§ 1.
Statement of the Doctrine.
§ 2. The Scriptures are
Infallible, i. e., given by Inspiration of God.
§ 3. Adverse Theories.
§
4. The Completeness of the Scriptures.
§ 5.
Perspicuity of the Scriptures. The Right of Private Judgment.
§ 6. Rules of
interpretation.
§1.
Statement of the Doctrine.
All Protestants
agree in teaching that "the word of God, ascontained in the Scriptures of the
Old and New Testaments, is the only infallible rule of faith and practice."
In the Smalcald Articles,1
the Lutheran Church says "Ex patrum
-- verbis et factis non sunt exstrueudi articuli
fidei -- Regulam autem aliain habemus, ut videlicet
verbum Dei condat articulos tidei et praeterea nemo, ne angelus quidem." In
the "Form of Concord,"2
it is said: "Credimus, confitemur et docemus, unicam regulam et normam
secundum quam omnia dogmata omnesque doctores aestimari et judicari oporteat,
nullam omnino aliam esse, quam prophetica et apostolica scripta cum V. tum N.
Testamenti."
The symbols of the Reformed churches teach the same
doctrine. Confessio Helvetica, II.3
says: "In scriptura sancta habet unversalis Christi
Ecclesia plenissime exposita, quaecunque pertinent cum ad salvificam fidem,
tum ad vitam Deo placentem.4
Non alium in causa fidei judicem, quam ipsum Deum per Scripturas sacras
pronuntiantem, quid verum sit, quid falsum, quid sequendum sit quidne
fugiendum. Confessio Gallicana:5
Quum haec (SS.) sit omnis veritatis summa, complectens quidquid ad cultum Dei
et salutem nostram requiritur, neque hominibus neque ipsis etiam
angelis fas esse dicimus quicquam ei verbo adjicere vel detraliere vel
quicquam prorsus in eo immutare " In the Thirty-Nine Articles ot the Church of
England,6
it is said : "Holy Scripture containeth all things necessary to
salvation: so that whatsoever is not read therein, nor may be proved thereby,
is not to be required of any man, that it should be believed as an
article of faith, or be thought requisite or necessary to salvation." The
Westminster Confession7
teaches: "Under the name of Holy Scripture, or the Word of God written, are
now contained all the books of the Old and New Testament, which are these:
etc. . . . All which are given by inspiration of God, to be the rule of faith
and life.8
The whole counsel of God concerning all things necessary for his own
glory, man's salvation, faith, and life, is either expressly set down in
Scripture, or by good and necessary consequence may be deduced from Scripture;
unto which nothing at any time is to be added whether by new revelations of
the Spirit or traditions of men.9
All things in Scripture are not alike plain in themselves, nor alike clear
unto all; yet those things which are necessary to be known, believed, and
observed, for salvation, are so clearly propounded and opened in some place of
Scripture or other, that not only the learned, but the unlearned, in a due use
of the ordinary means, may attain unto a sufficient understanding of them."
From these statements it appears that Protestants hold,
(1.) That the Scriptures of the Old and New Testaments are the Word of God,
written under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, and are therefore
infallible, and of divine authority in all things pertaining to faith and
practice, and consequently free from all error whether of doctrine, fact, or
precept. (2.) That they contain all the extant supernatural revelations of God
designed to be a rule of faith and practice to his Church. (3.) That they are
sufficiently perspicuous to be understood by the people, in the use of
ordinary means and by the aid of the Holy Spirit, in all things necessary to
faith or practice, without the need of any infallible interpreter.
The Canon.
Before entering on the consideration of these points,
it is necessary to answer the question, What books are entitled to a place in
the canon, or rule of faith and practice? Ronmanists answer this question by
saying, that all those which the Church has decided to be divine in their
origin, and none others, are to be thus received. Protestants answer it by
saying, so far as the Old Testament is concerned, that those books, and those
only, which Christ and his Apostles recognized as the written Word of God, are
entitled to be regarded as canonical. This recognition was afforded in a
twofold manner: First, many of the books of the Old Testament are quoted as
the Word of God, as being given by the Spirit; or the Spirit is said to have
uttered what is therein recorded. Secondly, Christ and his Apostles refer to
the sacred writings of the Jews -- the volume which they regarded as divine --
as being what it claimed to be, the Word of God. When we refer to the Bible as
of divine authority, we refer to it as a volume and recognize all the writings
which it contains as given by the inspiration of the Spirit. In like manner
when Christ or his Apostles quote the "Scriptures," or the "law and the
prophets," and speak of the volume then so called, they give their sanction to
the divine authority of all the books which that volume contained. All,
therefore, that is necessary to determine for Christians the canon of the Old
Testament, is to ascertain what books were included in the "Scriptures"
recognized by the Jews of that period. This is a point about which there is no
reasonable doubt. The Jewish canon of the Old Testament included all the books
and no others, which Protestants now recognize as constituting the Old
Testament Scriptures. On this ground Protestants reject the so-called
apocryphal books. They were not written in Hebrew and were not included in the
canon of the Jews. They were, therefore, not recognized by Christ as the Word
of God. This reason is of itself sufficient. It is however confirmed by
considerations drawn from the character of the books themselves. They abound
in errors, and in statements contrary to those found in the undoubtedly
canonical books.
The principle on which the canon of the New Testament
is determined is equally simple. Those books, and those only which can be
proved to have been written by the Apostles, or to have received their
sanction, are to be recognized as of divine authority. The reason of this rule
is obvious. The Apostles were the duly authenticated messengers of Christ, of
whom He said, "He that heareth you, heareth me."
§2.
The Scriptures are Infallible, i. e., given by Inspiration of God.
The infallibility and divine authority of the
Scriptures are due to the fact that they are the word of God; and they are the
word of God because they were given by the inspiration of the Holy Ghost.
A. The Nature of Inspiration.
Definition.
The nature of inspiration is to be learnt from the
Scriptures; from their didactic statements, and from their phenomena. There
are certain general facts or principles which underlie the Bible, which are
assumed in all its teachings, and which therefore must be assumed in its
interpretation. We must, for example, assume, (1.) That God is not the
unconscious ground of all things; nor an unintelligent force; nor a name for
the moral order of the universe; nor mere causality; but a Spirit,
-- a self-conscious, intelligent, voluntary agent,
possessing all the attributes of our spirits without limitation, and to an
infinite degree. (2.) That He is the creator of the world, and extra-mundane,
existing before, and independently of it; not its soul, life, or animating
principle; but its maker, preserver, and ruler. (3.) That as a spirit He is
everywhere present, and everywhere active, preserving and governing all his
creatures and all their actions. (4.) That while both in the external world
and in the world of mind He generally acts according to fixed laws and through
secondary causes, He is free to act, and often does act immediately, or
without the intervention of such causes, as in creation, regeneration, and
miracles. (5.) That the Bible contains a divine, or supernatural revelation.
The present question is not, Whether the Bible is what it claims to be; but,
What does it teach as to the nature and effects of the influence under which
it was written?
On this subject the common doctrine of the Church is,
and ever has been, that inspiration was an influence of the Holy Spirit on the
minds of certain select men, which rendered them the organs of God for the
infallible communication of his mind and will. They were in such a sense the
organs of God, that what they said God said.
B. Inspiration Supernatural.
This definition includes several distinct points.
First. Inspiration is a supernatural influence. It is thus distinguished, on
the one hand from the providential agency of God, which is everywhere and
always in operation; and on the other hand, from the gracious operations of
the Spirit on the hearts of his people. According to the Scriptures, and the
common views of men, a marked distinction is to be made between those effects
which are due to the efficiency of God operating regularly through second
causes, and those which are produced by his immediate efficiency without the
intervention of such causes. The one class of effects is natural; the other,
supernatural. Inspiration belongs to the latter class. It is not a natural
effect due to the inward state of its subject, or to the influence of external
circumstances.
No less obvious is the distinction which the Bible
makes between the gracious operations of the Spirit and those by which
extraordinary gifts are bestowed upon particular persons. Inspiration,
therefore, is not to be confounded with spiritual illumination. They differ,
first, as to their subjects. The subjects of inspiration are a few selected
persons; the subjects of spiritual illumination are all true believers. And,
secondly, they differ as to their design. The design of the former is to
render certain men infallible as teachers. the design of the latter is to
render men holy; and of course they differ as to their effects. Inspiration in
itself has no sanctifying influence. Balaam was inspired. Saul was among the
prophets. Caiaphas uttered a prediction which "he
spake not of himself." (John xi. 51.) In the last day many will be able to say
to Christ, "Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied in thy name? and in thy name
have cast out devils? and in thy name done many wonderful works?" To whom he
will say: "I never knew you; depart from me, ye that
work iniquity." (Matt. vii. 22, 23.)
C. Distinction between
Revelation and Inspiration.
Second. The above definition assumes a difference
between revelation and inspiration. They differ, first, as to their object.
The object of revelation is the communication of knowledge. The object or
design of inspiration is to secure infallibility in teaching. Consequently
they differ, secondly, in their effects. The effect of revelation was to
render its recipient wiser. The effect of inspiration was to preserve him from
error in teaching. These two gifts were often enjoyed by the same person at
the same time. That is, the Spirit often imparted knowledge, and controlled in
its comunication orally or in writing to others. This was no doubt the case
with the Psalmists, and often with the Prophets and Apostles. Often, however,
the revelations were made at one time, and were subsequently, under the
guidance of the Spirit, committed to writing. Thus the Apostle Paul tells us
that he received his knowledge of the gospel not from man, but by revelatioin
from Jesus Christ; and this knowledge he communicated from time to time in his
discourses and epistles. In many cases these gifts were separated. Many of the
sacred writers, although inspired, received no revelations. This was probably
the fact with the authors of the historical books of the Old Testament. The
evangelist Luke does not refer his knowledge of the events which he records to
revelation, but says he derived it from those which from the beginning were
eyewitnesses, and ministers of the Word." (Luke i. 2.) It is immaterial to us
where Moses obtained his knowledge of the events recorded in the book of
Genesis; whether from early documents, from tradition, or from direct
revelation. No more causes are to be assumed for any effect than are
necessary. If the sacred writer had sufficient sources of knowledge in
themselves, or in those about them, there is no need to assume any direct
revelation, it is enough for us that they were rendered infallible as
teachers. This distinction between revelation and inspiration is commonly made
by systematic writers. Thus Quenstedt (1685)10
says: "Distingue inter revelationem et inspirationem. Revelatio vi vocis est
manifestatio rerum ignotarum et occultarum, et potest fieri multis et diversis
modis Inspiratio . . . . est interna conceptum suggestio, sen infusio, sive
res conceptae jam ante scriptori fuerint cognitae, sive occultae. Illa potuit
tempore antecedere scriptionem, haec cum scriptione semper fuit conjuncta et
in ipsam scriptionem influebat." Often, however, the distinction in question
is overlooked. In popular language, inspiration is made to include both the
supernatural communication of truth to the mind, and a supernatural control in
making known that truth to others. The two gifts, however, differ in their
nature, and should therefore be distinguished. Confounding them has sometimes
led to serious error. When no revelation was necessary, no inspiration is
admitted. Thus Grotius says: "Vere dixi non omnes libros qui sunt in Hebraeo
Canone dictatos a Spiritu Sancto. Scriptos esse cum pic animi motu, non nego;
et hoc est quod judicavit Synagoga Magna, cujus judicio in hac re stant
Hebraei. Sed a Spiritu Sancto dictari historias nihil fuit opus: satis fuit
scriptorem memoria valere circa res spectatas, aut diligentia in describendis
veterum commentariis."11
It is an illogical conclusion, however, to infer that because a historian did
not need to have the facts dictated to him, that therefore he needed no
control to preserve him from error.
D. Inspired Men the Organs of
God.
A third point included in the Church doctrine of
inspiration is, that the sacred writers were the organs of God, so that what
they taught, God taught. It is to be remembered, however, that when God uses
any of his creatures as his instruments, He uses them according to their
nature. He uses angels as angels, men as men, the elements as elements. Men
are intelligent voluntary agents; and as such were made the organs of God. The
sacred writers were not made unconscious or irrational. The spirits of the
prophets were subject to the prophets. (1 Cor. xiv. 32.) They were not like
calculating machines which grind out logarithms with infallible correctness.
The ancients, indeed, were accustomed to say, as some theologians have also
said, that the sacred writers were as pens in the hand of the Spirit; or as
harps, from which He drew what sounds He pleased. These representations were,
however intended simply to illustrate one point, namely, that the words
uttered or recorded by inspired men were the words of God. The Church has
never held what has been stigmatized as thc mechanical theory of inspiration.
The sacred writers were not machines. Their self-consciousness was not
suspended; nor were their intellectual powers superseded. Holy men spake as
they were moved by the Holy Ghost. It was men, not machines; not unconscious
instruments, but living, thinking, willing minds, whom the Spirit used as his
organs. Moreover, as inspiration did not involve the suspension or suppression
of the human faculties, so neither did it interfere with the free exercise of
the distinctive mental characteristics of the individual. If a Hebrew was
inspired, he spake Hebrew; if a Greek, he spake Greek; if an educated man, he
spoke as a man of culture; if uneducated, he spoke as such a man is wont to
speak. If his mind was logical, he reasoned, as Paul did; if emotional and
contemplative, he wrote as John wrote. All this is involved in the fact that
God uses his instruments according to their nature. The sacred writers
impressed their peculiarities on their several productions as plainly as
though they were the subjects of no extraordinary influence. This is one of
the phenomena of the Bible patent to the most cursory reader. It lies in the
very nature of inspiration that God spake in the language of men; that He uses
men as his organs, each according to his peculiar gifts and endowments. When
He ordains praise out of the mouth of babes, they must speak as babes, or the
whole power and beauty of the tribute will be lost. There is no reason to
believe that the operation of the Spirit in inspiration revealed itself any
more in the consciousness of the sacred writers, than his operations in
sanctification reveal themselves in the consciousness of the Christian. As the
believer seems to himself to act, and in fact does act out of his own nature;
so the inspired penmen wrote out of the fulness of their own thoughts and
feelings, and employed the language and modes of expression which to them were
the most natural and appropriate. Nevertheless, and none the less, they spoke
as they were proved by the Holy Ghost, and their words were his words.
E. Proof of the Doctrine.
That this is the Scriptural view of inspiration; that
inspired men were the organs of God in such a sense that their words are to be
received not as the words of men, but as they are in truth, as the words of
God (1 Thess. ii. 13), is proved, --
1. From the
signification and usage of the word. It is, of course, admitted that words are
to be understood in their historical sense. If it can be shown what idea the
men living in the apostolic age attached to the word
qeo,pneustoj and its equivalents, that is the idea which the Apostles
intended to express by them. All nations have entertained the belief not only
that God has access to the human mind and can control its operations, but that
He at times did take such possession of particular persons as to make them the
organs of his communications. Such persons were called by the Greeks
qeofo,roi(those who bore a God within them); or,
e;qioj (those in whom a God dwelt). In the
Septuagint the word pneuhatofo,rojis used in the
same sense. In Josephus,12
the idea is expressed by the plmrase "tw/| qei,w|
pneu,hati kekinh,menoj" to which the
words of Peter (2 Peter i. 21) exactly answer, u`po.
pneu,matoj fero,menoi; and what is written by men under this
influence of the Spirit is called grafh. qeo,pneustoj.(2
Tim. iii. 16.) Gregory of Nyssa,13
having quoted the words of our Lord in Matt. xxii. 43, "How then doth David in
Spirit call him Lord," adds, ouvkou/n th/| duna,mei tou/
Pneu,matoj oi` qeoforou,menoi tw/n a`gi,wn empne,ontai,
kai. dia. tou/to pa/sa grafh. qeo,pneustoj le,getai,
dia. to. th/j qei,aj evmpneu,sewj eivnai didaskali,an,that
is, "Hence those of the saints who by the power of the Spirit are full of God
are inspired, and therefore all Scripture is called
qeo,pneustoj, because the instruction is by divine inspiration."
The idea of inspiration is therefore fixed. It is not to be arbitrarily
determined. We must not interpret the word or the fact, according to our
theories of the relation of God to the world, but according to the usage of
antiquity, sacred and profane, and according to the doctrine which the sacred
writers and the men of their generation are known to have entertained on the
subject. According to all antiquity, an inspired man was one who was the organ
of God in what he said, so that his words were the words of the god of which
he was the organ. When, therefore, the sacred writers use the same words and
forms of expression which the ancients used to convey that idea, they must in
all honesty be assumed to mean the same thing.
Argument from the Meaning of the
Word Prophet.
2. That this is the Scriptural idea of inspiration is
further proved from the meaning of the word prophet. The sacred writers divide
the Scriptures into the "law and the prophets." As the law was written by
Moses, and as Moses was the greatest of the prophets, it follows that all the
Old Testament was written by prophets. If, therefore, we can determine the
Scriptural idea of a prophet, we shall thereby determine the character of
their writings and the authority due to them. A prophet, then, in the
Scriptural sense of the term, is a spokesman, one who speaks for another, in
his name, and by his authority; so that it is not the spokesman but the person
for whom he acts, who is responsible for the truth of what is said. In Exodus
vii. 1, it is said, "See, I have made thee a god to Pharaoh; and Aaron thy
brother shall be thy prophet," i. e., thy spokesman. This is explained
by what is said in Exodus iv. 14-16, "Is not Aaron the Levite thy brother? I
know that he can speak well. . . . Thou shalt speak unto him, and put words
into his mouth; and I will be with thy mouth, and with his mouth, and will
teach you what ye shall do. And he shall be thy spokesman unto the people; and
he shall be, even he shall be, to thee instead of a mouth, and thou shalt be
to him instead of God." (See Jeremiah xxxvi. 17, 18.) This determines
definitely, what a prophet is. He is the mouth of God; one through whom God
speaks to the people; so that what the prophet says God says. So when a
prophet was consecrated, it was said, "Behold, I have put my words in thy
mouth." (Jer. i. 9 ; Is. Ii. 16.) That this is the Scriptural idea of a
prophet is moreover evident from the formulas, constantly recurring, which
relate to his duties and mission. He was the messenger of God; he spoke in the
name of God; the words, "Thus saith the Lord," were continually in his mouth.
"The word of the Lord" is said to have come to this prophet and on that; "the
Spirit came upon," "the power," or "hand" of God was upon him; all implying
that the prophet was the organ of God, that what he said, he said in God's
name and by his authority. It is true, therefore, as Philo14
says, profh,thj ga,r i;dion ouvde.n avpofqe,ggetai
avllo,tria de. pa,nta u`phcou/ntoj e`te,ron.
This is precisely what the Apostle Peter teaches when
he says (2 Peter i. 20, 21), "No prophecy of the Scripture is of any private
interpretation. For the prophecy came not in old time by the will of man: but
holy men spake as they were moved (fero,menoi,
borne along as a ship by the wind) by the Holy Ghost." Prophecy, i. e.,
what a prophet said, was not human, but divine. It was not the prophet's
own interpretation of the mind and will of God. He spoke as the organ of the
Holy Ghost.
What the Prophets said God said.
3. lt is another decisive proof that the sacred writers
were the organs of God in the sense above stated, that whatever they said the
Spirit is declared to have said. Christ himself said that David by the Spirit
called the Messiah Lord. (Matt. xxii. 43.) David in the 95th Psalm said,
"To-day if ye will hear his voice, harden not your heart;" but the Apostle
(Heb. iii. 7), says that these were the words of the Holy Ghost. Again, in ch.
x. 15, the same Apostle says, "Whereof the Holy Ghost also is a witness to us:
for after that he had said before, This is the covenant that I will make with
them after those days, saith the Lord." Thus quoting the language of Jeremiah
xxxi. 33, as the language of the Holy Ghost. In Acts iv. 25, the
assembled Apostles said, "with one accord," "Lord thou art God. . . . Who by
the mouth of thy servant David hast said, Why did the heathen rage?" In Acts
xxviii. 25, Paul said to the Jews, "Well spake the Holy Ghost by Esaias the
prophet unto our fathers." It is in this way that Christ and his Apostles
constantly refer to the Scriptures, showing beyond doubt that they believed
and taught, that what the sacred writers said the Holy Ghost said.
Inspiration of the New Testament
Writers.
This proof bears specially, it is true, only on the
writings of the Old Testament. But no Christian puts the inspiration of the
Old Testament above that of the New. The tendency, and we may even say the
evidence, is directly the other way. If the Scriptures of the old economy were
given by inspiration of God, much more were those writings which were penned
under the dispensation of the Spirit. Besides, the inspiration of the Apostles
is proved, (1.) From the fact that Christ promised them the Holy Spirit, who
should bring all things to their remembrance, and render them infallible in
teaching. It is not you, He said, that speak, but the Spirit of my Father
speaketh in you. He that heareth you heareth me. He forbade them to enter upon
their office as teachers until they were endued with power from on high. (2)
This promise was fulfilled on the day of Pentecost, when the Spirit descended
upon the Apostles as a mighty rushing wind, and they were filled with the Holy
Ghost, and began to speak as the Spirit gave them utterance (dabat eloqui,
as the Vulgate more literally renders the words). From this moment they
were new men, with new views, with new spirit, and with new power and
authority. The change was sudden. It was not a development. It was something
altogether supernatural; as when God said, Let there be light, and there was
light. Nothing can be more unreasonable than to ascribe this sudden
transformation of the Apostles from narrow-minded, bigoted Jews, into
enlightened, large-minded, catholic Christians, to mere natural causes. Their
Jewish prejudices had resisted all the instructions and influence of Christ
for three years, but gave way in a moment when the Spirit came upon them from
on high. (3.) After the day of Pentecost the Apostles claimed to be the
infallible organs of God in all their teachings They required men to receive
what they taught not as the word of man but as the word of God (1 Thess. ii.
13); then declared as Paul does (1 Cor. xiv. 37), that the things which they
wrote were the commandments of the Lord. They made the salvation of men to
depend on faith in the doctrines which they taught. Paul pronounces anathema
even an angel from heaven who should preach any other gospel than that which
he had taught. (Gal. i. 8.) John says that whoever did not receive the
testimony which he bore concerning Christ, made God a liar, because John's
testimony was God's testimony. (1 John v. 10.) "He that knoweth God, heareth
us; he that is not of God, heareth not us." (iv. 6.) This assertion of
infallibility, this claim for the divine authority of their teaching, is
characteristic of the whole Bible. The sacred writers all, and everywhere,
disclaim personal authority; they never rest the obligation to faith in their
teachings, on their own knowledge or wisdom; they never rest it on the truth
of what they taught as manifest to reason or as capable of being proved by
argument. They speak as messengers, as witnesses, as organs. They declare that
what they said God said, and, therefore, on his authority it was to be
received and obeyed.
The Testimony of Paul.
The Corinthians objected to Paul's preaching that he
did not attempt any rational or philosophical proof of the doctrines which he
propounded; that his language and whole manner of discourse were not in
accordance with rhetorical rules. He answers these objections,
-- first, by saying that the doctrines which he
taught were not the truths of reason, were not derived from the wisdom of men,
but were matters of divine revelation; that he simply tanght what God declared
to be true; and secondly, that as to the manner of presenting these truths, he
was the mere organ of the Spirit of God. In 1 Cor. ii. 7-13, he sets forth
this whole subject in the clearest and most concise manner. The things which
he taught, which he calls "the wisdom of God," "the things of the Spirit,"
i. e., the gospel, the system of doctrine taught in the Bible, he says,
had never entered into the mind of man. God had revealed those truths by his
Spirit; for the Spirit is the only competent source of such knowledge. "For
what man knoweth the things of a man, save the spirit of man which is in him?
even so, the things of God knoweth no man, but the Spirit of God." So much for
the source of knowledge, and the ground on which the doctrines he taught were
to be received. As to the second objection, which concerned his language and
mode of presentation, he says, These things of the Spirit, thus revealed, we
teach "not in the words which man's wisdom teacheth; but which the Holy Ghost
teacheth," pneumatikoi/j pneumatika. sugkri,nontej,
combining spiritual with spiritual, i. e., clothing the truths of the
Spirit in the words of the Spirit. There is neither in the Bible nor in the
writings of men, a simpler or clearer statement of the doctrines of revelation
and inspiration. Revelation is the act of communicating divine knowledge by
the Spirit to the mind. Inspiration is the act of the same Spirit, controlling
those who make the truth known to others. The thoughts, the truths made known,
and the words in which they are recorded, are declared to be equally from the
Spirit. This, from first to last, has been the doctrine of the Church,
notwithstanding the endless diversity of speculations in which theologians
have indulged on the subject. This then is the ground on which the sacred
writers rested their claims. They were the mere organs of God. They were his
messengers. Those who heard them, heard God; and those who refused to hear
them, refused to hear God. (Matt. x. 40; John xiii. 20.)
4. This claim to infallibility on the part of the
Apostles was duly authenticated, not only by the nature of the truths which
they communicated, and by the power which those truths have ever exerted over
the minds and hearts of men, but also by the inward witness of the Spirit of
which St. John speaks, when he says, "He that believeth on the Son of God hath
the witness in himself" (1 John v. 10); "an unction from the Holy One." (1
John ii. 20.) It was confirmed also by miraculous gifts. As soon as the
Apostles were endued with power from on high, they spake in "other tongues;"
they healed the sick, restored the lame and the blind, "God also," as the
Apostle says (Heb. ii. 4), "bearing them witness, both with signs, and
wonders, and with divers miracles, and gifts of the Holy Ghost, according to
his own will." And Paul tells the Corinthians that the signs of an Apostle had
been wrought among them "in all patience, in signs, and wonders, and mighty
deeds." (2 Cor. xii. 12.) The mere working of miracles was not an evidence of
a divine commission as a teacher. But when a man claims to be the organ of
God, when he says that God speaks through him, then his working of miracles is
the testimony of God to the validity of his claims. And such testimony God
gave to the infallibility of the Apostles.
The above considerations are sufficient to show, that
according to the Scriptures, inspired men were the organs, or mouth of God, in
the sense that what they said and taught has the sanction and authority of
God.
F. Inspiration extends equally
to all Parts of Scripture.
This is the fourth element of the Church doctrine on
this subject. It means, first, that all the books of Scripture are equally
inspired. All alike are infallible in what they teach. And secondly, that
inspiration extends to all the contents of these several books. It is not
confined to moral and religious truths, but extends to the statements of
facts, whether scientific, historical, or geographical. It is not confined to
those facts the importance of which is obvious, or which are involved in
matters of doctrine. It extends to everything which any sacred writer asserts
to be true.
This is proved, (1) Because it is involved in, or
follows as a necessary consequence from, the proposition that the sacred
writers were the organs of God. If what they assert, God asserts, which, as
has been shown, is the Scriptural idea of inspiration, their assertions must
be free from error. (2.) Because our Lord expressly says, "The Scripture
cannot be broken" (John x. 35), i. e., it
cannot err. (3.) Because Christ and his Apostles refer to all parts of the
Scriptures, or to the whole volume, as the word of God. They make no
distinction as to the authority of the Law, the Prophets, or the Hagiographa.
They quote the Pentateuch, the historical books, the Psalms, and the Prophets,
as all and equally the word of God. (4.) Because Christ and the writers of the
New Testament refer to all classes of facts recorded in the Old Testament as
infallibly true. Not only doctrinal facts, such as those of the creation and
probation of man; his apostasy; the covenant with Abraham; the giving the law
upon Mount Sinai not only great historical facts, as the deluge, the
deliverance of the people out of Egypt, the passage of the Red Sea, and the
like but incidental circumstances, or facts of apparently minor importance, as
e. g. that Satan tempted our first parents in the form of serpent; that
Moses lifted up a serpent in the wilderness: that Elijah healed Naaman, the
Syrian, and was sent to the widow in Sarepta; that David ate the shew-bread in
the temple; and even that great stumbling-block, that Jonah was three days in
the whale's belly, are all referred to by our Lord and his Apostles with the
sublime simplicity and confidence with which they are received by little
children. (5.) It lies in the very idea of the Bible, that God chose some men
to write history; some to indite psalms; some to unfold the future; some to
teach doctrines. All were equally his organs, and each was infallible in his
own sphere. As the principle of vegetable life pervades the whole plant, the
root, stem, and flower; as the life of the body belongs as much to the feet as
to the head, so the Spirit of God pervades the whole Scripture, and is not
more important than in other. Some members of the body are more in one part
than in another; and some books of the Bible could be far better spared than
others. There may be as great a difference between St. John's Gospel and the
Book of Chronicles as between a man's brain and his hair; nevertheless the
life of the body is as truly in the hair as in the brain.
G. The Inspiration of the
Scriptures extends to the Words.
1. This again is included in the infallibility which
our Lord ascribes to the Scriptures. A mere human report or record of a divine
revelation must of necessity be not only fallible, but more or less erroneous.
2. The thoughts are in the words. The two are
inseparable. If the words, priest, sacrifice, ransom, expiation, propitiation,
purification by blood, and the like, have no divine authority, then the
doctrine which they embody has no such authority.
3. Christ and his Apostles argue from the very words of
Scripture. Our Lord says that David by the Spirit called the Messiah Lord,
i. e., David used that word. It was in the use of a particular word, that
Christ said (John x. 35), that the Scriptures cannot be broken. "If he call
them gods unto whom the word of God came, and the Scripture cannot be broken,"
etc. The use of that word, therefore, according to Christ's view of the
Scripture, was determined by the Spirit of God. Paul, in Gal. iii. 16, lays
stress on the fact, that in the promise made to Abraham, a word used is
singular and not plural, "seed," "as of one," and not "seeds as of many."
Constantly it is the very words of Scripture which are quoted as of divine
authority.
4. The very form in which the doctrine of inspiration
is taught in the Bible, assumes that the organs of God in the communication of
his will were controlled by Him in the words which they used. "I have put my
words in thy mouth." (Jer. i. 9.) "It is not ye that speak, but the Spirit of
your Father which speaketh in you." (Matt. x. 20.) They spake "as the Spirit
gave them utterance." (Acts ii. 4.) "Holy men of God spake as they were moved
by the Holy Ghost." (2 Pet. i. 21.) All these, and similar modes of expression
with which the Scriptures abound, imply that the words uttered were the words
of God. This, moreover, is the very idea of inspiration as understood by the
ancient world. The words of the oracle were assumed to be the words of the
divinity, and not those selected by the organ of communication. And this, too,
as has been shown, was the idea attached to the gift of prophecy. The words of
the prophet were the words of God, or he could not be God's spokesman and
mouth. It has also been shown that in the most formally didactic passage in
the whole Bible on this subject (1 Cor. ii. 10-13), the Apostle expressly
asserts that the truths revealed by the Spirit, he communicated in words
taught by the Spirit.
Plenary Inspiration.
The view presented above is known as the doctrine of
plenary inspiration. Plenary is opposed to partial. The Church doctrine denies
that inspiration is confined to parts of the Bible; and affirms that it
applies to all the books of the sacred canon. It denies that the sacred
writers were merely partially inspired; it asserts that they were fully
inspired as to all that they teach, whether of doctrine or fact. This of
course does not imply that the sacred writers were infallible except for the
special purpose for which they were employed. They were not imbued with
plenary knowledge. As to all matters of science, philosophy, and history, they
stood on the same level with their contemporaries. They were infallible only
as teachers, and when acting as the spokesmen of God. Their inspiration no
more made them astronomers than it made thcm agriculturists. Isaiah was
infallible in his predictions, although he shared with his countrymen the
views then prevalent as to the mechanism of the universe. Paul could not err
in anything he taught, although he could not recollect how many persons he had
baptized in Corinth. The sacred writers also, doubtless, differed as to
insight into the truths which they taught. The Apostle Peter intimates that
the prophets searched diligently into the meaning of their own predictions.
When David said God had put "all things" under the feet of man, he probably
little thought that "all things" meant the whole universe (Heb. iv. 8.) And
Moses, when he recorded the promise that childless Abraham was to be the
father "of many nations," little thought that it meant the whole world (Rom.
iv. 13). Nor does the Scriptural doctrine on this subject imply that the
sacred writers were free from errors in conduct. Their infallibility did not
arise from their holiness, nor did inspiration render them holy. Balaam was
inspired, and Saul was among the prophets. David committed many crimes,
although inspired to write psalms. Peter erred in conduct at Antioch; but this
does not prove that he erred in teaching. The influence which preserved him
from mistakes in teaching was not designed to preserve him from mistakes in
conduct.
H. General Considerations in
Support of the Doctrine.
On this point little need be said. If the questions,
What is the Scriptural doctrine concerning inspiration? and, What is the true
doctrine? be considered different, then after showing what the Scriptures
teach on the subject, it would be necessary to prove that what they teach is
true. This, however, is not the position of the Christian theologian. It is
his business to set forth what the Bible teaches. If the sacred writers assert
that they are the organs of God; that what they taught He taught through them;
that they spoke as they were moved by the Holy Ghost, so that whnat they said
the Holy Spirit said, then, if we believe their divine mission, we must
believe what they teach as to the nature of the influence under which they
spoke and wrote. This is the reason why in the earlier period of the Church
there was no separate discussion of the doctrine of inspiration. That was
regarded as involved in the divine origin of the Scriptures. If they are a
revelation from God, they must be received and obeyed; but they cannot be thus
received without attributing to them divine authority, and they can not have
such authority without being infallible in all they teach.
The organic unity of the Scriptures proves them to be
the product of one mind. They are not only so united that we cannot believe
one part without believing the whole; we cannot believe the New Testament
without believing the Old; we cannot believe the Prophets without believing
the Law; we cannot believe Christ without believing his Apostles; but besides
all this they present the regular development, carried on through centuries
and millenniums, of the great original promise, "The seed of the woman shall
bruise the serpent's head." This development was conducted by some forty
independent writers, many of whom understood very little of the plan they were
unfolding, but each contributed his part to the progress and completion of the
whole.
If the Bible be the work of one mind, that mind must be
the mind of God. He only knows the end from the beginning. He only could know
what the Bible reveals. No one, says the Apostle, knows the things of God but
the Spirit of God. He only could reveal the nature, the thoughts, and purposes
of God. He only could tell whether sin can be pardoned. No one knows the Son
but the Father. The revelation of the person and work of Christ is as clearly
the work of God as are the heavens in all their majesty and glory.
Besides, we have the witness in ourselves. We find that
the truths revealed in the Bible have the same adaptation to our souls that
the atmosphere has to our bodies. The body cannot live without air, which it
receives and appropriates instinctively, with full confidence in its
adaptation to the end designed. In like manner the soul receives and
appropriates the truths of Scripture as the atmosphere in which alone it can
breathe and live. Thus in receiving the Bible as true, we necessarily receive
it as divine. In believing it as a supernatural revelation, we believe its
plenary inspiration.
This doctrine involves nothing out of analogy with the
ordinary operations of God. We believe that He is everywhere present in the
material world, and controls the operations of natural causes. We know that He
causes the grass to grow, and gives rain and fruitful seasons. We
believe that He exercises a like control over the minds of men, turning them
as the rivers of water are turned. All religion, natural and revealed, is
founded on the assumption of this providential government of God. Besides
this, we believe in the gracious operations of his Spirit, by which He works
in the hearts of his people to will and to do; we believe that faith,
repentance, and holy living are due to the ever-present influence of
the Holy Spirit. If, then, this wonder-working God everywhere operates in
nature and in grace, why should it be deemed incredible that holy men should
speak as they were moved by the Holy Ghost, so that they should say just what
He would have them say, so that their words should be his words.
After all Christ is the great object of the Christian's
faith. We believe him and we believe everything else on his authority. He
hands us the Old Testament and tells us that it is the Word of God; that its
authors spoke by the Spirit; that the Scriptures cannot be broken. And we
believe on his testimony. His testimony to his Apostles is no less explicit,
although given in a different way. He promised to give them a mouth and a
wisdom which their adversaries could not gainsay or resist. He told them to
take no thought what they should say, "For the Holy Ghost shall teach you in
the same hour what ye ought to say." (Luke xii. 12.) "It is not ye that speak
but the Spirit of your Father which speaketh in you." He said to them "he that
receiveth you receiveth me"; and He prayed for those who should believe on Him
through their word. We believe the Scriptures, therefore, because Christ
declares them to be the Word of God. Heaven and earth may pass away, but his
word cannot pass away.
I. Objections.
A large class of
the objections to the doctrine of inspiration, which for many minds are the
most effective, arise from the rejection of one or other of the presumptions
specified on a preceding page. If a man denies the existence of a personal,
extramundane God, he must deny the doctrine of inspiration, but it is not
necessary in order to prove that doctrine that we should first prove the being
of God. If he denies that God exerts any direct efficiency in the government
of the world, and holds that everything is the product of fixed laws, he
cannot believe what the Scriptures teach of inspiration. If the supernatural
be impossible, inspiration is impossible. It will be found that most of the
objections, especially those of recent date, are founded on unscriptural views
of the relation of God to the world, or on the peculiar philosophical views of
the objectors as to the nature of man or of his free agency.
A still larger
class of objections is founded on misconceptions of the doctrine. Such
objections are answered by the correct statement of what the Church believes
on the subject. Even a man so distinguished for knowledge and ability as
Coleridge, speaks with contempt of what he regards as the common theory of
inspiration, when he utterly misunderstands the real doctrine which he
opposes. He says: "All the miracles which the legends of monk or rabbi
contain, can scarcely be put in competition, on the score of complication,
inexplicableness, the absence of all intelligible use or purpose, and of
circuitous self-frustration, with those that must be assumned by the
maintainers of this doctrine, in order to give effect to the series of
miracles by which all the nominal composers of the Hebrew nation before the
time of Ezra, of whom there are any remains, were successively transformed
into automaton compositors,"15
etc. But if the Church doctrine of inspiration no more assumes that the sacred
writers "were transformed into automaton compositors," than that every
believer is thus transformed in whom God "works to will and to do," then all
such objections amount to nothing. If God, without interfering with a man's
free agency, can make it infallibly certain that he will repent and believe,
He can render it certain that he will not err in teaching. It is in vain to
profess to hold the common doctrine of Theism, and yet assert that God cannot
control rational creatures without turning them into machines.
Discrepancies and Errors.
But although the theologian may rightfully dismiss all
objections founded in the denial of the common principles of natural and
revealed religion, there are others which cannot be thus summarily disposed
of. The most obvious of these is, that the sacred writers contradict each
other, and that they teach error. It is, of course, useless to contend that
the sacred writers were infallible, if in point of fact they err. Our views of
inspiration must be determined by the phenomena of the Bible as well as from
its didactic statements. If in fact the sacred writers retain each his own
style and mode of thought, then we must renounce any theory which assumes that
inspiration obliterates or suppresses all individual peculiarities. If the
Scriptures abound in contradictions and errors, then it is vain to contend
that they were written under an influence which precludes all error. The
question, therefore, is a question of fact. Do the sacred writers contradict
each other? Do the Scriptures teach what from any source can be proved not to
be true? The question is not whether the views of the sacred writers were
incorrect, but whether they taught error? For example, it is not the question
Whether they thought that the earth is the centre of our system? but, Did they
teach that it is?
The objection under consideration, namely, that the
Bible contains errors, divides itself into two. The first, that the sacred
writers contradict themselves, or one the other. The second, that the Bible
teaches what is inconsistent with the facts of history or science.
As to the former of these objections, it would require,
not a volume, but volumes to discuss all the cases of alleged discrepancies.
All that can be expected here is a few general remnarks: (1.) These apparent
discrepancies, although numerous, are for the most part trivial; relating in
most cases to numbers or dates. (2.) The great majority of them are only
apparent, and yield to careful examination. (3.) Many of them may fairly be
ascribed to errors of transcribers. (4.) The marvel and the miracle is that
there are so few of any real importance. Considering that the different books
of the Bible were written not only by different authors, but by men of all
degrees of culture, living in the course of fifteen hundred or two thousand
years, it is altogether unaccountable that they should agree perfectly, on any
other hypothesis than that the writers were under the guidance of the Spirit
of God. In this respect, as in all others, the Bible stands alone. It is
enough to impress any mind with awe, when it contemplates the Sacred
Scriptures filled with the highest truths, speaking with authority in the name
of God, and so miraculously free from the soiling touch of human fingers. The
errors in matters of fact which skeptics search out bear no proportion to the
whole. No sane man would deny that the Parthenon was built of marble, even if
here and there a speck of sandstone should be detected in its structure. Not
less unreasonable is it to deny the inspiration of such a book as the Bible,
because one sacred writer says that on a given occasion twenty-four thousand,
and another says that twenty-three thousand, men were slain. Surely a
Christian may be allowed to tread such objections under his feet.
Admitting that the Scriptures do contain, in a few
instances, discrepancies which with our present means of knowledge, we are
unable satisfactorily to explain, they furnish no rational ground for denying
their infallibility. "The Scripture cannot be broken." (John x. 35.) This is
the whole doctrine of plenary inspiration, taught by the lips of Christ
himself. The universe teems with evidences of design, so manifold, so diverse,
so wonderful, as to overwhelm the mind with the conviction that it has had an
intelligent author. Yet here and there isolated cases of monstrosity appear.
It is irrational, because we cannot account for such cases, to deny that the
universe is the product of intelligence. So the Christian need not renounce
his faith in the plenary inspiration of the Bible, although there may be some
things about it in its present state which he cannot account for.
Historical and Scientific
Objections.
The second great objection to the plenary inspiration
ot the Scripture is that it teaches what is inconsistent with historical and
scientific truth.
Here again it is to be remarked, (1.) That we must
distinguish between what the sacred writers themselves thought or believed,
and what they teach. They may have believed that the sun moves round the
earth, but they do not so teach. (2.) The language of the Bible is the
language of common life; and the language of common life is founded on
apparent,. and not upon scientific truth. It would be ridiculous to refuse to
speak of the sun rising and setting, because we know that it is not a
satellite of our planet. (3.) There is a great distinction between theories
and facts. Theories are of men. Facts are of God. The Bible often contradicts
the former, never the latter. (4.) There is also a distinction to be made
between the Bible and our interpretation. The latter may come into competition
with settled facts; and then it must yield. Science has in many things taught
the Church how to understand the Scriptures. The Bible was for ages understood
and explained according to the Ptolemaic system of the universe; it is now
explained without doing the least violence to its language, according to the
Copernican system. Christians have commonly believed that the earth has
existed only a few thousands of years. If geologists finally prove that it has
existed for myriads of ages, it will be found that the first chapter of
Genesis is in full accord with the facts, and that the last results of science
are embodied on the first page of the Bible. It may cost the Church a severe
struggle to give up one interpretation and adopt another, as it did in the
seventeenth century, but no real evil need be apprehended. The Bible has
stood, and still stands in the presence of the whole scientific world with its
claims unshaken. Men hostile or indifferent to its truths may, on insufficient
grounds, or because of their personal opinions, reject its authority; but,
even in the judgment of the greatest authorities in science, its teachings
cannot fairly be impeached.
It is impossible duly to estimate the importance of
this subject. If the Bible be the word of God, all the great questions which
for ages have agitated the minds of men are settled with infallible certainty.
Human reason has never been able to answer to its own satisfaction, or to the
assurance of others, the vital questions, What is God? What is man? What lies
beyond the grave? If there be a future state of being, what is it? and How may
future blessedness be secured? Without the Bible, we are, on all these
subjects, in utter darkness. How endless and unsatisfying have been the
answers to the greatest of all questions, What is God? The whole Eastern world
answers by saying, "That He is the unconscious ground of being." The Greeks
gave the same answer for philosophers, and made all nature God for the people.
The moderns have reached no higher doctrine. Fichte says the subjective Ego is
God. According to Schelling. God is the eternal movement of the universe,
subject becoming object, object becoming subject, the infinite becoming
finite, and the finite infinite. Hegel says, Thought is God. Cousin combines
all the German answers to form his own. Coleridge refers us to Schelling for
an answer to the question, What is God? Carlyle makes force God. A Christian
child says: "God is a Spirit, infinite, eternal, and unchangeable in his
being, wisdom, power, holiness, justice, goodness, and truth." Men and angels
veil their faces in the presence of that answer. It is the highest, greatest,
and most fruitful truth ever embodied in human language. Without the Bible, we
are without God and without hope. The present is a burden, and the future a
dread.
§3.
Adverse Theories.
Although substantial unanimity as to the doctrine of
inspiration has prevailed among the great historical Churches of Christendom,
yet there has been no little diversity of opinion among theologians and
philosophical writers. The theories are too numerous to be examined in detail.
They may, perhaps, be advantageously referred to the following classes.
A.
Naturalistic Doctrine.
There is a large class of writers who deny any
supernatural agency in the affairs of men. This general class includes writers
who differ essentially in their views.
First. There are those who, although Theists, hold the
mechanical theory of the universe. That is, they hold that God having created
the world, including all that it contains, organic and inorganic, rational and
irrational, and having endowed matter with its properties and minds with their
attributes, leaves it to itself. Just as a ship, when launched and equipped,
is left to the winds and to its crew. This theory precludes the possibility
not only of all miracles, prophecy, and supernatural revelation, but even of
all providential government, whether general or special. Those who adopt this
view of the relation of God to the world, must regard the Bible from beginning
to end as a purely human production. They may rank it as the highest, or as
among the lowest of the literary works of men; there is no possibility of its
being inspired in any authorized sense of that word.
Secondly. There are those who do not so entirely banish
God from his works. They admit that He is everywhere present, and everywhere
active; that his providential efficiency and control are exercised in the
occurrence of all events. But they maintain that He always acts according to
fixed laws; and always in connection and cooperation with second causes.
According to this theory also, all miracles and all prophecy, properly
speaking, are excluded. A revelation is
admitted, or at least, is possible. But it is merely providential. It consists
in such an ordering of circumstances, and such a combination of influences as
to secure the elevation of certain men to a higher level of religious
knowledge than that attained by others. They may also, in a sense, be said to
be inspired in so far as that inward, subjective state is purer, and
more devout, as well as more intelligent than that of ordinary men. There is
no specific difference, however, according to this theory, between inspired
and uninspired men. It is only a matter of degrees. One is more and another
less purified and enlightened. This theory also makes the Bible a purely human
production. It confines revelation to the sphere of human knowledge. No
possible degree of culture or development can get anything more than human out
of man. According to the Scriptures, and to the faith of the Church, the Bible
is a revelation of the things of God; of his thoughts and purposes. But who
knoweth the things of God, asks the Apostle, but the Spirit of God? The things
which the Bible purports to make known, are precisely those things which lie
beyond the ken of the human mind. This theory, therefore, for bread gives us a
stone; for the thoughts of God, the thoughts of man.
Schleiermacher's Theory.
Thirdly. There is a theory far more pretentious and
philosophical, and which of late years has widely prevailed, which in reality
differs very little from the preceding. It agrees with it in the main point in
that it denies anything supernatural in the origin or composition of the
Bible. Schleiermacher, the author of this theory, was addicted to a philosophy
which precluded all intervention of the immediate efficiency of God in the
world. He admits, however, of two exceptions: the creation of man, and the
constitution of the person of Christ. There was a supernatural intervention in
the origin of our race, and in the manifestation of Christ. All else in the
history of the world is natural. Of course there is nothing supernatural in
the Bible; nothing in the Old Testament which the Adamic nature was not
adequate to produce; and nothing in the New Testament, which Christianity, the
life of the Church, a life common to all believers, is not sufficient
to account for.
Religion consists in feeling, and specifically in a
feeling or absolute dependence (or an absolute feeling of dependence) i.e.,
the consciousness that the finite is nothing in the presence of the
Infinite, -- the individiual in the
presence of the universal. This conciousness involves the unity of the one and
all, of God and man. "This system," says Dr. Ulmann, one of its more moderate
and effective advocates, "is not absolutely new. We find it in another form in
ancient Mysticism, especially in the German Mystics of the Middle Ages. Within
them, too, the ground and central point of Christianity is the oneness of
Deity and humaniny effected through the incarnation of God, and deification of
man."16
Christianity, therefore, is not a system of doctrine;
it is not, subjectively considered, a form of knowledge. It is a life. It is
the life of Christ. Ulmann again says explicitly: "The life of Christ is
Christianity."17
God in becoming man did not take upon himself, "a true body and a
reasonable soul," but generic humanity; i.e., humanity as a generic
life. The effect of the incarnation was to unite the human and divine as one
life. And this life passes over to the Church precisely as the life of Adam
passed over to his descendants, by a process of natural development. And this
life is Christianity. Participation of this divine-human life makes a man a
Christian.
The Christian revelation consists in the providential
dispensations connected within the appearance of Christ on the earth. The
effect of these dispensations and events was the elevation of the religious
consciousness of the men of that generation, and specially of those who came
most directly under the influence of Chmist. This subjective state, this
excitement and elevation of their religious life, gave them intuitions of
religious truths, "eternal verities." These intuitions were by the logical
understanding clothed in the form of doctrines. This, however, was a gradual
process as it was effected only by the Church-life, i. e., by the
working of the new divine-human life in the body of believers.18
Mr. Mormell in expounding this theory, says:19
"The essential germ of the religious life is concentrated in the absolute
feeling of dependence, -- a feeling which implies nothing abject, but, on the
contrary, a high and hallowed sense of our being inseparably related to
Deity." On the preceding page he had said, "Let the subject become as nothing
-- not, indeed, from its intrinsic insignificance or incapacity of moral
action, but by virtue of the infinity of the object to which it stands
consciously opposed; and the feeling of dependence must become absolute;for
all finite power is as nothing in relation to the Infinite."
Christianity, as just stated, is the life of Christ,
his human life, which is also divine, and is communicated to us as the life of
Adam was communicated to his descendants. Morell, rather more in accordance
with English modes of thought, says,20
"Christianity, like every other religion, consists essentially in a state of
man's inner consciousness, which develops itself into a system of thought and
activity only in a community of awakened minds; and it was inevitable,
therefore, that such a state of consciousness should require time, and
intercourse, and mutual sympathy, before it could become moulded into a
decided and distinctive form." He represents the Apostles as often meeting
together and deliberating on essential points, correcting each other's views;
and, after years of such fellowship, Christianity was at last brought into
form.
Revelation is declared to be a communication of truth
to our intuitional consciousness. The outward world is a revelation to our
sense-intuitions; beauty is a revelation to our esthetic intuitions; and
"eternal verities," when intuitively perceived, are said to be revealed; and
this intuition is brought about by whatever purifies and exalts our religious
feelings. "Revelation," says Morell, "is a process of the intuitional
consciousness, gazing upon eternal verities; while theology is the reflection
of the understanding upon those vital intuitions, so as to reduce them to a
logical and scientific expression."21
Inspiration is the inward state of mind which enables
us to apprehend the truth. "Revelation and inspiration," says Morell,
"indicate one united process, the result of which upon the human mind is, to
produce a state of spiritual intuition, whose phenomena are so extraordinary,
that we at once separate the agency by which they are produced from any of the
ordinary principles of human developmnent. And yet this agency is applied in
perfect consistency with the laws and natural operations of our spiritual
nature. Inspiration does not imply anything generically new in the actual
processes of the human mind; it does not involve any form of intelligence
essentially different from what we already possess; it indicates rather the
elevation of the religious consciousness, and with it, of course, the power of
spiritual vision, to a degree of intensity peculiar to the individuals thus
highly favoured of God."22
The only difference, therefore, between the Apostles and ordinary Christians
is as to their relative holiness.
According to this theory there is no specific
difference between genius and inspiration. The difference is simply in the
objects apprehended and the causes of the inward excitement to which the
apprehension is due. "Genius," says Morell, "consists in the possession of a
remarkable power of intuition with reference to some particular object, a
power which arises from the inward nature of a man being brought into unusual
harmony with that object in its reality and its operations."23
This is precisely his account of inspiration. "Let," he says, "there be a due
purification of the moral nature, -- a
perfect harmony of the spiritual being with the mind of God,
-- a removal of all inward disturbances
from the heart, and what is to prevent or disturb this immediate intuition of
divine things."24
This theory of inspiration, while retaining its
essential elements, is variously modified. With those who believe with
Schleiermacher, that man "is the form in which God comes to conscious
existence on our earth," it has one form. With Realists who define man to be
"the manifestation of generic humanity in connection with a given corporeal
organization;" and who believe that it was generic humanity which Christ took
and united in one life with his divine nature, which life is communicated to
the Church as his body, and thereby to all its members; it takes a somewhat
different form. With those again who do not adopt either of these
anthropological theories, but take the common view as to the constitution of
man; it takes still a different, and in some respects, a lower, form. In all,
however, inspiration is the intuition of divine truths due to the excitement
of the religious nature, whatever that nature may be.
Objections to Schleiermacher's
Theory.
To this theory in all its forms it may be objected, --
1. That it proceeds upon a wrong view of religion in general and of
Cirristianity in particular. It assumes that religion is a feeling, a life. It
denies that it is a form of knowledge, or involves the reception of any
particular system of doctrine. In the subjective sense of the word, all
religions (i. e., all religious doctrines) are true, as Twesten says,25
but all are not equally pure, or equally adequate expressions of the inward
religious principle. According to the Scriptures, however, and the common
conviction of Christians, religion (subjectively considered) is the reception
of certain doctrines as true, and a state of heart and course of action in
accordance with those doctrines. The Apostles propounded a certain system of
doctrines; they pronounced those to be Christians who received those doctrines
so as to determine their character and life. They pronounced those who
rejected those doctrines, who refused to receive their testimony, as
antichristian; as having no part or lot with the people of God. Christ's
command was to teach; to convert the world by teaching. On this principle the
Apostles acted and the Church has ever acted from that day to this. Those who
deny Theism as a doctrine, are atheists. Those who reject Christianity as a
systemn of doctrine, are unbelievers. They are not Christians. The Bible
everywhere assumes that without truth there can be no holiness; that all
conscious exercises of spiritual life are in view of truth objectively
revealed in the Scriptures. And hence the importance everywhere attributed to
knowledge, to truth, to sound doctrine, in the Word of God.
2. This theory is inconsistent with the Scriptural
doctrine of revelation. According to the Bible, God presents truth objectively
to the mind, whether by audible words, by visions, or by the immnediate
operations of his Spirit. According to this theory, revelation is merely the
providential ordering of circumstances which awaken and exalt the religious
feelings, and which thus enable the mind intuitively to apprehend the things
of God.
3. It avowedly confines these intuitions, and of course
revealed truth, to what are called "eternal verities." But the great body of
truths revealed in Scripture are not "eternal verities." The fall of man; that
all men are sinners; that the Redeemer from sin was to be of the seed of
Abraham, and of the house of David; that He was to be born of a virgin, to be
a man of sorrows; that He was crucified and buried; that He rose again the
third day; that He ascended to heaven; that He is to come again without sin to
salvation, although truths on which our salvation depends, are not intuitive
truths; they are not truths which any exaltation of the religious
consciousness would enable any man to discover of himself.
4. According to this theory the Bible has no normal
authority as a rule of faith. It contains no doctrines revealed by God, and to
be received as true on his testimony. It contains only the thoughts of holy
men; the forms in which their understandings, without supernatural aid,
clothed the "intuitions" due to their religious feelings. "The Bible," says
Morell,26
"cannot in strict accuracy of language be termed a revelation, since a
revelation always implies an actual process of intelligence in a living mind;
but it contains the records in which those minds who enjoyed the preliminamy
training or the first brighter revelatior of Christianity, have described the
scenes which awakened their own religious nature to new life, and the high
ideas and aspirations to which that new life gave origin." The Old Testament
is the product of "the religious consciousness of men who lived under a rude
state of culture; and is of no authority for us. The New Testament is the
product of "the religious consciousness of men who had experienced the
sanctifying influence of Christ's presence amnong them. But those men were
Jews, they had Jewish modes of thinking. They were familiar with the services
of the old dispensation, were accustomed to think of God as approachable only
tlnrough a priesthood; as demanding expiation for sin, and regeneration of
heart; and promising certain rewards and forms of blessedness in a future
state of existence. It was natural for them, therefore, to clothe their
"intuitions" in these Jewish modes of thought. We,
in this nineteenth century, may clothe ours in very different forms, i.e.,
in very different doctrines, and yet "the eternal verities" be the same.
Different men carry this theory to very different
lengths. Some have such an inward experience that they can find no form for
expressing what they feel, so suitable as that given in the Bible, and
therefore they believe all its great doctrines. But the ground of their faith
is purely subjective. It is not the testimony of God given in his Word, but
their own experience. They take what suits that, and reject the rest. Others
with less Christian experience, or with no experience distinctively Christian,
reject all the distinctive doctrines of Christianity, and adopt a form of
religious philosophy which they are willing to call Christianity.
5. That this theory is antiscriptural has already been
said. The Bible makes revelation as therein contained to be the communication
of doctrines to the understanding by the Spirit of God. It makes those truths
or doctrines the immediate source of all right feeling. The feelings come from
spiritual apprehension of the truth, and not the knowledge of truth from the
feeling. Knowledge is necessary to all conscious holy exercises. Hence the
Bible makes truth of the greatest importance. It pronounces those blessed who
receive the doctrines which it teaches, and those accursed who reject them. It
makes the salvation of men to depend upon their faith. This theory makes the
creed of a man or of a people of comparatively little consequence.
In the Church, therefore, Christianity has always been
regarded as a system of doctrine. Those who believe these doctrines are
Christians; those who reject them, are, in the judgment of the Church,
infidels or heretics. If our faith be formal or speculative, so is our
Christianity; if it be spiritual and living, so is our religion. But no
mistake can be greater than to divorce religion from truth, and make
Christianity a spirit or life distinct from the doctrines which the Scriptures
present as the objects of faith.
B. Gracious Inspiration.
This theory belongs to the category of natural or
supernatural, according to the meaning assigned to those terms. By natural
effects are commonly understood those brought about by natural causes under
the providential control of God. Then the effects produced by the gracious
operations of the Spirit, such as repentance, faith, love, and all other
fruits of the Spirit, are supernatural. And consequently the theory which
refers inspiration to the gracious influence of the Spirit, belongs to the
class of the supernatural. But this word is often used in a more limited
sense, to designate events which are produced by the immediate agency or
volition of God without the intervention of any second cause. In this limited
sense, creation, miracles, immediate revelation, regeneration (in the limited
sense of that word), are supernatural. As the sanctification of men is carried
on by the Spirit by the use of the means of grace, it is not a supernatural
work, in the restricted sense of the term.
There are many theologians who do not adopt either of
the philosophical theories of the nature of man and of his relation to God,
above mentioned; and who receive the Scriptural doctrine as held by the Church
universal, that the Holy Spirit renews, sanctifies, illuminates, guides, and
teaches all the people of God; and yet who regard inspiration to be one of the
ordinary fruits of the Spirit. Inspired and uninspired men are not
distinguished by any specific difference. The sacred writers were merely holy
men under the guidance of the ordinary influence of the Spirit. Some of those
who adopt this theory extend it to revelation as well as to inspiration.
Others admit a strictly supernatural revelation, but deny that the sacred
writers in communicating the truths revealed were under any influence not
uncommon to ordinary believers. And as to those parts of the Bible (as the
Hagiographa and Gospels), which contain no special revelations, they are to be
regarded as the devotional writings or historical narratives of devout but
fallible men. Thus Coleridge, who refers inspiration to that "grace and
communion with the Spirit which the Church, under all circumstances, and every
regenerate member of the Church, in permitted to hope and instructed to pray
for;" makes an exception in favour of "the law and the prophets, no jot or
tittle of which can pass unfulfilled."27
The remainder of the Bible, he holds, was written under the impulse and
guidance of the gracious influence of the Spirit given to all Christian men.
And his friends and followers, Dr. Arnold, Archdeacon Hare, and specially
Maurice, ignore this distinction and refer the whole Bible "to an inspiration
the same as what every believer enjoys."28Thus
Maurice says,29
"We must forego the demand which we make on the conscience of young men, when
we compel them to declare that they regard the inspiration of the Bible as
generically unlike that which God bestows on His children in this day."
Objections to the Doctrine that
Inspiration is common to all Believers.
That this theory is anti-scriptural is obvious. 1.
Because the Bible makes a marked distinction between those whom God chose to
be his messengers, his prophets, his spokesmen, and other men. This theory
ignores that distinction, so far as the people of God is concerned.
2. It is inconsistent with the authority claimed by
these special messengers of God. They spoke in his name. God spoke through
them. They said, "Thus saith the Lord," in a sense and way in which no
ordinary believer dare use those words. It is inconsistent with the authority
not only claimed by the sacred writers, but attributed to them by our Lord
himself. He declared that the Scripture could not be broken, that it was
infallible in all its teachings. The Apostles declare those anathema who did
not receive their doctrines. This claim to divine authority in teaching was
confirmed by God himself in signs, and wonders, and divers miracles, and gifts
of the Holy Ghost.
3. It is inconsistent with the whole nature of the
Bible, which is and professes to be a revelation of truths not only
undiscoverable by human reason, but which no amount of holiness could enable
the mind of man to perceive. This is true not only of the strictly prophetic
revelations relating to the future, but also of all things, concerning the
mind and will of God. The doctrines of the Bible are called
musth,ria, things concealed, unknown and
unknowable, except as revealed to the holy Apostles and prophets by the
Spirit. (Eph. iii. 5.)
4. It is inconsistent with the faith of the Church
universal, which has always made the broadest distinction between the writings
of the inspired men and those of ordinary believers. Even Romanists, with all
their reverence for the fathers, never presumed to place their writings on a
level with the Scriptures. They do not attribute to them any authority but as
witnesses of what the Apostles taught. If the Bible has no more authority than
is due to the writings of pious men, then our faith is vain and we are yet in
our sins. We have no sure foundation for our hopes of salvation.
C. Partial Inspiration.
Under this head are included several different
doctrines.
1. Many hold that only some parts of Scripture are
inspired, i. e., that the writers of some books were supernaturally
guided by the Spirit, and the writers of others were not. This, as mentioned
above, was the doctrine of Coleridge, who admitted the inspiration of the Law
and the Prophets, but denied that of the rest of the Bible. Others admit the
New Testament to be inspired to an extent to which the Old was not. Others
again hold the discourses of Christ to be infallible, but no other part of the
sacred volume.
2. Others limit the inspiration of the sacred writers
to their doctrinal teaching. The great object of their commission was to give
a faithful record of the revealed will and purpose of God, to be a rule of
faith and practice to the Church. In this they were under an influence which
rendered them infallible as religious and moral teachers. But beyond these
limits they were as liable to error as other men. That there should be
scientific, historical, geographical mistakes; errors in the citation of
passages, or in other unessential matters; or discrepancies as to matters of
fact between the sacred writers, leaves their inspiration as religious
teachers untouched.
3. Another form of the doctrine of partial, as opposed
to plenary insprration, limits it to the thoughts, as distinguished from the
words of Scripture. Verbal inspiration is denied. It is assumed that the
sacred writers selected the words they used without any guidance of the
Spirit, to prevent their adopting improper or inadequate terms in which to
express their thoughts.
4. A fourth form of the doctrine of partial inspiration
was early introduced and has been widely adopted. Maimonides, the greatest of
the Jewish doctors since the time of Christ, taught as early as the twelfth
century that the sacred writers of the Old Testament enjoyed different degrees
of divine guidance. He placed the inspiration of the Law much above that of
the Prophets; and that of the Prophets higher than that of the Hagiographa.
His idea of different degrees of inspiration was adopted by many theologians,
and in England for a long time it was the common mode of representation. The
idea was that the writers of Kings and Chronnicles needed less, and that they
received less of the divine assistance than Isaiah or St. John.30
In attempting to prove the doctrine of plenary
inspiration the arguments which bear against all these forms of partial
inspiration were given or suggested. The question is not an open one. It is
not what theory is in itself most reasonable or plausible, but simply, What
does the Bible teach on the subject? If our Lord and his Apostles declare the
Old Testament to be the Word of God; that its authors spake as they were moved
by the Holy Ghost; that what they said, the Spirit said; if they refer to the
facts and to the very words of Scripture as of divine authority; and if the
same infallible divine guidance was promised to the writers of the New
Testament, and claimed by themselves; and if their claim was authenticated by
God himself: then there is no room for, as there is no need of, these theories
of partial inspiration. The whole Bible was written under such an influence as
preserved its human authors from all error, and makes it for the Church the
infallible rule of faith and practice.
§
4. The Completeness of the Scriptures.
By the completeness of the Scriptures is meant that
they contain all the extant revelations of God designed to be a rule of faith
and practice to the Church. It is not denied that God reveals himself, even
his eternal power and Godhead, by his works, and has done so from the
beginning of the world. But all the truths thus revealed are clearly made
known in his written Word. Nor is it denied that there may have been, and
probably were, books written by inspired men, which are no longer in
existence. Much less is it denied that Christ and his Apostles delivered many
discourses which were not recorded, and which, could they now be known and
authenticated, would be of equal authority with the books now regarded as
canonical. All that Protestants insist upon is, that the Bible contains all
the extant revelations of God, which He designed to be the rule of faith and
practice for his Church; so that nothing can rightfully be imposed on the
consciences of men as truth or duty which is not taught directly or by
necessary implication in the Holy Scriptures. This excludes all unwritten
traditions, not only, but also all decrees of the visible Church; all
resolutions of conventions, or other public bodies, declaring this or that to
be right or wrong, true or false. The people of God are bound by nothing but
the Word of God. On this subject little need be said. The completeness of
Scripture, as a rule of faith, is a corollary of the Protestant doctrine
concerning tradition. If that be true, the former must also be true. This
Romanists do not deny. They make the Rule of Faith to consist of the written
and unwritten word of God, i.e., of Scripture and tradition. If it be
proved that tradition is untrustworthy, human, and fallible, then the
Scriptures by common consent stand alone in their authority. As the authority
of tradition has already been discussed, further discussion of the
completeness of the Scriptures becomes unnecessary.
It is well, however, to bear in mind the importance of
this doctrine. It is not by Romanists only that it is denied, practically at
least, if not theoretically. Nothing is more common among Protestants,
especially in our day, than the attempt to coerce the conscience of men by
public opinion; to make the opinions of men on questions of morals a rule of
duty for the people, and even for the Church. If we would stand fast in the
liberty wherewith Christ has made us free, we must adhere to the principle
that in matters of religion and morals the Scriptures alone have authority to
bind the conscience.
§ 5. Perspicuity of
the Scriptures. The Right of Private Judgment.
The Bible is a plain book. It is intelligible by the
people. And they have the right, and are bound to read and interpret it for
themselves; so that their faith may rest on the testimony of the Scriptures,
and not on that of the Church. Such is the doctrine of Protestants on this
subject.
It is not denied that the Scriptures contain many
things hard to be understood; that they require diligent study; that all men
need the guidance of the Holy Spirit in order to right knowledge and true
faith. But it is maintained that in all things necessary to salvation they are
sufficiently plain to be understood even by the unlearned.
It is not denied that the people, learned and
unlearned, in order to the proper understanding of the Scriptures, should not
only compare Scripture with Scripture, and avail themselves of all the means
in their power to aid them in their search after the truth, but they should
also pay the greatest deference to the faith of the Church. If the Scriptures
be a plain book, and the Spirit performs the functions of a teacher to all the
children of God, it follows inevitably that they must agree in all essential
matters in their interpretation of the Bible. And from that fact it follows
that for an individual Christian to dissent from the faith of the universal
Church (i. e., the body of true believers), is tantamount to dissenting
from the Scriptures themselves.
What Protestants deny on this subject is, that Christ
has appointed any officer, or class of officers, in his Church to whose
interpretation of the Scriptures the people are bound to submit as of final
authority. What they affirmn is that He has made it obligatory upon every man
to search the Scriptures for himself, and determine on his own discretion what
they require him to believe and to do.
The arguments in support of the former of these
positions have already been presented in the discussion concerning the
infallibility of the Church. The most obvious reasons in support of the right
of private judgment are, --
1. That the obligations to faith and obedience are
personal. Every man is responsible for his religious faith and his moral
conduct. He cannot transfer that responsibility to others; nor can others
assume it in his stead. He must answer for himself; and if he must answer for
himself, he must judge for himself. It will not avail him in the day of
judgment to say that his parents or his Church taught him wrong. He should
have listened to God, and obeyed Him rather than men.
2. The Scriptures are everywhere addressed to the
people, and not to the officers of the Church either exclusively, or
specially. The prophets were sent to the people, and constantly said, "Hear, O
Israel," "Hearken, O ye people." Thus, also, the discourses of Christ were
addressed to the people, and the people heard him gladly. All the Epistles of
the New Testament are addressed to the congregation, to the "called of Jesus
Christ;" "to the beloved of God;" to those "called to be saints;" "to the
sanctified in Christ Jesus;" "to all who call on the name of Jesus Christ our
Lord;" "to the saints which are in (Ephesus), and to the faithful in Jesus
Christ;" or "to the saints and faithful brethren which are in (Colosse);" and
so in every instance. It is the people who are addressed. To them are directed
these profound discussions of Christian doctrine, and these comprehensive
expositions of Christian duty. They are everywhere assumed to be competent to
understand what is written, and are everywhere required to believe and obey
what thus came from the inspired messengers of Christ. They were not referred
to any other authority from which they were to learn the true import of these
inspired instructions. It is, therefore, not only to deprive the people of a
divine right, to forbid the people to read and interpret the Scriptures for
themselves; but it is also to interpose between them and God, and to prevent
their hearing his voice, that they may listen to the words of men.
The People commanded to search
the Scriptures.
3. The Scriptures are not only addressed to the people,
but the people were called upon to study them, and to teach them unto their
children. It was one of the most frequently recurring injunctions to parents
under the old dispensation, to teach the Law unto their children, that they
again might teach it unto theirs. The "holy oracles" were committed to the
people, to be taught by the people; and taught immediately out of the
Scriptures, that the truth might be retained in its purity. Thus our Lord
commanded the people to search the Scriptures, saying, "They are they which
testify of me." (John v. 39.) He assumed that they were able to understand
what the Old Testament said of the Messiah, although its teachings had been
misunderstood by the scribes and elders, and by the whole Sanhedrim. Paul
rejoiced that Timothy had from his youth known the Holy Scriptures, which were
able to make him wise unto salvation. He said to the Galatians (i. 8, 9),
"Though we, or an angel from heaven, -- if any man preach any other
gospel unto you than that ye have received, let him be accursed." This implies
two things, -- first, that the Galatian Christians, the people, had a right to
sit in judgment on the teaching of an Apostle, or of an angel from heaven; and
secondly, that they had an infallible rule by which that judgment was to be
determined, namely, a previous authenticated revelation of God. If, then, the
Bible recognizes the right of the people to judge of the teaching of Apostles
and angels, they are not to be denied the right of judging of the doctrines of
bishops and priests. The principle laid down by the Apostle is precisely that
long before given by Moses (Deut. xiii. 1-3), who tells the people that if a
prophet should arise, although he worked wonders, they were not to believe or
obey him, if he taught them anything contrary to the Word of God. This again
assumes right to judge, and that the people had the ability and the right to
judge, and that they had an infallible rule of judgment. It implies, moreover,
that their salvation depended upon their judging rightly. For if they allowed
these false teachers, robed in sacred vestments, and surrounded by the
insignia of authority, to lead them from the truth, they would inevitably
perish.
4. It need hardly be remarked that this right of
private judgment is the great safeguard of civil and religious liberty. If the
Bible be admitted to be the infallible rule of faith and practice in
accordance with which men are bound on the peril of their souls, to frame
their creed and conduct; and if there be a set of men who have the exclusive
right of interpreting the Scripture, and who are authorized to impose their
interpretations on the people as of divine authority, then they may impose on
them what conditions of salvation they see fit. And the men who have the
salvation of the people in their hands are their absolute masters. Both reason
and experience fully sustain the dictum of Chillingworth,31
when he says, "He that would usurp an absolute lordship and tyranny over any
people, need not put himself to the trouble and difficulty of abrogating and
disannulling the laws, made to maintain the common liberty; for he may
frustrate their intent, and compass his own design as well, if he can get the
power and authority to interpret them as he pleases, and add to them what he
pleases, and to have his interpretations and additions stand for laws; if he
can rule his by his lawyers." This is precisely what the Church of Rome has
done, and thereby established a tyranny for which there is no parallel in the
history of the world. What renders this tyranny the more intolerable, is,
that, so far as the mass of the people is concerned, it resolves itself into
the authority of the parish priest. He is the arbiter of the faith and morals
of his people. No man can believe unless the ground of faith is present to his
mind. If the people are to believe that the Scriptures teach certain
doctrines, then they must have the evidence that such doctrines are really
taught in the Bible. If that evidence be that the Church so interprets the
sacred writings, then the people must know what is the Church, i. e.,
which of the bodies claiming to be the Church, is entitled to be so regarded.
How are the people, the uneducated masses, to determine that question? The
priest tells them. If they receive his testimony on that point, then how can
they tell how the Church interprets the Scriptures? Here again they must take
the word of the priest. Thus the authority of the Church as an interpreter,
which appears so imposing, resolves itself into the testimony of the priest,
who is often wicked, and still oftener ignorant. This cannot be the foundation
of the faith of God's elect. That foundation is the testimony of God himself
speaking his word, and authenticated as divine by the testimony of the Spirit
with and by the truth in the heart of thc believer.
§ 6. Rules of
interpretation.
If every man has the right, and is bound to read the
Scriptures, and to judge for himself what they teach, he must have certain
rules to guide him in the exercise of this privilege and duty. These rules are
not arbitrary. They are not imposed by human authority. They have no binding
force which does not flow from their own intrinsic truth and propriety. They
are few and simple.
1. The words of Scripture are to be taken in their
plain historical sense. That is, they must be taken in the sense attached to
them in the age and by the people to whom they were addressed. This only
assumes that the sacred writers were honest, and meant to be understood.
2. If the Scriptures be what they claim to be, the word
of God, they are the work of one mind, and that mind divine. From this it
follows that Scripture cannot contradict Scripture. God cannot teach in one
place anything which is inconsistent with what He teaches in another. Hence
Scripture must explain Scripture. If a passage admits of different
interpretations, that only can be the true one which agrees with what the
Bible teaches elsewhere on the same subject. If the Scriptures teach that the
Son is the same in substance and equal in power and glory with the Father,
then when the Son says, "The Father is greater than I," the superiority must
be understood in a manner consistent with this equality. It must refer either
to subordination as to the mode of subsistence and operation, or it must be
official. A king's son may say, "My father is greater than I," although
personally his father's equal. This rule of interpretation is sometimes called
the analogy of Scripture, and sometimes the analogy of faith. There is no
material difference in the meaning of the two expressions.
3. The Scriptures are to be interpreted under the
guidance of the Holy Spirit, which guidance is to be humbly and earnestly
sought. The ground of this rule is twofold: First, the Spirit is promised as a
guide and teacher. He was to come to lead the people of God into the knowledge
of the truth. And secondly, the Scriptures teach, that "the natural man
receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto
him; neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned." (1
Cor. ii. 14.) The unrenewed mind is naturally blind to spiritual truth. His
heart is in opposition to the things of God. Congeniality of mind is necessary
to the proper apprehension of divine things. As only those who have a moral
nature can discern moral truth, so those only who are spiritually minded can
truly receive the things of the Spirit.
The fact that all the true people of God in every age
and in every part of the Church, in the exercise of their private judgment, in
accordance with the simple rules above stated, agree as to the meaning of
Scripture in all things necessary either in faith or practice, is a decisive
proof of the perspicuity of the Bible, and of the safety of allowing the
people the enjoyment of the divine right of private judgment.
Endnotes
1. Part ii. 2, 15; Hase Lib. Sym. p. 308.
2. Page 570, Ibid.
3. C. i. p. 467, Ibid.
4. C. ii. p. 479, Ibid.
5. Art. v. p. 330, Ibid.
6. Art. 6
7. Ch. i. § 2.
8. Ibid. § 6.
9. Ibid. § 7.
10. Theologia, I. IV. ii. qu. iii. e;cqesij,
3; edit. Wittenberg, 1685, pp. 68, a.
11. "Votum pro Pace Ecclesiastica." Opera, Londini, 1679, t. iii. p.
672.
12. Antiquities, iv. 6, 5.
13. Contra Eunomium Orat. vi. t. ii. p. 187, Paris, 1615.
14. Opera, t. iv. p. 116, ed. Pfeiff.
15. "Confessions of an Inquiring Spirit," Works, Harpers, N.Y., 1853,
vol. v. p. 612.
16. Studien und Kritiken, 1845, p. 59.
17. Studien und Kiriken, January 1845; translated in The Mystical
Presence, by Dr. J.W. Nevin.
18. The English reader may find this theory set forth, in Morell's
Philosophy of Religion, in Archdeacon Wilberforce's work on the
Incarnation; in Maurice's Theological Essays; in the Mystical
Presence, by Dr. John W. Nevin, and in the pages of the Mercersburg
Quarterly Review, a journal specially devoted to the defense of
Schleiermacher's doctrines and of those of the same general character.
19. Philosophy of Religion, p. 77.
20. Philosophy of Religion, p. 104.
21. Page 141.
22. Page 151.
23. Philosophy of Religion, page 184.
24. Page 186.
25. Dogmatik, vol. i. p. 2. "Das Verhaltniss des Erkennen zur
Religion." Hase's Dogmatik. "Jede Religion als Ergebniss einer
Volksbildung ist angemesen oder subj. wahr; wahr an sich ist die, welche der
vollendeten Ausbildung der Menschheit entspricht." See also his Hutterus
Redivivus.
26. Philosophy of Religion, ch,. 8, p. 143, London, ed. 1849.
27. "Confessions of an Inquiring Spirit," Letter 7. Works, N.Y., 1853,
vol. v. p. 619.
28. See Bannerman, Inspiration of the Scriptures. Edinburg, 1865; pp.
145, 232.
29. Theological Essays, p. 339, Cambridge, 1853.
30. This view of different degrees of inspiration was adopted by Lowth:
Vindication of the Divine Authority and Inspiration of the Old and New
Testaments. Whitby, in the Preface to his Commentary. Doddridge,
Dissertation on the Inspiration of the New Testament. Hill, Lectures on
Divinity. Dick, Essays on the Inspiration of the Holy Scriptures.
Wilson, Evidences of Christianity. Henderson, Divine Inspiration.
31. Works, p. 105.
