II. _The Acknowledged Epistles_, 6. It is well known that doubts existed, to a greater or less extent, in the primitive churches before the fourth century, respecting the apostolic origin and authority of certain books which now constitute a part of the New Testament canon.
Hence the distinction made by Eusebius between the _acknowledged_ books, (_homologoumena_) that is, those that were universally received from the first, and the _disputed_ books, (_antilegomena_,) books respecting which some entertained doubts. The _acknowledged_ books are, the four gospels, the Acts of the Apostles, the thirteen epistles of Paul which bear his name at the beginning, the first epistle of Peter, and the first epistle of John; twenty in all. The _disputed_ books are, the epistle to the Hebrews, the epistle of James, the second epistle of Peter, the second and third epistles of John, the epistle of Jude, and the book of Revelation; seven in all. The gospels and the Acts have been already considered, and the disputed books are reserved for the following chapter. Some remarks will here be made on the fifteen acknowledged epistles.
7. The epistles of Paul may be conveniently distributed into two groups, of which the second or smaller contains the three pastoral epistles, and the former or larger, the remaining ten. Of the apostolic origin of the larger group little needs to be said. They bear throughout the impress of genuineness and authenticity. No doubts were ever entertained concerning them in the ancient churches. There is, indeed, some ground for suspecting that a few ancient copies of the epistle to the Ephesians omitted the words _at Ephesus_--more literally _in Ephesus_--chap. 1:1.
But the genuineness of these words is sustained by an overwhelming weight of evidence, and that Paul was the author of the epistle was never once doubted by the ancient churches. The arguments of some modern writers against its apostolic origin have no real weight, as will be shown hereafter in the introduction to the epistle.
Respecting the apostolic authorship of the three pastoral epistles, two to Timothy and one to Titus, there was never any doubt in the ancient churches. They are supported by the testimony of the Peshito-Syriac version, of the Muratorian canon, also, (as appears from Jerome's letter to Marcella and the quotations of the church fathers before him,) of the Old Latin version; of Irenaeus, Tertullian, Clement of Alexandria, and a multitude of later writers. There are also some allusions to these epistles in the apostolic fathers, which seem to be decisive.
Such are the following: "Let us therefore approach to him in holiness of soul, _lifting up_ to him _holy_ and unpolluted _hands_." Clement of Rome, First Epistle to the Corinthians, chap. 29. "But the beginning of all mischief is the love of money. Knowing, therefore, that _we brought nothing into the world neither have power to carry any thing out_, let us arm ourselves with the armor of righteousness." Polycarp, Epistle to the Philippians, chap. 4. The student may see other supposed allusions in Kirchhofer, Quellensammlung; Lardner, 2:39; Davidson's Introduction, 3, p. 101 seq.; Alford's New Testament, Introduction to the Pastoral Epistles, etc.
Respecting the _date_ of the pastoral epistles very different opinions are held. The whole discussion turns on the question whether they were written _before_ or _after_ Paul's imprisonment at Rome, which is recorded in the last chapter of the Acts of the Apostles; and this again is connected with the further question whether he underwent a second imprisonment at Rome, concerning which learned men are not agreed. The full discussion of this matter belongs to the introduction to the pastoral epistles. It may be simply remarked, however, that the internal arguments in favor of a late date are very strong, and that its assumption accounts for the development of such a state of things at Ephesus as appears in the two pastoral epistles to Timothy--a state very different from that which existed when the epistle to the Ephesians was written, between A.D. 60 and 64, and which makes it necessary to separate the first epistle to Timothy from that to the Ephesians by a considerable interval of time.
The _theme_ of the pastoral epistles is _peculiar_. It is the affectionate counsel of an aged apostle to two young preachers and rulers in the church respecting the duties of their office. From the peculiarity of the subject-matter naturally arises, to some extent, a peculiarity in the diction of these epistles; yet the style and costume is throughout that of the apostle Paul.
8. The testimony of the ancient church to the first epistle of Peter and the first of John is very ample. Besides that of the Peshito-Syriac version, and of the church fathers Irenaeus, Tertullian, and Clement of Alexandria, they have in addition that of Papias and the apostolic father Polycarp. The first epistle of John is also included in the Muratorian canon. It scarcely needs, however, any external testimony.
The identity of its author with that of the fourth gospel is so manifest from its whole tone and style, that it has been always conceded that if one of these writings came from the pen of the apostle John, the other did also.
The testimony of Papias to these two epistles, though indirect, is conclusive. Eusebius says, Hist. Eccl. 3. 39, "The same Papias has employed testimonies from the first epistle of John, and in like manner of Peter." Polycarp says, Epistle to the Philippians, ch. 7, "For every one who confesseth not that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh, is anti-Christ," with evident reference to 1 John 4:3. Eusebius says also, Hist. Eccl. 4. 14, that in the same epistle to the Philippians Polycarp "has employed certain testimonies from the first epistle of Peter;"
and when we examine the epistle we find several certain references to it, among which are the following: "In whom, though ye see him not, ye believe; and believing, ye rejoice with joy unspeakable, and full of glory." Chap. 1 compared with 1 Pet. 1:8. "Believing in him who raised up our Lord Jesus Christ from the dead, and gave him glory, and a seat at his right hand." Chap. 2 compared with 1 Pet. 1:21.
9. The relation of the gospel history to the writings now under consideration--the book of Acts and the apostolic epistles--is of the most intimate and weighty character. The truth of the earlier narratives contained in the gospels implies the truth of these later works; for, as already remarked, they are the natural sequel of the events there recorded. On the other hand, the truth of these later writings implies the truth of the gospel history; for in that history they find their full explanation, and without it they are, and must ever remain, inexplicable. All the parts of the New Testament constitute one inseparable whole, and they all shed light upon each other. Like a chain of fortresses in war, they mutually command each other. Unless the whole can be overthrown, no one part can be successfully assailed. But to overthrow the whole is beyond the power of man; for God has guarded it on every side by impregnable bulwarks of evidence.
10. A special argument for the truth of the Scripture history of the apostle Paul may be drawn from the numerous _undesigned coincidences_ between the events recorded in the book of Acts and those referred to in the epistles. This work has been accomplished with great ability and skill by Paley in his Horae Paulinae, to which the reader is referred. The argument is very conclusive; for when we consider the "particularity of St. Paul's epistles, the perpetual recurrence of names of persons and places, the frequent allusions to the incidents of his private life, and the circumstances of his condition and history, and the connection and parallelism of these with the same circumstances in the Acts of the Apostles, so as to enable us, for the most part, to confront them one with another," we must be satisfied that the truth of the history can alone explain such a multitude of coincidences, many of them of a minute character, and all of them manifestly undesigned.
CHAPTER VI.
THE DISPUTED BOOKS.
The grounds on which each of the disputed books--Antilegomena, chap. 5, No. 6--is received into the canon of the New Testament, will be considered in the introduction to these books. In the present chapter some general suggestions will be made which apply to them as a whole.
1. This is not a question concerning the _truth of Christianity_, but concerning the _extent of the canon_; a distinction which is of the highest importance. Some persons, when they learn that doubts existed in the early churches, to a greater or less extent, respecting certain books of the New Testament, are troubled in mind, as if a shade of uncertainty were thereby cast over the whole collection of books. But this is a very erroneous view of the matter. The books of the New Testament, like those of the Old, were written one after another, as occasion required; and the churches received each of them separately on the evidence they had of its apostolic origin and authority. At length collections of these books, that is, _canons_, began to be formed. Such collections translators would of necessity make, unless they found them ready at hand. The earliest canons of which we have any knowledge are contained in the old Latin version, the Syriac version called Peshito, and the Muratorian canon; each of which represented the prevailing judgment of the churches in the region where it was formed. As this judgment differed in the different provinces of Christendom in respect to the books in question, so also do these canons. The Peshito contains the epistle to the Hebrews and that of James, but omits the other five books. The Muratorian canon omits the epistle to the Hebrews, the epistle of James, and the second epistle of Peter; but contains the epistle of Jude, the book of Revelation, and apparently also the second and third of John, though in respect to them its language is obscure and of doubtful interpretation. The old Latin version, so far as we can judge from the quotations of the church fathers, agreed in general with the Muratorian canon. It contained, however, the epistle of James, (Codex Corbeiensis, _ff_,) and that to the Hebrews; and if, as has been supposed, this latter was a later addition, it was yet earlier than the time of Tertullian. See Westcott on the Canon, pp. 282, 283. Now this diversity of judgment with regard to particular books does not affect in the least the remaining books of the New Testament, which are sustained by the authority of all the above-named witnesses, as well as by the undivided testimony of the ancient churches. Did the New Testament claim to be the work of _a single author_, the case would be different. We should then have but _one_ witness; and if certain parts of his testimony could be successfully assailed, this would throw a measure of suspicion on the whole. But now we have in the separate books of the New Testament a _large number_ of witnesses, most of whom are entirely independent of each other. Doubts respecting the testimony of one do not affect that of another. We receive the seven books in question as a part of God's revelation on grounds which we judge adequate, as will be shown in the introductions to the several books. But if any one feels under the necessity of suspending his judgment with respect to one or more of these books, let him follow the teachings of the other books, which are above all doubt. He will find in them all the truth essential to the salvation of his soul; and he will then be in a position calmly to investigate the evidence for the canonical authority of the so-called disputed books.
2. The diversity of judgment which prevailed in the early churches in respect to certain books of the New Testament, is in harmony with all that we know of their character and spirit. It was an age of free inquiry. General councils were not then known, nor was there any central power to impose its decisions on all the churches. In the essential doctrines of the gospel there was everywhere an agreement, especially in receiving the writings acknowledged to be apostolic, as the supreme rule of faith and practice. But this did not exclude differences on minor points in the different provinces of Christendom; and with respect to these the churches of each particular region were tenacious then, as they have been in all ages since, of their peculiar opinions and practices. It is well known, for example, that the churches of Asia Minor differed from those of Rome in the last half of the second century respecting the day on which the Christian festival of the Passover, with the communion service connected with it, should be celebrated; the former placing it on the fourteenth of the month Nisan, the latter on the anniversary of the resurrection Sunday. Nor could the conference between Polycarp, bishop of Smyrna in Asia Minor, and Anicetus, bishop of Rome, about A.D. 162, avail to change the usage of either party, though it did not at that time break the bond of brotherhood between them. We need not be surprised therefore to find a like diversity in different regions respecting certain books of the New Testament. The unanimous belief of the Eastern and Alexandrine churches ascribed to Paul the authorship of the epistle to the Hebrews; but in the Western churches its Pauline authorship was not generally admitted till the fourth century. The Apocalypse, on the contrary, found most favor with the Western or Latin churches. It has in its favor the testimony of the Muratorian canon, which is of Latin origin, and also--as appears from the citations contained in the commentaries of Primasius--that of the old Latin version. Other examples see above, No. 1.
3. Although we cannot account for the universal and undisputed reception of the acknowledged books by all the churches, except on the assumption of their genuineness, the non-reception of a given book by some of the early churches is no conclusive argument against its apostolic origin.
From the influence of circumstances unknown to us, it may have remained for a considerable period of time in comparative obscurity. We have good ground for believing that some apostolic writings are utterly lost. To deny the possibility of this would be to prejudge the wisdom of God. As the apostles delivered many inspired discourses which it did not please the Holy Ghost to have recorded, so they may have written letters which he did not judge needful to make the sacred volume complete. The question is one of fact, not of theory. The most obvious interpretation of 1 Cor. 5:9 and Col. 4:16 is that Paul refers in each case to an epistle which has not come down to us. And if an inspired epistle might be lost, much more might the knowledge and use of it be restricted for a time to a narrow circle of churches. When such an epistle--for example, the second of Peter--began to be more extensively known, the general reception and use of it would be a slow process, not only from the difficulty of communication in ancient as compared with modern times, but also from the slowness with which the churches of one region received any thing new from those of other regions.
Then again, if a book were known, there might be in some regions hesitancy in respect to receiving it, from doubts in regard to its author, as in the case of the epistle to the Hebrews and the Apocalypse; or from the peculiarity of its contents also, as in the case of the latter book. In the influence of causes like the above named, we find a reasonable explanation of the fact that some books, which the mature judgment of the churches received into the canon of the New Testament, did not find at first a universal reception.
4. In the caution and hesitation of the early churches with respect to the books in question, we have satisfactory evidence that, in settling the canon of the New Testament, they acted with great deliberation and conscientiousness, their rule being that no book should be received whose apostolic origin could not be established on solid grounds. Did the early history of the Christian church present no such phenomenon as that of the distinction between acknowledged and disputed books, we might naturally infer that all books that professed to have emanated from the apostles, or to have had their sanction, were received without discrimination. But now the mature and final judgment of the churches is entitled to great consideration. This judgment, let it be remembered, was not affirmative only, but also _negative_. While it admitted to the canon the seven books now under consideration, it excluded others which were highly valued and publicly read in many of the churches. On this ground it is entitled to still higher regard. It is not, however, of binding authority, for it is not the decision of inspired men. We have a right to go behind it, and to examine the facts on which it is based, so far as they can be ascertained from existing documents. But this work belongs to the introduction to the several books.
Three books alone "obtained a partial ecclesiastical currency, through which they were not clearly separated at first from the disputed writings of the New Testament." Westcott on the Canon, Appendix B, p. 550. This was on the ground that they were written, or supposed to be written, by the immediate successors of the apostles. The oldest known codex of the Bible is the _Sinaitic_, discovered at mount Sinai by Tischendorf in 1859, and which belongs to the fourth century. This contains the whole of the epistle of Barnabas, and the first part of the work called the Shepherd of Hermas. The Alexandrine codex, belonging to the fifth century, has appended to it the first epistle of Clement of Rome to the Corinthians, the genuineness of which is admitted, and also a portion of the second or apocryphal epistle, the remainder of it being lost. The explanation is, that these three books were read in some at least of the churches when these codices were formed. But they never obtained any permanent authority as canonical writings, and were excluded from the New Testament "by every council of the churches, catholic or schismatic." Tertullian, as quoted by Westcott, p.
551.
CHAPTER VII.
INSPIRATION AND THE CANON
By the word _inspiration_, when used in a theological sense, we understand such an illumination and guidance of the Holy Spirit as raises a speaker or writer above error, and thus gives to his teachings a divine authority. If we attempt to investigate the interior nature of this superhuman influence, its different degrees and modes of operation, and the relation which the human mind holds to the divine in the case of those who receive it, we find ourselves involved in many difficulties, some of which at least are to our finite minds insuperable. But if we look at it from a practical point of view, restricting our inquiries to the _end_ proposed by God in inspiration, which is to furnish his church with an infallible and sufficient rule of faith and practice, we find no difficulty in understanding the subject so far as our duty and welfare are concerned. From such a practical position the question of inspiration will now be discussed; and the inquiry will be, at present, restricted to the writings of the New Testament. In connection with this discussion will also be considered the subject of the _canon_, not in its particular extent, but in the _principle_ upon which it is formed.
1. It is necessary, first of all, to find a sure _rule_ by which we can try the claims of a given book to be inspired, and consequently to be admitted into the canon of the New Testament. It cannot be simply the writer's own declaration. It will be shown hereafter that, in connection with other evidence, his testimony concerning himself is of the highest importance. But the point now is, that no man's inspiration is to be acknowledged simply on his own word. Nor can we decide simply from the contents of the book. Very important indeed is the question concerning the contents of any book which claims to be a revelation from God. Yet we cannot take the naked ground that a given book is inspired because its contents are of a given character. This would be virtually to set up our own reason as the supreme arbiter of divine truth, which is the very position of rationalism. Nor can we receive a book as inspired on the so-called authority of the church, whether this mean the authority of a man who claims to be its infallible head, or the authority of a general council of the churches. Admitting for a moment the Romish doctrine of the infallibility of the church, we could know this infallibility not from the declaration of any man or body of men in the church, but from Scripture alone. But this is assuming at the outset the infallibility of Scripture, and therefore its inspiration, which is the very point at issue. Looking at the question on all sides, we shall find for a given book of the New Testament no valid test of the writer's inspiration except _his relation to the Lord Jesus Christ_. This presupposes our Lord's divine mission and character, and his supreme authority in the church. It is necessary therefore to begin with the great central fact of the gospel, that Jesus of Nazareth is the Son of God, and that through him God has made to men a revelation of his own character and will for their salvation. This fact is to be first established according to the ordinary rules of human evidence, as has been attempted in the preceding chapters. After that we come naturally to the inspiration of the record, and can establish it also on a sure foundation.
2. The great fundamental truth that Jesus is the Son of God, who dwelt from eternity with the Father, knew all his counsels, and was sent by him to this fallen world on a mission of love and mercy, being established on an immovable foundation, we have a sure point of departure from which to proceed in our inquiries respecting inspiration.
It becomes at once a self-evident proposition--the great axiom of Christianity, we may call it--that the teaching of Jesus Christ, when he was on earth, was truth unmixed with error. This he himself asserted in the most explicit terms: "The Father loveth the Son, and showeth him all things that himself doeth." John 5:20. "I am the light of the world: he that followeth me shall not walk in darkness, but shall have the light of life." John 8:12. "He that sent me is true; and I speak to the world those things which I have heard of him." John 8:26. "I have not spoken of myself; but the Father which sent me, he gave me a commandment, what I should say, and what I should speak. And I know that his commandment is life everlasting: whatsoever I speak therefore, even as the Father said unto me, so I speak." John 12:49, 50. Proceeding then from the position of our Lord's infallibility, let us inquire whether any of his disciples, and if so, who among them, were divinely qualified to teach, and consequently to record, without error, the facts and doctrines of his gospel. There are but two grades of relationship to Christ with which we can connect such a high endowment: that of _apostles_, and that of their _companions_ and fellow-laborers. Let us consider each of these in order.
3. Early in our Lord's ministry he chose _twelve apostles_, "that they should be with him, and that he might send them forth to preach, and to have power to heal sicknesses, and to cast out devils." Mark 3:14, 15.
In this brief notice we have all the distinguishing marks of an apostle.
He was chosen that he might be with Christ from the beginning, and thus be to the people an eye-witness of his whole public life. When an apostle was to be chosen in the place of Judas, Peter laid particular stress on this qualification: "Wherefore of these men which have companied with us all the time that the Lord Jesus went in and out among us, beginning from the baptism of John, unto that same day that he was taken up from us, must one be ordained to be a witness with us of his resurrection." Acts 1:21, 22. In the case of Paul alone was this condition of apostleship wanting; and this want was made up to him by the special revelation of Jesus Christ. Gal. 1:11, 12. An apostle, again, was one who received his commission to preach immediately from the Saviour, a qualification which Paul strenuously asserted in his own behalf: "Paul an apostle, not of men, neither by man, but by Jesus Christ, and God the Father, who raised him from the dead." Gal. 1:1. An apostle, once more, was one who received directly from Christ the power of working miracles. This was the _seal_ of his apostleship before the world. In the three particulars that have been named the apostles held to Christ the nearest possible relation, and were by this relation distinguished from all other men. Have we evidence that they were divinely qualified, through the indwelling of the Holy Spirit, to preach and record the facts and doctrines of the gospel without error?
That they must have been thus qualified, we have, in the _first_ place, a strong presumption from _the necessity of the case_. Though our Lord finished the work which the Father gave him to do on earth, he did not finish the revelation of his gospel. On the contrary, he said to his disciples just before his crucifixion, "I have yet many things to say unto you, but ye cannot bear them now. Howbeit when he, the Spirit of truth is come, he will guide you into all truth." John 16:12, 13. Let us look at some of these things which were reserved for future revelation.
The purely spiritual nature of Christ's kingdom was not understood by the apostles till after the day of Pentecost, for we find them asking, just before his ascension, "Lord, wilt thou at this time restore the kingdom to Israel?" a question which he did not answer, but referred them to the promised gift of the Holy Spirit. Acts 1:6-8. Another of the things which they could not bear was the abolition, through Christ's propitiatory sacrifice, of the Mosaic law, and with it, of the middle wall of partition between Jews and Gentiles. This great truth was reserved to be revealed practically in the progress of the gospel, as recorded in the book of Acts, and doctrinally in the epistles of Paul.
Then what a rich unfolding we have in the apostolic epistles of the meaning of our Lord's death on Calvary, and in connection with this, of the doctrine of justification by faith--faith not simply in Christ, but in _Christ crucified_. Faith in Christ's person the disciples had before his death; but faith in him as crucified for the sins of the world they could not have till after his resurrection and exaltation to the right hand of God. The abovenamed truths--not to specify others, as, for example, what Paul says of the resurrection, 1 Cor., ch. 15; 1. Thess.
4:13-18--enter into the very substance of the gospel. They are, in fact, integral parts of it. Can we suppose that our Lord began the revelation of his gospel by his own infallible wisdom, and then left it to be completed by the fallible wisdom of men? If Augustine and Jerome in the latter period of the Roman empire, if Anselm and Bernard in the middle ages, if Luther and Calvin at the era of the Reformation, if Wesley and Edwards in later days, commit errors, the mischief is comparatively small; for, upon the supposition that the apostles were qualified by the Holy Ghost to teach and write without error, we have in their writings an infallible standard by which to try the doctrines of later uninspired men. But if the apostles whom Christ himself appointed to finish the revelation which he had begun, and whom he endowed with miraculous powers, as the seal of their commission, had been left without a sure guarantee against error, then there would be no standard of truth to which the church in later ages could appeal. No man who believes that Jesus is the Son of God, and that he came into the world to make to men a perfect revelation of the way of life, can admit such an absurd supposition.
In the _second_ place, we have _Christ's express promises_ to his apostles that they should be divinely qualified for their work through the gift of the Holy Ghost: "But when they deliver you up, take no thought"--be not solicitous, as the original signifies--"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." Matt. 10:19, 20. "But when they shall lead you, and deliver you up, take no thought beforehand what ye shall speak, neither do ye premeditate: but whatsoever shall be given you in that hour, that speak ye: for it is not ye that speak, but the Holy Ghost." Mark 13:11.
"And when they bring you unto the synagogues, and unto magistrates, and powers, take ye no thought how or what thing ye shall answer, or what ye shall say: for the Holy Ghost shall teach you in the same hour what ye ought to say." Luke 12:11, 12. "Settle it therefore in your hearts not to meditate before what ye shall answer: for I will give you a mouth and wisdom, which all your adversaries shall not be able to gainsay nor resist." Luke 21:14, 15. The above promises are perfectly explicit; and although they refer primarily to a particular emergency, in which the apostles would especially feel their need of divine guidance, they cover, in their spirit, all other emergencies. We cannot read them without the conviction that they contain the promise to the apostles of all needed help and guidance in the work committed to them. If they were divinely qualified to defend the gospel before their adversaries without error--"I will give you a mouth and wisdom which all your adversaries shall not be able to gainsay nor resist"--so were they also to _record the facts_ of the gospel, and to unfold in their epistles its doctrines.
The promises recorded in the gospel of John are more general and comprehensive in their character. It will be sufficient to adduce two of them: "These things have I spoken unto you being yet present with you.
But the Comforter, which is the Holy Ghost, whom the Father will send in my name, he shall teach you all things, and bring all things to your remembrance, whatsoever I have said unto you." John 14:25, 26. "I have yet many things to say unto you, but ye cannot bear them now. Howbeit when he, the Spirit of truth, is come, he will guide you into all truth: for he shall not speak of himself; but whatsoever he shall hear, that shall he speak: and he will show you things to come. He shall glorify me: for he shall receive of mine, and shall show it unto you. All things that the Father hath are mine: therefore said I that he shall take of mine, and shall show it unto you." John 16:12-15. In the former of these passages the special promise is that the Holy Spirit shall bring to the remembrance of the apostles and unfold to their understanding all Christ's personal teachings; so that they shall thus have a fuller apprehension of their meaning than they could while he was yet with them. The second promise is introduced with the declaration that the Saviour has yet many things to say to his apostles which they cannot now bear. Of course these things are reserved for the ministration of the Spirit, as he immediately proceeds to show: "When he, the Spirit of truth, is come, he will guide you into all truth." The Spirit shall glorify Christ; for he shall take of the things which are Christ's, and reveal them to the apostles. And what are the things which are Christ's?
"All that the Father hath;" for the Father has given all things into the hands of the Son. John 13:3. Among these "all things" are included all the Father's counsels pertaining to the way of salvation through the Son. These are given to the Son; and the Holy Ghost shall take of them and reveal to the church, through the apostles, as much as it is needful for the church to know. In these remarkable words we have at once a proof of our Lord's deity, and a sure guarantee to the apostles of supernatural illumination and guidance in the work committed to them--all the illumination and guidance which they needed, that they might be qualified to finish without error the revelation of the gospel which Christ had begun.
The question is often asked: Were these promises given to the apostles alone, or through them to the church at large? The answer is at hand. They were given _primarily_ and in a _special sense_ to the apostles; for they had reference to a special work committed to them, which required for its performance special divine illumination and guidance. They were also given, in an important sense, to the church at large; since all believers enjoy, through the teaching of the apostles, the benefit of these revelations of the Holy Spirit. They are not, however, made to all believers personally; but were given, once for all, through the apostles to the church. The gift of the Holy Spirit is indeed made to all believers personally: through his enlightening and sanctifying power they have all needed help and guidance. But they are not called, as were the apostles, to lay the foundations of the Christian faith, and have therefore no promise of new revelations from the Spirit or of elevation above all error, any more than they have of miraculous gifts.
We are now prepared to consider, in the _third_ place, the _claims_ which the apostles themselves made to speak and write with divine authority. Although their simple word as men could avail nothing, yet this same word, taken in connection with their known relation to Christ, with the work committed to them, and with the promises made to them, is of the most weighty import. It was not indeed their custom to assert gratuitously their superhuman guidance and authority. Yet when occasions arose, from the nature of the subject under discussion, or from the opposition of false teachers, they did so in unambiguous terms. Thus the apostle Paul, writing to the Corinthians, says, "Now we have received not the spirit of the world, but the Spirit which is of God; that we might know the things that are freely given to us of God. Which things also we speak, not in the words which man's wisdom teacheth, but which the Holy Ghost teacheth; comparing spiritual things with spiritual," 1 Cor. 2:12, 13: and writing to the Thessalonians concerning the resurrection, "For this we say unto you by the word of the Lord, that we which are alive and remain unto the coming of the Lord shall not prevent them which are asleep," etc. 1 Thess. 4:15. And again, in writing to the Galatians, among whom his apostolic standing had been called in question by certain Judaizing teachers, he says, "I certify you, brethren, that the gospel which was preached of me is not after man: for I neither received it of man, neither was I taught it, but by the revelation of Jesus Christ." Gal. 1:11, 12. This language is explicit enough. It could have been used only by one who was conscious of having been divinely qualified to teach the gospel without error. Accordingly, in the same epistle, he opposes his apostolic authority to these false teachers: "Behold, I Paul say unto you, that if ye be circumcised Christ shall profit you nothing." Gal. 5:2. In the memorable letter of the apostles and elders to the Gentile churches, Acts 15:23-29, they say, "It seemed good to the Holy Ghost and to us, to lay upon you no greater burden than these necessary things." "To the Holy Ghost and to us" can mean only, to us under the guidance of the Holy Ghost. Besides such explicit assertions as the above, there is a tone of authority running through the apostolic writings which can be explained only from their claim to speak with divine authority. They assert the weightiest truths and make the weightiest revelations concerning the future, as men who know that they have a right to be implicitly believed and obeyed. What majesty of authority, for example, shines through Paul's discussion of the doctrine of the resurrection, 1 Cor., ch. 15, where he announces truths that lie wholly beyond the ken of human reason. "Behold," says he, "I show you a mystery; we shall not all sleep, but we shall all be changed," as one who has perfect assurance that he speaks from God. The same tone of certainty runs through all the remarks which the apostle John interweaves into his gospel, as well as through his epistles, and through the other apostolic writings.
To sum up in a single sentence what has been said respecting the apostles: When we consider the strong presumption, arising from the necessity of the case, that they must have been divinely qualified to teach and write without error, the explicit promises of Christ that they should be thus qualified, and their explicit claims under these promises, we have full evidence that they wrote, as well as spoke, under the inspiration of the Holy Ghost, and consequently that their writings are of divine authority.
4. In the second grade of relationship to Christ stand men who, like Mark and Luke, were not themselves apostles, but were the _companions of apostles_, and their associates in the work of preaching the gospel. We are not authorized to place them in the same rank with the apostles. Yet they had the gift of the Holy Spirit, which was always given in connection with ordination at the hands of the apostles. If, in addition to this, their connection with some of the apostles was of such an intimate nature that we cannot suppose them to have written without their knowledge and approbation, we have for their writings all the apostolic authority that is needed. The intimate relation of Luke to the apostle Paul has been already sufficiently shown. We have good ground for believing that he was with him when he wrote both the gospel and the book of Acts. The intimate connection of Mark with the apostle Peter is shown by the unanimous testimony of the primitive churches, and is confirmed, moreover, by an examination of the peculiarities of his gospel. In entire harmony with the position of these two evangelists is the character of their writings. They never assume the office of independent teachers, but restrict themselves to a careful record of the works and words of Christ and his apostles.
5. A final argument for the inspiration of the books of the New Testament, whether written by apostles or their companions, may be drawn from their general character, as contrasted with that of the writings which remain to us from the age next succeeding that of the apostles.
The more one studies the two classes of writings in connection, the deeper will be his conviction of the distance by which they are separated from each other. The descent from the majesty and power of the apostolic writings to the best of those which belong to the following age is sudden and very great. Only by a slow process did Christian literature afterwards rise to a higher position through the leavening influence of the gospel upon Christian society, and especially upon Christian education. The contrast now under consideration is particularly important in our judgment of those books which, like the second epistle of Peter, are sustained by a less amount of external evidence. Though we cannot decide on the inspiration of a book simply from the character of its contents, we may be helped in our judgment by comparing these, on the one hand, with writings acknowledged to be apostolic, and on the other, with writings which we know to be of the following age.
6. The inspiration of the sacred writers was _plenary_ in the sense that they received from the Holy Spirit all the illumination and guidance which they needed to preserve them from error in the work committed to them. With regard to the degree and mode of this influence in the case of different books, it is not necessary to raise any abstract questions.
That Paul might make to the Galatians a statement of his visits to Jerusalem and the discussions connected with them, Galatians, chaps. 1, 2, or might give an account of his conversion before king Agrippa, Acts, ch. 26, it was not necessary that he should receive the same kind and measure of divine help as when he unfolded to the Corinthians the doctrine of the resurrection, 1 Cor., ch. 15. And so in regard to the other inspired penmen. Whatever assistance each of them needed, he received. If his judgment needed divine illumination for the selection of his materials, it was given him. If he needed to be raised above narrowness and prejudice, or to have the Saviour's instructions unfolded to his understanding, or to receive new revelations concerning the way of salvation or the future history of Christ's kingdom--whatever divine aid was necessary in all these cases, was granted. Thus the books of the New Testament, being written under the guidance of the Holy Ghost, become to the Christian church an infallible rule of faith and practice.
If there be any limitation connected with the inspiration of the sacred writers, it is one of which the Holy Spirit is himself the author, and which cannot therefore injuriously affect their testimony. It did not please God, for example, that the exact order of time should always be kept in the gospel narratives; nor that the identical forms of expression employed by the Saviour on given occasions should always be preserved; nor that the accompanying circumstances should in all cases be fully stated; for in all these respects the evangelists frequently differ among themselves. Had the wisdom of God judged it best, minute accuracy in these particulars might have been secured.
But the result would probably have been injurious, by leading men to exalt the letter above the spirit of the gospel. We should be glad to know with certainty which, if any, of the different ways that have been proposed for reconciling John's narrative with those of the other evangelists in respect to the day of the month on which our Lord ate his last passover with his disciples, is the true one. It would give us pleasure were we able to arrange all the incidents connected with our Lord's resurrection, as recorded by the four evangelists, in the exact order of their occurrence. Had we a full record of all the circumstances pertaining to these two transactions, this might be accomplished. But it would not make any essential addition to our knowledge of the gospel. We should have, in every jot and tittle, the same way of salvation that we have now, and the same duties in respect to it. To all who, on grounds like these, find difficulty with the doctrine of plenary inspiration, we may say, in the words of the apostle, "Brethren, be not children in understanding; howbeit, in malice be ye children, but in understanding be men."
7. The _extent of the canon_ is determined by the _extent of inspiration_. The question to be settled respecting each book of the New Testament is, Was it written under the guidance of the Holy Spirit? or, which amounts to the same thing, Has it apostolic authority? If it has, it is to be received; if not, it is to be rejected. There is no middle ground--no division of the canon into books of primary and of secondary authority.