But after some measure of careful study, I have been led to the conviction that the question of verbal inspiration is not the one really at issue. For no one believes that, if there be any inaccuracy, it took place in the words only. It must have taken place in the thoughts, in the matter, in the facts. If, _e.g._, there is a variation between St. Matthew and St. Luke, no one supposes that they meant to convey the same thoughts, but made a mistake in accidentally selecting different words. The real point of the controversy is the infallible accuracy of the matter. And this leads to my last question. * * * * * IV. Is it infallible? On the answer to this question must depend our confidence in Scripture. Some excellent men tell us it is infallible in so far as divine truth is involved. But I freely confess that this does not satisfy my own mind. I do not like that limitation. I am prepared to receive the whole book as invested with infallible accuracy from God Himself, and in taking this view of the subject, I feel the great satisfaction of believing that I am in harmony with the mind of St. Paul, St. Peter, and our great Head Himself. For St. Paul’s mind, I would refer to his words in Acts, xxviii. 25, and Heb. x. 15. In the Acts he is quoting from Isaiah, and says, ‘Well spake the Holy Ghost by Esaias the prophet,’ and in the Hebrews he is quoting from the prophet Jeremiah; but instead of saying, ‘whereof Jeremiah is a witness to us,’ he says, without mentioning Jeremiah, ‘Whereof the Holy Ghost also is a witness to us,’ taking the word, as it were, out of the hands of fallible man, and placing it in those of the infallible Spirit. These passages place inspiration on an equal footing with direct communication. But if inspired writings were spoken of as the actual words of the Holy Ghost just as much as if they had been direct communications; if inspiration was of such a character as to render the words the words of the Spirit Himself, can we believe that those words were capable of error? For St. Peter’s testimony, I would refer to his language in 2 Pet. i. 19, in the context of which passage he is assuring his hearers that he had not followed cunningly devised fables. And now mark the threefold evidence which he produces. First, there is vision, ‘We were eye-witnesses of his majesty.’ Secondly, there is hearing, ‘The voice from heaven we heard.’ But lastly, there is an evidence more clear, more true, more trustworthy, than either the sight of his own eyes, or the hearing of his own ears. That evidence is Scripture. ‘We have also a more sure word of prophecy.’ For the testimony of our Lord Himself, refer to two passages, the one referring to a nice point in a quotation from the Psalms, John, x. 35; the other to the whole word in its sanctifying power, John, xvii. 17. Now what is His language? In the one, ‘The scripture cannot be broken.’ In the other, ‘Thy word is truth.’