NOTES ON THE BIBLE.

VIII.-Inspiration.

THE word "inspiration" is used not infrequently very vaguely. As applied to the Bible, it is used by some scholars, and by most Christians calling themselves evangelical, to mean "the immaculate purity both of the doctrines and language of its contents. There is no error,

either in idea or expression, in the Holy Book." This is their teaching and belief. Most scholars of the evangelical school dissent from this view in their writings and private discussions; yet, in their public teaching, they are either silent, or encourage the belief of the people in the immaculateness of the Scriptures. Nay, they foster the belief, that we who doubt or deny it are enemies of the Bible. If we had to contend only with the private opinion of scholars, and not with popular prejudice, which they foster, we should have little to do or bear: but the esoteric and exoteric doctrines differ; and we are compelled to remove these prejudices, as well as instruct the people in the truth.

We suppose it would be very difficult to find an educated or uneducated minister in New England, or perhaps out of it, who would not confess that there are errors in the Bible; and yet it would be difficult to find a layman of their congregations who would not think it rank infidelity to so believe; showing conclusively, that the people are not instructed in the truth, or that they do not believe the instruction which they receive. It is important, therefore, that some facts should be stated on the subject, which are so obvious, that the blindest cannot but see them, which none but the incorrigible can refuse to accept.

In the first place, grant that the autographs of the writers were without error in word and idea; that the copies of the Gospels and Epistles, as they came from the pens of their writers, were perfect: have we those writings? Are those autographs of Matthew, John, Paul, and the rest, in our hands? No: they perished long ago. We have only copies, made centuries after they lived. Nay, more than this: the common people have not even these copies; they have only the translation of these copies. And how numerous the errors of this translation are, we have already shown (March, pp. 105–113). Paul and John are not responsible for the errors in our Bible: but the reader is just as far led astray by them as if they were the work of the apostles; for he believes his English Bible to be without error. Many believe these men wrote in English. But we are addressing intelligent men and women. Whatever may be true of the original writing, we are in possession only of translations for popular reading; and he who will maintain that they are inspired, that is, without error, is fit subject for an asylum, not for an argument. Whatever may be true, therefore, respecting the perfect correctness of the autographs of the writers of the Bible, we are not benefited or injured thereby; for we have not those autographs. As far, therefore, as the great mass of readers of the Bible are concerned, this question of the inspiration of the original writings of the Bible is of no moment whatever. They are only interested in knowing how correct the common translation which they use is. This whole subject, for practical purposes, is disposed of, and shown to have no more relation to human need than the qualities of the soil of the moon; yet the peril of denying the verbal inspiration of the common Bible is made a bugbear to check inquiry and awaken prejudice and perpetuate exclusiveness.

Suppose, however, as we have put our hands to this subject, we pursue our inquiries still further. We have manuscripts of the Bible in the languages in which it was originally written. Are not these accurate copies of the originals? They are not: or rather, in order not to affirm a universal negative, if any one of them is perfectly accurate, no one but the Omniscient knows which one it is. All the manuscripts which have come down to us differ more or less from each other. These errors or differences are not of such a kind as to affect seriously the sense or the facts of the history or doctrines of the discourses; yet they are errors, and so far are fatal to the doctrine of plenary, verbal inspiration. It is not the magnitude or importance of the error which is in question, but the fact itself of any The slightest as well as the gravest error is fatal

error.

to the popular doctrine.

Once more. The writers make no claim to freedom from the errors which pertain to compositions of any kind. Luke and John are the only two of the writers of the Gospels who say any thing about the method of composing their history, and they do not give the remotest hint that the Holy Spirit "dictated" the words and constructed the sentences and sanctioned the accounts contained in their Gospels. On the contrary, Luke says expressly, that he had "accurately traced up all things" to their sources (not as our translation has it, "having had a perfect understanding of all things from the very beginning"); and thus, by his own personal investigations, not by the supernatural aid of the Spirit, he felt assured of his accuracy. John barely says, that he knows what he has written to be true, "because he saw it," not because the Holy Spirit revealed it or sanctioned it. Shall we believe the doctors, or the apostles? The same facts appear in the Epistles. The writers never claim, that the Holy Spirit dictates their

letters and seals their doctrines. Paul goes so far sometimes as to say, that he is not sure what the Lord would direct to be done under such circumstances; but he goes on to say, that, in his opinion, the course which he suggests would be wise. The apostles make no claim to that infallibility which their followers have so unwisely demanded for them. They rebuke each other for errors in both doctrine and practice.

All this only militates against the presumptuous doctrine of plenary, verbal inspiration. It does not affect the value, the reliableness, the necessity, of the sacred writings as an inspiration and guide. The great facts in the life of Jesus are reliably recorded. The doctrines which he taught on some of the most momentous themes of human interest are stated with all the exactness which practical usefulness requires. For the needs of the soul, the record has accuracy enough: it claims no more. Its friends wrong it, and imperil all, when they claim more for it.

A word, before we close, on the philosophy of personal inspiration by the Holy Spirit. One view is, that, by some method peculiarly its own, the Spirit states or reveals truths to the human mind, without any activity of the mental powers; the ear of the mind only listening, the eye of the mind only seeing. The other view is, that the Spirit awakens the mental faculties to high activity, quickens every power, so that the mind, thus fired and impelled, discovers truths, which, in its natural condition, it would not see; reasons with a cogency and correctness which otherwise it would not possess. Whichever philosophy we may adopt, the result is the same; viz., special aid from the Spirit, truth attained thereby which would be otherwise unattainable. Both theories are credible. Neither is so superior to the other, either in the view of reason or facts, as to exclude the claims of the other to acceptance.

The conclusion of the whole matter, then, is this: It is worse than folly, it is rashness and sin, to demand for the sacred writings a quality which can be neither sustained nor vindicated; which is contrary to the obvious facts of the writings and the statements of the writers. We must not use the Bible as a charm, opening at random upon passages, and accepting their statements as designed for our special comfort or instruction. The Bible was written for the persons to whom its different parts were addressed, and its special illustrations are drawn from their special condition. The general principle pervading or justifying these special injunctions and illustrations of duty is for all ages, for all men, for all conditions. We may not have an accurate statement of what our Saviour said on any given occasion, word for word, - as, for example, to the woman of Samaria; and yet have his conversation so reported, that we cannot mistake the great principle of the new religion which he there taught. The general drift, the main features, of the teachings of the Saviour, are what we need; the everlasting truth, not the imperfect letter; the incarnate Son, not the complexion of the face. We do not mistake the comfort of our house, if there is one imperfect panel in a door; we do not turn to common, in contempt, a rich wheat-field, because there is one rock in it. Neither

do we "throw away" our Bibles, so full of divine consolation and truth, because either the copyists or the writers, or both, have failed, in some instances, to follow their ensampler, or report the very words of the speaker, or have misapprehended some of his teachings. The general spirit, the universal doctrine, saves us from all peril arising from any fragmentary imperfections which may be found. The gospel is a safe guide; and he who walks as it directs will not stray nor stumble.