2. " I'erhiil hispiration' is an expression still more objecticjualili' as applied to the Scriptures. For,
(I.) UV/v/>-. as such, are incapable of inspiration. They are either oral, consisting of certain sounds, or written, consisting of certain marks on paper; both material signs of which a spiritual element cannot properly be predicated. Thought, ideas, sentiments only can be in- spired ; and this is really what the theorists mean. It is better to say so plainly.
(II.) The assumption by these theorists that we think only in words is plentifully contradicted by every man's consciousness. As children, we have conceptions long before we have words. The dog that lies dreaming of the chase has rapid trains of thought, but not a syllable of a word. We are constantly exercising perceptions of shades of color, and shapes of matter, for which there is no name. He must have a feeble power of conscious- ness, or a mighty power over words, who is not often possessed of a thought for which he pauses for the word. We hold the conception fast, waiting for its correlative term to come. Wlio does not often think of a friend's face without being able to recall his name ? Words, it is true, enable us to express our ideas, and generally that expression renders the conception itself more dis- tinct. But surely God is shut up to no such necessity in communicating his mind to men. His Spirit even gives us thoughts beyond the compass of language {d\aX7]ra, Horn, viii, 26; app-qra, 2 Cor. xii, 4).
(III.) The suggestion of the ipsissima verba to the minds of the sacred -writers is incompatible with their free action, as evinced in the varieties and even blem- ishes of style. These are clearly the human element, partaking of the imperfection and diversity inseparable from man's productions. To say that God makes use of them is only evading the point. He does not di- rectly supply them nor authorize them ; he only suffers them. The inconsistency of statement by Gaussen and other verbalists on this head is palpable, and shows the untenableness of their position in the face of infidel ob- jections and rationalistic criticism. P^qually inconclu- sive and self-contradictory is their method of disposing of the objection that if the actual Greek and Hebrew words are inspired, no translations can in any correla- tive sense be called " the word of God."
(IV.) Nothing is gained by asserting the verbal the- ory that is not equally secured in point of divine sanc- tion and infallible truth by simplj' claiming for the Holy Scri|iturcs that their statements and sentiments sub- stantially and in their essential import represent the mind and will of God; that they contain divine thoughts clothed in merely human language. Such is the obvi- ous fact, recognised by every devout and judicious in- terpreter. Such a view, indeed, gives far more dignity to the sacred volume than the mechanical theorj' of a mere amanuensis. It is the power of God in earthen vessels (2 Cor. iv, 7).
(V.) The theorj' of verbal inspiration is comparative- ly recent in the history of theology.
[1. J There is no such theory stated in the Scriptures. Scrijitural authority would preclude all citation of names, great or small, among the theologians. The passages adduced in its favor have no pertinence.
[2.] The fathers had no definite theory of inspiration at all. Sometimes, in dwelhng upon the perfection of Scriijture, they used striking figures and strong expres- sions, from which we might infer a belief in verbal in- spiration. But, on the other hand, their ordinary mode
i
INSPIRATION
615
INSPIRATION
I
of commenting on Scripture, of quoting it, and of de- fending it, is inconsistent with such a belief.
((/.) John, the presbyter, who is believed to have been one of our Lord's disciples, speaking of Mark's Gospel, says that Mark "wrote it with great accuracy, as Pe- ter's interpreter. . , . He committed no mistake when he wrote down things as he remembered them. He was very careful to omit nothing of what he had heard, and to sav nothing false in what he related" (Eusebius, nist. En'les. iii, 39).
ip.) Justin Martyr, after using the figure of the " lyre," which is so much relied upon by the advocates of ver- bal inspiration, goes on to limit his remark to '• those things in Scripture which are necessary for us to know" {ivLst. Ad Grcec. §8).
(r.) Irenasus, in a fragment on " the style of St. Paul," alludes to the fact that his sentences were sometimes " unsyntactic," and accounts for it by the " rapidity of his utterances (relocitas sermonurn), and the impulsive- ness of spirit which distinguished him."
(d.) Clemens Alexandrinus states that " Peter having preached the Gospel at Kome . . . many present ex- horted Mark to write the things which had been spoken, since he had long accompanied Peter, and remembered what he had said ; and when he had composed the Cios- pel, he delivered it to them who had asked it of him" (Eusebius, Hist. Eccles. vi, 14).
(e.) Origen, speaking of the Epistle to the Hebrews, remarks that the " thoughts are I'aul's, but the language belongs to some ^le who committed to writing what the apostle said, and, as it were, reduced to commenta- ries the things spoken by his master. But the ideas are admirable, and not inferior to the ackno^vledged writings of the apostle." Again, speaking of an appar- ent discrepancy between John and Matthew, Origen says, " I believe it to be impossible for those who upon this subject direct attention merely to the external his- tory, to prove that this apparent contradiction can be reconciled" (Origen, in Johann. i, 183).