The controversy among orthodox divines respect ing what is called verbal inspiration, appears to arise, in a great measure, from the different senses affixed to the phrase. Dr. Henderson, who is among the most candid and able writers opposed to the doctrine of verbal inspiration, seems to un derstand the doctrine as denoting the immediate communication to the writers of every word, and syllable, and letter of what they wrote, indepen dently of their intelligent agency and without any regard to their peculiar mental faculties or habits :— while those who most earnestly and successfully contend for the higher views of inspiration, par ticularly Calarny, Haldane, and Gaussen, consider the doctrine they maintain as entirely consistent with the greatest diversity of mental endowments, culture, and taste in the writers, and with the most perfect exercise of their intelligent agency,—con sistent with their using their own memory, their own reason, their own manner of thinking, and their own language,—consistent, too, with their making what they were to write the subject of diligent and laborious study,—only insisting that it was all uncler the unerring guia'ance of the Divine In a controversy of such a character as this, we may often succeed in removing difficulties, and in presenting the subject in a light which will be satisfactory to all concerned, by laying aside an ambiguous word or phrase, and making use of one which will express the idea intended with clearness and certainty. The word verbal, in its most common senses, is not well suited to the present subject. According to the best philologists its first signification is, spoken, expressed to the ear in words, not written.' But no one supposes that when God inspired the sacred writers he generally spoke to them in audible words. It is, indeed, true, that he sometimes uttered articulate words in making known his will, as at Sinai, at the baptism of Christ, and on some other occasions. In such cases he did, properly speaking, make verbal com munications, or give verbal instruction. But we should hardly call this verbal inspiration. Who can suppose that this was commonly, if ever, the way, in which God inspired holy men of old while engaged in writing the Scriptures ? Who can sup pose that he taught them what to write by speaking wora's in their ears, as a man teaches his amanuen sis ? His influence was doubtless inward. He guided them in writing by an operation in their minds.
The next meaning of verbal is oral, uttered by the mouth ;' and this agrees no better with our subject. Other significations of verbal are, con sisting in mere words ; respecting, words only ; literal,' as in a translation, having word answer ing to word.' Neither of these senses is adapted to the subject. Now it would be nothing stmnge, if applying this word to inspiration, and thus giving it an unusual sense, should occasion needless per plexity and confusion. For the sake of avoiding this evil why would it not be expedient to employ such words as will convey the idea intended clearly and definitely ; and, if necessary, to incur the in convenience of using an exact explanation, instead of the word or phrase which causes the difficulty ? The real question, and the whole question at issue, may be stated thus : did Me work of the Divine spirit in Me sacred penmen relate to the language they used, or their manner of expressing their ideas ; and rfso, how far, and in what way ? All those with whom we are concerned in the discussion of this question, hold that divine inspi ration had some respect to the language employed by the inspired writers, at least in the way of general supervision. And Dr. Henderson shows, in various passages of his excellent lectures, that there is no material difference between him and those who profess to maintain higher ground. He
allows that, to a certain extent, what is called verbal inspiration, or the inspiration of words, took place. In recording what was immediately spoken with an audible voice by Jehovah, or by an angel interpreter ; in giving expression to points of reve lation \vhich entirely surpassed the comprehension of the writers ; in recording prophecies, the minute bearings of which they did not perceive ; in short, in committing to writing any of the dictates of the Spirit, which they could not have otherwise accu rately expressed, the writers,' he alleges, were supplied with the words as well as the matter.' He says, that even when Biblical writers made use of their own faculties, and wrote each one in his own manner, without having thcir mental consti tution at all disturbed, they were yet always secured by celestial influence against the adoption of any forms of speech, or collocation of words, that would have injured the exhibition of divine truth, or that did not adequately give it expression ;' that the characteristic differences of style, so appa rent among the sacred writers, were employed by the Holy Spirit for the purposes of inspiration, and were called forth in a. rational way ;' that the writers, being acted upon by the Divine Spirit, expressed themselves naturally ; that while the divine influence adapted itself to whatever was peculiar in the minds of inspired men, it con stantly guided them in writing the sacred volume.' He declares his belief that the Scriptures were written not under a partiag or itnperfect, but under a plenary and infallible inspiration ; that they were entirely the result of divine intervention, and are to be regarded as the oracles of Jehovah. Refer ring to 2 Tim. iii. ts5, he says, We are here ex pressly taught the divine inspiration of the whole O. T. Codex, that the Scriptures are inspired as written clociements ; that they are the result of the , special and extraordinary influence of the Spirit, ' and contain whatever the Spirit caused to be written for our instruction.' Referring to Cor. ii. 13, he says, It is past all dispute that the apostle here unequivocally ascribes both the doc trines which he and his fellow-labourers taught, and their manner of propounding- them, to the in fluence of the same divine agent ;' that the passage conveys the idea that Me style, or niode of expres sion which they used, was such as they were in structed by the Spirit to employ ;' that 4 in deliver ing their doctrines they were under the constant guidance of the Great Instructor, and clothed them in that garb which he directed them to use ;' that, in the passage alluded to, the apostle refers to the entire character of the style which the first teachers of Christianity were taught to use in announcing its all important doctrines.' The passage in Matt. x. [9, 2o, he says, implies, that the subject-matter of apology was to be supplied to the apostles ; and they might be well assured that if this, which was the most important, was secured by divine instruc tion, the mere expression would not be wanting.' To remove all ground of hesitation from their minds, our Lord says, it is not ye that speak, het the Spirit of your Father which speaketh in you. By his teaching and superintending influence, they would always be enabled to express themselves in a manner worthy of the divine cause which they were called to defend—a manner which they could never have attained by the exertion of their unas sisted powers ; so that, although these powers were not to be superseded, but employed, it was to be as the organs of the divine agency by which they were employed.' And he concedes that, as to all practical purposes, they were favoured with divine influence in composing- their writings, as well as in their public speaking.