:^ |^&££ti.^^l^)> 
 
 ua.fe.iL*.a8B Hbaw riB«jt>i 
 
 
 
 Wr^'fP;^f^^''J? 
 
 una 
 
 •},uii 
 
 mm 
 
 il 
 
 ■ft 
 
 I Kith?- 
 
 wim 
 
THE 
 
 NATUEE AND EXTENT 
 
 DIVINE INSPIRATION, 
 
 AS STATED BY THE WRITERS, 
 
 DEDUCED FROM THE FACTS, 
 
 OF THE NEW TESTAMENT. 
 
 THE REY. C. A. HOW, M.A., 
 
 OF PEMBBOKE COLLEGE, OXFOED, AND LATE HEAD MASTBE OF THE 
 EOYAL QEAMMAE SCHOOL, MANSFIELD. 
 
 LONDON: 
 
 LONGMAN. GREEN, LONGMAN, ROBERTS, AND GREEN. 
 
 1864. 
 
PREFACE. 
 
 Why should revelation and science be such sworn enemies ? 
 Why should the battle-field be gradually widening, and the 
 strife growing more deadly ? Why ? Because men of science 
 have pursued a different course, with respect to their inves- 
 tigations in nature, from that followed by the divine in his 
 searching the Scriptures for the purpose of examining into 
 the nature of Divine inspiration. 
 
 The geologist has taken spade and hammer in hand, and 
 investigated for himself; he has raked the bowels of the 
 earth, uncovered the hid treasure, and left it to tell its own 
 story. The astronomer has directed his telescope, with 
 untiring perseverance, to the heavenly bodies, and allowed 
 them, in their own inimitable way, to declare the glory of 
 God. But the divine studies his Bible differently : he has 
 preconceived ideas of what a revelation ought to contain, and, 
 in his zeal for the preservation of his view of Divine truth, 
 he has at one time condemned, and at another persecuted, 
 those who have propounded truths deduced from science, 
 because they stood out in contradiction to his views of 
 Divine revelation ; and when at last the voice of science has 
 become irresistible, he has endeavoured to twist the Scrip- 
 tures to make them accord with her latest discoveries. 
 Hence the tendencies of many thoughtful and learned men 
 of the present day. Hence the destructive theories which 
 
VI PREFACE. 
 
 arc ever and anon propounded, tending to unsettle the minds 
 of thousands, and shaking their faith in the reaUty of a 
 Divine revelation, while they offer nothing in return but a 
 cold and ban-en rationalism. 
 
 The writer of the following pages has attempted to study 
 the Christian Scriptures as the naturalist studies God's 
 natural laws. He has taken the New Testament, and exa- 
 mined its contents, to see what evidence it would afford 
 respecting the nature of its own inspiration. He has dug 
 for the hid treasure, with no preconceived opinions. He has 
 discussed the a priori question for the purpose of ascertain- 
 ing the solidity of the foundation of existing theories, and of 
 inquiring into the extent of our knowledge of the mode in 
 which a revelation of the Infinite would be communicated to 
 the finite ; and the facts of the case, as presented by the 
 Christian Scriptures, have fully borne out the conclusions at 
 which he has arrived. 
 
 He has found in the person of the Redeemer the highest 
 conceivable form of inspiration — the highest and most glorious 
 manifestation of Deity to the finite mind. Revelation has 
 been made in Him, and not merely by Him. Redemption 
 has been purchased through Him. 
 
 He has summoned the Apostles as witnesses, carefully 
 weighed their testimony ; and has inevitably arrived at the 
 conclusion that, while they testified as men to the facts 
 which they had seen and heard, they possessed an unction 
 from above, not according to the development-theory, which 
 attributes inspiration to every one who surpasses his fel- 
 lowmen in genius, acquirements, or profundity of thought, 
 but supernatural enlightenment of such a kind, and to 
 such an extent, as to leave no doubt that their inspiration 
 was objectively imparted, and was a thing wholly distinct 
 from any subjective endowment of the mental capacity; 
 
PREFACE. Vn 
 
 that their inspiration was imparted through the agency of 
 supernatural gifts, which, though neither destroying their 
 individual personality nor controlling their language, nor 
 bestowing infallibility on their conduct, afforded them an 
 assistance proportionate to their need, and led them into " all 
 the truth,^' and so fulfilled our Saviour's promise (which was 
 never intended to extend to every truth, but to " the truth " 
 — the particular truths of the Christian revelation); that 
 these gifts, varying in their operations, and in their degrees, 
 from human to superhuman and miraculous agency, were 
 possessed in their fulness by Apostles, and that they 
 were imparted in inferior measures to the early infant 
 Church, one person possessing one gift, and another another ; 
 and that the possession of an inferior gift often led tliese 
 early Christians to suppose that they were equally inspired 
 with the Apostles, and hence the sectarian spirit which 
 prevailed, and the daring defiance of even apostolical 
 authority. 
 
 But inspiration was not confined to the act of recording 
 the things written : the silences of the Scriptures are in- 
 spired. No uninspired writer could have refrained from 
 detailing certain things respecting which the silence of the 
 New Testament is absolutely unbroken. 
 
 He has found that our Lord appointed the Apostles to 
 be witnesses of the great facts of His ministry. His death, 
 and His resurrection. He has examined the Gospels, and 
 found that they are the embodiments of the results of this 
 apostolic testimony. 
 
 He has examined the Epistles, and found that they con- 
 tain the results of that inspiration which communicated to 
 the Apostles all the deep truths of their Master's kingdom. 
 But while he has found in them the fulfilment of the pro- 
 mise to lead them by supernatural guidance into all the 
 
VIU PREFACE. 
 
 truth of the gospel, he has discovered evidence no less 
 direct that the individuality of the writers was neither 
 superseded nor overwhelmed by the presence of inspiration. 
 
 The author has viewed with pain the steady march of the 
 spirit of unbelief, veiled under the specious pretext of honour- 
 ing Christianity as the highest among the developments of 
 man. He has felt that this honouring of the Redeemer as 
 the highest of human teachers, while He claims to be a 
 teacher come from God, is to mock Him by arraying Him 
 in the robes of spurious royalty. He has therefore asked 
 the Evangelists, " How did you originate your conception of 
 that glorious Christ ? How did you conceive that picture 
 of the perfect man, dying in agony and degradation, and 
 succeed in enthroning Him in royal dignity on the throne 
 of God? Is it true that you, fishermen of Galilee, created 
 the first conception, and that others, with plastic hand, by 
 the aid of myths and human developments, have elaborated 
 the great ideal?" He has asked all the systems of thought 
 or feeling possessed by the ancient world to labour with 
 united eflbrt, and assert their claims to be the progenitors 
 of a Christ. All have, with unanimous voice, declined the 
 proffered honour. All are ready to produce what is of earth, 
 earthly : all confess their inability to give birth to the Lord 
 from heaven. 
 
 Such is the work which the writer now introduces to the 
 public. If it should become the means of freeing the mind 
 of the thoughtful student of the Scriptures from those diffi- 
 culties with which the theories of men have encircled them, 
 his highest wishes will have been gratified ; for he is fully 
 convinced that, if the Christian Scriptures be stripped of aU 
 those strange things with which zealous but mistaken men 
 have shrouded them, if they be allowed to have free 
 course, they will most certainly be glorified. 
 
CONTENTS. 
 
 CHAPTEE I. 
 
 Introduction, 
 
 The importance of the question re- 
 specting the nature of inspiration, 1. 
 
 The inductive method thecoi-rect mode 
 of prosecuting the inquiry, 2. 
 
 The natui'c and Hmits of the investi- 
 gation, 3. 
 
 Causes of the diversity of opinion as 
 to the nature of inspiration, 5. 
 
 Abstract reasonings incorrect guides 
 to facts, 6. 
 
 CHAPTER II. 
 
 The inadequacy of all human conceptions of the Infinite a hmi- 
 tation to the extent of truth which can be communicated in a 
 Revelation. 
 
 The distinction between the Infinite 
 and the finite, 7. 
 
 The conceptions in vrliich a revelation 
 is made cannot represent the Divme 
 reahties themselves, but are only 
 approximations to them, 8. 
 
 The distinction between the natural 
 and the moral attributes of the 
 Creator, 9. 
 
 The conceptions used in a revelation 
 must be imperfect human concep- 
 tions, 10 ; must convey relative, 
 not absolute, truth, 11 ; must be 
 analogical representations of truth, 
 12. 
 
 The nature of our conceptions of the 
 Divine attributes, 13. 
 
 CHAPTER III. 
 
 Different theories as to the Extent of Divine Inspii-ation. 
 
 The term " plenary inspiration " am- 
 biguous, 15. 
 
 Definition of " inspiration," 16. 
 
 Great mental endowments not inspi- 
 rations, 18. 
 
 Definition of "verbal inspiration," 20. 
 
 The consequences which flow from the 
 theory, 22 ; its modifications, 23. 
 
 The views of those who, whUe they 
 believe in the inspiration of the 
 Scripture, yet reject verbal inspira- 
 tion, stated, 25. 
 
 Inspiration is not a mere intensifi- 
 cation of the ordinary faculties, 29. 
 
 Distinction between inspiration and 
 sanctification, 31. 
 
CONTENTS. 
 
 CHAPTER IV. 
 
 The Possibility of a Divine Revelation, and the Mode adopted in its 
 
 communication. 
 
 The question of the Divine origin of 
 a revelation distinct from the mode 
 of its communication, 33. 
 
 Statement of objections to the po.«si- 
 bihty of a miraculous revelation, 34. 
 
 The hmits witliin which human ex- 
 perience and analogical reasonings 
 are bounded, 37. 
 
 Reasonings founded on the Divine 
 attributes veill not conduct us to the 
 facts of nature, 40. 
 
 Uniform action in conformity with 
 law and order stated to be the only 
 worthy conception of the mode of 
 the Creator's actmg, 42. 
 
 God not a mere mechanist or che- 
 mist, 43. 
 
 A perception of the Divine person- 
 ahty is the foundation of rehgion, 44. 
 
 The creation of the finite must have 
 
 been one great deviation from pre- 
 viously existing invariable law, 45. 
 
 The possibility of creative acts proves 
 the possibility of a miraculous re- 
 velation, 46. 
 
 Grod never works in nature by a 
 double instrumentahty, 49. 
 
 The expenditm-e of labovu* imposed by 
 God as the condition of the dis- 
 covery of truth, 51. 
 
 Similar analogies will be found in 
 revelation, 50, 52. 
 
 A moral i-evelation possible, 53 ; it 
 does not involve the use of a double 
 instrumentahty, 54. 
 
 The gospel discovers the motives 
 which render obedience to the moral 
 law possible, 56. 
 
 A revelation will receive the necessary 
 Divine attestation, 58. 
 
 CHAPTER V. 
 
 The Impossibility of arguing from the Divine Attributes to the Facts 
 of Nature invalidates all such arguments when applied to the 
 Facts of Revelation. 
 
 Abstract reasonings would lead us to 
 construct a universe wholly different 
 fi'om the actual universe of the 
 Creator, 59. 
 
 Such reasonings equally inconclusive 
 as to what He must do in commu- 
 nicating a revelation, 60. 
 
 We cannot reason to the facts of 
 natiu'e from oiu* conceptions of 
 Almighty power, 62 ; infinite wis- 
 dom, 62 ; perfect goochiess, 66. 
 
 Imperfections exist m the universe of 
 the Creator, all-powerful, wise, and 
 good, 63. 
 
 All attempts to explain the existence 
 of evU only remove the difficulty 
 one step backwards, 68. 
 
 God will manifest Himself as Re- 
 vealer, analogously to the mode in 
 which He has manifested Himself 
 as Creator, VO. 
 
 It is impossible to reason from the 
 Divine perfection as to the par- 
 ticular mode in which a revelation 
 must be communicated, 71. 
 
 The Divine Worker employs the most 
 unexpected agencies in effectuating 
 His purposes in creation and pro- 
 vidence, 73. 
 
 The waste in creation, 74. 
 
 In communicating a revelation, the 
 Creator cannot deny His moral 
 perfections, 75. 
 
 The hmits of our powers of reasonmg 
 on such subjects, 78. 
 
 No single Divine attribute an adequate 
 representation of the whole of the 
 Divine character, 79. 
 
 The above illustrated in the case of the 
 doctrine of the Atonement, 80. 
 
 Hiunan conceptions of benevolence 
 and justice not an adequate repre- 
 sentation of those attributes as they 
 exist in God, 81. 
 
 The assertion that the conceptions in 
 every revelation must be human 
 conceptions no hmitation to the 
 omnipotence of God, 83. 
 
 AH such conceptions must partake of 
 the nature of anthropomorphism, 86. 
 
CONTENTS. 
 
 XI 
 
 The Christian Scriptures written on 
 tlie assumption of this principle, 88. 
 
 The Christian revelation consists of 
 an objectiye fact, 89. 
 
 Spiritual truth taught in the Scriptures 
 through material imagery, 91. 
 
 General conclusions which follow from 
 the previous reasonings, 93. 
 
 CHAPTER VI. 
 
 The theory of Verbal Inspiration contrary to the mode of the Creator's 
 actius: in Creation and Providence. 
 
 The written and oral teaching of the 
 Apostles equally inspired, 96. 
 
 The tlieory of verbal inspiration cannot 
 be proved from, its being desnable 
 that it should have been so com- 
 municated, 98 ; nor because such 
 a mode of commvmication would 
 have precluded liabihty to mistake 
 its meaning, 99 ; (man has been 
 created to be a feUow-worker with 
 God, 101 ;) nor from considerations 
 of the Divine goodness, 104 ; nor 
 because the Scriptures must be in- 
 falhble guides to truth, 105. 
 
 Their claim to speak with authority 
 rests on their having received a 
 Divine attestation, 107. 
 
 Such an attestation must be mira- 
 culous. The nature of a miracle, 108. 
 
 The claims of a revelation attested by 
 miracles, 111. 
 
 Verbal inspiration cannot be proved 
 from reasonings founded on the 
 Divine perfections, 112 ; nor because 
 the Scripttu-es are called " God's 
 word," 113. 
 
 The varied nature of the contents of 
 the Christian Scriptures, 116. 
 
 The degree of inspiration proportioned 
 to the subject-matter, 117. 
 
 The liighest form of inspiration ex- 
 hibited in our Lord's person, 118. 
 
 The true nature of inspiration must 
 be learned from the facts and de- 
 clarations ofthe New Testament, 119. 
 
 CHAPTER VII. 
 
 The Incarnation is the great objective Manifestation of Deity to the 
 finite mind. The Person of Christ exhibits the highest form of 
 Inspiration. 
 
 The mode in which the Clu-istian 
 revelation differs from all previous 
 Divine communications, 123. 
 
 The perfections of God, as far as they 
 can be comprehended by the fhiite 
 mind, are manifested in the Incar- 
 nation, 125. 
 
 Deity in His essential nature invisible 
 to man, but manifested in Clu-ist, 
 126. 
 
 The representations of the synoptic 
 Gospels on this subject, 129. 
 
 The word of hfe the subject of apos- 
 tolic testunony, 130. 
 
 Christ the image of the invisible God, 
 131. 
 
 Unsearchable riches of Divine know- 
 ledge manifested in His person, 132. 
 
 The fulness of the Godhead mani- 
 fested in His human nature, 133. 
 
 God manifest in the flesh, 134. 
 
 The Cliristian revelation not a theory, 
 but a fact, 135. 
 
 The inspiration which was the result 
 of the indweUing of Deity in our 
 Lord's person, 137. 
 
 Our Lord's assertions respecting the 
 nature and extent of His own 
 knowledge, 138. 
 
 The views presented by the synoptic 
 Gospels, 139. 
 
Ml 
 
 CONTENTS. 
 
 CHAPTEK VIII. 
 
 The Nature of our Lord's Knowledge derived from the Inspiration of 
 the Spirit. Its two recorded limitations. 
 
 Our Lord's human nature created, and 
 
 thcreibre finite, 112. 
 The purpose for which it I'cceived the 
 
 fuhiess of inspiration from the 
 
 Spirit, 143. 
 The first limitation of His human 
 
 knowledge, as asserted by St. Luke, 
 
 144. 
 
 The second limitation, asserted by St. 
 Mark, 145. 
 
 The real nature of that limitation, 146. 
 
 St. Mark's words contradict no truth 
 of the Incarnation, 148. 
 
 Contrast between our Lord's inspi- 
 ration and that of the prophets and 
 apostles, 148. 
 
 CHAPTER IX. 
 
 The Nature of the Inspiration of the Apostles. The Apostles wit- 
 nesses. Our Lord's promises. The Sources of St. Paul's apostolic 
 Knowledge. 
 
 Belief in the gospel founded on a 
 human and a Divine testhuony, 150. 
 
 The Spu'it testified by the exertion of 
 miraculous power, 151. 
 
 The Apostles testified to facts of 
 which they had been actual wit- 
 nesses, 152. 
 
 No human testimony can exist with- 
 out an act of recollection, 153. 
 
 Tacts, as facts, do not admit of greater 
 or less degrees of truth, 155. 
 
 The difiiculty of correctly reporting 
 discourses, when not copied down 
 at the time when they were de- 
 livered, 156. 
 
 Ouv Lord's promises to the Apostles 
 of svipernatm-al assistance, 158 : — 
 
 1st, of supernatural aid to their me- 
 mories, to enable them to recollect 
 the discom'ses of our Lord, 161. 
 
 2nd, of the witness of the Spii'it to 
 corroborate their human testimony, 
 162. 
 
 3rd, of supernatural guidance into 
 the knowledge of the truths of the 
 Christian revelation, 163. 
 
 4th, to discover events yet future, 165. 
 
 5tli, promise of supernatural assist- 
 ance when called on to defend 
 themselves in courts of justice, 167. 
 
 Promises of inspiration not vague, 
 but definitely limited to the things 
 which are Christ's, 166. 
 
 The contrast between St. Paul and the 
 origmal Apostles, 168. 
 
 St. Paul's knowledge both of the 
 truths and of the facts of the gos- 
 pel not derived from human sources, 
 but fi'om inspkation, 169. 
 
 CHAPTER X. 
 
 The Spiritual Gifts — their character. 
 
 The statements of St. Paul respecting 
 the nature of the spiritual gifts, 
 172. 
 
 Theu" communication was the fulfil- 
 ment of our Lord's promise of 
 supernatural inspii-ation, 175. 
 
 The inspiration conferred by them not 
 confined to the Apostles, 177. 
 
 Nor were they imparted to all in 
 equal degrees, 179. 
 
 They were distinct spu'itual endow- 
 ments, 180. 
 
CONTENTS. 
 
 xni 
 
 CHAPTER XI. 
 
 The Spiritual Gifts the chief source of Apostolic Inspiration. 
 Nature of the Inspiration imparted by each gift. 
 
 The 
 
 The natm-e of the gift of tongues, and 
 the phenomena by which it was 
 accompanied, 181. 
 
 The pui'poses for which it was de- 
 signed, 184. 
 
 The gift of mterpretation, 186. 
 
 The gift of wisdom the gift preemi- 
 nently apostohc, 186. 
 
 The gift of prophecy the second 
 great spiritual endowment, 189 ; 
 its precise nature, 190. 
 
 The sphitual gift of knowledge, 191. 
 
 The two miraculous gifts — their dis- 
 tinction, 193. 
 
 The gift of discerning of spirits, 195. 
 
 The gift of faith, 196. 
 
 The sph'itual gifts, in their exercise, 
 were subject to the control of the 
 rational will, 198 j were permanent 
 mental endowments, 201. 
 
 The calmness with which their exer- 
 cise was attended, 202. 
 
 CHAPTER XII. 
 
 The Limits of the Inspiration conferred by the Supernatural Gifts. 
 
 They were limited to a definite sub- 
 ject-matter, 203. 
 
 The knowledge conveyed by tliem was 
 hmited witliin the fvmctions of the 
 respective gifts, 204. 
 
 The possession of a gift did not secure 
 its right use, 206. 
 
 The cause of resistance to apostohc 
 authority, 207. 
 
 Their possession did not convey a 
 general infaUibihty, 208. 
 
 The suj^ernatural direction which they 
 aiForded the Apostles m their mi- 
 nistry, 209. 
 
 Errors m conduct compatible with 
 msphation, 212. 
 
 St. Peter at Antioch, 113 ; his inspi- 
 ration did not liinder him from 
 compromising Christian truth by 
 his conduct, 215. 
 
 The quarrel between Paul and Bar- 
 nabas, 217. 
 
 St. Paul's last visit to Jerusalem — 
 the plan formed to obviate his dan- 
 ger, 220. 
 
 The conduct of all parties concerned 
 inconsistent with the consciousness 
 of possessing supernatural guidance 
 on this subject, 225. 
 
 The sph-itual gifts afforded no super- 
 natural guidance on questions of 
 chronology, 226. 
 
 The nature and extent of general pro- 
 mises, 228. 
 
 The difficulties of St. Stephen's speech, 
 230 ; their proposed solutions, 231. 
 
 General promises not to be construed 
 to the letter, 234. 
 
 CHAPTER XIII. 
 
 General Character of the Gospels, and the Nature of their Inspira- 
 tion : their Inspiration not Verbal. 
 
 The Gospels contain the results of the 
 highest form of inspiration in our 
 Lord's words and actions, 235. 
 
 If the facts of the Gospels are true, 
 they preserve the results of that 
 insphation, 236. 
 
 Tbe pecuhar phenomena presented by 
 the Gospels, 237. 
 
 Difficulties with which the theory of 
 
 verbal insphation is attended when 
 apphed to the Gospels, 238, whe- 
 ther we assume that the Evange- 
 lists wrote independently, 241, or 
 with the intention of supplementing 
 each other, 243. 
 The peculiar character of St. John's 
 Gospel, 244 ; its bearing on the 
 present question, 245. 
 
XIV 
 
 CONTENTS. 
 
 CHAPTER XIV. 
 
 Examination of Parallel Passages in the Gospels, with a view to 
 determine the Nature of the Inspiration by the aid of which they 
 were composed. 
 
 Compai'ison of the Evangelists' ac- 
 counts of the institution of the 
 Eucharist, 247. 
 
 The parable of the vineyard, 252. 
 
 The agony in the garden, 254. 
 
 The inscription on the cross, 257. 
 
 The miracle at Gradara, 259. 
 
 The miracle at Jericho, 263. 
 
 The events of the Passion, 265 ; and 
 of the Resurrection, 270. 
 
 The night of our Lord's last Passover, 
 270. 
 
 The death of Judas, 272. 
 
 The history of the centurion's ser- 
 vant, 273. 
 
 The cure of a woman with an issue of 
 blood, 274 ; of the demoniac child, 
 277 ; of the daughter of the Syro- 
 phenician woman, 280. 
 
 The cleansing of the Temple, aiid the 
 cursing of the barren fig-tree, 282. 
 
 St. Matthew's genealogy, 283. 
 
 CHAPTER XV. 
 
 The Silences of the Gospels proofs of their Inspiration. 
 
 The Gospels are selections from an 
 extensive mass of materials, 285. 
 
 The necessity that the Apostles should 
 have been guided in making this 
 selection, 286. 
 
 The character of the silences of the 
 Gospels, 287. 
 
 Their silence as to our Lord's perso- 
 nal appearance, 288. 
 
 The silence respecting the history of 
 our Lord's youth and early man- 
 hood, 290. 
 
 The silence respecting our Lord's 
 brethren, 291. 
 
 The silence respecting Lazarus's know- 
 ledge of the unseen world, 292. 
 
 The silence respecting the nature of 
 oiu* Lord's sufferings, 293. 
 
 Other silences of the Gospels, 294. 
 
 These silences can only be accounted 
 for on the supposition that the 
 Evangelists were supernaturally 
 hindered from breaking them, 295. 
 
 CHAPTER XVI. 
 
 The View which the Facts of the Gospel would suggest to a careful 
 reader, who had not previously perused them,^ respecting their 
 Origia and the Mode of their Inspiration. 
 
 The theory of their mythic origin, 298. 
 
 The Gospel miracles not mythic, 299. 
 
 Their mythic origin contradicted by 
 their general contents, 299. 
 
 Difficulties ui the way of beheving any 
 one of the Gospels contains the 
 mythic story of which the other 
 Gospels are later modifications, 301. 
 
 Difficulties in the way of considering 
 the common narrative, freed from 
 its miracles, as the original story, 
 302. 
 
 The Jesus of the Gospels no mythic 
 creation, 304. 
 
 The phenomena presented by the 
 discourses consistent with our 
 Lord's promise to assist the memo- 
 ries of the Apostles in recollecting 
 them, 306. 
 
 The phenomena presented by the 
 facts present all the variations of 
 human testunony, 309. 
 
 The results of the evidence as bearing 
 on the theory of verbal inspira- 
 tion, 311. 
 
 The character of St. Luke's Gospel, 
 and the soiirces from which it was 
 derived, 314. 
 
CONTENTS. 
 
 XV 
 
 CHAPTER XVII, 
 
 The gradual Enlightenment of the Apostles in the great Truths of 
 the Christian Revelation. 
 
 Our Lord's promise implies that the 
 enlightenment of the Apostles 
 would not be sudden, but gradual, 
 318. 
 
 The Apostles at first ignorant that the 
 gospel was to be preached to the 
 Gentiles, 320. 
 
 The importance of the truth of the 
 calhng of the Gentiles, 323. 
 
 The gradual development of tfiis truth 
 in the Apostles' minds, 326. 
 
 St. James's Epistle an exemplification 
 of the mode of teaching Christian 
 ti'uth in the Jewish Church, 331. 
 
 Their first enhghtenment qualified 
 the Apostles to preach the gospel 
 to the Jews only, 332. 
 
 CHAPTER XVIII. 
 
 Nature and Extent of fuU Apostolic Inspiration. 
 
 St. Paul's assertions respecting his own 
 inspiration considered in — 2 Cor., 
 xu. 2-4, 333; 1 Cor.,ii. 6-16, 335; 
 Eph., iii. 1-11, 339 ; Col., i. 25-28, 
 343 ; Titus, i. 1-3, 344; Pliil., hi. 
 8-10, 345 ; 1 Tliess., ii. 13, 347 ; 
 1 Cor., xiv. 37 ; 2 Cor., xi. 17, & 
 xiii. 2-3, 350; Gal., iv. 14, & 2 Tim., 
 iii. 14-17, 351. 
 
 The objective nature of the truth 
 communicated by inspiration, 336- 
 342. 
 
 Truths discovered by revelation do 
 not extend to the knowledge of 
 God revealed by the created uni- 
 verse, 341, 344. 
 
 The Apostle an ambassador, 350. 
 
 CHAPTER XIX. 
 
 The Human Element in Apostolic Inspiration. 
 
 The individuahty of the writers a 
 human element in the Epistles, 354. 
 
 The undeniable presence of that indi- 
 viduality in the Epistles of St. Paul, 
 355 ; St. John, 358 ; St. Peter, 359; 
 St. James, 361. 
 
 The distinction between the Divine 
 and human elements in the Epis- 
 tles, 362. 
 
 Examination of the Divine and 
 human elements in 2 Cor., i. 5-24, 
 365 ; Phil., i. 3-18, 368 ; Phil., ii. 
 17-30, 369 ; Col., iv. 7-9, 370 ; 1 
 Thess., iu. 1-8, 371. 
 
 The precise weight attached bySt.Paul 
 to liis own experience and example, 
 372. 
 
 Comparison between St. Paul and 
 Jeremiah, 373. 
 
 The diiFerence of the styles of the 
 Apostles, 376 ; their difierent modes 
 of stating and reasoning on the same 
 truth, 378. 
 
 The mode of quoting the Old Testa- 
 ment adopted by the writers of the 
 New, 379. 
 
 The Book of Eevelation, 382. 
 
 CHAPTER XX. 
 
 The Res\ilts of the preceding Inquiries on existing Theories of 
 Inspiration. 
 
 The effects of the present spirit of 
 
 inquiry, 383. 
 The danger of evading difficulties, 385. 
 
 The Church of Rome an impressive 
 warning to the discouragers of in- 
 vestigation, 386. 
 
XVI 
 
 CONTENTS. 
 
 The danger to wliicli the assumption 
 of the theory of verbal inspiration 
 exposes Cliristianity, 387 ; it occa- 
 sions scepticism among scientific 
 men, 389. 
 
 The assertions of Scripture respect- 
 ing the nature of its own inspira- 
 tion are in accordance with the facts 
 of the New Testament and the ana- 
 logies of nature, 390. 
 
 CHAPTER XXI. 
 
 The Christ of the Gospels no creation of the unassisted powers 
 of the human mind. 
 
 G-eneral statement of the views of 
 those who maintain the human ori- 
 gin of Christianity, 393. 
 
 Christianity, as an existing fact, re- 
 quires that an account of its origm 
 should be given, 395. 
 
 The nature of the developments of 
 purely human ideas, conceptions, 
 and feeUngs, 396. 
 
 Human developments require long 
 periods of time for tlieu* comple- 
 tion, 399. 
 
 Christianity originated in an historic 
 age, 402. 
 
 The greatness of the interval which 
 separates Christianity from any pre- 
 viously existing system of thought 
 or feeling, 403. 
 
 The problem to be solved by those who 
 assert a human origin of Christia- 
 nity — the creation of the conception 
 of the Christ of the Gospels, 406. 
 
 The conception of the suffering Christ, 
 408. 
 
 Tlie conception of the perfect human 
 Christ, 411. 
 
 The conception of the Divine Chi-ist, 
 as portrayed in the Gospels, 415. 
 
 The greatness of the work accom- 
 plished by the Evangelists, 417. 
 
 The nature of the elements out of 
 which Christianity must have ori- 
 ginated, if it be a human develop- 
 ment, 419. 
 
 Neither the Egyptian tone of thought, 
 420, nor the Indian, 421, nor the 
 Chinese nor Persian, 422, nor the 
 Grecian, 423, nor the Roman, 426, 
 nor the Jewish, 427, could gene- 
 rate the conception of a Christ. 
 
 The historical conditions of the pro- 
 blem, 429 ; illustrated by the slow 
 growth of English nationahty, 432. 
 
 The conception of the Christ of the 
 Gospels incapable of being pro- 
 duced by the fusion together of 
 every element then existing in the 
 world, 433. 
 
 The Jewish Church of the prophets 
 would have been inadequate for its 
 production, 435. 
 
 The historic Christian Church pre- 
 sents no appearance of having been 
 able to generate the conception of 
 a Christ, 436. 
 
 Conclusion, 437. 
 
.REC.JUN188, 
 THE 
 
 NATURE OF INSPIRATION 
 
 INDUCTIVELY CONSIDERED. 
 
 CHAPTER I. 
 INTKODUCTION. 
 
 The question respecting the nature and extent of Divine in- 
 spiration is one of enlarging and deepening interest. Among 
 tlie theological questions of the day, it occupies a place of 
 the highest importance. With an extensive class there is a 
 tendenc}^ to push the inspiration of the Scriptures to the 
 extremest limits of verbalism. Others, on the contrary, are 
 using their strongest efforts to represent the supposed inspira- 
 tion of the NcAV Testament as nothing but a product of the 
 unassisted reason of man. Whatever view we take on this 
 question, our opinions as to the character of the Christian 
 religion must be materially affected by the opinions which we 
 entertain respecting the nature of the inspiration of the New 
 Testament. Our views as to the degree and the mode of 
 the inspiration of the Christian Scriptures must also exert a 
 powerful influence on the principles of interpretation which 
 ought to be applied for the elucidation of their meaning. 
 When the unbeliever is directing the strongest attacks against 
 the Sacred Volume, it is necessary that the defender of the 
 fortress should be acquainted with the nature of the works 
 which he is called upon to protect, and should carefully avoid 
 occupying unnecessary, extended, or dangerous positions. The 
 
 / 
 
chief objections wliicli are urged against Christianity, and 
 which cause great difficulties to the minds of many, are not 
 objections against the essence of Christianity as a Divine re- 
 velation, but owe their entire weight to certain interpreta- 
 tions of detached portions of its contents, which interpreta- 
 tions have originated in particular theories respecting the 
 mode of the inspiration of the Scriptures. The question as 
 to the nature of the inspiration of the New Testament may be 
 considered as the great theological question of the day. 
 
 The utmost variety of opinion has been maintained re- 
 specting the nature and degree of the inspiration under the 
 influence of which the New Testament has been composed. 
 Have such opinions the foundation of certainty, or are they 
 mere assumptions based on uncertain evidence ? On what 
 principles have these theories been assumed ? Many of them 
 are founded on considerations supposed to arise out of the 
 probabilities or the necessities of the case. It is not even 
 pretended that the greater portion of such opinions are the 
 result of careful inquiry into the facts presented by the pages 
 of the New Testament : they are based on mere grounds of 
 supposed antecedent probability. 
 
 Now universal experience has proved that, except within 
 the region of strict demonstration, the principles of induction 
 are the only safe guides to truth in every department of 
 human knowledge. Why should not those principles be 
 applied to the New Testament Scriptures, with a view to 
 ascertain from those Scriptures themselves the nature of the 
 inspiration under the influence of which they have been 
 written ? Mere assertions and theories applied to the study 
 of the natural universe have led those employing them, not 
 to the discovery of truth, but into endless mazes of error. 
 Why should assumptions and theories, which have been utterly 
 discarded as guides to truth in every matter of inferior mo- 
 ment, be still retained as the only safe modes of determining 
 the nature of the inspiration under the influence of which the 
 New Testament Scriptures have been composed ? 
 
 Ancient philosophers indulged in useless speculations as 
 to what the universe must be. They thought that the mere 
 
deductive powers of the human intellect were adequate to 
 the investigation of its laws. Nature obstinately refused to 
 give a response to such a mode of investigation : endless 
 metaphysical jargon was the result, hut no great truth was 
 discovered. Our present knowledge of the universe has been 
 attained, not by theorizing as to what that universe ought to 
 be, but by investigating what it actually is. 
 
 According to the statements of our common histories, when 
 Queen Elizabeth entered London on her accession to the 
 throne, she was presented with a copy of the New Testament. 
 This gift she thankfully received. In addition to this gift, 
 there was presented to her a petition purporting to come from 
 four supposed prisoners, Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John, 
 praying that their imprisonment, which they had been suffer- 
 ing, might be brought to a termination. The Queen replied 
 that before she complied with the prayer of the petition she 
 would consult the prisoners themselves, and hear from their 
 own mouths whether they desired the liberty which was sought 
 for them. This determination was certainly not unreason- 
 able. In the same manner, before we assume that the writers 
 of the New Testament have written under the influence of 
 this or that particular mode of inspiration, it seems no less 
 reasonable to ask the writers themselves, under what degree 
 and particular mode of inspiration they assert that they have 
 actually written. It would be absurd to assume for them an 
 inspiration which they themselves may possibly disclaim. 
 
 Such an inquiry we propose addressing to the writers of 
 the New Testament. 
 
 We do not purpose to extend this inquiry to the Scriptures 
 of the Old Testament. It will be strictly limited to the 
 writers of the New Testament alone. We propose to inquire — 
 
 I. Whether there are any grounds of antecedent certainty 
 which can aid us in determining the nature of the inspiration 
 which must have been afforded to the authors of the Chris- 
 tian Scriptures, if they are a revelation from God. 
 
 II. We shall inquire of the writers themselves, what asser- 
 tions they make respecting the nature and degree of the in- 
 spiration under the influence of which they wrote. 
 
 B 2 
 
III. We shall investigate what is the nature and degree of 
 the inspiration which the facts of the New Testament pre- 
 suppose to have been required for its composition ; and we 
 shall compare the evidence which the facts present with the 
 assertions of the writers themselves^ and with the antecedent 
 probabilities of the case. 
 
 IV. We shall inquire into the possibility of the New Testa- 
 ment having originated out of the action of influences purely 
 and entii'ely human. 
 
 There are two extreme limits within which all views as to 
 the nature of the inspiration of the New Testament must be 
 contained. One view asserts that every idea, word, thought, 
 and expression, as they came from the penmen themselves, 
 are the direct inspiration of the Holy Spirit. If this view 
 be carried out consistently, there can be no human element 
 whatever in the Christian Scriptures. They must be abso- 
 lutely, in every part of them, the word and dictation of God. 
 The only thing which man can have had to do with their 
 composition is to copy down with pen, ink, and paper what 
 the Spirit of God has dictated. Consequently everything 
 contained in the New Testament must be alike infallibly cer- 
 tain, whether it be religious doctrine or precept, or statements 
 of historic fact, or anything which we may read there in the 
 remotest degree connected with the proper subject-matter of 
 the New Testament revelation, and even in statements con- 
 nected with scientific truth. Throughout the whole, there- 
 fore, whether it be thought, fact, or style, not the smallest 
 error can exist, as being the infallible dictation of the Spirit 
 of God, to whom the penmen acted in no other character 
 than that of amanuenses. 
 
 But, according to the opposite line of thought, when divested 
 of all ambiguities of expression, the authors of the New Testa- 
 ment were no otherwise inspired than as men of lofty genius, 
 such as Shakespere and Milton, were inspired. Persons hold- 
 ing these oj)inious maintain that there is a sense in which 
 every man of exalted genius is an inspired man. According 
 to these views, no other inspiration was possessed by the 
 writers of the New Testament beyond an inspiration of this 
 
description^ or beyond what the possession of superior powers, 
 or being- endowed with larger degrees of spiritual insight, 
 may afford to one man above another. These sentiments, 
 expressed in Avords devoid of ambiguity, mean that the writers 
 of the New Testament were wholly devoid of the aid of any 
 species of supernatural inspiration. 
 
 Few persons at the present day take the ground that the 
 writers of the New Testament were simple barefaced impos- 
 tors. The age in which it can be asserted that the whole of 
 Christianity is a cunningly devised fable, invented by crafty 
 men, is passed away. The most extreme men of the present 
 time admit that its authors were animated by benevolent in- 
 tentions, and perhaps inspired by an inspiration analogous to 
 the inspiration of genius. Most modern unbelievers allow 
 that Christianity forms the highest development to which the 
 human race has yet succeeded in attaining. The next higher 
 growth to which man can attain will be one which will be 
 reached under their own guidance. 
 
 Now it is impossible that views thus widely differing re- 
 specting the character of such a book as the New Testament 
 can have originated in an examination of the contents of the 
 book itself. The book is one of no inconsiderable dimensions. 
 The facts presented by it are large and extensive. It seems 
 to be impossible that conclusions of so opposite a character 
 should have been arrived at respecting the authorship of the 
 same book, Avith so extensive a mass of materials to assist in 
 the formation of a judgment. Nothing can be wider than the 
 diversity of the opinions in question. One party asserts that 
 the whole contents of the book is without one human element 
 — everywhere and entirely divine. The other party is equally 
 confident in their assertion that the entire book is without 
 one divine element — everywhere and entirely human. 
 
 Such a disagreement respecting the nature of the same 
 facts can only have originated in theories assumed on a priori 
 grounds, quite independently of a calm and impartial exami- 
 nation of the contents of the book itself. It is impossible 
 that any study of the book could have suggested two theories 
 respecting the nature of its contents so fundamentally and 
 
radically opposed. The facts and phenomena presented by 
 the New Testament, by the investigation of which a judgment 
 might be arrived at, are so extensive, that the usual theories 
 which are propounded as to the nature of the inspiration of 
 its writers cannot have been deduced either from the asser- 
 tions of the writers themselves or from the facts and phe- 
 nomena presented by them. They must have been the result 
 of a priori considerations as to the degree of inspiration with 
 which such a book ought to have been composed. The theo- 
 ries have not been deduced from the facts, but the facts have 
 been tortured into agreement with the theories. 
 
 From what cause has this resulted ? Evidently from this : 
 — Speculation is easy ; investigation is laborious : man is 
 naturally disposed to adopt the easier course. But while 
 men have contented themselves with speculating on what the 
 universe ought to be, instead of patiently inquiring what it 
 actually is, nothing but the most grotesque theories or barren 
 speculations have resulted from their attempts to unfold its 
 secrets. Systems called by the name of sacred systems of the 
 universe have frequently been propounded, but they have con- 
 ducted the speculators further and further from the true view 
 of the universe of the Creator ! Similar speculations have 
 been employed for the purpose of ascertaining the nature of 
 the inspiration with the aid of which the New Testament has 
 been composed. Can we be justified in applying to the eluci- 
 dation of the inspiration of the New Testament a system of 
 investigation which has been exploded as a guide to truth in 
 every other department of knowledge ? It becomes therefore 
 a subject of the highest interest, on the supposition that the 
 Creator were pleased to make a supernatural revelation, to 
 ascertain whether any grounds of antecedent certainty exist 
 which will enable us to determine what must be the nature 
 and extent of that revelation, or the mode which must be 
 adopted in its communication. It will be found that our 
 grounds of antecedent knowledge on this subject are of a 
 very narrow and limited description. On such a subject we 
 require not mere probabilities, but demonstrations, or well- 
 ascertained analogies. 
 
CHAPTER II. 
 
 THE INADEQUACY OF ALL HUMAN CONCEPTION OF THE 
 INFINITE A LIMITATION TO THE EXTENT OF TRUTH 
 WHICH CAN BE COMMUNICATED IN A RE^ ELATION. 
 
 There is one fundamental limitation under which every 
 revelation must be communicated. This limitation has all 
 the self-evidence of axiomatic truth. It is founded on the 
 essential difference between the finite and the infinite. A 
 revelation to man must be expressed in conceptions not of the 
 infinite^ but of the finite. The distinction between the in- 
 finite and the finite is not a difference of degree, but of kind. 
 The finite cannot comprehend the infinite*. 
 
 Between the ideas of the finite and the infinite not only an 
 impassable gulf is fixed, but there is an essential difference 
 of nature. If a revelation of the infinite is made to the finite, 
 the truths which are revealed must be expressed in concep- 
 tions relative to the finite mind. The necessity of this is 
 founded on the truth that the infinite ideas of God cannot be 
 represented adequately by the imperfect conceptions of man. 
 The ideas of the human mind can form no adequate measures 
 of the eternal reality. 
 
 In all human modes of conceiving the infinite, we attempt 
 to arrive at an approximate idea of the infinite by successive 
 additions of the finite. But no successive additions of finite 
 added to finite will make up the total of the infinite. The 
 very notion of infinite is inconsistent with the idea of totality : 
 of the true nature of that total it is impossible to form even 
 a conception. After any amount of successive additions, 
 
 * This subject has beeu most ably handled by Mr. Mansel, in his 
 Bampton Lectures '^ On the Limits of Human Thought," as an argument 
 against rationalistic speculation. The principles laid do^vTi by Mr. Mansel 
 are equally important as proving the futility of attempts to determine on 
 abstract grounds what must be the contents of a revelation, and the 
 mode wliich must be adopted in its communication. Man's inability to 
 conceive the nature of the infiuite must form a necessary limit to the 
 possibility of a revelation. 
 
we are still indefinitely remote from the idea of infinity. 
 Successive additions of portions of time piled one on the other 
 will make no adequate representation of the actuality of 
 eternity. No continuous enlargement of successive space 
 will make up the total of immensity. No accumulations of 
 finite power will image to the mind the reality of the Al- 
 mighty. The infinite must differ from the finite, not only in 
 conception, but in nature. An actual conception of the 
 nature of the infinite by the finite must therefore be an 
 imjDOssibility. 
 
 If therefore a revelation be made of the infinite so as to be 
 comprehensible by man, it is necessary that the unlimited 
 and perfect ideas of the Divine mind should be translated into 
 the limited and imperfect conceptions of the human. The 
 conceptions of the human mind neither are nor can be the 
 divine realities themselves. The utmost which the human 
 mind can attain to must be an analogical expression of those 
 realities, or they may be represented by approximation. 
 
 It follows as a necessary consequence, from the distinction 
 which exists between the ideas of the finite and the infinite, 
 that, if God makes a revelation of himself, the ideas employed 
 in making that revelation cannot be the absolute and infinite 
 ideas of God himself, but such ideas of the human mind as 
 are the best representations and the nearest approximations 
 to the conceptions as they exist in the mind of the Creator. 
 If they were ideas actually measuring and representing the 
 infinite, they could not be introduced into the finite under- 
 standing. Any other class of ideas except that which is 
 finite and limited would be simply incomprehensible to the 
 human mind ; they would fail to convey any conception to 
 the understanding. The ideas, therefore, in which a revelation 
 is conveyed must be imperfect and inadequate conceptions of 
 the reality of the Divine nature. They cannot be the ideas as 
 they exist in God, but such conceptions only as man is capable 
 of comprehending. 
 
 The nature of the actual relationship between the finite 
 conceptions of man and the conceptions of the Creator, and in 
 what degree the thoughts of the human mind can approxi- 
 
9 
 
 mate to the divine realities^ are questions on which we need 
 not enter. The point which is essential to be observed in re- 
 lation to our present inquiry is, that between human concep- 
 tions and their realities as they exist in God there is a diflfer- 
 encCj not merely of degree, but of kind. 
 
 But it may be contended that there is a distinction between 
 the attributes of the Creator. To some of those attributes the 
 idea of infinite may be properly applied. Those to which the 
 term "infinite" properly belongs are not capable of being taken 
 cognizance of by the finite understanding. But it may be 
 urged that the proper term to denote His moral attributes 
 is not "infinite/' but "perfect." Now, although it is true that 
 the mind of man can form no conception of the infinite, yet 
 it may be able to form an adequate conception of the perfect. 
 The eternity of God, His power, His wisdom, may be infinite, 
 and as such utterly incomprehensible as to their actual exist- 
 ence by man. But His goodness. His holiness. His truth. 
 His benevolence are not correctly designated as infinite, but 
 as perfect. It is contended that while the one of these cannot 
 be adequately represented by any formula of human thought, 
 the representations of the other are capable of being embraced 
 by the human mind, or at least are nearer approximations to 
 the divine realities. 
 
 Now the truth of a portion of this position we are not 
 prepared to dispute. But although a distinction between 
 the ideas of the infinite and the perfect really exists, yet 
 the perfect attributes of God are the attributes of the 
 unlimited and infinite Being. Our conceptions of the perfect 
 are conceptions derived from the attributes of beings who 
 are limited. The Being of the Creator is absolute, infinite, 
 unconditioned ; the being of the creature is relative, finite, 
 conditioned. The moral attributes of the Creator and the 
 creature must partake in this essential distinction of cha- 
 racter. Although perfect may be the best term to denote the 
 moral attributes of the Creator, yet the conception of perfec- 
 tion, when applied to God, must be different in kind from 
 that conception when applied to the creature. The attri- 
 butes of God must be the perfect attributes of the infinite 
 Being. The attributes of man are imperfect attributes of 
 
10 
 
 the finite. In proportion to the difference between the finite 
 and the infinite, the creature^s conceptions of even the moral 
 attributes of God must be imperfect representations of the 
 realities as they exist in the Divine mind. How a perfect 
 moral attribute exists in an infinite Being cannot be distinctly 
 conceived by a finite comprehension. 
 
 Although then we are ready to admit that the moral attri- 
 butes of God are not infinite, but perfect, and consequently 
 that it would be more correct to say that God is perfectly 
 (not infinitely) holy, or that He is perfectly (not infinitely) 
 good, yet we must not overlook the fact that these attributes 
 are the perfect attributes of the infinite Being ; consequently 
 the actual conception of the divine reality of those attributes 
 can only be conceived of in the human mind in terms of the 
 limited and the imperfect. 
 
 It follows as a necessary consequence, that, in representing 
 such truth to the human understanding in a divine revela- 
 tion, such imperfect and finite conceptions of the mind of 
 man must be employed to represent the perfect attributes of 
 God as are not exact measures of the attributes themselves, 
 but the best which the mind of man can furnish for their 
 representation. Man has no other conceptions by which 
 they are capable of being imaged to his mind. 
 
 It will be unnecessary for our present purpose to deter- 
 mine whether the various attributes of the Creator exist in 
 the Divine mind independently, or whether they flow from a 
 single principle in the Divine mind, of which they are only 
 modifications. If, instead of existing in the Divine mind in- 
 dependently, those attributes are only modifications of a 
 common principle, it will greatly increase the difiiculty in 
 representing in human conceptions the perfections of the 
 Infinite. How the Infinite exists in Himself, what is the 
 nature of the absolute and the unconditioned, and of the moral 
 perfections existing in an infinite Being, are points entirely 
 beyond the limits of human apprehension. How the Infinite 
 was first moved to the creation of the finite, when previously 
 nothing but the Infinite existed, is among the secrets which, 
 although man strain his utmost powers to determine, are be- 
 yond the limits of finite powers to grasp or even to conceive. 
 
11 
 
 From these considerations we arrive at the conclusion that 
 the Creator must have formed the creature subject to one 
 condition. That condition is that the creature must exist, 
 conceive, and think, not as infinite, but as finite ; and that be- 
 tween the perfection of the Creator and the creature a gulf 
 must exist, the profundity of which it is impossible for man 
 to fathom. Consequently every conception which the creature 
 forms of the Creator must be subject to this condition. No 
 conception, therefore, which man can form can be an adequate 
 representation either of the mode of the actual existence or 
 of the attributes of God. 
 
 It is a necessary deduction from this truth, that, if the 
 Creator condescended to reveal Himself to the creature, the 
 ideas in which that revelation would require to be communi- 
 cated cannot be the infinite or the perfect conceptions of the 
 absolute Being, but the imperfect and relative conceptions 
 of the finite mind. All revelations from God to man must 
 be subject to the previous condition which renders the exist- 
 ence of the created possible, that, the conceptions of man being 
 finite, all the thoughts, ideas, and conceptions contained in 
 the revelation must be finite likewise, and, as being finite, 
 cannot fully represent the conceptions of the infinite and 
 eternal God. 
 
 If, then, we were to assume that the Christian Scriptures have 
 been communicated with the highest degree of Divine inspira- 
 tion, and even that every word composing them was the 
 express dictation of the Divine Spirit, and that every concep- 
 tion contained in them was His express suggestion to the 
 human mind, yet on this assumption there is one necessary 
 limitation as to the knowledge which that revelation would 
 convey, one human element in that knowledge — that the 
 ideas composing the revelation can only be adequate repre- 
 sentations of the divine realities as far as the ideas and con- 
 ceptions in the mind of man approximate to being adequate 
 representations of the realities in the mind of God. 
 
 It follows from the necessity of the case, that the revelation 
 must be a relative and not an absolute revelation. The trutlis 
 which it contains must be expressed in inadequate human 
 
12 
 
 conceptions, and not in divine realities. To enable man to 
 receive an absolute revelation from God, he must cease from 
 the very condition of his being. Instead of being the finite, 
 he must become the infinite. None but the infinite can 
 comprehend the Almighty as He is. The being who can 
 comprehend Him must himself be infinite. 
 
 The whole of man^s knowledge is limited, finite, and human. 
 The whole of his conceptions and ideas, however complicated, 
 have originated in three sources alone. They have sprung 
 either out of the perceptions of external things by the mind 
 itself, or from the reflex action of the mind upon these per- 
 ceptions, or from the feelings and affections of the mind and 
 its own self-consciousness acting upon them. 
 
 Out of these three sources every thought, idea, and concep- 
 tion of man has originated. All existing ideas in their utmost 
 comj)lexity are combinations of thought arising out of one or 
 more of these three sources. The external has combined with 
 the internal, and the internal with the external. The ideas of 
 necessity and freedom, of moral and physical, of cause and 
 effect, of time and space, of happiness and misery, of holiness 
 and sin, of finite and infinite, have all issued from one of these 
 sources or several in combination. In such terms the truths 
 of every revelation must be expressed. The only question is. 
 In what degree has the Creator created these original concep- 
 tions of man so as to be representations and analogies of the 
 realities in His own glorious being ? 
 
 The truths, therefore, which are communicated in any reve- 
 lation must be analogies more or less remote from the actual- 
 ities themselves. They cannot be perfect representations of 
 the infinite God, even if we assume the revelation to have 
 been commimicated with the highest possible degree of inspi- 
 ration. They must be such ideas and conceptions as the mind 
 of man is capable of conceiving, and which the perfection of 
 the Divine knowledge sees to be best suited for conveying to 
 the mind of man the amount of truth respecting the Divine 
 nature and perfections which the Creator intended to disclose. 
 The vehicle employed in the communication of truth must 
 be conceptions as they exist in the mind of man, not as they 
 
13 
 
 exist in the mind of God. If the ideas were not finite hiunan 
 ideas, they would be without the power of conA^eying meaning 
 to the mind of man. Even the idea of infinite used in the 
 revelation must be the human conception of infinity, and not 
 the divine reality. The nearest approximation to the idea of 
 infinity which man possesses is a series indefinitely prolonged, 
 without ever actually ending, which in neither direction has 
 bounds or limits. This is man^s only positive notion of 
 infinity. But it is not its reality, but its approximation. 
 
 Such an idea is the highest which we can conceive of the 
 Creator. We can only form a conception of His existence as 
 without limits in past or future time. Our notion of Him as 
 the Almighty is the human conception of power, but without 
 limits to that power. All power Avhicli is conceivable or 
 limited does not represent a positive idea of the Almighty 
 power. Although the manifestations of His power which we 
 behold are presented to us under the condition of limitation, 
 it must be free from this limit in its actual existence in Him. 
 The only conception which we can form of His wisdom is 
 wisdom without limits. All actually conceivable wisdom? 
 therefore, is not the adequate representation of the wisdom of 
 God. Every positive conception of existence, wisdom, or 
 power which man is capable of forming, being conceived 
 under the condition of limitation, cannot possibly represent 
 the attributes of the infinite. 
 
 When we want to form an idea of God's moral character, 
 we add on to the conception of His infinite Being the notion 
 of perfection. This idea of perfection applied to the infi- 
 nitude of God is the human idea of perfection indefinitely 
 extended. The positive view which we take of it is the denial 
 of all the imperfection to which all finite perfection is neces- 
 sarily subject. Such is the highest conception which the 
 human mind can form of the moral perfections of the Creator. 
 It is equally impossible to form an adequate positive concep- 
 tion of the perfect m the Infinite mind as to form a positive 
 conception of the infinite itself. 
 
 By such conditions, therefore, the contents of a revelation, 
 whatever may be the degree of its inspiration, must be limited, 
 
14 
 
 and in conceptions of this description it must be expressed. 
 No revelation is possible to man which does not contain one 
 human element — the representation of the infinite in the 
 inadequate ideas of the finite. To suppose the contrary is to 
 assume the possibility of God^s making a contradiction. 
 
 But before we inquire whether there are any self-evident 
 grounds of certainty, by means of which we are entitled to 
 infer the nature or the extent of the inspiration through 
 which the revelation must be communicated, previously to all 
 examination of the facts presented by the revelation itself, it 
 will be necessary to inquire into the nature of the various 
 views of the mode in which we can conceive that inspiration 
 is capable of being communicated to man. We shall then be 
 better able to estimate the value of any theories as to the 
 extent in which inspiration has been vouchsafed for the com- 
 munication of a revelation. 
 
 CHAPTER III. 
 
 DIFFERENT THEORIES AS TO THE EXTENT OF DIVINE 
 INSPIRATION. 
 
 It has been very extensively held that the Christian Scrip- 
 tures have been written under the influence of an inspiration 
 designated as plenary inspiration. The term plenary insj)i- 
 ration, used as a description of the Divine method of commu- 
 nicating a revelation, is one of no inconsiderable ambiguity. 
 According to the context in which the expression occurs, it 
 may be not incorrectly used to denote any conceivable degree 
 of inspiration whatever. 
 
 It is hardly possible for any one to believe that any parti- 
 cular book, such as the Christian Scriptures, has been written 
 under the influence of inspiration at all, and not to hold that 
 the inspiration under the influence of which it must have been 
 composed is plenary. The term "plenary inspiration" means 
 full inspiration ; if, therefore, we use the expression in its un- 
 
15 
 
 qualified sense^ it cannot mean anything short of what is 
 designated by the term " verbal inspiration/^ 
 
 When we use the expression verbal inspiration, we mean 
 that every word, thought, conception, and expression in the 
 Scriptm^es is the absolute dictation of the Spirit of God, and 
 that the writers of the different books in the Bible have merely 
 copied down what the Divine Spirit dictated to them. Inspi- 
 ration in this sense is the highest form in which we can con- 
 ceive of inspiration as communicated. It represents it as so 
 complete, that all the faculties of the human soul are entirely 
 superseded by the action of the inspiring Spirit. In this sense 
 therefore the inspiration may be said to be full, absolute, and 
 complete. If therefore, by the expression plenary inspiration, 
 we intend to denote the fullest form of inspiration, it will be 
 more correctly designated by the expression verbal inspiration. 
 
 But this is not the sense which is usually intended when it 
 is asserted that the Christian Scriptures have been composed 
 under the influence of plenary inspiration. Something short 
 of verbal inspiration is usually intended. 
 
 But as soon as we qualify the expression, the term loses all 
 definite meaning. In a qualified sense it is difficult to conceive 
 that any one who believes in the inspiration of the Christian 
 Scriptures can believe that they have been delivered to man 
 by any other than a plenary inspiration. If they are inspired 
 at all, they must have been fully inspired as far as it was the 
 Divine purpose to communicate supernatural knowledge. If 
 God intended to make any revelation, it is not conceivable 
 that He has not communicated fully what He intended to 
 reveal, or that He has not given the necessary amount of in- 
 spiration to communicate that knowledge. If the inspiration 
 therefore were not plenary, it would be the same thing as to 
 suppose that God has purposed to reveal truth, but that He 
 has withheld the degree of inspiration necessary for its com- 
 munication. 
 
 Still, when plenary inspiration is spoken of as a distinct form 
 of inspiration from verbal inspiration, we use an ambiguous 
 term. If we concede that the Scriptures are not verbally 
 inspired, we concede that their inspiration cannot be plenary, 
 
16 
 
 because, in whatever degree the inspiration is less than verbal, 
 a degree of inspiration mnst have been eiiiployed less than the 
 fullest form of inspiration. The fullest form of inspiration 
 would have required that every word, thought, and expression, 
 even that the style in which the Scriptures are composed, should 
 be the work of the Spirit of God. In whatever degree we 
 admit in them the existence of any element of which He is 
 not the complete and absolute Author, we detract from the 
 fulness of the inspiration. Its amount then becomes a ques- 
 tion of degree. In the strict sense of the term^ therefore^ ple- 
 nary inspiration cannot be anything short of verbal inspiration. 
 
 Now what do we mean when we assert that the Scriptures 
 have been composed by the aid of supernatural inspiration ? 
 We intend by that expression that there is an element in them 
 which the unassisted powers of the human mind never would 
 have produced by the simple exercise of its natural powers. 
 We conceive of the influence as one by Avhich an intelligent 
 mind introduces new truths^ new forms of thought, and new 
 feelings into the mind of another by agencies different from 
 the action of the ordinary mental powers. We imply also 
 that the inspired person has a consciousness that the feel- 
 ings, truths, and conceptions in question have been intro- 
 duced into his mind by an external influence distinct from 
 the powers of the mind itself. 
 
 If we say that a book has been composed by the aid of inspi- 
 ration, and intend by that expression only to assert that it has 
 been composed by some secret influence belonging to the mind 
 itself, and arising out of its natural powers, we employ a term 
 essentially fallacious. Latent powers exist in the mind, the 
 action of which we cannot refer to any known law ; but we, 
 understand a wholly different thing from the exertion of any 
 power of this description when we assert that the Scriptures 
 have been composed by the aid of inspiration. Our present 
 inability to assign such phenomena to the action of any known 
 law affords no ground for believing that they act indepen- 
 dently of law. To call such phenomena by the term insj)iration 
 is to confound together ideas essentially differing in meaning. 
 
 It is not uncommon, however, to use the term in a mctapho- 
 
17 
 
 rical sense. But when it is so used, we are never in danger 
 of mistaking its meaning. In this sense we speak of the in- 
 spirations of the poet and of the man of genius. By such an 
 expression we intend to express the suddenness of the concep- 
 tions, or the unknown powers of mind in which they originate. 
 Such expressions are never intended to convey that the thought 
 has originated in any source different from the natural powers 
 inherent in the mind. In the same manner the powers which 
 have originated great discoveries and inventions have been 
 designated by the term inspirations ; and so have perceptions 
 of truths which have the nature of intuitions, which are per- 
 ceived at a glance by men of lofty powers, but which men of 
 inferior intellect are compelled to arrive at by long and pain- 
 ful deductions. Different theories may be invented to account 
 for the origin of all such thoughts ; but whatever explanation 
 we may accept, they must be the result of some great law of 
 the human mind differing entirely from what we mean when 
 we speak of thoughts, conceptions, or ideas being commu- 
 nicated by means of divine inspiration. When, then, it is as- 
 serted that the Christian Scriptures have been composed under 
 the influence of divine inspiration, if we use that term and 
 only intend to convey the meaning that it is the same influence, 
 only higher in degree, as that by the aid of which any ordinary 
 book of man is composed — if we intend by that expression 
 nothing more than that they have been composed by the aid 
 of genius, or of deep spiritual insight or superior power of in- 
 tuition, but by no influence acting on the mind from without 
 and differing in character from its other powers, — it is to delude 
 ourselves and others by a fallacious use of words. We can 
 only consistently mean, when we use the term inspiration to 
 denote the mode of the composition of the Scriptures, that 
 they have been composed by the aid of another personality 
 acting on the mind, whose action has produced results which 
 the mind would have failed to produce except as the result of 
 His operation, and that it is a direct communication from God, 
 differing from the ordinary mode of His operation on the soul. 
 It is necessary to keep this distinction in view, because there 
 is a sense in which every ordinary power of the human mind 
 
 c 
 
18 
 
 is ail inspiration from God: " an inspiration from the Almighty 
 giveth man understanding." All our mental powers being 
 God's gifts, in this sense of the expression, they may be said 
 to be derived from His inspiration. But, although all the 
 human powers may be said to be derived from an inspiration 
 from the Almighty, nothing would be more absurd than to 
 speak of ordinary books, or even works which are the creations 
 of the highest genius, as composed by the aid of divine in- 
 spiration. 
 
 We must also be careful to distinguish between certain 
 natural states of human progress and enlightenment under 
 the direction and guidance of Divine Providence, and super- 
 natural communications of truth made to man by inspiration. 
 No two conceptions can be more fundamentally distinct. 
 
 Perhaps no more dangerous attack has been opened on 
 the authority of divine revelation than the attempts made by 
 numerous writers of the present day to represent these as 
 flowing from the same influence as inspiration, and of sub- 
 stantially the same authority. It is well known that a large 
 class of writers who claim to believe in revelation represent 
 all the great developments of man as essentially divine, and 
 among these developments assign Christianity a high rank. 
 Still the views which are advocated imply that there is no 
 essential difference in kind between them. 
 
 Such writers assert and maintain that all the great races 
 of men have been endowed by the Creator with certain great 
 mental qualifications, which have gradually elaborated cer- 
 tain great points of the national character. According to 
 these views, all past forms of civilization have not only been 
 under the general superintendence of the providence of God, 
 but have had God for their author, and have been looked 
 upon by the Divine Being with actual and positive approba- 
 tion. Thus he has endowed the Oriental with his genius for 
 metaphysical speculation ; the Greek vnth his exquisite taste 
 for beauty, and his genius for philosophy; the Roman with 
 his special talent of political constructiveness ; the Hebrew 
 with his moral sense, and his monotheistic perceptions, and 
 his personal religion. Out of these elements, all partaking 
 
19 
 
 of a divine cliaracter, have been developed Christianity and 
 modern civilization. In some sense or other, all these special 
 endowments may be received as inspirations from God. By 
 this mode of representing the matter, the human is not deified, 
 but the divine is reduced to the standard of humanity. 
 
 The same class of thinkers take a similar view of the deve- 
 lopments of the Christian Church; they are all alike de- 
 signed by its Founder, and divine. The Christianity of the 
 earlier centuries, the Christianity of the middle ages, the 
 Christianity of the Romish Church, the Christianity of the 
 Greek Church, the Christianity of the Reformation, are all 
 necessary developments of the great idea, are all the results 
 and workings of the universal inspiring Spirit. The great 
 principle maintained is. Whatever has habitually prevailed 
 among large masses of men must have been divine, and 
 therefore derived from an inspiration from God. 
 
 It is a great truth, that every event which happens has a spe- 
 cial place in the dispensations of Divine Providence. All things 
 which occur, every endowment which man possesses, have 
 been and are regulated by the powerful hand of the Creator. 
 He makes all things subservient to the great purposes of His 
 providence. "The Most High ruleth in the kingdoms of 
 men, and giveth them to whomsoever He will, and setteth up 
 over them the basest of men.'^ Every event of Providence, 
 the whole combined agency of man, has been rendered sub- 
 servient to the introduction of His great revelation. The 
 gospel was revealed in the fulness of the times. This involves 
 an overruling influence exerted over all human things, the 
 nature of which must remain for ever unknown to man. How 
 God in His ordinary providence acts on the human mind, 
 without interfering with its freedom, is a depth the profun- 
 dities of which we cannot penetrate. But to represent these 
 influences as of a similar nature to those which we mean 
 when we speak of a revelation communicated by inspiration 
 is to confound together conceptions essentially distinct. 
 
 We must also be careful to observe the distinction between 
 the conceptions of inspiration and superintendence. Each 
 may exist without involving the other. A man may be in- 
 
 c3 
 
20 
 
 spiredj and yet have no general superintendence exerted over 
 him in communicating to others the things which were super- 
 naturally discovered to his mind. A general superintendence 
 may be exerted over a man's mental operations, and no new 
 truth or feeling may be imparted to him. Inspiration and 
 superintendence may coexist in the same mind, and yet their 
 influences may be entirely distinct. By inspiration fresh 
 truths are introduced into the mind. Superintendence re- 
 gulates those already there. 
 
 But supposing God to have made a revelation by super- 
 natural inspiration, we must examine the nature of the views 
 held as to the degree in which such inspiration has been 
 communicated. The believers in the supernatural inspiration 
 of the Christian Scriptures divide themselves into two classes : 
 one of these holds that they must have been communicated by 
 what is called verbal inspiration ; the other maintains that 
 a human element of some kind exists in them, together with 
 a divine one. We will proceed to lay down what ought to be 
 the complete theory of verbal inspiration. 
 
 Of all the theories of the manner in which inspiration has 
 been communicated, this theory is the most complete ; it 
 leaves nothing unaccounted for ; it eliminates out of the con- 
 ception of inspiration everything human. As a theory it is 
 beautifully consistent. According to the opinions of those 
 who believe that this theory is the true account of the mode 
 of the inspiration of the Christian Scriptures as they issued 
 from the hands of those Avho transcribed them, they must 
 have been completely and in every part the work of the Holy 
 Spirit. The only human agency employed in their produc- 
 tion must have been the simple act of copying what the 
 Spirit of God dictated. Every word, assertion, and declara- 
 tion in them are His positive word, assertion, and declaration. 
 Facts, doctrines, precepts, references to history or chronology, 
 quotations from writers sacred or profane, allusions to 
 scientific truth, visions or prophetic declarations, mere refer- 
 ences to the most ordinary actions of life, according to this 
 view, are not the work of man, but of Omniscience. The only 
 use which has been made of human agency in the composition 
 
21 
 
 of the book has been to copy down with pen, ink, and paper 
 what has been dictated by the Divine Spirit. 
 
 By some of those who entertain this view the theory has 
 been pushed to the full length of asserting that the auto- 
 graphsj as they came from the hands of the inspired penmen, 
 must have been devoid of a single inaccuracy or mistake. 
 Such persons carry out the theory to its legitimate con- 
 sequences ; and it is difficult to see how a person holding it 
 can be satisfied with less. If it is absolutely necessary that a 
 divine revelation should be communicated with all the accu- 
 racy of verbal inspiration, there is no reason why it should 
 not both have dictated the entire contents of the Christian 
 Scriptures and superintended their transcription. Nor can 
 any reason be given why such a superintendence should not 
 have been exerted over their transcription and translation to 
 the present day, as to have prevented every human element of 
 error from impairing the accuracy of this perfect transcript of 
 the Divine mind. The only reason which can be given is, 
 that it would have involved a perpetual miracle. But why, if 
 it were necessary, should not a perpetual miracle be wrought ? 
 We have something very like one in the continual separate 
 existence of the Jewish people during a space of 1800 years, 
 scattered as they are in every climate and through every 
 nation. 
 
 But while the theory of verbal inspiration has been con- 
 structed for the purpose of eradicating every conceivable 
 human element in the structure of the Scriptures, many of 
 its supporters shrink from carrying it out to its full and legiti- 
 mate consequences ; they feel that the facts as they exist in 
 the Scriptures are hard to reconcile with the theory. While, 
 therefore, they are ready to maintain that they have been 
 generally dictated by the Spirit, they hesitate to assert that 
 the style of these writings is His work. But if the theory be 
 correct, on what conceivable principle can its supporters hesi- 
 tate to ascribe the style of the Scriptures to the Divine Spirit ? 
 Every sentence in them has been dictated by Him. Every 
 declaration has nothing in it human, but is wholly divine. But 
 if every word be a divine dictation, and the influence of the 
 
22 
 
 minds of the writers has been completely superseded under 
 the agency of inspiration, the style in which they have been 
 composed requires to be accounted for. The existence in 
 them of a peculiar style is an undeniable fact. It must be 
 either human or divine. It must be that of the individual 
 writers or that of the Spirit of God. 
 
 It follows that if the whole contents of the Christian Scrip- 
 tures be the dictation of the Spirit, without the intermixture 
 of any human element, the style in which the thoughts are 
 conveyed cannot be that of the persons whose names are pre- 
 fixed to the books, but the composition of the Divine Spirit. 
 But if He is the author of the style, the perfection of the 
 divine ought so far to transcend that of any human style as 
 the ordinary works of God transcend those of man. To 
 make the theory perfect, it must be assumed that the style in 
 which the Scriptures have been composed must be an exhibi- 
 tion of this perfection. Mahommed makes the pretension in 
 his Koran, that the style in which it is composed is actually 
 divine, and that its excellence is a proof of the divine origin 
 of the book. In making this assertion, he is consistent with 
 his own principles ; for he affirms that the contents of his 
 revelation have formed from eternity a portion of the Divine 
 mind. But the theory does not require the assertion of the 
 absolute perfection of the style. The separate works of God 
 are not necessarily absolutely perfect. We are only com- 
 pelled to claim for it the same degree of perfection which is 
 displayed in the other Divine operations. According to the 
 theory of verbal inspiration, in whatever degree the divine 
 mode of working transcends the human, the divine style ought 
 to be similarly distinguished from the styles of imperfect and 
 fallible men. 
 
 To admit less than this, is to admit the presence of a 
 human element of some kind in the composition of the Scrip- 
 tures. Many of the advocates of the doctrine of verbal in- 
 spiration hesitate to carry it out in this manner to its legiti- 
 mate consequences. But it may be asked, On what principle 
 of consistency do they stop short of pushing the theory to 
 these consequences ? Those who hold the theory are ready 
 
23 
 
 to argue in its support^ If the Scriptures contain any, even 
 the smallest amount of imperfection, how shall we know where 
 that imperfection ends ? From the supposed cogency of this 
 argument, it is inferred that the Scriptures can only have 
 been composed under the influence of verbal inspiration. 
 
 But the argument admits of being applied in another 
 direction with equal cogency. It may be urged, the style is 
 either human or divine. If the style is human, there is a 
 human element in the structure of the Scriptures; and if one 
 human element exists, who shall assign its limits ? If there 
 are faults in the poetry, if any particular passage might have 
 been expressed with greater perspicuity, if inaccuracies of 
 grammar exist, who shall say that such inaccuracies may not 
 extend to a genealogy, a date, or a fact ? Imperfections must 
 be the result of human, and not of divine agency ; and if one 
 single mark of human agency be admitted, the theory of 
 verbal inspiration is subverted. If such a theory must be 
 assumed as an explanation of the mode of the inspiration of 
 the Scriptures, it must not be used only as far as it is con- 
 venient, and then abandoned ; it must be fully carried out to 
 its legitimate consequences. Its correct statement requires 
 that the style, no less than the substance, of the Scriptures 
 should be the work of God. 
 
 But the phenomena presented by the Scriptures have pro- 
 duced various modifications in the theory. After the theory 
 has been modified, its precise nature is difiicult of definition. 
 Perhaps those who make the modifications seldom realize to 
 themselves the full extent in which those modifications de- 
 stroy the theory itself. It is then the common resource to 
 conceal the indistinctness of the theory behind the ambi- 
 guous phrase of " plenary inspiration.^^ The object kept in 
 view is to make the smallest concession possible to the pre- 
 sence of a human element. If any portion of the theory be 
 at hopeless issue with a palpable fact, that portion has been 
 abandoned : by this surrender its consistency has been marred. 
 It then becomes extremely difficult to give to the view main- 
 tained a clear and distinct expression. 
 
 It has been conceded by persons professing to hold this 
 
24 
 
 theory^ that some human element may have entered in a low 
 degree into the structure of the Scriptures ; but such an in- 
 fluence has been exerted over this human element by the 
 Spirit of God as to eradicate out of it all the defects to which^ 
 as human^ it is liable : but no clear explanation is offered^ 
 what is the precise nature of that influence. A human some- 
 thing is supposed to exist in the structure of the Scriptures, 
 but the defects to which it is liable are counteracted by a 
 divine influence ; but we are not told what is the nature of the 
 influence. Language of this kind supplies us with no distinct 
 conception on which we can reason; it furnishes us with 
 nothing but vague generalities. Divested of ambiguities, it 
 is difficult to see how this view differs from that of verbal 
 inspiration. 
 
 The most distinct view which can be formed of what is 
 intended by such a statement is, that some thoughts and 
 modes of expression in the Scriptures must be admitted to be 
 human. Those thoughts and conceptions, however, in a 
 manner of which no distinct idea can be formed, have under- 
 gone such a constant revision by the Spirit of God as to have 
 become divested of their human character. 
 
 We will explain what we apprehend that the propounders 
 of such a theory intend, by an illustration : — An incorrect 
 time-piece has been constructed, and set working. The force 
 of the springs, if left to the natural result of their o^vn opera- 
 tion, would cause the time-piece to go either too fast or too 
 slow, or, from defects in the works, it might cause inequalities 
 of motion. But the maker of the time-piece, by appljdng 
 forces external to the machinery, counterbalances its imper- 
 fections, and produces the result of correct time. He effects 
 this by applying to the time-piece a power from without, pro- 
 ducing an influence in an opposite direction to that exerted 
 by the springs exactly sufficient to counterbalance their irre- 
 gularities. In like manner the human elements employed in 
 communicating a revelation, if left to their natural operation, 
 would produce various degrees of imperfection ; but as in the 
 time-piece the action of external forces counterbalances the 
 defects of the machinery and the inequahties of its motion. 
 
25 
 
 so the agency of the Spirit of God constantly exerts a coun- 
 terbalancing influence on the imperfection of the human 
 agencies employed in communicating a revelation. In the 
 one case we can clearly comprehend the nature of the agencies 
 employed; in the other case^ the imperfection of our con- 
 ceptions of them hinders us from forming any rational con- 
 clusion as to their nature^ and destroys the force of the 
 analogy. 
 
 But there is a numerous class of persons who believe in 
 the divine character of the Christian revelation, but who 
 deny that the nature of the inspiration under the influence of 
 Avhich it has been communicated is verbal inspiration. We 
 will state their leading opinions. 
 
 Such persons maintain that the great end and purpose for 
 which a divine revelation would be communicated is limited 
 to the clear discovering and the correct statement of those 
 truths which form the peculiar and exclusive subject-matter 
 of a divine revelation. Inspiration, therefore, would not be a 
 general influence exerted over the whole powers of the mind, 
 nor would it confer a general infallibility on persons under its 
 influence, but it would be strictly limited to the communica- 
 tion of the special truths forming the subject-matter of the 
 divine revelation. 
 
 There are two modes through which the Creator may dis- 
 cover Himself to man. One of these is the manifestation of 
 the Divine character and perfections made by means of the 
 works of creation. The other is the discovery of His character 
 and will by communicating truth to the mind directly by in- 
 spiration. 
 
 Now persons holding such opinions maintain that the 
 truths which are discovered through the manifestation which 
 God has made of His character and perfections in creation 
 and providence form a revelation which has a distinctive 
 character. The truths discovered are all confined within a 
 particular range of subject-matter. On many subjects on 
 which man feels the profoundest interest, such as his future 
 condition beyond the grave, they communicate to him little 
 or no information. The mode in which man learns the truths 
 
26 
 
 communicated by this natural revelation of God is a careful 
 study of tlie laws of the universe by the exercise of the ordi- 
 nary faculties of the mind. 
 
 Now it is asserted that everything which we know of the 
 character of God^ as discovered by creation and providence^ 
 leads us to the conclusion that those things which He has 
 given man ample opportunities to discover by the careful 
 use of his natui'al faculties He would not discover to him by 
 a supernatural revelation. It is inconsistent with the per- 
 fections of God to employ a double set of means for pro- 
 ducing a single result. The use of double means for the pro- 
 duction of a single result is the effect of finite imperfection. 
 The proper subject-matter for a supernatural revelation^ there- 
 fore_, is that class of truths respecting which the works of 
 creation and providence afford us no information, or which 
 the human faculties are unable to deduce from those works. 
 To suppose that God will reveal by inspiration what He has 
 already revealed by creation, and which He has furnished man 
 with faculties to discover for himself, is to assume it possible 
 that the Creator will employ a double agency for the purpose 
 of effecting a single result, which is the refuge of imperfect 
 power or of imperfect wisdom. 
 
 Now in making a discovery of the character or the will of 
 God to the mind of man, two things, according to the views 
 in question, are essentially necessary — an objective manifesta- 
 tion of Himself made by God, and a subjective communication 
 of that manifestation imparted to the mind of man. 
 
 The objective manifestation of God in the created universe 
 consists in the works of creation and providence. The know- 
 ledge of the Divine character and perfections is communi- 
 cated to the human mind through the exercise of its rational 
 powers in the study of those works. But the manifestation 
 of His perfections to the human mind by a supernatural reve- 
 lation will involve an objective manifestation of God, the 
 meaning of which will be communicated to the mind, not by 
 the exercise of the ordinary faculties, but by inspiration. To 
 such a manifestation, therefore, inspiration will be strictly 
 limited. 
 
27 
 
 Now, if the Creator be pleased to make a supernatural 
 revelation of Himself, that revelation must be made relatively 
 to the faculties of those for whom it is intended ; it could not 
 be an absolute, but a relative revelation. It must have a 
 special object and a particular purpose. Consequently, if God 
 determined in Himself the extent of truth which He had re- 
 solved to communicate, those who believe in the divine inspi- 
 ration of the Scriptures, while they deny their verbal inspira- 
 tion, maintain that the inspiration woukl be strictly limited 
 to the special subject-matter which God intended to disclose, 
 and to the faculties through the agency of which He purposed 
 to make the disclosure. If, therefore, the revelation was 
 made in a form which either admitted or required the inter- 
 mixture of other subject-matter with its contents besides the 
 special truths which it was the Divine purpose to disclose, 
 they consider that divine inspiration would only be afforded 
 to the truths forming the proper subject of the divine com- 
 munication. Consequently, if it is assumed that the Chris- 
 tian Scriptures contain a revelation from God, and that for 
 special reasons those Scriptures have been composed in an 
 historical form, many subjects may be introduced into them 
 external to the proper subject-matter of a revelation, for the 
 recording of which the assistance of supernatural inspiration 
 may not have been afforded. The necessity for inspiration 
 would only extend to that portion of them in which the truths 
 which it was the special purpose of God to reveal were con- 
 tained. ^ 
 
 Different views are taken by persons who believe in the 
 reality of a divine revelation, as to the manner in which the 
 inspiration itself has been afforded. According to one view, 
 the revelation has been communicated in all its fulness, once 
 and for all, to the mind of the inspired person ; and after he 
 has been once perfectly taught the contents of the revelation, 
 he has been left to the exercise of his ordinary faculties in 
 making known to others those contents. Others think it 
 more probable that, after the contents of the revelation have 
 been communicated to the mind, a constant supernatural 
 guidance has been afforded whenever the revelation was com- 
 
28 
 
 municated to others, so far as to avoid the danger arising 
 from the imperfection of the human faculties, and to com- 
 municate that revelation with absolute truth and correctness. 
 The inspiration by which the Christian Scriptures have been 
 revealed may have been communicated in this manner. The 
 whole of the divine truths contained in them may have been 
 clearly discovered by one original act of inspiration, and then 
 left to the action of the ordinary faculties of the mind ; or 
 those faculties may have been assisted, whenever those truths 
 were communicated to others, by the presence of supernatural 
 inspiration, allowing other elements in different measures and 
 degrees to coexist with that inspiration. 
 
 Different opinions are held as to the degree in which such 
 assistance has been afforded. As we are imperfect judges of 
 the extent in which God would be pleased to make a revela- 
 tion, so we must be equally imperfect judges of the extent in 
 which He would be pleased to exercise such guidance over the 
 persons employed in communicating it. All that can be 
 asserted with certainty is, that to whatever extent it is the 
 purpose of God to reveal Himself, His purpose, whatever it 
 may be, will certainly be accomplished. Any modification, 
 therefore, of view respecting the Divine purposes as to the 
 extent of the revelation will render necessary a correspond- 
 ing modification as to the instrumentality through which 
 those purposes have been accomplished. 
 
 The revelation contained in the Christian Scriptures is in 
 an historical form. As they contain a great variety of matter, 
 different portions of the matter contained in them may have 
 required different degrees of inspiration for the assistance of 
 the writers in their composition. Some portions of the 
 Christian Scriptures consist of accounts of facts which have 
 actually occurred ; other portions are descriptions of feelings 
 which have been experienced by the writers. Some portions 
 consist of precepts for the regulation of conduct ; other por- 
 tions profess to be revelations of great truths. They like- 
 wise contain allusions to various customs, manners, and histo- 
 rical events. The Epistles contain details of the conduct of 
 the writers when placed in particular situations. Now the 
 
29 
 
 contents of the Christian Scriptures being of this varied de- 
 scription, diflPerent opinions are held by those who believe 
 that they have been communicated under the influence of 
 supernatural inspiration, as to what degree elements thus 
 widely different in character have required that supernatural 
 assistance should be afforded to the authors. With persons 
 who believe that God never employs unnecessary means to 
 effectuate His ends, it would be a probability almost ap- 
 proaching to certainty that God would proportion the aid of 
 inspiration to the requirements of the different subject-matters 
 contained in the Scriptures. The allusion to an ordinary 
 matter of fact or to some historical detail lying within the 
 powers of the ordinary faculties of the writers would require 
 the aid of a far less degree of supernatural assistance than 
 the statement of some great truth respecting the Divine cha- 
 racter and perfections. Among those, therefore, who are firm 
 believers that the Christian Scriptures have been communi- 
 cated by the ' aid of divine inspiration, it may still be an open 
 question as to the extent in which particular portions of the 
 Scripture^ have participated in that inspiration. 
 
 It has been asserted that the correct view of inspiration 
 is, that the spirit of man is penetrated in all its functions and 
 powers by the Spirit of God, and thereby all its thoughts, 
 conceptions, and powers are elevated to a height to which 
 they would otherwise be incapable of attaining. According 
 to this theory, inspiration consists in a preternatural eleva- 
 tion of the existing powers of the human mind. 
 
 We are quite unable to determine to what extent truths 
 which lie beyond the reach of our present faculties would be 
 discoverable by the mind if the powers of those faculties 
 were indefinitely multiplied. A large amount of truth, of a 
 similar description as that with which we are at present ac- 
 quainted, would undoubtedly be thrown open to our view ; 
 but whether the intensification of our faculties would enable 
 us to penetrate into new and distinct regions of truth, we 
 have no data to determine. 
 
 We therefore cannot concede that it is an adequate ac- 
 count of what we mean when we assert that a revelation has 
 
30 
 
 been communicated by inspiration from God, to define the in- 
 fluence by which the revealed truths have been communi- 
 cated as a simple intensification of the existing faculties of 
 man. Such an increase of power, while it might have greatly 
 enlarged our knowledge of present truths, might have admitted 
 us to the acquaintance of no new species of truth. The Holy 
 Spirit might penetrate and intensify all the existing powers of 
 the mind, and yet they might leave us in the dark on various 
 subjects respecting the Divine character and perfections of 
 the highest importance for us to be informed on. 
 
 But if inspiration consisted simply in a communication of 
 an increase of power to the ordinary faculties of the mind, 
 one element essential to a divine revelation would be wanting. 
 The person thus inspired would not be sensible that the 
 source of his additional knowledge would be the testimony 
 of a personality external to his own mind. He could have no 
 direct evidence that the truths communicated to him were 
 imparted by God. Such truths, therefore, would have no 
 higher authority to bind the conscience than those discovered 
 by the ordinary course of our mental operations. In the 
 case of a revelation of the Divine will, we want to have 
 distinct evidence that it is God who is speaking, and not man. 
 Although He may employ certain portions of man's ordinary 
 mental powers in communicating a revelation, its very notion 
 implies a direct sense of the presence of God in the mind of 
 him to whom the revelation is imparted. 
 
 We do not deny that the effect of inspiration on the human 
 mind may be to intensify the existing powers, and call them 
 into a far more vigorous action. Such an effect seems to 
 have been produced on the writers both of the Old and New 
 Testaments. But if we restrict inspiration to the production 
 of this result, Ave make no sufficiently clear distinction be- 
 tween it and the ordinary operations of the mind of man. 
 
 The supporters of this theory hold a very extensive com- 
 munication of an inspiration of this description. Many are 
 of opinion that in this sense most of the great writers in the 
 world's history, who have produced beneficial results, have 
 been inspired. The view is closely connected with that to 
 
31 
 
 which we have already alluded, which confases between God's 
 providential government of the world and the results of super- 
 natural inspiration. 
 
 To one more theory we must make a brief allusion — that 
 which identifies the ordinary operation of God's Spirit in 
 sanctifying the heart with the results of divine inspiration. 
 
 Into the profound depths of this question we shall not 
 enter. It would require to be discussed in a separate treatise. 
 We shall only make two observations respecting it. 
 
 The action of the Holy Spirit in new-creating the heart 
 must unquestionably open to the intellect discoveries of 
 spiritual truth substantially new. The new feelings and affec- 
 tions implanted in the soul must introduce a fresh body of 
 truth into the understanding. If the renovation of the 
 human mind imparts to it a fresh spiritual sense, a fresh 
 body of truth by this influence must be discovered by the 
 mind precisely proportionate to the change wrought in the 
 feelings and affections in the soul. So far the influence 
 exerted may be similar. 
 
 But if we restrict inspiration to an influence of this de- 
 scription, we shall unduly narrow the limits of what we mean 
 when we speak of God's making a supernatural revelation. 
 Such an expression implies the direct imparting by God of 
 objective truth to the mind, not a mere creation of subjective 
 feelings and affections which throw their light into the human 
 understanding. That such influence may be closely allied to 
 that which we designate by the expression divine inspiration, 
 we are far from denying ; but it were to confound ideas essen- 
 tially distinct to confine it to such influence, and to assert 
 that it gives a full account of those phenomena which we de- 
 signate by the term divine inspiration. One essential ele- 
 ment it would leave entirely wanting — the distinct perception 
 by the mind possessed of inspiration that it was God who 
 was imparting truth to the mind by a direct personal agency. 
 
 Such then are some of the theories which are held by those 
 who believe in the supernatural inspiration of the Christian 
 Scriptures respecting the nature of that inspiration. No 
 opinion is at present expressed as to the truth or the fallacy 
 
32 
 
 of those views. They have been stated because^ in examining 
 the nature of the inspiration of the writers of the New Testa- 
 ment, it is necessary that we should have a distinct view of 
 these various theories. 
 
 In determining the question as to the nature and extent of 
 the inspiration vouchsafed to the writers of the Christian 
 Scriptures, if we assume that they are a revelation from 
 God, there are only two modes of inquiry open to us. First, 
 what is the degree of light which is thrown on the subject 
 by any antecedent certainty or antecedent probability which 
 the mind possesses independently of all inquiry into the 
 nature of the facts presented by the Christian Scriptures ? 
 Secondly, supposing that the Scriptures are authenticated as 
 a revelation from God, what assertions do they make re- 
 specting the nature of the inspiration under the influence of 
 which they have been composed, and what degree of inspira- 
 tion do the phenomena contained in the Scriptures neces- 
 sarily presuppose to have been afforded to the writers ? 
 
 We will now proceed to examine what degree of ante- 
 cedent certainty we possess as to the nature and degree of 
 the inspiration of a revelation, supposing that it is the pur- 
 pose of God to communicate a revelation of Himself to man. 
 
 Now the amount of the inspiration through which a reve- 
 lation has been communicated to man is a question quite 
 distinct from the divine origin of the revelation itself. Our 
 belief as to whether a revelation has been made by God to 
 man must be entirely dependent on the evidence afibrded as 
 to its reality. A revelation professing to come from God 
 must be sufficiently attested as having Him for its author, 
 before any one can be called on to believe in its divine cha- 
 racter. We cannot be satisfied with a mere declaration of 
 any person claiming to publish a revelation that he is under 
 the influence of inspiration as a sufficient ground for believing 
 that he is so. Something more than mere assertion is posi- 
 tively required. But the determination of the nature and 
 degree of the inspiration with which a revelation has been 
 given is a matter entirely distinct from the sufficiency of the 
 evidence on which a belief in its divine origin rests. If the 
 
33 
 
 attestation to any revelation that it is of divine origin is 
 sufficient^ our belief that it is such a revelation in no way- 
 depends on our views as to the nature and extent of the in- 
 spiration under the influence of which it has been communi- 
 cated. 
 
 This distinction has been frequently overlooked. It has 
 often been asserted that the denial of a particular mode of 
 inspiration is equivalent to the denial of the divine origin of 
 the revelation itself. But the question whether any particular 
 person is authorized to publish a revelation from God, or 
 whether any particular book contains an account of such 
 revelation, is a point which must be determined wholly by 
 evidence. It resolves itself into the inquiry. Have we, or have 
 we not, sufficient evidence that such a particular person has 
 been authorized by God to publish a revelation of His will ? 
 Can he produce the broad seal of Almighty God, guarantee- 
 ing to us the truth of his divine commission ? 
 
 CHAPTER IV. 
 
 THE POSSIBILITY OF A MIRACULOUS INSPIRATION, AND 
 THE MODE ADOPTED IN ITS COMMUNICATION. 
 
 The certainty that a revelation has been made by Almighty 
 God must ultimately resolve itself into the question, whether 
 it has received a miraculous attestation. Such an attestation 
 is the only means whereby the reality of a divine commission 
 can be directly proved. Other evidence, such as the moral 
 character of the revelation, may afford corroboration to the 
 proof; but the moral character of a revelation alone would be 
 powerless to assure us of its divine authority, or to render it 
 binding on the conscience, without the support of a mira- 
 culous testimony. A miracle denotes the finger of God. A 
 revelation guaranteed by a miraculous testimony must be 
 believed to be such, whatever questions may be raised as to 
 the extent of the inspiration through which it has been com- 
 
34 
 
 municated. The degree of the inspiration can have nothing 
 to do with the evidence on which the reality of the miracles 
 rests. 
 
 But it is extensively held that the human mind possesses 
 antecedent grounds of certainty^ which render all inquiry into 
 the evidence of a supposed revelation unnecessary, and a 
 miraculous attestation to such a revelation impossible. The 
 ground on which such an assertion is made is, that the uni- 
 verse is regulated by one unvarying principle of law or order, 
 from which all deviation is impossible. A divine revelation 
 supernaturally communicated, or a miracle as the evidence of 
 such a revelation, would be a violation of the established 
 law and order by which the universe is regulated. From this 
 principle no deviation has taken place within the experience 
 of man. It is not asserted that human experience is cognizant 
 of all the actings of God, or even with a considerable por- 
 tion of them ; bu^t it is assumed that the experience of man 
 with respect to the subjection of the created universe to un- 
 alterable law is a fair representation of all the actings of God 
 which do not come within the range of that experience. 
 
 From these premises it is assumed that action in con- 
 formity with law and order is an essential attribute of the 
 Divine mind, and that everything contained within the uni- 
 verse must be an exhibition of this portion of the Divine 
 character. It is deduced as a consequence from these pre- 
 mises, that if the Creator were to violate the existing order 
 of the universe. He would deny an essential attribute of His 
 own nature. But as a supernatural revelation, from its very 
 conception, must be a deviation from the universal law and 
 order by which the universe is governed, every miracle per- 
 formed in attestation of such a revelation must be an addi- 
 tional violation of this principle. If, then, from its very con- 
 ception, a miraculous revelation must be a violation of pre- 
 viously existing law, it follows on indubitable grounds of 
 antecedent certainty, that both such a revelation itself and 
 the only evidence which can support it are impossibilities, 
 being repugnant to the known character of God. 
 
 This reasoning is frequently supported by other minor 
 
35 
 
 considerations. It is urged that it is more worthy of the 
 Creator that He should only act in conformity with law, than 
 that He should deviate from it, in effectuating His purposes. 
 It would be a reflection on His wisdom, if, after having 
 once established a particular order, He had any necessity 
 for its violation. It is urged that it presents a far more 
 glorious view of the Divine perfections if we assume that 
 there never has been any occasion for the interference of the 
 Creator, in altering the existing laws of the universe, since 
 the period when He first created it. It gives the highest ideas 
 of the Divine power and wisdom if we suppose that the Creator, 
 in His primitive act of creation, so regulated the universe by 
 law that it has ever since continued to evolve itself in steady 
 subjection to those laws, which have been laid down with 
 such perfect wisdom as never to have required one special 
 interference from the hour of creation. 
 
 Now, on what are these views based? Have they any 
 grounds of positive certainty on which to rest? Are the 
 reasons alleged self-evident truths or uncertain probabilities? 
 
 We have no intention to deny that on some subjects 
 grounds of antecedent certainty exist, which are valid evi- 
 dence on which the mind must rest prior to all inquiry as to 
 fact. If such principles possess the evidence of demonstra- 
 tion, the mind is unable to refuse its assent to them ; but 
 siich grounds of belief must be self-evident truths, or capable 
 of demonstration from self-evident principles. They must 
 not be mere probabilities, which, when they are applied as 
 exponents of the modes of the action of the Creator, lead to 
 results which experience testifies to be universally untrue. 
 
 The objection resolves itself into two parts. First, it is con- 
 trary to the Creator's character as a lover of law and order 
 to manifest Himself at all in any other manner than that in 
 which He has manifested Himself in the creation and govern- 
 ment of the universe. Secondly, that any miraculous attes- 
 tation to such a supposed revelation is, for the same reason, 
 impossible. 
 
 Now it must be conceded that, as far as man's knowledge 
 of the created universe extends, one universal principle of law 
 
 d2 
 
36 
 
 and order is the rule by which the Creator manifests Him- 
 self in its creation and providence. Every phenomenon with 
 which we are acquainted in the universe is the effect of law. 
 The inanimate universe is regulated by universal laws of un- 
 varying constancy;, no deviation from which has ever come 
 under the cognizance of man. Those laws contain within them 
 the principle of their own preservation. There is one unva- 
 rying sequence of cause and effect. With respect to the sen- 
 sient creation, the same general principle prevails. But here 
 our knowledge is less complete. The free will of man inter- 
 feres with the operation of mere physical laws. It presents 
 phenomena of a character entirely distinct from the results 
 of those operations. Free will, as a cause, differs in its entire 
 conception from mere physical sequence. Our conception of 
 a personal God involves the highest exercise of free will. 
 The free spontaneity of His will has produced creation ; but 
 how and when the various orders of beings have been brought 
 into existence we have no positive data to determine. The- 
 ories in abundance have been propounded; but whatever 
 knowledge may be hereafter obtained on the subject, the evi- 
 dence as to their origin which is possessed from an induction 
 of facts is wholly insufficient to entitle the theories which 
 have been propounded on the subject to be reckoned among 
 established truths. They are only deductions from probabili- 
 ties or remote analogies. 
 
 Those who propound the views of which we have been 
 speaking assert that species have been evolved successively, 
 without any fresh creative act, from species previously exist- 
 ing, and that the higher forms of being have been gradually 
 developed from the lower, in ever-increasing perfection, until 
 at last the production of man has been the crowning result of 
 these successive developments. This assertion, however, is a 
 theory, of which the proof, if not wholly wanting, must be pro- 
 nounced to rest on evidence indefinitely small. The paucity 
 of the data on which the theory is erected, compared with 
 the vast extent of the theory itself, is of a very surprising 
 character. Those who hold the contrary opinion maintain 
 that each separate species has come into existence by a sepa- 
 
37 
 
 rate creative act. The opponents of this view reply^ that the 
 number of these species requires such a number of creative 
 acts as to render such a supposition improbable. 
 
 But on what observed facts does the former of these theo- 
 ries rest ? on what is the opinion founded ? On the observed 
 laws of order which the inanimate creation obeys. But have 
 we a knowledge of the laws by which the entire universe is 
 governed ? If not, by what right do we extend our inferences 
 from such laws into regions essentially distinct? Our ob- 
 servations are confined to existing phenomena, and lie entirely 
 beyond the region of creative acts. To extend inferences 
 drawn from existing phenomena into the region of creative 
 acts is to assume as true what ought to be proved. Positive 
 proof that species have been evolved from species by the 
 action of general laws, there is none. No fact of such trans- 
 formation can be adduced. Geology supplies no direct evi- 
 dence of such transformations. No one instance has yet been 
 found of an organized being in a state of transition from one 
 species to another. 
 
 But because the natural universe, as far as it has come 
 under observation, obeys the law of order, and is regulated by 
 a necessary sequence of causes and effects, it has been affirmed 
 that every other portion of the universe must have been 
 evolved in conformity with the same law. Such an inference 
 has been said to be not in conformity with probability merely, 
 but with analogy. 
 
 It must be admitted that analogy is a much higher ground 
 for belief than bare probability ; but we are entitled to ask 
 whether we have any evidence or experience sufficiently ex- 
 tended to assure us that in such a case the analogy will hold. 
 Considering the infinite variety of modes in which it may 
 please the Creator to manifest Himself, an analogy derived 
 from one single mode of His manifestation can be no certain 
 guide to one of an entirely diff'erent description. Before, 
 therefore, we can assume that the whole of the manifestations 
 of the Creator in the universe are simple manifestations of 
 law and order, and that He never manifests Himself by occa- 
 sional deviations from them, we require evidence of a positive. 
 
38 
 
 and not of an analogical character. Before vre can apply 
 analogical evidence in sncli a case, we must be certain that 
 the facts from "svliich the analogies are derived are fair repre- 
 sentations of the conduct of the Creator. "\Ve must be sure 
 that our field of vision is not a narrow corner of the universe, 
 but that it commands an extensive view of its general princi- 
 ples. In this case the extent of our knowledge is too limited 
 to admit of such an application. The theory does not profess 
 to be founded on an induction of facts, and is wholly inappli- 
 cable to creative acts. 
 
 Our finite experience is of a nature far too limited to enable 
 us to judge what is or what is not antecedently probable with 
 respect to the Creator in matters of this description, or to 
 assume on such data that God cannot deviate from such 
 laws as om' limited experience of His actings has induced us 
 to consider as the laws which regulate His conduct. This 
 experience is a safe guide to truth within its legitimate boinids ; 
 extended beyond the limits of those boundaries, it leads to 
 inferences not resting on certainty, but bare probability. 
 
 Unless a di-sdne revelation or a miracle were a deviation 
 from the ordinary law of the Creator's acting, it would lose 
 its essential character as a revelation or a miracle. It is the 
 very essence of the nature of miracles that they should be such a 
 deviation : it forms the groundwork of our conception of them. 
 As man's experience is finite, it is evident that an infinite 
 amount of the actings of God must lie beyond its range. He 
 cannot, therefore, be in a position to lay down the laws of what 
 is, or what is not, possible with God. The experience of man 
 can only bring under our observation what is a mere sample 
 of the actings of the Creator. 
 
 We have therefore no grounds for assuming that the actings 
 of the infinite Being, which in past eternity must have been 
 as infinite as Himself, are all of one and the same character, or 
 that their nature can be adequately represented by the small 
 number of them which have come under om* limited observa- 
 tion. We are ready to grant that a deviation from law and 
 order in the mode of the Divine actings has never come under 
 scientific experience. Yet it is too much to assume, from this 
 
39 
 
 experience, that tlie eternal Creator, in all the modes of His 
 self-manifestation in the course of a bygone eternity, can 
 never haAC acted otherwise than in conformity with that 
 experience. 
 
 From the nature of the case our inductions respecting the 
 past actings of the Eternal and the Infinite must be of a far 
 less general nature than those of the Indian king who, on 
 the strength of the evidence of his contracted experience, 
 pronounced that the existence of ice was an impossibility. It 
 was beyond the limits of his experience ; but his experience 
 was no measure of the universal experience of man. He 
 argued from analogy. That analogy held good within the 
 range of the circumstances to which it was applicable ; it led 
 to untrue inferences when it was assumed as a universal 
 measure of things. In a far greater degree any conclusions 
 founded on the limited experience of man, as to what must 
 have been the mode of the acting of the Infinite and the 
 Eternal throughout the infinitude of the present and the past, 
 must be founded on an induction far too limited to enable us 
 to assert what is or is not possible with God. Who will 
 venture to assert that, in the eternity of the past or in the 
 infinitude of the present, the Divine mode of acting may not 
 have presented a character entirely difl:erent from any mani- 
 festation which has taken place within the limited sphere of 
 our finite view ? To assert that our experience is an adequate 
 measure of the mode of the Divine acting is a conclusion far 
 too wide to be founded on mere probability or analogy. Such 
 a conclusion requires the support of an evidence which is un- 
 attainable by man. 
 
 It is impossible, therefore, on the foundation of any ex- 
 perience which is attainable by man, to arrive at the con- 
 clusion that law or order is so essential a conception of the 
 Divine nature that any deviation from them is repugnant 
 to our conception of the Divine attributes, and therefore ante- 
 cedently impossible. But the theory under discussion pre- 
 supposes that they are such essential qualities of the Divine 
 mind, that any deviation from them involves a contradiction. 
 On both points the evidence is imperfect. We do not know 
 
40 
 
 on any evidence whicli must command the assent of the un- 
 derstanding, even if the Creator^'s actings had been founded 
 on these jarinciples^ that it is self-contradictory that he should 
 act in a different manner. The assertion that such is the in- 
 variable mode of the acting of the Creator is founded on an 
 induction which extends only as far as the experience of man. 
 Beyond that experience lie the infinite actings of God in the 
 eternity of His existence. This assertion is of the same class 
 as numerous other a prio7'i assertions^ which are found to be 
 utterly groundless when they are tested by experience. To 
 justify us in assuming that the Creator cannot deviate from 
 those laws which have come under human observation in the 
 government of the universe, we ought to have evidence nothing 
 short of demonstration that such deviation must be repugnant 
 to the Di^dne perfections. 
 
 It cannot be proved that the evidence which we possess, 
 that the love of law and order is so essential an attribute of 
 the Divine mind as to render all de-sdation from it on the part 
 of the Creator impossible, exceeds the evidence which we pos- 
 sess of the other attributes of God; or that conclusions 
 founded on this portion of the Di\dne character will be more 
 certain guides as to what has been the actual conduct of the 
 Creator than conclusions professedly deduced from the other 
 perfections of His nature. But those conclusions founded on 
 the other attributes of God, when pushed to their strict logical 
 consequences, are found to be incorrect guides to the actual 
 facts presented by the universe. Why, then, should such 
 principles be assumed as correct guides in determining ques- 
 tions respecting the possibility or the impossibihty of a divine 
 revelation ? 
 
 It is impossible to deduce the facts of the actual structure 
 of the universe by a priori arguments derived from our human 
 views of the Divine perfections. To adduce a few examples. 
 The power of the Creator is infinite. We might infer, there- 
 fore, that every exertion of His power ought to contain distinct 
 traces of His infinity. No one exertion of that power ought 
 to admit of increase, or contain traces of defect. But, accord- 
 ing to our modes of conception, every exertion of that power 
 
41 
 
 is not a display of infinite power ; it is only such a display 
 of power as the necessities of the case demand. 
 
 In like manner^ it is an undoubted truth that the Almighty 
 is infinitely wise. Shall we infer from this attribute that 
 every created thing as it exists in the universe must have had 
 the whole treasures of this infinite wisdom expended on it ? 
 If this conclusion be true, the Creator could not make ever- 
 increasing displays of the profundity of His wisdom. Because 
 God is infinitely wise, no person will maintain that in each 
 special manifestation of His wisdom the whole resources of 
 that wisdom must be displayed. In the manifestation of his 
 wisdom displayed in His works, we observe degrees of wisdom 
 actually employed. If we were able to comprehend the works 
 of the Creator taken as a whole, we might discover in them 
 the resources of infinite wisdom. But the works of the 
 Creator, taken as a whole, do not exist to finite minds. There 
 is not only the past eternity in which He has operated, but 
 there is the eternity yet to come, in which he will never cease 
 from His glorious manifestation. But man can only conceive 
 of them under the limitation of time. The resources of infi- 
 nite wisdom cannot be displayed in special acts. Even in 
 any existing state of the universe, the profundities of His 
 wisdom are not exerted in any single manifestation, but they 
 will require an eternity in which they will be unfolded. 
 
 Another attribute of the Creator, which the supporters of 
 the theory we are impugning are the foremost to maintain, is 
 His goodness. That God is perfectly good is a great truth at 
 the foundation of religion. 
 
 But will it be maintained by the supporters of this theory, 
 that in every creative act of God we find a perfect manifesta- 
 tion of the attribute of goodness ? On the contrary, all their 
 views of the universe are based on the supposition that in His 
 actual working God commences Avith lower beginnings, and 
 advances to more perfect displays of goodness. The universe, 
 as it comes under human observation, is no perfect display of 
 that attribute. Arguments deduced from that attribute by 
 strict logical consequence would lead us to infer a different 
 structure of the universe from that which actually exists. We 
 
42 
 
 might argue from the existence in the Creator of the attribute 
 of perfect goodness^ united with infinite wisdom and power, 
 that the existence of evil, whether moral or physical, would be 
 utterly impossible. For this conclusion we have far higher 
 grounds of antecedent probability than that a miraculous 
 revelation is impossible, because the love of law and order 
 are attributes of the Almighty. 
 
 The argument which infers from the perfect goodness of the 
 Creator, united with His infinite wisdom and power, that evil 
 could not exist in the universe of which He is the Creator and 
 Governor, would lead us to a conclusion which contradicts 
 the actual phenomena of that universe as they come under 
 our observation. Evil exists in the universe of the all-power- 
 ful, the all-wise, and the all-perfect God, however contrary it 
 may be to our ideas of antecedent certainty that it would 
 exist. If we cannot infer from the attributes of infinite power, 
 wisdom, and perfect goodness in the Creator that evil cannot 
 exist in the universe of which He is the author, we are in no 
 position to argue that a supernatural revelation or miracles 
 wrought in its attestation are impossible, because the love of 
 order and law are conceived of by us as among the attributes 
 of God. 
 
 But the asserters of this opinion maintain that the unalter- 
 able and universal dominion of law and order in the universe 
 affords the most perfect conception which we can form of that 
 universe as framed by the creative power of God, and as 
 governed by the wisdom of His providence. They assume 
 that the highest conception which can be framed of the wisdom 
 and power of the Creator is, that He so formed the universe at 
 the beginning, and impressed its laws on it with that perfec- 
 tion of wisdom, that they have by their own self-acting evolved 
 every existing thing, without the necessity of a single subse- 
 quent interposition of the Creator's hand. It is asserted to 
 be the highest possible view which we can take of the charac- 
 ter of God, that l)y one act of creation He has accomplished 
 His work, and that the creation has since evolved itself accord- 
 ing to His eternal laws, without the necessity of His special 
 intervention. It would undoubtedly denote a higher degree 
 
43 
 
 of wisdom in a human artist, if lie could not only form an in- 
 strument or piece of machinery fully capable of executing its 
 purpose, but which also possessed the power of generating a 
 new piece of machinery out of itself in endless succession, 
 equally capable of executing the intentions of the original 
 contriver. Because it is assumed that such a view is the 
 highest which can be taken of the intelligence and power of 
 the Creator, it is taken for granted that it is the only one in 
 conformity with which He can act in the government of the 
 universe. 
 
 If this theory be correct, it follows that any variation from 
 this law would imply a lower display of the perfection of 
 God. But a revelation or a miracle is a deviation from esta- 
 blished order previously existing ; it involves a special in- 
 tervention of the Creator. His original contrivances must 
 therefore have been imperfect, to render such a special in- 
 tervention necessary. His work was not perfect from the 
 first; but as the Creator is perfect, no work involving im- 
 perfection can be His. A revelation, therefore, and miracles 
 wrought in attestation of it are impossible. 
 
 Such reasonings might have considerable cogency if we had 
 sufficient evidence that the Creator had no other perfection 
 beyond that of the most perfect of mechanists. A mechanist 
 who can make a machine so perfect as never to require recti- 
 fication, which contains within itself the powers necessary for 
 its own reparation, and which, in addition to these extraordi- 
 nary properties, could evolve out of itself in endless succes- 
 sion other similar machines, would undoubtedly display greater 
 resources of wisdom and power than one who could only 
 make a machine without the other properties in question. 
 Such a mechanist would be the most perfect of mechanists; 
 he would make a single machine, and retire from action for 
 ever ; his perfection would be so great, that even if he were to 
 cease to exist, he would not be found wanting ! 
 
 But in reply we ask, Is the only view which we can take of 
 the character of the Creator that of a perfect mechanist or 
 chemist? Has He no moral attributes through which to 
 display the glories of His being ? May He not make a 
 
44 
 
 manifestation of them, as well as of His wisdom and His 
 power? Has He not also a personality ? Is not the absolute 
 freedom of His will a most glorious attribute of His nature ? 
 May not a manifestation of the self-determination of His 
 free will be as glorious a display of His character as an inva- 
 riable acting in conformity with order and law by physical 
 sequence ? May He not stand in other relations to His 
 creatures than those of a simple mechanist or a chemist? 
 May He not also manifest Himself to them in the capacity of 
 a Father ? His character as Father of rational beings is a 
 most glorious attribute of the Eternal. Is it not possible 
 that He may appear more glorious in some one or in all of 
 these aspects than by a mere exhibition of Himself as the 
 most perfect mechanist, whose perfection was so great that He 
 needed to act only once, and then for ever sink into inac- 
 tivity, and be to us as though He existed not? Such possi- 
 bilities are worthy of being seriously reflected on before the 
 theory in question is propounded as the only possible account 
 of the Divine conduct. 
 
 It by no means follows that, because such a view may give 
 us the most exalted idea of the Creator as a mechanical con- 
 triver, it is the best means of displaying the other perfections 
 of His nature, or that the simple idea of God as the most 
 perfect of mechanical contrivers is the most glorious manifes- 
 tation of the Creator. Nothing is more necessary, in order 
 that the mind of man may have perfect trust in God, than 
 that it should have a most distinct and constant perception 
 of His personality. A sense of the Divine personality forms 
 the foundation of all feeling towards Him in the capacity of a 
 Father. It is surely equally important that His creatures 
 should be capable of contemplating tbeir Creator as a Father, 
 as that they should view Him as the most perfect of me- 
 chanical contrivers. But unalterable continuity of action 
 destroys man's sense of personality. The pui'e spontaneity of 
 will is not most clearly manifested by the action of immutable 
 and eternal law. Action in conformity with never -deviating 
 law, unless corrected by other influences, has a tendency to 
 produce the belief that the action is mechanical or dy- 
 
45 
 
 namical, not spontaneous or free. Occasional interruptions 
 in the continuity of the action of God may be necessary as 
 evidence of the personality of the Creator. If, therefore, He 
 be anything else than a mere mechanist, it may be no dimi- 
 nution of His perfection to interrupt the law and order of the 
 universe by occasional manifestations of Himself, and to in- 
 struct His creatures by means of a supernatural revelation. 
 
 But even on the theorizer^s own representation of his 
 theory, it contains in it one weak point, which brings it to 
 inevitable ruin and destruction. On his own principles, there 
 has been at least one interruption of the law and order of all 
 things. The universe is not the result of blind necessity or 
 chance, but the work of an intelligent Creator. Creation, 
 therefore, had a beginning. There once was a time, however 
 remotely distant, when finite existence began to be. The only 
 way in which this consequence can be evaded is to break 
 down the distinction between the finite and the infinite, and 
 to take refuge in pantheism. Before the commencement of 
 the finite, the infinite existed alone. The infinite must once 
 have evolved the finite. The laws which the Creator has 
 impressed on created things may have been so perfect as 
 never to have required any interference on His part from the 
 first act of creation by any fresh exertion of creative power 
 or special interference of His providence. But one interrup- 
 tion of law and order has taken place, when the Creator pro- 
 duced the finite. Prior to the creation of the finite, law and 
 order subsisted only in the bosom of the Infinite. 
 
 The creation of the finite must have been the greatest of 
 all conceivable interruptions of that state of order which pre- 
 viously existed. Hitherto creative power had never ener- 
 gized in the upholding of the finite. But if one interruption, 
 and that the greatest of all interruptions, of order previously 
 existing has taken place, and in it the Creator has been essen- 
 tially glorious, why may He not, in the unknown depths of 
 His wisdom, make other interruptions, and in them appear 
 equally glorious? As He has once become the author of 
 the natural revelation, why may not He become the author 
 of a new moral and spiritual creation ? A new moral and 
 
46 
 
 spiritual creation is surely as worthy an occasion for the 
 exertion of creative energy as the production of the material 
 universe. 
 
 In making these observations we have no intention of dis- 
 puting the truth of the assertion that manifestations in con- 
 formity with law and order are the only manifestations made 
 by the Divine mind in the material universe, as far as scien- 
 tific experience has yet penetrated. But how can we know 
 that it is not the necessary condition of enabling the human 
 mind to grasp a distinct conception of the personahty of God, 
 that a general principle of acting in conformity with law, 
 united with occasional deviations from such a mode of action, 
 should be the mode in which the Creator manifests Him- 
 self to His creatures ? What actual experience have we of 
 creative acts ? Distinction between species exists as a fact in 
 creation. The generation of new orders can be as readily 
 accounted for by an exertion of the creative power of God as 
 by a gradual evolution of one species from another by the 
 agency of natural laws. Why, then, are creative acts 
 deemed incredible ? Unless pantheism is the true solution of 
 the existence of the universe, one creative act there must have 
 been ; and if one, why not more ? And if creative acts be 
 not incredible, how can miracles be impossible ? Variations 
 from existing laws may even be necessary to enable us to 
 appreciate the fulness of the beauty of the usual laws of 
 order under which the Infinite has manifested Himself. 
 Variation itself seems to be one of the necessary conditions 
 of perception. What is it which gives us a sense of the 
 beauty of the law and order by which the universe is re- 
 gulated and governed ? Our power of comparing it with irre- 
 gularity and disorder. 
 
 We conclude, therefore, that we have no grounds of ante- 
 cedent certainty which can justify us in drawing the con- 
 clusion that the uninterrupted observance of law in the uni- 
 verse is so glorious a representation of the character of God 
 as to amount to a demonstration that all deviations from it 
 are impossible in Him, nor from its existence in the material 
 universe can there be any adequate grounds for inferring 
 
47 
 
 that a discovery of Himself by means of a revelation attested 
 by miracles is impossible with God^ or involving any violation 
 of the Divine attributes. 
 
 But we are entitled to draw a contrary inference. If God 
 has once in the course of His actings deviated from the order 
 previously existing, we infer with inevitable certainty that 
 what He has done once He may do again. He has once made 
 this deviation, when He created the finite; He may, there- 
 fore, make another deviation for the purpose of effecting a 
 new moral and spiritual creation. 
 
 A revelation, therefore, accompanied with miracles wrought 
 in attestation of it, contradicts no known truth respecting 
 the Divine nature. Miracles could prove no adequate attes- 
 tation of a divine commission, if the usual mode of the Divine 
 acting was not in conformity with law. If their performance 
 was frequent, our notion of law, and consequently our idea of 
 a miracle, would be subverted. The assumption, therefore, 
 that a revelation with a miraculous attestation is impossible, 
 is a mere theory unsupported by evidence : it rests for support 
 on no intuitive truth, nor can it be demonstrated to be a 
 consequence of such truth. 
 
 There is one antecedent probability, respecting the mode 
 of communicating a revelation, which has the self-evidence of 
 an axiom. To whatever extent it was the purpose of God to 
 reveal Himself in a revelation, that purpose, in whatever reve- 
 lation He was pleased to make. He would fully and effectually 
 accomplish. 
 
 Such a proposition simply asserts that, in the case of a 
 Being who is infinitely powerful and wise. His purposes and 
 the effects resulting from those purposes are necessarily coin- 
 cident. With the Almighty, to will is to accomplish. He 
 has the most perfect knowledge of the means by which His 
 volitions can be effectuated. His infinite power gives Him 
 an absolute command of those means. He can therefore 
 have neither impediment nor hindrance in the execution 
 of His designs. To whatever extent the Creator has de- 
 termined to reveal Himself, that purpose He must have 
 thoroughly and completely effected. If this were not the 
 
48 
 
 case, there must exist a limitation either to His power or His 
 knowledge. 
 
 But before we can apply this truth for the purpose of de- 
 termining the nature of the revelation, or the instrumentality- 
 through which it has been communicated, we must know the 
 extent of truth which it was the Divine purpose to reveal. 
 But we are no adequate judges af the amount of truth which 
 God must communicate to man. We cannot, therefore, de- 
 termine the precise extent in which it would please God to 
 make a revelation of Himself. We can only know what He 
 ought to reveal, by ascertaining from His own declarations 
 what He has been pleased to reveal. We shall then be fully 
 justified in concluding that the Divine purposes have been fully 
 carried into eflFect in every communication which possesses 
 evidences of being a divine revelation. 
 
 It is also a truth of the highest antecedent certainty, that 
 neither in the subject-matter of a revelation nor in the 
 means employed for its communication can the Creator act 
 contrary to the moral attributes of His nature. There are 
 many points connected with those attributes, which, as we 
 have seen, lie beyond the range of the human understanding ; 
 but, within the limits of that understanding, it is a universal 
 truth that the Creator can only act according to the moral 
 perfections of His nature. If we were to assume that God 
 could act otherwise, it would be equivalent to the admission 
 that God can act without motives. The moral attributes of 
 the Deity must be the motives of the Divine conduct. The 
 imperfection of our understandings impairs the force of our 
 conclusions when we attempt to argue to things as they must 
 exist from the separate attributes of God, because we are 
 unable to determine the bearing of one of those attributes on 
 another. But within those limits where the mind has ade- 
 quate powers of judgment, we may safely conclude that what- 
 ever professes to be a revelation from God, and contradicts 
 the Divine attributes in their great and essential bearings, 
 brings with it direct evidence of untruthfulness and impos- 
 ture. The principle is only dangerous when it is pushed into 
 regions of thought where the limited intelligence of man ren- 
 
49 
 
 ders him an incompetent judge either of the Divine attributes 
 themselves or of the general system of the Divine govern- 
 ment. 
 
 We may also assume on principles of analogy, united with 
 considerations derived from the Divine character, that if it 
 pleased God to communicate a knowledge of Himself by a 
 supernatural revelation, the knowledge which He was pleased 
 to communicate by such a revelation would not be extended 
 to those subjects the knowledge of which the human mind 
 was able to attain by means previously imparted. 
 
 The evidence of this truth rests on direct analogy, derived 
 from God^s mode of action as Creator and Preserver of the 
 universe, supported by considerations deduced from His infi- 
 nite wisdom and power. The force of such an analogy, de- 
 rived from actual manifestations of the Creator, as to what 
 His conduct would be in other similar manifestations, differs 
 entirely in point of evidence from a mere antecedent proba- 
 bility. It reaches little short of certainty when the analogies 
 themselves fully coincide with conclusions respecting the 
 Divine conduct which we should deduce from the Divine per- 
 fections. If God has acted in a particular manner in one 
 case, it afibrds a probability, amounting to a certainty, that He 
 will act in the same Avay in a similar case when the same 
 perfections of His nature are involved. 
 
 Now we observe that, in His works of creation and pro- 
 vidence, the Creator never uses a double set of means for the 
 purpose of efiectuating the same end ; He can have no occa- 
 sion to do so. Infinite power furnishes Him Avith every pos- 
 sible resource for effectuating His purposes. No possibility 
 is beyond the reach of Omnipotence. Whatever can be. He 
 can eflFectuate and call into being. His infinite wisdom gives 
 Him the most perfect knowledge of the means suited for 
 carrying His purposes into efi^ect. There is no possible con- 
 trivance which He does not know, and which, knowing. He 
 cannot create. There is no possible result which He does not 
 foresee, and against which He cannot provide. Consequently 
 whenever God acts He has the most perfect knowledge of the 
 means which He uses^ and of the mode in which His purposes 
 
 E 
 
50 
 
 can be effectuated, and the most perfect power to create the 
 means and adapt them to their respective uses. The means 
 which the Creator uses, therefore, cannot fail to effectuate 
 His ends; consequently He cannot have occasion to use a 
 double instrumentality. 
 
 In conformity with this great principle are the facts of 
 nature. Whether the operation be great or small, we always 
 see the Almighty working by a single set of instruments. He 
 never makes provision for the possible failure of one instru- 
 mentality, by providing another to aid or supplement it. No 
 two sets of means are provided for producing the same result. 
 The simplicity of the Divine operations always stands in marked 
 contrast to the multiform contrivances of man. This is the 
 uniform mode of the Divine agency, whether we trace the 
 operations of the Almighty in the force with which He propels 
 a planet, in the wondrous contrivances with which He has 
 constructed the bodies of animals and vegetables, or in the 
 minute structure of a microscopic animalcule. 
 
 The use of a double set of means for effectuating the same 
 end is the result of a consciousness of imperfection of power 
 or wisdom in the operator. Such consciousness of imperfec- 
 tion cannot exist in the Almighty. "When man provides a 
 double instrumentality or multiform contrivances for the ex- 
 ecution of the same work, he does so under the fear that one 
 of his instruments may fail in producing that which he is 
 seeking to effectuate, or owing to his imperfect command of 
 means. If we were certain that one instrumentality would 
 effect our purpose, or if all means lay freely at our disposal, 
 it would be a deficiency of wisdom to provide a variety of con- 
 trivances ; but neither fear as to the result of His operations, 
 nor deficiency of wisdom, is possible with the Creator. 
 
 The same mode of operation which (lod em])loys as Creator 
 and Preserver of the universe we should expect that He would 
 employ in communicating a revelation of His will. As it is 
 inconsistent with His perfections to employ two distinct and 
 separate means for effectuating the same end in creation, so 
 it is in the highest degree improbable that He would com- 
 municate the same truth to man by two methods wholly and 
 
51 
 
 entirely distinct. Wliat the perfections of the Divine nature 
 have prompted Him to do in the one series of acts^ the same 
 perfections will prompt Him to do in a similar course of 
 action. If the same God is the author of creation, provi- 
 dence, and revelation, we should find Him displaying in each 
 alike the same power and Avisdom. He would not provide 
 man with adequate means of attaining truth by natural reve- 
 lation, and then provide a Avholly different means of attaining 
 to the same truths by means of a supernatural revelation. 
 What, therefore, God has provided man with adequate means 
 of learning by the use of his natural faculties, by the study of 
 the created universe, that knowledge He would not communi- 
 cate by a wholly different instrumentality — that of inspiration. 
 
 Still less is it conceivable that the infinitely wise Crea- 
 tor would use two different methods of discovering the same 
 truth to man, the one of which would render necessary a 
 great degree of exertion on his part in the discovery of truth, 
 and the other would discover the same truth without any efibrt 
 on the part of man being needful. If there are two methods 
 of doing the same thing, a laborious one and an easy one, the 
 easy one will be adopted, the laborious one avoided. Who 
 would trouble himself with the laborious investigations of geo- 
 logy, if its truths could be read in the pages of a supernatural 
 revelation? Who would undertake the laborious exertion of 
 research in all the great branches of science, if God had pro- 
 vided a shorter, an easier, a more royal road to the attainment 
 of truth? All the most valuable of the truths which man 
 discovers by the exercise of his natural powers require exer- 
 tion for their discovery. If these truths were also discovered 
 by divine revelation, the necessity of laborious exertion would 
 be entirely superseded. 
 
 All the great truths to which man has attained by the use 
 of his natural faculties have required a great expenditure of 
 labour for their discovery. The exercise of the higher powers 
 of the mind in the discovery of those truths is the divinely 
 appointed means by which, in the natural course of things, 
 the knowledge of them is attainable. Few persons unac- 
 quainted with these subjects can form an adequate idea of 
 
 E 2 
 
52 
 
 the amount of labour by which the great discoveries in mathe- 
 matical and physical science have been effected. 
 
 The expenditure of labour as the necessary condition is the 
 universal law which the Creator has imposed in the attain- 
 ment of every ordinary branch of human knowledge. The 
 higher the truth the greater is the labour necessary for its 
 acquisition. God has placed His book of nature open for man 
 to read it, but He has not intended that he should read it with- 
 out the exertion of all his mental powers. Man^s discoveries 
 in the kingdoms of nature and providence have been vast; 
 but they have been effected by means of the highest energy 
 and exertion. Is it to be supposed, then, that God would 
 ordain a laborious method for the discovery of truth, and 
 supersede His own appointed method by discovering those 
 truths by a supernatural revelation ? 
 
 We may lay it down, therefore, as a condition by which the 
 extent of a divine revelation will be limited, that God will not 
 communicate to man by inspiration the knowledge which He 
 has already given him ample means of acquiring by the exercise 
 of his natural powers. The inspiration, therefore, with which 
 a revelation would be communicated would not be extended 
 to matters adventitious to the proper subject-matter of that 
 revelation. 
 
 It follows as a necessary consequence that the truths of 
 physical science would form no proper subject-matter of a 
 divine revelation, nor would be communicated to man by super- 
 natural inspiration. God has already provided man with a 
 distinct and separate instrumentality, affording him ample 
 means of attaining the knowledge of those truths — the labo- 
 rious exertion of the powers of his mind on the phenomena 
 presented to him by God in the book of nature. To suppose 
 that the Creator has ordained this laborious method of arriving 
 at these truths, and then discovered them by a preternatural 
 revelation, would be little short of ascribing to Him an act of 
 folly of Avhich man would not be guilty. 
 
 If this view of the case be correct, numerous objections 
 against divine revelation, arising out of difficulties suggested 
 by physical science, at once fall to the ground. The discovery 
 
53 
 
 of the truths of physical science is no proper function of 
 inspiration; it belongs to the natural faculties of man, for 
 which they are completely adequate. An inspired writer, 
 therefore, if he has occasion to mention matters connected 
 with scientific truth, may use popular language and popular 
 conceptions on such subjects, even when they involve an in- 
 correct scientific theory. A remarkable instance of such 
 usage occurs in the Gospels, in the history of the cure of the 
 woman with an issue of blood. To this we will recur in its 
 proper place. It is no function of revelation to correct scien- 
 tific errors, or rather errors which exist through the want of 
 scientific knowledge. We have already proved that revealed 
 truth must be communicated to man in ordinary human lan- 
 guage. The expression "in hell,^^ et? aBov, involves an in- 
 correct scientific theory. It is an expression derived from 
 heathen mythology, and denotes "the house of Hades or 
 Pluto." The sacred writers use the words in their popular 
 sense, without being committed to their incorrect theory. The 
 occurrence of such modes of statement can form no possible 
 objection against Christianity as a divine revelation. 
 
 For similar reasons we infer that, in a revelation itself, 
 truth will not be so revealed as to supersede all necessity for 
 the exertion of man^s mental powers on the subject-matter of 
 that revelation. Labour is ordained by God as the road to 
 knowledge. We cannot, therefore, assume, because God has 
 made a supernatural revelation of truths not discernible by 
 the natural faculties, that He meant to supersede the neces- 
 sity of the active exercise of man's mental powers on those 
 truths. 
 
 It will perhaps be objected that, on these principles, the 
 communication of moral truths to man by means of a super- 
 natural revelation, if not impossible in itself, is a mode of 
 acting which the Creator would not adopt, as involving the 
 use of two sets of instruments for the production of the same 
 result. 
 
 It has been asserted as an objection against Christianity, 
 that a revelation of moral truth is impossible, because the 
 conceptions of moral truths must previously exist in the 
 
54 
 
 human mind before they can be introduced into the mind 
 from an external source. Unless such moral conceptions 
 existed in the mind, the mind would have no ideas where- 
 with to comprehend the external communication. It has 
 been further urged, that conscience is the one and exclusive 
 source of all moral obligation ; and if conscience is the source 
 of all moral obligation, moral truth can have neither force 
 nor power as communicated by a supernatural revelation. 
 
 The objection in this form is a most patent fallacy. It is 
 equally powerful against the possibility of communicating 
 any kind of truth, as against the possibility of discovering 
 moral truth by revelation. The argument would be equally 
 efi&cacious to prove that it is impossible to teach or commu- 
 nicate the truths of Euclid, because the primary conceptions 
 connected with mathematical science must previously exist 
 in the mind before the teacher can operate with success. 
 God, in ordaining the laws of the human mind, has mutually 
 adapted the objective and the subjective to each other. The 
 eye cannot see without an object ; the object is modified 
 from what it actually is by the eye. Moral truth, doubtless, 
 could not be revealed to man, if he had not a moral nature. 
 Man's possession of a conscience gives to morality a binding 
 force. But conscience pronounces judgment on the various 
 moral truths presented to it for its decision. Whatever 
 truth the understanding presents to the conscience, the con- 
 science pronounces on its validity. 
 
 But our immediate inquiry is not whether it is possible 
 that God can make a moral revelation, but whether His doing 
 so involves the use of a double instrumentality in the sense in 
 which we have already proved that it is not the mode of the 
 Divine acting. 
 
 The full discussion of this would render necessary the dis- 
 cussion of one of the deepest of revealed doctrines, the de- 
 pravity of man, and the mode in which that depravity has 
 been occasioned. The Scriptures assert its existence as a 
 fact. Revelation declares that free will, the glorious image 
 of the Divine freedom, has been imparted to man by his 
 Maker, and, through the abuse of that freedom, the moral 
 
55 
 
 constitution of man has been impaired. The balance of his 
 powerSj as they were established by his Creator, has been 
 subverted. It is one of the conditions of the creation of free- 
 dom, that man shoidd have a derived power of working on 
 his own being. If the assertions of the Scriptures respecting 
 man are correct, this difficulty is dissipated. 
 
 In speaking of moral truth, two points must be kept dis- 
 tinct, which there is great danger of confounding. There is 
 the moral truth or the moral duty itself. There is the mo- 
 tive by which the moral truth is enforced on the practice. 
 What Christianity asserts is, that the moral truths which man 
 knows, he is powerless to effectuate without the aid of the 
 motives which she alone is powerful to supply. Human testi- 
 mony fully confirms the first of these assertions. 
 
 To what extent are the natural faculties of man, devoid of 
 supernatural illumination, capable of discovering the great 
 truths of morals ? 
 
 There is no moral truth which Christianity teaches which 
 does not commend itself to the human conscience. When 
 such a truth is propounded to the conscience, it cannot help 
 pronouncing that it is a reasonable duty. When the con- 
 science hears the great truth announced, " Thou shall love thy 
 neighbour as thyself," it is compelled to pronounce that the 
 command is reasonable. 
 
 But while man must admit this obligation, there are in man's 
 present state other principles within him which render him 
 unwilling to practise it. This admission of obligation, united 
 with disobedience to its injunctions, constitutes the essence of 
 
 guilt. 
 
 If the records of existing literature were examined, they 
 would be found to contain a large portion of moral truth. 
 Numbers of precepts contained in revelation, not indeed pro- 
 pounded as a great code of human duty, but in a detached 
 form, have been discovered by persons who have not had the 
 benefit of a direct revelation. 
 
 But while the mere knowledge of moral truth has existed, 
 man's unassisted powers have been unable to discover any 
 motive sufficiently powerful to enable him habitually to 
 
56 
 
 practise what conscience has pronounced to be a matter of 
 obligation. 
 
 The highest motive which heathen philosophers have been 
 able to discover, to enforce the practice of virtue, has been 
 the conception of its moral beauty. They were unable to 
 sanction it by the realities of a future state. They could 
 only appeal to its tendencies to produce happiness in this 
 world. Of the nature of the love of God, as a motive to holi- 
 ness, they were ignorant. Mere appeals to the excellency of 
 virtue were the imperfect substitute. They were the highest 
 motive with which they were acquainted. They freely con- 
 fessed its feebleness. Man^s impetuous passions easily broke 
 through the weak restraint. The moral law of conscience, 
 to use the expression of St. Paul, "was weak through the 
 flesh." Man was cornipt, and reason and philosophy failed 
 to discover any motive powerful for his reformation. On 
 this point the language of philosophers is the language of 
 despair. They feel themselves powerless to act on the vulgar 
 herd. They might discuss curious points of morals with their 
 select disciples, but they were utterly destitute of motives 
 through which to preach to man a resurrection to holiness, 
 or even to render their own principles powerful to influence 
 their own conduct. Seneca preached high moi-ality, dwelt in 
 a marble palace, and justified Nero^s murder of his mother. 
 
 But although, in man's present condition, the motives 
 furnished by natural light are wholly powerless to effectuate 
 the moral law as a binding influence on the conduct, it by no 
 means follows that they were equally powerless in the ori- 
 ginal constitution of man. God created him a free agent, 
 and through that free agency he has become an independent 
 worker. Even the present constitution of man — that state 
 which man by his free agency has induced — points to what 
 was once the rightful supremacy of conscience. Permitted 
 free agency has subverted its dominion. Free agency and 
 the possession of a rational will have made man a cause. They 
 have enabled him to operate on his own being. 
 
 A motive powerful to impart strength to the present weak- 
 ness of man, but absent from every system of morals, it is the 
 
57 
 
 purpose and the glory of revelation to supply. Revelation 
 ■vritlidraws the curtain which veils the unseen world, and with 
 powerful reality discloses the great truth of man^s responsi- 
 bility. Revelation denies not the beauty of virtue, but it 
 creates a motive powerful to strengthen, to quicken, and to 
 animate the inmost recesses of the human heart — the love of 
 God in Christ. Revelation discloses in morals a new crea- 
 tion — infinite love dying for the unholy, a glorious Christ 
 freely offering himself as a sacrifice for man. What man's 
 natural powers have been unable to invent, revelation has 
 created — a motive powerful to animate the lifeless body 
 of morality — the law of love — Christ, through his death 
 and resurrection, become the Lord both of the dead and 
 living. Christian morality now centres in Christ's glorious 
 person. The creation of a motive powerful to enforce moral 
 obligation has been attended with a corresponding enlarge- 
 ment of the bounds of morality itself — " Love one another, 
 as I have loved you." 
 
 Shall we, then, assume that the Creator has failed in the 
 execution of His work, and not created a motivity adequate 
 to enable man to yield obedience to the moral law ? Is His 
 purpose therefore void of its effect? We answer, He has 
 created free agency in man, subject to the necessary con- 
 ditions which free agency involves, and His purpose is the 
 creation of that free agency. Shall we assume that He has 
 supplemented an imperfect operation by a double instru- 
 mentality ? Having first created man with a motive which 
 was inadequate, has He provided an adequate one by revela- 
 tion? We reply. By His creative act He has created free 
 agency in man, subject to the conditions which it involves. 
 By revelation He has created motivity adequate to obedience, 
 without impairing the free agency which He has created. In 
 producing obedience in the holy, in generating holiness in 
 man, and in overthrowing the dominion of moral evil, the 
 Creator works by a single instrumentality, by motives which 
 are the sole product of revelation, which, when firmly em- 
 braced by the human mind, are powerful to render the moral 
 law the living guide of the life of man — the great truths which 
 
58 
 
 He has disclosed in bygone ages by inspiration, and Las 
 consummated in the revelation of the Gospel. 
 
 It is also a matter of antecedent certainty that, if it pleased 
 the Creator to make a supernatural revelation of His ^vill, 
 He would adopt the necessary means for authenticating that 
 revelation with the stamp of His own authority. He would 
 provide that tliose for whom it was intended might be under 
 no uncertainty that its truths proceeded fi'om Him. With- 
 out such an authentication, the end and purpose of making 
 the revelation would entirely fail of attaining their object. 
 The proper authentication of the revelation must therefore 
 form a substantial portion of the Divine plan. Unless suf- 
 ficient e\'idence were aflbrded that the revelation was from 
 God, it would be the same as if it had never been com- 
 municated. 
 
 But respecting the amoimt of truth which God would com- 
 municate in a revelation we have no other grounds of ante- 
 cedent certainty to guide us. Before we can determine such 
 a qviestion, we must know the nature of the Divine piu'poses, 
 and be able to penetrate to the remote depths of the Divine 
 mind. But who can presume to penetrate into the council- 
 chamber of the ]\Iost High? All theories propounded on 
 such a subject can be no better than mere guesses, founded 
 on more or less of supposed probability, respecting which 
 certainty is not attainable by man. 
 
 CHAPTER V. 
 
 THE BIPOSSIBILITY OF AEGUING FROM THE DIVINE AT- 
 TRIBUTES TO THE FACTS OF NATURE INVALIDATES ALL 
 SUCH ARGUMENTS WHEN APPLIED TO THE FACTS OF 
 A REVELATION. 
 
 This involves a truth of the utmost importance for the de- 
 termination of the mode in which inspiration must be com- 
 municated. If antecedent assumptions, founded on om^ views 
 
59 
 
 of the Divine attributes, fail to conduct us to the facts of 
 nature as they actually exist, they must be wholly impotent 
 to determine what must be the facts of a revelation. If we 
 were to reason as to what the universe must be from those 
 attributes, we should construct a universe widely different 
 from the one which the Creator has actually formed. As this 
 has a most important bearing on our estimate of what, on 
 mere grounds of antecedent i)robability, avc might expect in 
 a divine revelation, we will adduce a few instances of the 
 utter fallacy of all such reasonings. 
 
 It would seem to be antecedently probable, that the attri- 
 bute of perfect goodness in the Creator would render it ne- 
 cessary that He should communicate to man the greatest pos- 
 sible degree of happiness Avhich he was capable of receiving. 
 This would appear more probable when we consider that His 
 goodness cannot possibly be impeded by defects either in His 
 power or His wisdom. What impediment can obstruct Om- 
 nipotence? If the Creator is absolutely good, wise, and 
 powerful, we should not only naturally conclude that no 
 evil existed under His government, but that every creature 
 was actually enjoying the greatest amount of happiness of 
 which its nature was capable. 
 
 The same argument would lead us to conclude that there 
 could be no degrees of happiness in the universe, but that 
 every creature must have been alike endowed with happiness 
 by its Creator. If God be almighty, all- wise, perfectly good, 
 and perfectly just, how can He bestow on one being a greater 
 degree of happiness than He has bestowed on another ? No 
 grounds of merit can be the reason of His preference. If 
 He has done so, it must be at the expense of the attribute of 
 equity. 
 
 On similar grounds we might assume that we sliould find 
 no progressive happiness in the universe, but that the greatest 
 possible degree of happiness had been communicated at once. 
 If God is perfectly good, nothing but limitations in His 
 power or His wisdom can hinder Him from the most per- 
 fect display of goodness in each particular instance. 
 
 On similar grounds we might argue that the Creator must 
 
60 
 
 have communicated to man the greatest amount of knowledge 
 which he was capable of receiving. For the same reasons we 
 might infer that all were endowed with equal faculties for its 
 attainment^ and that the highest possible degree of knowledge 
 had been communicated at once. On similar antecedent 
 views of the Divine attributes we might infer that God had 
 not made the acquisition of knowledge difficult, because it is so 
 desirable. On the same grounds we might infer that such 
 knowledge did not require to be communicated by revelation 
 at all, but that the Divine goodness rendered it necessary that 
 all desirable knowledge should have been communicated from 
 the very first. From such reasonings we might build a 
 universe wholly different from the one which has been actually 
 erected by the Almighty. Such conclusions would seem to 
 follow with inevitable certainty from reasonings on separate 
 attributes of the Creator; but, when tested by His acts, 
 they totally fail us in unfolding the actualities of His creative 
 works. 
 
 If then we make similar assumptions as to what God must 
 do in communicating a revelation, on the ground of our 
 human views as to the perfection of the Divine attributes, and 
 argue from those views of perfection what the particular acts 
 of the Divine Being must be in communicating a revelation of 
 His will, we shall wander as far from the truth, with respect 
 to the actual facts of that revelation, as similar modes of ar- 
 gumentation on the same attributes would cause us to wander 
 from the actual facts exhibited in God^s creative and provi- 
 dential kingdoms. From such reasonings we might draw the 
 most varied inferences as to what God must reveal, and the 
 mode which must be employed by Him in making that reve- 
 lation. But our only means of knowing what perfect goodness 
 requires God to do in any particular case is by inquiring what 
 He has actually done. In the same manner, our only means 
 of knowing what amount of knowledge God mu^st communicate, 
 if He be pleased to make a revelation, is by ascertaining what 
 amount of knowledge He has actually communicated, either by 
 the study of the works of nature or by examining the pages of 
 an authenticated revelation. 
 
61 
 
 We are equaUy devoid of all grounds of antecedent proba- 
 bility to guide us, if it were the Creator^s pleasure to make a 
 revelation, what would be the means employed in communi- 
 cating this revelation, or whether the revelation would consist 
 of a simple divine element, or to what extent a human ele- 
 ment might be united or mixed up with the divine one. 
 
 The argument from our human view of the Divine attri- 
 butes to facts as they exist, or deductions from single Divine 
 attributes as to what must or ought to be, universally fail 
 when brought to the test of things as they actually exist. It 
 is hardly possible to conceive of any assertion which could 
 have a higher degree of antecedent probability than that evil 
 could not exist in the universe of a perfect Creator. No pro- 
 bability as to the mode which God must adopt in communi- 
 cating a revelation can have an amount of evidence at all 
 comparable with this. But evil does exist. Its existence has 
 proved a sore trial to the faith of the good in every age. The 
 intellect of man has vainly endeavoured to fathom this profound 
 mystery from the earliest dawn of human thought. With our 
 present faculties, it is impossible to deduce the actualities of 
 existence from considerations derived from the attributes of 
 God. Our reasonings are based on our finite views of single 
 and separate attributes in the Creator. We are unable to take 
 a combined view of the complicated whole, or to deduce Avhat 
 must be the necessary result of their complicated action. We 
 are equally unable to grasp the Divine works taken as a whole; 
 and until we can do so it is impossible to form an opinion as 
 to the relations which detached portions of them bear to the 
 Divine perfections. Until we can comprehend both of these 
 subjects, our reasonings as to what God must or must not do 
 in particular cases are necessarily futile. 
 
 The clear perception of this truth is of the utmost import- 
 ance in forming a judgment as to what God must or must 
 not do in communicating a revelation of His will. Most 
 assertions made on this subject rest on precisely the same 
 foundation as similar assertions made as to what must be His 
 conduct as Creator and Preserver of the universe. A large 
 portion of the views usually maintained as to what must be 
 
63 
 
 tlie nature of a divine revelation are bare probabilities of this 
 description. Nothing was more common in former times than 
 for ingenious writers to construct systems of the universe 
 founded on their views of what the Divine attributes require 
 that it should be. Nothing has been more fallacious than 
 these systems as exponents of its actual facts. In a similar 
 manner, it has been a general practice to construct systems 
 based on antecedent data of what must be the mode of com- 
 municating a divine revelation, and what must be the contents 
 of that revelation. Why should this latter mode of procedure 
 lead to results more satisfactory than the former ? Research 
 as to the actual facts presented by the universe has proved 
 the resultlessness of such reasonings. Similar investigation 
 into the actual facts of revelation will prove no less destruc- 
 tive to the latter. 
 
 It is so important to perceive the utter resultlessness of 
 this species of argument as a guide to truth as to the actuali- 
 ties of creation and providence, that we must adduce the chief 
 instances in which such reasonings would conduct us to con- 
 clusions utterly opposed to facts as they actually exist in 
 nature. 
 
 First, as to our conception of almighty power. There is no- 
 thing which almighty power cannot efltectuate which does not 
 involve a contradiction. We may argue from this attribute that 
 the universe cannot contain a defect which it was in the poAver 
 of the Omnipotent to have prevented. But defects do exist, 
 which it is impossible to say that almighty power could not 
 have hindered. Could not almighty power have framed 
 otherwise the imperfect organisms which we see in nature ? 
 Could not Omnipotence have prevented the monstrosities 
 which not unfrequently are produced in the animal and vege- 
 table kingdoms ? Arguing from a priori principles, we shoidd 
 draw the conclusion that every exhibition of God's poAver 
 must be absolutely free from every conceivable defect. Such 
 conclusions, however, will inadequately represent the facts of 
 nature. 
 
 Similar conclusions will folloAV from abstract arguments 
 derived from the perfect wisdom of the Creator. The Creator 
 
63 
 
 is not only perfectly wise, but He unites infinite wisdom with 
 infinite power. Infinite wisdom gives the Creator boundless 
 skill. Nothing is beyond His power of contrivance. Infinite 
 power enables Him both to create and use the means which 
 His "wisdom suggests. Every resource is at His command. 
 
 From the existence of these attributes in the Creator, 
 if we argue on antecedent principles and frame a system of 
 the universe in conformity with their conclusions, we should 
 infer that there could not exist in the universe one single 
 imperfection which it was within the power of either of those 
 attributes to have prevented. We might infer that an im- 
 perfect work of any description could not have proceeded 
 from the hands of infinite wisdom and power. This would 
 lead us to the conclusion either that such imperfect works did 
 not exist in the universe of God, or that, where they did exist, 
 they must be the result of the operation of another worker 
 than God. 
 
 But how stand the facts of the case ? As we contemplate 
 the universe, is it free from every imperfection which infinite 
 power and wisdom united could not have obviated ? When we 
 see with our eyes defects in the animal or the vegetable king- 
 doms, shall we, on the strength of our reasoning, deny their 
 existence, or say that God is not the author of them ? Shall 
 we assert that everything in the universe which, to human 
 apprehension, denotes imperfection cannot be the workman- 
 ship of God ? Shall we say of every imperfect organism Avhich 
 exists in animals or vegetables, that God did not make it thus ? 
 When we see a man lame, blind, or a cripple, or with some 
 other defect in his bodily structure, shall we say that God 
 did not make that man ? If God has not made these organisms 
 thus, who has? Have they made themselves? Are their defects 
 owing to their being evolved through the operation of imper- 
 fect laws ? Did not God make those laws ? Shall we say that 
 the devil has made them thus ? 
 
 The facts are undeniable, and are to be found widely scat- 
 tered through every department of nature. The Divine work- 
 manship presents tlie most wonderful exhibitions of the opera- 
 tion of the Creator ; but perfection is not the universal rule of 
 
64 
 
 actual existence. Some endeavour to account for the existence 
 of these imperfections by the action of general laws^ others by 
 the existence of sin, others by the counteracting agency of an 
 independent principle of evil. How do these considerations 
 aid us to explain the difficulty ? They remove it only one 
 step further back. If they result from the action of general 
 lawsj if God is the Creator of the universe. He has ordained 
 those laws in their imperfect operation. There, then, must 
 have been a limit to His power or His wisdom. If those laws 
 operate independently of Him, there is a plain limitation of 
 His power. If they are dependent on Him, and they act im- 
 perfectly, how shall we say that He is not their author ? If 
 the imperfections are the result of sin, then sin itself has been 
 permitted to enter and ravage the universe of which the 
 Creator is the sovereign Lord. Could not Omnipotence and 
 Omniscience have prevented such a result ? The organisms 
 in question, despite of their defects, are marvellous exhibi- 
 tions of creative power and wisdom. Did God make the per- 
 fect portions of them, and sin the imperfect ones? In as- 
 suming such a power as sin, we assume the existence of a 
 power of working in the universe, which owes its being to the 
 Divine will, independent of the power of the Almighty, which 
 He either cannot or will not control. If we ascribe these 
 imperfections to the existence of an independent principle of 
 evil, we at once assert that there is an agent operating in the 
 universe independently of the Almighty, whose operations 
 He is able neither to overcome nor restrain. By these solu- 
 tions we do not explain the difficulty, but remove it one stage 
 from our view. 
 
 But that God has built the universe and all things therein, 
 is the great truth proclaimed alike both by natiu'al reason 
 and revealed religion. Whatever is done there. He must 
 have been, and is, the doer of it. This truth stands on a 
 higher ground than any truth merely deduced from our con- 
 ceptions of His separate attributes. If an animal is born 
 with two heads or with superfluous limbs, shall we venture 
 to affirm that God did not make it? The organism itself 
 contains mighty exhibitions of wisdom and of power. Who 
 
65 
 
 formed its vessels in all their complicated relationships? 
 who assigned to each their respective functions ? If they 
 are not God's work, they must have either produced them- 
 selves or be the work of one who is not God. 
 
 The existence of these things in nature presents us with 
 but three alternatives. Either the Creator has created the 
 world subject to definite laws, and by means of these laws, 
 without any further operation on His part, He has evolved 
 all existing things : these laws have become deranged, 
 maimed, and imperfect ; and He has left the imperfection to 
 itself, and He has ceased to exert over them either creative 
 power or providence. Or He has permitted one who is not 
 God to perform creative acts in His own universe. Or, for 
 reasons unknown to us, in the regular exercise of His creative 
 energy. He has formed the imperfect organisms Himself. To 
 ascribe these things to the first of these causes is to admit a 
 theory which banishes the Creator to a remote distance from 
 His works, and, after all, obliges us to admit imperfection in 
 His acting. To ascribe them to the second is to admit a 
 theory which no devout theist will concede. It follows, there- 
 fore, that the organisms, with all their imperfections, must be 
 the Creator's work, which, for reasons which we cannot pene- 
 trate, but which must be consistent with His infinite power 
 and wisdom. He has made thus. We are inadequate judges, 
 therefore, respecting the inferences which are to be deduced 
 from the attributes of God as to the nature of the facts which 
 must be presented by creation. 
 
 Reasonings, therefore, deduced from the attributes of God 
 as to what must be the actualities of creation fail to conduct 
 us to a knowledge of the created universe. The actual uni- 
 verse differs vastly from what we should have expected, on 
 mere antecedent considerations derived from the Divine attri- 
 butes, would have been the universe of the Almighty, the 
 infinitely wise and benevolent God. Instrumentality is used 
 to eff"ectuate His purposes, such as we should never have 
 expected; it contains what to human conceptions imply 
 limitation of power, of wisdom, and of goodness, in the very 
 midst of displays of the same attributes, which prove the 
 
 p 
 
66 
 
 reality of their existence in the Creator. These imperfec- 
 tions do not exist in the actual structure of the universe, but 
 arise from the limitation of the human mind, and its inability 
 to apprehend in their fulness both the perfections and the 
 works of Him whose being and whose perfections are beyond 
 the apprehension of the finite. These difficulties must ever 
 exceed the powers of man to fathom. Our inability to recon- 
 cile all the facts of the universe with our conceptions of the 
 perfection of the attributes of the Creator leads to one in- 
 evitable conclusion, that all reasonings from a priori views of 
 what ought to be, to facts as they are, are inconclusive ; they 
 fail to conduct us to the truth of the universe as it has actu- 
 ally issued from the hand of its Creator. 
 
 But what follows ? Shall we argue from our views of the 
 attributes of the Creator that the perfection of these attri- 
 butes, which have not rendered it necessary that He should 
 produce a universe perfect according to human conceptions, 
 must compel Him to make a revelation which fully realizes 
 these human notions of perfection? Shall we insist that 
 everything in that revelation must be squared according to 
 our rule and plummet ? Shall we assert, if it contains things 
 which we should not have expected it to contain, or if it has 
 been communicated in a manner less accvirate than we may 
 think desirable, or by a different mode of inspiration from 
 that which we should have supposed antecedently probable, 
 that a revelation, however strongly attested, cannot be a re- 
 velation from the Most High ? We might as well assert that 
 the universe cannot be His work. On the contrary, we will 
 infer that reasonings which wholly fail in explaining the 
 Divine conduct, as God actually exhibits it as Creator and 
 Preserver of the universe, will be equally unsafe guides to 
 truth when applied to what God must do as the author of a 
 supernatural revelation. 
 
 Similar conclusions may be deduced from the human view 
 of the Divine attribute of goodness. God is absolutely and 
 perfectly benevolent and good ; to this goodness He unites in- 
 finite power and wisdom. He has, therefore, at His com- 
 mand the most absolute means of most perfectly exhibiting 
 
67 
 
 this attribute in creation and providence. His benevolence 
 prompts Him to produce the greatest possible amount of 
 good ; His wisdom enables Him to contrive the means suit- 
 able for its production; His power enables Him to create 
 the means, and effectuate the full purposes of His will. 
 Arguing, therefore, on our human views of these three sepa- 
 rate Divine attributes, it follows as a legitimate conclusion, 
 that every existing being in the universe is endowed with the 
 highest degree of happiness of which it is capable. 
 
 Now no antecedent probability as to the mode which God 
 must adopt in communicating a revelation has an equal 
 degree of apparent certainty as that, if God is perfectly good, 
 powerful, and wise, in the universe of which He is the Creator 
 and Preserver, neither moral evil nor physical suffering would 
 have been permitted to exist. Their existence at all, according 
 to our conceptions, implies some limitation of the Divine good- 
 ness, power, or wisdom. Still greater is the degree of im- 
 probability that they would have been permitted to exist to the 
 extent in which they actually do exist. 
 
 If we assume that perfect and absolute goodness exists 
 in the Deity, united with power without bounds to effec- 
 tuate, and wisdom to contrive, how is it possible that 
 misery should have entered the kingdom of the Almighty ? 
 How is it that holiness is frequently in the deepest de- 
 pression in thf.t world in which the Creator has all things 
 in His hands, and over which the Lord is king for ever and 
 ever ? The argument seems a near approach to demonstra- 
 tion. The perfect goodness of the Divine mind moves the 
 Deity to the production of nothing but good. To the purity 
 of the Divine character moral evil is utterly repugnant. 
 His omnipotent power enables Him to effect whatever His 
 goodness and holiness will, at least everything not in- 
 volving a contradiction ; His infinite wisdom gives Him the 
 most perfect acquaintance with the means by which His 
 ends can be accomplished, and of the tendencies of those 
 ends. How, then, can moral or physical evil exist as the 
 result of the creative power or providence of God, perfectly 
 good and perfectly holy, with infinite power, and knowledge 
 
 f2 
 
68 
 
 ■without limit ? How antecedently improbable is it that moral 
 evil should not only have entered, but actually have spread in 
 the universe of that God to whom sin is utterly repugnant ? 
 
 But sin, evil, and suffering do exist in the imiverse, and in a 
 degree which is both painful and awful. Its existence is so 
 palpable, it is so much the experience of daily life, that to 
 attempt to prove it is a work of supererogation. Its existence 
 is not a diflSculty Avhich lies hard on the Christian faith alone; 
 it is no less perplexing to the philosopher. It bears equally 
 hard on natural religion as on Christianity. Some, therefore, 
 as a solution of the difficulty, have denied the existence of 
 God. Others, forgetting that the difficulty lies equally at the 
 seat of every system of theism, in consequence of the supposed 
 difficulties which it presents, deny that the Christian religion 
 is a revelation from God. Others endeavour to palliate by 
 every conceivable device the amount of evil which actually 
 exists. But can they deny that evil exists at all ? Such a 
 denial is the only thing which can really solve the difficulty. 
 Little and great is all alike to the Creator. He could as easily 
 have prevented a little evil as a great one. If they cannot 
 deny its entire existence, to diminish merely the amount of 
 evil will not help them. A Creator all-powerful, wise, and 
 good could have prevented the smallest evil from entering the 
 universe. Shall the denial of the existence of a Creator be 
 the refuge to which we will have recourse ? But the universe 
 is full with the proofs of His being. To do so is to attempt 
 to evade one difficulty by rushing into a greater. We might 
 as well deny that the universe itself exists. Shall we assert 
 that there is no real distinction between moral and physical 
 evil, and that the existence of physical evil is a necessary con- 
 sequence of the existence of finite being ? Then, unless we 
 can show that it involves a contradiction, we admit that a 
 necessity exists independently of the will of the Creator, which 
 even that will could not overcome ; or we rush into the ab- 
 surdities of pantheism. 
 
 But it has been asserted, as an explanation, that physical 
 evil is the result of moral evil, and that moral evil owes its 
 being to the independent freedom of the human will, and 
 
69 
 
 man^s revolt fi'om his Maker. That physical suffering is occa- 
 sioned by moral evil requires proof; but supposing the latter 
 portion of the assertion true, does this supposition get rid 
 of the difficulty ? does it do more than remove that difficulty 
 backwards a single step. When God created the universe 
 subject to the conditions to which He subjected it, had He not 
 the most perfect knowledge whereto those conditions tended ? 
 Was not the subjection of the human mind to its existing 
 conditions the result of the fiat of His creative power ? Could 
 He not have created it subject to other conditions ? Unless 
 the supposition involves a positive contradiction, the assertion 
 that God could not have prevented the entrance of evil into 
 the universe, or that He could not have acted otherwise than 
 He has acted, is a direct limitation of the power of the_Creator. 
 
 It has been urged that the free agency of moral beings 
 could only have existed if they were created subject to the 
 condition that considerable numbers of them would fall. 
 Consequently, that the misery occasioned by the sinfulness 
 of man is a necessary condition of his free agency. But have 
 we any reliable evidence that it is so ? Are such assertions 
 better than conjecture? Even if it were so, we assign a limit 
 to the power of the Creator. But on what evidence have we 
 the assurance that the creation of free will could not be united 
 with such a perception of the existence of goodness as to have 
 placed an effectual barrier to the existence of evil ? To 
 assume that this was impossible, unless we can show that it 
 involves a contradiction, involves either a limitation in the 
 power of God or the assertion that something exists indepen- 
 dently of His will. 
 
 But the difficulty has been explained by asserting that 
 moral evil will be ultimately eradicated, and physical suffering 
 compensated for in another state. But how does this assump- 
 tion explain the present existence of either physical or moral 
 evil in the universe of a perfectly powerful, wise, holy, and 
 benevolent Creator ? The point which requires solution is not 
 how it can be compensated hereafter, but the fact of its pre- 
 sent existence here, and how its existence is compatible with 
 the attributes of perfect goodness and infinite power and 
 wisdom in God. Could He not have prevented it altogether ? 
 
70 
 
 The only adequate answer which can be given respecting 
 such difficulties is^ that their solution transcends all the powers 
 of the human understanding. Except to a very limited extent^ 
 we can arrive at no certainties, from arguments based on 
 human views of the Divine attributes, as to what must be the 
 Divine conduct in particular cases, or what is required by the 
 action of those attributes as a complicated whole. We have 
 abundant proof that infinite power, infinite wisdom, and per- 
 fect holiness are attributes of God, and that feelings towards 
 God corresponding to those attributes are great duties of man. 
 We know that a Being who is good must produce good by His 
 creative acts ; we know that such a Being cannot be tempted 
 of evil. This should teach us humility in making positive 
 assertions in matters beyond the reach of our faculties. But 
 the only answer which can be given to the difficulties is, we 
 are entirely unable to determine the mode in which the 
 attributes of God must operate in every creative act of the 
 Almighty. 
 
 If, then, reasonings founded on human views of the attri- 
 butes of God lead us to incorrect views as to the facts of crea- 
 tion and providence, and if we should form from such reason- 
 ings most incorrect views as to the manner in which He 
 ought to have created the universe, reasonings founded on 
 similar views must lead to conclusions equally erroneous as 
 to the mode which He must have adopted in discovering Him- 
 self by a supernatural revelation. 
 
 We will now consider what light is afforded by these prin- 
 ciples on the subject-matter of a divine revelation, and the 
 mode in which it must be communicated. 
 
 If the same God is the author of creation and providence, 
 and the author of a revelation, we have the strongest ante- 
 cedent certainty that as He displays Himself in the one He 
 would display Himself in the other. This is founded on 
 God^s character as a moral agent. The action of the Divine 
 attributes must be constant and invariable. With the all- 
 perfect God capriciousness must be impossible. The Divine 
 attributes must form the motives of the Divine conduct. 
 Whatever difficulties we should find in the one, we should 
 expect similar difficulties in the other. If reasonings founded 
 
71 
 
 on human views of the Divine conduct failed as guides to facts 
 in the one^ we should expect them similarly to fail in the 
 other. 
 
 This analogy prevails through all the works of the Creator. 
 "We find it a rule pervading all the operations of intelligent 
 beings^ that their works must contain a general impress of 
 their character. The difficulties which we find in them are 
 all of a similar description. If, therefore^ the antecedent 
 probabilities of which we have been speaking are insufficient 
 guides to enable us to arrive at the actual facts of God^s crea- 
 tive acts and general government, we conclude that similar 
 presumptions, when applied to the facts of a revelation, will 
 be equally insufficient guides to unfold to lis the actual facts 
 of that revelation, or the mode of its communication. 
 
 Now, on what evidence do the usual theories that such and 
 such things must necessarily form a portion of a Divine reve- 
 lation, or that it must be communicated in this or that particu- 
 lar manner, rest ? 
 
 Are the principles in question at all different in character 
 from those which have been frequently applied to determine 
 the manner in which God must have acted as Creator, and 
 which have led to conclusions utterly at variance with the facts 
 which the universe presents ? 
 
 It has been often asserted that if God be the author of a 
 revelation, it must be absolutely perfect according to human 
 views of the perfection of the Divine character. But what 
 evidence does this assertion rest upon beyond the very prin- 
 ciples which, when they are applied to account for creation, 
 totally fail in conducting us to the truth of what God has 
 actually done. We cannot infer that each separate detail of 
 a divine revelation must be perfect, more than we can infer 
 that each separate detail of creation and providence must 
 possess a distinct and separate perfection. Perfect it will un- 
 doubtedly be as far as God's purposes are concerned ; for that 
 is the same thing as asserting that whatever He purposes He 
 accomplishes. But we are ignorant of the precise nature of 
 those purposes, and therefore we are unable to measure it by 
 a human standard of perfection. 
 
73 
 
 It has been generally assumed that if God be the author 
 of a revelation^ every portion of it must contain an equally 
 distinct statement of truth ; God cannot have employed mere 
 relative truth in communicating with man ; the truth con- 
 veyed in the revelation must be absolute truth respecting His 
 own moral character and perfections. But is this the rule by 
 which the Creator acts in nature? Do apparent imperfections 
 in nature, does the existence of moral evil and physical suffer- 
 ing, prove that the Creator is not infinitely powerful, wise, 
 and good ? Are not many of the truths conveyed by God's 
 actings in nature relative truths ? Particular stages of human 
 civilization are only capable of low views respecting the 
 Divine character. The views of moral obligation between 
 man and man are of a similar description. It is thought 
 unworthy of the Deity to use language, in a revelation of His 
 will, accommodated to an imperfect civilization or imperfect 
 spiritual and moral perception. Hence an objection is urged 
 against considerable portions of the Old Testament as a divine 
 revelation. On the other hand, those who maintain its divine 
 origin endeavour to evade its supposed difficulties by assigning 
 to such passages a degree of enlightenment and elevation of 
 moral feeling which no person would naturally draw from the 
 passages themselves. 
 
 The whole force of the objection arises from supposing that 
 a revelation can contain truth expressed in terms as it abso- 
 lutely exists in the Divine, and not expressed relatively to the 
 human mind. When we clearly perceive that all the disco- 
 veries of a divine revelation must consist of relative truth, the 
 only question which can exist is as to the degree of the ac- 
 commodation. It is impossible to deny the principle that all 
 revealed truth respecting God must be relative, and not 
 absolute. This truth we have already proved. 
 
 In conformity with this mode of discovering truth by a 
 supernatural revelation is the actual mode of the Divine 
 working in creation and providence, as it is portrayed in the 
 book of nature. The Creator has unquestionably commenced 
 His operations with the lower forms of life, and with less 
 complicated structures, and has advanced by slow and gradual 
 
73 
 
 stages to tlie creation of the higher. To the truth of this every 
 discovery of science bears unequivocal testimony. Whatever 
 conclusions we may arrive at from abstract reasonings on the 
 Divine attributes, the actual operations of the Almighty as 
 they come under man's observation in His works give one 
 uniform testimony, that the Creator as a worker does not 
 produce works abstractedly perfect, even according to human 
 notions of perfection, but the law of His operations is to 
 advance higher and higher, from stage to stage, in the king- 
 dom of nature. God manifests Himself as a worker, not in 
 time, but in eternity, ever manifesting fresh and unceasing 
 displays of His glories. Human conceptions of perfection are 
 applicable only to a being who exists in time. 
 
 If, then, as Creator and Preserver of the universe, God 
 begins with that which is imperfect, and gradually advances 
 by slow progress towards perfection, we may conclude that the 
 same Divine worker will act in a similar manner in making a 
 revelation of His will. 
 
 It has been argued from the supposed necessity that the 
 Creator should display Himself in each of His particular 
 operations as a perfect worker, that it is impossible that a 
 human element should exist in a revelation which is wholly 
 divine. The admission of a human element existing there is 
 represented as a denial of its perfection, and therefore of its 
 divine character. 
 
 Now on what foundation can such an assumption rest? 
 We have already seen that all arguments from the human 
 views of perfection to corresponding displays of perfection in 
 the separate Divine operations are entirely futile. We have 
 also already seen that, whatever apparent imperfection there 
 exists according to man's estimate of it in the Divine opera- 
 tions, we should expect to find similar phenomena in a reve- 
 lation of which the same moral Being was the author. To 
 say that a human element cannot exist in union with a divine 
 one in a revelation, is to assert that we are adequate judges 
 of the means which infinite wisdom must employ in its 
 operations. 
 
 But in creation and providence God employs agencies, for 
 the purpose of effecting His designs, of a character such as we 
 
74 
 
 never should have expected. Who would have anticipated 
 that the benevolent Author of all good would have employed 
 earthquakes^ volcanoes, storms and tempests, pestilence and 
 war, for the effectuation of the most gracious purposes ? Who 
 would have imagined that the immense destruction of animal 
 life would have been a means subservient to the most benevo- 
 lent ends * ? Nothing strikes the devout contemplator of the 
 Creator's works as more contrary to what he should have 
 antecedently expected than the existence on an enormous 
 scale of what, contemplated in a human point of view, has 
 been designated as a waste in creation. Vast numbers of 
 things, formed with elaborate creative power and skill, seem 
 formed for no other end than that they should perish, and, as 
 far as man can see, effectuate no purpose in creation. No 
 tongue can tell of the enormous expenditure of animal life in 
 the ocean, in the air, and on the land. The number of eggs 
 which the Creator has formed Avhich never emerge into life 
 is past all computation. Seeds, which are formed with ad- 
 mirable workmanship, and perish, are as numerous as the 
 sand on the ocean shore. Infinite varieties of the mos^ com- 
 plicated organisms, or of the most elaborate structures, adorned 
 with inconceivable beauty, have probably never been contem-^ 
 plated by an eye capable of appreciating their glories from the 
 hour of their creation. Birds who have never emerged from 
 primeval forest, shells buried in the profoundest depths of 
 ocean, and insects in numbers numberless, too minute for 
 human eye to behold. He has arrayed in robes of beauty, at 
 which Solomon's, in all their glory, must stand abashed. The 
 human mind eagerly asks, like Judas of old. To what purpose 
 is this waste ? Is it that the Creator, in the solitude of His 
 infinitude, rejoices in the contemplation of the productions of 
 His boundless power and of the results of His infinite wisdom? 
 The Creator refuses to answer. He dwells in a depth impe- 
 netrable to man. To the height of His infinity who shall 
 soar? To human apprehension, creation is full of waste; 
 but who shall venture to assert that it is waste with God ? 
 
 But, if such be the aspect of creation when contemplated 
 by the limited faculties of man, who shall venture to assert 
 * See ' Plurality of Worlds/ passmi. 
 
75 
 
 that a similar aspect may not be presented by a divine reve- 
 lation vrhen viewed by the same faculties, if that revelation 
 has the Creator of the universe for its author ? If it contains 
 things of which we cannot see the use, is that to be accepted 
 as affording conclusive proof that it cannot come from God? 
 If it contains means for effectuating His purposes such as we 
 should not have antecedently expected, can that prove that it 
 cannot have God for its author ? If it does, the same argu- 
 ment proves that the universe is not the workmanship of the 
 Most High. If in the created universe the Almighty has 
 used earthquakes and volcanoes to effectuate the purposes of 
 benevolence — if storms and desolations do His bidding — if He 
 makes wars and revolutions subservient to the moral training 
 of mankind — if creation abounds with "what to human appre- 
 hension is a wasteful expenditure of power, who shall venture 
 to assert that He, who is all-powerful and all-wise, cannot 
 introduce a human element into a revelation, and use it as an 
 instrument for the discovery of His will ? 
 
 Whether, then, a revelation woiild be discovered in an 
 historical form, whether it would contain dogmatic state- 
 ments of truth, or would present us with a complete system 
 of theology, whether its records would be confined strictly to 
 the subject-matter of a supernatural revelation, or in what 
 proportion the human and the divine would be interwoven in 
 such a revelation, are questions which can be determined by 
 no antecedent reasonings. Such reasonings would be equally 
 fallacious, as we have found them, as guides to the structure 
 of the universe. We are equally unable to determine through 
 what agencies of the human mind the revelation would be 
 communicated, of what kind would be the instruction afforded, 
 whether a constant supervision would be exerted over every 
 stage of its delivery, or whether it would be rapid or gradual 
 in its communication. Antecedent certainty on such sub- 
 jects we have none. If we wish to have definite views on 
 them, our views must be deduced from the facts of an actually 
 authenticated revelation. The absence of all a priori certainty 
 on this subject is the necessary consequence of the limited 
 human intellect being unable adequately to judge the conduct 
 
76 
 
 of the Infinite mind. This inability results from the human 
 mind not possessing conceptions which are measures of the 
 actualities as they exist in God, but only imperfect represen- 
 tations of them. Its antecedent judgments can only afford 
 grounds of certainty when they are confined to the great 
 outlines of the conduct and character of God. Limited thus, 
 if a professed revelation contradicts such primary views of the 
 Divine character, it cannot have God for its author. Sup- 
 posing a revelation conceded to a pretended prophet indul- 
 gences which it denied to other men, if there was anything 
 in it AAdiich plainly and palpably contradicted the Divine attri- 
 butes taken as a whole — as that God looked with compla- 
 cency on actions essentially immoral, or that the great Go- 
 vernor of the universe possessed a material body, or that He 
 was not self-existent, or that anything existed independently 
 of His will, or that He was in any way subject to finite limi- 
 tation — this would be ample and sufficient proof that such a 
 pretended revelation could have not had God for its author. 
 But to be able in this manner to form a correct judgment on 
 the general principles of the Divine character, and the con- 
 tents of a revelation as in conformity with it, is a very dif- 
 ferent thing from being able to decide whether the minor 
 contents of a revelation are consistent with particular attri- 
 butes of God. 
 
 We know, on the highest evidence, that the Creator must 
 be self- existent, almighty, and infinitely wise. We know that 
 He must possess the moral perfections of perfect holiness, 
 benevolence, justice, and truth. None of these perfections 
 God can deny ; for if He Avere to do so, it were to deny Him- 
 self. Certain assertions might distinctly deny these Divine 
 attributes, and thereby afford palpable proof that they had 
 not the sanction of Divine authority. The human mind is a 
 fully competent judge that the distinct approbation of false- 
 hood would be a contradiction of the Divine veracity, or that 
 the holding one man responsible for the same thing for which 
 he held another irresponsible, would be a contradiction of the 
 Divine justice, or that the condemning a man for an action 
 for which he was entirely irresponsible would be totally in- 
 
77 
 
 consistent with the character of Him who is the Judge of all 
 the earth. If, again, a professed revelation were to assert 
 that God had made particular men for the purpose of devoting 
 them to everlasting suffering, such an assertion would be an 
 unquestionable contradiction of the Divine goodness, and 
 prove that the pretended revelation was not from God. But 
 this is a very different thing from judging a particular act of 
 the Divine conduct which forms part of a complicated whole, 
 and affirming that our view of it contradicts the Divine charac- 
 ter. Do we fully comprehend it in all its bearings ? Do we 
 know its ultimate issues ? Can we sound the remote depths 
 of the Divine perfections ? It is one thing to assert that God 
 cannot lie, and another that the doctrine of an atonement is 
 demonstrably inconsistent with the Divine benevolence, or, 
 because we cannot reconcile the existence of moral and phy- 
 sical evil with the Divine perfections, to deny the existence of 
 a holy or an intelligent Creator. 
 
 If, therefore, we judge of what God reveals from what He 
 actually does, a revelation of the Divine will may unite a 
 divine element with a human one, involving various degrees 
 of what may appear to human judgment imperfections. 
 Before we can determine what effect certain supposed imper- 
 fections may have on disproving that a book containing such 
 difficulties can be a divine revelation, we must have clear 
 and indisputable evidence that they lie within the powers or 
 the cognizance of the human faculties. 
 
 It is instructive to observe to what opposite results the 
 same antecedent assumptions lead different minds. One class 
 of mind assumes that an inspired revelation must correspond 
 with certain a priori assumptions which have been formed 
 respecting it, both as to the subject-matter of what the reve- 
 lation must consist and as to the manner in which it must 
 have been communicated. According to their view, the 
 Christian Scriptures do not realize this ideal ; therefore they 
 are not a revelation from God. The other class make the 
 same a prioi'i assumptions. According to their view, the 
 Christian Scriptures are from God; therefore they attempt 
 to force the facts and phenomena of those Scriptures into 
 
78 
 
 conformity with the conditions under which they have as- 
 sumed that a supernatural revelation must have been com- 
 municated. 
 
 Now the objections against the Divine character of Christi- 
 anity for the most part resolve themselves into certain views 
 of the Divine character and attributes, founded on antecedent 
 reasonings, to which particular doctrines or statements in 
 Scripture are said to be repugnant. Now antecedent assump- 
 tions, to be applicable to such a case, ought to be self-evident 
 truth or demonstrations from such truths. It will not be suffi- 
 cient that they should rest on a mere foundation of probabi- 
 lity. When, then, we assume certain consequences as flowing 
 from the attributes of the Creator, and apply those conse- 
 quences as criteria for judging the contents of a supposed 
 revelation, what is the nature of the evidence on which those 
 judgments rest? Are they self-evident, demonstrative, or 
 probable ? If they are the latter merely, the objections can 
 have no force to subvert the evidence by which a divine reve- 
 lation is attested. But we must not only have evidence that 
 our deductions are necessary consequences flowing from par- 
 ticular attributes in the Creator, but also have sufficient 
 grounds for arriving at the conclusion that the action of 
 the attribute from which our conclusions are deduced may 
 not be modified by that of another attribute of the Divine 
 mind. To enable us to form an adequate judgment on such 
 subjects, we ought to have as our point of view a standing- 
 point from whence we may be able to survey the compli- 
 cated action of the attributes of the Divine mind, or else to 
 be able to form a conception of the common principle in the 
 Divine mind of which the various Divine attributes are mani- 
 festations or modifications. Until we can determine whether 
 any single Divine attribute be a complete manifestation of the 
 whole of the Divine character, our conclusions as to what God 
 must or must not do in particular instances must be involved 
 in uncertainty. It will be necessary to determine to what 
 extent a particular Divine attribute may be modified in its 
 action by another. What is the relationship which the Divine 
 attribute of goodness bears to those of holiness or justice 
 
79 
 
 must be determined^ before we can deduce any certain con- 
 clusions from either of them separately. The whole of the 
 Divine character cannot be reduced by the human under- 
 standing to the action of any one of its single attributes. 
 
 The common objections brought against the Christian 
 Scriptures are founded on the assumption that some one of 
 the Divine attributes is a full and complete representation of 
 the Divine character. The attribute most commonly assumed 
 as being this full representation of it is the attribute of bene- 
 volence. It is asserted that all the other attributes of the 
 Divine character are mere modifications of this single at- 
 tribute. 
 
 But what right have we to make this assumption? Is 
 it an assumption founded on any self-evident truth ? Why may 
 not holiness, or justice, or veracity be assumed as the single 
 Divine attribute of which the others must be modifications or 
 manifestations ? Is the assumption that benevolence must 
 be the single attribute of Deity founded on any self-evident 
 principles, or any demonstration flowing from such principles ? 
 Is not the assumption rather made because it is a convenient 
 assumption? To beings of greater purity than ourselves, 
 perfect holiness may appear the most venerable attribute in 
 the Divine mind. 
 
 But if the attribute of benevolence be the source from 
 which all the other Divine perfections flow, it cannot be the 
 mere human conception of such an attribute, but one of a 
 wider and more comprehensive range, which includes justice, 
 holiness, truth, and all the other Divine perfections in its 
 wide embrace. According to our conceptions, justice and 
 holiness differ from benevolence, not in degree, but in concep- 
 tion and idea. We can have no right, therefore, to assume a 
 mere human conception of benevolence as the adequate con- 
 ception of that attribute in the Divine mind which embraces 
 in itself all the other perfections of the Divine nature, and 
 then to measure every other doctrine or statement in the Chris- 
 tian Scriptures by such a standard. If we apply to other 
 conceptions which have a human origin a standard of bene- 
 volence which is the strict human conception of that quality. 
 
80 
 
 and then apply it to principles entirely differing from it in 
 conception, it is easy enough to make statements in the Scrip- 
 tures contradict such supposed attributes of God. If we 
 imagine an attribute of the Divine nature which is wholly 
 different from any mere human conception of it, and apply it 
 to other classes of conceptions not similarly modified, we can 
 have no right to assign to such conclusions the evidence of 
 demonstration. If it is the human idea of benevolence which 
 we employ, the action of that attribute must be modified by 
 considerations deduced from the other attributes of God. 
 
 On grounds such as we have been considering, it has been 
 often asserted that the Scripture doctrine of the atonement 
 contradicts the Divine attributes, and therefore it cannot 
 have been revealed to man by God. We select this doctrine 
 as a sample of many others. The two attributes in God, to 
 which this doctrine has special relation, are His benevolence 
 and His justice. It has been urged that it is inconsistent 
 with the perfect benevolence of the Deity that He should 
 require an atonement in order that He may pardon sin. If 
 the Deity is perfectly benevolent, He can require nothing but 
 repentance. It is also urged to be contrary to the Divine 
 justice to inflict sufferings on one person as a satisfaction for 
 sins committed by another. 
 
 Now into the profound depths of such questions we shall not 
 enter. Our only concern with them is, what limits do they 
 necessarily assign to the capacity of the human faculties to 
 pronounce on such questions, and, consequently, of the 
 powers of the human mind to form a judgment as to what 
 must or must not be the contents of a Divine revelation, or 
 the mode of its delivery ? Now the conceptions of benevo- 
 lence, justice, and the atonement are the human representa- 
 tions of those conceptions, and not the realities in the Divine 
 mind. We are dealing entirely with those human represen- 
 tations. The Divine realities cannot be represented in our 
 finite comprehensions. 
 
 If, then, we assume the human idea of benevolence as fully 
 representing the actual attribute in the Divine mind, it is not 
 difficult to make the assertion, that the Deity requires an 
 
81 
 
 atonement before He can pardon sin, contradict that attri- 
 bute. With equal ease, the inflicting sufiering on one en- 
 tirely innocent, as a compensation for suffering which ought 
 to be borne by the guilty, even when that suffering is borne 
 voluntarily, may be made to contradict the human concep- 
 tion of the attribute of perfect justice. But the human con- 
 ceptions of benevolence and justice are conceptions which 
 are entirely distinct from each other; they have nothing in 
 them in common. As they exist in man, they energize in a 
 manner independent of each other; they can be represented 
 by no common attribute of which we can form a distinct con- 
 ception. Their requirements may frequently clash. If we 
 suppose both of them to exist equally in the same mind, the 
 strict feeling of justice demands that the reward of demerit 
 should be rigidly dealt out to the offender. The feeling ot 
 benevolence requires that suffering should be annihilated, and 
 happiness created. According to our human conceptions of 
 these attributes, one of them cannot possibly be the common 
 ground of the other ; they may clash, but they cannot coin- 
 cide. A common principle may exist in the Divine mind 
 under the influence of which the claims of each may be modi- 
 fied. An atonement may be consistent with neither of the 
 human conceptions of benevolence or justice ; but it may be 
 consistent with the complicated action of both, or with a 
 common principle which forms their groundwork in God. 
 
 But when it is asserted that the doctrine of atonement con- 
 tradicts either the Divine attribute of benevolence or of justice, 
 this cannot be meant of a human conception of benevolence 
 or justice, but of a higher conception, to which the name of 
 benevolence has been given as an attribute which compre- 
 hends in its wide action all the other perfections of the Divine 
 mind, and which is supposed to be an adequate measure and 
 representation of the reality as it exists in God. If the 
 doctrine of an atonement contradicted merely the human 
 conceptions of benevolence or justice, it would prove nothing 
 against the possibility of Christianity being a divine revela- 
 tion. The objection only possesses cogency if it could be 
 shown that it contradicted an attribute of benevolence which 
 
 G 
 
82 
 
 the human mind was capable of comprehending as an ade- 
 quate exponent of all the other perfections of the Divine 
 nature. 
 
 Such must be the character of the attribute of benevo- 
 lence when we assert that it is the single attribute of the 
 Divine nature. Such an attribute cannot be comprehended 
 by man so as to enable him, from reasonings founded upon 
 it, to draw definite conclusions respecting the Divine pro- 
 ceedings. It may be that such an attribute does exist in the 
 Divine mindj but both its nature and mode of action must be 
 quite incomprehensible to the human mind. If we survey 
 the Divine conduct as regulated by the human conceptions 
 of benevolence or justice, it may not be the precise result of 
 the action of either of those attributes, but may be modified 
 in conformity with the requirements of both. If the Divine 
 conduct was the result of either single attribute, the doctrine 
 of atonement might contradict that attribute ; but if it is the 
 result of the complicated action of different Divine perfec- 
 tions, we can have no evidence of such contradiction. 
 
 Our human conceptions of the Divine justice and holiness 
 are not adequately represented by our human conception of 
 benevolence. Fallacies of this kind arise from assuming that 
 a human conception of a Divine attribute is an adequate 
 measure of the depths of the Infinite mind, and then using 
 that attribute as an adequate measure of the other perfec- 
 tions of the Almighty. Conceptions of this kind differ Avholly 
 from the class of conceptions to which we have already alluded, 
 and which, from their distinctness and definiteness, are within 
 the range of the human faculties to pronounce as to their 
 agreement with the Divine character. 
 
 Various other doctrines in the Christian Scriptures have 
 been objected to as inconsistent with the character of God. 
 The greater proportion of these objections are based on a 
 similar foundation of sand — that one or more of the Divine 
 attributes adequately represents the perfections of the Most 
 High, and that the human conception of those attributes is 
 the perfect measure of the Divine reality. 
 
 "We have only selected the doctrine in question as a sample 
 
•83 
 
 of such objections, founded on antecedent probabilities, on 
 the strength of which it has been asserted that Christianity 
 cannot be a revelation communicated by inspiration from 
 God. With respect to all such objections there is one answer: 
 the human understanding does not furnish us with any 
 grounds of antecedent certainty as to the precise relationship 
 which the conceptions in question bear to the attributes as 
 they exist in God, and consequently we can have no evidence 
 that, if such doctrines form a portion of a professed revelation, 
 they are destructive of its claims to a divine origin. Objec- 
 tions of this kind are founded on precisely the same ante- 
 cedent probabilities as those which, when they are applied as 
 exponents of the Divine working in creation or providence, 
 expressly contradict the realities of things as they exist in the 
 universe, which forms the great revelation of the omnipo- 
 tence and omniscience of the Creator. 
 
 Our being assured of the fallacy of such antecedent reason- 
 ings is of the highest importance, because those are of a pre- 
 cisely similar description, on the strength of which particular 
 theories have been erected respecting the mode in which in- 
 spiration must have been communicated. If the one are 
 unreliable, the otliers must be equally untrustworthy. 
 
 From these premises, therefore, we draw the general con- 
 clusion that it is impossible to reason on such conceptions 
 as to what may or may not be possible in a revelation from 
 God, or what will bs the mode adopted for its communication, 
 because the conceptions on which we reason are only meta- 
 phorical representations, made to the finite understanding, of 
 the realities of the Divine mind. 
 
 We have already proved that if it pleased the Creator to 
 communicate a revelation, there is one limitation under which 
 that revelation must have been communicated — that the 
 conceptions contained in it cannot consist of the Divine con- 
 ceptions of His own attributes and perfections, but the best 
 representations of the infinite and perfect ideas, as they exist 
 in the Creator, which the limited and finite intellect of man 
 is capable of affording. In asserting that every revelation 
 must be subject to this precondition, and can only be made in 
 
 g2 
 
84 
 
 conformity witli it, we are not assigning a limitation to tlie 
 powers of the Creator. The limitation has been imposed by 
 the Creator on Himself; and it implies no defect of power in 
 a worker to assert that His operations must be confined within 
 limits which He Himself has imposed. These self-imposed 
 limits which God has assigned to His own working are the 
 preconditions under which He has created the finite. He 
 might have created beings subject to different preconditions; 
 but having once created them subject to certain limitations, 
 they can only act in conformity with the laws imposed upon 
 them by their Maker. To say that the Almighty could 
 only make a revelation of Himself to man in conformity with 
 existing laws of thought, is only the same thing as assert- 
 ing that, the Creator having made man subject to certain laws 
 of thought, as long as man continues to be man, the Creator 
 can only communicate truth to him in conformity with those 
 laws which He has Himself imposed on the human mind. 
 
 We will illustrate our meaning by an example from mathe- 
 matical truth. The Creator of the human mind has precon- 
 ditioned our conception of a triangle to be such that its three 
 angles cannot but be equal to two right angles. It is there- 
 fore no limitation to the power of Omnipotence, to assert that 
 it is impossible to make a triangle with its three angles equal 
 to three right angles. Such a triangle would not simply be 
 an impossibility, but a contradiction. 
 
 In the same way it is no limitation to the power of God to 
 affirm that, when He has preconditioned the human mind to 
 be only capable of conceiving in limited finite conceptions, 
 it is impossible for Him to communicate to it an intelli- 
 gible revelation in any other ideas than in the conceptions of 
 the finite, or that it can be made by Him in the perfect con- 
 ceptions of the Infinite mind. To assert its possibility is to 
 assert a positive contradiction. 
 
 "We know, therefore, with demonstrative certainty that 
 every revelation made by God to man must employ as its 
 vehicle for communicating truth the bmited and imperfect 
 conceptions of the human mind, and that to this extent a 
 human element must exist in the Christian Scriptures. It 
 
85 
 
 follows, therefore, that if it pleased God to make a revelation 
 of Himself to man, the truths communicated must undergo a 
 process of translation from their divine realities into the cor- 
 responding human representations of them, which are the 
 best counterparts of the Divine realities themselves. Such a 
 revelation, therefore, must be limited to the discovery of such 
 portions of the Divine character as the mind of man possesses 
 ideas through which the representation of the Divine realities 
 becomes possible. Consequently the truths contained in the 
 revelation can only represent the Divine realities as far as the 
 human thoughts have been preconditioned to be representa- 
 tions of those realities. 
 
 But we have already observed that all human conceptions 
 have been derived from three sources — the mind's perception 
 of external and material things, the feelings and affections of 
 the mind itself, and the self-conscious acting of the mind on 
 itself. These form the original source of all the conceptions 
 that we possess, which are common between man and man, and 
 through which thought, speech, and language become possible. 
 Within the boundaries of such conceptions, therefore, the 
 possibility of communicating truth to man, which was pre- 
 viously unknown, must be limited. 
 
 Now, in order that a revelation may be intelligible to 
 man, it is necessary that it should be couched in those concep- 
 tions common to the human mind. If it were not so, it might 
 be a revelation to an individual, but it could not be so to the 
 human race. It would be impossible that its contents should 
 be capable of communication by one man to another. It is, 
 doubtless, possible, if such were the Creator's pleasure, to 
 make a revelation to each separate individual. But the ideas 
 in which such a revelation was communicated could not form 
 subjects of common thought, and consequently could not 
 form a written revelation. If such a revelation were made, 
 it could not form a subject of teaching by man to man. All 
 teaching must be made through the medium of intelligible 
 thoughts, common between man and man. The teaching of a 
 revelation by one man to another can only be effected through 
 the medium of common subjects of thought capable of find- 
 
86 
 
 ing expression in intelligible language. If the thoughts in a 
 revelation were not ordinary human thoughts, they could 
 exist only for each separate person. 
 
 In every revelation which is designed for the use of the 
 human race, it is necessary that the various conceptions which 
 it contains should be derived from one or more of the three 
 sources above mentioned. Its conceptions, therefore, will 
 consist of ideas derived from the mind's conceptions of ex- 
 ternal things, or from its own feelings and affections, or from 
 its own self-conscious actings, and be subject to all the neces- 
 sary conditions of such classes of conceptions. 
 
 It follows as a necessary consequence, that, in every revela- 
 tion of God communicated to the spirit of man, another 
 human element must exist in it — that the conceptions, ideas, 
 and thoughts in which that revelation is expressed are all 
 derived either from man's conceptions of external things or 
 from his moral perceptions, and that they only metaphori- 
 cally represent truths as they exist in God. Whatever theory 
 of inspiration is adopted, the necessity for this concession 
 cannot be evaded. 
 
 It also follows, from the nature of the human mind, that 
 the ideas and conceptions in which spiritual and divine truth 
 is announced to man must partake of the character of an- 
 thropomorphism. This word is frequently used to denote 
 grossly corporeal conceptions of the Deity; but its real mean- 
 ing implies nothing more than that we conceive of God 
 by means of conceptions which are originally derived from 
 man. In this sense it is impossible that our conceptions 
 of Him can have any other origin. To apply degrading 
 or corporeal conceptions, derived from man, to the Creator, 
 is to give a perverted view of His character and existence. 
 But, in our zeal against the application of such conceptions 
 to God, we are in danger of forgetting that it is a question 
 of degree only, and that even our highest and most spiritual 
 conceptions of God can claim no other origin. To represent 
 God as possessed of body, parts, or passions, is degrading to 
 His nature; but when we assert that He is of infinite power, 
 wisdom, and goodness, let us not forget the real origin of the 
 conceptions in question. 
 
87 
 
 When, therefore, the Christian Scriptures speak of the 
 perfections of God, the terms which they employ cannot be 
 expressions directly denoting the Divine perfections them- 
 selves, but expressions originally derived from the material 
 universe, or from the human mind, analogously expressing 
 those perfections. When the Scriptures use the expression 
 '^Almighty," what is the conception which they are alone 
 able to convey by it? Does it unfold the eternal reality of 
 the Divine mind ? The positive ideas of power which it con- 
 veys are all derived from the created universe. The power 
 which could eflFect creation is the highest positive degree of 
 power which the human mind can conceive of. The con- 
 ception of that degree of power is the positive idea which is 
 conveyed by the expression " Almighty." But that positive 
 conception is a finite conception ; it therefore does not ad- 
 equately represent the idea of power as it exists in God. To 
 supply this defect in our conception, we deny the existence 
 of bounds to the power, and express this denial by the word 
 "Almighty." This portion of the conception is entirely 
 negative. The only positive conception, therefore, which the 
 mind possesses is one derived from the created universe. 
 
 The human idea of existence, purged of its imperfections, 
 must also be used analogously to represent the existence and 
 being of the Creator. We add to the positive human con- 
 ception the negative expressions of "absolute," "uncondi- 
 tioned," " infinite." The human idea of existence forms the 
 only positive conception formed by the mind. By applying 
 to it the expressions " absolute," "unconditional," "infinite," 
 we endeavour to eliminate out of that conception the finite 
 imperfections with which it is necessarily associated; but 
 still our conception is the finite human conception. 
 
 The human ideas of goodness, holiness, purity, justice, 
 mercy, and truth must be the positive portion of our concep- 
 tions when we speak of the moral perfections of the Most 
 High. There is no other source whence the positive portion 
 of those perfections can be derived than the conceptions of 
 those affections as they exist in man. To free them from 
 these imperfections as attributes of man, we apply to them 
 
88 
 
 the negative conception of infinite or perfect when they are 
 applied to God. Still, by this process we do not destroy the 
 human character of the positive conception. When we say 
 that God is perfectly benevolent, good, and holy^ we mean to 
 assert that there are affections in Him corresponding to those 
 attributes in man, which we endeavour to free from finite 
 imperfection by qualifying them by the negative conception 
 of perfect. 
 
 The only conception which man possesses of will is one de- 
 rived from his own self-consciousness. This, when the nega- 
 tive conception of freedom from conditions and limitations 
 is attached to it, is the only positive conception which can be 
 used when mention is made of the will of the Creator. 
 
 The human notion of existence is one which is necessarily 
 complicated with conceptions of time and space. Man can- 
 not conceive of anything actual, except as existing in one or 
 the other of those conditions. This notion is applied to the 
 Creator, divested of the conditions which are necessarily 
 involved in it as a positive human conception. 
 
 Throughout every revelation^ therefore,, the imagery in 
 which God is spoken of must be imagery derived from the 
 created universe or from the corresponding attributes in man. 
 God cannot otherwise become the object of human thought. 
 This is another human element which must necessarily form 
 an ingredient in every revelation. 
 
 The Christian Scriptures are written on the assumption of 
 the truth of these principles ; they consequently even ascribe 
 to God bodily organs, for the purpose of denoting those 
 affections which in man are associated with the exercise of 
 those bodily functions. This language is anthropomorphistic, 
 but it is one which is clearly comprehensible. It only be- 
 comes dangerous when we mistake its nature and suppose 
 that, instead of being only metaphorically applicable to God, 
 it denotes realities existing in the Divine nature. Thus God 
 is said to have eyes : the eye, to man, is the source of know- 
 ledge. By this image the perfection of the Divine know- 
 ledge is intended to be conveyed. God is said to have hands : 
 this assertion is used to denote that God has those affections 
 
89 
 
 and energies of which hands in man are the most appropriate 
 expression. God is said to be seated, to denote His sove- 
 reign power, because that is the mode in which sovereign 
 dignity is displayed by man. In a similar manner all the 
 bodily organs and material and mental portions of man^s 
 natm'e are used to denote perfections of the Most High. 
 
 This human element, therefore, must exist in every revela- 
 tion, whatever be the degree of its inspiration. 
 
 The careful student of the Christian Scriptures cannot fail 
 to be struck with the fact that there is something, which 
 they designate as "the gospel," quite distinct from the contents 
 of the Scriptures themselves. According to the New Testa- 
 ment, the Christian revelation consists of two portions, both 
 accommodated to the finite understanding of man. The one 
 of these portions is preeminently called the evayyeXcov, or 
 "good news," and consists of a succession of outward objective 
 historical facts — the manifestation of incarnate Deity in 
 human flesh, the historic life and death of Christ ; the other 
 consists of the record of those facts, and the comments on 
 those facts — the actual written records of the New Testament 
 itself. What the Christian Scriptures preeminently desig- 
 nate as the Gospel is not a body of doctrines or precepts, but 
 the great historic fact of the manifestation of Christ as the 
 revelation of Deity in His incarnate person. Of this we 
 shall adduce proof hereafter : at present we assume its reality. 
 Now if the Christian revelation be made in the Divine person 
 of the incarnate Son of God, it is evident that such a revela- 
 tion would be the nearest possible approximation to the 
 realities of the Divine perfections which the finite intellect of 
 man is capable of comprehending; but even high as such a 
 revelation would be, still it must be limited to meet the 
 conditions of man^s finite nature. The perfections of incar- 
 nate Deity must be the highest reflections of the glories 
 which flow from the invisible and incomprehensible foun- 
 tains of Godhead. The perfections of God manifest in the 
 flesh must be the highest possible displays which human 
 thoughts can conceive, or human language can convey, of 
 the incomprehensible glories of that Being whom none can 
 
90 
 
 behold and live ; but while they are the representations 
 nearest to the reality which the finite can receive of the in- 
 finitCj they cannot be the infinite itself. 
 
 In making this manifestation of Himself to man^ the 
 agency employed by God consists in the fact of the Incarna- 
 tion — the union of the infinite with the finite. Such a revela- 
 tion would have no other limitation than the necessity that 
 the Divine nature must be veiled in finite representations. 
 As far as the infinite in God can be represented in human 
 nature, the objective fact of the Incarnation must be its ab- 
 solutely perfect representation. As an objective fact, it 
 must be a revelation in itself, quite independently of all views 
 taken of that fact by the percipient powers of the mind, in 
 the same manner as the objective universe is a revelation of 
 the Creator's glories quite distinct from any particular view 
 which the mind forms of that universe. 
 
 But every objective existence involves a subjective view 
 taken of that existence by the mind itself. There is the ex- 
 ternal universe as it exists in itself; there is the conception 
 which the mind forms of that universe : there is the great fact 
 of the Incarnation ; there is the view which the mind of man 
 conceives of the Incarnation. 
 
 Actual existence differs from our perceptions of that exist- 
 ence. Every object, as it exists in itself, receives a colouring 
 through our percipient faculties. The actual perception 
 which we form of things consists of the union of the objective 
 and the subjective — of actual existence with the powers of 
 perception. We are incapable of knowing actual existences 
 otherwise than as they are coloured by the percipient powers 
 of the mind. In conformity with this principle, the Christian 
 Scriptures both contain the records of the revelation made 
 by God in the person of Christ, and an exposition of the 
 meaning of this great revelation of God, expressed in ideas 
 and conceptions relative to the mind of man. The question 
 here involved is one which must be kept quite distinct from 
 all mere views of the degree of inspiration with which those 
 Scriptures must have been communicated. Whatever be the 
 degree of inspiration which has been afforded to their writers. 
 
91 
 
 an important human element must form portion of tlieir con- 
 tents ; they must speak of heavenly things by their earthly 
 representations. Even in the revealed commentary on the 
 great fact of the Incarnation, this is the only medium of teach- 
 ing which is possible. 
 
 This mode of teaching is most freely used in the New 
 Testament Scriptures. They press every truth and metaphor 
 which can be derived from earth into the service of dehnea- 
 ting the unknown mysteries of the kingdom of heaven. At 
 the same time they give us distinct warning that the imagery 
 itself only metaphorically describes the Divine acts and cha- 
 racter. 
 
 We will illustrate this mode of stating spiritual truth by 
 a few examples. Various representations of the Deity are 
 made in the Scriptures which in their literal sense assert His 
 limitation under the conditions of time and space. Expres- 
 sions are used which imply a limited presence in particular 
 places and definite localities ; but, while they are forced to use 
 expressions of this description for the purpose of teaching us the 
 relative truths which they are intended to convey, they guard 
 against the error of our fancying that these truths are the 
 ultimate realities of the Divine nature. While they assert 
 that God dwells in heaven, they most emphatically declare 
 that the heaven and the heaven of heavens cannot contain 
 Him. They speak of the Spirit of God as poured out on the 
 spirit of man. To pour is a conception which denotes a 
 material action ; it implies motion : it is properly applicable 
 to the passage of a liquid from the thing containing it into 
 another locality; it can, therefore, only by a remote meta- 
 phor denote an act of the Divine mind. But the laws of 
 human thought necessitate the use of such metaphorical 
 expressions in teaching spiritual truth. They may be, and are, 
 imperfect instruments for teaching; but whether perfect or 
 imperfect, they are the only ones which exist, and without them 
 all knowledge of divine things would be impossible to man. 
 A small or obscure light affords but imperfect vision; but if 
 we have no other, we shall not see better by extinguishing it. 
 A metaphor less remote than the idea of pouring might have 
 been used; but, whatever degree of remoteness it might 
 
92 
 
 possess, it could only represent a di\dne idea by a similar 
 analogy. 
 
 God is frequently said in Scripture to make the pure and 
 holy soul His temple. The truth meant to be represented is 
 the close union between it and God ; but;, although it is easy 
 of apprehension, it is the plain case of an inadequate material 
 conception used to denote a spiritual idea. In the same way 
 the expressions of sitting on a throne, a divine fulness where 
 He locally manifests His essential glory, acts of worship ren- 
 dered in a material temple, the judgment-seat of a Roman 
 governor {jBrjfxa XpiaTov), and multitudes of other material 
 conceptions of this description are the constant means used 
 to represent spiritual truth. Expressions of this kind we are 
 in little danger of mistaking for realities. Why should we 
 convert into realities expressions which, although less ob- 
 viously of a material origin, are of a precisely similar de- 
 scription ? 
 
 But, while they use such teaching, the Scriptures empha- 
 tically warn us that God is a Spirit. They use a term which, 
 while it was metaphorical and material in its first use, is now 
 employed by us as the highest negation of all material form. 
 In the same manner they use language respecting His moral 
 perfections : they speak of His repentance. His anger. His 
 wrath, His jealousy. 
 
 Now every one of these and kindred affections, applied to 
 God, are attributes of the human mind, some of them imply- 
 ing considerable degrees of imperfection. As human affec- 
 tions, they necessarily imply the idea of change j but while 
 the Scriptures use such expressions analogically to represent 
 to us the Divine attributes or the Divine conduct, they em- 
 phatically assert that with God there is no variableness nor 
 shadow of turning. In all His attributes and perfections, 
 whatever God is. He is ever and unalterably the same. 
 
 In accordance with this principle, the first article of the 
 Church of England defines the Deity as being without body, 
 parts, or passions ; and then defines His perfections by 
 ascribing to Him the human conceptions of power, wisdom, 
 and goodness, and eliminates as far as may be the human 
 imperfection involved in the conceptions by adding to them 
 
93 
 
 the negative idea of the infinite. No effort of scientific de- 
 finition can evade a necessity which is founded on conditions 
 and limitations to which the human understanding has been 
 created subject. 
 
 General Conclusions. 
 
 The following are the results of the foregoing reasonings as 
 to the conditions under which a supernatural revelation must 
 be communicated to man, and the limitations attending its 
 communication : — 
 
 1. That as far as the Creator designed to make a revelation. 
 He would fully realize His own purposes in making it. 
 
 2. That the conceptions through which the revelation 
 must be communicated cannot be the Divine ideas them- 
 selves, but their analogous representations and approxima- 
 tions in human thought. 
 
 3. That to make the revelation an intelligible revelation to 
 the mind of man, it must be made through the medium of 
 human thoughts, conceptions, and ideas, more or less re- 
 motely representing the divine realities. 
 
 4. That, even on the highest theory of inspiration, the 
 human origin of the conceptions in which a revelation must 
 be expressed is a necessary human element in every con- 
 ceivable revelation. 
 
 5. That a revelation must be authenticated by a mira- 
 culous attestation, if it is to have a binding obligation on the 
 human conscience. 
 
 6. That we have no antecedent knowledge, amounting to 
 certainty, as to the amount of truth which a divine revelation 
 must contain. 
 
 7. That we have a very high degree of evidence that, in 
 communicating a revelation, God would act in a manner 
 analogous to the mode which He has already pursued in 
 creation and providence. 
 
 8. That the evidence of a direct miraculous attestation 
 given to a revelation is not affected by difficulties in its 
 contents, which rest on no other foundation than uncertain 
 probabilities. 
 
94 
 
 9. That the only adequate ground which would justify the 
 rejection of a supposed revelation^ supported by an apparent 
 adequate attestation^ is that some portion of its contents 
 palpably contradict self-evident truth respecting the Divine 
 character and perfections, of which supposed contradiction 
 the reason of man enables him to form an adequate judg- 
 ment, and arrive at conclusions not based on probabilities, 
 but on certainties. 
 
 10. That although the representation of divine truths by 
 human conceptions of greater or less degree of imperfection 
 must be a human element in every revelation, yet, if a 
 revelation were communicated to the spirit of man by the 
 Spirit of God, the analogies employed would be the best 
 suited for conveying the nearest approximation to the divine 
 truths. 
 
 11. That there is no evidence, nor any grounds of ante- 
 cedent certainty possessed by man, either that a miraculous 
 revelation is impossible, or that it cannot receive a mira- 
 culous attestation. 
 
 12. That we have no grounds of antecedent certainty to 
 guide us as to the nature or degree of inspiration with which 
 a revelation would be communicated. 
 
 13. But that the inspiration afforded would not be a 
 greater degree of inspiration than that which was necessary 
 for the effectuating the purposes of God in communicating a 
 revelation. 
 
 14. That such truths as God has already communicated 
 by natural means, and which He has already given man the 
 power to discover for himself, would not form the j)roper 
 subject-matter of a supernatural revelation. 
 
 15. That, according to analogies of God's conduct in crea- 
 tion and providence, inspiration would be confined to the 
 proper subject-matter of the revelation itself, and would 
 not be extended to mere collateral matter connected with the 
 revelation. 
 
 16. That reasonings founded on certain human views of 
 the Divine attributes as to what a revelation must contain, 
 or what must be the mode of its delivery, are no less fal- 
 
95 
 
 lacious than similar reasonings have proved as to the great 
 facts of creation and providence. 
 
 17. That not only is there no antecedent presumption 
 against the existence of a human element in a revelation, but 
 the analogies of God's operations in creation and providence 
 would lead us to infer the presence of such an element in 
 every revelation of which the Creator and Preserver of the 
 universe is the author. 
 
 18. That various assumptions which have been made re- 
 specting the extent of a divine revelation, and respecting the 
 mode in which it must have been communicated, rest upon 
 no solid basis of truth, but on mere probable grounds of be- 
 lief; and when such probabilities are applied as exponents 
 of God's works in creation and providence, they totally fail 
 us as guides to truth. 
 
 These are the only truths, which are necessary deductions 
 from the preceding reasonings, which bear directly on the 
 question which we are now discussing. We are quite ready 
 to admit that these reasonings involve considerations of the 
 highest importance as to the mode of interpreting the Chris- 
 tian Scriptures. They are also worthy of the deepest atten- 
 tion as implying limits as to the extent in which the rational 
 faculty in man can safely deduce consequences from the ana- 
 logous representations of divine truth contained in the pages 
 of a revelation. They raise an important question as to the 
 reality of a large mass of metaphysical theology, and whether 
 such theology consists of truths necessarily flowing from 
 statements contained in revelation, or whether it is not mere 
 barren speculations of the human intellect, extending its re- 
 searches into regions far beyond the limits of its powers. 
 However closely connected the discussion of the above de- 
 ductions may be with these and similar questions, we must 
 confine ourselves entirely to their bearing on the nature and 
 extent of the inspiration under the influence of which the 
 Christian revelation has been communicated. 
 
96 
 
 CHAPTER VI. 
 
 THE THEORY OF VERBAL INSPIRATION CONTRARY TO 
 THE MODE OF THE DIVINE ACTING IN CREATION AND 
 PROVIDENCE. 
 
 "We must therefore proceed to examine tlie nature of the 
 probabilities which are usually adduced as evidences of the 
 truth of the theory of verbal inspiration. We observe, in 
 the first place, that, assuming the truth of the facts as they 
 appear in the New Testament, the written and the oral teaching 
 of the Apostles must have been of precisely the same nature, 
 and delivered with the same degree of inspiration. A con- 
 siderable portion of the New Testament is derived from 
 the oral teaching of the Apostles. The vrriters of the New 
 Testament do not claim any higher degree of inspiration for 
 their written than for their oral teaching, but, on the contrary, 
 frequently put their oral teaching on a par, in point of au- 
 thority, with their written teaching. If, therefore, the New 
 Testament was composed under the influence of verbal in- 
 spiration, or the inspiration denoted by any of the cognate 
 theories, the same inspiration likewise belonged to every 
 branch of their oral teaching when the Apostles and other 
 inspired persons were occupied in teaching Christian truth. 
 
 If, then, the Apostles were always under the influence of 
 verbal inspiration whenever they taught Christian truth, the in- 
 fluence of inspiration must, during the greater portion of their 
 lives, have nearly superseded the use of their ordinary faculties. 
 According to the statements of the historians, they were 
 generally employed in their Master's work ; and if so, they 
 must have ordinarily displayed the peculiar phenomenon of 
 infallibility : whenever- they conversed on any subject of 
 religion, it was not the individual Apostle who was heard 
 discussing and arguing, but the Holy Spirit. 
 
 It has been considered that the supposition that any in- 
 spired writing has perished involves a considerable difiiculty. 
 It is therefore inferred that the written teaching of the 
 
97 
 
 Apostles must involve a much higher form of inspiration 
 than their oral teaching ; and it has been taken for granted 
 that no portion of their ^vritten teaching has perished. The 
 difficidty of supposing that the whole of the oral teaching of 
 the Apostles was the result of so high a gift as verbal inspi- 
 ration has led to these assumptions. Hints, however, are 
 found in the New Testament that other writings were com- 
 posed by the Apostles, besides those which we at present 
 possess, and other men were recognized as inspired. If this 
 be the case, such writings have perished. 
 
 But it is e\ddent from the assertions of the Scriptures 
 themselves, that many things communicated by a high form 
 of inspiration are no longer in existence. Before the Gospels 
 were committed to writing, the oral teaching of the Apostles 
 and of the original witnesses formed the only standard of 
 divine truth possessed by the Church. Our present Gospels 
 do not contain a record of the whole of the actions of our 
 Lord, or of the whole of the discourses uttered by Him. 
 Those which have been recorded must have been a selection 
 out of a much larger portion of inspired teaching. The 
 writers have only recorded what appeared to them sufficient 
 for the purpose of handing down to future ages the great 
 truths of Christianity. It is plain, therefore, that the de- 
 livery of a truth by a high form of inspiration does not 
 guarantee the perpetual preservation of that which must have 
 been delivered under its influence. 
 
 Now on what principle can we assume, on the supposition 
 of the truth of the facts as recorded in the New Testament, 
 that the writings of inspired persons must possess an inspira- 
 tion which does not extend to their oral teaching ? The ge- 
 neral teaching of the Apostles is frequently referred to in 
 their writings as no less the result of assistance from on 
 high than their written teaching. The early churches could 
 have possessed no other knowledge of the facts of our Lord's 
 life but the narratives of that life imparted to them by the 
 original witnesses, before the present Gospels were committed 
 to writing. The whole of the contents of the Gospels were 
 most probably delivered orally before they were set forth in 
 
 H 
 
98 
 
 their present form. A similar position must have been oc- 
 cupied by the oral preaching of the Apostles_, before the com- 
 position of the Epistles, or before they had obtained general cir- 
 culation. This oral teaching must have been the only autho- 
 ritative standard of Christian truth which the Church was in 
 possession of. Now it is impossible, on any sound principle^ 
 to assume that when the Apostles taught the very same 
 truths, or declared the same facts, by word of mouth, they 
 were not possessed of the same inspiration as when they 
 wrote them. It must be admitted that whatever degree of 
 inspiration was possessed by them in the one capacity was 
 possessed by them in the other. If the theory of verbal in- 
 spiration be an accurate exponent of the degree of inspiration 
 under the influence of which the Christian Scriptures must 
 have been composed, it must be so because the Apostles were 
 always verbally inspired. 
 
 The theory of verbal inspiration, therefore, is encumbered 
 with the difficulty of supposing that the ordinary faculties of 
 inspired persons were superseded during the greater portion 
 of their lives. 
 
 One of the arguments adduced in proof of the necessity that 
 the Christian Scriptures must have been communicated under 
 the influence of verbal inspiration is, that it is exceedingly 
 desirable that they should have been composed by the aid of 
 the highest possible form of inspiration, so that they might 
 contain nothing which is human, but only what is divine. 
 
 We have already seen that this is a position which cannot 
 be realized even on the verbal theory. Every human element 
 cannot be excluded, even if the inspiration afforded was actually 
 verbal inspiration. The whole machinery of thought and con- 
 ception must be human. 
 
 But it is a most unsafe guide to truth to argue because, 
 according to ordinary human apprehension, it seems very 
 desirable we should have certain things, that those things 
 must be granted to us by God. The wisdom of God differs 
 widely from the wisdom of man. Many things which seem 
 to us most desirable to have been bestowed upon us, God 
 has certainly not given. The number of additional blessings 
 
99 
 
 which we might think desirable is absokitely endless. To 
 set up our views of what we think it desirable that God 
 should do, and to infer from this that God must have done 
 so, is to measure with our finite wisdom the wisdom of the 
 Most High. Nothing, therefore, is more absurd than to infer 
 that, because it may appear to human wisdom desirable that 
 a revelation should be communicated under the influence of 
 verbal inspiration, it follows as a necessary consequence that 
 this is the mode which the Divine wisdom must have adopted 
 in its communication. 
 
 It has been urged that a revelation which is designed to 
 make men wise unto salvation, and which therefore must exert 
 the most important influence on the happiness of man in the 
 future world, should have been so communicated as not to 
 leave the smallest doubt on the mind as to what was the 
 meaning of any portion of its contents. It may seem that it 
 is antecedently probable that it would be free fi'om any diffi- 
 culty ; that every statement would have been made with the 
 utmost possible plainness ; that it would have propounded a 
 system of theology for our belief, and rules of conduct for our 
 practice, respecting which no doubt could have originated, 
 and that it would have left nothing to be inferred by us. But 
 we have as much right to infer that God has never placed man 
 in a situation of difficulty by His creative and providential 
 acts as to assert that a revelation must be free from difficulties. 
 But it has been asserted that the right reception of the 
 truths of a divine revelation involves man's everlasting happi- 
 ness in the world to come, and that truths invested with such 
 unspeakable importance could not be communicated under a 
 guidance inferior to that implied by verbal inspiration. In 
 such a revelation every word must be verbally true, and the 
 possibility of error must be rigidly excluded. 
 
 We readily grant the high importance of such a revelation, 
 and of the truths which it contains ; but this importance is no 
 guide as to the means which God must necessarily employ in 
 its communication. Will it be pretended that numbers of 
 things in our present state do not exercise an influence of the 
 highest importance on the future condition of man ? Will not 
 
 H 2 
 
100 
 
 the character, the tastes, the habits and tendencies which we 
 form in this life exercise the most important influence on our 
 happiness in the world to come ? Has man, in the formation of 
 these things, any guidance like verbal inspiration to direct 
 him ? Why may we not as well infer from the same premises 
 that God the Creator has never placed man in this position 
 at all, as lay it down that it is inconsistent with His charac- 
 ter that such things should enter into a revelation ? The 
 argument is equally good to prove that God could never have 
 placed man in a position of difficulty or doubt, where he could 
 run the risk of hazarding interests so infinitely momentous. 
 
 But it will be replied, the purpose of a revelation must be 
 to remedy the original defects in the situation in which man 
 has been placed by his Creator. 
 
 We answer, when we speak of defects in connexion with 
 the works or the operations of the Almighty, we use such a 
 term in reference to the imperfect views presented of those 
 operations through the defects of the human understanding. 
 We do not speak of defects in reference to the view taken of 
 them by the Divine mind, or assert that there can really be any 
 defect or imperfection in the Divine operations. To say that 
 the purpose of God in making a supernatural revelation is to 
 remedy the deficiencies of His working as Creator and Preser- 
 ver of the universe is directly to ascribe imperfections to God, 
 not in the human, but in the divine view of His own operations. 
 We have therefore no right to assume that the difficulties which 
 are presented to the human mind in the Divine mode of ope- 
 ration in creation and providence will be removed by a super- 
 natural revelation, or that the same mode of communicating 
 truth would not be adopted in one as in the other. 
 
 God intended to reveal Himself in creation ; why is it not 
 equally probable that He has provided us in creation with an 
 infallible guide to conduct us to the knowledge of those truths 
 which it was His purpose to reveal by His creative works ? It 
 will not be denied that the truths which God has thus revealed 
 have a very deep and intimate bearing both on questions of 
 religion and morality. 
 
 It would be far more just to conclude that God has always 
 
101 
 
 had good reasons for placing man in a situation "wliere he 
 would have difficulties of this description to encounter, and 
 that those difficulties which are presented in creation and 
 providence would be found in a supernatural revelation of 
 which God was the author. 
 
 But every analogy derived from creation and providence 
 directly contradicts the supposition that God woidd provide 
 everything ready made for man, without His own laboiu* or 
 exertion, in a revelation communicated by Him. On the 
 contrary, we have the most abundant evidence that it is the 
 Divine purpose that man should be a joint worker with Him- 
 self. God has imparted to man no gift of nature which does 
 not require the aid of his own exertions to perfect. The highest 
 and the best gifts of God require the greatest exertions outhe 
 part of man fully to realize their benefit. God has endowed 
 man with gloiious gifts of reason and of intellect. These are 
 the noblest gifts which the Creator has bestowed on him. 
 Does any gift which man possesses require greater exertion 
 on his part in order that it may attain its perfect develop- 
 ment ? The gift will rust and almost perish unless kept in 
 constant exercise. God has provided food for man in rich 
 abundance; but all except the lowest kinds require mau^s 
 co-operation in its production, and the higher the kind of food 
 the gi'cater degree of human co-operation is necessary. God 
 has clothed the animals ; He has not clothed man. Where- 
 fore has He made this distinction ? To man He has imparted 
 the power of providing clothing for himself, and therefore 
 He wills that he should exert that power. To the animals He 
 has given no such power, and therefore He has provided them 
 with clothing. Is it probable then that that Being, who, while 
 He has provided man with the means of getting food and 
 raiment, yet has denied him either without the exertion of the 
 faculties with which He has endowed him, in the spiritual 
 world has entirely altered the course of His conduct, and has 
 provided him with truth all ready for his use, without the 
 necessity of the exertion of those faculties with which He has 
 invested him ? 
 
 God, again, has endowed man with bodily powers and ca- 
 
102 
 
 pacities. But even for the fall perfection of those powers 
 man's co-operation is necessary by exercise and exertion. In 
 striking contrast is the mode in which God has imparted 
 knowledge to the animal creation from that in which He has 
 imparted it to man. To man He has communicated capacities 
 for acquiring knowledge^ rather than actual knowledge itself : 
 man is not born with knowledge. To the animal creation the 
 Creator has acted otherwise. Whatever knowledge they 
 possess is the direct gift of their Creator, complete and entire 
 like a verbal inspiration. It requires no co-operation on their 
 part for its complete development. Thousands of generations 
 of bees have existed. Their knowledge has not been progressive. 
 Thousands of years ago their knowledge and skill were as great 
 as it is now. They have made no progress during the interval. 
 Their Creator has invested them at once with knowledge on 
 some subjects which it has required man long ages to discover. 
 The bee knew, ages before man, that the use of the hexagon in 
 building involved the greatest economy of space. The youngest 
 bee goes at once to its work perfectly taught by its Creator. 
 But man arrives at this knowledge after deep study of geo- 
 metry, and only after a succession of discoveries. The reason 
 of this is, that man is created to be a fellow worker with God. 
 Nothing can be more striking to the thoughtful mind, in 
 contemplating creation, than the extent to which it is evidently 
 the pleasure of the Almighty that man should be a fellow 
 worker with Himself. The whole kingdom of nature teems 
 with evidences of this fact. It is one of the distinctive marks 
 which separate the irrational races from the human. Every- 
 thing in nature points to man as its archetype ; but everything 
 in nature no less distinctly requires man to become a fellow 
 worker with God before it can be appropriated to its use. 
 The earth is fitted for his abode, and stored with everything 
 which his wants require ; " but man must subdue it " *. The 
 sea has been made by the Creator the highway of nations; but 
 man must build his bark before he can traverse it and make it 
 subservient to the purposes of intercourse. The Creator has 
 fabricated the materials of steam ; but man has invented the 
 * Geu. i. 28. 
 
103 
 
 steam-engine. God created electricity, and endowed it with 
 powers by which distance is annihilated; man has invented the 
 telegraph. Metals in abundance God has stored in the earth 
 for man^s use ; but man must invent before he can appropri- 
 ate one of the Creator^s gifts. Many of the harsher powers of 
 nature stimulate this same activity in man, working, as God 
 works, by unalterable law; man has to co-operate with Him to 
 avoid the pressure of those laws on himself. The very diffi- 
 culties of nature force man to be a fellow worker with God. 
 Nature is full of difficulties, in order that man may be full of 
 work to overcome them. 
 
 If such be the aspect of nature, why may not revelation also 
 present similar features ? If it is the pleasure of the Al- 
 mighty that man should be His fellow worker in creation and 
 providence, why may it not be likewise His pleasure that man 
 should be a fellow worker with God in His character of Re- 
 vealer ? Man must be a co-worker with God before he can 
 appropriate His gifts in nature ; why may not the same 
 necessity exist before he can appropriate the knowledge com- 
 municated by revelation ? Difficulties exist in nature for the 
 purpose of forcing man to become a fellow worker with his 
 Maker ; why may not similar difficulties exist in revelation 
 for the purpose of effectuating the same end? If the very same 
 difficulties exist in revelation as in nature, shall we without 
 hesitation admit that nature is the workmanship of the Most 
 High, and, because of the difficulties, deny that Christianity 
 can have come down from the Father of light ? 
 
 Shall we, with the verbal inspirationist, assume that that God 
 who in creation and providence has hardly imparted to man a 
 single gift which does not require his own co-operation for its 
 perfection, has reversed the order of His operations in com- 
 municating a supernatural revelation, and provided man with 
 every truth all ready to his bands, without the necessity of ex- 
 erting any power with which he is invested ? Analogy leads us 
 to the conclusion that, if the God of creation and providence be 
 the author of revelation. He would not invariably act by one 
 rule in the one, and directly reverse it in the other. But the 
 theory of verbal inspiration has been assumed to supersede the 
 
104 
 
 necessity of human agency in the study of divine revelation^ 
 and to present truth as much as possible ready made for man's 
 use. If, therefore, the theory of verbal inspiration has been 
 assumed as the mode in which a revelation must have been 
 communicated because it presents truth as more ready for 
 man^s use than any other supposition, and requires less human 
 exertion for its attainment, that theory is assumed in direct 
 contradiction to the known actings of God in creation and 
 providence. It therefore is so far from possessing antecedent 
 certainty, that it has not even a low degree of antecedent pro- 
 bability that it would be the mode in which the Creator would 
 communicate a supernatural revelation. 
 
 But it has been asserted that the goodness of God renders 
 it antecedently probable that, if God made a revelation to man, 
 and rendered man's everlasting happiness at all dependent on 
 his reception of that revelation, not only would it be au- 
 thenticated by the highest degree of external evidence, but 
 it must be communicated with an inspiration not inferior 
 in accuracy to verbal inspiration or some of its cognate theo- 
 ries. It has been asked. Can it be supposed that the Creator, 
 if He has made such a revelation, has left in it anything dark 
 and obscure for man to grapple with ? Surely the goodness 
 of God requires that the knowledge of its contents, or the 
 reception of its truths, should not depend on any imperfec- 
 tions in the human intellect, but that truth should be communi- 
 cated in the clearest and most distinct manner by God him- 
 self. These assumptions, if true, would have rendered all 
 supernatural revelation unnecessary from the first. The 
 argument from the Divine goodness is equally potent to prove 
 that God must have endowed man with all requisite know- 
 ledge when He originally created him. 
 
 But we answer that, while it is an unquestionable truth that 
 the Judge of all the earth will certainly do right, such im- 
 portant conclusions must not be assumed on what seems 
 merely probable to us, but must rest on some certain grounds 
 of evidence as to what has been the mode of the Divine pro- 
 cedure in analogous cases. Now whatever we know of God 
 as Creator and Governor of the universe contradicts the sup- 
 
105 
 
 position. Has not God the Creator left man ignorant of many 
 subjects deeply affecting his spiritual well-being ? Nor do 
 the facts of the Christian Scriptures afford it any better sup- 
 port. Our Lord^s mode of teaching in parables is expressly 
 asserted to have been adopted from other reasons than because 
 it was the plainest and the simplest method of communicating 
 truth. If the argument possessed any real value, it would be 
 effectual to prove that, if God made a revelation at all, that 
 revelation must have been published in every part of the 
 world, and proposed at once to the acceptance of every human 
 creature. This we know He has not done : the mode of the 
 Divine conduct, therefore, in making a revelation contradicts 
 the supposition. 
 
 We are not now dealing, however, with the facts of the New 
 Testament, but with our antecedent knowledge. The same 
 principle which leads us to infer that the Scriptures must 
 have been communicated by verbal inspiration equally requires 
 that they must have been preserved in the same degree of 
 accuracy in which they were originally communicated. If it 
 be necessary, from considerations of the Divine goodness, that 
 the Scriptures should have been verbally inspired, the same 
 goodness would require that an infallible guide should have 
 been provided for their interpretation. The Church of Rome 
 carries this theory out consistently, and maintains that the 
 difficidt work of interpreting the Scriptures has not been left 
 to the fallible judgments of ordinary men. According to her 
 views, God has provided an infallible interpreter in herself. 
 Her views on this subject have, in theory at least, the merit 
 of consistency ; and if these antecedent principles are correct, 
 it is difficult to escape from the necessity of the conclusion. 
 Against this conclusion the stern logic of fact raises its inexo- 
 rable protest. The original assumption, therefore, rests on no 
 grounds of antecedent certainty, and, as a probability, contra- 
 dicts alike the facts of creation and providence and the pages 
 of revelation. 
 
 It has often been asserted that if God be the author of the 
 Scriptures, they must be infallible guides to truth, and that 
 they must have been composed by the aid of verbal inspiration. 
 
106 
 
 The whole force of the argument depends on an ambiguity 
 in the expression. The expression " the Scriptures must be 
 an infallible guide to truth ^^ has a double meaning. 
 
 If the Scriptures be a divine revelation, they will be sufficient 
 guides to truth. But in what sense of the word " truth" is this 
 assertion intended? There is truth as it has been objectively 
 communicated by God. There is truth in its abstract form, 
 as it is the subject of revelation. There are also the several 
 perceptions and apprehensions of that truth as it appears to 
 the mind of different persons. 
 
 Now, supposing the Scriptures to be given by divine in- 
 spiration, the objective truths (not our views of them, or our 
 deductions from them) would be the truths to which the 
 term infallible or efficient guides is properly applied. If we 
 say that these truths are infallible guides to man, we must 
 be careful to define what we mean by that expression. They 
 are infallible as far as God's purposes are concerned, but not 
 necessarily infallible guides to every particular individual 
 whatever may be his peculiar mental character. The very 
 same thing may be an infallible guide to one man, which is 
 far from being an infallible guide to another. How far any- 
 thing can be an infallible guide to any particular person for 
 the purpose of regulating his faith or his conduct, is a ques- 
 tion purely relative. It will entirely depend on his charac- 
 ter or his disposition. What may be an infallible guide to 
 an inquiring, earnest, teachable man, to make him wise unto 
 salvation, may be very far from being an equally infallible guide 
 to a person of an opposite character. It frequently happens 
 that orders which, to a faithful and intelligent servant, pre- 
 sent no difficulty or ambiguity, are utterly insufficient for the 
 guidance of a careless one. A revelation from God must 
 always be a sufficient guide to man : its infallibility as a 
 guide must depend on the disposition and the character of 
 those to whom it is addressed. The more correct expression 
 of this truth would be, " The Christian Scriptures, if they are 
 a divine revelation, are a sufficient guide, and ought to be an 
 infallible guide, to every man, to lead him into the road to life 
 everlasting." It is impossible, therefore, from such data to 
 
107 
 
 infer the necessity of verbal inspiration. The only necessary 
 inference is, that God has afforded sufficient inspiration. 
 
 It has been asserted as a proof that the Scriptures must 
 have been written under the influence of verbal inspiration, 
 that if they were not, the whole evidence of the truth of 
 their contents becomes endangered. If any human element 
 exists in them, the inquiry has been put, How can we be 
 certain that they contain anything divine ? 
 
 The truth of the Scripture as a divine revelation cannot 
 be affected by any theory as to the mode in which inspiration 
 was communicated in its composition. Its claims to be re- 
 ceived as a revelation from God rest on the sufficiency of 
 the attestation which it has received from Him. If God 
 makes a revelation of His will, man is bound to receive and 
 obey it, in whatever manner it may please the Divine wisdom 
 to communicate it. 
 
 A sufficient attestation by God is the only ground on 
 which a revelation possesses any claim to bind the con- 
 sciences of man. The Christian Scriptures claim a miracu- 
 lous attestation, quite independently of all questions as to 
 the mode of their inspiration. If the attestation of a reve- 
 lation were not miraculous, it would only bind the con- 
 science of that person to whom it was communicated, and 
 who possessed direct evidence in his own mind that the re- 
 velation was from God. God might give, if it pleased Him, 
 an internal attestation to every particular individual that a 
 revelation of His will had been made to him. The Christian 
 Scriptures themselves lay claim to an internal evidence com- 
 mending itself to the heart and conscience, in addition to 
 their outward miraculous attestation. But this internal evi- 
 dence is not the ground on which they claim a binding au- 
 thority. That binding authority is expressly declared to be 
 derived from their having received a miraculous attestation. 
 This is directly asserted by our Lord himself. " If I had 
 not done among them the works which none other man did, 
 they had not had sin ; but now they have no cloak for their 
 sin." The miracles performed by our Lord, consummated by 
 His own resurrection, and the miraculous powers with which 
 
108 
 
 He subsequently invested the Apostles^ constitute that attes- 
 tation. 
 
 Now a real miracle is the full and sufficient attestation to 
 a revelation, that it has God for its author. By it God 
 places the stamp of His authority on the person who pro- 
 fesses to have the revelation to communicate. A real mira- 
 cle can only be performed by the great Governor of the 
 universe, and by no inferior agent. The truth of this results 
 from the following considerations. 
 
 A miracle is a suspension of the ordinary mode of the 
 Creator's acting, and His acting by a different instrumen- 
 tality. The established laws of nature are the mode through 
 which the Creator acts. They are not merely the laws of 
 His acting, but, to speak more correctly, they are the act- 
 ings of God in conformity with law predetermined by His 
 own will. God, in His universal energy, is ever present in 
 those laws. 
 
 Now, if the laws of nature are only another word for the 
 Divine energies themselves, any suspension of them can only 
 be the result of a Divine act. A suspension of the laws of 
 nature can therefore only be God ceasing to act by one me- 
 thod, and acting in another. A miracle, therefore, if it be a 
 suspension of the ordinary laws of nature, or a deviation from 
 them, must be a Divine operation denoting a special act of 
 the Creator. 
 
 We do not here enter on the question of such miracles 
 as may be of a doubtful character. A miracle may be a 
 true miracle, but yet it may not be evidently miraculous to 
 us. We speak only of such miracles as are miquestionable 
 suspensions of the laws of nature. If the whole course of pro- 
 vidence be the law of the Divine acting, and a miracle be a 
 deviation from this ordinary mode of the Divine operation and 
 the adopting of a different one, a miracle must give the 
 Divine attestation to the person who is able to perform it. 
 If a deviation from the ordinary laws of nature takes place at 
 the word of a particular person, and those laws are the act- 
 ings of the Creator, it proves the presence of God with that 
 person at whose word the ordinary laws of nature are sus- 
 
109 
 
 pended. " This is the fiiiger of God/' is the natural lan- 
 guage which will be uttered by every man when he witnesses 
 an unquestionable miracle. 
 
 It will be admitted that a miracle is not more a divine act^ 
 nor more an exertion of a divine power^ than the ordinary laws 
 of providence are divine acts and exertions of divine power. 
 No mistake is more common than to represent that a miracle 
 is an extraordinary [i. e. extra great) exertion of a divine 
 power. This error leads to an entire misapprehension of the 
 true end and purpose of a miracle. The performance of a 
 miracle is not intended to display power^ but to afford proof 
 of a special intervention of God. It is God really ceasing to 
 act in one way, and acting in another. If a man announces 
 that he will perform a miracle, for the purpose of attest- 
 ing a commission from God, the performance of the miracle 
 by the Creator under these circumstances, at the word 
 of the person claiming to reveal His will, affixes His 
 broad seal to the truth of the assertion of the person who 
 professes to be empowered to communicate a revelation. If 
 the laws of nature are God's laws — the ordinary modes of 
 the Divine actings, — the power to perform a miracle must be 
 a proof of a special commission from God. In a miracle, God 
 manifests the reality of His personal will by suspending His 
 ordinary mode of operating. 
 
 If miracles are actual Divine operations, and if none can 
 interfere with the Divine actings but God himself, they can 
 be performed by no inferior agent ; they therefore afford a 
 conclusive proof of a divine commission. The greatest un- 
 believer in existence, if he actually witnessed the cure of one 
 born blind, and was certain that the cure had been effected by 
 no other instrumentality than a word, would feel himself 
 compelled to believe that the person at whose word the mira- 
 cle had been performed was a messenger from God. 
 
 It follows that a true and genuine miracle, wrought at the 
 word of a person claiming to have a divine commission, is an 
 attestation by God to the reality of that commission. It 
 enables us to know that what He asserts or commands is 
 asserted or commanded on the authority of God. If a sup- 
 
no 
 
 posed revelation has a clear and certain miraculous attesta- 
 tion, its right to be received is established^ quite distinct 
 from any considerations as to the mode of its communication. 
 The only question which can be raised is one of fact. Has 
 the person claiming to be a prophet a miraculous attestation ? 
 Are the miracles which he professes to perform undeniable 
 suspensions of the ordinary laws of nature ? If he has a 
 miraculous attestation, the mode in which the revelation has 
 been discovered to the prophet's mind has nothing to do 
 with our obligation to receive it. 
 
 The mode in which a particular revelation has been com- 
 municated to the prophet's mind is a simple question of the 
 Divine will, and must be determined exclusively by the Divine 
 wisdom. We are wholly inadequate judges of what the Divine 
 wisdom requires God to do. When we see an act unques- 
 tionably divine, we may be sure that it is founded on the 
 Divine wisdom. A miracle is such a divine act. An event 
 of ordinary providence is another. Whatever elements a re- 
 velation attested by miracles contains, they have received the 
 stamp of the Divine authority. If there be human elements 
 in such a revelation, those human elements must have been 
 placed there by God for a special purpose. It is not for 
 man to attempt to improve on the works of God. Sup- 
 posing such elements to exist, it is plainly God's intention 
 that man should employ his faculties for the purpose of ascer- 
 taining their comparative value. 
 
 The assertion that if a human element exists in the Scrip- 
 tures, it destroys all certainty as to the divine truths con- 
 tained in them, is equivalent to limiting the Creator in the 
 use of means. We ask, why cannot God combine a human 
 and a divine element in a supernatural revelation ? Can God 
 only work by such means as we should use ourselves ? The 
 assertion that the presence of a human element in the Scrip- 
 tures must nullify the divine one would only hold good if 
 man had no faculties capable of discovering truth. We 
 might as well assert that the evidences of revelation must be 
 demonstrative, and not moral. But God has been pleased to 
 give man few demonstrative truths to guide his conduct. 
 
Ill 
 
 The evidence which He affords to man on most subjects 
 is moral evidence. It admits of degrees. It is such as would 
 be estimated differently by different minds. It is capable of 
 being resisted. It requires a diligent search after truths and 
 a readiness to admit truth when found. This is the general 
 mode in which God communicates truth to man in His or- 
 dinary dispensations. By what right do we assume that He 
 reverses the whole mode of His procedure in communicating 
 a revelation of His will ? 
 
 Instead^ therefore, of any presumption in the form of the 
 theory of verbal inspiration arising from these considerations, 
 all antecedent probabilities contradict the supposition that 
 it would be the mode in which Divine revelation would be 
 communicated. It is far more probable that truth in the 
 pages of a supernatural revelation will present the same 
 aspect as it does in God^s revelation through the natural 
 universe_, and that it will require the same moral conditions 
 in the recipient as other truths of equal importance, of which 
 God has not afforded demonstrative evidence. The very in- 
 troduction of a human element into the record of a revelation 
 may be part and parcel of the same divine plan. It may be 
 intended to make the discovery of truth in some degree rela- 
 tive to the moral character of the inquirer. 
 
 Our duties respecting a revelation depend on the degree of 
 its attestation as coming from God, and not on the mode of 
 its communication. If it is God^s revelation, a reverent study 
 of its contents is one of the highest of human duties. If it 
 is sufficiently attested as divinCj there can be no doubt that it 
 has been communicated, and the human elements introduced 
 into it, by the Divine wisdom ; and although it may require 
 careful study, yet the humble inquirer will be able to discover 
 in it those truths which it Avas the intention of God to com- 
 municate for his illumination and guidance. If a human 
 element has been admitted into the revelation, we may safely 
 trust Omnipotence and Omniscience that it has been intro- 
 duced in such a way as not to endanger the existence of what 
 is divine. 
 
 It has been urged in support of the theory of verbal in- 
 
112 
 
 spiration, that it is antecedently probable that this method 
 would be employed, because it is a shorter and more compen- 
 dious method of communicating truth. But we can have no 
 ground of assuming, because, according to our conceptions, it 
 may be the most direct method of communicating truth, that 
 it must, therefore, be the mode which Infinite wisdom must 
 necessarily employ. We may think it very convenient that 
 every word in the Scriptures should have been a divine dicta- 
 tion ; but to assume that it must be so, is to pretend that we 
 are able to fathom the profoimd depths of the Divine mind. 
 
 But the supposition that there is an antecedent necessity 
 that a supernatural revelation must be communicated by an 
 inspiration no less exact than verbal inspiration is chiefly 
 founded on the notion that we may form a human standard 
 of perfection, and apply it to the dealings of God as the 
 revealer of His will. Whatever does not come up to that 
 standard of perfection is assumed as unworthy of the Creator. 
 
 According to human apprehension, a revelation communi- 
 cated with all the accuracy of verbal inspiration may be con- 
 sidered perfect, compared with one which contains an admix- 
 ture of different human elements. But how do we know that 
 this is perfection in the way in which the Creator views it ? 
 We know that human standards of perfection very inade- 
 quately measure the realities of the Creator's works in the 
 universe which He has formed ; how do we know that they 
 will be more trustworthy guides as to the facts of a super- 
 natural revelation ? The admission that God is perfect is a 
 very different thing from asserting that the human standard 
 of perfection must be realized in every one of the Divine acts. 
 The Divine works are transcendent displays of the infinite 
 power, wisdom, and goodness of the Creator ; but as man is 
 permitted to behold them, although the existing universe may 
 be tending towards perfection, it is not perfect. Its law is 
 progress. The facts of the universe prove that perfection 
 does not now exist. On what ground, then, do we venture to 
 assume that we must find in revelation the very opposite 
 displays of the Divine actings to those which we actually find 
 in creation and providence ? If we were to find such pheno- 
 
113 
 
 mena in a revelation, would not their existence afford a 
 strong antecedent probability that the revelation was a pre- 
 tended one ? 
 
 But it is a common argument in favour of the theory of verbal 
 inspiration, that if the Christian Scriptures are a revelation 
 from God, they must be God's word, and this renders it neces- 
 sary that every word in them must be verbally inspired. If 
 they are God's word, a human element cannot exist in them ; 
 they must be throughout absolutely and completely divine. 
 If they are God's word, every expression in them must be 
 absolutely true. 
 
 There is an ambiguity in the expression " God's word," 
 which it will be necessary to remove. It may mean either 
 God's own spoken word, or His will communicated through 
 the agency of others. 
 
 The expression " God's word " cannot be properly applied to 
 a divine revelation in the first of these senses. It cannot be 
 God's spoken word in the same sense that an utterance of 
 man is man's spoken word. It is the use of it in this sense 
 alone that can afford any aid to the theory of verbal inspiration. 
 
 The expression is derived from the human use of the facul- 
 ties of conception and of speech. To suppose that the great 
 and infinite Spirit expresses Himself through a faculty of 
 language is to represent Him as none other than ourselves. 
 We might as well invest Him at once with bodily organs. 
 
 But if we use the expression as denoting God's concep- 
 tions, we have already proved that no revelation of God's infi- 
 nite conceptions in their divine reality is possible to man. 
 The divine realities must be translated into their nearest 
 finite representations and approximations. To use the ex- 
 pression "God's word" in the same sense in which we use 
 the expression " man's word," and apply it to a revelation of 
 His will, involves an impossibility. 
 
 But the Scripture assertion, " God who cannot lie," involves 
 a truth which lies alike at the foundation of theism and of 
 revealed religion. The ambiguity which we have noticed is 
 nothing less than an assumption of the whole question at issue. 
 
 When it is asserted that the Christian Scriptures are God's 
 
 I 
 
114 
 
 word, the only correct sense which such an assertion can convey 
 is, that they contain the general revelation of the Divine truth 
 and will. They are God's word, because they contain His 
 message to man. They embody the thoughts, ideas, and con- 
 ceptions which it was His purpose to reveal. But if it is in- 
 tended, by the expression that they are God^s word, to imply 
 that every idea, conception, and expression in them is as 
 much the idea, conception, and expression of God as the 
 expressions contained in a book composed by a human writer 
 are the actual expressions of that writer, we use language the 
 only effect of which must be to mislead. 
 
 When we employ the expression in a human sense, nothing 
 can be the word of a writer in the strictest sense of that ex- 
 pression, except that which has been originally conceived, and 
 then expressed in language, by that writer. If a writer ex- 
 presses the thoughts of others in his own particular style, he 
 is hardly entitled to designate them as his word, if we insist 
 on the use of expressions verbally exact. We accuse of 
 plagiarism a writer who borrows the conceptions of others 
 without acknowledgment, and publishes them as his own. 
 In the same manner, if one person supply the original con- 
 ceptions, and another work them up into languge, neither is 
 entitled to claim the undivided authorship. If we use words 
 in their strictest sense, both the conceptions and the language 
 ought to be our own to entitle any particular expression to 
 the designation of '^ our word." 
 
 But, in the ordinary use of language, expressions of this 
 description are not used strictly, but in their popular sense. 
 In this sense, when we use the expression " our word," we 
 denote by it that the words employed express our meaning 
 knd intentions. If we send a message to a third person, and 
 if the things which we intended to be communicated were 
 honestly communicated, although the mode and conception 
 and the language were those of the messenger, yet we should 
 undoubtedly say that it was our message which was delivered, 
 and we might honestly be held responsible for the conse- 
 quences of it. In all such cases the truth is the essential 
 point, not the language in which it is conveyed. A command 
 
115 
 
 may be given by a person in authority to his subordinates. 
 They may communicate that command to others, each in dif- 
 ferent language from that originally given. Still the com- 
 mand is effectually the command of the superior, as long as 
 it conveys the real purport of his orders, however great may 
 be the variation in the expression. A person who was bound 
 to obey the commands of such a superior, but who pleaded 
 that he did not esteem the commands to be his, because the 
 language in which they were conveyed was not precisely the 
 same as those in which the original commands were given, 
 would be justly punished for disobedience. To infer that, be- 
 cause it is asserted that a particular expression is the word or 
 commandment of another, it must necessarily be expressed in 
 that person's identical language and conceptions, is to assume 
 that what is quite intelligible in a popular sense must be 
 used with strict scientific propriety. To argue from the use 
 of such a mode of expression to the particular mode in which 
 the inspiration of the Christian Scriptures must have been 
 communicated, is to assume the very point which it is neces- 
 sary to prove. 
 
 The assertion that the Scriptures are the word of God can- 
 not honestly be forced to mean more than that they contain 
 the mind and intention of God. They are God's word com- 
 municated, not directly, but through the medium of a third 
 person. This communication of the Scriptures, not imme- 
 diately by God, but through the instrumentality of men, con- 
 stitutes an essential difference between the sense in which 
 they can be God's word and the sense in which a pure human 
 utterance must be the word of man. The attempt to argue, 
 because in a popular sense of the expression they are desig- 
 nated as the word of God, that therefore the modes of the 
 expression and the style must be equally divine as the sub- 
 stance, is disingenuous and sophistical. In the case of a 
 human author the expressions are not transferred through a 
 second mind ; in the case of the Christian Scriptures, what- 
 ever degree of inspiration we may claim for them, it is certain 
 that the conceptions in them must have been transferred 
 through the mind of the inspired person. The conceptions 
 
 I 2 
 
116 
 
 of the human author are entirely his own. In the case of a 
 divine revelation, the conceptions have passed through a 
 human medium ; they cannot be God's conceptions, but 
 their approximations in human thought. 
 
 It therefore by no means follows that, because the Scriptures 
 are God's word, there cannot be a human element in them. 
 The extent of such human element can only be ascertained by 
 an appeal to the contents of the Scriptures themselves; it can- 
 not be deduced from any grounds of antecedent probability. 
 
 We cannot assume, because the Christian Scriptures are a 
 revelation from God, that inspiration has been afforded be- 
 yond the necessities of the case for the purpose of communi- 
 cating those truths to man. All that we can infer is, that the 
 record of the revelation contains those truths which it was 
 the Divine purpose to reveal, and that they are so revealed as 
 to be a guide to the humble inquirer as to the true way to life 
 everlasting. But whether the inspiration with which they 
 have been communicated has been verbal inspiration, or in- 
 spiration in another form, is a point which we have no grounds 
 of antecedent certainty to enable us to determine from such 
 premises. 
 
 Now the variety of subject-matter contained in the pages 
 of the New Testament is very great. There is the account of 
 our Lord's life and ministry, and of the discourses uttered by 
 Him, given us in the four Gospels, interspersed with occa- 
 sional reflections of the writers. It contains likewise another 
 historical book, the Acts of the Apostles, which gives us an 
 account of the planting of the most important Christian 
 churches, and details the proceedings of some of the most 
 eminent missionaries. These books contain a very consider- 
 able number of historical allusions. Then follow the Epistles, 
 in which we find, in a very unsystematic form, doctrinal state- 
 ments, precepts, allusions to events well known to the writers 
 of the Epistles and those to whom they are addressed, state- 
 ments of feelings and experiences, observations on events 
 passing in the Church, directions about matters of business, 
 and salutations. Lastly, one book professes to be entirely 
 prophetical. The mode of instruction adopted in these books 
 
117 
 
 is of a most varied character. The truths treated of extend 
 over the widest possible field, from the deepest truths of God 
 to the most ordinary events of daily life. 
 
 Now, such being the contents of the book, it would seem 
 antecedently probable that a book which consists of such a 
 vast variety of matter would not be written under the influence 
 of a uniform degree of inspu'ation, but that the degree of 
 inspiration would be in accordance with the requirements of 
 the subject-matter. Nothing is more contrary to our notions 
 of wdsdom than an undue expenditure of power. In human 
 things, when we see a power applied out of all proportion to 
 the effect intended to be produced, we consider it a deep re- 
 flection upon the skill of the designer. No engineer would 
 employ an engine of 200 horse-power to lift a weight which 
 required only the exertion of fifty. No one would think of 
 employing a man with the pow'crs of Sir Isaac Newton to 
 discharge the duties of a copying-clerk. The Divine opera- 
 tions in nature are all founded on similar principles — the 
 proportion of means to ends. The same principle may even 
 be traced clearly enough in the book of revelation itself. The 
 Christian Scriptures never represent God as doing for man 
 what man can do for himself. It is therefore highly ante- 
 cedently probable that we should find God acting by the same 
 principle as to the degree of inspirution with Avhich He com- 
 municates a revelation of His will, and proportioning the 
 Divine assistance to the requirements of the subject-matter. 
 
 To illustrate this argument by an example taken from the 
 New Testament itself : — In the eighth chapter to the Romans 
 St. Paul confessedly treats of some of the most profound 
 truths of religion. In part of the sixteenth chapter he is 
 occupied in simply sending salutations to Christian friends. 
 It is hardly possible to conceive of subject-matter more widely 
 differing in character. Are we to assume that that God who 
 carefully proportions means to ends in nature and providence, 
 has afforded the same amount of supernatural guidance to 
 discover to an apostle tlie deepest truths of revelation and to 
 enable him to write, " Salute them which are of Aristobulus' 
 household," or " The salutation of me, Paul, with my own 
 
118 
 
 hand"? To assume that both passages have received an equal 
 degree of supernatural assistance in their composition is to 
 make a deep reflection on the Divine wisdom. We may infer, 
 therefore^ that it is antecedently probable that the degree of 
 inspiration afforded would vary according to the subject- 
 matter. 
 
 Now, if the great revelation of Christianity is made in the 
 person of our Lord, it is antecedently probable that in His 
 person and teaching would be exhibited the highest possible 
 form of divine inspiration. That revelation, as we have 
 already intimated, the Christian Scriptures assert to consist of 
 two parts : the one consists in the revelation of the Divine 
 character and perfections made in the person of Christ; 
 the other in the various discourses uttered by Him, and in 
 the doctrines taught by Him. To the truths as they flowed 
 from the lips of our Lord the highest form of inspiration 
 would necessarily belong, if in his person He is God incar- 
 nate. As far as human ideas can express those truths, 
 they must be expressed in our Lord's teaching with the 
 greatest possible precision. Whatever degree of knowledge 
 of the Divine character and perfections the human mind is 
 capable of understanding, it is antecedently probable that the 
 highest degree of that knowledge would be communicated 
 in the teaching of Christ. No difficulties would impede 
 Him in his teaching of truth, except those which the Creator 
 has imposed as the necessary conditions and limits of human 
 thought. He would be fully able to present to man the 
 best view of the Divine realities which the human mind could 
 possibly attain to. If the mind of man is only capable of 
 attaining an analogous knowledge of truth, the analogies 
 used by Him in its communication would be the best which 
 the whole range of human conception could supply for their 
 representation. Whatever may be the precise relation of our 
 human conceptions to the divine realities, such a teacher 
 would afford us the nearest approximation to the realities 
 themselves. 
 
 But, as the thoughts of man must be human, and not 
 divine, even such a teacher must be limited in his teaching 
 
119 
 
 by the essential conditions of human tliought. However 
 divine the teacher, he must be limited by those conditions 
 which God has imposed on His own acting. 
 
 But, subject to this limitation, the teaching of one who 
 unites the Divine nature with the human must involve the 
 highest form of possible inspiration. Consequently it would 
 be a probability, amounting to a certainty, that the inspiration 
 which dwelt in Christ must have been higher than that with 
 which any other messenger from God would be endowed. 
 
 As our Lord^s person, life, and teaching must involve the 
 highest form of inspiration, the only thing which is necessary 
 is, that the history of His life and the records of His teaching 
 should be transmitted to us Avith entire accuracy. In that 
 case we should possess a revelation authorized by the highest 
 form of inspiration, whatever might be the degree of inspira- 
 tion afforded to those who recorded the history of ouj Lord's 
 life or reported His discourses. 
 
 The preceding observations prove that we have very limited 
 grounds of antecedent certainty as to what must be the sub- 
 ject-matter of a divine revelation, or the extent of the inspira- 
 tion with which it must be communicated, or to what extent 
 a human element might exist in an historical revelation like 
 the Christian. Our only true means of determining what 
 God must do in any given case is by carefully inquiring what 
 He has actually done in creation and in providence. What 
 the same Being has done in the one case, it is in the highest 
 degree probable that, within certain limits. He will also do in 
 the other. But the only means which we possess which can 
 certainly lead to a satisfactory result is the examination of the 
 sacred writers themselves as to what they assert respecting the 
 nature of their own inspiration, and by carefully investigating 
 the facts actually presented by that revelation. 
 
 If the same God be the author of creation, providence, and 
 the Christian revelation, we may conclude that the same me- 
 thod which will conduct us to the knowledge of the Creator and 
 Preserver of the universe would be the most likely to conduct 
 us to the knowledge of the same Being as the revealer of His 
 will. In creation and providence, the mode by which we 
 
120 
 
 ascertain the laws of the Divine acting is by a careful induction 
 of facts. Why should the most careful study of God's act- 
 ings in creation and providence be the only mode of attaining 
 a knowledge of the Divine conduct in the one, and why should 
 not the study of the facts and phenomena of revelation be the 
 road to truth as to the mode of the Divine acting in the 
 other ? Why should we assume on mere grounds of proba- 
 bility the mode and degree of inspiration which has been 
 afforded for the composition of the Scriptures, and not inquire 
 of those Scriptures themselves what is the mode and degree of 
 inspiration with which they assert that they have been 
 written? Why should such modes of investigating truth be 
 false in creation and providence, and certain guides when ap- 
 plied to revelation ? Is there any rational ground for refusing 
 to accept the testimony of the Scriptures in such a case? 
 Why are we to assume that they have been composed under 
 a greater or less degree of inspiration than they themselves 
 actually claim? If we assume that they are devoid of the 
 inspiration under the influence of which they positively assert 
 that they have been written, it is equivalent to a denial that 
 they are a divine revelation at all. But what right have we, 
 on the other hand, on mere probable grounds distinct from 
 their own testimony to assume that they have been composed 
 with the aid of a higher inspiration than they actually claim, 
 or with an inspiration which they may possibly disclaim? 
 Many motives may influence a human author to induce him 
 to disclaim the powers which he possesses. This cannot be 
 the case with an author who is divine. 
 
 But it may be urged, their testimony on this subject is 
 neither sufficient nor distinct. Is, therefore, the degree of 
 their inspiration to be determined on grounds which, when 
 applied to the works of creation and providence, conduct us to 
 nothing but error and delusion? If it is correct that the 
 Scripture testimony as to the nature of their own inspiration 
 is indistinct, it is useless to have recourse to guides which will 
 conduct us to erroneous conclusions as to other departments 
 of the Divine conduct. Our appeal must be, on the contrary, 
 to a careful anahsis of the facts presented by the Scriptures, 
 
121 
 
 to enable us to arrive at a judgment of the nature and degree 
 of inspiration by the assistance of which they have been com- 
 posed. Now, we ask, why should not the facts of the Christian 
 Scriptures be made the subject of a careful induction to enable 
 us to determine the nature of their inspiration, in the same 
 manner in which the phenomena of creation and providence 
 must be subject to induction to enable us to determine the 
 mode of the Creator's acting ? Why should the facts of a 
 divine revelation be twisted into conformity with an antece- 
 dent theory ? Why should not our theory, as in all other 
 cases where man has attained to correct knowledge, be formed 
 as the explanation of the facts ? Has the application of 
 theories to the solution of the systems of creation and provi- 
 dence been so fruitful in the discovery of truth as to encou- 
 rage us to apply similar principles to the solution of important 
 truths connected with the Christian revelation ? All our cor- 
 rect knowledge of the kingdom of nature has been the result 
 of careful study and analysis of facts; and through that analysis 
 correct theoretic knowledge has been attained. All the truths 
 of modern science have been discovered on this principle ; 
 why, then, should not a similar principle be applied to ascer- 
 tain the nature of the inspiration under the influence of which 
 the Christian Scriptures have been composed, on all points 
 which have been left doubtful by the assertions of the writers 
 o#^ those Scriptures ? The right mode of determining this ques- 
 tion is by an application of the inductive method to the facts 
 of revelation, and by ascertaining from the testimony of the 
 writers themselves the degree of inspiration by which they 
 were guided, and under the influence of which they wrote. 
 
 If, therefore, the Scriptures are silent as to the mode of their 
 own inspiration, the only method of arriving at the truth as to 
 what degree of inspiration was necessary for their composi- 
 tion is a carefal induction and analysis of the facts which 
 they contain. A principle which is the source of all the 
 knowledge which man possesses cannot be a dangerous one to 
 apply to the elucidation of the question of inspiration. 
 
 We will therefore proceed to inquire what the Christian 
 Scriptures themselves inform us respecting the nature of the 
 
122 
 
 rerelation itself, the mode of its communication, and the 
 extent of the inspiration afforded for its communication. We 
 will then examine the facts and the phenomena presented by 
 the revelation itself, and endeavour to deduce a theory of 
 inspiration from the testimony of these facts. The only 
 assumption which we shall make will be, that the Christian 
 Scriptures have received a miraculous attestation, sufficient to 
 prove them to be a revelation from God. 
 
 We will first of all unfold a subject to which we have already 
 alluded, as it forms the groundwork of all correct views on 
 the subject of inspiration. 
 
 CHAPTER VII. 
 
 THE INCARNATION IS THE GREAT OBJECTIVE MANI- 
 FESTATION OF DEITY TO THE FINITE MIND. THE 
 PERSON OF CHRIST EXHIBITS THE HIGHEST FORM 
 OF INSPIRATION. 
 
 It has been already observed that the Christian Scriptures 
 assert that the positive objective revelation of God has been 
 made in the person of Jesus Christ. The fact that this reve- 
 lation of God is objective in Christ's person forms the ground- 
 work of the assertions of the Christian Scriptures. They 
 declare that Christ is God manifest in the flesh. As far as 
 the incomprehensible truths of the Infinite are capable of 
 being imaged or grasped by the finite understanding, those 
 truths, as an objective revelation, are manifested in the person 
 of the God-man, in His life on earth. His death and resurrec- 
 tion, and they ever will continue to manifest themselves in 
 His divine person. The Christian Scriptures represent that 
 this great manifestation of the Infinite in the person of the 
 finite not only contains the highest revelation of the glories 
 of the Godhead possible to men, but that it is designed for 
 the enlightenment of intelligences far superior to the human 
 race — " that untq^ the principalities and powers in heavenly 
 
123 
 
 places might be known through the Church the manifold 
 wisdom of God.^' 
 
 The truth that the person of Christ is God manifest in the 
 flesh, forms the corner-stone of the Christian revelation. If 
 the person of Christ be in this sense divine, it is evident that 
 there will be exhibited in Him the highest possible form of 
 divine inspiration. We must therefore examine the testimony 
 of the New Testament on the subject. 
 
 One of the most remarkable passages in which that truth 
 is directly asserted is the first chapter of the Epistle to the 
 Hebrews : — 
 
 " God, who at sundry times and in divers manners spake 
 in time past unto the fathers by the prophets, hath in these 
 last days spoken unto us by His Son, whom He hath ap- 
 pointed heir of all things, by whom also He made the worlds; 
 who being the brightness of His glory, and the express 
 image of His person, and upholding all things by the word of 
 His power, when He had by Himself purged our sins, sat 
 down on the right hand of the Majesty on high; being made 
 so much better than the angels, as He hath by inheritance 
 obtained a more excellent name than tliey.^^ 
 
 The translation of eV vIm by the words " by His Son " 
 is unquestionably incorrect. The evident intention of the 
 sacred writer was to assert, not that God spoke by His Son, 
 but in His Son, i. e. in the person of His Son, which is the 
 evident meaning of the Greek no less than the evident inten- 
 tion of the writer. 
 
 In this passage the following statements are made by the 
 apostolic writer respecting the nature of the Christian revela- 
 tion. 
 
 The Christian revelation differs from all the other revela- 
 tions of God to man, in the instrumentality through which 
 it has been communicated. Former revelations were made 
 through the instrumentality of inspired prophets : they gave 
 utterance to the divine oracles. The Christian revelation 
 has been communicated in the person of the Son of God. 
 God has spoken unto us in His Son. 
 
 It differs also in the mode of its communication. Former 
 
124 
 
 revelations were made at sundry times and in divers manners. 
 iTo\vfiep6)<i, /cat 7roXvTp67TO}<;. By this expression is denoted 
 the partial character of former revelations, both in the mode 
 of their delivery and in the extent of their communications. 
 No former revelation was made in the person of a prophet. 
 God revealed Himself tlirough him, but never in him. The 
 Christian revelation is also contrasted with all former divine 
 discoveries by the divine dignity of the person in whom and 
 through whom it has been revealed. In it " God has spoken 
 to us in His Son." 
 
 The Revealer of the Christian dispensation is the heir of 
 all things. Through Him God has arranged the ages, and 
 through Him, as the efficient cause, He has laid the founda- 
 tion of the material globes. God, in speaking in His Son, 
 has spoken in the person of one who is the brightness of the 
 Divine glory, the express image of the Divine person, and 
 who upholds all things by the word of His power. 
 
 The expression, *' the brightness of the Divine glory" {dirav- 
 yaa-fjLaTrj<i 86^7j<;), requires some explanation. It denotes that 
 the glories of the invisible Creator, from the depths of His 
 infinitude, shine forth visibly in the person of the Son. The 
 Son is the outshining of that glory in such a manner as to 
 be intelligible to finite comprehension. He is the ray of 
 light flowing from the brightness of Him whom no created 
 eye can behold, or created intellect apprehend. 
 
 The revealer of the Christian disj)ensation is also the ex- 
 press image of the Divine person — '^apaKTtjp viroaTaaeoj^. The 
 term vTroaTuaa denotes not only the person, but the sub- 
 sistence of God. It is that which essentially constitutes the 
 Divine nature. Of this Divine subsistence the Divine Re- 
 vealer is declared to be the express image, or 'x^apaKrtjp. By 
 this expression is denoted that as the signet corresponds with 
 the seal, so the great Revealer of the Gospel dispensation 
 represents in His person the divine realities of the Almighty, 
 as closely as the infinite can be represented in the finite. 
 
 The Apostle therefore distinctly asserts that the last great 
 revelation is made to man in the person of Him who is God 
 and man. In that person He is the manifestation to the 
 
125 
 
 finite understanding, as far as it is capable of comprehending 
 the eternal God in the infinite depths of His existence. His 
 perfections are visibly represented in the Divine person of 
 the Revealer. The unveiled glories shine forth in Him, as 
 far as they can be comprehended by the creature. He is the 
 medium through whom the natural and moral perfections of 
 the Godhead become comprehensible. 
 
 We next adduce, in proof of our position, the opening of 
 the first chapter of St. John : — 
 
 " In the beginning was the Word^ and the Word was with 
 God, and the Word was God. The same was in the begin- 
 ning with God. AH things were made by Him, and without 
 Him was not anything made that was made. In Him was 
 life ; and the life was the light of men. And the light shineth 
 
 in darkness, and the darkness comprehended it not 
 
 And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us (and we 
 beheld his glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the 
 
 Father), full of grace and truth No man hath seen 
 
 God at any time ; the only begotten Son, who is in the bosom 
 of the Father, he hath declared Him." 
 
 St. John here expressly asserts that the person in whom 
 the revelation of the Gospel has been manifested is incarnate 
 Godhead. The apostle affirms the great truth which we 
 have already proved, that the eternal and infinite Creator 
 cannot possibly be adequately comprehended by the creature 
 in the glories of His incomprehensible being : — " No man 
 [none] hath seen God at any time." He can neither be made 
 visible to the bodily eye nor comprehensible to the under- 
 standing as He exists in Himself. But the only begotten 
 Son, who dwells in the bosom of the Father, has become the 
 reveal er in His incarnate person. 
 
 The Incarnation is here expressly asserted to be the great 
 revelation of the Godhead. The Word (the Revealer) was in 
 the beginning with God, and was God. He was made flesh, 
 and dwelt among us. He was manifested in such a manner 
 that we could behold His glory — the glory as of the only be- 
 gotten of the Father. Such a mode of revelation differs from 
 
126 
 
 all mere discoveries made by inspiration to the spirit of man. 
 Not only were the glories of the natural attributes of God 
 manifested in the Incarnation, but St. John draws our atten- 
 tion to the fact that it formed chiefly a revelation of His 
 spiritual attributes and moral perfections. The Revealer 
 was '^ full of grace and truth. '^ The Revealer " became flesh, 
 and dwelt among us ; and we beheld His glory, the glory as 
 of the only begotten of the Father.^^ The Father's per- 
 fections shone forth in Him in his incarnate nature, as the 
 most adequate representation of the Infinite which can be made 
 to the finite understanding. 
 
 But the very expression by which St. John designates the 
 Revealer of the Christian dispensation is indicative of the 
 same truth. He is the Word, or Logos — the manifester, de- 
 clarer, and revealer. He is to the Infinite what man's word 
 or reason is to the finite. The expression denotes His 
 relationship to the Father. He is the visible manifestation 
 of the invisible God, through whom all revelation of God is 
 possible. To the Word, or Revealer, the apostle then ascribes 
 divine perfections. He was in the beginning with God ; and 
 was God. Without Him no creative act has taken place ; 
 all things were made by Him, and conditioned through Him. 
 He possessed in Himself inherent life. That life became 
 the light of man. That power which endowed all things 
 with life has become the light of men. He is the true light, 
 which, by coming into the world, has enlightened every man. 
 Although the Divine perfections are above the comprehension 
 of the finite understanding, the divine Logos, issuing from 
 the bosom of the Father, having His Father's perfections 
 manifested in His divine person, has become, by the Incar- 
 nation, the revelation of the Father. 
 
 We will next adduce the testimony, not of an inspired 
 writer, but of our Lord himself. 
 
 In John xiv. our Lord declares, " I am the way, the truth, 
 and the life : no man cometh unto the Father, but by me. 
 If ye had known me, ye should have known my Father 
 also : and from henceforth ye know Him, and have seen 
 
127 
 
 Him. Philip saith unto Him^ Lord, show us the Father, and 
 it sufficeth us. Jesus saith unto him, Have I been so long 
 time with you, and yet has thou not known me, Philip? 
 He that hath seen me hath seen the Father ; and how say est 
 thou, then, show us the Father ? Believest thou not that I am in 
 the Father, and the Father in me ? The words that I speak 
 unto you I speak not of myself; but the Father that dwelleth 
 in me. He doeth the works. Believe me that I am in the 
 Father, and the Father in me ; or else believe me for the very 
 works' sake." 
 
 The apostles, grounding their opinion on the literal lan- 
 guage of the Old Testament, had formed the idea that the 
 infinite God, in His eternal being and uncreated perfections, 
 was capable of being visibly beheld by man. So late as the close 
 of oiu' Lord's ministry, they had been unable to grasp the full 
 truth of the Divine infinity. They were still strangers to the 
 great truth, that no man hath seen God at any time. After they 
 heard our Lord assert that He was the way, the truth, and 
 the life, and the only means of access to the Father, that 
 if any man had known Him he would have known the Father 
 also, and that henceforth they both knew Him and had seen 
 Him, Philip, thinking not only that the finite mind could 
 grasp the Infinite, but that He could be seen by mortal eye, 
 said unto Him, '' Lord, show us the Father, and it sufficeth 
 us.'' 
 
 Our Lord's reply is an express declaration that whatever 
 can be seen or known of the Father is embodied in Him. 
 " He that hath seen me hath seen the Father." " If ye had 
 known me, ye should have known my Father also; and 
 from henceforth ye know Him, and have seen Him." 
 
 Our Lord therefore declares Himself to be the only visible 
 and intelligible representation of the invisible God. The 
 apostles had seen the Father ; but what they had actually 
 beheld was the manifestation of incarnate Deity in the person 
 of Jesus Christ. It was Christ they had known, conversed 
 with, and whose divine perfections they had witnessed in 
 every relation of life. Our Lord asserts that those who had 
 witnessed the perfections exhibited by Himself had actually 
 
128 
 
 seen and witnessed all that man can behold of the perfec- 
 tions and of the person of the invisible God. 
 
 The wish expressed by Philip was doubtless to have a 
 manifestation made by God to the apostles similar to those 
 which had been made " at sundry times and in divers man- 
 ners unto the fathers." He had misread the ancient Scrip- 
 tures, and thought that the appearances which were recorded 
 there were manifestations of the real existence of the great 
 Unseen. He wished to have a new exhibition of the visible 
 glories of Sinai. 
 
 Our Lord's answer is a mild rebuke :. — "Have I been so long- 
 time with yoUj and yet hast thou not known me, Philip ? Have 
 you derived no more correct knowledge of what God is, that 
 you are still craving for a visible manifestation ? Believe me, 
 every one who has seen me, and beheld the spiritual glories of 
 my person, has seen all that created mind can comprehend, 
 of the ' King eternal, immortal, invisible, who dwelleth in 
 light which no man can approach unto, whom no man hath 
 seen or can see.' God does not consist in a glorious form : 
 He is an infinite Spirit. There is no visible representation 
 of Deity, but my divine person and my divine perfections. The 
 Divine glories consist in the deep spiritual perfections of His 
 infinite nature. I am ^ the brightness of the Father's glory, 
 and the express image of His person.' Believest thou not that 
 I am in the Father, and the Father in me ?' If you have not 
 beheld the Father's glories in me, believe me for the sake of 
 the works which I do." 
 
 When the New Testament Scriptures speak of seeing God, 
 they do not mean beholding Him by the outward eye of 
 sense. Their unequivocal assertion is. No man hath seen 
 God at anytime. Even man's mental eye cannot embrace 
 within its spiritual vision the realities of the Infinite, the 
 Unconditioned, and the Absolute. But whoever has beheld 
 the glories of the Saviour's person has witnessed the out- 
 shining of the glories of the Father. Those glories are exhi- 
 bited in the moral perfections of Jesus Christ. In His 
 divine person, therefore, is made the clearest representation 
 which man can behold of the glories of the depths of Deity. 
 
129 
 
 But although assertions of this kind are chiefly made in the 
 Gospel of St. John^ yet all the accounts of our Lord's ministry 
 as recorded in the synoptic Gospels are based on the same 
 assumption, that both in His teaching and in His works He 
 speaks and acts with the authority of incarnate Deity. But 
 while these Gospels do not contain such distinct assertions 
 that He is God, they represent Him throughout as acting as 
 God. They do not expressly assert, but, what is equally 
 satisfactory, they presuppose this truth as the foundation on 
 which their view of the character of Jesus Christ is erected. 
 They exhibit the human aspect of His person ; but while they 
 bring this prominently forward, they portray both His teach- 
 ing and acting to be of such a character as would be quite inap- 
 propriate to be assumed by any human being, however highly 
 he might have been gifted with inspiration. They uniformly 
 represent His knowledge of divine things as immediate, and 
 not derived to Him from any external authority. 
 
 But one passage, recorded by St. Matthew and St. Luke, in 
 the character of its assertions bears out the more express 
 declaration of the Gospel of St, John : — " All things are 
 given unto me by my Father; and no man knoweth who 
 the Son is but the Father; neither knoweth any man the 
 Father, save the Son, and he to Avhomsoever the Son will 
 reveal Him." 
 
 In this assertion of our Lord, He claims to be the sole 
 channel through which all true knowledge of the Father is 
 conveyed to man. The Father, He asserts, in His own 
 nature is incomprehensible. " No man knoweth the Father 
 but the Son." The Son, therefore, possesses a knowledge of 
 the Father which is possessed by none but Himself. Every 
 one who attains a knowledge of the Father, attains it through 
 the Son. He is discovered only to him to whom " the Son is 
 willing to reveal Him." This claim to be the sole and 
 exclusive Revealer of the Father is made by our Lord, not 
 simply in His divine or human nature, but in his incarnate 
 person ; for it is in that person that He is a rest to the weary 
 and heavy laden. It is immediately after making this de- 
 claration that He invites such to come to Him for rest. 
 
130 
 
 The next proof which we adduce is the first chapter of the 
 First Epistle of St. John — " That which was from the be- 
 ginning, which we have heard, which we have seen with our 
 eyes, which we have looked upon, and our hands have 
 handled of the Word of life (for the life was manifested, 
 and we have seen it, and bear witness, and show unto you 
 that eternal life which was with the Father, and was mani- 
 fested unto us) j that which we have seen and heard declare 
 we unto you/' 
 
 Words could hardly have been framed to declare more 
 strongly that the Christian revelation consists of an objec- 
 tive fact, and that it is made in the divine person of our 
 Lord, than the words here used by the apostle. The author 
 of the Epistle declares that the subject respecting which he 
 was about to write consists of Him who was from the be- 
 ginning — the Word of life. But it is the Word of life in the 
 Incarnation respecting whom he writes. It is the actual 
 Word of life "which we have heard, seen with our eyes, looked 
 upon, and which our hands have handled." Such a descrip- 
 tion only befits the Word of life in His incarnate person. 
 " That which we have seen and heard,'' says he, " declare we 
 unto you." The Word of life, which he had seen and 
 handled, " was made manifest." " He was with the Father, 
 and was made manifest unto us.'^ He is therefore become the 
 great objective revelation of God. This manifestation must 
 have taken place in the Incarnation ; because it is the Word 
 of life as seen and handled by him, respecting whom he 
 testifies. But He is the special revelation of God in His 
 character as the Hfe of the spiritual world : " The life was 
 manifested." St. John bore witness of that " eternal life 
 which was with the Father." Such assertions eannot pos- 
 sibly be restricted to the sense that our Lord is the revela- 
 tion of the Father in His divine nature only. They are 
 express that the revelation has been made in His incarnate 
 person. 
 
 We next quote St. Paul as asserting the same truth 
 (Col. i. 1 4-19) : — " In whom we have redemption through His 
 blood, even the forgiveness of sins : who is the image of the 
 
131 
 
 invisible God, the firstborn of every creature : for by Him 
 were all things created that are in heaven and that are in earth, 
 visible and invisible, whether they be thrones, or dominions, 
 or principalities, or powers : all things were created by Him, 
 and for Him : and He is before all things, and by Him all 
 things consist. And He is the head of the body, the church : 
 who is the beginning, the firstl)orn from the dead; that in 
 all things He might have the preeminence. For it pleased 
 the Father that in Him should all fulness dwell/' 
 
 It is evident that St. Paul is here speaking, not of our 
 Lord's divine or human nature separately, but of His incar- 
 nate person. The apostle is speaking of Him through whose 
 blood men have redemption and forgiveness of sins. He is 
 also the head of the Church, the firstborn from the dead, in 
 whom it pleased the Father that all fulness should dwell. 
 These are characters of our Lord in his incarnation. 
 
 Now it is this incarnate person of our Lord which the 
 apostle distinctly asserts to be the image of the invisible 
 God. He is the image, representation, and likeness, and 
 therefore the objective revelation, of the Father. The apostle 
 distinctly asserts that God Himself in His eternal perfections 
 is. invisible. But he designates Christ as the image of the 
 invisible God, The incarnate person of the Son, therefore, 
 makes the invisible perfections of the Godhead visible to 
 finite minds. 
 
 But the apostle further describes the Revealer of the God- 
 head as Him through Avliose blood man has redemption. He 
 is (as the translation ought to have been rendered) the first- 
 born of the whole creation. He is the Creator of all things, 
 visible and invisible ; He is before all things, and in Him all 
 things consist. He is the beginning ; and all things were 
 created both by Him and for Him, 
 
 The expression, " in Him all things consist," or hold to- 
 gether {avveaTrjKe), means that the Revealer of the God- 
 head is Himself the precondition of all finite beings. With- 
 out Him all created things, or finite beings, would be unable 
 to hold together or subsist. He is therefore the means 
 through which the invisible and incomprehensible depths 
 
 k2 
 
132 
 
 of Godhead are capable of being manifested to the finite 
 universe. 
 
 The Son is therefore the image or representation of the 
 invisible God in everything in which the Infinite mind is 
 capable of being comprehended by the finite : as the same 
 idea is elsewhere expressed by the apostle^ " He was in the 
 form of God." 
 
 The next passage which we shall adduce as testifying to 
 the same view of the nature of the Christian revelation is 
 Eph. iii. 8-11 :— 
 
 " Unto me^ who am less than the least of all saints, is this 
 grace given, that I should preach among the Gentiles the 
 unsearchable riches of Christ ; and to make all men see what 
 is the fellowship of the mystery, which from the beginning 
 of the world hath been hid in God, who created all things by 
 Jesus Christ : to the intent that now unto the principalities and 
 powers in heavenly places might be known by the church 
 the manifold wisdom of God, according to the eternal pur- 
 pose which He purposed in Christ Jesus our Lord." 
 
 In this passage the apostle speaks of our Lord not only as 
 a revelation of the deep things of God to the Church, but to 
 higher intelligences than men. By means of the gospel 
 revelation, through the instrumentality of the Church, is dis- 
 covered the manifold wisdom of God. The gospel revela- 
 tion, which it was his duty to preach among the heathen, is 
 here described by the apostle as consisting in the unsearchable 
 riches of Christ. In the person of Christ, therefore, there is a 
 perfect depth of divine knowledge. These unsearchable 
 riches, which are now made manifest in Clunst, had been 
 hidden in God. The revelation of these unsearchable riches 
 which were hidden in the Godhead was made in consequence 
 of an eternal purpose formed in the Divine mind, to make in* 
 Christ a display of His glories to the creature. The depths of 
 that divine knowledge the apostle had before asserted were, 
 " in other ages, not made known unto the sons of men, as" they 
 are " now revealed unto the holy apostles and prophets by the 
 Spirit." The revelation of the Gospel now makes manifest 
 unto all men the unsearchable riches of Christ, which had 
 
133 
 
 been hid in God in eternal ages, so that they may all see the 
 fellowship of the mystery which has been hid in God. These 
 nnsearchable riches are displays of divine perfection to men. 
 But there was another purpose contemplated in this revela- 
 tion. It was designed to make deep discoveries of truth to 
 the angelic world. By this disclosure, unto the principalities 
 and powers in heavenly places was made known by the 
 church the manifold wisdom of God. 
 
 The same great truth is affirmed by the apostle in Col. ii. 9 : 
 " In him dwelleth all the fulness of the Godhead bodily." 
 
 The apostle is here dealing with a number of philosophi- 
 zing Christians, who were endeavouring to incorporate various 
 oriental systems with Christianity. The sects who, by their 
 philosophizing notions, were subverting the simplicity of 
 Christian truth, taught that the Godhead dwelt in a remote or 
 unknown pleroma or fulness in peaceful silence, apart from 
 matter and all creative works. How then had finite existence 
 originated? It was an emanation from the Infinite. From 
 the Divine pleroma various emanations had issued in different 
 degrees, more or less remotely connected with the Divine 
 essence. These were imperfect manifestations of the perfections 
 of the invisible God. The more remotely these emanations were 
 connected with the Godhead, the more nearly were they 
 allied to material things. A remote emanation had at length 
 generated the material universe. In matter the essence of 
 evil dwelt. By the act of generating the material universe, 
 all evil had been produced, and spirit had become impri- 
 soned in the trammels of the flesh. 
 
 Speculations of this kind involved the principles of Pan- 
 theism or Dualism, or both united together. According to 
 the views of these speculators, either all things had ulti- 
 mately, though remotely, emanated from God, or matter 
 must have existed independently of God, and was the source 
 of evil. Such opinions were destructive of the Christian 
 faith. 
 
 In opposition to these views, the apostle asserts that the 
 fulness of the Godhead, the very pleroma itself, which these 
 speculators viewed as so remote from the material creation, 
 
134 
 
 dwelt in the human nature of Christ. In his person, there- 
 fore, is the fulness of the manifestation of the Godhead as 
 an objective revelation. 
 
 A similar argument may be deduced from the apostle's 
 assertion (2 Cor. v. 19), ^' God was in Christ, reconciling the 
 world unto Himself." 
 
 If God was in Christ, reconciling the world unto Himself, 
 Christ in His atoning work must have been the visible 
 manifestation of the attributes of God. Whatever perfections, 
 therefore, Christ displayed in accomplishing the work of 
 reconciliation, these perfections must be visible representa- 
 tions of the incomprehensible realities of the Divine mind. 
 
 Although the reading of 1 Tim. iii. 16 is doubtful, and 
 consequently cannot be quoted as a conclusive authority, we 
 will examine its testimony. If the reading were certain, 
 that testimony would be conclusive : — 
 
 " Without controversy, great is the mystery of godliness : 
 God was manifest in the flesh, justified in the Spirit, seen of 
 angels, preached unto the Gentiles, believed on in the world, 
 received up into glory.'' 
 
 The other reading (09) seems hardly to convey sense. If 
 therefore the common reading be the true reading, the 
 apostle most distinctly asserts that the fact of the Incarna- 
 tion is the objective revelation of God. But the evidence 
 that this is the apostle's view becomes very strong when we 
 take this and the other passages referred to in connexion 
 with his declaration, 1 Tim. vi. 15, 16. Speaking there of 
 the future manifestation of Jesus Christ, he says : — 
 
 " Which [manifestation] in his own times he shall show, 
 who is the blessed and only Potentate, the King of kings, 
 and Lord of lords ; who only hath immortality, dwelling in 
 the light which no man can approach unto ; whom no man 
 hath seen, nor can see." 
 
 The apostle makes, in this passage, the assertion that the 
 blessed and only Potentate neither has been seen nor can be 
 seen by man. His glorious perfections transcend all human 
 powers of apprehension. "He dwells in the light which no 
 man can approach unto ; whom no man hath seen, nor can see." 
 
135 
 
 That blessed and only Potentate will, in His own time (yet 
 futiire), show another manifestation of Jesus Christ. The 
 apostle, therefore, implies that this futm'e manifestation of 
 Chi'ist will be a glorious display of the perfections of Him 
 whom " no man hath seen, nor can see.^^ 
 
 We next adduce, in support of our argument, 1 Cor. xv. 1-4: 
 " Moreover, brethren, I declare unto you the gospel which 
 I preached unto you, which also ye have received, and wherein 
 ye stand ; by which also ye are saved, if ye keep in memory 
 what I preached unto you, unless ye have believed in vain. For 
 I delivered unto you first of all that which I also received, how 
 that Christ died for our sins, according to the Scriptiu'cs ; and 
 that He was buried, and that He rose again the third day, ac- 
 cording to the Scriptures." 
 
 Some portion of the Corinthian church had embraced philo- 
 sophizing principles, under the influence of which they denied 
 the reality of a bodily resurrection from the dead. These 
 principles must have asserted the inherent evil of matter, and, 
 as such, that a material body was an unfit habitation for the 
 human soul, and must therefore have been Pantheistic. 
 Whatever they were, if they were carried out to their legiti- 
 mate consequences, they were subversive of the Christianity 
 which was taught by St. Paul. If the dead could not be 
 raised, Christ could not be risen ; and with the truth of 
 Christ's resurrection the whole mass of Christian truth was 
 closely interwoven, and fell to the ground if the belief in it 
 was subverted. 
 
 The apostle, therefore, set himself to recall the Corinthians 
 to the first principles of Christianity as taught by him. He 
 reminds them that that gospel which they had received, in 
 which they stood, and by which they were saved, did not con- 
 sist in a mass of theories or of abstract doctrinal statements, 
 but in an objective fact — the actual death and resurrection 
 of Christ. He then recapitulates the evidence on which belief 
 in that fact rested. 
 
 The apostle has here designated the fact of Christ^s death 
 and resurrection as the gospel : he recalls to their minds 
 the gospel which he preached unto them ; he delivered unto 
 
136 
 
 tliem what he also received, that Christ died and rose again. 
 These were not theories, but objective facts. He therefore 
 sets forth that, distinct even from all his teaching, there was 
 an objective fact which constituted the gospel. This fact forms 
 the groundwork of Christianity itself; it forms the very gos- 
 pel of the grace of God. 
 
 There are many other passages in the New Testament which 
 either assert or imply the view of the nature of the Incarna- 
 tion for which we are arguing. To adduce these passages 
 separately would be only to give a further consideration to 
 evidence already adduced, by repeating over again the same as- 
 sertions. If the passages already cited are not of sufficient force 
 to prove that the Incarnation is, in the view of the writers of 
 the New Testament, the great objective revelation of the per- 
 fections of the infinite God, it will be readily admitted that 
 the other passages by themselves would not be sufficient to 
 establish it. 
 
 We have proved, therefore, that it is laid down as a funda- 
 mental principle by the writers of the New Testament, that 
 the great revelation of Deity has been made in the person of 
 the incarnate Son of God. There are two objective revela- 
 tions of the perfections of the Infinite. One revelation of 
 God has been made by the created universe. That universe 
 is a display of the power, wisdom, and goodness of its Author. 
 It gives us evidences of Him as acting through the agency of 
 law. But it is a manifestation of some portions of the Divine 
 character and perfections to a far greater degree than of other 
 portions of them. But the Scriptures inform us that, in 
 addition to the manifestation made of Himself by the works 
 of creation and providence, another partial revelation has been 
 made by God^s having spoken in sundry times and in divers 
 manners unto the fathers through the prophets. The last and 
 great revelation is not made in any of these partial manifes- 
 tations. It consists in the incarnation of the Son of God, in 
 His human life and death and resurrection — the objective 
 manifestation of the glories of the infinite God, Whoever 
 has seen Christ has seen the Father, as far as His perfections 
 can be made comprehensible to the creature. 
 
137 
 
 If this be a correct view of the teaching of the New Testa- 
 ment as to what constitutes the gospel revelation, the highest 
 conceivable form of inspiration must be displayed in our 
 Lord's own divine person. This is a necessary consequence of 
 the permanent abiding of Deity in His human nature. If our 
 Lord be not a prophet merely, but God manifest in the 
 flesh, it is self-evident that our Lord, in His person and in His 
 teaching, must present divine truth in the highest form in 
 which it can be exhibited to the mind of man. The teaching 
 is not the teaching of man merely, or of man supernaturally 
 aided and assisted, but of one who, while He is man, is also 
 God. The knoAvledge of truth could not have been derived 
 to Him from without, but dwelt within Him. But this is not 
 a conclusion resting on inference merely; it is the repeated 
 assertion both of our Lord himself and the apostles. We will 
 proceed to consider some of these assertions. 
 
 But, before we enter on that examination, we must make 
 one remark. The teaching of our Lord in the Gospels is very 
 extensive. It is recorded by four different biographers. 
 Throughout the whole of that teaching, although we possess 
 four separate records of it, not one single passage can be 
 adduced which denotes the remotest consciousness on the part 
 of our Lord that He derived one particle of truth from any 
 source external to His own person. No such expression as 
 " Thus saith the Lord '' ever once passed from His lips. He 
 speaks throughout with an inherent and direct perception of 
 personal knowledge and authority. He does not speak or teach 
 on any occasion as one who was conscious of inspiration merely, 
 but as one who possessed divine authority inherent in His 
 person. 
 
 The first assertion of our Lord which we shall adduce is 
 Johniii. 11-13: "^^ Verily, verily, I say unto thee. We speak 
 that we do know, and testify that we have seen; and ye 
 receive not our witness. If I have told you earthly things, 
 and ye believe not, how shall ye believe, if I tell you of 
 heavenly things ? And no man hath ascended up to heaven, 
 but He that came down from heaven, even the Son of man 
 which is in heaven." 
 
138 
 
 In this passage our Lord asserts, not His own inspiration 
 merely, but His own inherent knowledge of the deep things of 
 God. The imagery in which the assertions are conveyed is 
 taken from man's most intimate knowledge of the things of 
 man : " We speak that we do know, and testify that we have 
 seen/' He makes no profession, therefore, of deriving His 
 knowledge from such a kind of inspiration as was claimed 
 either by prophets or apostles. The declaration is equivalent 
 to the assertion that He was acquainted with divine truth by 
 direct intuition. He declares that He has ascended up to 
 heaven; that He has come down from heaven; and that He is 
 in heaven. He uses expressions, therefore, which denote the 
 clearest knowledge of the realities of heavenly things. He 
 speaks as if the spiritual world was open to His view. His 
 knowledge of it is intimate and perfect : it corresponds to 
 human knowledge derived from direct vision. 
 
 In John viii. the following assertions of our Lord are re- 
 corded : — " I speak to the world those things which I have 
 heard of Him." " As the Father hath taught me, I speak these 
 things." " The truth which I have heard of God." " Ye have 
 not known Him ; but I know Him, and keep His say- 
 ings." " If I should say, I know Him not, I shall be a liar, like 
 unto you." 
 
 Our Lord in these passages uses language taken from the 
 various senses, to express the completeness of His knowledge 
 of the great truths which He taught. Of all the forms of 
 human knowledge, those derived directly from the testimony 
 of the senses of seeing and hearing, or from the immediate 
 intuitions of the mind, are the most perfect. Our Lord de- 
 scribes the completeness of His divine knowledge by using 
 expressions to denote it taken from the most perfect form of 
 human knowledge. He has seen the truths which He teaches; 
 He has heard them from God ; He speaks those things which 
 He has been taught of God ; He knows God immediately and 
 directly, and His denial of such knowledge in this absolute 
 form would be on His part an absence of veracity and truth. 
 
 In John vi. 61 we read : — " When Jesus knew in himself 
 that His disciples miu'mured at it." John ii. 24, 25 : " Jesus 
 
139 
 
 did not commit himself unto them, because he knew all men^ 
 and needed not that any should testify of man : for He knew 
 what was in man.'' Matthew ix. 4 : " And Jesus knowing 
 their thoughts said. Wherefore think ye evil in your hearts?" 
 Passages of this kind are very numerous in all four Evangelists. 
 
 The Evangelists assert of Christ an inherent power of 
 discovering what was passing in the human mind. This 
 power is described not as a special communication for a 
 particular occasion, or as flowing from a mere suggestion 
 made to His mind by the influence of the Spirit, but as a 
 power habitually abiding in Him. He knew in Himself what 
 was passing in His disciples' minds. He knew what was in 
 man. He discovered at once what had passed through the 
 thoughts of Simon the Pharisee. He was habitually consci- 
 ous of the machinations of the Pharisees before their designs 
 had found utterance by the lips. He discovered the conver- 
 sation between Peter and the tax-gatherer. He was ac- 
 quainted with the secret motives of the human mind. All 
 this knowledge is described as not flowing to Him by sugges- 
 tion, but by intuition. In this respect, the inspiration which 
 dwelt in the person of our Lord difiers from the inspiration 
 which was possessed by either prophet or apostle. 
 
 But it has often been asserted that the Gospel of St. John 
 difiers from the other Gospels in assigning a greater degree of 
 divine knowledge to the person of our Lord than is asserted 
 to belong to Him by the other Evangelists, and in represent- 
 ing Him as more intimately acquainted with divine truth. 
 This has been made the reason for asserting either that St. 
 John has falsely ascribed this knowledge to oui* Lord, or that 
 the Gospel was composed after the apostolic age, and has 
 been eiu-iched by myths and various additions. In one word, 
 it is asserted that we have not the true Jesus in the Gospel of 
 St. John, but one of a more divine character. 
 
 Now what is the real fact ? What is the actual difference, 
 in this respect, between St. John and the other Gospels ? 
 
 The assertions of superhuman knowledge and of a divine 
 character are undoubtedly more distinct and definite in St. 
 John than in the other Gospels. As far as distinct assertions 
 
140 
 
 of such knowledge are concerned, the fact is undoubtedly cor- 
 rect that its existence is affirmed by St. John in terms more 
 palpable than by the authors of the synoptic Gospels. 
 
 But the synoptic Gospels likewise affirm, in express 
 terms, a very high form of knowledge as possessed by our 
 Lord, differing Avidely from what any apostolic writer has 
 asserted or implied respecting the nature of his own inspiration. 
 It is a knowledge which does not differ in degree, but in kind. 
 
 But how have the authors of the synoptic Gospels described 
 our Lord as acting ? Is there any material difference between 
 their descriptions of our Lord^s mode of acting and the de- 
 scriptions given in the Gospel of St. John? The mode of 
 our Lord^s acting, as described by St. John and the synoptic 
 Gospels, is identically the same. It is impossible to affirm 
 that, in this respect, St. John's Gospel takes a higher ground 
 than that taken by the three first Evangelists. 
 
 The synoptic Gospels habitually describe our Lord as 
 teaching with no derived, but with an inherent authority. 
 He speaks like one who felt conscious that His word was 
 entitled to a greater weight than was possessed by the highest 
 forms of divine teaching previously existing, which He claims 
 the right to annul or explain according to His pleasure. No 
 less habitually they represent Him as never referring to any 
 external source of light. The illumination with which He 
 teaches is a light purely internal. He never, on even a single 
 occasion, presupposes the existence of an authority superior 
 to Himself, or that any form of divine truth could exist, 
 however profound, \vith which He was not entirely competent 
 to deal. In the same manner, the synoptic Gospels represent 
 our Lord as never appealing to any external source of inspira- 
 tion to direct Him in the performance of His actions. When- 
 ever He performs a miracle, He performs it in such a mamier 
 that He is the only person glorified by it. His word, and 
 His word alone, is competent to effect it. He never once 
 refers the power by which he wrought to the Father. 
 
 The difference, therefore, which exists between St. John's 
 Gospel and the synoptic Gospels is not that which has been 
 frequently asserted. The Gospel of St. John affirms, in ex- 
 
141 
 
 press words, the divine cliaracter of our Lord, and that the 
 form of His knoAvledge of divine things differed from that 
 which was possessed by any other messenger from God. The 
 writers of the synoptic Gospels, although they do not make 
 these assertions in such express terms, have, from one end of 
 them to the other, depicted our Lord as teaching and acting 
 like a divine person. In them He teaches and acts ^vith a 
 consciousness of inherent authority, which could only be 
 justified by the assumption of the truth of the assertion in 
 St. John. St. John^s express assertions are merely affirma- 
 tions, in express words, of a truth which the narratives of the 
 synoptic Gospels presuppose. The Gospel by St. John makes 
 numerous direct assertions of our Lord^s divine character. 
 The synoptic Gospels portray Him as acting in the very 
 character which St. John distinctly affirms. 
 
 All these Scriptures, taken together, assert that the know- 
 ledge possessed by our Lord of divine things was direct, clear, 
 and immediate. In the writings of the Apostles we can 
 hardly fail to be struck with the fact, that their most elevated 
 conceptions seem to demand on their part a great effort of 
 the mind to raise themselves to a full conception of the 
 Divine glories. In St. PauFs highest flights, his mind strug- 
 gles with the profundities of his thoughts. This was never 
 the case with our Lord. He displays neither struggle nor 
 mental effort. His knowledge is always habitual, calm, self- 
 possessed. There is no vehement struggling of the mind to 
 raise itself to the requisite elevation. It is never dazzled by 
 the brightness of the rays of divine light. It is the know- 
 ledge of one whose habitual society was that of Deity itself. 
 
143 
 
 CHAPTER VIII. 
 
 THE NATURE OF OUR LORD'S KNOWLEDGE DERIVED 
 FROM THE INSPIRATION OF THE SPIRIT. ITS TWO 
 RECORDED LIMITATIONS. 
 
 We have examined the testimony of the New Testament as 
 to the nature of our Lord's inspiration as flowing from the 
 union of His godhead with His manhood. But as long as 
 human nature is finite, its knowledge must be necessarily 
 bounded within those conditions which the Creator has 
 Himself imposed on the human mind as the law of its con- 
 ceptions. A human mind must conceive and know as a human 
 mind. Our Lord's human nature was a created, and therefore 
 a finite nature. Had this not been the case, our Lord would 
 not have been truly man. But, subject to those conditions 
 to which human conceptions must be subject, the indwelling 
 of Deity in the human nature of our Lord communicated to 
 it the highest form of divine knowledge (though not all the 
 possible knowledge) which can be possessed by man. 
 
 But, in addition to the knowledge possessed by our Lord 
 through the indwelling of Deity in His person, the Christian 
 Scriptures assert that at His baptism He also received the 
 highest form of inspiration which can be imparted by the 
 Spirit, by the communication to His human nature of His 
 influences in their richest and fullest abundance. 
 
 The synoptic Gospels agree in asserting that, after our 
 Lord was baptized, the Spirit of God descended like a dove, 
 and abode on Him. St. Peter, also, in his addi^ess to Cor- 
 nelius, affirms that '' God anointed Jesus of Nazareth with the 
 Holy Ghost and with power." John the Baptist, also, in his 
 public testimony given to our Lord, declares, " He, whom 
 God hath sent, speaketh the words of God ; for God giveth not 
 the Spirit by measure unto Him." St. Luke, likewise, asserts 
 that " our Lord, through the Holy Ghost, gave commandment 
 to the apostles whom He had chosen." The author of the 
 Epistle to the Hebrews tells us, that He, " through the eternal 
 
143 
 
 Spirit, offered Himself without spot to God." Our Lord's 
 designation of Christ, or Messiah, is a direct witness to the 
 same fact. 
 
 Now all the purposes are not obvious why our Lord, uni- 
 ting the divine nature with the human in His own person, 
 should require the communication of the Spirit of God. One 
 end for which the Spirit was imparted to Him was to bestow 
 those influences on the Church ; but this did not take place 
 till after His crucifixion ; and our Lord Himself declares that 
 it was necessary that He should go to the Father, before the 
 Comforter could come on the Church. This is evidently not 
 the purpose why our Lord received the highest form of inspi- 
 ration communicated by the Spirit during the period of His 
 earthly ministry. 
 
 Another purpose why He was anointed with the Spirit was 
 to qualify Him to offer the great atoning sacrifice to the 
 Father. But to inquire into this is beyond our present 
 purpose. Several of the above assertions affirm that the 
 influence of the Spirit was imparted to Him as the great 
 teacher of the Church. The declaration in St. Luke directly 
 affirms this : " He, through the Spirit, gave commandment 
 to the apostles whom He had chosen.^' 
 
 We might have supposed that our Lord's human nature 
 required no other illumination than the indwelling of the 
 Godhead in His divine person. But the passages which we 
 have quoted expressly affirm that the human nature of our 
 Lord received the highest form of inspiration, in addition 
 to the knowledge communicated to it by the indwelling of 
 Deity. It follows, therefore, that the indwelling of Deity did 
 not necessarily communicate all possible knowledge to our 
 Lord's human nature, of which that nature was capable. 
 But when He had received the fulness of the Spirit, it is 
 evident that His gifts, conferred upon Him without measure, 
 stamp on every portion of His teaching a character which 
 can be claimed by no inspired messenger from God. 
 
 In estimating the nature of our Lord's inspiration, we 
 must give due weight to the fact that His human nature was 
 a perfect manhood. It was, therefore, not omniscient, but 
 
144 
 
 subject to all the conditions imposed on human nature by 
 the decree of its Creator. The human nature of our Lord 
 was human nature in its most exalted form. But all the 
 supernatural knowledge which it possessed must have been 
 communicated to it by the presence of the indwelling God- 
 head, or by the inspiration of the Spirit. To assert that our 
 Lord's human nature was omniscient is a practical denial of 
 its reality. 
 
 What was the precise nature of the limitations of that 
 knowledge we can only learn from the declarations of 
 revelation itself. In the same manner, it is the only source 
 of information as to the degree of enlightenment which our 
 Lord received from the supernatural endowments of the 
 Spirit. If we had formed our opinion on grounds of ante- 
 cedent probability, we should certainly have arrived at the 
 conclusion that there was no truth which human nature is 
 capable of attaining, which was not communicated to Him by 
 the presence of the Godhead. So worthless are all a prioj'i 
 reasonings on such a subject ! 
 
 The Scriptures assert one limitation to this knowledge, 
 even after He received the supernatural endowments of the 
 Spirit, and describe one limitation to the knowledge of His 
 human nature before His baptism. These are the only two 
 passages in which anything is positively affirmed on the sub- 
 ject, and within which our knowledge is limited. 
 
 St. Luke affirms in his Gospel that, " Jesus increased in 
 wisdom and stature, and in favour with God and man.-" This 
 passage forms a portion of the only anecdote revealed in any 
 genuine Gospel of our Lord's boyhood. St. Luke had just 
 narrated how Joseph and Mary had found the divine child in 
 one of the Temple schools, sitting in the midst of the doctors, 
 both hearing them and asking them questions. The impres- 
 sion produced by Him was remarkable : " All that heard 
 Him were astonished at His understanding and answers." 
 
 From these passages we may draw the following conclu- 
 sions :— Our Lord, at the age of twelve, displayed an amount 
 of understanding which greatly surprised the doctors of the 
 Jewish school connected with the Temole. Our Lord's 
 
145 
 
 growth to manhood was marked by the same phenomena as 
 those displayed by the other members of the human race. 
 His acquisition of knowledge was progressive : He " increased 
 in wisdom and in stature/^ This increase was capable of being 
 distinctly marked. His moral and spiritual perfections like- 
 wise developed themselves gradually : He increased " in 
 favour with God and man/' 
 
 The only thing, therefore, which the Scriptures positively 
 inform us on this subject is, that our Lord's growth in know- 
 ledge and holiness was like that of all other men — the result 
 of a gradual progress. The Godhead dwelling in Him did 
 not supersede this necessity of His human nature. As man. 
 He grew in wisdom ; as man. He grew in stature ; as man. 
 He grew in favour with God and man. 
 
 There is one passage in Scripture which asserts a limitation 
 to our Lord's knowledge after His baptism. At Mark xiii. 
 32 we read, " But of that day and that hour knoweth no 
 man [Gr. " none "] , no, not the angels which are in heaven, 
 neither the Son, but the Father." 
 
 The words used by St. Matthew, although they do not make 
 the same express assertion of the ignorance of the Son 
 respecting the day and hour of His second coming, leave 
 abundant room for that assertion. They are, " But of that 
 day and hour knoweth no man [Gr. '' none ''] , no, not the 
 angels in heaven, but my Father only." 
 
 The language of the introduction of the Book of Revelation, 
 though not so strong as the actual language used by St. Mark, 
 yet fully bears it out: — "The Revelation of Jesus Christ, 
 which God gave unto Him, to show unto His servants things 
 which must shortly come to pass ; and He sent and signified 
 it by His- angel unto His servant John." 
 
 Now the assertion of St. Mark is in every point of view 
 most important. From what we have already considered 
 concerning the statements of the sacred writers respecting 
 the extent of our Lord's knowledge, we should certainly never 
 have anticipated that this thing would have been hidden from 
 Him, especially after He had received, at His baptism, the 
 fulness of prophetic inspiration. 
 
146 
 
 The assertion in St. Mark lias been generally pressed as 
 an objection to the doctrine of our Lord's Deity. But it has 
 been pressed by those who rely on verbal arguments more 
 than on the great facts of the Christian revelation. If our 
 Lord be really God manifest in the fleshy possessing both a 
 divine and human nature, against that truth it can be no 
 objection. As we have already observed, the knowledge of 
 the most perfect man must possess limits. There is nothing 
 in the fact of the Incarnation which renders it necessary that 
 the Godhead must have communicated all knowledge to our 
 Lord^s human nature. If our Lord's human nature were not 
 limited in knowledge, He would not be perfect man. The 
 reality of His manhood is no less part of the Incarnation 
 than the reality of His Godhead. 
 
 But the real matter of surprise is, that our Lord continued 
 ignorant of this fact after he received the fulness of the 
 Spirit. The declaration in St. Mark positively aflirms that 
 our Lord did not know the time of the end. Consequently, 
 it must be inferred that our Lord's human nature only 
 received information on matters of futurity through the in- 
 spiring Spirit; and that as it formed no portion of His 
 appointed work to communicate futurity on this special sub- 
 ject, the information was not given. Our Lord has elsewhere 
 made use of the expression, " the times and the seasons 
 the Father hath put in His own power ; '' and our Lord also 
 affirms that the will of the Son is absolutely coincident with 
 the will of the Father. 
 
 Various have been the attempts to escape from the sup- 
 posed difficulties of this passage. One is the expedient of 
 attempting to show that the Greek word, o28ev, may by some 
 possibility be made to mean, " cause to know " or " reveal." 
 An attempt has been made to translate the passage thus : — 
 " Of that day and hour no man causes to know, no, not the 
 angels in heaven, neither the Son, but the Father.'' 
 
 No one would gravely adopt this rendering as a correct 
 meaning of the Greek who had not some antecedent theory 
 to maintain. The question is. Would any native Greek ever 
 have attached such a meaning to such words in such a con- 
 
147 
 
 text ? Did not St. Mark know, if he had wished to express 
 such a meaning, how to express it with perspicuity in the 
 Greek language? To suppose that Mark meant to assert, 
 '' Of that day and hour none makes a revelation, no, not the 
 angels in heaven, neither the Son, but the Father,^^ by 
 the words in question, is to assume that his inspiration is of 
 the lowest possible order, or, to speak more correctly, that he 
 has given an incorrect translation of our Lord's words. 
 
 If the obvious meaning of the words, as they stand in St. 
 Mark's Gospel, plainly contradicts the truths contained in 
 other portions of the New Testament, the only honest 
 recourse open to us is to maintain that the words, " neither 
 the Son,'' is an interpolation. But even by taking this 
 course we shall not escape the difficulty ; for the words used 
 by St. Matthew are little less express, " but my Father 
 only." In the Book of Revelation, also, the revelation of the 
 future is said to be a gift of the Father to Christ : ^' The 
 revelation of Jesus Christ, which God gave to him." It may 
 be replied, that the gift here mentioned was not the gift of 
 the knowledge, but the gift of showing it to the Church. 
 But this is a most unnatural meaning of the words, and 
 one which would be only had recourse to when a particular 
 hypothesis had to be supported. Such an interpretation the 
 words in the fifth chapter absolutely forbid ; for the sealed 
 book of futurity is there represented, agreeably to the lan- 
 guage of St. Matthew, as entirely in the hands of the Father, 
 and given to the incarnate Lamb in consequence of Hishaving 
 accomplished the work of redemption. 
 
 But even if we could get rid of the difficulty by denying 
 that these words were written by St. Mark, before such a 
 measure is had recourse to, it ought to be carefully con- 
 sidered what effects such a principle would produce on the 
 rules by which the sacred text must be ascertained. These 
 rules would be entirely subverted by the assertion of an 
 arbitrary right to strike out a text merely because it contra- 
 dicts particular opinions. Such a principle is so dangerous 
 that it ought only to be resorted to when the necessity is of 
 the most undoubted character. If it were once established 
 
 l2 
 
148 
 
 tliat we may deny that particular passages were not written 
 by the authors in whose books we at present find them, 
 merely because they contradict our views of what ought to 
 be Christian doctrine, all certainty as to the truth of the 
 New Testament would be destroyed. 
 
 But, in the present instance, a clear necessity for rejecting 
 the words has not been made out. The utmost which can be 
 said is, that, considering many of the declarations of the New 
 Testament, we should not have expected that the human 
 soul of our Lord was ignorant of the time of the end. But 
 the fact that He was so contradicts none of the assertions of 
 the Christian Scriptures respecting the Incarnation. The 
 knowledge of the future is an attribute not of manhood, but 
 of Godhead. Such ignorance is a proof of His perfect man- 
 hood, the reality of which is as necessary to constitute Him 
 the objective revelation of the Father as that He possessed, 
 in His person, the attributes of God. 
 
 This passage, then, must be admitted to have been written 
 by St. Mark, and as such to be an assertion made by our 
 Lord himself, that in His human nature He derived His know- 
 ledge of futurity from the inspiring Spirit, who endowed His 
 manhood with every gift and grace which was necessary for 
 making it the perfection of created holiness. As the know- 
 ledge in question was not communicated to Him, it was not 
 necessary for the purposes of His divine mission : the inspir- 
 ing Spirit furnished him with everything necessary for the 
 accomplishment of His work. 
 
 We arrive at the conclusion, therefore, that the divine 
 person of our Lord exhibits the highest form of inspiration 
 which can be possessed by the created spirit of man. His 
 indwelling Deity furnished Him with knowledge of God and 
 of divine things, direct and intuitive. His teaching, therefore, 
 exhibits divine truths in the highest form. 
 
 But, in addition to the knowledge which His human nature 
 possessed through its union with Deity, He was endowed 
 with the inspiration of the Spirit in a manner in which 
 neither prophet nor apostle was endowed with it. The 
 highest form of inspiration in an apostle was a knowledge of 
 
149 
 
 divine truth constant and permanent, forming a portion of 
 his self-conscions understanding, but attended with a distinct 
 consciousness that it had been communicated to him by a 
 power external to himself. The inspiration of a prophet of 
 the former dispensation formed no permanently abiding in- 
 fluence in the mind. It proceeded directly from without, 
 and was always announced by the formula, " Thus saith the 
 Lord.^' But even that inspiration of the Son of God which 
 was communicated to His human nature by the inspiring 
 Spirit was attended with no consciousness of external origin ; 
 it abode within Him as light and truth. In Him was light, 
 and the light was the life of men. 
 
 We conclude, therefore, that our Lord^s actions and teach- 
 ing, and the portrait of His divine person, form the inspired 
 element in the Gospels. If they be correctly recorded, we 
 possess the results of inspiration in its highest form. That 
 inspiration was the combined result of the indwelling of 
 Deity and the communication of the Spirit in the fulness of 
 His gifts to His human nature. 
 
 CHAPTER IX. 
 
 THE NATURE OF THE INSPIRATION OF THE APOSTLES. 
 THE APOSTLES WITNESSES. OUR LORD'S PROMISES. 
 THE SOURCES OF ST. PAUL'S APOSTOLIC KNOWLEDGE. 
 
 Having examined the declarations of the New Testament 
 respecting the inspiration of our Lord, and ascertained its 
 nature from its testimony, we must now consider its asser- 
 tions respecting the inspiration possessed by the Apostles. 
 The ofl&ce of an apostle consisted of two branches. It was 
 one of its functions to bear witness to the events of our 
 Lord's ministry and the reality of His resurrection. It was 
 another function of the apostolical office to expound the 
 meaning of the revelation communicated in his person. It 
 is necessary, therefore, to consider the apostolic inspiration 
 under both these aspects. 
 
150 
 
 It was essential to the office of an apostle, tliat lie should 
 have been an eye-witness of our Lord's ministry. This is ex- 
 pressly asserted by St. Peter, when the Apostles were about to 
 fill up the vacancy occasioned by the death of the traitor Judas. 
 
 Acts i. 21, 22 : " Wherefore of these men which have com- 
 panied with us all the time that the Lord Jesus went in and out 
 among us, beginning from the baptism of John, unto that 
 same day that He was taken up from us, must one be 
 ordained to be a witness with us of His resurrection.'' 
 
 The qualifications for the apostolic office are here most 
 distinctly stated. To qualify a person for the office of an 
 apostle, it was necessary that he should have been an at- 
 tendant on the whole of our Lord's ministry, from its com- 
 mencement unto the Ascension. The words need not imply 
 that the person to be appointed an apostle must have been 
 present at every action performed by our Lord, but present 
 generally during His ministry. The qualification for the 
 apostolical office, as described by St. Peter, is taken from 
 our Lord's description of their duties — that they were to be 
 witnesses unto Him at Jerusalem, and Judsea, and Samaria, 
 and imto the uttermost parts of the earth. 
 
 It was our Lord's intention, therefore, that the belief in 
 the facts of His actions and His teaching, as well as in His 
 resurrection from the dead, should rest on an actual human 
 testimony. St. John accordingly affirms that a belief 
 even in the higher doctrines of the gospel ultimately 
 resolved itself into belief in the apostolic testimony. That 
 testimony was founded on the evidence of their senses 
 respecting the Word of life, " which we have seen," says he, 
 "heard with our ears, looked upon, and our hands have 
 handled." This human testimony of theirs was to be sup- 
 ported by a divine testimony — that of the Spirit of God — 
 enabling them to work miracles in confirmation of their 
 human testimony. 
 
 As far as the Apostles were human witnesses, the testimony 
 of the Spirit was a divine testimony, supporting but not 
 superseding their human one. This is too often forgotten. 
 St. Peter expressly affirms it, ''We are witnesses of these 
 things, and so is also the Holy Ghost." This divine testimony, 
 
151 
 
 given in confirmation of their human testimony^ consisted in 
 endowing the Apostles with miraculous powers. 
 
 In enabling the Apostles to work miracles in attestation of 
 the facts to which they testified, God Himself was distinctly 
 present as a corroborating witness to the truth of the human 
 testimony which they gave. This testimony by miracles 
 resembled the support given to the character of the actual 
 witnesses of certain facts by another witness of acknowledged 
 and unquestionable credibility. 
 
 It frequently happens that witnesses depose to facts, but 
 we require evidence of the character and credibility of the 
 witnesses. This evidence of character is always necessary 
 when the facts are of an extraordinary description. Many 
 facts are of such a nature that we should only believe them 
 when testified to by a witness of whose character for ve- 
 racity we were assured. Another witness comes forward 
 with whom we are well acquainted, and fully substantiates 
 the character and credibility of the original witnesses. 
 
 Precisely of this nature was the power of working miracles 
 conferred on the Apostles. The Apostles testified to facts 
 which they asserted that they had seen and heard. These 
 facts were of a very extraordinary nature. It was necessary 
 that the character of the witnesses for veracity and judg- 
 ment should be well established, to render them credible. 
 To work a miracle, therefore, was to adduce God as a present 
 witness to their veracity and credibility. 
 
 A miracle denotes the visible presence of God. If the 
 laws of nature are the actual modes of the Divine operations, 
 and a miracle is God ceasing to act in the ordinary mode of 
 His operations and acting by a new instrumentality, the 
 performance of a miracle is a special Divine attestation and 
 recognition of that person at whose word the miracle is per- 
 formed. A person endowed with the power of working 
 miracles does not perform them himself; it is God who at 
 his word, ceases from one mode of His operation and acts 
 by a new and hitherto unknown instrumentality. If, there- 
 fore, a person possesses a power of producing results by other 
 antecedents and causes than those which we witness in 
 
152 
 
 God's operations through the established laws of nature^ in 
 every exertion of that power God gives a veritable testimony to 
 the character of that person at whose word the miraculous 
 attestation takes place. When^ therefore, miracles were per- 
 formed at the word of the Apostles, it was precisely the same 
 thing as God coming forward as a special witness to confirm 
 the truth of the Apostles' testimony. 
 
 The human testimony of the Apostles to the great facts of 
 Christianity and the divine testimony of the Spirit must be 
 kept perfectly distinct. That human testimony was to be 
 given respecting the reality of facts which they had seen and 
 heard. Their office was to testify to actions which they had 
 actually seen our Lord perform, and to discourses which they 
 had heard Him utter : " That which we have seen and heard 
 declare we unto you." 
 
 But the Divine testimony, as the author of the Epistle to 
 the Hebrews informs us, was given in confirmation of this 
 human testimony of the Apostles. His words are express. 
 " How," says he, " shall we escape, if we neglect so great 
 salvation; which at the first began to be spoken by the 
 Lord, and was confirmed unto us by them that heard Him ? " 
 Then he mentions the divine corroborating testimony : " God 
 also bearing witness, both with signs and wonders, and 
 with divers miracles, and gifts of the Holy Ghost, according 
 to His own will." 
 
 The writer of this Epistle expressly asserts the existence of 
 a human testimony to the facts, and a Divine testimony 
 confirming the facts. If we do not keep these elements 
 distinct, each will lose its proper character. So St, Peter, 
 as we have already quoted him : " We are witnesses, and 
 so is the Holy Ghost." If we convert the human testimony 
 into a divine testimony, we shall deny the existence of what 
 the two sacred writers have so carefully asserted. 
 
 But the human testimony was the testimony of the 
 Apostles as witnesses. If they testified as witnesses, what- 
 ever degree of aid they might receive from above, if they 
 gave a testimony, the mental act involved in their testimony 
 must have been an act of recollection. 
 
153 
 
 If it liad not been a distinct act of recollection^ but fresli 
 information afforded respecting those facts, or discoveries 
 made to their minds by the Spirit of God, they would have 
 ceased to be witnesses of what they had seen and heard : 
 their testimony would have been simply and entirely a divine 
 testimony. 
 
 The theory, therefore, which represents the facts and dis- 
 courses recorded in the Gospels, and as the Apostles taught 
 them in their preaching, as a pure dictation made to their 
 minds by the Spirit, entirely destroys their testimony as the 
 appointed witnesses to the facts of Christianity. Instead of 
 the testimony on which Chi'istianity rests being the eye- 
 and ear-testimony of the Apostles to the gTeat facts of our 
 Lord's di\dne mission, and the Tvdtness of the Spirit support- 
 ing that testimony, it would make it a twofold testimony of 
 the Spirit, first asserting the facts themselves and then con- 
 firming His own assertions by miracles. The Apostles' asser- 
 tion that they testified to what they had seen with their eyes, 
 heard with their ears, and handled with their hands, would 
 be utterly untrue. 
 
 To constitute testimony, there must be a distinct recollec- 
 tion, on the part of the witness, that the facts to which he 
 testifies were actually seen by him, and the discourses heard 
 by him. Recollection forms the essence of testimony. The 
 memory may be aided ; but, in order that there should be tes- 
 timony, the event recalled to the mind must become the 
 subject of recollection. Without recollection, there can be no 
 such thing as testimony. 
 
 It frequently happens that one may forget a fact which he 
 once knew, or a discourse which he once heard, and an- 
 ther person may recallh the one or the other to his mind. 
 When this is the case, the person whose memory is refreshed 
 must have a distinct recollection that the fact was the fact 
 which he actually witnessed, and the discourse was the dis- 
 course which he heard, before he can give testimony respecting 
 either the one or the other. 
 
 Whatever supernatural assistance, therefore, the Apostles 
 received in bringing to their recollection the facts of our 
 
154 
 
 Lord's ministry, or the discourses which they heard, could 
 not have been a fresh discovery of either the one or the other 
 to their minds, but a recalling them, if they had faded from 
 their recollection. If they had not the fulness of certainty 
 that the facts were those mtnessed by them, and the dis- 
 courses were the discourses which they had heard our Lord 
 utter, their testimony would have been valueless. 
 
 I can only be a witness of what I have actually seen and 
 heard. If another person tells me of a fact, and I repeat it 
 to a third, I am no witness to that fact. My assertions add 
 nothing to the testimony, but rest entirely on the credibility 
 of the original witness. His assertions may be true, but 
 my repeating them over again gives them no additional 
 confirmation. 
 
 There are various means by which I may become ac- 
 quainted with the discourse of another. It may be copied 
 down, and I may learn it, I may have every reason for 
 believing that it has been copied down correctly. But 
 although I may repeat the discourse, I am no witness to the 
 discourse. I may give the persons to whom I repeat it the 
 evidence on which I believe it genuine ; but I cannot assert, 
 on my own authority, that that discourse was the discourse 
 which came from the lips of the person who was said to have 
 spoken it. No court of justice would for one moment accept 
 such testimony. The original witnesses must be forthcoming, 
 and declare what they have seen and heard. 
 
 Now the writers of the Christian Scriptures distinctly 
 assert that the belief in the divine mission of our Lord rests 
 on evidence of this description, and that Christianity demands 
 our belief because the truth of it can be proved by such testi- 
 mony. Our evidence of the validity of our Lord^s divine 
 mission rests on the fact, that we have sufficient reasons for 
 believing that the Apostles saw certain actions performed by 
 Him which were sufficient to prove that He was a teacher 
 come from God. If they did not really remember those facts 
 or discourses when they asserted their reality, they are 
 found false witnesses of God. If they were the mere dicta- 
 tion of the Spirit to their minds, St. Peter's declaration 
 
155 
 
 which he made to the Jewish council, " We cannot but speak 
 the things which we have seen and heard/^ would have to be 
 corrected into. We cannot but speak the things which the 
 Spirit has introduced into our minds. 
 
 There is great danger, therefore, in assuming a particular 
 theory of inspiration, of destroying the human testimony of 
 the Apostles as witnesses of the facts of our Lord's public 
 ministry. It must be admitted that the Christian Scriptures 
 contain thus far a human element ; or else, in support of our 
 particular theory of inspiration, we must be prepared to deny 
 their most positive assertions. They are committed to the 
 fact that the Apostles did bear an actual testimony to our 
 Lord's acts. On its truth they claimed a right to speak with 
 authority to the conscience. The degree in which preter- 
 natural assistance was afforded them in bearing this testimony 
 we will consider hereafter. 
 
 Our Lord's divine person and teaching, therefore, form the 
 divine element in the Apostles' testimony as witnesses. If 
 that testimony has been correctly given, we are in possession 
 of the highest results of divine inspiration in the teaching 
 and actions and person of our Lord. 
 
 The whole question of the inspiration of the contents of the 
 Gospels involves the inquiry — Are they correct reports of 
 our Lord's sayings and actions? 
 
 Facts are true, if they are narrated as they actually occurred. 
 If so narrated, they cannot possess a greater or less degree 
 of truth as facts. As facts, they do not admit of degrees of 
 truth : they admit of and require evidence. A fact possesses 
 the highest degree of truth when it is correctly reported by a 
 truthful witness. If he has ordinary intelligence, he has only 
 to tell us what he saw. If a fact is correctly reported by a 
 human witness, it does not acquire any greater degree of 
 truth by being derived from a higher power. 
 
 Now ordinary men, with ordinary abilities, are endowed 
 with all the powers necessary for narrating what they have 
 witnessed. Peter or John were quite able to give a correct 
 report of the facts attending a miracle which they saw our 
 Lord perform. They possessed all the powers which were 
 
156 
 
 requisite for giving a true account of the Passion as they 
 actually witnessed it. Supposing either of these Apostles to 
 have been endowed with the ordinary powers possessed by 
 men^ if they did not give correct reports on such points, 
 the fault must have been, not in their capacity, but in their 
 honesty. 
 
 But if we have reports of several witnesses to the details of 
 a considerable succession of events, we should expect these 
 reports to vary in points of minor detail. One thing might 
 strike one witness, and another thing another. They might 
 report different parts of the same fact. If the events were 
 numerous, different witnesses might witness different por- 
 tions of them. Still the reports of the main facts would be 
 accurate, and their diversity in detail would leave the credi- 
 bility of the main points of the report unaffected. 
 
 But very different is the case as respects the reports of dis- 
 courses. However honest the witnesses may be, even in the 
 case of brief sayings, there is great difficulty in getting them 
 reported accurately. Words and sayings are always open to 
 misapprehension. A very slight variation in expression will 
 materially affect their meaning. A person often reports them 
 through a colouring imparted to them by his own peculiar 
 views and feelings, without the intention of wilfully misre- 
 presenting them. These difficulties are increased when the 
 things requiring to be reported are not short sayings, but 
 long discourses. Still greater is the difficulty of such reports, 
 if the sayings and discourses have not been committed to 
 paper till a number of years after they were uttered. They 
 are then liable to all the defects which arise from insufficient 
 powers of recollection. In proportion as the words actually 
 used have faded from the recollection, the more probable is it 
 that their true meaning will be misrepresented through the 
 influence which the peculiar views of the writer will exert 
 over his mind. 
 
 The reports of discourses, as given by ancient historians, 
 are all open to grave suspicion from these causes. The prac- 
 tice among ancient writers was very general of introducing 
 the speeches of eminent persons into their histories. What is 
 
157 
 
 the authority on which the chief portion of such speeches 
 rest ? Have we any evidence that they were ever uttered by 
 the persons whose names they bear ? The larger proportion 
 of them were certainly not copied down when they were 
 delivered. Many are not even pretended to have been com- 
 mitted to paper till years after they are alleged to have been 
 spoken. Such speeches want all authority. We suspect 
 themj with good reason^ to have been the work of the his- 
 torians themselves, who have put into the mouths of the 
 speakers what they thought it likely they would have said, 
 for the purpose of affording variety and interest to their 
 readers. The larger proportion of the speeches found in 
 ancient historians are destitute of all evidence that they were 
 actually uttered by the persons whose names they bear. 
 
 No ordinary human memory is capable of giving a verbatim 
 report of a discourse even a few hours after it has been 
 uttered. A few persons have that power. We can, in 
 ordinary cases, only have sufficient evidence that a professed 
 discourse contains the actual words used by a particular 
 speaker when it has been copied down as he uttered it, or 
 when a report of the speech has been furnished by the 
 speaker himself. 
 
 But the power of recollecting the substance, as distinct 
 from the words, of a discourse is a faculty much more exten- 
 sively diflPused. This faculty is more certain in its operation 
 exactly in proportion as the discourse is striking, or the per- 
 sons hearing it feel an interest in its contents. In such cases, 
 even the style in which it is expressed will remain in the 
 memory for a very considerable period. Still the report even 
 of the substance is liable to misrepresentation from the pre- 
 judices of the reporter; and the longer the period which has 
 elapsed before it has been committed to paper, the greater is 
 that liability. 
 
 It must be admitted that the powers of the memory in 
 ancient times seem to have exceeded those of more recent 
 date. This was owing to the greater exercise of the memory, 
 through instruction having been more generally oral. When 
 no professed reporters existed, or printing-presses were in 
 
158 
 
 being, the greater necessity existed for treasuring up the 
 living utterances of men. The prevalence of artificial methods 
 of preserving doctrines and discourses has impaired the 
 efficacy of the natural one. 
 
 The discourses of the Gospels laboiu' under many of these 
 difficulties. There is no statement which implies that they 
 were copied down at the time when they were delivered. 
 The circumstances when some of them were uttered render 
 the contrary absolutely certain. There is no evidence that 
 our Lord afterwards dictated them to His followers. The 
 persons who have recorded them distinctly state that they 
 had a very imperfect comprehension of the meaning of many 
 of them when they were first spoken. The length of some of 
 them is such, that few human memories could have retained 
 them word for word, especigilly those discourses which were 
 only uttered once, as was necessarily the case with the last 
 discourse of our Lord to the Apostles, recorded by St. John. 
 
 If, then, the principle be correct, that what man can do by 
 himself God does not do, but what man cannot do God does, 
 supposing that it was the intention of God that the discourses 
 of our Lord should form a portionjof the records of the Christian 
 revelation, we should expect that, when the Apostles gave 
 their accounts of such discourses to the Churches, supernatu- 
 ral assistance would be afforded to their memories sufficient 
 to render their reports of such discourses substantially correct. 
 We shall see hereafter that such assistance was actually 
 provided them by our Lord, and that the phenomena presented 
 by the discourses themselves agree with such a supposition. 
 
 But, whatever was the degree of supernatural assistance 
 afforded in rendering the discourses, if the Apostles were to 
 give testimony to the reality of them, it must have been not 
 a fresh communication of the discourse to their minds, but an 
 assistance afforded to their memories, so as to enable them to 
 recollect that the discourse in question was the actual dis- 
 course which they heard our Lord utter. The mere repeti- 
 tion of a discourse which was dictated to their minds by the 
 Spirit would have not made them witnesses of the things 
 which Jesus taught. Without a distinct recollection of them 
 
159 
 
 they could not have been witnesses. The inspiration, there- 
 fore, which they received must have been an influence which 
 strengthened their memories, but which did not supersede the 
 necessity of their exercise. 
 
 We shall see hereafter, that the phenomena presented by 
 the Gospels entirely agree with this supposition. 
 
 The apostolic office, therefore, involved the duty of wit- 
 nessing to the great facts of the Christian revelation. On 
 the truth of their testimony to those facts depends the entire 
 knowledge which man at present possesses of the objective 
 revelation of God manifested in the Incarnation. In their 
 capacity as witnesses, the inspired element in their testi- 
 mony was Christ himself. 
 
 But the apostolic office not only involved the duty of testify- 
 ing to the truth of the things which they had seen and heard, 
 and narrating the events of our Lord^s ministry, life, and death; 
 they were also the divinely appointed expositors of those 
 things. It was intended that they should not only testify to 
 the facts, but expound the full meaning of the Gospel revela- 
 tion. As the facts of the Incarnation form the objective reve- 
 lation of Christianity, so the teaching of the Apostles is a 
 divine commentary on that revelation. To fit them for a 
 work of this description, supernatural guidance of some kind 
 was absolutely necessary. 
 
 Before we enter on an examination of the facts of the Gos- 
 pels and Epistles, for the purpose of deducing from them a 
 correct view of the inspiration afforded to the Apostles, it will 
 be necessary to examine the assertions of the sacred writers 
 themselves as to the extent of their own inspiration. 
 
 First, we will consider our Lord's promises of supernatural 
 guidance to be afforded to the Apostles to qualify them for 
 their work, and their recorded fulfilment. 
 
 St. John (ch. xiv. 25, 26) records that, the evening before 
 He suffered. He made the Apostles the following distinct pro- 
 mises of supernatural assistance : — 
 
 " These things have I spoken unto yon, being yet present 
 with you. But the Comforter, which is the Holy Ghost, 
 whom the Father will send in my name. He shall teach you 
 
160 
 
 all things^ and bring all things to your remembrance, what- 
 soever I have said unto jou." 
 
 At chapter xv. 26, .27 : — " But when the Comforter is come, 
 whom I will send unto you from the Father, even the Spirit 
 of truth, which proceedeth from the Father, He shall testify 
 of me : and ye also shall bear witness, because ye have been 
 with me from the beginning." 
 
 Chapter xvi. 12-15 : — " I have yet many things to say unto 
 you, but ye cannot bear them now. Howbeit when He, the 
 Spirit of truth, is come. He will guide you into all truth ; for 
 He shall not speak of Himself; but whatsoever He shall 
 hear, that shall He speak : and He will show you things to 
 come. He shall glorify me : for he shall receive of mine, 
 and shall show it unto you. All things that the Father hath 
 are mine : therefore said I, that He shall take of mine, and 
 shall show it unto you." 
 
 St. Mark has recorded another promise of our Lord, made 
 to the Apostles a little before His ascension : — " Go ye into 
 all the world, and preach the gospel to every creatm'e. He 
 that believeth and is baptized shall be saved ; but he that 
 believeth not shall be damned. And these signs shall follow 
 them that believe : In my name shall they cast out devils ; 
 they shall speak with new tongues ; they shall take up ser- 
 pents ; and if they drink any deadly thing, it shall not hurt 
 them; they shall lay hands on the sick, and they shall 
 recover." 
 
 St. Luke gives the following account of the same promise 
 (chapter xxiv. 48,49) : — "And ye are witnesses of these 
 things. And, behold, I send the promise of my Father upon 
 you : but tarry ye in the city of Jerusalem, until ye be en- 
 dued with power from on high." 
 
 Acts i. 8, he adds: — "But ye shall receive power, after 
 that the Holy Ghost is come upon you : and ye shall be wit- 
 nesses unto me both in Jerusalem, and in all Judea, and in 
 Samaria, and unto the uttermost part of the earth." 
 
 The synoptic Gospels concur in recording another promise 
 of supernatural guidance made by our Lord at an earlier 
 period of His ministry : — " When they shall deliver you up. 
 
161 
 
 settle it in your minds not to think beforehand what ye shall 
 speak : neither do ye premeditate ; for it shall be given you in 
 that hour what ye ought to speak : for it is not ye that speak, 
 but the Spirit of your Father that speaketh in you." 
 
 These are the promises of supernatural assistance which our 
 Lord actually made to the Apostles. They are promises of no 
 vague or general character, but clear, distinct, and definite. 
 They are restricted to particular subjects, and say not one word 
 respecting a universal or a general infallibility. 
 
 The first of these promises is recorded in St. John ; — '' The 
 Comforter, which is the Holy Ghost, whom the Father wil 
 send in my name. He shall teach you all things, and bring all 
 things to your remembrance, whatsoever I have said unto you." 
 
 This promise was intended to assure the Apostles that they 
 should receive all necessary assistance to qualify them to act as 
 witnesses to the facts of what our Lord did and taught. 
 The Comforter is promised, to teach them all things, and 
 bring all things to their remembrance, whatever Christ had 
 spoken to them. 
 
 The formal promise asserts, therefore, that the Apostles 
 should be taught all things, and have all things brought to their 
 remembrance which Christ had spoken. It is therefore a 
 promise of a sujicrnatural assistance to be afforded to their 
 memories, to enable them to recollect the sayings and dis- 
 courses of our Lord. The Comforter was also to teach them 
 all things. The tAvo clauses of the promise have respect to the 
 same subject : they were to be taught the meaning of what 
 our Lord had spoken. In giving their testimony as witnesses, 
 the supernatural guidance promised was to give them a cor- 
 rect view of the portion of our Lord's sayings and discourses 
 to which they were to give their testimony. 
 
 The direct terms of the promise, therefore, assure to the 
 Apostles supernatural guidance where our previovis inquiries 
 prove that that supernatural aid would be most required. We 
 have seen that if the Apostles were to give a correct account 
 of our Lord's discourses in their capacity of witnesses to 
 Him, this work would exceed the ordinary powers of their 
 memories. The actions of His life might be recorded cor- 
 
 M 
 
162 
 
 rectly by their ordinary powersj or by a far lower degree of 
 supernatural assistance. 
 
 Our Lordj therefore^ makes provision for this deficiency in 
 the express terms of the promise. He does not promise them 
 supernatural aid to enable them to remember the facts of His 
 life ; but He does promise them such assistance to enable them 
 to recall to their memories the discourses which He uttered. 
 Our Lord^s promise^ therefore, of assistance to their natural 
 powers is strictly proportioned to man^s need of such assistance. 
 
 The promise, also, is a promise of aid to their natural 
 powers. It is not a promise of supernatural endowments only. 
 The memory was not to be superseded. The Comforter was 
 to aid and assist the memory — "to bring to remembrance," 
 " to remind them/' — not to inspire them with the knowledge 
 of things which they had neither heard nor seen. 
 
 The second of these promises is substantially the same in 
 meaning with those recorded by St. Mark and St. Luke : 
 "The Spirit of truth shall testify of me; and ye also shall bear 
 witness, because ye have been with me from the beginning.'^ 
 
 The Spirit of truth is here promised to testify of Christ ; and 
 the Apostles are constituted witnesses of Christ, for the ob- 
 vious reason, "because they had been with Him from the 
 beginning," 
 
 From the reasons given why the Apostles should bear testi- 
 mony to our Lord, the nature of their testimony is evident. 
 It must have been to the actions of our Lord, and to the 
 discourses which He uttered during His public ministry. 
 
 But, in addition to the testimony of the Apostles, the Spirit 
 also was to bear witness. What Avas the nature of the Spirit's 
 testimony here promised ? 
 
 This is distinctly explained by St, Mark and St, Luke. 
 They both affirm that the testimony was to be a miraculous 
 one, " These signs," says St. Mark, " shall follow them that 
 believe," &c. St, Luke is equally express : — " And ye are wit- 
 nesses of these things. And, behold, I send the promise of 
 my Father upon you : but tarry ye in the city of Jerusalem, 
 until ye be endued with power from on high," " And ye 
 shall receive power after that the Holy Ghost is come upon 
 
you j and ye shall be witnesses unto me/' &c. The witness 
 of the Apostles^ therefore, was to be united with miraculous 
 powers to be conferred upon them by the operation of the 
 Holy Ghost. 
 
 These miraculous powers, therefore, Avere the testimony of 
 the Spirit given to Christ. The Spirit did not directly bear 
 testimony to the facts or the discourses of our Lord ; that 
 testimony, therefore, was borne by the Apostles. His testi- 
 mony Avas to the truth of the Apostles' testimony by the exer-* 
 tion of miraculous power. 
 
 This exertion of miraculous power by the Spirit testified to 
 two things — the truth of our Lord's divine mission, and to 
 the truth of the facts and discourses of our Lord which were 
 related by the Apostles. 
 
 The promise of our Lord, therefore, is a direct promise of 
 miraculous power to be exerted by the Spirit, confirming what 
 the Apostles testified to in their capacity of human witnesses. 
 
 The third promise recorded by St. John is one of a far 
 more extensive character : — " When He, the Spirit of truth^ 
 is come, He will guide you into all the truth: for He shall not 
 speak of Himself; but whatsoever He shall hear, that shall He 
 speak : and He will show you things to come. He shall 
 glorify me : for He shall receive of mine, and shall show it 
 unto you. All things that the Father hath are mine : there- 
 fore said :I, that He shall take of mine, and shall show it 
 unto you." 
 
 The promise is a promise of such enlightenment as 
 would make the Apostles efficient teachers of the revelation 
 which our Lord came to communicate : — " He shall guide you 
 into all the truth." At the time Avhen the promise was made, 
 the Apostles had most imperfect apprehensions as to the na- 
 ture of that revelation. Had they proceeded to teach it before 
 they received supernatural enlightenment, they would have 
 published a very different gospel from that which our Lord 
 came to reveal. Of many of the actions of Christ they did 
 not understand the import. Many of His discourses they 
 entirely misapprehended. The end and purpose of His death 
 was, to them, hidden in complete darkness. Their blindness 
 
 M 2 
 
164 
 
 respecting the meaning of many of the great sayings of our 
 Lord was most remarkable. They greatly misunderstood 
 the relative importance of the forms of religion and of cere- 
 monial worship, compared with its spiritual and moral reali- 
 ties. When He predicted His sufferings in the plainest words, 
 the saying was hidden from them, neither understood they the 
 things which were spoken. No less remarkable was their 
 misapprehension of what our Lord meant when He warned 
 them to beware of the leaven of the Pharisees. We know 
 from the history that they actually considered that our Lord 
 was cautioning them against purchasing bread which had been 
 made by the hands of persons of this sect. During the whole 
 course of our Lord's ministry, the minds of the Apostles con- 
 tinued deeply implicated in the entire mass of Jewish pre- 
 judices in which they had been brought up, and they were in 
 the habit of viewing the teaching of our Lord through the 
 colouring of those prejudices. Their views respecting the 
 spirituality of religion, and of the worthlessness of outward 
 ceremonialism, were most imperfect. 
 
 The extent of these prejudices may be best estimated by 
 the declaration of our Lord, made in His last discourse : '' I 
 have many things to say unto you, but ye cannot bear them 
 now." This assertion plainly declares the mode which our 
 Lord was compelled to adopt in His teaching. He taught 
 the Apostles divine truth as they were able to bear it, not as 
 it was in itself. His teaching, therefore, was progressive. 
 The mists of prejudice were too profound to permit the full 
 blaze of light which our Lord came to impart to find admis- 
 sion into their understandings. Before they could attain to a 
 comprehension of the truths of the Christian dispensation, it 
 was necessary that these mists of prejudice should be cleared 
 away. 
 
 Our Lord, therefore, as soon as He had informed the 
 Apostles that there were many things which He came to reveal, 
 but which He had not discovered to them because they were 
 unable to bear them, assures them that a time was coming 
 when these truths should be imparted to their minds : — 
 " When the Spirit of truth is come; He shall guide you into 
 
165 
 
 all the truth." Our version has most incorrectly rendered 
 our Lord^s declaration as though He promised the Apostles 
 guidance into all truth. Such a meaning cannot possibly 
 attach to the expression, et? rrjv aXrjOeiav iraaav, which can 
 only mean, distinctly and definitely, not all truth, but all 
 the special truths which Christ came to reveal. The Spirit was 
 to unfold to their minds whatever He should hear or receive 
 of Him. He was especially to teach them those truths which 
 were to glorify His person : " He shall glorify me ; for He 
 shall receive of mine, and shall show it unto you." The 
 things which were Clirist's Avere the great revelation of the 
 Father : " All that the Father hath are mine : therefore 
 said I, He shall receive of mine, and shall show it unto you." 
 He would disclose to them the great subjects of the Christian 
 revelation in their full proportions, and qualify them to be 
 the communicators of the meaning of the revelation of the 
 Father made in the person of the incarnate Son. 
 
 In addition to the promise of guidance into all the truth 
 which He came to reveal. He also assures the Apostles that the 
 influence of the Spirit on their minds would disclose to them 
 events of the distant future. 
 
 In this declaration, therefore, our Lord makes an express 
 promise of supernatural enlightenment to the Apostles in the 
 great subjects of Christian truth. It is also by far the most 
 extensive promise of supernatural inspiration anywhere con- 
 tained in the pages of the New Testament. 
 
 But the inspiration promised is not a mere vague or 
 general inspiration conferring a universal infallibility; it is 
 an inspiration specially restricted to the great truths of the 
 Christian revelation only. The truth into which super- 
 natural guidance is promised is all the truth of that revela- 
 tion. The promise, therefore, is carefully guarded against 
 being supposed to imply inspiration on any other subject 
 than those which Christ came specially to reveal. It con- 
 veys to the Apostles no promise of supernatural guidance into 
 any truths of natural science, or chronology, or history. It 
 does not even assure them that they would be preserved 
 from errors in conduct. The promise is rigidly confined to a 
 
166 
 
 supernatural guidance into the meaning and import of the 
 Christian revelation. 
 
 The words, '' He shall receive of mine, and shall show 
 it unto yon," are remarkable. By these words the idea 
 that the inspiration was to be extended to any general 
 department of knowledge is precluded. The things which 
 the Spirit was to receive and to impart to the Apostles' minds 
 were the things which were Christ's, not the things which 
 were man's. Whenever they passed into regions beyond the 
 things which were Christ's, no supernatural inspiration is 
 promised. This reservation ought to be carefully attended to 
 and meditated on by those who propound theories as to the 
 extent of the inspiration of the Christian Scriptures. We 
 shall show hereafter that the facts of the New Testament are 
 in strict accordance with this promise of our Lord. 
 
 But while the promise is thus carefully guarded, it is 
 express that the Apostles should receive full instruction in 
 the truths, nature, and character of the Christian revelation. 
 It even informs us of the manner in which that inspiration 
 was to be communicated. 
 
 The mode of the Divine teaching was to consist of a guid- 
 ance into all the truth. The use of this expression implies, 
 that the enlightenment was not to be sudden, but gradual. 
 Guidance is a gradual process. It is an advance by suc- 
 cessive steps. The enlargement, therefore, which their views 
 were to receive, although it was to be due to a supernatural 
 influence, was to follow the ordinary laws of the development 
 of the human mind. In the natural progress of the mind, 
 its enlightenment is a slow growth. With the Apostles, 
 their enlightenment was likewise to be a growth, but a 
 growth at an accelerated ratio. 
 
 It is most important to observe that, in the communica- 
 tion of inspiration, it was the Divine purpose that the ordi- 
 nary laws of the mind should be infringed upon as little as 
 possible. We are not justified in assuming that God varies 
 from the usual law of His government more than the neces- 
 sities of the case require. 
 
 In conformity with this view of the nature of our Lord^§ 
 
167 
 
 promise the history informs us that the promise was ful- 
 filled. We learn from the Acts, that the Apostles were not 
 suddenly, but gradually enlightened in Christian truth. 
 They continued ignorant of that great truth the calling of 
 the Gentiles, for a considerable period after they had received 
 the gift of the Holy Spirit. Their prolonged ignorance on a 
 subject of such importance is one which we should not have 
 contemplated, and forms an impressive warning to us not to 
 form our opinions of inspiration on antecedent grounds of 
 probability, but on the facts of the New Testament Scrip- 
 tures and on the assertions of their authors. Had we formed 
 our opinions on abstract reasons, nothing would appear to 
 have been antecedently more improbable than that the Apos- 
 tles should have been allowed to remain ignorant of the 
 great truth " that God is no respecter of persons, but that 
 in every nation he that feareth Him, and worketh righteous- 
 ness, is accepted of Him.^^ 
 
 The last promise of supernatural assistance is of a more 
 definite description. Our Lord warns the Apostles that the 
 time was at hand when they would have to suffer persecution 
 for His cause, and they Avould be brought before kings and 
 rulers for His name's sake. When this should come to pass. 
 He directs them not to prepare an elaborate defence. He 
 promises them that, under such circumstances, the Holy 
 Spirit should inspire them with what they ought to say; 
 " For it is not ye who speak, but the Spirit of your Father 
 which speaketh in you." 
 
 We have, then, five most distinct and definite promises, 
 made by our Lord to the Apostles, of supernatural assistance 
 and inspiration. 
 
 1 . Our Lord promised the Apostles the aid of His Spirit to 
 teach them and refresh their memories, so as to enable them to 
 give a faithful testimony to the subject-matter of His teaching. 
 
 2. He constituted them -witnesses of what He had done and 
 taught, and promised them the witness of the Spirit by the exer- 
 tion of miraculous power to confirm their human testimony 
 to the great facts of our Lord's life, death, and resurrection. 
 
 3. He promised them His Holy Spirit to reveal to their 
 
168 
 
 minds the full nature of the truths intended to be communi- 
 cated by the Christian revelation. 
 
 4. He promised them that the same Spirit should reveal 
 to them certain events connected with futurity. 
 
 5. He promised that in times of persecution^ when 
 they should be called upon to make a legal defence before 
 kings and governors^ they should receive supernatural guid- 
 ance as to the proper topics of that defence. 
 
 These promises thus made to the Apostles were doubtless 
 intended to be applicable, within their proper limits, to the 
 other inspired persons who were authorized to publish the 
 Christian revelation. 
 
 The original Apostles, then, attained their first knowledge of 
 Christian truth by being actual eye- and ear-witnesses of our 
 Lord's acts and teaching. Their views as to the nature of 
 the Christian revelation were subsequently, but gradually, 
 enlarged by the supernatural gifts of the Spirit bestowed on 
 them after our Lord's ascension. The nature of these gifts 
 we will consider presently. 
 
 But in marked contrast to this mode of instruction in 
 Christian truth was the method which it pleased God to 
 adopt for the enlightenment of St. Paul, who, as an apostle, 
 was destined not to preach the Gospel within the limits of 
 the Jewish church, but to carry the divine light throughout 
 the length and breadth of the Gentile world. 
 
 St. Paul had heard none of our Lord's discourses while He 
 was on earth : he had witnessed none of the facts of His 
 life. Prior to his conversion, he was most probably a stranger to 
 our Lord's person. The mental training Avhich he had received 
 differed widely from that of the original twelve. Theirs had 
 been the training of ordinary Jews. St. Paid superadded to 
 the most enlarged forms of Jewish training an acquaintance 
 with Gentile literature. The only point in common between 
 St. Paul and the original twelve was, that both had seen the 
 divine person of our Lord after He was risen from the dead. 
 We must now examine St. Paul's own assertions as to the 
 mode in which he was instructed in the truths of the Chris- 
 tian revelation. 
 
169 
 
 We need not dwell on the great appearance of our Lord to 
 the Apostle^ which changed him from a persecutor of the 
 church into a preacher of the word. He himself expressly 
 tells us that the object of this appearance was to constitute 
 him a minister and a witness of this appearance of our Lord, 
 and of any similar future manifestation. 
 
 In the course of the writings of St. Paul, we possess 
 numerous assertions that his entire knowledge of the facts of 
 the gospel, and of the truths of the Christian revelation, was 
 derived from no human source of information, but was com- 
 municated to him by direct inspiration. 
 
 In Galatians i. 11-20, the Apostle gives us the following 
 account of the mode of his instruction in gospel truth : — 
 '' But I certify you, brethren, that the gospel which was 
 preached of me is not after man. For I neither received it 
 of man, neither was I taught it, but by the revelation of 
 Jesus Christ. For ye have heard of my conversation in time 
 past in the Jews' religion, how that beyond measure I perse- 
 cuted the church of God, and wasted it : and profited in the 
 Jews' religion above many my equals in mine own nation, 
 being more exceedingly zealous of the traditions of my 
 fathers. But when it pleased God, who separated me from 
 my mother's womb, and called me by His grace, to reveal 
 His Son in me, that I might preach Him among the heathen ; 
 immediately I conferred not with flesh and blood : neither 
 went I up to Jerusalem to them which were apostles before 
 me; but I went into Arabia, and returned again unto 
 Damascus. Then after three years I went up to Jerusalem 
 to see Peter, and abode with him fifteen days. But other of 
 the apostles saw I none, save James, the Lord's brother. 
 Now the things which I write unto you, behold, before God, I 
 lie not." Chap. ii. 1-11 : " Then fourteen years after I went 
 up again to Jerusalem with Barnabas, and took Titus with me 
 also. And I went up by revelation, and communicated unto 
 them that gospel which I preach among the Gentiles, but 
 privately to them which were of reputation, lest by any 
 means I should run, or had run, in vain. But neither Titus, 
 who was with me, being a Greek, was compelled to be cir^ 
 
170 
 
 cumcised : and that because of false brethren unawares 
 brought in, who came in privily to spy out our liberty which 
 we have in Christ Jesus, that they might bring us into bond- 
 age : to whom we gave place by subjection, no, not for an 
 hour ; that the truth of the gosj)el might continue with you. 
 But of these who seemed to be somewhat, (whatsoever they 
 were, it maketh no matter to me : God accepteth no man^s 
 person :) for they who seemed to be somewhat in conference 
 added nothing to me : but contrariwise, when they saw that 
 the gospel of the uncircumcision was committed unto me, as the 
 gospel of the circumcision was unto Peter; (for he that 
 wrought effectually in Peter to the apostleship of the circum- 
 cision, the same was mighty in me toward the Gentiles :) 
 and when James, Cephas, and John, who seemed to be 
 pillars, perceived the grace that was given unto me, they 
 gave to me and Barnabas the right hands of fellowship ; that 
 we should go unto the heathen, and they unto the circum- 
 cision. Only they would that we should remember the poor ; 
 the same which I also was forward to do. But Avhen Peter 
 was come to Antioch, I withstood him to the face, because 
 he was to be blamed." 
 
 St. Paul here declares that his knowledge of the gospel, 
 and his possession of the apostolical office, were dei'ived from 
 no human authority whatever : " His Gospel was not after 
 man. He was not taught it by men, but by the revelation of 
 Jesus Christ.'^ Here we have the most direct assertion of 
 the divine character of the revelations communicated to him. 
 Previously to his conversion, he had been educated and had 
 always lived in the practice of the strictest Judaism. As 
 soon as he was called to a knowledge of the gospel, and to 
 be a minister of its truth, he was instructed in its truths by 
 no human teacher. He abstained from going to Jerusalem ; 
 so that he could have had no instruction from the original 
 Apostles. On the contrary, he took a journey into Arabia, a 
 country where it would have been hardly possible to have 
 obtained instruction in the truths of Christianity, had such 
 instruction been necessary. On his return to Damascus, he 
 at onee preached the gospel which he had attempted to 
 
171 
 
 destroy. Three years after his conversion, he paid Peter a 
 visit of only fifteen days' duration, during which visit he saw 
 no other apostle but James. During so short a visit it would 
 have been impossible that he could have obtained any deep 
 instruction in Christian truth. After having employed four- 
 teen years in preaching the gospel, he again revisited Jeru- 
 salem. This time he Avent to that city in consequence of an 
 express divine revelation. During this visit he explained the 
 great truths, which he was in the habit of preaching among 
 the heathen, secretly to the leading members of the Jewish 
 church. He adopted this course lest it should be supposed 
 that his authority as an apostle stood in need of any con- 
 firmation. The chiefs of the Jewish church neither attempted 
 to confer on him authority nor knowledge. They fully 
 recognized his apostolical commission, and the truth of that 
 gospel which he had preached among the Gentiles. They 
 made no attempt to fetter him, but only solicited him in his 
 labours among the wealthy heathen to remember the Jewish 
 churches which were comparatively poor — a thing which he 
 was disposed to have done without solicitation. So far from 
 having received any knowledge of gospel truth from the 
 original Apostles, he felt that his knowledge of Christianity 
 was so complete and perfect, that when Peter came to An- 
 tioch, and was weakly guilty of conduct compromising the 
 truth, he openly rebuked him, and stated the great truths of 
 the gospel in opposition to him. 
 
 St. Paul, therefore, directly asserts that the facts of the 
 gospel as he delivered them to the churches, and the doc- 
 trines which he taught as the great truths of Christianity, 
 were not learned by him through any ordinary operation of 
 the human mind, but were communicated to him by inspira^ 
 tion. 
 
 We shall treat of the inspiration of St. Paul when we 
 consider the degree of supernatural assistance under the 
 influence of which the writers of the Epistles wrote and 
 taught, and the nature of the inspiration which the facts 
 of the Epistles themselves presuppose. 
 
172 
 
 CHAPTER X. 
 
 THE SPIBITUAL GIFTS— THEIR CHARACTER. 
 
 Before we enter on the examination of the nature and 
 degree of the inspiration afforded to the Apostles_, as wit- 
 nessed by the Gospels and Epistles^ it will be necessary to 
 inquire what light the New Testament affords as to the 
 nature of the spiritual gifts with which they were endowed, 
 for the purpose of unfolding the Christian revelation, and of 
 bearing testimony to its truths to the world. St. Luke, in 
 the Acts, in giving the history of the descent of the Spirit on 
 the Apostles, most unequivocally asserts that the events of 
 the day of Pentecost were the fulfilment of our Lord^s parting 
 promises to His Apostles. 
 
 We will therefore adduce the chief statements in the New 
 Testament as to the nature of the supernatural gifts of the 
 Spirit. 
 
 1 Cor. i. 4-7 : " I thank my God always on your behalf, 
 for the grace of God which is given you by Jesus Christ; 
 that in every thing ye are enriched by Him, in all utterance, 
 and in all knowledge ; even as the testimony of Christ was 
 confirmed in you : so that ye come behind in no gift ; waiting 
 for the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ." 
 
 1 Cor. xii. 4-11 : "Now there are diversities of gifts, but 
 the same Spirit. And there are differences of administrations, 
 but the same Lord. And there are diversities of operations, 
 but it is the same God which worketh all in all. But the 
 manifestation of the Spirit is given to every man to profit 
 withal. For to one is given by the Spirit the word of wis- 
 dom ; to another the word of knowledge by the same Spirit ; 
 to another faith by the same Spirit ; to another the gifts of 
 healing by the same Spirit ; to another the working of mira- 
 cles ; to another prophecy ; to another discerning of spirits ; 
 to another divers kinds of tongues ; to another the interpre- 
 tation of tongues : but all these worketh that one and the 
 selfsame Spirit, dividing to every man severally as He will." 
 
173 
 
 Ver. 28-31 : " And God hath set some in the church, first 
 apostles, secondarily prophets, thirdly teachers, after that 
 miracles, then gifts of healings, helps, governments, diversi- 
 ties of tongues. Are all apostles ? are all prophets ? are all 
 teachers ? are all workers of miracles ? have all the gifts of 
 healing ? do all speak with tongues ? do all interpret ? But 
 covet earnestly the best gifts : and yet shew I unto you a 
 more excellent Avay." 
 
 1 Cor. xiii. 1-3 : " Though I speak with the tongues of 
 men and of angels, and iiave not charity, I am become as 
 sounding brass or a tinkling cymbal. And though I have 
 the gift of prophecy, and understand all mysteries, and all 
 knowledge, and though I have all faith, so that I could 
 remove mountains, and have not charity, I am nothing. 
 And though I bestow all my goods to feed the poor, and 
 though I give my body to be burned, and have not charity, it 
 profiteth me nothing." Ver. 8-10 : " Charity never faileth : 
 but whetlier there be prophecies, they shall fail ; whether there 
 be tongues, they shall cease ; whether there be knowledge, it 
 shall vanish away. For we know in part, and we prophesy 
 in part. But when that which is perfect is come, then that 
 which is in part shall be done away.'^ 
 
 1 Cor. xiv : " Follow after charity, and desire spiritual gifts, 
 but rather that ye may prophesy. For he that speaketh in 
 an unknown tongue speaketh not unto men, but unto God : 
 for no man understandeth him; howbeit in the spirit he 
 speaketh mysteries. But he that prophesieth speaketh unto 
 men to edification, and exhortation, and comfort. He that 
 speaketh in an unknown tongue edifieth himself ; but he that 
 prophesieth edifieth the church. I would that ye all spake 
 with tongues, but rather that ye prophesied : for greater is 
 he that prophesieth than he that speaketh with tongues, 
 except he interpret, that the church may receive edifying. 
 Now, brethren, if I come unto you speaking with tongues, what 
 shall I profit you, except I shall speak to you either by reve- 
 lation, or by knowledge, or by prophesying, or by doctrine ? 
 And even things without life giving sound, whether pipe or 
 harp, except they give a distinction in the sounds, how shall 
 
174 
 
 it be known what is piped or harped ? For if the trumpet 
 give an uncertain sounds who shall prepare himself to the bat- 
 tle ? So likewise je, except ye utter by the tongue words easy 
 to be understood, how shall it be known w hat is spoken ? for 
 ye shall speak into the air. There are, it may be, so many 
 kinds of voices in the world, and none of them is without 
 signification. Therefore if I know not the meaning of the 
 voice, I shall be unto him that speaketh a barbarian, and he 
 that speaketh shall be a barbarian unto me. Even so ye, 
 forasmuch as ye are zealous of spiritual gifts, seek that ye 
 may excel to the edifying of the clmrch. Wherefore let 
 him that speaketh in an unknown tongue pray that he 
 may interpret. For if I pray in an unknown tongue, my 
 spirit prayeth, but my understanding is unfruitful. What 
 is it then? I will pray with the spirit, and I will pray 
 with the understanding also : I will sing with the spirit, 
 and I will sing with the understanding also. Else when thou 
 shalt bless with the spirit, how shall he that occupieth the 
 room of the unlearned say Amen at thy giving of thanks, 
 seeing he understandeth not what thou sayest? For thou 
 verily givest thanks Avell, but the other is not edified. I 
 thank my God, I speak with tongues more than ye all : yet 
 in the church I had rather speak five words with my under- 
 standing, that by my voice I might teach others also, than 
 ten thousand words in an unknown tongue. Brethren, be not 
 children in understanding : howbcit in malice be ye children, 
 but in understanding be men. In the law it is written. With 
 men of other tongues and other lips will I speak unto this 
 people ; and yet for all that will they not hear me, saith the 
 Lord. Wherefore tongues are for a sign, not to them that 
 believe, but to them that believe not : but prophesying serveth 
 not for them that believe not, but for them which believe. 
 If therefore the whole church be come together into one 
 place, and all speak with tongues, and there come in those 
 that are unlearned or unbelievers, will they not say that ye 
 are mad ? But if all prophesy, and there come in one that 
 believeth not, or one unlearned, he is convinced of all, he is 
 judged of all : and thus are the secrets of his heart made 
 
175 
 
 manifest; and so falling down on his face he will worship 
 Godj and report that God is in you of a truth. How is it 
 then^ brethren? when ye come together, every one of you 
 hath a psalm^ hath a doctrine, hath a tongue, hath a reve- 
 lation, hath an interpretation. Let all things be done unto 
 edifying. If any man speak in an unknown tongue, let it 
 be by two, or at the most by three, and that by course ; and 
 let one interpret. But if there be no interpreter, let him 
 keep silence in the church ; and let him speak to himself, and 
 to God. Let the prophets speak two or three, and let the 
 other judge. If any thing be revealed to another that sitteth 
 by, let the first hold his peace. For ye may all prophesy one 
 by one, that all may learn, and all may be comforted. And 
 the spirits of the prophets are subject to the prophets. For 
 God is not the author of confusion, but of peace, as in all 
 
 churches of the saints If any man think himself 
 
 to be a prophet, or spiritual, let him acknowledge that the 
 things that I write unto you are the commandments of the 
 Lord. But if any man be ignorant, let him be ignorant. 
 Wherefore, brethren, covet to prophesy, and forbid not to 
 speak with tongues. Let all things be done decently and 
 in order." 
 
 Eph. iv. 7, 8 : " But unto every one of us is given grace 
 according to the measure of the gift of Christ. Wherefore he 
 saith, When he ascended up on high, he led captivity captive, 
 and gave gifts unto men." Ver. 11-13 : " And he gave some, 
 apostles ; and some, prophets ; and some, evangelists ; and 
 some, pastors and teachers ; for the perfecting of the saints, 
 for the work of the ministry, for the edifying of the body of 
 Christ : till we all come in the unity of the faith, and of the 
 knowledge of the Son of God, unto a perfect man, unto 
 the measure of the stature of the fulness of Christ." 
 
 In this passage to the Ephesians, St. Paul distinctly in- 
 forms us that the communication of these gifts was the 
 result of our Lord's ascension: "Wherefore He saith. When 
 He ascended Tip on high. He led captivity captive, and gave 
 gifts unto men." Our Lord, in like manner, declared that it 
 was necessary that He should go to the Father, in order that 
 
176 
 
 the Spirit^ in His supernatural influences, might be com- 
 municated to the minds of the Apostles. The possession of 
 those gifts, therefore, constituted the inspiration of the Apos- 
 tles. They were the fulfilment of our Lord's promises of 
 supernatural guidance made to them before His departure, 
 which we have just considered. We will therefore first 
 distinctly state what we learn from the New Testament was 
 the nature of those gifts, and then give the reasons on which 
 these conclusions are founded. 
 
 I. The gifts of the Spirit were the fulfilment of our Lord's 
 promises of supernatiu'al inspiration intended for the full dis- 
 covery of gospel truth and the establishment of the Church. 
 
 II. That the gifts are nine in number : 1, the word of 
 wisdom ; 2, the word of knowledge ; 3, faith ; 4, gifts of 
 healing ; 5, the working of miracles ; 6, prophecy ; 7, the 
 discerning of spirits; 8, the gift of tongues; 9, the gift of 
 interpretation. 
 
 III. That the list given by the Apostle of the spiritual 
 offices corresponds with these gifts, and that each separate 
 gift qualified the possessor for the spiritual office. These are 
 nine in number : 1, the apostle ; 2, the prophet ; 3, the 
 teacher ; 4, the worker of miracles ; 5, the possessor of the 
 gifts of healing ; 6, the helper ; 7, the possessor of the 
 gift of government ; 8, the speaker with tongues ; 9, the 
 interpreter. 
 
 IV. Many of these gifts, after having been once com- 
 municated, were attached in a permanent form to the mind 
 of the possessor, and were subject to the control of his will, 
 in the same manner as any other mental faculty in its 
 ordinary operation. 
 
 V. The gifts were restricted in their operation to a par- 
 ticular subject-matter : they did not extend their influence 
 beyond the subject-matter which formed the special function 
 of each gift, or confer a general infallibility on the possessor. 
 
 VI. These gifts were conferred on difierent persons in 
 dififerent degrees. 
 
 I. The gifts of the Spirit were a direct fulfilment of our 
 Lord's promise of miraculous inspiration. 
 
177 
 
 The passage we have already quoted from the Ephesians is 
 a direct assertion of this truth. The Apostle declares that 
 they were communicated as the result of our Lord's ascen- 
 sion. They were given for the express purpose for the 
 perfecting of the saints^ for the work of the ministry, for 
 the edifying of the body of Christ. They therefore qualified 
 the Apostles for their functions as the teachers of the truths 
 of the gospel and the builders up and establishers of the 
 Church. In inferior degrees their influence was not confined 
 to the Apostles merely, but portions of them were largely 
 bestowed on different members of the Church, for the purpose 
 of qualifying them for their appointed work. To this fact the 
 most ample testimony is given both in the Acts of the Apos- 
 tles and the writings of St. Paul. They were not intended 
 to be permanent : they were designed to continue only " till 
 we all come unto the unity of the faith, and of the knowledge 
 of the Son of God, unto a perfect man, unto the measure of 
 the stature of the fulness of Christ." St. Luke records, in the 
 Gospel, that our Lord directed the Apostles to continue at 
 Jerusalem until they were endowed with power from on high. 
 Our Lord assures them that He would send the promise of 
 the Father upon them. In the Acts, he represents our Lord 
 as promising them that they should receive power after that 
 the Holy Spirit was come upon them, and that they should 
 be His witnesses in Jerusalem, and in Judea, and in Samaria, 
 and unto the uttermost parts of the earth. 
 
 Having recorded the promise, he is no less particular to 
 report to us what was the fulfilment of the promise. He 
 accordingly narrates the communication of the Spirit in His 
 miraculous influences to the Apostles and other primitive 
 believers, on the day of Pentecost, as that fulfilment. He 
 represents St. Peter, in his discourse following that event, as 
 distinctly asserting that this outpouring of the Spirit was the 
 supernatural enlightenment promised by God in the Old 
 Testament dispensation to be communicated to men in 
 gospel times. 
 
 But St. Luke does not describe the supernatural enlighten- 
 ment afibrded as confined solely to the Apostles. They were 
 
 N 
 
178 
 
 its chief depositories, and possessed the largest number of the 
 spiritual gifts united in their persons, and the gifts themselves 
 in the highest degree; but these were in different degrees 
 very extensively communicated to believers. Accordingly, St. 
 Peter describes the extent of the spiritual enlightenment, in 
 the words of the Old Testament prophets, as neither limited 
 to person, age, nor sex. " This is that which was spoken by 
 the prophet Joel, And it shall come to pass in the last days, 
 saith God, I will pour out of my Spirit upon all flesh; 
 and your sons and your daughters shall prophesy, and your 
 young men shall see visions, and your old men shall dream 
 dreams : and on my servants and on my handmaidens I will 
 pour out in those days of my Spirit; and they shall pro- 
 phesy.'* 
 
 From this passage it is evident that the communication of 
 the gift of supernatural inspiration was not intended to be 
 confined to the Apostles, but that it was one which was com- 
 municated in various degrees to large numbers of believers. 
 The supernatural gifts were bestowed in reference to different 
 offices held in the Church, and different functions to be per- 
 formed by different believers. Each person on whom the gift 
 was bestowed was supernaturally qualified by it for his work 
 in the Christian Church. 
 
 The assertions of St. Paul directly bear out this view. It 
 is evident, from his Epistles, that the supernatural gifts were 
 widely diffused. He thanked God that the Corinthian church 
 were " enriched by God in all utterance and in all knowledge, 
 even as the testimony of God is confirmed in you, so that ye 
 come behind in no gift.^^ 
 
 The gifts as conferred on believers had the effect of en- 
 riching them in all utterance and in all knowledge, and in 
 confirming in them the testimony of God. A supernatural 
 gift must have conferred on the person possessing it an inspi- 
 ration within the sphere and influence of that gift. 
 
 But, although widely diffused, they were not conferred in 
 the same degree or in the same abundance on all. To this 
 St. Paul gives his direct testimony : " He gave some apostles, 
 and some prophets, and some evangelists, and some pastors 
 
179 
 
 and teachers." To the same effect he writes to the Corin- 
 thians : " There are diversities of gifts, but it is the same 
 Spirit ; and there are diversities of administrations, but it is 
 the same Lord ; and there are diversities of operations, but it 
 is the same God who worketh all in all." " To one is given 
 by the Spirit the word of wisdom ; to another the word of 
 knowledge by the same Spirit ; to another faith by the same 
 Spii'it; to another the gifts of healing by the same Spirit; 
 to another the working of miracles ; to another prophecy ; 
 to another discerning of spirits ; to another divers kinds of 
 tongues ; to another the interpretation of tongues : but all 
 these worketh that one and the selfsame Spirit, dividing to 
 every man severally as He wiJl.^^ 
 
 The Apostle here most expressly asserts that the gifts, as 
 bestowed on members of the Church generally, while be- 
 stowed in great abundance, were not all communicated to the 
 same individual : " they were divided to every man severally 
 as the Spirit willed." The Apostle's assertions are no less 
 positive that the gifts possessed a difference of function. 
 " There are," says he, " differences of administrations, but the 
 same Lord ; and there are differences of operations, but it is 
 the same God who worketh all in all." One had the gift of 
 healing, another that of discerning of spirits, another that of 
 prophecy. The gifts, therefore, were powers imparted to the 
 mind, each of which possessed a distinct and separate function. 
 
 Nor were they all of equal importance. They resembled 
 the different members of the human body. One member of 
 the body is more important than another, but all are neces- 
 sary. Certain gifts specially qualified a man for the office of 
 an Apostle in the Church ; others qualified for inferior offices. 
 
 Nor were they given in equal degrees. The Apostles, as 
 being qualified to fill all offices in the Church, would possess 
 the whole of the gifts ; but yet inferior men might possess a 
 particular gift in a higher form than they. St. Paul was 
 ignorant of a future event which was revealed to Agabus. 
 
 The history of the Acts contains frequent allusions to the 
 wide extent in which these gifts were imparted to believers. 
 
 II. & III. It will be observed that the two lists of the spiritual 
 
180 
 
 gifts, as given by the Apostle, are each nine in number. The 
 second list contains only eight names ; but the gift of diversi- 
 ties of tongues is immediately divided into its two branches — 
 the gift of tongues and that of interpretation. 
 
 As then in each list the gifts are nine in number, it is a 
 legitimate inference that the gifts in the two lists must cor- 
 respond. Five of them actually correspond in name. The 
 remaining four will not be difficult of identification. In the 
 second list the gifts are specified, not in their simple nature 
 as gifts, but as qualifications for certain offices in the Chiirch. 
 
 The five gifts in each list which actually agree in name are 
 the two miraculous gifts — viz. the gifts of healing and the 
 gift of working of miracles — the gift of prophecy, the gift of 
 tongues, and that of interpretation. 
 
 The four other gifts admit of identification. The office of 
 apostle corresponds with the gift of wisdom ; that of teacher, 
 •with the gift of knowledge ; that of governor, with the gift 
 of discerning of spirits ; that of helper, with the gift of 
 faith. 
 
 Now although some of these gifts are closely allied to- 
 gether, the Apostle asserts that they were distinct and 
 separate gifts of the Spirit. The gift of wisdom was distinct 
 from the gift of knowledge : a person might have possessed 
 the one, and not possessed the other. They must therefore 
 have had separate functions, and different subject-matter on 
 which they were exercised. No less positive also are his asser- 
 tions that the gift of Avorking miracles was distinct from the 
 gift of healing. In these cases, therefore, the subject-matter 
 and the functions of these gifts must have been distinct like- 
 wise. Several of these gifts were frequently united in the 
 same person; but the union did not interfere with their 
 fundamental distinctness as separate gifts or endowments. 
 All were united in the persons of the Apostles. But it was a 
 common case for individuals in the Church only to possess 
 a single gift, even when the gifts were so closely allied as 
 the gift of tongues was with that of interpretation. The 
 Spirit divided to every man severally as He willed. 
 
181 
 
 CHAPTER XI. 
 
 THE SPIRITUAL GIFTS THE CHIEF SOURCE OF APO- 
 STOLIC INSPIRATION— THE NATURE OF THE INSPIRA- 
 TION IMPARTED BY EACH GIFT, 
 
 The nature of some of the supernatural gifts is unfolded with 
 considerable detail in the New Testament. Respecting others 
 our information is less precise. The five respecting which 
 our information is the most full are the gifts of tongues, 
 interpretation, prophecy, wisdom, knowledge, and the two 
 miraculous gifts. And first, the gift of tongues. 
 
 In Acts ii. St, Luke writes, " There appeared unto them 
 cloven tongues like as of fire, and it sat upon each of them. 
 And they were all filled with the Holy Ghost, and began to 
 speak with other tongues, as the Spirit gave them utterance." 
 " Now Avhen this was noised abroad, the multitude came 
 together, and were confounded, because that every man heard 
 them speak in his own language. And they were all amazed 
 and marvelled, saying one to another, Behold, are not all these 
 which speak Galileans ? And how hear we every man in our 
 own tongue, wherein we were born ? Parthians, and Medes, 
 and Elamites, and the dwellers in Mesopotamia, and in 
 Judsea and Cappadocia, in Poutus, and Asia, Phrygia, and 
 Pamphylia, in Egypt, and in the parts of Libya about 
 Cyrene, and strangers of Rome, Jews and proselytes, Cretes 
 and Arabians, we do hear them speak in our tongues the 
 wonderful works of God. And they were all amazed, and 
 were in doubt, saying one to another, M'hat meaneth this? 
 Others mocking said, These men are full of new wine." 
 
 Now three opinions are possible as to the nature of the 
 gift of tongues. First, it was a power of speaking languages 
 previously unknown, for the purpose of enabling him who 
 was endowed with it to speak in a language which he had 
 never previously learned. Second, it was a power of giving 
 utterance to spiritual truths and feelings previously unknown: 
 in a word, it was a spiritual utterance, and not an ordinary 
 language. Third, it was a union of a spoken language 
 
182 
 
 combined with a spiritual utterance. The assertions of St. 
 Luke^ in the Acts^ favour the first of these views j those of 
 St. Paul, in the Corinthians, the second. The gift was, there- 
 fore, probably a union of both. 
 
 It seems hardly possible to put any fair construction on the 
 assertions of the author of the Acts of the Apostles which 
 does not, at least, include the fact that St. Luke meant to 
 assert that languages distinct and intelligible were spoken on 
 the occasion. Neander and others have made the attempt, 
 but they are obliged to put a forced construction on the 
 language employed by St. Luke. In what manner the 
 miracle was wrought is another question. Some have sup- 
 posed, not that the Apostles spoke, but that the hearers 
 heard what they uttered, in all these languages. But this is 
 merely a variation of the mode of the miracle. According 
 to St. Luke's report of the transaction, at the news of what 
 had taken place, a multitude came together. They were 
 penetrated with astonishment. The reason of their surprise 
 is expressly given — that every man heard them speak in his 
 own language. The historian uses no expression which can 
 be made to mean that the surprise was occasioned by their 
 hearing utterance given to a new spiritual language which the 
 hearers did not understand. They heard them speak in their 
 own Bid\€KTo^ (dialect) . The spectators say. We hear them 
 speak in the tongue wherein we were born. A list of the 
 places of which the hearers were natives follows. It will be 
 readUy admitted that the languages of many of the places 
 mentioned were not distinct languages, but dialects. This 
 is quite consistent with the use of the word employed by St. 
 Luke. Scoffers, who did not understand the languages, not 
 unnaturally ascribed the phenomenon to the effect of 
 drunkenness. 
 
 Now it is a certain fact, if the gift of tongues is viewed as a 
 gift bestowed to enable its possessor to preach Christian truth 
 in languages which he was previously unacquainted with, that 
 at no period of the world's history was such a gift so little 
 needed as in the apostolic age. The chief labours of the 
 Apostles and primitive missionaries were confined to the 
 
183 
 
 great cities of the Uoman empire. In most of these cities 
 the knowledge of Greek and Latin would have been sufficient 
 to enable them to execute their divine commission. Paul 
 and Barnabas do not seem to have been endowed with any 
 such gift for the purposes of preaching : it is implied in the 
 history that they did not understand the language of Lystra, 
 and that the intention of sacrificing to them took them by 
 surprise. It is also certain that^ in the age next after, the 
 apostolic missionaries had no endowment of speaking lan- 
 guages which they had never learned. But there is no 
 necessity for assuming that the gift which was bestowed on 
 the day of Pentecost, if it involved the power of speaking 
 intelligible languages, was given to enable the possessor to 
 preach the gospel in a tongue which he had not learned, or 
 that it may not have included along with it the phenomena 
 mentioned by St. Paul. 
 
 St. Paul expressly describes the gift of tongues as intended 
 for a sign to them who believed not. In this point of view 
 it might have involved a miraculous power of speaking lan- 
 guages, without its being intended that it should form a 
 permanent gift in the Church for the purpose of preaching. 
 
 But the assertions of the Apostle to the Corinthians pre- 
 sent this gift under a very difierent aspect. We gather from 
 the Apostle's description of that gift the following facts : — A 
 person who spoke in a tongue, and had not the gift of inter- 
 pretation, spoke not to himself, but unto God. It did not 
 follow that he was intelligible to himself or others, although 
 in the spirit he might speak mysteries. Although he did not 
 speak intelligibly to himself, he could edify himself by the 
 use of the tongue ; but he produced no edification to the 
 Church, The prophetic gift was a far higher one than the 
 gift of tongues. The only way in which the Church received 
 edifying by the use of the gift was when it was accompanied 
 by the gift of interpretation. As there must be a distinction 
 of sounds in musical instruments to make their utterances 
 intelligible, so, unless the tongue gave utterance to things 
 easy to be understood, it was no better than speaking into 
 the air. A person, therefore, endowed with the gift of 
 
184 
 
 tongues was to pray to have superadded to it the gift of 
 interpretation. If a person with this gift^ but without the 
 gift of interpretation, prayed in a tongue, his spirit prayed, 
 but his understanding was barren. Similarly useless was the 
 gift to the Church ; for neither prayer nor praise offered in 
 this way could draw forth an Amen on the part of the con- 
 gregation. The other is not edified : he understands not 
 what the speaker in the tongue says. St. Paul would prefer 
 to speak five words with his understanding, for the purpose of 
 edification, than ten thousand words in a tongue. Tongues, 
 as a miracle, were intended to be a sign to unbelievers. But 
 if the whole Christian assembly possessed and exercised this 
 gift, instead of its bsing a sign to unbelievers, by its indis- 
 criminate use the Church would incur the charge of being 
 under the influence of madness. Such were the phenomena. 
 The first point which draws our attention in this description 
 is, that the person speaking in a tongue, without the gift of 
 interpretation, spoke not unto himsslf, but unto God. This 
 fact is very difficult to reconcile with the use of an ordinary 
 human language. If it was a language, it must have been 
 one of the meaning of which the speaker was no less ignorant 
 than the hearer. But the Apostle adds shortly after, that he 
 who spoke in a tongue edified himself; and further adds, that 
 in the spirit he spoke mysteries. The utterance, therefore, 
 whatever it was, must have been accompanied with the 
 emission of feelings which were attended Avith edification to 
 the person giving utterance to them. The person using the 
 tongue really gave utterance to prayer or praise when its 
 meaning could be distinctly ascertained. These phenomena 
 are consistent with the gift's consisting in the kindling of deep 
 spiritual emotions in the soul, which could not be expressed 
 in the form of intelligible words without the aid of one 
 possessed of the gift of interpretation. In conformity with 
 this view of the nature of the gift, the Apostle writes to the 
 Romans, " The Spirit also helpeth our infirmities ; for we 
 know not what we should pray for as we ought ; but the Spirit 
 itself maketh intercession for us, with groaning s which cannot 
 be uttered" {akaXrjToi,^ arevayjjbol'i). 
 
185 
 
 The tongue, therefore, without the gift of interpretation, 
 might convey no meaning even to the person using it. If its 
 use was attended with edification to his mind, that edification 
 must have been produced by the arousing of deep spiritual 
 emotions, with which the use of the tongue was accompanied, 
 and of which the utterance must have been the expression. 
 
 Although, therefore, the gift of tongues might have in- 
 volved the use of languages, it seems also to have been united 
 with unconscious utterances of deep spiritual feeling im- 
 planted in the heart by a supernatural influence. 
 
 The importance of such a gift may be duly estimated, when 
 we consider the dead state of feelings as to all spiritual things 
 into which the ancient world had sunk. Before Christianity 
 could create new conceptions in the mind, it must create new 
 emotions in the heart. The conceptions would have been 
 meaningless without the emotions. The existence of the 
 emotions in man's inmost spirit, after a time, rendered the 
 conceptions intelligible in his understanding. This gift was 
 apparently one most extensively bestowed on the Christian 
 Church. If it formed the ground on which the spiritual 
 conception of religious truth rested, we at once see the neces- 
 sity for the gift : it formed the groundwork of the possibility 
 of the communication of the Christian revelation. No 
 obstacle which modern missionaries have to encounter is 
 greater than the want of suitable conceptions to express 
 spiritual ideas in the nations among whom they preach. 
 This difficulty is constantly encountered in making trans- 
 lations of the Scriptures, and in finding suitable expressions 
 for the translation of spiritual ideas. But, as a sign to the 
 unbeliever, the gift of tongues must not only have been dis- 
 played in the poAver of giving utterance to deep inward 
 spiritual feelings, but probably, as on the day of Pentecost, 
 in occasionally giving utterances in actual languages : " we 
 do hear them speak in our tongues the wonderful works of 
 God.'' 
 
 Such a gift, if used indiscriminately by the whole Church, 
 would be in danger of producing the most disastrous conse- 
 quences on the minds of unbelievers, for whose benefit it was 
 
186 
 
 specially intended. The Apostle therefore gives directions 
 that it should never be used when there was no one present 
 with the gift of interpretation, and then only by two or at 
 most three persons at a single sitting of the Chui'ch. 
 
 The nature of the gift of interpretation must be deter- 
 mined by the view which we take of the gift of tongues. If 
 the gift of tongues involved the use of a language, the gift of 
 interpretation must have involved the power of translating 
 that language into another which was understood by the 
 congregation. If the gift of tongues involved the power of 
 giving utterance to spiritual feelings by corresponding 
 sounds, the gift of interpretation must have been the power 
 of representing those spiritual feelings in terms cognizable 
 by the ordinary understanding. It is evident from the Apos- 
 tle's assertions, that the gift of tongues was frequently pos- 
 sessed without the gift of interpretation. In this case it 
 must have presented the extraordinary phenomenon of the 
 person who made the utterance being unable to represent it 
 to others in intelligible language. No less remarkable would 
 it have been if it were a spoken language, and the person 
 using it wholly unconscious of its meaning. Frequently 
 both gifts were united in the same person : it is then diffi- 
 cult to conceive what could be the inducement to speak in a 
 foreign language, when the person speaking had it in his 
 power to speak in an intelligible one. The Apostle distinctly 
 asserts that the gift of tongues, like all the other spiritual 
 gifts, was under the control of the will of the person who 
 possessed it. 
 
 But the three gifts directly connected with the inspiration 
 under the influence of which the Christian Scriptures have 
 been composed, are the gift of wisdom, the gift of knowledge, 
 and the gift of prophecy. 
 
 We can hardly be mistaken in considering that the two 
 lists of spiritual endowments are the same gifts under different 
 names. The gift of wisdom, therefore, must be the gift con- 
 ferring the inspiration peculiar to the office of an apostle, and 
 which distinguished him from all the other inspired teachers 
 in the Church. This gift, therefore, occupies the first rank. 
 
187 
 
 The gift of prophecy, common to both lists, is expressly- 
 placed by the Apostle as second in importance among the 
 spiritual gifts. He assigns teachers the third rank ; and to 
 this office the gift of knowledge is the appropriate endowment. 
 
 Although, however, the peculiar apostolic gift was the gift 
 of wisdom, yet we know that the Apostles possessed the 
 prophetic gift. As the highest authority in the Church, they 
 would naturally possess the inferior gifts to qualify them for 
 the direction of every function in the Church. They would 
 therefore fill the office of teacher as well as that of apostle^ 
 and would consequently possess the corresponding gift of 
 knowledge. The three gifts, therefore, of wisdom, know- 
 ledge, and prophecy would form the main element of the 
 apostolic inspiration, as far as they were the teachers of the 
 truths of the Christian revelation. 
 
 The gift of wisdom is the highest of the supernatural gifts. 
 As the office of an apostle was a special function in the 
 Church, there must have been a special gift qualifying for 
 the discharge of that function. 
 
 The separation of the gifts, both as gifts and functions, is 
 most distinctly asserted by the Apostle. Had he not most 
 distinctly asserted that separation of function, we should 
 have considered that the gifts of wisdom and of knowledge 
 were the same gift under a different aspect.] We should have 
 formed the same conclusion respecting the gifts of miracles 
 and the gifts of healing. The Apostle not only asserts the 
 distinctness in the functions of these gifts, but also that one 
 of these gifts could be possessed by one person, without its 
 being necessary that he should possess the other. 
 
 The word wisdom, or ao^ia, when applied in the New Tes- 
 tament to divine things, is uniformly used to denote the highest 
 form of the knowledge of divine truth. In the same manner 
 when applied in philosophical language to human things, it 
 denotes the highest possible form of human knowledge and 
 philosophy. In the language of St. Paul, wisdom is used to 
 express the profoundest truths of Christianity. He speaks of 
 Christ as "the power of God, and the wisdom of God." 
 He speaks of "the depths of the wisdom of God." He 
 
188 
 
 uses this expression in connexion with the profoundest of 
 gospel truths. " Christ is made unto us wisdom, righteous- 
 ness, sanctification, and redemption.'^ ''We speak wisdom 
 among them who are perfect.'' " We speak the wisdom 
 of God in a mystery, even the hidden wisdom which God 
 ordained before the world unto our glory." In the whole 
 context of this passage, the Apostle describes the gospel 
 revelation as the manifestation of the highest form of divine 
 wisdom. " Whom we preach, warning every man, and teach- 
 ing every man in all wisdom." " In whom are hid all the 
 treasures of wisdom and knowledge." In the Epistle to the 
 Ephesians, he calls the deep truths of the gospel ''the 
 manifold wisdom of God." The term mystery is used by 
 the Apostle to denote this high form of apostolic wisdom : 
 " though I understand all mysteries and all knowledge." 
 The mysteries of the gospel are, in fact, those truths specially 
 revealed to the Apostles under theChristian dispensation. "And 
 to make all men know what is the fellowship of the mystery 
 which from the beginning of the world was hid in God, Avho 
 created all things by Jesus Christ ; to the intent that unto the 
 principalities and powers in heavenly places might be known 
 by the church the manifold wisdom of God." Here the 
 Apostle distinctly identifies the mysteries of the gospel with 
 the highest form of revealed wisdom. But St. Peter, in his 
 Second Epistle, describes the gift of wisdom as the gift 
 peculiarly apostolic : " even as our beloved brother, Paul, 
 according to the wisdom given unto him, hath written unto 
 you; as also in all his Epistles, speaking in them of these 
 things, in which are many things hard to be understood." 
 Here St. Peter expressly asserts that St. Paul wrote his 
 Epistles under the influence of the special gift of wisdom 
 with which he was endowed. He also describes the higher 
 truths contained in St. Paul's Epistles as the result of the 
 influence of this gift. 
 
 The gift of wisdom, therefore, is the supernatural endow- 
 ment Avhich formed the peculiar gift of apostolic men, by 
 which the deep truths of the Christian revelation were dis- 
 covered and imparted to their minds. 
 
189 
 
 We will examine fully the precise extent and degree of the 
 inspiration imparted by this gift, when we examine the nature 
 of the inspiration under the influence of which the Epistles 
 were composed. 
 
 The gift of prophecy holds the second rank among the 
 spiritual gifts. It is frequently mentioned in common with 
 the gift of tongues. It was a gift extensively bestowed on 
 the Church. It was not unfrequently imparted even to fe- 
 males. It occasionally afforded glimpses into futurity ; but 
 its proper function was to qualify the prophet to address the 
 Christian assembly on the subject of Christian truth. 
 
 In the Epistle to the Corinthians we learn that the gift of 
 prophecy was specially adapted for edification ; but it also 
 operated greatly for the conversion of unbelievers. This was 
 effected by affording the unbeliever a clear view of the 
 state of his own heart through the prophetic utterance. By 
 means of these disclosures the unbeliever Avas convinced of 
 all, he was judged of all^ and forced to confess that of a truth 
 God was present in the Christian Church. In the congrega- 
 tion itself, the influence of the gift enabled the prophet to 
 speak to ediflcation, and exhortation, and comfort. The 
 Apostle describes it as a very high spiritual gift. High gift as 
 it was, it admitted of l)eing abused no less than the gift of 
 tongues. Several prophets in the Corinthian church at- 
 tempted to address the assembly at the same time, and thereby 
 created confusion. To remedy this the Apostle directs that 
 only two, or at most three, prophets should speak at a single 
 church-meeting. But it was also possible that false prophe- 
 tical gifts should be obtruded on the Church instead of true 
 ones. The Apostle, therefore, directs that no prophet was to 
 speak in the assembly unless there was a prophet present who 
 possessed the gift of discerning of spirits, who was to act as 
 judge as to the nature of the prophetic utterance. The 
 owner of the gift was not urged on by violent and ungo- 
 vernable impulse ; the gift was possessed in complete subor- 
 dination to the supremacy of the rational will : " the spirits 
 of the prophets were subject to the prophets.'^ Being of 
 the highest importance for the edifying of the Church, the 
 
190 
 
 Apostle exhorts all Christians earnestly to desire its pos- 
 session. 
 
 We learn from this description of the gift, that'although the 
 prophet was occasionally inspired to utter predictions of the 
 future, this was not his proper function. It is a great mistake, 
 therefore, to view the utterance of predictions as affording 
 the chief exercise of the prophetic gift. If his proper func- 
 tion had been that of revealing the future, the prophetic gift 
 would not have received the high commendation of St. Paul. 
 A constant revelation of the future would be no blessing to 
 man : the knowledge of it is mercifully withheld from him. 
 His ignorance respecting what will happen forms part of his 
 necessary moral discipline. To reveal the future is no part 
 of the scheme of Divine Providence, The Apostle^s commen- 
 dation of the gift is founded on its edifying nature to the 
 Church. 
 
 The gift seems to have consisted of two branches — an ordi- 
 nary gift and one of a special character. When the prophet 
 exercised the special gift, he had a consciousness of an imme- 
 diate suggestion made by the Spirit to his mind : he was 
 then under the influence of conscious inspiration. But in the 
 usual form of the gift, the prophet does not seem to have 
 been able to discern between the mode of its action and that 
 of his other endowments. 
 
 A distinction of this kind is the only way of making some 
 of the Apostle's directions intelligible. When a prophet, who 
 was sitting by, received a direct suggestion, if another prophet 
 was speaking, as soon as he was informed that that prophet 
 had received a Divine communication, he was to sit down and 
 make way for the other prophet to communicate his inspired 
 message. We must suppose that the prophet who was speak- 
 ing must have been exercising some ordinary form of his gift, 
 or giving an account of some suggestion which he had received 
 previously to coming to the assembly ; for if he was equally 
 under the influence of a direct suggestion with the other, there 
 could be no reason why he should be silent before he had 
 dehvered his inspired message. This would be explained if 
 the ordinary form of the gift was exercised without a sense 
 
191 
 
 of direct suggestion. Its ordinary form seems to have endowed 
 the prophet with the qualifications needful for the work of 
 preaching. 
 
 The prophetic gift^ then, appears to be an extension of the 
 same gift as possessed by the Old Testament Church. It 
 differed, however, in one very important particular. In the 
 exercise of the gift the Old Testament prophets were frequently 
 hurried along by an overwhelming vehemence of impulse. In 
 the higher dispensation of the gospel, the prophetic influence 
 was always subject to the control of the rational will. That 
 will always retained its entire supremacy. 
 
 The prophetic gift as possessed by the Christian Church, 
 though affording occasional glimpses into futurity, had for 
 its especial function to communicate to the mind a deep per- 
 ception of the nature of spiritual and moral truth, so as to 
 apply it powerfully to the heart and conscience. It consisted 
 in a deep perception of truth as truth, and a corresponding 
 insight into the nature and character of the human mind, so 
 as to enable the prophet to apply it suitably to the state and 
 condition of the persons addressed. This was the ordinary 
 form of the gift. In its extraordinary form the prophet was 
 favoured with a direct consciousness of suggestion, and a par- 
 ticular truth was communicated to his mind by direct and 
 inimediate revelation. 
 
 If the gift of wisdom constituted the highest form of apo- 
 stolical inspiration, the gift of knowledge must have consisted 
 in a lower form of supernatural enlightenment. Judging from 
 St. PauFs use of the expression, the gift of knowledge, as a 
 supernatural gift, must have related to matters of a practical 
 description, to truths which have a direct bearing on the 
 human heart. If it was the gift of the teacher, it must have 
 involved the knowledge of such truths as enabled him ade- 
 quately to discharge his functions. But it would form no 
 portion of the ordinary functions of a teacher to communi- 
 cate fresh revelations from Heaven. His projjer and legiti- 
 mate province must have been to expound the revelation 
 already communicated. Accordingly we find that the word 
 knowledge is generally used in the New Testament to denote 
 
193 
 
 that form of truth which is practical. It means truth in that 
 form which is calculated to produce an immediate effect on 
 the heart. The Apostle writes, " that I may know Him, and 
 the power of His resurrection ; " " that ye may know the 
 love of Christ." In both these passages a divine knowledge is 
 spoken of in a practical form. " Though I understand all 
 mysteries and all knowledge ;" " whether there be knowledge, 
 it shall vanish away.^^ Here the term mysteries evidently 
 denotes the higher truths of the gospel — the proper subject- 
 matter of the apostolic gift of wisdom. By knowledge, there- 
 fore, must be intended an acquaintance with the lower forms 
 of Christian truth. 
 
 The term knowledge is used in the New Testament in a 
 more unrestricted sense for an intellectual acquaintance with 
 truth generally. St. Paul writes, " Knowledge puffeth up ; 
 but charity edifieth." But even here the Apostle uses the 
 term to denote such an enlarged acquaintance with Christian 
 truth as would raise a man above prejudices respecting meats 
 and drinks and outward ordinances. But in the sense in 
 which we are now speaking of it it had a special subject- 
 matter, so as to be a spiritual gift imparted to the mind, and 
 it did not extend over a vague generality of subjects. As a 
 supernatural gift, when its functions could be supplied by 
 ordinary human means, it would vanish away. As a gift 
 qualifying the possessor to fill the office of teacher, it must 
 have consisted in a general acquaintance with revealed truth, 
 especially in its practical bearing on the human heart. We 
 can see the necessity of such a supernatural gift in the infancy 
 of the Church, when it contained within it few men of trained 
 intellect ; and therefore we can estimate the reason which the 
 Apostle gives for the cessation of those gifts at the proper time : 
 '' When that which is perfect is come, that which is in part 
 shall be done away. Whether there be prophecies, they shall 
 fail ; whether there be tongues, they shall cease ; whether there 
 be knowledge, it shall vanish away.'^ When the Christian 
 revelation was fully communicated, and the Church firmly 
 rooted in the world, the occasion for supernatural gifts would 
 cease, and they would consequently be withdrawn. 
 
193 
 
 The three gifts of wisdom^ prophecy, and knowledge, when 
 united in the same person, would constitute the highest form 
 of that inspiration which was required for the purpose of com- 
 municating the great truths of the gospel revelation. 
 
 Immediately after these three gifts the Apostle places, as 
 next in importance, the two miraculous gifts. By the first 
 three gifts the Christian revelation was communicated ; by the 
 two miraculous gifts it was attested as coming from God. 
 
 It is most remarkable that in both lists the Apostle has 
 described them as distinct gifts. In the first list he has most 
 clearly asserted their distinct functions, and the possibility 
 that one could be possessed without the other. Had it not 
 been for this distinctness of the Apostle^ s assertions, we should 
 have concluded that they were separate forms of the same 
 gift. The nature of the distinction we can only learn from 
 the facts of the New Testament ; it is nowhere expressly 
 stated. 
 
 The Apostle uses the expression, ''the gifts of healings,^' 
 always in the plural number ; we may therefore conclude 
 that the gift had distinct branches. 
 
 The gift of miracles is described by the expression, evepytj- 
 fiara Suva/jiecov (inworkings of powers) . In the second list it is 
 designated by the expression 8uvd/ji6i<; (powers) . With respect 
 to this gift, the same expression is used by the Evangelist to 
 denote the view taken by Herod of our Lord's miracles, on 
 the supposition that he was John the Baptist risen from the 
 dead — al Svvd/ji€L<i ev avrw ivepjovat (the powers energize in 
 him) . The gift of miracles, therefore, enabled the possessor 
 to work miracles analogous to those wrought by our Lord. 
 They must have been of such a nature as to afford adequate 
 proofs of a divine mission. They were inworkings of power — 
 acts essentially and properly miraculous. 
 
 The second miraculous gift is called -x^apio-fiaTa la/xdrcov 
 (gifts of curings) . The term implies that it was a gift of a 
 lower nature, more analogous to the ordinary operations by 
 which cures are effected by the use of human means. 
 
 Most of the great miracles of the New Testament consisted 
 in cures wrought on the human body. Some of our Lord's 
 
 o 
 
194 
 
 were exceptions, and consisted in operations -wrought on out- 
 ward nature. But the essence of the difference in the two 
 gifts cannot consist in this distinction. The higher form of 
 miraculous power must have been frequently exerted in cures 
 wrought by our Lord. We cannot conceive of a higher form 
 of miracle than the cure of a person born blind, or a person 
 deaf and dumb, or devoid of a limb, or lame, or in raising the 
 dead by a word. Such actions must belong to the highest 
 exertions of miraculous power. 
 
 It is evident that there is a distinction in character between 
 the miracles recorded in the New Testament. Some, accord- 
 ing to human apprehension, are more unquestionably miracu- 
 lous than others. The exertion of power may be the same in 
 each ; but the one class of acts is more nearly allied to effects 
 coming within the range of the operation of ordinary means 
 than the other. In this must have consisted the distinction 
 between the two miraculous gifts. 
 
 There is obviously a wide distinction between the raising 
 of the dead, the cure of a man born blind, or the restoration 
 of a lost limb, and the expulsion of a demon, the cure of 
 an ordinary disease which is curable by human art, or the 
 anointing a sick man with oil in the name of the Lord 
 and his slow and gradual recovery. The power exerted in 
 each case may be divine ; but in the former class of actions 
 their miraculous nature is far more evident than in the latter. 
 These latter approach much more nearly to ordinary acts of 
 Providence. The former class of miracles would be clear and 
 indubitable proofs of the reality of a divine commission, and 
 constitute the divine attestation on which the evidences of 
 Christianity, as a divine revelation, rest. The other class may 
 be miraculous, but are capable of being referred to human 
 causes. 
 
 We conclude, therefore, that the first miraculous gift must 
 have consisted in the exercise of a power which was wholly 
 and essentially divine. The gift of healings consisted in a 
 lower exercise of such power, combined with the use of human 
 agencies. The general nature of such gifts would be fairly ex- 
 pressed in St. James's precept: — "Is any sick among you? let 
 
i95 
 
 him call for the elders of the church ; and let them pray over 
 him, anointing him with oil in the name of the Lord : and the 
 prayer of faith shall save the sick, and the Lord shall raise 
 him up ; and if he have committed sins, they shall be forgiven 
 him.^' 
 
 This act is not one which could he appealed to as a proof of 
 miraculous inspiration; but it must have been a power un- 
 speakably important to the Christian missionary, in awakening 
 attention, and in secui'ing for him a favourable reception. The 
 importance of such a power we can fully estimate when we 
 consider the beneficial effect, in promoting the missionary's 
 labours, with which medical skill is attended in modern mis- 
 sions. By conferring the greatest of human benefits, it 
 secures attention to the missionary when he speaks of divine 
 and spiritual truths. We need not wonder that, in the age 
 of the first planting of Christianity, such a power was supplied 
 by a supernatural gift. Some of the other spiritual gifts were 
 obviously intended to supply the lack of training and educa- 
 tion in the Church. A power analogous to that possessed by 
 the modern educated physician might, with equal propriety, 
 be afforded, not merely for the pui'pose of attesting the divine 
 origin of Christianity, but for exerting a benevolent influence 
 favourable to the propagation of the Christian faith. This gift 
 appears to have continued in the Church after the higher gift of 
 miracles had ceased. The reason for such continuance is ob- 
 vious. The higher gift of miracles was the direct testimony 
 of the Spirit, confirming the truth of the Apostles' testimony 
 to the Christian revelation as coming from God. The lower 
 gift was intended to afford facilities for the propagation of 
 Christianity among the unconverted. 
 
 As, then, the gifts of wisdom, prophecy, and knowledge 
 were the instruments for communicating the subject-matter 
 of the Christian revelation, so the gift of miracles formed its 
 divine attestation, and the gift of healing formed the great 
 means to assist its propagation in the world. 
 
 The gift of the power of discerning of spirits was one 
 which was suited for the purpose of qualifying the possessor 
 to exercise the office of government in the Church. The gift 
 
 o2 
 
196 
 
 and the function mutually correspond. No power would more 
 fit a man for exercising the office of government than the 
 power of discerning of spirits. 
 
 Such a power was particularly needed in the primitive 
 Church. A large portion of its members was collected from 
 the lower classes of society. The natural endowments of such 
 a class would have been particularly unsuited for the exercise 
 of authority. Circumstances of difficulty would arise^ requir- 
 ing the exercise of particular discretion on the part of the 
 officers of the Church. Among these would be the employ- 
 ment of proper persons^ well qualified for the work of preaching 
 to the heathen, for the careful guarding against imposition 
 in the management of the Church funds (to which, we know, 
 on the testimony of pagan Avriters, that the Christians Avere 
 liable), and for the maintenance of proper relations with the 
 civil authorities. In addition to difficulties calling for the 
 exercise of peculiar discretion in the rulers of the Church, 
 the entrance of Christianity into the world occasioned so 
 mighty a stir in the inmost spirit of man, that a deep power 
 of insight was required on their part to discern what was 
 genuine from what was false. There must have been fre- 
 quent occasion to " try the spirits whether they were of God," 
 because, together with what was genuine and holy, " many 
 false prophets had gone out into the world." The spirit of 
 delusion was at this time extremely prevalent, manifesting itself 
 in extravagances in every direction. The supernatural gift of 
 discerning of spirits would therefore be an endowment 
 exactly suited to the wants of the Church, and one exactly 
 corresponding to the office of government mentioned by the 
 apostle in his second list. It was an endowment both pos- 
 sessed and exercised by the Apostles. 
 
 There remains but one more gift in each list — the gift of 
 faith in the one list, and the office of helper in the other. 
 
 Respecting the nature of the office, we derive only a few 
 hints in the New Testament. Apostolic men were accom- 
 panied in their labours by a number of assistants. Luke, 
 Timothy, Silas, and several others accompanied St. Paul in 
 that capacity. He also describes Aquila and Priscilla as his 
 
197 
 
 helpers in Christ Jesus, who, for his life, laid down their 
 necks. To such persons we at once discern that a high 
 degree of faith would be a necessary endowment. 
 
 A supernatural gift of faith is mentioned (1 Cor. xiii. 2) : 
 '' Though I have all faith, so that I could remove mountains, 
 and have not charity, it profiteth me nothing.^' The Apostle, 
 in this chapter, is speaking of the gifts, not in the usual form 
 in which they existed, hut in their highest possible concep- 
 tion. He speaks " of the tongues of men and of angels," of 
 understanding " all mysteries and all knowledge," of having 
 '' all faith, so that I could remove mountains," of bestowing 
 all his goods to feed the poor, and giving his body to be 
 burned. The gift of faith here spoken of, therefore, repre- 
 sents that gift in its highest possible form. The allusion is to 
 our Lord's discourse after cursing the barren fig tree : '' If 
 you say to this mountain. Be thou removed, and be thou cast 
 into the sea, it shall be done." But the gift of faith was not 
 the same as the gift of working miracles. Faith was required 
 in the performer of a miracle, before it could be wrought. 
 But, as there were two distinct miraculous gifts, these gifts 
 must have imparted the necessary faith to enable them to be 
 called into successful operation. Our Lord, in His discourses, 
 invariably draws the attention of the hearer, by means of the 
 outward subject, to a spiritual reality. When He speaks of 
 faith, such as would remove mountains. He means faith capa- 
 ble of conquering difficulties equally insurmountable. The 
 gift of faith, therefore, Avould develope itself into an endow- 
 ment of supernatural courage. 
 
 Such an endowment would be particularly necessary to the 
 assistants of apostolical men in their labours. Aquila and 
 Priscilla had been called to lay down their own necks for 
 Paul. The frequent exposure of the missionaries to great 
 personal dangers in sudden tumults must have required the 
 endowment not only of moral but physical courage. To these 
 tumults, which must have constantly placed their lives iu 
 jeopardy, they were frequently exposed. Tlie supernatural 
 gift of faith, therefore, was a special endowment to qualify the 
 possessor to be the assistant of men in their apostolical 
 
198 
 
 labours, and would have been peculiarly necessary to one 
 filling the office of an evangelist : it would consist in such a 
 confidence in the Divine support and protection as would 
 produce the human virtues of courage, firmness, and presence 
 of mind. 
 
 Such, then, as far as can be gathered from the New Testa- 
 ment, were the supernatural gifts of the Spirit, the bestowing 
 of which was the fulfilment of our Lord's promises made to 
 the Apostles. These gifts, in their fulness, constituted the 
 apostolic inspiration. But each gift must have afforded an 
 inspiration within its respective bounds and functions. As 
 these gifts were extended largely among believers, a degree 
 of inspiration, which appertained to the respective gifts, must 
 have received a similar extension. The inspiration of the 
 Apostles diff'ered from that of others, in that they possessed 
 the gifts themselves in larger measure, possessed one gift 
 which was preeminently apostolic, and united the whole of 
 the gifts in their own persons. While the three gifts which 
 formed the chief instruments for communicating the Chris- 
 tian revelation were the gifts of wisdom, prophecy, and 
 knowledge, the two gifts of miracles, the gift of faith, the 
 gift of tongues and of interpretation contributed to its 
 establishment, and the gift of discerning of spirits ministered 
 to the good government of the Church. 
 
 IV. The greater part of these gifts, when once com- 
 municated, were permanently attached to the mind of the 
 possessor, and were subject to the control of the rational 
 will, in their exercise, in the same manner as any other 
 mental faculty. . 
 
 From this rule two of these gifts must be excepted, the 
 two gifts of miraculous power. Anything miraculous in their 
 operation must have depended on a distinct exertion of a 
 divine energy. A person possessing the gift, therefore, before 
 he attempted to work a miracle, would await a distinct inti- 
 mation of the Divine pleasure. One of these gifts involved 
 the actual attestation by the Spirit to the truth of the Chris- 
 tian revelation. Such an exertion of power could not have 
 been dependent on the volition of any human will : no 
 
199 
 
 person possessed of such a gift would attempt to call it into 
 exercise but at the suggestion of God Himself. 
 
 The gift of prophecy and of tongues^ as their phenomena 
 are described by St. Paul^ afford distinct proof that these 
 gifts were exercised in subordination to the rational will. 
 Each prophet could control his own gift in its exercise. 
 "The spirits of the prophets/^ says the Apostle, " are subject 
 to the prophets.'^ They were not impelled by ungovernable 
 impulse. In this point of view, the prophetic gift presented 
 phenomena strikingly contrasted with the pretended utter- 
 ances of heathen oracles or prophetic inspirations. Whatever 
 these oracles or inspirations were, or however they were pro- 
 duced, the descriptions which we possess of them have one 
 common feature. The influence aflecting the person pre- 
 tending to inspiration appeared to place him entirely beyond 
 the control of his own will. In all heathen inspiration, the 
 rational will was entirely dethroned from its supremacy. The 
 terms used to describe these pretended heathen inspirations 
 are all expressions which denote madness. The person sup- 
 posed to be inspired is always represented as fanatically 
 raving. The maddening influence of the god destroys the 
 exercise of all rational self-control. This deposition of the 
 will from its supremacy was usually attended with violent 
 bodily contortions. Of a similar description are the accounts 
 of the phenomena of various religious excitements in modem 
 times. In these the human soul, its reason and its will, 
 have passed under the empire and dominion of another. 
 Phenomena of this description have often been exhibited in 
 times of great religious excitement. They have been the almost 
 invariable accompaniments of all pretensions to inspiration. 
 But widely diflerent were the manifestations of the gift of pro- 
 phecy, as following the efiusion of the Holy Spirit : " He is not 
 the author of confusion, but of peace." Whatever phenomena 
 of the kind of which we have been speaking took place in the 
 apostolic Church, the Apostle asserts that they did not flow 
 from the gift which the Spirit imparted, but from the human 
 abuse of it. He gives special directions for the jDurpose of 
 repressing these abuses. As the whole passage throws great 
 
200 
 
 light as to the manner in which the exercise of these gifts 
 was subject to the control of the rational will^ we will para- 
 phrase it. 
 
 " The Spirit of God is not the author of confusion^ but of 
 peace. The confusion which has taken place flows from the 
 human abuse of these gifts ; but of that confusion God is not 
 the author. If a tongue is used in your assembly^ let only 
 two, or at most three, use it at one sitting of the Church ; 
 and let there be always one at hand who is able to interpret. 
 If there be no one present with the gift, let no tongue be 
 used. Let the possessor of the gift be content with speaking 
 unto himself and unto God. Let no more than two or three 
 prophets use their gift at one meeting of the Church ; and 
 for the purpose of preventing every spurious kind of pro- 
 phetic utterance, let one who possesses the gift of dis- 
 cerning of spirits, in addition to his prophetic gift, sit in 
 judgment on the nature of the matter uttered. Should 
 anything be specially communicated to any prophet^s mind, 
 let the prophet who is engaged in addressing the assembly be 
 silent, as soon as he shall be informed that another prophet 
 has received a special communication. I wish you all to 
 have the opportunity of exercising your gifts, but it must not 
 be done by a multitude attempting to speak at the same 
 time. If this practice is continued, the heathen will pro- 
 nounce you mad. I wish you all to speak in turn. You 
 will then all have the opportvmity of speaking, learning, and 
 being comforted. There is no difficulty about the matter. The 
 spirits of the prophets are under the prophets' own control. 
 Now if any man thinks that he has the prophetic gift, he 
 wiU best prove the existence of tlie true prophetic spirit by at 
 once acknowledging that the things which I write unto you 
 are the commandments of the Lord. If any man, after 
 these instructions of mine, continue in these courses, he 
 has no true prophetic spirit. Let him be ignorant." 
 
 It seems hardly possible that words could have been 
 framed to convey more clearly the fact that these spiritual 
 gifts were, in their exercise, subject to the control of the 
 possessor's will, than those used by the Apostle. Every direc- 
 
201 
 
 tion which he gives for regulating the manner in Avhich the 
 gifts were to be exercised is founded on that supposition. 
 Nothing more strongly shows the purpose of God not to 
 interfere with the ordinary laws of the mind more than was 
 necessary in communicating divine inspiration^ than His 
 having bestowed the supernatural gifts in such a manner 
 that they could be exercised in strict subordination to the 
 will of the possessor. 
 
 If the supernatural gifts were subject to the control of the 
 will in their exercise^ they must have existed in the form of 
 permanent endowments in the mind. A faculty which is 
 under the control of the will cannot depend upon a fluctua- 
 ting influence : it must have become a portion of the mind 
 itself. The spiritual gifts^ thereforCj must have been powers 
 not originally possessed by the mind^ but which^ when once 
 conferred^ became a permanent portion of its consciousness. 
 
 It follows^ from the direction given by the Apostle that 
 one possessing the power of discerning spirits was to sit as 
 judge during the prophetic utterance^ either that it was pos- 
 sible for a person to suppose that he was possessed of the 
 prophetic gift^ or had a special inspiration^ when he had not^ 
 or else that he must have been a deliberate impostor. This 
 fact proves that the prophetic influence was not always 
 attended in the mind with a clear consciousness of its divine 
 origin at the moment of utterance, but, on the contrary, acted 
 like the other mental faculties. Occasionally a conscious pre- 
 sence of inspiration from above must have actually existed. 
 The Apostle expressly asserts that there were times when a 
 prophet was distinctly conscious that he had received a 
 revelation. 
 
 We infer from this fact, that there must have been an 
 ordinary and an extraordinary exercise of the gift. In the 
 ordinary one, the prophet could not have perceived any 
 material difference, when he was exercising the gift, from the 
 usual state of his consciousness. But there were times when 
 the prophet was conscious that he had a distinct suggestion 
 made to his mind. In the one case the gift must have been 
 subject to the ordinary laws of human thought; in the other 
 
303 
 
 case it could not have been subject to them. The special 
 suggestion could not enter the prophet's mind at the bidding 
 of his will. Still the laws of the human mind were so far 
 observed;, that the will could dictate when utterance should 
 be given to the suggestion. 
 
 Nothing in the description of the prophetic gift is more 
 striking than the calmness Avith which that gift acted on the 
 mind of the person possessing it. None of the faculties of 
 the soul were overborne by it. There was no violence attend- 
 ing it^ no bodily contortion^ no hurrying of the prophet's 
 mind by uncontrollable impulse, no dethronement of the 
 supremacy of the rational will. This forms the high glory of 
 the New Testament inspiration : it stands out strongly con- 
 trasted with the same influence in the elder dispensation. In 
 the Old Testament, we read of the mind's being hurried away 
 from the power of conscious self-control by the prophetic 
 influence. Jeremiah declares that the word of the Lord 
 which was in him was like a fire which consumed him. He 
 would have resisted its impulses, but was unable. The 
 influence even seized on unwilling minds. Powerful eflects 
 on man's bodUy frame were not unfrequently its result. Saul 
 stripped himself naked under its influence. But in the case of 
 the New Testament gift, if the prophets were not calm, it was 
 no result of the gift itself : the individual mind of the pro- 
 phet was still delivering the sacred truth, with which it 
 was deeply penetrated. As in providence, so in revela- 
 tion, God wills man to be a fellow worker with Himself. 
 The individual mind itself, and even its peculiarities, are 
 used as the channel for the conveyance of divine truth. 
 The rational will of man constitutes his personality. The 
 object of Christianity is to restore that will to absolute free- 
 dom. Its supremacy, therefore, was neither invaded nor 
 interrupted in the communication of revelation. 
 
 We shall show the nature of the gifts of wisdom and know- 
 ledge, and the extent in which they formed endowments per- 
 manently attached to the minds of the possessors, when we 
 examine the nature and degree of the inspiration under the 
 influence of which the Epistles were composed. 
 
203 
 
 CHAPTER XII. 
 
 THE LIMITS OF THE INSPIRATION CONFERRED BY THE 
 SUPERNATURAL GIFTS. 
 
 The spiritual gifts were restricted iu their operation to the 
 peculiar subject-matter with which the gifts were connected. 
 They did not extend their influence beyond the sphere of that 
 subject-matter. While they conveyed supernatural guidance 
 within the influence of the gift, they did not confer a general 
 infallibility. They also admitted of being abused, like the 
 other faculties of the mind. 
 
 The fact that the spiritual gifts were restricted in their 
 operation to the definite subject-matter connected with the 
 gifts is not only obvious from the reason of the thing, but 
 it is definitely asserted by the Apostle. He distinctly aflirms 
 that each gift was a separate gift, having distinct and definite 
 functions. He declares that the Spirit divided them to each 
 individual severally in conformity with His own will. 
 
 It is evident that if these gifts could be separately possessed 
 by individuals, they must have had distinct and definite func- 
 tions. But this is not a mere matter of inference. The 
 Apostle compares the diff'erent gifts, in their operations, to 
 the dififerent members and functions of the human body. 
 Now the members of the body are all restricted in their 
 functions and operations. The eye has its own distinct func- 
 tion and operation, and invades that of no other member. 
 The ear has its distinct function. The feet have their func- 
 tions. In the same manner every member of the body 
 possesses its distinct function. To these members of the 
 body the Apostle compares the spiritual gifts. The spiritual 
 gifts, therefore, must have had distinct finictions, and distinct 
 subject-matter on which they operated. The eye cannot do 
 the work of the ear, nor the ear that of the nose, nor the feet 
 that of the hands. In the same manner, the gift of tongues 
 did not convey the gift of interpretation. The gift of pro- 
 phecy did not convey the power of discerning of spirits. The 
 
20J. 
 
 gift of knowledge did not involve that of faitli^ nor the gift of 
 faith that of wisdom. 
 
 Each gift must therefore have heen limited^ in the enlighten- 
 ment which it conveyed, to the special subject-matter imme- 
 diately connected with the gift itself. If several gifts were 
 united in the same person, the enlightenment which they 
 afforded would be confined within the range of the functions 
 of the combined gifts. Such is the case with the united 
 action of the members of the human body, to which the 
 action of the gifts is compared. Not only would not one gift 
 invade the functions of another, but several united gifts would 
 not confer supernatural knowledge on any point which lay 
 beyond the range of the separate gifts. The gift of wisdom, 
 confined as it was to the special subjects of a divine revela- 
 tion, would not enlighten the possessor on the principles of 
 natural philosophy. The gift of discerning of spirits would 
 afford no insight into the truths of geology. The three 
 united gifts of wisdom, knowledge, and prophecy would give 
 a person no supernatural knowledge on perplexing questions 
 of chronology. The discovery of such truths belongs to 
 human science. Such truths, therefore, could have no light 
 thrown upon them by gifts specially limited in their functions 
 to supernatural knowledge. 
 
 The fact that the gifts had each a separate function, and a 
 distinct subject-matter on which that function was exercised, 
 cannot be too carefully observed, because most of the difficul- 
 ties connected with inspiration have proceeded from extending 
 unduly the range of the supernatural gifts to subject-matters 
 wholly unconnected with them. It has been taken for 
 granted that, whenever we assert that a man is inspired, we 
 must assume his general infallibility. Nothing, however, can 
 be more fallacious than such an assumption. St. Paul ex- 
 pressly asserts that the gifts had each a distinct range. It is 
 absurd to suppose that they could convey infallibility beyond 
 the range of their respective functions, or, when several gifts 
 were possessed by a single person, beyond the range of their 
 united influence. It would be just as reasonable to confound 
 between the functions of the members of the human body, or 
 
205 
 
 to assert that the human body possessed powers beyond the 
 range of its united functions. 
 
 If^ then, the divine information conveyed by a special gift 
 was confined within the range of that gift, whenever a person 
 possessing that gift wandered within the range of the subject- 
 matter of another gift_, he would be entirely devoid of any 
 supernatural light on that subject. It would be the same 
 thing as if we were to attempt to supply by the use of the eye 
 the functions of the ear. The ear was not intended to give us 
 information on the subject of light. In the same manner, 
 the gift of interpretation gave no information on a matter 
 which pertained to the gift of discerning of spirits. On the 
 subject-matter connected with this last gift, its possessor 
 would have no other light than that afforded by his natural 
 powers, if he invaded the province of the interpreter. The 
 eye is a correct judge in matters of colour, but a very un- 
 trustworthy informant in matters of taste or smell. In a 
 similar manner, a person possessed of the gift of tongues, but 
 not of interpretation, would have been a very incorrect judge 
 whether the meaning of an utterance had been properly 
 expounded. 
 
 It is highly probable that persons who possessed the higher 
 gifts were likewise endowed with many of the lower. The 
 Apostles were certainly endowed with the inferior gifts. It 
 would be no difficult matter to prove that St. Paul possessed 
 them in their entireness. But although they possessed them 
 all, they were not all endowed with equal degrees of the same 
 gift. Still the general result is plain. The inspiration sup- 
 plied by the gifts could not have extended beyond the inspira- 
 tion furnished by their united powers. It afforded no general 
 enlightenment extending to every subject-matter on which 
 the human mind could exercise itself. An apostle would be 
 as ignorant on questions of geography as any other man who 
 was left to the use of his natural powers. It is a most re- 
 markable fact that the supernatural gifts admitted of abuse in 
 their exercise, in the same manner as any ordinary human 
 faculty. If Ave viewed the question on mere grounds of ante- 
 cedent probability, we should certainly have concluded that^ 
 
206 
 
 if a superuatiu'al gift liad been bestowed, a power to secure 
 the right use of that gift would have beeu communicated 
 along with the gift itself. But this supposition is expressly- 
 negatived by the testimony of St. Paul. Nothing can be 
 more clear from his assertions in his Epistles, than that the 
 supernatural gifts were as much open to abuse as the ordinaiy 
 faculties. This fact furnishes the strongest possible proof 
 that the inspiration supplied by the gifts was strictly limited 
 to their respective functions, and was not a mere indefinite 
 and general inspiration. 
 
 The degree in Avhich the gifts were actually abused in the 
 chui'ch at Corinth is most remarkable. The use made of the 
 gift of tongues and prophecy caused the church to incm* the 
 danger of being convei'ted into a Babel of confusion. The 
 desire of display in the exercise of the gifts was extreme. 
 " EA'ery one of you/' says St. Paul, "hath a psalm, hath a 
 doctrine, hath a tongue, hath a revelation, hath an interpre- 
 tation." The most unseemly results must have followed. 
 One could not have believed, on anything less than apostolic 
 testimony, that one possessing so high a gift as that of pro- 
 phecy could have been guilty of a disorderly use of it. But his 
 observations, and the precepts which he gives to regulate its 
 exercise, necessarily presuppose that a high state of disorder 
 existed in the chiu'ch even in reference to this very gift. If, 
 therefore, the possession of the gift did not confer the right 
 use of the gift, who will venture to argue that it could have 
 conferred a general infallibility beyond its proper subject- 
 matter ? 
 
 But the possession of the gifts did not prevent the existence 
 of other evils in the Corinthian chm'ch. This church was 
 largely endowed with gifts. St. Paul blessed God " that they 
 were enriched in all utterance, and in all knowledge, so that 
 they came behind in no gift /' yet in the celebration of our 
 Lord's Supper one was himgiy, and another was drunken. 
 The same church was animated by a vehement party-spri-it. 
 A numerous party set St. Paul's apostolical authority at 
 defiance. Their morality was far from piu'e. Had not the 
 Apostle interfered, a person who married his father's wife 
 
207 
 
 ■would have been retained in church-communion. There were 
 persons in the church who not only indulged most freely 
 in various philosophical speculations, but who denied the re- 
 ality of a bodily resurrection. This church, then, largely 
 endoTved as it was, had evidently no pretentions to the 
 possession of a universally infallible guidance : the guidance 
 did not extend beyond the range of the gifts. Probably the 
 same error prevailed among them as has prevailed in mo- 
 dem times, and many possessed ^th special gifts extended 
 the influence of those gifts beyond the range of their proper 
 functions. Those possessed of the inferior gifts mnst have 
 been greatly exalted, and refused to submit to the proper 
 influence of the superior, in the same manner as it frequently 
 happens that those who possess some inferior mental endow- 
 ment are so pufted up by it as to refuse their legitimate 
 influence to mental endowments of a far more exalted char- 
 acter. Hence would originate the resistance even to aposto- 
 lical authority by a niunerous party in this church. Endowed 
 with some of the inferior gifts, they would view themselves as 
 no less inspired than the Apostle himself. This is the only 
 principle on which we can explain the resistance to apostolical 
 authority, which we learn from the Epistles of St. Paul was 
 so frequent in the primitive Church. It ^vill also enable us to 
 understand how it was possible that doctrines difterent from 
 those taught by the Apostle obtained currency. Had it been 
 an admitted truth in the primitive Church that inspiration 
 was solely confined to the Apostles, the state of things to 
 which St. Paul so frequently alludes in his Epistles would 
 have been impossible ; but if the authority of other supposed 
 inspired teachers could be quoted, it becomes intelligible 
 enough. 
 
 The same gifts also diftered in the degree in which they 
 were imparted to different persons. This is impKed in the 
 words of St. Peter to have been the case even in the great 
 apostolical gift of wisdom : — " our beloved brother Paul also 
 according to the wisdom given unto him hath written unto 
 you ; as also in all his epistles, speaking in them of these 
 thinffs : in which are some things hard to be understood." 
 
208 
 
 In this assertion of St. Peter it is plainly implied that even 
 this gift admitted of degrees in the mode in which it was im- 
 parted. St. Paul's wisdom was of the highest order. It was 
 given unto him to be able to apprehend and explain divine 
 truths Avhich were hard to be understood. It implies that 
 some apostolic writers were not possessed of so high a power. 
 We can discover in each of the great apostolic writers a 
 different mode of contemplating and surveying truth. If St. 
 PauPs wisdom led him to describe the deeper portions of the 
 truth, St. James's wisdom led him to treat of that truth in its 
 practical form and in its outward manifestations. The gift of 
 prophecy, also, evidently admitted of degrees as to the extent 
 in which it was imparted. Various orders of minds had, 
 through the instrumentality of the gifts, to be illumined with 
 the heavenly light. The illumination afforded by inspiration 
 was not supplied in conformity with the requirements of some 
 abstract idea of humanity, but in accordance with the wants 
 and necessities of living men. 
 
 It is further evident that the spiritual gifts did not confer 
 a general infallibility, but that they were confined to their 
 distinct functions^ from the fact that they afforded no guaran- 
 tee as to the correctness of the conduct of the possessor. 
 The spiritual gifts possessed by the Apostles did not render 
 them infallible, or afford them a Divine guidance in the 
 ordinary actions of life, even in matters directly connected 
 with their ministry. The Apostles were inspired to teach 
 the Christian faith; they were not inspired to act the 
 Christian faith. 
 
 The conduct of an inspired teacher may have been often 
 liable to have doctrinal inferences deduced from it. It not 
 unfrequently would bear a close relation to the truth which he 
 taught ; but even to such points, the history makes it plain 
 that neither the apostolic inspiration nor the apostolic gifts 
 extended. 
 
 The nature of the supernatural direction which the Apo- 
 stles received through the prophetic gift, as to the places 
 where they should preach the gospel, is worthy of our atten- 
 tion. It Avas an influence only occasionally exerted. The 
 
209 
 
 intimations in the history arc distinct, that in ordinary cir- 
 cumstances they were left to the guidance of their own 
 minds. We will adduce a few examples. 
 
 Philip had a supernatural direction to preach the gospel to 
 the Ethiopian eunuch. St. Peter received a Divine injunction 
 to preach the gospel to Cornelius. St. Paul saw, in a vision, 
 a man of Macedonia saying, " Come over into Macedonia and 
 help us.'' From this St. Luke tells us that they gathered 
 that the Lord had called them to preach the gospel unto 
 them. Tlie warning, however, was not given in the form of 
 a direct command : the call to preach the gospel was an 
 inference from the vision. St. Paul's first apostolical journey 
 is expressly affirmed to have been undertaken by a special 
 suggestion of the Divine Spirit. St. Paul also informs us, 
 that his journey to Jerusalem for the purpose of deciding the 
 question about circumcision was undertaken by him in con- 
 sequence of a revelation made to that effect. On several 
 occasions, the historian informs us that, after the Apostle had 
 formed a plan of ministerial labour, he was hindered from 
 carrying it into execution by a special suggestion made by 
 the Spirit to his mind : " Now when they had gone throughout 
 Phrygia and the region of Galatia, and were forbidden of the 
 Holy Ghost to preach the word in Asia, after they were come 
 to Mysia, they assayed to go into Bithynia ; but the Spirit 
 suffered them not." 
 
 But no less distinct are the historian's assertions that on 
 ordinary occasions St. Paid was guided in forming his plans 
 of apostolical labour by the suggestion of human prudence. 
 The passage which Ave have just referred to is a singular 
 illustration of this fact. They went through Phrygia and 
 the region of Galatia. Respecting neither of these journeys 
 does the historian imply that they had any special suggestion 
 made to their minds. They proposed to travel into Asia : 
 this they were forbidden to do. They then came to Mysia : 
 no special suggestion is recorded. They proposed to go into 
 Bithynia : here they were hindered by the influence of the 
 Spirit. 
 
 Many of St, Paul's journeys arc expressly asserted to have 
 
210 
 
 been suggested to his mind by considerations of human 
 prudence. " And when there was an assault made both of the 
 Gentiles^ and also of the Jews with their rulers, to use them 
 despitefully, and to stone them, they were ware of it, and fled 
 unto Lystra and Derbe, cities of Lycaonia, and unto the region 
 that lieth round about : and there they preached the gospel." 
 Their departure from Lystra and Antioch is expressly declared 
 to have been occasioned by persecutions which they encoun- 
 tered in those cities. The danger of persecution induced the 
 brethren to send away Paul and Silas from Thessalonica to 
 Beroea. From Beroea ^^tlie brethren sent Paul as it were 
 to the sea; but Silas and Timotheus abode there still. And 
 they that conducted Paul brought him to Athens.'' In these 
 cases we have no Divine direction asserted or impHed, but 
 various human motives stated as the cause of the Apostle's 
 journeys. At Ephesus the historian records that the Apostle 
 expressly stated that he was directed in his journeys by no 
 other light than that of God's ordinary providence : " But 
 he bade them farewell, saying, I must by all means keep this 
 feast that cometh in Jerusalem ; but I will return again unto 
 you, if God will." This is not the language of a man who 
 felt that his journeys were always directed by a supernatural 
 guidance. 
 
 But we have St. Paul's own express testimony on this 
 subject. He informs us that more than once he purposed in 
 his mind to visit Corinth. After having formed this pui'pose, 
 he altered his resolution from prudential considerations : " to 
 spare you, I came not as yet unto Corinth." He tells the 
 Ephesian elders that he knew that those among whom he had 
 gone preaching the gospel should see his face no more. He 
 writes to the Romans, that he designed to take a journey into 
 Spain, and to visit them on his road. In the Epistles written 
 during his imprisonment at Rome, he declares his intention, 
 if set at liberty, to visit the churches in Asia Minor. He 
 even writes to Philemon to prepare him a lodging, so con- 
 fident was he of speedily undertaking this journey. He 
 must, therefore, have entirely abandoned his intention of 
 going to Spain after his visit to Rome, and must then have 
 
211 
 
 fully purposed to visit those very churches which, at his last 
 departure from them, he had told that they would see his face 
 no more. Such is not the conduct nor the language of a man 
 who felt that all his movements were directed by a super- 
 natural direction. 
 
 The state of the case is therefore clear. Some of the 
 Apostle's great joiu-neys were commanded or directed by the 
 Spirit ; the details of those journeys were left to the direction 
 of ordinary human prudence. Sometimes, when the Apostle's 
 judgment suggested what would have been contrary to the 
 interests of the gospel, he was specially restrained by the 
 influence of the Spirit ; at other times his human judgment 
 was left free and unfettered. 
 
 Nor is it less evident that in the course of his journeys no 
 supernatural provision was made to supply his wants, nor any 
 supernatural guidance afibrded him to obtain a supply by 
 ordinary means. His maintenance was generally due to the 
 labours of his own hands : when the supplies afforded by 
 those labours were insufficient, he was aided by funds con- 
 tributed by his converts. He himself tells us that he was 
 thrice shipwrecked; " a night and a day I have been in the 
 deep; in journey ings often, in perils of waters, in perils of 
 robbers, in perils by mine own countrymen, in perils by the 
 heathen, in perils in the city, in perils in the wilderness, in 
 perils in the sea, in perils among false brethren ; in weariness 
 and painfulness, in watchings often, in hunger and thirst, in 
 fastings often, in cold and nakedness." 
 
 From this passage it is evident that the Apostle was exposed 
 to a double set of dangers and sufferings — those which would 
 beset the zealous missionary, arising from furious opponents, 
 and those which would be the lot of the ordinary traveller. 
 From neither of these had he such a supernatural guidance 
 as to ensure his exemption from difficulties and dangers. His 
 condition required the exercise of prudence. As a missionary, 
 he was in danger from his zealous opponents the Jews, he 
 was exposed to the fierce attacks of the heathen mob, he 
 was in peril from the machinations of professed Christians 
 who were false brethren. As a traveller, he was exposed to 
 
 p2 
 
212 
 
 all the dangers to which journeys in difficult and dangerous 
 regions are liable, both by land and sea : he was in peril 
 from robbers ; he was in danger of hunger and thirst ; 
 he was exposed to cold and nakedness. The apostle neither ex- 
 pected nor experienced any alteration in the laws of nature for 
 his special protection. He received no supernatural guidance 
 to warn him of his dangers. He was possessed of no inspi- 
 ration to tell him Avhere, in inhospitable regions, he could get 
 needful supplies of food or clothing. He boldly trusted him- 
 self to the ordinary laws of God's providence, and to the 
 power of prudent foresight with which he was gifted, and 
 found them sufficient for his need. All such things lay 
 entirely beyond the illumination afforded by the supernatural 
 gifts with which even an apostle was endowed. 
 
 But it is most remarkable that in the important matter of 
 practice the supernatural gifts even of apostles affi)rded them no 
 special illumination, nor secured their infallibility. The great 
 truths which they were inspired to teach fully acted on their 
 minds : they w^ere influenced by them like other men ; but 
 their inspiration did not secure them from errors in con- 
 duct. The only infallible representation in practice of the 
 truths taught by him was the divine person of our Lord 
 Himself. 
 
 This want of supernatural guidance in practice is the more 
 remarkable, because it was possible by errors in practice to 
 compromise even the truths which an apostle taught. The 
 union between truth in a theoretical point of view, and truth 
 practically exhibited, is of a very intimate description. An 
 inspired person might deny practically what he taught theo- 
 retically. To do so was attended with danger to the faith. 
 We have the express testimony of St. Paul that even an 
 apostle could be guilty of this inconsistency. St. Peter had 
 been the instrument, in the hands of Providence, through 
 whom the doors of the Christian Church were thrown open 
 to the Gentiles. He was informed, by express revelation, 
 that outward distinctions between Jew and Gentile were 
 entirely abolished — that the hearts of both alike were to be 
 purified by faith, and that from henceforth no man was to be 
 
213 
 
 esteemed common or unclean. At the council assembled for 
 tlie purpose of determining the position which the Gentiles 
 were to occupy in the Church, he gave the full weight of his 
 authority to the truth that tlie Gentiles were freed from all 
 obligation to keep the law of Moses. Shortly after, he paid a 
 visit to the church at Antioch, and, in direct contradiction to 
 his own opinions expressed at the council, after having at first 
 freely eaten and conversed with the Gentiles, when certain 
 Jewish Christians made their appearance, he openly retired 
 from the society of the Gentiles and refused to eat with 
 them. 
 
 This act of Peter was of a very important character. He 
 said nothing with his mouth in contravention of his former 
 teaching. But wliat Peter did was most important, and 
 formed a practical teaching in the eyes of many; it even 
 induced an apostolical man like Barnabas to join him in the 
 act of dissimulation. 
 
 We shall be able better to estimate the importance of St. 
 Peter's conduct, when we consider that at this time Judaism 
 formed as strong a ground of separation from those who were 
 not Jews as the castes in India do at the present day among 
 themselves and from those who are men of no caste. Although 
 the theoretical grounds of the distinction may have been dif- 
 ferent, yet the distinction Avas equally real, and subversive of 
 the great truth wliich it was the end of Christianity to teach 
 — that the whole human race ahke, without distinction of 
 kindred, tongue, or nation, of barliarian, Scythian, bond or 
 free, are redeemed to God, and through faith united into one 
 Church by the blood of the Lamb. 
 
 But St. Peter's mthdrawing himself from the company of 
 the Gentiles did not simply affect a caste-question, important 
 as that was both doctrinally and practically. It led to 
 inferences directly contrary to other great truths of the 
 gospel. 
 
 St. Paul had maintained that it was a fundamental article 
 of Christian truth, that man is justified by faith, without the 
 deeds of the law. If St. Peter's conduct was justifiable, it 
 
?14 
 
 involved consequences which were subversive of that doc- 
 trine. 
 
 But whatever consequences might be deduced from the 
 conduct of St. Peter^ it was certain to act as a stumbling- 
 block to those weaker brethren in the Churchy the strength 
 of whose prejudices rendered it difficult for them to receive 
 the truth of the complete equality of Jew and Gentile. To 
 such it could only operate as a temptation to attach a high 
 importance to institutions which the gospel had utterly 
 abolished. 
 
 So dangerous, therefore, was St. Peter's conduct, that St. 
 Paul felt it his duty to rebuke him, though an older man and 
 a senior apostle, openly before the Church. In doing so, he 
 directly charged him with compromising the most impor- 
 tant of Christian truths by his compliance with Jewish pre- 
 judices. 
 
 This conduct of St. Peter at Antioch, and St. Paul's open 
 rebuke of him, require the most careful consideration in 
 estimating the nature of apostolic inspiration. According to 
 the views entertained by many respecting the nature of inspi- 
 ration, it would be in the highest degree improbable that one 
 apostle should have rebuked another for being guilty of com- 
 promising Christian truth. The fact proves to demonstration 
 that the inspiration even of apostles must have been the 
 result of the action of distinct functions, each limited in its 
 exercise to a definite subject-matter. 
 
 It has been often observed, in treating of this subject, that 
 St. Peter was guilty of a sinful act of weakness. He was so 
 undoubtedly; and he was guilty of a sinful weakness which 
 directly compromised Christian truth, and led, by a fair in- 
 ference, to a doctrinal error. It is most important that this 
 should be kept carefully in view in estimating the nature of 
 inspiration. St. Paul therefore uses, respecting the conduct 
 of St. Peter, the strong expression, " that he walked not 
 uprightly according to the truth of the gospel," and that he 
 compelled '^the Gentiles to live as do the Jews." St. Paif 
 considered that the inference which might be deduced from 
 
216 
 
 St. Peter's conduct was, that the law of Moses was necessary 
 to salvation, and that faith alone in the Redeemer was not suf- 
 ficient ; and that if St. Peter was looked upon as inspired in 
 his conduct 'equally as in his teaching, erroneous views of 
 Christianity were deducible from his conduct. 
 
 If we were to form our views of the nature of apostolic 
 inspiration on mere grounds of antecedent probability, and 
 not on the facts of the New Testament, we should not unrea- 
 sonably have assumed that the special apostolic gifts would 
 not have been so rigidly^limited to actual teaching, but 
 that they would have secured the possessor from those errors 
 in conduct from which doctrinal errors were fairly deducible. 
 But the facts of the New Testament contradict such a 
 theory, however apparently probable, exactly in the same 
 way as the facts of creation contradict numerous theories as 
 to the mode in which God must have acted as Creator and 
 Preserver of the universe. Nothing can be a more emphatic 
 warning against having recourse to such theories in ascer- 
 taining the nature of the inspiration with which the New 
 Testament has been composed. 
 
 The danger arising from St. Peter's conduct is more 
 strongly impressed upon us when Ave consider the character 
 of the Jewish Christians. The doctrine of the equality of 
 Jew and Gentile in God's Church was to them peculiarly 
 distasteful — one which they could with the utmost difficulty 
 receive. They must have viewed the assertion of it as 
 almost disproving a pretension to divine inspiration. To 
 persons with such prejudices, the conduct of St. Peter 
 must have been a sore temptation : it must have seemed 
 like a direct confirmation of their views by the senior 
 Apostle. 
 
 It is evident, from the nature of the views and prejudices 
 entertained by them, that Jewish Christians who were pre- 
 sent would be only too ready to catch at anything, coming 
 from such an authority, Avhich could be urged as giving a 
 support to their opinions. Numbers, beyond question, con- 
 sidered St. Paul as a renegade. He had been their perse- 
 cutor; and they were not unlikely to argue that, like all 
 
216 
 
 persecutors and violent men, having abandoned his original 
 faithj he had now adopted views no less extreme in the 
 opposite direction. When they saw Peter withdraw from 
 holding intercourse with the Gentiles, they would natui'ally 
 say, " The throwing open of all the privileges which are the 
 just inheritance of the seed of Abraham is nothing but an 
 invention of that renegade and pretended apostle Paul. 
 Men with our spiritual gifts have had no such revelation 
 made to them. We actually saw the apostolic Peter leave 
 the company of such pretended Christians, and decline to eat 
 with them who refuse to enter the kingdom- of God through 
 the gate of circumcision. Paul has been pretending that the 
 only needful qualification for the enjoyment of all the bless- 
 ings of the kingdom of heaven is faith alone. It is plain 
 that St. Peter holds no such opinion. He thinks all who 
 have not the seal of the covenant polluted. With such per- 
 sons he Avill not even eat. He must think them spurious 
 Christians — an inferior caste. The so-called doctrine of justi- 
 fication by faith is only an invention of that apostate Paul, 
 who, after having ravaged the Church of God, is now 
 attempting to destroy all the privileges which are the heir- 
 loom of the children of Abraham. Peter's actions prove 
 plainly enough that he has only shown a little weakness in 
 yielding to the pressure put upon him : it is evident that 
 his real opinion is, that the only gateway into the kingdom 
 God is through our rites and ordinances.^' 
 
 Had the gifts of the Spirit guaranteed St. Peter's conduct, 
 such reasoning would have been irresistible. Unless we clearly 
 understand the real nature of the spiritual gifts, that they each 
 possessed a definite function, and were each exerted on a 
 distinct subject-matter, the argument will still possess no 
 small degree of plausibility. But the gifts of the Spirit only 
 exerted their influence within the distinct subject-matter 
 appertaining to the gift, and left the person possessing them 
 subject to ordinary human influences, beyond the range of 
 the special function. The apostolic gift of wisdom, even 
 when united with the gift of knowledge and the prophetic 
 gift, afforded only a supernatural guidance as to truth in its 
 
217 
 
 direct statement. The gifts afforded no such guidance in 
 matters of practice. In practice, apostles Avere on a level 
 with other holy men ; they were capable of being led away 
 by sinful infirmities. While Peter is teaching the great 
 truths of the Christian religion, the guidance of the super- 
 natural gifts with which he is invested will prevent him from 
 saying anything contrary to truth. In action he is without 
 such guidance. St. Paul's rebuke of St. Peter is equivalent 
 to saying, " You must be guided by what Peter preaches, not 
 by what Peter does.'' The error of the Jewish Christians con- 
 sisted in supposing that inspiration conferred universal in- 
 fallibility. 
 
 In giving us this narrative of St. Peter's sinful compliance 
 with Jewish prejudices, St. Paul sets before us the limit beyond 
 which the infallibility of the Apostles did not extend. Their 
 infallibility was specific, not general. The definite subject of 
 their inspiration was the teaching of the truths of the 
 Christian revelation, and the giving directions for the regula- 
 tion of the Church. When they went beyond their proper 
 functions, they spoke as men. Their human judgments are 
 to be regarded as the judgments of those '' who had received 
 mercy of the Lord to be faithful," but must not be treated 
 as divine oracles. 
 
 The Jewish converts, therefore, in inferring apostolic truth 
 from apostolic practice, mistook the limits of inspiration. 
 Those who in modern times infer their general inspiration 
 from their particular inspiration are not the imitators of St. 
 Paul, but of his Jewish adversaries. 
 
 We are not without proof that Paul and Barnabas were 
 subject to similar infirmities. In their case, however, their 
 errors in conduct only proved that they were subject to 
 human weaknesses, and possessed on such subjects no infalli- 
 ble guidance to direct them. They did not compromise 
 Christian truth. 
 
 The facts, as they are narrated by St. Luke, are well 
 known. Paul and Barnabas had formed the plan of a fresh 
 missionary journey. Barnabas had made up his mind that he 
 would take as his assistant his nephew, John Mark, who 
 
218 
 
 had deserted them on their former journey. Of this deser- 
 tion Paul retained so Hvely a recollection that he had 
 made up his mind that he should not accompany them 
 in the mission. The sequel is best told in the language of 
 St. Luke : — '' the contention was so sharp between them, 
 that they departed asunder one from the other : and so 
 Barnabas took Mark^ and sailed unto Cyprus ; and Paul chose 
 Silas and departed, being recommended by the brethren unto 
 the grace of God. And he went through Syria and Cilicia, 
 confirming the churches/' 
 
 It has been often remarked that this brief statement of 
 St. Luke affords melancholy proof of infirmity in the best of 
 men. This is true ; but our concern with it is to ascertain 
 what inferences are deducible from it as to the nature of 
 apostolical inspiration. 
 
 The assertions of St. Luke make it plain that neither Paul 
 nor Barnabas were assisted by supernatural guidance, even 
 in the organization of a mission. They evidently had no 
 expectations of receiving Divine direction on such a subject. 
 The whole passage which we have quoted describes them as 
 acting under the suggestions of mere human feelings. Their 
 separation was the result of a personal disagreement. Had 
 they possessed any acknowledged way of seeking the Lord's 
 pleasure on such subjects, they would doubtless have had 
 recourse to it for the purpose of settling their disagreement. 
 But they had no authority to which they could appeal. They 
 were firm men, and their disagreement ended in the break- 
 ing up of their common mission. 
 
 It is needless to determine which was in the wrong ; pro- 
 bably both were. St. Paul's subsequent reconciliation with 
 Mark, and his desire to employ him in the ministry, look 
 like an admission that on this occasion he was influenced by 
 a hasty judgment. The ties of relationship seem to have 
 influenced Barnabas, Both were apostolical men. Both are 
 called apostles. A dispute arises between them on a point 
 directly connected with their vocation as preachers of the 
 gospel. Neither would yield to the other. They felt that 
 they had no supernatural direction to which they could 
 
219 
 
 appeal. It was a subject lying beyond the influence of their 
 inspiration. Their contention was sharp. Their only solu- 
 tion was separation. 
 
 It has been often remarked^ in connexion with this dis- 
 agreementj that Divine Providence overruled the contention 
 of these holy men for good^ in the sending out two missions 
 instead of one. Such a double mission arose out of their 
 contention ; but who can certainly tell us whether the pro- 
 gress of Christianity would have been more promoted by 
 their conjoint or by their separate mission ? Divine Provi- 
 dence overrules all existing evil for good. But our inquiry is. 
 What is the bearing of this contention ^on the nature of 
 apostolic inspiration ? 
 
 The answer which must be returned is, that the narrative 
 in question affords the strongest proof that the conduct of 
 apostles was not overruled by the inspiring Spirit. The 
 regulation of the mode of prosecuting their missions was, 
 with occasional exceptions, left to their ordinary human judg- 
 ments. On such subjects they could form difierent opinions 
 as to what was right. They could engage in a sharp conten- 
 tion, when they disagreed about their missionary work. 
 They had no supernatural guidance, to which they could 
 have recourse to settle the points at issue between them : 
 their mode of solving them was the same as that which 
 other men are compelled to have recourse to under similar 
 circumstances; it was separation. 
 
 There are other cases in which it is doubtful whether St. 
 Paul did not fall into error on matters of practice in con- 
 nexion Avith his ministry. Eager supporters of the theory of 
 the infallibility of the Apostles have endeavoured to prove 
 that St. Paul was in the right on these points. Whichever 
 way that question may be determined, a consideration of the 
 facts presented by the history will throw great light on the 
 nature of the apostolic inspiration. (We have already shown 
 that the gifts of the Spirit were of such a nature as to leave 
 his character as a teacher of divine truth entirely independent 
 of all such considerations.) 
 
 The means which St. Paul employed, on his last visit to 
 
220 
 
 Jerusalem, for the conciliation of the Jewish Christians, in 
 conformity with the advice of St. James and the elders, were 
 unquestionably open to inferences by which persons with a 
 Judaizing bias might have confirmed themselves in their 
 errors, if the actions of the Apostle had been equally the 
 result of inspiration with his teaching. Acting in conformity 
 with the advice of St. James and the elders, for the purpose of 
 conciliating his opponents and preventing a tumult, he 
 joined several Jews in the discharge of a Nazarite vow. The 
 whole history leads us to the conclusion that in such cases 
 apostles were wholly unconscious of any supernatural assist- 
 ance to which they could appeal for direction. The follow- 
 ing is the historian^s account of the transaction : — 
 
 " And the day following Paul went in with us unto James ; 
 and all the elders were present. And when he had saluted 
 them, he declared particularly what things God had wrought 
 among the Gentiles by his ministry. And when they had 
 heard it, they glorified the Lord, and said unto him. Thou 
 seest, brother, how many thousands [Greek, "ten thousands"] 
 of Jews there are which believe; and they are all zealous 
 of the law : and they are informed of thee, that thou 
 teachest all the Jews which are among the Gentiles to for- 
 sake Moses, saying that they ought not to circumcise their 
 children, neither to walk after the customs. What is it 
 therefore? the multitude must needs come together; for 
 they will hear that thou art come. Do therefore this 
 that we say to thee : We have four men which have a 
 vow on them ; them take, and purify thyself with them, and 
 be at charges vdtli them, that they may shave their heads, 
 and all may know that those things whereof they were informed 
 concerning thee are nothing; but thou thyself also walkest 
 orderly, and keepest the law. As touching the Gentiles which 
 believe, we have written and concluded that they observe no 
 such thing, save only that they keep themselves from things 
 offered to idols, and from blood, and from things strangled, 
 and from fornication. Then Paul took the men, and the next 
 day purifying himself with them entered into the Temple, to 
 signify the accomplishment of the days of purification, until 
 
221 
 
 tliat an offering should be offered for every one of them. 
 And Avhen the seven days were almost ended, the Jews which 
 were of Asia, Avhen they saw him in the Temple, stirred up 
 all the people, and laid hands on him/^ 
 
 St. Paul had taught everywhere, not only that the observance 
 of the Jewish law was no longer necessary for salvation, but 
 that the rites of that law, now that the reality which they 
 typified was come, were in themselves of no spiritual value to 
 either Jew or Gentile. He had taught that the whole of the 
 Temple worship and ceremonies had been fulfilled in Christ, 
 and, being thus accomplished in Him, they were now weak and 
 beggarly elements. He had not objected that men who were 
 born and educated in Judaism might continue the observance 
 of their national customs, provided that they neither taught 
 nor held that they were essential to salvation. 
 
 This was the precise point at issue between St. Paid and 
 the Judaizing Ciunstians. He did not oppose the observance 
 of their customs as harmless institutions ; but he strongly 
 affirmed that if it was maintained that they had an essential 
 spiritual value, it was a denial of the great truths of the gos- 
 pel revelation. 
 
 Great numbers of Jewish Christians were unable to receive 
 this teaching. They not only clung to their rites as national 
 institutions, but, at least a large party among them, believed 
 and taught that they ought to be incorporated with Christia- 
 nity. This was the party who followed the Apostle closely in 
 all his missionary labours, and endeavoured, in opposition to 
 him, to scatter the seeds of their doctrines in nearly every 
 chm'ch which he had planted. To this party he gave the 
 sternest opposition, and declared that he would afford them 
 " place by subjection, no, not for a single hour." 
 
 When St. Paul presented himself to the elders of the Jewish 
 church, they inform him of the greatness of the numbers of 
 the believing Jews — many ten thousands, as they say, — and 
 that they were all zealous for the law. Their zeal for the law 
 differed probably considerably in different sections of the 
 church. Among these many thousands of believing Jews, 
 
223 
 
 some would hold to the law more or less as a matter of na- 
 tional custom ; others would hold that it was essential to sal- 
 vation. Both parties^ however^ agreed in zealously supporting 
 its observance. 
 
 Various reports of what the Apostle had taught among the 
 Gentiles had reached the ears of both parties in the Jewish 
 Churchy and had produced a very unfavourable impression 
 respecting him. Some of these reports exceeded the 
 truth. They had been informed that the Apostle had gone 
 the length of teaching the Jews who were living among the 
 Gentiles to forsake Moses^ by not circumcising their children, 
 nor observing the customs. By these and similar reports the 
 Apostle's name had become odious to both parties in the 
 Jewish church; as a subverter of their national faith and pri- 
 vileges. 
 
 St. James and the elders apprehended that the news of the 
 Apostle's arrival would create a tumult. The language used 
 by St. Luke implies that they apprehended that it would not 
 be confined to unbelieving Jews, but that there was a danger 
 that the prejudices of a portion of the Jewish Christians would 
 lead them to take part in it. '' The multitude," say they, 
 " must needs come together ; for they will hear that thou art 
 come." The multitude which they have just referred to, and 
 the only multitude mentioned in the passage, is the many 
 thousands of professed Jewish believers who were all zealous 
 for the law, and who were stated to Idb prejudiced against the 
 Apostle from the reports which had reached them respecting 
 his teaching. 
 
 St. James and the elders therefore formed a plan which 
 they hoped would obviate the danger. St. Paul had been in 
 the habit among the Jews of living as a Jew, that he might 
 gain the Jews. He had adopted their mode of living, as far 
 as he could honestly, for the purpose of conciliating them. 
 There were four Christian Jews who had taken on them the 
 Nazarite's vow. Being poor, they were under some difficulty 
 about the expense of the offerings which they had to offer on 
 its termination. It was esteemed a no small act of piety 
 
233 
 
 among the Jews to assist sucli persons with the requisite pe- 
 cuniary supplies. King Agrippa had acquired a considerable 
 reputation for zeal by doing so. St. James and the elders 
 advise St. Paul to join these men in the performance of their 
 vow, and to bear the expense of the requisite sacrifices. 
 
 They evidently expected by this device to afford palpable 
 proof that the charge which the Jewish Christians had heard, 
 that the Apostle taught the foreign Jews to forsake Moses, 
 was a calumny, and thus to allay the danger of a tumultuous 
 assembly, and to remove the prejudices of the more en- 
 lightened portion of the members of the Jewish church. 
 The Apostle complied with the advice which was offered 
 to him. While he was in the Temple performing the in- 
 junctions of the law, the Jews fell upon him. What had been 
 planned for the purpose of conciliation became the im- 
 mediate occasion of the outbreak of the tumult which it 
 was intended to allay. 
 
 It is doubtful to what extent the act which we have been 
 considering was, or was not, a compromise of the great princi- 
 ples of the gospel. The Apostle himself, doubtless, viewed it 
 it as a condescension to the prejudices of weaker brethren. 
 Acting on the principle of conciUation, he had formerly cir- 
 cumcised Timothy, whom he designed to be an assistant in his 
 labours. The Jews would not otherwise have associated with 
 him. Conformity to the ordinary customs of Jewish life is 
 an intelligible principle of action, and, if entered upon for the 
 purpose of inducing Jews to attend to Christian teaching more 
 readily, compromised no great principle. 
 
 But the engaging in the performance of a Nazarite vow 
 was a very different thing from the circumcising of Timothy, 
 or conforming to the customs of ordinary Jewish life. The 
 vow of the Nazarite was a vow purely voluntary. A man 
 might lead the life of a consistent Jew without making this 
 vow : the law neither required nor commanded it. Our 
 Lord, who came to fulfil all righteousness, and, therefore, 
 who submitted to all the legal ordinances of the Jewish 
 Chui'ch, never made this vow. At its termination, it involved 
 the necessity of offering a sacrifice. If not an act of super- 
 
224 
 
 erogation, it was an act which a Jew was free to do or to leave 
 undone. 
 
 If the Apostle did not offer a sacrifice himself, the part 
 which he undertook to perform rendered it necessary that he 
 should defray the expenses of those who offered them. St. 
 Paul himself unquestionably held that the offering of the one 
 great sacrifice on Calvary had for ever rendered all other sac- 
 rifices useless. Whatever might be the case with the other 
 Jewish ritesj it is difficult to conceive how the Apostle could 
 view the offering of a sacrifice in any other light than as an 
 invasion of the solitary dignity of the great sacrifice on the 
 cross. Sacrifices could have been no longer typical. 
 
 The act was therefore liable to misconstruction, and was 
 certainly open to a doctrinal inference adverse to the sole 
 efficacy of the one great offering once for all offered on the 
 cross, and to the great doctrine of the ncAV covenant that 
 all Christians are priests, able to offer the acceptable offering 
 of prayer and praise to God througli the one great High 
 Priest of the Christian calling. There must have been num- 
 bers of the Apostle's enemies who would be quite ready to put 
 such an interpretation on it. Many a Judaizer could hardly 
 help feeling a secret exultation when he heard that the great 
 maintainer of the doctrine of justification by faith alone was 
 going into the Temple to announce to the priests the duties 
 which he had undertaken. He would say in his heart, " That 
 Paul is bold enough among the Gentiles ; but Avhen brought 
 under the influence of the leaders of the Jewish church, he 
 does not dare to maintain his views. Nay, he does more ; he 
 is not content to live like an ordinary Jew, but he actually 
 undertakes to perform vows which the strict letter of God's 
 law does not require, and to assist at the offering of sac- 
 rifices which he has been teaching among the Gentiles have 
 lost all value and efficacy.-" 
 
 To persons who would entertain feelings of this descrip- 
 tion (and they could not have been few), the act of the Apostle 
 could hardly help proving a stumbling-block. 
 
 But, for our present purpose, we have no occasion to deter- 
 mine the degree in which the act of the Apostle was a stum- 
 
225 
 
 bling-block in the way of Jiulaizers. Every word used by 
 the historian implies most distinctly that neither St. James 
 and the elders in giving the advice, nor St. Paul in complying 
 with it, acted under the influence of supernatural guidance. 
 Every fact recorded contradicts such a supposition. 
 
 If St. Paul received supernatural guidance on the subject, 
 he would have had no need of the advice of St. James and the 
 elders. They would, in fact, have hardly ventured to advise 
 him on a subject on which they knew him to possess distinct 
 illumination from above. St. Paul himself has informed us that, 
 on subjects upon which he possessed the light of inspiration, he 
 never had recourse for guidance to any human authority. He 
 did not even go up to Jerusalem for the purpose of learning 
 from the original witnesses the chief facts of ourLord^s ministry. 
 What he learned from the revelation of Jesus Christ he would 
 not learn from man. Had the Apostle been conscious that he 
 was on this occasion under the influence of divine inspiration, 
 he would not have advised with St. James and the elders as 
 to what Avas fitting to be done. 
 
 Nor do St. James and the elders claim any inspiration 
 on the subject. If they did, they must have known that St. 
 Paul's inspiration was equal to their own. It is inconceivable 
 that one inspired person should advise another inspired per- 
 son on points upon which the one knew that the other was under 
 the influence of supernatural guidance. 
 
 They gave the reason on account of which they tendered 
 their advice — their fear of a tumult, and the consequent dan- 
 ger to St. Paul's person. They hoped that, by complying with 
 the advice, the tumult woidd be averted. 
 
 The very steps which they took to avert this danger from 
 the Apostle became the immediate occasion of the seizure of 
 his person and his four years' imprisonment by the Roman 
 government. It is incredible that they adopted such a course 
 by the suggestion of the inspiring Spirit. 
 
 It is evident, therefore, that even on points of this descrip- 
 tion, so intimately bearing on their apostolic character, apo- 
 stles received no supernatural guidance from above. It was a 
 subject which lay entirely beyond the range of the superna- 
 
2.26 
 
 tural gifts with which they were endowed ; and beyond the 
 functions of those gifts they possessed no supernatural en- 
 lightenment. 
 
 But there are other subjects on which an infallible guidance 
 has been claimed for inspired men^ without any authority 
 either from the facts or the assertions of the Scriptures to 
 sustain such claim. 
 
 There are certain well-known difficulties respecting the 
 chronology of the Old Testament as it is commonly received, 
 and certain chronological statements made by St. Paul. 
 Various solutions have been proposed for the purpose of 
 reconciling the one with the other, as if the inspiration of the 
 Apostle as a teacher of divine truth could be at all affected 
 by questions of chronology. 
 
 To adduce a single example. In his discourse at Antioch, 
 St. Luke reports St. Paul to have said, " He gave them judges 
 by the space of 450 years, until Samuel the prophet." It 
 has been supposed necessary, for the purpose of maintaining 
 the Apostle's inspiration, that a theory should be invented 
 whereby this statement should be reconciled with the sup- 
 posed chronology of the Book of Judges. 
 
 Difficulties connected with such questions never would have 
 existed unless theories of inspiration had been invented which 
 neither the facts of the New Testament warrant nor its asser- 
 tions justify. Where is the promise of our Lord to be found 
 which aserts that He would make the Apostles adepts in 
 the knowledge of chronology ? By which of the supernatu- 
 ral gifts was such knowledge imparted ? Questions of chro- 
 nology have nothing to do with the salvation of man, or with 
 the great truths of the Christian revelation. Not one single 
 truth connected with the well-being of man, for time or for 
 eternity, can be affected by determining the question whether 
 the Judges bore rule for 450 or 4500 years. Whatever num- 
 ber of years may have elapsed between the call of Abraham 
 and the deliverance from Egypt may be a curious question, 
 interesting to chronologists, but does not affect one truth of 
 Christianity recorded in the gospel. It is a low view to take of 
 the piarposes of revelation, to think that Christ came, or 
 
997 
 
 the supernatural gifts of the Spirit were imparted, to teach 
 us truths of this description. The Apostles, in their days of 
 ignorance, imagined that it was within the purpose of our 
 Lord's mission to give men warnings against the yeast used 
 by the Pharisees : to think that Christianity can be affected 
 by questions of chronology is only one degree removed from 
 such perversity. 
 
 The object for Avhich Christ appeared to St. Paul was not 
 to impart to him a new system of chronology, but to make 
 him a witness of His resurrection, and to enlighten his mind 
 on truths connected with the everlasting well-being of man- 
 kind. The supernatural gifts of the Spirit were communi- 
 cated, not for the purpose of solving dubious points of history, 
 but to open the mind of the Apostles to the end and design of 
 the Incarnation ; to reveal to them the great truths of the 
 Christian revelation ; to bring to the minds of the Apostles 
 whatever Christ had said unto them, and to afford a miracu- 
 lous attestation to the truth of their testimony. What right 
 have we to assume that, because St. Paul was put in trust 
 with the gospel, and supernaturally assisted in the discharge 
 of that trust, so that when he treated of gospel truth his 
 assertions were to be received, not as the " word of men, but 
 .of God'' — or because, when He gave commands for the 
 regulation of the churches, " the things which he wrote unto 
 them were the Lord's ; " that he was inspired with a superna- 
 tural knowledge of chronology or history, without the smallest 
 support for such an assumption in one single assertion in the 
 New Testament ? His Old Testament chronology might have 
 been that which he had learned in the school of Gamaliel. If 
 he had learned a system of chronology there, there is nothing in 
 his assertions respecting his own inspiration, or in the pro- 
 mises of our Lord, which requires us to believe that the de- 
 fects of Gamaliel's chronology would be corrected by inspira- 
 tion. 
 
 It has been asked. If St. Paul gives a false chronology, how 
 can we know that any of his assertions on any of the great 
 subjects of the Christian revelation are to be relied on ? The 
 ansAver is very simple : Because the one subject lies within the 
 
 q2 
 
228 
 
 functions of the supernatural gifts with which he was endowed, 
 and the other beyond their limits. To take a human example : 
 we might as well inquire, if an eminent lawyer occasionally 
 administers medicine to the members of his family, how we 
 can be certain, if he is wrong in his prescriptions, that he is 
 right in his legal opinions. 
 
 We have now considered the nature of the spiritual gifts, 
 as far as they constitute apostolic inspiration. We have 
 arrived at the conclusion that they each conveyed a separate 
 and distinct knowledge to the mind of the possessor. Within 
 the range of their operation, they conferred infallibility ; be- 
 yond the range of their respective functions, they conveyed 
 no supernatural knowledge, not even on subjects very closely 
 connected with the proper functions of inspiration. The 
 spiritual gifts were strictly limited to the conveyance of such 
 knowledge as formed the proper subject-matter of a divine 
 revelation, and conferred no general infallibility on subjects 
 connected with revelation and not forming an integral por- 
 tion of its contents. 
 
 We must now consider the last promise of supernatural 
 guidance made by our Lord, and the meaning which general 
 promises of this description are intended to convey. 
 
 Our Lord repeatedly warned His disciples that they would 
 derive no outward human advantages by following Him, but 
 would have to suffer persecution, perhaps to give their 
 lives, for His cause. On the special occasion when He 
 made the promise which we are going to consider. He told 
 them that they should be brought before kings and rulers for 
 His name's sake. When this should happen. He directs them 
 not anxiously to premeditate what they should say ; " for," 
 says He, "it is not ye who speak, but the Spirit of your 
 Father that speaketh in you." Now it is a most important 
 question, In what way are all such general promises to be un- 
 derstood ? There are mony such general promises in Scripture. 
 To take a single example. Our Lord made the following 
 promise to the Apostles, and through them to the Church, in 
 relation to prayer offered in His name : — " Whatsoever ye 
 shall ask in my name, that will I do." Are we to interpret 
 
229 
 
 such a promise on principles of common sense, or in con- 
 formity with strict and absolute verbalism? Construed 
 literally, the promise is of a most absolute description. Does 
 the promise mean that there is not a single petition, offered in 
 Christ's name, which, in consequence of the promise, our 
 Lord is not bound to grant, however short-sighted or ill- 
 timed the request may be ? If we insist on interpreting the 
 promises of the New Testament to the letter, and not according 
 to their spirit, the literal meaning of the words would pledge 
 our Lord to grant every petition offered in His name, without 
 reference to the subject-matter of the request. Common 
 sense, however, suggests the obvious restrictions to which all 
 general promises are liable : they must not be tied up in 
 strict literal forraulse. 
 
 The case before us is similar. Our version, in representing 
 our Lord as warning the Apostles not to think beforehand on 
 the subject of their defence, has committed the same error as 
 when it makes our Lord teach us to take no thought about 
 the morrow. In both cases, not thinking beforehand, but 
 taking anxious thought is the thing prohibited. Our Lord's 
 words forbid His disciples from taking anxious thought as to 
 the subject of their defence, because His Spirit would afford 
 them all needful supernatural guidance. The words of the 
 promise, construed rigidly, are of the most strict and absolute 
 description : " for it is not ye that speak, but the Spirit of 
 your Father which speaketh in you.'^ How are we to un- 
 derstand such a promise? Does it necessarily mean that 
 every word uttered on such an occasion, by one to whom the 
 promise was made, would be directly and positively dictated 
 to his mind by the Holy Spirit ? — or is it only meant to convey 
 the assurance that all the needful topics for making the 
 defence would be suggested? The promises of answers to 
 prayer are equally absolute ; and yet they must be intei-preted 
 as implying very important limitations. This promise was 
 meant to convey the assurance of all necessary assistance, 
 just as the promises of answers to prayer were intended to 
 assure us that all things really good for us would be vouch- 
 safed in answer to our petitions. There can be no reason for 
 
230 
 
 pressing the one to the extreme of literalism^ which is not 
 equally applicable to the other. 
 
 The facts of the history will best explain the sense in which 
 one of the writers, who has recorded the promise, understood 
 it. St. Luke has recorded the promise, and in the Acts of 
 the Apostles he has reported the defence of St. Stephen. He 
 could not have considered the defence otherwise than as a 
 fulfilment of the promise. It is impossible to conceive a case 
 to which our Lord's promise was more applicable than that 
 of the protomartyr Stephen, when answering for his life 
 before the Jewish council. St. Luke tells us that he was 
 filled with the Holy Ghost. We may therefore consider the 
 defence as a Divine commentary on the promise. That de- 
 fence is singularly adapted to meet the charge against him. 
 The charge was, that he had blasphemed Moses and God. To 
 this charge the defence is an effectual answer. Every part of 
 it implies a profound respect, on the part of the speaker, for 
 the person and the divine commission of the Jewish lawgiver, 
 and proves the falsehood of the charge of blasphemy. But in 
 the midst of the defence occurs the following passage : — " So 
 Jacob went down into Egypt, and died, he and our fathers, 
 and were carried over into Sychem, and laid in the sepulchre 
 that Abraham bought with a sum of money of the sons of 
 Emmor^ the father of Sychem." 
 
 The facts, as stated in Genesis, are as follows : — Abraham 
 bought the cave of Macpelah for a burying-place of Ephron. 
 In this cave Jacob was buried by Joseph according to Jacob's 
 express commandment. Joseph died, and was put in a coffin 
 in Egypt. Of the burial of the other patriarchs the Old 
 Testament is silent. Joseph, however, took an oath of his 
 brethren, that when the time of their deliverance from Egypt 
 
 * The usual meaning of the Greek tov Suxi'm ^^ '* the son of Sychem." 
 If, however, there was only one man of this name, and he was well 
 known hoth to the hearers and the speaker, it might mean "the father of 
 Sychem," as in our version. If it was an hereditary name, alternating, 
 like Greek names, between father and son, each Emmor would be both 
 father and son of a Sychem, and each Sychem father and son of an 
 Emmor. 
 
231 
 
 arrived^ they would carry his bones with them into the land 
 of promise. Moses took the bones of Joseph with him ; but 
 nothing whatever is stated as to the bones of the patriarchs. 
 We learn from the Book of Joshua (chap. xxiv. 32) that 
 Joseph^s bones were finally deposited at Sychem^ in a parcel 
 of ground which Jacob had bought of the sons of Emmor, the 
 father of Sychem. The plot of ground, as we read in Genesis, 
 had been specially given by Jacob to Joseph. 
 
 Now, to avoid the historical difficulty presented by the dis- 
 agreement of St. Stephen^ s speech with the historical facts as 
 found in the Old Testament, it has been proposed to under- 
 stand the burial at Sychem as applying only to the patriarchs, 
 whose bones, according to tradition, were deposited there 
 along with the bones of Joseph. But, according to the fair 
 construction of the passage, Jacob and the patriarchs are both 
 asserted to have been buried at Sychem. But even supposing 
 it to be a possible interpretation of the passage that the 
 patriarchs only were buried at Sychem, the great difficulty 
 still remains. No ingenuity can extract from the passage any 
 other meaning than that Abraham bought the parcel of ground 
 at Sychem of the sons of Emmor, whereas the Book of Genesis 
 expressly declares that Abraham^ s purchase was a transaction 
 entirely different — the purchase of the cave of Macpelah of the 
 sons of Heth, — and that Jacob effected the purchase of a piece 
 of ground of the sons of Emmor, which is nowhere stated to 
 have been intended for a sepulchre. Ingenuity has done her 
 utmost to get rid of this difficulty. It has been proposed, 
 against the authority of the manuscripts, to strike out the 
 word Abraham ; but then the passage will be ungrammatical. 
 The next device is most unsatisfactory : it is nothing less 
 than that of interpreting the word Abraham to mean the son 
 of Abraham, i. e. Jacob, which is simply to assume the point 
 at issue. Another device is, in defiance of the authority of 
 the manuscripts, to leave out the word Abraham, and, in the 
 face of all correct Greek, to render the word which our trans- 
 lators have correctly rendered " bought '^ " was bought. ^^ 
 Such an attempt to solve a difficulty needs no comment. 
 
 But another mode of solving the difficulty has been invoked. 
 
232 
 
 the readiest of all possible methods of solution — the assump- 
 tion of the point at issue, and the assertion^ without an atom 
 of evidence from the Book of Genesis_, or the pretext of the 
 existence of a tradition to that effect, that Abraham bought 
 two sepulchres, one the cave at Macpelah and the other the 
 field at Sychem. It has been said, " It has never been shown, 
 nor ever can be, that Abraham did not purchase a plot of 
 ground at Sychem, where Joseph and the patriarchs were 
 buried." It is usually admitted to be very difficult to prove 
 a negative ; but surely those who assert that Abraham pur- 
 chased two sepulchres, one at Macpelah and another at 
 Sychem, are bound to give some proof of the fact, St. 
 Stephen asserts that he purchased, not only a piece of land 
 at Sychem, but the sepulchre where the patriarchs were 
 buried. Those persons who, on any emergency, are ready to 
 double over our Lord's miracles, or the events of His ministry, 
 with the repetition of precisely the same words and circum- 
 stances, will find little difficulty in the fact that a man should 
 purchase two sepulchres in his lifetime, the second of which 
 was not iised for a burial-place till several hundred years after 
 the purchase. It has been asserted, because Abraham built 
 an altar there, he must have purchased some land. Was 
 there no unoccupied land at this time in Canaan ? The nar- 
 rative in Genesis leads us to believe that it existed there in 
 great abundance. If Abraham had already purchased a piece 
 of land to erect an altar, it is highly improbable that Jacob, 
 on his return from Padan Aram, would have pui'chased an- 
 other piece of land for the same purpose in the same place, 
 instead of erecting his altar on the land already purchased by 
 Abraham. 
 
 Writers of this description can use very strong language 
 respecting persons who find it difficult to admit their right to 
 assume everything, at their pleasure, which will help their 
 theories of inspiration out of a difficulty. Dr. Wordsworth, 
 in his notes on the Greek Testament, writes : — " The allega- 
 tions in question, when reduced to their plain meaning, 
 involve the assumption that the Holy Ghost, speaking by St. 
 Stephen (who was ' full of the Holy Ghost'), forgot what He 
 
233 
 
 had written in the Book of Genesis^ and that His memory is 
 now to be refreshed by biblical commentators of the nine- 
 teenth century !" 
 
 After writing this passage, Dr. Wordsworth proceeds, as 
 might have been anticipated, to read his opponents a solemn 
 lecture on the dnty of humility. We say, " Physician, heal 
 thyself." 
 
 If it were sufficiently reverential so to speak of God's 
 Spirit, the language here employed might be amply retorted 
 on the writer ; but we forbear. Let us suppose the facts to be 
 exactly such as Dr. Wordsworth states them. According to 
 him, the history in Genesis and the speech of St. Stephen are 
 the ipsissima verba uttered by the Divine Spirit, without one 
 single human element in them ; they are, in fact, the utter- 
 ance of one and the same historian. It then becomes a most 
 important question whether the style of the history and 
 the speech is fully worthy of a divine author. Does it as 
 much transcend the style of men as the Divine works 
 transcend the human ? Have the history and the speech that 
 perspicuity of expression which they would have had, if they 
 had been the work of an accomplished and educated human 
 writer? As matter of fact, nine hundred and ninety-nine 
 out of every thousand of the readers of St. Stephen's speech 
 have always identified the purchase of the sepulchre men- 
 tioned by him with the purchase by Abraham of the cave of 
 Macpelah. Allowing, therefore, all which Dr. Wordsworth 
 says, the only result of his unsupported assumptions is to 
 charge the omniscient Spirit with a very imperfect use of 
 human language. 
 
 Unless we assume some of these solutions, which are of a 
 most questionable utility, the defence of St. Stephen contains 
 a statement of an historical fact at issue with the Book of 
 Genesis. How then are we to view the case ? What is the 
 nature of the promise ? Did our Lord fail His first martyr 
 in his hour of need ? Those only will be in danger of think- 
 ing so, who, for the purpose of avoiding that danger, will 
 have recourse to one of the above solutions, and insist on 
 construing to the letter our Lord's promise of supernatural 
 assistance. 
 
234 
 
 Bat why should this promise be construed to the letter, 
 and not the promises in answer to prayer or several of our 
 Lord's precepts in the sermon on the mount ? Does any 
 rational interpreter think it necessary to understand oiu' 
 Lord's precept, " I say unto you that ye resist not evil/' as a 
 command forbidding a Christian to offer resistance when he 
 is attacked by a robber or a murderer ? St. Stephen's de- 
 fence, as recorded in the Acts, effectually answers the charge 
 of blasphemy. Thus far the promise of all needful assistance 
 in making the defence was redeemed. As far as the defence 
 was concerned, it was an entirely unimportant point whether 
 Abraham or Jacob bought the cave at Syehem. The most 
 corrupt court of law on earth could not have taken notice of 
 such a point. It had not the remotest bearing on the charge 
 of blasphemy. The object of St. Stephen's speech is not to 
 prove his own divine inspiration, or even to prove the divine 
 origin of Christianity, but to answer a specific charge. He 
 therefore goes over the chief points in the Jewish history, ex- 
 pressing, as he goes along, profound reverence for the fathers 
 of the Jewish Church and for Moses in particular. The pro- 
 mise we are considering is one entirely special in its nature : 
 it assures the Apostles of Divine aid when they should judi- 
 cially answer before the rulers of this world for their obedience 
 to the commands of Christ. As interpreted by the history, 
 it must therefore have been intended as an assurance to the 
 Apostles, that when they answered for their lives before the 
 rulers of this world, they should be supernaturally guided into 
 all the necessary topics for making their defence. They were 
 not anxiously to premeditate what they should say. They 
 were to be void of all fear. Their cause was the cause of God. 
 The Spirit of God should impart to them what they ought to 
 say. Had Stephen taken false ground in making his defence — 
 had Paul, when he stood before Felix, Festus, or Agrippa, 
 addressed to them arguments which were not to the point — 
 had he failed in answering Tertullus — had either he or 
 Stephen got confused or nervous on so trying an occasion, 
 both might be said to have been deserted by their Master, 
 and His promise consequently would have failed. 
 
235 
 
 CHAPTER XIII. 
 
 THE GENERAL CHARACTER OF THE GOSPELS, AND THE 
 NATURE OF THEHi INSPIRATION. THEIR INSPIRATION 
 NOT VERBAL. 
 
 W^ must now proceed to inquire into the nature of the inspi- 
 ration presented by the historical books of the New Testament, 
 and to test our tlieories respecting the nature of such inspira- 
 tion by the facts presented by the histories themselves, and 
 then proceed to extend the same inquiries to the Epistles. 
 
 We have already proved that our Lord possessed the highest 
 form of inspiration in His divine person. What he taught 
 was the truth as it exists in God, as far as finite conceptions 
 and human language can represent it to the mind of man. 
 His actions were the actions of God manifest in the flesh. 
 The actions and sayings of our Lord, therefore, are the divine 
 element in the Gospels. 
 
 The Gospels contain the records of those sayings and ac- 
 tions. If our Lord's divine person embodies inspiration in its 
 highest form, nothing more is required for our possessing the 
 results of such inspiration than that our Lord's sayings and 
 actions should have been transmitted to us as they actually 
 occurred. A second communication by inspiration will not 
 render the words and actions of incarnate Deity more divine. 
 It follows, on the principles which we have established 
 respecting the nature of the gospel revelation as made in our 
 Lord's person, that if the report of our Lord's sayings and 
 actions contained in the Gospels is a true report, any 
 amount of inspiration possessed by the persons who have re- 
 ported them would add neither to their truth nor to their 
 divine authority. The inspiration which He possessed was 
 already the highest possible form of inspiration ; additional 
 inspiration, therefore, could do nothing more than insure the 
 correctness of the report. If correctly reported, by whatever 
 means that report was composed, the actions and sayings of 
 
236 
 
 our Lord would present us with the results of the inspiration 
 of God manifest in the flesh. 
 
 The whole question respecting the inspiration of the Gos- 
 pelsj therefore, resolves itself into the determination of the 
 amount of supernatural assistance necessary to be aff'orded to 
 the writers to enable them to give a true account of the 
 actions and sayings of our Lord. If the writers of the Gos- 
 pels were eye-witnesses of the actions of our Lord, a large 
 proportion of those actions could not but have been recorded 
 correctly, if the writers of the Gospels composed them 
 honestly : they could not but have known what they had 
 actually seen. 
 
 If they delayed the composition of their histories till a con- 
 siderable period after the events had occurred, still a large 
 number of the events were of so striking a character that 
 they would be indelibly engraven on their memories ; they 
 would therefore require supernatural aid to recall to their 
 recollection only such things as they had forgotten. 
 
 If the writers of the Gospels were not eye-witnesses, but 
 derived the accounts in their narratives from those who were 
 such, supposing they carefully recorded Avliat was reported by 
 such eye-witnesses, we are in possession of the results of the 
 highest form of inspiration. 
 
 If the writers of the Gospels, not being eye-witnesses, 
 derived the accounts which they have embodied in the Gos- 
 pels from the oral testimony of the Apostles as delivered to 
 particular churches, and they have carefully ascertained that 
 that oral testimony was actually delivered, the records of the 
 Gospels present us with the results of the highest form of in- 
 spiration. 
 
 We have already stated that a higher degree of super- 
 natural assistance would be required to enable the writers of 
 the Gospels to give a correct record of the discourses than 
 of the actions of our Lord. But if our Lord's promise 
 that the " Holy Spirit should teach the Apostles all things, 
 and bring all things to their remembraiice whatever He had 
 spoken to them," was fulfilled, abundant provision was made 
 for putting us in possession of the divine teaching of our 
 
237 
 
 Lord. The deficiencies of human memory would be sup- 
 plemented by the influence of the Spirit through the pro- 
 phetic gift. 
 
 All the grounds of antecedent certainty which we possess 
 lead us to the conclusion that God would not give man super- 
 natural assistance to effect what he is able to do without such 
 assistance, or, where such assistance was needed, that He 
 would impart a larger degree of assistance than the necessity 
 of the case required. No fact or assertion of the New Testa- 
 ment contradicts, but many support this probability. 
 
 The Gospels present the reader with a succession of very 
 remarkable phenomena, to which no parallel can be found in 
 any similar productions. The whole of existing literature 
 may be searched, and no such peculiar phenomena will be 
 found in any four biographies of the same individual, com- 
 posed by four different writers. Their resemblances and 
 dissimilarities are of a character absolutely unique. They 
 chiefly record the history of the last three years of our Lord's 
 life. Only one records an anecdote of His early years. The 
 synoptic Gospels are almost entirely filled with details of His 
 ministry in Galilee; the fourth, with that in Judea. The 
 synoptic Gospels contain a large amount of matter in com- 
 mon. The verbal similarity and dissimilarity in this common 
 matter can hardly be accounted for on any ordinary principle. 
 Ingenious men have propounded vast numbers of theories 
 with a view of explaining it. Sometimes we find the agree- 
 ment perfect : precisely the same words are employed in 
 reporting the same action or the same discourse. At other 
 times facts are introduced in the one account which are 
 omitted in the other. Sometimes a particular respecting the 
 history which is omitted by one evangelist is supplied by 
 another, by which the shorter narrative becomes more intel- 
 ligible. At another time a fresh sentence is introduced into 
 a discourse, which another evangelist has omitted in his 
 report of it. Then a sentence in a discourse as recorded by 
 one evangelist is transposed in another. Sometimes the 
 introduction of a word by one evangelist helps to make the 
 statement of another clear, which would be obscure without it. 
 
238 
 
 Sometimes one evangelist reports one portion of an action, 
 while another reports another portion of it. Besides state- 
 ments of fact and discourses which the Gospels contain in 
 common, there are facts and discourses which are narrated 
 only by separate evangelists. The whole Gospel of St. John, 
 with few exceptions, is of this description. 
 
 Now all these phenomena as presented in the Gospels are 
 of the utmost importance in estimating the degree of super- 
 natural assistance which was afforded to the writers. 
 
 To the attentive reader of the Gospels the inquiry can 
 hardly fail to present itself. Is each Gospel a distinct and 
 separate history, composed without either of the writers com- 
 municating with the others, or deriving any assistance from 
 the others^ labours ? Had either of the writers seen or 
 copied from another Gospel, or had they the intention to 
 supply omissions or defects in that Gospel ? 
 
 Happily our present inquiry does not compel us to settle 
 either of these questions. They have been discussed in every 
 possible form, and received every possible solution; but as 
 some one of the views which have been proposed must be 
 true, we have only to observe the consequences to the theory 
 of inspiration which follow from any or all of them. The 
 question for us to determine is, How do the different proposed 
 solutions bear on existing theories as to the natiu-e and extent 
 of inspiration ? Do, or do not, the facts presuppose the ex- 
 istence of a human element of considerable extent in the com- 
 position of the Gospels ? We will endeavour to answer that 
 question. 
 
 Let us suppose the Gospels to be four distinct and inde- 
 pendent histories, written by the authors without the smallest 
 concert with one another. The four Gospels undoubtedly 
 present all the peculiar phenomena to which we have referred. 
 How are they to be accounted for ? A person holding the 
 theory of verbal inspiration explains the phenomena by 
 asserting that each Gospel has been dictated, word for word 
 as it stands, by the Holy Spirit. According to this view, the 
 four Gospels are not the work of four independent human 
 minds, giving their distinct and independent testimony to 
 
239 
 
 facts and discourses, but of one Divine mind. If such be the 
 case, how are the remarkable peculiarities which we have 
 mentioned to be accounted for ? whence come the varia- 
 tions in the narratives ? whence the variations iu professed 
 reports of the same discourse ? How, on the assumption of 
 one single Divine authorship, do we account for the trans- 
 position of sentences? how for one part of a fact being 
 reported in one Gospel, and another in another ? If the whole 
 be the simple dictation of one inspiring Spirit, why have we 
 four distinct versions of the same facts and the same dis- 
 courses ? The supporters of the theory, when hard pressed, 
 generally plead that some of these things are to be accounted 
 for by assuming that some small human peculiarities have 
 been permitted to exist in them. But what then becomes of 
 the theory ? Its difficulties are so great that it is impossible 
 to carry it out consistently, when it is applied to the Gospels, 
 even by its strongest supporters. It is utterly inconsistent 
 with the marks of diversity of authorship which the Gospels 
 unquestionably present. Many difficulties would have been 
 avoided, if only one Gospel had been written. But if there 
 had been only one Gospel, or one author of the four Gospels, 
 we should have lost all independent testimony to the facts of the 
 evangelical history. We should get one witness only, and that 
 witness not a human one, as the Apostles declare that they 
 were appointed to be, but a Divine one, who has already borne 
 testimony by the exertion of miraculous power. 
 
 But what view of authorship does a careful perusal of the 
 four Gospels present to the reader ? Would he ever guess, if 
 he were ignorant of all theories on the subject, that the four 
 Gospels were really the work of one Author, who had em- 
 ployed four different amanuenses to copy down what He had 
 dictated ? Every appearance presented by them would be 
 entirely at issue with such a supposition. It is by no means 
 difficult to say how four lives of the same person would be 
 characterized, presenting the mark of difference and distinct 
 authorship which are presented by the Gospels, if they were 
 composed by one and the same individual. If they were a 
 work simply human, the evidences which they afford of the 
 
240 
 
 presence of four distinct authors would be considered indu- 
 bitable. The only way of evading the force of that evidence 
 would be to ascribe their diversities to a distinct purpose^ on 
 the part of the writer, to make these pass as the works of 
 four distinct and independent witnesses. 
 
 But difficulties meet those who maintain the theory of 
 verbal inspiration in every part of the evangelical narratives. 
 That theory requires its supporters to eliminate from them 
 every mark of individuality, and to weave the narratives into 
 a consistent whole. But how incongruous do they seem when 
 forced together into a harmony ! They have no appearance of a 
 structure of similar materials, erected by the same architect, 
 but of a building patched up by several. The different styles 
 of architecture will not agree together : they as ill assort as 
 the Grecian and the Gothic in the same building. The 
 Gospel by St. John possesses a character quite distinct from 
 that possessed by the other three ; and although woven into a 
 narrative with them, it presents no signs of amalgamation. 
 The Gospel by St. Mark displays a power of graphic painting 
 in its narratives, which is almost entirely wanting in that of 
 St. Matthew. Frequently the plain marks appear in one 
 evangelist of superior means of information, compared with 
 those possessed by another. One narrative, again, has the 
 evident traces of the presence of an eye-witness, in which the 
 other narrative is deficient. St. Mark is particularly rich in 
 touches of this description. How are such phenomena to be 
 accounted for on the assumption of the truth of the theory 
 of verbal inspiration ? Did the Holy Spirit imitate the 
 phenomena which the testimony of actual witnesses usually 
 presents ? Did He inspire one evangelist to introduce these 
 traits into his narrative, and another to omit them ? We ask 
 distinctly, Do we not find in the four Gospels as positive 
 indications of the free exercise of the powers of the human 
 mind as in any four narratives of the same events, extending 
 over an equal period of time ? 
 
 No doubt the Gospels present difficulties, whether we 
 assume that they were written independently of each other, 
 or that the writer of some one Gospel had read the narrative 
 
341 
 
 of another^ or that they have for their foundation a common 
 narrative. But with these difficulties we are not concerned. 
 We have only to assume the existence of the facts as they 
 appear in the pages of the Evangelists, and inquire how they 
 bear on particular theories of inspiration. 
 
 Let us suppose the Evangelists to have Avritten quite indepen- 
 dently of each other. How comes the verbal agreement? The 
 only solution which can be given of such verbal agreement is 
 that they received supernatural assistance, or used a common 
 document^ or copied from each other. But if they either 
 copied or derived the common words by dictation from above, 
 whence come the variations of expression in the very midst 
 of sentences nearly alike ? In these variations their distinc- 
 tive human characters appear. This human element is also 
 distinctly to be traced in what they have recorded or omitted 
 in their common narratives. The utmost difficulties, as will 
 be seen hereafter, result from supposing that either Evan- 
 gelist had read the narrative of the other. Every possible 
 assumption has been made on that subject. One writer has 
 assumed that Matthew copied from Mark ; another that Mark 
 copied from Matthew. Others have assumed a similar copy- 
 ing on the part of St, Luke, There have not been wanting 
 those who have affirmed that the other Evangelists borrowed 
 from him ; others have affirmed that St. John had both read 
 and that he meant to supply the deficiencies of his prede- 
 cessors. Whichever theory we assume as true, either that 
 the Evangelists are independent witnesses, or that they 
 borrowed from each other, or that they meant to supplement 
 each other, or that they derived their narratives from the 
 same document or from several previously existing documents 
 (and some one of these views must be the correct one), all are 
 alike incompatible with the theory that they wrote under the 
 influence of verbal inspiration. 
 
 But if, in accounting for the phenomena presented by the 
 Gospels, we assume that one writer had used the Gospel of 
 another, and borrowed from it some portion of its contents, 
 this assumption is entirely subversive of the theory in queg- 
 tion. Many writers of eminence have held that Mar^s ii an 
 
 R 
 
242 
 
 epitome of Matthew^s Gospel, but enlarged in some of its 
 details. Now we are not called upon to determine whether 
 the phenomena presented either by St. Matthew or St. Mark 
 justify such an assumption. But, supposing such a theory to 
 be correct, is it consistent with the existence of an inspiration 
 like verbal inspiration in St. Mark's Gospel ? It is a usual 
 thing for human authors to borrow one of another ; but 
 when they do so without acknowledgment, the act is generally 
 looked upon with considerable suspicion. But, on the as- 
 sumption that the writers of the Gospels composed them 
 by the aid of verbal or any cognate inspiration, what are 
 we to say of an author, who is the mouth-piece of the Spirit 
 of God, actually borrowing and copying from another who is 
 acting in the same capacity ? Such an act would be as much 
 like a contradiction as anything which we can possibly con- 
 ceive. On what principles would such an author venture on 
 making alterations or additions in the work of a writer whom 
 he considered to be recording what was dictated to him by 
 the Holy Spirit ? Why should such a writer copy at all, and 
 not record what the Spirit dictated to him ? If he had done any- 
 thing but copy verbatim, he must have thought that he could 
 improve on the Spirit's work ! Could he conceive any 
 account which he read in a book thus composed imperfect ? 
 If the writer of a Gospel thought that he could improve on a 
 Gospel which he had perused, he never could have believed 
 such Gospel to have been verbally inspired. We know from 
 St. Luke's testimony that he had perused memoranda of our 
 Lord's life, and that he thought he could improve upon 
 them. The theory that one Evangelist copied from another, 
 or from any existing document, is subversive of the idea that 
 either was verbally inspired. We can understand how an 
 Evangelist, giving a human testimony to facts, and receiving 
 such Divine assistance as was requisite to enable him truth- 
 fully to narrate the facts or record the discourses, if he him- 
 self had not been actually present when an event occurred 
 which he wished to record, or when a particular discourse was 
 delivered, should make diligent inquiry of persons who had 
 been eye- and ear-witnesses of the events in question. It is 
 
243 
 
 also quite intelligible how an inspired person, who only re- 
 ceived Divine assistance when necessary, could make use of 
 memoranda which may have contained brief accounts of the 
 testimony of apostles or other eye-witnesses. But by direct 
 copying of an actual Gospel, or epitomizing one, no additional 
 testimony whatever would be afforded. To publish a Gospel 
 which was a direct copy or epitome of another Gospel, without 
 any acknowledgment of the source whence the materials were 
 derived, would be to present oneself as a fresh witness, with- 
 out having any testimony to give to the facts in question : it 
 would be simply to repeat what the preceding witness had 
 deposed to. To assert that such a proceeding on the part of 
 a writer of a Gospel has actually taken place seems hardly 
 consistent with believing in his honesty, much less in his 
 inspiration. 
 
 The Gospel by St. Mark presents all the peculiar pheno- 
 mena which usually belong to narratives derived from direct 
 ocular testimony. They are traits in the highest degree 
 difficult for a forger to imitate. It is an undoubted fact that 
 this Gospel is far more distinguished by such marks than the 
 Gospel of St. Matthew. How is this difference to be ac- 
 counted for, on the supposition that both Gospels have been 
 alike dictated by the Holy Spirit ? How, in fact, is it possi- 
 ble, in such a case, to account for the marks of ocular 
 human testimony at all ? 
 
 But it has been extensively held that some of the writers 
 of the Gospels had read those previously published, and that 
 they designed to supplement them by the publication of their 
 own. This has been very generally held respecting St. John's 
 Gospel. That Gospel presents many phenomena which appear 
 to favour that supposition. It has been generally believed 
 that, previously to the publication of this Gospel, St. John 
 had read the three other Evangelists, and that he intended by 
 his Gospel to supply those parts of them in which he esteemed 
 their narratives deficient. This opinion may be almost said 
 to have been a primitive tradition of the Church. The 
 contents of the Gospel of St. John are remarkably different 
 from those of the other three. St. John details few facts 
 
 R 2 
 
244 
 
 which have been mentioned by the other Evangelists. "When 
 he does so^, it is always with a view to the discourse which 
 follows. The discourses also found in this Gospel differ in a 
 remarkable manner from those contained in the synoptic 
 Gospels. 
 
 It is not too much to assert that St. John's is by far the 
 most spiritual Gospel. Had it not been for his testimony, we 
 should certainly have been ignorant of the profound depth of 
 our Lord's teaching. It records the higher mysteries of the 
 kingdom of heaven in direct terms, whereas the other Evan- 
 gelists only furnish us with indirect hints of those truths. It 
 is true that there are difficvilties presented by the contents of 
 this Gospel in the way of believing that St. John had pre- 
 viously read the other three. Still, on any supposition, the 
 phenomena presented by this Gospel can only be explained by 
 supposing that the author was well acquainted with the con- 
 tents of the synoptic Gospels, or the general oral teaching on 
 which they had been founded, and that by the publication of 
 this Gospel he intended to supply the higher element of 
 divine truth which was taught by our Lord, in which these 
 Gospels, or the oral teaching out of which they were com- 
 posed, was deficient. 
 
 Now, if this be the case, is it possible that St. John coidd 
 have held that the three Gospels, or the teaching out of 
 which they were derived, had been communicated to the 
 Church by that species of inspiration designated verbal 
 inspiration ? If they were pure dictations of the Spirit, free 
 from every species of human element, would he have ven- 
 tured to criticise them ? Could it possibly appear to him that 
 he could supply anything deficient in their teaching, if that 
 teaching was not in any sense the work of the respective 
 authors, but the pure dictation of the divine Spirit? How 
 is it possible to talk of deficiencies existing in those Gospels, 
 except on the supposition that the writers were in some degree 
 left to the exercise of their own judgments? If a human 
 writer undertakes to supplement another writer's work, it is 
 plain that he thinks the work more or less imperfect, and 
 that he can improve it. If a biography of a particular person 
 
245 
 
 has already been published, and another person, who knows 
 of its existence, undertakes to set forth a new one, it is plain 
 that he is of opinion he can improve on the original 
 biography, or else that he must be influenced by the caco'ethes 
 scribendi. 
 
 Now, as it is an indisputable matter of fact that the dis- 
 courses and events narrated in the synoptic Gospels differ in 
 a remarkable manner from those detailed in the Gospel of 
 St. John, this difference requires to be accounted for. The 
 variation is of such a nature as to imply that it is not the 
 result of accident, but of design. We must arrive at the 
 conclusion that the apostle was aware of the general nature 
 of the facts and discourses which had been reported by eye- 
 and ear-witnesses to the Church, and that he considered that 
 they involved omission in connexion with the higher forms 
 of truth which he was able to supply. But if he thought 
 that there was any defect in the previously existing details of 
 our Lord's life and teaching, what becomes of the theory of 
 verbal inspiration ? Would a writer who believed himself 
 verbally inspired deliberately set himself to correct defects 
 in writers whom he believed no less verbally inspired than 
 himself? 
 
 Perhaps it may be replied that, as gospel truth was only 
 slowly developed as such truth was able to be borne, the 
 mind of the Church was not able to bear for a long time any- 
 thing higher than the teaching of the synoptic Gospels, and 
 that the Gospel of St. John was written as soon as the Church 
 was fitted to receive it. Such a view would imply that the 
 Gospel by St. John is an improvement on the synoptic Gos- 
 pels, in the same manner as the New is on the Old Testament. 
 But, as the Gospels are professed histories of our Lord's 
 ministry, the cases are not parallel. To fulfil their character 
 as witnesses, it was necessary that the writers should report 
 what they had seen and heard, and give us a fair sample of 
 our Lord's actions and teaching. The New differs from the 
 Old Testament in a totally different manner : it is a higher, 
 brighter, clearer, and more glorious revelation. 
 
 But this supposition fails in a still more important par- 
 
246 
 
 ticulaij it is not founded on fact. There is no doubt that 
 the Gospel of St. John was composed late in the apostolic 
 age. St. Paul had composed his Epistles, and gone to his 
 rest, before the Gospel of St. John was given to the world. 
 
 It is not true, therefore, that the Church could not have 
 borne St. John^s Gospel at an earlier time. The Church, for 
 which the Epistle to the Romans was good spiritual food, 
 would evidently have been edified by the Gospel of St. John ; 
 but this Epistle was written before even St. Luke's Gospel was 
 published. The contents of the Gospel of St. John would have 
 been highly edifying to that state of the Church's mind for 
 which the Epistles to the Ephesians, Philippians, and Colos- 
 sians were intended. 
 
 If, then, St. John considered that he could publish a Gospel 
 which would improve on the hitherto existing accounts of our 
 Lord's life and discourses, it is evident that the inspiration 
 with the aid of which the Gospels have been composed 
 cannot be verbal inspiration, but must be, at least, an inspi- 
 ration which admits of difference of degree. St. John must 
 have been possessed of a higher form of inspiration than was 
 possessed by the authors of the synoptic Gospels. He must 
 have believed that there were higher truths respecting our 
 Lord's life, and that more spiritual discourses were uttered 
 by him, which he had it in his power to communicate. If 
 St. John meant to supplement the other Gospels, it may be 
 consistent with the possession of verbal inspiration by St. 
 John, but it is only compatible with the existence of a human 
 element of some sort in the Gospels of Matthew, Mark, and 
 Luke. 
 
247 
 
 CHAPTER XIV. 
 
 EXAmNATION OF PARALLEL PASSAGES IN THE GOSPELS 
 WITH A VIEW TO DETERMINE THE NATURE OF THE 
 INSPIRATION BY THE AID OF WHICH THEY WERE 
 COMPOSED. 
 
 We will now proceed to test the theory of verbal inspiration 
 and its kindred theories, not by considerations taken from 
 the general structure of the Gospels, but from the various 
 specific facts contained in them, by comparing together their 
 different narratives of the events of our Lord's life and their 
 accounts of His discourses. 
 
 If this theory were a true account of the influence under 
 which the Gospels were composed, there are some peculiar 
 passages in them in which we should certainly expect to see 
 it exemplified. 
 
 One of the passages to which we should expect to find the 
 theory of verbal inspiration or some one of its kindred 
 theories applicable, if anywhere in the New Testament, 
 would be the report of the words in which the Evangelists 
 state that our Lord instituted the Eucharist. That rite was 
 intended for celebration in all ages in the Church : it was 
 designed to be a visible institution, accompanied with a 
 certain amount of form in its celebration, having been 
 ordained for the perpetual memory of Christ's death. We 
 should naturally, therefore, expect the very words used by 
 our Lord when instituting the Supper to have been reported 
 by the Evangelists. St. Matthew, Mark, Luke, and St. Paul 
 have each given an account of the transaction : each account 
 contains variations. 
 
 St. Matthew's account of the institution of the bread is 
 given in the following words : — " And as they were eating, 
 Jesus took bread, and blessed it, and brake it, and gave it to 
 the disciples, and said. Take, eat ; this is my body.'' 
 
 The words reported by St. Mark are identical with those 
 reported by St. Matthew. 
 
248 
 
 St. Luke^s is as follows : — " And He took bread, and gave 
 thanks, and brake it, and gave unto them, saying. This is my 
 body which is given for you : this do in remembrance of 
 me." 
 
 St. PauFs account of the institution, which he declares he 
 received directly by revelation from our Lord, is as follows : — 
 " The Lord Jesus the same night in which He was betrayed 
 took bread ; and when He had given thanks, He brake it, and 
 said. Take, eat; this is my body which is broken for you : 
 this do in remembrance of me." 
 
 But the difference in the words declared by them to have 
 been used by our Lord in the institution of the cup is far 
 more remarkable. St. Matthew represents our Lord to have 
 said — 
 
 " And He took the cup, and gave thanks, and gave it to 
 them, saying, Drink ye all of it ; for this is my blood of the 
 new testament, which is shed for many for the remission of 
 sins." 
 
 St. Mark, " And He took the cup ; and when He had given 
 thanks. He gave it to them : and they all drank of it. And He 
 feaid unto them. This is my blood of the new testament, 
 which is shed for many." 
 
 St. Luke, '' Likewise also the cup after supper, saying, This 
 cup is the new testament in my blood, which is shed for 
 you." 
 
 St. Paul, " After the same manner also He took the cup, 
 when He had supped, saying, This cup is the new testament 
 in my blood : this do ye, as oft as ye drink it, in remembrance 
 of me." 
 
 Now it is to be observed, that these different accounts 
 present only one agreement in the words stated to have been 
 used by our Lord as the actual words of institution, that be- 
 tween St. Matthew and St. Mark in those said to have been 
 used in the institution of the bread. But it is most remark- 
 able, that, in each Evangelist, the words which the four 
 different reports ascribe to our Lord are introduced with 
 the formula, " He spake and said," or, " saying," and 
 yet contain a considerable difference as to the actual words 
 
249 
 
 employed. The diversity of the words stated in the fout 
 accounts as having been used in the institution of the cup 
 is far more striking than those used in the institution of the 
 bread. Our Lord could not have used all these formularies j 
 and if He did, the natural construction of the words used by 
 the Evangelists requires, on the theory that they recorded 
 them under the influence of verbal inspiration, that each 
 account should be the account of the very words used at the 
 institution. When the words used are, " He said,^' " saying," 
 in so short a formula and on so solemn an occasion, 
 we should expect that those recorded would have been 
 neither more nor less than the exact words actually used. 
 But by no possible contrivance can the words which St. 
 Paul asserts our Lord to have used, in the institution of the 
 cup, be reconciled with those reported to have been used by 
 Him in Matthew and Mark. St. Matthew and St. Mark 
 report the words to have been, " This is my blood of the 
 new testament, which is shed for many." St. Paul reports 
 the words to have been, " This cup is the new testament 
 in my blood." St. Matthew and St. Mark omit the direc- 
 tion to drink it in remembrance of Him, which St. Paul 
 inserts; neither do the words reported, as used by St. 
 Matthew and St. Mark, precisely agree together. It will 
 hardly be pretended, by the most zealous harmonizer, that 
 our Lord repeated all these varieties of expression in the 
 course of the distribution of the elements to the disciples. 
 
 Now St, Paul expressly tells us that the account which he 
 has handed down of the institution of the Supper was actually 
 received by him from no human source of information, but 
 from the Lord: "Now I received of the Lord that which 
 also I delivered unto you." Human memory, therefore, 
 was not concerned in the report which he gave. It follows 
 that St. PauFs report contains the ipsissima verba used by our 
 Lord at the institution. In accordance with this declaration, 
 the account of the institution of the supper delivered by 
 St, Paul is the fullest and most exact. From him alone 
 we learn that the institution of the cup was separated 
 by an interval from the institution of the bread : he states 
 
250 
 
 that it took place after they had supped. If we had only 
 St. Matthew and St. Mark's accounts, we should have cer- 
 tainly come to the conclusion that the cup was instituted 
 during the supper, immediately after the institution of the 
 bread. 
 
 It is also most remarkable, that St. Paul and St. Luke's 
 accounts agree. Now on the assumption that the history of 
 the Acts of the Apostles is a true history, this is exactly what 
 might have been expected. The evangelist is there asserted 
 to have been St. Paul's intimate companion and friend. 
 Now St. Paul's account of the institution of the Eucharist is 
 an incidental account, given, not in a formal history, but in a 
 letter. Had St. Paul composed a Gospel, the agreement be- 
 tween these accounts would have been nothing remarkable. 
 The history is effectually confirmed by the letter. But 
 although St. Luke's account is just what we might have 
 expected, bearing evident marks of having been derived from 
 St. Paul, yet there are verbal differences between the two 
 accounts of a very instructive character, illustrating the 
 nature of the inspiration afforded to St. Luke. In the 
 accoimt of the institution of the bread, St. Luke adds to 
 St. Paul's the words, "and gave unto them." He leaves 
 out the words, " Take, eat." Instead of '' broken for you," 
 he substitutes " given for you." In his account of the insti- 
 tution of the cup, he adds the words, " which is shed for 
 you j " and he omits the words, " this do ye, as oft as ye drink 
 it, in remembrance of me." 
 
 Now although these variations make no substantial differ- 
 ence in the sense, they are just such differences as might 
 have been expected in the narrative of one who, to arrive at 
 certain information, employed the means which St. Luke 
 states, in the preface to his Gospel, that he employed. St. 
 Luke tells us that, not being an eye-witness himself, he 
 obtained his knowledge of the facts which he relates from 
 the testimony of competent witnesses, and he was at pains to 
 obtain a true account of those facts from such witnesses. 
 He knew St. Paul had had the true facts of the institution 
 of the Eucharist communicated to him by direct revelation. 
 
251 
 
 When about to write this portion of his history, he would 
 naturally ask St. Paul to furnish him with an account of the 
 institution of the Lord's Supper. He has accordingly re- 
 ported the apostle's account of the institution. The variations 
 in words are just those which might have taken place, if St. 
 Luke had asked St. Paul to narrate the account to him as he 
 received it from the Lord, and then had gone and copied 
 down what he remembered the apostle to have said. 
 
 Now although St. Luke's and St. Paul's agree substan- 
 tially, their agreement is not verbal. The promise, therefore, 
 of our Lord, that the Spirit should bring to their remem- 
 brance the words which He had spoken to the Apostles, 
 must not be tied down rigidly to the letter : it is 
 sufficiently redeemed if the Apostles were enabled to re- 
 cord the sense. " The letter killeth ; but the spirit giveth 
 life." Christianity is not a religion of rigid forms, but of 
 actualities. 
 
 It follows, as a necessary consequence, from this compari- 
 son of the fourfold account of the words recorded to have 
 been spoken by our Lord at the institution of the Eucharist, 
 that the theory of verbal inspiration entirely fails for the pur- 
 pose of giving a correct account of the phenomena presented 
 by the evangelists. According to that theory, the Holy 
 Ghost would have dictated to the evangelists the whole 
 account : there was no human element in it whatever. He 
 must have known the words used by our Lord ; and if He had 
 dictated the words to each evangelist, He would have dictated 
 the right ones. But the words actually used present con- 
 siderable variations ; it is impossible, therefore, to ascribe 
 those variations to the dictation of the Spirit. All four 
 accounts report the substantial truth; but substantial truth 
 is not the present question. Sufficient inspiration, therefore, 
 was afforded to the Apostles to secure the report of substan- 
 tial truth, but not of verbal truth. The only theory con- 
 sistent with the facts as they stand before us is, that the 
 sacred writers had their memories supernaturally assisted so 
 as to enable them certainly to report the sense of what our 
 Lord uttered, but no further. The assistance afforded was an 
 
assistance consistent with their character as vntnesses. The 
 knowledge of the identical words used to express that sense 
 was not necessary for the purposes of the Christian reve- 
 lation^ and therefore was not imparted. 
 
 We have a similar example of verbal disagreement in a 
 parable uttered by our Lord; and recorded by St. Matthew, 
 St. Mark, and St. Luke. When our Lord after His last 
 journey had arrived at Jerusalem, He uttered the parable of 
 the vineyard. We will first direct attention to a small verbal 
 discrepancy in that parable, at its close, which is utterly incon- 
 sistent with the theory of verbal inspiration. St. Matthew 
 represents our Lord to have said, " and taking him, they cast 
 him out of the vineyard, and slew him.'^ 
 
 St. Mark represents our Lord to have said, '^ and taking 
 him, they slew him, and cast him out of the vineyard. ^^ The 
 arrangement of the Greek words in St. Luke is ambiguous; 
 but taking them in their most natural sense, they support 
 St. Matthew's account of the order in which they were 
 uttered. They are, Kal eic^aX6vTe<; avrov e^co rov dfiTreXcovo'^, 
 cLireKTeLvav. 
 
 Now it will be readily conceded that the variation is small. 
 This is the precise reason why we have adduced it. Small 
 inaccuracies and great are alike to Omniscience. Though the 
 variation is a small one, it is a variation utterly irrecon- 
 cilable on the assumption that the Gospels were composed 
 Under the influence of verbal inspiration. No conceivable 
 ingenuity can make our Lord to have uttered both expres- 
 sions. He either represented the son as killed inside the 
 vineyard or outside it; but He could not have used both 
 forms of words. He must either have said that he was killed 
 and then the body was cast out, or that he was cast out and 
 then killed. In relation to the meaning of the parable, the 
 variation is utterly unimportant ; it only assumes weight when 
 particular theories as to the mode in which Scripture must 
 have been inspired are assumed, without the smallest authority 
 from those Scriptures themselves, on the mere rationalizing 
 ground that, if any conceivable error or incongruity exists in 
 any of their minor details, they cannot be the word of God. 
 
253 
 
 Those who lay down such principles are the parents of scep- 
 ticism and infidelity ; they throw Avide open the gates of the 
 citadel for the unbeliever to enter and make wild havoc. It 
 may be said with truth of such unwise defenders of the 
 inspiration of the Christian Scriptures, " They knoAv not 
 what they do." 
 
 There is also a variation in the verbal expressions of the 
 Evangelists as to the number of the servants who were sent to 
 the husbandmen. St. Matthew says, " He sent his servants 
 unto the husbandmen, that they might receive the fruits of it. 
 And the husbandmen took his servants, and beat one, and 
 killed another, and stoned another. Again he sent other 
 servants, more than the first ; and they did unto them like- 
 wise." 
 
 St. Mark^s report is, '^And at the season he sent to the 
 husbandmen a servant, that he might receive from the hus- 
 bandmen of the fruit of the vineyard. And they caught him^ 
 and beat him, and sent him away empty. And again he sent 
 unto them another servant ; and at him they cast stones, and 
 wounded him in the head, and sent him away shamefully 
 handled. And again he sent another ; and him they killed, 
 and many others ; beating some, and killing some." 
 
 St. Luke says, "And at the season he sent a servant to 
 the husbandmen, that they should give him of the fruit of 
 the vineyard : but the husbandmen beat him, and sent him 
 away empty. And again he sent another servant : and they 
 beat him also, and entreated him shamefully, and sent him 
 away empty. And again he sent a third : and they wounded 
 him also, and cast him out." 
 
 St. Mark and St. Luke agree in reporting that our Lord 
 mentioned in the parable the distinct mission of three sepa- 
 rate servants. St. Mark adds to the account, that the owner 
 of the vineyard sent also others, some of whom were beaten, and 
 some killed. St. Matthew represents our Lord to have men- 
 tioned two distinct missions of several servants in a body : 
 out of the first body, one was beaten, another killed, and 
 another stoned ; the second and larger party suffered in like 
 manner. 
 
254 
 
 Now such variations in the details of a parable are only 
 important when people will propound a particular theory of 
 inspiration, and assert that, if God gave a revelation of His 
 will, that particular mode of inspiration must be the mode 
 employed by Him in communicating the revelation. St. 
 Mark^s or St. Luke's report most probably contains the 
 actual words uttered by our Lord ; but if these reports con- 
 tain these words, it is evident that the report of St. Matthew 
 cannot. The report of St. Matthew has all the appearance 
 of a general statement of the sense of what our Lord uttered ; 
 it, in fact, sums up in one account the results of the mission 
 of the three servants. Now although this variation in the 
 report of the parable has not the smallest influence on the 
 sense, they prove that all three Evangelists could not have 
 received the parable by direct verbal inspiration. Matthew's 
 account at least is a summary, and not the real words uttered. 
 The variation is only important as showing that the theory, 
 of verbal inspiration is incompatible with the facts of the 
 New Testament. If the parable was received by each of the 
 Evangelists by direct dictation of the Spirit, no such varia- 
 tion would have been found ; we should have had the words 
 themselves. It is impossible that our Lord could have uttered 
 both forms : to suppose that He did so is to rush headlong 
 into absurdity. 
 
 We have another remarkable instance in the reports of the 
 words asserted to have been uttered by our Lord during His 
 agony in the garden. St. Matthew records the words as follows : 
 
 " And He went a little farther, and fell on his face, and 
 prayed, saying, O my Father, if it be possible, let this cup 
 pass from me : nevertheless not as I will, but as Thou wilt. 
 .... He went away again the second time, and prayed, saying, 
 
 my Father, if this cup may not pass away from me, except 
 
 1 drink it. Thy will be done And he left them, and 
 
 went away again, and prayed the third time, saying the same 
 words." 
 
 St. Mark reports as follows : — '' And He went forward a 
 little, and fell on the ground, and prayed that, if it were pos- 
 sible, the hour might pass from Him. And He said, Abba, 
 
255 
 
 Father, all things are possible unto Thee ; take away this cup 
 from me : nevertheless not what I will, but what Thou wilt. . . . 
 And again He went away, and prayed, and spake the same 
 words.'' St. Mark gives no report of the words of the third 
 prayer. St. Luke says : — " And He was withdrawn from them 
 about a stone's cast, and kneeled down, and prayed, saying. 
 Father, if Thou be willing, remove this cup from me : never- 
 theless not my will, but Thine, be done. And there appeared 
 an angel unto Him from heaven, strengthening Him. And 
 being in an agony He prayed more earnestly : and His sweat 
 was as it were great drops of blood falling down to the 
 ground." 
 
 We observe the following variations in the reports of the 
 words used, which in each Evangelist are introduced with the 
 words, "He prayed, saying," or, " And He said." St. Matthew 
 makes our Lord to say, in the first prayer, "O my Father, if it be 
 possible, let this cup pass from me." St. Mark reports the words 
 to have been, "Abba, Father, all things are possible unto Thee; 
 take aAvay this cup from me." St. Luke, " Father, if Thou 
 be willing, remove this cup from me." St. Luke varies the 
 words, " not what I will, but what Thou wilt," into " not my 
 will, but Thine, be done." The words used in the second prayer, 
 according to St. Matthew, varied considerably from those used 
 in the first prayer : they do not contain a request that the 
 cup may pass from Him ; they express an increased submission 
 to the Father's will. St. Mark's report, according to our 
 translation, represents the words used on both occasions to 
 have been the same ; but to translate them as our translators 
 have done makes the discrepancy even greater than it actually 
 is. All that the words necessarily imply is, that they were to 
 the same effect. They were, in a certain sense, to the same 
 effect; but there is a fresh element introduced into the second 
 prayer, as recorded by St. Matthew, showing an increased sub- 
 mission to the Father's will, which St. Mark's report of them 
 fails to record. St. Mark's expression entirely overlooks the 
 existence of this fresh element in the prayer. St. Matthew 
 asserts that the repetition of the same words took place at the 
 third prayer, and not at the second. In St. Luke the whole 
 
230 
 
 three prayers are summed up as one continuous act, or 
 rather, if the appearance of the angel from heaven and the 
 bloody sweat took place during the first prayer, the mention 
 of the second and third prayers is altogether omitted. 
 
 Now, if in any place in the Evangelists, supposing they 
 wrote under the influence of an inspiration resembling 
 verbal inspiration, we should certainly expect to find the 
 unmistakable presence of such inspiration in their report of 
 words so sacred as those used by our Lord in prayer to 
 His Father during His agony in the garden. But, although 
 each reports the words which are ascribed to our Lord with 
 the expression, " He prayed, saying," yet even in a case like 
 this we find no literal verbal agreement. We find the evident 
 presence of a human element in the reports given, and not one 
 uniform Divine testimony. It is plain that the Evangelists 
 do not mean to imply that our Lord used the whole of these 
 forms. He might have used some of them in the precise 
 words. If we have the true meaning of our Lord's words, we 
 have all that is necessary for the purposes of a divine revela- 
 tion. But although our knowledge of the meaning, and not 
 of the very words used by our Lord, is quite consistent 
 with the fact that the writers of the Gospels possessed an 
 inspiration sufficient for the purpose of giving us such an 
 account of our Lord^s actions and sayings as God intended us 
 to possess, it is utterly inconsistent with the theory that that 
 inspiration must have been verbal inspiration. If such pas- 
 sages had been written by express dictation^ without the 
 presence of any human element whatever, the Gospels must 
 have contained the very words uttered by our Lord. 
 
 We have observed that the second prayer of our Lord, as given 
 by St. Matthew, implies that a portion of the mental struggle 
 was passed and a more perfect fulness of submission to the 
 Divine will attained. St. Mark simply says that the second 
 prayer was to the same efli'ect. St. Matthew says that the 
 third prayer was to the same effect as the second. The obvious 
 inference is that St. Matthew^ s source of information was more 
 perfect than St. Mark^s. Can it be pretended that variations 
 of this description were actually dictated to the Evangelists by 
 
257 
 
 the Holy Spirit in the identical Avorcls in whieh avc read them. 
 All that is requisite is^ that the Evangelists were aided by the 
 Spirit to give the true meaning of our Lord's words in all 
 cases where their natural memories would have failed them, 
 or their natural faculties were insufficient. 
 
 We now come to the well-known inscription on the cross. 
 To the ordinary reader of the narratives of the Evangelists^ 
 their accounts of the inscription present four variations. 
 
 St. Matthew writes: — "And they set up over His head 
 His accusation written^ This is Jesus the King of the 
 Jews.'^ 
 
 St. Mark — '' And the superscription of His accusation was 
 written over. The King of the Jews.'' 
 
 St. Luke, strictly translated, writes — '^'^And an inscription 
 was written over Him in letters of Hebrew, Greek, and Latin, 
 The King of the Jews, this." 
 
 St. John — " Pilate wrote a title, and put it on the cross, 
 and it was written, Jesus the Nazarene, the King of the 
 Jews." 
 
 Now it is doubtful, if we consider the number of verbal 
 disagreements presented by the Evangelists, whether it Avill 
 repay any one for examining the various ingenious attempts 
 which have been made by the supporters of the theory of 
 verbal inspiration, and its kindred theories, to reduce these 
 various reports to verbal harmony. These disagreements are 
 ^0 numerous and of so undeniable a character that a large ex- 
 penditure of labour on any one of them is quite thrown away 
 while the others remain. We shall notice only one attempt 
 to reconcile them — that of Mr. Elliott, in his letters to Dean 
 Alford. 
 
 It has often been observed that, as the inscription is stated 
 to have been written in Hebrew, Greek, and Latin, there may 
 have been the same substantial inscription, with three diffe- 
 rent verbal variations in each of the languages mentioned. 
 The old mode of reconciling the difficulty was, that Matthew, 
 writing for Jews, had copied the Hebrew inscription ; Mark 
 the Latin one, which it was supposed would be the shorter; 
 and St. John, who wrote after the destruction of Jerusa- 
 
258 
 
 lem, and for the benefit of Gentiles, the Greek one. The 
 persons who offered this solution of the difficulty took it for 
 granted, as most persons naturally would, that four different 
 forms of inscriptions were reported by the Evangelists. What 
 then was to be done with the inscription in St. Luke ? Inge- 
 nuity propounded its answer : — St. Luke had reduced two of 
 the inscriptions into one, although the only natural meaning 
 of the words used by him asserts that what St. Luke has 
 reported were the words of a positive inscription. Mr. 
 Elliott, however, has come to the rescue and corrected all 
 such blundering. Millions have read St. Matthew and never 
 doubted that the language used by him was intended to 
 assert that he had reported a positive inscription over the 
 cross. Mr. Elliott has discovered that St. MatthcAv intended 
 to report no inscription at all : it is the mere ahia, or the 
 charge on which our Lord was condemned — the sum and sub- 
 stance of the three inscriptions — which St. Matthew gives. 
 Unfortunately, St. Matthew is pledged to the assertion that the 
 alrla, or charge, which he reports, was an actually written 
 charge : " they set over His head His charge written.^^ He 
 most plainly implies that this written charge was over the 
 cross, and that the written alrla, or charge, over our Lord's 
 head was, " This is Jesus the King of the Jews." No reader 
 of St. Matthew, who had not some particular theory to main- 
 tain, would have even guessed that St. Matthew did not in- 
 tend to report an inscription over the cross, actually written 
 there, but the special charge on which our Lord was con- 
 demned, which, in actual words, was not in writing over the 
 cross at all. 
 
 The worth of this reasoning may be tested by a somewhat 
 similar case. It is well known that when the Long Parlia- 
 ment overthrew one of the statues of King Charles I., they 
 caused the following words to be engraven on the pedestal : — 
 ^'Exit tyramius ultimus regum'^ (Away goes the tyrant, the last 
 of the kings) . Now, supposing an historian had described this 
 fact in the following language — " They placed on the pede- 
 stal the charge against Charles, and the ground of the aboli- 
 tion of royalty, in a written inscription, ' Charles was a tyrant; 
 
259 
 
 kingship is ended," would any reader of English ever have 
 imagined that the writer meant by these words to convey 
 the mere sense of what was engraven on the pedestal, and 
 not to assert that the words were actually written there ? To 
 such devices do ingenious men have recourse when they wish 
 to bolster up a theory to which they stand committed. Such 
 devices are more likely to urge the waverer into unbelief, than 
 to convince the gainsayer. 
 
 But the explanation in question is burdened with many 
 other diiSiculties. It is obliged to represent that St. John, who 
 ^vrote after the destruction of Jerusalem, and for the benefit 
 of Gentiles, reported not the Greek, but the Hebrew inscrip- 
 tion ; and that St. Matthew, who wrote the earliest of the 
 evangelists, and for the benefit of Jews, has reported no 
 inscription at all, but a charge of his own composition, which 
 none of his readers who might have been actual witnesses of 
 the crucifixion had ever seen in actual writing over the 
 cross. One sacred writer calls what was written over the 
 cross €7nypa(f)7], and another t/tXo9. Pilate is stated to have 
 written it. If so, he no doubt wrote the Latin one with his 
 own hand, and probably the Greek ; he would most probably 
 employ his usual interpreter to translate the Hebrew. What 
 right have we to assume that his interpreter, instead of trans- 
 lating what Pilate had written, would venture on alterations ? 
 Before any advantage can be gained by those who wish to 
 maintain the theory of verbal inspiration by such criticisms, 
 they must rewrite the Gospels and alter their entire struc- 
 ture. The statements of the evangelists as to the inscription 
 over the cross are obviously subversive of the theory of 
 verbal inspiration. The degree in which they are adverse 
 to that theory may be estimated by the shifts to which its 
 supporters are driven to evade the plain meaning of lan- 
 guage. The history of the cure of the demoniac at Gadara 
 is another similar example. St. Matthew^s account is as 
 follows : — 
 
 " And when He was come to the other side into the coun- 
 try of the Gergesenes, there met Him two possessed with 
 devils, coming out of the tombs, exceeding fierce, so that no 
 
 s 2 
 
260 
 
 man might pass by tliat way. And^ beliold, tlicy cried out, 
 saying, What have we to do with Thee, Jesus, Thou Son of 
 God ? art Thou come hither to torment us before the time ? 
 And there was a good way off from them an herd of many 
 swine feeding. So the devils besought Him, saying, If Thou 
 cast us out, suffer us to go away into the herd of swine. And 
 He said unto them, Go. And when they were come out, they 
 went into the herd of swine : and, behokl, the whole herd of 
 swine ran violently down a steep place into the sea, and per- 
 ished in the waters." 
 
 St, Mark : " And they came over unto the other side of the 
 sea, into the country of the Gadarenes. And when He was 
 come out of the ship, immediately there met Him out of the 
 tombs a man with an unclean spirit, who had his dwelling 
 among the tombs ; and no man could bind him, no, not Avith 
 chains : because that he had been often bound with fetters 
 and chains, and the chains had been plucked asunder by him, 
 and the fetters broken in pieces : neither could any man tame 
 him. And always, night and day, he was in the mountains, 
 and in the tombs, crying, and cutting himself with stones. 
 But when he saw Jesus afar ofl^, he ran and worshipped Him, 
 and cried with a loud voice, and said, What have I to do Avith 
 Thee, Jesus, Thou Son of the most high God ? I adjure Thee 
 by God, that Thou torment me not. For He said unto him. 
 Come out of the man, thou u^nclean spirit. And He asked 
 him, What is thy name ? And he answered, saying. My name 
 is Legion : for we are many. And he besought Him much 
 that He Avould not send them aAvay out of the country. Now 
 there Avas there nigh unto the mountains a great herd of 
 SAvine feeding. And all the devils besought Him, saying, 
 Send us into the SAvine, that Ave may enter into them. And 
 forthwith Jesus gave them leave. And the imclean spirits 
 went out, and entered into the swine : and the herd ran vio- 
 lently down a steep place into the sea, (they were about two 
 thousand ;) and Avere choked in the sea." 
 
 We do not quote St. Luke's account, because it presents 
 few additional particulars. 
 
 Now both Mark and Luke speak only of one demoniac 
 
261 
 
 throughout; St. Matthew speaks of two. The miracle of 
 curing the blind man at Jericho is similarly doubled by St. 
 Matthew ; but as there are several most remarkable circum- 
 stances connected with that miracle, we shall examine it in 
 its proper place. It is quite beyond our purpose to inquire 
 what is the best mode of reconciling difficulties of this 
 description ; but we are concerned with them for the purpose 
 of ascertaining, even supposing they admit of the most satis- 
 factory reconciliation, what theory they suggest respecting 
 the nature of the inspiration of the New Testament. 
 
 Let it be supposed that two demoniacs Avere cured; and St. 
 Mark and St. Luke have particularized one only, and that, 
 too, in terms which would lead their readers to apprehend 
 that there was no other, even while in all other respects they 
 narrate the miracle itself with the greatest fulness. Or it may 
 be that a single demoniac only was cured, and that St. Matthew 
 had a less authentic source of information, or that the number 
 of spirits possessing the man occasioned the multiplication of 
 the miracle. As a matter of testimony, this narration does 
 not affect the certainty of the fact that a miracle Avas per- 
 formed. But, taking the narratives as they stand, what 
 theory do they necessarily suggest respecting the degree of 
 the inspiration with which they were written ? Can Ave con- 
 sider that all three evangelists were alike verbally inspired ? 
 Did each evangelist receive the narrative from express dicta- 
 tion ? — or do not these narratives contain indubitable evidence 
 of the presence of a human element along A\itli the divine 
 one? If Ave suppose two demoniacs AA^ere cured, then St. 
 MatthcAv's account is the more accurate of the three ; if one 
 only, superior accuracy will belong to the accounts of Mark 
 and Luke. But if there is no human element in these re- 
 ports, but both are express dictations of the Spirit of God, 
 how can avc talk of greater or less degrees of accuracy as 
 to facts, in Avhat must be the account of those facts given by 
 the Spirit of God ? 
 
 But the two narratives have another striking contrast. 
 The narrative of St. MatthcAV states the bare facts of the 
 miracle, and nothing more; that of St. Mark is most gra- 
 
363 
 
 phic as to tlie details. A person who had not witnessed the 
 miracle might easily have written the narrative of St. Mat- 
 thew. There is no reason for supposing that all the apostles 
 were constantly in attendance on our Lord's person. The 
 narrative of St. Mark has all the appearance of the most 
 graphic picture drawn by an eye-witness. We remark the 
 following points in it : — The man met our Lord hnmediately 
 on His coming out of the ship. He comes from the tombs. 
 There he had been long living. His fierceness was such that 
 no man could tame him, or bind him with chains. As soon 
 as he sees Jesus afar off, he runs to Him and worships Him. 
 He cries with a loud voice. Then follows the report of the 
 dialogue between our Lord and the demoniac. He beseeches 
 Him much not to send them away. Jesus immediately gives 
 them leave to enter the swine. The herd^ when the devils 
 have entered them^ rush violently. The numbers of the de- 
 stroyed swine are actually given. 
 
 Now here is the most marked difference in the mode of 
 narration — the one narrative having the strongest appearance 
 of being that of an eye-witness, the other narrative having 
 but small traces of being written from express ocular testi- 
 mony. This same difference, however it may be accounted 
 for, pervades several other narratives in St. Matthew's Gospel. 
 Is it explicable on the supposition of a Hebrew original, and 
 that what we possess is only a translation ? For this differ- 
 ence there must be a cause. If the theory of verbal inspira- 
 tion be correct, both passages are the work of one and the 
 same author, without any intermixture of a human element. 
 According to that theory, the Spirit must have dictated to 
 Mark the graphic narrative, and to St. Matthew the mere 
 details, only making him the more accurate narrator by men- 
 tioning two demoniacs instead of one. But such a course is 
 certainly one which nothing but the most extreme necessity 
 can justify us in ascribing to the omniscient Spirit of God; 
 and, even viewed thus, relative accuracy in two accounts Avhich 
 have equally the Divine Spirit for their author is out of 
 the question. 
 
 If the Gospels contain a human testimony, all these diffi- 
 
363 
 
 culties vanish; they only arise by destroying the character 
 of the Apostles as witnesses of what they heard and saw, and 
 resolving the whole testimony as to the gospel facts into the 
 testimony of the Divine Spirit. The existence of such strong- 
 marks of ocular testimony, and of such descriptive power, in 
 St. Mark, are quite consistent with the old tradition that he 
 derived much of his information from St. Peter, who was in 
 constant and close attendance on our Lord's person, but not 
 with the theory which makes the evangelist the mere mouth- 
 piece of the Holy Spirit. A man with St. Peter^s peculiar 
 temperament woidd naturally be a graphic describer of what 
 he actually witnessed. The scene of the miracle must have 
 been almost terrifically grand and impressive as it is painted 
 by St. Mark. The whole of these narratives may be consist- 
 ent with the assumption of there being various degrees of 
 inspiration, or with supernatural guidance united with a 
 human element of some sort ; but they are inconsistent with 
 the assumption that their authors wrote under the influence 
 of verbal inspiration, and positively imply the presence of a 
 human testimony and of difierent styles of composition. 
 
 No less impossible is it to reconcile the difierent accounts 
 of the miracle at Jericho with any theory of verbal inspiration. 
 St. Matthew's account is as follows : — " And as they departed 
 from Jericho, a great multitude followed Him. And, behold, 
 two blind men sitting by the way side, when they heard that 
 Jesus passed by, cried out, saying. Have mercy on us, O Lord, 
 Thou son of David. And the multitude rebuked them, be- 
 cause they should hold their peace : but they cried the more, 
 saying. Have mercy on us, O Lord, thou son of David. And 
 Jesus stood still, and called them, and said. What will ye that 
 I shall do unto you ? They say unto Him, Lord, that our 
 eyes may be opened. So Jesus had compassion on them, and 
 touched their eyes : and immediately their eyes received sight, 
 and they followed Him." 
 
 St. Mark : " And they came to Jericho : and as He went 
 out of Jericho with His disciples and a great number of i)eo- 
 ple, blind Bartimseus, the son of Timseus, sat by the highway 
 side begging. And when he heard that it was Jesus of Naza- 
 
264 
 
 reth^ lie began to cry out^ and say, Jesus, tliou son of David, 
 have mercy on me. And many charged him that he should 
 hold his peace : but he cried the more a great deal, Thou sou 
 of David, have mercy on me. And Jesus stood still, and 
 commanded him to be called. And they call the blind man, 
 saying unto him. Be of good comfort, rise ; He calleth thee. 
 And he, casting away his garment, rose, and came to Jesus. 
 And Jesus answered and said unto him, What wilt thou that 
 I should do unto thee ? The blind man said unto Him, Lord, 
 that I might receive my sight. And Jesus said unto him. Go 
 thy way ; thy faith hath made thee whole. And immediately 
 he received his sight, and followed Jesus in the way." 
 
 St. Luke : " And it came to pass, that as He was come 
 nigh unto Jericho, a certain blind man sat by the way side 
 begging : and hearing the multitude pass by, he asked Avhat 
 it meant," &c., nearly in the words of St. Mark. After the per- 
 formance of the miracle, St. Luke resumes : — " And Jesus 
 entered, and passed through Jericho." Then follows the story 
 of Zacchseus. 
 
 Now the difficulties in these narratives are, that St. Mark 
 represents our Lord to have cured Bartima^us as He went out 
 of Jericho; St. Luke makes Him to have cured a blind man 
 as He went into Jericho; and St. Matthew represents Him 
 to have cured two blind men as He went out of Jericho. To 
 reconcile these difficulties, it has been supposed that the mira- 
 cle was doubled, one blind man being cured as our Lord 
 entered Jericho, and another as He went out of it ; and that 
 St. Matthew, Avho represents two blind men to have been 
 cured as He ivent out of Jericho, has united the two accounts 
 into one. 
 
 The difficulties with which this mode of reconciliation are 
 attended are hopeless. St. Mark states expressly that the 
 miracle was performed as they went out of Jericho, and St. 
 Luke's narrative is no less express that the miracle was per- 
 formed as they were entering it. How could the cure of a 
 blind man performed as our Lord was entering a city, and 
 another on the road as He was going out of it, be reported 
 by any historian as the cure of two blind men wrought as He 
 
365 
 
 was going out of the same city ? The cause of verbal inspi- 
 ration will gain but little from such a solution : as much as 
 it will gain, the credibility of the Scriptures will lose. It is 
 far better to explain the difficulty by the presence of a human 
 element, than to assert that both narratives, if this was their 
 intended meaning, were alike dictated by the Holy Spirit. 
 
 But the expedient of considering the miracle performed at 
 the entrance^into Jericho, and repeated on going out of it, is a 
 very doubtful one. We are then forced to suppose that there 
 was a blind man sitting at the entrance of the city begging, and 
 another in the opposite direction, leading out of it; that 
 they each uttered the same cry, in the same words ; that the 
 multitude on each occasion charge them to be silent, and that, 
 too, after our Lord had, in answer to the prayer, performed 
 the miracle just before ; that, notwithstanding the rebuke of 
 the multitude, each blind man persisted in his prayer in the 
 same words ; that on each occasion our Lord stood still and 
 commanded the blind man to be called ; that our Lord 
 makes the same inquiry of each, receives precisely the same 
 answer, confers the benefit in the same language, and is fol- 
 lowed in the way by each. 
 
 Now, we ask, can any person read these narratives and 
 assert that they do not denote the usual phenomena of human 
 testimony, which usually presents variations in small and un- 
 important particulars? The points of disagreement are of 
 minor importance ; they do not affect the great fact that a 
 bhnd man was cured somewhere near Jericho. Mark^s nar- 
 rative bears the strongest indications of being derived from an 
 actual witness. Eyery minor point is brought out just as such 
 a witness would have narrated it, even to the blind man^s 
 arising and throAving aside his garment in his haste to get to 
 our Lord. Such circumstances, so naturally introduced, do 
 more to prove truthfulness than the most exact verbal agree- 
 ment with other accounts. 
 
 The same view is presented by the narrative of the two 
 thieves reviling our Lord on the cross. St. Matthew says, 
 " The thieves also which were crucified with Him cast the 
 same in His teeth/^ 
 
266 
 
 St. Mark, " And they that were crucified with Him reviled 
 Him." 
 
 St. Luke, " And one of the malefactors which were hanged 
 railed on Him, saying, If Thou be the Christ, save thyself 
 and us. But the other, answering, rebuked him." 
 
 To reconcile this difference, it has been affirmed that both 
 reviled our Lord at first, but afterwards one of them repented, 
 confessed our Lord, and rebuked his fellow. It may be so ; 
 but neither narrative drops a single hint that such was the 
 fact. The reader of each separate narrative would certainly 
 be of opinion that the contrary was the case. The only ques- 
 tion which we are called on to consider is. Is the present form 
 of the narratives consistent with the supposition that each 
 separate narrative was actually dictated to the writer by the 
 Spirit of God? — or do the narratives clearly imply the presence 
 of human testimony ? 
 
 It is well known that the greatest possible difficidty exists 
 in forming a direct narrative of the events of our Lord^s pas- 
 sion out of the four narratives of the Evangelists. We can- 
 not ascertain with certainty from them the precise order of 
 the different events, nor is it always easy to make difierent 
 events recorded by separate writers agree with one another. 
 We may almost say that the views of the order of the events 
 prior to the crucifixion are almost as numerous as the writers 
 who undertake to treat of them. The difficulties on this 
 point presented by the four Gospels are so generally felt and 
 acknowledged, that it will be superfluous to make long ex- 
 tracts from them : an example or two will be sufficient. St. 
 John represents our Lord to have been scourged at some time 
 early during the proceedings before Pilate, evidently with the 
 purpose, on Pilate's part, of inducing the Jews to consent to 
 His release; and he makes no mention of any subsequent 
 scourging. St. Luke omits the mention of the scourging 
 altogether, but leaves ample room for St. John's statement, 
 by representing Pilate as proposing to the Jews that he 
 should chastise Him and release Him. But the natural 
 meaning which a reader, who knew nothing of the statement 
 of St. John, would assign to the narratives of St. Matthew 
 
267 
 
 and St. Mark is, that the scourging was inflicted in the usual 
 Roman manner, as a preliminary to the crucifixion, and after 
 sentence was actually passed. Some commentators maintain 
 that the scourging is misplaced by St. Matthew and St. Mark ; 
 Others, that it was repeated twice, of which no hint is found 
 in either Gospel, and that the mention of the second scourging 
 is omitted by St. John. The historical fact of the scourging 
 is affirmed by three Evangehsts, and implied by the fourth : 
 they differ as to the time of its infliction. If inflicted in pri- 
 vate, we can see how such difference might naturally arise, if 
 the writers of the Gospels are delivering the results of human 
 testimony. St. John might have known the actual fact : he 
 had superior means of information. He was acquainted with 
 persons in authority. St. Matthew and St. Mark, knowing 
 that He had been scourged, might have concluded that it took 
 place at the usual time. Now what do the phenomena sug- 
 gest as to the authorship ? Are the four Gospels the result of 
 one author, or of many? Do they contain the witness of 
 distinct individuals to the facts, or the one testimony of the 
 omniscient Spirit ? 
 
 St. John's Gospel contains a passage which has all the 
 appearance of being a continuous narration of the actual 
 official condemnation of our Lord by Pilate. The Jews have 
 just intimidated Pilate by intimating to him that the course 
 which he was pursuing with respect to our Lord showed that 
 he was no friend of Caesar. The passage is as foUows :— 
 " When Pilate therefore heard that saying, he brought Jesus 
 forth, and sat down in the judgment seat in a place that is 
 called the Pavement, but in the Hebrew, Gabbatha. And it 
 was the preparation of the passover, and about the sixth 
 hour : and he saith unto the Jews, Behold your King ! But 
 they cried out, Away >vith Him, away with Him, crucify 
 Him. Pilate saith unto them. Shall I crucify your King? 
 The chief priests answered, We have no king but Cgesar. 
 Then delivered he Him therefore unto them to be crucified.' 
 And they took Jesus, and led Him away.'' 
 
 Now it is not our intention to express an opinion as to the 
 correct method of harmonizing this portion of the Gospel nar- 
 
268 
 
 rative ; but^ to the ordinary reader, tliis passage presents all the 
 appearance of being a continuous narrative of facts, certainly 
 without any long break occurring in them. Pilate has all the 
 appearance of having taken his place on the judgment seat 
 for the purpose of gi^'ing a judicial sentence. But Greswell, in 
 his Harmony, has thought it necessary to break this passage 
 into pieces. Between its different sentences he has introduced 
 not only a great deal of matter from the other Evangelists, 
 but also the long account by St. Luke of the sending of our 
 Lord to Herod. This event could not well have occupied 
 less than an hour. Between another of these clauses he 
 thinks it necessary to introduce the communication to Pi- 
 late of his wife^s dream. Now, whatever we may think 
 of this manner of dealing with the passage of St. John, it 
 is beyond denial that the forming the four accounts into 
 a continuous whole presents great difficulties to the liar- 
 monizer. 
 
 St. John's Gospel also contains an account of a private exa- 
 mination of our Lord by Pilate, given in very considerable 
 detail. In the course of this examination, in answer to 
 Pilate^s question, "Art thou the king of the Jews?" our Lord 
 confesses himself a king, after explaining distinctly to Pilate 
 that He claimed that title in no sense implying that He was 
 a temporal sovereign. Pilate accepts the explanation, and 
 pronounces ovir Lord not guilty of the charge adduced by the 
 Jews. The accounts of the other Evangelists would lead the 
 reader to draw the inference that, in answer to the charge of 
 pretending to be the king of the Jews, our Lord made the 
 direct reply, " Thou sayest it," thereby confessing the charge, 
 without giving to Pilate any explanation of the sense in which 
 He confessed Himself to be a king. 
 
 Now, in explanation, some commentators make our Lord to 
 have answered Pilate's question, " Art thou the king of the 
 Jews ? " in public, before the private examination. Others 
 represent Him to have answered it after that examination. 
 Others think that the confession of our Lord, as it is recorded 
 by St. Matthew and St. Mark, was not made at all in the words 
 mentioned by them, but that theirs is a more general account 
 
269 
 
 of what passed at the private examination, which St. John has 
 given more in detail. 
 
 The whole of the narrative, both of the events before 
 Annas and Caiaphas and before Pilate, presents similar diffi- 
 culties. 
 
 Now it forms no portion of our present inquiry to discover 
 the missing links w^hich would reconcile passages of this de- 
 scription, but to ascertain what theory of inspiration such 
 narratives imply. Would any reader, who had no previously 
 formed opinions on the subject, ever rise from the perusal of 
 these narratives with the opinion that they were written under 
 the influence of verbal inspiration ? He w ould see the plain, 
 indubitable marks of human testimony. He would consider 
 that he was reading the accounts of various witnesses. Faith- 
 ful witnesses, in recording the events of a most exciting day, 
 and events in which their feelings were most deeply interested, 
 would naturally testify, some to one event to which their 
 attention had been particularly drawn, and some to another. 
 One witness might have seen one portion of an event, an- 
 other might have seen and testified to the other portion only. 
 There is no necessity for supposing that every witness was 
 present during the whole proceedings ; and if he were, he might 
 often be prevented by the crowd from witnessing every portion 
 of them ; or the intensity of his feelings may have caused him 
 to observe one thing, and not to observe another. The cries 
 uttered by the Jews were, no doubt, various. One person 
 might have heard and reported one cry, and another another 
 cry. Variations in different accounts as to time and place 
 might easily arise among eye-witnesses in the midst of a scene 
 so deeply exciting. The whole of these considerations, put 
 together, are fully sufficient to account for great variations and 
 even occasional discrepancies in the narratives. Such varia- 
 tions would not in the smallest degree affect the credit of the 
 testimony as to the great facts. But while such considera- 
 tions are amply sufficient to account for the variations and the 
 discrepancies, they account for them only on one supposition, 
 that the narratives before us are the results of credible human 
 testimony. They are consistent with the fact that our Lord 
 
270 
 
 constituted the Apostles His witnesses of the great facts of 
 the gospel history; they are inconsistent with the assump- 
 tion that those facts, in the form we read them in the four 
 gospels, were actually dictated, to the writers by One possessing 
 omniscience. 
 
 The same remarks are even in a greater degree true of the 
 four narratives of the events of the Resurrection. Perhaps 
 there is hardly a reader in existence who has not observed the 
 difficulties of weaving those narratives into a consistent whole, 
 and of harmonizing their different assertions. Innumerable 
 attempts have been made to harmonize these accounts ; but 
 the harshness of the resulting narratives forbids us to suppose 
 that the harmonizers themselves are well satisfied with their 
 performances. If we take the four histories as the separate 
 accounts of different witnesses, testifying to what they had 
 actually seen or had heard reported on good authority by 
 persons who had actually witnessed the events, the fact of the 
 resurrection of our Lord is established on evidence such as no 
 other human fact possesses. But if we think it necessary, 
 before that great fact can be believed, that we should be able 
 to give a harmony of the Evangelical narratives, we shall be in 
 danger of a long and dreary wandering in the dismal regions 
 of unbelief. If, instead of assuming theories of antecedent 
 probability as to what the New Testament ought to be, we 
 simply ascertain from the facts themselves what they declare 
 on the subject, they will furnish us with the answer : — We are 
 the faithful reports of persons who were constituted by our 
 Lord witnesses of His resurrection, who have testified to what 
 our eyes have seen, what our ears have heard, and what our 
 hands have handled. 
 
 It is well known that the Gospel of St. John is at apparent 
 disagreement with the synoptic Gospels, as to whether the 
 night on which our Lord celebrated His passover was the 
 night of the actual passover. The reader of St. John^s Gos- 
 pel would naturally conclude that the night in question was 
 passover-eve ; the readers of the synoptic Gospels would as 
 naturally infer that it was on the very Paschal night. A few 
 quotations will show the nature of the disagreement. 
 
271 
 
 St. MattheAV, xxvi. : Our Lord says to the Apostles^ '' Ye 
 know that after two days is the feast of the passover/^ " Now 
 the first day of the feast of unleavened bread the disciples 
 came to Jesus, saying unto Him, Where wilt Thou that we 
 prepare for Thee to eat the passover?" "And they made ready 
 the passover/^ St. Mark, xiv, : " And the first day of un- 
 leavened bread, when they killed the passover. His disciples 
 said unto Him, Where wilt Thou that we go and prepare that 
 Thou mayest eat the passover ? " " And they made ready 
 the passover." St. Luke, xxii. : " Then came the day of un- 
 leavened bread, when the passover must be killed." " And 
 He said unto them, With desire I have desired to eat this 
 passover with you before I suffer." Now all these expres- 
 sions imply that our Lord celebrated the Jewish passover 
 with the disciples on the regular Paschal night ; and had we 
 no other information, they would have left no doubt of it on 
 the mind of the ordinary reader. 
 
 St. John, however, has the following assertions. Chap. xiii. : 
 " Now before the feast of the passover, when Jesus knew that 
 His hour was come. . . . He riseth from supper." " For some 
 of them thought, because Judas had the bag, that Jesus had 
 said unto him. Buy those things that we have need of against 
 the feast." Chap, xviii. : " They themselves went not into 
 the judgment hall, lest they should be defiled ; but that they 
 might eat the passover." Chap. xix. : " And it was the pre- 
 paration of the passover, and about the sixth hour." 
 
 NoAv it is self-evident that a discrepancy exists in the words 
 of these statements, a discrepancy which might admit of recon- 
 ciliation if we knew the whole of the facts. It is not our busi- 
 ness to attempt that reconciliation. Our concern is simply with 
 the mode of statement adopted in the different narratives of 
 the Evangelists, and to inquire whether those statements, as 
 we now read them, were dictated to each several Evangelist 
 by the omniscient Spirit. Whatever mode of reconciling the 
 synoptic Gospels with St. John may be the true one, still the 
 reader of the synoptic Gospels would draw the conclusion 
 that the night on which our Lord celebrated the passover was 
 the night of the regular Jewish passover. St. John^s assertion 
 
272 
 
 is distinct that the day on which our Lord was condemned 
 by Pilate was about the sixth hour on passover-eve, and, con- 
 sequently, that the night when He ate His passover could not 
 have been the night of the regular Jewish passover. We must 
 assume a theory, therefore, which will assign this discrepancy 
 or want of perspicuity in expression, or by whatever name we 
 choose to designate the fact in question, to some human ele- 
 ment existing in the minds of the writers of the Gospels, and 
 not to the agency of the Spirit of God. 
 
 Of a similar description is the twofold statement in St. 
 Matthew and the Acts respecting the mode of the death of 
 Judas. St. Matthew's statement is, " He departed, and went 
 and hanged himself This contains no allusion whatever to 
 any other cause of death ; it simply asserts that he com- 
 mitted suicide by hanging or strangulation. St. Peter, in the 
 Acts of the Apostles, says, " And falling headlong," or, more 
 correctly, on his face, " he burst asunder in the midst, and all 
 his bowels gushed out. And it was known to all the dwel- 
 lers at Jerusalem." 
 
 Now there is no doubt that, to persons who knew the exact 
 mode of Judas' s death, those two accounts would present 
 nothing which was irreconcilable ; but, to those who do not 
 know the actual state of the facts, there is no connecting link 
 which will explain the difficulty. As each account now 
 stands, it is an imperfect narrative, and we have no means left 
 us of constructing a perfect one. To the reader of St. Mat- 
 thew, Judas appears to have perished simply by suicide and 
 strangulation. To the reader of St. Luke it appears no less 
 evident that the immediate cause of his death was a fall, 
 which caused him to burst asunder, and his bowels to gush 
 out. Now all this is quite consistent, if the accounts have 
 been derived from the testimony of human witnesses, one of 
 whom has reported one side of this transaction, and the other 
 the other, and that the connecting link has perished. The 
 theory of verbal inspiration requires us to assume that the 
 Spirit of God dictated to St. Matthew one part of this trans- 
 action, and to St. Luke another, and omitted the connecting 
 link between them. The necessity must be of the clearest 
 
273 
 
 description before we can be justified in making such assump- 
 tions, and ascribing such a mode of dictation to the Spirit 
 of God. 
 
 A similar result follows from the different arrangements 
 adopted by St. Matthew and St. Luke in the narrative of the 
 Temptation. Here no one will hesitate for a single moment 
 to adopt the order of the events as given by St. Matthew : St. 
 Luke's order cannot be the correct one. But when the reader 
 unhesitatingly assumes that St. Matthew's order is the correct 
 order, and that St. Luke has narrated the second temptation out 
 of place, do we not also necessarily assume the presence of a 
 human element which is the cause of this difference of ar- 
 rangement ? It has been said, no di^'ine truth is at all com- 
 promised by the arrangement adopted by St. Luke. This is 
 perfectly true ; but the admission gives no account of the in- 
 fluence which led St. Luke to adopt this arrangement. 
 
 We have a similar example in the account given by St. 
 Matthew and St. Luke of the healing of the centurion's ser- 
 vant. St. Matthew writes : — " There came unto Him a cen- 
 turion, beseeching him, and saying. Lord, my servant lieth at 
 home sick of the palsy, grievously tormented. And Jesus saitli 
 unto him, I will come and heal him. The centurion answered 
 and said, Lord, I am not worthy that Thou shouldest come un- 
 der my roof," &c. " And Jesus said unto the centurion. Go 
 thy way ; and as thou hast believed, so be it done unto thee." 
 
 St. Luke writes : — " And a certain centurion's servant, who 
 was dear unto him, was sick, and ready to die. And when 
 he heard of Jesus, he sent unto Him the elders of the Jews. . . . 
 And when they came to Jesus, they besought Him instantly, 
 saying, That he was worthy for whom He should do this : for 
 he lovetli our nation, and he hath built us a synagogue. Then 
 Jesus went with them. And when He was now not far from 
 the house, the centurion sent friends to Him, saying unto Him, 
 Lord, trouble not Thyself: for I am not worthy that Thou 
 shouldest enter under my roof : wherefore neither thought I 
 myself worthy to come unto Thee," &c., &c. 
 
 St. Matthew's account represents the centurion to have 
 come in person ; and he is represented as the speaker, and our 
 
 T 
 
274 
 
 Lord as speaking to him, in the whole narrative. St. Luke's 
 account represents that the centurion sent the elders of the 
 Jewish synagogue first; and when he found our Lord was 
 actually coming to his house, he sent friends expressly to say 
 that his sense of unworthiness had induced him to send the 
 elders of the Jews, and not to come himself. Two different 
 modes of reconciliation have been adopted : the one is, that 
 he first sent friends to our Lord, and finally came himself; 
 the other is a method highly useful in getting over all diffi- 
 culties — that what a person does by another he does by him- 
 self. The first method will not solve the difficulty ; and if the 
 truth of the latter mode of solution be admitted, still we have 
 two dififerent accounts of the same transaction, one of which 
 asserts that the centurion came in person, and the other that 
 he presented his request tlirough others. This mode of ex- 
 pression is quite consistent with the presence of a human 
 element, but not with the assumption of nothing but a 
 divine one. 
 
 The comparison of the accounts given by St. Matthew and 
 St. Mark of the cure of the woman with an issue of blood 
 will throw considerable light on the principles for which we 
 are contending. Matthew (ix.) writes: — 
 
 " And, behold, a woman, which was diseased with an issue 
 of blood twelve years, came behind Him, and touched the 
 hem of His garment : for she said within herself. If I may 
 but touch His garment, I shall be whole. But Jesus turned 
 Him about, and when He saw her. He said. Daughter, be of 
 good comfort ; thy faith hath made thee whole. And the 
 woman was made whole from that hour." Mark, v. : — " And 
 Jesus went with him ; and much people followed Him, and 
 thronged Him. And a certain woman, which had an issue 
 of blood twelve years, and had sufiered many things of many 
 physicians, and had spent all that she had, and was nothing 
 bettered, but rather grew worse, when she had heard of Jesus, 
 came in the press behind, and touched His garment. For she 
 said, If I may touch but His clothes, I shall be whole. And 
 straightway the fountain of her blood was dried up ; and she 
 felt in her body that she was healed of that plague. And 
 
275 
 
 Jesus, immediately knowing in Himself that virtue had gone 
 out of Him, turned Him about in the press, and said, Who 
 touched my clothes ? And His disciples said unto Him, Thou 
 seest the multitude thronging Thee, and sayest Thou, Who 
 touched me? And He looked round about to see her that 
 had done this thing. But the woman fearing and trembling, 
 knowing what was done in her, came and fell down before 
 Him, and told Him all the truth. And He said unto her. 
 Daughter, thy faith hath made thee whole ; go in peace, and 
 be whole of thy plague." 
 
 We do not give St. Luke^s account ; for the only additional 
 fact mentioned by him is, that the person who almost expos- 
 tulated with our Lord was Peter. 
 
 Now the narrative of St. Matthew is a bare account of the 
 facts, and not of the entire facts. His object seems to have 
 been simply to record the reality of the miracle. He has done 
 so with a brevity which would have left us entirely in the dark 
 as to the character of the woman^s faith. We should have 
 had no idea from him that the faith was imperfect, that our 
 Lord compelled the woman to make confession of the cure, 
 or that the blessing was not pronounced on her till after she 
 was compelled publicly to declare the reality of the great 
 work wrought in her. St. Matthew's narrative contains no 
 mark of descriptive power, and no evident trace of the presence 
 of an eye-witness. But how is all this altered when we read 
 the description of St. Mark ! From him we learn that the 
 woman tried to obtain the cm'e secretly. He informs us that 
 she made an attempt to evade the observation of our Lord, 
 and that our Lord forced her to confess the fact. Erom him 
 we learn that the woman's faith was imperfect, and that she 
 evidently thought that some secret power resided in our Lord's 
 clothes ; and that she was not dismissed with our Lord's 
 blessing until she had been subjected to His rebuke. 
 
 How graphic is St. Mark's description ! how strongly do 
 we discover the presence of an eye-witness to the transac- 
 tion ! The people thronged our Lord on the occasion. The 
 woman had spent her all on physicians, in attempting to get 
 cured. How did the evangelist know this ? She was forced 
 
 t2 
 
276 
 
 to make full confession of the facts of her case. She had got 
 no better, but worse, under the physicians' treatment. Her 
 secret thoughts are described. The miracle takes place im- 
 mediately ; she has an inward feeling of its reality. Our 
 Lord recognizes the reality of the miracle instantly. He 
 turns Him about, and inquires, " Who touched me ? " The 
 disciples expostulate. He folloivs the woman with His eye. 
 The ivoman falls before Him, with fear and trembling, and 
 confesses everything. Then the blessing is pronounced. 
 
 Now these different phenomena in the two narratives must 
 have some cause. In an ordinary narrative we should at once 
 assume that the writer of St. Mark's Gospel had a greater 
 degree of graphic power of description, and possessed access 
 to ocular testimony to a greater extent, than the writer of St. 
 Matthew's Gospel. At any rate, the phenomena in question 
 are inconsistent with the assumption that both narratives were 
 dictated by the same person. Difference of authorship is the 
 conclusion which the human mind forms from this remarkable 
 dift'erence of phenomena. 
 
 But this narrative also affords us a remarkable instance of 
 the mode in which human language and conceptions are used 
 by writers under the influence of inspiration, nay, even by 
 our Lord himself. We have already observed that " it 
 follows from the fact that the Creator never works by a 
 double instrumentality, that an inspired writer, if he has 
 occasion to mention matters connected with scientific truth, 
 may use popular language and popular conceptions on such 
 subjects, even when they involve an incorrect scientific 
 theory." The expression used by the Evangelist, and asserted 
 by St. Luke to have been also used by our Lord, is a very 
 remarkable example of this mode of speaking. Our version 
 has made the difference between the literal meaning of the 
 w^ords and scientific truth greater, by rendering the word hvva- 
 lxL<i in this solitary case 'Wirtue," instead of " power" as it has 
 correctly done in the very numerous other passages where it 
 occurs. The woman was not cured by an unconscious virtue 
 residing in our Lord's clothes, but ])y the direct and conscious 
 energy of the power of His divine nature. The power which 
 
277 
 
 effected the cure was the same power as that by which He 
 has created and still upholds the universe — a power the result 
 of the spontaneous energy of His will. But the literal mean- 
 ing of the words used to express this imply a particular the- 
 ory as to the mode in which that power was exerted : " I 
 perceive that power has gone out of me." It was surely no 
 purpose of our Lord to teach the mode in which the infinite 
 power of the Almighty is exerted. The mode in which the 
 Creator energizes, either in the creation of a world or in the 
 cure of a disease, is quite beyond the reach of finite con- 
 ceptions. What our Lord meant to assert was, that He 
 himself was the sole and only source of the cure, that He 
 knew that the cure had been effected, and that the attempt 
 of the woman to escape His observation was useless. In 
 expressing this, He adopted the mode of conception of those 
 by whom He was surrounded. They thought that power 
 issued from His person. It was no part of His mission to 
 teach that power is not a force or kind of abstract essence 
 issuing from its possessor, but is the result of the energy 
 of his being. The language used may have been scien- 
 tifically incorrect, but infinitely better for our Lord's pur- 
 pose than words involving the highest degree of scientific 
 exactness, which, if they had been used, would have involved 
 an amount of explanation, to render them comprehensible to 
 the multitude, which must wholly have withdrawn their 
 attention, and that of the woman, from the truths which our 
 Lord was enforcing. In the same way our Lord did not ask 
 the question, "Who touched me?" from ignorance of the person 
 who had done so, but to draw attention to the fact that a great 
 miracle had been wrought in proof of His divine mission. 
 
 The history of the cure of the demoniac child, as given 
 by St. Matthew and St. Mark, is equally inconsistent with a 
 belief that both narratives were written under the influence 
 of verbal inspiration. In St. Matthew (chap, xvii.) we read : — 
 
 " And Avhen they were come to the multitude, there came 
 to Him a certain man, kneeling down] to Him, and saying, 
 Lord, have mercy on my son : for he is lunatick, and sore 
 vexed ; for ofttimes he falleth into the fire, and oft into the 
 
378 
 
 water. And I brought him to Thy disciples, and they could 
 not cure him. Then Jesus answered and said, O faithless 
 and perverse generation, how long shall I be with you? 
 how long shall I suffer you ? bring him hither to me. And 
 Jesus rebuked the devil ; and he departed out of him : and 
 the child was cured from that very hour." 
 
 But St. MarVs account of the same event (in chap, ix.) is : 
 " And when He came to His disciples. He saw a great multi- 
 tude about them, and the scribes questioning with them. 
 And straightway all the people, when they beheld Him, were 
 greatly amazed, and running to Him saluted Him. And He 
 asked the scribes. What question ye with them ? And one of 
 the multitude answered and said. Master, I have brought 
 unto Thee my son, which hath a dumb spirit ; and whereso- 
 ever he taketh him, he teareth him : and he foameth, and 
 gnasheth with his teeth, and pineth away : and I spake to 
 Thy disciples that they should cast him out, and they could 
 not. He answereth him, and saith, O faithless generation, 
 how long shall I be with you ? how long shall I suffer you ? 
 bring him unto me. And they brought him unto Him : and 
 when He saw him, straightway the spirit tare him ; and he 
 fell on the ground, and wallowed foaming. And He asked 
 his father. How long is it ago since this came unto him ? 
 And he said. Of a child. And ofttimes it hath cast him into 
 the fire, and into the waters, to destroy him : but if Thou 
 canst do anything, have compassion on us, and help us. 
 Jesus said unto him, If thou canst believe, all things are 
 possible to him that believeth. And straightway the father 
 of the child cried out, and said with tears. Lord, I believe ; 
 help thou mine unbelief. When Jesus saw that the people came 
 running together. He rebuked the foul spirit, saying unto liim. 
 Thou dumb and deaf spirit, I charge thee, come out of him, 
 and enter no more into him. And the spirit cried, and rent 
 him sore, and came out of him : and he was as one dead ; 
 insomuch that many said, He is dead. But Jesus took him 
 by the hand, and lifted him up ; and he arose." 
 
 St. Luke's narrative presents no special features beyond 
 that of St. Mark. 
 
379 
 
 The whole of this description by St. Mark is a most 
 graphic painting : it contains about it a terrible reality, 
 which none but an eye-witness could have drawn. Its power 
 does not consist merely in its detached parts, but in its con- 
 tinuous whole. We have the terrible convulsions of the 
 child, the despair of the father, and the calmness of our 
 Lord, represented before our eyes with a vivid reality almost 
 reaching the sublime. Every word of St. Mark is instinct 
 with life. The whole representation impresses the mind of 
 the reader with the idea that the narrator had contemplated 
 the scene which he is describing with wonder and with awe. 
 The description, after the unclean spirit has resigned his 
 prey, is drawn from the very life. No words can do justice 
 to the power of the narrative. St. Matthew's account, on 
 the other hand, is a description of the same facts, with only 
 one graphic touch — that the parent of the child came to our 
 Lord kneeling. With this exception, the painting and the 
 scenery is all wanting. There are no fierce convulsions, no 
 father's struggle, no running multitude, no child extended on 
 the ground as dead. We have the fact of the miracle ad- 
 duced as proof that Jesus was the Messiah, and little beside 
 the fact. 
 
 Now, if to every effect there is a cause, a reason must exist 
 for this remarkable difference between the two Evangelists. 
 To what are we to attribute it ? If we assert that both nar- 
 ratives were dictated, as they now stand, by the same Author, 
 will that supposition account for the difference of the manner 
 in which the story is narrated ? It may be said that it did 
 not form part of St. Matthew's plan, and did form a portion 
 of St. Mark's plan, to give this graphic narrative. But this 
 leaves the difference in great measiu'C unaccounted for; and 
 what it does account for, it assigns to a human origin. If we 
 had no theory to maintain, we should have no difficulty in 
 assigning, as the ground of the distinction, the possession by 
 St. Mark of more graphic poAvers of description and of better 
 sources of ocular information than those possessed by St. 
 Matthew. 
 
 But although St. Mark's narratives usually possess this 
 
280 
 
 superior graphic character^ compared with those of St. Mat- 
 tlaew, we have an exception in the history of the Syrophenician 
 woman. 
 
 St. MattheWj xv. : '''Then Jesus went thence^ and departed 
 into the coasts of Tyre and Sidon. And, behold, a Avoman of 
 Canaan came out of the same coasts, and cried unto him, 
 saying, Have mercy on me, O Lord, thou son of David ; my 
 daughter is grievously vexed with a devil. But He answered 
 her not a word. And His disciples came and besought Him, 
 saying, Send her away; for she crieth after us. But He 
 answered aud said, I am not sent but unto the lost sheep of 
 the house of Israel. Then came she and worshipped Him, 
 saying, Lord, help me. But He answered and said. It is not 
 meet to take the children's bread, and to cast it to dogs. 
 And she said, Truth, Lord : yet the dogs eat of the crumbs 
 which fall from their masters' table. Then Jesus answered 
 and said unto her, O woman, great is thy faith : be it unto 
 thee even as thou wilt. And her daughter was made whole 
 from that very hour." 
 
 St. Mark, vii. : " And from thence He arose, and went 
 into the borders of Tyre and Sidon, and entered into an 
 house, and would have no man know it : but He could not 
 be hid. For a certain woman, whose young daughter had an 
 unclean spirit, heard of Him, and came and fell at His feet : 
 the woman was a Greek, a Syrophenician by nation; and 
 she besought Him that He would cast forth the devil out of 
 her daughter. But Jesus said unto her. Let the children 
 first be filled : for it is not meet to take the children's bread, 
 and to cast it unto the dogs. And she answered and said 
 unto Him, Yes, Lord : yet the dogs under the table eat of 
 the children's crumbs. And He said unto her. For this say- 
 ing go thy way ; the devil is gone out of thy daughter. And 
 Avhen she was come to her house, she found the devil gone 
 out, and her daughter laid upon the bed.'^ 
 
 Now neither of these accounts is in itself complete. St. 
 Matthew's account implies that the whole transaction took place 
 in public. The disciples say, " Send her away ; for she crieth 
 after us." St. Mark's narrative no less distinctly implies 
 
281 
 
 that tlie wliole took place within the walls of a house. Some 
 portiou of the events mentioned must have taken place within 
 the house ; but the fair reading of each narrative,, separately, 
 implies that the whole of the transaction took place either 
 inside or outside the house^ and not part inside and part out- 
 side. St. INfark also furnishes us with full particulars respect- 
 ing the Avoman's origin, and states the additional fact that 
 her daughter was young. From him also we learn that our 
 Lord uttered the words, " Let the children first be filled ; " 
 and he also gives us the additional fact, that, after the per- 
 formance of the miracle, the woman found the child, on her 
 return, reclining on a bed. 
 
 But, in all the other circumstances, the narrative of St. 
 Matthew is far richer, especially in depicting the greatness 
 of the woman^s humility and faith. " She besought Him 
 that He Avould cast forth the devil out of her daughter,^^ is 
 the representative in St. Mark for St. Matthew's more 
 graphic description — " She cried unto Him, saying. Have 
 mercy on me, O Lord, thou son of David ; my daughter is 
 grievously vexed with a devil." But for St. Matthew, we 
 should have missed the fact altogether, that the Gentile 
 woman actually recognized our Lord as the Messiah. The 
 intercession of the disciples is, by St. Mark, entirely omitted. 
 So also St. Mark omits the particularly affecting incident, 
 that when our Lord answered the disciples that He was not 
 sent but unto the lost sheep of the house of Israel, she came 
 and worshipped Him, saying, " Lord, help me.'' This is a 
 sort of circumstance which, judging from his usual style, we 
 should certainly have expected St. Mark to have mentioned, 
 if he had been aware of it. The final commendation of the 
 woman's faith, and its glorious triumph, is represented by 
 St. Mark in the expression, " For this saying go thy way ; 
 the devil is gone out of thy daughter ;" but by St. Matthew, 
 " O woman, great is thy faith : be it unto thee even as thou 
 wilt." St. Mark's report is here evidently the shadow of St. 
 Matthew's great reality. 
 
 Now what does the careful examination of these two pas- 
 sages suggest ? Obviously, that St. Mark possessed a few 
 
38a 
 
 peculiar circumstances which St. Matthew had not ; but 
 who would hesitate in arriving at the conclusion that the 
 account in Matthew is the actual dialogue which took place 
 between our Lord and the woman^ of which St. Mark^s 
 report is the imperfect outline or almost the echo? The 
 facts are before us ; and whatever account we may give of the 
 origin of these facts^ as they are respectively depicted by St. 
 Matthew and St. Mark, they never would suggest to any 
 reader that each separate account Avas dictated in the form in 
 which it now stands to each evangelist by the Spirit, and that 
 all which the evangelists have had to do with the report was 
 to copy down the words so dictated to them. If we take the 
 parallel narratives which we have examined, and observe the 
 undeniably different phenomena which these narratives pre- 
 sent in the pages of St. Matthew and St. Mark, and then 
 assume that the same Author dictated both, and assert that 
 to doubt this is inconsistent with the belief that the New 
 Testament was given by Divine inspiration, we assume a 
 position destructive of all certainty, and which is the high 
 road to unbelief. 
 
 In the records of the last week of our Lord's ministry, we 
 find several minor discrepancies in the evangelical narratives, 
 as, for example, whether our Lord cleared the Temple on the 
 day on which He entered Jerusalem in triumph, or whether 
 the Apostles observed the Avithering of the barren fig tree 
 immediately on its being cursed or on the next day. The 
 expedient of supposing that our Lord cleared the Temple on 
 two successive days, and that the same circumstances recur- 
 red on each occasion, or that the Apostles noticed the wither- 
 ing of the fig tree immediately after it was cursed and on 
 the following morning, and that our Lord, on each occasion, 
 repeated the very same observations to them, is most unsatis- 
 factory. Small disagreements like these are what ahnost 
 always exist when honest independent witnesses give their 
 testimony to the events of daily life. If we refuse to be- 
 lieve testimony till all such minor variations are removed 
 or accounted for, the range of fact over which our belief 
 will extend will be contained within very narrow limits. 
 
383 
 
 But it must not be overlooked, that the existence of such 
 variations proves that the testimony is human testimony. 
 As the descrepancies which occur in the EvangeKsts do not 
 in the smallest degree affect one point of Christian truth, 
 there was no necessity that the memories of the writers of 
 the Gospels should, on such subjects, be refreshed by the aid 
 of supernatui-al influences. Had such supernatural assistance 
 been afibrded to the Evangelists in every inconsiderable 
 matter, the Gospels Avould not present the appearance which 
 they actually do, and which it was intended that they should 
 present, of being the recorded testimony of actual human 
 witnesses of facts. 
 
 But the state of the Gospel narratives is only consistent 
 with one of two assumptions respecting the manner in which 
 they have been composed : they are either the works of wit- 
 nesses delivering a human testimony, and narrating the facts 
 in their own peculiar style, aided by supernatm-al assistance 
 afforded to their memories when such assistance was required 
 for the pm'poses of Divine revelation ; or those phenomena, on 
 the strength of which, in any ordinary history, we should arrive 
 at such a conclusion, are imitations of such peculiarities of 
 human testimony and human style by the inspiring Spirit of 
 God. This latter alternative few will be prepared to adopt. 
 
 We must now notice one passage in St. Matthew^s Gospel 
 which can only be accounted for in accordance with the pre- 
 ceding views. It is well known that, in St. Matthew^s 
 genealogy of our Lord, it is stated, Joram begat Uzziah. In 
 this place of the genealogy, the names of three kings are 
 passed over in silence. The Book of Kings distinctly asserts 
 that Joram begat Ahaziah, and Ahaziah begat Joash, and 
 Joash begat Amaziah, and Amaziah begat Uzziah. Now 
 various attempts have been made to explain this omission ; 
 but with them we are not concerned : we are only con- 
 cerned with the omission. St. Matthew's Gospel adds, " So 
 all the generations from Abraham to David are fourteen 
 generations ; and from David until the carrying away into 
 Babylon are fourteen generations; and from the carrying 
 away into Babylon unto Christ are fourteen generations.^' 
 
284 
 
 'Now, whether the Evangelist composed this genealogy for 
 himself, or whether he derived it from Jewish sources^ may 
 admit of question; but there can be no doubt that the 
 passage last cited is the composition of the Evangelist. This 
 is proved by his mentioning the words, " from the carrying 
 away into Babylon unto Christ ;" for the word Christ would 
 appear in no Jewish register. The three periods of fourteen 
 generations can only be made up by omitting the three kings 
 in question from the genealogy ; and even then it is not easy 
 to effect it. Now it has been given as a reason for the 
 omission, and for St. Matthew's summing up the genealogy 
 in three sets of fourteen generations, that the Jews delighted 
 in round numbers. This may probably be the solution ; but 
 then it distinctly asserts the presence of a human element 
 and human considerations in the composition of the genea- 
 logy and in Matthew's subsequent summary. The statement, 
 then, that the number of the generations between Abraham 
 and Christ consisted of three sets of fourteen generations, 
 and that the first name in each of these orders of fourteen 
 generations was coincident with three very remarkable periods 
 of Jewish history, can only be made out by the omission of 
 three names which the Book of Kings asserts to belong to 
 the list. We wish to ask the supporters of the theory of 
 verbal inspiration how tliey account for the statement of St. 
 Matthew that there were fourteen generations between David 
 and the captivity, when the narrative of the Book of Kings 
 makes it plain that there were at least seventeen ? or the sup- 
 porters of any kindred theory, whether they consider that the 
 statement was communicated to St. Matthew by direct inspi- 
 ration, or whether it did not owe its origin to a partiality 
 which the Evangelist entertained, in common with his coun- 
 trymen, for round numbers ? 
 
285 
 
 CHAPTER XV. 
 
 THE SILENCES OF THE GOSPELS PROOFS OF THEIR 
 INSPIRATION. 
 
 But the Gospels are not only remarkable for wliat they have 
 narrated^ but also for what they have omitted to relate. The 
 silences of the Gospels have the most important bearing on 
 the question of the nature of their inspiration. These 
 silences are of a most remarkable character. It would be 
 impossible to select any four biographies which contain 
 similar omissions to those presented by our Evangelists. It 
 is evident that there must have been a vast multitude of facts 
 connected with our Lord^s life and ministry, well known to 
 His early followers, all mention of which is entirely omitted 
 in the Gospels. St. John informs us, that "many other 
 signs truly did Jesus in the presence of His disciples, which are 
 not written in this book ; but these are written that ye may 
 believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, and that, 
 believing, ye may have life through His name.'' Here the 
 principle of selection is not only affirmed, but the ground on 
 which the selection was made is recorded. The purpose which 
 St. John states that he had in view was to afford Christians 
 sufficient reason for believing " that Jesus was the Christ ; 
 and that, by believing, they might have life through His 
 name.'' This passage, however, only refers to the signs which 
 Jesus did. The concluding verse of the Gospel asserts the 
 existence of a very extensive mass of materials : " And there 
 are also many other things which Jesus did, the which, if they 
 should be written every one, I suppose that even the world 
 itself could not contain the books that should be written." 
 
 This last assertion is, of course, an hyperbole of no ordinary 
 character. We leave the discussion of such hyperboles to 
 those who maintain that the Christian Scriptures are dictated 
 by verbal inspiration. An hyperbole can hardly be re- 
 ferred to the Spirit of God, but must owe its origin to a 
 human element existing in the writer's mind. The writer of 
 
286 
 
 the Gospel did not mean to assert that the world could not 
 contain the books which would be written^ but to affirm the 
 extent of the materials out of which the actual selection had 
 been made. The principle of selection is here expressly 
 affirmed^ not only with respect to the miracles^ but with 
 respect to the general facts of the Gospel history. The writer 
 affirms that he knew much more than he has actually told — a 
 truth which the contents of the Gospels render evident. 
 
 Now how were the Apostles guided in making this selec- 
 tion ? We cannot well over-estimate the importance of the 
 selection being made rightly. It was necessary that the 
 Gospels should contain such a view of our Lord^s character, 
 His teaching, and His actions as would convey to their 
 readers those great truths which the Incarnation was in- 
 tended to reveal. It is impossible, therefore, to over-esti- 
 mate the importance of the silences of the Gospels, Had 
 the record contained either too much or too little, our know- 
 ledge of the manifestation of the Godhead would have been 
 imperfect. 
 
 Unless, therefore, the Apostles had some guidance as to 
 what things connected with our Lord's actions. His ministry, 
 and person they should record, and what portion they should 
 omit, Christianity would not have conveyed the truths of 
 a divine revelation as it was intended that they. should be 
 imparted to man. The fact that a selection has been made 
 presupposes the possibility that important things, which our 
 Lord did or said, may not have been handed down to us. It 
 was necessary, therefore, that the sayings and actions reported 
 should be such as would convey a fair idea of the whole, at 
 least as far as it was the Divine purpose that subsequent ages 
 should be acquainted with them. If the existing records 
 therefore, have failed to give us a fair sample of the life, 
 actions, sayings, and sufferings of our Lord, Christianity has 
 in a proportionate degree failed as a divine revelation. 
 
 Were, then, the human judgments of the Apostles adequate 
 to enable them to make such a selection? What hindered 
 them from recording things which were not necessary, or 
 omitting things which were ? The extent of the matter which 
 
287 
 
 they have omitted is evidently very large, and some of the 
 subjects on which they have left us in complete darkness are 
 of the profoundest human interest. "We know, from their own 
 testimony, that our Lord's sayings and actions were most 
 imperfectly apprehended by them before His resurrection. 
 At that time, therefore, their ordinary human judgments 
 would have been inadequate guides to enable them to select 
 those actions and sayings of our Lord which required to 
 be recorded, and to omit those things which ought not to 
 have been recorded, to give us a right knowledge of the 
 Christian revelation. The only way in which their judg- 
 ments could have become trustworthy in matters of such 
 importance would have been by the fulfilment of their Mas- 
 ter's promise, that the Spirit should " guide them into all the 
 truth.'' 
 
 Now it is quite evident that a great number of circum- 
 stances, which all ordinary human writers would have re- 
 corded, have been wholly omitted by the authors of the 
 Gospels ; and that the knowledge of a great number of facts, 
 which men ardently crave to know, must have been within 
 the reach of the Apostles and their followers, if they had 
 taken the trouble to ascertain them. The omission cannot be 
 accounted for on the ground of ignorance. The number of 
 anecdotes with which our Lord's brethren must have been 
 acquainted, respecting the first thirty years of His life, must 
 have been very large; why, then, have none of these anec- 
 dotes been recorded, if the writers of the Gospels composed 
 their narratives with the feelings of ordinary human his- 
 torians ? 
 
 The silences of the Gospels are as remarkable as their 
 utterances. In their silences they differ from every other 
 human writer who has composed a biography. Precisely 
 those very portions of our Lord's life which every other 
 himaan writer has never failed to record, when the materials 
 were within his reach, are left by them unrecorded. Coidd 
 they have been ignorant of them ? They have not pleaded 
 ignorance as the reason of their omissions. Were, then, the 
 Evangelists not men of ordinary human feelings or ordinary 
 
288 
 
 human curiosity? Had the subjects which they have passed 
 over in silence no interest in their breasts^ as they have 
 to those of other men? Their writings give us the most 
 distinct proof that they were men of similar feelings, ideas, 
 and conceptions as ourselves. Yet on many subjects, on which 
 they must have felt the profoundest interest, they preserve a 
 silence absolutely unbroken. 
 
 How is this silence to be accounted for ? The person fi'om 
 whom many narratives in St. Mark's Gospel were derived 
 must have felt the deepest interest in numbers of anecdotes 
 respecting our Lord's history, the knowledge of which he could 
 easily have obtained, and which he, with his graphic power, 
 would have felt the deepest interest in depicting. Whence this 
 silence ? Why has a writer omitted to report the very things 
 in which his genius must have particularly delighted? Why has 
 he omitted to report the very things which all men wish to 
 know ? The fact suggests the theory : if the Evangelists 
 have not recorded things which all other men similarly 
 situated would have recorded, they must have been hindered 
 from doing so by a preternatural influence exerted on their 
 minds. On some subjects their silence is most surprising, 
 and, one might say, to ordinary human cm'iosity most pro- 
 voking. In every subsequent age of the Church, the pro- 
 foundest intellects have been busy in their speculations, and 
 occupied themselves with incessant attempts to dissipate the 
 profundity of the gloom. We shall notice a few instances of 
 their silence, in which they have followed a course which no 
 other human author has ever pursued. 
 
 The Evangelists have not given us one single description, 
 no, not even the smallest delineation, of the outlines of our 
 Lord's person. Respecting our Lord's countenance, form, 
 or the expression of His face, not one word has escaped from 
 the pen of either of them. This is the more remarkable 
 because, from the second century downwards, perhaps not a 
 year has passed in which attempts have not been made to 
 delineate His supposed featm^es. This, at any rate, demon- 
 strates how congenial it is to the feelings of the human heart 
 to attempt to perpetuate them. Christendom is full of such 
 
289 
 
 supposed likenesses ; but the painter is forced to draw upon 
 the resources of his own imagination, and utterly fails to find 
 a solitary outline in the pages of the Evangelists to direct 
 him. The interest which the human mind would have felt in 
 some sketch of his personal appearance is of the profoundest 
 description : the temple of incarnate Deity was there. Was 
 not the impression of our Lord's face one full of divine and 
 heavenly dignity ? or did not that divine form make any 
 impression on the cold hearts of the Apostles ? When He 
 was removed from their bodily eyes, had they no endearing 
 recollections of the mild love which must have beamed forth 
 from that heavenly countenance ? They were not men of 
 hard or stern insensibility, for they have occasionally dis- 
 tinctly alluded to our Lord's glances. " The Lord turned 
 and looked upon Peter." " He looked round about to see 
 her that had done this thing." " Jesus, beholding him, loA^ed 
 him." " He looked round about Him with indignation, being 
 grieved at the hardness of their hearts." The persons who 
 have handed down these touches could not have been insen- 
 sible to our Lord's human glances. The beloved disciple 
 describes His person as He appeared to him in awful 
 majesty, the King of kings, and Lord of lords; but he, who 
 reclined on his Master's breast at supper, has not one solitary 
 hint to give us of his recollections of His human person. 
 Had the beloved disciple, had the warm-hearted Peter, no 
 fond recollections of the human countenance of their departed 
 Lord? How do the natural affections of the heart prompt 
 us to desire to know the expression of the face of Him who 
 wept at the sorrows of the family at Bethany, and who yet 
 denounced the Pharisees ! Has ever human biographer, who 
 intimately knew the features and deeply loved the character 
 of the subject of his biography, wholly denied to others all 
 knowledge of that form which he loved and reverenced, and 
 which moved every affection of his heart? But the writers 
 of the Gospels have not given us the smallest hint of the 
 personal appearance of Him whom they must have viewed 
 as incarnate God. Wherefore ? We answer, because such a 
 delineation of the features of His human countenance formed 
 
no portion of the revelation of God to man. Though they 
 knew Christ after the flesh, yet when they wrote theii' Gospels 
 they knew Him as such no more. Would that subsequent 
 ages of the Church had deeply meditated on this most im- 
 pressive silence of the Evangelists ! 
 
 With one solitary exception, the writers of the Gospels 
 have not given a single anecdote respecting the boyhood or 
 the youth of their divine Master. The deep interest felt by 
 mankind in anecdotes of this description is a fact respecting 
 which no doubt can be entertained. The writers of the spu- 
 rious Gospels have borne witness to this interest by the 
 number of grotesque stories of this description of which the 
 narratives of some of them are chiefly composed. But the visit 
 to the passover, at twelve years of age, forms the whole which 
 the Evangelists have let us know of the first thirty years of 
 our Lord^s life. Did they know nothing more ? Had Mary, 
 with whom they certainly held communication, who actually 
 abode with one of them from the time when her dying Son 
 commended her to His beloved disciple's care, nothing to 
 narrate as to the wonders of His boyhood, His growth in 
 knowledge, the heavenliness of His temper, or the dutiful 
 obedience which she had experienced at His hands ? Had 
 His brethren or His sisters no anecdotes to narrate respecting 
 His conversation, His mode of life, how He spent His time, 
 or how He associated with others of the same age ? Did not 
 He, who was incarnate Deity, difler from other children ? The 
 solitary anecdote recorded informs us that He did. How did 
 He spend His youth? How did He spend His early man- 
 hood ? How much time in each day was devoted to communion 
 with His Father? Was He not present at the bed of the 
 dying Joseph ? Did He maintain His mother by His labours ? 
 How did He associate with His mother's friends ? What 
 impression did His perfect manhood, imsullied by one single 
 imperfection, make on those whom He met in the daily 
 intercourse of life ? Had such questions no interest for the 
 Evangelists, as they have for us ? Could they live with 
 those who could have answered them, and never put them ? 
 Let each reader ask his own heart what he certainly would 
 
291 
 
 have done. Did John never make one such inquiry of Mary, 
 while she abode under the shadow of his roof? Did St. Luke, 
 who has furnished the one solitary anecdote, neither inquire 
 into or care for fiirther information? Notwithstanding the 
 undying human interest which such narratives would have 
 possessed, Avith this solitary exception, the silence of the 
 writers of the Gospels is as unbroken as the grave. What 
 human historian has not given us some anecdote of his hero 
 in boyhood, or early youth, or ripening manhood? Had 
 some words of our Lord's early wisdom been recorded, they 
 would have possessed the profoundest interest. How we 
 should have wished to have been able to trace the youth 
 and development of our Lord's human mind throughout 
 every stage ! How edifying should we have thought even 
 a brief description of some of our Lord's gracious deeds ! 
 One ray of light only penetrates the thick darkness in which 
 the whole is enveloped. Shall not these things be revealed 
 for our edification? Will Mary continue obstinately mute? 
 Such things, though they have the profoundest human 
 interest, yet form no portion of the revelation of God to man. 
 One anecdote is recorded — one, to show us that the minds of 
 the Evangelists have not, through iudifterence, omitted to 
 record more ; but one only, to teach us that, however deeply 
 such narratives strike cords in the human bosom, they have 
 nothing to do with the great purpose of the Christian revela- 
 tion — the giving men life through His name. 
 
 But there are several other points on which the determina- 
 tion of the writers of the Gospels not to gratify ordinary 
 curiosity, or to enter into points of curious specidation, is 
 most remarkable, and, on ordinary human principles, most un- 
 accountable. There were persons whom they have designated 
 brethren and sisters of our Lord. Who these were, and the 
 precise degree of their relationship, has been the subject of 
 the fiercest controversy; and matters of profound Christian 
 truth have been considered to be involved in the solution 
 of the problem. But the Evangelists decline to give us 
 positive information. The language used by them favours 
 the opinion that they were the actual children of Joseph and 
 
 2u 
 
293 
 
 Mary. It is not absolutely inconsistent with the supposition 
 that they were our Lord's cousins. Learned doctors have 
 written libraries to prove the perpetual virginity of Mary. 
 One sentence of the Evangelist would have saved the weary 
 labour. What the Evangelists will not determine, or what 
 they pass over in silence, can involve no mysterious truth of 
 divine revelation. 
 
 St. John narrates the miracle of the resurrection of Lazarus : 
 it proves that Jesus was the Christ. The history implies that 
 Lazarus lived a considerable period after his resurrection. 
 The Apostles must certainly have conversed with a man who 
 had been brought again from the unseen world. Did none of 
 them ask him what dying actually was, or what were the 
 feelings which burst on his mind on his issuing from the body 
 in the world of spirits ? Did they not inquire, or could he 
 not tell them, anything about the condition of a disembodied 
 soul ? A few words from him, on these or similar subjects, 
 might have saved volumes of metaphysical speculation. Men 
 could hardly converse with one who had been brought again 
 from the dark chambers of the unseen world, without asking 
 him something about its unknown scenes. What were his 
 employments there ? What was the condition of a disembo- 
 died spirit while waiting for the resurrection ? Did he know 
 anything which was passing on earth ? Had he possession of 
 full consciousness while he was separate from the body ? 
 What is the difference between Hades and heaven ? What 
 was the precise nature of the unseen world ? What were the 
 employments of a glorified spirit ? A few words from him on 
 such subjects would have been more valuable than whole 
 libraries of so-called Christian speculation. We cannot tell 
 whether Lazarus could have answered such questions ; but if 
 St. John had even told us whether he was or was not able to 
 solve such points, he would have added greatly to the cer- 
 tainty of our knowledge on many subjects of the most curious 
 speculation respecting the spiritual world. But St. John not 
 only gives us no information on these most interesting sub- 
 jects; he even refuses to inform us whether Lazarus could 
 or could not answer them. Human curiosity has been busy- 
 
293 
 
 ing itself ever since with vain attempts to penetrate the 
 darkness which St. John refuses to dispel. If the tomes of 
 speculation and reasoning on points on which the Gospels are 
 determinately silent could be obliterated, the science of theo- 
 logy might be reduced within reasonable limits. 
 
 If we read a large number of religious books, we shall be 
 generally guided to the most impressive silences of the Evan- 
 gelists by observing the places where those writers are most 
 diflFusive. Many examples will occur in the history of our 
 Lord's passion. Deep religious mysteries have been elaborated 
 from hints, or less than hints, of the Evangelists. Who would 
 not wish he knew more about the real nature of our Lord's 
 agony in the garden? There is no subject in Christian theo- 
 logy with which speculation has been more busy. What was 
 the precise cause and extent of His sufferings there? Did 
 He there endure the sins of the whole world ? Did His 
 human soul suffer the entire hiding of the light of His 
 Father's countenance? Why the need of the strengthening 
 angel ? What was the precise cause of His bitter cry on the 
 cross ? and what the nature of His desertion by His Father 
 which it implied? What was the amount of suffering neces- 
 sary for making the atonement ? Could not the Evangelists 
 and Apostles have solved some of these questions ? or were 
 they without interest to their insentiate hearts? Christian 
 divines have determined what Evangelists and Apostles have 
 veiled in silence. The Evangelical narratives tell us of our 
 Lord's agony ; they furnish us with the prayer used by our 
 Lord ; they describe His rejection. His mocking, His scourg- 
 ing. His death; they give us the exclamations which He uttered 
 on the cross. The Apostles, in their comments on these 
 divine facts, tell us that they were the means by which man 
 was reconciled to God ; but they tell us no more. They 
 have left to more adventurous speculators to rend asunder 
 the veil which hides from our view the profound mysteries of 
 God, which they themselves have only dared slightly and 
 reverently to raise. 
 
 Apostles keep silence on subjects of the deepest interest 
 to the human heart : what is the cause of this ? Attempts 
 
294 
 
 have been made in every direction to supply that information 
 vrhich Apostles and Evangelists refuse to give. Nor has 
 Christian speculation been less active on points of minor im- 
 portance. Our Lord spent forty days on earth after His 
 resurrection ; where was He during the intervals of His ap- 
 pearances to the Apostles ? The Apostles handled His raised 
 body ; why have they not told us the difference^ in its phy- 
 sical condition, between it and the body Avhich was crucified ? 
 Saints left their graves on the morning of the resurrection ; 
 who were they? Some have guessed their names. What 
 was the precise cause of our Lord's death? — was it from a 
 broken heart ? Profound mysteries have been elaborated 
 from the assumption that it was so. These and kindred truths 
 the mind of man intensely wishes to know. Many think that 
 they can disclose to open day the dark truths which Evange- 
 lists and Apostles have veiled in silence. They can tell that 
 it required an infinite suffering to redeem a human soul. 
 Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John refuse, by one word of ex- 
 planation, to cast one ray of light to dispel the gloom ; nor do 
 the writers of apostolic Epistles, by one direct assertion, dis- 
 close the secrets of the unseen. Wherefore, then, this silence 
 on subjects of the profoundest interest to the human bosom? 
 Not because the Evangelists or Apostles were cold to the feel- 
 ings which animate the human heart, but because they knew, 
 by the influence of the restraining Spirit, that the subjects on 
 which they must have been deliberately silent formed no por- 
 tion of the revelation of God to man. 
 
 We might notice many other silences in the Gospels and 
 the Epistles ; but we have stated enough to point out the great 
 outlines of the subject. With respect to the latter, we shall 
 only observe that the great Apostle who learned Christian 
 truth, not from man, but by revelation from Jesus Christ, has 
 scarcely dared to uplift the veil from mysteries which his 
 more adventurous disciples have rudely torn for the purpose 
 of throwing open the heavenly temple to human gaze. They 
 possess a line to sound the depths of infinity, which the line 
 even of an Apostle is unable to fathom. The silences of the 
 sacred writers read most solemn lessons both to theologians 
 
295 
 
 and unbelievers : they warn the one not attempt to pry into 
 truths on which Apostles and Evangelists, with the fullest 
 information, have deliberately been silent; they ask the 
 other to consider whether these silences can be accounted 
 for on the supposition of the purely human origin of the 
 Gospels. 
 
 The silences which we have noticed are of such a nature 
 that it is absolutely impossible that writers with ample infor- 
 mation at their hands, and at the same time animated with 
 the feehngs of our common nature, could have preserved, had 
 they not been restrained by an influence from above. Is it 
 in man, if animated by devout love, after conversing with 
 Him for three years, to have been silent about our Lord's 
 person ? Could those who associated with Him — who were 
 familiar with the mild radiance of His character, who must 
 have caught glimpses of the I'ays of incarnate Deity dwelling 
 in His person, who beheld Him expire on the cross, who after- 
 wards believed that He was seated on the throne of God — have 
 habitually associated with those among whom He must have 
 passed His youth and early manhood, and only put to them 
 one soHtary question as to the events of the first thirty years 
 of His life ? Could any human being hve for a day with one 
 whom he believed to have returned from the unseen world, 
 and not ask Him a single question on the nature of that 
 world which is declared to be man's long home ? Every feeling 
 of the human heart denies the possibility. Man has been 
 endeavouring to get information on these subjects ever since, 
 with the deepest earnestness. Where certain knowledge has 
 been refused him by Apostles and Evangelists, he has, by the 
 feeble light of conjecture, laboured to dispel the gloom. 
 
 With respect to these sdences of the Gospels there are but 
 two alternatives ; either the writers have been hindered from 
 breaking them by a supernatural influence exerted on their 
 minds, or the facts are not real. If the facts are not real, 
 they must have been invented by the Evangelists themselves ; 
 or if the Evangehsts honestly composed their histories, the 
 original facts must have been added to and embellished by our 
 Lord's early followers. 
 
296 
 
 A modern writer * has embraced the latter of these alter- 
 natives. He informs us that large portions of the Gospels are 
 legendary. It is difficulty after reading his pages, to arrive at 
 any definite opinion as to what portion of them he would 
 eliminate as mythic, and what portion of them he considers 
 to have been actually set forth by the persons whose names 
 they bear. One can hardly see any principle adopted by him, 
 but the exercise of his " verifying faculty^^ or, to speak plainly, 
 the pleasure of his sovereign will. The principle adopted 
 seems to be a very simple one — '' Whatever suits my previous 
 conceptions I will adopt ; whatever contravenes them I will 
 reject.''^ But a large legendary element is directly assei'ted. 
 We readily adopt the alternative which this writer presents 
 us with. Either the contents of the Gospels are the veritable 
 facts, or they have received a colouring from the inventive 
 power of the writers whose names they bear, or they are 
 legendary. If the facts are true facts, if Matthew, Mark, and 
 John actually witnessed the actions of our Lord's life, or if 
 they drew their reports from those Avho had, whence these 
 silences ? If they have invented (and E. Renan has not been 
 slow to accuse the latter of invention on a large scale), we 
 again ask, wlience these silences ? If their accounts are legen- 
 dary, we emphatically demand whence these silences ? The 
 Gospels exist : the silences must be accounted for. If fiction 
 has had much to do with developing the original story into 
 the form in which we read it in our present Gospels, it mat- 
 ters little who is the author of the fiction. True witnesses, 
 actuated by simple human feelings, must have broken the 
 silences. Inventors of fiction or myth, or by whatever name 
 we choose to designate it, when they invented the facts, would 
 certainly have had ample information to communicate on the 
 subjects of the silences. Fiction, or legend, or poetic crea- 
 tion might easily have depicted our Lord's human features, 
 or given us myriads of anecdotes of His boyhood and youth. 
 Have not the painters been at work on His features ever 
 since ? Would not the same powerful tendencies in human 
 
 * See Renan, ' Vie de J^sus,' Introduction. 
 
297 
 
 nature, which would have compelled witnesses to break these 
 silences, have impelled inventors to supply their deficiencies of 
 knoAvledge by the imagination ? Are they not the precise 
 points on which fiction loves to dwell ? Does not all existing 
 literature testify to the fact, that the authors of legendary 
 biographies abound in narratives of this description ? Is the 
 writer of a fiction or a novel ever at a loss to paint the person 
 of his hero? Fiction is fuller of such descriptions than 
 reality ^. We summon Renan himself to bear witness that, 
 wherever facts are wanting, the aid of the inventive faculty is 
 all-powerful to supply them. Let no Avriter of biographies be 
 daunted; if our records do not contain the facts, there is a 
 superior verity — the height of an idea ! It will supply the 
 biographer with all which he can require. If, then, these 
 silences could not have been maintained by actual witnesses, 
 if they would certainly have been broken by writers of fiction 
 and of legend, — as those concerned in the composition of the 
 Gospels, whether setters forth of truth or of fiction, have 
 left those silences utterly unbroken, — it follows that their 
 existence can only be accounted for by the agency of the in- 
 spiring Spirit restraining the minds of the Evangelists from 
 recording what was not intended to form a portion of the 
 Christian revelation. We have already learned from the his- 
 tory that a similar restraining influence was exerted, when 
 necessary, over the Apostles in their travels. 
 
 * The following passage from Renan's Introduction, p. xlviii, is a cu- 
 rious exemplification of his ideas of historical veracity : — " Les details ne 
 sont pas vrais a la lettre; mais ils sont vrais d'une v^rite supdrieure; 
 ils sont plus vrais que la nue verity, en ce sens qu'ils sont la v^rit^ 
 rendue expressive et parlante, ^levee a la hauteur d'une idee." 
 
298 
 
 CHAPTER XVI. 
 
 THE VIEW ^VHICH THE FACTS OF THE GOSPELS WOULD 
 SUGGEST TO A CAEEFUL READER, WHO HAD NOT 
 PREVIOUSLY PERUSED THEM, RESPECTING THEIR 
 ORIGIN AND THE MODE OF THEIR INSPIRATION. 
 
 Let us suppose the Gospels to be put into the hands of a 
 reader who had never previously perused them, and what is 
 commonly called the mythic theory, or some kindred theory, 
 suggested to him as giving an account of the probable origin of 
 their contents. Would the leading phenomena, as he reads 
 them in the Gospels, allow him to arrive at the conclusion 
 that that theory afforded a probable account of their origin ? 
 
 By the term mythic theory we intend not only the theory 
 which views the entire contents of our Gospels as mythic^ but 
 any of its numerous and possible modifications. We will 
 suppose that the Evangelists themselves invented the myths, 
 or, being themselves perfectly honest, that they have simply 
 reported such as were current in the Church, or modified them 
 in conformity with their own views. We will suppose that 
 these myths may contain a considerable admixture of truth, 
 but that in course of time the original facts have become 
 encrusted with mythic additions now difficult of disentangle- 
 ment ; that the additions have grown by passing from hand 
 to hand, or have been deliberately introduced by the Evange- 
 lists, or by those who have modified the original narratives ; 
 that the original Jesus of the Gospels made no miraculous 
 pretensions, or at least not till He was impelled into them by 
 others ; that whatever remains of His original teaching is to 
 be found in the synoptic Gospels, and that the Gospel of St. 
 John is the superaddition of a later age and a different order 
 of thought. But the number of the different modifications of 
 the mythic theory is legion; we may therefore be excused 
 from enumerating more of them. 
 
 Such a reader would observe that the Gospels contain one 
 feature in common with mythic stories — a miraculous nar- 
 rative ; but he would also observe that the miracles of the 
 
399 
 
 Gospel differ in their entire complexion from every other 
 miraculous narrative in existence. Taking the circumstances 
 of the case into account^ if the Gospel narrative is what it 
 professes to be^ there is not a single miracle ascribed to our 
 Lord inconsistent with probability. The miracles are all 
 sober, grave, dignified, and have not the smallest appearance of 
 being after-thoughts superadded to the facts. But myths are 
 simple creations of the popular mind ; they grow out of and 
 harmonize with its tastes; they are the mere reflexions of 
 its ideas and its feelings. If the miracles of the Gospel are 
 myths, they must be exact representations of the popular 
 taste when those myths were invented. There never was a 
 state of the human mind of which the Gospel miracles are the 
 popular embodiment. Let every existing myth be summoned 
 to give its evidence. What testifies the whole mass of Orien- 
 tal fable, from China to Arabia ? What is witnessed by Greek 
 and Roman mythology ? What testimony is borne by Scan- 
 dinavian legends ? What says the whole mass of mediseval 
 miracle and superstition, which even had the benefit of the 
 Gospel miracles on which to model its stories ? The answer 
 which they will all unanimously return is. The feelings and 
 ideas out of which we grow are strangers and aliens to the 
 miracles of the Gospel. The nature of the tastes of that period 
 is best shown by the miracles of the Apocryphal Gospels. 
 
 But if the Gospels were largely mythic, he would conclude 
 that they must have been the reports of several sets of myths 
 springing up in the bosom of the Christian community, or of 
 these myths modified to suit the views of the authors of 
 the Gospels. 
 
 But, if myths, he would naturally inquire, would not the 
 authors of them have revelled in giving full details on those 
 subjects on which the Evangelists are profoundly silent? 
 Would they not have certainly abounded in the grotesque, 
 the romantic, and the monstrous ? Would they not have 
 laid open the unseen world, where invention can revel with- 
 out danger of being checked by facts ? Would no myth have 
 been invented respecting our Lord^s boyhood ? How could 
 long discourses have been preserved ro transmitted in a 
 
300 
 
 mythic story? If the history of Whitfield or Wesley had 
 been preserved in a mythic or legendary form, what evidence 
 should we have had that their discourses were their veritable 
 utterances, forty or fifty years afterwards ? Would there not 
 have been as many versions of their sermons as sects into 
 which their followers might have divided? Is such morality ever 
 found in myths ? Myths must be propagated by the agency 
 of considerable numbers of men. Has the morality of the 
 discourses ever been the realized morality of a community, so 
 that it could be idealized in the form of myths ? What was 
 the original germ of the morality in these discourses, and 
 what the mythic additions ? The morality of the Evangelists 
 was never the morality of large bodies of men who were in 
 that state of mental development in which the generation of 
 myths is possible. 
 
 But there is the singular verbal agreement and disagree- 
 ment both in the narratives of the facts and in the discourses 
 which the Evangelists present ; how is this to be accounted 
 for ? Let him suppose, first, that the Evangelists have faith- 
 fully detailed the narratives which, whether mythic or other- 
 wise, were floating about on the surface of the Christian 
 society. It is evident, in that case, that several such myths 
 must have existed. If they were transmitted by one so- 
 ciety, this might be given as the reason for the verbal 
 agreements in our three different accounts of the same events 
 or of the same discourse ; but if this were adduced as the 
 reason for the agreement, how can it account for the dis- 
 agreements, for the transposition of sentences, for their 
 singular omissions and insertions? If they are the faith- 
 ful accounts of myths as transmitted by different societies or 
 bodies of men, then, although the variations may be accounted 
 for, the existence of the large amount of common words and 
 sentences in the Gospels is utterly incredible. He would con- 
 sider that the existence of these phenomena is utterly incom- 
 patible with the present narratives of the Evangelists having 
 grown up in a mythic form. But might not the Evangelists, 
 when they reduced the myths into the present narratives, 
 have been the authors of these singular variations? He 
 
301 
 
 would naturally consider, On what principle could they have 
 made the variations ? What end had they in view ? What 
 could have induced them to make some of the changes ? Did 
 they consult about the matter in order that they might have 
 the appearance of three independent histories ? If so, they 
 must have been devoid of ordinary understanding to have 
 retaiued so much of the common matter, or the same words 
 and phrases. 
 
 But it has been suggested that Matthew is the collector of 
 the discourses, and Mark of the stories, as they floated about 
 in the original Christian society ; and that the original Gospel 
 of Matthew contained nothing but discourses, and that of 
 Mark nothing but facts ; and that the additions of the facts in 
 one, and the discourses in the other, were made by other 
 hands. He would naturally desire to be informed on what 
 principles have the facts been inserted into the one, and the 
 discourses into the other ? If Mark's original facts, as they 
 were depicted in his Gospel, were described in all their gra- 
 phic reality, what stupid compiler has made Matthew's so 
 jejune and dry ? Who, with Matthew's grand discourses 
 before him, would have deliberately composed those of Mark ? 
 Why has Matthew, the great compiler of parables, omitted 
 the greatest of all parables, that of the prodigal son, and left 
 it and others to be recorded by St. Luke ? But if, as it has 
 been assumed, Matthew's be the representation of the original 
 mythic story, and Mark and Luke have copied and modified 
 it to suit their views, whence come the long discourses in 
 Matthew ? What is the source of the apparently most capri- 
 cious variations in Mark and Luke ? Some of the changes 
 are very minute; what purpose could they possibly serve? 
 for instance, why did Luke change Matthew's third temp- 
 tation into his own second, and place it in a most unnatural 
 position ? Or what could have induced Mark to say that our 
 Lord uttered the same words in the second prayer at Gethse- 
 mane, when he had Matthew before him asserting that this 
 took place in the third prayer ? or if Mark's be the original 
 story, what could have induced the compiler of Matthew to 
 make so capricious an alteration ? But many have stated that 
 
302 
 
 Matthew's Gospel is the original mythic or legendary Gospel. 
 In that case the mythic Matthew reports the dry facts^ and 
 Mark and Luke the pictorial additions in the common narra- 
 tives. He would observe^ however, that, with singular per- 
 versity, this was reversed in the story of the Syrophenician 
 woman. But if the ground were varied, and he were told 
 that Mark is the original mythic Gospel, and Matthew the 
 improved version of it, then he would be struck with the fact 
 that Matthew's Gospel contains the facts which wear the most 
 mythical appearance in the whole history — as the opening 
 portion of it, and the dream of Pilate's wife. He would cer- 
 tainly conclude that the facts are not explicable by the theory. 
 
 But supposing it were suggested that the three Gospels are 
 distinct, and give us three accounts of the mythic story as it 
 was believed in and developed by three or more independent 
 Christian societies, with some additions of the authors' own, 
 he would then observe that the fundamental groundwork of 
 the three narratives consists of an account common to all 
 three Evangelists, The common narrative must, therefore, 
 contain the facts or the myth, as they were believed in by the 
 original Christian society before it became divided. The parts 
 which are not common must be subsequent mythic additions, 
 made after the original society had divided itself into three 
 or more distinct societies, or they must be inventions of the 
 Evangelists : if, therefore, any fragments of the original teach- 
 ing of Jesus exist, it must be found in the common narrative. 
 
 But supposing he were also informed that the historic 
 Jesus was purely a moral teacher, and made no pretensions to 
 miraculous power ; and that all the miraculous portions of the 
 Gospels must be of mythic origin, and have grown up around 
 the original story. He would observe that the miraculous 
 element pervaded the common narrative quite as much as the 
 subsequent additions. If, therefore, Jesus did not profess to 
 perform miracles, those portions of the common narrative which 
 contain accounts of miracles must be of mythic origin, and 
 must be struck out as forming no portion of the original history. 
 He would therefore naturally ask, after all that was evidently 
 mythic had been removed from the Gospels, whether the 
 
ao3 
 
 substratum of truth remaining was sufficiently large for a reli- 
 gion to be erected upon it, which in a comparatively short period 
 overspread the civilized world ? He would answer that there 
 is no instance on record of a religion being successfully pro- 
 pagated, resting on a mere basis of moral teaching, least of 
 all of such a moral teaching as that exhibited in the Gospels. 
 He would ask, At what period of the world's history has such 
 a morality been realized in practice among considerable num- 
 bers of men ? Such morality must have been realized in 
 some bosom before it could have been promulgated. He 
 would hardly fail of arriving at the conclusion, that, after the 
 Gospels had been thus effectually weeded of every mythic 
 element, a residuum would remain which, if it formed the 
 original history and teaching of Jesus, would be more in- 
 credible than all the miracles of the Gospel taken together. 
 
 But if he were informed that it was utterly incredible that 
 a miracle ever had been performed, and that Jesus had fallen 
 in with the tendencies of the times, and had lent Himself to 
 the performance of miracles which were not real, he would at 
 once assume it as certain that the moral teaching of the 
 Gospels never originated in such a character. No impiety is 
 greater than the working of a pretended miracle : to do so 
 successfully always involves a previous rehearsal. Most of 
 the miracles of the Gospel could have left no doubt as to 
 whether they were, or were not, performed by the aid of super- 
 natural power on the part of Him professing to perform them. 
 
 But he would observe that, when the additions were made 
 to the common narrative, the original society must have 
 broken up into several distinct societies ; by these the mythic 
 additions to the common narrative were produced. But, while 
 these additions were being made, a considerable interval must 
 have elapsed ; and consequently the laws of mythic develop- 
 ment require that the common narrative should have under- 
 gone a far greater variation during this interval than it 
 presents in our present Gospels. The variations also would 
 have been of a very different character from those which we 
 actually find there. But, on the supposition in question, not 
 only did these myth- and legend-generating societies con- 
 
304 
 
 spire together to preserve the thread of the original story 
 nearly in the words of the primitive myths and legends, but 
 eaeh of these different societies went on creating myths and 
 legends of the same character and formed in the same mould. 
 All these myths and legends must have been sober, none 
 extravagant or grotesque. Each society must have made 
 additions to the conceptions of its Jesus formed in refer- 
 ence to the same ideal. Not one of them ever thought of 
 investing Him with the more specious and heroic attributes, 
 the admiration of which is deeply implanted in the human 
 bosom. He would naturally expect to be informed how it 
 came to pass that each of these myth-generating societies 
 preserved the character of its Jesus free from a single blemish, 
 whatever additions they might make to it, or with whatever 
 attributes they invested it. Amidst the continual accessions 
 of new mythic facts, new mythic discourses, and new mythic 
 parables, the same consistency, whether in theology, morals, 
 or character, reigns throughout. That three or more separate 
 societies, each generating myths, should concur in filling up 
 the Saviour's portrait to the ideal of perfection, he would 
 consider more incredible than all recorded miracles. 
 
 But he would observe that these societies had accomplished 
 a feat yet more wonderful. While engaged in the process of 
 developing myths, they have not only preserved the great 
 ideal features of the Saviour's character, but the same pecu- 
 liarities of expression, uniformly and consistently. A cunning 
 forger finds this extremely difiicult; how then is it to be 
 eflfected in societies developing myths ? There is one peculi- 
 arity of expression which the Jesus of the Gospels invariably 
 uses when speaking of God. He never uses the expression 
 " Our Father" as common to Himself and other men : He 
 has used the expression " my Father and your Father •/' but 
 never once is the expression " Our Father " represented as 
 having passed from His lips as applicable to himself. Now the 
 uniform use of these expressions is very natural, if the Gospel 
 discourses are not myths but veritable utterances of our Lord, 
 and if He professed to be the Son of God in a sense in which 
 no human being isj but it is utterly inconsistent with the 
 
305 
 
 supposition that He taught that His disciples were the sons 
 of God in the same sense as Himself, or with His alleged 
 great discovery of the real relationship of man to God^ in 
 which the peculiarity of His teaching has been asserted to 
 consist*. If such was the actual teaching of our Lord, it 
 would follow that all such passages in the Gospels, with the 
 context, where the expressions '^my Father" and "your Fa- 
 ther " are found, must be mythic additions, representing ideas 
 contrary to His original teaching ; and further, that not only 
 must the myth -generating societies have developed such 
 myths contrary to the original conception of the character of 
 Jesus, but also continued to develope myths of the same charac- 
 ter, with the strictest propriety of expression, so that the words 
 " our Father " have not once even by accident been placed 
 in the mouth of Jesus by these developers of myths. Societies 
 of men developing myths cannot maintain minute proprieties 
 of expression continued through long periods of time. 
 
 But if Matthew, Mark, and Luke, when they published 
 their versions of the myths, altered the original expression of 
 " our Father " into " my Father and your Father," then it 
 is evident, not only that they must have agreed together to 
 make this substitution in the mythic narratives as they existed 
 in the different Christian societies, but that they must have 
 held the views respecting our Lord^s person which are expli- 
 citly stated in the Gospel of St. John, which explicit statement 
 the supporters of the mythic theory are never weary of addu- 
 cing as affording conclusive proof that the Gospel of St. John 
 is of later date than the synoptic Gospels. 
 
 Such a reader would inevitably come to the conclusion 
 that no miracle narrated in the Gospels is so incredible as the 
 peculiar phenomena which they present, if they largely con- 
 sist of myths or of facts incrusted with myths developed 
 by the original Christian societies, or even if they are such 
 myths modified by the persons who have reduced them to the 
 form in which we now read them in the pages of the Evan- 
 gelists. The general possibility of the mythic origin of 
 Christianity we shall consider hereafter. 
 * See Renan. 
 
306 
 
 We will now make the contrary supposition, that such a 
 reader was informed that the peculiar phenomena which strike 
 him on perusing the Gospels can be fully accounted for, on 
 the assumption that they have been composed by men under 
 the guidance of verbal inspiration. What inferences would 
 he draw as to the nature of their inspiration from the pheno- 
 mena in question ? 
 
 Careful perusal would at once convince him that he had in 
 his hands four histories, which profess to be reports of the 
 same series of miraculous events. But would the perusal of 
 these books lead him to the conclusion that they were four 
 accounts of the same events set forth by one and the same 
 author, or that they were the works of four distinct authors ? 
 The whole aspect of the Evangelists would lead him to the 
 conclusion, which he would consider incontrovertible, that he 
 had before him the works of four distinct and independent 
 minds. It would be impossible to persuade him that the 
 Gospels were composed by a single person only, unless with 
 the intention to impose on his readers by imitating all the 
 phenomena which prove the presence of four distinct per- 
 sonalities. But he would find the evidences of the honesty 
 of the writers so strong that, if he adopted this for a mo- 
 ment as a possible supposition, he would soon abandon it, 
 and arrive at the conclusion that, if there is any certainty 
 in the principles on which the authorship of books is de- 
 termined, these books bear the most certain indications 
 that they were composed by four authors, and not by one 
 only. 
 
 But would he not find some phenomena in the Gospels very 
 difficult to account for on any ordinary human principle, 
 whether he assumed that they had been written quite inde- 
 pendently of each other or that one author had borrowed 
 from another ? The first thing which would certainly strike 
 him would be the long discourses. We would observe that 
 the writers are pledged to the fact that all the discourses 
 contain the veritable substance of >rhat was uttered by our 
 Lord, nearly in the same words. Every indication intimates 
 that the discoTirses were not copied down from our Lord's 
 
307 
 
 mouth. We are expressly told that the hearers had but an 
 imperfect comprehension of many of them when they were 
 uttered. What means had the original witnesses of accurately 
 committing these discourses to writing? 
 
 But^ on comparing the Gospels together^ another striking 
 phenomenon woiild present itself. They frequently contain 
 three different reports of the same discourse, but with a few 
 striking variations. The nature of these variations has been 
 already explained. He would naturally inquire, How have 
 these most singular variations originated ? Is it the fact that 
 the discourses have been copied from each other ? Then how 
 come the variations ? The variations are so peculiar, that he 
 would certainly come to the conclusion that, if one Evangelist 
 copied from the other, they must have made the variations 
 for the express purpose of avoiding the suspicion of having 
 copied. What, then, are we to think of three independent 
 writers who have given us three reports of the same discourse, 
 the greater portion of which verbally agrees, but with verbal 
 differences such as have been already referred to, if the 
 discourses were not copied down at the time, with these verbal 
 differences as the result of copying, and if the facts presented 
 by them render it impossible that they should have been 
 copied from each other? 
 
 The following circumstance will help such a reader to the 
 solution. We read in the Gospels that, a little before their 
 Master left the disciples. He promised them that when He 
 was gone to His Father He would send them the Spirit of 
 truth, to bring to their remembrance whatever He had said 
 unto them. Now if this promise was actually fulfilled, it 
 afforded an assistance exactly proportioned to the necessities 
 of the case. The discourses not having been copied down 
 at the time of their delivery, it would enable the Apostles 
 to do what otherwise their human memories would have 
 been unable to effect — to give faithful and correct reports 
 of the discourses of our Lord, which, without this assistance, 
 would have been impossible. But if the fulfilment of this 
 promise will account for the recording of the discourses, how 
 will it account for the small variations which they contain? 
 
 X 2 
 
308 
 
 On reflection, he will observe that the promise is not a 
 promise that the discourses should be absolutely dictated to 
 the Apostles; it is a promise of assistance exactly propor- 
 tioned to the necessity. Our Lord tells the Apostles that the 
 Spirit would refresh their memories ; there was therefore 
 combined a divine and a human element. The Apostles re- 
 membered ; the Spirit supplemented the deficiencies of their 
 memories. The small variations, omissions, and transpositions, 
 therefore, may be traced to the human element subsisting in 
 the Apostles' memories. 
 
 But when he examined the narratives of facts in the Evan- 
 gelists as distinct from the discourses, what conclusions woidd 
 they inevitably suggest ? He could not fail to observe in 
 the narratives of the same discourses greater agreement than 
 in the reports of the same facts. The variations in the dis- 
 courses consist of a few words only : the discourses never 
 contain divergent statements ; they contain no contradictions 
 in moral or doctrinal teaching, but form an harmonious whole : 
 the short passages inserted by one Evangelist are easily 
 brought into agreement with the discourse as reported by the 
 other. But the facts present all the variations which we have 
 already noticed; they have all the phenomena which the 
 testimony of independent witnesses usually presents, and are 
 extremely difficult to weave into a perfectly consistent narra- 
 tive. Now, if the narratives of the Evangelists are four dis- 
 tinct biographies, composed by four different writers by the 
 use of nothing but the ordinary human faculties, he Avould 
 naturally expect to find much greater variations in discourses 
 which different persons had heard, and which they afterwards 
 endeavoured to commit to writing, than in different accounts 
 of the same fact which the reporters had actually witnessed. 
 How can a difference so contrary to all human probability be 
 accounted for ? On recurring to the promise of our Lord 
 which we have already noticed, he would find that while the 
 promise is distinct that supernatural aid should be imparted 
 to recall to the Apostles' memories whatever Christ had said 
 to them, it contains no such promise of recalling to their 
 memories the precise facts as they had actually witnessed 
 
309 
 
 them : it is a promise exactly proportioned to the necessities 
 of the case. 
 
 But while this would aid him to account for the superior 
 accuracy of the discourses compared with the facts^ there 
 would be another phenomenon equally striking — the large 
 amount of verbal agreement in the report of the same events 
 by the different Evangelists. He would consider this verbal 
 agreement to be so great^ that it would be impossible to 
 exist in the narratives of four independent writers, unless 
 they had some common source of information out of which 
 that verbal agreement could arise. In describing the same 
 event, the same words never suggest themselves to any con- 
 siderable extent to four independent writers, unless they 
 possess some common source of information. He would feel 
 himself compelled to assume the existence of this common 
 source of information, and would think it highly probable 
 that the Apostles, before they separated at the time of St. 
 Stephen^s martyrdom, composed various brief memoranda of 
 such events as they respectively witnessed for mutual use, 
 which must be the source of the verbal agreements in the 
 narratives of common events contained in the Gospels, and 
 that their divergencies arise from their never having been 
 woven by the Apostles into a consistent whole, and from our 
 Gospels containing reports of their more enlarged testimony 
 respecting the same facts, supplemented by additional reports 
 derived from other eye-witnesses. 
 
 But what conclusion would such a reader deduce from the 
 narratives of the facts presented by the Evangelists, respect- 
 ing the theory that they were dictated to the authors by 
 verbal inspiration ? Would he be able to believe that what 
 he was reading was a fourfold account of the same facts com- 
 posed by the same author ? He would say, " I see the indubi- 
 table marks of different styles of writing — marks which cannot 
 be mistaken. I observe that one of the writers narrates a bare 
 event, while another pictures that event in all the reality of 
 life." It is evident also that, in narrating the same facts, one 
 has recorded one portion of a fact, while another has recorded 
 another portion of it. O ccasionally one fact recorded by one 
 
310 
 
 Evangelist, which has been omitted by another, makes the 
 narrative of the other intelligible, whereas, without the know- 
 ledge of that fact, the other narrative would have been liable 
 to misapprehension. He would also observe that, in minor 
 points of detail, there were small variations in the narratives, 
 which, with the information furnished by the Gospels, do not 
 seem capable of being brought into verbal agreement without 
 offering violence to the natural meaning of the passages. He 
 would consider the narratives of the Crucifixion and of the 
 Resurrection remarkable examples of this, and that they bear 
 evident marks of having been derived from the accounts given 
 of that exciting scene by several witnesses of it. While he 
 would observe that all the great points of the narratives were 
 supported by the most ample testimony, he would see that it 
 is hardly possible to reduce the four accounts into a history, 
 setting forth the precise order of the events as they occurred, 
 in the words used by the Evangelists. 
 
 Now, what would be the general conclusion which these 
 striking facts would suggest ? He would be of opinion that 
 the accounts of the facts, as detailed by the Evangelists, are 
 precisely such as independent witnesses would have given 
 of events of an exciting nature in which they had been 
 deeply interested. He would observe that, while all the 
 main facts were testified to with substantial accuracy, the 
 minor details would present considerable divergency, but a 
 divergency of that kind which always attaches to the testi- 
 mony of various witnesses, especially in cases where their 
 feelings were deeply interested. He would conclude, there- 
 fore, that whatever assistance might have been afibrded to 
 the authors of the Gospels, that assistance was certainly not 
 that of verbal inspiration. 
 
 But further, such a reader would not fail to observe that 
 the histories themselves presuppose that there were a large 
 number of facts connected with our Lord's life, and His 
 public ministry, which the writers of the Gospels have either 
 taken a very general view of, or passed over in the most 
 absolute silence. 
 
 The reader would find it difiicult to account, on any ordi- 
 
311 
 
 nary human principles, for these silences of the Evangelists. 
 But he would observe that when their Master promised 
 them supernatural assistance to aid the memories of the 
 Apostles, He also assured them that they should receive 
 guidance into the entire meaning of His revelation. Such 
 guidance, if actually afforded, may explain the reason why 
 the writers of the Gospels have related the facts which they 
 have recorded, and omitted others, and how it comes to pass 
 that they have all pursued a course directly contrary to 
 that which would have been pursued by any other writers of 
 a similar biography, and unanimously refused all information 
 on points which touch the deepest sympathies and the live- 
 liest feelings of the human heart. 
 
 Such a view as that which has been taken could hardly 
 fail of being suggested to the mind of a reader of the Gospels, 
 who had no theory to maintain respecting the nature and 
 degree of the inspiration with which they had been com- 
 posed. The facts and phenomena presented to him would 
 certainly never lead him to guess that they were composed 
 by persons under the influence of verbal inspiration. If 
 that theory were suggested to him as a probable account of 
 the origin of the Gospels, he would pronounce it utterly 
 irreconcilable with the facts. 
 
 But if the facts, as they are exhibited in the Gospels, will 
 not suggest the theory of verbal inspiration, if the facts, 
 instead of suggesting such a theory, have every appearance of 
 contradicting that theory, on what principle do we assume 
 its truth ? The narratives of the facts contained in the Gos- 
 pels have all the phenomena which are exhibited by similar 
 narratives by independent witnesses in courts of justice. 
 We find that the very points on which such witnesses are 
 particularly liable to variation, such as the particulars of 
 time and place, numbers, and arrangement of events, the 
 omission or insertion of minute particulars, are precisely 
 those which constitute the variations in the narratives of the 
 Evangehsts. As, in particularly exciting scenes, the hurried 
 state of the mind of ordinary witnesses leads to the greatest 
 amount of minor variation in details, so it is with the 
 
312 
 
 Evangelists. If, then, the facts, as recorded in the Evange- 
 lists, present all the phenomena of human testimony, why 
 should he assume an explanation which is entirely at issue 
 with those phenomena, and which the utmost amount of 
 human ingenuity cannot reconcile with them ? 
 
 Nothing but the most overwhelming necessity can justify 
 us in making such an assumption. But does such necessity 
 exist ? If it does, on what is it founded ? Have we any 
 positive assertions of the writers themselves, that they wrote 
 under the influence of verbal inspiration, of so distinct a cha- 
 racter that, if we were to assume that they wrote under the 
 influence of any other form of inspiration, it would be to 
 question their veracity? We examine the writings them- 
 selves, and find no such thing asserted, either expressly or 
 by implication. If, then, neither the facts reported by the 
 writers nor the assertions made by them require the as- 
 sumption of such a theory, what renders the assumption 
 necessary ? It may be said, it lies in the antecedent neces- 
 sities of the case : Divine inspiration must have been so 
 given. We have shown that the alleged grounds of such 
 necessity are utterly fallacious. We may think it probable that 
 Divine revelation would have been communicated by means 
 of such an influence; we may think that it was most de- 
 sirable that it should be so communicated ; yet neither our 
 views of its probability, nor our sense of its convenience, will 
 justify us in assuming that it has been so communicated, 
 in the face of the facts leading to a directly contrary con- 
 clusion. Nothing but an express assertion of the books 
 themselves, or a direct promise of our Lord, would justify us 
 in making an assumption which the entire evidence of the 
 facts themselves seems expressly to contradict. 
 
 But such promise or assertion can nowhere be found. On 
 the contrary, our Lord declared that the Apostles should 
 bear witness, because they had been with Him from the be- 
 ginning. They themselves declare that they could not but 
 bear testimony to the things which they had seen and heard. 
 When there was danger that their testimony would be de- 
 fective, our Lord promised them supernatural aid. When 
 
813 
 
 their ordinary powers were sufficient, no promise of super- 
 natural assistance is recorded. Our Lord also promised them 
 to enlarge their comprehension of those truths which they 
 had not understood during His personal ministry, and to 
 lead them into the knowledge of all tlie truths which He 
 came to reveal. He also promised them that they should he 
 endowed with miraculous powers, by which the Spirit Him- 
 self would bear witness to the truth of their testimony. He 
 also promised them supernatural guidance as to what thej'^ 
 should say in their defence when called upon to answer for 
 their conduct before the authorities of the world, for propa- 
 gating His religion, and that the Spirit should reveal to 
 them some events connected with the future. Eut other 
 promise there is none. 
 
 Now these are promises of supernatural assistance suffi- 
 ciently large for the purpose of enabling the Apostles to 
 communicate the Christian revelation to mankind, biit they 
 contain no hint that they were to be endowed with a gift 
 like verbal inspiration. If there is no promise of our Lord 
 that He would endow the Apostles with such a gift — if there 
 is only a promise of supernatural guidance into the know- 
 ledge of the truths of the Christian revelation — if the writers 
 of the Gospels make no claim to the possession of such a 
 gift — if the facts and phenomena of the Gospels do not only 
 not require the assumption of this theory, but present 
 appearances irreconcilably at issue with it, what right have we 
 to assume such a theory against the evidence of the facts, 
 without any warrant from ^Christ or the Apostles, without 
 any grounds of antecedent certainty, merely because it suits 
 our views that the Gospels ought to have been written under 
 its influence ? The assumption of such a theory is not tlie 
 result of humbly receiving the teaching of God, but of a 
 rationalizing principle in man. 
 
 Human authors, when they compose a biography and 
 state the sources whence the facts in the biography are 
 derived, are usually allowed the full benefit of their asser- 
 tions. We are informed by Boswell that he copied down 
 most of his reports of Johnson^s sayings and conversations 
 
314 
 
 shortly after he had uttered them^ and that whenever he 
 omitted to do so, his reports have suffered in consequence ; 
 and we accept his assertion as to the mode in which his work 
 was composed. Why should the assertions of St. Luke, as to 
 the sources whence he derived the contents of his Gospel, 
 be disregarded ? St. Luke has given us a formal account of 
 the sources whence he drew the contents of his Gospel, and of 
 his reasons for writing it. 
 
 Luke i. 1-4 : " Forasmuch as many have taken in hand to 
 set forth in order a declaration of those things which are 
 most surely believed among us, even as they delivered them 
 unto us, which from the beginning were eyewitnesses, and 
 ministers of the word ; it seemed good to me also, having 
 had perfect understanding of all things from the very first, 
 to write unto thee in order, most excellent Tlieophilus, that 
 thou mightest know the certainty of those things, wherein 
 thou hast been instructed.^^ 
 
 St. Luke, in this passage, makes the following assertions : — 
 Many persons had composed memoranda of the things most 
 surely believed amongst Christians, as they had been reported 
 to them by eyewitnesses and ministers of the word, pre- 
 viously to the time when St. Luke wrote his Gospel. By the 
 expression, "a declaration of the things which are most 
 surely believed among us," &c., St. Luke evidently means 
 the oral testimony of the original eyewitnesses to the lead- 
 ing facts of the evangelical history, and not mere statements 
 of doctrinal truth delivered by the Apostles. They were 
 memoranda, more or less extensive, of real facts, such as could 
 be reported by eyewitnesses. The expression, irapeSoaav, 
 denotes the fact of such transmission. Of tliese memoranda 
 St. Luke neither expresses approbation nor the contrary, but 
 implies their general correctness as far as they went. He 
 merely asserts that many persons had undertaken to set forth 
 such memoranda, and expresses his intention of setting an 
 account of the same autoptic testimony before his reader in a 
 more regular form. He implies that his work would be one 
 of greater accuracy and better arrangement ; for he states 
 that the object which he had in view was, that Theophilus 
 
315 
 
 might know the certainty of the things in which he had been 
 instructed — an expression which evidently implies the writer's 
 opinion that the existing memoranda did not exist in a form 
 well suited to convey that certainty. 
 
 The instruction which Theophilus had received had been 
 chiefly oral, as is implied in the use of the word /carT^^?;'^-?;? 
 to denote that instruction. St. Luke declares that he de- 
 signed to reduce the memoranda and facts into an orderly 
 arrangement (/ca^e^?}? 7paA^at). We may infer, there- 
 fore, that many of these memoranda followed no orderly 
 arrangement with respect to the time and place of the events 
 reported. St. Luke then proceeds distinctly to inform us 
 from what sources he derived his information on the subject 
 of the evangelical history. He says, "having had perfect 
 knowledge of all things from the very first." The Greek, 
 irapTjKoXovdr^KOTL aKpi^w^, has a larger meaning than our 
 version suggests : it is intended to convey the idea that the 
 Evangelist had accurately traced out the facts which he reports 
 with pains and labours, and had ascertained their correct- 
 ness by careful inquiry. There is a kind of implication that 
 this had been neglected to be done by the authors of the 
 existing memoranda. It can hardly be doubted that, in pro- 
 secuting this inquiry, St. Luke made use of such existing 
 memoranda of autoptic testimony as fell in his way. 
 
 Now every reader observes that St. Luke says not one word 
 about supernatural assistance. He neither asserts his inspi- 
 ration nor disclaims it. But, on the principles which we have 
 already established when we considered the apostolic gifts, there 
 would be no occasion for him to do so. He was St. PauPs 
 companion in travel and special friend, and we may, without 
 danger, conclude that those spiritual gifts which were bestowed 
 in such large measure on the Corinthian church were not 
 denied to any of his companions. The possession of these 
 gifts would be matter of notoriety, and would no more require 
 a distinct mention than the possession by him of his natural 
 faculties. We may therefore conclude that St. Luke had 
 the assistance of whatever spiritual gift he was endowed with; 
 and therefore we can scarcely err in arriving at the conclu- 
 
316 
 
 sion that the gift of prophecy would be among them^ consider- 
 ing the extent in which it was imparted. But^ while he says 
 nothing about his supernatural gifts, he expressly tells us that 
 the facts which he intended to publish were such as he had 
 diligently traced up to the testimony of eyewitnesses, and 
 that he had spared neither pains nor labour thus to trace 
 them. The spiritual gifts, therefore, did not supersede the 
 necessity of laborious inquiry. 
 
 But while St. Luke's assertions are quite consistent with 
 the consciousness of supernatural assistance, they are utterly 
 inconsistent with that assistance being of the nature of verbal 
 inspiration. If St. Luke was conscious of an inspiration of this 
 kind, on what principle could he have inquired into the reports 
 of facts as they had been narrated by eyewitnesses ? Had he 
 not a far more direct and certain source of information in the 
 communication of the facts to his mind by the Spirit of 
 God ? Is it possible to believe that, if St. Luke had the facts 
 dictated to him by the Spirit, he would proceed to test the 
 truth of the facts which the Spirit had assured him of by the 
 testimony of Avitnesses ? Did St. Paul call in human testi- 
 mony to corroborate what he had received by Divine inspira- 
 tion ? St. Paul expressly tells us that those subjects which 
 he derived from inspiration, he never sought to confirm by 
 the authority of man. Had St. Luke been conscious of 
 possessing verbal inspiration, instead of spending his time in 
 ascertaining the truth of facts from those who saw them or 
 reporting discourses from the testimony of those who heard 
 them, he would have had nothing else to do but to take his pen 
 and write what was dictated to him by the Spirit of God. 
 
 St. Luke had abundant means of ascertaining the facts by 
 ordinary human methods. There is every reason for believ- 
 ing that Csesarea was the chief place of his residence during 
 the two years of St. PauPs imprisonment; for we know that 
 he accompanied the Apostle on his last journey to Jerusalem, 
 and on his leaving Csesarea for Home. The interval would 
 have afforded St. Luke ample opportunity for doing what he 
 asserts himself to have done, viz. to have made the most mi- 
 nute inquiry about the facts of the Gospel history from the 
 
317 
 
 various persons who had been eye- and earwitnesses of it. 
 His means of communicating with different parts of Judsea, 
 where most of such witnesses must have resided, would have 
 been easy. He had been already in frequent communication 
 with apostolic men. St. Paulas long imprisonment at Csesarea 
 would naturally bring many of them to that place ; for St. 
 Luke records that free access was permitted to the Apostle^s 
 friends. The facts, therefore, were easily within reach. When 
 St. Luke wanted the report of a discourse or of a parable, he 
 could easily apply to such apostles as resided in Judsea, or 
 other persons who were present at their delivery, who pos- 
 sessed the requisite supernatural assistance to refresh their 
 memories, and even copy them down at their mouths. He 
 could compare all the information thus obtained with the 
 written memoranda in his possession. He, consequently, had 
 every facility of ascertaining the '' certainty " of the facts of 
 the evangelical history, and composing a true account of such 
 facts for the instruction of the Church. We have already 
 remarked that he evidently consulted St. Paul on the institu- 
 tion of the Eucharist — on which that Apostle expressly informs 
 us he received his information directly " from the Lord.^^ 
 
 But what have become of the memoranda mentioned by St. 
 Luke? Had their authors supernatural assistance in their com- 
 position ? We can only answer that some of the spiritual gifts, 
 such as the gift of prophecy, are proved both by the statements 
 of St. Paul and St. Luke to have been extensively communi- 
 cated. St. Luke describes the memoranda as in conformity 
 with autoptic testimony. If they were the accounts of eye- 
 witnesses, and recorded actions and words actually done and 
 spoken by our Lord, they must have contained the results of the 
 highest form of inspiration, viz, that inherent in the person of 
 God manifest in the flesh. But, having the defects which 
 St. Luke's preface leads us to suppose that they had, nothing 
 is more probable than that their use would be gradually 
 superseded by the more methodical arrangements of the 
 evangelical history as we- now read it in the pages of the 
 four Gospels, and that they would be suffered to perish. 
 The recovery of but one of them would throw a flood of 
 
318 
 
 light on some of the remarkable phenomena presented by the 
 Evangelists. 
 
 From this investigation, therefore, we arrive at the general 
 conclusion that supernatural aid was afforded to the Evange- 
 lists in proportion as such aid was required by them. Their 
 ordinary memories were assisted to enable them to give cor- 
 rect reports of the discourses of our Lord. Their judgments 
 were supernaturally directed as to what portion of the facts 
 which they were acquainted with they should record, and what 
 portion they should leave unrecorded. 
 
 Where human faculties were sufficient to effect the work, 
 supernatural assistance was not given. Wliere human facul- 
 ties were insufficient, they received the spiritual gift which 
 met the necessities of the case and qualified them for being 
 able witnesses to the facts of the evangelical history. The 
 great Worker has proportioned the means which He employs 
 to the ends which He purposes to effectuate, alike in creation, 
 providence, and redemption. 
 
 CHAPTER XVII. 
 
 THE GRADUAL ENLIGHTENMENT OF THE APOSTLES 
 IN THE GREAT TRUTHS OF THE CHRISTIAN REVE- 
 LATION. 
 
 Having considered the facts of the Gospels as they throw light 
 on the question of their inspiration, we must now proceed to 
 examine the assertions of the Apostles as to the nature of their 
 own inspiration, and the facts presented by the history and 
 the Epistles as far as they throw light on existing theories. 
 The specific portion of apostolic inspiration to which we are 
 now to direct our inquiries is the degree of supernatural 
 enlightenment which the Apostles received to qualify them to 
 be the expounders of the meaning of the Christian revelation 
 and the teachers of the Christian Church. The necessary 
 supernatural guidance was promised them by our Lord, 
 when He told them that He had many things to say unto 
 them, but they could not bear them then ; " howbeit when 
 
319 
 
 He^ the Spirit of truth, is come, He will guide you into all the 
 truth : for He shall not speak of Himself ; but whatsoever 
 He shall hear, that shall He speak : and He will show you 
 things to come. He shall glorify me : for He shall receive 
 of mine, and shall show it unto you.^^ 
 
 We have already shown that this promise of our Lord was 
 intended to assure the Apostles that they should receive such 
 a degree of supernatural enlightenment as would qualify them 
 to be the expounders of the full meaning of the revelation 
 which He came to communicate in His divine person. This 
 function the Apostles discharged in their written and oral 
 teaching. 
 
 St. Paul speaks of his written and oral teaching as possessing 
 an equal authority. The nature of the case forbids us to 
 assume that his written teaching had any different degree of 
 inspiration from his oral teaching. We shall presently exa- 
 mine his assertions respecting the nature of his teaching. We 
 shall find that those assertions have a greater reference to his 
 oral than to his written teaching. 
 
 The full apostolical inspiration, as it affected the Apostles* 
 knowledge of Christian truth, and its accurate communication, 
 was imparted, as we have already seen, by the first three 
 supernatural gifts of the Spirit — the gift of wisdom, of pro- 
 phecy, and of knowledge. The gift of wisdom, which was the 
 gift preeminently apostolical, communicated to their minds an 
 acquaintance with the highest forms of Christian truth ; the 
 gift of knowledge imparted to them an acquaintance vdth 
 Christian truth in its practical form ; the gift of prophecy 
 enabled them to state those truths in intelligible language, and 
 to apply them to the heart. It could communicate to them 
 a power of spiritual insight, and also impart to them super- 
 natural guidance on all requisite occasions, and afford them 
 occasional glimpses into futurity. Special suggestions seem 
 to have been made to the minds of inspired writers through 
 the instrumentality of this gift. The other gifts would enable 
 them to discharge special functions in the Church; but the 
 action of these three would constitute their inspiration as the 
 authorized teachers of Christian truth. 
 
320 
 
 We have already observed that our Lord's promise that the 
 Spirit would guide them into all the truth implies that their 
 enlightenment would not be a sudden^ but a gradual process. 
 The promise of our Lord received its fulfilment^ on the day of 
 Pentecost, to such a degree as to qualify the Apostles for 
 preaching the gospel to the Jewish people. But the testi- 
 mony of the history of the Acts of the Apostles is express 
 that the enlightenment which was imparted by the Spirit to 
 the minds of the Apostles at His first eflusion was not sudden 
 and complete, but gradual. Till the conversion of Cornelius, 
 the minds of the Apostles remained ignorant of one great 
 truth connected with their Master's kingdom. Their igno- 
 rance of this truth must have involved a partial view of 
 other great truths of the Christian dispensation. 
 
 It is important to observe that, in making a gradual com- 
 munication of truth to the minds of the Apostles, the Divine 
 Spirit has shown His purpose to interfere as little as possible 
 with the existing laws of the human mind. In communica- 
 ting inspiration. He has preserved the analogy of the mode in 
 which God acts in creation and providence. Man grows in 
 his ordinary knowledge, not suddenly, but by successive stages. 
 In strict conformity with this rule of the Divine acting, with 
 the single exception of St. Paul, the Spirit of God communi- 
 cated even supernatural truth to the minds of the Apostles. 
 
 The ignorance of the Apostles, even after their enlighten- 
 ment by the Spirit, that the Gospel was to be preached in the 
 Gentile world, is a fact attended with very important conse- 
 quences. We should have been slow to believe that their 
 supernatural enlightenment by the Spirit did not extend to 
 this subject, if it had not been so expressly stated by St, Luke. 
 The careful consideration of this ignorance and its conse- 
 quences will throw much light on the nature of apostolic in- 
 spiration. 
 
 This ignorance of the Apostles that the Gentiles were to 
 form a portion of the kingdom of God is the more remarkable 
 because the direction to preach the Gospel in the most distant 
 regions of the earth had formed an integral portion of the 
 apostolical commission. Not only is their ignorance on this 
 
321 
 
 subject one which we should not have anticipated^ but it must 
 have greatly modified their views on other points of Christian 
 truth. The Apostles most probably held that^ if the Gentiles 
 were ever to become partakers of the kingdom of God^ their 
 only mode of obtaining entrance into it would be through the 
 gate of circumcision. 
 
 Yet our Lord had not only intimated to the Apostles^ 
 He had distinctly told them before His ascension, that His 
 kingdom was to embrace the Gentile nations. Nothing can 
 be apparently more distinct than His parting commands. The 
 Apostles could not even recur to the terms of their own apo- 
 stolical commission without that truth being brought before 
 their minds. That commission^ as recorded by St. Matthew^ is 
 as follows : — 
 
 " Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in 
 the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy 
 Ghost : teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have 
 commanded you : and, lo, I am with you alway, even unto 
 the end of the world." 
 
 St. Mark^s words are even, if possible, more express : — " Go 
 ye into all the Avorld, and preach the gospel to every creature. 
 He that belicvetli and is baptized shall be saved; but he that 
 believeth not shall be damned." 
 
 St. Luke also records that our Lord informed the Apostles 
 that repentance and remission of sins should be preached in 
 His name among all nations, beginning at Jerusalem. In the 
 Acts, he tells us that our Lord, immediately before His ascen- 
 sion, distinctly informed the Apostles where they were to 
 testify of Him : — '^ Ye shall be witnesses unto me, both in 
 Jerusalem, and in all Judsea, and in Samaria, and unto the 
 uttermost parts of the earth." 
 
 Directions of this kind seem to us of the utmost possible 
 plainness. We should have supposed that the Apostles could 
 never have recurred to the terms of their commission without 
 the great truth flashing on their minds. What meaning could 
 they have attached to the words, that they were to go into all 
 the world, and preach the gospel to every creature ? What 
 could they have thought our Lord meant when He directed 
 
 y 
 
322 
 
 them to make disciples of all nations ? How could such plain 
 directions be misapprehended ? 
 
 But not only did the Apostles misunderstand our Lord^s 
 words, but the first illumination imparted to their minds by 
 the Spirit was not sufficient to dispel the darkness. This is 
 the more remarkable because we find St. Peter, in his earliest 
 addresses, repeatedly referring to the very words of the aposto- 
 lical commission. " We are witnesses," says he, " of these 
 things." " He appeared not unto all the people, but unto 
 witnesses chosen before of God, even to us, who did eat and 
 drink with Him after He rose from the dead ; and He com- 
 manded us to preach unto the people." It is most remarkable 
 that St. Peter should refer to these words, and yet that the 
 latter portion of our Lord^s command should have been 
 entirely misunderstood by him, and that his prejudices should 
 have been so strong that they were not overcome by the en- 
 lightenment of the Spirit which he had received. He evi- 
 dently considered that the whole benefits of the kingdom of 
 God were still limited to the people of the old theocracy, and 
 had, as yet, no idea that his Master was the great Shepherd of 
 the Gentile nations. According to this narrow view of the 
 Gospel dispensation, he taught, " Him hath God exalted to be 
 a Prince and a Saviour, to give repentance," not to mankind 
 generally, but " unto Israel, and forgiveness of sins." 
 
 "We learn, from the express declarations of St. Luke, that 
 till the time of the conversion of Cornelius St. Peter^s Jewish 
 prejudices were so deeply seated that he would not have en- 
 tered the house of a Gentile for the purpose of preaching the 
 gospel to those who inhabited it : he thought its inhabitants 
 common and unclean. These prejudices had to be dissipated 
 by an express revelation. 
 
 After that vision, St. Peter speaks of a truth which to us 
 seems of a most obvious character as a fresh discovery, of 
 which he had been previously ignorant. He speaks like a 
 man to whom its discovery occasioned deep surprise. " Of a 
 truth," says he to Cornelius, " I perceive that God is no 
 respecter of persons; but in every nation he that feareth 
 Him, and worketh righteousness, is accepted of Him." St. 
 
323 
 
 Peter, previously to this revelation, must have viewed God as 
 a respecter of persons, and must have considered that fearing 
 God and working righteousness would be unavailing to pro- 
 cure acceptance, unless a man became a member of the 
 Jewish church. Nothing appears to us more surprising than 
 that, up to this period, the Apostle should still have remained 
 ignorant of this great truth. 
 
 We see, therefore, that the Apostles' ignorance respecting 
 the calling of the Gentiles could have been no isolated 
 ignorance, confined to that one particular fact ; it must have 
 exerted an influence upon the views entertained by them on 
 other great points of Christian truth : it even affected the 
 views entertained by St. Peter as to whether fearing God and 
 working righteousness were sufficient to obtain acceptance 
 with Him. 
 
 To form a clear conception of the effect of their ignorance 
 on this subject, we must consider what St. Paul asserts as to 
 the important bearing which the knowledge of the calling of 
 the Gentiles had on the most important points of Christian 
 truth. 
 
 Eph. ii., St. Paul writes: — "Wherefore remember, that ye 
 being in time past Gentiles in the flesh, who are called Uncir- 
 cumcision by that which is called the Circumcision in the flesh 
 made by hands ; that at that time ye were without Christ, 
 being aliens from the commonwealth of Israel, and strangers 
 from the covenants of promise, having no hope, and without 
 God in the world : but now in Christ Jesus ye who some- 
 times were far off are made nigh by the blood of Christ. For 
 He is our peace, who hath made both one, and hath broken 
 down the middle wall of partition between us ; having abol- 
 ished in His flesh the enmity, even the law of commandments 
 contained in ordinances ; for to make in Himself of twain one 
 new man, so making peace; and that He might reconcile 
 both unto God in one body by the cross, having slain the 
 enmity thereby : and came and preached peace to you which 
 were afar off", and to them that were nigh. For through Him 
 we both have access by one Spirit unto the Father." 
 
 The Apostle here declares that a knowledge of several of 
 
 y2 
 
324 
 
 the great truths of the gospel is dependent on the ealling of 
 the Gentiles into the Church of Christ. The elear compre- 
 hension of the spirituality of the Christian religion, and the 
 knowledge of the worthlessness of serving God by a religion 
 of rites and ordinances, is closely connected with this truth. 
 Several other great truths of the gospel can only be half un- 
 derstood without it : for instance, the nature of the sacrific e of 
 Christ as efficacious alike for all men ; and that all alike, both 
 Jew and Gentile, have, through the cross, communion with the 
 Father by the Spirit. A person ignorant of the calling of the 
 Gentiles could not have been aware of the pure spirituality of 
 the Divine worship, nor of the extent or perfection of the 
 Divine love. It was impossible for such a person to appreciate 
 the profundity of the great truth taught by our Lord, " The 
 hour cometh, when ye shall neither in this mountain, nor yet 
 at Jerusalem, worship the Father.^' "God is a Spirit ; and they 
 that worship Him must worship Him in spirit and in truth." 
 
 To the same effect St. Paul writes (Col. iii. 11) — " Where 
 there is neither Greek nor Jew, circumcision nor uncircum- 
 cision, Barbarian, Scythian, bond, nor free : but Christ is all, 
 and in all.'^ 
 
 A person ignorant, therefore, of the calling of the Gentiles 
 could have had but partial views of the universal headship of 
 Christ. 
 
 In Col. i. 26, 27, the Apostle writes respecting the calling of 
 the Gentiles, " Even the mystery which hath been hid from 
 ages and from generations, but now is made manifest to His 
 saints : to whom God would make known what is the riches 
 of the glory of this mystery among the Gentiles; which is 
 Christ in you, the hope of glory." The Apostle here uses 
 two expressions respecting the calling of the Gentiles, each 
 sufficient to prove the importance of that truth in the scheme 
 of Divine revelation : it is " the mystery which hath been hid 
 from ages and from generations;" it is "the riches of the 
 glory of this mystery among the Gentiles ; which is Christ in 
 you, the hope of glory." 
 
 Now of these truths the Apostles were ignorant previously 
 to the conversion of Cornelius, Their views of gospel truth 
 
325 
 
 were bound up within the narrow range of Judaism. The 
 workl-wide range of Christianity^ the purely spiritual nature 
 of the religion, the offering of Christ's blood for every mem- 
 ber of the human family, the free communion of every sanctified 
 sold with God through the Spirit, and the universality of their 
 Master's kingdom must have been either unknown to them 
 or most imperfectly comprehended. They must have viewed 
 all the benefits of redemption as restricted to the family of 
 Abraham. 
 
 When St. Peter, therefore, was divinely directed to open 
 the doors of the Church to the Gentile world, the Apostles 
 and the Church must have received the greatest amount of 
 supernatural enlightenment which had been imparted since 
 the day of Pentecost. The stages of enlightenment through 
 which the minds of the Apostles passed are, therefore, dis- 
 tinctly set before us in the history. They were first enlight- 
 ened sufficiently to preach the gospel to the Jews only, and 
 Avere afterwards instructed in its nature as a universal dispen- 
 sation adapted to the wants of men. 
 
 But their ignorance of this great truth must have exerted 
 a considerable influence on the nature of their previous 
 teaching. On many points connected with the calling of the 
 Gentiles they could not have kept absolute silence. Their 
 general views of Christian truth must have been influenced by 
 the consideration that the great bulk of mankind were out- 
 casts from the promises of the gospel. We are hardly 
 capable of grasping the precise state of a mind to Avhom the 
 announcement, that " in every nation he that fears God and 
 works righteousness is accepted of Him," was the discovery of 
 a profound mystery. That truth is obvious now ; but it is a 
 truth which even the minds of Apostles could not embrace 
 previously to St. Peter's vision. 
 
 Much of their ordinary teaching to the Jewish converts 
 must have been affected by this ignorance. What could 
 they have taught about the value of existing Jewish rites? 
 What could they have said respecting the efficacy of the 
 whole sacrificial worship daily going on before their eyes in 
 the Jewish Temple ? Was it to receive a commemorative and 
 
326 
 
 Christian meaning ? What was its connexion with the great 
 Sacrifice of the cross ? Some of these questions must have 
 received a solution from them of some kind. St. Luke tells 
 us that " a great company of the priests became obedient 
 unto the faith." What did the Apostles direct them to do 
 respecting their duties in the Temple, in connexion with its 
 ritual ? Did they allow them still to offer the sacrifices, and 
 to sprinkle the altar with the blood of victims, after the great 
 High Priest had appeared for ever, in the presence of God, 
 with His own blood ? St. Luke is silent as to the nature of 
 their teaching on these subjects. We only know from him that 
 the Apostles still continued frequenters of the Temple worship. 
 
 But, as the illumination which was imparted to the Apostles 
 was a gradual one between the first communication of the 
 Spirit and the conversion of Cornelius, we have no right to 
 assume that the illumination which was imparted to them by 
 this last event at once opened to their minds a full and com- 
 plete view of the higher mysteries of the gospel. An increas- 
 ing degree of knowledge seems to have been imparted to their 
 minds when the providence of God opened to them fresh 
 spheres of labour. For the first preaching of the gospel to 
 the Gentiles a very different instrument was prepared, in the 
 person of St. Paul. The original Apostles, for a considerable 
 time longer, confined their labours to the conversion of the 
 Jewish people, although the providence of God had provided 
 that St. Peter should be the instrument to break down that 
 middle wall of partition which had hitherto separated Jew 
 from Gentile. 
 
 The language of St, Paul on this subject is remarkable : — 
 " And when James, Cephas, and John, who seemed to be pil- 
 lars, perceived the grace that was given unto me, they gave 
 to me and Barnabas the right hands of fellowship, that we 
 should go unto the heathen, and they unto the circumcision." 
 This language certainly implies that the three pillars of the 
 Jewish church did not at that time take an active part in 
 preaching the gospel to the Gentiles. They did not consider 
 it as their proper sphere of labour till a later period of their 
 lives. They only gave to Paul and Barnabas the right hands 
 
327 
 
 of fellowship, that they should go to the heathen. They ap- 
 proved of their work, but did not personally engage in it. 
 
 We have few data for determining the stages of enlighten- 
 ment which their minds underwent after the conversion of 
 Cornelius. St. Paul determines the period when the great 
 truth of the calling of the Gentiles, and all its attendant con- 
 sequences, had been fully revealed to the whole inspired body 
 of the Christian Church. He assures us that such was the 
 case when he wrote the Epistle to the Ephesians. " The mys- 
 tery of Christ," says he, " which in other ages was not made 
 known imto the sons of men, as it is now revealed unto His holy 
 apostles and prophets by the Spirit; that the Gentiles should 
 be fellowheirs, and of the same body, and partakers of his 
 promise in Christ by the gospel.'^ 
 
 This passage distinctly affirms that this great truth had 
 been fally communicated to the whole inspired body when 
 St. Paul wrote this Epistle : it implies that it had even been 
 revealed for a considerable time. 
 
 But both St. PauPs Epistles and the Acts of the Apostles 
 afford grounds for believing that this revelation was not fully 
 made to the whole of the inspired body for some considerable 
 time after the conversion of Cornelius, — probably not till after 
 the time of St. Paulas last journey to Jerusalem. 
 
 There was in existence a large body of Jewish Christians 
 who disputed this truth : they were unable to bear it. The 
 inspired teachers of the Jewish church could not, therefore, 
 have distinctly stated this truth as an integral portion of 
 Christian doctrine; or professed believers holding these opi- 
 nions must have set themselves against their authority, and 
 created a schism. 
 
 We find that a Jewish party everywhere followed St. Paul 
 in his preaching among the Gentiles, and endeavoured to 
 propagate among the churches which he planted the belief 
 that, in addition to faith in Christ, the observance of the 
 Mosaic ordinances was essential to salvation. Their object 
 was to encumber Christianity with a mass of ritualism. 
 Everything in the Epistles implies that such persons were 
 not unbelievers, but professedly Christian Jews, who rejected 
 
S28 
 
 the autliority of the alleged revelation which St. Paul asserted 
 that he had received — that the privileges of the kingdom of 
 God were not dependent on the observance of any outward 
 rite or ordinance^ but could be obtained by faith alone. 
 
 According to the testimony of the Epistle to the Corin- 
 thiansj St. Paul's opponents quoted against him the authority 
 of some Christian teacher : '^ Every one of you saith, I am of 
 Paul j and I of ApoUos ; and I of Cephas ; and I of Christ." 
 From the Epistle to the Galatians we learn that Judaizers 
 professed to preach a gospel, though a different one from that 
 preached by St. Paul. It follows, therefore, that they could 
 not have been unconverted, but professedly Christian Jews. 
 St. Paul also tells us that they were brethren who came down 
 from James who tempted St. Peter to his great act of hypocrisy 
 of openly withdrawing from the society of the Gentiles. 
 
 It is evident that these persons were in communion 
 with the church at Jerusalem. They must have quoted 
 authority of some kind : on what could their views have 
 been founded ? James, at the council, had given his opinion 
 that the Gentile Christians were only to be required to 
 observe the four precepts. He seems to have considered that 
 the Jewish Christians would still continue in the observance 
 of the Mosaic rites. St. Peter had gone still further : he 
 not only declared that God made no difference between Jew 
 and Gentile, purifying the hearts of both alike by faith, but 
 he even pronounced that the Mosaic ritual was a burden 
 which neither they nor their fathers were able to bear. 
 Still it would seem to be impossible that the doctrines 
 which St. Paul taught could have been openly proclaimed by 
 the inspired teachers of the Jewish church. Persons with 
 the opinions in question would have separated from such 
 a communion. Such a schism subsequently took place. 
 This is confirmed by the following fact. 
 
 At the time of St. PauFs last journey to Jerusalem, St, 
 James and the elders told him that there were many (ten-) 
 thousands of Jews who believed, who were all zealous for the 
 law. These had heard certain reports of St. Paul's teaching 
 among the Gentiles, which had exasperated them against 
 
329 
 
 him. They apprehended danger to the Apostle^s person, and 
 advised him to take the conrse for conciliating them which 
 we have akeady considered. 
 
 Now hoAv do we account for the existence of this state of 
 things in the Jewish church? Whether we consider that 
 the danger would arise to St. Paul's person from Christian 
 or from unconverted Jews, the fact is undeniable, that 
 there were many thousands of Jews in commimion with the 
 Jewish church, all zealous for the law, and who were deeply 
 prejudiced against St. Paul, so that from this prejudice 
 there was the probability of a tumult which would endan- 
 ger his life. The Jews zealous for the law, who were highly 
 prejudiced against St. Paul, w^re evidently members of the 
 Jewish church. 
 
 Had the inspired teachers of the Jewish church then 
 preached the gospel in such terms as we read in St. PauPs 
 Epistles ? Had they announced the great truth that there is 
 neither circumcision nor un circumcision, but that both Jew 
 and Gentile are one in Christ ? Had they taught that legal 
 observances were weak and beggarly elements, only to be 
 justified in their observance because they were valueless? 
 It is evident that the thousands of believing Jews were ani- 
 mated by no feelings of animosity towards St. James and the 
 elders. These do not dread a tumult on their own account, 
 but because of St. Paul. Wherefore this difference in feel- 
 ing ? Could the great truths respecting the calling of the 
 Gentiles, and all the important consequences flowing from 
 them, as we read them in St. PauPs Epistles, have been pro- 
 claimed in the ears of the Jewish Christians ? If they had 
 been so, the conclusion would seem to be inevitable, either 
 that they would have yielded to the inspired authority of the 
 teachers of the Church, or that St. James and the elders 
 would have incurred the same hatred at their hands as that 
 which was incurred by St. Paul. 
 
 But as St. James and the elders entertain no sense of danger 
 for themselves, it is evident that they could not have offended 
 the prejudices of the JcAvish Christians in a similar manner 
 to St. Paul. St. Paul had consented to the observance of the 
 
380 
 
 Jewish rites by native Jews as national institutions which 
 possessed in themselves no intrinsic value. But those Jewish 
 Christians who could come together and endanger a tumult 
 must have had very different views of the value of those rites 
 from regarding them as national customs retaiued for a tem- 
 porary purpose : they must have viewed them as things 
 deeply important, and of the highest obligation. 
 
 The only explanation which can be given of this circum- 
 stance is, that the prophets and teachers of the Jewish 
 church could not yet have habitually proclaimed as an 
 integral portion of their teaching the great truth that all men 
 are equal before God in Christ. They must have avoided 
 touching on such topics in their public teaching, and have 
 dwelt on such truths of the gospel as did not involve 
 them : they must have taught those Christian truths which 
 did not give offence to the prejudices of the Jews, and care- 
 fully avoided points of controversy. On this principle, 
 the pecuUarities of the Epistle of St. James are easily explica- 
 ble. The great mysteries of Christianity, as they are treated 
 of by St. Paul, in this Epistle are passed over in silence ; we 
 may take this Epistle, therefore, as a fair exemplification of 
 Clu-istianity as it was taught by the inspired teachers of the 
 Jewish church. There is nothing in the Epistle to wound 
 the prejudices of a Jewish Christian. 
 
 But if, as St. Paul asserts, the great truth had been 
 disclosed in all its fulness, when he wrote the Epistle to the 
 Ephesians, to all persons possessed of the gift of inspiration, 
 this revelation must have been completed in the interval be- 
 tween his imprisonment at Jerusalem and the termination of 
 his imprisonment at Rome. 
 
 The mind of the Jewish church, at this period, must 
 have resembled that of the Apostles prior to our Lord^s 
 ascension. The Spirit must have had many things to say unto 
 them ; but, like the Apostles, they could not bear them then. 
 They were dealt with in a similar manner, in the earher por- 
 tion of the dispensation of the Spirit, to that in which our 
 Lord dealt with the Apostles : the truth was discovered to 
 them as they were able to bear it. But a time was rapidly 
 
331 
 
 approaching when it would be no longer the Divine purpose 
 to bear with the prejudices of the Jewish people. What 
 they could not endure in the way of teaching, they were 
 forced to endure by a terrible providence. As that day ap- 
 proached, the revelation of gospel truth, in its full propor- 
 tions, was no longer withheld. At last the Jewish vineyard 
 was laid completely waste ; it could be neither pruned nor 
 digged. No longer could a single rite of its religion be cele- 
 brated according to the injunctions of the law. The day 
 arrived which St. Stephen had foreseen. Jesus of Nazareth 
 destroyed the holy place, the Temple, and the city, and for 
 ever rendered the celebration of the Mosaic worship impossi- 
 ble. The Church separated from the Synagogue. No sacri- 
 fice on Mount Moriali could any longer be set up as a rival to 
 the great Sacrifice on the cross. 
 
 The contents of the Epistle of St. James form a marked 
 contrast to those of the Epistles of St. Paul, and they are a 
 remarkable illustration of Christianity as it was taught in the 
 Jewish church. We therefore subjoin a summary of it. 
 There is not even a solitary allusion to the fact that the 
 Gentiles formed part of the Church of God. Its topics are : — 
 The trial of faith ought to be a subject for rejoicing. God is a 
 liberal giver in answer to prayer. The necessity of faith, if 
 prayer is to be answered. The instability of riches. Tempta- 
 tion to evil cannot come from God, but is resolvable into the 
 free will of man. God is the author of all good. The necesr 
 sity of manifesting the reality of religion by outward actions. 
 The danger of self-deceit. Solemn warnings to the rich. 
 The nature of the law. The worthlessness of faith which 
 does not exert a corresponding influence on the conduct. 
 The duty of governing the tongue. The danger of lust : 
 solemn denunciations of its indulgence. The sin of evil- 
 speaking. The folly of calculating on tomorrow. Denun- 
 ciations of the rich oppressor. The duty of patient waiting 
 for the coming of the Lord. Several precepts for the steady 
 performance of duty. It is worthy of particular observation, 
 that in this Epistle the place of Christian assembly is still 
 designated as the synagogue, and not the church. 
 
332 
 
 It is impossible that the most careless reader of this 
 Epistle can help being struck by the contrast between its 
 contents and those of an Epistle of St. Paul. If it was com- 
 posed early, its peculiarities are accounted for. Its contents 
 are evenly strongly contrasted with those of the Epistles of 
 St. Peter, who had been the instrument of opening the door 
 of faith to the Gentiles, and which were certainly written 
 late in the Apostle's life. The peculiarities of the Epistle of 
 St. James have often been attempted to be accounted for by 
 asserting that the circumstances in reference to which he 
 wrote only led him to treat on the topics included in the 
 Epistle. This is, no doubt, the real account of the matter. 
 But it should be observed that the topics of the Epistle are 
 those which might be addressed to Jewish Christians with- 
 out wounding their religious and national prejudices. Such 
 Christians required instruction in far higher and more glorious 
 truths, to bring them to the measure of the stature of the ful- 
 ness of Christ. But it was necessary to feed them with milk, 
 and not with meat, until the appointed hour of God's provi- 
 dence arrived, when that which had long been decaying and 
 waxing old was ready to vanish away. As their views were 
 gradually enlarged by the Spirit, the original Apostles be- 
 took themselves to larger spheres of labour. 
 
 The inspiration possessed by the Apostles in the earlier 
 period of their ministry prevented them from teaching, as 
 Christian truths, doctrines not possessed of that character. 
 It illuminated their minds with that amount of Christian 
 truth which was suitable for enabling them to prQ^-cli the 
 gospel to the Jewish people. It enlarged their views of 
 Christian truth, and dispelled their prejudices gradually. It 
 was only after a training of this description that their minds 
 attained unto the measure of the stature of the fulness of 
 Christ. To the fulness of that knowledge it ultimately led 
 them. The nature of that full inspiration we must now 
 consider. 
 
333 
 
 CHAPTER XVIII. 
 
 THE NATURE AND EXTENT OF FULL APOSTOLIC 
 INSPIRATION. 
 
 In estimating tlie full effects produced on an apostle's mind 
 by the influence of the great gifts of the Spirit, we must in- 
 quire into St. Paul's assertions as to the nature of his own 
 inspiration, and the mode and extent in which it existed in 
 his mind. 
 
 In St. Paul's case, enlightenment was not a gradual pro- 
 cess, like that of the other Apostles. He was an instrument 
 who had undergone a very different previous preparation for 
 his work from that of the original Apostles. He himself 
 expressly declares that his entire knowledge of Christian 
 truth was derived directly from a miraculous revelation, and 
 from that alone. 
 
 An examination of the assertions of ST;. Paul respecting 
 the extent of his own inspiration, and the mode in which 
 divine truth existed in his mind, will give us a distinct con- 
 ception of the nature of the supernatural gift of wisdom, 
 which communicated the highest form of apostolical in- 
 spiration. 
 
 According to the Apostle's assertions, his knowledge of 
 divine truth embraced a comprehensive view of all the great 
 outlines of the Christian revelation. It formed a system of 
 truth which, while it had been divinely taught him by the 
 influence of the Spirit, was yet constantly present to his mind, 
 and clearly and definitely comprehended by his understanding. 
 To form a clear view on this subject, we must examine his 
 assertions in detail. 
 
 The first passage which we adduce as pointing out the 
 nature of the Apostle's inspiration is 2 Cor. xii. 2-4 : " I 
 knew a man in Christ above fourteen years ago, (whether in 
 the body, I cannot tell ; or whether out of the body, I cannot 
 tell : God knoweth ;) such an one caught up to the third 
 heaven. And I knew such a man, (whether in the body, or 
 
334 
 
 out of the body, I cannot tell : God knoweth ;) how that he 
 was caught up into paradise, and heard unspeakable words, 
 which it is not lawful for a man to utter " {dpprjTa pTj/xara a 
 ovK efov avOpcoTTO) \a\rjcrai). 
 
 This latter clause must mean that some of the revelations 
 which the Apostle received were of such a nature that they 
 could not be conceived of in ordinary human conceptions, 
 and therefore could not be expressed in language. If they 
 could be expressed in language, they could not have been 
 unspeakable {dpprjra). The Apostle does not mean by the 
 expression, " which it is not lawful for a man to utter " (a ovk 
 i^ov avOpwirw XaXrjcrai), to assert that he could utter them 
 but was forbidden to do so, but that it was not possible for 
 man to speak them in conceptions which would be intelligible 
 to others. 
 
 Comparing this passage with the Apostle^s assertions to the 
 Galatians which we have already considered, we learn that 
 he must have received supernatural communications respect- 
 ing two kinds of "truth ; of these, one was distinctly intelli- 
 gible, which he not only could utter, but which it was 
 his great duty to utter and to proclaim. We shall find him 
 asserting, in numerous other portions of his Epistles, that his 
 great revelations of Christian truth were of this description. 
 The second was that species of supernatural communications 
 referred to in the above passage : these he expressly declares 
 to have consisted of unspeakable things, which are not lawful 
 for a man to utter ; they must have been communications, 
 therefore, addressed to the higher forms of the Apostle^s con- 
 sciousness, but incapable of being expressed in comprehensible 
 human language. 
 
 During the time of their delivery, St. Paul asserts that he 
 was in a state of unconsciousness as to locality : his mind 
 was incapable of asserting whether he was in the body or out 
 of it. 
 
 Whether, therefore, we consider that the truths thus com- 
 municated were unutterable because the Apostle was for- 
 bidden to disclose them, or because they did not admit of 
 being expressed in intelligible language, we must arrive at the 
 
335 
 
 same conclusion, that they were designed for the Apostle 
 alone, and that they were not intended to form a portion of 
 the Christian revelation. All attempts to explain their nature 
 must therefore be mere idle curiosity. 
 
 But the Apostle is no less positive in his assertions that 
 his great revelations of Christian truth were of a wholly 
 different character, and were communicated to him in an 
 intelligible form. Not only did they consist of truths which 
 were utterable, but which he felt it his high duty and pri- 
 vilege to proclaim. They might ascend into regions beyond 
 the utmost powers of human thought ; but, as far as they 
 were revealed, they were distinctly cognizable by the human 
 understanding. 
 
 One of the most remarkable assertions of the Apostle re- 
 specting the nature of these truths is 1 Cor. ii. 6-16 : " How- 
 beit we speak wisdom among them that are perfect : yet not 
 the wisdom of this world, nor of the princes of this world, 
 that come to nought : but we speak the wisdom of God in a 
 mystery, even the hidden wisdom, which God ordained before 
 the world unto our glory : which none of the princes of this 
 world knew : for had they known it, they woidd not have 
 crucified the Lord of glory. But, as it is written. The things 
 which eye saw not, and ear heard not, and which came not 
 up upon heart of man, the things which God hath prepared for 
 them that love Him, to us God revealed through His Spirit*: 
 for the Spirit searcheth all things, yea, the deep things of God. 
 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. Now we have received, not the 
 spirit of the world, but the spirit which is of God; that we might 
 know the things that are freely given to us of God. Which 
 things also we speak, not in the words which man^s wisdom 
 teacheth, but which the Holy Ghost teacheth ; comparing 
 spiritual things with spiritual. But 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. But he that is spiritual judgeth all 
 * See* Alford in loco. The authorized version ia evidently wrong. 
 
336 
 
 things, yet he himself is judged of no man. For who hath 
 known the mind of the Lord, that he may instruct Him? 
 But we have the mind of Christ." 
 
 We first observe that the Apostle designates the subject of 
 his preaching by the term "wisdom." This expression he 
 elsewhere uses to denote the highest spiritual gift, which 
 formed the special endowment for the office of an apostle. 
 We therefore conclude that in this passage he is speaking of 
 the highest forms of revealed truth. In this passage the 
 Apostle makes the following declarations respecting the na- 
 ture of his own inspiration : — 
 
 1. He asserts that the truths thus revealed were cognizable 
 by his understanding. The term wisdom {ao^la) implies the 
 highest order of human thought, but in a distinctly intelli- 
 gible form. He tells us that " he spoke these truths ;" they 
 found utterance in language through him. 
 
 Now truths which are capable of being spoken by man 
 must exist in the understanding in an intelligible form ; as 
 such, they stand contrasted with " unspeakable words, which 
 it is not lawful for a man to utter." Truths capable of utter- 
 ance must be capable of existing in the mind in the form of 
 distinct conceptions. 
 
 2. The Apostle also distinctly asserts that these truths were 
 of such a nature that he was capable of exerting his rational 
 powers upon them. He spoke these words, " comparing 
 spiritual things with spiritual." Wherever a comparison 
 between truth takes place, the powers of rational judgment 
 must be exerted. To enable the human mind to exercise 
 judgment or comparison, the thoughts on which judgment or 
 comparison takes place must be comprehensible by the under- 
 standing. It is impossible to pronounce a judgment respect- 
 ing two thoughts, of which the human mind cannot form a 
 distinct conception. 
 
 3. But the wisdom which the Apostle preached formed a 
 distinct subject of divine revelation to his mind : he derived 
 it from no human source. He tells us that it was once " a 
 hidden wisdom, which God ordained before the world unto 
 our glory." He then informs us that, although hidden in 
 
SB7 
 
 former ages^ " God has revealed them unto us by His Spirit.'' 
 He then gives the reason of the possibility of the disclosure 
 of such deep counsels of the Divine mind, that " the Spirit 
 searcheth all things, even the deep things of God.'^ He 
 fui'ther tells us that this wisdom was communicated " to him 
 in words which the Holy Ghost taught him/' and that the 
 Spirit's acquaintance with the deep things, of God is as perfect 
 and accurate as man's acquaintance with the secrets of his 
 own mind. " For who knoweth the things of a man, save the 
 spirit of man which is in him ? even so the things of God know- 
 eth no man, but the Spirit of God." The Apostle in these 
 words implies that the great truths which formed the subject 
 of the special gospel revelation are as much above the reach of 
 man's ordinary powers to have discovered, as the things be- 
 longing to man, and his mental processes, would be beyond 
 the powers of any inferior order of creation. Words could 
 not have been used more suited to express the reality of the 
 Apostle's conviction that the truths which he taught had 
 originated in no human source of knowledge, but were intro- 
 duced into his mind through the agency of the Divine Spirit. 
 
 4. But as the subject of the Apostle's preaching was a 
 high form of divine knowledge, it differed entirely from 
 ordinary human wisdom as developed by the action of man's 
 natural powers : this wisdom the Apostle affirms to be the 
 wisdom of God, and not the wisdom of man. " The hidden 
 wisdom," says he, '' which none of the princes of this world 
 knew ; for had they known it, they would not have crucified 
 the Lord of glory." It was a wisdom consisting of such 
 things as eye had not seen, nor ear had heard, which had 
 not come into the heart of man — the things which God 
 had prepared for them that love Him. These words, also, in 
 the strongest manner assert the preternatural source and 
 origin of his knowledge. 
 
 5. The wisdom which the Apostle preached would not be 
 discovered to be wisdom by men of earthly minds and appe- 
 tites. They, viewing things according to their low and 
 degraded standard, might consider it not as a high and divine 
 wisdom, but as mere folly. The reason of this was obvious : 
 
 z 
 
338 
 
 it was a wisdom which required a divine sense for its appre- 
 ciation. The reason why worldly men did not appreciate the 
 gospel revelation as wisdom is given by the Apostle. ''The 
 natural [or mere animal] man (i|ru^t/co9 avdpwTros;) 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. ^^ 
 
 6. To enable the truths of God to be appreciated, man 
 inust be raised above the mere wants and affections of his 
 animal nature ; he must acquire a sense which is capable of 
 discerning and appreciating spiritual things. In the same 
 manner as the eye is an incorrect judge of sound, and the ear 
 of light, so the mere affections of man^s animal nature are 
 incorrect judges of the things and affections of the Spirit of 
 God, and of God's mode of acting in the spiritual world. 
 What man with his animal faculties may pronounce foolish- 
 ness might be seen by proper spiritual powers of discernment 
 to be the wisdom of God, worthy of the Divine character and 
 perfections. 
 
 7. The Apostle had learned these truths by having received 
 the Spirit which is of God. By His influences he had re- 
 ceived spiritual senses, spiritual faculties, and a spiritual 
 apprehension ; so that " he knew the things which were freely 
 given to him of God.'' By means of this illumination, the 
 "spiritually minded man was the adequate judge of all 
 spiritual things." None but a spiritually minded man could 
 sit in judgment on spiritual subjects. The great truths of 
 the Christian revelation were the mind of Christ. 
 
 We infer, therefore, that truths of this kind must have 
 been distinctly cognizable by the Apostle's understanding, 
 and were capable of being reasoned on by him : as such they 
 must have formed a permanent portion of his mental con- 
 sciousness. 
 
 We next adduce 2 Corinthians, xi. 5, 6 : " For I suppose 
 I was not a whit behind the very chiefest apostles. But 
 though I be rude in speech, yet not in knowledge; but 
 we have been throughly made manifest among you in all 
 things." 
 
339 
 
 This passage contains a distinct assertion, on the part of 
 the Apostle, that the knowledge of Christian truth was pos- 
 sessed by his mind, not in a transitory, but in a permanent 
 form. He compares his knowledge of Christian truth with 
 his powers of language: in speech he was rude, but not 
 in knowledge. His knowledge of Christian truth was 
 capable of a most favourable comparison with his powers 
 of utterance. As the one must have been a permanent 
 endowment, so must the other have formed a portion of his 
 general consciousness. 
 
 Had the Apostle been speaking of any branch of scientific 
 truth, he could hardly have spoken of it as more under the 
 control of his mental powers than he has spoken of his ac- 
 quaintance with the subjects of divine revelation. If a man 
 of science were to say, " My acquaintance with this particular 
 branch of philosophy is far deeper than my powers of speak- 
 ing/' we could hardly fail to understand his meaning. Such 
 an expression would most clearly imply that his knowledge 
 existed as a permanent mental endowment. Imperfect, how- 
 ever, as the Apostle says his powers as a speaker were, he yet 
 asserts that he was thoroughly made manifest unto them in 
 all things. The truths, therefore, as capable of a distinct 
 enunciation in language, must have existed in an intelligible 
 form in the understanding. 
 
 The conclusions respecting the nature of the Apostle's 
 knowledge which these two passages suggest are in strict con- 
 formity with what we have already learned respecting the 
 nature of the supernatural gifts, and with the exercise of them 
 being in subjection to the supremacy of the rational will. 
 
 Eph. iii. 1-11, contains a very important declaration of 
 the Apostle as to the nature and extent of apostolic inspira- 
 tion : — '' For this cause I Paul, the prisoner of Jesus 
 Christ for you Gentiles, if ye have heard of the dispensation 
 of the grace of God which is given me to you-ward : how 
 that by revelation He made known unto me the mystery ; (as 
 I wTote afore in few words ; whereby, when ye read, ye may 
 understand my knowledge in the mystery of Christ) which in 
 other ages was not made known unto the sons of men, as it is 
 
 z 2 
 
340 
 
 now revealed unto His holy apostles and prophets by the 
 
 Spirit Unto me, who am less than the least of all 
 
 saints, is this grace given, that I should preach among the 
 (jentiles the unsearchable riches of Christ ; and to make all 
 men see what is the fellowship of the mystery, which from 
 the beginning of the world hath been hid in God, who 
 created all things by Jesus Christ : to the intent that now 
 unto the principalities and powers in heavenly places might 
 be known by the church the manifold wisdom of God, ac- 
 cording to the eternal purpose which He pm'posed in Christ 
 Jesus our Lord/^ 
 
 The Apostle, in this passage, makes several most distinct 
 assertions respecting the nature of his own inspiration. 
 
 1. The knowledge which he possessed of Christian truth 
 was not the result of human teaching, but was a communica- 
 tion from God. He expressly declares that it was made 
 known to him by revelation. 
 
 The word " revelation '' {d7roKaXvyjn<;) bears a distinct 
 reference to the word " mystery " {fMvar'jpLov) : " how that 
 by revelation He made known unto me the mystery,^^ which 
 might be fairly represented in English by the words, " how 
 that by uncovering He made known to me the hidden truth." 
 The thing made known was a revelation or disclosing of 
 divine truth : it had been, before it was disclosed, a mystery 
 or hidden truth. The mysteries of the ancient world were 
 truths hidden from the great bulk of mankind, and disclosed 
 to the select few. The mystery, therefore, which had been 
 hid in former ages became a revelation when discovered to 
 the mind of the Apostle. The Apostle does not use the term 
 mystery to designate the incomprehensible nature of the truth, 
 but to express the fact that it was truth once hidden in the 
 Divine counsels, but now made known by revelation. 
 
 2. The subject-matter disclosed to the Apostle was the 
 mystery or hidden truth " which, from the beginning of the 
 world, had been hid in God." If, therefore, it had been fi'om 
 the beginning of the world hid in God, it consisted of truths 
 which had not previously been discovered by any former 
 revelation of God. But a revelation had been previously 
 
341 
 
 made of the Divine perfections by the natural universe. Re- 
 specting this revelation the Apostle writes to the Romans that 
 '' the invisible things of God from the creation of the world 
 are clearly seen^ being understood by the things that are 
 made, even His eternal power and Godhead." Things, there- 
 fore, discoverable by the light of nature formed no part of the 
 mystery which had been hid in God from the foundation of 
 the world ; they were therefore no portion of the disclo- 
 sures made to St. Paul by revelation. The mystery which 
 was made known by revelation did not consist of any know- 
 ledge of God communicated through the created universe, 
 but was strictly limited to the great truths connected with 
 Christian truth. St. Paul designates them as ^' the mystery 
 of Christ," or the great truths manifested in and by the Incar- 
 nation. It follows, therefore, that St. Paul in this passage 
 has distinctly determined the limit of the knowledge which 
 was communicated to him by revelation, and, by consequence, 
 of his own inspiration — that it was confined to the special 
 subject-matter of the Christian revelation. He had no reve- 
 lation made to him on subjects which had not been '' hid in 
 God from the foundation of the world." But there was 
 another class of divine truths which had not been thus 
 hidden; for tlie Apostle writes (Rom. i. 20), " The invisible 
 things of Him from the creation of the world are clearly 
 seen, being understood by the things that are made, even His 
 eternal power and Godhead." Such subjects, therefore, 
 formed no portion of the Apostle's revelations. 
 
 3. The Apostle distinctly states the manner in which this 
 body of revealed truth existed in his own mind, "As I 
 wrote before," says he, " in few words, whereby when ye 
 read ye may understand my knowledge in the mystery of 
 Christ." 
 
 The Apostle here tells us that, by reading the previous 
 part of the Epistle, the extent of his knowledge in the 
 mystery of Christ might be made the subject of estimation. 
 It would have been hardly possible to employ words more 
 suited to assert the fact that the Apostle's knowledge of 
 Christian truth must have existed in his mind in a per- 
 
843 
 
 manent form, like his other knowledge, than the words used 
 by him. The reader would be able to estimate the extent of 
 that knowledge by reading what he had written : we have 
 only to make a substitution in his language to see that this 
 is the only meaning which it can naturally convey. Let us 
 suppose him to have said, " I have written in the former part 
 of my letter on the science of astronomy. By reading what 
 I have written on that subject, you may understand my 
 acquaintance with that science,'^ Had he written thus, we 
 could not have doubted that he was speaking of truths per- 
 manently existing in his mind^ and clearly comprehended 
 by it. 
 
 It follows, therefore, that the gift of wisdom, with which 
 the Apostle was endowed, was a permanently abiding gift, 
 communicating to his mental consciousness a clear know- 
 ledge of the great truths of the Christian revelation in a dis- 
 tinct and intelligible form. 
 
 4. The Apostle further asserts that his revealed know- 
 ledge embraced an acquaintance with the profoundest Chris- 
 tian truth: "as I have written before in few words, whereby 
 when ye read ye may understand my knowledge in the 
 mystery of Christ.^^ 
 
 The Apostle here assures us that the perusal of the former 
 portion of the Epistle will convince us of the depth of his 
 knowledge of the great Christian truths. What, then, are the 
 topics which he has dwelt on ? God^s blessing the Church 
 with all spiritual blessings in Christ. His choice of the 
 Church, in His eternal purposes, to be holy and without 
 blame in love. The great doctrine of redemption by Christ. 
 The sealing of Christians by the Spirit. God's purpose to 
 bring them to an everlasting inheritance — to the praise of 
 His glory. The quickening of those who were dead in sins 
 to a new spiritual life in Christ. The whole plan of man's 
 redemption and salvation by faith. The bearing of all these 
 great truths on the calling of the Gentiles into the Church of 
 Christ, and the presenting of the whole Church blameless to 
 the Father through sanctification of the Spirit ; and the free 
 access and communion which the whole Church of the re- 
 
343 
 
 deemed^ without distinction of race or outward privilege, 
 enjoys with the Father. 
 
 These were the subjects which the Apostle wrote on in the 
 former part of the Epistle. They form the great mystery 
 which had in former ages been hid in God, and was now 
 revealed to St, Paul. Such deep truths, therefore, form the 
 proper subject-matter of the apostolical gift of wisdom, and 
 point out the profundity of those truths which it communi- 
 cated in a clear and intelligible form in the Apostle^s mind. 
 
 5. The Apostle informs us that these disclosures not only 
 consist of truths in former ages unknown to men, but that by 
 means of this great revelation of the gospel, in conformity 
 with an eternal purpose existing in the Divine mind, '^now 
 unto the principalities and powers in heavenly places is made 
 known by the Church the manifold wisdom of God.^^ The 
 disclosures made in the Christian revelation were not only 
 a burst of light respecting the Divine character to men, but to 
 the angels in heaven. 
 
 St. Paul writes to the same effect in the Epistle to the Co- 
 lossians, i. 2.5-28 : '' Whereof I am made a minister, accord- 
 ing to the dispensation of God which is given to me for you, 
 to fulfil the word of God ; even the mystery which hath 
 been hid from ages and from generations, but now is made 
 manifest to His saints : to whom God would make known 
 what is the riches of the glory of this mystery among the 
 Gentiles ; which is Christ in you, the hope of glory : whom 
 we preach." 
 
 This statement of the Apostle corroborates all the deduc- 
 tions which we have made from the former passage. He 
 here speaks of the mystery which has been hidden from 
 ages and generations, but which is now made manifest unto 
 the saints. That mystery, he says, "is Christ in you, the 
 hope of glory." The mystery has a riches of glory : St. Paul 
 was intrusted with the publication of it. 
 
 It follows, therefore, first, in conformity with the usage 
 of St. Paul, that the expression "the mystery" denotes the 
 great truths of the gospel revelation, including the Divine 
 person of our Lord himself. Secondly, that this mystery 
 
344 
 
 became the subject of revelation, and that, when revealed, 
 it contained such displays of the Divine character and per- 
 fections that St. Paul designates its discovery " the riches 
 of glory/' Thirdly, that although the mystery was now a 
 revealed truth, it had been hidden in times preceding the 
 gospel dispensation. Fourthly, that as the truths contained 
 in it had been hidden from all preceding times, the great 
 mystery revealed by the gospel could not have contained 
 truths revealed by the natural universe ; for the apostle has 
 elsewhere distinctly stated that the material universe con- 
 tains a distinct discovery of those truths. Fifthly, that the 
 hidden mystery was revealed intelligibly by the gospel dis- 
 pensation : " Christ, whom we preach," says he, " is now^ 
 made manifest.'' Sixthly, that this mystery formed the sub- 
 ject of the revelation made to St. Paul, which was therefore 
 limited to the communication of the great truths of the 
 Christian revelation, being the mystery hid in bygone ages, 
 now made manifest to the saints — the great truths of the 
 Incarnation. 
 
 St. Paid, in 1 Corinthians, xiii., unites together three gifts : 
 " Though I have the gift of prophecy, and understand all 
 mysteries, and all knowledge." He is speaking in this pas- 
 sage of the supernatural gifts of the Spirit. Now the only 
 supernatural gift of the Spirit to which the " understanding of 
 all mysteries " can belong is the gift of wisdom. This gift, 
 therefore, being the one preeminently apostolical, as we have 
 seen, is the one through which the higher forms of Christian 
 truth — the great mystery or truth of the gospel, once hidden, 
 but now revealed — were communicated. 
 
 To the same effect the Apostle writes, Titus i. 1-3 : — " Paul, 
 a servant of God, and an apostle of Jesus Christ, according to 
 the faith of God's elect, and the acknowledging of the truth 
 which is after godliness ; in hope of eternal life, which God, 
 that cannot lie, promised before the world began ; but hath 
 in due times manifested His word through preaching, which 
 is committed unto me according to the commandment of God 
 our Saviour.^' " The truth which is after godliness " must 
 mean the great disclosures of the Christian revelation. The 
 
345 
 
 Apostle speaks of it as synonymous with '' the faith of God's 
 elect." This truth contains the hope of eternal life. It was 
 promised before the times of the ages (called in our version 
 " before the world began''). The Apostle then asserts that in 
 times suitable to the Divine piirposes God has made manifest 
 this great revelation through preaching, with which preaching 
 St. Paul himself was intrusted. In this passage the same 
 truths are asserted as in the former ones. 
 
 As the gift of wisdom communicated Christian truth in its 
 highest forms to the minds of the Apostles, the gift of know- 
 ledge imparted that truth in its practical bearings. As it was 
 the special gift qualifying the possessor for the office of 
 teacher in the Church, it was a gift more widely diffused than 
 the apostolical gift of wisdom. The Apostle even assigns it 
 a rank inferior to the gift of prophecy. It helped to form 
 the complete idea of apostolical inspiration. 
 
 We read (Phil. iii. 8-10) : — ''Yea doubtless, and I count 
 all things but loss for the excellency of the knowledge of 
 Christ Jesus my Lord : for whom I have suffered the loss of 
 all things, and do count them but dung, that I may win Christ, 
 and be found in Him, not having mine own righteousness, 
 which is of the law, but that which is through the faith of 
 Christ, the righteousness which is of God by faith : that I may 
 know Him, and the power of His resurrection, and the fellow- 
 ship of His sufferings, being made conformable unto His 
 death." 
 
 The Apostle here evidently speaks of his knowledge of 
 Christian truth in its practical form. He is speaking of a 
 knowledge of Christianity extending its powerful influences to 
 the heart. The clear comprehension of the higher truths 
 formed the means by which the experiiaental enjoyment of 
 them was attained. He speaks of " counting all things but 
 loss for the excellency of the knowledge of Christ Jesus," 
 and then describes it as the end of his efforts " to know 
 Him and the power of His resurrection." The language 
 employed by him, even in the case of this gift, implies a 
 form of permanently abiding knowledge in the mind of the 
 possessor. 
 
346 
 
 We have . already considered the nature of the prophetic 
 gift. By means of it the Apostle received special suggestions 
 respecting divine truths and was enabled to communicate the 
 results of the other gifts in suitable and intelligible language. 
 The Apostle^s writings also supply us with two examples in 
 which the prophetic Spirit imparted to him a revelation of the 
 distant future (2 Thess. ii., and 1 Tim. iv.) It also appears 
 to have been the gift through which a restraining in- 
 fluence was exerted over the mind^ hindering the inspired 
 person from bringing forward truths or stating facts which, 
 although true in themselves, formed no portion of the Chris- 
 tian revelation. 
 
 To complete the full idea of the Apostle^s inspiration, we 
 must add the supernatural assistance imparted by the other 
 spiritual gifts. He would possess the two miraculous gifts, 
 the gift of discerning of spirits, that of faith, of tongues, and 
 of interpretation. Each of these would convey an inspiration 
 within its respective limits. 
 
 We must not forget that each of these gifts admitted of 
 degrees in the fulness in which it was possessed. This was 
 even the case with the gift of wisdom. St. Peter's express 
 testimony affirms this : he tells us that St. Paul wrote some 
 things hard to be understood, " according to the wisdom given 
 to him." St. Paul, therefore, possessed a very high form of 
 this gift ; it enabled him to treat of the profoundest doctrines 
 of the Gospel dispensation. It does not follow that every 
 apostolical man had the same degree of the gift, but, as St. 
 Paul himself affirms, that each of the gifts was imparted in 
 measure and degree in conformity with the pleasure of the 
 Spirit, " who divided to every man severally as He would.'' In 
 conformity with this assertion, St. Peter tells us that St. 
 Paul's high form of the apostolical gift was " according to the 
 wisdom given to him." Another apostle's gift might not have 
 developed itself in the knowledge of things hard to be under- 
 stood, but in some other form. We have already seen, by the 
 history of the Acts of the Apostles, that the prophetic gift 
 sometimes imparted to an apostle a less insight into the 
 future than it did to an ordinary prophet. 
 
347 
 
 We possess a few statements of the Apostle as to the gene- 
 ral eflPect which his inspiration exerted on his teaching. In 
 1 Thess. ii. 13, we read : — '^ For this cause also thank we 
 God without ceasing, because, when ye received the word 
 of God which ye heard of us, ye received it not as the word 
 of men, but as it is in truth, the word of God, which effectu- 
 ally worketh also in you that believe." 
 
 This passage contains two distinct statements : first, that the 
 Apostle's oral teaching was of the same authority as his written 
 teaching ; and secondly, that there is a sense in which both 
 were to be received as the word of God. 
 
 This passage is express in its assertion of the full inspired 
 authority of his oral teaching. It has reference to his oral 
 teaching alone. At the time when he visited Thessalonica he 
 had written nothing. Whatever divine authority he ascribes 
 in this passage to his teaching, he asserts it of his oral teaching. 
 We may safely infer that the same authority must have ex- 
 tended to his written teaching; for his Epistles are, in fact, his 
 oral teaching expressed in writing. Similar references to his 
 oral teaching abound in his other Epistles. 
 
 But what is the degree of divine authority which it ascribes 
 to his teaching, whether oral or written ? He commends the 
 Thessalonians for not receiving it as the word of man, but as 
 it was in truth, the word of God. What, then, is the mean- 
 ing which he intended to convey by saying that his teaching 
 was " the word of God"? 
 
 The Apostle's assertion is evidently made of himself, in his 
 capacity of a teacher of the Christian revelation. He does not 
 mean to assert that whatever he said was to be received as the 
 word of God, but that it was to be viewed as such when he 
 communicated the great message with which he was charged 
 — the truth of the gospel. 
 
 In the first portion of the passage, the expression " the word 
 of God which ye have heard of us " obviously means the 
 alleged revelation which the Apostle asserted to have been 
 communicated to him by God. He commends the Thessalo- 
 nians for receiving his alleged revelation as delivered by him, 
 which he calls " the word of God which ye have heard of us," 
 
348 
 
 as it was in truth — not a cunning revelation of human crafti- 
 ness, but really a divine revelation. 
 
 Our translators have involved the Apostle^s meaning in 
 some little obscurity by rendering the two words irapaXa- 
 ^6vT€<; and iSi^aaOe by the same English word " receive/^ 
 whereas it is evident that the Apostle intended to express an 
 entire distinction of meaning between them. Bye'Sefao-^e he 
 meant to express the actual embracing of the subjects of his 
 preaching by the Thessalonians as positively true. By irapaXa- 
 fi6vre<i he merely meant to denote that they had heard from 
 him the announcement of what professed to be a divine reve- 
 lation. The one word denotes the objective proclamation of 
 it, the other the subjective reception of it, as true. 
 
 We have already considered the sense in which a preterna- 
 tural revelation can be God's word, the channel through 
 which the divine truths must be communicated, and the 
 limitations to which they must be subject in passing through 
 the finite mind. In calling his teaching the word of- God, the 
 Apostle, therefore, means to affirm that the truths which he 
 taught were communicated to his mind by supernatural reve- 
 lation, and that he possessed such supernatural guidance as 
 enabled him to communicate the truths which had been im- 
 parted to him correctly to others. 
 
 But the passage determines nothing as to the mode in 
 which the Divine communication was made to the mind of 
 the Apostle, or the degree in which a human element 
 might be employed by God in connexion with that revela- 
 tion. The Apostle designates the subject of his teaching as 
 the word of God, because the great truths of the Christian 
 revelation were imparted to him by God by the aid of super- 
 natural inspiration. As we have already seen, the words 
 cannot mean that the expressions contained in a revelation 
 are the word of God in the same sense in which the expres- 
 sions contained in a human book are the word of man. They 
 are called " God's word," because they represent the truth 
 and mind of God. 
 
 Another similar assertion is made by the Apostle, 1 Cor. 
 xiv. 37 : — " If any man think himself to be a prophet, or 
 
349 
 
 spiritual^ let him acknowledge that the things that I write 
 unto you are the commandments of the Lord/' or, as the 
 Greek says, " are the Lord's." " But if any man be igno- 
 rant, let him be ignorant.'^ 
 
 The Apostle is here giving special directions for regulating 
 the mode of exercising the spiritual gifts, and for the main- 
 taining due order in the church. His object was to repress 
 the abuses which had arisen in connexion with the gifts of 
 tongues and prophecy. In opposition to these abuses, St. Paul 
 declares that any person professing to be a prophet or spiri- 
 tually-minded man would afford the best proof that he was 
 what he professed to be, by at once assenting to the fact that 
 the directions which he had been writing to the church were 
 the Lord's, stamped with his authority. 
 
 We have therefore the Apostle's declaration that when he 
 gave directions to the Church, and expressed his authoritative 
 judgment, the directions as delivered by him are equivalent 
 to commandments of the Lord. Some directions given by 
 him, he distinctly tells us, do not possess this authority. 
 Directions, to possess this authority, must have respect not to 
 mere private matters, but to the ordering of the Church. In 
 giving orders about the collections for the saints, the Apostle 
 is careful to state that that direction is not given by Divine 
 authority. 2 Cor. viii. 7, 8 : " Therefore, as ye abound in 
 every thing, in faith, and utterance, and knowledge, and in 
 all diligence, and in your love to us, see that ye abound in this 
 grace also. I speak not by commandment, but by occasion 
 of the forwardness of others, and to prove the sincerity of 
 your love." On another occasion, the Apostle observes that he 
 gives a direction as "one who had obtained mercy of the Lord 
 to be faithful." 
 
 A few other directions of the Apostle must be excepted, 
 which he has left to the discrimination of common sense, as 
 when he directs Timothy to bring his cloak, or not to drink 
 water, but wine. To the same pm-pose is his direction to 
 Philemon to prepare him a lodging, and his request to re- 
 ceive with brotherly affection his slave Onesimus, where the 
 Apostle expressly declares that, " although he might be bold 
 
350 
 
 in Christ to enjoin what was convenient, yet for lovers sake 
 he used entreaty, being such an one as Paul the aged, and 
 now also a prisoner of Jesus Christ." 
 
 In 2 Cor. xi, 17, the Apostle writes, " That which I speak, 
 I speak it not after the Lord, but as it were foolishly, in this 
 confidence of boasting." 
 
 To assert that this or similar passages were dictated to 
 the Apostle by the Spirit, after his own express declaration 
 that he did not write them after the Lord, is expressly to con- 
 tradict the testimony of an inspired man. 
 
 But in the same Epistle the Apostle no less clearly ex- 
 presses his consciousness of writing under the influence of 
 inspiration, '' I told you," says he, " before, and foretell 
 you, as if I were present, the second time j and being absent 
 now I write to them which heretofore have sinned, and to all 
 other, that, if I come again, I will not spare : since ye seek a 
 proof of Christ speaking in me, which to you-ward is not 
 weak, but is mighty in you" (2 Cor. xiii. 2, 3). 
 
 St. Paul frequently describes himself as holding the office 
 of " an ambassador for Christ." A few points in which the 
 illustration was intended to hold will throw light on our sub- 
 ject. An ambassador represents the person of him who sends 
 him. He receives the instructions of his principal : he is 
 bound to act in conformity with them. He communicates to 
 others the will and pleasure of the person which he repre- 
 sents. As long as his language is in conformity with his 
 instructions, the words uttered by him may be \dewed as the 
 declarations of the power for whom he acts. He may neither 
 use the words nor the style of expression of his instructions ; 
 all that is required is, that his assertions and declarations 
 should fully represent the meaning of them. The instruc- 
 tions of the Apostles were their knowledge of Christian truth 
 communicated by inspiration to their minds. Such was the 
 position which St. Paul asserts that he occupied in communi- 
 cating the revelation of Jesus Christ. The Apostle, therefore, 
 describes his inspiration by the expression, " Christ speaking 
 in him." All that such an expression proves is that, as an 
 ambassador for Christ, the Apostle's declarations possessed 
 
351 
 
 Divine authority whenever they represented the instructions 
 which he had received from Christ. 
 
 In Gral. iv. 14, the Apostle writes, " Ye received me as an 
 angel of God, even as Christ Jesus/' The Apostle had no 
 wish to be received as the Saviour; what he claimed was to 
 be received as His ambassador, and as the interpreter of His 
 will. In this passage he speaks only of his oral teaching, and 
 consequently asserts its equal iuspii'ation with his written 
 teaching. 
 
 "We must now consider the Apostle's assertion, 2 Tim. iii. 
 14-17: — "But continue thou in the things which thou hast 
 learned and hast been assured of, knowing of whom thou 
 hast learned them ; and that from a child thou hast known 
 the holy scriptures, which are able to make thee wise unto 
 salvation through faith which is in Christ Jesus. All scrip- 
 ture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for 
 doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in right- 
 eousness : that the man of God may be perfect, throughly 
 furnished unto all good works." 
 
 This passage is written of the Scriptures of the Old Testa- 
 ment, being the only Scriptm^es which Timothy knew from a 
 child. Whatever inspiration it claims for the Old Testament 
 Scriptures may safely be assumed as belonging to the New. 
 
 The great question is. What is the correct translation of the 
 passage irdaa ypa^r] deoirvevaro'i koX cocfiekifio^i ? Were these 
 words intended to convey the meaning " all scripture is given 
 by inspiration of God, and is profitable," or, " all scripture 
 given by inspiration of God is also profitable " ? 
 
 High authorities may be adduced in favour of either ren- 
 dering. As there is no absolute certainty which is the correct 
 translation, numerous attempts have been made to determine 
 the meaning by arguments as to the sense which the context 
 requires. Weighty arguments can be adduced on both sides. 
 No well-informed person who has considered the subject, 
 however much he may prefer the translation, " all scripture is 
 given by inspiration of God," will be prepared to affirm that 
 the passage cannot be translated, " all scripture given by in- 
 spiration from God is also profitable." It cannot Jbe denied 
 
352 
 
 that numerous instances of a similar construction are to be 
 found in the New Testament. Nor is it possible to affirm 
 that powerful arguments in support of this . translation may 
 not be deduced from the context. 
 
 It must be admitted, therefore, that the passage is one of 
 those whose meaning cannot be determined with actual cer- 
 tainty, and therefore cannot be quoted in evidence on either 
 side of the argument. 
 
 There are several other passages in the New Testament 
 which, owing to the doubtfulness either of the reading or the 
 translation, are in a similar position. It is impossible to 
 determine with actual certainty whether, in Heb. ix., the word 
 hcadrjKri means "covenant^^ or "testament.^' No well-informed 
 person would, at the present day, quote the passage, " Feed 
 the church of God, which He hath purchased with His own 
 blood," as conclusive on the doctrine of the Trinity. The 
 expression " church of the Lord " can vindicate a high claim 
 to be esteemed that really written by St. Luke. 
 
 The doubtful meaning of such passages renders it impossi- 
 ble to quote them in controversy. Any person who is at all 
 acquainted with the state of the evidence as to the translation 
 must admit that this passage is one of a similar description. 
 
 But even admitting that the Apostle wrote " all scripture 
 is given by inspiration," it is worth while to inquire whether 
 the passage asserts that the New Testament is written under 
 the influence of verbal inspiration and denies the existence in 
 it of any human element. 
 
 Now, what meaning must be attached to the words Traaa 
 ypa(jii] ? Does it mean the book generally, or every sentence 
 or separate word in the book? Does it include the whole 
 form of thought, and every expression in the style ? Unless 
 we are prepared to assert that it must have this meaning, it 
 will be useless to adduce it in proof of the theory of verbal 
 inspiration. 
 
 But we have direct proof that, by the use of this expres- 
 sion, the Apostle did not intend to assert that each of the 
 books of Scripture was composed by the aid of inspiration at 
 aU analogous to verbal inspiration. 
 
353 
 
 It is evident that these words were written of the Scriptures 
 of the Old Testament. The peculiar phenomena presented by 
 the Book of Job render it utterly impossible that the Apos- 
 tle could have attached this meaning to them. To ascribe 
 such a kind of inspiration to the various portions of the 
 Book of Job is directly to contradict the assertions of the 
 book itself. In this book, God is introduced as directly 
 asserting that Job's friends had not spoken of Him that which 
 was right. Although Job's general view of God's providence 
 was correct, he had given utterance to many expressions 
 respecting the Almighty highly presumptuous. The things, 
 therefore, which the several speakers uttered in this book, 
 according to its own assertions, were not dictated to them by 
 the omniscient Spirit of God. 
 
 The author of the book may have been directed to record 
 these speeches for the edification of the Church. This is a 
 wholly different thing from saying that the discourses them- 
 selves, containing such representations of the Divine character, 
 were dictated to their authors by supernatural inspiration. 
 
 It follows, therefore, that the assertion, " all scripture is 
 given by inspiration of God," cannot be meant to declare that 
 every expression in them was dictated by the Spirit of God, 
 and is therefore infallibly true. The declaration of the Apos- 
 tle must be capable of reconciliation with the phenomena 
 presented by the Book of Job and abundance of similar 
 phenomena in the Old Testament, and is therefore quite con- 
 sistent with the presence of a human element existing in the 
 Scriptures by the side of the divine one. 
 
 CHAPTER XIX. 
 
 THE HUMAN ELEMENT IN APOSTOLIC INSPIRATION. 
 
 We have considered the declarations of St. Paul respecting the 
 nature and extent of the divine element involved in his inspira- 
 tion. We must now examine what traces his writings afford us 
 
 2a 
 
354 
 
 of the presence of a human element. The first human element 
 which we shall notice is the presence of his individuality. 
 
 Throughout the writings of the Apostles we discover the 
 most certain proofs of the existence of their individuality. 
 This is particularly the case with St. Paul. Perhaps of 
 no man who ever lived, whose life we know from so con- 
 cise a biography as that written by St. Luke, and whose wri- 
 tings are so brief as St. Paul's Epistles, have such marks of 
 individuality been impressed both on the biography and on 
 the writings. The Apostle is depicted in them as he lived 
 and moved. This individuality forms the human element in 
 the Epistles. 
 
 The supernatural communication of truth was made to the 
 mind of the Apostle in such a manner that it did not over- 
 throw or even interfere with this individuality : it left it 
 whole and entire. The man Paul still existed. The revela- 
 tions encircled the individual; the individual was encased 
 in them : he was neither swallowed up nor absorbed by 
 them. What Paul was before his conversion, he continued 
 after his conversion, with altered views, different aims, with 
 impulses receiving a new direction, with feelings and affec- 
 tions kindled into a brighter flame, and directed to a holier 
 object. In every portion of his actions and his writings we 
 see Paul, the energetic man, the self-sacrificing man, the 
 much-enduring man, the man of tender "feelings, the man of 
 deep determination, the man of mighty intellect and of con- 
 summate judgment. His individuality is as clearly discernible 
 from those of Peter, James, and John, as the individuality of 
 Luther from Melancthon, or that of Whitfield from Wesley. 
 
 We discover no less distinctly the individuality of the other 
 sacred writers : it is preserved throughout their writings. 
 Who would ever be in danger of confounding between St. 
 Peter, St. Paul, St. James, and St. John ? Their great charac- 
 teristics are as distinct as those of any four writers who ever 
 lived. Great as were the endowments of St. Paul and St. 
 John beyond those of the other Apostles, and high as were 
 the regions of the spiritual world into which they soared, who 
 would ever be in danger of failing to discern in their writings 
 
355 
 
 their distinctive characters ? Every line of St. John is filled 
 with self-conscious calmness; every line of St. Paul is re- 
 plete with self-conscious power. The feelings and affections 
 of the one resemble the mild sunshine of a genial spring; 
 those of the other burn with the fervour of the summer's sun, 
 and occasionally resemble the upheavings of the mighty deep. 
 The Peter of the Epistles is the Peter of the Gospels, only 
 refined, purified, and chastened. Unmistakeably does every 
 line written by St. James differ from St. Paul, St. John, and 
 St. Peter. He is sententious, brief, practical. Whatever influ- 
 ence inspiration exerted over the mind of an apostle, it in no 
 case superseded his individuality ; it enlarged and improved 
 it ; it carried it forward to its true idea. The inspiration 
 was attached to the man, not the man to the inspiration. If 
 it penetrated his individuality, it quickened it; it did not 
 overwhelm it. The natural faculties and modes of thought 
 were not set aside ; they still existed in their most active 
 vigour. The knowledge communicated by inspiration formed 
 part of the individual self: the personality was not swal- 
 lowed up in the knowledge. 
 
 It follows, therefore, that a distinct human element is re- 
 tained in the highest form of the inspiration even of an 
 apostle : the divine treasure is placed in an earthen vessel. 
 While communicating the great truths of revelation, an in- 
 dividual human mind is exhibited before us in all its feelings, 
 in all its affections, in all its struggles, and, what is stranger 
 still, in all its peculiarities. We read St. Paul, and say at once, 
 such is the peculiar manner of the Apostle. We find him treat- 
 ing some great question. An expression which he employs 
 suggests a fresh idea to his mind ; he pursues that idea to its 
 consequences : parenthesis is interwoven within parenthesis ; 
 surely the original thought must have faded away from his 
 view : but to the original subject he returns, as though no- 
 thing had interrupted the course of his reasoning. 
 
 To adduce an example. The Apostle has begun to entreat 
 his readers to walk in a manner worthy of their Christian 
 calling. In doing so, he mentions the grace of God displayed 
 in the gospel. His pen is suddenly arrested and unable to 
 
 2a3 
 
356 
 
 reach its destined purpose. The great revelation of gospel 
 truth — the calling of the Gentiles to the full possession of 
 Christian privileges, a purpose which was kept secret in by- 
 gone ages in the counsels of the Most High — the unsearch- 
 able riches of Christ — the discovery of the Divine glories to 
 higher intelligences than those of men by the gospel revela- 
 tion — burst on his mind. He bows his knees to the Father of 
 our Lord Jesus Christ in earnest prayer that the fullest 
 comprehension of those truths, and the richest experimental 
 enjoyment of them, might, in accordance with the greatness 
 of the Divine glory, be vouchsafed to those whom he loved. 
 He then adores the Author of boundless good, who is able to 
 do exceeding abundantly above their highest aspirations to 
 satisfy His people^s wants. Then the prisoner of the Lord 
 returns calmly to entreat the Ephesian church to walk as be- 
 came their Christian calling, in all lowliness and meekness, in 
 long- suffering, forbearing one another in love. 
 
 Instances of the same individuality of character are scat- 
 tered about in numerous places in his writings. In one place 
 we find the Apostle heaping climax upon climax, while his 
 struggling mind seems vainly to be endeavouring to give 
 utterance to the profundity of his thoughts. In another place 
 the course of his reasonings is interrupted by the outburst- 
 ing of the expression of fervent feelings of sympathy for his 
 unbelieving countrymen. Elsewhere the injured man strug- 
 gling with his emotions rises before us : his emotions are 
 profound — too profound to find utterance in words. On 
 another occasion he has received intelligence that dangers 
 have beset his converts^ faith ; the tempter is trying them : 
 perhaps they have believed in vain. The heathen world around 
 him is dark and threatening : without were fightings ; within 
 were fears. Titus arrives with good news : a burst of joy and 
 light flashes on the Apostle^s soul. In his extremity of 
 danger, those who should have been his support in the hour 
 of trial have forsaken him in his greatest need ; but the 
 Lord stands by him : may the sin of their desertion not be laid 
 to their charge. His holy services and disinterested labours 
 — working with his own hands for his maintenance, to enable 
 
357 
 
 him to communicate to others the riches of spiritual treasures 
 • — have been requited by the spiritual father having been almost 
 disowned by those children whom he had begotten. " I will 
 gladly spend and be spent for jou," says he, " though the more 
 earnestly I love you, the less I be loved/^ He is mild and 
 gentle as a nurse cherisheth her children. For his brethren 
 according to the flesh, he almost wishes himself anathema 
 from Christ ; " but the seducers of you, my converts, from the 
 truth of the gospel, I would that they were cut off that 
 trouble you. Let the preacher of another gospel, whether he 
 be man or angel from heaven, be accursed." His Philippian 
 converts have sent him a liberal contribution from the depths 
 of their own poverty to relieve his wants : he has all, and 
 abounds ; he is rich. But their messenger who brought the 
 contribution has fallen sick ; the friends who sent him have 
 heard of the sickness of their messenger, and are deeply dis- 
 tressed on his account, for he is near death. The sick man 
 recovers : God has mercy, not on Epaphroditus only, but on 
 Paul also, lest he should have sorrow upon sorrow. Loving 
 friends of the Apostle, aware of coming dangers, try to dis- 
 suade him from encountering them. The man of firm resolve 
 stands erect, but deeply moved. " What mean ye to weep and 
 to break my heart ? for I am ready, not to be bound only, but 
 also to die at Jerusalem for the sake of the Lord Jesus." The 
 Apostle, in his travels, has been the instrument of rescuing 
 from the downward course which leads to destruction a run- 
 away slave who had robbed his Christian master. To that 
 master he sends him back with a letter, " Brother," says he, 
 "who owe to me yourself, receive back and forgive your re- 
 pentant slave. Refresh my spirit : he has wronged you ; 
 though old and a prisoner, I promise you I will repay the 
 debt. I write this promise under my own hand. Do more ; 
 receive him as myself. I forbear to command ; I entreat for 
 the sake of love. Refresh my spirit in the Lord." Some mem- 
 bers of the Corinthian church are doubtful, after all, whether 
 the man who laboured with his own hands for a maintenance, 
 and who pretended to take no pecuniary remuneration from 
 them, that he might preach the gospel freely, instead of being 
 
358 
 
 the disinterested person he professed to be, may, after all, 
 have been no better than a cunning impostor. He had pro- 
 bably followed the example of Gehazi, who had relieved 
 Naaman of some of his money, though EHsha would not. 
 Though he had not taken money himself, he had done so by 
 his subordinates. The Apostle^s heart swells within him at 
 the unworthy supposition. " Did Titus make a gain of you ? 
 Did I make a gain of you by any of those that I sent ? I 
 have supported myself by the labour of my own hands : what 
 they did not supply, I received from the brethren in Mace- 
 donia. Why did I take nothing from you ? Because I love 
 you not ? God knoweth." The person who can read these 
 exquisite touches of the Apostle's character, and fail to dis- 
 cern in them overwhelming evidence of his individuality, 
 must, by enslaving himself to a theory, have become either 
 devoid of head or devoid of heart. 
 
 But the presence of an element of individuality is not only 
 found in the writings of St. Paul; it is no less distinctly 
 marked in St. John, St. Peter, and St. James. 
 
 Notwithstanding the shortness of St. John's Epistles, they 
 furnish us with distinct traits of the peculiarities of the Apos- 
 tle's mind. Direct logical sequence between the different 
 sentences of the Epistle there is none. The principle which 
 connects the ideas must be sought for deep beneath in the 
 thought, but nowhere appears on the surface. One clear, 
 self-conscious calmness pervades the Epistle. The vehement 
 emotion, so apparent in St. Paul, has in St. John nearly faded 
 away ; the mild shining of divine love alone irradiates the 
 page. No bursts of vehement feeling upheave themselves from 
 the depths of the writer's soul ; he lives in a state of calm, 
 habitual certainty. No less characteristic are his modes of 
 conception. With St. John, faith is knowledge ; its one mani- 
 festation, love. Of divine love other graces are the simple 
 manifestations. Love and holiness are identical. Love is 
 the essence of the nature of God. In that soul where it 
 exists, Christianity has wrought her perfect work. Let 
 slavish fear be obliterated from the list of motives by which 
 Christians must be animated. The Apostle hves in the 
 
359 
 
 habitual enjoyment of an inward divine light ; out of the 
 fulness of that light flow his assertions of Christian truth. 
 All who are taught of God recognize that truth ; they need no 
 other teacher. Antichristian tendencies arise, not from Juda- 
 izing \dews or from subverting the doctrine of justification 
 by faith, but from denying the Father and the Son. The 
 Apostle has, with his eyes, beheld the manifestation of incar- 
 nate Deity. The eye of his mind enjoys a clear intuition of 
 its spiritual glories. He asserts, therefore, but does not 
 prove. 
 
 In St. Peter^s writings we see depicted before us the deeply 
 tried and tempted man — the veritable Peter of the Gospels. 
 He has been sifted as wheat ; his faith has failed him. He has 
 learned that the trial of his faith, though tried in the fire, 
 has been more precious than that of perishable gold : it will 
 be found unto praise, and honour, and glory at the appearing 
 of Jesus Christ. Like all men of strong impulse, he has 
 been an unstable and therefore a much-sufi'ering man. Fiery 
 trials are, however, no longer strange things happening unto 
 him, but subjects for rejoicing. He had once dissuaded the 
 Saviour from His cross : he is now a partaker of His sufi'er- 
 ings, and a joyful expectant of His glory. He, who was once 
 foremost to rush into temptation, has learned that sobriety 
 and vigilance are Christian virtues. Having had bitter ex- 
 perience that he had exposed himself to the attacks of the 
 unseen spiritual enemy by his rashness in advancing beyond 
 the post where he had been stationed by his Master, he now 
 warns believers that their adversary, the devil, like a roaring 
 lion, walketh about seeking whom he may devour. He must 
 be resistsd, stedfast in the faith. On his restoration to his 
 office as an apostle, he had been thrice questioned by his 
 Lord as to the reality of his love, and thrice commanded to 
 feed His flock. Now, not as an apostle, but as a fellowelder, 
 he exhorts the elders to feed the flock of Go<l ; not by con- 
 straint, but willingly; not for filthy lucre, but of a ready 
 mind. He once eagerly sought the honours of an earthly 
 kingdom ; now, through the resurrection from the dead be- 
 gotten to a lively hope, he is aspiring after an inheritance which 
 
360 
 
 is incorruptible, un defiled, and that fadeth not away. He 
 who once thrust himself forward as the first in all things, after 
 many falls, has learned that humility is the chief of Chris- 
 tian graces. With St. Paul humility is one single article out 
 of many in the Christianas attire * ; with St. Peter it is his 
 entire dress : " Be ye clothed with humility .^^ Once he had, 
 without authority, drawn the temporal sword in his Master's 
 cause : he now emphatically teaches the duty of obedience 
 to the civil governor, for the Lord's sake. He who once w'ould 
 have been in danger of being seized on a charge of an attempt 
 at murder, but for the prompt interference of his Lord, now 
 gives to Christians the singular precept, " Let none of you 
 sufiPer as a murderer ■\, but as a Christian." Formerly he 
 could not endure the idea of separation from his Master ; now 
 he can assure believers who had never beheld the wonders of 
 our Lord's earthly ministry, or seen the features of His human 
 countenance, that although they had never seen Him, they 
 yet could love Him, and, believing, they could rejoice with joy 
 unspeakable and full of glory. His own denial, and his 
 Master's patient endurance, had left an impression on his 
 mind which never could be effaced. Christians were called to 
 endure with patience, after the example of Him who, when 
 He was reviled, reviled not again; when He sufi'ered. He 
 threatened not, but who committed Himself to Him who 
 judgeth righteously. Such evidences of the presence of the 
 man Peter cannot be mistaken — the same Peter whom we have 
 read of in the Gospels, whose weaknesses have been efiaced 
 by the growth of the opposite Christian virtues. 
 
 • " Put on therefore, as the elect of God, holy and beloved, bowels of 
 mercies, kindness, humbleness of mind, meekness, longsufFering ; forbear- 
 ing one another, and forgiving one another And above all these 
 
 things put on charity, which is the bond of perfectness." (Col. iii. 12-14.) 
 
 t This is certainly the last precept which we should have expected an 
 apostle to give to a body of Christians. It singularly gives a remarkable 
 confirmation to the truth of the history. Many of the references here 
 noticed would never have entered into the head of a forger, least of all 
 the one in question. In the precept not to be a busybody, St. Peter 
 seems also to have had an eye to his own infirmities. 
 
361 
 
 St. Jameses individuality is most distinctly marked : it is 
 only second to St. Paul's. He is all sententious, veliement, 
 practical. "Count it all joy," says he, "^when ye fall into divers 
 temptations. Let patience have her perfect work. Let no 
 wavering man think that he shall receive anything from God. 
 The rich man perishes like the grass under the heat of the 
 burning sun. The man who, while professing to have faiths 
 and, not having works, declares that he believes in God, does 
 well ! the devils believe, and tremble. O vain man, faith 
 without works is dead. The wide- spread evil of an unre- 
 strained tongue resembles the wide-spread destruction occa- 
 sioned by a raging fire. Birds, beasts, and fishes have been 
 tamed by man. The tongue none can tame : it is an unruly 
 evil, full of deadly poison. Let lustful Christians know that 
 the friendship of the world is enmity with God. Let them 
 be afflicted, and mourn, and weep. Go to, ye that lay out 
 your plans for tomorrow, and calculate with certainty on the 
 distant day ! What is your life ? it is a vapour. You rich 
 oppressors, weep and howl for the miseries which are coming 
 on you. Your wicked acts Avill be a witness against you, and 
 will consume you like fire. You are feeding yourselves fat 
 against the day for your slaughter." 
 
 No less remarkable are the doctrinal statements of St. 
 James as evidences of a distinct personality. With him sin 
 is a breach of positive law. God is not the cause of man's 
 sin : man's wicked lusts are that cause alone. From the 
 Father of lights, who neither changes nor varies, comes down 
 every good. A man must be a doer of God's word, and not 
 a hearer only. A man who makes professions of religion, 
 while he does not restrain his tongue, is a self- deceiving 
 hypocrite. Whoever keeps the entire law, but yet breaks it 
 in one point, is guilty of all. Faith without works is dead. 
 If we draw nigh to God, God will draw nigh to us. If any 
 man err from the truth, and one convert him, let him know 
 that he who converteth the sinner from the error of his way 
 shall save a soul from death, and shall cover a multitude of 
 sins. St. James, with all his vehemence, never personally 
 appears in the Epistle but once, in the opening address. 
 
362 
 
 Such, tlien, are the marks of indmduahty presented by the 
 four great writers of the New Testament. We ask_, can we 
 be deceived or mistaken respecting the fact? Have they not 
 left the distinct evidences of four distinct personalities ? 
 Could their human faces have been more distinguishable from 
 each other than their great mental outlines ? We have 
 exhibited before us the minds of the respective writers, their 
 habits and modes of thinking, their intellectual, moral, and 
 spiritual peculiarities. This is so undeniable, that it is 
 observed by the most ordinary reader. Every person, who 
 has read the New Testament with attention, says at once. 
 This is St. Paul; this is St. James; this is St. Peter; this is 
 St. John. 
 
 Now what is thus felt by all must be a reality, and no de- 
 ception. It can be neither fiction nor fancy. It must be 
 either an actual presence of the individuality of the writer 
 or, what we almost shrink from saying, a successful imitation 
 of that individuality. 
 
 If it be the veritable presence of the individuality of the 
 writers of the Epistles, it must be a human element in them, in 
 connexion with that which is divine. The individuality, and 
 the distinct mental characteristics, which we have been ob- 
 serving, are those of four distinct men. If what we have been 
 tracing is the very impress of their own minds, the presence 
 of it is destructive to the theory of verbal inspiration. The 
 Spirit of God may have directed this human element to be 
 placed in the apostolic writings for the purpose of exhibiting 
 or containing the heavenly treasure ; but it must never be 
 forgotten that the element is human, not divine. 
 
 But some supporters of this theory have maintained that 
 the apj)arent presence of the individuality of an apostle does 
 not negative the idea that the Epistle in which it is found 
 may be the work of verbal inspiration : the Spirit may have 
 actually depicted the four separate individualities themselves, 
 and dictated the whole forms of thought and expression by 
 which they are portrayed. 
 
 But the supporters of the theory are unable to deny that 
 the most distinct traces of personal individuality, in the most 
 
363 
 
 remarkable forms, do, in point of fact, actually exist in the 
 Epistles. It would be as well to deny the existence of any- 
 thing which we positively behold with our eyes, or perceive 
 by our other senses. 
 
 If all the peculiarities by which the presence of such 
 individuality is proved are not the human personalities of 
 the Apostles, but are the dictation of the Spirit of God, it 
 follows that the Spirit of God has imitated the respective 
 individualities of the four Apostles. Then the forms of 
 thought are not those of the Apostles themselves, but imi- 
 tations of them in letters bearing their names : they are 
 exact copies of the mode in which the writers would have 
 expressed themselves, if they had employed their own 
 mental faculties. Their readers, unless told to the con- 
 trary, could only understand that they Avere the veritable 
 personalities of the Apostles, It would have been impossible 
 to imitate four handwritings more completely than these 
 imitations of the individuality of the four Apostles. Such 
 an imitation is possible ; but it places on the Spirit of God 
 what we shrink from expressing in words. 
 
 Now it is a confusion of thought, amounting to a con- 
 tradiction, to affirm that the individual personality of the 
 sacred writers, as it is expressed in the pages of the New Tes- 
 tament, is inspired in the same sense as their statements of 
 Christian truth are inspired. That which is the result of dis- 
 tinct human personality cannot be a dictation of the Spirit 
 of God. A thing cannot be the result of inspiration, and at 
 the same time the simple portraiture of the working of the 
 human mind. God is not man ; man is not God. 
 
 To assert that the personality is the pure result of inspira- 
 tion, without the intermixture of a human element, is a very 
 different thing from admitting that it has been incorporated 
 in the sacred page by the direction of the divine Spirit. It 
 may have been His express intention that the individual 
 personality of each of the sacred writers should be closely 
 interwoven with the structure of the records of a divine 
 revelation : it may have been necessary for the edification 
 of the Church. It has been the Divine purpose, not only to 
 
364 
 
 exhibit Christian truth in the form of doctrine or precept, 
 and in the perfect human manifestation of Christ, but also 
 to exhibit it as Christian truth Uved and energized in four 
 minds of different characters, orders, and modes of thinking. 
 The inspired doctrines and precepts would thus not only be 
 exhibited in the abstract, but in the life — in the energies, in 
 the being, and in the affections of holy men possessing dif- 
 ferent forms of mental endowment. Christian truth is thus 
 made intelligible and accommodated to every order of human 
 thought. 
 
 But, as far as it is an apostle's individual self, it must be a 
 human element in the sacred page. An apostle's being di- 
 rected to record what he thought and felt will not make the 
 element divine. " The Spirit," says St. Paul to Timothy, 
 " speaketh expressly, that in the last days troublous times shall 
 come." Here, if the Apostle speaks truth, he received an 
 express illumination as to the distant future from the Spirit : 
 the information did not grow out of the use of any of his 
 natural powers. But can we change the words and say, The 
 Spirit speaks expressly, " The salutation of me, Paul, with my 
 own hand;" or, "For love's sake, I rather entreat thee, 
 being such a one as Paul the aged, and now also a prisoner 
 of Jesus Christ ; " or, " I have written it with my own hand ; 
 I will repay thee ; " or, " I am troubled on every side, yet 
 not distressed; perplexed, but not in despair; persecuted, 
 but not forsaken ; cast down, but not destroyed ; always 
 bearing about in my body the dying of the Lord Jesus." 
 These are plainly the human manifestations of the holy Paul, 
 not the express declarations of the Spirit of God. 
 
 It is impossible that we can have stronger evidence for 
 the existence of any fact, than we have for the presence in 
 the Epistles of the individual personality of their writers. 
 To refuse to admit its existence would be to deny the possi- 
 bility of truth. 
 
 The student of the Epistles, therefore, will observe that they 
 consist of five distinct elements : — 1st, statements of Christian 
 doctrine ; 2nd, Christian precepts ; 3rd, statements of the 
 writer's individuality and experience; 4th, statements of 
 
365 
 
 facts J 5th, the union of these two last with statements of 
 Christian doctrine or precept. We must select a few ex- 
 amples of these from the Apostle^s writings. 
 
 In 2 Cor. i. 5-24, the Apostle writes: — "For as the sufferings 
 of Christ abound in us, so our consolation also aboundeth by 
 Christ. And whether we be afflicted, it is for your consola- 
 tion and salvation, which is effectual in the enduring of the 
 same sufferings which we also suffer : or whether we be com- 
 forted, it is for your consolation and salvation. And our 
 hope of you is stedfast, knowing, that as ye are partakers of 
 the sufferings, so shall ye be also of the consolation. For we 
 would not, brethren, have you ignorant of our trouble which 
 came to us in Asia, that we were pressed out of measure, 
 above strength, insomuch that we despaired even of life : but 
 we had the sentence of death in ourselves, that we should 
 not trust in ourselves, but in God Avhich raiseth the dead : 
 who delivered us from so great a death, and doth deliver : in 
 whom we trust that He will yet deliver us ; ye also helping 
 together by prayer for us, that for the gift bestowed upon us 
 by the means of many persons thanks may be given by many 
 on our behalf. For our rejoicing is this, the testimony of 
 our conscience, that in simplicity and godly sincerity, not 
 with fleshly wisdom, but by the grace of God, we have had our 
 conversation in the world, and more abundantly to you-ward. 
 For we write none other things unto you, than what ye read 
 or acknowledge; and I trust ye shall acknowledge even to 
 the end; as also ye have acknowledged us in part, that we 
 are your rejoicing, even as ye also are ours in the day of the 
 Lord Jesus. And in this confidence I was minded to come 
 unto you before, that ye might have a second benefit ; and to 
 pass by you into Macedonia, and to come again out of Mace- 
 donia unto you, and of you to be brought on my way toward 
 Judsea. When I therefore was thus minded, did I use light- 
 ness ? or the things that I purpose, do I purpose according 
 to the flesh, that with me there should be yea yea, and nay 
 nay ? But as God is true, otir word toward you was not yea 
 and nay. For the Son of God, Jesus Christ, who was 
 preached among you by us, even by me and Silvanus and 
 
366 
 
 Timotheus, was not yea and nay, but in Him was yea. For 
 all the promises of God in Him are yea, and in Him Amen, 
 unto the glory of God by us. Now He which stablisheth us 
 with you in Christ, and hath anointed us, is God ; who hath 
 also sealed us, and given the earnest of the Spirit in our 
 hearts. Moreover I call God for a record upon my soul, that 
 to spare you I came not as yet unto Corinth. Not for that 
 we have dominion over your faith, but are helpers of your 
 joy : for by faith ye stand. ^^ 
 
 This passage forms a very remarkable illustration of the 
 Apostle's manner; for, with the exception that he gives no 
 precept, we find all these distinct elements united in it. We 
 Avill tlierefore endeavour to analyze the various elements of 
 thought contained in the passage. 
 
 1. We find in it assertions of Christian doctrine: "all 
 the promises of God in Him are yea, and in Him Amen, 
 unto the glory of God by us.^^ Here the Apostle makes a 
 distinct statement respecting tlie faithfulness of God. This 
 leads him to make a further statement respecting God's rela- 
 tionship to the Church. He has established the Church in 
 Christ, and anointed it. He has sealed Christians, and given 
 them the earnest of His Spirit in their hearts. 
 
 2. We find in this passage, also, very distinct statements 
 respecting the Apostle's own experience. " As Christ's suf- 
 ferings abounded in him, so his consolation abounded in 
 Christ." "And our hope in you is stedfast, knowing, that 
 as ye are partakers of the sufferings, so shall ye be also of 
 the consolat/ion." These are assertions of certain feelings 
 which the Apostle declares that he experienced. Of a similar 
 nature is the Apostle's declaration, "For our rejoicing is this, 
 the testimony of our conscience, that in simplicity and godly 
 sincerity, not with fleshly wisdom, but by the grace of God, 
 we have had our conversation in the world, and more abun- 
 dantly to you- ward." 
 
 3. The Apostle also details several facts which came within 
 his own direct knowledge. He reminds the Corinthians of 
 the trouble which came upon him in Asia, — how he was 
 pressed out of measure, above strength, insomuch that he 
 
367 
 
 despaired even of life : " but we had the sentence of death 
 in oui'selves, that we should not trust in ourselves, but in 
 God which raiseth the dead/^ In the latter portion of this 
 passage, the Apostle unites together a statement of fact 
 with a description of his own experience respecting it. In the 
 following clause, he unites this statement of fact with the 
 enunciation of a Christian doctrine : " who delivered us 
 from so great a death, and doth deliver : in whom we trust 
 that He will yet deliver us/^ A little further on in the pass- 
 age, the Apostle describes the various purposes of visiting 
 Corinth which had passed through his own mind, and vindi- 
 cates himself from the charge of fickleness in not having 
 carried them into execution : " in this confidence I was 
 minded to come unto you before, that ye might have a 
 second benefit; and to pass by you into Macedonia, and to 
 come again out of Macedonia unto you, and of you to be 
 brought on my way toward Judsea. When I therefore was 
 thus minded, did I use lightness ? or the things that I pur- 
 pose, do I purpose according to the flesh, that with me there 
 should be yea yea, and nay nay ? " He then takes a solemn 
 oath, by God, that his change of purpose was not the result 
 of worldly calculations, but that he was influenced solely by 
 a desire of sparing them. 
 
 4. The Apostle combines statements of facts and of his 
 own experience with declarations of divine truth. " Not," 
 says he, "that we have dominion over your faith, but are 
 helpers of your joy : for by faith ye stand." Here we have 
 both interwoven together in the same sentence. At the com- 
 mencement of the passage we have quoted, a divine truth is 
 inferentially mixed up with a statement of his own experience: 
 '' And whether we be aflflicted, it is for your consolation and 
 salvation, which is effectual to the enduring of the same suf- 
 ferings, which ye also suff'er : or whether we be comforted, it is 
 for your consolation and salvation." The divine truth inter- 
 woven with this statement of his own experience is elsewhere 
 stated in express words : " all things work together for good 
 to them that love God." 
 
 This passage, then, contains a very remarkable union of 
 
368 
 
 these various elements^ and gives us a striking illustration of 
 the manner in which the divine Spirit worked in conjunction 
 with the human personality of the Apostle. 
 
 But sometimes the divine truth and the Apostle's persona- 
 lity are kept almost entirely distinct. The Epistle to the 
 Romans^ from the 18th verse of the 1st chapter to the 7th 
 verse of the 15th chapter, is almost entirely occupied by state- 
 ments of doctrine or practice, with very few intermixtures 
 either of fact or experience. In the remainder of the Epistle 
 the other elements are intermixed, as we have already seen. 
 The 2nd Epistle to the Corinthians contains the most remark- 
 able instance of the intermixture of divine truth with the 
 Apostle's human personality. 
 
 The following passage is almost exclusively occupied with 
 statements of experience, personality, and fact : doctrinal 
 and practical truth is only interwo\ en with it inferentially. 
 
 Philippians, i. 3-18: — " I thank my God upon every remem- 
 brance of you, always in every prayer of mine for you all mak- 
 ing request with joy, for your fellowship in the gospel from 
 the first day until now ; being confident of this very thing, 
 that He which hath begun a good work in you will perform it 
 until the day of Jesus Christ : even as it is meet for me to 
 think this of you all, because I have you in my heart ; inas- 
 much as both in my bonds, and in the defence and confirma- 
 tion of the gospel, ye all are partakers of my grace. For God 
 is my record, how greatly I long after you all in the bowels 
 of Jesus Christ. And this I pray, that your love may abound 
 yet more and more in knowledge and in all judgment ; that 
 ye may approve things that are excellent ; that ye may be 
 sincere and without offence till the day of Christ ; being filled 
 with the fruits of righteousness, which are by Jesus Christ, 
 unto the glory and praise of God. But I would ye should 
 understand, brethren, that the things which happened unto 
 me have fallen out rather unto the furtherance of the gospel; 
 so that my bonds in Christ are manifest in all the palace, and 
 in all other places ; and many of the brethren in the Lord, 
 waxing confident by my bonds, are much more bold to speak 
 the word without fear. Some indeed preach Christ even of 
 
369 
 
 envy and strife ; and some also of good will : the one 
 preach Christ of contention, not sincerely, supposing to add 
 affliction to my bonds : but the other of love, knowing that I 
 am set for the defence of the gospel. What then ? notwith- 
 standing, every way, whether in pretence, or in truth, Christ 
 is preached; and I therein do rejoice, yea, and will rejoice." 
 
 This passage contains an exhibition of Christian truth, 
 not in doctrine or precept, but as it lived and energized in 
 a holy human personality. It was the purpose of God that 
 truth, not in ideal form, but as it existed in the experience of 
 holy but imperfect men, should form a portion of the record 
 of the Christian revelation. We have here an exhibition of 
 the human Paul, a man of habitual prayer, earnestly desirous 
 of the steady progress of his converts towards increasing 
 degrees of Christian perfection — having them engraven on his 
 heart. Discouragements do not daunt him : his very impri- 
 sonment has been conducive to the spread of the gospel. 
 Others have been encouraged by his success to increasing 
 boldness in preaching Christ. Some have preached Him from 
 bad motives ; but, whether owing to bad motives or to good 
 ones, Christ has been preached, and this rejoices the Apos- 
 tle's soul. 
 
 The whole passage is one simple statement of the Apostle's 
 experience, of events which have occurred to him, and of his 
 own individuality. It contains no direct enunciation of doc- 
 trine or precept. Christian truths can only be deduced infe- 
 rentially from St. Paul's experience. His prayers were 
 uttered in the light of that divine knowledge which perma- 
 nently dwelt in his soul, which we have already described as 
 afforded to him by direct illumination from above. But, 
 throughout the whole passage, the divine and the human are 
 woven together in the Apostle's personality ; and in that per- 
 sonality we behold, not a divine picture of ideal truth, but of 
 truth as it existed in a holy human breast. 
 
 Philippians, ii. 17-30 : " Yea, and if I be offered upon the 
 sacrifice and service of your faith, I joy, and rejoice with you 
 all. For the same cause also do ye joy, and rejoice with me. 
 But I trust in the Lord Jesus to send Timotheus shortly unto 
 
 2b 
 
370 
 
 you, that I also may be of good comfort, when I know your 
 state. For I have no man likeminded, who will naturally care 
 for your state. For all seek their own, not the things which 
 are Jesus Christ's. But ye know the proof of him, that, as 
 a son with the father, he hath served with me in the gospel. 
 Him therefore I hope to send presently, so soon as I shall see 
 how it will go with me. But I trust in the Lord that I also 
 myself shall come shortly. Yet I supposed it necessary to 
 send to you Epaphroditus, my brother, and companion in 
 labour, and fellowsoldier, but your messenger, and he that 
 ministered to my wants. For he longed after you all, and 
 was fidl of heaviness, because that ye had heard that he had 
 been sick. For indeed he was sick nigh unto death : but God 
 had mercy on him ; and not on him only, but on me also, lest 
 I should have sorrow upon sorrow. I sent him therefore the 
 more carefully, that, when ye see him again, ye may rejoice, 
 and that I may be the less sorrowful. Receive him therefore 
 in the Lord with all gladness ; and hold such in reputation : 
 because for the work of Christ he was nigh unto death, not 
 regarding his life, to supply your lack of service toward me.'' 
 
 This passage is a more remarkable display of human per- 
 sonality in the Apostle's writings than even the preceding 
 one. The passage immediately preceding it contains an enu- 
 meration of the most important Christian doctrines and prac- 
 tical precepts. This quotation is a simple statement of facts, 
 feelings, purposes, and hopes, without being interwoven with 
 either doctrine or precept. But it is particularly worthy of 
 attention in connexion with our present subject, as containing 
 the statement of several contigencies respecting which the 
 mind of the Apostle was in a state of uncertainty. He in- 
 tended to send Timothy, as soon as he should know how it 
 would go with him. He hoped also to be able to come him- 
 self. Respecting neither point had he any supernatural light. 
 We have, therefore, in this assertion the most complete evi- 
 dence of the human personality of the Apostle. 
 
 Colossians, iv. 7-9 : " All my state shall Tychicus declare 
 unto you, who is a beloved brother, and a faithful minister 
 and fellowservant in the Lord : v/hom I have sent unto you 
 
371 
 
 for the same purpese, that he might know your estate, and 
 comfort your hearts ; with Onesimus, a faithful and beloved 
 brother, who is one of you. They shall make known unto you 
 all things which are done here." 
 
 In the former part of the Epistle the Apostle had been 
 treating on the deepest subjects of Christian truth, requiring 
 the aid of the highest form of apostolical inspiration. The 
 passage which we have just cited is a statement of ordinary 
 facts, such as one friend might write to another : " My mes- 
 sengers can tell you everything of a religious interest which 
 is taking place at Rome, as I wish them to learn and report 
 to me everything about you and your affairs." 
 
 We cite one more passage in illustration of this subject, 1 
 Thessalonians, iii. 1-8: "Wherefore when we could no longer 
 forbear, we thought it good to be left at Athens alone ; and 
 sent Timotheus, our brother, and minister of God, and our 
 fellowlabourer in the gospel of Christ, to establish you, and to 
 comfort you concerning your faith : that no man should be 
 moved by these afflictions ; for yourselves know that we are 
 appointed thereunto. For verily, when we were with you, 
 we told you before that we should suffer tribulation ; even as 
 it came to pass, and ye know. For this cause, when I could 
 no longer forbear, I sent to knoAv your faith, lest by some 
 means the tempter had tempted you, and our labour be in 
 vain. But now when Timotheus came from you unto us, and 
 brought us good tidings of your faith and charity, and that ye 
 have good remembrance of us always, desiring greatly to see 
 us, as we also to see you : therefore, brethren, we were com- 
 forted over you in all our affliction and distress by your faith : 
 for now we live, if ye stand fast in the Lord." 
 
 The Apostle here gives us a simple account of the alterna- 
 tions through which his feelings passed while he was at 
 Athens, and of the measures which he took for the security 
 of the faith of the Thessalonian church, and the joy which he 
 experienced on receiving good news respecting them. The 
 passage contains a distinct presence of the Apostle in his 
 human personality. 
 
 It is evident therefore that, in addition to doctrines and 
 
 2b2 
 
372 
 
 precepts, the Epistles of St. Paul frequently give portraitures 
 of his religious experience, descriptions of his own internal 
 consciousness, accounts of facts known to himself or others, 
 and displays of his own indi'sdduality, either separately or 
 interwoven with the proper subjects of Christian teaching. 
 These various subjects differ not only widely in degree, but 
 in character ; they range from the disclosure of the highest 
 form of Christian truth to sending a salutation to a friend, or a 
 direction about a matter of ordinary business. 
 
 The Apostle has told us in express words by what rule we 
 are to estimate his own experience and example. It is the 
 experience and example of an eminently holy man, whose mind 
 was deeply penetrated with Christian truth. But the Apostle 
 does not claim for his experience or his example absolute in- 
 fallibility : " Be ye followers of me," says he, " as I am of 
 Christ."' 
 
 The example of Christ is the only example in the New 
 Testament which can vindicate a claim to absolute infallibility. 
 High as was the Apostle^s holiness, it was not perfect. He 
 himself asserts that he was constantly aiming after a higher 
 standard. The Apostle^s experience of Christian truth is 
 therefore to be viewed as a very high form of Christian expe- 
 rience — as that of a man preeminently holy, whose mind was 
 illuminated from on high as to the nature of those truths 
 which are revealed by the gospel. But we must beware of 
 assigning to it an absolute authority, which the Apostle him- 
 self declares only to belong to the perfect example of the Son 
 of God. The Apostle^s experience and example, however ele- 
 vated, are human, not divine. Why shall we claim for them 
 what he himself disclaims ? 
 
 As we are imperfect beings, it was highly desirable, not only 
 that we should have an exhibition of Christian principles co- 
 existing with perfection in the person of Christ, but with im- 
 perfection as they are portrayed in the persons of St. Paul, St. 
 John, St. Peter, and St. James. In them we see those princi- 
 ples living and energizing in men of like passions with our- 
 selves. A manifestation of Christian truth struggling in im- 
 perfect but holy minds is as necessary for our edification as its 
 
373 
 
 exhibition in its perfection in the person of the Son of God. 
 In this form^ therefore, we find it incorporated in the apostolic 
 Epistles as a most important element of Christian truth. 
 
 But this experience is the experience of men : it is an 
 experience which the Apostles actually felt, not an ideal 
 experience which the Spirit of God dictated. It has been 
 recorded, by His direction, for the edification of the Church ; 
 but the experience is a human experience, the consciousness 
 is a human consciousness, the individuality is a human indi- 
 viduality. The facts were events which actually occurred. 
 Apostles described what they really felt, not what they merely 
 ought to have felt. St. Paul was at times cast down : it 
 does not follow that the power of gospel promises ought not 
 to have preserved him from such depression. 
 
 The point, therefore, for which we contend is, that the 
 displays of personality and individuality contained in the 
 Epistles are not a simple dictation of the Holy Spirit, but 
 originate in the experience of men animated by His sanc- 
 tifying influences. The personality of the writers, although 
 quickened, animated, and sanctified by Him, was not des- 
 troyed, but left entire. They form a grand portrait of the 
 sanctifying influences of the Spirit exerted on human nature. 
 
 We will illustrate our meaning by a passage of the Old 
 Testament. Of all the Old Testament writers, the individu- 
 ality of none appears with such richness as that of the prophet 
 Jeremiah. In one of the portraits of his own individuality 
 occurs the following passage : — 
 
 Jeremiah, xx. 14-18: " Cursed be the day wherein I was 
 born : let not the day wherein my mother bare me be blessed. 
 Curssd be the man who brought tidings to my father, saying, 
 A man child is born unto thee, making him very glad. And 
 let that man be as the cities which the Lord overthrew, and 
 repented not : and let him hear the cry in the morning, and 
 the shouting at noontide ; because he slew me not from the 
 womb ; or that my mother might have been my grave, and 
 her womb to be always great with me. Wherefore came I 
 forth out of the womb to see labour and sorrow, that my 
 days should be consumed with shame ?" 
 
374 
 
 These were feelings which the prophet experienced in his 
 struggles ; but who will contend that they were feelings 
 which ought to have animated him^ or that they were breathed 
 into his mind by the Holy Spirit of God? The prophet may 
 have been directed by the Spirit to record the impatient feel- 
 ings which animated his breast^ yet not as an example to be 
 imitated, but as a solemn warning of what ought to be avoided. 
 It is the representation of a mind stirred to its profoundest 
 depths : it contains the expression of the height of passion 
 under the pressure of a terrific burden. 
 
 Now we ask, can one conceive that the different expres- 
 sions of this passage are such that they could have passed 
 from the lips of man without sin, even when under the severest 
 pressure ? Are the wishes holy wishes ? Can we conceive 
 them as uttered by our Saviour ? Are they not the words oi 
 terrific impatience ? How unlike to St. Stephen praying for 
 his murderers ! It may be said. Christians have learned a 
 higher lesson in the school of Christ. True ; but the present 
 question is not what lesson Christians have learned, but were 
 these words and expressions dictated to the prophet by the 
 Holy Spirit ? or are they a human element permitted by Him 
 to be incorporated with the prophecy ? 
 
 Let us briefly examine the expressions in detail. The first 
 wish was that the day on which the prophet was born might 
 be cursed : could such a wish have been suggested to his 
 mind from on high? He desires that that day might never be 
 blessed : was such a desire after the mind of Him who said, 
 " Father, forgive them, for they know not what they do" ? The 
 prophet next curses the man who brought his father tidings 
 of his birth : this man surely did him no wrong. He then 
 expresses the fierce desire that that man might be like the 
 cities which the Lord overthrew in His anger, and repented 
 not : such a ruthless wish against one who had done him no 
 injury could not have been dictated by the Spirit of God. 
 He then rises to a height of still more terrific vehemence, and 
 expresses a desire that the man had slain him from the womb, 
 i. e. had committed a murder; or that his mother^s womb had 
 been always great with him : this wish exhibits the paroxysm 
 
375 
 
 of his feelings carried to the extremest height. The prophet 
 could scarcely have realized the idea to which he gave utter- 
 ance. He concludes by murmuring against Providence, with 
 an angry demand, to know why he had thus been born to 
 shame and sorrow. 
 
 It may be urged in the prophet^s defence, that these ex- 
 pressions were uttered by him in the utmost vehemence of 
 passion, occasioned by the pressure of the deepest suffering. 
 Such was probably the case. But this proves the point we 
 are seeking to establish. Vehemence of passion is human, 
 not divine : it is man's utterance, not God's dictation. The 
 influences of the Spirit of God are love, joy, peace, long- 
 suffering, gentleness, goodness, meekness. 
 
 Although the passage which describes these upheavings and 
 vehement perturbations of the prophet's soul may have been 
 recorded for our admonition, yet the passage itself is human, 
 and not divine : it contains a succession of unholy wishes. 
 Such emotions, such feelings, cannot be prefaced by the ex- 
 pression, " Thus saith the Lord." 
 
 Between St. Paul and Jeremiah there is one striking resem- 
 blance — the degree in which their respective personalities 
 appear, the one in the Epistle, the other in the prophecy. 
 The prophet, in all the various perturbations of his mind 
 in the alternations of his depressions and his hopes, is con- 
 tinually rising on the scene. But here the resemblance ends. 
 In the Apostle's personality we have the purest exhibition of 
 practical Christianity. In the profoundest depths of trial, he 
 has fought the good fight, he has finished his course, he has 
 kept the faith. He is looking forward to his discharge from 
 warfare, and to the possession of the victor's crown. But, as 
 far as St. Paul's personality appears, the element must be 
 human. The Apostle emphatically warns us against con- 
 founding the imperfection of the disciple with the perfection 
 of the Master. 
 
 We conclude, therefore, generally, that although the ex- 
 perience of the writers of the New Testament transcends 
 that of the writers of the Old, in being a much nearer 
 approximation to the character of Christ, yet, as being the 
 
376 
 
 experience of man^ it is the human language of the Apostle 
 and does not consist of ideas introduced into his mind by the 
 direct influence of inspiration. 
 
 As Ave possess the personality of St. Paul in his writings, 
 so they are composed in his human style — a style perhaps 
 intensified by the influence of inspiration, but not superseded 
 by it. The divine truths, as they are presented to us in the 
 sacred page, have passed through his human intellect and 
 received the forms of it. This diff'erence of style in the writers 
 of the New Testament is universally perceived : no reader 
 of the New Testament has failed to recognize it. 
 
 Now to what do such phenomena point ? of what are they 
 the certain evidence ? If we had had no theory to maintain, 
 should we ever have inferred that many styles had one and 
 the same author ? or should we not certainly have referred 
 the phenomena to the action of diff'erently constituted human 
 minds ? The facts are indubitable ; hoAv are we to account 
 for those facts ? All experience asserts that such difference is 
 evidence of the presence of distinct and differently constituted 
 minds. 
 
 We will endeavour to make this argument plain by an 
 illustration. A large building is before us : on examining it, 
 we discover the presence of different styles of architecture : a 
 considerable portion of it consists of different styles of Gothic ; 
 the pillars are Corinthian ; some of the ornamental portions 
 are Oriental : we infer from this variety of design that the 
 building is not the work of one architect, but of many ; we 
 draw the conclusion that these architects lived at diffierent 
 eras. We enter a picture-gallery: we observe that the pictures 
 divide themselves into distinct classes; some are Italian, some 
 Spanish, some Flemish, some French : we draw the conclusion 
 that these pictures were the work of diff*erent orders of mind, 
 and that they could not have been painted by the same person . 
 We enter a court of law, and see a large number of various 
 handwritings pi'oduced ; skilful judges swear to the identity of 
 some, and to the diversity of others : a jury give their verdict 
 in conformity with this testimony. 
 . Now why should these tests be worthy of all confidence 
 
377 
 
 when applied to the practical affairs of life, and only fail us 
 when they are applied to the elucidation of the New Testa- 
 ment? The style of St. Paul does not less differ from that of 
 St. John than the Gothic style of architecture does from the 
 Grecian, or than the Italian style of painting does from the 
 Flemish, or than the style of Bishop Hall does from that of 
 Addison. 
 
 Now distinctive difference of style in composition proves 
 difference of authorship, no less than different styles of build- 
 ing or painting do the existence of different schools of archi- 
 tects or painters. The style, therefore, by which difference of 
 authorship is proved is a human element in a book. If the 
 names of Jeremy Taylor and Dr. Johnson had perished, would 
 it be possible to persuade any one who read their writings 
 that they had been composed by one and the same person ? 
 
 Now it is perfectly possible to express the same truth in 
 two entirely different styles. Different authors will express 
 the same truth in different ways : one may express it nakedly, 
 the other clothe it in metaphor ; one may amplify the truth, 
 the other may express it with sententious brevity. The 
 variations in the mode of the expression of the same truth 
 are endless. Every writer in the New Testament may be 
 recognizad by his peculiarities of style and modes of ex- 
 pression. 
 
 But what is the necessary consequence of this ? The truths 
 brought forward by each writer are the same truths commu- 
 nicated by the Spirit of God to their respective minds. The 
 modes of viewing those truths, and of stating them, are the 
 peculiarities of the authors ; the metaphors are their meta- 
 phors. The concissness or the copiousness of diction is that 
 of the respective writers. The presence or the absence of 
 argumentative power is a reflection of the character of their 
 respective minds. The lively question, the abrupt transition, 
 the indignant denunciation, have the same origin. The 
 climax, the vehement burst of feeling, the calmness, the 
 clearness, are transcripts of the individual temperament. The 
 truths are the truths of God ; the peculiarities proceed from 
 the human personality. 
 
378 
 
 1 John, iii. 5-10, and Romans, vi. 1-5 and 10-23, form a 
 remarkable illustration of the different modes of stating the 
 same truth adopted by St. John and St. Paul. The truth 
 which both are occupied in enforcing is the impossibility that 
 vital Christianity can coexist with a life of sin. 
 
 St, John brings forward our Lord's divine person, and the 
 purpose of His manifestation, as the medium of proof : Christ 
 was manifested to take away sin; He is Himself perfectly 
 sinless. The abiding in Christ, which is the true condition 
 of a Christian man, is incompatible with living in a state of 
 sin. One living in sin has neither seen Christ, nor known 
 Him. He that practises righteousness is righteous, as God 
 is righteous : he that commits sin is of the devil ; for it is the 
 deviFs nature to sin. Christ appeared to destroy the devil's 
 works. He that is born of God cannot sin. Sin and holiness 
 make manifest who are the children of God, and who are the 
 children of the devil. 
 
 In marked contrast is the mode of stating this truth 
 adopted by St. Paul, The logical and argumentative form of 
 putting it is at once adopted by him. In St. John all is calm- 
 ness ; the idea that sin and holiness can be confounded, and 
 that gospel truth can be converted into an encouragement to 
 evil, call forth all the vehemence of St. Paul. His holy 
 indignation is aroused. Shall we continue in sin, that grace 
 may abound ? May God avert the thought ! Redeemed 
 Christians are dead to sin; how shall they live in it any 
 longer ? Was not death to sin the very first truth brought 
 before the convert's mind in baptism ? Did not the ascent 
 from the water image the Lord's resurrection ? Did not faith 
 in it bind the Christian to a corresponding change from sin 
 to holiness ? Christ died to sin : He lives to God. So let 
 the Christian die to sin, and live to God in Christ. Let him 
 no longer submit his members to be made the instruments of 
 its ruling power. Shall a Christian sin because he is no 
 longer under a yoke of legal obedience, but under a dispensa- 
 tion of gracious mercy ? May God avert the thought ! As 
 for servants, they are servants to their respective masters, 
 whether a man is the servant of sin to death or of obedience 
 
to holiness. Ye were once the slaves of sin; now from hence- 
 forth be its slaves no longer. From the heart you have 
 obeyed the doctrine of Christ : it has enlisted you in the ser- 
 vice of righteousness. What then? I would draw a stronger 
 conclusion if human language and human weakness permitted 
 me. As then you have yielded yourselves and your members 
 instruments unto sin, now yield yourselves and your mem- 
 bers servants to God. I appeal to yourselves to say, what 
 fruit had ye in that service of which ye are now ashamed? 
 Its end was death. Now you have obtained freedom from 
 the servitude of sin, and have entered the service of righ- 
 teousness. You have your fruit to holiness : the end is ever- 
 lasting life. 
 
 Thus strikingly contrasted are the different modes of sta- 
 ting the same truth adopted by the two Apostles. With all 
 this difference of conception and expression, both state the 
 same truth, that true Christian faith is incompatible with an 
 unholy life. In revealing this truth, the Spirit of God has 
 used the instrumentality of men, with their individual pecu- 
 liarities, as the medium of communicating the heavenly 
 treasure : He has thus met the wants of every form of the 
 human understanding. St. John's mode of stating truth is 
 adapted to one condition of the human mind ; St. Paul's to 
 another; St. Peter's to a third; St. James's to a fourth. In 
 this manner, by making the great truths of revelation pass 
 through differently constituted minds, with different intellects, 
 feelings, and affections, instead of one single form of under- 
 standing or one single mode of feehng, is made known 
 through the Church the manifold wisdom of God. By speak- 
 ing with the tongues, the understandings, and the affections, 
 not of angels, not of one man only, but of many men differ- 
 ently constituted, gospel truth has been suited and adapted 
 to every form of the human intellect, is capable of translation 
 into the feelings of every human heart, and is capable of being 
 proclaimed to and embraced by every nation under heaven. 
 
 As the mode in which the Old Testament is quoted in the 
 New illustrates the nature of the inspiration possessed by the 
 Apostles, we must not pass it over in entire silence. 
 
380 
 
 The facts of tlie case, as they bear on this question, admit 
 of no debate. They are as follows : — Sometimes the citations 
 of the Old Testament in the New are exact quotations of the 
 received Hebrew text. At other times the Septuagint ver- 
 sion is quoted verbatim, even where it gives a different sense 
 from the Hebrew. Not unfrequently the citations are repre- 
 sentations of what the writers of the New Testament con- 
 sidered the general sense of the Hebrew or the Septuagint, 
 without quoting the exact words. Occasionally the quota- 
 tions give a sense differing from anything which can be found 
 either in the Hebrew or the Greek texts as they at present 
 exist. Sometimes the citation of a passage seems to be made 
 as an accommodation. 
 
 Such are the facts : the inference which follows from these 
 facts is adverse to the theory of verbal inspiration. 
 
 If it be necessary to assume that the writers of the New 
 Testament must have been possessed of a power of discrim- 
 inating what was the true reading of any particular passage 
 in the Old Testament, and that they always gave the true 
 reading, then it is evident that neither the Hebrew, nor the 
 Greek, nor any existing version with which we are acquainted 
 gives us the text of the Old Testament as it actually issued 
 from the hands of its authors. 
 
 Now, if the theory of verbal inspiration be correct, it is evi- 
 dent that, whenever the Old Testament is cited in the New, 
 the quotations must have been made, not by men, but by the 
 Spirit of God; the citations, therefore, must be the exact 
 words used by the writers of the Old Testament. But dif- 
 ferences exist, both in words and sense, in these quotations 
 in the New Testament from what we at present read in any 
 copy of the Old ; it follows, therefore, if the citations in the 
 New Testament are the very words used by the writers of 
 the Old Testament, that our present copies of the Old Testa- 
 ment are incorrect. 
 
 But the passages quoted in the New Testament from the 
 Old bear a small proportion to the whole of the Old Testa- 
 ment Scriptures ; we may conclude, therefore, if this suppo- 
 sition is correct, that the errors in question do not exist only 
 
381 
 
 in the cited passages^ but extend in the same proportion 
 throughout the whole. If this principle be correct, it follows 
 that the true Old Testament must have differed considera- 
 bly from the one with which we are acquainted. Such 
 a consequence follows inevitably from the theory of verbal 
 inspiration. 
 
 But if the quotations of the Old Testament in the New are 
 not strictly accurate citations of the genuine text, it follows 
 that the writers of the New Testament were not endowed 
 with a supernatural power to enable them to distinguish 
 which was the genuine text. They must have quoted from 
 such copies of the Old Testament as they were in the habit 
 of using, or from memory. The citations, therefore, must 
 have been liable to the defects to which such quotations 
 are incident. 
 
 Now it is expressly asserted in the New Testament that 
 our Lord did open the minds of the apostles as to the mean- 
 ing of the Old Testament Scriptures in their reference to 
 Himself. But there is no supernatural aid promised them to 
 help them to ascertain what was the true reading of a passage 
 when their copies disagreed, in the same manner as there is a 
 promise made them of supernatural assistance to enable them 
 to recall the discourses to their memories. The Septuagint 
 version is a standing witness that considerable variations in 
 the copies of the Old Testament must have existed earlier 
 than the times of our Lord. 
 
 The mode in which the Old Testament is quoted in the 
 New leads to the following conclusion : — The writers of the 
 New Testament were not aided with supernatural powers to 
 enable them to determine what was the true text of the Old 
 Testament ; nor were they endowed with supernatural powers 
 of memory to enable them to quote it, nor were they possessed 
 of such a power for the purpose of enabling them to quote 
 the sense only, without reference to the words. The pheno- 
 mena presented by the Old and New Testaments negative 
 either supposition. The quotations, as we find them in the 
 New Testament, imply that they were not unfrequently made 
 from memory, and from such copies as they were in the habit 
 
382 
 
 of reading. Not unfrequently they appear to have cited the 
 mere general sense of a passage ; and at times their quota- 
 tions seem to have been of the nature of accommodations. 
 
 The Book of Revelation occupies a different position from 
 the other books of the New Testament. From the nature of 
 the case, this book, if a divine book, must have been composed 
 under the influence of a very high degree of inspiration. It 
 professes to be a revelation of the future : events buried in 
 the distant future can only be known to Omniscience. 
 
 The author of the book informs us that it is the Revela- 
 tion of Jesus Christ, which God gave to Him to show to His 
 servants things which must shortly come to pass. These 
 communications are made in a succession of emblematical 
 visions : the emblems, therefore, must have formed a sub- 
 stantial portion of the Divine communication; for by them the 
 future is revealed. 
 
 This book, therefore, must differ from the other books of 
 the New Testament. As far as the imagery is an emblemati- 
 cal disclosure of the future, it must be an essential portion of 
 the Divine communication ; such imagery must therefore 
 have been depicted by the inspiring Spirit before the pro- 
 phet's mind. 
 
 It follows as a consequence from this consideration, that 
 whatever human element exists in the structure of the 
 book, it must lie beyond this boundary and be confined to 
 points unconnected with the future ; it must therefore be 
 limited to the personal action of the Apostle, to the human 
 language in which the divine visions are expressed, and to the 
 peculiarities of the Apostle's diction. Even that language is 
 affected by the Divine communications. 
 
 We should infer, therefore, that the language used by 
 St. John in the Revelation would diflPer materially from that 
 employed by him in the Gospel and in the Epistles. Such 
 difference does actually exist. The difference of style and 
 expression between this Book and that of the Gospel and 
 Epistles is so great, that it is the stronghold of those who 
 maintain that the Book of Revelation was not written by the 
 Apostle John. The existence of this difference of style, then, 
 
383 
 
 is a remarkable fact, and is precisely that which we ought to 
 have found if our theory of the Apostle^s inspiration be cor- 
 rect. This theory, therefore, stands the test of fact. 
 
 CHAPTER XX. 
 
 THE RESULTS OF THE PRECEDING INQUIRIES ON 
 EXISTING THEORIES OF INSPIRATION. 
 
 We must now enter on the inquiry how existing views are 
 affected by this investigation of the New Testament respecting 
 the nature of its own inspiration. 
 
 It cannot be denied that a spirit of inquiry has arisen of the 
 highest possible importance on this subject. The results of 
 these investigations are deeply affecting the different views 
 entertained as to the nature of divine truth, and shaking exist- 
 ing forms of belief and modes of interpretation. Many of the 
 established methods of accounting for the differences pre- 
 sented by the Gospels, and for reconciling the discrepancies 
 which are known to exist in them, are felt to be such as 
 would never have been applied to the reconciliation of the 
 difficulties presented by any other body of historical writings. 
 Many feel that the phenomena which the Gospels present 
 cannot be accounted for on the old established theories. Their 
 faith is therefore placed in jeopardy. Careful examination 
 also presents phenomena in the Epistles, though in a de- 
 gree less striking, which the old theories are impotent to 
 account for. 
 
 Such questions are no longer discussed in a corner : the 
 existence of such phenomena is becoming more and more 
 known to the general reader. Formerly these difficulties had 
 been kept out of sight; they were esteemed only proper 
 subjects for the discussion of the learned. Professed students 
 knew them, and meditated on them in silence. Now the 
 progress of knowledge has brought them before the great 
 
384 
 
 mass of readers. Every species of ingenuity has been ex- 
 hausted in endeavouring to account for them in accordance 
 with established theories. Their supporters were probably 
 not well satisfied with the solutions which they had pro- 
 pounded. But ordinary readers had been taught to read the 
 Scriptures in the light of a particular theory. Unpleasant 
 difficulties were therefore kept out of sight : when this was 
 impossible^ they were passed over in silence. It was assumed 
 that the usual principles of human judgment must not be 
 applied to a revelation from God. Its divine origin was 
 supposed to place it in such a position that the ordinary 
 principles of interpretation were not applicable to it. It was 
 placed on a pinnacle by itself, and careful inquiry into the 
 phenomena presented by it was represented as profane. 
 Human books might be inquired into, examined, and ques- 
 tioned ; but reverence forbade such inquiries with respect to 
 the sacred writings. 
 
 It seems never to have occurred to persons entertaining 
 these views that religion is a matter of common sense, and 
 that arguments of this description were only a quiet Avay of 
 assuming the infallibility of those propounding them. Whence 
 did they learn the correctness of their data? Such a mode 
 of stifling inquiry was the old method of maintaining every 
 established system of error : it was a quiet assumption of 
 their own supernatural enlightenment, and that those who 
 disagreed with them were wandering in darkness. It seems 
 never to have occurred to such persons that the more inesti- 
 mable the treasure is which is contained in the Scriptures, 
 the more solemn is the duty of a careful and reverent inquiry 
 into its nature, within what limits it is contained, whether 
 it lies on the surface, or requires us to dig deep in order to 
 discover it. Men do not quietly assume the existence of an 
 earthly treasure ; if they hear a report of its existence, they 
 think that the truth of the report is worth careful investiga- 
 tion and inquiry. Why should we pursue a different course 
 with a divine and heavenly one ? It was generally believed 
 that one simple theory would account for all the facts ; why 
 then take the trouble of testing that theory by the facts? 
 
385 
 
 Learned men had their doubts. But what use was learning, 
 or careful study, or deep thought, exerted on the Scriptures ? 
 Such things might be requisite enough in the study of human 
 books ; but, with respect to the Scriptures, careful inquiry and 
 investigation was only a specious form of unbelief. All that 
 was necessary, according to such teaching, was to take Scrip- 
 ture as it stands, i. e. to adopt our views respecting it. 
 Inquiry, investigation, reading the Scriptures to see whether 
 these things were so, was pronounced to be profane human 
 wisdom or rationalizing contempt of the Word of God. 
 
 But the day when such solutions will satisfy the wants of 
 men has passed away. The difficulties which the New Testa- 
 ment presents must be grappled with and honestly met. The 
 answers must not be evasions, but must go to the root of the 
 matter. Theories of inspiration must not be taken for granted, 
 but tested by the facts. The difficulties must be either solved 
 or acknowledged to exist : if they cannot be explained, they 
 must be candidly admitted. What harm will come from can- 
 didly admitting their existence ? Is not God^s book of nature 
 full of them ? It will no longer do to assign as a reason why 
 three names are left out of the genealogy of our Lord, that 
 the persons whose names have been omitted sprang from a 
 wicked marriage with the family of Aliab, as is done with some 
 degree of approbation by Scott. 
 
 To many persons it never seems to have occurred that a 
 spirit of inquiry is consistent with a teachable spirit, or that 
 a spirit of investigation may be consistent with humility, or 
 that an ardent wish to have evidence that God has spoken is 
 consistent with a spirit of faith. Still less do some persons 
 appear to have thought that deep investigation into what is 
 truth is a Christian duty, or that a readiness to believe with- 
 out evidence is not faith, or that the wisdom denounced by 
 St. Paul is not wisdom generally, but a spirit of disputatious 
 wrangling prevalent in the schools of Greek philosophy. 
 Notliing is easier than to denounce everything to which we 
 are opposed as flowing from the spirit of unbelief and human 
 pride. It may be very unpleasant to have old prejudices 
 disturbed : so thought the Jews at Thessalonica. Persons 
 
 2c 
 
386 
 
 who prefer to slumber in their preconceived notions are ever 
 ready to forget that the Berseans are commended for not re- 
 jecting the new because it was new, and for using their reason 
 in comparing the new doctrines which St. Paul taught with 
 the Scriptures of the Old Testament. 
 
 But can inquiry be averted ? Is it even desirable that it 
 should be ? Is not the foundation of Christianity laid on 
 truth and individual conviction, and is not this her highest 
 glory ? Her demands on our belief are not founded on the 
 claims of ancestral religion, or expediency, or statecraft, but 
 because our Lord declares that He is able to afford proof that 
 He is a messenger from God. Once there was a time when 
 she had to struggle with all these, and to summon her soldiers 
 to enlist under her standard in the name of the God of truth. 
 All systems of imposture may well shrink from rigid inquiry 
 into their claims ; but Christianity challenges all men not to 
 believe on trust, but to sift fully into her credentials. 
 
 What, then, has revelation to gain by attempting to conceal 
 the difficulties presented by the sacred volume, or by trying 
 to prevent the fullest investigation into their nature ? She 
 gains nothing but the suspicion that her claims will not bear 
 inquiry. She descends from the elevation on which God has 
 placed her, and takes her station among the religions of the 
 world. Readiness to embrace whatever is proposed to our 
 assent is not faith, but credulity. When forgeries are com- 
 mon, a conscientious steward will be careful to ascertain the 
 genuineness of his master's signature before he cashes his 
 draft. Such is the teaching of St. John. " Try the spirits,^^ 
 says he, '' whether they be of God : because many false pro- 
 phets are gone out into the world." Credidity is not the 
 livery of humility or love, but the mark of that steward who 
 is ever ready to waste his master^s goods. 
 
 The discouragers of investigation have had many impressive 
 warnings. One of these has been supplied by the Church of 
 Rome. She discourages the reading of the Scriptures, ex- 
 cept under the safeguard of her own interpretations. What 
 is the inference which common sense has drawn from this her 
 conduct? That her governors are conscious in themselves 
 
387 
 
 that her doctrines cannot be found in the Scriptures. She 
 endeavours to stop inquiry into her own miraculous preten- 
 sions by asserting that the denial of her miracles must be 
 attended with the denial of the miracles which prove Christi- 
 anity itself. Unhappily, multitudes who have believed her in 
 little else have taken her at her word here, and have denied both. 
 
 It is frequently asserted by those who maintain the theory 
 of verbal inspiration that we must accept this theory, or deny 
 the inspiration of the New Testament. Nothing can be more 
 dangerous than such assertions. Those who make them 
 imitate the Church of Rome in the manner we have stated, 
 and, instead of supporting the evidence of divine revelation, 
 are putting a stumbling-block in the way of multitudes to 
 reject it. Before such assertions are made, it is worth while 
 to ascertain that they at least possess some evidence of truth. 
 
 But when it is considered that the assertion is made with- 
 out any claim of authority from the New Testament itself, on 
 mere grounds of antecedent probability, it is not only danger- 
 ous, but presumptuous and essentially rationalistic. We have 
 already shown that it is devoid of all Scriptural evidence. 
 
 The assumption of the theory of verbal inspiration exposes 
 Christianity to attacks from which it would be free, but for 
 the assumption of this theory. It causes the quarrel between 
 Christianity and science to be propagated from age to age. 
 The supporters of it are never weary of raising the cry that 
 Christianity is in danger on every fresh discovery of science. 
 Such was the case when the Copernican system of astronomy 
 was first promulgated. The supposed opposition between 
 Christianity and astronomy has now ceased : the theolo- 
 gians have been forced to own that the astronomers were right. 
 But the quarrel has been succeeded bya similar contest between 
 divine revelation and geology. If a work is published in 
 which the received system of chronology is impugned, — if a 
 set of bones are discovered in a cavern, — if some neAV theory 
 is propounded which is the result of the comparative study of 
 languages, — if weapons are found buried anywhere but in the 
 last-stratified formations, — if the facts and phenomena of the 
 Gospels are carefully sifted and inquired into, — if even it is 
 
 2c2 
 
388 
 
 asserted, what every scholar knows to be a truth, that the 
 existing version of the Scriptures is far from infallible, — it 
 is declared to be a dangerous unsettling of men's faith; nay, it 
 is sometimes represented as imperilling Christianity itself. On 
 what is such faith grounded ? Instead of such persons having 
 their faith founded on a rock, it resembles a house built on the 
 sand. The constant cry of such persons is, " Christianity is 
 in danger." 
 
 Now it is a question worthy of the deepest consideration, 
 whether the supposed danger which Christianity is so often 
 represented as incurring may not be occasioned by an in- 
 correct view as to the nature of the inspiration under the 
 influence of which the Scriptures have been written. A 
 theory which represents Ihat every sentence in the Scriptures 
 is the result of a divine inspiration, however remotely the par- 
 ticular statement may be connected with the proper subject- 
 matter of the Christian revelation, and which denies the 
 possibility of any human element being present in such re- 
 velation, is one of the chief causes of the supposed antago- 
 nism between science and revealed truth. The theory of 
 verbal inspiration enormously enlarges the line of defence, 
 without increasing the means or the number of the defenders : 
 it exposes Christianity to attacks at every point. It is one 
 thing to prove that Christianity has been revealed by God for 
 the purpose of throwing light on the spiritual path of man, 
 and making the humble and the teachable wise unto salvation; 
 it is quite another thing to endeavour to prove that every refe- 
 rence made by the sacred writers to philosophy, history, or chro- 
 nology was dictated to them by the omniscient Spirit, or that 
 every event in the gospel history has been recorded with 
 minute accuracy by each of the Evangelists, or that their 
 separate accounts can be woven into a consistent narrative — 
 that each Evangelist is correct in the order of the events nar- 
 rated — or that not only the substance of the Gospels, but every 
 expression has been dictated, whole and entire, by the Spirit 
 of God — or that when we observe in the Epistles of the New 
 Testament what in ordinary books would be certain marks 
 of a human personality, the evidence totally fails us, and. 
 
389 
 
 notwithstanding all proofs to the contrary, we must infer that 
 they have been dictated, whole and entire, by the Spirit of 
 God. 
 
 When men are taught that unless this theory of the com- 
 position of the New Testament be correct, its inspiration 
 cannot be maintained, and that, if it be not inspired, it can have 
 no claim to be considered as a divine revelation, and when facts 
 are observed to be at issue with this theory, they are much more 
 likely to question the divine origin of the New Testament than 
 carefully to examine whether the theory has been erected on 
 a solid foundation. The theory of verbal inspiration has proved 
 the fruitful source of scepticism, just as the miracles of the 
 Church of Rome have hurried multitudes into infidelity. 
 Large numbers of the objections of unbelievers against the 
 New Testament are founded on the belief that the theory 
 truly represents the influence under which the Scriptures, if 
 inspired, must have been written ; and the objections fall to 
 the ground the moment that theory is abandoned. 
 
 It is an undeniable fact that unbelief in a greater or less 
 degree in the inspiration of the Scriptures is extensively dif- 
 fused among a large number of scientific men. No less certain 
 is it that the progress of human science and many of its 
 fresh discoveries, at least in the first instance, have been 
 strongly opposed by those who have considered themselves as 
 the defenders of revealed truth. It is worthy of deep inquiry 
 whether the fault lies in science or scientific men, or in the 
 theory held as to the nature of the inspiration with Avhich 
 the Scriptures have been composed. In most instances 
 scientific truth has carried the victory, and has established its 
 claims to be received as truth; and a different mode of inter- 
 preting Scripture has had to be adopted. It is highly de- 
 sirable that this unseemly warfare should be brought to an 
 end by determining clearly the limits by which inspiration is 
 bounded. 
 
 But it may be justly asked. If the theory of verbal inspira- 
 tion must be abandoned, is there any view respecting the 
 nature of inspiration, fraught with less danger, which can be 
 substituted for it ? We answer emphatically, the view which 
 
390 
 
 is presented by tlie sacred writers respecting their own inspi- 
 ration. The writers of the New Testament hold no vague 
 language on the subject. The facts of the New Testament are 
 entirely in unison with the language and with the analogies 
 suggested by God's conduct in creation and providence. 
 
 In the earlier portion of this work we have endeavoured to 
 show that the great argument of Bishop Butler^ in which he has 
 proved that the contents of the Christian revelation, as well as 
 the difficulties presented by it, are in strict conformity with 
 what we know of the Divine character and modes of working in 
 the constitution and course of nature, is no less applicable to 
 the mode in which a revelation would be communicated, and 
 to the degree of inspiration which would be vouchsafed for its 
 discovery. We have seen that our a priori knowledge on this 
 subject is extremely limited. We have proved that as God 
 acts in creation and providence, we have every reason to 
 expect that He would act as the Revealer of His will ; that if 
 there are things in creation and providence which we 
 should not naturally have expected, we have every reason to 
 expect similar contradictions of what we may esteem as pro- 
 bable in the mode of communicating a revelation ; that if 
 God nicely proportions the means which He employs to the 
 purposes which He effectuates in the one case, we shall dis- 
 cover the same careful adaptation in the other ; that if it is 
 the Divine purpose in nature that man should be a fellow- 
 worker with Himself, we shall see that purpose exhibited in 
 His mode of communicating a revelation ; and that, to what- 
 ever limitations the Creator has subjected the human intel- 
 lect in the exercise of His sovereign will, these limitations 
 would be observed by Him in His mode of communicating a 
 revelation. With these analogies, derived from the Divine 
 conduct in creation and providence, we have proved that the 
 facts presented by revelation and the assertions of the sacred 
 writers entirely agree. The writers of the New Testament 
 declare that the iuAasible and incomprehensible God has 
 made His last great manifestation to the finite mind, not by 
 creative acts, not by employing the tongues of human mes- 
 sengers, but in the person of the incarnate Son. Christ, in 
 
391 
 
 His life, in His teaching, in His death, and in His resurrec- 
 tion, forms the great objective manifestation of the Godhead. 
 In Him was exhibited inspiration in its highest form, through 
 the indwelhng of Deity in His human nature, and the fullest 
 communication of the gifts of the inspiring Spirit. He is the 
 revealer of the Godhead, and the prophet of the Church. But 
 how have the results of this great revelation been communi- 
 cated to man? The writers of the New Testament inform 
 us that our Lord appointed His Apostles to be the witnesses 
 of His actions and the authorized teachers of the meaning of 
 His revelation. For this purpose He endowed them with the 
 requisite supernatural endowments. As His Father as Cre- 
 ator proportioned the instrumentality which He employs to 
 the results which He effects, so the Son proportioned His 
 promise of supernatural assistance to the work to which He 
 called the Apostles, and to the necessities of that work. The 
 Apostles were to be Christ^s witnesses, both as to what He 
 had done and taught. Their natural powers would have been 
 insufficient accurately to report what our Lord taught : He 
 promised them that their powers of recollection should be 
 supernaturally assisted. They had misunderstood many things 
 which He had done and said: He promised that they should be 
 supernaturally guided into the meaning of the truths of His 
 revelation. Their human testimony might be disbelieved : He 
 promised that their human testimony should be corroborated 
 by the testimony of His Spirit, exhibited in the possession of 
 miraculous power. We have examined the Gospels, and have 
 found that their phenomena are in strict accordance with what 
 these promises presuppose. The narratives of fact present all 
 the phenomena which are the peculiar mark of ocular human 
 testimony. In strict accordance with our Lord's promise, 
 their accounts of the discourses present a greater degree of 
 apparent accuracy than their narratives of the facts, though 
 in every history merely human the reverse is the case. 
 In conformity with our Lord's promise of supernatural guid- 
 ance into the meaning of the Christian revelation, we have 
 seen that there are certain subjects on which the Gospels 
 preserve an unbroken silence, where, had they been ordi- 
 
392 
 
 nary human writings, their communications would have been 
 full. We have proved that God corroborated the human 
 testimony of the Apostles by signs, and wonders, and gifts of 
 the Holy Spirit, according to His own will. But the Apos- 
 tles Avere also to be the teachers of the meaning of the Chris- 
 tian revelation. We have shown that our Lord promised 
 them supernatural guidance into its entire truth ; the facts 
 agree with the promise. Our Lord communicated to the 
 Apostles special endowments in the form of spiritual gifts, 
 superadded to their ordinary faculties, but not superseding or 
 overwhelming their individuality, which permanently abode 
 in them as an internal light, leading them into the whole 
 truth of the Christian revelation. That light communicated 
 to them a special and objective knowledge of the great truths 
 of the gospel dispensation. Under the illumination of that 
 light they taught and wrote. Inferior degrees of inspiration 
 were afforded to others ; but the Apostles were endowed with 
 one special gift, that of wisdom, which unfolded to their 
 minds an objective knowledge of the deep mysteries of the 
 kingdom of heaven. But as His Father worked in creation 
 and providence, so our Lord Avorked as the Bevealer of His 
 will. He used an adequate instrumentality, but He made no 
 useless expenditure of means. He promised the Apostles 
 supernatural enlightenment respecting the truths which were 
 His, not respecting the truths which were man^s. He pro- 
 mised to them guidance. Guidance is a gradual process. In 
 conformity Avith the promise, the history tells us that the 
 Apostles were gradually guided into the knowledge of the 
 truth, Avith the exception of St. Paul, who, being appointed 
 for a special work, was at once su.pernaturally enlightened. 
 The promise was not to make them infallible, or to guide 
 them into universal truth, but into the special truths which 
 Christ came to reveal. Accordingly St. Paul informs us that 
 the spiritual gifts Avere strictly limited to a special function 
 and a definite subject-matter ; and the history distinctly in- 
 forms us that they gave no illumination on points beyond their 
 range. An apostle was not even inspired on points of conduct 
 Avhich had a direct bearing on questions of Christian truth ; 
 
393 
 
 who then" shall venture to assert that he possessed a superna- 
 tural guidance on questions of physical truths or philosophy, or 
 history, or poetry, or chronology ? In his conduct and in his 
 experience he enjoyed the full benefit of inward illumination, 
 which flowed from the spiritual gifts with which he was invested. 
 But St. Paul only claims on such points the authority of one 
 who had received mercy of the Lord to be faithful, and that 
 believers were to be followers of him, as he was of Christ. 
 The Divine illumination formed a portion of the personality, 
 without destroying or even superseding the individual man. 
 The Divine worker, who has all power and instrumentality at 
 His command, operated, in the communication of objective 
 truth by revelation, so as in the smallest degree to interfere 
 with the exercise of those natural powers which He himself 
 had created. Such is the inspiration asserted in the Scrip- 
 tures — sufficient for the infallible communication of the gospel 
 of Christ, but leaving unfettered the other agencies of man, 
 and rendering it possible that the student of God's revelation 
 made in the person of His Son, and of God's revelation 
 manifested through creation and providence, might work to- 
 gether, in harmonious unison, in discovering those truths 
 which are " as high as heaven : what canst thou do ? deeper 
 than hell : what canst thou know?" 
 
 CHAPTER XXI. 
 
 THE CHRIST OF THE GOSPELS NO CREATION OF THE 
 UNASSISTED POWERS OF THE HUMAN MIND, 
 
 We must now consider how our subject bears on the views of 
 those who assert that Christianity is a human development, 
 evolved in conformity with the laws of human thought. 
 Under this head we include all those who consider that 
 Christianity was not communicated to the minds of the 
 Apostles by an influence acting externally, or that they 
 
394 
 
 attained to a knowledge of its truths hj tlie mere use of tlieir 
 unassisted natural powers. Those who maintain that Chris- 
 tianity is a mere human development^ without any special 
 interference of God, or that it has been evolved out of pre- 
 viously existing elements of thought by the mere powers of 
 the human mind, must be considered as really denying the 
 claims of Christianity to be viewed as a revelation from God. 
 
 Many persons have claimed for various systems of human 
 thought a divine origin, as forming a portion of the great 
 plan of Divine Providence for the education of the world. 
 This is a very favourite mode of viewing the subject at the 
 present day. Such persons maintain that the civilization of 
 Greece (her philosophy, her poetry, her exquisite taste for 
 art), the Roman genius for government, the forms of Oriental 
 philosophy, the Hebrew perception of a personal God, the 
 forms of beauty involved in Polytheism, the freedom of Ger- 
 man thought, and the civilization of modern Europe are all 
 divine. Persons who maintain such catholic principles as to 
 what is divine, of course, liberally concede to Christianity a 
 place in their extensive Pantheon, and occasionally use ex- 
 pressions which imply that these, one and all, have been 
 derived from a species of Divine inspiration. 
 
 But it is impossible to concede that such persons believe 
 that Christianity is a Divine revelation in any ordinary sense 
 of that term. Such things may form portions of the plan of 
 Divine Providence for the education of the world; but, 
 although they may have been brought about by that provi- 
 dence of God which encircles and directs everything in the 
 universe which He has made, and by which even the free will 
 of man is controlled, yet the notion intended differs widely 
 from what is meant by a revelation from God or an inspira- 
 tion of His Spirit. It may be perfectly true that men of 
 exalted powers are introduced at special times into the 
 world expressly to effectviate the purposes of Divine Provi- 
 dence. Certain great developments of man may have had 
 an important place in the Divine plans. They may have 
 been specially intended by God to have an important in- 
 fluence as subservient to the introduction of His great 
 
395 
 
 revelation into the world. Greek, Oriental^ and Uoman 
 civilization may have prepared the way for Christianity. But 
 there is a wide distinction between such views and those 
 which maintain that Christianity has been communicated by 
 inspiration from God. Such an expression can only mean 
 an influence exerted by God on the mind^ diff"erent from the 
 influences exerted by God on the human understanding in 
 the ordinary course of nature. 
 
 All attempts^ therefore, to place Christianity on a level 
 with other developments of the human mind, and to assert 
 a Divine character for them all, by whatever specious names 
 such a proceeding may be dignified, are virtually to rank it 
 among the unassisted products of the mind of man, and to 
 deprive it of all claim to be viewed as communicated by in- 
 spiration from God. 
 
 But the existence of the Christian Scriptures, whatever 
 origin we may assign to them, is a fact. Persons who 
 deny their supernatural origin are bound to account for 
 their existence : they cannot have been the result of chance. 
 The inspiration of genius, the power possessed by man of 
 developing himself, the possession of deep spiritual insight, 
 inability to perceive the difference between objective realities 
 and subjective perceptions, the aid of a well-constructed 
 system of myths, all assisted by sudden flashes of light burst- 
 ing on particular minds, form the usual machinery by the aid 
 of which attempts are made to account for the existence of 
 these curious phenomena, the Gospels and Epistles, on human 
 principles. 
 
 Of the origin of any ordinary book and its contents we 
 can give some account. If we cannot give a complete account, 
 we can at least give a probable one. Unless it is the first book 
 in existence of any literature, we can refer the forms of thought 
 to something previously existing. We can make discoveries 
 how the ideas contained in it grew in the mind of the author, 
 and from what sources he derived them. This we can do, in 
 most instances, on evidence which leaves little room for doubt. 
 
 But the New Testament Scriptures exist; whence came 
 
396 
 
 they? They contain the character of Christ, which many 
 unbelievers have pronounced to be a very near approach 
 to ideal goodness. Out of what elements did the writers 
 of the New Testament create this character? They contain 
 very extraordinary statements of doctrinal truth : whence 
 were they derived? They exhibit the teaching and prac- 
 tical wisdom of the Apostles. Out of what elements was 
 this practical wisdom developed ? The person who denies 
 the account which the New Testament gives, that the whole 
 was derived from preternatural inspiration, is bound to give 
 a distinct account of the sources Avhence it sprang. It is 
 impossible to say that the means of doing so are deficient : 
 the gospel originated in an age in Avhich the materials of 
 history abound. 
 
 Let us examine the Gospels and the Divine character of 
 our Lord, and try to ascertain out of what previously existing 
 elements they could possibly have been developed. If they 
 are not of Divine origin in the sense of having been commu- 
 nicated by a special revelation from God, they must have 
 been developed out of some previously existing human ele- 
 ment. Whether we affirm that they were created by the 
 inspiration of genius, or of some deep power of spiritual 
 insight, or that they have originated in myths, as we suppose 
 earlier Greek and Roman history to have originated, or 
 whether they had any other kindred origin, we mean that 
 their origin is owing to some form of mere human develop- 
 ment. Genius itself, although it may propel the age which 
 has given it birth a great stage in advance, is yet part and 
 parcel of the age from Avhich it has sprung : it is created out 
 of conditions of thought previously existing. It would effect 
 no great results, if the times had not prepared the way for 
 its appearance. A Napoleon was relative to the age out of 
 which he sprang. Mahommed was an embodiment of Eastern 
 modes of thought. We can distinctly point out the pre- 
 viously existing elements out of which their character was 
 formed. Julius Csesar, although he exerted a mighty influence 
 in propelling his age, was yet a creation of his age. Alexander 
 
397 
 
 the Great was a similar phenomenon. The great poets have 
 been creations of the times in which they lived, and have 
 exerted a mighty influence on those times. Who fails to 
 recognize the forms of previously existing thought out of 
 which Shakspeare and Milton sprang ? The way for the 
 Reformation itself Avas prepared in previous centuries : the 
 corruptions of the Church of Rome had long been growing 
 a more and more intolerable burden to the nations. The 
 Baconian philosophy was no fresh creation unconnected with 
 the present or the past. Sir Isaac Newton, with his mighty 
 powers, was yet clearly connected with the age which 
 brought him forth. The greatest event of modern times, the 
 French Revolution, grew out of elements previously existing. 
 All the mightiest of men have sprung out of the present and 
 the past, and have propelled the world with an increased 
 velocity on the course on which it had already entered. If 
 the gospel has originated in an historic age, out of elements 
 essentially human, the nature of these elements can be pointed 
 out : it must have grown out of the past. 
 
 But this argument will tell with additional force, if we 
 assign a mythic origin as a satisfactory account of the source 
 whence the gospel has originated. Nothing is more certain 
 than that all myths arise out of previously existing elements, 
 by a slow and gradual growth. The slowness of their progress 
 differs from the effbrts of genius. The growth of myths 
 requires long years of progress. The same remarks will be 
 applicable to any other theory which we may invoke to assist 
 in the solution. If the Gospels have not their origin in a 
 special revelation, they must owe their existence to some 
 definite form of human development. 
 
 It is generally held, by those persons who assign this human 
 origin to Christianity, that man, commencing from a low and 
 degraded condition, is by slow and gradual stages undergoing 
 a development towards a condition of an indefinitely remote 
 optimism. Such persons have assigned various theories for 
 the origin of man. The one at present in vogue seems to be 
 to deduce him as a development direct from the brutes. He 
 has probably been developed out of the highest form of 
 
398 
 
 monkey. At any rate, his original starting-point has been 
 one sufficiently low and mean^. From this state he has been 
 gradually struggling onwards. Jvist as the material world has 
 been developing itself to greater and greater stages of per- 
 fection, man is actually undergoing a similar development. 
 The present state of his religion and civilization is the crown- 
 ing result of his past struggles. Future ages will witness his 
 progression to higher forms of being. 
 
 It does not fall within our scope to inquire into the truth 
 of such theories, or whether they may be partial manifesta- 
 tions of some ill-apprehended truth. It will be sufficient to 
 observe that the object of the theory is to evolve all existing 
 things one from another by the operation of law, which is 
 supposed to be a necessarily existing property in material 
 things, without any special interference of a Creator. It is 
 conceded that God has first created all things, and by the 
 depths of His wisdom and power has originally impressed on 
 them their eternal laws; but these laws have been sufficient to 
 evolve all things without any special subsequent interference. 
 The Creator has only appeared in His character as Creator 
 once : it would be a reflection on His wisdom or His power 
 to suppose that He had thus exhibited Himself again ; it 
 would suppose that the laws which He had once impressed on 
 the universe were unable to effect their purposes, or that 
 they required amendment. In conformity with these views, 
 it is maintained that man is passing through a succession of 
 developments, from the lower to the higher forms. His pre- 
 sent growth is a stage of those developments : ages remotely 
 future may find Him developed into a being of a higher 
 class. It will be easily perceived that, if vicAvs of this kind 
 
 * According to Herodotus, Ilecata^us scandalized tlie Egyptian priests 
 by claiming a god for his ancestor at the distance of sixteen generations. 
 The priests thought that the gods had lived on earth at a period much 
 moi'e remote. The general feeling of mankind has imitated Ilecatseus in 
 claiming ancestry from some eminent notoriety. Among a certain order 
 of minds, a rage has recently burst forth in a contrary direction, and they 
 seem to esteem it as the highest order of nobility to be able to trace their 
 ancestry to an ape. 
 
399 
 
 are entertained^ it forms only a part of the same line of 
 thought that Christianity must have an origin essentially 
 human. 
 
 In the history of man^ undoubted examples of development 
 may be traced. One form of thought and civilization has 
 been closely connected with the preceding. But while such 
 examples are undoubtedly to be found in history, its pages no 
 less distinctly testify to the existence of retrogressions. Still, 
 with the advocates of this view, all these are asserted to be 
 portions of one great system, which, despite of all retrograde 
 movements, is yet continually advancing. Many great facts 
 connected with the history of man are therefore, by the 
 supporters of this theory, with great discretion, kept in the 
 background. 
 
 It will be readily conceded that human society is con- 
 structed on the principle of progress. Oriental civilization is 
 a development ; so is Chinese civilization ; so is Grecian, so is 
 Roman, so is modern civilization. But some of these are 
 still existing, not as advaiicing systems of human growth, but 
 as systems effete, worn-out, and gradually perishing. Some of 
 them are still exerting powerful influences on the modern 
 world. But the facts of history do not prove that man is 
 advancing by a gradual growth towards perfection. Develop- 
 ments which have been w^ell- ascertained facts have always 
 been effected by very slow and gradual stages of advancement. 
 They do not resemble the rapid springing-up of a fungus, 
 but the slow growth of the stateliest trees ; like them, they 
 require long intervals of time. Every stage is attained by 
 fixing its roots deeply into the past : progression is grafted 
 on progression. Similar are the stages of decay. Whenever 
 man has undergone a course of real development, the time 
 which has been occupied in its progress may be either com- 
 puted or approximated. 
 
 Those persons who believe in the gradual development of 
 the universe or of man into their present actual condition 
 from previously existing states of imperfection generally 
 concur in representing that it has required periods of 
 almost indefinite extension for its accomplishment. Those 
 
400 
 
 who assert that species have been developed out of species, by- 
 laws purely natural, require an immense period of time during 
 which these changes must have been effected. The necessity 
 for periods of time of indefinite extent naturally flows from 
 the fact that no remains of species have ever yet been dis- 
 covered in actual progress of transmutation. The truths 
 which have been established by geology require periods of 
 time for their accomplishment astounding to human thought, 
 though perhaps not greater than the profundities of space which 
 the science of astronomy positively requires in the other 
 direction. The necessity for the existence of these profound 
 depths, both of time and space, is positively established. But 
 if every species has been developed from previously existing 
 species, there arises a demand for profundities of time still 
 more astonishing. Though geology has not yet succeeded in 
 discovering any species in actual process of transmutation, 
 there is no occasion that any theorizer should be daunted. 
 He has only to double, or treble, to multiply indefinitely the 
 longest geological period, and the necessary time will be ob- 
 tained for any single transmutation ; he has only to multiply 
 again and again, and he will get time enough for any succes- 
 sion of transmutations ; he has only to continue multiplying, 
 and sufficient length of duration will be found for the deve- 
 lopment of the noblest of the sons of men from the most 
 ignoble moss which ever grew on the side of rock. With the 
 bank of eternity to draw on, Ave can never be in want of any 
 amount of finite duration. If our drafts exceed in number 
 the ultimate particles which compose the system of the solar 
 universe, the bank of infinity cannot break. As far, there- 
 fore, as time is concerned, we need not fear our ability to 
 develope a Napoleon, a Newton, or a Shakspeare from a 
 piece of sponge or moss. With eternity behind us, and no 
 fact to obstruct us, as far ^as time is concerned, all develop- 
 ments are possible. 
 
 The bold and determined theorizer who is heartily desirous 
 of assigning the smallest possible amount of action to the 
 Creator in the universe which he dares not deny that he 
 originally created, as long as he has not facts to oppose him, 
 
401 
 
 need not be daunted. If lie is determined to evolve sponge 
 into a god, time cannot^hinder him. But the case is different 
 with respect to the historical developments of man. Man 
 has a history, within which they must have taken place; 
 they, therefore, must be accommodated to the actual facts 
 presented by that history. Great and mighty developments 
 in man, no less than in nature, require intervals of consider- 
 able duration for the purpose of effecting them. Of many 
 of the well-known historical developments we know the 
 actual or the approximate length. The stages of the develop- 
 ment of the Greek mind are known. The developments 
 through which the mind of the Roman and the modern world 
 have passed can be actually measured by years. Oriental 
 nations may have tried to hide their origin in the hoary past ; 
 but increased research is gradually dispelling the thick clouds. 
 In human developments, the actual history of man prevents 
 us from drawing on the indefinite past : we cannot open an 
 account with the bank of eternity ; we are compelled to 
 accommodate our views to definite periods of historic time. 
 
 As we are prevented, in all questions connected with the 
 developments of man, from drawing on the indefinite past, 
 so we are precluded from assuming that they can take place in 
 periods indefinitely short. Those who endeavour to evolve 
 man, as he is first represented by authentic history, from some 
 previous condition little elevated above the brute, are well 
 aware that such an attempt requires not an inconsiderable 
 period of duration for its accomplishment : they have accord- 
 ingly demanded for it from twenty thousand to one hundred 
 thousand, or it may be a million of years. Others, who have 
 wished to deduce certain developments of man from certain 
 previous conditions, are obliged to ask for intervals of time 
 for their accomplishment to which historical records return a 
 decided negative. If, therefore, we wish to form an idea of 
 the possibility of developing Christianity out of previously 
 existing human elements, we must keep in mind the time 
 which has elapsed while the known great historical develop- 
 ments of man have been effected. We shall not be able 
 to make demands at pleasure on eternity, but must confine 
 
 3d 
 
403 
 
 ourselves within the strict bounds of a well-known historical 
 period. 
 
 Now those who assert that Christianity is not a super- 
 natural revelation, but a human development of some sort, 
 are bound to tell us, in no ambiguous terms, out of what 
 previously existing conditions of human thought and senti- 
 ment Christianity has been evolved, and to show us that the 
 time within which Christianity must have been developed is 
 sufficiently long for that purpose. This demand may be made 
 with entire propriety, because the period when Christianity 
 originated was an historical period. If we except certain 
 portions of modern history, we have an equally accurate 
 account of no other period of the history of the world. It 
 was a period of abounding literature. The ideas involved in 
 all the great systems of philosophy are well known. The 
 various religious systems which existed in all the countries 
 connected with Judsea are no dark enigmas. At no period of 
 time have we more accurate information of the real state of 
 the Jewish people. Of the general state of thought and feel- 
 ing throughout the Greek and Roman world we have ample 
 evidence. History was no child when Christianity arose. 
 Her birthplace was a pro\dnce of the Roman empire : a 
 Roman governor administered that province. Christianity 
 is totally unlike the religions of Egypt or India, which shroud 
 their origin in a hoar antiquity. It in no respect resembles 
 the theologies of Greece and Rome, which were ushered into 
 existence centuries before authentic history was born. Our 
 knowledge of the systems of theology and philosophy, of the 
 morals, of the literature, of the regions within which Chris- 
 tianity originated is extensive. If, then, it is a mere human 
 development, generated out of previously existing conditions of 
 thought, we have a right to demand a statement out of what 
 conditions of thought then existing, and within what definite 
 period of time, the Christianity of the New Testament was 
 developed. 
 
 In asking for such a statement, we only demand what is 
 reasonable : it is a test which, to a great extent, has been ap- 
 plied to many of the great historical developments of man, and 
 
403 
 
 in cases where the materials for tracing them are far less rich* 
 The relations existing between all the great systems of philo- 
 sophy have been ascertained. A sufficient mass of historic 
 evidence exists to determine the relations of all their great 
 principles to each other. We have a general idea of the first 
 systems of Greek philosophy. We know how the system of 
 the Sophists developed itself from that philosophy. The rela- 
 tionship which the Socratic philosophy bears to the Sophists 
 and to the systems of previous philosophers is no dark enigma. 
 The connexion of the systems which followed the Socratic 
 with the Socratic philosophy is well known. The relation, for 
 instance, in which the system of Plato stands to that of his 
 master, and that of Aristotle to Plato, has been pointed out. 
 All the subsequent schools of philosophy are well known to 
 be developments of the systems of previous teachers, acted 
 upon by the tendencies of the age, as they were carried out 
 in different directions by different minds. The nature of the 
 different systems of Oriental philosophy is getting more and 
 more understood. The systems of thought which gave birth 
 to Alexandrine philosophy have been examined and pointed 
 out by learned men. But if Christianity be a development 
 out of previous systems, the materials which exist for pointing 
 out the state of thought and feeling out of which it sprang, and 
 for tracing its progress through its various stages until it 
 culminated in the conception of the Christ of the Gos- 
 pels, are far more rich than those which exist for pointing 
 out the connexion of any one of these systems with those which 
 preceded it. As St. Paul says, the origin of Christianity did 
 not take place " in a comer;'' it happened in an historic age. 
 Now it must be conceded by those who are acquainted with 
 the conditions of thought in the midst of which Christianity 
 arose, if it was developed out of those conditions, that it was 
 the greatest of developments. If it be supposed to have been 
 developed out of existing elements, the human mind must have 
 made a prodigious leap when the full form of Christianity 
 appeared. The gulf which separates the full idea of Christi- 
 anity from every element previously existing is one of pro- 
 found depth. It is not a development which can be compared 
 
 2d2 
 
404 
 
 with, that of any one school of philosophy from that which 
 preceded it : it involves new creations of thought and feeling, 
 and these entering on new and successive stages of progress. 
 It differs more widely from any previously existing condition 
 of thought than the philosophy of Epicurus does from the views 
 of human life presented in the '^ Iliad." Let us compare the 
 Christian Scriptures with any system of thought which existed 
 when Christianity arose. How vast the progression ! How 
 prodigiously do the four Gospels differ from any remnant of 
 antiquity ! How vmlike is the Gospel^ of St. John to the 
 teaching of Aristotle ! How contrasted is St. Matthew's with 
 the speculations of Neo-Platonism ! Place the Gospels be- 
 side any writing of Academician, or Stoic, or Epicurean, and 
 how profound is the interval which separates them ! How 
 different are the speculations of Oriental philosophy from the 
 Gospel picture of the living Christ ! How Avide is the sepa- 
 ration between the Gospels and the systems of the great sects 
 of the Jewish Church — hard Pharisaism, sensual Sadducism, 
 unpractical Essenism! The Gospels present us with the divine 
 picture of Christ — Christ the perfect man, Christ the incar- 
 nate God. Out of what element of Jewish thought, or Oriental 
 speculation, or of philosophic scepticism of that age of unbe- 
 lief has that glorious creation sprung ? How did the original 
 inventors of Christianity conceive a Christ? With what plastic 
 hand — out of hard Judaism, or speculative or fanatic Orien- 
 talism, or polished scepticism — out of what hardened feelings 
 and dead affections of the age which gave birth to Christi- 
 anity did its inventors fiise these elements together, and there- 
 out generate the Jesus of the Gospels ? 
 
 All human developments, Avhether they be intellectual or 
 moral, require a length of time to effect them in exact pro- 
 portion to the greatness of the interval which separates the 
 original materials out of which they have originated from the 
 full conception of the developments themselves. To develope 
 an acorn-eating savage into a modern English gentleman, if 
 unassisted in its progress by external influences, would require 
 a long succession of ages. That period might be reduced if 
 external influences and a state of more advanced civilization 
 
405 
 
 could be brought to bear. Still the success of the u.ndertaking 
 would be very uncertain^ miless we had large periods of time at 
 our command. Although the development of species from spe- 
 cies confessedly requires the command of vast intervals of time, 
 yet here the supporter of the theory works at the greatest 
 possible advantage. He has the benefit of an unlimited supply 
 of inconvertible paper money in a past eternity from which he 
 can obtain all the necessary time which he requires. History 
 is unable to prove that his speculations are wrong; for historic 
 fact does not exist. Hence it is no difficult operation to 
 develope a man out of a gorilla, or, if it be preferred, even 
 from a piece of sponge ; but it is a very difierent matter to 
 carry forward an extensive development within periods of 
 authenticated history. 
 
 Now the interval which separates Christianity from all 
 previously existing systems of human thought is an interval 
 of greater extent than that which is filled by any historical 
 development with which we are acquainted. If we suppose 
 European civilization to be a regular development from a state 
 in which the human mind had no greater degree of knowledge 
 than that possessed by the most degraded savage, the inter- 
 val between the perfect Christ of the Gospels and the previ- 
 ously existing forms of human thought with which we are 
 acquainted is no less vast. It is a far larger interval than 
 that which separates the Baconian philosophy from the first 
 dawnings of human speculation, or which separates the whole 
 range of modern science from the systems of the Sophists. 
 Yet these developments have only been efifected in successive 
 stages, each forming an advance on that which preceded it, 
 and have not been accomplished at a single bound. Nume- 
 rous external influences have also lent their assistance. The 
 interval which separates the Church of the middle ages from 
 that depicted in the Apostolic Epistles is a very wide interval. 
 If the one be viewed as a development from the other, the 
 strongest supporter of the theory will grant that it has been 
 assisted in its onward course by many external influences, and 
 is not a direct development out of ideas contained in the New 
 Testament, in which it is diflicult to detect the smallest ger- 
 
406 
 
 miiiatious of the full-grown tree. Yet it had to pass through 
 a long succession of stages^ and required centuries for its com- 
 pletion. The full idea of a theocratic Church can hardly be 
 conceived of as fully developed before the tenth century ; and 
 if we include in our view the dogmatic creeds of the Church 
 of RomCj its complete development must be deferred till after 
 the Council of Trent. Now Christianity^ as represented in 
 the New Testament, is a far greater development from any 
 element of human thought previously existing than the full 
 idea of the Church of Rome is from the Church of the Apo- 
 stolic Epistles ; but, instead of one hundred and fifty years, 
 this required fifteen hundred to complete. Even from the 
 state of feeling involved in the religion of the Old Testament 
 the Church of the New Testament stands separated by a vast 
 interval. What a profound depth separates our Lord on the 
 cross, saying, " Father, forgive them, for they know not 
 what they do,^' from Zechariah the priest invoking vengeance 
 on his murderers — " The Lord look on it, and requite it " ! 
 Still more vast is the separation between the Judaism of the 
 time in which the Gospels originated and the Christianity 
 of the Gospels themselves. Let it be granted that the 
 Judaism of the time of the Gospels is a development from the 
 Judaism of the Old Testament. The developers are welcome 
 to all the benefit which they can derive from it ; for it is un- 
 questionably a retrograde one ; it is a development from a 
 higher to a lower form of spirituality, thought, and feeling. 
 
 Now, whether the Gospels are supposed to have groAvn out 
 of myths or from some other origin, they must have had some 
 starting-place from which the development began. They must 
 have commenced with some one laying the foundation of the 
 myths, and must have been gradually widened, enlarged, and 
 perfected as they spread their influence among ever-increasing 
 numbers. One must have added one piece to the story, and 
 another another. Occasionally a genius must have appeared 
 who contributed some new idea. This idea went on enlarging 
 and receiving successive additions. The result has been that 
 the development, startingTrom some definite commencement of 
 spiritual and moral feeling, has culminated in the creation of 
 
407 
 
 the Christ of the Gospels — the perfect man, or, according to 
 our mode of surveying the Divine reality, the elaboration of 
 the complete conception of the character of God manifest in 
 the flesh. 
 
 Now, when we consider the elements out of which this 
 development must have originated, and the ideal of perfection 
 in which it has terminated, the belief in its existence is one 
 which requires prodigious faith in human progress, even if we 
 are supplied with an indefinite period of time for its accom- 
 plishment. It is one which could not advance in a single 
 line ; it could not have evolved itself from a single idea ; it 
 required a succession of fresh creations. It is as great a 
 de^^elopment, in the moral and spiritual world, as that of a 
 gorilla into a man would be in the natural. The speculator 
 finds little difficulty to conceive the possibility of the one, 
 because he has the immensities of a past eternity during 
 which he may conduct his operations. What cannot be 
 effected in a million years may be brought to pass in that 
 number indefinitely extended. If a retrograde development 
 takes place, abundance of time exists for it to turn in a con- 
 trary direction. But, in the case of Christianity, the conditions 
 of the historical problem are distinct. The development of 
 the conception of a Christ out of previously existing elements 
 must be fully accomplished within the definite space of one 
 hundred and fifty years. 
 
 Let us endeavour to give a brief view of the difficulties 
 which those persons who effected this great development 
 must have succeeded in surmounting. They must have had 
 a definite starting-point. This must have consisted in the 
 existing habits of Jewish, or Oriental, or Grecian thought 
 immediately preceding the apostolic age, or these forms fused 
 together and united. The Jewish Church of the apostolic age 
 was a retrograde development from the Jewish Church of 
 Isaiah and Ezekiel. Its spiritual elements had declined fear- 
 fully; its carnal elements had made a no less portentous 
 growth. It would have been as great a revolution, had a 
 Luther sprung up in the first century before Christ, and 
 carried the Jewish Church back to the state of spirituality of 
 
408 
 
 which the writings of Isaiah are the prototype^ as that which 
 the actual Martin Luther accomplished when he^ and others 
 Avho aided him in that great work, rescued Christianity from 
 the corruptions with which it was encrusted, and carried it 
 back to the idea of the Christianity of the third century. 
 But what would have been such an attempt compared with 
 the deed of those who evolved the Christ of the Gospels out 
 of previously existing elements, by a development merely hu- 
 man, during the interval of time Avhich the conditions imposed 
 by history require ? Yet the character of the Christ of the 
 Gospels is a fact ; the idea has been conceived. All accom- 
 plished deeds seem easy after their accomplishment. So did 
 the discovery of America, after it was discovered. "We ask, 
 not unreasonably, where did the authors of the Gospels, who- 
 ever they were, derive the conception of their Christ ? It is 
 difficult for the mind to form a lively picture of the divine cha- 
 racter of the God-man, as His glories shine forth in the pages 
 of the Gospels. Till we can do so, we cannot fully estimate 
 the greatness of the creation which the Gospels have accom- 
 plished. 
 
 Let us survey the last day of our Lord^s life, and con- 
 template the great portrait which these accomplished artists 
 have set before us in their pages. His time is come to 
 suffer and to die. Every event which is to befall Him is 
 clearly seen by Him — the agony, the deriding, the insults, 
 the scourging, the cross. With the calmest composure. He 
 proceeds to eat the passover with His disciples. A disciple, 
 who has been highly honoured by Him, is seated near Him 
 with the secret purpose of the foiilest treachery : he recog- 
 nizes it, and is troubled. But the great purpose for which He 
 came into the world never once loses its hold on His mind. 
 He takes the last opportunity of teaching the disciples humi- 
 lity and love. While He is fully sensible that the Father has 
 given all things into His hands. He performs the office of a 
 servant, and washes His disciples' feet. His soul is possessed 
 with the firmest piu'pose of self-surrendering love. He 
 steadily perseveres in His determination to die for His people 
 a death of horror, torture, ignominy, contempt, and pain. 
 
409 
 
 While the \iew of what is coming is before His mental eye, 
 He says to His disciples_, " Love one another_, as I have loved 
 you." He institutes, in everlasting remembrance of His 
 love, the great ordinance of the Christian Church. He points 
 the traitor out, who instantly departs to execute his dark 
 purpose. While twelve hours at most remain before the hour 
 of suffering arrives, He warns His disciples against contend- 
 ing for the preeminence, and occupies the short time remain- 
 ing in calmly discoursing with them on the great truths of His 
 heavenly kingdom. He then, the God-man speaking to God, 
 consecrates Himself by the calmest of solemn supplications for 
 the great work of offering the atoning sacrifice to the Father. 
 He deliberately enters the garden where He is to meet His 
 betrayers and murderers. His great work of suffering com- 
 mences. The darkest cloud of the blackest night of mental 
 agony has enwrapt the Redeemer's soul. The Evangelists 
 do not attempt to depict its inner realities : they can only de- 
 scribe it by its outward manifestations. He sweats as it were 
 great drops of blood. He is sorrowful and deeply oppressed. 
 He is prostrate before His Father : — " O my Father, let 
 this cup pass from me : nevertheless, not what I will, but 
 what Thou wilt." He is strengthened by an angel. He rises 
 from prayer; but it is to return to prayer again, with the 
 profoundest feelings of resignation : — " O my Father, if this 
 cup may not pass from me, except I drink it. Thy will be 
 done." Knowing that a band is at hand to seize Him, He 
 rises from prayer and advances to meet them. They fall to 
 the ground before Him ; but He surrenders himself into their 
 hands that they may do their pleasure. He stands with un- 
 faltering calmness before the Jewish council. One question 
 alone He answers : — " Art thou the Christ, the Son of God ?" 
 " I am." And this answer is death. He yields himself, with- 
 out resistance, to the derision of the mob, while He has only to 
 utter one word of prayer to His Father and He will be rescued 
 by twelve legions of angels. He stands before Pilate : He 
 confesses that He is a king, though His kingdom is not of 
 this world. To all other charges He answers not a word. 
 Pilate is bent on releasing Him; neither by word or deed 
 will He contribute to His own escape : He had come to die. 
 
410 
 
 The judge, after the hardest struggles against his own judg- 
 mentj delivers Him to be crucified. No remonstrance is offered 
 to the judge at his delivering up One whom he pronounced 
 innocent, to a death of torture, to gratify a selfish priesthood 
 and a bloodthirsty mob. He is scourged ; but no groan is 
 heard. He is treated with bitter mocking ; but no reproach 
 passes His lips. The cross is placed on His shoulders : He 
 faints beneath the burden. Weeping women surround Him, 
 and lament Him : " Daughters of Jerusalem," says He, " weep 
 not for me, but weep for yourselves and for your children." 
 The place of execution is reached. He is offered the male- 
 factor's draught : He will die with the fullest consciousness, 
 even in the profoundest torture. He is nailed to the cross : 
 no malediction is uttered. Words pass from Him which, 
 under such circumstances, never passed before from the lips 
 of man — " rather^ forgive them ; for they not what they do." 
 The people, the priests, the soldiers, all stand aggravating the 
 torture by insulting taunts. The calmness of resignation, 
 darkened by intensity of suffering, settles on His brow. No 
 word of complaint is heard. But one friend is standing near 
 the cross with her who was His human mother ; let her be 
 cared for even in the darkness of that terrible hour : " Wo- 
 man, behold thy son ;" to the disciple He says, " Behold thy 
 mother." But not only do the priests, the soldiers, and the 
 mob revile; a fellowsufferer throw^s in his bitterest taunt. 
 He endures in silence. That silence, which can be broken by 
 neither taunts nor tortures, is broken by a suppliant's cry. 
 Another sufferer's voice is heard rebuking his fellow, and 
 uttering words of penitence and faith — " Lord, remember me 
 when Thou comest into Thy kingdom." From the cross, 
 from the act of surrendering His life for the sins of the world, 
 with the calmness of conscious royalty. He assures him that 
 the gates of paradise shall open to receive him. Again a dark 
 cloud of the intensity of mental anguish settles on the Re- 
 deemer's soul — a darkness like the agony in the garden : nature 
 herself is robed in night. For three hours this anguish, the 
 nature of which the Evangelist describes by a silence followed 
 by a single utterance, enshrouds His soul : " My God, my 
 God, why hast Thou forsaken me ?" — deserted, but yet His 
 
41] 
 
 God. While dying, with unclouded intellect He is able to 
 survey the secret counsels of the Almighty : He is determined 
 that not one of them shall remain unfulfilled. He surveys the 
 Scriptm'es. All but one purpose of God is now accomplished; 
 but the smallest of His Father^s purposes shall be fulfilled in 
 Him. He says, " I thirst." Vinegar is oifered : He receives 
 it. With a loud, triumphant cry, He exclaims, " It is finished. 
 Father, into Thy hands I commend my spirit." He bows 
 His head, and surrenders His spirit unto the Father. But 
 the loud cry of the dying sufferer has shaken the solid ground. 
 Heaven and earth have heard it. It opens the graves. The 
 Temple veil is rent ; its dark inner chamber is laid open to 
 the light of day, announcing that, by the accomplishment of 
 the great work of redemption, the veil which shrouds the face 
 of the Eternal is withdrawn, and that the redeemed worship- 
 per may freely approach the presence of the Most High. 
 
 Now the ideal of a character resembling this, the Gospels 
 have actually depicted. Out of what elements of thought or 
 feeling then existing, either in the Jewish or heathen worlds^ 
 did the conception gTow ? Was it from Jewish elements or 
 Alexandrine, or Oriental, or Greek, or Roman, or all fused 
 together ? Through what mental processes, through what suc- 
 cession of myths, through Avhat successive elaborations, did the 
 humble fishermen of Galilee develope the grand pictorial 
 creation of their imagination — the suffering, the scourged, the 
 crucified, the dying Jesus? An unbeliever has said, "If 
 Socrates died like a philosopher, Jesus died like a God;" and 
 the remark is less than the truth : He died like one whose 
 manhood was united with the Godhead. 
 
 But the Evangelists have not only delineated a suffering 
 and dying Jesus ; their creation, if a human development, is 
 the conception of a man perfect in every relation of life ; nay, 
 they have correctly delineated what " God manifest in the 
 flesh " ought to be, if such manifestation were a possibility. 
 
 The vast majority of those persons who have made the 
 Gospels a subject of study, with a few most inconsiderable 
 exceptions, admit that the character of our Lord, as repre- 
 sented in them, is absolutely perfect. In addition to many 
 
412 
 
 virtues which were recognized as virtues by the ancient 
 world, it contains an array of perfections which that world 
 did not recognize as perfections, but which, since they have 
 been exhibited in the character of Christ, have been recog- 
 nized as essential portions of the character of a perfect man. 
 These portions of our Lord's character consist chiefly in the 
 representation of His relationship to the Father, and the 
 consequences flowing from that relationship, and in the dis- 
 play of the milder virtues, with the full riches of which His 
 human character was endowed. These portions of our Lord's 
 character cannot fail to strike every reader of the Gospels, 
 
 Now, we ask, from what source did the persons who por- 
 trayed the character of Clu'ist, or who elaborated that cha- 
 racter from a succession of myths, learn that these were 
 virtues at all, in contradiction to the whole current of opinion 
 and practice of the ancient world? How did they acquire 
 their knowledge — to mix and combine in due proportions 
 these perfections themselves with the other portions of 
 His divine character, so as to form out of the complicated 
 Whole a perfect Christ ? The difierence between any model 
 which they could have studied and the perfection to which 
 they haye attained in their great portrait exceeds that which 
 exists between the daub executed by a savage and the most 
 perfect picture of a Kaphael. The perfection of painting is 
 no sudden creation : it passes through regular stages of pro- 
 gress. Artists slowly improve upon their models. One gene- 
 ration carries on to greater perfection the acquisitions of the 
 preceding. Are we then to believe that the elaboration of 
 the perfection of a Christ can be created by a single flash of 
 the human intellect ? 
 
 Holy and good men have, in lower degrees, embodied in 
 themselves certain portions of our Lord's character. One 
 good man exliibits one portion of His heavenly virtues, and 
 another another portion of them. But where one element of 
 goodness is exhibited in a high degree, we frequently see 
 another element strikingly deficient. Diff'erent orders of 
 virtues are exhibited in difierent holy men. One has the 
 sterner virtues, another has the milder. In ordinary men, 
 
413 
 
 certain opposite forms of human perfection seem incapable of 
 being combined in the same person. The sterner virtues 
 and large displays of the mild and loving ones rarely unite. 
 Self-conscious dignity and humility seem almost contradic- 
 tory. But the persons who conceived the Gospels have 
 succeeded in uniting, in the person of Christ, every form of 
 human excellence in due proportion : the greatest opposites 
 meet in unison in the same person. The Gospels have 
 solved the problem how the highest conceivable justice can 
 coexist with the highest conceivable mercy; how the most 
 exalted holiness can be united with the highest conceiv- 
 able compassion for the unholy ; how One who never once 
 faltered in the path of duty can feel the deepest sympathy 
 with those who are faltering at every step ; how severity can 
 coexist with love. 
 
 Now what have the Evangelists accomplished? What is 
 the problem which they have solved ? If the character of 
 Christ be a mere human development, they have invented 
 virtues which were previously unknown to be such, and 
 persuaded men that their discovery is correct. They have 
 combined those virtues together in the most correct pro- 
 portions and in the greatest possible perfection. They have 
 combined these virtues with others previously admitted, also 
 in correct proportion and absolute perfection. They have 
 exhibited, in one person, the most opposite forms of per- 
 fection. These opposite forms are correctly blended together. 
 Out of them they have created, not merely an ideal, but a 
 living Christ, acting in every relation of life. Varied as are 
 the situations in which they have placed Him, the action of 
 the character is perfect : He never once deviates from con- 
 sistency or propriety. 
 
 Let us endeavour, omitting minor details, to depict the 
 broad outlines of the work which the Evangelists have suc- 
 ceeded in accomplishing. They have drawn the portrait of a 
 man mighty to suffer. They have represented Him as free 
 from the smallest contamination of evil ; not guiltless merely, 
 but having every perfection of which mau^s nature is capa- 
 ble. He is armed with power^ to which all nature yields 
 
414 
 
 obedience. They have portrayed His soul as sinking beneath 
 the profoundest anguish, but yet possessed of confidence in 
 God absolutely unshaken. They have represented Him, at 
 the very moment that He was conscious of possessing super- 
 human power to crush, as surrendering Himself without an 
 effort into the hands of His bitterest foes. He submits Him- 
 self to the grossest insults and the cruellest tortures of mind 
 and body, with the most absolute and unfaltering submission. 
 " When He suffered, He threatened not." He prays for His 
 murderers. In the profoundest depth of suffering, He can 
 attend to the penitent prayer of one dying a like death of 
 ignominy with Himself. In the lowest degradation. He is 
 conscious that He is a king. Torture prevents Him not from 
 distinctly perceiving all things, past, present, and to come. 
 In His lowest depression. He retains the firmest grasp on the 
 glorious issue of His work. With His dying breath, with 
 unhesitating confidence, He commends His soul into His 
 Father^s hands. 
 
 But they have depicted a character no less perfect in every 
 relation of life. Conscious of the highest destiny, He con- 
 tinues in willing subjection to His mean though reputed 
 parents. Throughout life He is animated with a zeal, which 
 never flagged, for the work of His heavenly Father. He 
 unites the full consciousness of having universal power in His 
 hands, with a readiness to discharge the lowest acts which 
 can teach humility and love. Possessed of the greatest possi- 
 ble knowledge. He bears with the greatest possible dulness 
 (nearly approaching to the moral guilt of inattention), with 
 the mild rebuke of " How is it that ye do not understand?" 
 His hatred of sin is unquenchable ; yet He has the deepest feel- 
 ing of sympathy for the misery of those who, through self- 
 induced sin, are sinking into final ruin. Filled with zeal for 
 His Father^s law. He yet invites the weary sinner to find rest 
 in Him. His miraculous power is in constant energy for the 
 relief of others ; yet He wrought but a single miracle which 
 has even the appearance of relieving Himself. He weeps for 
 the sorrows and sufferings Avhich sinners are bringing upon 
 themselves. Tlie hardened and obstinate reprobate He curses 
 
415 
 
 with a curse reachinpf even unto hell. Not one act of selfish- 
 ness or of sinful indulgence disfigures the Saviour's character. 
 The highest benevolence for all is united with the feeling of 
 human friendship for a few. His courage never wavers. 
 Humility, meekness, and mildness are united with the ever- 
 abiding consciousness of the most exalted dignity. His meat 
 was to do His Father's work. He weeps for the weight of 
 human sorrows. Inquiring multitudes resorting to Him are 
 the spiritual harvest He has come to reap. 
 
 But we have not only a perfect human Christ brought be- 
 fore us in the pages of the Evangelists ; we have a perfect 
 divine Christ represented there. The unbeliever will, of 
 course, not admit that the Christ of the Gospels is divine ; 
 but we can ask him to assume, for the sake of the argument, 
 that He is so. Now we wish him to consider, if the Christ of 
 the Gospels be God incarnate, whether, as He is there por- 
 trayed. He does not act exactly as it would become an incar- 
 nate God ? A beggar suddenly raised to royalty makes but 
 a bungling display of dignity : the royal robes sit awkwardly 
 on his shoulders. But the Christ of the Evangelists, the 
 humblest of men, sits with grace on the throne of God. In 
 every position in which the Evangelists have placed Him, He 
 acts as if He had long been seated there. " Whosoever shall 
 be ashamed of me,^' a Galilean carpenter, ^^and of my words^^ — 
 what do we expect the humblest of men w ill add ? I will 
 retire abashed at my own meanness? — "of him will I be 
 ashamed when I come in my own glory and in my Father's with 
 His angels." Whosoever shall deny the Carpenter before 
 men, the Carpenter will deny him when He comes in His 
 Father's glory and His own. As a teacher, the Jewish 
 peasant sits himself down as one who had been habituated to 
 fill a throne higher than Moses' seat. " It was said to them of 
 old time, Thou shalt not commit adultery. I say unto you. 
 Whosoever looketh on a woman to lust after her hath com- 
 mitted adultery with her already in his heart. I say unto 
 you, Whosoever loveth father or mother more than me is not 
 worthy of me. If thou wilt be perfect, sell all that thou hast 
 and give to the poor; take up the cross, and follow me." 
 
416 
 
 The Galilean carpenter, who, in His agony, bowed Himself 
 to the earth before His Father's throne, has never once said, in 
 aU His teaching, "Thus saith the Lord," but "I say unto you." 
 He, who was devoured with zeal to vindicate His Father's 
 honour when He witnessed the desecration of His Temple, 
 when He performs a miracle says not, "I perform this 
 miracle in my Father's name," but " I will ; be thou clean. 
 Go thy way, thy son liveth. But that ye may know that the 
 Son of man hath power on earth to forgive sins, I say unto 
 thee. Arise, take up thy bed, and go to thine house." To 
 the dead body on the bier he says, " Young man, I say unto 
 thee. Arise." To the body in the sepulchre he cries, 
 '' Lazarus, come forth," and His voice is heard in the depths 
 of the unseen world. There is nothing like the expression of 
 borrowed dignity which proceeds from the Saviour when He 
 performs His cures. He does actions which are only the acts 
 of God, and He does them in His own name. He teaches 
 the road to heaven. He announces great principles of morals, 
 the motive of which centres only in Himself; but never does 
 a word escape Him unbecoming one who knew the inmost 
 mind of God. There is no hint of the consciousness of falli- 
 bility. He claims allegiance as due to His person ; and His 
 claim is so exalted that God Himself can claim no more. 
 The Galilean carpenter is familiar with the things passing in 
 the heavenly world : He knows what is taking place amidst 
 the angels of God. His eye has surveyed the unseen worlds. 
 He has royal dignities at His disposal and at His command ; 
 and when He bestows. He bestows them like a king. All judg- 
 ment in heaven and in earth has been committed into the hands 
 of the Galilean carpenter. He has come forth and taken His 
 seat on the throne of God. All the nations are gathered 
 before Him ; all the angels of His might attend Him. His 
 messengers have gone forth and gathered His elect together. 
 The King is come in His glory : He has taken His seat on 
 His glorious tlirone. Who shall say that He is sitting there 
 in a manner unworthy of " God manifest in the flesh " * ? 
 
 * Renan and others are never weary of asserting that the discourses 
 in St. John's Gospel were never uttered by our Lord, on account of the 
 
417 
 
 What is the work, then, if the Christ of the Gospels be 
 a mere human development, Avhieh the Evangelists have 
 actually accomplished ? They have created the idea of the 
 man Christ Jesus, and they have succeeded in investing Him, 
 in every conceivable perfection, with the highest outline of 
 moral and spiritual beauty of which human nature is capa- 
 ble. Everything which is great, holy, and excellent, even 
 where the qualities are so opposite that they appear incapable 
 of coexisting, is yet harmoniously united in His person. To 
 have succeeded in portrajdng such a character, even with 
 every assistance which poetry or literature could supply, 
 is a work the greatness of which it is not easy to estimate. 
 Few characters of fiction are without a flaw, even when sur- 
 veyed from the point of view in which their inventor con- 
 ceived them. The character of Achilles, in the " Iliad,^^ is a 
 great creation ; but is it absolutely faultless, even according 
 to Homeric conceptions ? The conception was the conception 
 of greatness according to the estimate of the times when the 
 poet wrote. But the Evangelists have not portrayed a Christ 
 fashioned merely in reference to the ideal of the times in 
 which they lived, or formed on any mere partial view of 
 human excellence, but one which faultlessly combines every 
 conceivable variety of human perfection into one harmonious 
 whole. Their creation will be recognized as perfect by the 
 wise and good of every race, of every clime, and of every 
 age. 
 
 But they have accomplished a far greater work : not only 
 have they created the idea of human perfection, but they have 
 
 declaratious made in tliem respecting our Lord's person, and that they 
 exhibit an entirely different view of it from that which is taken by the 
 synoptic Gospels. They therefore assume that they were inventions of 
 St. John in his old age, or they have been added by other hands. Now 
 it surely matters little whether our Lord is represented as acting God or 
 sayiuo- that He is God. We recommend to their consideration the pic- 
 ture of our Lord as drawn in Matthew, xxv., and ask them to state 
 whether anything in St. John's Gospel represents Him as more divine ; 
 nay, whether the representation of the great white throne in the Eevela- 
 tion more completely invests IIin^ with the attributes of Deity. Per- 
 haps we shall be told that Matthew xxv. is a mythic addition ! 
 
 2e 
 
418 
 
 seated the humblest of men on the throne of God. Yet 
 whether on the throne of God, or as the dutiful son of Mary, 
 or as the fi-iend of the family of Bethany, there is no in- 
 congruity in the representation. As a friend, He is loving ; 
 as a Son, he is dutiful, while conscious of His higher dignity"; 
 as a man. He is humble ; as perfectly holy, absolutely beloved 
 of the Father, yet as the sinner's substitute He is bereaved 
 of the light of His Father^s countenance ; as a worshipper, 
 he is clothed with humility ; as possessing Godhead, without 
 the consciousness of robbery He personates equality with 
 God. In every part of the Saviour's character the consis- 
 tency is perfect. 
 
 Such is the problem which the Evangelists have solved. 
 How has this great work been accomplished ? The unbeliever 
 shall give his own account of the matter. It has been brought 
 about as other great developments of man have been accom- 
 plished. Creative genius has contributed its portion to the 
 sublime representation. It has grown out of a succession of 
 myths. Bright coruscations of light have sprung up in the 
 depth of the human soul ; but they have not descended from 
 above ! Successive generations have improved the original 
 picture : it has at length culminated into a glorious Christ. 
 Not one writer, but four, have each portrayed the same per- 
 fect character without a flaw. Truly Homer, and ^schylus, 
 and Sophocles, and Virgil, and Dante, and Shakspeare, and 
 Milton might unite their intellects into one, and envy the 
 success of the fishermen of Galilee ! 
 
 But can the theory of development, as applied to account 
 for the origin of the Gospels, stand the test to which every 
 such theory must necessarily be subject? The developments 
 of man take place in definite periods of historic time. No 
 great development has taken place within the lifetime of an 
 individual. All the great developments of thought and feel- 
 ing have extended over lengthened periods, the duration of 
 which has been actually known. Many have required a long 
 course of centuries for their completion. The greater the 
 interval lying between the first starting-point and the full 
 idea of the development itself, the longer must be the inter- 
 
419 
 
 val of time employed in effecting it. We think it can hardly 
 be disputed that the Christ of the Gospels, if a develop- 
 ment, must be the greatest which has ever taken place, which 
 can be recognized as an historical fact, and the extreme limits 
 of which can be accurately ascertained. It must therefore 
 have required a longer interval of time for its accomplishment 
 than any of the great historical developments of man. If it 
 did not require a longer interval of time, satisfactory reasons 
 must be assigned why it has advanced at an accelerated ratio. 
 Historical truth compels us to assign a hundred or a hun- 
 dred and fifty years at the utmost as the period within which 
 it must have been effected. 
 
 Now, if the unbeliever is right in asserting that Christianity 
 has originated by the action of the ordinary powers of the 
 human mind, we make no unreasonable demand in requiring 
 him to point out the distinct elements out of which the con- 
 ception of the Christ of the Gospels has originated. The 
 truth of history will compel him to reply that it must have 
 developed itself out of Judaism as it existed in the first cen- 
 tury before Christ, aided and assisted, it may be, by various 
 elements derived from other quarters. It will not be possible 
 to assert that the chief element out of which Christianity has 
 developed itself must not have been a Jewish element existing 
 in living Jewish men in the latter half of the first century b.c. 
 We cannot concede that it originated out of the Judaism of 
 Isaiah ; for that would require a Luther to have arisen in the 
 Jewish Church, to have recalled retrograde Judaism to the 
 Judaism of 800 b.c Compared with that of Isaiah, Judaism 
 as it existed at the Christian era is the hardest ritualism. 
 But if the developer thinks that he can better his position, we 
 are ready to concede to him not only the Judaism of the 
 Pharisee, the Sadducee, and the Essene, not only the Judaism 
 of Philo and the Alexandrines, not only Oriental philosophy 
 and the entire round of Greek philosophy and poetry, not only 
 the Dualism of the Persians, the scepticism of the apostolic 
 age, and the practical wisdom of the Eomans, yet even with 
 the aid of all the myths which the most poetic imagination 
 can invent, within the period of time wliich history must 
 
 2e 2 
 
420 
 
 assign for his operations, the attempt to develope the perfec- 
 tion of the man Christ Jesus, and, as the Evangelists have 
 done, to enthrone Him on the throne of God, will be utterly 
 hopeless. 
 
 Let us take a brief survey of some of the great develop- 
 ments of man, and examine the progress which they have 
 made and the time which they have occupied in their accom- 
 plishment. The formation of the Egyptian religious system, 
 civilization, and mental phenomena must be admitted to be 
 one of those great developments ; but its tendency never took 
 the direction of developing a Christ. The origin both of 
 Egyptian religion and Egyptian civilization is shrouded in a 
 darkness Avliich historical research has yet failed to dissipate. 
 Its great outlines, up to a certain point, are visible; but 
 whether it originated in a higher state of civilization and 
 religious knowledge or a lower cannot yet be solved by 
 historical evidence. Theories are propounded respecting it, 
 according as their propounders believe that the course of 
 human developments has been from a higher to a loAver or 
 from a lower to a higher state. All the conjectures which 
 have been advanced on the subject have been founded on the 
 supposition that the development in question has extended 
 over a wide interval of time. Most Avriters on the subject 
 have made the demand, not of centuries, but of thousands of 
 years for its completion. But supposing the theory true, and 
 the utmost demands which it makes for time conceded, Avhat 
 course has the actual historical development run ? The an- 
 swer is, it has created a complicated caste-system, which has 
 enthralled the myriads who have been the subjects of it in 
 hopeless bondage; it has produced a civilization which ad- 
 vanced to a certain point, and then became stationary, and 
 finally perished for ever; it has originated a mystical and 
 metaphysical theology for the priest, and an innumerable 
 army of monster gods for the people; it has created a reigning 
 priesthood, a subject people, gigantic monuments, a peculiar 
 and characteristic school of art, and a multitude of the conve- 
 niences and luxuries of life. Age after age has passed onward 
 in its rolling course. In religion, this nation has developed 
 
421 
 
 an ox^ a crocodile, a cat, or a liidcous monster into a god. 
 Souls have run tlieir courses of transmigration. Her civili- 
 zation has gradually dissolved. Her pyramids testify to the 
 present day to the profound depths of her delusions. But no 
 Christ, nor tendency towards a Christ, developed itself in the 
 mind of priest or people. The mighty power of Rome in 
 the latest period of her history could not deter a fanatic mob 
 from slaughtering a soldier who killed a cat. Such materials 
 would present no elements for developing a Christ, had the 
 national existence been prolonged for an indefinite succession 
 of ages. 
 
 We will briefly glance at the great development of the 
 Indian mind. Here a long course through an immense suc- 
 cession of ages has been run. All theorizers demand a long- 
 interval of time for working out the system of Indian theology 
 and civilization. What were the forms of thought or feeling 
 prior to the era of the Vedas has been lost in the distance of 
 the past. But within the long historic period no tendency 
 has existed towards the creation of a Christ : Indian develop- 
 ments have long since become retrograde ones. Here again 
 we meet Avitli a complicated system of metaphysical theology 
 for the higher order of minds, and a form of Polytheism 
 exceeding all known forms of Avorship in the depths of its 
 degradation for the people. Prolific as India has been in the 
 growth of men, she has been far more prolific in the genera- 
 tion of gods — grotesque monsters of frightful dejaravity and 
 frightful ugliness. The number of her deities is said to be 
 more numerous than the teeming millions of her population ; 
 but has one of them the attributes of a Christ ? Surely India 
 has had peculiar facilities for developing such an ideal. To 
 her the principle of the incarnation of Deity is not unknowai. 
 We will give the developer of Christianity the benefit of the 
 ten incarnations of Vishnu, and tell him that out of such 
 creations of the Indian mind, compounded of the Avildest 
 romance, of superhuman wickedness, and bestial lust, he may 
 go on in endless successions of millions of years, but he will 
 not generate a Christ. If he is desirous, he may take to 
 himself the benefit of every incarnation of Buddha, but still 
 
422 
 
 the development of the Christ of the New Testament will be 
 an event indefinitely remote : all his eflPorts will only end in 
 the creation of myriads of demons. 
 
 The long development of Chinese civilization has a similar 
 tale to tell. Like India and Egypt, its origin is lost in the 
 hoary past. What it has attamed in the historic period is 
 distinct, definite, and known. To reach its present state of 
 stagnant death has required a long lapse of ages. China, 
 indeed, has been less rich in her creations of monster gods ; 
 but she has developed a moral and political system by which 
 the energies of man are frozen. She has created a Confucius, 
 or a Confacius has created her; but between Confucius and 
 the God-man, as He is exhibited in the Gospels, is fixed a 
 gulf deep, impassable, and profound. 
 
 But perhaps the Persian system, with its eternal warfare 
 between the principles of good and evil, will aid the developer 
 to solve his problem. After long struggles, it has developed 
 a Zoroaster; it has created its heavens and its hells; it has 
 graphically depicted the happiness of the one and the horrors 
 of the other; it has even produced an army of angels; it 
 professes to have a revelation brought down from heaven. 
 Still an awful distance separates between it and the Galilean 
 carpenter seated on His glorious throne — the despised Naza- 
 rene hanging on the cross. Its later developments have 
 taken place within a period when they might have been able 
 to derive light from Christianity itself. Still the new cloth 
 agreeth not with the old garment. Before the Persian reli- 
 gion could develope a Christ out of its genuine elements, men 
 must have perished through countless ages without a Saviour, 
 and the cry of the human race would in vain have ascended 
 before God, " O Lord, how long V 
 
 Of all the developments of man, that of the Greek mind is 
 most definitely known, both in its origin, its stages, its pro- 
 gress, and its termination. It claims for itself a large portion 
 of actual historic fact. Greece developed herself with won- 
 derful activity and surprising vigour. Her national life, her 
 poetry, her philosophy, her arts, form one of the richest por- 
 tions of the growth of the human mind. Of the beauty of 
 
433 
 
 tlie human form she attained a most exquisite perception ; but 
 towards the creation of the divine, spiritual, and moral beauty 
 of the God-man she made no perceptible advance. Of riches 
 of mind in almost every other direction she has displayed an 
 endless variety. Her historians are numerous ; her poetry 
 most extensive ; her philosophy voluminous. In most de- 
 partments of art she has had few rivals. She has passed 
 tlirough endless diversities of political life. The ideal crea- 
 tions of her poets embody her conceptions of human excel- 
 lence exhibited on a larger scale than that of ordinary 
 mortals. Her heroes are her men amplified. Her gods are 
 constructed on similar principles, but Avith enlarged dimen- 
 sions. But we should greatly prefer as companions her men 
 to her gods or her heroes : they would probably have pre- 
 sented to our view nearly as much of what was good, and far 
 less of what was frightful and deformed. 
 
 In dealing with the developments of Grreece, we hold com- 
 munion with actual historic men; we have the means in 
 our possession for estimating their greatness, their littleness, 
 and their degradation. Her own sons have furnished us with 
 the picture. In Socrates, philosophers themselves have drawn 
 the portrait of the noblest development of Grecian men who 
 actually existed. We do not possess, as in the Gospels, four 
 portraits drawn by humble men possessed of little or no edu- 
 cation or knowledge of the world, but we have two pictures 
 of him by men possessing the largest acquaintance with poetry 
 and literature, the highest forms of philosophic thought and 
 actual experience of mankind. Perhaps the difference in the 
 line of thought between Plato and Xenophon is quite as wide 
 as that which separates the Gospel of St. John from the other 
 three. Here surely we have an opportunity of seeing what 
 genius could accomplish, by means of the long course of past 
 development of the most fruitful of human races, in the 
 creation of the perfect man. We have the character and the 
 personality of the best of Grecian men, drawn by two pro- 
 found but widely different minds of lier philosophic sons, of 
 one of whom at least the genius was sublime. The character 
 is a noble one; but where is the man Christ Jesus? Where 
 
424 
 
 is tlic carpenter seated ou His throne of glory? Where is the 
 mighty sufTercr dying on the torturing cross? Nothing hnt 
 careful study and reflexion on the Socrates of Xenophon and 
 Plato^ and the Jesus of the Evangelists, can enable us even 
 approximately to estimate the profundity of the deptli Avhicli 
 separates the one from the other. We wUl notice a single 
 point ; and the whole of the histories of each are filled Avitli 
 similar divergencies. In the midst of His unspeakaljle tor- 
 tures, the Redeemer said to the repentant robber, '' Verily I 
 say unto thee, To day shalt thou be with me in paradise." 
 The Socrates of Plato, after discussing the immortality of the 
 soul, and adducing a number of most uncertain arguments in 
 favour of that hope, a little before he drank the hemlock, 
 leaves the question fluctuating between the expectation of 
 immortality and the alternative of annihilation. The last 
 words of Jesus were, " It is finished : Father, into Thy hands 
 I commit my spirit." The last words of Socrates were, 
 *' We are indebted a cock to Esculapius. Pay it, and do not 
 neglect it." The one is earthly, of the earth; the other is 
 the language of One who, while expiring in ignominy, was 
 conscious that He could at will dispose of the glories of the 
 unseen world. 
 
 The creations of the Greek mind have been prolific ; yet, 
 various as those creations have been, they invariably refuse 
 to develope themselves in the direction of a Christ. In his- 
 torical personages we have constellations of great names. lu 
 the production of living men she attained her fullest growth, 
 and then retrograded into slavishness. She produced the 
 founders of the various schools of her philosophy, which, too, 
 she exhibited in the most opposite extremes : it developed into 
 the system of Zeno on the one hand, and that of Epicurus on 
 the other. She produced a Diogenes, with his cynical misan- 
 thropy. But the most ardent supporter of the theory of de- 
 velopment must admit that, so far from a tendency to develope 
 the Christ of the Evangelists, the conceptions of Zeno, Epicu- 
 rus, and Diogenes would have had no tendency to produce 
 even the humblest of the Apostles. The Greek morality and 
 the gospel morality run in diverging lines. 
 
425 
 
 But, although Greek men avIio liad an historical exist- 
 ence form materials out of wliich it is impossible to develope 
 a Christ, her ideal characters "will ^lerhaps aid us better, and 
 more nearly approximate to the Jesus of the Evangelists. 
 Here also we have materials by which to test the direction of 
 Grecian thought. Her poets have painted the human char- 
 acter in the utmost variety of aspect ; but they show not even 
 a tendency to the conception of a Christ. But what say her 
 philosophers ? There is the magnanimous man of Aristotle, 
 embodying all that great philosopher could conceive of as 
 grand and glorious : between this character and that of the 
 • blessed Jesus it is hard to conceive of anything, not stained 
 with palpable vice, more hopelessly opposed. There is the 
 wise man of the Stoics : alas ! where is the humility ? There 
 is that beau ideal of the excellencies of human nature, an 
 Epicurean god. Compound these as you Avill, give them in 
 their conception an ever wider and wider extension; and the 
 creation which will arise out of them, instead of a tendency 
 to generate a Christ, will only develope itself in a direction 
 more and more remote from that glorious form. 
 
 But there is the Alexandrian Neo-Platonic philosophy, that 
 mixture of various systems and tones of thought ; will it not 
 help us in our extremity, and create the idea of God manifest 
 in the flesh ? Its philosophy is metaphysical, its theology is 
 pantheistic. Out of such elements may spring an abstraction 
 of the Highest, remote from the material universe, absorbed 
 in his pleroma — an impersonal God, without morality or per- 
 fections, with long chains of reons forming various successions 
 of links uniting the unknown and unknowable essence of Deity 
 with material things, — but no Christ in the perfection of hu- 
 man nature, living and dying, exalted to the throne of God. 
 Either Galilean fishermen have performed the solitary feat of 
 realizing this conception, thereby distancing alike all poets and 
 philosophers, or it has come down from heaven. Neo-Platonism 
 actually has developed an Apollonius ; but who dreams in the 
 present day of comparing the prophet (or rather the im- 
 postor) of Tyana with the Jesus of the Gospels ? 
 
 But the Neo-Platonic philosophy actually encountered his- 
 
426 
 
 torical Christianity : it knocked at the door, and tried to 
 obtain admission into the Church. Philosophers of this 
 school tried hard to weld this system with the Christianity of 
 the Gospels. Their attempts at fusion afford the most conclu- 
 sive proof of the hopeless irreconcilability of the two systems. 
 So far from the Neo-Platonist being able to develope a Christ, 
 the Jesus of the Gospels was his scandal. The union of a 
 spirit with a material body, says he, is the essential principle 
 of evil. The divine Logos never actually assumed human 
 flesh : it was an appearance, a phantasm, only imposing on 
 the bodily senses of man. Jesus and the Christ must be split 
 into two persons, the one of the earth, the other a divine- 
 a3on. The Christ has formed a temporary union with the 
 man Jesus. Of the scandal of the cross and the passion who 
 can endure to hear? The exhibition on the cross, therefore, 
 was only a phantom on which the Jews vainly spent their 
 rage ; or, if a reality, the divine Christ deserted his former 
 partner in his utmost need, and left him to expire in ignominy 
 and shame. The man Jesus of the Gospels and the mystic 
 reons would not fuse : this attempt to unite them has only 
 exhibited their divergency in a stronger light. 
 
 But what shall we say to the practical Roman ? He can be 
 seen on the page of history. To spiritual conceptions he was 
 a stranger. He founded empires, but never created thoughts 
 or religious systems. As the historian of the ^Decline and 
 Fair observes, the gods of the nations met in the Capitol and 
 destroyed one another. The state was his ideal ; this world 
 his portion. He will utterly refuse to aid in the uncongenial 
 work of assisting at the development of a Christ. 
 
 If, then, the religious systems of Egypt, of India, and of 
 China afford no aid to the developer, — if the Persian Dualism 
 refuses its assistance, — if, when Greece is interrogated, not- 
 Avithstanding all the wealth of her poetry and her philosophy, 
 and in the rich developments of her indi\idual manhood, she 
 return for answer an emphatic No, — if the Neo-Platonist 
 insists on metamorphosing the human Jesus into a phantom, — 
 if the Roman decline such uncongenial work, to what nation, 
 race, or line of thought is he to have recourse ? If he could 
 
427 
 
 start afresh any of these lines of thought which have run their 
 destined coui'se, the development would take a course more 
 and more remote from the Jesus of the Gospels ; the diver- 
 gent lines will increase in their divergency. How shall the 
 water rise above the source from which it flows ? How shall 
 an idea, thought, or feeling rise higher than its original level, 
 or burst from its original conception and generate one pre- 
 cisely opposite in its nature? But the Hebrew race yet 
 remains. When the Egyptian, and the Hindoo, and the 
 Chinese, and the Persian, and the Greek, and the Roman, 
 when the philosopher, and the poet, and the vulgar mass, 
 decline the proffered honour, cannot the Jew develope the 
 conception of a Christ ? Let, then, the developer of Christi- 
 anity by the aid of myth and genius, and any influence but 
 the assistance of an actual revelation, attempt the work. 
 We must point out to him the necessary conditions of his 
 undertaking. 
 
 If, then, the attempt be made to develope the Christ of the 
 Gospels out of Judaism, the voice of history forbids us to use 
 the brightest periods of the Jewish Church as the point from 
 which the development must begin : the developer must 
 commence his operations with the state of thought and feel- 
 insr involved in the Judaism of the latter half of the first 
 century before our era. He is always ready to evoke the aid 
 of myth ; but myths unfold themselves not in individuals, but 
 in multitudes. The state of thought and feeling then existing 
 in Judsea must be assumed as the point of commencement out 
 of which the conception of the Christ of the New Testament 
 originated; for developments grow not out of the state of 
 things involved in books, but from li\dng realities in the 
 human mind. If a fresh development were to arise in India, 
 the movement would commence not with the religious and 
 moral conceptions contained in the Vedas, but with the 
 actual existing state of Indian thought and feeling. An 
 Indian Luther must arise, to recall the Indian mind to that 
 mental condition which existed when the Vedas were com- 
 posed, before a state of higher progress can commence. His 
 work could not be efiected in a day. In an age like the 
 
428 
 
 present^ the existence of such a person woukl not be hidden 
 in darkness, but would be an historical fact. 
 
 In a similar manner, had any great reformer arisen, in the 
 latter half of the first century before Christ, in the bosom of 
 the Jewish Church, who reproduced as part of the national 
 feelings the Judaism of Isaiah, history would not have refused 
 all notice of his existence. Retrogression had long been the 
 law of the Jewish nation. Its religious and moral tone is no 
 unknown land, but lies within the confines of authentic his- 
 tory. The voice of psalmists and prophets had long since 
 ceased. Their spirituality of sentiment had gradually con- 
 gealed into the hardest ritualism and the most exclusive na- 
 tionality. Morality had become casuistry. The outward 
 habitation in which realities once dwelt had. become the only 
 reality recognized by the Jew. Intermixed with feelings of 
 this description, among a small portion of the nation had. 
 sprung up a spirit of sceptical unbelief, or mysticism. From 
 elements such as these the development must take its start- 
 ing-point. 
 
 But the life of Judaism, although fallen and degraded, was 
 not extinct. It had for some centuries entered on a develop- 
 ment of retrogression. The life of the Jewish race has been 
 less capable of destruction than that of any nation under 
 heaven. Whatever the Jcav has embraced, he has embraced 
 with tenacity. The Pharisaism, the Sadducism, the Essen - 
 ism had a development yet in store ; but was that develop- 
 ment in the direction of the Jesus of the Gospels ? History 
 can inform us not only as to the direction to which Judaism 
 was tending, but what was the harbour to which its voyage 
 carried it, and where it has been anchored ever since : it was 
 Rabbinism. The ritualism of the Jew perished under the 
 powerful hand of Providence. To the Jew, exiled from his 
 country, the performance of the rites of his religion was no 
 longer possible. His Temple was destroyed ; after that event 
 no sacrifice could ascend acceptable to Heaven from his hand. 
 His sacred feasts existed only in memorials. Driven from the 
 practice of his ritual worship, did he turn the direction of his 
 thoughts towards the religion of Isaiah and the prophets? 
 
429 
 
 Did lie begin to learn that the Almighty preferred mercy to 
 sacrifice ? Driven from his ritualism^ he developed the 
 hardest system of formal morality which was ever laid on 
 men's shoulders — an endless system of trifling casuistry. His 
 little finger became thicker than his father's loins. He ela- 
 borated, not a morality, but its most unsubstantial shadow, 
 ending in the habitual preference of the lesser to the greater 
 duty. He went on binding a burden on his back heavier and 
 heavier, without acquiring an atom of additional strength to 
 support the load. Tlie course of development on which the 
 Jew entered in the period in Avhicli Christianity originated, 
 and to which he ultimately arrived, was the exact opposite of 
 the teaching of Plim whose yoke is easy, and whose burden is 
 light, and whose service is perfect freedom. 
 
 Now, we ask, where shall we find a place in the character 
 of the Jewish nation, at the time when Christianity appeared, 
 out of which, by the aid of myth, or fable, or genius, or 
 inward spiritual insight, there will be even a tendency to 
 generate the Christ of the Gospels ? The character of the 
 Jew in our Lord's day is no unknown land affording play for 
 the imagination to people it at pleasure : historians, sacred 
 and profane, alike testify to its nature. If the testimony of 
 the writers of the Gospels must be set aside as that of partial 
 witnesses, we can appeal to the testimony both of heathens 
 and of Jews. St. Paul has written, "^'They please not God, 
 and are contrary unto all men." A heathen writer declares 
 that towards the human race they were animated by a hostile 
 hatred. The character of the Jew, as represented in the 
 Gospels, can be Substantiated by testimony derived from every 
 quarter. Now a character of which Rabbinism was the natu- 
 ral fruit could never, by any ordinary process, develope the 
 idea of a Christ. Into what it might ultimately unfold is not 
 our business to inquire. One thing is certain, that, with 
 eternity at its command, it Avould never create the Jesus of 
 the Gospels. 
 
 But the problem is reduced within very narrow limits. We 
 have not an indefinite period of time at our command : his- 
 tory restricts the interval to one hundred and fifty years. 
 
430 
 
 Within this period of time the image of the glorious Christ 
 of the Gospels must have been completed in all its perfectness. 
 But history testifies that the progress of all well- ascertained 
 developments has been slow. Few even of the more gradual 
 stages of their course have been unfolded in a similar interval. 
 Let the developer point out any great development of man 
 which has taken place within a period of one hundred and fifty 
 years. But the greatest of human developments is small 
 compared with the distance which separates the Judaism of 
 the last half of the first century before Christ from the Christ 
 of the New Testament. The time which such a development 
 must have occupied must have been longer than the longest 
 development of man. It would require an interval compared 
 with which the period required for the growth of Egyptian, or 
 Indian, or Chinese, or Grecian civilization would be relatively 
 short. To develope Judaism into the Jesus of the Gospels in 
 the brief period in which the facts of history prove that the 
 change must have been effected is one which the laws of 
 human progress forbid us to conceive of as possible. 
 
 The Greek race has been the subject of a more rapid deve- 
 lopment than any other race of man. Let us take this race 
 as a standard by which to estimate the demands we must make 
 on time, if we endeavour to develope the conception of a 
 Christ out of JcAvish ritualism. The religious ideas and the 
 civilization of the age of Homer differ far less widely from 
 those of the age of Pericles than the ritualism and national 
 exclusiveness of the Jew from the conception of the Jesus of 
 the Evangelists. To produce such a conception out of such a 
 moral and spiritual condition requires not simply a develop- 
 ment, but a new creation of the elements of thought and 
 feeling; it involves a long course of changes, rising one 
 above the other in successive stages. If such have existed, 
 they should be pointed out. Those who assert that species 
 have been evolved from species, when they are challenged to 
 produce direct evidence of their assertions, by pointing out 
 geological remains in which species are actually undergoing 
 the specified transformations, are ready enough to reply that 
 a most inconsiderable portion of the earth^s crust has yet 
 
431 
 
 been examined ; and that, while it must be admitted that the 
 small portion which has yet been examined does not supply 
 the required evidence, the absence of these remains is no 
 proof that the theory is not true, for the evidence may be yet 
 supplied in the enormous extent of hitherto unexamined 
 strata indefinitely more extensive than those which have been 
 the subject of examination. But while the advocate of trans- 
 mutation may take refuge in such an assertion, a similar 
 reason cannot be pleaded by the asserter that the Gospels 
 have been developed out of Jewish ritualism. We have no 
 unknown regions of history to explore. We are in posses- 
 sion of the facts. If we cannot name the stages of transmu- 
 tation, it will be useless for us to assert that the Jewish mind 
 may have passed through several transmutations with which 
 we are unacquainted. The time which such changes would 
 require sternly refuses to allow the plea. We know what was 
 the actual state of the Jewish mind in the latter half of the 
 first century before Christ. Before the termination of the 
 first century of the Christian era, the conception of the Christ 
 of the Gospels was certainly complete. If then this concep- 
 tion was a human development, the shortness of the time during 
 which it was effected shows that it must have been effected, 
 not through a succession of stages, but by one continuous and 
 steady progression. No new creations of either thought or 
 feeling could have arisen and become inwrought into the 
 national feeling and sentiments. But of such materials, 
 therefore, it is impossible to generate a Christ. 
 
 But may not the conception of a Christ have originated in 
 the fusion of various forms of thought, as in physics a new 
 compound arises from the union of various chemical ingre- 
 dients ? We answer, that the Supposed physical analogy will 
 not hold. The new chemical compound consists of nothing 
 but the same original materials. In a similar manner, in 
 whatever degree forms of thought may be fused together, no 
 new element, which was not originally there, will be created 
 out of the union. Four or five unholy feelings will not fuse 
 into a holy one : as many material conceptions will not gene- 
 rate a spiritual one. No degree of exclusiveness, mixed with 
 
432 
 
 any other human feeling, will generate the character of Him 
 whose life no man took from Him, but who laid it down of 
 Himself. It is impossible, by any fusion of thought or feeling, 
 to produce a new element which arises above the original 
 conception. 
 
 The national feeling of England will form an apt illustra- 
 tion. It has been formed by means of a great fusion of races : 
 the Briton and the Roman, the German, the Norman^ the 
 Dane, and the Scot have alike contributed their share. The 
 result is, that the English nation differs from any one of the 
 separate elements of which it has been composed ; it has as- 
 similated different elements from each nationality ; the Dane, 
 the Saxon, the Norman exist no longer, but have been swal- 
 lowed up in the common character of Englishman. The 
 English race contains several of the finer qualities of the 
 races whose fusion has created the English nation : but those 
 qualities existed in the original separate elements ; they are 
 not new creations of what did not previously exist, in thought, 
 feeling, or character. The differences of character possessed 
 by distinct races have been combined and modified merely; 
 and out of this modification has sprung the English nation. 
 
 But the formation of the English character has been the 
 result of a long interval of time. The separate elements of 
 which it has been composed long continued to exist in insu- 
 lation. Amalgamation was effected sloAvly and with difficulty. 
 The elements had to be brovight together and then fused 
 into one great national character. Without the aid of favour- 
 able external circumstances, such fusion Avould have been 
 impossible. In other nationalities similarly composed, the 
 different elements, instead of fusing, have gone on fermenting 
 and warring an interminable* warfare. The brief period of 
 one hundred and fifty years would have been utterly insuffi- 
 cient for accomplishing such a fusion.' 
 
 But even if the idea of a Christ could be obtained out of 
 the fusion of any existing elements, the period of time Avhich 
 history assigns as the only one during which this fusion must 
 have been accomplished is too limited for effecting the work. 
 The English nation has taken centuries to create ; but the 
 
433 
 
 work in question is a far mightier work than the production 
 of the English nation out of the complicated elements which 
 compose it. 
 
 We will therefore concede to the developer the free use of 
 such elements as he can find in the religious systems which 
 were in existence during the latter half of the first century 
 before Christ, and allow him to fuse them together in any 
 manner in which he pleases. Let him make a selection from 
 any form of civilization which had an historical existence — let 
 him be aided by the assistance of genius, or deep spiritual 
 insight, or myth — let him assimilate together Judaism, Orien- 
 talism, Greek and Roman thought, and out of these let him 
 form a church. Let this church set itself to the work of 
 fusion. Whatever growth may arise in this church in a period 
 of one hundred and fifty years, we venture to assert that the 
 state of its spirituality, its morals, its feelings, and its senti- 
 ments will, at the termination of that period, be indefinitely 
 remote from even a tendency towards the development of the 
 Christ of the Gospels. 
 
 The work of constructing such a church out of elements so 
 diverse and antagonistic would be one of no inconsiderable 
 difficulty. Churches are not created in a day. It required 
 years of hard and zealous labour to gather together the ele- 
 ments which composed the Apostolic church. The attempt 
 to construct a new system of philosophy among the specula- 
 tors of Alexandria by the fusion of all systems previously ex- 
 isting had a short life, and perished. The difficulty of such 
 undertakings is, to breathe life into the elements when united 
 together. It is more likely that the elements composing such 
 a church, instead of combining into an harmonious action, or 
 immediately engaging in the work of generating a Christ, 
 will arise against one another in mutual tumult, and enter 
 on a fierce and destructive war. But perhaps the more 
 fiercely the elements strive together, the more certainly wiU 
 that great and glorious unity be evolved at last. After the 
 most terrible tempests come the profoundest calms. The 
 more the separate materials are shaken together, the more 
 
 2f 
 
434 
 
 closely will they cohere. But, however these elements may 
 finally be combined, the result will only be equal to the 
 united action of the whole. Two hatreds will not produce a 
 love. Two adverse forms of pride neither by coalescing nor 
 contending can generate a humility. Scepticism and fana- 
 ticism, united in any conceivable admixture, Avill not produce 
 a holy zeal in the service of God. Never by deifying man in 
 his appetites and passions, such as man actually appears on 
 the page of history, shall we develope the Jesus of the 
 Gospels. 
 
 Any church which the developer could collect, consisting 
 of Jews and Orientals, of Greeks and Romans, absorbing 
 into its bosom the most repulsive elements of thought, must 
 enter on its course of development either by contention, by 
 actual separation, or by fusion. Man cannot divest himself 
 of his ideas, his feelings, and his passions, and array himself 
 in new ones, with the same facility ^vith which he changes 
 his attire. The various classes out of which any church 
 could have been composed must have brought their former 
 ideas and conceptions, their feelings, their religion, and their 
 morals, with them into their new communion. But one hun- 
 dred and fifty years is the whole period which can be conceded 
 for collecting the church together, for fusing its elements, for 
 fresh creations of thought and feeling, for each fresh stage of 
 development, and out of the combined operation creating the 
 conception of a Christ. The person who is prepared to say 
 that out of these elements such a conception has been deve- 
 loped must pardon us for requiring some evidence of the 
 fact. The fusion of such principles into an harmonious 
 whole would have required a longer space than the whole 
 interval which history will allow him for the completion 
 of the development itself. Let us suppose that the new- 
 formed church has coalesced together, and has commenced 
 developing; let myth and fable be freely conceded to her 
 use; let genius lend its utmost assistance, let her absorb 
 the philosopher, the fanatic, the politician, and the degraded 
 mob ; yea, and let her gather into her bosom the best 
 
435 
 
 elements of society which can be founds provided they are 
 historical existences, and not creations of the fancy. She has 
 before her a long and weary journey, a march which can 
 only be accomplished by various deviations from the direct 
 line of route, by bridging over destructive depths, without 
 having any means of finding a secure foundation on which to 
 support the incumbent weight. But steady marching through 
 a continuous plain will never conduct the church to her 
 journey^s end. She has many a dizzy height to scale. She 
 must continue raising herself from elevation to elevation, des- 
 titute of ladder or scaffolding with which to aid herself in the 
 ascent. She may develope and develope, but, without the 
 creation of fresh thought and feeling, age after age will roll 
 on in its destined course and no Christ will issue from her 
 bosom ; she may cry and travail, but there will be no birth. 
 History defines the problem presented for solution, and 
 our hard-labouring church finds that those who urge her to 
 the attempt are Egyptian taskmasters. That problem is. 
 Produce a Christ out of previously existing elements, such as 
 you find depicted in the four Gospels, within a period of one 
 hundred and fifty years. 
 
 But even if we were to concede to the developer the free use 
 of the Old Testament Scriptures, even if we were to allow him 
 to select the brighest stars of the Jewish Church, a company 
 of prophets, with which to enter on his course of develop- 
 ment, the shortness of the period which history assigns him 
 for the accomplishment of his work would render his at- 
 tempt an impossibility. The Old Testament Scriptures pro- 
 fess to shine with a brighter light than the unassisted 
 illumination of the human understanding. If their testi- 
 mony is of any worth, they declare, " Whatever assistance we 
 can render you in your distress, we do not owe to a develop- 
 ment of man.^^ But let the whole company of the prophets 
 be summoned to assist the work. The 53rd of Isaiah is the 
 brightest anticipation of the New Testament Messiah which 
 they can furnish ; but how faint is the conception of the yet 
 future suffering and glorious King ! how shadowy is the 
 
436 
 
 outline, when compared witli the substantial form, the Gali- 
 lean carpenter calmly seated on the throne of God, and act- 
 ing with suitable grace the part of the universal King, who, 
 while divinely zealous for His Father's honour, never per- 
 formed a miracle in His Father's name — the outcast, the 
 crucified, and the dying disposing places in paradise in abso- 
 lute accordance with His will. 
 
 Let the developer select any number of Jewish saints he 
 pleases, and incorporate with them all the pagan excellence 
 which history, not fancy, will supply him with, and unite 
 these into a church, and propose to them to develope the 
 Jesus of the Gospels within one hundred and fifty years ; if 
 the development is to exclude everything divine, and to follow 
 any ascertained human course, the philosophers and prophets 
 will, with unanimous voice, cry out, " The developer is a 
 Pharaoh who commands us to make brick, and, lo ! no straw 
 is given to us." 
 
 But a fresh obstacle encounters our developer at every 
 stage of his career. He has to commence his development 
 with the actual Jewish Church. Within a certain period he 
 encounters the actual historic Christian Church. That 
 church, when it emerges into history, seems very unlike a 
 society which had just succeeded in developing a Christ. If 
 it had accomplished this feat, after so great a victory, it must 
 have immediately commenced a movement of a most retro- 
 grade description. Memorials of that church exist. The 
 earlier writings are indeed few, but sufficient to give us an 
 idea of its character. They soon become more numerous, 
 and supply us with abundant materials for judging whether 
 the character of those composing its body was such that they 
 could have been recently engaged in creating the conception 
 of a Christ. Nothing more strikes the reader of the writings 
 remaining from the early Church than the enormous interval 
 which separates them from the writings of the Apostles. The 
 sound sense, the practical judgment, of the apostolic writings 
 is wholly wanting. We at once are sensible that we have 
 descended into a lower element of thought and feeling, of 
 
437 
 
 judgment and conception. If the sublime conception of a 
 Christ had not previously existed^ the fathers of the early 
 Church never would have created it. The character of the 
 primitive Church, as soon as it has become the subject of 
 history, wholly negatives the idea that a Christ could have 
 issued from her bosom. 
 
 If then there is no human element out of which, by the 
 ordinary laws of human development, the conception of a 
 Christ could have been created, as a Christ is actually por- 
 trayed, in the pages of the Evangelists, invested with every- 
 thing which is gloriously human, and uniting the human 
 with the Godhead, it follows that the phenomenon, as it 
 actually exists, can only be accounted for by assuming that 
 the assertion of the sacred writer is true, " God, who at sun- 
 dry times and in divers manners spake in times past unto 
 the fathers by the prophets, hath in these last days spoken 
 unto us in His Son.^' 
 
 THE END. 
 
 Printed by Taylor and Francid, Ked Lion Court, Fleet Street, London,