WHAT DIRECT EVIDENCE OF INSPIRATION IS TO BE EXPECTED?

Before proceeding to examine the positive Proofs of Inspiration, two preliminary questions demand investigation, viz.:

1. From what source can direct proofs come?

2. In what form may they be expected?

I. From what source can Direct Proofs of Inspiration come? We answer: Only from the Bible itself.

By most writers on the subject this would be at once admitted as correct; and this is involved in the very attempt we are making to ascertain “ the By others, how Bible doctrine ” of Inspiration. ever, we are met at the very threshold with an objection that is not without plausibility, yet when attentively examined is entirely destitute of validity. They challenge the admissibility of the witness, the only direct witness that we endeavor to present, or that can be presented. They absolutely rule him out of court. This is bringing the Bible, they say, to prove the Bible, assuming Inspiration to prove Inspiration, and therefore reasoning in a circle.

Not so. We only assert, in the first instance, and that not without evidence, the truthfulness of the Bible, not its inspiration; and thence we infer that its statements about itself, as well as in regard to other things, are to be believed.

1. We proceed upon data that are admitted. The veracity of the historical record in the Scriptures, the honesty of the writers, the reality of their divine mission, are in general admitted by our opponents; for we are discussing with Christians, not with infidels. Accordingly, we are fairly en titled to argue on these data. If we commenced at the other end, and assumed Inspiration to prove Credibility, we should be guilty of the fallacy alleged.

But, aside from admissions of many of our opponents, it is evident that this testimony of the Bible as to itself is legitimate; for

2. We are shut up by the nature of the case to such evidence. If there was such a fact as Inspiration at all, there could be only two personal wit nesses to it, — the prophet himself and God. When the Almighty commissioned him to speak His words, there were, in that solitary and awful presence-chamber of Deity, none with the prophet. No testimony on earth except his own, could avail to prove what was done. It is the kind of proof pertinent to the fact, the only kind primarily legitimate, and accessible.

3. The testimony of God is added. We begin, in the order of the argument, with the testimony of the man; but we find next the witness of God, and this completes the possible personal evidence in the case. (Compare Hebrews ii. 4, “ God uniting with them in bearing testimony.") Standing on the common ground occupied by both parties in this portion of the discussion, — that there has been a real revelation made to these writers, and that this is contained in the Bible, – the assertions of inspiration made by the writers as to themselves or their associates, become authenticated as a fact made known by God, and must be accepted as forming part of the Revelation he has given. Their repeated and distinct statements, thus authenticated, cannot be set aside as unintentional and unavoidable error, as part of the “ frame-work," unimportant to the substance of their message. It is fundamental to their message that they claim to be messengers. And this claim God himself confirms in manifold ways.

4. To this argument is added, in some cases, the peculiar seal of miracles, which is again the testimony of God in another form. (Mark xvi. 20; Hebrews ii. 4.)

And this applies not only to those who person ally wrought miraculous signs attesting their words, but to the others also. Even those who wrought no miracle “ formed part and parcel of a miraculous system, which cast its halo of light and evidence around the revelation of which their writings were constituents.” (Bannerman, 281.) John the Baptist performed no miracle, but his teachings were amply attested as divine by prophecy going before, and the seal of the Lord Jesus following after. So Luke did no miracle, so far as we know; but his writings seem to have been accepted by apostolic men as of equal authority with their own, before the age of miracles ceased.

5. To this must be added that one inspired writer testifies to another. Thus we have, in still another form, the witness of God, who bestowed the gift upon one, when He confirms and recognizes it through the lips of another. Accordingly, the manifold allusions and references of one part of Scripture to another present the testimony of God in many forms and through manifold channels.

Thus, “ across long intervals of time, with many generations lying between, with no personal knowledge of the authors or their qualifications, with no source of information except that which is unseen and from above, one Scripture author may witness to others, and claim to be believed, because speaking by instructions from God. It is thus that a man living in apostolic times, if himself endowed with revelation from heaven, may be a competent wit ness to the inspiration of records contemporaneous with the judges or the monarchs of the Hebrew people.” (Bannerman, 284.) So the New Testament generally is an effective witness to the Inspiration of the Old.

6. This method of argument is only an example of what is both common and legitimate as to other subjects; that is, to build up an argument by successive steps, to advance from a lower point admitted or proved to the higher points really involved in it, or deducible from it.

The successive steps here may be stated as follows:

a. The historical verity of the Gospel facts in general.

b. The elevated moral character of the writers.

c. Their freedom from motive to deceive.

d. The impossibility, under the circumstances, of their being deceived.

e. The actuality of the miracles, or supernatural signs.

f. The reality of the Revelation, as a whole, that had been so authenticated.

g. The veracity of the statements of the book about Scripture in general, and about special parts of it in particular.

The argument, then, it will be seen, is really cumulative and progressive. It is not like a chain, where the whole depends on each separate link, and consequently the whole is no stronger than the weakest link. But each point proven adds support to all the rest.

7. But if the objection to using the assertions of the Bible as to its own inspiration be thus evidently groundless, it is equally clear that no fair objection can be made to our drawing arguments from the phenomena of the Scriptures to show their origin and nature. This is the method employed in all physical science, to argue from the facts back to the influences or circumstances under which they were produced. Design is seen in the works of Nature; the divinity of the Author of Nature is fairly proved by these works. And so the divine authorship of the Scriptures may be seen in its characteristics. Thus while the Bible, as a whole, testifies of Christ, Christ testifies to the Bible: The Apostles testify of Jesus, and Jesus authorizes and commissions the Apostles. The Church, as a historically established institution,, holds forth the Bible as the Word of truth, and the Word attests the divine lineage of the Church of the Lord Jesus. And, added to all this mutual and interacting strength of testimony, we have the phenomena of Scripture and of early church life confirming each other, and both indicating with the utmost clearness, like the shining sun and the fertile earth, that the hand that made them is divine.

II. Another preliminary question relates to the form in which this evidence of the Bible concerning its own inspiration is given.

a. The testimony is, sometimes, explicit. We shall see some quotations of this kind.

b. It is more generally presented by being implied and assumed all along in what the Scripture says; in the tone of authority it uses, in the conscious dignity with which it represents the destinies of men for time and for eternity as dependent on its acceptance or rejection.

c. The testimony is also found in the phenomena apparent on the very face of the Scriptures; and accordingly the true doctrine of inspiration is to be gathered by legitimate induction from these, as well as from express assertions.

This is the only truly scientific, as well as the Scriptural, method of arriving at the genuine doctrine of inspiration. All the evidence should be admitted, all the classes of phenomena should be examined. We must not only use the inductive method, but must use it legitimately, thoroughly, candidly. Professor Ladd has spoken on this subject with great clearness and force. Yet, as he justly says, “ certain postulates must underlie this, as well as every other induction. And whether the induction be genuine and successful, or not, will largely depend upon the character and use of these postulates.”¹ (Doctrine of Sacred Scripture, Vol. I. p. 17.)

The Bible makes on its own behalf high and peculiar claims. This is obvious to even a cursory reader. But the strength of the argument is not in the fact that the assertion of an origin above man is made so expressly or repeatedly. If not directly claimed at all, it would be naturally suggested and fairly inferred.

The student of the Bible feels himself lifted into a region higher than the boundaries of human exploration. It handles the loftiest themes with a quiet simplicity, a regal familiarity which betrays ! no consciousness of intruding into forbidden mysteries. The assertion of superiority over man is not made in any offensive or supercilious way, but even as Jesus himself, who was the pattern of meekness, yet spake as never man spake, with authority and not as the Scribes.

The Bible does not seem anxious about its own recognition. The divine manifestation in it is much as we find it in creation and providence. No voice proclaims Him, no letters of living sunbeam on the radiant sky, no iron pen engraving God's glory in granite rock. But every harmony of nature is vocal with his praise, every mute and motionless rock inscribed all over with the characters which, if rightly read, reveal the wonders of his power.

The evidences and assertions of its own inspiration in the Bible are usually, then, as they might be expected to be, not dogmatic formulæ, not anxious self-indications, but incidental and simple. Such, in fact, is the general method of doctrinal teaching in Scripture on all subjects.²

1) The postulates subsequently stated by Professor Ladd are three:" 1. the self-revelation of God in redemption, involving the possibility and the actuality of miracles, and of inspiration as prophecy, — the subjective miracle; 2. the infallible authority of Jesus Christ upon matters included in the doctrine of salvation, . . . not necessarily including in itself the claim to infallibility on the part of Christ with respect to merely critical and historical matters; 3. the reality of those truths which underlie the persistent and universal thoughts and feelings of the Christian consciousness.” (p. 21.) To the second of these, as unduly limited, and to the third, as vague and capable of the most varied interpretation and application, we should have to object decidedly. For us the authority of Jesus Christ is primal and final, wherever a sure word of His can be found. We see no reason for excepting “ critical and historical matters,” nor any practicable method of determining how far the range of such an exception is to extend. It is scarcely satisfactory to be assured that Jesus Christ spoke the truth, except on critical and historical matters,” even if accompanied by the assurance that these “ rarely appear to have entered the horizon of his teaching." How much is criticism? how much is history? Are all matters of fact, all questions of interpretation, to be included in this range of topics on which what He said is not to be relied on?

And as to “ Christian consciousness," it is too liable to speak with the voice of its interpreter, whoever he may be, just as all Swedenborg's alleged interlocutors in the spiritual world Sweden-borgianize.

It seems to us that the learned author has himself been unduly subject to the influence of this last “ postulate.” The keynote to his whole treatise is a sentence near its commencement, which affirms that “ any dogma as to its (the Bible's) origin and nature must be content to take simply the place which fitly belongs to it as assigned by the Christian consciousness, developing under the guidance of the Spirit who gave the Bible to the Church.” (Doctrine of Sacred Scripture, Vol. I. p. 5. Compare also p. 18.) Nevertheless, he frankly admits that it is “imperative that we should acknowledge the falsity of many opinions held by the learned, and by the entire community of believers, during all the past history of the Church.” He adds appropriately, that, “ although some parts of this inquiry can scarcely be put into scientific form, yet they are not for this reason devoid of real and great value. The heart of the Church and of the race may be heard to beat, and warm life recognized as present, where no exact anatomical description can be given.” (p. 20.)

Professor Ladd says many things grandly and truly, but it appears to us that he often takes away with one hand what he has given with the other. He announces an important doctrine or fact but then follows with so many exceptions and limitations, and balances so nicely between truth and error, as scarcely to leave room for distinct or cordial conviction.

Christ's authority is indeed recognized by him as primal and absolute; but he assures us that Christ's “ attitude is manifestly uncritical.” Jesus “ believed the Old Testament to contain certain important divinely revealed truths ”; but “ does not commit his opinion to its entire historical accuracy. " His “ reserve as to debated questions “ cannot be held to be wholly due to ignorance.” If Jesus alludes to the history of Jonah or of the flood, this, we are told, cannot be " pleaded in favor of the historical accuracy of 19 these accounts, because he did not design to authenticate them. Doubtless his specific design in the allusion may have been to illustrate his teaching, rather than to authenticate those facts, — which indeed was unnecessary, as none of his hearers doubted them. But does not the allusion unmistakably recognize them as facts?

Again we are told, “ Jesus may speak as though he held a certain opinion upon a critical question of the Old Testament, and yet the inference may be by no means valid that he really held this opinion.” The Bible, as a whole, is unquestionably divine; but it is “ not in fallible ” in “ historical views and statements, " in its “ narrative of miracles," or even of the “ life and resurrection of Christ. ” Nor can we affirm that “ the logic of its argumentative passages is irreproachable, and its interpretation of its own earlier passages always defensible”; nor “ that the Scripture is free from even immoral feeling impressed upon it by the human character of its origin.” “ Even in the New Testament we cannot deny that there exist mistaken impressions in matters of ethical and religious kind.” But when the Bible has been “ sifted by critical and historical research, ” and tested and approbated by the “ Christian consciousness,” it is alleged that it is the great source of information as to the person and work of Christ.

To us it seems as if, in all this, there is a great mingling of the miry clay of conjecture and error with the iron of the mighty truths which Dr. Ladd elsewhere vigorously states and advocates.

2) This peculiarity of method is very properly recognized by Professor Ladd:“ There is a marked correspondence between Jesus's method of teaching and the divine method of instruction and discipline in nature and providence. We discover less effort to force the truth upon men than to stir their inquiry; little care to guard the careless against misapprehension, much care to rouse them to a true apprehension. His teaching is not a copy-lesson, but a spur to industry." — Doctrine of Sacred Scripture, Vol. I. p. 31.