I. CHRIST'S RELIGION. "PROVE ALL THINGS; HOLD FAST THAT WHICH IS GOOD." 1 Thess. v. 12. THE DOCTRINE OF INSPIRATION, AS MAINTAINED IN THE SCRIPTURES THEMSELVES. IN considering the authority and meaning of the sacred Scriptures it is necessary to decide in what light they are to be regarded as sacred; and in what respect they are human productions. This is necessary in order to perceive how great a regard we should pay to the authority of these writings; whether, after learning from their general character and tendency, that they are in scope and purpose Divine; we are still at liberty to reject or modify such parts of these books, as may not conform to our present views of what is reasonable. A laxity of view on this subject, will influence very greatly the system of religious doctrines we shall draw from these sacred records. Since after certain points are very clearly established, as contained in these books; the reply may be, that in general the writings are very good; but the authors, being fallible men, have speculated too far, on certain facts of which they were competent witnesses: being very honest men, but sometimes mistaken in their reasonings and conclusions. So then we should have to correct this WRITTEN TRADITION, by the BIBLE OF REASON. That the validity of certain passages, may sometimes be properly canvassed, by the laws of criticism and historical evidence, no one will deny: but the question is, whether the book, as a whole, which in general is admitted,-whether it is in all respects a safe guide; and the opinions actually recorded are true and authoritative. That a great part of the Old Testament, would require no special inspiration is very obvious; namely, much that is historical: except such history as the writers could not obtain from monuments or from personal acquaintance; as the history of the creation and fall of man. But even historically considered, this book, must have been so written under superior guidance, as to lead to the selection of those facts which lead to a common purpose, fulfilled before the account closes. We may here notice some of those opinions respecting inspiration, against which we think it necessary to guard those who accept the Scrip tures. "The great Founder of our religion," says a celebrated writer, "left no records or written memorials, respecting the end and object of his mission, VOL. II. 1 2 for the information of posterity." Do these men pretend to say, that it was not part of our Lord's scheme to have a written memorial of his life and purpose; and if not how could he become in any general sense a Teacher? "It was not," adds the same writer, "till considerably after the death, resurrection, and ascension of Christ, that any regular and authentic accounts were published; and even then, not by any express commission from him, but to gratify the desire of proselytes, the evangelical histories were compiled." Now who knows that these men had not an express commission? Besides, is it not implied in their very office;to go into all the world and preach the gospel to every creature? Was it only during the apostles' lifetime, that these truths would be useful to mankind? Peter after speaking of his exertions during his life, says, "Moreover I will endeavour, that ye may be able after my decease, to have these things always in remembrance."-(2 Pet. i. 15.) Referring to other writings of "apostolical authority," the same author asserts, that "nothing but the prophecies contained in those writings, together with a few passages professedly penned from immediate inspiration, appear to be strictly speaking of Divine authority." But what is meant by "apostles," are they not persons who are sent; and what they say in this capacity, is a message from the person who sends them? If, therefore, the apostles, as such, say what is not of Divine authority, they are dishonest men: but their epistles are written in the character of apostles of Jesus Christ; and, therefore, either the doctrines which these contain are Divine, or the writers are impostors; having forged the signature and authority of Jesus Christ. We are told indeed the astonishing fact, that "the epistles breathe a truly Christian and evangelical spirit," which is a great compliment for a modern commentator, to pay to the apostles. But further, "that the writers do not arrogate to themselves that plenary degree of inspiration, they do not exact that blind and implicit acquiescence in their opinions, which is at present conceived essential to the exercise of apostolical authority." It is true the apostles do not arrogate anything; they leave arrogance, to those who have the advantage of later lights: neither is there any arrogance in being inspired: it may be and is associated with great humility:-"to me who am less than the least of all saints is this grace given, that I should preach among the Gentiles, the unsearchable riches of Christ." But that the apostles claimed such authority, as divinely instructed teachers, we shall afterwards fully shew: and that they insisted on the acquiescence of their hearers, in their Christian teaching is equally evident:"but though we or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel unto you, than that which we have preached unto you, let him be accursed. As we said before, so say I again, if any man preach any other gospel unto you, than that which ye have received, let him be accursed." (Gal. i. 8, 9.) And this was in reference to certain erroneous opinions, which false teachers had introduced into the Galatian Church. We are told further, that the "Christian religion existed long before Paul wrote his celebrated epistles: and it is doing Christianity mighty wrong, to deduce from those epistles an abstruse system of speculative theology, and to pronounce that system essential to Christianity." Theologians of this class are very desirous of removing the epistles, or of soften ing their meaning: and certainly we shall do Paul wrong, to deduce "speculative theology" from his writings; for they are eminently practical, but enforce practice on the grounds of doctrine. Whilst a reference to the Christianity which subsisted before these were written, is very unfortunate; since we can now understand nothing of this Christianity, but from these epistles. Nay, the Catholics would support superstition on the very ground of this rationalism, for they tell us that we must not rely on the written Scriptures, but on the Christianity which existed before them, and which is recorded in the traditions of the Church. also Have our rationalists any tradition then from which we may understand the Christian religion, apart from the apostolic writings? Does not the writer we are quoting, evidently imply, that the epistles contain something which did not belong to the Christianity of those Churches to which they were written? And that we should be misled by the speculations of Paul? But were not the writers of the epistles frequently the very persons who also had given the oral teaching, and planted Christianity among the persons to whom they wrote? "Moreover, brethren, I declare (by letter) the gospel which I preached unto you, (by word of mouth,) which ye have received, and wherein ye stand; by which also ye are saved, if ye keep in memory what I preached unto you."-(1 Cor. xv. 1, 2.) Now who is a better judge of the previous Christianity than Paul himself, who taught it? Whilst the people would know whether there was any difference between his sermons and his letters. So in his epistle to the Thessalonians he refers to his previous teaching, "for our Gospel came not unto you in word only,"-" and ye became followers of us and of the Lord, having received the word,"-"for our exhortation was not of deceit,"-"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 is vain, therefore, to talk about a previous Christianity, as if it were something different to what the epistles contain; since these epistles are the only records of the opinions of those men, who first planted Christianity. "Therefore, brethren, stand fast, and hold the traditions which ye have been taught, whether by word, or our epistle." (2 Thess. ii. 15.) Here the apostle puts his preaching and writing on the same footing; and we can now judge of his sermons only by his let ters. "And if any man obey not our word by this epistle, note that man, and have no company with him, that he may be ashamed. Yet count him not as an enemy, but admonish him as a brother."-(2 Thess. iii. 14.) "Now I praise you, brethren, that ye remember me in all things, and keep the ordinances, as I delivered them unto you."-(1 Cor. xi. 2.) And so far are we from being at liberty to suppose any extravagance, in Paul's writings, as compared with the gospel previously received; that he asserts in his epistle to those who could make the comparison, "we write none other things unto you, than what ye read or acknowledge, and I trust ye shall acknowledge even to the end."-(2 Cor. i. 13.) Whatever remarks, therefore, tend to disparage the authority of the epistles, do so far, discredit Christianity itself, and loosen its foundations. And what is the reason for the unfounded assertion, that these writings in general and as a whole are not inspired? It is chiefly because they contain doctrines which hardly comport with rationalistic views: hence the evangelical histories or gospels are appealed to: which, indeed, are evidently introductory, and contain the primary stage of this religion; its introductory facts, on the basis of which the apostles have reared the superstructure of doctrines, in explanation of those facts. The writer, whose views of apostolical authority we have now been considering, prefers Paul to the others, because of the liberality of opinions on matters of Jewish ritual: and with a little trimming, he seems to think that Paul may be reduced to the simplicity of the evangelical historians. Now it happens that those historians have given the rude and childish stage of their experience, honestly exhibiting their own folly and simplicity, from which, in a great measure, they became free, on and after the day of Pentecost. But "the style" of this "great apostle" (Paul,) we are told, is "harsh, abrupt, vehement, and highly rhetorical:" yet "with a proper allowance for the oriental magnificence of diction, even those passages which are hard to be understood, respecting the dignity of Christ's nature, and the value of that sacrifice which he offered upon the cross, are perfectly reconcilable with the more plain and simple representations of the evange lical historians."* It is not so much that these are hard to be understood as that they are unpalatable. But who is to judge what is the "proper allowance," to be made for this supposed extravagance, or to decidethat Paul was not equally a messenger of Christ, and with as much authority as the writers of the gospels? All this shews plainly that it is only by assumption, that the strictly Divine authority of the epistles is denied, and in order to maintain a bald and meagre system of mutilated Christianity. Having shewn thus, in a general introductory manner, in opposition to reckless assertions, that the apostles as such do claim to be inspired, and that their epistles are the only authoritative records of primitive Christianity, being letters of direction, reproof, command, and instruction, to the earliest Churches: we I. May notice more in order, the general inspiration of the Scriptures, implied and expressed in the Bible itself. 1. And first we may observe, that the arguments previously used, to shew that the Bible is from God,+ because of the superiority of what it contains, to anything which human reason or philosophy when unassisted, has discovered, that this is a proof of Divine inspiration. For the superiority of the Bible is of such a nature as not to be accounted for by the character and ability of the individual writers. This contrast between the natural training of the authors and the instructions they have conveyed,-between these and the education and results in natural writers, is employed by the Apostle Paul, 1 Cor. i.19-30. Now whatever proves, that the Bible, as a whole, is not a human production, that it is too great and good for human purpose and genius, proves also, that it is inspired. And this also is implied in the apostolic argument just referred to. 2. Secondly, not only does the distinction between these men's writings "Essay on Christianity," in "Essays Philosophical, Historical, and Literary." Two vols. Published anonymously, but ascribed to the Rev. Thomas Belsham, author of a Paraphrase and Translation of Paul's Epistles." + Article I., The Bible and the People, January, 1852. and those of others, prove them not strictly to be the original authors; but the difference between the apostles, before and after Pentecost, is an instance of Divine illumination. There is no comparison between the insight which the first preachers had respecting the claims and kingdom of Christ, during his sojourn, and after his resurrection. Nay, we find the Saviour himself saying, "O fools and slow of heart, to believe all that the prophets have spoken; ought not the Christ to have suffered these things, and to enter into his glory? And beginning at Moses, and all the prophets, he expounded unto them in all the Scriptures, the things concerning himself." "Then opened he their understandings, that they might understand the Scriptures."-(Luke xxiv. 25-27, 45.) Now it is certain, that the light which our Lord threw on these subjects, at the end of his life, IS NOT RECORDED IN THE GOSPELS; which are written as plain historical facts: and, therefore, this more intimate instruction, is either to be found in the Acts and epistles, OR IS LOST UNTO THE But this instruction partook of the nature of supernatural communication, and was completed by the subsequent bestowment of the Spirit. WORLD. 3. Contrast the apostles' writings on Christianity with those of the early fathers, who not having divine illumination, but having the New Testament instruction, were warped in their judgment, by the philosophy and superstition of the age. An English reader need only look into Dr. Middleton's book on miracles to be convinced that men, even with the advantage of apostolical teaching, could produce nothing equal to the Bible, but could only disfigure Christianity by absurd fancies: whilst it is only as the gospel has become more and more the master influence of the age, and cleared the atmosphere of the gathering clouds of human ignorance, that we can fully appreciate the teachings of this book: it must gradually educate the world up to its own level. But the difference between the early Christian writers, and the writers of the New Testament is as obvious as between a lead and a silver shilling; between a copper and a gold sovereign. The counterfeit makes the genuine manifest. We can explain the difference, only by supposing the inspiration of the apostles. And so far we have noticed, by way of three preliminary observations. 4. Fourthly, we may notice, direct Bible statements on this subject. Both respecting the Old and New Testament. First, the Old Testament. It has already been observed, that direct inspiration is required only for those facts and teachings, which were beyond historical evidence and research. : Ezra would not need Divine inspiration to record his return from captivity but the whole movement is evidently regarded as under the direction of Providence; and all the Jewish history has a religious bearing, as being the ark of the true God, carried along through the darkness of ages, and pointing out the line of approach by which the true oracle, "THE WORD," and the Great High Priest should draw nigh for the instruction and salvation of the world. Hence the outline of the Jewish economy, was a direct Divine arrangement, a covenant between Jehovah and the Jews, as a temporary beacon light. And all these things are employed afterwards, by the apostles and our Saviour, as indications or types of the Christian dispensation. For as Moses lifted up the serpent in the wilder |