But if the copies of the Scriptures which we have are not inspired, then how can the inspiration 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 writings as they came from inspired men ; so that, through the gracious care of divine provi dence, the Scriptures now in use are, in all import ant respects, the Scriptures which were given by inspiration 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.
It has been made an objection to the plenary in spiration of the writers of the N. T., that they generally quote from the Septuagint version, and that their quotations are frequently wanting in exactness. Our reply is, that their quotations are made in the usual manner, according to the dic tates of common sense, and always in such a way as to subserve the cause of truth ; and therefore, that the objection is without force. And as to the Septuagint version, the apostles never follow it so as to interfere with the authority of the Hebrew Scriptures. Their references to the O. 'I'. are just such as the case required. There is a noble free dom in their quotations, but that freedom never violates truth or propriety.
If any one, like Priestley and others of the same school, alleges, that there are in the Scriptures errors in reasoning and in matters of fact, he opens the door to the most dangerous consequences. In deed he takes the ground of infidelity. And if any one holds that some pat ts are inspired, while other parts are not inspired, then we ask, who shall make the distinction ? And if we begin this work, where will it end ? But our present concern is with those who deny that inspiration respected the language of Scripture.
There are some who maintain that all which 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 subjcct 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 between those ideas and a just expression of them in words ; then, indeed, we have the desired result—an infal lible revelation from God, made in the proper language of the writers. But if any one supposes that there is naturally such an infallible connection betv..een right thoughts and a just expression of them in language, without an effective divine super intendence, he contradicts the lessons of daily ex perience. But those to whom we refer evidently do not themselves believe in such an infallible connection. For when they assig,n their reason for denying that inspiration related to the language of the Scriptures, they speak of the different, and, as they regard them, the contradictory statements of facts by different writers—for example, the dif ferent accounts of the crucifixion and the resur. rection, and the different accounts of the numbers of the slain in Num. xxv. 9 and Cor. x. 8. Who, they say, can believe that the language was inspired, when one writer says that 24,000 were slain, and the other 23,000 ? 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 h-ue thoughts in their minds, and yet uttered them in the language of falsehood. This would contradict their own idea of a sure connection between the conceptions of the mind and the utter ance of them in suitable words, and would clearly shew that they themselves feel it to be necessary that the divine guidance should extend to the wora's of inspired men as well as their thoughts. But if Paul, through inadvertence, committed a real mis take in saying that 23,oco fell in one day, it must have been a mistake in his thoughts as well as in his words. For when he said 23,00o, had he not the idea of that number in his mind ? If, then, there was a mistake, it lay in his thoughts. But if there was no mistake in either of the wiiters, then there is nothing to prove that inspiration did not extend to the language. If, however, there was a real mistake, then the question is not, what becomes of verba/ inspiration, but what becomes of inspiration in any sense.
As to the way of reconciling the two statements above mentioned, but a few words can be offered here. Some writers attempt to remove the diffi culty in this manner. The first writer says, 24,0oo were slain, meaning to include in that number all who died in consequence of that rebellion. The other writer says, 23,00o fell in one day, leaving us to conclude that an addition of moo fell the next day. But it may perhaps be more satisfactory to suppose, that neither of the writers intended to state the exact number, this being of no conse quence to their objects. The real number might be between 23,00o and 24,000, and it might be sufficient for them to express it in general terms, one of them calling it 24,000, and the other 23,000, that is, about so many`, either of the numbers being accurate enough to make the impression designed. Suppose that the exact number was 23,579, and that both the writers knew it to be so. It was not at all necessary, in order to maintain their charac ter as men of veracity, that they should, when writing for snch a puIose, mention the particular number. The particularity and length of the ex pression would have been inconvenient, and might have made a less desirable impression of the evil of sin and the justice of God, than expressing it more briefly in a round number ; as we often say, with a view merely to make a strong impression, that in such a battle io,000, or 5o,000, or 500,00o were slain, no one supposing that we mean to state the number with arithmetical exactness, as out object does not require this. And who can doubt that the Divine Spirit might lead the sacred pen men to make use of this principle of rhetoric, and to speak of those who were slain, according, to the common practice in such a case, in round numbers? It is sometimes said that the sacred writers 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 supematural 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.