3. We will not attempt to explain it by constructing any artificial theories as to the action of the Spirit on the mind of men. Some have endeavoured to classify the modes in which they consider the Spirit may have acted, as, _e.g._, supervision, elevation, direction, and suggestion. All this may be right, and it may be wrong; for we are taught (Heb. i. 1) not merely that God spake in divers times, but in _divers __manners_ unto the fathers by the prophets. But all such distinctions are unsupported by Scripture, and therefore we may leave them. My own belief is, that the safest course for the believer is to take the word as he finds it, and to attempt no explanation at all. The fact is, that the question lies in the midst of a class of subjects which have always baffled man’s inquiry, I mean those relating to the points of contact between the mind of God and the mind of man. The real point is, how has the mind of God acted on the mind of man, and how can there be union in one book between his mind which is infinite and infallible, and the mind of man which is finite and fallible? That question I cannot solve. But I cannot there leave the inquiry; for it appears to me that we have an analogous case of the deepest possible importance, I mean the corresponding union in the person of our blessed Saviour. Remember, then, that there are two channels through which God has manifested His will, viz., the incarnate word, and the written word; and surely we are justified in expecting that there will be something of the same character in the two manifestations. Now, how is it with the incarnate word? In Him there is a perfect Godhead and a perfect manhood, so that He becomes the perfect daysman between God and the sinner. His Deity does not neutralise His humanity, for, though Himself the Creator, He was wearied, He wept, He prayed, He trusted, He died; and so He can be touched with the feelings of those who in this suffering world are called to weep, to suffer, to pray, and to die now. But neither, on the other hand, did His humanity neutralise His Deity, for in the midst of His weakness He could rise in His omnipotence, and bid the dead arise and the waves be still. If you ask how it is that the one did not neutralise the other, I cannot say. All I know is that God so ordered it, and that He so formed the union that the perfection of the Godhead did not destroy the manhood, nor the perfection of the manhood take one jot or one tittle from the attributes of the Godhead. And if men reply that they cannot understand it, I can only say that they have no right to expect to do so, for are we not assured in Scripture, ‘Without controversy, great is the mystery of godliness, God was manifest in the flesh?’