Difference between revisions of "Inspiration"

<p> The supernatural action of the [[Holy]] Spirit on the mind of the sacred writers whereby the [[Scriptures]] were not merely their own but the word of God. [[Scripture]] not merely contains but is the word of God. As the whole [[Godhead]] was joined to the whole manhood, and became the Incarnate Word, so the written word is at once perfectly divine and perfectly human; infallibly authoritative because it is the word of God, intelligible because in the language of men. If it were not human we should not understand it; if it were not divine it would not be an unerring guide. The term "scriptures" is attached to them exclusively in the word of God itself, as having an authority no other writings have (John 5:39; John 10:34-36). They are called "the oracles of God" (Romans 3:2), i.e. divine utterances. </p> <p> If Scripture were not plenarily and verbally sanctioned by God, its practical utility as a sure guide in all questions directly or indirectly affecting doctrine and practice would be materially impaired, for what means would there be of distinguishing the false in it from the true? [[Inspiration]] does not divest the writers of their several individualities of style, just as the inspired teachers in the early church were not passive machines in prophesying (1 Corinthians 14:32). "Where the Spirit of the Lord is there is liberty" (2 Corinthians 3:17). Their will became one with God's will; His Spirit acted on their spirit, so that their individuality had free play in the sphere of His inspiration. As to religious truths the collective Scriptures have unity of authorship; as to other matters their authorship is palpably as manifold as the writers. The variety is human, the unity divine. If the four evangelists were mere machines narrating the same events in the same order and words, they would cease to be independent witnesses. Their very discrepancies (only seeming ones) disprove collusion. </p> <p> The solutions proposed in Harmonies, being necessarily conjectural, may or may not be the true ones; but they at least prove that the differences are not irreconcilable and would be cleared up if we knew all the facts. They test our faith, whether on reasonable evidence we will unreservedly believe His word in spite of some difficulties, designedly permitted for our probation. The slight variations in the [[Decalogue]] between Exodus 20 and its repetition Deuteronomy 5, and in Psalm 18 compared with 2 Samuel 22, in Psalm 14 compared with Psalm 53, and in New [[Testament]] quotations of Old Testament, (sometimes from [[Septuagint]] which varies from Hebrew, sometimes from neither in every word), all prove the Spirit-produced independence of the sacred writers who under divine guidance and sanction presented on different occasions the same substantial truths under different aspects, the one complementing the other. </p> <p> One or two instances occur where the errors of transcribers cause a real discrepancy (2 Kings 8:26, compared with 2 Chronicles 22:2). A perpetual miracle alone could have prevented such very exceptional and palpable copyists' mistakes. But in seeming discrepancies, as between the accounts of the same event in different Gospels, each account presents some fresh aspect of divine truth; none containing the whole, but all together presenting the complete exhibition of the truth. [[Origen]] profoundly says: "in revelation as in nature we see a self concealing, self revealing God, who makes Himself known only to those who earnestly seek Him; in both we find stimulants to faith and occasions for unbelief." The assaults of adversaries on seemingly weak points have resulted in the eliciting of beautiful and delicate harmonies unperceived before; the gospel defenses have been proved the more impregnable, and the things meant to injure "have fallen out rather unto the furtherance of the gospel." </p> <p> When once it is admitted that the New Testament writers were neither fanatics nor enthusiasts, (and infidelity has never yet produced a satisfactory theory to show them to have been either,) their miracles and their divine commission must also be admitted, for they expressly claim these. Thus, Paul (1 Corinthians 14:37), "if any man think himself a prophet, let him acknowledge that the things that I write unto you are the commandments of the Lord." And not only the things but the words; (1 Corinthians 2:13) "we speak not in the words which man's wisdom teacheth, but which the Holy Spirit teacheth." The "discerning of spirits" was one of the miraculous gifts in the apostolic churches. His appeal on the ground of miracles (1 Corinthians 2:4) which are taken for granted as notorious rather than asserted, (the incidental mention being a clear mark of truth because it excludes suspicion of design,) and to persons whose miraculous discernment of spirits enabled them to test such claims, is the strongest proof of the divine authority of his writings. </p> <p> Peter (2 Peter 3:16) classes Paul's epistles with "the other Scriptures"; therefore whatever inspiration is in the latter is in the former also. That inspiration excludes error from Scripture words, so far as these affect doctrine and morals, appears from Psalms 12:6, "the words of the Lord are pure words, as silver tried in a furnace of earth, purified seven times." As our Lord promised the disciples His Holy Spirit, to teach them how and what they should say before magistrates (Matthew 10:19-20), much more did the Spirit "abiding" with the church "for ever" (John 14:16) secure for the written word, the only surviving infallible oracle, the inspiration of the manner as well as the matter. So (John 16:13) "the Spirit of truth will guide you into all (the) truth," namely, not truth in general but [[Christian]] truth. </p> <p> Also (John 14:26) "the Holy Spirit shall teach you all things, and bring all things to your remembrance whatsoever I have said unto you." "He shall testify of Me" (John 15:26) "He will show you things to come ... He shall receive of [[Mine]] and shall show it unto you" (John 16:13-14). Paul (2 Timothy 3:16) declares that no part of the written word is uninspired, but "ALL" (literally, "every scripture," i.e. every portion) is "profitable" for the ends of a revelation, "doctrine, reproof (conjuting error: the two comprehending speculative divinity; then follows practical), correction (setting one right, 1 Corinthians 10:1-10), instruction (disciplinary training: Deuteronomy 13:5; 1 Corinthians 5:13) in righteousness, that the man of God may be perfect, thoroughly furnished unto all good works"; as it makes him "perfect" it must be perfect itself. </p> <p> Some parts were immediately communicated by God, and are called "apocalypse" or "revelation," as that to John, and to Paul (2 Corinthians 12:1; Romans 16:25). Others, as the historical parts, are matter of human testimony. But inspiration was as much needed to write known facts authoritatively as to communicate new truths; else why should certain facts be selected and others be passed by? Inspired prohibition is as miraculous as inspired utterance. Had the evangelists been left to themselves, they doubtless would have given many details of Jesus' early life which our curiosity would have desired, but which divine wisdom withheld, in order to concentrate all our attention on Christ's ministry and death. The historical parts are quoted by Paul as God's "law," because they have His sanction and contain covert lessons of God's truth and His principles of governing the world and the church (Galatians 4:21). </p> <p> [[Considering]] the vast amount of [[Mariolatry]] and idolatry which subsequently sprang up, the hand of God is marked in the absence from the [[Gospel]] histories of aught to countenance these errors. [[Sacred]] history is like "a dial in which the shadow, as well as the light, informs us" (Trench). The Spirit was needed to qualify the writers for giving what they have given, a condensed yet full and clear portraiture of Messiah, calculated to affect all hearts in every nation, and to sow in them seeds of faith, hope, and love. The minor details, such as Paul's direction to Timothy to "bring his cloth and parchments," and to" drink a little wine for his stomach's sake and his infirmities," are vivid touches which give life and nature to the picture, making us realize the circumstances and personality of the apostle and his disciple, and have their place in the inspired record, as each leaf has in the tree. </p> <p> The genealogies, as in [[Genesis]] 10; Matthew 1, form most important links between the progressive stages in the sacred history, and are anything but dry and profitless to the diligent student. There is a progress in the manifestation of the eternal and unchangeable principles of morality, in the New Testament as compared with the Old Testament God never sanctioned evil, but dealt with the nonage of the world as to revenge, divorce, etc. as its case required, less strictly marking sin than under the clear light, of New Testament. (See REVENGE; DIVORCE.) The mode of God's inspiring the writers it is not essential for us to know; the result is what momentously concerns us, namely, that their writings are our sure guide; for (2 Peter 1:21) "the prophecy of Scripture (the written word of men inspired, as 'prophet' means 1 Corinthians 14:29, not merely a foreteller) came not by the will of man, but holy men spoke as they were moved (literally, borne along, Acts 2:2; rapt out of themselves, yet not losing self control 1 Corinthians 14:32) by the Holy Spirit." </p> <p> Every word of inspiration is equally the word of God; but there is a progress in the mode of revelation and there are degrees in the importance of the words uttered. With the prophets God spoke in vision, but with [[Moses]] "face to face" and "mouth to mouth" (Exodus 33:11; Numbers 12:6-8). The highest revelation of all is that of God manifest in the flesh. But, however varied the mode, the result is that all Scripture alike is sanctioned as the word of God. [[Caiaphas]] is an instance showing that the words were sanctioned as divinely inspired; while the speaker himself did not know the deep significance of his own words (John 11:50), "he spoke not of himself." So (1 Peter 1:11) the Old Testament prophets "searched what, or what manner of time, the Spirit of Christ which was in them did signify, when it testified beforehand the sufferings of Christ and the glory, ... unto whom it was revealed, that not unto themselves but unto us they did minister," etc. </p> <p> They too knew not the full meaning of their own words. For "no prophecy of Scripture proves to be of private solution" (Greek text of 2 Peter 1:20), i.e. it is not the utterance of the mere individual, and so to be solved or interpreted by him, but of "the Holy Spirit" by whom the writer was "moved"; Scripture is not restricted to the immediate sense in the mind of the individual writer, but has in view "the testimony of Jesus," which is "the spirit of prophecy" in the "holy men moved by the Holy Spirit." The words of one compared with those of another from whom the former may be separated in age and in country often bring forth some truth evidently not contemplated by the writer, but designed by the ONE MIND who inspired, overruled, and sanctioned both. There is throughout the whole a consistently developed scheme, too grand for the mind of anyone writer. Our Lord and His apostles make vital truths hinge on single words. The force of Jesus' three answers, "It is written," to Satan's three temptations lies in single words (Matthew 4). So in Matthew 19:4. </p> <p> Also He confutes the [[Sadducees]] and proves the resurrection of the body from words which otherwise we should scarcely have regarded as proving it (Matthew 22:32), "I am (not I was) the God of Abraham" (namely, the man in his integrity, body, soul, and spirit). The one word My is Christ's proof of His Godhead (Matthew 22:43), "the Lord said unto MY Lord (Psalms 90:1): if David call Him Lord, how is He His Son?" David could not have understood the full force of his own words (Psalm 22) as to the "gall," the "vinegar," the "parting of His garments," and "casting lots for the vesture," and other minute details fulfilled in Messiah. He who, working through means, creates the minute leaf as well as the mighty forest, saith of all His word, "till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law until all be fulfilled" (Matthew 5:18; "law" means the whole Old Testament, as John (Matthew 10:35) uses "law" of the psalms). </p> <p> Christ's argument, "if He called them gods, unto whom the word of God came, say ye of Him whom the Father hath sanctified and sent, Thou blasphemest, because I said, I am the Son of God?" rests on the one word "gods" being applied to rulers, as types of the Son of God, therefore still more applicable to the [[Antitype]] Himself. Our Lord makes it a fundamental principle "the Scripture cannot be broken," even as to one word (John 10:35). So also Paul shows unhesitating confidence in the divine authority of special words, as "seed" not "seeds" (Galatians 3:16), "all" (Hebrews 2:8), "brethren" (Hebrews 2:11), "today," and "My rest" (Hebrews 4:1-11). To crown all, Revelation (Revelation 22:19) at its close declares, "if any man shall take away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God shall take away his part out of the book of life." </p> <p> Often it is a single verse that, by the same Spirit as inspired the word, has breathed new life into the sinner. The diligent student too is often struck by the unexpected light which one expression on examination affords, as in some masterpiece of art a single touch can impart life and meaning to the whole. Verbal inspiration does not require that every saying reported in Scripture should be a literal transcript of the speaker's words, but that it should be substantially a true statement, and such a one as the Spirit of God sanctions for the ends of the revelation. Moreover, in recording wicked men's sayings or doings, Scripture does not sanction but simply records them. So in the case of merely human utterances. In 1 Corinthians 7:5-6, Paul distinguishes his words "by permission" from those of commandment; and in 1 Corinthians 7:25-38 he gives his "judgment" as one faithful, but as having on the point "no commandment of the Lord." </p> <p> Here his inspiration appears in his expressly declining to command as divinely authoritative a certain course as an apostle, and merely advising it as a Christian friend. How important it was to make this distinction appears from the subsequent error of the church in imposing vows of perpetual celibacy. So in 1 Corinthians 7:12-15 (1 Corinthians 7:10) he says on a particular case, "I, not the Lord," whereas he had on the main point said, "not I, but the Lord." Every word employed By the sacred writer in all cases is sanctioned as suited in its place for the Holy Spirit's purpose. Various readings in manuscripts do not invalidate verbal inspiration. It is the original Scriptures whose words have inspired authority, not the subsequent copies or versions. The words of the Decalogue were written by the finger of God, though the manuscripts transmitting them to us contain variations. </p> <p> Like other gifts of God, this may be lost in whole or part by man's carelessness. Yet a remarkable providence has watched over Scripture, keeping the [[Jews]] from mutilating the Old Testament and the [[Roman]] and Greek Catholics from mutilating the New Testament though witnessing against themselves, (See CANON.) Moreover God has preserved by human means a multitude of manuscripts, patristic quotations, and ancient versions, enabling us to restore the original text almost perfectly for all practical purposes. The range of doubt remaining is confined within narrow limits. Exemption from all transcriptional errors would have needed a perpetual miracle, which is not God's mode of dealing with us. While some passages affecting vital doctrines are on examination rejected as not in the original, the doctrines themselves stand firm as ever, because they rest on the agreeing testimony of the whole of God's word; in other passages the orthodox truths are confirmed more fully by restoring the original text. </p> <p> [[Irenaeus]] (Adv. Haeres., 2:47) says, "in the mauy voiced tones of Scripture expressions there is one symphonious melody"; Origen (Hom. 39), "as among plants there is not one without its peculiar virtue ... so the spiritual botanist will find there is nothing, in all that is written, superfluous." The prophets preface their prophecies with "thus saith the Lord," "the burden (weighty utterance) of the word of the Lord" (Zechariah 9:1; Zechariah 12:1; Malachi 1:1). The apostles declare of them, "the Scripture must needs have been fulfilled which the Holy Spirit by the mouth of David spoke," "God showed by the mouth of all His prophets that," etc. (Acts 1:16; Acts 3:18; Acts 3:21; Acts 4:25). They rest the truth of the Holy Spirit's outpouring, Christ's resurrection, and the mystery of the admission of the [[Gentiles]] to be fellow heirs in the gospel, on the Old Testament as infallible (Acts 2:16; Acts 2:25-33; 1 Corinthians 15:3-4; Romans 16:26). </p> <p> If then the Old Testament prophets were infallible, much more the apostles in their New Testament Scriptures; as these and even the least in the gospel kingdom rank above those (Matthew 11:11; Ephesians 3:5; 1 Corinthians 2:9-10). Paul received the gospel which he preached, by extraordinary revelation; therefore he claims for it divine authority (Galatians 1:11-12; Ephesians 3:3). His word is "the word of God" which "he speaks in Christ," also "Christ speaking in Him" (2 Corinthians 2:17; 2 Corinthians 13:3). Just as Haggai was "the Lord's messenger in the Lord's message" (2 Corinthians 1:13), i.e. in vested with His commission; and Nehemiah 9:30, "by [[Thy]] Spirit in Thy prophets"; and David (2 Samuel 23:2), "the Spirit of the Lord spoke by me, and His word was in my tongue." </p>

<p> The conveying of certain extraordinary and supernatural notions or motions into the soul; or it denotes any supernatural influence of God upon the mind of a rational creature, whereby he is formed to any degree of intellectual improvement, to which he could not, or would not, in fact, have attained in his present circumstances in a natural way. Thus the prophets are said to have spoken by divine inspiration. </p> <p> 1. An inspiration of superintendency, in which God does so influence and direct the mind of any person as to keep him more secure from error in some various and complex discourse, than he would have been merely by the use of his natural faculties. </p> <p> 2. Plenary superintendent inspiration, which excludes any mixture of error at all from the performance so superintended. </p> <p> 3. [[Inspiration]] of elevation, where the faculties act in a regular, and, as it seems, in a common manner, yet are raised to an extraordinary degree, so that the composure shall, upon the whole, have more of the true sublime or pathetic than natural genius could have given. </p> <p> 4. Inspiration of suggestion, where the use of the faculties is superseded, and God does, as it were, speak directly to the mind, making such discoveries are to be communicated, if they are designed as a message to others. It is generally allowed that the [[Scriptures]] were written by divine inspiration. The matter of them, the spirituality and elevation of their design, the majesty and simplicity of their style, the agreement of their various parts; their wonderful efficacy on mankind; the candour, disinterestedness, and uprightness of the penmen; their astonishing preservation; the multitude of miracles wrought in confirmation of the doctrines they contain, and the exact fulfillment of their predictions, prove this. </p> <p> It has been disputed, however, whether this inspiration is in the most absolute sense, plenary. As this is a subject of importance, and ought to be carefully studied by every Christian, in order that he may render a reason of the hope that is in him, I shall here subjoin the remarks of an able writer, who, though he may differ from some others as to the terms made use of above, yet I am persuaded his arguments will be found weighty and powerful. "There are many things in the Scriptures, " says, Mr. Dick, "which the writers might have known, and probably did know, by ordinary means. As persons possessed of memory, judgment, and other intellectual faculties, which are common to men, they were able to relate certain events in which they had been personally concerned, and to make such occasional reflections as were suggested by particular subjects and occurrences. In these cases no supernatural influence was necessary to invigorate their minds; it was only necessary that they should be infallibly preserved from error. It is with respect to such passages of [[Scripture]] alone, as did not exceed the natural ability of the writers to compose, that I would admit the notion of superintendence, if it should be admitted at all. Perhaps this word, though of established use and almost undisputed authority, should be entirely laid aside, as insufficient to express even the lowest degree of inspiration. In the passages of Scripture which we are now considering, I conceive the writers to have been not merely superintended, that they might commit no error, but likewise to have been moved or excited by the [[Holy]] [[Ghost]] to record particular events, and set down particular observations. </p> <p> The passages written in consequence of the direction and under the care of the [[Divine]] Spirit, may be said, in an inferior sense, to be inspired; whereas if the men had written them at the suggestion of their own spirit, they would not have possessed any more authority though they had been free from error, than those parts of profane writings which are agreeable to truth. 2. "There are other parts of the Scriptures in which the faculties of the writers were supernaturally invigorated and elevated. It is impossible for us, and perhaps it was not possible for the inspired person himself, to determine where nature ended and inspiration began. It is enough to know, that there are many parts of Scripture in which, though the unassisted mind might have proceeded some steps, a divine impulse was necessary to enable it to advance. I think, for example, that the evangelists could not have written the history of Christ if they had not enjoyed miraculous aid. Two of them, Matthew and John, accompanied our [[Saviour]] during the space of three years and a half. At the close of this period, or rather several years after it, when they wrote their Gospels, we may be certain that they had forgotten many of his discourses and miracles; that they recollected others indistinctly; and that they would have been in danger or producing an inaccurate and unfair account, by confounding one thing with another. </p> <p> Besides, from so large a mass of particulars, men of uncultivated minds, who were not in the habit of distinguishing and classifying, could not have made a proper selection; nor would persons unskilled in the art of composition have been able to express themselves in such terms as should insure a faithful representation of doctrines and facts, and with such dignity as the nature of the subject required. A divine influence, therefore, must have been exerted on their minds, by which their memories and judgments were strengthened, and they were enabled to relate the doctrines and miracles of their [[Master]] in a manner the best fitted to impress the readers of their histories. The promise of the Holy Ghost to bring to their remembrance all things whatsoever Christ had said to them, proves, that, in writing their histories, their mental powers were endowed, by his agency, with more than usual vigour. "Farther; it must be allowed that in several passages of Scripture there is found such elevation of thought and of style, as clearly shows that the powers of the writers were raised above their ordinary pitch. </p> <p> If a person of moderate talents should give as elevated a description of the majesty and attributes of God, or reason as profoundly on the mysterious doctrines of religion, as a man of the most exalted genius and extensive learning, we could not fail to be convinced that he was supernaturally assisted; and the conviction would be still stronger, if his composition should far transcend the highest efforts of the human mind. Some of the sacred writers were taken from the lowest ranks of life; and yet sentiments so dignified, and representations of divine things so grand and majestic, occur in their writings, that the noblest flights of human genius, when compared with them, appear cold and insipid. 3. "It is manifest, with respect to many passages of Scripture, that the subjects of which they treat must have been directly revealed to the writers. they could not have been known by any natural means, nor was the knowledge of them attainable by a simple elevation of the faculties. With the faculties of an angel we could not discover the purposes of the divine mind. This degree of inspiration we attribute to those who were empowered to reveal heavenly mysteries, 'which eye had not seen, and ear had not heard, ' to those who were sent with particular messages from God to his people, and to those who were employed to predict future events. The plan of redemption being an effect of the sovereign councils of heaven, it could not have been known but by a communication from the Father of Lights. "This kind of inspiration has been called the inspiration of suggestion. </p> <p> It is needless to dispute about a word; but suggestion seeming to express an operation on the mind, by which ideas are excited in it, is of too limited signification to denote the various modes in which the prophets and apostles were made acquainted with supernatural truths. God revealed himself to them not only by suggestion, but by dreams, visions, voices, and the ministry of angels. This degree of inspiration, in strict propriety of speech should be called revelation; a word preferable to suggestion, because it is expressive of all the ways in which God communicated new ideas to the minds of his servants. It is a word, too, chosen by the Holy Ghost himself, to signify the discovery of truths formerly unknown to the apostles. The last book of the New Testament, which is a collection of prophecies, is called the Revelation of Jesus Christ. Paul says, that he received the [[Gospel]] by revelation; that 'by revelation the mystery was made known to him, which in other ages was not made known unto the sons of men, as it was then revealed unto his holy apostles and prophets by the Spirit' and in another place, having observed that 'eye had not seen, nor ear heard, neither had entered into the heart of man the things which God had prepared for them that love him, ' he adds, "But God hath revealed them unto us by his Spirit, " Rev.i.1. Galatians 1:12 . Ephesians 2:5 . 1 Corinthians 2:9-10 . "I have not names to designate the other two kinds of inspiration. The names used by Doddridge, and others, Superintendence, Elevation, and Suggestion, do not convey the ideas stated in the three preceding particulars, and are liable to other objections, besides those which have been mentioned. </p> <p> This account of the inspiration of the Scriptures has, I think, these two recommendations: that there is no part of Scriptures which does not fall under one or other of the foregoing heads; and that the different degrees of the agency of the Divine Spirit on the minds of the different writers are carefully discriminated. "Some men have adopted very strange and dangerous notions respecting the inspiration of the Scriptures. Dr. Priestley denies that they were written by a particular divine inspiration; and asserts that the writers, though men of the greatest probity, were fallible, and have actually committed mistakes in their narrations and their reasonings. But this man and his followers find it their interest to weaken and set aside the authority of the Scriptures, as they have adopted a system of religion from which all the distinguishing doctrines of revelation are excluded. Others consider the Scriptures as inspired in those places where they profess to deliver the word of God; but in other places, especially in the historical parts, they ascribe to them only the same authority which is due to the writings of well informed and upright men. But as this distinction is perfectly arbitrary, having no foundation in any thing said by the sacred writers themselves, so it is liable to very material objections. </p> <p> It represents our Lord and his apostles, when they speak of the Old Testament, as having attested, without any exception or limitation, a number of books as divinely inspired, while some of them were partly, and some were almost entirely, human compositions: it supposes the writers of both Testaments to have profanely mixed their own productions with the dictates of the Spirit, and to have passed the unhallowed compound on the world as genuine. In fact, by denying that they were constantly under infallible guidance, it leaves us utterly at a loss to know when we should or should not believe them. If they could blend their own stories with the revelations made to them, how can I be certain that they have not, on some occasions, published, in the name of God, sentiments of their own, to which they were desirous to gain credit and authority? Who will assure me of their perfect fidelity in drawing a line of distinction between the divine and the human parts of their writings? The denial of the plenary inspiration of the Scripture tends to unsettle the foundations of our faith, involves us in doubt and perplexity, and leaves us no other method of ascertaining how much we should believe, but by an appeal to reason. But when reason is invested with the authority of a judge, not only is revelation dishonoured and its author insulted, but the end for which it was given is completely defeated. </p> <p> "A question of very great importance demands our attention, while we are endeavouring to settle, with precision, the notion of the inspiration of the Scriptures: it relates to the words in which the sacred writers have expressed their ideas. Some think, that in the choice of words they were left to their own discretion, and that the language is human, though the matter be divine; while others believe, that in their expressions, as well as in their sentiments, they were under the infallible direction of the Spirit. It is the last opinion which appears to be most conformable to truth, and it may be supported by the following reasoning. "Every man who hath attended to the operations of his own mind, knows that we think in words, or that, when we form a train or combination of ideas, we clothe them with words; and that the ideas which are not thus clothed, are indistinct and confused. </p> <p> Let a man try to think upon any subject, moral or religious, without the aid of language, and he will either experience a total cessation of thought, or, as this seems impossible, at least while we are awake, he will feel himself constrained, notwithstanding his utmost endeavours, to have recourse to words as the instrument of his mental operations. As a great part of the Scriptures was suggested or revealed to the writers; as the thoughts or sentiments, which were perfectly new to them, were conveyed into their minds by the Spirit, it is plain that they must have been accompanied with words proper to express them; and, consequently, that the words were dictated by the same influences on the mind which communicated the ideas. The ideas could not have come without the words, because without them they could not have been conceived. A notion of the form and qualities of a material object may be produced by subjecting it to our senses; but there is no conceivable method of making us acquainted with new abstract truths, or with things which do not lie within the sphere of sensation, but by conveying to the mind, in some way or other, the words significant of them. </p> <p> In all those were written by revelation, it is manifest that the words were inspired; and this is still more evident with respect to those passages which the writers themselves did not understand. No man could write an intelligible discourse on a subject which he does not understand, unless he were furnished with the words as well as the sentiments; and that the penmen of the Scriptures did not always understand what they wrote, might be safely inferred from the comparative darkness of the dispensation under which some of them lived; and is intimated by Peter, when he says, that the prophets 'enquired and searched diligently what, and what manner of time the Spirit of Christ which was in them did signify, when it testified beforehand the sufferings of Christ, and the glory that should follow.' 1 Peter 1:10-11 . "In other passages of Scripture, those not excepted in which the writers relate such things as had fallen within the compass or their own knowledge, we shall be disposed to believe that the words are inspired, if we calmly and seriously weigh the following considerations. </p> <p> If Christ promised to his disciples, that, when they were brought before kings and governors for his sake, 'it should be given them in that same hour what they should speak, and that the Spirit of the Father should speak in them.' Matthew 10:19-20 . Luke 12:11-12 . a promise which cannot be reasonably understood to signify less than that both words and sentiments should be dictated to them, it is fully as credible that they should be assisted in the same manner when they wrote, especially as the record was to last through all ages, and to be a rule of faith to all the nations of the earth. Paul affirms that he and the other apostles spoke 'not in the words which man's wisdom teacheth, but which the Holy Ghost taught' 1 Corinthians 2:13 . and this general assertion may be applied to their writings as well as to their sermons. Besides, every person who hath reflected upon the subject, is aware of the importance of a proper selection of words in expressing our sentiments; and knows how easy it is for a heedless or unskillful person not only to injure the beauty and weaken the efficacy of a discourse by the impropriety of his language, but by substituting one word for another, to which it seems to be equivalent, to alter the meaning, and perhaps render it totally different. </p> <p> If, then, the sacred writers had not been directed in the choice of words, how could we have been assured that those which they have chosen were the most proper? Is it not possible, nay, is it not certain, that they would have sometimes expressed themselves inaccurately, as many of them were illiterate; an by consequence would have obscured and misrepresented the truth? In this case, how could our faith have securely rested on their testimony? Would not the suspicion of error in their writings have rendered it necessary, before we received them, to try them by the standard of reason? and would not the authority and the design of revelation have thus been overthrown? We must conclude, therefore, that the words of Scripture are from God, as well as the matter; or we shall charge him with a want of wisdom in transmitting his truths through a channel by which they might have been, and most probably have been, polluted. "To the inspiration of the words, the difference in the style of the sacred writers seems to be an objection; because, if the Holy Ghost were the author of the words, the style might be expected to be uniformly the same. But in answer to this objection it may be observed, that the Divine Spirit, whose operations are various, might act differently on different persons, according to the natural turn of their minds. </p> <p> He might enable one man, for instance, to write more sublimely than another, because he was naturally of a more exalted genius than the other, and the subject assigned to him demanded more elevated language; or he might produce a difference in the style of the same man, by raising, at one time, his faculties above their ordinary state; and by leaving them at another, to act according to their native energy under his inspection and control. We should not suppose that inspiration, even in its higher degrees, deprived those who were the subjects of it, of the use of their faculties. They were, indeed, the organs of the Spirit; but they were conscious, intelligent organs. They were dependent, but distinct agents; and the operation of their mental powers, though elevated and directed by superior influence, was analogous to their ordinary mode of procedure. It is easy, therefore, to conceive that the style of the writers of the Scriptures should differ, just as it would have differed if they had not been inspired. A perfect uniformity of style could not have taken place, unless they had all been inspired in the same degree, and by inspiration their faculties had been completely suspended, so that divine truths were conveyed by them in the same passive manner in which a pipe affords a passage to water, or a trumpet to the breath." </p> <p> See Dick's [[Essay]] on the Inspiration of the Scriptures; Hawker on Plenary Inspiration; Appendix to 3d vol. of Doddridge's Expositor; Calamy and Bennett on Inspiration; Dr. Stennett on the [[Authority]] and Use of Scripture; Parry's Enquiry into the Nature and Extent of the Inspiration of the Apostles; Brown's Nat. and Rev. Relig. p. 78; and article CHRISTIANITY and SCRIPTURE, in this work. </p>

<p> According to long-standing [[Christian]] usage, the word ‘inspiration’ refers to that direct activity of God’s Spirit upon the writers of the [[Bible]] that enabled them to write what God wanted them to write. In the present article the words ‘inspiration’ and ‘inspire’ are used only in this special sense. They do not refer to the sort of inspiration that an inspired musician, poet or painter may at times experience. </p> <p> Although the Bible was written under the inspiration of God, there are many things recorded in the Bible of which God disapproves. The Bible sometimes records the words of people who were wrong in what they said (e.g. the false arguments of Job’s friends or the misleading teachings of the Pharisees), for God reveals his truth by correcting what is false as well as by teaching what is right (Romans 15:4; 1 Corinthians 10:11; 2 Timothy 3:16). It was not the speakers of those words who were inspired, but the writers who recorded them. God inspired the writers to record those things that would make his truth plain and expose human errors. </p> <p> From God, through human writers </p> <p> The Greek word translated ‘inspired’ means literally ‘God-breathed’ (2 Timothy 3:16). That is, God ‘breathed out’ his truth through human writers, so the words they wrote were the creation of God and bore his authority. The writers spoke from God. They were completely under the control of his Spirit and carried along by him to achieve his goals (2 Peter 1:19-20). </p> <p> This does not mean that God used the writers without their personality or understanding playing any part. They were not impersonal instruments whom God used as a typist uses a typewriter. Rather they wrote intelligently out of circumstances that prompted them to write (e.g. Jeremiah 29:1-9; Micah 2:1-3; John 20:30-31; Galatians 1:6-9). They may have gathered their material from historical records, religious books, secular documents, conversations and other sources, but the whole work was under the direction of God. The final article was what God intended it to be (Luke 1:1-4). </p> <p> The writers may not have been aware that their writing was inspired and would one day be part of the Bible. Yet what they wrote was God-directed. It was his message for ordinary people, written in human language, but not corrupted by the sin of the writers. The Bible is not partly divine and partly human; every part of it is divine, yet every part of it is also human. Each book says what God wanted to say, yet says also what its author wanted to say. </p> <p> Jesus and his followers acknowledged the Old [[Testament]] writings as God’s Word written by people who were inspired by God’s Spirit. They considered the divine and human authorship inseparable (Matthew 22:43; Acts 1:16; Acts 4:25). Therefore, they could quote the spoken words of God as being the words of the Old Testament writer who recorded them (cf. Isaiah 29:13 with Matthew 15:7-9; cf. Isaiah 65:1-2 with Romans 10:20), or they could quote the words of the Old Testament writer himself as being the words of God (cf. Psalms 104:4 with Hebrews 1:7; cf. Psalms 95:7-8 with Hebrews 3:7-8). </p> <p> Though the Spirit guided the Bible writers in the words they used, the writers wrote according to their own styles and vocabularies. John’s style is different from Peter’s. Amos’s vocabulary is different from Hosea’s. With each book of the Bible, God chose the particular person whose nature, training, background and temperament were most suited to his purpose at the time. He used a wisdom teacher such as [[Solomon]] to write proverbs for Israel’s guidance, and a university-trained person such as Paul to develop and apply Christ’s teaching for the benefit of the early church. </p> <p> There were also many literary forms among the writings of the Bible, but God spoke through them all. Sometimes he used very simple forms such as stories and word-pictures, other times more complex forms that involved strange visions and symbolic figures. Whatever the form, it accurately communicated God’s message. </p> <p> [[Choosing]] the right words </p> <p> In spite of all the differences in the thinking and expression of the Bible writers, the actual words they wrote were those that God intended them to write. Words express thoughts, but they will express those thoughts correctly only if they are the right words. This is seen in some of the New Testament writers’ quotations from the Old Testament. They give such close attention to the words used that they may even base an explanation or teaching on a particular word in an Old Testament portion (cf. John 10:34-35 with Psalms 82:6; cf. Galatians 3:16 with [[Genesis]] 12:7). </p> <p> At the same time it must be remembered that words are important only because of the truth they express. Therefore, the New Testament writers may at times quote Old Testament portions without a word-for-word exactness. They express the meaning without following the wording (cf. Romans 11:8 with Deuteronomy 29:4 and Isaiah 29:10; see also QUOTATIONS). </p> <p> [[Authority]] of the [[Scriptures]] </p> <p> Jesus acknowledged the Old Testament as the authoritative Word of God. It was a law that could not be lessened or cancelled (John 10:34-35). He referred to the Scriptures (‘It is written . . .’; ‘Have you not read . . .’) as an absolute authority against which there could be no argument (Matthew 4:4; Matthew 4:7; Matthew 4:10; Matthew 21:13; Matthew 21:16; Matthew 22:29; Matthew 22:31; Luke 16:17). He claimed the same absolute authority for his own words, for he was the living Word of God (Matthew 24:35; Mark 8:38; John 1:14; John 1:18; John 6:63; John 7:16-17; John 12:48-50). </p> <p> The New Testament writers likewise upheld the absolute authority of the Scriptures (Acts 17:2-3; Acts 17:11; Romans 1:17; Romans 12:19; Galatians 3:10; Galatians 3:13; 2 Timothy 3:15-16; 1 Peter 1:16). To them the Scriptures were the ‘oracles of God’, the living, authoritative voice of God (Romans 3:2; Hebrews 5:12). What the Scriptures said, God said (cf. Genesis 12:3 with Galatians 3:8; cf. Exodus 9:16 with Romans 9:17). Just as the preaching of the biblical prophets were spoken revelations from God, so the books of the biblical writers were written revelations from God. Of both it was true to say, ‘Thus says the Lord’ (Amos 1:1-3; Amos 3:8; Amos 3:13; Micah 1:1-2; Micah 3:8; Isaiah 30:8-9; Acts 11:28; Acts 13:1-2; 1 Corinthians 14:37; 2 Peter 1:19-21; Revelation 1:1-3). </p> <p> During his earthly life, Jesus promised his apostles that after his return to the Father, the [[Holy]] Spirit would come to them to remind them of Jesus’ teaching and give them further teaching (John 14:25-26; John 16:13-15). They were to pass this teaching on to those who became [[Christians]] (Matthew 28:19-20). They did this not only through preaching but also through putting Jesus’ teachings, and developments from them, into written form. And they claimed for their preaching and their writings the same authority as the Scriptures (1 Corinthians 2:13; Galatians 1:8; 1 Thessalonians 2:13; 1 Thessalonians 4:2; 1 Thessalonians 4:15; 2 Thessalonians 2:15; 2 Thessalonians 3:14; 1 Peter 1:12; 2 Peter 3:2; Revelation 22:18-19). </p> <p> Paul and Peter were the two writers who spoke specifically of the Old Testament writings as being God-given (2 Timothy 3:16; 2 Peter 1:21). Yet both of them speak of New Testament writings as having the same authority as the Old Testament. </p> <p> In 1 Timothy 5:18 Paul quoted as ‘Scripture’ a statement whose first part came from Deuteronomy 25:4 and whose second part came from Luke 10:7, showing that he considered Luke’s [[Gospel]] to have equal authority with the Old Testament. Likewise Peter, in 2 Peter 3:15-16, grouped the writings of Paul with ‘the other Scriptures’, showing that he considered Paul’s writings to have equal authority with the Old Testament. </p> <p> Living and active Word </p> <p> The early church as a whole readily recognized many of the early Christian writings as Scripture, particularly those that came from the apostles or had the apostles’ approval. But above all it was the truth within the books that impressed upon the readers that here indeed was God’s Word speaking to them. As a result a new collection of writings began to take shape, known to us as the New Testament (see CANON). </p> <p> [[Believers]] throughout the history of the church have likewise had an awareness that, as they read the Bible, God speaks to them through it (Hebrews 4:12). The same Spirit who inspired the writers enlightens believers as they read, and they receive the words of the Bible as God’s final authority (1 Corinthians 2:12-15; 1 John 2:26-27; 1 John 5:7; 1 John 5:10; see INTERPRETATION). </p>

<p> <strong> INSPIRATION </strong> . The subject comprises the doctrine of inspiration in the Bible, and the doctrine of the inspiration of the Bible, together with what forms the transition from the one to the other, the account given of the prophetic consciousness, and the teaching of the NT about the OT. </p> <p> <strong> 1. </strong> The agent of inspiration is the [[Holy]] Spirit (see p. 360) or Spirit of God, who is active in [[Creation]] ( [[Genesis]] 1:2 , Psalms 104:30 ), is imparted to man that the dust may become living soul ( Genesis 2:7 ), is the source of exceptional powers of body ( Judges 6:34; Judges 14:6; Judges 14:19 ) or skill ( Exodus 35:31 ); but is pre-eminently manifest in prophecy (wh. see). The NT doctrine of the presence and power of the Spirit of God in the renewed life of the believer is anticipated in the OT, inasmuch as to the Spirit’s operations are attributed wisdom ( Job 32:8 , 1 Kings 3:28 , Deuteronomy 34:9 ), courage ( Judges 13:25; Judges 14:6 ), penitence, moral strength, and purity ( Nehemiah 9:20 , Psalms 51:11 , Isaiah 63:10 , Ezekiel 36:26 , Zechariah 12:10 ). The promise of the Spirit by Christ to His disciples was fulfilled when He Himself after the [[Resurrection]] breathed on them, and said, ‘Receive ye the Holy Ghost’ ( John 20:22 ), and after His [[Ascension]] the Spirit descended on the Church with the outward signs of the wind and fire ( Acts 2:2-3 ). The [[Christian]] life as such is an inspired life, but the operation of the Spirit is represented in the NT in two forms; there are the extraordinary gifts (charisms) speaking with tongues, interpreting tongues, prophecy, miracles ( 1 Corinthians 12:1-31 ), all of which St. Paul subordinates to faith, hope, love (ch. 13); and there are the fruits of the Spirit in moral character and religious disposition ( Galatians 5:22-23 ). Intermediate may be regarded the gifts for special functions in the Church, as teaching, governing, exhorting ( Romans 12:7-8 ). The prophetic inspiration is continued ( Romans 12:6 ); but superior is the [[Apostolic]] ( 1 Corinthians 12:28 ) (see Apostles). </p> <p> <strong> 2. </strong> The doctrine of the inspiration of the NT attaches itself to the promise of Christ to His disciples that the Holy Spirit whom the Father would send in His name should teach them all things, and bring to their remembrance all things that He had said to them ( John 14:26 ); and that, when the Spirit of truth had come, He should guide them into all the truth, and should declare to them the things that were to come ( John 16:13 ). These promises cover the contents of Gospels, Epistles, and the Apocalypse. The inspiration of Christ’s own words is affirmed in His claim to be alone in knowing and revealing the Father ( Matthew 11:27 ), and His repeated declaration of His dependence in His doctrine on the Father. </p> <p> <strong> 3. </strong> Christ recognizes the inspiration of the OT ( Matthew 22:43 ), and the authority of the prophets ( Luke 24:25 ). The word ‘inspire’ is used only in Wis 15:11 ‘Because he was ignorant of him that moulded him, and of him that inspired into him an active soul, and breathed into him a vital spirit.’ The word ‘inspiration’ is used in this general sense in Job 32:8 AV [Note: Authorized Version.] ‘But there is a spirit in man; and the inspiration (RV [Note: Revised Version.] ‘breath’) of the [[Almighty]] giveth them understanding.’ In special reference to the OT we find in 2 Timothy 3:16 (RV [Note: Revised Version.] ) ‘every scripture inspired of God is also profitable for teaching,’ etc. While the term is not used, the fact is recognized in 2 Peter 1:21 ‘For no prophecy ever came by the will of man; but men spake from God, being moved by the Holy Ghost.’ It must be added, however, that both these passages are in writings the Apostolic authorship of which is questioned by many scholars. But the NT view of the authority of the OT is fully attested in the use made of the OT as trustworthy history, true doctrine, and sure prophecy; and yet the inaccuracy of many of the quotations, as well as the use of the Greek translation, shows that the writers, whether they held a theory of verbal inspiration or not, were not bound by it. </p> <p> <strong> 4. </strong> Although the doctrine of the inspiration of the [[Bible]] does not properly fall within the scope of a Bible Dictionary, a brief summary of views held in the Christian Church may be added: ( <em> a </em> ) The Theory of <em> verbal </em> inspiration affirms that each human author was but the mouthpiece of God, and that in every word, therefore, God speaks. But the actual features of the Bible, as studied by reverent and believing scholarship, contradict the theory. ( <em> b </em> ) The theory of <em> degrees of inspiration </em> recognizes suggestion, direction, elevation, and superintendency of the human by the [[Divine]] Spirit; but it is questionable whether we can so formally define the process. ( <em> c </em> ) The <em> dynamical </em> theory recognizes the exercise of human faculties in the author, but maintains their illumination, stimulation, and purification by the Spirit of God, in order that in doctrine and ethics the Divine mind and will may be correctly and sufficiently expressed; but this divorces literature from life. ( <em> d </em> ) We may call the view now generally held <em> personal inspiration </em> : by the Spirit of God men are in various degrees enlightened, filled with zeal and devotion, cleansed and strengthened morally, brought into more immediate and intimate communion with God; and this new life, expressed in their writings, is the channel of God’s revelation of Himself to men. In place of stress on the words and the ideas of Scripture, emphasis is now laid on the moral character and religious disposition of the agents of revelation. </p> <p> Alfred E. Garvie. </p>

<p> Though this word occurs in the [[Bible]] but once in reference to the scriptures, yet the one statement in which it is found is important and full of deep meaning: "Every scripture is divinely inspired [literally, 'God-breathed'], and is profitable for teaching, for conviction, for correction, for instruction in righteousness; that the man of God may be complete, fully fitted to every good work." 2 Timothy 3:16,17 . This places <i> all </i> scripture on one basis as to inspiration, whether it be historical, doctrinal, or prophetic. We learn by this passage that not simply the persons who wrote were inspired, but the writings themselves are divinely inspired. Cf. 2 Peter 1:21 . </p> <p> All writings are composed of words, and if these writings are inspired, the words are inspired. This is what is commonly called 'verbal inspiration.' Other passages speak of the importance of 'words:' Peter said, "To whom shall we go? thou hast the <i> words </i> (ῥήματα) of eternal life," John 6:68 : and we find those words in the Gospels. When it was a question of [[Gentiles]] being brought into blessing without being circumcised, James in his address appealed to the 'words' of the prophets. Acts 15:15 . Paul in writing to the [[Corinthian]] saints said, "Which things also we speak, not in the 'words' (λόγοι)which man's wisdom teacheth, but which the [[Holy]] [[Ghost]] teacheth." 1 Corinthians 2:13 . The Holy Spirit taught Paul what words to use. The whole of scripture forms the word of God, and both in the O.T. and in the N.T. we read of 'the words of God.' 1 Chronicles 25:5; Ezra 9:4; Psalm 107:11; John 3:34; John 8:47; Revelation 17:17 . [[Neither]] must His word be added to, or taken from. Deuteronomy 4:2; Deuteronomy 12:32; Revelation 22:18,19 . </p> <p> The above passages should carry conviction to simple souls that every scripture is God-inspired. As nothing less than this is worthy of God, so nothing less than this would meet the need of man. Amid the many uncertain things around him he needs words upon which his faith can be based, and in the inspired scriptures he has them. The Lord Jesus said, "The words (ῥήματα) that I speak unto you, they are spirit and they are life." John 6:63 . He had the words of eternal life; and, through the grace of God, many a soul has found them to be such, and has no more doubt of the plenary inspiration of scripture than of the existence of God Himself. </p> <p> It may be noted that scripture records the sayings of wicked men, and of [[Satan]] himself. It need scarcely be said that it is not the <i> sayings </i> but the <i> records </i> of them that are inspired. Paul also, when writing on the question of marriage, makes a distinction between what he wrote as his judgement, and what he wrote as commandments of the Lord. "I speak this by permission," he says; and again, "I give my judgement." 1 Corinthians 7:6,10,12,25 . He was inspired to record his spiritual judgement and to point out that it was not a command. </p> <p> Some have a difficulty as to what has been called the human element in inspiration. If the words of scripture are inspired, it has been asked, how is it that the <i> style </i> of the writer is so manifest? John's style, for instance, being clearly distinguishable from that of Paul. The simple answer is that it is as if one used, so to speak, different kinds of pens to write with. God made the mind of man as well as his body, and was surely able to use the <i> mind </i> of each of the writers He employed, and yet cause him to write exactly what He wished. God took possession of the mind of man to declare His own purposes with regard to man. </p> <p> Further, it has been asserted that the doctrine of <i> verbal </i> inspiration is valueless, because of diversities in the Greek manuscripts, which in some places prevent any one from determining what are the words God caused to be written. But this does not in any way touch the question of inspiration, which is, that the words written were inspired by God. Whether we have a correct copy is quite another question. The variations in the Greek manuscripts do not affect any one of the fundamental doctrines of Christianity, and only in a few places are the words doubtful. </p> <p> Another objection to the value of verbal inspiration is that most persons read scripture in a translation, the words of which cannot, it is alleged, be said to be inspired. But if the translation conveys exactly the same meaning as in the original, the words <i> can </i> be said to be inspired: for instance, the words 'God is love,' may surely be said to be the same as ὁ θεὸς ἀγάπη ἐστίν, or Deus caritas est, Dieu est amour, or [[Dio]] è carità , to those who can read them. It may be that the translations from which the above are taken cannot in all places be said to be <i> the same </i> as the Greek; but this only shows the great importance of each having a correct translation in his vernacular tongue. And it must not be forgotten that the Lord Himself and those who wrote the New [[Testament]] often quoted the Septuagint, which is a <i> translation </i> from the Hebrew; and they quoted it as <i> scripture. </i> </p> <p> Nothing can exceed the importance of having true thoughts of the inspiration of scripture. As no human author would allow his amanuensis to write what he did not mean, so surely what is called the word of God is God's own production, though given through the instrumentality of man. Though there were many writers, separated by thousands of years, there is a divine unity in the whole, showing plainly that one and only one could have been its Author. That One can only have been the [[Almighty]] — [[Jehovah]] — now happily revealedto the [[Christian]] as his Father as well as his God. </p>

<p> That supernatural influence exerted on the minds of the sacred writers by the Spirit of God, in virtue of which they unerringly declared his will. Whether what they wrote was previously familiar to their own knowledge, or, as in many cases it must have been, an immediate revelation from heaven; whether his influence in any given case was dictation, suggestion, or superintendence; and however clearly we may trace in their writings the peculiar character, style, mental endowments, and circumstances of each; yet the whole of the [[Bible]] was written under the unerring guidance of the [[Holy]] Ghost, 2 Timothy 3:16 . </p> <p> Christ everywhere treats the Old [[Testament]] [[Scripture]] as infallibly true, and of divine authority-the word of God. To the New Testament writers inspiration was promised, Matthew 10:19,20 John 14:26 16:13; and they wrote and prophesied under its direction, 1 Corinthians 2:10-13 14:37 Galatians 1:12 2 Peter 1:21 3:15 Revelation 1:1,10-19 . </p>

<p> INSPIRA'TION, n. L. inspiro. </p> 1. The act of drawing air into the lungs the inhaling of air a branch of respiration, and opposed to expiration. 2. The act of breathing into any thing. 3. The infusion of ideas into the mind by the [[Holy]] Spirit the conveying into the minds of men, ideas, notices or monitions by extraordinary or supernatural influence or the communication of the divine will to the understanding by suggestions or impressions on the mind, which leave no room to doubt the reality of their supernatural origin. <p> All [[Scripture]] is given by inspiration of God. 2 Timothy 3 </p> 4. The infusion of ideas or directions by the supposed deities of pagans. 5. The infusion or communication of ideas or poetic spirit, by a superior being or supposed presiding power as the inspiration of [[Homer]] or other poet.

<p> Inspiration. The influence of the Spirit of God on the mind, such as to guard against error in communicating God's will. The prophets and apostles spake "as they were moved by the [[Holy]] Ghost." 2 Peter 1:21. The divine Spirit acted upon each author according to his individuality, and used him, not as a machine, but as a free and responsible agent. Hence the differences of style and mode of treatment. The [[Bible]] is both human and divine, like the person of Christ, whom it reflects. There are various theories of inspiration, as to its modes and degrees; but all [[Christians]] agree that in the Bible, and in the Bible alone, we have a full and perfectly trustworthy revelation of God, and that it is the infallible rule of our faith and practice. </p>

<p> Inspiration. Dr. Knapp gives as the definition of inspiration, "an extra-ordinary divine agency upon teachers while giving instruction, whether oral or written, by which they were taught what and how they should write or speak". </p> <p> Without deciding on any of the various theories of inspiration, the general doctrine of [[Christians]] is that the [[Bible]] is so inspired by God that it is the infallible guide of men, and is perfectly trustworthy in all its parts, as given by God. </p>

<p> This word is sometimes used to denote the excitement and action of a fervent imagination in the poet or orator. But even in this case there is generally a reference to some supposed divine influence, to which the excited action is owing. It is once used in [[Scripture]] to denote that [[Divine]] agency by which man is endued with the faculties of an intelligent being, when it is said, 'the inspiration of the [[Almighty]] giveth him understanding.' But the inspiration now to be considered is that which belonged to those who wrote the Scriptures, and which is particularly spoken of in , and in : 'All Scripture is given by inspiration of God;' 'Holy men of God spake as they were moved by the [[Holy]] Ghost.' These passages relate specially to the Old Testament; but there is at least equal reason to predicate Divine inspiration of the New Testament. </p> <p> The definition which Dr. Knapp gives of inspiration is the one we shall adopt. He says, 'It may be best defined, according to the representations of the [[Scriptures]] themselves, as an extraordinary Divine agency upon teachers while giving instruction, whether oral or written, by which they were taught what and how they should write or speak.' Or we may say more briefly that the sacred penmen were completely under the direction of the Holy Spirit, or that they wrote under a plenary inspiration. Dr. Calamy's definition agrees substantially with that of Dr. Knapp. </p> <p> To prove that the Scriptures are divinely inspired we might with propriety refer to the excellence of the doctrines, precepts, and promises, and other instructions, which they contain; to the simplicity and majesty of their style; to the agreement of the different parts, and the scope of the whole; especially to the full discovery they make of man's fallen and ruined state, and the way of salvation through a Redeemer; together with their power to enlighten and sanctify the heart, and the accompanying witness of the Spirit in believers. These are circumstances of real importance, and the discerning advocates of inspiration have not overlooked them. But the more direct and conclusive evidence that the Scriptures were Divinely inspired is found in the testimony of the writers themselves. And as the writers did, by working miracles, and in other ways, sufficiently authenticate their Divine commission, and establish their authority and infallibility as teachers of Divine truth, their testimony, in regard to their own inspiration, is entitled to our full confidence. For who can doubt that they were as competent to judge of, and as much disposed to speak the truth on this subject as on any other? If then we admit their Divine commission and authority, why should we not rely upon the plain testimony which they give concerning the Divine assistance afforded them in their work? To reject their testimony in this case would be to impeach their veracity, and thus to take away the foundation of the [[Christian]] religion. And it is well known that those who deny the justice of the claim which they set up to Divine inspiration do in fact give up the infallible truth and authority of the Scriptures, and adopt the principles of deism. </p> <p> It is, then, of the first importance to inquire what representations are made by the prophets, and by Christ and His Apostles, respecting the inspiration, and the consequent authority, of the sacred Scriptures. </p> <p> The prophets generally professed to speak the word of God. What they taught was introduced and confirmed by a 'Thus saith the Lord;' or 'The Lord spake to me, saying.' And, in one way or another, they gave clear proof that they were Divinely commissioned, and spoke in the name of God, or as it is expressed in the New Testament, that God spake by them. </p> <p> But the strongest and most satisfactory proof of the inspiration and Divine authority of the Old [[Testament]] writings, is found in the testimony of Christ and the Apostles. </p> <p> The Lord Jesus Christ possessed the spirit of wisdom without measure, and came to bear witness to the truth. His works proved that He was what He declared Himself to be—the Messiah, the great Prophet, and the infallible Teacher. The faith which rests on Him rests on a rock. As soon then as we learn how He regarded the Scriptures, we have reached the end of our inquiries. His word is truth. Now everyone who carefully attends to the four [[Gospels]] will find that Christ everywhere spoke of that collection of writings called the Scripture as the word of God; that He regarded the whole in this light; that He treated the Scripture, and every part of it, as infallibly true, and as clothed with divine authority, thus distinguishing it from every mere human production. Nothing written by man can be entitled to the respect which Christ showed to the Scriptures. This, to all Christians, is direct and incontrovertible evidence of the Divine origin of the Scriptures, and is by itself perfectly conclusive. </p> <p> But there is clear concurrent evidence, and evidence still more specific, in the writings of the Apostles. In two texts in particular Divine inspiration is positively asserted. In the first , Paul lays it down as the characteristic of 'all Scripture,' that it 'issgiven by inspiration of God,' and from this results its profitableness. </p> <p> The other text teaches that 'Prophecy came not by the will of man, but holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost.' This passage, which the [[Apostle]] Peter applied particularly to the subject of which he was speaking, may be considered as explanatory of what is intended by inspiration. For to say that all Scripture is Divinely inspired, and that men of God wrote it as they were moved by the Holy Ghost, is one and the same thing. </p> <p> The various texts in which Christ and the [[Apostles]] speak of Scripture as the word of God, and as invested with authority to decide all questions of truth and duty, fully correspond with the texts above considered. </p> <p> From this view of the subject it follows that the attempt which has been made by a certain class of writers to account for the production of the whole or any part of the Scriptures by the will or agency, the ingenuity, diligence, or fidelity of men, in the use of the means within their reach, without the supernatural influence of the Spirit, is utterly at variance with the teachings of Christ and the Apostles as to the origin of the [[Sacred]] Writings. </p> <p> As the Christian dispensation surpasses the former in all spiritual privileges and gifts, it is reasonable to presume that the New Testament was written under at least an equal degree of Divine influence with the Old, and that it comes recommended to us by equal characteristics of infallible truth. But of this there is clear positive evidence from the New Testament itself. In the first place, Jesus Christ, whose works proved Him to be the great unerring Teacher, and to be possessed of all power in [[Heaven]] and earth, gave commission to His Apostles to act in His stead, and to carry out the work of instruction which He had begun, confirming their authority by investing them with power to perform miracles. But how could such a commission have answered the end proposed, had not the Divine Spirit so guided the Apostles as to render them infallible and perfect teachers of Divine truth? </p> <p> But, secondly, in addition to this, Jesus expressly promised to give them the Holy Spirit, to abide with them continually, and to guide theminto all the truth. He said to them, 'When they shall deliver you up, take no thought how or what ye shall speak for it shall be given you in the same hour what ye shall speak. For it is not ye that speak, but the Spirit of your Father that speaketh in you,' . Storr and [[Flatt]] think this is the idea intended: 'The instructions which ye in general give are derived not so much from yourselves as from the Holy Spirit. Hence, when ye are called on to defend your doctrines, ye need feel no anxiety, but may confidently rely on the Holy Spirit to vindicate His own doctrines, by suggesting to you the very words of your defense.' If these promises were not fulfilled, then Jesus was not a true prophet. If they were fulfilled, as they certainly were, then the Apostles had the constant assistance of the Holy Spirit, and, whether engaged in speaking or writing, were under Divine guidance, and, of course, were liable to no mistakes either as to the matter or manner of their instructions. </p> <p> In the third place, the writers of the New Testament manifestly considered themselves to be under the guidance of the Holy Spirit, and their instructions, whether oral or written, to be clothed with Divine authority, as the word of God. </p> <p> 'We speak,' they say, 'as of God,' . Again, 'Which things we speak, not in the words which man's wisdom teacheth, but in words which the Holy [[Ghost]] teacheth,' . They declared what they taught to be the word of God, and the things they wrote to be the commandments of God, . Now the Apostles, being honest, unassuming, humble men, would never have spoken of themselves and their writings in such a manner, had they not known themselves to be under the unerring guidance of the Holy Spirit, and their instructions perfectly in accordance with the mind of God. </p> <p> It is perfectly consistent with the plenary inspiration here maintained, that God operated on the minds of inspired men in a variety of ways, sometimes by audible words, sometimes by direct inward suggestions, sometimes by outward visible signs, sometimes by the [[Urim]] and Thummim, and sometimes by dreams and visions. This variety in the mode of Divine influence detracted nothing from its certainty. God made known His will equally in different ways; and, whatever the mode of His operation, He made it manifest to His servants that the things revealed were from Him. </p> <p> But inspiration was concerned not only in making known the will of God to prophets and Apostles, but also in giving them direction in writing the Sacred Books. They wrote as they were moved by the Holy Ghost. And in this, also, there was a diversity in the mode of Divine influence. Sometimes the Spirit of God moved and guided His servants to write things which they could not know by natural means, such as new doctrines or precepts, or predictions of future events. Sometimes He moved and guided them to write the history of events which were wholly or partly known to them by tradition, or by the testimony of their contemporaries, or by their own observation or experience. In all these cases the Divine Spirit effectually preserved them from all error, and influenced them to write just so much and in such a manner as God saw to be best. Sometimes He moved and guided them to write a summary record of larger histories, containing what His infinite wisdom saw to be adapted to the end in view, that is, the benefit of His people in all ages. Sometimes He influenced them to make a record of important maxims in common use, or to write new ones, derived either from their own reason or experience, or from special Divine teaching. Sometimes He influenced them to write parables or allegories, particularly suited to make a salutary impression of Divine things on the minds of men; and sometimes to record supernatural visions. In these and all other kinds of writing the sacred penmen manifestly needed special Divine guidance, as no man could of himself attain to infallibility, and no wisdom, except that of God, was sufficient to determine what things ought to be written for permanent use in the church, and what manner of writing would be best fitted to promote the great ends of revelation. </p> <p> Some writers speak of different modes and different kinds, and even different degrees of inspiration. And if their meaning is that God influenced the minds of inspired men in different ways; that He adopted a variety of modes in revealing Divine things to their minds; that He guided them to give instruction in prose and in poetry, and in all the different forms of composition; that He moved and guided them to write history, prophecy, doctrines, commands, promises, reproofs, and exhortations, and that He adapted His mode of operation to each of these cases—against this no objection can be made. It is a fact, that the Scriptures exhibit specimens of all these different kinds of writing and these different modes of Divine instruction. Still each and every part of what was written was Divinely inspired, and equally so. It is all the word of God, and clothed with Divine authority, as much as if it had all been made known and written in one way. </p> <p> Dr. Henderson, who labors perhaps with too much zeal against carrying inspiration to extreme lengths, still says that if those who hold to different modifications of inspiration intend that there are different modifications and degrees of authority given to Scripture, their opinion must meet with unqualified reprobation from every sincere believer. He insists that a diversity in the modes and degrees of Divine operation did exist in the work of inspiration, and that this diversity was the result of infinite wisdom adapting itself to different circumstances. He thinks that, unless we admit such a diversity, we cannot form correct ideas of the subject. But he is confident that the distinction which he endeavors to establish is not in the slightest degree hostile to the Divine authority of Scripture. He affirms that no part of that holy book was written without miraculous influence; that all parts were equally inspired; that in regard to the whole volume the great end was infallibly attained, namely, the commitment to writing of precisely such matters as God designed for the religious instruction of mankind; that the sacred penmen wrote what had for its object not merely the immediate benefit of individual persons or churches, but what would be useful to [[Christians]] in all future times; and that in regard to the most minute and inconsiderable things which the Scripture contains we are compelled to say, This also cometh from the Lord. </p> <p> The controversy among orthodox divines respecting what is called verbal inspiration, appears to arise, in a great measure, from the different senses affixed to the phrase. </p> <p> The real question, and the whole question at issue, may be stated thus: did the work of the Divine Spirit in the sacred penmen relate to the language they used, or their manner of expressing their ideas; and if so, how far, and in what way? </p> <p> All those with whom we are concerned in the discussion of this question, hold that Divine inspiration 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 revelation which 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 accurately 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 their mental constitution 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 apparent 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 constantly guided them in writing the Sacred Volume.' He declares his belief that the Scriptures were written not under a partial or imperfect, 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. </p> <p> The doctrine of a plenary inspiration of all Scripture in regard to the language employed, as well as the thoughts communicated, ought not to be rejected without valid reasons. The doctrine is so obviously important, and so consonant to the feelings of sincere piety, that those evangelical Christians who are pressed with speculative objections against it, frequently, in the honesty of their hearts, advance opinions which fairly imply it. This is the case, as we have seen, with Dr. Henderson, who says that the Divine Spirit guided the sacred penmen in writing the Scriptures; that their mode of expression was such as they were instructed by the Spirit to employ; that Paul ascribes not only the doctrines which the Apostles taught, but the entire character of their style, to the influence of the Spirit. He indeed says that this does not always imply the immediate communication of the words of Scripture; and he says it with good reason. For immediate properly signifies acting without a medium, or without the intervention of another cause or means, not acting by second causes. Now those who hold the highest views of inspiration do not suppose that the Divine Spirit, except in a few instances, so influenced the writers of Scripture as to interfere with the use of their rational faculties or their peculiar mental habits and tastes, or in any way to supersede secondary causes as the medium through which His agency produced the desired effect. </p> <p> In regard to this point, therefore, there appears to be little or no ground for controversy. For, if God so influenced the sacred writers that, either with or without the use of secondary causes, they wrote just what He intended, and in the manner He intended, the end is secured; and what they wrote is as truly His word, as though He had written it with His own hand on tables of stone, without any human instrumentality. The very words of the [[Decalogue]] were all such as God chose. And they would have been equally so if [[Moses]] had been moved by the Divine Spirit to write them with his hand. The expression, that God immediately imparted, or communicated to the writers the very words which they wrote, is evidently not well chosen. The exact truth is that the writers themselves were the subjects of the Divine influence. The Spirit employed them as active instruments, and directed them in writing, both as to matter and manner. They wrote 'as they were moved by the Holy Ghost.' The matter, in many cases, was what they before knew, and the manner was entirely conformed to their habits; it was their own. But what was written was none the less inspired on that account. God may have influenced and guided an Apostle as infallibly in writing what he had before known, and that guidance may have been as really necessary, as in writing a new revelation. And God may have influenced Paul or John to write a book in his own peculiar style, and that influence may have been as real and as necessary as if the style had been what some would call a Divine style. It was a Divine style, if the writer used it under Divine direction. It was a Divine style, and it was, at the same time, a human style, and the writer's own style, all in one. Just as the believer's exercises, faith and love, are his own acts, and at the same time are the effects of Divine influence. The mental exercises of Paul and of John had their own characteristic peculiarities, as much as their style. God was the author of John's mind and all that was peculiar to his mental faculties and habits, as really as of Paul's mind and what was peculiar to him. And in the work of inspiration He used and directed, for His own purposes, what was peculiar to each. When God inspired different men He did not make their minds and tastes all alike, nor did He make their language alike. Nor had He any occasion for this; for while they had different mental faculties and habits, they were as capable of being infallibly directed by the Divine Spirit, and infallibly speaking and writing Divine truth, as though their mental faculties and habits had been all exactly alike. And it is manifest that the Scriptures, written by such a variety of inspired men, and each part agreeably to the peculiar talents and style of the writer, are not only equally from God, but, taken together, are far better adapted to the purposes of general instruction, and all the objects to be accomplished by revelation, than if they had been written by one man, and in one and the same manner. </p> <p> This view of plenary inspiration is fitted to relieve 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, Peter, Paul, or John, when speaking before rulers, with the promised aid of the Holy Spirit, spoke naturally, with his own voice, and in his own way, as he had been accustomed 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 endowments, 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. </p> <p> The fact that the individual peculiarities of the sacred penmen are everywhere so plainly impressed on their writings, is often mentioned as an objection to the doctrine, that inspiration extended to their language 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 show 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. </p> <p> Gaussen 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 discover, by the change of their characters, that a new hand has taken the pen. It is perfectly easy to recognize each one of them, although they speak of the same master, teach the same doctrines, and relate 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 profound gratitude, and with an ever-increasing admiration, 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 see in it clear proof of the Divine wisdom which dictated the Scriptures.' </p> <p> 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 individuality, they acknowledge inspiration in the fullest sense in other parts, particularly in the prophecies, where this individuality of the writers is equally apparent. </p> <p> In truth, what can be more consonant with our best views of the wisdom of God, or with the general 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 recording 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]] itself. '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 condescension of God. [[Viewed]] in this light, the Word of God has unequalled beauties, and exerts an unequalled power over our hearts.' </p> <p> 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. </p> <p> 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 between those ideas and a just expression of them in words; then, indeed, we have the desired result—an infallible revelation from God, made in the proper language of the writers. But if any one supposes that there is naturally such an infallible connection between right thoughts and a just expression of them in language, without an effective Divine superintendence, he contradicts 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 Scriptures, they speak of the different, and, as they regard them, the contradictory statements of facts by different writers. 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 contradict their own idea of a sure connection between the conceptions of the mind and the utterance 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 the inspired writer through inadvertence committed a real mistake as to a matter of fact, it must have been a mistake in his thoughts as well as in his words. If, 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. If, however, there was a real mistake, then the question is not, what becomes of verbal inspiration, but what becomes of inspiration in any sense. </p> <p> 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 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. </p> <p> The diversity in the narratives of the [[Evangelists]] is sometimes urged as an objection against the position we maintain in regard to inspiration, but evidently without reason, and contrary to reason. For what is more reasonable than to expect that a work of Divine origin will have marks of consummate wisdom, and will be suited to accomplish the end in view. Now it will not be denied that God determined that there should be four narratives of the life and death of Jesus from four historians. If the narratives were all alike, three of them would be useless. Indeed such a circumstance would create suspicion, and would bring discredit upon the whole concern. The narratives must then be different. And if, besides this useful diversity, it is found that the seeming contradictions can be satisfactorily reconciled, and if each of the narratives is given in the peculiar style and manner of the writers, then all is natural and unexceptionable, and we have the highest evidence of the credibility and truth of the narratives. </p> <p> We shall advert to one more objection. It is alleged that writers who were constantly under a plenary Divine inspiration would not descend to the unimportant details, the trifling incidents, which are found in the Scriptures. To this it may be replied that the details alluded to must be admitted to be according to truth, and that those things which, at first view, seem to be trifles may, when taken in their connections, prove to be of serious moment. And it is moreover manifest that, considering what human beings and human affairs really are, if all those things which are called trifling and unimportant were excluded, the Scriptures would fail of being conformed to fact; they would not be faithful histories of human life: so that the very circumstance which is demanded as proof of inspiration would become an argument against it. And herein we cannot but admire the perfect wisdom which guided the sacred writers, while we mark the weakness and shallowness of the objections which are urged against their inspiration. </p> <p> On the whole, after carefully investigating the subject of inspiration, we are conducted to the important conclusion that 'all Scripture is Divinely inspired;' that the sacred penmen wrote 'as they were moved by the Holy Ghost;' and that these representations are to be understood as implying that the writers had, in all respects, the effectual guidance of the Divine Spirit. And we are still more confirmed in this conclusion because we find that it begets in those who seriously adopt it an acknowledgment of the Divine origin of Scripture, a reverence for its teachings, and a practical regard to its requirements, like what appeared in Christ and his Apostles. Being convinced that the Bible has, in all parts and in all respects, the seal of the Almighty, and that it is truly and entirely from God, we are led by reason, conscience, and piety to bow submissively to its high authority, implicitly to believe its doctrines, however incomprehensible, and cordially to obey its precepts, however contrary to our natural inclinations. We come to it from day to day, not as judges, but as learners, never questioning the propriety or utility of any of its contents. This precious Word of God is the perfect standard of our faith, and the rule of our life, our comfort in affliction, and our sure guide to heaven. </p>

<p> An earnest, divinely-awakened, soul-subduing sense and perception of the presence of the invisible in the visible, of the infinite in the finite, of the ideal in the real, of the divine in the human, and, in ecstatic moments, of very God in man, accompanied with a burning desire to impart to others the vision revealed; distinguished as "seraphic" from insanity as "demonic" by this, that the inspired man sees an invisible which is there, and the insane an invisible which is <i> not </i> there, states of mind so like otherwise that the one may be, and often is, mistaken for the other, the inspired man taken for an insane, and the insane man for an inspired. </p>