the conveying of certain extraordinary and supernatural
notices or thoughts into the soul; or it denotes any supernatural
influence of God upon the mind of a rational creature, whereby he is
formed to a degree of intellectual improvement, to which he could not
have attained in his present circumstances in a natural way. In the
first and highest sense, the prophets, evangelists, and Apostles are
said to have spoken and written by divine inspiration. This inspiration
of the Old Testament Scriptures is so expressly attested by our Lord and
his Apostles, that among those who receive them as a divine revelation
the only question relates to the inspiration of the New Testament. On
this subject it has been well observed:--
1. That the inspiration of the Apostles appears to have been necessary
for the purposes of their mission; and, therefore, if we admit that
Jesus came from God, and that he sent them forth to make disciples, we
shall acknowledge that some degree of inspiration is highly probable.
The first light in which the books of the New Testament lead us to
consider the Apostles, is, as the historians of Jesus. After having been
his companions during his ministry, they came forth to bear witness of
him; and as the benefit of his religion was not to be confined to the
age in which he or they lived, they left in the four Gospels a record of
what he did and taught. Two of the four were written by the Apostles
Matthew and John. St. Mark and St. Luke, whose names are prefixed to the
other two, were probably of the seventy whom our Lord sent out in his
life time; and we learn from the most ancient Christian historians, that
the Gospel of St. Mark was revised by St. Peter, and the Gospel of St.
Luke by St. Paul, and that both were afterward approved by St. John; so
that all the four may be considered as transmitted to the church with
the sanction of apostolical authority. Now, if we recollect the
condition of the Apostles, and the nature of their history, we shall
perceive that, even as historians, they stood in need of some measure of
inspiration. Plato might feel himself at liberty to feign many things of
his master Socrates, because it mattered little to the world whether the
instruction that was conveyed to them proceeded from the one philosopher
or from the other. But the servants of a divine teacher, who appeared as
his witnesses, and professed to be the historians of his life, were
bound by their office to give a true record. And their history was an
imposition upon the world, if they did not declare exactly and literally
what they had seen and heard. This was an office which required not only
a love of the truth, but a memory more retentive and more accurate than
it was possible for the Apostles to possess. To relate, at the distance
of twenty years, long moral discourses, which were not originally
written, and which were not attended with any striking circumstances
that might imprint them upon the mind; to preserve a variety of
parables, the beauty and significancy of which depended upon particular
expressions; to record long and minute prophecies, where the alteration
of a single phrase might have produced an inconsistency between the
event and the prediction; and to give a particular detail of the
intercourse which Jesus had with his friends and with his enemies;--all
this is a work so very much above the capacity of unlearned men, that,
had they attempted to execute it by their own natural powers, they must
have fallen into such absurdities and contradictions as would have
betrayed them to every discerning eye. It was therefore highly
expedient, and even necessary, for the faith of future ages, that,
beside those opportunities of information which the Apostles enjoyed,
and that tried integrity which they possessed, their understanding and
their memory should be assisted by a supernatural influence, which might
prevent them from mistaking the meaning of what they had heard, which
might restrain them from putting into the mouth of Jesus any words which
he did not utter, or omitting what was important, and which might thus
give us perfect security, that the Gospels are as faithful a copy as if
Jesus himself had left in writing those sayings and those actions which
he wished posterity to remember.
But we consider the Apostles in the lowest view, when we speak of them
as barely the historians of their Master. In their epistles they assume
a higher character, which renders inspiration still more necessary. All
the benefit which they derived from the public and the private
instructions of Jesus before his death had not so far opened their minds
as to qualify them for receiving the whole counsel of God. And he who
knows what is in man declares to them, the night on which he was
betrayed, “I have yet many things to say unto you, but you cannot bear
them now,” John xv, 12. The purpose of many of his parables, the full
meaning even of some of his plain discourses, had not been attained by
them. They had marvelled when he spake to them of earthly things. But
many heavenly things of his kingdom had not been told them; and they who
were destined to carry his religion to the ends of the earth themselves
needed, at the times of their receiving this commission, that some one
should instruct them in the doctrine of Christ. It is true that, after
his resurrection, Jesus opened their understandings, and explained to
them the Scriptures; and he continued upon earth forty days, speaking to
them of the things pertaining to the kingdom of God. It appears,
however, from the history which they have recorded in the book of Acts,
that some farther teaching was necessary for them, Acts i. Immediately
before our Lord ascended, their minds being still full of the
expectation of a temporal kingdom, they say unto him, “Lord, wilt thou
at this time restore the kingdom to Israel?” It was not till some time
after they received the gift of the Holy Ghost, that they understood
that the Gospel had taken away the obligation to observe the ceremonies
of the Mosaic law; and the action of St. Peter in baptizing Cornelius, a
devout Heathen, gave offence to some of the Apostles and brethren in
Judea when they first heard it, Acts xi. Yet, in their epistles, we find
just notions of the spiritual nature of the religion of Jesus as a
kingdom of righteousness, the subjects of which are to receive remission
of sins, and sanctification through his blood, and just notions also of
the extent of this religion as a dispensation the spiritual blessings of
which are to be communicated to all, in every land, who receive it in
faith and love. These notions appear to us to be the explication both of
the ancient predictions, and of many particular expressions that occur
in the discourses of our Lord. But it is manifest that they had not been
acquired by the Apostles during the teaching of Jesus. They are so
adverse to every thing which men educated in Jewish prejudices had
learned and had hoped, that they could not be the fruit of their own
reflections; and therefore they imply the teaching of that Spirit who
gradually impressed them upon the mind, guiding the Apostles gently, as
they were able to follow him, into all the truth connected with the
salvation of mankind. As inspiration was necessary to give the minds of
the Apostles possession of the system that is unfolded in their
epistles, so many parts of that system are removed to such a distance
from human discoveries, and are liable to such misapprehension, that
unless we suppose a continued superintendence of the Spirit by whom it
was taught, succeeding ages would not have a sufficient security that
those who were employed to deliver it had not been guilty of gross
mistakes in some most important doctrines.
Inspiration will appear still farther necessary, when we recollect that
the writings of the Apostles contain several predictions of things to
come. St. Paul foretels, in his epistles, the corruptions of the church
of Rome, and many other circumstances which have taken place in the
history of the Christian church; and the Revelation is a book of
prophecy, of which part has been already fulfilled, while the rest will
no doubt be explained by the events which are to arise in the course of
Providence. But prophecy is a kind of writing which implies the highest
degree of inspiration. When predictions, like those in Scripture, are
particular and complicated, and the events are so remote and so
contingent as to be out of the reach of human sagacity, it is plain that
the writers of the predictions do not speak according to the measure of
information which they had acquired by natural means, but are merely the
instruments through which the Almighty communicates, in such measure and
such language as he thinks fit, that knowledge of futurity which is
denied to man. And although the full meaning of their own predictions
was not understood by themselves, they will be acknowledged to be true
prophets when the fulfilment comes to reflect light upon that language,
which, for wise purposes, was made dark at the time of its being put
into their mouth.
Thus the nature of the writings of the Apostles suggests the necessity
of their having been inspired. They could not be accurate historians of
the life of Jesus without divine inspiration, nor safe expounders of his
doctrine, nor prophets of distant events.
2. Inspiration was promised by our Lord to his Apostles. It is not
unfair reasoning to adduce promises contained in the Scriptures
themselves, as proofs of their divine inspiration. It were, indeed,
reasoning in a circle, to bring the testimony of the Scriptures in proof
of the divine mission of Jesus. But that being established by sufficient
evidence, and the books of the New Testament having been proved to be
the authentic genuine records of the persons whose names they bear, we
are warranted to argue, from the declarations contained in them, what is
the measure of inspiration which Jesus was pleased to bestow upon his
servants. He might have been a divine teacher, and they might have been
his Apostles, although he had bestowed none at all. But his character
gives us security that they possessed all that he promised. We read in
the Gospels that Jesus ordained twelve that they should be with him, and
that he might send them forth to preach, Mark iii, 14. And as this was
the purpose for which they were first called, so it was the charge left
them at his departure. “Go,” said he, “preach the Gospel to every
creature: make disciples of all nations,” Mark xvi, 16; Matt. xxviii,
19. His constant familiar intercourse with them was intended to qualify
them for the execution of this charge; and the promises made to them
have a special reference to the office in which they were to be
employed. When he sent them, during his life, to preach in the cities of
Israel, he said, “But when they deliver you up, take no thought how or
what ye shall speak; for it shall be given you in that same hour what ye
shall speak. For it is not ye that speak, but the Spirit of your Father
which speaketh in you,” Matt. x, 19, 20. And when he spake to them in
his prophecy of the destruction of Jerusalem, of the persecution which
they were to endure after his death, he repeats the same promise: “For I
will give you a mouth and wisdom, which all your adversaries shall not
be able to gainsay nor resist,” Luke xxi, 15. It is admitted that the
words in both these passages refer properly to that assistance which the
inexperience of the Apostles was to derive from the suggestions of the
Spirit, when they should be called to defend their conduct and their
cause before the tribunals of the magistrates. But the fulfilment of
this promise was a pledge, both to the Apostles and to the world, that
the measure of inspiration necessary for the more important purpose
implied in their commission would not be withheld; and, accordingly,
when that purpose came to be unfolded to the Apostles, the promise of
the assistance of the Spirit was expressed in a manner which applies it
to the extent of their commission. In the long affectionate discourse
recorded by St. John, when our Lord took a solemn farewell of the
disciples, after eating the last passover with them, he said, “And I
will pray the Father, and he shall give you another Comforter, that he
may abide with you for ever; even the Spirit of truth, whom the world
cannot receive, because it seeth him not, neither knoweth him. But ye
know him; for he dwelleth with you, and shall be in you. The Comforter,
which is the Holy Ghost, whom the Father will send in my name, he shall
teach you all things, and bring all things to your remembrance,
whatsoever I have said unto you. I have yet many things to say unto you,
but you cannot bear them now. Howbeit, when he, the Spirit of truth, is
come, he will guide you into all truth; for he shall not speak of
himself, but whatsoever he shall hear that shall he speak; and he will
show you things to come,” John xiv, 16, 17, 26; xvi, 12, 13. Here are
all the degrees of inspiration which we have seen to be necessary for
the Apostles: the Spirit was to bring to their remembrance what they had
heard; to guide them into the truth, which they were not then able to
bear; and to show them things to come; and all this they were to derive,
not from occasional illapses, but from the perpetual inhabitation of the
Spirit. That this inspiration was vouchsafed to them, not for their own
sakes, but in order to qualify them for the successful discharge of
their office as the messengers of Christ, and the instructers of
mankind, appears from several expressions of that prayer which
immediately follows the discourse containing the promise of inspiration;
particularly from these words: “Neither pray I for these alone, but for
them also which shall believe on me through their word; that they all
may be one, as thou, Father, art in me, and I in thee; that they may be
one in us; that the world may believe that thou hast sent me,” John
xvii, 20, 21. In conformity to this prayer, so becoming him who was not
merely the friend of the Apostles, but the light of the world, is that
charge which he gives them immediately before his ascension: “Go ye,
therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the
Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost; teaching them to observe
all things whatsoever I have commanded you: and, lo, I am with you
alway, even unto the end of the world,” Matt. xxviii, 19, 20; I am with
you alway, not by my bodily presence; for immediately after he was taken
out of their sight; but I am with you by the Holy Ghost, whom I am to
send upon you not many days hence, and who is to abide with you for
ever.
The promise of Jesus, then, implies, according to the plain construction
of the words, that the Apostles, in executing their commission, were not
to be left wholly to their natural powers, but were to be assisted by
that illumination and direction of the Spirit which the nature of the
commission required; and we may learn the sense which our Lord had of
the importance and effect of this promise from one circumstance, that he
never makes any distinction between his own words and those of his
Apostles, but places the doctrines and commandments which they were to
deliver upon a footing with those which he had spoken: “He that heareth
you, heareth me; and he that despiseth you, despiseth me; and he that
despiseth me, despiseth him that sent me,” Luke x, 16. These words
plainly imply that Christians have no warrant to pay less regard to any
thing contained in the epistles than to that which is contained in the
Gospels; and teach us that every doctrine and precept clearly delivered
by the Apostles comes to the Christian world with the same stamp of the
divine authority as the words of Jesus, who spake in the name of him
that sent him.
The Author of our religion having thus made the faith of the Christian
world to hang upon the teaching of the Apostles, gave the most signal
manifestation of the fulfilment of that promise which was to qualify
them for their office, by the miraculous gifts with which they were
endowed on the day of pentecost, and by the abundance of those gifts
which the imposition of their hands was to diffuse through the church.
One of the twelve, indeed, whose labours in preaching the Gospel were
the most abundant and the most extensive, was not present at this
manifestation; for St. Paul was not called to be an Apostle till after
the day of pentecost. But it is very remarkable that the manner of his
being called was expressly calculated to supply this deficiency. As he
journeyed to Damascus, about noon, to bring the Christians who were
there bound to Jerusalem, there shone from heaven a great light round
about him. And he heard a voice, saying, “I am Jesus whom thou
persecutest. And I have appeared unto thee for this purpose, to make
thee a minister and a witness both of these things which thou hast seen,
and of those things in the which I will appear unto thee; and now I send
thee to the Gentiles to open their eyes,” Acts xxvi, 12–18. In reference
to this manner of his being called, St. Paul generally inscribes his
epistles with these words: “Paul, an Apostle of Jesus Christ, by the
will” or “by the commandment of God;” and he explains very fully what he
meant by the use of this expression, in the beginning of his Epistle to
the Galatians, where he gives an account of his conversion: “Paul, an
Apostle, not of men, neither by man, but by Jesus Christ, and God the
Father, who raised him from the dead. I neither received the Gospel of
man, neither was I taught it, but by the revelation of Jesus Christ.
When it pleased God, who separated me from my mother’s womb, and called
me by his grace, to reveal his Son in me, that I might preach him among
the Heathen: immediately I conferred not with flesh and blood, neither
went I up to Jerusalem to them which were Apostles before me; but I went
into Arabia,” Gal. i, 1, 12, 15–17. All that we said of the necessity of
inspiration, and of the import of the promise which Jesus made to the
other Apostles, receives very great confirmation from this history of
St. Paul, who, being called to be an Apostle after the ascension of
Jesus, received the Gospel by immediate revelation from heaven, and was
thus put upon a footing with the rest, both as to his designation, which
did not proceed from the choice of man, and as to his qualifications,
which were imparted, not by human instruction, but by the teaching of
the Author of Christianity. The Lord Jesus who appeared to him might
furnish St. Paul with the same advantages which the other Apostles had
derived from his presence on earth, and might give him the same
assurance of the inhabitation of the Spirit that the promises, which we
have been considering, had imparted to those.
3. Inspiration was claimed by the Apostles; and their claim may be
considered as the interpretation of the promise of their Master. We
shall not find the claim to inspiration formally advanced in the
Gospels. This omission has sometimes been stated by those superficial
critics, whose prejudices serve to account for their haste, as an
objection against the existence of inspiration. But if you attend to the
reason of the omission, you will perceive that it is only an instance of
that delicate propriety which pervades all the New Testament. The
Gospels are the record of the great facts which vouch the truth of
Christianity. These facts are to be received upon the testimony of men
who had been eye-witnesses of them. The foundation of Christian faith
being laid in an assent to these facts, it would have been preposterous
to have introduced in support of them that influence of the Spirit which
preserved the minds of the Apostles from error. For there can be no
proof of the inspiration of the Apostles, unless the truth of the facts
be previously admitted. The Apostles, therefore, bring forward the
evidence of Christianity in its natural order, when they speak in the
Gospels as the companions and eye-witnesses of Jesus, claiming that
credit which is due to honest men who had the best opportunities of
knowing what they declared. This is the language of St. John: “Many
other signs did Jesus in the presence of his disciples. But these are
written that ye may believe; and this is the disciple which testifieth
these things,” John xx, 30, 31; xxi, 24. The Evangelist Luke appears to
speak differently in the introduction to his Gospel, Luke i, 1–4; and
opposite opinions have been entertained respecting the information
conveyed by that introduction.
There is a difference of opinion, first, with regard to the time when
St. Luke wrote his Gospel. It appears to some to be expressly intimated
that he wrote after St. Matthew and St. Mark, because he speaks of other
Gospels then in circulation; and it is generally understood that St.
John wrote his after the other three. But the manner in which St. Luke
speaks of these other Gospels does not seem to apply to those of St.
Matthew and St. Mark. He calls them many, which implies that they were
more than two, and which would confound these two canonical Gospels with
imperfect accounts of our Lord’s life, which we know from ancient
writers were early circulated, but were rejected after the four Gospels
were published. It is hardly conceivable that St. Luke would have
alluded to the two Gospels of St. Matthew and St. Mark without
distinguishing them from other very inferior productions; and therefore
it is probable that when he used this mode of expression, no accounts of
our Lord’s life were then in existence but those inferior productions.
There appears, also, to very sound critics, to be internal evidence that
St. Luke wrote first. He is much more particular than the other
evangelists in his report of our Lord’s birth, and of the meetings with
his Apostles after his resurrection. They might think it unnecessary to
introduce the same particulars into their Gospels after St. Luke. But if
they wrote before him, the want of these particulars gives to their
Gospels an appearance of imperfection which we cannot easily explain.
The other point suggested by this introduction, upon which there has
been a difference of opinion, is, whether St. Luke, who was not an
Apostle, wrote his Gospel from personal knowledge, attained by his being
a companion of Jesus, or from the information of others. Our translation
certainly favours the last opinion; and it is the more general opinion,
defended by very able critics. Dr. Randolph, in the first volume of his
works, which contains a history of our Saviour’s life, supports the
first opinion, and suggests a punctuation of the verses, and an
interpretation of one word, according to which that opinion may be
defended. Read the second and third verses in connection: Καθὼς
ϖαρέδοσαν ἡμῖν ὁι απ’ ἀρχῆς αὐτόπται καὶ ὑπηρέται γενόμενοι τοῦ λογοῦ
Ἔδοξε κἀιμοὶ, ϖαρακολουθηκότι ἄνωθεν ϖᾶσιν ἀκριϐως καθεξῆς σοι γράψαι,
κράτιστε Θεόφιλε, “Even as they who were eye-witnesses and ministers of
the word from the beginning delivered them to us, it seemed good to me
also, having accurately traced,” &c. By ἡμῖν is understood the Christian
world, who had received information, both oral and written, from those
that had been αὐτόπται καὶ ὑπηρέται, “eye-witnesses and ministers.”
Κἀιμοὶ means St. Luke, who proposed to follow the example of those
αὐτόπται in writing what he knew; and he describes his own knowledge by
the word ϖαρακολουθηκότι, which is more precise than the circumlocution,
by which it is translated, “having had understanding of all things.”
Perfect understanding may be derived from various sources; but
ϖαρακολουθέω properly means, “I go along with as a companion, and derive
knowledge from my own observation.” And it is remarkable that the word
is used in this very sense by the Jewish historian, Josephus, who
published his history not many years after St. Luke wrote, and who, in
his introduction, represents himself as worthy of credit, because he had
not merely inquired of those who knew, but ϖαρηκολουθηκότα τοις
γεγόνοσιν, which he explains by this expression: Πολλῶν μὲν αὐτουργὸς
ϖραξέων, and to state in the third verse that he, ϖλεῖϛων δ’ αὐτόπτης
γενόμενος, _an actor in many things, and an eye-witness of most_. If
this interpretation is not approved of, then, according to the sense of
those verses which is most commonly adopted, St. Luke will be understood
to give in the second verse an account of that ground upon which the
knowledge of the Christian world with regard to these things rested, the
reports of the “eye-witnesses and ministers,” having collected and
collated these reports, and employed the most careful and minute
investigation, he had resolved to write an account of the life of Jesus.
Here he does not claim inspiration: he does not even say that he was an
eye-witness. But he says that, having, like others, heard the report of
eye-witnesses, he had accurately examined the truth of what they said,
and presented to the Christian world the fruit of his researches.
The foundation is still the same as in St. John’s Gospel, the report of
those in whose presence Jesus did and said what is recorded. To this
report is added, (1.) The investigation of St. Luke, a contemporary of
the Apostles, the companion of St. Paul in a great part of his
journeyings, and honoured by him with this title, “Luke, the beloved
physician,” Col. iv, 14. (2.) The approbation of St. Paul, who is said,
by the earliest Christian writers, to have revised this Gospel written
by his companion, so that it came abroad with apostolical authority.
(3.) The universal consent of the Christian church, which, although
jealous of the books that were then published, and rejecting many that
claimed the sanction of the Apostles, has uniformly, from the earliest
times, put the Gospel of St. Luke upon a footing with those of St.
Matthew and St. Mark: a clear demonstration that they who had access to
the best information knew that it had been revised by an Apostle.
As, then, the authors of the Gospels appear under the character of
eye-witnesses, attesting what they had seen, there would have been an
impropriety in their resting the evidence of the essential facts of
Christianity upon inspiration. But after the respect which their
character and their conduct procured to their testimony, and the visible
confirmation which it received from heaven, had established the faith of
a part of the world, a belief of their inspiration became necessary.
They might have been credible witnesses of facts, although they had not
been distinguished from other men. But they were not qualified to
execute the office of Apostles without being inspired. And therefore, as
soon as the circumstances of the church required the execution of that
office, the claim which had been conveyed to them by the promise of
their Master, and which is implied in the apostolical character, appears
in their writings. They instantly exercised the authority derived to
them from Jesus, by planting ministers in the cities where they had
preached the Gospel, by setting every thing pertaining to these
Christian societies in order, by controlling the exercise of those
miraculous gifts which they had imparted, and by correcting the abuses
which happened even in their time. But they demanded from all who had
received the faith of Christ submission to the doctrines and
commandments of his Apostles, as the inspired messengers of Heaven. “But
God hath revealed it,” not _them_, as our translators have supplied the
accusative, “revealed the wisdom of God, the dispensation of the Gospel
unto us by his Spirit; for the Spirit searcheth all things, yea, the
deep things of God. Now we have received not the spirit of the world,
but the Spirit which is of God; that we might know the things which are
freely given us of God; which things, also, we speak, not in the words
which man’s wisdom teacheth, but which the Holy Ghost teacheth,” 1 Cor.
ii, 10, 12, 13. “If any man think himself to be a prophet, or spiritual,
let him acknowledge that the things that I write unto you are the
commandments of the Lord,” 1 Cor. xiv, 37; that is, Let no eminence of
spiritual gifts be set up in opposition to the authority of the
Apostles, or as implying any dispensation from submitting to it. “For
this cause, also, thank we God without ceasing, because when ye received
the word of God which ye heard of us, ye received it not as the word of
men, but, as it is in truth, the word of God,” 1 Thess. ii, 13. St.
Peter, speaking of the epistles of St. Paul, says, “Even as our beloved
brother Paul, also, according to the wisdom given unto him, hath written
unto you,” 2 Peter iii, 15. And St. John makes the same claim of
inspiration for the other Apostles, as well as for himself: “We are of
God: he that knoweth God, heareth us: he that is not of God, heareth not
us,” 1 John iv, 6.
The claim to inspiration is clearly made by the Apostles in those
passages where they place their own writings upon the same footing with
the books of the Old Testament; for St. Paul, speaking of the ἱερα
γράμματα, “_Holy Scriptures_,” a common expression among the Jews, in
which Timothy had been instructed from his childhood, says, “All
Scripture is given by inspiration of God,” 2 Tim. iii, 16. St. Peter,
speaking of the ancient prophets, says, “The Spirit of Christ was in
them,” 1 Peter i, 11; and, “The prophecy came not in old time by the
will of man; but holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy
Ghost,” 2 Peter i, 21. And the quotations of our Lord and his Apostles
from the books of the Old Testament are often introduced with an
expression in which their inspiration is directly asserted: “Well spake
the Holy Ghost by Esaias;” “By the mouth of thy servant David thou hast
said,” &c, Acts i, 16; iv, 25; xxviii, 25. But with this uniform
testimony to that inspiration of the Jewish Scriptures, which was
universally believed among that people, we are to conjoin this
circumstance, that St. Paul and St. Peter in different places rank their
own writings with the books of the Old Testament. St. Paul commands that
his epistles should be read in the churches, where none but those books
which the Jews believed to be inspired were ever read, Col. iv, 16. He
says that Christians “are built upon the foundation of the Apostles and
prophets,” ἐπὶ τῲ θεμελίῳ τῶν ἀποϛόλων καὶ ϖροφητῶν, Eph. ii, 20: a
conjunction which would have been highly improper, if the former had not
been inspired as well as the latter; and St. Peter charges the
Christians to “be mindful of the words which were spoken before by the
holy prophets, and of the commandment of us the Apostles,” 2 Peter iii,
2. The nature of the book of Revelation led the Apostle John to assert
most directly his personal inspiration; for he says that “Jesus sent and
signified by his angel to his servant John the things that were to come
to pass;” and that the divine Person, like the Son of man, who appeared
to him when he was in the Spirit, commanded him to write in a book what
he saw. And in one of the visions there recorded, when the dispensation
of the Gospel was presented to St. John under the figure of a great
city, the New Jerusalem, descending out of heaven, there is one part of
the image which is a beautiful expression of that authority in settling
the form of the Christian church, and teaching articles of faith, which
the Apostles derived from their inspiration: “The wall of the city had
twelve foundations, and in them the names of the twelve Apostles of the
Lamb,” Rev. i, 1, 10–19; xxi, 14.
These are only a few of the many passages to the same purpose which
occur in reading the New Testament. But it is manifest, even from them,
that the manner in which the Apostles speak of their own writings is
calculated to mislead every candid reader, unless they really wrote
under the direction of the Spirit of God. So gross and daring an
imposture is absolutely inconsistent not only with their whole
character, but also with those gifts of the Holy Ghost of which there is
unquestionable evidence that they were possessed; and which, being the
natural vouchers of the assertion made by them concerning their own
writings, cannot be supposed, upon the principles of sound theism, to
have been imparted for a long course of years to persons who continued
during all that time asserting such a falsehood, and appealing to those
gifts for the truth of what they said.
4. The claim of the Apostles derives much confirmation from the
reception which it met with among the Christians of their days. It
appears from an expression of St. Peter, that at the time when he wrote
his second epistle, the epistles of St. Paul were classed with “the
other Scriptures,” the books of the Old Testament; that is, were
accounted inspired writings, 2 Peter iii, 16. It is well known to those
who are versed in the early history of the church, with what care the
first Christians discriminated between the apostolical writings and the
compositions of other authors however much distinguished by their piety,
and with what reverence they received those books which were known by
their inscription, by the place from which they proceeded, or the manner
in which they were circulated, to be the work of an Apostle. In
Lardner’s “Credibility of the Gospel History,” will be found the most
particular information upon this subject; and it will be perceived that
the whole history of the supposititious writings which appeared in early
times, conspires in attesting the veneration in which the authority of
the Apostles was held by the Christian church. We learn from Justin
Martyr, that, before the middle of the second century, “the memoirs of
the Apostles, and the compositions of the prophets,” were read together
in the Christian assemblies. We know, that from the earliest times, the
church has submitted to the writings of the Apostles as the infallible
standard of faith and practice; and we find the ground of this peculiar
respect expressed by the first Christian writers as well as by their
successors, who speak of the writings of the Apostles as “divine
writings from the inspiration of the Holy Ghost.”
To this general argument we may add that right views on the subject of
the inspiration of the sacred writers are also necessary, because even
some Christian writers have spoken obscurely and unsatisfactorily on the
subject, dividing inspiration into different kinds, and assigning each
to different portions of the holy volume. By inspiration we are to
understand, that the sacred writers composed their works under so
plenary and immediate an influence of the Holy Spirit, that God may be
said to speak by those writers to man, and not merely that they spoke to
men in the name of God, and by his authority; and there is a
considerable difference between the two propositions. Each supposes an
authentic revelation from God; but the former view secures the
Scriptures from all error both as to the _subjects_ spoken, and the
_manner_ of expressing them. This, too, is the doctrine taught in the
Scriptures themselves, which declare not only that the prophets and
Apostles spake in the name of God, but that God spake by them as his
instruments. “The Holy Ghost by the mouth of David _spake_.” “Well
_spake_ the Holy Ghost by Esaias the prophet.” “The prophecy came not of
old time, by the will of man; but holy men of God _spake_ as they were
moved by the Holy Ghost.” For this reason, not only that the _matter_
contained in the book of “the Law, the Prophets, and the Psalms,” (the
usual phrase by which the Jews designated the whole Old Testament,) was
true; but that the books were _written_ under divine inspiration, they
are called collectively by our Lord and by his Apostles, “_The
Scriptures_,” in contradistinction to all other writings;--a term which
the Apostle Peter, as stated above, applies also to the writings of St.
Paul, and which therefore verifies them as standing on the same level
with the books of the Old Testament as to their inspiration: “Even as
our beloved brother Paul also, according to the wisdom given unto him,
hath written unto you; as also in all his epistles, speaking of these
things, in which are some things hard to be understood, which they that
are unlearned and unstable wrest, as they do also the other Scriptures,
unto their own destruction.” The Apostles also, as we have seen,
expressly claim an inspiration, not only as to the subjects on which
they wrote, but as to the words in which they expressed themselves.
Farther, our Lord promised to them the Holy Spirit “to guide them into
all truth;” and that he was not to fulfil his office by suggesting
thoughts only, but words, is clear from Christ’s discourse with them on
the subject of the persecutions they were to endure for “his name’s
sake:” “And when they bring you into the synagogues, and unto
magistrates and powers, take ye no thought how or what thing ye shall
answer, or what ye shall say; for the Holy Ghost shall teach you in the
same hour what ye ought to say; for it is not ye that speak; but the
Spirit of your Father which speaketh in you.” This inspiration of words
is also asserted by St. Paul as to himself and his brethren, when he
says to the Corinthians, “Which things also we speak, not in the words
which man’s wisdom teacheth; but which the Holy Ghost teacheth.” Thus we
find that the claim which the sacred writers make on this subject is,
that they were in truth what they have been aptly called, “the penmen of
the Holy Ghost;” and that the words in which they clothed “the wisdom
given unto them” were words “taught” by the Holy Spirit.
But it may be asked, How are we to account for that difference of style
which is observable in each? that manner, too, so natural to each, and
so distinct in all? with those reasonings, recollections of memory, and
other indications of the working of the mind of each writer in its own
character and temperament? Some persons, indeed, observing this, have
concluded their style and manner to be entirely human, while their
thoughts were either wholly divine, or so superintended by the Holy
Ghost as to have been adopted by him, and therefore, although sometimes
natural, to be of equal authority as if they had been exclusively of
divine suggestion. This, indeed, would be sufficient to oblige our
implicit credence to their writings, as being from God; but it falls
below the force of the passages above cited, and which attribute to a
divine agency their words also. The matter may be rightly conceived by
considering, that an inspiration of words took place either by
suggesting those most fit to express the thoughts, or by overruling the
selection of such words from the common as if they had been exclusively
of divine suggestion. This, indeed, would be sufficient to oblige our
implicit credence to their writings, as being from God; but it falls
below the force of the passages above cited, and which attribute to a
divine agency the store acquired by, and laid up in, the mind of each
writer, which is quite compatible with the fact, that a peculiarity and
appropriateness of manner might still be left to them separately. To
suppose that an inspiration of terms, as well as thoughts, could not
take place without producing one uniform style and manner, is to suppose
that the minds of the writers would thus become entirely passive under
the influence of the Holy Spirit; whereas it is easily conceivable that
the verbiage, style, and manner of each, was not so much displaced, as
elevated, enriched, and controlled by the Holy Spirit; and that there
was a previous fitness, in all these respects, in all the sacred penmen,
for which they were chosen to be the instruments under the aid and
direction of the Holy Ghost, of writing such portions of the general
revelation as the wisdom of God assigned to each of them. On the other
hand, while it is so conceivable that the words and manner of each might
be appropriated to his own design by the inspiration of the Holy Ghost,
it by no means follows that both were not greatly altered, as well as
controlled, although they still retained a general similarity to the
uninfluenced style and manner of each, and still presented a
characteristic variety. As none of their writings on ordinary occasions,
and when uninspired, have come down to us, we cannot judge of the degree
of this difference; and therefore no one can with any just reason affirm
that their writings are “the word of God as to the doctrine, but the
word of man as to the channel of conveyance.” Certain it is, that a vast
difference may be remarked between the writings of the Apostles, and
those of the most eminent fathers of the times nearest to them; and that
not only as to precision and strength of thought, but also as to
language. This circumstance is at least strongly presumptive, that
although the style of inspired men was not stripped of the
characteristic peculiarity of the writers, it was greatly exalted and
influenced.
But the same _force_ of inspiration, so to speak, was not probably
exerted upon each of the sacred writers, or upon the same writer
throughout his writings, whatever might be its subject. There is no
necessity that we should so state the case, in order to maintain what is
essential to our faith,--the plenary inspiration of each of the sacred
writers. In miracles there was no needless application of divine power.
Traditional history and written chronicles, facts of known occurrence,
and opinions which were received by all, are often inserted or referred
to by the sacred writers. There needed no miraculous operation upon the
memory to recall what the memory was furnished with, or to reveal a fact
which the writers previously and perfectly knew: but their plenary
inspiration consisted in this, that they were kept from all lapses of
memory, or inadequate conceptions, even on these subjects; and on all
others the degree of communication and influence, both as to doctrine,
facts, and the terms in which they were to be recorded for the
edification of the church, was proportioned to the necessity of the
case, but so that the whole was authenticated or dictated by the Holy
Spirit with so full an influence, that it became truth without mixture
of error, expressed in such terms as he himself ruled or suggested.
This, then, seems the true notion of plenary inspiration, that for the
revelation, insertion, and adequate enunciation of truth, it was full
and complete.
The principal objections to this view of the inspiration of words are
well answered by Dr. Woods, an American divine, in a recent publication,
from which, as the subject has been lately debated in this country, the
following extracts will be acceptable, although there is in them a
repetition of some of the preceding observations:--
“One argument which has been urged against the supposition that divine
inspiration had a respect to language, is, that the language employed by
the inspired writers exhibits no marks of a divine interference, but is
perfectly conformed to the genius and taste of the writers. The fact
here alleged is admitted. But how does it support the opinion of those
who allege it? Is it not evident, that God may exercise a perfect
superintendency over inspired writers as to the language they shall use,
and yet that each one of them shall write in his own style, and in all
respects according to his own taste? May not God give such aid to his
servants, that, while using their own style, they will certainly be
secured against all mistakes, and exhibit the truth with perfect
propriety? It is unquestionable, that Isaiah, and St. Paul, and St. John
might be under the entire direction of the Holy Spirit, even as to
language, and, at the same time, that each one of them might write in
his own manner; and that the peculiar manner of each might be adopted to
answer an important end; and that the variety of style, thus introduced
into the sacred volume, might be suited to excite a livelier interest in
the minds of men, and to secure to them a far greater amount of good,
than could ever have been derived from any one mode of writing. The
great variety existing among men as to their natural talents, and their
peculiar manner of thinking and writing may, in this way, be turned to
account in the work of revelation, as well as in the concerns of common
life. Now, is it not clearly a matter of fact, that God has made use of
this variety, and given the Holy Spirit to men, differing widely from
each other in regard to natural endowments, and knowledge, and style,
and employed them, with all their various gifts, as agents in writing
the Holy Scriptures? And what colour of reason can we have to suppose,
that the language which they used was less under the divine direction on
account of this variety, than if it had been perfectly uniform
throughout?
“To prove that divine inspiration had no respect to the language of the
sacred writers, it is farther alleged, that even the same doctrine is
taught and the same event described in a different manner by different
writers. This fact I also admit. But how does it prove that inspiration
had no respect to language? Is not the variety alleged a manifest
advantage, as to the impression which is likely to be made upon the
minds of men? Is not testimony, which is substantially the same, always
considered as entitled to higher credit, when it is given by different
witnesses in different language, and in a different order? And is it not
perfectly reasonable to suppose, that, in making a revelation, God would
have respect to the common principles of human nature and human society,
and would exert his influence and control over inspired men in such a
manner, that, by exhibiting the same doctrines and facts in different
ways, they should make a more salutary impression, and should more
effectually compass the great ends of a revelation? All I have to
advance on this part of the subject may be summed up in these two
positions: 1. The variety of manner apparent among different inspired
writers, even when treating of the same subjects, is far better suited
to promote the object of divine revelation, than a perfect uniformity.
2. It is agreeable to our worthiest conceptions of God and his
administration, that he should make use of the best means for the
accomplishment of his designs; and, of course, that he should impart the
gift of inspiration to men of different tastes and habits as to
language, and should lead them, while writing the Scriptures, to exhibit
all the variety of manner naturally arising from the diversified
character of their minds.
“But there is another argument, perhaps the most plausible of all,
against supposing that inspiration had any respect to language; which
is, that the supposition of a divine influence in this respect is wholly
unnecessary; that the sacred writers, having the requisite information
in regard to the subjects on which they were to write, might, so far as
language is concerned, be left entirely to their own judgment and
fidelity. But this view of the subject is not satisfactory. For whatever
may be said as to the judgment and fidelity of those who wrote the
Scriptures, there is one important circumstance which cannot be
accounted for, without supposing them to have enjoyed a guidance above
that of their own minds; namely, that they were infallibly preserved
from every mistake or impropriety in the manner of writing. If we should
admit that the divine superintendence and guidance afforded to the
inspired writers had no relation at all to the manner in which they
exhibited either doctrines or facts; how easily might we be disturbed
with doubts, in regard to the propriety of some of their
representations? We should most certainly consider them as liable to all
the inadvertencies and mistakes, to which uninspired men are commonly
liable; and we should think ourselves perfectly justified in undertaking
to charge them with real errors and faults as to style, and to show how
their language might have been improved; and, in short, to treat their
writings just as we treat the writings of Shakspeare and Addison.
‘Here,’ we might say, ‘Paul was unfortunate in the choice of words; and
here his language does not express the ideas which he must have intended
to convey.’ ‘Here the style of St. John was inadvertent; and here it was
faulty: and here it would have been more agreeable to the nature of the
subject, and would have more accurately expressed the truth, had it been
altered thus.’ If the language of the sacred writers did not in any way
come under the inspection of the Holy Spirit, and if they were left,
just as other writers are, to their own unaided faculties in regard to
every thing which pertained to the manner of writing; then, evidently,
we might use the same freedom in animadverting upon their style, as upon
the style of other writers. But who could treat the volume of
inspiration in this manner, without impiety and profaneness? And rather
than make any approach to this, who would not choose to go to an excess,
if there could be an excess, in reverence for the word of God?
“On this subject, far be it from me to indulge a curiosity which would
pry into things not intended for human intelligence. And far be it from
me to expend zeal in supporting opinions not warranted by the word of
God. But this one point I think it specially important to maintain;
namely, that the sacred writers had such direction of the Holy Spirit,
that they were secured against all liability to error, and enabled to
write just what God pleased; so that what they wrote is, in truth, the
word of God, and can never be subject to any charge of mistake either as
to matter or form. Whether this perfect correctness and propriety as to
language resulted from the divine guidance directly or indirectly, is a
question of no particular consequence. If the Spirit of God directs the
minds of inspired men, and gives them just conceptions relative to the
subjects on which they are to write; and if he constitutes and maintains
a connection, true and invariable, between their conceptions and the
language they employ to express them, the language must, in this way, be
as infallible, and as worthy of God, as though it were dictated directly
by the Holy Spirit. But to assert that the sacred writers used such
language as they chose, or such as was natural to them, without any
special divine superintendence, and that, in respect to style, they are
to be regarded in the same light, and equally liable to mistakes, as
other writers, is plainly contrary to the representations which they
themselves make, and is suited to diminish our confidence in the word of
God. For how could we have entire confidence in the representations of
Scripture, if, after God had instructed the minds of the sacred writers
in the truth to be communicated, he gave them up to all the
inadvertencies and errors to which human nature in general is exposed,
and took no effectual care that their manner of writing should be
according to his will?
“Let us then briefly examine the subject, as it is presented in the Holy
Scriptures, and see whether we find sufficient reason to affirm that
inspiration had no relation whatever to language. 1. The Apostles were
the subjects of such a divine inspiration as enabled them to speak ‘with
other tongues:’ here inspiration related directly to language. 2. It is
the opinion of most writers, that, in some instances, inspired men had
not in their own minds a clear understanding of the things which they
spake or wrote. One instance of this, commonly referred to, is the case
of Daniel, who heard and repeated what the angel said, though he did not
understand it, Dan. xii, 7–9. This has also been thought to be in some
measure the case with the prophets referred to, 1 Peter i, 10–12. And is
there not reason to think this may have been the case with many of the
prophetic representations contained in the Psalms, and many of the
symbolical rites of the Mosaic institute? Various matters are found in
the Old Testament, which were not intended so much for the benefit of
the writers, or their contemporaries, as for the benefit of future ages.
And this might have been a sufficient reason why they should be left
without a clear understanding of the things which they wrote. In such
cases, if the opinion above stated is correct, inspired men were led to
make use of expressions, the meaning of which they did not fully
understand. And, according to this view, it would seem that the teaching
of the Spirit which they enjoyed, must have related rather to the words
than to the sense. 3. Those who deny that the divine influence afforded
to the sacred writers had any respect to language, can find no support
in the texts which most directly relate to the subject of inspiration.
And it is surely in such texts, if any where, that we should suppose
they would find support. The passage, 2 Peter i, 21, is a remarkable
one. It asserts that ‘holy men of God spake as they were moved by the
Holy Ghost.’ There is surely nothing here which limits the divine
influence to the conceptions of their minds. They were moved by the Holy
Ghost to _speak_ or _write_. ‘All Scripture is divinely inspired,’ 2
Tim. iii, 16. Does this text afford any proof that the divine influence
granted to the inspired penmen was confined to their inward conceptions,
and had no respect whatever to the manner in which they expressed their
conceptions? What is _Scripture_? Is it divine truth _conceived in the
mind_, or divine truth _written_? In Heb. i, 1, it is said that ‘God
spake to the fathers by the prophets.’ Does this afford any proof that
the divine guidance which the prophets enjoyed related exclusively to
the conceptions of their own minds, and had no respect to the manner in
which they communicated those conceptions? Must we not rather think the
meaning to be, that God influenced the prophets to utter or make known
important truths? And how could they do this, except by the use of
proper words?
“I have argued in favour of the inspiration of the Apostles, from their
commission. They were sent by Christ to teach the truths of religion in
his stead. It was an arduous work; and in the execution of it they
needed and enjoyed much divine assistance. But forming right conceptions
of Christianity in their own minds, was not the great work assigned to
the Apostles. If the divine assistance reached only to this, it reached
only to that which concerned them as private men, and which they might
have possessed though they had never been commissioned to teach others.
As Apostles, they were to preach the Gospel to all who could be brought
to hear it, and to make a record of divine truth for the benefit of
future ages. Now is it at all reasonable to suppose, that the divine
assistance afforded them had no respect to their main business, and
that, in the momentous and difficult work of communicating the truths of
religion, either orally or by writing, they were left to themselves, and
so exposed to all the errors and inadvertencies of uninspired men? But
our reasoning does not stop here. For that divine assistance which we
might reasonably suppose would have been granted to the Apostles in the
work of teaching divine truth, is the very thing which Christ promised
them in the texts before cited. I shall refer only to Matt. x, 19, 20,
‘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.’ This promise, as Knapp understands it, implies, that divine
assistance should extend not only to _what_ they should say, but to the
_manner_ in which they should say it. It is not, however, to be
understood as implying, that the Apostles were not rational and
voluntary agents in the discharge of their office. But it implies that,
in consequence of the influence of the Spirit to be exercised over them,
they should say what God would have them to say, without any liability
to mistake, either as to matter or manner. From the above-cited promise,
taken in connection with the instances of its accomplishment which are
recorded in the Acts of the Apostles, it becomes evident that God may
exert his highest influence upon his servants, so as completely to guide
them in thought and in utterance, in regard to subjects which lie
chiefly within the province of their natural faculties. For in those
speeches of the Apostles which are left on record, we find that most of
the things which they declared, were things which, for aught that
appears, they might have known, and might have expressed to others, in
the natural exercise of their own faculties. This principle being
admitted, and kept steadily in view, will relieve us of many
difficulties in regard to the doctrine of inspiration. The passage, 1
Cor. ii, 12, 13, already cited as proof of the inspiration of the
Apostles, is very far from favouring the opinion that inspiration had no
respect whatever to their language, or that it related exclusively to
their thoughts. ‘Which things we speak, not in the words which man’s
wisdom teacheth, but which the Holy Ghost teacheth.’ The Apostle avoided
the style and the manner of teaching which prevailed among the wise men
of Greece, and made use of a style which corresponded with the nature of
his subject, and the end he had in view. And this, he tells us, he did,
under the guidance of the Holy Spirit. His language, or manner of
teaching, was the thing to which the divine influence imparted to him
particularly referred. Storr and Flatt give the following interpretation
of this text: Paul, they say, asserts that the doctrines of Christianity
were revealed to him by the almighty agency of God himself; and,
finally, that the inspiration of the divine Spirit extended even to his
words, and to all his exhibitions of revealed truths. They add, that St.
Paul clearly distinguishes between the doctrine itself, and the manner
in which it is communicated.”
notices or thoughts into the soul; or it denotes any supernatural
influence of God upon the mind of a rational creature, whereby he is
formed to a degree of intellectual improvement, to which he could not
have attained in his present circumstances in a natural way. In the
first and highest sense, the prophets, evangelists, and Apostles are
said to have spoken and written by divine inspiration. This inspiration
of the Old Testament Scriptures is so expressly attested by our Lord and
his Apostles, that among those who receive them as a divine revelation
the only question relates to the inspiration of the New Testament. On
this subject it has been well observed:--
1. That the inspiration of the Apostles appears to have been necessary
for the purposes of their mission; and, therefore, if we admit that
Jesus came from God, and that he sent them forth to make disciples, we
shall acknowledge that some degree of inspiration is highly probable.
The first light in which the books of the New Testament lead us to
consider the Apostles, is, as the historians of Jesus. After having been
his companions during his ministry, they came forth to bear witness of
him; and as the benefit of his religion was not to be confined to the
age in which he or they lived, they left in the four Gospels a record of
what he did and taught. Two of the four were written by the Apostles
Matthew and John. St. Mark and St. Luke, whose names are prefixed to the
other two, were probably of the seventy whom our Lord sent out in his
life time; and we learn from the most ancient Christian historians, that
the Gospel of St. Mark was revised by St. Peter, and the Gospel of St.
Luke by St. Paul, and that both were afterward approved by St. John; so
that all the four may be considered as transmitted to the church with
the sanction of apostolical authority. Now, if we recollect the
condition of the Apostles, and the nature of their history, we shall
perceive that, even as historians, they stood in need of some measure of
inspiration. Plato might feel himself at liberty to feign many things of
his master Socrates, because it mattered little to the world whether the
instruction that was conveyed to them proceeded from the one philosopher
or from the other. But the servants of a divine teacher, who appeared as
his witnesses, and professed to be the historians of his life, were
bound by their office to give a true record. And their history was an
imposition upon the world, if they did not declare exactly and literally
what they had seen and heard. This was an office which required not only
a love of the truth, but a memory more retentive and more accurate than
it was possible for the Apostles to possess. To relate, at the distance
of twenty years, long moral discourses, which were not originally
written, and which were not attended with any striking circumstances
that might imprint them upon the mind; to preserve a variety of
parables, the beauty and significancy of which depended upon particular
expressions; to record long and minute prophecies, where the alteration
of a single phrase might have produced an inconsistency between the
event and the prediction; and to give a particular detail of the
intercourse which Jesus had with his friends and with his enemies;--all
this is a work so very much above the capacity of unlearned men, that,
had they attempted to execute it by their own natural powers, they must
have fallen into such absurdities and contradictions as would have
betrayed them to every discerning eye. It was therefore highly
expedient, and even necessary, for the faith of future ages, that,
beside those opportunities of information which the Apostles enjoyed,
and that tried integrity which they possessed, their understanding and
their memory should be assisted by a supernatural influence, which might
prevent them from mistaking the meaning of what they had heard, which
might restrain them from putting into the mouth of Jesus any words which
he did not utter, or omitting what was important, and which might thus
give us perfect security, that the Gospels are as faithful a copy as if
Jesus himself had left in writing those sayings and those actions which
he wished posterity to remember.
But we consider the Apostles in the lowest view, when we speak of them
as barely the historians of their Master. In their epistles they assume
a higher character, which renders inspiration still more necessary. All
the benefit which they derived from the public and the private
instructions of Jesus before his death had not so far opened their minds
as to qualify them for receiving the whole counsel of God. And he who
knows what is in man declares to them, the night on which he was
betrayed, “I have yet many things to say unto you, but you cannot bear
them now,” John xv, 12. The purpose of many of his parables, the full
meaning even of some of his plain discourses, had not been attained by
them. They had marvelled when he spake to them of earthly things. But
many heavenly things of his kingdom had not been told them; and they who
were destined to carry his religion to the ends of the earth themselves
needed, at the times of their receiving this commission, that some one
should instruct them in the doctrine of Christ. It is true that, after
his resurrection, Jesus opened their understandings, and explained to
them the Scriptures; and he continued upon earth forty days, speaking to
them of the things pertaining to the kingdom of God. It appears,
however, from the history which they have recorded in the book of Acts,
that some farther teaching was necessary for them, Acts i. Immediately
before our Lord ascended, their minds being still full of the
expectation of a temporal kingdom, they say unto him, “Lord, wilt thou
at this time restore the kingdom to Israel?” It was not till some time
after they received the gift of the Holy Ghost, that they understood
that the Gospel had taken away the obligation to observe the ceremonies
of the Mosaic law; and the action of St. Peter in baptizing Cornelius, a
devout Heathen, gave offence to some of the Apostles and brethren in
Judea when they first heard it, Acts xi. Yet, in their epistles, we find
just notions of the spiritual nature of the religion of Jesus as a
kingdom of righteousness, the subjects of which are to receive remission
of sins, and sanctification through his blood, and just notions also of
the extent of this religion as a dispensation the spiritual blessings of
which are to be communicated to all, in every land, who receive it in
faith and love. These notions appear to us to be the explication both of
the ancient predictions, and of many particular expressions that occur
in the discourses of our Lord. But it is manifest that they had not been
acquired by the Apostles during the teaching of Jesus. They are so
adverse to every thing which men educated in Jewish prejudices had
learned and had hoped, that they could not be the fruit of their own
reflections; and therefore they imply the teaching of that Spirit who
gradually impressed them upon the mind, guiding the Apostles gently, as
they were able to follow him, into all the truth connected with the
salvation of mankind. As inspiration was necessary to give the minds of
the Apostles possession of the system that is unfolded in their
epistles, so many parts of that system are removed to such a distance
from human discoveries, and are liable to such misapprehension, that
unless we suppose a continued superintendence of the Spirit by whom it
was taught, succeeding ages would not have a sufficient security that
those who were employed to deliver it had not been guilty of gross
mistakes in some most important doctrines.
Inspiration will appear still farther necessary, when we recollect that
the writings of the Apostles contain several predictions of things to
come. St. Paul foretels, in his epistles, the corruptions of the church
of Rome, and many other circumstances which have taken place in the
history of the Christian church; and the Revelation is a book of
prophecy, of which part has been already fulfilled, while the rest will
no doubt be explained by the events which are to arise in the course of
Providence. But prophecy is a kind of writing which implies the highest
degree of inspiration. When predictions, like those in Scripture, are
particular and complicated, and the events are so remote and so
contingent as to be out of the reach of human sagacity, it is plain that
the writers of the predictions do not speak according to the measure of
information which they had acquired by natural means, but are merely the
instruments through which the Almighty communicates, in such measure and
such language as he thinks fit, that knowledge of futurity which is
denied to man. And although the full meaning of their own predictions
was not understood by themselves, they will be acknowledged to be true
prophets when the fulfilment comes to reflect light upon that language,
which, for wise purposes, was made dark at the time of its being put
into their mouth.
Thus the nature of the writings of the Apostles suggests the necessity
of their having been inspired. They could not be accurate historians of
the life of Jesus without divine inspiration, nor safe expounders of his
doctrine, nor prophets of distant events.
2. Inspiration was promised by our Lord to his Apostles. It is not
unfair reasoning to adduce promises contained in the Scriptures
themselves, as proofs of their divine inspiration. It were, indeed,
reasoning in a circle, to bring the testimony of the Scriptures in proof
of the divine mission of Jesus. But that being established by sufficient
evidence, and the books of the New Testament having been proved to be
the authentic genuine records of the persons whose names they bear, we
are warranted to argue, from the declarations contained in them, what is
the measure of inspiration which Jesus was pleased to bestow upon his
servants. He might have been a divine teacher, and they might have been
his Apostles, although he had bestowed none at all. But his character
gives us security that they possessed all that he promised. We read in
the Gospels that Jesus ordained twelve that they should be with him, and
that he might send them forth to preach, Mark iii, 14. And as this was
the purpose for which they were first called, so it was the charge left
them at his departure. “Go,” said he, “preach the Gospel to every
creature: make disciples of all nations,” Mark xvi, 16; Matt. xxviii,
19. His constant familiar intercourse with them was intended to qualify
them for the execution of this charge; and the promises made to them
have a special reference to the office in which they were to be
employed. When he sent them, during his life, to preach in the cities of
Israel, he said, “But when they deliver you up, take no thought how or
what ye shall speak; for it shall be given you in that same hour what ye
shall speak. For it is not ye that speak, but the Spirit of your Father
which speaketh in you,” Matt. x, 19, 20. And when he spake to them in
his prophecy of the destruction of Jerusalem, of the persecution which
they were to endure after his death, he repeats the same promise: “For I
will give you a mouth and wisdom, which all your adversaries shall not
be able to gainsay nor resist,” Luke xxi, 15. It is admitted that the
words in both these passages refer properly to that assistance which the
inexperience of the Apostles was to derive from the suggestions of the
Spirit, when they should be called to defend their conduct and their
cause before the tribunals of the magistrates. But the fulfilment of
this promise was a pledge, both to the Apostles and to the world, that
the measure of inspiration necessary for the more important purpose
implied in their commission would not be withheld; and, accordingly,
when that purpose came to be unfolded to the Apostles, the promise of
the assistance of the Spirit was expressed in a manner which applies it
to the extent of their commission. In the long affectionate discourse
recorded by St. John, when our Lord took a solemn farewell of the
disciples, after eating the last passover with them, he said, “And I
will pray the Father, and he shall give you another Comforter, that he
may abide with you for ever; even the Spirit of truth, whom the world
cannot receive, because it seeth him not, neither knoweth him. But ye
know him; for he dwelleth with you, and shall be in you. The Comforter,
which is the Holy Ghost, whom the Father will send in my name, he shall
teach you all things, and bring all things to your remembrance,
whatsoever I have said unto you. I have yet many things to say unto you,
but you cannot bear them now. Howbeit, when he, the Spirit of truth, is
come, he will guide you into all truth; for he shall not speak of
himself, but whatsoever he shall hear that shall he speak; and he will
show you things to come,” John xiv, 16, 17, 26; xvi, 12, 13. Here are
all the degrees of inspiration which we have seen to be necessary for
the Apostles: the Spirit was to bring to their remembrance what they had
heard; to guide them into the truth, which they were not then able to
bear; and to show them things to come; and all this they were to derive,
not from occasional illapses, but from the perpetual inhabitation of the
Spirit. That this inspiration was vouchsafed to them, not for their own
sakes, but in order to qualify them for the successful discharge of
their office as the messengers of Christ, and the instructers of
mankind, appears from several expressions of that prayer which
immediately follows the discourse containing the promise of inspiration;
particularly from these words: “Neither pray I for these alone, but for
them also which shall believe on me through their word; that they all
may be one, as thou, Father, art in me, and I in thee; that they may be
one in us; that the world may believe that thou hast sent me,” John
xvii, 20, 21. In conformity to this prayer, so becoming him who was not
merely the friend of the Apostles, but the light of the world, is that
charge which he gives them immediately before his ascension: “Go ye,
therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the
Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost; teaching them to observe
all things whatsoever I have commanded you: and, lo, I am with you
alway, even unto the end of the world,” Matt. xxviii, 19, 20; I am with
you alway, not by my bodily presence; for immediately after he was taken
out of their sight; but I am with you by the Holy Ghost, whom I am to
send upon you not many days hence, and who is to abide with you for
ever.
The promise of Jesus, then, implies, according to the plain construction
of the words, that the Apostles, in executing their commission, were not
to be left wholly to their natural powers, but were to be assisted by
that illumination and direction of the Spirit which the nature of the
commission required; and we may learn the sense which our Lord had of
the importance and effect of this promise from one circumstance, that he
never makes any distinction between his own words and those of his
Apostles, but places the doctrines and commandments which they were to
deliver upon a footing with those which he had spoken: “He that heareth
you, heareth me; and he that despiseth you, despiseth me; and he that
despiseth me, despiseth him that sent me,” Luke x, 16. These words
plainly imply that Christians have no warrant to pay less regard to any
thing contained in the epistles than to that which is contained in the
Gospels; and teach us that every doctrine and precept clearly delivered
by the Apostles comes to the Christian world with the same stamp of the
divine authority as the words of Jesus, who spake in the name of him
that sent him.
The Author of our religion having thus made the faith of the Christian
world to hang upon the teaching of the Apostles, gave the most signal
manifestation of the fulfilment of that promise which was to qualify
them for their office, by the miraculous gifts with which they were
endowed on the day of pentecost, and by the abundance of those gifts
which the imposition of their hands was to diffuse through the church.
One of the twelve, indeed, whose labours in preaching the Gospel were
the most abundant and the most extensive, was not present at this
manifestation; for St. Paul was not called to be an Apostle till after
the day of pentecost. But it is very remarkable that the manner of his
being called was expressly calculated to supply this deficiency. As he
journeyed to Damascus, about noon, to bring the Christians who were
there bound to Jerusalem, there shone from heaven a great light round
about him. And he heard a voice, saying, “I am Jesus whom thou
persecutest. And I have appeared unto thee for this purpose, to make
thee a minister and a witness both of these things which thou hast seen,
and of those things in the which I will appear unto thee; and now I send
thee to the Gentiles to open their eyes,” Acts xxvi, 12–18. In reference
to this manner of his being called, St. Paul generally inscribes his
epistles with these words: “Paul, an Apostle of Jesus Christ, by the
will” or “by the commandment of God;” and he explains very fully what he
meant by the use of this expression, in the beginning of his Epistle to
the Galatians, where he gives an account of his conversion: “Paul, an
Apostle, not of men, neither by man, but by Jesus Christ, and God the
Father, who raised him from the dead. I neither received the Gospel of
man, neither was I taught it, but by the revelation of Jesus Christ.
When it pleased God, who separated me from my mother’s womb, and called
me by his grace, to reveal his Son in me, that I might preach him among
the Heathen: immediately I conferred not with flesh and blood, neither
went I up to Jerusalem to them which were Apostles before me; but I went
into Arabia,” Gal. i, 1, 12, 15–17. All that we said of the necessity of
inspiration, and of the import of the promise which Jesus made to the
other Apostles, receives very great confirmation from this history of
St. Paul, who, being called to be an Apostle after the ascension of
Jesus, received the Gospel by immediate revelation from heaven, and was
thus put upon a footing with the rest, both as to his designation, which
did not proceed from the choice of man, and as to his qualifications,
which were imparted, not by human instruction, but by the teaching of
the Author of Christianity. The Lord Jesus who appeared to him might
furnish St. Paul with the same advantages which the other Apostles had
derived from his presence on earth, and might give him the same
assurance of the inhabitation of the Spirit that the promises, which we
have been considering, had imparted to those.
3. Inspiration was claimed by the Apostles; and their claim may be
considered as the interpretation of the promise of their Master. We
shall not find the claim to inspiration formally advanced in the
Gospels. This omission has sometimes been stated by those superficial
critics, whose prejudices serve to account for their haste, as an
objection against the existence of inspiration. But if you attend to the
reason of the omission, you will perceive that it is only an instance of
that delicate propriety which pervades all the New Testament. The
Gospels are the record of the great facts which vouch the truth of
Christianity. These facts are to be received upon the testimony of men
who had been eye-witnesses of them. The foundation of Christian faith
being laid in an assent to these facts, it would have been preposterous
to have introduced in support of them that influence of the Spirit which
preserved the minds of the Apostles from error. For there can be no
proof of the inspiration of the Apostles, unless the truth of the facts
be previously admitted. The Apostles, therefore, bring forward the
evidence of Christianity in its natural order, when they speak in the
Gospels as the companions and eye-witnesses of Jesus, claiming that
credit which is due to honest men who had the best opportunities of
knowing what they declared. This is the language of St. John: “Many
other signs did Jesus in the presence of his disciples. But these are
written that ye may believe; and this is the disciple which testifieth
these things,” John xx, 30, 31; xxi, 24. The Evangelist Luke appears to
speak differently in the introduction to his Gospel, Luke i, 1–4; and
opposite opinions have been entertained respecting the information
conveyed by that introduction.
There is a difference of opinion, first, with regard to the time when
St. Luke wrote his Gospel. It appears to some to be expressly intimated
that he wrote after St. Matthew and St. Mark, because he speaks of other
Gospels then in circulation; and it is generally understood that St.
John wrote his after the other three. But the manner in which St. Luke
speaks of these other Gospels does not seem to apply to those of St.
Matthew and St. Mark. He calls them many, which implies that they were
more than two, and which would confound these two canonical Gospels with
imperfect accounts of our Lord’s life, which we know from ancient
writers were early circulated, but were rejected after the four Gospels
were published. It is hardly conceivable that St. Luke would have
alluded to the two Gospels of St. Matthew and St. Mark without
distinguishing them from other very inferior productions; and therefore
it is probable that when he used this mode of expression, no accounts of
our Lord’s life were then in existence but those inferior productions.
There appears, also, to very sound critics, to be internal evidence that
St. Luke wrote first. He is much more particular than the other
evangelists in his report of our Lord’s birth, and of the meetings with
his Apostles after his resurrection. They might think it unnecessary to
introduce the same particulars into their Gospels after St. Luke. But if
they wrote before him, the want of these particulars gives to their
Gospels an appearance of imperfection which we cannot easily explain.
The other point suggested by this introduction, upon which there has
been a difference of opinion, is, whether St. Luke, who was not an
Apostle, wrote his Gospel from personal knowledge, attained by his being
a companion of Jesus, or from the information of others. Our translation
certainly favours the last opinion; and it is the more general opinion,
defended by very able critics. Dr. Randolph, in the first volume of his
works, which contains a history of our Saviour’s life, supports the
first opinion, and suggests a punctuation of the verses, and an
interpretation of one word, according to which that opinion may be
defended. Read the second and third verses in connection: Καθὼς
ϖαρέδοσαν ἡμῖν ὁι απ’ ἀρχῆς αὐτόπται καὶ ὑπηρέται γενόμενοι τοῦ λογοῦ
Ἔδοξε κἀιμοὶ, ϖαρακολουθηκότι ἄνωθεν ϖᾶσιν ἀκριϐως καθεξῆς σοι γράψαι,
κράτιστε Θεόφιλε, “Even as they who were eye-witnesses and ministers of
the word from the beginning delivered them to us, it seemed good to me
also, having accurately traced,” &c. By ἡμῖν is understood the Christian
world, who had received information, both oral and written, from those
that had been αὐτόπται καὶ ὑπηρέται, “eye-witnesses and ministers.”
Κἀιμοὶ means St. Luke, who proposed to follow the example of those
αὐτόπται in writing what he knew; and he describes his own knowledge by
the word ϖαρακολουθηκότι, which is more precise than the circumlocution,
by which it is translated, “having had understanding of all things.”
Perfect understanding may be derived from various sources; but
ϖαρακολουθέω properly means, “I go along with as a companion, and derive
knowledge from my own observation.” And it is remarkable that the word
is used in this very sense by the Jewish historian, Josephus, who
published his history not many years after St. Luke wrote, and who, in
his introduction, represents himself as worthy of credit, because he had
not merely inquired of those who knew, but ϖαρηκολουθηκότα τοις
γεγόνοσιν, which he explains by this expression: Πολλῶν μὲν αὐτουργὸς
ϖραξέων, and to state in the third verse that he, ϖλεῖϛων δ’ αὐτόπτης
γενόμενος, _an actor in many things, and an eye-witness of most_. If
this interpretation is not approved of, then, according to the sense of
those verses which is most commonly adopted, St. Luke will be understood
to give in the second verse an account of that ground upon which the
knowledge of the Christian world with regard to these things rested, the
reports of the “eye-witnesses and ministers,” having collected and
collated these reports, and employed the most careful and minute
investigation, he had resolved to write an account of the life of Jesus.
Here he does not claim inspiration: he does not even say that he was an
eye-witness. But he says that, having, like others, heard the report of
eye-witnesses, he had accurately examined the truth of what they said,
and presented to the Christian world the fruit of his researches.
The foundation is still the same as in St. John’s Gospel, the report of
those in whose presence Jesus did and said what is recorded. To this
report is added, (1.) The investigation of St. Luke, a contemporary of
the Apostles, the companion of St. Paul in a great part of his
journeyings, and honoured by him with this title, “Luke, the beloved
physician,” Col. iv, 14. (2.) The approbation of St. Paul, who is said,
by the earliest Christian writers, to have revised this Gospel written
by his companion, so that it came abroad with apostolical authority.
(3.) The universal consent of the Christian church, which, although
jealous of the books that were then published, and rejecting many that
claimed the sanction of the Apostles, has uniformly, from the earliest
times, put the Gospel of St. Luke upon a footing with those of St.
Matthew and St. Mark: a clear demonstration that they who had access to
the best information knew that it had been revised by an Apostle.
As, then, the authors of the Gospels appear under the character of
eye-witnesses, attesting what they had seen, there would have been an
impropriety in their resting the evidence of the essential facts of
Christianity upon inspiration. But after the respect which their
character and their conduct procured to their testimony, and the visible
confirmation which it received from heaven, had established the faith of
a part of the world, a belief of their inspiration became necessary.
They might have been credible witnesses of facts, although they had not
been distinguished from other men. But they were not qualified to
execute the office of Apostles without being inspired. And therefore, as
soon as the circumstances of the church required the execution of that
office, the claim which had been conveyed to them by the promise of
their Master, and which is implied in the apostolical character, appears
in their writings. They instantly exercised the authority derived to
them from Jesus, by planting ministers in the cities where they had
preached the Gospel, by setting every thing pertaining to these
Christian societies in order, by controlling the exercise of those
miraculous gifts which they had imparted, and by correcting the abuses
which happened even in their time. But they demanded from all who had
received the faith of Christ submission to the doctrines and
commandments of his Apostles, as the inspired messengers of Heaven. “But
God hath revealed it,” not _them_, as our translators have supplied the
accusative, “revealed the wisdom of God, the dispensation of the Gospel
unto us by his Spirit; for the Spirit searcheth all things, yea, the
deep things of God. Now we have received not the spirit of the world,
but the Spirit which is of God; that we might know the things which are
freely given us of God; which things, also, we speak, not in the words
which man’s wisdom teacheth, but which the Holy Ghost teacheth,” 1 Cor.
ii, 10, 12, 13. “If any man think himself to be a prophet, or spiritual,
let him acknowledge that the things that I write unto you are the
commandments of the Lord,” 1 Cor. xiv, 37; that is, Let no eminence of
spiritual gifts be set up in opposition to the authority of the
Apostles, or as implying any dispensation from submitting to it. “For
this cause, also, thank we God without ceasing, because when ye received
the word of God which ye heard of us, ye received it not as the word of
men, but, as it is in truth, the word of God,” 1 Thess. ii, 13. St.
Peter, speaking of the epistles of St. Paul, says, “Even as our beloved
brother Paul, also, according to the wisdom given unto him, hath written
unto you,” 2 Peter iii, 15. And St. John makes the same claim of
inspiration for the other Apostles, as well as for himself: “We are of
God: he that knoweth God, heareth us: he that is not of God, heareth not
us,” 1 John iv, 6.
The claim to inspiration is clearly made by the Apostles in those
passages where they place their own writings upon the same footing with
the books of the Old Testament; for St. Paul, speaking of the ἱερα
γράμματα, “_Holy Scriptures_,” a common expression among the Jews, in
which Timothy had been instructed from his childhood, says, “All
Scripture is given by inspiration of God,” 2 Tim. iii, 16. St. Peter,
speaking of the ancient prophets, says, “The Spirit of Christ was in
them,” 1 Peter i, 11; and, “The prophecy came not in old time by the
will of man; but holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy
Ghost,” 2 Peter i, 21. And the quotations of our Lord and his Apostles
from the books of the Old Testament are often introduced with an
expression in which their inspiration is directly asserted: “Well spake
the Holy Ghost by Esaias;” “By the mouth of thy servant David thou hast
said,” &c, Acts i, 16; iv, 25; xxviii, 25. But with this uniform
testimony to that inspiration of the Jewish Scriptures, which was
universally believed among that people, we are to conjoin this
circumstance, that St. Paul and St. Peter in different places rank their
own writings with the books of the Old Testament. St. Paul commands that
his epistles should be read in the churches, where none but those books
which the Jews believed to be inspired were ever read, Col. iv, 16. He
says that Christians “are built upon the foundation of the Apostles and
prophets,” ἐπὶ τῲ θεμελίῳ τῶν ἀποϛόλων καὶ ϖροφητῶν, Eph. ii, 20: a
conjunction which would have been highly improper, if the former had not
been inspired as well as the latter; and St. Peter charges the
Christians to “be mindful of the words which were spoken before by the
holy prophets, and of the commandment of us the Apostles,” 2 Peter iii,
2. The nature of the book of Revelation led the Apostle John to assert
most directly his personal inspiration; for he says that “Jesus sent and
signified by his angel to his servant John the things that were to come
to pass;” and that the divine Person, like the Son of man, who appeared
to him when he was in the Spirit, commanded him to write in a book what
he saw. And in one of the visions there recorded, when the dispensation
of the Gospel was presented to St. John under the figure of a great
city, the New Jerusalem, descending out of heaven, there is one part of
the image which is a beautiful expression of that authority in settling
the form of the Christian church, and teaching articles of faith, which
the Apostles derived from their inspiration: “The wall of the city had
twelve foundations, and in them the names of the twelve Apostles of the
Lamb,” Rev. i, 1, 10–19; xxi, 14.
These are only a few of the many passages to the same purpose which
occur in reading the New Testament. But it is manifest, even from them,
that the manner in which the Apostles speak of their own writings is
calculated to mislead every candid reader, unless they really wrote
under the direction of the Spirit of God. So gross and daring an
imposture is absolutely inconsistent not only with their whole
character, but also with those gifts of the Holy Ghost of which there is
unquestionable evidence that they were possessed; and which, being the
natural vouchers of the assertion made by them concerning their own
writings, cannot be supposed, upon the principles of sound theism, to
have been imparted for a long course of years to persons who continued
during all that time asserting such a falsehood, and appealing to those
gifts for the truth of what they said.
4. The claim of the Apostles derives much confirmation from the
reception which it met with among the Christians of their days. It
appears from an expression of St. Peter, that at the time when he wrote
his second epistle, the epistles of St. Paul were classed with “the
other Scriptures,” the books of the Old Testament; that is, were
accounted inspired writings, 2 Peter iii, 16. It is well known to those
who are versed in the early history of the church, with what care the
first Christians discriminated between the apostolical writings and the
compositions of other authors however much distinguished by their piety,
and with what reverence they received those books which were known by
their inscription, by the place from which they proceeded, or the manner
in which they were circulated, to be the work of an Apostle. In
Lardner’s “Credibility of the Gospel History,” will be found the most
particular information upon this subject; and it will be perceived that
the whole history of the supposititious writings which appeared in early
times, conspires in attesting the veneration in which the authority of
the Apostles was held by the Christian church. We learn from Justin
Martyr, that, before the middle of the second century, “the memoirs of
the Apostles, and the compositions of the prophets,” were read together
in the Christian assemblies. We know, that from the earliest times, the
church has submitted to the writings of the Apostles as the infallible
standard of faith and practice; and we find the ground of this peculiar
respect expressed by the first Christian writers as well as by their
successors, who speak of the writings of the Apostles as “divine
writings from the inspiration of the Holy Ghost.”
To this general argument we may add that right views on the subject of
the inspiration of the sacred writers are also necessary, because even
some Christian writers have spoken obscurely and unsatisfactorily on the
subject, dividing inspiration into different kinds, and assigning each
to different portions of the holy volume. By inspiration we are to
understand, that the sacred writers composed their works under so
plenary and immediate an influence of the Holy Spirit, that God may be
said to speak by those writers to man, and not merely that they spoke to
men in the name of God, and by his authority; and there is a
considerable difference between the two propositions. Each supposes an
authentic revelation from God; but the former view secures the
Scriptures from all error both as to the _subjects_ spoken, and the
_manner_ of expressing them. This, too, is the doctrine taught in the
Scriptures themselves, which declare not only that the prophets and
Apostles spake in the name of God, but that God spake by them as his
instruments. “The Holy Ghost by the mouth of David _spake_.” “Well
_spake_ the Holy Ghost by Esaias the prophet.” “The prophecy came not of
old time, by the will of man; but holy men of God _spake_ as they were
moved by the Holy Ghost.” For this reason, not only that the _matter_
contained in the book of “the Law, the Prophets, and the Psalms,” (the
usual phrase by which the Jews designated the whole Old Testament,) was
true; but that the books were _written_ under divine inspiration, they
are called collectively by our Lord and by his Apostles, “_The
Scriptures_,” in contradistinction to all other writings;--a term which
the Apostle Peter, as stated above, applies also to the writings of St.
Paul, and which therefore verifies them as standing on the same level
with the books of the Old Testament as to their inspiration: “Even as
our beloved brother Paul also, according to the wisdom given unto him,
hath written unto you; as also in all his epistles, speaking of these
things, in which are some things hard to be understood, which they that
are unlearned and unstable wrest, as they do also the other Scriptures,
unto their own destruction.” The Apostles also, as we have seen,
expressly claim an inspiration, not only as to the subjects on which
they wrote, but as to the words in which they expressed themselves.
Farther, our Lord promised to them the Holy Spirit “to guide them into
all truth;” and that he was not to fulfil his office by suggesting
thoughts only, but words, is clear from Christ’s discourse with them on
the subject of the persecutions they were to endure for “his name’s
sake:” “And when they bring you into the synagogues, and unto
magistrates and powers, take ye no thought how or what thing ye shall
answer, or what ye shall say; for the Holy Ghost shall teach you in the
same hour what ye ought to say; for it is not ye that speak; but the
Spirit of your Father which speaketh in you.” This inspiration of words
is also asserted by St. Paul as to himself and his brethren, when he
says to the Corinthians, “Which things also we speak, not in the words
which man’s wisdom teacheth; but which the Holy Ghost teacheth.” Thus we
find that the claim which the sacred writers make on this subject is,
that they were in truth what they have been aptly called, “the penmen of
the Holy Ghost;” and that the words in which they clothed “the wisdom
given unto them” were words “taught” by the Holy Spirit.
But it may be asked, How are we to account for that difference of style
which is observable in each? that manner, too, so natural to each, and
so distinct in all? with those reasonings, recollections of memory, and
other indications of the working of the mind of each writer in its own
character and temperament? Some persons, indeed, observing this, have
concluded their style and manner to be entirely human, while their
thoughts were either wholly divine, or so superintended by the Holy
Ghost as to have been adopted by him, and therefore, although sometimes
natural, to be of equal authority as if they had been exclusively of
divine suggestion. This, indeed, would be sufficient to oblige our
implicit credence to their writings, as being from God; but it falls
below the force of the passages above cited, and which attribute to a
divine agency their words also. The matter may be rightly conceived by
considering, that an inspiration of words took place either by
suggesting those most fit to express the thoughts, or by overruling the
selection of such words from the common as if they had been exclusively
of divine suggestion. This, indeed, would be sufficient to oblige our
implicit credence to their writings, as being from God; but it falls
below the force of the passages above cited, and which attribute to a
divine agency the store acquired by, and laid up in, the mind of each
writer, which is quite compatible with the fact, that a peculiarity and
appropriateness of manner might still be left to them separately. To
suppose that an inspiration of terms, as well as thoughts, could not
take place without producing one uniform style and manner, is to suppose
that the minds of the writers would thus become entirely passive under
the influence of the Holy Spirit; whereas it is easily conceivable that
the verbiage, style, and manner of each, was not so much displaced, as
elevated, enriched, and controlled by the Holy Spirit; and that there
was a previous fitness, in all these respects, in all the sacred penmen,
for which they were chosen to be the instruments under the aid and
direction of the Holy Ghost, of writing such portions of the general
revelation as the wisdom of God assigned to each of them. On the other
hand, while it is so conceivable that the words and manner of each might
be appropriated to his own design by the inspiration of the Holy Ghost,
it by no means follows that both were not greatly altered, as well as
controlled, although they still retained a general similarity to the
uninfluenced style and manner of each, and still presented a
characteristic variety. As none of their writings on ordinary occasions,
and when uninspired, have come down to us, we cannot judge of the degree
of this difference; and therefore no one can with any just reason affirm
that their writings are “the word of God as to the doctrine, but the
word of man as to the channel of conveyance.” Certain it is, that a vast
difference may be remarked between the writings of the Apostles, and
those of the most eminent fathers of the times nearest to them; and that
not only as to precision and strength of thought, but also as to
language. This circumstance is at least strongly presumptive, that
although the style of inspired men was not stripped of the
characteristic peculiarity of the writers, it was greatly exalted and
influenced.
But the same _force_ of inspiration, so to speak, was not probably
exerted upon each of the sacred writers, or upon the same writer
throughout his writings, whatever might be its subject. There is no
necessity that we should so state the case, in order to maintain what is
essential to our faith,--the plenary inspiration of each of the sacred
writers. In miracles there was no needless application of divine power.
Traditional history and written chronicles, facts of known occurrence,
and opinions which were received by all, are often inserted or referred
to by the sacred writers. There needed no miraculous operation upon the
memory to recall what the memory was furnished with, or to reveal a fact
which the writers previously and perfectly knew: but their plenary
inspiration consisted in this, that they were kept from all lapses of
memory, or inadequate conceptions, even on these subjects; and on all
others the degree of communication and influence, both as to doctrine,
facts, and the terms in which they were to be recorded for the
edification of the church, was proportioned to the necessity of the
case, but so that the whole was authenticated or dictated by the Holy
Spirit with so full an influence, that it became truth without mixture
of error, expressed in such terms as he himself ruled or suggested.
This, then, seems the true notion of plenary inspiration, that for the
revelation, insertion, and adequate enunciation of truth, it was full
and complete.
The principal objections to this view of the inspiration of words are
well answered by Dr. Woods, an American divine, in a recent publication,
from which, as the subject has been lately debated in this country, the
following extracts will be acceptable, although there is in them a
repetition of some of the preceding observations:--
“One argument which has been urged against the supposition that divine
inspiration had a respect to language, is, that the language employed by
the inspired writers exhibits no marks of a divine interference, but is
perfectly conformed to the genius and taste of the writers. The fact
here alleged is admitted. But how does it support the opinion of those
who allege it? Is it not evident, that God may exercise a perfect
superintendency over inspired writers as to the language they shall use,
and yet that each one of them shall write in his own style, and in all
respects according to his own taste? May not God give such aid to his
servants, that, while using their own style, they will certainly be
secured against all mistakes, and exhibit the truth with perfect
propriety? It is unquestionable, that Isaiah, and St. Paul, and St. John
might be under the entire direction of the Holy Spirit, even as to
language, and, at the same time, that each one of them might write in
his own manner; and that the peculiar manner of each might be adopted to
answer an important end; and that the variety of style, thus introduced
into the sacred volume, might be suited to excite a livelier interest in
the minds of men, and to secure to them a far greater amount of good,
than could ever have been derived from any one mode of writing. The
great variety existing among men as to their natural talents, and their
peculiar manner of thinking and writing may, in this way, be turned to
account in the work of revelation, as well as in the concerns of common
life. Now, is it not clearly a matter of fact, that God has made use of
this variety, and given the Holy Spirit to men, differing widely from
each other in regard to natural endowments, and knowledge, and style,
and employed them, with all their various gifts, as agents in writing
the Holy Scriptures? And what colour of reason can we have to suppose,
that the language which they used was less under the divine direction on
account of this variety, than if it had been perfectly uniform
throughout?
“To prove that divine inspiration had no respect to the language of the
sacred writers, it is farther alleged, that even the same doctrine is
taught and the same event described in a different manner by different
writers. This fact I also admit. But how does it prove that inspiration
had no respect to language? Is not the variety alleged a manifest
advantage, as to the impression which is likely to be made upon the
minds of men? Is not testimony, which is substantially the same, always
considered as entitled to higher credit, when it is given by different
witnesses in different language, and in a different order? And is it not
perfectly reasonable to suppose, that, in making a revelation, God would
have respect to the common principles of human nature and human society,
and would exert his influence and control over inspired men in such a
manner, that, by exhibiting the same doctrines and facts in different
ways, they should make a more salutary impression, and should more
effectually compass the great ends of a revelation? All I have to
advance on this part of the subject may be summed up in these two
positions: 1. The variety of manner apparent among different inspired
writers, even when treating of the same subjects, is far better suited
to promote the object of divine revelation, than a perfect uniformity.
2. It is agreeable to our worthiest conceptions of God and his
administration, that he should make use of the best means for the
accomplishment of his designs; and, of course, that he should impart the
gift of inspiration to men of different tastes and habits as to
language, and should lead them, while writing the Scriptures, to exhibit
all the variety of manner naturally arising from the diversified
character of their minds.
“But there is another argument, perhaps the most plausible of all,
against supposing that inspiration had any respect to language; which
is, that the supposition of a divine influence in this respect is wholly
unnecessary; that the sacred writers, having the requisite information
in regard to the subjects on which they were to write, might, so far as
language is concerned, be left entirely to their own judgment and
fidelity. But this view of the subject is not satisfactory. For whatever
may be said as to the judgment and fidelity of those who wrote the
Scriptures, there is one important circumstance which cannot be
accounted for, without supposing them to have enjoyed a guidance above
that of their own minds; namely, that they were infallibly preserved
from every mistake or impropriety in the manner of writing. If we should
admit that the divine superintendence and guidance afforded to the
inspired writers had no relation at all to the manner in which they
exhibited either doctrines or facts; how easily might we be disturbed
with doubts, in regard to the propriety of some of their
representations? We should most certainly consider them as liable to all
the inadvertencies and mistakes, to which uninspired men are commonly
liable; and we should think ourselves perfectly justified in undertaking
to charge them with real errors and faults as to style, and to show how
their language might have been improved; and, in short, to treat their
writings just as we treat the writings of Shakspeare and Addison.
‘Here,’ we might say, ‘Paul was unfortunate in the choice of words; and
here his language does not express the ideas which he must have intended
to convey.’ ‘Here the style of St. John was inadvertent; and here it was
faulty: and here it would have been more agreeable to the nature of the
subject, and would have more accurately expressed the truth, had it been
altered thus.’ If the language of the sacred writers did not in any way
come under the inspection of the Holy Spirit, and if they were left,
just as other writers are, to their own unaided faculties in regard to
every thing which pertained to the manner of writing; then, evidently,
we might use the same freedom in animadverting upon their style, as upon
the style of other writers. But who could treat the volume of
inspiration in this manner, without impiety and profaneness? And rather
than make any approach to this, who would not choose to go to an excess,
if there could be an excess, in reverence for the word of God?
“On this subject, far be it from me to indulge a curiosity which would
pry into things not intended for human intelligence. And far be it from
me to expend zeal in supporting opinions not warranted by the word of
God. But this one point I think it specially important to maintain;
namely, that the sacred writers had such direction of the Holy Spirit,
that they were secured against all liability to error, and enabled to
write just what God pleased; so that what they wrote is, in truth, the
word of God, and can never be subject to any charge of mistake either as
to matter or form. Whether this perfect correctness and propriety as to
language resulted from the divine guidance directly or indirectly, is a
question of no particular consequence. If the Spirit of God directs the
minds of inspired men, and gives them just conceptions relative to the
subjects on which they are to write; and if he constitutes and maintains
a connection, true and invariable, between their conceptions and the
language they employ to express them, the language must, in this way, be
as infallible, and as worthy of God, as though it were dictated directly
by the Holy Spirit. But to assert that the sacred writers used such
language as they chose, or such as was natural to them, without any
special divine superintendence, and that, in respect to style, they are
to be regarded in the same light, and equally liable to mistakes, as
other writers, is plainly contrary to the representations which they
themselves make, and is suited to diminish our confidence in the word of
God. For how could we have entire confidence in the representations of
Scripture, if, after God had instructed the minds of the sacred writers
in the truth to be communicated, he gave them up to all the
inadvertencies and errors to which human nature in general is exposed,
and took no effectual care that their manner of writing should be
according to his will?
“Let us then briefly examine the subject, as it is presented in the Holy
Scriptures, and see whether we find sufficient reason to affirm that
inspiration had no relation whatever to language. 1. The Apostles were
the subjects of such a divine inspiration as enabled them to speak ‘with
other tongues:’ here inspiration related directly to language. 2. It is
the opinion of most writers, that, in some instances, inspired men had
not in their own minds a clear understanding of the things which they
spake or wrote. One instance of this, commonly referred to, is the case
of Daniel, who heard and repeated what the angel said, though he did not
understand it, Dan. xii, 7–9. This has also been thought to be in some
measure the case with the prophets referred to, 1 Peter i, 10–12. And is
there not reason to think this may have been the case with many of the
prophetic representations contained in the Psalms, and many of the
symbolical rites of the Mosaic institute? Various matters are found in
the Old Testament, which were not intended so much for the benefit of
the writers, or their contemporaries, as for the benefit of future ages.
And this might have been a sufficient reason why they should be left
without a clear understanding of the things which they wrote. In such
cases, if the opinion above stated is correct, inspired men were led to
make use of expressions, the meaning of which they did not fully
understand. And, according to this view, it would seem that the teaching
of the Spirit which they enjoyed, must have related rather to the words
than to the sense. 3. Those who deny that the divine influence afforded
to the sacred writers had any respect to language, can find no support
in the texts which most directly relate to the subject of inspiration.
And it is surely in such texts, if any where, that we should suppose
they would find support. The passage, 2 Peter i, 21, is a remarkable
one. It asserts that ‘holy men of God spake as they were moved by the
Holy Ghost.’ There is surely nothing here which limits the divine
influence to the conceptions of their minds. They were moved by the Holy
Ghost to _speak_ or _write_. ‘All Scripture is divinely inspired,’ 2
Tim. iii, 16. Does this text afford any proof that the divine influence
granted to the inspired penmen was confined to their inward conceptions,
and had no respect whatever to the manner in which they expressed their
conceptions? What is _Scripture_? Is it divine truth _conceived in the
mind_, or divine truth _written_? In Heb. i, 1, it is said that ‘God
spake to the fathers by the prophets.’ Does this afford any proof that
the divine guidance which the prophets enjoyed related exclusively to
the conceptions of their own minds, and had no respect to the manner in
which they communicated those conceptions? Must we not rather think the
meaning to be, that God influenced the prophets to utter or make known
important truths? And how could they do this, except by the use of
proper words?
“I have argued in favour of the inspiration of the Apostles, from their
commission. They were sent by Christ to teach the truths of religion in
his stead. It was an arduous work; and in the execution of it they
needed and enjoyed much divine assistance. But forming right conceptions
of Christianity in their own minds, was not the great work assigned to
the Apostles. If the divine assistance reached only to this, it reached
only to that which concerned them as private men, and which they might
have possessed though they had never been commissioned to teach others.
As Apostles, they were to preach the Gospel to all who could be brought
to hear it, and to make a record of divine truth for the benefit of
future ages. Now is it at all reasonable to suppose, that the divine
assistance afforded them had no respect to their main business, and
that, in the momentous and difficult work of communicating the truths of
religion, either orally or by writing, they were left to themselves, and
so exposed to all the errors and inadvertencies of uninspired men? But
our reasoning does not stop here. For that divine assistance which we
might reasonably suppose would have been granted to the Apostles in the
work of teaching divine truth, is the very thing which Christ promised
them in the texts before cited. I shall refer only to Matt. x, 19, 20,
‘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.’ This promise, as Knapp understands it, implies, that divine
assistance should extend not only to _what_ they should say, but to the
_manner_ in which they should say it. It is not, however, to be
understood as implying, that the Apostles were not rational and
voluntary agents in the discharge of their office. But it implies that,
in consequence of the influence of the Spirit to be exercised over them,
they should say what God would have them to say, without any liability
to mistake, either as to matter or manner. From the above-cited promise,
taken in connection with the instances of its accomplishment which are
recorded in the Acts of the Apostles, it becomes evident that God may
exert his highest influence upon his servants, so as completely to guide
them in thought and in utterance, in regard to subjects which lie
chiefly within the province of their natural faculties. For in those
speeches of the Apostles which are left on record, we find that most of
the things which they declared, were things which, for aught that
appears, they might have known, and might have expressed to others, in
the natural exercise of their own faculties. This principle being
admitted, and kept steadily in view, will relieve us of many
difficulties in regard to the doctrine of inspiration. The passage, 1
Cor. ii, 12, 13, already cited as proof of the inspiration of the
Apostles, is very far from favouring the opinion that inspiration had no
respect whatever to their language, or that it related exclusively to
their thoughts. ‘Which things we speak, not in the words which man’s
wisdom teacheth, but which the Holy Ghost teacheth.’ The Apostle avoided
the style and the manner of teaching which prevailed among the wise men
of Greece, and made use of a style which corresponded with the nature of
his subject, and the end he had in view. And this, he tells us, he did,
under the guidance of the Holy Spirit. His language, or manner of
teaching, was the thing to which the divine influence imparted to him
particularly referred. Storr and Flatt give the following interpretation
of this text: Paul, they say, asserts that the doctrines of Christianity
were revealed to him by the almighty agency of God himself; and,
finally, that the inspiration of the divine Spirit extended even to his
words, and to all his exhibitions of revealed truths. They add, that St.
Paul clearly distinguishes between the doctrine itself, and the manner
in which it is communicated.”