of his living creatures by a boundless diversity of means adapted to their different natures, instincts, and circumstances; and if he beautifies and blesses his creation by objects, varied beyond all computation, calculated to gratify the eye and the ear, with every other organ and capacity-why should it seem incredible that the same all-wise Being, having condescended to impart a distinct revelation of his will to mankind, and to address them by precept upon precept and line upon line, is pleased, in the repetition of his precepts, to make use of diversified yet consistent expressions, adapted to that love of variety which is an original principle in the nature he has given us? The necessity of entire accuracy of language in any important communication was formerly urged, as an argument for the inspiration of words, as well as sentiments, in a volume destined to be an infallible and perpetual rule of faith and prac tice. In full consistency with the reasoning then employed, it is now affirmed that the Spirit of God can clothe the same interesting truths in a great variety of dresses, that are all equally decorous, and equally conducive to his gracious purpose. The remarks suggested in our answer to the objection grounded on the diversity of style and manner obvious in the sacred books, appear to supersede those general observations which might otherwise have been here introduced. It may suffice to advert briefly to a few examples of the variations alleged. Even Moses has not escaped animadversion for detailing the same things in different terms. Some have represented the first and second chapters of Genesis, so far as they relate to the creation of man, as inconsistent with each other. Yet the whole matter is, that, in the first chapter, the inspired historian gives a general account of the creation of heaven and earth, including the formation of man on the sixth day; and, in the second chapter, proceeds to lay before his readers a more circumstantial account of the making of the first human pair. Neither the supplementary particulars related, nor the new expressions employed, can justify the charge of discordant statements. In the book of Deuteronomy, wherein Moses recites the principal events of the history, and rehearses the laws and institutions, recorded at large in the three preceding books of Exodus, Leviticus, and Numbers, we often find a beautiful variety of language, but no real contradiction. GROTIUS* adverts to "the obvious changing of the words" in many * As quoted in Five Letters concerning Inspiration, pp. 17–19. places, as in Exod. xxxii. 11-13, compared with Deut. ix. 26-29, where we have the earnest intercession of Moses with God on behalf of the Israelites, after they had incurred his displeasure by worshipping the golden calf. But while the words are somewhat changed, the sentiments are substantially the same; and is it not reasonable to conclude that, on this interesting occasion, "the man of God" actually made use of the appropriate expressions recorded both in Exodus and in Deuteronomy. 66 The passage in the Mosaic writings, however, chiefly commented on, in this view, by Grotius and other like-minded critics, is the Decalogue. They specify a number of verbal variations betwixt the Ten Commandments as contained in Exodus xx. and repeated in Deuteronomy v., especially in the Fourth Commandment. In Exodus, it is said," Remember the Sabbath-day to keep it holy;" in Deuteronomy, Keep the Sabbath-day to sanctify it, as the Lord thy God hath commanded thee." In the one we read-" nor thy cattle;" in the other "nor thine ox, nor thine ass, nor any of thy cattle." In Exodus, the reason assigned for keeping the Sabbath is the Lord's creating the world in six days, and resting on the seventh, without any express notice of the deliverance from Egypt; in Deuteronomy, no mention is made of the creation, and the reason stated for the observance of the Sabbath is God's bringing Israel from Egypt by "a mighty hand, and by a stretched out arm." All these varieties, nevertheless, involve no contradiction. In Exodus, Moses, we may conceive, records the Decalogue in the precise terms, the ipsissima verba, in which it was published on Mount Sinai, and engraven on two tables of stone. In Deuteronomy, though, when by divine inspiration, repeating that law, he changes a few words, he does not alter the sense. Nor, while he now gives a prominent place to their rescue from Egyptian servitude as a special motive to the sanctification of the Sabbath, does this intimate either that the original motive from creation was henceforth to be forgotten, or that the fresh inducement to this duty, arising from their recent redemption from a state of abject slavery, was not presented to their minds at Sinai, where, at the promulgation of the law, the words uttered as prefatory to all and each of the Ten Commands were these, "I am the Lord thy God, which have brought thee out of the land of Egypt, out of the house of bondage." Whatever considerations we prefer as best fitted to harmonize these two editions (if we may so call them) of the Decalogue, we have every ground to conclude, that the thousands of Israel, who heard the Ten Commandments, both as first delivered from the top of the mount, and as rehearsed by Moses shortly before his death, neither perceived the least dissonance betwixt them, nor ever once suspected that the words in which that holy man addressed them at the close of his career, were not dictated to him by the Holy Spirit. 66 Passing over similar examples in the succeeding Old Testament writers, the variations in the New Testament may, from the great difficulties apparently attending them, seem entitled to particular notice. Yet in all those obnoxious variations, we see nothing which, to the eye of an unprejudiced and candid mind, does not seem calculated, on careful inquiry, rather to confirm than to invalidate the principle of Verbal Inspiration. It is truly strange that a man of piety, learning, and good sense, should have expressed himself in the following terms: In two or three of the Evangelists, we often find the same discourse or sentence of our Lord expressed by each in different words, though with precisely the same sense. If, then, we demand a verbal inspiration in any one of these cases, we destroy the possibility of it with respect to the correspondent passage." The futility of this arguing is clearly shown by an author, repeatedly quoted before.* That intelligent writer observes, that, "In relating the same event on several occasions, a narrator may each time use different phraseology; but if his accounts substantially agree, no man will ever charge him with falsehood. A man, even on his oath, being several times called on to relate a fact, will never be found fault with so long as his accounts substantially agree. To attempt exactly the same phraseology would rather look suspicious."-"Why," adds he, " should a perfect identity of words be at all aimed at? If the variety of expression in relating the same thing in the Gospels would not affect the truth of the narration, on the supposition that the writers were uninspired men, why should it be thought improper for the Holy Spirit to make use of that variety?"-" It is a hypercritical fastidiousness that demands from God an identity of expression in narration, whic truth never demanded from man."-" The assertion with respect to possibility, takes it for granted that variety is contradiction. It is evident also, that he looks on variety of expression, in relating the same thing, as morally faulty, though not in a degree that deserves notice as respects man.' The variety that occurs in the Four Evangelists often ad* Carson on Theories of Inspiration, pp. 112-117. mits of an easy explanation. Those writers who found an exception against Plenary Inspiration, on the manner in which the Old Testament Scriptures are quoted, argue that the same passages are variously cited by the different Evangelists, contracted by one, and enlarged by another. Sufficient reasons, however, may be assigned for this diversity. Luke, for ex ample, when quoting, in his third chapter, from the fortieth of Isaiah, cites no fewer than three verses of that Prophet, concluding with the words, "All flesh shall see the salvation of God;"* while Matthew and Mark quote only one of these verses. Now it must be remarked, that Luke wrote immediately for the benefit of the Gentiles, and that his ample quotation was calculated to afford them the cheering assurance, that Gentiles as well as Jews were to share the privileges of that new dispensation of grace, which was announced by the Baptist. Again, Mark and Luke but slightly allude to a passage in Isaiah relative to the spiritual judgments in reserve for unbelieving Jews; while Matthew and Paul, on the contrary, produce the quotation at full length.§ The difference, however, is easily accounted for, by noticing that it was the immediate design of Matthew and of Paul to administer admonition and reproof to the Jews. It is very possible to specify a probable reason for many other variations that occur in the writings of the Evangelists. It was not at random, but on good grounds, and under the impulse of a full inspiration, that they severally omit some facts and expressions, and insert others. Luke, for instance, in his record of Christ's prophetical discourse relating to the destruction of Jerusalem, omits a number of sentences correspondent to certain verses in Matthew and Mark's accounts of that discourse; but similar sentences had previously occurred in our Lord's exhortations, as rehearsed by Luke in his twelfth and seventeenth chapters. That distinguished prophecy, too, we may observe, is entirely omitted by John, and very properly omitted; for not only was it fully reported by the three preceding Evangelists, but as John wrote his Gospel after the fall of Jerusalem, his silence precludes the allegation which the enemies of Christianity might have been apt to throw out, that * Luke iii. 4, 5, 6, compared with Is. xl. 3, 4, 5. Mat. iii. 3-Mark i. 3. Mark iv. 12-Luke viii. 10. § Mat. xiii. 14, 15-Acts. xxviii. 26, 27. Luke xxi. compared with Mat. xxiv. 36-51-Mark xiii, 32-37, his prophecy was formed after the event had happened. John, on the other side, records at length many spiritual and sublime discourses of our Saviour, which do not appear in any of the foregoing Gospels; and which signally tended, not merely to promote the comfort and edification of every Christian reader, but to establish the peculiar doctrines of Christianity in opposition to certain dangerous errors that, at the time of his writing, had begun to infest the church. With regard to seeming contradictions observed in the New Testament, whether in reference to facts or doctrines, an attempt to discuss them in detail would carry us far beyond the bounds of this little work. The discussion, too, perhaps, instead of directly pertaining to the subject of this Essay, falls rather within the province of writers on the authority of Scripture. Let the slight notice, therefore, of the harmony of the sacred penmen, formerly given,* be considered sufficient here; and let individuals who are desirous of minute information on the subject, avail themselves of those valuable publications in which difficulties of that description are amply and satisfactorily solved.† Meanwhile, let the following remark made by Mr Fuller, when describing the singular characteristics of the inspired writers a remark similar to one of Chrysostom's, referred to before-produce its proper impression on our minds: 66 They discover no anxiety to guard against seeming inconsistencies, either with themselves or one another. In works of imposture, especially where a number of persons are concerned, there is need of great care and caution, lest one part should contradict another; and such caution is easily perceived. But the sacred writers appear to have had no such concern about them. Conscious that all they wrote was true, they left it to prove its own consistency. Their productions possess consistency; but it is not a studied one, nor always apparent at first sight: it is that consistency which is certain to accompany truth."§ We have now replied to every objection we have seen against Verbal Inspiration, that appears to have any weight. Pages 456-458. † Dr Dick's Essay on Inspiration, ch. vii. § 4.-Horne's Introd. vol. i. Append. No. iii. pp. 529–597. Page 458. Gospel its own Witness, part ii. ch. 3. pp. 161, 162. |