INSPIRATION. 



Teftament ; that iii moft of tliem it had not is manifeft. But, 

 2dly, if in fome it had, the moft natural fuppofition is, firft, 

 tljelt the knowledge of the tongue with which the Holy GhoU 

 infpired the facrcd writers, inuft have been in them precii'ely 

 fuch a knowledge, and fuch a readinefs in finding words and 

 expreffions, as is in others the cffedl of daily practice. This 

 is even a neceflary confequence of fuppoling that the language 

 itfelf, and not the words of particular fpeeches (accordingto 

 the notion of Dr. Middletqn, in his " EITay.on the Gift of 

 Tongues") was the gift of the fpirit : And, jdly, that their 

 acquaintance witli the tongues, fupernaturally communicated, 

 mull have been fuch as would render their teaching in it bell 

 adapted to the apprehenfions of the people with whom they 

 would be moft couverfant, or fuch as they would moft readi- 

 ly have acquired in the natural way. Now on this hy- 

 pothefis, wliich on many accounts appears the moil rational, 

 the inilucnce of habit, of native idiom, and of particular 

 genius and turn of thinking, would be the fame on the wri- 

 ter's ftyle as though he had acquired the langiiage in the or- 

 dinary way. Becaufe Cicero and the Greek philofophers 

 were of opinion, that if Jupiter fpoke Greek, Dr. Middle- 

 ton cannot conceive, that a ftyle to unlike Plato's as that of 

 the evangelifts, can be the language of infpiration, or be 

 accounted worthy of God. But it was not, we know, pe- 

 culiar to the Greeks or to the apoftoiic age to fet too high 

 a value on the words which man's wildom teachcth. See 

 more on this fubjecl in Campbell's Prehfninary Differtations, 

 Diir. I. 



It has been obferved, in reference to the fubjeft of infpi- 

 ration, that our Lord's evangelifts report our Lord's dif- 

 courfes with very great variations in their particular expref- 

 ijons ; and hence fome authors have been led to give up the 

 cfpinion of the infpiration of the evangelifts, as writers. 

 Thus they fay, they are able to place thegofpel hillory on 

 the fame unexceptionable footing with other credible hiftories, 

 refting on independent teilimonies, in confequence of their 

 agreeing in all matters of importance, and appearing to be 

 independent of each other, by their difagreement in matters 

 of no importance. By this means they alfo difencumber the 

 evidence of the gofpel hiftory of many objections infigni- 

 ficant indeed in themfelves, but rendered of the grcateft 

 magnitude, and even abfolutely infuperable by thole who 

 profefs to maintain the plenary infpiration of the fcriptures. 

 ~ Dr. Prieftley is one of thole writers who has adopted this 

 hypothefis. He fays, however, he is far from denying all 

 infpiration 5 but only the univerfal and infallible infpiration 

 of the fcripture hiftorians as " writers.'' Wlien the pro- 

 phets or apoftles worked miracles, or delivered prophecies, 

 and other melTages from God, they muft have been infpired. 

 Paul alfo feems to fay, that he received his knowledge of the 

 gofpel by a perfon;d communication from Clirift after his re- 

 furreclion. (Prieftley s Preface to his Harmony.) After 

 all, it ftiould be remembered that our Lord made an exprefs 

 promife to his apoftles, that" the fpirit of truth fhould'lead 

 them into all truih, and bring all things to their remem- 

 brance whatever he faiduntotliem,'' John, xiv. 26 ; and this 

 promife feems to warrant that notion of infpir;:tion which 

 we have Itated towards the beginning of this ariicle. 

 ' Michaelis, (Introduction to tlie' New Teftament) afler 

 Weighing, with all that care and attention which fo important 

 a fubjedt requires, the arguments which may be advanced on 

 botli fides, thinks it advifable to divide the queftion. To 

 tlie epiftles, infpiration is of real confequence ; but with re- 

 fpcft to the hiftorica! books, viz. the Gofpcls andtlie Afts 

 of the Apoftles, we (hould really be no lofers if we aban- 

 doned the fyftemof infpiration, and in fome refpefts have a 

 real advantage. We fhould be no lofers if we confidcrcd 

 the apoftks, in liiilorical fads, as merely human witneffes, 

 .3 



as Chrift himfelf has done in faying, " Ye alfo {hall bear 

 witnefs, becaufe ye have been with me from the beginning." 

 (John, XV. 27.) And no one that attempts to convince an 

 unbeliever of the truth of Chriftianity, would begin his dc- 

 monftration by pre-fuppofing a doclrine which hisadverfary 

 denies, but would ground his arguments on the credibility of 

 the evangelifts as human hiftorians for the truth of the mira- 

 cles, the death and the refurreftion of Chrift. Even thofe 

 who examine the grounds of their faith for their own convic- 

 tion, mull treat the evangeli'ls as human evidence, fince it 

 ■would be arguing in a circle to conclude that the facts re- 

 corded in the gofpels are true, becaufe they are infpired, 

 when we conclude the fcriptures to be infpired in confequence 

 of their, contents. In thefe cafes, then, we are obliged to 

 confider the evai:gehfts as human evidence, and it would be 

 no detriment to the Chriftian caufe to confider them at all 

 times as fuch in matters of hiftorical facl. We find it no 

 where exprefsly recorded that the pubhc tranfadtions which, 

 the apoftles knew by their own experience, and of which St. 

 Luke informed himfelf by diligent inquiry, fiiould be parti- 

 cular objedts of divine infpiration. We Ihould even be 

 confideralile gainers, in adjufting the harmony of the gofpels, 

 if we were permitted to fuppofe that fome one of the evan- 

 gelifts had committed an immaterial error, and that St. John 

 has redlified fome trifling miilakes in the preceding gofpels. 

 The moft dangerous objedions that can be made to the truth 

 of our religion, and fuch as are moll difficult to anfwer, are 

 thofe drawn from the different relations of the four evange- 

 lifts. Mr. Kiddle, in the beginning of the fecond feci ion of 

 his " Eflay on Infpiration," entertains fentiments fimilar to 

 thofe of Michaelis ; now, if we advert to the fentiments of 

 Grotius, already recited, and which gave rife to the famous 

 theological difputes between the Dominicans and the Jefuits, 

 will the diftinclion between the infpiration of the hiftorical 

 books, and that of the epiftles, appear to be new ? As to 

 the writings of thofe that were apoftles, Michaehs maintains 

 that their infpiration depends on their autlienticity. If they 

 are written by the apoftles, towhom they are afcribed,we con- 

 fider them as divinely infpired : if not written by apoftles, they 

 can make no pretenfion to infpiration. But it may be aflted, on 

 what argument the pofition is grounded, that the writings of 

 the apoftles, if genuine, are infpired ? It is anfvvered, on the 

 teftimony of Chrift and his apoftles, which is credible and fa- 

 cred, becaufe they have confirmed their doftrines by number' 

 lefs miracles. But, where is this evidence recorded ? It is 

 certain, in the firft place, that the apoftles muft be regarded 

 not only as prophets, but as greater than prophets. (Mark, 

 xi. 9 — II.) Again, if we confider Chrift's more immediate 

 promifes of infpiration to the apoftles, we fiiall find that he 

 has given them, in the moft proper fenfe of the word, at three 

 feveral periods : I ft, when he fent the apoftles to preach the 

 gofpel (Matt. x. 19, 20) ; 2dly, in holding a public difcourfe 

 ■relating to the gofpel, at which uas prei'ent a confiderable 

 muhitude (Luke, xii. 11, 12.) ; 3dly, in his prophecy of the 

 deftrudion of Jerufalem. (Mark, xiii. 2. Luke,' xxi. 14, 

 ij.) It is true, that when we argue from their infpiration 

 on thefe occafions to the infpiration of their writings, we 

 draw a conclufion " a minore ad majus,' but it is a con- 

 clufion to which no rational objeftion can be made ; for 

 if they were to expect infpiration for thofe fpeechcs 

 and anfwers, which were only temporary, and in which 

 they appeared rather as advocates than teachers, how 

 much more reafon had they to cxpeft infpiration in thofe 

 writings which were to ferve as a ftandard of faith to 

 pofterity ? Michaelis conceives, that Chrift alluded to the 

 future writings of the apoftles, when he faid to Peter, 

 " Thou art Peter" (;. e. a rock), &c. Another promife, 

 iirtt given to Peter, and after wiuds exteiided to all the 



apoftles, 



