BS480 ,C32 
 
 Carson, Alexander, 1776-1844. 
 Theories of inspiration of the Rev. Danie 
 Wilson, Rev. Dr. Pye Smith, and the Rev 
 
THE 
 
 THEORIES OF INSPIRATION 
 
 OF THE ■'' 
 
 Rev. DANIEL WILSON, 
 Rev. Dr PYE SMITH, 
 
 AND THE 
 
 Rev. Dr DICK, 
 
 PROVED TO BE ERRONEOUS; 
 
 WITH REMARKS 
 
 ON THE 
 
 CHRISTIAN OBSERVER, & ECLECTIC REVIEW. 
 
 ALEXANDERXARSON, A.M. 
 
 MINISTER OF THE GOSPEL. 
 
 POINTED FOR W. WHYTE AND CO. EDINBURGH 
 
 T. HAMILTON AND CO. LONDON ; 
 
 W. CARSON, DUBLIN. 
 
 1830. 
 
Printed bt/ James Colston^ East Rose Street, 
 Hanover Street, Edinburgh. 
 
^. 
 
 R E V I E W, &c. 
 
 Of all the subjects that have lately come under dis- 
 cussion among Christians, that of the inspiration of 
 the Holy Scriptures is doubtless the most important. 
 The honour of Revelation, the comfort and edifica- 
 tion of the believer, and the truth of the express 
 statements of the Scriptures themselves, demand our 
 belief that the Bible, as originally given, is divine 
 
 I\ EVERY WORD. 
 
 That they who deny the distinguishing doctrines 
 of Christianity, should be anxious to free them- 
 selves from- the incumbrance of the inspiration of 
 the records that contain it, or which comes to the 
 same thing, should modify the doctrine so as to 
 destroy it, while they retain the word, is very na- 
 tural. Accordingly, such writers, while they nomi- 
 nally acknowledge the inspiration of the Sacred Vo- 
 lume, have contrived to accompany the admission 
 with so many exceptions, to modify the theory into 
 such a variety of form?, and to load the subject with 
 
2 
 
 30 many distinctions, that with the utmost facility 
 they can make every obnoxious passage bend to 
 their purpose. 
 
 But that any real lover of the word of God, to 
 whom it is sweeter than honey from the comb, and 
 more precious than fine gold, and all the treasures 
 of the earth, should in any measure give countenance 
 to such profane and impious conduct, is most 
 deeply to be deplored. Surely this is a thing most 
 incongruous and inexcusable. Little, however, as 
 this could have been anticipated, a number of wri- 
 ters have appeared professing the most evangelical 
 sentiments, yet with a more than Socinian zeal, la- 
 bouring to lower the inspiration of the book of God. 
 Whether they are overawed by German neology, 
 and flatter themselves that by giving up a part, they 
 can more successfully retain the remainder j or whe- 
 ther they labour under such an obtuseness of intel- 
 lect as to be unable to penetrate the alleged difficul- 
 ties, and really to be convinced that the Scriptures 
 themselves require such modifications of their in- 
 spiration, I shall not pretend to determine. What- 
 ever may be the origin of such a sentiment, it is un- 
 called for by any of the phenomena of Scripture, 
 without foundation in the word of God itself, and 
 directly contrary to its most express statements. 
 
 The theory of Mr Wilson, as detailed in the 
 Xlllth of his Lectures on the Evidences of Chris- 
 tianity, is inw^ordsless shocking tban that some time 
 ago proposed by Dr. P. Smith, and the still more 
 shocking system of the Ecclectic Review. Warned 
 no doubt, by the reception of the extravagance of 
 
those writers, JMr W. has proceeded more cautious- 
 ly, and indeed has expressed himself so guardedly, 
 and with so little developencient of system, that it is 
 difficult to determine exactly what he means. 
 From his many full and explicit recognitions of in* 
 spiration, and from the want of detail or illustra- 
 tion in the exposition of the theory itself, it is dif- 
 ficult to convict him. We are rather obliged to 
 interpret his meaning as a consequence, than we 
 are enabled to refer to it in express statement. We 
 must bring one part to bear upon another, in order 
 to ascertain the extent of his doctrine. His theory 
 is, that the Scriptures are partly human and partly 
 divine : human in manner, divine in matter. The 
 making of the Bible then has been a partnership 
 business, in which God and man have had their 
 distinct provinces. It is both human and divine, 
 without mixture. Inspiration itself, he distinguishes, 
 with many other writers on this subject, into four 
 kinds or degrees, the inspiration of suggestion — of 
 direction — of elevation — of superintendency* 
 
 My first observation on this theory of distinct 
 divine and human parts in the Scriptures, is, that 
 it is not demanded by the facts or phenomena on 
 which he grounds its necessity. These phenomena 
 are summed up at page 499. " In order to collect 
 * the phenomena on the other side," says the au- 
 thor, " let us open the New Testament again." 
 Very well, Mr Wilson : this is without doubt the 
 only way to settle the controversy. Open then 
 the New Testament, and if it teaches your theory, 
 1 shall : ubmit to it with the most profound respect* 
 
What then have you found in the New Testament 
 to support your doctrine ? " We see," says the 
 author, " on the very face of the whole, that the 
 ' writers speak naturally, use the style, language, 
 ' manner of address famihar to them." Demon- 
 stration, surely demonstration 1 The writers of the 
 New Testament speak naturally, therefore their 
 writings are partly human ! So then in order to 
 have had the Scriptures solely divine, the writers 
 must have spoken unnaturally, or at least have 
 avoided their natural manner. Is it then impossi- 
 ble for God to speak through men in their natural 
 Manner, without making the communication partly 
 human ? Could he not use their style and manner 
 of address, as well as their mouth, or their pen, 
 while both matter and words were his own ? Even 
 in the use of the peculiar style of each writer, 
 there is inspiration. The writers are not left, as 
 Mr Wilson supposes, to use their own style ; it is 
 a part of the divine wisdom to use this style, and 
 the writers are as much under the influence of the 
 Spirit in this, as in their conception of the most 
 important doctrine. The Spirit of God uses the 
 varied style of the writers. The writers are not 
 left to themselves in this. The mould therefore 
 is as much divine as the matter. When God speaks 
 to man, he puts his thoughts and words into the 
 form which is natural to those through whom he 
 speaks. This serves many important purposes, of 
 which not the least important is, that it serves as 
 a touohstone to the dispositions of men with re- 
 gard to Revelation. They who hate the truths 
 
revealed, have, from this pecuHarity of inspiration, 
 a plausible pretence to deny inspiration altogether. 
 They find in the Scriptures a variety of style, ac- 
 cording to the number of the writers, and therefore 
 ascribe all to man. This peculiarity serves also a 
 valuable purpose with respect to Christians them- 
 selves. By affording a pretence for speculation? 
 and theories, it manifests the mournful fact, that 
 even they who have been enlightened in the sav- 
 ing truth, have, in many other things, a large pro- 
 portion of that worldly wisdom that savours not the 
 things that are of God, but the things that are of 
 men. 
 
 " There are," continues our author, *' pecuhar 
 
 * casts of talents, expression, modes of reasoning in 
 
 * each author." True, very true. Yet this does not 
 imply that there is one word in the whole volume, 
 as originally written, which is not God's. Is it not 
 God who has given to men this peculiarity of ta- 
 lents and modes of reasoning, and why could he 
 not employ these in communicating his word ? 
 
 " The language is that of the country and age 
 
 * where they Uve." How does this phenomenon 
 hear upon the theory ? " They employ all their fa- 
 
 * culties ; they search, examine, weigh, reason, as 
 
 * holy and sincere men, in such a cause, might be 
 
 * supposed to do." Well, and in all these, may they 
 not be inspired ? Is it not possible for the Holy 
 Spirit to convey his own thoughts, and his own words, 
 through the searching^ examining^ weighing, rea- 
 soning of a man, as easily as if he spoke through 
 a statue ? The only thing that surprises me in all 
 
6 
 
 this, is, that there should be any intellect to which 
 this peculiarity of inspiration should, upon due 
 consideration, present a difficulty on the suppo- 
 sition of the complete verbal inspiration of the 
 Scriptures. 
 
 ** I'hey use all their natural and acquired know- 
 
 * ledge/' They use their knowledge both natural 
 and acquired : But without doubt, they do not use 
 all their own knowledge, whether natural or ac- 
 quired. The Holy Spirit used as much of their 
 knowledge, both natural and acquired, as was to his 
 purpose. The natural and acquired knowledge of 
 the writers of the Scriptures, so far as it is commu- 
 nicated in the divine word, is stamped with the same 
 seal that impresses the discoveries of the character 
 of God. 1 accept them as being as truly divine, as 
 the gospel itself. ** Their memory furnishes them 
 
 * with facts, or the documents and authentic records of 
 
 * the time are consulted by them for information/* 
 Very true ; but they do not relate every fact that 
 they retained in their memory, or that they knew 
 from documents. Nor v^ere they left to their own 
 discretion, as to the facts to be related. The Holy 
 Spirit gave them their selection of facts, and the 
 words to record them. They were as truly inspired 
 in relating what they saw, or in copying a genealo- 
 gical table, if ever they copied one, as in revealing 
 the way of salvation. 
 
 " 1 hey plead with those to whom they are sent, 
 
 * they address the heart, they expostulate, they 
 "' warn, they invite." Is there any thing in all this, 
 
 inconsistent with the complete verbal inspiration of 
 
the Scriptures ? Does this icQfjly that the Scrip- 
 tures are partly human ? What is there to prevent 
 the behef, that i/iese pleadings, these addresses to 
 the heart, these expostulations, these warnings, 
 these invitations y are all inspired fully in matter and 
 words ? Was it impossible for the Holy Spirit to 
 convey his pleadings, his addresses to the heart, his 
 expostulations, his v^arnings, his invitations, by those 
 of the inspired writers ? What inconsistency is 
 there in supposing that the Holy Spirit would con- 
 vey bis own exhortations, in the words of an exhor- 
 tation from an apostle, as inspired by him ? The 
 only thing for which 1 am at a loss, is to conceive 
 how a difficulty can be felt in this matter. 
 
 ** The mind of man is working every where." 
 Very true ; the Holy Spirit speaks through man, 
 not as he did through Balaam's ass, or as he might 
 do through a statue, but as a rational instrument. 
 But in all this working of the mind of man, there is 
 nothing that is not truly God's. 
 
 " In the historical books, the Evangelists follow 
 
 * th^r own trains of recollection ; they relate inci- 
 ' dents as they observe them, or were reported to 
 ■* them." In whatever way they were put in pos- 
 session of the matter related, they relate every thing 
 as given them by the Holy Ghost. " In the devo- 
 
 * tional and epistolary books, again, natural talent, 
 
 * appropriate feelings and judgment, the peculiarities 
 
 * of the individual are manifest." Who ever doubted 
 this ? Such a peculiarity by no means implies that 
 such compositions are partly human. It is quite con- 
 sistent with the fact, that both matter and words are 
 from God. 
 
8 
 
 "Once more," says our author, " St Luke preserves 
 ' his characteristic manner in the gospel and the Acts; 
 ' St Paul is always the same ; St John may be known 
 ' in his several productions. Lastly, the prophetical 
 
 * parts are more elevated ; and yet breathe the spi- 
 ' rit, and retain the particular phraseology of the 
 
 * writers. These are the phenomena on the other 
 
 * side ; these are the parts of man." 
 
 Now that T might do the writer and my readers 
 justice, I have quoted every hne, and even every 
 word of the account of the second class of phenome- 
 na. And what is the whole but one fact, one phe- 
 nomenon, namely, that each of the inspired writeis 
 exhibits his own characteristic style and mode of 
 reasoning, and makes use of knowledge which could 
 have been possessed w^ithout inspiration ! This fact 
 might no doubt be illustrated, from Luke and Paul 
 and John, and by a thousand references. SdU it is 
 but one fact, and a fact by no means even apparent- 
 ly contradictory to the passages asserting full inspira- 
 tion. Mr Wilson then imposes on his careless reader, 
 when he gives to the illustration of one phenome- 
 non, the appearance of a collection of phenomena; 
 and he grossly misinterprets that part which exhibits 
 it as in any way contradictory to the entire inspira- 
 tion of the Scriptures. 
 
 My second olDservation is, that Mr Wilson's two 
 classes of phenomena, must either be reconciled on 
 ray plan, or they are not reconcilable at all. If there 
 is any thing in the Scriptures merely human, if man 
 has one part in such a sense that the same thing can- 
 not be ascribed to God, then such a part is not in- 
 
9 
 
 spired, and cannot in any sense be called God's word. 
 If the Bible is a book partly human and partly di- 
 vine, it cannot, as a whole, be the word of God, nor 
 be justly ascribed to him as its sole author. Accord- 
 ingly, if Mr VVilson's paradoxes are not explained 
 on the view which I have given, they are real con- 
 tradictions. " If every thing/' says he, "is divine, 
 * how is it that we see every thing human ?" Now, 
 how is it that this paradox can be explained as a 
 truth ? How is it that any thing in the word of God 
 can be said to be human ? Only in the sense of hav- 
 ing been written by man. But agreeable to the 
 theory that God and man has each his distinct part in 
 this composition, this paradox is a contradiction. If 
 man has a part solely his own in the composition of 
 the Bible, every thing in the Bible is not divine ; if 
 God has his part in this composition, every thing can- 
 not be human. The paradox must be harmonized 
 not by a thing that ascribes distinct parts to God, or 
 the writers in the composition of the book ; but by 
 supposing that the Bible being the word of God, 
 may in another point of view be ascribed to man as 
 the instrument. In this sense, the epistle to the Ro- 
 mans may be called Paul's epistle, while it is the 
 word of God in a higher sense ; such a mode of 
 speakingiscommonon all subjects. The king built 
 the palace, the architect built the palace, and the ma- 
 sons built the palace. In this obvious light, we are to 
 understand the passages that ascribe the different 
 parts of the book of God to the writers of them. But 
 this plain truth Mr Wilson has chosen to represent 
 
10 
 
 as a paradox, and a paradox that from liis explana- 
 tion of it, must be a real contradiction. " The books," 
 he says, " are human, and yet they are divine. — 
 * They are the word of God, and yet they are the 
 ' word of man." Now though in the above way, it is 
 possible to explain this paradox in a harmless sense, 
 yet that explanation is harsh, and not justified by the 
 Scripture phraseology in which an epistle is ascribed 
 to an Apostle. The latter mode of speaking is de- 
 manded by necessity, justified by use on every sub- 
 ject, and its meaning is obvious to a child. But the 
 above paradoxes are not of this description ; the books 
 of Scripture are never by the Scriptures called human, 
 they are never called the word ef man. To call 
 anything ^w»i«A2 as contradistinguished from divine^ 
 as in this instance, is to deny that it is divine ; to call 
 any thing the word of man as contradistinguished 
 from the word of God, is to deny that it is the word 
 of God. Mr Wilson's phraseology then is not only 
 paradoxical, butimproper, and not paralleled by any 
 instance of Scripture phraseology. However, as I 
 am fully convinced that the author had a harmless 
 meaning, I charge him with nothing more than an 
 impropriety of expression. But it is an impropriety 
 that should not be considered as trifling, for a just 
 explanation of it, according to the use of language, 
 must make it fully as shocking in him as it is in ap- 
 pearance. It is not to be justified on any principle 
 to call the word of God either a human work, or 
 the work of man. 
 
 But the support of his theory, will not suffer Mr 
 Wilson's paradoxes to shelter themselves under this 
 
11 
 
 mode of explanation. ** The books are divine, and 
 
 * yet they are human," — " they are the word of 
 
 * God, and yet the word of man." Now what are 
 the grounds on which he asserts this ? Not merely 
 that the book inspired by God, was written by man, 
 but that God and man are jointly the authors of this 
 book, each having a distinct share. Ifso, the books 
 are not all divine, nor all human ; but partly divine 
 and partly human, his theory then makes his para- 
 doxes a contradiction. 
 
 That what Mr Wilson calls his second class of 
 phenomena, must be considered in the light in which 
 I have represented them, is clear from his own ac- 
 count of them, when he is reconciling them with the 
 first class. When they are introduced to us for this 
 purpose, they have the most innocent face imagin- 
 able, without the smallest appearance of an impu- 
 dent intention to derogate from the honours of inspi- 
 ration. " Instead of addressing us immediately," 
 says the author, *' God is pleased to use men as his 
 
 * instruments." Now what can have less appear- 
 ance of contradiction to the inspiration of every 
 word of Scripture than this. It is so silly to state 
 it in this light, that it is almost silly to repeat it. 
 " Instead of speaking to us severally by an inde- 
 
 * pendent revelation, he has consigned his will to 
 
 * us at once in the Holy Scriptures." Now can any 
 one conceive a light in which this even appears to 
 bear on the point in hand > As to inspiration, is it 
 not the same thing whether God speaks to every in- 
 dividual by a distinct revelation, or whether bespeaks 
 to all in the same revelation } *'* Instead of making 
 
12 
 
 ' known that will," says Mr Wilson, " in the lan- 
 ' guage of angels, or by the skill of poets and philo- 
 ' sophers, he has been pleased to choose the unlet- 
 ' tered Apostles and Evangelists." What has this 
 to do with the subject of inspiration? How does 
 this fact appear to contradict the passages that as- 
 cribe the Scriptures wholly to God ? Why is this 
 introduced as a fact to be reconciled with the first 
 class of phenomena ? Does the fact, that in the 
 Scriptures God has not addressed us in the language 
 of angels, appear to contradict the notion of their 
 inspiration, either as to matter or manner ? If God 
 should speak to men in the language of angels, would 
 the revelation be God's, in any sense, in which it is 
 not His, as contained in the Scriptures > Had he 
 spoken by the skill of poets and philosophers, would 
 the manner have been divine, in any sense in 
 which it is not now divine ? Has he not given 
 some parts of the Scriptures in the language of poe- 
 try ? Are these more divine as to manner, than the 
 parts written by the fishermen ? " And," says Mr 
 Wilson, " instead of usinoj these as mere organic in- 
 ' struments of his power, he has thought right to 
 
 * leave them to the operations of their own minds, 
 
 * and the dictates of their own knowledge, habits, 
 
 * and feelings, as to the manner of communicating 
 ' his will." This is the only thing that can be said to 
 have any reference to the subject at all ; yet, if unex- 
 ceptionably expressed, it would not have even the ap- 
 pearance of a contradiction to the phenomena of the 
 first class. God did not leave the writers of Scrip- 
 ture to the operations of their own mind, &c. ; but 
 
13 
 
 lio has employed the operations of their mind in his 
 work. Here then we see, that in reconcihng his 
 two classes of phenomena, the writer exhibits the 
 second class in the most harmless point of view, and 
 it is only in his application of the system afterwards, 
 that he gives them a different character. The 
 light then in which the two classes of phenomena 
 can be reconciled, is not a light in which they will 
 bear the author's conclusions. 
 
 My third observation is, that the distinction between 
 matter and/onji, as to their author, is a groundless 
 ligment, invented for the service of this theory. God 
 is as much the author of the manner of the Scrip- 
 tures, as of the matter of them; and the sense in 
 which they may be said to be human in their man- 
 ner, they may be said to be human in their matter. 
 In what sense are they human in their manner ? As 
 they have been written by men, after the manner of 
 human writing, with the style characteristic of those 
 by whom they have been written. And has not the 
 matter of these been the result of human thought, 
 according to the operations of the mind, and with 
 language occurring to the persons who were inspired 
 to deliver them? The Scriptures are the thoughts 
 and words of the writers, in the same sense in which 
 they are in their style. It has pleased God to com- 
 municate his will in this way ; so that divine truth 
 is ushered into the world as the result of the opera- 
 lions of the human mind. Even the most glorious 
 doctrines of revelation, are not an exception to this. 
 If ^^a find Paul's style, we find also Paul's gospel; 
 
14 
 
 and his statements of truth, his arguments, &c. <&c. 
 are as much his, as his manner of writing. In the 
 same sense that we can say, that the style is Paul's, 
 we can also say, that the thoughts are Paul's. 
 They are both Paul's in one point of view ; in an- 
 other, they are both God's. God, in conveying his 
 truth, has used the intellectual operations, as well as 
 the characteristic style of the writers whom he em- 
 ployed. 
 
 If this is the case with respect, even to the dis- 
 tinguishing doctrines of the gospel, how much more 
 evidently is it so with respect to those parts of Scrip- 
 ture that relate to things properly human. How 
 much of the ►Scriptures are employed in relating 
 the history of earthly things? Is not this human 
 matter, as truly as it is related in human style ? 
 But though, in one sense, both in matter and man- 
 ner, an historical event is human ; in another, it is 
 divine in both. This writer is still more inexcus- 
 able for such a distinction, since he seems to hold, 
 that many things in Scripture needed only divine 
 superintendency. Are not such things then, in 
 every sense human ; in matter as well as in man- 
 ner? Besides, is it not as common to ascribe the 
 matter of the Scripture to the writers of them, as 
 to ascribe their manner? Do we not speak of 
 Paul's Epistles? Is not the matter included in 
 this appellation ? This ascribes every thing in the 
 Epistles of Paul, in one sense, to himself. We 
 speak more frequently of Paul's thoughts, Paul's 
 doctrine, Paul's reasoning, Paul's arguments, than 
 we do of Paul's style. Yet the simplest peasant 
 
15 
 
 never views this phraseology as inconsistent with his 
 firm conviction of the full verhal inspiration of the 
 whole Sacred volume. Such difficulties are only 
 conjured up by the invention of theorists, to make 
 void some part of the word of God, or to enlarge 
 the field of critical investigation. 
 
 That a human style may, in another sense, be 
 divine, may be made intelligible to a child by an il- 
 lustration. Suppose, to give greater popularity to 
 a work of genius, a writer should choose to imitate 
 the style and manner of Sir Walter Scott ; and 
 that the imitation should be so perfect, that the pub- 
 lic could not distinguish. Now, such a style would 
 be, in one sense, the style of Sir Walter ; but in 
 another, it would be the style of the author. In 
 like manner, the style of the Scriptures, is the cha- 
 racteristic style of the different writers, but God is 
 the author of it. The style is as truly God's, as 
 the matter; for if he has employed the style of 
 different writers, he has likewise employed the ex- 
 pressions, thoughts, reasoning, and arguments of the 
 different writers. In one sense, the Scriptures are 
 all God's ; in another, they are the writings of 
 Moses and the Prophets, the Evangelists and the 
 Apostles. The same writer, on different occasions, 
 may employ different styles ; and God has em- 
 ployed the characteristic style of each of the per- 
 sons whom he inspired to deliver his oracles. If 
 he has employed them as rational instruments with 
 respect to style, he has likewise employed them as 
 rational instruments with respect to thoughts, rea- 
 soning, arguments and words. 
 
16 
 
 That the different styles of the writers of Scrip- 
 ture may, in a certain sense, be ascribed to God, is 
 clear, even from the concession of the author. He 
 admits, that the prophetic part of Scripture needed 
 the inspiration of words ; and that in this, as well 
 as in the rest of the Scriptures, we have a charac- 
 teristic style. If then we have the style of Isaiah, 
 even when all the words with their collocation and 
 syntax were chosen of God, is not the style his al- 
 so ? For what is style abstracted from the words 
 that express it ? The distinction, then, between 
 the matter and manner of Scripture, as having a 
 different author, is visionary and groundless. 
 
 My fourth observation is, that Mr Wilson's theo- 
 ry, both as to the distinction between matter and 
 manner, and as to the different degrees of their ope- 
 ration, is utterly without foundation in the word 
 of God itself, \yhat can we know of this, or of 
 any other subject of revelation, but as the Scrip- 
 tures themselves teach us ? But where do they 
 teach these distinctions ? What portion of the 
 word of God asserts, that the matter and the man- 
 ner of Scripture are to be ascribed to different 
 authors? Where do they teach, that there are 
 different kinds of inspiration.^ If no such doctrine 
 is taught by the Scriptures, then it is one of the 
 traditions of men, by which they, like the Phari- 
 sees, have made void the word of God. It de- 
 serves no respoct. It is not necessary even to refute 
 it; for to shew that the Scriptures do not teach 
 such a thing, is to refute it. The Scriptures de- 
 clare, that they are the inspired word of God ; but 
 
17 
 
 in the whole Sacred Volume, there is not a hint, 
 that they are inspired in a different sense, or in a 
 different degree. The man, therefore, who invents 
 a theory, that ascribes to Scripture different kinds 
 of inspiration, is as inexcusable, as the man who, 
 in explaining the account of the creation, asserts 
 that the earth was an old planet repaired, or a 
 sphnter from the sun. Where have our theorists 
 found, that inspiration is divided into suggestion, 
 direction, elevation, and superin tendency? Where 
 the Pharisees found that it was a sin to eat with 
 unwashen hands. 
 
 But let us not too hastily make assertions Let 
 ns hear what Mr Wilson alleges : " By refer- 
 
 * ring to the language of the Apostles, as quot- 
 
 * ed in our last lecture, we shall find that the 
 
 * divine inspiration was extended to every part 
 
 * of the canonical writings, in proportion as each 
 ' part stood related to the religion," 505. Jhe 
 language of the Apostles. — I do not wish a bet- 
 ter authority. The language of the Apostles teach 
 such a doctrine! Where, Mr Wilson? You have 
 quoted no such passage. *' Whatever weight the 
 ' different parts of the Sacred edifice were intended 
 
 * to sustain, a correspondent strength of inspiration 
 
 * was placed, as it were, at the foundation." Fine, 
 very fine ; and is demonstration itself more convinc- 
 ing.? What can be more certain, than that the 
 different parts of a building ought to have a strength 
 proportional to the weight which they are intended 
 to bear? Unluckily it happens, that there is a 
 small flaw in the figure. It has not the smallest 
 
 B 
 
18 
 
 reference to the subject which it is brought to 
 illustrate. The different truths of revelation have 
 a different degree of importance, w^hich might bo 
 well illustrated by this truly beautiful figure. But 
 it requires as much inspiration to tell what 
 o'clock it is by in'?piration, as to reveal the gospel 
 itself. If all Scripture is given by inspiration, the 
 reference to Paul's cloak requires as much inspira- 
 tion, as those passages that declare the way of sal- 
 vation. The question is not, whether many things 
 in Scripture might have been known without in- 
 spiration, as there are unquestionably others that 
 could not at all have been otherwise known : But 
 the question is, whether the most trivial thing said 
 to be inspired, can be inspired in any other sense 
 than things of utmost moment. As long as it stands 
 recorded, '* All Scripture is given by inspiration of 
 God," so long the honour of revelation is as much 
 concerned in the inspiration of an incidental allusion, 
 as in that of the most fundamental truth. 
 
 In the following extract, the author gives us 
 a specification of different things that require a 
 different extent of inspiration, but which have no 
 reference to the subject at all. " Sometimes," 
 says he, " we read of divine messages by visions, 
 
 * dreams, angelic voices; at other times the Al- 
 
 * mighty appears to have revealed truth immediate- 
 ' ly to the minds of the Apostles." Now, had the 
 author proposed to point out the different ways in 
 which revelation was given, this would have been 
 to his purpose. But it has no relation to the ex- 
 tent of inspiration. Whether a thing were revealed 
 
19 
 
 hy a vision, dream, or angelic voice ; or without 
 any intervention, the degree of inspiration is the 
 same. ''Sometimes," he continues, '*the sacred 
 vrriters v^^ere wrapt in the overpowering com- 
 munications of the spirit. At other times, and 
 as the matter varied, their memory was fortified 
 to recal the Saviour's life, doctrines, miracles, 
 parables, discourses." Had Paul been permit- 
 ted to relate what he saw in the third heavens, the 
 extent of the inspiration of his account of the 
 matter, would not have been greater than when 
 he relates his own history. If his account of the 
 latter be a part of the Scriptures, it is given 
 by the inspiration of God ; and therefore is God's 
 both in matter and words. Who told Mr 
 Wilson, that in the account of the Saviour's life, 
 doctrines, miracles, parables, discourses, the 
 memory of the Apostles was merely fortified? 
 Has he got any new message from heaven? 
 Perhaps it will be said, this was all that 
 was necessary; this would be arrogance in an 
 angel, and would deliver him into chains of 
 darkness to be reserved for the judgment of the 
 great day. Vain men will be wise! who can 
 tell what is necessary on such a subject, but 
 God only? Who dare make distinctions, where 
 God has made none ? God has said, "All Scripture 
 * is given by inspiration of God," without any 
 hint of different degrees of inspiration. Who then 
 dare say that one part of Scripture is less inspired 
 than another? besides, a man's memory might be 
 ao fortified, that he could remember every iact 
 
20 
 
 and circumstance with the utmost exactness, he 
 might be able to relate every thing that ever he 
 heard, with every word in its proper place ; and 
 after all, be unfit for writing any of the gospels. 
 Were an illiterate man to be put in possession of 
 every fact in Gibbons' History, would he be fit to 
 write the decline and fall of the Roman Empire ? 
 Such a man will have full as much need of words 
 as of ideas. Much more in the history of Christ, 
 must an inspired writer have all the matter and 
 all the words. None but the Holy Spirit can 
 judge what is to be expressed, and what is to be 
 omitted; and in what phraseology it can be most 
 suitably exhibited. When an inspired writer gives 
 us an account of his own feelings, we depend 
 not on either his knowledge, or expression. 
 Though he speaks concerning what is most in- 
 timately known to him, he speaks the things of 
 God, in the words of God. " In a diflferent matter," 
 continues Mr Wilson, " an author accompanies 
 
 * St Paul, and records what he saw and heard. 
 
 * Again, an Apostle hears of dissentions in the 
 ' churches, and is moved by the blessed spirit 
 ' to write to them, to denounce judgments, to 
 ' prescribe a course of conduct. At other times, 
 
 * he enters upon a series of divine argument ; 
 
 * delivers in order the truths of the gospel, or 
 ' expounds the figurative economy of Moses." 
 Very true, very true. But in all these things there 
 is but one kind of inspiration. All this is called 
 the word of God, and is said to be given by inspira- 
 tion ; and therefore in matter and words must be 
 
21 
 
 God's. Do the Scriptures any where speak of these 
 things as being differently inspired ? not one word 
 of all this is in the least to the purpose. 
 
 The author does not pretend to determine the 
 extent of inspiration in each of these cases, but he 
 say.«, " we infer from the uniform language of the 
 
 * New Testament, that in each case such assis- 
 
 * tance, and only such assistance was afforded, as 
 
 * the emergencies of it required." Now, as I set 
 as much value upon a legitimate inference from the 
 word of God, as £ do an express declaration, I have 
 a great curiosity to hear what is this uniform lan- 
 guage of the New Testament, from which such a 
 limitation and distinction of inspiration are inferred. 
 In no copy of the New Testament that ever hap- 
 pened to fall into any hands, is there the slightest 
 hint on the subject. 
 
 But after declaring that it is neither needful nor 
 possible to determine the extent of in^^piration in 
 each case, the author gives us a most edifying page, 
 in an attempt to draw that line which it is neither 
 needful nor possible to draw. I have heard of a 
 divine who in one head of discourse, proposed to 
 speak of the revealed glories of heaven ; and in 
 another the unre\ealed glories of heaven. Surely 
 Mr Wilson's intrepid attempt to do what is neither 
 needful nor possible, manifests equal theological 
 heroism. " The prophetical parts, the doctrines 
 
 * of pure revelation, the historical facts beyond 
 
 * the reach of human knowledge, all the great out- 
 
 * lines of Christianity, both as to doctrine and 
 
 * practice, were probably of the inspiration of sug- 
 
22 
 
 * gestion, both as to the matter and the words, 
 
 * (for we think in words.) Where the usual 
 
 * means of information, or the efforts of memory 
 
 * were enough, as in most of the gospels and acts, 
 
 * the inspiration of direction may be supposed to 
 ' have sufficed. Where the exposition of duty^ 
 ' or the rebuke of error, or exhortation to growth 
 
 * in grace, was the subject, the inspiration of elc- 
 
 * vation and strength may be considered as afforded. 
 
 * When matters more incidental occur, the inspira- 
 ' tion, still lessening with the necessity, was 
 ' probably that of superintendency only, preserving^ 
 
 * from all improprieties which might diminish the 
 
 * effect of the whole, and providing for inferior, 
 ' but not unimportant points of instruction. Even 
 ' the slightest allusions to proverbial sayings, to 
 
 * the works of nature, to history, were possibly 
 
 * not entirely out of the range of the watchful 
 
 * guardianship of the Holy Spirit." Here is a la- 
 mentable specimen of the folly and arrogance of 
 the wisdom of man in the things of God. This 
 grave evangelical divine parcels out the Scriptures 
 according as he fancies that they are more or less 
 the word of God ; and pronounces his opinions on 
 subjects which he himself confesses are untaught 
 in the Scriptures. This is the worst species of 
 novel- writing; for it substitutes the baseless proba- 
 bilities, and visionary suppositions of man, for the 
 dictates of the Holy Spirit. It pretends to give us 
 information on a point of which it is admitted, 
 we are not informed by the word of God. What 
 sort of instruction then can this be ? What sort of 
 
23 
 
 a mind is it that can derive edification from it? Just 
 that sort of mind that receives for doctrines the 
 commandments of men. In the things of God the 
 Christian should know nothing but what God has 
 revealed. To say that this is a foolish and un- 
 taught question, would not be enough, because it is 
 contrary to what is expressly taught ; namely, that 
 all Scripture is given by inspiration of God. Mr 
 Wilson has here given us an apocrypha to the New 
 Testament ; and like the apocrypha added to the 
 Old Testament, it contradicts the inspired records. 
 How could we say that all Scripture is given by 
 inspiration of God, if it is merely possible that some 
 things in them are not entirely out of the range of 
 the watchful guardianship of the Moly Spirit t Is 
 the Christian then to be sent to his Bible to decide 
 how far each of its parts is inspired.^ If he is set 
 loose from the authority of the divine declaration 
 that asserts the inspiration of the whole equally, 
 will Mr Wilson's 'possibly be an anchor to him, 
 when his passions, or his interests urge him? If Mr 
 Wilson by his own authority decides, that inspira- 
 tion ;?0A^*z'6/y extends so far, others by a like au- 
 thority may decide that possibly it does not go 
 so far. Though 1 should displease all the evangeli- 
 cal ministers of London, and of Europe, I will ex- 
 press my utter abhorrence of sentiments so dishon- 
 ourable to the word of my Lord, so injurious to the 
 edification of Christians, so destructive to the souls 
 of men. 
 
 My fifth observation is, that this distinction of in- 
 spiration is an ungodly attempt to explain away the 
 
24 
 
 thing, and retain the word. In fact, not one of the 
 divisions is inspiration, but the first. Direction is 
 not inspiration, elevation is not inspiration, superin- 
 tendency is not inspiration. Do not all the evange- 
 lical ministers of London claim these three? Do 
 they not constantly pray for them ? Do they not 
 ask direction from God in their teaching } x\re they 
 not sometimes elevated above the power of nature ? 
 Do they not speak of divine superintendency in their 
 places of worship ? But were I to assert from this, 
 that Mr Wilson pretends to be inspired, I would re- 
 present him as a fanatic ; and my representation 
 would be a calumny, not justified by his pretensions 
 to divine direction, elevalion, and superintendency. 
 Jf then, the Scriptures are in many things tho work 
 of man merely directed, elevated, and super intended 
 by God, it is a falsehood to say, that they are all in- 
 spired. Since then, the Scriptures assert, that they 
 are all given by inspiration, he who asserts, that 
 much of them is only the work of men, directed, 
 elevated, oxiA. siiperintendedhy God, gives the lie to 
 the Holy Spirit, and calumniates the Scriptures. 
 This is a serious charge, and I charge it on Mr Wil- 
 son, and those writers who have used this wicked 
 theory of inspiration. By this Jesuitical artifice, we 
 may both admit and deny any thing. We have no- 
 thing to do but in our explanation to subject the word 
 to an analysis, not directed by its use, but by our 
 own fancies, or the necessities of our system, and 
 the work is accomplished. 
 
 My sixth observation is, that if this distinction of 
 inspiration is true, the greatest part of the Bible is 
 
25 
 
 not the word of God at all. When a pupil writes 
 a theme by the direction of his teacher, with every 
 help usually afforded ; and when it is so corrected by 
 the latter, that nothing remains but what is proper 
 in his estimation, is it not still the pupil's produc- 
 tion ? Could it be said to be the composition, or 
 the work of the teacher? No more can the Scrip- 
 tures be called the word of God, according to this 
 mischievous theory. A book might all be true, 
 and good, and important, yet not be the book of God. 
 To be God's book, it must be his, in matter and 
 in words, in substance and in form. 
 
 My seventh observation is, thai the author 
 seems to admit the dangerous position, that some 
 things delivered by the inspired writers, may not 
 belong to the revelation ; and that speaking on sub- 
 jects not of a religious nature, they may have erred. 
 This blasphemy has been openly avowed by some 
 writers, and IMr Wilson certainly avows it, as a 
 last resource, in case of necessity, but does not ac- 
 tually in any instance avail himself of its aid. To 
 shew that I am justified in ascribing this sentiment 
 to him, I will quote his language, on which I found 
 my charge. ** How far the inspiration of the 
 
 * Scriptures extends to the most casual and remote 
 
 * allusions of an historical and philosophical kind, 
 
 * which affect in no way the doctrines or duties of 
 ' rehgion, it is not, perhaps, difficult to determine." 
 Does not this seem to betray a fear, that history 
 and philosophy may detect something false in the 
 Scriptures, for which the author good naturally 
 provides, by supposing that such things do not af- 
 
26 
 
 feet the doctrines and duties of religion. God 
 asserts most expressly, that ** All Scripture is given 
 ' by inspiration;" but history and philosophy may find 
 some falsehoods in it. Mr Wilson, in this critical si- 
 tuation, most generously steps forward and excuses 
 them, by alleging that they do not affect the doc- 
 trines or the duties of religion. Would JMr Wil- 
 son take it kindly, if any one should attempt a like 
 apology for himself ? W^ould a jury look on it as 
 no invalidation of evidence, that the witness is 
 proved to have uttered many falsehoods on his oath, 
 though not bearing on the question at issue ? Would 
 they not utterly discredit his whole testimony, if 
 they found a known falsehood in his evidence, even 
 on the most unconnected matters that are usually 
 brought forward in cross-examination ? If God 
 avows the whole Scriptures as his word, a falsehood 
 as to any thing will affect the revelation. The 
 Bible must not utter a philosophical lie, nor an his- 
 torical lie, more than a religious lie. Tf it lies 
 on one subject, who will believe it on another! If 
 it lies as to earthly things, who will beheve it about 
 heavenly things ? But Mr Wilson asserts, that 
 " The claims of the sacred penmen to an unerring 
 ' guidance, are, without exception, confined to the 
 * revelation itself." God's assertion of inspiration 
 extends to every thing that can be called Scripture. 
 " All Scripture is given by inspiration of God." 
 Even the sayings of wicked men and of devils are 
 recorded by inspiration, as truly as the sayings of 
 Christ himself. There is nothing in Scripture that 
 does not belong to the revelation. What an infi- 
 
27 . 
 
 del invention is this, that suggests a distinction in 
 the book of God, between things that belong to the 
 revelation, and things that do not belong to it ! If 
 even our evangelical divines will except from inspi- 
 ration some things under the denomination of his- 
 tory and philosophy, not affecting the religion ; what 
 may not be expected from the daring profaneness of 
 those who hate the gospel, and are willing to carry 
 the theory to its utmost limits ? If Mr Wilson is 
 allowed to charge an historical, or a philosophical 
 falsehood on the penmen of Scripture, may not Dr 
 Priestley be allowed to charge inconclusive reason- 
 ing on an epistle ? The Bible then, it seems, is not 
 all the word of God : only so much of it deserves 
 that title, as affects the doctrines and the duties of 
 religion. This accounts very obviously for the con- 
 duct of some evangelical divines, with respect to the 
 circulation of the Apocrypha intermingled with the 
 Scriptures. If they have found that all the Scrip- 
 tures do not themselves belong to the revelation of 
 God, it is not surprising if they add a little more to 
 them, to make them more palatable to the world. 
 But, observes Mr Wilson, '* The Bible was not 
 
 * given us to make us poets, or orators, or historians, 
 
 • or natural philosophers." Very true, very true, 
 but very silly. We must overlook the bad poetry 
 and bad oratory of the Bible, if we find any of this 
 description in it ; and we have no reason to expect 
 a complete history of human affairs, nor a system 
 of natural philosophy. But, verily, if the Scrip- 
 tures contained one rule of poetry or oratory, that 
 rule must be a legitimate one, or the Bible is a for- 
 
28 
 
 gery. And if it tells one historical untruth, it must 
 forfeit its pretensions in every thing, seeing its pre- 
 tensions extend to every thing in the book. The 
 inspired writers may have been as ignorant of na- 
 tural philosophy, as the most ignorant of British 
 peasants, without affecting their inspiration. But, 
 verily, if they have delivered one philosophical 
 dogma, it must either be true, or the Scriptures as a 
 whole are false. For my part, I am convinced that 
 to look into the Scriptures for a system of philoso- 
 phy, is utterly to degrade them. But it would de- 
 grade them much more, it would utterly blast 
 their pretensions, to allege that they have attempt- 
 ed and failed. I must have the inspired writers 
 cleared of the accusation of pledging themselves to 
 a philosophical untruth, as well as to a religious un- 
 truth. If the Scriptures are not designed to com- 
 mand our faith on points of philosophy, they do not 
 teach any thing on the subject. How very deroga- 
 tory then to the honour of inspiration, is the fol- 
 lowing conclusion : — " Many things which such 
 
 * persons," (namely poets, orators, historians, and 
 natural philosophers,) " might think inaccurate, 
 
 * may consist with a complete rehgious inspiration." 
 How can this be the ease, Mr Wilson, when it is 
 said, " All Scripture is given by inspiration?" This 
 pledges God equally for every thing in the Bible. 
 Mr Wilson's assertion gives the lie to God's decla- 
 ration. God says " All Scripture is given by in- 
 /spiration;" Mr Wilson says it is false, — only so 
 much of the Scripture is given by inspiration, as be- 
 Jongs to the revelation. This blasphemous doctrine 
 
29 
 
 teaches Christians to go through the Scriptures, se- 
 parating what belongs to revelation from what does 
 not belong to revelation, to distinguish what is true 
 from what may be false. Could Satan broach a 
 worse doctrine in the school of Christ? Impossi- 
 ble. It would not be so mischievous, if in the bold- 
 ness of infidelity, he were to assert through his 
 agents, that the Scriptures are not at all inspired. 
 This would be too shocking. From this all Chris- 
 tians would start back with horror. But when, as 
 an angel of light, he asserts through the pen of an 
 evangelical minister, that some falsehoods in Scrip- 
 ture are not only consistent with the most complete 
 religious inspiration, but that this is the strongest 
 ground on which it is possible to vindicate inspira- 
 tion, he is likely to infuse his poison into the soul 
 of many simple and unwary disciples of Christ. 
 
 But in the very phraseology of this exceptionable 
 sentiment, there is a management which, to say the 
 least, does not savour of godly sincerity. Such per- 
 sons might think inaccurate. Was the author 
 ashamed in plain language to make the wicked as- 
 sertion ? His meaning must be that such things are 
 really inaccurate. This is the only point ot view 
 in which the assertion is to his purpose. Why then 
 does he falter? Does he think that this soft way 
 of charging God with falsehood, will excuse the 
 daringness of the crime ? Was it caution, or was 
 it conscience, that induced him to utter the horrible 
 blasphemy, as the sentiment of others.? 
 
 And what artifice appears in the association of 
 falsehoods in history and philosophy, with critical 
 
80 
 
 faults in poetry and oratory ! Are errors in fact to 
 be ranged with errors in rhetorick ? Is it the same 
 thing in morals to be a liar and a bad poet ? Is 
 the poetry, to which just taste has never made an 
 exception, to be brought into question, merely for 
 the sake of softening delinquencies as to truth? 
 
 The author next gives us a quotation from Bishop 
 Horseley, that shews that this truly great scholar 
 did not know well what to say on this subject. He 
 admits, yet is unwiUing to make the supposition. 
 As usual, when a writer is in a cloud, he has paren- 
 thesis upon parenthesis, and says more than enough 
 on things nothing to the purpose; while he still 
 leaves the question as he found it. I shall give the 
 extract: — " It is most certain," says Horseley, 
 
 * that a divine revelation — in other words, a disco- 
 
 * very of some part of God's own knowledge made 
 
 * by God himself — must be perfectly free from all 
 
 * mixture of human ignorance and error, in the par- 
 ' ticular subject in which the discovery is made." 
 Well then, my good Bishop, must not this apply to 
 the motion or rest of the earth, if it is really taught, 
 as well as to the character of God ? " The discovery 
 
 * may," he continues, " and unless the powers of 
 ' the human mind were infinite, it cannot but be U- 
 ' mited and partial, but as far as it extends, it must 
 ' be accurate." All true, but all away from the 
 mark. No man ever felt a difficulty on this point. 
 This is not debated by either infidel or Christian ; 
 by either the friends of plenary inspiration, or the 
 abettors of partial inspiration. " In whatever re- 
 
 * lates, therefore," he continues, ** to religion, either 
 
31 
 
 * in theory or practice, the knowledge of the sacred 
 
 * writers was infallible, or their inspiration was a 
 
 * mere pretence." And must not their inspiration 
 be a mere pretence, if there is any thing delivered 
 by them, which is not inspired; since they assert of 
 all Scripture that it is given by inspiration? Where 
 is the distinction to be found between religion, and 
 things supposed not to be religious ? 
 
 " Though I admit," continues the Bishop, " the 
 
 * possibility of an inspired teacher's error of 
 
 * opinion in subjects which he is not sent to 
 
 * teach." But is he not sent to teach every thing 
 that he has taught .'' If he gives us a bad lesson 
 in philosophy, it will condemn him, as well as 
 if he had given us bad morality. If he was not sent to 
 teach us philosophy, let him keep his philosophy to 
 himself. There must be none of it in the Scriptures. 
 But he in a parenthesis, gives us an irrefraga- 
 ble reason for this; *' (because inspiration is notomni- 
 
 * science, and some things there must be which it 
 ' will leave untaught.)" This might be very much 
 to the purpose, if the opponent was so very unrea- 
 sonable as to insist that the Bible, to be an inspired 
 book, must teach philosophy, yea, that a divine 
 teacher must be omniscient, and leave nothing un- 
 taught. But of what use is it, with respect to the 
 man who charges false philosophical dogmas, as 
 taught by the Scriptures } There is a mighty dif- 
 ference between refusing to speak, and speaking a 
 falsehood. It is, however, with great reluctance, 
 that this learned bishop goes so far. For he adds, 
 ** yet I confess it appears to me no very probable 
 
 * supposition (and it is, as I conceive, a mere sup- 
 
32 
 
 ' position, not yet confirmed by any one clear in- 
 ' stance,) that an inspired writer sliould be permitted, 
 
 * in his religious discourses, to affirm a false propo- 
 
 * sition on awj subject, or in any history to misre- 
 ' present a fact." Here the bishop is almost, 
 though not altogether, such as he should be. This 
 indeed is a very important thing. But if the learn- 
 ed writer had considered the matter in the view of 
 the direct assertion of the inspiration of all Scrip- 
 ture, there can be no doubt that he would have 
 taken higher ground. If it is only a supposition, 
 a supposition not demanded by any one clear in- 
 stance, why should the wicked supposition be made ? 
 Especially since it is true, as the bishop adds, 
 ** Their language, too, notwitbstandino; the accomrao- 
 
 * dation of it that might be expected for the sake of 
 
 * the vulgar, tothenotionsofthevulgar, is, I believe, 
 ' far more accurate, more philosophically accurate in 
 
 * its allusions than is generally imagined." Indeed 
 the language referred to, can scarcely be called an 
 accommodation to the prejudices of the vulgar, but is 
 rather a speaking in the usual way of men, without 
 excepting philosophers themselves. If the sun and 
 the moon are said to have stood still in the time of 
 Joshua, there is no philosophical sentiment express- 
 ed, more than when the philosopher himself now 
 speaks of the rising and the setting of the sun. 
 There is not the smallest difficulty thrown on the 
 subject from this quarter. It is only foolish divines 
 who wish to have employment for their learn- 
 ing and ingenuity, that contrive difficulties to be 
 resolved by theoretical explanations. Mr Wilson 
 
33 
 
 liimsolf, after quoting the bishop's words, seems to 
 feel a little contrition for his previous language, and 
 makes a strong effort to reconcile his views with 
 those of this luminary of his church. '* Perhaps," 
 aays he, '* it is therefore better, and more consistent 
 ' with all the Scripture language, to say, that the 
 ' inspiration of superintendance, reached even to 
 
 * the least circumstances and most casual allusions 
 ' of the sacred writers, in the proportion which 
 
 * each bare to the revelation itself." There is a 
 happy obscurity in this qualification, which, if it 
 prevents us from using it to advantage, also serves 
 to screen it from exposure. But if certain errors 
 in Scripture are reconcilable with the doctrine of 
 complete religious inspiration, how is it better to say 
 the contrary ? Are we on this subject to say and 
 suppose whatever fits our theories ? My way is to 
 endeavour to find what the Scriptures say, and to this 
 I make every human dogma to bend. I will not 
 allow philosophy herself to prate on the things of 
 God. She is august in her own territories, but let 
 her die should she dare to invade the territories of 
 revelation. On this holy ground her profane foot 
 must not tread. 
 
 But after our author doubtfully consents, that 
 inspiration may extend to the least circumstances, 
 which, in his estimation, is more than is necessary, 
 he gives two reasons for his opinion, which are al- 
 most as little satisfactory to me as unbehef itself. 
 Why does Mr Wilson believe, that inspiration is 
 thus extensive ? Is it because the Scriptures them- 
 selves say so, which are the only authority on the 
 c 
 
34 
 
 subject? No, truly; this is not the ground oo 
 which he rests the matter. His two reasons are, 
 that philosophy has no objection to this view, and 
 that practical uses may be derived from the slight- 
 est details, and most apparently indifferent circum- 
 stances. Now, there can be no doubt, that divine 
 truth must be perfectly consistent with true know- 
 ledge of every kind, and must have some use; but 
 it is equally true, that this is not a proper crite- 
 lion for judging of the contents of Scripture. A 
 thing may be consistent with all other knowledge, 
 and may have practical uses, yet not be a part of 
 divine revelation. Had I, then, no other reason for 
 the inspiration of the passages referred to, I would 
 not believe it. That Paul was inspired in directing 
 Timothy to bring his cloak, I believe, because this 
 is a part of Scripture, and the Scriptures inform 
 me, that *' All Scripture is given by inspiration of 
 God." Mr Wilson believes Paul to be inspired in 
 this direction, because he fancies it is not destitute 
 of practical use. 1 believe it to have practical use, 
 because it is the words of inspiration. If it is not 
 inspired, because it is a part of Scripture, it is im- 
 possible to know that it is inspired ; and it is mere 
 fanaticism to deduce instruction from it. Even 
 then, when Mr Wilson holds the truth on this sub- 
 ject, he does not hold it on its proper evidence ; 
 and, therefore, does not truly hold it at all. This, 
 to some may appear a trifling consideration. But 
 it is a thing, on every part of divine truth, of pri- 
 mary importance. We must beheve God without 
 a voucher. On hearing a traveller relate some 
 
35 
 
 wonderful fact, if we should hesitate to believe 
 liira, till some other gentleman should interpose the 
 authority of his experience, would the narrator be 
 satisfied with our credence? Would he not consi- 
 der himself most grossly insulted? And is it not 
 perfectly the same thing, when we believe the in- 
 spiration of the direction about the cloak and 
 parchments, and the prescription to Timothy to take 
 a little wine for his stomach's sake, not because 
 these are parts of Scripture, and that *' All Scrip- 
 ture is given by inspiration of God;" biit because 
 some evangelical divine can extract edification for 
 us from these portions of the word of God ? A 
 passage may contain instruction, yet we may be un- 
 able to see it. Are we then to hesitate about its in- 
 spiration till we can find the looked for edification ? 
 Does not this warrant the denial of the most impor- 
 tant truths of the gospel, when individuals cannot per- 
 ceive their advantage ? Does not this jusfify the Neo- 
 logian in explaining away all the miracles of Christ? 
 To rest the foundation of the inspiration of particular 
 passages of Scripture, upon any other foundation, 
 than that they are a part of Scripture, is in effect to 
 overturn the inspiration of the whole Bible. 
 
 I am glad, however, that Mr Wilson can perceive 
 several important instructions in those passages of 
 Scripture, which have been perfectly barren in the 
 estimation of some other evangelical theologians, 
 strutting in awkward dignity wilh the staflf and 
 gown of the philosopher. Yes, some of these ora- 
 cles of orthodoxy, to whom the religious world are 
 accustomed to look up as almost the mouth of hea- 
 
36 
 
 ven, have not been ashamed to avow the opinions 
 that such passages as the above, are not the word* 
 of God. Such things as these are too unim- 
 portant, too destitute of interest, too Httle of a re- 
 ligious nature, to be the dictation of inspiration. 
 Hence the theory that makes a distinction in the 
 Scriptures between the things that belong to reli- 
 gion, and the things of another nature. Wretched 
 ingenuity I if thou must be employed, go to the 
 schools of philosophy, where thou wilt find kindred 
 madmen; leave the word of God in an unadulterated 
 state to the christian. How daring, how diaboli- 
 cally daring, to erect a standard to displace some 
 parts of Scripture from the word of God ? Who 
 but God has a right to say, what is worthy of re- 
 velation ? 
 
 Mr Wilson, like many other divines, assigns to 
 philosophy, a dignity and an authority on this sub- 
 ject, which I cannot recognise. In her own pro- 
 vince, she is an instructor most interesting and use- 
 ful ; but on the subject of revealed religion her pre- 
 rogatives are very Hmited. No philosophical doc- 
 trine, or discovery in philosophy, can be admit- 
 ted as testimony with respect to the claims of a re- 
 ligion pretending to an establishment on miracles, 
 but that which is either self-evident, or is legitimate- 
 ly deduced from self-evident principles. Such a 
 philosophy has a right to speak, and must be heard, 
 on all subjects. But little, indeed, of that which 
 i« called philosophy is of this description. Ro- 
 mances assuming the name of philosophy, have 
 spoken as umpires on the truth of the doctrines of 
 
37 
 
 revelation ; and unwary christians, either not know- 
 ing the Umits of philosophical interference, or from 
 an undue deference to the dignity of science, have 
 tamely acquiesced in the assumed claims. As a 
 matter of fact, no madmen have been so extrava- 
 gant as pretended philosophers. The inmates of 
 Bedlam are quite sane in comparison with the 
 metaphysical lunatics, who, in the building of inge- 
 nious systems, have trampled upon all the laws of 
 evidence, and all the fundamental principles of the 
 human mind. And if the geological maniacs, who 
 have indicated their paroxysms in the effusion of sys- 
 tems of the formation of the earth, are at all to be 
 paralleled, it is in the ingenious but frantic labours 
 of those divines, who have employed themselves in 
 theories about the manner of the formation of the 
 word of God. 
 
 *' Ah ! foolish sage 
 
 He could not trust the word of heaven, ^ 
 
 The light which from the Bible blazed—that lamp [%,ircl^*^^ 
 
 Which God ^xfts^ from his palace' down to earth, 
 
 To guide his wandering children home— yet leaned 
 
 His cautious faith on speculations wild, 
 
 And visionary theories absurd, 
 
 Compared with which the most erroneous flight 
 
 That poet ever took when warmed with wine 
 
 Was moderate conjecturing.'* 
 
 POLLOK. 
 
 The phases of philosophy have been as changeable 
 as those of the moon ; yet, in every age, the pulpit has 
 generally conformed to the reigning systems of sci- 
 ence, and has been made the echo of the schools. 
 
Speculation assumes the place of axioms, and the 
 Apostles of Jesus must bow to the successors of the 
 
 JStagirite. ^ / ' >' 
 
 Even the real discoveries of science are not 
 founded on evidence that will warrant them to dic- 
 tate to the sense of revelation, even on the points 
 in which they relate to the same subject. I am 
 convinced, that the glory of God has been much 
 displayed by the glasses of the astronomers. But if 
 Moses and the telescope were at issue, I would 
 trample on the glasses of the philosophers. I have 
 more evidence that the Scriptures are the word of 
 God, than ever can be produced for the truth even 
 of the Newtonian system. This, I say, not from 
 any opinion of interference, for I am persuaded 
 there is none. The Scriptures are not pledged for 
 or against this system. But the usual way of 
 speaking on this subject, discovers too little respect 
 for the word of God, and too much deference to 
 the authority of philosophy. Mr Wilson does not 
 seem free of this charge. " There is," says he, 
 "^ nothing in them (the Scriptures) inconsistent 
 ' with the facts and discoveries of history and phi- 
 * losophy." Very true, and so much the better 
 for history and philosophy. But is there any fact 
 in history so well established as the history of 
 Jesus ? We would not be justified in condemning 
 the Scriptures, though many things were found in 
 history contrary to their accounts. Who has given 
 to profane history the prerogative of credence, as 
 often as it might differ from sacred history.^ It is 
 much better that there is no such difference ; but 
 
39 
 
 it is not right to acknowledge even in tlioory, that 
 in a contested matter, the preference is to be given 
 to the word of man. If the king and his prime rai- 
 tiister make a contradictory assertion,"! will believe 
 his Majesty : Shall I then give less deference to my 
 God? I shall never consent, that the Scriptures 
 shall give the way in passing, to the arrogant sys- 
 tems of human philosophy. 
 
 There are, no doubt, errors on both sides. Tf 
 some are willing to hold the Scripture from philo- 
 sophy as their liege lord, others set too small a value 
 on the testimony of that light which belongs to 
 man by his constitution. Whatever is self-evident, 
 ought to be accounted as a revelation from God; 
 and consequently a revelation prior to that of the 
 Scriptures. Any thing, therefore, that contradicts 
 any of the fundamental principles of human nature, 
 must be rejected, whatever its claims may be. A 
 dogma at variance with any self-evident truth, can- 
 not be contained in the Bible. The light of na- 
 ture is a divine revelation, and no succeeding reve- 
 lation can contradict it. 
 
 My eighth observation is, that little as this theo- 
 ry may profess to deduct from the full inspiration 
 of Scripture ; though in some instances the author 
 reduces the distinction to a mere shadow; yet if 
 there is really any thing in Scripture which is hu- 
 man in such a sense, that it is not also divine, the 
 scheme as truly contradicts these passages of Scrip- 
 ture which assert inspiration, as the most lax sys- 
 tem on this subject. If man had a part to perform 
 in such a sense, that in it God had no share, which 
 
40 
 
 is the only sense in which the distinction is io the 
 author's purpose, so far the Scriptures are not the 
 inspired word of God. They are not wl^olly by 
 inspiration, which as truly contradicts the assertion 
 that *'all Scripture is given by inspiration," as the 
 doctrine that inspiration extends to a few general 
 objects only. Why do we believe that the Scrip- 
 tures are inspired ? Because they assert this. If 
 then we are justified in making any exception from 
 this, we are equally justified in raaking any number 
 of exceptions. This theory then, though it makes a 
 distinction which the author sometimes represents 
 to be so fine, that it is difficult or impossible to per- 
 ceive it, in reality subverts inspiration. 
 
 My ninth observation is, that this theory is desti- 
 tute of foundation, even according to the author's 
 own explanations. He teaches, that though the 
 writers of Scripture made use of their own know- 
 ledge, their own information, &c. &c. yet, that in 
 the use of those they were directed, or superintend- 
 ed by God, so that the thing written may in his 
 view, be said to be inspired. Now admitting this, 
 for the sake of argument, why may not the human 
 manner be equally directed, and superintended, and 
 elevated ; so that it may also be said to be divine? 
 Is the manner more human than, according to the 
 author, much of the matter? If then the human 
 matter, may be called the word of God, because of 
 God's direction or superintendency, why may not 
 the human manner be called God's in a hke sense ? 
 May not the form be inspired in the sense of di- 
 rection or superintendence, as well as the things 
 
41 
 
 which are said to have this kind of inspiration ? If 
 so, why is the manner said to be exclusively hu- 
 man, more than much of the matter, which accord- 
 ing to the author himself, is equally human ? The 
 author himself then has taken away the foundation 
 from his own theory. 
 
 My tenth observation is, that this theory has not 
 the redeeming circumstance in it, that the most lax 
 systems of inspiration possess, namely, an adapta- 
 tion to answer objections. It does not remove a 
 single difficulty, that is supposed to press on com- 
 plete verbal inspiration. It cannot be of the small- 
 est service in forming a harmony of the gospels. If 
 all the matter of the Scriptures is God's, the hu- 
 manity of the mere manner cannot reconcile the 
 smallest seeming contradiction. Some theorists 
 may plead, that their systems are demanded by the 
 necessities of the case, but this theory sins without 
 this temptation. Its advantages are merely in the fan- 
 cy of its author. But the author's pretensions on 
 this head, we shall afterwards have an opportunity 
 of more fully examining. 
 
 My eleventh observation is, that though there is 
 a distinction between the matter and manner of a book, 
 yet there is no distinction between the author of a 
 book, and the author of the style, or manner of abook. 
 He that is the author of a book, must be the author of 
 the style of the book. Now God is said to be the au- 
 thor of the Bible, not merely the author of the matter 
 of the Bible. " All Scripture is given by inspiration 
 ' of God." It is the Scripture then that is given 
 by inspiration, and this word contains the manner 
 as well as the matter ; the words as well as the 
 
42 '■'^■'- 
 
 thoughts. A writing includes thought, words, 
 style ; and as all the holy writings are expressly de- 
 clared to be inspired, they must be inspired in thoughts, 
 words, style. One man may suggest the thoughts 
 contained in any composition, and another may ex- 
 press them in his own manner ; but we never say, 
 that one man is the author of a writing or compo- 
 sition, and another the author of the style of the 
 composition, for the word writing or composition 
 includes the style. VVere any piece of writing 
 produced in a civil court, as the production of a 
 certain person, how ridiculous would be an attempt 
 to prove that another was the author of the style 
 of it. It might indeed be written in the style of 
 another, that is, in the same kind of style which 
 another uses, but the author of the writing must be 
 the author of the style. Just so with the Scrip- 
 tures. They are written by the inspiration of 
 God, but that inspiration has conformed itself to 
 the variety of styles used by the writers of Scrip- 
 ture. To say, that the Scriptures are the work of 
 God, but their style the work of man, is the same 
 thing as to contend that the expression God made 
 man, admits the supposition, that the devil formed 
 him. The word Scripture, as expressly includes 
 style, as the word made includes formation. 
 
 The same thing is evident from other designations 
 of the Scripture. The phrase word of God, im- 
 plies that the Scriptures are God's, in both matter 
 and expression. The word Aoyoj* denotes not on- 
 ly a word, but a connection of words, expressing 
 a though t, or a whole speech, oration, or treatise. 
 • See Appendix. 
 
43 
 
 It is very variously used, but whether it is employ- 
 ed to denote a word, a sentence, or a speech, it al- 
 ways includes style. Indeed it is distinguished by 
 Demosthenes from Tmx, signifying a single word. 
 In his oration for the crown, he says of ^Eschines, 
 o-viuXt^UT Vnf^xix K-ect XoKovi, translated by Dr Le- 
 land, Ats words and periods are prepared. If then 
 the jidiole Scriptures are called the word 0/ God, 
 ihe'y must be his in words, as well as in matter, in 
 style as well as in sentiment. 
 
 The same thing appears from the designation 
 oracles of God. Among the heathens, the word 
 oracle denoted the response given by the god, who 
 was consulted through his priest. This answer was 
 supposed to come from the god, both in matter and 
 form, The priestess of Apollo at Delphi was in a 
 phrenzy, whilst she uttered the words inspired by 
 her god. In general, the heathen prophets were 
 fitted for being channels of communicating the di- 
 vine declarations by previous derangement. It was 
 then undoubtedly understood, that the inspiring 
 deity was the author of the words and style, as 
 well as of the substance of the communication. The 
 Scriptures then are said to be the oracles of God, 
 and Stephen says, that Moses received the lively 
 oracles. If so, he received the whole that he wrote. 
 Indeed, Mr Wilson admits what refutes himself. 
 ** The prophetical parts," he says, *' the doctrines 
 ^ of pure revelation, the historical facts beyond the 
 
 * reach of human knowledge ; all the great outlines 
 
 * of Christianity, both as to matter, doctrine, and 
 ' practice, were probably of the inspiration of sug- 
 
44 
 
 ' gestion, both as to the matter and the words," 507. 
 If so, the style in all such cases is God's, the man- 
 ner as well as the matter. For if all the words are 
 given by God, how can the style be abstracted from 
 this ? Indeed, in prophecy not understood by the 
 writer, the words and the collocation of the words, 
 needed inspiration as much as the matter. The 
 Scriptures then, soul, body, and spirit, are the word 
 of God. 
 
 My last observation is, that Mr Wilson's system 
 is crude and indigested, and fertile in contradictions 
 above any other theory. It does not hang together, 
 but obliges him to harmonise its discordant parts by 
 saying and unsaying, in the most extravagant man- 
 ner. The theory essentially consists in supposing 
 that in the making of the Scriptures, God is the 
 author of one part, and man of another. The mat- 
 ter being divine and the form human ; yet he fre- 
 quently asserts that the whole is divine, and the 
 whole human. Now the ingenuity of Satan could 
 not reconcile this on Mr Wilson's plan. A thing 
 may be both divine and human in different points of 
 view, but in the same point of view this is impossi- 
 ble. Now to say that the Scriptures are divine and 
 human in different points of view, is nothing to Mr 
 Wilson's purpose. In this sense, the matter may 
 be said to be human as well as the form. The 
 thoughts are as truly Paul's thoughts in his Epis- 
 tles, as the language and style are Paul's. In a hke 
 sense also, the manner, though human, is likewise 
 divine. God speaks through Paul in Paul's man- 
 ner. But Mr Wilson's theory makes the matter 
 
45 
 
 solely God's, and the manner or form solely man's. 
 If so, every thing is not divine, every thing is not 
 human ; but the Scriptures are partly human and 
 partly divine. Mr Wilson then palpably contradicts 
 himself, when he says, that every thing is divine, 
 for according to him the manner of Scripture is not 
 divine ; and when he says that every thing is hu- 
 man, for according to his distinction, the matter can 
 in no sense be human. 
 
 Of the writers of Scripture, he says, " They 
 
 * plead with those to whom they are sent, they ad- 
 
 * dress the heart, they expostulate, they reason, 
 
 * they invite." Now this is a portion of the phe- 
 nomena that belongs to man. But his theory re- 
 quires that nothing belongs to man but the manner. 
 Is there no matter then in the Scripture pleadings, 
 addresses to the heart, expostulations, warnings, in- 
 vitations ? Are these all shadows without substance ? 
 Does not this admit that there is a sense in which 
 the matter is man's as well as the manner? An 
 apostle writes his own thoughts as well as in his own 
 style ; that is, God speaks through the thoughts and 
 style of the apostle. 
 
 The facts of the case, he says, imply, " simply 
 
 * that God was pleased to use man as his instru- 
 
 * ment," 502. This is perfectly correct, but 
 perfectly contradictory to the author's theory. Ac- 
 cording to it, God does not make use of the in- 
 strumentality of man, but leaves a part of his work 
 to the distinct agency of man, in which man acta 
 as independently of God, as in his own part God 
 acts independently of man. If in the manner or 
 
46 
 
 form of revelation, man is only the rational instru- 
 ment through whom God acts, then the theory of 
 Mr Wilson is destroyed. Accordingly, though the 
 author speaks thus in repeUing objections, and en- 
 deavours to hide the hideousness of the system that 
 would rob God of any part of his own word, yet 
 he speaks another language when he exhibits his 
 system. Instead of using the writers of Scripture 
 as instruments, God, according to the author, 
 ** thought it right to leave them to the operations 
 ' of their own minds, and the dictates of their own 
 
 * knowledge, habits, and feelings, as to the man- 
 
 * ner of communicating his will," 501. In like 
 manner, he quotes Warburton, who asserts " that 
 
 * the Divine superintendence was with so sus- 
 ' pended a hand as permitted the use, and left 
 ' them to the guidance of their own faculties, while 
 
 * they kept clear of error." Here there is no in- 
 strumentality. I'he nurse watches the child step- 
 ping across the floor, and as long as it does not 
 stumble, puts not a hand to the little adventurer. 
 In such cases then, not only the manner but the 
 matter also is no more God's, than the child's 
 walking is the nurse's walking. It is then absurd 
 and contradictory for Mr Wilson to assert distinct 
 and independent provinces to God and man in the 
 compositions of the bible, yet when it suits his view 
 to speak of mere instrumentality on the part of 
 man. 
 
 In another place, speaking of the Books of 
 .Scripture, he says, " They are the words of the 
 
 * Holy Ghost." This is all I ask, and less I will 
 
47 
 
 not take. But how has the author the hardihood 
 to make such an assertion, according to his views ? 
 Does he believe that ail the words of all parts of 
 Scripture are the words of the Holy Spirit ? His 
 language can have no lower import. Yet, does he 
 not himself expressly distinguish between certain 
 things that needed suggestion, and certain other 
 things that needed less. Some things needed only 
 the eye of the nurse. I ask Mr Wilson also, if all 
 the words of Scripture are the words of the Holy 
 Ghost, how it is that the style or manner of the 
 Scripture is not the work of the Holy Ghost. 
 The author likewise speaks of " the wonderful 
 
 * union of Divine and human agency in the inspi- 
 
 * ration of the Scriptures." Is human agency a 
 component integral part of inspiration? This makes 
 man the author of a part in the composition of the 
 bible, as distinct from God ; yet it absurdly makes 
 that part that belongs to man only a part of inspi- 
 ration. This is a crude theory Mr Wilson. A 
 very slight cross-examination makes the witness re- 
 fute himself. Again, in one place he says: " The 
 
 * Books are given by Divine inspiration," 499 ; 
 in another, he says, " Where nature ended and 
 ' inspiration began, it is not for man to say," 50b*. 
 In the first, all is asserted to be inspiration ; in the 
 second, it is taken for granted, that part is inspira- 
 tion, and part the work of man, though it is im- 
 possible to assign the boundary. If the Scriptures 
 contained such contradictions, it wouldbe impossible 
 to defend their inspiration. 
 
48 
 
 Let us now take a glance of the author's view of 
 the advantages of his theory. ** By this condescen- 
 ' sion of God," says he, *'in his manner of inspir- 
 ' ing the Scriptures, truth is made more intelligible 
 
 * to the mass of mankind, than if the human facul- 
 
 * ties had been altogether suspended, and the feelings 
 ' of common hfe extinguished or overborne." 514. 
 Is it pecuHar to our author's system to view the fa- 
 culties of the writers of Scripture as active? Does 
 any system deny it ? I can admit this, and I do 
 admit it, as fully as the author, while T contend that 
 God speaks through the activity of the human fa- 
 culties. I go farther than the author's distinction 
 can consistently allow him. I can speak of Paul's 
 thoughts, reasonings, arguments, &c. as well as of 
 Paul's style. Why then does Mr Wilson make such a 
 claim for his theory, when the advantage he would 
 appropriate to it, is common to all? But in reality, 
 it is an advantage that exists merely in Mr Wilson's 
 fancy. The Scriptures might have been equally in- 
 telhgible, and had it pleased God much more so, had 
 the Scriptures been written by man through an inspi- 
 ration that actually suspended all the rational facul- 
 ties — nay, though they had been uttered by a sta- 
 tue, or written by a machine. Nothing can be 
 more unfounded than the train of consequences 
 which the author draws from the supposition of the 
 Scriptures being written by an inspiration which 
 should have suspended all the operations of the 
 writer's mind. This, he says, *' Must have spread 
 ' an uniformity and sameness over the whole surface 
 
 * of the Scriptures." Why so, Mr Wilson ? It 
 
is equally easy to assert, and equally easy to prove, 
 that there is no 77iust in the case. Could not the 
 same Almighty author hvive given the very same 
 manner, with every variety of style, though man had 
 been as unconscious as a block of marble, when he 
 wrote them ? " Must have expunged," continues 
 our author, " all the varieties of style, diversities 
 
 * of narrative, and selection of topics — must have im- 
 
 * pressed one and the same phraseology, and turn 
 
 * of expression upon all the sacred books in the 
 
 * same language." 519. There is not a must in 
 any one of these particulars. Had God declined 
 the instrumentahty of man altogether in the writing 
 of the Scriptures, would he not still have written 
 in the language and style of man ? Such writers 
 as Mr Wilson, seem strangely to take it for granted, 
 that if God had communicated the Scriptures with- 
 out man, he would not have used the language of 
 man. In their odd suppositions, they sometimes 
 speak of the language of angels, as if that would be 
 a revelation toman. I suppose the Ten Command- 
 ments are as intelligible as any part of the Scriptures, 
 yet they were written by the finger of God, without 
 any instrumentality of man. This then puts it be- 
 yond speculation, what the Scriptures would have 
 been, even had there been no human instrument- 
 ahty in them. This fact should have guarded Mr 
 Wilson from indulging in such a train of romantic 
 speculation. 
 
 The second advantage of inspiration as explain* 
 ed by this theory is, "The interpretation of Scripture 
 * is rendered more easy, as well as more safe." 
 
50 
 
 Now this is an advantage which 1 cannot at all ad- 
 *^it. On the contrary, there can be no doubt but 
 without any human instrumentality, God might 
 have rendered the Scriptures much more easily in- 
 terpreted, and have freed them from all those ap- 
 parent contradictions, and all those real difficulties 
 and obscurities which it is generally acknowledged 
 that they contain. The Scriptures have exactly 
 that degree of clearness which the divine wisdom 
 saw fit, and this he could have given them in what- 
 ever way he might have chosen to convey them. 
 Let us, however, take a look at the reasons by 
 which the author supports his position. "It de- 
 pends not," he says, ** on the turn of any one 
 particular phrase, or the force of some few words, 
 but springs from the general import of language 
 familiar to us all." And had God given the 
 Scriptures without human instrumentality, would 
 it have been otherwise? Would more, in that issue, 
 have depended on the turn of one particular phrase, 
 or the force of some few words ? Would less at- 
 tention have been paid to the general import of lan- 
 guage, or would the speech of heaven have been 
 employed ? Why does the author speak of language 
 familiar to us all? As every nation has not the 
 words of inspiration, he must mean human language, 
 as distinguished from language not human. There 
 seems to be a strange confusion in the author's mind 
 on this subject. He seems to think that if the 
 Scriptures had not been written through the instru- 
 mentality of man, they would not have been writ- 
 ten in human language. Does he think that the 
 
51 
 
 Scriptures would be a revelation at all, if they were 
 not written in human language ? Whether they 
 might have been written by the finger of God, or 
 by angels, they must equally have been written in 
 the language of man. Has the author forgotten 
 the Ten Commandments, and the various messages 
 delivered to men by angels ? What occasion had he 
 to go to heaven for a language, as an alternative of 
 the mode of communicating revelation ? What rea- 
 son had he to think that the language of God with- 
 out a medium, or through the medium of angels, 
 would have shunned the same mode of interpreta- 
 tion with the language of man ? 
 
 " The Bible," he says, ** is to be studied, its 
 ' various parts compared, its metaphors illustrated, 
 
 * its poetical and historical allusions unfolded, all 
 
 * its declarations received, according to the well- 
 
 * known rules of human writing." And would not 
 the Bible be studied, though God had written it 
 by the instrumentality of angels, or without instru- 
 mentality altogether ? Does the author never study 
 the Ten Commandments ? Why might not the 
 various parts of the Bible have been compared on 
 any mode of inspiration ? Is there any difference 
 in the illustration of a metaphor, whether it has 
 been pronounced by God immediately, or by man 
 as God's rational organ ? Would it be profane to 
 exhibit the meaning and beauty of a metaphor as 
 coming from God without a medium, yet lawful 
 to make free with it coming through the medium 
 of man ? Perhaps this is the true reason why di- 
 vines so earnestly labour to give God as little share 
 
52 
 
 in the Scriptures as possible, and why they are so 
 very bold in their manner of interpreting the word 
 of God. They seem to think that the Bible i» 
 God's word, in a like sense as the speech delivered 
 to parliament from the throne, is the king's speech; 
 and treat it with similar rudeness and freedom. 
 
 Does Mr Wilson know of any view of inspiration 
 that prevents the unfolding of poetical and histo ri- 
 cal allusions ? Have not such allusions equal need 
 of being unfolded on all modes of inspiration ? 
 Must not the declarations of the Bible be received, 
 according to the well known rules of human writ- 
 ing, in whatever mode it has been inspired ? Does 
 the author really think that the Ten Command- 
 ments, and every other communication immedi- 
 ately from God, are not to be received according 
 to the w^ell-known rules of human writing? It is 
 a wild and extravagant conceit, that the communi- 
 cations of God delivered immediately by himself to 
 man, cannot be in the language of man ; or, if in 
 the language of man, cannot have their meaning 
 ascertained by the known laws of human language. 
 Should God speak to me from the throne of hea- 
 ven, I would ascertain his meaning by the laws of 
 human language, as well as when he speaks to me 
 by Peter and Paul, Luke and John. 
 
 While the author provides work for the critic by 
 his mode of inspiration, the unlearned Christian is 
 kept in good humour by putting him on a level with 
 the greatest scholars, with respect to knowledge of 
 the great doctrines of Christianity. " The most 
 ' unlearned Christian," says he, " stands upon 
 
53 
 
 ' the same ground, as to all the commanding truths 
 
 * of revelation, with the greatest scholars ; whilst 
 ' the utmost diligence of the scholar will find era- 
 
 * ployment in the adaptation of his acquisitions to 
 
 * the illustration of the more difficult parts of the 
 
 * inspired volume." Now this is a comphment to 
 the want of learning in which I cannot coincide. It 
 is mere fanaticism. Indeed God often reveals him- 
 self to babes, while he hides himself from the wise 
 and prudent; and many unlearned men have a 
 much deeper and more correct knowledge of divine 
 truth, than many learned Christians. Still I con- 
 tend, that learning is of equal importance with re- 
 spect to the exhibition, proof, and illustration of 
 the commanding truths of revelation, as it is in that 
 province which Mr Wilson exclusively assigns to it. 
 There is no subject in revelation in which it is not 
 profitable. There is no greater bar to progress in 
 the knowledge of God, than the supposition that 
 all who believe in Jesus Christ are equally ac- 
 quainted with the Gospel. If all parts of Scripture 
 deserve to be studied, this does so above all. And 
 nothing will so well repay study. What a wonder- 
 ful diflference as to degrees of knowledge, between 
 the simpleton saved by faith, and the Christian 
 who, from his long and deep acquaintance with the 
 Gospel, views it as a self-evident truth ; having in 
 itself its own evidence as much as the divine exist- 
 ence itself ! Learning can in nothing be so well 
 employed as on the great truths of the Gospel. 
 There is indeed no room for speculation or theory, 
 improvement or alteration ; but all the learning in 
 
54 
 
 the universe might be employed in exhibiting the 
 inexhaustible treasures of truth. 
 
 The third advantage which the author finds in 
 his system of inspiration is, that ** By this plan, the 
 
 * trifling inaccuracies which have insinuated thera- 
 
 * selves into the copies of the Scriptures, by the 
 
 * carelessness of transcribers, the various readings 
 
 * which have accumulated during eighteen centu- 
 
 * ries, and the further defects arising from transla- 
 
 * tions, or from our ignorance of a few particular 
 ' allusions, are of less moment." Now, I cannot 
 divine in what way these defects can be either in- 
 creased or diminished by any mode of inspiration. 
 I know indeed that the mode of treating divine 
 truth employed by the Scriptures, interspersing the 
 same doctrine in innumerable places, certainly does 
 lessen the evil of various readings. But I know 
 equally well that this does not belong to the sub- 
 ject of the mode of inspiration, and that this advan- 
 tage might have been effected, had the Scriptures 
 been written every word by the finger of God. If 
 the author has an eye to this, he very unphiloso- 
 phically confounds things as distinct as things can be. 
 But let us hear himself in the illustration ot this ad- 
 vantage. " They do not materially impair the force 
 ' of the divine books, because those books are writ- 
 
 * ten by men like ourselves." Would the above 
 defects have more materially impaired the force of 
 the dirine books, had they been written by angels, 
 or by the finger of God ? Would a various reading, 
 or an imperfect translation, have a worse effect upon 
 the Ten Commandments written by the finger of 
 
55 
 
 God, or upon the Letters to the Seven Churches of 
 Asia, delivered by the Lord Jesus Christ, than upon 
 any of the Letters of Paul? In whatever way the 
 Scriptures may be supposed to be inspired, the loss 
 to the reader from the above defects is perfectly the 
 same. Can any man, of sobriety of mind, suppose 
 that if God had written every letter of the Scrip- 
 tures without instrumentality, he was more interest- 
 ed to preserve the Sacred Volume from the errors 
 of transcribers, than he is on the plan employed by 
 him ? Yet our author asserts it as an axiom, that 
 if the Scriptures had been given by an inspiration 
 which should have suspended all the operations of 
 the writer's mind ; it *' must have required the per- 
 
 * fectly pure preservation of all the copies in all 
 
 * ages from the errors of transcribers, — must have 
 
 * rendered various readings and imperfect transla- 
 
 * tions of fundamental injury." These assertions 
 seem to be so entirely without even plausibility, 
 that I am at a loss to conceive how they can have 
 influence on any intellect. On the contrary, it ap- 
 pears to me an axiom, that the same various read- 
 ings and imperfect translations will equally injure 
 the book, whatever be the mode of inspiration. 
 Would an imperfect translation, or a various read- 
 
 ng, do more injury to the Ten Commandments, 
 than to the Third Epistle of John ? Rut by what 
 sort of juggling is it, that the author contrives to 
 preserve the books considered as divine, when they 
 are injured as human ? If a word is lost, is no mat- 
 ter lost? Does he not say, that the matter is all 
 divine? Words then that may be lost certainly 
 
56 
 
 must contain no matter. The loss of words is on- 
 ly the loss of manner ! How fond our author is of 
 mysteries and paradoxes ! The force of the divine 
 books is not impaired by any casualty, because these 
 divine books were written by men ! Then, it seems, 
 if all the Scriptures which have been written by 
 men had been lost, all that is di\ine in them would 
 still remain ! Is not this a sort of spiritual legerde- 
 main ? 
 
 In the continuation of his illustration of this ad- 
 vantage, the author observes, *' The truths are not 
 
 * conveyed dryly and systematically, but clothed 
 
 * with human feelings," &c. Had God written all 
 the Bible with his own finger, must it have been a 
 dry systematic work ? Surely this has no relation 
 to the subject of inspiration. It is a peculiarity and 
 an advantage belonging to the plan of revelation, 
 but with the subject of the mode of inspiration it 
 has no more concern than it has with the genealogy 
 of Melchisedec. 
 
 The fourth advantage which the author ascribes 
 to his view of this subject, is, that the sacred books 
 on this plan become capable of supplying proofs of 
 authenticity. This is a sound observation. Had 
 the Scriptures been written, either by God imme- 
 diately, or through angels, we would have wanted 
 those proofs of authenticity, that result from the 
 characteristic style of each of the inspired writers. 
 But the views of those who consider the various 
 styles as also the work of God, as well as of man, 
 possesses this advantage equally. When Sir Wal- 
 ter Scott writes in the style of any of his fictitious 
 
57 
 
 characters, it is still the style of Sir Walter. The 
 same may be said of other internal evidences, to 
 which Mr Wilson's fifth advantage refers. 
 
 His sixth advantage also is real, and the illus- 
 tration of it quite satisfactory. It will be of great 
 advantage to read the Scriptures with this observa- 
 tion constantly in view, for it is exemplified in in- 
 numerable particulars. The Scriptures, he ob- 
 serves, are thus more adapted to be a moral proba- 
 tion of the heart. It might not be unprofitable to 
 the author, to consider whether his observations 
 may not apply to his own theory. The traces of 
 the characteristic style of the fishermen of Galilee, 
 may afford an occasion to worldly wisdom to invent 
 a theory, founded on an arbitrary distinction, in- 
 stead of submitting, like a little child, to believe 
 the testimony of God on this question, asserting 
 that ** All Scripture is given by the inspiration of 
 God." Surely there is nothing in Scripture which 
 asserts, that the manner of Scripture is not as truly 
 divine as the matter. 
 
 I am glad to find, that the author, in the first of 
 his practical reflections, so decidedly condemns that 
 wicked theory that some have lately brought for- 
 ward, that daringly ventures to divest of inspiration 
 some things in Scripture, as too trifling, and of too 
 worldly a nature to deserve that honour. Such ar- 
 rogance, assuming to sit in judgment on the word 
 of Jehovah, instead of seeking instruction from 
 every part of it, cannot be too severely reprobated. 
 " The moment man dares to consider any part of 
 ' Scripture as uninspired," says Mr Wilson, " he 
 
58 
 
 * sets up his own prejudices as the rule of judg- 
 
 * ment; he believes only what he likes ; and he 
 
 * commonly ends in undervaluing or rejecting some 
 
 * of the fundamental truths of the gospel." I 
 would have had much greater pleasure in reviewing 
 Mr Wilson's work, had he written the whole in a 
 strain worthy of this observation. 
 
 The author's second reflection is, that his theory 
 ** tends to close the avenues to some of the most 
 
 * pernicious evils which have desolated the church." 
 He divides these errors into two classes; the first 
 takes too low a view of inspiration, and the second, 
 too high a view. The usurpation over conscience, 
 the authority of tradition, infallibility, the prohibi- 
 tion of the free use of the Bible to the laity, the 
 exclusive imposition of a particular translation, and 
 the intermixture of Apocryphal with Canonical 
 writings, are all ascribed to the first. Now there 
 can be no doubt, that the abettors of these errors 
 have little practical regard to the inspiration of the 
 Scriptures ; but there can be as little doubt, that 
 they do not arise from a denial of plenary inspira- 
 tion. On the contrary, the Church of Rome will 
 admit the inspiration of the Scriptures more fully 
 than Mr Wilson himself. It will ascribe them to 
 God, both in matter and manner. It admits the 
 Apocrypha, not because it makes light of the inspi- 
 ration of the genuine books of Scripture, but be- 
 cause it believes the Apocrypha to be inspired. It 
 imposes an exclusive translation ; not because it 
 believes the original to be uninspired, or inspired in 
 a low degree, but because it believes the Vulgate 
 
59 
 
 to be an inspired translation. I wish Mr Wilson 
 was engaged in actual combat with any Roman Ca- 
 tholic writer. He would soon be convinced, that 
 he was here writing at random. There is no more 
 reason to ascribe Popish errors to imperfect views 
 of inspiration, than there is to ascribe all error to 
 this source. 
 
 But it is more to my purpose to attend to the 
 errors supposed to result from an overstrained view 
 of inspiration. "On the other hand," says Mr 
 Wilson, '* the class of errors, not generally so fa- 
 ' tal, but yet most injurious, which spring from a 
 
 * forge tfulness of the human character, and form of 
 ' the plan of inspiration, is to be guarded against." 
 Now, reader, put your invention on duty, and try 
 to find out a number of such errors — errors whose 
 origin is the overlooking of the manner of inspira- 
 tion. ** If the inspiration of Scripture," says the 
 author, " be so interpreted as to supersede the 
 
 * free and natural flow of the writer's mind." 1$ 
 there any one who holds this? and if there is, does 
 it lead to the supposed consequence? Cannot God 
 convey his thoughts and his words, through the na- 
 tural flow of the thoughts and words of him 
 through whom he speaks? " If sound and rea- 
 
 * sonable means of expounding the force of terms," 
 says he, " the import of metaphors, the significa- 
 
 * tion of allusions to local customs be discarded." 
 Do any of those who have the highest views of in- 
 spiration, discard sound and reasonable means of 
 expounding the force of terms, the import of me- 
 taphors, &c. ? Or has their view any tendency to 
 
60 
 
 countenance such extravagancies) Rlr Wilson 
 might as plausibly trace such evils to overstrained 
 corollaries from the 47th proposition of the first 
 book of Euclid's Elements. Why, Mr Wilson, do 
 you talk so much at random ? This loose reason- 
 ing has no more connection with the principles on 
 which it is professedly founded, than it has with 
 theories of the formation of the earth. ** If the 
 
 * book," continues Mr Wilson, **is considered as 
 
 * so divine in its form, as well as its matter, as to 
 
 * exclude man's agency." Did any man ever hold 
 this ? Did ever Mr Wilson hear of any one who 
 denied the agency of man in writing the Bible ? 
 Especially do they on whom he has his eye, deny 
 the employment of man as a rational organ in the 
 writing of the Scriptures ? They beheve indeed, 
 that the Bible is as divine in its form, as in its mat- 
 ter, and as human in its matter, as in its form. But 
 both as to matter and form, man was a rational or- 
 gan in producing it. *' If the human character of 
 ' the manner," says he, " is forgotten — the errors 
 
 * which may arise, are by no means inconsiderable." 
 Who can forget that the Scriptures are written in 
 the form of human writings ? This may be re- 
 membered, while at the same time, it is believed 
 that they have received this human form from God. 
 But that we may not fight in the dark, let us see 
 what those errors are. " Truth is conveyed off, as 
 
 * it were, into the lifeless reservoirs of human con- 
 
 * trivance, instead of flowing fresh from the living 
 
 * sources of the divine mind." Now a Scripture 
 metaphor I could expound, but here is one that 
 
61 
 
 discards the efforts of criticism. I can attach no 
 more meaning to it, than if it were written in Chi- 
 nese. Let us then examine the next supposed er- 
 ror. " Harsh and unnatural interpretations are 
 ' imposed ; arguments are violated, or misstated ; 
 
 * figures and parables are pushed into minute and 
 
 * far fetched novelties." How do any of these 
 evils result from the belief that God is the author of 
 the Scriptures, both as to manner and matter? 
 Does the author really think, that it would bo law- 
 ful to impose harsh and unnatural interpretations, 
 violate or misstate arguments, push figures and pa- 
 rables into minute and far fetched novelties, on the 
 supposition that God had written the Scriptures 
 with his own finger.^ Is there any diflTerence as to 
 the interpretation of a parable or any figure, whether 
 it had been written by God or by man ? The author 
 seems constantly to labour under the strange im- 
 pression, that if God should speak without human 
 instrumentality, he would not speak in language to 
 be expounded by the ordinary laws of speech. 
 " Systems of theology," he continues, '* are fram- 
 
 * ed according to the taste and habits of the stu- 
 
 * dent, and not after the native simplicity of the 
 
 * divine word." JNIany systems of theology, it is 
 true, are of this stamp, but it is not the result of 
 too high views of inspiration. Strange indeed, that 
 a writer takes up his pen, with the conviction that 
 the Scriptures are so eminently inspired, and that 
 this very conviction leads him to form his system 
 in utter disregard of these Scriptures ! " A few 
 
 * passages are taken out of their connexion, and 
 
62 
 
 * forced to an unnatural sense, and then the Scrip- 
 ' tures compelled to bend to that exposition." 
 Very bad indeed, but overstrained views of inspi- 
 ration are surely the last thing in which a source 
 should be sought for such an evil. ** The various 
 
 * statements and arguments of the Holy Scrip- 
 
 * tures, instead of being diligently examined and 
 ' compared, as so many phenomena, from which 
 
 * inferences are to be drawn with the care of the 
 
 * inductive philosophy — are harshly put together, 
 
 * reduced to a few rigid and unbending proposi- 
 
 * tions, and are made the first principles of all sub- 
 
 * sequent advances. By these means, the doc- 
 
 * trine of the inspiration is overstrained, and rais- 
 ' applied." How is it possible that any reasoning 
 mind could connect such errors with the opinion on 
 which Mr W. supposes them to be founded? This 
 surely is a noble instance of the inductive philoso- 
 phy. The wildest enthusiasm in all its phrenzy, 
 never uttered any thing more extravagant than 
 this. A series of errors are ascribed to an origin 
 with no more semblance of truth, than if they were 
 deduced from wrong views of the solar system. 
 Though a person should be so frantic as to believe 
 that the writers of the Scriptures were unconscious 
 organs, as devoid of understanding at the moment, 
 as Balaam's ass, his opinion would have no tend- 
 ency to lead to any of the above errors. It is mere 
 raving then to trace them to such a source. No 
 man can be more destitute of a philosophic mind^ 
 than this writer. 
 
63 
 
 " The human part is forgotten. Men pass over 
 
 * and obliterate all the finer traits, all the hidden 
 
 * and gentle whispers of truth, all the less obvious, 
 
 * and yet natural and affecting impressions of char- 
 
 * acter." Here again the writer gets into mystery. 
 What are these finer traits, that are passed over 
 and obhterated? How are they obliterated, if 
 they are passed over ? What are hidden whispers 
 of truth ? Who can hide a whisper ? If it is 
 hidden, how is it obhterated ? Do not the gentle 
 whispers of truth belong to the matter of Scrip- 
 ture? Are they manner merely; form without 
 substance ? What in plain English is the meaning 
 of this sentence ? Does the author really think 
 that any one reads the Epistles of Paul, or Peter, 
 James, or John, without knowing that man is 
 speaking as well as God.? Does he think that it 
 is possible to overlook the human agency, while he 
 is addressed by a writer expressly under his own 
 name? Whatever probability there may be that 
 some will forget that God speaks through man, 
 there is none that they will forget that man speaks 
 when he writes expressly with his own signature. 
 The agency of man is not a fine trait, not a gentle 
 whisper, not a less obvious impression; but the 
 most prominent feature in revelation. He must 
 be blind indeed, who does not see the Apostle Paul 
 in his writings. Has ever the author met any 
 species of two-legged animals, who are guilty of the 
 errors which he here exposes? Yet the author 
 speaks as if there was a very numerous class of 
 this description. If it were the theme of a school- 
 
64 
 
 boy torturing his barren brains to fill up a page or 
 two, such a creation of fancied evils might find 
 some apology. But on so grave a subject, it is ut- 
 terly without excuse. There cannot exist aa in- 
 dividual, who in reading the Scriptures, ovedooka 
 the agency of man. Is it then consistent with in- 
 tegrity, to create a class of fanatics so extravagant- 
 ly frantic, for the mere purpose of disgracing a dis- 
 agreeable sentiment ? 
 
 And what connexion has the quotation from 
 Lord Bacon with this subject? As much as it 
 has with the theory of the tides. Lord Bacon pre- 
 fers short, sound, judicious notes and observations 
 on Scripture, to those commentaries that abound 
 in common places, pursue controversies, and are re- 
 duced to artificial method. Weil, what has this to 
 say on the subject of inspiration? His Lordship 
 illustrates his meaning by a figure. The wine that 
 flows from the first treading of the grape, is sweeter 
 and better than that forced out by the press. What- 
 ever propriety of application this beautiful figure 
 has to the subject, which it is brought to illustrate, 
 it can have no application to Mr Wilson's purpose. 
 Certainly it w^as not from a gentle crush of the 
 Scriptures, that the author's theory of inspiration 
 flowed. All the power of the^re*^ could not force 
 it out of the words, '* All Scripture is given by the 
 ' inspiration of God," nor from any other words in 
 the Bible. It is not merely the roughness of the 
 busk and the stone that we find in this wine : We 
 complain, that it is a wretched beverage produced 
 ^j pouring water on the lees. 
 
65 
 
 REMARKS ON THE REVIEW 
 
 REV. DANIEL WILSON S THEORY OF INSPIRATION, 
 
 Christian Observer of October 1829. 
 
 It is fortunate for Mr Wilson, that all reviewers are 
 not of my way of thinking on these matters. Some 
 of them, will, no doubt, consider him as carrying 
 his ideas of inspiration much too far. Rven some 
 who have professed evangelical sentiments have 
 made much greater havoc on the Scriptures. The 
 most rigidly orthodox reviewers, it seems, are quite 
 satisfied with his views. The evangelical press of 
 England, I have no doubt, will be on his side. 
 The Christian Observer appears to consider itself 
 as very scrupulous on the subject, yet it professes 
 a substantial concurrence in his doctrine. It will 
 be but justice then to Mr Wilson to exhibit the 
 judgment of this Review, by the side of my remarks. 
 I have no wish to conceal any thing that may be 
 
 E 
 
66 ' 
 
 supposed to throw light upon a point which I deem 
 so vitally important. 
 
 The Christian Observer's account of Mr Wilson's 
 theory, is contained in the following extract. ** The 
 
 * next Lecture introduces us to a subject of much 
 
 * difficulty ; namely, the plenary inspiration of the 
 
 * Scriptures, leaving no defect or error in the re- 
 ' ligious revelation; and the human form, the mould, 
 
 * the peculiar character, the natural methods of ex- 
 
 * pression; the poetry, the history, the devotion, — 
 
 * in short, the whole apparatus of earthly instru- 
 ' mentality, all impressed with the stamp of man, 
 
 * all intelligible to man, all to be interpreted by the 
 
 * laws of ordinary sense, and constantly applied by 
 ' grammatical, logical and historical rules. Mr 
 
 * Wilson considers the matter all divine — the raan- 
 ' ner all human ; that is, with a constant preserva- 
 
 * tion from all error affecting the revelation. He 
 
 * views the Bible as God speaking to man, not by 
 
 * angels, nor in the language, nor with the ideas, 
 ' associations, and style of angels, if angels have 
 
 * such characteristics — but by man, in the language 
 
 * of man, and with the ideas, associations, and 
 
 * style of man." 
 
 Though the first sentence is not remarkable for 
 its clearness and precision, this extract will shew 
 that I have not misrepresented Mr Wilson's mean- 
 ing. My view of it is substantially the same with 
 that given here. The Scriptures are impressed with 
 the stamp of man, that is, they are written as if 
 each of the writers were communicating his own 
 thoughts. Did any man ever doubt this ? Is this 
 
67 
 
 a discovery? Was there ever a reader of the 
 Scriptures who was so ignorant as not to know 
 this ? But have not the thoughts, reasoning, and 
 arguments the same impression? Could not God 
 as easily use the respective style of the writers of 
 revelation, as he has used their thoughts, reason- 
 ing, and arguments? Has he not communicated 
 his truth and will to us, through the thoughts, rea- 
 soning, and arguments of the inspired writers, as 
 well as through their style? The Epistle to the 
 Romans, or to the Galatians, &c. is as much Paul's 
 matter, as Paul's manner. Both are his in one 
 sense ; both are God's in another. The style is the 
 style of Paul, but could not God use that style 
 w^hen he wrote by Paul ? The thoughts also are 
 Paul's thoughts ; but could not God convey his 
 mind in the way of Paul's thinking and reasoning ? 
 If these gentlemen possessed a little philosophical 
 perspicacity, they would perceive that there is no 
 difference in this matter, between the thoughts and 
 the style; both equally possessing the marks of the 
 mind of man. There is no more reason from this 
 human impression, to conclude that the manner was 
 without God as to the style, than as to the mat- 
 ter. 
 
 But not only has every thing in Scripture, ac- 
 cording to these writers, the stamp of man, but 
 what must be equally surprising, ** all is intelligi- 
 * ble to man." Now is this a pecuharity in the 
 manner of inspiration? What childish trifling? 
 Must not revelation have been intelligible to man 
 in whatever way inspired ? In whatever way com- 
 
68 
 
 municated ? Had God given it by angels, would 
 it not have been intelligible ? Had he given it im- 
 mediately from his own hand, would it not have 
 been intelligible ? What peculiar darkness is in 
 the messages dehvered by angels ? Have these 
 gentlemen ever read the Ten Commandments ? Is 
 not the language of the tables of the law suffi- 
 ciently perspicuous ? 
 
 But not only are all things intelligible to man, 
 it is added, " all to be interpreted by the laws of 
 ordinary sense, and constantly applied by gramma- 
 lical. lodcal, and rhetorical rules." And if God 
 had written the Scriptures himself, or given them 
 through man as an unconscious instrument, would 
 not this have been equally the case ? Must not 
 every thing written in any language necessarily be 
 imderstood in the sense of that language ? To 
 say that God might have written his word in hu- 
 man language, and that its meaning was not to 
 be judged by the ordinary rules of that language, is 
 a contradiction in terms. For if it is not to be un- 
 derstood in the sense of the language, it is not in 
 the language. The fact that revelation is written 
 in the peculiar style of each of the inspired writers, 
 is a peculiarity in inspiration worthy of being no- 
 ticed ; and from it doubtless we may derive in- 
 struction ; but that it is written in our language, 
 and to be understood in the sense of the language 
 in which it is written, and that it is intelligible to 
 men, are no peculiarities. To mention such things 
 as a distinguishing part of inspiration is the most 
 silly trifling. The same may be said with respect 
 
69 
 
 to the alternative of speaking by angels. " He 
 
 * views the Bible," says the reviewer, " as God 
 
 * speaking to man, not by angels,'" &c. And did 
 ever any one take a different view of this matter ? 
 Was it ever thought that the Bible was written by 
 angels in the language of angels ? A most import- 
 ant discovery surely, that the Bible was not writ- 
 ten in the language of angels ! By angels it might 
 have been written, or by the finger of God ; but 
 whether by the one or by the other, it must have been 
 written in the language of those to whom it was 
 designed to be a revelation. The language of an- 
 gels then, it is absurd to mention as an alternative. 
 What Cimmerian darkness is it then that clouds 
 the minds of these writers, that as often as they 
 make the supposition that God or angels had writ- 
 ten a revelation for man, they think it might have 
 been written in the language of heaven ! A book 
 written in the language of angels, it is absurd to 
 speak of as a revelation to man. 
 
 Let the reader observe in this extract the limita- 
 tion even to divine superintendence in the writing 
 of the Scriptures — ** with a constant preservation 
 
 * from all error affecting the revelation." 1 no- 
 ticed the same thing in Mr Wilson as this reviewer 
 has done. According to this the writers of Scrip- 
 ture were not preserved from all error, but only 
 from such error as should affect the revelation. 
 This, however, seems inconsistent with many of 
 Mr Wilson's assertions. 
 
 The reviewers next inform us : *' We have of- 
 ' ten thought long and anxiously on this much 
 
70 
 
 ' controverted question ; nor are we wholly igno- 
 
 * rant of what the most celebrated biblical writers 
 ' and theologians have written upon it, or of the 
 ' difficulties which may be supposed to attach 
 
 * themselves to whatever conclusions we may 
 
 * adopt." If these gentlemen would consult the 
 Scriptures with the teachableness of little child- 
 ren, they might sooner come to their purpose, than 
 either by abstract thinking on the question as a 
 subject of controversy, or by poring over the vo- 
 lumes of biblical writers. The last is an aid not 
 to be despised ; but I am convinced that an impli- 
 cit reliance on it, to the neglect of the first, is the 
 cause of much of the very great ignorance of the 
 learned with respect to this subject. As long as 
 men attempt to surmount all difficulties by un- 
 taught distinctions in inspiration, and by theories 
 founded merely on supposition, instead of submit- 
 ting to the testimony of God, that *' all Scripture 
 ' is given by inspiration of God," it may be ex- 
 pected that, like the sorcerer who opposed Paul, 
 they will seek one to lead them at noon-day. That 
 there are difficulties connected with inspiration, I 
 do not deny ; for I do not know any truth or duty 
 revealed in Scripture that has not its difficulties. 
 But this I know, that the authors of the late theo- 
 ries have not in the smallest degree contributed to 
 remove these difficulties. The greatest of these 
 difficulties remain, even were any of these theories 
 admitted. The greatest difficulties that have ever 
 occurred to me do not at all respect the complete 
 inspiration of the Scriptures, both in matter and 
 
71 
 
 Words. All that the doctrine of the inspiration of 
 every word in the original Scriptures demands, is, 
 that every thing veritten in them M^as written by in- 
 spiration. This has no more difficulty when it ap- 
 plies to the advice of Gamaliel, or the Letter of 
 Claudius Lysias, the chief Captain, than when it 
 applies to the Sermon on the Mount. That every 
 word of Scripture has been inspired, does not im- 
 ply that every speech or sentiment recorded there 
 should be inspired. The Letter of Claudius Ly- 
 sias was not inspired, but it is inserted in the Scrip- 
 tures by inspiration ; and for a purpose useful for 
 the edification of the man of God. To this view 
 of inspiration I have never met an objection that 
 could detain me for a moment. All that Mr Wil- 
 son and the Christian Observer bring forward is 
 perfectly consistent with it. What they allege, is 
 a thing so obvious, that it could lie hid from no 
 child that is able to read the Scriptures ; and in- 
 stead of being in opposition to my sentiments, is 
 taken for granted in all my reasoning. Paul's 
 writings are in Paul's style; but this apphes to the 
 thoughts as well as the form. 
 
 " Our general impression upon the whole," say 
 the reviewers, "we confess, is, that Mr Wilson 
 * is not far from having arrived at the true phi- 
 ' losophy of the matter." The thing under discus- 
 sion is not a matter of philosophy, nor to be as- 
 certained by philosophical investigation. It is a 
 matter of divine testimony, the meaning of which 
 is to be ascertained by the laws of language. God 
 says, " all Scripture is given by inspiration of 
 
72 
 
 ' God;" Mr Wilson, on the contrary, says, some 
 part of Scripture is human. JMr Wilson's philoso- 
 phy then teaches him to contradict God. But Mr 
 Wilson's theory is as bad philosophy as it is bad 
 theology. It makes a part contained, no portion 
 of the whole that contains it. The manner is sup- 
 posed not to belong to the writing of which it is 
 the manner. The style belongs to the writing ; and 
 if all Scripture is given by inspiration, the manner 
 of Scripture must be given by inspiration. No 
 theory was ever propounded with less philosophical 
 perspicacity than this. It distinguishes what cannot 
 be distinguished ; and ascribes effects to causes 
 with which they have not the slightest connection. 
 Besides, this theory makes only the matter divine. 
 Then the words are not divine. Are the words 
 the matter ? Yet it makes the words of a great 
 part of the Scriptures to be divine as well as the 
 matter. Is this philosophy ? 
 
 Again, it makes all the matter divine, yet it makes 
 a great part of the matter human, supplied from the 
 sources of the private knowledge, information, &c. 
 of the different writers. Is this philosophy ? Nor 
 are these the only inconsistencies of this theory. 
 While it makes all the matter divine, it supposes 
 the possibility even of some error in the matter, in 
 things that do not respect the revelation. 
 
 Again, it makes the inspiration itself the joint 
 production of God and man. Is this philosophy? 
 
 Still farther, it makes only the manner human, 
 yet it allows " the greatest freedom and latitude in 
 * the use of each writer's knowledge and talents, 
 
73 
 
 ' and ordinary means of information." Is not this 
 something more than manner? In the exercise of 
 this freedom, did they introduce no matter? If it 
 is said that they were superintended in the introduc- 
 tion of this matter, I reply that then they had not 
 the greatest freedom and latitude. I reply farther, 
 that superintendence is not inspiration, and that 
 things introduced under superintendence are not 
 mere manner. There is no consistency in this 
 theory. 
 
 •' We would, on the one hand," say the review- 
 ers, " xealously maintain against the semi-sceptic, 
 
 * orSocinian disputer, the plenary inspiration of the 
 
 * Scriptures; we would not allow for a moment 
 ' with the Belshams and Priestlys of England, or 
 ' the Neologians of Germany, that an apostle or 
 
 * Baptist may maintain true conclusions from incon- 
 
 * elusive arguments; that Jewish prejudices were 
 
 * allowed to pervert the Christian records ; that the 
 ^ Evangelists were little more than mere ordinary 
 ' relators of a true story; or that a God of infinite 
 
 * wisdom permitted his record of mercy to aperish- 
 
 * ing world, to be liable to take any doubtful co- 
 ' louring by passing through a human medium, 
 
 * what it must have done, had it not been dictated 
 
 * by his immediate and infallible inspiration." 
 
 I may here remark the want of candour in such 
 a use of the word plenary. Surely plenary inspi- 
 ration cannot apply to the views of those who make 
 any exceptions to the inspiration of the Scriptures. 
 Does not this phrase refer to every thing in the 
 Scriptures, and to every word of the Scriptures ? 
 
74 
 
 Is it not then an abuse of language to speak of hold- 
 ing plenary inspiration, while some things in Scrip- 
 ture are expressly excepted from inspiration ? This 
 is a mean artifice to sap the foundation of the full 
 inspiration of Scripture under the mask of holding 
 it. To those unacquainted with what has been 
 written on the subject, the phrase 'plenary inspira- 
 tion, would undoubtedly convey a meaning very 
 different from that in which it is dishonestly used 
 by many writers. With what propriety can per- 
 sons assert that they hold the doctrine of plenary 
 inspiration, when, according to their systems, much 
 of the Scriptures was not inspired at all ? Some 
 part of it belongs to man, and in many things he was 
 only superintended, which is a very different thing 
 from inspiration. But why are the poor Belsharas 
 and Priestlys, with the Neologians of Germany, 
 not to be indulged in the exceptions which they 
 make to inspiration ? Is this high popish preroga- 
 tive, of distinguishing and limiting, where there are 
 no distinctions or limitations in Scripture, to be con- 
 fined to Evangehcal divines alone ? Must the Bel- 
 shams and Priestlys surrender to the more ortho- 
 dox zeal and predilections of the Christian Obser- 
 ver? What is it that can put down the impious views 
 of Belsham and Priestly on this subject? No ab- 
 stract reasoning; no abhorrence of Christian Ob- 
 servers, no a priori e\\^ex\ce, — nothing but the de- 
 clarations of God in the Scriptures. God says, 
 *' All Scripture is given by inspiration of God." 
 This cuts down the horrible blasphemy of Belsham 
 and Priestly; and this equally cuts down the less 
 
75 
 
 horrible blasphemy of the Rev. D. Wilson and the 
 Christian Observer. The man who makes any ex- 
 ception, cannot consistently refuse any other ex- 
 ception. The difference betv^een Mr Wilson and 
 Dr Priestly is only in degree. Both proceed on the 
 same principle, though the evangelical minister may 
 not choose to carry his doctrine as far as the Soci- 
 nian philosopher. The Christian Observer is shock- 
 ed with the heresy that makes the Evangelists lit- 
 tle more than mere ordinary relators of a true story ; 
 yet how much higher does even Mr Wilson place 
 them in some parts of their narrative ? The Chris- 
 tian Observer thinks it necessary that the record of 
 mercy should be dictated by immediate inspira- 
 tion. But is this the kind of inspiration for which 
 Mr Wilson contends in the Evangelists } Much of 
 the record is not by inspiration at all. 
 
 ** Yet, at the same time," says the Christian 
 Observer, " does not every divine, even those who 
 
 * would most strongly object to the latter part of 
 
 * Mr Wilson's statements ; nay, does not the most 
 
 * uninstructed person who thinks the very words of 
 ' King James' translation, the original diction of 
 
 * the Holy Spirit, familiarly speak of the respec- 
 ' tive styles of St Paul or St John; of the subli- 
 
 * mity of Isaiah, or the pathos of Jeremiah; of 
 
 * the characteristic pecuharities of the four Evan- 
 
 * gelists, all relating the same truths by the same 
 
 * inspiration, yet each in a manner which may be 
 
 * justly called his own ?" Very true, that there is 
 a distinction in the style of the different writers of 
 Scripture, and that each writer may be said to have 
 
76 
 
 liis own. Learned and unlearned admit this. The 
 defenders of the full inspiration of the Scriptures 
 speak of this, as well as their opponents. But 
 what is the inference from all this? Is it, that Mr 
 Wilson has made a discovery, when he has turned 
 into a theory what is admitted by all? Is it that, 
 as the writers of Scripture have a characteristic 
 style, they were not influenced by God in the use of 
 that style ? Is it not possible, that God could era- 
 ploy their style, as well as their tongue or pen? 
 Yes, we talk familiarly of Paul's peculiar style, 
 and of John's peculiar style ; and we talk as fami- 
 liarly of Paul's doctrine, of Paul's reasoning, &c. 
 But in so speaking, we do not mean to assert, that 
 the writings of Paul, both in doctrine and style, are 
 not God's. Indeed, the very universality of the 
 fact of such a manner of speaking, is the strongest 
 evidence, that there is no opposition between the 
 supposition of a characteristic style, and the belief 
 that this, in another point of view, is the work of 
 God. As the most ignorant persons find no diffi- 
 culty in admitting, that the Scriptures may be writ- 
 ten in the respective styles of the different writers, 
 while they believe that every word of the Scrip- 
 tures is inspired, why will the learned conjure up 
 a difficulty to give scope to their ingenuity in form- 
 ing theories ? But where have these sages found 
 the man who believes that the very words of the 
 authorised version, are the original diction of the 
 Holy Spirit ? Is there any one able to read the 
 Bible, who believes that it was written in English ? 
 But this is not all. This person who thinks that 
 
77 
 
 the Bible was originally written in English, is quite 
 conversant with the characteristic style of each of 
 the inspired writers ; and can speak as accurately 
 as Longinus himself, of the sublimity of the one, 
 the pathos of the other, &c. What a compound of 
 ignorance and knowledge must he be? 
 
 The reviewers proceed, " Mathematically to ad- 
 
 * just correctly the two points in their minute 
 
 * boundaries, may not be ea^y ; but it appears to 
 ' us to be an excess of scrupulosity to deny, when 
 ' expressly reasoning on the subject, what we con- 
 ' stantly admit when not thinking of h." What 
 have mathematics to do with settling metaphysical 
 distinctions? Were an angel to draw the line, it 
 could not be done mathematically. There is no 
 more propriety in bringing mathematics to settle a 
 difficulty on the subject of inspiration, than in 
 bringing a text from the Bible, to settle a point in 
 the conic sections. But the distinction as to the 
 present subject, is not a hne separating between 
 adjacent territories ; the same territory belongs to 
 different occupiers, to the one it belongs in one 
 sense, to the other in another. I he Epistle to the 
 Romans, for instance, is the Epistle of Paul, con- 
 tains the thoughts, reasoning, arguments, language, 
 and style of Paul; but the same Epistle is the 
 word of God, both in style and matter. It would 
 not only be "an excess of scrupulosity to deny, 
 ' when expressly reasoning on the subject, what 
 ' w^e constantly admit when not thinking of it," 
 but it would also be extreme folly. But at all 
 limes, we are willing to make the admission in the 
 
78 
 
 amplest terms. Did any man ever deny, in rea- 
 soning on this subject, that the Scriptures have the 
 characteristic style of their different writers ? 
 
 In illustration of this variety of characteristic 
 style, substantially expressing the same thing, the 
 reviewers give us an example. *' Take a familiar 
 
 * example, a parent says separately to four child- 
 
 * ren, * call your brother Richard.' One simply 
 ' repeats the message as the words of his parent: 
 
 * * Richard, my father desires me to call you.' 
 ' A second makes the message his own : * Richard, 
 ' ' ray father wants you.' A third repeats it as an 
 
 * injunction: ' Richard, you must go to my father.' 
 
 * The fourth : ' Brother Richard, pray run direct- 
 
 * * ly to our dear father, for he wants to speak to 
 ' * you.' Are not all these exactly the father's 
 
 * message, and is it to contravene this proposition to 
 ' say, that each was delivered in a manner charac- 
 
 * teristic of the respective speakers ?" Now this 
 example is entirely unsuited to the illustration of 
 the point for which it is brought. It gives a mere 
 variety of expression, but by no means four charac- 
 teristic styles. So far from this, the very same in- 
 dividual might, in delivering the message, on differ- 
 ent occasions, use each of these forms of expres- 
 sion. Yes, and twenty other similar varieties. In- 
 deed, in repeating a message to different individu- 
 als separately, who is it that keeps by a single mode 
 of expression } A hundred such varieties are con- 
 sistent with the style of the same speaker. 
 
 As an illustration of substantial harmony, the 
 example is equally defective. Did any one ever 
 
79 
 
 suppose, that mere variety of expression is contra- 
 diction ? The most inveterate hater of the word 
 of God, would never allege any inconsistency in 
 this, if he met it in the Scriptures. There is not 
 even the shadow of an appearance of contradiction. 
 The relation of each of the brothers is as much, 
 and as directly, the father's message, as words could 
 express. Did not each call Richard ? What else 
 was the command of the father ? This example 
 then, does not correspond to any of the apparent 
 discrepancies in the account of the Evangelists, to 
 which the infidel objects. Of what avail would 
 such an example be to harmonize the four accounts 
 of the inscription over the cross ? Instead of 
 sending four messengers to one person, it would 
 have been more to the purpose to have sent one 
 messenger, and have given four writers to report 
 the delivery of the message, with such a variety as 
 the Gospels give of the above fact. Indeed, to 
 send four messengers on such an errand, was a very 
 clumsy expedient. The invention of a reviewer 
 ought to be more fertile in resources. If the diffi- 
 culties on the subject of inspiration were of the na- 
 ture that this example supposes, it would be an 
 easy thing indeed to clear them away. He must 
 be a sceptic indeed, who alleges that, when a num- 
 ber of persons are commanded to call an individu- 
 al, the message is not executed, except they all 
 use the same words. Certainly the reviewers have 
 thought long, and anxiously, and profoundly on 
 this subject. After their able solutions of the most 
 
80 
 
 formidable objections, infidelity must ever after feel 
 abashed. 
 
 The reviewers are of opinion, that it does not 
 derogate from the author's conclusions of full in- 
 spiration, that he has admitted, ** though perhaps 
 
 * not in the most desirable words, a wonderful uni- 
 ' on of divine and human agency in that inspira- 
 
 * tion." So then, it appears, the reviewers agree 
 with the author in making man's part in the busi- 
 ness, a constituent of inspiration. Man, it seems, 
 has partly inspired the Scriptures. And do the re- 
 viewers really think, that it does not derogate from 
 full inspiration, that a part has been effected by 
 man without God ? Indeed they object to the 
 author's phraseology. They would not say, that 
 " the Scriptures are both human and divine ;" 
 but they say, " when he explicates his proposi- 
 
 * tion, we agree with him." Now in what sense 
 can it be said, that the Scriptures are human, in 
 consistency with the assertion, that they are all di- 
 vine, or fully inspired ? Only as they are written 
 by the instrumentality of man, in the style of man, 
 and after the manner of human writings. But this 
 will not serve the purpose of the author's theory. 
 This theory makes them human as a constituent 
 part of their composition ; a part in which God has 
 no hand. Now if there is any thing merely hu- 
 man in the Scriptures, it cannot be true that they 
 are wholly of God, or fully inspired. The au- 
 thor's doctrine then is a self-contradiction. The 
 only reason why this contradiction lies hid from the 
 smallest critical discernment is, that by the assertion 
 
81 
 
 that the style and manner are human, he frequently 
 means no more than what every one admits, namely, 
 that they are the characteristic style and manner 
 of the writers. In this light the Christian Observ- 
 er seems to consider his doctrine; but in this sense 
 there is nothing in the assertion that can entitle it 
 to be called a theory of Mr Wilson's. Besides, his 
 assertions again and again make the style and 
 manner a distinct part in the composition of the 
 Scriptures, in which God had no hand. 
 
 But why do the reviewers refuse to say that the 
 Scriptures are human as well as divine, if they 
 adopt the author's conclusions ? If a constituent 
 part of the composition belongs to man in such a 
 sense, that it does not also belong to God, is not 
 such a fact as truly human, as the rest is divine ? 
 Indeed, according to Mr Wilson, the Scriptures are 
 neither human nor divine ; they are not, as he as- 
 serts, in contradiction to himself, all human and all 
 divine ; they are partly human and partly divine. 
 But according to his theory, they are as truly hu- 
 man as they are divine. The Christian Observer 
 then appears to be very slightly acquainted with 
 this subject. 
 
 It is much to be lamented, that a periodical 
 which has so much influence on the Christian pub- 
 lic, should express itself substantially satisfied with 
 a theory of inspiration which lowers the character 
 of the divine word, without even the alleviating 
 circumstance, of removing a single difficulty con- 
 nected with the subject. That so crude a theory 
 should be dignified as a philosophical solution of a 
 
 F 
 
difficult theological question, hitherto unanswered, 
 must surprise every one capable of analysing the 
 author's paradoxes. Indeed, a paradoxical way 
 of speaking is the only thing original in this scheme. 
 Let it be divested of this, and nothing is left for 
 Mr Wilson. The fact, that in the Scriptures there 
 is a human manner, has never been questioned — has 
 never been unknown. That not only the manner, 
 but the thoughts, reasonings, and conclusions may 
 all be ascribed to the writers, is a thing that no 
 man who reads the Bible can question. How then 
 can Mr Wilson deserve the credit of unveiling an 
 important hidden truth.'' W^hat has he discovered, 
 that was not always known ? To the careless 
 reader, who never thinks of forming accurate ideas 
 of w^hat hes before him, there is in Mr Wilson's 
 language, the appearance of great depth and meta- 
 physical acumen in reconciling things apparently 
 incongruous ; but when it is more closely examined, 
 it turns out to be a pompous way of saying nothing. 
 But if God is in very deed, the Author of the 
 Scriptures, how guilty must he be, who has exert- 
 ed his ingenuity to deprive him of any part of 
 them ! How guilty must they be, who encourage 
 him in this sacrilege ! 
 
STRICTURES ON SOME PARTS 
 
 OF THE 
 
 REMARKS OF THE ECCLECTIC REVIEW, 
 
 May 1, 1829, 
 
 ON 
 
 DR SCHLEIERMACHER S CRITICAL ESSAY ON 
 THE GOSPEL OF ST LUKE. 
 
 It will be recollected that it was in the Ecclectic 
 Review that the infidel paper appeared, which ex- 
 cludes from the sacred canon of inspired Scripture, 
 a considerable portion of the Old Testament. It 
 will not therefore appear surprising to any who are 
 acquainted with this fact, that the same professedly 
 Evangelical publication, has, in its review of Dr 
 Schleiermacher's Critical Essay on the Gospel of 
 Luke, audaciously charged the Evangelists v^rith 
 falsehood. The accounts in the different Gospels 
 are, according to the reviewers, in some points so con- 
 tradictory, that they have fearlessly adopted the 
 conclusion that the writers of them have erred. 
 
 The work which they profess to review is on the 
 origination of the Gospels, and is of an entirely Neo= 
 
84 
 
 logical cast. The reviewers indeed censure hi? 
 boldness and condemn his errors, but they approach 
 him with such awe and timidity, that their gentle re- 
 proach must be very agreeable to him, if he has any 
 vanity. I shall not trouble myself with the review 
 farther, than respects the subject of inspiration. 
 Schleiermacher's book is one of those productions, 
 that professes to throw light upon the subject of the 
 Evangelical History, by tracing the different Gos- 
 pels to their origin. Such writers suppose that they 
 can discover the diflferent external sources from which 
 the Evangelists took their accounts, and that this 
 discovery removes the difficulties felt from the dis- 
 agreement of their narratives. The elucidation of 
 this question has occupied some of the most consi- 
 derable Biblical scholars in our own country, and 
 the Ecclectic Review has produced a specimen on 
 this subject, which shews their entire approbation 
 of such attempts. Now, notwithstanding the cele- 
 brity of some of the writers who have occupied 
 their ingenuity on this subject, and the general ap- 
 probation of their labour, 1 will be as rash as Job's 
 three friends, and pronounce with the fullest confi- 
 dence, that the utmost exertions of talent can never 
 produce any thing but a figment in this matter; 
 and farther, that though the truth was exactly 
 known, it would be of no value for the alleged pur- 
 pose. It is indeed perfectly agreeable to the doctrine 
 of complete inspiration, that the writers of the Gos- 
 pels should have taken much of their accounts from 
 external sources. Inspiration applies to them in 
 copying a genealogical title, receiving an account of 
 
85 
 
 a fact from an eye witness, copying uninspired re- 
 cords, or making extracts from them, as well as in 
 the most important communications of the Holy Spi- 
 rit. But to pretend at this distance of time, to discov- 
 er and ascertain the different external sources from 
 which each of the Evangelists draw their materials, 
 is an attempt that sober good sense never will make. 
 No historical question can ever be settled by theory. 
 The utmost that ingenuity can reach is probability, 
 or rather plausibility. A thing may have been so 
 as is alleged, but it may not have been so, and no- 
 thing but childish credulity will ever receive as his- 
 torical truth, the most harmonious tales of fiction. 
 
 £f this is a just obserration, how deplorable is it 
 that the young Biblical student should have his ta- 
 lents so misdirected as they are likely to be, by the 
 remarks in the following extract from the Ecclec- 
 tic Review? 
 
 " The subject to which this volume (Schleier- 
 ' macher's Essay) relates, is the origination of the 
 
 * Gospels, particularly the first three. The Bishop 
 
 * of Peterborough's Dissertation, annexed to his 
 
 * Translation of Michaelis's Introduction, in 1801, 
 ' first brought the subject fully before the minds of 
 ' English readers. The early Protestant Commen- 
 ' tators and Divines, with the exception of Gro- 
 
 * tius, had scarcely adverted to the subject, or had 
 
 * contented themselves with occasional and brief 
 
 * notices, such as a slight examination must have 
 ' ascertained to be quite unsatisfactory. Towards 
 
 * the beginning of the eighteenth century, Le Clerc, 
 
 * Mill, and Wetstein, proposed their opinions on 
 
' this question; and in a following period, itwasin- 
 ' vestigated with great assiduity by Michaelis and 
 
 * many others of the German critics, and in our 
 
 * own country chiefly by the late Dr Henry Owen. 
 
 * But it is during tbe last forty years that the most 
 
 * laborious diligence has been employed upon it, 
 ' by the late estimable Dr Nieraeyer, by Eich- 
 
 * horn, and by many others of the German Bible 
 ' scholars." Such is the history of this foolish and 
 untaught question. The laborious trifling of mis- 
 employed learning and ingenuity is here exhibited 
 with an approbation that must give a wrong direc- 
 tion to the talents of young biblical students, as far 
 as it has any influence on the Christian public. In 
 what immediately follows, we have the phenomena 
 and the theory founded on them. ** Whoever reads 
 
 * a Greek Harmony of the Gospels, must be struck 
 ' with these facts : that Matthew, Mark, and Luke 
 
 * frequently recite the same facts, but particularly 
 ' speeches of our Lord, in the same words; — that 
 ' often there is such a variation of the words, but 
 
 * conservation of the sense, as usually takes place 
 
 * when two persons translate into one language a 
 ' passage from a foreign book; — that still more in- 
 
 * stances occur, in which the variation is much less 
 ' than must necessarily be in the case just suppos- 
 " ed, while yet the conformity is not perfect, as in 
 
 * the first class of instances ; — that in some cases, 
 
 * the differences are very considerable, referring to 
 
 * words spoken, actions performed, and the con- 
 
 * secution of events; — and that in other cases, the 
 '. variations are such as appear irreconcilable by 
 
87 
 
 * any method that ingenuity can devise, so that we 
 
 * are driven to the conclusion, that some of the 
 
 * Evangelists have erred in the dates of events, the 
 
 * combination of materials, and other minute cir- 
 
 * cumstances, merely of an outward and mechani- 
 
 * cal kind, and which have no effect whatever on 
 
 * the certainty of their narrative, or its grand use 
 
 * for religious instruction." 
 
 Here we have without disguise the appalling as- 
 sertion that there are various errors in the Evangeli- 
 cal histories. It is not my business to controvert 
 this infidel statement, else I might allege that inge- 
 nuity might yet do what it has never done, and that 
 all former failures are no certain proof that the 
 thing is impracticable. These sages are not to take 
 it for granted, that human ingenuity can never ad- 
 vance beyond their attainments, or even the ad- 
 vance of all former times. 1 might allege reconci- 
 liation might be possible, though human ingenuity 
 should never effect it, and that a proper sense of 
 human weakness, as well as a reverence for the 
 word of God, ought to have prevented this blasphe- 
 mous charge. Pray, gentlemen reviewers, might 
 not a harmony of the Gospels be possible, though 
 your exquisite sagacity has not found it? 1 might 
 allege also, that in effecting a harmony, every pos- 
 sible supposition is perfectly allowable, and any 
 thing that could possibly reconcile the accounts may 
 be taken for granted. Even if two accounts ap- 
 parently of the same transaction should be palpably 
 irreconcilable, there is still a possibility that it is 
 not the same. A sentiment uttered on one occa- 
 
sion, may have been uttered on another with some 
 variety, and that which appears to be' the same mi- 
 racle variously related, may in reality have been 
 two. But 1 will allege nothing like this. I will 
 take it for granted that the blasphemous charge of 
 these Evangelical critics is true. Of what use on 
 this supposition, are speculations on the origination 
 of the Gospels? Can the result of these specula- 
 tions produce a harmony w^here there is acknow- 
 ledged contradiction ? They may account for va- 
 riety, but can they excuse error ? If the Evange- 
 lists have erred, it does not free them from that er- 
 ror, to discover its source. After all the specula- 
 tions of these theorists, the error, with all its evils, 
 still remains. But these errors, it seems, are of 
 small moment. They are merely " outward and 
 
 * mechanical." But how errors of dates and false 
 combinations of fact, can be cdWedi the outward and 
 mechatiical errors of history, is what I cannot un- 
 derstand. Faults of this kind do not belong to in- 
 artificial composition. Nor is it true that errors of 
 this description have no effect on the certainty of 
 the narrative. It is true indeed, that the substance 
 of a narrative may be true, while there is a mistake 
 in the date; and two facts may be true, while they 
 are erroneously combined; but error in any of these 
 respects, brings the w^hole Bible into suspicion; and 
 when the whole claims the authority of inspiration, 
 a false date is as bad as a false narrative. When 
 we read, '* All Scripture is given by inspiration of 
 
 * God," we cannot admit that God has committed 
 an error in the date, more than in the transactions. 
 
89 
 
 This passage of Scripture demands trntb in the 
 dates, as well as in the substance of the narratives. 
 If the Scriptures assert inspiration equally with re- 
 spect to every part of them, an error of any kind, 
 were it established against them, would overturn 
 their authority. 
 
 " There are, indeed," says the reviewers, ** some 
 ' persons who suppose that all and singular the 
 
 * sentences and words, in the very order in which 
 ' they stand through the whole of the Gospel Re- 
 ' cords, were literally dictated by the Holy Spi- 
 
 * rit ;" Extravagant fanatics 1 What could lead 
 them to so wild a conceit ! What absurdity to 
 suppose that the words and sentences of a book, 
 aye, all and singular the words and sentences, in 
 the very order in which they stand, should be the 
 very words and sentences and arrangement of the 
 author of such book! What then, gentlemen, is 
 your theory on this subject? Will you shew us 
 how any piece of composition can be ascribed to 
 an author, when the words, sentences, and colloca- 
 tion are not his own ? Are the words, sentences, 
 and arrangement, no parts of the writing to which they 
 belong? I am one of those fantastic people who 
 believe that a writing contains all the words,sentences, 
 and arrangement, that are found in it; and there- 
 fore cannot see how all Scripture is given by inspi- 
 ration, if any word originally in the Scriptures was 
 uninspired. I am so old fashioned, as to believe, 
 that if all Scripture is inspired, there is no Scrip- 
 ture which is uninspired ; for I have not yet learn- 
 ed to believe both sides of a contradiction. But 
 
90 
 
 this is not the most extravagant thing that these 
 grave review^ers charge on their opponents on the 
 question of inspiration. They add, " and that the 
 
 * Evangelists had no other part to perform than 
 
 * that of mechanical hand-vi^riters." Stop a little, 
 gentlemen. Where did you find this ? In wrhose 
 writings can you verify this charge ? I will not 
 say that you never met with it, for in London, that 
 hot-bed of fanaticism, there may be paroxisms of 
 religious phrenzy beyond the cold conception of 
 mere provincials. But 1 will say, since I began 
 to examine this subject, I have not met it. I 
 never met an individual who looked upon the Evan- 
 gelists as merely mechanical hand-writers. It is 
 universally admitted, that the inspired writers were 
 rational organs through which the Holy Spirit com- 
 municated his mind, though every word written 
 by them in the Scriptures was from God. There 
 is nothing irreconcilable in the two parts of this 
 statement. God can surely speak his words through 
 man, in such a way that the words and thoughts 
 shall be the words and thoughts of both. If, how- 
 ever, the reviewers make this assertion with respect 
 to those who in the late controversy have held the 
 doctrine of verbal inspiration, the charge is utterly 
 false. And there is some reason to think, that this 
 is the allusion. For they add, ** those persons, 
 
 * therefore, do not shrink from maintaining, that the 
 
 * variations, equally with the coincidences, even those 
 
 * which apparently are the most insusceptible of be- 
 ' ing bent to reconciliation, all proceeded from one 
 ' and the same source, the verbal prescription of the 
 
91 
 
 * Spirit of truth." I have distinctly avowed the sen- 
 timent here alluded to ; and I do not shrink from 
 defending anything I have advanced on the subject. 
 I have said, that any variety that is v^rarrantable in 
 the different rehearsals of the same fact by an hon- 
 est v^^tness in the things of man, is equally warrant- 
 able in the different relations of the same fact by 
 the Holy Spirit. It is a fanatical misconception 
 of the nature of truth and falsehood, to suppose 
 that what is consistent with veracity in the lan- 
 guage of man, would be inconsistent with it in the 
 language of God. To repeat a narrative with the 
 exactness of a message in Homer's heralds, is not 
 required by truth in the language of either God or 
 man. And if there are any discrepancies in the 
 accounts of the Evangelists, which do not come un- 
 der the protection of this shield, but are real errors, 
 I maintain that they overturn the inspiration of the 
 Scriptures altogether, and are inconsistent with the 
 declaration, that " All Scripture is given by the in- 
 ' spiration of God." 
 
 " The chief questions are," say the reviewers, 
 " Did one or two of the first three Evangelists 
 ' transcribe from the other? Or did they all make 
 
 * use of some one common document, taking from 
 
 * it more or less of their respective matter.^ Or 
 ' had they a variety of such common documents ? 
 
 * The affirmative of each of these positions has been 
 
 * maintained by different writers ; and each has at- 
 
 * tempted to shew the impossibility of any theory 
 
 * being true, except his own." Now, if there is 
 an irreconcilable difference between the accounts 
 
of the Evangelists on any point, how can it har- 
 monize them to know the sources from which each 
 took his matter ? Do not the reviewers assert, that 
 some of the accounts are erroneous? Of what 
 avail then is it to point out the source of the error, 
 even were this possible? Can this excuse false- 
 hood, or convert falsehood into truth ? If two 
 English historians differ in the date of any event, 
 does it reconcile them to point out the different 
 authorities which they have followed ? So far then 
 from these being the chief questions on this subject, 
 they are not questions that relate to the subject at 
 all. And as they are questions that are not an- 
 swered by the Scriptures, they are questions that 
 no man of a sound mind would ever ask. They 
 are questions that never can be answered but by 
 conjecture; and on such answers a wise man will 
 not build any part of his faith on any subject. 
 They are questions perfectly similar to those which 
 have inquired after the name and the kindred of the 
 Witch of Ender, and the names of those two men 
 who accompanied Saul when he went to consult 
 her. Who can tell whether her name was Ze- 
 phaniah, or in what respect would it profit us to 
 know this ? Is it possible to determine, whether 
 or not she was the mother of Abner ? Or would 
 the settling of this question enrich our knowledge ? 
 Whether Abner and Amasa were the two men 
 that accompanied Saul on his errand, cannot now be 
 known ; and could it be known, would be of no ad- 
 vantao-e. 
 
93 
 
 Such questions did much occupy the Jewish 
 Doctors, and much of the information which they 
 communicated in their commentaries is of this sort. 
 It is lamentable to find the censors of the press, the 
 professed defenders of evangelical sentiments in 
 England in the nineteenth century, approving of 
 a species of inquiry equally vain, equally useless. 
 To find out the sources of the Gospels by theories 
 founded on suppositions, is as idle as to attempt the 
 discovery of the sources of the Nile or the Niger in 
 the same manner. 
 
 That my readers may be enabled to judge with 
 more advantage with respect to these competent 
 theories, I shall present them with a specimen 
 that these reviewers have themselves exhibited with 
 approbation. " Perhaps we shall be forgiven," 
 they say, " if we here borrow a few paragraphs 
 
 * from lectures on this subject, which have been 
 ' delivered more than twenty years ago, in one of 
 
 * the Dissenting Colleges near the metropolis." 
 
 '^ Wherever the apostles went to preach the gos- 
 
 * pel, we find them attentive to two great objects ; 
 ' the first, the conversion of men to the faith and 
 
 * obedience of their Redeemer ; the second, the in- 
 " struction and edification of those who had been 
 ' already converted. 
 
 ** In discharging the duties of the second class, 
 
 * the first Christian teachers must have experienced 
 ' such a state of things as I shall now take the li- 
 ' berty of supposing. The new converts could not 
 ' but feel themselves deeply interested to inquire 
 
 * for all attainable information relative to the cha- 
 
94 
 
 ract6r, conduct, miracles, and discourses of the 
 Lord Jesus. With such requests, the apostolic 
 instructors would undoubtedly be disposed to com- 
 ply, to the utmost of their power and opportu- 
 nity. We have in Acts xx. 35, a reference to in- 
 formation of this kind, but which is not recorded 
 by any one of the E\angelists. 
 
 " The relations thus given by the apostles, would 
 be of various length, and would comprehend one 
 OT more anecdotes or discourses ; as the judgment 
 of the relaters, under the inspiring guidance of 
 the Holy Spirit, dictated the propriety of the se- 
 lection, in application to the circumstances of 
 those for whose benefit it was imparted. 
 
 " These relations would be justly esteemed of 
 the highest value ; on account of the important 
 and interesting nature of the matter, and on account 
 of the promised influence of the Holy Spirit, to 
 bring to the recollection of the disciples "all things 
 * whatsoever Jesus had said unto them." 
 
 " Within the immediate confines of Judea, the 
 apostles would usually deliver their discourses in 
 Syro-Chaldaic, the language of the country; but 
 in other places they commonly spoke the Alex- 
 andrian Greek. 
 
 *' Though it is not probable that any of the apos- 
 tles, during the first few years of their laborious 
 duties, committed to writing any large accounts ; 
 they might, upon request, write down such or 
 such a particular relation or discourse of their 
 Divine Master. Or, perhaps more probably, 
 some one of their hearers wrote from their mouths 
 
95 
 
 those relations. In each of their various audi- 
 ences of converts, it may surely be presumed, 
 that one person, at least, was competent to per- 
 form this service for himself and his companions 
 in the faith. 
 
 " It is further a matter of reasonable presump- 
 tion, that such memorials, records, fragments, or 
 whatever we may call them, would be presented 
 by the writer to the apostle from whose oral in- 
 structions they had been derived ; with a request 
 for revision and correction. Thus, these detached 
 portions of narrative, conversation, or continued 
 discourse, would obtain most justly the sanction 
 of apostolic authority ; and would be preserved, 
 read, circulated, copied, and reverenced accord- 
 ingly. 
 
 " To the Evangelists Mark and Luke, such frag- 
 ments would be of immense value. It may be 
 presumed, that they diligently collected them, 
 that they were able fully to appreciate their 
 claims to authenticity, and that they introduced 
 those which they knew to be of indubitable au- 
 thority into their respective narratives ; and some 
 of them might, with equally good reason, be in- 
 serted by Matthew in bis original Syro-Chaldaic 
 Gospel. Luke adverts, in plain terms, to a plu- 
 rality of sources from which he had deduced his 
 information, when he says, that " those who 
 
 * from the beginning had been eye witnesses and 
 
 * attendants of the word, had delivered" their de- 
 clarations; and that he himself " had diligently 
 
 * traced up all from the first." When the translator 
 
96 
 
 * of Matthew's Gospel into Greek, whether that was 
 ' himself or any other person, found any of these 
 
 * fragments which corresponded with passages in his 
 
 * original, he would act properly by availing him- 
 
 * self of them, and transcribing them into his ver- 
 
 * sion. This conjecture applies, of course, to the 
 
 * Greek fragments, which may be presumed to 
 ' have been the more numerous of the two classes. 
 
 " The inference from these positions is ; that, 
 ' where we find the continued verbal agreements in 
 
 * the three or in two of these sacred writers, we 
 ' are reading an authentic Greek fragment, which 
 ' each possessed and faithfully inserted in his work ; 
 ' but that, where we find the coincidences w^hichare 
 ' not strictly verbal, but he in the collocation of 
 
 * sentences and members of sentences, each of the 
 
 * writers had before him a copy of the same Syro- 
 ' Chaldaic fragment, and translated it into Greek 
 
 * for his own purpose." 
 
 Now what is this but a theological novel, as 
 much the work of invention as Waverley ? There 
 is no more reason to believe that all these supposi- 
 tions were actually realized, than that Sir Walter 
 Scott gives an authentic history of the attempt of 
 Prince Charles Edward. Is it possible that a writer 
 can be so frantic as to call on his readers to receive 
 conjectures as facts.? Must every link of a chain 
 of suppositions be admitted as historical evidence .? 
 The novels of Sir Walter Scott do not demand our 
 faith, though they may possess much historical 
 truth ; and they give the knowledge of life, man- 
 ners, and of many things that may be profitable ; 
 
97 
 
 but a thousand volumes of such theological romances 
 would not enrich a reader with a single idea. Rea- 
 sonings founded on conjecture with respect to the 
 things of God, pervert the mind from the true pur- 
 suit and the true sources of knowledge. How la- 
 mentable to find a Professor in a theological chair, 
 in a seminary professedly evangelical, amusing his 
 students with reveries about the origination of the 
 Gospels, instead of an able exposition of the con- 
 tents of the Bible ! If this is the way in which 
 the English Dissenters are now taught in their Col- 
 leges, it will not be surprising if, in process of 
 time, their professors shall amuse the siudents by 
 mimicking the trick of the resurrection of Jesus, 
 Whatever ingenuity a man may discover in devis- 
 ino" and harmonizing such theories, a sound mind he 
 cannot possess, and none but fanatics can receive 
 edification. 
 
 But granting for a moment, that all these con- 
 jectures were matter of fact, of what avail would 
 this theory be for harmonising the evangelists? 
 Would it convert the supposed errors in the gos- 
 pels into truth ? Would it shew that inspiration 
 might communicate a falsehood ? " Upon this ge- 
 
 * neral basis," say the reviewers, " we understand 
 
 * that the Professor whose words we have borrow- 
 
 * ed, conceives that both the agreements and the 
 
 * disagreements, and all the other phenomena of the 
 
 * case, may be accounted for ; so far as it is in our 
 
 * power to account for them." This basis ! A 
 thain of suppositions! This is a basis without a 
 jase. This is truly like the Indian philosopher, 
 
98 
 
 who supported the world on the back of an ele- 
 phant, and the elephant on the back of a huge tor- 
 toise. This theory might, indeed, shew the rea- 
 son of the coincidences, and the reason of the dis- 
 agreements. But does this harmonise the discre- 
 pancies ? Does this shew that all Scripture may 
 be given by inspiration, while the Scriptures abound 
 in errors? To find out the external sources of the 
 gospels, even were it now possible, would be no- 
 thing but a matter of mere curiosity. The man 
 who would give two hundred pounds for a Queen 
 Ann's farthing, might value such information. Rut 
 any man of a well regulated mind, would utterly 
 undervalue such a discovery. Dr Schleiermacher's 
 theory, the reviewers inform us, is essentially the 
 same with that of the English Dissenting Professor ; 
 but the intrepidity of our critics begin to fail them, 
 when the German Neologist attempts to harmonise 
 Matthew and Luke, by turning some parts of the 
 accounts into allegories and fables. " But when," 
 say they, *' to accomplish the long-felt desideratum 
 
 * of harmonising this narrative (of Luke) with that 
 
 * in Matthew i. 12. — ii. 23. he brings out the sup- 
 ' position, that certain parts in the narrative of each 
 ' Evangelist are jpoetical allegories, we feel the 
 ' ground shake under our feet." But had the re- 
 viewers been as well acquainted with the country 
 as their profession demanded, they would have left 
 their guide on the edge of the quagmire, instead of 
 accompanying him to the very gulph which now 
 affrights them. They should not have entered the 
 very margin of the regions of conjecture on a theo- 
 
99 
 
 logical subject. And after all, are not the fears of 
 the reviewers either affectation, or cowardice ? Is 
 it worse in the German Neologist, to charge a false- 
 hood on the Bible under the decent veil of allegory 
 or instructive fable, than in the reviewers to charge 
 in direct terms, various errors on the accounts of 
 the Evangelists? These young Neological recruits, 
 who have now shewn themselves so nervous at the 
 first fire, will forget their fears, it is to be expected, 
 during the remainder of the engagement. If they 
 have now courage to charge the book of God with 
 errors in dates and combination of facts, the Neo- 
 logians have no reason to despair, that they will 
 come in time to pronounce, without faultering, 
 *' patches of parable and instructive fable." 
 
 On the whole, it is evident, that the German 
 Neologians have had their influence even on the 
 evangelical press of England ; and that with all the 
 horror expressed with respect to their most extra- 
 vagant dogmas, there is an attempt to meet them, 
 and a desire to fraternize, as far as possible, in their 
 speculations. The tone of this Review indicates 
 much more complaisance towards the errors of 
 learned ingenuity, then of zeal for the honour of 
 the word of God. A reviewer possessing an apos- 
 tolic spirit, must have stamped every part of Dr 
 Schleiermachers* work with his strongest reproba- 
 tion. 
 
100 
 
 REMARKS* 
 
 ON 
 
 DR PYE SMITH'S THEORY OF INSPIRATION. 
 
 Dr Smith's account of inspiration appears to me 
 to proceed on principles at variance with the fun- 
 damental laws of biblical interpretation. It founds 
 on theory, and supports itself not by the declara- 
 tions of the divine word itself, but by the supposi- 
 tion of difficulties and views of necessity- What- 
 ever distance there may be between the inspiration 
 allowed by Dr Haffner, and that contended for 
 by this writer, they both build on the same objec- 
 tionable foundation, though the rehgious sentiments 
 of the latter, permit him to ascribe a greater de- 
 
 * These remarks were originally subjoined to a Review of 
 the Rev. Dr. J. Pye Smith's Defence of Dr HafFner of Stras- 
 burg's Neological Preface to the Bible. The latter is in this 
 edition omitted, as being unconnected with the subject of In- 
 spiration. 
 
101 
 
 .gree of divine assistance. What is the method that 
 just criticism would adopt in ascertaining the na- 
 ^ture and extent of inspiration ? Undoubtedly it is 
 by arguing, what saith the Scriptures ? Whether 
 the Scriptures are inspired at all, and what is the 
 extent of that inspiration, can be learned from no 
 other source. I turn then to 2 Tim. iii. 16, and 
 it immediately gives me full and perfectly satisfac- 
 tory information. It declares, that " all Scripture 
 * is given by inspiration of God."' Here plenary 
 inspiration is expressly asserted ; for what is a 
 writing but words written ? The thoughts and 
 sentiments are the meaning of the words. To say 
 that a writing is inspired while the words arc un- 
 inspired, is a contradiction in terms. It is not said 
 that the doctrines of Scripture, or the thoughts and 
 sentiments of Scripture, but that the Scriptures them- 
 selves, are given by the inspiration of God, It is of the 
 words as containing the meaning, and not of the mean- 
 ing as distinguished from the words, that inspiration is 
 directly and expressly asserted. For my own complete 
 satisfaction, I require not an additional particle of 
 evidence. But itj to silence the captiousness of er- 
 ror, 1 proceed to examine what additional light the 
 Scriptures afford, I am altogether overwhelmed 
 with the mass of evidence brought to bear on the 
 subject. This may be seen fully exhibited in Mr 
 Haldane's Treatise on the Authenticity and Inspi- 
 ration of the Holy Scriptures. As 1 am not now 
 arguing the point, but only shewing the legitimate 
 mode of procedure, in every question with respect 
 to what is taught in Scripture, I decline giving even 
 
102 
 
 an epitome of that evidence. I shall merely sug- 
 gest one or two things that may be expressed in a 
 few words. Some things in Scripture must neces- 
 sarily have been inspired in words, as well as 
 thoughts. All prophecies not understood by the 
 Prophets, must have had such an inspiration. 
 Here, then, we have a key to the nature and ex- 
 tent of inspiration. If any other part of the Scrip- 
 tures are ascribed to a lower degree of inspiration, 
 we are to believe it; but without this, we are to 
 look on all as inspired to the same extent, as the 
 same inspiration is equally asserted of all. That 
 there are different degress of inspiration, is not an 
 assertion of the Scriptures themselves, but an ar- 
 bitrary theory of man. We find again, that the 
 Apostles, on the prospect of appearing before kings 
 and governors, were directed by their Master not 
 to think previously on what they were to say, as 
 they would be supplied with a defence in the mo- 
 ment of trial r " It is not you that speak, but the 
 * Holy Ghost." Now, if verbal inspiration was 
 communicated on such occasions, surely it would 
 not be withheld from the Scriptures, which are to 
 abide to the end of the world. 
 
 But instead of proceeding in this way, \^ inquire 
 of the Scriptures the nature and extent of their 
 inspiration, Dr S. as if they could not settle the 
 question, invents a theory, and forms an inspiration, 
 varying in extent, agreeably to supposed exigen- 
 cies, without even alleging the colour of Scriptural 
 authority. A plenary verbal inspiration is unne- 
 cessari/f — is attended ivith difficulties, — detracts 
 
103 
 
 from the authority of translation^ — gives iveight 
 to objections from various readings, — therefore^ 
 there is not a plenary inspiration. Now, admit- 
 ing all the premises, all of which I deny, I do not 
 admit the conclusion. Human views of what is 
 unnecessary, — the existence of difficulties, — the 
 degree of authority due to translations, — and the 
 weight of objections from various readings, are not 
 a paramount reason to set aside the evidence of 
 Scripture doctrine : but I shall examine his four 
 objections separately. 
 
 *^ The hypothesis,** says Dr Smith, " that, in 
 ' every case (for in some it was evidently neces- 
 
 * sary) the identical words were infused into the 
 ' mind of the inspired writer, appears to me un- 
 
 * tenable, for these reasons :" Smith's Scripture 
 Testimony to the Messiah, vol. i. p. 62. 
 
 This is not an hypothesis, Dr Smith : it is the 
 express assertion of the Holy Spirit. If Dr S. 
 could shew that the words, 2 Tim. iii. 16, do not 
 imply verbal inspiration, he would show that our 
 interpretation of that passage is wrong ; not that 
 our hypothesis is untenable. We form no hypo- 
 thesis on the subject, —we deny hypothesis, — we 
 abhor hypothesis, with respect to every truth that 
 can be known only by the revelation of God. 
 
 " It is an unnecessary supposition. For the di- 
 ' vine influence on the mind of the inspired writer 
 
 * would as certainly guide the rational faculty of 
 
 * expression to the adoption of the best and inost 
 ' suitable terms and phrases, as if the words were 
 
 * dictated to a mere amanuensis." 
 
lt)4 
 
 I have never met a writer who betrays greater 
 indistinctness in his conceptions than this author. 
 I thought the question was, whether the very 
 words, all the words originally written in the 
 ►Scriptures, were inspired as well as the thoughts. 
 Here the question is shifted, and the matter in 
 doubt is supposed to be, whether the words of 
 Scripture were in/used by the Spirit, or the in- 
 spired writers were certainly guided to the adop- 
 tion of them. Now, if there is any difference be- 
 tween being guided to use a word, and having that 
 word infused into the mind. I do not think that 
 that difference will be of any avail to Dr S.'s the- 
 ory. If the divine influence on the mind of the 
 inspired writer, has certainly guided the rational 
 faculty of expression to the adoption of the best 
 and most suitable terms and phrases, then the terms 
 and phrases of Scripture are all given by God. Is 
 this any thing akin to the theory, that in some 
 things the words are left to the writers themselves, 
 or that the inspiration is in the thoughts rather than 
 the words ? The theory used in practice, and the 
 theory vindicated, are quite different. The 
 former is designed to afford some relief from the 
 supposed consequences of plenary verbal inspira- 
 tion; the latter, if it is not really such, is exposed 
 to all its objections. The guiding with certainty 
 to the use of a term, secures it as firmly as infusion. 
 What is guiding to the use of a word, but inspira- 
 tion ? 
 
 By the assertion that such a mode of inspiration 
 is unnecessary, the author's scheme requires^ not 
 
105 
 
 merely that certain guidance will supply the 
 place of infusion, but that some things do not re- 
 quire verbal inspiration at all. While the thoughts 
 and sentiments are communicated by the Spirit, the 
 writers may clothe them with expression. Now, 
 complete inspiration is necessary as the ultimate 
 resource in securing us that w^e have the mind of 
 the Spirit. We may indeed have an inspired 
 thought in uninspired words, as in translations of 
 the Scriptures; but that we have the inspired 
 thought, cannot be known on the highest evidence, 
 but by knowing the inspired words. How can a 
 thought be known, but by the words that express 
 it ? And how can we know that the words ex- 
 press the thoughts of the author, if they are not the 
 words of the author ? Had the inspired writers 
 been left to themselves, as to the choice of 
 words in any part of their writings, they might have 
 made a bad choice, and inadequately or erroneous- 
 ly represented the mind of the Spirit. The best 
 writer that ever moved a quill, may often fail in 
 expressing his own sentiments. Instances might be 
 given in which the most learned writers mis-state 
 their own meaning, and sometimes convey no mean- 
 ing at all. Shall the fishermen of Galilee, then, be 
 supposed equal to express themselves with unerring 
 correctness, if left to their own phraseology ? 
 
 It may be said, that this invalidates the authority 
 of translations of the Scriptures. And I admit that 
 it does imply, that no uninspired translation can 
 have the same authority of the inspired original. 
 But where is the man that has ever raised transla- 
 
601 
 
 tions to such a rank ? The universal consent of 
 controversialists takes this for granted, why then 
 should the abettors of verbal inspiration be taken to 
 account on this head ? In determining the meaning 
 of all controverted passages, the last appeal is uni- 
 versally to the original. This is the ultimate 
 ground on which certainty of meaning can be af- 
 fixed. They who cannot have access to the very 
 words which the Holy Spirit has inspired, have not 
 the highest grounds of certainty as to his meaning. 
 The inferiority of the authority of translations to 
 the inspired original, is a fact that all must equally 
 admit. Dr S. himself asks, if Alethia understands 
 German, — supposing this to be a qualification for 
 the adequate ability of deciding with respect to the 
 sentiments contained in Dr HalTner's Preface to the 
 Bible. 
 
 But, while all must admit that uninspired trans- 
 lations have an authority inferior to that of the in- 
 spired original, no sound critic can question the 
 adequacy of translation for all essential purposes to 
 the unlearned. The Scriptures are not in a worse 
 condition, on this point, than the classics, and all 
 ancient and foreign books. Every one knows, that 
 to understand what is going on in the Continent, 
 the bulk of the people of this country have no es- 
 sential need for its languages. Nay, a criminal 
 may be tried for his life, upon the testimony of a 
 witness whose meaning can only be known to the 
 court by interpretation. For the general faithful- 
 ness of translations, there may be every testimony 
 that, in human affairs, usually determines opinion 
 
107 
 
 on the most important points. Nor is the learned 
 man himself independent of human testimony: on 
 this ground it is that he knows he has the inspired 
 original. And though he has the inspired original, 
 he has not an inspired or infallible knowledge of 
 that original. In many things, then, he will be li- 
 able to mistake the inspired meaning. While he 
 has an undoubted and a very great advantage over 
 the ilHterate, he is not without difficulty, nor be- 
 yond the reach of error. In judging of the fitness 
 of the modes of communicating divine knowledge, 
 incredulity demands evidence that admits no eva- 
 sion ; and learned Christians often desire to indulge 
 them in this humour. But in this they err, not 
 thoroughly knowing the Scriptures, nor the works 
 of creation and providence. In all God's works 
 there is the impression of his own hand; — not, 
 however, so legible, but chicanery may question it, 
 and plausibly ascribe it to forgery. Infidels de- 
 mand evidence with respect to the Scriptures, not 
 analogical to that in any other of God's works ; 
 and when Christians endeavour to satisfy them in 
 this, they compromise the dignity of their God. 
 is it not enough that men have the same kind and 
 degree of evidence, with respect to the revealed 
 will of God, that determines them in all other 
 things.^ Must Jehovah shut up every avenue to 
 evasion, before we will deign to accept his mercy? 
 Salvation is our own concern. Shall we then so 
 doat on damnation, that unless one rise from the 
 dead, we will not beheve the message of reconcilia- 
 tion ? If the unlearned man rejects the Scriptures 
 
108 
 
 because he has not an inspired translation, his own 
 conduct, in all other things, wiU attest the justice 
 of his eternal condemnation. To convince him of 
 the duty of receiving his English Bible as a revela- 
 tion from God, there is no need of teaching him 
 the chimerical theory of an inspiration of meaning, 
 abstracted from the words that convey that mean- 
 ing, that will diffuse itself, with equal facility and 
 equal authority, through all the metaphrases, trans- 
 lations, and commentaries. It will be perfectly 
 sufficient to shew him that he has the same kind of 
 authority on which he rests his knowledge of all 
 countries, ancient and modern, — and on which de- 
 pend the most momentous concerns of man. 
 
 Let it be observed also, that we have greater evi- 
 dence of the general correctness and sufficiency of 
 translations, than we could have with respect to 
 the phraseology of the inspired writers, had that 
 been left to themselves. Translations are made by 
 the most learned men of their age and country ; the 
 inspired writers were generally ilUterate, and none 
 of them masters of composition. But what is 
 of higher importance, every error supposed to be 
 committed by the original writers, must remain for 
 ever undiscoverable and irremediable ; whereas, if 
 a translation commits an error, it can be corrected 
 by recourse to the original. The inspired original 
 remains a ground-work for reference, with respect 
 to all translations. There can be no such appeal 
 with respect to any blunders of the inspired writers. 
 If they have erred in the choice of a word or 
 phrase, we cannot go up to heaven to have it cor- 
 
109 
 
 rected. The general consent of translations, in re- 
 presenting scriptural truth, is such as to afford evi- 
 dence of general correctness. It may be said, in- 
 deed, that a Bible inspired in thoughts, hut unin- 
 spired in words, might have been sufficient as to 
 all things essential to salvation, with all the errors 
 contained in the phraseology. I admit it; but 
 would such a Bible be as good a one as that which 
 is verbally inspired ? Would such a Bible be 
 God's Scriptures ? Could it be said of such a 
 book, that it was all given by inspiration of God? 
 Better to have such a book than no knowledge of 
 salvation, as it would be better to eat bread made of 
 sandy flour, than be starved. But as it would be bet- 
 ter to have bread made of pure flour, so it would be 
 better to have an inspired Bible. A Christian go- 
 ing into a heathen country without a copy of the 
 Scriptures, might communicate the knowledge of 
 salvation. But had he with him all the best books 
 that ever were written on Christianity, could they 
 adequately supply the place of the Bible? But 
 what reason can be assigned for such stinginess in 
 the Divine favour? Why does the all-bountiful 
 Author of creation deal out his boons of grace with 
 so niggardly a hand ? If ho did not employ men 
 to complete his works, why should he to complete 
 his word ? Is the Almighty weary in working, that 
 Christians are unwilling to give him unnecessary 
 trouble? Must they enter into minute calculations 
 to ascertain how far they can do without his assist- 
 ance ? Are they determined to refuse from him 
 
110 
 
 every thing which they can hope to want without 
 irreparable loss? 
 
 Except it is for the same good-natured purpose, 
 to make the toil of complete inspiration less neces- 
 sary in God, I cannot see the use of substituting, in 
 some cases, divine acceftance of words for infusion. 
 According to this scheme there is no need for the 
 inspired writer to trouble the Spirit for the inspira- 
 tion of every word : On many occasions his own 
 knowledge of phraseology, subject to the Divine in- 
 spection, will sufficiently supply him. Such a scheme 
 appears to me too bungling to ascribe to any man 
 of common sense — to ascribe it to Jehovah is, in my 
 view, Httle less than blasphemy. I acknowledge 
 that if God would accept the words suggested spon- 
 taneously, or searched for by the inspired writers, 
 it would come to the same practical issue. A bill 
 accepted is virtually a man's own bill. But to re- 
 present a penman of Scripture and the Holy Spirit 
 as working on such a scheme strikes me as so ridi- 
 culous, that I cannot look at it but with contempt 
 and abhorrence. Is it to make the w^ork a little 
 easier to Omnipotence, and to save some trouble to 
 Him who wearies not in working, that such a con- 
 fused and jumbling plan is proposed? What a 
 wonderful interruption in the mental operations of 
 the Apostles when writing or speaking! How 
 many wrong words and phrases, how many inade- 
 quate expressions, must be supposed to be present- 
 ing themselves to the Holy Spirit for acceptance in 
 the minds of the Apostles I These must all be re- 
 jected, and if not replaced by infusion, new ones 
 
Ill 
 
 must again and again be sought for. If the suit- 
 able word is not supplied immediately by the Spi- 
 rit, the illiterate fishermen might have halted and 
 stammered till eternity, before they would have 
 finished one sermon or one letter. The scheme of 
 acceptance might not have seemed so utterly ridicu- 
 lous, if God had chosen the most learned men as 
 the writers of Scripture ; but with illiterate men, 
 who are almost as ill supphed with terms and 
 phraseology as with ideas, it would be a more te- 
 dious process than complete verbal infusion. 
 
 This also shews the absurdity of supposing that 
 inspiration of facts, with faithfulness of statement, 
 is all that is necessary for Scripture history. No 
 subject requires a more full supply of phraseology 
 than history. No subject requires more art in the 
 disposing of its matter. So difficult is it, indeed, 
 that few men in all ages have succeeded in it. The 
 historian must be master not only of all things re- 
 lated by him, but he must be supplied with the 
 terms and phraseology that respect all the objects, 
 and all the relations, &c. which are to be repre- 
 sented in his history. Ilhterate men have many 
 ideas for which they have no words — learned men 
 themselves are sometimes in the same predicament. 
 Let an illiterate man be inspired with a full know- 
 ledge of all the afi^airs of Britain, throughout all 
 ages, he will still be unfit to write a History of 
 England. He must have a thorough knowledge of 
 the words of the language in which he writes, art 
 to arrange, and what is still more difficult, a flu- 
 ency of expression, and facility of composition. To 
 
112 
 
 the writers of Scripture history, inspiration of words 
 was as necessary as inspiration of facts. But had 
 they been the most perfect masters of language and 
 composition, to write a history that might be per- 
 fectly relied on as a part of the word of God, in- 
 spiration of every word was necessary. Let us 
 grant, however, for a moment, that plenary ver- 
 bal inspiration was not, in our view, essential ; is 
 this a reason why we should not receive the ob- 
 vious testimony of Scripture on this point ? Shall 
 we be allowed to be better judges of what is ne- 
 cessary than God ? How many things will human 
 wisdom reject in Scripture, if this theory is allow- 
 ed ? Some think a general judgment unnecessary, 
 seeing every man is judged at death ; and, accord- 
 ing to this theory, they are justifiable in attempting 
 to explain Scripture in conformity with their opi- 
 nion. 
 
 The second objection to plenary inspiration, al- 
 leged by Dr S. is — 
 
 " It is attended with extreme difficulties. For 
 
 * example ; 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." 
 
 Instead of finding extreme difficulties in the 
 things here mentioned, I can feel no respect 
 for the understanding that finds in them any diffi- 
 culty at all. It is here taken for granted as an 
 
113 
 
 axiom, that two or more accounts of the same 
 thing, differing in phraseology, though substantially 
 agreeing, cannot all be the words of inspiration. 
 Now a very small degree of perspicacity will ena- 
 ble any man to see, that instead of being a neces- 
 sary truth, this has not the smallest foundation. In 
 relating the same event on several occasions, a nar- 
 rator 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 ac- 
 counts substantially agree. To attempt exactly 
 the same phraseology, would rather look suspi- 
 cious. Now, if such is the case among men, why 
 should the Holy Spirit, in relating facts, be bound 
 by different rules ? When he speaks in our lan- 
 guage, shall he not speak truth, as is required of 
 men ? Why 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 w^ere uninspired men, why should 
 it be thought improper for the Holy Spirit to make 
 use of that variety ? Must a different law be pre- 
 scribed to him when he uses the language of man, 
 from that which binds man himself? The thought 
 is perfectly childish. Let us take as an example 
 one fact differently worded by the four Evange- 
 lists — the inscription written over the head of Je- 
 sus on the cross : This is Jesus the King of the 
 
 H 
 
114 
 
 Jews, Matth. — The King of the Jews, Mark — 
 
 ;Tbis is the King of the Jews, Luke — Jesus of 
 Nazareth, the King of the Jews, John. Now 
 I maintain, that as four honest men might have 
 related this fact, with this variety of expression, 
 without any impeachment on their veracity, 
 so may the Holy Spirit. The man who says 
 that it is impossible for any of these accounts 
 but one to be the language of inspiration, vir- 
 tually asserts that none of them can be the lan- 
 guage of truth, but one. If the four accounts are 
 all substantially true, and would not discredit any 
 of four uninspired men, they may, without any dis- 
 paragement to God, be all the language of the Ho- 
 ly Spirit. In speaking the language of men, his ve- 
 racity must be tried by the rules of human lan- 
 guage. Instead, then, of saying that such a variety 
 of expression in relating this fact, supposes that the 
 words were left to the EvangeHsts themselves, 1 
 will fearlessly assert, that each of the four accounts 
 is verbally the inspiration of the Holy Spirit. If 
 the four accounts are true and reconcileable as the 
 language of men, they are equally true and recon- 
 cileable as the language of God. It is a hypercri- 
 tical fastidiousness that demands from God an iden- 
 tity of expression in narration, whijh truth never 
 demanded from man. From this variety I deduce 
 a far different doctrine from Dr S. As, in the word 
 of God, I perceive a palpable, I may say a designed 
 variety of expression in relating the same thing, I 
 learn from this, that the God of truth sanctions the 
 great principle that is acknowledged by men in ge- 
 
115 
 
 neral with respect to the nature of truth, and gives 
 not his countenance to that affected morality, that, 
 like Dr Smith's, pretends to find imperfection in the 
 smallest instance of verbal variety. We have the 
 authority of the divine example, that substantial 
 truth is truth, with whatever variety it may be ex- 
 pressed. Dr S. tells us that, " 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 w^ith precisely the same 
 ' effect." Why, Dr S., should this imply that each 
 may not be the language of the Spirit ? If the sense 
 is precisely the same, must the God of truth be 
 forbidden to use a variety of expression, perfectly 
 allowable to man ? Yet Dr S., certainly not to the 
 credit of his understanding, infers from the above 
 fact, that, *' if we denjand a verbal inspiration in 
 ' any one of these cases, we destroy the possibility 
 
 * with respect to the correspondent passage." I ad- 
 mit this variety, and yet 1 demand a verbal inspira- 
 tion, not merely in some one, but in each of the 
 correspondent passages. Any thing that forbids the 
 verbal inspiration, will affect the truth of the rela- 
 tion. If it is truth as the word of an uninspired 
 historian, it certainly is not less truth as the word 
 of God. Dr S. must have very Hmited views of 
 possibility, when he imagines an impossibility here. 
 It is evident that there is great confusion in his own 
 mind on this subject. 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 
 
116 
 
 morally faulty, though not in a degree that deserves 
 notice as respects man. Were there not some jum- 
 ble in his mind of this kind, variety of expression 
 would never strike him as inconsistent with inspira- 
 tion. 
 
 But I have another observation on the doctrine 
 of this objection. It is here positively asserted, that 
 the verbal inspiration of all the Evangelists but one, 
 is impossible. Now, how does this consist with the 
 language of the first objection ? In shewing infu- 
 sion of words to be unnecessary, he takes it for 
 granted that the mind of the inspired writer was 
 certainly guided to the best arid most suitable 
 terms. Now I ask, if the evangelists were guided 
 ■with certainty, by divine influence, to the use of 
 the words and phrases employed by them, in all this 
 variety of expression, is not the Holy Spirit as 
 chargeable with the variety, as if he had directly 
 infused the words? If he is innocent as a guide, 
 so is he innocent as an infuser. This evidently 
 shews that the writer has formed no distinct views on 
 the subject, but floats among clouds and fogs of his 
 own creation, even in that heavenly climate, where 
 godly simplicity would have found meridian light. 
 One other observation on this objection, and I have 
 done. I admit, for argument sake, that the doc- 
 trine of plenary inspiration has great difficulties, 
 though I have demonstrated that it has none. What 
 can my opponent make of the admission ? Shall 
 the existence of difficulties be a sufficient reason to 
 deny what the Scriptures, with such a mass of evi- 
 dence, assert ? Then give up the sovereignty of 
 
117 
 
 grace ; give up particular redemption ; give up the 
 divinity of Christ ; give up the Scriptures themselves ; 
 give up the existence of God. It is a shame for any 
 man acquainted with theology and science, to talk 
 of difficulties as rendering any sentiment untenable. 
 No important subject is free from difficulties, and 
 some of the most important have the most puzzhng 
 difficulties. It is evidently the design of the divine 
 procedure, that such difficulties should try the hu- 
 mility and the faith of God's people, while they are 
 as gins and snares to human wisdom. Yet it is not 
 agreeable, even to the wisdom of this world, to de- 
 ny a doctrine for having difficulties, even great dif ^ 
 ficulties. In opposition to Dr S. I maintain, with 
 the greatest confidence of conviction, that rational 
 criticism cannot set aside, by difficulties, any doc- 
 trine alleging a foundation in Scripture. Though I 
 had been obliged to leave this objection unanswer- 
 ed,— though Dr S. had given me passages which I 
 could not reconcile with the doctrine of verbal in- 
 spiration, I would have trampled on his objection 
 as insufficient. There are many difficulties in the 
 Scriptures that may never be solved by man. A re- 
 solution to receive no doctrine that has unsolved 
 difficulties, would be a symptom, not of wisdom, 
 but of weakness. 
 
 The third objection is, that *' it deprives all 
 ' translations of their claims to the authority of in- 
 * spiration." Here, again, the author discovers 
 great confusion in his mode of thinking. Though 
 I do not beheve the inspiration of translations, yet 
 such a behef does not result from the doctrine of 
 plenary inspiration, with respect to the original. In- 
 
118 
 
 stead of depriving all translations of a claim to in- 
 spiration, this doctrine is perfectly compatible with 
 the supposition, that there might be an inspired 
 translation in every language on earth. We may 
 indeed believe the inspiration of the original, and 
 deny the inspiration of every translation that exists ; 
 but our denying of the latter, is not influenced by 
 our belief of the former. The question of the in- 
 spiration of the original, is not affected by the in- 
 spiration or non-inspiration of any translation. But 
 let us hear the reason the author gives v^^hy 
 this doctrine deprives translations of the authority 
 of inspiration : ** For by the hypothesis the origi- 
 ' nal text alone can possess that authority." We 
 admit, indeed, that our doctrine implies that the 
 words of the original alone are inspired : does Dr 
 S.'s theory suppose the words of translations to be 
 inspired? We admit that the inspired thought 
 of the original may be transfused into an uninspired 
 translation ; but that we have the uninspired thought 
 in the translation, we rest on our own knowledge 
 of the original, or on testimony : does Dr Smith's 
 theory give us greater certainty of having the in- 
 spired thought ? Our doctrine is not more unfa- 
 vourable to the authority of translations than is his 
 hypothesis. He maintains that the thoughts and 
 sentiments, rather than the words, are to be consi- 
 dered inspired. We maintain, as w^ell as he, that 
 the thoughts and sentiments are inspired, and the 
 words also. Now, in a translation, he thinks the 
 thoughts and sentiments may remain, while the 
 words of the original are left behind. What hin- 
 
119 
 
 ders us from thinking the same thing ? He brings 
 out inspired thoughts from uninspired words ; what 
 can prevent us from doing the same from inspired 
 words? In holding the inspiration of words, we 
 do not deny the inspiration of thoughts ; but Dr JS. 
 holds the inspiration of thoughts, and denies the in- 
 spiration of words. The difference between us, 
 then, is not that our doctrine gives less authority as 
 regards translation, but that his hypothesis gives 
 less authority as regards the original itself. Our 
 view does not disparage translations more than his, 
 while his view disparages the inspiration of the Bi- 
 ble. If his view approximates the authority of 
 translations, and that of the original, more nearly 
 than ours, it is not by elevating translation, but 
 by lowering the original. The uninspired words 
 of translations, so far as suitable, are brought to a 
 level with the words of the original, by making 
 both uninspired. How can the belief of the inspi- 
 ration of the words of the original, lessen the au- 
 thority of a translation ? Has not a translation of 
 inspired words as good a claim to authority, as a 
 translation of uninspired words .^ Was ever any 
 thing so absurd as to suppose, that a translation 
 must lose a portion of its authority by a claim of 
 verbal inspiration in the original ? Will not every 
 person, who impartially reflects a moment, be con- 
 vinced, that we give a higher authority than our 
 opponents, not only to the original, but also to 
 translations ? Translations, according to Dr Smith, 
 are translations of uninspired words ; according to 
 u?, they are translations of inspired words. The 
 
120 
 
 objection proceeds on the absurd supposition, that 
 the belief of the verbal inspiration of the Scrip- 
 tures, necessarily implies the denial of the inspira- 
 tion of thoughts and sentiments. By whatever pro- 
 cess he extracts inspired thoughts from uninspired 
 words, surely by a similar process we may extract 
 inspired thoughts from inspired words. Our tran- 
 slation of a book more fully inspired than his, will 
 surely have as much authority as his, that is the 
 translation of a book not so fully inspired. It is an 
 odd theory, indeed, that to detract from the au- 
 thority of the original, is to add to that of the trans- 
 lation. 
 
 But what can be more logical than Dr Smith's 
 conclusion.^ Verbal inspiration deprives transla- 
 tions of a claim to inspiration ; for our translations 
 are not verbally inspired. This, however, is but a 
 specious sophism. It confounds inspiration of 
 thoughts with inspiration of words. Of what kind 
 of inspiration does this view deprive translations ? 
 of words only. But does Dr Smith give inspiration 
 of words to translations? Does his theory give in- 
 spiration to translations that he acknowledges to be 
 uninspired ? Can his theory give a more full inspi- 
 ration to the thoughts and sentiments, as contained 
 in translations, than ours ? How, then, does ver- 
 bal inspiration deprive translations of a claim to 
 inspiration ? It denies them inspiration in no sense 
 in which Dr Smith claims it. This formidable ob- 
 jection, then, amounts to no more, than that, if 
 the words of Scripture in the original are inspired, 
 they are of more authority than the words of any 
 
121 
 
 uninspired translation, a truth which I suppose no 
 man ever thought of calUng in question. 
 
 These observations will prepare us to bear the 
 shock of the astounding consequences, that the 
 learned doctor draws from our doctrine. " Hence 
 ' it would follow," says he, *' that the general bo- 
 ' dy of Christians, who are under a necessity of 
 * depending on translations, are in fact destitute of 
 ' any inspired Scriptures." What a dreadful 
 abyss is this into which we have plunged the great- 
 er part of the Christian world ! How wofullyhave 
 I been mistaken ! I had thought that my doctrine 
 on this point was not only equally innocent with 
 that of my opponents, but had consoled myself, that 
 by coming forward in this controversy, I was plead- 
 ing the cause of both God and his people. But 
 now I find that I am labouring only to deprive the 
 bulk of my fellow- creatures of the inspired Scrip- 
 tures. Never was there a greater disappointment. 
 But before I admit these frightful consequences, let 
 me make an effort to avoid them. According to 
 our view, it is alleged that the unlearned are desti- 
 tute of the inspired Scriptures. Destitute they are 
 indeed of an inspired translation of the Scriptures, 
 and destitute in this respect, I presume, as fully on 
 Dr Smith's plan as on ours, and I have shewn 
 something more so. Will Dr Smith have the 
 goodness to point out, in what respects the transla- 
 tion can be called the inspired Scriptures according 
 to his view of inspiration, in which they cannot be 
 so called according to ours } There is a difference 
 of authority, between the original and uninspired 
 
122 
 
 translations. But it is not necessary that I should 
 discuss this in this controversy, Dr Smith and all 
 others must confess this. [ presume there never 
 was a Biblical critic so foolish, as to put an unin- 
 spired translation on a level with the inspired ori- 
 ginal. In whatever sense Dr Nraith's theory can 
 allow the English Bible to be the inspired Scriptures, 
 our doctrine can allow this in still a higher sense. 
 
 But if the objection as to the authority of unin- 
 spired translations is vaHd, then, according to Dr 
 Smith's own views, we have in translations no in- 
 spired Scriptures, as far as concerns all those parts 
 in which he admits that verbal inspiration was ne- 
 cessary. He admits the necessity of verbal inspira- 
 tion, in conveying prophecies not understood by the 
 prophet. Now in translations, either these are not 
 inspired Scriptures, or if they are, all Scripture may 
 have been verbally inspired, yet in translation be 
 considered inspired Scripture. What is true as to 
 any portion, may be true as to the whole. His 
 own admissions, then, refute his theory. 
 
 The most formidable view of the objection, how- 
 ever, is still to come. ** The consequence," he 
 observes, " will also reach still higher. As the dis- 
 
 * courses of our Lord were delivered in the verna- 
 ' cular tongue of Judea, the recitals of them in the 
 ' Greek gospels, cannot be the very words which 
 
 * he used, but must be translations." Here is a 
 tremendous consequence of verbal inspiration. By 
 the wicked doctrine, that God, in revealing his will 
 to men, uses his own words, we deprive not only 
 the unlearned of inspired Scriptures, but we do not 
 
123 
 
 leave a Bible even to the learned themselves. 
 Really I could not have apprehended any such 
 dreadful evil, from allowing God to use his own 
 words in communicating his own mind. It is a 
 shame for a man of learning to throw out senti- 
 ments so crude. Surely he ought to have reflected 
 a moment, before he ventured to hazard such para- 
 doxes. Ought not his good sense to have suspect- 
 ed the process of reasoning, that led to draw con- 
 clusions so frightful, from premises so harmless. 
 Had he allowed himself cooly to examine his own 
 reasoning, he could not have allowed his mind to 
 be entangled by cobwebs that must break from the 
 lowest exertion of human intellect. I should be 
 surprised if a very child could be imposed on by 
 such reasoning, however unable he might be to 
 unravel the sophistry of it. What is the argument ? 
 Our Lord spoke in the vernacular language of Ju- 
 dea, but the gospels relate his discourses in Greek ; 
 therefore, on the supposition of verbal inspiration 
 in the speaker, the gospels that speak in Greek 
 cannot be inspired. There is a world of obscurity 
 and silliness in this reasoning. It supposes every 
 translation to be of necessity uninspired. For if it 
 is possible for an inspired translation to be given of 
 an inspired original, why is it taken for granted, 
 that the circumstance of the accounts of our Lord's 
 discourses, being recorded in Greek, forbids the in- 
 spiration of those accounts? The words of the 
 evangelist are, indeed, only a translation of the 
 words used by our Lord ; but if the Scriptures are 
 inspired, these words are an inspired translation. 
 
124 
 
 What does it concern us, in what language Christ 
 spoke his discourses, if they are recorded to us in 
 an inspired translation ? Paul spoke the language 
 of the people whom he addressed, — does this imply 
 that the words that record this in the Acts of the 
 Apostles, are not inspired, because they must be 
 only a translation of the words that Paul used ? 
 
 But the consequence of this objection works 
 still higher. Jesus Christ surely spoke by inspi- 
 ration, his words were verbally the word of God. 
 Now, as we have none of these words, none of his 
 doctrines, but by translation, according to Dr 
 Smith's theory, we are destitute of inspired Scrip- 
 ture with respect to our Lord's doctrine. Should 
 Dr Smith reply, that though we have not the 
 words of Christ, we have the thoughts and senti- 
 ments ; I subjoin, that this cannot be said by him, 
 consistently with this objection, for that represents 
 verbal inspiration in the original, as destructive of 
 inspiration in the translation. I subjoin further, 
 that if verbal inspiration in Jesus Christ, does not 
 forbid the inspiration of the gospels as to thoughts 
 and sentiments, neither does verbal inspiration in 
 the original, forbid the supposition of having the in- 
 spired doctrine of Christ contained in uninspired 
 translations. Dr Smith brings his elephants into 
 the field, but they are so ill disciplined, that in- 
 stead of trampling down the enemy, they take to 
 flight, and crush his own ranks. The author seems 
 to have lost himself, in an attempt, by a sort of 
 chemical criticism, to reduce all the inspiration of 
 Scripture into the thoughts and sentiments, that 
 
125 
 
 being then subliraated,it may escape evaporation in the 
 words that convey it, and standing wholly uncon- 
 nected with phraseology, be ready to transfuse it- 
 self with equal strength into all other languages, 
 even by uninspired translators. 
 
 Granting, however, that a plenary verbal inspira- 
 tion of the Scriptures has a more unfavourable as- 
 pect towards translations than the opposite senti- 
 ment, this is not to be admitted as a paramount ob- 
 jection to a doctrine established by such a weight 
 of evidence from the testimony of God's word. A 
 sound critic would not allow its authority for a mo- 
 ment, — not even in the utmost extent in which it 
 could be supposed true. Whatever are the conse- 
 quences as to translations, the doctrine of a com- 
 plete verbal inspiration in the original Scriptures, 
 rests on pillars that hell and earth will never sub- 
 vert. 
 
 The fourth objection that Dr Smith opposes to 
 the doctrine of a plenary verbal inspiration in the 
 Scriptures, is, that — 
 
 " It gives a serious weight to the otherwise nu- 
 
 * gatory objection against the certainty of the Scrip- 
 ^ tures, from the existence of various readings. For 
 
 * no person, however well qualified, careful, and im- 
 ' partial, in applying the rules of criticism, could 
 
 * assure himself, and still less could he satisfy 
 ' others, that he had in every case ascertained with 
 
 * absolute certainty, the one genuine reading. But, 
 
 * if we regard the inspiration as attaching to the 
 
 * matter and sentiments rather than to the letters 
 ' and syllables, the objection is effectually preclud- 
 
126 
 
 * ed. ' It is not in one instance out of five hundred 
 ' that the diversities of manuscripts and other au- 
 ' thorities produce the smallest alteration in the ul- 
 
 * timate sense. Thus, in the general course, it is 
 
 * all the same, as to practical effect, which reading 
 
 * is accepted : and criticism is called to put forth its 
 
 * utmost strength only in these few cases in which 
 
 * the meaning is affected." 
 
 Upon this 1 observe, in the first place, that it 
 virtually excludes verbal inspiration in every in- 
 stance. Whether it is that the naked sentiment is 
 too shocking for the author himself to contemplate, 
 or whether he wishes to disguise it from his read- 
 ers, he does not avow his sentiment in the same ex- 
 tent in which his theory holds it. He does not 
 deny verbal inspiration flatly ; — nay, he admits it in 
 some instances. Here he speaks of inspiration at- 
 taching to the matter, rather than to the letters and 
 syllables. But he must mean, not inspiration of 
 matter rather than of words, but inspiration of mat- 
 ter, and not inspiration of words. The force of 
 the objection applies equally to every instance of 
 verbal inspiration. If there is a single verse in 
 Scripture verbally inspired, this objection lies against 
 the credit of that verse. It must either be kept in- 
 fallibly as free from corruption by transcribers as it 
 w^as originally pure, else this objection will crush it 
 with its serious weight. Now, there is no part of 
 Scripture infallibly free from corruption by tran- 
 scribers ; therefore, to save the honour of revela- 
 tion, according to Dr Smith, we cannot suppose an 
 inspired word is in the Bible. But, unfortunately, 
 
127 
 
 this same Dr Smith has admitted, that some parts 
 of Scripture must have been v erbai/y 'm^T^ired ; 
 therefore, against all such parts this weighty ob- 
 jection has its full force. My mode of reasoning, 
 whatever may be the canons of Morus, Doeder- 
 lein, &c., would be this. As some parts of Scrip- 
 ture must of necessity have been verbally inspired, 
 and as such parts are not better secured against the 
 mistakes of transcribers than the rest, if this objec- 
 tion cannot invalidate the verbal inspiration of the 
 one, neither can it invalidate the inspiration of the 
 other. 
 
 Dr Smith's plan for saving the honour of inspira- 
 tion, reminds me of the way in which the popish 
 persecutors saved the honour of the priesthood; 
 when any of the clergy were to be burned, they 
 stripped them of their office before they committed 
 them to the flames. Just so with Dr Smith and 
 inspiration. To preserve it from disgrace through 
 accidents in transcribing, he removes it from the 
 words of Scripture, and, with all the sublime 
 mystery of the schoolmen, places it incomprehen- 
 sibly in the thoughts and sentiments. Should any 
 bold unbeliever ask, How can it be known that the 
 inspired sentiment is expressed with infallible cor- 
 rectness, if the words are not also inspired? The 
 best answer is, It is a mystery, it is all a mystery. 
 
 But these apprehensions of Dr Smith are altoge- 
 ther visionary. Instead of giving a serious weight 
 to the objection referred to, the doctrine of plenary 
 verbal inspiration adds not a particle to its weight, 
 I maintain that it is no way connected with such an 
 
128 
 
 objection ; and that to view it in this light, betrays 
 a mind destitute in a more than ordinary degree, of 
 critical discrimination. " No person," it is said, 
 " however well quahfied, careful, and impartial, in 
 
 * applying the rules of criticism, could assure himself, 
 
 * and still less could he satisfy others, that he had in 
 ' every case ascertained, with absolute certainty, the 
 
 * one gen nine reading." Granted; fully granted. But 
 what then ? What makes such a thing necessary, 
 in order to defend verbal inspiration ? Does the 
 doctrine of plenary verbal inspiration imply, that 
 our copies must infallibly contain the pure original 
 in every instance ? It does not, Dr Smith. It as- 
 serts that the Scriptures, as God gave them, were 
 his, not only in matter, but in every word of them. 
 But this by no means implies, that the present 
 copies are, in every instance, perfectly correspon- 
 dent with the original. The permanency of the 
 purity of the divine word, was committed to the 
 care of his Providence, in the use of the ordinary 
 means, by which he can always perfectly secure 
 his purposes. There is indeed every reason, a 'pri- 
 ori, to think, that God would not suffer his word 
 to be essentially corrupted ; and as Dr Smith him- 
 self admits, there is from fact the most satisfactory 
 evidence that he has not permitted it to be mate- 
 rially corrupted. But the doctrine of verbal inspi- 
 ration has nothing to do with this, whatever may 
 be the extent of corruption by transcribers. If 
 any man were so mad as to argue, that every word 
 in our Greek New Testament is infallibly the same 
 with that originally given by God, the various 
 
129 
 
 readings to which Dr Smith refers, would be an 
 answer to such a madman. But to point to the va- 
 rious readings as an objection to the plenary verbal 
 inspiration of the Scriptures, as they came from 
 God, is to confound two things entirely distinct 
 and independent of each other. Nor does our doc- 
 trine make a single corruption more than Dr S.'s 
 theory : nor does the assertion, that the original 
 word, whose place the corrupted word now fills, 
 was an inspired w^ord, cause greater incertitude 
 with respect to the true meaning, than the opinion 
 that it was uninspired. On the other hand, this 
 theory, in order to save the Scriptures from the 
 disgrace of losing a few inspired words, degrades 
 them from the rank of verbal inspiration, and leaves 
 us to gather the truth of God out of the words of 
 men. Both of us must acknowledge the fact to the 
 same extent. To suppose that the lost words were 
 God's own words, is no more injury to what re- 
 mains, than to suppose that they were man's words. 
 On the other hand, this hideous theory robs us of 
 the rapturous consolation, that we have in the 
 original of the Scriptures the very words of God, 
 with the few trifling exceptions alluded to. Would 
 it be a greater benefit to have all the words of 
 Scripture human, than to have them all divine, 
 with the exception of a few unimportant variations? 
 If the loss of a few unimportant words, considered 
 as divine, is an injury to the Bible, is not the 
 loss of all the words of Scripture, as inspired, infi- 
 nitely a greater loss ? To save the loss of some 
 trifling articles, Dr Smith sinks the ship with all its 
 
130 
 
 treasures. To prevent the disgrace of losing a few- 
 inspired words, he divests the Scriptures of verbal 
 inspiration. We have incomparably the best Bible. 
 Every word of our Bible was God's, as it was first 
 delivered. Dr Smith's Bible was never any thing 
 but human in language. We have still the same 
 Bible, with a few trifling exceptions. Dr Smith's 
 Bible has lost no divine words, because it never 
 possessed any. The very worst part of our Bible 
 is as good now, as the very best of Dr Smith's 
 ever was. 
 
 The doctrine, then, of plenary verbal inspiration, 
 stands clear of every solid objection. All the in- 
 genuity of this learned writer has not been able to 
 devise any thing that will fairly bear on the subject. 
 His objections are so very inapplicable, that I can- 
 not bring myself to believe, that any man of a dis- 
 criminating mind ever really laboured under their 
 weight. They appear rather to have been sought 
 by study, to justify a sentiment originating in some 
 other cause. They are more like the forced thoughts 
 of declamation, when it strains to make the best of 
 a bad cause, than the serious scruples of a sound 
 mind. Had he given up a fortress committed to 
 him by his sovereign, to forces so inconsiderable, 
 there could not have been found a court-martial in 
 the empire that would not have doomed him to lose 
 his head. The doctrine of verbal inspiration is one 
 of the fortresses committed to Christians by Jesus 
 Christ. Dr Smith cries *' mercy," and strikes his 
 colours to a most contemptible enemy, without ever 
 firing a gun. Had he mustered the royal forces, 
 
131 
 
 and come to an actual engagement with the squaUd 
 foe, he would have put him to flight at the first fire. 
 He would have found the enemy totally without 
 ammunition. There might be indeed as much pow- 
 der as would enable him to pufFa little, but not to 
 do any execution. 
 
 This theory, indeed, is one of the most inexcus- 
 able that ever was forged for the interpretation of 
 Scripture. On most occasions men are tempted to 
 form theories from the real difficulties of the case, 
 and from some appearance of Scriptural assertion. 
 Plausible objections may be alleged from the Scrip- 
 tures against the doctrine of the Innity itself; and it 
 requires sohd criticism to give a satisfactory answer 
 to the Arian in the interpretation of some passages. 
 But against the plenary verbal inspiration of the 
 Scriptures, there is not even alleged the assertion 
 of a single passage of the book of God. Does the 
 truth of any thing contained in Scripture, require 
 this theory? Is it called for by any apparent 
 contradiction.'* Is it the only way to solve some insu- 
 perable difficulty ? No such thing. Never was 
 error more inexcusable; for never was error less 
 provoked by difficulty, or less sheltered by appear- 
 ance of Scriptural assertion. Where is the passage 
 that has the most remote appearance of teaching 
 the doctrine contended for by this writer.^ Fright- 
 ened by the phantoms that himself has conjured up, 
 to escape them he plunges over a precipice. Ple- 
 nary verbal inspiration is asserted by the Scriptures, 
 — such inspiration is necessary to perfect security 
 in conveying the mind of the Spirit, — to such in- 
 
132 
 
 spiration there is not in Scripture one even appa- 
 rently contradictory expression, with such inspi- 
 ration, there is nothing inconsistent in their con- 
 tents, — to reject such inspiration, then, on the stress 
 of the objections alleged by this writer, is contrary 
 to the first principles of evidence. 
 
 Having now examined the objections on the au- 
 thority of which Dr Smith rejects the plenary ver- 
 bal inspiration of the Scriptures, I shall attend to 
 his remarks on the noted passage, 2 Tim. iii. 15, 
 16, which are as follows : 
 
 " That from a child thou hast known the holy writings, 
 which are able to make thee wise unto salvation, through the 
 faith which is in Christ Jesus. Every writing divinely in- 
 spired [is] also profitable for instruction, for conviction [of 
 error], for recovery [to that which is right], for training up 
 in righteousness." It appears to me impossible to establish, 
 from the Greek text alone, so as to preclude all fair objec- 
 tion, either side of the agitated question, whether S-joTrvsvc-Tcj 
 agrees immediately with T^ctvcx, yp^^pyi, o*" is (as it is translated 
 in the common version and in many others) a part of the pre- 
 dicate. But I apprehend that the scale is turned in favour of 
 the other construction by the evidence of the venerable Syriac 
 Version, whose antiquity is almost, if not quite, apostolic. It 
 reads, «< And that, from thy childhood, thou hast known the 
 holy books," &c.— "for every writing which has been written 
 by the Spirit, is valuable for instruction," &c. The Vul- 
 gate confirms this interpretation : — " Omnis scriptura divi- 
 nitus inspirata, utilis est ad docendum," &c. It is evident that 
 the Apostle, in v. 16, resumes distributively what he had before 
 advanced collectively : so that " every writing divinely inspir- 
 ed" is 3 description by which the apostle designates each and 
 everi/ one of the writings comprized under the well-under- 
 
133 
 
 stood collective denomination, rd li%u. y^clfif^oiret, the holy 
 writin''S, Timothy, and every contemporary Jew or Christ- 
 ian, needed no explanation of this phrase. They knew it, 
 as one of the most common terms of usage, to denote the 
 'ypoiipcc/, writings^ or scriptures, to which the Lord Jesus was 
 in the habit of referring, as to the ultimate divine authority 
 (e. g. Mat. xxii. 29. xxvi. 51. Luke xxiv. 32.), the searching 
 of which heenjoined (John v. 39.), and which it is impossible 
 to suppose, with any shadow of reason, that he did not design 
 to use iti the sense in which he knew that all his hearers 
 would understand him ; namely, as expressive of the whole 
 sacred canon of the Jews, for to them " were entrusted the ora- 
 cles of God." (Rom. iii. 2.) The general tenor of the New- 
 Testament most clearly recognizes, under these descriptions, 
 the whole received scriptures of the Jewish nation : and, 
 when a particular passage is cited, it is usual to refer to it ia 
 the singular number: 'jjyg:e<pu, ^ yp«(p» ''uvm, andsrsg* 
 ye«<p«, the writing, or scripture, this scripture, another scrip- 
 ture, (John xix. 24, 37. Mark xii. 10.) 
 
 Thus the passage before us, though we adopt that construc- 
 tion of 9-go7ry£v<rTO?, which Unitarians generally approve, fur- 
 nishes the strongest testimony to the inspiration of each and 
 every of the books of the Old Testament. The importance 
 of this conclusion, in relation to our present subject, and to 
 every other part of the controversy with the Unitarians, needs 
 not to be pointed oni"^ Smith's Testimony to the Messiah, 
 Vol. i. p. 27, 28. 
 
 It is satisfactory to find, that even admitting the 
 translation of the passage preferred by Dr S. to be 
 irrefragably proved, it has no colour of opposition 
 to plenary verbal inspiration. This translation, as 
 plainly as the other, asserts the verbal inspiration of 
 every thing inspired. " Every writing divinely in- 
 
134 
 
 * spired," verbally declares that the writing, that is, 
 the words written, are inspired. If any writing is 
 inspired, the words must of necessity be inspired, 
 because the w^ords are the writing. The Syriac 
 Translation implies this as fully as ours. The Bi- 
 ble is said to be a writing written by the Spirit of 
 God. A more express attestation of verbal inspira- 
 tion could not be found. 
 
 The only point of view, then, in which we need 
 examine this translation, is its bearing on the Uni- 
 tarian controversy. And it is very satisfactory to 
 find, that though he prefers the Unitarian con- 
 struction of this verse, Dr Smith decidedly op- 
 poses the Unitarian import of it. While, 
 therefore, I am happy to find Dr Smith and 
 myself on the same side on this important 
 matter, I will take the liberty to suggest to him 
 a few things to invalidate the reasons of his 
 preference of the Unitarian construction of this 
 verse. Though I blame him very much for his 
 excessive partiality for learned men, and his perni- 
 cious theorising on Scripture, — that he is a learned, 
 ingenious, and deeply read theologian, I cheerfully 
 acknowledge, and J would gladly bring him over 
 altogether to the ri2;ht side. I observe then, in the 
 first place, that if the ambiguity, in the construc- 
 tion of this passage, exists to the extent that Dr 
 Smith alleges, that is to say, if there be a passage 
 in Scripture so ambiguous, that neither the connex- 
 ion, nor any other resource, furnished by the Scrip- 
 tures themselves, will fix its definite meaning, I 
 maintain that we are so far without revelation, and 
 
135 
 
 that such a passage of Scripture might as well ne- 
 ver have been written. There may be, and there 
 confessedly are, passages in the Bible, which are 
 not understood. But it is not because they con- 
 tain in themselves what necessarily renders them 
 unintelligible, as Dr Smith virtually asserts respect- 
 ing the passage in question; an assertion, than 
 which it is not easy to conceive a greater indignity 
 to the language of Holy Writ. If the Scriptures 
 are really such a book, a pope we must have. 
 Surely the word of God was not given but to be 
 understood ! And if it does not afford evidence to 
 explain itself, it is not sufficient. 
 
 1 remark farther, that the Syriac version, and the 
 unanimous consent of all uninspired versions, can- 
 not legitimately be acknowledged as authority to 
 fix the meaning of phraseology indeterminate in it- 
 self. They afford us nothing more than the opi- 
 nion of their authors; and though they lived among 
 the Apostles, if they are not inspired, they may 
 have been mistaken. To justify an opinion as hav- 
 ing apostolic authority, it is not enough to shew that 
 it was professed by some person in the age of the 
 Apostles; it must be shewn to have been approved 
 by the Apostles. Some opinions we know to have 
 been entertained by Christians in the very times of 
 the Apostles, which were contrary to the apostolic 
 doctrine. I care not how high is the date of the 
 Syriac version ; if it is not inspired, I will take the 
 liberty of questioning its propriety. Still less can I 
 admit the paramount authority of the Vulgate. If 
 we are not prepared to adopt all its errors, let us 
 
136 
 
 not claim its patronage in a particular emergency. 
 A degree of countenance may, no doubt, be claimed 
 from reputable translations, which will be increased 
 by the antiquity, learning, and impartiality of the 
 authors. But it never can be legitimately allowed 
 to be decisive. Such authority is to be referred 
 to, not so much to establish an opinion, as to shew 
 that a translation has not been made for the occa- 
 sion. If, in supporting any of my opinions, I differ 
 from the common version of the Scriptures, a sus- 
 picion ought to rest upon every man's mind, that £ 
 have made my translation to cover ray opinion. 
 Now, to do away this impression, it is very ma- 
 terial for me to shew that I am not singular in the 
 translation ; and that others, well acquainted with 
 the language, have adopted the same interpretation, 
 although they did not entertain such opinion, [n 
 this way, if the Syriac version actually favoured the 
 Unitarian sentiment with respect to inspiration, it 
 would be of very great importance for them to al- 
 lege its authority. Such a use may be made of 
 the authority of versions; but a casting vote never 
 can be justly allowed them. If, then, it is impos- 
 sible to ascertain the construction of these words 
 from the text itself, no uninspired version can ever 
 authoritatively fix it. 
 
 If the translation is to be made from the words 
 of the common copies, there seems no difficulty in 
 the construction. The substantive verb is natur- 
 ally to be understood to each of the adjectives. 
 What reason can be given for giving it to one, and 
 withholding it from the other? And why should 
 
1S7 
 
 we adopt a various reading in order to create a dif- 
 ficulty ? If the substantive verb is to be taken into 
 the text between the two adjectives, it is naturally 
 to be construed with the first, and understood to 
 the last. It is not the natural darkness of the con- 
 struction that has caused the various interpretation 
 of this passage, but disaffection to the truth contain- 
 ed in it. Men who are conscious of holding opi- 
 nions that the Scriptures condemn, yet are anxious 
 to obtain the sanction of their authority ; or at least, 
 to remove the most conspicuous passages that op- 
 pose them, would dadly limit the inspiration of the 
 Holy Book. All their efforts, then, are directed 
 to pervert the testimony of this glorious declaration. 
 If they cannot force it to prevaricate or bear false 
 witness, nothing can protect their impious sentiments 
 from the open reprobation of God. 
 
 It may be observed also, that according to the 
 Unitarian construction, the particle ky is rather 
 cumbersome than useful. It is very difficult to 
 dispose of it to any good purpose, or to assign it an 
 office in which it will not be troublesome as well as 
 useless. In the translation, ** for all divinely in- 
 * spired Scripture is even useful," the word even^ 
 instead of contributing a portion to the sense, es- 
 sentially misrepresents it. To translate the con- 
 junction ky also, as Dr S. does, is not so bad, but 
 still not at all satisfactory. Its application is dubi- 
 ous, — and its import not easily perceived. It is 
 well known, that on some occasions, it will admit 
 this translation ; but to argue, that because it ought, 
 m some places, to have this acceptation, it may 
 
138 
 
 have it in any other, according as it may suit the 
 purposes of the critic, is not sound criticism. To 
 justify such a signification here, it is not enough to 
 produce examples in which it has such a significa- 
 tion ; it is necessary also, to produce the authority 
 of similar constructions. This is a canon of criti- 
 cism which may he easily defended ; — a canon, 
 however, little respected by biblical interpreters. 
 What word does Dr S. mean the conjunction to af- 
 fect? What is the precise effect he understands it 
 to have on the meaning ? This unfortunate ky in 
 the Unitarian construction, is treated as poor Bat- 
 tier was treated in the 10th Hussars. The royal 
 commission, indeed, has given it a seat at the mess, 
 but all the dignity of that commission has failed to 
 procure it the attention of the company. It is 
 doomed to sit unregarded ; — it speaks, but no one 
 hears. 
 
 Though 1 perfectly agree with the learned wri- 
 ter, that the Unitarian interpretation does not fol- 
 low from the admission of the Unitarian construc- 
 tion of this verse, yet, for the above reasons, I pre- 
 fer the common translation. And though we can 
 still maintain the fortress, though we give up this 
 out- work, I do not think we ought to give up the 
 most unimportant battery, while we are able to fire 
 a gun from it. A consciousness of sufficient re- 
 maining resources, and an affectation of exces- 
 sive candour, may influence us sometimes to give 
 up to the adversary what is perfectly tenable. It 
 is right to make concessions for a moment, to give 
 
139 
 
 the enemy a more signal defeat. But an inch of 
 Scriptural ground is worth eternal war. 
 
 Let us now view this passage on the Unitarian 
 construction. And while I agree with the learned 
 writer in the result, I differ from him in the way of 
 obtaining that result. I have objections to his 
 translation, to his paraphrase, and to his reasoning. 
 His translation is at variance with his reasoning. 
 He very justly argues that the phrase •Tveto-a y^x^Pn 
 refers to every book of the Old Testament, as be* 
 ing notoriously the most appropriated to that sense. 
 If so, every writing is not adequate as a translation 
 of the above phrase. Though writing is a literal 
 translation of y§«(p'», it is not a proper, because not 
 a determinate translation of it here. For, as in the 
 original, ye^»(pv\ is here taken in its appropriate 
 sense, its translation must correspond to it, not in 
 its hteral, but in its appropriate sense. As writing 
 has not such an appropriation in English, it is not 
 an adequate translation, although perfectly hteral. 
 Scripture ought to have been the word, for it has 
 in English exactly the same appropriated meaning 
 that y^ot<pvi has in the original. There is no greater 
 mistake than to suppose that a translation is good, 
 according as it is literal. It may be asserted, with- 
 out exception, that a literal translation of any book 
 cannot be a faithful one. If the word is not used 
 in its literal sense in the original, it is a mistransla- 
 tion of it to translate it literally. This is a canon 
 of bibhcal interpretation of universal application, 
 and of the greatest moment — a canon not only of- 
 ten violated, but to violate which is, in the estima- 
 
140 
 
 tion of some translators, the highest praise. A 
 translation of this kind, instead of conveying the 
 original with additional light, is perfectly unintelli- 
 gible. When ia iera grammnta is translated holy 
 writings, as Dr S. translates the words, there is 
 not the smallest objection; because what is inde- 
 finite in the word writings, is rendered completely 
 definite by the epithet holt/. His language can 
 bear this, and holt/ writ, and the sacred writings, 
 are phrases as definite as the appropriated word 
 Scriptures. 
 
 Dr Smith justly understands Theojpneustos as 
 descriptive of pasa graphe. But it is not descrip- 
 tive of it when translated every writing ; because 
 every writing is not Theopneustos, inspired. It is 
 descriptive of graphe only in the appropriated 
 sense of that term. Every scripture is divinely in- 
 spired, but every writing is not. According to 
 Dr Smith's translation, it is essentially necessary 
 to understand Theopneustos not as a description, 
 but as a limitation — not every writings because it 
 is divinely inspired, but every writing that is in- 
 spired, or as far as it is inspired. Dr Smith's trans- 
 lation, then, is at war with his sense of the pas- 
 sage. 
 
 I have an objection also to his paraphrase. The 
 supplementary matter connecting pasa graphe 
 with the assertion is divinely inspired, ought not 
 to be which is, but because it is, or as being, or 
 some phrase assigning a reason. The Vulgate, in- 
 deed, adopts this construction, but it does not sanc- 
 tion this interpretation. " Omnis Scriptura divi- 
 
141 
 
 * nitus inspvaia," ought not to be translated, 
 " All Scripture wkic/i is divinely inspired," but 
 " All Scripture divinely inspired," and should be 
 paraphrased as it is divinely inspired, or by some 
 supplementary words indicative of description. As 
 the Vulgate does not design to exclude the inspi- 
 ration from any part of Scripture, but to assign the 
 reason of the reading of it being profitable, the sup- 
 plement should not be a Hmiting phrase, but a de- 
 scriptive one. " All Scripture, because it is in- 
 ' spired by God, is profitable," &c. The Syriac 
 version is not an exact translation, according to 
 any reading of the text;^ it is rather a paraphrase. 
 If, in the expression, " Every writing which has 
 
 * been written by the Spirit," the phrase every 
 writing is understood in its general sense, then 
 the passage cannot be descriptive ; for every writ- 
 ing is not divinely inspired. If by every writing 
 is meant every book of Scripture, as Dr Smith 
 seems to understand the translation, then the trans- 
 lation into English should not have been every 
 waiting, but every Scripture, 
 
 Dr Smith states, very correctly, that the terms 
 graphe, graphai, and iera grammata, are all ap- 
 propriated, in the most decided and notorious man- 
 ner, to signify the inspired writings of the Old Tes- 
 tament ; and he reasons, very justly, that it is im- 
 possible for it to have any other signification here, 
 as Timothy, and every Jew or Christian, needed 
 no explanation of these phrases. This is a most 
 decisive and conclusive argument against all those 
 who, with Dr Smith himself, object to the inspi- 
 
142 
 
 ration of particular passages in books confessedly 
 inspired ; but I object to the conclusiveness of his 
 reasoning, when he rests on this fact, the certainty 
 of the inspiration of *' each and every of the books 
 
 * of the Old Testament." In my judgment, the 
 decidedly appropriated sense of the term graphe, 
 can afford no assistance in proving that these books 
 were inspired. A Unitarian may reply, " I fully 
 ' grant that these phrases designate the books of 
 
 * the Old Testament, but I deny that this admits 
 
 * their inspiration. For any thing that can be 
 
 * learned from the appropriations, there may not 
 ' be a line of inspiration in the whole." Now, to 
 such a man T have nothing to reply. With respect 
 to the passage under consideration, the Unitarian 
 might observe, " I acknowledge that Paul here 
 
 * uses the term graphe in its appropriated sense ; 
 
 * he does not, however, assert inspiration of all 
 ' Scriphire, but that all Scripture which is inspir- 
 
 * ed is profitable," &c. Now, that his reasoning 
 is false, is not proved by reference to the appro- 
 priated meaning of graphe, nor from the para- 
 phrase by which he expresses his meaning of the 
 text, in which also he agrees with Dr JSmitb, but 
 by shewing, as I have done, the true and natural 
 supplementary matter to be descriptive, and not 
 limiting. That this interpretation of the Unitarian 
 is false, might also be solidly proved by the ab- 
 surdity to which it leads. It supposes that there 
 must be a standard or criterion by which, in read- 
 ing the Scriptures, we may distinguish what is in- 
 spired from what is uninspired. If there is no such 
 
145 
 
 criterion, we cannot make tlie proper use of what 
 is inspired. Now, as no such criterion is given in 
 Scripture, there cannot be need for such criterion. 
 This is an axiom — the man who refuses it is not 
 worth reasoning with ; he ought to be given up as a 
 hypochondriac, or as a man who perversely denies 
 first principles, without which there can be no rea- 
 soning. If it is said that we may form a criterion 
 for ourselves, I reply that such criterion may be 
 false ; and at best, is but human, and can have no 
 authority with ourselves, and much less with 
 others. 
 
 While, therefore, T hold with Dr Smith, " that 
 
 * the passage before us, though we adopt that 
 
 * construction of Iheopneustos, which Unitarians 
 ' generally approve, furnishes the strongest testimo- 
 
 * ny to the inspiration of each and every of the 
 ' books of the Old Testament," J do not think 
 that the strength of the evidence is brought out in 
 his translation, or paraphrase or reasoning. 
 
 But it is not only of advantage, it seems to have 
 the Bible disincumbered of a useless load of inspi- 
 ration as to words ; it will be still more eminently 
 improved, by expelling inspiration from those tri- 
 vial unimportant passages, in [which the inspired 
 writers have impertinently foisted in matters too 
 undignified for divine influences. Dr S. quotes the 
 following passage from Parry on Inspiration. 
 
 *« If the inspiration and guidance of the Spirit, respecting 
 the writers of the New Testament, extended only to what ap- 
 pears to be its proper province, matters of a religious and 
 moral nature ; then there is no necessity to ask, whether eyery 
 
144 
 
 tiling contained in their writings were suggested immediately 
 by the Spirit or not : whether Luke were inspired to say, that 
 the ship in which he sailed with Paul, was wrecked on the 
 island of Melita, (Acts xxviii. 1,): or whether Paul were 
 under the guidance of the Spirit, in directing Timothy to 
 bring with him the cloak which he left at Troas, and 
 the books, but especially the parchments, (2 Tim. iv. 
 13.) ; for the answer is obvious, these were not things of a re- 
 ligious nature, and no inspiration was necessary concerning 
 them. The inspired writers sometimes mention common oc- 
 currences or things in an incidental manner, as any other plain 
 and faithful men might do. Although, therefore, such things 
 may be found in parts of the evangelic history, or in epistles 
 addressed to churches or individuals, and may stand connec- 
 ted with important declarations concerning Christian doctrine 
 or duty, yet it is not necessary to suppose, that they were un- 
 der any supernatural influence in mentioning such common 
 or civil affairs, though they were, as to all the sentiments they 
 inculcated respecting religion."— Fo^. p. 65. 
 
 Now, to refute tbis impious theory, nothing more 
 is required, than to quote Dr S.'s observations on 
 2 Tim. iii. J 5, J6. ; and to rae it is perfectly asto- 
 nishing, that the learned writer did not see the in- 
 consistency between this and his views of that im- 
 portant passage. If ** each and every of the books 
 ' of Scripture" are inspired, how is it that any part 
 of these books can be uninspired } This is a pro- 
 blem that Dr S. must solve, for he holds both sides 
 of the contradiction. If " all Scripture" is inspir- 
 ed, nothing uninspired can belong to writings called 
 Scripture. We have only to enquire, then, whether 
 such things are found in books called Scripture, of 
 •which, without exception, inspiration is asserted : 
 
145 
 
 but to say that a book is inspired, and that a part 
 of it is uninspired, is a contradiction. That may 
 be true of a part which is not true of the whole ; 
 but what is true of the whole, must be true of 
 every part. The doctrine here inculcated, then, 
 is not only untrue, but absurd. 
 
 The proper province of inspiration, as we are 
 told, is confined to thinsis of a moral and religious 
 nature. The proper province of inspiration, I main- 
 tain, is every part of a book declared by God to be 
 inspired. It is the proper province of every writer 
 to be pledged for every thing in the book which he 
 authenticates by his name. Would I permit an 
 amanuensis to foist in, under my name, every thing 
 he chose to communicate to the public? And if 1 
 adopt any thing from him, am I not pledged for it 
 as my own? Shall the inspired writers, then, take 
 a liberty with God, that would be utterly unwar- 
 rantable with man ? Is it not the province of God 
 to be the author of every part of the book which 
 he recognises as his own writing? For an amanu- 
 ensis to foist in any thing not inspired, would be 
 downright forgery. If there are some things unfit 
 for inspiration, such things should not have a place 
 among things inspired, so as to make a part of a 
 book of which inspiration is, without exception, 
 asserted. Had God permitted such a heterogene- 
 ous mixture to be given to the world, than which 
 nothing can be more absurd to suppose, he would 
 not have allowed the whole to be designated by 
 his name. And he would doubtless have given a 
 criterion to distinguish what is divine from what is 
 
 K 
 
146 
 
 human. That no such thing is the case, beside the 
 absurdity of the thing, there is the highest evidence 
 in the fact, that no such criterion is given by God. 
 But what God has not done, Mr Parry has kindly 
 condescended to perform for him. Impious mor- 
 tals! will men never learn to give the Almighty his 
 own place? Will the Pharisees never cease, by 
 their traditions, to make void the law of God ? 
 Were such a discrimination necessary in the book 
 of God, would it be left to men to form the cri- 
 terion ? If such a creterion is necessary in reading 
 the Scriptures, and if no such criterion is given, the 
 ►Scriptures are an insufficient rule. Why shall we 
 not, then, admit the traditions of papal Rome, as 
 well as the theories of presumptuous Protestant 
 theologians? If Mr Parry has a right to make 
 one criterion, has not Dr Priestly a right to make 
 another? If the former is permitted, by his theory, 
 to purge the Scriptures of certain useless though 
 harmless excrescences, shall not the latter be equal- 
 ly entitled to devise a theory, that will expel all 
 doctrines supposed to be derogatory to human un- 
 derstanding? If the smallest license of this kind is 
 permitted, nothing shall be left as God's in the 
 ►Scriptures, that atheistical impudence shall think fit 
 to question. The inspiration of Luke in writing 
 the account of the shipwTeck, and that of Paul in 
 writing for the cloak and parchments, stand on the 
 same foundation as their inspiration in recording the 
 plan of salvation. Xor are these facts, and all si- 
 milar ones, destitute of religious instruction. But 
 Uj be able to shew this is not necessary for the vin- 
 
147 
 
 dicalion of their inspiration. That they are inspir- 
 ed, is ascertained by their being found in a book 
 that is divinely attested as inspired. The plan that 
 sound criticism would pursue, is not to read in or- 
 der to discriminate in the Scriptures by a human 
 theory, what is divine from what is human, but to 
 read every verse as the dictate of God, and endea- 
 vour to find out the religious use that the Holy 
 Spirit intended that we should derive from it. Ad- 
 mitting that in some things we should not be suc- 
 cessful, whether is it more rational to reject such 
 things as not being given by inspiration of God, or 
 to suppose that the divine word may contain trea- 
 sures that we are not able perfectly to exhaust ? 
 Is it modest to say, that a passage can have 
 no religious use, if we cannot immediately per- 
 ceive that use ? No, it is not modest, it is athe- 
 istical, it is irrational. For my own part, there is 
 not one of those parts of Scripture, that human 
 wisdom has objected to, in which I have not ad- 
 mired the divine wisdonj. Instruction is abundant- 
 ly conveyed in them, and in a way that shows the 
 Scriptures to be divine. One of these passages, (2 
 Tim. iv. 13.) that this learned writer is unwilling 
 to dignify as a part of the revelation of God, I have 
 known a very learned clergyman of the Church of 
 England, Dr Stokes, to choose as the text of a 
 sermon, which he preached at a visitation of the 
 Bishop of Derry. That in which Mr Parry and 
 Dr Smith can find no religious instruction, Dr Stokes, 
 as learned as any of them, considered as full of in- 
 struction for all the clergy of a diocese. And, in- 
 
148 
 
 deed, many of these things that captiousness and 
 learned ignorance are so much inchned to disrelish, 
 may be shewn to be the most conspicuous indica- 
 tions of authenticity. God hath said, " The meek 
 ' will 1 guide in judgment." Is it any wonder, 
 then, that men who search the Scriptures with the 
 arrogance of inquisitors, should, as to the wisdom 
 and application of many things, be sent empty 
 away ? These haughty doctors do not sit humbly 
 at the feet of Jesus to learn, but with their self-in- 
 vented standards, impiously seat themselves above 
 him. 
 
 " This view of the subject," we are told, *' will also en- 
 able a plain Christian, in reading his New Testament, to dis- 
 tinguish what he is to consider as inspired truth. Every thing 
 which the Apostles have written or taught concerning Chris- 
 tianity ; every thing which teaches him a religious sentiment 
 or a branch of duty, he must consider as divinely true, as the 
 mind and will of God, recorded under the direction and 
 guidance of his Spirit. It is not necessary that he should in- 
 quire, whether what the Apostles taught be true. All that he 
 has to search after is, their meaning ; and when he under- 
 stands what they meant, he may rest assured, that meaning 
 is consistent with the will of God, is divine infallible truth. 
 The testimony of men who spoke and wrote by the Spirit of 
 God, is the testimony of God himself; and the testimony of 
 the God of Truth is the strongest, and most indubitable of 
 all demonstration." 
 
 What silliness, arrogance, and impiety is here ! 
 And have plain Christians for eighteen centuries 
 been reading the Scriptures, in which some things 
 are divine, and some things are human, without any 
 
149 
 
 criterion to distinguish ? Has this ingenious divine 
 succeeded at last in discovering the longitude? 
 Was the vyrorld in darkness till the rising of this star? 
 What pity that the author had not been born many 
 ages sooner ! What a loss to mankind, that his 
 view vi^as so long in making its appearance ! The 
 want of this discovery, has subjected plain Christ- 
 ians in all the previous ages of Christianity, to con- 
 found the word of God with what is merely hu- 
 man. Can there be an instance of more insuffer- 
 able arrogance and folly ? A view that suggests it- 
 self after the lapse of nearly two thousand years, 
 is necessary to enable men to read the Bible so as 
 to ascertain what in it belongs to God ! Without 
 this, men cannot properly discriminate what is the 
 Bible ! And dare any wretched mortal presume to 
 give a criterion of discrimination, in determining the 
 authority of what is contained in the book of God ? 
 Impious men, give your assistance to the Almighty 
 and the all-wise in the plans of creation and provi- 
 dence, where your folly cannot mar the comfort of 
 the plain Christian. But foist not your theories on 
 the volume that contains the words of eternal life, 
 and the instructions of heavenly wisdom. Rob not 
 the unlearned Christian of the cheering conviction, 
 that " All Scripture is given by inspiration of God." 
 Let your impious ingenuity gather laurels in the le- 
 gitimate fields of invention ; try your powers in the 
 arts and sciences, and by your sagacity rival the 
 glory of the inventor of the steam engine. But 
 leave the poor Christian his Bible whole and entire. 
 
150 
 
 ►Seek not to bewilder him by your ignis fat uus, — 
 darken him not by your discoveries, — impoverish 
 him not, by bestowing on him your riches. I have 
 no language in w^hich I can adequately express my 
 abhorrence of such a theory, while it is impossible 
 to restrain emotions of contempt for its folly. What 
 blasphemy and absurdity are implied in the idea of 
 a plan for enabling plain Christians to distinguish 
 what belongs to God, in the book that God himself 
 calls his own word I Can the man who has made, 
 or those who adopt this theory, quarrel with Ari- 
 ans, who give a similar new guide to direct plain 
 Christians to discriminate in the Scriptures what is 
 important or fundamental truth, from what is uncer- 
 tain, unimportant, and speculative? Nothing, say 
 they, can be fundamental truth, but what is found 
 in each of the gospels. By such infidel criterions, 
 men continue to reprobate every thing in the Scrip- 
 tures which they dislike. 
 
 But of what service is this theory, even were it 
 admitted? It is utterly indefinite. What will ap- 
 pear to have religious instruction to one, will have 
 none to another ; and as every man must be guided 
 in this by his own view, every one will have a Bible 
 longer or shorter according to his opinions and taste. 
 Besides, on such points there will be no possibiUty 
 of coming to one judgment, for there is no common 
 standard. That w^hich these two learned theologi- 
 ans look on as so utterly without interest, we have 
 seen another writer, equally learned, admiring as a 
 manifestation of divine wisdom, and a proof of the 
 divine perfection of the book of God. And how 
 
easy will it be, according to this scheme, to dis jre- 
 ditany part of Scripture, by alleging that it is only 
 a matter of speculation, not of essential faith ? 
 Were all men to adopt this theory, they would be 
 as far as ever from being brought to agreement by 
 it. 
 
 Upon the supposition, that the ** common and 
 * civil affairs" mentioned in the Scriptures, are to 
 be considered in no point of view as things of a 
 religious nature, and consequently not inspired, 
 there is a door opened for the introduction into the 
 book of God, of as much uninspired matter as the 
 discretion of the writers might think fit to insert. 
 If, without inspiration, they might introduce one 
 sentence or observation, they might have added a 
 thousand volumes on the same principle. What 
 havoc does this theory make on the word of God? 
 
 This discovery is also applied to settle the ques- 
 tion, with respect to the inspiration of Paul, in 
 what is taught in the seventh chapter of the First 
 Epistle to the Corinthians. 
 
 " The above view of the apostolic inspiration will like- 
 wise enable us, as I apprehend, to understand the Apostle 
 Paul, in the seventh chapter of his first Epistle to the Co- 
 rinthians, where in some verses he seems to speak as if he 
 were not inspired, and in others as if he were. Concerning 
 some things, he saith, ''' But I sjjeak this by permission, 
 and not of commandment:" (ver. 6.) and again, *♦ I have 
 no commandment of the Lord; yet I give my judgment, as 
 one that hath obtained mercy of the Lord to be faithful." 
 (ver. 25.) The subject of which the Apostle here delivers 
 his opinion, was a matter of Cliristian prudence, in which the 
 
Corinthians had desired his advice. But it was not a part of 
 religious sentiment or practice; it was not a branch of Chris- 
 tian doctrine or duty, but merely a casuistical question of 
 prudence, with relation to the distress which persecution then 
 occasioned. Paul, therefore, agreeably to their request, gives 
 them his opinion as a faithful man : but he guards them 
 against supposing, that he was under divine inspiration in 
 that opinion, lest their consciences should be shackled, and 
 leaves them at liberty to follow his advice or not, as they 
 might find convenient. Yet he intimates that he had " the 
 Spirit of the Lord" as a Christian tericher ; that he had not 
 said any thing contrary to his will ; and that the opinion 
 which be gave was, on the whole, advisable " in the present 
 distress." But the Apostle's declaration, that as to this par- 
 ticular matter, he spoke ** by permission, and not of com- 
 mandment," strongly implies, that in other things, in things 
 really of a religious nature, he did speak by commandment 
 from the Lord. Accordingly, in the same chapter, when he 
 had occasion to speak of what was matter of moral duty, he 
 immediately claimed to be under divine direction in what he 
 wrote. " And unto the married 1 command, yet not I but 
 the Lord, let not the wife depart from her husband." (1 Cor. 
 vii. 10.) This would be a breach of one of the chief obli- 
 gations of morality, and therefore Paul interdicts it under 
 the divine authority. Respecting indifferent things, he gave 
 his judgment as a wise and faithful friend; but respecting 
 the things of religion, he spake and wrote as an Apostle of 
 Jesus Christ, under the direction and guidance of his Spirit." 
 — Parry s Inquiry^ p. 26 — 30. 
 
 A very satisfactory defence of the inspiration of 
 the Apostle on this occasion, may be found in the 
 '* Authenticity and Insinration of the Scriptures," 
 by Mr Haldane, — a defence so full, as, in my ap- 
 
153 
 
 prehension, not to admit a single additional obser- 
 vation. But in order to cut down these impious 
 theories, I will, for argument's sake, admit the 
 failure, and shew that even this does not concede 
 the consequence with respect to the plenary inspi- 
 ration of the Scriptures. If the Apostle guards 
 us against the supposition of his inspiration on this 
 point, then, doubtless, every thing is to be taken 
 as inspired, when there is no such intimation. The 
 message about the cloak and the parchments, the 
 medical advice to Timothy, and the many common 
 and trivial incidents mentioned in his letters, have 
 iheir claims to inspiration more fully authenticated. 
 All we lose is inspired direction on one point, in 
 wbich, according to the hypothesis, inspiration is 
 expressly disclaimed. But I go further. Admit- 
 ting that Paul disclaims inspiration on this point, 1 
 maintain that the chapter containing the admission, 
 as a part of Scripture, is inspired equally with any 
 chapter in the Bible. Though he were not inspir- 
 ed to decide the question, he was inspired to write 
 the account which he has given of the matter. If 
 the Apostle has told us that he is not inspired on 
 this point, he has been inspired to make the denial. 
 Not a hne has he written in that chapter, that is 
 not immediately from the Holy Ghost. Gamahel 
 was not inspired, but inspiration has recorded his 
 advice ; and that document, as recorded by the 
 Holy Spirit, suggests inspired instruction to us. 
 
 Dr Smith, you are engaged in a very unholy 
 cause," — your genius and learning are very ill em- 
 ployed. By excluding the Song of Solomon, you 
 
154 
 
 unsettle the canon of Scripture, and unhincfe the 
 mind of simple Christians, by your speculations. 
 You have denied the verbal inspiration of the word 
 of God, and every kind of inspiration to all the 
 passages that any one may chuse to consider not of a 
 religious or moral nature. Your speculations are very 
 crude, — your sentiments are self-contradictory, — 
 and your half-formed conceptions shew that you have 
 been too hasty in giving your opinions to the world. 
 You must go back or forward, — stationary you can- 
 not remain. Make the host use of your learning, but 
 humhle yourself before God, and seek more of the 
 teaching of his Spirit in the reading of his word. 
 Without much learning, it is impossible to be a Bib- 
 lical critic ; but all the learning of Bentley will be 
 insufficient, without that child-like disposition of 
 the wisdom given from on high, which teaches to 
 cry, Speak, Lord, for thy servant heareth. Mary, 
 the sister of Lazarus, is a better model for a Christ- 
 ian minister than Dr Haffner, the learned professor 
 of Strasburgh. 
 
 As might be expected, the unhallowed theory of 
 inspiration adopted by Dr Smith, leads to a devas- 
 tation of the Scriptures, to which no bounds can 
 be assigned. It is a gangrene that will gradually 
 spread until it eats the very vitals of Christianity. . 
 Inspiration is first denied to the words, next to such 
 things as relate to common and civil affairs : from 
 this the progress to the non -inspiration of whole 
 books of Scripture is perfectly easy and natural. 
 So far, it appears, the disease has spread its bale- 
 ful contagion in some professedly evangelical wri- 
 
155 
 
 tcrs of the present day. An article has appeared 
 in the Ecclectic Review for Novemher 1825,* in 
 which the inspiration of several books of Scripture 
 is denied; and, as has been stated in the Edinburgh 
 Christian [nstructor, the divine origin of no less 
 than one hundred and forty chapters of the Bible 
 has been impugned. In this article we have the 
 following passage. 
 
 " If the books of Proverbs and Solomon's Song can be 
 proved to be inspired, it is not, we apprehend, on the ground 
 of either external or internal evidence, but on that of the 
 inspired character attaching to their royal author. That God 
 was the author of his wisdom, we know, as the Holy Spirit 
 is the author of all true wisdom, the inspirer of " all good 
 counsels" as well as of " all holy desires and just works." 
 But, whether he was " moved by the Holy Ghost" in pen- 
 ning those compositions, or rather in speaking the proverbs 
 ascribed to him, is not so certain as to rank among articles 
 of faith. There appears to us far stronger ground for believ- 
 ing that " Ezra the priest, the scribe," acted and spake un- 
 der the guidance of inspiration ; but it is observable, that he 
 is never spoken of as a prophet, nor does he lay claim to that 
 character. Even, however, admitting both Solomon and Ezra 
 to have been inspired men, it would be very difficult, we con- 
 ceive, to prove, that this character attached to the anonymous 
 authors of the book of Esther and the books of Chronicles. 
 We must therefore stiU contend, that these books, though 
 very properly included in our canon as both authentic and 
 
 * In the first edition of this Review, it was stated, that 
 Dr Smith was said to be the author of this paper. But 
 that gentleman has disclaimed it. I wish I could also add 
 that he disclaims all tampering with the Sacred Canon. 
 
156 
 
 true, " are possibly not inspired ;'* and that the question 
 whether they are so or not, comes within the proper range 
 of human opinion." 
 
 To enter into the proof of the inspiration of these 
 books, so rashly questioned by this writer, would 
 be altogether a waste of time in this place. It 
 will be perfectly sufficient to shew that Dr Smith 
 cannot consistently question it. The business may 
 be effectually done from his own admissions. He 
 strongly contends that 2 Tim. iii. 15. 16, asserts 
 the inspiration of each and every of the books com- 
 prised under the well understood collective denomi- 
 nation, Ta iera grammata, the Holy Writings : 
 and that even the Unitarian construction of that 
 passage furnishes " the strongest testimony to the 
 inspiration of each and every of the books of the 
 Old Testament." Now we have only to ask, 
 were the above books a part of the Old Testament 
 when Paul wrote that Epistle, in order to be com- 
 pletely assured that they are inspired ? Were they 
 a part of that collection called Scripture, the Scrip- 
 tures, the Holy Scriptures, the oracles of God, 
 &c.? If they were, their inspiration is unquestion- 
 able. To settle this question, it is only necessary 
 to know the Jewish canon. If Dr S. can deny 
 the inspiration of any book of the Old Testament^ 
 in accordance with his own explanation of 2 Tim. 
 iii. J 5, J 6. it requires more perspicacity than I pos- 
 sess, to discern the agreement. Should he say 
 that he cannot see any thing in these books that 
 can entitle them to the denomination. Scripture, 
 Holy VYritings, oracles of God, &c. ; this might be 
 
157 
 
 very becoming in tlie mouth of an infidel, but is 
 very inconsistent in the mouth of him who admits 
 them to be a part of the Jewish Canon ; and 
 who apphes the assertion of Paul, 2 Tim. iii. 15, 
 16, to every part of that canon. Nothing can be 
 more absurd than to apply Paul's assertion of in- 
 spiration to each and every book of a well known 
 collective denomination, and afterwards to refuse it 
 to certain books unquestionably contained in that 
 collection. Can they be a part of the collection, 
 and not deserve the commendation bestowed on 
 every part of that collection ? How can he refuse 
 them the denomination of Scripture, after saying 
 that the meaning of that well understood collective 
 denomination, every Jew and Christian recognised 
 as including the Scriptures to which Jesus was in 
 the habit ofreferringy as to the ultimate divine 
 authority ? How can he question the inspiration 
 of some books of the Old Testament, after assert- 
 ing that 2 Tim. iii. 15, 16. furnishes the strongest 
 testimony to the inspiration of each and every of 
 the books of the Old Testament ? Were not these 
 books, books of the Old Testament } To admit 
 the canon to apply (2 Tim. iii. 15, 16.) to every 
 book of the canon, and yet to question the inspira- 
 tion of some of the books of that canon, would be 
 an instance of absurdity and contradiction to be 
 matched only in the doctrine of transubstantiation. 
 A deist might consistently admit the canon, and 
 labour to shew, from the contents of any particular 
 book, that it could not be inspired. This would 
 not only be consistent, but effectually serviceable to 
 
158 
 
 his cause. Could he succeed in shewing that a 
 certain book belongs to the collective denomination 
 received by the Jews as Scripture ; and that it con- 
 tained evidence of non 'inspiration, he would prove 
 Paul a liar, (2 Tim. iii. i6, 16.) and discredit the 
 inspiration of every other book in the canon. If 
 one part of the volume attested as inspired by 
 Paul, be proved to be uninspired, his attestation is 
 worthless with respect to every book in the col- 
 lection. The waiter of this article then, is not only 
 inconsistent with Dr Smith in this matter, but ac- 
 tually labours in the cause of infidelity, with re- 
 spect to Revelation in general. As far as the au- 
 thority of the canon, and the general attestation of 
 inspiration are concerned, both the authenticity and 
 inspiration of the whole Scriptures are subverted. 
 For if the canon has admitted one uninspired book, 
 there is no security that it has not admitted more : 
 if that canon has been recognised by Jesus with 
 one uninspired book, every book in the collection 
 may be uninspired, notwithstanding that recogni- 
 tion : if Paul (2 Tim. iii. 15, 1(5.) asserts inspira- 
 tion of the whole volume, while one book is unin- 
 spired, no book in the volume can be allowed cur- 
 rency from his stamp. If he has. sealed one for- 
 gery, the great seals should be put in other hands. 
 I am unwilling to suspect Dr Smith of secretly de-« 
 signing to undermine the authority of the Scripture; 
 yet as he excludes the Song of Solomon, I cannot 
 clear him, but at the expense of his judgment. I 
 cannot see how a man of sound understanding can 
 apply 2 Tim. iii. 15, 16. to each and every book of 
 
159 
 
 a collection, while he denies inspiration to any 
 boolc, unquestionably contained in that collection. 
 
 The doctrine of the writer of the article under 
 review, is a perfect absurdity. He tells us, that 
 the book of Esther, and the books of Chronicles, 
 though not inspired, are " very properly included 
 ' in our canon, as both authentic and true." Now, 
 what canon ? The answer is self-evident : Canon 
 of Scripture. What other canon is the writer 
 liere concerned with ? Included in the canon of 
 Scripture, while they are not Scripture I Included 
 in a canon to which they do not belong ! Included 
 in the canon of inspired books, while they are not 
 inspired! As well may the waiter be included in 
 the peerage, while he is not a peer, or be enrolled 
 anoong crowned heads, while he is but a subject. 
 Include the writings of men among the writings of 
 God, under one designation ! Was ever absurdity 
 more monstrous ? 1 had thought that the Church 
 of Rome had exhausted all the mines of absurdity ; 
 but it seems there are some rich veins of unappro- 
 priated ore, left to be worked by Protestant di- 
 vines for the support of sophistry. The authenti- 
 city of a book does not entitle it to be taken into 
 the canon of Scripture. Mathematical demonstra^ 
 tions have no more right to a place in the canon of 
 the holy books, than the most extravagant romance. 
 They are truths, but they are not the truths writ- 
 ten by the S|;ir"t of God, for the spiritual instruc- 
 tion of mankind. The Jewish canon was the can- 
 on of Scripture, not the canon of authentic books 
 in general. Our canon is the canon of the books 
 
160 
 
 acknowledged as inspired, not the canon of all true 
 history ; the writer's canon would include all the 
 authentic history of all ages and countries. Is not 
 a canon a rule? And what rule ought any unin- 
 spired book to be in the things of God ? Now, let 
 me ask him, could you seriously think of placing 
 in our Bible all authentic records ? If not, why do 
 you give a place to the book of Esther, and the 
 books of the Chronicles, which in your opinion are 
 uninspired ? Would you call such a collection the 
 Bible, the Scriptures, the Holy Scriptures, &c. ? 
 I thank thee, great Jesus, that thou hast not left 
 the making of our Bible to the ingenuity of learned 
 doctors. Much of thy wisdom in it, appears to 
 them to be folly. Their learning is employed in 
 mending thy work, and polishing what thy hand 
 has left unfinished. Go, vain man, enrol thy name 
 with that of him, w^ho, in the arrogance of his 
 wisdom, boasted that he could have given a better 
 model for creation, had he been admitted to the di- 
 vine counsels. But let the Bible alone. It is the 
 very wisdom of wisdom. The blemishes that the 
 wisdom of this world finds in it, are often its great- 
 est excellencies. 
 
 Let us examine a little farther this writer's prin- 
 ciples of evidence, as furnished by this passage. 
 Though he denies these books as inspired, he ac- 
 knowledges them as authentic and true. Now, 
 how does he know them to be authentic and true, 
 independently of their being a part of the canon, 
 whose inspiration is asserted by Paul ? Who is 
 the voucher for the wicked Jew who wrote the 
 
161 
 
 book of Esther ? What other authentic docu- 
 ments prove every part of this narrative ? If there 
 is a single fact in it uncorroborated by other unsus- 
 picious testimony, it stands unaccredited, and the 
 admitted wickedness of its author levels it to the 
 rank of a romance. If it was written by a wicked 
 Jew, we may be sure that he has falsified. We 
 cannot depend on a single fact recorded. Was it 
 ever known that a wicked Jew could write a page 
 of truth, when the interest of his country would be 
 served by a lie } Believe the narrative of a wick- 
 ed Jew about his religion and country ? Go, then, 
 to the Jesuits for the authentic annals of Christiani- 
 ty. Swallow all the fables of popish miracles. 
 Receive, as the truth of God, every adventure in 
 the lives and legends of the saints. Then, that the 
 renowned St Dunstan held the devil by the nose, 
 at the door of his cave, till he made all the rocks, 
 hills, and valhes to re-echo his horrible bellowing, 
 will become a matter of sober history. 
 
 How very easily is this writer satisfied with 
 evidence of authenticity, contrasted with his obsti- 
 nacy with respect to inspiration. Inspiration he 
 denies to these books, though they are part of a 
 canon, to the whole of which inspiration is express- 
 ly ascribed by an inspired aposlle. Their authen- 
 ticity he grants without evidence, though, abstract- 
 ed from their inspiration, there is the strongest rea- 
 son to suspect them of imposture. Now, my view 
 of evidence leads me to admit their inspiration, 
 from their being part of a canon, to every part of 
 which inspiration is ascribed by an Apostle, and to 
 
162 
 
 recognize their authenticity, as they are inspired. 
 Their being in the canon, is the chief proof of their 
 autiienlicity. Of the authenticity of some books, 
 there might be no other evidence than the fact that 
 they are in the canon. I know the history of the 
 Old Testament to be true, because it is inspired ; 
 take away its inspiration, and you remove the 
 strongest evidence of its authenticity. 
 
 Now, instead of resting the whole proof of the 
 inspiration of these books on the general inspired 
 character of their author, I rest no part of it on 
 this ground. Indeed, the evidence that Solomon 
 was an inspired man, is, that he wrote these books. 
 Even had we known him to have unquestionably 
 written books acknowledged by all to bo inspired, 
 we would not rest the inspiration of these books 
 on that ground. This argument might go a cer- 
 tain length towards proof; but the main evidence 
 would be, that these books were a part of the Jew- 
 ish canon, recognised by our Lord, and to every 
 part of which inspiration is ascribed by the Apos- 
 tle Paul. There may be additional evidences, ex-- 
 ternal and internal, but this is a pivot, that without 
 any other support, will bear the whole weight of 
 their inspiration. That Solomon was '* moved by 
 ' the Holy Ghost in penning these compositions," 
 is matter of Christian faith, as well as that Paul 
 was so moved to write his epistles. 
 
 It would be still more difficult, in this writer's esti- 
 mation toprove the inspiration of the book of Esther, 
 and the books of Chronicles. Not in the least more dif- 
 ficult. Do they belong to the canon, each and everi^ 
 
163 
 
 book of which is asserted by Paul to bo inspired ? 
 Here is no second question. The author appears 
 to labour under a mistake with respect to the na- 
 ture of the proof of inspiration. He appears to 
 make little or no account of the authority of the 
 canon, though authenticated by the highest pos- 
 sible sanction. After the fullest evidence of such 
 a title, other evidence, external and internal, seems 
 to be considered as assential before its recognition. 
 Now, to me it is quite obvious, that when a book 
 has the authority of the canon so augustly sanction- 
 ed, it needs to a Christian no other recommenda- 
 tion. To him it ceases to stand on its trial., To 
 question it further, is to suspect the guarantee of 
 Jesus and his Apostles. We may add to itsproois, 
 for the sake of confounding infideUty ; but to refuse 
 our own assent till they are produced, is most cri- 
 minal unbehef. 
 
 With respect to internal evidence, nothing can be 
 more satisfactory than when a book of Scripture, 
 by the nature and excellence of its contents, proves 
 its origin to be divine. This is eminently to be 
 found in the holy books. But let it be observed, 
 that this is not essential in every book, and that 
 the nature of some books altogether precludes it. 
 Books of senealoffies, and other matters, have their 
 use in the inspired volume. But how could genea- 
 logical tables prove the inspiration by internal evi- 
 dence ? These tables may be taken verbally and 
 Hterally from public documents ; but as they are 
 inserted in the inspired volume, they have the seal 
 of inspiration. Internal evidence, esseatial!y re- 
 
164 
 
 quisite in a revelation, is only negative. A divinely- 
 inspired book can contain nothing that is inconsis- 
 tent with the divine perfections, as revealed in the 
 gospel. But when a book is proved by ei^ternal 
 evidence, it is absurd to suppose that it can contain 
 internal evidence to disprove itself. When, there- 
 fore, a book is proved by external evidence to be 
 inspired, wisdom directs us to be very cautious in 
 pronouncing its contents to be unfit for the matter 
 of revelation. Such a book could not have exter- 
 nal evidence. To judge rashly in this way, is to 
 rush on the buckler of the Almighty. It is the 
 very sin of our first parents, — the sin that the wick- 
 ed one is still prompting men to commit, — to be as 
 gods, knowing good and evil. Does vain man con- 
 sider himself a perfect judge of what in all cases 
 is fit for God to write ? Is he able to give counsel 
 to the perfection of wisdom? ISIust revelation 
 come up in all things to his ideas of propriety ? 
 Must the Almighty conform himself to his standard ? 
 How disgusting to the mind of an humble Chris- 
 tian, to hear presumptuous men dictating on the 
 nature of divine revelation, as if they were equal to 
 God ? Their pure minds take offence atthegross- 
 ness of the word of him in whose sight the heavens 
 are not pure. It is awful presumption to pretend 
 to be disgusted with the Song of Solomon, when it 
 is found in the canon of the word of God. What- 
 ever my own judgment might be, if left to deter- 
 mine, a priori, of the nature of this book, when I 
 find it among the books that composed the Jewish 
 canon, sanctioned by Jesus, and declared by Paul 
 
165 
 
 to be inspired, instead of indulging my ingenuity in 
 finding out an evil tendency in it, I set myself to 
 discover its wisdom, and reap the instruction and 
 comfort it is calculated to afford. In this view, I am 
 persuaded, every humble Christian will find it a part 
 of the treasures of infinite wisdom. The spirit 
 that rejects it is a spirit of infidelity; and though 
 this writer indulges it only in denying a few of the 
 books of inspiration, it is the very same spirit that 
 works in the complete infidel, in denying the whole 
 word of God. To deny the whole volume of in- 
 spiration, would not require the adoption of an^ ad- 
 ditional principle ; it would only be necessary to 
 act more fully up to it. 
 
 If there is any thing in the books of Chronicles, 
 the wisdom of which, humiUty, patience, and la- 
 bour cannot discover, I am convinced that there is 
 more good sense, as well as piety, in the observa- 
 tion of Mr Scot, than in the fastidiousness of this 
 writer : *' If we could not understand, or get any 
 
 * benefit from certain portions of the Scriptures, it 
 ' would be more reasonable," says that pious man, 
 '* to blame our own dulness, than, so much as in 
 
 * thought, to censure them as useless." This is a 
 sentiment that breathes the true spirit of Christi- 
 anity. 
 
 Instead of finding cause of quarrel with the book 
 of Esther, it is a part of Scripture that I have long 
 admired as super-eminently abounding with proofs 
 of a divine origin. I see in it the characteristic 
 features of the divine wisdom, and every where 
 discover traces of the finger of God. It is to me a 
 
166 
 
 key to the history of the world, and an inspired 
 coraraentary on the book of Providence. From 
 this I am taught to sec the hand of God in the mi- 
 nutest concerns of my Hfe, as well as in guiding the 
 wheels of empire. When storms and darkness 
 thicken over ray head, from the book of Esther I 
 am led to hope that they may break around me in 
 blessings, or at least be dispersed without doing me 
 injury. When this book is commended to me by 
 the canon approved by Jesus, shall I give up to 
 hypercritical fastidiousness, all the consolation 
 which it affords me ? He that robs me of my 
 money steals trash; but he that robs me of any part 
 of the word of God, takes from me what all the 
 earth cannot replace. Learned men, in the want- 
 onness of their genius, may think it a very harmless 
 thing to question our title to some parts of the do- 
 mains left us by our Lord. In the sport of criti- 
 cism, they may give away tracts of Scripture terri- 
 tory with much less concern than an amateur 
 would the picture assigned to an admired artist, or 
 than a scholar would give up an ode of Horace. 
 But a Christian, acting fully in the spirit of Chris- 
 tianity, will cling to every word of the Holy Book, 
 and guard it as a miser guards his treasures. The 
 Scriptures are the title-deeds of his estate ; and he 
 will, with the utmost care, preserve every line and 
 every word from erasure. 
 
 The omission complained of in the Book of Es- 
 ther, is quite analogous to the providence of God 
 which it illustrates. It is in the characteristic style 
 of Divine Wisdom. Divine Providence rules all 
 
167 
 
 the events of this world ; but he guides the universe 
 with an unseen hand. Though his friends see his 
 hand in every thing, his enemies see hira not at all. 
 In all the operations of his wisdom and power, they 
 perceive nothingbut chance and confusion. Fortune 
 is the goddess which they put in the place of the God 
 of Providence. They are like children beholding 
 the movements of puppets. The hand behind the 
 curtain is never suspected. A leaf cannot move on 
 a branch — no living creature can draw breath, 
 without the operation of the divine hand ; yet are 
 the most wonderful interpositions of his providence 
 unnoticed by the wisdom of this world. God is 
 hidden from the eyes of men, even while he is 
 every where at work before their face. Is there 
 any need for a voice from heaven to proclaim, on 
 every occasion, " It is God that performs this ?" 
 Is it not self-evident to every creature truly wise ? 
 Are not all inexcusable who do not acknowledge 
 his over-ruhng power ? Must a herald proclaim 
 hira the author of his works, before men are blame- 
 able in ascribing them to another cause ? Is he so 
 bad a painter that the style of his works is not 
 characteristic of their author ? Is he so little 
 known in the world, that witnesses must be brought 
 into court to prove his hand-writing ? If there is 
 a human creature, possessed of all the faculties of 
 man, who is unacquainted with the hand-writing of 
 God, he is a guilty creature. Innumerable ex- 
 amples of it have, from his infancy, been before his 
 eyes. And why should not the Book of Esther be 
 in the style of the hand-writing of that Providence, 
 
168 
 
 whose wonders it exhibits ? Both are anonymous 
 letters; but they are letters which heaven and 
 earth could not counterfeit. The hand-writing 
 proves its author. To ascribe the Book of Esther 
 to a wicked Jew, is as void of foundation, as to as- 
 cribe the works of Providence to the devil. 
 
 Had we written the book of Esther, no doubt 
 our wisdom would have expressed our whole creed, 
 guarded at all points by logical definition, to cut 
 off pretence for evasion. The feeblest pin would 
 have afforded a hold for all the weight of our or- 
 thodoxy. But it is not so with the wisdom of 
 God. The truth, in all its bearings, is not exhi- 
 bited in any single passage in the Bible. To have 
 a complete view of it, we must bring together pas- 
 sages scattered throughout the w4iole Scriptures. 
 The Book of Esther is designed for a particular 
 purpose ; it is sufficient that it serves that purpose. 
 As a part of the sacred volume, it is admirably in- 
 structive ; it never was designed to stand alone. 
 The preaching of Jesus himself could not stand 
 the test to which this writer subjects the Book of 
 Esther. He did not, in every address, bring for- 
 ward the doctrine of salvation. The book of Es- 
 ther teaches the truth as far as it goes; it is no de- 
 gradation to it that it leaves the most important 
 thing to be gathered by inference. Even by itself, 
 its meaning cannot be innocently mistaken ; but, in 
 conjunction with the other books of Scripture, all 
 appearance of cover is removed. Is it not sufficient 
 if the whole Scriptures contain the whole will of 
 God } Shall we arrogantly prescribe to him what 
 
169 
 
 is requisite in every part? Wiiilo the way of salva- 
 tion is dispersed in multitudes of places through the. 
 Bible, many passages might be collected in which 
 there is nothing about it. 
 
 1 implore such writers to reflect on the awful na- 
 ture of their sentiments. If this book is inspired, 
 and, if Dr Smith's explanation of 2 Timothy iii. IG 
 be correct, inspired it must be, how highly, auda- 
 cious is it to ascribe it to some wicked Jew ! If, 
 in their judgment, it contains evidence of being 
 the work of a wicked author, do they not find that 
 wickedness in God, should the book be finally ac- 
 knowledged by God ? Is there hazard here ? Is 
 not rashness on such a point the extravagance of 
 madness ? If the work is charged as a wicked 
 work, and God is found to be its author, is not 
 God charged with its wickedness ? I admit that 
 the writer doesnotintentionally make such a charge. 
 But does this clear him ? If so, the Jews will be 
 innocent in rejecting the gospel ; for they conceive 
 that it led to licentiousness. If so, the modern re- 
 vilers of salvation, by the grace of God through 
 Jesus Christ, will all stand without blame ; for 
 they oppose it out of zeal for the interests of good 
 works. Has the man of sin opposed the truth, as 
 being the doctrine of Christ, and the true gospel ? 
 Does he not view the gospel of the grace of God 
 as the heresy of wicked men, seduced by the de- 
 vil ? Yet he is the son of perdition, the smoke of 
 whose torment ascendeth for ever and ever. And 
 is it a light thing upon the strength of rash objec- 
 tions, to affront the Spirit of truth, and ascribe. 
 
170 
 
 though ignorantly, any part of the word of God to 
 wicked men? If this charge is unfounded, even 
 though not intended as against God, it argues dis- 
 affection to the divine wisdom. What is unbehef 
 but disaffection to the wisdom of God ? Men re- 
 ject the gospel, because, indulging their own wis- 
 dom, the wisdom of God appears foolishness to 
 them. Instead of submitting to the plan of divine 
 wisdom, when communicated to them, they take on 
 them to question its merits; and finding it alto- 
 gether opposed to their own views, they reject it 
 as an imposture, or explain it in conformity with 
 the wisdom of man. Had the gospel appeared the 
 wisdom of God, in the estimation of the princes of 
 this world, they would not have crucified the Lord 
 of glory. They did this in ignorance, — because 
 the wisdom of God is foolishness to the world ; 
 but this ignorance, as it was enmity against the 
 wisdom of God, which nothing but atheistical pride 
 of human wisdom could have kept them from dis- 
 cerning, was culpable in the highest degree. This 
 ignorance was damnation. Now, if the book of 
 Esther is really written in the wisdom of God, it 
 will be no defence for this writer, that it is not in 
 the style of human wisdom. God has presented it 
 to him as his own work, by having it inserted in 
 the canon sanctioned by Christ, and attested as in- 
 spired by Paul. If, in the arrogance of his own 
 wisdom, he presumes to see defects in it, notwith- 
 standing such attestation, it is at his peril he rejects 
 it. He indulges the very same spirit that induces 
 all unbelievers to reject the gospel. Do 1 then say. 
 
171 
 
 that to deny the inspiration of this book is damna- 
 tion ? No — J say it is not damnation j because no 
 ignorance or opposition to the divine wisdom is 
 damnation, but the ignorance of one point — the ig- 
 norance of the wisdom of God in the plan of salva- 
 tion. This ignorance is declared by God to be 
 damnation. But ignorance of every other part of 
 the divine wisdom is not damnation ; because 
 it is declared that he that believeth the gospel 
 shall bo saved. It could not be a truth to which 
 there is no exception, that the belief of the gospel 
 is salvation, if any ignorance consistent with the 
 knowledge of this one point, was damnation. But 
 while 1 rejoice in this fact so comforting to us all, 
 for none of us are without our errors and ignorance, 
 I think it right to keep it constantly before my own 
 mind, and that of all my brethren, that every in- 
 stance of disaffection to the divine wisdom is highly 
 criminal. It is this that has introduced all the cor- 
 ruptions of the gospel ; it is this that has changed 
 all the ordinances of God, and introduced into no- 
 minal Christianity all the pomp and ceremony of 
 pagan Rome. I am convinced that many in the 
 Church of Rome, with all the ignorance of the di- 
 vine wisdom that keeps them there, may have so 
 much knowledge of the wisdom of God in the plan 
 of salvation, as will wash them in the blood of Christ, 
 and at last present them blameless before his throne. 
 But while I think so, I do not on that account 
 think their ignorance innocent, nor cease to cry to 
 them in the words of the Lord, " Come out of her, 
 ' my people, that ye be not partakers of her sins, 
 
172 
 
 ' and that ye receive not of her plagues." In like 
 manner do I judge of the denial of the inspiration 
 of the book of Esther, on the considerations of its 
 supposed defects. It appears to me exceedingly 
 sinful, without the alleviating circumstances of pre- 
 judice, education, &c. that weigh on the Roman 
 Catholic. Were the objection a thousand times 
 more plausible than it is, prudence, 1 think, should 
 dictate very great caution in condemning. Had 
 the objection struck me as it did the writer of the 
 article, instead of rashly yielding to it, my reason 
 teaches me, that as the book is authenticated by 
 God, I should have sought by reading and prayer, 
 to see the divine wisdom of that which in my wis- 
 dom did not appear such. Instead of boldly con- 
 cluding from first sight, that this was evidence of a 
 wicked author, I would have taken it for granted, 
 that there was wisdom in it, though I could not 
 discern that wisdom. In this way, I have no doubt, 
 1 would have come to see the wisdom of that which 
 might at first strike me as folly. As I am man, 
 and not God, I never pretend to judge for God. 
 All his ways, I take it for granted, are wise, and 
 my wisdom is to search for the traces of that wis- 
 dom. In sitting down to a human writing, I try 
 every thing with the utmost circumspection and 
 jealousy. In re-perusing my own writings, I 
 do the same, because to err is human. But when 
 I sit down to the Scriptures, it is not with the eye 
 of a critic to find faults, nor as a judge to put them 
 on their trial at the bar of my own wisdom. As I 
 have the fullest evidence that they are the word 
 
173 
 
 of God, I read to learn, — I read to explore 
 the divine wisdom, — I read to discover v^hat may 
 lie hid from human wisdom. As the Scriptures are 
 the word of God, I expect such a fulness and per- 
 fection in them, that I may dig up treasures that 
 may have yet escaped the eye of human wisdom. 
 Having found the key of the divine wisdom in the 
 Scriptures, I apply it every where ; and the mark- 
 ed characteristics of that wisdom, are to me the 
 best commentary on the book of God, both of 
 Scripture and providence. It is in this way, that 
 the thing that has stumbled this writer, has long 
 appeared to me as a certain evidence of the divine 
 origin of the book of Esther. Whether his scep- 
 ticism, or ray faith, is more suitable to human 
 weakness, I might leave to the determination of 
 every humble Christian. At all events, 1 triumph 
 in the appeal to the throne of the eternal judge, 
 for the decision of this controversy. 
 
 I request the writer's attention to another con- 
 sequence of the sentiment advanced by him on the 
 subject of the inspiration of the objected books. 
 He lays a foundation for infidelity, with respect to 
 the denial of the inspired books, to any extent 
 that a person may choose to build on it. He is 
 him.selt displeased only with a few books ; but if 
 his principles are admitted, 1 do not know how any 
 book can be retained. The authority of the canon, 
 with all its sanctions, he does not admit as para- 
 mount; and the non-conformity of its matter to his 
 own views, is allowed as sufficient to discredit the 
 title of a book to the character of inspiration. How 
 
174 
 
 then can any book of Scripture stand such an or- 
 deal? A thousand things in the epistles may more 
 plausibly be objected to, than the defect complain- 
 ed of in the book of Esther. So far from the ab- 
 sence of the name God, proving irresistibly that 
 none but a wicked Jew could have written that 
 book, it appears to me, on the contrary, that had a 
 wicked Jew really been the author, it would have 
 possessed the perfection, the want of which the 
 writer so much regrets. How could either the ho- 
 nour, or the safety of the Jewish people, or any 
 single Jew, be hazarded by the avowal, that the 
 governor of the universe was their protector and 
 avenger? But at all events, in whatever way hu- 
 man wisdom would decide on this question, to deny 
 the inspiration of a book so highly sanctioned on 
 the ground of speculations of this kind, appears 
 to me to be the very wantonness of sceptical folly. 
 Such evidence as that on which this writer rests, 
 would not be sufficient to displace from his works 
 any of the orations usually ascribed to Demos- 
 thenes. To reject the book of Esther on such evi- 
 dence, is the very madness of criticism. Admit 
 such principles, and w4io shall defend the inspira- 
 tion of Paul against the Arians and Socinians ? 
 Who shall be able to defend, in the writings of 
 that Apostle, the inspiration of those deep things of 
 God, that appear as hard sayings to the wisdom of 
 this world? Every man may innocently reject 
 whatever is displeasing to his own mind. In this 
 way our Bible will not contain a single page who^e 
 
175 
 
 nspiraticn will be universally admitted. All will 
 be matter of human opinion. 
 
 Nor will the writer be able to keep the exact 
 station which he has now chosen. He will either 
 be obliged to come back to us, or the infidel will 
 force him nearer to himself. Let him not vainly 
 imagine, that by throwing the objected books over- 
 board, he will be able to keep the ship from sink- 
 ing, and save the rest. When he offers to surren- 
 der these books to the deist, if he knows his busi- 
 ness, he will not take them from him. f Je may 
 reply, these books that you give up to me, are au- 
 thenticated by him you call your Master, and by him 
 you denominate the great Apostle of the Gentiles. 
 You must acknowledge them as yours, or you must 
 surrender at discretion, and give me up all the writ- 
 ings of Paul, and all the authority of Jesus. If 
 the one falls, the other will fall of course. Who 
 can depend on Jesus, if he has acknowledged the 
 authority of a book, which you and I have found 
 to be the writing of a wicked Jew } What credit 
 can be given to Paul, if he has so egregiously erred 
 about these books ? 
 
 What an unholy cause are these writers engaged in! 
 They are labouring as fervently in lowering the char- 
 acter of the word of God,as the Neologians are labour- 
 ing to sap the foundations of Christianity, under a mask 
 of submission to its authority. Dr JSmith struggles 
 hard to degrade the inspiration of the Scriptures; 
 and both he and the Eccleclic Review have labour- 
 ed to unsettle the canon. Both have adopted prin- 
 ciples which tend to confusion ; and to the sub- 
 
176 
 
 version of the Scriptures as the Book of God. Dr 
 Smith has denied the verbal inspiration of the 
 Bible, and every kind of inspiration to all the pas- 
 sages that any one may choose to consider as not 
 beins of a religious or moral nature ; and the Ec- 
 clectic Reviev^ has rejected whole books of Scrip- 
 ture, on principles that w^ill condemn every book in 
 the canon. Better, much better for a christian, 
 that he had not so much learning as to write his 
 own name, than to display the abiUties of Newton, 
 in degrading the word of God. Grotius is said to 
 have exclaimed on his death-bed : Heu vitain pre- 
 didi officiose nihil agendo : Alas ! I Jiave spent 
 my life in laboriously doing nothing. But many 
 learned Christians not only waste their time in la- 
 borious triffles, but in ignorantly fighting against 
 God. How much confusion has been brought on 
 divine truth, by the waywardness even of the dis- 
 ciples of the Lord ! How much obscurity has 
 been introduced into the plainest subjects, by per- 
 verted ingenuity ! How much error arises from 
 not reading the Scriptures with the disposition of 
 httle children ! When will Christians learn to re- 
 nounce their own wisdom ! When will they cease 
 to conform the Scriptures to their own views I 
 When will learned Christians seek the approbation 
 of God in all their labours, regardless of the smiles 
 and of the frowns of a world that lieth in the wick- 
 ed one ! When will truth be esteemed the most 
 precious of all possessions ! ** Thy testimonies 
 * have I taken as an heritage forever;" says the 
 Psalmist, " for they are the rejoicing of my heart." 
 
177 
 
 APPENDIX 
 
 TO 
 
 REMARKS 
 
 ON 
 
 DR PYE smith's THEORY OF INSPIRATION. 
 
 Dr Pye Smith, in a second edition of his work on 
 the Messiah, has endeavoured, from the import of 
 the word Aoye?, to silence some of the testimonies 
 for verbal inspiration. ** Much stress," says he, 
 " has been laid on the use of the expressions men- 
 ' tioned before, (p. 45.) where speaking, saying, 
 
 * and the hke, are ascribed to the Holy Spirit by 
 
 * the mouth of his servants; and such passages as 
 
 * these, * I will put my words in his mouth.' Deut. 
 
 * xviii. 18. * 1 have given unto them the words 
 *■ * which thou gavest me,' John xvii. 8. * We 
 ' * speak, not in the words which man's wisdom 
 ' * teacheth, but in those which the Holy Spirit 
 ' ' teacheth,' 1 Cor. ii. 13. Those who use this 
 ' argument are probably not acquainted with the 
 
 * Scriptural meanings of 12T and Aoy«j, especially 
 
 * the plural forms, and the idioms connected with 
 
 * them ; that they denote, not vocables, or single 
 
 M 
 
178 
 
 * words, but combined speech, the matter conveyed 
 
 * in \k\Q tenor zxi^ total Qi^m oral or written address, 
 
 * sermones, la parole. " vol. 1. p. 97. The peculiari- 
 ty here adverted to, as far as it is well founded, can 
 be news to no classical scholar. And it is equally 
 obvious to the smallest degree of critical discern- 
 ment, that this fact cannot bear the inference 
 which Dr Smith draws from it. Even admitting 
 that mi and Aeyo? never did refer to single terms, 
 the conclusion is not warranted. If sentences, ex- 
 pressions, or combined speech, are ascribed to 
 God, the single words must be his also, for it is of 
 these the combination is composed. The whole 
 cannot be God's, if the parts separately are not his. 
 Dr Smith's criticism is as absurd, as if one should 
 say, that when an officer is said to be the colonel 
 of such a regiment, it does not import that he is the 
 colonel of the soldiers in that regiment, because the 
 word regiment denotes a bod}'' of men united. An 
 oration of Demosthenes is called Aaye?. But if an 
 oration as a whole is his, the words considered se- 
 parately, are his also. We do not argue that it 
 signifies single terms as distinguished from terms 
 combined in speech ; but that signifying terms com- 
 bined in speech, it includes single terms. If God 
 is the author of the terms as a combination, he is 
 the author of them considered singly. What we 
 contend for is, that Aoyoj, whether referring to one 
 word, or to a number in combination, refers to ex- 
 pression, and that in this respect it is as definite as 
 gviu.ot. itself. Aoyoj when used distinctively, implies 
 t xpression with respect to a number of words com- 
 
179 
 
 twined ; ^'^fiec, expression with respect to one word. 
 But though Xoyeg has this distinctive meaning, it is. 
 not fact tliat either it or the Hebrew word "im, is 
 never used with respect to single words. Many 
 examples might be produced to prove the contrary- 
 Joshua viii. 34, 35, " And afterwards he read al/ 
 ' tlie words of the law, the blessings and cursings, 
 
 * according to all that is written in the book of the 
 ' law. There was not « e^or^ of all that Moses 
 
 * commanded, which Joshua read not before all the 
 ' congregation of Israel." 
 
 Here the term word must signify a single word, 
 yet the Hebrew is nn"I, for which the Septuagint 
 uses ^Y^fboL. 
 
 Isaiah xxxvi. 21. *' But they held their peace, 
 
 * and answered him not a word." Here the term 
 word applies to a single word, yet the Hebrew has 
 in, and the Greek "Koyoq. 
 
 Psalm cxxxix. 4. •" For there is not a word in 
 
 * my tongue, but, lo, O Lord, thou knowest it alto- 
 
 * gether." Here the Hebrew uses nVtj, and the 
 Greek ^layoj. 
 
 Isaiah xxix. 21. " That make a man an offender 
 
 * for a wordy Here there can be no doubt, that a 
 single word is meant, yet we have in the Hebrew 
 and in the Greek, the terms in question. 
 
 Rev. xxii. 22. ** If any man shall take away from 
 ' the words of the book of this prophecy." Here the 
 original has Aoyo5, yet it must refer to single terms. 
 
 But in this criticism, Dr Smith artfully substi- 
 tutes the words, " 1 he matter conveyed," &c. as 
 synonymous with the words " combined speech." 
 
180 
 
 Now the matter conveyed in a speech is not the speech 
 that conveys that matter. The speech contains both 
 the words and the matter, but not the matter with- 
 out the words, nor distinguished from the words.' 
 Though, therefore, Aoyoj signifies combined sjteech, a 
 sentence, an oration, a treatise, &c. yet it never sig- 
 nifies the matter of that sentence, oration, treatise, &c. 
 without the words, or distinct from the words. It 
 includes the matter, because the words express the 
 matter. It is admitted, that both the Hebrew word 
 and the Greek have an acceptation, without any 
 reference to expression ; but in that acceptation it 
 is evident, they cannot be used in the passages in 
 question. In such instances, they do not denote 
 the meaning or matter of a speech, more than the 
 words of a speech. They do not, indeed, refer to 
 speech in any point of view. Let us now take a 
 look at the examples which he alleges as the sup- 
 port of this criticism. '* Of this they might dis- 
 ' cover evidence, if they would examine, in the He- 
 ^ brew and Greek texts, the following passages, 
 
 * which are but a specimen of a very numerous bodv. 
 'Exod. xviii. 16, 19,22, 26; xix. 6—9; 2 Sani. 
 'xi. J8;Ps. cv. 27; Jer. i, J; Amosi. 1; 1 Chron. 
 ' xxix. 29; Mark i. 45; John iv. 37, 39; Acts i. I ; 
 *xv. 32; XX. 7; 1 Cor. i. 17,18; ii. 1, 4; xv. 2," 
 
 * &c. &c." Let us examine them as they stand, and 
 we shall see that they give no testimony that will 
 yield any support to Dr Smith's criticism. Exod. 
 xviii. \^, 19, 22, 26. *• When they have a matter 
 ' they come unto me," — *' bring the causes unto 
 
 * God," — •* e\Qry great matter they shall bring unto 
 
181 
 
 * thee," — ** the hard causes they brought unto 
 
 * Moses." Here the Hebrew word nai is used to 
 denote matter, thing, cause. But this does not 
 conform to either part of the definition of the word 
 given by Dr Smith. This is not combined speech, 
 nor is it '* the matter conveyed in the tenor and 
 
 * total of an oral or written address." It is matter, 
 thing, cause, without respect to speech. It is on- 
 ly a play upon the sound of the word matter. It 
 makes matter as an abstract word, coincide with 
 matter, as importing meaning, which are as differ- 
 ent in their significations as any two words in the 
 language. And it is most strange that Dr Smith 
 has not observed, that in this acceptation of the 
 Hebrew terra, the Septuagint has used ^rtfuc, as well 
 as Aoyoj, as a translation. In verse 16, the Greek 
 is civliXoytx, a controversy ; in verse 19, the Greek 
 is Aoyoj; and in verse 22, 2t), ^rifix is used. Indeed 
 ^n^ee, is the term used for thing, in Luke ii. 15. In 
 this acceptation then, ^nucc and Xoyog are equally 
 used. In the sense of combined speech, both gjjft« 
 and evcg, are used as well as Xoyo?, though when 
 used distinctively, each has its peculiar province. 
 Xoyog has a greater variety of significations than any 
 of its synonyms. There is no doubt, but there is 
 a connection between the remotest of these and the 
 original idea ; and it is the business of the philoso- 
 phical linguist to trace this connection. But the 
 fact is all we are concerned with, that it has the 
 meaning of matter, cause, thing, office, as well as 
 the corresponding Hebrew term, without any re- 
 ference to speech at all. In this, however, g»!ft« 
 
182 
 
 has suffered the same extension. Indeed, the ori- 
 gin of this use is not difficult to discover. What 
 can be more obvious, than a metonymy of the ex- 
 pression for the thing expressed, and in progress, 
 the passing of the metonymical use into proper sig- 
 nification, without any reference to expression? 
 Why, 1 ask, has Dr Smith grounded an argument 
 upon this use of >ioyo^, which might as well be 
 grounded on ^rt^ix, the very term which distinct- 
 ly denotes words as single terms? Might not an- 
 other as reasonably say, ** ^Yi^a signifies matter, 
 ' thing, &c. therefore it cannot be understood of 
 ' single words." This definition, then, is inconsis- 
 tent with itself, and the examples are inconsistent 
 with both parts of it. 
 
 In Exodus xix. 6. 9, the Hebrew word is used 
 in its usual meaning as denoting words, and is ren- 
 dered by the Septuagint both by Xoyaj and ^i^tec. 
 Moses laid before the people the very words of 
 the Lford, and to denote these words the LXX use 
 the two Greek words indifferently. 
 
 2 Sam. xi. 18, " Then Joab sent and told 
 * David, all the things concerning the war." Here 
 the term in the original corresponding to things, 
 may either be taken as signifying things, without 
 any reference to words, or the wards of the war, 
 may be words giving an account of the war — words 
 in the strict sense. 
 
 Psalm cv. 27. They shewed the words of his 
 signs, that is, they used the words which God put 
 into their mouth,, by which the signs were perfonu- 
 
183 
 
 ed. But in whatever way this phraseology is ex- 
 plained, it can have no bearing on the dispute. 
 
 Jer. i. 1. *' The words of Jeremiah," &c. 
 And what else are they than words ? These words 
 contained the things that he spoke. The LXX 
 translate it, '* The word of God that came upon 
 •Jeremiah," &c. using the word ^n^cc,Q.nd in the 
 next verse using >^oyog for the same thing. 
 
 Amos i. 1. " The words of Amos." And the 
 words of Amos they are, notwithstanding it is said 
 that he saw them. This phraseology is to be un- 
 derstood on the same principle as that which speaks 
 of seeing a voice. There was a vision ; something 
 was seen, which uttered things that were heard. 
 Would it be more intelligible to substitute for the 
 "words of Amos," t/ie combined speeches of Amos, 
 or " the matter conveyed in the tenor and total of 
 *the oral or written address, sermones, la parole of 
 ' Amos.^" I think it would need as good glasses to 
 see all this, as to see the words of the prophet. 
 
 Mark i. 45. '* Blaze abroad the matter." 
 Though the passage might be translated il^e reportt 
 that is, the report of the miracle, yet I have no ob- 
 jection to the common version, which is quite in ac- 
 cordance with what I have already advanced. But 
 it is matter^ or thing, without reference to words. 
 It is not meaning contra-distinguished from words. 
 It is not matter conveyed in the tenor and total of 
 a written or oral address. 
 
 John iv. 37, 39. *' And herein is that saying 
 * true," — " The saying of the woman." Very 
 good proof, if Dr Smith had the misfortune to con- 
 
lend with any so uninformed as to assert that 
 Xoyog always signifies a single term, and not a 
 number of terms in combination. He does not, 
 however, find in us critics of this stamp. AoyA? 
 we contend may signify one word, or a whole 
 treatise. Is it of such a thing as this that Dr 
 Smith presumes to say, that those who alleged an 
 argument from the phraseology which he quotes, 
 are probably unacquainted? Who is unacquainted 
 with the fact that A<»y«? has a multiplicity of 
 meanings ? None who are able to look for a word 
 in a lexicon. But because the term Aoyo^ signifies 
 a sentence, or saying, or report, &c. &;c. cannot it 
 signify words ? Then the term word itself in Eng- 
 lish, could not signify word, for it is used for say- 
 ing, or report, as well as Aoyo^. Kever was 
 criticism more childish, with all its parade of He- 
 brew and Greek. 
 
 Acts i. 1. " The former treatise account," ^c. 
 No man worth replying to, ever doubted such ac- 
 ceptations of the term Aay*?. But does not the 
 term in this acceptation apply to every word in 
 the treatise ? If it was Luke's treatise, the words 
 were the words of Luke ; a treatise comprehends 
 both words and matter. Strange indeed, if this 
 should be opposed to the idea of verbal inspira- 
 tion ' 
 
 Acts XV. 32. ** Exhorted the brethren with 
 ' many wordsy or much discourse." Did they ex- 
 hort without words? The fact that Aoyo? denotes 
 combined speech, does not imply that words are 
 
185 
 
 not included in it. If not, this has no bearing on 
 the subject. 
 
 Acts XX. 7. " Continued his discourse." Why 
 waste time with such allegations as this? I sup- 
 pose his discourse consisted in words, and though 
 the term A«yo$ applies to the whole, all the parts 
 are necessarily included in the whole. 
 
 1 Cor. i. 17. " Not with wisdom of words," or 
 as in the margin, *' of speech." Is it not the ex- 
 pression here that is directly referred to? 1 Cor. 
 i. 18. " The preaching of the cross." This might 
 be alleged to shew, that the term Xoyaj, had other 
 meanings, as well as that in which it denotes 
 words, a thing that no man ever thought of caUing 
 in question. But does this say, that the term, 
 when it signifies words, either singly or combined, 
 cannot refer to expression ? 
 
 In 1 Cor. ii. i— 4. Xoyog does not indeed de- 
 note a single word, but speech. But this is nothing 
 to the purpose of Dr Smith. Speech is made up 
 of single words, and the words of a speech are the 
 words of the author of the speech. It would be 
 absurd to say, that a speech was inspired, but that 
 the words were not inspired. Is it not of expres- 
 sion, as distinguished from the thing expressed, that 
 the apostle is here speaking ? 
 
 In 1 Cor. xr. 2. The word is variously explain- 
 ed, but in no sense can it favour Dr Smith. Our 
 translation is substantially good, though it overlooks 
 something expressed in the original, which, indeed, 
 can hardly be exactly given in an English version. 
 Tiu Xoyat in this place would, I think, be exactly 
 
186 
 
 rendered by qua ratione^ referring both to the doc- 
 trine preached, and the orderly connection and de- 
 pendence of the parts of that doctrine. That both 
 the ideas are included, is evident from the illustra- 
 tion which the Apostle himself gives of the expres- 
 sion, in the following verses. He states the differ- 
 ent parts of his doctrine, and the order in which 
 they are taught. *' If ye remember how [ preach- 
 * ed the gospel to you," might not be far from ex- 
 pressing the ideas of the original. But how can 
 this passage, in any sense of which it is capable, 
 tend to prove that Aoyo?, when applied to the JScrip- 
 tures, cannot mean the expresssion as distinguished 
 from the meaning? Is there any word perfectly 
 univocal? Did any one ever suppose, that Adya? 
 had not a vast variety of meanings? Does Dr 
 Smith mean to assert, that the meaning which it 
 has here, it must have in these passages which are 
 the subjects of dispute? He refers us to a number 
 of examples in which he supposes we will find 
 some wonderful discovery, of which till the time of 
 his writing, we were not at all aware. That dis- 
 covery, however, is known to any school-boy, as 
 soon as he is able to trace the words of his lexicon. 
 And worst of all, it has nothing to do with the sub- 
 ject. But I invite the reader especially to attend 
 to the manner in which Dr Smith endeavours to 
 neutralize the testimony of I Cor. ii. 13. This 
 passage is so clear, that he is obliged to confess 
 that it refers to expression, but by resolving ex- 
 pression into expressions, style, manner, he con- 
 trives to turn the reader's attention to the latter as 
 
187 
 
 the only thing meant in the Apostle's assertion. 
 " The passage J Cor. ii. 13," says he, " evidently 
 
 * refers to the expressions, style, and manner in which 
 
 * the Apostle taught the truths of the gospel; and it 
 ' declares that he did not use splendid eloquence and 
 ' oratorical arts, nor resort to any other kind of al- 
 ' lurement to captivate hearers, (gv Xoyw KoXxKita^, 
 
 * lThess.ii.5.— x/Cflto-Tot? Xoyoi^, 2 Pet. ii. 3;) but that 
 
 * he delivered his heavenly message in simplicity of 
 ' diction, as taught and inspired by the Holy Spirit, 
 
 * (Unvuetlixoig UnvfAocliKx o-vyK^mcvli^ adapting spiri- 
 
 * ritual (expressions) to spiritual subjects." Now, 
 what can be fairer in appearance than this, if it is 
 read without a critical eye .'' What can we de- 
 mand more than is here admitted? And is not 
 style the principle thing to which the Apostle re- 
 fers .> But there is management here that perverts 
 the testimony of God. The art by which the wri- 
 ter quashes the evidence here is, by substituting 
 something implied in what is said, for the thing that 
 is actually said. It is of expression solely that the 
 Apostle speaks. Style, manner, &c. are undoubt- 
 edly imphed in this, but they are not the thing of 
 which the assertion is made. Splendid eloquence and 
 oratorical arts are unquestionably included in the de- 
 nial, but they are not the thing of which the denial 
 is made. They are included, because expression 
 includes them; but it is of expression that the 
 assertion is made. The apostle's words do not di- 
 rectly declare that he did not use splendid eloquence 
 and oratorical arts. But this is one of the things 
 implied in the declaration. The thing declared is, 
 
188 
 
 that the apostle expressed divine truth, not in words 
 taught hy human wisdom, but in words taught hy 
 the Holy Spirit. The assertion then is made of 
 the expression or words directly, and respects style 
 only as it is included in expression. The thing that 
 he denies is not the using of flattery and simula- 
 tion, according to 1 Thess. ii. 5., 2 Pet. ii. 3., but 
 that he spoke the truths of the Gospel in word« 
 taught by the wisdom of man. That he did not 
 use flattery and simulation is no doubt implied in 
 this. What he asserts, is not *' that he delivered 
 * his heavenly message in simplicity of diction," 
 though this is implied in what he does assert ; but 
 that he delivered his heavenly message in heaven- 
 ly words. The author then has uncorked the 
 heavenly liquor, and presents it to us in a state 
 quite evaporated and vapid. He has besides put an 
 infusion into it calculated to deceive the eye and 
 the taste. Here is a passage then, Dr Smith, that 
 your instruments of torture cannot silence, nor force 
 to prevaricate. It speaks of words, and whether 
 these be considered as single terms, or expression 
 as combined speech, it is eocpression directly dis- 
 tinguished from meaning. The Holy Ghost most 
 plainly declares, XhdX the truths of the Gospel were 
 taught by the apostles in his own words. He 
 speaks both of the matter and of the expression in 
 this passage, and directly ascribes to the Holy Spi- 
 rit the latter as distinguished from the former. No 
 words could more expressly assert verbal inspira- 
 tion. It is as clear that the words are ascribed to 
 the Holy Spirit, as that the things are ascribed to 
 
189 
 
 him. Dr Smith, it is no easy thin^ to fi^lit against 
 the word of God. When you may think that you 
 have stoned it to death, it will with Paul quickly 
 stand upon its feet and testify against you as loudly 
 as ever. You have done your utmost to murder 
 this passage, but it rises up in judgment against you, 
 and proclaims that the apostles sfoke the things of 
 the Spirit in the words of the Spirit. *' Which 
 
 * THINGS ALSO WE SPEAK, NOT IN THE WORDS 
 
 * WHICH man's wisdom teacheth, but which 
 ' THE Holy Ghost teacheth.' Can you look to 
 the judgment seat of Christ, and deny that this 
 asserts verbal inspiration ? If you can, I do not 
 envy you your conscience or your perspicacity. 
 
 With respect to the words nnvuxJUing 
 TlnvfAttliKd o-vjK^ivovlig I am well enough pleased with 
 the common version, in this instance, as in most 
 others. But whatever is right, right Dr Smith's 
 version cannot be, ** adapting spiritual (expressions) 
 
 * to spiritual subjects." 1. When an adjective is 
 thus exhibited without its substantive, the substan- 
 tive must be of the most general nature, and so 
 obvious as to occasion no question as to what it is. 
 Things, and neither expressions t\ov subjects, is the 
 proper substantive. 2. It is necessary that the 
 same substantive should be supplied to both words. 
 Expressions cannot be supplied to the one, and 
 subjects to the other. Let Dr Smith produce me 
 an undoubted instance of similar syntax, and I will 
 withdraw this objection. 3. Were such syntax 
 allowable, 1 would translate the passage thus : — 
 Explaining or interpreting the things of the Spi~ 
 
190 
 
 rit, in the words of the Spirit, a meaning both 
 true and suited to the connection. But as I am 
 convinced that such syntax is not warrantable- I 
 will never attempt to force the word of God to 
 support my views. 1 will not put one finger on 
 the ark, though it should appear to be falling 
 over a precipice. If God's word cannot support 
 its own truths, let error prevail to the day of judg- 
 ment. I stand quite at ease in defending my sen- 
 timents on all subjects of divine truth. I consider 
 it ray duty to establish them, and to convince 
 others, by an exhibition of evidence as clear as I 
 am able. But T will not forge proofs were I as- 
 sured of proselyting the world. It is not to please 
 myself, that 1 adopt ray views, and I cannot ex- 
 pect to please God by defending his truth 
 with falsehood. 4. With respect to the word 
 cvYx^tmlii, we raight as well open an English book 
 at random, and take any word that should first oc- 
 cur, as a translation, as take the word adapting. 
 This is to make Scripture not to translate. Will 
 Dr Smith be so good as to shew us where tbis 
 word occurs in this acceptation ? 6. Were there 
 DO other objection, the phrase spiritual exfressions 
 appears to be unwarrantable. What is a spiritual 
 expression, as distinguished from the things ex- 
 pressed? Are there any expressions either as to 
 words or phrases, of a spiritual nature abstracted 
 from their meaning, or contra-distinguished from it.? 
 Is there any spiritual vocabulary, in any language ? 
 Did not the Apostles take the common words of 
 the languages in which they spoke, and apply them 
 
191 
 
 to express divine truth? If some fanatic had spo- 
 ken about spiritual eapressiotis, I would have 
 known that he referred to the cant phrases of his 
 party, but when T meet it in the writings of Dr 
 Pye Smith, 1 cannot understand it. 
 
 Upon the whole then, this criticism of Dr Smith, 
 is liable to the following objections. 1. It con- 
 founds two meanings of the word A«yo?, that are 
 entirely distinct — namely, comhined speech, and 
 matter, thing, cause, affair. The examples in 
 which it has the former meaning, refer to expres- 
 sion, as much as when it denotes single words ; and 
 in the latter signification, it has no reference to 
 speech at all, either in expression or meaning. 2. 
 it supposes that Aovof when it refers to speech, al- 
 ways signifies combined speech, and never words, 
 which is not fact. It may signify a treatise, but it 
 may also signify a single word. 3. It plays on 
 the sound of the word matter, and because it sig- 
 nifies the abstract idea matter, it is made to signify 
 matter, as the meaning of words, two ideas as dif- 
 ferent as any two that can be conceived. The de- 
 finition of tho words 111 and Aeyo?, uses the word 
 matter, as signifying the meaning of an expression, 
 the examples in which the words signify matter, 
 all refer to matter in the abstract sense. The ex- 
 amples of course fail in proving that for which they 
 are alleged. 4. Had it even been successful as to 
 the words "im and Myo^, this w^ould not have af- 
 fected the evidence arising from the phraseology, 
 in which " speaking, saying, and the like, are as- 
 ' cribed to the Holy Spirit, by the mouth of his 
 
192 
 
 ' servants." Yet the criticism professes to apply 
 to this. 6. The criticism supposes that the signi- 
 fication of combined speec/i, is peculiar to the He- 
 brew and the Greek, whereas it is just as fully ve- 
 rified in English, as in either. The English terra 
 wotd, denotes a promise, a saying, a report, an ac- 
 count, short statement, or even the whole Scrip- 
 tures. We say, a man fledges his word, for he 
 gives his projnise, the word went abroad, for the 
 report spread — I will ask you one word, for one 
 question — In a word, for in short — the word of 
 God, for the Bibles Sfc. Dr Smith's criticism 
 then, is just as if a foreigner finding our term word 
 as signifying, a saying, report, Sfc. should venture 
 to assert that it never signified single terras, but de- 
 notes combined speech, the matter conveyed in the 
 tenor and total of an oral or written address. Any 
 school boy speaking the English language would 
 laugh at such a criticism. Yet, in dead languages, 
 it passes for the most profound erudition. 6. Lastly, 
 I object to this criticism, because the author does 
 not shew the bearing of the examples on the point 
 at issue. Had he done so, he must have left him- 
 self more open to assault, or have discovered his er- 
 ror. But by a mere general reference to passages, 
 he commits himself as little as possible; and 
 most readers will be more inclined to take the 
 argument on trust, than have the labour of scruti- 
 nizing the proof. By this means also, he may 
 puzzle many whom he cannot satisfy. 
 
 But it is an unhallowed task Dr Smith has 
 
193 
 
 undertaken. It is a wretched thing to toil in en 
 deavouring to shew how Httle the Scriptures deserve 
 to be called the word of God. His first attempt 
 has miserably failed ; and if it is only in this fee- 
 ble way he intends to sustain our charge, it is a 
 virtual confession of defeat. 
 
194 
 
 STRICTURES 
 
 OK 
 
 DR dick's essay ON THE INSPIRATION OF THE 
 HOLY SCRIPTURES. 
 
 I AM surprised to find in Dr Dick's Essay on the 
 inspiration of the Holy Scriptures, a recognition of 
 the mischievous distinctions which have laid a 
 foundation for so much error and confusion on this 
 plain subject. The author is not chargeable to 
 the same extent with any of those whose works 1 
 have been reviewing ; nor is it his design in any 
 measure to lower the Scriptures in accommodation 
 to Neological illumination. On the contrary, he 
 rather adopts than vindicates the distinctions; and 
 his admissions unfavourable to full verbal inspiration, 
 are rather concessions that he cannot refuse, than 
 assertions which it gives him pleasure to substan- 
 tiate. Of course, though I acquit him of treason, 
 1 cannot clear him of incompetency. I must arraign 
 him as having surrendered a fortress which he 
 might have held, had he made the best advantages 
 
195 
 
 of the munitions of war, with which the royal arsenals 
 were abundantly supplied. 
 
 In some respects his work is more dangerous to 
 the unsuspecting Christian, than the worst of the 
 kind ; for while he substantially gives up proper in- 
 spiration with respect to many things both as to 
 matter and words, he speaks decidedly and strong- 
 ly in reprehension of partial inspiration. The 
 reader is led to think that no higher inspiration can 
 be thought of, than that vindicated by the author. 
 
 On the nature and designations of the distinctions 
 in inspiration, he quarrels with the common views ; 
 but as long as he adopts them substantially, he is 
 involved in the same error. He divides the kinds 
 or degrees of inspiration into three classes. ** 1. 
 
 * There are many things in the Scriptures, which 
 
 * the writers might have known, and probably did 
 
 * know, by ordinary means." *'2. There are other 
 
 * passages of Scripture, in composing which, the 
 ' minds of the writers must have been supernaturally 
 ' endowed with more than ordinary vigour." "3. 
 
 * It is ^manifest, with respect to many passages of 
 
 * Scripture, that the subjects of which they treat, 
 ' must have been directly revealed to the writers." 
 Let us attend to these in order. With respect to 
 the first, he says, " As persons possessed of memo- 
 
 * ry, judgment, and the other intellectual faculties 
 
 * which are common to men, they were able to re- 
 
 * late events in which they had been concerned ; 
 ^ and to make such occasional reflections as were 
 
 * suggested by particular subjects and occurrences." 
 Now this is very true, but would such relations be 
 
196 
 
 entitled to be called the word of God ? Could it 
 be said, that they were given by inspiration of God ? 
 Such relations might be true, but they are not in- 
 spired. "In these cases," says the author, "no 
 ' supernatural influence was necessary to enlighten 
 
 * and invigorate their minds ; it was only necessary 
 
 * that they should be infallibly preserved from 
 
 * error." Necessary for what? If it be necessary 
 to produce a true narrative, this is just. But if the 
 assertion is, that this is all that is necessary to en- 
 title the narrative to be called the word of God, 
 the thing must be strongly denied. A narrative 
 that has nothing more than this cannot be said to 
 be " written by inspiration." " They did not need 
 
 * a revelation," says he, ** to inform them of what 
 
 * had passed before their eyes, nor to point out 
 
 * those inferences and moral maxims, which were 
 
 * obvious to every attentive and considerate ob- 
 
 * server." Very true, they did not indeed need 
 any information with respect to what they knew. 
 But in recording what they saw before their eyes, 
 they must relate that only which is given them by 
 the Holy Ghost, in the very words of the Holy 
 Ghost, if their narrative is to be the word of God, 
 and be characterized as given by inspiration. " Moses 
 ' could tell," says he, "without a divine afflatus, 
 
 * that on such a night the Israelites marched out 
 
 * of Egypt, and at such a place they murmured 
 ' before God; and Solomon could remark, that "a 
 
 * soft, answer turneth away wrath, but grievous 
 ' words stir up anger," &c. No doubt of it ; but if 
 such facts in the narrative of Moses, have been told 
 
197 
 
 without a divine afflatus, they are not a part of the 
 Scriptures; and if Solomon had nothing but his 
 own spirit in recording these moral maxims, 
 they may be true, but are not entitled to be re- 
 ceived as dictates of inspiration. Inspiration is 
 not necessary to constitute true information, but 
 surely inspiration is necessary for every thing that 
 is said to be inspired. Can a thing be inspired 
 without inspiration ? The author indeed after- 
 wards asserts that such things require more than 
 superintendence. '* In the passages of Scrip- 
 
 * ture," says he, *' which we are now considering, 
 
 * I conceive the writers to have been not merely 
 
 * superintended, that they might commit no error, 
 ' but hkewise to have been moved or excited by 
 ' the Holy Ghost to record particular events, and 
 ' set down particular observations." So far this is 
 in the right path : but it does not go far enough. 
 The Holy Ghost not only pointed out the particu- 
 lar events and observations, but if the account can 
 be called inspired, the whole matter and language 
 must be God's. The writers of Scripture were not 
 like amanuenses, as this author represents them, 
 copying such things as have been selected for them 
 by their employer, but writing as he dictated. 
 There is indeed something in the case that cannot 
 be represented by an amanuensis. The sacred wri- 
 ters are rational instruments, through the operations 
 of whose minds, God communicates his will. That 
 the Almighty is able to speak his mind in this way, 
 so that the same thing will be the writing of men 
 
108 
 
 and the word of God, is quite possible. The mode 
 in which it is done, it is not for us to inquire. 
 
 Let us now glance at the second distinction, 
 which is the invigorating of the memory and judg- 
 ment. This is quite foreign to the question of the 
 inspiration of the Scriptures. That some things in 
 Scripture are not beyond the reach of the most or- 
 dinary talents ; and that others could not have been 
 produced by the highest order of created intellect, 
 is very true. It is admitted also, that passages of 
 the former class do not contain the evidence of their 
 own inspiration ; and that the inspiration of the lat- 
 ter is self-evident. Dr Dick produces many passa- 
 ges that most clearly prove their inspiration by their 
 sublimity; but that there are innumerable passages 
 that do not prove their divine origin by any intrinsic 
 elevation, no one will dispute. In such a view the 
 distinction is good. But if it can be said of the 
 passages of the latter class, that they are all given 
 by inspiration of God, they must as truly be the 
 work of God as the former. An uninspired man 
 might have written the account of Ananias and Sap- 
 phira ; but if it is »Scripture, it is as much the work 
 of God, as the description of the horse in the book 
 of Job. It does not follow, that man, without in- 
 ^^piration, wrote every thing in the Scriptures, which 
 might have been written without inspiration. Some 
 things in Milton might have been written by an or- 
 dinary poet, but the meanest things in Paradise 
 Lost are as much the work of Milton, as the most 
 sublime flights of genius. As a matter of fact then, 
 though a man's writings may display more or less 
 
199 
 
 ability, they cannot be more or less his ; and if all 
 Scripture is given by inspiration of God, no Scrip- 
 ture can be more or less inspired than another, 
 though different parts may contain in themselves 
 more or less evidence of inspiration. It may be 
 said that God has discovered himself in some pas- 
 sages, and in others he has not discovered himself. 
 But if all Scripture is given by inspiration, no pas- 
 sage can be more or less inspired. A writer cannot 
 be more or less the author of any part of a work, 
 of every part of which he is said to be the author. 
 If every part of Scripture which might have been 
 written without inspiration, was actually written 
 without inspiration, then such parts cannot be said 
 to be inspired. On the other hand, if such parts 
 were written by inspiration, they are on a level with 
 every other part, as to inspiration. That this invi- 
 goration of mind is no kind or degree of the inspira- 
 tion of Scripture, is farther evident from the con- 
 sideration, that the highest measures of it might 
 have been given to the sacred writers, while not a 
 sentence of their writing might have been inspired. 
 To inspire a man with vigour of intellect, is quite a 
 different thing from inspiring him with a communi- 
 cation. Now, it is not the writers of Scriptures who 
 are said to be inspired, but their writings are said 
 to be inspired. " All Scripture is given by inspira- 
 * tion." A writer might indeed be inspired to write 
 one thing, and he might write another without in- 
 spiration. But this supposition is excluded as to 
 the Scriptures, since the inspiration is asserted, not 
 of the writers, but of the writings. A writer might 
 
200 
 
 be inspired with genius and vigour, while every sen- 
 tence written by him might be altogether uninspir- 
 ed. A mere simpleton might become a Milton, or 
 even might obtain such vigour as to enable him to 
 equal the sublimity of the book of Job ; while not 
 a sentence written by him could be called the word 
 of God, or said to be given by inspiration of God, 
 The invigorating of the minds of the writers of 
 Scripture, therefore, is no kind or degree of the in- 
 spiration of Scripture. Whatever parts of the Scrip- 
 ture, therefore, are the production of men super- 
 natu rally invigorated, are not the word of God, are 
 not inspired in any sense. Were God to enable a 
 child to write a poem superior to the IHad, would 
 that poem be the book of God ? Could it be said 
 to be written by the inspiration of God ? God had 
 indeed quahfied the child to write the book, but the 
 book was still the production of the child, and could 
 in no sense be called God's, any more than it could 
 be said that God built the city of Glasgow. God 
 has given to all men the talents which they possess. 
 This, however, does not entitle their writings to be 
 called his. And the case is quite the same in this 
 respect, whether the talents be natural, or an ex- 
 traordinary gift. 
 
 With respect to the third distinction, it is true 
 that while some things were fully known to the 
 writers, other things could not be known but by 
 immediate revelation. But this is not the question. 
 The question is, whether things that could be known 
 by natural means, were written without inspiration, 
 or written by an inspiration different in kind from 
 
201 
 
 that which records the things known only by reve- 
 lation, or inferior in degree to it. It required no 
 inspiration to teach a man what he knew ; but it 
 required inspiration to write such an account of this 
 as could be called the word of God, or be said to 
 be written by inspiration. Any spectator at the 
 tomb of Lazarus, was fit to say ** Jesus wept;" but 
 if it can be said that this is Scripture, and if it is 
 true, that " All Scripture is given by inspiration of 
 
 * God ;" it required as much inspiration to write, 
 " Jesus wept," as to record what was said of the 
 things, " which eyes had not seen, and ear had not 
 ' heard." An uninspired man might have said 
 " Jesus wept!" But if the Evangelist said it 
 without inspiration, it is not Scripture. As it is 
 Scripture, and as all Scripture is given by inspira- 
 tion of God, we are entitled to say that the Holy 
 Ghost has said ** Jesus wept," as well as to say, 
 that the Holy Ghost has said, " Unto us a child is 
 
 * born," &c. There is no more inspiration in the 
 one account than there is in the other. The great 
 mistake on this subject has arisen from considering 
 inspiration as it respects the inspired person; where- 
 as the inspiration asserted 2 Tim. iii. 16, respects 
 the things written. Now, if every part of a writing 
 be given by inspiration, no part of it can be unin- 
 spired, or differently inspired. In the relation of 
 the most ordinary fact, God must have given every 
 word of the account, else it cannot be said to be 
 given by his inspiration. Every part of it is the 
 word of God, and the inspiration that records the 
 deepest mysteries cannot go beyond this. Inspira- 
 
tion, as it respects the inspired persons, might have 
 many degrees. Two might be inspired with the 
 knowledge of some things equally, while one of 
 them might be inspired with the knowledge of many 
 things unrevealed to the other. But the question 
 is not, whether one man may not have been more 
 inspired than another, but whether one part of Scrip- 
 ture is more inspired than another. The question 
 is independent even of the truth or falsehood of the 
 thing recorded by inspiration. The inspiration of 
 the account of Satan's lie in deceiving our first pa- 
 rents, is as great as that which records the promise, 
 '* The seed of the woman shall bruise the head of 
 * the serpent." 
 
 It has arisen entirely from viewing inspiration as 
 it respects the inspired persons, and not the things 
 written by them, that it has appeared absurd to 
 speak of inspiration with respect to what was known 
 by natural means, and that could have been written 
 without inspiration, or without revelation. To 
 avoid this absurdity, some have denied inspiration 
 with respect to some things, while others, with 
 more reverence for the Scriptures, contrived such 
 distinctions in the word, as to suit the various cases. 
 But this difficulty does not at all present itself when 
 the question is properly stated. It is not said that 
 the sacred writers were inspired with knowledge 
 which they previously possessed. But it is said 
 their accounts of every thing recorded by them are 
 given by inspiration ; and this is as true with respect 
 to things previously known by them, as it is vdth 
 respect to things communicated by revelation. 
 
203 
 
 When they wrote what they knew, and could of 
 themselves have expressed, both the matter and the 
 words were God's, as much as when they wrote 
 what they did not understand. There was no need 
 to be inspired with the knowledge of what they 
 knew, but every word in their account of this, may 
 be by inspiration. 
 
 The author himself reasons in this way, when 
 dealing with those who maintain partial inspira- 
 tion. " The notion of a partial inspiration," says 
 he, in a note, " seems to have arisen from the 
 
 * want of distinct ideas on the subject. A false meaning 
 ' is annexed to the term ; and then it is easy to 
 
 * shew that it cannot be applied to every part of 
 
 * Scripture. Inspiration is supposed to signify the 
 
 * supernatural communication of knowledge to the 
 
 * mind ; and if this were the only sense of the 
 
 * word, it would be true, that inspiration was not 
 
 * necessary to enable men to relate what they 
 
 * knew by ordinary means." So far the observa- 
 tion is just. But in what follows, the writer la- 
 bours under a mistake, as great as that which he 
 censures. " But if," says he, *' we understand by 
 
 * inspiration, the general assistance afforded to the 
 
 * sacred writers according to the exigency of the 
 \ case, and which supplied the want of knowledge, 
 f or rendered it correct, or excited the person to 
 
 * communicate it, and presided over his thoughts 
 ' and expressions, it may be affirmed, that simple 
 
 * historians were inspired as well as prophets," &c. 
 If we understand hy inspiration the general as- 
 sistancet ^cj That is^ if we understand inspiration 
 
204 
 
 to mean what it does not mean, which in no in- 
 stance it can be shewn to mean, and which it can- 
 not mean ; if we suppose inspiration to mean any- 
 thing we choose to take out of it, then the case 
 will have no difficulty. A general assistance is not 
 inspiration. Did it not occur to the writer, that if 
 inspiration is a general assertion of the Holy Spirit, 
 according to exigency, then it might be alleged by 
 Socinians, that there is not in Scripture any need 
 of that inspiration which he terms revelation. If 
 the word, to serve his purpose, may he taken at so 
 small an amount, what will oblige others, on any 
 occasion, to take it at a higher value ? The just 
 way to answer those who labour under the above 
 mistake, is not to lower the meaning of the word, 
 but to shew that inspiration is asserted of every part 
 of the Scriptures ; and not that the sacred writers 
 were inspired to know what they previously knew. 
 When an amanuensis writes an account of a death 
 for a newspaper, he may write by dictation, as well 
 as when he records a new theory. In hke man- 
 ner, when the sacred writers wrote an account of 
 things with which they were fully acquainted, they 
 wrote what the Spirit dictated, and in the words 
 of the Spirit. 
 
 Here then, t distinctly charge Dr Dick with 
 surrendering a post to the enemy, that will enable 
 him to make himself master of the field. This 
 concession virtually gives up inspiration. A gene- 
 ral assistance according to exigency, is not inspira- 
 tion. I call on Dr Dick to shew what part of the 
 instructions of his royal Master warrants him to 
 
205 
 
 explain inspiration in so lax a senso. Is it option- 
 al with us to attach any meaning that suits us, to 
 the words of Scripture ? If a general assistance 
 according to exigency is inspiration, then the 
 Christian minister speaks by inspiration in the pul- 
 pit ; then indeed, all Christians are inspired, for 
 they have a promise of assistance according to exi- 
 gency. What then, is Dr Dick's defence of inspi- 
 ration, but an effort to retain the name, at the ex- 
 pence of surrendering the thing. Dr Dick's Bible 
 is not the word of God. Many parts of it are the 
 work of man, with slight assistance from God. Is 
 this the treatise that has so long been considered as 
 a standard on the subject of inspiration? Surely the 
 Christian public are slightly acquainted with this 
 important subject, else such a work could not meet 
 their approbation. Can any Christian bear the 
 idea, that the Bible has been composed by men, 
 enjoying only a general assistance from God, ac- 
 cording to exigency ? If this is true, then why 
 may not others allege, that as in their opinion 
 there is no exigency for any thing of the nature of 
 inspiration in the strict sense of the word, there is 
 nothing of it to be found in the Scriptures. A 
 mere invigoration of the memory and judgment, 
 was all that was necessary for men to produce the 
 Bible. How easy a thing it is to mislead the public ! 
 Let a Neologian declare, from a pulpit in Edin- 
 burgh or Glasgow, that the Scriptures are not in- 
 spired, and his blasphemy will shock all minds. 
 But let an orthodox divine explain the word inspi- 
 ration in a sense that equally denies the proper 
 
206 
 
 idea contained in it, and it is likely lie will be ad- 
 mired as a deep theologian, who has happily ar- 
 rived at the philosophy of an abstruse question, 
 and an able vindicator of the •plenary inspiration of 
 the Holy Scriptures. I call on Dr Dick to recon- 
 sider his concessions on this all-important subject, 
 and to cease to rob ns of the book of God. He 
 has taken from us God's book, and we cannot be 
 content, though he has left a good book in its 
 stead. 
 
 " They had the Bible. Hast thou ever heard 
 
 Of such a book ? The author God himself, "—Po/Zoc^t. 
 
 " From the preceding statement," says our au- 
 thor, " it appears, that we do not apply the term 
 ' inspiration, in the same sense to the whole of 
 
 * Scripture." And why do you not, Dr Dick ? 
 What authority have jou for giving two senses to 
 the word in the same occurrence } A word may 
 have two senses, or more, in different situations ; 
 but this makes the passage, 2 Tim. iii. 16. give two 
 senses to the word in the same place. With re- 
 spect to some things, it must be revelation ; with re- 
 spect to others, only assistance ; and an assistance 
 infinitely varied according to circumstances. Was 
 ever any thing more arbitrary than this ? The au- 
 thor speaks of partial inspiration as implying " a 
 
 * distinction perfectly arbitrary, having no founda- 
 
 * tion on any thing said by the sacred writers them- 
 ' selves." But is it more arbitrary than his own 
 distinction in this meaning of this word? Can any 
 
207 
 
 distinction have less foundation in any thing said 
 by the sacred writers themselves ? Does he not 
 give two senses to the same word in the same oc- 
 currence? Does he not give it a meaning which 
 it never has — a meaning perfectly inconsistent with 
 its true import ? 
 
 This mode of defending a doctrine by a double 
 sense of a word in the same place, is the perfection 
 of the skill of the Jesuitical defenders of Popery. 
 When an antagonist unskilled in their mode of 
 ^ghting, comes forward with a muster of texts, 
 that he expects from their clearness will utterly 
 confound and silence, if they do not convince, is 
 himself confounded, when he finds that all his proofs 
 are at once both admitted and denied by the help 
 of this mode of explanation. To overturn all the 
 self-righteous refuges of superstition, he thunders 
 out the words — ** The blood of Jesus Christ 
 ' cleanses from all sin," convinced that there is no 
 way of escape. But with the greatest coolness it 
 is promptly replied, *' Very true; the Church of 
 
 * Rome never taught any other doctrine than this. 
 
 * The blood of Jesus Christ, and nothing but the 
 
 * blood of Jesus Christ, does indeed cleanse from 
 
 * all sin ; that is, Christ's blood takes away the eter- 
 
 * nal punishment of our sins ; but there remains the 
 ' temporal punishment due to our sins, which w© 
 
 * must suflfer for ourselves, either here or hereafter." 
 And verily, if Dr Dick is justified in explainmg the 
 word inspiration in 2 Tim. iii. 16, in two senses^ 
 
208 
 
 the same liberty cannot be denied to the doctrines 
 of Popery. 
 
 But let us hear the writer's reason for not giving 
 this word the same sense with respect to all the in- 
 spired writings. ** Because," says he, " the same 
 * degree of assistance was not necessary in the com- 
 ' position of every part of it." Then the Bible is 
 not the book of God, but a book composed by man, 
 with less or more of God's assistance, according as 
 it was needed. If it be the word of God, if every 
 part of it can justly be said to be given by inspira- 
 tion of God, the whole must, in the same sense, 
 be God's. There is no more authority to give two 
 senses to the word inspiration in the same place, 
 than there is to give two senses to the word God, 
 and to say, that 2 Tim. iii. 16, asserts that some 
 of the Scriptures are a revelation from the true God, 
 and that other parts of them have been inspired by 
 the god of this world. A book composed by God's 
 assistance, could not be said to be given by inspi- 
 ration of God. Dr Dick's Sermons, I hope, are 
 compositions of this kind; but, I dare say, he does 
 not pretend to inspiration. This is deeply erroneous 
 language, Dr Dick. This is a solution of a diffi- 
 culty as to inspiration, that destroys inspiration it- 
 self While it vindicates the name of inspiration, 
 as applied to all the Scriptures ; it not only ex- 
 pressly excludes much of them from proper inspi- 
 ration, but lays a foundation for the denial of it as 
 to all. The Bible is not a good book written by 
 God's assistance ; but is God's own book, of which 
 he is the very author, in as true a sense, as Dr 
 
209 
 
 Dick is the author of this Essay on Inspiration. 
 Much of it, indeed, respects ordinary matters; but 
 even this is his as truly, and as fully, as the rest. 
 Though the writers might have related many things 
 in their own language without God, yet as a mat- 
 ter of fact, they did not write any thing without 
 him ; for ** all Scripture is given by inspiration of 
 
 * God." This is my polar star on this question. 
 As long as my eye is upon it, I do not fear to steer 
 ray course with safety. By losing sight of this, Dr 
 Dick has got himself entangled in the theories of 
 human wisdom, those hallucinations that promise a 
 refuge to the unwary mariner, but hide rocks and 
 quicksands under a vapoury surface. 
 
 ** In some parts," says Dr Dick, " if I may speak 
 
 * so, there is more of God than in others." Doubt- 
 less. But in what sense is this? A sense no- 
 thing to the purpose of your argument, Dr Dick. 
 There is certainly more of God, in those passages 
 that reveal the divine character, than in those parts 
 that speak of temporal things. But this is not the 
 question. If God is the author of every part of the 
 Bible, there is no part of it, of which he can be 
 said to be more the author than another. But let 
 us hear the writer's own illustration. *' When a 
 
 * prophet predicts the events of futurity, or an 
 
 * apostle makes known the mysteries of redemption, 
 
 * it is God alone who speaks ; and the voice or the 
 
 * pen of a man, is merely the instrument employed 
 
 * for the communication of his will." Now this 
 illustration is not at all warranted from the Scrip- 
 tures. Man is a rational instrument in delivering 
 
 o 
 
210 
 
 the doctrines of salvation, and speaks in his own 
 proper person, using his own arguments and illus- 
 trations, as much as when he relates facts that oc- 
 curred before bis own ejes. Indeed, it is man that 
 directly speaks, and it is only from Scripture testi* 
 niony that we learn that the doctrines, arguments, 
 illustrations and language of the apostle, are the 
 doctrines, arguments, illustrations and language of 
 God. And " when Moses relates the miracles of 
 
 * Kgypt, and the journeys of the Israehtes in the 
 ' Wilderness, or the Evangelists relate the history 
 ' of Christ," they speak only what God gave 
 them, or in the words which be gave them, though 
 *' they tell nothing but what they formerly knew." 
 Dr Dick says, that " without the assistance of the 
 
 * Spirit, they could nothave told itso well." Butthis 
 is giving up inspiration, and substituting assistance 
 in its place. Without divine assistance a man can- 
 not preach so w^ell. But this is not inspiration. If, 
 in such instances, it is lawful for Dr Dick to scoop 
 out the meaning of the word, and substitute a fancy 
 of his own in its place, others may with equal pro- 
 priety allege that such assistance was all that was 
 necessary to record the documents of our salvation. 
 If such assistance is inspiration as to some things,, 
 why may it not be inspiration as to others ? Inspi- 
 ration was not given merely to enable the sacred 
 writers to tell their story well, but that their narra- 
 tive might be the true word of God. Dr Dick's 
 Bible, then, is quite a different book from mine. 
 My Bible is God's book, which God himself has 
 made ; yea, every part of which he has rnade^ 
 
211 
 
 How lamentable is it to find the writer of an essay 
 long recognized as a standard on the subject of in- 
 spiration, avowing that much of his Bible is the 
 work of man, assisted according to exigency by God ! 
 Dr Dick has written an Essay on the Inspiration ot 
 the Scriptures, in which he virtually gives up the 
 inspiration of much of them. To speak of plenary 
 inspiration with such views, is to hold the word and 
 to renounce the thing signified by it. 
 
 *'■ In some cases," says the Bishop of Lincoln, 
 as quoted with approbation by this author, *' in- 
 
 * spiration only produced correctness and accuracy 
 
 * in relating past occurrences, or in reciting the 
 
 * words of others." Now is this all that inspira- 
 tion does in the cases alluded to ? Do the narra- 
 tors of sacred history select their facts, or recite 
 the language of others without God? But even more 
 than this, I affirm, is imported in inspiration, even 
 in reporting that Judas hanged himself. The 
 meaning expressed, and the expression itself, have 
 God for their author, else it could not be said, 
 '* All Scripture is given by inspiration of God," 2 
 Tim. iii. 16. is of more weight with me, than that 
 of all the speculations of human wisdom. 
 
 It is obvious, that the Bishop of Lincoln speaks 
 here of the inspiration of the writers of Scripture, 
 whereas the question respects the inspiration of the 
 Scriptures. The common confounding of these 
 two things has produced much of that confusion in 
 which the subject is involved, and has driven writers 
 to unscriptural distinctions in the meaning of the 
 word. The sacred writers had no need to be in- 
 
212 
 
 spired with the knowledge of facts which they al- 
 ready knew, but to make their relations the word 
 of God, they must all be given by his inspiration, 
 both in matter and language. This distinction is 
 confounded by Dr Dick. While his work is en- 
 titled an Essay on the Inspiration of the Holy 
 Scriptures, he begins by defining inspiration, as it 
 relates to the inspired writers, and not as it relates 
 to the things written by them. '* I define inspiration," 
 says he, " to be an influence of the Holy Ghost 
 
 * on the understandings, imaginations, memories, and 
 
 * other mental powers of the sacred writers, by 
 
 * which they were qualified to communicate to the 
 
 * world the knowledge of the will of God." Now, 
 if instead of giving a definition, independent of 
 Scripture authority, he had simply referred to the 
 passage 2 Tim. iii. 16, that asserts inspiration, 
 and gives an exhibition and illustration of the mean- 
 ing of the Greek word as used in the passage, he 
 would necessarily have been led into the right path. 
 For here inspiration respects the Scriptures; and 
 all Scriptures is equally said to possess it. But in- 
 spiration as it respects inspired persons may be va- 
 rious in degree to any extent that fnay please God. 
 This is one of the many instances, in which the 
 worst effects proceed from considering questions 
 with respect to divine truth in an abstract manner, 
 without any reference to the passages on which they 
 are founded. On this subject there was no need 
 of a human definition of the term. It would have 
 been much more useful to exhibit the meaning of 
 the word with any illustration that might be afford- 
 
213 
 
 ed by the use of it in Greek writers. The v7rm 
 eioTrvtvtrloi, or inspired dreams of the heathen would 
 have given us a more precise idea of the meaning 
 of the term, than the most accurate abstract defi- 
 nition. In treating of the inspiration of the Scrip- 
 tures, there is no necessity to enter into discussions 
 about the divine operation on the faculties of their 
 mind. This is not the subject. On this there is 
 nothing revealed, and all definitions with respect to 
 this, must therefore be the work of fancy. That 
 the Holy Ghost spake and w^rote through man, is 
 a fact attested by the Scriptures, but how he influ- 
 enced their minds, we are not informed. It is not 
 then to be expected that we are to obtain much 
 light on the subject, from the definitions of divines. 
 The only proper definition, is a definition of the 
 word, that is, an explanation of the word as it is 
 used in the language. 
 
 This writer does not expressly deny verbal inspi- 
 ration in the fullest extent, but the theory which 
 he favours does not require this ; and with respect 
 to some things, he considers that it does not exist. 
 Infallible direction is what he pleads for on this 
 point. Now direction is not inspiration, though it 
 might equally secure a fair representation of truth. 
 And I complain, that he does not rest verbal inspi- 
 ration on its main evidence, 2 Tim. iii. 16. There 
 are many other sound and substantial arguments, 
 and these the author states in a very convin- 
 cing manner. But the direct and main evidence, 
 which applies to every case is 2 Tim. iii. 16., 
 which 1 have not observed among the author's 
 
214 
 
 proofs of verbal inspiration. ** All Scripture is given 
 
 * by inspiration of God." The writing is the 
 thing whose inspiration is asserted. It cannot then 
 be a question whether words belong to a writing. 
 It is by overlooking this and treating of inspiration 
 as it respects the sacred writers that false theories 
 have originated. It is this that has led the author 
 to such concessions as this. ** With respect to other 
 ' passages of Scripture, and particularly those which 
 
 * treat of such subjects as might have been known 
 ' without revelation, it is not necessary to raain- 
 
 * tain, that the language was inspired precisely in 
 
 * the same sense as in those already considered." 
 After what 1 have already said, it cannot be neces- 
 sary to spend time in shewing, that if such things 
 are inspired at all, they must be inspired precisely 
 in the same sense with every thing else that is said 
 to be inspired. What I would observe now is, that 
 such assertions as this, result from holding the ne- 
 cessity of inspiration on general principles only, and 
 not on the expressed testimony of the Scriptures 
 themselves. As long as we believe verbal inspira- 
 tion on the authority of its general necessity only, 
 it is obvious that to this general necessity there may 
 be exceptions. And here are the exceptions. 
 There are some things that do not seem to need 
 this verbal inspiration. But if we look to the tes- 
 timony of Scripture, 2 Tim. iii. \6. we will find 
 that it demands the same inspiration in every part 
 of the w^ord of God. 
 
 " We may conceive," says he, " the sacred wri- 
 
 * ters to have been permitted more freely to exer- 
 
215 
 
 ' cise their own faculties." 2 Tim. iii. 16., does not 
 permit us, Dr Diclc, to roam at large on this sub- 
 ject, and to indulge our own random conceptions. 
 But the fullest inspiration by no means implies any 
 constraint in the exercise of the faculties of the sa- 
 cred writers. They were as free on the doctrine 
 of atonement, as in historical facts. " The words," 
 says he, " were not formally dictated any more 
 
 * than the sentiments." This virtually gives up the 
 inspiration of such parts of Scripture both as to 
 words and sentiments, and substitutes something else 
 in its stead. We can know nothing of the process 
 of inspiration on any subject. " But they seem- 
 ' ed," says he, '* to proceed like other historians 
 
 * and moralists, and to express themselves in their 
 
 * natural manner." They did so on the doctrines 
 of salvation as well as in the relation -of the most 
 trivial facts. Paul used his natural manner in the 
 Epistle to the Romans, as well as Luke in his ac- 
 count of Paul's shipwreck. 
 
 It would have been an essential advantage to 
 this essay, had the author treated inspiration as a 
 matter of revelation merely. This would not only 
 have given a greater unity to the work, but would 
 have led to a fuller exhibition of what the Scrip- 
 tures actually teach on the subject. In exhibiting 
 directly the meaning and bearings of all the passa- 
 ges that reveal any thing on this point, the full ex- 
 tent of verbal inspiration could not have lain hid ; 
 and a fuller scope would havc' been given for a re- 
 ply to objections. In vindicating inspiration, there 
 certainly was no more necessity for a vindication of 
 
S16 
 
 miracles, and the exhibition of the general evidence 
 of the authenticity of the Scriptures, than there 
 would have been, had the subject been the incarna- 
 tion or the atonement. Inspiration is as much a mat- 
 ter of revelation, as justification by faith. Both stand 
 equally on the authority of the Scriptures. In 
 teaching and defending the doctrine of inspiration, 
 then, the authenticity of the Scriptures as a reve- 
 lation from God, should have been taken for grant- 
 ed ; and the contest should not have been with 
 Hume and Gibbon, but with Priestley and the 
 evangelical theologians, who speak of partial inspi- 
 ration. The authenticity of the Scriptures, and 
 their inspiration, are quite different questions. 
 Multitudes who receive the Scriptures as containing 
 a revelation from God, deny their inspiration, or 
 modify it, so as in effect to destroy it. With these 
 solely, and not with deists, the battle of inspiration 
 ought to be fought. It was not a little surprising 
 then to me, to find a considerable portion of this 
 Essay taken up with the infidel, and still more sur- 
 prising to meet the following observation : — " 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 as- 
 
 * sertion is not in itself a sufficient ground for be- 
 ' lieving the inspiration of the writings to which he 
 
 * refers." And what other ground can you have, 
 Dr Dick, for believing inspiration ? Is not the au- 
 thority of Paul as fully able to establish inspira- 
 tion, as to establish the doctrine of the Trinity ? 
 It is true, indeed, that the Scriptures themselves 
 
217 
 
 must first be established; but this is equally true 
 with respect to every other doctrine. Would any 
 writer think it necessary in establishing the doctrine 
 of salvation by grace, through faith in the Lord 
 Jesus Christ, to vindicate miracles, and establish 
 the authenticity of the Scriptures ? Certainly not; 
 because the people with whona be contends admit 
 this. In hke manner, those who deny or modify 
 inspiration, admit the Scriptures as containing a re- 
 velation from God, and it is a waste of time to ar- 
 gue this point with them. True, indeed, the infi- 
 del denies inspiration, but he denies also the authen- 
 ticity; and it is useless to vindicate the former till 
 the latter is established. Indeed, there is no way 
 of establishing inspiration, but by the Scriptures ; 
 and Scripture authority will not pass with the infi- 
 del. I am aware, that many arguments for inspi- 
 ration may be founded on the authenticity, and that 
 it is evident, that if the Scriptures are authentic, 
 they must be inspired. But I do not blame the 
 author for takin;sc advantao-e of arsruments of this 
 kind. On the contrary, I fully approve of his con- 
 duct on this point. But he might have equally 
 availed himself of all such arguments, taking the 
 authenticity for granted. What I mean is, that a 
 work on inspiration ought to have treated the sub- 
 ject as a matter of revelation, as much as a treatise 
 on faith or redemption ; and that by acting on an- 
 other principle, the author has produced confusion 
 in his work, and has unjustly degraded inspiration, 
 as if it must be received on different grounds from 
 those on which the other doctrines of revelation are 
 
218 
 
 rested. The Scriptures are as much an ultimate 
 authority on this question, as any other ques"* 
 tion of revealed truth. A very considerable propor- 
 tion of this work is not at all on the sul)ject of iis title. 
 I cannot conclude my remarks without extract- 
 ing an observation from the preface to this work, 
 which appears to me true, striking, and important. 
 ** An attentive observer," says Dr Dick, " cannot 
 
 * have failed to remark a very striking peculiarity 
 ' of the present times. It is the influence of the 
 
 * pinciples of infidelity upon many professors of the 
 
 * Christian religion. The bold opposition made to 
 ' some doctrines of revelation, renders them asham- 
 ' ed or afraid to own them, without at least such 
 ' qualification and changes, as shall smooth their 
 
 * asperities and lessen their apparent incredibility. 
 
 * In some instances such concessions are made, as 
 
 * amount to a complete surrender of the point in de- 
 
 * bate. The inspiration of the Scriptures is an 
 
 * article of our faith, against which infidels have 
 
 * directed all the arguments which their ingenuity 
 ' could furnish, and all the abuse which their malice 
 
 * could invent. What is the consequence ? Many 
 
 * professed champions of Christianity seem to have 
 ' concluded that the article is not tenable, because 
 
 * it has been previously assailed; and accordingly, 
 
 * they have abandoned it w^holly, or in part to the 
 ' enemy. Few writers, indeed, who now under- 
 
 * take to defend the cause of rovelauon, hold the 
 
 * plenary inspiration of the Scriptures. That idea 
 
 * has become unfashionable ; it is classed with 
 
 * other opinions of cur fathers, which are ex- 
 
219 
 
 * ploded as the dreams of enthusiasm and supersti- 
 
 * tious credulity ; and he only is supposed to enter- 
 
 * tain rational sentiments on the subject, who looks 
 
 * upon the Sacred Books as partly human and part- 
 
 * ly divine ; as a heteroi^eneous compound of the 
 
 * oracles of God, and the stories and sentiments of 
 
 * men." "The spirit of infidelity is working among 
 
 * Christians themselves." 
 
 The application of this to the works which I 
 have reviewed, is perfectly obvious. Some evange- 
 lical divines of the present day, unlike their uncom- 
 promising predecessors, have endeavoured to recon- 
 cile the favour of the world with the cross of 
 Christ. By the perfection of their wisdom, they 
 think they have succeeded in finding a way to de- 
 clare the counsel of God substantially, without ex- 
 citing the mortal enmity of the world, as constantly 
 happened from the less skilful address of Christ and 
 the Apostles. If the gospel cannot conquer the 
 obstinacy of the infidel, skilful management, it is 
 thought, may make them peaceable neighbours. 
 It was quite imprudent then, in the Apostle to act 
 on the principle of not " shunning to declare the 
 
 * whole counsel of God." Had he acted towards 
 the philosophers of his day, as some evangelical 
 divines have towards the learned Neologians, in- 
 stead of being accounted a "babbler," he might 
 have been treated as the learned and liberal intro- 
 ducer of a new science. And if, instead of de- 
 nouncing all the opposers of his doctrines as the 
 enemies of God, he had proposed his scheme as 
 deep speculations to exercise the igenuity of the 
 
220 
 
 wise, he might have been hailed as another Socra- 
 tes. 
 
 While I gladly acquit Dr Dick of this compro- 
 mising spirit, I must charge his Essay with the 
 same radical errors as the other systems. He ad- 
 mits the same mischievous distinctions, that are on- 
 ly another name for denying proper inspiration to a 
 great part of the Scriptures. The inspiration 
 which he avows, has ** such qualifications and 
 
 * changes, as smooth its asperities, and lessen its 
 
 * apparent incredibihty." In some instances, such 
 concessions are made, as amount to a complete 
 surrender of the point in debate. " Inspiration he 
 
 * has abandoned in part to the enemy." He in- 
 deed undertakes to defend *' the plenary inspiration 
 ' of the Scriptures ;" but it is only the name which 
 he extends in a plenary manner. He concedes as ex- 
 plicitly as any other writer, that the word does not 
 apply in the same sense to all parts of the Scrip- 
 tures, which is virtually to deny the inspiration of 
 such parts. He does not indeed, like Mr Daniel 
 Wilson, •* look upon the Sacred Books as partly 
 ' human, and partly divine ;" but I was surprised 
 to find in reading Dr Dick's Essay, that Mr Daniel 
 Wilson was not the first who speaks of nature end- 
 ings and revelation beginning, with reference to 
 inspiration. When T first found this distinction in 
 Mr VVilson's Lectures, I Httle expected to discover 
 afterwards, that the original honours of this infidel 
 phraseology, belong to the Essay on the Inspira- 
 tion of the Holy Scriptures. If Dr Dick is justi- 
 fied in speaking of nature, as going a certain length 
 
221 
 
 in the composition of the Bible, I cannot see why 
 he should condemn those who *' look upon the 
 ' Sacred Books as partly human and partly divine." 
 
 In the part which I have taken in the controver- 
 sy on Inspiration, it has given me great pain that I 
 have been obliged to contend with the real friends 
 of the Lord Jesus, on a subject in which all be- 
 lievers might be expected to harmonize. From 
 various circumstances, it is not surprising, that in 
 many things there should be difference of views 
 among Christians. But what can be the tempta- 
 tion to lower the character of the word of God? 
 Might it not be expected, that all would unite in 
 exalting the perfection of our common standard? 
 What is it that operates in the mind of a believer 
 to induce him to toil in degrading the oracles of 
 heaven ? 
 
 In the investigation of all subjects connected 
 with revelation, though I do not overlook the im- 
 portance of bringing the Christian public along with 
 me, yet my first study is accurately to ascertain 
 and exhibit the mind of God. I never think of 
 measuring my conclusions with the limits assigned 
 by the learned. When I see truth, I am not 
 ashamed to avow it, nor afraid to defend it. And 
 the cross of adhering to it, few have felt more heavy, 
 or have greater temptations to throw it away. 
 Yet while 1 spare not error, my love to those 
 in error is not abated. My brotherhood ex- 
 
tends not to patty, but to the whole household of 
 God. While I labour to unfold truth, I presume 
 not to dictate ; and though a Christian should re- 
 ject every thing which 1 hold, but the way of sal- 
 vation through faith, in the righteousness of the 
 8on of God, I will receive him, as I trust God 
 for Christ's sake, has received me. 
 
 In reasoning from Scripture on this subject of in- 
 spiration, and on every other, it is of great impor- 
 tance that we never lose sight of the tremendous 
 responsibiUty which we incur. It is no light matter 
 to attempt to influence the beUef of the people of 
 God, with respect to subjects on which he has ex- 
 pressed his mind. It is a fearful thing to labour to 
 misrepresent the divine testimony in any matter. 
 It is bad to err, but it is worse to exert ourselves to 
 pervert others. On the other hand, it is a delight- 
 ful idea, to be in any measure instrumental in lead- 
 ing forward the minds of the Lord's people, to a 
 more full understanding of his word. Nothing but 
 the conviction that I am pleading the cause of God 
 and truth, could console me in opposing so many dis- 
 tinguished writers on the nature of the inspiration 
 of the Holy Scriptures. 1 rise from my labours, 
 myself much edified and confirmed, and with an in- 
 creasing zeal to convince all my fellow christians. 
 And why should I not hope that the most exalted 
 views of the w^ord of God shall prevail ? It is not 
 a party question. INIany of all parties seem inade- 
 quately acquainted with the subject. But there is 
 no obstacle to prevent any from embracing the most 
 
223 
 
 honourable views of tlie oracles of God. Though, 
 therefore, the children of the Most High may 
 unhappily continue to differ in many things; in 
 this one thing all may be expected to unite. 
 Let us all celebrate the perfections of our com- 
 mon standard— the Bible. 
 
 Viirdfrl by James Colston, East Rose Street, 
 Hanover Strjst, hdmbunrft. 
 
BS480 .C32 
 
 The theories of inspiration of the Rev. 
 
 Princeton Theological Semlnary-Speer Library 
 
 III 
 
 1 1012 00011 1502 
 
siiipi 
 
 •mmm 
 
 VU: ■;'!'l:;';;;ib^iii:'( 
 
 
 ■■k ■■■ . :^s; 
 
 , .-i^^-'.^^ 
 
 ':^:;?i:ll:'i:lfe;'ii!iiii