t\x« ^ SAe/f. PRINCETON, N. J. BT 1101 .C86 1878 ISel"®^^'"' 1805- Theological lectures V V \ t s N. r ■ # > • 4 L<4Li I V n T •I »,'■ > . 1 . M » \ »a; \ \ I . . M \ .4 , yr ' TA' r I / * y ’ I* ^ i'-. 4 p' O. ■ :"■ • ■.■•••. / ) ■ - ' ' 1 . t ' * ■ • i • ' . < ..* •. • - ^ r L-..' ••-^- . . ^ ' V r r > •I' ‘X -S' i: r \ >* - / . i. I I 4 * \ V. ✓ , • THEOLOGICAL LECTURES. I Digitized by the Internet Archive in 2019 with funding from Princeton Theological Seminary Library 'V https://archive.org/details/theologicallectuOOcunn_0 THEOLOGICAL LECTURES ON SUBJECTS CONNECTED WITH NATURAL THEOLOGY, EVIDENCES OF CHRISTIANITY, THE CANON AND INSPIRATION OF SCRIPTURE. BY THE LATE WILLIAM CUNNINGHAM, D.D., PRINCIPAL AND PROFESSOR OF CHURCH HISTORY, NEW COLLEGE, EDINBURGH. NEW YORK: ROBERT CARTER AND BROTHERS, 530 BROADWAY. MDCCCLXXVIII. EDINBURGH : PRINTED BY JOHN GREIG AND SON. PREFACE. Dr Cunningham on his deathbed committed his Manu¬ scripts to his colleagues. Dr James Buchanan and Dr Bannerman, leaving it to their discretion to publish such of them as they might consider likely to contribute to the edification of the Church. In the exercise of this discretion, they published four volumes from his MSS., and reprinted in one volume articles which had been previously published in Magazines and Reviews, especially in the British and Foreign Evangelical Review, of which Dr Cunningham had for some years been Editor. They did not consider it expedient to publish more at that time ; but they seem to have contemplated it as probable that they might resume at some future time consideration of the expediency of publishing others of his works. But neither of them long survived their beloved Principal. Mrs Cunningham was very desirous that a certain course of Lectures should be published, because she was aware that her husband had bestowed much care and labour VI PREFACE. upon their composition and revision^ and that he had attached a special value to them as the first-fruits of his professorial labours. This desire was ripened into a resolu¬ tion^ by the receipt of a requisition which was addressed to her by a large number of ministers^ in whose minds that particular course of Lectures was associated with their first introduction to their revered teacher^ and their first entrance into theological studies. That requi- sition_, with the signatures attached to it^ is appended. At Mrs Cunningham’s request^ I undertook to super¬ vise the printing of the work^ Dr Goold being associated with me in the duty, on the understanding that I should be answerable for the accurate reproduction of the manuscript, and that he should share with me the responsibility of making any slight alteration that might be deemed necessary. I have now to state what alterations have actually been made under that joint responsibility : — 1. A Lecture has been altogether omitted. Lecture XLVIII. was on the subject of acquiring a knowledge of a dead language by means of grammars and lexicons. There was nothing in it of a distinctively theological character, and it was thought better to omit it. Accord¬ ingly the Lectures which in this volume appear as Nos. XLVIII., XLIX., L., and LI., are in the original XLIX., L., LI., and LII. 2. A few sentences — not more, I think, than three or PREFACE. Vll four in all — have been omitted, because they alluded to matters of local and temporary interest ; to the fact that the Lectures were delivered in the first year of their author s Professorship^ and that that was the first year of the separate existence of the Free Church of Scotland. 3. In order to keep the work within the ordinary dimensions of an 8vo volume^ several long extracts from easily accessible books have been omitted, but distinct references have been given to the passages extracted. An objection will probably be made to the publication of this work so long after its composition ; especially since in the interval many objections have been taken to the doctrines which it defends, which could not have been known to its author. It is quite true that if Dr Cunningham had been alive now, and had been writing on the same subjects, his manner of treating them would have been somewdiat different from that in which he treated them five- and- thirty years ago. But in this work he has so established positive truth, and so comprehensively dealt with the principles of all objections that can possibly be brought against it, that the defences he offers are in great measure applicable to all the forms which these objections may assume from time to time. Euclid’s Elements, and Bacon’s Novum Organum, and Butler s Analogy are never out of date, and I venture to think that the same remark will prove to be applicable to Cunningham’s Lectures, Vlll PllEFACE. The student will be disappointed if he takes up this volume with the expectation of finding in it a treatise on Natural Theology or the Evidences of Christianity. It is rather a book that may be profitably studied along with standard works on these subjects. It will be found to contain valuable disquisitions as to the state of the question/’ and the precise bearing and argumentative value of the various topics discussed in such wwks. A considerable portion of the work consists in an exposition of the first chapter of the Westminster Con¬ fession of Faith. But this will not in any degree lessen its value to students who have not the same relation to that Confession that professors and ministers and theo¬ logical students of the Free Church of Scotland have. Thomas Smith. Edinburgh, 10th Jane 1S7S. / PREFACE, IX EEQUISITION To Mrs Cunningham, 17 Salisbury Road, Edinburgh. 17 til February 1S77. Dear Madam, — We, who were Students under your revered husband, Principal Cunningham, remember the admirable Course of Lectures he delivered, but only for two or three Sessions, to the Students of the first year in the Divinity Classes. They embrace the subjects not only of Natural Religion and the Christian Evidences, but also the Divine Origin and Authority of the Bible, the Canon, the Inspiration of the Scriptures, the Rule of Faith, the Criticism of the Text, and such cognate subjects as are of importance and are debated in our day. They have not yet been published, and we earnestly beg of you to give them to the public, being confident they will fully sustain the high reputation of our beloved teacher, and that by the blessing of God their publication will be of essential service to the cause of Christ and of the Bible. We are, Dear Madam, « ' With much respect, Your very obedient Servants, JOHN C. MACPHAIL, Kilmuir, Skye. D. HENDERSON, Rockferry, Cheshire. JAMES KIPPEN, M.A., Arrochar. JAMES ROBERTSON, Cray. ROBERT STEVENSON, Aberiiethy. GEORGE BAIN, Chapel of Garioch. WILLIAM SINCLAIR, Plockton. FINLAY MACPHERSON, Larberfc. JAMES GIBSON, Kirkpatrick-Durham. DUNCAN M‘LAREN, Dunning. ALEX. B. CAMPBELL, Markinch. ALEXANDER FORBES, Drumblade. ROBERT BLACK, M. A., Kilsyth. LIALCOLM MTNTYRE, Monikie. X PREFACE. JAMES B. IRVINE, Sfcrathkinnes. RALPH a SMITH, Glasgow. PETER RICHARDSON, M.A., Dailly. GEORGE WILSON, Glenluce. WM. BALFOUR, Holyrood, Edinburgh. MURDOCH MACDONALD, Logie-Easter. WILLIAM LIVINGSTONE, Kirriemuir. CHARLES ROSS, Tobermory. ALEX. THOMSON, Millerston, Glasgow. ANDW. COURT, Tweedmouth, Berwick. ALEX. FRASER, Coll. THOMAS GARDINER, Old Aberdeen. ANDREW INGLIS, Dundee. JAMES SIME, M.A., Craigmount House. JOHN ROBERTSON, Gatehouse. JOHN STEWART, Pitlochrie. DUNCAN TURNER, Tealing. JAMES KESSEN, Bathgate. ALEX. LUKE, Uphall. JAMES HUTTON, Closeburn. WILLIAM T. KER, Deskford. JAMES FETTES, Douglas, Isle of Man. DAVID WILSON, Renfrew. ALEX. DAVIDSON, A.M., Harris. J. B. JOHNSTON, late of Wolflee. COJ^TENTS. PAGE I. INTRODUCTORY . 1 II. DIVISION OF THE SUBJECT . 23 I III. DIVISION OF THE SUBJECT . 36 IV. DIVISION OF THE SUBJECT— ITS EXTENT . 49 V. PRAYER, MEDITATION, AND TEMPTATION . 63 VI. PRAYER, MEDITATION, AND TEMPTATION . 75 VII. THE ENGLISH BIBLE-THE SABBATH— PRIVATE MEETINGS . . 90 VIII. METHOD OF THE COURSE . 101 IX. INSUFFICIENCY OF NATURAL THEOLOGY . 114 X. NATURAL THEOLOGY, THE BASIS OF THE EVIDENCES OF CHRIS¬ TIANITY . 124 XI. IMPORTANCE OF THE SUBJECT OF THE EVIDENCES OF CHRIS¬ TIANITY . 138 XII. DIVISIONS OF THE EVIDENCE - MODE OF APPROACHING THE SUBJECT— GENUINENESS, AUTHENTICITY, OR GENERAL CREDI¬ BILITY-NECESSITY OF SPECIAL EVIDENCE FOR SPECIAL CLAIMS TWOFOLD .......... 161 XU CONTENTS. XIII. MIRACLES— HUME’S ARGUMENT . XIV. EVIDENCE OF MIRACLES STILL SATISFACTORY, JUST AS IF WE HAD WITNESSED THEM — CONNECTION BETWEEN MIRACLES AND DOCTRINE— PROPHECY— CONCLUSION OF EXTERNAL EVIDENCES . XV. INTERNAL EVIDENCES OF THE GENERAL TRUTH OF CHRISTIANITV . XVI. EXPERLVIENTAL EVIDENCES— CLASSIFICATION OF EVIDENCES IN GENERAL— ANIMADVERSIONS UPON DR CHALMERS’S STATEMENTS ON THIS POINT . XVII. LITERARY HISTORY OF THE EVIDENCES— FATHERS— VIVES, MORNAY, GROTIUS, HUET, BAXTER, OWEN, STILLINGFLEET XVIII. SKETCH OF LITERARY HISTORY CONTINUED— LESLIE, JENKINS— DEISTICAL CONTROVERSY— LELAND, COLLINS, BUTLER, &c. XIX. POPULAR INFIDELITY USUALLY BASED UPON PERVERTING PARTI¬ CULAR STATEMENTS OF SCRIPTURE-FRENCH INFIDELITY— VOL¬ TAIRE, FINDLAY, PAINE, PALE Y— GERMAN INFIDELITY AND RATIONALISM . XX. GENERAL OBSERVATIONS AND ADVICES ON THE SUBJECT OF THE STUDY OF THE EVIDENCES . XXL DIVINE ORIGIN AND AUTHORITY OF THE BOOKS OF SCRIPTURE- EXTERNAL EVIDENCE . XXII. INTERNAL EVIDENCE, IN COMMENTARY UPON CONFESSION, CHAP. 1. SEC. 5 . XXIII. DIFFERENT DOCTRINES AS TO THE DIVINE ORIGIN OF THE SCRIP¬ TURES, OR THE AMOUNT OF DIVINE AGENCY IN THE PRODUCTION OF THEM- PRINCIPAL AUTHORS . XXIV. DIFFICULTIES IN GENERAL— RATIONAL AND SPIRITUAL EVIDENCE- TESTIMONY OF THE SPIRIT— ROMISH SCEPTICISM PAGE 163 175 188 201 216 230 243 256 269 282 294 307 CONTENTS. xiii PAGE XXV. TESTIMONY OF THE SPIRIT, FOLLOWING THE CONFESSION OF FAITH 320 XX VI. PRINCIPLES AND ARGUMENTS OF THE REFORMERS ON THE TESTI¬ MONY OF THE SPIRIT-BAXTER AND HALYBURTON . . .331 XXVH. PLENARY VERBAL INSPIRATION: ITS GENERAL NATURE, IMPORT, AND GROUNDS . 343 XXVIII. NATURE OF PLENARY INSPIRATION-EXXMINATION OF 2 TIM. HI. 16. 354 XXIX. VERBAL INSPIRATION OF THE NEW TESTAMENT— MODE OF QUOTING OLD TESTAMENT-OBJECTIONS . .365 XXX. MAIN OBJECTION FROM VERBAL DIFFERENCES IN REPORTS OF DIS¬ COURSES- CARSON . 380 XXXI. OBJECTIONS TO PLENARY VERBAL INSPIRATION FROM 1 COR. VIL — DR HILL . 389 XXXH. INSPIRATION (CONCLUDED) . 401 XXXIH. CANON- APOCRYPHA (ORDER WITH RELATION TO INSPIRATION) . 412 XXXIV. CANON OF THE NEW TESTAMENT . 424 XXXV. CANON OF THE NEW TESTAMENT . 436 t XXXVI. RULE OF FAITH — GENERAL PRINCIPLES — POPERY AND TRAC- TARIANISM . 447 XXXVII. PERFECTION AND SUFFICIENCY OF THE SCRIPTURE : SCRIPTURAL EVIDENCE FOR IT, POPISH ARGUMENTS AGAINST IT . . 459 XXXVIH. TRADITION : ITS ALLEGED NECESSITY PROVED BY INSTANCES . 470 XXXIX. TRADITION: POSITIVE EVIDENCE AGAINST IT . . . .481 XL. LIMITATIONS OF THE SUFFICIENCY OF SCRIPTURE STATED IN CON¬ FESSION-PERSPICUITY OF SCRIPTURE . 492 XIV CONTENTS. XLI. ALLEGED OBSCURITY OF SCRIPTURE-NECESSITY OF A LIVING INTER¬ PRETER-FITNESS OF SCRIPTURE TO BE A RULE OF FAITH XLII. INFALLIBILITY OF THE CHURCH-TESTIMONY OF THE FATHERS XLIH. GENERAL INTEGRITY OF THE ORIGINAL TEXT OF SCRIPTURE— CON¬ FESSION, CPIAP. 1. SEC. 8 . XLIV. VARIOUS READINGS . , . XLV. NATURE, DIFFICULTIES, AND NECESSITY OF SEARCHING THE SCRIPTURES . XLVI. AGENCY OF THE SPIRIT- PRAYER . XLVH. RIGHT OF PRIVATE JUDGMENT, AND NECESSITY OF PERSONAL STUDY OF SCRIPTURE . XLVITI. CONFESSION, CHAP. I. SEC. 9— SCRIPTURE ITS OWN INTERPRETER- DOUBLE SENSE-TYPES -GRAMMATICAL AND HISTORICAL SENSE XLIX. CONTEXT- PARALLEL PASSAGES— ANALOGY OF FAITH . L. CONFESSION, CHAP. 1. SEC. 10.— JUDGE OF CONTROVERSY PAGE 504 516 525 538 551 558 569 580 591 602 LI. CONCLUSION . 613 LECTURE 1. INTRODUCTOKY. YOU have arrived at an important era in your history, an occasion when you are specially called upon to search and try your ways, to realise your responsibility to God, your entire dependence upon the Author of every good and perfect gift, to look steadily and deliberately both behind you and before you, and to adopt resolu¬ tions suited to your present circumstances, and fitted to bear extensively and permanently upon your future studies and labours. Your studies have hitherto been directed principally to the improvement of your intellectual powers, and the acquisition of secular knowledge. They are now to be directed to the acquisition of the knowledge of God and of his revealed will. Hitherto, probably, your leading and immediate motives in the prosecution of your studies have been the mere pleasure of intellectual exertion and of the acquisition of knowledge, or, perhaps, the desire of distinction, or a wish to make a creditable preparation for what you had chosen as your future profession in life. Now it may be expected that you have taken a closer and fuller view of the office of the Christian ministry to which you have professedly devoted yourselves, and of the purposes it was designed to serve, and that you feel that it is with God you have to do in this matter, that it is with him you are to Hold communion, and to him you are to have respect in all your studies and preparations connected with entering upon his more immediate service. You have ere this time, I trust, been led to some serious reflection upon the end for which you were created, and the objects to which your powers and faculties ought to be devoted. You have been already giving some measure of serious and humble attention to the study of the A 2 FIRST LECTURE. word of God, and have been enabled to discern and apprehend the views unfolded there of your relation to God as his creatures, his subjects, and the transgressors of his law, and of the scheme of mercy which God devised and executed by sending his Son into the world to suffer and die for us. Through the knowledge and belief of these truths, you have been led, I trust, to flee for refuge to the hope set before you, to embrace Christ as all your salvation and all your desire. Under the influence of these views, and under the guidance of the Holy Ghost, you have not only received Christ as the Way, the Truth, and the Life, for your own personal salvation, but you have resolved to devote your lives to the service of God in the gospel of his Son, to the great object of making God and Christ and salvation known to your fellow-men. Animated by this desire, and determined by God’s grace to carry this resolution into effect, you have come to this place in order that you may acquire the necessary knowledge, and make other neces¬ sary preparations for entering upon this important work. This is the position you now occupy ; these, I trust, are the motives by which you are animated, and the objects on which your desires are set ; and if so, it may be reasonably expected that you will engage in the studies that now lie before you with an activity and a zeal, a seriousness and sense of responsibility, and at the same time with a cheerfulness and alacrity, which you have never known before. The studies in which you have hitherto been engaged have, indeed, been appointed and arranged with a view to your preparation for the study of theology and the work of the ministry, the church having wisely determined that, in the actual circum¬ stances in which we are placed, the general and ordinary rule should be, that men be not admitted to the ministry without some acquaintance with all , those departments of knowledge to which your attention has been hitherto directed. It is right and proper that men should come to the work of the ministry with their intellectual powers brought to maturity, and fully and carefully cultivated ; and the studies in which you have been engaged are admirably adapted to promote this object. There are some branches of literature and science an acquaintance with which affords facilities for attaining a knowledge of theology, and which are therefore sometimes called the of theological science. To these your attention has been directed, and you are all, I trust. INTRODUCTORY. 3 possessed of a creditable acquaintance with them. The two great objects of education are the cultivation and improvement of the mental powers, and the positive acquisition of useful knowledge. These two things are in themselves distinct from each other ; and it is easy to conceive that they might in fact be in some measure separated — i. e. that there might be certain exercises fitted to promote mental improvement without conveying much useful information ; and, on the other hand, that much useful information might be communicated which was not fitted propor¬ tionately and by comparison to expand and strengthen the mental powers. But though these two things may be to some extent separated, they may be, and commonly are, united ; and the great problem to be solved in an investigation of the principles of education is just how this union may be most completely effected — in other words, how education may be so conducted as to secure most fully by one and the same process the most thorough improve¬ ment of the mental faculties, and the communication of the largest amount of useful knowledge. The studies in which you have been hitherto engaged have been arranged with a view to both these objects, and it is expected that you are now prepared to enter upon the study of theology with your mental powers matured and invigorated by culture and exercise, and in the possession of a large amount of useful knowledge — of knowledge that may be useful to you generally as members of society who have chosen what is commonly called a learned profession, and that may be useful to you more particularly in the prosecution of your profes¬ sional studies. There is perhaps no study which at a certain period of life is more useful in calling into exercise and improving the mental powers than the study of languages, especially of those languages which are full and copious, and have been carried to a high pitch of cultivation. And in the attention which you have given to the classical languages of Greece and Eome, you are expected to have reaped this advantage, and at the same time to have also derived from the study and the researches to which it necessarily led these two important additional benefits — first, that your taste has been improved and refined by familiarity with the most splendid productions of genius, and with the most perfect models of composition ; and second, that you have acquired a large portion of information with respect to the history, geography, and 4 FIRST LECTURE. chronology, the manners and customs, the laws and institutions of the nations of antiquity, and are fully aware of the low state of religion and morality which characterised even those nations which had made the greatest progress in literature, science, and the arts, but which had not been favoured with a supernatural and written revelation of God’s will. You have been engaged also in the study of mathematics, a science of pure demonstration, calling into exercise, and, of course, improving other faculties than those developed in the study of languages, opening up to you new and interesting views of the nature of truth and evidence, of the grounds and certainty of human knowledge, accustoming you to a careful investigation of every successive step in your processes of thought and reasoning, and by the positive information which it communicates, paving the way for a fuller knowledge of the works of creation. Your attention has been directed to the material universe, the work of God’s hands, and you have found a profitable exercise for your faculties, and gained much useful information in examining the actual phenomena of nature, in arranging and classifying them, and in investigating the laws by which they are governed. You have thus seen how the heavens declare God’s glory, and how the firmament sheweth forth his handiwork ; how all his works, great and small, praise him, and to some extent manifest His power, and wisdom, and goodness. But perhaps the most interesting and important department of all the studies in which you have hitherto been engaged, is that which concerns not the classic writers of antiquity, not the abstract rela¬ tions of form and numbers, not the material and irrational creation, but man himself, made originally in the image of God, still capable of being restored to that image, and of worshipping, serving, and enjoying God, invested with dominion over the works of creation, and destined not to perish or to be burned up, but to exist for ever. You have been studying man, especially in that respect in which he is distinguished from the lower animals, the possession of a rational and immortal soul. You have been inquiring into his intellectual and moral nature, his powers and capacities, his sus¬ ceptibilities of emotion, the appetites, desires, and passions by which he is influenced. And your inquiries into the actual consti¬ tution of man’s intellectual and moral nature have been, or should INTRODUCTORY. 5 have been, applied to two great practical subjects, viz., investi¬ gating and ascertaining truth, and discovering and establishing duty. In the investigation of man’s intellectual nature, you have been called upon to consider. What is truth ? How may it be ascertained ? How may man’s faculties be most successfully employed in the investigation of it, and best prepared for this work ? What are the grounds of the certainty of our knowledge? and what are the different sources from which truth, or clear and certain knowledge, may be derived ? And in the examination of man’s moral nature, you have been led to consider by what law men ought to form their character and regulate their conduct. What is the relation in which they stand to the great Huler and Lawgiver of the world, who has formed their mental constitution both in its intellectual and moral departments ? What provision has he made in our constitution for guiding us to the knowledge and practice of duty and the attainment of happiness ? and what may be learned from the exercise of- our faculties upon the works of creation and providence, and the constitution of our own nature, as to the character and moral government of God, the rela¬ tion in which we stand to him, the service we ought to render to him, the rule by which our conduct ought to be regulated, and the whole course we ought to pursue, that we may attain to the enjoy¬ ment of his favour, and the fullest and most permanent happiness of which we are capable ? To the study of all these various subjects your time and atten¬ tion have been hitherto devoted. By the study of them I trust your intellectual powers have been expanded and invigorated, and much useful and important knowledge has been acquired. What¬ ever measure of intellectual strength or skill you may have attained, whatever portion of useful knowledge you may possess, you are now called upon to bring to bear upon the study of Christian theology, or of the word of God, the supernatural revelation which he has given us concerning Himself, and concerning our duty and destiny. To God indeed the grand object of knowledge, the great source of obligation, the bestower of all happiness, the author of every good and perfect gift, your attention already has been or should have been directed in the study of his works, and especially in the study of man, the noblest of his works. God’s works should be all studied with a reference to him who created and sustains 6 FIRST LECTURE. them. The things that are made should be ever contemplated as having been made and regulated for the purpose of making known the invisible things of God, even his eternal power and Godhead ; and moral philosophy, when taught as it should be, unfolds all that can be known of God, and of man’s relation to him, from the light of nature and the works of creation and providence, and especially from man’s mental constitution, in order to settle aright the nature, ground, and requirements of duty, in so far as these can be known and ascertained without an immediate and super¬ natural revelation. But you are now to enter upon the study of the truth concerning God, and duty, and happiness, as unfolded to us in the written revelation which God inspired by his Spirit, and has put into our hands. If God has indeed, in addition to the light of nature and the ordinary exercise of their faculties upon the objects around them, given to men a supernatural revelation of his will, professing to communicate to them fuller and clearer views of the most important of all subjects than they could have acquired in any other way, then their first duty is to examine this revela¬ tion, and to learn from it what it was fitted and intended to teach, to bring all their powers and faculties, and all the information they may have acquired, to bear, if needful, upon the investigation of its meaning, and the right use and application of its discoveries. And this is in substance the work to which you are now called. It is not indeed supposed that you are at present entirely ignorant of the word of God, and of the views which are there unfolded concerning God and duty, salvation and eternity. On the con¬ trary, it is assumed that you have given some attention to the study of God’s word, and that you have already been taught by the Spirit through the word the leading principles of God’s oracles, and been taught them so as to have been led by the knowledge and belief of them to choose God as your portion, to embrace Christ as your Saviour, and to devote yourselves to his service — and if so, your eyes have been opened, you have been turned from darkness to light, and are now advancing on your way to Zion with your faces turned thitherwards. But it is assumed, also, that you have not hitherto given a great deal of attention to the careful and exact study of the word of God in the original languages, that you have not yet thought or read a great deal about the principles that ought to guide you INTRODUCTORY. 7 in the study and interpretation of the sacred Scriptures, that you have not yet spent much time in comparing the different state¬ ments of God's word with each other, and trying to form clear and correct conceptions of the general truths which, as a whole, it teaches upon all the various and infinitely important subjects with respect to which it gives us information. It is assumed that while you have not yet had time to give much attention to such exercises as these, in which the study of Christian theology essen¬ tially consists, neither have you had much opportunity of making use, for the attainment of the ends to be effected by these exer¬ cises, of the assistance to be derived in this work from a know¬ ledge of the labours of those who have brought the largest mea¬ sure of natural talents, acquired learning, and spiritual discernment, to bear upon the investigation of the character, meaning, and , contents of the sacred Scriptures. And if these assumptions are correct, then it follows that you do not yet possess that full, clear, and thorough knowledge of the doctrines of Christian theology and of the grounds on which they rest, that is needful, in order to explain the word of God to others, or to assist them in the explanation and application of it, and are not fully qualified to defend even what you have rightly learned against the assaults of adversaries ; and that, on both these grounds, you are not yet fully prepared for entering upon the office of teachers of religion or of ministers of the gospel. You may be, I trust you are, Christians, believers in the Lord Jesus Christ, but you are not theologians. You may have been made wise unto your own sal¬ vation, but you have yet a great deal to learn, both from the agency of the Holy Spirit through the written word, and also from the writings of men, before you become qualified to be ministers of the New Testament. A distinction has been often made between religion and theology, which has a real foundation in fact and experience. Both words are indeed used in two senses, somewhat different, though closely related to each other. Both are employed subjectively and objec¬ tively — subjectively as descriptive of qualities or properties of a man, or as the old theological writers are accustomed to say, “ habi¬ tus homini hserentes,” by the possession of which a man becomes respectively a religious man and a theologian ; and objectively as descriptive of a system of opinions and sentiments irrespective of 8 FIRST LECTURE. those who hold them. In the latter sense we speak of the Chris¬ tian religion and of Christian theology, and when thus used there is scarcely any difference in meaning between them ; they both mean that system of truths derived from the word of God which constitutes Christianity. It is when they are used subjectively that the difference between them appears, and it is a difference only in degree. Religion, as descriptive of that in a man which entitles him to be called religious, is a real knowledge of the true God, leading him to worship and to serve him ; and it is usually regarded as conveying the idea that the man of whom it is pre¬ dicated has so much knowledge of God, and knowledge of such a practical and effective kind, as to produce such a character and conduct as affords materials for cherishing a confident hope of his ultimate happiness. A religious man, therefore, is practically just a true Christian, one who has acquired so much knowledge of God and of the way of salvation, and of the path of duty, from the Christian revelation, and who is so using and applying this knowledge, as that there is good ground to believe that he is advancing in the way that leadeth to glory, honour, and immortality, and that he will ulti¬ mately secure eternal life. Theology, used subjectively, as descrip¬ tive of that in a man which entitles him to be called a theologian, means a full and comprehensive and well-digested knowledge of God, and of everything needful to be known, in order to worshipping and serving him aright, such as may not only avail for the regulation of his own conduct, and the securing of his own personal happiness, but may qualify him for becoming a teacher or instructor of others. And in accordance with this view of its meaning, it is well known that when we apply the term theologian to one who is not in the office of the ministry, not using it merely as a common designation of a particular profession, we intend to convey the idea that he is possessed of a much fuller and more thorough acquaintance with religious subjects than is usually exhibited by those who have not studied religion professionally ; such an acquaintance with these subjects as that he would be fairly entitled to speak or write about them for the instruction or information of others. Theology then used subjectively, and distinguished from religion, is descriptive of a full, comprehensive, well-digested knowledge of God and of divine things, such as may qualify for the instruction of our fellowmen. INTRODUCTORY. 9 The words theology and theologian were used by the ancient clas¬ sical writers. They applied the word theologian both to the poets who had given the fullest accounts of their gods, and to the philosophers who had most fully prosecuted their inquiries into the nature of God and of man’s relation to him. The words theology and theologian do not occur in Scripture, though there are phrases which are virtually synonymous with them, and which naturally led to the formation and use of such words. The word QioXoyog occurs in the inscription of the Apocalypse, which is called the Revelation of John the Divine, but from the way in which this word was commonly used about the time when this inscription was probably attached to it — for the time is not certainly known — the word was in all likelihood intended to be descriptive of the fact that John had written much about the divinity of the Saviour. In the third and fourth centuries a theologian usually meant one who distinguished himself by his exertions in illustrating and defending the personality and divinity of the Logos, a limitation in the use of the word which has long since passed away. Its meaning is now settled as descriptive of a full, thorough, and well-digested knowledge of God, and of all that God has made known to us. We do not usually apply the word religion to a man, or speak of him as religious, except when we mean to convey the idea that, so far as we can judge, the knowledge he has acquired concerning God, is really applied in the way of leading him to worship God and to serve him. But the spectacle has been so often presented of men who had acquired a large measure of information upon sub¬ jects connected with God and religion, and who even held the office of public religious instructors, but who gave no evidence that they were really living under the practical influence of the doc¬ trines which they preached, discussed, or defended, that we do not so generally associate with the common use of the words theology and theologians, any reference to the personal character of the individual, and do not hesitate to speak of men as great theo¬ logians, even when there may be abundant ground to fear that they have never made any such use of their studies in theology, or of their examination of the word of God, as to have become them¬ selves wise unto salvation. It is indeed true that men who are still walking in darkness, led captive by Satan at his will, may devote much time to the examination of the Scriptures and to the 10 FIRST LECTURE. reading of theological works, and thus in a certain sense acquire much knowledge, so as to be qualified to speak and write learnedly upon theological subjects, and even to throw some light upon the exact interpretation of some Scriptural statements. But men who have never really submitted their understandings and their hearts to the influence and authority of the Bible as a divine revelation, and who have never really seen God as he has made himself known in his word, cannot with propriety be said to know God or Chris¬ tian theology, and are not properly entitled to the name of theo¬ logians. It is eternal life to know God and Jesus Christ whom he hath sent, and therefore men who are putting away from them the eternal life which is offered them, cannot be properly said to know God or the Saviour. The apostle lays down a principle upon this subject which is of universal application, and ought never to be overlooked or forgotten, when he says, 2 Cor. ii. 14, “ The natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God, for they are foolishness unto him, neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned.’^ We know that even the spiritual man — the man who has been born again of the word of God, through the belief of the truth, receiveth the things of the Spirit of God only as they are set forth in the word ; and clearly as they are set forth there, no one can receive them so as fully to know and comprehend them, except through the agency of the Holy Ghost. Hence it follows that the apostle’s declaration that the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God, and that he cannot know them, implies that no man in his natural state, with¬ out the renovation of his nature and the indwelling of the Spirit, really knows or comprehends, in any proper sense, the leading and most important declarations of the sacred Scriptures. If it be the clear doctrine of Scripture, that a man still unconverted cannot know the things of the Spirit, however fully and plainly they are stated in the word of God, then by whatever name the information he may have acquired concerning scriptural and theological sub¬ jects may be designated, he ought not to be called a theologian. And all who have resolved to devote themselves to theological study are called upon to give their most serious attention to this most momentous question, whether they have been brought into that condition in which alone they can acquire any real knowledge ot the things of the Spirit as revealed in the sacred Scriptures ; INTRODUCTORY. 11 whether the grand obstacle which the natural darkness of their understandings and the natural ungodliness of their hearts inter¬ pose in the way of their making any real progress in theology, or in the knowledge of God and of divine things, has yet been taken out of the way. This is the first and fundamental qualification for the profitable study of theology, and the want of it nothing else whatever can supply. In accordance with these views, so plainly based upon Scripture, some distinguished writers have introduced into their definitions of theology and of a theologian, the idea that a theologian, one really deserving of the name, must be a converted man, and that theology, or a real knowledge of God and of divine things, can be predicated only of a man whose nature has been renewed, and whose understanding has been enlightened by the Spirit of God. Among the definitions which have been given of these words, I have not met with any one that seems to me, upon the whole, preferable to that given by Buddaeus, a celebrated divine of the Lutheran Church, all whose works are most valuable, as he was eminently distin¬ guished by a remarkable combination of piety and moderation, judgment and erudition. He defines or describes them in this way : — ‘‘ Qui inter Christianos non tan turn vera fide imbuti sunt, sed etiam numinis munere earn prae reliquis adepti sunt faculta- tem ut sacrae doctrinae, qua Christiana religio constat, capita rite proponere, explicare, et contra dissentientium insultus defendere, aliosque adeo ad veram fidem perducere, aut in ea confirmare, possint, voce recepta theologi vocari solent.” And theology itself — that, the possession of which makes a man a theologian — he defines to be “ Scientia rerum divinarum homini peccatori ad salutem con- sequendam cognitu necessariarum, prout ex scriptura sacra nobis constant, cum’ facultate eas iterum alios docendi, confirmandi atque defendendi conjuncta;” and this knowledge of divine things he says, must be true, certain, and efficacious ; and after fully ex¬ plaining these definitions or descriptions, he concludes again, Ex dictis consequitur eum qui jure et merito theologus dici potest non alium esse quam hominem vera fide prseditum seu regenitum.’'^ Such then is the work in which you are to be henceforth engaged. You are supposed to have been led already so far to know God and the views opened up in his word as to have resolved ^ Instit. Theol. Dog. Lib., I. c. L, sect. 32-49, pp. 51, 53, 55, and 66. 12 FIRST LECTURE. not only to take his word as a light to your feet and a lamp to your path, that you may be guided to heaven, but to devote your¬ selves to the promotion of the spiritual welfare and salvation of your fellow-men, and with this view, to be intent now on gaining that full and intelligent knowledge of God’s revelation, which may fit you for becoming the instructors and guides of others. To ascertain the true origin, character, and authority of this revelation, and to be so familiar with the grounds on which the views you hold upon these points rest, that you may be able to defend it against adversaries, and press it upon men’s notice and study ; to investigate fully and carefully the meaning of the Bible, so as to be able to expound and enforce its contents, and bring them to bear most successfully upon men for their conversion and growth in knowledge and in grace, is henceforth to be your principal occupation. To ascertain and open up the mind of the Spirit in the word, and to apply it for the spiritual welfare of others, is to be the chief business of your future lives. As preliminary, however, to this work, it is necessary that you understand fully and intelli¬ gently, so as to be able to state and defend your opinions — first, what the Bible is ; and second, how or in what way the mind of the Spirit is to be ascertained from it ; and that then, with your understandings and hearts deeply impressed with right views upon these subjects, you devote yourselves to the study of the word itself, and bring all the powers of your minds, and all the know¬ ledge and skill and experience you may have acquired, to bear, not merely upon the correct interpretation of its statements singly and separately, although that is the basis of all sound knowledge ot Christian theology, but upon the formation of right conceptions of the whole mind of God as revealed, with respect to everything contained in the sacred volume, giving their due place and pro¬ minence to those subjects which are manifestly possessed of the greatest intrinsic importance. The study of the Scriptures is so ordinary and familiar an occupation, especially with many who have no pretensions to rank among the noble, the wise, and the mighty, that men are sometimes apt to associate it with ignorance, weakness, and obscurity, and to imagine that theology, when elevated to the rank of a science (and indeed to the place of the first and highest of the sciences, for so it has ever been regarded in all Christian countries), and when taught in academic halls, must INTRODUCTORY. 13 be something totally different in kind, and must rest upon some other basis than the correct interpretation of Scripture, and to look upon the careful and exact investigation of the meaning of scriptural statements with something like contempt. Spiritual pride produces this feeling, as well as pride of reason and science. This notion, or anything approaching to it, is a dangerous delusion. The bringing out the true meaning of the statements of Scripture, and the deducing from a comparison of them the whole scheme of truth and duty which are taught us in the word, are the only means of attaining to a just and well-grounded knowledge of theology, and afford the fullest exercise for all the highest powers of the human mind, while they require the constant presence and guidance of the Holy Spirit. And of that whole process the correct interpretation of the statements of Scripture is the basis and foundation, the only certain ground on which a real knowledge of God and of divine things can rest. You have already in your previous studies examined the book of nature, the works of crea¬ tion, that you might know the truth concerning God and your own duty. You are now called upon to examine his word, which he has magnified above all his works, and which at least as much needs and deserves a minute and careful investigation. You have, as it were, exhausted all other means of attaining to clear and certain knowledge of truth and duty and happiness, and nothing now remains but that you listen to the voice of God speaking in his word, and subordinate everything to the object of ascertaining and understanding fully what he has told you. A full, correct, and intelligent acquaintance with the Scriptures is not by any means so easy or so ordinary an attainment as men are sometimes apt to suppose. It requires a larger measure of natural ability, a higher degree of acquired learning, and a greater amount of patient and laborious study than is commonly imagined. It is quite true that the great leading doctrines and duties of Christianity are very plainly set forth in Scripture, and that every thing needful to guide men to the saving knowledge of the truth and the enjoyment of eternal blessedness, may be certainly learned, under the guidance of God’s Spirit, from almost any translation of the Scriptures, by men who have but a very small measure of intellectual culture and of acquired knowledge; and it is also true, that men who, from the teaching of the Spirit and of the 14 FIRST LECTURE. word, have got a clear perception and a firm hold of the leading principles of God’s oracles, are not likely to fall into any very dangerous errors in the interpretation of particular portions of Scripture. But though all this is true, and most important and encouraging truth it is, it has nothing to do with the question as to what kind and degree of knowledge of God’s word may be attained, and ought to be aimed at, and what may be reasonably expected of those who aspire to be the public instructors of others. They ought not to be contented with knowing the word of God through the help of a translation, when they have opportunities of becoming acquainted with the original. They ought not to be satisfied with understanding the few fundamental principles of Scriptural truth, but are bound to acquire as thorough and accurate a knowledge as they can of the whole volume which God’s Spirit inspired. They should not be contented, as men too often are, with a mere familiarity with the sense of the words, with some vague and indefinite inkling of the meaning of a scriptural state¬ ment, but are bound to employ all such means as may be necessary for understanding fully and establishing firmly the exact meaning of God’s declarations, and to bring as much of meditation and reflection to bear upon them as may produce clear and definite conceptions of their import. It is of indispensable importance that ministers of the gospel have their hearts saturated with the general spirit and substance of God’s word, with the leading views which are there unfolded, but it is necessary also that they have so full and accurate a knowledge of the exact meaning of the particular statements of Scripture, as to be able to open them up and expound them to others, to bring out clearly and intelligently the grounds in the correct interpretation of God’s word on which their own con¬ victions rest, and to defend them if needful against the assaults of adversaries. Ministers of the gospel ought not, in the execution of their function, which consists mainly in opening up and expounding the mind of the Spirit in the word, to be wholly dependent upon translators and commentators, but should be capable of under¬ standing the original inspired writings; and though not all profound scholars and critics themselves, at least able to appreciate and to apply the erudite and critical labours of others. There is nothing which affords so abundant a supply of interesting, wholesome, and edifying matter for public instruction, as that knowledge which is INTRODUCTOItY. 15 the result of a thorough familiarity with God’s word, of much meditation and reflection upon the statements of Scripture ; and if men will attempt to expound and apply the word of God for the instruction of others, they are bound by the most solemn obligations to take all possible pains, and to use all practicable means, first for satisfying themselves, and then for convincing others, that what they are setting forth from the Scriptures is what God really teaches in that portion of his inspired word which they are considering. It is not enough that the matter set forth be the truth of God, it is also required, to use the language of our Directory for Public Worship, ‘'that it be a truth contained in or grounded on that text, that the hearers may discern how God teacheth it from thence.” If it be the great duty of the ministers of the gospel to explain and open up the Word of God in its true meaning and real import for the salvation of men, then it is manifest that their theological education should be principally directed to these two objects — first, that they acquire that information, form these habits, and be impressed with these general views and principles, which may constrain them ever after to devote their principal attention to the study of God’s Word, and may afford them the best assistance in attaining most speedily and most certainly to a correct knowledge of the meaning of its statements ; and second, that they become intelligently and accurately acquainted on scriptural grounds with those fundamental doctrines of revelation which ought to pervade all their efforts to instruct their fellow-men, as bearing most directly and immediately upon the salvation of sinners, and which, when distinctly perceived, and firmly held, and faithfully applied, will preserve them from radical or fundamental error in the interpreta¬ tion of any portion of Scripture. All the knowledge then you may have acquired, all the expe¬ rience and skill you may have attained, are henceforth to be brought to bear more or less directly upon the study of the sacred Scriptures, and the great object of acquiring a real, thorough, and influential knowledge of God and of divine things from the revela¬ tion which he has given us. The subjects of study to which your attention has been hitherto directed need not, and should not, be altogether neglected, but they must be subordinated to the study of divine truth in God’s word. The books of the Old and New Testament are the only classics to which henceforth you are to 16 FIRST LECTURE. apply the precept, “ Nocturna versate manu, versate diurna/’ The divine character and government you are henceforth to study, not in the dim light of nature, but in the bright effulgence of revela¬ tion. The character, duty, and destiny of man you are to investi¬ gate, not merely by looking within yourselves upon your hearts, and looking around you on the position in which you find your¬ selves placed, but by studying the information communicated to you on all these subjects by Him who made the heart and wdio knows it best, who alone is entitled to regulate our conduct, and who alone determines our destiny. And in investigating these infinitely important subjects, and in seeking to form clear, definite, and impressive conceptions regarding them, such as may most powerfully influence yourselves and most fully qualify you for becoming the instructors of others, you may, even when most fully enjoying the guidance of God’s Spirit and the light of his word, and when most humbly and implicitly submitting to their teach¬ ing, find full scope for the exercise of the highest powers and the most exalted faculties which God has ever conferred upon any of the human race. Christian theology, then, is the knowledge of God and of divine things, especially of Him who is the image of the invisible God, the Way, the Truth, and the Life, derived from the sacred Scriptures. A full and adequate knowledge of these things, adequate, i.e. so far as God has revealed it and man is capable of receiving it, can reside only in a habile or capable subject, in one whose eyes have been opened, whose understanding has been enlightened, and whose nature has been renewed. It can come only from the operation of the Spirit of truth convincing men of the divine authority of the word, and enabling them to understand its meaning ; and wherever and in so far as it has been conferred, it is to be employed for promoting God’s glory and the eternal welfare of men, for advanc¬ ing our own conformity to God’s image and meetness for his presence, for diffusing scriptural views of God and Christ and the way of salvation in the world, and for leading men to embrace Christ, and to grow up in all things unto Him who is the head. It is to the attainment of this knowledge that your studies and prayers should now be directed. You seek it, because God has already in some measure opened your eyes and enabled you to discern something of its excellency, so that you desire to know IXTRODUCTORY. 17 more of it and to live more under its power. You seek it because you have been led to devote yourselves to the work of the ministry, and are conscious that you must have much more knowledge of God and his word and of the way of salvation, before you could venture to engage in the arduous and responsible work of instruct¬ ing others in the mysteries of the kingdom. And you are resolved to seek it from God, because you know from his declaration and your past experience that you can obtain it nowhere else, and that he giveth liberally and upbraideth not ; while at the same time you are determined to employ all the means, to improve all the opportunities, and to avail yourselves of all the assistance which there is any reason to expect that God will bless for attain¬ ing this end. These, I trust, are your views, your desires, and your purposes. If it be not so, there is but little reason to expect that you Avill make any real progress in the studies in which you are about to be engaged, or that without an entire change of heart and character you can become qualified for the work of the Chris¬ tian ministry. But if you are influenced by these views and desires, and are enabled to carry out these purposes, then we can confidently hold out to you much pure satisfaction, much exalted enjoyment in the prosecution of your studies; and, if it please God to spare you, we can set before you a most encouraging prospect of abundant usefulness in the vineyard of the Lord. I would fain regard it as a presumption that you are in some measure influenced by such views and feelings as these, that you have resolved to cast in your lot with the Free Church of Scotland. . . . We cannot hold out to you in the ministry of the Free Church the prospect of worldly honours and emoluments, of the favour or countenance of the wealthy and the powerful, or of the enjoyment of ease or idleness. With us you must be prepared to endure hardness, as good soldiers of Christ Jesus. But we can offer you a place in the ministry of a Church which, blessed be God, maintains the truth of God, and which therefore he may be reasonably expected to bless. We can hold out to you a wide field of usefulness, abundant opportunities of labouring in Christ’s cause, in circumstances wLich afford an encouraging prospect of success. God has set before us an open door — no man can shut it ; and, so far as we can judge from the state- B 1 18 FIRST LECTURE. ments of God’s word, the general principles of his moral govern¬ ment, and the indications of his providence, there is no reason to fear that he will speedily close it. When He who had ' struck Paul with blindness on his way to Damascus was direct¬ ing Ananias to go and visit him, that he might receive his sight and be filled with the Holy Ghost, he assured him that Paul was "‘a chosen vessel to bear his name before the Gentiles, and kings, and the children of Israel and then he added, I will .shew him how great things he must suffer for my name’s sake” (Acts ix. 16) ; seemingly intending to represent both the sufferings themselves, and the previous intimation of them, as tokens of his favour and his kindness. And men who have any real love to the Saviour, and any honest zeal for his glory, will not shrink from his service because of the difficulties and hardships that may lie before them in the work to which they may be called. I have said that I would fain regard it as a presumption that you have chosen the ministry from the right motives, and are re¬ solved to prosecute your studies in a right spirit, that you have cast in your lot with the Free Church of Scotland ; but I must warn you against imagining that this circumstance, or indeed anything that is external and applies to men in the mass, can afford any sufficient ground for establishing the soundness of your principles or the purity of your motives. The deceitfulness of sin, and the deceitfulness of men’s hearts, are continually at work, leading men to think more highly of themselves than they ought to think. Satan is continually exerting his utmost skill and activity to introduce into the ministry of the professing church men who will be in reality his servants and not the servants of Christ. He knows well that nothing tends so much to the ad¬ vancement of his cause as an unconverted ministry. He will not fail to direct his efforts in this respect against the Free Church of Scotland, and we can scarcely cherish the hope that he will be altogether unsuccessful. There are some obvious advantages of which he will not fail to avail himself There are some views and considerations which may induce men to join the Free Church of Scotland, of a more creditable and elevated kind than worldli¬ ness or selfishness in their proper forms, but which yet may be entirely separated from that fear of God which is the beginning of wisdom, from real godliness of heart and motive, from real love INTRODUCTORY. 19 to the Saviour and regard to his honour. There cannot be a reasonable doubt that the principles for which the Free Church of Scotland has been called upon to testify and to suffer are in substance the same for which our forefathers laid down their lives, and are thus associated with circumstances and transactions which have always had a strong hold upon the hearts and feelings of Scottish Presbyterians, and which must appeal most powerfully to every patriotic and generous mind. Although, then, your pre¬ ferring the Free Church may prove that you have triumphed over selfishness in some of its lower and grosser forms, and have subordinated them to some of the higher and nobler principles of our nature, it is still quite a possible thing that you may be de¬ ceiving yourselves as to your motives in entering upon the study of theology with a view to the office of the ministry, and in doing so in the circumstances in which you have placed yourselves. And I have adverted to this subject for the purpose of warning you that you should not trust to mere presumptions and proba¬ bilities in judging of the state of your hearts, and the motives by which you are animated, but that, fully alive to the dangers of self-deceit, you- search and try your ways, see that you have really devoted yourselves to Christ's service, and are now ready • and willing to do whatever may be best fitted to prepare you for usefulness in his vineyard ; to exert yourselves and to deny your¬ selves, that you may acquire all that knowledge, and form all those habits, which may prepare you for usefulness and respect¬ ability in the ministry ; animated and encouraged amid all your studies and all your labours by a growing regard to the glory of God, by increasing love to the Lord Jesus Christ, and to the souls of perishing men. Christian theology is, as we have explained to you, a knowledge of God and divine things as they are set before us in the sacred Scriptures. The principal exercise, therefore, by which this know¬ ledge is to be acquired, so far as natural means or human agency is concerned, must be the investigation of the meaning of God’s word, and the application of the ascertained meaning of its various statements to the formation of clear and distinct conceptions as to the mind and will of God with regard to all the different subjects which the statements of Scripture respect. This ought to be one of your principal exercises during the remainder of your lives, and 20 FIRST LECTURE. the foundation of the knowledge and of the habits by which it may be successfully prosecuted should be laid during your attend¬ ance at this place. There are, however, some important topics which are in a certain sense preliminary to this. When the general nature and object of theology are explained and illustrated, the first questions that naturally occur are — What are these sacred Scriptures ? Why ought they to be studied with such care and diligence ? In what way and by what means may their meaning be most correctly and certainly ascertained ? The sacred Scripture contains a revelation from God ; or, in other words, the Jewish and Christian religions are true; and not only, so, but the Scriptures are themselves the word of God given by the inspiration of the Holy Ghost, and intended by him to be the exclusive rule of faith and practice. It is for these reasons that they ought to be studied, and that all appropriate means should be sedulously and unceasingly employed by which we may attain to a correct and certain knowledge of their meaning. It is with the investigation of these preliminary subjects that you are to be mainly occupied at this class during the first session of your theo¬ logical studies — the evidences of Christianity, the canonicity and inspiration of the books of Scripture, their sufficiency, perfection, and exclusive authority as the rule of faith and practice (a subject of more interest and importance in the present day than in some preceding generations, in consequence of the revival of Popish corruptions by many men who have not yet joined the Church of Rome) ; and the general principles of scriptural interpretation, the leading considerations that ought to be kept in view and acted upon in order that you may attain to a correct understanding of their meaning, and the best mode of applying them to the pur¬ pose they were intended to serve. I would not like to spend a whole session merely about the Scriptures without entering at all within them. I have it in contemplation to examine those por¬ tions of the sacred Scriptures which give us information concerning the Scriptures themselves, selecting these portions because the information they contain bears most directly upon the general subject of the course, but meaning to attempt to treat them so as to illustrate some of the principal rules according to which the general interpretation of Scripture ought to be conducted. In this way I hope to be able, in the course of the session, to brin^ INTRODUCTORY. 21 before you, and to assist you in more fully understanding the import and the grounds of the truths we believe concerning the origin, the authority, the character and perfection, the objects and uses of the sacred Scriptures, and the way and manner in which they ought to be interpreted and applied, in order that having sound views upon all these points deeply impressed upon your minds, you may thus have a good foundation laid for all your future studies and labours in investigating, as fully as you can, the meaning of the word of God, and in seeking to have the fullest and most intelligent comprehension of all those leading truths with respect both to belief and to practice which, “ according to the commandment of the everlasting God, have been made known unto all nations for the obedience of faith.” If a high and solemn responsibility attaches to every one of you in beginning such a course of study as this, and preparing for such an occupation as the ministry of the gospel, how great must be the responsibility of those who are called to superintend your studies, and to assist you in the prosecution of them ! I trust I am not altogether insensible of the responsibility that attaches to me, and of my insufficiency for these things. But we all need to be more deeply humbled and more thoroughly abased, and to be stirred up to seek for ourselves, and for each other, that God would make his grace sufficient for us and perfect his strength in our weakness. It is my hope and expectation that the zeal and ardour with which you will engage in the prosecution of your studies, and the copious effusion, given in answer to our prayers, of the Spirit of him who alone teacheth savingly and to profit, will make you in a great measure independent of your instructor for your progress in the knowledge of divine things, but may at the same time make even the feeble and imperfect assistance which he may be able to render you not altogether unprofitable. I trust I can with some measure of sincerity adopt the language of the Apostle, and say, ‘‘ For this cause we also, since the day we heard it, do not cease to pray for you, and to desire that ye might be filled with the knowledge of his will in all wisdom and spiritual understanding ; that ye might walk worthy of the Lord unto all pleasing, being fruitful in every good work, and increasing in the knowledge of God ; strengthened with all might, according to his glorious power, unto all patience and long-suffering with joyfulness” 92 FIRST LECTURE. (Col. i. 9-11), and this result will most assuredly be realized if each one of you is prepared to adopt the language of the same Apostle on another occasion, and to say, But what things were gain to me, those I counted loss for Christ. Yea doubtless, and I count all things but loss for the excellency of the knowledge of Christ Jesus my Lord : for whom I have suffered the loss of all things, and do count them but dung, that I may win Christ, and be found in him, not having mine own righteousness, which is of the law, but that which is through the faith of Christ, the righteous¬ ness which is of God by faith : that I may know him, and the power of his resurrection, and the fellowship of his sufferings, being made conformable unto his death ; if by any means I might attain unto the resurrection of the dead ” (Phil. iii. 7-11). I LECTURE II. DIVISION OF THE SUBJECT. Haying adverted briefly and. generally to the character and objects of the studies which are to occupy your attention, and, I trust, to engross your time and your faculties for several years, if the Lord should be pleased to spare you, it may be proper to give you a somewhat more detailed view of the extent of theological science, of the different branches into which it has been or may be divided, and of the way and manner in which the study of it ought to be conducted. It is right that you should, at this early period of your studies, be duly impressed with the magnitude and extent of the work which, even when viewed simply and in the first instance as the study of a branch of knowledge, lies before you ; and just because of the magnitude and extent of the subject, it is the more important that you have some practical directions to assist you in the regulation of your studies, and especially to point out how you may most usefully employ the time to be more particularly devoted to this object, so as to secure that you may all acquire that measure of knowledge of theological science, which may be regarded as indispensable before you enter upon the work of the ministry, and may at the same time lay the best foundation for the prosecuting those investisfations into the revealed mind and will of God, which should continue so long as you live. After having described the different branches of theological science in the order in which they ought to be studied, I shall suggest some practical counsels that may assist you in the work, and point out the spirit as well as the manner in which this study ought to be prosecuted. Those who are to be engaged in this study are men, rational and intelligent beings, who find themselves possessed of certain faculties and capacities of investigating truth and acquiring knowledge, and the 24 SECOND LECTURE, object of their investigation is God, of whom they have been led to conceive as a great and glorious Being, who has created all things, and who preserves and governs them. In directing their attention to this subject, with the view of carefully investigating it, the first questions that naturally occur are such as these : How may God and his will be known ? What means have we of attaining to the knowledge of Him ? What do we know or believe concerning Him already ? From what source has this knowledge of Him been derived ? and on what basis does it rest ? These questions lead us at once to the consideration of what we can learn concerning God from the constitution of our natures and the exercise of our faculties upon ourselves, and upon the objects around ns, and should also lead us further to inquire, whether God has at any time given to men any more direct and formal revelation concerning himself. The investigation of what may be known about God from the exercise of those faculties which form the leading characteristic of our species upon ourselves, and upon the other objects accessible to us, constitute what is commonly called natural religion, or the religion of nature, as distinguished from that knowledge which God is believed to have imparted to men concerning himself through direct communications which he has made to them. If God has made any direct communications to men concerning himself, it may be naturally supposed that these will convey to us more clear and certain knowledge than could be acquired in any other way ; and men will therefore rea¬ sonably turn their attention to professed revelations from God concerning himself, and examine their claims to credibility. The Jewish religion and the Christian religion alone have any such verisimilitude as to entitle their claims to a careful examination, and to an investigation therefore of the claims of these religions to a divine origin will the attention of men who are desirous to attain to certain knowledge concerning God be naturally directed. The account both of the Jewish and the Christian religion is to be found in that collection of writings which we call the Bible or the sacred Scriptures. To ascertain the character and the claims of these writings is to investigate the truth of these religions ; and if it can be proved that they do indeed contain a revelation from God, then an investigation of their meaning must constitute mainly and principally the study of theology. The study of DIVISION OF THE SUBJECT. 25 Christian theology, indeed, is just the investigation of the mean¬ ing and application of the revelation which God has given us concerning himself, as contained in the sacred Scriptures ; and Christian theology itself is just a name descriptive of the whole information to be derived from that source concerning God, his character, government, and relation to us, his purposes with re¬ gard to us, and the duty which he requires of us. But while Christian theology is properly the knowledge derived from the sacred Scriptures, viewed as already proved to contain a revela¬ tion from God, and while the study of it, therefore, may be said to consist in in vest i statin and ascertainino^ the meaninof and im- port of what the sacred Scriptures contain, and emplojdng their discoveries for regulating our opinions and our conduct, yet it has been customary to include under it, and as indeed the first branch of it, the investigation of the claims of the Scriptures to the re¬ ception they have met with as being, or at least as containing, a divine revelation. And accordingly, in most of the older systems of theology, it is common to begin, after some general explanation of the nature, dignity, objects, and general character of the science, with some exposition of the grounds on which the Bible is held to contain a revelation from God concerning himself ; in other words, with a statement of the evidences of Christianity, and the proofs of the divine origin and authority of the Scriptures. In more modern systems of theology published on the continent, and espe¬ cially in Germany, it is common, in order to exhibit a rigidly and minutely accurate method, and to follow out fully the idea that a system of Christian theology is just a systematic exposition of the information actually contained in or deducihle from the Bible itself, to introduce a summary of the evidences of Christianity, and of the divine authority of the sacred Scriptures, under the designation of prolegomena, or prcecognita, or proecognoscenda ; while with that strong tendency to divide and subdivide by which the Germans especially are distinguished, they have given to this subject, viewed by itself and apart from its relation to systematic divinity, the special designation of apologetic theology, to indicate that it comprehends everything connected with the defence of the claims which Christianity and the Bible put forth to be received as coming from God. This naturally occupies the first place in a course of theological study, both because the question, whether 26 SECOND LECTURE. God has given a direct and supernatural revelation of himself to men, obviously occurs whenever men's thoughts are directed to the contemplation of God, and because it is only a conviction of the divine origin of Christianity and the Bible that will lead men to examine the Scriptures in a right spirit, and with right objects, and to make a right use of the information which they contain. It has been common to divide theological science, or the whole of the subjects that ought to be embraced in a course of theological study, into four great branches — 1st, Exegetical ; 2d, Systematic ; 3d, Historical; and 4th, Pastoral Theology — each of which admits of being broken down into several subdivisions. This general division is sufficiently accurate, and maybe usefully remembered and applied. We shall briefly describe each of these in the order now stated. 1. Exegetical Theology. The word s^rr/yjaig from which the term is derived (coming from the verb s^yjysofLai) just means explication or exposition, and this department therefore might be called explan¬ atory or expository theology. It comprehends everything con¬ nected with the investigation of the exact meaning of the state¬ ments which compose the sacred Scriptures, and, of course, embraces a very wide range of topics. It may, without much straining, be regarded as comprehending Apologetic Theology, or the evidences of the divine origin of Christianity, and the divine authority of the Bible — 1st, because right views of the origin, the authority, and the objects of the Bible, form not only reasons why it ought to be studied with the view of ascertaining its meaning, but do, or may, affect the way in which it ought to be explained and interpreted ; and 2d, because some knowledge of what is con¬ tained in the Bible, in other words some exegesis of its state¬ ments, is necessary before we can fully ascertain its general character and claims. This last idea of the necesssity of under¬ standing and interpreting the Bible before deciding upon its claims, origin, and authority, has been carried out so far by some writers as to have been made the ground of a proposed arrangement of theological study, by which the whole subject of the interpretation of Scripture occupies the very first place in the course, and is made to take precedence even of the consideration of the evidences of Christianity and the divine authority of the Bible. See Bishop Marsh’s second preliminary Lecture to his valuable and useful work entitled Lectures on the Criticism and Interpretation of the Bible. DIVISION OF THE SUBJECT. 27 Assuming, what is undoubtedly true, that the materials for deter¬ mining the credibility and authority of the Bible are partlj^, at least, derived from the contents of the Bible itself, he infers that the right arrangement of a course of theological study is that everything connected with the criticism of the Bible — i.e. the settling of the text, or the determining what are the Hebrew and Greek vocables which the inspired writers actually used, which constitute the Bible, and the interpretation of the Bible, or the explanation of its true and real statements — should be fully and minutely discussed and thoroughly mastered before we proceed to inves¬ tigate its origin and authority. This arrangement is, perhaps, in strict logic correct, but for any practical useful purpose it is unnecessary. And it is unwarrantable on several grounds, and constrained. It seems to have been adopted by the learned bishop chiefly as a reason or ground for commencing his theo¬ logical course, and occupying the principal share of his time in his labours as a professor of divinity, with that department of theological science with which he was best acquainted, and in which he took the deepest interest ; for his theological course, so far at least as it has been published, did not go beyond this. There is no real necessity for a strict adherence to this order, while it is attended with much awkwardness and inconvenience. I presume you all feel that if you have not already studied the evidences of Christianity and the proofs of the divine authority of the sacred Scriptures, you ought to investigate them now before proceeding any further in your theological studies ; and if you do so, you will assuredly find that there are sufficient materials for coming to a conclusion upon this subject, the discovery and application of which do not require any very minute or careful attention to the more recondite and difficult questions connected either with the criticism or the interpretation of the Bible. The various subjects compre¬ hended under exegetical theology, in the wide sense in which it has been explained, may be arranged in the following order with sufficient attention to logical accuracy, and in a way corresponding with the natural and obvious train of thought likely to occur in a general survev of them. (1.) The evidence that the Bible contains a revelation of God to man, or what are commonly called the evidences of Christianity. (2.) The canon, or the consideration of what those books or writings. 28 SECOND LECTURE. to the exclusion of all others, are, by which God intended this revelation to be communicated to us, and which the Holy Ghost inspired for that purpose. (3.) The divine authority and inspira¬ tion of the Scriptures, or the investigation of all that is involved in the position that the Scriptures not only contain or embody a divine revelation, but are themselves the word of God, and were produced by the agency of his Spirit. (4.) The general characters or properties of the Scriptures, such as their perspicuity, sufficiency, and perfection, by which they are fitted for the great purpose they were intended to serve, viz., to be the only rule of faith and practice. (5.) What is more strictly and properly exegetical theo- logy, or the investigation of everything bearing upon the way and manner in which the Bible is to be used and applied, so that it may successfully accomplish this intended object; and this subject is now usually considered under two heads — 1st, The criticism of the Bible, which by modern writers has been restricted to mean the investigation of the text, the settling of the true reading in the original languages ; and 2d, The interpretation of the Bible, a much more important and extensive subject, and one which admits of several subdivisions, such as 1st, Philology, or a knowledge of the languages in which the Scriptures were written ; 2d, Hermen¬ eutics, or the science of interpretation, comprehending an investi¬ gation of the general principles and rules according to which the interpretation of the particular statements of Scripture ought to be conducted ; and 3d, Exegesis, or the actual practice or exercise of interpretation. It is very plain that every one who wishes to study theology, so as to be really acquainted with the science, must have some know¬ ledge of all these topics ; and that every one who aspires to the office of a minister of the word and an instructor of others, ought, if possible, to be familiar with them. They embrace a very wide and extensive range, affording scope for all diversities of talent, for the exercise of all your faculties, and for the application of all the knowledge and all the habits of investigation which you may have already acquired ; and they are preliminary to that which ought to be henceforth the great business of your lives, the investigating and unfolding the whole mind and will of God revealed in his word for the salvation of men, and they thus form the necessary basis or substratum of all those labours and studies which it will DIVISION OF THE SUBJECT. 29 be your duty to prosecute, not merely while you are preparing for the work of the ministry, but also while you are engaged in the discharge of its duties, even until you enter upon that state where you will no longer see through a glass darkly, but face to face. These subjects are all preliminary to the study of Christian theology in its more limited sense, as descriptive of the actual information given us in the sacred Scriptures, and to be received as resting upon God’s authority, except, indeed, the subjects of the Inspiration and some others of the general qualities or properties and objects of the sacred Scriptures, with respect to which we have information given us in the Bible itself, which it will be needful for us to examine, and on which, after having established the general credibility of the Scriptures, it will be reasonable for us to rely. All these subjects now briefly stated are comprehended in the course which we must endeavour to traverse during the present session ; and from their magnitude and extent, you will see at once how impossible it must be to treat any of them very fully, and w^hat diligence and exertion and self-denial will be necessary on your part in order that, through God’s blessing, you may all acquire a creditable acquaintance with them as the basis and groundwork of your future studies. As we will, of course, have occasion in trying to assist you in the study of all these important topics, to explain to you more fully their nature and importance, and their relations to each other, we shall not dwell longer upon them at present, but proceed to give a brief sketch of the general character and objects of the other leading divisions of theological science, that you may have some idea of the whole field, although, for the present session, you will not go beyond that portion of it which has already been marked out. 2. Systematic Theology. The next great division is what is commonly called systematic theology, while it is known also under the designations of dogmatic and thetic theology — the former name referring more to the form, and the two latter to the matter. It is just the truths or doctrines, the dogmata or theses taught or revealed in Scripture, in regard to all matters about which infor¬ mation is there communicated, arranged, or digested into a system. The Bible does not exhibit any systematic summary or classified digest of the truths which it reveals to us, and which we are required to believe upon its authority ” and it is not difficult to 30 SECOND LECTUEE, see something of the wisdom of such a plan in the composition of a divine revelation. The book of revelation, as it has been often remarked, is in this respect like the book of nature. In surve3dng God's works of creation, we find almost every object in a certain sense isolated and unconnected. On examination, however, we soon discover order in the midst of apparent confusion ; we discover resemblances and harmonies, relations and connections of various kinds subsisting among the innumerable objects presented to our contemplation, which lay a basis for systematising or classifying. This systematising and classifying of the numerous and diversified objects which the book of nature presents to us, on the ground of their resemblances and other relations, constitutes what is usually called science. It has afforded scope for the highest exercises of the human faculties, and has tended greatly to improve both the quality and the extent of our knowledge of the works of God. Just so it is in the book of revelation. Every particular statement contained in the sacred Scripture is just analogous to a single separate fact in the kingdom of nature. When its meaning is once fully established by the use of appropriate means, by a right use of the resources of hermeneutics and exegesis, it stands as an ascertained fact, a truth which God has revealed to us. But in the same book of revelation there may be, we find in fact in many cases there are, scattered up and down, if we might so speak, statements of a similar kind, relating to the same or similar subjects, which, when compared together, may throw light upon each other, and lead to important general conclusions that perhaps could not safely or warrantably or certainly be deduced from any one of them ; and at anyrate the knowledge and comparison of all these different statements may be necessary in order to our under¬ standing the whole of what God intended to communicate to us, and therefore expected that we should understand and believe in regard to that particular subject. Systematic theology then just exhibits the classified result of the whole information given us in different statements and in various portions of the book of revela¬ tion, in regard to all the leading topics wliich are there brought under our notice. The process by which a system of theology may be formed is evidently quite a legitimate one. It should rest as its basis solely upon a careful examination and a correct interpre¬ tation, in accordance with the rules and by the use of the apparatus DIVISION OF THE SUBJECT. 31 of hermeneutics, of the particular statements of Scripture ; and unless it rest upon this basis, it is of no more validity or value than the pretended natural science of the dark ages, which did not rest upon an accurate observation of the facts and phenomena* of nature. But when the meaning of the particular statements of Scripture has been accurately ascertained in the right use of the appropriate means, there can be nothing wrong or illegitimate, nothing unreasonable or injurious, in comparing together the various passages which bear more or less directly upon the same subject, and deducing, from an examination of them all, the sub¬ stance of what God meant to teach us upon the point, which however in his wisdom he has usually thought proper to teach us, not by formal abstract deliverances, systematically classified and arranged, but by a variety of statements more or less directly bearing upon the particular topic, and scattered to appearance indiscriminately, but in reality with divine and admirable wisdom, over the whole field of the word. It has been no uncommon thing for a certain class of writers upon theological subjects to declaim against systematic theology, and against the works which are classed under the general desig¬ nation of systems. This dislike of systematic theology and of systems has arisen from ignorance and misconception or unrea¬ sonable prejudice, and in some cases we fear from worse motives. A very large proportion of the systems of theology which, until the rise of infidel neology on the Continent about the middle of last century had been given to the world, were orthodox or Calvinistic, i.e. a large proportion of them gave generally, and in the main, a sound and correct summary of the leading truths contained in the word of God. And this was not by any means an accidental thing. The orthodox or Calvinistic scheme is the most systematic of all systems, possessing the beautiful consistency and harmony of truth, and deriving from its systematic consistency a presumption in favour of its soundness. On these accounts, a dislike of systematic theology, and a disposition to rail at systems and system-makers, has been with many little else than an indication of a dislike to Calvinism, and to the works in which the Calvinistic system was unfolded. And in so far as this dislike to systematic theology professed to rest upon reasonable considerations, it has usually been alleged that systems of man’s making have a tendency to 32 SECOND LECTURE. supersede the word of God, and that the study of them tends to lead men to disregard the word of God as the only standard of truth, and to be less careful about ascertaining accurately the exact ’ import of its statements. An exclusive devotion to system-making in theology, and the spending a great deal of time in perusing systems, may have some tendency to lead to this abuse. But the abuse may be guarded against, and will be guarded against, by the habitual recollection that the Bible is the only rule or standard according to which both our opinions and our practice ought to be regulated, and that we are to receive no truth or doctrine as a part of our creed merely because it is found in some esteemed system, and seems to be consistent and to fit in well with the other parts of it ; and that men are bound to be satisfied themselves, and to be ever ready, if duly called upon, to shew to others, that all the theological opinions they entertain can be established by a rigid and exact investigation of the meaning of the actual statements of God’s word. You are not called upon at the commencement of your theological studies to be devoting 3mur time to the study of systems of theology, or of those works which usually pass under that name. There are preliminary topics with which, and with the works in which they are explained and illustrated, you ought in the first instance to be occupied. But even now you ought, according to your means and opportunities, to be acting as s^^ste- matic theologians, or making a system for yourselves, i.e. you ought to be not merely studying the word of God for the purpose of ascertaining the precise and exact meaning of its individual statements, but classifying and comparing them, and endeavouring to form a clear conception of the general substance of the whole truth taught there in regard to all the leading subjects which are there unfolded. Indeed, the duty of making a system of theology from the word of God, based in all its parts upon an accurate examination of the precise import of its statements, is not incum¬ bent only on those who study theological science for their own improvement, or with the view of becoming the instructors of others, but even on private Christians, on all who are desirous to make an intelligent and profitable use of the word of God. No man can be said to have made a right use of the word of God who has not deduced from it a system of theology, and so far acted the part of a system-maker, i.e. who has not derived from it DIVISION OF THE SUBJECT. 33 definite conceptions of the substance of the doctrines taught there concerning the character and moral government of God, the person and the work of Christ, the agency of the Holy Spirit, the natural state and condition of man, and the way of his restoration to the enjoyment of God’s favour and to a meetness for heaven, and who is not able to give some explanation of the warrants and grounds in the sacred Scriptures for the views which he professes upon all these subjects. The crown and the copestone indeed of the study of theology as a branch of knowledge directed to the illumination of the understanding, and viewed apart from its bearing upon the formation of personal character and the attain¬ ment of personal salvation, is just the formation of a system of theology, i.e. the formation of distinct and well-defined and well- digested views upon the leading subjects revealed in the Bible; views which are really in accordance with God’s revealed will, and which can be fully established by a correct interpretation of its statements individually and collectively. If the making of a system of theology from the word of God be thus important and indispensable, and if for this purpose it be necessary that men should prepare themselves by all appropriate means for an accurate investigation of the meaning of the statements of Scripture, and should be habitually engaged in interpreting it, it is of course right that at the proper time they should give some attention to the attempts which have been made by others to form a system of theology, or to set forth and expound the scheme of divine truth as unfolded in the sacred Scriptures — in other words, that they should read and examine some of the most approved works called systems, taking care to test them by a constant appeal to the word of God. There are few comparatively, where Christianity is known, who are, in point of fact, left to form a system of theology for them¬ selves from the sacred Scriptures, as the principles of some system or other are usually inculcated upon them at an early period of their lives. The Shorter Catechism is a system of theology ; i.e., it gives a systematic and connected exhibition of the principal doctrines taught in the word of God, both as to matters of opinion and of practice ; and though you may have been instructed in the Shorter Catechism, and may have hitherto received its state- C 34 SEiJOND LECTURE. ments without any very careful examination of their warrant in an exact interpretation of the statements of Scripture, yet you can be regarded as intelligent Christians, intelligent professors of an orthodox creed, only when you have gone over this ground with the word of God in your hand, and have satisfied yourselves that the system of theology which you profess, to believe is really founded upon and derived from the sacred Scriptures, and are able to give some statements of the grounds of your belief to others. If this is necessary in an intelligent Christian, it is, of course, much more obviously necessary in those who aspire to be the instructors of others in the most important of all knowledge. Systems of theology, all professing to give a connected exhibi¬ tion and exposition of the principal truths of Scripture, may differ from each other in many respects, independently of that w’hich constitutes the most important distinction among them, based upon the truth or falsehood of the representations they give of what the word of God actually teaches. The Shorter Catechism is, as we have said, a system of theology ; the Confes¬ sion of Faith is a system of theology ; and a voluminous and elaborate work expounding the Confession of Faith, establishing all its positions from a minute examination of Scriptural state¬ ments, and defending them against the objections of adversaries, would also be described by the same designation. Some authors have distinguished systematic theology into theologia catechetica and theologia acroamatica, comprehending under the former name those briefer and simpler summaries of Christian truth which are intended for the young and those of weaker capacity, and are usually put in the form of question and answer ; and under the latter those more extended and elaborate works which are com¬ posed of a series of dissertations or discussions upon the leading doctrines of Scripture. Any book discussing fully any one of the leading doctrines of Scripture may be said, in a sense, to be a work that may be classed under the head of systematic theology ; but the term is usually restricted so as to include only those works which profess to give, more or less fully, a view of all the leading doctrines of God’s oracles, and in this way to furnish an exposition, more or less complete, of all those great and infinitely important topics on the knowledge and belief of which men’s salvation depends. DIVTSWX OF THE SUBJECT. 35 Systematic theology is sometimes ranked under the two heads of doctrinal or theoretic, and moral or practical theology, a dis¬ tinction corresponding exactly to one with which you are familiar, under the heads of what man is to believe concerning God, and what duty God requires of man ; and though, as we have said, some writers use the terms dogmatic or thetic theology in the same extent of meaning as that expressed by systematic theology, it ought also to be mentioned that some writers use these terms of dogmatic or thetic, as comprehending only doctrinal or theoretic, as distinguished from moral or practical theology. There is a still more limited use of the wmrds doctrine and doctrinal, as con¬ nected with this subject, that may be adverted to. We sometimes speak of the doctrine, worship, government, and discipline of the church, as distinguished from each other, and the distinction is necessary and useful ; and yet worship, government, and dis¬ cipline, i.e. the truths taught in the word of God regarding these matters, are of course comprehended under the general head of dogmatic or doctrinal theology, and form an important part of all the ordinary systematic works. God’s word teaches certain doctrines or principles, in regard to the way in which the wor¬ ship of the church of Christ ought to be performed, its govern¬ ment administered, and its whole affairs conducted ; and the doctrines of God’s word upon these points, as well as upon others, should of course be embodied in, and form a part of, any system of dogmatic or doctrinal theology. Where a distinction is made, as is sometimes necessary, between doctrine on the one hand, and worship, government, and discipline on the other, doctrine is then used as comprehending those truths of Scripture which bear more immediately upon the personal character and personal salvation of men individually, while the other divisions comprehend those truths, of inferior importance indeed, but still most valuable and necessary to be known, as revealed in the word of God, which unfold the character and constitution, and ought therefore to regulate the conduct, of the believers in revelation collectively, or of the church of Christ, viewed as a society or organised union. LECTURE III. DIVISION OF THE SUBJECT. rjiHEOLOGIA polemica, or 'elenchtica, of course means theo¬ logy discussed in such a way as to communicate information concerning the controversies that have taken place in the church of Christ in regard to the various subjects that are unfolded in the word of God, and to convince of their errors those who hold unsound views upon any of these topics. The only legitimate weapons of theological warfare are those which are not carnal but spiritual — those which are fitted to impress the understanding and to affect the heart, and they ought to be employed in such a way as to prepossess and not to prejudice, to attract and not to repel, for the wrath of man worketh not the righteousness of God. Erroneous views have been propounded and maintained upon every topic comprehended in Christian theology. The word of God, as the apostle informs us, was intended to be profitable for reproof and correction, as well as for doctrine and instruction, and that the man of God may be per¬ fect, thoroughly furnished unto every good work, it is necessary that he should be able to apply the word for the confutation of error as well as for the establishment of truth. As all the errors which have been broached upon theological subjects profess to receive countenance from Scripture, it is necessary, in our study of the Bible for ourselves, and in our exposition of it for the instruc¬ tion of others, to have some respect to the object of convincing gainsayers, of shewing that their errors are founded upon the mis¬ interpretation of Scriptural statements, and that the word of God, when rightly interpreted, establishes doctrines which are incon¬ sistent with, and exclusive of, the errors that have been broached. Polemic or elenchtic theology is just the systematic and connected application of the statements of Scripture rightly interpreted to the DIVISION OF THE SUBJECT. 37 confutation of error, and with this there is naturally connected the history of the controversies which have agitated the Christian church, and of the way and manner in which the leading doctrines of Scripture have at different times been assailed and defended; a subject which opens up a wide field of interesting study and investigation, but which belongs rather to historical than to systematic theology. Some of the great leading works on polemic theology, such as the valuable work of Turretine, follow the ordi¬ nary arrangement of the common works on systematic theology, and are chiefly occupied, under the various heads as they occur, with the confutation of the errors that have been broached in opposition to sound doctrine. Other works on the same general subject, and directed to the same object, such as Hoornbeek’s Summa Controversiarum, and Elenchus Controversiarum, have taken up the leading controversies which have agitated the church, in chronological order, or on some other principle of arrangement, such as the Arian, the Popish, the Arminian, the Socinian con¬ troversies, and have combined a scriptural confutation of the errors, with a historical investigation of the circumstances con¬ nected with the rise and progress of the error, the discussions to which it gave rise, and the practical effects which resulted. While others again, such as Stapfer’s Theologia Polemica, combine both these methods. There are some controversies, or rather errors or systems of errors, which, it may be under different names and aspects, have disturbed the church and injured the interests of religion from a very early period down even to the present day. With the history of these errors, and the best mode of applying the word of God to the confutation of them, every well-instructed theologian ought to be acquainted. It is true, indeed, that the degree of time and attention which it may be proper to devote to particular controversies, both scripturally and historically, should be regulated to some extent by a regard to the circumstances in which men’s lot may be cast, and the condition of the church and the world at the time ; and the circumstances under which our lot has been cast in providence, very plainly indicate that in so far as we may have the means and the opportunity of studying polemic theology, we are called upon to give special attention to the study of the Pelagian controversy, the Popish controversy, and the Pre- latic controversy, understanding by the Prelatic controversy the 38 THIRD LECTURE. whole system of high-church heresies and errors, the prevalence of which, in our day, has so grievously injured and so deeply dis¬ graced the Prelatic churches of this country. Some writers have assigned a separate designation to a certain department of theological science under the name of theologia symholica, which, however, like the theologia polemica, belongs partly to systematic and partly to historical theology. This name is derived from the Greek word which signifies either a joint contribution, or a bond of union, and which has been em¬ ployed to describe the confessions and other standard books ot particular churches, hence usually called Libri Symbolici. Sym¬ bolic theology, therefore, means an investigation into the Confes¬ sions and other standards or symbols of the different branches of the Church of Christ. Confessions of faith, authorised creeds and catechisms, and other symbolic books prepared, sanctioned, and set forth by particular churches, are just brief and compendious systems of theology professedly derived from the word of God, exhibiting the interpretation which the particular church adopting them has taken of the general tenor of Scriptural statement, and, of course, to be tried and examined like all other human compo¬ sitions by the only unerring standard, the word of God. They are usually of more value than a system of theology prepared and digested by individuals, however eminent, for this reason, that they have been commonly prepared with more care, and subjected to a stricter scrutiny by a greater number of minds. And they are of more importance historically, as it may be supposed that they con¬ vey valuable indications of the state of the church which adopted them, and that they have also exerted a considerable influence upon the opinions of men. The history of the events connected with the formation of the creeds and confessions of different churches — and all this is comprehended under the head of theo¬ logia symbolica — forms one of the most interesting and important departments of ecclesiastical history, and is fitted to afford valu¬ able instruction. What a light, for instance, is thrown upon the history of the Church of Rome, and upon many important topics in the Popish controversy, by Father Paul’s history of the Council of Trent, where the principal symbolic books of the Church of Rome were composed ; and who would not feel it to be both a duty and a privilege to become familiar with the history of that famous DIVISION OF THE SUBJECT. 39 assembly that was honoured of God to prepare those wonderful works which are still the symbolic books of almost all the Presby¬ terians who speak the English language, and who both in the old world and in the new include, we presume to think, the soundest and most important branches of the Church of Christ? The Confessions of Faith of the Reformed Churches are the most important and valuable body of documents which have been given to the world since the apostolic age, and ought certainly to be examined at some period of their studies by all who wish to be acquainted with theological science. They are not so accessible in this country as they should be. The only collection of them which has been published in this country in modern times is called Sylloge Confessionum. It was published at the Clarendon Press at Oxford, and is not very complete. Much fuller and more complete collections of these Confessions have been published on the Continent, especially by Augusti and Meineger. A transla¬ tion into English of an old collection of the Confessions of the Reformed Churches — Hall’s translation of the Harmony of the Confessions — has recently been published in this country, and this may serve some useful popular purposes ; but in regard to documents where every word was carefully weighed, and where much may depend in investigating their meaning upon the precise terms employed, no one who is able to understand them in the original Latin should be satisfied with a translation. The English language, though it contains many valuable works on particular doctrines and on separate subjects in systematic theology, contains comparatively very few systems ; i.e. very few works in which all the leading doctrines of Christianity are arranged in systematic order, proved from the word of God, and their connections and relations pointed out. Systems of theology have been chiefly the productions of Continental writers, and are to be found principally in the Latin language, — one fact among many others of a similar kind, which establishes the necessity of students of theology acquiring the capacity of reading Latin with perfect ease and readiness. Systematic theology, however, has been always a good deal studied by Scottish Presbyterians ; and indeed Bishop Burnet alleges that the Presbyterian ministers of the era of the Restoration had for their principal learning an acquaintance with the systematic writers of the Continent. No 40 THIRD LECTURK one certainly could charge his Episcopalian friends with any great acquaintance with systematic writers ; for in the Church of England the study of systematic theology has always been, and still is, grievously neglected. Calvin, Turretine, Maestricht, Pictet, Marckius, and Witsius, are the authors who have been most generally studied in Scotland as writers on systematic theology ; and there can be no doubt that the study of the writings of these men has tended greatly to promote correct and compre¬ hensive views of the scheme of divine truth. Hill’s Lectures, and Dick’s Lectures, two systems of theology recently published in our own country, are both highly respectable and valuable books, though their merits are of different kinds ; but they are scarcely sufficient of themselves to render necessary any modification of the statement we have made, that the English language does not contain a great deal, comparatively speaking, that is of much value in the way of systems of theology. Let me again remind you, before leaving the subject, that the correct interpretation of the statements of Scripture is the basis of all sound theological knowledge, and that therefore the main business, the principal occupation, of all who have resolved to devote themselves to theo¬ logical studies, should be the exegesis of the Bible, the constant and unwearied application of all appropriate means, of all the resources of exegetical theology, to the great object of ascertaining the exact meaning of the statements contained in the word of God. It is undoubtedly the duty of the student of theology diligently to compare the statements of Scripture together, not merely for the purpose of thereby ascertaining the meaning of the individual statements, but also of discovering and establishing the whole mind of God as revealed upon each topic ; in other words, systematizing, or forming a system of theology. But it must not be forgotten that every attempt at system-making must be useless, and worse than useless, which is not regulated throughout by a constant appeal to Scripture as the only rule or standard, and that systems of theology, human compositions professing to give a systematic exposition of the contents of Scripture, are of no proper authority in themselves, and are to be followed only in so far as they are in accordance with the statements of Scripture correctly explained ; that to make a system of theology, or to advocate and defend one, without having carefully investigated, and being able to DIVISION OF THE SUBJECT. 41 establish its soundness in all its parts from a correct interpretation of Scripture, is just as unreasonable as it would be to fabri¬ cate systems of natural science without having correctly ascer¬ tained, by observation and experiment, the facts and phenomena of nature ; is much more injurious to ourselves, by reason of the infinitely greater importance of the subject, and the greater guilt and evil of error ; and more dishonouring to God, as involving a refusal to make a right use and application of that word which he has magnified above all his works, and which is the only rule to direct us how we may glorify and enjoy him. 8. Historical Theology. This, of course, just describes an inves¬ tigation of the events which have taken place in, or connected with, the church, or the propagation of true religion in the world, with the exhibition of the light which these events are fitted to cast both on doctrine and duty. A large portion of the inspired word of God consists of history ; and this fact of itself proves, what experience abundantly confirms, that history, rightly viewed and applied, is fitted to convey important religious instruction. The inspired histories contained in the Bible are intended, among other things, to shew us how the events which occur in God’s providence ought to be viewed, and how they ought to be recorded. The events which constitute the history of the church and the world, whether recorded in sacred or in profane history, whether occurring in ancient or in modern times, are the Lord’s doing, and are to be traced to the operation of his baud. In them all he has mani¬ fested his character and the principles of his moral government. He has been executing his decrees and effecting his purposes. The extent to which he may have been pleased, at sundry times and in divers manners, directly to reveal himself, or to interpose in an extraordinary and miraculous way, does not materially affect the real character of his agency and the great general principles which regulate it, though these special interpositions served some important purposes both temporary and permanent. We have no doubt that the inspired histories contained in the word of God are intended partly to be full-length exhibitions of the way in which God always governs the world, and that holy men were moved by the Holy Ghost to give us these histories in order that, having God’s own account of some important departments of his providen¬ tial dealings, we might apply the great general principles there 42 THIRD LECTURE, unfolded, at once to aid us in regulating our conduct and in estimating and applying aright what he has been always doing in the o-overnment of the church and the world, even where there was & no admixture of miraculous interposition, and where there is no inspired history to assist us in the improvement we ought to make of the events observed or recorded. The account of the earlier portions of the history of our race and of the church — -for under the name of the history of the church may be comprehended the whole of God’s dealings with men bearing upon the subject of their salvation, from the fall of man and the first promise of a Saviour — is to be found only in the Old Testament, and it is a position which some authors, in proving the authenticity of the Bible, and particularly Bishop Stillingfleet, in the first book of his Origines Sacrce, have fully and formally established, that we have no other records of these periods of the history of the world which are entitled to credit, or on which reliance can be placed. But even in regard to the Old Testament history, there is information to be derived from other sources which ought not to be neglected, and which is fitted to cast light upon what is there made known to us. This is increasingly true as the inspired history descends to those periods when we have something like authentic history from Greek and Roman writers, as was the case more particularly in the age of our Saviour and his apostles. This, however, refers rather to the application of general history to the elucidation of the inspired histories contained in the Bible ; while historical theology rather comprehends the history of the church itself. After God’s revelation had been completed, after the scheme of divine truth had been fully unfolded, when the wall of partition had been broken down ; efforts were made, in accordance with God’s direc¬ tions and under his special superintendence, for diffusing over the world the knowledge of the only scheme of salvation, when dis¬ cussions arose about the meaning of God’s completed revelation, and when the efforts for the propagation of divine truth and the controversies about its meaning and application exerted an import¬ ant influence not only on the state of the church but of the world. All this is a most interesting and useful field of investigation, both in its connection with the fulfilment of scriptural prophecies, and as casting much light indirectly upon the import and use of scrip¬ tural truth, and affording useful lessons for the regulation of the DIVISION OF THE SUBJECT. 43 conduct of churches and individuals. But vve do not presume to enlarge upon the importance and value of the study of ecclesiastical history, or the way in which the investigation of it ought to he conducted, for that subject is treated in this College by one^ whose ability, judgment, and learning pre-eminently qualify him for the task. My object at present is simply to warn you at the com¬ mencement of your studies that in historical theology, or in the history of the church and of its doctrines, there is a wide and extensive field which you are called upon to traverse, from which important and useful lessons are to be learned, which it is at once danorerous and discreditable for a theologian or a minister of the gospel to be ignorant of, which it requires a good deal of reading and research to master, and which therefore at some period of your studies is well entitled to a considerable portion of your time and attention. We have already had occasion to mention that polemic and symbolic theology belong partly to the department of systematic and partly to that of historical theology, as they are both of them connected at once with the systematic exposition of the scheme of divine truth contained in the sacred Scriptures, to be deduced from their statements, and to be tried by their authority, and with the facts or events relating to the prosecution of controversies, and the formation and adoption of creeds and confessions. There is a subject that may be fairly regarded as ranking under the general head of historical theology, though a distinct name and place has been sometimes assigned to it by theological writers, viz.. Patristic Theology, or that which treats of the writings and doctrines of the Fathers. The Fathers, you are aware, is a name usually given to the Christian writers on theological subjects, who flourished in the early ages of the church. There is no very definite understanding as to how far down in the history of the church this name ought to be applied to the leading Christian writers, some classing under this designation ecclesiastical authors down till about the twelfth century, when the Fathers were succeeded by the schoolmen ; and others with more propriety restricting it to those who lived and wrote during the first six centuries of the Christian era. The general subject of patristic theology, including an examination of the authority or respect due to the opinions of the early Christian ^ The late Hev. Dr Welsh. — Ed. 44 TIIIRI) LECTURE. authors, the benefits to he derived from the study of their works, and the way and manner in which they ought to be studied, interpreted, and applied, has at different periods been a good deal discussed among theologians. And the circumstances of the church in our day are such as to render it not unreasonable for students of divinity and ministers of the gospel to give somewhat more attention to the department of patristic theology than might have been necessary or expedient in the last generation. The fundamentals of sound theological knowledge, the necessary quali¬ fications for a minister of the gospel becoming a workman that needs not to be ashamed, are at all times substantially the same. But the particular condition of the church, the views that may happen to be prevalent, or at least to occupy a considerable share of men’s attention, may render it sometimes necessary for ministers to give a degree of study and consideration to particular depart¬ ments of theological literature and science, that may not be in exact proportion to their permanent intrinsic importance. And on this ground it is right that ministers in the present generation should know something more of the Fathers, or at least about them, than it was in the last. All popish priests are sworn that they will never receive or interpret Scripture except according to the unanimous consent of the Fathers.” And hence the Fathers must always occupy a place of some importance in the popish controversy. Prelacy is based by some of its most able and learned defenders, exclusively upon the testimony of the Fathers, though it certainly derives no more countenance from the genuine writings of the earliest Fathers than it does from the word of God. And in the present day a body of men who are possessed of some talent and learning, and whose labours and writings have materially affected some branches of the Church, and have largely occupied the thoughts and influenced the opinions of men, have endeavoured to set up the Fathers of the fourth and fifth centuries as the great oracles from whom the church of Christ ought practically to receive her faith in matters of doctrine, government, worship, and discipline. On all these grounds it is desirable in the present day that ministers of the gospel should acquire such a knowledge of patristic theology as may enable them intelligently to form and to vindicate sound views upon these subjects, and to take some part, according as they DIVISION OF THE SUBJECT. 45 may be called upon, publicly or privately, in defending the truth of God from the assaults which, through the Fathers, have been directed against it. But it is not to be denied that, independently of these tem¬ porary and special grounds, there are sufficient reasons why at all times some degree of attention should be given to patristic theology. The writings of the Fathers are the sources of the history of the early church, and thus must always be an object of interest as well as a source of useful information. Every one feels that it is an object of most reasonable curiosity to know some¬ thing of the views, character, and conduct of those who suc¬ ceeded the inspired apostles of our Lord in the administration of the church's affairs, and we may reasonably expect to find in their works some materials for acquiring additional information concerning the history of the apostles themselves. The writings of the Fathers occupy an important place in the general argument establishing the truth of Christianity and the divine authority of the Scriptures, not as if we rested anything on their mere authority, or believed any doctrine ourselves, or called upon others to believe it, merely because the Fathers believed it, but because their testimony as witnesses establishes some points which cannot be established in any other way, and this upon ordinary recognised principles of evidence equally applicable to other authors similarly situated in relation to the points to be proved, and quite independently of any peculiar authority that may be claimed for them. The writings of some of the Fathers, although not many, are possessed of such intrinsic worth and excellence as, independently of any extrinsic or collateral considerations, entitle them to a perusal among other useful and valuable works in different departments of theological science. I would certainly regard it as indicating a want of enlightened interest in theo¬ logical study, if you did not in the course of your studies take care to peruse the writings of the apostolic Fathers, i.e. those who lived with and immediately after the apostles ; and it would probably neither be unreasonable nor unprofitable, if you had suitable opportunities, that you should peruse the principal writings of the Fathers during the first three centuries, concluding with the ecclesiastical history of Eusebius, which is the first regular history of the church during the early ages, and contains 46 THIRD LECTURE, a good deal of information upon this subject, for which we are indebted to him alone. To read the writings of the Fathers of course requires considerable familiarity with the languages, the Greek and Latin, in which they were written, although some of them have been translated into English. A prodigious mass of literature has been collected illustrative of patristic theology, comprehending the history of the Fathers and of their works, discussions as to the genuineness and integrity of the writings ascribed to them, and as to the views which they collectively and individually entertained upon all the leading doctrines of theology. We have, for example, a very learned quarto by Dailld, a celebrated divine of the French Protestant Church, to prove that the short and not very valuable letters usually ascribed to Ignatius, one of the apostolic Fathers (whom some Episcopalians call Archbishop of Antioch and Primate of all Syria), are spurious ; and we have another equally learned and still more bulky quarto by Bishop Pearson to prove, in opposition to Dailld, that these same letters are genuine. And were you to go fully into this question about the genuineness of these letters, and to read all that has been written upon it, it might probably occupy you for nearly half the session. The books which have been written on both sides of the question as to what were the views of the generality of the ante-Nicene Fathers, i.e. those who flourished before the Council of Nice in the early part of the fourth century, upon the subject of the Trinity, and upon all the leading points involved in the popish controversy, including church government, have been endless — voluminous almost beyond the possibility of being overtaken. With all this rnass of matter, which may be comprehended under the head of patristic theology, it is not to be expected that students should be very familiar, because during the brief period usually devoted to theological study, they have many much more important matters to occupy their attention. But if any of you, after acquiring a creditable acquaintance with those branches of knowledge that are indis¬ pensable to a minister, should have inclination and opportunity to give particular attention to these topics comprehended under the theologia patristica, you would find it an interesting and useful occupation; and it is certain that in no department of theological literature will you find a greater number of works DIVISION OF THE SUBJECT. 47 written by men of the very highest ability and learning. It is an insult both to God and to men to hold up the doctrine of the Fathers of any age or period as the standard by which we ought to be guided, or as possessed of any authority over our opinions or conduct. It is insulting to God, because it virtually sets aside, or at least depreciates, his word, which he plainly intended to be our only standard, and which with divine wisdom he has fitted for that purpose ; and it is insulting to men to ask them to submit to the authority of the Fathers, when it can be easily established that those men had not either collectively or individually any¬ thing about them to qualify or entitle them to exercise such authority, and that they differ so much from each other in the views which they hold, and in the interpretation which they put upon scriptural statements. Indeed there is no department of theological science with regard to which the Fathers were manifestly less entitled to respect and deference than that in which the Church of Rome has exalted them into an infallible and exclusive standard, viz., the interpretation of Scripture. For there cannot be a doubt that the early Fathers as a whole, and, speaking generally, were most miserable interpreters of Scripture ; and there are very few books more useful in forming an estimate of the respect due to the Fathers than a treatise of Whitby’s, entitled, “ Dissertatio de Sacrarum Scrip turarum interpretatione secundum Patrum Commentaries,’^ in which he goes over the books of Scripture in order, and adduces upon all the leading passages some palpably erroneous, or ridiculously absurd, inter¬ pretations of them which have been put forth by some of the most eminent of the Fathers. Milton’s general description of the Fathers : “ Whatsoever time or the needless hand of blind chance hath drawn down from of old to this present, in her huge drag¬ net, whether fish or sea-weed, shells or shrubs, unpicked, unchosen, — these are the fathers.”^ It is altogether marvellous, and can be ascribed only to the agency and the extraordinary activity of the father of lies, that in our own age and country so many men of intelligence and learn¬ ing, so many men holding the office of ministers in a Protestant church, so large a proportion of the young men educated at English universities, should have enslaved their understandings * “ Prelatical Episcopacy.” 48 THIRD LECTURE. and their consciences to the Nicene Fathers, and should virtually call upon the churches of Christ to discard the word of God, and take as their rule and standard the doctrine and practice of the church in the fourth century. But this state of things does, nevertheless, make it the duty of ministers of the gospel, or at least of those of them who may have the means and opportunity, to acquire the more knowledge of Patristic theology that they may more fully understand the danger to which the church of Christ is at present exposed, and be able more completely to guard against it. When this Tractarian movement commenced, its leading sup¬ porters were accustomed to allege that they were the 'only parties who could successfully encounter the Church of Rome ; that there were certain great church principles, as they called them, which were true and sound, and could not be successfully controverted ; that Protestants, or as the Tractarians at first called them, ultra- Protestants, denying these principles, could not grapple with Romish adversaries ; whereas they, conceding them, and thereby, forsooth, taking- up an impregnable position, were able to contend successfully against what they then called the Romish misapplica¬ tion and abuse of them. When Tractarian church principles were once conceded, there was not a great deal in Popery worth fighting against, for they overturned the true standard of faith and the gospel method of salvation. But besides, the recent admission into the Romish church of the most able and consistent of the party, must have opened up even to men of the weakest capacity the futility of this pretence, and the real character and tendency of the movement. It is now sufficiently palpable that the whole Tractarian movement was a mere device of Satan to check the progress of evangelical religion, and to strengthen his great scheme for injuring the cause of Christ; and if there be any who still deny this, it is because, as a just punishment for their sinful opposition to the truth, they have been given up to strong delu¬ sion that they should believe a lie. LECTURE IV. DIVISION OF THE SUBJECT— ITS EXTENT. JpASTORAL THEOLOGY. This is the last of the four general heads into which theological science is usually divided, and, as its name imports, it includes the consideration of all those subjects which bear upon the execution of the functions of the pastoral office, and the right discharge of pastoral duty. The great object of your studies in this place, and the object also, I trust, of your fervent aspirations and your earnest prayers, is, that you may be fitted and prepared for becoming preachers of the word, minis¬ ters of the gospel, pastors of Christian flocks, and stewards of the mysteries of God, and that, through the right discharge of these duties, you may be instrumental in promoting the glory of God in the conversion of sinners and the edification of saints. By a respect to this end you should be habitually animated. The con¬ templation of this should impress you with a deep feeling of responsibility, and stir you up to the utmost zeal, diligence, and self-denial in the formation of your character, and in the improve¬ ment of all your opportunities. The main work of the gospel ministry, the chief occupation of all who devote themselves to the promotion of God’s glory in the gospel of his Son, is to make known to men the will of God revealed in his word, to do this in such a spirit, in such a manner, and with such accompaniments, as may afford the best ground to expect that these labours will be suc¬ cessful; in other words, that God will make them instrumental in turning men from darkness to light, and from the power of Satan unto himself. The first and fundamental thino^ therefore in contem- plating the pastoral office is, that you do really and honestly desire to effect, or to be instrumental in effecting, the great objects which D 50 FOURTH LECTURE. the pastoral office was designed to effect, i.e. to promote the glory of God in the conversion of sinners and the edification of saints; that you be so desirous to effect this, and so impressed with its importance, as to be ready cheerfully to do and to bear all that may be needful, 1st, in order to a right preparation for the work, and then, 2d, in order to a right prosecution of it, that both now and afterwards you may be ready to endure hardness as good soldiers of Christ Jesus. And the next thing is, that you be well acquainted with the mind and will of God as revealed in his word, with the true scheme of divine doctrine there unfolded ; that you may be able to expound it to others, and to afford them the most ample assistance in understanding and applying that word which alone is able to make them wise unto salvation. Hence the prominence given in your preparations for the ministry to the study of theology, i.e. all those subjects, exercises, and habits that may fit you for rightly understanding, interpreting, and applying the word of God, bringing out from it, and establishing by it, the will of God for men’s salvation. But the acquisition of the requisite knowledge by a man re¬ solved to employ it for the glory of God and the salvation of sinners, is not the only thing needful in preparing for the work of the ministry. There are other topics bearing upon the work of rightly dividing the word of truth, and the other duties of the pastoral office ; and the investigation of these, or the results of that investigation in the principles and rules which the word of God and the experience of his servants in all ages suggest as necessary and useful, constitute pastoral theology. The essential qualifications of a gospel minister, the ends he is bound to aim at, the kind of means he is to employ for the attainment of these ends, and the whole truth which he is to proclaim in God’s name for the salvation of men, are to be found in and deduced from the sacred Scriptures ; but as the minister of the gospel has to deal with men, with their understandings and their consciences, it is useful also to consider what, according to the constitution of man and the experience of the church, may contribute most to a suc¬ cessful discharge of ministerial duty, what are the lessons to be learnt with respect to the best mode of prosecuting the various branches of the work of the pastoral office, from the practice or the counsels of those whom in different ages and churches God DIVISIO^^ OF TEE SUBJECT. 51 has most highly honoured in promoting his cause and advancing the spiritual welfare of men. The leading duties incumbent upon the pastors of Christian flocks are to preach the word, to ad¬ minister divine ordinances, to labour more privately among the flock in the inculcation of the divine truth, and for the attain¬ ment of the same object to rule in Christ’s house, i.e. to take part in the ordinary administration of the affairs of the church as a visible society established for certain ends, and to be regulated by certain laws. The great requisites for the right discharge of these duties are, as we have said, a right state of mind and heart, i.e. faith in Christ Jesus, or personal religious principle and right views of divine truth ; but still the experience of God’s servants, and the wisdom which from experience they have acquired, applied in connection with the word of God and in subordination to his authority, may afford useful assistance. The first and leading branch of the pastoral office is the preach¬ ing of the word, and in addition to the great primary question of what it is that should be preached, viz. the truth of God as con¬ tained in the Scriptures, it is proper also to give some attention to the consideration how it ought to be preached. The apostle (2 Tim. ii. 1-5) plainly intimates that ministers who seek to be¬ come workmen that need not to be ashamed, must “ rightly divide the word of truth,” a statement which evidently implies that some skill and wisdom such as God approves of and may ordinarily be expected to bless, may and should be employed in disposing, arranging, and applying the truth of Scripture for the instruc¬ tion of men, and adapting it, while ever the same in substance, as drawn from the same source, to the particular character, condition, and circumstances of those to whom it is more immediately addressed. This, therefore, is a subject deserving of attention, the analysis and synthesis, the compacting or the breaking down of the doctrines of Scripture, so as to make them most intelligible, impressive, and interesting to the hearers. There are also general principles and rules applicable to preach¬ ing, derived from the consideration of the constitution and character of man, and therefore in some measure common to the preacher, with others whose duty or object it is to convince men’s under¬ standings, and to impress their hearts and consciences. The investigation of these principles and rules is sometimes spoken of 52 FOURTH LECTURE. under the name of pulpit eloquence, or sacred rhetoric, or the art of preaching ; names which are unbecoming, if not offensive, from their tendency to suggest the idea that the preacher of the gospel ranks in the same class as any other sort of orator, and that he expects success in the object he aims at — an object which can be effected only, in every instance and in every degree, by divine agency — from the enticing words of man’s wisdom, from the ordinary causes and principles by which men’s minds are com¬ monly influenced in secular matters. But although those names are unbecoming, the subject which they describe is quite worthy of some degree of attention from those who aspire to be preachers of the gospel, viz. the investigating of these rules drawn from the principles of human nature, and the experience of God’s most honoured servants, by the application of which the hearers of the word may be more certainly interested, persuaded, and im¬ pressed. The objects which the preacher ought to have in view can be effected only by the immediate agency of the Holy Ghost ; but it is also true that the Holy Ghost employs at once the gifts and the graces of the preacher, and the natural faculties, capacities and sensibilities of the hearers, in effecting his own purposes of mercy ; just as he employed the natural faculties and acquirements of men in the production of that word which is all given by inspiration of God, and which holy men wrote as they were moved by the Holy Ghost. It has been common to speak of the sacred Scriptures as containing the finest specimens extant of the various qualities which render human compositions the objects of admira¬ tion, specimens of poetry and oratory, pre-eminently distinguished as sublime, beautiful, and pathetic. And although this is but an insignificant circumstance, when viewed as a recommendation of that word which came from God, and is intended to make men wise unto salvation, yet the statement is true — it is a fact that the Scriptures do contain the finest specimens of poetry and oratory : this was done by God, it was intended by him, and has been employed by him, for accomplishing his gracious purposes. If the word of God given by inspiration has been so constructed as to address itself to the natural faculties and susceptibilities of men, to their reason, their imagination, and their taste, there can be no reason why the preachers of the word should not seek to improve and apply in their sacred calling any gifts they may possess DIVISION OF THE SUBJECT. 53 analogous to those exhibited by the inspired penmen of the Scrip¬ tures, or why they should not seek to gain for the truth a readier access to the understandings and hearts of men, by addressing themselves skilfully and judiciously to the capacities and suscepti¬ bilities of their hearers. One reason, though certainly not the only one, why our Saviour spoke so much in parables, was that he might convey instruction in a form and manner that might be fitted, according to our natural constitution, to tell most effectually upon the apprehensions and feelings of men, and there is nothing inconsistent with the profound reverence with which everything connected with the only begotten and well-beloved Son of God, whom the Father by an audible voice from heaven commanded men to hear, ought to be regarded, in saying that his parables are constructed with inimitable skill and beauty. The apostle Paul skilfully adapted his addresses to the circumstances in which he was placed, and the characters of those whom he addressed, and we can on several occasions discover in his addresses what might be truly characterised as consummate oratorical skill. This is true as a matter of fact connected with his addresses, and it is not incon¬ sistent with another truth, viz., that in delivering them, he enjoyed the fulfilment of our Saviour’s promise, It shall be given you in that same hour what ye shall say.” On these grounds we hold it to be quite right and proper that men, in preparing for the office of the ministry, should give some attention to what has been rather unhappily called sacred rhetoric, or the art of preaching, but what is usually called upon the Continent by a name less objectionable, because more vague and general, and less likely to suggest the ideas of management and contrivance, such as secular orators employ, viz., homiletics. This term is derived from the Greek word 0/4/X/a, the term usually applied by the Greek Fathers to their popular expositions of Scripture and their ordinary pulpit discourses ; and it just describes the system of principles and rules derived from the constitution of man, the study of approved models, and the experience of the church, by the application of which men may be guided in their preparations for the pulpit to such a mode of arrangement, representation, composition, and delivery, as may be best fitted to engage the attention and impress the understandings, hearts, and consciences of their hearers. Any attempt to introduce into discourses from the pulpit the mere 54 FOURTH LECTURE. tricks and contrivances of oratory, composition, or delivery, is sinful and degrading, but an acquaintance with those great principles which, based upon the constitution of human nature and confirmed by experience, are ascertained to bear beneficially upon the great objects of instructing and impressing men in their special application to the pulpit, is not unworthy of some share of your attention. Method was the last of the four great divisions into which the old systems of logic, professing to instruct men in the right use of their faculties, used to be divided, and there can be no doubt that some acquaintance with the laws and rules of method must be highly useful to all who are called upon to labour in the inculcation of truth and in the instruction of mankind. Another topic comprehended under this general head of homi¬ letics, but sufficiently important to be separately adverted to — and indeed on the Continent they have given it a distinct name, catechetics ” — is the adaptation of instruction to the young, and the principles by which this ought to be regulated. Ministers should give much attention to the instruction of the young, and in directing their attention to this important department of duty, it is not only warrantable, but necessary, to endeavour to apply those principles and rules, the adoption of which observation and experience have shewn to be naturally fitted to engage the attention and to influence the minds of the young. Ministers ought to take an interest in the promotion of general education, with the view of securing, so far as possible, that it be regulated by sound principles and brought under religious influences, that the youth may be trained up in the fear of the Lord, and that the school may become a nursery for the church. And for this reason, as well as to aid them in their own personal labours in the religious instruction of the youth of their flocks, it is right that they should make themselves acquainted with the principles of education and with the most approved systems of tuition. Another department of pastoral theology is what is commonly called the pastoral care, or the consideration of the principles and rules by which the ministers of the gospel ought to be guided in the discharge of the more private duties of their office. In the more private as well as in the more public duties of the ministerial office, the indispensable qualifications are right motives, a due sense of responsibility, and a correct knowledge of the scriptural DIVISION OF THE SUBJECT. 55 scheme of truth ; for the minister s great work in private, as well as in public, is just to explain, and enforce, and apply, the doc¬ trines and duties of the word of God, and the different branches into which ministerial duty is commonly divided, such as the preachiug of the gospel, the instruction of the young, the visita¬ tion of the sick, and ordinary visitation from house to house, are just based upon the different circumstances in which divine truth is to be explained and enforced, and the modifications in the modes and other accompaniments of the inculcation of it which these different circumstances may require or suggest. Instruction of the young and visiting the sick are, or should be, just explain¬ ing, enforcing, and applying divine truth, the revelation which God has given concerning himself ; and in them, therefore, as well as in the public preaching of the gospel, the essential things are that we understand God’s revelation, that we are able to unfold and apply it, that we are impressed with the objects for which this truth was revealed, are sincerely and ardently desirous that these objects should be promoted. But the difference of the accompanying circumstances, and of the immediate or proximate object to be aimed at in these different cases, renders necessarv some difference in the mode of inculcating and applying the truth ; and in regard to all these various departments of pastoral duty, important benefit may be derived from a careful and judi¬ cious consideration of their nature and objects, and from an exami¬ nation of the history, experience, and counsels of those who have given most attention to these matters, who have been most largely endowed with spiritual wisdom, and who have been most signally blessed of God in their efforts for promoting the spiritual welfare of men. There is much in regard to the various departments of pastoral duty, and the way and manner in which they ought to be discharged, which can be learned only from the exercise of good sense and sound judgment upon the actual circumstances in which in providence you may be placed. But human nature is the same in all ages and circumstances; the great general principles by which men are influenced, and by which others ought to seek to influence them for their good, are the same ; and, therefore, in regard to all the departments of pastoral duty, much is to be learned from careful meditation upon the subject, and from a study of the labours and experience of others. 56 FOURTH LECTURE. There is one other department of pastoral theology to which the authors who have written upon this subject have assigned a sepa¬ rate designation. It is that which professes to explain the prin¬ ciples by which the government of the church ought to be regu¬ lated, and it is commonly called ecclesiastical jurisprudence. The constitution of the church, as laid down in Scripture, of course forms a department in dogmatic or doctrinal theology, and the subject also enters largely into polemic theology. The proper law for regulating the administration of the affairs of the church of Christ is to be found only in the word of God, and its great leading principles are plain and simple. But as it is only the widest and most general principles upon the subject that are laid down or indicated in Scripture, much discussion has taken place, and many regulations have been adopted, at different times and by different churches, as to the way and manner in which the various questions and classes of questions which have arisen in the actual adminis¬ tration of ecclesiastical affairs, ought to be decided or disposed of. Most churches have thought it necessary or expedient to have, besides their creeds and confessions exhibiting the summary of doctrine which they regarded as sanctioned by the word of God, canons or codes of discipline laying down rules or regulations as to the best way of disposing of the various questions that must be continually arising and calling for decision wherever a church of Christ is in full operation. These canons or codes of ecclesiastical discipline have usually professed to be derived from the Bible, in so far as it contains materials bearing upon this subject, and from the principles of natural justice and equity, applied to the parti¬ cular subject under consideration. They have often occupied a degree of the attention of churches much greater than their neces¬ sity and their intrinsic importance demanded. Still it is true that the head of ecclesiastical jurisprudence embraces the discussion of some questions of no little importance. It has occupied a place of considerable prominence in the general history of theological literature. Occasions and emergencies from time to time occur in the history of churches on which a familiar acquaintance with the principles and history of ecclesiastical jurisprudence is important and useful, if not indispensably necessary ; while it is obviously a matter of obligation on the part of ministers to acquire that know¬ ledge of the constitution and discipline of their own churches EXTENT OF THE SUBJECT. 57 which may be necessary for the right discharge of the duties that may devolve upon them in regard to the ordinary administration of ecclesiastical affairs. We have eighty-five Canons and eight books of Constitutions, which profess to have been compiled by the apostles, and which have been held up by some writers of the church of Kome as genuine and authentic. They are undoubtedly the compilation of a subsequent age, but they give interesting and curious information concerning the government and discipline of the early church, and have been to some extent the basis on which the canons and discipline even of the most Protestant churches have been founded. Most of the early councils of the church passed canons in regard to discipline and the administration of ecclesiastical affairs, as well as gave decisions upon questions of doctrine, and these canons were the basis of the more ancient portion of the canon law, the ecclesiastical law of the church of Rome. And although Luther publicly burned the canon law, and although it contains a great deal of Popish corruption, a great deal both of doctrine and regulation fitted to introduce and establish an antichristian tyranny over the minds and consciences of men, yet as it also contains a large portion of what undoubtedly formed the discipline of the early church, and has exerted no small influence upon the ecclesiastical discipline of all the Protestant churches, its contents and its history are worthy of some degree of attention from those who wish to possess an acquaintance with all the leading departments of theological literature, and to be thoroughly fitted for the discharge of those duties that may devolve upon them as office-bearers of the church. Such is a brief sketch of the leading divisions into which theological science is commonly divided, and such the range of topics which it comprehends. This sketch, however, gives a very faint impression of the extent and magnitude of the work on which you have entered, just because it is much too vague and general to convey any vivid impression. Were we to take any one of the leading divisions and to fill up somewhat more in detail the skeleton we have exhibited, as, for example, exegetical theology, and to present to you a state¬ ment of all that was needful in order to a correct and rightly principled interpretation of the Scripture, the extent of the neces¬ sary materials, the precise nature of the process to be pursued, and some of the leading books to be read and mastered, as we may 58 FOURTH LECTURE. afterwards have occasion to do, you might probably have a more distinct conception of the extent of the field, and of the magnitude of the objects which it embraces. But enough has perhaps been said in this very brief and general sketch for my present purpose, which is principally to impress you with such a sense of the extent and magnitude of the work that lies before you, as may lead you to cherish a due sense of the responsibility attaching to the way in which you now spend your time and exercise your faculties, and to constrain you to form the resolution, depending upon God’s grace, that you will gird up the loins of your minds, and that you will devote your utmost energies and the most strenuous and per¬ severing application to the studies on which you are about to enter. These studies, indeed, should not be confined to the brief period of your attendance at this college, but should continue during your lives ; but there is a certain amount of acquaintance with all these different topics, without which no one ought, in the present condi¬ tion of the church, to be admitted to the office of the ministry, and it is most important that a right basis should now be laid for your future labours in extending your knowledge. And the greater the probability is that you may be, at no distant period, engaged in the work of the ministry, and may then have numerous and urgent demands upon you for active exertion, the more necessary is it that, during the prosecution of your theological studies, your time should be faithfully and conscientiously devoted to the work of prepara¬ tion. It may not be unreasonable or improper that, during your future lives, while engaged in the work of the ministry, you may, if circumstances a:dmit of it, give special attention to some one department or other of theological science, according to the bent of your faculties and inclinations, the books which you have an opportunity of studying, and the state of the church and the world in the sphere where your lot may be cast. This, within certain limits, may be right and reasonable, provided you never neglect the one paramount object of studying the word of God, and accurately ascertaining its meaning. But in the meantime it is indispensable that you all go through the same course, and all strive to acquire that amount of knowledge of theological science which every minister of the gospel ought to possess, and that you seek to be impressed with those principles, and trained to those habits, which may prepare you for the permanent prosecution of theological EXTENT OF THE SUBJECT. 59 studies. No one can be considered a theologian, or qualified to be a minister of the gospel, unless and until he has read much and thought much, acquired a considerable amount of knowledge from the reading of books, and brought his powers and faculties to bear in all their strength and energy upon the various topics to which his attention may have been directed. In directing your attention to the consideration that from the vast extent of theological science and the number of different subjects it embraces, there is required much laborious study before you can become theologians, it is right to warn you against a temptation to which some of you might be exposed upon this subject, that, viz., of dissipating your time and even injuring your faculties, by the indiscriminate perusal of a great number of books. The extent of theological literature is so vast, the number of works that have been produced upon theological subjects by men of the highest talents, learning, and celebrity is so great, that students who have access to libraries are in some danger of being tempted to become mere devourers of books, without prosecuting a regular plan of study, or giving due time and attention to digesting the books they read, or seeking to exercise their own judgment, or to form their own opinions upon the various subjects which their reading may bring under their notice. This practice is unfavourable to the culture of the mental powers, which ought to be one object of all our studies, and it does not in the long run tend to promote the acquisition of any knowledge that is really valuable. A mere devourer of books will never become really skilled in any science, and will not be able to apply the knowledge he may have acquired to any really useful purpose. And there is perhaps scarcely any science where students are more strongly tempted than in theology to indulge in a wide range of indiscrimi¬ nate and miscellaneous reading, without giving due attention to regulate their reading upon a systematic plan, and to exercise their powers of judgment and reflection upon the subject of their reading. Luther was accustomed to say that there were three things that were necessary to make a theologian, viz,, prayer, meditation, and temptation or experience. Under the head of meditation he, of course, comprehended reading, to which the apostle enjoined Timothy to give attendance, but by including it under the head of meditation he shewed very emphatically the strength of his con- 60 FOURTH LECTURE. viction that it was not the mere perusal of books that was in itself of any very great value, unless men^s faculties were really brought to bear upon the subjects of the books read. There must be reading, much reading, but this reading must not be the mere devouring of books, it must be accompanied with such a careful weighing and diofestinof of what is read, that it should rather be called meditation than reading. There are two errors upon this subject to be guarded against — First, indiscriminate reading of whatever theological books may happen to come in your way, or may be most agreeable to your inclination; and second, mere reading, unaccompanied in due measure with meditation and reflection. You are not to imagine that it would be warrantable or safe for you to plunge without pre¬ meditation or system into the immense ocean of theological literature, following wherever accident or fancy might lead you. At a subsequent period of your lives you may perhaps (as we have said) be more at liberty to gratify your inclination in selecting some particular department of theological literature, and giving it a prominent place in your ordinary studies. But during the period of your attendance in this place, in the prosecution of what is technically called the study of theology, you have distinct and definite objects which you are bound to aim at, and to accomplish, and must therefore adopt and follow out a definite plan. You must during your theological studies acquire a respectable acquaintance with theological science in its leading departments ; and this can be fully secured only by first of all getting some general notions of its leading divisions, and their connection with each other (such as we have endeavoured to lay before you), and then following out some regular plan in prosecuting the study of them, based upon a right view of their mutual relations, and sufficiently comprehensive to include everything of primary importance, and especially every¬ thing indispensable to a creditable preparation for entering upon the work of the ministry. It would be a very easy thing for you to spend the whole of the four years of your studies in reading curious and interesting works, even in some one department of theological literature, while yet you had acquired little substantial, useful, practical knowledge of theology, and might be ignorant of many things which it would be disgraceful for a minister not to know, and ignorance of which EXTENT OF THE SUBJECT. 61 would, in a great measure, render you disqualified for the office of the ministry. Of course you are to presume (unless there be very clear evidence to the contrary) that the subjects brought under your notice by your instructors at the different periods of your progress in your studies, in the successive years of your attendance in this place, are those which, for the time, should mainly occupy your thoughts, fill your minds, and regulate your course of reading. And whether you are reading books or listen¬ ing to instructions, you must not neglect meditation, letting your mind dwell upon what you read and hear, until you see it clearly and comprehend it fully, until you have clearly apprehended its foundation and its bearings ; in short, until you have so fully digested it, that it has become a part of your own intellectual provision, or rather until the views which may have been brought before you by reading or hearing on all questions of importance are clearly discerned, both in their meaning and in their evidence, are admitted as a portion of those convictions which you firmly hold and can intelligently defend, or are deliberately rejected, as not sanctioned by the word of God, — the only source of sound doctrine, the only standard by which your views as theologians, and your whole conduct as ministers of the gospel, ought to be regulated. The necessity of combining reading and meditation, or reflection, is thus happily expressed by a celebrated writer, Gerhard John Vossius, the father of the equally celebrated Isaac Vossius : — “ Omnino igitur lectio et meditatio arctissimo societatis vinculo colligari debent. Mera enim lectio non penetrat in ani- mum ; siquidem attentione opus est in legendo, et ubi legeris, meditatione, cur quidque dicatur, cur sic potius quam aliter, et quomodo lecta ad res similes possimus transferre. Sine istis, quod legitur non satis intelligitur, et minutum iliud quod capitur, eo quod radice careat, non facit fructum. Immo facile ejus subibit oblivio, quomodo quae non alte inhserent solo, fere vento auferuntur. Ut mirandum non sit, si soepe lectionis multifariae homines, exigui sint judicii, et poene nullius. Nimirum hoc inde est, quia memoriam onerant, judicium non acuunt vel exercent. Sed ut hac parte delinquunt complures librorum helluones, qui multa vorant, nulla concoquunt, ii in contrarium peccant qui, alienis laboribus contemptis, assidui sunt in meditando, et quia aliena nesciunt, quae multis plurimum partibus sunt veriora melior- 62 FOURTH LECTURE. aque, sua toties somnia amplectuntur pro oraculis.” — (Gerhard Tossius, quoted in BuddcBi Isagoge, p. 89.) ' ^ ‘ ‘ Reading and meditation ought to be very closely and intimately combined ; for even reading does not penetrate into the mind, there being a necessity for attention while reading, and for meditation after it, that we may perceive the reasons and grounds of the particular statements made, and be able to apply what we read to other things of a similar kind. Without this what is read is not understood, and the small portion that may be comprehended will produce no fruit, because it has no root. It will also soon be forgotten, just as we see that what is not fixed deep in the earth is generally carried away by the wind. So that it is not to be wondered at that men of extensive and multifarious reading are sometimes possessed of little or no judgment. The reason is, that they merely load their memories, and do not sharpen their judgment by exercising it. But as many ‘ helluones librorum’ err on one side, devouring much and digesting nothing, so they err in an opposite extreme who, despising the labours of others, spend their time wholly in meditation, and because they are ignorant of what others have written, though much more true and excellent than anything they could produce, they often embrace their own dreams and fancies for oracles.” LECTURE V. PRAYEE, MEDITATION, AND TEMPTATION. T^E have had occasion to advert to Luther’s well-known posi» ^ * tion that it is prayer, meditation, and temptation that con¬ tribute to make a theologian, and we have explained to you the nature of meditation, as well as given you a brief outline of the vast field of topics on which this meditation, implying as it does the vigorous and steady exercise of all your powers and faculties, is to be exercised. Luther places prayer first, and this was nothing more than is justly due to its paramount importance ; it is the imperative and primary duty of all who desire to become acquainted with theology, and qualified for the office of a minister of the gospel, to abound in prayer and supplication. It is quite true that men without piety and without prayer may read many theological books, that God may uphold and sustain them in the ordinary exercise of their faculties when directed to these objects, as when directed to any others, and that they may thus acquire a large measure of acquaintance with theological topics, and be able to discuss them and dispute about them. It has often been remarked, and the remark is undoubtedly true, that many men have written ably and convincingly in defence of the truth of the Christian revelation, in opposition to the attacks of infidels, who never understood or comprehended the leading truths con¬ tained in the revelation which they proved to have come from God, and who of course derived no real permanent benefit from the revelation which God had given them. It is a truth clearly revealed to us in Scripture, that no man ever really attains to any such knowledge of God’s revealed will as will be available for his own personal salvation, or warrant him in entertaining the expectation of being instrumental through the truth in promoting 64 FIFTH LECTURE. the salvation of others, except through the direct agency of the Holy Ghost. The agency of the Holy Spirit in convincing men savingly of the truth of God’s revelation, and in enabling them to understand its meaning, we shall have occasion afterwards to consider. But in the meantime, we assume it as true, as the basis of our exhortation to you to accompany the whole of your theological studies with a spirit and habit of earnest prayer for the illuminating influences of the Holy Ghost. The truths upon the subject which ought to be most deeply impressed upon your minds, and which ought to be constantly remembered and applied, are just these: 1st, that all really useful and valuable knowledge of theology, or of God’s revealed will, must come from God himself; 2d, that God imparts this knowledge in connection with the study of his word, and the other means of grace, through the direct agency of the Holy Ghost, the third person of the Godhead ; and 8d, that prayer is the direct and appropriate means which God has appointed and promised to bless, for drawing down upon us the influences of the Holy Ghost. If these truths are duly impressed upon your minds, and if along with these convictions you have a real, sincere, and permanent desire to know God’s revealed will, with a view to the great practical ends which this revelation was intended to serve with reference to men, collectively and individually, then the natural, the necessary result will be, that you will abound in prayer and supplication for the outpouring of God’s Holy Spirit, that you will earnestly and importunately seek his guidance and direction with reference to the whole of your studies, to every book which you peruse, every topic to which your attention is directed, and every attempt you make to investigate the meaning of any portion of his word. You have all been taught, and the teaching was in full accordance with the sacred Scriptures, that prayer is an offering up of our desires unto God for things agreeable to his will” and if you have at all rightly apprehended this truth, you must have seen, that in the discharge of this duty, or in the exercise of the privilege of prayer, every¬ thing depends upon the existence in your hearts of a desire to obtain something from God, which desire you offer up to him, from a conviction that he is able and willing to grant it, and that offering it up to him is the best and most certain means of having ^ Shorter Catechism. — Ed. PRA YER. 65 your desires accomplished. The first thing to be attended to then is, that you have in this matter a desire agreeable to God’s will. God will have all men to come to the knowledge of the truth, and therefore every honest desire directed to the attainment of a knowledge of his revealed will, may be properly offered up to him in prayer. That the desire of theological knowledge be really agreeable to God’s will, and therefore a suitable basis for acceptable prayer, it must be founded upon right views of what divine truth is, and of what are the objects which it was intended by God to serve. Theo¬ logical knowledge is in itself a good thing, and therefore ought to be desired. But it may be desired from unworthy or selfish motives, or without the presence and influence of those considerations that should lead men to desire it, and either of these circumstances Avould vitiate the whole state of mind out of which the desire pro¬ ceeds, and which truly determines its whole moral character — its agreeableness to God’s will. The apostle says, “ He that desireth the office of a bishop (or pastor), desireth a good thing.” The episcopate or pastoral office is therefore in itself a good thing, and a: proper object of rightful desire ; but if a man desire the office of a bishop, not from a real and honest regard to the true nature and proper ends of the Christian ministry, but influenced by a regard to filthy lucre, to power, influence, reputation, love of liter¬ ary ease, or any consideration derived merely from the contem¬ plation of things seen and temporal, and not from the great spiritual and eternal results which the ministry was designed to be instrumental in effecting, then the desire, however strong and powerful, becomes vitiated and sinful in its character, as proceed¬ ing from and indicating a state of mind inconsistent with the requirements of God’s law, and in opposition to his revealed will. In like manner the desire of theological knowledge, the wish to attain those qualifications, or some of them, usually required before men are admitted to the ministry, may originate in mere love of knowledge as a means of intellectual exercise and cultivation, in a regard to wealth, or power, or fame ; and then the state of mind, the originating motive which gives the moral character to the desire, is sinful and offensive to God. The desire of theological knowledge, of an acquaintance with God’s revealed will, is only then right and acceptable when it is founded upon right views of E 66 FIFTH LECTURE. what God’s revealed will is, and of what the purposes are which it was intended to effect ; in one word, when this desire of know¬ ledge originates in a previous intelligent desire to realize, or attain to, or to be instrumental in promoting, the great ends for which God made known his will to men. And in this way, under the head of prayer, which is an offering up of desires, there may be comprehended the consideration of the whole motives by which men are induced to engage in theo¬ logical study, and in preparing for the work of the ministry. The motive by which men should be led to engage in theological study is a real desire to attain to the knowledge of God’s revealed will, and the grounds of reason of this desire, the causes that produce it, and keep it in strong and vigorous exercise, should be right views of its nature, excellence, and objects, as coming from God, as making him known to us, and as communicated by him to men, in order that they, through the knowledge and belief of it, may be saved from eternal misery, and enabled to glorify God and to enjoy him for ever. It is because theology, as taught in the word of God, is possessed of this character, and intended to be the means of effecting these results, that you should desire the knowledge of it. And as candidates for the office of the ministry, you should seek and desire the knowledge of it, not only for your own salva¬ tion, but in order that, devoting your lives to the making it known to others, you may become the instruments of saving the souls of your fellow-men. A desire to attain to a full knowledge of God’s revealed will, and generally to acquire all the qualifications neces¬ sary for entering upon the work of the ministry, originating in such views as these, clearly apprehended, and deeply impressed upon your hearts, will ever be accompanied with profound hu¬ mility, with a deep sense of responsibility, and with a firm deter¬ mination to be unwearied and persevering, to spare no pains, and to shrink from no sacrifice, in the use of all the means by which the necessary knowledge may be acquired, and the due qualifica¬ tions may be secured. And the first and most indispensable of all requisites is, that you have such a desire, founded upon such views and considerations ; and whenever this desire becomes at any time weak and languid, you are to seek to have it strengthened and invigorated by meditation upon the value of divine truth, and the preciousness of the salvation of souls. When this desire FRA YER. 67 has been really called forth in 3^our hearts — and without it your labours and studies in acquiring theological knowledge cannot be expected to lead to any important practical results, but only to harden your hearts and prove offensive to God — ^then you will feel constrained to offer it up to God in prayer, under a conviction that he alone can gratify it, and animated by the assurance that he has promised his Holy Spirit to them that ask him. If all your studies, and especially all your attempts to ascertain the meaning of the statements of God’s word, are not accompanied by fervent prayer for the outpouring of the Holy Spirit, the inference is irresistible, either that you do not really desire to become savingly acquainted with divine truth for vour own benefit and that of others, or else that you do not really believe that God alone can bestow this knowledge, and that he usually gives it in answer to prayer. And it is most proper that, in connection with this topic, you should examine carefully into the state of ^mur hearts, and into tlie motives which have led you to engage in a course of theological study, the desires by which you are animated in the prosecution of it, and the objects which you have in view. Without right views and deep impressions of the origin and source, the character and objects of theological truth, you can have no right and well- principled desire to acquire the knowledge of it, and without such a desire existing in jmur heart, and distinctly recognised and felt there, you can present no sincere or acceptable prayer to God for the enlightening influences of the Holy Spirit. Where no desire exists in the heart, of course it cannot be offered up : and where a desire for the outpouring of the Holy Spirit is not offered up, there is no reason to expect that the Spirit will be given. If 3mu are not 3'et aware that a useful and really valuable knowledge of theology must come from the Holy Spirit, and is usually given in answer to prayer, you are still ignorant of the first principles of God’s oracles ; and if you have no real and ardent desire to get this knowledge, and are not ready and resolved to abound and to persevere in the use of all the means which ma3" contribute to the attainment of it, then your attendance here is a mockery, it is a hypocritical profession which does not correspond with the actual state of your hearts ; and in that case it would be much safer and more expedient for you to direct 3mur attention to some other object of pursuit. Your jirayers thus become tests of 68 FIFTH LECTURE. your character and motives — plain indications of the real desires that exist in your hearts, and of the objects which you are really aiming at. Although a desire to have the enlightening influences of the Holy Spirit is the only right basis, and will prove the only efficient source of prayer for his outpouring, yet it is to be remem¬ bered that the desire must not only exist, but must also be offered up. Men are very apt to deceive themselves in regard to the state of their hearts, and the character of their desires and affec¬ tions. They are not naturally inclined to pray, and you must beware of being satisfied with any other evidence of the existence and strength of that desire, under the influence of which you profess to be acting, except the fervency and the frequency with which you offer it up to God in prayer. There may be other causes which may interest you in the studies in which you are about to be engaged, and ma}^ induce you to pursue them with some degree of ardour and eagerness, such as the mere pleasure arising from the pursuit of knowledge and the study of the works of men eminently distinguished for ability and learning, or a determination to make a creditable preparation for the duties of the profession which you have chosen for life ; but in so far as your prosecution of theological study arises from any of these motives, you will not be led to much fervent prayer for the out¬ pouring of the Holy Ghost, even though you may be willing to admit in words that his influence alone can make you successful. It is only a desire of theological knowledge, based upon those views and motives which we have described, that will lead you to abound and to persevere in prayer for the effusion of the Holy Spirit ; and if you are not fervent and frequent in your prayers for his guidance, it is the plain dictate of common sense and prudence that you are not yet influenced by a sincere and intelli¬ gent desire that God by his Spirit would guide you into all truth. You are not then to infer that you have a desire for theological knowledge of the right kind, based upon right views, unless you are habitually praying for the guidance of God’s Spirit ; and you may be assured that during the whole of your theological studies, which ought to last during your lives, the restraining of prayer, a disposition to neglect or disregard this exercise, or to perform it carelessly or perfunctorily, may be regarded as marking at once a declension in your spiritual vigour and activity, and also a dimi- TEMFTATION. 69 nished proficiency in the acquisition of really valuable professional knowledge. I am not at present discussing the subject of prayer as an article in the scheme of Christian doctrine, and therefore will make no attempt to prove to you its value and importance, or endeavour to explain to you how it may be expected to operate beneficially in promoting your progress in your studies. I assume that you profess to believe these great truths on which at once its obligation and its efficiency are founded, and would most earnestly entreat you to take care that this duty be never neglected or care¬ lessly or perfunctorily performed ; that any symptoms of negli¬ gence or indifference upon this point in your own feeling and practice may awake in you instant jealousy and alarm, constrain you to repair to God’s throne with deeper fervency and more earnest importunity than ever, and lead you to meditate more deeply upon those views which may impress upon you a sense of your own ignorance, helplessness, and dependence upon God’s Spirit ; of the infinite value of divine truth, the ends for which it was made known, and your obligations to pursue them ; and then you will assuredly be led to pray, and to pray aright, for the out¬ pouring of the Holy Ghost to guide you into all truth. Let it be ever deeply impressed upon your minds that if you have not those spiritual influences which are necessary to guide you into all truth, to prepare you fully for the work of the ministry, the adequate and comprehensive explanation of your deficiency is to be found in this — it is “ because you ask not, or because you ask amiss ; ” and let this consideration be applied by you at once to deepen your sense of your owm responsibility for your ignorance and your short¬ comings, and at the same time to encourage you to greater fervency and importunity of prayer, and to a more diligent use of all the means on which the blessing of God is asked and effected. “ If any of you lack wisdom, let him ask of God, that giveth to all men liberally and upbraideth not, and it shall be given him ” (James i. 5). The third thing, according to Luther’s enumeration, which is necessary, in addition to prayer and meditation, to make a theo¬ logian, is temptation or experience, or the practical application of divine truth in the way of guarding against evil tendencies and results. We may have occasion at a future period of your studies to explain to you more fully this element — the qualifications or 70 FIFTH LECTURE. exercises of a theologian or a minister of the gospel; but it is rio-ht that even now you should understand its meaning; as it may be useful even now that you should have some regard to the acquirement and use of it. The great duty of a minister of the gospel is to explain, enforce, and apply divine truth as contained in the sacred Scriptures, in order that by the agency of the Spirit through the instrumentality of the truth, men may be first of all turned from darkness to light, and then thereafter enabled to die more and more unto sin, and to live more and more unto righteous¬ ness, It is of course assumed as indispensable that those who devote themselves to the proclamation of divine truth for this purpose, have themselves experienced its converting and regener¬ ating power, that they are recommending that to others, the efficiency of which they have tried and experienced themselves, in changing their natures and turning them to God, by leading them to embrace Christ, and which they are still employing for leading them to die more and more unto sin, and to live more and more unto righteousness. Now, this work, in which every man who can be regarded as justified to be the spiritual instructor of others ought to be engaged — that of mortifying and subduing sin in his own members — is attended with some difficulties, i.e. there are temptations which stand in the way of his prosecuting this work with due zeal and activity and perseverance ; and one exercise, therefore, in which he ought continually to be engaged, is applying the truths which he has been taught by the Spirit to resist these temptations, and to prosecute the work of going on from one degree of grace to another. The habit and exercise of applying divine truth for resisting temptation and growing in grace is indispensable to every believer, to every one who has really entered upon the way to Zion. But at present we are called upon sjDecially to notice that it tends greatly to promote and extend men’s real knowledge and intimate discernment of divine truth, and to aid them unspeakably in rightly dividing it, or applying it wisely or judiciously for the benefit of others. And it was this, whose necessity and importance Luther enforced under the name of temptation, as one of those things essential to make a theologian or a minister of the gospel. You can have no thorough and intimate acquaintance with divine truth, and especially you will be very ill fitted to explain and apply it for the TEMPTATION. 71 benefit of others, unless you have had some practice in actually bringing it to bear upon the resistance of those temptations with which all believers are assailed in their journey towards Zion. All the principal truths revealed in Scripture are intended to be instrumental in leading men — those to whom they are made known — to receive Christ J esus the Lord, and thereafter to walk in him, in opposition to all the obstacles which the devil, the world, and the flesh may interpose. The word of God is the sword of the Spirit, and is continually to be employed in the spiritual warfare ; and the man who has not had the benefit of temptation in the sense in which we have explained it, is like one who has learned the use of the sword only from written instructions, without having tried to handle or to wield it, and who, of course, is still very unfit for defending himself against the assault of enemies, and still more unfit for instructing others in the art of self-defence. The whole doctrines of God’s word have a practical tendency ; they have all been revealed to us for practical objects, and they should be all employed for producing practical results. A man cannot be said to have a full and adequate knowledge of what God has revealed in his word unless he has made some practical appli¬ cation of it to its intended objects, unless he has not only formed some notion or conception of it, but actually tried the use of it. A man who has purchased a book may be said, in a certain sense, to have in his possession the knowledge which the book contains. The book lies on his table, and he can, when he chooses, take it up and read it, but he does not possess, in any proper sense, or to any valuable purpose, the knowledge which the book contains, until he has made iise of his possession of it, by reading and digesting it, until he has applied it to its intended purpose. So in like manner, no one can be said fully to know and comprehend the truths revealed in God’s word, until he has not merely acquired some notions about them, but actually begun at least to apply them to the great practical purposes which they were intended to serve, in enabling those within whose reach they have been brought to resist temptation, to mortify sin, and to go on to higher attain¬ ments, in conformity to the image and will of him who revealed them. This process of actually applying the word of God and the doctrines which it contains to their great practical purpose in the formation of character and in the regulation of conduct, according FIFTH LECTURE. to the actual circumstances in which men are in providence placed, .and the temptations they are called upon to encounter, produces a clear, impressive, experimental acquaintance with divine truth, which cannot be acquired in any other way, and which peculiarly fits them for communicating clear and impressive conceptions of them to others ; and it is held as a maxim applicable to all branches of knowledge, that an acquaintance with any subject which qualifies and entitles a man to become an instructor of others, must be thorough and extensive, such as to give him the clearest, fulles% and most impressive conception of it himself. And such a know- ledo^e of the word of God and of divine truth cannot be attained, except by those who have in some measure succeeded in testing its real nature and its intended practical results upon themselves, by really applying it to resist temptation, and to promote their own spiritual nourishment and growth in grace. Hence it is not uncommon to meet with persons who have not read much, and who have had but little mental cultivation, but who have been long in the habit of applying the word of God and the doctrines of the gospel to the object of being enabled to resist tempta¬ tion and be directed in difficulties, to be comforted in trials, and to be guided and encouraged in their spiritual progress, and who, by the study of the Bible, and by this process, of practically applying it, have acquired an intimate and thorough knowledge of the word of God and of Christian truth, have attained to a clearness of conception on those subjects, and hold their views with a firmness of grasp which many book-learned theologians have never reached, and which all the ingenuity and sophistry of error cannot diminish or impair. This is a process which ought to be ever going on, and which will certainly not impede but greatly promote your more formal studies in theology. As private Christians, you are bound to be continually resisting temptation, mortifying sin, and growing in grace; and by carrying on this process through the unceasing application of the word of God and divine truth, and hy the reflex act of observing the operations and ajfections of your own mind while the work of bringing divine truth to bear upon it is going on, you will undoubtedly acquire much real practical available knowledge of the word of God and of the truths which it was intended to unfold, and this knowledge is of essential importance TEMPTATION. 73 to all who are allowed to be put in trust with the gospel. Divine truth is then only applied to its right purpose when it is employed in this way, then alone is it fully seen in its proper light and in its true character, and no one therefore can be regarded as possessed of a full and competent knowledge of it unless he has seen and watched the process of its being subjected to such experiments. It is your imperative duty, in accordance with the injunction which Paul gave to Timothy, to flee youthful lusts, which war against the soul, to be avoiding every appearance of evil, to be even already enduring hardness as good soldiers of Jesus Christ, i.e. to be mortifying pride and ambition, self-confidence, self-conceit, envy, and worldliness, and to be cultivating and cherishing in your souls all the fruits of the Spirit. In this work you will have tempta¬ tions to resist and difficulties to encounter. You must employ the whole armour of God, especially the shield of faith and the sword of the Spirit, i.e., under the guidance of the Holy ^Spirit, you are to be ever employing the word of God and the truths which it unfolds ; and by carrying on this process faithfully and conscientiously, and by reflecting on its nature, its manifestations, and its results, you will not only grow in grace and in meetness for heaven, but you will acquire a much more thorough insight into the word of God and the truths of Scripture, and be much more fully prepared than otherwise you could have been for wield¬ ing the sword of the Spirit for the conversion of sinners and the edification of Christ’s body. These are the processes by which theologians are made, and by which men are prepared for the work of the ministry — prayer, meditation, and temptation, in the sense in which Luther used it, and in which we have endeavoured to explain it. Prayer and the actual application of divine truth for resisting temptation and mortifying sin are matters of express and positive obligation upon all men considered simply as private Christians, who are called upon to work out their own salvation, and irrespective of any regard to their use as means of acquiring a full acquaintance with theology. If you have been brought at all to realise something of your relation to God, your need of mercy and grace, and your obligations to prepare for death and judgment, if you have for yourselves entered on the way to Zion, — and unless all this is the case, your profession of preparing for the work of the ministry is a 74 FIFTH LECTURE. mockery of Him who yet is not mocked, — then you will certainly abound in prayer and supplication for the outpouring of the Spirit to guide you into all truth and holiness, and you will faithfully apply divine truth to enable you to die more and more unto sin, and to live more and more unto righteousness. And this work of praying for the Spirit and acquiring an experimental knowledge of divine truth by applying it to its great practical purpose and observing the nature and results of the process, must go on during all your lives. The duty of increasing in knowledge and in holi¬ ness continues ever to attach to you, until you are made perfect in holiness. You are to be sanctified by the Spirit and through the truth, and therefore it is your duty to abound in prayer, and to be bringing divine truth to bear upon every department of your nature and every circumstance of your situation ; and by this pro¬ cess, faithfully pursued, will you assuredly acquire much sound knowledge of Christian theology, and make the best preparation for the work of the ministry. LECTURE VI. PRAYEE, MEDITATION, AND TEMPTATION. llfEDITATION, as including learning, reading, and reflection, and especially reading and reflecting upon the Word of God, so as to understand the meaning of its statements and the import of its teaching, is that which in the ordinary relation of cause and effect bears most directly and immediately upon the acquisition of theological knowledge. Prayer and the experimental application of divine truth are exercises which mainly and principally lie between God and your own souls, in which it is with him you have to do, and where little aid or assistance can be derived from your fellow-men. In meditation or study you may derive much assistance from others, by their interpreting and explaining the word of God to you, illustrating and establishing the truths which are taught there, counselling you as to the books that ought to be read, and the way in which they may be read and studied to most advantage, and in various ways affording you at the com¬ mencement of your theological studies the benefit and the experience acquired by those who have already given some attention to the investigation of these subjects. And this is just in substance a description of the exercises in which we are to be engaged in this place. In entering upon so wide a field as the study of theology, it may be reasonably supposed that you may derive some benefit from the advice and assistance of those who have already more or less extensively traversed it. Were you to let yourselves loose upon the wide field of theological literature without system and without directions, you would be in some danger of losing yourselves amid the multiplicity of objects that might attract your attention and call forth your curiosity. And hence the necessity of studying upon a regular plan, and having 76 SIXTH LECTURE. some directions laid before you as to the way and manner in which the plan may be most successfully prosecuted. It is only by your own reading and study, accompanied by the teaching of the divine Spirit, that you can become theologians. You must read and reflect. Theological knowledge cannot be put into you, ab extra, without your own faculties being called into vigorous exercise. It consists radically and essentially in the formation of correct judgments, as to the meaning and import of statements in God’s word, on which different interpretations have been put. And therefore the acquisition of it necessarily implies that you yourselves study the word of God, make use of all the appropriate means by which its meaning may be ascertained and established, estimate the evidence bearing upon all the subjects investigated, and form your own judgments regarding them. You have no right, and still less are you under any obligation, to take upon trust the views of any man or body of men, without having satisfied yourself of their accordance with the only standard of truth. It is with God you have to do, it is to him you are responsible, and him alone you are to follow. “ God alone is Lord of the conscience, and hath left it free from the doctrines and commandments of men, which are in anything contrary to his word, or beside it, in matters of faith or worship” (Con. c. xx. s. 2). You are then to exert your own faculties, and to exert them on your own responsibility to God, that under the guidance of his Spirit you may attain to the knowledge of his truth, and that this be done, and done intelligently, you must yourselves carefully investigate all the subjects to which your attention may be directed, and bring them, in the exercise of your own faculties, to be tried by the standard of God’s word. You might be led by the authority of others and the influence of circumstances to adopt and profess a system of views that is really in accordance with the sacred Scriptures, while you had never fairly and impartially exercised your faculties upon the subject, and could give no satisfactory proof from the word of God of the views which you professed to entertain. But such a result would neither be satis¬ factory to yourselves nor to the church of which you might become ministers. The church of course does not wish any to enter her service except those who, after diligent study and careful investigation, are satisfied that the doctrines of her public profes- MEDITA TIOX. 77 sion are in accordance with the sacred Scriptures, and can give some account of the scriptural grounds on which they maintain them, and it is supremely important that in the prosecution of your studies, you should be ever animated by a sincere love of truth, by a real and honest desire to ascertain what is the mind and will of God. You are not indeed to suppose that you are at liberty to adopt any opinions you choose, or that it is not -a matter of great importance what views you adopt upon theo¬ logical subjects, provided only they are sincerely held. You are under obligation to know aright the will of God, and are respon¬ sible and justly punishable for mistaking it, just because God requires that of you, and because he has made sufficient provision for guiding to the knowledge of the truth all who honestly and faithfully improve the means and opportunities with which he has furnished them. There is sincerity in error as well as in truth, but still error is error, and truth is truth, the one in opposition to God’s revealed will, and the other in accordauce with it. The knowledge of the truth is the gift of God, and is traceable to or connected with the right and honest exercise of our faculties, and the faithful and conscientious improvement of our opportunities, while the adoption and maintenance of error is owing universally to some failure in these respects ; to the want of a sincere and honest desire to know the truth, to the operation of some perverting and misleading influence, or to some failure in the diligence, caution, and perseverance with which our faculties have been brought to bear upon the investigation. This is an important principle that ought not to be lost sight of, especially in judging of ourselves, and in regulating our own conduct, in impressing upon our own minds the necessity of honestly and purely searching after truth, guarding against everything that might mislead us, and exercising our faculties with all due care and caution upon the various subjects which we may be called upon to examine. But some caution and forbearance are necessary in applying this principle of the sinfulness of error in forming a judgment of others whose views we may reckon erroneous. It is true that all error is sinful, and has arisen from something sinful on the part of those by whom it is maintained. But it would be very unwar¬ rantable and offensive to be making a direct and personal applica- 78 SIXTH LECTURE. tion of this principle to all those who, we may be firmly persuaded, entertain erroneous views. Men are undoubtedly entitled, and indeed bound, to exercise their own faculties, and to form their own judgments in regard to all subjects that may be presented to them, without being subject to any authoritative control upon the part of their fellow- men, or of any but God and those who can produce God's commission. The connection between the under¬ standing and the will, the investigation of those causes and influ¬ ences that operate upon the formation of men’s opinions, bears upon some of the deepest and darkest mysteries of the human spirit, involves points that may be imperfectly understood, even by those to whom they attach, and can in general be very imper¬ fectly comprehended by others. They can be certainly known in individual cases only by Him who searcheth the hearts of the children of men, who understandeth our very thoughts afar off. The probability that men may have yielded to perverting and misleading influences in forming their opinions, is ordinarily just in proportion to their general character, to the integrity, candour, and love of truth which they usually manifest.^ We ought ever to remember that we are all liable to yield to pervert¬ ing influences, and the operation of collateral or adventitious circumstances in the formation of our opinions ; and this should teach us charity and forbearance in judging of others whom we may believe to be in error. Upon the ground of those various considerations, it is manifestly improper and unwarrantable to be habitually and ordinarily applying the principle, however true in itself, that all error is sinful, to others whose views we may reckon erroneous. Within certain limits, and when there is no jjalpable outward evidence of a want of integrity and of due care in the formation of opinions, it is but reasonable to assume that those who may differ from us have been as honest and impartial in the formation of their opinions as ourselves, and though abstractly we may and should hold the general principle, that where there is error there is sin, yet the sin may, in many cases, be in some corner so obscure and inaccessible as to be cognisable only by Him who searcheth all things ; so that men, in fairness, ^ Apparently the author’s meaning is, that in proportion to a man’s candour and love of truth, is his anxiety to take all arguments into account, and therefore liis liability to be unconsciously misled b}^ adventitious circumstances. — Ed. MEDITATION. 79 should content themselves with refuting the error without pro¬ nouncing upon the character and motives of the errorists. When men profess to have a sincere desire to know the truth, and have used honestly, so far as man can judge, the proper means for attaining to a knowledge of it, — when there is no public tangible proof of the falsehood of their professions, they are entitled to be treated as honest men, and should not be denounced as guilty of sin because of the errors in which we may believe them to be involved. In short, the right principle upon this point is, that before we can be warranted in personally applying to men who hold erroneous opinions the maxim that all error is sin, we should have some other proof besides the mere fact that they are in error, — proof such as men, who cannot see into the heart, may clearly apprehend and estimate, and which distinctly establishes against them some plain deviation from the course which an honest love of truth, and a faithful application of the right means for discovering it, would have produced. But while we should be careful of applying to others the maxim that all error originates in sin, and is traceable to something sinful as its cause, and while its application to others should be in general left to him who alone can apply it accurately, yet the maxim is undoubtedly true abstractly, and it is right that we should apply it to ourselves in regulating and in explaining our own conduct. We may be firmly persuaded that we will not fall into error except through some sin on our own part, through some sinful want of an honest and paramount love of truth, through some sinful negligence or oversight in the exercise of our faculties, or in the use of appropriate means, or through the indul¬ gence of some sinful desire, or in the prosecution of some sinful object misleading and perverting us. Although there is a great deal of that which ought to pass among men for honesty and uprightness in the formation of opinions, and which ought to pass as such, just because men ought to be deeply conscious of their own liability to be misled, and are neither qualified nor entitled to judge of the hearts of others, yet we believe there is very little of pure and thorough impartiality in the sight of God, and that men's opinions, whether right or wrong, are but seldom the result of a purely honest and impartial consideration of the proper grounds on which they ought to rest, uninfluenced b}^ collateral 80 SIXTH LECTURE. and adventitious circumstances. Our opinions in most cases have been largely determined by the circumstances in which we have been placed and the influences under which we have been brought ; and men who know themselves would be slow of asserting that their opinions, even those which profess to be built upon the word of God, would certainly have been the same as they now are, had their lot been cast in a different sphere. The practical use of these considerations is, that remembering that all error is sinful, and that there are many influences continually at work to lead you into error, you strive to preserve a deep sense of your respon¬ sibility to God for all the opinions you form, to cherish a supreme and paramount desire to know his will and to ascertain the truth, and that you guard carefully against any influence that might mislead or pervert you. Let no opinions be taken up hastily and rashly under the influence of outward circumstances, or to have any selfish or party object. Let there be a constant reference to the word of God, the only infallible standard of truth. Let all due care and diligence be employed to understand the meaning and import of its statements, let a constant sense of your depend- ance upon the Spirit of truth be preserved, and let all your medi¬ tations and all your investigations be accompanied with private prayer for the outpouring of the Holy Ghost. Never forget that God’s Spirit alone can guard you against the temptations to error which you have to encounter from without and from within, that sound theological knowledge, scriptural truth must be sought and obtained from Him, that the secret of the Lord is with them that fear him, and that he will shew them his covenant. Take care that you grieve not, that you quench not, the Holy Spirit, by neglecting to cherish a due sense of your dependence upon him, by indifference about really enjoying his guidance and ascertaining his mind and will, by restraining prayer, by regarding any iniquity in your hearts, by indulging in sloth or pride, in self-seeking and self-confidence, by failing to exercise your faculties, and to improve your opportunities under a deep sense of your responsibility to Him, and with a sincere determination to consecrate yourselves soul and body to his glory and service. It is by such means as these, and under such impressions and desires as these, that your theological studies ought to be conducted, and it is only when you are enabled to abound and to persevere in the use of these means. MEDITATION. 81 and in the maintenance and habitual manifestation of this frame of mind, that you have reasonable ground to expect that you will be enabled to attain to a thorough knowledge of God’s revealed will, and be fitted to become able ministers of the New Testament, not only having yourselves that knowledge of God and of Jesus Christ, which is eternal life, but able to teach others also. Erroneous opinions upon any of the subjects concerning which God has given us information, are not only sinful and displeasing to him, but injurious to ourselves, adverse to our spiritual nourish¬ ment and growth in grace, and are therefore to be carefully guarded against in the use of all appropriate means, by keeping our hearts, and by regulating our conduct. Our Saviour has said, “ Woe unto the world because of offences ! for it must needs be that offences come ; but woe to that man by whom the offence cometh” (Matt, xviii. 7). An offence here means anything that causes or tends to cause to stumble and fall, or to turn aside from the right path in matters connected with God and eternity. And of the offences in this sense which are so plentifully spread over the history of the church, errors and heresies form no inconsider¬ able portion. The erroneous opinions that have been broached, directly and in themselves, by their own proper tendency and results, and the fact that so many erroneous opinions all profess- inof to be derived from one and the same source or standard have been maintained, have proved great stumbling-blocks in every age, have contributed largely to pervert men, and to lead them astray, and thus to endanger their eternal welfare. When our Saviour said it must needs be that offences come,” the leading idea he meant to convey was merely the certainty that in the actual condition of things, in the actual constitution of the world, and of man’s nature, it would happen that stumbling-blocks would be laid in men’s way, and that many would, in point of fact, fall over them, with perhaps the additional idea insinuated that even these offences would be over-ruled of God for accomplishing his own purposes. But the great lesson which the statement is fitted to impress is, that however certain or necessary offences may be, and to whatever extent this may be over-ruled for good, they involve, at all times, great and heinous guilt on the part of those who are responsible for them. And it must not be forgotten that for the evils which have arisen — the stumbling-blocks which have 82 SIXTH LECTURE, been thrown in men’s way — by controversies and divisions, those must bear the chief responsibility, and incur most fully the woe which our Saviour has denounced, who, by adopting and maintain¬ ing opinions that were erroneous and inconsistent with the standard of God’s word, have rendered contention necessary, and thereby made themselves the real authors or causes of the offences, of the stumbling-blocks that have been thrown in the way of individuals and churches, tended to mar their progress in knowledge, right¬ eousness, and holiness, and to obstruct the great ends for which they ought to have lived and laboured. Let this responsibility weigh deeply upon your minds, and let it prompt you to a diligent and faithful use of all those means, whereby through God’s blessing the woe denounced by our Saviour may be avoided, and our spiritual nourishment and the peace and welfare of Christ’s church may be advanced. PREVIOUS STUDIES - LATIN, GREEK, AND HEBREW. I have endeavoured to lay before you an outline of the wide field comprehended in the study of theological science, and the processes by the prosecution of which such a knowledge of theology as may fit you for becoming useful ministers of the gospel is to be acquired, comprehending, as the explanation of these processes does, a state¬ ment of the motives by which you ought to be animated, and of the spirit in which your whole theological studies ought to be con¬ ducted. I would now wish to lay before you a few practical direc¬ tions as to the prosecution of your studies, not as to the prosecution of the study of any particular department of theology, for the dif¬ ferent branches of the science may, in some respects, require special directions more immediately applicable to them severally, but bearing upon the mode of prosecuting your studies generally. It is assumed not only that you have gone through a curri¬ culum of study in literature and philosophy, but that you actually possess a respectable measure of acquaintance with the subjects you profess to have studied. In authors who have written upon the general subject of the study of theology, these topics are usually adverted to under the head of ‘rr^ocra/Ssu/Aara, or preliminary instruc¬ tions, which ought to be mastered before men begin the proper study of theology. In so far as you are not possessed of a respect¬ able acquaintance with all those subjects, you are not fully prepared PREVIOUS STUDIES 83 for entering upon theological study ; and in so far as your know¬ ledge of them is still partly defective, it is proper, in regard to some of them at least, that you should even now be giving some degree of attention to the object of repairing your deficiencies. The most important branches of your previous studies, in so far as concerns their immediate use and bearing upon the prosecution of the study of theology, are a knowledge of the Greek and Latin languages, and an acquaintance with mental philosophy, as, in¬ cluding the powers and faculties, the capacities and susceptibilities of the mind, the principles and laws bearing upon the right use and application of these powers and susceptibilities upon investi¬ gating truth, judging of evidence, and establishing duty. No man can be regarded as having any pretensions to the character of a well-educated and accomplished theologian who has not read a considerable number of works which exist only in the Latin lan¬ guage; and hence the importance— we might almost say the necessity in the prosecution of theological study — of being so familiar with Latin as to be able to read ordinary theological Latin works, without finding much more difficulty, or requiring to spend much more time in the perusal of them, than you would on works in your own tongue. This is the sort of measure of the familiarity which you ought to possess with Latin ; and such a degree of acquaintance with it you will find a most important advantage in the prosecution of your studies. In regard to Greek, there are fewer books in this languagje than in Latin which it is necessary for you to read for the mere sake of the information they contain ; but the language, as a language, it is still more indispensable that you should thoroughly understand, because it is that in which the most important part of the inspired Scriptures were composed. A man’s real theological knowledge may be said practically and substantially to be measured by his real know¬ ledge of the Greek Testament ; and in order to understand aright the Greek Testament, it is of course indispensable that he be familiar with the Greek language. And this leads us to advert to the general subject of the necessity of an acquaintance with the original languages in which the word of God has been given us by its authors. The Old Testament, you are aware, is written in the Hebrew language, with the exception of two or three short passages in Chaldee; and the New Testament in Greek. The Hebrew Old 84 SIXTH LECTURE. Testament and the Greek New Testament constitute the word of God given by the inspiration of his Spirit, and forming the only authoritative rule of faith and practice. The will of God is to be learned authentically only from an examination of books written in these languages ; and hence it follows at once that every one who is really desirous to know the will of God, and to know it thoroughly and authentically, and especially every one who aspires to be a religious instructor of others, is bound to acquire such a knowledge of Hebrew and Greek as may qualify him to derive his knowledofe of God’s will at once from the fountain-head, or at least to be able to test all the views that may be pressed upon him, by a reference to the only infallible standard, and to be qualified to defend, if necessary, his convictions upon religious subjects from the same sources. A translation of the Scriptures into any other language merely shews the interpretation put upon them by those who have executed the translation ; and though most translations of the Scriptures into modern languages give a sufficiently clear and correct exposition of the mind and will of God in his word to serve all the infinitely important purposes of general practical instruction, yet no one will be contented with a translation who desires to be thoroughly versant in divine revelation, and who is called upon to be prepared to give a reason of his faith, and to defend God’s truth against the assaults of error. It is true that many, very many, have been guided by God’s Spirit into all truth ; have been led to embrace Christ, and to become meet for heaven ; have attained that knowledge of God and Jesus Christ, which is eternal life ; who know God’s will only through the medium of a translation. Nay, more, it is certain that God has honoured with singular usefulness as ministers of the gospel men whom he him¬ self had called to labour in his vineyard, although they knew nothing of Hebrew or Greek. But it is true in this as well as in other matters, that God’s doings are not the rule of our duty, and that there rests an imperative obligation upon all who desire the office of a bishop to acquire, if they have the means and the opportunity, a knowledge of God’s revelation as it came from himself, and of course in the original languages. This is plainly comprehended in the more general obligation undoubtedly attaching to them to acquire as full and accurate a knowledge of God’s revelation as their circum- PREVIOUS STUDIES. 85 stances admit of, before they venture to engage in the instruction of others. I trust you have all knowledge enough of the classic models of antiquity to be able to appreciate the difference between the original and a translation, in so far as the perception and enjoyment of literary beauty and excellence, the gratification of the taste and the emotions are concerned. This applies in all its extent and in full force to the difference between the Scriptures in the original and in a translation, however generally faithful and accurate. And w^ere you disposed to study the Scriptures merely as literary productions and objects of taste, you would be called upon in fairness, with a view to your own enjoyment and gratifica¬ tion, to examine them in the original languages. But this of course is a low and inadequate view of the subject. It is a matter of imperative obligation that you should study the word of God for your own salvation and that of others. In a matter of such importance it is incumbent upon you to take every practicable security for understanding it correctly and thoroughly, and this necessarily implies an acquaintance with the original, especially in those who, in addition to the general obligation attaching to all men according to their circumstances to acquire as complete a knowledge as they can of God/s word, are set for the defence of the gospel and the instruction of others. Whenever a difficulty or difference of opinion arises as to the mind and will of God, the ultimate appeal must always be to the Hebrew and Greek text ; and the minister who cannot carry the appeal to that tribunal, and discuss it there, must be regarded as destitute of most important auxiliaries and influences for the right discharge of his duties, for the proper execution of his functions ; and if God in his providence has given him opportunities of acquiring a knowledge of the origi¬ nal languages, and if he through carelessness, sloth, or perhaps spiritual pride, has failed to improve them, he is justly chargeable with a grievous dereliction of duty. There can be no doubt that our common English version of the Scriptures, though one of the best that has been made, and though quite sufficient for fully instructing the people in what they are to believe concerning God, and in the duty he requires of them, conveys in many instances the meaning of the original obscurely and ambiguously, and in not a few cases with some mixture of error and inaccuracy.^ ^ Goode, Divine Rule of Faith and Practice, vol. i., p. 112, on 2 Tim. i. 13. 86 SIXTH LECTURE. And hence the necessity of a constant appeal to the original in order that the mind of God may be fully and correctly known, and may be set forth with the authority and accuracy which ought to attach to the office and functions of the ministry. The great object of the ministry is to explain, enforce, and apply the state¬ ments contained in God’s word. Their first duty, therefore, is to use the best means of attaining the full and certain knowledge of their meaning. It may be reasonably doubted whether any minister who has been favoured in providence with opportunities of acquiring a knowledge of Hebrew and Greek is warranted to go to the pulpit and profess to open up the mind of God in his word, without having satisfied himself by an examination of the original what the mind of the Spirit in the passage is, in place of taking it upon trust from others, whether translators or commentators. Commentaries indeed often contain information as to the mean¬ ing of the original, when it may be given ambiguously or incor¬ rectly in the translation commented on; but one who is himself ignorant of, or very imperfectly acquainted with, the original languages, can make no right use of what he may find on the subject in the commentary, and of course is as much dependent upon the commentator as otherwise he would have been upon the translators. The grand object of all your studies should be that you may clearly and correctly ascertain the meaning of the Spirit of God in the various statements which compose the Bible, and may be qualified to open up their true meaning to others, and to defend it against the assaults of adversaries ; and an obviously essential part of this preparation is an acquaintance with the original languages. There is a great responsibility connected with ascertaining and setting forth the mind of the Spirit in the word, and a proper sense of this responsibility will constrain men to adopt the best and surest means of effectinoc this, though it may require of them some self-denial and sacrifice. The duty, then, of acquiring competent knowledge of the original languages of Scripture we urge upon you, not merely because the possession and application of this knowledge is fitted to afford you much satisfaction and enjoyment, not merely because it is creditable and becoming in a public instructor of others, and because the want of it is discreditable and dangerous ; but on the ground of a still higher and more solemn consideration, viz., that by the neglect of PREVIOUS STUDIES. 87 acquiring it; you are failing to do all that you can to prepare for attaining to the fullest, firmest, and most rational acquaintance with divine truth, and are thereby indicating that you have not a due sense of the responsibility connected with the infinitely important object of ascertaining the mind of God from his inspired word. You have all opportunities of acquiring a knowledge of the original languages of Scripture, and on the ground which we have stated, you are all hound to embrace and to improve them. It is not, of course, to be expected that all the ministers of a church should become profound philologists, though it is most desirable that every church should have some men who have given careful and lengthened attention to philological studies, and may thus be qualified to defend truth against the most learned opponents ; but it is reasonable that all the miuisters of the gospel who are favoured in Providence with the necessary oppor¬ tunities, should possess such a knowledge of the original tongues as may enable them fully to satisfy themselves as to the certainty of the grounds on which they hold their convictions, and to qualify them to appreciate and employ aright the profound researches of others. Of the Greek language you have all acquired some knowledge already, and that knowledge it will be incumbent upon most of you to increase and extend, especially by the careful study of the Greek Testament itself, and other Greek works, which, being composed in a similar style and diction, i.e. with a large admixture of the Hebrew idiom, are more particularly fitted to afford assistance in studying the philology of the New Testament. The principal work of this kind is what is commonly called the Septuagint version of the Old Testament, a work which occupies this very peculiar and important place in the study of the Scriptures in the original, that it is almost indispensable to the careful philological study of both portions of the word of God. As a translation from the Hebrew, made when the Hebrew was, if not properly a living language, yet well known and carefully studied, and when there were much greater facilities for acquiring a knowledge of it than there have been in subsequent times, it is still one of the sources from which, as a virtual witness to the actual U8U8 loquendi, we may derive some knowledge of the meaning of Hebrew vocables. And having been in familiar use by the inspired writers of the New Testament, and indeed actually 88 SIXTH LECTURE. used by them in the quotations made in their writings from the Old Testament, and being composed in the same dialect or idiom as the New Testament itself, viz., what has been called Hellenistic, or Hebrew Greek, it is fitted to cast much light upon the meaning of particular words, and the whole structure of the lang^uaofe of the New Testament. Of the Hebrew most of you are probably still ignorant, and if so, it ought to occupy a considerable portion of your attention during the present session — the Hebrew being not only the language in which the Old Testament was written, but some knowledge of it being necessary for fully understanding the Hebrew Greek of the New. It would be preferable on many accounts that you should have acquired some knowledge of Hebrew at an earlier period of your studies, and indeed before you entered upon the proper study of theology, both because, amid the interest with which you may now be expected to engage in your theological studies, there is some danger that you may feel the learning of a language to be rather irksome, and therefore be apt to neglect it, and to fail in giving it the requisite attention ; and because it would be desirable that you should even now be prepared to enter upon the critical study of the Old Testament, instead of merely acquiring a knowledge of the elements of the Hebrew language. Arrangements, it is to be hoped, will soon be made for accomplishing this desirable object of securing that those who are contemplating entering upon a course of theological study shall acquire a competent knowledge of Hebrew before they begin. But if you have not yet learned the Hebrew language, it is your duty to do so now without any further delay ; and if you are still very imperfectly acquainted with it, your knowledge should without delay be increased and extended. And with the advantages which in this place you enjoy for the study of it, you will, I have no doubt, find it a most interesting and useful occupation. With regard to the extent to which your study of the original languages ought to be carried, and the amount of acquaintance with them which you are bound to acquire, it is surely not unreasonable that before entering upon the office of ministers of the gospel, and becoming the public instructors of others, you should be able to read the Scriptures in the original languages with rREVIOUS STUDIES. 89 ease, without needing to have recourse to lexicons or translations. Without this measure of acquaintance with the Hebrew and Greek of the Scriptures, you may almost as well be entirely ignorant of them ; for unless you possess this measure of acquaintance with them, you are scarcely qualified for applying to any practical use critical commentaries upon the Scriptures ; and what is perhaps of still more importance, until you are so familiar with the original languages, that you can read the Scriptures without finding it necessary to have frequent recourse to the lexicon or the translation, you will not get into the habit, which is of inestimable value and importance, of reading and studying the sacred Scriptures in the words in which God has given them to us. Let this then be the object which you aim at, and which you are resolved by God's blessing to effect ; and be assured that the acquisition of such a knowledge of the original languages will be at once the discharge of an important duty, and a source of abundant satisfaction and enjoyment to your own minds. The study of Hebrew you will prosecute under the superintendence of one^ who is pre-eminently qualified to make it interesting and useful ; and I will consider it part of my duty to take opportunities of ascertaining how far you are prepared for understanding and explaining the Greek Testa¬ ment, and probably prescribing such exercises as the state of your efficiency in this respect may seem to require. ’ The late Dr John Duncan. — Ed. LECTURE VIE THE ENGLISH BIBLE— THE SABBATH— PEIVATE MEETINGS. Having endeavoured to impress upon you the obligation of acquiring a competent knowledge of the Scriptures in the original languages, such a knowledge at least as may enable you to read the word of God in Hebrew and Greek, without needing to have recourse to lexicons and translations, and to appreciate and profit by the critical investigations of learned men, I would now press upon you with equal earnestness the necessity of acquiring, by daily perusal and study, a thoro\igh familiarity with our common English version of the Bible. Though it is not the standard of our faith, and though it does not always bring out the meaning of the original clearly and correctly, yet it contains a representation of God's revelation, sufficiently clear and accurate for all the practical and devotional purposes for which a revelation was given to men, viz. that they might be led to glorify God and to enjoy him for ever. And there are two grounds upon which it is indispensable that, however familiar you may be with the Greek and Hebrew originals, you must also be thoroughly familiar with the common English version. The first is derived from a regard to your own personal spiritual nourishment and growth in grace ; and the second, from a regard to your usefulness to others in the work of the ministry. You must during all your lives be seeking to have deeper impressions of divine things, to be becoming more conversant with eternal realities, to hold more frequent communion with God, to have his word hid in your hearts and dwelling in you richly, that it may be more ready for constant use and application in leading you to resist temptation, to die unto sin and to live unto righteousness. Now, this familiarity with divine truth, and THE ENGLISH BIBLE. 91 tliis constant and ready application of it for regulating your feelings and your conduct — the whole process which Luther called temptation, and which we have already explained, accompanied as it should be with habitual prayer — requires, according to the ordinary principles of our constitution, the use of a language with which we are and have long been thoroughly familiar, and which we are in the constant habit of using. You may acquire all that knowledge of Greek and Hebrew which can be justly represented as indispensable to a well educated minister of the gospel, and may be in the habit of using this knowledge for its appropriate purpose in determining precisely and exactly the opinions you ought to form upon every department of divine truth, establishing their certainty, and defending them against adversaries, without having that thorough familiarity with the originals, which may enable you to apply them to constant and daily use in the practical business of elevating your desires and affections, of leading you to walk with God, and really to take his word as a light to your feet, and a lamp unto your path. In short, your own spiritual nourishment — an object never to be neglected — must be carried on through the instrumentality of your mother tongue; and hence the necessity of a thorough familiarity with the English Bible is indispensable to your usefulness in the work of the ministry. It is the English Bible that you are to explain from the pulpit ; and though even in the pulpit it may sometimes be necessary, in faithfully discharging your duty of fully and accurately opening up the mind of God in his word, to advert to the original, and to point out how its meaning might have been given more clearly or more correctly than in our version ; yet, practically and substantially, it is the English Bible alone with which the generality of those whom you are called upon to instruct will ever be conversant. It is with that same Bible that you are to go forth amongst them, unfolding its truths, enforcing its precepts, and applying its warnings and consolations. In short, the English Bible must be the great medium of your intercourse with them, the instrument with which you are to operate upon them, that which it should be the aim of your life to lead them through God’s blessing to understand and apply ; and hence the necessity, in order to the right discharge of the work of the ministry, of your being yourselves thoroughly familiar 92 SEVENTH LECTURE. with it, with all its contents, and with its whole meaning and applications. You are to exhort them to study it, to assist them in understanding and in applying it. Whatever about the Bible or its contents they may not know, you are to be prepared to make known to them. Whatever doubts or difficulties they may have about anything they may find there, you will be expected to explain and to solve. You would reckon it no doubt an important result of your labours among those committed to your care, if you succeeded in persuading them to adopt the practice of daily perusing and carefully studying the word of God, with a sincere desire to know its meaning, and with a determination to use all the means by which, through God’s blessing they might rightly comprehend and apply it ; and as they are entitled to look to their pastor for all necessary assistance and explanation in this work, it is indispensable that he be thoroughly versant in the knowledge of the Bible, and of everything necessary for explaining and illus¬ trating it. There are many things which men are bound to know, were it for no other reason than because it is usually held dis¬ creditable for any man of liberal education to be ignorant of them. And in like manner it would be discreditable to ministers to be ignorant of anything about the Bible in common use, which all men ought to read, about which all ought to converse and inquire, and about which ministers are expected to be ever ready to give information. There prevails even among ministers far too much ignorance of the Bible. There are some engaged in the work of publicly instructing men in religion, to whom a large portion of the word of God is in a great measure a terra incognita. We do not refer at present to their ignorance of the precise meaning of many of the statements of Scripture — an ignorance arising from their having done little in the way of searching the Scriptures, or care¬ fully and critically investigating their import, and which we shall take an opportunity afterwards more fully to expose. We fear there is a great ignorance even of what might have been learned from a sufficiently frequent and careful perusal of the Scriptures, without any very exact investigation of the precise meaning of their particular statements — ignorance of the contents of the differ¬ ent books of Scripture, of the historical events there recorded, and of the biographies of the different persons there introduced. THE ENGLISH BIBLE. 93 Everything that can be learned from the perusal of every part of the Bible, and from the comparison of one part of it with another, should not only be well known, but should be deeply impressed upon the mind and memory, so as to be permanently remembered and ready for constant use and application. There is a large amount of general information, collected chiefly from the Bible itself, though partly also from other sources, about the authors of the different books of Scripture, the time and place where, and the objects for which they were written, the history, geography, chronology, antiquities, manners, and customs, &c., Avith which every minister ought to be familiar, and of which it is highly discreditable for him to be ignorant. All this knowledge is very easily acquired, being collected and arranged in many easily accessible books. But it ought to be acquired and impressed upon the memory, were it for no other reason than that it is discredit¬ able to be ignorant of it. But Avhat Ave are at present chiefly anxious to enforce is the necessity of familiarity with the contents of the Word of God itself, by daily perusal and study of it, so that you may become scribes well instructed into the kingdom of heaven, and ever ready to bring forth out of the treasures of the word whatever may be most suitable for forming men’s opinions, for impressing their hearts, for guiding them in difficulties, and comforting them in trials. All ministers ought to be like Apollos, mighty in the Scriptures, thoroughly familiar with the contents, deeply imbued with the Spirit, and intimately conversant Avith the use and application of the word of God, and these qualifica¬ tions can be secured only through the working of God’s Spirit accompanying the daily and habitual, the careful and reverential perusal of them. This daily perusal of the common version of the Bible may be conducted in different Avays, Avhich have their respective advan¬ tages. It is useful sometimes to read over a considerable portion of the word of God without stopping to investigate carefully the meaning and connection of particular statements and clauses, in order to have a general view of the contents, leading object and main scope of any particular portion of Scripture, and observations and lessons of a useful and important kind Avill often occur in connection with such a process, Avhich might not have been otber- Avise suggested. This therefore is a process Avhich should be 94 SEVENTH LECTURE. occasionally and from time to time applied, and applied repeatedly to all the different portions of the Scriptures. But still it is practically and substantially true that your real knowledge of Scripture will be very much in proportion to the degi'ee of time and attention which you devote to the careful and accurate investi¬ gation of the meaning and connection of its different statements, comparing them with each other, and seeking for the enlightening influences of the Spirit of truth. Most of you probably do not yet know enough of Hebrew to read with any use or profit the Old Testament in the original, or to give more time and attention to this than the prosecution of your prescribed studies at the Hebrew class may require. But you should all be able to read the New Testament in Greek, and should make it an object of primary importance to acquire day after day greater facility in doing so. And you have all access to the study of the common version of the Bible, the regular daily perusal and study of which, in a right spirit, and accompanied with fervent prayer, will almost insensibly, and to your own surprise, increase your knowledge as well as deepen your impressions of divine things, and contribute more than anything else to furnish you with materials at once for promoting your own growth in grace, and preparing you for becoming useful and instructive ministers of the word.’ While we would most earnestly inculcate upon you the most conscientious diligence and the most unremitting perseverance in the prosecution of your studies, on the ground of the ex¬ tent of the field you have to traverse, we would at the same time recommend to you to devote to your professional studies only six days of the week, and to devote the Lord’s day to exercises bearing upon objects common to you with ordinary private Christians, and connected with your own personal growth in righteousness and holiness. It is true that most of the books which you may be called upon to peruse, and of the subjects to which you may need to direct your attention in the prosecution of your professional studies, may be such as might lawfully or without sin occupy your time and thoughts on the Lord’s day. It is true also that part of your professional studies consists, as we have ^ See Dupin’s Method, p. 119. 1 recommend as most useful, and indeed indis¬ pensable, Bagster’s interleaved editions of Hebrew and Greek originals, with English version. TEE SABBATH. 95 endeavoured to explain, in applying divine truth to the promotion of your own spiritual nourishment ; and that while this is incum¬ bent upon all Christians, it is by special obligations and additional motives incumbent upon students of theology. It may also be reasonably expected, considering the motives by which you profess to be animated, and the objects you profess to aim at, that the whole prosecution of your studies shall be pervaded by a spirit of prayer, by a sense of your responsibility to and dependence upon God, and by a paramount regard to his glory. But while all this is true, and should not be forgotten or neglected, it is also true that the Lord’s day ought to be devoted more immediately and peculiarly to the promotion of the divine life in your souls. Your professional studies, directed to the attainment of theological knowledge, ought to be regarded very much as your ordinary lawful occupation, to be diligently prosecuted in the fear of God during the six days on which we are authorised to labour and do all our work, while the seventh should be reserved entirely for Him, who on that day rested from all his works, and should be devoted to exercises and occupations bearing upon the proper relation of men to their common Creator and Redeemer, and the objects which, in virtue of this common relation, they are bound to aim at and to secure. Your professional studies may rightly occupy the principal share of your time and attention for six days in the week, just like the ordinary lawful secular business of other men ; but on the Lord’s day you ought to be chiefly influenced by the consideration, not so much that you are students of theology preparing for the work of the ministry, that you may be made instrumental in promoting the salvation of others, but rather that you are, in common with many of the poorest, humblest, and most illiterate of the human race, believers in the Lord Jesus Christ, who are bound to work out your own salvation with fear and trembling, and to become progressively more meet for the inherit¬ ance of the saints in light. One temptation to which you are exposed, and against which you are called upon to guard, is that of studying the word of God and investigating theological subjects in a merely professional spirit, as if it were a merely intellectual exercise, as if your only object was to increase your knowledge, and thereby to prepare for a creditable examination and a creditable discharge of the ordinary business of the profession you have 96 SEVENTH LECTURE. chosen. There is a danger in this way of your being led into an irreverent and careless way of thinking and speaking of divine things, and losing sight of the great practical purpose for which all the doctrines of God’s word were revealed. And hence the import¬ ance of your sometimes, as it were, throwing off your merely pro¬ fessional character as students of theology, and directing your attention to the word of God and divine things simply as men who are bound to attend to their own personal salvation, to their own spiritual nourishment ; and the proper time for securing this object by these means is peculiarly the Lord’s Day. On these grounds, derived from a regard to your own duty and welfare, requiring that this be attempted some time, and from the objects and end of the Lord’s Day, plainly requiring that it be done then, you should feel it to be incumbent upon you to engage in the public services of the sanctuary, not as critics who have come to learn something that may be useful in your profession, but as hearers of the word, who are anxious to have divine truth more deeply impressed upon your own hearts, and as members of con¬ gregations who are called upon to unite in offering up supplica¬ tions for what you collectively and individually need, and to devote the remainder of the day to the practical and devotional, rather than the critical reading of the word of God, to self-exami¬ nation, and meditation upon unseen and eternal realities, and to the perusal of works of a practical and devotional character. That you may enjoy the full benefit of the Lord's day as a Sabbath, a day of rest, your intellectual powers should not be kept at their full stretch, or occupied with intricate and perplexing speculations. That you may enjoy the full benefit of it as a day set apart for spiritual ends, you must spend it in the public and private exer¬ cises of God’s worship, and you must engage in these exercises with a sincere desire to get from them those spiritual blessings which they are intended to convey to all. Thus, and thus only, will you spend the Lord’s Day in accordance with God’s will, and in the w^ay best fitted to promote all the objects you ought to aim at. Thus will you secure that blessing which alone maketh rich and maketh wise. It has been usual to recommend young men who are engaged in the study of theology to have private meetings and private intercourse in various ways among themselves for mutual assist¬ ance and encouragement; and such meetings and such inter- PRIVATE MEETINGS. 97 course, if rightly conducted, may undoubtedly be attended with important advantages. I trust that your whole intercourse Avith each other will be regulated by a due sense of the importance and sacredness of the studies in Avhich you are now engaged, and of the office to which you aspire ; and that your time, so far as is consistent with a due regard to your health, will be honestly and assiduously devoted, not to amusement or frivolity, or even to the more rational pleasure of social intercourse, but to your own personal spiritual improvement, and to the promotion of your theological knowledge and fitness for the ministry of the gospel. And among the means which may contribute instrumentally to the promotion of these objects, one is private meetings among yourselves for prayer, conference, and the reading of the Scrip¬ tures. The arrangements for such meetings wdll probably be somewhat regulated by your personal and relative circumstances, your acquaintance Avith each other, and similarity of tastes and dispositions. You will naturally converse with each other, as you have time and opportunity, upon the books you read, the lectures you hear, and the studies in which you are engaged. And it is right and proper that you should do all this with a view to mutual improvement, not only casually as occasion may offer, but regu¬ larly and statedly uniting together in small circles or companies, as friendship or acquaintance, similarity of tastes and dispositions, or opportunities and convenience for regularly meeting together, may attract and combine you. The safest, most profitable, and in every way the best exercise for meetings of a small number of students that might be held probably (according to circumstances) once a week, is the study of the Avord of God in the original, or practically, in your present state of progress and proficiency, the study of the Greek Testament, accompanied Avith prayer. Nothing affords either a more convenient, or more suitable, or a more profit¬ able exercise for such meetings than this. When engaged in the study of the Greek Testament you are occupied Avith that Avhich is at once the best means of increasing your theological knoAvledge and your personal spiritual advance¬ ment. And it is therefore of the last importance that this study should be prosecuted until you thoroughly understand it, and can fully apply it. A brotherly conference upon a passage of Scrip- G 98 SEVENTH LECTURE. ture by a few persons who have previously given some time to meditation upon it, is well fitted to afford important advantages for understanding its meaning and application. In such meetings it would be desirable that a passage in the Greek Testament should be selected beforehand, i.e. at the previous meeting, on which some one of the company should be expected to prepare himself for explaining and opening up, both in the way of unfold¬ ing its precise and exact meaning, and pointing out the practical application that ought to be made of it ; after which the other members, who should also make the passage a subject of previous private study and meditation, should all deliver their sentiments, and bring in their contribution of anything that has occurred to them, or that may seem fitted to bring out either the exact meaning of the passage, or its practical spiritual bearing upon character and conduct. Such exercises as these, if conducted in a right spirit, are fitted to contribute greatly to increase of knowledge of the Scriptures, and to godly edifying. The selection of a passage of the Greek Testament, to be studied and meditated on privately, tends to secure that some degree of attention shall regularly be given to that which is (except prayer) the most important and profitable of all exercises. The necessity of stating at the weekly meetings, though briefly and simply, what may have recurred on the examination of the passage, will assist you in ascertaining whether you have really formed any clear and definite conceptions about it ; for men cannot be very sure that they have really formed any very clear and definite conceptions until they have attempted to embody them in words ; while the observations of the other members of the company upon the passage and upon the remarks that may have been made upon it, pervaded as they should be by a spirit of profound reverence for God's word, and of cordial kind¬ ness to each other, may often be useful in suggesting hints, admo¬ nitions, and cautions as to the oversights or errors that may have been committed. Such meetings of a few friends regularly and statedly for prayer and the reading and exposition of the Greek Testament, are fitted to produce important beneficial results. They should consist ordinarily of but a small number of members — five or six probably are enough — and they should be conducted with privacy.’ These meetings should not only be opened and closed > Instead of taking detaclied passages of the Greek Testament, it might probably PRIVATE MEETINGS. 99 with prayer, but pervaded by a spirit of prayer ; and they should be carefully and steadily directed to the object of promoting the growth in knowledge and in grace of the members who compose them. As the members will, of course, state their doubts and difficulties as to the meaning of the words and clauses of the passage, and as to the justness and accuracy of any of the observa¬ tions that may have been made upon it, and as these will thus become the subjects of brotherly conference, it may be usually expected that before the meeting terminates all the members will have formed clearer and more accurate conceptions than they had before of the meaning and import of the particular portion of God’s word which may have occupied their attention. Those of you who may be disposed to adopt this suggestion, and who may be enabled to follow it out in this way and in this spirit, will, I have no doubt, have occasion to look back with gratitude to God upon this exer¬ cise, as not the least useful in which you were led to engage in the prosecution of your studies. It has been no uncommon thing for students, while engaged in their theological studies, to give some portion of their time to exercises that may be considered fitted, in some measure, to pre¬ pare them for pastoral labour, such as instructing the young in Sabbath schools, visiting the sick, or visiting among the poor from house to house. I am not prepared to discourage you from giving some little time to those exercises, and specially the teaching of a Sabbath school, if opportunity and inclination should lead you to it ; but neither, on the other hand, am I prepared to recommend such labours and exercises specially at this early period of your studies. Your time might be worse spent than in such exercises as these, but I think it might also be better spent for the present in the vigorous and energetic prosecution of your studies. You should spend much time in reading, much time in meditating and reflecting upon what you read and hear, much time in the study of God’s word, and in all those pursuits and exercises that may contribute to enable you to understand it. And these exercises, with the time that should be devoted to prayer and the promotion be desirable to take some one of the shorter and easier books, and go over it regularly. You would thus have a better opportunity of directing your attention to the contents and scope of the whole passage, which is often of primary import- tance in understanding and applying the Scriptures. 100 SEVENTH LECTURE. of the life of God in your own souls, with what may be reasonably allowed for relaxation and social intercourse, will probably provide for most of you in the meantime sufficient occupation. At the present period of your studies, the business of your different classes, the careful study and thorough investigation of the subjects which are there brought before you, must constitute your chief occupation, to which everything else must be subordinate. This is present duty. This is peculiarly the work to which God is at present calling you, and to which therefore your time and energies should be cheer¬ fully devoted. There is in the present condition of the church to which you have attached yourselves a loud call for strenuous and active exertion, for much work among our countrymen in promot¬ ing their spiritual welfare ; but tliat is only an additional reason why, while you are engaged in the prosecution of your studies, you should labour in the acquisition of theological knowledge, and a thorough acquaintance with God’s Word, with unwearied diligence and activity, and improve to the utmost your present opportuni¬ ties, in order that when you are called to engage in pastoral labours, and when you may have comparatively little leisure for study, you may still be able to approve yourselves as workmen that need not to be ashamed. LECTURE VIII. METHOD OF THE COUESE. WE are now prepared to proceed to give some explanation of the way in which the subjects that are to occupy our attention during this session are to be taken up and laid out, and of the way in which the business of the class is to be conducted. The main subjects to which your attention is to be directed, are the evidences of Christianity ; the divine origin, inspiration, and the canonical authority of the books of Scripture, the rule of faith, as including the topics of the perspicuity, sufficiency, and perfection of the written word of God as the only standard of faith and practice — a subject of peculiar importance in the present day, when all the errors on this topic, in opposition to which the Reformers had to contend against the Church of Rome, have been revived by many who have not openly joined the Papal apostacy; and last, though not least, the general principles of Hermeneutics, or of the interpretation of the sacred Scriptures, and especially of the New Testament. When you reflect on the extent and magni¬ tude of these subjects, you must see at once that it is a very brief and meagre outline of them that can be brought under your notice in the public business of the class, and that your progress in a thorough knowledge of them must depend mainly, under God, upon the zeal and assiduity with which you prosecute your own private studies. So extensive are the subjects, and so much has been written upon all of them by men of distinguished talent and learning, that if we were to attempt to act upon the principle of laying before you all the useful information that might easily be collected, any one of the subjects that have been mentioned might occupy us for a whole session. Take, for instance, the subject of the evidences of Christianity. So much has been written upon 102 EIGHTH LECTURE. this subject, and so full are the materials which have been pro¬ vided upon all the various branches of the proof, that there would be no great difficulty, if it were worth while, to put together lectures which would occupy the whole of the time during which we may be together in this class. But this would be a great waste of your time, because it would be devoting a disproportionate share of attention to that subject, and because any topic that could be introduced might be found discussed in the fullest and most satisfactory manner in the innumerable works upon this subject, some of which you ought to read. The same general considera¬ tions apply to every department of theological science. It is true of them all, that so much has been written upon them, that, in the first place, only a very meagre outline of the subjects can be given in public prelections, and, in the second place, that the substance of all that can be said about them may be found in works to which your attention may be directed. On these grounds, it is my inten¬ tion to aim rather at the training of theological students than the mere discussion of theological subjects ; rather to aim at explain¬ ing the general nature and position of the different topics which may come before us ; to point out the way and manner in which they ought to be viewed and studied ; the books you ought to peruse, and the use you ought to make of them ; rather than to attempt to give formal discussions upon the various subjects. With the leading subjects that enter into the course, it is my duty to endeavour to secure that you all acquire a respectable measure of acquaintance, to give you such assistance by lectures, explana¬ tions, and examinations, as may seem fitted to afford facilities for your acquiring the necessary information and satisfying your judg¬ ments. It would be a waste of time and labour to be writing out and delivering to you lectures upon topics which had been dis¬ cussed and exhausted in works that might be recommended to your perusal, and might be quite accessible to you, when, as must often be the case, nothing had occurred to me that seemed fitted to improve the way in which the truth, and the grounds on which it rested, could be explained and illustrated, and when the discus¬ sions respecting the particular topics had not assumed any new form or aspect since the time when works in which it was fully and satisfactorily disposed of had issued from the press. Our business here should be one of teaching and training, and not seek- METHOD OF THE COURSE. 103 ing to interest and attract by mere speculation and discussion. The great direct object to be aimed at — that to which every other is subordinate — is to secure as far as possible that every one of you shall, in the course of your theological studies, acquire that measure of theological knowledge and other qualifications, that may be considered indispensable for your becoming useful and respectable ministers of the gospel; and this necessarily implies that we proceed in a beaten track, and do not wholly omit anything that is really useful and necessary, however ordinary or commonplace. It would be an important and desirable result of our labours and studies in this place, if you were all inspired with such a love for the study of theology, as that you might continue to prosecute this study, more or less, all your lives, and that thus those of you whom God has gifted with superior powers, and whom in his providence he ma}^ furnish with suitable opportunities, might become dis¬ tinguished theologians. But this is an object which, except in so far as concerns our seeking to inspire you with a love for the study of theology, cannot be directly and distinctly aimed at. What is at once practicable and imperative is to secure that you all acquire such a measure of theological knowledge as the church is entitled to expect, and bound to exact, before admitting you to the office of ministers of the gospel. This may, through the divine blessing, be attained, and it is my duty to make the attainment of it my principal object — one to which everything else should be subordin¬ ated. While all of you ought to aim at this, and to reach it, none of you, even those of you who have the greatest capacity, zeal, and diligence, can go very greatly beyond it during the period of your theological studies ; and hence it is the duty of all of you, in place of indulging in any predilection you may form for any particular department of theological study, and following it out exclusively, to give your time and attention to the ordinary business of your different classes, to read and meditate or reflect upon the subjects which are there brought under your notice. The principal objects to which public prelections on such subjects should be directed are to awaken your interest in the different topics by pointing out their nature, relations, and importance, explaining and removing diffi¬ culties, directing to sources of fuller information, and bringing out by examination at once your knowledge and your ignorance, and thus leading to a more strenuous exertion of your faculties, and 104 EIGHTH LECTURE. of course to your forming clearer and more definite ideas of the various subjects that may be brought before you. To excite your interest, to stir up your faculties, to direct you in your investiga¬ tions, to point out to you the errors and dangers into which you are most apt to fall, and the obstacles that might obstruct your progress, —these should be the chief objects of a teacher of theology. Your real and direct knowledge of theology must come principally from your own reading and reflection, and the operation of God’s Spirit. And in regard, more particularly, to the study of the word of God, the basis of all sound theological knowledge, no exposition of its statements that might be given in this place, and no mere reading of commentaries, however full and extensive, will be of any very material benefit to you without the full, careful, and deliberate application of your own powers and faculties in secret, and under the guidance of him who seeth in secret, to the investi¬ gation of its meaning. Unless you read much, think much, and pray much, you will gain little by your mere attendance in this place, or by anything that can be done in public prelections ; and one main object, therefore, should be to lead you to abound in these exercises, and to assist and encourage you to persevere in them. In regard to prayer, we trust we need say nothing more than we have already set before you ; and with respect to reading and meditation, the objects to be aimed at will be best promoted by intermingling regular lectures on important subjects, especially in explaining their general nature, position, and relations to each other, with examinations upon topics or books prescribed, and occassional explanations, such as the examinations and the subjects of them may suggest. The first subject usually brought under the notice of those who are commencing their theological studies is what is commonly called Natural Theology, or the information that may be obtained concerning God from the natural exercise of our own powers upon ourselves and upon the objects around us, including an investiga¬ tion of the process by which this information is acquired, and the purposes which it is fitted to serve. We do not mean to dwell upon the exposition of this subject — first, because our proper sub¬ ject is Christian theology — i.e. the opening up of the character and the meaning of the Word of God — and because on this subject there are sufficient materials for occupying your time and atten- NATURAL THEOLOGY. 105 tion more usefully and more profitably; and, second, because we could add nothing of any value to what is contained in Dr Chalmers’ two volumes on Natural Theology, which contain what is in many respects by much the most valuable and satisfactory discussion of the subject to be found in our language, and which you ouglit all, if possible, to read without delay, if you are not •already familiar with them. We shall confine the little we say upon this subject to such observations as may assist you in under¬ standing the general place which natural theology has usually occupied in theological science and literature, and its bearing upon the evidences of Christianity. The question is this, Can men, by the exercise of their natural faculties upon themselves, and upon other objects around them, ascertain and prove the existence of an intelligent First Cause of all things ; and if so, what is the amount of the information which in this way may be acquired concerning him ? Now, it has been shewn in innumerable works, and by unanswerable arguments, that men, in Ihe fair exercise of their faculties, looking within upon themselves, and without upon the world around them, are reasonably and necessarily led to believe that there exists an invisible intelligent Being, to whom they themselves, and all other objects of their contemplation, owe their existence ; that this great Being must rule and govern everything according to the counsel of his own will ; that he is possessed of the highest moral excel¬ lence, and ought therefore to be worshipped and obeyed. This can be proved by processes of argument, which assume nothing except the existence of those objects of which our senses and our consciousness take cognizance, and give us information. The argu¬ ments by which all this has been established have been assailed by atheists, pantheists, and sceptics, but their sophisms have been all answered and exposed ; and the matter just stands thus, that if truth be discoverable by the human faculties, this is true, and that, even without any abstract deliverance as to the capacity of the human faculties to discover truth, men cannot in point of fact fairly and honestly use their faculties without being led to such conclusions as these. There is, however, a distinction of some importance to be attended to between the truth of these doctrines concerning God, as propositions which can be maintained and defended unanswer- 106 EIGHTH LECTURE. ably by reasoning against all who may deny or dispute them, and the ability of men, without revelation, and in the mere use of their natural faculties, to have found them out. That men could have discovered them does not necessarily follow from the fact that they can now prove them, and we have no opportunity of appeal¬ ing to historical facts to settle this question ; for if God has ever given supernatural revelations of himself to men, he has given them from the creation of the world, so that even men who had not any written revelation of God’s will, may have had the benefit of traditionary remnants of a primary revelation. But this question is rather curious than important. The only thing practically important, so far as natural theology is concerned, is that we be able to prove from reason against any man who may dispute it, that there is an intelligent First Cause, who has created and governs all things. It is indeed true, in point of fact, that nations which have not enjoyed the benefit of a written revelation have usually had a very imperfect acquaintance with God, with his character and government, and with the duty and obedience which he requires ; and even to deists — at least to those of them who profess to be really concerned about the grounds of natural religion — it ought to be a strong presumption in favour of the truth of the Christian revelation, that for many ages the Jews, who professed to have a divine revelation, w'ere the only nation in the world who generally believed in the unity of God, or had any worthy conceptions of his character and government; and that wherever the Christian revelation has been diffused, there much more correct views of everything about God have prevailed than have ever obtained where that revelation was unknown. Voltaire and others, English infidels, alleged that the Jews worshipped a hog And all this affords a strong evidence of the desirableness and necessitv of a revelation, while at the same time, along with other circumstances that might be mentioned, it affords a strong presumption that much of the knowledge of God, such as it was, that obtained among heathen nations, was derived not from reasoning, but from tradition. In the views given us in Scripture concerning the divine character and government, there is nothing contrary to what enlightened reason teaches or confirms upon the same subject. But much fuller information is there given us concerning God, NATURAL THEOLOGY. 107 and especially concerning his plans aod purposes with respect to the human race, and the way in which he ought to be worshipped and served, than could in any other way have been attained. While atheists, pantheists, and the more reckless sceptics deny that any certain proof can be deduced from the light of nature and the exercise of reason for the existence, character, and moral government of God, deists have usually gone into the opposite extreme, and have maintained the perfect sufficiency of the light of nature or of human reason, to guide men to a full knowledge of God, and of the worship and obedience which they ought to render to him, so as to enjoy his favour and attain to happiness. It is indeed true that very many of those who, while professing deism, have denied the truth of Christianity, have given suffi¬ ciently plain indications that they are not very cordial in supporting the doctrines of the providence and moral government of God and a future state of rewards and punishments ; still there have been some — as, for example, Lord Herbert of Cherbury, the father of the English deists, and the most respectable among them — who really seemed anxious to establish the leading doctrines of natural religion, while they rejected revelation, and maintained that natural religion was sufficient to guide men to the knowledge of God, to duty, and to happiness. Hence the question of the sufficiency of reason or natural religion to guide men to the knowledge of God’s will, and the enjoyment of his favour, has entered pretty largely into the controversy about the truth of Christianity, the defenders of Christianity maintaining the insuffi¬ ciency of reason and the necessity of revelation. This controversy is not one of very great importance, in so far as its bearing upon the proper direct evidence of Christianity is concerned. And in that aspect of it, it is, I think, sufficiently and very sagaciously disposed of in the first sentence of Paley’s Evidences, in these words : I deem it unnecessary to prove that mankind stood in need of a revelation, because I have met with no serious person who thinks that even under the Christian revelation we have too much light, or any degree of assurance that is superfluous.” But the controversy has led to much able and interesting discussion concerning the grounds and evidences of natural religion, the capacities and the wants of man, the origin of the world, and the general state of religion and morality among heathen nations ; 108 EIGHTH LECTURE. and much that has been written upon it affords an excellent commentary upon the statements both of doctrine and fact contained in the first chapter of Paul’s Epistle to the Eomans. We have not very many better books than Halyburton’s Natural Religion insufficient, and Revealed necessary to man's happiness in his present state, in answer to Lord Herbert. And when the sufficiency of reason or natural religion was again maintained in Tindal’s work, entitled Christianity as old as the Creation ; or, The Gospel a Repuhlication of the Religion of Nature, some very able men came forward to maintain the insufficiency of reason or natural religion, and to defend the necessity of revela¬ tion and the claims of Christianity, especially Conybeare and Law in the Church of England, and Leland and Foster among Dissenters ; though it may well be doubted whether any one of them went as deep into the real merits of the question as Halyburton had done. [Whitby, Leland, and Tholuck,^ on the state of the heathen world, as shewing the necessity of revelation.] It may be fairly enough presumed that the measure of knowledge of God and duty and a future state actually reached by the most distinguished philosophers of Greece and Rome — men who in point of natural talents have never been surpassed, and who devoted their powers to the investigation of these subjects — indicates what the unassisted reason of man could attain to in theology ; and that the much fuller, more complete, and better-established systems of natural religion which have been put forth in modern times, and where Christianity was known, mark the distinction between what men by their reason could have discovered or found out, and what they can prove to be true, when the ideas have been suggested to them from some other source. Certain it is that the fullest system of natural religion, and the most conclusive proofs from reason of the truth of the doctrines which constitute it, are to be found in the writings of men who were believers in the truth of the Christian revelation. They may be found in the collection of the Boyle Lectures and others published in England in the early part of last century, although it ought to be mentioned that that was not the period in the history of our theological literature when ' Tholuck on “The Nature and Moral Influence of Heathenism,” Biblical Cabinet, No. 28. NATURAL THEOLOGY. 109 our most eminent theological writers, generally speaking, enter¬ tained the soundest views in regard to Christian theology, i.e. the contents of the Scriptures, or the systems of doctrine revealed to us in the Word of God. The question whether the leading doctrines commonly believed among us concerning the existence, character, and moral govern¬ ment of God, and a future state of rewards and punishments, as the basis of the worship and obedience to be rendered to him, can be established by reason, has been discussed not only between Christians and atheists or sceptics, but has also formed a subject of controversy among professed believers in revelation. The great body of believers in revelation have held that the leading doc¬ trines of natural religion can be established by reason, and they have held this general proposition upon two distinct grounds — one common to them with those deists who have not sunk into atheism or scepticism, and the other derived from the information contained in the sacred Scriptures. They have held this conviction — first, because they can point to the proofs which have been adduced in support of the doctrines of natural religion, proofs which are in entire accordance with the strictest principles of sound logic, and which all the efforts of atheists and sceptics have not been able successfully to assail; and second, because the sacred Scriptures, which they believe to contain an authentic revelation of God’s will, sanction the idea that men, in the exercise of their own faculties, are able to attain to such a knowledge of God as to make them responsible for not worshipping and serving him aright. The question, as discussed among pro¬ fessed believers in revelation, is thus stated by Turretine in his Theologia Elenctica (loc. i. ques. iii.) — a work of inestimable value, which I hope all of you will master before you complete your theological studies, and the two first loci of which contain much important matters on most of the topics comprehended in our course for this session — first more generally in this way, “An detur theologia naturalis?” and then more particularly, “An detur in homine tabs facultas naturalis ipsi insita qujB se ultro et sponte exerat in omnibus adultis Sana mente praeditis, quae complec- tatur non modo potentiam intelligendi, sed etiam principia naturalia notitiarum ex quibus conclusiones turn theoreticae turn practicae deducuntur? quod asserimus.” In order to define more 110 EIGHTH LECTURE. precisely the extent to which he maintained that there was a natural theology, or that men could by reason attain to the know¬ ledge of God, he adds — “ Non quseritur an cognitio ista sit perfecta et salutaris ? Fatemur enim post peccatum valde obscuratum esse, ut ad salutem penitus insufficiens facta sit, sed tantum an aliqualis supersit in homine de Deo cognitio, per quam persua- deatur Deum esse, et esse religiose colendum.” And it is a curious circumstance, and strikingly illustrative of the inconsistencies and vagaries of the human mind, that among the professed believers in revelation some leading Socinians,^ who commonly err in the oppo¬ site extreme of ascribing too much to human reason, have been almost the only persons who have denied that men by the exercise of their faculties could attain to some knowledge of the existence and character of God, and of the duty he requires. The explana¬ tion of this curious anomaly of the adoption of such a view by some leading Socinians is, however, obvious enough. By denying the ]3riestly ofBce of Christ — in other words, the fundamental doctrines of the gospel — they are much at a loss for any adequate explanation of the reasons or causes of the mission of Jesus Christ, and of the revelation contained in the Scriptures, and under a consciousness of this sort have endeavoured to magnify Christ’s prophetical office, by representing him as making known through the Scriptures information which has been generally supposed to be in some measure revealed by reason, but which they ascribed exclusively to Christianity and the Scriptures, as if to compensate for the grievous injury they did them in other respects, or as if to satisfy themselves that though there was no need of any such thing as an atonement for sin, there was yet a sufficient reason for the mission of Christ in making known to men the existence of God, and the way in which he ought to be worshipped and served. That the mission of Christ and the revelation contained in the Scriptures have rendered most important services to' natural religion, or to the doctrines usually comprehended under that designation, by the additional clearness and certainty with which its doctrines are now in consequence taught and established, is certain. But this was only a subordinate object of Christ’s mission and of the revelation contained in the Scriptures ; and men are not ’ Socinians, however, have differed among themselves on this point. Stapfer, Theol. Polemica, vol. hi. p. 412. NATURAL THEOLOGY. Ill so entirely dependent upon this revelation, as some Socinians have supposed, for all certain knowledge of the existence and character of God. And accordingly, as Turretine tells us, orthodox divines have constantly maintained, and have proved both from reason and Scripture, “ theologiam naturalem dari, partim insitam, quge ex libro conscientise hauritur per /^o/^ag Iwoiag, partim acquisitam, qu0e ex libro creaturarum petitur per discursum ” (loc. i. ques. iii. voL i. p. 7). And in the first chapter of our Confession of Faith, to which I would direct your special attention, as it contains an admirable statement of the whole substance of the principal truths which during a considerable part of the course it will be my chief duty to explain and illustrate, the doctrine is set forth in these words : — '' Although the light of nature and the works of creation and providence do so far manifest the goodness, wisdom, and power of God as to leave men inexcusable, yet they are not sufficient to give that knowledge of God and of his will, which is necessary unto salvation."’ There are here, you will observe, two positions set forth — first, that, according to the language of Turretine, there is a natural theology, or that men, by the exercise of their faculties, can attain to a knowledge not only of the existence of God, but in some measure of his character — such a knowledge of him as to leave them inexcusable ; and second, that they cannot in this way, or without a revelation, attain to such a knowledge of God as is necessary to salvation, or ultimate and permanent happiness. The Confession, which professes to exhibit only a summary of what is taught in Scripture, appeals to the word of God in support of both of these positions ; and it is certainly not difficult to establish them from Scripture against all who might deny them, and who yet admitted its authority. If called upon to discuss these positions with men who do not admit the autho¬ rity of Scripture, we must prove them from the principles of reason, which they admit. The proof of the first of them, or of the existence of such a natural capacity of knowing God as to render men inexcusable, must be derived, as we have already remarked, just from a statement of the evidences of the existence and character of God, and of the ground thus laid for the obliga¬ tion to worship and serve him, and from a conclusive exposure of the objections that may be adduced against the validity of this evidence. When we can point to such a body of proof derived 112 EIGHTH LECTURE. from the light of nature and the works of creation and providence, and when we have answered any objections that may be adduced against its validity, we are then entitled to assert that we have proved from reason that there is a natural theology, and that con¬ sequently even men who have not had the benefit of a revelation are without excuse if they have not been worshipping and serving God. And the proof of this same position from Scripture is to be found in those numerous portions of it which represent God’s works of creation and providence as fitted to lead, and as actually leading, men to recognise his existence, to adore his perfections, to cherish devotional feelings towards him, and to submit implicitly to his authority. It has been justly remarked that the book of Job may be said to be devoted to the object of illustrating this; and many similar statements occur in the book of Psalms, and the other devotional portions of the Scriptures. This truth, however, is taught us in Scripture, not only inferentially and by plain con¬ sequence, but in distinct and explicit doctrinal statements, as in Paul’s address to the people of Lycaonia, recorded in Acts xiv. 15-17, and in the first and second chapters of his Epistle to the Romans. These statements are too clear to admit of any serious doubt as to their meaning, and should settle the point with all who admit the authority of Scripture. “ And saying, Sirs, why do ye these things? We also are men of like passions with you, and preach unto you, that ye should turn from these vanities unto the living God, which made heaven, and earth, and the sea, and all things that are therein : who in times past suffered all nations to walk in their own ways. Nevertheless he left not himself without witness, in that he did good, and gave us rain from heaven, and fruitful seasons, filling our hearts with food and gladness” ' (Acts xiv. 15-17). The apostle’s statement plainly implies that though the Lycaon- ians and other nations similarly situated, were not so guilty as if they had enjoyed some better opportunities of knowing the true God — as, for example, a direct supernatural revelation ; yet, from the works of creation and providence, the abundant mercies they had enjoyed, they might and should have been led to know the only true God, who had made heaven and earth, to worship him and him only, and to abandon the practice of idolatry. And in the latter part of the first chapter of the Epistle to the Romans, NATURAL THEOLOGY. 113 we have the same truth still more fully and formally stated and proved. The substance of what the apostle there declares in regard to the heathen nations in general was this — First, that they were generally immersed in the grossest and most deplorable idolatry and immorality ; second, that they were responsible for all this idolatry and immorality, and justly punishable on account of their conduct ; and third, that the grounds of the responsibility and just liability to punishment on account of their idolatry and immorality, or, as he says, of their being inexcusable, was that from the things that were made (the works of creation), they might have known, and in a certain sense did know, enough of God’s character and will to have convinced them that this idolatry and immorality were sinful and dangerous, and to have led them to worship God and to obey his laws. “ Because that which may be known of God is manifest in them : for God hath shewed it unto them. For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead ; so that they are with¬ out excuse. Because that, when they knew God, they glorified him not as God, neither were thankful ; but became vain in their imaginations, and their foolish heart was darkened ” (Rom. i. 19-21). And in the second chapter the apostle shews that a similar argu¬ ment might be founded on the moral constitution of men, on the conscience which they all have within their hearts, and the pos¬ session of which ought to have led them to the knowledge of the character of God and their own duty, and rendered inexcusable the actual ignorance they manifested, and the sins of which they were guilty. H LECTURE IX. INSUFFICIENCY OF NATUKAL THEOLOGY. AS to the second proposition, which sets forth the insufficiency of the light of nature, or of human reason, or of natural theo¬ logy, which is the product of the light of nature or human reason, this can be very easily established by the statements of Scripture to those who acknowledge its authority. It is curious, however, to notice here the inconsistency of the Socinians, for while many of them have contended that men could not by their own reason establish the leading doctrines of natural theology, but must be indebted for the knowledge of them to Christ and the Scriptures, and while they have plainly been led to take this ground, because, according to their views, there was little else for which men were indebted to the Son of God and his Word, they are willing enough generally to allow that these doctrines of natural theology, or those general truths about God which have been commonly regarded as knowable by human reason, are sufficient for leading men to happiness and salvation.’ These doctrines indeed, they think, cannot be known fully and certainly without Christ and revelation ; but then Christ and revelation have done little or nothing for us except fully and clearly to reveal to us these doctrines. It was not, according to them, deficiency of the knowledge as to its extent and compass, but the mere difficulty of making it known to us, that rendered a revelation necessary ; while most divines, though maintaining in opposition to the Socinians that the goodness, wisdom, and power of God are, to some extent, manifested by the light of nature and the works of creation and providence, have also held that there are truths the knowledofe of which is neces- ‘ See on the immediately following Question of Turretine, Ques. iv. IKSUFFICIENCY OF NATURAL THEOLOGY. 115 . saiy to salvation, but which cannot be known by the unassisted reason of man, and can be learned only from revelation. That a knowledge of the peculiar principles of Christianity as a remedial scheme, originating in God’s love to men, and founded on the sufferings and death of his Son as the substitute of sinners, is necessary to men’s salvation, or to their attaining to the enjoy¬ ment of God’s favour and to permanent happiness, can be very easily established from the statements of Scripture ; but if this subject is to be discussed with unbelievers, it must be discussed upon the principles of reason, and we must try to prove by argu¬ ments derived from that source that the light of nature, and the works of creation and providence, are not sufficient to give that knowledge of God and his will which is necessary unto salvation.” Now, in adverting to this point, we must remind you that, as we have already remarked, the proof of this is not necessary as a pre¬ liminary to establishing the truth of Christianity. We can prove the truth of Christianity and the divine authority of the sacred Scriptures, without either assuming or establishing the insufficiency of reason or the necessity of revelation ; and therefore, in arguing with infidels, we might supersede the discussion of this point, and proceed at once to establish the truth of the Christian revelation, and the consequent obligation to receive implicitly the whole of its information. But it is usually right, when an infidel allegation or objection can be answered directly, that it should' be answered directly. The insufficiency of reason and the necessity of revela¬ tion can be, and have been, proved from principles of reason ; and the process of proving this leads to some interesting and useful speculations. The direct and proper proof from reason of the insufficiency of reason and the necessity of revelation, lies mainly in the establishment of these two positions — First, it can be proved from the light of nature and the testimony of conscience, that all men have sinned or broken God’s laws ; second, it can not be proved from reason or the light of nature that men who have sinned against God’s laws will, even upon repentance and amend¬ ment, escape punishment for their sins. Lord Herbert summed up natural religion, which he thought sufficient to guide men to permanent happiness, in five articles, viz. — First, that there is one supreme God ; second, that he is to be worshipped ; third, that piety and virtue are the principal parts of his worship ; fourth. 116 NINTH LECTURE. that when we have done amiss, we must repent, and are then fully warranted to cherish the hope of pardon ; and fifth, that there are rewards and punishments for good and bad men respectively in a future life. Now, even if it were admitted that the light of nature could discover and establish clearly and certainly, so as practically to influence men's character and conduct, that there is one supreme God, who is to be worshipped, and worshipped principally by the practice of piety and virtue, and that there is a future state of rewards and punishments, although the general state of religion and morality among nations who have not had the benefit of a divine revelation is very far from demanding or sanctioning so full an admission, still an insuperable difficulty would attach to Herbert’s fourth principle, viz. that men who have sinned are entitled upon repentance to cherish the certain hope of pardon. Not that we would assert and undertake to prove 'positively upon prmcipZes of reason, that God could not, in point of fact, pardon the sins of penitent sinners, or deny that the light of nature affords any grounds for believing that God is placable and ready to forgive. But it has been often proved by the defenders of revelation — and this is sufficient — that it is impossible to reach by the light of nature, without revelation, to a certain and assured conviction that God will pardon sin ; that there is much in the state of the world, in the natural conscience of men, and in the moral government which God is actually exercising, to lead men who have not a positive revelation to entertain very serious appre¬ hensions upon this subject; and that, even though we might have good reason from the light of nature for believing the general position that God is merciful and placable, we could not certainly deduce from this general doctrine any firm and well- established conclusions as to the way and manner in which he would in point of fact deal with sinners, on what terms and conditions, with what accompaniments and in what circumstances he would, if at all, dispense pardon. If it can be proved, as has been often done conclusively, that the light of nature teaches men that they have sinned against God’s laws, but that it does not certainly and distinctly inform them in such a way as to carry assurance to their minds that they will be pardoned upon repentance, or tell them authoritatively in what way or upon INSUFFICIENCY OF NATURAL THEOLOGY. 117 what terms pardon is to be obtained, then it follows plainly that the light of nature is insufficient to afford men rational peace and satisfaction, to allay their doubts and fears, or to provide for them any ground on which they can securely rest in looking forward to a reckoning with God, and an entrance upon a future state of rewards and punishments. This is enough to prove that no man ought to rest satisfied with the light of nature, with the informations of reason or of natural theology, and, as if he had already attained to full certainty and assurance in regard to his relation to God and his eternal destiny, refuse to listen to any intimation of a supernatural revelation, and to examine the credentials which it produces. There is much in the condition of the world and in the constitution of man, especially in the supremacy of conscience, to prove that God exercises a moral government over us, i.e. that he himself loves righteousness and hates iniquity, and treats men according to their character and conduct ; while at the same time there is so much of what may seem irregularity and imperfection in the actual administration of this moral government, as to force upon us the conviction that it is only a part of a great scheme that we at present behold, and that this scheme is to be more fully carried out in some different and subsequent state of existence. But while we can thus derive from the light of nature some general notions of the divine character and government, we can derive from it no very certain conclusions as to what God will actually do in certain cases, real or supposed. We see about as much evidence of God’s hatred of sin as of his love of virtue, of his holiness and justice as of his benevolence and mercy ; and we are therefore at a loss when by the mere light of nature we endeavour to decide how he will in point of fact ultimately and permanently deal with those who have been guilty of transgression of his laws. There is much that clearly leads us to entertain the conviction and apprehension that sin must and shall bring down punishment, and even if there were sufficiently clear grounds in the light of nature for warranting the general conclusion that God is placable (which, perhaps, cannot be very certainly established), yet this general truth of God’s placability would not afford any very clear or certain grounds for the conclusion that he will in point of fact pardon sinners upon their repenting, or upon any other specific terms or 118 NINTH LECTURE. conditions which we might devise or imagine. The general consideration of the necessary imperfection of our natural knowledge of God should come in with peculiar force, and prevent our adopting any very definite conclusions with certainty, when, from the mere possession of a general character or quality which we think ourselves warranted in ascribing to him, we are disposed to draw inferences as to the way and manner in which he will act in certain circumstances ; and in a matter which is at once so unspeakably important in itself, in its bearing upon our destiny and happiness, and at the same time so thickly shrouded in obscurity and uncertainty, in so far as the light of nature and the information of reason are concerned, as the actual forgiveness of sin, the ultimate fate of sinners, and the way and manner, if any, of escaping from the consequences of transgression, we should in right reason rest satisfied with nothing until we have carefully considered and fully ascertained whether or not God has himself been pleased to give us any specific information upon this infinitely important subject; and we should be ready and willing to give a fair and candid hearing, and a patient and careful consideration, to any feasible claims that may be put forth on behalf of a professed revelation from God. Even among the defenders of revelation there has been some difference of opinion as to the amount of the evidence from the light of nature for God’s placability, or the strength of the probability from reason that he will pardon sin. And it ,is evidently, from its very nature, one of those points on which men’s general tendencies and inclinations might probably exert a considerable influence upon their opinions — the grounds of either an affirmative or a negative opinion concerning it being somewhat vague and indefinite. But the absence of clear and definite grounds to prove positively that God is ready and willing to forgive sin, is sufficient to shew that men cannot rest upon this with anything like security. And then placability, or a readiness to forgive, as a general feature of the divine character, is not enough to be a ground of hope and confidence, unless men had in addition some definite materials for ascertaining, first, that pardon would actually and in point of fact be dispensed ; and second, in what way, or upon what terms or conditions, it was to be obtained. INSUFFICIENCY OF NATURAL THEOLOGY. 119 Baxter, in the last chapter of the first part of his Reasons of the Christian Religion, has a chapter entitled “ What natural light declareth of the mercy of God to sinners, and of the hopes and means of man’s recovery;” and in this chapter he has some speculations, in which he raises pretty high the evidence from reason of God’s pardoning sinners. Halyburton, in a very valuable chapter in his work on Natural and Revealed Religion (the tenth), which contains a very full and able discussion of this whole subject, has some animadversions upon these statements of Baxter’s, in which he shews, I think, that Baxter’s reasons from the light of nature for expecting or believing that sinners will be pardoned, are not by any means so clear and certain as he repre¬ sents them. But Baxter did not think that the light of nature could give any assurance of pardon, or that men had any ground to believe that they would be pardoned on mere repentance. Accordingly, his very next chapter after that on which Halyburton animadverts, being the first of the second part of the work referred to, is to shew “ the great need of a clearer light or fuller revelation of God’s will, than all that hath been assumed before,” and that chapter contains the following statements ; — “ I am not satisfied, by the light of nature, how God is so far reconciled, and the ends of government and justice attained, as to deal with the world so contrary to its deserts. And while I am in this doubt of God’s reconcilia¬ tion, I am still ready to fear, lest present forbearance and mercy be but a reprieve, and will end at last in greater misery ; however, I find it hard, if not impossible, to come to any certainty of actual pardon and salvation. Nor can I see, by nature, how a sinner can live comfortably in this world, for want of clearer assurance of his future happiness. I must therefore conclude that the light and law of nature, which was suitable to uncorrupted reason and will, and to an undepraved mind, is too insufficient to the corrupted, vitiated, guilty world, and that there is a necessity of some recovering, medicinal revelation.” ’ And in his More Reasons for the Christian Religion he has formally argued, in opposition to Herbert, the utter want of any evidence from the light of nature that God will pardon sinners upon repentance, or that sinners, on the ground of their repent¬ ance, are warranted to expect the forgiveness of sins, just as Haly¬ burton and many others have done. ^ Baxter’s Reasons of the Christian Religion, part ii. chap, i., secs. 13-20. Works, vol. xxi., pp. 132-138. 120 NINTH LECTURE. It is a remarkable coincidence that the very defect under which natural religion specially labours is just that which it was profes¬ sedly the leading object of the Christian revelation to supply. If natural religion, whatever measure of light it may be fitted to cast upon the character and moral government of God and a future state, plainly teaches men that they are sinners, or trans¬ gressors of God’s laws, but does not plainly teach that God will forgive sin, or distinctly point out in what way, or upon what terms, forgiveness is to be secured ; then men who have only the light of nature to guide them, even though they are making the best use of it, and indeed we might say just because they are making the best and fullest use of it, must be in a state of fearful anxiety and alarm as to the way and manner in which the sins they have committed are to tell upon their ultimate destiny. Now, in this state the Christian revelation presents itself to their notice, and challenges their investigation. And in doing so it holds out, as one of its leading recommendations, that it professes to give a full solution of these important and perplexing questions which natural religion could not solve. It confirms indeed all the fears and apprehensions of nature as to the intrinsic difficulties connected with the subject of the pardon of sin, and the insuffi¬ ciency of repentance ; but, at the same time, it fully reveals the mercy of God, assures us of his readiness to pardon, and of his desire to save men, and unfolds to us a great scheme through which God has provided for securing this object, in full consistency with all the attributes of his nature and all the principles of his moral government, and gives us full and explicit instructions as to what we must do in order that we may escape the wrath and curse of God due to us for our sins, and attain to the enjoyment of his favour and eternal happiness. Christianity has been sometimes called by infidels a mere republication of the law of nature, and some of those who have assumed the designation of rational divines have been able to see little more in it than this, and have been willing to rest its claims upon the additional clearness and certainty which it gives to the doctrines of natural religion. But this is a very inadequate view of Christianity, even when viewed simply as a revelation. It is very manifest, even upon the face of it, that its leading peculiarity is, that it unfolds a remedial scheme, that it is adapted and addressed to man as a sinner — to INSUFFICIENCY OF NATURAL THEOLOGY. 121 man viewed not merely as a creature of God’s hand, and a subject of his government, but as a transgressor of his law ; and that its most peculiar and transcendent value lies in its making known to us from God himself, and upon his own authority, his merciful and gracious purposes in regard to sinful men ; the nature and character of the provision he has made for pardoning them, and the way and manner in which men individually are to obtain forgiveness. Every man who had made a right and ful] use of the light of nature, so as to be alive to its defects, and desirous of further information on these momentous questions on which it leaves men so much in the dark, would regard this feature, which stands out so legibly stamped upon the Christian revelation, as affording, if not a positive presumption of its truth, at least a loud call to inquire seriously into its origin, evidences, and authority, and would be determined by it to prosecute the inquiry with all earnestness and impartiality, until firmly and distinctly persuaded either that Christianity is, as it professes to be, a revelation from God to men on matters essentially involving their destiny and happiness, or else a cunningly devised fable.^ The proper ground or basis of natural theology is just the works of creation and providence; the works of creation, including not only inanimate objects, whether great or small, distant or at hand, but also man himself, in his physical, intellectual, and moral con¬ stitution ; and works of providence, including not only the changes or events connected with these various and innumerable objects which we ourselves have seen or observed, but those also which have been made known to us on the testimony of others. The evidence of sense, the evidence of consciousness, and the evidence of testimony, are recognised by all sane men as valid and certain sources of knowledge, as conveying to us information which it is our duty to receive and to rest upon. The reason or understand¬ ing of man, brought to bear upon those various objects and facts comprehended in the works of creation and providence, is led, in its fair and honest exercise, to the conviction of the existence of an intelligent First Cause, who has created ail these objects, and who directs and superintends all these events, who is possessed of the highest moral excellence, and who is to be worshipped and obeyed. The truths thus discovered and established constitute 1 See last chapter of Dr Chalmers’s Natural Theology. 122 NINTH LECTURE. what is commonly called natural theology, and the truths that are thus known, or that may be known, concerning God, are quite sufficient at least to render inexcusable those who, without any other opportunities of knowing him, do not worship and serve the true God who made heaven and earth, though they are not suffi- ' cient to guide men to salvation. Some have thought that evidence for the existence and govern¬ ment of God might be derived not only from the ordinary events that are constantly occurring in accordance with what seem to be the usual principles or laws that regulate the succession of events in the physical and moral worlds, but also from extraordinary or miraculous occurrences alleged to have taken place, when such events have been either observed by the senses, or established by other satisfactory evidence. It has been alleged that men have foretold that certain events would take place which could not have been foreseen by any human sagacity, and that these events so foretold have taken place in accordance wdth the prediction, although those who foretold them, and those in whom they were fulfilled, neither did nor could exert any influence adequate to produce them. It has also been alleged that events have some¬ times taken place manifestly implying a deviation from the ordi¬ nary course of nature, and from the usual operation of those laws by which the ordinaiy course of nature seems to be regulated — events which the power of man could not have effected, but which yet were effected by men, or at least in obvious and designed con¬ nection with something said or done by men. Admitting that such things as these — prophecies and miracles — have been seen or observed by men, or are believed by them on the ground of satisfactory testimony, there can be no reasonable doubt that they afford good ground for the conclusion that there does exist some superior invisible power which has access to the minds of men, and which can exert some influence above and beyond what man could exert upon the objects we behold and the events we observe. Such events as these speak more plainly and explicitly of a supe¬ rior invisible power than ordinary events do, but they do not of themselves, and in virtue of anything peculiar to them as distin¬ guished from other events, tell us anything of the moral character of the power by which they are produced ; nor do they of them¬ selves, and in virtue of anything peculiar to them, lead to the INSUFFICIENCY OF NATURAL THEOLOGY, 123 knowledge of one great intelligent Being, who is the Creator and Governor of all. Bight conceptions of God, as an intelligent Being who has created and governs all things, who is possessed of exalted and unbounded knowledge, power, and wisdom, can be legitimately derived only from a survey of the world in its ampli¬ tude and variety ; and right conceptions of the moral character and moral s^overnment of this one intellment First Cause can be certainly deduced only from a comprehensive survey of the general tendencies of things, and especially from an examination of our own mental constitution. And when right conceptions of the existence, character, and moral government of God have been thus formed, they may be applied to particular objects, facts, or events, ordinary or extraordinary, so as to enable us to deduce from these particular facts or events special inferences which may be of the highest importance. In short, prophecies and miracles, when viewed in connection with the great doctrines of natural religion already established, or with a belief, resting on solid rational grounds, of the existence, character, and providence of a great First Cause, afford good grounds for inferences and conclusions which they could not fully and validly support when viewed simply as separate facts or events, or when contemplated by men who are not yet persuaded of the existence of a God of infinite excel¬ lence ruling and governing all things. This topic is intimately connected with the evidences of Christianity, and the illustration of the proof of its truth from miracles and prophecy, and will be more fully adverted to when we come to that branch of the subject. LECTURE X. NATUEAL THEOLOGY, THE BASIS OF THE EVIDENCES OF CHEISTIANITY. IT may be proper, however, at present to advert generally to the connection between the doctrines of natural theology and the processes by which the truth of the Christian religion may be established. There are two questions here that ought to be distinguished. The first concerns the relation between the doctrines of natural theology and the doctrines of the Christian revelation ; and the other concerns the relation between the doctrines of natural theology and the evidences of the Christian revelation. The latter of these subjects, though more minute and limited in extent than the other, is really and practically much the more important of the two, and for this plain reason, that when once the truth of the Christian revelation is fully established, we can easily derive from it much fuller and more certain infor¬ mation in regard to the character and moral government of God, a future state of rewards and punishments, and the whole subject of the duty and destiny of man, than we could possibly derive from the exercise of our faculties on the works of creation and provi¬ dence. And hence the paramount importance of our being chiefly solicitous about investigating fully, and establishing thoroughly, the evidences of Christianity, and the propriety of our giving our chief attention in examining the subject of natural theology, to the bearing of its information upon the evidence or proof, rather than upon the matter or contents, of revelation. There are no doctrines concerning God and our relation to him for which satisfactory evidence has been adduced from an examination of the works of creation and providence, which are not also assumed or asserted in the Christian revelation. In the very commencement of the NATURAL THEOLOGY AND CHRISTIAN EVIDENCES. 125 Bible the existence of God is assumed or taken for granted, while his creation of the world is explicitly declared. The Bible gives much additional information concerning God beyond what the light of nature affords, especially concerning his plans and purposes Avith respect to the human race, the worship and duty which men are called upon to render to him, and the paths through which they may attain to permanent felicity. If Christianity be true, then Ave have in the Bible all the information which the light of nature has ever been supposed to afford to us, much more clearly and more fully developed ; and we have an authoritative solution of the great question Avhich it so much concerns us to understand and apply, viz.. How, or in what way, man may escape from the consequences of his sin, and may attain to forgiveness and the favour of God ? When our object is to unfold fully and syste¬ matically all that Ave know concerning God and his character and moral government, we can derive no great assistance from the discovery of human reason ; for if the Scripture be a divine revelation, it contains information which is at least as authentic, and much more full and complete, than even the clearest deduc¬ tions of reason could furnish. In forming our full and final judgment as to the truths we ought to believe concerning the character and moral government of God, we are not dependent in the least, if Christianity be true, upon natural religion. But it is an important inquiry. Are we equally independent of the infor¬ mations of natural theology, in investigating the previous question Avhether we are Avarranted to receive Christianity as a divine revelation, and to rely implicitly upon what the sacred Scriptures make knoAvn to us ? The language in Avhich the questions that have been agitated about the authenticity of particular revelations are usually stated, seems to indicate that, according to general apprehension, the evidence by which alleged supernatural revela¬ tions should be established must be founded upon natural religion. The questions commonly put upon this subject are such as these : Did this revelation proceed from God ? Does the information thus conveyed to us rest upon God’s anthority ? — questions which plainly enough seem to imply that Ave already know something about God, and that Ave have some means of tracing a connection between him and information that may be communicated to us through the instrumentality of men. The claims which Moses 126 TENTH LECTURE. and whicli Christ himself put forth was in substance, that they were commissioned by God, and that they spoke in his name and by his authority, and they could and did expect their claims to be believed only when they produced evidence of the truth of this position. This position, however, is practically unintelligible to a man who has no idea of God, and no knowledge concerning him, and could not be established to the satisfaction of his understand¬ ing, The assertion then of the proposition that Christianity is a revelation /rom God seems to assume that those to whom the pro¬ position is addressed know already something about God, by means of which they may form some judgment as to the truth of the pro¬ position, just as the Bible opens with a statement which virtually assumes that men already know something about the existence of God, though they might not know much about the world, and God’s dealings with it. Paul began his address to the Athenians by declaring unto them the unknown God, and we can scarcely doubt that, if in any case, when setting forth the claims of his Master and of himself to be received as divine messengers, who spoke in God’s name and by God’s authority, he had been told by those whom he addressed, that they did not know or believe anything about God, he would have stopped, and endeavoured, by appealing to their natural reason and conscience, their natural notions, and the works of creation and providence, to have opened up to them the funda¬ mental principles of natural theology as the basis on which to rest the proof of the divinity of his mission. The proper direct evidences of a supernatural revelation, the proper proofs of a claim which a man may put forth to be received as a messenger from God, commissioned to make known his will on miracles — miracles of knowledge and power — or prophecies, and what w^e more com¬ monly call miracles, and not only the statement of the position to be proved, but the attempt to deduce from the miracles supposed or alleged to have been performed, an argument in support of it, i.e. an argument in support of the divine commission of the person by, or in connection with whom the miracles have been wrought, assume or imply that something is clearly known about God. Prophecies and miracles, viewed by themselves, and apart from any previous knowledge and belief of the doctrines of natural theology, do not seem to be capable of proving more than the NATURAL THEOLOGY AND CHRISTIAN EVLDENCES. 127 existence and operation of some superior invisible power. In strict reasoning they prove this, when once established as facts, because they cannot otherwise be explained or accounted for ; but they do not seem capable of themselves of proving more. It is only when, along with the mere miracles, we take into account views already established, or at least entertained, upon whatever grounds, of a Supreme Being who governs everything, who is possessed of moral excellence himself, who will not deceive his creatures, or permit them to be deceived, without giving them the means of detect¬ ing the imposition, that we can deduce from the miracles the con¬ clusion that those by whom these miracles have been performed, may be relied on as declaring what is fully entitled to our submis¬ sion and obedience. “ The heavens declare the glory of God, and the firmament sheweth forth his handiworks.’^ Those who have appeared upon earth professing to be commissioned to communi¬ cate to men authoritative information concerning religious subjects, have professed to speak and act by the authority of the God who made heaven and earth, and have assumed that those whom they addressed knew something of the Being whose commission and authority they claim ; and in the evidence they adduced in support of their claims, they have proceeded upon the assumption of principles involved in the views generally entertained by man¬ kind concerning this great Being — principles which, in order to give validity to their argument, they must have proceeded to establish, unless they had been conceded to them by those whom they addressed. In dealing with professed atheists, with the view of leading them to submit to the guidance of men who profess to have been charged with the communication of a supernatural revelation, and who appeal to miracles in support of their claims, it would not seem very unreasonable in the atheists to ask for proof of the existence of the Being in whose name they profess to speak ; and if they were referred to the miracles themselves for a proof at once of the existence of God, and of the validity of the claims of those who professed to have been sent by him, it does not appear how these miracles could afford any evidence of the existence of God to those who, ex hypothesi, had resisted all the evidence in support of this great truth derived from the ordinary works of creation and providence. Miracles indeed afford a very specific and compendious proof of the existence and operation of 128 TENTH LECTURE. some supreme invisible power, and it is possible that the proof of this by miracles might tend indirectly to open the eyes of atheists to the weakness of those sophisms and evasions by which they had hitherto hardened their minds against the evidence from the ordi¬ nary works of creation and providence, and thus lead to such a fair and candid consideration of this evidence as to convince them of the existence, character, and moral government of God. But it is not the less true — and this is all we at present contend for — that an admission of the fundamental principles of natural theology must be in some way produced, and must exist and be in operation, before men can be logically compelled by miracles to admit the divine commission of those by whom these miracles are performed. The fuller explanation of this must be reserved till we treat of the evidence of miracles; but we have adverted to it here that you may not suppose, that in declining to occupy much of your time with discussions on the subject of natural theology, we are insensible of its importance, especially in its bearing upon the full and thorough establishment of the argument for the truth of Christianity, which is the main source of our knowledge, the only basis of our hopes. In accordance with a distinction formerly adverted to, we must here observe that there is a great difference between asserting the necessity of an acquaintance with the fundamental principles of natural theology in making out the evidence of Christianity, and asserting the right of natural theology to sit in judgment upon the doctrines of Christianity. It is indeed quite true as an abstract position, that no revelation from God can contradict those views which are deduced by reason, rightly and logically, from an examination of the works of creation and providence ; but the unassisted reason of man cannot with certainty deduce a great many clear doctrines from the things that are made, and is very unable to infer, even from the general notions which it may have formed concerning God, how he may be expected to act in certain circumstances. There is no good ground for attaching much weight to the supposed deductions of reason in regard to anything like the details of the divine character and government, or judging of what, in certain circumstances, the holiness or justice ' of God would require or exclude, in determining beforehand what is or is not worthy of God, and fitting for him to do. One of the NATURAL THEOLOGY AND CHRISTIAN EVIDENCES. 129 plainest lessons taught us by reason as well as by revelation is, that we cannot by searching find out the Almighty unto perfection — that it is but a small part of his w^ays that we can know. And by means of this general doctrine we are most reasonably entitled at once to dispose of many plausible objections that may be advanced against an otherwise well-accredited revelation. We do not indeed well see how the general relevancy of all such objec¬ tions can be disputed ; in other words, we admit that if it be alleged against a professed revelation from God that it represents God as speaking and acting in a way that contradicts the doc¬ trines learned concerning him from the works of creation and pro¬ vidence, it is not warrantable at once and summarily to set aside all such objections, upon the mere ground that the revelation is well established. If the revelation be well established, then all these objections can be more directly answered ; and it is not un¬ reasonable that they be so answered, at least thus far, that we prove that there is nothing in the revelation that can he clearly shewn to contradict the views of God which are really and clearly estab¬ lished by the works of creation and providence, after which we are fully entitled to resolve all farther difficulty into the ignorance of man, the weakness of human reason, and the authority of the revelation on which we rest. That much more time and labour have been spent by the defenders of revelation in answering objec¬ tions of this sort than their intrinsic importance demanded, is true ; but we do not consider the time and labour as misspent, — and indeed such a notion would be to pronounce a sentence of utter uselessness upon the whole of Butlers Analogy, — were it only upon this ground, that Christianity, while professing to rest her claims mainly upon the proper direct historical evidence of the divine commission of Christ and his apostles, should not appear to shrink from any objections, but to be ever ready to meet all assail¬ ants, whatever ground they may choose to occupy. There are, then, just two points connected with natural theo¬ logy which are of much practical importance — First, that it be established that while men are sinners, and inexcusable in their ignorance of God and disobedience to his laws, it cannot be shewn from the light of nature that they can be firmly assured that God will pardon sin upon repentance, or ascertain certainly I 130 TENTH LECTURE. whether or not, and upon what terms, sin will be forgiven ; and second, that it be distinctly ascertained how far the informations of natural theology are necessary in order to lay a firm basis for the proof from miracles and otherwise, in support of a supernatural revelation, and that it be shewn that all that is necessary for this purpose is true and certain, while nothing certain can be produced from that source on the opposite side. The practical importance of the subject lies much more, on grounds already explained, in the second' than in the first of these points, because a previous proof of the necessity of a revelation is not needful in order to establish the position that a revelation has been actually given, and because when the truth of the Christian revelation has been once satisfactorily established, we have an abundant source from which we can derive clear and certain views in regard to God’s character and moral government on which we may securely rely^ especially as we can easily prove that nothing revealed to us in Scripture can he shewn to contradict any views of God deduced in the fair use of reason from the contemplation of the works of creation and providence. From views taught us in natural theology we deduce the proba¬ bility, as well as the desirableness, of a revelation, i.e. we can shew that it is in the highest degree probable that God should have supernaturally communicated to men some further information concerning himself, and concerning their duty and destiny, than men usually have derived, or probably could derive, from the unassisted use of their natural faculties. It is not difficult to con¬ ceive how it is that miracles, supposing them to be attested by our senses, or established by competent testimony, do, when viewed in connection with the great doctrines of natural theology, afford satisfactory evidence of a supernatural revelation, or of the divine commission of those who profess to have been entrusted with it ; while, on the other hand, it is not very easy to conceive how, sup¬ posing God to have intended to communicate to men a supernatural revelation of his will through the instrumentality of men, he could have provided those whom he might select as his instruments with any adequate proof to others that they were commissioned by him, and spoke in his name, except by giving them a power of working miracles, or by working miracles in connection with them, and thereby giving the seal of his attestation to their claims. And if NATURAL THEOLOGY AND CHRISTIAN EVIDENCES. 131 so, everything that illustrates the goodness and wisdom of God, in giving a supernatural revelation of his will, and confirms the proba- bilit}?^ of his doing so, equally tends to confirm the probability of miracles, and the goodness and wisdom of God in performing them. Attempts, indeed, have been made to shew from natural theology the impossibility of miracles, upon the ground that the supposition that miracles were needed or were wrought reflected upon the wisdom of God. This is a notion that has been much insisted upon by the modern anti-supernaturalists, as they are called, of Ger¬ many — men who call themselves Christians, and profess to believe, in some sense, in the Christian revelation, who yet deny altogether that miracles have ever been performed, and explain away the miracles recorded in Scripture by ascribing the events themselves wholly to natural causes, and the mode in which they are described in Scripture to an accommodation to the common modes of think¬ ing and speaking that then prevailed. At present we have to do with the notions of these men only in so far as they deny that miracles are possible, and base their denial upon the idea that it is inconsistent with the wisdom of God that he should have recourse to miracles, thus making a doctrine deduced from natural theology to overturn, or rather to cut off beforehand the main proof of an external kind on which the truth of Christianity rests. But this is a piece of mere presumptuous speculation that has no solid foundation to rest upon. The notion, as expressed in Wegscheider’s Institutiones Theo¬ logies Christiance Dogmaticce, which is regarded as the text-book of infidel rationalism, is this, that a belief in a supernatural and miraculous revelation cannot be reconciled — “ cum idea dei eterni semper sibi constantis, omnipotentis, omniscii, et sapientissimi ” (sect. 1 2, p. 49). In endeavouring to establish this position, the author confounds it with another and totally distinct one — viz. this, that miracles cannot be proved. If it could be shewn that miracles could not be proved, this would certainly be a very strong presumption that no miracles have ever, in point of fact, been wrought ; but it would not prove that it was in itself inconsistent with the divine wisdom that the ordinary visible course of nature and providence should ever be departed from ; and accordingly the only argument he adduces really bearing upon the assertion which he made, and has undertaken to establish, is the allegation that 132 TENTH LECTURE. the idea of a miracle, and of its supposed use and necessity, im¬ plies some deficiency in the system which God appointed for the government of the world, and according to which he ordinarily acts, and is therefore precluded by right views of his immuta¬ bility, omniscience, and wisdom. This is a fair specimen of the d priori objections commonly adduced against both the evidences and against the doctrines of the Christian religion by infidels, whether they avow their infidelity, or, like the German rational¬ ists, or anti-supernaturalists, cloak it under a sort of profession of Christianity. Now, the best proof of the possibility of a thing is the proof that it has actually taken place. The best proof of the possibility of miracles is the proof that miracles have in point of fact been performed, and that miracles have been performed can be, and has been, proved by evidence which cannot be disposed of, except by having recourse to absolute scepticism — i.e. by denying that there is such a thing as truth, or that there is any possibility of ascertaining it. This, of course, is sufficient to dispose of the objection; but it is desirable, further, to shew that no sufficient evidence can be adduced that the idea of a miracle is opposed to the immutability and perfect knowledge and wisdom of God. The burden of proof, of course, lies upon those who make the objection. It is to be observed generally that it is unwarranted and presumptuous in men to be drawing inferences as to the way in which God will certainly act, from the defective and imperfect conceptions we are able to form of the general attributes of his character. To be drawing inferences of this sort implies an assumption that we thoroughly know the whole character, plans, and purposes of God, and the objects he has in view. There are many things undoubtedly occurring in the history of nature and providence which our notions of the divine perfections would not have led us to expect, and do not fully enable us to explain. The original creation of the world in time was just as much a miracle as any of these events to which that name is usually applied, and is equally inconsistent with those views of the unchangeableness and omniscience of God on which this objection is founded. Miracles to be performed at particular times for special purposes may have been, and as their defenders believed were, compre¬ hended in God’s original scheme for the administration of the affairs of this world, as much as those events which constitute its NATURAL THEOLOGY AND CHRISTIAN EVIDENCES. 133 ordinary history. The state of ignorance and darkness into which men who had no supernatural revelation did in point of fact, under God’s government, fall, makes it positively probable that God should make to them a supernatural revelation of his will, and sanction it by miracles — the only evidence, so far as we can see, or at least by much the most natural and obvious species of proof, by which its authority could be established. These various considerations, which have been merely indicated or hinted at, and which might easily be expanded and illustrated, are sufficient to prove that the objection has no real weight, that it has no firm or solid basis on which men are entitled to take their stand, and furnishes no sufficient reason why they should refuse to give a candid and patient attention to the actual proofs by which we profess to establish the position that miracles have been wrought, and wrought in such circumstances as to establish the truth and certainty of the Christian revelation. And this is all that we are called upon to do in dealing with such an objection. The allegation that miracles, even admitting that they might possibly be wrought, could not possibly be rationally proved so as to command our assent, does not belong to the subject of natural theology, inasmuch as the alleged impossibility of proving miracles, as distinguished from the alleged impossibility of their taking place, does not profess to rest upon any allegation as to the character and moral government of God, but only on certain allegations as to the constitution and faculties of man, and the grounds and sources of the knowledge which he can acquire ; and therefore we shall not at present advert to it. There is no ground, then, for maintaining that anything can be fairly and clearly deduced from the doctrines of natural theology that is destructive of, or even unfavourable to, the proofs or evi¬ dences of a supernatural revelation ; while, on the contrary, natural theology makes discoveries and suggestions which make it posi¬ tively probable that God should make a supernatural revelation, and of course that he should do everything such as the performance of miracles, which is fitted to convince men of the reality of the revelation he may have made. The existence, attributes, and moral government of God may be said to form the basis of all religion, and hence the importance and necessity of your having clear and impressive conceptions of 134 TENTH LECTURE. all that can in any way be learned about him, and of the certainty of your knowledge, and the grounds on which it rests. The great end of man “ is to glorify God, and to enjoy him for ever/’ To “ glorify God ” implies that you know him, that you are acquainted with his character, that what you do know of him is deeply impressed upon your minds, and that all you have really learned concerning him is producing its proper practical effect in regulating your sentiments and feelings in regard to him. This, and this only, is glorifying God. It was with this view, and for this pur¬ pose, that God has made himself known to men, and with a view to this object are men bound to exercise their faculties in acquiring a knowledge of God, and in applying the knowledge which they may have acquired. To enjoy God for ever ’’implies that you know the relation in which you stand to him, the worship and the duty which he requires of you, and that you act in accordance with the knowledge you may attain upon these points. God has regulated his works of creation and providence with an express reference to the object of making himself known to his creatures, that they might glorify him, and all the supernatural revelations which he has made of himself to men were directed to the same object. One purpose for which He who was the brightness of God’s glory and the express image of his person became a partaker of flesh and blood, and tabernacled upon earth, was that he might reveal to us the Father. We have a remarkable statement connected with this subject in the 11th chapter of the Epistle to the Hebrews, verse 6th; — ‘‘ But without faith it is impossible to please him : for he that cometh to God must believe that he is, and that he is a rewarder of them that diligently seek him.” This faith that is necessary to please God is not necessarily dependent upon a supernatural revelation which God may have given concerning himself. All knowledge of God — an unseen being not cognisable by our senses — provided it be real and efficacious, may be called faith, and right views of God and of our relation to him, from whatever source derived, are indispensable to our enjoying his favour and attaining to true happiness. “ He that cometh to God,” in the apostle’s language, just means he who desires so to worship and serve God as to attain to the enjoyment of his favour ; and in order to the gratification of this desire, and the attainment of this object, it is NATURAL THEOLOGY AND CHRISTIAN EVIDENCES. 135 indispensable as the basis and foundation of all that he be con¬ vinced and really believe that there is a God, and that he rewards them that seek him. The belief, then, in the existence and moral character and government of God is the foundation of all religion, of all acceptable worship and service of him, and it is of primary importance that this foundation be well laid and thoroughly secured, that men do know and thoroughly understand, as far as their feeble faculties admit of it, all that can be known concerning him, and make it their constant study to increase and extend this knowledge, to be more deeply impressed with its truth and cer¬ tainty, and to be ever applying it to the promotion of piety and holiness. We are accustomed to speak of the doctrines of the existence, character, and moral government of God^. and a future state of rewards and punishments, with the obligations of worship and obedience which are founded on these truths, as the doctrines and duties of natural religion, because we can derive some information concerning them from the light of nature and the exercise of our natural faculties ; and perhaps on this very account there is some¬ thing of a tendency in some men to regard them with little interest^ as but simple and elementary truths when compared with what are regarded as the peculiar doctrines and the higher mysteries of revelation. In a certain sense and in a certain aspect, there is some truth in this notion ; but it is apt to be perverted and mis¬ applied, and it is perverted and misapplied whenever it leads men to forget or to fail in fully realising the truth that right views of the character of God and of his relation to us, are indeed the foundation of all true religion, whether regarded as a mere system of doctrine, or as a means of forming the character and regulating the conduct. Those indeed very imperfectly comprehend and very greatly injure the Christian revelation, who represent it as being- little more than a republication of the law of nature. But it should not be forgotten that one object of Christianity, viewed as a revelation, was to make known to us more fully the character of God, and our relation to him, that thus we might be effectually led to worship and glorify him as God, and be duly thankful for all his mercies. One reason, though certainly a subordinate one, why Christ came into the world, Avas that he might reveal to us the Father, and bring life and immortality to light by his gospel, 136 TENTH LECTURE. and one use therefore which we ought to make of all that we have learned concerning Christ, and of all that he has by word or deed made known to us, is that we may be fully enlightened in the knowledge of God, and may be led to glorify him in our bodies and in our spirits, which are his. Though the doctrines concerning God are in some measure discoverable by natural reason, they are much more fully opened up to us in the Christian revelation ; but with all the additional light there cast upon the divine character, it remains true that the knowledge of God is the foundation of all true religion, as including at once the acceptable worship of God and due obedience to his will. The knowledge of Jesus Christ, as well as the knowledge of God, is indeed necessary to eternal life ; and men, that they may know God aright, must see him as he is revealed in the face of his Son. But yet it is true, that unless their eyes have been opened to behold the glory of God, they are still walking in darkness ; unless they are animated by the fear of God, they have not yet reached the beginning of wisdom ; and that unless they are walking with God, realising his presence, contemplating his perfection, reverencing his power and majesty, relying upon his mercy and faithfulness, and acknowledging him in all their ways, they have not yet been adopted into his family, and they are not yet preparing for his presence. You are not, then, to regard this knowledge of God’s character and government as elementary and comparatively unnecessary, because it may be derived in some measure from natural reason. It was one object of Christ’s mission, and of the Christian revelation, to open it up more fully, and to impress it more deeply, and the way in which this knowledge of God is set before us in the Christian revelation, in connection with the manifestation of the Son of God in the flesh and the great ends of his mission, is that which in the hand of the Spirit is to be the great means of changing our natures and sanctifying our souls. And hence the imperative duty of our diligently and faithfully employing the revelation by Christ and concerning Christ, for the purpose of leading us to sanctify the Lord God in our hearts, and to cherish habitually right impressions of his perfections and his providence, of his character and his government. Our Saviour charged the Sadducees with erring, because they knew not the Scriptures nor the power NATURAL THEOLOGY AND CHRISTIAN EVIDENCES. 137 of God, and men may still fall into great errors, both theoretical and practical, not merely from ignorance of the Scriptures, but also because, in combination with this, they are ignorant of the . divine perfections and government, because they do not fully understand, realise, and apply what God has made known to them in his works and in his word concerning the perfections which he possesses and manifests, and the principles by which his government of the world is regulated. [Again recommend Butler’s Analogy and Chalmers’s Natural Theology LECTURE XI. IMPOETANCE OF THE SUBJECT OF THE EVIDENCES OF CHRISTIANITY. Having very briefly explained to you the general character of natural theology, and the grounds on which it rests, rather for the purpose of assisting you in understanding its general posi¬ tion in theological science, and the references which you will often find to it in theological works, than with any intention of discussing it, and having adverted to the connection subsisting between the doctrines of natural theology and the proof by which the truth of Christianity is established, we now proceed to consider the proof of the truth of Christianity itself. And here let me briefly explain to you the object I have in view in treating of this subject. I have no intention of expounding fully the evidence of Christianity, as if my object and my business were to convince that Christi¬ anity is true, and to draw out all its proofs in detail in order to produce that conviction in minds. You are already convinced of the truth of Christianity, and you have, I trust, been the sub¬ jects of such changes and experiences as to know something of that witness in yourselves which the Scriptures tell us believers have, which should satisfy you that Christianity cannot be a cunningly devised fable, and fully preserve you from the assaults of infidelity. But the evidence of Christianity forms an important department of theological literature, and it is right that you should acquire some knowledge of it. It is the duty of Christians in general to be able to give to him that asketh them “ a reason of the hope that is in them.” It is peculiarly the duty of ministers to be able to defend the truth of their religion in opposition to gainsayers, to remove doubts and difficulties, and to unfold, whenever they may be called upon, the grounds and reasons upon which they urge men to IMPORTANCE OF CHRISTIAN EVIDENCES. 139 receive Christ as their Saviour and their master. You are bound to acquire such a knowledge of the evidences by which the truth of Christianity may be established as to fit you for the discharge of this duty, and my business is to see that you acquire this know¬ ledge, and to assist you in the acquisition of it. You ought to read some of the best works that have been written in proof of the trutli of Christianity, and carefully to digest them. You are to make yourselves somewhat acquainted with the way in which infidels have assailed Christianity, and the evidence on which it rests, and to see that by study and meditation you fully apprehend and can distinctly explain the grounds on which their objections can be refuted, and on which, notwithstanding all the objections that have been raised, the truth of Christianity can be satisfactorily estab¬ lished. All these things are to be found in books, and it is chiefly by the perusal of books, and by meditation upon their contents, that you must make yourselves acquainted with them. A vast deal, as might be supposed, has been written upon the subject of the evidences of Christianity. On the discussion of no subject, indeed, have more talent and learning been brought to bear ; and if my object was to bring out fully the evidence of Christianity, as if for the purpose of convincing yovu of its truth, it would be an easy matter to occupy the whole session with a summary or abrido^rnent of what has been written in vindication of the various branches of Christian evidence, and in refutation of the different objections which have been adduced against it. But this I would reckon a waste of my time, as well as of yours. It is needless for me to be going fully over here what you can easily find in abund¬ ance of works to which your attention may be directed, as fully and conclusively argued, as thoroughly established by facts and reasoning, and as impressively illustrated as the human faculties admit of. One of the most able of the living writers on the Chris¬ tian evidences has truly said — It would be strange indeed, and much to be lamented as well as wondered at, if the uninterrupted efforts of 1800 years had left much to be gathered in the held of evidence. A few ripe and fruitful ears may have been forgotten in haste, or overlooked by carelessness ; but the riches of the harvest must long have been gathered by the hrst and most assiduous reapers, nor can we expect to employ ourselves in any other or more useful labour than that of sifting the produce, and ascertaining its aggregate amount. Still more idle would it be to study to be difficult, in hope of being counted as profound. 140 ELEVENTH LECTURE. Difficulty is in itself no essential mark of excellency, and the wise providence of God has so ordained that the most valuable truths are usually the most simple and easy to be understood/’’ It is true indeed that the assaults of infidels upon Christianity and its evidences must be met and exposed, as they have always been, whatever variety of form or aspect they may assume, and from whatever quarter the attack may be made. But nothing of any great importance requiring special notice or attention has recently appeared against the evidences of Christianity. It is true also that occasionally a man of extraordinary powers is raised up, who casts the irradiations of genius over a subject that might seem to be exhausted, and brings out in more striking and vivid light than had ever before been exhibited some of the facts and the reasonings on which the Christian argument rests. And of this we have reason to thank God that we have an instance in him who recently presided over theological education in this institu¬ tion, whose sudden removal from the midst of us we all still deeply deplore, and whom it were needless and perhaps unbecoming in me formally to eulogise. The evidences of Christianity had long been with Dr Chalmers a favourite subject of study. He brought all the powers of his mind to bear upon it, and after the most mature and deliberate reflection he gave his views upon the subject to the world in two volumes of his works, entitled, On the Miraculous and Internal Evidences of the Christian Revelation, and the Authority of its Records. Dr Chalmers’ work on this subject is in many respects the fullest and the best book on the Christian evidence in the English language. And it will be our text-book in this, the first division of our course. It is my duty to see that you make yourselves acquainted with the leading principles on which the truth of Christianity is established. I know no work where all the leading topics that enter into the Christian argu¬ ment are set forth in a way at once so conclusive, so interesting, and so impressive; and I know no means by which I can secure that you will be so speedily and so thoroughly furnished, either in point of knowledge or impression, with nearly all that is essential upon this question, as by seeing that you have mastered it. It is but an outline of the leading principles of the subject that can be ’ Benson’s Hulsean Lectures for 1820 on “ The Evidences of Christianity,” &c., Discourse iii, p. 54. IMPORTANCE OF CHRISTIAN EVIDENCES. 141 given here, either by lectures or by examinations on a text-book, the filling up of the details, and especially the acquiring a know¬ ledge of, and the fixing in your minds many of those matters of fact on which some parts of the proof depend, must come from your own reading of the books in which they are fully explained. All I propose to do in this branch of the subject, in addition to making such observations and explanations as the text-book may suggest or call for, and pointing out where fuller and more detailed information upon particular topics may be obtained, is just to give a brief statement of the outline of the argument, of the general nature and import of the different parts or branches of which it consists, and of the way and manner in which they stand related to each other. My business is to bring before you the best and most useful matter that may be accessible upon the different topics with which it is necessary for you to be acquainted, and to assist you in under¬ standing and applying it ; and it would be a waste of time to occupy you at any length with expositions of my own upon subjects which have been much better discussed in works which ought at any rate to be perused and studied by you. In proceeding to consider the general subject of the evidences of Christianity, the first thing to be attended to, as in most dis¬ cussions about subjects that are controverted, is the state of the question, or the precise and exact statement of what it is that is asserted on the one side and denied on the other. Now, the question of the truth of Christianity is not the same as that of the divine authority and inspiration of the sacred Scriptures. Chris¬ tianity might be true, even although the Scriptures were not or could not be proved to be inspired by God as an infallible directory to guide us, and although we could have learned what Christ taught only from some other and less perfect source, — though it should be observed that the converse of this position does not hold good. In other words, we cannot establish the divine origin and inspiration of the books of Scripture without thereby proving the truth of Christianity. This distinction between the question of the truth of Christianity and that of the divine authority of the sacred Scriptures ought to be kept in view, because it aids us in rightly understanding the arrangement and connection of the different branches of the Christian evidence, and because it enables 142 ELEVENTH LECTURE, us more clearly to comprehend the merits of a controversy, to be afterwards adverted to, which has been carried on between some who concur in admitting not only the truth of Christianity, but even the divine authority of the Scriptures. On the discussions carried on between the Church of Rome and the Reformers on the question. How do we know and prove the Scriptures to be the Word of God ? the arguments of the Reformers have, we think, been sometimes misunderstood and misrepresented, from its being supposed that this question was identical with the other, viz.. How do we prove the truth of Christianity ? The question, then, about the truth of Christianity is just this : Were the claims of Jesus Christ and of his apostles to be received as divine messengers, specially commissioned by God, and authorised to speak in his name, valid, or were they not ? Now, in stating the question in this way, you observe it is assumed that Jesus Christ and his apostles existed, and existed in the time and place usually understood and believed, i.e. in the land of Judea, about 1800 years ago, and did then and there put forth claims to be received as divine messengers, who were commissioned to make known God’s will to men. This is assumed, because it is conceded by the great body of infidels, i.e. of those who maintain that these claims, which they admit to have been put forth, were not valid or well-founded. There have, indeed, been a few persons who, in the bitterness of their hatred to the truth, or in mere wanton reckless¬ ness, have affected to doubt or deny that such a person as Jesus Christ ever existed, — a notion scarcely worthy of exposure, though it seems to have suggested the idea of a very clever and ingenious pamphlet published anonymously, but understood to have been written by Dr Whately, the present distinguished Archbishop of Dublin, entitled. Historical Doubts about the Existence of Napo¬ leon Bonaparte. Few infidels, however, have hesitated to concede that Christ and his apostles appeared in Judea about 1800 years ago, and put forth these claims. They have conceded this, just because they could not deny it without overthrowing all faith in history, and all the ordinary principles by which men of common sense are influenced. For not only is this attested by heathen historians, who are reckoned good authorities, and are therefore credited in other matters, but the whole history of literature, the whole history of the Church, and of the nations of Europe for the last IMPORTANCE OF CHRISTIAN EVIDENCES. 143 1800 years, may be said to attest it ; for the whole series of events, civil and ecclesiastical, and the whole series of literary productions establish or assume both an infinite number of particular facts and circumstances, and also a general state of matters in regard to almost everything in which men’s minds have been interested in every subsequent age, which necessarily imply, and therefore prove, that about the time and place specified these men existed, these claims were put forth, were admitted by some and rejected by others, and gradually gained, in the face of much opposition and persecution, an ascendancy over the Homan empire or the civilized world. All Christians, of course, assert and maintain that the claims put forth by Christ and his immediate followers to be received as expressly commissioned by God, were valid and well- founded — in other words, that these men were specially sent by God, explicitly authorised by him to make known his will to men, and that therefore we are bound to receive, as coming immediately from God, and as resting upon his authority, whatever it can be proved that they taught in his name. This view of the matter has not been universally adopted — in other words, it has been made a subject of controversial discussion. The claims which Christ and his immediate followers put forth, to be received as divine messengers authorised to reveal God’s will to men, were received and sub¬ mitted to by many, but they were also rejected by many. Their claims have been since admitted by the great majority of those who in every age and country have been most eminently dis¬ tinguished for talent and learning, for piety and moral worth ; but there have always been some who denied and resisted them, and exerted all their ingenuity to prove them to be unfounded. Attacks are made from time to time upon the Christian evidences which it is needful to answer. Infidels are occasionally met with in society whose objections may need to be confuted, and hence the propriety of ministers of the gospel being familiar with the grounds on which the truth of Christianity may be established, and the objections that have been adduced against it answered. Those who may come forward to claim the submission and obedience of men, upon the ground that they have been commis¬ sioned by God and authorised to make known his will, are, of course, bound to produce their credentials, to set before men sufficient and satisfactory evidence that God has commissioned 144 ELEVENTH LECTURE. them ; and this Christ and his immediate followers professed to do. While they claimed to be received as divine teachers, and called upon men to listen and submit to their instructions, they produced evidence by which they thought that men ought to be satisfied, and by which, in point of fact, many were satisfied, that God did sanction and authorise their teaching. And it is still true that the onus 'prohandi lies upon those who assert that Christianity is a divine revelation, and call upon men to submit to it. When ministers call upon men to receive Christ as their Saviour and Master, they of course assume that he is entitled to these characters ; in other words, that the claims he put forth were well-founded ; and if this should be questioned or denied by those whom they address, it would be their duty, in suitable circumstances, to prove and establish it. But while the onus prohandi lies upon the defenders of Christianity, and while they are bound to establish the validity of the claims put forth by its founders, they are not bound to remove every difficulty that may be started, or to refute every cavil that may be brought forward. We believe many things, on the ground that the proper direct evidence in support of them is valid and satisfactory, and cannot be answered, while yet there may be difficulties connected with the things themselves, or with the proof on which they rest, which may not admit of being thoroughly explained when taken by themselves, but which yet afford no sufficient reason why the body of direct proof that has not been and cannot be directly assailed, should be disregarded or set aside. So it is in regard to the evidences of Christianity. Innumerable cavils have been adduced against it ; and even though some of these, taken by themselves, could not be very fully explained and answered, this would be no reason why its claims should be rejected, so long as the body and substance of the proper direct proof on which they rest remained untouched. You will find, on investigating this subject, that infidels have seldom or never grappled, fairly and face to face, with the proper direct evidences, historical and miraculous, on which the claims of the Christian revelation are based, but have commonly contented themselves with discussing inferior and subordinate points, which scarcely, if at all, affect the proper substance of the question under discussion. No infidel has ever attempted a formal and regular answer to any of the leading STATE OF THE ARGUMENT. 145 works in which the evidence for the truth of Christianity was fully brought out. Every infidel w^ork of the least importance or plausibility has been answered fully and thoroughly in all its parts. But no attempt has ever been made to give anything like a regular answer to such works as Grotius’ De Vevitate Religionis Christiance, Leslie’s Short and Easy Method with the Deists, Butler’s Analogy, Paley’s Evidences, and many others. Particu¬ lar statements contained in these books may have been animad¬ verted upon by infidel writers; but the books themselves, as a whole, and the general scope and substance of their arguments, have never been directly assailed. Infidel authors have generally confined themselves to the discussion of some one particular branch or topic in the Christian evidences ; and though there are some favourite objections which few infidel authors, whatever be the proper subjects of their own works, pass by unnoticed, yet none of them has ever attempted to exhibit, at one view and in one work, the whole substance of the arguments on the ground of which Christianity has been attacked, and by which the proof of its truth may be overturned. The reason of this plainly is, that an attempt of this sort would compel them, in common decency, to look the whole body and substance of the proper direct evidence of Chris¬ tianity more fairly in the face than they reckon at all safe or expedient. And accordingly, while we can point to many works in which the whole evidence for Christianity has been set forth and illustrated, there is not, so far as I know or recollect, any one single infidel work in which the whole substance of the arguments against it, and of the answers to the different departments of the proof in support of it, is to be found embodied. It is precisely for the same reason that infidel authors have seldom engao^ed in regular controversy with those who have defended Christianity against them ; and that when they have attempted any answer to what had been written in reply to them, they have not scrupled to be guilty of the most deliberate and impudent evasions of the whole substance of what had been written against them, and have adverted only to some incidental and subordinate points ; in other words, they have cavilled, but not answered. Scarcely any wmrk has ever been written against the truth of Christianity which has not been conclusively convicted, not merely of ignorance, blunder- K 146 ELEVENTH LECTURE. ing, and sophistry, but of deliberate and intentional dishonesty in misstating facts, in perverting texts, and in misrepresenting argu¬ ments ; and this is the explanation of the fact that infidels have so seldom attempted anything like a fair and honest discussion, by trying to answer fully and formally the works that have been WTitten in reply to them. Among the numerous authors who wrote more or less openly against the truth of Christianity in England, in the early part of last century, scarcely any one attempted to answer the many able and learned works which were written in reply to them, and in which every one of them was convicted not only of error, but of dishonesty. Some of them wrote infidel works after their former books had been answered ; but they generally found it more convenient to try to cavil upon some other topic than to defend their former cavils which had been fully exposed. David Hume, as we learn from a letter of his published in the preface to Campbeirs Dissertation on Miracles, assigned as the reason for his not answering Campbell, that “ he had a fixed resolution in the beginning of his life always to leave the public to judge between his adversaries and him, without making any reply.” This was certainly a very judicious resolution in the defender of a bad cause, though, as Campbell observes, Hume did not always adhere to it, and it has been pretty generally acted upon by the defenders of infidelity. Among the numerous English infidels of the early part of last century, there are but two exceptions of any importance to this observation, and they certainly confirm the rule. Collins, in his Scheme of Literal Prophecy, professed to reply to the works ■which had been written in answer to his Grounds and Reasons of the Christian Religion; and Moi’gan, in the latter part of his Moral Philosopher, professed' to reply to the answers which had been given to the preceding parts of it ; but in both cases these infidels, instead of making a frank and manly attempt to grapple ■with the main substance of what had been written against them, merely laboured to involve in doubt or obscurity some of the collateral or subordinate parts of the argument, or tried to escape by stating new cavils and difficulties on some other topics. So it has always been, more or less, with the advocates of error in every controversy, down to that which terminated in the ^TATE OF THE ARGUMENT. 147 Disruption of the Established Church of Scotland. They have either declined altogether to answer what was written in defence of truth, though they may have continued to write on the other side, which may be a very different thing from answering ; or, if they have attempted to answer, they have commonly grappled only with details, and have evaded the main strength and substance of the arguments. We have admitted that the defenders of Christianity are bound to take the burden of proof in the discussion of the validity of its claims ; but, on the other hand, infidels are bound to state, distinctly and explicitly, their negation of the truth of Chris¬ tianity, and to grapple fairly and* fully with the whole of the direct and proper evidence which the defenders of Christianity may adduce. Those who refuse to admit the claims of Christianity to be received as a revelation from God, must be held to assert and maintain, as the only intelligible explanation of their position, that Jesus Christ and his immediate followers gave no satisfactory evidence that they were commissioned by God, that their claims to divine authority were unfounded ; or, in other words, as they unquestionably advanced these claims, that they were either enthusiasts or fanatics, who believed, without ground and reason, that they were divinely commissioned ; or else imposters, who asserted what they knew to be false. It is painful to those who regard Christ and his apostles with the respect and reverence to which they are entitled, to state such a position, even in the explanation of an argument ; but if the evidences of Christianity are to be discussed, we must fairly contemplate and describe the case and the position of those who deny its truth ; and we are persuaded that it is of some practical importance, in order to our rightly comprehending this subject, and being duly impressed with it, that we should rightly conceive and fully realise what is necessarily implied in the denial, or even in the non-admission, of the truth of Christianity. If Christ and his apostles were not divinely commissioned teachers, they must have been either enthusiasts, who imposed upon themselves, or imposters who endeavoured to impose upon others. This is the only alternative, and it is right and expedient that this consideration should be ever remembered and realised when consideriug the subject of the evidences of Christianity, for it contributes to preserve a right 148 E LEY ENT II LECTURE. impression of what is the true nature of the question at issue, and of the momentous results that depend upon its decision ; and it also renders us some assistance in forming a right estimate and a just impression of the force and bearing of the different arguments that may be brought forward on both sides of the question. It is peculiarly important in the present day to keep this distinctly before our minds as the true and only alternative in the discussion of this subject, because the great distinguishing peculiarity of the infidel rationalism or neology of Germany is, that it labours to overturn the whole foundations of the Christian evidence, and to deprive us of all proof of a direct supernatural revelation from God, without directly and openly assailing the character of Christ and his apostles, without charging them with being either imposters or enthusiasts. The conclusion upon this subject to which their statements and arguments commonly point is something of this sort, that our Saviour, though not holding any special divine commission, or favoured with any peculiar supernatural communications, was a man of high powers and of great excellence, who, by the exercise of his own talents, and under ordinary providential guidance, attained to and promulgated more correct and enlightened views concerning God and duty than previously prevailed. He was thus a great benefactor of the human race, like Confucius or Socrates, and his instructions mark a great era in the development of truth, and in the enlightenment of mankind. Some of them admit that he spake and acted occasionally under the influence of enthusiasm or self-deceit, and that he sometimes practised a little upon the ignorance and credulity of his countrymen ; while others explain the facts and statements upon which these conclusions are based by the supposition of his really sharing largely in the ignorance and error that prevailed around him. Still, both classes in general profess great respect for his character, and abjure the idea of his being an imposter. And hence the importance, in dealing with these men, of shewing that, whatever they may find it convenient to profess or pretend, then fundamental principles necessarily imply that Christ and his apostles were imposters, putting forth claims which they must have known to be false. And when this is established, German rationalism is fully identified with ordinary STATE OF THE ARGUMENT. 149 vulgar infidelity, to be assailed and refuted on the same obvious and well-known grounds by which the truth of Christianity has been usually demonstrated^ In discussing the truth of the Christian revelation, we have to deal in reality or by supposition with men who deny it, or at least are not yet persuaded of it, and who, of course, if they have any opinions or convictions upon the subject, believe that the claims put forth by Christ and his apostles were unfounded; and in dealing with such men, we must argue upon principles common to Christians and to unbelievers. We must assume nothing which they deny or do not admit, without proving it, or producing satisfactory evidence of its truth. We cannot argue with any man unless he and we have some common principles — some com¬ mon standard to which we both appeal. The ultimate common standard or first principle that obtains among rational men, and must be the basis of all reasoning, is the sufficiency or adequacy of our natural powers and faculties for acquiring knowledge or ascertaining truth ; or, in other words, the truth and certainty of those things which we learn from the proper and legitimate use of our faculties, from sense, and consciousness, and reason. Those who do not admit this first principle or common standard, are unworthy of attention or argument ; they are beyond the reach of reasoning, and should be at once set aside as impudent propounders of paradoxes which they do not themselves believe, or as destitute of mental sanity. When, however, this first principle or ultimate common standard is admitted, we can fully establish, in opposition to atheists and pantheists, the great doctrines of natural religion — the existence, character, and moral government of God ; or prove to them satisfactorily that they are bound to admit these things as true. And it is in this state of matters, and with the great doctrines of natural theology admitted or conceded on both sides, that we usually proceed to consider the question of the truth of Christianity — the question whether or not Christ and his apostles were indeed sent into the world immediately by the great God, who rules and governs all things, and were commissioned by him to make known his will to men. If there be such a being as we commonly understand by the name God, it is surely possible that ^ French’s translation of Tholuck’s Essay on the Credibility of the Evangelical History^ in reply to Strauss’ Life of Jesus^ c. iii. pp. 50-53. 150 ELEVENTH LECTURE. he may directly and supernaturally reveal his will to man by the instrumentality of men. There is nothing in this beyond the limits of his power, and there is nothing in it that can be proved to be inconsistent with anything which, without a revelation, we know concerning the perfections of his character, the principles of his government, and the relation in which he stands to us. Nay, from all we know of him, viewed in connection with the ordinary condition exhibited by men who have not had any supernatural revelation of his will, it seems highly probable that he should reveal himself to men, and give them full and authentic informa¬ tion about the path of duty and the way to happiness. And therefore the proper question is this. Has he, in point of fact, made such a revelation of himself to men, through the instru¬ mentality of men ? And more particularly. Did he expressly commission Christ and his immediate followers to speak to men in his name, and to make known to them his will? Was this done, and can it be proved ? Christ and his apostles put forth a claim to this effect. Did they produce evidence of this claim sufficient to establish it ? Has this evidence been preserved, and is it still sufficient to satisfy us of the truth of their claims ? And if so, what was the information which in God’s name and by his authority they communicated. These are great and momentous questions, in regard to which we should be all able, not only to express a firm and decided opinion, but to explain and unfold, when duly called upon, the grounds and the reasons by which we maintain and defend it. LECTURE XII. DIVISIONS OF THE EVIDENCE— MODE OF APPEOACHING THE SUBJECT — GENUINENESS, AUTHENTICITY, OE GENEEAL CEEDIBILITY— NECESSITY OF SPECIAL EVIDENCE FOE SPECIAL CLAIMS TWOFOLD. Before proceeding to give a brief outline of the topics com¬ prehended under these different heads, we must advert to the distinction between the evidence by which a believer may convince an unbeliever of the truth of Christianity, and the evidence which the believer himself has or may have of its truth. A man who has been convinced of the truth of Christianity, and of the divine origin and authority of the Bible, and toho has given 'practical effect to this conviction by really submitting his understanding and his heart to the revelation there given of the will of God for man's salvation, has evidences of the truth of Christianity, and of the divine origin of the Bible opened up to him, which may and should be, upon rational grounds, most satisfactory to himself, though they do not possess the same direct and immediate power in convincing, or at least silencing, an unbeliever. They consist chiefly in the manifestations of the divine glory, majesty, and wisdom, which he is now enabled to see in that word which God has magnified above all his works, and in the effects which, through this word, have been produced upon his own mind and character. The first of these is usually called “the self-evidencing power of the Bible” — a quality indeed which attaches to the Bible, and exists in it, whether men see it or not, but which is fully seen and perceived only by those who, having embraced the truth, are living under the guidance of the Spirit of truth. The second is what is commonly called “the 152 TWELFTH LECTURE. witness of tlie Spirit,” and may be classed under the general head of the experimental evidence. These evidences are not only the best safeguards to believers against the assaults of infidelity, but they may rationally impress the minds of unbelievers, and we have no doubt are often — perhaps we might say most commonly — employed by the Spirit of God for that purpose; but they are distinguished from what are commonly reckoned the more direct and proper proofs of the truth of Christianity and the divine authority of the Bible by this, that the unbeliever may more easily evade them ; that he cannot by the use of them be so certainly driven into a corner, and compelled, in the application of strict reasoning, based upon principles mutually held or conceded, to assent to the truth of Christianity, and the authority of its records. These branches of proof bear more upon the divine authority of the Scriptures than the general truth of Christianity, and will therefore be afterwards adverted to. It has been common for writers on this subject to divide the evidences of Christianity into different heads or branches. They have most commonly been classed under the three divisions of external, internal, and experimental ; and this classification, though, as Dr Chalmers observes (book iii., chap. 1), it is not easy to define very precisely at all points the limits between the different departments, is convenient and useful. The external evidence comprehends everything that can be adduced in support of the truth of Christianity from the condition and circumstances, the character and the deeds, of the men who first proclaimed it ; or, in other words, the proof which they themselves adduced and exhibited of their being divinely commissioned, as the ground or basis on which they called upon those whom they addressed to receive their instruction, and to submit to their teaching and directions. This proof consisted in the miracles wrought by them, and in prophecies fulfilled in them, or uttered by them and after¬ wards fulfilled ; and, as discussed and investigated now, includes of course an examination of the evidence we have for the reality and truth ot these alleged miracles and prophecies. The internal evidence consists of the proof that may be derived from the revela¬ tion itself which they professed to communicate in God’s name, that it really came from God, the evidence which the Christian revelation contains within itself — in the discoveries it makes, in DIVISIONS OF THE EVIDENCE, 153 the doctrines it unfolds, in the character it prescribes, and the duties it enjoins — of its divine origin. The experimental evidence comprehends everything bearing upon the question of the truth of Christianity derived from its history and actual results, from what it has actually effected upon the character and condition of men, collectively and individually. The evidences of Christianity may be all comprehended under one or other of these heads, and these different divisions fall naturally to be discussed in the order in which they have now been stated. The substance of what is conceded by the opponents of Chris¬ tianity, and conceded by them, as we formerly explained to you, because it could not be denied without overturning the foundations of all faith in past events, is this, that about 1800 years ago a remarkable person appeared in Judea, claiming to be received as a messenger from God, authorised to make known his will ; that he professed to work miracles in support of his claims, and was at last publicly put to death ; that his immediate followers put forth the same claims in behalf of their master and themselves, asserted that he was raised from the dead, professed themselves to work miracles, endured the greatest hardships, and at last many of them suffered death, because of the claims which they put forth ; that many believed in the validity of the claims of the founder of this religion and his immediate followers, and endured perse¬ cution and death rather than renounce their connection with them ; and that the religion which professed to rest upon this basis was soon widely diffused over the world, was received and adopted by vast multitudes, and at length gained the ascendancy over the Roman empire. All this is conceded as matter of fact by infidels, because it is either expressly asserted by heathen or pagan authors, such as Tacitus, Suetonius, Pliny, and Lucian, with whose testimony you ought to be acquainted, or else is necessarily implied in facts or events which are notorious and unquestionable. All this being known and admitted, men who wish to investigate the validity of these claims, the truth of this religion, will naturally proceed to consider what means we have of acquiring information concerning the persons hy whom^ and the circumstances in which, these claims were advanced, the evidences by which they were at the time supported, and the 154 TWELFTH LECTURE. reception they met with. Their attention will then be directed to certain books which have been transmitted to us, and are now in our possession, and which profess to contain the records of these matters by the parties most immediately connected with them, and consisting more particularly of four different histories of the life of the founder of this religion, of a history of the proceedings of his followers after his death by one who professed to be an eye-witness of much that he records, and of a number of letters or epistles professing to be written by some of the earliest and most active propagators of the religion. If these books were really written by the persons to whom they are commonly ascribed, whose names they bear, and at the time in which they profess to have been written, i.e. contemporaneously with the events they describe, they may be expected to give us important information concerning the whole state of matters. This leads us at once to the consideration of the subject of the genuineness of the books which compose the New Testament, i.e. the question as to whether or not these books, not at present adverting to them in detail and individually, but in the gross, were written by the authors whose names they bear, and at or about the time when they profess to have been written ; in other words, whether they were written by the original propagators of Christianity, and contemporaneously with the events they record. And the first and most obvious consideration that occurs upon this topic is, that there is not a shadow of ground to doubt this — not a vestige of reason for disputing the genuineness of these books. There is nothing either in the books themselves, or in anything we know concerning their history and transmission, that indicates a later age, or throws the least suspicion upon the idea that they were written by those whose names they bear — persons contem¬ porary with the events they record, and closely connected with them. This of itself is a strong proof of the genuineness of the books, for experience fully proves that it is no easy matter to forge books which are to pass as having been written in an earlier age — especially when the books describe many ordinary affairs and historical transactions ; and when we have other authentic infor¬ mation about the state of matters in that age and country — with¬ out introducing into them some materials by which. the forgery DIVISIONS OF THE EVIDENCE. 155 may be detected. In almost every case where there has been any reason to suspect that any ecclesiastical writing had been forged in a later age than that in which its alleged author lived, or in which it is said to have been written, the forgery has been detected and proved by the discovery, either in the external history of the work, or more frequently in its statements and language, of what clearly proved that it was the production of a later age. The Church of Rome has forged many pretended writings of fathers and decrees of councils to support her doctrines and her claims ; but the for¬ geries have been detected, i.e. it has been established, generally by internal evidence, that there were plain indications that they were written in a later age (Comber). The strength of the evidence by which the forgery was proved varied considerably in different instances, but in very many cases it was quite sufficient to satisfy every unprejudiced mind. And in one remarkable case — that of the Decretal Epistles, as they are called — the forgery has been so conclusively established, that all Romanists of learning have been forced to admit it, though these epistles were quoted as genuine for 700 years before the Reformation, even by Popes, in support of the pretensions of the Romish see. It is useful to attend to the process by which the forgery in these cases has been proved, for it strikingly illustrates, by the contrast, the impossibility of proving that the books which compose the New Testament were not written by the persons, and at the time usually supposed. Not only has nothing that is possessed even of plausibility been adduced against the genuineness of the books that compose the New Testament, although it is scarcely possible that, if they had been the productions of a later age, this would not have been detected and exposed, but much positive evidence has been adduced from the language and style in which they are composed, and the minute and exact accordance between many of their statements, direct and incidental, and what we know from other sources of the true state of matters to which they advert in that age and country. This is an important department in the Christian evidence, and goes to establish not only the genuineness of the books that compose the New Testament, but also their authenticity, i.e. the general truth or credibility of the narratives they contain. The establishment of this position depends upon the adduction of specific historical evidence in its details ; and 156 TWELFTH LECTURE. with these details you ought to make yourselves familiar. A summary of them is given in many works on the evidences ; but the fullest and most complete collection of the materials beariug upon this subject is to be found in the first part of Lardner’s Credibility, and in his collection of Jewish and heathen testi¬ monies ; while the argument derived from the language and style is well explained and illustrated in the second chapter of Michaelis' Introduction to the New Testament. But the fullest and most direct proof of the genuineness of the books that compose the New Testament is the recognition of them, and the appeal to them in a succession of writers, from the apostolic age down to the present day ; or, as perhaps it is better to put it, from the present day up to the apostolic age. This too is a very important department of the Christian evidences, and is dependent of course, like the former, upon the details of the historical proof that can be produced in support of it. The general principle upon which the conclusiveness of the proof of the genuineness of works supported and attested in this way rests, its perfect security, and its entire accordance with the principles on which we estimate the genuineness of all other literary productions which have been handed down from ancient times, are brought out in a very ingenious and satisfactory way in two valuable works of Mr Isaac Taylor, which are well worthy of being perused, entitled The Transmission of Ancient Books, and The Process of Historic Proof ; and the details of the historical evidence upon which the application of these general principles to the establishment of the genuineness of the books composing the New Testament rests, are to be found most fully and minutely given in the second part of Lardner’s Credibility, and in the supplement to it. A summary of the historical proof upon this point is given in Paley, and in many of the ordinary books upon the evidences.^. There is also a very good book on this subject strongly recommended by Michaelis, along with Lardner — Less on The Authenticity, uncorrupted Preservation, and Credibility of the New Testament. This work was translated from the German, and published in this country above forty years ago, and the translation has again been republished lately. Lardner was ^ Horne’s Introduction, vol. i. p. 73, referring to Archbishop Marsh’s Lectures, part ii., and Benson’s Hulsean Lectures for 1820, pp. 78-84. GENUINENESS OF NEW TESTAMENT BOOKS. 157 exceedingly cautious in conducting his argument, and very careful not to lay more stress upon any quotation or reference than it seemed fully qualified, upon the strictest examination, to bear. Less, however, is more scrupulous and fastidious in this respect even than Lardner, so that in his hands the evidence may be regarded as very thoroughly sifted indeed. In what precise respect is caution required in this matter ? The substance of the matter is this, that by a series of quotations from, and references to, the books that compose the -New Testa¬ ment, the facts recorded in them, and to their principal contents, contained in an unbroken succession of writers from the present day up to the apostolic age, we can prove by evidence the same in kind by which the genuineness of other ancient books is estab¬ lished, but immeasurably stronger in degree than that in which this evidence applies to any other writing of antiquity, that these books, substantially as we now have them, existed, and were gene¬ rally known and received as the productions of the authors whose names they bear, in the age in which the events they describe took place. Here again I have to remind you that it is your duty, by the perusal of the works referred to, or other works in which this matter is illustrated, to make yourselves acquainted with and to fix in your minds the heads or substance of the historical evi¬ dence, consisting mainly of quotations and references by which this important proposition is established. The principles on which this mode of proving the genuineness of these books proceeds is in entire accordance with the dictates of common sense, and with the course adopted in regard to all the other literary productions of antiquity, and has been always recognised and acted upon. With the evidence we can adduce upon this point, the only alterna¬ tive to the admission that the books of the New Testament were composed by the men whose names they bear, and at the time usu¬ ally supposed, i.e. cotemporaneously with the events they describe, is, that a series of writers, in different ages and countries, where concert was impossible, introduced into their works a great variety of statements, direct and incidental, for the concealed purpose of persuading posterity of the existence and general reception and notoriety of works which had then no existence — a notion of course too absurd to be seriously entertained. The evidence which thus establishes the genuineness of the books that compose the New 158 TWELFTH LECTURE. Testament goes far also to establish their authenticity or truth, as it proves that they were not only known to be in existence, but that they were generally received as true by very many who were deeply interested in the subject, and had carefully examined it from the time when they were given to the world, and this could scarcely have been the case, unless they had been in the main worthy of credit. We thus prove the genuineness of the books that compose the New Testament, or shew that they were written, speaking gener¬ ally and in the gross — for we are not at present considering, and we are in no way called upon at this stage of the argument to consider, the genuineness of each particular book^ — by the persons Avhose names they bear, and at the time usually believed ; in other words, that they were composed by persons most closely connected with the events they describe, and given to the world, or subjected to the investigation of men in the age and country in which the events they describe were alleged to have taken place. Upon this ground we are called upon to investigate these books as the most direct and certain means of learning the state of the whole matters connected with the claims which Christ and his apostles put forth, the grounds on which their claims were based, and the credit to which they are entitled. And here the first thing that naturally engages our attention is the general question of the apparent credibility of the men, and of their general narra¬ tive, leaving out of view, in the first instance, these peculiar and extraordinary circumstances on which the validity of their claims to a divine commission more immediately depended. And here again our attention is directed to two different points — first, to the internal marks of truth and honesty to be found in the New Testament, the general indications of integrity and veracity to be found in the representations which the authors of these books give of themselves, of the circumstances in which they were placed, and the manner in which they spoke and acted. This Dr Chalmers has fully discussed in the third chapter of his second book on The External or Miraculous Evidences for the Truth of Christianity.’" There comes in however, I think, also at this place with propriety and logical order, and in the natural following cut of a legitimate train of thought, the topic which Dr Chalmers has discussed in the first chapter of his third book under the AUTHENTICITY OF NEW TESTAMENT RECORDS. 159 general head of, “The Internal Evidence of Christianity,” viz., “ the consistency of Scripture with itself, and with cotemporary author¬ ship.” The consistency of the New Testament with cotemporary authorship has already been adverted to as a proof of its genuine¬ ness ; but it affords also a proof of its authenticity or general truth or credibility, in accordance with principles which Dr Chalmers has fully illustrated. The consistency of the New Testament with itself, considering that it is composed of a variety of productions by different authors, and that this consistency is not merely the absence of inconsistency, but is exhibited in a great number of minute and obviously undesigned coincidences, as is most admir¬ ably illustrated in Paley’s Horce Paulince, furnishes also, upon generally understood and admitted principles, a strong proof of the credibility of its authors, and the general truth of their state¬ ments. Now, these two points — viz., first, the internal marks of truth and honesty in the New Testament and its authors ; and second, its consistency with itself and with cotemporary authorship — are important steps in the process of proof, and require to be pondered and examined, that you may be familiar with the facts and the considerations on which the argument derived from these sources rests. On these general grounds we would at once receive any ordinary history as authentic, credible, true, unless the veracity of the historians, or the truth of their narratives, could be distinctly and explicitly overturned by clear and unanswerable proof. It is upon proof the same in kind, though much inferior in degree, that we receive as authentic and true the best and most credible his¬ tories that have come down to us from ancient times — the his¬ tories, for example, of Thucydides and Gsesar. The writers of the books of the New Testament were fully and personally conversant with the events which they describe, or had ready access to the best and most authentic information. They con¬ sist of several different persons, describing the same things, and their accounts in regard to all important matters — for that is all we need at present to maintain — are perfectly consistent with themselves and with each other. Their accounts were published to the world, and excited much attention, at a time and in circumstances when their narratives, if untrue, could have been easily detected and exposed. There is, and has been, no detection or exposure of their false¬ hoods, no contradiction of their general substance by cotemporary 160 TWELFTH LECTURE. or subsequent authors, but a great deal that decidedly confirms their truth and accuracy ; and about the works, and the whole character, conduct, and deportment of the men and their associates as they appear in the works, there is everything that is generally recognised, upon the ground of the common principles of human nature, and the testimony of all history and experience, as indicat¬ ing integrity and veracity in narrators, truth and accuracy in narratives. Upon these grounds, credit would at once be given to their narratives, just as we give credit to other ancient histories upon grounds similar in kind, though possessed of a much inferior degree of strength, were it not for the special and peculiar circum¬ stance that they put forth claims to be received as divinely-com¬ missioned teachers, and narrated miracles as having been wrought by them in attestation of their claims. Now, it may be conceded that this important peculiarity renders necessary the production of evidence in support of the truth of their statements stronger than would be required if they merely narrated to us the ordinary history of the period, like Josephus or Tacitus, although I think Dr Chalmers has successfully shewn that infidels have demanded, and that Christians have conceded, the propriety of demanding much more evidence than in right reason is necessary. No more evidence is necessary for establishing the genuineness of the books of the New Testament than for establishing that of any other ancient author, although we have much more to produce, because the genuineness of any ancient production is just an ordinary his¬ torical fact about which there is, and can be, nothing of a peculiar character. But for the authenticity of the books, or the actual truth of the narratives they contain, we do need evidence of a peculiar kind, because the authors of these books claimed to be divinely commissioned teachers, and professed to work miracles in support of their claims, and because these books were written for the very purpose of setting forth these claims, and the grounds on which they rest, and conveying to us the information which they professed to communicate in God’s name. But this additional and peculiar evidence can, from the nature of the case, be found only in a most thorough knowledge of the men, of the circum¬ stances in which their claims were advanced, of the proof they adduced in support of them, and of the evidence they gave of integrity and veracity, both generally and in this matter. The CREDIBILITY. 161 only full and detailed information we have upon these subjects is derived from what is contained in the New Testament, and upon the grounds already explained, we are fully entitled to rely upon the general truth of the narratives there contained, i.e. the general representation there given of the claims they advanced, of the kind of proof they adduced, and of the leading circumstances of their position. Upon this ground, i.e. the general truth of the account they give of their situation and circumstances, we are enabled to come near them, to advance close up to them, as it were, to look at them carefully and close at hand, that we may thus judge of the integrity of their characters and the authenticity of their statements on those points on which the validity of their claims more immediately depends. Draw¬ ing near to them then in this way, and examining them more closely, we 6nd first of all that the claims which Jesus Christ put forth on his own behalf during his life, and which his imme¬ diate followers put forth on his behalf after his death, were two¬ fold — first, more generally, that he was commissioned by God to make known his will to men ; and second, more particularly, that he was the Christ, the Messiah, whose appearance on earth for important purposes connected with the glory of God and the salva¬ tion of men was understood to have been foretold in the books which compose the Old Testament. These two claims, though intimately connected with each other, are yet quite distinct, and may be expected to be made out distinctly, each by its own appro¬ priate evidence. The claim to be regarded as the Messiah pre¬ dicted in the Old Testament is perhaps the more important and fundamental of the two, because it is, in one point of view, the more comprehensive, and includes the other; for if Jesus can indeed be proved by appropriate evidence to have been the Messiah predicted in the Old Testament, then it follows at once that he was a divinely-commissioned teacher, authorised to speak in God’s name, even though he might have wrought no miracles, and given no other evidence of a divine commission ; whereas, even if, on the ground of miracles proved, he were admitted to be a divinely commissioned teacher, it would not at once follow as a matter of course that he was the predicted Messiah ; while if he asserted that he was, and could not establish this position by its own pecu- 162 TWELFTH LECTURE. liar and appropriate evidence, this would throw serious doubt upon his claim to be received as a divinely commissioned teacher, and the proofs by which that claim might be supported, and thus leave the whole matter in a very unsatisfactory condition. It was the claim of Jesus to be received as the predicted Messiah that his immediate followers were chiefly in the habit of enforcing. But this was partly, perhaps chiefly, because they had principally to do with Jews, who acknowledged the divine authority of the Old Testament, and who were at this time in expectation of the Messiah, whom they believed to have been foretold. A previous belief indeed in the divine authority of the Old Testament is not necessary as a foundation for establishing the argument from pro¬ phecy. All that is necessary is to prove, as can be easily done, that the Old Testament prophecies existed before Jesus appeared on earth, and then that they were fulfilled in him ; and when this is proved, then at once the Messiah and also the divine authority and inspiration of the prophecies of the Old Testament are estab¬ lished. These considerations tend to give the argument from prophecy in favour of the Messiahship of Jesus peculiar value and importance ; and when combined with the fact that the investiga¬ tion of this argument leads to a close and careful examination of a large portion of the sacred records, may be fairly regarded as entitling it to at least as large a share of your attention as the argument from miracles. But as unbelievers who are not Jews could scarcely be expected to attend with much interest at the beginning of the discussion to an examination of the age of the Old Testament records, or to a minute and careful investigation of their meaning, it has been common for the defenders of Chris¬ tianity to direct attention in the first place to the claims of Jesus to be received generally as a divinely-commissioned teacher, and to the miracles alleged to have been wrought in support of this claim. LECTURE XIII. MIKACLES -HUME’S AEGUMENT. now then return to this point, that Jesus and his imme- * ^ diate followers professed to be divinely-commissioned teachers, and to have wrought miracles in confirmation of this claim ; and we have in the books of the New Testament an account of the whole circumstances in which these claims were put forth, of the miracles alleged to have been wrought in support of them, and of the effects of all this upon the minds of men. No proof of the integrity and veracity of Christ and his apostles, however satisfactory and conclusive, would be sufficient to establish their claims, had they merely asserted that they were commis¬ sioned by God, without producing proofs of this satisfactory to the minds of men. They might have asserted that they were authorised by God to make known his will to men. There might be about their whole character, conduct, and deportment, every evidence of honesty and integrity. They might have been tested by the severest sufferings and persecutions, inflicted just because of their asserting this, and might have expired in agonies, cheerfully endured upon this ground, and from which a mere renunciation ■of this claim would have saved them. But this would not have been sufficient. Those who witnessed all this, and we who might be convinced upon satisfactory evidence that it took place, would be constrained indeed to admit the honesty and veracity of these men, i.e. to admit that they really believed that they were com¬ missioned by God ; but for anything that appears in the case as thus stated, we might be warranted in believing that they were mistaken in this belief, or at least that nothing had been proved which laid any obligation upon us to believe it. Their cotem- poraries would justly require something more than their own 164 THIRTEENTH LECTURE. honest and assured conviction that God had authorised them, some palpable proof of this, some tangible attestation to it, on God’s part. And so do we. And accordingly we find that they professed to work miracles, plain matters of fact, cognisable by the senses, and not mere convictions or impressions, and appealed to them in proof that they were sent by God, and authorised to speak in his name. So that the question comes to this. Did they really work miracles, as they alleged ? Was this proved ? And have we still satisfactory evidence of it ? Now, they record many miracles which they professed to have wrought. They describe to us the circumstances in which they were performed, and they make it plain that their whole testimony virtually bore, not merely upon the sincerity of their own conviction that God had commissioned and instructed them, but upon the reality and truth of those outward and sensible miraculous events which they tell us they produced, or which are recorded to have been produced in connection with them. But here we are met at the outset with a preliminary difficulty, which must be removed out of the way before we can advance any further. It is the allegation on the part of infidels, accom¬ panied with an offer and an appearance of proof, that miracles cannot be proved ; that they are incredible ; that, from the nature and general character of a miracle, there is always, and in every case, an amount of proof or evidence against its truth or reality which cannot be overcome by any strength of human testimony. This was the substance of the celebrated infidel argument of Hume ; and it is at this point, I think, that in following out the natural train of thought in expounding the evidences of Chris¬ tianity, the consideration of the argument of Hume properly comes in, although Dr Chalmers, for reasons which he assigns in his preface, and which are not destitute of weight, has, after some hesitation as he states, made it the subject of the first book of his Evidences. Here therefore we must stop and consider this argument, and ascertain distinctly whether or not it really throws an impassable barrier in the way of our further progress. Now, the first thing to be done is, to form a clear and distinct conception of what the argument is, and what are the grounds on which it rests. And in a matter of so much importance as this professes to be, it is but fair and reasonable that a knowledge of the argument MIRACLES. 165 should be derived from the author of the argument himself — i.e^ should be acquired from a perusal, if you have the opportunity, of Hume’s Essay on Miracles. This however is not indispensable, for the argument is sufficiently distinct and intelligible ; its meaning and its grounds can be very easily apprehended, and there can be no doubt of the accuracy of the abstract of this argument, which Dr Chalmers quotes from Dr Campbell, at p. 70 of his first volume on the Evidences. Having made yourselves familiar with the import of Hume’s argument, and the grounds on which it rests, you have next to consider whether or not it can be answered, and if so, in what w^ay . Now, as I am at present merely giving you an outline, or rather a skeleton, of the general train of thought by which the truth of Christianity may be established, with the view of illustrating the connection of the different parts of the proof, and pointing out where additional information may be obtained, I do not mean to examine the argument, but shall reserve anything I may think it needful to say about it till we come to the consideration of Dr Chalmers’s exposure of it. At present then I would only observe that Dr Chalmers deals with Hume’s argument by a different process of reasoning from what former writers on the subject had employed, conceding to Hume one of his fundamental principles, that our belief in testimony, our reliance upon the truth and certainty of information derived from the declarations of men, is based upon experience ; and although I am persuaded that Dr Chalmers’s answer to Hume is the best and most conclusive that has been given, the most accordant with the dictates both of sound philo¬ sophy and common sense, yet you are not to imagine that previous w'orks upon this subject in answer to Hume’s argument have lost all their value, so as to be unworthy of your attention or perusal. Some of them are still well deserving of being perused and examined, both because it is interesting and useful to see an argument which has been so much boasted of by the enemies of Christianity, and which, if valid, is so sweeping and decisive in its character, examined in different aspects, and subjected to different tests by men of ability, and also because Hume’s Essay on Miracles contains some important things connected with the subject of miracles, besides the direct argument ])y which he professed to shew that they are universally incredible, or that they can never 166 THIRTEENTH LECTURE. be proved ; and to an exposure of this fundamental point Dr Chalmers has wholly confined himself. Dr Campbell’s Disserta¬ tion upon Miracles is a singularly ingenious and effective work, and well worthy of a perusal. There is also much good and useful matter in Adam’s Essay on Miracles, the first book, I believe, written in answer to Hume ; in the 19th, 20th, and 21st letters of Leland’s View of the Deistical Writers ; in Douglas’s Criterion of Miracles; and in Price’s upon the subject. By the perusal of some of these works, and especially by the careful study of the first book of Dr Chalmers’s Evidences, you will, I have no doubt, be firmly persuaded not only that Hume’s leading direct argument is utterly fallacious and sophistical, although that is the main point, but also, moreover, that in conducting his argument, he has been frequently obliged to have recourse to mere quibbling and shuffling in the use of language, and to much disingenuous misrepresentation ; and that, after all, he has not been able to adhere steadfastly to his position, but has been constrained by the force of common sense, virtually, perhaps inadvertently, to abandon it. It is assumed now then that Hume’s argument has been answered, i.e. that it has been proved that he has brought forward no sufficient evidence to convince us that miracles are incredible, and cannot be proved by testimony ; and that it has, moreover, been proved — for this is necessary in order to a thorough and entire removal of the barrier which his arguments would interpose to our progress — that there may be such testimony — testimony so circumstanced and so guaranteed — as that there has never been anything like an experience of its deceiving men, and that we wmuld be constrained, by a regard to right reason and common sense, to believe it, even when it is adduced in support of events plainly and undeniably miraculous. Having removed this barrier out of the way, and having at the same time been led in the course of the process to form, some pretty clear and definite notion of what a miracle is, and of what is the kind and degree of evidence necessary to establish its truth, or rather, having been led to form a notion of a sort of testimony that would constrain a reasonable man to believe any fact or work, however miraculous, in support of which it might be adduced, we now return to consider the actual evidence we possess in support of the truth of the miracles alleged to have been performed by MIRACLES. 1G7 Christ and his apostles, with the view of ascertaining whether that evidence be sufficient to establish them. Now, this evidence is in substance just the solemn, deliberate, consistent attestation of a considerable number of men, whose general character is unim¬ peachable, who exhibit every mark of honesty and integrity, who persevered in this attestation when called upon to renounce every worldly comfort, and subjected to the severest sufferings on account of their adherence to it, and who at last laid down their lives in confirmation of the truth of their attestation. This is the general ground on which we believe in the truth of the miracles alleged to have been performed by Christ and his apostles. And you will observe that the essential element in the proof is the evidence that they forfeited all, and suffered all, even death itself, just because of the attestation they gave to these miraculous events, and did this voluntarily, i.e. while they might have escaped loss, suffering, and death by abandoning or retracting their attestation. And hence it is that Paley sets forth as his main and fundamental proposition in his Evidences the great doctrine “ that there is satisfactory evidence, that many professing to be the original witnesses of the Christian miracles, passed their lives in labours, dangers, and sufferings voluntarily undergone in attesta¬ tion of the accounts which they delivered, and solely in conse¬ quence of their belief of those accounts; and that they also submitted, from the same motives, to new rules of conduct.” And hence too it is that, in establishing this fundamental proposition, he labours mainly to prove — first, that they endured the severest sufferings in attestation of their belief in the accounts they gave ; and second, that the story for which they suffered was in the main the same which we now have. Of the proof of the precise position that they voluntarily endured severe and protracted suffering in attestation of the truth of their story, it is not possible to give a more clear, exact, or more beautiful and satisfactory exposition, than is con¬ tained in the first five chapters of Paley, and these therefore it is your imperative duty to peruse and examine. In regard to his other leading positions under this great general head, viz. — first, that the story for which they suffered was miracu¬ lous, and that it was in the main the story which we now have, which last position he proves (first) from indirect considerations, and then (second) from the authority of our historical Scriptures, 168 THIRTEENTH LECTURE, it may be observed that they are obviously involved in the estab¬ lishment of the genuineness and general credibility of the books that compose the New Testament, in the sense, to the extent, and upon the grounds which were explained in last lecture, and the investigation of which, I think, properly and naturally precedes the consideration of the apostles’ sufferings for their testimony, which sufferings constitute the foundation of that special evidence for the truth of their accounts, required by their special position as asserting that they wrought miracles. I think it at once a more natural and a more logical order to follow in expounding the Christian evidences to begin with establishing the genuineness and general credibility of the writers of the New Testament, so as to put them in the first place at least upon a level with the most authentic of ancient historians, and thus lay a basis upon the ground of which we could have implicitly believed them had they merely related the ordinary history of the period, like Josephus and Tacitus (and of the evidence by which this can be done satis¬ factorily, I gave an outline in last lecture) ; and then, assuming this to be true until it be conclusively proved that they were either deceivers or deceived, to make use of the general information thus obtained for taking a nearer and closer view of them, that we may see whether their testimony was of such a kind, in itself and in its accompaniments, as to warrant us in believing on the strength of it that they wrought miracles in attestation of their claim to be received as divinely commissioned teachers. And when we have come to this position, it is evident that the main points to be proved are — first, that they stood in such a relation to the miracu¬ lous events they describe that they could not be deceived them¬ selves ; and second, that by the sufferings they endured they gave such proofs of their integrity and veracity in this matter that we may be sure they were not imposters trying to deceive others. Both these points must be proved; but, when proved, they are sufficient and satisfactory. This is the subject of Dr Chalmers’s fourth chapter of book ii., which he describes in general (p. 175) as an exhibition of the known situation and history of the authors, as satisfying proofs of the veracity with which they delivered them¬ selves.” In illustration at once of the necessity and sufficiency of all this, we may refer to the miracles alleged to have been per¬ formed by Vespasian, as recorded in Tacitus. This case has VESPASIAN^S MIRACLES. 169 attracted a good deal of notice, especially since it was brought for¬ ward by Hume in his Essay on Miracles, as entitled to be put in competition, in respect to evidence, with the miracles of the NeAv Testament. The utter folly and dishonesty of making or insinu¬ ating any such comparison has been fully exposed by Campbell and Paley but I refer to it at present simply for the purpose of pointing out two or three points of contrast, not so much in the actual proof, as in the relation in which the miracles of Vespasian and those of Christ and his apostles stand respectively to the hind of proof necessary in such cases. Tacitus is a generally credible historian, and therefore we believe upon his authority that the general scene which he describes took place with Vespasian and a lame and a blind man in Alexandria ; that some people believed that on that occasion these persons were miraculously cured by the emperor, and that, as he says, some who were present (continue to) relate these cures even at this time (about thirty years after) when there is nothing to be gained by lying."’ We believe this upon the ground of the general credibility of Tacitus as a histo¬ rian, just as we believe, upon the ground of the general credibility of the evangelists, the general account they give of their position and circumstances. So far they are upon a level ; but now mark the contrast in all other respects : — 1. Tacitus, who records these things, and from whose statement alone we know anything about them, does not give his own personal attestation to the truth and reality of the alleged miracles. He does not tell us that he believed them, and his narrative would rather lead us to conjecture that he did not ; whereas we have the full and cordial conviction of the writers of the New Testament — men with every appearance of honesty and integrity about them — that the miracles they record really took place. 2. We have no account of these alleged miracles of Vespasian from any persons who were closely connected with the events themselves, Avho had full opportunity of knowing all about them and investigating them, who were under some call either of duty or of interest to make themselves thoroughly acquainted with the real state of the case, and whose detailed narrative of the circum- ^ Paley is particularly good, clear, brief, and comprehensive (chap. ii. under prop. ii. pp. 204, 205). 170 THIRTEENTH LECTURE. stances, whatever might have been their object in preparing it, might have afforded materials for either confirming or overturning the direct declarations which they might make, and the convictions they might express, respecting it ; whereas, in the case of the New Testament miracles, we find that the accounts of them come from men who stood in such a relation to them that they could not but be constrained to investigate them thoroughly, and that they could not be deceived in the result of their investigation, while the detailed narratives which they have given us of them contain nothing to invalidate, but much to confirm the truth of their accounts. We are entitled to hear the declaration of the parties, the statement of the original witnesses. 8. For anything that appears, and supposing all to be true which has been really recorded concerning Vespasian’s miracles, it is quite possible, nay, highly probable, that the whole affair was a mere trick or deception got up by the officials of the temple, and that Vespasian himself might or might not be a party to it. There is not only nothing in the circumstances to preclude this supposition, but much to favour it ; and if it were so, there was certainly no power or party in Alexandria that had either the inclination or the ability to detect and proclaim the imposture ; whereas the miracles of Christ and his apostles were performed in circumstances which are plainly inconsistent with the supposition of collusion or deception, and in which there were parties who were both able and willing at once to have detected and exposed imposture. 4. We have no adequate evidence of the sincerity of those who related these miracles. We believe, on Tacitus’ authority, that some persons who were present believed that the lame and the blind men were miraculously cured by Vespasian, and that they continued to express this opinion even after, in consequence of the termination of the Flavian dynasty, no gain was to be made by lying. Who or what these persons were, what was their general character, or what were their circumstances, what were their means and opportunities of investigating the matter, and ascertaining thoroughly how it stood — of all this we know nothing ; and for anything that appears, Tacitus himself might have no personal or explicit knowledge of them, and yet it is really on their testimony that the case rests. It is very evident that some VESPASIAN^S MIRACLES. 171 gain might be expected from asserting the reality of these miracles during the reigns of Vespasian and his two sons, Titus and Domitian ; and it was not wonderful that men should continue to repeat the opinion they had formerly expressed, even w^hen no further gain could be expected, since at the same time no danger or loss was incurred by their testimony. How different this from the case of the original narrators of the miracles of the New Testament, who, while they were so situated that they could not be deceived in the matter, gave the most conclusive evidence of their sincerity by lives of toil and hardship, and deaths of shame and agony, voluntarily endured, just because of the testimony they bore ! If, after the Flavian dynasty had terminated, Trajan had thought proper, for reasons of state, to deal with those men who professed to believe in the reality of Vespasian’s miracles, as we know from undoubted authority that he dealt with the Christians, i.e. to give them the alternative of either retracting their testimony, or submitting to death ; and if in these circum¬ stances, and upon this ground, they had suffered death, then this would have made their case parallel to that of the apostles, so far as the proof of sincerity is concerned. Had events of this kind taken place, and been transmitted to us in credible histories, then we would have admitted that the men who were subjected to such a test and stood it believed in the reality of Vespasian’s miracles, although of course it would still remain a distinct question, to be decided upon a fair view of all the circumstances, whether it was not possible, or even probable, that they might have been mistaken, and that notwithstanding the sincerity of their conviction, no real miracles had been performed upon that occasion. Many of the miracles performed by our Saviour and his apostles were such that many men had the fullest opportunity of testing their reality, so that there was no room for deception or doubt, while the sufferings they endured because of their testimony afforded satisfactor}^ proof of their sincerity. Some writers upon the evidence of Christianity, for the purpose of bringing out more distinctly that the apostles suffered and died not merely in attestation of their general conviction that they were divinely commissioned, but also of the specific miraculous facts upon which their conviction was based, have selected the 172 THIRTEENTH LECTURE. resurrection of Christ, and have illustrated the way and manner in which the general evidence for the truth of Christianity bears upon the proof of that great event. J esus may be said, in a sense, to have staked the truth of his claims upon the fulfilmeut of his own prediction that he was to be put to death, and to rise again from the dead ; and his immediate followers made the fact that he had risen again from the dead the main subject of their testimony, and adduced it as the great ground and reason of the whole course which they adopted in devoting themselves to the preaching of the gospel, to the propagation of Christianity, and of all the hardships they endured in this cause. The apostle Paul, after stating the full and conclusive evidence they had to adduce that Christ had risen again, illustrates its importance by saying, “ And if Christ be not risen, then is our preaching vain, and your faith is also vain” (1 Cor. xv. 14). And it is well known that the primitive Christians were accustomed to use, as a brotherly salu¬ tation on meeting, the word He is risen again,” indicating that the resurrection of Christ was the basis of their hopes, tlie subject of their daily and habitual contemplation, and the source of their motives ; that they had risen with Christ to newness of life, and were striving themselves, and encouraging each other, to set their affections on things above. Now, of this event, so fundamentally important, the defenders of Christianity undertake to prove the following propositions, and have established them by evidence which has been often cavilled at, but cannot be success¬ fully assailed : — 1st, That the apostles who have attested it could not be deceived in the matter, i.e. that if it were not true that their Master had been raised from the dead, they must have been fully aware of this, or at least fully aware that there was no ground for asserting it. 2d. That they did not act the part of deceivers or imposters, declaring what they knew to be false, when they testified that he had risen again, and had been seen of them ; and on the proof of this position of course there bears all the evidence we have of their general integrity and veracity, and especially that derived from their forfeiting every temporal and worldly advantage, and enduring every hardship, even death itself, just because of their testimony to its reality, and because of the course of conduct which a conviction of its reality led them to adopt. 3d. That if Christ did not indeed rise from the dead, RESURRECTION OF CHRIST. 173 then, whether thev deceived themselves, or laboured to deceive others in asserting that he did, they could not have succeeded in convincing so many that Christ had risen. If the story had not been true, its falsehood could easily, from the nature of the case, have been detected and exposed. The whole power and influence of the world was on the side of their enemies, who, from the success with which the labours of the apostles were soon followed, could not possibly have overlooked or despised them. They had no advantage for persuading men of the truth of this event, in any of the prejudices or prepossessions of those to whom they addressed themselves ; they did and they could hold out to them no temporal or worldly inducements to lead them to believe this ; they held out nothing but the prospect of happiness in a future and unseen world, the hope of which was based only upon the truth of Christ’s resurrection, of which therefore men would take good care to satisfy themselves ; and yet we find that, before the personal labours of the immediate witnesses of Christ’s resur¬ rection were brought to a close, there were many thousands scattered over a considerable portion of the earth who were firmly persuaded of its truth, who were just as willing to suffer death in attesting it as the apostles themselves were, and many of whom were honoured with the crown of martyrdom. This result could not have taken place if Christ’s resurrection had not been true, and thoroughly established by satisfactory evidence. 4th. That the resurrection of Christ, if true, was a real miracle, which could not have been effected through the ordinary operation of the laws of nature, or by the exertion of any human power ; and when viewed in connection with the circumstances in which it took place, and the use which was made of it, could be regarded in no other light than as an attestation by at least a superior invisible power to the truth of the claim which Jesus and his apostles put forth to be received as the messengers of God [Ditton, West, Sherlock]. The same general process of argument might be applied to other leading miracles recorded in the New Testament. It has been applied very skilfully and successfully to the conversion of the apostle Paul by Lord Lyttleton, in his very valuable Observations on that important event. If it be proved satisfactorily that Christ rose from the dead, or that he appeared to Paul on his way to Damascus, and called him to the 174 THIRTEENTH LECTURE. apostleship, then there can of course be no difficulty whatever about any of the miracles, or indeed any other matter of fact whatever, recorded in the New Testament, so far as concerns the evidence on which they rest. They rest upon the same evidence, and must therefore be equally admitted; while it should be remembered that the number and variety of the miracles wrought, their character, and the circumstances in which they were per¬ formed, preclude the idea of anything like either collusion or mistake. LECTURE XIY. EVIDENCE OF MIEACLES STILL SATISFACTOEY, JUST AS IF WE HAD WITNESSED THEM— CONNECTION BETWEEN MIEACLES AND DOCTEINE—PEOPHECY— CONCLUSION OF EXTEENAL EVIDENCES. WHEN we are once convinced, upon satisfactory evidence, that the miracles recorded in the New Testament really took place, that Christ wrought many miracles during his public ministry, that he was raised from the dead and appeared alive to his disciples, and that his immediate followers, while bearing testi¬ mony to his resurrection, wrought miracles in his name, then we are placed in substantially the same situation as if we had seen these miracles ourselves, and were satisfied of their truth and reality by the evidence of our own senses. It is a sound and reasonable principle that any matter of fact, of the reality of which we would be satisfied upon the evidence of our senses, may be established by testimony — and by the way this principle, if true, overturns the whole of Hume’s argument, unless infidels were pre¬ pared to assert that we could not rationally believe miracles, even upon the evidence of the senses — and what we assert in regard to the miracles alleged to have been wrought by Christ and his apostles is, that they are supported by testimony of such a kind that in right reason we are just as fully warranted and as impera¬ tively called upon to believe in their truth and reality as if they had been subjected to our own senses. Infidels, besides asserting that miracles cannot be proved by any testimony, are in the habit of maintaining that the strength of testimony progressively dimi¬ nishes in proportion to the interval between the events attested and any subsequent period at which the testimony may be 176 FOURTEENTH LECTURE. examined. And this is the proper place, in the progress of the argument, for examining this allegation, though indeed it scarcely needs or deserves examination. It is a mere vague generality, which is plausible in sound, but cannot stand investigation. Its futilit}", as applicable to the matter before us, is established by proving conclusively the genuineness of the books of the New Testament, and shewing that they have come down to us uncor¬ rupted and unmutilated — in other words, by proving that we have just as good, and indeed precisely the same, means of knowing what testimony the apostles gave, in what circumstances they gave it, and by what evidence they supported it, as have been enjoyed in any previous century up till the time when men could no longer have personal intercourse with the apostles, or with those who witnessed the miracles.’ We assume then that we have now, just as the Church has had in every intervening age, satisfactory evidence of the truth and reality of the miracles alleged to have been wrought by Christ and his apostles ; and we draw from this the inference that we should regard ourselves as placed in the same situation as if we had witnessed them. This being supposed and realised, the question then occurs, What conclusions do we draw from these miracles, with reference to the claims which those who performed them put forth to be received as divinely-commissioned teachers ? Do these miracles really afford satisfactory evidence that God sent them into the world, and authorised them to make known his will to men, so that we are bound at once to receive what they declared as resting upon God’s authority ? This leads to the consideration of a very important subject, and one not altogether free from difficulty, although the difficulty lies much more in the abstract principles that may be brought into discussion in connection with it than in the more direct and practical point of actually deducing from the truth of the miracles of Christ and his apostles a satisfactory argument for the truth of Christianity. This subject is the connection between the truth of a miracle and the truth of the doctrine in support of which it is performed.” It seems very plainly taught in Scripture that both Christ and his apostles appealed to their miracles in support of their divine ^ Dr Gregory’s Letters, quoted in Forne, who also refers to Benson’s Hulsean Lectures for 1820, pp. 70-98 (Horne, i. p. 233^. MIRACLES. 1 i i commission, and the consequent truth of the doctrines they taught. But this has not been admitted even by all who profess to acknowledge the authority of the Scriptures. It was main¬ tained by Collins, the well-known infidel, that Christ and his followers appealed only to prophecy in support of their claims, and after trying to establish this, he made it his principal business to shew that prophecy afforded no rational and certain evidence of the truth of Christ’s Messiahship. The infidel rationalists or anti-supernaturalists of Germany — who being, many of them, ministers and professors of theology, profess to believe in a certain sense in revelation, Christianity, and the Bible, while in truth they should ever be regarded and treated as infidels — as they generally deny that Christ and his apostles ever performed any miracles, deny that they ever appealed to anything of this sort in support of their claims, and they endeavour to establish this by perverting the plain statements of Scripture. Accordingly, in the more orthodox works published in Germany, you frequently find a formal proof of the position that Christ and his apostles appealed to their miracles in support of their claims, and an exposure of the attempts of the infidel rationalists to pervert the meaning of these passages of Scripture in which this position is so clearly established.^ I would have liked to have devoted an hour to reading and examining these passages, but time forbids it. We may possibly return to it. The only question that now remains is this. Was this appeal which they made to miracles in support of their claims well founded ? Did these miracles really afford a proof that they were commissioned by God, and that their doctrine was true ? A miracle witnessed or proved neces¬ sarily implies, and of course proves, the existence and present operation of some superior invisible intelligence, and does not seem directly and of itself necessarily to prove more. A question has been agitated upon this subject, viz., whether it can be proved from reason and Scripture that God alone can work miracles, or whether it is not possible that what appear as miracles to us may be effected by inferior beings ? I have said from reason or Scripture, because many authors, when they come to this question, refer to the light thrown upon it by Scripture,^ although this is ’ Storr and Flatt’s Biblical Theology, p. 19 ; Knapp’s Lectures. 2 Egyptian Magicians and Demoniacal Possessions. M 178 FOURTEENTH LECTURE. scarcely suitable to the present stage of the argument, when we are still engaged in establishing the claims of Christianity against infidels. There is nothing in the informations of reason or the doctrines of natural theology to prove that there are not beings inferior to God who may be able to perform miracles ; but neither, on the other hand, does natural theology give any positive information about the existence and powers of such beings ; while it plainly enough teaches that miracles cannot, any more than ordinary events, take place without the appointment or permission of Him who alone governs the world, and who has all beings and all influ¬ ences under his control ; that he will neither produce nor permit such events as are fitted to lead his rational creatures into error concerning himself and his will, and that he will assuredly give to all who sincerely desire to know the truth, and use their faculties aright, sufficient means of preserving themselves from error, even though other beings inferior to him, but superior to men, should be permitted to attempt to deceive them, or to lead them to believe that God had made a revelation of his will when he had not. I must remember, however, that I am not to discuss this subject at present, but merely to indicate its general nature, and the place it occupies in the general train of reasoning by which the truth of Christianity may be established, reserving any additional observations concerning it till we come to consider the last chapter of the second book of Dr Chalmers’s Evidences, where this subject is discussed. I believe, as he does, though it is a point on which the writers on Christian evidences are not by any means unanimous, that some reference to the general character of the doctrines taught, and of the scheme or objects contemplated by those who work miracles, is necessary, in order to our having a well-grounded assurance that they were commissioned by God, and authorised to speak in his name. But then it can be easily proved that whatever of this sort may be necessary upon any theory, fully and clearly attaches to the miracles performed by Christ and his followers, and thus it can be conclusively established that those who saw their miracles and heard their instructions — and of course we who, as has been shewn, are, by the proofs we have of the truth of the miracles, and the knowledge we possess of their doctrine, placed in siffistantially the same situation as if we had MIRACLES. 179 seen and heard them — have abundant ground to believe assuredly that God sent them into the w^orld to make known his will, and that therefore we are bound to receive whatever it can be shewn they declared or enjoined, as resting upon the authority of God himself. The reference to the general character of the doctrine and of the system in connection with which miracles are wrought, which may be necessary in order to give validity to the argument from miracles in proof of an immediate and supernatural revelation from God, naturally paves the way for the consideration of the internal evidence, or the evidence derived from the character and substance of the revelation itself ; in other w^ords, the investiga¬ tion of the question, whether or not there be, in the general character and in the specific features of the system of doctrine and morality taught by Christ and his apostles, anything which of itself proves that they did reveal God’s will, and were specially authorised by him to do so. But there is another point to which Ave must again advert before proceeding to give a brief outline of this subject. We formerly explained the double claim which Christ and his followers put forth on his behalf — first, that he was a teacher sent from God ; and second, that he was the Messiah predicted in the Old Testament prophecies ; or, as it has been sometimes expressed — first, that he was a prophet; second, that he was the prophet ; and we have made some observations on the relation in which these two claims stand to each other. They are distinct claims, and they are co-ordinate with each other ; i.e. each stands upon its own proper footing, and must be substantiated by its own peculiar and appropriate evidence. The appropriate evidence of a claim to be received as a divinely commissioned teacher is miracles — results cognisable by the senses, which could not be effected by human power, and which could not take place without the immediate agency, or at least the explicit permission, of Him who rules the world. In the nature of the proposition that Jesus was the Messiah predicted in the Old Testament Scriptures, there is necessarily involved the idea that the proper proof of it must be derived from a comparison of Old Testament statements with his life and history, from shewing that predictions are contained in the Old Testament which were fulfilled in him. A prediction of a future 180 FOURTEENTH LECTURE. event is a miracle, and whenever an event occurs which can be proved to have been predicted, while yet it can be shewn that it could not have been foreseen by any mere human sagacity, then we are warranted to say that in this matter a miracle has been wrought, and we are entitled to bring to bear upon it all these general principles, and to draw from it all those inferences, which miracles, in the more ordinary and familiar sense of the word, sanction. If then it can be proved that Christ was plainly fore¬ told in the Old Testament, then this, as a miracle or series of miracles wrought in manifest and intended connection with him, proves him to have been a divinely commissioned teacher ; while, as the fulfilment in him of prophecies concerning one who was to come in God’s name to make known his will and to accomplish his purposes, it proves him to be the Christ, or the predicted Messiah. Whereas, on the other hand, the proof by miracles that he was a divinely commissioned teacher, does not of itself, and i^so facto, prove him to have been the Christ. It may indeed be said that if he is proved to be a divinely commissioned teacher, we must believe on his authority whatever he asserts concerning himself, and thus, since he asserted it, that he was the Messiah. This is true abstractly ; but still, since the proposition that he was the Messiah admits, from its nature, of being proved by its own direct and appropriate evidence, the matter would stand in a some¬ what awkward predicament if we could not prove it by a com¬ parison of the Old Testament statements with his history, and could establish it only in the indirect and round-about way of first proving that he was a divinely commissioned teacher, and that all his statements are to be received as true ; and second, that he asserted that he was the Messiah, and that therefore this was true. I cannot see that there is any proper sense in which prophecy can be rightly represented, as Dr Paley has done, as one of the auxiliary evidences of Christianity. It does not go to confirm or build up the evidence of miracles. The proof from miracles would be just as strong as it is, if there was no evidence from prophecy, and no claim to Messiahship. Prophecy is either a direct and fundamental evidence, going explicitly, and of itself, to prove that Jesus was the Christ, or it is no evidence at all. If there be such vagueness or obscurity in the prophecies of the Old Testament as PROPHECIES CONCERNING THE MESSIAH. 181 to render their application to Christ doubtful without a previous proof that Jesus and his apostles did not, and could not, err in interpreting them, then prophecy, properly speaking, does not of itself afford a proof, but only a presumption, in favour of his claims. Whereas if, from a fair and impartial investigation of the meaning of the Old Testament statements, it can be proved that they contain many predictions which were fulfilled in Christ, then here is a direct, fundamental, independent proof, of the truth of his claims, not auxiliary to the argument from miracles, or to any other argument for the truth of Christianity, but complete in itself, and resting upon its own proper and independent basis. We have not here to do with the general subject of prophecy, or with the general principles applicable to the interpretation of it, but merely with the question, whether there be such predictions in the Old Testament as, being falfilled in Jesus and his history, prove him to be a divinely commissioned messenger of God. There are many predictions contained in the Old Testament which can be proved to have been fulfilled, and to be now fulfilling, but which had not their fulfilment in the life and history of Christ. They were fulfilled, and are fulfilling, in the history of the Jews and other nations, of Nineveh, Babylon, Tyre, &c. These predic¬ tions fulfilled, prove that the men who uttered them were instructed and inspired by God, and thus go to establish the divine authority and inspiration of the Old Testament ; and this applies to all predictions fulfilled. But they do not directly establish the Messiahship of Jesus. To establish this, we must shew that there are in the Old Testament predictions of some one who was afterwards to appear on earth to reveal God’s will and to accomplish his purposes, and that these predictions were fulfilled in our Saviour. This argument may be addressed either to J ews or to men who admit the divine authority neither of the Old nor of the New Testament ; and the conditions of the argument varv somewhat, according as it is addressed to the one or the other of these two classes. The Jews admit (1) that the writings of the Old Testament existed long before our Saviour appeared on earth ; (2) that they proceeded from God, and therefore have all a meaning and an object ; and (3) that they distinctly point to one who was to come — to a great and exalted being, who was to be employed by God in accomplishing his purposes. Infidels do not 182 FOURTEENTH LECTURE. admit these positions ; and therefore, in dealing with them, they must be proved. We prove that the writings of the Old Testament existed long before the appearance of our Saviour, by the same kind of evidence by which we establish the genuineness of the books of the New Testament ; evidence external and internal, the language and contents, concurrence with general history, versions, quotations, and references, and especially by the testimony of the Jews themselves. Infidels are not bound by their principles, as J ews are, to admit that there is a real meaning in all the prophecies of the Old Testament. In discussing the meaning of passages in the Old Testament with a J ew, in order to shew that they contain predictions which were fulfilled in Jesus, we argue upon the assumption, which he admits, that they were inspired by God, that they have a meaning, and were intended to predict some¬ thing. And these admissions are sometimes of importance in investigating some of the more obscure prophecies. For when we have endeavoured to establish the true meaning of a prediction in the Old Testament, we are entitled to insist that the Jew, who may object to our interpretation, shall give an interpretation of his own, and then the question is virtually reduced to this, whether the one or the other of these interpretations is the right one ; whereas all that can be logically expected from an infidel is merely to prove that our interpretation is not correct, or is not fully established. He is not bound to admit that the passage has any meaning, except in so far as' we can succeed in establishing that this is the meaning ; and would probably not scruple to say, as indeed infidels have often said, that the prophecies of the Old Testament are so obscure as to be unintelligible, and that it is impossible to bring any clear and definite meaning out of them. I mention this because it is right that you should distinctly understand the conditions and difficulties of the argument, when you undertake to prove that there exist in the Old Testament predictions which were fulfilled in our Saviour, and thus prove him to be the Messiah, and because in the great controversy which took place in England in the early part of last century on the subject of the nature, certainty, and grounds of the argument from prophecy occasioned by the publication of Collins’ infidel work on The Grounds and Reasons of the Christian Religion, some of the less careful and discriminating of his opponents over- PROPHECIES CONCERNING THE MESSIAH. 183 looked this distinction, and thus gave him an excuse for triumphing over them, of which he was not slow to take advantage. It is but an extension of the same idea to notice that in arguing from prophecy with a Jew, we have the advantage of his conceding to us that the subject of many predictions in the Old Testament is one great being who was to come, and when he came, to contribute greatly to the accomplishment of God’s purposes ; — an admission which affords a key to the meaning of many of them, and narrows and facilitates greatly the discussion concerning their application to Jesus, and their fulfilment in him ; whereas, in arguing from prophecy with an infidel, this must be proved from an examination of the prophecies themselves before we are entitled to assume it. The common allegations of infidels in regard to the argument from prophecy in support of the Messiahship of Jesus, and the consequent truth of his religion, are : — 1st. That the prophecies are so obscure, confused, and perplexed, that it is not possible to extract from them any clear, definite, and intelligible meaning. 2d. That if there be some of them which contain statements similar to what is found in the life and history of Jesus, yet the resemblance may be accounted for in other ways — by chance or accident, or by design on the part of Jesus and his followers, and at any rate is much too vague and indefinite to require us to have recourse to the supposition of a supernatural inspired prediction. Now, you must observe that these allegations are brought forward in reply to the adduction of passages from the Old Testament by the defenders of Christianity, in which they profess to have found clear predictions of events and circumstances which were fulfilled in the life and history of Jesus ; and these allegations of infidels are to be answered, not by abstract reasonings — although it is right to explain, as can be easily done, the reasons why it was right, and might have been expected, that some degree of obscurity would attach to prophecies — but just by a re-adduction and re-examination of the passages, by a solution of the doubts which infidels may have tried to raise about the meaning of particular predictions, the obscurity they may have attempted to throw over them ; and thus, by a careful examination of the prophecies themselves, by an exact investigation of their meaning, and a careful comparison of them with their alleged fulfilment in the life and history of Jesus, and in many things about him, which 184 FOURTEENTH LECTURE. could not have been brought about by the contrivance of himself and his followers, establishing the conclusion that there is in the Old Testament a series of statements, exhibiting indeed different degrees of clearness and explicitness, but yet sufficiently clear and explicit to prove, when viewed in connection with the life and history of Jesus, that the leading events in that life and history were foretold, and that he therefore was the subject of special divine communications, that he possesses all the character and qualities which in the Old Testament are ascribed to him who was to come, and may consequently be implicitly trusted as an authorised revealer of God’s will. Everything, therefore, depends in this matter upon ascertaining the true meaning of particular predictions, and shewing that there is such a definite correspondence between their meaning and import as they stand in the Old Testament, and events in the life and history of Christ, as to preclude the idea of any other explanation than that there was a supernatural prediction, and it was fulfilled in Jesus. And hence, as we formerly remarked, arises one important advantage of studying fully the argument from prophecy, that it leads to a careful and exact investigation of the meaning of a considerable portion of the inspired word of God, and that thus, by one and the same process, we obtain abundant materials for establishing the divine authority of the sacred Scriptures, and also acquire much knowledge of their contents, or of the revelation which they make to us of the divine will. It would tend to involve in serious doubt the whole argument O from prophecy for the Messiahship of Jesus, unless we could point out in the Old Testament single and distinct predictions which, in their literal and exact meaning, critically ascertained, did apply to Jesus, and were fulfilled in him; and it is most satis¬ factory that there are not a few predictions contained in the Old Testament which, when taken singly, each by itself, can be proved, after the most careful examination of their meaning, to have been real predictions which were fulfilled in our Saviour. But still the strength and impression of the argument from prophecy depend very materially upon the proof that can be adduced from the Old Testament of a series of predictions, commencing verv near the origin of our race, and extending over several thousand PROPHECIES CONCERNING THE MESSIAH. 185 years, all consistent with each other, but increasing gradually in clearness and explicitness, plainly pointing, individually and collectively, to some great person whom God was to send into the world for the accomplishment of most important purposes, and all at length, in their general features and in their detailed parti¬ culars, finding an exact and perfect accomplishment in the life and history, in the miracles and sufferings, in the death and resurrection, of him who came in God’s name to seek and to save lost sinners, in the scheme of mercy which he has unfolded, in the blessings which he has purchased, and in the power and glory to which he has been exalted. This is well expressed in the Preface (p. v.) to Bishop Sherlock on The Use and Intent of Projphecy, which, though not by any means a complete work on this subject, contains some excellent materials for carrying out this idea. The meaning of all these prophecies in which the defenders of Christianity have found proofs of the Messiahship of Jesus, predictions which were fulfilled in him, is of course con¬ troverted by the Jews, who have endeavoured to prove that these predictions, which in their natural and obvious meaning seem plainly to apply to Jesus, are not correctly interpreted, and also that there are predictions contained in the Old Testament, and intended to apply to the Messiah, which were not fulfilled in our Saviour. This subject can be investigated only by an examination into the details of the meaning and application of particular passages, and some of the best books for assisting you in the study of this subject are Leslie’s Short and Easy Method with the Jews; Bishop Kidder’s Demonstration of the Messiah; Limborch’s Arnica Collatio cum Erudito Jud^ceo, a work in which the objections of this learned Jew are given at full length and answered ; and Huet’s Demonstratio Evangelica, which contains about as full and minute an exhibition of the predictions con¬ cerning the Messiah, and of their fulfilment in Christ, as probably any one book that could be mentioned. Infidels who were not Jews have generally contented themselves with trying to involve the subject of prophetical interpretation and proof in mist and obscurity, without entering much into critical details as to the exact meaning of the prophecies, probably because few, if any, of them had ever taken the trouble to acquire the requisite 186 FOURTEENTH LECTURE. knowledge of Hebrew for discussing them. This defect, however, on the part of the older infidels, has been abundantly supplied of late by the infidel rationalists of Germany, many of whom, comprising undoubtedly some of the most learned Hebraists of the age, have laboured zealously to prove that there are no predictions of Jesus in the Old Testament, or, according to the phraseology now commonly employed on the Continent in regard to this matter, have laboured to refute the Messianic, and to establish the anti-Messianic interpretation of them. They admit that the writers of the Isew Testament believed that there were many passages in the Old Testament which contained predictions of Jesus. But though they call themselves Christians, they do not hold the authority of the apostles sufficient to settle this point ; and they set themselves to serve to the uttermost the cause of infidelity by employing all their learning and ingenuity in shewing that there are no prophecies in the Bible, just as they labour to shew that Christ and his apostles did not perform any miracles. They may have sometimes succeeded in involving in some doubt, as a mere question of criticism, the precise meaning of some particular prophecies ; but no learning and no ingenuity can succeed in involving in reasonable doubt the great truths that there are predictions of future events contained in the Old Testament which have been fulfilled, that there is to be found there a series of predictions pointing distinctly to a great messenger of God who was to rise up among the Jews, and that this series of predictions has been fulfilled in Jesus of Nazareth. Of late God has been pleased to raise up in Germany men quite equal to the most distinguished rationalists in talent and learning, and with much sounder views of divine truth and of the word of God, who have successfully contended for the existence of predic¬ tions, properly so called, in the Old Testament, for the Messianic interpretation of them, and for the literal fulfilment of them in the life and religion of Jesus and as they had to deal with men who had taken up thoroughly infidel ground, their works are not only very valuable in a critical point of view, or as specimens of scriptural interpretation, but are most important in their bearing ^ Heiigstenberg, of Berlin, C1iristolo(j]j and Introduction to the Psalms, and Commentary on them, which have been translated into English, and are well deserving of perusal. PREDICTIOXS BY CHRIST. 187 upon the proof of Christ's Messiahship, and thus upon the general truth of Christianity. Before concluding this subject of prophecy, and thereby finish¬ ing the outline of the external evidences, we have merely to notice that this topic comprehends also predictions ascribed to our Saviour, and alleged to have been fulfilled ; more especially con¬ cerning his own death and resurrection, the destruction of Jerusa¬ lem, the fate of the Jews, the success of his cause, and the history of his church.^ If it can be proved, as it can, that these predic¬ tions were made and were afterwards fulfilled, or are now fulfilling, then they are just miracles wrought by Christ, and operate simply as miracles in proving, not indeed his Messiahship, but his claim to be received as a teacher sent from God. I have now given you a brief outline or skeleton of the external evidences for the truth of Christianity, or of the proof of, or rather the mode of proving, the credibility of the messengers, as distin¬ guished from the credibility of the message, and pointed out what seems to be at once the most natural and the most logically correct order of developing the whole train of thought in its different departments by which the ultimate conclusion that Christ and his immediate followers were commissioned by God, and authorised to speak in his name, may be reached and established. You must fill up the outline by your own study and meditation, by the careful perusal of works where the information necessary for establishing some of the leading positions is collected and applied, and by making both the facts and the arguments the subject of fixed and deliberate reflection, until they are so impressed upon your understandings and memories as to be ever ready for use, if needful, in convincing- men of the truth of Christianity. And I trust that, in investigat¬ ing this matter, you will take care to cherish ever yourselves, and when necessary inculcate upon others, the state of mind and heart so evidently required in our Saviour s statements which may be regarded as embodying by implication what is a precept equally of natural and revealed religion : " If any man will do his will TO dsXrifi(x, avTou r6is7v), he shall know of the doctrine whether it be of God ” (John vii. 17). * Horne’s 2''able of Rro^tlieclas, in Appendix to vol. i. LECTURE XV. INTERNAL EVIDENCES OF THE GENERAL TRUTH OF CHRISTIANITY. flHIE second leading division under which the evidences of Christianity are usually classed, is the internal evidences, or the proof of its truth and divine origin that may be derived from the nature of the message, as distinguished from the character and credibility, or, in one word, the testimony of the messengers. Jesus and his apostles professed to be commissioned by God to reveal his will to men, and on this ground claimed that men should receive, as coming from God, what they taught and enjoined. They produced the credentials of their claims in miracles and the fulfilment of prophecies, which are obviously fitted to establish a divine attestation, i.e> to convey a virtual declaration on God’s part that they were to be received as his messengers. We found, however, in considering how it is that miracles, thoroughly established 'by satisfactory evidence, afford a proof of the divine authority of the doctrines in connection with the proclamation of w^hich they are wrought, that there is good reason to doubt whether the argument from miracles can be fully established without some, reference to the character of the doctrine promulgated. This doubt arises from the consideration that it does not seem practicable to prove either from reason or revelation — though it is with reason alone, or natural theology, we have to do in the matter at this stage of the argument, when we are dealing with infidels — that God alone can work miracles, or even to prove the impossibility of invisible beings adverse to God and his cause being able to do, and being permitted to do, what we could not but regard as miracles. We can prove indeed that the good Being who governs the world, and has all things under his sove- INTERNAL EVIDENCE. 189 reign control, will not allow his rational and responsible creatures to be deceived, without giving them some sufficient means of ascertaining the truth in the matter. But we cannot prove that the means of ascertaining whether the miracles came from himself, and are proofs of his approbation, must necessarily be found in the nature and accompanying circumstances of the miracles them¬ selves; and hence the necessity of having some reference to the general character of the doctrines, and of the system in connection with which the miracles were wrought. But the difficulty lies, as I formerly remarked, solely in the abstract questions which may be started in connection with this subject ; for there is no practi¬ cal difficulty in proving that the doctrine of Christ and his apostles^ or the Christian revelation, did not come from wdcked beings, adversaries of God and righteousness, and that therefore, being supported by well authenticated miracles, it must have come from God himself. The investigation of this subject necessarily leads to some consideration of the nature of the message, the character of the revelation, viewed in connection with what we already know about God and his character and government from the informations of natural theology ; and Dr Chalmers, with the candour natural to great minds, has told us that the investigation of this subject, of the connection between the reality of the miracles and the truth of the doctrine, had produced some modification of the views he once entertained with regard to the subject of the internal evidences, viewed in connection with the informations of natural theology : — “We are aware that, in this view of the matter, a previous natural religion would seem to be indispensable ; whereas, in the other view of it, the whole credit and authority that belong to the Christian religion would have their primary fountain head in the proper and peculiar evidences of reve¬ lation. Miracles, simply as such, and without regard to adjuncts at all, were enough in all conceivable circumstances to authenticate any professed commu¬ nication from God to the world. The historical evidences for these miracu¬ lous facts were enough of themselves to constitute a simple but solid foundation for the whole superstructure of our creed. We confess our partiality, in other days, to what we held as a beautiful and consistent exemplification of the question between us and infidels. There is nothing however which has contributed more to modify our views upon this subject than the ques¬ tion whereof we now treat.’ Instead of holding all religion as suspended * That of the connection between the miracle and the doctrine. 190 FIFTEENTH LECTURE. on the miraculous evidences, we see this evidence itself standing at the bar of an anterior principle, and there waiting for its authentication. There is a previous natural religion on whose aid we call for the determination of this matter. It is an authority that we at one time should have utterly disregarded and contemned : but now hold it in higher reverence, since, reflecting on the supremacy of conscience ^within us, we deem this to be the token of an ascendant principle of morality and truth in the universe around us.’^^ There are two general questions in regard to this subject that obviously present themselves, and demand some attention : — 1st, Is there anything in the revelation given us by Christ and his apostles in the message they have brought us, which affords any good ground to doubt or deny that it came from God ? and 2d, Is there anything in this revelation that affords a positive proof or presumption that it came from him ? Now, at present you will recollect that we are not investigating the question of the divine authority of the books of Scripture, but only the general truth of the Christian revelation ; and that therefore we have not at present to do either with the objections deduced from, or the confirmations based upon, particular passages of the Scriptures, but only with the leading features of the revelation in general, its doctrines, and its morality. Objections to the contents of revelation, and especially to the doctrines of Christianity, are much more easily got up than objec¬ tions to its proper direct historical evidence. There is something in fabricating and in enforcing such objections that is gratifying to the pride of human reason, and therefore this has generally been a favourite field for the exercise of the ingenuity of infidels. They have been accustomed to allege and to attempt to prove that that there are things in the Christian revelation which are absurd or contrary to reason, contradictory to or inconsistent with each other, opposed to correct notions of the divine character and government, and even injurious to the interests of morality; and that, consequently, it did not come from God, and is unworthy of the confidence and submission of rational men. All this has been alleged by infidels, who have appealed to specific doctrines of Christianity in support of these general objections, and all these allegations have been answered and exposed by the defenders of revelation. I have no doubt of the general truth of the position which Dr Chalmers has laid down and enforced upon this subject, ’ Chalmers’s Eoklences, book vi. chap. viii. vol. i. pp. 384, 385. INTERNAL EVIDENCE. 191 that these objections of infidels have been treated "with much more attention than they deserved, and that as the objections originated commonly in unwarranted and presumptuous specula¬ tion upon subjects in regard to which the natural reason of man is by no means a safe or certain guide, so there has been a good deal of unnecessary and sometimes presumptuous speculation exhibited by the defenders of Christianity in answering them. And perhaps a still worse result has been that some of the defenders of Christianity, having themselves very defective and erroneous views of the doctrines of the gospel, as was certainly the case with many of those who chiefly conducted the defence of revelation against the English infidels of the early part of last century, have been led to explain away the doctrines of Christianity, to prune them down to what the natural reason of man might be inclined to receive as true and probable, and to reduce the Chris¬ tian revelation to little more than a republication of the law of nature. At the same time, it seems undeniable that such objec¬ tions are in their general nature and character relevant, and that it is needful to dispose of them. If it be alleged upon plausible grounds that anything contained in the Christian revelation is contrary to the plain dictates of reason ; that it involves a con¬ tradiction, or is opposed to some other part of the revelation itself ; that it is dishonouring to God, or injurious to morality; it seems reasonable and necessary that these allegations should be dis¬ proved, and the doctrines objected to vindicated, although cer¬ tainly much more use ought to be made in this work of vindication than has been done by many of the defenders of Christianity of these two important and fundamental considerations, viz. — 1st, The weakness of human reason and man's ignorance of God — their incapacity of determining with certainty a priori what is worthy of God, accordant with his character and government, fitted to promote his purposes, and might therefore be reasonably expected in a revelation that professed to come from him ; and 2d, The unreasonable and un philosophical character of the notion that the direct and proper proof in support of the truth of a revela¬ tion, while unassailable upon the ground of its own proper merits as a proof, may be virtually set aside or disregarded upon the ground of mere difficulties which may not admit of being all directly explained and cleared away, and especially difficulties 192 FIFTEENTH LECTUEE. based upon topics of speculation which in their full magnitude and extent lie very much beyond the cognizance of the human faculties. Where the evils formerly adverted to, and especially that of explaining away the real doctrines taught in Scripture, are avoided, and these principles now stated are kept steadily in view, it might be necessary and useful to shew, in regard to the particu¬ lar doctrines of Christianity objected against, that though in some cases above reason, they are not contrary to reason ; that they involve no contradiction or inconsistency ; that they contradict nothing which we know with certainty about God from any other source; and that they are not dishonouring to him, or injurious to morality. And though there has occasionally been some rash and presumptuous speculation exhibited in repelling as well as in enforcing such objections as those we now refer to, there has also been much valuable matter brought out in this way that is fitted to promote the cause of truth and of sound doctrine. I shall give one instance of this. Bishop Conybeare, who succeeded Butler in the see of Bristol, and who was no unworthy successor even of that great man, having written a very masterly work, entitled A Defence of Revealed Religion in reply to Tindal, &c., has a very able sermon On the Nature, Possibility, and Certainty of Miracles. In this sermon, after establishing the certainty of the miracles of the New Testament, he admits ‘'that no miracles whatsoever can prove a doctrine to be divine which is absurd, which either contradicts itself or any other known and certain truth, or is inconsistent with any of the perfections of the divine nature.” He then proceeds to shew that “ there is nothing in the Christian scheme absurd or inconsistent with the divine attri¬ butes.” And after illustrating the important distinction between a doctrine being above reason and contrary to reason, he concludes “ that all arguments against our religion drawn from the matter of it are impertinent, unless they prove that it in some way or other implies a contradiction.” He then goes on to shew that this cannot be established ; and, referring, as to a commonly alleged instance of contradiction, to the doctrine of the Trinity, he gives the following beautifully clear, precise, and satisfactory explana¬ tion upon that point : — “ To assert indeed that the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost are three distinct infinite beings, and yet but one being, is an express contradiction. To assert INTERNAL EVIDENCE. 193 that they are three distinct beings, of which two are inferior, and yet each God, is either to nse the term God equivocally in this case (which makes one ])art of Scripture contradict another), or else is an express contradiction. But to assert that there is but one divine nature or essence, that this undi¬ vided essence is common to three persons, that by person, when applied to God, we do not mean the same as when applied to men, but only somewhat analo¬ gous to it, that we have no adequate idea of what is meant by the word person when applied to God, and use it only because distinct personal attri¬ butes and actions are ascribed to the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost in Scrip¬ ture, is no contradiction ; we do not assert that one is three, and three one (as we are falsely charged), but only that what are three in one respect may be three only in another. We do not assert that three beings are one being, that three persons are one person, or that three intelligent beings are one intelli¬ gent being (as the word person signifies when applied to men), but only that in the same undivided nature there are three differences analogous to personal differences amongst men ; and though we cannot precisely determine what these differences are, we have no more reason to conclude them impossible than a blind man hath to conclude the impossibility of colours because he cannot see them.”^ The substance of what is contained in this extract is of course to be found in many authors when defending the doctrine of the Trinity ; but I do not know that it has ever been better put than in this sermon on miracles. But the advocates of Christianity are not contented with proving that there is nothing in the Christian revelation which affords any ground in right reason for denying or even doubting that it came from God, nothing but what leaves the proper direct historical and miraculous evidence that Christ and his apostles were commissioned by God, untouched and unimpaired, to exert its own appropriate influence. They have also in general founded upon the character and contents of the revelation, a positive proof that it came from God through their instrumentality. They have differed indeed about the precise value and weight of this evidence, but almost all have admitted that it does go to confirm or corroborate the proof for the divine origin of Christianity, that it has some weight pro¬ bative or presumptive. The Christian revelation contains and unfolds a system of doctrine and a system of morality or duty, and the question is : Do we, when we examine this system of doc- * Conybeare’s Sermon on The Nature, Possibility, and Certainty of Miracles, pp. 27, 28. N 194 FIFTEENTH LECTURE, trine and duty, discover in its general nature and character, or in its special features, any clear and certain indications of its source or origin. Now — first, it is very evident, and can be easily proved, that this system did not owe its origin to wicked men or to wicked beings of any class or order, i.e. to beings adverse to what we know from other sources concerning the character and government of God, or to the interests of piety and righteousness. But this does not advance us much beyond the position we occupied under the former head ; as the practical result of it is little more than to shew that the system is free from objection. Second, it may be asserted, and can be proved, that it could not have been devised or invented by men in the unassisted use of their natural powers ; and this we think is the best, safest, and most satisfactory way of putting the argument for the general truth of Christianity, derived from the character of the message, the contents of the revelation. There is something that seems presumptuous and unsatisfactory in laying down directly and at once the position that the message is altogether so good and so excellent that it is quite worthy of God, and could have come only from him. This seems to partake too much of that spirit of presumptuous a 'priori speculation which Dr Chalmers has so fully and effectively exposed. It seems to be assuming a larger knowledge, and, as it were, experience of God than men really possess ; not that we mean to doubt or deny either the reality or the rationality of what has been called the self-evidencing powder of the gospel and of the sacred Scriptures, by which they indicate their author and origin, by which, like the other works of God, they may directly and at once lead the mind to him who gave them existence. Neither do we mean to deny, but on the contrary we firmly believe, that infidels are often, in point of fact, led to a conviction of the truth of Christianity, by the Spirit of God accompanying the mere preaching of the gospel, or tlie exhibition of the substance of the revelation and the mere reading of the word. But all this does not properly concern the question we are at present considering, which is substantially this : How may a train of thought and argument be best exhi¬ bited and laid out which, based upon principles held both by believers and unbelievers, and logically correct and compact in all its parts and steps, may be fitted to compel infidels, unless they are resolved to violate all the laws of right reasoning, to admit INTERNAL EVIDENCE. 195 that Christianity is a revelation from God ? An infidel indeed could not consistently adduce objections against revelation founded upon its alleged inconsistency with the divine character and government, as most infidels have done, and at the same time object to our drawing arguments in support of it from our natural knowledge of God. But this would merely give us an argumen- ium ad hominem against him, and would not prove the proper logical truth and soundness of our own principle. We know little of God by nature, and are scarcely entitled to speak with much confidence of what is worthy of him, or of what, because we think it worthy of him, must have come from him. But we know men, we can fully comprehend them, we can estimate their powers and capacities, both generally and with reference to the particular cir¬ cumstances in which they may have been placed, and we can speak with some confidence as to what it was or was not possible for them without assistance from a higher power to have done or achieved. But we have not merely our knowledge of man as man, and of his powers and capacities ; we have also what is a matter within our legitimate cognizance, the knowledge of the situation and circumstances in which the particular men from whom this reve¬ lation proceeded were placed. The question is not merely, Could this revelation, this system of doctrine and morality, have origi¬ nated with men ? but. Could it have originated with men placed in the situation and circumstances of Christ and his apostles ? They were illiterate Jews, and we have some means of knowing what this implies in regard to their mental cultivation and acquire¬ ments, their capacities and opportunities. And even though we should lay aside the idea of their being illiterate, and suppose them to have had full and ready access to all the philosophy and science, to all the knowledge and literature that then existed in the world, still we can estimate what assistance this would have rendered, and determine whether, in connection with what we know generally of the human faculties, it would have enabled them to devise the Christian system of doctrine and of duty. This argument then is in its nature perfectly legitimate ; and when the principle is applied to the matter in hand, there are abundant materials for establishinor the conclusion that men, unassisted by any higher order of beings, and especially men 196 FIFTEENTH LECTURE. placed in the situation of Christ and his apostles, could not have invented and devised the system of doctrine and duty which they gave to the world, and which, ever since they promulgated it, has exerted a most important and salutary influence upon the con¬ dition of the human race. It is very evident, and may be very confidently asserted, that many men, if placed in Mohammad’s situation, and with access to the Christian Scriptures as he had, might have produced the Koran ; and it is equally evident, and at any rate can be satis¬ factorily proved by an investigation of the subject, that men, and especially men placed in the situation of Christ and his apostles, could not have produced the scheme which is developed in the New Testament. The proof of this must of course be derived from a detailed investigation of the scheme itself in its leading features, and in its particular details viewed in connection with the attainments men had already, when this scheme was promul¬ gated, reached in the knowledge of God and of duty, and in connection with the great objects which the scheme was intended to effect. The development of the harmony and excellence, the beauty and sublimity, the wisdom and efficacy, in short, the exalted and superhuman character of the matter of the Christian revelation, of the scheme of doctrine and morality unfolded in the Bible, afford full scope and exercise of the highest powers and faculties with which men have ever been gifted ; and we are very sure that those who are best qualified for appreciating all this themselves, and for developing it before the minds of others, will be the most ready to acknowledge that to have originally discovered and devised the scheme far transcends the powers and capacities of men, and that therefore it did not originate with the humble and illiterate Jews who first promulgated it to the world, and through whose instrumentality it has become known to us. But if the scheme did not originate with Jesus and his immediate followers, viewing them of course simply as men, and with reference to the ordinary powers and capacities of men, unassisted by any beings of a superior order of intelligence, as the condition of the present argument evidently requires, the question remains. Who was its author, from what source did it come ? These men who promulgated it to the world have assured us that they received it from God, and were commanded by him INTERNAL EVIDENCE. 197 to make it known to men; and they have given ns abundant evidence, in their sufferings and miracles, not only that they believed this, but that it really was so. At present, however, we are precluded from having recourse to this source of knowledge or proof, and must confine ourselves to the character and contents of the revelation itself. But the same conclusion is easily enough reached without relying on the averment of the first promulgafors of the scheme. It could not have proceeded from wicked beings, whether human or superhuman ; it could not have been devised or fabricated by men, for it far transcends the powers and capa¬ cities of man. The only other alternatives are, that it came from God, or what is practically and substantially the same thing, from some superior order of holy intelligences, who reflect God’s perfections, and act in all things, in entire submission to his will and in full accordance with his commandments, and who, if they were cencerned in the matter at all, must have acted solely as his agents or instruments in communicating to the first promul¬ gators of the scheme among men what they in this way were equally his agents or instruments in communicating it to us. In investigating the character and contents of the Christian revela¬ tion, the scheme of doctrine and duty unfolded in the New Testament, for the purpose of ascertaining whether it gives any indications of its alleged divine origin, some writers on Christian evidence have referred to the character of our blessed Saviour portrayed in the New Testament, as containing something perfectly original, different from and superior to everything that had ever before been exhibited among men, and which the fishermen and the publicans of Galilee could never have invented, and could never have described, unless they had simply copied and repre¬ sented the living model that was before them. Paley says that the character of Christ is part of the morality of the gospel, and so it is ; the greatest minds have laboured to form and to unfold the idea of a perfect specimen of humanity, but they have all fallen immeasurably short of the picture which, without effort and without art, is given us in the Gospels of Him who is the Apostle and the High Priest of our profession. Paley, in the second part of his Evidences, and under the general head of the auxiliary evidences of Christianity, has two chapters relating to this subject, one entitled On the Identity,” and the other On the 198 FIFTEENTH LECTURE. Originality of Christ’s character but this, in the aspect in which we at present advert to it, was not a subject in which Paley’s peculiar excellences were most likely to appear to greatest advantage. We formerly adverted to the fact of Paley having introduced the subject of prophecy under the general head of “ The Auxiliary Evidences of Christianity,” and shewed you that this arrangement was unfounded and erroneous, as prophecy, if it were a proof at all, was a distinct and independent proof, and not auxiliary to any other department of the evidences. He seems, however, to have used the phrase auxiliary evidences of Christianity, to comprehend all these points or topics which did not of themselves afford proofs, but only presumptions varying in the degree of their strength in favour of the truth of Christianity, and which thus contribute in cumulo to strengthen and confirm the general position that it came from God. This is a somewhat loose and inaccurate mode of describing and arranging these topics, and is perhaps a proof that he did not bestow quite so much care and attention upon the second as upon the first part of his work ; he has accordingly just put down, under the miscellaneous head of the auxiliary evidences of Christianity, the originality of Christ’s character as a distinct independent topic, going along with many others to swell and strengthen the presumptions in favour of the divine origin of the Christian revelation ; whereas its proper place in logical order and arrangement is as one of the branches of the internal evidences ; one of the peculiar features of the actual revelation made to us in the New Testament, and going — along with the other features of this revelation, such as the morality of the gospel, to which also Paley has given a chapter in the second part of his work — to estab¬ lish, first of all, this position that this revelation could not have been devised or invented, fabricated or discovered by unassisted men, and then, as an inference from this, that it originated with God, and was communicated by him.^ Innumerable works upon the evidences, and many other works not professing formally to discuss the evidences, contain expositions and illustrations of the excellency and usefulness of the Christian 1 Rousseau’s Admiration of the Morality of the Gospel, and of the Character of Christ, quoted in Bogue on The Divine Authority of the New Testament, where are also some excellent remarks on the character of Christ, pp. 21, 22. INTERNAL EVIDENCE. 199 revelation, of the truth and beauty, viewed with reference to the standard of right reason and the moral nature of man, of the doc¬ trinal and moral system of the New Testament, and of their vast superiority over all other systems that have ever been promulgated concerning God and duty; and everything of this sort bears more or less directly upon the internal evidences, upon the proof that may be deduced from the character and contents of the revelation for its divine origin. Much indeed might be and has been said in illustration of the excellence and superiority of the Christian system of doctrine and duty that can be regarded as affording only a presumption and not a proof that it was supernaturally revealed by God, and much that has been brought forward upon this subject, and that fairly admitted of being applied to establish the truth of Christianity, has failed of producing the proper effect as evidence, however useful it might be in other respects, because it was made the foundation only of such vague and indefinite conclusions as these — this system is excellent, is beautiful, useful, worthy of God, and so on ; in place of being brought to bear upon the much more precise and tangible conclusion, that this system could not have been invented and devised by men, and especially by men placed in the situation of its first promulgators, which again leads, by a very short and easy process of inference, to the further conclusion that it was supernaturally revealed by God. In reading or reflecting upon the internal evidences, the proofs derived from the doctrinal and moral system of Christianity, you will, I am persuaded, find that it gives much clearness and dis¬ tinctness to your views, and enables you to see more clearly, and to hold more firmly the real character and force of the argument, if you ever keep fully before you that the precise point to be proved, that which is the only safe and sure stepping-stone, so far as this branch of the evidence is concerned, to the ultimate con¬ clusion of the divine origin of the system, is the position that it was not, and could not be, devised and invented by unassisted men.^ I know but of two books devoted to the subject of the internal evidences where the materials are brought fully and formally to bear upon this precise and definite position ; and for this reason mainly it is, I think, that they are more effective than ^ Bogue on The Divine Authority of the New Testament, and Fuller’s Gospel its own Witness. 200 FIFTEENTH LECTURE. any others, I recollect to have read upon this particular point. The first is the well-known and very ingenious little work of Soame Jenyns, entitled A Vieiv of the Internal Evidences of the Chris¬ tian Religion. He errs egregiously in the outset in deprecating the evidence from miracles, a specimen of a weakness by no means uncommon, that leads men unnecessarily and unwarrantably to speak slightingly of other subjects in order to exalt their own favourite topic; and some of his statements upon matters more strictly theological are certainly not to be implicitly followed. But there can be no doubt that he has very successfully and effectively established, by a survey of the doctrines and the morality of the New Testament, his fundamental proposition, “ that such a system of religion and morality could not possibly have been the work of any man or set of men, much less of these obscure, ignor¬ ant, and illiterate persons who actually did discover and publish it to the world, and that therefore it must undoubtedly have been effected by the interposition of divine power, that is, that it must derive its origin from God.'’ Paley, in his chapter on “ The Morality of the Gospel,” has very highly commended Jenyns, and expressed entire concurrence with his views. The other is a German work, which has been translated into English in the United States, but is not so well known in this country as it should be — Beinhards Plan of the Founder of Christianity. The author does not enter into any detailed sur¬ vey of the doctrinal or moral system of Christianity, but brings out with much ingenuity and eloquence the leading features of the plan which the New Testament develops for the moral im¬ provement of the human race ; illustrates it in its compass and in its character as bearing upon religion, morality, and society, and the means by which it was to be carried into effect ; contrasts it with the plans devised by all the great men of antiquity for the amelioration of men, and deduces from the whole discussion the conclusion that Jesus Christ was the greatest and most exalted of men, that he was an extraordinary teacher sent from God. LECTURE XYI. EXPERIMENTAL EVIDENCES — CLASSIFICATION OF EVI¬ DENCES IN GENERAL — ANIMADVERSIONS UPON DR CHALMERS’S STATEMENTS ON THIS POINT. The third leading division under which the evidences of Chris¬ tianity may be classed is the experimental, comprehending everything that affords any proof of its divine origin derived from the actual effects it has produced, or still produces, upon men collectively or individually. Now, this experimental evidence admits again of a twofold division, bearing some reference to the two previous divisions of the external and the internal evidences. The external concerns the credibility of the messengers, viewed apart from the character of the message ; the internal respects the nature and character, the substance and contents, of the message itself, apart from the proof that can be adduced of the credibility of the messengers. When we investigate the external evidence, we direct our attention to the claims which Christ and his apostles put forth to be received as divine messengers, and the miracles by which they supported them. When we have investigated this subject upon the grounds properly applicable to the settlement of such a question, we then naturally inquire. How were these claims, and the miracles upon which they professed to rest, received ? Were the claims which these men put forth, and which seem to he so well established, admitted by those to whom they were first addressed ? and if so, to what extent and in wdiat circumstances ? Is there anything in the extent to which the claims of these men — in other words, the truth of Christianity — were admitted at the time, and subsequently, or in anything else connected with the history of this matter, which affords any argument in support of 202 SIXTEENTH LECTURE. the divine origin of the religion ? This leads to the consideration of the argument for the truth of Christianity, derived from its success when first proclaimed, and from its subsequent propaga¬ tion in the world — an argument discussed in most books on the evidences, though not usually under the head of “ experimental/’ And yet it is fairly comprehended under the proper meaning of the word, and the general description usually given of what is included in this department of evidence — the proof derived from the effects or results of Christianity. The consideration of the reception of the claims of Christ and his apostles by men who lived at the time may indeed be comprehended under the general head of the exter¬ nal evidences, as it greatly strengthens our conviction of the truth and certainty of the grounds on which their claims were based. Still, it is not the proper or principal ground on which we believe in the truth of the miracles of the New Testament, for that is the testimony of the apostles themselves; and while it is a very strong confirmation of the truth of their claims, and the reality of their miracles, it would not of itself, and in the absence of all other cir¬ cumstances, be sufficient to establish them. The claims of Christ and his apostles, and the miracles upon which they were based, were tested or put to the proof by their being publicly proclaimed and pressed upon men’s attention and reception in circumstances every way favourable to their being exposed if unfounded and untrue. Something surely may be learned from the result of this experiment in the actual reception they met with, and in the measure of success they obtained ; and the consideration of this topic may, without any impropriety of language, be classed under the head of the experimental evidence. The leading propositions which the defenders of Christianity usually maintain upon this point are these — first, that the claims of Christ and his apostles, taking into account their nature and character, and the grounds on which they professedly rested, could not have met with such a reception, or obtained such a measure of success, as it is certain they did, if they had been capable of being exposed, i.e. if they had not been true, and thoroughly estab¬ lished. The proof of this, of course, is to be found in a general survey of the state of matters at the time, the character, views, and influence of the different classes of men with whom they came into contact, the motives by which they were animated, the oppor- EXPERIMENTAL EVIDENCE, 203 timities they enjoyed of testing the claims of the apostles, and the reasons they had for embracing these opportunities. A survey of these circumstances, viewed of course in connection with the actual success, the conversion of vast numbers of men in every age, and in many different countries, from the very time when these claims were first advanced, the testimony of converts whose writings have come down to us, the testimony which many more gave by sub¬ mitting to martyrdom for their attachment to the cause, fully establish the general proposition. These various topics form the principal subjects of the fifth chapter of Dr Chalmers’s second book, under the head of Testimony of Subsequent Witnesses,” where they are illustrated with great ingenuity and power, and where especially the unreasonableness of detracting from the weight of the testimony of the early Christian writers, just because they were Christians — '^.6. because they had renounced Judaism or heathenism ; or, in other words, just because they afforded the very strongest presumption that they had examined the subject with care, and gave the most conclusive proof of their integrity and sincerity — is very strikingly illustrated and enforced. This is the proper place also to advert to a topic which affords an important indirect con¬ firmation of the truth of the claims of the founders of Christianity, viz., the way in which their claims were met by those who refused to submit to them, and especially the important fact, which can be conclusively established, that the Jews of the apostolic and the immediately subsequent age, and the heathen philosophers who afterwards came forward to oppose Christianity, did not deny, but on the contrary admitted, the truth and reality of the miracles performed by Christ and his apostles. The second proposition which the defenders of Christianity maintain upon this branch of the case is this, that even if we were to concede that, by some extraordinary combination of circumstances, the claims of Christ and his apostles might possibly have been for a time and to some extent admitted, though not well founded (you will of course understand that we are at present speaking of this branch of evidence as if we had no other and better, leaving out of view, in the meantime, the proper direct evidence on which we mainly rest, viz., the testimony of the original scriptural witnesses), yet that the progressive advance of the Christian religion, its rapid and extensive diffusion, and its 204 SIXTEENTH LECTURE. ultimate ascendancy over the civilised world, which continues to this day, can be accounted for only by the supposition of its enjoying the special blessing and countenance of Him who rules the world, and has the hearts of all men in his hands, and thus affords a proof that it came from him, and was designed by him to accomplish his purposes. The confirmation of this proposition of course requires an investigation of the actual history of the progress and success of Christianity, of the diffi¬ culties it had to contend with, the obstacles it had to surmount, of its utter want of anything but its truth, and the blessing of God accompanying it, to recommend it to the reception of men, and its stern refusal to accommodate, to flatter, or to bribe. All these points, and the conclusion which results from them in favour of the divine origin of Christianity, have been illustrated and enforced in innumerable works upon the evidences, and I scarcely know any particular books upon this subject that are specially deserving of being recommended to you in preference to others. The attempts of infidels to meet this argument from the propa¬ gation and success of Christianity have been of a twofold descrip¬ tion — first, to point out certain circumstances which are alleged to have greatly facilitated and contributed to its propagation, to insinuate that these explain the whole facts of the case, and thus to account for its success by natural causes, without the supposi¬ tion of the special blessing and agency of God. This was the object of the famous fifteenth and sixteenth chapters of Gibbon's History of the Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire. This, like every other attempt of infidels, has been answered and exposed, and scarcely in any case has the charge not only of sophistry, but of dishonesty, been more thoroughly established. The two principal works in answer to Gibbon on the secondary causes which contributed to the success of Christianity, are Bishop Watson’s Apology for Christianity, and Lord Hailes’s (Sir David Dalrymple) Inquiry, &c., both works of great merit, though of very different kinds, Watson’s being characterised by great in¬ genuity and vivacity, and Hailes’s being distinguished by its accurate and extensive erudition, and the patient diligence and pertinacity with which it hunts Gibbon through all his tricks and shufflings, and holds him up to the scorn and contempt of every honest and ingenuous man. Gibbon had not, it seems, like EXPERIMENTAL EVIDENCE. 205 Hume, laid down a resolution not to answer opponents, but to let the public judge between them ; and accordingly he attempted to answer some of the works written against him, professing however to omit any reference to the argument of the subject, and to vindi¬ cate himself only from charges affecting his accuracy and fidelity in regard to quotations and references ; and yet, though Lord Hailes had dwelt largely upon this view of the subject, and was in many respects the most considerable of his opponents. Gibbon made no attempt to answer his Inquiry. He referred however to it in his Memoirs, published after his death, in the following terms : “ He scrutinised each separate passage of the two chapters with the dry minuteness of a special pleader, and as he was always solicitous to make, he may sometimes have succeeded in finding a flaw.” He certainly made no flaws, but he found many; and he has very conclusively, though calmly and candidly, exposed them. Hailes's Inquiry is well deserving of a perusal, not only as a most satisfactory answer to Gibbon, but also as containing a considerable amount of accurate information in regard to the early history of Christianity, and likewise, more generally, as a fine specimen of cautious, careful, and conclusive discussion ; and when you have read both Watson and Hailes, you will probably be of opinion that in regard to the substance and the spirit of the works, and indeed in regard to everything but liveliness and vivacity, the Scottish lawyer is entitled to as high a place among the defenders of Christianity as the English bishop. The other ground on which infidels have attempted to get quit of the argument for the divine origin of Christianity from its mar¬ vellous success, is by a reference to the case of Mohammedanism, representing it as parallel to that of Christianity, and alleging that if one could gain an extensive prevalence without being true, and without enjoying the approbation and peculiar blessing of God, so might the other. And of course the answer consists substantially in establishing in detail the utter want of anything like parallelism between the two cases, especially as to the totally different grounds on which they professed to rest, Mohammad having never attempted or pretended to perform any public miracles, the circumstances in which they were promulgated, the means used in propagating them, and the relation in which they stood respectively to the natural appetites, passions, and inclinations of men. This too is 206 SIXTEENTH LECTURE, a topic about which, though it is not by any means fundamental, you ought to acquire some information, and one of the best and lullest works on the subject is White’s Bampton Lectures, while \ there is a very good summary view of the matter, and indeed of the subject of the propagation of Christianity generally, in the ninth chapter of the first part of Paley, and in the first volume of Horne’s Introduction. We have said that the experimental evidence, or that derived from the effects or results of Christianity, may be divided into two branches — the one having reference to and confirming the external evidence, or the credibility of the messengers, the truth of the claim they advanced to be received as divinely commissioned teachers ; and the other having reference to, being based upon, and greatly confirming the internal evidence, or that derived from the character of the actual revelation which, in their assumed capacity of divinely commissioned teachers, they made known to men. The first of these branches of the subject is that which we have already briefly explained. It is to the second, however, that the term “ experi¬ mental evidence ” is most commonly applied, and hence what is called the experimental is usually discussed in connection with the internal evidence, and indeed is commonly regarded as a branch of it ; but it really stands in the same relation to the internal evidence, properly so called, as the subject of the success and propagation of Christianity does to the external evidence. Christ and his apostles put forth a claim to be received as divinely commissioned teachers ; this claim was established by miracles and prophecies ; these are the direct and proper grounds on which we admit their claim, and the investigation of this subject constitutes the department of the external evidence ; but the conviction of the justice of their claim to be received as the messengers of God is greatly strengthened when we find that when this claim was put to the test, or subjected to experiment, it stood the test, was largely and extensively admitted in circumstances where there was every opportunity of investigating and disproving it, and that the religion based upon it gained, in the face of every obstacle, an ascendancy, which it still retains, over the civilised world. In like manner these men professed to communicate to the world a revelation of God’s will, directed to the object of promoting the moral improvement and the permanent happiness of the human race, and this revelation EXPERIMENTAL EVIDENCE. 207 has been transmitted us. When we examine into its nature and character, i.e. when we investigate the system of doctrine and duties which constitute this revelation, we find abundant evidence of its pre-eminent excellence. We first of all assert that it could not have been invented or devised by Jesus Christ and his apostles, viewed simply as men, unassisted by any superior power ; that it could not have proceeded from wicked beings, and that it is in no respect unworthy of God; and that therefore on all these grounds we are constrained to ascribe it to him. This constitutes the fundamental branch of the internal evidence, based upon a con¬ sideration of the revelation itself, viewed objectively, and by itself, as existing in the record which we have of it. But we may subject the revelation itself, as well as the claim put forth by its first pro¬ mulgators to a divine commission, to the test of experiment, by bringing it into contact with the understandings and hearts of men, observing whether or not, and how far, it is adapted to the character and condition of men, fitted to effect a moral transfor¬ mation of their natures, to raise them to the highest attainments in piety and holiness; and whether or not, and how far, it has actually succeeded in producing such results in those who have embraced and submitted to it. This is what is most commonly understood by the experimental evidence ; and it is justly, though, as we have endeavoured to shew, not exclusively, entitled to the designation. It contemplates the revelation itself as to its sub¬ stance, and in its relation to man’s moral character and condition, and the great object of promoting his holiness and happiness, put to the test, subjected to experiment ; and the effect is a very strong confirmation of its divine origin to all who will take the trouble to examine into the results of the experiment, and the most conclusive of all proofs of this to those who have, by submitting to the authority and operation of the revelation, experienced its influence upon themselves. We have at present to do with this branch of evidence chiefly in so far as it admits of being presented to the understandings of men who have not yet submitted their minds and hearts to the influence of the revelation itself, but who have all, as human beings, a conscience which conveys to them some information, or at least some impression, as to what they are, what they need, and what is the relation in which they stand to God. The first and most palpable aspect in which the subject of the 208 SIXTEENTH LECTURE. experimental evidence derived from the effects or results of the Christian revelation may be regarded, is that of the influence which it has exerted upon the general state and condition of the world, in promoting, wherever it has been promulgated, not only civilisation and refinement, but sounder views of God and his worship, and a higher standard of morality and virtue than any other system, whether professing to have been derived immediately from God or not, has ever produced'; and some useful and interest¬ ing books have been written upon this subject, particularly Ryan’s History of the Effects of Religion, and Bishop Porteous on The Beneficial Effects of ' Christianity. Infidels have sometimes adduced it as a presumption against the divine origin of Chris¬ tianity, that it has done so little for the improvement of the human race; but it is sufficient not only for answering the objec¬ tion, but for affording a certain degree of presumption in favour of the truth of our religion, to prove, as can be easily done — first, that the knowledge and worship of God, and the knowledge and practice of moral duty, have always been, in countries where Chris¬ tianity was known and professed, greatly better, upon the whole, than where it was unknown ; and second, that in countries where Christianity has been professed, there has been always a very marked and decided superiority over all others in moral character and conduct exhibited by those who manifested the greatest knowledge of the Christian revelation, and the highest respect for its authority. This leads us to advert to another branch of the subject, which is more strictly and properly experimental — that, namely, derived from the actual influence of the Christian religion upon the character and conduct of those who have embraced it. This was alluded to by the apostle (1 Cor. vi. 9-11). Such changes as these were very frequently exhibited in very striking circumstances in primitive times in connection with the preaching of the gospel, i.e. unfolding to men the substance of the Christian revelation, and their reception of it. These cases were frequently referred to by the Fathers in their defences of Christianity against opponents, and urged as proofs of its divine origin and authority; and there is reason to believe that the argument derived from this source operated, along with others, in leading many to embrace it. In the condition in which we are placed, the argument derived from EXPERIMENTAL EVIDENCE. 209 this source does not stand out so fully and so palpably to the apprehensions of men ; but there are not wanting still many cases amongst us of the effects of the preaching of the gospel, or the reading of the word, i.e. of the Christian revelation, when brought into contact with the understandings and hearts of men, producing such results upon their character and conduct as should not only confirm believers in the conviction of the truth of their religion, but may rationally impress the minds of unbelievers, and afford even to them at least a strong presumption that it comes from God, and is employed by him for promoting the moral and religious improvement of men ; while the lives of all true Christians, i.e. of all who have really embraced the Christian revelation, and are living under its influence, are in some measure, and ought to be much more generally and palpably, an evidence, if fairly and impartially considered, that God is in them of a truth. There is another and a very important topic comprehended under the head of the experimental evidence, derived not from a consideration of the effects of the Christian revelation upon the character and conduct of others, but from the personal examination of its suitableness to himself as a human being, which each man may give to the matter and substance of the revelation, and from the effects which it has produced upon himself, when he came to understand and submit to it, in changing his whole character and principles, and which it is still producing upon him, in increasing progressively his piety and holiness, and in guiding him to a more full and faithful discharge of all his duties both to God and to man. The last department of the subject as now stated is what is spoken of in Scripture as the witness which the believer has in himself, and it belongs principally, if not exclusively, to the depart¬ ment of evidence by which a believer may be firmly and rationally persuaded in his own mind that the Christian revelation came from God, while it does not so fully admit of being brought to bear upon unbelievers, with the view of compelling their assent to this truth. The whole of this subject, which is comparatively little noticed in most books on the evidences, is most admirably expounded and illustrated in the third chapter of Dr Chalmers’s third book, which we will soon have occasion to consider, and to which I have nothing of any importance to add. o 210 SIXTEENTH LECTURE. I have now finished the outline or skeleton which I proposed to lay before you of the various topics that may be ranked under the general head of the evidences of Christianity. I have not attempted in any case to expound the arguments in their length and breadth, but merely to state to you their general nature and import, and to unfold the connection of the different branches of the argument with each other, to explain to you what are the leading points to be attended to in investigating each topic, directing you, at the same time, to some of the best works on each head where the best and soundest views upon the subject, and the information necessary in many cases for fully understanding the argument, may be found. You have a good deal to read before you can be regarded as competently acquainted with the subject of the evidences of Christianity ; and it may be of some use to have a general view of the whole subject, of its different departments, and their mutual relations, that you may thus be better able to digest and arrange the information you may acquire, and see more readily and more distinctly its bearing at once upon the particular point to be proved, and upon the great general result to be established. I intend now to make a few additional general observations upon the classification of the different branches of this subject, suggested partly by some statements in the portion of the text¬ book^ examined yesterday, about the difficulty of settling the line of demarcation between the external and the internal evidences, and about several branches of the proof admitting of being classed either with the one or the other, and ranking partly with the one and partly with the other. There can be no doubt that there is some difficulty in drawing the line of demarcation correctly between them, and that at some points they may touch and mutually rest the one upon the other; but I am disposed to think that there are some of the difficulties there mentioned by Dr Chalmers, as to adjusting the line between them, that arise from misapprehension, and may be somewhat cleared up. In order to have a clear and correct view of the various topics comprehended under the great general head of the evidences, there are some important distinctions to be attended to, which * Dr Chalmers’s Evidences, hook iii. chap. i. pp. 1-13, vol. ii. DISTINCTIONS. 211 liave been already referred to, but which, for the sake of clear¬ ness, may now be summarily stated together. 1. We must distinguish between the evidence by which an unbeliever may be persuaded of the truth of the Christian reve¬ lation, and that by which a believer, i.e. not merely a professing Christian, but one who has really submitted his understanding and his heart to the revelation itself, may be confirmed and strengthened in his conviction. All that is rationally available for convincing an infidel may also be rightly applied by a believer for strengthening and confirming his faith, if he should be assaulted by any temptations to infidelity ; but, in addition to all this, the believer has sources of proof in what he has seen and heard, felt and experienced, which may most rationally confirm him in his conviction that this revelation came from God, but which might be of little or no avail for impressing an infidel, i.e. which the infidel could not be logically compelled, by any common and mutually recognised principles, to admit as valid and satisfactory. 2. We must distinguish between the truth of Christianity and the proof of the divine authority of the books of Scripture. If the Bible be the word of God, then of course Christianity is true, and everything that proves the divine authority of the Scriptures equally proves the truth of Christianity ; but it does i]ot hold that if Christianity be true, the Bible is the word of God, or that the proofs of the first go directly, and without any other intermediate step in the process of argument, to prove the second. It might possibly be true that Christ and his apostles were commissioned by God to reveal his will to men ; that they had communicated a revelation, i.e. a system of doctrine and duty in his name ; and that this revelation had been handed down to us, while yet everything connected with the transmission of it might have been left to the ordinary channels, and the operation of the ordinary influences by which important information is usually transmitted, without divine agency having been brought to bear supernaturally upon the composition of the whole books in which it is contained. When we undertake to prove that the New Testament not only contains or embodies, but actually is itself a revelation from God, and is invested with divine authority, we must establish something above and beyond what is implied SIXTEENTH LECTURE. 212 in the assertion that Christianity is true, or that the system of doctrine and duty which Christ and his apostles did actually promulgate among men came from God. A.n extension of the argument is necessary when the point to be proved is the divine authority of the Bible ; and, moreover, there is a class at once of additional proofs in confirmation, and of additional objections to be answered, which do not bear directly upon the question of the truth of the Christian revelation, and hence the necessity, in disposing and arranging the proof — and this is the topic we are at present considering — of distinguishing between these two questions. In considering the way in which the truth of the Christian revelation, or the divine origin of the scheme of doctrine and duty promulgated by Christ and his apostles, may be established, it has been common to divide the evidence into external and internal. It has been customary to regard the experimental evidence as being either a branch of the internal or an appendage to it. I think it better to make a separate division for the experimental ; and chiefly because, as I have endeavoured to explain to you, there is a branch of evidence that may be fairly designated by that name which stands in very much the same relation to the external, as what is more commonly called the experimental does to the internal. And then, in regard to the general distinction between the external and the internal, this is sufficiently plain, and is clearly explained and accurately expressed in the introductory paragraphs to Chalmers’s second book, by the distinction between the messen¬ gers and the message which they bear. The external evidence is directed to the object of establishing the credibility of the messen¬ gers ; and if this can be proved to be valid and conclusive, we are placed in the position of being persuaded that these men were commissioned by God to make known his will, and are thus fully prepared, even before hearing their message, for receiving any message they may communicate to us as coming from God. When we have heard the message itselfi — i.e. not, strictly speaking, and in the first instance, the Bible, but the general system of doctrine and duty promulgated by Christ and his apostles — we then examine it for the purpose of ascertaining whether it contains within itself, in its own nature and substance, any clear indications that it was DISTINCTIONS. 213 not devised by men, and more especially not by those who com¬ municated it to the world, and that it must have come from God ; and the investigation of this subject constitutes the internal evi¬ dence. Now, this distinction between the external and the internal is clear and palpable, and may, we think, be preserved entire and unbroken throughout the whole discussion, except only at one point. There is a difficulty in proving that miracles, wffiich form the ground or basis of the external evidence, or of the proof of the credibility of the messengers, can be wrought by God only, and are therefore at once directly and of themselves proof that his authority is interposed in the matter ; or, what is virtually the same thing, it is conceded by many of the ablest defenders of Christianity that doctrines might be promulgated and precepts enjoined which no miracles could prove to have come from God. And hence the necessity, before the argument from miracles or the external evidence can be thoroughly estab¬ lished, of so far drawing upon the department of internal evi¬ dence, or the character of the message and contents of the revelation, as at least to shew that it contains nothing which could not have come from God, nothing which of itself disproves its claim to a divine origin. At this point the line of demarcation between the external and the internal evidence must be over¬ stepped, but at every other point it may be clearly defined and rigidly adhered to. Another view of the distinction between the external and the internal evidence has been suggested, and it is stated, though only hypothetically, by Dr Chalmers^ : “ If it be meant of the external evidences of the truth of the Bible that they are such as are gathered from places without the book, and of the internal, that they are gathered from places within the book, it will be found of its largest and strongest evidence that it comes not pro¬ perly or fully under either the one head or the other.” This state¬ ment is undoubtedly true upon the assumed definition of the distinction ; but then this definition is not the same as that which is usually applied to the distinction between the external and the internal, and which Dr Chalmers himself had formerly explained as based upon the difference between the credibility of the messengers and the intrinsic evidence of the truth of the message ; ^ Chap. i. book hi. p. 8, vol. ii. 214 SIXTEENTH LECTURE. it is a distinction applicable properly, as indeed he says, not to the evidence of the truth of Christianity, but to the divine origin of the Bible, and it thus disregards a distinction which we formerly explained and enforced ; and it is a distinction, moreover, which has seldom if ever been made by writers upon this subject, and which serves no good and useful purpose whatever. Dr Chalmers has shewn that if this definition of the distinction between the external and the internal evidence be adopted, it involves in inextricable confusion any attempt to run the line of demarcation between them ; and therefore it would be much better to drop it altogether, and to adhere to the distinction generally understood and recognised, and previously adopted by himself, between the credibility of the messengers and the intrinsic evidence of the message itself, as constituting the proper difference between the external and the internal evidences. The internal evidence is indeed derived exclusively from what is contained in the Bible, because we cannot ascertain certainly from any other source what the message is ; but then the external evidence, though strictly confined, according to the proper definition of it, to the object of establishing the credibility of the messengers, cannot be brought out and established except by drawing also largely upon what is contained in the Bible itself. It is to be observed, however, that in dealing with what is contained in the Bible, while we are dis¬ cussing the external evidence or establishing the credibility of the messengers, we do not contemplate it as either being or containing a divine revelation — i.e. a general system of doctrine or duty — but simply as a collection of historical documents, the declarations of the parties, the testimony given by them and concerning them, and generally the materials from which we may determine the question whether or not they spoke the truth when they laid down this fundamental, and yet in a certain sense preliminary or pre¬ paratory position, viz., that they were commissioned by God to make known his will ; in short, we may make use of the books of Scripture in the first instance, and when examining the ex¬ ternal evidence, not for the purpose of ascertaining what the message was, but for the purpose of ascertaining who and what the men were who brought it, what claims they advanced, and what evidence they adduced in support of these claims. The crossing and confusion, the difficulty of adjusting the line DISTINCTIOKS. 215 between the external and the internal, which Dr Chalmers has described and exposed, arise wholly from his introducing a differ¬ ent definition of what external and internal mean — a definition that serves no purpose whatever but just to produce this con¬ fusion, instead of adhering to the generally recognised and intelli¬ gible distinction between the proof of the credibility of the messengers and the intrinsic evidence of the truth of the message — a distinction which, except in the one point- above explained, can be fully followed out without crossing and without confusion. When these principles and distinctions are kept in view, it becomes no very difficult matter to see how the different mate¬ rials that rank under the general head of the evidences ought to be classified and arranged ; and we venture to think that the arrangement of these topics which we have sketched in some pre¬ ceding lectures commends itself as being at once the most natural and obvious, and at the same time the most logical and correct. \ LECTURE XVII. LITERAEY HISTOEY OF THE EVIDENCES — FATHEES — VIYES, MOENi^Y, GEOTIUS, HUET, BAXTEE, OWEN, STILLINGFLEET. IN giving you a brief outline of the different topics which enter into the general subject of the Christian evidences, with the view especially of explaining their connection and relations, and directing your attention to what the points are which ought chiefly to be considered under each head, I have commonly taken the opportunity of referring under each division to some of the books which it might be useful to you to peruse, for the purpose of procuring further information, having respect in the selection of the works recommended at once to the worth and value of the books, and to their accessibility, or their being such as might probably be within your reach. I must repeat what I have already told you more than once, that you cannot be regarded as competently acquainted with the evidences of Christianity, unless, in addition to what you may learn from the text-book and lectures, you read a good deal upon the subject. In running over the evidences, I have repeatedly had occasion to advert to topics where the argument depended essentially upon the details of historical proof to be found more or less fully in the different works which treat of the evidences, and with which of course it was necessary for you, that you might understand the subject, to make yourselves acquainted by reading. There is a vast field of literature comprehended under the head of the evidences, and it is with only a very small portion of the works upon this subject that you can, at the present stage of your studies, make your¬ selves familiar. You should in general make it a rule to read and LITERARY HISTORY, 217 study books, according as you may have leisure and opportunity, upon the subjects which are at the time occupying our attention in the class, making it your object as much as possible, by reading and reflection, to become thoroughly acquainted with each topic as it passes in review before you, and not to let it pass until you have formed a clear and distinct conception of its meaning, bear¬ ing, and value, the grounds on which it rests, the difficulties with which it may be attended, and the way and manner in which these difficulties are to be solved or removed. All this you must do if you would be fully and intelligently acquainted with this subject, and you must do it each one for himself, because no other can do it for you. It may not be unprofitable or uninteresting to lay before you now a brief notice of some of the leading points in the literary history of the subject of the evidences, and then subjoin some observations that may contribute to assist you in your future study of it. In turning our thoughts to the subject of the literary history of the evidences of Christianity, our attention is naturally directed, in the first place, to the way in which the first promul¬ gators of Christianity, and their followers in primitive times, defended its divine origin and authority against those who denied or questioned its claims. The early Fathers had to defend the Christian religion against the calumnies with which it was assailed, to plead for toleration upon the ground that there was no suffi¬ cient reason in their doctrines or in their conduct why they should be persecuted, and to defend their religion against the objections both of Jews and heathens; and some of the works which they wrote and published for these purposes have come down to us. The principal are — Justin Martyr, A thenagoras, Tertullian, Origen, Minucius Felix, Arnobius, Lactantius, and Cyril of Alexandria. Most of them are valuable and interesting rather in a historical than in an argumentative point of view — i.e. rather for the information they give us, directly or incidentally, about the views, conduct, and condition of the primitive Christians and the early church, than because they contain many specimens of what would now be reckoned very close and conclusive reasoning in support of the cause they advocated. The main grounds indeed on which the truth of the Christian religion is based — viz., miracles and prophecy — are brought forward and illustrated, and especially the 218 SEVENTEENTH LECTURE. latter, because the Jews and Pagans of those days admitted the reality of our Saviour’s miracles, the excellence of the Christian religion as compared with Judaism and Paganism is enlarged upon, and its proved efficacy in changing and improving men’s character, and its tendency to promote the interests of morality and the general welfare of society are amply set forth. Still the writings of the ancient apologists for Christianity do not contain a great deal that can be of much direct use in dealing with the more subtle and intricate objections which modern infidels have raised. But it is important to observe — first, that they contain nothing which can be said to afford any plausible handle against the truth of Christianity — nothing indeed but what has the strongest and most direct tendency to confirm our conviction of the perfect sincerity of their authors, and of their full knowledge of the grounds on which they acted when they renounced J udaism or Paganism, and joined the Christian church ; and second, that the information which they give us about the state and condition of the early church tends wholly to confirm our confidence in the truth of Christianity, and in the validity of the arguments by which it is established, and may still be most legitimately and usefully applied by us for that purpose. Some of these apologies were addressed to the Roman authorities, to the emperor and the senate — a fact which affords a confirmation of the truth of the statements they contain, as it is most improbable that, even if their principles and characters had allowed them to misrepresent, they would commit themselves by stating in such circumstances anything that could be disproved. There is another class of these early defences of Christianity to which an additional value is given from a different circumstance, viz., that they were answers to attacks made by men of talent and learning upon Christianity, and thus shew us the grounds on which it was then assailed, and the manner in which it was then defended from assaults. And it is for this reason, as well as because of the talents and learnings of the men, that Origen’s reply to Celsus, Eusebius’s PrcEparatio and Demonstratio Evangelica, and his book against Hierocles, and Cyril of Alexandria’s answer to the work of the Emperor Julian the apostate, are commonly regarded as being upon the whole the most valuable works bearing directly upon the truth and divine LITERARY HISTORY, 219 origiu of Christianity which came down to us from early times, although of Cyril’s, it might perhaps be said with justice that its value now rests quite as much upon the extracts it has preserved from the lost writings of the imperial apostate a,s upon anything of his own. From the important and valuable use that may be and has been made in the Christian argument of the concessions of its earliest opponents, and generally of the way in which they conducted their attack upon our religion, and especially from their affording materials for establishing the genuineness of the books of the New Testament, and the truth of the leading facts which they record, the defenders of Christianity have been often tempted to express their regret that their works have not come down to us, and that in general we know them only from the extracts preserved in the writings of the Christian Fathers.^ Many of the answers made to these attacks of infidels have perished also, and some which, from what we find said about them by those who had read them, would have been very interesting and valuable. The works of Porphyry, for example, a celebrated philosopher who flourished soon after the middle of the third century, and wrote a treatise against Christianity, is lost ; and as the only formal answers to it by three eminent fathers, Methodius, Eusebius, and Apollinarius, are lost also, we know nothing of the grounds upon which Porphyry assailed Christianity, except from some incidental references to his arguments in other Fathers. Apollinarius’s answer to Porphyry was greatly admired, and we have much reason to regret the loss of it if the eulogium was merited pronounced upon the author and the work by Vincentius of Lirins, who lived in the fifth century, when the work was extant, in his famous Covimonitorium in defence of tradition, a work which has been always in great favour with Papists and High Churchmen (re-published at Oxford): — Quid illo prsestantius acumine, exercitatius doctrina, quam multas ille haereses multis voluminibus oppresserit, quot inimicos fidei confutaverit errores, indicio est opus illud tri- ginta non minus librorum nobilissimum ac maximum quo BuddcBUS Miscellanea Sacra, part i. ; Dlssertatio de Veritate Christianoi Religionis Philosophorum ohtrectationihiis Confirmata, pp. 378-380 ; Huet, Intro¬ duction to the Neiv Testament, part i. chap. i. sec. 8, p. 31 ; Norton’s Evidence of the Genuineness of the Gospels, part ii. chap. i. pp. 124-130. 220 SEVENTEENTH LECTURE. insanas Porphyrii calumnias magna probationum mole confodit’’ (chap. 16). From the remarks which have been made upon the apologetic works of the Fathers you will see that I am of opinion that, how¬ ever interesting and valuable they are in many respects, and how¬ ever useful some of the information they contain is in confirming some of the positions usually occupied in conducting the Christian argument, and however necessary it may be for one who wishes to investigate for himself this subject in all its parts and aspects to read them, they are scarcely of sufficient importance with refer¬ ence to the object which alone you can at present expect to be able to accomplish, viz., acquiring a general knowledge of the main grounds on which the truth of Christianity may be and should be now established, to render it worth your while to spend any time in the perusal of them at this stage of your studies. The subject of the truth of Christianity was very little discussed from the time of the Emperor Julian down till the period of the Reformation. About that time a class of men arose who assumed the name of Deists, and who under that name continued to oppose Christianity, and to labour to disprove its divine origin till the present day. This soon led to controversial discussion, and in the age of the Reformation two works were published in defence of Christianity which may be regarded as still worthy of notice — one by a Papist, a well-known scholar, Ludovicus Yives, and another by a celebrated champion of Protestantism, Mornay du Plessis. Vives’s book, entitled De Veritate Fidei Christiance, being pub¬ lished in 1543, and Mornay’s, entitled De Veritate Religionis Christiance, which appeared also at the same time in French, and was soon after translated into English, being published in 1579. Both these works contain a good deal of discussion upon topics which are not now usually comprehended under the head of the evidences, as they profess not merely to establish the leading doc¬ trines of natural religion, but also take up all the leading doctrines of the Christian revelation, defend them from objections, point out their excellence and usefulness, and labour to confirm them by arguments drawn from the light of nature, and the testimonies of heathen authors. It is one of the great improvements made in more modern times in the method of conducting the defence of the truth of Christianity, that the distinction has been much better LITERARY HISTORY. 901 X. preserved than was formerly common between the evidences of revelation and the contents or substance of revelation ; and that the investigation of the direct and proper proof of the divine com¬ mission of Christ and his apostles is not now usually so much encumbered as it used to be with a defence of the reasonableness of all the doctrines which they taught in God’s name. It is indeed quite true, as we have shewn you, that it is impossible to omit all reference to the contents or substance of the revelation in deciding upon the evidence in support of its truth, and that it is quite practicable to deduce from an examination of the system of doc¬ trines and duties which may be said to constitute the Christian revelation, and that too without indulging in any presumptuous speculation, a proof, if not directly and at once that it came from God, at least of what leads by a single step to that conclusion, that it could not have been invented or devised by men. Still it is true that there is a broad line of distinction between the evidence of revelation and the contents of revelation, that it is highly expe¬ dient that this distinction should be much more carefully pre¬ served than it was by any of the older writers on the evidences ; and that in dealing with objections adduced against the contents of revelation, though the general relevancy of such objections is admitted, much more use should be made than has often been done of the natural incapacity of men to judge fully of the matters which these objections respect, aud of the submission and obedience justly due to what has been proved upon its own appropriate evidence — evidence unassailable upon its own proper ground — to be a divine communication. These considerations were not much attended to by many of the older writers, and accordingly we find both in Vives and Mornay, along with much good and useful matter, elaborate attempts, not only to defend from objections all the leading doctrines of Christianity (even in regard to those which are matter of pure revelation), but to confirm and establish their truth by arguments drawn from natural reason and testimonies from old Pagan authors. Grotius’s celebrated work. Be Veritate Religionis Christiance, first published in 1627, though the notes which form so large a portion of it were not added till several years afterwards, forms an important era in the history of the literature of this subject. It was translated, not only into almost all the languages of Europe, 909 SEVENTEENTH LECTURE. but also into tlie Arabic and the Malay, at the expense of the cele¬ brated Robert Boyle. It has always continued to be a standard work. It has exerted an extensive and, upon the whole, a wholesome influence upon the way and manner in which the truth of Chris¬ tianity has been usually discussed, and therefore, though, it does not contain a great deal of general or abstract discussion, it is still well deserving of a perusal. It gave a much more lucid and better digested summary of what was indispensable in establishing the truth of Christianity, with the intermixture of very little that is extraneous and useless, than any work that had previously appeared, and thus tended largely to guide the thoughts and investigations of subsequent writers upon this subject into the proper channel. Of the six books of which it is composed, three, though much the shortest, are directed to the object of exposing the claims of Paganism, Mohammedanism, Judaism ; and indeed it was long common to have something on these topics in most works that professed to treat of the whole subject of the evidences. In more modern works the discussion of these topics has been commonly omitted, upon the ground thus stated by Paley, in the beginning of his Prefatory Considerations, that “ really the question lies between the Christian religion and none, for that if the Christian religion be not credible, no one with whom we have to do will support the pretensions of any other.’' Grotius, who was a man of vast erudition, as well as of great talent, has in his notes a great many interesting quotations from ancient heathen authors, but then he applies them much more judiciously than previous writers, such as Vives and Mornay, had done ; not as they did, in defence of the peculiar doctrines of Christianity, which ought to rest upon the authority of the revelation, but in confir¬ mation of the principal doctrines of natural religion, to which his first book is directed, and of the leading facts recorded in the Bible history, and especially in the Old Testament. His second book is directed to the proof of the truth of Christianity, and the third to that of the integrity and divine authority of the books of Scripture; and thus a distinction, which we have attempted to shew you is of some importance in order to a clear and correct arrange¬ ment and classification of the evidences, but which has been neglected by many subsequent writers, has been fully preserved. Before proceeding to notice some of the leading features of LITERARY HISTORY. 223 the history of this subject as applicable to works in our own language, which is peculiarly rich in the department of the evidences, or of what is sometimes called the Deistical controversy, I must notice a work which I formerly recommended to you when speaking of the subject of prophecy, viz., Huet or Huetius's Demonstratio Evangelica. It is a Latin quarto, though there are editions in other forms, and was first published in 1C79. Its author was a prelate of the Roman Catholic Church in France ; and there are several things about it which distinguish it fmm the common mass of works upon the evidences, and render it worthy of special notice. It is a book of very superior talent, and very extra¬ ordinary erudition. One rather remarkable compliment was paid to it when it was first published. Pufiendorf, the celebrated jurist and historian, who was a Protestant, and had given much attention to some departments of theological study, wrote to the author after reading the Demonstratio Evangelica, expressing his pro¬ found admiration of the work, and the delight with which he had read it, setting forth his conviction that Huet was peculiarly fitted by his talent and learning, his candour and fairness, to write a work upon general theology, that might tend to unite the Protest¬ ants and the Church of Rome, and urging him to undertake it. Huet shrank from this task, and well he might. It is much easier to write a learned and ingenious book in defence of the truth of Christianity, than to form an alliance between light and darkness, Christ and Belial. Puffendorf lived to change his views upon this. In addition to the intrinsic merit of the book, it is interesting to see the subject discussed by a learned Romanist, and to notice how, notwithstanding the allegation of the Church of Rome, that men can know nothing certainly about the truth of Christianity and the authority of the Scriptures, except from and through the church, its ablest and most learned men do, in point of fact, when called upon to discuss the subject, establish the truth of Christianity and the authority of the Scrip¬ tures just as a Protestant would do, because there is no other- rational mode of doing it when you have to deal with men who do not admit the authority of the church. One great merit of Huet’s work is, that he adheres rigidly, and in so far as I know or recol¬ lect is the first who does so, to the distinction between the evi¬ dences and the contents of revelation, entering into no speculations 224 SEVENTEENTH LECTURE. in defence of the reasonableness and truth of the doctrines of the Bible, and confining himself rigidly to the proof of the position, that Jesus was a divinely commissioned teacher, and was the Messiah promised to the fathers. He enters indeed very fully into the subject of the genuineness and authenticity of the books of Scripture both of the Old and New Testaments ; but then he deals with them simply as they ought to be dealt with at this stage of the argument, as a collection of historical documents which shew what events took place, what testimony was given, and in what circumstances, what predictions were delivered, and how they were fulfilled. Huet is at some pains to collect the references to each of the books of the Old Testament, to be found in the subsequent books of the same collection, an important object which Dr Chalmers has very fully prosecuted in his chapter on The Canon.” He has an extraordinary display of erudition in collecting from all profane authors everything in history, mythology, and religious rites and ceremonies that bears any resemblance to what we find in the Mosaic history, and may be supposed to be derived from it, and thus to afford some confirmation of its antiquity and truth ; and he gives, as I formerly mentioned, as full an exhibition as is anywhere to be met with of the predictions in the Old Testament concerning Christ, and their fulfilment in parallel passages of the New. In both these departments the ingenuity of the author sometimes oversteps the bounds of wisdom — i.e. he finds resemblances to the Mosaic history in profane authors where probably no real resem¬ blance exists ; and some of the passages he quotes from the Old Testament as predictions were not intended as predictions, and of course were not, properly speaking, fulfilled in the parallel ones he adduces from the New. But still the work is undoubtedly, for the reasons that have been mentioned, entitled to special notice as greatly superior, in point of value and importance, to the ordinary mass of works upon this subject. The foundations of modern infidelity may be said to have been laid by Hobbes and Spinoza, both of whom manifested an equally hostile spirit against natural as against revealed religion; and the latter of whom, who has written much more fully and formally against the truth of revelation than Hobbes, and who has always exerted, and continues to the present day to exert, a much greater LITERARY HISTORY. 09/5 influence upon the views of infidel writers, is supposed by Pro¬ fessor Dugald Stewart to have very decidedly indicated a tendency to insanity, a supposition, he adds, by no means incompatible (as will be readily admitted by all who have paid any attention to the phenomena of madness) with that logical acumen which is conspi¬ cuous in some of his writings.”^ Hobbes’s Leviathan was published in 1651, and Spinoza’s Trac- tatus Theologico-Politicus in 1670, and to these works the de¬ fenders of Christianity generally had reference in dealing with the objections of opponents until the rise of the great band of English deists in the concluding part of the 17th and in the early part of last century. The first English writer of eminence who has written fully and at length in defence of the truth of Christianity, and in opposition to the objections of infidels, is Richard Baxter, so well known and so deservedly esteemed for his numerous and multifarious writings, controversial and practical, and for the extraordinary services, which he has been honoured to render to the cause of religion and piety. He enters somewhat upon this subject in the second part of his Saints' Rest, and prosecutes it more fully, first in his Unreasonableness of Infidelity, published in 1655, and afterwards in his Reasons of the Christian Religion, published in 1666, and in an appendix to the latter work entitled More Reasons for the Christian Religion, and no Reason against it, published in 1671. These books of Baxter upon the evidences have not been so much read, and are not so well known, as some of his other works, but they are possessed of great value. It is but lately that I have been led to read them, but I have formed a very high opinion of their value, and I am inclined to think that subsequent writers upon the evidences have been more indebted to them than is generally supposed. Like most of Baxter’s other works, they were written far too hastily and hurriedly to be well digested or compacted ; they present a good many digressions, and much irrelevant matter, by which the continuity of the argument is sometimes broken or hidden ; but they contain a great deal of important and valuable discussion which, notwithstanding all that has since been written upon the subject, after the grounds and rea¬ sons of infidelity were more fully opened up, and notwithstanding ’ Dissertation, Note, p. 265, P 226 SEVENTEENTH LECTURE. the improvements to which fuller discussions with infidels have led as to the way and manner in which the proofs of the truth of Christianity ought to he expounded, unfolded, and arranged, is still well deserving of perusal and study. Baxter, though not by any means to be compared, in point of sound-mindedness and judiciousness, with his great cotemporary Dr Owen, and though not nearly so safe a guide in doctrinal matters, was a man of perhaps still greater subtlety and reach of thought, and therefore when he kept the right track, and was not perverted, as was sometimes the case, by his subtlety, he rose more above the ordinary current views of his age than Owen or any of his other great cotemporaries ; and has in this, as well as in other ways, sometimes rendered valuable service to truth, and exerted an important influence upon the opinions of men. We have an illustration of this in his books upon the evidences, where, amid many indications of the fervency of his piety, of his deep sense of spiritual and divine things, and his earnest longing for the salva¬ tion of men’s souls, we meet with some argumentative expositions of the rational evidences for the truth of Christianity, as they are sometimes called, which would do no discredit to Dr Samuel Clarke, or to any of the most eminent men of the school of cold rational mere argumentators, who arose in the next generation. The tendency at that time among Baxter’s friends, in opposition to the other extreme which prevailed among the clergy of the Establishment, was to disregard or despise the rational or external evidences for the truth of Christianity, which are fitted in right reason to convince infidels, and to dwell only on these more spiri¬ tual views of the effects of divine truth itself in connection with the work of the Spirit, whereby believers are built up in their most holy faith ; and this tendency even Dr Owen has exhibited to an erroneous extent in his Self -evidencing Power of the Bible, and in his Reason of Faith. Baxter, it may be believed, was not insensible to the more spiritual views of this matter, was not dis¬ posed to overlook the agency of the Holy Spirit in the production ■of faith, or to undervalue the witness of the Spirit; and he has given far more prominence in the works above referred to to these important topics than the generality of writers upon the evidences ; but he at the same time strenuously vindicated for the rational or external evidence its true place and its rightful authority with LITERARY HISTORY. 227 reference to its appropriate objects, and he objected to some of the notions that were then current about the witness of the Spirit. This exposed him to some odium, but it was easier to raise a pre¬ judice against him as ascribing too much to human reason, than to answer the arguments by which he defended his views. In the conclusion of his Reasons of the Christian Religion he has the following curious passage in reference to this subject : — “ T know there is a sort of over wise and overdoing divines who will tell their followers in private, where there is none to contradict them, that the method of this treatise is perverse, as appealing too much to natural light and overvaluing human reason, and that I should have done no more but shortly tell men that all which God speaketh in his word is true, and that propria luce it is evident that the Scripture is the word of God, and that to all God’s elect he will give his Spirit to cause them to discern it, and that this much alone had been better than all these disputes and reasons ; but these overwise men who need themselves no reason for their religion, and judge accordingly of others, and think that those men who rest not in the authority of Jesus Christ should rest in theirs, are, many of them, so well acquainted with me as not to expect I should trouble them in their way, or reason against them who speak against reason, even in the greatest matters which our reason is given us for. As much as I am addicted to scribbling, I can quietly dismiss this sort of men, and love their zeal without the labour of opening their ignorance.”^ To the two works of Dr Owen above referred to, we may after¬ wards have occasion to advert. It is enough at present to observe that they are not, properly speaking, works directed to the object of establishing the truth of the Christian religion, but the divine origin of the books of Scripture ; and that though they contain some statements which Baxter would have regarded, and justly, as making too little of the rational or external evidence for the truth of Christianity, they are free from any very material error ; and that this freedom from material error arises chiefly from Owen having generally, though perhaps not always, kept in view these two distinctions, the importance of which we have repeatedly explained to you, but which have been very much overlooked by writers upon these subjects, viz. — first, the distinction betw^een the evidence by which unbelievers ought rationally or in right reason to be convinced of the truth of Christianity, and that by which believers may be preserved and strengthened in their faith when ^ Baxter’s Reasons of the Christian Religion, Works, vol. xxi. p. 415. 228 SEVENTEENTH LECTURE. assaulted by temptations to infidelity, or which they might justly unfold if called upon to give a reason of the hope that was in them ; and second, the distinction between the evidence for the truth of Christianity, and that for the divine authority of the books of Scripture. I am glad to be able to confirm the truth and the pertinency for some purposes of these distinctions by so high an authority as that of Dr Owen : — “ On these suppositions, I fear not to affirm that there are in every indi¬ vidual hook of the Scriptures, particularly those named, those divine charac¬ ters and criteria which are sufficient to difference them from all other writings whatever, and to testify their divine authority to the minds and consciences of believers. I say of believers, for we inquire not on what grounds unbe¬ lievers, or those who do not believe, do not believe the word of God, nor yet directly on what outward motives such persons may be induced so to do. But our sole inquiry at present is, what the faith of them who do believe is resolved into.” ^ “ It is one thing to prove and believe the doctrines of Christ to be true and divine, another to prove and believe the Scriptures to be given by in¬ spiration of God, or the divine authority of the Scriptures, which alone was proposed unto consideration. A doctrine true and divine may be written in and proposed unto us by writings that were not divinely and infallibly inspired, and so might the doctrines of Christ have been, but not without the unspeakable disadvantage of the church. And there are sundry arguments which forcibly and effectually prove the doctrines of Christ to have been divine which are not of any efficacy to prove the divine authority of the Scriptures ; though, on the other hand, whatever doth prove the divine authority of the Scriptures, doth equally prove the divine truth of the doc¬ trines of Christ.” ^ This last quotation is the first topic stated in answer to the objection adduced by Stillingfleet, that it was injurious to the Christian religion to remove or discard the rational grounds on which we believe the doctrines of Christianity to be true and divine.” There is another great work on the evidences which belongs to this period, by a divine of the Church of England, eminently dis¬ tinguished for talent and erudition, who was engaged for some time in a controversy with Owen and Baxter on the subject of conformity to the Episcopal establishment, and who has written to good purpose upon many important subjects, but whose perma¬ nent services to the cause of Christian truth rest perhaps princi- ’ Owen’s Reason of Faith, Works, vol. iii. pp. 353. ^ Ibid. p. 348. LITERARY HISTORY. 229 pally upon his invaluable works against the Church of Rome — I mean Dr Stillingfleet, bishop of Worcester. Stillingfleet’s work on the evidences is entitled Origines Sacrce, and was published in 1662, in the interval between the publication of Baxters two principal works upon the subject. It discusses with much ability and learning the rational or external evidences for the truth of Christianity, but does not dwell upon those more spiritual views of the subject to which Dr Owen had given so much prominence, and to which Baxter, without disparaging the others, had assigned their right place. It is deserving of notice that Stillingfleet in this work (book ii. chap, x.) animadverts upon some views of Owens contained in his Self -evidencing Power of the Bible, published a few years before (in 1658), though without mention¬ ing Owen or his work, and that it was evidently to avoid the force of Stillingfleet’s animadversions that Owen, in his Reason of Faith, published long afterwards (in 1672), though in like manner without any formal reference to Stillingfleet, made the important explanations and limitations of his views, which we have quoted above from him. The works of Baxter and Stillingfleet upon the evidences are, we think, entitled to more attention than they have generally received in modern times, and are still deserving of a perusal by those who desire to be thoroughly acquainted with the subject, not only because of their talent and learning, but because they mark an important era in the literary history of this subject, and contain materials to which many of their successors have been much indebted. LECTURE XVIII. SKETCH OF LITERAKY HISTORY CONTI^^UEH— LESLIE, JEN¬ KINS — DEISTICAL CONTROVERSY — LELAND, COLLINS, BUTLER, &c. PRACTICAL infidelity, and everything that was offensive and disgraceful, prevailed to a fearful extent in England during the reign of the last two princes of the house of Stuart ; hut there was not then a great deal of controversial discussion about the truth of Christianity. After the Revolution of 1688, although that event was in many respects a great national blessing, and not as High Churchmen have always regarded, and still regard it, a great national sin, there was no real revival of true religion in the Church of England ; and even the Nonconformists, who, from the Restoration to the Revolution had been, while subjected to great hardships and persecutions, almost the only preservers and pro¬ moters of piety and godliness, soon fell to a considerable extent under the influence of the loose latitudinarian semi-infidel spirit which prevailed almost universally in the Established Church. The infidelity which had been so extensively generated after the Restoration, under the fostering influence of abounding iniquit}^, continued to exist, and to operate after the Revolution ; it assumed greater boldness, was openly advocated by some men of consider¬ able learning and ability, and this gave rise to a great deal of con¬ troversial discussion. The deistical controversy, as it is sometimes called, may be said to have lasted in England for more than half a century after the Revolution. In this controversy the argu¬ ments for the truth of Christianity and the objections against it were fully discussed, and not a few works, which are of lasting and permanent value, were produced by the defenders of revelation. LITERARY HISTORY, 231 The deistical controversy in England during nearly the first half of last century is the more important in the history of theological literature, because the infidel views then promulgated in England laid the foundations both of French and German infidelity. The writings of the English deists not only tended to produce and to call forth the infidelity which has since prevailed so extensively in France and Germany, but furnished the substance or at least the germs of most of the arguments by which French and German infidelity has beeu defended. Voltaire, who contributed largely to introduce into France the philosophy of Newton and Locke, was at least equally successful in disseminating the infidelity of Collins and Woolston; and although the infidel neology of Ger¬ many has been considerabl}^ modified in its character by an inter¬ mixture of unintelligible metaphysics, and by the exhibition of a vastly greater amount of philological and ecclesiastical learning than either the English or the French infidels ever possessed, yet its fundamental principles are to be found very plainly and fully set forth, not only in the works of Spinoza, but also in those of English infidels, especially of Tindal and Morgan. Infidelity pre¬ vailed very extensively in England before it became a subject of controversial discussion, or was openly defended from the press by men of any eminence. This was very much the case during the period between the Revolution and the end of the century. It was during this period that the Boyle Lecture was established, an institution which gave rise to many important works on the evi¬ dences both of natural and revealed religion, as we formerly had occasion to mention ; works however which, though valuable in many respects, are, for reasons which we have explained to you, to be read with some caution. Some valuable works on the evidences were also published at this period which were not connected with the Boyle Lectureship, and which are of general and permanent value, independently of temporary controversies. Leslie's Short and Easy Method with the Deists, a work of singular talent, and which, from the peculiar mode in which it treats the subject, has never been superseded by any other, but is still well deserving of a perusal, Avas published in 1697, having been written at the request of a friend whose lot was thrown among persons who were in the constant habit of ridiculing the sacred Scriptures and all revealed religion, and who wished to be furnished Avith some argu- 232 EIGHTEENTH LECTURE. ments for the truth of Christiauity that might be simple, palpable, and portable, or well adapted for ready use in confirming his own faith, and in silencing gainsayers ; and this purpose Leslie’s work is most admirably fitted to serve. His Short and Easy Method with the Jews, published in 1699, is a work displaying great talent. It enters of course at greater length than the former into the subject of prophecy, and fully exposes the pretences by which the modern Jews endeavour to evade the application of the Old Testament prophecies to our Saviour. His Truth of Christianity Demonstrated is a valuable supplement to both his previous books, and by these three works he has entitled himself to a very high place among the defenders of Christianity.^ There is also a very useful and respectable work on the evidences, containing a great deal of solid learning and judicious reflection — Jenkins on The Reasonableness and. Certainty of the Christian Religion, in two volumes, which was published at the same time, in 1698. In his preface he says : The general decay and contempt of the Christian religion amongst us has made me think that I could not better employ my leisure than in using my best endeavours to shew the excellency and the certainty of it;” and again, ‘‘ There never appeared, I believe, among Christians so general a disaffec¬ tion as in the present age to the Christian religion in men pretend¬ ing at least to reason and learning, and natural religion and moral virtue.” And though much had been written in defence of Christianity as well as against it in the interval between this and the publication of Butler’s Analogy in 1736, yet no very material improvement had taken place in public sentiment, if we may judge from a statement he makes in his advertisement prefixed to that great work, which is to this effect : “ It is come, I know not how, to be taken for granted by many persons that Christianity is not so much a subject of inquiry, but it is now at length discovered to be fictitious, and accordingly they treat it as if in the present age this were an agreed point among all people of discernment, and nothing remained but to set it up as a principal subject of mirth and ridicule, as it were by way of reprisals for its having so long interrupted the pleasures of the world.” And yet there can be no doubt that the attacks which had been made upon Christianity ^ These three works of Leslie are all contained in Christian Literature, 1841, though the last is erroneously placed first. LITERARY HISTORY, 233 were all repelled with great learning and ability. There had however been no revival of real religion and vital godliness in England. The church continued as thoroughly sunk in worldliness and carelessness, as perfectly indifferent about all the high and holy functions of a church of Christ, at the middle as at the beginning of last century, and hence infidelity as well as irreligion continued to prevail. It is right that all attacks made upon Christianity with a show of reasoning and learning should be met, as they have always been, with better reasoning and superior learning. But the exposure of infidel objections and the estab¬ lishment by unanswerable argument of the truth of the Christian revelation are not enough to secure the great objects for which that revelation was given ; and the diminished extent to which an open profession of infidelity has subsequently prevailed, though in some measure to be accounted for by temporary and adventitious causes, may also be regarded as proving that nothing contributes so much to discourage and prevent a general public profession of infidelity as an increase in the number of those who are living under the influence of personal religion, and are really taking the word of God as a light unto their feet and a lamp unto their path. Still the period to which we have referred is one of primary importance in the literary history of this subject, and therefore you ought to have some acquaintance with it. It is true of this as of most other departments of controversial discussion, that, in order to understand it fully, you must read the principal works which have been written upon both sides. In this case, however, there is an opportunity of gaining a fair measure of acquaintance with it by the perusal of a single work — I mean Leland’s View of the Deistical Writers. Leland w^as a dissenting minister in Ireland, and had himself written largely and ably in the course of the controversy, particularly against Tindal and Morgan. His View of the Deistical Writers gives an account of all the prin¬ cipal works published in England against Christianity, from Herbert down to Hume, and of all the principal works written in reply to them ; in short, of the whole literature of the subject. He gives also a summary statement of the chief arguments and objections brought forward by the different infidel authors, and of the answers that were or might be given to them ; and as the infidels’ positions are stated fairly, and are commonly answered 234 EIGHTEENTH LECTURE. with judgment and ability, the work contains a pretty full view, not only of the literature, but of the substance and merits of the controversy, while it affords abundant information to guide you in the further prosecution of the study of it, if you should have opportunity or inclination to do so. I do not know any one book which contains so much useful information upon the subject of the deistical controversy, or any one which within the same com¬ pass will give you so full a view of the way and manner in which Christianity has been in point of fact assailed and defended; and it is therefore one of those books which I would strongly recom¬ mend to you to peruse. I formerly made some remarks as to the way and manner in which infidels have usually conducted their attacks upon Christianity, and a perusal of Leland will, I think, satisfy you of their truth. None of them attempted to give a full and connected exposition of the whole train of argument by which Christianity might be assailed, or a full and formal refutation of the whole arguments in its different departments by which it might be and has been established. Each generally took some one particular topic, on which he exerted his ingenuity, without trying to shew formally how it bore upon the general question, though some of the more plausible difficulties connected with particular portions of Scripture most of them contrived to bring in. They seldom attempted to give formal or regular answers to the works written against them, though they continued to write in support of their former views ; or, if they attempted an answer, they commonly had recourse to mere cavilling and evasion. And yet, in one form or another, most of the arguments by which Christianity has been assailed were brought forward in the course of that controversy, and most of them are adverted to in Leland, except those which, being based upon a minute examination of particular portions of Scripture, could not be investigated in consistency with the object and limits of his work. There was much more discussion about the contents than about the evidences of revelation, a class of subjects on which it is easy for infidels to display some ingenuity and smartness; and, with the exception of Hume, who is the only Scotchman among the deistical writers of whom Leland gives an account, none of them made anything like a regular attempt to grapple with, or to dispose of, the proper historical evidence for the miracles by LITERARY HISTORY. 235 which Jesus and his apostles established their claims. Many hints indeed were thrown out about the impossibility of miracles taking place, the difficulty or impossibility of proving them, and many insinuations made against the character and conduct of the apostles, and against some particular detached portions of the evidences. But the leading subjects of more full and formal discussion were the sufficiency of the light of nature to guide men to a knowledge of God and duty, and the attainment of happi¬ ness ; the supremacy of human reason as the only proper test and standard of what ought to be believed and practised ; the absurdity of all positive precepts and institutions, as they were called, by which was meant, in substance, precepts and institutions which the reason of man could not have discovered to be obligatory, or the reasonableness of which, in their own nature, and irrespective of the authority on which they professed to rest, the reason of man could not easily perceive; the alleged inconsistency with each other, or with right views of God’s character and government, of the leading doctrines of revelation, and especially of many features in the Jewish economy; and the alleged mistakes, incon¬ sistencies, and other objectionable qualities of many particular statements of Scripture ; the erroneous application of Old Testa¬ ment prophecies by the writers of the New, and generally the impossibility or extreme difficulty of making out satisfactorily anything like a clear fulfilment of prophecy, and the difficulty of settling and establishing the canon of the Old and New Testaments. All these topics were discussed, and sometimes with considerable ability and learning, though in general with a flagrant disregard of the rules at once of fair reasoning and common honesty. All . the infidel works published upon these subjects were answered, fully and conclusively answered, and the cause of Christianity gained in argument a complete triumph. And in regard more especially to the sufficiency of the light of nature, and the supremacy of human reason, the reasonableness and divine authority of the Mosaic institutions, the validity of tlie argument from prophecy, and the authority of the canon of Scripture, the works published in defence of revelation in the course of that controversy contain a great deal of useful and valuable matter ; and indeed all that is needful to defend the truth upon these points, and to vindicate it from every plausible objection. Many of the 236 EIGHTEENTH LECTURE. works written on both sides have now fallen into oblivion. Tindabs Christianity as old as the Creation, and Morgan’s Moral Philosopher, are still interesting works, for this, among other reasons, that they set forth the whole substance of the infidel neology of Germany, while the latter also contains perhaps the fullest and most elaborate attack that has been made upon the divine origin and authority of the Mosaic economy ; or, as it has been sometimes expressed, upon the divine legation of Moses. Collins’s work, entitled The Grounds and Reasons of the Chris¬ tian Religion, produced perhaps the greatest number of answers of any infidel work published in this controversy, and gave rise to the greatest amount of discussion ; and it concerns a topic which is still interesting and important, and which is not altogether free from difficulties, not indeed so far as concerns its bearing upon the evidence for the truth of Christianity, but merely as affecting the right mode of interpreting a few difficult passages of Scripture. Collins’s position was this, that the grounds on which the truth of the Christian religion, as put by Christ and his apostles, was not the miracles which he wrought to prove his divine commission as a teacher sent from God, but only the proof from prophecy that he was the Messiah predicted in the Old Testament, and that unless this can be established, his claims must fall to the ground ; that\the quotations made by the New Testament writers of passages from the Old Testament as predictions fulfilled in Christ are not explained and applied by them in the literal sense which they bear as they stand in the Old Testament, but in some secondary, mystical, allegorical sense, which affords no clear and satisfactory ground or basis for a rational or conclusive argument. His direct and professed object was only to convict the New Testa¬ ment writers of mistakes in interpretation, and of inconclusive reasoning in the application they made of Old Testament state¬ ments ; but he all along insinuated that no better sort of argument could be deduced from anything contained in the Old Testament ; or, in other words, that there were no predictions in the Old Testament which, understood in their proper literal sense as they stand in the original, were fulfilled in the character and history of our Saviour. Now, in considering this subject, two questions arise, which differ very materially both in their nature and in their importance — first, Are there real predictions contained in the LITERARY HISTORY. 237 Old Testament of which the true and intended meaning can be clearly and certainly established, and which, in their true and intended meaning, can be shewn to have been fulfilled in our Saviour \ and second, Can we satisfactorily explain and fully vindi¬ cate all the applications made of Old Testament prophecies by the writers of the New ? There might be difficulties attending the application made of Old Testament prophecies by the writers of the New, and those might, or might not, affect their inspiration ; but they might still not in the least affect the proof from prophecy of the Messiahship of Jesus, and accordingly this whole subject of the quotations from the Old Testament in the New is one of the most important, and not one of the least difficult, in the inter¬ pretation of Scripture. There may be difficulties, and there are certainly differences of opinion among the defenders of revelation, as to the way in which some of the New Testament quotations from the Old are to be explained and vindicated, and as to various important questions connected with the interpretation and appli¬ cation of prophecy, especially what is called the double sense of prophecy, or the view that there are predictions in the Old Testa¬ ment which, though in the primary and literal sense applicable to previous events nearer the time when they were uttered, have yet also a real and intended fulfilment in the life and history of our Saviour.^ But these difficulties, and the discussions to which they have given rise, and the application of the general principles involved in these discussions to the interpretation of particular passages of Scripture, very remotely, if at all, affect the substantial merits of the great question wffiether or not there be in the Old Testament a series of real and undoubted predictions, the meaning of which can be certainly ascertained, and which had a full, com¬ plete, and obviously intended fulfilment in Jesus of Nazareth. All these topics, primary and subordinate, whether as affecting the claims of Jesus, or the inspiration of the writers of Scripture, or merely the correct interpretation of some of its statements, were introduced into the discussion which Collins’s book occasioned, and which thus took a wide sweep and embraced many points of per¬ manent interest. The substance of what was maintained by the generality of ’ See remarkable testimony of Micbaelis upon this subject quoted in Chalmers’s Evidences, vol. ii. p, 20. 238 EIGHTEENTH LECTURE. those who wrote in defence of the truth of Christianity against Col¬ lins was this — 1st. That prophecy is not the only proof of the divine commission of our Saviour, but that he wrought miracles, that he appealed to miracles in support of his claims, and that these miracles being fully established by satisfactory evidence, are quite sufficient to impose upon us an obligation to believe whatever he might declare. 2d. That, independently of any proof of his claims from miracles, it can be proved, from an examination of the Old Testament itself, that there were many predictions which, in their proper primary literal sense, apply to him, and were fulfilled in him. 2d. That there is nothing unreasonable or absurd in the idea that as there are in the Old Testament types fulfilled in Christ, the antitype, so there may be predictions which were fulfilled in previous events, and found also a real and an intended fulfilment in the events of his life and history. 4th. That the applications of Old Testament statements to Jesus by the writers of the New may be explained and vindicated, by shewing in some cases that they do accord with the true, real primary, though perhaps not the most obvious, mean¬ ing of the statements as they stand in the Old Testament ; in others, that there are in the predictions themselves, independently of the New Testament application of them, clear indications of a double sense and reference ; and in some again, that they are not adduced in the New Testament as proofs or prophecies, strictly so called, but merely as accommodations of Old Testament state¬ ments to events of a similar kind. 5th. That even if they could not be all explained or vindicated in some one or other of these ways, yet that this may be owing principally to our ignorance, and that great weight is due in interpreting the meaning of some obscure passages of the Old Testament to the statements of men who gave abundant proof that they were commissioned by God to reveal his will, and that though every difficulty of this sort should not be fully explained, this would be no sufficient reason for doubt¬ ing or denying the inspiration of the writers of the Old Testament, and still less for doubting or denying the divine commission of Christ, or the general truth of Christianity. On all these various topics, much interesting and valuable information is to be found in some of the numerous works which were called forth by Collins’s Grounds and Reasons of the Christian Religion, and his defence of it in his Scheme of Literal Prophecy. LITERARY HISTORY. 239 There are some reflections suggested by a review of the deis- tical controversy in England in the early part of last century which I shall reserve till I have finished this historical sketch. In the meantime I would observe that the following were some of the works published in the course of this controversy, that may be considered as of more than temporary value, and as still deserving of some attention, from the arguments and information they con¬ tain : — Richardson and Nye on The Canon, in reply to Toland ; Conybeare, Leland, Foster, Law, and Waterland in reply to Tin- dal ; Leland, Chapman, and Lowman on the civil government of the Hebrews, in reply to Morgan ; Benson and Doddridge in reply to Christianity not Founded in Argument ; and Bishop Chand¬ ler, Dr Samuel Chandler (a dissenting minister), and Dr Samuel Clarke, in reply to Collins. The titles of the works and something of their general character and contents you will find in Leland. Leland includes in his Vieiv an examination of Hume’s argument ; but I say nothing more on this topic, as I formerly noticed the works written against Hume, and recommended among others, two letters on Hume’s Essay on Miracles, contained in this work of Leland’s. Before quitting this subject, I may mention that Leland’s Vieiv of the Deistical Writers contains much the fullest answer we have to the infidel objections of Lord Bolingbroke, though there are very masterly exposures of some of Bolingbroke’s infidel notions to be found in Warburton’s Divine Legation of Moses. Besides these works, which were written more directly and formally in answer to infidel works, there were several to which the controversy, as then conducted, may be said to have given rise, though they were not written merely as answers to any particular author, but took a wider and more general range, and are therefore, in some respects, of more extensive and permanent utility. Most of them, I think, I have already had occasion to mention and to recommend. The principal of them are — Bishop Sherlock on The Use and Intent of Prophecy, and his Trial of the Witnesses of the Resurrection, and Sequel to the Trial; West on The Resurrection, Lyttleton on The Conversion of St Paul, Jones on The Canon, Lardner’s Credibility, and Collection of Jewish and Heathen Testimonies, and Bishop Butler’s Analogy. Sherlock’s Trial and Sequel, West and Lyttleton, are contained 240 EIGHTEENTH LECTURE. in Christian Literature, which also contains, in addition to the three works of Leslie formerly mentioned, Bishop Watson s two Apologies, Paley’s Evidences, and Horce Paulince, Campbell on Miracles, Jenyns on the Internal Evidences, and Chandler’s Plain Reasons for being a Christian. Jones’s work on The Canon contains the fullest information to be found anywhere in regard to what are called the Apocryphal books of the New Testament, or those works which, in early times, were falsely ascribed to our Lord and his apostles, including others also written by the authors whose names they bear, which some writers have reckoned canonical, but which have not been generally admitted into the sacred canon. Jones was prevented by death from com¬ pleting his work by establishing, in detail, the canonical authority of those works which are generally regarded as composing the true canon of the New Testament, having proceeded no farther in this part of the work than the book of the Acts. This defect however is fully and most satisfactorily supplied by Lardner, in the supplement to the second part of his Credibility, or, as it is sometimes called by a distinct title. The History of the Apostles and Evangelists. We have mentioned Butler’s Analogy among the works which may be said to have been occasioned by the important and protracted controversy to which we have referred. At first sight the truth of this observation may not be apparent ; and it is certain that Butler makes no direct reference either to the works or to the statements of the infidel authors who preceded him ; but any one competently acquainted with the way in which the attack upon Christianity had been previously conducted, will see that Butler’s Analogy is very much just a summing up of the leading departments of the controversy. Infidels then, as has been generally the case, have taken the place of objectors ; they adduced objections against the truth of Christianity, and some of them even against what are commonly reckoned fundamental parts of natural religion, their objections, so far as natural religion is concerned, being directed wholly against some of its doctrines, and their objections to Christianity being directed much more against its doctrines than its evidences. These facts, which stand out upon the surface of the controversy as it had been generally conducted, plainly determined the character, the object, and the substance of Butler’s great work. Its professed and principal nUTLER^S ANALOGY. 241 object is to meet objectors and to dispose of objections, to shew that the objections are of no real force and validity, and to do this principally by shewing that the same or similar objections might with equal truth be adduced against doctrines held or truths admitted by those from whom the objections proceeded. Among the infidels of the preceding period some, while disclaiming atheism, and professing to admit the existence of an intelligent Creator and Governor, manifested, as was not unnatural for men of their character, a considerable dislike to the doctrine of a moral government — i.e. a government regulated in some measure by a regard to man’s moral character, and directed to the promotion and encouragement of virtue, and especially to the doctrine that this life is a state of probation and preparation connected with a future state of rewards and punishments ; while some of them countenanced a species of fatalism, or a denial of man’s moral agency. You will find in Leland abundant evidence that objections to this effect had been broached and insisted upon by the infidels of that age. Now, against these objections the first part of Butler’s Analogy is directed, and its object is to shew, — by tracing the analogy between the constitution and course of nature, in other words, the works of creation and the actual condition and circumstances of men in the world, admitted to come from God, on the one hand, and natural religion on the other, used here specially to denote the great doctrines of God’s moral government and a future state of rewards and punishments — that the same sort of objections, objections derived from the same source, based upon the same principles, possessed of a similar character, and of equal plausibility, may be adduced against the former as against the latter, that these objections consequently are of no real validity, and that those who have adduced them are called upon to abandon them, or if they will persist in adhering to them, that they are bound in consistency to take refuge in atheism, and deny equally the existence of an intelligent Creator and Governor of the world. Leland says, speaking of the infidel authors of whom he was about to give an account, “ they are classed by some of their own writers into two sects — mortal and immortal deists. The latter acknowledge a future state, the former deny it, or at least represent it as a very uncertain thing.” Q 242 EIGHTEENTH LECTURE. Now, Butler’s first part is directed against the mortal, and his second against the immortal deists. The objections of these persons were chiefly directed against those doctrines of revealed religion which men could not have discovered in the exercise of their natural faculties ; and in so far as they objected against the truth or probability of a revelation having been in point of fact made, or, in other words, dealt with the evidences, properly so called, they usually avoided anything that might lead them to face fairly and frankly the direct historical proof by which the truth of Christianity is established, and rather endeavoured indirectly to set it wholly aside by means of vague general considerations or preliminary presumptions, such as the antecedent improbability of miracles, and the previous probability that if it were indeed a revelation from God, it would have been sooner given, more generally diffused, more conclusively proved, and more free from difficulties, obscurities, and mysteries. Now, Butler, in his second part, by tracing the analogy between the constitution and course of nature and natural religion on the one hand, and revealed religion on the other, or those features of it against which the objections are directed, shews that the same or similar objections apply to the former as to the latter ; that of course the objections are of no real weight or validity, or that at least the objectors, in order to preserve consistency in adhering to them, must renounce or abandon doctrines which they profess to believe as established upon good and satisfactory evidence. All this is done in Butler’s Analogy, and done with marvellous skill, sagacity, and philosophic caution ; and therefore the Analogy is one of those books which it is your duty not only to peruse, but to study, both because the study of it is an excellent intellectual exercise, well fitted to improve your powers and faculties, and because it establishes- many important principles which, when thoroughly understood and digested, will place you far beyond the reach of the great mass of the most common and plausible infidel objections. LECTURE XIX. POPULAR INFIDELITY USUALLY BASED UPON PERVERTING PARTICULAR STATEMENTS OF SCRIPTURE — FRENCH INFIDELITY — VOLTAIRE, FINDLAY, PAINE, PALEY — GERMAN INFIDELITY AND RATIONALISM. WE have had occasion to mention that many of the English deists, even when discussing other and more general and abstract topics, commonly contrived to bring in some of the inci¬ dents recorded, or statements contained in the Bible, which they thought fitted to excite a prejudice against its credibility and authority. Tindal’s Christianity as Old as the Creation, for example, is a work which professes to establish some important abstract principles, and is mainly occupied with general discussion about the sufficiency of the light of nature, the supremacy of human reason, and the absurdity, from the nature of the thing, of a positive revelation and positive institutions and precepts ; and yet he has contrived to bring in, in the course of it, some refer¬ ence to almost all these passages, in the Old Testament especially, on which infidels have been accustomed to found objections, and which they have usually made the subjects of railing or of ridicule. Of the works written in reply to Tindal, there is one by Dr Waterland, a man of great ability and learning, and well known in theological literature for the zeal and perseverance with which he employed his ability and learning in defending the doctrine of the Trinity. This work, omitting altogether the more abstract and argumentative portion of Tindal’s book, is confined to an explanation and defence of the passages in the Old Testament which Tindal had distorted and perverted, taking them in the order in which they occur in the Bible, from Genesis to Malachi; and 244 NINETEENTH LECTURE. we have few better or more useful books on this subject than this work of Waterland’s, entitled Scrijpture Vindicated. Infidels indeed are well aware that the most plausible and effective means they can employ to excite doubts and suspicions in men's minds is by selecting particular portions of the Bible, or particular inci¬ dents recorded there, distorting and perverting them, and then making use of them for the purpose of producing the impression that the Bible abounds in things that are contradictory and absurd, offensive and ridiculous. The question of the divine authority of the Scriptures is indeed different from that of the truth and reality of the Mosaic and Christian revelation. But most men who have held the one have also maintained the other ; and if the charges which have been often adduced against the Scriptures were well founded, they would not only overturn their divine authority, but militate very seriously against the probability of their containing or embodying an authentic and credible record of divine revela¬ tions. There are some real difficulties connected with the inter¬ pretation of some passages of Scripture, especially of the Old Tes¬ tament — difficulties that might naturally be expected to occur in the interpretation of the most ancient books in existence, written in a language which has for more than two thousand years ceased to be a living language, recording incidents which occurred in a state of things very different from any that has come under our experience, and in many cases not giving, and not professing to give, minute and detailed accounts of all the subjects to which they advert. It does not require a great deal of ingenuity to make a plausible handle of these difficulties, and to swell their number by distorting and perverting passages where no real difficulty exists. The chief heads under which the common infidel objections derived from particular passages of Scripture, as distinguished from the substance of revelation, or the system of doctrines and duties which may be said to constitute it, may be classed, are — the alleged inconsistency of one passage with another ; the alleged incon¬ sistency of certain actions ascribed to God, or done by his order, or with his approbation, with right views of religion and morality ; the alleged absurdity of some of the provisions and arrangements of the Mosaic economy, and of some of the miracles recorded, &c. Objec¬ tions from these various sources, when set off with some skill and ingenuity, perhaps with some wit and humour, are much more likely POPULAR INFIDELITY, 245 to make an impression upon men’s minds than abstract argumen¬ tation ; and even when they do not produce infidelity or a distinct and avowed rejection of the authority of Scripture, are yet too well fitted to diminish and undermine the profound respect and reverence with which the word of God ought ever to be regarded. It is chiefly by urging objections derived from these sources that infidelity has ever made much progress; and if you shall ever be called to come into contact with avowed infidelity in the course of your ministerial labours, you will probably find that it is based upon, or at least that it defends itself by arguments and considerations of this sort ; and hence the propriety of your being somewhat acquainted with this class of objections, and with the readiest, most palpable, and most effective way of disposing of them. You will find indeed that you do not often succeed in reclaiming to a profession of Christianity men who have made a profession of infidelity, by merely answering their arguments ; or, except when the gospel of the grace of God — i.e. the substance of divine revelation itself, explained and enforced by you — is brought home to their understandings and hearts by the Holy Ghost; and this means therefore should not be neglected even with those who at the time professedly despise it. But still, for the honour of truth and the protection of others, it is proper that you should be able and ready to answer more directly and explicitly the grounds on which the infidelity you may meet with is defended. This class of infidel objections has always been in peculiar favour with French infidels, being well adapted to the flippancy, frivolity, and superficiality of that people. Indeed, it may be said to constitute the distinguishing characteristic of French infidelity ; and perhaps the greatest master in this department was Voltaire, to whose capacities and attainments it was pecu¬ liarly suited, and who certainly had qualities that enabled him to set it off to the best advantage, and to make it peculiarly effective. The objections which Voltaire has adduced against particular passages of Scripture, and against particular incidents recorded there, and which he has often set off with much ingenuity and wit, are scattered over his works, but are to be found especially in his PliilosoiAiical Dictionary, and in his Philosophy of History. You will find most of them collected and refuted in a very useful and valuable book, entitled A Vindication of the Sacred Books 246 NINETEENTH LECTURE. and of Josephus, especially the former, from various misrepre¬ sentations and cavils of the celebrated M. de Voltaire, by Dr Findlay, who was professor of divinity in Glasgow. Dr Findlay certainly contrasts somewhat unfavourably with Voltaire in point of style and manner ; but he is just as immeasurably superior to his opponent in integrity, learning, and knowledge of the subject, as he is inferior in elegance and wit. There can be no doubt that he has conclusively convicted Voltaire of many instances of ignor¬ ance and dishonesty, and has cast much light upon some of the difficult and obscure passages of Scripture. It is held to be a fair and right thing, in regard to profane authors, and especially authors the interpretation of whose works is, from their antiquity, attended with some difficulty, to abstain from charging them with contradictions and absurdities, if by a patient and careful exami¬ nation and comparison of their statements, and by an application of any fair principle of interpretation, the necessity of adducing such charges can be avoided. But infidels have always treated the sacred Scriptures upon the opposite principle, of putting down, without inquiry or comparison, everything as a contradiction or absurdity which at first sight, and taken by itself, presented any appearance of something of this sort. With this view they have sometimes condescended to take advantage of ambiguities and defects in the translation in common use, and of changes in the meaning of words, since the translation was executed. This led Bishop Horne, in his Letters on Infidelity, to complain of it as a great hardship that infidels would not take the trouble of acquiring some little knowledge of Greek and Hebrew before they began to make objections to the statements of the Bibl^, and thus save the clergy from the trouble of exposing their ignorance. We have said that the French infidels have dealt largely in this mode of assailing Christianity, by distorting and misrepresenting particular passages of Scripture, so as to bring out of them contradictions and absurdities; and indeed this has been the mode of attack chiefly resorted to whenever attempts have been made to spread infidelity among the people generally. It was mainly in this form that infidelity appeared in this country at the era of the French Bevolution ; and any subsequent attempts that have been made to propagate it among us have been conducted chiefly in the same way. Paine’s Age of Reason is the PAINE^S AGE OF REASON. 247 best known and most popular work in our language that has been devoted to the object of convicting the Bible of absurdities and inconsistencies, or holding it up, to use his own daring language, as “ a book of lies, wickedness, and blaspheming ; and though the infamous character of the author, and the coarse scurrility and offensively daring blasphemy of the book proved in some measure an antidote to its poison, yet it is written in a very palpable plausible style, fitted to be popular among persons who have not much refinement, and it accomplished undoubtedly a great deal of mischief. It was answered by two eminent men. Bishop Watson, and Scott the commentator — the former in his Apology for the Bible, and the latter in his Vindication of the Bivine Inspira¬ tion of the Holy Scriptures, a work of which the author afterwards published an abridged edition, in which much that bore special reference to Paine’s book was omitted. These are both valuable works. Watson’s has been much the more popular of the two, chiefly because of its style. Scott’s, in the original edition, contains a greater amount of useful information, and of patient discussion of scriptural statements, and is based upon sounder principles, as it maintains the inspiration of the Scriptures, which Watson virtually abandons. It was about the time when this species of infidelity prevailed to some extent in this country that Paley’s great works upon this subject appeared — first, his Horce Paulinoe, and then liis Evidences. While infidels were triumphing in the alleged inconsistences of the Scriptures, as proving that the whole narrative was a fiction, Paley, with admirable skill, brought to light and unfolded a series of latent harmonies, of undesigned coincidences, which established beyond all reasonable doubt that whatever difficulties may attach to the interpretation of some particular passages, the Old Testament history rests upon a solid and sub¬ stantial basis of truth and reality ; that the men who are there brought before us lived and acted in the situation and circum¬ stances, sustained the relations to each other, and were engaged in the occupations, which are there described. This important service Paley rendered in his Horce Paulince. In like manner, when the discussion about the truth of Christianity had dwindled down very much into an affair of outposts, an examination of obscure texts, a mere discussion of difficulties, Paley saw the propriety and importance of turning men’s attention to the foundations of the 248 NINETEENTH LECTURE. subject, to the main citadel of the Christian evidences, to the body and mass of the direct historical and miraculous proof by which the truth of Christianity is established ; and in his work upon the evidences he has brought out the substance of this proof with inimitable clearness and cogency. We have repeatedly had occasion to refer to this work of Paley’s, and to point out its excellencies, as well as to advert to some of its defects. We refer to it now chiefly for the purpose of remarking, that the state of the controversy at that time, as brought out in the brief sketch that has been laid before you, seems to us greatly to enhance the intrinsic merit of the work, indicating, as it does, that Paley had a clear perception of what the occasion demanded, and was fully alive to the seasonableness of such a work as that which he has executed with such singular success. It is right that such works as Paine^s should be answered, and that such works as Watson’s and Scott’s should be published ; but it is necessary also, and not the least so while such discussions as these are going on, that men should be reminded that the great question, whether Christianity be indeed a revelation from God, must be decided upon broader and higher grounds ; and that, even though greater difficulties attached to some particular portions of Scripture than have ever been proved to exist, we would still have abundant and conclusive evidence — evidence that could neither be overthrown nor under¬ mined — that Jesus of Nazareth was the Messiah promised to the Fathers, and that he was sent by God into the world to reveal to us the divine will for our salvation. We have now only to advert briefly to German infidelity, and under this head we comprehend not only that open and avowed infidelity which expressly declares Christianity to be a fraud, and Christ and his apostles to be imposters, but likewise neology or rationalism, though advocated by men who are ministers and pro¬ fessors of Christian theology. Men who not only, like the Socinians, refuse to receive any of the doctrines of Christianity but what they in their wisdom are pleased to consider reasonable, but who more¬ over deny the possibility of miracles and prophecies, and of any immediate or supernatural revelation of God’s will to men, and who ascribe the peculiar way and manner in which these subjects are commonly spoken of in the New Testament by Christ and his apostles to the influence of the ignorant and irrational notions GERMAN RATIONALISM, 249 which then generally prevailed upon these subjects (some of them being of opinion that Christ and his apostles shared in this ignor¬ ance and irrationality ; and others, that they merely accommodated their statements to it), are undoubtedly infidels, and ought ever to be regarded, spoken of, and treated as such. Their infidelity is aggravated by the grossest dishonesty and hypocrisy in pretending to be Christians and believers in revelation ; and they would cer¬ tainly be entitled to rather more respect if they threw off the ^ mask altogether. The foundations of German rationalism, or anti¬ supernaturalism as it is sometimes called, are a denial of God’s ever interposing, immediately or supernaturally, in the affairs of this world, or making any immediate or supernatural revelation of his will to men ; and an assertion of the supremacy of human reason, i.e, of their own reason, as the only ultimate test or stand¬ ard of what men ought to believe and practise ; and in illustrating and defending these infidel views they have not been able, with all their ingenuity and learning, to produce anything more satis¬ factory and conclusive than what had been urged by Spinoza, Tin- dal, and Morgan, and what had been long ago answered by the defenders of revelation. As some people in this country seem to entertain a sort of notion that there is something new and peculi¬ arly formidable in this modern German rationalism, it maybe worth while to advert to some of the proofs which can be adduced that it is really nothing else than old infidelity, with scarcely even a new dress put upon it. I shall not give you any quotations from Spinoza’s Tractatus Theologico-Politicus, though many passages are to be found there which are very appropriate; but will confine myself to some statements of Tindal and Morgan, which can be given in English (Leland’s View, pp. 75, 86, 87, 89, 94. Preface to Morgan’s Moral Philosopher), Leland, giving an abstract of Tindal’s opinions (p. 75), says: — “ This author has endeavoured to subvert the very foundations of the Christian scheme, by shewing that there neither is nor can be any external revelation at all distinct from what he calls the internal revelation of the law of nature in the hearts of all mankind ; that such external revelation is absolutely needless and useless ; that the original law and religion of nature is so perfect that nothing can possibly be added to it by any subsequent external revelation whatever. And as he thus endeavoureth to set aside all external supernatural revelation as needless and useless, and all pre¬ tences as vain and groundless, so he particularly setteth himself to expose 250 NINETEENTH LECTURE. the revelation contained in the Holy Scriptures of the Old and New Testa¬ ments. He attempteth to invalidate the original proofs on which the authority of that revelation is founded, and particularly that which is drawn from the miracles that attested it. And he also taketh pains to prove that we cannot possibly have any assurance that this revelation is transmitted to us in a manner which may be safely depended upon. He examineth the revelation itself, and endeavoureth to shew that it is uncertain and obscure ; that its precepts are delivered in a loose, general, undetermined manner, so as to be incapable of giving clear directions to the bulk of mankind ; that^ far from being of use, as a rule, to direct men in faith and practice, the Scriptures are only fit to perplex and misinform them, and that they tend to give them only wrong and unworthy apprehensions of the Deity, and the duty they owe him.” Again, giving an abstract of the views advocated in Morgan’s Moral Philosopher, Leland says (pp. 86, 87) : — “ By several passages of his book, it appeareth that by revelation he under- standeth any discovery of truth, in what way soever a man comes by it, even though it be by the strength and superiority of his own natural faculties, so that all that have discovered rational or moral truth by their own study and application in the use of their natural faculties, may be said, according to this account of it, to have had the light of revelation. Supposing any persons to have been extraordinarily sent of God to make a discovery of his will concerning truth or duty, whatever credentials they produce to prove their divine mission, we are not to receive anything upon that authority, no more than if they were not thus extraordinarily sent of God. The doctrines and laws they deliver as from God, in whatsoever way they are attested and confirmed, are really and entirely on the same footing with the opinions of philosophers or moralists who do not pretend to be extraordinarily sent of God at all — i.e. we are to believe the doctrines they teach if upon examining them we find them to be true by reasons drawn from the nature of things, and we are to submit to their precepts and directions if upon considering them we are satisfied that they tend to our own advantage and happiness, but their authority abstractly from the reason of the thing must have no weight to determine us.” “ As to our Saviour’s miracles, this writer pretendeth, contrary to Christ’s own most express declarations, that he did not appeal to them as proofs of his divine mission ” (p. 94). “As to the New Testament, though he frequently affecteth to speak with great veneration of Jesus Christ, yet he insinuateth very base and unworthy reflections upon his personal character ; that he pretended to be the Messiah foretold by the prophets, though he very well knew that these prophets had only spoken of a temporal Jewish prince who was to arise and reign in Judea, and that accordingly he suffered himself to be carried about by the mob for a twelvemonth together, and did not renounce that character till his death, when he absolutely disclaimed his being the Messiah foretold in the pro¬ phetical writings, and died upon that renunciation. As to the apostles, the GERMAN RATIONALISM. 251 first authorised teachers and publishers of the religion of Jesus, he affirms that they themselves never so much as pretended to be under the unerring guidance and inspiration of the Holy Ghost ; that they differed among themselves about the most concerning parts of revelation, and preached differ¬ ent and even contrary gospels ; and that all the apostles, except St Paul, preached what he calls the Jewish gospel, viz., salvation by Jesus Christ as the Jewish Messiah — i.e. the national prince and deliverer of the Jews. This, which he all along explodes as false and absurd, he represents as the only proper essential article of the Christian faith. As to the attestations given to our Saviour’s divine mission, and to the doctrines taught by the apostles, by miracles, prophecy, and the extraordinary gifts of the Holy Ghost, he absolutely denieth them to be any proof at all” (p. 89). Now, these are just, almost in the very words, the fundamental principles of German rationalism as they are to be found, for example, in Wegscheider’s Institutiones Tkeologice Ghristiance Dogmaticce, usually reckoned the text-book of that infidel system, and the author of which is still professor of Christian theology at Halle. But though German rationalism is thus, in substance, and as to its fundamental principles, just old infidelity, there are two things about it which are new — first, that it is broached and defended by men who call themselves Christians, who profess to believe in some sense in Christ and revelation, and who hold the offices of ministers and professors of Christian theology. It is true that some of the English deists in the early part of last cen¬ tury did occasionally express some respect for Christianity, and make something like a profession of believing it. But besides that their conduct in this matter wanted the aggravation of their holding the offices of ministers and professors of Christian theology, the sort of profession they made of Christianity could scarcely be reckoned an act of dishonesty or hypocrisy, for it was not usually made in such a way as to indicate any wish or expectation that they should be believed ; whereas the German rationalists, with all calmness and gravity, as if they had no doubt of their own honesty, and as if they expected every one to believe them sincere, profess their belief in the divine origin of the Christian revelation, when yet they mean nothing more than this, that Christ was a superior Socrates or Confucius, who was possessed of higher talents than most men, who struck out some better views upon religion and morality than had before been generally entertained in the world, and whose labours have been blessed by God in his ordinary 252 NINETEENTH LECTURE. providence for diffusing improved notions upon these subjects more generally over the world. Another thing that is in a great measure new in German infidelity, though some approaches towards it are to be found among the English deists, is, that their infidelity is all based upon and derived from the Bible itself. There is scarcely any one of their infidel positions for which they do not appeal to the authority of Scripture; and their gross perversions of the word of God to the support of infidelity constitutes one of the greatest aggravations of the guilt that attaches to them. They never scruple indeed to distort and pervert the meaning of Scripture in order to find in it contradictions and inconsistencies ; and they pay no regard to its authority when it stands in the way of any of their own notions, but by the same distorting and perverting process by which they have continued to extract from it so many contradictions, they sometimes endeavour to shew that it favours even their own infidel notions. As we are sometimes apt in this country to entertain a high idea of the exegetical skill of these men, and as they have undoubtedly in some respects rendered some service to the cause of scriptural interpretation, it may not be altogether unprofitable to illustrate these obser¬ vations by one or two specimens, which will not only confirm what has been said, but also shew how inadequate mere philological learning is to guide men to the meaning of God’s word, and how sufficient even an ordinary share of common sense is, when rightly employed, for guarding men against being misled even by learned critics. Wegscheider lays down the position (p. 190), that Christ himself decidedly repudiated the idea of any faith or belief in his claims being produced by his miracles, denies that he appealed to them in support of the divine origin of his mission, and appeals in support of this position to the following texts : — Matt. xii. 88-41, and the parallel passages in the other Gospels ; John ii. 18-22, iv. 48, xiv. 12, and to the two or three cases in which he forbade those whom he had miraculously healed to tell it to any one. Wegscheider at the same time hints that he is aware that there are other statements of our Saviour which cannot be recon¬ ciled with this notion ; but still he adduces these passages as sufficient to prove that our Saviour scouted the idea that miracles GERMAN RATIONALISM. 253 were either fitted or intended to establish the truth of his claims. Again, the same author, having laid down the positions that there never have been any real predictions of future events, and that there are no materials whatever to be found in alleged prophecies, and in their alleged fulfilment, for shewing that Christ had a divine commission in the sense commonly attached to these words, adduces this, among other proofs of his doctrine (p. 198), that Christ had a low opinion of the Hebrew prophets parsim honorifice judicavit”), and that the apostles declared prophecy to be obscure and imperfect. The proof of the first of these points is Matt. xi. 11 ; and the proof of the second is to be found in the following passages : — Acts i. 7 ; 1 Cor. xiii. 9 ; 2 Pet. i. 19 ; Matt. xi. 11 ; Luke vii. 28. We shall give only another instance. It is a favourite idea of the German rationalists, and is another specimen of their infidelity, that the system of doctrine which is contained in the Bible is capable of progressive and indefinite improvement; that as it stands in the Bible it is mixed up with many crude and ill- digested notions, such as might be expected to proceed from men who lived in a comparatively rude and uncultivated age, but that, with the march of intellect and the progress of literature and science, men may be expected to be better able to separate the chaff from the wheat, to throw off what savours of an unculti¬ vated age, and is traceable merely to local or temporary influences, and to bring out fully from the Scriptures a system of pure and rational Christianity. Wegsch eider (pp. 99 and 109) having laid down these doctrines, proceeds to prove them, and appeals in proof of their truth — first, to the nature of the human mind, which is constantly striving after a more perfect knowledge of things ; and then, second, to the express declaration (disserta effatd) of Jesus Christ himself and his apostles. And these express declarations are first of all Matt. ix. 16, 17 ; and then some passages in which Christ and his apostles commend, as he says, the use of reason, viz.. Ye are the salt of the earth ; Take heed how ye hear; Are ye also yet without understanding 1 Why even of yourselves judge ye not what is right? I have yet many things to say to you, but ye cannot bear them now ; When that which is perfect is come, then that which is in part shall be done away ; Proving 254 NINETEENTH LECTURE. what is acceptable unto the Lord ; Prove all things, hold fast that which is good ; Believe not every spirit, but try the spirits, whether they are of God/" These are the express declarations of Christ and his apostles, proving, it seems, that Christianity is to be greatly improved by the march of intellect, and that in the progress of mental cultivation, a much better and purer system of doctrine may be brought out of the Bible than former ages have enjoyed. Were it not for the melancholy exhibition of daring depravity which such views and such a mode of treating Scrip¬ ture presents, and for the reverence ever due to the subject which is thus handled, even the word of God, which liveth and abideth for ever, we would be strongly tempted to laugh at the ridiculous absurdity of these gross distortions of the plain statements of Scripture, especially considering that they come from men with very high pretensions, both to reason and to learning. These perversions of Scripture are put forth by one of the most eminent living rationalists, in what is commonly reckoned the standard text-book of the system ; and they are put forth with perfect calmness, gravity, and seriousness, as if they clearly and conclu¬ sively established the positions in support of which they are adduced. They illustrate what I have said about the thorough and daring infidelity of German rationalists ; and they shew also how little weight is due to the authority of such men in the interpretation of Scripture, when they are so evidently given up to strong delusion that they should believe a lie, and when, with all their pretensions to the possession of a reason which is fully adequate to improve the system of Christianity as left by Christ and his apostles, and with the undoubted possession of great philological learning, they are so manifestly incapable of exercising common sense and ordinary discretion in the interpretation of the plain statements of Scripture. It may be safely asserted that more irrational and more thoroughly despicable displays in the way of interpreting Scripture, and deducing doctrines from its statements, than those now quoted from Wegscheider, are not to be found in the works of the lowest and most illiterate English infidels. Such men as these are certainly not to be the improvers of Christianity ; and, with all their learning, they need not be greatly feared by those who tremble at God’s word, and who set themselves to investigate its meaning with a thorough conviction GERMAN RATIONALISM. 255 of its divine origin and authority, and with a deep sense of their dependence upon the Spirit of truth for understanding its meaning and feeling its power. Before leaving this subject, it is right to mention that there is one department in which German infidelity has specially laboured, and in which perhaps it has done more real mischief than in almost any other, and that is in undermining the authority of the canon of Scripture, and trying, by all sorts of arguments, external, and internal, to overturn the claims of the particular books of Scripture, or of particular portions of them, to a place in the canon, or to any respect and influence whatever. This subject we shall have occasion to consider more fully afterwards. At present I would merely warn you of it, and warn you, moreover, that many German writers who are not rationalists or infidels, often advocate very loose and dangerous views, upon very unsatisfactory and precarious grounds, with respect to the various topics compre¬ hended under the general subject that has now been referred to.^ ^ J. A. Fabricius’ work. Delectus argumentorum et syllabus Scriptorum qui veritatem religionis Christiannce asseruerunt. Grinfield’s Connection of Natu¬ ral and Revealed Religion, gives a very full body of references to all modern English works on all different departments of the subject. Houteville’s La Religion Chretienne prouvie par les fails, having prefixed to it a historical and critical discourse on the method of the principal authors who have written for and against Christianity since its origin. This discourse has been translated into English, and published separately ; it is the only work I know that gives a sketch of the literary history of the evidences on a plan similar to that which I have adopted. It comes down only to the end of the seventeenth century. LECTURE XX. GENERAL OBSERVATIONS AND ADVICES ON THE SUBJECT OF THE STUDY OF THE EVIDENCES. I HAVE laid before you, in the preceding lectures, an outline of the principal topics which enter into an exposition of the whole proof of the truth of Christianity, or of the grounds of the claim put forth by Jesus and his apostles that he should be received as a divinely commissioned teacher, and as the Messiah predicted in the Old Testament prophecies, seeking especially to point out their connection and relations to each other ; and like¬ wise a sketch of the literary history of the subject, including a notice of some of the most important works connected both with the attacks of infidels upon Christianity, and the defence of it by its friends. All the different topics which have thus been brought under your notice it is your duty more or less fully to investigate ; aud some at least of the most important works which have been recommended to you, it is your duty, according as you may have time and opportunity, to peruse. There are some general con¬ siderations connected with the study of this subject to which I would now invite your attention. And first, let me impress upon you this consideration, that many valuable books have been written in defence of the truth of Christianity, which exhibit little or nothing of the spirit of genuine Christianity. There can be no reasonable doubt that many men have written ably and con¬ clusively in defence of the divine origin of the Christian revela¬ tion, who have never studied the revelation itself, or been brought in any measure under its practical influence. When God revealed his will to fallen men, it was with this view, that they knowing him fully might be led to worship and glorify him ; that knowing CA UTIONS, 257 the scheme of salvation which he had devised and executed, they might embrace its offers and conform to its provisions ; that know¬ ing Him, who is the way, and the truth, and the life, they might not only rest on him alone for salvation, but also have the same mind which was also in him, and walk even as he walked. A belief or conviction that the Christian revelation came from God is valuable or important only in so far as it binds and actually leads men to investigate the revelation itself, or the system of doctrines and precepts which are there propounded upon God’s authority ; to acquire a thorough knowledge of its contents, and to submit the understanding, the heart, and the life to its prac¬ tical influence. In so far as all this is not effected in any case, God’s revelation has failed of producing its proper effect ; and the man to whom this statement may ultimately apply will assuredly fail in deriving any real permanent benefit from the revelation having been made known to him ; nay, will incur the additional guilt of having rejected it. And yet there are very many who profess to believe in the truth of the Christian revelation ; and not a few who have argued learnedly and ably in support of it, and defended its truth and divine origin against adversaries, who do not seem to have ever felt that they were under any obligation to examine, to understand, and to submit to the contents or substance of the revelation ; who have certainly never attained to any right views of its meaning, and who exhibit no appearance of being influenced in their character and conduct by the views of doctrine and duty which are there opened up. Many of the defenders of Christianity seem never to have examined with care and attention what they themselves had conclusively proved, in opposition to adversaries, to have come from God ; and many more, whatever degree of attention they may have given to the study of the revelation, have utterly failed, of course through something sinful on their part, in understanding its real meaning and import, and in being brought under its practical power. Cases of this sort cannot be easily explained upon the ordinary principles of reason ; and can be accounted for only by the Scripture doctrine of the enmity of the carnal mind against God, and against God’s truth, i.e. against correct views of God’s character, government, and ways. The R 258 TWENTIETH LECTURE. conduct indeed of those who have laboured in establishing the o divine origin of the Christian revelation, but who have never seriously and carefully examined the revelation itself, can be easily shewn to be irrational and inconsistent, because the first and most obvious inference from the truth of the divine origin of the revelation is, that it ought to be carefully examined, thoroughly understood, and implicitly submitted to. Their conduct indeed is so irrational that it is difficult to characterise or describe it — i.e. there is some difficulty in deciding whether men can be justly said to believe that the Christian revelation came from God, who, having access to the revelation itself, have never carefully investi¬ gated its meaning, and practically submitted to its authority. That they do not believe the revelation itself is very evident; but how sane men can be said really and honestly to believe that the revelation came from God, who have made no serious effort to ascertain and comprehend its meaning, it is not easy to under¬ stand or explain. The way in which they practically deal with the revelation would seem to indicate that, according to the ordi¬ nary principles by which men are influenced, they do not really believe that it came from God. But in whatever way the facts may be stated or explained, it is certain that many men have written in defence of the truth of Christianity who have never seriously examined into the meaning and import of the revelation itself, or who, if they have given some degree of attention to the records of the revelation, have utterly failed, through their own sin, in understanding its meaning, or in imbibing its spirit. And accordingly many important and valuable works have been written on the evidences, which, because of the ability with which they discuss particular branches of the argument, because of the amount of the information they contain, or the influence they may have exerted on the way and manner in which the subject of the evidences has been since generally expounded, it may be neces¬ sary for those who wish fully to understand the subject to peruse ; but which, to say the least, contain no indication that their authors were duly impressed with the responsibility connected with the reception or rejection of the revelation itself, or were living under the practical influence of the views ^ffiich it unfolds. Such works, however valuable and useful for the object of aiding in acquiring a thorough knowledge of the arguments and facts by which the OA UTIONS. 259 truth of Christianity may be established, have of course no direct tendency to promote the personal spiritual improvement of those who read them, to deepen their impressions of divine things, to call forth and to cherish holy and devout affections, or to encourage to a heavenly and spiritual life and conversation ; but rather per¬ haps a tendency somewhat the reverse. We have already said that there are some books of this sort which must be read by those who would fully understand the subject of the evidences of Christianity ; and, notwithstanding what we have just said about their deficiency, or something worse, we do not mean to retract the statement. But in reading such works you ought to be alive to the deficiency in point of general spirit that may attach to them, and careful to guard against any danger to which you might be exposed. We are not indeed to expect in books upon the evidences any¬ thing but a discussion of the evidences, not an investigation of the doctrines of Christianity, or practical exhortations to duty; still it is impossible not to be struck with the cold irreligious and merely rational or intellectual spirit in which very many of the works published in defence of Christianity are written, and the entire absence of anything like a deep sense of divine things, or any anxiety for the spiritual welfare of men by which many of them are characterised. Where these feelings or impressions existed it might be expected that they would be more or less fully indicated even in works upon the evidences ; and the absence of any indications of these things in so many works on the subject affords too good ground for the conclusion, even though we knew nothing more about the authors than what may be learned from their writings on the evidences, that they had never penetrated beyond the mere external credentials of Christianity, that they had no adequate sense of its value for spiritual purposes, and that they had not drunk largely, if at all, of its holy and heavenly spirit. I think it right to direct your attention to this point, and to warn you against being misled by the fact that has now been adverted to. You will not, I trust, fall into the mistake of imagin¬ ing that because a man has written ably and learnedly upon the evidences, — perhaps may have written the very best book that exists upon some particular department of the argument, — he ought there¬ fore to be regarded as a model of the spirit by which a Christian 260 TWENTIETH LECTURE. ought to be animated, or of the standard by which his conduct ought to be regulated. You’will not suppose that because he may have conclusively proved that Jesus was a teacher sent from God, he has himself sat at Jesus’ feet, and learned to have the same mind which was also in him. We have not very many works upon the evidences which contain any very unequivocal indica¬ tions that their authors had drunk deeply of the true spirit of Christianity ; though there are some which, independently of their other excellences, may be safely recommended as written in a reli¬ gious spirit, and pervaded by the manifestations of genuine scrip¬ tural piety — as, for example, Baxter’s work on the Evidences, which I formerly had occasion to commend ; Bogue on the Divine Autho¬ rity of the New Testament, Fuller’s Gospel its oivn Witness, Gregory’s Letters, and Mr Haldane’s very valuable work on the Evidence and Authority of Divine Revelation, which contains a great deal of useful and important matter, set forth with much clearness and vigour, and is pervaded by a truly Christian and evangelical emotion. I would observe, second, that many works on the evidences assert or insinuate very defective or erroneous views on the doctrines of Christianity. It has indeed been found to hold, we may say universally, that sound and correct views of the leading doctrines of Christianity and personal godliness have gone hand in hand ; that wherever men have given unequivocal evidence of being habitually under the influence of personal reli¬ gion, there they have in general concurred with each other, and, as we believe, with the word of God, in the views they entertained of the great leading features of the doctrines or contents of revela¬ tion. If then many have written in defence of the truth of Chris¬ tianity who do not seem to have been much influenced by personal religious principles, it is not in the least surprising that they should have entertained erroneous and defective views of Christian doc¬ trine, and that this should have come out still more plainly and palpably than the former in the works they wrote upon the evidences. We have had occasion before to refer to the fact, that amonof writers in defence of Christianity, especially the more ancient ones, there was not a sufficiently clear and definite line of demarcation preserved between the investigation of the evidences of Christianity and the discussion of its doctrines. Infidels have usually been CA UTIONS. 261 desirous of conducting the discussion of the truth of Christianity rather upon the field of its doctrines than of its direct and proper evidences, because they think they can produce something inge¬ nious and perplexing in the way of proving that some of the doc¬ trines of Christianity are irrational, absurd, contradictory, and inconsistent with right views of the divine character and govern¬ ment. Many of the defenders of Christianity have too readily and too easily followed infidels in the path along which they were anxious to lead them. Not indeed that they could altogether have avoided meeting their opponents upon this field, or at once set aside all such objections as irrelevant. When any of the undoubted doctrines of revelation are objected to as absurd, contradictory, or opposed to right views of God, it seems evident that the objection must be answered, so far as to shew that the doctrine, not being one which on these grounds is incapable of being proved, may be true, and may be sent to proof. But still, as was formerly explained, defenders of Christianity have erred in not confining their own speculations, and in not insisting that infidels should confine theirs, within the limits to which the powers of man and his means of certain knowledge reach, and in not making sufficient use, in dealing with such objections, of considerations derived from the imperfection of the human faculties, the inadequacy of human knowledge, and the respect due to the authority of a direct revela¬ tion from God, the truth of which, as a matter of fact, had been thoroughly established by its own appropriate evidence — evidence which, upon the ground of its own merits as such, could not be successfully or even plausibly assailed. But perhaps the worst effect of this mode of discussing the subject was, that as the evidences were often taken up by men who had never carefully examined the doctrines of revelation, who knew and cared little about them, these men were tempted, in dealing with infidel objections, to explain away the peculiar doctrines of Christianity, to bring them down to the level of the standard of human reason, to represent them in the light in which they were likely to appear most acceptable or least objectionable to presumptuous infidels. In this way, and for these reasons, you will find in many books upon the evidences very erroneous and defective views of the doctrines of Christianity, either openly asserted and defended, or plainly insinuated or assumed. 262 TWENTIETH LECTURE. We formerly had occasion to advert to the low state of religion in England, both in the Established Church and among the generality of the Dissenters, during the prevalence of the deistical controversy. This low state of religion both sprang from and produced — for there was a mutual action and re-action in the matter — very defective and erroneous views of the peculiar doctrines of Christianity. Among the great mass of those who, at that important era in the history of this subject, defended the truth of the Christian revelation, few if any understood or appreciated the contents of the revelation itself, or gave any very satisfactory indications of living under its influence ; while not a few of them made Christianity so very rational as that they were able to hold it up to infidels as being scarcely anything else than merely an authoritative republication of the law of nature. We had formerly occasion also to shew you that the fundamental principles of the infidel rationalism of Germany were borrowed from Spinoza, and from some of the leading English infidels of the early part of last century, especially Tindal and Morgan. But there is good reason to believe that the way in which Christianity was generally defended at that time, as well as the principles on which it was assailed, contributed much to the spread of rationalism or infidelity in Germany. We have a striking testimony to this effect from an eminent German writer, Staeudlin, professor of theology at Gottingen, in his History of Theological Knowledge and Literature, part of which has been translated into English, and published in this country, v. Clark’s Students' Cabinet Library, vol. ii. p. 52. “ Most of the English deists attacked only the divine origin, credibility, and the authenticity of the sacred Scriptures ; the contents of the sacred volume were but in part assailed, as the accounts of miracles and the system of ecclesiastical theology ; but the character and the doctrines of Jesus himself were spared. The latter they generally represented as a pure and popular system of deism, suited to the people of the age. Most theologians opposed themselves to these writers, endeavouring to save what the deists had rejected as unnecessary and unfounded, and to uphold revelation and not reason, as the standard of religion. Yet many theologians soon appeared in England, who in many points nearly agreed with the deists. It is true they did not abandon the authority, genuineness, and credibility of the sacred volume, and the preceptive and historical parts of Christianity ; but they purged the ecclesiastical system from everything which appeared to them inconsistent with reason, and produced systems of Christian theology OA UTIOiVS. 263 which were pervaded by this literal spirit. The constantly increasing power and fame of the British nation in the eighteenth century spread its literature over all Europe. The writings of its deists and its theologians, who were termed latitudinarians, were read, especially in Germany, with zeal and attention, and have, in connection with other causes, produced that great revolution in theology and religious opinion which has proved more thorough and general in this country, and has proceeded further than in Britain itself, and which has hence spread its effects into other lands. This great change first appeared in the German Protestant Churches, whence it was extended to the German Catholics.” There were some of these latitudinarian divines who succeeded so fully to their own satisfaction in making Christianity perfectly rational and quite unobjectionable in its system of doctrines and precepts, and in illustrating its utility and advantages in promoting sounder views than had previously prevailed con¬ cerning the character and government of God, and the way in which he is to be worshipped and served, that they not only disregarded its peculiar doctrines as a remedial scheme, but became indifferent about its proper direct external evidence as a supernatural revelation, as if they imagined that all, or nearly all, that was valuable about it would stand upon the footing of its own intrinsic reasonableness and utility. And in this way it has happened that while some topics commonly comprehended under the general head of the internal evidences (but which ought rather to be called experimental) have been favourite subjects of investigation with the best and holiest class of the defenders of Christianity, some other views comprehended under the same general designation have been much dwelt upon by some of the most irreligious and unsound of those who have come forward as the champions of revelation. Hence too the German rationalists, discarding supernatural revelation and the super¬ natural proofs of it, profess to believe in some sense in the Christian revelation upon the ground of its internal evidence, meaning thereby the conformity of its doctrines and precepts, as they have explained them, with their own notions of what is fit and reasonable and useful, and taking care at the same time to erect these notions of theirs into the position of the ultimate standard by which all that seems to be contained in the records of the revelation must be judged. It is indeed a noble occupation, worthy of the highest powers, and fitted to render most important 264 TWENTIETH LECTURE. service to the cause of truth, to open up the excellence and beauty of the Christian system, its entire accordance with the highest and most exalted conceptions man ever has formed, or can form, of God and holiness, of duty and happiness, and its thorough adaptation to the character, wants, and condition of mankind. But then in all attempts of this sort everything that is really valuable and important depends wholly upon the previous ques¬ tion, whether it be indeed the true and real system of Christianity as contained in the sacred Scriptures, the excellence and suitable¬ ness of which men labour to unfold ; or whether it be some system of their own, previously shorn down to the level of human reason, deprived of everything that is most peculiar in the revelation, and accommodated to a great extent to the notions and wishes of its worst enemies. Many of those who, in answer to the objections of infidels, have tried to defend, on grounds of reason, the reasonableness of the Christian system, or of the doctrines of revelation, have, from ignorance and inattention, and still more from those causes of errors in regard to the doctrines of theology, which are generally found connected with the want or the weakness of personal religious principle, propounded views upon these subjects that were either Socinianism, or something very like it. Socinianism is the natural religion of men who have not really submitted their understandings and their hearts to the actual revelation contained in the Scriptures, who are not living under the influence of personal religious principle, and who are disposed to set up their own reason as the ultimate judge of the doctrines they profess to believe, but who, for some reason or other, are not prepared to throw off altogether a profession of Christianity. Wherever personal piety and vital godliness sink to a low ebb, the views of the Christian system which generally prevail invariably assume a Socinian or Pelagian, or what is virtually the same thing, though not so fully developed, a Latitudinarian cast. This was remarkably the case in England during the deistical controversy of last century ; and accordingly, in the writings of the defenders of Christianity during that period, you find many erroneous and defective views of the doctrines of revelation, many attempts to shew how reasonable they are when properly and rationally explained, i.e. when explained away ; how easily infidels might admit them when freed from the CA UTIOiVS. 265 corruptions which creeds and systems had introduced ; or in other words — for this is the real meaning of men of this class when they use such language — when stripped of everything that is myste¬ rious, and reduced to the level of what is fully and in every respect comprehensible by human reason. We may illustrate this by an example. The doctrine clearly revealed in Scripture of God s fore¬ ordaining whatsoever comes to pass, and electing of his own good pleasure some men to everlasting life, is one against which the carnal reason of men is apt to rise in rebellion, though we believe that the fundamental principles on which it rests can be fully established from natural reason, as well as from Scripture. The Apostle Paul gives us very distinctly to understand that his doc¬ trine upon this subject w^as objected to by the unbelievers of that age, who put their objection in this form — “ Why doth he then find fault ? for who hath resisted his wdll V Modern infidels finding this doctrine very clearly revealed in Scripture, and being satisfied in the exercise of their superior wisdom that the doctrine is irra¬ tional and absurd, have adduced it as an objection to the truth of the revelation which contains it. The generality of the defenders of Christianity in the early part of last century did not believe in this doctrine. They joined with the infidels in proclaiming its absurdity, and laboured to prove that it was not contained in Scripture, and that of course revelation was not responsble for it. The following extract from Leland upon this point is curious : — “ There are several invidious charges brought by one author against this excellent person (^.e. by Lord Bolingbroke against the apostle Paul). He is pleased to represent him as a loose declaimer, as a vain-glorious boaster, as having been guilty of great hypocrisy and dissimulation in his conduct towards the Jewish Christians, as writing obscurely and unintelligibly, and that where he is intelligible he is absurd, profane, and trifling. He particu¬ larly instances in his doctrine concerning predestination, though he owns that ‘ this doctrine is very much softened, and the assumed proceedings of God towards men are brought almost within the bounds of credibility by Mr Locke’s exposition of the ninth chapter of the Epistle to the Romans,’ which he calls a forced one, but oflfers nothing to prove it so, and acknow¬ ledges that this sense might be admitted.”^ Now, observe what is exhibited here. Bolingbroke objects to Pauhs doctrine of predestination as absurd and profane, and yet he is graciously pleased to allow that, as explained by Locke, the 1 View of Deistical Writers, let. 31, p. 389. 266 TWENTIETH LECTURE. doctrine is very much softened, and brought almost within the bounds of credibility. Locke held thoroughly unsound and erro¬ neous views in regard to the fundamental doctrines of the gospel, and laboured to shew that Paul did not teach anything so absurd and profane as what is commonly understood by the doctrine of predestination. Bolingbroke was much satisfied by Locke’s explana¬ tion, and so would most other infidels have been, though he had discernment enough to retain a lurking suspicion, which assuredly was well founded, that the explanation was a perversion of Paul’s words ; and then lastly, Leland was quite satisfied with Locke’s explanation ; and since Bolingbroke admitted that this explana¬ tion brought the doctrine almost within the bounds of credibility, he thought no farther answer necessary to Bolingbroke’s original allegation that the doctrine of predestination, as it is commonly understood, and as it seems to be taught by Paul, is absurd and profane. This is a specimen of the way in which the doctrines of the gospel are dealt with by many of the defenders of the truth of Christianity. It had been much better, on many accounts, if the writers on the evidences had meddled less with the contents of revelation ; but since you will find the doctrines of Christianity adverted to, more or less fully, and often grievously distorted and perverted, in books which it may be proper and even necessary for you to read, as being valuable and important works on the evi¬ dences, I think it right to warn you against paying much regard to what you may find there upon the subject of the doctrines of revelation, and to remind you again that many men have written ably, learnedly, and conclusively in support of the external evi¬ dence for the truth of Christianity, who are very unsafe guides in the interpretation of Scripture, and who entertained very erroneous views in regard to the substance of the revelation which God has made of his will to men. I would observe, in the third place, that there is one important topic more closely connected with the subject of the evidences, with respect to which it is proper to warn you, that very defective and erroneous views are often found in books which treat of the truth of Christianity, I mean the inspiration of the sacred Scrip¬ tures. It is quite true, and I have repeatedly explained to you, that there is a distinction between the question of the truth of the Christian revelation and that of the divine authority and inspira- CA UTIONS, 267 tion of the books of Scripture, and that a regard to this distinction tends to facilitate a right arrangement and classification of the proofs. It is possible that the books of the New Testament might have been genuine and credible historical documents, affording abundant materials for establishing the divine mission of Christ, and might even have conveyed to us most important information concerning the nature of the revelation which he made to men, though no supernatural divine agency had been employed in the production of the books themselves, i.e. though they had not been themselves the word of God, dictated by the inspiration of the Holy Ghost. Arguments that may be sufficient to establish the divine mission of Jesus may not be adequate without some additional steps in the reasoning to prove the inspiration of the Scriptures ; and objec¬ tions which, when adduced against the inspiration of the Scriptures, may require to be discussed and disposed of, may yet have no bearing upon the general question of the truth of Christianity. All this is true, and upon these grounds there could be no reason for finding fault if men chose to write books which only estab¬ lished the truth of Christianity without professing to prove the inspiration of the Scriptures, adducing only those arguments which established the first, and omitting those which bore specially upon the second ; answering those objections which were adduced against the divinity of Christ’s mission, but setting aside as irre¬ levant those which, even if well founded, touched only the divinity of the Bible. Many writers on the evidences, however, have not been con¬ tented with this, but have virtually denied the inspiration of the Scriptures ; have not only deferred or put aside the consideration of objections against inspiration on the ground that they did not affect the general truth of Christianity, the only subject which they professed to be discussing, but have substantially admitted that, as objections to the inspiration of the Scriptures, these objec¬ tions could not be answered. Bishop Watson, in his Apology for the Bible, has given up its inspiration as untenable. Paley, in dis¬ cussing the objections founded upon erroneous opinions imputed to the apostles, has laid down the position, that while we are bound to believe that the conclusions of an apostle are true, we are under no obligation to admit the correctness or conclusiveness of the arguments, as recorded in Scripture, by which he may have estab- 268 TWENTIETH LECTURE. lished them. Many other instances of a similar kind might be adduced. The inspiration of the Bible, which is a doctrine of Scripture, revealed and taught there, has been generally rejected, or very much explained away, by Socinian and Latitudinarian divines. They have very high ideas of the natural powers of men, of what they can do without special divine assistance, and are thus disposed to reckon the inspiration of the authors of the books of Scripture unnecessary. They do not like to be tied up to an implicit and absolute submission to whatever they find recorded in the pages of Scripture, but prefer to have some excuse for exercising their own judgment and employing their own reason, not merely in interpreting Scripture, or ascertaining the meaning of its state¬ ments, but in deciding how far its declarations are to be received. And thus they have been often led, even while defending the general truth of Christianity, to set aside wholly, or in a great mea¬ sure, the divine authority of those Scriptures which were all given by inspiration of God, and which bear upon them so many plain traces of their divine original. Let these considerations be kept in view, and they will tend, through God's blessing, to preserve you from danger, and to guide you aright in your investigation of the evidences, and in the study of the works which it may be necessary or expedient for you to peruse upon these subjects. LECTURE XXL DIVINE OEIGIN AND AUTHOEITY OF THE BOOKS OF SCEIPTUEE— EXTEENAL EVIDENCE. IN directing your attention to the evidences of Christianity we have generally spoken of the leading proposition to be estab¬ lished^ as this, that Christ and his apostles were divinely com¬ missioned teachers, authorised by God to make known his will to men. And it is evident that practically there is no ground for distinguishing between Christ and his apostles, so far as the authoritative communication of God’s wdll to men is concerned, because we have just the very same evidence that Christ autho¬ rised the apostles to speak in his name, and required our sub¬ mission to them in communicating instruction about religious matters, as we have that He himself was sent and commissioned by God, and claimed on that ground our reverence and obedience. It is right and necessary that we should ever cherish a deep sense of the vast, the immeasurable superiority of Jesus Christ above all beings, human or superhuman, whom God has ever employed to make known his will to men, above prophets and apostles, above Moses, and above angels, for he hath been made as much better than the angels, as he hath by inheritance obtained a more excel¬ lent name than they ” — i.e. he is just as much superior to the angels in official station as he is in the intrinsic dignity of his nature, as being the Son of God, of the same substance with the Father, and equal in power and glory. But in so far as concerns the truth and certainty of a revelation from God — and with this alone we have at present to do — the dignity of the messenger through whom the revelation is made is of no great practical importance ; and if it be indeed true, as can be easily proved from Scripture, that 270 TWENTY-FIRST LECTURE. Christ has referred us to his apostles for fuller information as to the will of God, and has thereby in this respect virtually identified himself with them, then we are just as clearly and as certainly bound to receive as coming from God, and of course as entitled to our implicit submission, w^hat they have revealed to us, as what he himself has made known. Another general consideration to be kept in view is this, that when the great leading facts recorded in the New Testament, by which more directly the truth of Christ’s divine commission is established, such as the miracles which Christ wrought, and his resurrection from the dead, are admitted as having been proved by satisfactory evidence, there can be no reason whatever why any other events recorded in the New Testament, even the most extra¬ ordinary and miraculous, should be denied or doubted, since they are all clearly connected together as parts of one complete and consistent narrative, and since they all rest upon substantially the same evidence. When convinced that Jesus was a teacher sent from God, we can have no doubt or hesitation about the apostles also working miracles, about the Holy Ghost descending upon them, about their speaking with other tongues as the Spirit gave them utterance, about Paul’s miraculous conversion and call to the apostleship, and about his being as fully authorised and quali¬ fied to reveal the will of God as those who had personally asso¬ ciated with J esus during his life on earth. In investigating the external evidences of the truth of Chris¬ tianity, we consider the books of the New Testament merely as a collection of historical documents, containing at once the declara¬ tions of the parties, and the testimonies of the original witnesses, that we may judge whether the facts there recorded are true, and whether these facts establish the claims which they put forth. When we consider the internal evidences, we contemplate the books of the New Testament as containing a correct representa¬ tion of the general system of doctrine and duty taught by Christ and his apostles, with the view of ascertaining whether in this system of doctrine and duty itself we can discover any indication that it was not devised or invented by men, and that it proceeded from God. To shew that we are warranted in regfarding the books of the New Testament as containing a correct account of the general system of doctrine and duty taught by Christ and his DIVINE ORIGIN OF THE BIBLE. 271 apostles, nothing more is necessary than to prove — first, that they were written by the apostles ; and second, that they have been transmitted to us without any such alteration as to affect their substantial integrity ; and this is done by the same evidence by which we prove their genuineness, by the quotations of them in a succession of subsequent authors, and by the substantial identity of all the MSS. and ancient versions of those books. In virtue of the proof that has been adduced of the divine commission of Christ and his apostles, we are bound to receive as infallibly true whatever they have made known to us as the revealed will of God ; to believe all the doctrines which they have delivered to us, and to submit implicitly to all the precepts which they have enjoined. They who heard them were called upon, on the ground of the proof adduced of their divine commission, to receive all their instructions as coming from God ; and we, having conclusive proof of the divinity of their mission, are bound to be prepared to give their communications the same reception, and to proceed to investigate what means we have of ascertaining what God has revealed to us through them, and what is the will of God thus communicated to us. We have, in the books of the New Testament, a record of the instructions which they delivered, and everything which they taught concerning doctrine or duty, we are bound to receive as the word of God, as binding upon us by his supreme authority. God revealed it to them ; he has given us abundant proof that he has done so ; he has taken care to transmit to us authentic information concerning what they declared ; and our duty now is to receive with implicit submission whatever can be proved to have proceeded from them. When our attention is directed to the way and the means by which this revelation has been conveyed to us, the source from which we obtain a knowledge of it, a very important question occurs, viz.. Whether we are to regard and receive it as the word of God, not merely the substance of the information concerning doctrine and duty communicated by Christ and his apostles, and conveyed to us in the books of the New Testament, but the whole books themselves which compose that volume. That the books of the Old and New Testament not ^ only contain and convey to us a revelation of God's will, but that they are themselves the Word of God, stamped throughout with divine authority, because produced through divine agency, has 272 TWENTY-FIRST LECTURE. been the general opinion of almost all who have been convinced of the truth and divine origin of the Christian revelation ; and to the grounds of this persuasion, the arguments by which it can be fully established, we are now called upon to advert. This question, as we have repeatedly had occasion to explain, is different from that which we have already discussed, and requires, in order to its decision, the introduction of some additional considerations, or rather a further extension and application of the points that have already been proved. If God were pleased to make a revelation of his will to men, it is indeed in the highest degree probable that he would take care that the revelation should be committed to writing, and transmitted in integrity, and not left to the uncer¬ tainties and contingencies of oral tradition ; and if so, he would no doubt secure that it should be correctly committed to wTiting for preservation and transmission, as well as that it should be correctly promulgated at first by those whom he might employ as his instruments in making it known to men ; but we could not assert with perfect confidence, and upon abstract grounds, a 'priori, that the writings in which this revelation might be preserved, and by which it might be transmitted, would contain nothing else but the revelation of God’s will, and would be in all their parts traceable to his agency ; in other words, to apply this prin¬ ciple to the matter in hand, it would not at once follow, as a matter of course, that because the New Testament contained or embodied the revelation which God made to man through Christ and his apostles, and afforded us sufficient materials for ascertain¬ ing correctly what the substance of that revelation was, therefore all the books which compose the New Testament were themselves stamped throughout with divine authority, as being produced as we have them by God’s agency. And consequently the question remains. Can it be proved that these books, as they stand, and not merely the substance of the doctrines they contain, are the word of God, stamped with divine authority ? And if so, how can this be established ? As, in considering this question, we must include not merely the books of the New Testament, but the whole Bible, we must first briefly advert to the grounds upon which we believe in the divine origin of the Mosaic economy, and the divine mission of the prophets whose predictions form so large a portion of DIVINE ORIGIN OF THE BIBLE. 273 the Old Testament. And the first question here, as in the case of the truth of Christianity, is not about the divine authority of the books which compose the Old Testament, but about the truth of the divine mission of Moses, and the reality of the divine inspiration of the succession of prophets in the subsequent periods of the Jewish history. We do not mean to discuss the subject at any length, but merely to advert to its general nature and place in connection with the other departments of the evidence of the truth of our religion. The genuineness and general authenticity of the books of the Old Testament may be established independently of the explicit and conclusive testimony borne to them by Christ and his apostles, upon grounds similar to those by which we establish the genuine¬ ness and general authenticity of those of the New. And to the truth and reality of those miraculous events by which Moses professed to establish his divine commission, we have the attes¬ tation of the Jewish nation in submitting to his authority, and receiving his laws and institutions, upon the ground of the evidence afforded by these miracles that they came from God — an attestation which may be said to have been repeated by every successive generation of Jews from the time of Moses down to the present day. Thus the divine commission of Moses is established ; and that there was in the Jewish nation a succession of prophets who received direct communications from God is established by the predictions which it can be proved they delivered, and which were remarkably fulfilled in the history of the Jews, and of the other nations with which they were more or less nearly connected. Thus the divine commission of Moses and the prophets may be established even independently of the attestation given to it by Christ and his apostles. It is not necessary, however, to have recourse to such a line of argument upon this topic ; for having once established the divine mission of Christ and his apostles, and being on this ground warranted and bound to believe whatever they have declared, we have of course, in their frequent and unequivocal attestations to the divine mission of Moses and the prophets, abundant reason to believe that God at sundry times and in divers manners revealed his will to men by their instru¬ mentality. The attestation of Christ and his apostles to the s 274 TWENTY-FIRST LECTURE. divine mission of Moses and the prophets we shall have occasion to explain more fully afterwards when we come to consider the inspiration and canonicity of the Bible, for it proves not only that God commissioned Moses and the prophets to reveal his will to men, but also moreover that the books of the Old Testament were given by divine inspiration, and are possessed of divine authority. It is enough at present to advert generally to the way and manner in which it may be proved that, as God made known his will to men by Christ and his apostles, he did so also by Moses and the prophets. In turning from the proof of the general truth of Christianity, or of the proposition that Christ and his apostles were commissioned by God to reveal his will to men, to the con¬ sideration of the origin and character of the books in which this revelation is conveyed to us, we have to distinguish between the divine origin and authority of these books, and their inspiration by the Holy Ghost. It is indeed true that the inspiration of the books of Scripture is often, perhaps generally, used in so wide a sense as to comprehend the whole subject of God’s connection with the composition of the books, or the whole of his agency in the production of them, as distinguished from his connection with the substance of the revelation they contain ; and there is certainly no impropriety in such a use or application of the word. But we think it may conduce to a more distinct exposition of the whole subject, and a better classification of the proofs, if we advert in . the first place to the divine origin and authority of the books of Scripture in general, or to the evidence we have of the general I position, that God’s agency and authority were interposed in the I production of the books themselves, and not merely in communi¬ cating the substance of the revelation they contain ; so that the books themselves as they stand, and not merely the general system of doctrine and duty which they unfold, may be fairly and truly called the word of God ; and then, after establishing this, proceed to consider, under the head of insTiTation, the less essential though still important question as to the way and manner in which the agency of God was interposed in the production of these books, or what is usually discussed under the head of the nature and extent of inspiration ; and this will be naturally followed by the consideration of the subject of the canon, or the investigation of the questions connected with the determination DIVINE ORIGIN OF THE BIBLE. 275 of what the books are to which this divine authority and inspira¬ tion are to be ascribed. These explanations will, I trust, enable you to understand distinctly the connection and conditions of the argument, and to see where we are and what we mean when we proceed to advert to the way and manner of proving the divine authority of the books which compose the New Testament. The divine authority of the books of the New Testament may be proved, like the divine origin of Christianity, by evidence external, internal, and experimental; and these divisions of the evidence are analogous in their general nature and character in both cases. The external evidence is that derived from what we know concerning the authors, and the facts connected with the composition of the books; the internal from the character and contents of the books themselves ; and the experimental from the effects which these books have produced, and are still producing. The distinction that has been sometimes made between the evidence derived from places without the Bible, and that derived from places within the Bible (Chalmers, vol. ii. p. 8) is just as useless here as we shewed it to you to be under the former head, and serves only to introduce confusion. There is a clear distinc¬ tion between the evidence derived from what we can know con¬ cerning the men by whom, and the circumstances in which, the books were composed, and that derived from the actual contents or substance of the books themselves ; but under the former of these heads, which constitutes the external evidence of the divine authority of the books, we must of necessity include all that we know certainly concerning the history of the authors and the com¬ position of the books, luhether derived from the statements of the hooks themselves, or from any other authentic source whatever. Having proved the divine commission of Christ and his apostles, we are now to regard them, not merely as honest men and credible narrators of history, but as infallible authorities in all the state¬ ments they make concerning religious subjects, and to believe implicitly whatever information they may convey to us concern¬ ing the books of Scripture, or any other topic whatever in regard to which they advance a claim to our submission. In considering the external evidence of the divine authority of the books of the New Testament, one of the first and most obvious considerations that occurs to us is, that those books were 276 TWENTY-FIRST LECTURE. chiefly composed by the apostles themselves, by the very men who were employed by God to reveal to us the system of doctrine and duty which is unfolded in these books. They are not accounts of what was said and done by Christ and his apostles, preserved and transmitted to us by other parties. They are the accounts of the life and discourses of Christ, and of the labours and instruc¬ tions of the apostles, recorded and transmitted to us by the apostles themselves. The authors of these books were the only men whom God employed to reveal his will, and whom for that purpose he furnished with abundant communications of his Spirit. When these men explained the system of Christianity to the people whom they orally addressed, or when they defended their cause and their persons before judicial tribunals, we know that they enjoyed the special presence and assistance of God, the guidance and direction of the Holy Ghost ; and we cannot suppose that they were left destitute of the same guidance and direction when they sat down to commit to writing, for the permanent instruction of mankind, the history of the life and discourses of their Master, or when they addressed letters of advice and direction to the churches which had been formed through the success of their oral instructions. It is by the Gospels and the Epistles w^hich they wrote, and by them alone, that the Christian revelation has been transmitted to subsequent ages; and if they had the constant presence and guidance of the Holy Ghost in their personal minis¬ try in proclaiming the truth, in defending themselves against adversaries, and in establishing and organising churches, there can be no reason to doubt, and there is the strongest reason on this ground alone to believe, that they had the same guidance and direction in their writings ; and that as God was the author of the revelation which they communicated, so he is to be regarded as the author and source of those writings which were directed to no other object than just to unfold that revelation, and to afford instructions as to the way and manner in which it is to be applied and brought into operation in order that it may produce its intended effects. This point might be illustrated at length, but it is unnecessary. The argument is clear and satisfactory. What such men as the apostles were — men who were endowed with the power of working miracles and of predicting future events — men who were commissioned by God to make known his will, and who DIVINE ORIGIN OF THE BIBLE. 277 in all their official labours were under the immediate guidance and direction of the Holy Ghost — wrote, and wrote in such circum¬ stances and for such purposes, must have been written under the guidance and direction of the Spirit of Truth, and is therefore stamped throughout with divine authority ; and accordingly almost all who have professed to believe in the truth of the Christian reli¬ gion have admitted the divine authority of the books which compose the New Testament, though differing in some questions concerning the nature and extent of inspiration ; except Socinians and German rationalists, who have manifestly been influenced by a desire and determination to maintain the supremacy of their own reason, to emancipate themselves from the control of the sacred Scriptures, and to retain the liberty of judging according to their own discre¬ tion as to what in the Bible comes from God, and was intended to be of permanent use and obligation, and what, though found in the Scriptures, is possessed of no such binding authority. This is the principal argument under the head of external evidence for the divine authority of the books which compose the New Testa¬ ment ; and it is sufficient of itself to establish it. The external evidence however comprehends every argument derived, not only from what we know concerning the authors of these books, but also concerning the circumstances and the objects of their composition ; and any information we may possess con¬ cerning these points, although derived from the statements of the books themselves, comes properly under the head of external evidence, because it applies to the historical matter of fact, as to the source from which these books really proceeded, and forms no part of the indications of a divine origin which the books them¬ selves as such contain. We have not a great deal of direct and explicit information concerning these points in the books of the New Testament itself; still there are statements which afford decided confirmations of the evidence of its divine origin and authority. The statement, for instance, with which Luke com¬ mences his Gospel, viz., “ It seemed good to me also, having had perfect understanding of all things from the very first, to write unto thee in order, most excellent Theophilus, that thou mightest knowthe certainty of thosethings, wherein thou hast been instructed,” seems fairly to imply that whatever authority might attach to any information which Luke in his Gospel has communicated to us. 278 TWENTY-FIRST LECTURE. attaches equally to the whole of it, i.e. to the writing or book as such. John tells us (xx. 31) that his Gospel was written “ that men might believe that Jesus is the Christ the Son of God, and that believing they might have life through his name,” a state¬ ment which thoroughly identifies the object of his writing, and of course of the whole of what is contained in his Gospel, with that of his preaching ; and thus affords at least the strongest presump¬ tion that in writing his Gospel he had the same divine guidance and direction as in executing his apostolic commission of proclaim¬ ing orally God’s will to men. We find the apostles, in their epistles to the churches, claiming for their writings the same divine origin, the same supernatural and infallible authority, as they claimed for their oral instructions, though this is not fre¬ quently and formally insisted upon, because the truth of it was really too evident to require proof. It was enough that these writings came from the inspired apostles who were commissioned by God to make known his will, and who had fully established by miracles, which Paul calls the signs of an apostle, their divine commission. Paul may be regarded as plainly enough claiming for his epistles a divine origin and infallible authority, when he commenced them, as he usually did, by assuming the designation of an apostle, and referring to his warrant and authority for assum¬ ing that designation, and executing the functions of that office, ^^Paul, a servant of Jesus Christ, called to be an apostle, separated unto the gospel of God” (Rom. i. 1). His apostolic authority being thus set forth in the commencement of his epistles as the ground or basis of the divine authority of what he was about to write, we have just the same reason for receiving as coming from God, and as stamped with his authority whatever we find in these epistles, as his hearers had for receiving as divinely inspired, in virtue of Christ’s promises and the Spirit’s communications, whatever he delivered to them in his oral instructions. His authority and commission being thus set forth in the commencement of his epistles to the churches as the basis of their obligation to receive them as coming from God, it was not necessary thereafter in the course of the epistles to insist upon this, to say anything more about the true source from which they proceeded, or the authority with which they were invested. The allusions therefore to this matter are only incidental, but quite sufficient to afford decided DIVINE ORIGIN OF THE BIBLE. 279 proofs of the divine authority of the apostolic writings. We may refer to some of these : If any man think himself to be a prophet, or spiritual {i.e. if any man lay claim to peculiar spiritual gifts, or to supernatural divine communications), let him acknowledge that the things that I ivrite unto you are the commandments of the Lord ” (1 Cor. xiv. 37, 38) ; Let such an one think that such as we are in word by letters, such also are we indeed when vre are present,” (2 Cor. x. 11), where he manifestly claims the same authority and reverence for his letters as for his oral instructions. And again : “ If any man obey not our word by this epistle, note that man, and have no company with him ” (2 Thess. iii. 14). We have not in the New Testament any direct and formal declaration as to the divine origin and authority of the books of the New Testament as a whole ; and this was not to be expected in the circumstances, when the different books of which it is com¬ posed had not been collected into a volume. But we have, both from our Lord and his apostles, the fullest and most explicit attes¬ tations to the divine origin and authority of the Old Testament as then and always received by the Jews. We have this attestation embodied both in general declarations and in many specific state¬ ments, conclusively establishing, by whatever authority attaches to any declaration of Christ and his apostles, not only that Moses was a divine messenger employed by God to reveal his will, and that the prophets spoke as they were moved by the Holy Ghost, but also moreover that the books which compose the Old Testament were to be traced to God as their author, and were stamped throughout with his divine and infallible authority. Some of these attestations given by Christ and his apostles to the Old Testament it will be necessary for us to examine more carefully ; but as we are persuaded that they establish, not only the divine commission of M OSes and the prophets, not only the divine authority of the books of the Old Testament in a general sense, which is the point we are at present considering, but also their plenary and verbal inspiration, we shall defer the consideration of them till we come to the investigation of that question. Before leaving this subject of the information to be gathered from the New Testament con¬ cerning the divine origin of the books which compose it as a matter of historical fact, it is proper to advert to the attestation given by the Apostle Peter to the divine origin and authority of the epistles 280 TWENTY FIRST LECTURE. of Paul, and we introduce it here, after rather than before the reference to the attestation given by our Lord and his apostles to the divine origin and authority of the Old Testament, because part of the force of Peter’s attestation to the authority of Paul’s epistles lies in his putting them on the same level in point of authority with the Scriptures of the Old Testament. It is found in 2 Pet. hi. 15, 16 : ‘"Even as our beloved brother Paul, accord¬ ing to the wisdom given unto him, hath written unto you ; as also in all his epistles, speaking in them of these things, in which are some things hard to be understood, which they that are unlearned and unstable wrest, as they do also the other scriptures, unto their own destruction.” We have said that the external evidence for the divine authority of the books of the New Testament is based upon the information we possess concerning the authors of these books, and the circum¬ stances connected with their origin and composition considered as matters of historical fact, whether derived from the books them¬ selves, or from any other authentic source ; and we have informa¬ tion of an authentic kind from other sources which goes to confirm our conviction of their origin and authority. We have several statements contained in the writings of the Fathers, the truth of which there is no reason to doubt, which may be reckoned as equally credible with any other historical testi¬ mony to a matter of fact, and which go to prove that the apostles regarded, and that their followers received their writings as invested with the same divine and infallible authority as their oral instruc¬ tions. Irenaeus (book iii. chap, i.) tells us that what the apostles first preached, they afterwards wrote in the Scriptures. Eusebius tells us (lib. iii. chap, xxiv.) that Matthew having first preached to the Hebrews, i.e. the Jews, and being about to go to other nations, wrote his Gospel, supplying by writing the want of his presence and oral instructions. Eusebius further informs us that the Apostle John examined and sanctioned the Gospels of Matthew, Mark, and Luke, and wrote his own chiefly to supply some important addi¬ tional materials which they had not been led to record. And indeed we have the unanimous testimony of the primitive church, from the apostles downwards, to the divine origin of the books of the New Testament. If you have examined with care and atten¬ tion, as you ought to have done, the testimonies of the early Chris- DIVINE ORIGIN OF THE BIBLE. 281 tian writers, by which we commonly establish the genuineness and authenticity of the books of the New Testament, you must have seen that many of them declare the conviction of their authors that thos^ books came from God, and were given by divine inspiration. And this may be regarded, not merely as the statement of an opinion which the primitive church entertained upon grounds of the validity of which she was satisfied, but as practically and sub¬ stantially an attestation to a matter of fact, namely this, that the apostles who were the authors of those books, gave them forth to the churches and to their followers as having been composed in the execution of their apostolic commission, under the guidance and direction of the Holy Ghost, and as therefore possessed of divine and infallible authority. And this consideration is sufficient, were there no other, to warrant the declaration contained in the first chapter of our Confession of Faith, viz., “We may be moved and induced by the testimony of the church to an high and reverend^ esteem of the Holy Scripture,” inasmuch as in various ways the testimony of the church, or the reception these books have met with ever since they were first promulgated, does tend greatly, upon the most rational grounds, and without giving to the church’s tes¬ timony more weight than that to which upon scriptural and Pro¬ testant principles it is reasonably entitled, to confirm our conviction that these books were given by inspirition of God, and are able to make us wise unto salvation. ^ That is, “reverent.” — Ed. LECTURE XXIL INTEENAL EVIDENCE, IN COMMENTAEY UPON CONFESSION, CHAP. I. SEC. 5. w E have given a brief sketch of the external evidence of the divine origin and authority of the sacred scriptures, the divine origin and authority of the books which compose the Bible, as distinguished, on the one hand, from the divine origin of the substance and leading features of the revelation which they contain and convey ; and, on the other, from the question of the way and manner in which divine agency was exerted in producing them, or the nature and extent of inspiration. We shewed you that, from what we know as matter of undoubted historical fact concerning the authors of the books of the New Testament, and of the circumstances in which, and the objects for which, they were composed, the conclusion is certain and irresistible, that the apostles, in their writings as well as in their oral instructions, were guided and directed by the Holy Ghost, and that therefore their writings are the word of God, possessed of divine and infal¬ lible authority ; while the attestation of Christ and his apostles, viewing them as divinely accredited messengers, establishes beyond doubt the divine origin and authority of the books which compose the Old Testament. The internal evidence for the divine origin and authority of the books of Scripture is that which is derived from an examination of the character and contents of the books themselves ; and in explaining briefly the general nature and bearing of the arguments classed under this head, and derived from this source, we cannot do better than follow the guidance of that section in the first chapter of our Confession of Faith, to which in last lecture we had occasion to refer. It stands thus : — THE TESTIMONY OF THE CHURCH. 283 maybe moved and induced by the testimony of the Church to an high and reverend esteem of the Holy Scripture ; and the heavenliness of the matter, the efficacy of the doctrine, the majesty of the style, the consent of all the parts, the scope of the whole (which is to give all glory to God), the full discovery it makes of the only way of man’s salvation, the many other incomparable excellencies, and the entire perfection thereof, are arguments whereby it doth abundantly evidence itself to be the Word of God” (Sec. 5). The first thing mentioned here, viz., ‘‘ the testimony of the church/' belongs to the head of the external evidence, and as such was adverted to in last lecture. The rest belong chiefly to the internal, though some of them might also, with equal propriety, be classed under the head of the experimental evidence. We shall briefly explain each of them singly, and then advert to the general con¬ clusion that all these things are arguments whereby the Scripture doth abundantly evidence itself to be the Word of God.” The first is, the heavenliness of the matter.” The matter of the Scriptures, or the various subjects there treated of, have all a reference, more or less direct, to things celestial and divine. They are connected throughout with God, the unseen world, and the eternal destinies of man. No merely human or temporal object seems to be aimed at or attended to. Everything is connected, more or less directly and palpably, with Him whose throne is in the heavens ; with the celestial origin and dignity of his intelli¬ gent creatures ; with their relations to heaven ; and with the end and the means of restoring to heaven those who had forfeited their birthright. Everything connected with this world is repre¬ sented in the aspect in which it is seen from heaven, and in the light of a higher world. There is nothing that is of the earth earthy. All breathes of heaven, and tends to lead the thoughts and desires to things unseen and eternal. The guilt and depravity of men are indeed set forth in glowing colours, and exhibited in fearful specimens of what man is and has done. But it is held forth as rebellion against the dod of heaven. It is represented in the light in which it usually appears, not so much to men them¬ selves as to the purer inhabitants of a higher and a holier region ; and it is unfolded for the purpose of shewing men what they have lost, and what difficulties stand in the way of their restoration to heaven and happiness, and in order to lead them to turn their thoughts to that state where there is no more sin and no more 284 TWENTY-SECOND LECTURE. sorrow. The Bible indeed shews that God has been pleased to make revelations of his will, conveying regulations about temporal and earthly things, especially in connection with that remarkable people whom he selected to put his name in them. And many of these regulations, though in some respects intended to serve temporary purposes, and not now fitted to effect all the same ends as they once did for a season, are recorded in the same Scriptures, and form a part of the word of God. But even these things were all written for our instruction, on whom the ends of the world have come; they were all fitted and intended to have some reference to the heavenly as well as the earthly Canaan ; and they are still found, under the guidance of God’s Spirit, to minister instruction that is profitable for guiding and directing men in their journey to the Jerusalem that is above. Such books, con¬ taining such matter, and so free from everything that indicates an earthly origin, must have come from God. The second consideration is the efficacy of the doctrine.” This topic may be regarded as belonging partly to the head of the experimental evidence ; for the efficacy of the doctrine comes out most fully and most palpbably when exhibited in its actual effects upon men individually and collectively, upon their under¬ standings, motives, character, and conduct ; and can be fully understood and appreciated only by those who have experienced it. Still something of the efficacy of the doctrines by which the Scriptures are pervaded, or of their fitness to effect and impress the minds and characters of men in a degree immeasurably superior to any other doctrines or truths that ever have been set before them, may be discerned even by those who have not yet submitted their hearts and lives to its influence, so as to afford even to them some rational ground for the conviction that it came from God, and that the books which it pervades must be traced to his agency. The whole of the doctrines by which the sacred Scriptures are pervaded concerning God, his character, government, and ways ; concerning man, his condition, danger, capacities, duties, and prospects ; concerning the way of salvation through Christ in all its branches and arrangements ; and con¬ cerning the everlasting destinies of the human race, is manifestly fitted, in its own nature, when viewed in connection with the actual constitution of man, to exert the most potent influence THE EFFICACY OF THE DOCTRINE. 285 upon the character and conduct of men. So that men to whom it has been made known, but whose character has not been changed by it, and who are not under its influence increasing in righteousness and holiness, may be fairly said to have never yet believed it. We know indeed that men will never experience its efficacy except through the operation of the Holy Ghost; but this as a matter of fact is traceable solely to the ungodliness and depravity that has been superinduced upon human nature by the fall, and the fact does not affect the question of the fitness and tendency of the doctrines themselves in their own nature to produce the most powerful and the most salutary effects upon the minds and hearts of men, so as to make them suitable instruments of a divine agency, and to afford plain indications that they came from Him who knows the heart of man, and turneth it whither¬ soever he will; who is the author and the guardian of all holiness throughout the universe. This is the light in which the efficacy of the doctrine may be presented to men who have not themselves submitted to its influence ; but when we further attend to the voice of experience as exhibited in the case of those who have been born again of this word, and are now taking it as a light to their feet, we find that not they only, but any to whom their experience and spiritual history may be made known, have good ground to believe that the efficacy of the doctrine is often manifested, not merely in the great leading truths which compose the Christian system, as ascertained from various portions of the Bible, but in single particular statements of Scripture brought home with power to the understanding and the heart, and producing deep and striking impressions of divine things, calling forth conviction of sin, leading men to turn from it unto God, filling them with love to God and Christ, animating them with zeal and ardour, and filling them with strong consolation and good hope through grace; thus plainly pointing, not merely to the general truths or doctrines taught in the Bible, but to its precise and particular statements, as having come from God, and as still employed by him for accomplishing his gracious and saving purposes. We need not dwell upon the next particular mentioned as an argument for the divine authority of the Scriptures, viz., “ the majesty of the style,” as it could be illustrated only by producing 286 TWENTY-SECOND LECTURE. examples of sublimity, dignity, beauty, and authority in extracts . from the Bible, which you can easily find for yourselves, and as, when such specimens are produced, the argument founded upon them just consists of an appeal to the ordinary sentiments and feelings of mankind, and to the impressions which they receive. It ought to be remarked, however, that there are some general characters or qualities attaching more or less to the whole Bible which may be comprehended under the general head of style, or the principles which have regulated or determined the way and manner in which it has been composed, that may be fairly regarded as affording no inconsiderable evidence that it proceeded from one source, and that this source was at least superhuman. The next argument is “ the consent of all the parts,” and this, when rightly estimated and fully drawn out, affords a very strong proof of the divine origin and authority of the Bible. The Bible, it is to be remembered, consists of a great number of distinct books, produced by a great variety of authors, who lived in different ages, extending over a period of about 1600 years, i.e. from Moses to John, and placed in a very great variety of external circumstances, but all of them treating more or less of subjects which were in some respects identical. Yet in all these different books, and among all these different authors, we find the most perfect har¬ mony in all the views they entertained, in all the truths they pro¬ mulgated, in the motives by which they were animated, in the objects they aimed at, and in the kind of means they employed for attaining their ends. And we find pervading the whole of those books, from first to last, not merely a perfect harmony of doctrine, sentiment, and object, but we can trace plainly one great scheme, one grand comprehensive economy, originating in one cause, directed to one object, partially and gradually developed, and at length fully unfolded and consummated. The authors of the different books of Scripture take naturally and obviously the position and aspect of men who were raised up and guided by a superior power, employed as his instruments for effecting his purposes, accomplish¬ ing for the time just the object which he had in view, their per¬ sonal labours and their written productions being designed by him to serve purposes of which they themselves were not fully aware, but which we now see to have been closely and intimately con- THE CONSENT OF ALL THE PARTS, 287 nected with the attainment of one great object, with the com¬ pletion of one great and glorious scheme. This consent of all the parts, this wonderful harmony that pervades the whole of the sacred Scriptures, may be fairly regarded as a proof that one agency was concerned in the production of them all, and that that was the agency of Him who seeth the end in the beginning, with whom one day is as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day. The unity, the harmony which we find, as a matter of fact, to pervade the whole Bible from beginning to end, could not have existed — must be regarded as an impossibility — had the books which compose it been the productions of unassisted men, had not the composition of them been superintended, directed, and con¬ trolled by one comprehensive mind ; in short, had not God’s agency been so interposed in the production and composition of them as to make them really the word of God. Contradictions and inconsistencies have indeed been alleged to exist in the sacred Scriptures, and these have been often adduced and urged, not only by infidels, but even by men who, while pro¬ fessing to believe in the truth of the Christian revelation, have refused to admit the divine origin and authoritv of the books which compose the Bible. Most of these alleged contradictions and inconsistencies originate in ignorance, carelessness, and prejudice on the part of those who adduce them, and admit of being, easily explained or reconciled. If there are any that do not very readily admit of a precise and specific solution individually, there are general considerations, applicable more or less to all ancient books, which afford a sufficient answer to any objections that might be founded on circumstances of this sort. Besides, the alleged incon¬ sistencies and contradictions, especially those of them about which there is any real difficulty in giving a specific solution, respect only very insignificant matters, such as names and numbers, and therefore, even if they did affect the question of the plenary verbal inspiration of the Scriptures, a point to be afterwards con¬ sidered, cannot affect that great truth which the consent of all the parts, the unity and harmony pervading all the books of Scrip¬ ture, notwithstanding their having been composed by so many different men in different ages and circumstances, establishes, viz., that they were all composed under the superintendence and direc¬ tion of one comprehensive mind ; in other words, that God’s agency 288 TWENTY-SECOND LECTURE. was so exerted in the production of them, that they are all his word, possessed of divine authority. The next topic is “ the scope of the whole, which is to give all glory to God.” The great truth taught in Scripture that God does everything for his own glory, for the manifestation of his own per¬ fections, can be easily shewn to be in entire conformity with the dictates of right reason ; and indeed when men have been led to form any right conceptions of the being whom we designate as God, a being infinitely glorious and excellent, independent, self- existent, self-sufficient, the creator, proprietor, and governor of all things, they are naturally and irresistibly led to deduce from this idea the conclusion that such a being could not be moved or induced to act by a regard to anything out of himself, or irrespec¬ tive of himself. In all his works of creation and providence there is a supreme regard to his own glory, the manifestation of his own perfections. If the Bible be his word, proceeding from him, and stamped with his authority, we might expect it to possess the same character, and to be directed to the same end. And so it is. “The scope of the whole is to give all glory to God.” The whole of the sacred Scriptures is manifestly directed to the object of making God known as he is ; of unfolding his character, plans, and government ; of leading men to entertain the most exalted conceptions of his excellencies, of the worship and homage that are due to him, of their entire dependence on him, of their unworthi¬ ness of all his mercies, and of their obligations to shew forth his praise. These are objects which men, such as they have usually exhibited themselves in their actions and in their writings, would not have aimed at at all, or in any eminent degree, and which even the best and holiest men whom the world has seen, made so by the power and grace of God himself, would not have prosecuted so singly, so supremely, and so unceasingly as we find is done by the authors of the books of Scripture, unless God himself had animated and directed them. To give all glory to God would not have been so thoroughly and so exclusively the scope of the Bible unless the Bible had been God’s own work, unless its various parts had been produced under the immediate superintendence and direction of Him who made all things for himself, and who will not give his glory to another. DISCOVERY OF THE WAY OF SALVATION. 289 The last argument under this head for the divine origin and authority of the Bible is the full discovery it makes of the only way of man's salvation." It is true, not only that the Bible makes a full discovery of the only way of man’s salvation, and that no other book, except among those which are professedly taken from the Bible, does or even professes to do so, but moreover that the great object of the whole Bible is more or less directly to open up and unfold the scheme of salvation, and that every part of the Bible bears more or less upon this object, and is fitted to contribute to this end. This scheme could not have been invented or devised by men. We can see in it plain traces of the wisdom of God, of its adaptation to man’s condition, constitution, necessities, and aspira¬ tions ; and when we find that the Bible is devoted to the develop¬ ment of it, and that the whole of it bears more or less directly upon the great object of unfolding and applying it, of shewing men that they need it, and of directing them as to the way in which they may obtain the benefit of it, we have the strongest ground to believe that the book itself, or rather the collection of books that form the sacred Scriptures, came from Him who alone could devise, execute, and reveal such a scheme. The Confession adds, the many other incomparable excellencies, and the entire perfection thereof.’’ These things have been illus¬ trated by many writers, and will be seen and felt by all who set themselves to study the Scriptures in a right frame of spirit, and under the guidance of the Holy Ghost, given in answer to prayer. And the excellencies of the sacred Scriptures, the indications of its self-evidencing power, you should all make it your desire and your object, while you study the Bible, to perceive and appreciate. These are the chief topics which may be said to constitute the internal evidence for the divine origin and authority of the sacred Scriptures, or to afford some proof of the general position that God’s agency was exerted, not only in the communication of the substance of the revelation, but in the production of the books. All these various considerations bear upon the proof of the general truth of the Mosaic and Christian revelations. Some of them bear perliaps more precisely and directly upon that question than upon the divine origin and authority of all the books of which the Bible is composed ; and some of them do not admit of being brought out T 290 TWENTY-SECOND LECTURE. in all their strength for the conviction of infidels and gainsayers, but can be fully estimated and appreciated only by those whose eyes have been opened by the Spirit to see the wondrous things contained in God’s law, who have received the truth in the love of it, and submitted their hearts to its influence. But they all involve considerations which do bear more or less clearly and directly upon the divine origin and authority of the Bible, as distinguished from the divine origin and authority of the Mosaic and Christian revela¬ tions in general. And they all admit of being made more or less intelligible even to unbelievers, and may be presented in such aspects as should in right reason contribute, upon perfectly rational grounds, to produce the conviction and the admission that the books which compose the Bible were not the work of unassisted men, and that the agency of God was exerted in the production of them, so that the sacred Scriptures may be called the word of God, and should be received and submitted to as stamped with his authority. They are all found in the Bible itself ; the}^ may be seen and discerned there by any who will examine it aright, with a real desire to know whether it be indeed the word of God ; and hence the truth and justness of the statement in the Confession, that all these things “ are arguments whereby the Holy Scripture doth abundantly evidence itself to be the word of God,” qualities or properties found in it, upon due examination, which afford reasonable and conclusive grounds for the conviction that, to use the well-known and often quoted words of Locke, it has God for its author, and truth without any mixture of error for its matter, as well as salvation for its end.” The remaining portion of this section of the Confession of Faith, — which is in these words, and contains a great and important truth, viz., yet notwithstand- ings our full persuasion and assurance of the infallible truth and divine authority thereof is from the inward work of the Holy Spirit, bearing witness by and with the word in our hearts,” — will be after¬ wards explained and illustrated. It cannot be said with truth that every portion of the Bible contains equally clear and palpable internal marks of its divine original. It cannot be doubted that some portions of the Bible contain clearer and plainer traces of God’s presence and agency in the production of them than others, the word of God being analo¬ gous in this respect to his works of creation and providence. EXPERIMENTAL EVIDENCE. 291 Neither are we prepared to say of every particular book in the Bible, taken singly and separately, that it contains internal proofs of its divine origin and authority, such as could be brought out under any of the general heads to which we have now adverted under the department of the internal evidence, and exhibited plainly and palpably for the conviction of gainsay ers. We are disposed to concur in a statement made by Bichard Baxter, whose views generally upon the subject of the evidences we formerly had occasion specially to commend to you, and which is quoted with approbation by Dr Chalmers in a portion of our text-book, which we will by-and-by have occasion to consider : — “ For my part, I confess, I could never boast of any such testimony or light of the Spirit (nor reason neither) which, without human testimony, would have made me believe that the book of Canticles is canonical, and written by Solomon, and the book of Wisdom apocryphal, and written by Philo, &c. Nor would I have known all, or any historical books, such as Joshua, Judges, Euth, Samuel, Kings, Chronicles, Ezra, Nehemiah, &c., to be written by divine inspiration, but by tradition,” &c. (vol. ii. pp. 405, 406). But whatever may be the extent to which, from internal evidence alone, we can establish against gainsay ers the divine origin and authority of all the different books or portions of Scripture, certain it is, from the experience of all in every age, who have made the attempt, that the more men study the Bible with diligence and humility, and with prayer for the divine blessing and guidance, the more clearly will they see through it all the traces of God’s presence and agency, the more fully will they experience its self- evidencing power, and the more thoroughly will they be persuaded by what they see and feel, as we]l as by submission to the autho¬ rity of God clearly revealing this truth by his apostle, that it is all given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, and instruction in righteousness. Believers are liable to be assailed by temptations to error as well as to sin, and they are not always exempted from occasional temptations even to the fatal error of infidelity. And they are commonly enabled to resist these temptations, and to hold fast their pro¬ fession, through the Spirit, opening up to them more fully, and impressing upon them more deeply, what they may have pre¬ viously seen of the self-evidencing power of the Bible, and what 292 TWENTY-SECOND LECTURE. they may have formerly noticed of the efficacy of its doctrines and statements upon themselves, in changing their natures, in enlighten¬ ing their understandings, in sanctifying their hearts, and in regu¬ lating their conduct. Thus they are persuaded that the Bible could not possibly have been a cunningly devised fable, that it must have come from God, and that it is only by cleaving to it as a light unto their feet, and a lamp unto their path, that they can be guided in the Avay everlasting. We must remind you, however, that the evidence for the divine origin and authority of the Bible, like that for the truth of the Christian revelation in general, is cumulative in its character, derived from a variety of sources wffiich ought all to be carefully examined, consisting of a variety of branches which ought to be all surveyed, and that all the different proofs, external and internal, which have been brought forward upon this subject, and which really possess any argumentative weight, ought to be viewed in their connection with each other, and in their united bearing upon the conclusion to be established. It is deserving of notice that that portion of the sacred Scriptures which might probably be regarded as having less self-evidencing power, less internal evi¬ dence in its own character and contents of its divine origin and authority, has the clearest and most explicit external testimony. There are many portions of the Old Testament which have just as clear internal evidence of their divine original as the books of the New; but this could not be said of the whole of it, of all the books of which it is composed. But then we have the clear and explicit testimony of our Lord and his apostles, assumed of course to have been already proved to be divinely commissioned teachers autho¬ rised to reveal God’s will, that the Old Testament is the word of God, and is stamped throughout with divine authority. And this testimony is so clear and explicit, it is given so fully and unequivo¬ cally, both in general declarations and in specific statements, which imply or assume it, that there is no possibility of evading it except by adopting the principle of the infidel rationalists of Germany, that on this, and on many other occasions, Christ and his apostles stated or admitted, not what they themselves believed, or wished others to believe, but merely what w^as in accordance with and accommodated to the superstitious and erroneous notions that then generally prevailed among the Jews. And men who take NEOLOGIANS. 293 this ground are of course to be regarded and treated as infidels, with whom, when we are called upon to have any discussion with them, we must go back to the first principles of the whole subject of the evidences, and whom we must, in the first place, endeavour to convince by appropriate arguments that Jesus of Nazareth was a man approved of God, by miracles and wonders and signs which God did by him ; and that to the apostles whom he sent forth God bore witness with signs and wonders, and divers miracles, and gifts of the Holy Ghost, according to his own will (Acts ii. 22 ; Heb. ii. 4). LECTURE XXIII. DIFFEEENT DOCTEINES AS TO THE DIVINE OEIGIN OF THE SCEIPTUEES, OE THE AMOUNT OF DIVINE AGENCY IN THE PEODUCTION OF THEXI— PEINCIPAL AUTHOES. IN introduciDg the subject of the divine origin and authority of the sacred Scriptures, we explained to you that by these words we meant to describe in general the truth that God's agency was exerted in the production of the books which compose the Bible, and not merely in communicating the substance of the revelations which are there contained ; reserving the more detailed and exact investigation of the question as to the way and manner in which God’s agency was exerted in the production of these books to be prosecuted under the head of the nature and extent of inspiration. It must be admitted that, as thus explained, the doctrine of the divine origin and authority of the Bible is some¬ what vague and indefinite in its import. A very considerable number of writers, who differ in opinion to no small extent from each other, must be all in this sense regarded as holding the divine origin and authority of the Bible. We do not well see, however, how this vagueness and generality can be avoided. There is a clear line of distinction between those who merely admit the divine origin and authority of the Mosaic and Christian revelations, and those who, in addition to this, maintain that God was concerned in, and in some way directed and superintended, the production of the books which compose the Bible. And again, there is a clear line of distinction between those who rest satisfied with the general doctrine of the divine origin and authority of the books, though differing materially among them¬ selves as to the character and extent of God’s agency in the DIVINE ORIGIN OF THE SCRIPTURES. 295 matter, and as to the perfection of the writings which resulted from it, and those who hold fully and precisely the great truth of the plenary and verbal inspiration of the whole Scriptures. These are the only very clear and palpable lines of division upon this subject which can be distinctly laid down and described. But as the intermediate class, who hold in a general sense the divine origin and authority of the Bible, without admitting its plenary verbal inspiration, is composed of men whose views differ materially from each other, it may be proper, before proceeding further, to advert somewhat to these differences, and the grounds on which they rest. The view commonly held by Socinians upon this subject, and indeed by Latitudinarian divines in general, by those who have been characterised by their lax and erroneous views of the great doctrines of the gospel, is this, that though Moses and Christ were commissioned by God to make known his will to men, and though we have in the Bible, and God intended that we should have, sufficient materials for ascertaining the substance of the information which he communicated to men through their instrumentality, yet that the books themselves, which compose the Bible, were the productions of men who enjoyed no peculiar divine assistance or direction, and who, though they were honest and faithful narrators, and have given us accounts which may in the main be received as true and correct, yet were liable to err, and did err, and are not therefore to be implicitly followed. This is the common Socinian or Unitarian view ; and this is what is meant when it is said, and said truly, that Socinians deny altogether the inspiration of the Scriptures. Upon this theory the Scriptures are really deprived of the character commonly ascribed to them, not only of being a revelation from God, but even of being fully adapted to convey to us an authentic representation of the revelations he has given to men. We have strong grounds to believe that if God was pleased to communicate to men a revelation intended for the permanent benefit of the human race, he would make provision for securing that it should be correctly embodied and transmitted among men ; and yet, according to this view, which denies in any sense the inspiration of the Scriptures, no effectual provision has been made for securing this end. This however, so far from being a defect in the estimation of Socinians, is just what 296 TWENTY-THIRD LECTURE, recommends the notion to their favour and adoption^ as it leaves them at liberty to exercise their own reason at discretion upon the statements of Scripture, and practically to believe as much or as little of it as they think proper, a liberty in which they have always shewn that they are very ready to indulge. This view is of course rejected by all who hold in any sense the divine origin and authority of the Bible. They, upon the grounds of which a sketch has been given in the last two lectures, maintain that God not only communicated his will to men, but made effectual provision for securing that his revelation should be correctly embodied in the Bible, and that he so guided and superintended the production of the books of Scripture as that they are His word, stamped with his authority. Under this general position, however, there is, as we have said, some diversity of sentiment even among those who stop short of the truth of the plenary and verbal inspiration of the whole Scriptures. Some, while they cannot be said to deny inspiration altogether, and while they admit that God’s immediate agency was concerned in the production of the books of Scripture, seem anxious to have as little of inspiration or of divine agency in the matter as possible, and are disposed to maintain what is really little better than the Socinian view, viz., that inspiration or divine agency applies only to those parts of the Bible in which something is communicated that could not, without immediate revelation, have been known by men at all, or which contain predictions of future events ; and that in the composition of the other portions of Scripture the authors were left to the exercise of their own unaided faculties, and the use and improvement ot their ordinary and natural sources of information about the subjects of which they wrote. A notion of this sort prevails extensively among those German writers who are not thorough neologians, and have not gone so far as to deny altogether an immediate supernatural revelation ; and some such notion seems to have been entertained by many of those defenders of revelation in our own country, whose defective and unsound views and principles I formerly had occasion to advert to ; while an impres¬ sion of a similar kind, though not so distinctly stated or avowed, prevails, we fear, to some extent among the irreligious portion of professedly Christian society. The general principle upon which DEGREES OF INSPIRATION. 297 the advocates of this view proceed is this, that we must not admit of any divine agency, of any immediate and supernatural interposition of God in effecting or producing anything which could possibly have been effected without it, and they then quietly set up human reason, i. e., themselves, or their own notions, as competent and adequate judges of whether or not, in a particular case, any immediate divine interposition was necessary. With these principles they come to examine the Bible, take the different books of which it is composed, and the different subjects of which it treats, and set themselves to consider in regard to each book, and each subject, or class of subjects, whether mere men, unaided by any special divine assistance, could not possibly have given us such information as is there presented to us ; and whenever there is any plausible ground for the allegation that men might possibly have communicated to us the information conveyed, they forth¬ with conclude that no divine inspiration was granted, that no special divine agency was exerted in guiding and directing them. On these grounds some defenders of revelation have denied anything like divine inspiration and authority to the historical books of Scripture, because, as they allege, the information they contain might have been acquired by men in the ordinary use of their faculties, and in the unaided improvement of the opportu¬ nities they enjoyed, and might, without any special divine assist¬ ance, have been transmitted to us with all necessary accuracy. On the same ground they are disposed to exclude from any valid claim to inspiration, or to a divine origin and authority, those portions of Scripture which contain plain precepts of morality, or maxims for the wise and prudent regulation of conduct — as, for example, the books of Proverbs and Ecclesiastes. Some writers of this class are even disposed to exclude also the devotional parts of Scripture, as containing in their estimation nothing but what pious and holy men might have spoken and written under the ordinary influences of the Spirit, in expressing their emotions and desires, and describing their spiritual experience. The whole of this genera] reasoning is unsound, and the application made of it is unwarranted and presumptuous. We are not warranted in laying down the position that God never interposes extraordinarily, never deviates from the ordinary course of nature, never gives special and supernatural communications, when, so far as we can 298 TWENTY-THIRD LECTURE, see, the object which he is supposed to have had in view, might have been effected without any such interposition. We know too little of the general principles by which God’s conduct is or may be regulated to warrant us in laying down any such position. We know little or nothing, except in so far as God may be pleased to inform us, as to what his whole object was in any particular case, and as to what means were necessary in order to effect that object. It is conceded by those with whom we are now arguing that God intended to embody in writing, and to convey to us through means of the books of Scripture, an authentic and well accredited revelation of his will ; and it is surely very evident that we are not warranted in asserting that he woidd have accomplished this object, or at least that he would have accomplished it so thoroughly and satisfactorily, as for anything we know he might have desired and intended to do, by superintending and directing the men who were employed for this purpose in some part of their works, and leaving them to their own unaided faculties in the rest, or by putting into our hands a book, some part of which he had himself superintended or dictated, and other parts of which men were left to compose without any such divine assistance. A book which is partly the work of God and partly the work of unaided man is at least a very different book from one which has been wholly pre¬ pared under the direction of God. The one, it is manifest, might be fitted to serve purposes and to effect results to which the other would be incompetent. Would not every man who was at all anxious to know fully and certainly God’s will conveyed to him by writing, earnestly desire to have it in a book which was really and entirely the word of God, in place of being left to the uncer¬ tainty of picking out from the mass of the contents of the book, without any certain test or criterion to guide him, what was God’s, and therefore to be implicitly received, and what was man’s, and might therefore be disregarded or criticised ? And if the one of these would be a far greater boon than the other, and manifestly much better fitted to serve the purpose of being an authentic and satisfactory conveyance of a divine revelation, what certain ground can we have a priori for the assertion that God has not bestowed it upon us ? There are man}^ things which, though not coming under the head of matters of pure revelation — i.e. things such that men could have known nothing about them unless God had O DEGREES OF INSPIRATION. 299 supernaturally revealed them, and predictions of future events, which it much concerns us to know, and to know accurately, and from which, in point of fact, believing them to be given by inspira¬ tion of God, his people do derive important spiritual advantages, and which the authors of the books of Scripture could not have correctly recorded and transmitted to us unless under the guidance and direction of God. What reliance, for instance, could be placed upon an account of the creation of the world, and the important transactions connected with the origin of our race, by a man who lived 2500 years after they had taken place, unless God had directed him ? How would men unaided have produced a history of God’s mighty deeds, and of his wonderful works, representing God as he ought to be represented, and as he might wish to make himself known to us in the history of providence, and in regard even to the life, actions, and especially the discourses of our Saviour ? How could even his apostles, who had seen and heard them, have given a correct and authentic account of them such as we could rely on, unless they had the guidance of the Holy Spirit, according to their Master’s promise, to bring things to their remembrance, and to guide them into all truth? Upon such grounds as these, which might be easily drawn out and illustrated, we prove that the allegation of there being no necessity for such divine guidance throughout as is contended for, and no essential benefit, even were we warranted to make our own views upon these points the ground of our judgment, as we are not, is utterly unfounded, and that we can discern plain traces of God’s wisdom and goodness in guiding and superintending, even in matters of which they might have had some knowledge without revelation and inspiration, the authors of those books from which men in all subsequent ages were to derive the knowledge of himself, and of the way of salva¬ tion. But we must remind you that these considerations afford only an answer to an objection of opponents based upon the alleged non-necessity of any further interposition of divine agency in the production of the books of Scripture than what they admit, and that the proper direct proof of the interposition of divine agency to a much larger extent in this matter is to be found in those arguments which we formerly adverted to under the heads of the exterual and internal evidences of the divine origin and authority of the Bible. These arguments, derived from the 300 TWENTY-THIRD LECTURE. explicit declarations of our Lord and his apostles regarding the Old Testament, from the commission and gifts of the authors of the books of the New Testament, and the circumstances in which, and the objects for which, they were written, and, from the evidences of God’s presence and agency which pervade the Bible itself, prove, if they prove anything, that God’s agency was so exerted in the production of the Bible, as a whole, that it may be fairly and truly called His word, as coming from him, and stamped throughout with his authority. Some of those who profess to hold the divine origin and autho¬ rity of the Bible go farther than those we have just described, and say that everything in the Bible which respects matters of reli¬ gion and morality is to be regarded as coming from God, written under his guidance and direction, while they are disposed to think that in other matters, not affecting, as they imagine, religion and morality, the writers were left to the exercise of their own facul¬ ties, without any special or supernatural divine assistance. This mode of stating the doctrine may be so explained as to be prac¬ tically as loose and unsatisfactory as the former, although it must be admitted that many authors who have adopted this mode of stating the subject, seem to have intended to allow a larger mea¬ sure of divine agency in the production of the books of Scripture than those formerly referred to. The same considerations in sub¬ stance apply to this view of the subject as to the former. This limitation of God’s agency in the production of the books of Scrip¬ ture has no firm foundation to rest upon. It is but an unwar¬ ranted and arbitrary supposition, resting only upon certain ill- founded and presumptuous notions of what was necessary, in order to make a full and perfect revelation of God’s will, of what God might have been expected to communicate to men super- naturally, and of what men might have produced without any special assistance from him. It assumes, moreover, that there are things in the Bible which can scarcely be supposed to have come from God, as being unworthy of him and beneath his regard ; and more especially as having no connection with religion and morality, and being in no degree fitted to promote or increase our know¬ ledge of God, of his plans and his providence, of the way of sal¬ vation, of the worship and homage which are due to him, and of the path of duty. DEGREES OF INSPIRATION. 301 Many men who are for restricting the agency of God in the pro¬ duction of the Scriptures to what they call matters of religion and morality, would probably shrink from laying down distinctly the positions which have now been stated. But it is quite plain that their theory implies or assumes them, and therefore they should be compelled to take the responsibility of openly asserting and maintaining them. And in discussing these positions we need not be afraid to meet them, for we can easily shew, not only that no proof can be adduced in support of them, though that is enough, but that they can be proved to be unfounded and untrue, incon¬ sistent with right views of what we actually find in the Bible, and with what we learn from Scripture itself concerning the books both of the Old and the New Testaments. If we were to indulge in any a priori reasonings upon such a subject, though this is a very unsafe and uncertain ground to occupy, we would be inclined to say that the wisdom and goodness of God would lead him to pro¬ vide that the book, in the production of which he was immediately and supernaturally concerned, and which was designed by him to be the permanent and the only channel through which his revelation of himself was to be conveyed to the human race, — and all this is admitted by those with whom we are at present contending, — should be all produced under his own immediate superintendence, that it should contain nothing which did not bear more or less directly upon the great object for which a revelation was given, i.e. upon matters of religion and morality, and that men would not be left to decide by their own feeble reason as to what things in the book came from God, and were therefore to be applied for increasing their knowledge and guiding them in the path of duty, and what came from men, and were fitted to serve no such end. There is still a third and higher view upon this subject, held by some who maintain the divine origin and authority of the Bible, but who do not go the whole length of holding its plenary and verbal inspiration. Their view may be stated in this way, that God superintended and directed by his special and immediate agency the whole of what we find recorded in the Bible as to its matter or substance, but not as to the words in which it is set forth. They admit indeed that there are some portions of the Scriptures where the words as well as the matter must have been communicated by divine inspiration. They think, however, that 302 TWENTY-THIRD LECTURE. tliis was not always necessary, and was not always granted ; but that in regard to many things contained in the Scriptures the authors were left to select the words in the exercise of their own natural faculties. They have devised accordingly a variety of modes or degrees of inspiration, called commonly by the names of the inspiration of elevation, the inspiration of superintendence or direction, and the inspiration of suggestion ; or by some such names of similar import. They think that one kind or degree of inspiration might be necessary for the production of one part of the Bible, that a higher degree might be necessary for producing another portion of it, while a lower might be sufficient for a third; and they are very careful and anxious to admit no higher kind or degree of inspiration in any part of the Bible than they are pleased in their wisdom to think absolutely necessary. The distinction between an inspiration of the matter and an inspiration of the words has no foundation in any of the statements of Scripture. The different kinds and degrees of inspiration which have been laid down and described are mere devices of human wisdom, to which God has given no countenance. The basis and foundation on which they principally rest is just the same as that of the other defective and erroneous views upon this subject to which we have already adverted, viz,, an a priori resolution to admit no more of divine agency in the matter than is absolutely necessary, combined with certain unwarranted notions as to what kind and degree of divine agency or of inspiration may be necessary for producing the intended result ; although at the same time it is but right to mention that they usually profess and attempt to shew that a distinction between the inspiration of the matter and of the words, and the supposition of different kinds and degrees of inspiration are, if not supported by the explicit statements of Scripture, yet suggested and sanctioned by the actual phenomena which the Scripture presents, and afford materials for solving some difficulties connected with the subject of God’s agency and man’s agency in the production of the books of Scripture, which they think cannot otherwise be easily disposed of. We have now conducted you to the borders of what we believe to be the truth upon this subject, the doctrine of the plenary and verbal inspiration of the Scriptures, and this, upon grounds formerly explained, we mean to treat distinctly and DEGREES OF INSPIRATION. 303 separately under the head of inspiration, as distinguished from the more indefinite and general subject of the divine origin and authority of the Bible, The observations which have been made in this lecture upon the different views entertained by men who profess to believe in some sense in the diviue origin and authority of the Scriptures have been laid before you, not so much because of their intrinsic importance, and not with the view of fully discussing them, but rather for the purpose (which I desire habitually to aim at) of aiding you in your own study of the subject by the perusal of works in which these topics are handled ; and you may perhaps find them useful to assist you in understanding, estimating, and appreciating the works you may have occasion to peruse upon this subject. We formerly had occasion to warn you against the loose and erroneous views of the inspiration of the Scriptures which are to be found in many able and standard works upon the evidences, and the same warning must be extended to many valuable works upon the divine origin and authority of the Bible, as distinguished from the truth of the Christian revelation, and to many which profess to discuss the subject of inspiration. You will find that not a few works which profess to treat of the subject of inspiration, and to maintain the divine origin and authority of the Bible, support one or other of the different modifications of sentiment which have been explained in the preceding part of this lecture, that few of them comparatively maintain the plenary verbal inspiration of the Scriptures, while many of them argue against it. They are valuable and useful in their own place, and for their own proper object, just as those works are which establish the external miraculous and historical evidence for the truth of Christianity. But they are not in general satisfactory discussions of the inspiration of Scripture, though they sometimes profess to establish its inspiration ; and it is right therefore that you should be warned against their defects and errors upon this important subject. You will find in many of them good and important matter in proof of the divine origin and authority of the Scrip¬ tures, in the sense, or rather in some one or other of the senses, in which we have just explained this subject, and that you may use and improve for its proper purpose without being led astray by their defective and erroneous views upon the subject of inspiration. 304 TWENTY-THIRD LECTURE. With these observations I would now briefly advert to some of the principal works which have been written upon the subject of the divine origin and authority of the Bible, and which embody some discussion of the nature and extent of God’s agency in the production of it, as distinguished from the general truth of Chris¬ tianity. In the year 1690 there was published in this country a work, entitled Five, Letters concerning the Inspiration of the Holy Scriptures, translated out of the French. These letters were taken from two works published anonymously, but written by the celebrated Le Clerc, and entitled Sentiments of some Divines of Holland on Father Simons Critical History of the Old Testament ; and Defence of these Sentiments. Le Clerc was a man of very loose latitudinarian views upon all theological sub¬ jects, and by the boldness and presumption of his speculations contributed, along with Spinoza and the English deists, to lay the foundations of German neology. These letters excited a good deal of notice, and occasioned some controversy. The views which they advocated were just in substance those which we have described in the first part of this lecture, as differing very little from the Socinian view which denies inspiration altogether. The letters are characterised by considerable ingenuity ; and, in order to vindicate himself from the charge of being an infidel, Le Clerc has introduced what must be admitted to be a good statement of the substance of the evidence for the general truth of the Christian revelation, as distinguished from the inspiration and divine autho¬ rity of the Bible. The chief authors whom Le Clerc quotes in support of his views are Erasmus, Grotius, and Episcopius ; and though it cannot be proved that they went so far as he did, yet they certainly gave too much countenance to his theory. A reply to Le Clerc was published by Lowth, the author of a well-known and in many respects valuable commentary upon the prophets, and father of the still more celebrated Bishop Lowth. It is entitled A Vindication of the Divine Authority and Inspiration of the Writings of the Old and New Testament ; and while it contains some good and useful things in answer to the lower views of Le Clerc, it advocates the theory that the inspiration of the sacred writers was confined to matters of religion and morality, and that in other matters they were left to themselves, and sometimes fell into mistakes. Another reply was made to Le Clerc by Lamotte, LITERARY HISTORY. 305 which I have not seen, but which is said to be a better and abler book than Lowth’s. Several other works were published soon after, which, though not intended merely as answers to Le Clerc, opposed his principles, and advocated much sounder though still somewhat defective views of the inspiration and divine authority of the Scriptures. The principal of these were Bishop Williams^ Boyle Lectures, and two works upon the subject of inspiration by eminent dissenting ministers. Dr Edmund Calamy and Mr Benjamin Bennet. These are all valuable works, and contain much important matter. Their authors carry their views of the nature and extent of inspiration much farther than Lowth, and approach much nearer the truth. None of them formally discusses the question of the verbal inspiration of the Scriptures. They rather leave it out, or pass it, intimating however their opinion that it is not necessary to take up that position, while yet they sometimes make statements so full and sound that consistency would seem to require of them that the verbal inspiration of Scripture should be admitted. The fullest and best of these works is Calamy’s, entitled The Inspiration of the Holy Writings of the Old and New Testament considered and improved, published in 1716 ; and his views are, upon the whole, so sound that there is little or nothing to object to, except that he has not asserted and defended the plenary verbal inspiration. The next tw^o works of any considerable importance that treat of this subject are to be found in well-known commentaries upon the New Testament, viz., Whitby’s general Preface to his Para¬ phrase and Commentary upon the New Testament, and Dodd¬ ridge’s Dissertation on the Inspiration of the New Testament, subjoined to the historical books, in his Family Expositor. Both of these works contain able and satisfactory defences of the divine authority, and, in a certain sense, inspiration of the New Testament ; but they both deny, and argue against, its plenary verbal inspira¬ tion, and they both vindicate those different kinds and degrees of inspiration which the wisdom of man has invented and set forth as sufficient for the production of some parts of the Bible, and as superseding the necessity of ascribing it all to God and the agency of his Spirit. The only other work to which I think it necessary at present to u 306 TWENTY-THIRD LECTURE. refer is the late Dr Dick’s essay on The Inspiration of the Holy Scriptures. It is a highly respectable work, and contains much sound and judicious matter ; but you will be certainly disappointed if you expect to find in it, what its title seems to promise, a discussion of the subject of inspiration. It is substantially a book upon the evidences of Christianity, including in a general sense the divine origin of the Scriptures, without any investigation of the higher and more specific questions usually comprehended under the head of inspiration. The arguments for the general truth of Chris¬ tianity and for the divine authority of the Scriptures are mixed up together in a way that is somewhat confused and perplexing ; and on the subject of the verbal inspiration of the Scriptures, it gives a somewhat uncertain sound, though the author seems, upon the whole, to be rather unfavourable to what we believe to be the true principle upon that point. The works which have been mentioned treat rather of the divine origin and authority of the Bible than of its inspiration in its stricter and higher sense. Those which treat more fully and formally of the nature and extent of inspiration will be mentioned when we come to discuss that subject. Before proceeding however to treat of the subject of inspiration in its higher and more restricted sense, we must complete the subject of the evidences by some examina¬ tion of the subject of the agency and witness of the Spirit in convincing men that the Holy Scripture is the word of God, in illustration of the doctrine which we quoted in last lecture from the fifth section of the first chapter of the Confession of Faith, in opposition to those who deny that any divine testimony is neces¬ sary, and to the Papists, who substitute the testimony of the church for the witness of the Holy Ghost. LECTURE XXIV. DIFFICULTIES IN GENERAL— EATIONAL AND SPIRITUAL EVIDENCE — TESTIMONY OF THE SPIRIT — ROMISH SCEPTICISM. rpHE evidence, external and internal, by which we prove the truth of Christianity and the divine origin and authority of the Bible, is in right reason quite sufficient to establish them. They can be proved conclusively upon grounds and principles which assume nothing that men in the sound exercise of their faculties could deny or disprove. As a mere question of argument upon rational principles, the proof is complete; so that wherever we meet with men who deny the truth of Christianity and the divine origin of the Bible, whatever may be their character, and whatever grounds they may take up, we can rationally establish them upon evidence which they cannot answer, and to which in right reason they ought to yield. Objections and difficulties indeed of various degrees of strength or plausibility have ])een adduced against all the different departments of the Christian evidence, but most of these have been directly and conclusively answered. And if there are any which do not admit of being fully and directly answered, they are such as respect not the evidence but the con¬ tents of revelation, and therefore general answers, derived from the unanswerableness of the proper evidence, from the exalted char¬ acter of the subject, the ignorance of mau, and the weakness of human reason, are, upon sound and generally recognised principles, sufficient to dispose of them. They are mere difficulties, and are neither refutations of the positive proofs, nor proofs of a nega¬ tive, upon the great general question. It is utterly inconsistent with the principles recognised and acted upon in regard to every 308 TWENTY-FOURTH LECTURE. other branch of knowledge, that mere difficulties, even though they were much more numerous and formidable than any which attach to the evidence for the truth of Christianity and the Bible, should prevent the submission of the understanding to proof which cannot be overturned, even though it only preponderated over what could be adduced upon the other side. The difficulties which attach more or less to all truths not comprehended within the limits of the exact sciences, and which ingenuity may invest with some plausi¬ bility, are virtually tests of men’s character, i.e. of their honest love of truth, of their being more ready to seek truth and to fol¬ low rational evidence wherever it may lead them, than to indulge any selfish feeling, or to pursue any personal objects of their own. This principle applies more fully to the investigation of the truth of Christianity and the Bible than to any other subject whatever, just because the admission or denial of it bears much more directly and extensively upon character and motive than any other. But the principle holds more or less in the investigation of all moral questions. The difficulties and objections that may be adduced, although of no real or rational weight in opposition to the proofs on the other side, alford a sort of plausible excuse for men taking either side they like, and thus contribute to make their decision the result, not so much of an impartial investigation of the evi¬ dence, as of some other collateral motives or objects that may have influenced them. This is virtually the principle that is involved in our Saviour’s remarkable declaration to Thomas, Thomas, because thou hast seen me thou hast believed ; blessed are they that have not seen, and yet have believed ” (John xx. 29). Thomas had previously sufficient and conclusive evidence that Christ had risen from the dead, in the testimony of his fellow-apostles assuring him that they had seen the Lord.” On this ground he ought to have believed it ; and it was neither a virtuous nor a rational state of mind which led him to declare that he would not believe unless he were permitted to put his finger into the print of the nails, and to thrust his hand into Christ’s side. His Master was pleased to grant him the evidence he demanded, although it was unnecessary in sound reason, and although he had no right to it. But he at the same time gently reproached Thomas for his unreasonable con¬ duct, and intimated plainly that to have believed in the reality of his resurrection upon evidence inferior to that which he had just DIFFICULTIES AND OBJECTIONS. 309 enjoyed, but yet quite sufficient in itself, would have indicated at once a more rational use of his faculties, and a sounder and more creditable state of heart. There is nothing in our Saviour's declara¬ tion which encourages or demands credulity in regard to his claims. It assumes indeed that Thomas had had, and that others would have, sufficient evidence of his resurrection from the dead, • without having the evidence of their senses in support of it ; and it implies that those who believed in such circumstances would act a more rational and becoming part than he, whose unwillingness to believe, in whatever precise cause it may have originated, had been overcome only by evidence which no unwillingness to believe, and no strength of motive drawing him in an opposite direction could, according to the ordinary principles of man’s constitution, have enabled him to resist. This is substantially what is involved in our Saviour’s declaration, and it can be proved to be entirely accordant with the dictates of sound philosophy, and the voice of universal experience. We do not require indeed to have recourse to any such general considerations in actually dealing with unbelievers. Our business in dealing with them is to set before them the proof, the sufficient and satisfactory proof, which should lead those who have not seen to believe that Christ rose from the dead, and to answer their objections against its sufficiency and conclusiveness. But it is satisfactory to ourselves to be able to explain, in accordance with the recognised principles of human nature and the ordinary experience of mankind, how it is that, without being able to answer our arguments, men still continue to reject our conclusions. Grotius had certainly nothing fanatical about him ; and yet he has distinctly laid down this principle of the actual strength of evidence for the truth of Christianity, viewed as a mere question of argumentation, and of the plausibility of some of the difficulties that may be adduced against it, operating as a test of character ; that is, as putting to the test whether or not men are really influenced by an honest desire of ascertaining and following the truth. In the conclusion of his second book, De Veritate, in answer to the allegation that Christianity, if true, should have been more conclusively established by evidence, he makes the fol¬ lowing statement upon this subject — “ Voluit autem Deus id, quod credi a nobis vellet, non ita evidenter patere, 310 TWENTY-FOURTH LECTURE. ut quas sensu aut demonstratione percipiuntur ; sed quantum satis esset ad fidem faciendam, remque persuadendam homiui non pertinaci ; ut ita sermo Evangelii tanquam lapis esset Lydius, ad quern ingenia sanabilia exploraren- tur. Nam cum ea, quse diximus, argumenta tarn multos probos, eosdemque sapientes in assensum traxerint ; hoc ipso liquet, apud cseteros incredulitatis causam non in probationis penuria esse positam, sed in eo, quod nolint verum videri id, quod affectibus suis adversatur.” As we are called upon to be ever ready to give a reason of the hope that is in us, it is our duty to be able to give some explana¬ tion of the grounds on which we believe in the truth of Chris¬ tianity and in the divine origin of the Bible. And it is incumbent upon us to be able to establish them, both for the conviction of gainsayers and the confirmation of believers. All argumentation must be deduced, in some sense, ex concessis, from principles conceded or admitted by those with whom we argue, however far back it may sometimes be necessary to go in order to find them ; and when we are seeking to explain the grounds by which the truth of Christianity and the divine origin of the Bible may be established for the satisfaction of our own minds, the confirmation of our own faith, or for the confirmation of believers who may have been assaulted with temptations to infidelity, there are considerations which may be adduced, and which may possess real argumentative weight, which would have no force with an unbe¬ liever, just because not based upon principles which he admitted, or could in the first instance, aud without some intermediate stages in the argument, and in its impression upon his mind, be required in strict logic to admit. These branches of argument, however, by which we ourselves might be satisfied of the divine origin and authority of the Bible, but which did not admit of being brought to bear upon unbelievers, so as in strict logic to compel their assent, are derived exclusively from two sources — first, from the self-evidencing power of the Bible, or those marks and traces of divine origin and authority which are impressed upon the Bible itself, and which are opened up to the mind in the course of a devout and prayerful study of it ; and second, from those effects which the doctrines of Christianity and the statements of the Bible have produced upon our minds and hearts, our character and conduct, in changing our natures, and in leading us to live to God’s glory and service. Now, these things apply only to those who have not merely been persuaded that the Bible is the RATIONAL AND SPIRITUAL EVIDENCES. 311 word of God, but who have come into contact Avith the revelation itself, and submitted their understandings and hearts to its influ¬ ence, who have been born again of the word of God through the belief of the truth. And this we know, in point of fact, is never done except through the operation and under the influence of God^s Spirit. And hence some have distinguished these two departments of evidence, viz., that by which unbelievers may be and should be convinced, and that by which, though it does not admit of the same direct bearing upon unbelievers, may be applied in confirming our own faith, by the names of the rational and the spiritual evidences. The nomenclature is not very correct, and it is fitted to convey erroneous impressions, and this in two ways : — 1. It seems to imply that the spiritual evidence is not rational ; Avhereas, though seen and felt only by those who have been brought by the operation of the Spirit under the influence of the regenerating and sanctifying force of the truth, and therefore not admitting of being brought to bear fully upon those who have not been the subjects of this operation, it is to those who have it a perfectly rational ground of belief, with which their understandings may be and should be fully satisfied. It is not a fanatical delusion, a vague and mystical impression, but an argument which can be fully vindicated in accordance with the principles of man’s constitution. That some of the materials upon which it rests are derived from our own individual consciousness, and therefore can¬ not be fully established to the satisfaction of others, who are iiot bound to believe our testimony upon this point, does not affect its proper intrinsic validity to those who, by their own conscious¬ ness, are possessed of these materials. To say that men’s con¬ sciousness of what they have been enabled mentally to discern and experience may deceive them is true, but not to the purpose; for this is nothing more than may be said of all the poAvers and capacities by Avhich men acquire knowledge and form judgments. All men’s faculties may sometimes deceive them ; but this is never regarded — except by mere sceptics, who are beyond the reach of argument — as any reason for denying the possibility of acquiring certain knoAvledge, or for calling Aipon men to place no reliance upon the ordinary operations of their faculties. 2, This distinction betAveen the rational and the spiritual evi¬ dences may seem to imply a notion which is in some respects the 312 TWENTY-FOURTH LECTURE, reverse of that which we have just exposed, but which is equally erroneous, viz., that the Spirit does not employ what is compre¬ hended under the head of the rational evidence in producing faith in the divine origin and authority of the Scriptures. Whatever is in right reason a proof of the divine origin and authority of the Scriptures, whatever upon the principles of sound logic possesses real argumentative weight to establish the conclusion, may be employed by the Spirit for producing that faith which is his gift ; that is, may be employed by the Spirit for deepening and con¬ firming those convictions which in its own nature, and in virtue of its argumentative weight, it is fitted to produce. For it may be laid down as a general principle that there is no truth con¬ nected with religion which the Holy Spirit may not, and does not, as he sees meet, impress upon men’s minds ; and there is no sound argument that really goes to establish or confirm the truth, which he may not employ for producing conviction. What then has sometimes been called the spiritual evidence is also rational, though it may not be directly available for convincing unbelievers ; and} what has been called rational is spiritual, at least in this sense, that it may be and has been employed by the Spirit for pro¬ ducing conviction. The proper deduction to be noticed and preserved upon this sulfject are these two — First, that the one department of evi¬ dence is fitted to convince unbelievers, resting upon principles which they cannot dispute without overturning the certainty of all human knowledge, and conducting by a process of argument which they cannot at any point answ^er, or overturn, or evade, to the conclusion that Christ was a teacher sent from God, and that the Scriptures came from God ; and that the other is directly fitted only to confirm the faith of those whose eyes have already been opened to behold the wondrous things contained in God’s law, and who have been born again of the word of God through the belief of the truth. The second distinction is this, that the evidence of the one class may be understood and perceived, and that the conclusion to which it leads may be admitted, without men having enjoyed the Spirit’s teaching, or having become the subjects of his operations; while the materials on which the other is based partly are not seen, and partly do not exist, until the Spirit of God has been sent forth into men’s hearts, and has pro- ALL TEE EVIDENCE RATIONAL. 313 duced there some of his leading peculiar results. Whatever diffi¬ culty there may be in explaining, or even in describing, the character and conduct of men who profess to be convinced of the truth of Christianity and the divine origin and authority of the Bible, but who yet have never examined the Christian revelation with attention and seriousness, and are manifestly not affected in their character and conduct by the contents of that revelation, we are not entitled to deny that such men, if they have examined the evidences, if they profess themselves convinced of their suffi¬ ciency, and are able and willing to give a satisfactory explanation of the grounds of their convictions, and to defend them against the objections of adversaries — are in. some sense honestly per¬ suaded of the truth of the revelation, though it may be abundantly evident that their conduct is marked by great inconsistency, and that they have never enjoyed the teaching of the Spirit. They have examined the question of the truth of Christianity just as they would have examined a question in any other department of knowledge, and perhaps just in some measure because of their entire carelessness and indifference about the contents of the revelation, and their utter want of any sense of the obligation which an admission of its truth imposes, have come to the con¬ clusion that there is sufficient ground to believe in its divine original. There is sufficient evidence to convince unbelievers of this as a mere question of argument ; and it is quite possible that men in the fair use of their faculties, without any special divine assistance, and without any operation of the divine Spirit, may come to this conclusion, and assert and maintain it. They have the whole of the external evidence to deal with. It is perfectly comprehensible by them. It may be understood by them in all its branches ; and its force and conclusiveness, as a mere piece of argumentation, may be seen and apprehended. A portion of what is usually comprehended under the head of the internal evidence is also fully subject to their cognizance, and may be apprehended and appreciated by them ; we mean everything about the general character and the particular features of the Christian revelation and the sacred Scriptures, which goes directly to establish this proposition, that they could not have been invented and devised by men, especially by men so circumstanced as those from whom the Christian revelation, and the books which contain it. 314 TWENTY-FOURTH LECTURE. proceeded. This is a proposition which, from its very nature, comes within the cognizance of man’s ordinary faculties and capacities of judging ; and materials sufficient to establish it may be pointed out in the Christian revelation, and in the New Testament, the perception and appreciation of which do not necessarily require or imply that thorough, intimate, efficacious knowledge of divine truth which proceeds only from the Spirit of God. If we take the word experimental in the wide sense which it may not unwar¬ rantably bear, and in which we formerly explained it, as compre¬ hending every argument for the truth of Christianity derived from the reception it has met with, and the effects it has pro¬ duced upon men collectively and individually, then there is some- thinof too under this head, as well as under that of the internal evidence, which mav be addressed to unbelievers, which can be logically commended to their understandings, and which may and should operate rationally in leading them to the conviction that Christianity and the Bible came from God, without any special operations of the Holy Spirit, or without requiring the admission or application of any of those materials which his agency alone can provide ; especially the arguments derived from the propaga¬ tion of Christianity, and the general effects which Christianity and the Bible have actually produced upon the state of the world wherever they have been known and received. Thus the whole of the external and a portion of the internal and experimental evidence for the truth of Christianity and the divine origin of the Bible may be addressed to unbelievers ; may be established to their satisfaction as a mere question of argument ; may, upon the principles of sound reasoning and strict logic, be commended to their understandings, and may produce such a conviction in their minds as in consistency and common sense should lead them to a diligent, serious, and prayerful study of the Bible. And all this class of arguments, sometimes, as we have said, called the rational evidence, may be used by believers, and may be emplo3^ed by the Spirit, for confirming them in their most holy faith ; while they enjoy also, for their confirmation and encouragement, and to aid them in resisting any temptations to infidelity with which they ma}^ be assailed, other arguments coming under the head of the internal and experimental evidence, the materials of which exist partly in the revelation itself and the sacred books which SELF-EVIDEKGING POWER OF THE BIBLE. 315 contain it, and partly in their own hearts, hut for which, both in their existence and in their application and effect, they are wholly indebted to, and dependent upon, the agency of the Holy Spirit. It is right that we should understand and appreciate the entire sufficiency and conclusiveness of the evidence by which, upon rational principles, requiring no spiritual discernment, no super¬ natural opening of the eyes, no radical change of men’s moral principles, no immediate agency of the Spirit of God, we can bring home to unbelievers, as a mere question of argument, the truth of the proposition that Christianity and the Bible came from God ; by which we can logically compel them to admit this, or to stand self-condemned by their manifest refusal to give their fair rational weight to arguments which they cannot answer, and to follow out principles which they cannot deny without over¬ turning the certainty of all human knowledge, and by which, in regard to other departments of knowledge, they themselves are guided. It is thus that we stop the mouths of gainsayers, and establish against every opponent, and upon rational principles, the thoroughly rational character of our belief in the divine origin of Christianity and the Bible, and can bring home to all with whom we may come into contact, whatever ground they may choose to assume in this matter — unless indeed they take refuge in absolute scepticism, and deny that men can know anything — an obligation to admit the truth of the Christian revelation, and a consequent obligation to receive and submit to it as coming from God. The other departments of proof, which cannot be brought to bear directly upon unbelievers, as not being based upon principles which, while unbelievers, and as such, they can be logically required to admit, but which are well fitted to confirm the faith of those who have submitted to the truth and have been brought under the agency of the Spirit, are the self-evidencing power of the Bible, coming under the head of the internal evidence, and the effects which Christianity and the Bible have produced upon their own heart and character, coming under the head of the experimental evidence, and constituting indeed what is usually known under that name. Before proceeding to advert more particularly to the agency of the Spirit in this matter, it is proper to mention that, though arguments of this sort do not possess probative power to unbelievers who openly deny the divine origin 316 TWENTY-FOURTH LECTURE. of Christianity and the Bible, so that they can be compelled, as a matter of argumentation, to admit their soundness, and to submit to their force, or at least to be silent, yet it is most commonly by considerations derived from these sources that unbelievers are in fact converted. Few men who have been led openly to deny the truth of Christianity, and to contend against the force of the arguments by which it is usually commended to the under¬ standings of infidels, have been persuaded of the truth of Christianity and the divine origin of the Bible, by those argu¬ ments by which they ought, in right reason and in sound logic, to have been convinced of this. When such persons have been converted, it has been most commonly through the preaching of the gospel, that is, the exposition of the substance and leading features of the Christian revelation, or the reading of the Scrip¬ tures, even when previously they did not believe the gospel or the Bible to have come from God. And of course their conver¬ sion must have been effected by the Spirit’s enabling them to see something of the self-evidencing power of the gospel and the Bible, and satisfying them of their divine origin by the impres¬ sions and changes which he himself produced by their instru¬ mentality upon their hearts. When such results take place, then men will soon indeed see the futility of the objections which they may have been accustomed to adduce against the arguments with which they were formerly plied, and be convinced that these argu¬ ments are, upon rational grounds, conclusive and unanswerable. But they will soon also see that considerations, which at one time they thought unworthy of serious examination, and fit only to be treated with ridicule, are possessed of a weight and influence well fitted to secure to them at once respect and success. The practical inference to be deduced from this fact — for it is a fact, established by abundant experience — is, that even in dealing with open deniers of the truth of Christianity and the Bible, we should not omit, as means that may be useful, the preaching of the gospel and the reading of the Bible, if they can be prevailed upon to listen. In that part of the fifth section of the first chapter of the Confession of Faith, which I formerly explained and illustrated, several considerations on which I briefly commented (and which rank partly under the external, though chiefly under the internal TESTIMONY OF THE SPIRIT. 317 evidence), are declared to be “ arguments whereby the Holy Scripture doth abundantly evidence itself to be the word of God and then the Confession goes on to say, Yet notwith¬ standing, our full persuasion and assurance of the infallible truth and divine authority thereof is from the inward work of the Holy Spirit, bearing witness by and with the word in our hearts.” The particulars specified in the preceding part of the section, and described as being “ arguments whereby the Holy Scripture doth abundantly evidence itself to be the word of God,” are all, as I formerly explained to you, such as may be in some measure understood and apprehended even by men who have not been brought under the power of the truth or the influence of the Spirit. Even to these then there are considerations to be found in and to be derived from the Scripture itself, whereby it may be abundantly evidenced to be the word of God. This implies that there are materials for bringing home to them, even without the agency of the Spirit, a conviction to which they ought to yield, and which ought to produce some practical results. And the substance of what is set forth in the clause we are now considering is this, that there is a firmer conviction, a more thorough persuasion of the truth and divine authority of the Scriptures than any which mere arguments as such can produce ; that this is to be ascribed to the agency of the Spirit ; and that the Spirit produces it in men’s hearts through the instrumentality of the word itself. This is a doctrine which can be learned only from the Scriptures, and can be proved only by arguments taken from that source. Its truth can be fully established from the statements of the Bible. But I refer to it at present chiefly for the purpose of giving you a brief statement of some discussions that have taken place with respect to the witness or testimony of the Spirit in connection with the establishment of the divine authority of the Scriptures, and the grounds of our certain persuasion or assured conviction that they are the word of God. The discussions which have taken place upon this subject are of a somewhat intricate and subtle description, and have not always been conducted with sufficient care and perspicuity, even by those whose views were in the main correct. This subject entered largely into the discussions which took place between the Protestants and the Church of Home at the era of the 318 TWENTY-FOURTH LECTURE. Reformation ; and in some of its aspects it has been discussed also between orthodox and evangelical Protestants and some of the Latitudinarian, or, as they commonly call themselves, rational • defenders of Christianity. It has always been one leading artifice of the Church of Rome in controversy, and one by which she has succeeded in deluding and deceiving many, to represent any other system but her own as attended with great doubts and uncer¬ tainties, as affording no firm and stable basis on which man’s faith and hope may rest ; that thus she may shut them up into the authority of an infallible church, which is alleged to enjoy the certain presence 'and the unerring guidance of the Holy Spirit. The leading questions which she has started with this view, and which she has laboured to involve in as much darkness and obscurity as she could, are these three — 1. How can men know with certainty that the Scriptures are the word of God ? 2. How can men know with certainty what is the meaning of the statements of Scripture, or be assured that the meaning which they may attach to them is correct ? 3. How can men attain to any comfortable assurance that they individually are in a safe state, and may look forward with confidence to heaven as their rest? The Church of Rome has laboured hard to prove that none of these questions can be satisfactorily answered ; that nothing like certainty or assurance can be attained in regard to any of the sub¬ jects to which they refer, except by admitting the infallibility of the church and submitting to her guidance. And in discussing these various points, and endeavouring to establish a ground of cer¬ tainty in regard to them, the Reformers, and indeed evangelical Protestants in general, have given much prominence to the witness or testimony of the Holy Spirit. In regard to the last of these questions, respecting the assurance of personal salvation, it does not come at all within the class of subjects that for the present must occupy our attention. We would only remark in passing, since we have been led to mention it, that it was in consequence of the labours of Romish writers to shew that there could be no \ certain ground for personal assurance of salvation except in the authority of the church ; that there was inserted in what is com¬ monly called “ The National Covenant of Scotland ” a condemna¬ tion of what is described as ^^the general and doubtsome faith of ROMISH SCEPTICISM. 319 the Eomish Church ” ; and that the authors of the Westminster Confession, after asserting that believers may in this life be cer¬ tainly assured that they are in the state of grace, added, “ This certainty is not a bare conjectural and probable persuasion founded upon a fallible hope, but an infallible assurance of faith.” We may also observe that it was the anxiety of the Reformers to establish a firm ground of personal assurance in opposition to the labours of Papists to overturn every other ground except that miserable one which they hold out to their deluded votaries, and which has sunk millions to hell with a lie in their right hand, that led some of them to fall into the error of representing assurance as of the essence, and to include it in their formal definition of saving faith ; an error which has been been carefully corrected in the Westminster Confession. The second of these questions, about the grounds of the certainty of our knowledge of the true meaning of Scripture, we shall have occasion to advert to in a subsequent part of the course, when we have to explain the general principles bearing upon the ascertain¬ ing and establishing of the true import of the word of God. It is with the first of these questions only that we have at present to do. But the further prosecution of this subject must be deferred till next lecture. LECTURE XXy. TESTIMONY OF THE SPIEIT, FOLLOWING THE CONFESSION OF FAITH. The general subject which I brought under your notice in last lecture, and mean to prosecute in this, is usually discussed by the older divines under the head of the authority of the Holy Scripture, and may be said to comprehend a discussion of the causes, grounds, and reasons of our faith, or firm and assured per¬ suasion of the divine origin and authority of the Bible. The authority of the Scripture is its right to command, to exercise sovereign control, to be received and employed as the supreme and ultimate standard of our opinions and actions. If it has any such right or authority, this must come from God, who alone is Lord of the conscience ; and hence the Confession of Faith says, in the fourth section of the first chapter, the one just preceding that to which I have already adverted, and mean again to advert to more fully, “ The authority of Holy Scripture, for which it ought to be believed and obeyed, depends not upon the testimony of any man or church, but wholly upon God (who is truth itself), the author thereof, and therefore it is to be received because it is the word of God.” This seems a very evident, almost a self-evident principle ; and yet, like almost all the other statements in the Confession, it is a deliverance upon a point of controversy, a denial of an error that has been broached. The error that is here denied is one that was maintained by some of the bolder and less scrupulous Papists, who, in their anxiety to depress the Scriptures and to magnify the church, asserted that their authority depended upon, or was derived from, the testimony of the church ; or, in other words, that the formal ground or reason why we are bound to submit to the WITNESS OF THE SPIRIT. 321 authority of the Scriptures, was, not because God was their author, and has given them to us, requiring us by his own authority to believe and obey them, but merely because the church has pro¬ pounded them to us as authoritative. It was against this error that the declaration just quoted from the Confession was directed. Some, however, of the abler and more cautious Papists saw that this was a principle too offensive and too evidently erroneous to be maintained with plausibility or success, and invented a distinc¬ tion between the authority of the Scripture, absolutely and rela¬ tively, its authority in itself, and its authority in reference to us — in se and quoad nos — admitting, in accordance with the principle laid down in the Confession, that its authority, absolutely and in itself, depends only on God its author, i.e. is based upon its being God’s word, they still maintain that its authority relatively to us depends upon the testimony of the church proclaiming it to be the word of God and authoritative. By this they mean in substance, not that Scripture derives its authority or its binding and obliging powers from the church, but that the testimony of the church is not merely a part of the proof or evidence by which the Scripture may be shewn to be the word of God, but is the basis and foundation of the whole proof, and affords thereby certain arguments by which men can be thoroughly persuaded that the Scripture is of divine origin, and is therefore possessed of infallible authority. In oppo¬ sition to this doctrine, the Confession lays down the principle which I quoted in last lecture, viz., ‘'yet notwithstanding, our full persuasion and assurance of the infallible truth and divine authority thereof is from the inward work of the Holy Spirit bearing witness by and with the word in our hearts.” A state¬ ment which may be regarded as embodying these propositions — first, that men, without believing in the infallibility of any man or church, may attain to a full persuasion and assurance of the infallible truth and divine authority of the Holy Scripture — in other words, to a firm and assured faith or conviction that it is the word of God ; and second, that this is to be produced by the inward work of the Holy Spirit bearing witness by and with the word in our hearts. When the Papists put the question, as they often do, “ How do you know with certainty that the Scripture is the word of God their object, as I explained in the end of my last lecture, X 322 TWENTY-FIFTH LECTURE. is to involve the proof of this truth, which they profess to hold as well as we, in as much doubt or uncertainty as possible, in order to shut up men to the testimony of an infallible church as the only sure and certain evidence in support of it. When Protestants have answered this question by referring to the various branches of evidence by which we can and do prove against unbelievers, first, the general truth of the Christian revelation ; and then second, the divine origin and authority of the books of Scripture, some Popish writers have grasped at the opportunity thus afforded them of taking up the infidel cause, and have exerted their ingenuity in labouring to shew that these proofs, even as against infidels, are attended with great and almost inextricable difficul¬ ties, and that they cannot form the basis or ground of any firm or certain persuasion. And indeed it is very manifest that many Popish writers have been willing enough to help to make men infidels, if they could only withdraw them from the ranks of Pro¬ testantism. They have given abundant evidence that they were ready to contribute to overturn the foundations of all faith and all religion, in the hope of catching some of those who might thus be thrown loose ; a fact which tends, along with others of a similar kind, to prove that Satan, though he is no doubt well aware that Papacy is his masterpiece, from the singular skill with which it is fitted to secure and retain a powerful ascendancy over the minds of multitudes, does not care much whether men become Papists or infidels. Other Popish writers, however, having more regard to decency, and admitting that the controversy between them and Protestants upon this point does not turn upon the question whether the Scriptures are the word of God, and can be satisfactorily proved to be so against those who deny it, — as the more respectable Popish writers, when dealing with infidels, establish the divine origin and authority of the Bible, very much in the same way as Protestants do, — but upon this question whether or not Protestants denying the infallibility of the church, can have any certain and assured ground for the persuasion they entertain that the Scriptures are the word of God, meet the adduction of the ordinary arguments by which this is proved against infidels, by a statement to this effect, that these arguments, though sufficient to stop the mouths of gainsayers, cannot be the ground of a firm and certain persua- DIVINE AND HUMAN FAITH. 323 sion, since they are based only upon the testimony of man, and upon these general rational arguments or motives of credibility which may apply to other subjects of historical investigation, and cannot lay a basis for that firm and unwavering persuasion which faith implies, and which alone can be satisfactory as the ground of procedure in religious matters. The schoolmen were accus¬ tomed to make a distinction between what they called human or acquired faith based upon human testimony, and divine or infused faith based upon divine testimonj^ The Papists applied this distinction to the matter in hand, and asserted that the ordinary rational arguments by which the Scriptures might be proved as against infidels, resolved ultimately into human testimony, and therefore could not be the basis of a divine faith or a full persua¬ sion and assurance ; and that the divine testimony which alone could be the basis of a divine faith, and alone therefore could afford a full security and a satisfactory ground for reliance in the conviction that the Scriptures are the word of God, is to be found only in the testimony of the church, which, being infallibly guided by the Holy Spirit, thus brings a divine testimony to bear upon the conclusive settlement of the question, and the thorough establishment of men’s convictions. Now, in dealing with this objection of the Papists,' the Reformers generally conceded to them, that a divine as distinguished from a human faith was necessary, in order that God’s revelation might produce all its proper intended effects, and that men might derive from it all the benefits which it was intended to convey or confer, and moreover, that this divine faith must rest upon a divine testimony ; but they contended — first, that the testimony of the church was not a divine testimony, since its claim to infallibility, or to the constant guidance of the Holy Spirit in preserving it from all error, not only could not be established, but could be proved to be utterly unfounded ; and second, that believers, though denying the infallibility of the church, had a divine testimony to the infallible truth and authority of the Holy Scripture, in the testimony or witness of the Spirit. In regard to the first of these topics, the alleged infallibility of the church, we shall have occasion to advert to it when we come to consider its bearing upon the interpretation of Scripture, or the discovery of its true and certain meaning. It is with 324 TWENTY-FIFTH LECTURE. the second topic we have at present to do. Our faith in the Christian revelation itself, or in the truth of the contents of the Scriptures, may be said in a sense to rest upon a divine testimony, inasmuch as we believe and submit to it only because we are persuaded that it came from God. But the question we are at present considering respects a different point, viz., whether or not, and if so, how, we have or may have a divine testimony as the basis of a divine faith that it did come from God, that it is his word. There is some difficulty in forming a clear and definite conception of some of the views that have been propounded in regard to the distinction between a divine and a human faith, as founded respectively upon a divine and a human testimony. Owen and Haly burton have both laboured this dis¬ tinction in their books upon the reason of faith, but do not, so far as I can see, give any very clear or satisfactory explanation of it, though these works certainly contain a great deal of valuable and excellent matter. What is necessary practically, and without entering into useless speculations upon this subject, is, that men have such a conviction of the divine origin and authority of the sacred Scriptures, resting upon grounds of the validity of which they are satisfied, as frees them from all doubt and anxiety, as is sufficient to preserve them from danger of falling into infidelity ; and especially, and above all, as leads them to study aright the Scripture itself, the word of God, and to submit implicitly to its guidance. That no man has ever had such a faith or conviction of the divine origin and authority of the Bible produced in his mind by the means of what are sometimes called the rational evidences by which this can be established against infidels, as in point of fact led him to such a study of the word that he was thereby made wise unto salvation, we know no grounds whatever for asserting. There is nothing either in the constitution of man, or in any information which God has given us, as to his own ordi¬ nary procedure in conferring upon men knowledge and salvation, which precludes the possibility of such a result. It is true that when such a man has been brought under the influence of the O truth itself, he will, under the guidance of the same Spirit who opened his eyes to behold God’s glory and to see Christ, discern both in the self-evidencing power of the Bible, and in the effects which its statements have produced upon himself, new and stronger PROBABLE AND DEMONSTRATIVE EVIDENCE. 325 proofs than ever he had before of its divine origin; and if he thought previously that upon the ground of the rational evidences he was secure against the danger of falling into infidelity, he will feel now more clearly and decidedly that it is in a manner impossible, after what he has seen and experienced, that he should ever come to deny or even to doubt that the Bible is the word of God. All this is true ; it is realised in the experience of believers, and in these circumstances, they do or may possess a full per¬ suasion and assurance, such as is quite sufficient to fill them with peace and joy, that in walking by the Bible they are following a safe and sure guide which will conduct them at length to heaven and happiness. A fuller persuasion, however, a higher and more perfect assurance of the divine origin and authority of the Bible, does not seem to be what is intended by the distinction between a human and divine faith, by many authors who have treated of this subject. They treat it as a difference in kind, and not in degree ; though it is to be observed that the Confession of Faith does not specify anything as to its nature, properly so called, as distinguished from its cause and source, except that it is a full persuasion and assurance. The ascription indeed of this full persuasion and assurance to the inward work of the Holy Spirit implies that the faith or conviction produced by the mere influence of the rational arguments, which may be made good, according to the ordinary principles of men’s constitution and the ordinary rules of reasoning, as against unbelievers, does not possess such strength and certainty as to be entitled to be described by these terms. And this is in entire accordance at once with sound philo¬ sophy and ordinary experience. Philosophers are accustomed to speak of probable as distinguished from demonstrative evidence, and indeed to divide all evidence into the two branches of pro¬ bable and demonstrative, not intending to convey the idea that probable evidence does not sufficiently prove a proposition, and impose upon men a valid obligation to believe and act upon it, but merely that, from the nature of the subjects with which it is conversant, it does not produce the same kind or degree of certainty as that which is called demonstrative does. Demonstrative evi¬ dence applies only to necessary truth, as it is called, to abstract ideas or conceptions ; and it is only of these subjects that demon¬ stration, strictly so called, is predicated. Contingent truths can 326 TWENTY-FIFTH LECTURE. have only what is called moral or probable evidence, which may indeed lead men firmly to believe, and impose upon them an imperative obligation to act, but which does not carry with it the same clear and commanding certainty as demonstrative evidence. Now, the divine origin and authority of the Bible, viewed as a subject to be investigated by men in the ordinary use of their faculties, is a contingent, not a necessary truth. It resolves ultimately into a question of fact — the question, viz.. Whether or not God did supernaturally guide and direct the authors of the books of Scripture in composing them, so that they are his word. The fact is established, not, like the truths of the demonstrative sciences, by a mere examination and comparison of abstract ideas, but by the exercise of our ordinary faculties upon a variety of materials derived from all the ordinary sources of human know¬ ledge, especially the evidence of sense and the evidence of human testimony. The divine origin and authority of the Scriptures would therefore be said to rest upon probable evidence, not that the evidence is not sufficient to prove it, and to impose upon men without any special divine interposition an obligation to receive and act upon it as a truth or reality, but merely that it is not fitted of itself to produce that peculiarly full persuasion and com¬ manding assurance which is the result of demonstration. And experience very plainly indicates that when men have only that faith and conviction of the divine origin and authority of the Bible which is just the result of the ordinary exercise of our faculties upon the rational arguments by which, as a matter of fact it is established, their persuasion of its infallible truth and divine authority does not usually seem to be very powerful and efficacious, or to produce the practical results which, in right reason, might be expected from it. Now, the Holy Spirit may, and does, seal this evidence and the truth which it establishes upon men’s understandings and hearts, so as to give them a fuller persuasion and assurance of the truth than they would otherwise possess or attain to ; and in doing so there is no reason in the nature of the case, as we formerly remarked, why he should not employ, for producing a full persuasion and assurance, any consideration that is really in itself, and on rational grounds, a proof or evidence of the truth which he is ready to seal and impress. This is true ; and it is important that we should ever WITNESS OF THE SPIRIT. 327 remember tliat, whatever difficulties may attach to the more minute and precise explanation of this subject, this at least is true and certain, that the operation of the Holy Spirit is necessary to produce a full persuasion and assurance of the infallible and divine authority of the Scripture, and that therefore, in dwelling upon the proof or evidence by which it may be established in argument, either for the conviction of others or for our own confirmation, we should ever cherish a deep sense of our depend¬ ence upon his agency, and earnestly seek to enjoy his presence and blessing. But this general truth is not the whole of what was maintained by the Reformers when they conceded the necessity of a divine testimony to the divine origin and authority of the Scriptures, and asserted that believers had this, though they denied the infallibility of the church ; nor does it come up to the full import of what is laid down in the declaration of the Confes¬ sion, to which we have adverted. The Confession says that our full persuasion and assurance of the infallible truth and divine authority of the Holy Scripture, and our thorough and efficacious conviction that it is the word of God, is from the inward work of the Holy Spirit bearing witness by and with the word of God in our hearts,” which implies, not only that men have not a full persuasion and assurance that the Scripture is the word of God until they become the subjects of the inward work of the Spirit, but also moreover that they have not this full persuasion and assurance until, in this inward work, he bear witness by and with the word itself. This operation of the Spirit is here called his inward work, to distinguish it from wffiat has been called his outward work, or the gifts of the Holy Spirit, the miracles wrought by the apostles under his agency, which also afford an evidence of the divine authority of the Scriptures, though some intermediate processes of argument are necessary before, from that outward work of the Spirit, the con¬ clusion is reached. 'It is an inward work of his in our hearts, and it is described as his bearing witness. To bear witness in Scrip¬ ture does not always or necessarily mean to declare directly, or assert in express words, but is sometimes used in a wider and more general sense — in that, viz., of producing or furnishing materials or proofs from which, when rightly used and applied, the conclusion follows, or may be deduced. “ But I have greater 328 TWENTY-FIFTH LECTURE. witness {jicioTVPiav /xs/^ova) than that of John ; for the works which the Father hath given me to finish, the same works that I do, bear witness of me h^ov) that the Father hath sent me'’ (John v. 36). “ And God, which knoweth the hearts, bare them witness auro/$), giving them the Holy Ghost, even as he did unto us ” (Acts xv. 8). God also bearing them witness {6\}n>7TiiJ.a^Tvo(jmTog) with signs and wonders, and with divers miracles and gifts of the Holy Ghost, according to his will” (Heb. ii. 4). All then that is necessarily implied in the position that the Spirit bears witness in our hearts to the divine origin and authority of the Scriptures is, that he is the author or efficient cause of this conviction, and that he produces it by supplying us with the necessary means or materials of effecting it, and directing us in the application of them, so that thus the conviction is firmly and thoroughly established. This is all that the word necessarily implies, and there is no reason whatever why, in these passages ot Scripture which speak of the Spirit testifying or bearing witness, or in this passage of the Confession, we should understand it in any other sense ; and especially there is no reason why we should regard it as implying that by a distinct intimation or explicit assertion he directly or immediately tells or assures any believer that the Scriptures are the word of God. The Confession however further specifies the means or materials which the Spirit employs in producing this full persuasion and assurance — it is by and with the word.” There can be no doubt that by these expressions “ by and with the word ” are meant two different classes of materials or proofs which the Spirit employs in his work of persuading and assuring men of the divine origin and authority of the Bible. When he is said to bear witness by the word, the word is viewed objectively, as something out of believers and apart from them, which they contemplate and examine, and in which, when they contemplate and examine it, they are enabled by the Spirit to see plain marks or proofs that it came from God, and is stamped with his authority. In short, this was intended to indicate the internal light of the Bible, including its self-evidencing power, all those things in it, and about it, which, when men’s eyes are opened by the Spirit to behold them, do irresistibly lead them to God as its author. It may include the whole of the internal evidence of the divine oriorin o WITNESS OF THE SPIRIT. 329 of the Scriptures, everything in the Bible itself which, indepen¬ dently of anything we know concerning the human authors and the actual composition of it, as a matter of fact affords proof of its having come from God, and even those branches of the internal evidences which are in some measure capable of being apprehended and discerned by men who have not yet received the Spirit. For, as the leading object of this whole declaration is just to assert that a full persuasion and assurance of the divine origin and authority of the Scripture is not attained until men have become the sub¬ jects of an inward work of the Spirit, there is nothing in the con¬ struction of the sentence which necessarily or even fairly implies that those things mentioned in the preceding part of it, and there declared to be arguments whereby the Holy Scripture doth abund¬ antly evidence itself to be the word of God, viz,, ‘‘the heavenliness of the matter, the efficacy of the doctrine, the majesty of the style, the consent of all the parts, the scope of the whole, which is to give all glory to God, and the full discovery it makes of the only way of man’s salvation,” though capable of being apprehended in some measure, as we shewed you, by natural men who have not the Spirit, yet being in the word, should be excluded from the materials employed by the Spirit when he bears witness by the word in men’s hearts, and thereby produces a full assurance of the divine authority of the Scriptures. It is probable however, though the words do not necessarily imply this, and we are there¬ fore not shut up to this meaning, that the inward work of the Spirit, bearing witness by the word, w^as intended to refer chiefly to these proofs or marks of the divine origin of the Bible which are to be found indeed in itself, viewed objectively, but which are yet not seen or discerned at all until men have the Spirit working in them, and opening their eyes. And this bearing witness with the word in our hearts, as distinguished from his bearing witness hy the word, is intended to indicate the effects or results produced by the Spirit with the word, i.e. acting in conjunction with it upon men’s hearts and characters, usually comprehended under the head of the experimental evidence. The word — i.e. the doctrines and statements of Scripture — produces in a certain sense these changes or results ; and the Spirit produces them, acting along with the word, or using it as his instrument, he alone being their efficient cause; and by producing these effects or changes upon men by the 330 TWENTY-FIFTH LFCTUFF. instrumentality of the word, and thereby affording abundant proof or materials for the conclusion that it came from God, he bears witness with the word in our hearts to the infallible truth and divine authority of the Holy Scriptures, and produces a full persua¬ sion and assurance of this. In illustration of this assertion of the necessity of this inward work of the Spirit, bearing witness by and with the word in our hearts, I refer you to a passage in Owen’s Reason of Faith (vol. iii. pp. 330-338). Indeed, I may remark that Owen’s two works on the self-evidencing power of the Bible and on the reason of faith are in reality, though not so intended, a very full commentary upon these two sections of the Confession which we have been considering — the fourth and fifth of the first chapter. There can be no doubt that the views which he has there unfolded were very much in their whole scope and substance the same as those entertained by the venerable authors of our Confession upon this subject, though in the detailed elucidation of his sentiments Owen has fallen into some obscurities, and per¬ haps into some errors and excesses to which the more careful and compendious statement of general principles in the Confession does not afford any countenance. The quotation is a long one, much longer than any which I have ever before had occasion to submit to you ; but it is very excellent in itself, and it is a much more valuable and authoritative commentary upon this important declaration of the Confession than any I could either discover or produce. LECTURE XXYI. PRINCIPLES AND ARGUMENTS OP THE REFORXIERS ON THE TESTIMONY OP THE SPIRIT — BAXTER AND HALYBURTON. TN last lecture we gave you some explanation of the controversy that was carried on between the Church of Rome and the Reformers in regard to the ground and evidence of the authority of the Scriptures, and the proof that they are the word of God, and illustrated the leading positions bearing upon this subject in the fourth and fifth sections of the Confession of Faith. The substance of all that is taught or implied in the statements of the Confession upon the subject may be comprehended in the following propositions : — 1. That the formal ground or reason of our acknowledging and submitting to the authority of the sacred Scripture, is because it is the word of God. 2. That there are a variety of arguments, external and internal, whereby it is satis¬ factorily proved to be the word of God, and that these arguments are of such a kind as that in right reason they ought to convince unbelievers of its divine origin and authority, and constrain them to examine and study it as a divine revelation. 3. That this conviction or faith in the divine origin and authority of the Scriptures, which may be attained in the ordinary use of men's faculties upon the ordinary rational grounds of evidence appli¬ cable to the subject, does not produce or imply what may be called a full persuasion and assurance, and in this respect accords with what is exhibited in all other departments of the truth that is contingent and not necessary, and that is based upon what philosophers call moral or probable, as distinguished from demon¬ strative evidence. 4. That a full persuasion and assurance of 332 TWENTY-SIXTH LECTURE. the divine origin and authority of the Scriptures is derived only from the inward work of the Holy Spirit, and of course is enjoyed only by believers. 5. That the Holy Spirit produces this full persuasion and assurance by bearing witness by and with the word in their hearts — i.e. that he produces and provides the materials by which this great truth is established, and enables them so to use and apply the materials as to reach and to retain this assurance that the Bible is the word of God; and that these materials or grounds of evidence are of two classes, indicated in the Confession by the expressions hy and with the word — the former indicating the proofs or marks of God and his agency, which are seen in the word itself when men’s eyes are opened by the Spirit to discern them ; and the latter indicating those changes which are produced upon men’s hearts and characters by the Spirit in conjunction with the word, or using the word, i.e. the doctrines or statements of Scripture, as his instrument in effecting them. All this is clearly sanctioned by Scripture, and it is fully con¬ firmed by experience. And in this way, while in the rational evidence for the truth of Christianity and the divine origin and authority of the Scriptures, which can be maintained according to the ordinary laws of reasoning against all gainsayers, we have sufficiently abundant grounds on which we can prove to any man that it is his duty in right reason to receive and treat the Bible as a divine revelation, and to examine it with earnestness, diligence, and prayer, that he may ascertain the will of God ; we see also abundant provision made for confirming the faith of those who have believed through grace, and enabling them to hold fast their profes¬ sion without wavering, and to go on from one degree of knowledge and grace unto another until they appear before God perfect in Zion. We have not yet, however, fully explained to you how it was that the Reformers endeavoured to shew that in this witness of the Spirit they had a divine testimony for their conviction that the Scripture is the word of God, and that so their faith was a divine as distinguished from a human faith. Their general principle was this, that the Holy Spirit bore witness by and with the word in the hearts of believers, and that this was the Spirit himself assuring believers that the Scripture is the word of God, and that thus they had a divine testimony or assurance, even that of the Spirit, to this fundamental truth. This, as a general WITNESS OF THE SPIRIT. 333 principle rightly understood, is undoubtedly true and important. But in the discussions to which this , subject gave rise, the prin¬ ciple was sometimes misapplied by Protestants, and carried too far, so as to afford some advantages to Papists on the one hand, and to enthusiasts on the other; and then, through the errors of the enthusiasts, to those rationalists who were opposed to the testimony or witness of the Spirit in any sense. Some of those who have opposed Popish and defended Protestant views upon this subject, have gone further than was necessary or warrantable in admitting the absolute necessity of what is called a divine testimony to the truth of the doctrine, that the Scripture is the word of God, as if every one must have this before he can rest with peace and confidence on the divine origin of the Bible, and must be able to give some account of this as the ground of his assurance to others. Neither Protestants nor Panists, in discussinsf this subject, have always attended with sufficient care to the distinction between the evidence by which we can prove this truth to others, and that by which we may be confirmed and thoroughly established in our own conviction of it. Men need not be very much concerned with regard to the precise character, as a mere mental state, of their belief in the divine origin of the Bible, with regard to the precise way in which it has been produced, provided they are truly persuaded of it, and can give such reasons for their persuasion as are satisfactory to their own minds, and ought in sound reason to be satisfactory to others ; and provided this persuasion is of such a kind as to lead them really to deal with the Scripture as coming from God, stamped with his authority, and containing an authentic revelation of his will. They are not to imagine that they are exempt from any obligation to deal with the Bible as the word of God, because they may not yet have attained to that full persuasion and assurance which the Holy Spirit alone can produce, and when they are using the Bible as the word of God, increasing in their acquaintance with its statements under the guidance and teaching of the Holy Spirit, having thus further discoveries opened up to them of the will of God, and being brought more fully under its practical power, they will have a full persuasion and assurance that it is the word of God, without probably making this question a subject of much direct consideration, or feeling much necessity 334 TWENTY-SIXTH LECTURE. for giving a specific statement even to themselves of the grounds upon which this full persuasion rests. It is certain that the Holy Spirit alone can produce this per¬ suasion, and that he does not produce it until he bears witness in their hearts, by and with the word, by enabling them to see the traces of God’s hand in the word in producing it, and of his agency upon themselves in effecting important changes through means of the word, which is thus proved to come from himself. But when they have once been brought into this state of full per¬ suasion and assurance, and have been thereafter assaulted with temptations to infidelity — and this is really the only case in which the question can become one of any practical importance — we cannot see any reason to doubt that they themselves may have recourse to, and that the Spirit may employ for preserving them in or restoring them to a full persuasion, any considerations or arguments which really go to prove that the Scripture is the word of God, even those which may be founded partly upon the testi¬ mony of man. As some of the Beformers, in their anxiety to secure a fair basis for the assurance of personal salvation, against the attempts of the Church of Rome to involve this whole matter in doubt and uncertainty, in order that men might be led to rest in the authority of the church as the only 'proof of it, were led into the error of making assurance of personal salvation of the essence, and including it in their definition, of saving faith ; so some of them have been led to speak of the necessity of a divine testimony as the basis of our faith in the divine origin of the Scripture in a way that is not very easy to be understood, or is somewhat liable to be abused. The general idea which some of them seem to have entertained upon this point was this, that in order to have a right persuasion on this matter, based upon a right foundation, each man must be able to say that he has the testi¬ mony of the Spirit bearing witness to him, without the interven¬ tion of any human testimony, that the Bible is the word of God. They did not indeed imagine that the Holy Spirit was to tell or declare this to them directly by an impression produced imme¬ diately upon their minds. This was an abuse of the principle by fanatics and enthusiasts. The Reformers generally held that there must be proof or evidence of this which the Holy Spirit enabled them to see and appreciate, and by which he produced the con- WITNESS OF THE SPIRIT. 335 viction. But as they were anxious to exclude from the process everything that was merely human, that depended merely upon man and his testimony, they were disposed to limit the operation of the Spirit in producing or elfecting this persuasion, to the evi¬ dence that was found in the Bible itself, irrespective of anything we know concerning its human authors, or concerning its composi¬ tion, as a matter of historical fact, that thus there might be nothing intermediate between the Bible itself and the proof contained in it of its divine original, when opened up and impressed by the Spirit ; and that thus it might be said that this persuasion rested upon the Spirit’s witness — i.e. a divine testimony — without the intervention of anything human. Some, labouring to explain this, and overlooking the distinction between the evidence by which the truth might be established against infidels, and that by which it might be satisfactorily confirmed to believers, were in this way led unduly to depreciate the external evidences, even for their appropriate purpose, though their argument did not at all require this, and likewise to speak sometimes as if the Holy Spirit were not only the efficient cause of this persuasion, but as if he in some way or other gave them proof or evidence of it by his agency apart from the proof or evidence which existed in the Bible itself, and in what they themselves had experienced, viewed in connection with the Scripture as the instrumental, and with the Holy Spirit as the efficient cause of it. The different distinctions upon this subject are indicated and summed up in a single sentence of Bi chard Baxter’s, and a few remarks upon it may tend to elucidate them. It is from the second part of his Unreasonableness of Infidelity ’ .* — “ I shall not add here that immediate witness of the Spirit within us which some assert is only sufficient, which is neither an objective testifying from without, nor an objective testifying by the aforesaid works of grace within, nor an effective testimony by producing our belief of the objective, all which I have asserted ; but is moreover first, either another inobjective testimony as by an inward word or enunciation of another to our mind ; secondly, or else an efficient testifying by causing us to believe without the objective evi¬ dence, or only upon this last supposed internal enunciation of his own. For these enthusiasms or inspirations let them boast of them that have them, but let them not blame me if I prove them not common or necessary to all ; nay, if I prove that the former without them are sufficient testimony within us of the truth of this doctrine.” ^ Works by Orme, vol. xx. p. 136. 336 TWENTY-SIXTH LECTURE. Now, there is nothing that is here expressly asserted by Baxter to which the generality of the Reformers would have objected. They generally rejected what he rejects, though their language was some¬ times not altogether free from ambiguity ; and they maintained in substance what he maintains, though on one point they would have been disposed to make an addition to it, which they usually reckoned of some importance. What Baxter here rejects as not comprehended in the scriptural view of the witness of the Spirit, is an inobjective testimony, as by an inward word or enunciation of another to our mind, and also an efficient testifying by causing us to believe without the objective evidence, or only upon this last supposed enunciation of his own ; in other words, he holds, and the Reformers and Protestants in general agree with him, that the testimony and witness of the Spirit is not a declaration which the Spirit makes to us, an impression which he produces upon us irre¬ spective of any objective evidence which is in itself a proof of the truth, though it might not have been seen or appreciated without his agency. It is only by means of something which really proves that the Bible is the word of God, whether it be found in ourselves or in the Bible, or be adduced from the ordinary sources of human knowledge, that the Holy Spirit produces in believers a full per¬ suasion and assurance of its divine origin and authority. And what Baxter maintains and defends upon this subject is — 1. An objective testifying by the Spirit from without; and by this he means principally, as is evident from the general scope of his argument, the miracles wrought by the authors of the books of the New Testament, and which are ascribed in Scripture to the Holy Spirit. 2. An objective testifying by the works of grace within ; and this is just the experimental evidence in the higher and stricter sense of it, the changes which are wrought upon men’s hearts and characters, and which are not only accordant with what the Scripture tells us are to be expected from the influence of the truth, but are themselves manifestlv traceable to the doctrines and statements of the Bible as their proximate cause. And 3. An effective testifying of the Spirit producing our belief of the objec¬ tive, i.e. not only producing the materials which afford proofs or evidences of the divine origin of the Scriptures, but enabling us to see and appreciate them, and impressing deeply and powerfully upon our minds the conclusion which these materials are fitted to WITNESS OF THE SPIRIT. 337 produce, and enabling us also to retain and apply it. What the Reformers generally, and those who have defended their principles, would object to in the statements of Baxter, is the omission of the internal objective testimony, and more especially that branch of it usually called the self-evidencing power of the Bible. He men¬ tions the external evidence, especially the miracles of the authors of the books of the New Testament, and the experimental, in the changes produced upon men, as these may undoubtedly be called the testimony of the Spirit, since he produces the mate¬ rials and enables us to apply them ; but he says nothing of the internal proofs of the divine origin of the Scripture found in the Scripture itself, viewed objectively and apart from the changes which it is the instrument in the Spirit’s hand of effecting upon believers. Some of the Reformers would have objected to his comprehending the external evidence under the head of the tes¬ timony of the Spirit ; but in regard to this matter, it seems pretty evident that in the sense, and to the extent formerly explained, Baxter was right and they wrong. We hold it quite as evident that in omitting the internal evidence of a divine origin which is found in the Bible itself, and which the Spirit enables believers to see, Baxter did not bring out the whole truth necessary for explaining and unfolding the testimony or witness of the Spirit. He has explained fully what is comprehended in the Confession of Faith under the expression the Spirit bearing witness with the word, but he has omitted what, as we formerly explained to you, seems to have been intended by the expression of his bearing wit- ners hy the word. It is to be observed, however, that Baxter has nowhere denied the self-evidencing power of the Bible, or argued against it, though he seems to have felt that it did not admit of being very clearly and distinctly explained to those who had not been enabled by the Spirit to see and feel it, and that therefore it was of less practical importance to dwell upon it. And I have no doubt, as I formerly hinted, that it was this reticence on Baxter’s part that Owen referred to in the statement contained in the passage I referred to in his Reason of Faith, when he says — Some, I confess, speak suspiciously hereon, but until they will directly deny it, I shall not need further to confirm it.” It is deserving also of remark that Baxter, immediately after the Y 338 TWENTY-SIXTH LECTURE. quotation above given from him, refers for a fuller explanation of his views to a work of Barmens against Spalatensis, and to Amyraldus in the Theses Salmurienses, and that Amyraldus (for Barmens I have not seen) is very full and explicit, when treating of the autho¬ rity of Scripture and the testimony of the Spirit, in maintaining the validity and sufficiency of the internal proofs found in the Bible itself of its divine origin. Indeed, he lays down as his two funda¬ mental propositions upon that subject — '' Non aliunde certe et indubitate sciri posse scripturam esse divinam, quam ex ipsa scrip- tura and second, “ Ex scriptura ipsa certissime sciri posse earn esse divinitus traditam hominibus.” These, and especially the second, viz., that the divine origin and authority of the Scriptures can be fully established from the Scrip¬ ture itself, from what is actually contained and found there, though men may not be able to discern it fully until the Spirit opens their eyes, were the great truths upon this subject which the Beformers were anxious to establish, and which they held to be of great import¬ ance in their controversy with the Papists. They thought that by establishing the proposition that the Scripture evidenced itself to be the word of God, they secured two important objects — first, that they could thus shew how men’s faith in the divine origin and authority of the Scriptures rested wholly upon a divine as dis¬ tinguished from a human testimony, since the Holy Spirit thus produced this persuasion in their minds, using as his medium or instrument in producing it only what was his own work, viz., the Bible itself, and that thus nothing depending upon the mere testimony of men came in to lower the character of their faith as divine and supernatural ; and second, what was perhaps a matter of greater real importance, that they could thus explain fully what was called the resolution of faith, or the investigation of this question. What is the ultimate basis or foundation, or first principle, into which men’s faith in the divine origin and authority of the Bible resolves itself ? This was a question much discussed between the Church of Home and the Reformers, and it is still often brought forward as an important article in the Popish controversy. Though the Papists boast much of the certainty and security of their mode of resolving faith, yet they really leave men’s faith without any firm and certain basis, or first principle, to rest upon. When you ask RESOLUTION OF FAITH. 339 a Papist, Why do you believe that the Scripture is the word of God ? his answer is, because the church, which is infallible, assures me it is ; and if you ask, Why do you believe the church to be infallible ? they usually answer, because the Scripture declares it to be so ; and thus they prove the Scripture by the church, and the church by the Scripture, and so go round in a vicious circle, as logicians call it, without ever making any progress in the argument, just because they have not any one distinct and independent point from which to start, any one fixed principle on which they can rest their foot. They have made very ingenious attempts to escape from this charge of reasoning in a circle on the resolution of faith, but without success ; thus, even if we were to concede to them that the Scripture did establish, in place of overturning, the infallibility of the church, as it assuredly does in their sense of the words, we could still prove that, in explaining what their faith in the divine authority of the Scripture is resolved into, they have no clear, independent, and well established ground to stand on. It was the discussion of this subject of the resolution of faith that chiefly led the Reformers to attach so much import¬ ance to the establishment of the position that the Scripture proves itself ; that it is avTo^itsrog ; that it may be proved to come from God from what is contained in itself, without necessarily requiring argumentative support from any other quarter ; and that thus it is a first principle, which, being fully established by its own proper and independent evidence, becomes the rightful basis of all subse¬ quent discussion. When the Papists, in dealing with this explana¬ tion of the resolution of faith, alleged that they could not see any such self-evidencing power about the Bible, and that they were not bound to admit it, the Reformers contended that it was there objectively, though it could not be seen fully and appreciated, except by the teaching of the Holy Spirit ; and as the question under discussion was not as to the way of establishing the divine origin and authority of the Scriptures as against men who openly deny it, but as to how believers may be satisfied and assured in their own minds, — though, as I have said, this distinction was not always very carefully attended to in the course of the controversy on either side, — the answer was sufficient and satisfactory, provided due care was taken in the explanation of the matter to distinguish between the agency of the Holy Spirit in enabling men to see 340 TWENTY-SIXTH LECTURE. the evidence, and in producing, by means of the evidence in the Bible itself, a full persuasion and assurance in their minds on the one hand, and on the other, any such supposed agency as implied that he, apart from the word itself and the evidence existing in it, produced or furnished the reasons or considerations on account of which they believed the Scriptures to be the word of God. Some of the defenders of the Reformation did not always keep in view this distinction between what Baxter calls the effective and the objective testimony of the Spirit, and thus afforded some plausible grounds to the Papists for retorting the charge of reason¬ ing in a circle, in this way ; by alleging that Protestants proved the divine authority of the Bible by the testimony of the Spirit, and then proved that it is indeed the Holy Spirit whose testimony they have, by the means which the Scripture affords for deter¬ mining what is the Spirit’s testimony. There would be some ground for this allegation if Protestants brought in the testimony of the Spirit as occupying the same place which Papists assign to the testimony of the church, viz., as being the reason or motive on account of which they believe the Scripture to be the word of God. But when they adhere to the great principle that the reasons or motives on account of which they believe exist, and are to be found in the Scripture itself, and maintain only that the Holy Spirit is the efficient cause through whose agency they are enabled to discern this evidence, and to attain to a full persuasion of its validity, the vicious circle is entirely avoided ; a firm and distinct first principle is settled in the avro<^iCTia of the Bible itself, while provision is at the same time made for the produc¬ tion and the explanation of that full persuasion and assurance of the infallible truth and divine authority of the Holy Scripture which, in the language of our Confession, results from the inward work of the Holy Spirit bearing witness by and with the word in our hearts. This is a somewhat intricate subject, and perhaps, in order to its complete elucidation, would require a fuller discussion than our limits permit us to give to it. I have adverted to it chiefly because it was naturally suggested by the explanation of the import and the reference of the important statements upon this subject contained in the Confession, and because the explana¬ tions which have been given, brief and imperfect as they are, may perhaps afford you some assistance in understanding the references LITERATURE OF THE SUBJECT. 341 to it which you may meet with in the course of your studies. If you wish to examine the subject more fully, you will find abundant materials in the work formerly quoted, as referred to by Baxter, Syntagma Thesium Theologicaruw. in academia Salmuriensi dis- 20utataTum, commonlj known by the name of Theses Salmuriensesy under the head De Authoritate Sacrce Scrivturce. It is a valuable work, containing a collection of dissertations upon a great variety of subjects, by the three professors of the Protestant University of Saumur — Capellus, Amyraldus, and Placseus. It exhibits how¬ ever, I must warn you, in substance that system of theology which Baxter himself advocated, and which is sometimes known in this country by the name of Baxterianism, which is an awkward attempt to find a solid resting-place somewhere between Calvin¬ ism and Arminianism, and which, beginning usually in some vague notion of a general atonement, which is in reality no atone¬ ment, of a universal redemption, which is in reality no redemption, has too often led men at length to an open denial of God’s sove¬ reignty in the salvation of sinners, and to an assertion of the natural power of men to repent and believe and come to Christ. A still better discussion of this subject than that which Amy¬ raldus has given in the Theses Salmurienses, you will find in Turretine, in the second book of his System, under the head De ScriptuTce Sacrce auctoritate ; in two separate dissertations upon the same subject in the fifth volume of his works ; and in a treatise, De Circulo Pontijicio, in his fourth volume. In the two separate dissertations he discusses fully the respective provinces and functions of the church, the Scripture itself, and the Holy Spirit, in proving and establishing the divine origin and authority of the Bible ; and in the other, De Circulo Pontijicio, he fully establishes against the Popish mode of resolving faith the charge of a vicious circulation of the argument, and defends the Protestant doctrine against the Popish attempt to retort this charge ; admitting, however, that some Protestant writers have spoken incautiously upon that point, so as to afford some plausible grounds for the allegation, by merely substituting the testimony of the Spirit for that of the church, as if they were causes of the same kind, and were both equally alleged by their respective supporters as the reason, consideration, or motive on account of which the divine authority of the Scripture is believed. 342 TWENTY-SIXTH LECTURE. The principal writers of our own country upon this subject, except in so far as it is mixed up with the Popish controversy, are those who have been already so often referred to, and whose merits and defects I have already had occasion in some measure to point out — Baxter, Owen, and Halyburton. Owen and Haly- hurton are directed not so much against the Church of Eome, although they contain materials which may he of use also in the Popish controversy, but rather against those rationalists, as Halyburton calls them, who deny that the Bible contains within itself proof or evidence of its divine origin, and that the work of the Holy Spirit is necessary to produce a thorough and efficacious persuasion that it is the word of God. Halyburton’s book contains much most valuable matter, but he has not succeeded completely in bringing out very clearly the real error and evil of the views contained in those chapters in Locke’s Essay, upon which he chiefly animadverts, and he has certainly made some statements which go to the opposite extreme, and which require to be modified by those important principles which Dr Chalmers has illustrated as to the spiritual evidences not in any way superseding or impair¬ ing the rational, and as to the sufficiency of the rational evidences, for their own appropriate end and object, and especially for imposing upon men obligations which, if rightly felt and discharged, would assuredly lead to much higher attainments in the strength and efficacy of their faith, as well as in the extent of their know¬ ledge and the elevation of their motives. LECTURE XXVII. PLENAKY VERBAL INSPIRATION : ITS GENERAL NATURE, IMPORT, AND GROUNDS. i WE formerly considered the subject of the divine origin and authority of the books of Scripture ; and the proofs, external and internal, by which it may be established. In doing so, we assumed that it had been proved that Jesus was a teacher sent from God, and that the apostles whom he sent forth were commis¬ sioned and qualified to reveal God’s will to men ; and also that the writings of these apostles have come down to us in substantial integrity, so as to convey to us a correct account of what they pro¬ claimed to men as God’s will revealed to them. Upon the ground of these truths proved, we are of course bound to believe whatever they have declared to us as coming from God, and whatever they have made known to us as to God’s revelation to them, the com¬ mission they received, and the manner in which they executed it. With these materials, there is no difficulty in proving that the writings of the apostles, as well as their public instructions, v/ere composed under the guidance and direction of the Holy Spirit, so that a divine origin and divine authority may be justly ascribed to them; and then upon the ground of the testimony of our Lord and his apostles, were there no other proof, the divine origin and authority of the Old Testament would be fully established. We shewed you that under the general head of the divine origin and authority of the books of Scripture, was comprehended a consider¬ able variety of opinion as to the nature and extent of God’s agency in the production of them, and the consequent character of the resulting product. Some who profess to hold the divine origin and authority of the Bible, admitting the supernatural agency of 344 TWENTY-SEVENTH LECTURE. God only partially even as to the matter of the Scripture, confin¬ ing it to what they think fitted to convey instruction on subjects of religion and morality; and others extending it to all the matter contained in Scripture, but admitting it only partially in regard to the language. We explained to you something of the general grounds on which these partial and defective views of the divine origin and authority of the Scripture rested, and by which they were commonly defended, and pointed out the unreasonableness and presumption of the process of argument by which such conclu¬ sions had been generally reached, viz., by laying down the principle, that no more of divine agency was to be admitted in the produc¬ tion of the Bible than was absolutely necessary, and then with this principle going over the Bible and marking off what parts of it, or what classes of subjects treated of, required supernatural divine agency, and distinguishing also, according to their own views of the necessity of the case, what kind and degree of divine agency was required in order to the production of the different parts of the Bible. We shewed you also that the arguments by which the divine origin and authority of the Bible as a general truth may be established, proved, if they proved anything, a larger amount of divine agency to have been exerted in the pro¬ duction of them than most of these theories would admit of; and we adverted to the important consideration that we have no indi¬ cation whatever, in any of the statements of Scripture itself, of ^ there having been different kinds or degrees of inspiration em¬ ployed in producing it. We intimated our opinion that the doctrine of the plenary or verbal inspiration of the whole Bible was true, and might be successfully defended ; and distinguishing between this subject and the more extensive and general one of the divine origin and authority of the Scriptures, we proposed to consider this under the head of inspiration, as being that which alone seemed fully worthy of the name. So that practically the question which now lies before us for consideration amounts in substance to this, whether the doctrine of the plenary verbal inspiration of the Scriptures, or that view of the divine origin and authority of the Scriptures which approaches nearest to it, which stands next to it as to the kind and degree of divine agency exerted in the production of the books of Scripture, be the true one. Many of those who are opposed to the verbal inspiration of PLENARY VERBAL INSPIRATION. 345 the whole Scriptures, have professed to maiutain what they have called its complete and plenary inspiration. We think that in fairness the word plenary should be reserved for the view which asserts the entire verbal inspiration ; but it is certain as a matter of fact, that some who have rejected the verbal have yet professed to maintain the plenary, while others of them with greater accuracy and candour have claimed credit only for maintaining the complete inspiration. Those who profess to maintain the plenary or com¬ plete, while they deny the entire verbal inspiration, entertain views upon the subject of this sort. They think that the authors of the different books of Scripture had as much of divine guidance and assistance as the necessity of the case required ; that the same degree of divine agency was not always necessary, and therefore was not given ; that there were different kinds or degrees of inspira¬ tion employed in the production of the different parts of Scripture, and more especially two, viz. — first, what they call the inspiration of superintendence, when the Holy Spirit, leaving the authors gener¬ ally to the exercise of their own faculties, and the use and applica¬ tion of their own knowledge for the words they ought to employ, merely watched over them to guard against error; and second, the inspiration of suggestion, when the Holy Spirit not only revealed to them the matter or the thoughts, but also suggested or dictated to them the words in which it was to be conveyed. When men thus admit that the whole Scripture was superintended by the Holy Spirit, so as to have been preserved from all error, while some part of it was suggested or dictated by him, they not very unnaturally allege and attempt to shew, that this is all that is necessary for leading us to regard it as the word of God, and to submit implicitly to the authority of its statements, as an infallible rule or standard, and that thus there is no material practical diff’erence between their views and that of the entire verbal inspiration of Scripture, while their theory they allege escapes some of the difficulties to which the doctrine of verbal inspiration is exposed. It is true that there is an essential difference between a doctrine of this sort and that which denies verbal inspiration as attaching to any part of Scripture, and Avhich admits inspiration in any sense, or supernatural divine assistance, only in regard to parts of the Bible, and not the whole, only in regard to some classes of the subjects of which the Bible treats, and not them 346 TWENTY-SEVENTH LECTURE. all. And it is true also that some of those who, while advocating these views, have denied the verbal inspiration of the Scriptures, have spoken of the entire freedom of the Bible from all error or mistake, and of the accuracy and correctness which the agency of the Holy Spirit secured in some way or other to all its statements, so as to make their doctrine as to the perfection and authority of the Bible, and the respect and reverence due to all that is con¬ tained in it, substantially and practically identical, if fairly followed out and applied, with that which asserts their verbal inspiration. The question as between these two doctrines cannot indeed be said to be one of vital or essential importance. And yet even independently of the decision of the question which ought to settle the point, viz., which of these doctrines is true, wBich is supported by the best evidence, experience seems to indicate that there is something injurious or dangerous in any view which comes short of maintaining the verbal inspiration of Scripture. For many of those who have opposed this doctrine have failed in fol¬ lowing fully out even their own principle, and have shewn some disposition to tamper with the reverence due to what is the word of God. And indeed it is manifest that there must be some diffi¬ culty in preserving a frame of mind pervaded by dne reverence for the sacred Scriptures, unless it be based upon a conviction that it is all traceable to the agency of the Holy Spirit, and the impression that it is all traceable to the agency of the Holy Spirit, and that it really is the word of God, and not merely the word of man, must be vague, faint, and ineffective, unless it be based upon a distinct conviction that the Holy Spirit not merely superintended the writers so as to preserve them from error, but suggested to them the words in which the matter he communicated to them was to be conveyed. Still I would not have you to cherish an exaggerated sense of the importance of the special point of the plenary verbal inspiration of the whole Scripture. In some discussions which took place in this country a few years ago upon this subject of inspiration, while the opponents of verbal inspiration in general manifested great unsoundness of principle and great looseness of sentiment, the defenders, and especially Mr B. Haldane and Mr Carson, while carrying off a most clear and decisive victory in argument, perhaps overrated the importance of the precise point in dispute. The notion of what is commonly called partial inspiration, which ascribes PLENARY VERBAL INSPIRATION 347 inspiration only to some part of the Bible, and not to all, or only to what men in their wisdom are pleased to regard as conveying instruction in matters of religion and morality, is most injurious and dangerous, for it virtually deprives the Bible of all real autho¬ rity as a rule or standard of faith, and leaves men at liberty to exercise their own judgment at discretion upon all the statements it contains; and as the notion was most probably adopted just for the very purpose of securing this liberty, the privilege is pretty certain to be abused. But when men assure us that they believe that the whole Bible is traceable more or IcvSS directly to the agency of the Holy Spirit, that it has been all composed under such control on his part as to be entirely free from all error or mistake, and thus to be an infallible rule or standard, whose meaning is to be humbly, dilligently, and prayerfully ascertained, and then to be implicitly received and obeyed, and when they give any fair evidence of honestly and faithfully following out this conviction in practice, we have no right to put them in the same category as those who, in the sense above described, admit only a partial inspiration, or to represent their opinions as characterised by the same injurious tendency, merely because they see some difficulties in the way of asserting the plenary verbal inspiration of the Scriptures. When the dispute is narrowed to this point, the con¬ siderations of a general kind which bear upon the settlement of it are neither so numerous nor so weighty as when, in contending with the Socinians, the controversy is between inspiration and no inspiration, or, as when contending with men whose opinions are not so erroneous as those of the Socinians, the controversy is between partial and complete inspiration. Still there are not wanting some general considerations which afford something of a presumption in favour of the doctrine of a plenary verbal inspiration. Verbal inspiration is that which we would wish for and desire to have in any writing which was to be the rule and standard of our faith, and on the precise meaning of which, as ascertained from a careful examination of the words of which it was composed, such infinitely important consequences were suspended. We all feel that this would produce much greater reverence in our minds in the study of the writing, and would tend to invest its statements with a higher and more commanding authority. We are not entitled to pronounce 348 TWENTY-SEVENTH LECTURE. dogmatically beforehand either that it was or was not necessary for effecting the ends which the Bible was intended to serve. But we can see, and we are entitled to assert, that some important practical purposes would be accomplished by the Holy Spirit having suggested the words as well as the matter of the whole Bible, and making known to us that this had been done. And this consideration affords at least as strong a presumption in favour of the doctrine of verbal inspiration as its alleged non¬ necessity does against it. And even if we were to admit this principle, that we are to acknowledge in the production of the Bible only the smallest amount of divine supernatural agency that was necessary in order to make it free from error and universally correct, it is by no means clear or certain that the application of this test would exclude the doctrine of verbal inspiration. Upon the supposition of verbal inspiration through¬ out, the Holy Spirit is regarded as taking possession, as it were, of the man for a time, pervading all his powers and faculties, and employing him with all his powers and faculties in exercise, and without preventing or superseding their ordinary and accustomed operation in producing a portion of what was to be received and handed down as the word of God, fitted and intended to make men wise unto salvation. Whereas upon the theory which denies plenary verbal inspiration to any portion of Scripture, the state of the case must have been this, that while in regard to some portions of Scripture, where verbal inspiration was necessary, the Spirit must have acted as above described ; in regard to many other portions, some of them, these men would probably say, found more or less in every book of Scripture, He only stood by, watching the proceedings of the author whom he was super¬ intending, ready at any moment to interfere when the author was about to fall into any mistake, either in his sentiments or in his words, and actually interfering to prevent anything of this sort just at the moment when it was about, but for his super¬ natural interposition, to have occurred. This is a perfectly fair representation of the place assigned to the Holy Spirit in the production of the Bible, by the theory which denies a plenary verbal inspiration, and , ascribes the composition of the Scriptures partly to the inspiration of suggestion, and partly to the inspiration of superintendence. It is easy to see which doctrine tends most PLENARY VERBAL LNSPIRATLON 349 to promote worthy and exalted conceptions of the agency of the Holy Spirit in this matter ; it is not easy to say which implies the larger amount of supernatural divine agency in the production of the books of Scripture, while it seems pretty plain that the inspiration of suggestion, or a plenary verbal inspiration, really implies less of supernatural crossing and interference with the ordinary exercise of all men’s powers and faculties, than the inspiration of superintendence, for the purpose of guarding against any error. But, after all, the question under consideration is one of fact, and must be decided by the appropriate evidence appli¬ cable to it as such ; and the only sources from which we can get any authentic information upon the point are, either the state¬ ments of Scripture, if there are such, bearing directly upon this topic, or the Scripture viewed as a whole, and by its general character and complexion, as well as by its specific features, indicating something concerning its origin and composition. The first of these sources is much the most satisfactory and authori¬ tative, because as the divine commission of the authors of the books of Scripture, and even the truth and accuracy of all its statements, are admitted by those with whom we are at present arguing, its authority must be conclusive upon the question, if it has indeed afforded any materials for deciding it ; while mere inferences from the general characteristics of Scripture must be liable to great uncertainty. Before proceeding however to consider what materials there are in Scripture for deciding this question, we must explain somewhat more fully what we mean by the entire verbal inspiration of Scrip¬ ture, and what it is that we really mean to maintain and defend. The verbal inspiration of Scripture implies in general that the words of Scripture were suggested or dictated by the Holy Spirit, as well as the substance or the matter, and this not only in some portions of Scripture, but through the whole ; not only when it communi¬ cates to us information about matters which the human authors of the books could not have known at all without a supernatural divine revelation, but also when it tells us of matters of which they might have acquired some knowledge, in the exercise of their natural faculties, and in the improvement of their ordinary oppor¬ tunities ; not only in those portions which may appear to treat more directly and formally of religious and moral subjects, but in 350 T]YENTY-SEVENTII lecture. all, even the historical narratives. We have, however, two or three observations to make in illustration of the meaning and import of this position, before we proceed to advert to the scriptural evidence on which it is based. 1. The doctrine of the plenary verbal inspiration does not by any means imply that everything stated in Scripture proceeded from the supernatural agency of the Holy Spirit. There are some things recorded in Scripture, especially speeches and letters, which were not themselves the result of any supernatural agency. The doctrine of plenary verbal inspiration implies that the author of the book of Scripture, where they are recorded, was guided by the Holy Spirit to record them, and that under this divine guidance he has recorded them correctly. Whether the sayings or speeches and letters recorded in the Scriptures were themselves inspired or not, must be decided by evidence derived from some other source than the mere fact that they are recorded there, even though it be believed that the recording of them is to be ascribed to the inspiration of the Spirit. We have the sayings of bad as well as good men recorded in the sacred Scriptures ; and even in regard to the sayings of good men recorded there, we are by no means shut up to the conclusion that because the Holy Spirit has recorded them, therefore he originally inspired them. The truth is that, in regard to the sayings of good men recorded in Scripture, we must judge of them upon the same principles by which we judge of their actions, endeavouring to ascertain, from the general principles set forth in Scripture, and from the particu¬ lar circumstances of the case, whether or not they were in accord¬ ance with the mind and will of God, and said or done under the immediate guidance of the Spirit. It is certain, for example, that some of the statements of Job and of his friends in their confer¬ ence with him were erroneous, and indicated a wrong state of mind and feeling. We know this from the express declaration of - God himself, and we cannot therefore ascribe them all to the inspiration of the Spirit, although it may nevertheless be true that he has correctly recorded them, and has done so for our instruction, and in order that we may derive from them some benefit. If Paul had been guided to record what Peter probably said to him in defence or in palliation of his conduct, when Paul withstood him to the face because he was to be blamed, this EXPLANATIONS. 351 would have had no more right to be regarded as inspired, and should no more have been traced to the agency of the Spirit, than the conduct itself, which we know to have been wrong. There may be some cases in which it may not be easy to determine with certainty whether sayings and speeches recorded in Scrip¬ ture were free from all error in fact or in sentiment. But this is nothing more than is exhibited in regard to some of the actions of good men recorded there. Some persons, for example, have been disposed to defend as unobjectionable the conduct of Abraham in saying that Sarah was his sister, because there was a sense in which, according to a then prevalent mode of speaking, it was true ; while most commentators have condemned it as intended to deceive, and therefore inconsistent with the plain rules of duty which the word of God contains. There has been a difference of opinion among commentators as to the warrantableness aud the innocency of Paul’s conduct recorded in Acts xxiii. 6, 7, some holding that it lay within the limits of legitimate prudence and dexterity, and others that it did not, but partook somewhat of the character of an equivocal artifice. The inspiration of the Scrip¬ tures is not affected by these doubts or difficulties about some of the actions of good men recorded there, and neither is it affected by similar doubts or difficulties in regard to some of their sayings or speeches, which are also recorded without any very certain inti¬ mation being in all cases given to us as to whether the sayings and speeches were themselves suggested by the Holy Spirit, and in all respects accordant with God’s will. One of the most important of the cases to which this difficulty has been applied is the case of the speech of Stephen, recorded in the seventh chapter of the Acts. Some statements occurring in this speech, which are at variance with the fuller narrative of the same events contained in the books of Moses, have led some commentators to suggest, as the best way of getting over the difficulty, that we are not bound to admit that this speech, though recorded by the Spirit for our instruction, was originally dictated or inspired by him, and that therefore Stephen may have fallen into some historical mistakes. But it seems very plain from the whole narrative that the speech was inspired, and that therefore some other means must be taken of reconciling the discrepancies, which indeed can without any great difficulty be explained. Some of the opponents of plenary 352 TWENTY-SEVENTH LECTURE. inspiration have represented it as implying the truth of this pro¬ position, and as indeed resolvable into it, “ that whatever is contained in the Bible is religion, and was revealed by God;” and some currency has been given of late to this misrepresenta¬ tion among a certain class, in consequence of its having been brought forward and urged by Coleridge in his Confessions. It is however a very gross and palpable misrepresentation. No advocate of plenary verbal inspiration ever maintained that what¬ ever is contained in the Bible is religion, and was revealed by God. No man can prove that the doctrine of verbal inspiration requires them in consistency to maintain this or anything like it ; and indeed the distinction above explained upon this point is so plain as at once, when merely stated, to commend itself to every man’s understanding. 2. We remark, in the second place, that when we maintain that the Scripture is the word of God, dictated throughout by the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, this does not imply, and is not understood as implying, that it is not also the word of man. Every one of the books which compose the Bible had a human author, who composed it, and who in composing it exercised his ordinary natural powers and faculties. We know this as a matter of historical fact, proved by the usual appropriate evidence, and we know it from what appears plainly and palpably upon the dace of the Scripture itself. It has never been denied that the writ¬ ings which compose the Scriptures are characterised by the obvious individual peculiarities of their authors in point of style, expres¬ sion, and manner. There is an obvious diversity of style in the different hooks which compose the Bible, just as there is in the writings of other authors who had no divine assistance, no super¬ natural inspiration; and these differences, just as in the case of ordinary authors, can be in some measure traced to and explained by what we know of the general character of the author, and even of his outward circumstances, the opportunities he enjoyed, and the influences by which his natural character may have been formed. All this is true as a matter of fact, and cannot be reason¬ ably disputed. It affords, beyond all question, abundant ground for the inference, that the books of Scripture are, and may be called, the works or productions of the human authors whose names they bear, inasmuch as it shews that in the composition of these books HUMAN AUTHORSHIP. 353 their ordinary powers and faculties were not in abeyance, were not superseded or excluded, but were exercised. This fact has been strongly founded upon as an argument against the plenary verbal inspiration of Scripture ; and if the fact does disprove it, the question is ended, for the fact cannot be reasonably doubted. As an objection to the verbal inspiration it will be afterwards adverted to. We refer to it at present simply for the purpose of impressing upon you the consideration that in maintaining that the Scripture is the word of God, as having been all suggested or dictated by the Spirit, we do not mean to deny that it is also the word of men, composed by them in the exercise, and not in the abeyance, of their ordinary natural powers. The defenders of verbal inspiration maintain that, in one sense or respect, the Scripture is wholly the word of God, and that in another sense or respect, though just as truly and really, it is wholly the word of man ; whereas all who deny the verbal inspiration are shut up, in consistency, to the necessity of making statements which clearly imply in substance that the Bible is partly the work of God and partly the work of man, but not wholly the work of either. This is an important consideration as affecting the real meaning of the discussion, and the right state¬ ment of the question, and it ought not to be forgotten. z LECTURE XXVIII. NATUEE OF PLENAEY INSPIEATION— EXAMINATION OF 2 TIMOTHY III. 16. 3. AITE remark, in the third place, that in asserting the plenary * ’ verbal inspiration of the Scripture, we advance nothing, and we make no positive assertion, as to the way and manner in which the Holy Spirit operated upon the minds of the authors in the production of these works, which may be said to be at once his and theirs. We have nothing explicit revealed to us in Scripture upon this point, and we have no other certain means of knowing it. The Scripture, we think, gives us some information about the inspiration of the writings, but not about the kind or degree of the inspiration of the writers. It is, as Dr Chalmers says, about the character of the product, not the mode of the production, that the Scripture gives us information ; and it is this only that we are concerned to know. The opposers of verbal inspiration always run off into discussions about the inspiration of the authors, or the way and manner in which the Holy Spirit operated upon their minds in the production of the books. Their grand principle is the invention or fabrication of different kinds or degrees of inspiration ; in other words, of different ways or modes in which he secretly operated upon their minds, and the application of these inventions to the different portions of Scripture which they conceive them to suit. They discuss these topics as if they were familiar with them, although neither the Spirit nor the authors on whom his operation was exerted have given us any information upon the subject. Some seem to think (and Dr Chalmers seems to have had some impression of this sort) that the doctrine of verbal inspiration implies a theory in regard to the modes of the PLENARY INSPIRATION 355 Spirit’s operation upon the minds of the authors of the Scripture, and being justly jealous of any theorising upon this subject, seem to hesitate about explicitly asserting the plenary verbal inspiration, as if this too, as well as the other doctrine, was asserting a parti¬ cular theory about the mode of the Spirit’s operation. This how¬ ever is a misapprehension. Not only do the defenders of verbal inspiration reject the different kinds and degrees of inspiration which have been invented without warrant from Scripture or the necessity of the case, but they do not, properly speaking, hold anything, or lay down any assertion as to the mode of the Spirit’s operation. Their fundamental, and indeed their only position upon this subject is, that the Scriptures, the sacred writings, as to the words as well as the matter, were given by inspiration of God. As to the way and manner in which the Spirit operated upon the minds of the authors we say nothing, because we know nothing, beyond this, that holy men wrote as they were moved by the Holy Ghost. It is true indeed that among the different kinds or degrees of inspiration which have been invented by the opposers of verbal inspiration, one is called the inspiration of suggestion ; and this is supposed by these men to have been put in operation when the Holy Spirit intended to dictate the words, as well as the matter ; and as we hold that this applied to the whole of the Scripture, it may seem at first view as if we adopted one of their theories as to the mode of the Spirit’s agency upon the authors. But this is a misconception. The true state of the case is this — We maintain that all Scripture, the whole of the writing, is inspired as to the words as well as the matter. This is our position, which we undertake to establish from the Scripture. We maintain this, and we maintain nothing else. Oh ! but, say those who differ from us, that is the inspiration of suggestion ; we hold that too, in regard to some parts of Scripture ; but we think that this mode of the Spirit’s operation does not apply to the whole, and that some of it was composed under a different mode of operation, and by the Spirit’s exerting a lower degree of influence upon the minds of the authors, which we have called by the name of the inspiration of superintendence. Now, to this we answer, we know nothing of different kinds or degrees of inspiration ; we are told nothing of the mode of the Spirit’s operation in Scripture, and we see no plain traces of a diversity of modes of operation upon the face of the 356 TWENTY-EIGHTH LECTURE. Bible. You may invent different kinds and degrees of inspiration if you choose, and call them by what names you like ; but we adhere to our own position, which respects primarily and princi¬ pally not the authors, but the books. We maintain that the writings are plenarily and verbally inspired by God ; and we think we can establish this from the statements of the Scripture itself; and if so, this will overturn all your theories about the mode of the Spirit’s operation. The truth is, that the defenders of plenary verbal inspiration give themselves no concern with these theories about the mode of the Spirit’s operation, and advert to them only when the discussion is forced upon them by their opponents. The doctrine of verbal inspiration does not require, and indeed does not admit of, these theories ; and what it is specially important to notice, the doctrine which denies verbal inspiration cannot do without them. For what is necessarily involved in the denial of verbal inspiration to the whole Bible ? Why, manifestly this, that some mode of operation upon the part of the Holy Spirit different from that by which it is admitted that those parts of the Bible which were inspired as to the words were produced, must be supposed as having been exhibited in the production of those parts of the Bible to which verbal inspiration does not apply. However averse men may be to the investigation of these different theories as to the mode of the Spirit’s operation, however much they may disrelish the whole subject, it is evident, upon a careful examination, that there is really no way in which we can entirely get quit of them, except by unequivocally asserting the doctrine of the plenary verbal inspiration of the books. The defenders of the plenary verbal inspiration, but they alone, have always appreciated and maintained the great principle of the dis¬ tinction between the inspiration of the books and the inspiration of the authors ; and, on the other hand, this distinction, when clearly seen and fully carried through, naturally and obviously leads men to assert the plenary verbal inspiration of the Scriptures, except, perhaps, when some fragment of the notion of different kinds or degrees of inspiration, as exerted upon the authors, still continues, it may be unconsciously, to cleave to them. These three observations not only serve to explain what is the true meaning and import of this doctrine of plenary verbal inspira¬ tion, what is the real nature of the position we occupy in main- 2 TIM. III. ae. 357 taining it, but also to answer some of the objections by which the doctrine has been assailed, as you will see plainly upon reading what has been written upon the other side. We proceed now to advert to the direct Scriptural evidence in support of it. And liere it will at once occur to you that the great leading proof, the locus classicus, as critics commonly say, upon this subject, is the declaration of the apostle in 2 Tim. iii. 16. ‘^All Scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine,” &c. The Greek is <7raffa y^a