66

Holy Ghost-these declarations apply primarily only to the Old Testament-but they also declare of their own ministry and of the Gospel of the New Testament, that it is the "power of God," the "word of God," the "word of the Lord," "the glorious Gospel of the blessed God," "the commandments of the Lord," the "word of Christ," a more sure word of prophecy" even than the Old Testament, spoken "in demonstration of the Spirit," in "words which the Holy Spirit teacheth," and preached "with the Holy Ghost sent down from heaven." If this claim be not true, the book not only ceases to be trustworthy as a promise or covenant of God, it also ceases to be trustworthy as a moral or spiritual guide. For, if the writers of the New Testament were not thus guided and impelled by the Spirit of God, if they were not the authorized bearers of a Divine promise to man, then they were either impostors or visionaries, the perpetrators of a fraud or the victims of a delusion. And neither impostors nor visionaries are safe and trustworthy spiritual guides.

III. Evidences of its Inspiration.—The claim of the New Testament writers that they speak by the authority of God, and under the impulse and inspiration of the Spirit of God, has been generally regarded as well founded by the great majority of those who have studied their writings and the history of the effects which they have produced upon the human race. It is impossible to do more here than summarize very briefly some of the principal considerations which have led to this conclusion.

1. It is the fundamental doctrine of Christianity, confirmed by the history and experience of the Christian Church, that God dwells in the hearts of his children, that he guides, comforts, and strengthens them, that the soul was not made to live alone, but in constant communication with God, and that the influence of the Spirit of God, thus vouchsafed to the spirit of man, is always adapted to his needs. Thus the doctrine of the special inspiration of the sacred penmen is only part of the more general doctrine of the inspiration of all who will accept the divine guidance.

2. The history of the human race shows that there is a need of some more definite and explicit instruction concerning moral and spiritual truth and life than is afforded by the analogies of nature or the intuitions of uninstructed conscience. Without it no people have attained a high state of intellectual, political, or social civilization, still less a high state of moral and spiritual culture. Without an inspired book the human race is without any adequate knowledge of God or the future life, without any reliable assurance of pardon for past sin or provision of escape from future sin, and without any trustworthy and immutable standard of human duty or ideal of human character.

3. This need, interpreted by the universal craving for inspired oracles, writings, or priests, is supplied by the Bible. This book or series of books reveals a paternal God, whose love satisfies the filial yearning of the soul for a heavenly Father; it reveals a future life, which satisfies both the requirements of justice and the aspirations after immortality; it not only promises divine pardon on the condition of repentance and faith, but upon such an historical basis that its assurances do actually afford peace of mind to the believer, as no other religion does; it promises, on like conditions, divine help in change of life and character, and the help afforded in innumerable instances, in moral and

12 Tim. 3:16; 2 Peter 1: 21... ..21 Cor. 1: 18; 2:4, 12, 13; 14: 37; Col. 3: 16; 1 Thess. 2; 13; 1 Tim. 1:11; 1 Peter 1: 12, 25; 2 Peter 1: 19. Compare, also, Acts 10: 36; 20: 24; Rom. 15: 29; 16: 25, 26; 2 Cor. 4:4; 6:4; Gal. 1: 11, 12, 16; Ephes. 3:9; 6: 17; Col. 1: 26; Heb. 2:4; 1 Tim. 6:3; 1 John 4: 6. It can hardly be necessary to refer the reader to passages in the Book of Revelation, since that is an unmeaning dream except it be regarded as an inspired vision.

Let him who doubts this statement, and cites the Greeks and Romans as exceptions, study Pressensé's The Religions before Christ, or even Gibbon's or Lecky's descriptions of Roman and Grecian civilization. Or let the reader compare Paul's description of Roman morals, in Romans, chapters I and II, with any of the ancient historians, for they fully justify it.

spiritual changes, not only in individuals but in entire communities, is the best evidence of the origin and trustworthiness of these promises; it affords in the law of love a perfect and an inflexible standard of character, applicable to all ages, classes, and conditions of men; and it affords in the life of Jesus Christ a perfect ideal of human life and character, which all can follow and which none have ever surpassed.

4. The supreme excellence of the precepts and principles of the Bible negative the hypothesis that they were the uninspired productions of the men who transcribed them. It is easier to believe that the Ten Commandments were inspired by God than to believe that they were wrought out by a man whose sole training was derived from a Hebrew slave mother, an Egyptian court, and the life of a Midianitish shepherd; easier to believe that the Sermon on the Mount, and the 14th, 15th, and 16th chapters of John, were inspired by God, than to believe that they were the intellectual production of a Galilean carpenter. The lives which then, and ever since, those have lived who have received the Bible as the Word of God, when compared with the lives of the heathen who have not received its influences, afford also a perpetual evidence that those precepts and principles are of superhuman origin, and possess a superhuman inspiring power.

5. The unity of the Bible indicates that one Supreme intellect directed the various writers by whom its books were composed. It consists of sixty-six separate treatises, written by between forty and fifty different writers, living centuries apart, speaking different languages, subjects of different governments, brought up under different civilizations. Over fifteen hundred years elapsed between the writings of Moses and those of John. All forms of literature-law, history, biography, poetry, oratory, and philosophyare contained in the Bible. Yet the same substantial truths are taught by all these various writers, and the moral and spiritual unity of the Bible is such that probably few of its readers ever realize that it is, humanly speaking, the product of so many individual minds. Unity of design in the Scriptures proves that there was one designer, as the unity in the architectural design of the cathedral, which is the construction of many different hands, proves the supervising skill of the architect who planned and directed its construction.

6. The fulfilment in the New Testament of prophecies recorded in the Old Testament, and the fulfilment in later times of prophecies recorded in the New Testament, prove that at least those portions which are prophetic were the work of Him who sees the end from the beginning, and afford a sign and seal of the inspiration of the other portions of the sacred writings.

7. The miracles authenticate the divine authority of those who wrought them. Christianity as a system of truth and duty does not, indeed, depend upon the miracles. But to those who accept the New Testament as an authentic narration of actual events, the miracles demonstrate that Christianity possesses the divine sanction, since they could have been wrought only by divine power. To this authentication of their authority frequent reference is made by the writers of the New Testament.'

8. The testimony of those writers is in itself not a demonstration of their inspiration, but it is an evidence thereof. That they claim to be inspired, and that Christ promised them such inspiration, we have already seen. If this claim is unfounded we must believe either that they were impostors, pretending to an inspiration which they knew they did not possess, or visionaries, believing themselves to possess an inspiration which they did not in fact possess. The heroism and self-sacrifice of their lives prove that they were not impostors; the excellence of their doctrine proves that they were not visionaries. In brief, to the great body of thoughtful men it will always seem more natural to believe that the writers of the Bible wrote and spoke under the special influence of the Spirit of

1 Mark 16: 20; John 10:25; Rom. 15: 18, 19; Heb. 2: 4.

God, than to suppose that they belong in the same category with either Mohammed or Joe Smith.

9. Finally, if the New Testament be not inspired, Christianity is not a divine covenant, but only a human system of theology and ethics. There is no trustworthy revelation concerning the nature and will of God, no assurance of divine pardon for sin, no provision of divine grace for the tempted. And in fact those philosophies which reject the Bible as the inspired Word of God teach that God is unknowable, or that there is no other God than nature, that his will cannot be ascertained, or is only manifested in natural law, physical and social, and that there is no forgiveness of sins, but that every man must bear in his own person the penalty of his transgressions, and work out by the force of his own will his own redemption.

IV. Limits of Inspiration.-The word Inspiration means literally "in-breathing." The doctrine that the New Testament is inspired of God is the doctrine that the penmen in writing it acted under an influence from God, which conferred upon their minds and hearts a power greater than their own, or, as stated by Peter, that "holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost."1 The manner in which this Divine influence acted upon their minds, and the extent to which it affected them and their writings, is nowhere distinctly stated in Scripture. There are various theological theories upon this subject, which I do not think it necessary to recount here. They may all be reduced to two general classes-the doctrines respectively of verbal inspiration and of moral inspiration.

By verbal inspiration is meant the immediate communication by God to the writers, of every word which they wrote. "I believe," says Tregelles, "the sixty-six books of the Old Testament and New Testament, to be verbally the Word of God, as absolutely as were the Ten Commandments written by the finger of God upon the two tables of stone." So Hooker says of the prophets, "they neither spake nor wrote any word of their own, but uttered syllable by syllable as the Spirit put it into their mouths." That certain passages may have been written thus, as it were, by Divine dictation, the writers being mere amanuenses, is possibly true; that the chief portions of the New Testament were thus written, is, I think, clearly not true.

This method does not accord with God's general principles of action, which are to work in us and with us, helping our infirmities, not to relieve us of all responsibility and do the work in our stead. It does not accord with the claims of the sacred writers, who indeed, nowhere distinctly define the limits of inspiration, but who do very distinctly imply the existence of a human element, of personal thought and study in the writing.' It does not accord with those variations in style, expression, thought, and even teaching, which give individuality to each of the sacred books, which make the three Gospels so different in style, that of John so different from the other three in subject-matter, and the Epistles of James and of Paul so different in the phases of truth which they respectively exhibit. It does not accord with the verbal, and even more than verbal discrepancies which are notable where two or more writers narrate the same event. Many such instances are afforded by a comparison of the parallel accounts of the three Synoptic Gospels. In the four variant reports of the inscription on the cross is a striking illustration of a discrepancy which is just such as we should expect from independent historians, who to a large extent relied upon their own memory, or upon the recollection of others, but is utterly irreconcilable with the theory that they recorded as amanuenses what the Holy

5

1 2 Peter 1:21. The true rendition of this passage, "holy men spake from God," intensifies its meaning, but does not otherwise modify it...... Quoted in McWhorter's Hand Book of the New Testament, page 23... Quoted in Lee on inspiration, page 35.... See for example Luke 1:8; 2 Pet. 1: 21...... Matt. 27: 37; Mark 15: 26; Luke 23: 38; John 19: 19.

3

Spirit dictated to them.' This theory does not accord with the subsequent history of the New Testament. For we have not the original words in which the books were written; with the exception of a few scholars, the great majority of Bible readers are dependent upon a confessedly uninspired translation of a confessedly uninspired copy. Finally, the apostle distinctly declares that the letter killeth, while the Spirit maketh alive; and a theory of verbal inspiration, i. e. of the inspiration of the words and letters, so far from quickening the spiritual impulse to a reverent study of the essential truths of the Bible, produces a directly opposite effect, and is neither productive of Scriptural scholarship nor true spiritual culture.

By moral inspiration is meant such a divine quickening of the natural faculties of the sacred writers, that, while they used their own memory, reason, and religious and intellectual culture, they were protected from all such errors as would impair the value of their writings as instruments for religious instruction and spiritual impulse, or, in other words, that they were inspired just so far as was necessary to make their writings "profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness." Minor errors in science, in chronology, in dates, diversities in forms and methods of expression, partial and fragmentary utterances,' immaterial discrepancies and apparent inconsistencies in different narrations of the same event, do nothing to shake the faith of those who hold this theory of inspiration. It allows, too, the opinion that the inspiration of different books is of a different kind, and that the same degree of authority is not to be attached to the books of Ruth and Esther as to the Ten Commandments, the purely personal epistle to Philemon as to the general epistle to the Romans, or to such a direction as that of 2 Tim. 4: 13, as to the precepts of the Sermon on the Mount. This is the doctrine of inspiration which throughout this Commentary I have assumed to be the correct one. The evidences of its correctness will appear in the notes themselves.

At the same time there are passages in which the language, as well as the idea, appears to me to have been supernaturally inspired. This is especially the case in many instances in the Evangelical reports of our Lord's discourses, where a peculiar significance is involved in the words used by our Lord and preserved by his reporters-a significance which is often lost in our English translation.3

I believe, then, that the New Testament is God's covenant with man; that it is not an outgrowth of human thought, but comes from God; that he has chosen to impart it through imperfect men, as he chooses imperfect men to proclaim and to interpret it; that in writing this New Covenant they had all the divine guidance and impulse necessary to make it a safe and sufficient guide to man in moral and spiritual life; and that their authority to speak for God is attested by the miracles they wrought, by the fulfillment of the prophecies they recorded, by the superhuman excellence of the doctrines and the life they inculcated, but yet more by the divine fulfillment of the compact which in God's name they professed to record, and in the beneficent effects, temporal and spiritual, which have resulted in the case of all individuals and of all communities which have accepted it and complied with its conditions.

V. The New Testament Canon.-The word Canon means literally a carpenter's rule. Hence, by an easy transition, it is used to signify a rule or test in language, art, or religion. As applied to Scripture it may mean either the rules or principles by which the right of any book to be in the Bible is determined, or the authority of such book or books as a rule of faith and practice. It is in the latter sense that the word is now generally used. The term "Canonical books" means the books which afford an

See for examples the arrest of Christ, the trial, and Peter's denials. Matt., chap. 26, and notes......Such as Romans 13: 8, 9... See for example Notes on Matt. 5: 19, 44; 625; 7: 1-5. The instances are very numerous: these may serve to illustrate my meaning.

authoritative rule, in contrast with those which are uninspired and hence afford only human instruction. The history of the formation of the New Testament and the principles which determine what books belong to it and are authoritative, constitute therefore the theme of this section. What evidence have we that the New Testament which we now possess includes the inspired productions of the Apostles and excludes spurious imitations? in other words, what evidence is there that we have the true canon or rule? The evidence is of two kinds : external or historical, and internal or spiritual.

I. External or Historical Evidence.-To the question, When, where, and by whom were the books of the New Testament collected into one volume? no answer can be given. The New Testament was not formed; it grew. The external evidence of its authenticity and authority is to be found in a history of that growth, and of the testimony of writers. immediately succeeding the apostolic age.

The Gospels bear the evidence in themselves that they were written for the information of the disciples of Jesus Christ, especially for those who had not directly received the Master's instructions, and who had not access to the verbal teaching of eye and ear witnesses. The Epistles were written, either to local churches or to particular individuals, to impart, in a more systematic form, the precepts and principles of Christianity, to correct particular errors, or to afford instruction or inspiration needed in particular churches. Both apostles and churches anticipated the speedy second coming of Jesus Christ, and there is nothing to indicate that either recognized in these separate treatises a contribution to a permanent and universal book. But that the writers claimed to speak by authority of God, and in a peculiar sense under his inspiration, we have already seen.2 The writers of the New Testament were, moreover, all immediate disciples of Jesus. Christ, excepting Paul, who claimed to have received instruction directly from the risen Lord, and to be therefore not less an apostle than the twelve. The epistles thus received by the church from the immediate disciples of the Lord would be naturally held as a sacred possession. They were read publicly in the church services; churches exchanged their epistles one with another; they were unmistakably regarded by both writers and recipients as authoritative; and in one significant passage Peter expressly classifies the writings of Paul with the Old Testament Scriptures. Thus, toward the close of the first century the materials for the New Testament had been accumulated. Each church possessed, in addition to a copy of the Old Testament in common with the Jewish Synagogue, a letter or a gospel, or two or three letters, obtained by a system of exchange, while no church probably possessed the entire New Testament collection. It existed, but in fragments, and divided among the different churches.

The apostles died, leaving these writings as a legacy to the infant churches. As tradition grew more and more remote, and direct counsel from the apostles in the solution of questions of ritual, government, discipline, and doctrine was no longer attainable, these writings appreciated in value, and the authority of the letter was established by the death of the writer. Meanwhile, with the growth of the church, heresies sprang up. The heretics were often unprincipled. They sometimes mutilated the apostolic writings,. sometimes denied their authenticity and authority, sometimes endeavored to palm off upon the churches spurious doctrines, with the sanction of a forged apostle's name. These practices, of which we get some hints even in the New Testament,' and some indications in very early corruptions of the text, increased after the death of the inspired

1 Luke 1:1-4; John 20: 30, 31 Ephes. 3: 3...... 1 Thess. 5: 27.

72 Pet. 3: 16.

* See under Section III...... 1 Cor. 9: 1; 15: 8; Gal. 1: 15, 16; 2: 2;. Col. 4: 16...... Acts 15: 23-31; 2 Cor. 10: 1-10; Rev., chap. 2: 3.

Mr. Norton, Genuineness of the Gospels, estimates that as many as 60.000 copies of the Gospels were in circulation by the end of the second century, by which time, however, the N. T. canon had been substantially organized..... 2 Tim. 1: 15; Titus 1: 10-14; Rev. 22: 18, 19,