Deon te at Jie ese as 3 Bees = > x Whee ‘3 ‘he a4 * Ps at ENS re MOND Hie ᾿ τῷ PLSD SS 3) Ager dont SN iy ὭΣ Se ἣ PF BSD Rae Me ‘ ‘ Fee) i} vie yy ; 14 eine Hive 4 aie ae WIE AE Me te λυ #4) ἮΝ ἈΚ OP 6 J Heer Cpu ie ; fa i of Patt Kad 3 rs ἢ ina . Ἵ ᾿ Dae ἐν Boe τιν ὗ i eure Hrom the Library of Professor Benjamin Breckinridge Warfield Benueathed by him to the Library of Princeton Thealogical Seminary : κα Ὑ 3 ae ; eee 4 ὃ y Digitized by the Internet Archive in 2009 with funding from Princeton Theological Seminary Library https://archive.org/details/inspirationofhol0Oleew vat au 2 ῃ er ee | : vee oe νὰ ΜῊ THE ΓΝ lore ACT LON BO > War Och tae TU ty 3; ITS NATURE AND PROOF: EIGHT DISCOURSES, PREAOHED BEFORE THE UNIVERSITY OF DUBLIX BY WILLIAM LEE, M.A., FELLOW AND TUTOR OF TEBINITY OOLLEGE. "Eore γὰρ ἐν τοῖς τῶν Τραφῶν ῥήμασι. Ὁ ΚΥΡΙΟΣ. 8. Ατπάνάβῖσθ, Ad Marcellin. NEW YORK: THOMAS WHITTAKER, 2 AND 3 BIBLE Hovss. αὶ ὅθε Carton ress 171, 173 Macdougal Street, New York — PREFACE, 1 ΤῸ not feel that any lengthened defence is necessary for having undertaken an inquiry into the subject with which the present work is occupied. Independently of the intrinsic importance of every question connected with the elucidation of Holy Scripture—the vagueness which too often characterizes the language employed by writers wr, in modern times, have treated of its Inspiration seems to render a fundamental examination into the nature of this Divine influence daily more desirable. So long, indeed, as the ‘mechanical’ theory of Inspira- tion -was generally maintained, there was no want of dis- tinctness or consistency in the views put forward. So long as it was believed that each word and phrase to be found in the Bible—nay, even the order and grammatical connection of such words and phrases—had been infused by the Holy Ghost into the minds of the sacred writers, or dictated to them by His immediate suggestion, so long must the opinion held respecting Inspiration have been clear, intelligible, and accurately defined. But such a theory could not stand the test of close examination. The strongest evidence against it has been supplied by the Bible itself; and each additional discovery in the criticism iv PREFACE. of the Greek or Hebrew text confirms anew the conclusion that the great doctrine of the infallibility of Holy Scrip- ture can no longer rely upon such a principle for its defence. The ‘mechanical’ theory having been tacitly abandoned —at least by all who are capable of appreciating the re- sults of criticism—and no system altogether satisfactory having been proposed in its stead, there has gradually sprung up a want of definiteness and an absence of con- sistency in the language used when speaking of Inspiration, owing to which those who are most sincere in maintaining the Divine character of the Bible have, not unfrequently, been betrayed into concessions fatal to its supreme au- thority. And not only is there a vagueness in the language which most writers employ when approaching this topic, there is also a want of completeness in the method usually adopted when discussing it. It is true that on one branch of the subject abundant and valuable information is to be found in various treatises; and so far as relates to the direct arguments which may be deduced from the expressions of the sacred penmen themselves in proof of their Inspiration, but little remains to be said that has not been forcibly said already. With reference, however, to the nature of Inspi- ration itself, and to the possibility of reconciling the un- questionable stamp of humanity impressed upon every page of the Bible with that undoubting belief in its perfection and infallibility which is the Christian’s most precious in- heritance—it may safely be maintained that in English theology almost nothing has been done; and that no effort PREFACE. v has hitherto been made to grapple directly with the diff- culties of the subject. At least I am unacquainted with any works in our language (with the exception of Mr. Westcott’s “ Gospel Harmony,” where some valuable but brief remarks are thrown out incidentally, and the treatise of Mr. Morell, to which I shall presently revert, ) that even profess to entertain the question. There is one principle, too, which forms a chief element of the theory proposed in the following Discourses,—I mean the distinction between Revelation and Inspiration,— that has never, to my knowledge, been consistently applied to the contents of Holy Scripture, even by those writers who insist upon its importance. At all events, the prin- ciple has never hitherto been made use of to the extent of which it is obviously capable. In advancing such assertions respecting the labors of others, I do not presume to lay claim to any amount of originality for my own. My object, throughout, has sim- ply been to collect as many facts and results as my ac- quaintance with ancient or modern researches into the text or interpretation of Scripture could supply; and thence to deduce what appeared to be the necessary inference. In every inquiry so conducted, the safety of the inference must, of course, depend upon the extent of the induction: and, consequently, the success of the method which I have ventured to suggest is susceptible of being indefinitely in- creased, in proportion to the number of new facts and results which may hereafter be accumulated by those whose learning and attainments far surpass any that I can pretend to possess. At all events, there is one obvious, v1 PREFACE. and by no means inconsiderable, advantage to be gained by pursuing this method. Valuable hints casting light upon the nature of Inspiration are being continually sug- gested; conclusive evidence in reply to the cavils of ob- jectors is gradually accumulating ; many positive arguments in support of the Church’s belief in the Divine influence under which the Bible was composed repeatedly present themselves in the writings of theologians ;—but the infor- mation thus existing is only ‘» be discovered after diligent and patient toil. Such hints and arguments are, for the most part, confusedly scattered through the various “ In- troductions” to the Old and the New Testament; or they occur in the course of works which treat of ‘ Christian Evidences’ in general; or they are to be occasionally found in some of those learned monographs with which the period- ical literature of our time, and especially that of Germany, is enriched. To the ordinary inquirer, however, such in- formation is practically inaccessible: and the labor must, therefore, be regarded as not destitute of utility that shall present, in a compact and intelligible form, elements so varied, and, in their original shape, so unconnected. | I have not scrupled, as I have said, to avail myself largely of the learning and researches of others: and among the works to which I owe the greatest obligations I may mention Olshausen’s’ “ Commentary on the New ? It may not be unnecessary to add that, when I make use of the writings of others, it is by no means to be understood that I adopt any opinions put forward in the works referred to beyond those conveyed by the words which I have expressly quoted. E. g-: in Lecture vii. I have directly opposed certain views maintained by Olshausen; and, in Lecture i, the closing words of the former of the passages quoted in page 9, note *—viz: “und nur zufallig des Gesites nicht auch Erwahnung thut”—have been omitted, as conveying an idea altogether indefensible. PREFACE. vil Testament ;” Havernick’s “Introduction to the Old Tes- tament ;” Sack’s “ Christliche Apologetik ;” Beck’s “ Propa- deutische Entwicklung ;” and, especially, Rudelbach’s treatise on Inspiration, published in his and Guerike’s “ Zeitscrift.” I have endeavored, in all cases, honestly to state how far I have thus borrowed, even at the risk of in- curring the charge of pedantry. Should I be found, how- ever, to have appropriated the labors of others without due acknowledgment, I trust that the manner in which I have treated the present subject will plead my excuse; since, in reproducing an extensive body of facts and results, it is occasionally impossible to trace to their source certain of the suggestions and ideas previously collected,—owing either to the loss of the original reference, or to some inad- vertence in taking note of it. There are two English treatises on the subject of Inspi- ration to which constant allusions will be found in the following pages :—Mr. Coleridge’s “‘ Confessions of an In- quiring Spirit;’ and Mr. Morell’s “Philosophy of Re- ligion.” The former work has been thus alluded to by Dr. Ar- nold :—“ Have you seen your uncle’s ‘ Letters on Inspira- tion,’ which I believe are to be published? They are well fitted to break ground in the approaches to that momentous question which involves in it so great a shock to existing notions; the greatest, probably, that has ever been given since the discovery of the falsehood of the doctrine of the Pope’s infallibility.”* 1 “To Mr. Justice Coleridge, Jan. 24, 1835.”—“ Life and Correspondence,” Letter xciy , 6tk ed., p. 317. Vill PREFACE. It cannot be doubted, I apprehend, that Dr. Arnold’s remark is, to a certain extent, well founded; and that this treatise of Mr. Coleridge has done more than any modern work to unsettle the pub’ic mind, in these countries, with respect to the authority due to the Bible considered as a whole. Independently of the high reputation and well- deserved influence of its author,—the peculiar charm of Mr. Coleridge’s style and diction and the atmosphere of poetry with which his pen invests every subject on which it touches have gained for this posthumous work a celebrity which, I venture to think, is altogether disproportionate to its merits. Its leading features will be considered in the course of the following pages: for the present, therefore, I content myself with referring to Mr. Coleridge’s statement of what he considered to be the strength of the argument with which he had to contend :—“ It will, perhaps, appear a paradox,” he observes, while repeating some of the popu- lar objections to the infallibility of Scripture, “if, after all these reasons, I should avow that they weigh less in my mind against the Doctrine, than the motives usually assigned for maintaining and enjoining wt. Such, for instance, are the arguments drawn from the anticipated loss and damage that would result from its abandonment; as that it would deprive the Christian world of its only infallible arbiter in questions of Faith and Duty; suppress the only common and inappellable tribunal; that the Bible is the only relig- ious bond of union and ground of unity among Protestants, and the like.”—Letter iv. Such having been his notion of the proofs which an upholder of the strict idea of Inspira- tion could allege in its behalf, it is not going too far to say PREFACE. 1x that, of the many brilliant compositions with which he has enriched our literature, these “Letters” are the least wor- thy of Mr. Coleridge’s genius; and that their subject was one upon which the extent of his information did not en- title him to pronounce an opinion. The other treatise to which I have, in like manner, de- voted considerable attention, is that of Mr. Morell; in which he professedly undertakes to recommend to English readers the theology of Schleiermacher (see infra, p. 11, note*). No stronger proof can be given of the unsettled state of opinion respecting Inspiration prevalent even with well-informed persons, than the manner in which the ob- servations of Mr. Morell have been accepted by Dr. Peile. Dr. Peile, in his “ Annotations on the Apostolical Epistles,” when giving at length the passage of which I have cited a portion in Lecture i., page 21, introduces the quotation with the remark :—“ To borrow the words of Mr. Morell, who, in his ‘ Philosophy of Religion,’ has devoted two in- valuable chapters to the elucidation of this deeply interest- ing subject.” | The extent to which the system of Schleiermacher strikes at the root of all objective Christianity, I have endeavored to exhibit in the following pages. I trust, how- ever, that, while noticing Mr. Morell’s adoption of Schleier- macher’s views respecting Scripture, I have not expressed myself so as to appear insensible to the merits possessed by other portions of his remarks on the “ Philosophy of Religion.” The form which the present work has, owing to special 1 “ Annotations on the Apostolical Epistles,” vol. iii p. 178. x PREFACE, circumstances,’ assumed, is, perhaps, attended with some inconvenience ; inasmuch as certain portions of the subject which might have been more fitly conjoined have been, of necessity, considered separately. I have endeavored, how- ever, to remedy this inconvenience, such as it is, by the adoption of a system of cross references, whereby all that is said on any particular branch of the inquiry can be taken in at a single view. I may be permitted also to observe, that a reader who does not desire to enter minutely into the different questions discussed in the following pages, can obtain a full idea of the theory of Inspiration which I have proposed from Lectures i., iv., vi., and viii. I cannot conclude without taking the opportunity of returning my warm thanks to the friends whose kindness and valuable assistance I have so repeatedly tasked during the progress of this volume through the press. W. L. Dusuin, TRINITY COLLEGE, June, 1854. 1 This form has been imposed by the fact that the first six of the following Dis- courses were preached in the course of my duty as Donnellan Lecturer in this Univer- sity for the year 1852, CONTENTS. LECTURE I. THE QUESTION STATED. REVELATION.—The Locos reveals. The Holy Spirit inspires. Hach Book of the Old, or of the New Testament, considered as a record of Revelation, forms an essential part of one organized whole. The Bible contains a Human as well as a Divine Element. Hence, from the un- due prominence given to one or other of these elements, have arisen two ΟΡ" posite views respecting Inspiration. (1.) The ‘mechanical’ theory of Inspira- tion. (2.) The various schemes founded upon the exaggeration of the Human element ;—which, again, may be classed under three heads. Each of these extremes, although in a very different degree, erroneous. The problem to be solved supplies two Conditions. (1.) The co-existence, in the Bible, of its Human and Divine Elements. (2.) The fact that certain portions of the Bible are not Revelations. The first Condition is satisfied by the ‘dynamical’ theory of Inspiration. The second Condition is satisfied by the distinetion between Revelation and Inspiration. The character and value of the proof of Inspiration founded upon “The wateects AMENDS PURE cee ECL oth ches tate ns 2a. jes a.) ein nko hoa eee a LECTURE II. THE IMMEMORIAL DOCTRINE OF THE CHURCH OF UGs4. The Canon of Scripture. Why did not the Jewish Church accept aw inspired the Book of Ecclesiasticus; or the Christian Church the Epistle of S. Clement of Rome? The proofs of Inspiration supplied by the Jewish Chur.o. The Apocrypha. Philo. Josephus, The opinions of the Jews accepted in cue New Testament. ᾿ Not from the motive of ‘accommodating’ Christianity te Judaism. The prin- ciple of ‘ Accommodation’ considered. The proofs of Inspiration supplied by the Christian (1.cvch. The judgment of THOPRAtDORS wee cool of wok subse ata Por (ete emcee rosea eles hMal Je. tel ve rt 5} x0) CONTENTS. LECTURE III. THE OLD TESTAMENT AND THE NEW.—THE LOGOS THE REVEALER, Paqs To adduce proofs of Inspiration from Scripture itself is not a petitio principit. The indissoluble connexion, and co-equal authority, of the Old and the New Testament. The revival in modern times of early errors on this subject:— the school of Schleiermacher. The connexion proved (1.) from the statements of the New Testament ; (2.) from a comparison of the supernatural agencies employed under both the Jewish and the Christian Dispensation. The Logos the Revealer in both. “The Angel of Jehovah.” The expressions τὸ ῥῆμα τοῦ Θεοῦ, and ὁ Λόγος τοῦ Θεοῦ, how related, . - - . - « «© « « © « LECTURE IV. REVELATION AND INSPIRATION. The ‘dynamical’ theory of Inspiration. Not of itself sufficient to account for all the phenomena. Inspiration essential to the record of Revelation. Proofs of the ‘dynamical’ theory. The ‘ Law’ generally observed in the development of Revelation. The Theocracy. The Prophetic Office. The “Schools of the Prophets.” Pro- phetic intuition. The personal condition in which Revelations were received. The state of Ecstasy. Visions the result of Ecstasy. The function of the Imagination. Symbolic actions. Symbolic visions. The poetry and the symbolism of the Prophets. The ‘perspective’ character of Prophecy. How ta ΠΟΘ ΘΣΡΙΆΙ ΘΝ δ ἐν es) ie: tol siey os lett) a (tose nme LECTURE V. REVELATION AND INSPIRATION. (Subject continued.) The full bearing of their predictions was not disclosed to the Prophets. The ex- planation of this fact offered by Dr. Hengstenberg. This explanation erro- neous. The Prophets retained their consciousness while giving utterance to their predictions. The case of Balaam considered. How was the Divine character of Revelation attested? Miracles. Prophecy. Schleiermacher’s objections. Proofs of the constant supervision exercised over the acts and words of the “ Servants of God.” The Inspiration of Scripture specifically distinct from the ordinary influence of the Hoiy Spirit in the Church. Errors resulting from confounding these two senses of the term. This distinction illustrated by 5. Peter’s ‘dissimulation’ AMTOCD Ss 45 OV. tay SS a6) Pak Meee had AG hed Ronee alee Roe Se Renee 91 139 187 CONTENTS. LECTURE VI. SCRIPTURAL PROOF. General presumptions. The titles appropriated to the sacred writings. The guid- ance of the Holy Ghost promised to the Disciples by Christ, on four distinct occasions, These promises may be divided into two classes:—those recorded in the Synoptical Gospels, and those recorded by 8. John. The former class of promises fulfilled. Admission of Paulus to this effect. The nature of the second class of promises considered. Misconception of the school of Schleier- macher refuted from what the New Testament tells of 8. Peter and 8. Paul This class of promises also fulfilled. Confirmation of this inference supplied by an argument of Strauss. The testimony of Scripture as to the result of the Divine assistance thus con- - ferred upon its authors. The Harmony of the Human and the Divine Intelli- gence. The infallible authority claimed by the sacred writers, The seventh chapter of the first Epistle to the Corinthians, LECTURE VII. THE COMMISSION TO WRITE.—THE FORM OF WHAT WAS WRITTEN. The closing of the Old Testament Canon. The Commission to write. Earlier portions of the Bible made use of in those Books which are of later date. The theories as to the source of the Synoptical Gospels. The Inspiration of the Evangelists unaffected by the result of such inquiries. References by the Old Testament writers to the Books composed by their predeces- sors. The quotations from the Old Testament in the New afford an experimentum crucis of every theory of Inspiration. Such quotations may be divided into (1.) the strictly prophetical ;—of which four subdivisions present them- selves: and (2.) those in which the language of the Old Testament is πε corporated with the body of Christian doctrine. ‘Collective’ quotations. How far the New Testament writers have adopted the literal;—how far the allegorical method of exposition. Their quotations never introduced by way of mere ‘application.’ Four classes of quotations with reference to the relation of the Hebrew text to the Septuagint Version. The form of such quotations is, in no instance, to be explained by the principle of quoting from memory.” The style of the New Testament, . ....... xiii Pags oC . 235 . 28) ΧΙΥ CONTENTS. LECTURE VIII. REOCAPITULATION.—OBJEOCTIONS CONSIDERED. Pags The nature of the facts recorded in Scripture. No distinction between “ matters of fact,” and “matters of doctrine.” The Divine character of Scripture ex- tends to its language. JRJECTIONS : 1. IL Ti. “The sacred writers contradict each other.” This objection tested by its application to the Gospel Harmony. Illustrations from Astronomy (the perturbations of Uranus), and History (the death of Alexander the Great), exhibit its unphilosophical character. The facts exhibited by 8. John’s Gospel confirm this conclusion. “The statements of Scripture contradict those of profane history.” his objection tested by examining Strauss’s attack upon S. Luke. 8S. Luke, ii. 2, and iii. 1, considered. The historical accuracy of the Evangelist proved. “The statements of Scripture are often at variance with the results of Science.” This objection illustrated and tested by the example of “ Joshua's Miracle.” Aow is the language of Scripture related to the language of Science? The re- JeeeNabi;——Roeh;—Chozehy (271%) a) ec) πὸ =) Ne ieee elite ADO a 6 spective duties of the Theologian and the Philosopher. Conclusion, . . 333 APPENDIX. AS eMichte; 3 Se wi -eiak is sets: je be tess ς οἷς ao tel olen 381 B. Scripture an organized whole, . - «ὁ τς . + « « « « « 6 «© « 1389 C. Modern theories of Inspiration,. . . . . . το «© «© «© © « «= « OOD D. The “lost” Books of the Old Testament, . ..... .- 5 - . 408 HE Dhe aH pistle ofS. barnabas τ τς ς el ie τς fell lel lens τς . 415 Ree mlovand JOsephus., memos) ile Mel tert ss) Ve pile Ὁ ΝΣ sie) eS G. The judgment of the Fathers, . . . . . ...-. « « os et ΕΔ HeetherAddressiofsS., Stephens menus celle) πιο τότ᾿: “Ὁ « e448 ye The Captain of the Lord’s\Host,” .) see eee εὐ ον ῊΣ Ἐγ4 68 456 is Giornale mice OO sea Golo oOo 6 6 oo Go 6 6 0 Chl L. The origin of the Synoptical Gospels, . . . 2. «2 2 eo . 464 M Did 8. Matthew write in Greek? . . . . . 0 «© « oe © « « . 4617 N. “Inspired reasoning,” .. . ὡς e © « « © s « » ayia he . 474 EDITIONS REFERRED ΤῸ IN THE FOLLOWING PAGES. Novum Testamentum Grece,. - « . 5 » τ Vetus Test. Greece, juxta LXX. Interpretes, . . OSOPRUS! 1 cy elo. ol te), epelenmonouleuiet Ὁ Philo wudseus: 2. «© το woMleimemuel tol.) 20 ς “SS. Patres Apostolici,” . . . ° sine ἘΣ “Seriptor. Ecclesiast. Opuse.” (rec. Routh), mien “Reliquize Sacre” (rec. Routh), . . . . - « SRAM ers GG MG ao Oh Obed 0 BG 5, Athanasius,. . SM rarenesn omer ree Tice) 75 Athenagoras (ap. Out 5. Justin. Mart), . .. - sk ΑΠΙΡΤΞΙΠΠΗΝ οτος Gelb Ge oO Oot SH ΒΆΒΗΙΠΗ ΝΕ ane ΚΒ assis) οἷς δ el) shen WASSIOUOLUS Meise iste eliial Lisle, vel ieit es) eh vs ΟἸΘΙΠΘΉΞ ΑἸΘΧΙ τ. ὦ 000 le. 0 «6 05 .6) 5 Ὁ ἘΟΒΓΙ ΔΏΙΗ five) πο οἷ πὶ πον οἱ (αἴ τ Ὁ (welll Sayan pA ΘΙ ον το Ὁ Ὁ δ | slfiiiel τος δ᾽ (5 δ᾽ 5 ΒΞ. 1111 ἘΓΊΘΤΟΝ., ia) ςν τὸ γοῦν. « οἱ ὁ ΠΡ ΡΗΤΘΙΠΊ ΤΟΣ ες ὁ πα 2, [οὐ ὁ. ς 0) ee & Epiphanius,. . .. ° ΩΝ ΡΥ Δ ke Eusebius Pamphili (“ Hist. Feel”), SECU RC pC SEGRE ΟΡ Maes! lle) © ie! πον 1/6), \0) 6. δ. ὦ . Gregor. Reina Seo ΚΟ ini ss] ls) δι) 6 ἂρ ἴω: ἐν - Gregor. Neocms,, ©. s « ὁ © © ὁ © © « Gregor. Nyssen., . ὁ. «ὁ 9. ἃ © « « δ᾽ « ὁ SWEIGYONYMUS ΟΣ ο΄ ὁ 6. ὅς Ὁ. δ᾽ © © οἷ᾽ ὁ ἘΠΙΗΤ ΠΗ ΕΙΟΙΗΝ τὶ οἱ πὴ ὁ δ᾽ κ᾽ 6 κ΄ ὦ ο΄ us Hippolytus,. ὦ ς Ὁ « « « « «© © ὁ « 2 ΡΟΥΘ ΘΝ πο γι} Hci: ov 09, Metis) 6) 60 οὐ Ὁ IsidorusvEispalsy ss: (so: ὁ. δ᾽ 5. σ᾽ ο᾽' ' 6)) = SEISIQOTUSPE OCIS) τς ἧς δὺο ὅδ᾽ δ᾽ ©) οὐ ον 5. ὁ . Johannes Chrysost.,. . ὁ. © © © © « « . Johannes Damascem., . . « «© © e » « » . Justin. Martyr, . . - 53, Macarius Aigypt. (ap. pe 8, ‘Grogor. Meocss, ) ΟΥ̓. ΒΗΘΗ sheen πρὸς πο τ ὦ δι Lea aenn en ts ΠΡΥΠΠΠΙ ΒΗ ἀν τὸ, ‘os 06. ee δ΄“ «Ὁ ὁ} Ὁ ΠΠΡΟΘΟ ΙΝ =)... ς - Ξ - Theophilus Antioch. (ap. ΤῊΝ 8. Justin. Mare , : ἘΠ ΘΟΙΠ ΠΟΙ τος Ue) lee! 6) τ \* Bod S. Thomas:Aquinas).~. 2. οὖ 2 νὼ πω 6 ARANDRANMAMNMMNMM?N Ed. Tischendorf, Paris. 1842 Ed. Tischendorf, Lips. 1850. Ed. Havercamp. Amst. 1726 Ed. Mangey, Lond. 1742. Ed. Coteler. Amst. 1724. Ed. altera, Oxon. 1840. Ed altera, Oxon. 1846. Ed. Ben. Paris. 1686. Ed. Ben. Paris. 1698. Ed. Ben. Paris. 1742. Ed. Ben. Paris. 1679. Ed. Ben. Paris. 1721. Ed. Ben. Rothom. 1679. Ed. Potter, Oxon. 1715. Ed. Ben. Paris. 1726. Ed. Aubert. Paris. 1638. Ed. Ben. Paris. 1720. Ed. Asseman, Rome. 1732, Ed. Petav. Paris. 1622. Ed. Reading, Cantab. 1720. Ed. Ben. Paris. 1706. Ed. Ben. Paris. 1778, 1840. Paris. 1622. Paris. 1638. Ed. Vallars. Veron. 1734. Ed. Ben. alt. Veron. 1730 Ed. Fabric. Hamb. 1716. Ed. Ben. Paris. 1110. Colon. 1617. Paris. 1638. : Ed. Ben. Paris. 1718. Ed. Le Quien, Paris, 712. Ed. Ben. Paris. 1742. Paris. 1622. Ed. Ben. Paris. 1733. Ed. Rigalt. Paris, 1634. Ed. Sirmond. Paris. 1642. Ed. Ben. Paris. 1742. Ed. De Rubeis, Venef, 1754 Venet. 1745. LECTURE 1 THE QUESTION STATED. “Quod colimus, Deus unus est, qui totam molem istam cum omni instrumento cle- mentorum, corporum, spirituum, verbo quo jussit, ratione qua disposuit, virtute qua potuit, de nihilo expressit in ornamentium majestatis suze, unde et Graci nomen mundo KOZMON accommodaverun;. * * * Sed quo plenius et impressius tam Ipsum, quam dispositiones ejus et voluntates adiremus, instrumentum adjecit literature, si qui yelit de Deo inmirere. et inquisito invenire. et invento credere, et credito deservire.” TERTULL Apviog. Rom. i. 20. 4 Twesten, referring to the arguments which reason supplies for the existence of God, justly appeals to the results of modern investigations in proof of the proposition that reflecting upon the finite can never lead man beyond the finite, if he does not already bear within himself the consciousness of the Infinite.—Cf. “ Vorlesungen tiber die Dogmatik,” ler Band. 5. 345. 5 Rom. ii. 14, 15. SUES) Lx, 9: 7 Acts, xiv. 17 22 THE QUESTION STATED [LECT. L find him, though He be not far from every one of us, for in Him we live, and move, and have our being.”? The particulars just considered form the groundwork of what is termed Natural Religion ; the conveyance of God’s will by means of facts’ is the foundation of what we term Revealed Re- ligion. Natural and Revealed Religion can never be contrasted ; but there is a real, although it is but relative contrast between the channels through which they are conveyed, i. e., between Na- ture and Revelation.* How, then, are they related ; and where in nature can we recognise a Divine activity other than that exhibited in the order of the universe ?* Nature and Revelation alike pro- ceed from God, and, consequently, if their relation to each other be correctly expressed, all semblance of absolute opposition must, of itself, disappear. We have, therefore, to seek for some point in which they both unite; in which Nature assumes a religious aspect, as plainlyas Revelation presents itself as a matter of fact. We have assumed that the Divine influence over Nature did not cease at the act by which the world was called into being :— the perfection of creation, surely, does not suspend the vital im- pulse which it received from God, nor is the Creator’s power to be restricted to the original imposition of purely mechanical laws. Now, if God speak by means of the phenomena of the universe to the spirit of man, such a result can never be ascribed to the purely natural element which pervades the world. This only points to some other element of the same kind, equally finite with itself; and by virtue of the chain of causes reveals to us 1 Alluding to the passage here cited (Acts, xvii. 26-28) Bretschneider (loc. cit.) observes: ‘‘ Bei der Manifestation ist der Mensch activ, und muss Gott suchen und ergreifen.” This writer goes on to confound the ideas of Revelation and Inspiration. Inspiration he defines to be that species of Revelation in which God acts without the intervention of any intermediate cause (“sine causarum externarum intervent: ; and as man is active in the case of “ Manifestation,” so in ‘ Inspiration” he is passive {“ Bei der Inspiration verhalt sich der Mensch leidend”) ; in proof of which he quotes 2 Pet.i.21. But see infra, p. 40. To the class of Divine ‘‘ Manifestations” some writers (6. g. C. F. Fritzsche, “ De Revelationis notione Biblica, p. 13) add that effected by the course of history: ‘‘Our fathers understood not Thy wonders in Egypt. * * * Nevertheless He saved them for His name’s sake, that He might make his mighty power to be known.”— Ps, evi. 7, 8, οὗ Ps. exxxvi. 3. E. g. the giving of the Law from Sinai—the Incarnation, &e. 3 “Differunt certe informationes oraculi et sensus et re et modo insinuandi: sed spiritus humanus unus est, ejusque arcule et celle eedem. Fit itaque, ac si diversi liquores, atque per diversa infundibula, in unum atque idem vas recipiantur.”—Bacon, De Augment. Scient. lib. ii. cap. 1. 4 This subject is discussed by Sack in his remarks, ‘‘ Vom Begriffe der Off-nba- rung,” Apologetik, ss. 114-147 LECT. 1.] THE QUESTION STATED. 23 nothing more than the mutual dependence of the particular ex- istences in the world of Nature, but not the sovereignty of God. That which reveals the Supreme Being, and thus mediates between God and man, is the divine Logos, or Creating Word, which proceeds from the essence of Deity. Without this notion there is no religious view of Nature, nor can we recognize its Divine Author as revealed by it.’ It is only the relationship of our spirit to this Original Intelligence (which is at once exalted above Nature, and really operative within it), which renders it even tonceivable that Nature should thus influence us. Between this view of the world and Atheism (which banishes God from His universe), or Pan- theism (which identifies Him with it), there is no alternative. Hence it is that the active revealing power in Nature, and the historically revealing element in Religion, have one and the same principle. In short, the true notion of all Revelation is expressed in a saying of §, Athanasius when speaking of the Incarnation : —‘It was the office of the Divine Word, who by His peculiar providence, and setting in order of the universe, affords instruc- tion concerning the Father, to renew that same instruction.”’ This renewed instruction effected by direct communications from above, as well as that “ manifestation” of God effected through the medium of Nature, are alike to be traced to the same Eternal Word. No man hath seen God at any time, the only-begotten Son, which is in the bosom of the Father, He hath declared Him.”* Now, Revelation, properly so called, is distinguished in Scripture into Revelation by Word, and Revelation by Act—the 1 “So ist alle Offenbarung ein Thatwort des Logos an den Geist des Menschen; und dieses Thatwort auch in der Natur zu erkennen, ist die einzige Art, die Natur relig- 108 und als Mittel der Offenbarung anzusehen.”—Sack’s Apologetik, s. 121. 28. Athanasius, De Incarn. cap. 14, tom i. par. i. p. 59. The chapter begins by stating that when the features of a portrait have been effaced, it is necessary that the original should again be present, in order that the likeness may be restored. Κατὰ τοῦτο καὶ ὁ πανάγιος τοῦ πατρὸς ὑιὸς, ἐϊκὼν ὧν TOD πατρὸς, παρεγένετο ἐπὶ τοὺς ἧμε- τέρους τόπους, ἵνα τὸν κατ’ ἀυτὸν πεποιημένον ἄνθρωπον ἀνακαινίσῃ * * * τίνος ὄυν ἦν πάλιν χρεία, ἢ τοῦ θεοῦ λόγου τοῦ καὶ ψυχὴν καὶ νοῦν ὁρῶντος, τοῦ καὶ τὰ ὅλα ἐν τῇ κτίσει κινοῦντος, καὶ δι’ ἀυτῶν γνωρίζοντος τὸν πατέρα; τοῦ γὰρ διὰ τῆς ἰδίας προνοίας καὶ διακοσμήσεως τῶν ὅλων διδάσκοντος περὶ τοῦ πατρὸς, ἀυτοῦ ἦν καὶ τὴν ἀυτὴν διδασ- καλίαν ἀνανεῶσαι. In addition to this passage (the closing sentence of which is quoted by Sack, p. 132), [ may adduce the expression of the same thought by S. Ireneus: “ Per ipsam conditionem, revelat Verbum conditorem Deum, et per mundum fabrificatorem mundi Dominum, et per plasma eum qui plasmaverit artificem, et per Filium eum Patrem qui generaverit Filium * * * Sed per Legem et Prophetas similiter Varbum et Semetipsum et Patrem predicabat.”— Cont. Heer., lib. iv. cap. vi. p. 234. 5 John i. 18. 24 THE QUESTION STATED. [LECT. 1 Act, or miracle, representing and expressing, in the world of sense, what the Word, or knowledge communicated, expresses in the world of thought: the former being to the ordinary law of Na- ture, what the latter is to the light of Reason." In one point of time, and in one form of life, both these elements have found their perfect union. Both have been united in Him who is the subject of all Revelation.* The being to whom we must ascribe the words, although expressed by the messengers of God; He who, in like mafiner, performed the acts, although by the instru- mentality of these same agents, was the Locos, God’s eternal, personal, self-Revelation,—God, who as Word, spiritually, and yet really, maintains the world.’ But now the fact of the Incar- nation presents to our view both these forms of Revelation com- bined ;—that entrance of the Eternal Word into the personal and historical limitations of a ‘‘ Son of Man.” In this great fact Revelation, on its historical side, has been closed, on its spiritual side has been rendered perfect and immortal, And thus we can not conceive (nor does Scripture record) that any Revelation was ever made to Christ. He was not only the Revealer,—“ the true Light which lighteth every man that cometh into the world,” ‘— but also the Revelation, “‘ God manifest in the flesh.” There are three epochs in which Divine Revelation gives to the history of religion the very condition of its existence :—-The Primitive Revelation ; the Covenant Revelation to Israel ; Revela- tion in the appearance of Christ. It has pleased God that of this Revelation a record should be conveyed to after times. It could only be conveyed by the medium of language ; and since Scrip- ture appears, in history, as the acknowledged means of preserving this record, we here behold the transmission of Revelation by a written document. But whence the title Holy Scripture ? 1 C£ “Twelve Sermons on Heb. i. 1, 2,” delivered at the Boyle Lecture, A. D. 1708, by Bishop Williams (of Chichester), p. 17: a work which, notwithstanding some (as I conceive) erroneous statements as to Inspiration, is of much value. * In God as Logos, Word and Act are ever united: “ΗΘ spake, and it was done; He commanded, and it stood fast.”—Ps. xxxiii. 9. ‘‘ Wie sein Wort immer die aller- erfolgreichste That ist, schlechtin schaffend: so ist auch séine That immer im héch- sten Grade redend und unendlich Gedanken erzeugend.”—Sack, s. 136. 5 Nature, observes 8. Athanasius, is sustained and preserved by the Logos from that dissolution which its own fleeting and frail. materials must have induced. For God who by His eternal Word gave existence to the Creation,— Ὡς ἀγαθὸς τῷ ἑαυτοῦ λόγῳ Kai ἀυτῷ ὄντι θεῷ τὴν σύμπασαν διακυβερνᾷ καὶ Kabio- τησιν, ἵνα τῇ τοῦ λόγοι; ἡγεμονίᾳ καὶ προνοίᾳ καὶ διακοσμήσει φωτιζομένη ἡ κτίσις, βε- θαίως διαμένειν δυνηθῇ).---- ΟΥ αἱ. cont. Gentes. n. 41, tom. i. p. 40. 4 John, i. 9, ef. Luke, ii. 32. LECT. I.] THE QUESTION STATED. 25 Traced to its true source, this notion depends upon the fact, that the ideas of the Eternal Word, and of the Divine Spirit, are here, to a certain degree, correlative.’ The Word, as divine and eternally creative, has the Spirit as the divine and eternally ani- mating principle, in and with Himself, By the agency of the Divine Spirit the meaning and the will of the Eternal Word are introduced into the real being of things.? All divine activity in the world is organic, So also the arrangements of God’s Revela- tion form a system which comprehends all things ; which aids in bringing light into darkness ; whose centre is Christ, to whom every Revelation in earlier times must be referred, and from whom every Revelation, of a later period, has proceeded, by vir- 1 Of, Sack, “ Von der heiligen Schrift,” Apologetik, 5. 418. The topic here introduced is so essential to a just view of the present subject, that I am induced to quote in full the following passages. On Rom, Xi. 36 (ἐξ dutod καὶ 60 ἀυτοῦ καὶ ἐις ἀυτὸν τὰ πάντα), Olshausen observes :— “Paul at length closes his great dogmatic discussion with a‘doxology, in which God is described as embracing all things—as the Beginning, Middle, and End, of all things, and, consequently, of the believing Israel as a whole, and of every individual That these references are what is intended by the prepositions ἐξ, dia, and εἰς, is no longer questioned by later expositors. But, on the other hand, they continue blind to the fact that these references also express the relation of Father, Son, and Spirit. In an exactly similar way it is said of God, Eph. iv. 6,6 ἐπὶ πάντων καὶ διὰ πάντων, καὶ ἐν πᾶσιν. Of the Father as the sowrce of all being, ἐκ or ὑπό is always (stets) used in the New Testament, and ἐπί with respect to His absolute power; of the Son, al- ways dvi, as the Revealer of the Father, the organ of His agency (comp. on Johni. 3); of the Spirit, εἰς. so far as He is the End to which the divine agency leads, or év, so far as He is the element which penetrates and supports all things. 1 Cor, viii. 6, is decisive in favor of this interpretation; where Paul himself explains the ἐξ οὐ and δι᾽ οὐ of the Father and the Son.”—Der Brief an die Rém., Comm. 3er Band. 8. 420. Again, on Col. i. 17, Olshausen, returning to this subject, writes as follows:— “The various relations of the creature to the Eternal are expressed by the prep- ositions διά, εἰς, and ἐν. The dvd refers to the origin of the creature, which proceeds from the Father through the Son; εἰς refers to the end of the creature, as all is created to or for Him, as the final aim of things (cf. verse 20); on the other hand ἐν points, as the συνέστηκε unmistakeably shows, to the present stability of the world, which is always im the Son, so far as He supports and upholds the world with His word (Heb. 1. 3), and the upholding may also be considered as a continuation of the creation. There is but one difficult point in this description, which sets forth Christ’s divine na- ture in the most distinct manner; namely, that elsewhere the relation of the Holy Ghost to the creature is usually expressed by the prepositions εἰς and ἐν (cf. on Rom. xi. 36); but here the Son is always the subject. In other passages, Θ. g. 1 Cor. viii. 6, εἰς is also used of the Father. However, this difficulty is satisfactorily explained by the fact, that to each of the three Divine Persons, by Himself, just because they are real Persons, and carry life in themselves, all relations of the Trinity can be attrib- uted.”—Der Brief an die Coloss., Comm. 4er Band. s. 339. This reference to the mystery of the Trinity, as denoted by the three prepositions. is noticed by Origen, Comm. in Hpist. ad Rom. lib. vim. tom. iv. p. 642. The passage is quoted by Mr, Alford in loc. 2 Tt is well observed by Rudelbach, in his Essay “‘ Die Lehre von der Inspiration der heil. Schrift,” published in his Journal for 1840, that “the transition to a written document, composed according to God’s will, can detract in no respect from the power and efficacy of His Word On this assumption rests the whole notion of Jnspira- tion.”—ler Theil. 5, 24. 26 THE QUESTION STATED. [LECT. 1, tue of that Holy Spirit imparted, through Him, to the world.’ This agency of the Holy Spirit, by the very force of the term, forms the essence of the idea of Inspiration ; and the two con- ceptions thus pointed out, of the Eternal Word as the Divine Person who reveals, and of the Holy Spirit as the Divine Person who inspires, are the pillars upon which must rest any theory re- specting the Bible and its origin which can deserve serious notice.” But, before entering upon the direct question of Inspiration, a matter of vital moment must be adverted to, any confusion of ideas respecting which must perforce mar and distort the whole aspect of the inquiry. It must first be settled, What is the Bible ὃ and In what light are we to regard it? In reply to the former of these questions, with which the present investigation is not di- rectly concerned, I point to that collection of writings, whether of the Old or New Testament, which our Church accepts as Ca- nonical, and which she defines in her Sixth Article. The answer to the latter question, viz., ‘‘ In what light is the Bible, as a col- lection of such and such books, to be regarded ?” demands some observation. There is an error growing up in our time, closely allied to that false spiritualism which in the second century formed the essence of the heresy of Marcion, which draws a sharp line of distinction between the Old Testament and the New. The leading representative of this opinion in modern times is the founder of a school which commands extensive influ- ence on the Continent, and the principles of which have been recently advocated with no small ability among ourselves.’ The ' Cf. Twesten’s ‘‘ Vorlesungen,” ler Band. p. 289. ? See on this question Lecture iii. infra. * “The Philosophy of Religion, by J. D. Morell, A.M. London, 1849.” “Tf there be one mind whose personality may have impressed itself more than any other upon my own, in tracing out the whole course of the following treatise, it is assuredly that of the revered Schleiermacher; indeed the analysis of the idea of re- ligion, and its reference to the absolute feeling of dependence, is taken substantially out of the introduction to his great work, the ‘Glaubenslehre.’ That God would send such a mind and such a heart to shed their influence upon ourselves, and guide _us from the barren region of mere logical forms into the hallowed paths of a divine life, is the best wish I can breathe for the true welfare of every religious community in our land.”—Pref. p. xxxiii. Quinet, in his eloquent essay on Strauss in the “ Revue des Deux Mondes” for 1838 (tom. 4me., p. 463, &ec.), adverts with justice to the influence of Schleiermacher. He observes, that in the commotion of the German mind, and the daily increasing destruction of all belief, nothing causes him greater surprise than the calmness of those writers “ qui, effagant chaque jour un mot de la Bible, ne sont pas moins tran- qiilles sur l’avenir de leur croyance’ Schleiermacher was the greatest of them all— LECT. 1I.] THE QUESTION STATED. 27 founder of this school, the celebrated Schleiermacher, maintains that while Christianity is no doubt connected histcrically with Judaism by the fact that Jesus was born among the Jewish people, still the reason of this merely was, that the universal Redeemer could not well appear except among a monotheistic people.’ This whole system regards the Old and New Testament as factors of a perfectly heterogeneous nature: the Law is not inspired ; nor even the historical parts of the Old Testament ;* and Christianity, so far as its peculiar features are concerned, stands in precisely the same relation to Judaism as to Heathen- ism. But not to dwell upon sentiments so extreme, and from which even the followers of Schleiermacher seem to recoil,’ I can refer to the views of a respectable English writer. Dr. Pye Smith thus expresses himself in some remarks upon the Old Testament contained in his work on “The Scripture Testimony to the Messiah :”’—“ Many of the facts thus recorded have not directly a religious interest, but they were valuable to the Israelites and Jews as fragments of national and family history ; and in our times they have proved to be of great importance in casting light upon the almost lost history of several nations.”* “ fait pour régner dans ce trouble universel si l’anarchie des intelligences eit consenti a recevoir un maitre.” 1 Of. ‘‘ Der Christliche Glaube von Dr. Friedrich Schleiermacher,” 4te Aufgabe, Ber- lin, 1842. ler Band.s.77. And even this prerogative of the Jews must be received with qualifications: “Und so war auf der andern Seite auch das hellenische und r6- mische Heidenthum auf mancherlei Weise monotheistisch vorbereitet, und dort die Erwartung auf eine neue Gestaltung aufs ausserste gespannt, so wie im Gegentheil unter den Juden die messianischen Verheissungen theils aufgegeben waren, theils missverstanden. So dass wenn man alle geschichtlichen Verhaltnisse zusammen- fasst, der Unterschied weit geringer ausfallt, als auf den ersten Aublick scheint.”—~ 8. 78. ? Nay more, as to the value of the Old Testament for Christians: ‘‘ Werden wit gewiss eben so nahe und zusammenstimmende Anklinge auch in den Aeusserungeg des edleren und reineren Heidenthums antreffen.”—s. 80. 3 E. g. Twesten, who, as Nitzsch justly observes (‘Studien und Kritiken,” 1828 s. 227), rather omits the consideration of this question, than treats it with the atten: tion which its importance deserves. Nevertheless he follows in the footsteps of his master so far as to assert, “ We cannot regard these writings as a rule for Christians, and, therefore, the question arises, how we are to regard them from the stand-point of Christian theology.”— Vorlesungen, ler Band. 5, 322. 4“The Scripture Testimony to the Messiah.” 2d Ed. vol. i, notes, p. 41. Of this “note” Mr. Morell observes, ‘‘ So, also, to some extent that admirable scholar and theologian, Dr. J. P. Smith, in one of his notes to the Scripture Testimony to the Messiah; a note which had almost brought out the controversy [as to ee fairly into this country, but that its hour was not yet arrived.”—The Philosophy 9 Religion, p. 189. I quote this observation as illustrating the extent to which the question has been fermenting in the public mind. Mr. Morell himself observes, with respect to the books of the Old Testament from Joshua to Chronicles: ‘“ All that we can say is, that they were universally received, 28 THE QUESTION STATED. [LECT. 1. All such views, according to the principles which it will be my endeavor to establish, are founded upon a fundamentally erro- neous conception of the nature and structure of the Bible. This Divine record, comprising the two great divisions of Old and New Testament, presents itself to the acceptance of mankind as one organized whole: as an elaborate structure whose various parts zonspire to the attainment of one definite end, the entire edifice being constructed according to one grand design, That one end is the Salvation of man,—that grand design is the economy of Redemption. The stage on which this great drama was to be enacted was the history of the human race ; and in no other lan- guage than that of the Bible itself can be described the antithe- sis which this history affords: ‘‘ God saw every thing that He had made, and behold it was very good,”! is the statement of the first chapter of the Old Testament ;—the writer who closes the New Testament, on the other hand, proclaims, ‘‘ We know that we are of God, and the whole world lieth in wickedness.”* With the two ideas of Redemption and Salvation, the entire framework of Revelation is inseparably connected. To the first man was given a hope of the redemption of his race ; and beyond this the last of the Prophets can not go.* The appearance of the Re- deemer Himself did no more than give reality to these antici- pations. There is an inseparable bond of union connecting the two divisions of the inspired volume: “ The law was our schoolmaster to bring us unto Christ.”“ The aim of each earlier Revelation of the Eternal Word was to restore, in their original purity, the lost truths of religion, and to build them up anew in the midst both as veracious histories, and as containing correct religious sentiments, by the Jewish people.”—Jbid. Ὁ. 161. Of the Psalms, he concludes :— “ All we can say is, that they embodied the religious consciousness, or, if the term be preferred, the state of insniration to which the mind of the writer was elevated.”— P.162. This view may be illistrated by what the author had just observed as to the Pentateuch: “ All we mean 18, that the inspiration here involved did not spring from any outward commission to write that particular book; but only from the Divine light which was granted to the age, and to the mind of the author—a gift which he was -eft to make use of as necessity or propriety might suggest.”—Jbid. p. 161. 1 Gen. i. 31. an ohm aval: * See Davison, “ Discourses on Prophecy,” 5th Ed. p. 74. Twesten has received much praise for having similarly connected the ideas of Revelation and Redemption. “Unter Offenbarung verstehen wir hier die Aeusserung der gottlichen Gnade zum Heile (εἰς σωτηρίαν) des gefallenen Menschen in ihrer ursprtinglichen Wirkung auf die menschliche Erkentniss.”— Vorlesungen, ler Band. 8. 345. 4 Gal. iii. 24. LECT. 1.} THE QUESTION STATED. 29 of historical and positive false religions." This latter circum- stance, of necessity, stamped a character of separation upon the Revelation of the Old Testament ; which Revelation, however, from its design of restoration, must be also characterized by a principle of development. The patriarchal Revelation elected and separated an individual and his family ; the sanctions of its covenant were faith and hope.* When this became clouded by idolatry and unbelief, a new Revelation was annexed to and founded upon it; and which, while it imposed, in the Mosaic Law, a more positive or penal discipline,* held out in the field of prophecy a greater fulness of promise, and a brighter prospect ot hope. In the legal element, Revelation develops more strongly its separating character ; in the element of promise, its move- ment in advance is more apparent, removing more and more the barriers which confined the covenant people. Lastly, the Dispen- sation introduced by Christ includes and perfects all previous phases of Revelation, and combines them in itself into an organ- ism complete on all sides. It perfects both the legal and prom- issory side of the Old Testament Revelation. The Law becomes real, living truth; the promise becomes actual grace: ‘‘ The Law was given by Moses, but grace and truth came by Jesus Christ.”‘ Its individuality is now stamped with universality : “ Many shall come from the east and west, and shall sit down with Abraham, Isaac, and Jaccb, in the kingdom of heaven.”’ Its character of separation at length expands into that of a king- dom of the elect, extending over all the people of the world. And thus, following the course and progress of Revelation, the several parts of the inspired volume sprang gradually into being : “The brook became a river, and the river became a sea.” ® The immediate design, indeed, of each element of this collec- tion of writings, or the precise end attained by its connection with the others, we may not as yet be able to discern—although the progress of knowledge, and the light afforded by the fulfilment of prophecy, have largely extended our information as to these 1 Compare, on this point, the admirable remarks of Beck, pp. 120-143 of his “ Propadeutische Entwicklung der Christlichen Lehr-Wissenschaft,” Stuttgart, 1838. 2“ Your father Abraham,” said Christ to the Jews, “rejoiced to see my day, and he saw it and was glad.”—John, viii. 56; cf. Heb. xi. 5 “ Wherefore then serveth the Law? It was added because of transgressions,”— Gal. iii. 19; cf. Rom. vii. 7. 4 John, i. 17. 5 Matt. viii. 11. 6 Ecclus. xxiv. 31 30 THE QUESTION STATED. [LECT. L matters.' But, the fact of such ignorance respecting the purpose of each portion, and the functions performed by it in the organ- ized structure of the Holy Scriptures, is no reason for our deny- ing that a purpose was designed ; while, as in the case of every organized whole, each discovery of such or such a final cause but serves to illustrate the connection and mutual relation of all its parts, although our researches may fall very far short of perfec- tion, Take, for example, the animal economy. The veins and arteries had performed their appointed functions, and diffused the vital current through the frame for thousands of years before their final cause was pointed out. To the present hour the ner- vous system remains a mystery; and yet, who will question its importance or its utility ?? And, to carry the analogy one step farther,—as the various portions of the animal structure are called at different times and for different purposes into different degrees of activity, so the relative value and prominence of the various parts of Scripture alter according to the wants and inter- ests of the age. In our day, certain portions of Holy Writ, which were of main importance in the early ages of the Church (and which will maintain to the last their vital, though relative, value), may not be of such immediate practical applicability ; while, on the other hand, what is all essential now was not then so peculiarly called into action. The character of the inspired record itself, however, does not vary. The landscape remains Thus St. Jerome profoundly observes :—‘ Paralipomenon liber, id est, Instru- menti veteris ἐπιτομή, tantus ac talis est, ut absque illo si quis scientiam Scripturarum sibi voluerit arrogare, se ipsum irrideat. Per singula quippe nomina, juncturasque verborum, et preetermissz in Regum libris tanguntur historize, et innumerabiles ex- plicantur Evangelii queestiones.”—Hpist. liii. ad Paulinum, tom. i. p. 277. Thus it is that Ezra, i. 1, is inexplicable without the predictions of Isaiah and Jere- miah; which, in their turn would be altogether obscure without the record of their fulfilment preserved by Ezra and Nehemiah. Again, as Mr. Westcott justly remarks, “The relation of Christianity to the old dispensation, which is historically exhibited in St. Matthew, is argumentatively deduced and specially illustrated in the Epistle to the Hebrews, the authority of which can never be doubted by those who have any deep sense of the perfect providential instruction of the Church; for without it the types of the Old Testament are, in most cases, unexplained, and the full significance of the past unrecognized and undeclared.”—Elements of the Gospel Harmony, p. 140. See Appendix B. * Origen has well developed this same analogy: * % * 61 yap περὶ τὰς ἀνατομὰς πραγματευσάμενοι τῶν ἰατρῶν, δυνάνται λέγειν ἕκαστον καὶ τὸ ἐλάχιστον μόριον ἐις τὶ χρήσιμον ὑπὸ τῆς προνοίας γεγένηται" νόει μοι τοίνυν καὶ τὰς γραφὰς τοῦτον τὸν τρόπον πάσας βοτάνας, ἢ ἕν τέλειον λόγου σῶμα" ἐι δὲ σὺ μήτε βοτανικὸς & γραφῶν, μήτε ἀνατομεὺς τῶν προφητικῶν λόγων, μὴ νόμιζε περι ἕλκειν τι τῶν γεγρωμμένων ἀλλὰ σεαυτὸν μόνον ἢ τὰ ἱερὰ γράμμ "τα ἀιτιῶ, ὅτε μὴ FOL? κεις τὸν λόγον τῶν yeypaumévwv.—Homil. xxxix. in Jerem. ton ili. p. 2Ά8. LECT. 1.] THE QUESTION STATED, 31 still the same, althuugh the sun, as the storm-cloud floats along, may lend greater brilliancy to some features of the scene, and cast others for a moment into the shade. The various parts of Holy Scripture, then, I would again re- peat, in order to be rightly understood, or justly valued, must be regarded as the different members of one vitally organized struc- ture ; each performing its appropriate function, and each convey- ing its own portion of the truth. Consider the parts sustained by two of our four Gospels. A one-sided apprehension of Apos- tolic teaching had introduced in the early Church different phases of false doctrine. Had there been but one Gospel, the Church’s teaching might have been, in like manner, one-sided. From the Gospel of St. Matthew the higher nature of Christ could not have been so clearly proved to the Ebionites, as from that of S. John ; while the former was better calculated to oppose the dreams of the Gnostics." But the four Gospels having been combined in the Canon, the Church has thus been defended on all sides. Hence the Gospels were well termed by an early Father® the four 1 Of these heresies 8. Irenzeus observes: “ Hbionei eo Evangelio, quod est secundum Matthzeum, solo utentes, ex illo ipso convincuntur, non recte presumentes de Domino. * * * Hi autem quia Valen- tino sunt, eo quod est secundum Joannem plenissime utentes ad ostensionem conju- gationum suarum ex ipso detegontur,” &e.— Cont. Horr., lib. iii. 11, p 189. 78. Ireneus. ’Erewd7 * * * στύλος δὲ καὶ στήριγμα ἐκκλησίας τὸ ἐυαγγέλιον, καὶ πνεῦμα ζωῆς, ἐικότως τέσσαρας ἔχειν ἀυτὴν oTVAoVc.—Lbid. p. 190. S. Irenzeus adds the well-known comparisons of the four regions of the world, the four principal spirits, and, in fine, the four forms which made up the Cherubim, (Hzek. i. 10. Rev. iv. 7.); observing that the Divine Logos, who sits upon the Cherubim, “ dedit nobis quadriforme (τετρώμορφον) Evangelium, quod uno spiritu continetur.” In like man- ner, 8. Cyprian: ‘‘ Ecclesia Paradisi instar exprimens, arbores fructiferas intra muros suos intus includit. * * * Has arbores rigat quatuor fluminibus, id est Evangeliis quatuor.”—Hp. lxxiii. p. 182, On this passage Mr. Westcott aptly observes: —‘“ An old Father compared our four Evangelists to the rivers which encircled the earthly Paradise: truly their streams,spring from different lands, and flow in different ways: yet each protects some boundary of the Church, and conveys to it the waters of life." —Hlements of Gospel Harmony, Ὁ. 18. To the same effect 8. Jerome styles the four Evangelists “quadriga Domini, et verum Cherubim.’’—Ep. liii. ad Paulinwm, tom. i. p. 278. Gieseler,; in his essay ‘‘On the origin of the written Gospels,” p. 200, points out with his usual learning the source of such metaphorical language, which writers un- acquainted with the questions agitated in the primitive Church are wont to regard as puerile or unmeaning. The heretics continually objected that the Church claimed four Gospels, while the Apostles taught but one. Thus, in the “ Dialogus de recta in Deum fide,” which is contained in the first volume of the works of Origen, the Mar- cionite argues: ᾿Εγὼ ἐλέγχω ἑτέρωθεν, ὅτι φάλσα ἐστὶν τὰ ἐναγγέλια͵ λέγει yap ὁ ἀπόστολος ἕν évay- γέλιον, ὑμεῖς δὲ τέσσαρα Aéyete.—P. 801. Hence, observes Gieseler, ‘‘the Fathers are at great pains to ψοϊηὐ out that their Gospel is always One; presented, nevertheless, under four forms, handed down by four witnesses, divided into four books.” How well suited to the taste of the age 32 THE QUESTION STATED. (LECT. 1, pulars of the Church, each supporting its own portion of the structure, and guarding it from subsiding into any of those forms of false doctrine to which partial views of the truth had given rise. In seeking for the grounds of that peculiar authority which is claimed for the Bible, we are first of all met by the question as to the authorship and genuineness of the separate writings of which the volume is composed. With this portion of the subject our present inquiry has no immediate concern. The various points connected with it constitute a distinct branch of theological sci- ence, to which in recent times the title ‘‘ Introduction” (Kinlei- tung) has been appropriated ;’ and the results of which the pres- ent investigation must assume. Were we to content ourselves with such results, no small advantage would be attained. The Holy Scriptures would still be to us objects of the highest value were we merely to regard them as historical documents from which we might learn to know the doctrine of Christ, as we learn the opinions of Socrates from the pages of Xenophon and Plato. But we have too much depending on the certainty of these docu- ments not to feel ourselves disquieted by the doubt, Is the orig- inal Revelation transmitted to us through them in its primitive purity ?—a doubt which at once disappears if we firmly establish the Inspiration of the writers ; and show how such Inspiration is reflected by and preserved in the pages of Scripture. The Bible presents to us, in whatever light we regard it, two distinct elements,—the Divine and the Human. This is a matter of fact. On the one hand, God has granted a Revelation ; on the other, human language has been made the channel to convey, and men have been chosen as the agents to record it. From this point all theories on the subject of Revelation take their rise ; and all the varieties of opinion respecting it have sprung from the man- ner in which the fact referred to has been taken into account Uhere are two leading systems in this department of theology : were the comparisons employed in the elucidation of this fact, appears from the gene- ral custom, founded upon the simile of the Cherubim, of ascribing to each Evangelist one of the forms of which the Cherubim consisted. ? Perhaps the earliest instance of the use of this term is to be found in the Preface to the treatise by Cassiodorus (A. Ὁ. 538), ‘De Institutione Divinarum Literarum,” where he styles his work “introductorios libros.” Ed. Bened, tom. ii. p. 537. He refers subsequently to previous ‘ Introductores Scripturee divine ;” of whom he names Tichonius the Donatist, 8. Augustine, in his work, “ De doctrina Christiana,” Hadrian, Bucherius, and Junilius. Ibid. ο. x. p. 545. LECT. I.] THE QUESTION STATED. 33 the one suggested by the prominence assigned to the Divine ele- ment, the other resulting from the undue weight attached to the Human. The former of these systems practically ignores the Human element of the Bible, and fixes its exclusive attention upon the Divine agency exerted in its composition. This system admits and can admit of no degrees. It puts forward one consis- tent and intelligible theory, without subdivisions or gradations. According to it, each particular doctrine or fact contained in Scripture, whether in all respects naturally and necessarily un- known to the writers, or which, although it might have been as- certained by them in the ordinary course of things, they were not, in point of fact, acquainted with ; or in fine, everything, whether actually known to them, or which might become so, by means of personal experience or otherwise,—each and every such point-has not only been committed to writing under the infallible assistance and guidance of God, but is to be ascribed to the special and im- mediate suggestion, embreathment, and dictation of the Holy Ghost. Nor does this hold true merely with respect to the sense of Scripture and the facts and sentiments therein recorded, but each and every word, phrase, and expression, as well as the order and arrangement of such words, phrases, and expressions, has been separately supplied, breathed into (as it were) and dictated to the sacred writers, by the Spirit of God.*_ For the present, I shall merely observe, that, while I can by no means accept this system as correct, or as consistent with the facts to be explained, it will be my object in the present Discourses to establish in the broadest extent all that its supporters desire to maintain ; name- ly, the infallible certainty, the indisputable authority, the per- fect and entire truthfulness of all and every the parts of Holy Scripture. The characteristic of the other system to which I have alluded, and to which the great majority of the modern theories of Inspi- * “Omnia et singulz res qua in S. Scriptura continentur, sive ille fuerint 8. Scripe toribus naturaliter prorsus incognite, sive naturaliter quidem cognoscibiles, actu ta- men incognite, sive denique, non tantum naturaliter cognoscibiles, sed etiam actu ipso note, vel aliunde, vel per experientiam, et sensuum ministerium, non solum per assistentiam et directionem divinam infallibilem literis consignatze sunt, sed sin- gulari Spirits 8. suggestioni, inspirationi, et dictamini accept ferendz sunt. Omnia enim, que scribenda erant a Spiritu S. sacris Scriptoribus in actu isto scribendi sug- gesta, et intellectui eorum quasi in calamum dictitata sunt, ut his et non aliis cireum stantiis, hoc. et non 8110 modo, aut ordine scriberentur."—J. A. Quenstedt. Theolo gia Didactico-Polemica, cap. IV. sect. ii. p. 67. 3 34 THE QUESTION STATED. [LECT. L ration are to be referred, is that of ascribing undue prominence to the Human element of the Bible. I must content myself here’ with briefly stating the three heads to which, I conceive, all the varieties of opinion, which may be traced to this source, can, with more or less definiteness, be reduced. I. To the first head may be referred those writers who have changed the formula ‘ The Bible 7s the Word of God,’ into ‘ The Bible contains the word of God,’ Writers of this class, while they generally shrink from absolutely drawing the line between what is and what is not inspired, yet broadly assert as well the possi- bility as the existence of imperfections in Scripture, whether re- sulting from limited knowledge, or inadvertence, or defective memory on the part of its authors.*. Such imperfections are often restricted to what are termed ‘ unimportant matters,’ II. Under the second head may be placed the different hypoth- eses which assume various Degrees of Inspiration ; the Divine influence by which the sacred writers were actuated having been universal, but unequally distributed. ‘The tendency of all such hypotheses—for even their authors allow that as hypotheses nlone can they be regarded—is to fine down to the minutest point, if not altogether to deny, the agency of the Holy Spirit in certain portions of the Bible. ‘ What the extent of the Inspiration was in each case” (1 quote the words of Bishop Daniel Wilson, who maintains this view of various ‘‘ Degrees” of Inspiration)—‘“* What the extent of the Inspiration was in each case, we need not, in- deed ws cannot, determine. We infer from the uniform language of the New Testament that in each case such assistance, and only such assistance, was afforded as the exigencies of it required. Where nature ended, and Inspiration began, it is not for man to say.” * Ul. The third head comprises Schleiermacher and his follow- 1 For some account of the modern theories of Inspiration, see Appendix C. 2 Cf. Ebrard. “ Kritik der Evang, Geschichte.” ler Th. 5, 63. 3. “The Evidences of Christianity, by Daniel Wilson.” London, 1828, vol. i. p. 506. The “ Degrees” of Inspiration usually laid down are as follows: “ΒΥ the Inspiration of Suggestion, is meant, such communications of the Holy Spirit as suggested and dic- tated minutely every part of the truths delivered. The Inspiration of Direction, is meant, of such assistance as left the writers to describe the matter revealed in their own way, directing only the mind in the exercise of its powers. The Inspiration of Elevation added a greater strength and vigor to the efforts of the mind, than the writers could otherwise have attained. The Inspiration of Superintendency was that watchful care which preserved generally from anything being put down derogatory {7 the revelation with which it was connected.”—Jbid. p. 508. LECT. 1.} THE QUESTION STATED, 35 ers ; the Shibboleth of whose school, in brief, is this, ‘ The letter killeth, the spirit giveth life.’’ The idea of Revelation, according to Schleiermacher, is confined to the person of Christ :—the no- tion of Inspiration he considers to be one of completely subordinate importance in Christianity ;* the sole power which the Bible ἐς possesses of conveying a Revelation to us, consisting in its aiding in the awakenment and elevation of our religious consciousness ; in its presenting to us a mirror of the history of Christ ; in its depicting the intense religious life of His first followers ; and in giving us the letter through which the spirit of truth may be brought home in vital experience to the human heart.” * I now proceed to that view of Inspiration, to establish which will be the object of the present inquiry. In entering upon the task my first object will be to look steadily at the facts of the case, which, while it is our duty never to distort or exaggerate them, it is equally our duty to recognise, and estimate at their true value. The Bible, I have already observed, consists of both a Divine and a Human element. This leading fact may be re- garded as the first of the two Conditions of our problem ; a Con- dition which can only be satisfied by showing how the two ele- ments may be combined. According to the former of the systems to which I have just referred, the Human element is entirely lost sight of. On its principles the sacred writers, on receiving the Divine impulse, resigned both mind and body to God, who in- fluenced and guided both at His sole pleasure ; the human agent contributing, the while, no more than the pen of the scribe: in a word, he was the pen, not the penman, of the Spirit." Now, cer- 1 Quinet, in the essay already referred to, well describes the result of this principle when so applied: ‘‘ Mais qui ne voit qu’ a son tour l’esprit en grandissant peut tuer. et remplacer la lettre ?” 2“ Was die Hingebung betrifft, so hat dieser Begriff im Christenthum eine durch- aus untergeordnete Bedeutung. Denn eine Beziehung desselben auf Christum findet gar nicht statt, indem die gottliche Offenbarung durch ihn immer, wie sie auch gee dacht werde, mit seiner ganzen Hxistenz identisch gedacht wird. und nicht als frag- mentarisch in zerstreuten Augenblicken erscheinend.”—Der Christliche Glaube. ler Band. s. 97. ὃ This statement of Schleiermacher’s system is taken from Mr. Morell’s exposition of his views on Inspiration, ‘‘ Philosophy of Religion,” pp. 143-4. “CL Westcott’s “Gospel Harmony,” p. 6. Thus, even Hooker in his first sermon on Jude, 17-21, having quoted 1 Cor. ii. 12, 13, gives expression to the following sen- timent: ‘‘ This is that which the Prophets mean by those books written full within and without; which books were so often delivered them to eat, not because God fed them with ink and paper, but to teach us, that, so often as He employed them in this heavenly work they neither spake nor wrote any word of their own, but uttered syl- lable by syllable as the Spirit put it into their mouths.”—Vol. iii. p. 662, Keble’s Ed. 36 THE QUESTION STATED. [LEOT. I. tain phenomena, obvious of themselves, and brought still more prominently forward by the progress of criticism, demand expla- nation upon this, as upon every other, theory. The varieties in diction which meet the student as he examines the original text of Scripture, arising partly from the changes undergone by the Hebrew language during the lapse of ages,’ partly from the nat- ural genius and personal peculiarities of the writers of either Testament ;* the differences in point of style which are so appar- ent between the prophetical and historical parts of Scripture*® as well as between the different prophets and historians themselves ; —all these are matters of which some account must be given, The maintainers of the theory of Inspiration which we are now considering, either offer no explanation at all of such phenomena —except by employing some rather general metaphors‘4—or are reduced to the necessity of putting forward another hypothesis, which, although in one point of view a real advance in the true direction, yet closely resembles the doctrine of the Docete of old.’ It is asserted that the Holy Ghost merely “‘ accommodated Him- seli” to the different peculiarities of the sacred writers.’ An ad- mission of the originator of this hypothesis exhibits its insufficien- cy. ‘The Holy Ghost,” he observes, “inspired His amanuenses with those expressions which they would have employed had they been left to themselves.”" It is, perhaps, unnecessary to remark, But see the context for some profound remarks on one of the most obscure parts of this subject. 1 Cf. Havernick’s “ Kinleitung.” ler. Theil, 1te Abtheil. 2er Kap., ὃ 34, 5. 225 ff. 3. ἘΦ g. The use, by S. John alone, of the term παροιμία, the other Evangelists em- ploying the word παραβολή. 8H. g. Compare Isa. xxxvi., and Jer. xxxvi., with other portions of these books. ‘“ Andr. Rivetus Jsag. ad Script. S. cap. ii. T. ii. Opp. f. 858, simili a perito scriba petito illustrat, qui diversis calamis commode utitur, aliquando subtilioribus et magis acutis, aliquando crassioribus et obtusis, ubi literze quidem et scriptura scribze in soli- dum tribuenda, ductus autem vel subtilior vel crassior, indoli et habitui pennz vel gracilioris, vel crassioris est adscribendus.”—Carpzovius, Critica Sacra Vet. Test. p. 59. ® The Docetee held that all relating to Christ’s human appearance was a mere vis- ion; and hence their name. The idea thus applied was of long standing among the Jews. Thus Raphael tells Tobit, “ All these days I did appear unto you; but I did neither eat nor drink, but ye did see a vision.” —Tobit xii. 19. Neander, in his remarks on the Docete, observes: ‘‘The opinion corresponding to the fantastie tendency of the East, and which had long obtained currency among the Jews, that a higher spirit has the power of representing himself to the eye of sense in various deceptive forms, which possess no reality, was transferred to Christ.”—Aligem. Geschichte der Kirche, 2te Aufl. ler Band. s. 667. 5 “Fatendum est Spiritum S. in suggerendis verborum conceptibus accommodasse se ad indolem et conditionem amanuensium.”—Baier, Prol. ii. § 7, note g, quoted by Twesten, Vorlesungen, ler Band, s. 418. 7 “ Ha verba Spiritus S. amanuensibus inspiravit, quibus alias usi fuissent, si sibi fuissent relicti.”—Quenstedt, cap. iv. p. 76. Rudelbach, who states that Musaus first LECT. I.] THE QUESTION STATED. 37 that this wholly hypothetical statement assumes an exercise of the Divine agency for which no motive can be assigned, or end pointed out ; while it seems impossible to reconcile this phase of the purely τς or as it has, of late years, been termed, Me- chanical, theory of Inspiration with the highest aim of tee the το and enlightenment of the faculties of man. Are we then compelled, by this failure of the theory before us, to solve the difficulties of the question, to accept as true that other system which ascribes undue influence to the Human ele- ment of the Scriptures? Assuredly not ; our task is rather to make our own those portions of the truth which each system may contain. In whatever manner we conceive the Bible to convey to us a Revelation, we must, from the nature of the case, recognise its two elements. Without the Divine element it would cease to be a Revelation ; without the Human, the communication from God would have been confined to the individual to whom it was orig- inally made. The whole analogy of nature, too, teaches us that God accomplishes all His ends by the intervention of certain means. Here, the end is the conveyance of Divine truth ; while the means consist in exhibiting that truth in those aspects under which alone it can be grasped by man. That it should be possi- ble for man to apprehend it, it must present itself allied to human conceptions, and clothed in human language.’ To attain this object, the same power which gave the message selected the messenger ; and the grounds of this selection we can clearly dis- cern to have been the natural capacities and the opportunities, as well as the traits of individual character, which marked each sacred writer. Moses was skilled in all the wisdom of the Egyptians ; and §. Paul, who had been the pagan scholar in the school of Tar- sus, and the Jewish scholar in the schools of Jerusalem, while by his Jewish learning he could show from the Scripture that Jesus started this idea, entertains a far more favorable view of it than I have been able to form. It is a conception, he remarks, ‘“‘ welche die tiefsten Blicke in den ganzen Or- ganismus der Offenbarung verrath, und mit Recht die Theodicee der Inspiration ge- nannt werden mag. "__Die Lehre von der Insp. 4es Kap. s. 24. * “The narrowness and imbecility of the human mind being such as scarcely to comprehend or attain a clear idea of any part of the Divine nature by its utmost ex- ertions; God has condescended, in a manner, to contract the infinity of His glory, and to exhibit it to our understandings under such imagery ag our feeble optics are capable of contemplating.” —Lowth, Lectures on the Sacred Poetry of the Hebrews, Lect, ¥xxi. 2d ed. vol. iL p. 312. 88 THE QUESTION STATED. [ΠΡΟΤῚ L was Christ, could also appeal to the hearts of his Gentile hearers in the words of their own philosophers and poets. No less con- ducive to the successful communication of Divine truth was the calling into activity the individual peculiarities of the agents thus chosen. The unbending intellect of Paul; the practical temper- ament of James; the heart which throbbed alike with zeal and love in the bosom of John, were chosen, in their turn, to convey the message best suited to each ;—while the principle which linked together the several parts of the chain of doctrine thus called into being was the one Divine Spirit which selected, and guided, and inspired each writer. What just reason iadeed can possibly be assigned for supposing that the Divine power should have obliterated the peculiar characteristics of each before it qualified him for his task ? Must we not rather assume that, when the individual was chosen, there were certain grounds ex- isting in his nature, in consequence of which the lot fell upon him ? Such peculiarities of character, therefore, are rather to be regarded as the condition of the particular form under which the Divine influence willed to exhibit itself in operation, And thus, the actuation of the Spirit will not consist in the exclusion of the Human element, but rather in illuminating and exalting it, ac- cording to its several varieties, for the attainment of the end pro- posed.’ Shall we, then, in consequence of this variety of means, and diversity of agencies, refuse to recognise the power which stamps its unity and confers its vital energy upon the whole ? On grounds equally appropriate here did the Christian Apologist maintain before the masters of the world the Personality and the Majesty of God. In opposition to the prevailing Pantheism of his age, he appeals to the structure and the harmony of the uni- verse, “1 adore,” said Athenagoras, “‘the Being who harmonized the strains, and leads the melody, not the instrument which He plays. What umpires at the Games, omitting to crown the min- strel, place the garland upon his lyre P”” 1Cf Steudel’s excellent treatise, ‘Ueber Inspiration der Apostel.” ‘‘ Tiibinger Zeitachrift fiir Theologie.” 1832. 2te Heft. s 117. 2°Eu τοίνυν ἐμμελὲς ὁ κόσμος ὄργανον καὶ κινοῦμενον ἐν ῥυθμῷ, τὸν ἁρμοσάμενον καὶ πλήσσοντα τοὺς φθόγγους, καὶ τὸ σύμφωνον ἐπάδοντα μέλος, οὐ τὸ ὄργανον, προσκυνῶ, ’Ovd? γὰρ ἐπὶ τῶν ἀγωνιστῶν, παραλιπόντες ὁι ἀθλοθέται τοὺς κιθαριστὰς, τὰς κιθάρας στεφανοῦσιν avtav.—Legatio pro Christianis, cap. Xvi. p. 291. This Apology was presented by Athenagoras (cwrc. A.D. 177) to the Emperor Marcus Aurelius and his son Commodus. Guericke (‘‘De Schola Alexandriz,” p. 22" LECT 1.] THE QUESTION STATED. 39 According to the view here taken, and which has been termed the “ Dynamical” theory of Inspiration,—or that which .mplies such a Divine influence as employs man’s faculties according to their natural laws,—man is not considered as being in any sense the cause or the originator of the Revelation of which God alone is the source, but human agency is regarded as the condition under which the Revelation becomes known to others. Nature itself supplies a striking analogy to this species of co-operation. When the principle of life has been communicated to any portion of un- organized matter, the power which animates receives, indeed, its condition from the matter to be animated, but in no sense can we ascribe its source to the inorganic mass to which it is annexed. Nevertheless the further development of that which has once re- ceived the vital influence admits of no separation between the purely passive matter and the principle of life, which alone is act- ive. Or, to take an illustration from the province of theology :— in Regeneration it is allowed by all that Divine Grace is the sole influence which operates at the instant when Regeneration takes place. Afterwards it is the joint influence which co-operates with the human powers and human will.’ From this view, then, it results that that peculiar, natural type, according to which each sacred writer was moulded at his creation, was assimilated, as it were, by the power of Inspiration, and appropriated by the Spirit ; while, at the same time, the Spiritual Influence is no more to be confounded with the tokens of individual character than it is to. be identified with the essence of the natural life. In short, the Divine and Human elements, mutually interpenetrating and com- bined, form one vital, organic whole,—not mechanically, still less ideally, but, as it has been termed, Dynamically united.’ So far as to the first Condition of our problem. The second, and no less important Condition, is supplied by a fact which must have forced itself in some shape or other upon the attention of every reader of the Bible, and which presents another phase of its Human element. Certain portions of the Bible are, strictly speaking, Revelations ; that is, such as, from mentioxs that Philippus Sidetes alleges that this work was dedicated to the Emperors Hadrian and Antoninus Pius. At all events it was composed in the latter half of the second century. 1 See Twesten, ‘‘ Vorlesungen,” ler Band, 8. 418. 3 Cf Beck’s “ Propadeutische Entwicklung,” s. 240. 40 THE QUESTION STATED. [LECT. 1. their supernatural character or the circumstances of the writer who records them, could not have been known to him without a specia. communication from heaven. Other portions, again, are not of this nature. The historical incidents, forexample, recorded in both the Old and New Testament were such as must frequently have been familiar to the sacred writers, either from their own observation, or from sources which were at their command: and this very fact, like their individual peculiarities, is employed by the Holy Spirit as a vehicle of truth and a ground for conviction. This may be distinctly seen from the case of 8. John, who thus opens his first Kpistle: ‘‘ That which was from the beginning, which we have heard, which we have seen with our eyes, which we have looked upon, and our hands have handled, of the Word of life, * * * that which we have seen and heard, declare we unto you.” On this fact, which cannot be gainsayed, rests a distinction which claims particular attention, as it forms a lead- ing idea of the theory adopted in the present inquiry. The dis- tinction is that between Revelation and Inspiration.’ By Revelation I understand a direct communication from God to man, either of such knowledge as man could not of himself attain to, because its subject-matter transcends human sagacity or human reason (such, for example, were the prophetical an- nouncements of the future, and the peculiar doctrines of Chris- tianity), or which (although it might have been attaimed in the ordinary way) was not, in point of fact, from whatever cause, known to the person who received the Revelation.” By Inspira- * Sontag (‘‘ Doctrina Inspirationis,” p. 134), states that this distinction was first introduced by Quenstedt. This is an error. The earliest work in which I have no- ticed an express allusion to the subject is that of Melchior Canus (obit, an. 1560). “De Locis Theologicis, ” Colon. 1605 :— “Non enim asserimus, per immediatam Spiritus Sancti revelationem, que quidem proprié revelatio dicenda sit, quamlibet Scripturee Sacre partem fuisse editam. Quin Lucas, que ab A postolis accepit, ea scripto ipse mandavit, ut in Evangelii sui procemio testatur. Et Marcum, que a Petro didicerat, rogatum a discipulis scripsisse. * * * Sive ergo Matthzeus et J oannes, sive Marcus et Lucas, quamvis illi visa, hi audita ree ferrent, non egebant quidem nova Spiritus Sancti revelatione, egebant tamen peculiari Spiritus Sancti directione.”—Lib. ii. cap. xviii. p. 126. I conceive that Origen has clearly noticed the distinction in question in a well- known passage in his commentary on 8. John (Opp. tom. iv. p. 4). On this point see Appendix ©. I may observe that I have not been able to procure or consult a work constantly referred to as fully discussing this subject, viz., Baumgarten’s treatise “‘ De discrimine Revelationis et Inspirationis.” Hal. 1745. ° This latter point will be illustrated by an incident in the history of Elisha, stated in the fourth chapter of the second Book of Kings, as contrasted with what is told of tk2 prophet Ahijah in the fourteenth chapter of the first Book of Kings: “gud when she came to the man of God to the hill she caught him by the feet: LECT. 1.} THE QUESTION STATED. 41 tion, on the other hand, I understand that actuating energy of the Holy Spirit, in whatever degree or manner it may have been exercised, guided by which the human agents chosen by God have officially proclaimed His will by word of mouth, or have committed to writing the several portions of the Bible.’ I re- peat, in whatever degree or manner this actuation by the Holy Spirit may have been exercised: for it should never be forgotten that the real question with which our inquiry is concerned is the result of this Divine influence as presented to us in the Holy Scriptures, no¢ the manner according to which it has pleased God that this result should be attained. Moses unquestionably re- ceived more abundant tokens of the Divine favor than Ezra, or but Gehazi came near to thrust her away. And the man of God said, Let her alone, for her soul is vexed within’her; and the Lord hath hid it from me, and hath not told me.”—2 Kings, iv. 27. “And Jeroboam’s wife arose, and went to Shiloh, and came to the house of Ahi- jah. But Ahijah could not see, for his eyes were set by reason of his age. And the Lord said unto Ahijah, Behold the wife of Jeroboam cometh to ask a thing of thee for her son, for he is sick: thus and thus shalt thou say unto her: for it shall be, when she cometh in, that she shall feign herself to be another woman.”—1 Kings, xiv. 4, 5. 1 Understanding the several portions of the Bible, whether they consist of actual Revelations, in the strict sense of the term, or of moral teaching, or of mere historical details. Thus, the Revelation of the Law from Sinai, and the facts connected with the wanderings of the Israelites, were alike recorded under the influence of Inspiration. Or, again, the facts connected with the personal history of Job, the words of God Himself from “out of the whirlwind,” the sayings of the Patriarch, and the reasoning of his friends, were all committed to writing under the actuation of the Holy Ghost,— although “the Lord said to Eliphaz the Temanite, My wrath is kindled against thee, and against thy two friends: for ye have not spoken of Me the thing that is right, as my servant Job hath.”—Job, xlii. 7. Indeed, it is plain that neglecting to attend to this application of the term Inspiration is to overlook the design of the Scriptures as defined by S. Paul: “ Whatsoever things were written aforetime were written for our learning that we through patience and comfort of the Scriptures might have hope.”—Rom. xy. 4. Mr. Coleridge’s “ Confessions of an Inquiring Spirit” afford a pregnant illustration of this neglect. He is throughout haunted by the belief that no other view of Inspi- ration is conceivable than the “mechanical” theory in its baldest form. His remarks, consequently, tend to subvert the entire authority of the Bible. If the reader will bear in mind the distinction which I have drawn between Revelation and Inspiration, and will also substitute for the phrase ‘dictated by” in the following extract, the words “committed to writing under the guidance of ’—the objection which it ex- presses will appear absolutely pointless: —‘‘ Yet one other instance, and let this be the crucial test of the Doctrine. Say that the Book of Job was [dictated by] an in- fallible Intelligence. Then re-peruse the book, and still, as you proceed, try to apply the tenet: try if you can even attach any sense or semblance of meaning to the speeches which you are reading. What! were the hollow truisms, the unsufficing half-truths, the false assumptions and malignant insinuations of the supercilious big- ots, who corruptly defended the truth :—were the impressive facts, the piercing out- cries, the pathetic appeals, and the close and powerful reasoning with which the poor sufferer—smarting at once from his wounds, and from the oil of vitriol which the or- thodox liars for God were dropping into them—impatiently, but uprightly and ho- lily controverted this truth, while in will and in spirit he clung to it ;—were both [dictated by] an infallible Intelligence ?”—Let#er iii. p. 38. 42 THE QUESTION STATED. [LECT. I. Nehemiah, or th2 author of the Books of Chronicles; but this does not render that element of the Bible, in composing which Moses was the agent, one whit more true or more accurrate in its details than the writings of the others.’ The Disciple whom Jesus loved, and who reclined upon His bosom, enjoyed person- ally far higher privileges than 8. Mark or 8. Luke. But still this affection of his Divine Master does not render 8, John’s Gospel, in one single feature, a more trustworthy vehicle of that portion of Divine truth which it conveys than the records of those who were but the companions of the Apostles. It has been already observed, that Revelation and Inspiration are also to be distinguished by the sources from which they pro- ceed,—Revelation being the peculiar function of the Eternal Word ; Inspiration the result of the agency of the Holy Spirit. Their difference, in short, is specific, and not merely one of de gree :’ a point which is amply confirmed by the consideration, that either of these Divine influences may be exerted, although the other be not called into action. The Patriarchs received Revelations, but they were not inspired to record them ; the writer of the Acts of the Apostles was inspired for his task, but we are not told that he ever enjoyed a Revelation.’ But although ? The importance of the distinction on which I am insisting will be further appar- ent from the following statement of Dr. Pye Smith: “ Those who affirm in a general and indiscriminate manner, that all and every the parts of the Old Testament were immediately dictated by [see last note] the Holy Spirit, and that, to each the same kind of inspiration belongs, appear to me to go farther than the evidence warrants, and to lay the cause of revealed religion under the feet of its enemies.”—Scripture Tes- timony to the Messiah, vol. i. Notes, p. 39. * This view differs altogether from the popular employment of the terms, according to which their distinction is wholly lost sight of. Thus Mr. Morell writes:— ‘‘All Revelation, as we showed, implies two conditions: it implies, namely, an intelligible object presented, and a’given power of recipiency in the subject: and in popular language, when speaking of the manifestation of Christianity to the world, we confine the term Revelation to the former of these conditions, and appropriate the word Inspiration to designate the latter. According to this convenient distinction, therefore, we may say, that revelation, in the Christian sense, indicates that act of Divine power by which God presents the realities of the spiritual world immediately to the human mind; while inspiration denotes that especial influence wrought upon the faculties of the subject, by virtue of which he is able to grasp these realities in their perfect fulness and integrity. God made a revelation of Himself to the world in Jesus Christ; but it was the inspiration of the Apostles which enabled them clearly to discern it. Here, of course, the objective arrangements and the subjective influ- ences perfectly blend in the production of the whole result; so that, whether we speak of Revelation or of Inspiration, we are, in fact, merely looking at two different sides of that same great act of Divine beneficence and mercy, by which the truths of Christianity have been brought home to the human consciousness. Revelation and Inspiration then indicate one united process.” —Philosophy of Religion, p. 150. * So again, we have no reason to suppose that when Samuel was composing the LECT. 1.7 THE QUESTION STATED, 43 thus specifically distinct, a fixed relation subsisting between the two ideas, as applied to the Bible, must be noticed. It is plain that, without Inspiration a Divine communication would have been, in a measure, useless as a guide and a rule ; for without such Spiritual illumination how could we be assured that the Revelation would be correctly transmitted to others, or even rightly apprehended by the recipients themselves ? Consider a single case, which exhibits the relation of the two ideas. Certain Tyrian prophets, mentioned in the twenty-first chapter of the Acts, ‘‘ said to Paul, through the Spirit, that he should not go up to Jerusalem.” To them had been revealed what the Holy Ghost was witnessing “‘in every city” namely, that bonds and afflictions awaited 8. Paul in Jerusalem. These prophets, how- ever, enjoyed no Inspiration ; they adulterated the Revelation which they had received with human wishes and human feelings, and thus directly contradicted the will of God, which the guid- ance of the Spirit enabled 8. Paul himself to understand and to obey. ‘‘ And now, behold! I go bound in the Spirit unto Jerusalem, not knowing the things that shall befall me there, save that the Holy Ghost witnesseth in every city that bonds and afflictions abide me.” But whatever may be the result of this distinction between Revelation and Inspiration, as applied to the contents of the Bible ; in whatever manner we can satisfy ourselves that certain portions convey to us a message direct from heaven, or that others simply record historical facts which were naturally known to the writers,—it must ever be borne in mind that the true idea of Inspiration is altogether objective, extending to every portion of every book ; and that it stamps the Word of God, as such, book which bears his name, he received a renewal of the Revelations which God hat made to him in his youth. Képpen (‘Die Bibel ein Werk der Géttlichen Weisheit,” 3te Aufl. 2er Band, 8. 307) draws attention to a fallacious mode of reasoning often employed :—‘ In order to prove that the books of the Bible have been written under Divine Inspiration, ap- peal is sometimes made to the extraordinary Revelations which are here and there an- nounced in the Bible; but this is plainly a false conclusion, and a weakness not to be concealed. Although God has revealed Himself to certain persons by means of a supernatural influence, the question, notwithstanding all this, still remains,—-how has the Divine influence exerted itself in the composition of the Bible?” For an instance of an express Revelation being intermingled with inspired teaching, see 1 Tim. iv. 1. 1 Acts, xx. 23. s See Olshausen, in loc. Also Storr and Flatt, “ Biblical Theology,” Part iii. § 11. 44 THE QUESTION STATED. [LECT. t in the most profound sense of the term ; thereby distinguishing it from every thing which is merely human. Inspiration, in short, as the attestation of God’s Spirit, in, through, and for man, belongs essentially to the organism of Scripture as the record of Revelation; and is at length unfolded to us in its full bearings in that department of it where God reveals Himself as the Spirit. In theological language the ordinary operations of the Holy Ghost are divided into preventing, operating, co-operating; a division which may help to guide us in our conception of the manner in which the sacred writers were influenced : although thezr Inspiration (I would observe in passing) differs, not merely in degree, but absolutely in kind, from that ordinary operation of the Spirit usually called by the same name.’ We may dis- tinguish in the first place, the stage in which the Holy Spirit prevents; that is, prompts to the task of writing: the outward channel through which such suggestion was usually conveyed being the various occasions or motives which, in what men call the ordinary course of things, have led to the composition of most of the books of the Bible.” The task having been thus undertaken, in the second stage the Holy Spirit operates ; that is, selects from the mass of materials which were at the writer’s command,—whatever may have been their character, whether naturally known, or supernaturally revealed—and so disposes the course of his labors, that 8. Paul could say of certain parts of the Jewish history that “ they were written for our admonition.’”” In the third stage, the Holy Spirit co-operates with the natural faculties of the mind, in the manner already dwelt upon when considering the first Condition of our problem ; the result of this co-operation being the different books which in their combination constitute the Bible, and which have been molded into unity by the power of the Spirit. And here we shall most fitly advert to the language em- ployed under the influence of Inspiration. In the common course of things men of ordinary capacity have the power of clothing their thoughts and feeling in appropriate words ; and from the very nature of the case we cannot but believe that the words adopted by the sacred writers must, in like manner, be 1See infra, Lecture v. 2 See infra, Lecture iv. 51 Cornexcel le LECT. 1.} THE QUESTION STAYED, 45 the adequate expression of their inward conceptions, and, there- fore, of that internal life produced by the Holy Spirit. But, furthermore, the same Divine power which breathed this life into the soul must be regarded as the vital principle of the language which represents it. To this utterance of that Spirit, Whose glance penetrates the universe, Whose intimations extend to every age, and apply to every circumstance with a fullness and definiteness which embrace time and eternity—to this utterance of the Spirit there is essentially appropriated that pregnant style which in a few syllables conveys such infinitude of meaning,’ which is unexhausted by all commentators, and which possesses that marvellous “capacity of translation into any dialect which has a living and human quality.”* The opinion, that the sub- ject-matter alone of the Bible proceeded from the Holy Spirit, while its language was left to the unaided choice* of the various writers, amounts to that fantastic notion which is the grand fal- lacy of many theories of Inspiration ; namely, that two different Spiritual agencies were in operation, one of which produced the phraseology in its outward form, while the other created within the soul the conceptions and thoughts of which such phraseology was the expression. The Holy Spirit, on the contrary, as the productive principle, embraces the entire activity of those whom He inspires, rendering their language the word of God.* The entire substance and form of Scripture, whether resulting from Revelation or natural knowledge, are thus blended together into one harmonious whole : direct communications of religious truth, as well as the inferences which the sacred writers deduced there- from ; the lessons to be learned, whether from exhibitions of miraculous power, or from the facts of history; such matters, together with all the collateral details of Scripture, have been assimilated into one homogeneous organism by the vital energy of the Spirit. MA TO μιᾶς λέξεως ἔνεστιν ὁλόκληρον évpetv vodv.—S. Chrysost. Hom. |. in Joan. tom. viil. p. 293. 2, D. Maurice. ‘The Kingdom of Christ,” vol. ii. p. 246. > An opinion held by Seb. Castalio, Episcopius, Geo. Calixtus, &c., who assert “res inspiravit Deus, voces a scriptore sunt.” But see the remarks of Beck, “ Propa- deutische Entwicklung,” s. 240. 4 “ For this cause also thank we God without ceasing, because when ye received the word of God which ye heard o. us, ye received it not as the word of men, but as it ig in truth, the word of God.”—1 Thess. ii. 13. Cf iv. 1, 2, 8. 46 THE QUESTION STATED. [LECT, L Such is the aspect under which I propose, in the present in- vestigation, to consider the question of the inspiration of Holy Scripture. In order to establish this theory, it will be necessary to prove that the two Conditions of the problem which it involves have been satisfied ; one of these Conditions being defined in that expression of 8. Paul which forms the text of this Dis- course, ‘‘ We are laborers together with God ;” the other being presented by that distinction pointed out between the ideas of Revelation and Inspiration. The proof must rest, as in all de- partments of knowledge, upon a patient examination and induc- tion of facts; and such is the task which lies before us. Pre- viously to entering upon that proof, however, I would refer, once for all, to a line of argument which has often been adopted, and which has been as unduly exalted on the one hand, as it has been the subject of unmerited ridicule on the other.’ I allude to what 1 Thus it is laid down in Art. Iv. of the Gallican Confession of 1561 :— “Nous connoisons ces livres estre canoniques et reigle tres certaine de nostre Foy 1on tant par le commun accord et consentement de l’Hglise, que par le tesmoignage γὉ intérieure persuasion du S. Esprit, qui les nous fait discerner d’avec les autres livres Veclésiastiques.” So also in the “ Westminster Confession,” c. i. § 4, 5: “The authority of the Holy Scripture, for which it ought to be believed and ebeyed, dependeth not upon the testimony of any man or Church, but wholly upon sod (who is Truth itself), the author thereof; and therefore it is to be received be- cause it is the Word of God. * * * Our full persuasion and assurance of the in- fallible truth and divine authority thereof is from the inward work of the Holy Spirit bearing witness by and with the word in our hearts.” On the other hand, J. D. Michaelis writes as follows :— “An inward sensation of the effects of the Holy Ghost, and the consciousness of the utility of these writings in improving the heart and purifying our morals, are cri- terions as uncertain as the foregoing. With respect to that inward sensation, I must confess that I have never experienced it in the whole course of my life; nor are those persons who have felt it either deserving of envy or nearer the truth, since the Mu- hammedan feels it as well as the Christian.”—Marsh’s Michaelis, vol. i. part i. p. 77. Hofmann justly observes:—‘‘ Ob ein Wort der Wahrheit, zu welchem sich der Geist bekennt, kanonisch sey oder nicht, Wort der heiligen Schrift oder Wort der Ueber- lieferung, dariiber sagt jenes Zeugniss des Geistes nichts, und nicht blos einem J. D. Michaelis nichts, sondern auch einem Luther beim Briefe Jacobi und der Apokalypsis.” — Weissagung und Erfillung, i.s. 44. Hofmann’s allusion to Luther suggests at once the great danger of this exclusive reliance on “the witness of the Spirit” as the foun- dation of our belief in the Bible. ‘‘ Luther,” observes Olshausen, in his treatise on the “ Genuineness of the Writings of the New Testament,” “‘shows himself a deter- mined opponent of John’s Revelation. He says, in his Preface to it: ‘There are various and abundant reasons why I regard this book as neither apostolical nor pro- phetic. * * * But let every man think of it as his spirit prompts him. My apirit cannot adapt itself to the production, and this is reason enough for me why I should not esteem it very highly.’”—Clarke’s For. Theol. Lib. p. cv. For a more detailed account of Luther’s opinion on this subject, see Appendix C. The distinc- tion which is to be made between erroneous views respecting the Canon of Scripture and erroneous views respecting Inspiration is one which deserves particular attention. See infra, Lecture ii. p. 71, note, the remarks as to Theodore of Mopsuestia. LECT. 1.] THE QUESTION STATED. 47 is usually termed “the witness of the Spirit,” or the testimony which the Holy Ghost Himself conveys to each reader of the Scriptures. The fundamental defect of this mode of upholding Inspiration appears to consist, not in the conception itself, but in the place assigned to it in the chain of Christian evidences, when employed to prove, and not to confirm,—when addressed to the judgment of the understanding, not to the affections of the heart. If offered as the sole, or even leading proof, we can scarcely feel surprise at its rejection by the sceptic or the un- believer. To the intellect of such persons, the alleging such a fact, as proof, must be absolutely unintelligible. As well might any of us discourse with the blind upon the varieties of colours ; or a being of some higher order offer to our minds some new idea for the reception of which the proper sense was wanting. The Bible must be recognised as Divine, before such a witness can be called in confirmation of previous evidence. But to the Christian, who, with willing mind and humble acquiescence, accepts the Scriptures as the word of God, this testimony of the Holy Spirit is a precious treasure. The proof is one which is even sealed with the promise of Christ. It results from no chain of elaborate argumentation ; it rests upon that living and intuitive syllogism of the heart, “If any man is willing to do His will, he shall know of the doctrine, whether it be of God.”* The Spirit which breathes the principle of Christian life into the being of man produces, as we read the words of the sacred writers, this recog- nition of His own former agency ; and unconsciously, like the statue of ancient story, the soul makes symphony when the ray touches it from above.” And here, if one might, venture to be eclectic as to any part of Holy Scripture, and to point out any portion of it which most fitly illustrates this idea, we may, perhaps, safely refer to that discourse of the Lord, beginning at the fourteenth and end- ing with the seventeenth chapter of 8. John’s Gospel: that 1 Rav τις θέλῃ τὸ θέλ. abt ποιεῖυ. S. John, vii. 17. Cf Nitzsch, “System der Christ]. Lehre,” ler Th. ὃ 32, who justly observes that in this point of view Christian- ity can not be a matter of demonstration. 2 “ Why has the Holy Scripture its peculiar adaptation to man’s nature, save be- cause it is His Word, after whose image man was originally fashioned, and who is Hiaself the ‘true light which lighteth every man?’ Therefore, when we read it, we recognise the higher rule of our original composition.”—Wilberforce, On the Incarna- tion, 2d ed. p. 481. 48 THE QUESTION STATED. [LEOT. L Holy of Holies, as it has been aptly termed, of Christ’s history ; that wonderful passage from every line of which shines forth the Divinity of Him who spake, though each syllable be tinged with the sadness of a soul which even now gazed full upon the agony in the Garden, and bore, in prospect, the crown of thorns—sy]- lables, too, which were uttered from the very shadow of the tomb! Who is there that peruses those solemn words, whose heart does not burn within him as each expression of human af- fection —that sympathy with His earthly brethren which every tone conveys—becomes the point of contact through which those Revelations of the Eternal Word reach the spirit of man ? Who is there that does not recognise the impress of the Divine nature in every sentence of that discourse, which, while it announces to the Disciples the sorrows of earth, at the same time pledges to them the aid and the joys of heaven: that discourse, so com- manding, while shaded with the gloom of human anguish; so sublime in its tenderness ; so majestic in its repose ? From this source still streams forth a light which illumines the Christian’s path, and cheers him on his pilgrimage ; and hence, too, if his trust be shaken, can he draw conviction unclouded and serene, When difficulties embarrass the reason, and perplexities entangle the intellect,—and who is that man over whose. understanding doubt has not at times cast its shadow, or whose faith the stern realities of life have not put to the trial >—the fainting soul will find its refuge in the words which introduce this series of promise and encouragement ; words which still whisper to our ear the same assurance which once supported the Apostle sinking in the wind-tossed sea, ‘‘ Let not your heart be troubled, ye believe in God, believe also in Me,” LECTURE IU. THE IMMEMORIAL DOCTRINE OF THE CHURCH OF GOD. “Scripture teacheth us that saving truth which God hath discovered unto the world by Revelation, and it presumeth us taught otherwise that itself is Divine and Sacred.”’ Hooker, Eccl. Pol. Ὁ. iii. ο, 8. Ἑρμηνεὺς yap ἐστιν ὁ ἸΙροφήτης, ἔνδοθεν ὑπηχοῦντος τὰ λεκτέα τοῦ Θεοῦ. ῬΗΠΟ, De Prem. et Pen. Ei & ἀκριβῶς χρὴ ἡμᾶς λέγειν τὰ πρὸς τὸν Κέζσον, οἰόμενον τὰ αὐτὰ ἡμῶς ᾿Ιουδαΐοις περὶ τῶν ἐγκειμένων δοξάζειν " φήσομεν ὅτι, τὰ μὲν θιβλία θείῳ γεγράφθαι Πνεύματι, ὁμολογοῦμεν ἀμφότεροι. ORIGENES, Cont. Cels. v. 60. “Quid est autem Scriptura Sacra nisi queedam Epistola omnipotentis Dei ad creatu- ram suam? * * * Imperator cceli, Dominus hominum et angelorum, pro vita tua tibi Suas Epistolas transmisit: et tamen, gloriose fili, easdem Epistolas ardenter legere negligis. Stude ergo, queso, et quotidie Creatoris tui verba meditare. Disce cor Dei in verbis Dei, ut ardentius ad eterna suspires, ut mens vextra ad coelestia gaudia majo: ribus desideriis accendatur.” 5. Gruaor. M. Ep. xxxi. Ad Theodorum Meduwn. LECTURE II. THE IMMEMORIAL DOCTRINE OF THE CHURCH OF GOD. WHAT ADVANTAGE THEN HATH THE JEW? OR WHAT PROFIT IS THERE OF OIROUM OISION? MUCH EVERY WAY: CHIEFLY, BECAUSE THAT UNTO THEM WERE COM- MITTED THE ORACLES OF GOD.—Fom. iii. 1, 2. WHEN intimating in this passage the leading prerogatives of the Jewish people, the Apostle employs a phrase,’ correctly ren- dered in our version by the word “ chiefly,” but which, if we look merely to the form of the expression, points to other ad- vantages which he had intended to name. His pausing, however, without pursuing the idea any further, proves how deeply 8 Paul felt that αἰζ was in reality contained in that one privilege which he had particularized. The entire history of the ancient Church of God tells how this treasure was revered ; and that it had been guarded with the most scrupulous fidelity is evident, as well from the Apostle’s allusion in this place, as from the whole tone and tenor of the New Testament. To the Christian Church, in like manner, were confided, not only the new documents which were added to the Canon ;—the Scriptures of the Old Testament also were transferred to its care. That it was the privilege of the Christian Church, as it had been of the Jewish, to be the “‘ witness and keeper of Holy Writ,” and that to the chief officer in each of its divisions was intrusted the fulfilment of this commission, is proved by the ex- istence of a rite which has been retained in every branch of the Church Catholic since the second century. As our own Ordinal presents it, the words of Episcopal Consecration are immedi- ately followed by the delivery of the Bible into the hand of the 1 Πρῶτον μέν. Cf. Olshausen’s remarks on this text. 3 Art. xx. Eccles. Anglic. ‘ De Ecclesize Auctoritate.” 52 THE IMMEMORIAL DOCTRINE [LECT. I. newly-made Bishop ; the Church symbolizing thereby two as- pects of the duty which he must discha-ge :—the maintenance of the doctrine, and the preservation of the record.’ When we consider, then, the fact, that to the Jewish and Christian Churches, respectively, and in their capacity of divinely instituted Societies, ‘ the oracles of God” have been committed, no inquiry respecting the subject of Inspiration can possess greater importance, than that which will exhibit the degree and kind of estimation in which the writings which contain those “ oracles,” have been always held, as well as the spirit in which the trust thus reposed has been discharged. This inquiry is to be dis- tinguished from the examination of that testimony which proves the genuineness and authenticity of the different parts of the Bible ;—although the two questions are often confounded. Greater clearness will also be attained, if it be kept apart from what are usually termed Christian evidences ; for these relate to the belief in the contents of the Scriptures, rather than to the nature of the agency employed in their composition. Its bear- ing, too, will be better understood when we reflect upon the manner in which opinions, such as we are about to consider, have influenced the actions of those who held them ; as also when we picture to ourselves the impression which would have been pro- duced upon our minds had the expression of those sentiments been less decided, orless peculiar. I propose in the present Discourse to give the leading outlines of the doctrine respecting the inspi- ration of the Bible held by the Jews who lived before the birth of Christ, or who were His contemporaries, as well as by the 1 Immediately after the Imposition of Hands by the ‘‘ Archbishops and Bishops present * * * upon the head of the elected Bishop,” the Rubric of our Ordinal further directs—“ Then the Archbishop shall deliver him the Bible, saying: ‘Give heed unto reading, exhortation, and doctrine. Think upon the things contained in this Book,’” &¢., &e. The antiquity of this rite is proved by the words of the Apostolic Constitutions, lib. vill. cap. 4, περὶ χειροτονι ὧν. The direction there given is as follows: σιωπῆς GAM . γενομένης, εἷς τῶν πρώτων ἐπισκόπων ἅμα καὶ δυσὶν ἑτέροις, πλησίον τοῦ θυσιαστηρίου web ~ | ἑστὼς, τῶν λοιπῶν ἐπισκόπων καὶ πρεσβυτέρων σιωπῇ προσευχομένων, τῶν δὲ διακόνων ρος ΟΖ. τὰ θεῖα εὐαγγέλια ἐπὶ τῆς τοῦ χειροτονουμένου κεφαλῆς ἀνεπτυγμένα κατεχόντων, Aeyé= yotda~ aL tw πρὸς Θεόν" Ὁ Ὧν, δέσποτα, κύριε, K. τ. A.—Cotelerius, t. i. p. 395. L, 2 AAA Gieseler, to whom I am indebted for this remark and reference, observes: ‘“ Dieser - “δῷ; Ritus scheint die Collation des Zeugnisses symbolisch dargestellt zu haben, und ent- ign »“/-4-stand wahrscheinlich, nachdem die schriftlichen Evangelien als heilige Schriften an ἘΣ /<>-die Stelle der Tradition gesetzt waren.”—Die Enistehung der schrifil. Hvangelien, 5. 171. -4#- 7 1 may add, that Gieseler employs this and kindred facts in order to develop his inge- -«- 4e¢/-nious argument in support of the genuineness of the Ignatian Epistles. 2 εὐνεῖο Rte en FLO ὦ ret fase per o Pies hee ἘΣ Ps (ont Od cu dd, k-S