The Inspiration of the Holy Scriptures

The Scriptures of the Old and New Testaments are not only genuine and authentic, hut also inspired writings. The claim of inspiration which they advance, is a claim of infallibility and of perfection. It is also a claim of absolute authority, which demands unlimited submission. It is a claim which; if set up for any other book, might, with the utmost ease, be shown to be unfounded.

The inspiration of the Scriptures is attested, both by the nature and value of their contents, and by the evidence of their truth. On these grounds, they stand without a rival in the world, and challenge from every man the highest possible regard.

Our knowledge of the inspiration of the Bible, like every other doctrine it contains, must be collected frojnitself. If the writers of this book appear with such credentials as entitle them to be received as commissioned of God, then it is from themselves only we can learn those truths which they are authorized to make known. Among these, it is of primary importance to know what is the extent of that dependence which we are to place on their words. Is implicit credit to be given to every thing they declare? and, if the writers are numerous, is this equally due to them all?

The question of inspiration has been viewed as one of the utmost difficulty; and, accordingly, various theories have been invented to explain it. To those who consider the subject merely in the light of the Bible itself, (the only source of legitimate information on any matter of revelation.) it may appear surprising that this doctrine should be supposed to present any difficulties at all. Nothing can be more clearly, more expressly, or more precisely taught in the word of God. And while other important doctrines may be met with passages of seeming opposition, there is not in the language of the Scriptures one expression that even appears to contradict their plenary or verbal inspiration. Whence, then, it may be asked, has arisen the idea of difficulty so general among the learned, but utterly unknown to the great body of Christians. It has wholly arisen from a profane desire to penetrate into the manner of the divine operation on the mind of man in the communication of revealed truth. Instead of coming to the Scriptures in a childlike manner, and humbly submitting to what they teach on this subject, many have occupied themselves in forming a scale for determining how far divine assistance was afforded to the sacred penmen in the different parts of their writings; and, according to almost all those who have discussed this subject, some parts of Scripture require only a very small degree of divine assistance. But as the Scriptures assert the inspiration equally of all their parts, these writers are obliged to denominate even this slight assistance as a

kind of inspiration. Some, accordingly, make three degrees or kinds of inspiration, while others add a fourth. To the Superintendence, Elevation, and Suggestion, of Doddridge, has been added Direction. And some, substantially agreeing in the doctrine of different degrees, quarrel with the terms by which these distinctions are designated, and for Suggestion, have substituted Revelation, as more appropriately expressing the highest degree in the scale of inspiration.

To these speculations, though very generally adopted, the writers of the Scriptures give not the slightest countenance or support. Such being the fact, and as the question of inspiration can only be determined by the Scriptures themselves, all the distinctions that have been introduced are nothing better than vain and unsubstantial theories, unfounded and unsupported by any evidence. The Scripturescontain no intimation ‘^hpt^Aoi*^^^ their being written under an inspiration of any icmeA^rtifai kind but one. “All Scripture” says Paul, “is given pujL) £ inspiration of God.” This declaration refers to 4 luoo-cL^bv the whole of the Old Testament, which Timothy had ivuuVjL known from his childhood. But as the greater part ^JfoUt kik oi the New Testament was at that time published, ^d-ctvi’OissiecC and as the whole of it is uniformly classed by its wrisskurfvu ter§ with the Qld Testament, this expression of Paul ^^XT^ ^eotuay applies to the New Testament. The Apostle Ij- Ffu, Peter classes all the Epistles of Paul, which he as-IpajLobjvWa-; cribes to the wisdom given to him, with “the other Pi/y-jlcddc^H^f Scriptures” thereby declaring them to be of the same ^H^et> authority? anci showing that all the writings, both of ^’^^’^the Old and New Testament, went by the name of w eu 4o” Scriptures.

Inspiration belongs to the original writings. No one contends for any degree of inspiration in the transcribers in different ages. Accuracy in the copies they have made is, under the providence of God, by which he always perfectly attains his purposes, secured by the fidelity of those to whom the Scriptures have been committed — by the opposition of parties watching each other, as of- Jews and Christians, and of various sects — and by the great multiplication of copies and translations into different languages, which took place so early.

The inspiration spoken of in the book of Job, xxxii. 8, where it is said, “There is a spirit in men, and the inspiration of the Almighty giveth them understanding,” appears to refer to the communication of those intellectual powers with which man is endowed by his Creator. Every Christian has, besides this, an unction from the Holy Ghost, who dwelleth in him, through whom he was born again, and by whose influence his spiritual life is maintained. There have also been various miraculous gifts of the Holy Spirit bestowed on the servants of God, and among these is that inspiration, by means of which God has revealed himself in the Scriptures of the Old and New Testaments.

The word inspire signifies to breathe into, and literally corresponds to the original in 2 Tim. iii. 16. All Scripture is inspired by Godp or breathed into the writers by God. It is, therefore, of the writing or communication that the inspiration is asserted. The Greek compound word, corresponding to our phrase inspired by God9 was applied among the heathens to

such dreams as were supposed to be breathed into men by any of the gods. This inspiration, which, without any variation or exception, is claimed by the writers of the Scripture, and which entitles the whole of it to be denominated “the Word of God,” is of the highest kind by which they were “led into all truth.” A^It consists in that communication made to their minds j by the Spirit of God, of the ideas and words which they have recorded in that sacred book? Paul expressly calls the Old Testament Scriptures “the Oracles of God,” which were committed to the Jews. — ‘Rom. iii. 2. He afterwards gives the same denomination of “oracles” to all the revealed truth of God. — Heb. v. 12. The same expression was used by the Greeks to denote the responses given out in distinct words, which their priests made, in name of their deities, to those who consulted them. In the same sense, Stephen, speaking under the immediate influence of the Holy Ghost, refers to what the angel spake to Moses on Mount Sinai under the appellation of u lively oracles.” In this expression the verbal inspiration of the whole of the Scriptures is distinctly asserted.

In the passage already quoted, “all Scripture is given by inspiration of God” the same thing is explicitly declared. Here Paul does not say the meaning of all Scripture, or the ideas contained in it, but all Scripture — all writing, or all that is written (taking writing in the appropriated sense in which he uses it) is given by inspiration of God. Here then we have a most unequivocal testimony to the inspiration of the words of Scripture, for neither a meaning, nor an idea, can be expressed in writing, except by words. If any writing is inspired, the words of necessity must be inspired, because the words are the writing; for what is a writing, but words written? The thoughts and sentiments are the meaning of the words. To say that a writing is inspired, while the words are uninspired, is a contradiction in terms. To the same purpose, the Apostle Peter affirms, “the prophecy came not of old time (at any time) by the will of man, but holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost.” If they spake as they were moved, they did not choose the language they tnhi utteredbut the words which they spoke were given d-c^A to them by the Holy Ghost. In the same manner /^^^f the Disciples, on the day of Pentecost, “were all filled with the Holy Ghost, and began to speak w other tongues, as the Spirit gave them utterance.” c^Ao-^c Here then utterance, or the words they spoke, is ex-^^^«f f pressly ascribed to the Holy Spirit. Nothing can more distinctly convey the meaning of inspiration, Juu, far. than these words, <c who by the mouth of thy servant ^±^±-^±^ David hath said” — Acts, iv. 25. And this inspira- ff tion, which without variation or exception is claimed for the Scriptures by the sacred writers, entitles the whole of them to be called “the word of God” which high designation they could not be entitled onr’,:u’1^ any other ground. £ u

The words of Scripture, indeed, as used by the c v s£ writers, were their own words, that is, the words, ^7 which they employed. But this does not convey theJ/i /j / v idea that the Bible is partly the word of God, and*, 1 partly the word of man. It is not the effect of any,^ “fito™

such co-operation, as supposes that one part was produced by God, and the other part by man, to make out a whole. The passages above quoted preclude our entertaining any such notion. Because the words were written by the Prophets and Apostles, this does not prevent them from being the words of God. The following remarks of President Edwards, when he is combating the deeply erroneous sentiment of the Arminians respecting a co-operation between God and man in the work of grace, will explain this matter.” In efficacious grace we are not merely passive, nor yet does God do some, and we do the rest. But God does all, and we do all. God produces all, and we act all. For that is what he produces, viz. our own acts. God is the only proper author and foundation: we only are the proper actors. We are, in different respects, wholly passive and wholly active. In the Scriptures the same things are represented as from God and from us. God is said to convert, and men are said to convert and - turn. God makes a new heart, and we are command-W-^^^v ed to make us a new heart. God circumcises the tAjc 4^*Lil*A- heart, and we are commanded to circumcise our own TJl^JL L ynearts ’ not merety because we must use the means itesucl’loouA-m order to the effect, but the effect itself is our act ‘rttA -?U d^^xA our duty. These things are agreeable to that

^112^^4 text? 6 God worketh iny°u both to win and to do-’”

t&’toerci rf$M,L — Edwards’s Remarks, &c. 251. “aiki^T^ij We grant,” says Dr Owen, “thatjthey” (the sacred f L/^y Si i “// wr*ters) “used their own abilities of mind and under- /n/k tlL^^’ standing in the choice of words and expressions” So £^/^^.^^^the preacher sought to find out acceptable words,

Eccles. xii. 10. But the Holy Spirit, who is more intimate into the minds and skill of men than they are themselves, did so guide and operate in them, as that the words they fixed upon were as directly and certainly from him, as if they had been spoken to them by an audible voice.” — Owen on the Spirit, Book iL ch. i. sect. 20.

We are not, however, required to suppose, that while inspired, the ordinary exercise of the faculties of the penmen of the Scriptures was counteracted or suspended, or that their minds did not entirely go along with what was communicated to them. They were all “filled with the Holy Ghost,” Acts. xi. 4. They “had the mind of Christ,” 1 Cor. xi. 15; and were themselves cast into the mould of that doctrine which they delivered to others. We are certain, then, as appears from the whole of their writings, that as far as they comprehended the truths which they were employed to record, they both fully acquiesced in them, and powerfully felt their force. It forms no objection to this inspiration, that the wrords of Scripture are occasionally changed in parallel passages or quotations, by Him who dictated them. The Holy Spirit is not confined to any one mode of expression, and in such places his mind is conveyed in words, which, though varied by him, are yet perfectly adapted to communicate his will.

Nor does the difference of style which we find among these writers at all conclude against their having the words they were to write imparted to them. The style that God was pleased to employ was used, and the instruments were such as that style was na-THE INSPIRATION OF

tural to, flowing, like the words, with their fall consent, and according to the particular tone of their minds, while they yielded to the impression as voluntary and intelligent agents. The Holy Spirit could dictate to them his own words in such a way that they would also be their words, uttered with the understanding. He could speak the same thought by the mouth of a thousand persons, each in his own style. Is it then because we cannot comprehend the mode of such an operation, that arrogant and weak mortals dare to deny the obvious import of Scripture declarations?

The objection to verbal inspiration, taken from the variety of style among the sacred writers, though at first sight it may seem plausible, is, in reality, both unfounded and absurd. It is taking it for granted that two or more accounts of the same thing differing in phraseology, though substantially agreeing, cannot all be the words of inspiration, which has not the smallest foundation in truth. If variety of expression in relating the same things in the Gospel, would not affect the truth of the narrative, on the supposition that the writers were uninspired men, why is it presumed that it would affect it on the supposition of their being inspired; and why should it be thought improper for the Holy Ghost to make use of that variety? Or, because one peculiar cast of style distinguishes every man’s writings, is it thought impossible that the Spirit of God can employ a variety of styles; or is it supposed that He must be confined to one single mode of expression? The simple statement of such an idea contains its refutation. It is evident, too, that variety of style militates no more against verbal inspiration, than against the supposed inspiration of superintendence; for if the Holy Spirit sanctioned variety, it was equally consistent to dictate, variety. And it might be shown that such variety is - of essential importance in the Gospel narratives in bringing out very interesting views, that could not be so well exhibited in a single narrative.

Of the fact, however, that the variety of style which is found among the writers of the Scriptures does not in the smallest degree militate against that verbal inspiration by which they affirm that they wrote, we g have conclusive proof. For while it is evident to all,’ that there is a certain characteristic distinction of style, 0 that pervades the whole of the Scriptures, and suffi-. ciently attests that they are the work of the same t author, it is equally certain that each one of the writers is distinguished from the rest by a style peculiar - to himself. Now the difference of style is as great among the prophets, when predicting future events, which they did not understand, where, as is admitted by all, the words they employed must necessarily have been communicated to thcm9nsh is found to be among them when relating events with which they were previously acquainted. Here, then, we have positive proof on this subject, which it is impossible to set aside. The objection, too, that is founded on variety of style, to the communication of words, would equally militate against the communication of ideas. There is as great diversity of modes of thought, and of viewing their subjects, as of expression and style, among the writers of Scripture. And can it for a moment be THE INSPIRATION OF

supposed, that either as to the one or the other, the Spirit of God is limited? “He that planted the ear, shall he not hear? He that formed the eye, shall he not see?” “Who hath made man’s mouth, or who maketh the dumb, or the deaf, or the seeing, or the blind, did not I the Lord?” He who conferred upon men all the varied powers and faculties which they possess, is he not able to communicate to their minds whatever seems to him good, in every possible variety of expression, and in every conceivable shape?

It has been objected, that if the verbal inspiration of the whole of the Scriptures could be proved, it would follow, that the words of all the speakers who are introduced in them, such as those of Job’s friends, although their opinions were erroneous, nay even the words of the devil himself, were inspired. This objection is so absurd, that unless it had been sometimes gravely urged, it would be too trifling to be noticed. Is it not sufficiently plain, that while God dictated to the sacred penmen the words of those referred to, he ‘A> $*^ated tnem to De inserted, not asfo’s words, but as A their jwords P^Every thing contained in the Bible, whe- /^^o^her the words of the penmen, that contain the mind pvujrt* Qf Q0(]? or the words of others, that are inserted for the purpose of giving such information as he is “~ pleased to impart, is equally, according to the express ^cru,fy declarations of Scripture, dictated by God. It should, however, be observed, that it is not at all implied in the

assertion of plenary verbal inspiration, that every example recorded in Scripture, without any judgment expressed with regard to the conduct of good, or even inspired men, should be for imitation. ‘When the Word of God records human conduct, without pronouncing on. its ‘morality, whether it is sin or duty must be ascertained by an appeal to the general principles of Scripture.

It is no valid objection to verbal inspiration, that the sacred writers were often acquainted beforehand with those facts which they recorded, and that they were directed to refer to this knowledge to establish their credibility. This no more proves that their relating these facts originated with themselves, than the previous knowledge of a messenger of the contents of the message he bears, proves that it originated with himself, or detracts from its truth or authority. Nor does it form any objection that the penmen of Scripture often appeal, in support of what they advance, to its own evidence, or that they reason from principles granted by those whom they addressed. This was practised by the Lord himself, as to whose words no Christian will affirm that they are not the words of God.

There is a simplicity harmony, and consistency, in that plan which represents the Scriptures as, in one point of view, the production of man, and in another wholly the book of God. This is precisely consistent with the language of the Apostle Paul, when he sometimes designates the Gospel, “my Gospel,” and sometimes, “the Gospel of God,” it being, in fact, both the one and the other. Though the deepest wisdom of man could never have anticipated such a scheme of inspiration, yet, when it is submitted to the mind, it manifests itself to be divine. And nothing

but this view will harmonize all the assertions of the Scriptures.

The subject of the inspiration of the Bible has been too much disregarded among Christians; many have not attended to it at all, while others have ventured to indulge in vain speculations respecting it. But like every other doctrine, the nature of divine inspiration ought to be carefully enquired into, and the truth respecting it received with the most unreserved submission. It will be proper, then, to consider it solely in the light which the Word of God affords; and for this purpose, after attending to the objections that have been derived from erroneous views of the meaning of certain passages of Scripture, to exhibit the ample proofs contained in the sacred record, which unequivocally substantiate its own plenary inspiration in every part, without one single exception.

The inspiration of certain parts of the Scriptures is frequently denied, on the supposition that the Apostles themselves “sometimes candidly admit, that they are not speaking by inspiration.” This objection proceeds on a mistaken view of the meaning of the passages on which it is founded.

In the 7th chapter of the 1st Epistle to the Corinthians, the Apostle Paul is supposed, in some places, to disclaim inspiration, and, in one place, not to be certain whether he is inspired or not. This, at first sight, will appear to be evidently contrary to the uniform style of this Apostle’s writings, and altogether improbable, when, as a commissioned and accredited ambassador of Jesus Christ, he is answering certain questions put to him by a Christian church, to whom he had just before in the most explicit manner asserted, that he spoke “not in the words which man’s wisdom teacheth, but which the Holy Ghost teacheth;” and that he was addressing them “in the name of the Lord Jesus,” 1 Cor. ii. 13, and v. 4. Attention to these things might have prevented the adoption of the unfounded and mistaken meaning that has been affixed to the passages referred to, which tends to unsettle the minds of Christians respecting the inspiration of the Scriptures. No such indecision, however, attaches to the passages in question.

In answer to the question about marriage, Paul says, 1 Cor. vii. 6, “I speak this by permission, and not of commandment.” Does this mean, that the Spirit permitted him, but did not command him, to give the answer he bad done? Even upon this supposition, the Apostle’s declaration must be according to the mind of the Spirit; for Paul could not, on such an occasion, have been permitted to say what was contrary to it. But this would have been a very extraordinary and unusual mode of communicating that mind, and evidently is not what is here intended. The obvious meaning is, that what the Apostle here said was in the way of permission, not of commandment. “I speak this,” says he, “as a permission, and not as a commandment;” and without this, the Apostle might have been understood as enjoining marriage as an indispensable duty, In the second epistle to the same church, chap. viii. 8, the Apostle expresses himself to the same purpose, in a passage which no one misunderstands. Again, at the 10th verse — “Unto the married I command, yet not I, but the Lord.” This

commandment had been delivered by the Lord Jesus Christ himself. The Apostle, therefore, had no new 0 ^^^’^ commandment to deliver to them, or no commandlu< ajrujh&nwft from himself only, but one which the Lord had ^^^^^^Viven. To the rest,” says he, u speak I, not the “J^,^fj* Jur(|#” There was no former commandment given ^^$2 y/^^hylthe Lord, to which he might here refer them; on J*:fipt*J m3 thisVoint, therefore, he now delivers to them the will a*L9 °f God. So far, indeed, was this commandment from f ^Iz^ti 1iavinglbeen given before, that it was the repeal of an ^/jU wth old onelby which, under the Jewish dispensation, the? people were commanded to put away their wives, if neathens.^Can it, then, be supposed, that the Apostle bn^Tfcy -A*t ‘- is speaking from himself, and not under the dictation ^a^^^’^of the Holy Ghost, when he is declaring the abroga-

)y tion of a ?art of the law of God?

lz/L “Now, concerning virgins, I have no commandcl jU.<*Lj-4f nient of the Lord; yet I give my judgment as one that hath obtained mercy of the Lord to be faithful.” Here again no commandment had formerly been given, to which Paul could refer those to whom he wrote. But now, he gave his judgment as one that had obtained mercy of the Lord to be faithful in the discharge of that ministry which he had received, to deliver the ,:( luct whole counsel of God to man. “I think also that I ^Jbave the Spirit of God.” In this, as in many other tte^oU^’l passages, the word translated, “I think,”* does not

f t~ JaaAjzI^ * “On 1 Cor. vii. 40, Wolfius remarks, that the v. $o%oo imlaiyu-d. froMf - ports not an uncertain opinion, hut conviction and knowledge, as John, v. 39. So in Xenophon, Cyropeed., at the end of the ^~!/y£>/w£Proemp H<rQ<r®YiUl AOKOTMEN, expresses assurance, not doubt.” uJLfy — Parkhurst. r

/Hie mean doubting, but certainty. If Paul meant it to be understood, that he was not certain whether he was inspired or not, it would contradict all he has so often positively declared, in the same Epistle, on the subject of his inspiration, both before the expression in question, and afterwards, when he says, chap, xiv, 37, “If any man think himself to be a prophet, or spiritual, let him acknowledge that the things which I icrite unto you are the commandments of the Lord” And it would stand directly opposed to what he affirms, 1 Thess. iv. 8, “He, therefore, that despiseth, despiseth not man, but God, who hath also given unto us his Holy Spirit,” But so far is this from being the case, that in order more deeply to impress the minds of those to whom he wrote, with the importance of what he had said, Paul concludes by assuring them, that he was certain that he wrote by the Spirit of God.

The only other passage in which this Apostle is supposed to disclaim inspiration occurs in 2 Cor. xi. 17: — “That which I speak, I speak it not after the Lord, but as it were foolishly, in this confidence of boasting.” In this passage Paul does not refer to the authority, but to the example, of the Lord. “I speak not according to the example or manner of the Lord, but after the manner of fools:”^a manner which, as he tells the Corinthians in the next chapter, they had compelled him to adopt. Such is the true sense of the above passages; but even if the mistaken meaning that is so often attributed to them, were the just one, they would not at all militate against the plenary inspiration of the Scriptures, because in that case Paul

ot fcies-, r,l~- rtA

must be viewed as having been inspired to write precisely as he has done, since they form a part of Scripture, all of which is given by inspiration of God.

Another passage in the Second Epistle of Peter, i. 19, is frequently quoted, so as to invalidate the Apostolic testimony. Peter had just before declared, that on the mount of transfiguration, he and the other Apostles had been eye-witnesses of the majesty of Jesus Christ, and had heard the voice from heaven, which attested that he was the beloved Son of God. Yet, after this, he is supposed to refer Christians to the word of prophecy, as “more sure” than this testimony. Instead of this, which is evidently a very improper view of the passage, degrading to the testimony of the Apostles, (than which there is nothing in heaven, or on earth, more absolutely certain,) he refers to the prophecies, now made “more firm” or “confirmed” by what they had witnessed.*

Two passages are quoted from Paul’s First Epistle to Timothy, v. 23, “Drink no longer water, but use a little wine for thy stomach’s sake, and thine often infirmities.” And 2 Tim. iv. 13, “The cloak that I left at Troas with Carpus, when thou comest, bring with thee, and the books, but especially the parchments.” These passages, it is supposed, are of

* “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, as it has been confirmed by the event, than it was before the event. So the Greek interpreters understood the passage.” — Parkhurst.

so unimportant a nature, that they cannot be the dictates of inspiration. Such a conclusion, even if we could not discover their use, would be altogether unwarrantable. On the same principle we might reject many other parts of Scripture, the import of which we do not understand; but in doing so, we should act both as absurdly and irreverently as the daring infidel, who might assert that a worm or a mushroom was not the workmanship of God, because it appeared to him insignificant; or that the whole world was not created by God, because it contained deserts and barren wastes, the use of which he could not comprehend.

In reference to the above passages, Dr Doddridge makes the following remarks: “There are other objections of a quite different class, with which I have no concern; because they affect only such a degree of inspiration, as I think it not prudent and I am sure it is not necessary, to assert. I leave them therefore to be answered by those, if any such there be, who imagine that Paid would need an immediate Revelation from Heaven, and a miraculous dictate of the Holy Ghost, to remind Timothy of the cloak and writings which he left at Troas, or to advise him to mingle a little wine with his ivater?,% Modern writers on inspiration have likewise singled out these two passages, together with the shipwreck of Paul on the island of Melita, as uninspired, because they conceive that “these were not things of a religious nature.”

* Dissertation on the Inspiration of the New Testament, in Appendix to the Harmony of the Evangelists, p. 58.

Respecting the account of the Apostle’s shipwreck, there are few things to be found in the historical parts of the Bible that are more truly valuable, whether we consider the delightful and encouraging views it affords of the providential dealings of the Lord in every circumstance of the life of his people, or attend to the unparalleled illustration it furnishes of the manner by which the purposes of God are, in the use of means, carried into effect. Nothing could be more worthy of inspiration than the recording of this portion of Scripture; and so far from not being of a religious nature, the account it contains is fraught with the most important religious instruction. As to the objection that is founded on the two passages in the Epistles to Timothy, it being both commonly made, and resorted to as one of the strongholds of those who oppose the verbal inspiration of the whole of Scripture, it requires to be examined at some length. Instead of being so trifling as to render them unworthy to be a part of divine Revelation, they present considerations of very high interest.

In the first of these passages, it is said, “Drink no longer water, but use a little wine for thy stomach’s sake, and thine often infirmities.” A due consideration of the nature of the office of Paul, who gave this injunction to Timothy, and of the Epistle in which it is contained, as a part of the oracles of God, as well as of the service in which Timothy was engaged, ought to have deterred any one from rashly concluding that this verse forms no part of the words of inspiration. The connexion, too, in which it is found, embodied in one of the most solemn addresses to be met with in the Scriptures, assures us that it must contain something of importance. “I charge thee before God, and the Lord Jesus Christ, and the elect angels, that thou observe these things, without preferring one before another, doing nothing by partiality. Lay hands suddenly on no man, neither be partaker of other mens sins: keep thyself pure* Drink no longer water, but use a little xoinefor thy stomach’s sake, and thine often infirmities. Some men’s sins are open beforehand, going before to judgment; and some men they follow after. Likewise also the good works of some are manifest beforehand; and they that are otherwise cannot be hid!’ Can it be imagined that, — in the midst of an address, in which, if the language of inspiration is to be found in the Bible; the Apostle is speaking by it, — before the charge is completed, which contains a permanent law in the kingdom of Christ, the course of that inspiration is suddenly interrupted, and broken in upon, by a remark merely human, “not of a religious nature” — by an advice, which, originating with the Apostle, might not be judicious? On the contrary, being fully assured that the verse in question is, like the other parts of the charge that precede and follow it, dictated by the Divine Spirit, we are prepared to regard it as containing what is worthy of its author, and deserving of our attention. Proceeding, then, to examine it, under the settled conviction that it is given by inspiration of God, and that it is profitable for instruction in righteousness, I observe, That while enjoining upon Timothy many arduous and laborious duties, the Apostle was inspired to admonish him to attend to his health, in order to fit him for their

right discharge; and hence Timothy was taught, and we learn, that it is the duty of every man to have a regard for his health, even amidst the most important labours, in order that he may be more fitted for the service of God, and that his life may be prolonged in that service.

2. We learn the abstemiousness of Timothy, notwithstanding his bodily weakness, and abundant labours.

3. That his abstemiousness was even carried the length of an unnecessary austerity, and that although he had a good end in view, this over-abstemiousness was wrong, and was therefore corrected by the Apostle. Hence, we learn how apt we are to err, even when our intentions are good, and how necessary it is to receive direction from the Lord.

4. If Timothy was in an error respecting the lawfulness of using wine, that error is here corrected; but whether this was the case or not, it was a matter of importance to instruct believers on this point, on which, as it appears from Rom. xiv. 21, a diversity of opinion existed in the churches. The lawfulness of the use of wine was denied by the Essenes, a sect among the Jews, as was afterwards the case with different Christian sects. This error may have been imbibed by them, or confirmed by the law of the Nazarites, or from a partial attention to the manner in which the Rechabites, who abstained from wine, were held up as an example of obedience to the people of Israel. In this view of the passage, it contains a most salutary and necessary corrective of what might otherwise have become extensively prejudicial in the kingdom of Christ; and it proves a useful comment, in the way of warning, on what the Apostle had said a little before, concerning a defection that was to take place in the latter times, in which false teachers were to command men to abstain from meats which God had created, to be received with thanksgiving, chap, iii. 3.

5. Use “a little wine.” Here we are instructed in the duty of temperance. We are taught to use the bounties of Providence with moderation, and in subordination to our sustenance and bodily health.

6. If the error of those who live too abstemiously, so as to hurt their health, be here corrected; howmuch more does this passage condemn those who exceed in a contrary extreme, and who impair their constitutions by intemperance!

7. From this passage, as from some others, e. g. Phil. ii. 27, we learn that the Apostles had it not in their power on every occasion, even when they might be desirous of it, to work miraculous cures, and that the gift of healing, at that time vouchsafed, did not preclude the use of means for the preservation of health.

8. This passage sanctions the medical profession. This is very important, as some Christians have been inclined to think, that to have recourse to a physician is to supersede the interposition of God. Now, the prescription of Paul to Timothy was a medical prescription, founded on the fitness of the medicinal qualities of wine. Christians ought, indeed, to look to God for their cure, so ought they for the nourishment of their bodies, for man does not live by bread

alone, but both food and medicine are to be taken as the means appointed by God, as we here learn.

The other passage referred to, occurs in Paul’s Second Epistle to Timothy, ch. iv. 13, “The cloak that I left at Troas with Carpus, when thou comest bring with thee, and the books, but especially the parchments.” This passage, like the former, is introduced in the midst of very solemn considerations, in connexion with an annunciation of the Apostle Paul’s trial for his life, and in the immediate prospect of his martyrdom. In his desire to have his cloak brought to him from a distance, a proof is recorded at the close of his ministry, of Paul’s disinterestedness in his labours among the churches. We are here reminded of his resolution, and are taught how faithfully he adhered to it, to make the gospel of God without charge; and in the peculiar circumstances in which he was placed, not to abuse his power of receiving support in preaching the Gospel, or to allow his glorying on the ground of his disinterestedness to be made void, 1 Cor. ix. 13-18. On the approach of winter, in a cold prison, and at the termination of his course, the Apostle Paul appears here to be a follower indeed of him who had not where to lay his head. He is presented to our view as actually enduring those hardships, which elsewhere he describes in a manner so affecting — “in prisons, — in cold, in nakedness.” He had abandoned, as he elsewhere informs us, all the fair prospects that once opened to him of worldly advantages, for the excellency of the knowledge of Christ, and had suffered the loss of all things; and in this Epistle we see all that he has said on the subject, embodied and verified. He is about to suffer death for the testimony of Jesus; and now he requests one of the few friends that still adhered to him, (all the others, as he tells us, having forsaken him,) to do his diligence to come before winter, and to bring to him his cloak. Here, in his solemn farewell address, of which the verse before us forms a part, — the last of his writings, and which contains a passage of unrivalled grandeur, — the Apostle of the Gentiles is exhibited in a situation deeply calculated to affect us. We behold him standing upon the confines of the two worlds, — in this world about to be beheaded, as guilty, by the Emperor of Rome, — in the other world to be crowned, as righteous, by the King of kings, — here deserted by men, there to be welcomed by angels, — here in want of a cloak to cover him, there to be clothed upon with his house from heaven!

Dr Doddridge, in his commentary on the passage before us, has the following note. ({ Bring with thee that cloak. If pgAawji here signifies cloak, or mantle, it is, as Grotius justly observes, a proof of Paul’s poverty, that he had occasion to send so far for such a garment, which probably was not quite a new one.” Since, as we here learn, this observation of Grotius appeared just to Dr Doddridge, it might have prevented him from rashly treating the subject with the levity which appears in his remark, formerly quoted, and from thinking it not “prudent” to assert, that the text was dictated by the Holy Spirit. The observation of Grotius to which he refers, is as follows: i; See the poverty of so great an Apostle, who con-THE INSPIRATION OF

sidered so small a matter, left at such a distance, to be a loss to him!” On the same place, Erasmus remarks: “Behold the Apostle’s household furniture, a cloak to defend him from rain, and a few books I” Here, then, we are reminded incidentally (a manner of instruction common in the Word of God) of Paul’s poverty. In the low, distressed circumstances of the Apostles, we see the Lord’s warnings, as to the reception they were to meet with from the world, and the hardships and privations they were to experience, fully verified. The evidence of the truth of the Gospel, which arises from the suffering condition of those who were first employed to propagate it, is calculated to produce on our minds the strongest conviction of its divine origin. In the wisdom of God it appears to have been appointed for this end; and it is all along kept in view, in the accounts transmitted in the Scriptures concerning them. “I think that God hath set forth us the Apostles the last, as it were appointed to death: for we are made a spectacle unto the world, and to angels, and to men. — Even unto this present hour we both hunger, and thirst, and are naked, and are buffeted, and have no certain dwelling-place.” 1 Cor. iv. 9-11.

Paul also desires Timothy to bring with him the “books, but especially the parchments.” Whatever these parchments were, the use that Paul intended to make of them would be well known to Timothy, and in it he might have a further example of the Apostle’s zeal, and unwearied exertion in the service of God. By this passage we may be taught, that even those who were so highly favoured with the most distinguished gifts, were not raised above the necessity of using means for their own improvement, and for the stirring up of those gifts that were in them; and if this was the case respecting them, how forcibly is the duty here inculcated upon us, to give diligence to retain the knowledge of divine things which we may already possess, and to seek to add to our present attainments, whatever we may suppose them to be! We are certain that they were not useless books, which the Apostle required to be brought to him at such a time, and from so great a distance. They must have been intended to be profitable to himself, or in some way to be turned to the advancement of that cause, to promote which was his only desire, and for which he was now about to suffer. In any, or all of these views, the contents of this verse may convey instruction, and afford an example to us; and at any rate we can no more conceive that the course of inspiration is here interrupted, without the smallest intimation to this effect, (of which an example in the whole Bible cannot be produced,) than we can believe it was the case concerning the verse which we formerly considered.

In the former of the above passages, we observe Paul evincing his kindness and sympathy, and attending to the wants of a fellow labourer; in the latter, to his own wants. Is there any thing in either of them beneath the dignity of Divine Revelation? In prescribing, by his Apostle, the use of wine, which he would bless for the re-establishment of the health of Timothy, the Lord acted in the same manner as when he directed his Prophet to order the application of THE INSPIRATION OF

“a lump of figs,” for the cure of King Hezekiah. Was it beneath the dignity of Him who turned water into wine at a marriage feast, to order the use of wine for the preservation of Timothy’s health, instead of the use of water? Was this unworthy of that Lord who had condescended so far to the indulgence of the feelings of his people, as to cause it to be engrossed in his law, that the man who had planted a vineyard, and had not eaten of it, should not go out to war, lest he should die in the battle? Deut. xx. 6.

So far from there being any thing in these passages beneath the dignity of a revelation from God, or unworthy of his character, they are entirely consistent with the one, and strikingly illustrative of the other. And it is only when we consider them, not as the word of man, but as “the word of God” that we discover their beauty and their use. It is God himself who there speaks. He who is the high and lofty One that inhabiteth eternity, condescends to the weakness and to the wants of his servants. Nothing that interests them escapes his notice. The hairs of their head are all numbered, and the smallest circumstance of their lot is ordered by the providence of God. What a striking illustration do these two passages afford, of those affecting considerations which Jesus presented to his disciples, Luke, xii. 22-30, in order to withdraw their minds from the cares and anxieties to which they are so prone to yield during their earthly pilgrimage! Viewing these verses in this light, as the words of God himself can any thing be more adapted to foster the spirit of adoption, or to lead us to cry, Abba, Father? And should they be expunged from

the Sacred Record, as incompatible with the idea we ought to form of inspiration, and unworthy of proceeding from God? But it is at such passages as these that the blind infidel scoffs, while the injudicious or ill-instructed Christian considers them as useless, and converts them into an argument against the plenary inspiration of the Scriptures.

On the same principle that the admonition to Timothy, to drink no longer water, but to use a little wine for the benefit of his health, is rejected as unworthy of verbal inspiration, ought not the truth of the miracle wrought at the marriage at Cana in Galilee, of turning water into wine, to be denied, and the occasion deemed unworthy of miraculous interposition; and especially of its being exhibited as the first of the miracles of Jesus? Shall we be told that it also was a “thing not of a religious nature,” that it was not worthy to be recorded by the pen of inspiration, that it is not “prudent” to speak of such a passage as inspired; or to admit with those,” if any such there be, icho imagine’ that Jesus first manifested forth his glory, by turning a little water into wine?

The levity, not to say the profaneness, of this manner of treating the Holy Scriptures, ought to be held in abhorrence. Their paramount authority, and their unity as the Word of God, are thus set aside. The Bible is converted into another book; and a new revelation, were such licentious principles of interpretation admitted, would become indispensable to teach the humble Christian, who takes it for” a lamp unto his feet, and a light unto his path,’’ — what portion of it he is to consider as from God, and what portion

as from man, — what parts of it are of “a religious nature,” from which he may derive edification, and in which he may converse with God, — and what parts relate only to “common or civil affairs,” with which he has no concern, and respecting which it would not be ‘prudent to speak of them as inspired. If, in this manner, inspiration is first denied to the words, and next to such things as are supposed not to be “of a religious nature,” the progress to the non-inspiration of whole books of Scripture is perfectly easy and natural; and, if whole books are rejected, then, both the authenticity and inspiration of the whole of the Scriptures are subverted. For, if the canon has admitted one uninspired book, there is no security that it has not admitted more; and if that canon has been recognised by Jesus Christ with one uninspired book, every book in the collection may be uninspired, notwithstanding that recognition. If the Apostle Paul has asserted the inspiration of the whole volume, while one book is uninspired, no book in the volume can be received on his authority. The discovery, in like manner, of one single passage in the Scriptures not dictated by the Holy Ghost, would make void the declaration, that “all Scripture is given by inspiration of God,” and would render inspiration necessary to tell us what part of it is inspired, and what is not. According to those writers who deny the doctrine of plenary inspiration, we have not the pure Word of God; for much that we have under that designation, is solely the word of man.

Let those who treat the Scriptures in this manner pause, and review the principles on which they are proceeding; and let them not perplex “plain Christians” with their rash and unhallowed speculations. The great body of believers receive, with implicit credence, the whole contents of the Bible, as the oracles of God; — they venture not either to add to it, or to take from it. Convinced that it is the book of God, they treat even those parts of it which they do not understand with humble reverence; and in them is fulfilled what is written, Math. xi. 25, while the fancied wisdom and knowledge of many learned critics has perverted them. Isaiah, xlvii. 10. Those who, in the spirit of little children, read in the Epistles of Paul to Timothy, that “all Scripture is given by inspiration of God,” will not easily be induced to believe, that in the very same Epistles the Apostle has contradicted his own declaration, and has afforded at least two examples of the fallacy and unsoundness of what he had, almost in the same breath, so solemnly affirmed. And it is upon the general ground of these passages being found in Scripture, independently of the meaning which may be affixed to them, that we denounce the profane manner in which they have been treated, and hold them to be a portion of the Word of God. It was in this light that Origen, who was born towards the end of the second century, viewed those parts of Scripture as inspired, of which he was not able to discover the use. The following are his words, when quoting Mark, x. 50:” Shall we say that the Evangelist wrote without thought, when he related the man’s casting away his garment, and leaping and coming to Jesus? and shall we dare to say that these things were inserted in the Gospels in vain? For my part,

I believe that not one jot or tittle of the Divine instruction is in vain. — We are never to say that there is any thing impertinent or superfluous in the Scriptures of the Holy Spirit, though to some they may seem obscure. But we are to turn the eyes of our mind to Him who commanded these things to be written, and seek of Him the interpretation of them. — The sacred Scriptures come from the fulness of the Spirit; so that there is nothing in the Prophets, or the Law, or the Gospel, or the Apostles, which descends not from the fulness of the Divine Majesty.” “Well knowing,” says Irenaeus, “that the Scriptures are perfect, as dictated (or spoken) by the Word of God and his Spirit — a heavy punishment awaits those who add to, or take from, the Scriptures.”

The inspiration of Luke, in writing the account of Paul’s shipwreck, and that of Paul, in writing for his cloak, stand upon the same foundation as their inspiration in recording the plan of salvation. But even if it were true, as many ignorantly suppose, that Paul, in his seventh chapter of the first Epistle to the Corinthians, guards against the idea of his inspiration in the cases there referred to, then every thing is to be taken as inspired, when he gives no such intimation; and consequently his message about the cloak and parchments, and his medical advice to Timothy, would have their claim to inspiration fully authenticated, even in the view of those persons who pervert the meaning of that chapter.

Some who are satisfied as to the inspiration of all the other parts of the New Testament Scriptures, are doubtful concerning the inspiration of the three books written by Mark and Luke, who were not Apostles. From early accounts concerning these disciples, it is reckoned by many that they were among the seventy whom Jesus sent out in Judea. We know for certain, that they respectively accompanied Peter and Paul in their journeys, and they are mentioned by these two Apostles with much regard. The Apostles not only received the miraculous gifts of the Holy Spirit, but by laying on their hands imparted these gifts to other disciples. When Peter went down to Samaria, he laid his hands on the disciples there, who then received the Holy Ghost. When Paul wrote to the Christians at Rome, he informed them that he longed to see them, that he might impart to them some spiritual gift. Paul had communicated a gift to Timothy, whom he employed, as he also did Titus, in directing the churches in his absence. “I put thee in remembrance, that thou stir up the gift of God which is in thee, by the putting on of my hands.” By means of these gifts, those who possessed them were enabled to speak in languages they had never learned, and some of them to speak, by “revelation,” the mind of God. There can be no reason, then, to doubt, that to Mark and Luke, considering the circumstances on which they stood with the Apostles, the best miraculous gifts were also communicated. They were not Apostles, bat they were prophets who received immediate revelations from the Spirit. Eph. iii. 5.

But the conclusive argument as to the inspiration and fitness of these two disciples to contribute the books they have furnished to the sacred volume, does not rest on any supposition, however good the grounds of it

may be, but on the fact, that the first churches, under the immediate guidance and superintendence of the Apostles, received these books on an equal footing with the other Scriptures. The nation of Israel was appointed by God himself to be the depositaries of the Old Testament Scriptures, which are stamped with the authority of Jesus Christ. In like manner, to that nation which constitutes the kingdom of heaven, the New Testament Scriptures were committed. To it they were addressed and delivered by the Apostles, whom Christ had commissioned to record his words, which these Scriptures contain. The inspiration, therefore, of this second portion of the Holy Scriptures, stands on the same footing with that of the first portion, and is equally stamped with his authority. We appeal to the canon of the Jews with respect to the Old Testament, and we have the same strong ground of confidence, when we receive from the first churches the Scriptures of the New Testa-Wtf* ment. As, therefore, the Gospels of Mark and Luke, tcLcOu-out ^yand the Acts of the Apostles, were received by them

L without dispute, were read by them in their assem-

■wUoii. ift blies every Lord s day, and taken for the rule of their ,^f’ttf>^£ duty, as of equal authority with the other Scriptures, f yC/ y / which we have already seen by quotations from the ‘k<U ^wU«arly Christian writers; so we conclude with certcof tainty, that these books stand on the same footing fTI^ m P°^nt °^ authority, hi other words, of inspiration

with all the rest, and form a part of the words of Christ., by which we shall be judged at the last day.

It is often supposed that the historical parts of Scripture were written by men acquainted with the facts that are recorded, under a divine superintendence, by which they were prevented from falling into any error. This opinion is evidently founded on very low and erroneous ideas of those portions of the Word of God, and of their use. It supposes that these histories are little more than the narrative of the facts they contain, in which we are not greatly concerned. But every fact they record is fraught with important instruction. This idea was so strongly impressed on the Jews, that they maintained that God had more care of the letters and syllables of the Law, than of the stars in heaven; and that upon each tittle of it, whole mountains of doctrine hung. Hence every individual letter of the Law was numbered by them, and notice was taken how often it occurred.

The historical parts of Scripture are both introductory to, and illustrative of, the plan of redemption. The general importance, in a religious point of view, of the great outline of the narrations of the Fall, — of the Flood, — of the calling of Abraham, and of the election of the people of Israel, — of their deliverance from Egypt, and their being put in possession of the promised land, must be universally acknowledged. But the whole of the minute detail, by which that outline is filled up, is likewise in the highest degree instructive, and ought to be perused with the most devout attention. The Bible history describes, in action and exhibition, the perfections of Jehovah, as fully as the proclamation in which he declares himself to be long-suffering, and of great mercy, forgiving iniquity and transgression, and by no means clearing the guilty. It delineates the deceitfulness and des-THE INSPIRATION Otf

perate wickedness of the human heart, as forcibly and distinctly as the annunciations of the prophets, when they “cry aloud and spare not.” In the narratives of Scripture, the dependent state, the perverseness, and the folly of man, and the secret motives by which he is actuated, as well as the power, the wisdom, the justice, and the goodness of God in his providential government, and above all in redemption, are vividly depicted. There is not a battle fought by the Israelites, nor a change in the administration of their government, the account of which is not designed for our instruction. There is not an incident recorded as taking place in a private family, that has not a significant meaning.

In the Scriptures there are many things which, considered only in themselves, appear to be of no value, or, at least, of very little importance; but in reality the Bible contains nothing superfluous — nothing which does not contribute to its perfection, and to the evidence of its divine origin. Besides the lists of names in genealogies, we observe many other things in the Word of God, the knowledge of which seems to be of no use; yet their importance might be proved by numerous examples. We find in the Old Testament several regulations and narrations, which in appearance contribute neither to the strengthening of faith, nor to instruction or consolation. In the books of Moses, matters of the greatest importance are often only touched upon in a few words, while, on the contrary, many things that seem inconsiderable, are dwelt upon at great length. The redemption by the Messiah, which God promised to man immediately after bis fall — the calling of the Gentiles predicted to Abraham — the priesthood of Melchisedek, the most illustrious figure of Christ, and many other points of important doctrine, are only noted in a very summary manner. On the other hand, the nativity of Ishmael, the marriage of Isac, and similar histories, are amply detailed, even in the most minute particulars, but all of them are full of instruction. The single account of Hagar and Ishmael. as inter- y & preted by the Apostle Paul, even to the most incon- u etco. siderable circumstance, shows us how we ought to judge of other histories of the Old Testament, although we do not perceive their object.** If Abraham had two sons, the one by a bondmaid, the other by a free woman, and if the former was cast out of the family; these are the two covenants, the one superseding the other. In that important part of holy writ, the eleventh chapter of the Epistle to the Romans, the Apostle Paul unfolds “the deep things of God, which God had revealed to him by his Spirit.” How much instruction does he there deduce from the historical fact that Isaac had two sons, born of the same mother, and at the same time, concerning whom it was said, <; the elder shall serve the younger which contains a practical exhibition of the great and fundamental doctrines of the Prescience, the Providence, and the Sovereignty of God, of his Predestination, Election, and Reprobation.

Various particulars, apparently of little consequence, which the Scriptures relate at great length, prove in what way effects the most wonderful have proceeded from causes in themselves inconsiderable; for in-THE INSPIRATION OF

stance, the birthright of Jacob. God is pleased to teach great things, by things that are small. The prohibitions to take the dam with its young ones in the nest, and not to muzzle the ox that treadeth out the corn, extend farther than at first appears. The act of Jesus Christ in stretching out his hand to touch the leper, does not appear of any account, except to those who know the law which declares that it occasioned uncleanness. The same law forbade the High Priest, who represented Jesus Christ, to enter any house in which there was a dead body. Notwithstanding this, the Lord even touched a bier. In all these particulars, there is a fulness of important doctrine.

Each passage in Scripture has its particular end in view, as the signification of the burning bush, and of the animals described in Ezekiel’s vision. The Revelation of John does not present Jesus Christ to all the churches under the same figure. To one it presents the stars and the golden candlesticks. To another, it exhibits the two-edged sword. To another, the eyes like a flame of fire, and feet like fine brass. His titles are according to the diversity of the subjects. Many know, in general, that the ordinances of the ceremonial law prefigured Christ, but are ignorant how, and in what character, each of them represent him. There are none of them which have not an end and particular reason. There are many who, not being acquainted with what the Scripture has in view, are astonished at the recital of different enormities which it particularizes so carefully. The incest of Judah with the wife of his son, (which Moses, as has been observed, had he been simply “superintended” or “elevated,” when he wrote, would never have introduced,) might seem as if it should rather have been buried with him, than inserted in the Sacred History, with so many shameful circumstances. Yet if the arrogance of the Jews is considered, who glory in their extraction, and who even foundtheir election as a nation and covenant upon the virtues of their ancestors, we shall see that their errors could not be better refuted, nor their pride more effectually humbled, than by holding up to their view the deeply culpable conduct of their progenitor. The sins of Abraham, of Isaac, and of Jacob, being recorded, was calculated to warn Israel not to seek salvation by the works of the law. The omission of the Genealogy of Melchisedek, of his birth, and of his death, denoting the eternity of Jesus Christ, proves how much even the silence of the Scripture is instinctive. Every distinct fact recorded in Scripture history may be truly considered an article of faith; for in the plan of Salvation, matters of fact are become doctrines, and doctrines are in the nature of matters of fact. That Jesus Christ was bora of a virgin, suffered, and rose again, are all at the same time matters of fact and doctrines. Every fact points to that great event upon which the salvation of man depends — the coming of the Son of God in the likeness of sinful flesh, to redeem a peculiar people to himself — or in some way illustrates his salvation.

In the tenth chapter of the First Epistle to the Corinthians, this matter, as it respects the histories of the Old Testament, is placed beyond all doubt. Af-THE INSPIRATION OF

ter referring to the recorded history of Israel, concerning their passage through the Red Sea, and the manner in which they were conducted in the wilderness, the Apostle adds, Now all these things happened to them for examples, and they are written for our admonition, upon whom the ends of the world are come.” Here the purpose and value of the historical parts of Scripture are demonstrated. They are intended for the add monon °f the People °f God. “Whatsoever things uXeioU were written aforetime, were written for our learning, ijtut we ^rou9^1 Paence and comfort of the Scriptures iojCiU ilfi,- might have hope.”*Hom. xv. 4. In this passage it is ex-Zuc.jUrMA*/ pressly affirmed, that every part of the Old Testa- ^f*%/ ment Scriptures was written for the use and edifica- ,^cy,o^ stxon of believers. Where, then, is there a place for the e*vtAj*> impious sentiment which some have ventured to prop ^0< mulgate — so derogatory to every idea that we ought

to entertain of the oracles of God — so diametrically opposed to all they inculcate respecting their own divine origin and inspiration — that they contain certain things that are “not of a religious nature,” and that “no inspiration was necessary concerning them?” In opposition to such daring and profane theories, Paul, the commissioned and accredited ambassador of Jesus Christ, affirms that “ALL Scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof for correction, for instruction in righteousness y that the man of God may he perfect, thoroughly furnished unto all good works” The above comprehensive declarations include the historical as well as the prophetical and doctrinal parts of the Sacred Oracles, in short, the whole of them. The object, therefore, of the historical records in the Scriptures, is essentially different from that of all other histories. They are not given to preserve the memory of certain occurrences, in order to promote the knowledge of what may be useful in regard to the affairs of this world, and to extend the sphere of human intelligence and experience; but exclusively to teach the knowledge of God and salvation. Scripture history is conducted in such a manner, that, like the doctrinal parts of the Bible, it is foolishness to the men of the world. It not only disappoints them in the nature of the facts which it relates, but also in the manner in which they are exhibited. Owing to the truth and impartiality of its narrations, the character of the people of Israel appears to them greatly worse than that of the grossest idolaters, and the accounts given in Scripture of men whose conduct on the whole stands approved by God, seems to them to sink below that standard of moral rectitude, to which they imagine that they themselves, and many of those who make no pretensions to religion, have attained* It not only records truth, without the smallest mixture of error, but also invariaoly keeps in view the agency of God in every occurrence, — in events the most minute, as well as the most considerable; and thus it furnishes a perpetual comment on the sublime description of the Apostle, when, penetrated with admiration of the riches, both of the wisdom and knowledge of God, he exclaims, “Of Him, and through Him, and to Him, are all things; to whom be glory for ever. Amen.”

When the typical import of so many of the sacred narrations, concerning persons, places, institutions, and events, with their necessary bearings, in subserviency to the ushering in of the Messiah, are duly attended to, all may be convinced, that for selecting and relating these histories, in which nothing was to be deficient, and nothing redundant, and for placing before us these mystic pictures for our instruction, the most plenary inspiration, the most accurate divine dictation, was indispensable. The prophets, and even the angels, had but a partial understanding of the things that were afterwards to take place. Moses, it is evident, was not aware, that, as being a type of Christy it was necessary that his death should intervene, before the people of Israel should be led into the promised land. Jtgtcptutf. ( We have no reason to believe that he understood the qLf. £ import of all he wrote; — for instance, that when he

recorded the history of Sarah and Hagar, he knew the design for which it was recorded, and the rise that was afterwards to be made of it. We cannot doubt that the prayer of David, “Open thou mine eyes that I may see wondrous things out of thy law” was equally suitable for Moses, who wrote that law. It was the Lord who made the statutes, and judgments, and laws, between him and the children of Israel, by the hand of ‘Moses. — Lev. xxvi. 46.

Had the wisest and best informed of the Scripture historians not been inspired of God, but simply superintended, so as to prevent them from falling into error, the histories recorded by them would have been very unlike those which they have actually transmitted. Many of their narrations that exist would never have appeared, and others of them would have been very differently modified. We might have discovered in them the self-approving wisdom of man, ^£^^2. but not the seeming “foolishness of God.” Would the united sagacity of all the wise men in the world have led them to relate the history of the creation of the universe in one chapter of a book, as Moses has done, and of the erection of the tabernacle in thirteen ?* Would the fond prejudices of the Jewish nation, or the general desire fostered by so many of the learned, to support what is called the dignity of human nature, in both which Moses no doubt participated, have permitted him to record so base an action as the selling of their brother Joseph as a slave by the Jewish patriarchs, — the incest of Judah, whose tribe was to be always pre-eminent, — and the treach-

* If we compare the first chapter of Genesis with the last sixteen of Exodus, excepting the 3”2d and the two following, we shall find a great difference between Moses’ describing the construction of the universe and that of the tabernacle. In the one, he is very general and succinct; in the other, he is very copious, and marks the smallest peculiarities. The description of the great edifice of the world seemed truly to require more words than that of a small tent. But, on the contrary, the Spirit of God having presented a short representation of the whole mass of the world, details at great length the structure of the tabernacle. The world was solely constructed for the Church, in order that in it God should be served, and by it his glory manifested; Eph. iii. 10. The tabernacle was, in one view, a figure of the Church. God, thus purposing to show that his church, in which he was to be served, was more precious to him and more important than all the rest of the wwld, has spoken of the tabernacle more amply and more particularly, than of all the elements and all the universe together.

ery and revenge of Levi, from whom was to descend the whole priesthood of Israel?

That there was a higher hand which directed the pens of Moses, and of the other writers of sacred history, may be sufficiently manifest to all who have seen in what that history has issued. There is, besides, a combination and a harmony in the historical parts, both of the Old and New Testaments, which we have sufficient ground to believe in a great measure escaped the notice of the writers, as has also been the case with thousands of those who have read them — a variety and a unity which irresistibly prove that One only — He who knows the end from the beginning — is the author of the whole who employed various individuals to produce a uniform work, of which none of them either comprehended all that he contributed to it, or knew for what reason he was directed to record one thing,* and to omit another.

Considering the purpose which the historical parts of the Scriptures were intended to serve, in exhibiting the character and power of God, and his uninterrupted agency in the government of the world, and in pointing to Him who is the end of the law,

* A remarkable instance of this occurs in the repetition of the tenth commandment in the book of Deuteronomy. The Romanists are in the habit of striking out the second commandment, which condemns their idolatry, and to preserve the appearance of integrity for the decalogue, they divide the tenth commandment into two. The transposition of this commandment in the book of Deuteronomy, for which at first sight no reason can be assigned, completely stultifies and exposes their artifice.

we have sufficient reason to be convinced, that neither Moses, nor the other sacred historians, nor all the angels in heaven, though acquainted with all the facts, and under the direction, and with the aid, both of superintendence and elevation, were competent to write the historical parts of the Word of God. They neither possessed foresight nor wisdom sufficient for the work. In both respects, every creature is limited. Into these things, the angels, so far from being qualified to select and endite them, 66 desire to look,” and, from the contemplation of them, derive more knowledge of God than they before possessed, and have their joy even in heaven increased. In those histories, the thoughts and secret motives of men are often unfolded and referred to. Was any one but the Searcher of Hearts competent to this? Could angels have revealed them, unless distinctly made known to them? If it be replied, that in such places the sacred writers enjoyed the inspiration of suggestion, that is, of verbal dictation, we ask, where is the distinction to be found? It is a distinction unknown to the Scriptures. And so far from a plenary inspiration not being necessary in its historical parts, there is not any portion of the sacred volume in which it is more indispensable. But even admitting that verbal inspiration was not in our view essential in those parts of the book of God, is this a reason why we should not receive the testimony of the sacred writers, who nowhere give the most distant hint that they are written under a different kind or degree of inspiration from the rest of it; but who, in the most unqualified manner, assert that full inspiration belongs to the whole of the Scriptures?

The very words that are used in the prophetical parts of Scripture, must necessarily have been communicated to the prophets. They did not always fzc /H^rCcs comprehend the meaning of their own predictions, pcofo ju I -nt0 wnjcn tney searched diligently.” And in this case, it was impossible that, unless the words had kcc been dictated to them, they could have written in- ^tsMt^A jvct^A - telligibly. Although they had written the Scriptures, (V(X^7f ^m^LcC’^ was necessary to show them “that which is noted ml to t<nc4tcLoi’i-m the Scripture of truth,” Dan. x. 21. The writings li’ldVi ‘<h tettLqfc the prophets constitute a great portion of the Old il.^]!l^liestameilt Scriptures, an(* ^od claims it as his sole weU’l Jji(m^HPrer0^ative’ to know .the thins that are to COme’ udJL Uvflivu We are therefore certain that they enjoyed verbal in- 3 totw(vftM/JU inspiration; and, as we have not any where a hint of am. toll ^c/i^Wlifferent kinds of inspiration by which the Scriptures x U wisy M-y ‘il are written, does it not discover the most presumptuu /iiiccu JA J- tv<ous aiTOgance to assert that there are different kinds?

I* YdUlu*lUy The nature of the mission of the prophets required u^yi^Q fun inspiration which they affirm that they pos- ~-^p.. sessed. God never intrusted such a work as they had to perform to any man, nor any part of such a work.

, yytt It was God himself, “who, at sundry times, and in di-MU u 4m £^W.verse maimersp spake in time past unto the fathers, by ufctw wujJr*M it he prophets.” That work, through which was to be vJWcit ^/ iwade known 66 to principalities and powers in heatViyenly places, the manifold wisdom of God, according uel uvlct- lto the eternal purpose which he purposed in Christ whi a* ^tfW” Jesus,” was not a work to be intrusted to any crea- jtvtrw U ^oture. The prophet Micah, iii, 8, says, 2?wf /

(All u jvh^J lAyjclcui OuvuybCUcJL /MWi /lvQ.t^J^^^VUjL llJ^/)rfMb am full of poicer by the Spirit of the Lord, and of judgment, and of might, to declare unto Jacob his transgression, and to Israel his sin” It was not the prophets then who spoke, but the Spirit of God who spoke by them.

Of the complete direction necessary for such a service as was committed to him, both of lawgiver and prophet, Moses was aware, when the Lord commanded him to go to Pharaoh, and to lead forth the children of Israel from Egypt. In that work he intreated that he might not be employed. This proved the proper sense he entertained of his own unfitness for it. But it was highly sinful, and evinced great weakness of faith, thus to hesitate, after the Lord had informed him that he would be “with him.” Moses was accordingly reproved for this, but the ground of his plea was admitted; and full inspiration, not only as to the subject of his mission, but as to the very words he was to employ, was promised. In answer to his objection, the Lord said unto him, Exod. iv. 11, 12,” Who hath made man’s mouth? or who maketh the dumb, or deaf, or the seeing, or the blind? have not I the Lord? Now therefore go, and / will be with thy mouth, and teach thee what thou shalt say*1 Moses still urged his objection, and the same reply was in substance repeated, both in regard to himself and to Aaron. The full inspiration, then, which was at first promised to Moses in general terms, was, for his encouragement, made known in this particular manner, and the promise was distinctly fulfilled. Accordingly, when, as the lawgiver of Israel, he afterwards addressed the people, he was warranted to preface what

he enjoined upon them with, “Thus saith the Lord” or, “These are the words which the Lord hath commanded that ye should do them” In observing all the commandments that Moses commanded them, and in remembering the way by which the Lord had led them, Israel was to learn, that “man doth not live by bread alone, but by every word that proceedeth out of the mouth of the Lord.” Signs were shown to Moses, and God came unto him in a thick cloud, in order, as he said, “that the people may hear thee when I speak with thee, and believe thee for ever” Exod. xix. 9.

If the words of Moses had not been the words of God, — had he not been conscious of the full verbal inspiration by which he wrote, would the following language have been suitable to him, or would he have ventured to use it? Deuteronomy, iv. 2: “Ye shall not add unto the word which I command you, neither shall ye diminish aught from it, that ye may keep these commandments of the Lord your God which I command you” Deut. vi. 6: “And these words, which I command thee this day, shall be in thine heart; and thou shalt teach them diligently unto thy children,” &c. Deut. xi. 18: “Therefore shall ye lay up these my tvords in your heart and in your soul, and bind them for a sign upon your head, that they may be as frontlets between your eyes. And ye shall teach them to your children, speaking of them when thou sittest in thine house, and when thou tvalkest by the way, when thou liest down, and when thou risest up. And thou shalt write them upon the door-posts of thine house, and upon thy gates” From these passages, we learn that Moses was conscious that all the words which he spoke to the people were the words of God. He knew that it was with him as with Balaam, to whom the Lord said, Numbers, xxii. 35, 38, “Only the word that I shall speak unto theep that thou shalt speak and in the language of Balaam, Moses could answer,” The word that God putteth in my mouth, that shall I speak’*

As “the word of the Lord” was communicated to Moses, so it also came to Gad, to Nathan, and to the other prophets, who were men of God, and in whose mouths was the word of God. “Now by this I know that thou art a man of God, and that the word of the Lord in thy mouth is truth” 1 Kings, xvii. 24. The manner in which the prophets delivered their messages, proves that they considered the words which they wrote, not as their own words, but dictated to them by God himself. Elija said to Ahab, “Behold I will bring evil upon thee, and will take away thy posterity ‘.” On this, Mr Scott, in his Commentary, observes, “Elija was the voice, the Lord was the speaker, whose words these were.” This is a just account of all the messages of the prophets. They introduce them with, “Thus saith the Lord “and declare them to be” the word of the Lord;” and is it possible that the prophets could have more explicitly affirmed, that the words which they uttered were communicated to them, and that they were only the instruments of this communication to those whom they addressed? In the place where we read, “Now these be the last words of David, the sweet psalmist of Israel,” David says,” The Spirit of the

Lord spake by me, and his word was in my tongue” 2 Samuel, xxiii. 2. In like manner it is said, “And he did that which was evil in the sight of the Lord his God, and humbled not himself before Jeremiah the prophet speaking from the mouth of the Lord,* 2 Chron. xxxvi. 1,2.” Yet many years didst thou forbear them, and testifiedst against them by thy Spirit in the prophets” Nehemiah, ix. 30. Isaiah commences his prophecies by summoning the heavens and the earth to hear, for the Lord hath spoken” Isa. i. 2. In the same manner, Jeremiah writes, “The words of Jeremiah, to whom the word of the Lord earned” 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” “J will make my words in thy mouth fire” Jeremiah, i. 1, 2; 9; v. 14. “Thus speaketh the Lord GodofLsrael, saying, Write thee all the words that I have spoken unto thee in a book,” Jeremiah, xxx. 2. Again, in the prophecies of Ezekiel, “Son of man, go, get thee unto the house of Israel, and speak my words unto them,” u Moreover he said unto me, Son of man, all my words that I shall speak unto thee, receive in thine heart, and hear with thine ears, and go get thee to them of the captivity, unto the children of thy people, and speak unto them and tell them, Thus saith the Lord God.” Ezekiel, iii. 4, 10. Hosea says, “The word of the Lord that came unto Hosea;” “The beginning of the word of the Lord by Hosea” i. 1, 2. It is in similar language that the other prophets generally introduce their predictions, which are everywhere interspersed with, “thus saith the Lord”

All, then, that was spoken by the prophets in these several recorded passages, was spoken in the name of the Lord; and “no prophecy of the Scripture is of any private interpretation.” When false prophets appeared, it was necessary for them to profess to speak in the name of the Lord, and to steal his words from their neighbour.” I have heard what the prophets say, that prophesy lies in my name, saying, I have dreamed, I have dreamed. The prophet that hath a dream, let him tell a dream; and he that hath my word, let him speak my word faithfully. What is the chaff to the wheat? saith the Lord. Ls not my word like as a fire? saith the Lord; and like a hammer that breaketh the rock in pieces? Therefore, behold, L am against the prophets, saith the Lord, that steal my words every one from his neighbour. Behold, L am against the prophets, saith the Lord, that use their tongues, and say, He saith.’1 Jeremiah, xxiii. 25-31. They were the words of God, therefore, which the false prophets stole from the true prophets of Jehovah.

The uniform language of Jesus Christ, and his Apostles, respecting the whole of the Old Testament Scriptures, proves that, without exception, they are “the Word of God.’1 On what principle but that of the verbal inspiration of Scripture, can we explain our Lord’s words, John, x. 35, “The Scripture cannot be broken?” Here the argument is founded on one word, “gods,” which without verbal inspiration might not have been used; and if used improperly, might have led to idolatry. In proof of the folly of their charge of blasphemy, he refers the Jews to where it is written in their law, “I said ye are Gods.” The

reply to this argument was obvious: — The Psalmist, they might answer, uses the word in a sense that is not proper. But Jesus precluded this observation, by affirming, that “the Scripture cannot be broken,” that is, not a word of it can be altered, because it is the Word of Him with whom there is no variableness. Could this be said if the choice of words had been left to men? Here, then, we find our Lord laying down a principle, which for ever sets the question at rest. The Apostles, in like manner, reason from the use of a particular word. Of this we have an example, Hebrews, ii. 8, where the interpretation of the passage referred to depends on the word “all.” Again, Galatians, iii. 16, a most important conclusion is drawn from the use of the word “seed” in the singular, and not in the plural number. A similar instance occurs, Hebrews, xii. 27, in the expression “once more,” quoted from the prophet Haggai.

When the Pharisees came to Jesus, and desired an answer respecting divorce, he replied, “Have ye not read, that he which made them at the beginning, made them a male and female? and said, for this cause,” &c. Thus, what is said in the history, either by Adam or Moses, at the formation of Eve, is appealed to as having the authority of a law. Adam was not a legislator, and nothing that Moses could say, unless dictated by God, could have the force of a law, to be quoted by our Lord. But what was then uttered by man, was the word of God himself.

The Lord Jesus Christ constantly refers to the whole of the Old Testament, as being, in the most minute particulars, of infallible authority. He speaks of the

necessity of every word of the Law and the Pro- ^/to^UU phets being fulfilled. “Till heaven and earth pass, A**-©** £0*3 orae jot or oe shall in no wise pass from the Law, K^^fo^Z. wtill all be fulfilled.” — “It is easier for heaven and earth L ch A to pass, than one tittle of the law to fail.” — “The Scrip- 4 fixtures” he says, must be fulfilled.” In numerous pas- ^f;^> sages the Lord reiers to what is “written in the Scrip- qZ^m tures, as of equal authority with his own declarations; and, therefore, the words which they contain must v be the words of God. U^ccCT^h. The Apostles use similar language in their many re- U<fh lv* ferences to the Old Testament Scriptures, which they quote as of decisive authority, and speak of them in: |Kvvvk the same way as they do of their own writings.” That ye may be mindful of the words which were spoken ^’*^^7x.Xb. before by the holy prophets, and of the commandment of us the Apostles of the Lord and Saviour” 2 Peter, iii. 2. Paul says to Timothy, “From a child thou hast known the Holy Scriptures, which are able to make thee wise unto salvation, through faith, which is in Christ Jesus,” 2 Tim, iii. 15. In this way he proves the importance of the old Testament Scriptures, and the connexion between the Mosaic and Christian dispensations. The Apostles call the Scriptures “the oracles of God,” Rom. iii. 2. What God says is ascribed by them to the Scriptures: “The Scripture saith unto Pharaoh, Even for this same purpose have I raised thee up, that 1 might show my power in thee” — “For what saith the Scripture? — Abraham believed God, and it was counted unto him for righteousness” — “What saith the Scriptures? cast out the bond-woman, and her son” So much is the Word of God identified with himself, that the Scripture is represented as possessing and exercising the peculiar prerogatives of God: “The Scripture, foreseeing that God tuould justify the Heathen;” —” The Scripture hath concluded all under sin’9

From the following passages, among others that might be adduced, we learn the true nature of that inspiration which is ascribed to the Old Testament by the writers of the New: Matth. i. 22, “Now all this was done, that it might be fulfilled which was spoken of the Lord by the Prophet.” Matth. ii. 15, “And was there until the death of Herod: that it might be fulfilled which was spoken of the Lord by the Prophet, saying, Out of Egypt have I called my son.” Matth. xxii. 43, “He saith unto them, How then doth David, in spirit, call him Lord?” Mark xii. 36, “For David himself said by the Holy Ghost.” Luke, i. 70, “As he spake by the mouth of his Holy Prophets, which have been since the world began.” Acts, i. 16, “Which the Holy Ghost spoke by the mouth of David.” Acts, xiii. 35. “He (God) saith also in another Psalm, Thou shalt not suffer thine Holy One to see corruption.” These words are here quoted as the words of God, although addressed to himself. In the parallel passage, Acts, ii. 31, the same words are ascribed to David, by whose “mouth” therefore God spoke. Acts, xxviii. 25, “And when they agreed not among themselves they departed, after that Paul had spoken one word: Well spake the Holy Ghost by Esaias the prophet, unto our fathers.” Roma. 2, “Which i/e-had promised afore by his prophets in the Holy Scriptures.” Rom. ix. 25,” As

He saith also in Osee, I will call them my people, which were not my people; and her Beloved, which was not beloved.” 1 Cor. vi. 16, 17, “What! know ye not, that he which is joined to an harlot is one body? for two, saith He, shall be one flesh.” Here the words of Adam or of Moses are referred to by the Apostle, as they had been by Jesus Christ himself, as the words of God. Eph. iv. 8, “Wherefore He saith, when he ascended up on high.” Heb. i. 7, 8, “And of the angels He saith;’ — “But unto the Son He saith.1’ In these passages what was said by the psalmist, is quoted as said by God. Heb. iii. 7,” Wherefore, as the Holy Ghost saith, To-day if ye will hear his voice.” Heb. x. 15, “Whereof the Holy Ghost also is a witness to us, for after that He had said.” 1 Peter, i. 11, “Searching what, or what manner of time, the Spirit of Christ which was in them did signify, when it testified beforehand the sufferings of Christ, and the glory that should follow.” 2 Peter, i. 20, “Knowing this first, that no prophecy of the Scripture is of any private interpretation, for the prophecy came not in old time (at any time) by the will of man, but holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost.” And how was it possible that they could find language in which to express the mysteries of God which they so imperfectly comprehended, unless the Spirit of Christ, which was in them, had dictated every word they uttered, Acts, iv. 25, “Who by the mouth of thy servant David hast said, Why did the Heathen rage?” Heb. i. 1,” God, who at sundry times, and in diverse manners, spake in time past unto the fathers by the prophets, hath in these last

days spoken unto us by bis Son.” The words, then, spoken by the Prophets, were as much the words of God, as the words which were spoken by the Lord Jesus Christ himself. And on various occasions Jesus declares, that the words which he spoke were the words of him that sent him. John, viii. 26, 28, “I speak to the world those things which I have heard of him” — “As my Father hath taught me, I speak these things.” John, xii. 49, 50, “I have not spoken of myself, but the Father which sent me, he gave me a commandment what I should say, and what I should speak;” — “Whatsoever I speak, therefore, even as the Father said unto me, so I speak.” John, xiv. 10, “The words that I speak unto you, I speak not of myself.”a John, xvii. 8, “I have given unto them the words which thou gavest me.” John, xvii. 14, “I have given them thy word.” And this was in strict conformity with what God had declared by Moses, concerning the divine mission of his Son. Deut. xviii. 18, “I will raise them up a Prophet from among their brethren like unto thee, and will put my words in 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.” — “He hath made my mouth” saith the Redeemer, “like a sharp sword,” Isaiah, xlix. 2. “And out of his mouth went a sharp two-edged sword,” Rev. i. 16. And again, God saith to the Messiah, “I have put my words in thy mouth,” Isaiah, li. 16. “And my words, which I have put in thy mouth, shall not depart out of thy mouth,” Isaiah, lix. 21. The words, then, of which the whole of the Scriptures are composed, are the words dictated by-God, and written by men. Sometimes they are quoted as the words of God, and sometimes as the words of the writers, which proves that in fact they are both. Those who deny that, in any case, the words used by the penmen of Scripture are the words of God, expressly contradict the assertion of the Apostle, that All Scripture is given by inspiration of God, and also disregard the direct testimony of all those passages which have been quoted above, as well as of a multitude of others to the same effect, that are contained in the Scriptures.

The perfect inspiration which belongs to the Apostles may be learned from the nature of that Service to which they were appointed, from the Promises which were given to them for the discharge of it, and also from their own Declarations, the truth of which is attested, not only by the nature of their doctrine, but by the miracles that they wrought.

The commission of the Lord to his Apostles, when he sent them forth in the Service to which he appointed them, was given in these words: Matt, xxviii. 19, 20, “Go ye, therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost; teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you; and, lo, I am with you alway, even unto the end of the world. Amen” Here we see, that the commission of the Apostles included the promulgation of the whole doctrine, and of every regulation of the kingdom of God; that it extended to all the world; and that a promise was annexed to it, that

the Lord himself would be present with them to the end of time, maintaining and giving efficacy to their testimony, which is recorded in the Scriptures.

This commission is exactly conformable to all that Jesus Christ had at different times said to the Apostles. To Peter, at one time, he declared, Matt. xvi. 19, “And I will give unto thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven; and whatsoever thou shalt bind on earth shall be bound in heaven; and whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.” Afterwards, he repeated this to all the Apostles, Matt, xviii. 18, “Verily I say unto you, whatsoever ye shall bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatsoever ye shall loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.” To the same purpose, when he had breathed on them and said, “Receive ye the Holy Ghost,” John, xx. 22, he added, ‘* Whose soever sins ye remit, they are remitted unto them; and whose soever sins ye retain, they are retained.” In these respects, the Apostles were constituted the authoritative ambassadors of the Lord, and were appointed to an office in which they can have no successors. The laws which, under that authority, they were to establish, and the doctrine they were to promulgate, by which eternal life is conveyed to men, and which is therefore characterised as the keys of the kingdom of heaven, were to be of perpetual and universal obligation. John, xii. 48, “He that rejecteth me, and receiveth not my words,” says Jesus, “hath one that judgeth him. The word that I have spoken,” (which he had spoken, or was to speak by his Apostles,) “the same shall judge him in the last day.” In another place, to the same purpose, when speaking of the Apostles having followed him, he says to them, Matt. xix. 28, “In the regeneration, when the Son of Man shall sit in the throne of his glory, ye also shall sit upon twelve thrones, judging the twelve tribes of Israel.”

The word that the Apostles were to declare, was to open and to shut, and to bind and to loose, in heaven and in earth. It was his own word, the word of God, to be uttered by them, by which he would at last judge the world. “For,” says he, “he that receiveth you, receiveth me; and he that receiveth me, receiveth him that sent me,” Matt. x. 40; which is to the same effect as when he says to the seventy disciples whom he sent out, “He that heareth you, heareth me; and he that despiseth you, despiseth me; and he that despiseth me, despiseth him that sent me,” Luke, x. 16. From the awful importance, then, of the service committed to the Apostles, we may judge what kind of inspiration was necessary for those whose words were to be the words of the judge of all. “We are unto God,” say they, “a sweet savour of Christ, in them that are saved and in them that perish. To the one we are the savour of death unto death; and to the other the savour of life unto life: and who is sufficient for these things?” 2 Cor. ii. 15. The commission of the Apostles embraces every circumstance by which the divine glory is manifested to every order of intelligent beings — the whole of that revelation of mercy by which the manifold wisdom of God is to be made known to principalities and powers in heavenly places, as well as a complete system of the THE INSPIRATION OF

will of God to mankind. Can it be supposed, then, that the heralds of this salvation did not receive a plenary inspiration to qualify them for such a service? That a prophet should be left to the choice of his own words, and be a prophet from God, or that an Apostle should be commissioned to promulgate the laws of the kingdom of Christ, which are everlastingly to bind in heaven and in earth, and yet be permitted to choose for himself the words and language in which these laws should be delivered, is altogether incredible and absurd. If the words or language are of man’s choosing, the Bible becomes partly the book of man and partly the book of God.

The nature of this inspiration, we are also taught by the Promises that were given to the Apostles respecting it. When Jesus Christ first sent out his Apostles to proclaim to the house of Israel that his kingdom was at hand, he warned them of the reception they were to meet with, and that they should be brought before governors and kings for his sake. At the same time they were forbid to use the means which would have been necessary, if in any measure they had been left to their own judgment. He commanded them to rely entirely upon him, and promised them that inspiration which, in such situations, would be necessary for them: Matt. x. 19, “But when they deliver you up, take no thought how or what ye shall speak; for it shall be given you in that same hour what ye shall speak: For it is not ye that speak, but the Spirit of your Father which speaketh in your Mark, xiii. 11, “But when they shall lead you and deliver you up, take no thought beforehand what ye shall speak, neither do ye premeditate, but whatsoever shall be given you in that hour, that speak ye; for it is not ye that speak, but the Holy Ghost” In the parallel passage, Luke, xii. 12, “For the Holy Ghost shall teach you in the same hour what ye ought to say.” And again, Luke, xxi. 15, “I will give you a mouth, and wisdom which all your adversaries shall not be able to gainsay nor resist.” Language cannot more plainly declare, that the words they were to utter, were to be given by inspiration to the Apostles. It was the Holy Spirit who was to speak by them, just as “God hath spoken by the mouth of all his holy prophets since the world began,” Acts, iii. 21; Luke, i. 70.

If this inspiration was necessary for the Apostles in particular passing circumstances, when they were brought before judges and magistrates; and if, in such occasional situations, as on the day of Pentecost, they actually possessed it, how much more necessary must it have been when they were employed in recording the permanent laws of the kingdom of Christ! It must therefore be included in the declarations made by our Lord, in what he says in his last discourse,, respecting the Comforter whom he was to send. And that these declarations did refer to the same inspiration, we are not left to conjecture; for we hear the Apostle Paul, when afterwards he addresses a Christian church, asserting that Christ spake in him, 2 Cor. xiii. 3. When about to leave his disciples, Jesus says to them, John, xiv. 26,” But the Comforter, which is the Holy Ghost, whom the Father will send in my name, he shall teach you cdl things, and bring

all things to your remembrance, whatsoever I have said unto you.” The Apostles were not to trust to their memories, to repeat what Jesus had said to them; but all that he had said was to be dictated to them by the Holy Ghost. And again, John, xiv. 13, “When he, the Spirit of truth, is come, he will guide you into all truth; for he shall not speak of himself, but whatsoever he shall hear, that shall he speak, and he will show you things to come” After his resurrection, Jesus Christ said to them, John, xx. 21, “Peace be unto you; as my Father has sent me, even so send I you” His last words to them on earth were these, Acts, i. 8: “But ye shall receive power after that the Holy Ghost is come upon you, and ye shall be witnesses unto me, both in Jerusalem and in all Judea, and in Samaria, and unto the uttermost parts of the earth” Such were the Promises given to the Apostles of what they were to receive, to fit them for that great work in which they were going to engage. We shall now hear their Declarations in respect to the fulfilment of them.

On the day of Pentecost, Acts, ii. 4, “They were all filled with the Holy Ghost, and began to speak with other tongues, as the Spirit gave them utterance,” On that occasion, when speaking in unknown tongues, as was the case with others of the brethren in the Churches, 1 Cor. xiv. 13, 28, they must have been inspired with every word they spoke, as is asserted in the declaration, that “the Spirit gave them utterance.” When, afterwards, having been brought before the Jewish rulers, they had returned to their own company and prayed, Acts, iv. 31, “The place was shaken where they were assembled together, and they were all filled with the Holy Ghost, and they spake the word of God with boldness.” Paul begins his Epistles by designating himself an Apostle of Jesus Christ. Thus he declares his Apostolic character and commission from the Lord, by whom he was qualified for his work. We see with what authority he afterwards expresses himself: “Now unto him that is of power to stablish you according to my gospel, and the preaching of Jesus Christ, according to the revelation of the mystery which was kept secret since the world began; but now is made manifest, and by the Scriptures of the prophets, according to the commandment of the everlasting God, made known to all nations for the obedience of faith.” — “Though we,” says the same Apostle, Galatians, i. 8, “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 now again, If any man preach any other gospel unto you than that ye have received, let him be accursed.” — “But I certify you, brethren, that the gospel which was preached of me is not after man. For I neither received it of man, neither was I taught it but by the revelation of Jesus Christ.” 1 Cor. ii. 9, 10, “But as it is written, eye hath not seen, nor ear heard, neither have entered into the heart of man, the things which God hath prepared for them that love him. But God bath revealed them unto us by his Spirit.” — “Which things also we speak, not in the words which man’s wisdom teach - ethj but which the Holy Ghost teacheth” 1 Cor. ii.

13. Here, in making a general declaration of what he taught, both the matter and the words are declared to be from God.* Again he says, 1 Cor. ii.

* On this verse Macknight has the following note: — “Words taught by the Holy Spirit — From this we learn that as often as the Apostles declared the doctrines of the gospel, the Spirit presented these doctrines to their minds clothed in their own language; which, indeed, is the only way in which the doctrines of the gospel could be presented to their minds. For men are so accustomed to connect ideas with words, that they always think in words. Wherefore, though the language in which the Apostles delivered the doctrines of the gospel, were really suggested to them by the Spirit, it was properly their own style of language. This language in which the doctrines of the gospel was revealed to the Apostles, and in which they delivered these doctrines to the world, is what St Paul calls the form of sound words, which Timothy had heard from him, and was to hold fast, 2 Tim. i. 13. Every one, therefore, ought to beware of altering or wresting the inspired language of Scripture, in their expositions of the articles of the Christian faith. Taylor, in the sixth chapter of his key, at the end, explains the verse under consideration thus: — Which things we speak, not in philosophical terms of human invention, but which the Spirit teacheth in the writings of the Old Testament: and contends, that the Apostle’s meaning is, that he expressed the Christian privileges in the very same words and phrases, by which the Spirit expressed the privileges of the Jewish church in the writings of the Old Testament. But if the Spirit suggested these words and phrases to the Jewish prophets, why might he not suggest to the Apostles the words and phrases in which they communicated the gospel revelation to the world? Especially as there are many discoveries in the gospel which could not be expressed clearly, if at all, in the words by which the prophets expressed the privilege of the Jewish church. Besides, 15,” For who hath known the mind of the Lord, that he may instruct him? but we have the mind of Christ.” 1 Cor. ii. 7, “We speak the wisdom of God.” Eph. iii. 4, “Whereby, when ye read, ye may understand my knowledge in the mystery of Christ, 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.” 2 Cor. ii, 10, “To whom ye forgive any thing, I forgive also; for if I forgave any thing, to whom I forgave it, for your sakes forgave I it in the person of Christ.” 2 Cor. xiii. 2, 3, “If I come again I will not spare, since you seek a proof of Christ speaking in me.” In 1 Cor. vii. 17, where some have rashly and ignorantly asserted, that the Apostle concludes with expressing a doubt whether he was inspired or not, he says, “so ordain I in all churches.” Such language, which is precisely similar to that of Moses, Deut. vi. 6, would have been most presumptuous, unless he could have added, as he does a little afterwards, 1 Cor. xiv. 36, “What I came the word of God out from you? or came it unto you only? If any man think himself to be a prophet, or spiritual, let him acknowledge that the things that I write unto you are the commandments of the Lord.” At the opening of the same epistle Paul had said,” My speech and my preaching was not with enticing words

it is evident, that when the Apostles introduce into their writings the words and phrases of the Jewish prophets, they explain them in other words and phrases, which, no doubt, were suggested to them by the Spirit.”

of man’s wisdom, but in demonstration of the Spirit and of power,” — “We speak the wisdom of God.” Could any man have used such language unless he had been conscious that he was speaking the words of God? 1 Thess. ii. 13, “For this cause also thank we God, without ceasing, because, 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” 1 Thess. iv. 8, “He, therefore, that despiseth, despiseth not man but God, who hath also given unto us his Holy Spirit.” 1 Pet. L 12, “Unto whom it was revealed, that not unto themselves, but unto us they did minister the things, which are now reported unto you by them that have preached the gospel unto you with the Holy Ghost sent down from heaven; which things the angels desire to look into.” 1 Pet. i. 23, “Being born again, not of corruptible seed, but of incorruptible, by the word of God, which liveth and abideth for ever.” 1 Pet. i. 25, “The word of the Lord endureth for ever. And this is the word which by the Gospel is preached unto you.” In referring to the instruction which they gave to the churches, the Apostles characterise it as their ee commandment,” and refer to it as equivalent to the authority of the Holy Ghost, as in fact it was the same. Acts, xv. 24, 28, “It seemed good to the Holy Ghost, and to us.” Such is the inspiration by which all the penmen of the Scriptures wrote, and God has annexed the most solemn prohibitions against any attempt to add to, or to take from, or to corrupt, his Word. These warnings are interspersed through every part of the sacred volume; and each one of them is equally applicable to the whole of it.

In this manner, that portion of the Scriptures called the Law is guarded: — (: Ye shall not add unto the word which I command you, neither shall ye diminish aught from it” Deut. iv. 2; xii. 32.

In the next division, sometimes called the Hagiographa, it is written, “Every word of God is pure: He is a shield unto them that put their trust in him. Add thou not unto his words, lest he reprove thee, and thou be found a liar” Prov. xxx. 16. The last part of this threatening is infinitely more terrible than the first; for transgressors may be reproved, and yet find mercy, but “all liars shall have their part in the lake which burneth with fire and brimstone, which is the second death,” Rev. xxi. 8.

In the prophetical writings, a similar warning is again repeated. They are closed with an intimation, that no more prophets were to be sent, till the forerunner of Jehovah, who was to come suddenly to his temple, should appear. Israel is then commanded to regard that revelation which had been made to Moses, concerning Jesus, which the prophets had been commissioned to illustrate, but not to alter; u Remember ye the law of Moses, my servant, which I commanded unto him in Horeb,for all Israel, with the statutes and judgments,’’ Mai. iv. 4.

As, at the conclusion of the Old Testament, where the attention of the people of Israel is called to the first appearance of the Son of God, the Saviour, they are instructed that the prophetic testimony to him 19 finished; so, at the conclusion of the New Testament,

where the attention of all men is directed to his second coming, as the final Judge, the canon of Scripture is closed, and a solemn and most awful warning is given, neither to add to it, nor to take from it: “I testify unto every man that heareth the words of the prophecy of this book, If any man shall add unto these things, God shall add unto him the plagues that are written in this book; and if any man shall take away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God shall take away his part out of the Book of Life, and out of the Holy City, and from the things which are written in this book,” Rev. xxii. 18, 19. This passage, so similar to the others above cited, is, for the same reasons for which it is applicable to the book of Revelation, applicable to the whole inspired volume.

In the references that have been made above to many passages of Scripture, to which more of a similar import might have been added, the complete verbal inspiration by which both Prophets and Apostles spoke and wrote, has, by their own declarations, been unanswerably established. Whatever they recorded, they recorded by the Spirit of God. Whether they spoke in their own tongue, or in tongues which they had not learned; or whether they uttered prophecies which they understood, or concerning which they acknowledged,” I heard, but I understood not still they spoke or wrote as they were moved by the Holy Ghost. And if we have seen that even the Divine Redeemer himself, who is over all, God blessed for ever, when acting as the Father’s servant in his mediatorial character, spoke, as he declares, not of himself, but the words of Him that sent him; and that God the Holy Ghost, in his office of Comforter, was not to speak of himself, but to speak whatsoever he should hear; is it to be presumed that Prophets and Apostles should ever have been left to * rr choose the words which they have recorded in the, **>f Scriptures?* W

The words, then, which the Prophets and Apostles aefi£&£>^ recorded, were the words of God, — Christ spake in - - them, — they were the words which the Holy Ghost <Lee-tUj./2Jo taught. The word of God is the sword of the Spirit, Eph. vi. 17. “It is quick, and powerful, and sharper than any two-edged sword,” Heb. iv. 12. This word was put into the mouths of the Prophets and Apostles; and therefore their words and commandments have all the authority of the words and commandments of God. “i” stir up your pure minds by way of remembrance, that ye may be mindful of the words which were spoken before by the holy prophets, and of the commandment of us, the Apostles of the Lord and Saviour,” 2 Pet. iii. 1, 2. The term inspiration loses its meaning when an attempt is made to divide it between God and man. In what an endless perplexity would any man be involved, who was called upon to give to each degree of inspiration, under which it has been supposed the Bible is written, that portion which belongs to it! Let any one undertake the task, and he will soon find that he is building upon the sand. Yet such an attempt should have been made by those daring innovators, be they ancient or modern, who have represented the sacred volume as a motley performance, — part of it written under an inspiration of suggestion or revelation, — part of it under an

inspiration of direction, — part of it under an inspiration of elevation, — part of it under an inspiration of superintendence, — and part of it under no inspiration at all!

But why have such distinctions been introduced? Do they diminish the difficulty of our conceiving how the inspiration of the Holy Ghost is communicated to those who are the subjects of it? Is it easier to conceive that a meaning without words should be imparted to the mind of man, than that it should be conveyed to him in words? Instead of being diminished, the difficulty is increased tenfold. But, in either case, we have nothing to do with difficulties; it is a subject which we cannot comprehend; and in whatever way the effect is produced, it is our duty to believe what the Holy Scriptures assert, and not to resort to those vain speculations on the subject, by which men darken council by words without knowledge. Every Christian should remember, that the view which he takes of the inspiration of the Scriptures, is to him of the greatest practical importance. With what a different feeling must that man read the Bible, who believes that it is a book which partly treats of u common and civil affairs,’* and partly of “things religious,” which is partly the production of men, who were sometimes directed in one way, sometimes in another, and who sometimes were not directed at all, and partly the production of God, and that it contains certain things unworthy of being considered as a part of divine revelation, — from the feeling of the Christian, who reads that sacred book under the solemn conviction, that its contents are wholly religious, and that every word of it is dictated by God! In reading these words, Proverbs, iii. 2, “My so?i, despise not the chastening of the Lord, neither be weary of his correction” — how differently must he be affected, who reads them as addressed to him merely by Solomon — from the man who views them as addressed to him by his heavenly Father, according to Hebrews, xii. 5! Paul, in that Epistle, in making various quotations from the Old Testament, refers to them expressly as the words of the Holy Ghost. As far as distinctions in inspiration are admitted, their tendency is to diminish our reverence for the Bible, and to exclude as much as possible the operation of the Spirit of God in its composition. In the same way men eagerly oppose the doctrine of a particular Providence, as one on which it is not “prudent” to insist, as not “necessary” and as “attended with difficulties” while they labour to exclude the agency of God from the government of the world, and from the direction of the course of events, by ascribing the whole to the operation of what are called “the laws of nature.”

Dr Doddridge, in his Essay on Inspiration, p. 58, after desiring the reader to observe, that in very few instances he has allowed an error in our present copies (of the Scriptures), and that, in these few instances, he has imputed it to translators — adds, “because, as Mr Seed very properly expresses it in his excellent sermon on this subject, (which, since I wrote the former part of this dissertation, fell into my hands,) a partial inspiration is, to all intents and purposes, no inspiration at all: For, as he justly

argues against the supposition of any mixture of error in these sacred writings, mankind would be as much embarrassed to know what was inspired, and what was not, as they could be to collect a religion for themselves; the consequence of which would be, that we are left just where we were, and that GOD put himself to a great expense of miracles to effect nothing at all; a consequence highly derogatory and injurious to his honour.” It is not a little remarkable, that such sentiments should thus be approved of by one who, in the same work, has ascribed various degrees of inspiration to different parts of the Scriptures. Let this glaring inconsistency be considered by those who have followed Dr Doddridge in his unscriptural views on this subject.

It is allowed by Dr Doddridge, that under what is called the inspiration of suggestion, “the use of our faculties is superseded, and God does as it were speak directly to the mind; making such discoveries to it, as it could not otherwise have obtained, and dictating the very words in which these discoveries are to be communicated to others: so that a person, in what he writes from hence, is no other than first the Auditor, and then (if I may be allowed the expression) the Secretary, of GOD; as John was of our Lord Jesus Christ, when he wrote from his sacred lips the seven Epistles to the Asiatic Churches. And it is no doubt to an inspiration of this kind that the Book of the Revelation owes its original.” (Doddridge on Inspiration, page 41.) Why, then, has Dr Doddridge supposed that any other part of the Bible was written under an inspiration of a different kind? Where did he learn this? Was it less necessary that the Epistles which were written to the other churches, as “the commandments of the Lord,” 1 Cor. xiv. 37, should be fully inspired, than for those addressed to the seven churches of Asia? or was it requisite that, to the Book of Revelation, a higher degree of inspiration should belong, than to the other books of the Holy Scriptures? And where, we are entitled to ask, do the Scriptures sanction such distinctions? But if they in no part give the smallest countenance to them, or to any thing similar, what right has any man to introduce them, and to teach what the Scriptures have not only not taught, but the contrary of which they have most explicitly taught? To invent distinctions that consider some parts of the Scriptures as half inspired, and others as not inspired at all, and relating to things merely civil, is most dishonourable and degrading to the Book of God, and deprives Christians of all that edification which such passages are calculated to afford. Such distinctions, let them be made by whom they may, are the offspring of presumption and folly.

On the whole, we see the nature of that inspiration by which the prophets and apostles wrote. The manner of communicating the revelations might differ, Numbers, xii. 6, 7, 8. They might be imparted in a vision, or in a dream, or by speaking mouth to mouth; but the result, as well as their certainty and authority, were the same. For the prophecy came not in old time by the will of man, but holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost. Neither

was it the Apostles who spoke, but the Spirit of their Father who spoke in them, or by them. Let no man, then, venture to introduce distinctions in that inspiration by which the word of God is written, unheard of in that word, and therefore totally unwarranted and unauthorized. It is not for men to say, “How can these things be?” No man comprehends himself either in soul or in body, nor can we tell how the one acts upon the other: And shall vain man, who “would be wise, though man be born like the wild ass’s colt,” stumble at, and reject, the declarations of God concerning that inspiration which belongs to his word, and by which he makes known his pleasure? “The wind bloweth where it listeth, and thou hearest the sound thereof, but canst not tell whence it cometh, and whither it goeth.” The Lord is able to communicate his will in whatever way he pleases, although we cannot trace the manner of his operation. In the words spoken by the ass of Balaam, we have an example of this communication, through an unconscious and involuntary instrument.* In Balaam himself we have an example through one who was conscious, but involuntary, in the declaration he made respecting Israel. In Caiaphas, through one who was voluntary in what he said, but unconscious of its import. And in the writers of the Scriptures,

* Under which of the kinds of inspiration that have been so ingeniously forged, did the Ass of Balaam speak? Was it under that of Elevation? Or shall the truth of the fact be rejected altogether, because it is “attended with difficulties!!” we have an example of agents both voluntary and conscious, but equally actuated by the Spirit of God.

The dictating of that Law which is perfect, every jot and tittle of which was to be fulfilled, — of those histories which were written for the “admonition” of all future generations, — of the institutions of that kingdom which is to endure for ever, — and of that word by which all shall be judged, was, and necessarily must have been, the work of perfect, that is, the work of infinite wisdom; Psalm xix. 7, “The law of tJie Lord is perfect.” — But if certain parts of it are the words of men, who wrote merely under a superintendence which preserved them from recording what is false, or erroneous, these parts must, like their authors, be imperfect. The same would hold true respecting all that is supposed to be written under an inspiration of elevation, which, whatever it may mean, could not be carried beyond that enlargement of which the mind of man is capable. The Bible can only be perfect, if it be the word of God himself from one end to the other. But, if the words of the writers of it be solely their own words, or be they the words of Angels, Principalities, or Powers, they are imperfect, — and the Bible is an imperfect book.

The perfection of the Scriptures is necessary, for the purpose they were intended to serve. “The heavens declare the glory of God; and the firmament showeth his handy work,” Psalm xix. 1. “By the things that are made” God’s eternal power and Godhead are clearly seen, so as to render men “without excuse,” Rom. i. 20; and there they leave him under condemnation. But” The Law of the Lord is pcr-THE INSPIRATION OF

feet, converting the soul: the testimony of the Lord is sure, making wise the simple. The statutes of the Lord are right, rejoicing the heart: the commandment of the Lord is pure, enlightening the eyes,” It is not, then, by the works of creation, — it is not by his dealings towards either holy or fallen Angels, that the glory of God is fully displayed. This honour is reserved for the history of the incarnation of his Son. It is here, and here only, that mercy and truth meet together, that righteousness and peace embrace each other; — truth has sprung out of the earth, and righteousness has looked down from heaven. Here justice and judgment are seen to be the habitation of Jehovah’s throne, — and mercy and truth to go before his face.

“Drop down, ye heavens, from above, and let the skies pour down righteousness; let the earth open, and let them bring forth salvation, and let righteousness spring up together; I the Lord have created it,” Isaiah, xlv. 8. Here is something far more glorious than all that ever was seen before in the universe of God! It is a righteousness exalted to absolute perfection, and rendered infinitely glorious by the union of the divine with the human nature. God charged his Angels with folly, and the heavens are not clean in his sight, but with him who wrought this righteousness, he is “well pleased.”

The righteousness of Adam in innocence, or the righteousness of angels in glory, was the righteousness of creatures, and therefore a limited righteousness. It consisted in the love and service of God, which they rendered with all their heart and strength; but farther it could not go. Their righteousness was available in the time only while it continued to be performed, and it might cease and be lost. But that righteousness which the skies have poured down, is a righteousness that is infinite, and that shall never be abolished, Isaiah, li. 6, 8. It is a righteousness that was performed in a limited period of time, by Him

who is “CALLED JEHOVAH OUR RIGHTEOUSNESS;”

but the glory of it was contemplated from eternity, while its efficacy extends back to the fall of man, and forward through all the ages of eternity. It is the “everlasting righteousness” which the prophet Daniel predicted was to be brought in by the Messiah. It is “the righteousness of God and our Saviour Jesus Christ,” 2 Peter, i. 1, the ministration of which was committed to the Apostles, 2 Cor. iii. 9. Through eternity it shall be the delight of the Father, the admiration of angels, and the song of the redeemed.

It is in the Bible that this righteousness is made known. In the Bible the Gospel is recorded, which is the power of God unto salvation, because therein is the righteousness revealed, Rom. i. 17. The Bible contains the record of the eternal purpose of God, which he purposed in Christ Jesus, — of the unsearchable riches of Christ, — of the eternal election of Him to be the Mediator between God and man, and of the eternal election of his people in Him, — of his incarnation, humiliation, and exaltation to glory. And “in as much as he who hath builded the house hath more honour than the house,” insomuch is there a higher display of the glory of God, in the history contained in the Bible, of Him who was” God manifest

in the flesh,” than is afforded in the creation, and the discovery of all the other works of God in the universe, animate and inanimate, of which Jesus Christ is the Creator and the Head. Hence is that preference justified which is given to the Bible above them all, “Thou hast magnified thy word above all thy name” The earth and the heavens shall perish, — 66 Ass, vesture shalt thou fold them up, and they shall be changed, — But the Word of the Lord endureth for ever. And this is the Word which by the Gospel is preached unto you.”

Such, then, is the perfection of the Bible, for the writing of which, the most complete inspiration was absolutely indispensable, in order that it should be entirely the word and the work of God, — in thought, — in meaning, — in style, — in expression, — in every part, and in the strictest sense, the word or voice of God to man. Each part is necessary in its place to complete the whole, — and if any one part were wanting, however inconsiderable it may appear, that absolute perfection, that complete adaptation to the end proposed, which belong to the Book of God, would be destroyed.

Christians ought to beware of giving up in the smallest degree the inspiration of the Bible. That precious deposit is now delivered to their keeping, as the first portion of it was committed to the Jews. The Jews were constituted the “witnesses” of Jehovah, Isaiah, xliii. 10, 12; until the time arrived, when, in his sovereign pleasure, he appointed other “witnesses,” Acts, i. 8, The nation of Israel was his peculiar treasure, — an holy nation, Exodus, xix. 5, 6; till, by their final rejection of his Son, they forfeited that title, and he gave his vineyard to other husbandmen, Mattb. xxi. 41. They possessed the peculiar name which he had conferred on them, till the prophecy concerning it was fulfilled, when it was left “for a curse,” Isaiah, lxv. 15; and when a new name was bestowed on those who were henceforward to be acknowledged as the people of God, Acts, xi. 26; 1 Peter, iv. 16. Having become the depositaries’of the whole volume of inspiration, let Christians regard it with the same unshaken fidelity, writh which, before being completed, “the words which the Lord of Hosts hath sent in his Spirit by the former prophets” Zechariah, vii. 7, 12, were preserved by the Jews. Let them not weaken by vain reasonings, the impression produced upon their minds by the testimony of the Bible itself, concerning its full inspiration in every part, nor substitute for it, a book which, in their imagination, is only partially inspired, — which contains sometimes the words of God, and sometimes the words of men, who spake not as they were moved by the Holy Ghost, but who were only preserved from error, or who wrote “as any other plain and faithful men might doT By such sentiments, the offspring of philosophy and vain deceit, after the tradition of men, after the rudiments of the world, and not after Christ, has the Bible been degraded, and its high title to the designation of” the oracles of God” made void. In opposition to these heretical opinions, be they ancient or modern, let every disciple of Him whose command it is to “search the Scriptures,” regard it as a faithful saying, and not liable to doubtful interpretations, that” All Scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof for correction, for instruction in righteousness; that the man of God may be perfect, thoroughly furnished unto all good works T