opposed to it.\n\nBut as for the well-ascertained laws of nature and well-established\nscientific facts, we fearlessly assert that there is nothing in Scripture\nopposed to them.\n\nLet us consider for a moment the two cases most commonly quoted as\ninvolving contradiction: the description of the sun standing still on\nGibeon, and the Mosaic account of the creation.\n\nWith reference to the former there are two objections urged.  The first\nis that of the infidel who denies the possibility of the miracle, but\nwith that I have nothing to do, as I have already shown that miracles are\nnot within the range of science.  The second is founded on the language\nof the narrative, which is thought to imply an ignorance of the earth\u2019s\nrotation on its axis.  But really this is so childish that it is scarcely\nworth our notice.  Is there any one in his senses who would have expected\nJoshua to say, \u2018Earth, suspend your rotation round your axis;\u2019 or to have\nframed his language in any other way so as to describe that rotation?\nAnd if Joshua ought to have so expressed himself, why do not astronomers\nand other learned men alter their own language now according to their own\nscience?  Or are we to suppose that after all they know nothing about\nastronomy, because they speak like ignorant men, and say, like the rest\nof us, \u2018the sun rises and the sun sets?\u2019\n\nThe other case, however, is more important, for it is the object of the\nfirst chapter of the Book of Genesis to give an account of creation, and\nit is perfectly reasonable therefore to expect to find it in harmony with\ngeological facts.  But mark.  There is a great difference between being\nin harmony with geological _facts_, and in harmony with every geological\n_theory_ that is started.  We must confine the argument to what is known,\nand we have nothing to do with what people think.  True science is a\nrigid thing, and relates to facts, not opinions.  When, _e.g._, people\ntell us that there could not be light before the sun, they are thoroughly\nunscientific in so saying, for they know nothing of the kind.  There is a\nvast amount of light at this present time quite independent of the sun,\nand the idea that there could be none before it is nothing more than an\nunscientific conjecture.  No! we must keep rigidly to facts, to facts\nreally established by trustworthy evidence; and, keeping stedfastly to\nsuch facts, I have not the least shadow of anxiety respecting geological\ndiscovery.  On the contrary, I believe that the first chapter of Genesis\nwill furnish us, and is even already furnishing us, with one of the\ngrandest arguments ever yet produced for the divine inspiration of the\nbook of Scripture.  I cannot but think that that first chapter is placed\nin the forefront of the book in order to present us, at the outset of the\nwhole, with an unanswerable evidence of the divinity of its origin.\n\nFor what is the present position of geology?  In the first place, it is a\nvery young science, one of scarcely more than fifty years\u2019 growth.  The\nmost profound geologists are most convinced how much there is still to be\nlearned, and they are learning more every day.  No really wise man\ntherefore would give up the inspiration of Scripture in deference to\nthese present conclusions, even if those conclusions should at first\nsight seem to be opposed to the inspired word.\n\nBut they are not opposed to it.  There may be a difference of opinion\namong Christian men as to which is the right principle of harmony, but\nthere is no difficulty in harmonizing all geological facts with the\nplain, literal, straightforward, honest interpretation of every sentence\nof the sacred record.  Nay more!  There is one remarkable point of\nharmony clearly established, viz., this, that in its great outlines the\norder of events recorded in the book of Scripture is the same as the\norder as exhibited in the record of the rocks.  Moses describes a certain\norder in creation.  Three thousand years after Moses, learned men began\nto investigate the earth\u2019s crust, and in the rocks which form that crust,\nthey have discovered the outlines of a certain order.  They have come to\nthe conclusion that certain great events must have succeeded each other\nin the creation of the world.  Here therefore you have two records, one\nfrom the rocks, and one from Moses: one only just now discovered, and one\ngiven more than three thousand years ago.  But place them side by side.\nDo not be afraid of comparing them, for truth is never afraid of\ninvestigation.  But in comparing them what do we find?  That the order in\nthe rocks in all its broad features corresponds step by step with the\norder in the Mosaic record; and though there are still some minor\ndifficulties, still in the great, grand, broad facts there is a\nmagnificent harmony.  But whence did Moses learn that order?  The events\nmust have taken place millions and millions of years before ever man trod\nthis earth.  There were no geologists in his day to teach him.  How then\ncould he have known the order of events which took place ages before\nman\u2019s being?  There is only one answer to be given, and that is, that he\nmust have been taught it by God Himself.  Thus we may thank our modern\ngeologists, as many of them delight in believing, for having in these\ndays of infidelity dug out from the bowels of the earth a fresh and noble\nproof, which had lain buried there for centuries, that the first chapter\nof the Book of Genesis was given to Moses by inspiration of God.\n\nBut we may go further still with reference to science, and remark that\nthere are many expressions in Scripture remarkably in harmony with it,\nand which almost appear to indicate a mind far in advance of the\nknowledge of the day.  Take, _e.g._, the distinction drawn by Moses\nbetween rain and dew in Deut. xxxii. 2, \u2018My doctrine shall drop as the\nrain, and my speech shall distil as the dew.\u2019  Or the language of Job\nrespecting the weight of the atmosphere, a scientific truth unknown till\nthe days of Galileo: \u2018To make the weight for the winds.\u2019 (Job, xxviii.\n25.)  Many similar passages might be quoted, but these are sufficient to\nshow that, although it was not the purpose of the book to teach science,\nthere lay hidden within the book the germs of the truest science, waiting\nthere unobserved till scientific men should discover the facts, and so by\ntheir science bring to light a fresh evidence of the divine inspiration\nof the book.\n\n3.  It is alleged that the sacred writers differed in some instances from\nsecular historians.  The favourite instances adduced are the date of the\ngovernments of Cyrenius in Syria, and that of Lysanius at Abylene.  The\none is placed by Josephus about eleven years after the birth of our Lord,\nand the other about the same distance of time before the commencement of\nJohn the Baptist\u2019s ministry.  It is a real pleasure to find men fixing on\nsuch minute points, and to see them obliged to leave unassailed the vast\namount of accumulated evidence to the accurate fidelity of the sacred\nrecords.  I confess that the simple fact of their fastening on such\npoints proves very clearly to my own mind that they have nothing very\nsubstantial on which to fasten.  Suggestions have been thrown out, which,\nif true, may meet the difficulty; but with our limited information, after\nan interval of one thousand eight hundred years, it is impossible to be\nsure that they are correct.  But suppose there is a difference.  Suppose\nthe chronology of Josephus is at variance with that of St. Luke.  Suppose\nthat one or the other is in error.  Is it impossible, I ask, that\nJosephus may be wrong?  Is he infallible?  Are his writings guaranteed\nfrom error?  And why should the Christian tamely surrender the point, and\nquietly submit to the conclusion that St. Luke is wrong and Josephus\nright?  I protest against such a surrender, and, till there is clearer\nevidence than we have obtained at present, I shall venture to believe\nthat Josephus is mistaken if in anything he really differs from the\ninspired word.\n\n4.  But I have left to the last that which to many minds is the greatest\ndifficulty.  I mean the variations, or as some would call them, the\napparent discrepancies, between the sacred writers themselves.\n\nNow I have no wish to deny the existence of such variations, though I\ndislike the term \u2018discrepancies,\u2019 for I do not believe there is\ndiscrepancy.  And in dealing with this difficulty, there are, I conceive,\nthree principles to be kept clearly in mind.\n\n1.  The narratives are very short and fragmentary in their character.\nThey never attempt to record the whole.  Hence one gives one fragment,\nand another a second, and these fragments are often like the fossil bones\nof a skeleton.  Ignorant men, which we all are, cannot fit them together;\nbut we must not on that account assert them to be contradictory; for when\nthe structure of the whole is once discovered, they will all fit into\ntheir proper places, and all the scattered fragments be combined in\nperfect symmetry.\n\n2.  There is the widest possible distinction between variation and\ncontradiction.  If two writers give an account of the same event, they\nwill each regard it from their own point of view, and describe it as it\nimpressed themselves.  Hence one will bring into prominence certain facts\nwhich are altogether omitted by another.  But such a variation is totally\ndifferent from contradiction.  An excellent illustration of this is found\nin the case of the inscription over the cross, a case which Dean Alford\nconsiders decisive against verbal inspiration.  Now I am quite ready to\nadmit that, if there were contradiction, it would be decisive.  But I\ndeny that there is any contradiction whatever.  There is variation, but\nnothing more.  All agree in the emphatic point\u2014\u2019The king of the Jews,\u2019\nand the only difference is that some give in addition a few more words\nthan others.  But these added words are not at variance with each other.\nOn the contrary, they all combine in one sentence, which probably formed\nthe real inscription.  That sentence is \u039f\u1f54\u03c4\u03cc\u03c2 \u1f10\u03c3\u03c4\u03b9\u03bd \u1f38\u03b7\u03c3\u03bf\u03c5\u03c2 \u1f44 \u039d\u03b1\u03b6\u03b1\u03c1\u03b1\u03af\u03bf\u03c2 \u1f44\n\u0392\u03b1\u03c3\u03b9\u03bb\u03b5\u1f7a\u03c2 \u03c4\u03c9\u03bd \u1f38\u03bf\u03c5\u03b4\u03b1\u03af\u03c9\u03bd.  \u2018This is Jesus of Nazareth the king of the Jews.\u2019\nNow, supposing that to have been the real sentence, so that each of the\nevangelists omitted some of the explanatory words, while all preserved,\n\u2018The king of the Jews,\u2019 which was the real point of the inscription,\nthere was no discrepancy or contradiction in such omissions, nor anything\nto affect our full and complete reliance in the verbal accuracy of all\nthe four evangelists.\n\n3.  It is also most important for us to remember that such variations are\nessential to the value of a fourfold testimony.  If God had seen fit to\nimpart His truth by direct communication only, then I freely grant that I\nshould have expected a _verbatim_ agreement in the narratives.  But in\nthat case there would have been no employment of the human element.  Nay\nmore; if the life of our Lord had been so reported, the evidence would\nhave become single, instead of fourfold.  Even, as it is, it has been\nargued that the resemblance is so accurate as to show that the\nevangelists copied from one common tradition, and must not be regarded as\nindependent witnesses.  The variation therefore becomes almost as\nimportant to us as the agreement, and, instead of shaking our\nconvictions, confirms them.  That blessed Redeemer is the corner-stone of\nour hopes, and therefore, instead of two witnesses, which under the law\nwere sufficient, He has given us two pair of witnesses.  And in the\ninspiration of their words He has given so much scope to the human\nelement that there are all the variations inseparable from independent\ntestimony; while, on the other hand, He has so guided, directed, and\ncontrolled the whole, that, notwithstanding all the cavils of sceptics,\nthere is no real contradiction in their statements.  There is variation\nenough to prove the independence of their evidence, while there is such a\ndepth in their complete agreement, as can only be explained by the fact\nthat they were taught by God\u2019s Spirit to convey to us infallible truth.\n\nOther objections have, I know, been urged; but all, I firmly believe, may\nbe fully and fairly met by the principle that it has pleased God in His\nown wisdom to combine in the one book the divine and human element.  In\nsome cases the mind of the man may be more conspicuous than the mind of\nthe Spirit, while in others the mind of the Spirit seems completely to\noverrule the mind of the author who wrote the words.  In some passages\nthe thoughts are so far within man\u2019s compass that no inspiration appears\nto be necessary, while in others they dive so deep into hidden mysteries\nthat they far outstep the utmost range of the human intellect.  Thus God\nhas given us a record of what man has felt, as well as a statement of His\nown hidden will.  He has given it through the medium of minds of the same\nnature as our own; but by His own mysterious power He has given their\nwritings such a divine authority that they claim our unwavering trust; so\nthat, notwithstanding the cavils of infidels, and the sneers of those who\ndespise us as bibliolaters, we heartily thank God for our Bibles, and\nreceive as divine all that God has taught in them, believing without\nreserve the statement of St. Peter, that \u2018Holy men of God spake as they\nwere moved by the Holy Ghost.\u2019\n\n                                * * * * *\n\n                                * * * * *\n\n                                * * * * *\n\n                                 LONDON:\n          Printed by JOHN STRANGEWAYS, Castle St. Leicester Sq.\n\n                                * * * * *\n\n\n\n\nFOOTNOTES.\n\n\n{5a}  _Essays and Reviews_, p. 347.\n\n{5b}  Ibid. p. 345.\n\n{8}  _Inspiration of Holy Scripture_.\n\n{45}  _Essays_, p. 348.","title":"Inspiration: Its Nature and Extent","tradition":"scripture-revelation","translated_text":null,"word_count":9153}