It seems right also to insert the following expressions in a declaration on this head, contained in a Testimony in behalf of divine truth, emitted by a Scottish Synod, consisting of upwards of three hundred ministers :"We oppose as hostile to the just claims of the Scriptures, the opinion that the sacred writers were not fully inspired that their inspiration extends only to the matter of their writings, not to the words." Unless the words can be depended upon as infallibly conveying the mind of the Spirit, the matter of Revelation must be quite undetermined; and to have left us to this uncertainty, would neither have been worthy of the goodness of God, which disposed him to grant such a communication to men, nor of his wisdom, which always selects adequate means for accomplishing his purposes."-Testimony of the United Associate Synod, Part ii. ch. 1, § 4. Whatever ridicule, then, some may have ventured to pour forth on the Verbal Inspiration of the Scriptures, it sufficiently appears, that this doctrine is neither novel, nor universally forsaken. It has been embraced, if not by the majority, at least by a considerable proportion of eminent Christian writers, both ancient and modern. It is still maintained, we trust, by many of the clergy, as well as by the generality of the truly Christian people.

Impartiality, however, requires us to mention some of the many distinguished writers, who have held an opposite opinion.

Even JEROME, that celebrated Father, seems to have denied the inspiration of the words of Scripture. This at least has been plausibly inferred from some expressions he uses in his Commentary on the book of Amos; particularly from the following sentence, which occurs in his Preface to that Commentary:-" The prophet Amos was skilled in knowledge, not in language; for the same Holy Spirit spoke in him that spoke by all the Prophets.

AGOBARD, Archbishop of Lyons, in the ninth century, whom Mosheim eulogizes as "a man of wisdom and prudence, and far from being destitute of literary merit," contended in a controversial Tract, "that it is absurd to suppose that the Holy Spirit inspired the terms and words"-Quoted by Pictet, La Theologie Chretienne, tom. i. p. 86.

LUTHER, BEZA, and SALMASIUS, considered Inspiration as extending only to ideas. See a Note by Marsh on Michaelis, vol. i. ch. 3, § 1.

PICTET decidedly expresses the same opinion. "It is not necessary," says that able divine, "to suppose that the Spirit of God always dictated to the Prophets and Apostles all the words which they employed, and that he taught them every thing they wrote. It is sufficient that they wrote nothing but by the immediate direction of the Spirit of God, so that the Spirit never permitted them to err in that which they wrote."

HUET, Bishop of Avranche, in the seventeenth century, affirms, in his work entitled Demonstratio Evangelica. "that the things are to be attributed to the Holy Spirit, but the words and the language to the Prophets."

The celebrated RICHARD BAXTER admits that "there is something human in the method and phrase, which is not so immediately divine as the doctrine."-Saints' Everlasting Rest, 4to ed. London, p. 211.

The excellent MATTHEW HENRY, speaking of the sacred writers, uses the following very moderate terms:-"No doubt, as far as was necessary to the end designed, they were directed by the Spirit, even in the lan

* Il n'est pas necessaire de suposer que 1 Esprit de Dieu a toujours dieté aux Prophets et aux Apotres tous les mots dont ils se sont servis, et qui leur a apris tout ce qu'ils ecrivoient. Il sufit qu ils n'ont rien cerit, que par la direction immediate de l'Esprit de Dieu, en sorte que cet Esprit n'a jamais permis, qu'ils ayent erré dans ce qu'ils ont ecrit.-LA Theol. Chret, tome i. p. 85.

guage and expression: For there were words which the Holy Ghost taught (1 Cor. ii. 13), and God saith to the Prophet, Thou shalt speak with my words (Ezek. iii. 4). However, it is not material to us, who drew up the statutes, nor what liberty he took in using his own words. When it is ratified, it becomes the legislator's act, and binds the subjects to observe the true interest and meaning of it."—Exposition of the Old and New Testament, Preface to vol. i. p. iv.

The inspiration of the words of Scripture is of course denied by all those writers who reject the doctrine of Plenary Inspiration. It does not surprise us, for example, to find Mr PARRY, in a passage of his Tract on this topic, quoted with approbation by Bishop TOMLINE, delivering his opinion as follows:-" With respect to the choice of words in which they wrote, I know not but they might be left to the free and rational exercise of their own minds, to express themselves in the manner that was natural and familiar to them, while at the same time they were preserved from error in the ideas they conveyed."— Tomline's Elements of Christian Theology, vol. i. p. 292.

Yet some authors who professedly hold Plenary or complete Inspiration, admit that a great proportion of the words of Scripture were uninspired. Dr DODDRIDGE allows the inspiration of the words in those portions of holy writ which he attributes to the inspiration of Suggestion; but in those passages that were written even by a full inspiration of Superintendency, he considers the writer as left to the choice of his own words, phrases, and manner."-Family Expositor, vol. iii. p. 418.-Dissertation on the Inspiration of the New Testament.

Dr DWIGHT, so far as we observe, does not expressly admit complete Verbal Inspiration; but he makes a near approach to this doctrine. In a passage, where he explains his views of the inspiration of the Apostles, he represents it as including, with others, "the following things:""That those things which they had once known, and which were parts of the Christian dispensation, were, by divine power, brought distinctly and fully to their remembrance-That they were directed by the Holy Spirit to the selection of just such things, and such only, and to precisely such a manner of exhibiting them, as should be true, just, most useful to mankind, and most agreeable to the Divine wisdom-That each one was left so far to his own manner of writing, or speaking, as that the style was strictly his own; and yet that the phraseology used by him, in this very style, was so directed and controlled by the Holy Spirit, as to lead him to the most exact and useful exhibition of divine truth; his own words being, in this important sense, words not devised by human wisdom, but taught by the Holy Ghost."-System of Theology, vol. i. ser. 49, p. 399.

The only other writer on this interesting topic we shall here particularly notice, is the late Dr DICK, whose views on the Verbal Inspiration of the Scriptures seem, in his advanced years, to have become somewhat less strict than they had been at an earlier period of his life. In the first edition of his Essay on the Inspiration of the Holy Scriptures, published in the year 1800, pages 9-25, whilst he maintains the hypothesis of dif ferent kinds of inspiration, he not only holds "Plenary Inspiration," and represents the sacred penmen as "constantly under infallible guidance," but reasons warmly in support of the inspiration of the language; and that not only in "those passages of Scripture which were written by revelation," but "in other passages of Scripture, those not excepted in which the writers relate such things as had fallen within the compass of their own knowledge." No reserve or exception whatever is stated. In the third edition of the same excellent Essay, however, which appeared in

1813, and in his Lectures on Theology, published since his lamented decease, this learned and worthy Professor adopts more qualified terms in reference to the last of these points. Instead of calling it, as at the first, a question" of very great importance," he now says, "there remains a question which has engaged a considerable share of attention, whether Inspiration is to be understood as extending to the language, as well as to the sentiment?"-" In answering this question," he continues, “it is necessary to distinguish one part of Scripture from another. In those parts which are delivered in the name of God; which are commands, messages, and communications from Him, we cannot suppose that the writers were left to choose their own words, but are necessarily led to conceive them to have adhered with equal strictness to the words as to the thoughts." "With regard to other parts of Scripture, consisting of histories, of moral reflections, and devotional pieces, I would not contend for the inspiration of the language in the same sense. It is reasonable to believe that the writers were permitted to exercise their own faculties to a certain extent, and to express themselves in their natural manner.""It must be granted, that even in relating what they knew, what they had seen, what they had learned from the testimony of others, the sacred writers were assisted, although we should concede only that occasionally a more proper word or expression was suggested to them than would have occurred to themselves; and consequently, the style was not strictly their own, but was a style corrected and improved, and different from what they would have spontaneously used."--Lectures on Theology, vol. i. pp. 203, 204.

For what purpose, the reader may now ask, are these short notices collected of the discordant opinions held by different Christian writers on this contested point? The object, we reply, is not merely to gratify curiosity; far less is it to determine the question by human authority, or, as it is expressed in the text, "by comparing the numbers, the talents, or the virtues of the opposing parties, to form a probable conjecture on which side the scale preponderates." We cordially adopt the sentiment, that " on such a subject no authority, except that of the Scriptures, is admissible." We are not ashamed, however, to avow our conviction, that these notices are calculated to teach us a useful lesson of Christian candour and charity, and to restrain the overflowings of excessive zeal.

To contend earnestly for the complete inspiration of all the Canonical Books of the Old and New Testaments, is our imperative duty; yet to assert the impossibility of the salvation of every one who questions the divine origin of some particular book or books of Scripture, or who erroneously imagines that some parts of these sacred books are not fully inspired, would be rash and unwarrantable. Luther himself, as we have seen, refused for some time to admit the inspiration of the Epistle of James; and that of the Apocalypse was questioned, not only by Luther, but by Gregory of Nyssa, and some other fathers. RICHARD BAXTER, and many other popular divines, have expressly allowed that it is possible for men to obtain salvation by faith in Christ, who, from ignorance or prejudice, are not prepared to recognise the inspiration of several Canonical books. Even CARSON, notwithstanding the sharpness with which he criticises unscriptural Theories of Inspiration, expresses his Christian regard for the authors of these theories in the following terms:

"Yet while I spare not errors, my love to those in error is not abated. My brotherhood extends to the whole household of God. While I labour to unfold truth, I presume not to dictate; and though a Christian should reject

every thing which I hold, but the way of salvation through faith in the righteousness of the Son of God, I will receive him as, I trust, God for Christ's sake has received me."-Theories of Inspiration, &c. pp. 221,

222.

Whilst, on solid grounds, we reject gratuitous distinctions, and whilst we justly maintain the uniform inspiration of the words as well as sentiments of Scripture, it is possible to treat excellent individuals who differ from us on these important points in a manner that cannot be justified. To castigate with unmeasured severity able and faithful ministers of the New Testament, whose views of inspiration are not more lax than were those expressed by Matthew Henry, Dr Calamy (Sermons on Inspiration, p. 42), the Rev. Benjamin Bennet (Discourses on Inspiration, p. 16), and many other eminent servants of Christ in former times, seems equally repugnant to the dictates of reason and the law of Christ.

It would be foolish to dissemble that we here allude to the treatment Dr Dick has met with, in the small volume on Theories of Inspiration just quoted. We do regret that the Doctor did not retain to the last the same unqualified views of Verbal Inspiration, which he appears to have originally held. We sincerely wish he had seen cause to relinquish his theory, regarding different kinds and degrees of inspiration. Some of his expressions we dare not justify; yet, in our apprehension, his meaning has, in several instances, been greatly, though we trust unintentionally, misrepresented; and without question, he has been censured with an asperity, from which his talents and character, and his valuable services to the cause of religion, should have served to protect him. Though Mr Carson concedes that Dr Dick is "not chargeable to the same extent with any of those" authors whom he had previously reviewed, he proceeds to criticise his Essay with unmerited rigour. The respect and gratitude we sincerely feel for this writer, as a minister of the Gospel who has thrown considerable light on the subject of Inspiration, only dispose us the more deeply to regret that extraordinary bitterness which is mingled with the laudable zeal that characterises his strictures. Had he treated all the writers whose theories he reviews in a more gentle and Christian style, he would assuredly have performed a much more valuable and effectual service to the cause of truth.

E, p. 480. With reference to the testimony of the Scriptures regarding their own inspiration, Dr Dick, in his Lectures on Theology, has stated his views in the following terms:-" It is not, however, by reasoning, the solidity of which might be disputed, that we prove the inspiration of the Scriptures. We appeal to their own testimony, and might produce many passages in which it is explicitly asserted or plainly implied. I shall quote the words of Paul, in the Second Epistle to Timothy, because whatever attempts some critics have made to evade their force, they convey distinct information to those who are candidly disposed to receive it :- All Scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness,' (2 Tim. iii. 16).". Lecture xi. vol. i. p. 188. In his Essay on Inspiration, he had previously made the following remark, at which a certain writer has expressed his surprise and displeasure:-" Paul affirms in the Second Epistle to Timothy, that all Scripture is given by inspiration of God;' but every person must be sensible that this assertion is not in itself a sufficient ground for believing the inspiration of the writings to which he refers." Yet these two passages, candidly interpreted, are not inconsistent with each other. In the latter, Dr Dick obviously means that the mere affirmation of Paul

See Note E.

respecting the inspiration of the Scriptures was insufficient to establish the doctrine, unless their divine origin, or Paul's apostolic commission, were confirmed by satisfactory evidence; whilst in the former passage he teaches that, supposing the authenticity of the Scriptures to be first established, their own testimony affords the most incontestable proof of their inspiration. It was quite unnecessary, therefore, for Mr Carson (Theories of Inspiration, &c. p. 216) to catechize the Doctor in this manner:-" And what other ground can you have, Dr Dick, for believing inspiration? Is not the authority of Paul as fully able to establish inspiration, as to establish the doctrine of the Trinity?" The Lectures containing the passage first quoted had not, indeed, been given to the world at the time he was thus tartly questioned; but, nevertheless, a more fair and liberal interpretation ought certainly to have been put upon the sentence extracted from the Essay. This, then, is one instance which goes to warrant the complaint of misrepresentation preferred in the preceding Note.

F, p. 485. Dr Owen has several just and apposite remarks on 2 Pet. i. 20, 21, from which we make the following extracts:

66

Some think that ἐπιλύσεως is put for επηλύσεως or ἐπηλυσιας, which, according to Hesychius, denotes afflation, inspiration, conception within; so Calvin. Camero contends for the retaining of inves; and justly. But yet, says Camero, invis is such a resolution and interpretation as is made by revelation.

66

Γίνεται, or ὀν γινεται, relates here to προφητεια γραφης (prophecy of Scripture); and denotes the first giving out of its words, not an after consideration of its sense and meaning. And without this sense, it stands in no coherence with, nor opposition to, the following sentence, which, by its casual connection with this, manifests that it renders a reason for what is herein affirmed in the first place; and in the latter, turning with the adversative anλa (but) an opposition unto it :- For prophecy came not at any time by the will of man, but holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost.' What reason is in the first part of this verse, why the Scripture is not of our private interpretation? or what opposition in the latter to that assertion? Nay, on that supposal, there is no tolerable correspondency of discourse in the whole gox (period or sentence). But take the word to express the coming of the prophecy to the prophets themselves, and the sense is full and clear.

66 6

Holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost.' When the word was thus brought to them, it was not left to their understandings, wisdoms, minds, memories, to order, dispose, and give it out; but they were borne, acted, carried out by the Holy Ghost, to speak, deliver, and write, all that, and nothing but that, to every tittle, that was so brought to them. They invented not words themselves, suited to the things they had learned; but only expressed the words that they received. Though their mind and understanding were used in the choice of words, whence arises all the difference that is in the manner of expression; yet they were so guided that their words were not their own, but immediately supplied unto them; and so they give out the writing of uprightness, and words of truth itself, Eccles. xii. 10. Not only the doctrine they taught was the word of truth, truth itself, John xvii. 17, but the words whereby they taught it, were words of truth from God himself. Every apex of the written word is equally divine, and as immediately from God as the voice wherewith or whereby the Lord spoke to or in the prophets, and is therefore accompanied with the same authority in itself, and unto us."-The Divine Original, Authority, and Self-evidencing Light and Power of the Scriptures, pp. 19-22, 25-27.