causes. For example, how could Mr. Fletcher have constructed this great argument, which he could not consider beneath God's providential notice, but for the very trivialities which he thinks God could not condescend to decree; that (4) since a man can know and determine a multitude of little things without diminishing his greatness, it is irrational to set any limit to God in this respect; and that (5) we are not obliged to suppose that God bestows equal thought on things both great and small-only sufficient thought to all.

There may be other arguments, equally convincing; but the only point I now insist on is, that this mode of reasoning by analyzing into frivolous details is unsound. It addresses the imagination, instead of the reason, and seeks to gain a point by confusing the mind instead of enlightening it. There is not a fact of history nor a truth of science that cannot be assailed in this way.

This Article is perhaps too heterogeneous to admit of any one general conclusion; the study of this topic certainly impresses one with the great need of common sense in theology. If the writer of this has violated it, then he must be content to have unwittingly strengthened the same conclusion, and to stand humbly at the foot of a very long and respectable class.

ARTICLE III.

REVELATION AND INSPIRATION.

BY REV. E. P. BARROWS, D.D., LATELY PROFESSOR OF HEBREW LITERATURE IN ANDOVER THEOLOGICAL SEMINARY.

No. X.

INSPIRATION CONSIDERED IN ITS MODE.

It was shown in the preceding article that the end which the inspiration of the record has in view is that of giving to men, under the sanction of divine authority, a sure rule of faith and practice; and that this end is accomplished in the writings of the New Testament (to which the present inquiry has special reference), they coming to us with the two attributes of infallibility and sufficiency, both of which are included in their divine authority. The reader may naturally ask: Why, then, pursue the investigation any further? If the scriptures come to us with the sanction of divine authority, and contain an infallible rule of faith and practice, what more do we need? We answer: Nothing more, if men would only be content to rest here. But they are not thus content. From the consideration of the end of inspiration they have proceeded to that of its mode. They have propounded untenable theories concerning it; and some of them have identified with these theories the very essence of inspiration, denouncing in unmeasured terms those who dissent from their conclusions. It becomes necessary, therefore, to inquire, in a reverential spirit, what light we have from scripture, from the constitution of the human mind, and from the nature of language, respecting the mode of the Spirit's operation when "holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost," or wrote under a like guidance for the instruction of the church in all coming ages.

Different Forms of Revelation.

We begin with the distinction already noticed in a cursory way,1 between that form of revelation which is purely outward (objective), and that which is wholly inward (subjec tive); between which lie some forms of an intermediate character. The purely objective form, addressed to men through the medium of their outward senses, they being awake and their minds in a normal state, is manifestly the very highest mode of revelation. A notable example of this we have in the giving of the law from Mount Sinai. "All the people," we are told, "saw the thunderings and the lightnings, and the noise of the trumpet, and the mountain smoking."2 "These words," says Moses, "the Lord spake unto all your assembly in the mount, out of the midst of the fire, of the cloud, and of the thick darkness, with a great voice." 3 Such also was the entire revelation made to men by Jesus Christ. He was more than a prophet speaking by inspiration of God. He was himself God clothed with humanity, and speaking to men through this humanity. It is true that his human nature was the recipient of the Holy Ghost, given to him without measure; but it is no less true that he, as the eternal Son of God, is, in conjunction with the Father, the divine Sender, and not merely the receiver, of the Spirit.5 His communications of truth to men are never prefaced with the words: "Thus saith the Lord," but always with his own authority-"Verily, verily, I say unto you." They are therefore eminently objective in their form.

It is to be understood, of course, that such purely outward revelations might be accompanied by the inward operation of the Divine Spirit on the hearts of the hearers, a condition indispensable, indeed, to their saving efficacy. To

1 See Bibliotheca Sacra, Vol. xxiv. pp. 596, 597.

2 Ex. xx. 18.

8 Deut. v. 22.

Matt. iii. 16; Mark i. 10-12; Luke iii. 22; iv. 1; John iii. 34; Acts x. 38. 5 Luke xxiv. 49; John xv. 26; xvi. 7; xx. 22.

such an inward operation Moses alludes, in a mournful tone, when he says: "Ye have seen all that the Lord did before your eyes in the land of Egypt, unto Pharaoh, and unto all his servants, and unto all his land; the great temptations which thine eyes have seen, the signs and those great miracles" - here we have, in part, the outward revelation; "yet the Lord hath not given you," he adds, " a heart to perceive, and eyes to see, and ears to hear, unto this day"—a thing to be accomplished by the inward work of the Spirit in the hearts of those who had witnessed all these outward signs. So, again, when the Saviour says to Peter: "Blessed art thou, Simon Bar-jona; for flesh and blood hath not revealed it unto thee, but my Father, who is in heaven," he refers, here as he does elsewhere, to the inward illumination of the Spirit, common to all believers, and which should be carefully distinguished from inspiration in the proper sense of the word.4 This inward operation, however necessary and precious, is not itself the revelation, but rather the application of the revelation to the souls of those to whom it is made. The revelation itself, in the form which we are now considering, is purely objective; that is, addressed to the outward senses. It is not given by inspiration, though inspiration is necessary to make the record of it divinely authoritative.

At the other extreme, in respect to form, stand those revelations which are purely subjective-made inwardly to the mind of the recipient, and not outwardly through the medium of the senses. We give two examples, one from the Old Testament, the other from the New. When Gehazi, Elisha's servant, ran after Naaman's chariot, and obtained from him by falsehood two talents of silver, and two changes of raiment, the prophet received from God an inward knowledge of the whole transaction. "Went not my heart with thee," says he to Gehazi, "when the man turned again from

1 Deut. xxix. 2-4.

3 Matt. xi. 25-27; John vi. 44, 45–65.

* See Bibliotheca Sacra, Vol. xxiv. pp. 595, 596.

2 Matt. xvi, 17.

his chariot to meet thee?" When, again," Ananias, with Sapphira his wife, sold a possession, and kept back part of the price, his wife also being privy to it, and brought a certain part, and laid it at the apostles' feet," Peter knew by an inward revelation of the Spirit the falsehood and hypocrisy of the transaction. "Ananias," said he, "why hath Satan filled thine heart to lie to the Holy Ghost, and to keep back part of the price of the land?"2 In these two instances the knowledge seems to have been given by a sort of supernatural intuition, without the help of any inward vision or voice addressed to the internal sense. How the knowledge thus received was certified to the recipients as coming from God it would be vain to inquire. Equally vain would be the attempt to disprove the possibility of such a certification. It must be assumed as an axiom of revealed religion that God could and did reveal his presence to the consciousness of the prophets in such a way as to remove all doubt as to the reality of the revelation received by them.3

Intermediate between the two forms of revelation that have been considered—the purely outward and objective, and the immediate inward intuition there are several others. Thus we have the record of visions in dreams and in trance, with and without the accompaniment of spoken words; voices from heaven and from the inner sanctuary of the tabernacle; appearances of angels; and the like. In respect to some of these it would be difficult to determine whether they are to be regarded as objective or subjective. Nor is the question one of importance, since, either way, the end proposed was the communication of divine truth.

Proper Application of the Term Inspiration.

The term inspiration does not once occur in the Bible, and the adjective inspired of God (OcóπVEVOTOS) appears only once. But the idea expressed by these terms is found abundantly in both the Old and the New Testament. In theological usage they have become household words, be1 2 Kings v. 20-27. * See Appendix, Note A.

2 Acts v. 1-3.