Questions on Chapter 7.

QUESTIONS ON CHAPTER 7.

QUESTION 1. What two important questions are considered in reference to the New Testament?

2. How may it be proved that we have the correct canon of Scripture?

3. How do the Roman Catholics prove the canon?

4. What erroneous plan do some Protestants adopt on this subject?

5. How is the absurdity of both plans shown?

6. What is the only true plan on the subject?

7. What important rule on the subject has been laid down?

8. The testimony of what class of persons is most satisfactory on this question?

9. Is the testimony of Jews and pagans of any force whatever?

10. By what kind of evidence may it be shown that the writings of the New Testament are genuine and authentic?

11. Has any counter testimony been presented?

12. At what century does the author commence the testimony?

13. What catalogues of the fourth century are referred to?

14. What historian of this century is referred to?

15. What testimony of the third century is presented? What of the second?

16. What testimony is referred to in the first century?

17. What evidence is furnished by the heretics?

18. What evidence is derived from the fact that translations were made of the New Testament?

19. What testimony is furnished by the adversaries of Christianity?

20. By whom were these apostles of infidelity met and vanquished?

21. What important admission did these infidels make?

CHAPTER 8. — AUTHORITY OF THE SCRIPTURES —

INSPIRATION OF THE SACRED WRITERS — THE SENSE

IN WHICH IT SHOULD BE UNDERSTOOD.

IN what sense are the Scriptures divinely inspired? It is a matter of importance that we be able properly to answer this question. We may remark that the general belief on this subject was very harmonious in the Christian Church during the first and purest ages of her history. Until about the middle of the sixth century, we read of none, except notorious heretics, who disputed the plenary inspiration of the Scriptures. About that time, Theodore of Mopsuestia, a philosophical theologian, advocated some very loose and heterodox notions on the subject of inspiration. In the twelfth and thirteenth centuries, some of the Jewish Talmudists, who had become deeply imbued with the Aristotelian philosophy, began, after the fashion since adopted by some modern Christian divines, to classify different parts of Scripture under different degrees of inspiration. Maimonides numbered as many as eleven different degrees of inspiration. Gaussen testifies that “the modern German school of the adversaries of inspiration is but a reproduction of the rabbins of the thirteenth century.” In the sixteenth century, Socinus and his followers assailed the plenary inspiration of the Scriptures, asserting that the sacred writers sometimes failed in memory, and were liable to error in some of their statements. In more modern times, Germany has been a hot-bed of infidelity in this insidious guise.

About a century ago Semler went so far as to renounce inspiration almost entirely, denying all prophecy, and explaining every miracle as an allegory. Afterward Ammon, Paulus, Eichhorn, DeWette, Huc, Michaelis, LeClere, Rosenmuller, Coleridge, Morell, Schleiermacher, Renan, and a host of others, have followed on the same trail.

It has already been shown that Christ and his apostles not only claimed to speak with authority from God themselves, but also fully accredited the plenary inspiration of the Scriptures of the Old Testament. We now proceed more specifically to define the sense in which this inspiration should be understood.

1. Inspiration is so full and complete that the sacred writers are not the real authors of the books they penned. They, as it were, disappear, and God supplies their place; that is, the Scriptures are the word of God as really as were the “Ten Commandments,” which were written by his own finger. In the one case God chose to write with his own finger, and in the other case he selected the sacred writers — Moses, Isaiah, Daniel, John, Peter, Paul, and others — as his amanuenses; but in both cases it is really God’s writing — God’s book — God’s word. Every Christian knows and feels that in reading the Bible, while Isaiah, David, or Paul may be the organ of utterance, the word is from the mouth of God — it is God who speaks. To God’s voice his reason bows, his conscience submits, and his inmost soul yields obeisance. To him the Bible — the Bible as a whole, from Genesis to Revelation — is a divine oracle. When the enrapt disciples gazed in adoring admiration upon their transfigured Lord, it was the whole Christ with whose glory they were filled. They did not separate from his sacred person the nails on his fingers or the hairs on his head, and ask: What have these to do with his resplendent majesty? So the Christian, when he clasps the Bible to his bosom, does not stop to ask, Of what special use is the book of Esther? or What glory is there in the Chronicles? These portions of Scripture are but little in themselves, but, like the single bud or leaf in the bouquet, or the single point in the landscape, they contribute to the symmetry and perfection of the magnificent whole.

2. Inspiration, in this plenary sense, is not contemplated as applying to the writers as a personal illumination, rendering them infallible and free from error, as individuals, but as a spiritual influence, guiding, directing, and controlling their tongues as they speak for God, or their pens as they write the Scriptures, so that all they thus speak or write shall be free from error, and just as God would have it; in a word, it is God speaking by, or through, the organs of John or Paul, or guiding his pen in every sentence, word, and letter. In the sense of illumination, inspired men differ from each other “as one star differs from another star in glory,” or as they may have differed in taste, talents, or education; but in regard to inspiration, all were on a level. Some men were doubtless inspired on some occasions, and for special purposes, who were destitute of spiritual illumination, having no claims even to piety: instance the case of Balaam and of Caiaphas. These, though wicked men, were divinely inspired to utter truthful and sublime prophecies. In general, however, spiritual illumination and piety are combined with respiration in the same persons. Perhaps this union was in no case more forcibly exhibited than in Isaiah, John, and Paul. They were not only inspired to speak the truth of God, but were, in an extraordinary degree, devout and heavenly-minded; yet their writings are in no respect superior in authority to those of any other inspired author.

3. The inspired writers were only infallible in their official capacity, as “chosen vessels” to bear the message of God to men; in other respects, they were liable to err like other men. It matters nothing to us what erroneous notions Moses, Isaiah, Peter, John, or Paul may have entertained in relation to science, philosophy, politics, or any other subject, provided only that they were preserved from all error, as official teachers of the doctrines of God.

4. This inspiration did not destroy their individuality. They were not used by the divine Spirit as mere machines, so as thus to blot out or suspend their moral agency or intellectual character; hence we find in the inspired writers the same variety in style and manner by which other authors are distinguished. Because God inspires a Jew, we are not to expect him to write like a Greek, nor because he inspires a Greek are we to expect him to speak like a Jew; but the Jew will still be a Jew, and the Greek still a Greek. An illiterate fisherman, though inspired, will not speak in the style of a philosopher, nor the inspired philosopher in the style of an unlettered peasant; but each, though inspired, will still maintain his individuality, and speak in his own peculiar style. Surely we must allow that God may select, as his organs for the communication of his will, men from various walks in life, and guide the tongue and pen of each (so that precisely the things he desires shall be communicated), and yet not interfere with the peculiar style of the person selected. So that while in one place Paul is the writer, and in another case Peter or John, yet, in all cases, the book is God’s word.

5. But, according to the view of inspiration we have presented, it seems the very words, as well as the thoughts, must have been inspired. This is precisely the doctrine we maintain. The Bible is the “word of God.” What the Bible says, God says; what the Bible declares to be true, is true; what it declares to be right, is right; what it declares to be wrong, is wrong. What it teaches is to be believed, not on the authority of Moses, of Paul, or of other inspired men, but on the authority of God. The Bible is inspired, not as to ideas merely, but as to words also. “Holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost.” St. Paul says: “Which things also we speak, not in the words which man’s wisdom teacheth, but which the Holy Ghost teacheth.” (1 Corinthians 2:13.) We confess there are difficulties connected with this subject. We cannot conceive or explain the method of the Spirit’s operation, either in conversion or in inspiration: but whither shall we go to escape from difficulties? — we find them everywhere and in every thing. It is objected that, “if the very words of Scripture are inspired, then there can be no human element about the matter — no diversity of style, or any thing of the sort.” Not so; this inference does not follow. Cannot God make flowers, or trees, or mountains, or stars, unless he makes them all alike? If he inspires different men, must they all use the same language, be it Hebrew or Greek? Must every musician always perform on an instrument of the same kind, be it flute, harp, or drum? Why, we ask, cannot the Spirit guide each inspired man in the exercise of his own peculiar powers, whatever language he may speak, and whatever may be his character whether he be gentle or fierce, learned or illiterate, infant or adult, refined or coarse, or whatever his peculiar style? Another objection to plenary inspiration is, that “if this doctrine be true, then inspired men could never err, by mistake or otherwise.” Hence, we are pointed, as a refutation of our doctrine, to the fact that Paul did not know that Caiaphas was high-priest (Acts 23:5), or the number of persons he had baptized in Corinth (1 Corinthians 1:16). If our position asserted infallibility as a personal attribute of the inspired men, then there would be some force in this objection; but as this infallibility is only affirmed of the inspired writings, not of the writers, the objection is quite irrelevant. The ignorance of Paul, as to the position of Caiaphas, or on any other point, is nothing against his plenary inspiration, as a sacred writer, so long as no error can be detected in his official teachings. It is for the writings, and not the writers, that infallibility is claimed.

6. Again, we are told that many things recorded by the sacred penmen were merely a recital of events that came under their own personal knowledge, and with which they were perfectly familiar surely, it is urged, they needed no inspiration on these subjects; and as God’s doings are never superfluous, we cannot suppose that in such cases the writers were inspired. Now, we demand, since the larger portion of the Bible is historical, and a great part of that history is recorded by men who had personal knowledge of the events they relate, must we not set aside, according to this objection, an important part of the Bible as a mere human production? Look at the history of the Israelites by Moses; but, above all, at the history of Jesus by the evangelists. Are these sacred records all to be classed as merely human? The very thought is revolting to the Christian heart. Admitting that Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John, had been eye-witnesses of many of the wonderful works of Jesus, and had listened to his many admirable sayings and discourses, and had drunk in with their own ears the heavenly precepts that fall from his lips, how preposterous the idea of depending on memory, after a lapse of years, for a record of these things! How could they, under these circumstances, remember so many events, so as to record them precisely as they occurred? How could they recall so many discourses, many of which they did not themselves comprehend at the time, so as to record them in the Saviour’s exact language? It is utterly impossible. And even if they could, how could they distinguish what ought to be written from what ought to be omitted? Inspiration — plenary inspiration — was needed at every step — at every chapter, sentence, and word. It was needed to teach them what to write, and what not to write — to teach them how to write, and when to write — to teach them the thoughts to express, and the proper words to express those thoughts. It was needed for their own sake, to enable them to write as they did, and for the sake of the Church and the world, in all coming time, to give divine authority to the sacred record.

Abstract the idea of the inspiring Spirit guiding the pen of the sacred writer in every sentence, word, and letter, from the holy Gospels, and the heavenly unction — the divine power — of the book is gone. It is no longer the record of Heaven we trace — no longer the voice of God we hear. The Shekinah has left the mercy-seat; the divine sacrifice ceases to smoke upon the altar, and the glory has departed from the Christian temple.

But a truce forever to all conjecture and reasoning upon this great question. Our Saviour shall settle it himself. He has long ago settled it, and the Church for centuries has confided with satisfaction in his decision; and with this decision may her faith never be shaken by the assaults of skepticism! It reads thus: “But 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.” John 14:26.

7. From what has been presented, we may clearly infer that all that has been said by certain divines concerning some parts of Scripture being inspired, and other parts not inspired, is not only without authority, but is manifestly repugnant to the Scripture view of the subject. The claim of inspiration made by the sacred writers refers, not to one portion of Scripture alone, but to every portion alike. The Bible doctrine is, that not a part of Scripture, but “All Scripture, is given by inspiration of God.” 2 Timothy 3:16.

If the Old Testament was inspired, so was the New, and vice versa. If the prophetical part was inspired, so was the historical, the didactic, and all the rest. There is no restriction, limitation, or exception, in these words of Christ: “And the Scripture cannot be broken;” (John 10:35;) nor in the words of Peter: “Holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost;” (2 Peter 1:21;) nor in these words of St. Paul: “Not in the words which man’s wisdom teacheth, but which the Holy Ghost teacheth;” (1 Corinthians 2:13;) nor yet in these words of Jesus: “He will guide you into all truth.” (John 16:13.) This dividing of the sacred word in portions inspired, and portions not inspired, finds no word, or even hint, to favor it in all the Bible. Nor can it find any support in the primitive and purer ages of the Church. It is an invention of later times — it is a brood that was hatched amid the humid atmosphere of the dark ages, and has been new baptized in the muddy waters of modern rationalistic philosophy. Nor is it much better — as some divines having higher claims to orthodoxy have done — to attempt to classify the different claims of inspiration. Thus, we are told of an inspiration of “superintendence,” another of “elevation,” and another of “suggestion.” Now, if by this division nothing was implied but the simple fact that superintendence, elevation, and suggestion, are three important elements of inspiration in general, each entering more or less into every case of divine inspiration, these divisions would not only be harmless, but appropriate; but this is manifestly not the sense in which they are intended. As used by those who have adopted them, one scripture is supposed to be given by the inspiration of superintendence, another by that of elevation, and another by that of suggestion — thus, we are told that “Moses could record, without a divine afflatus, the deliverance of the Israelites from bondage and the history of their journeyings toward the promised land: so Solomon could remark that ‘A soft answer turneth away wrath, but grievous words stir up anger;’ or that ‘Better is a dinner of herbs where love is, than a stalled ox and hatred therewith.’” “In such cases as these,” we are informed, “no supernatural influence was required to enlighten the mind of the writers” — that is, in all the wonderful record of the deliverance of God’s people from their bondage in Egypt, and in all the eventful history of a “forty years’” journey from Egypt to Palestine, and in the best of the excellent Proverbs of Solomon, “no supernatural influence was required to enlighten the mind of the writers.”

Inspiration by “elevation,” we are informed, “denotes that divine influence by which the mental faculties of the sacred writers, though acting in a natural way, were raised and invigorated to an extraordinary degree, so that their compositions were more truly sublime, noble, and pathetic, than what they could have produced merely by the force of their natural genius.”

“Suggestion” is said to be “the highest degree of inspiration,” and to include “all those direct revelations which were made to the sacred writers, of such things as they could not have discovered by ordinary means.” It must be admitted that thus to divide inspiration — assigning one kind to one scripture and another kind to another scripture — is perfectly gratuitous, having nothing in Scripture itself to authorize it. But this is not the worst: it tends to weaken the authority of the Bible, and to deprive it of much of its power over the heart and conscience. The Christian mind has long been trained to contemplate the Bible as the “word of God” — not of man. In this light the whole book has been viewed, whether it be prose in the plainest narrative style, or poetry of the most sublime strain. And if it be indeed the “word of God,” and not the mere word of man, then it follows that every portion of it — each book, chapter, and verse — was given under the influence of plenary inspiration — an inspiration including, to some extent, all these elements — superintendence, elevation, and suggestion.

Let any one of the sacred writers, in any single production of his pen, be supposed destitute of divine inspiration — whether in the sense of superintendence, elevation, or suggestion — and that portion of Scripture must at once cease to be contemplated as “God’s word:” it must be considered as a human production. Suppose, for instance, that we admit that the Mosaic history, or that of John the Apostle, was only given by the inspiration of “superintendence” — no divine “elevation” or divine “suggestion” about it, but simply the divine superintendence, so as to free it from all error — in what light must we then contemplate it? Would it not be, as to all its inherent elements, a mere human history? To be sure it would be a true history: of this we could have no doubt; but in what else could it differ from any other human history? Now, admit that any other author had produced a history, of which we were perfectly assured that every word it contained was true, would it not in our esteem, according to this view, be as much a divine production as the Mosaic history or the Gospel of John? The only difference we could perceive would be this: that Moses and John had recorded nothing but the truth, aided thereto by a divine superintendence, but some one else had written a history recording nothing but the truth, without that divine superintendence. Surely the method by which the truth, and nothing but the truth, is secured, cannot change the character of that truth. We may select paragraphs of history from many profane authors — of the truth of which it is impossible for us to doubt — but will that fact give to these scraps of profane history a sacredness and authority like unto what every sentence of the Bible possesses? Surely not. But if any portion of the Bible history has nothing to stamp it with divinity but simply the fact that God so superintended the writer as to prevent him from recording any thing but what was true, we cannot see what claim of divinity could pertain to such scripture that would not belong equally to the Principia of Newton, or any human composition, concerning the entire and absolute truthfulness of which we could have no doubt.

But, according to the Bible view of the doctrine of divine inspiration, there is a sacredness and a divine impress upon every sentence and word of Holy Writ infinitely beyond what any human composition can claim. Moses, John, and all the rest of Heaven’s chosen amanuenses, in every sentence of the sacred canon which they penned, were aided, not only by the inspiration of “superintendence,” freeing them from the possibility of mistake or error, but by the inspiration of “elevation” and “suggestion,” lifting their thoughts infinitely higher than nature’s pinions can soar, and causing them to clothe those thoughts in words more appropriate than human wisdom could select. And this is equally manifest, whether we listen to Isaiah when he prophesies of the glories of the Messiah, or simply speaks of “the vision of Isaiah, the son of Amos;” or to Paul when he speaks of the “abundance of his revelations,” or simply of “the cloak which he left at Troas.”

Hence we conclude that the Scriptures are all given by plenary inspiration, embracing throughout the elements of “superintendence, elevation, and suggestion,” in so high a sense that the Bible, from Genesis to Revelation, is the infallible word of God — “one jot or tittle” of which can never fail, but which, when heaven and earth shall pass away, shall still remain, enduring as the throne of Him by whose Spirit it was inspired. QUESTIONS ON CHAPTER 8.

QUESTION 1. How was inspiration understood by the primitive Christians?

2. When, and by whom, was this doctrine opposed?

3. By whom has it been opposed in more modern times?

4. In what sense should inspiration be understood?

5.How is this view sustained from Scripture?

6. Does it admit variety in the style of the sacred writers?

7. How can this admission be reconciled with the position that the words of Scripture are inspired?

8. What evil results from classifying the kinds of inspiration?

9. Is all Scripture inspired in the plenary sense?