REVELATION. 



REVELATION. 



50 



In passing from the Christian revelation itself to the written record 

 of it. a new and important question is opened to us. The revelation 

 may have been made to the persons who profess to have received it ; 

 but in recording it also, were they preternaturally assisted, or were 

 they left to the use of their natural memories, and the guidance of 

 their unassisted judgment ? In other words, we are met by a question 

 respecting what is called the inspiration of the books of Scripture, or, 

 more properly, of the persons who wrote them. By this word we are 

 to understand, not the preternatural infusion of revealed truths into 

 the minds of the writers (which however would not be inconsistent 

 with the original meaning of the word), but preternatural assistance in 

 recording what had been so infused. This distinction should be 

 observed. St. Paul, if we believe his own declaration, received immedi- 

 ately from God a message to men. He may be supposed to have 

 delivered this message orally or in writing to others from memory ; and 

 in that case he would have been a deliverer and they receivers, in the 

 strictest sense of the words, of a divine revelation ; but the message, 

 so delivered, would not in theological language have been an inspired 

 message, that is, spoken or written under inspiration. It is beside our 

 purpose to defend or impugn the doctrine of the inspiration of Scripture 

 generally, or, out of the various theories which have been put forth, to 

 advocate one in preference to the others. We only wish to do some- 

 thing towards clearing away certain fears and difficulties, which seem 

 to beset and mislead many in the very outset of the inquiry, and to 

 offer a few suggestions as to the principle on which the inquiry 

 should be conducted, to those who are not very conversant with the 

 subject. 



In the case of most persons educated in the Christian faith, their 

 first introduction to the Bible is accompanied by an assurance that it 

 was dictated by God, and is tlierefore true ; and this is told them at a 

 time when its claims, as an authentic history, independently of its 

 inspiration, neither are nor can be explained to them. This early 

 impression, perhaps unavoidable, that the Scriptures are to be received 

 as true, only because they are the Word of God, is probably retained 

 for the most part without question, in spite of its inconsistency with 

 the method and object of books which are given, almost as universally 

 as the Bible, to all educated persons for the purpose of establishing 

 their faith on rational grounds. Hence they are habituated from the 

 very nursery to confound in their minds two questions essentially 

 t, the divine origin of the Christian religion, and the divine 

 origin of the scriptural records of it. All might easily remove this 

 confusion by simply .answering the question, what would be the natural 

 course of our inquiries, and by what steps should we arrive at con- 



ii of the divine origin of the Christian religion, if the volume of 

 the New Testament were for the first time put into our hands for 

 examination, at an age when we were capable of making it ? It is 

 obvious that we should not begin with assuming the inspiration of the 

 writers ; for that would be assuming the very point in debate, 



ing that for which we had not as yet a shadow of evidence. But 

 neither is it of their inspiration that it would be our first object to 

 t'm< I ', i'l' ure ; for such evidence could not at first be obtained. If we 

 ever came to the conclusion that they were inspired, it must be because 

 cither the very supposition of a revelation from God included in it the 

 supposition of a revelation on the part of those who communicated it, 

 or because all the writers themselves claimed inspiration, or some, 

 whose claims we had already allowed, attributed it to the rest. In the 



case we mustyrV( have believed that a revelation was made ; in 



wordx, that the origin of the religion was divine : in the other, if 

 we assent to the claim of inspiration, we must fint have admitted the 

 credibility, the veracity of those who make it ; that is, if we believe 

 tin-la t-> l>e iu.-j'ired because they say so, we must have had reason for 

 Ijelicving what they say, on other ground than that of their inspiration. 

 It seems then that it would be our first object to establish, not the 

 inspiration, but the credibility of the sacred writers apart from their 

 inspiration. We should proceed from the establishment of their 

 credibility, to inquire, in the second place, if they were inspired. The 

 result, in short, to which we have actually come is this : the New 

 Testament \ put into our hands for examination, and we find that the 

 claims of Jesus and his followers to a divine commission rest on the 

 miracles which they are said to have performed. Our belief of the 

 fact of the miracles depends on the credit we attach to the story of 

 the witnc.'jseH. If that i substantially true, Jesus came from God. 

 \\ itli the arguments by which the credibility of the gospel history is 



1 we have here no concern. It is plain that it is not proved by 

 the inspiration of the authors. Some confusion seems to have arisen 



.i strange mistake respecting the kind of satisfaction which the 



.ti..n of the sacred writers, when established, is capable of 

 supplying. It does not confirm their veracity, it only implies their 

 accuracy. It secures us from their mistakes, not from their falsehood. 

 Now if it should be argued that without inspiration we can have no 

 assurance that they were not mistaken, when they tell us that they 

 saw a man dead on the cross, laid hi his grave, and afterwards alive, it 

 may be asked, how can they be secured from their liability to mistake, 

 when they tell us that they are inspired ? It is at least as likely that 

 they should be mistaken in the one case as in the other. The obvious 



in, that if we cannot rely on their veracity when they vouch for 

 miracles, we can trust none of their assertions, and admit none of their 

 claims ; and if they might be mistaken as to the fact of a miracle, they 

 Aim A*D SCI. DIV. VOL. VII. 



might be equally mistaken in their claim qf inspiration for themselves 

 or for others. 



It is hardly necessary to observe that the various methods followed 

 by writers on the evidences of the Christian religion are all in con- 

 formity with the view that has been taken of this subject. They 

 endeavour to show the genuineness and authenticity of the books of 

 the New Testament, the fidelity, disinterestedness, and integrity of the 

 writers ; to point out then- means of information as human historians, 

 and to confirm the accuracy of their accounts by comparison with 

 other records. The question of inspiration forms no part of their 

 inquiry. It is beside their object, which is to prove the divine origin 

 of Christianity ; and this is fully proved if their arguments are satis- 

 factory. 



It is not meant, of course, that all who are brought to a conviction 

 of the truth of Christianity, arrive at it in the same manner. It is 

 sufficient for our argument that it may be reached in the manner we 

 have supposed. In short, on whatever support the believer himself 

 may eventually feel that his faith habitually reposes, if he should ever 

 be impelled by any motive to trace his conviction to a source from 

 which it can be shown to others by reasoning that it may legitimately 

 flow, he will find that he must rely, in the first instance, on the credi- 

 bility of the sacred writers, however established, considered as unin- 

 spired historians. With this foundation laid, he may commence an 

 inquiry into the proofs of their inspiration ; and he may pursue it 

 with a full assurance that to whatever result it may lead, the divine 

 origin of his religion is already secured ; that he has in possession a 

 revelation from God, truths divinely communicated to men. We may 

 seem to have taken unnecessary pains to establish a point too plain to 

 be disputed. Our justification must be, that it does not seem to have 

 been so plain to some even of those who have written on the subject, 

 and are occasionally quoted as authorities, and who have been led, 

 apparently by the confusion which we deprecate, into unwarrantable 

 insinuations of infidelity against those who differ from them in 

 opinion. 



If the question should be asked, where, when the divine origin of 

 the religion is supposed to be established on the credibility of the 

 sacred writers, we should look for proof that the books which are the 

 records of it were written under the security of inspiration ? the 

 natural answer would be that it must be looked for in the books them- 

 selves, from the claims, declarations, and intimations of the writers. 

 When, for example, one of the evangelists has recorded a distinct 

 promise made by their master to his Apostles, of a divine gift for the 

 declared purpose of assisting the memory and enlightening the under- 

 standing, the inference seems to be unavoidable that those to whom 

 the promise was given must have written with more than natural 

 advantages. The argument founded on the necessity of inspiration to 

 render the sacred books effectual for the purpose for which they were 

 intended, ought not perhaps to be slighted. We have seen indeed that 

 the supposition of the divine origin of the religion does not necessarily 

 require the admission of inspiration ; yet the peculiar character of the 

 contents of the books, together with the service they were destined 

 to perform, may raise a presumption in its favour. The direct 

 testimony however from the writers themselves must be principally 

 regarded. But when commencing the examination, whilst the evidence 

 is yet to be found, we must be careful to estimate correctly the degreo 

 of authority which ought in this stage of the inquiry to be attributed 

 to the words of Scripture. They are not yet proved to be the words of 

 God. The declarations of the writers must be received and interpreted 

 fairly and liberally, as the solemn declarations on a solemn subject, of 

 honest and credible writers, ought to be received and interpreted. If 

 the evidence which we seek to obtain from them cannot be obtained in 

 this manner, it cannot be obtained at all. To search Scripture for 

 proofs of its inspiration whilst at the same time we assume it to be 

 inspired, is a proceeding so obviously absurd, that if experience did 

 not teach us otherwise, any caution against it would seem to bo 

 unnecessary. But even when this strange error is not committed, 

 declarations of the sacred writers, apparently bearing on this subject, 

 may be and often are improperly summoned to the cause. When a 

 writer professes to have received secret suggestions from the deity, 

 that is, to be the subject of inspiration in one sense of the word, he is 

 represented as claiming it in the other, as though the privilege of 

 receiving communications necessarily implied the privilege of infalli- 

 bility in recording them. This confusion has been noticed on another 

 occasion. 



That most popular argument for the inspiration of a particular 

 book, founded on testimony borne to the purity and integrity of the 

 canon of Scripture, may be soon disposed of. When it has been 

 proved that a book forms part of what is called the canon, it may 

 follow that it forms part of Scripture. This will not carry us far 

 when the question to be decided is, what are the claims of Scripture to 

 inspiration ? 



There is one mode of proof, besides those already mentioned, which 

 ought perhaps to be noticed, as being much in favour with some 

 theologians, namely, an appeal to what is called the tradition of the 

 church. There are some advocates of inspiration, in the strictest sense 

 and most unlimited application of the term, who allow, or rather 

 contend, that the proof of it rests mainly, if not entirely, on the 

 testimony of tradition. An examination of the value of this testimony 



E 



