This blending of humanity and divinity in the Scriptures reminds us of the majesty and. the condescension of God. Viewed in this light, the Word of God has unequaled beauties, and exerts an unequaled power over our hearts.' (2) Inaccuracy of Translations. (a) The objection to the plena:Ty inspiration of the Scrip tures, from the inaccuracy of the translations and the various readings of the ancient manuscript copies, is totally irrelevant. For what we assert is, the inspiration of the original Scriptures, not of the translations of the ancient copies. The fact that the Scriptures were divinely inspired, cannot be expunged or altered by any subsequent event. The very words of the Decalogue were written by the finger of God, and none the less so because the manuscripts which transmit it to us contain some variations. The integrity of the copies has nothing to do with the inspiration of the original. It is, however, well known that the variations are hardly worthy to be mentioned.
(b) But if the copies of the Scriptures which we have are not inspired, then how can the in spiration of the original writings avail to our benefit? The answer is that, according to the best evidence, the original writings have been transmitted to us with remarkable fidelity, and that our present copies, so far as anything of consequence is concerned, agree with the writ ings as they came from inspired men ; so that, through the gracious care of Divine Providence, the Scriptures now in use are, in all important respects, the Scriptures which were given by in spiration of God, and are stamped with Divine authority. In this matter, we stand on the same footing with the Apostles. For when they spoke of the Scriptures, they doubtless referred to the copies which had been made and preserved among the Jews, not to the original manuscripts written by Moses and the prophets.
(o) There are some who maintain that all that was necessary to secure the desired results was an infallible guidance of the thoughts of the sacred writers; that with such a guidance they might be safely left to express their thoughts in their own way, without any special influence from above.
Now, if those who take this view of the subject mean that God not only gives the sacred penmen the very ideas which they are to write, but, in some way, secures an infallible connection be tween those ideas and a just expression of them in words, then, indeed, we have the desired re sult—an infallible revelation from God, made in the proper language of the writers. But if any one supposes that there is naturally such an in fallible connection between right thoughts and a just expression of them in language, without an effective divine superintendence, he contra dicts the lessons of daily experience. But those
to whom we refer evidently do not themselves believe in such an infallible connection. For when they assign their reason for denying that inspiration related to the language of the Scrip tures, they speak of the different, and, as they regard them, the contradictory statements of facts by different writers.
(d) But it is easy to see that the difficulty presses with all its force upon those who assert the inspiration of the thoughts. For surely they will not say that the sacred writers had .true thoughts in their minds, and yet uttered them in the language of falsehood. This would con tradict their own idea of a sure connection be tween the conceptions of the mind and the utter ance of them in suitable words, and would clearly show that they themselves feel it to be necessary that the Divine guidance should extend to the words of inspired men as well as their thoughts. But if an inspired writer, through inadvertence, committed a real mistake as to a statement of fact, it must have been a mistake in his thoughts as well as in his words. lf, then, there was a mistake, it lay in his thoughts. But if there was no mistake, then there is nothing to prove that inspiration did not extend to the language. lf, however, there was a real mistake, then the ques tion is not, what becomes of verbal inspiration, but what becomes of inspiration in any sense.
(e) It •is sometimes said that the sacred writ crs were of themselves generally competent to express their ideas in proper language, and in this respect had no need of supernatural assistance. But there is just as much reason for saying that they were of themselves generally competent to form their own conceptions, and so had no need of supernatural aid in this respect. It is just as reasonable to say that Moses could recollect what took place at the Red Sea, and that Paul could recollect that he was once a persecutor, and Peter what took place on the mount of transfiguration, without supernatural aid, as to say that they could, without such aid, make a proper record of these recollections. We believe a real and infallible guidance of the Spirit in both respects, because this is taught in the Scriptures, and it is obvious that the Bible could not be what Christ and the Apostles considered it to be unless they were divinely inspired.