vised expressions, which, in a moment of irritation, escaped him; the blasphemies of Rabshakeh, and the prayers of Hezekiah, or the consequent prediction of Isaiah; the black suggestions of the devil, and our Saviour's admirable answers; the malignant taunts and revilings indulged in by the priests and the populace while Jesus hung on the cross, and the solemn supplications and appeals which then proceeded from the lips of the Redeemer himself:-yet, as recorded in the page of revelation, they are all equally dictated by the Spirit of Godthey constitute alike integral portions of that invaluable book which is able to make us wise unto salvation.

II. It is alleged "that the sacred writers often fail to assume the authority belonging to inspired men; and that in some instances they even disclaim inspiration, or express doubts with regard to their possessing it."

This objection may, without difficulty, be repelled. The terms in which it has been sometimes urged are very obviously extravagant. "If the same Spirit had rendered them infallible," says a subtle disputant," they had right to declare to the world the doctrine of salvation, with the same power, and to speak as authoritatively as Jesus Christ; but we see the contrary in their writings." It was certainly not to be expected that the Apostles would arrogate to themselves an equality with Christ, in personal dignity, in official qualifications, or in sovereign authority. The humility and modesty becoming his attached disciples and loyal subjects, could not fail to characterize their style and their deportment. The uniform scope of their writings shows that they usurped no dominion over the faith of mankind, and that they left it" to the man of sin and son of perdition" to assume blasphemous titles and pretensions. Yet the same writings clearly manifest, as we have seen, that they did claim power and authority as the accredited servants of Christ, inspired by his Spirit, and constituted infallible teachers in his church.

That the Apostles frequently appeal to the native evidence of their statements, and argue from maxims acknowledged by those whom they instruct, is readily allowed. "I speak as to wise men," says Paul; "judge ye what I say." And in his reasonings with the Hebrews, he often avails himself of principles they were known to concede, or could not rationally dispute. These modes of arguing, however, while well • Five Letters concerning Inspiration, p. 61.

+1 Cor. x. 15. Heb. i. 4; ch. vi. 16; ch. vii. 12; ch. viii. 13; ch. ix. 16, 17; ch. x. 4.

calculated to produce conviction, were by no means at variance with a decided claim to a full inspiration. Christ himself often made use of similar arguments for convincing the Jews of the truth of his doctrine;* but who will dare to conclude from this circumstance, that He did not represent his authority as infallible, or his words as divine?

The sacred penmen, it is further conceded, sometimes expressly alluded to their own opportunities of witnessing the facts and hearing the speeches they record, or to authentic information they received concerning them; but that they thus throw discredit, in any degree, on the inspiration by which they wrote, we positively deny. John repeatedly speaks of himself in his Gospel, as bearing testimony to things which he had seen and heard.† Luke's introduction to his narrative, where he refers to information supplied by those who "from the beginning were eye-witnesses, and ministers of the word," has often, in particular, been appealed to by the opponents of plenary inspiration. Those appeals, however, are vain. Whether Luke was a Jewish or a Gentile convertwhether he belonged, or did not belong, to the number of the Seventy Disciples whom Christ immediately called to the office of preachers and whether, in the preamble to his Gospel just alluded to, he intimates that he had by personal observation acquired an accurate knowledge of the matters he relates, or else that, in so far as human means of information were concerned, he had been entirely indebted to the communications of others; all these are controverted questions which it is unnecessary for us here to discuss. Nor do we hesitate to state that we cannot adopt the suggestion of the judicious and worthy Dr Guyse, who thought that the adverb § rendered in the common version, from the very first, should have been translated from above, and that, by the use of this word, he explicitly claimed inspiration.||

To us it appears, that while all the four Evangelists were conscious of their own inspiration, and that while their four Gospels were all speedily and unanimously recognised in the Christian church as inspired, and the only inspired histories of the Saviour's life, their conduct, in declining to insert in these

* Mat. ix. 5, 6, 15, 16, 17; ch. xii. 25, 26; ch. xix. 5, 6; ch. xxii. 20, 21, &c.

† John xix. 35; ch. xx. 30, 31; ch. xxi. 24, 25. §. ̓Ανωθεν.

Luke i. 1-4.

|| Dr Guyse's Paraphrase on Luke i. 3, note; and his Standing Use of Scripture, pp. 208, 209.

writings a direct avowal of their inspiration, was marked by "a delicate propriety." It was proper, first of all, to fix the attention of their readers on the wonderful facts they relate, as established by valid human testimony, and thus to prepare them for admitting the impression that the Christian system is truly from above, and that the New Testament writers were divinely inspired. On this subject, an esteemed writer makes the fol lowing judicious remarks. Referring to the argument founded on what is said by Luke, ch. i. 3, 4, he says:

"It may be observed that the facts respecting our Lord's miracles, death, resurrection, and ascension to glory, on the authenticity of which the truth of Christianity depends, are attested to us by human as well as by divine testimony. This was necessary to confront the infidel, who will admit of nothing but mere human evidence; and at the same time to lay a solid foundation for the faith of the true believer, which stands not in the wisdom of men, but in the power of God. The disciples of Jesus, therefore, who had an accurate knowledge of these things from their own observation, had a peculiar fitness for being employed by the Spirit, as the spirit of inspiration, for furnishing the church with a divine and infallible record of these things; seeing they could combine his testimony, which was divine and supernatural, and of which they were only the organs, with their own testimony, founded on their personal observation, and thus act up to the injunction of their Lord and Master. When the Comforter is come, whom I will send unto you from the Father, even the Spirit of truth which proceedeth from the Father, HE shall testify of me. And YE also shall bear witness, because ye have been with me from the beginning;' John xv. 26, 27. The doctrine of plenary inspiration, therefore, does not suppose that the prior knowledge which inspired men had from other sources, of these things about which they spoke and wrote under divine suggestion, was either suppressed, or rendered of no farther use to them as witnesses for the truth. All that is supposed is, that, speaking or writing as inspired teachers, they were not left to proceed upon their previous acquaintance with these things, but were furnished by divine suggestion, both as to matter and words, in giving an infallible rule of faith to the church."*

By a most unhappy misinterpretation, the Apostle Peter has been represented as somewhat disparaging the apostolic testimony regarding the Saviour. Having given an account • Stevenson's Treatise on the Offices of Christ, pp. 55, 56.

of what he himself, with James and John, had seen and heard on the Mount of Transfiguration, he adds:-" We have also a more sure word of prophecy." Some have rashly concluded that Peter here speaks of the word of the ancient prophets as more certain, and entitled to greater confidence than the word of the Apostles. But this is a quite ill-founded conclusion. After having made the solemn declaration, "We have not followed cunningly-devised fables when we made known unto you the power and coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, but were eye-witnesses of his Majesty;" and after repeating the glorious attestation, "This is my beloved Son in whom I am well pleased,"--who could have expected that the inspired writer would, with the same breath, describe this voice from the excellent glory, or the testimony of Apostles respecting it, as impaired in the slightest degree by dubiety, or even as surpassed in certainty and trust-worthiness by any other voice or testimony? By some commentators the meaning is supposed to be, that the whole series of ancient prophecies to which, as appears from the succeeding verses, the Apostle unquestionably refers, affords a stronger demonstration of the Messiahship and Divinity of Jesus than any single miraculous fact, as was the transfiguration on the holy mount, however well attested or decisive. Others imagine that the comparative is used in place of the positive, and that the original expression only signifies a very sure prophetical word.† Wetstein, however, who follows the Greek interpreters, seems to give the genuine meaning, namely, that the ancient word of prophecy is now more confirmed than formerly, by the great events in which it is fulfilled. At any rate, Peter says nothing derogatory to the apostolic testimony. In this same Epistle, as was noticed in a preceding chapter, he expressly represents the authority of Apostles as equal to that of Old Testament Prophets.

It is a singular circumstance, that though none of all the

· 2 Pet. i. 19.

* Βεβαιοτερον τον προφητικον λόγον. See Dr Dod. Note in loc.

"

"And we (the Apostles) have the prophetic word (of the Old Testament, v. 20, 21) more confirmed, i. e. in consequence of what we saw and heard on the Mount." "He," the Apostle, does not oppose," says Wetstein, "the prophetic word to fables, or to the transfiguration seen by himself,. . . .. but the prophetic word is more firm now, after it has been confirmed by the event, than it was before the event." See more in Parkhurst, on the term ßßaioTigos.

Apostles asserts the inspiration by which he wrote in more decided terms than Paul, yet several phrases used by this Apostle have been particularly understood as explicitly disclaiming inspiration, with reference to certain points on which he pronounces his opinion. The expressions in question are chiefly those contained in 1 Corinth. vii. 6, 10, 12, 25, 40. Bishop Tomline considers the Apostle as "declaring that, upon those particular subjects, some points on which they had consulted him, he only delivered his own private opinion, though always under the superintending influence of the Holy Spirit." Ür Marsh, the translator of Michaelis, more correctly observes, that the distinction made by Paul in 1 Corinth. vii. 10-12, is not betwixt inspiration and non-inspiration, but betwixt those commands which had been actually given by Christ during his ministry on earth, and those which had not been then given by him. The same opinion, too, is maintained by the generality of learned and judicious expositors. On verse 6th, "But I speak this by permission, and not of commandment,” Beza remarks, that in the second verse the Apostle might appear to have inculcated marriage on all, and even as if it were commanded; but for explanation he here states, that he does not urge it as so peremptorily enjoined, that every one who neglects it, offends God." Dr Hammond's paraphrase on the sixth verse is to the same effect: "What I thus say, verses 2, 3, 4, 5, I say only by way of counsel, what appears to me to be best for men, generally speaking, all being not able to contain; but herein I am far from laying any precept on any to marry." These comments completely supersede the notion, that the Apostle, in the sixth verse, tells the Corinthians that the Spirit permitted, but did not command, him to state what he had said in the preceding verses. He makes no allusion at all, in this verse, to the nature of that authority by which he spoke. It has been justly observed, that "in the second epistle to the same church, ch. viii. 8, the Apostle expresses himself to the same purpose, in a passage which no one misunderstands." §

In verses 10th, 12th, and 25th, Paul does refer, no doubt,

• Elements of Ch. Theology, vol. i. p. 287.

† Marsh's Michaelis, Introd. vol. i. ch. iii. § 2, notes.

+ " "Videtur hoc pertinere ad id quod scriptum est supra, v. 2. Visus cnim erat conjugium ab omnibus, et quidem ut præceptum, exigere. Hoc igitur nunc explicat, docetque se conjugium non flagitare præcise ut præ ceptum, quod quisquis negligat, Deum offendat."-Beza in loc.

§ Haldane's Evidence and Authority, &c., vol. i.

p. 170.