stance in mind, if we combine the words of S. Peter, "We are His witnesses, and so is also the Holy Ghost," with the suggestive statement of S. James, by which he prefaced the decision of the Council of Jerusalem, "It seemed good to the Holy Ghost AND to Us”—our conclusion is still further strengthened. The words "and to us," can never be taken to represent the Apostles as separated from the influence of the Spirit and whether we understand the passage to mean "it seemed good to the Holy Ghost working in us ;" or, rather, as signifying the employment, by the Spirit, of the personal agency of the Apostles, and that His Divine Testimony was conjoined with their human testimony, -we equally see the fact expressed of the harmonious combination of the Divine and the human intelligence. The language, in a word, is that of men who are moved by the Divine impulse; but who do not lay aside their own intellectual individuality, which is made use of by the Supreme Intelligence, in order to shed a human coloring over the truths which He imparts."

2

dass Mangel an Befähigung, das Thatsächliche zu wissen und zu schreiben, entschieden ausschliesst."Apologetik, s. 421. 1 Εδοξεν γὰρ τῷ Πνεύματι τῷ Ἁγίῳ καὶ ἡμῖν—Acts, xv. 28 ; "which style," observes Hooker, "they did not use as matching themselves in power with the Holy Ghost, but as testifying the Holy Ghost to be the Author, and themselves but only utterers of that decree."-Eccl. Pol, B. iii. c. x., vol. i. p. 385.

* *

2 The unhesitating submission of the whole Christian community to this decree of the Council of Jerusalem--which in fact abrogated the literal signification of the Law, -was the clearest proof that the Church could have given of its belief in the inspired authority of the Apostles, and in the justice of the claim, here advanced by them, of combining in their decision their own conclusion with that suggested by the Holy Ghost. A very different interpretation has been given by Bishop Burnet, when arguing that this passage affords no support to the authority claimed for General Councils: "The Apostles here, receiving no inspiration to direct them in this case, but observing well what S. Peter put them in mind of, concerning God's sending him by a special vision to preach to the Gentiles, * they upon this did by their judgment conclude from thence, that what God had done in the particular instance of Cornelius was now to be extended to all the Gentiles. So by this we see that those words 'seemed good to the Holy Ghost' relate to the case of Cornelius; and those words 'seemed good to us' import that they [i. e. by their own uninspired judgment] resolved to extend that to be a general rule to all the Gentiles."-On the XXXIX. Articles, Art. xxi. The acute writer seems, however, not to have observed that such an interpretation of the passage overturns the conclusion which he sought to build upon it. If the Apostles, assembled in Council at Jerusalem, had "received no inspiration to direct them,"-an assertion which the mere nature of the question they were discussing proves to be wholly gratuitous; if, indeed, this were not a case per se, and the Apostles differed in no respect from the members of any future Council in the matter of immediate supernatural aid, then, assuredly, such future Councils must have a perfect right to claim authority equal to that of any other which was similarly without "inspiration to direct" it. Any Council at the present day may, therefore, according to Bishop Burnet's hypothesis, similarly preface its decrees by the formula, "It seemed good to the Holy Ghost and to us"-in whatever sense these words are to be taken, and may fairly demand the same deference for its Canons, as Scripture

II. The second class of passages above referred to, in which inspired men claim infallible authority for their own words and writings, may now be briefly examined. We have just seen how the human testimony of the Apostles was exalted into Divine Testimony by the co-operation of the Spirit of God. The effect of this influence upon their minds cannot be more forcibly illustrated than by the confident tone in which all their statements are advanced. No honest and merely human historian has ever dared to write thus. When recording the minute facts of his history, the greater his honesty the less willing is he to express himself with too great assurance. The writers of Scripture, on the other hand, never admit the possibility of their assertions being erroneous. I need only mention the Preface to S. Luke's Gospel. Although "many had taken in hand" to record the facts of the Life of Christ, this Evangelist takes up his pen to represent them with "unerring accuracy." Modestly though the sacred penmen judged of themselves on other occasions, they never drop the slightest hint that aught which could be regarded as the effect of their former prejudices adheres to their teaching. Nay, if the doctrine imparted by them is assailed in any of its aspects, they reject such opposition with the utmost energy as something perverse, and wholly untenable. This feature of their writings we can trace in the language of S. Paul and S. Peter, of S. James and S. John. S. Paul even pronounces the most fearful malediction upon all who advance doctrines contrary to his own: Though an angel from heaven preach any other Gospel unto you than that which we have preached unto you, let him be accursed." They neither intimate, as I have already shown, that this infallible doctrine had been derived from previous principles by their own reasoning powers, nor do they ever pride themselves

66

3

1

2

implies that the Church was bound to pay to the decision of the "uninspired" members of the Council of Jerusalem.

1

'Aopúλeia.-S. Luke, i. 4. Cf. supra, Lecture ii. p. 56, note 1.

2 The argument, derived from the silence of the sacred writers on this head, becomes much stronger when we remember that, as has been proved in the last Discourse (see supra, p. 221, &c.), they were perfectly conscious that infallibility did not attach itself to their conduct on those occasions when they did not act under the immediate influence of Inspiration.

3 Cf. Col. ii.; 2 S. Pet. ii.; S. James, ii. ; 2 S. John, 9, &c. See Steudel's "Zeitschrift," for 1832. H. iii. s. 13.

4 Παρ' ὅ εὐηγγελισάμεθα ὑμῖν, ἀνάθεμα ἔστω.-Gal. i. 8. Cf. too, the tone of com mand so constantly assumed: e. g. "Thern that are such we command and exhort by our Lord Jesus Christ," &c.-2 Thess. iii. 12.

2

upon their disinterested devotion to the service of the Gospel. They refer all to the illuminating influence of God. "Unto me," writes S. Paul, "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." The obligation under which all men are placed of accepting with entire submission the doctrines thus preached, the sacred writers infer from the fact that their labors had been accompanied by such miracles as attest the authority of an Apostle. This authority, moreover, the New Testament defines as being equal to that of the Prophets: "You are built," declares S. Paul, "upon the foundation of the Apostles and Prophets ;" and S. Peter admonishes the Church to be "mindful of the words which were spoken before by the holy Prophets, and of the commandment of us the Apostles of the Lord and Saviour.' And when we bear in mind the manner in which the different authors of the New Testament refer to the Prophets, and how they declare the old Testament to have been 'given by Inspiration of God;" we cannot escape from the conclusion that they claim for their own teaching the same Divine guidance which they, on all occasions, attribute to those "men of God, who spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost.”

5

It has been objected, indeed, that the promises of Christ had relation merely to the oral teaching of the Apostles, not to their written compositions. Not to insist again upon the obvious remark already made, that if the guidance of the Holy Spirit was needed to direct them when teaching their contemporaries or pleading their cause before rulers, à fortiori was similar guidance necessary when they were about to bequeath instruction to every future age-not to repeat, I say, such an observation, the sacred penmen themselves expressly claim the same authority whether

1 Eph. iii. 8.

2 Rom. xv. 19; 2 Cor. xii. 12; Heb. ii. 4.

3 Eph. ii. 20. The Apostles, observes S. Chrysostom on this passage, are placed first in order, although last in point of time: S. Paul hereby declaring-orɩ Oɛμéλiós εἰσι καὶ οὗτοι καὶ ἐκεῖνοι, καὶ μία οἰκοδομὴ τὸ πᾶν, καὶ ῥίζα μία.—Homil. vi. in Ep. ad Eph., t. xi. p. 39.

4 2 S. Pet. iii. 2. Cf. S. Jude, 17, 18.

5 Mr. Morell seems to consider-no doubt consistently with his general viewsthat neither the oral nor the written teaching of the Apostles can be regarded as inspired: "We cannot infer that they [the Books of the New Testament] are verbally inspired, any more than were the oral teachings of the Apostles. We cannot infer that they had any greater authority attached to them than the general authority which was attached to the apostolic office."-Philosophy of Religion, p. 182. See supra, Lecture iv. p. 143, note 2.

they refer to their written or to their oral teaching. S. John declares of his Gospel, "These are written, that ye might believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God; and that, believing, ye might have life through His name."" S. Paul admonishes the Thessalonians to "stand fast, and hold the traditions which they had been taught, whether by word, or our Epistle." Nor are we to imagine that the influence of the Holy Spirit extended merely to the contents of the Apostles' writings, suggesting the doctrines which they were to teach, and the facts which they were to record we find the same Divine guidance claimed for the language also which they employ. The passage selected as the text of this Discourse of itself establishes this fact: "Which things we speak, not in the words which man's wisdom teacheth, but which the Holy Ghost teacheth." And to the same effect, S. Paul again thanks God that the Thessalonians received the word of God which they had heard from him, "not as the word of men, but as it is in truth, the word of God.""

2

3

· Ταῦτα δὲ γέγραπται.-S. John, xx. 31.

· Εἴτε διὰ λόγου εἴτε δι' ἐπιστολῆς ἡμῶν.2 Thess. ii. 15.

3 Dr. Henderson urges the following curious objection against views of this na ture: A fourth argument against the notion of an entirely literal inspiration of the sacred Scriptures, is its tendency to sink the authority of faithful translations, by depriving them of all claim to that quality."-Divine Inspiration, p. 433.

4 1 Cor. ii. 13. "Α καὶ λαλοῦμεν οὐκ ἐν διδακτοῖς ἀνθρωπίνης σοφίας λόγοις ἀλλ' ἐν didakтoîç Ivεúμатоs. If any objective truth is to be ascribed to these words, we can entertain but one opinion as to the source and character of the language of Scripture.

5 1 Thess. ii. 13. In the neglect of this great truth-viz., that the genuine idea of "the word of God" is not only to be found in the Bible, but that it is the very condition of its existence as Holy Scripture,-consists the grand defect of many modern theories on the subject of Inspiration. That Scripture is "the word of God” to man, conveyed, it is true, at different periods, and with different degrees of clearness--but ever acomplishing the end for which it was designed--was the foundation of the creed of the early Church. Hence the language of the inspired writers has been profoundly termed by Origen, ¿pyarıкòv pua. To this effect he observes: 7ɩ χρὴ νοεῖν περὶ τῶν προφητῶν, ἢ ὅτι πᾶν ῥῆμα λαληθὲν διὰ στόματος αὐτῶν ἐργατικὸν ἦν ; καὶ οὐ θαυμαστὸν εἰ πᾶν ῥῆμα τὸ λαλούμενον ὑπὸ τῶν προφητῶν εἰργάζετο ἔργον τὸ πρέπον ῥήματι. ἀλλὰ γὰρ οἶμαι ὅτι καὶ πᾶν θαυμάσιον γράμμα τὸ γεγραμμένον ἐν τοῖς λογίοις τοῦ Θεοῦ ἐργάζεται. καὶ οὐκ ἔστιν ἰῶτα ἕν, ἢ μία κεραία γεγραμμένη ἐν τῇ γραφῇ, ἥτις τοῖς ἐπισταμένοις χρῆσθαι τῇ δυνάμει τῶν γραμμάτων, οὐκ ἐργάζεται τὸ εavτπs épуov.-Homil. xxxix. in Jerem., t. iii. p. 286. Cf. Rudelbach, "Die Lehre von der Insp." 1840. H. i. s. 7. "The only-begotten Son, which is in the bosom of the Father, He hath revealed Him.' It is as a Personal Being, therefore, commu. nicating with us through those functions of soul and body, which He has vouchsafed to share with ourselves, that the Eternal Word discovers Himself. But so far as the knowledge which He communicates is clothed in earthly words, it is as capable of being conveyed to those to whom it comes in books, as it was to those to whom it addressed itself through their hearing. Therefore were men who had perfect understanding of all things from the very first' moved 'to write in order,' that subsequent generations might know the certainty of those things wherein' they had been instructel' Thus did it please Him, who made Himself visible only to the men of

I cannot close this branch of the subject without adverting to the objection usually urged against all arguments such as I have just advanced. If, indeed, the nature of those arguments. be kept in view--founded as they are upon the whole tenor of Scripture, and the express statements of the sacred writers—it must surely appear antecedently improbable in the highest degree, that any difficulty, suggested by the language of the inspired penmen themselves, can be either real or valid. The objection, however, to which I allude is founded upon a passage in the New Testamant; and it furnishes the ordinary burden of all popular reasoning against any strict view of Inspiration.' In the seventh chapter of the first Epistle to the Corinthians, S. Paul writes at the tenth verse: "Unto the married I command, yet not I, but the Lord"-words in which he obviously places his own injunction on a perfect equality with that "of the Lord," and which, therefore, merely supply another proof of his inspired authority in addition to the kindred passages already considered. So far, it is plain, no objection arises. But the Apostle, continuing his subject, shortly afterwards adds, "To the rest speak I, not the Lord;" observing further, with reference to a third class, "I have no commandment of the Lord, yet I give my judgment :"-by which language he is supposed to intimate that, in certain parts

one generation, to 'pour out doctrine as prophecy, and leave it to all ages for ever. -Wilberforce, On the Incarnation, p. 476.

1 Thus Perrone writes, in continuation of the passage already cited (p. 239, note 1): "Quamvis porro videantur apostoli privilegium de quo est sermo sibi tribuere, alibi tamen, si insistas literæ, videntur sibi denegare, ut 1 Cor. vii. 12, 40; xiv. 37, 38 (?), quæ reipsa loca, una cum pluribus aliis, nobis objiciuntur a rationalistis ad excludendam divinorum Bibliorum inspirationem." See also Spinoza, "Tract. Theol. Polit., cap. xi.

2 It must be carefully noted here, that the difficulty which this chapter has suggested to many, does not commence at ver. 6 ("I speak this by permission, and not of commandment— τοῦτο δὲ λέγω κατὰ συγγνώμην, οὐ κατ' ἐπιταγήν."), as the ambiguity of the English word "permission" by which ovyyvóun is rendered, might lead us at first to suppose:-but where ovyyvóun, which does not occur elsewhere in the New Testament, can only mean, (1) forgiveness; (2) indulgence. As Olshausen observes, σvyyvóun differs from yváμn (ver. 25) only so far as the "judgment" of the Apostle comprises the additional notion of a concession; cf. Vulg., "Secundum indulgentiam." The meaning, then, of ver. 6 is, "But this I say by way of allowance (for you), not by way of command,"-"this" (TOTO) referring to the whole recommendation given in ver. 5; or, perhaps, as Olshausen thinks, to the preceding verses also. This is proved beyond a question by ver. 7-" For I would that all men were even as I myself," &c. The recommendation, therefore. of ver. 5 is given not as a command in all cases, but as an allowance to those to whom he [S. Paul] was writing, whom he knew and assumes to be thus tempted."-Alford, in loc. The difficulty first arises at the passage commencing with ver. 10.

3 Verses 12 and 25