But

assume the Bible in this argument to be inspired. now we take it only as a book of truth, declaring true doctrines and true history; as such we receive it, and by itself prove its inspiration.

It is declared in 2 Pet. i, 20, 21, in reference to the Old Testament Scriptures, that "no prophecy of Scripture is of any private interpretation;" that is, obtained by individual means, from human sagacity or reasoning, but it is rather obtained from God: "for the prophecy came not in old time by the will of man, but holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost." Here we have an unequivocal declaration in regard to the Old Testament Scriptures, that men wrote them as they were moved by the Holy Ghost. They wrote as they were moved: as a vessel is moved by the winds, so they were impelled by the Spirit of God; that is, the writing, the very words, were the work of God, and not of man. Thus the declaration of the text is verified, "All Scripture is given by inspiration of God."

If we claim this high authority for the Old Testament Scriptures, much more may we for the New Testament. The Old Testament dispensation was introductory to the gospel, and preparatory to it. It was a dispensation of types and shadows of better things to come. The grace of God was bound to the Jewish people. But, under the gospel, the promises of God and the grace of God are extended to all the world. Under the gospel, the glory of the Saviour is seen, and the power of the Spirit is exemplified in the conversion and sanctification of sinners. It is the age of contest and struggle between the powers of darkness and of light. Does the sword of the Spirit, which is the word of God, need to be less sharp and mighty under the gospel than under the law? If, then, the Old Testament Scriptures were inspired, much more shall we find inspiration in the New.

In Matthew x, 19, Jesus uttered to the twelve these remarkable words as he was about to send them forth to preach: "When they deliver you up, take no thought how or what ye shall speak: for it shall be given you in that same hour what ye shall speak; for it is not ye that speak, but the Spirit of your Father which speaketh in you." They are assured that the Spirit of God would speak through them,

when called to stand before kings and councils. If the inspiration of the Holy Ghost was necessary to enable the apostles to answer before kings, how much more necessary was it that it should be in the written word, which must stand for ever as God's testimony to the children of men! If God inspired the words which the apostles should speak before synagogues and councils for their personal defense, how much more should they be guided by the Holy Spirit when the whole church of God was to be defended against the power and malice of Satan, his principalities, his thrones and dominions!

That the writings of the apostle Paul are inspired, and placed upon the same footing as those of the Old Testament Scriptures, appear clearly from 2 Pet. iii, 15, 16: "Even as our beloved brother Paul also, according to the wisdom given unto him, hath written unto you; and also in all his epistles, speaking in them of these things; in which are some things hard to be understood, which they that are unlearned and unstable wrest, as they do also THE OTHER SCRIPTURES, unto their own destruction."

The apostle Peter therefore recognizes all the epistles of Paul as on the same footing with "the other Scriptures,” and, consequently, as divinely inspired.

66

Paul also asserts the fact of his own inspiration in various passages, as 1 Cor. ii, 10, 12, 13, and Gal. i, 11, 12. The above considerations, and Scriptural arguments, seem to us to leave no room to doubt the plenary inspiration of what the apostles wrote. Indeed the writers of the New Testament generally, like those of the Old Testament, proclaim their words by a Thus saith the Lord." Some writers have objected, that as Mark and Luke were not apostles, they were not inspired. But this does not seem at all probable, since these men were companions of the apostles for more than thirty years after the death of Christ. Mark was the companion of Peter, and Luke of Paul, in their journeys and trials. Their works too were composed at an early date and delivered to the churches. If they had not had a good and sufficient claim to inspiration, they never would nor could have been received by the church as canonical Scriptures. Though they were not apostles, yet they were sent out by our Lord in the number of the seventy, as all tradition testifies. Be

sides, were they not endowed with miraculous gifts? Would the apostles have traveled from place to place with these men as companions in order to communicate to others these miraculous gifts, and yet not confer them upon their beloved and holy companions in the work of the gospel? This cannot be supposed or believed. The early church received these writings without controversy, which could not have been the case had not their claims been valid as sacred books.

II. We pass to consider, in the second place, some objections.

Various objections have been raised against the inspiration of the Holy Scriptures, a few of which it will be proper for us here to notice.

1. The first, and one which is frequently in the mouths of infidels, is that there are contradictions in the Scriptures, and therefore they cannot be inspired. A few instances we will give, together with their answers.

(1.) It is objected that Matthew and Luke have contradicted each other in relating the genealogy of our Saviour. The answer to this apparent contradiction between the two evangelists is, in brief, the following. Matthew traces the descent of Christ through the line of Joseph back to David; and Luke traces his descent through Mary, his mother, back to David. Matthew would show the Jew that Christ was son and heir of all the kings of Judah by a legal descent; while Luke would show the Gentiles his natural descent. Matthew shows his lineage through Joseph to Solomon; and Luke through Mary to Nathan, another son of David. Thus one of the greatest difficulties which infidelity can bring against divine inspiration disappears at once before the touch of investigation.

(2.) It is objected again that Matthew and Luke have Matthew says that "Judas went out and hung himself;” contradicted each other in the account of the death of Judas. and in Acts i, 18, it is said that "falling headlong, his bowels gushed out." Here is no contradiction, as Dr. Clarke has plainly shown. There are two circumstances here related in the death of Judas, one of which occurred after the other. Judas hung himself; and then what could have been more natural, in the rocky and precipitous neighborof Jerusalem, when the traitor was cut down or fell

down from his place of hanging, than that his bowels should gush out?

(3.) Again it is objected, that Matthew and Mark have contradicted each other in the account of the blind men. Matthew tells us (xx, 3) that "two blind men were sitting by the wayside," &c.; while Mark (x, 46) speaks of only one, Bartimeus the son of Timeus. It requires no great penetration to see that here is no contradiction. Mark mentions the fact of only one blind man, while Matthew speaks of another who was in his company. Matthew only adds to what Mark declares, but an addition is certainly no contradiction. Other examples might be adduced of this kind of objections, but the above may suffice as being among the strongest which can be brought forward.

2. Another class of objections against the plenary inspiration of the Scriptures is founded on the imperfect state of the text, its variations in the reading and punctuations. It is said if the original manuscript copies were inspired, still the present copies can have no such claim, for they have been transcribed, and are so much altered from their originals, that many thousands of variations are now pointed out and recorded between the different manuscripts. In answer to this objection,

(1.) Let it be remembered, in the first place, that it does not apply to the original copies, which were written by the hands of the prophets and the apostles. How far it applies to our copies in present use we shall see presently.

(2.) Let it be borne in mind, also, that about threefourths of these variations are not variations in the original text, but in the punctuations and glosses which have crept into the text. The original Hebrew was without vowel points and marks of punctuation. The original Greek also was without division of chapters, verses, and words, and therefore all the variations which belong to these matters are entirely irrelevant to the question of inspiration.

(3.) Let it be further remembered, that though the Old Testament has been copied for thirty-three centuries, and the New Testament for eighteen centuries, a watchful Providence has made the most careful provision to keep them entire and inviolate. It was the business of the tribe of Levi to keep and copy the sacred books; and from very early ages every letter, every word, and every paragraph,

of the sacred books was numbered, and their numbers remain the same to the present day. The Jews have always watched over their sacred books with the greatest care and keenest jealousy. Every letter was marshaled into its place, and portions of the sacred text were daily reviewed by some of the great college of scribes. It was therefore next to an impossibility that a letter should get out of its place or be lost without being detected. Further, if a manuscript was found to have a single mistake it was thrown aside as defiled, or committed to the flames, so that no false copies could come from it afterward.

(4.) We should remark again, that if in the course of ages, and in different countries, variations or additions did creep into the sacred text, they are mostly the substitution of one letter for another which is similar in form, as a vaw for a yode, which as a general thing does not alter the

sense.

(5.) Again we would remark, that though there is doubt as to the purity of some words or clauses of the sacred text, yet all sound critics are united in the sentiment that the worst copy of the Scriptures that has ever been found has not vitiated one single important doctrine or precept. The great body of the text, therefore, being pure and unimpaired, the exceptions being few and far between, the doctrine of the inspiration of the sacred text is no more affected than the everlasting truths which it contains. The body of the sacred text is preserved to us, as well as the body of sacred truth; a few human and corrupted additions may have been made, but this cannot destroy the truth of God nor the sacred text. We may say to all, then, as the pious Bengel said to his pupil Reuss: “Eat the bread of the Scriptures." What though there be now and then a grain of the millstone fallen into the flour, this does not destroy the bread. Eat, then, the bread of the Scriptures, as God's own word by which we may live for

ever.

3. Another objection which has been urged against plenary or verbal inspiration is founded on the individuality of the sacred writers. It is said that the personal peculiarities of the writers, and even their infirmities, are

nly evident in their writings: as, for example, the

s of Paul are deep, abstruse, and argumentative;