17. Show that the writers of the Old Testament claim to be inspired?

1st. Moses claimed that he wrote a part at least of the Pentateuch by divine command.-Deut. xxxi., 19-22; xxxiv., 10; Num. xvi., 28, 29. David claimed it.-2 Sam. xxiii., 2.

2d. As a characteristic fact, the Old Testament writers speak not in their own name, but preface their messages with, "Thus saith the Lord," "The mouth of the Lord hath spoken it,"etc.Jer. ix., 12; xiii., 13; xxx., 4; Isa. viii., 1; xxxiii., 10; Mic. iv., 4; Amos iii., 1; Deut. xviii., 21, 22; 1 Kings xxi., 28; 1 Chron. xvii., 3.-Dr. Hodge.

18. How was their claim confirmed?

1st. Their claim was confirmed to their cotemporaries by the miracles they wrought, by the fulfillment of many of their predictions, (Num. xvi., 28, 29), by the holiness of their lives, the moral and spiritual perfection of their doctrine, and the practical adaptation of the religious system they revealed to the urgent wants of men.

2d. Their claim is confirmed to us principally, (1.) By the remarkable fulfillment, in far subsequent ages, of many of their prophesies. (2.) By the evident relation of the symbolical religion which they promulgated to the facts and doctrines of Christianity, proving a divine preadjustment of the type to the antitype. (3.) By the endorsation of Christ and his apostles.

19. What are the formulas by which quotations from the Old Testament are introduced into the New, and how do these forms of expression prove the inspiration of the ancient Scriptures?

"The Holy Ghost saith," Heb. iii., 7. "The Holy Ghost this signifying," Heb. ix., 8. "God saith," Acts ii., 17, and Isa. xliv., 3; 1 Cor. ix., 9, 10, and Deut. xxv., 4. "The Scriptures saith," Rom. iv., 3; Gal. iv., 30. "It is written," Luke xviii., 31; xxi., 22; John ii., 17; xx., 31. "The Lord by the mouth of his servant David says," Acts iv., 25, and Ps. ii., 1, 2. "The Lord limiteth in David a certain day, saying," Heb. iv., 7; Ps. xcv., 7. "David in spirit says," Matt. xxii., 43, and Ps. cx., 1.

Thus these Old Testament writings are what God saith, what

God saith by David, etc., and are quoted as the authoritative basis for conclusive argumentation, therefore they must have been inspired.

20. How may the inspiration of the Old Testament writers be proved by the express declarations of the New Testament?

Luke i., 70; Heb. i., 1; 2 Tim. iii., 16; 1 Pet. i., 10-12; 2 Pet. i., 21.

21. What is the argument on this subject drawn from the manner in which Christ and his apostles argue from the Old Testament as of final authority?

Christ constantly quotes the old Testament, Matt. xxi., 13; xxii., 43. He declares that it can not be falsified, John vii., 23; x., 35; that the whole law must be fulfilled, Matt. v., 18; and all things also foretold concerning himself" in Moses, the prophets, and the psalms," Luke xxiv., 44. The apostles habitually quote the Old Testament in the same manner, "That it might be fulfilled which was written," is with them a characteristic formula, Matt. i., 22; ii., 15, 17, 23; John xii., 38; xv., 25, etc. They all appeal to the words of Scripture as of final authority. This certainly proves infallibility.

22. What is the objection to the doctrine of inspiration drawn from the diversity of style and manner observable among the several sacred writings, and the answer to it?

It is an acknowledged fact that all of the national and sectional peculiarities and individual qualities and habits of each of the sacred writers appear in his work, because his natural faculties were freely exercised after their kind in its production. Some have argued from this fact that it is absurd to believe that those faculties could at the same time, and with reference to the same object, have been subject to any determinating divine influence.

However it may be with the Arminian, the Calvinist can find no special difficulty here. We can not understand how the infinite Spirit acts upon the finite spirit in providence or in grace The case of inspiration is so far forth precisely analogous. God works by means, from the beginning pre-adjusting the means to the end, and then concurrently directing them while they freely

શ્રી ન

act to that end. God surely might as easily guide the free souls of men in spontaneously producing an infallible Scripture, as in spontaneously realizing in act the events foreordained in his eternal decree.

23. What is the objection to this doctrine drawn from the free manner in which the New Testament writers quote those of the Old Testament, and the answer to that objection?

In a majority of instances the New Testament writers quote those of the Old Testament with perfect verbal accuracy. Sometimes they quote the Septuagint version, when it conforms to the Hebrew; at others they substitute a new version; and at other times again they adhere to the Septuagint, when it differs from the Hebrew. In a number of instances, which however are comparatively few, their quotations from the Old Testament are made very freely, and in apparent accommodation of the literal sense.

Rationalistic interpreters have argued from this last class of quotations that it is impossible that both the Old Testament writer quoted from, and the New Testament writer quoting could have been the subjects of plenary inspiration, because, say they, if the ipsissima verba were infallible in the first instance, an infallible writer would have transferred them unchanged. But surely if a human author may quote himself freely, changing the expression, and giving a new turn to his thought in order to adapt it the more perspicuously to his present purpose, the Holy Spirit may take the same liberty with his own. The same Spirit that rendered the Old Testament writers infallible in writing only pure truth, in the very form that suited his purpose then, has rendered the New Testament writers infallible in so using the old materials, that while they elicit a new sense, they teach only the truth, the very truth moreover contemplated in the mind of God from the beginning, and they teach it with divine authority. See Fairbairn's Herm. Manual, Part III. Each instance of such quotation should be examined in detail, as Dr. Fairbairn has done.

24. Upon what principles are we to answer the objections founded upon the alleged discrepances between the sacred writers, and upon their alleged inaccuracies in matters of science?

If either of these objections were founded on facts, it would

clearly disprove the doctrine we maintain. That neither of them is founded on fact can be shown only by a detailed examination of each instance alleged. As a general principle it is evident—

1st. With regard to apparent discrepancies between the sacred writers, that nothing presents any difficulty short of a clear and direct contradiction. Different writers may, of course, with perfect accuracy represent different details of the same occurrence, or different views of the same fact, and different elements and relations of the same great doctrine, as may best suit their several designs. Instead of this course proving inconsistency, it is precisely God's plan for bringing the whole truth most fully and clearly to our knowledge.

2d. With respect to apparent inaccuracies in matters of science, that the sacred writers having for their design to teach moral and religious truth, and not physical science, use on all such subjects the common language of their cotemporaries, always speaking of natural phenomena as they appear, and not as they really are. And yet revelation does not present one single positive statement which is not consistent with all the facts known to men, in any department of nature. In the progress of science, human ignorance and premature generalization have constantly presented difficulties in the reconciliation of the word of God with man's theory of his works. The advance of perfected knowledge has uniformly removed the difficulty.

CHAPTER V.

THE RULE OF FAITH AND PRACTICE.

THE SCRIPTURES OF THE OLD AND NEW TESTAMENTS, HAVING BEEN GIVEN BY INSPIRATION OF GOD, ARE THE ALL-SUFFICIENT AND ONLY RULE OF FAITH AND PRACTICE, AND judge of CONTROVERSIES. (This chapter is compiled from Dr. Hodge's unpublished Lectures on the Church.)

1. What is meant by saying that the Scriptures are the only infallible rule of faith and practice?

Whatever God teaches or commands is of sovereign authority. Whatever conveys to us an infallible knowledge of his teachings and commands is an infallible rule. The Scriptures of the Old and New Testaments are the only organs through which, during the present dispensation, God conveys to us a knowledge of his will about what we are to believe concerning himself, and what duties he requires of us.

2. What does the Romish Church declare to be the infallible rule of faith and practice?

The Romish theory is that the complete rule of faith and practice consists of Scripture and tradition, or the oral teaching of Christ and his apostles, handed down through the church. Tradition they hold to be necessary, 1st, to teach additional truth not contained in the Scriptures; and, 2d, to interpret Scripture. The church being the divinely constituted depository and judge of both Scripture and tradition. Decrees of Council of Trent, Session IV, and Dens Theo., Tom. II., N. 80 & 81.

3. By what arguments do they seek to establish the authority of tradition? By what criterion do they distinguish true traditions from false, and on what grounds do they base the au thority of the traditions they receive?