« PreviousContinue »
a prophet, or spiritual, let him acknowledge that the things that I write unto you are the commandments of the Lord.” _" For I delivered unto you first of all that which I also received, how that Christ died for our sins.”—“I will come to visions and revelations of the Lord.”_"For do I now persuade men or God ?"_" The gospel, I neither received it of man, neither was I taught it, but by the revelation of Jesus Christ.”—“For ye know what commandments we gave by the Lord Jesus.”—“ He therefore that despiseth, despiseth not man, but God, who hath also given unto us his Holy Spirit.”— “We are of God: he that knoweth God, heareth us.”—“I have written briefly, exhorting and testifying that this is the true grace of God wherein ye stand.”
_“I was in the Spirit on the Lord's day, and heard behind me a great voice, as of a trumpet, saying, I am Alpha and Omega, the first and the last; and what thou seest, write in a book.” While St. Peter attests the inspiration of St. Paul in
particular : “ Even as our beloved brother Paul also according to the wisdom given unto him hath written unto you; as also in all his epistles.”
The latter apostle has, indeed, been supposed, in 1 Cor. vii, 10_-12, to deny his inspiration. And were it so, still the exception would prove the rule. But “it does not appear that St. Paul, in these passages, contends either for or against inspiration, 1 Cor. vii. 10, 11 ; he delivers certain doctrines, which had been taught by Christ, and are recorded Matt. v. 32; xix. 9; Luke xvi. 18. Here, then, he had the commandment of the Lord. But in the 12th verse he gives a precept which had not been delivered by Christ, or at least is nowhere on record : in this case then, having no commandment of the Lord, he says éyw déyw, o'x • Kúpios. The distinction, therefore, made by St. Paul, is not between inspiration and noninspiration, but between those commandments which had been actually given, and those which had not been given Christ ;'an interpretation which accords with the apostle's prefatory remarks, ver. 6. I speak this by permission, and not of commandment.” This “permission" must refer to the persons whom he addressed; for clearly he could not be permitted to write anything contrary to the mind of the Lord.
6 Rom. xv. 15. 1 Cor. ii. 10—16; xi. 23; xiv. 37 ; xv. 3. 2 Cor. xii. 1. Gal. i. 10 -12. 1 Thess, iv.2-8. 1
John iv. 6. 1 Pet. v. 12. Rev. i. 10, 11. 2 Pet. iii. 15, 16.
It seems therefore, beforehand, highly probable that the Scriptures, professing to be inspired, should themselves throw some light on the nature of that influence by which they were composed : since, besides guiding our faith, and facilitating our inquiries, it would, at the same time, supply us with a test by which the claims of the respective writers may be tried, a point of no small moment in a question of so much importance as the inspiration of the Scriptures.
? Bp. Marsh's Notes to Michaelis' Introd. N. T. vol. 1, Part 2. 385,
Nor are we disappointed in our expectations. For, connecting the words of St. Peter with the promise of our Lord, inspiration may be defined,—that influence of the Spirit which “moved” the writers to compose, “guided” them in the selection of proper materials, “ brought to their remembrance” past occurrences, or “revealed” to them truths otherwise incapable of being known.
Should it, however, be objected that our Lord refers to that assistance which should be received in composing the New Testament, and which cannot, therefore, be retrospective upon the Old; it may suffice to remark, that an induction of particulars will establish a closer analogy between the manner in which both Testaments was composed, than may at first sight have occurred to the reader.
The Bible is perfectly unique. There is such an air of originality in its manner, in its sentiments, in its precepts, and in its motives; it is accompanied with such
2 Pet. i. 21. John xiv. 26 ; xvi. 13.
a depth of knowledge, and a sublimity of thought, such a boldness and elegance of imagery, such a perfect harmony of design, and is so adapted to the present and future states of man, as naturally leads an impartial reader to inquire with intense anxiety — “Whence hath these writers this wisdom ?” Why are they unlike all other writers ? No rational answer can be given to these questions which does not, at least, involve their inspiration.
If “ Moses was learned in all the wisdom of Egypt;"—if Isaiah and Solomon were educated at court; if Daniel was “skilful in all wisdom, and cunning in knowledge, and understanding science, and was taught the learning and the tongue of the Chaldeans ;"—if St. Luke was a physician, and St. Paul was “brought up at the feet of Gamaliel ”the “ keeper of sheep at Bethlehem," the “ herdsman of Tekoa,” and the fishermen of Galilee must not be excluded from their share in its composition. Nor, even though it could be shown that all