This view of plenary inspiration is fitted to re lieve the difficulties and objections which have arisen in the minds of men from the variety of talent and taste which the writers exhibited, and the variety of style which they used. See, it is said, how each writer expresses himself naturally, in his own way, just as he was accustomed to do when not inspired. And see too, we might say in reply, how each apostle, teter, Paul, or John, when speaking before rulers, with the promised aid of the Holy Spirit, spoke naturally, with his awn voice, and in his own way, as Ile had been accus tomed to do on other occasions when not inspired. There is no more objection to plenary inspiration in the one case than in the other. The mental faculties and habits of the apostles, their style, their voice, their mode of speech, all remained as they were. What, then, had the divine Spirit to do ? What was the work which appertained to him ? We reply, his work was so to direct the apostles in the use of their own talents and habits, their style, their voice, and all their peculiar en dowments, that they should speak' or write, each in his own way-, just what God would have them speak or write, for the good of the Church in all ages.
The fact that the individual peculiarities of the sacred penmen are everywhere so plainly impressed on their writings, is often mentioned as an objec tion to the doctrine, that inspiration extended to their /anguage as well as their thoughts. This is, indeed, one of the most common objections, and one which has obtained a very deep lodgment in the minds of some intelligent Christians. It may, therefore, be necessary to take some further pains completely to remove it. And in our additional remarks relative to this and other objections, it will come in our way to shew that such a writer as Gaussen, who contends with great earnestness and ability for the highest views of inspiration, does still, on all important points, agree with those who advocate lower views of the subject.
Ganssen says, 'Although the title of each book should not indicate to us that we are passing from one author to another ; yet we could quickly dis cover, by the change of their characters, that a new hand has taken the pen. It is perfectly easy to re cognise each one of them, although they speak of the same master, teach the same doctrines, and re late the same incidents.' But how does this prove that Scripture is not, in all respects, inspired? 'So far are we,' says this author, from overlooking human individuality everywhere impressed on our sacred books, that, on the contrary, it is with pro found gratitude, and with an ever-increasing admi ration, that we regard this living, real, human character infused so charmingly into every part of the Word of God. We admit the fact, and we sce
in it clear proof of the divine wisdom which dic tated the Scriptures.' Those who urge the objection above mentioned are plainly inconsistent with themselves. For while they deny the plenary inspiration of some parts of Scripture, because they have these marks of indivi duality, they acknowledge inspiration in the fullest sense in other parts, particularly in the prophecies, where this individuality of the writers is equally apparent.
In truth, what can be more consonant with our best views of the wisdom of God, or with the gene ral analogy of his works, than that he should make use of the thoughts, the memories, the peculiar talents, tastes, and feelings of his servants in re cording his Word for the instruction of men ? Why should he not associate the peculiarities of their personal character with what they write under his personal guidance ? But, independently of our reasoning, this matter is decided by the Bible it self. 'All Scripture is divinely-inspired,' and it is all the word of God. And it is none the less the Word of God, and none the less inspired, because it comes to us in the language of Moses, and David, and Paul, and the other sacred writers. It is God who speaks to us, but it is also man ; it is man, but it is also God.' The word of God, in order to be intelligible and profitable to us, must be uttered by mortal tongues, and be written by mortal hands, and must put on the features of human thoughts. This blending of humanity and divinity in the Scriptures reminds us of the majesty and the conde scension of God. Viewed in this light, the Word of God has unequalled beauties, and exerts an un equalled power over our hearts.' The objection to the plenary inspiration of the Scriptures, 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 or the ancient copies. The fact that the Scriptures were divinely inspired, cannot be ex punged 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.