DIRECT PROOFS OF INSPIRATION.

I. The General Manner of Quoting Scripture in Scripture.

This embraces especially the quotations and allusions to the Old Testament in the New, and thus gives, in a general way, the testimony of our Lord and of the Apostles. To bring it out in full would require us to go over the passages in detail. A fair sample of the evidence could be had by taking the allusions to the Old Testament in Matthew and Hebrews, selecting one Gospel and one Epistle for comparison.¹ But even this we cannot now exhibit at length. We can only pre sent a summary.

A. AS TO THE OLD TESTAMENT.

When Christ came, there was a body of writings in the hands of the Jews, the object of their peculiar reverence and attention. It was recognized not merely as embodying the poetry of their antiquity, the history of their forefathers, the laws of their nation, but above all as the word of God, not only their God, but the God of all the earth, the one only living and true God.

Other ancient writings they had, such as what we call the Apocrypha, recognized by them all as purely human, yet respected and cherished; but these sacred books which make up our Old Testament, though unmistakably human, they regarded as also indisputably divine, and in the strict sense inspired.

This universal belief of the Jewish people in these writings could not be overlooked by one who came, like our Saviour, as a teacher, and the Great Teacher, sent from God. It was necessary for him either to contradict that belief, if not true, or to sanction it, if true. Upon such a question le could not be neutral. The Gospel, the final embodiment of divine truth, to be presented to the world by Jesus, the only begotten Son of God him self, could not be planted in the midst of unrebuked error; least of all could it be built upon error as its basis. And that the New Testament Gospel is built upon the Old, and assumes it throughout as its basis, its forerunner, its original and foundation, is unquestioned and unquestionable.

It is a significant and most important fact, therefore, that there is not only no hint anywhere dropped, either by our Lord or by his authorized Apostles, that the people have overestimated the authority of the Scriptures of the Old Testament which they had; but there is constantly an appeal to them as an infallible standard in all religious matters. The Great Teacher, the personal Son of God, newly come from the throne of his glory, might have at once set aside all previous revelations, and cast them into the shades of insignificance and neglect by his brighter communications; he might, if he chose, have supplanted, abrogated, consigned them to forgetfulness. This is precisely what he did not do.²

Not only are his discourses significantly full of “echoes from the Old Testament”; not only does he show a constant and affectionate familiarity with its phraseology well worthy of our imitation; not only does he adopt its language in prayer, com fort himself thereby in his deep sorrows, and fortify his human nature by it against the assaults of the Tempter; not only does he argue from its minute expressions, and expound its prophecies as having wider applications than the human authors could have had in mind, thereby referring them necessarily to a Higher Author, who gave them this typical intent; — but he takes pains expressly to encourage his disciples to study and reverence the ancient Scriptures as the Word of God.

“Search the Scriptures,” he said; or, if the verb be regarded not as Imperative, but Indicative, which we prefer, the argument is not at all weakened. He is then commending, instead of commanding, their search. “Ye search the Scriptures, because ye think that in them ye have eternal life; and these are they which testify of me.” (John v. 39.) You sent to John (v. 33); you saw the miracles, by which the Father testified (v. 36); you search the Scriptures (v. 39); you set your hope upon Moses (v. 45). But though all these testify of me, are full of me, you will not believe. It is right for you to listen to these witnesses, to interrogate them closely, to search them fully, for they are the real methods in which God has spoken. It is your sin and shame that, recognizing them and claiming to heed them, you have not recognized me by means of them.³

The fundamental passage, however, in which our Lord expressly sets forth his relation to the law and the prophets of the Old Covenant, is in the Sermon on the Mount; and this is confirmed by the parallel expressions which he subsequently employs, in reference to particular precepts.

In Matthew v. 17, 18, Jesus says: “Think not that I came to destroy (unloose, abrogate) the law or the prophets; I came not to destroy but to fulfil (complete). For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass away, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass away from the law, till all things be accomplished.”

“The law and the prophets” must evidently be regarded, as is generally agreed, to be a summary for the entire Old Testament revelation. He will not abrogate, he will complete them. “To use a figure of speech as old as Theophylact, Christ does not intend to rub out and destroy the sketch in shadow -lines before him, but with true and ideal art will fill it in to the completion of the picture.” (Ladd, I. 36.) “The jot and the tittle are," as Professor Ladd further and well says, “an inseparable part of an indelible page."

Two things are here distinctly affirmed, — the perpetual obligation of the Old Testament, and its imperfection, — so that it needs completion. Dr. Ladd finds, in this primary teaching of Christ, a distinction "between absolute contents of truth and imperfect form, relative to the pedagogic purposes of these contents”; and the truth, he thinks, came from God, while the form is human, fallible, transitory. To us it seems that our Lord makes no such distinction; that both the contents and the form are of divine ordination; that the imperfect is not necessarily erroneous, the transitory not false, nor even fallible; that all was true and divine so far as it went; and for the time for which it was given, it was the best and most appropriate. But the time had come for additions to be made, for germs to be developed, for partial truths to be completed, for the outlines to be filled in, so as to give the more distinct picture. All this might be, without erasing a single line, or charging on it a single error.

That this is the correct interpretation of this important and confessedly fundamental passage, is obvious, not only from considering its exact expressions, but from the instances of modification of the law, which our Lord goes on to make. None of them are contrary to it: all go further in the same direction. The first two, for instance, as to killing and adultery, are extensions of the Decalogue precept from the outward act to the inward disposition which would prompt it. The next, as to divorce (a subject treated afterwards more fully, Matthew xix. 3-9), shows that the original divine law was monogamy, and that the ease of divorce was a temporary concession made under the Mosaic law to “the hardness of men's hearts.” But surely it will not be alleged that in this Moses contradicted the divine will, and acted without sanction from the Almighty. The concession for the time was as truly authorized by God as the original law, and as its subsequent restoration. The one saying which Jesus condemns is “hate thine enemy "; and that is not in the law, but was one of their traditional additions.

It may be added, that in general the very idea of a progressive, advancing revelation implies a relative imperfection in the earlier parts, and that this imperfection of incompleteness is perfectly consist ent with truth, and with the divine origin of both earlier and later. If otherwise, all progress in divine revelation, which our opponents perceive and affirm as distinctly as we, must be denied.

Our Lord modifies the law. Yes! There are progress and improvement from the Old Testament to the New. Yes! And there are also in the Old Testament itself. Equally also in the New Testament. Even further, can they not be discovered in the personal teachings of our Lord Jesus himself? There is obvious, deliberate, and intentional advance in his preaching, from that first simple proclamation, which merely repeated the warning and the announcement of the forerunner, “Repent, for the kingdom of heaven is at hand," to the matured and deep instructions of the night of his betrayal. And even those were incomplete, leaving “many things” still reserved for the further opportunity of the forty days, and still others for the communication of the promised Spirit. Imperfect? partial? Yes, but not erroneous!

In the similar expressions found in Matthew xi. 13, and Luke xvi. 16, 17, our Saviour reiterates the same teaching. Until John, the law and the prophets had remained the one grand source of divinely authorized information; now, they are to be, not superseded, condemned to failure, but retained and completed. Not an item is to be lost, not a jot, not a tittle.

Again, our Lord gives a very striking witness to the sufficiency of the Old Testament in the parable of the Rich Man and Lazarus. Even the resurrection of one from the dead would not convince a man who refuses credence to Moses and the prophets (Luke xvi. 29–31), because the attitude of heart which leads to the rejection of the former appeal will not be changed by even the embodiment of the truth in the resurrection of the Messiah.

There is, however, another sense in which Jesus fulfilled the law and the prophets. We do not allude to the fact that he obeyed the precepts with a moral purity and exactness never before found in man. Though this was true, it does not seem to be the truth suggested in the Sermon on the Mount. But Jesus completed the law and the prophets, not only by enlarging, elevating, and developing the true meaning really embodied in them, but also by being that to which they pointed, by filling in person the description they had given in word and type.

Age after age, under divine direction, a picture had been growing. The eyes of our first parents, dim with tears as they left the bowers of Paradise, had caught and cherished the faint outline of a future deliverer. One stroke after another had been added to the canvas as successive generations passed by. Painter after painter had taken the brush — obliterating nothing, but adding here a tint and there a shade — and then died. But the picture lives and grows, century after century, through the long series of revelations; with a marvellous variety, for scores of hands combine to form it; with a yet more marvellous unity, for One controls them all.

And now the picture is finished, but there is not on earth one whom it resembles; there is as yet none even that comprehends it. It is folded away for four hundred years.

Then, when the fulness of time is come, strange attention is concentrated on this ancient canvas; the picture is unrolled, and searched anew by eager, devout, thoughtful eyes; and lo, beside it there stands one whom the Forerunner recognizes. “See! This is God's Lamb, who takes away the world's sin.” There is the old picture! Here is the present reality! All that the law and the prophets promised, He was!

Thus the person and life of Jesus the Messiah, as well as his words and teachings, are seen to rest upon the Old Testament Scriptures; to confirm and verify them in the very fact of appealing to them for testimony.

It is alleged, however, that our Saviour, while recognizing the law and the prophets, contradicted them in sundry particulars. Let us examine the grounds of this assertion.

In his teachings as to the Sabbath (Matthew xii. 1-8, Mark ii. 23–28, Luke vi. 1-5) he does set himself above the ceremonial law, as a master, not as its servant. But even in doing this he does not subvert it or set it aside. He does not, as Dr. Ladd claims, introduce and apply “a new norm or moral code for the observance of the moral and religious truths contained in the law” (I. 43); he simply gives an authoritative interpretation of the law. The act of the disciples, which the Pharisees censured, in rubbing out the ears of wheat, because it was working on the Sabbath, was not a violation of the Mosaic law, though it was in contravention of the Rabbinical traditions. And hence this can not be pleaded as an instance in which Jesus “must allow to pass from obligation, as a part of that law, many of its special enactments, observances, and established points of view.” That the purely ceremonial, typical, and symbolic features of the Jewish ritual ended with Christ, because fulfilled in Christ, is agreed. But as to other things, we maintain, the Saviour did not abolish, but rather interpreted, the law. So here the true meaning of the Sabbatic law is expounded and developed, and, as Meyer says, it is declared that “doing well is the moral norm for the rest and labor of the Sabbath.”

In like manner as to the law of marriage and divorce (Matthew xix. 3–12, Mark x. 2–12), our Lord, it is true, “places his doctrine above that of the schools, and also above the provisions of the Mosaic law itself.” But he does so by pointing out that in that law the original and fundamental principle was not only that one man should be joined to one woman, but that they should cleave together, forsaking all others. Prior to the giving of the Mosaic enactments, which were civil as well as moral, great laxity as to the marriage union had sprung up among the people. Introducing the Law among such surroundings, Moses did not command divorce, as the Pharisees alleged; he only suffered it, as our Saviour quietly corrects their expression; and he threw a barrier in the way of the customary unrestrained freedom on the subject, and established a protection to the weaker party, by commanding that, whenever there was a sending away, there should be a bill of divorcement, a formal, deliberate, legal document. But assuredly we are not to charge this upon Moses as his own act without divine authority, and so accuse him of “a faultiness of moral judgment.” As Dr. Ladd himself says — “The word used by Christ with reference to the act of Moses (suffered), seems rather to place the human law-giver in some sort at that divine point of view from which such con cessions are regarded as a necessary part of the divine historic discipline.” (I. 45.)

On the subject of ceremonial purifications and clean and unclean food, it is urged that the Mosaic law (Matthew xv. 1-20, Mark vii. 1-16) is “at the same time contrasted with the tradition of the elders, and also itself indirectly accused of being, in respect to the subject of tradition, on the same unstable ground” (Ladd, I. 46). The contrast drawn between the law of Moses and human tradition is certainly plain and important; the indirect accusation we fail to find in anything said by our Lord. He clearly affirms the divine origin of the law, condemns their unauthorized additions to it, and develops out of the legal enactments the great principle implied in them. Even as to those ceremonial distinctions between different kinds of food, which were to be done away, they were not in such a sense from Moses as to be in contradiction to God's will. They were from God, for the time, as truly as the ethical or any other portions of the law. If our Lord revokes these distinctions, making all meats clean” (Mark vii. 19), this is not because of their human origin, but because, though divinely given, they had served their end, and must pass away with the dispensation to which they belonged, and because he, as Lord, had and claimed the right to change even the divine law.

But Christ, we are told, “seems to take a hostile position toward the ceremonial law of fasting.” (Matthew ix. 14–17; Mark ii. 18–22; Luke v. 33-39.) Not at all toward the Mosaic law of fasting; only to that prescribed by tradition and custom. It is well known that the Mosaic law commands only one fast in the year, and that with a ceremonial significance and object, on the great day of Atonement. The Saviour objects earnestly to the multiplied and merely formal observances of this kind which had been added to the “law of Moses."

It might be shown abundantly that the Apostles, in like manner, only re-echo their Master's reverence for the ancient volume of Inspiration, and point the people steadfastly to it, in their preaching and in their letters, as the light to guide them in darkness, as the heaven -descended oracles to lead them back to God.

B. AS TO THE NEW TESTAMENT.

We proceed to inquire what evidence of this general sort in quotations and allusions may be found as to the New Testament. From the nature of the case, much testimony cannot be expected in one part of the New Testament to other parts of it, as the writings were so nearly contemporary, all within a single generation. But it may be remarked, —

1. That such corroborative testimony was scarcely needed. Revelation without inspiration would have impressed the Jew as an unheard of anomaly, in one claiming to be a divine messenger; and the communications from on high which were peculiar to the New Dispensation, being recognized as divine on the evidence of miracles, did not require the confirmation of mutual testimony to each other by the several witnesses for God, when Christ himself had sent them forth, clothed with his authority, to speak in his name.

2. The reappearance of the prophetic order is not only predicted by the Lord Jesus, but distinctly announced by Peter on the day of Pentecost as having actually occurred. This is a peculiar and marked feature of gospel times. For some hundreds of years, confessedly, the nation had been without a prophet. They lamented over the fact, were disheartened and mortified by the fact, but still acknowledged it as a fact. And there was scarcely anything more startling in the incidents and announcements of the day of Pentecost than the impressive and astounding assurance that the gift of PROPHECY had been revived, — which meant, as we all know, not the mere power of foretelling, but specifically the power of speaking by divine influence and authority.

That this was an extraordinary gift, differing from the gracious blessings which all the devout enjoyed, needed no demonstration to them; that it was temporary, and for special ends and seasons, requires little proof to us. The equality of the Apostles as prophets, in the sense explained, to those of the Old Dispensation, was thoroughly established, to the satisfaction of all Christians at least; and this rendered unnecessary the accumulation of individual attestations from one of them to the other.

3. We may, however, profitably consider, under this head, the way in which the Apostle Peter refers to his beloved brother Paul's writings as a part of the Scriptures. (2 Peter iii. 16.) This is a remarkable allusion. The familiar expression everywhere else applied to the Old Testament writings is here used as to Paul's epistles, “in which," says Peter, "are some things hard to be under stood, which the ignorant and unsteadfast wrest, as they do also the other Scriptures, unto their own destruction.” It has been suggested that this phrase, “the other Scriptures,” may include with the Old Testament writings all those portions of the New Testament then in circulation. I do not feel satisfied as to this, but the expression certainly embraces Paul's epistles along with the He brew canonical writings, as capable of the same use, and liable to the same perversions and misuse.

4. In 2 Peter iii. 2, there is also a clear implication that the commandment of the Apostles and that of the Holy Prophets are equally binding. Writing to the Hebrew Christians, who certainly believed in the inspiration of the “words which were spoken before by the holy prophets,” he con joins with these, as having similar authority, “the commandment of us, the Apostles of our Lord and Saviour."

5. There is another passage, 1 Timothy v. 18, in which the Apostle Paul, referring to provision for the support of the ministry, quotes as Scripture a passage from Deuteronomy xxv. 4, and apparently another from Matthew x. 10, or Luke x. 7. He writes, “The Scripture saith, Thou shalt not muzzle the ox that treadeth out the corn; and, The laborer is worthy of his hire.” The latter quotation is nowhere found in the Old Testament (see Leviticus xix. 13; Deuteronomy xxiv. 14, 15); but our Lord, discussing this same subject, makes this remark on two different occasions, as the Evangelists have recorded it, Luke using the precise language that Paul here employs. If not a quotation strictly, it can only be understood as a proverbial expression employed by our Lord, and similarly used by Paul.

6. No contest, however, is likely to occur on this point, that the inspiration of the New Testament is at least equal to that of the Old. Even without explicit assertions of it, whatever sanctity, whatever divinity, the writings of the Old Covenant may be proved to have, those of the New certainly share in equal degree. In fact, most persons nowadays are disposed to rank the New far above the Old. If, therefore, we succeed in maintaining the true and proper inspiration of the older part of the volume, that of the later will be readily con ceded.

II. Passages which affirm or imply the Inspiration of the Scriptures as a whole.

Various titles are used to describe the volume or collection of writings now known as the Old Testament; and under all these titles its divinity is attested, more or less explicitly.

1. The Scripture (or the Scriptures), as already shown, was in our Saviour's time the well-understood name of a definite body of sacred writings. By this name they are frequently identified with the utterance of God himself. The phrase, in one or other of its forms, is used about fifty times, and always means the Old Testament alone, except in the cases already alluded to (2 Peter iii. 2, 16), where Paul's epistles and possibly Luke's Gospel seem to be included with it. A few examples only can now be given.

Galatians iii. 8: “The Scripture, foreseeing that God would justify the Gentiles by faith, preached the Gospel beforehand unto Abraham, saying, In thee shall all the nations be blessed.” Who said those words? God, personally. The manner of the quotation can only be explained on the principle that the Scripture is so identified, in all that it says, with God himself, that what the Scripture says, God says; and so a personal utterance of God and a saying of Scripture are simply equivalent.

Romans ix. 17: “The Scripture saith to Pharaoh, Even for this same purpose have I raised thee up.” But it was God who said it. If this expression, “I have raised thee up,” had been rep resented by the Apostle as the saying of Moses himself, it would have sounded strange and startling as identifying Moses and God; but there is no such anomaly in his thus identifying the written Word with God.⁴

In the Epistle to the Hebrews, it is every where assumed that what is said in the Old Testament God said. Constantly the expressions recur, “He saith,” “He spake,” “He beareth witness, etc. The living voice of the divine speaker is recognized in the Word. To adopt the language of B. F. Westcott, this usage in Scripture is “as if the author quoting felt in every quotation the actual presence of Him who had inspired it, and spoke through it." (The Bible in the Church, p. 42.)

The error of the Sadducees is traced by the Saviour to their not knowing “the Scripture, nor the power of God.” (Matthew xxii. 29.) If they had properly known and reverenced the one, they would have felt and enjoyed the other.

The minute circumstances, as well as the great burden, of Christ's sufferings, are all represented as necessary in order “that the Scriptures might be fulfilled. " (Mark xiv. 49; xv. 28; John xix. 24, 28, 36.) This points clearly to the divine fore knowledge and authority found in those writings.

The expression of our Lord, “the Scripture can not be broken” (John X. 35), is an impressive instance of argument to the Pharisees based on a single word. He says it is in “your law," refer ring to a passage in the Psalms (lxxxii. 6), thus recognizing this as on a level with that portion of the Scripture to which the Jews gave the highest honor. The word “broken” is here the same which we had occasion already to expound in connection with the Sermon on the Mount (Matthew v. 17) meaning loosed, abrogated; and it assures us that “the Scripture, as the expressed will of the unchangeable God, is itself unchangeable and in dissoluble.” (Olshausen, Comm. in loco.) It is furthermore to be noticed that our Lord here argues from a more profound sense than the ordinary one of the expression employed, and justifies the propriety of such a use of it by the statement, “the Scripture cannot be broken," i. e. not even a single word of Scripture (the word Gods) can be deprived of its force and meaning.

One of the last acts of our Lord, before ascend ing to the skies, was to open the understanding of the disciples that they might “understand the Scripture”; for, says he, “thus it is written, and thus it behoved Christ to suffer.” (Luke xxiv. 45.) These expressions indicate the prophetic character of the ancient Scriptures, and strongly imply their divine origin and infallible truth.

2 Timothy iii. 16: “All Scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, for instruction which is in righteousness."

The Apostle seems to be urging this fact as show ing how “the sacred writings,” which Timothy has known 6 from a babe” are able to make one wise unto salvation. Perhaps also there is a kind of under -current of allusion, as Chrysostom suggests, to his own expected decease (2 Timothy iv. 6), since he is now “already being offered,” as if to say, “Instead of me you have the divine Scriptures."

Whether the word theopneustos, translated “given by inspiration of God,” is here to be construed as an epithet belonging to the subject of the sentence (with the Canterbury revisers), or as a predicate (with the common version), is not a settled question, though the weight of recent authority is with the revisers.⁵

But if it is rendered as the revisers prefer, “Every Scripture, inspired of God, is also profitable,” etc., the argument remains substantially the same, provided we have due regard to the connection. It implies that there is inspired Scripture, and that is the main question. It refers, moreover, unquestionably to all “the Sacred writings” (of ver. 15) comprehended under the title Scripture, and with which Timothy is expressly declared to have been familiar from childhood. No distinction is recognized or suggested between Scriptures inspired and Scriptures not inspired, or only imperfectly or partially inspired. Such a thought is entirely foreign to the context. The passage then stands in its full force, which can scarcely be added to by any comment, and can hardly be taken away by any subtlety or ingenuity of exposition. It may well be pondered.

2. Another expression for the Scriptures in general is “prophecy,” or “the prophets.” And by this expression their divine origin is often and distinctly declared. Romans xvi. 26: “The Scriptures of the prophets, according to the commandment of the everlasting God.” 1 Peter i. 10–12: “Of which salvation the prophets have inquired and searched diligently, " and the Apostle goes on to affirm that “the Spirit of Christ was in them”; " to them it was revealed "; furthermore, the same things are “now preached with the Holy Ghost sent down from heaven.” Testimony is given here, both to the prophets of the Old Testament, and to the inspired proclaimers of the New, as having the Spirit of Christ in them, and the Holy Ghost sent down from heaven.

What is involved here? This name prophet is given from the beginning to those who come as divine representatives, who speak for God, and who do this with supernatural aid, direction, and authority.

Successive stages may be traced in the development of prophecy, but there is no essential change of the nature of the office. Enoch, Noah, Abraham, Melchizedek, each in his age, and in his own way, stands forth in God's name; but their words for the most part are not recorded, and hence pass away, as oral utterances naturally do, except as preserved and transmitted by tradition.

The dispensation then changes to a more permanent form, and written prophecy begins with Moses. He stands at the head of this new prophetic line, whose words are to be recorded and preserved for after times. With Samuel another stage in advance is reached. A revival of the prophetic order is established; and from him a continuous series of prophets is kept up for centuries. But not until the days of Hosea and Isaiah does it attain its full development; only then do the prophetic communications generally receive the written and permanent form which enables subsequent ages to profit by them.

At the outset, under Moses, the true nature of the prophetic office is indicated by the analogy of the relation of Aaron to Moses. Exodus iv. 10-16; vii. 1, 2. (Read these passages.)

A test is given for discriminating the true prophet from the false, and directions to punish the pre tender with severity. Deuteronomy xviii. 15–22.

It follows plainly, that what came as an official announcement from an acknowledged prophet was recognized as coming from Jehovah himself.

Even when no distinct assertion is found, the place of any writing on the prophetic roll established its claim. As Moses, after being once authenticated as a divine messenger, did not need to repeat each time he issued a portion of the divine command, “God ordered me to say this, to write this,” so with the prophetic order. When that order was once known and established as a mouth for Jehovah, it was sufficient for proving the authority of any word or writing to show that it came officially from the prophets. Such evidence was open to the contemporaries of the Old Testament prophets, to be judged of in each particular case; and the reception of the writings by these contemporaries, their being handed down by successive generations, and their recognition and indorsement by our Saviour and the Apostles, and the New Testament churches, is the evidence accessible to us.

In Romans xvi. 26, the Apostle gives thanks to God for the mystery (revealed secret) which is now manifested, and “through the prophetic Scriptures, according to the commandment of the eternal God, is made known unto all the nations, unto obedience of faith.” Here the prophetic Scriptures, evidently not meaning some part, but the whole, of the older volume of revelation, are set forth as the great source of all Christian knowledge unto all nations, and this by the commandment of the eternal God. They are not superseded or abrogated by Paul's gospel and the preaching of Jesus Christ, but only confirmed, and given a wider extension of influence.

Another passage which seems to express almost in precise terms the doctrine we have been advocating is 2 Peter i. 19-21: “We have the word of prophecy made more sure (confirmed by the gospel evidences), whereunto ye do well that ye take heed, as unto a lamp shining in a dark (squalid or misty) place, until the day dawn, and the day-star arise in your hearts: knowing this first, that no prophecy of Scripture is of private interpretation. For no prophecy ever came (was brought) by the will of man; but [ the word holy of the common version is omitted by the latest text critics] men spake from God, being moved (borne along) by the Holy Spirit.”

We may observe here,

(1) that “the word of prophecy,” “prophecy of Scripture,” “prophecy,” are all expressions to denote the inspired word, the Old Testament, and not merely the predictive portions now commonly called prophecy;

(2) that this word is confirmed, made more sure, by the subse quent revelations;

(3) that it is inferior to the gospel light, even as a lamp shining in a dark (misty or squalid) place is inferior to the sun;

(4) that notwithstanding this it is well to take heed to it;

(5) that it is a principle of first importance that no prophecy is of private interpretation (or of personal disclosure);

(6) because it is of the very nature of prophecy not to come by human will;

(7) but men speak from God, being moved by the Holy Spirit.

Of these points, it is only needful to comment on one or two. The expression of private interpretation " has been variously understood to mean, —

a, of separate or detached interpretation;

b, of special interpretation;

c, to be interpreted by the reader himself (as the Romanists expound the pas sage);

d, to be explained or understood by the prophet himself;

e, of self-solution;

f, the result of private or uninspired disclosure.

The last seems to us the correct view, agreeing best with the force of the words and with the context. The thought is: The prophetic oracles of the Old Testament are worthy of the most profound attention, for they did not originate with man, but with God. The word idios (own), translated “private," might be supposed to refer to the prophecy, or the reader, or the prophet; —the Scripture's own, or the reader's own, or the prophet's own disclosure; and so to signify, either, The prophecy does not disclose its own meaning; or, The reader is not to interpret it for himself; or, The prophet did not disclose it of himself. That this last is the idea intended seems to suit the statement of ver. 19, for which it gives the ground. We do well to take heed to the word of prophecy, for it did not come from the prophet alone, it is not of his own disclosure. It also agrees with the statement which follows in ver. 21, that prophecy came not by the will of man. The use of the verb ginetai, and not esti, confirms this view, pointing as it does to the origination rather than the quality of the Scripture. No prophecy has its genesis, comes into being, or becomes a prophecy, by one's own disclosure. It may be added that the word idios is used in precisely this sense by Philo (II. 343, ed. Mangeyi). “For a prophet,” says he, “advances nothing whatever of his own (ouden idion), but is an interpreter, another supplying all the things which he brings forward."

Then, after denying the exclusively human origin of the Word, the Apostle describes in singularly appropriate language the combined human and divine authorship which is elsewhere implied. The men spake, the Spirit moved them. They spake, but it was " from God," – so the latest critical text reads. Their own activity, as well as the divine influence that acted on them, is distinctly indicated.⁶

3. Another title applied to the Scriptures of the Old Testament is the Word of God.

Our Lord, rebuking the Pharisees for substituting their traditions for God's commandments, and set ting aside duty to parents by their rule as to what was Corban, or devoted to God, charges them with making void the Word of God” by their tradition (Matt. xv. 8). The commandment of God was what Moses had said: “Honor thy father and thy mother” (Exodus xx. 12), and, “He that speaketh evil of father or mother, let him die the death” (Exodus xxi. 17). Despising this, or exalting human suggestions or traditions to an equality with it, is rejecting, frustrating, making void the Word of God. Jesus considered that a serious offence.

At the Feast of the Dedication at Jerusalem, when the Jews undertook to stone him because they said he made himself God, he said: “Is it not written in your law, I said, Ye are gods? If he called them gods unto whom the word of God came (and the Scripture cannot be broken) say ye of him whom the Father sanctified and sent into the world, Thou blasphemest, because I said, I am the Son of God?” (John x. 34-36.) The expression “word of God” is not here equivalent to the whole of the Scripture, but it refers to a portion of it. The passage quoted from the Psalms (lxxxii. 6) is said to be “written in your law, " and this is subsequently called “the Scripture.” And it is implied that those who had the benefits of this revelation had had the word of God. God had spoken to them. The judges were called gods as standing, in a judicial relation, in God's stead. Compare Exodus xxi. 6, xxii. 8, 9, 28.

The Word, of course, is primarily oral; but the expression comes naturally to be applied, both in the Old Testament and in the New, to any communication from God, “anything,” as Dr. Ladd says, “which God is regarded as procuring or permitting to be said to man.” (II. 503.) Any collection of the words of God may be properly styled the Word of God, “because its content is from God, and be cause God has caused it to be promulgated among men”; “because it conveys the truth from God, and seeks the honor of God.” Thus the voice of the ancient prophets was the Word of God, which shall stand forever (Isaiah xl. 8); the preaching of the Apostles was the Word of God (Romans x. 17, 1 Corinthians xiv. 36); it had been sent first to the sons of Israel (Acts x. 36, 37); afterwards it had gone even into Macedonia and Achaia (1 Thessalonians ii. 13); and it has a living and abiding energy (1 Peter i. 23–25).

4. Another term quite similar, and suggesting naturally the same idea, is “the oracles of God” (Romans iii. 2), “living oracles” (Acts vii. 38). The great and overwhelming advantage that the Jews had over the rest of mankind was, that “they were intrusted with the oracles of God "; and the great sin of the “fathers” was that they would not be obedient unto Moses, “who received living oracles to give unto us.” Compare also Hebrews v. 12; 1 Peter iv. 11.

These various expressions describe the Hebrew sacred books, some of them recognizing them as a whole, and dealing with them under one designation, and all acknowledging their divine origin and authority.

III. Declarations which affirm the Inspiration of particular Persons, or single passages of the Word.

A few examples only of this kind can now be given. It is obvious that this argument avails mainly to show the nature of the reality of the influence in these instances. By analogy, however, the inference may be reasonably drawn that in other passages or persons a similar influence was exerted. In whatever sense these were inspired, the others were too; for they stand apparently in no respect on a different level from other sacred writings or writers.

A. As to the Old Testament, in Matthew xxii. 43, Jesus says, “David in spirit calleth him Lord,” referring to Psalm cx. 1. This seems to be a distinct assertion that David in that Psalm speaks by inspiration, in spirit; or if the meaning of the language there is doubted by any, because the spirit is not expressly said to be the divine Spirit, the parallel passage in Mark xii. 36 makes it unmistakable, where it reads " by [ literally in ] the Holy Spirit.”. Compare the same Greek phrase in Revelation i. 10, iv. 2; and nearly the same in Romans ix. 1, 1 Corinthians xii. 3. It is a natural inference that the same is true of other Psalms, and of other parts of the Word. There is no peculiarity intimated in this 110th Psalm, distinguishing it as more divine than the others.

Further, the argument of our Saviour turns on the precise word employed, — the word “Lord”; and therefore indicates something more than a mere general control of ideas. In fact, we can hardly suppose that David himself, in this and other instances, fully apprehended the meaning of his own words. “It required," says Bannerman, " the foresight of that Omniscient Spirit, through whom our Lord interpreted David's words, to mould them by his inspiration into that form which they actually have, and which, unknown to the prophet, was to afford the materials to build up the proof of the divinity and the incarnation of Him, who was to be both David's Lord and David's Son.” (Inspiration, 328.)

Matthew (i. 22, ii. 15) represents the ancient predictions he refers to as “spoken by the Lord through the prophet.” This is as precise and accurate a description, according to our view, as could be given of the divine authorship and the human agency involved. " The divine source of the word, its objective verity, and the inspired consciousness of the messenger, are all thus brought before our minds. " (Ladd, I. 63.)

In Acts iv. 25, 26, the Apostles and their company, who presently are declared to be all filled with the Holy Spirit (ver. 31), lift up their voice with one accord to God, " who by the Holy Spirit, by the mouth of David thy servant, didst say, Why did the Gentiles rage?” etc., quoting from the second Psalm.

In Hebrews iii. 7, a Psalm (xcv. 7) is quoted with the introduction, “even as the Holy Spirit saith.” In Hebrews x. 15, “The Holy Spirit bear eth witness to us," introduces a passage from Jeremiah xxxi. 33, 34.

B. As to New Testament authors.

Acts iv. 8:Peter is expressly said to have been “filled with the Holy Ghost” in his address to the rulers.

Acts x. 28:Peter affirms that “God has showed” him the principle on which he is acting as to recognizing the Gentiles, and the truth which he is to declare.

Acts xiii. 9:Paul is “filled with the Holy Ghost” in his denunciation of Elymas before Ser gius Paulus; and his word is instantly confirmed by the miraculous blindness which falls upon the sorcerer. Further examples might be given, but it is need less to multiply them.

IV. Promises of Inspiration.

A. PROMISES GIVEN TO OLD TESTAMENT WRITERS.

Among these may be mentioned, —

Exodus iv. 10–12: “Go, and I will be with thy mouth, and teach thee what thou shalt say.” This is the primary promise to Moses, and seems to ex press in distinct terms all that has been claimed for the divine influence over the inspired man. It is substantially renewed on other occasions.

Deuteronomy xviii. 18, 19: “I will raise them up a Prophet from among their brethren like unto thee, and will put my words into his mouth; and he shall speak unto them all that I shall command him. And it shall come to pass that whosoever will not hearken unto my words which he shall speak in my name, I will require it of him.” The question is whether this refers to the Messiah alone, or to a succession of prophets, or, as is generally believed, to both; to the succession of divinely authorized teachers in the prophetic order first, and to the Messiah ultimately. The contrast with the false prophets in the next verse favors the idea of a plurality of true prophets opposed to them. The singular number, however, is used; but this may naturally be applied, in accordance with a frequent Hebrew idiom, to a collective body or a continuous order. In this view the passage affirms, 1. that the prophetic function is not to cease with Moses, but is to be continued; 2. that the order of prophets will consist of men like Moses, native Hebrews, " of thy brethren "; 3. that they are to be raised up from time to time by Jehovah; and 4. that they should have His words put in their mouth, and speak in His name.

Does not this cover the whole ground that we claim? The prophets spoke as God bade them, and the Messiah was the summit and climax of the order, the ideal and perfect prophet.

Isaiah lix. 21: “My Spirit that is upon thee, and my words which I have put in thy mouth.” This language describes the nature of the divine influence; and the passage proceeds to declare that the teachings thus given shall be permanently pre served in the lips and memories of God's people through all time, — shall not depart out of thy mouth, nor out of the mouth of thy seed, nor out of the mouth of thy seed's seed, saith the Lord, from henceforth and forever."

Jeremiah i. 1-9. “The word of the Lord came to me, saying, . . . I ordained thee a prophet unto the nations. . . . Thou shalt go to all that I shall send thee, and whatsoever I command thee thou shalt speak. . . . Behold I have put my words in thy mouth.” Such in general was the idea of the divine prophet among the ancient Jews, a speaker for God, with divine authority, direction, and control.

These quotations may suffice for illustrating the ample and positive manner in which inspiration is promised to the writers of the Old Testament.

It is alleged, however, that the promise of inspiration is made to the entire faithful people of the covenant,” and that “the inspiration of Moses, Isaiah, or Ezekiel is the secondary fact which is dependent upon the primary.” The proof given for this is that the Spirit is promised to Israel and to their seed; that they are to be a kingdom of priests and a holy nation; and that Moses wishes that all the people were prophets. But this last of itself implies that they were not; and the other two proofs evidently have nothing to do with prophetic inspiration. This idea of the “inspired nation” is scarcely consistent with the conceded fact that every true Hebrew prophet, “by virtue of his office as prophet, stood between God and the theocratic people.” If all the people were prophets or inspired, how could the prophet stand between them and God? It is also inconsistent with the special divine vocation by which he was to be raised up " from the midst of” the people.

It should be remembered, however, that other writings besides those which we are accustomed to call “the prophets” were included under that term among the Jews; and that the historical books, as we term them, seem to have been prepared, by those whom the Jews regarded as prophets, from the regular annals of the nation. Hence those books are known in the Hebrew Bible as the. former prophets, while our prophetical books are called the later prophets.

B. PROMISES OF INSPIRATION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT WRITERS.

The chain of argument on this important point may be first briefly stated, and then we will turn to the passages themselves.

1. Christ did not plan to carry out his great enterprise on the earth personally. His public ministry lasted only about three years. He committed no word to writing; in this respect present ing apparently a marked contrast to other founders of permanent institutions.

2. He founded an Apostolic Church, and left it as his representative.

3. He vested in his Apostles complete and absolute authority under himself, as to the administration of this Church, and the proclamation of his truth. Mark iii. 14, 15; Matthew xviii. 18; xxviii. 18; Acts i. 3-9.

4. To qualify them for this, he gave repeated, special promises of the Holy Spirit.

5. The benefits of these promises were shared with others, who are associated with them and termed prophets.

These promises to the Apostles may be conveniently considered in two divisions. The first class were given prior to the last Passover, and, though uttered on three different occasions, are substantially equivalent. They are all recorded in the Synoptic Gospels. The first is in Matthew x. 14– 20, on the occasion of sending forth the twelve, the most appropriate opportunity for describing their authority; the second is in Luke xii. 11, 12, when uttering the discourse to his disciples surrounded by the many thousands that crowded on them; the last, recorded in Mark xiii. 9–11, and Luke xxi. 14, 15, was during the Crucifixion week. These promises, thus repeated, may fitly be taken together.

a. A real definite influence from without is promised to guide and suggest what they should say. “It is not ye that speak, but the Spirit of your Father that speaketh in you.” It was to “be given them” in that hour what they should speak.

b. These promises embrace all public occasions, when the Apostles must bear testimony of him, before councils, synagogues, kings; and this not merely for personal defence and rescue, but for a witness to them; and this witness is not only to Jews, but it is expressly said to be also to the Gen tiles. They are by no means so limited, local, and temporary as has been sometimes alleged.

c. Now take into connection with these the promise of Matthew xviii.18, giving them the power of binding and loosing, and especially the commission, Matthew xxviii. 19, 20: “Go, teach (disciple) all nations, baptizing and teaching them all things whatsoever I command you; and lo, I am with you alway.” In their teaching, then, as well as in their self-defence, he is to be with them; in every exercise of their apostolic office, they are to have his presence, aid, and guidance.

Nor does this extension of the supernatural guidance promised to them seem unreasonable. It is precisely in accordance with the nature of the new phase of their work upon which they are about to enter. If it was important that they should have supernatural guidance in their occasional defence of themselves, in temporary emergencies, before courts, how much more in their permanent instructions to the churches for all time! If “utterance was given” to Paul to make known orally the mystery of the Gospel, why might the divine gift not be expected in recording those instructions? What excludes those occasions and exigencies from the promise?

The second class of passages containing the promise of the Spirit may be found in those marvellous chapters (John xiv.-xvi.) of our Lord's last discourse, in the evening before the Crucifixion.⁷ To bring out their full force, we ought to quote the whole. But since we cannot now do this, let us notice specially the promise of the abiding influence of the Holy Spirit to “bring all things to their remembrance, " and to “teach them all things. " (John xiv. 25, 26.) Their testimony as eyewitnesses and companions of the Saviour's earthly life was to be confirmed and supplemented by that of the Holy Spirit given through them. (John xv. 26, 27.) Things were to be taught them which they could not yet bear. The Spirit should guide them into “all the truth," declare unto them “things to come,” take of the things of Christ, and declare unto them. (John xvi. 12–15.)

These promises seem to involve both revelation and inspiration, according to the distinction we have drawn between them, and to assure the Apostles not only of the divine impartation of truth, which they did not yet know, and could not now bear, but also divine guidance and control in every particular regarding the proclamation of the Gospel. Evidently, however, there is no promise of omniscience, of supernatural information in all human knowledge. And we have no reason to claim or to suppose that this was granted. On this series of promises we have several remarks to submit.

a. The peculiar expression,“the Spirit of Truth," evidently refers to his special office of Revealer and Inspirer. The Spirit's presence might indeed be valuable in other respects. It would give comfort and light, it might confer miraculous powers of various kinds. But this promise seems to point particularly to gifts conferred in his character as the Spirit of Truth, giving them the truth, and enabling them to give it to others.

b. The Spirit was to “bring to remembrance " all that Christ had said. His divine teachings are not trusted to the fallible memory of the men who heard them. These precious deposits are to be insured, repeated, presented afresh, in more condensed form, in more perfect light, in clearer relations to all else that they knew, and especially to the advancing providence and revelations of God. The Apostles needed to be enabled to recall and summarize all that the Lord had taught them during his earthly life, and all that he was going to unfold to their opened and enlarged understandings during those wondrous forty days between the Resurrection and the Ascension, a period the importance of which must not be estimated by the space given to it in the narrative, but rather by the trans forming effects which have been evidently wrought upon the timorous and hesitating disciples of the Passover evening, by the time that we next meet them, on the day of Pentecost.

c. Furthermore, they needed to be qualified to give due proportion and harmony to their preach ing; or, as Lee has expressed it, to “insert in their teaching, without interweaving any heterogeneous element, each particular circumstance as it contributed to the elucidation of the general scheme.” (Lee on Inspiration, p. 271.)

The facts of the gospel history were of course familiar to them; but they needed explanation of the meaning of these facts, as well as the true intent of many of the sayings of our Lord, which they themselves had heard, but which they did not yet fairly or fully appreciate. The relation of these great events to the plan of human redemption, to the divine counsels in the past, and to the progress of the kingdom throughout the ages, was yet to be made known to them. Their own faculties were not to be superseded, however, and disused, but to be used and aided. Their own recollection was to be employed, but guided and reinforced by the Holy Spirit.

d. The Spirit was to “teach them all things, to guide them into “all the truth.” Our Lord expressly draws the distinction between the things He had spoken to them while yet present with them, and the teachings of the Spirit which are to be superadded to them. (John xiv. 25, 26.) This additional light is not, on the one hand, supernatural information in every department of human knowledge, as some have extravagantly interpreted it; nor is it mere illumination in saving knowledge, such as all converted persons possess, as others unduly limit it. It was not for themselves person ally and only, but for them officially, and for the benefit of others. It is expressly connected by our Lord with the intimation that he had many things to say unto them, which they were not then able to bear.

Why the revelation of divine truth by God in the Old Testament period should have been so slow and deliberate; why, in like manner, it should have been made so gradually by our Lord himself; why it is left incomplete even at this critical moment, when he is leaving the world, and withdrawing from the disciples whom he loved, and the sinners for whom he died, — may be an interesting question. But it is certainly a fact. And from considering it, we see the necessity that this added, advancing influence should be given, to finish the unfinished work. It need scarcely be again remarked here, that incompleteness is not error; that the imperfection and inferiority freely acknowledged in the Old Testament as compared with the New, and even in the earlier of the progressive communications of our Lord, or in those of the promised Spirit itself, do not conflict with their being thoroughly divine, and exactly true, as far as they went. That which is imperfect is not necessarily either faulty or false.

e. The Spirit was also promised to “show them things to come," an expression which implies their endowment for predictive as well as declarative prophecy, their ability to describe — what no mere man can know — the future.

f. The earlier promises recorded in the Synoptic Gospels are interpreted and confirmed by these later promises. In view of these legacies, both of love and of authority, which our Saviour gives in contemplation of his immediately impending death, it is preposterous to assume that the spiritual aid he had previously promised to them was to be only for their personal defence, and to be confined to the judicial occasions then specially mentioned, as be fore synagogues and magistrates. The promise is emphasized, renewed, and also enlarged.

It may furthermore be fairly understood, that these additional instructions, given them by the Holy Spirit subsequently to his death, had the same stamp of infallibility as those spoken to them by the lips of the Master himself.

g. It is only necessary to add that these promises did not extend indefinitely. Hence the offices both of Apostle and Prophet came to an end, so far as we can discover, with the Apostolic age. There is no proof that either had any successors in office. If like authority is claimed for any others, the claim ought to be supported by adequate — not to say similar and equal — evidence.

The meaning of these promises receives further elucidation from the record of the period between the Resurrection and the Ascension. It is evi dent, as already suggested, that the forty days of our Saviour's mysterious life on earth after the Resurrection were no mere pause in the progress of events, but made a decided advance in the teaching, and in the preparation of the Apostles for their great work. Even prior to his death the instructions had become more frequent, more clear, more impressive and precious; they had revolved more about the central doctrines and eternal realities, as the Great Teacher approached the appointed death of which he had so tenderly warned them. And now, in this interval, there are plentiful indications that he both opened their understandings, and presented to their opened understandings quickening truths; so that the Apostles, after their brief course of instruction under this new school ing, came out widely different men from the vacillating, trembling, earthly-minded fugitives, who, six weeks before, had all forsaken him and fled. The chiefs of modern Rationalism, such as Paulus and Strauss (compare Lee, p. 269), have not been able to withhold the acknowledgment that this transformation in the character and conduct of the Apostles is inexplicable, unless “something extraordinary be supposed to have occurred during this interval.”

On the very evening which closed that ever memorable first day of the week on which our Lord rose from the dead, he comforted and recommissioned his affrighted disciples, saying: “Peace be unto you; as the Father hath sent me, even so send I you. And when he had said this, he breathed on them, and saith unto them, Receive ye the Holy Spirit: whosesoever sins ye forgive, they are forgiven unto them; whosesoever sins ye retain, they are retained.” (John xx. 21-23.) But even this formal imparting of the Holy Spirit is not enough.

It is distinctly recorded that he afterwards not only expounded to them, as he had done before, that all things which are written in the Law of Moses, and in the Prophets, and in the Psalms concerning him must be fulfilled, but he also “opened their mind, that they might understand the Scriptures” (Luke xxiv. 45). At the same time he renewed the assurance that he would send forth “the promise of the Father” upon them, and en joined on them to tarry in the city until they were clothed with power from on high.

In addition to those personal teachings of our risen Saviour, when the day of Pentecost was fully come, the Spirit was given. Too much stress can hardly be laid on this fact. Better even than the presence of Jesus himself are these promised communications. And they are continued during their ministry, varied and adapted to all the contingencies that arose in their official duties. The Apostles, from that notable day, were entirely different men. They were endued anew, and in higher measure than ever before, with power from on high.

An unmistakable example of the influence of the divine Spirit in imparting new truth is the case of Peter at Joppa, learning by the vision, and by the Spirit’s manifestation at Cæsarea, the true relation of the Gentiles to the Church of Christ. He expressly states that his new position was not something evolved or reasoned out by himself from the truths already known, but revealed to him by God in antagonism to his former prejudices and opinions. God had “showed it” to him (Acts x. 28).

From this whole line of argument, then, it ap pears that promises of Inspiration were distinctly and repeatedly made to writers both of the Old and of the New Testament. We do not believe that there was any breach of these promises, or that they in any respect failed to be fulfilled.

V. Assertions of Inspiration by the Sacred Writers.

Of course assertions of this kind by men them selves, unsupported and unattested, would have no weight whatever. Mohammed or Joe Smith could make such assertions.

But the assertions of the sacred writers form an important link in the chain of argument, when taken in connection with the character of the men; and when, on the one hand, the divine promises going before are considered, and on the other the miraculous confirmations accompanying and following, " the Lord working with them and confirming the Word with signs following. " These men are thoroughly authenticated, it must be remembered, as in some sense teachers sent from God. That, for Christians, is a settled point. The question now is, What claims, as such, do they make for themselves?

A. In the Old Testament a few of the passages may be quoted: —

2 Samuel xxiii. 2, David says: “The Spirit of the Lord spake by me, and his word was in my tongue."

Isaiah i. 2: “Hear, O heavens, and give ear, 0 earth, for the Lord hath spoken.” Compare Isaiah xl. 5: “The mouth of the Lord hath spoken."

Jeremiah i. 4-10: “The word of the Lord came unto me, saying,” etc. . . . “Then the Lord put forth his hand, and touched my mouth: and the Lord said unto me, Behold, I have put my words in thy mouth.” Jeremiah xv. 19: “If thou return, then will I bring thee again, that thou mayest stand before me; and if thou take forth the precious from the vile, thou shalt be as my mouth. "

(Ezekiel i. 3: “The word of the Lord came expressly to Ezekiel, the priest, and the hand of the Lord was upon him.” (Compare iii. 4, 10, 11, 17, 27.)

These expressions certainly convey the idea that the prophets claimed to be speaking, not their own words, but those with which they had been in trusted by God. It is necdless to multiply similar passages.

B. Assertions of Inspiration by the New Testament writers.

It is unquestionable that they do lay claim, in numerous ways and on various occasions, to an authority more than human, as will be presently shown by quotations. No principle can possibly be stated which would limit these claims to those precise occasions, or forbid their extension to other official communications of these same individuals. Their authority rested generally on their well -known character as the accredited representatives of the Almighty, speaking in his name to men. They only repeated or urged anew their claim of divine authority, when it was questioned, or when some special reason required its assertion. Elsewhere it is quietly taken for granted.

While frankly admitting their own fallibility in conduct, and imperfection in grace, and liability to mistake in everything but this for which they are inspired, these writers fearlessly claim to be heard as from God in the proclamation of the Gospel, and as to the concerns of the soul. Against any rejection or neglect of that message, they warn men with the utmost energy, and with tearful anxiety and tenderness. The doctrine which they teach they did not derive from study, did not reason out for themselves; and they did not take credit to themselves for acquiring it, or devoting themselves to it. It is all due to the holy impulse and enlightening influence of the Spirit of God.

Their authority they represent as equal to that of the Old Testament prophets. The Church is built “upon the foundation of the Apostles and prophets.” (Ephesians ii. 20.) Now there is no question that the Jews of that time, as well as these Christian teachers, held the inspiration of the Old Testament prophets; and if the Apostles are found claiming to be regarded as on an equal footing with the prophets, there is no stronger form in which they could assert their own inspiration.

If it is alleged that this guidance and aid were restricted to oral, not written, teaching, —

(1) we would ask, Why? Can any valid reason be as signed?⁸

(2) Divine authority is expressly claimed by them for their written word. See 1 Corinthians xiv. 37: “If any man thinketh himself to be a prophet, or spiritual, let him take knowledge of the things which I write unto you, that they are the commandment of the Lord.” Compare John xx. 31; 2 Thessalonians ii. 15; 1 Corinthians ii. 13.

Let us now consider some of the passages in which these claims are made by writers of the New Testament.

Acts xv. 1-6, 28. The Apostles and elders at Jerusalem, in the decision given upon the question from Antioch, say, “It seemed good to the Holy Ghost, and to us."

Romans xvi. 25–27. The Apostle Paul conjoins his own preaching with “the Scriptures of the prophets, according to the commandment of the eternal God,” as the source of Christian knowledge unto “all the nations."

The case of the Apostle Paul is somewhat peculiar, and therefore we have in his case special abundance of evidence. He was not one of the original twelve. His authority, however, is not based simply on the inspiration which men would persuade us belonged to the Christian community as a whole (of which we discover no suitable evidence); nor on that which he might claim as a prophet, which might have been adequate; nor on his adoption into their order, and recognition by the original Apostles; but on his special call and commission as an Apostle by Jesus Christ himself. He had received the truth not from human sources, even the highest and most direct, but from the Lord Jesus personally by an internal disclosure (Galatians i. 11, 16); he has seen the Lord (1 Corinthians xv. 10, Acts xxii. 6); he has had abundant evidence subjectively and objectively of his Apostleship (Romans i. 1, 5; 1 Corinthians ix. 1, 2).

1 Corinthians ii. 1-16. In consequence of di visions in the church at Corinth, Paul is led to declare his own apostolic authority. Negatively, he says that his proclamation of the mystery of God was not with excellency of speech or of wisdom, not with man's wisdom, not the wisdom of the world. Positively, it was God's wisdom in a mystery, spoken in demonstration of the Spirit, revealed by God through the Spirit. And not only does he thus ascribe to God the communication of the knowledge to him (revelation), but also the words in which it is conveyed by himself to other men (inspiration); “which things also we speak, not in words which man's wisdom teacheth, but which the Spirit teacheth.” Here is a clear reference to God, not only of the doctrine taught, but of the form, the words, in which it is taught.

1 Corinthians xiv. 37: “If any man thinketh himself to be a prophet or spiritual, let him ac knowledge the things which I write unto you, that they are the commandment of the Lord.” It is a test of discipleship that they acknowledge his regulations in church matters as from the Lord.

2 Corinthians xiii. 2, 3. He claims official control in the church: “I write to them who heretofore have sinned and to all other, that, if I come again, I will not spare, seeing that ye seek a proof of Christ that speaketh in me.” And this is not as to some abstract truth which he has declared, but as to the application of the principles of Christian discipline in correcting particular cases of disorder.

Galatians i. 8–12: “But though we, or an angel from heaven, should preach unto you any gospel other than that which we preached unto you, let him be anathema. As we have said before, so say I now again, If any man preacheth unto you any gospel other than that which ye received, let him be anathema. For am I now persuading men, or God? or am I seeking to please men? If I were still pleasing men, I should not be a servant of Christ. For I make known to you, brethren, as touching the gospel which was preached by me, that it is not after man. For neither did I receive it from man, nor was I taught it, but it came to me through revelation of Jesus Christ.” Nothing but a distinct conviction and assurance from above of his own authority as an inspired man could war rant the claims Paul here puts forth. He had not received his doctrine from men, not even from the other Apostles. And if any proclaim a different gospel — even if he himself should, or if an angel from heaven should do it — he denounces with the utmost severity such a departure from the gospel which he had proclaimed.

In Ephesians ii. 20, the Apostles and prophets are classed together, and are represented as the foundation on which Christians are built, Jesus Christ himself being the chief corner stone. It is immaterial here whether the prophets be under stood to be those of the Old Testament, or of New Testament times. The authority which Paul at tributes to “the prophets” is well understood. He ranks the Apostles with them, and places both in fundamental connection with Jesus Christ himself. This teaching of the Apostles and prophets, then, is a sure foundation, infallibly true and certain.

In Ephesians iii. 1-7, Paul claims that God by revelation made known to him the mystery " which in other ages was not made known unto the sons of men, as it is now revealed unto his holy Apostles and prophets by the Spirit;” and that of this gospel he was made a minister according to the gift of the grace of God, given unto him by the effectual working of His power.” It is by the agency of the Spirit, by the effectual working of divine power, that this knowledge has been communicated to him, and to the other Apostles and prophets.

1 Thessalonians ii. 13,he thanks God that “when ye received the word of God which ye heard of us, ye received it not as the word of men, but, as it is in truth, the word of God.” It was divine teaching, though received by them from human lips, and it is matter of continual rejoicing that they received it as such. Here is a sharp contrast between simply human instruction — persuasion, argument, the word of men — and divine instruction, authoritative assertion, the word of God; and the apostolic teaching is expressly said to be of the latter kind.

1 Thessalonians iv. 2, 8, 15: “Ye know what commandments we gave you by the Lord Jesus." “He therefore that despiseth, despiseth not man, but God, who hath also given us his Holy Spirit.' “This we say unto you by the word of the Lord,”! giving a statement as to the wondrous future events at the Resurrection day.

2 Thessalonians ii. 13–15. He points to the two fold influence exerted in their salvation by " sanctification of the Spirit and belief of the truth.” To this they had been called by “our gospel," and accordingly they are to “stand fast and hold the traditions which ye have been taught, whether by word or by our epistle.” The power of the Spirit and that of the truth are here intimately associated. That truth they had learned through the preaching of the Apostle; and, if they are to stand fast in the salvation they have received, it is to be by faithful adherence to the teachings they had obtained from Paul. Moreover, it makes no difference whether these teachings were oral or written. They were equally binding, equally authoritative, equally connected with salvation.

1 Peter i. 10–12. The inspiration of the Old Testament writers is here shown to be no mere modification or exaltation of their own unaided faculties, but the impartation of capacity and authority, by “the Spirit of Christ which was in them,” to speak on subjects which they did not otherwise understand, and to record things the meaning of which they were still left to search and inquire diligently into. Furthermore, the proclamation of the Gospel in New Testament times was “by the Holy Spirit sent forth from heaven.”

2 Peter iii. 1, 2. An equal place is claimed in the attention and confidence of the people for 6 the words that were spoken before by the holy prophets,” and the commandment of us the Apostles of the Lord and Saviour." The Canterbury Revision adopts a different reading, and translates the last clause “the commandment of the Lord and Saviour through your Apostles.” This would not vary materially the evidence, but presents our doctrine in rather more distinct terms.

Revelation i. 1-3, 10, 11, 19. The Book of Rev. elation opens with a vision of God, and a command to John, such as had been formerly given to Moses, to write in a book what he sees. The assurance is afterwards given that this communication is from the same Almighty. One, " the Lord God of the holy prophets.”

Revelation xxii. 6, 7, 18, 19. The angel says, “These words are faithful and true; and the Lord, the God of the spirits of the prophets, sent his an gel to show unto his servants the things that must shortly come to pass." There is added a most solemn warning against adding to, or taking away from, the words of the book of this prophecy, on peril of incurring all the plagues, and forfeiting all the blessings of the eternal world.

Considering this whole series of claims put forth by the Apostles and their associates, it is impossible to overlook the formal and public position assumed by the Apostles as the introducers, under the authority of Jesus Christ, of the new revelation; nor the distinct connection of this with the old revelation, their reverence for which is well known and universally acknowledged; nor the tone of author ity and command which men, who were not ambitious but humble, not self-seekers and worldly, but self-sacrificing and spiritual, assume in addressing their fellow men as to the concerns of their souls.

VI. Passages in which the Union of the Human and Divine Authorship of Portions of Scripture is expressly recognized.

The special feature of our doctrine of Inspiration, which may probably excite question among those unfamiliar with the subject, is the thorough -going ascription of a divine character to those parts of the Bible which are most obviously and unmistakably human. According to our view, indeed, there is no part of the Bible which does not show clearly the marks of human origin. This is the first and most obvious of the “phenomena” and also of the “claims” of Scripture, — that it is written by Moses, David, Isaiah, Paul, and other men; and this is equally true of those portions the human authors of which are unnamed and unknown. But we have endeavored to show that this is not inconsistent with the real divine authorship.

The divine origin is as strongly and as distinctly affirmed as if there had been no human instrumentality involved. The human agency is also as clearly and unmistakably presented as if there had been no divine interposition in the case. We believe that much of the error and difficulty that have arisen in the minds of devout and earnest inquirers are due to looking exclusively at one or the other of these classes of facts. It may therefore be useful, as a confirmatory proof on this special point, to present some passages of Scripture where the union of the human and the divine element in the same utterance is distinctly stated or recognized; where the same words are quoted and as cribed indifferently and equally to God and to man as their author. A few examples of this kind will be sufficient to demonstrate the possibility and the actuality of such a union; and that is all that is practically necessary for our argument.

The commandment, “Honor thy father and thy mother” (Exodus xx. 12), is quoted (Matthew xv. 4) under the expression, “God said”; and again (Mark vii. 10) the Saviour is represented as saying, “Moses said.”

The language of the Psalm (cx. 1), “The Lord said unto my Lord,” etc., is quoted (Mark xii. 36) with the expression, “David said by the Holy Spirit,” which really presents both sides of the truth in the single statement; in the succeeding verse (Mark xii. 37) the same Evangelist informs us that our Saviour adds, “David himself calleth him Lord. " Compare Matthew xxii. 43, “How then doth David in the Spirit call him Lord?” It is difficult to see in what more explicit language both the authorship by David and the inspiration by the Spirit could be affirmed; or what higher testimony could be adduced than that of Him who was at once both God and man.

The argument of our Lord from the expressions in which Jehovah is called “the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob " (Exodus iii. 6, 15), is worthy of special attention. He gives it (Matthew xxii. 31) as that which was “spoken unto you by God "; again (Luke xx. 37), as what “Moses showed at the bush," etc.; while Mark (xii. 26), who is noted for giving minute details and precise circumstances, combines both ideas, and presents the language, “Have ye not read in the book of Moses, in (the place concerning) the Bush, how God spake unto him, saying, I am the God of Abraham?” etc. It is not necessary to our purpose here to vindicate our Lord from the charge of using “Rabbinical dialectic " and illogical argumentation. God had spoken thus to Moses (Exodus iii. 6), and bade him speak the same things to the people (Exodus iii. 15). Luke shows that our Lord emphasized the fact of its coming through Moses, — -“Even Moses showed.” Our Lord authoritatively expounds the passage in a deeper sense than the obvious one, and shows that “the Eternal would not make and avow such a covenant, save with those whose existence is permanent. " (Broadus on Matthew xxii. 31.)

That frequently quoted passage (Isaiah vi. 10), in reference to the fat heart, and heavy ears, and closed eyes of the people, is referred to by the Apostle Paul (Acts xxviii. 25): “Well spake the Holy Spirit by Isaiah the prophet unto your fathers,” etc.; while John (xii. 39–41) declares, “Isaiah said again,” and, “These things said Isaiah, because he saw his glory.”

The Apostle Peter in like manner says, “It was needful that the Scripture should be fulfilled, which the Holy Spirit spake before by the mouth of David concerning Judas” (Acts i. 16); thus combining both ideas in the one phrase. (See Acts iv. 25, &c.)

So too Matthew (i. 22, ii. 15) employs, in quoting, the expression “spoken by the Lord, through the prophet” (Rev. Version); not “of the Lord by the prophet,” as the Common Version translates, which is now ambiguous, being conformed in its use of the prepositions to antique rather than to modern English; though it was unquestionably in tended to convey precisely what we understand it to mean, namely, that the speaking was primarily and fundamentally the Lord's, and that the utterance of this divine message was through the prophet speaking for him. No line of discrimination is to be drawn between the human and the divine portions of Scripture.

In the Epistle to the Hebrews, not only portions from the express words of Jehovah as recorded in the Old Testament are quoted with the expressions, “God saith,” “the Holy Spirit saith,” “the Holy Spirit also is a witness to us,” but even the words of Jeremiah and David. Each of the three great divisions of the Scriptures (the Law, the Prophets, and the Psalms) is thus referred to.⁹ (Hebrews iii. 7; ix. 8; x. 15.)

Turning to the New Testament Apostles and prophets, in their inspired testimony, it is apparent that their human characteristics and circumstances are intended to be employed as natural means of enforcing their witness and giving it the utmost credibility. The fact of their being personal eye witnesses is again and again insisted on. Yet this human personality of theirs is not in the slightest degree incompatible with their utterance being at the same time the message of God. And the combination of the two testimonies is expressly brought to view in such passages as John xv. 26, 27, " When the Comforter is come he shall bear witness of me; and ye also bear witness, because ye have been with me from the beginning.” Luke xxiv. 48, 49, “Ye are witnesses of these things. And behold I send forth the promise of my Father (the Spirit) upon you; but tarry ye in the city, until ye be clothed with power from on high.” And among the very last words spoken to them by our Lord on Olivet, just before he ascended, he said, “Ye shall receive power, when the Holy Spirit is come upon you; and ye shall be my wit nesses. unto the uttermost parts of the earth.” (Acts i. 8.)

Accordingly, the Apostles, in the presence of the Council, declare: “And we are witnesses of these things; and so is the Holy Spirit, whom God hath given to them that obey him.” (Acts v. 32.) And, when assembled for consultation at Jerusalem, on the subject of circumcision, they give their decisions under the form, “It seemed good to the Holy Spirit and to us” (Acts xv. 28); which style, ob serves the judicious Hooker, “they did not use as matching themselves in power with the Holy Ghost, but as testifying the Holy Ghost to be the Author, and themselves but only utterers of that decree." (Ecclesiastical Polity, Book III. c. 10.)

The doctrine indicated in these passages is precisely what we have been endeavoring to advocate, and to show to be the Scriptural doctrine of Inspiration. If we have succeeded in proving this, our end has been attained. Those for whose special benefit this discussion has been designed will readily admit that whatever representation the Scriptures make on the subject is the true one.

In conclusion, we have to observe that the force and effect of the various arguments exhibited are not to be obtained by considering each apart, but by combining them, and taking the whole result. Each one does not bear alone the whole weight of the conclusion. As Bishop Butler has well said of the evidence for Christianity, so the evidence for Inspiration combines many things “of great variety and compass, . . . making up, all of them together, one argument; the conviction arising from which kind of proof may be compared to what they call the effect in architecture or other works of art, a result from a great number of things so and so disposed, and taken into one view." (Analogy, Part II. c. 7.)

It has been shown that there is a reasonable presumption that God in giving a revelation, as it is agreed He has done, would inspire it; that the proper source and kind of evidence to prove that He has actually inspired the Bible is in its own statements and phenomena; that this conclusion is established, —

(1) By the general manner of quoting Scripture in Scripture;

(2) by passages which affirm or imply the inspiration of the Scriptures as a whole;

(3) by declarations affirming the inspiration of particular persons or passages;

(4) by promises of inspiration to the sacred writers;

(5) by assertions of inspiration by the sacred writers;

(6) by passages in which that union of the human and the divine authorship which we have seen to be implied, is expressly recognized.

Thus the Bible statements on the subject have been considered, in general and in detail, as classified and part by part.

It remains only to submit our minds frankly and lovingly to the combined influence of all God's words about his Word, and to join with peaceful confidence in the prayer and the assurance of our Lord Jesus, — "SANCTIFY THEM IN THE TRUTH: THY WORD IS TRUTH."

1) Compare Bannerman, 311-351; also excellent articles by Dr. H. Osgood on “The Old Testament according to the Testimony of Jesus and the Apostles," and in Baptist Quarterly, 1883, p. 88 f.; also Dr. F. Gardiner in Sunday School Times, May 26, 1886.

2) Our Lord's appeal to the Old Testament is to be considered in view of these two facts:(1) He recognizes in his teaching no hu man authority, and (2) He does recognize absolutely the authority of his Heavenly Father. Whatever recognition, then, he gives to the authority of the Old Testament, can only be on the ground of its having proceeded from his Father. Compare Matthew vii. 28, 29; John viii. 28. — Dr. F. GARDINER.

3) It is suggested by Dr. Ladd, in connection with this passage, that the Saviour accuses the Jews " of folly and sin in idolizing the written Word, while neglecting its ideal contents of truth.” (I. 51.) But does he? He commends their search of the Scriptures, blames their blindness to the truth so plainly contained in it, and censures their unauthorized additions to it by tradition; but says not a word about idolizing the written Word.

4) “The Scripture is here identified with God, its Author. The case, as Tholuck remarks, is different when merely something contained in Scripture is introduced by the Scripture saith '; there ' the Scripture ' is merely personified. The justice of Tholuck's remark will be apparent, if we reflect that this expression could not be used of the mere ordinary words of any man in the historical Scriptures, Ahab, or Hezekiah, — but only where the text itself speaks, or where God spoke, or, as here, some man under the inspiration of God.” (Alford, Greek Testament, on Rom. ix. 17.) It is also worthy of notice, that, while the Apostle quotes ordinarily from the Septuagint, as the version familiar to the people, he in this expression (as in many other instances) departs from it, to intro duce a more literal and exact translation of his own from the original Hebrew.

5) Ellicott (in loco) discusses the passage fairly and ably, as is his wont, and says: “It is very difficult to decide. . . .  Lexicography and grammar contribute little towards a decision. . . .  We are thus remanded wholly to the context,” – which he regards as on the whole favoring the rendering adopted by the revisers. But he distinctly affirms that “pasa graphe (every Scripture) implies every individual graphe (Scripture) of those previously alluded to in the term hiera grammata (sacred writings).” If the article had been used with graphe, the interpretation all Scripture would be undisputed. But that graphe, Scripture, as a proper name, may legitimately omit the article (as in John xix. 37, Romans i. 2, xvi. 16, 2 Peter i. 20) is obvious; — just as in all Jerusalem (Matthew ii. 3), all Israel (Ro mans xi. 26), all the house of Israel (Acts ii. 36, 1 Samuel vii. 2, 3, Nehemiah iv. 16, Judith viii. 6, Matthew x. 6, xv. 24). Compare Winer's Grammar, $ 18. 5 (c) and 19. 1 (a).

6) Dr. Ladd well paraphrases the passage: “No prophecy contained in the Old Testament Scripture has its origin as a matter of merely subjective explication, as a result of the prophet's own power intuitively to discern the meaning of the subject he cogitates; and prophecy is never sent by the will of man as a cause, but is rather uttered by men who are borne along by the Holy Ghost, and there. fore speak as from a divine source.” — Doctrine of Sacred Scripture, I. 162.

7) Dr. Lee has aptly styled these chapters "the Holy of Holies of Christ's history; that wonderful passage, from every line of which shines forth the Divinity of Him who spake, though each syllable be tinged with the sadness of a Soul which even now gazed full upon the agony in the Garden, and bore in prospect the crown of thorns, — syllables, too, which were uttered from the very shadow of the tomb.” – Lee on Inspiration, 35.

8) In case the disciples should commit to writing these commandments, whether as embodied in words or in deeds, and whether for the purpose of discipling the nations or of instructing their converts, the promise of Christ would surely not be withdrawn. — LADD, I. 76.

9) In this remarkable epistle, God, or the Holy Ghost, is continually named as the speaker in the passages quoted from the Old Testament; and this not merely in those of which it is said in the context of the Old Testament Scriptures, “God said," but also in those in which some human being speaks, e. g. David, as composer of a Psalm. In this the view of the author clearly expresses itself as to the Old Testament and its writers. He regarded God as the Principle that lived, and wrought, and spoke in them all by his Holy Spirit; and accordingly Holy Scripture was to him a pure work of God, although announced to the world by man. — OLSHAUSEN, Die Echtheit des N. T., p. 170.