such a sense that if a certain thought be given, it must necessarily be given in a certain form of words, and no other. Language is rather an outline-system of signs for indicating thought, in which, oftentimes, various expedients may be employed to accomplish the same end. In proof of this, we need only refer to the well-known fact that several different translators of equal ability, in rendering into one and the same language a passage equally well understood by all of them, will not necessarily use the same turns of expression any more than the same words. And if this is true of several different translators, how much more of several independent narrators, who all give, with equal clearness and fidelity, an account of the same transaction? If it be said that every variation in the words or turn of expression implies a like variation in the thought, the answer is, that in many cases the variation respects only the mode of indicating the thought, and not the thought itself. Our Saviour says, according to Luke's narrative: "There was a certain rich man, and he was clothed (kaì évedidúoketo) in purple and fine linen, enjoying himself day by day splendidly" (εὐφραινόμενος καθ ̓ ἡμέραν λαμπρῶς). Suppose, now, he had said: "There was a certain rich man, who was clothed (ôs évedidúoketo) in purple and fine linen, and enjoyed himself (kal evopaivero) day by day splendidly," what would have been the difference? About the same as the difference between receiving a check for a thousand dollars in a white or a brown envelope. The questions respecting the solvency of the drawer and the genuineness of the signature are of primary importance; but the form and color of the envelope are of little account.

5. The end which the Holy Ghost proposes to accomplish by inspiration, namely, the revelation to men of an infallible rule of faith and practice, is the main thing, not the particular method or methods by which it shall be accomplished. To limit him who made the human mind, and has immediate access to it in its first springs of thought and feeling, is an act of irreverence, and a needless act, too; for, if the revela

tion be made and recorded according to the mind of the Spirit, why insist upon the particular method as one of the essential things? The writer whose theory we are considering asks, if the words of scripture were in any case selected by men" if men's agency was in any degree exerted in their selection, how are they the exclusive and infallible words of God?" The answer is at hand: They were the infallible words of God, because they contained an infallible revelation from God, in a form agreeable to his will. And as to their being the exclusive words of God, that was not necessary, since his plan was to exert his agency through human agency. But the writer proceeds to say: "It is not a conclusive or satisfactory answer to this question to say that they were infallibly guided. For, supposing them to have been so guided, if the act of selecting the words was their act, then the words selected were their words." Well, supposing that the words selected were their words, what is the difference? They were the words of the Holy Spirit, too; for they contained an infallible revelation from him, in a form altogether agreeable to his will. What else was needed? Did not men thus receive the same saving truth as if he had spoken from heaven, or had pronounced the words of the revelation, syllable by syllable, in the ear of the speaker or writer? The error here consists in magnifying the mode of the revelation above its contents. It is bringing into the sphere of inspiration the spirit of formalism; for the essence of formalism consists in the undue exaltation of the outward mode, by which men's thoughts and interest are diverted from the essential to the non-essential.

The bearing of the above principles on the question of verbal inspiration is obvious. Let us apply them, first, to the case of new revelations received by inspiration of the Spirit. Many of these were given immediately in human language. In the case of the gift of tongues, the words seem to have been directly suggested by the Spirit. But we must remember that this gift belonged essentially to the

class of miracles. It was of the nature of a sign, designed not so much for instruction and edification, as for the conviction of unbelievers.1 It by no means follows that such direct verbal suggestion was the exclusive or common mode of inspiration. Revelations were often made in the form of images addressed to the internal sense, or of immediate inward illumination, or by a combination of these modes with language. Isaiah's vision of Jehovah enthroned in the temple will furnish a good illustration.2 He heard the words of the seraphim and of God himself, and these he has faithfully recorded. But what he saw was a part of the revelation, as well as what he heard. The seraph that applied to his lips a live coal from the altar explained to him the meaning of the transaction; but the transaction itself, with all the rest of the vision, was described by him from what he saw, not from words which he heard. He chose his own words, under the illumination of the Holy Ghost, so that in spirit, form, and matter they were agreeable to his will; and why need we go any further? God had endowed his servant with the capacity of describing clearly and faithfully what he saw, as well as what he heard. There can be no reasonable objection to supposing that the Spirit now made use of this endowment, not in vain show, but in reality; so that the prophet's words were properly his own, and at the same time the words of the Spirit, as containing the record of a revelation made by him which was in all respects according to his mind. As a second illustration, we may take Joseph's interpretation of Pharaoh's dreams. The dreams themselves contained a revelation from God; but their contents needed to be interpreted. So far as appears from the narrative, Joseph received from the Holy Spirit, the moment he heard the dreams, a divine illumination as to their meaning, which he proceeded to unfold in words which were as really his own as were Pharaoh's; only that Pharaoh spoke without, and he with, the illumination and guidance of the Spirit. 11 Cor. xiv. 22. See further in Appendix, Note B.

8 Gen. xli.

2 Isa. vi.

The words of Elisha to Gehazi: "Went not my heart with thee, when the man turned again from his chariot to meet thee,"1 imply that he received the knowledge of the transaction not by an inward suggestion of the Spirit in the form of language, but by an inward vision. The Spirit showed Elisha, not only what Gehazi had done, but how he ought to be treated; and under his illumination he addressed to his servant words which were properly his own, - chosen and arranged by himself, and, at the same time, the words of the Spirit in the sense above explained.

Let us consider, secondly, the very common case of emotions, purposes, etc., expressed by the sacred writers under the inspiration of the Holy Ghost. Here all are agreed that the inward exercises described belong, in the full and proper sense of the words, to the writers themselves, else they would want reality. Why, then, should they not be allowed to express them, each in his own way and manner? When the Psalmist, in the fulness of his soul, exclaims: "Oh, how love I thy law! it is my meditation all the day," there is no valid reason for denying that in the selection of these words "his agency was in any degree exerted," as if God, who had endowed him with the gift of speech, could not trust him to use it, even under his plenary illumination and guidance - as if the chief concern of the Holy Ghost were not that the right thing should be said in the right way, but that men should understand that he gave the writer the words in their exact order and number.

It remains to consider, thirdly, those sacred writings which are occupied mainly with the narratives of events previously known to the authors through the ordinary channels of knowledge. The inspiration of these, as has been shown in previous Articles, is included in the inspiration of the writers. We do not think it profitable to raise any abstract questions concerning the different degrees and modes of divine influence that were needed. That Paul might make to the Galatians a statement of his visits to Jerusalem and the dis1 2 Kings v. 26. 57

VOL. XXIX. No. 115.

cussions connected with them, it was obviously not necessary that he should receive the same kind and measure of help as when he unfolded to the Corinthians the doctrine of the resurrection. It is sufficient to say of him and the other inspired penmen, that whatever assistance each needed he received. If his judgment needed divine illumination for the selection of his materials, it was given. If he needed to be raised above narrowness and prejudice, or to have the meaning of the facts which he recorded unfolded to his understanding, and thus to the understanding of those for whom he wrote-in a word, whatever kind and measure of divine aid was needed, it was granted. Thus the historical books of scripture, not less than the others, being written under the illumination and guidance of the Holy Ghost, become a part of the infallible rule of faith and practice contained in the Bible; not less so than if God himself had spoken them from heaven, as he did the ten commandments.

Thus far we have considered the theory of verbal inspiration on the side of its alleged necessity. There are some objections to it, two of which will now be briefly noticed.

First, the objection from the diversity of style and manner in the writings of scripture has often been urged, and never fairly met. It is obvious to all that the peculiar genius of each author had full scope that he thought and wrote like himself as perfectly as if he had not been under the influence of God's Spirit. We may compare the books of the Bible to a grove consisting of different kinds of trees, all green and beautiful, but each unlike the rest in form and texture. Here is an oak standing by the side of a pine. The former is oak throughout-oak in the form and texture of its leaves, in its bark, in its wood, in its juices, in the form of its limbs, in the spread of its roots; and, just so, its neighbor is pine throughout. To apply the figure: The Epistles of Paul are throughout Pauline - Pauline in the choice and collocation of the words, in the structure and connection of the sentences, in the shape and course of the argument. He writes