By William Burt Pope, D.D.,
INSPIRATION: The term Divine in the general proposition that the Bible is the Divine Rule of Faith suggests the inspiration and infallible authority of the Sacred Records. Inspiration, distinguished from Revelation as we have employed the term, denotes the specific agency of the Holy Ghost in the creation and construction of Holy Scripture: this is the Biblical conventional use of the word which strictly limits its meaning. The theological treatment of the doctrine requires us to examine, first, the testimony of 'the Bible itself to its own inspiration; secondly, the history of the dogma in the universal Church; and. thirdly, the dogmatic results that may be regarded as fully expressing the truth on this subject. The distinction between the terms Revelation and Inspiration depends, to a great extent, upon their conventional signification. In the Bible we do not trace the distinction found necessary in dogmatic theology, and so elaborately discussed in treatises on the subject. There are hints, however, that justify us in assigning to each word its particular province. 1. Scripture uses them interchangeably; or, rather, adopts the same forms of expression to exhibit the methods of both. God by divers portions and in divers manners spake in times past to the fathers in the prophets: 1 this includes at once the revelation of all truth to the minds of the prophets, and the inspiration by which they received and administered that truth. The Voice of God pervades the Old Testament; and in the New it still speaketh in His Son. The divers manners 2 include visions, whether in dream or ecstasy, by the medium of which the Holy Ghost presented, with or without symbols, new forms of truth to the mind, or what is always called the Word of the Lord; and also communications to the waking faculties, conscious of all their own exercises and controlling them. The divers portions cannot well be understood unless we regard them as including the successive stages by which the ancient people were entrusted with the written oracles.Thus the inspiration and the revelation are one. St. Paul unites them when he says. I will come to visions and revelations of the Lord: 3 a sentence in which all ancient methods are reduced to two, and these are shown to be continued in the New Testament, though no longer so general and characteristic as they formerly had been.1 Heb.1:1; 2 Heb. 1:2. 2. On the other hand, the Scripture authorizes the conventional phraseology which distinguishes between revelation of truth and inspiration to record it. The Son, in the unity of the Father and the Holy Spirit, is the Revealer. The Spirit, in the unity of the Father and the Son, is the Inspirer. The Son is the living and eternal Word in Whom the eternal ideas of all truth existed, before they were made known; but the Spirit did signify 1 its meaning to the prophets, who spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost. 2 The word Revelation is generally used of THE LORD; 3 the only instance of the use of Inspiration refers it to the Scripture as the result. 4 The disclosure of the mind of God to man is revelation when viewed in relation to the Truth unveiled, and inspiration when viewed in relation to the methods of its impartation and transmission to posterity. And, as revelation must in its highest meaning be limited to the unfolding of the scheme of redemption, so inspiration is limited to that one kind of contact or intercourse between the Holy Spirit and the spirit in man which produced the written Word for all ages and generations.1 1 Pet. 1:11; 2 2 Pet. 1:21; 3 2 Cor 12:1; 4 2 Tim 3:16. THE TESTIMONY OF SCRIPTURE ITSELF. The Scripture presents the credentials of its own inspiration. Hence, remembering that in things Divine credentials are always first, and are, if necessary, to be sustained by their own evidences, it is not arguing in a circle to receive the witness of the Bible concerning itself: we must study the whole subject with the Book in our hands. The Old Testament yields its testimony in a manner accordant with its preliminary stage of development; but, though only preliminary, that testimony will be found to include every essential element of the doctrine. Christ, the Revealer, gives His supreme attestation to the authority of the ancient Scriptures: such an attestation, considering His claims, was absolutely necessary; it is expressly given, and of course it is sufficient. He has also with equal expressness, though in a different manner, declared by anticipation the plenary Divine authority of the writings of the New Testament. After exhibiting the evidence of this, we shall descend to the Apostles' testimony concerning the inspiration of the Old Testament and their own; and then may be in a position to sum up the evidence of the Holy Oracles concerning themselves as one united whole. 1. The Old Testament does not lay down the distinction between Revelation and Inspiration; but it furnishes the evidence by which the distinction may be established. Communications of the Divine will were given in various ways to various men, few of whom, comparatively speaking, were educated and commissioned to write the permanent records of that will. The Patriarchs received revelations, and recorded some of them; but their records were not officially made Scripture by themselves. It was the special prerogative of Moses that he was the immediate organ of Jehovah, the Logos-Angel: There arose not a prophet since in Israel like unto Moses whom Jehovah knew face to face. 1 Of him it is not recorded that the Spirit made him an instrument: a distinction which was afterwards perverted as we shall see. Of all the inspired agents of Jehovah who testified concerning Christ Moses approached most nearly to the Person Whom he predicted, or rather was brought into closest analogy with Him. After the Uncreated Angel withdrew as the immediate Revealer, phrases are introduced which had not been known before but are used now in great variety. We read of the Spirit of God, 2 or of Jehovah, coming down on men; of the Hand of the Lord 3 moving upon one and another; of the Word of the Lord 4 coming to them.1 Deu. 34:10; 2 Num. 24:2; 2 1 Sam. 10:6; 3 2 Chro. 15:1; 4 Ezek. 37:14. 2. But, running through all, there is a constant commission to write: from Moses, through Samuel's schools of the prophets, down to the end of the Old Testament. The Lord said unto Moses, Write this for a memorial in a book. 1 A large number of references to writing may be collected in the ancient records: to the men appointed to write by the commandment of the Lord; 2 to God as Himself the Writer, I have written to him the great things of My law; 3 to the manner in which the prophetic records especially were arranged and preserved, and Baruch wrote from the mouth of Jeremiah; 4 and to the general designation of the whole as Scripture, I will show thee that which is noted in the SCRIPTURE OF TRUTH. 5 It will be seen by a collation of the multitudes of passages of which these are specimens, that the Old Testament gives all the materials for the full doctrine which is presupposed, sanctioned, and unfolded in the New.1 Exo. 17:14; 2 Num. 33:2; 3 Hos. 8:12; 4 Jer. 36:1-4; 5 Dan. 10:21. Our Lord's witness to the inspiration of both Testaments is, to those who believe in Him, the sum of all reasoning. Not indeed that it renders the most careful examination of the documents needless; but a steadfast confidence in the Supreme Authority ought to precede, accompany, and follow every consideration of evidence. Certainly His testimony should more than outweigh all the objections which derive their strength from our ignorance. But that is not all. The Savior’s assurances not only confirm the results of inspiration, but throw a clear light upon its nature. I. In many ways this supreme testimony is given by the Redeemer to the Old Canon as a completed whole. 1. First, by His absolute ascription to its writings of a Divine authority. It was the one thing common to Him and His Jewish opponents that the Scriptures, the same to Him and to them, were admitted to be in all parts the Word and the Writings of God. He asked them: Why do ye also transgress the commandment of God by your tradition? 1 but said nothing of adding to or diminishing the holy books. They made tradition and that was their fault; but they are not condemned as making or unmaking Scripture. While sweeping away their enfeebling glosses, and giving His own spiritual interpretation, our Lord expressly declared that the least ordinance and the least commandment in the Old Testament was Divine, and must have its fulfillment. Such is the meaning of one jot or one tittle, 2 as connected with what follows.1 Mat. 15:3,6; 2 Mat. 5:18 2. He attested the entire Old Testament, secondly, by the terms He was wont to use in speaking of the older oracles. He quotes them as SCRIPTURE generally, and as individual SCRIPTURES. It is written 1 is His answer to the Tempter in the wilderness. Search the Scriptures 2 He said to the Jews and to all men: the solitary instance (taken indicatively) of the commandment: a commandment with promise, They testify of Me. 2 And He began His own prophetic office in the synagogue by proclaiming, This day is this Scripture fulfilled in your ears. 3 The ancient collection of holy documents He distinguishes according to the current division as the law or the prophets: 4 commandment and promise. In the law of Moses, and in the prophets, and in the psalms, concerning Me. 5 But He unites them all again as the Scriptures in that last unrecorded exposition of the Old Covenant that He gave to His disciples. He once calls an ancient oracle the Word of God, 6 and adds, the Scripture cannot be broken. 7 With this it is instructive to connect our Lord's saying concerning Himself, My words shall not pass away; 8 which asserts at the end of His ministry the same eternal authority for His own teaching which, at the beginning, He had asserted for the law.1 Mat. 4:7; 2 John 5:39; 3 Luke 4:21; 4 Mat. 5:17; 5 Luke 24:44,45; 6 Luke 24:27; 7 John 10:35; 8 Mat. 24:35 3.
The Redeemer never fails to refer to the old Scripture as one
testimony, given by the
inspiration of the Holy Ghost, concerning Himself. How then doth David in Spirit call
Him Lord?
1
This is the one instance in which the
Spirit's inspiration is directly referred
to, and it is a special prophecy concerning David's Lord,
uttered by David himself, as a
solitary exception to his usual style, and quoted exceptionally
by our Savior: in fact, it
may be said that the entire Old Testament was represented; it
CALLETH HIM LORD.
Hence
the testimony of Jesus is
the Spirit of prophecy: 2
this is a dictum which may also be
inverted: the Spirit in the whole company of the prophets is the
testimony of Jesus. For
all the ancient seers both saw and spoke under the influence of
the Spirit of Christ which
was in them.3
1
4. Thus the Savior’s witness to the Old Testament is simply
perfect in every element that
Christian faith can demand. He began and ended His earthly life
by declaring its Divine
authority and the necessity of its most minute fulfillment. He
gave His testimony, not in
accommodation to a current notion of the times, but as the
Revealer of all truth. And the
force of this is specially strengthened by the fact that He
sanctions the whole body of
holy writers as One who is above them all. What He said of the
Baptist was still more
applicable to Himself: He is much more than a Prophet.
II. It is of the utmost importance to ask in what sense the
Redeemer assures to us a
continuation of these authoritative oracles in His own New
Testament. We may boldly
say that the Great Fulfillment necessarily implied a
continuation of Scripture, both as
Word and as Writing.
1. Generally, our Lord testified, My words shall not pass away,
2. He has also, both directly and indirectly, guaranteed to us
new Scriptural writings.
Though the Divine decorum forbade His leaving anything from His
own hand, He did not
reverse the ancient law that revelation should be gradually
developed in the volume of a
book. As Moses was commanded to write the beginning,
Compare the words of our Lord to His Apostles, promising the
very same special
influence: The Holy Ghost
shall teach you in the same hour what ye ought to say.
3. From all this we may assuredly gather that the Mediator of
the New Covenant
purposed to add another volume to the Scriptures of truth:
without plainly saying so, any
more than in Genesis He foreannounced the entire Old Testament.
The facts declare this
without any express declaration. The New Testament is
constructed before our eyes
exactly as the Old was. The same laws and methods continue in
the new economy that
were observed in the old. There is the same direct personal
teaching, and the Apostles see
the Oracle face to face as Moses saw Him. There are the same
dreams and ecstasies; and
there is the same overruling direction of the Holy Ghost in the
compilation of documents.
This only great difference exists, that the final truth is
communicated by the perfectly
revealed Son through the perfectly revealed Spirit; and
therefore long times and seasons
are in the swift consummation needless. All was accomplished in
a single age. The
Preparations occupied many centuries; the Fulfillment glorified
one.
The Apostolic testimony, both to the fact and to the nature of
Inspiration, is most ample:
the full development of this as of other doctrines is committed
to the Apostles.
I. As to the Scriptures generally, or particular Scriptures of
the Old Testament, their
tribute is explicit and clear.
1. St. Peter, as Preacher and Writer, is perhaps the preeminent
witness: in the Acts, to the
Jews; in his Epistles, to the Church of Jews and Gentiles; in
both, to future generations.
On the eve of Pentecost he gives what may be called a classical
text: édei pleerootheénai
teén grafeén heén proeípen tó Pneúma tó Hágion diá stómatos
Davíd.
2. The Epistle to the Hebrews furnishes the most ample series of
testimonies to be found
in the New Testament. The force of these is to be felt only by
an examination of the
texture of the whole composition, which literally regards the
ancient Scriptures as oracles
spoken by the Holy Ghost, and preserved for the Christian Church
in a book to be quoted
from as infallible. It is remarkable that the same expression is
throughout used to indicate
the testimony of the Spirit and that of the writer whom He
employs: The Holy Ghost
3. St. Paul also, both as Preacher and Writer, lives and moves
in the ancient Scriptures.
He quotes them constantly, and always as containing the Voice
and the Writings of God.
His manner of introducing individual texts shows plainly the
importance he attached to
the very words used by the Holy Ghost. For instance: He saith not, And to seeds, as of
many; but as of one. And to thy seed, which is Christ.
II. It is most important to collect the Apostles' testimony to
their own inspiration. But it
must be remembered that, though always conscious of the Spirit's
special influence, they
would only on defensive occasions be likely to refer to it. In
fact, the service of the
Gospel required them on very many occasions to abstain from
urging their highest claim.
1. St. John is the Apostle who gives the faintest expression to
the specific gift of
inspiration, while he is, perhaps, the most earnest in the
assertion of the authority that
resulted from it. Yet in the Apocalypse he says that he was,
when he received his
prophetic communications,
in the Spirit,
2. St. Peter speaks of the writings of St. Paul as co-ordinate,
on the same level, with the
other Scripture:
3. As to St. Paul himself, there can be no question of his
claiming the authority of
inspiration. Not being numbered with those who had companied
with the Lord and
received His great promise on the eve of the Passion, it was
necessary that he should
dwell more on the prerogatives of his irregular investiture. He
speaks specially for
himself, though as the representative of all, when he claims so
often to wield, both in
presence and by letters, the very authority of Christ. His
reference to matters not given of
commandment
1
4. The two historical Evangelists, and the writer of the Epistle
to the Hebrews, who
shared not directly the great promise given to the Apostles,
shared it indirectly. St. Mark
and St. Luke had for their special province those subjects
concerning which the promise
was given by the Savior, and under the direction of St. Peter
and St. Paul. No writings
bear more undeniably the
signs of an Apostle
5. To sum up all. The writers of the New Testament form a body
of men, united in the
unfolding of Christian doctrine, who always deliver their
message as from God their
Savior by His Holy Spirit. They do not often assert their
inspiration: but it is everywhere
implied by themselves and supposed to be understood by their
hearers and readers. In this
they occupy precisely the same position as their predecessors in
the Old Testament. Like
them, they stand before the people of God with infallible
teaching from which there is no
appeal; like them, they occasionally declare themselves, when
their authority is resisted,
to be organs of the Spirit. In a word, they simply take the
place in the New Temple of the
prophets in the Old: continuing their office and ministration by
a commission the
credentials of which were known and read of all men.
Dogmatic Theology has a clear account to give of Inspiration.
The Scriptures, fairly
compared and interpreted, declare it to be that special
influence of the Holy Ghost on the
minds of holy men. Selected for the purpose, which qualified
them to communicate, from
age to age, an infallible record of Divine truth concerning the
redeeming will of God.
This is the conventional meaning attached to the term both in
earlier and later Christian
times. Save with this meaning the word inspiration becomes
comparatively vague and
valueless. Here we have to consider the Inspiring Spirit; then
the Inspired Organs; and
lastly the Scriptures of Inspiration.
The Holy Ghost, in the Mediatorial Trinity, is, and is alone,
the Author of inspiration.
This is His personal honor, and implies perfection in His work.
To the ground of this office in the Absolute Trinity we cannot
penetrate any more than
we can penetrate to the ground of the revealing function of the
Word; enough, that as the
Revealing Son is the Eternal Word, so the Inspiring Spirit,
eternally proceeding from the
Father and the Son, is the supreme and sole medium of
communication to the spirit of
man. Whatever the Son is to the creature the Spirit
1. It is true, throughout the entire economy of redemption, that
the Spirit reveals the Son
as the Son reveals the Father. The preparations for Christ in
the former times, whether in
natural or in supernatural revelation, were under His control;
and especially the latter.
The testimony of Jesus is the Spirit of prophecy;
2. The phraseology of Scripture has been seen to be faithful to
this truth. There is a
gradual unfolding of it from the beginning. The Spirit is dimly,
though less and less
dimly, alluded to in the Old Testament as the Inspirer: in the
songs of the neutral ground
between the Old and the New Testaments He is more clearly spoken
of: until after
Pentecost He becomes the representative of all the revelations
of the Holy Trinity. This
principle must regulate our interpretation of certain passages
that might seem to speak
otherwise: that is, with less distinctive reference to the Holy
Ghost as the Inspirer. God is
said to have spoken or done what is spoken or done by each
Person in the Trinity: a
canon this of great importance generally. It was the Lord, the God of Israel, who wrought
redemption for His people;
John's testimony goes on that the Father sent the Son to be the Savior of the
world.
3. Hence special honor is due and should be paid to the Holy
Ghost in His office and
province: He is the God of Scripture. In this domain He is
supreme; according to the
Nicene Confession, which introduces this Divine work into the
highest act of worship:
The men chosen of the Holy Ghost to be the organs of inspiration
were by Him sanctified
through the truth for their office; their faculties were
prepared by His influence for the
special province of inspiration assigned to them individually;
and He superintended and
controlled the exercise of those faculties for the
accomplishment of His own end in the
construction of Scripture.
1. St. Peter, referring to the prophetic Word, says of the
prophets: men spake from God,
being moved by the Holy Ghost.
They were used for a purpose, and their enforced ministry was
taken up, like Pharaoh's,
into the Divine plan. Similarly, certain writings, not
themselves written by inspired men,
are incorporated into the fabric of Scripture. These were all
exceptions to the general rule,
that only those who are in harmony with truth and under its
sanctifying influence
received its higher revelations.
2. But the Spirit used His instruments as men: their sanctity,
or special consecration to
their task, was the sanctification of their natural endowments,
acquisitions, and study.
They were not passive in the writing of Scripture, even to that
degree in which they were
passive in receiving revelation. They wrote, sometimes after
long interval, what they had
received; and always according to the characteristics of their
individual genius, style of
thoughts, and diction. But their faculties were raised,
invigorated, and strengthened to
their highest pitch. What has been termed the
3. Inspiration proper is then the specific influence on the
mind, after these pre-requisites
are provided for. And, although no distinctions in degree are
alluded to in Scripture, the
evidence may be found there that the one and the selfsame
Spirit, dividing to every man
severally as He will,
(1.) There are some portions of the Holy Writings in which pure
revelation and
inspiration coincide; where the inspiring Spirit would suggest
the truth, and also the
words in which to clothe it; in fact, use His instruments almost
mechanically to subserve
His purpose. It may not be easy to distinguish in every case the
results of the
(2.) Many parts of the Bible, especially of the New Testament,
are the logical
development and formal arrangement of doctrine. St. Paul in his
Epistles reasons from
the Old Testament in assertion and defense of New-Testament
truth; just as he and the
other preachers of the Gospel proved from Scripture that Jesus
was Christ. It is most
obvious that in the conduct of his argument he uses his
faculties according to the
discipline of his youth. But he himself tells us that he also
used words which the Holy
Ghost teacheth,
1
(3.) A large portion of Scripture is testimony to fact, of
various kinds; and no theory of
inspiration of witnesses can be accepted which should destroy
their independent character
as witnesses. They were inspired or moved to deliver their
independent and faithful
testimony. Sometimes they have to register facts, or supposed
facts, which they gather
from public records; sometimes to record traditions, legends,
current opinions, or
uninspired predictions handed down by tradition: in these cases
they are only witnesses
of what they found. Sometimes they have to narrate events in
which they had taken part
to a greater or less extent: in this case they are directed to
chronicle the result of their own
investigations, each according to his own lights. Occasionally
they are concurrent
witnesses of transactions which they observed from different
points of view: under such
circumstances there is no previous harmonizing of the
testimonies, but each gives his
own faithful witness, according to his Divinely aided
remembrance, the Divine aid,
however, not necessarily rectifying the original defect or
incompleteness of observation.
Hence arise certain differences of presentation which the free
Spirit has permitted:
differences which are just enough to show that the witnesses are
sent to give their
evidence as independent, never enough to betray the supreme
cause of truth.
(4.) Once more, much of the Scripture is the result of what
would be called among men
editorial arrangement. This extends over a considerable portion
of the Old Testament, and
is what St. Luke, for instance, in the New claims for his own
function. Now the presiding
and controlling influence of the Spirit was as much needed for
this as for any other
department of the economy of revelation; but His inspiration was
of a different character.
He taught His instruments to distinguish in Hebrew literature
what was His own and what
was not; He superintended the arrangement of the Psalms; He
taught the Evangelists to
sift the oral traditions which were rich with the deposits and
memorials of the Sacred
Life; and, generally, He watched over and directed the
construction of organic Holy Writ
as one great body of Literature, in many human respects like all
other literature, but
Divinely distinguished from every other.
THE SCRIPTURES OF INSPIRATION.
The Scriptures themselves may be said to be inspired as
containing the permanent mind
of the Spirit, and being the organ of His abiding and living
influence. Hence this
attribute in many ways distinguishes them from all other
literature, sacred and secular.
TITLES
The names given to the collection of Books confirm all that has
been said of them:
whether those names are found in the Bible itself, or are the
reverent invention of later
times. The writers themselves use the very highest appellatives;
and never refer to the
contents of the volume as a whole, or to any the least fragment
of it, without some
expression of deep reverence. This habit was not confined to the
Jews, ancient or modern,
whose well-known reverence approached superstition: it is shared
by the disciples whom
their Lord forbade to call any man master on earth, who had
brought them a new law, and
most certainly would not have suffered them to give such titles
to any but the writings of
God. In this, too, they had His example. They are the
AUTHORITY.
1. Its plenary inspiration makes Holy Scripture the absolute and
final authority, allsufficient
as the supreme Standard of Faith, Directory of Morals, and
Charter of
Privileges to the Church of God. Of course, the Book of Divine
revelations cannot
contain anything untrue; but its infallibility is by itself
especially connected with religious
truth. It constitutes, as will be hereafter seen, the absolute
Canon or Book of Faith. It is
comparatively silent as to human science; it has its own laws of
grammar and rhetoric; it
quotes traditions and admits records as testimony without
pledging itself to their
exactness. It does not profess to be Divine in any such sense as
should remove it from
human literature: a Bible of that kind would be something very
different from what we
have. It is, after all, a Divine-human collection of documents:
the precise relation of the
human to the Divine is a problem which has engaged much
attention, and has not yet
been, though it may yet be, adequately solved. But in the domain
of religious truth, and
the kingdom of God among men, its claim to authority and
sufficiency is absolute.
2. The evidence of the inspiration of the Scriptures belongs
rather to the historical review
which will follow. It is sufficient to say here that it is found
in its own testimony,
confirmed by its effects. Here once more we must needs argue in
what seems to be a
circle. In fact, there are no evidences to be brought to the
question from without: only
credentials from within. The Book may be said to be inspired.
St. Paul uses that
expression, not of the writers, but of what they write; and
points to its profitable uses for
the proof. His words, already quoted, may be quoted again as the
last authoritative
assertion on the subject which the Scriptures themselves
contain. Every Scripture
inspired of God is also profitable for doctrine, for reproof,
for correction, for instruction
in righteousness.
The subject of Inspiration occupies a large place in the history
of religious thought and
ecclesiastical polemics; which is not to be wondered at,
considering the vast issues at
stake. On the question whether God has given to His people an
authoritative revelation of
His will hangs every interest of truth, assurance, and certitude
of faith. If the Bible is
what our doctrine of inspiration asserts it to be, many great
questions of controversy
among the Churches are, or ought to be, at once settled by it.
This gives harmony where
all else is confusion. But the doctrine has been and is
impugned: and we must consider
well the attacks upon a position so vital. Hence a general view
of its development is very
important in the settlement of the doctrine. In order to make
the survey complete, it is
well to consider the universal tradition of mankind, the
judgment of the Jewish Church,
the ecclesiastical dogmas in Christendom, and the present state
of opinion and
controversy as to the nature and effect of inspiration.
In common with every doctrine of the Faith, this one had its
distorted shadow in the
heathen world; but the distinction we establish between
Revelation and Inspiration is not
here to be expected. Generally, a sentence of Cicero may speak
for all: Vetus opinio est,
jam usque ab heroicis duct a temporibus, eaque et populi Romani
et
The
Maimonides is the master genius of modern orthodox Judaism: "A
Mose ad Mosem non
surrexit sicut Moses" is a saying that expresses its method of
rejecting the Prophet greater
than Moses. But, apart from these philosophical notions of
modern Judaism, the residuary
and obsolete Jewish Church—if it may be so called—has always
been faithful to its
original and high doctrine of inspiration.
THE CHRISTIAN CHURCH.
In the Christian Church the dogma has had an important process
of development, or
rather of variations in theological opinion.
1. The Patristic age furnishes no definition of inspiration, but
a very high doctrine was
maintained. The Apostolical Fathers quote the Old Testament
exactly as the Apostles do:
with the same reverent trust, and also with the same freedom.
Clemens Romanus, the first
uninspired Christian writer, assigns to the Scriptures of both
Testaments the fullest
inspiration; they are "the true sayings of the Holy Ghost."
Polycarp quotes the Apostles'
words as being words of Scripture; and St. Paul in particular is
by more than one said to
write as theopneustos,
or divinitus inspiratus. Generally these earliest authorities make
the Two Testaments One Scripture. The Apologists unanimously
teach, or rather exhibit,
almost a mechanical idea of it; some of them, however, limiting
its range to religious
truth. They adopt the figure of the Lyre on which the Holy Ghost
discoursed. Justin
Martyr used this figure in what may be regarded as the first
theological definition: Oute
thuses oute anthrospins ennoia could men know such great and
heavenly things, but by a
gift, doron, coming
down on them . . .phktron, osper organo
kith apas tinos ho luras
chomenon. Tertullian, who invented many theological terms,
first used that of
On the whole, the Patristic Church was faithful to the doctrine
which the last of the early
Fathers, Gregory the Great, represented when he said: "It is
needless to ask what writer
wrote, as the Holy Ghost was the only author: it is superfluous
to inquire with what pen
an author writes." An appeal to the words of the Old or the New
Testament, of either or
of both, was an end of all controversy in those days as it is in
our own.
2. Withal there were, as might be expected, the germs of later
freedom and indeed laxity.
The Montanist heresy, which assumed a series of Pentecosts and
administrations of the
inspiring Spirit, was wholly rejected; but it has had its modern
representatives. The
Alexandrian doctors, generally sound, here and there allude to
an inspiration common to
the prophecies of heathenism and Scriptural prophecies.
Tertullian sometimes spoke, as
others have spoken since, of an inspiration of all edifying
books. Origen and Augustine
seem to have admitted that some portions of the Bible were given
without inspiration, or
by inspiration of a limited degree, some authors, even more than
they, laid stress upon the
subjective or human element. And this was carried in the
Antiochene school, represented
by Theodore of Mopsuestia, to an extreme: the writers were
mirrors reflecting according
to their polish. Theodore was condemned by the Fifth Ecumenical
Council for
surrendering certain books of the Old Testament and of the New.
But, like Luther, who
followed him in this, he held a high doctrine as to the
inspiration of what he accepted;
though, like Luther, applying a subjective canon of his own to
determine what ought to
be Scripture or what ought to be excluded.
In the Mediaeval Church, the doctrine of inspiration was
obscured by the gradual
elevation of Tradition into a co-ordinate rank: in fact, the
notion of two inspirations—that
of the Spirit in the Bible, and of the Spirit in the Church —
was gradually established.
But the theory did not otherwise suffer: the words of Scripture
were still regarded as
having a normal authority of their own. Fredegisus of Tours
(804) even laid down a most
rigorous mechanical statement on the subject. But he was-opposed
by freer theories,
which in the rationalist treatment of Abelard and the subtile
disquisitions of Thomas
Aquinas anticipated later distinctions of the Spirit's inspiring
influence. The-Mystics,
who in this age were mostly Pantheistic in their tendencies,
gave up any definite doctrine
of inspiration, making it common to all saints in their
intuition of Divine things; and they
thus provoked in some of the precursors of the Reformation a
recoil to the most rigid
possible views. Meanwhile the coordination of oral tradition
steadily advanced, until it
was formulated at the Council of Trent thus: Sanctus Synodus,
hoc sibi perpetuo ante
oculos proponens, ut sublatis erroribus puritas ipsa evangelii
in ecclesia conservetur,
perspiciensque hanc veritatem et disciplinam contineri in libris
scriptis et sine scripto
traditionibus, quae ex ipsius Christi ore ab Apostolis acceptae,
aut ab ipsis Apostolis S. S.
dictante, quasi per manus traditae ad nos usque pervenerunt.
orthodoxorum patrum
exempla secuta omnes libros tam V. quam N. T., cum utriusque
unus Deus sit auctor,
necnon traditiones ipsas, tum ad fidem quum ad mores
pertinentes, tan-quam vel ore
tenus a Christo vel a S. S. dictatas et continua successione in
Ecclesia Catholica
conservatas,
THE REFORMATION.
The Reformation began in earnest the discussion of the dogma,
as bound up with its cardinal principle, of the sufficiency of
Scripture for all things
pertaining to human salvation.
1. Its leaders were lax in their first decisions. Luther
insisted on a material inspiration, as
to doctrine, and a formal, as to the manner, which was of less
importance: he subjected
the books of the New Testament to the criterion of his own
judgment as to their
Evangelical character, and rejected, for instance, the Epistle
of St. James. Calvin went
also very far in the admission of the human peculiarities.
Hence, their Romish opponents
found in this laxity a strong argument in favor of Tradition.
The Formularies of the two
branches of the Reformation varied. The Augsburg Confession is
content with the
absolute regulative authority of Scripture: "Regulam autem
habemus, ut verbum Dei
condat articulos fidei." The Reformed Confessions were stronger:
the "Formula
Consensus Helvetici" says: "Hebraicus codex V. T., tum quoad
consonas, tum quoad
vocalia, sive puncta ipsa sive punctorum saltem potestatem, et
tum quoad res tum quoad
verba, Theopneustos."
This was directed against Luther, who asserted that wood, hay, and
stubble might be in the prophets, though the substance was there
that could not be
burned. The Anglican Articles are like the Lutheran more
negative, the Westminster
Confession more rigid. But the dogmatic divines of the new
Churches tended gradually to
the very highest rigor, as expressed in the Helvetic Formulary:
thus Buxtorf maintained,
irrationally, that the very vowel points of the Hebrew were
inspired. In harmony with
this, they asserted that the
2. The recoil from this extreme was to be expected. The reaction
commenced with the
early
The Quakers in their formularies—for they have them—give
ambiguous statements:
Barclay supposes that the Scripture only guides the Christian's
internal standard. The
early Socinians believed in inspiration: without the specific
Personal Inspirer, though as a
specific influence. The Racovian Catechism indicates traces of
the truth from which
modern Unitarianism has declined, as it has receded from many of
the other higher
doctrines of Socinianism.
MORE MODERN HYPOTHESES.
1. Most orthodox churches have more recently endeavored to
maintain a doctrine of
Plenary inspiration in harmony with the notion of different
The second of these is by many, naturally enough, thought
superfluous. The Inspiration is
2. This view of the co-ordination of the Divine and Human
undoubtedly lies at the
foundation of the true doctrine; but its dogmatic definition is
difficult and as dangerous as
difficult.
(1.) The least error here leads to an annihilation of the
essential distinction between the
action of the Spirit of God on Apostles and Prophets and His
general influence in
purifying the regenerate faculties for the apprehension of
truth. The notion of an analogy
between this unity of Divine and human and the Divine and human
nature in Christ is
liable to the same errors which have beset the doctrine of our
Lord's own Person. The
Divine element has been and is still by many carried to an
extreme in the view of
inspiration that makes the human faculties absolutely passive:
the Eutychian perversion,
so to speak, according to which there is no humanity or human
agency left. This has been
sufficiently referred to, and is indeed self-convicted. But the
reaction is more important in
its consequences: the Nestorian perversion, on the other hand,
which assigns to the
human element such a distinctness and such an ascendancy as
leaves no room for a
distinct, inspiring influence of the Holy Ghost.
(2.) Schleiermacher has given the tone to much modern English
thought on this and other
subjects. Coleridge, Morell, Maurice, and others regard the
inspiring energy as only the
impartation of clear intuitions of spiritual truth by
extraordinary means: namely, the
raising of the faculties of the mind to a higher potency of what
all good men possess.
Their notion makes inspiration simply a sympathy with the
revealing mind of Christ, the
Apostles having had it only in a higher degree than ourselves.
The apostrophe of Moses,
Enviest thou for my sake? would God that all the Lord's people
were prophets, and that
the Lord would put His Spirit upon them!
(3.) Again, great numbers of orthodox theologians follow Rothe,
Martensen, and others,
in regarding each writer as contributing his independent portion
of what is perfect truth
only when the aggregate is received. However much this principle
may be condemned in
the form it commonly assumes, there is in it much truth. The
Bible is one organic whole.
Truth is in every part; the whole truth, however, is only in the
complete Bible. The
writers of the Old Testament were inspired in anticipation of
the New; and the writers of
the New Testament were inspired to supplement the Old. The
Synoptic Evangelists do
not give the full mind of the Spirit as to the Person of Christ;
but St. John's presentation
of it requires theirs as a background. So, descending into
details, every writer in the New
Testament adds some fruit of inspiration which is not found in
any other. There is hardly
a recorded event in the Lord's life which is not transmitted by
the Holy Ghost with
various shades of difference in the several Evangelists, and to
be understood fully only
when the different recorders are collected. But it is obvious
that all this touches the
results of inspiration, and not inspiration itself.
(4.) There is a strong disposition to unite two things which are
incompatible: the belief in
an Inspiring Spirit responsible for all spiritual truth with the
hypothesis that the human
element is liable to all the common infirmities of human
composition. When the analogy
of our Lord's one Person in two natures is pressed into the
service of this theory, it ought
not to be forgotten that the human nature of our Lord was
sinless and incapable of sin. If
its upholders allow that the human element in the Bible is
unsusceptible of real error,
however affected by infirmity, their doctrine may be made safe,
and, if safe, it is deeply
interesting and instructive. But that is not generally the view
of those to whom we refer.
They would indeed limit the possible incorrectness of our
present form of Scripture to
things entirely unconnected with faith; and account for it in
various ways. Some of these
methods are consistent with the dignity of the Word of God: they
are such as have been
hinted at already. Others are vain and needless devices, and
surrender the principle of
inspiration to vagueness and uncertainty.
THE APOLOGY OF INSPIRATION.
Modern assaults on the inspiration of Scripture are of two
kinds: they either deny its
possibility on abstract grounds, as they deny the possibility of
revelation generally, or
they seek to resist the evidences of its inspiration as a
concrete book.
PHILOSOPHY AND NATURALISM.
1. Spinoza, in the seventeenth century, united the two methods
of attack. He rejected, on
Pantheistic principles, the idea of any independent action of
God, and was the first in
later times to accumulate objections against the dogma derived
from the text itself. He
has not been followed by many in his extreme Pantheism; but
Deism in England, and
Rationalism or Illuminism in Germany and France, joined with
Pantheistic philosophy in
refusing to admit any Divine inspiration which should supplement
the religion of nature
as based on the intuitional consciousness of the human mind and
its inherent perception
of truth. But the defense of revelation generally is the defense
of the method of imparting
it. The possibility of inspiration consistently denied by
Pantheism is inconsistently denied
by Deism; for, with the assumption of a personal God Who is not
transcendent but
reveals Himself, all their arguments fall. Apart, however, from
such denials of revelation
generally, this specific doctrine is philosophically opposed by
many on psychological
grounds. The views of Schleiermacher, and many who echo him,
have already been
referred to as introducing a false notion of the doctrine. They
do in fact really lead to a
denial of it altogether. It is thought that religious knowledge,
like all knowledge, is only
the intuitional consciousness gazing upon realities; and,
therefore, that it is unphilosophical
to distinguish between the inspiration of the writers of
Scripture and the
general Christian consciousness. But this notion undermines the
foundations of a
supernatural disclosure of the mind of God to man. Some seek to
make a compromise.
They think, with Coleridge, that in old time God did
super-naturally communicate to men
knowledge by the Law and the Prophets; but that in these latter
and freer days He makes
common His revelations through the grace of enlightenment given
to all. Hence, so far as
the Christian revelation is concerned, there is no infallible
authority beyond the
testimonies of fallible consciousness. The more thoroughly the
objections to a specific
influence on the mind from without are considered, the more
baseless will they appear.
One human spirit can influence, and, as it were, inspire
another. But here we have to do
with the Creator of the human spirit, "Who can not only move
upon it but lodge His truth
within it. There is literally no philosophical argument of any
value against the Christian
doctrine of a special inspiring influence of the Holy Ghost.
INTERNAL DIFFICULTIES AND DISCREPANCIES.
From very early times the industry of skepticism has been busy
with the internal
inconsistencies of Scripture, of which a very formidable list
has been made out. Infidels
early learned to use this weapon: it did not escape them that
the Biblical library abounds,
literally abounds, with the materials for their task; the
enemies of the Bible they have
thought to find in its own household. But it will be seen by the
student who gives the
records of revelation the advantage of being supposed
consistent, unless positive proof of
inconsistency is found, that there are only such difficulties in
the Scriptures as might be
expected in such a book, written as it was written, and for the
disciplinary, educational
purpose which it has in view. Very much is done in the way of
answering objections thus
urged by simply analyzing them. Such an analysis, however, to be
of any value must be
complete; and the examination it requires belongs to the
departments of Biblical
Introduction and Hermeneutics. All that is possible in our
dogmatic system is to indicate
some general principles that must be remembered in conducting
it, and to point out the
bearing of the question on our present doctrine.
1. Many discrepancies are, or at least may be, the result of
copying and translation. We
have not the Originals; there is not a solitary autograph of
Prophet or Apostle extant; and
many errors of transcription may be admitted, and indeed must be
admitted, by every
candid student of the text: the inspiring Spirit has watched
over the vicissitudes incident
to the transmission of human literature without superseding
them. The consideration of
this question, however, belongs to Biblical Criticism. It is
enough here to say, that there
are few portions of Holy Scripture of which we can be sure that
they lie before us
precisely as they left the hand of the first writers. The
process of copying the Hebrew of
the Old Testament was peculiarly liable to danger: from the
similarity of the letters,
generally, and specifically from the ancient habit of
representing numbers by letters of
the alphabet, the difference between units and hundreds and
thousands being marked by
the addition of points to the units. This is a fact generally
conceded. Dr. Kennicott says, "
That the Jewish transcribers did frequently express the Bible
numbers in the original by
single letters is well known to the learned." And Winer: "In
expressing numbers, the
Jews, in the period after the Captivity, employed the letters of
the alphabet, as is evident
from the inscriptions of the so-called Samaritan coins; and it
is not improbable that the
Old Hebrews did the same, just as the Greeks, who derived their
alphabet from the
Phoenicians, from the earliest ages expressed their numbers by
letters. From the
confounding of similarly shaped letters when used for numerals,
and from the subsequent
writing out the same in words, can be explained satisfactorily
in part the enormous sums
in the Old-Testament books, and the contradictions in their
statement of numbers; yet
caution is necessary here." A very large number of the
contradictory historical statements
detected by comparing the Chronicles with the Kings, and Ezra
with Nehemiah, and the
Genealogical Tables one with another, may fairly be thus
explained. Nor should any
weight be attached to these, though numbered by hundreds: each
of them must be
carefully sifted, and the result will generally be satisfactory.
When it is not so, we are
bound to believe that errors have crept in through the operation
of causes that we cannot
now trace. For instance, we read in one account that the molten
sea contained two
thousand baths;
2. Many of the arguments urged against the inspiration of
Scripture are really directed
against a false or exaggerated notion of its verbal character,
and consequently fall away
before a freer theory. That many words and sentences were given
or suggested to the
writers cannot be doubted by anyone who considers the solemn
importance of some of
the leading terms of Scripture. But to assert that every word
was put into the mind of
every writer on every subject is to lay on our doctrine a burden
too heavy to be borne. It
is hard to suppose that the very words in that case would not
have been protected forever.
And such inspiration would have been too mechanical to harmonies
with the obvious and
undeniable range given to the human faculties. But the chief
point is that this notion
furnishes ground of opposition which it is difficult to resist.
Very many instances occur in
the Gospels of variation in the reports of our Lord's words, on
the most solemn occasions,
which in no case affect their sacred spirit and eternal meaning,
but are absolutely
incompatible with verbal inspiration. Our Lord could not have
spoken the several exact
words placed in His lips: what they severally mean He did speak.
To take only one
example, and that of the highest possible solemnity, we read the
following accounts.
Drink ye all of it; for this is My blood of the covenant, which
is shed for (peri) many, for
remission of sins.
3. Objections urged against the inspiration of Scripture on the
ground of its science, its
religious doctrine, its miraculous element, its ethics, and
generally its inconsistency with
itself or with the preconceived notions of men, are on the whole
easily met. The Holy
Ghost never delivers to man as science what science contradicts:
to human science as
such the Bible does not profess to contribute anything. Strong
in our conviction that this
book, or library of books, is the record of that Providential
government for the sake of
which the world exists, we may be sure that it will not be
contradicted in fundamental
points by anything that the records of nature, or the authentic
annals of history, will
disclose. There are unsearchable mysteries in the field of
science as there are in the field
of revelation: it is our wisdom to submit to them in both,
waiting for the final
reconciliation. But on this subject enough has been said
elsewhere. As to the long array
of doctrinal objections, they are literally not to be heard as
against inspiration. The
teaching of the Bible, as a whole, is absolutely
self-consistent, supposing the idea of
development to be introduced: admitting that idea, the gradual
evolution of truth as to
God and as to man, and as to the Incarnation uniting God and
man, is precisely at all
points worthy of the controlling Spirit, and such as only the
controlling Spirit could have
conducted. Particular instances of discord, as for instance
between St. Paul and St. James,
are in every single case such as a superficial glance discovers
and a deeper meditation
explains. There is much more force in the allegation that the
ethical principles of the
Scripture are not equable and uniform. But here also nothing but
a calm investigation will
do justice to all the elements of the question. Everywhere in
the composition of the Bible
the human element largely remains. As men are used as witnesses
giving their testimony
according to their best lights—true as testimony, but stating
what the Spirit may use other
witnesses to supplement—so human passions enter without
receiving Divine approval.
The human documents and human compositions are sometimes quoted,
without express
Divine approval of their spirit or confirmation of their
statements. There are many
anomalies and difficulties which will never be cleared up, it
may be, because we have
lost the key to their solution: certain it is, that many of the
stumbling-blocks of modern
criticism gave no trouble to the early Church, better informed
than we are. It is equally
certain that many supposed flaws in the Bible which are regarded
as negativing its
plenary inspiration disappear before profound investigation; and
that many of them are
flaws only when regarded in the light of a false theory of the
doctrine. Men of God in
both economies have all their faults described; and sometimes
those faults are taken up
into the order of Providence; but in no solitary instance is
there any doubt about the fact
that the Holy God loveth righteousness. Everyone allows that the
Scriptures, as a whole,
have one end, the establishment of holiness in man: then this
admission should bar the
possibility of misinterpreting passages that might seem to look
the other way. That there
are minor collisions in the ethics is certain; but we must
remember that in every such case
there is a reason given. But the heaviest impeachment leaves all
else behind and attacks
the conduct of God Himself in His dealing with sinful men. Now
this is a question of
Theodicy and not of inspiration. The Bible does reveal a wrath
of God displayed in most
mysterious ways in the present world; and foretells its display
in the world to come. We
see enough around to make us hesitate about refusing acceptance
to the strange events
recorded in Scripture, where miracle is one of the present
powers of the world. But, in
any case, they are no argument against the inspiration of Holy
Writ as such: what force
these apparent anomalies in the Divine conduct have is on the
side of Atheism.
4. It must always be remembered that the Bible is a book adapted
to man's probationary
estate. Our probation is conducted in a world of the mysteries
of which we know but
little. The world of revelation has also its unsolved secrets.
We know, indeed, much about
the fabric of Scripture; but there is much concealed from us.
The Holy Ghost never
defines inspiration as applied to the whole body of Scripture.
We have to construct our
theory from the facts; and our theory must take those
indisputable facts as it finds them.
As a whole, the Bible shines upon the spirit of man as the sun
in the firmament: not less
clear, not less self-evidencing. The difficulties are for the
trial of our faith, our diligence,
our humility; and for the exercise of our souls in dependence,
not upon the letter but upon
the spirit. As Bishop Butler says: "We are wholly ignorant what
degree of new
knowledge it were to be expected God would give mankind by
revelation, upon supposition
of His affording one, or how far, or in what way, He would
interpose
miraculously to qualify them, to whom He should originally make
the revelation, for
communicating the knowledge given by it; and to secure its being
transmitted to
posterity."
5. Lastly, there is a high ground to be taken by a believer in
the Christian revelation, that
is by one who trusts in Jesus, which being taken must not be
left for a moment. To this
we have referred again and again: it is the conclusion of the
whole matter. He came up
out of the Old Testament with the Old Testament in His hand: and
made the voices of
Moses and the ancient prophets His own voice. Long after the
representatives of the old
economy vanished on the Mount, leaving Him alone Whom all must
hear, He expressly
summed up their testimony as borne to Himself from first to
last: beginning at Moses and
at all the prophets, He expounded unto them in all the
Scriptures the things concerning
Himself.
He has no doubt; he must have no doubt, that the inspiring
Spirit has deposited in the
Church a true testimony of the history of redemption. Whilst the
attack and the defense
are going on, it is his wisdom to wait in tranquil confidence.
He must not take alarm, and
capitulate. He must not abandon the outworks, nor intrench
himself in the supposed Bible
within the Bible, in the supposed Spirit in the letter. He must
not do this, because the
Christian revelation is bound up with its Two Testaments; and he
may be sure that the
Holy Ghost will support him and honor him in his fidelity to the
Records of his Faith.
|
|
|