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?