Till: RULF OF FAITH
AND THE
DOCTRINE OF INSPIRATION.
THE CAREY LECTURES I- OR 1884..
ROBERT WATTS, D.D.,
J'KMATIC THE >1.O(;Y IN THK ASSEM I'.I.v's O >l.l.K(',K, H K L '•" A s T.
IIODDER AND STOUOHTOX, 27, TATHRN'OSTKR Ko\V.
V.IXJCCLXXXV.
DEUTERONOMY xviii. 18.
"On tyw t^ t[.ta\'TOi> oi'K tXdXijffa' a\\' l> Trkfi^aQ pi 7rar//(», ayro oi tiToXiyr cifwKi, rt tiTTit) Kcii Tt XaXijffdJ. — JOHN xii. 49.
"A Kfli XaXovjUff, o('/c iv Ci^cucrolg a.v9p(uTrivt)£ oofyiav Xoyoic;, aXX' h> tifctKTolc Ili'fi'juarof, Trrfn/^arj/coT^ Tri'tVfiaTiKa. ffvytepivovrff.
— I CoRixiiiiANS ii. 13.
Printed by Hazell, Watson, & Viney, Limited, London and Aylesbury.
EXTRACT FROM THE CAREY TRUST DEED.
r I ^ 1 1 1 S important Foundation has been established *- and endowed by John Carey, Esq., of Rarity Cottage, Toome, in the county of Antrim, Ireland, as the Trust Deed tcstificr., " from a love of Literature and Learning and a desire to promote the interests of Religion and Morality." For this purpose he has granted to a Board of Trustees resident in Dorry, and to their heirs and assigns for ever, a biennial sum, or rent charge, of one hundred pounds sterling, to be charged upon, and payable of, certain lands, farms, messuages, hereditaments, and ground rents, described in said Trust Deed. The Lectureship is biennial, and is connected with the Assembly's College, Belfast, and the Magee College, Londonderry. For the administration of the Foundation, the Trust Deed provides two electing Boards, one entitled the Deny, and the other the Belfast, electing Board To these Boards pertains, alternately, the right ot selecting a Lecturer — a right to be exercised by
vi EXTRACT FROM THE CAREY TRUST DEED.
each Board every fourth year. The Derry electing Board consists of the Trustees for the time being of the Magee College, Londonderry, the Professors for the time being of said Magec College, who shall be members of the Faculty of said College, the Moderator for the time being of the General Assembly of the Presbyterian Church in Ireland, the Clerk for the time being of said General Assembly, and the Convener for the time being of the Magee College Committee.
The Belfast electing Board is similarly constituted, with one exception, viz., that the Clerk of the General Assembly, instead of a Secretary chosen by the Board, is appointed Convener of the said Board. It is further provided, that " neither of the said electing Boards shall be limited or fettered in any way in the choice of the person who shall from time to time hold the Carey Lectureship, save and except that no person who has already once held the said Lectureship and received the salary, shall be eligible to hold the said Lectureship a second time."
The range of subjects specified in the Trust Deed, out of which the Lecturer elect shall be at liberty to choose his theme, is very extensive. The Deed provides that he shall be at liberty to choose any " Theological, Geological, Biological, Anthropological, Philosophical, Religious, Moral, or Social question or questions of general interest and pressing im portance." It is also provided that "both in the
EX 1RACT 1-ROM THE CAREY TRUST DEED.
selecting and approving of the selection of the subjects to be delivered under this Trust, due regard shall be had to the state of Religious, Ethical, and Philoso phical speculation in Christian Countries, . . . also to the progress and prospects of Christianity among Heathen peoples, and the condition and tendencies of Judaism, Mohammedanism, Hinduism, Brahmin- ism, Buddhism, and the other great non-Christian Religions of the World. And, as far as possible, the subjects of-the Lectures shall be chosen with a view to counteract some of the most prevailing and in fluential forms of speculative error among Christian communities, or to point out the obstacles to the spread of Christianity among Heathen and other non-Christian peoples, or to illustrate the relations of the Christian system to the great religious move ments of the World."
It is further provided that "when ten successive series of Lectures shall have been delivered under this Trust by ten successive Lecturers duly appointed as hereinbefore provided, such ten series, containing in the whole at least sixty distinct Lectures, and having been delivered at intervals of at least twenty years, the Trustees of these presents shall, under the discretion and with the assistance of the advice and counsel of the two electing Boards hereinbefore constituted, make provision for the publication of the said ten series of Lectures, and shall apply to that purpose all such funds arising from the proceeds of
EXTRACT FROM THE CAREY TRUST DEE!).
each Board every fourth year. The Derry electing Board consists of the Trustees for the time being of the Magee College, Londonderry, the Professors for the time being of said Magce College, who shall be members of the Faculty of said College, the Moderator for the time being of the General Assembly of the Presbyterian Church in Ireland, the Clerk for the time being of said General Assembly, and the Convener for the time being of the Magee College Committee.
The Belfast electing Board is similarly constituted, with one exception, viz., that the Clerk of the General Assembly, instead of a Secretary chosen by the Board, is appointed Convener of the said Board. It is further provided, that " neither of the said electing Boards shall be limited or fettered in any way in the choice of the person who shall from time to time hold the Carey Lectureship, save and except that no person who has already once held the said Lectureship and received the salary, shall be eligible to hold the said Lectureship a second time."
The range of subjects specified in the Trust Deed, out of which the Lecturer elect shall be at liberty to choose his theme, is very extensive. The Deed provides that he shall be at liberty to choose any " Theological, Geological, Biological, Anthropological, Philosophical, Religious, Moral, or Social question or questions of general interest and pressing im portance." It is also provided that " both in the
EX'IRACT I- ROM THE CAREY TRUST DEED. vii
selecting and approving of the selection of the subjects to be delivered under this Trust, due regard shall be had to the state of Religious, Ethical, and Philoso phical speculation in Christian Countries, . . . also to the progress and prospects of Christianity among Heathen peoples, and the condition and tendencies of Judaism, Mohammedanism, Hinduism, Brahmin- ism, Buddhism, and the other great non-Christian Religions of the World. And, as far as possible, the subjects of-the Lectures shall be chosen with a view to counteract some of the most prevailing and in fluential forms of speculative error among Christian communities, or to point out the obstacles to the spread of Christianity among Heathen and other non-Christian peoples, or to illustrate the relations of the Christian system to the great religious move ments of the World."
It is further provided that "when ten successive scries of Lectures shall have been delivered under this Trust by ten successive Lecturers duly appointed as hereinbefore provided, such ten series, containing in the whole at least sixty distinct Lectures, and having been delivered at intervals of at least twenty years, the Trustees of these presents shall, under the discretion and with the assistance of the advice and counsel of the two electing Boards hereinbefore constituted, make provision for the publication of the said ten series of Lectures, and shall apply to that purpose all such funds arising from the proceeds of
EXTRACT FROM THE CAREY TRUST DEED.
the Rent Charge hereby created as may be in their hands."
The present course is not published under this provision, but in the exercise of a liberty granted in the Deed of Trust and allowed by the founder, the Lecturer making an independent arrangement with the Publishers.
PREFACE.
r I ^ 1 1 K course of Lectures given to the public in •*• this volume was delivered in Belfast during the winter of 1884-5, under the provisions of the Carey Lectureship. The object aimed at was the reasser- tion and vindication of the immemorial doctrine of the Church in regard to the Rule of Faith and its relation to its Divine Author. The ground taken in these Lectures is, that " the word of God, which is contained in the Scriptures of the Old and New Testaments, is the only rule to direct us how we may glorify and enjoy Him," and that these writings have been given by inspiration of God, through the agency of men who spake or wrote as they were moved, or borne along, by the Holy Ghost, so that the record is truly, and in the strictest sense of the term, the word of God.
Such is the doctrine regarding this vital subject, more or less clearly expressed by the Church
PREFACE.
throughout her history, and reaffirmed by the Westminster Divines in an Assembly which might well claim to represent the Theology of the Refor mation and the Protestantism of Great Britain and Ireland in the Seventeenth Century. From this doctrine there have, since then, been several grave departures both in Europe and America. Some of these have originated in a desire to conciliate opponents, whose aversion to the doctrine of a Supernatural Revelation, it has been assumed, has been either created, or intensified, by the strict theory of Inspiration, which teaches that the agency of the inspiring Spirit extended to the form as well as the matter, to the language as well as the ideas, of the Revelation.
These attempts at reconciliation, however, have not only proved abortive as regards the class for whose sake they have been made, but, beyond question, have resulted in injury to the cause they were designed to serve. It is matter of history that they have given rise to false views of the nature and effects of the Divine agency, throughout the entire domains of Nature and of Grace. It has been found that this species of Apologetics involves modifica tions which are really compromises of the truth, and that instead of winning men from their alienation,
PREFACE.
such apologies confirm them in the belief that the claims of the Bible arc utterly indefensible.
Recent writers of this class of apologists have, generally, laid claim to superior learning and high attainments in Philosophy, and have spoken of the time-honoured doctrine of Verbal Inspiration as an antiquated dogma that has deservedly lost its hold upon the learning and intelligence of the age. So persistently have these claims to superior culture and acquirements been put forward, that many have taken the claimants at their own estimate, and have concluded that all the learning and Philosophy are on the side of the anti-verbalists, and that none, save the unlearned and unphilosophical, could enter tain the doctrine of a Plenary, Verbal Inspiration. Such boasting is as baseless as it is vain. Great attainments in Language and extensive acquaintance with Literature are valuable acquisitions, but as such accomplishments depend more upon memory than upon judgment, they furnish no guarantee of the soundness of the Critical conclusions reached by their possessors. A man may have mastered many languages, and may be acquainted with the entire critical apparatus known to the scholarship of the day, and ma}', at the same time, prove a most untrustworthy guide in any department of know-
PREFACE.
ledge, whether sacred or secular. The work of the linguist in its relation to Criticism is like the work of the phenomenologist in its relation to Science, or the work of the quarryman to that of the architect. Its entire achievement may be the production of a rudis indegestaque moles, a mass without form and void, and destined so to abide until a mind gifted with the requisite taste and judicial balance, shall reduce the Chaos to a rational Cosmos. For these latter qualifications, no linguistic attainments can ever be accepted as a substitute. In view of the constant assertion of exclusive Critical rights based upon such attainments, it may not be out of place to assure the simplest reader of the Bible that it is not within the power of any Critic, however learned, to point out a single doctrine within the scope of the Analogy of the faith which is dependent upon the mysteries of his science, or one which was not known before his so-called science had existence. Equally independent of this science is the great ques tion discussed in the latter portion of this volume — the question of Inspiration. While accurate acquaintance with the original tongues in which the Scriptures were at first written is a most important aid in the investigation, it is nevertheless true, that without any knowledge whatever of the originals, a
PREFACE.
believer, with the English Version in his hand, may ascertain, infallibly, what the Scriptures teach on this subject. It may be held as an unquestionable truth that it is just as easy to find out, from any extant translation of the Scriptures, what the true doctrine of Inspiration is, as it is to find out any other doctrine within the compass of Revelation. There is no mystery about the process of inquiry. The simple question is : " What do the Scriptures teach ? " and the answer must be elicited by a fair interpretation of those passages in which the sacred writers inform us of the extent to which the Agency of the inspiring Spirit reached. While the sacred writers give us no information regarding the nature of the Divine agency, in its operation upon their minds, and while we cannot propound any doctrine regarding the mode in which the Spirit actuated the agents lie employed to communicate the Divine will to men, it is idle to allege, as many do, that the Scriptures do not furnish the material necessary to formulate a doctrine of Inspiration. It is true they teach no doctrine of the mode of the Spirit's agency, but they do teach, both expressly and by implication, a doctrine of results ; and that doctrine is, that the Spirit so actuated the human agents as to determine the language in which they gave
PKEFA CE.
expression to the truths and facts recalled, or com municated in the first instance, to their minds. Such is the doctrine, and it is as clearly revealed in the sacred oracles as is the doctrine of Justification, or Regeneration, or the Atonement. The Diode is a mystery, as the mode of the Divine agency, in every case, must ever be a mystery to finite minds ; but the outcome of the actuating energy of the Holy Spirit is one of the most clearly revealed truths within the compass of the Divine Record.
To aid in the maintenance and defence of this doctrine, and to establish, on the authority of the written word, the true sources of an infallible Rule of Faith, are the objects aimed at in this volume. In prosecuting this task the method adopted is what may be designated the Princetonian, viz. — I. To prove that the doctrine advocated is the doctrine taught in the Holy Scriptures. 2. To show that the doctrine is in conformity with Chris tian experience. 3. That it is sustained by the testimony of genuine Science and sound Philosophy. 4. That the opposite is true of all opposing theories —that they are unscriptural, contrary to Christian experience, unscientific and unphilosophical. Such was the method pursued by my venerated teacher, Dr. Charles Hodge, of Princeton, New Jersey, to
PRI-.l-ACE.
whom I am largely indebted for whatever progress I have made in the stud}' of the system of Divine truth given back to the Church by the theologians of the Reformation.
With the hope that the present discussion may help to clear these vital subjects of misconceptions and irrelevant issues, and contribute to the awaken ing of a deeper reverence for the Holy Bible, these Lectures are now given to a larger Christian public and committed to the providence and grace of Him whose name is the Word of God.
TABLE OF CONTENTS.
LECTURE I.
THE SOI-RCKS OF INFORMATION IN REGARD TO THE RULE OF FAITH AND PRACTICE.
PACK
The test of our deductions from the light of nature . 2
Rationalism 3
The goal of Rationalistic theories .... 5 Remarks on first form of Rationalism .... 6 Rationalism inconsistent with Faith .... 7 Strictures on the second form of Rationalism . . 7 Human knowledge largely dependent on Faith . . 9 Province of Reason in matters of Faith ... 9 '\\~\v. Ju did um Contradictionis . . . . . i r Christ's recognition of the rights of Reason . . -13 Reason recognised by the Holy Spirit . . . -15 Reason fallible yet responsible . . . . -17
LECTURE II.
Till. PROVINCE 01 THE SENSES IN MATTERS OF FAITH
Recognition of the Senses by Christ . . . 19
Professor Flint, Mr. Mill, and Professor Huxley on the
testimony of the Senses . . . . 21,20 Remarks on this phase of the theory . . . .21 Physical science dependent on the senses . . • -3
b
PAGE
Conditions under which the senses are to be trusted . 25
Mysticism . . . . . • • • .26
Attitude of Mysticism towards Revelation . • 27
How Mysticism diners from Illumination . • 29 The views of the (Junkers, or Friends, on the Inner
Light . .29
Doctrine of the Evangelical Quakers . • 31
Remarks upon this theory of an Inner Light . . 32
Proof Texts impertinent or inconclusive . . -33
Mysticism helpless in dealing with Lrrorists . . 35
The Romish Theory of the Rule of Lakh . . . 36
Romish position strictly defined . . . . -37
Romish extension of the Canon . . . . -39
Romish estimate of the Original Scriptures . . .40
Romish exaltation of the Vulgate . . . 41
Romish doctrine respecting Tradition . . -43
Romish arguments in support of Tradition . . -45
\rguments against the Romish Doctrine . . .46
I )octrines worth transmission worth recording . . 47
\ buses corrected by Scripture alone . . . -49
Pauline usage of the term Tradition . . . 51
Scripture the sole Patristic rule . . . . -53
Modern theory of development . . . . -55
Romish idea of the Church . . . . -57
Romish doctrinal variations . . . . -59
Decisions of Councils not common consent . . 61
Tradition not accessible to all 63
LKCTURK III.
ArrHOKITY OF THK CHURCH AS A TEACHF.R.
The seat of Infallibility ... 66
Romish arguments in support of this claim . . 66
TALK
Infallibility both promised ami conferred . . -67
Protestant replies to Romish arguments . . . 68
Argument stated syllogisticaHy . . . 69
Infallibility negatived by History . .71
All Church authority based on Scripture . . -73
The Protestant Doctrine of the Rule of Faith . . 75
Lutheran Relation to Tradition 77
Remarks on the Lutheran position . . . -77
Doctrine of the Reformed Church . . . '79
The Anglican Doctrine of the Rule of Faith . . So
Strictures on the Anglican doctrine . . . .81
Anglican doctrine and private judgment . . . 83
LFCTURF IV.
TMK PROTESTANT DOCTRINE OF THE RULE OF FAITH
(CONTINUED).
Short method with Romanists . . . . 87
Romish objections baseless and suicidal . . . 89
Scripture doctrine of Inspiration . . . . .90
Relation of the Word to Faith . . . . 9 1
Inspiration and Revelation . . . . . .92
Import of fooTTvevo-ros . ...... 93
Revelation and Inspiration -95
Inspiration and Illumination ... . 96
Inspiration extends to the Language employed . . 97
The Relation of Language to thought . . . . 99
Christ's estimate of Apostolic talents . . . 101
Extent of the Spirit's agency . 103
Verbal Inspiration and Pentecostal gifts . . 105
Inference from the character of the record . . 107
Testimony of Rousseau and Mill . 109 Argument from the inscrutablencss of the mysteries . i i i
Conditions under which the senses are to be trusted . 25
Mysticism . . . . . . • • .26
Attitude of Mysticism towards Revelation . • 21
How Mysticism differs from Illumination . . • 29 The views of the Hunkers, or Friends, on the Inner
Light -29
Doctrine of the Evangelical Quakers . . . - 31
Remarks upon this theory of an Inner Light . . 32
Proof Texts impertinent or inconclusive . . -33
Mysticism helpless in dealing with Krrorists . . 35
The Romish Theory of the Rule of Laith . . . 36
Romish position strictly defined . . . . -37
Romish extension of the Canon . . . . -39
Romish estimate of the Original Scriptures . . .40
Romish exaltation of the Vulgate . . . 41
Romish doctrine respecting Tradition . . -43
Romish arguments in support of Tradition . . -45
\rguments against the Romish Doctrine . . .46
Doctrines worth transmission worth recording . . 47
\buses corrected by Scripture alone . . 49
Pauline usage of the term Tradition . . . -51
Vripture the sole Patristic rule . . . . -53
Modern theory of development . . . . -55
Romish idea of the Church . . . . -57
Romish doctrinal variations . . -59
Decisions of Councils not common consent . 6r
Tradition not accessible to all 63
LECTURE III.
ArniOKITY OF THK CHURCH AS A TEACHER.
The seat of Infallibility .... 66
Romish arguments in support of this claim . . 66
CONTEXTS.
Infallibility both promised and conferred . . . 67
Protestant replies to Romish arguments . . . 68
Argument stated syllogisticaHy 69
Infallibility negatived by History . . . -7'
All Church authority based on Scripture . . • 7.>
The Protestant Doctrine of the Rule of Faith . . 75
Lutheran Relation to Tradition . . . . -77
Remarks on the Lutheran position . . . -77
Doctrine of the Reformed Church . . . • 79
The Anglican Doctrine of the Rule of Faith . . So
Strictures on the Anglican doctrine . . . .81
Anglican doctrine and private judgment . . . 83
LKCTURK IV.
THK J'KOTK.STANT DOCTRINE OF THE RULE OK FAITH (CONTINUED).
Short method with Romanists . . . . . 87
Romish objections baseless and suicidal . . . 89
Scripture doctrine of Inspiration ... .90
Relation of the Word to Faith ... .91
Inspiration and Revelation . . . . . .92
Import of tfeoTrrcro-Tos . ... -93
Revelation and Inspiration .... -95
Inspiration and Illumination . . . 96
Inspiration extends to the Language employed . -97
The Relation of Language to thought. . 99
Christ's estimate of Apostolic talents . .101
Extent of the Spirit's agency . 103
Verbal Inspiration and Pentecostal gifts . . 105
Inference from the character of the record . .107
Testimony of Rousseau and Mill • '09 Argument from the inscrutableness of the mysteries . i i i
xx CONTENTS.
LECTURE V.
INSPIRATION OF CHRIST.
AGE
Christ and the Dcuteronomic Prophecy . . 15
Limitation of Christ as a Prophet . 1 7
Inference from the unction of Christ . . . 19
Apostolic estimate of the Inspiring Agency . . .20
Argument from i Cor. ii. . . . . . .21
Transmission as important as Revelation . . 23
Apostles equal to Old Testament Prophets . . 25
Inference from authority claimed . . . -27
Miracles negatived by false doctrine . . . .29
Inspiration of Mark and Luke proved . . 131
Prophetic rank of Mark and Luke . . . . 133
If inspired as preachers, much more as writers . . 135
LECTURE VI.
INSPIRATION OF THE SCRIPTURES OF THE OLD TESTAMENT.
Argument from Matt. v. 17, 18 . . . . -137
The Testimony of Christ 137
Argument from John x. 33-36 139
2 Tim. iii. 16 examined .141
Testimony of the Apostles . . . . . .141
Verbal Inspiration proved from Gal. iii. 16 . . .143 Canon Farrar and the Talmudists . . . -145
Argument from i Peter i. 10-12 147
Argument from the task assigned the Prophets . -149
Argument from 2 Peter i. 16-21 151
Argument from manner of reference to Old Testament
Scriptures . . . . . . . .153
The ultimate question involved . . . . -155
CONTENTS.
Objections to the doctrine of a Plenary Verbal Inspiration 1 5 5 Rule determining the meaning of words . . . 157 flcoTTvevo-ros elsewhere explained . . . . -159 Apostles more than ordinary historians . . .161 Inference from supernatural revelation . . -163
LECTURE VII.
SOME OBJECTIONS ARISING FROM MISAPPREHENSIONS.
Argument from Spirit's agency in grace . . -165
Inspiration not dictation 167
Inspiration and the analogy of the faith . . .169 Coleridge's objection examined . . . . -171 The principle at issue fundamental . . . 173
Objections based on Pelagian principles . . . 175 Plenary Inspiration secures variety . . . . 177
Dr. Hill's objection examined 179
Peculiarities of writers predetermined . . . . iSr Objections from variety of narration . . . -183 Alford's objection from the Inscription on the cross . 185 Central idea same in all the Evangelists . . .187 Objection from i Cor. vii. examined . . . .189 No command regarding things indifferent . . .191 Speaking by permission implies authority . . . 193 Uncertain in one case, uncertain in all ... 195 Objection from uncertainty unwarranted . . . 197 Apostolic counsel and Christian liberty . . . 199
LECTURE VIII.
INSPIRATION AND SCIENCE.
Verbal theory and scientific speculation . . .201 Science and the felicity of the language of Scrip'ure . 203
Scientific objections met by scientific progress . . 205 Verbal Inspiration and Biblical chronology . . . 207 Matthew's genealogical table ..... 209 Source of alleged discrepancies . . . . .211 Butler's solution invalidated ... . 213 The Canon completed in the Apostolic period . -215 Use and abuse of Butler's analogy . . . .217 Remarks on this Analogical Reasoning . . .217 Science proves perfection of God's works . . .219 Inference from solution of discrepancies . . .221 Ood may permit what He may not do ... 223 A gratuitous concession to Mr. Mill . . . .225 Prebendary Row confounds Inspiration with Revela tion 227
Divine aid in acquisition conceded .... 229 Supernatural strengthening conceded . . . -231
LECTURE IX. or.jp.cTiox i ROM FKKKDOM OF REFERENCE TO OLD
TESTA MKXT SCRI I'TURES.
Argument from inaccurate quotation .... 235 Freedom of the Spirit as an Author . . . -237 (leneral Remarks upon the foregoing objections . . 238 Theory drawn from discrepancies . . . • 2*9 Anti-verbal Method unphilosophical . . . .241 Remarks on this Induction ..... 242
Remarkable Instance of a defective Induction . . 243 Argument from Pentecostal gifts .... 245
Inference from the aid promised 247
Forensic defences gospel discourses .... 249 h defences imply Verbal Inspiration . .251
r.v .
Limited i)reniiss and universal conclusion . . • 25 S Equivalents of "Thus suith the Lord "... 255
LKCTURK X.
THE ULTI.MATF. GROUND OF FAITH IN' TIIF. srKII'Tt'l1. F.S AS THI. WORD OF GOD.
Lee's critique on Westminster doctrine . . . 259 Estimate of Westminster Divines in regard to external
testimony . . . . . . . .261
Position of Dr. Lee and Hooker proved unsrriptural . 263 Proper use of external testimony .... 265
The Word alone the Spirit's sword .... 267
The Revelation self-evidencing . . . . .269
Conclusion . . . . . .270
'I
x.^ff/:^ -r. *,-./i ^".vrr
On thi* ;x/'.-it ?h/i V.ri;Aifin hii^ th« ^irr» for ' /rrr.yjiv
'JUE RULE OF FAl'lH
which makes wise unto salvation, they teach that the heavens declare the glory of God, and that the earth showcth forth His hands' work, and that the invisible things of Him from the creation of the world are so clearly seen by the things that arc made that the heathen are left without excuse (Psalm xix. 1-7 and Rom. i. 20).
Nor is this revelation of God restricted to the field of the astronomical array. The whole realms <»f the organic and inorganic worlds, of matter and of mind, bear witness to the existence and exercise of a wisdom and power which transcend all human estimate. Pre-eminent over all natural sources, of the knowledge of God must be recognised the moral constitution of man. Created in knowledge and righteousness, the soul of man, even now in its fallen estate, bears testimony to the moral character of its Creator. External nature impresses the mind with a sense of the majesty of God, but the moral law, whose work is written in the heart, convinces of sin, and makes men feel that He who is the Author of their being is also their Lawgiver and Judge.
Tin-: TEST OF OUR DEDUCTIONS FROM THE LIGHT OF NATURE.
In our study of the book of Nature in all its departments, it must be borne in mind that there is no disclosure of the Divine attributes made therein
XA TIONALISAf.
which is not also made in the book of Revelation. This clearly revealed fact warrants the conclusion that all our interpretations of the book of Nature are to be tested by the teachings of the Sacred Scriptures. A doctrine deduced from the former, which is not in harmony with the teaching of the latter fairly interpreted, must be regarded as false.
In taking this ground, there is nothing claimed for the Holy Scriptures which they do not claim for themselves. They claim to be an infallible Revelation of the Divine will on every subject of which they treat, and claiming this, they necessarily exclude all rival standards or tests of truth within their own province. As the Author of the Bible is also the Creator of the universe, it is certainly not unreasonable that where He has given a deliverance all counter-utterances should be rejected.
RATIONALISM.
Rationalism, claiming as it docs for human reason pre-eminence over all other sources of knowledge, sets itself in antagonism to all this, and either rejects the claims of the Bible as a supernatural Revelation altogether, or claims the prerogative of sitting in judgment on its contents. Speaking of Calvinism. Mr. Matthew Arnold says, " When Calvinism tells us this, is it not talking about God just as if He were a man in the next street, whose proceedings Calvinism intimately knew and could give account
4 'HIE KULE OF FAITH.
of, could verify that account at any moment, and enable us to verify it also ? It is true \vhcn the scientific sense in us, tJic sense which seeks exact knoidctlge, calls for that verification, Calvinism refers us to St. Paul, from whom it professes to _ have got this history of what it calls ' the covenant of redemp tion.' Hut this is only pushing the difficulty a stage further back, for if it is St. Paul and not Calvinism that professes this exact acquaintance with God and His dealings, the scientific sense calls upon St. Paul to produce the facts by which he verifies what lie says, and if he cannot produce them, then it treats both St. Paul's assertion and Calvinism's assertion after him as of no real conse quence " (Dr. M. Arnold's "St. Paul and Protes tantism," pp. i o, II). It were, of course, easy to show that the Apostle, here criticised so irreverently by this Oxford professor of poetry, has abundantly established the doctrine, so unceremoniously de nounced, by the most unquestionable facts in the his tory of the Jewish and Gentile world ; and equally easy to show from undeniable facts, that God still deals with men on the same principles. But the object of this reference is simply to point out to what lengths of irreverence the spirit of Rationalism may lead. It is true there arc Rationalists and Rationalists. All to whom the designation is applied do not ^o the length indicated by Mr. Arnold. Some of them admit that a Revelation has been made, and
THE GOAL OF RATIONALISTIC THEORIES.
that it is on record in the Scriptures ; but claiming, as they do, that it is the prerogative of Reason to sit in judgment upon this Record and determine what is, and what is not, to be received, there does not seem to be any very definite reason for a distinct classification. Those who hold that Reason is the measure by which the existing Revelation is to be tested very soon pass into the category of those who regard Reason as both the source and the measure of all truth. The distinction, at most, must be regarded as temporary and provisional, and be looked upon as marking a stage in the transition towards absolute scepticism.
The goal of Rationalism may be seen in the following sketch by Theodore Parker :--" This theory teaches that there is a natural supply for spiritual as well as for corporeal wants ; that there is" a connection between God and the soul, as be tween light and the eye, sound and the ear, food and the palate, truth and the intellect, beauty and the imagination. And as we have bodily senses to lay hold on matter and supply bodily wants, through which we attain, naturally, all needed material things, so we have spiritual faculties to la}' hold on God and supply spiritual wants ; through them we obtain all needed spiritual things." With such an apparatus for the supply of his spiritual wants, of course man has no need of any supernatural Reve lation.
THE RULE OF FAITH.
and that Me is wiser than men, that His under standing is above the understandings of the intelli gences He has created, and that His knowledge transcends ours, and it must be manifest that a Revelation from such a Being may contain truths on whose claims human Reason is incompetent to sit in judgment. 3. On this theory salvation would be limited to the wise and learned. As it is eternal life to know God and Jesus Christ, whom He has sent, and as, according to this theory, human Reason must determine what is, and what is not, the true knowledge of Gocl, none but men of mighty intellects and high culture could decide in regard to the sum of saving knowledge. The weaker a man's intellec tual capacity, the more limited would be his creed. It is scarcely necessary to observe that a theory which involves the exclusion of the weak and the foolish things of this world from the kingdom of Heaven, and exalts the noble and the wise to heir- ship, is in direct antagonism to the teachings of the wrord of God. 4. Not only would the dimensions of a man's creed and his obligation to believe vary with his natural intellectual capacity, but the same man with the same Revelation in his hand would be warranted in rejecting some of its truths at one stage of his intellectual progress, and be under obligation to accept these same truths at a more advanced stage. 5. Lastly, this theory is exposed to this additional objection that it lays clown a condition of
KNOWLEDGE LARGELY DEPENDENT O.V FAITH, y
belief in regard to the truths of revelation which is recognised in no other department of knowledge. Men do not demand as the condition of their faith in the revelations of science that science shall propose nothing above their comprehension. The faith of men (speaking generally), in the marvellous discoveries of science, does not rest upon their ability to verify scientific reports, but upon the testimony of those whom they deem worthy of confidence. Speaking of infinitesimal organisms revealed by the microscope, Professor Huxley re marked to his class that we must believe that there are beyond these still minuter forms, which no mag nifying power hitherto reached has been able to disclose. With Huxley himself, in this instance, faith rests upon probability ; in the case of others, not scientists, who accept his conjecture, it rests upon their confidence in his scientific sagacity.
PROVINCE OF REASON IN MATTERS OK FAITH.
Although Reason is neither the source nor the standard of religious truth, it has, nevertheless, much to do with the truths of Revelation. Irrational beings could have nothing to do with the truths revealed in the Bible. Throughout, the sacred writings assume on the part of men the possession of reason and conscience.
i. In the first place, man's reason is called into exercise in the intellectual apprehension of the
THE RULE OF FAITH.
and that lie is wiser than men, that His under standing is above the understandings of the intelli gences lie has created, and that His knowledge transcends ours, and it must be manifest that a Revelation from such a Being may contain truths on whose claims human Reason is incompetent to sit in judgment. 3. On this theory salvation would be limited to the wise and learned. As it is eternal life to kno\v God and Jesus Christ, whom He has sent, and as, according to this theory, human Reason must determine what is, and what is not, the true knowledge of God, none but men of mighty intellects and high culture could decide in regard to the sum of saving knowledge. The weaker a man's intellec tual capacity, the more limited would be his creed. It is scarcely necessary to observe that a theory which involves the exclusion of the weak and the foolish things of this world from the kingdom of Heaven, and exalts the noble and the wise to heir- ship, is in direct antagonism to the teachings of the word of God. 4. Not only would the dimensions of a man's creed and his obligation to believe vary with his natural intellectual capacity, but the same man with the same Revelation in his hand would be warranted in rejecting some of its truths at one stage of his intellectual progress, and be under obligation to accept these same truths at a more advanced stage. 5. Lastly, this theory is exposed to this additional objection that it lays down a condition of
KNOWLEDGE LARGELY DEPENDENT O.V FAITH, y
belief in regard to the truths of revelation which is recognised in no other department of knowledge. Men do nol: demand as the condition of their faith in the revelations of science that science shall propose nothing above their comprehension. The faith of men 'speaking generally), in the marvellous discoveries of science, docs nut rest upon their ability to verify scientific reports, but upon the testimony of those whom they deem worthy of confidence. Speaking of infinitesimal organisms revealed by the microscope, Professor Huxley re marked to his class that we must believe that there are beyond these still minuter forms, which no mag nifying power hitherto reached has been able to disclose. \Yith Huxley himself, in this instance, faith rests upon probability ; in the case of others, not scientists, who accept his conjecture, it rests upon their confidence in his scientific sagacity.
PKOVINCM OF R MASON IN MATTMRS OF FAITH.
Although Reason is neither the source nor the standard of religious truth, it has, nevertheless, much to do with the truths of Revelation. Irrational beings could have nothing to do with the truths revealed in the Bible. Throughout, the sacred writings assume on the part of men the possession of reason and conscience.
i. In the first place, man's reason is called into exercise in the intellectual apprehension of the
THE RULE OF FAITH.
object of faith. Without this exercise of our rational powers there can be no faith, for faith embraces as one of its essential elements assent to the truth of some proposition. By the intellectual apprehension of the truth propounded, however, is not meant the comprehension of the truth in its inherent logical consistency, and its harmony with other related truths. This is not simply knowledge, but understanding. The knowledge implied in believing is simply the apprehension of the meaning of the proposition believed. No one can be said to believe a statement of whose import he is ignorant. A man can be said to believe what he does not understand, but he cannot be said to believe what he does not know. We speak of knowing that a thing is, and we speak of understanding hoiv it is. I know that by a volition I can raise my arm, but how it is that the motion follows the volition I understand not. The former is empirical knowledge ; the latter is philosophical knowledge. 'The latter is not neces sary to faith ; the former is indispensable.
2. To Reason belongs also what theologians desig nate & judicium contradictionis. Here it is necessary to define clearly what is embraced under this ac knowledged prerogative, as a Rationalist, taking advantage of the concession to Reason of such a prerogative, may think he is entitled to claim that the friends of Revelation have taken the Rationalistic ground, and have constituted Reason the standard
THE fUDICIUU CONTRADICTIONS. \\
by which all communications arc to be judged. To prevent such assumption it is simply necessary to state with exactness what is, and what is not, embraced under this prerogative. The sphere of judgment conceded under this designation is simply the credibility of the contents of the Revelation ; and by credibility is not meant the comprchensibility of the doctrine, but its freedom from everything which would tend to discredit it. The question before the mind when it exercises this prerogative is simply this : May the proposition be true ? The question is not : Must it be true, or, Is it comprehensible, but, Is it, or is it not, immoral, absurd, or impossible ? If the communication claiming to be a Revelation from God teach what is immoral, absurd, or impossible, the Reason of man, in the exercise of an inalienable right, rises up, and rejects it. If, however, it be unembarrassed by these attributes, . right Reason recognises it as credible. In giving this verdict Reason docs not affirm that the doctrine is true. It simply affirms that as it is not immoral, absurd, or impossible, it may be true, and, therefore, may be believed without violence to our rational nature. Having, in the exercise of this prerogative, discovered nothing fitted to discredit the professed Revelation, the mind is ready to entertain the question of its Divine authorship and to examine its credentials.
The statement now made of what is embraced under this prerogative, is sufficient argument in sup-
THE RU-LE OF PAITH.
port of its claims. In considering the question whether a given communication may have come from God, the human mind cannot avoid the consideration of the points specified. Constituted as \vc are — and our constitution is not designed to be a source of delusion — \vc can never regard as credible that which is absurd, immoral, or impossible. It is true that men often err in the exercise of this prerogative, and accept, as Divine revelations, systems which contain contradictory, absurd, and immoral doctrines ; but this humiliating fact does not disprove the existence of this prerogative : it simply proves the liability of man to err in the exercise of his powers. All men claim the right to sit in judgment upon a professed Revelation, and no man professes to re ceive, as a Revelation, a communication characterised by absurdity or immorality, or which calls upon him to accept what he regards as impossible.
3. The Scriptures recognise the right of Reason to judge of the evidences wherewith their Divine authority has been attested. The Divine messengers through
o o
whom the Revelation given in the Bible has been communicated have been empowered to work miracles, or gifted with knowledge which must have come from God, in order to establish their claims as the bearers of a Divine commission. In furnishing His servants with these credentials God has manifestly recognised it as one of the functions of Reason to judge of them, and to decide upon their validity.
CHRIST'S RECOGNITION OF REASON. 1.5
Our Saviour took this ground when He told the Jc\vs that " if He had not done among them miracles which no other man ever did, they had not had sin," and also when Pic upbraided the cities of Galilee because that all the mighty works lie had done among them had not convinced them of His Messiahship. He had submitted to them abundant evidence of His claims, and they had not examined it as reasonable men. In other words, He recognises the prerogative of Reason even where His own commission is at stake, and condemns the men who rejected Him for neglecting to exercise it, or for the misuse of it in their treatment of His claims.
The Westminster Confession of Faith is Very ex plicit on this point. It speaks of " the hcavcnlincss of the matter, the efficacy of the doctrine, the consent of the parts, the scope of the whole, and the full discovery it makes of the only way of salvation," as among the evidences which move our minds to accept the Scriptures as the word of God. Of course it is implied in all this that the claims of the Revelation have been subjected to examination in regard to all these points, and that, as the result of such exami nation, the mind has been persuaded, i.e. rationally convinced, that it bears sufficient evidence of having come forth from God.
It ought to be observed, however, that the ulti mate ground on which the Westminster divines rest our faith in the Scriptures as the word of God is
i4 THE RULE OF FAITIL
the testimony of the Spirit bearing witness in our heart, by and with the word. As there is a positive bias against the truths which give character to the Bible as a Revelation from God, and a positive blindness of the understanding in regard to spiritual things, which render it impossible that a man in his natural estate should receive or know them, so in the provisions of the economy of grace there is a remedy provided for the blindness by which the darkness of the understanding is removed, and a remedy for the alienation of the will by which the soul is made willing in the day of Christ's kingly power. This testimony of the Spirit, as the Westminster standards teach, is not only by the word, but wiih it. There is not only the testimony arising from the sub jective conformity of the soul to the objective standard exhibited in the word, but there is also the concurrent testimony borne by the Spirit to the truth of the word itself. Thus, throughout, the mind is dealt with as rational. The Spirit in His regene rating act does not set aside Reason, but, on the contrary, renews it, and, having renewed it, addresses Himself to it. The submission of the soul to God is not a blind submission, nor is the reception of the Divine Revelation and the Saviour it -offers an ir rational act. The process of conversion is a process' of persuasion, as well as a process of spiritual transformation wrought by the omnipotent agency •jf the Holy Spirit. There is, according to the
XEASOX RECOGNISED BY THE HOLY SPIRIT. 15
representation of these confessional standards, a work of the Spirit which embraces conviction, enlighten ment of the mind in the knowledge of Christ, and a persuading of the soul to embrace Him, as well as a renewal of the will and the impartation of spiritual strength. In a word, the Reason, as wel! as the heart and conscience, is brought into exercise when the Holy Spirit effectually calls the soul and translates it into the kingdom of God's dear Son.
4. Reason having verified the Revelation as a Divinely authenticated communication, has to do with the interpretation of it. It judges of the im port of its statements, and determines among con flicting interpretations which is the true one. In the exercise of this prerogative, we have the full warrant of the Scriptures themselves, which urge upon us the duty of searching them, and affirm our responsibility . in regard to the doctrines we deduce from them. To this tribunal, as we have seen already, our Saviour submitted His own claims as the Messiah, and to • the same arbitrament His apostles appealed in proof of their teachings. Whether our Saviour reasoned with the Jews or with His own disciples, He- addressed arguments to their reason, and called upon them to exercise it upon the testimony of Moses and the prophets concerning Himself. And what else was the scope of apostolic preaching but to prove from the Scriptures that Jesus was the Christ ? In fact, it is impossible for a rational being to
1 6 THE RULE OF FAITH.
receive, or know, a Revelation at all, without ex ercising his reason. One revelation is to all intents, purposes, and uses, the same as any other until its contents are examined and its truths ap prehended, that is until the Revelation has been rationally considered. This apprehension is indis pensable to our reaping any spiritual advantage from the Revelation given us in the Bible, for know ledge of its great essential fundamental truths is one of the conditions of the salvation it. reveals.
5. But, as already intimated, Reason cannot rest satisfied with isolated doctrinal deductions from Scripture. It cannot avoid endeavouring to systema tise and harmonise these deductions. It is just as natural and as warrantable to classify our deduc tions from the word of God as from His works, and it is found, as a matter of fact, that all who study either the word, or the works of God, do actually classify their knowledge and endeavour to present their conclusions in systematic form. Reason, therefore, is exercised not only in judging of, or ascertaining, the import of the Revelation, but also in the adjustment and systematic ex hibition of its doctrinal contents.
6. In the exercise of these prerogatives Reason is neither infallible nor irresponsible. The Jews re jected the claims of Jesus of Nazareth, though in that rejection they were completing the accumulat ing evidence whereby His Messiahship was estab-
REASON FALLIBLE YET RESPONSIBLE. 17
lished ; and many, in the present clay, reject the Scriptures who pride themselves on their standing as enlightened and reasonable men. The fallibi lity of human reason, however, is no argument against its use, for if the principle involved in such argument were fully carried out, men must cease to exercise their reason in any matter whatever, whether sacred or secular. It is just as common for men to err in the one department as in the other. The only inference warranted in cither case is the necessity of caution, and the necessity of observing the laws of thought. No one ever thinks of any other inference from the liability of man to err in things secular, and there can be no reason assigned for any other in relation to error within the sphere of the sacred. The liability of Reason to err is in no case regarded as warranting any authority, whether sacred or secular, civil or ecclesiastical, in attempting to dethrone Reason or suspend the exercise of her high prerogatives. The Jews erred in rejecting Christ, but their error is not ascribed to the exercise of their reason. They are con demned for not exercising their 'reason aright in judging of His claims. The sin whereby they provoked God, and brought down upon themselves and upon their children the threatened curse, had its origin in the abuse of reason in matters of faith.
LECTURE II.
THE PROVINCE OF THE SENSES IN MATTERS OF FAITH.
was, at first, a question between Protestants and Romanists, and originated in connection with the controversy respecting Transubstantiation. In opposition to the alleged change of the bread and wine into the body, soul, and Divinity of Christ, the Reformers appealed to the senses of sight, touch, and taste. To this the Romish theologians replied that the testimony of the senses is not to be heard in the Mysteries of Faith, inasmuch as these Mysteries are above the senses, and faith consists in believing what we do not see. Yes, the Reformers replied, it is true that the senses are not to be heard in every matter of faith, but it is not true that their testimony is not to be admitted when they testify of things sensible and corporeal, which come within their own proper sphere. Within this sphere their testimony is authoritative and ultimate, and from it they cannot be excluded without doing violence to the constitu tion of our own nature. Constituted as we are, we must trust to the testimony of our senses, and our
RECOGNITION OF THE SENSES BY CHRIST. 19
doing so is one of the conditions of our progress in knowledge. To distrust them were to arrest all study of external nature and to cast a grave reflection upon the Author of our being.
It is scarcely necessary to formally discuss this question. The most cursory reader of the Scriptures must be aware that both in the Old Testament and the Xew, God has set the stamp of the most indubi table recognition upon the bodily senses of mankind. Through signs and wonders wrought before men, lie has testified to the authoritative commission of His Messengers. It is an unquestionable fact that both our Saviour and His apostles appealed to the senses in matters of faith of the highest importance. The disciples were invited to' satisfy themselves in regard to no less a matter than the resurrection of Christ by the senses of sight and touch. To allay their fears and correct their misapprehensions our Saviour said to them : " Why. are ye troubled, and why do doubts arise in your hearts ? Behold My hands and My feet, that it is I Myself ; handle Me and see ; for a spirit hath not flesh and bones, as ye see Me have. And when He had thus spoken He showed them His hands and His feet " (Luke xxiv. 38-40). In like manner the angels who announced His birth, ancl those who announced His resurrection, appealed to the senses. By the sense of sight both His birth and His resurrection were to be verified. " He is not here, but is risen. Come, sec the place
20 THE RULE OF FAITH.
where lie lay." Besides, it must be manifest that any argument which is of force against the testimony of the senses in such matters must also be of force against the testimony of the Apostles, for their testimony rested, ultimately, upon the testimony of their senses. They were witnesses " of what they had heard, of what they had seen with their eyes, of what they had looked upon, and their hands had handled, of the Word of life" (i John i. i). These and other like references prove conclusively that the doctrine of Rome on this subject — a doctrine obviously devised in defence of the doctrine of Transubstantiatibn — is irreconcilable with the teach ing of the sacred Scriptures.
BEARING OF THIS THEORY ox SCIENCE AND PHILOSOPHY.
Professor Flint in his important treatise on Theism (pp. i 10 — i 12) takes the ground that the senses are not trustworthy witnesses, and .alleges that we have no warrant for the assumption that external objects arc what our senses testify. " Change our senses," he says, " and the universe will be thereby changed, everything in it becoming something other than it was before, green perhaps red, the bitter sweet, the loudest noise a gentle whisper, the hardest substance soft." He endorses fully Mill's definition of matter as " the permanent possibility of sensations," and affirms that " the collection of phenomena which
HUXLEY1 S ESTIMATE OF THE SEXSF.S.
we call the properties of matter is quite unlike the phenomena of mind in this most important respect, that whatever they may be, they are not what they appear to be. A state of mind is what we feel it to be ; a state of matter is certainly not what we seem to ourselves to perceive it to be." On the preceding page, Professor Flint had stated that " we have a practical and relative knowledge of matter which is both exact and trustworthy^ — a knowledge of its pro perties from which we can' mathematically deduce a multitude of remote consequences of an extremely pre cise character — but we are hardly entitled to charac terise as knowledge at all any of the views which have been propounded as to what itis in itself."
This is simply what Professor Huxley avowed on the same point in his memorable address on the hypothesis that animals are automata, delivered before the British Association at their meeting .in Belfast in 1874. It is neither more nor less than Berkeley's idealism over again, and is to be met by the same arguments. The assumption is, that as all our knowledge comes through the medium of con sciousness, and as consciousness is a faculty of mind, mind alone can be certainly known.
REMARKS ON THIS PHASE OF Till; THEORY.
I. Professor Flint seems to concede what is scarcely consistent with the distinction he makes between the knowledge we have of matter and the
22 THE RULE OF FAITH.
knowledge we have of mind. He admits that we have a knowledge of the properties of matter from which we cap mathematically deduce a multitude of remote consequences of an extremely precise cha racter. Now it is not too much to claim that all the knowledge that we have of anything, either within us or without us, is a knowledge of properties. It is just as true of mind as it is of matter, that it is known to us only in and by its properties, and it is by its pro perties that we distinguish any one thing from any other thing. In conceding that we know-the proper ties of a thing, therefore, it is concluded that we know the thing itself, for the properties are simply the expression of what the thing is in its essential nature, as properties and essence are inseparable.
But Professor Flint still further concedes that this knowledge which we have of the properties of matter furnishes the premises for mathematical conclusions of an extremely precise character." Here then arises a grave difficulty, a difficulty which seems to 'be altogether insurmountable. How can that which furnishes premises for mathematical deductions of an extremely precise character be represented as not being what it appears to be ? If "there be no cer tainty in the premiss, there cannot be certainty in the deduction, and if there be certainty in the con clusion, it is owing to the certainty "in the premiss and the mathematical accuracy of the process by which the conclusion has been reached.
PHYSICAL SCIENCE DEPENDENT ON THE SENSES. 23
2. The theory is contrary to the convictions of mankind. No man, except when under the fascina tion of a theoretical speculation, believes it or acts upon it. All men believe external objects to be what they appear to be.
3. On this assumption the experimentalist in pjiysics proceeds. Me judges of the properties of the elements of matter by the way in which they affect his senses. lie takes these elements to be what they appear to him to be, and whether the instrument employed be the retort, or the crucible, or the spectroscope, it is but the means whereby the properties of matter are made to affect the senses. The instrument simply places the senses in the proper position to bear testimony ; and they are the sole witnesses in regard to the existence or character of an external world. The mind has nothing else to rely on, and if deceived by them, there is an end to all certainty in physical investigations, and science, so far as it deals with external nature, is neither more nor less than nescience.
4. It is quite true that if our senses were changed, our views of matter would be different ; but the change in that case would certainly involve the substitution of deceptive senses for the true. Our senses may come far short of revealing to us all the properties of matter ; but constituted as we arc, we cannot but accept their testimony as trustworthy as far as it goes. This we must do, or incur the guilt
24 TltE RULE OF FAITH.
of preferring against the Author of our being the charge of devising, for the instruction of our minds in the knowledge of His works, an apparatus which is a source of perpetual deception. On this theory the heavens could not be said to reveal the glory of God, nor could it be said that the invisible things of Him from the creation of the world are so clearly revealed by the things that are seen that those who do not apprehend His eternal power and Godhead are left without excuse. This conclusion is clearly just ; for the only witnesses of what the things which are seen reveal, the only witnesses to testify what are the elements of the glory which the heavens declare, are, ultimately, our bodily senses.
5. And, finally, if the doctrine be true, it is of force against the testimony of the senses altogether. If valid at all, it is just as valid against the reli ability of their testimony in regard to the existence of an external world as it is against their trust worthiness in regard to its phenomena, for it is only through its phenomena that the external world makes its existence known. If there is any matter wherein the maxim, Falsus in nuo,falsus in omnibus, holds, it is in this matter of the testimony of the senses. He who rejects their testimony in regard to any matter which comes fairly within their own proper sphere has no right to recognise as trust- worth)- their testimony in regard to any other within the same sphere. The warrant for the refusal of
• CONDITIONS TO HE OBSERVED. 25
o.ur faith in one instance must hold good throughout the wide domain within which our organs of com munication with external nature are called into exercise. In brief, the theory carried out must land its advocates in Berkeleyan idealism — a specu lative notion which no man acts upon in his actual intercourse with men and things, and which has its origin in a most inadequate analysis of the contents of consciousness.
As a fitting close to these remarks reference may be made to the conditions under which the senses are to be trusted, as given by Turrctine : — I. That the object respecting which they are to testify be placed at the proper distance. 2. That the medium be pure and free from everything which might mar the image. 3. That the organ be employed accord ing to the laws which govern its use. 4. That all the senses by which the object can be cognised be consulted and agree in the same judgment. 5. That they be employed and exercised with due attention, and not hastily. 6. That the imagination be free from disturbing abnormal states, such as are incident to frenzy or fever, causing the mind to imagine that it sees and hears things which it neither sees nor hears. Acting under. these conditions, the senses are to be trusted, and must be trusted, if we would avoid .doing violence to the laws impressed upon our constitution ; and it is under these conditions they act when they testify that the bread and wine in the Eucharist
THE RULE OF FAITH.
remain unchanged by the consecrating act of the priest. See " Turretine Loc. Prim. Qurest." xi. th. vii.
MYSTICISM.
While the term Mysticism has been employed in the history of the Church to designate a great variety of systems, philosophical and theological, there is one radical conception which pervades and characterises them all. They all agree in teaching that the soul derives its knowledge directly from God and not through the medium of ab extra in struction. As Cousin expresses it, " Mysticism in philosophy is the belief that God may be known face to face, without anything intermediate. It is a yielding to the sentiment awakened by the idea of the infinite, and a running up of all knowledge and all duty to the contemplation and love of Him." (Quoted from Fleming's Vocabulary in Hodge's " Syst. Theol.," vol. i. p. 62.) Such is Mysticism whether in Philosophy or Religion. By intuition it supersedes all discursive processes of the human mind. It -glorifies the spirit at the expense of the letter and of all the outward and ordinary means of grace. The mystic exalts his feelings above all outward instrumentalities, and regards them as a safer guide than the more sure word of prophecy. His feelings, in fact, become his rule of faith, for his interpretations of Scripture are not. determined by any reasonable process of exegesis, but by his
ATTITUDE OF MYSTICISM TOWARD REVELATION. 27
o\vn likes and dislikes. As described by Dr. Charles Hodge, " it is the theory, variously modified, that the knowledge, purity, and blessedness to be derived from communion with God are not to be attained from the Scriptures and the use of the ordinary means of grace, but by a supernatural and. immediate Divine influence, which influence (or communication of God to the soul) is to be secured by passivity, a simple yielding the soul without thought or effort to the Divine influx" (" Syst. • Theol.," vol. i. p. 64).
As already intimated, the mystic cannot, con sistently, recognise any outside objective standard or test, by which this inner light, or alleged com munication of God to the soiil, is to be judged. He who is immediately taught of God can recognise no other Master. As the sacred Scriptures are a record of what the sacred writers received through this same channel, and as these men were favoured with an extraordinary degree of the Divine influence, great respect and a certain measure of authority should be accorded them ; but where their teachings appear to conflict with this inner revelation, recourse must be had to methods of interpretation which will reconcile the Scriptures to its dicta. Where this expedient fails, the mystic has no alternative but to reject the objective Revelation. A striking instance of the adoption of this alternative occurred in a remarkable address delivered recently by an
2-8 THE RULE OF FAITH.
eminent statesman. Referring to that passage in the book of Job (chap. v. 7) in which Eliphaz the Temanite speaks of man as being " born unto trouble, as the sparks fly upward," and regarding the language as that of Job, the speaker was reported as saying that he differed with him. This passage, moreover, though it occurs in a speech of Eliphaz, is in perfect accord with the doctrine of the Bible in regard to the earthly lot of man since the fall, and may, therefore, be regarded as entitled to all the respect clue to an authoritative inspired deliverance. The incident is interesting as showing that in practice the mystic will regulate his creed by. his own feelings even where those feelings prompt him to differ with the testimony of the sacred record.
This theory differs from the Rationalistic in this important respect, that it regards the inner light not as constitutional, but as a special personal influence of the Holy Spirit, who, it is alleged, enlightens every man that cometh into the world. According to the former, the light is natural ; ac cording to the latter, it is supernatural. Both agree in holding that it is a sufficient guide, not only for the life that now is, but also for that which is to come.
It differs also from the doctrine of Inspiration. In Inspiration there is an immediate communication of truth through the intellectual powers, while, on the Mystic theory, the agency of the Spirit is limited
MYSTICISM DIFFERS FROM ILLUMINATION. 29
to the Feelings. In the former case there is a communication of information ; in the latter the emotions are stirred, and the man, under the power of these impulses, is borne along to conclusions respecting God and Divine things which it were sinful to gainsay or challenge.
Nor is this theory to be confounded with the Scripture doctrine of Illumination. The Scriptures teach that the children of God shall be all taught of God ; but this teaching is always correlative to an existing objective standard, and consists in the enlightenment of the disciple in the saving know ledge of its truths. According to the Mystic theory, the agency of the Spirit is independent of all ob jective standards, and conveys, immediately, by the excitation of the Feelings, all the knowledge requi site to faith or practice, a knowledge which is the sole ultimate standard and authoritative guide.
THE VIEWS OF THE QUAKERS, OR FRIENDS, ox THE INNER LICHT.
Passing by that section of the Quakers who have lapsed from the faith so as to give up all that dis tinguishes Christianity from Deism, it is proper, in this connection, to notice the views of those who arc known as the Orthodox Quakers. These hold all the leading truths of Christianity, including the Scripture doctrine of the Trinity, the person and work of Christ, the personality, deity, and office work
30 THE RULE OF FAITH.
of the Holy Ghost, the original state of man, his fall through transgression, and the ruin and misery thereby brought upon the race, involving their utter inability to know God aright or to do anything spiritually good. They hold with other Christians that there will be a resurrection both of the just and the unjust, of. the one to everlasting life and of the other to everlasting punishment, when God will judge the world by that Man whom He hath ordained, even the Lord Jesus Christ.
Touching the Sacred Scriptures, they- hold to the common faith that they are given by inspiration of God, and that they contain the whole sum of saving knowledge, and also that whatsoever doctrine or practice is contrary to their teaching is to be rejected, " that they are a declaration of the mind and will of God in -and to the several ages in which they were written, and are obligatory on us, and are to be read, believed, and fulfilled by the assist ance of Divine grace." They recognise, besides the Scriptures, " no outward judge or test of contro versies among Christians," and they are willing to have all their doctrines and practices tried by them, and they " freely admit that whatsoever any do, pre tending to the Spirit, which is contrary to the 'Scrip tures, is to be condemned as a delusion of the devil."
But along with these very satisfactory statements of saving truth, the Quakers hold that the inner light, which they represent as common to all men,
DOCTKIXE OF THE EVANGELICAL QUAKERS. 31
is sufficient, if attended to, to lead men to a know ledge " of their o\vn sin and misery, and to make them sharers of the sufferings of Christ, inwardly ; and to make them partakers of His resurrection, in becoming holy, pure, and righteous, and recovered out of their sins" (Evans, quoted by. I lodge, vol. i. pp. 90 — 93;-
According to the Quakers, the Church in apostolic times is the model, in all respects, for all times. The provision for the edification of the Christian assembly was spiritual gifts bestowed upon the individual members. These gifts were given to profit withal, and those upon whom they were bestowed were thereby authorised and commis sioned to employ them for the benefit of the body. This arrangement was not a provisional one, or designed to meet a special emergency. On the contrary, it was an institution designed to last throughout the Christian dispensation. Of course those who hold this view of the office of the Holy Spirit in the Church must regard the individual members of the body as raised above the necessity of instruction through external instrumentalities. Hence, as a matter of fact, while the Quakers recog nise the inspiration and consequent authority of the Sacred. Scriptures, they are far from giving them that supreme place, as sources of spiritual knowledge, assigned them by the churches of the Reformation, both Lutheran and Reformed.
THE RULE OF FA I TIL
REMARKS UPON THIS THEORY OF AN INNER LIGHT.
i. In the first place it maybe observed that this theory contains an element of truth. ' It is one of the most precious truths of Revelation that the Holy Spirit holds intercourse with the spirits of God's people, and that this intercourse is immediate. In Regeneration, by His direct agency, He imparts life to the soul dead in trespasses and sin ; in adop tion He bears witness with the regenerate that they are the children of God ; in sanctification He renews the soul throughout all its powers, enabling it to die more and more unto sin and live unto righteousness ; and in intercession He acts after a Divine manner, creating, by His omnipotent power, desires after the blessings which Christ has died to purchase and which He hves to bestow. One of the greatest of the triad of blessings embraced in the apostolic benediction is the KOIVMVLOL — the communion of the Holy Ghost.
As. already intimated, this intercourse is direct between the spirit of man and the Spirit of God, and by it spiritual life is originated and maintained in the soul. It is an intercourse, however, which has its clearly revealed conditions. In the case of adults, one of its conditions is the 'knowledge of the objective Revelation given in the Sacred Scriptures. The action of the Spirit is correlative to the truths 'of
PROOF TEXTS IMPERTINENT OR INCONCLUSIVE. 33
Revelation. The fundamental error of the Mystic theory is that it overlooks altogether, or attaches comparatively little importance to this condition.
2. It may be remarked that the Scriptures no where teach that such inner spiritual guidance is given to all men. The passages on which Mystics rely are such as the following : — " All thy children shall be taught of the Lord" (Isa. liv. 13 ; quoted by our Saviour John vi. 45) ; "I will put My law in their inward parts, and write them in their hearts, and will be their God, and they shall be My people. And they shall teach no more every man his neigh bour and every man his brother, saying, Know the Lord, for all shall know Me, from the least of them unto the greatest of them, saith the Lord " (Jer. xxxi. 33, 34; quoted Heb. viii. 10, I i). Now it may be said of all such passages : I. That the bless ings of which they speak are not universal, but are, on the contrary, limited to those who are in covenant with God. 2. That if they are at all pertinent, they prove too much for the Mystics. Taken literally as the rule for the regulation of the instruction of all men, it must impose, not a mere temporary, but a perpetual silence upon every individual in reference to all others. Such instruction as these passages describe must supersede, and render unnecessary, all instruction by any finite agency, whether human or angelic. Why should one try to instruct another where all are raised above the need of human in-
3
34 THE RULE OF FAITH.
struction, by the immediate teaching of God and the Divine inscription of His law ?
The point to be established is not that the Spirit is given to all believers, but that He is given to all men. The thing to be proved is not that lie is given to open the eyes of the understand ing to behold and apprehend the truths of an already existing revelation, but that He is given to produce a state of feeling which may, in some way or other, serve as a source of truth and a rule of duty. The thing to be proved is not that the Spirit is given to enforce the light of nature, or the light of God's word, upon the consciences of men, but that He is given to all men as a source of knowledge independent of, and superior to, all standards or rules of duty derived from any external source whatever.
3. In the next place, it may be objected to the Mystic theory that it is in conflict with those pas sages of Scripture which refer the teachings of every spirit to the extant Revelation, as the supreme and ultimate standard by which every fresh com munication is to be judged. Christians are ad monished not to believe every spirit, but to try the spirits whether they be of God. To this rule there is to be no exception. It is not only to be applied to men, but to angels also. " Though we or an angel from heaven preach unto you any other gospel than that we have preached unto you, let him be accursed " (Gal. i. 8). If, as it must be admitted,
HELPLESS IN DEALING WITH ERRORIS'IS. 35
the rule thus laid down was laid down by one who was under an extraordinary influence of the Spirit, with what show of consistency can it be held that a man is to be heard and deferred to, who, professing to be under the immediate influence of the same Spirit, not only refuses to submit to such a test, but actually contradicts the doctrines pronounced, by His authority, the ultimate test of all professed evangelical communications ?
. According to Mysticism every man is consti tuted by the inner light a standard and rule to him self, and the standards of Mysticism must be as numerous as are the Mystics. According to the Sacred Scriptures, however, the word of God claims to be the only rule, and to this every man must con form, and by this sure word of prophecy every spirit must be tried.
4. As might be expected, Mysticism is helpless when it is called upon to deal with crrorists. It has no standard or criterion whereby to determine the claims of a professed Divine communication. And equally helpless must be the individual who may imagine himself to be under the teaching of this inner light. Were there no other spirit in the universe having access to his mind save the Spirit of God, he might not be so much at a loss to determine whether the influence were Divine ; but how is he to know, apart from some objective standard, whether the influence may not be of the
36 THE RULE OF F ATI II.
evil one, or whether the imagined light be "not the offspring of a heated imagination.?
5. Finally, against Mysticism may be urged the conclusive fact that apart from the objective Rcvc-' lation there is no evidence that the Holy Spirit has ever led any one to the saving knowledge of God. It is vain to adduce in support of the Mystic theory the instances furnished in the histories of Job and Mclchisedec. The latter stands out on the inspired record as an eminent type of the Messiah, as One whose priesthood was above the priesthood of Aaron. His interview with Abraham shows clearly that he knew Gocl, and the office which he held and executed proved that he was acquainted with the way in which God was to be 'worshipped, and also that he had respect, beyond what Mystics have, to external ordinances. The former, as the narrative states, held intercourse with God, not simply by inner light or subjective impulses, but by audible utterances and direct personal interviews. Job and Melchisedec ma}* be regarded as instances of the continuance of the knowledge of God outside the chosen race, and as proofs that the Revelation made to Noah, and by him transmitted to his posterity, did not immediately perish from the world.
Tin-: ROMISH THEORY OF THE RULE OF FAITH.
As stated by Baronius, " Illud omnc et solum est de fide catholica, quod est revelatum in verbo Dei
ROMISH POSITION STRICTLY DEFINED.
ct proposition omnibus ab ccclesia Catholica fide Divina crcdcndum." Expounding this statement, Lieberman in his "Theological Institutes" remarks : " This rule is resolved into two parts. The first embraces the word of God, in which, as in its fountain, the whole Revelation is contained. The second embraces the authority of the Church, which elicits the Revelation from the word of God and points it out to men. Two things, therefore, must conspire in order that any doctrine may be a part of the Catholic faith. First, that it be revealed by God through prophets and apostles, or canonical authors ; for every revelation afterwards made, does not pertain to the Catholic faith. Second, that the doctrine be propounded by the Church. If both these conditions be fulfilled, the doctrine is to be believed with a Divine Catholic faith. If either be wanting — the Revelation, or the proposal (propositio) of it by the Church — it is not to be believed with a Divine Catholic faith. But the second condition cannot be present without the first being present also ; for since Christ has promised to the Church the assistance of the Holy Spirit, who should teach and lead her into all truth, she, while this promise, which endureth for ever, remains, can never teach that anything has been revealed which has not been revealed. Nevertheless, something may be revealed by God even in the word, to wit, obscurely, which may not as yet have been propounded by the
3S THE RULE OF FAITH.
Church, because, though revealed in the Divine word, it needs an interpreter, and the Church may not as yet have apprehended the sense of the word of God, written or handed down by tradition, and thus has not as yet defined it, and hence has not as yet proposed either this or that to be believed by faith.
" Now any one will easily understand that when we hypothecate the authority of the Church we do not detract from the authority of the Divine word. The Church does not strike out new doctrines, she brings forth nothing of her own, but teaches those doctrines which are contained in the revealed word of God ; and these, as the faithful custodian and mistress of the faith, she sets forth to be believed." . . . " Hence," Licberman concludes, " the principle remains unshaken that the ultimate source of all re vealed Theology is the authority of God revealing.
" The Church possesses the Divine word and brings forth from the Divine word her doctrines ; and we, when we hear the Church, are sure that we believe the Divine word and hold that doctrine which Christ has revealed, and which the apostles have left to us cither written, or by word of mouth " (vol. i.
PP- 387-8)-
Rome therefore holds, as Protestants do, that the revealed word of God is the sole rule of faith ; but she differs from Protestants in regard to the com prehension of the term " the revealed word of God."
ROMISH EXTENSION OF THE CAXON. 39
While Romanists hold that all the Scriptures recog nised by Protestants arc entitled to rank as the \vord of God, they add to the Canon as held by Protestants a large number of books which Protes tants treat as apocryphal and refuse to recognise as entitled to canonical standing as part and parcel of the extant Revelation. Xor is Rome content with adding the Apocrypha to the Canon of In spiration ; to this supplemented Canon she adds Tradition, or what she describes as the word of God orally delivered. Nor is she willing to risk her claims upon an appeal to this complex standard, but arrogates to herself solely and exclusively the office of interpreter — a claim which she founds upon the alleged obscurity of the revealed word, the authority wherewith she has been invested as the ordained instructrix of mankind, and the qualifica tions she possesses, in virtue of the promised pre sence of the Holy Spirit, for the execution of the functions of this spiritual office.
The reason which leads Romanists to attach so much importance to Tradition and the apocryphal writings is simply because they find therein a support for some of their distinctive doctrines for which they can claim no foundation in the Canonical books recognised by Protestants. The doctrines which they hold to be taught either fully or exclu sively by Tradition are — I. The Canon of Scripture. 2. The full doctrine of the Trinitv, including the rank
4o THE RULE OF FAIJH.
and relations of the Father, Son, and Spirit. 3. The Incarnation. 4. The perpetual virginity, etc., of the Virgin Mary. 5. Infant baptism. 6. The change of the Sabbath from the seventh to the first day of the week. 7. The doctrine of apostolical suc cession. 8. The government of the Church by bishops. 9. The threefold order of the priesthood. 10. The grace of Orders. 11. The sacrificial cha racter of the Eucharist. 12. The seven sacraments. 1 3. The doctrine of purgatory. The slightest in spection of this partial list will satisfy any candid mind at all acquainted with the teaching of the Divine word, that some of these doctrines, such as that of the Trinity and the Incarnation, are clearly revealed in Scripture and in no wise dependent upon Tradition, while others are not only not revealed there, but are cither expressly or implicitly contra dicted. The concession implied in this appeal to Tradition is worthy of special note. The appeal carries with it the implication that, for doctrines which arc the chief distinctive characteristics of her system, Rome can find no satisfactory evidence in the canonical Scriptures recognised by Protestants.
ROMISH ESTIMATE OF THE ORIGINAL SCRIPTURES.
Not satisfied with making void the word of God through her traditions, the Church of Rome, by a decision of the Council of Trent, has placed the Latin Vulgate above the original Hebrew and Greek
KOM/SI/ EXALTATION OF THE VULGATE. 41
texts of Scripture. In the fourth session of that coun cil the following decree was passed ! — " Moreover, the same sacred and holy synod, considering that no little advantage may accrue to the Church of God if out of all the Latin editions of the sacred books now in circulation it make known which arc to be held as authentic, ordains and declares that the said old and Vulgate edition, which by the long usage of so many ages has been approved in the Church, be held as authentic in public readings, disputations, preach ings, and expositions, and that no one may dare or presume to reject it on any pretext whatsoever."
Some Romish writers contend that this decree was not intended to exalt the Latin Vulgate above the Hebrew and Greek Scriptures, but simply to express the preference of the Council for that version rather than the other Latin versions then in circula tion side by side with it. In support of the charge made by Protestants the following arguments may be urged : — I. The contents of the Vulgate (cm- bracing, as it does, the Apocrypha, the books of which arc specified in the decree) differs, canonically, from the Hebrew text. 2. This difference in regard to contents, of course, raises a cardinal question between the two books. According to the Hebrew Bible, the Apocrypha is not a part of the rule of faith, while according to the Vulgate it is of equal authority with any other portion of the record. Here is manifestly a conflict of grave importance
42 THE RULE OF FAITH.
between the two claimants. The point in dispute, however, is settled by the Tridentine decree, and, beyond doubt, is settled in favour of the Latin Vulgate, and against the claims of the original Hebrew. This must be manifest, for the decree pronounces an anathema upon the man who shall not receive the books enumerated in all their parts as they are given in the said Latin version. 3. By ordaining that the Vulgate was to be held authentic in all public lections, disputations, preachings, and expositions, and that no one was to dare or presume to reject it on any pretext whatsoever, the synod evidently constituted it the supreme and ultimate standard of appeal on all occasions where questions of doctrine could possibly arise, for the phrase quovis prcctcxtu certainly covers all pretexts, and among others the pretext that the Vulgate does not agree with the Hebrew. The force of the argument from the diversity of the contents of the Latin and Hebrew texts will be more manifest on an exa mination of the apocryphal books raised by the decree to canonical rank. These books are as follow : — Tobias, Judith, Sequel to the book of Esther, amounting to nearly seven chapters, the book of Wisdom, Ecclesiasticus, Baruch, History of Susannah and her children, prefixed to the book of Daniel, the song of the three children inserted in the third chapter of Daniel, the story of Bel and the Dragon appended to that book. The history of Susannah
KOM/Sff ESTIMATE OF TRADITION. 43
and her children is given in the LXX., but is omitted in the Vulgate. The list closes with the two books of the Maccabees. There can be no need of argument to satisfy any reasonable mind that a decree establishing a version, differing, by all the books here enumerated, from the original Hebrew, as the ultimate arbiter in all questions of doctrine or discipline, of faith or morals, does, ipso facto, set aside the Hebrew as the standard of revealed truth.
ROMISH DOCTRINE RESPECTING TRADITION.
• As employed by Romanists, the term Tradition
designates the oral instructions of Christ and His apostles, which were not committed to writing, but handed down to the early Fathers, from whom we have them uncorrupted and possessed of all the authority of the Sacred Scriptures themselves. These traditions thus committed to the custody of the Church, and by her transmitted from age to age, are to be received as the word of God, and are to be believed and reverenced with the same devotional regard as the Scriptures themselves, and if any one, knowingly and deliberately, treats them with contempt, he incurs thereby an anathema. The ground of this anathema is that the Church, in transmitting these Divinely uttered traditions, has been infallibly guided by the Holy Spirit.
These traditions have been variously classified, as historical, dogmatical, liturgical. Bellarminc divides
44 THE RULE OF FAITH.
them into — I. Divine — those uttered by our Lord Himself. 2. Apostolical — those spoken by the Apostles. 3. Ecclesiastical — those which relate to rites and ceremonies instituted by the Church. The last-named class arc not regarded as of equal importance with those embraced under the others, but they are, nevertheless, regarded as obligatory upon the faithful, having been ordained by a Church claiming the infallible guidance of the Holy Ghost. The reasons assigned by Romanists for having recourse to tradition are twofold, viz., the imperfection and obscurity of Scripture. The former defect is met by the matter of tradition, and the latter by the character of it. As a rule of faith and practice, they allege, the Scriptures arc incomplete, as they do not supply information on such subjects as have been already enumerated. This defect was provided for by our Lord and His apostles, by. oral instruction handed down through an infallible Church. Besides this quantitative deficiency, the Scriptures are quali tatively defective, as they contain things hard to be understood, which require explanation, and this defect is provided for in the authoritative expositions supplied by Tradition. Moehler in his " Symbolik " defines Tradition as " the word living on in the hearts of the faithful." With him it is the outcome of a peculiar instinct ingenerated by the education of the faithful and handed down under the infallible guidance of the Church. He accounts for the addi-
ROMISH ARGUMENTS IX SUPPORT OF TRADI1 1 .V. 45
tions to the sum total of the Revelation which have been accumulating from age to age of the Church's history by referring them to the growing doctrinal consciousness of the organisation. The Church, he alleges, docs not add to the teaching of Christ and His apostles, but gro\vs more and more into the spirit of it, and acquires, under the guidance of the Holy Spirit, clearer vie\vs and a fuller knowledge of its import. The Immaculate Conception and the In fallibility of the Pope are, therefore, not to be regarded as dogmas added to the rule of faith, but arc to' be viewed as doctrines which, although always, from Apostolic times, contained in the Revelation committed to the custody of the Church, were, never theless, not clearly and fully apprehended by her prior to the times of their formal enunciation and ratification.
i ARGUMENTS ix SUPPORT or TRADITION.
The following arc the chief arguments advanced by the Church of Rome in support of Tradition : —
1. All the discourses and conversations of Christ and His apostles were not committed to writing.
2. The instructions communicated in these discourses and conversations would be carefully treasured in the memories of the disciples, and by them sedulously guarded and faithfully handed down to their suc cessors. 3. The Scriptures themselves recognise the
46 THE RULE OF PA I TIL
• existence of Tradition in apostolic times, and exhort the faithful "to hold them fast" (2 Thess. ii. 15). 4. The Fathers appeal to traditions extant in their day, which were not contained in Scripture, and base upon them doctrinal conclusions. 5. The argumentnm ad hominem. They allege that Protes tants are compelled to fall back on Tradition in establishing doctrines for which they have no other proof, for example the Canon of Scripture. In receiving the Scriptures as the word of God, it is alleged that Protestants admit the authority of Tradition. 6. Many modern theologians, as Moehlcr, try to vindicate the doctrine philosophically by repre senting Tradition as a gradual historical development of the truths of Scripture as, under the teaching of the Spirit, they are brought more and more to the consciousness of the Church. 7. As already seen, the Council of Trent assumes Tradition as a primary fact without attempting any proof.
ARGUMENTS AGAINST THE ROMISH DOCTRINE.
In reply to the foregoing arguments the following are submitted : — i. While Protestants admit that all the discourses of Christ and His apostles were not committed to writing, and that these sayings would be carefully .treasured by the disciples, they do not admit that these sayings are now extant and capable of authentication, or that they were designed to constitute a part of the permanent rule of faith.
IF WORTH TRANSMISSION, WORTH RECORDING. 47
The question cannot be repressed : " Why should sayings of such importance to the interests of the Church be committed to the channel of Tradition, while sayings of far less importance have been committed to writing ? " It was surely as important to know that there is a real sacrifice in the Kucharist as to be told that Paul left a cloak at Troas. It was certainly of as much interest to the Church of God to know that He has kindled, for the further and final purification of Mis saints, a purgatorial fire of as intense a flame as the fiery stream of Tophet, as to be told that the barbarous people of Melita lighted a fire to warm Paul and his com panions after their escape from shipwreck. Are we to believe that He who inspired His servants to make infallible record of the less important, nevertheless, gave no such heed to the communica tion of truths which, if we are to credit the account of them given by Romanists, must take rank as among the most important doctrines of the analogy of the faith ? Granting the Romish premises of • unrecorded discourses, therefore, Protestants deny their conclusion of an unrecorded transmission. The inference is altogether inadequate. It is not a sufficient inference from the fact that our Lord and His apostles spake such things as Rome recounts that they would be carefully remembered, sacredly guarded, and faithfully transmitted. The premises warrant a much more sweeping conclusion. If
4S THE RULE OF FAITH.
Christ and His apostles taught, orally, that the Eucharist is a real sacrifice, /r0 vivis ct vwrtnis, that the Cliristian ministry is a sacrificing priesthood, through which alone men have access to God, and that for the overwhelming majority of those who have been redeemed by the blood of Christ there rcmaincth after this earthly pilgrimage, and prior to the bliss of heaven, a process of purgation, in volving sufferings unutterable, we arc warranted in the conclusion that such doctrines would not have been left to the memories of fallible men, but would have been committed to writing side by side with the foremost truths of the Divinely inspired record. There can be no reason whatever rendered for singling out doctrines of such magnitude and com mitting them to the dubious channel of Tradition. On the contrary, doctrines intended, as Rome alleges, to supplement and expound the Rule of Faith, would, of all others, be most likely to obtain a place in the Inspired Record.
2. Protestants argue from the well-known imper fection of Tradition as a medium of preserving and transmitting doctrine. Who could speak with cer tainty of the doctrines of the Reformation if we did not possess the symbols of the Lutheran ana! Reformed Churches and the writings of the leading Reformers ? No one relies on the reports which have come down through the channel of Tradition when treating of the doctrinal views of Luther, or
ABUSES CORRECTED BY SCRIPTURE ALO.VE. 49
Zwingli, or Calvin, or Knox. Trustworthy historians do not depend upon current gossip, nor do theologians place their confidence in any source of information short of original documents, or well-attested copies of the same, or faithful renderings of their contents.
3. With regard to the arguments in support of Tradition which Romanists found on such passages as i Corinthians xv. 3, and xi. 34, 2 Thessalonians ii. 15, John xvi. 12, i Timothy i. I, 13, 14, and ii. 2, 2 Timothy iii. 8, 2 John I 2, 3 John 13, 14, it may be remarked — (i) That a doctrine may be called a tradition however communicated, whether orally or by writing, as is clear from one of the passages here enumerated, where Paul urges the Thessalonians to stand fast and hold the traditions which they had been taught, whether by word or his epistle. (2) It is manifest on examination that the other passages furnish no warrant for the Romish doctrine. Take as an example i Corinthians xi. 34, which occurs at the close of the Apostle's remonstrance against the abuse of the ordinance of the Lord's Supper by the Church at Corinth. In the course of this remon strance he lays down a principle which is directly antagonistic to the principle on which Rome proceeds. He corrects the abuse in question by a reference to the original institution — a principle which our Lord had previously acted upon in reforming abuses of the institution of marriage. The sin of the Corin thians consisted in their departure from what the
4
50 7 HE RULE OF FAITH.
Apostle had received from the Lord Jesus and delivered unto them, and in the carnal unbrotherly manner in which they had engaged in a service of such high spiritual significance, and which was designed to be a symbol of brotherly fellowship. All that he corrects, he corrects by the standard already delivered to them, and all that he speaks of further as needing correction, he promises " to set in order " when he should come to Corinth. When this Corinthian reformation was completed, therefore, all that was done was done by apostolic authority, and nothing left to be regulated by rules or rites treasured up in the memories of a Church which showed herself so ready to forget, even in the Apostle's own day, the most explicit instructions in relation to the most sacred of all the ordinances of Christianity. The instance in question furnishes of itself sufficient proof that no church can be trusted to transmit any instruction apart from a written, authoritative inspired record.
4. As to the argument from the usage of the Fathers, Protestants reply that the Romish argument is altogether fallacious, depending upon the equivocal meaning of the term tradition. Their argument from the mere occurrence of this word, is like the argument for Episcopacy from the occurrence of the word bishop. Assuming that the word bishop in the first centuries of the Christian Church meant what prclatists now designate by it, they quote
PAULINE USAGE OF THE TERM TRADITION. 51
passages from the early Fathers in which the term bishop occurs, and think they have thereby estab lished their position that prelacy is an institution of immemorial antiquity. In like manner the advocates of Tradition play upon the word tradition. They assume -that it meant with the Fathers what it means with themselves, and think that the mere mention of the word by a Father proves that he held their views regarding this alleged source of Divine truth. It has been shown already that this word was employed by Paul, in addressing the Thessalonians, to designate the truths which he had himself delivered to them, whether by letter or by word of mouth. As this reference to former teaching occurs in his second epistle, it is manifest that he means by the traditions communicated " by epistle " those instructions delivered in his first epistle. Ac cording to the Pauline usage, therefore, the doctrinal truths of the first epistle to the Thessalonians may be called traditions. This usage was a usage of the Greek language, and common to Greek writers, or Paul would not have employed it, for he could both speak and write Greek ; and no argument founded upon it in support of the Romish special use of the term can be historically or Scripturally sustained. It cannot be shown that the Feathers, on whose usage Romanists rely, used the term in the Romish sense, or that they meant anything more than what Protestants mean when they speak
THE RULE OF FAITH.
of the faith of the people of God in all ages of their history.
All this reasoning is confirmed by the express testimony of the Fathers, who always make their final appeal to Scripture and place it above all other authorities, as the ultimate standard by which all doctrines arc to be adjudged. Tertullian, for ex ample, in his book against Hermogenes (chap. 21), says: " Adoro Scripturae plenitudinem," and adds: " Scriptum esse doceat Hermogenes, aut si non est scriptum, timeat illud vse adjicientibus." And in his tractates against Heretics, this same father writes : " Nobis curiositate opus non est post Christum, nee inquisitione post evangelium. Quum credimus, hoc primum credimus, nihil esse quod ultra credere debeamus." Jerome shows himself to be of the same mind in his comment on Matthew xxiii., when he says: "Quod de Scripturis auctoritatem non habet, cadem facilitate contemnitur, qua probatur." In a similar strain Augustine writes in his book "De Doctrina Christi" (lib. ii. cap. 29) : " In his qua^ aperte posita sunt in Scripturis, inveniuntur ea omnia, qu.ii continent fidem moresque vivendi." Basil, in his sermon " De Fide," delivers a like judg ment : " Infidelitatis argumentum est, et signum superbiac, aliquid vel eorum quae scripta sunt in- firmarc, aut eorum quae non scriptae sunt intro- duccrc." Irenn2us, in his treatise against Heretics (book iii. cap. i), expresses the same estimate of the
SCRIPTURE THE SOLE PATRISTIC RULE. 53
Scriptures : " Non per alios dispositionem salutis nostra.* cognovimus, quam per cos per quos evan- gelium pcrvenit ad nos, quod quidem praeconi- averant, postea vero per Dei volentatem in Scripturis nobis tradiderunt, columnam et fundamentum fidei nostra; futurum." (See Turretine, " De Scrip. " quaest. xvi. th. xx. See also Goode's " Divine Rule of Faith and Practice," chaps, ix. and x.)
These references are sufficient to prove that the Fathers, to whom Rome professes to appeal with such confidence, held very different views respecting the authority of Scripture and Tradition from those advocated by her theologians and assumed by the Council of Trent. With them the Scriptures were the touchstone by which all doctrine and all doctors were to be tried. They believed that nothing is to be believed besides what is written therein, and that there is to be found therein all that pertains to faith and life. Kvcry attempt to weaken anything taught in Scripture, or to introduce anything not taught therein, was regarded as a proof of unbelief and a sign of pride. If the Fathers are to have a voice in the settlement of this question, surely those here quoted are worthy of a hearing, and the passages cited prove, beyond doubt, that their views were the same as those held by Protestants.
5. To the argumentitm ad Jiominein that Pro testants receive the Scriptures as the word of God on the authority of Tradition, it may be answered —
54 THE RULE OF FAITH.
(i) That the allegation is false. It is a funda mental of Protestantism that the ultimate ground of our full persuasion that the Scriptures are the word of God is the testimony of the Spirit bearing witness by and with the truth in our hearts. (2) In appealing to the testimony of the Church respecting the canonicity of a book of Scripture, Protestants simply accept the testimony of the Church to a matter of fact. They do what Lardner does so exhaustively in his " Credibility " : they show, by reference to the writings of the Fathers, what books were regarded by them and received by all Christians as the word of God, and they cite as witnesses in support of the Protestant canon the enemies of Christianity as well as its friends. Celsus and Porphyry, Julian, and Manes, and Marcion, are made to testify as well as Tertullian, or Jerome, or Augustine, or Basil. It is one thing to cite the chief of the Fathers as witness on a question of fact, and a very different thing to appeal to their judgment as the ground of our faith. The character of their testimony precludes the possibility of such estimate of it. While their lan guage proves what was regarded as the word of God in their day, it proves also that they regarded the word as resting upon its own authority and not upon the authority of themselves or those from whom they received it. (3) Besides, Protestants do not recognise the Fathers as ultimate authorities on any question of faith or practice. If a Father
MODERN THEORY OF DEVELOPMENT. 55
represents an apostle as teaching doctrines contrary to the analogy of the faith, \ve have no alternative but to reject his account of the apostolic teaching, or to reject the written word of God. It is surely more reasonable, in such cases, to hear what the Apostles themselves say than to accept the patristic version of their teaching.
6. Touching the modern theory of Tradition, as a gradual development of the doctrines of Scripture as they come more and more to the consciousness of the Church, it may be remarked that it is one thing for the people of God, in the progress of the Church's history, and through collision with errorists, to elicit more fully and define more accurately the teaching of God's word in the several departments of Theology proper, Anthropology, Soteriology, Ecclesiology, and Eschatology, and a widely different thing to add to the existing record doctrines which cannot be established from it or harmonised with it.
Protestants, moreover, do not rest satisfied with a mere exposure of the weakness of the Romish arguments : they go further, and argue positively—
i. From the conditions necessary to an infallible transmission of the oral instructions of Christ and His apostles. If the Apostles themselves required the presence and agency of the Holy Ghost to enable them to place, infallibly, on record, the in structions communicated orally by Christ which we find in the Gospels, surely those who succeeded
56 THE RULE OF PAITH.
them were in equal need of the like guidance in transmitting the alleged evangelical and apostolical traditions. Nothing short of such spiritual super natural agency could guarantee the infallible trans mission of these alleged oral utterances.
Of course it can be said in reply that this argu ment will not be regarded by Romanists as of any weight against their position, seeing that they claim for their Church the guidance in question. Of such guidance, there is, however, not only no promise in Scripture, but no evidence in the history of the doctrinal deliverances of the Church that claims it. In vain is this claim advanced in face of the facts of that Church's history. It is just as clear that through her traditions she has made void the plainest teach ings of Christ and His apostles as it was in Christ's day that the Jewish Church had made void the word of God by their traditions. If we are to apply to this claim the test " By their fruits ye shall know them," the conclusion is unavoidable that a Church which has erred from the clearly revealed truths of Scripture cannot have been under the infallible guidance of the Holy Ghost.
2. Protestants deny the Romish interpretation of those promises of Christ to be with His Church always, and to send for her guidance the gift of the Holy Ghost. In so far as that promise extended beyond the Apostles and Evangelists to the Church generally, it was not a promise of guidance to the
ROMISH IDEA OF THE CHURCH. 57
Church as understood by the Church of Rome, but to the Church in the Protestant acceptation of the term. In other words, the Church to which the promise of infallible guidance was given is the Church which Christ has purchased with His blood, and to which He guarantees eternal life. As this Church is not identical with any outward visible organisation, no such organisation, whether Romish or Protestant, can lay claim to it.
But besides Rome errs not only in her idea of the Church to which these promises are made, but in what she embraces under the promise. Wrong in her view of the Church, she is wrong also in what has been promised to the Church. Whereas Christ has simply guaranteed the Church (His mystical body) against a lapse from the firm foundation of saving truth, Rome regards His promise as securing her (the outward visible organisation with the Pope as its head) against error in regard to any matter of faith or morals. The claim advanced is that the Church, in this organic Romish sense of the term, has all the qualifications and endowments and all the prerogatives of the Church under the immediate government of the original apostolate. In view of this claim, it may very reasonably be replied that, if true, it proves too much. If the Church of Christ has been gifted with a permanent apostolate to guide her in all matters of faith and morals, what need is there for Tradition ? But suffice it to say
58 THE RULE OF FAITH.
that the interpretation put upon such promises of guidance as Christ has made to His people is at war with the plain meaning of the passages relied on, and with the analogy of the faith, and would prove, if they be taken in the Romish sense, that the entire organism which she calls the Church shall never perish or be plucked out of His hand.
3. In the next place, Protestants very fairly urge as an argument against the Romish doctrine the impossibility of deciding satisfactorily between conflicting traditions. The criterion assumed by Romanists, viz., " Quod semper, quod ubique, quod ab omnibus," that which has been always held, everywhere, and by all, is manifestly not accessible everywhere, always, and by all. While it is freely admitted that the consent of all Christians, in all ages, and everywhere, cannot be accounted for except on the assumption that the doctrine in which all concur is one of the Christian verities, still it is equally clear that this common consent cannot be ascertained. It is vain to search for it in the writings of the Fathers, for no theologian of any age can claim to speak for the whole Church of his day. The Fathers, more over, contradict one another, and are often incon sistent with themselves, while it must be confessed that their writings — as, for example, in the case of the Ignatian Epistles — have been tampered with and corrupted in the interest of error.
This criterion, as used by Rome, is liable to this
RO.MfS/I DOCTRINAL VARIATIONS. 59
further objection : that its chief terms are robbed of their true comprehension. Taken in its obvious meaning, the criterion reaches back throughout the whole history of the Church, among all people and lands and languages ; but as employed by Rome, the universal terms " semper," " ubique," "ab omni bus," are limited to the history of that Church, to those countries in which she has held sway, and to the organisation of which the Pope of Rome is the head. " Always " means — as it has ever been held by her ; " everywhere " means — in all places within her pale ; and " by all " means — by all Romanists. In a word, she alone is the Church, and what she has always held is what the Church has always held. Now even though it were conceded that the Church of Rome is the Church to the exclusion of all other visible organisations, it would not follow that the criterion requisite for the testing of Tradi tion is to be found in her doctrinal deliverances. Her distinctive doctrines have not been always held by her. The Church of Rome of the present day is a very different institution from the Church at Rome in Paul's day ; and throughout her history she has been adding to the doctrines of Scripture the commandments of men. And even within her own pale her doctrines have not been held by all. It is an historical fact that in the course of her mutations she has sanctioned the most conflicting doctrinal systems. Arianism, Augustinianism, Semi-
60 THE RULE OF FAITH.
Pelagianism, have all held authoritative sway within her pale, each in turn receiving formal sanction from her popes and councils. As churches do not pass from one doctrinal system to another instantaneously and unanimously, it is not unreasonable to assume that there were diversities of opinion and doctrinal contentions agitating her communion while these changes were in progress. Nor is this a mere assumption. On the contrary, it is an historical fact. Rome boasts of her doctrinal unity and, in contro versy, makes much of the doctrinal contentions which disturb and rend the different Protestant com munions ; but this boasting is groundless, as the history of the bitter controversies between the Fran ciscans and Dominicans abundantly attests. These two orders represent as widely diverse schools of Theology as are to be found within the pale of Pro testantism. " They differed respecting the nature of Divine co-operation, the measure of Divine grace necessary to salvation, the unity of form in man (or personal identity), and many other subjects which cannot be here enumerated." And what is worthy of special remark in view of recent Romish legisla tion, they differed on the question of the Immaculate Conception of the Virgin Mary, Duns Scotus, the Franciscan leader, endeavouring to defend and demonstrate that doctrine against the Dominicans. (See Mosheim vol. ii. pp. 470-1.) In presence of this and like theological disputations the criterion
DECISIONS OF COUNCILS A'OT COMMON CONSE.\ T. 61
" Quod semper, quod ubique, quod ab omnibus," must be taken at considerable discount. At no stage in the history of the Church of Rome could such criterion have been applied.
Nor can the common consent of all Christians be found in the decisions of councils. In the first place, these councils had no existence prior to the fourth century, and cannot, therefore, be accepted as ex hibiting the faith of the preceding centuries, apart from other and corroborative testimony. These preceding centuries, however, in which no councils were held, arc by far the most important, lying, as they do, nearest to the Apostolic period. In the next place, no council ever represented fully the entire Church. This fact is, of course, fatal to the claim put forth by Rome to that clement of the criterion expressed by " ubique," while the in harmonious character of the decisions of these par tial councils subverts her claims in regard to ever)' point embraced in this crucial test.
A glance at the creeds and their history will suffice to show that the necessary criterion is not to be found in them. They lack the all-important attributes of antiquity, comprehensiveness, and con cord. Even the so-called Apostles' Creed, which is the most ancient, originating probably in the second century, and gradually attaining its present form, is not ancient enough, as it is manifestly not compre hensive enough to test the dogmas of Tradition.
62 THE RULE OF FAITH.
Protestants receive all its deliverances and yet reject every distinctive doctrine of Rome.
And this leads to the general argument that common consent can be urged in favour of no doctrine peculiar to Romanists, while it cannot be adduced in support of doctrines which both hold in common. In a word, the doctrines in behalf of which common consent is available are the ex ceedingly general doctrines of the Apostles' Creed, along with whose propositions, as already stated, the most conflicting doctrines on the leading features of the economy of Redemption may be held.
4. Another reason for rejecting Tradition is to be found in the unquestionable fact that it subverts the authority of Scripture as the rule of faith and practice. Such has been the effect of Tradition wherever it has been accepted, whether among Jews or Christians. The Jewish doctrine on this subject is so like the Romish that it cannot be passed over without notice. According to the rabbis the law received by Moses on Mount Sinai was divided into the written and the oral law. The latter, they allege, was delivered by Moses orally to Joshua, by Joshua to the seventy elders, by the seventy elders to the prophets, and by the prophets to the great synagogue, and so handed down until it was re corded in the Talmud. Substitute for Moses Christ, and for Joshua the Apostles, and for the elders the
TRADITION NOT ACCESSIBLE TO ALL. 63
Apostolic Fathers, etc., etc , and you have the antitype of the story of the Jewish tradition. Alike in origin and aim, the two systems have been alike in their effects. As it fared with the word of God under the tradition of the Jews, so has it fared with it under the tradition of Rome. In both cases the written word was explained by the tradition, and made subject to it, so that the tradition set the Scriptures aside and superseded them as the rule of faith.
5. The rule furnished by Tradition is not acces sible to the mass of the people of God, who are nevertheless responsible to Him for their belief. It requires no argument to prove that for the ordinary membership of any church, Tradition is a fountain sealed. It is manifest that only the learned can know what has been held " always," il everywhere," and " by all." Indeed, the learned themselves, as the history of doctrinal controversies abundantly testifies, are not agreed regarding the teaching of Tradition. If this be true of men whose lives of learned leisure have been devoted to such investiga tions, surely the vast body of believers must be utterly incompetent to ascertain its teachings, or employ them as a rule of faith and practice. This unquestionable fact is, of itself, fatal to the claims of Tradition, for all that God has made known in the communications of 1 1 is will is intended for the enlightenment of His Church, and not simply for the information of church officers or men of culture.
64 THE RULE OF FAITH.
6. The doctrine of Rome on this subject is ex posed to the objection that Tradition, even on her own admission, requires an interpreter. This objec tion is a grave one against the claims of Tradition, for one of its chief ends is to interpret the written word. It cannot be said in reply that this objection lies equally against the written word as a rule of faith, for Tradition, to serve the chief end for which it has been given, should be so plain as to need no explanation. Instead of possessing this essential quality, however, the fact is notorious that this guide to the understanding of the written \vord is so obscure and contradictory as to need, as Rome herself admits, an authoritative interpreter and harmoniser.
7. Finally, the doctrines which Tradition is adduced to support are false, and contrary to the teaching of the Sacred Scriptures, which Romanists themselves acknowledge as part of the Divine Revelation. This contradiction imposes upon those who are asked to receive such teaching the necessity of rejecting the Scriptures, or rejecting the traditions of Rome.
LECTURE III.
AUTHORITY OF THE CHURCH AS A TEACHER.
IK subject of Tradition, as must be now apparent, leads of necessity to the kindred subjects of the functions of the Church as a teacher, the authority with which she has been invested, and the qualifications wherewith she has been endowed for the execution of this all-important office. The written word is imperfect and obscure. It does not embrace all the truths which men require to know in order to salvation, and besides it is so obscure and hard to be understood, even on those subjects of which it treats, that there is need for Tradition to interpret it. This tradition itself, however, needs an interpreter, and for this office the Church has been commissioned and endowed, and to her both the written word and the oral instructions left by Christ and His Apostles for the guidance of His people have been committed. These steps in the progress of the argument lead natural ly, as they are designed to lead, to the conclusion that the Church to whose custody these oracles, written and or.tl, have been given in trust, is absolutely infallible, and
5
66 THE A'ULE OF FA 177 f.
as this Church is none other than the Church of Rome, the attribute of infallibility is hers to the exclusion of all other claimants, and all men arc bound to submit to her decisions.
THE SEAT OF THIS INFALLIBILITY.
Romanists, until recently, were not agreed re garding the seat of this alleged infallibility, one party, the Italian or Ultramontane party, holding that this Divine guidance was guaranteed to the Pope as Christ's vicegerent, and to him when speak ing ex cathedra, or officially, while the other party, the Gallican or Cismontanc party, holding that the seat of the infallibility is in the Pope acting to gether with the counsel and consent of his fellow- bishops. In the Vatican Council of 1870, the Ultramontane theory triumphed, and is now the doctrine of the Church, which no Romanist may call in question, even mentally, without incurring by such questioning the dread penalty of excom munication.
ROMISH ARGUMENTS IN SUPPORT OF THIS CLAIM.
I. They argue from the end for which Christ in stituted His Church. As He appointed and com missioned her to teach all nations, and to be the light of tlic world, it is not unnatural to conclude that He would qualify her for the efficient discharge of the duties of this great office. No measure of guidance
I.Vf-ALLfB/LMY PROMISED AVD CONFERRED. 67
which would not render her infallible in her com munications of Divine truth, it is argued, could fit her for the execution of the functions of this high calling.
2. As might be expected from the very design of her institution and the issues depending upon her right discharge of her sacred trust, this needed guidance was promised her. Our Lord promised to be with her always even to the end of the \vorld, and assured her that He would send the Holy Ghost to lead her into all truth.
3. This promised guidance has been actually vouchsafed. The Holy Ghost has been given, not simply to the original Apostolatc, but to their successors in office, as the promise implied.
4. It is argued from the admission of Protestants who claim and exercise the prerogative of deciding in matters of faith and practice, and of admitting or rejecting candidates for membership, and of ex ercising discipline upon the erring within their respective communions, that, practically, they assume in their own case all that Rome claims for herself. How can a church destitute of the attribute of Infallibility venture upon the exercise of such prerogatives as these functions imply ?
5. Romanists urge in argument the reasonableness of the thing claimed. What can be more reasonable than that one man or a small number of men should submit to the judgment of the entire Church ?
68 THE RULE OF FAITH.
To THESE ARGUMENTS PROTESTANTS REPLY —
i. That Rome errs in confounding the Church invisible with the Church visible, the true mystical body of Christ with the outward organisation. It is true that Christ has promised to be with His Church to the end of time and to lead her by His Spirit into all truth, but the Church to which He has made these promises is His own true Church, consisting of none save true believers. It is vain to say that such promises of His presence and guidance have been made to those who are not in vital union with Him and not dwelt in by His Spirit. As has been already shown, if these promises were made to the external society which Rome calls the Church, it must follow that the external organisation, as such, shall without fail inherit eternal life ; for it is just as true that Christ has promised eternal life to His Church, as that He has promised infallible guidance. If then, as Rome herself admits, there have been many em braced in the visible body, even many of its chief office-bearers, including bishops, cardinals, and popes, who were not only ignorant and foolish, but posi tively wicked and infidel, it is manifest that there is no alternative but to hold either that the promises in question were not made to such, or that they, despite their ignorance, folly, wickedness, and infidel ity, have inherited eternal life !
2. Romanists not only confound the Church in-
ARGUMENT STATED SYLLOGISTIC ALLY, 69
visible with the outward visible organisation, but they limit the outward organisation to the chief pastors. The promises, they teach, were made to the Apostles and their successors, the bishops, who arc also Apostles. In a word, the doctrine of Infallibi lity stands or falls with the doctrine of Apostolical Succession. This doctrine has been syllogistically stated as follows : —
Major — All men arc bound to receive the teaching and submit to the authority of Apostles on pain of perdition.
Minor — Diocesan bishops arc Apostles.
Conclusion — All men are bound to receive the teaching and submit to the authority of diocesan bishops on pain of perdition.
Protestants and Romanists are agreed on the major ; Romanists and Anglicans arc at one on both major and minor ; but all true Protestants, while holding to the major, reject the minor as destitute of Scriptural authority and irreconcilable with the most unquestionable facts of history.
3. This statement of the case is most warrant able, and it shows that one of the chief points at issue is the Scriptural idea of the Church. As this topic belongs to another branch, it cannot be fully discussed here. This much, however, may be said : that the Scriptures teach that the Church of God, whether under the Old Testament or the New, embraces none save those who arc the children of
70 THE RULE OF FAITH.
the promise — those who arc of faith, who are blessed with faithful Abraham. Under the Old Testament, a man, despite his circumcision, might not be a Jew ; and under the New, none save those who have been baptised with the Holy Ghost, and born " not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God," are recognised as sons. To such, and to such alone, whether organised or scattered and persecuted, \vandering about in sheep skins and goatskins, dwelling in dens and caves of the earth, has Christ made promise of His presence and the guidance of His Spirit. In a word, all that is necessary to the utter overthrow of all the arrogant claims of the Romish hierarchy to the exclusive possession of the attributes and prerogatives of the Church, is to establish from Scripture the true idea of that institution.
4. Not only is the Church of Rome wrong in regard to the import and comprehension of the Church, but she is wrong also in regard to the comprehension and import of the promises on which she bases her claims. She interprets these promises of guidance into all truth, as conveying to the Church, in all time, a guarantee of absolute im munity from error in regard to all matters of faith or practice. In the case of the original Apostolate the promise of the Spirit to lead them into all truth secured them against all error in expounding the way of life and completing the Revelation of the
INFALLIBILITY NEGATIVED BY HISTORY. 71
Divine will ; but these promises, so far as they were intended for the whole Church and for all time, had no such meaning, and conveyed no such guarantee. They secured the entire Mystical body against funda mental error in the interpretation of the written word ; but this is all the conclusion that the history of the Church, whether under the Old Testament or the Xcw, will warrant.
5. Protestants, as already stated, argue against the Romish claim to infallibility from the historical fact that she has erred again and again on questions of fundamental importance. As already stated, the recognised authorities of the Church of Rome have decided in favour of Arianism against the Deity of our Lord ; in favour of Pelagianism against the Scripture doctrine of Original Sin, human inability, and the office work of the Holy Ghost in regenera tion. She has, like her Old Testament prototype, by her traditions and decisions, made void the word of God, and marred 1 1 is temple by building upon apostolic foundations the hay and stubble of her own inventions.
6. Protestants argue from the clearly revealed right and duty of private judgment. If the doctrine of Rome be true, private judgment in matters of faith is, of course, out of the question. The decisions of an infallible judge cannot be submitted to any other tribunal, public or private. Rome not only admits this inference, but insists upon it. She will
72 THE RULE OF- FAITH.
permit no human authority to pronounce upon the justice of her decisions. The only alternative, after she has given her deliverance, is submission or anathema. Every passage of Scripture, therefore, which recognises the right and duty of private judg ment is an argument against her assumptions as the ultimate arbitrcss on all questions of faith and morals. /. Protestants find an argument against Rome's claim to Infallibility as the ultimate and exclusive authority in the fact that Christ and His Apostles never referred to any other arbiter than the Holy Scriptures. " They have Moses and the prophets ; let them hear them." " If they believe not Moses and the prophets, neither will they be persuaded though one rose from the dead" (Luke xvi. 29-31). To these Christ Himself appealed in proof of His Messiahship ; and to these also His apostles directed their hearers. " We have," says the Apostle Peter, " a more sure word of prophecy, whcrcunto ye do well that ye take heed, as unto a light that shineth in a dark place, until the day dawn and the day star arise in your hearts" (2 Peter i. 19). There is a very notable instance of this deference to the authority of Scripture recorded in the fifteenth chapter of the Acts of the Apostles, at the first meeting of the General Synod at Jerusalem. There were present ciders, Apostles, and brethren ; an Apostolic verdict was delivered by no less a person age than Peter himself, and yet that sentence was
ALL CHURCH AUTHORITY RASED OX SCRIPTURE. 73
not allowed to stand alone, but was confirmed by a quotation from Scripture by the Apostle James. This use-and-wont of Christ and His Apostles proves conclusively the Protestant doctrine as against the Romish ; for the appeal was simply a call upon those before whom it was made to judge of the harmony of the doctrine propounded by the appel lants with the doctrine set forth in the written word. Such an appeal establishes two things: (i) the ultimate and supreme authority of Scripture, and (2) the right and duty of the exercise of private judgment, neither of which can be reconciled with the Romish doctrine.
8. Protestants argue e concessis, from the fact that Romanists themselves appeal to Scripture in support of the claims of their Church as a teacher. They quote, for example, John xvi. 13:" Howbeit when He, the Spirit of truth, is come, lie will lead you into all truth," etc. They quote also Matthew xxviii. 20 : " Lo, I am with you alway, even unto the end of the world. Amen." These and like passages arc their chief reliance when they proceed to establish their claims as the sole authoritative teachers of man kind. In this appeal to Scripture, they concede, by implication, all that is needed for the establishment of the antagonistic Protestant position, for they admit thereby that the authority of the Church to teach at all, rests upon Scripture. But if the Church derives her authority as a teacher from Scripture, surely the
74
THE RULE OF FA I TIL
same authority must be necessary for what she teaches, and her teachings, for which its authority cannot be adduced, cannot be regarded as obligatory upon the consciences of men.
9. Touching the decision of the Vatican Council regarding the seat of the infallibility, it may be fairly claimed that that decision is self-destructive ; for if the Council was infallible, the decision was not true, because the point decided was that the seat of the infallibility was not in the Council, but in the Pope. On the other hand, if the decision was true, the Council was not infallible ; for the thing declared was that the Pope and not the Council was the sole possessor of that attribute. That decision, therefore, has placed the members of the Romish Church in a most perplexing dilemma. If they accept the de cision, they obey a body of men who, on their own showing and by their own solemn decree, had no warrant to propound the doctrine, and if they do not obey it, they incur an anathema. In the one case they accept the doctrine of the papal infallibility on the authority of a council which, on its own confession, was not infallible, and, in the other, they reject a doctrine which was uttered by an infallible authority.
It is therefore clear that the arguments advanced by Romanists in support of their doctrine of Tra dition, and of the claims of their Church as the sole, authoritative, infallible teacher of mankind, will not
THE PROTESTANT DOCTRINE. 75
bear investigation, and equally clear that " the word of God which is contained in the Scriptures of the Old and New Testament is the only rule to direct us how we may glorify and enjoy Him."
TIIK PROTESTANT DOCTRINE IN REGARD TO THE
RULE or FAITH.
Rejecting the Rationalistic, Mystical, and Romish theories of the Rule of Faith, Protestants hold that this Rule is contained in the Scriptures of the Old and New Testament alone. In taking this ground the Reformers did not regard themselves as rejecting the historic faith of the Church, or as constructing, for the first time, a system of Christian Dogmatics. They were, on the contrary, as Calvin has demon strated in his preface to his "Institutes" (his immortal appeal to the King of the French), careful to show that they were propounding no nc\v doctrine. Dr. Martenscn, in his "Christian Dogmatics" (p. 34), advances this claim as peculiar to the Lutheran Reformation. " The Lutheran Reformation," he says, " in its original form, took a positive atti tude towards both dogmatic and ritual tradition, in so far as it was (ecumenical tradition, i.e. so far as it bore the mark of no particular church, being neither Greek Catholic nor Roman Catholic, but simply Catholic. Accordingly," he says, " the evan gelical Church adopts the oecumenical symbols, the Apostolic, the Xic;uan, and the Athanasian, as the
76 THE RULE OF FA1TIL
purest expression of dogmatic tradition. Thus Luther's catechism retains, in the Ten Command ments, the three creeds, the Lord's Prayer, and the doctrine of the sacrament of baptism and of the altar, the same fundamental elements in which primitive Christianity was propagated among the common people through the darkness of the middle ages. Thus, too, the Reformers pointed to a series of testimonies taken from the early Church, a consensus Patnnn, in proof of the primitive character and age of their doctrine. And Luther and Melancthon recognised not only the importance of dogmatic tradition, but manifested also the greatest reverence and caution in reference to ritual tradition. The importance which they attached to this is shown especially in their retaining and defending, in oppo sition to the Anabaptists, infant baptism, a custom which is certainly derived not chiefly from the Scriptures, but from Tradition. The same thing is shown by their continuing to observe the principal Christian festivals ; for these, too, were the product of a continued tradition. In like manner they retained many portions of the liturgy and of the hymns of the Church, which had acquired a value for all Christians. Thus we sec that, by their principles, Scripture and Tradition were not torn asunder, but only placed in their proper relation to each other. And even if it may be said that the Reformers, finding themselves entangled in a web of traditions,
LUTHERAN RELATION TO TRADITION. 77
in which true and false, Canonical and apocryphal elements were almost indissolubly mixed together, sometimes cut the knot instead of untying it, this proves nothing against the primacy of Scripture. For this rule cannot be annulled or altered so long as nothing can be put beside the Scriptures that is able to vindicate for itself the same degree of authority " (p. 34).
This lengthened extract is given because of the light it sheds on a point of divergence between the two great branches of the Reformation. It is justifi able to speak of the Protestant doctrine of the Rule of Faith as distinguished from that held by the Church of Rome, but it is necessary, at the same time, to qualify the general statement by a reference to the peculiar points on which the Lutherans and Anglicans differ from other Protestants on this great question. The foregoing extract is instructive in regard to the Lutheran doctrine, although it can hardly be considered as correct in its implicit account of the Reformed faith on the same subject.
RK.MAKKS ON Tin; LUTHERAN POSITION.
i. The Reformed theologians, as well as the Lutheran, held a positive attitude towards both dogmatic and ritual tradition. They were careful, as already stated, to show that they were not inno vators in either doctrine or ritual. The doctrines of the three creeds specified by Dr. Martensen, if the
7S THE RULE OF FAITH.
minute metaphysical statements of the Athanasian Creed and its anathemas be omitted, were held by the entire company of the representatives of the Reformed Theology. As his "Institutes" testify, Calvin's original object in that incomparable work was the defence of his persecuted brethren- especially in France, against the charges of heresy preferred against them. For this reason he took as the frame and outline of the work the Apostles' Creed, ex pounding and elaborating its brief propositions in the light of Scripture and antiquity. On the ground of the conformity of the doctrines thus established with the teaching of the Apostles and Prophets and the most trusted and renowned of the Fathers, he based his appeal to the King of the French in behalf of his maligned and persecuted fellow-Protestants. It cannot, therefore, be claimed that the Lutherans, as distinguished from the Reformed, alone adopted a positive, as distinguished from a negative attitude, toward dogmatic tradition.
2. Nor can it be said that the Reformed theo logians were simply negative in their attitude toward ritual tradition. They held positively to the Sacra ment of Infant Baptism and the Sacrament of the Lord's Supper. But they held to both, not because of the testimony of ecclesiastical tradition either in whole or in part, as Dr. Martensen alleges the Lutherans did in the instance of infant baptism, which he regards as " derived not chiefly from
DOCTRINE OF THE REFORMED CHURCH. 79
Scripture, but from tradition." The}- retained both, and purged them both from the incrustations where with they had been corrupted and debased by Rome, and effected the purgation on the Apostolic principle of reforming abuses by reference to the original in stitution. This principle Christ acted on in dealing with the Jewish tradition regarding the institution of marriage, and upon it the Apostle Paul proceeded when reforming the Corinthian abuses connected with their observance of the Lord's Supper.
3. As Ilagenbach's "History of Doctrine" (vol. ii. p. 2 1 8) shows, and as the history of the Reformation abundantly testifies, the Lutherans differed from the Reformed theologians in the appli cation of this principle. " Entangled in a web of traditions, the Lutherans only sometimes cut the knot instead of untying it," while the Reformed always, in like circumstances, followed the example set by Alexander the Great in dealing with the Gordian puzzle. In other words, the Reformed did not hesitate to apply, in ever}- instance of traditional perplexity, a principle which the Lutherans recog nised, but only partially applied. For this partial application of a recognised principle, it is impossible to offer any vindication which is not subversive of the Protestant position as distinguished from that of Rome.
So THE RULE OF FAITH.
THE ANGLICAN DOCTRINE OF THE RULE OF FAITH.
Under the general head of the Protestant Rule of Faith, it is necessary to take note of a partial modification of the Protestant doctrine exhibited in the articles of the Church of England. That Church, in her sixth Article, says : " Holy Scrip ture containeth all things necessary to salvation, so that whatsoever is not read therein, nor may be proved thereby, is not to be required of any man that it should be believed as an article of the faith, or be thought requisite or necessary to salvation." However, after enumerating the canonical books of the Old Testament, said article adds, " The other books (as Hierome saith) the Church doth read for example of life and instruction of manners ; but yet it doth not apply them to establish any doctrine." Then follows a list of the apocryphal books, ending with the second book of the Maccabees.
Besides this quasi recognition of the apocryphal books, as entitled to be read in the Church, where nothing but the word of God, prior to the departure of the Church from primitive custom, was read cither for example of life or instruction of manners, the Church of England, in her twentieth Article, advances the claim that " the Church hath power to decree rites or ceremonies, and authority in
EXAMINATION OF THE ANGLICAN DOCTRINE. 81
matters of faith," and in her thirty-fourth Article teaches that "every particular or national church hath authority to ordain, change, and abolish, cere monies or rites of the Church ordained only by man's authority, so that all things be done to edify ing." These rites and ceremonies, moreover, though resting on the authority of man alone, may not be broken with impunity. Those who break them " ought to be rebuked openly, that others may learn not to do the like, as he that offendeth against the common order of the Church, and hurtcth the authority of the magistrate, and woundcth the con sciences of the weak brethren."
STRICTURES ox TIII-: ANGLICAN DOCTRINK.
1. There is here a manifest extension of the Rule of Faith beyond the canonical Scriptures, for although the apocryphal books may not be quoted to establish an}- doctrine, it is difficult to sec how the}- rnay be read for example of life and instruction of manners without instilling principles for the regu lation of life and the cultivation of manners ; and this must imply the inculcation of doctrines cnun ciated or illustrated in these books.
2. The books enumerated, and enumerated with out distinction or caution, contain foolish stories, and false doctrine, and examples of immoral conduct. The effect of placing such books side by side with
l
82 THE RULE OF FA I TIL
the canonical Scriptures in the public worship of God must, therefore, be to impress upon men examples of life, which, they may conclude, should be followed, although, as a matter of fact, the examples are, in many instances, such as should be avoided. Besides, the morality illustrated in some cases, as in the case of the deception practised on the father of Tobit by the angel, respecting his character and lineage, if taken as an " instruction in manners," must be subversive of all regard for truth, and produce a very low estimate in regard to angelic morals.
3. Under the claim of authority to ordain rites and ceremonies is embraced the right to institute ordinances such as " confirmation " and " consecra tion " of churches and other sacred places. This is a very different thing from claiming authority to arrange for the orderly and decent administration of a Divinely instituted ordinance. It is neither more nor less than claiming authority to ordain means of grace, and implies, on the part of the Church, authority to prescribe channels through which the sovereign grace of God shall flow to men. Protes tantism, as exhibited in the Westminster Stan dards, recognises the right of the Church to arrange all matters of circumstance connected with the due and decent observance of ordinances instituted in the Divine word, but it sanctions nothing which cannot be shown to come under the head of neces-
ANGLICAN DOCTRINE AND PRIVATE JUDGMENT. 83
sity, decency, and order, in the administration of a clearly revealed Scriptural institution.
4. The claim of authority to institute rites and ceremonies, as distinguished from the ordering of the circumstances connected with the observance of ordinances revealed in Scripture, necessarily involves the right of adding to the Rule of Faith, for it is a claim of authority to institute means of grace, which implies, on the part of those who advance it, a Divine warrant with accompanying promises of blessing to those who devoutly engage in the observance of such institutions. As no such warrant and no such promises are to be found in the extant Revelation, those who, by their instituting of such rites, assume their existence, arc fairly chargeable with the grave offence of adding to the word of God.
5. It is further manifest that the claim of authority to ordain rites and ceremonies involves the claim of lordship over the consciences of men, for, as already shown, it is expressly ordained (Article XXXIV.) that "whosoever through his private judg ment, willingly and purposely, doth openly brcak the traditions and ceremonies of the Church, which be not repugnant to the word of God, and be ordained and approved by common authority, ought to be rebuked openly 'that others may fear to do the like), as he that offcndcth against the common order of the Church, and hurtcth the authority of
S4 THE RULE OF FAITH.
the magistrate, and woundeth the consciences of the weak brethren." It is true there is here an apparently saving clause in the qualifying phrase 11 which be not repugnant to the word of God " ; but the clause does not furnish a safeguard against the usurpation of dominion over conscience, as a thing " not repugnant to the word of God " is simply a matter of indifference, respecting which there is a clearly revealed rule of Scripture which precludes all attempts at discipline on the part of the Church. In all such matters the rule is, that every one must be persuaded in his own mind. This rule guarantees the right of private judgment, which the article in question condemns, and in doing so departs from the Protestant doctrine touching the Rule of Faith and substitutes the authority of the Church for the authority of the only Lord of conscience. A thing of indifference is a matter in regard to which Christ has not legislated, and, consequently, a matter in which He has left His people free : no man and no society of men, whether ecclesiastical or civil, may attempt to bind them. All such attempts, on whatsoever pretext, are simply a usurpation of the prerogatives of the sole King and Head of the Church. The powers of the Church are executive and not legislative, ministerial and not magisterial. The claim to institute rites and ceremonies and to discipline for the breach of them is a claim to legislate ; and this
ANGLICAN' DOCTRINE AND PRIVATE JUDGMENT. 85
is all one with the claim of headship over Christ's Church, for a second lawgiver is a second source of authority having the right to demand submission to a second code of la\vs, and this is neither less nor more than a usurpation of the rights and preroga tives of Christ as Head of His mystical body the Church. The recognition of such claims is an act of disloyalty to Christ, and obedience to such laws is disobedience to the only Lawgiver who can save and who can destroy, while the obedience rendered lacks an essential clement of piety, as it is not rendered out of regard to the revealed will of God.
LECTURE IV.
THE PROTESTANT DOCTRINE OF THE RULE OF FAITH (continued).
/CLEARED of the foregoing Lutheran and ^-^ Anglican modifications, the Protestant doc trine of the Rule of Faith embraces the following points : —
I. That the Scriptures of the Old and New Testament, to the exclusion of the apocryphal books and Tradition, contain all the extant word of God. 2. That they furnish the only infallible rule of faith and practice. 3. That the rule contained therein is complete, embracing all that man is to believe con cerning God, and all the duty that God requires of man. 4. That these Scriptures are perspicuous, so plain that in the exercise of proper attention and diligence in the study of them, the will of God, in regard to all matters of faith and practice, may be infallibly ascertained. 5. As a corollary from the character and design of the Sacred Scriptures, Pro testants hold that it is the duty of all who have access to them to study them faithfully, and decide on their testimony what God requires them to believe and do.
SHORT METHOD WITH ROMANISTS, 87
A SHORT ANSWER TO SOMK OHJI-XTIONS TO THE PROTESTANT DOCTRINE OF THE CANON OF SCRIPTURE URGED BY ROMANISTS.
One of these objections which, Romanists allege, lie exclusively against the Protestant doctrine of the Canon, is that some books referred to in the Old Testament, and some epistles mentioned in the New, have been lost. This objection, if it has any force at all, is really fatal to the claims of Rome. Assuming this allegation regarding these lost books and epistles to be true, what follows ? The inevitable conclusion is, either that these missing books and epistles were not intended to constitute a portion of the permanent sacred record, or that both the Old Testament Church and the New Testament Church have proved unfaithful to the trust reposed in them by the Author of the Revelation. On either horn of this dilemma the Romish objector must be hopelessly impaled. As he dare not accept the former without neutralising his objection, his only alternative is to acknowledge that under both dispensations the Church has proved unfaithful as the custodian of the sacred oracles.
This is a grave alternative for a Romanist, for the Church of Rome claims, in the face of facts, to have been entrusted with the whole Revelation as its Divinely appointed guardian and administra trix. But if such have been her relations to the
83 THE RULE OF FAITH.
oracles of God, how has it come to pass that these books and epistles have been lost ? She cannot absolve herself by throwing the blame upon her Old Testament predecessors in office, for our Saviour Himself has exonerated the Old Testament Church from the charge of faithlessness as the custodian of the Old Testament Scriptures, having simply pre ferred against her the charge which Protestants prefer against the Church of Rome — the charge of making void the word of God through her traditions. But who shall exonerate the Church of Rome from the charge, self-preferred, of letting slip from her custody whole books and epistles of that one Revelation of which she claims to have been con stituted the sole guardian ? If she has been the ordained stewardess of the mysteries of God, which she claims to have been, this confession is sufficient to prove that it is time she should give an account of her stewardship, for it is manifest, on her own showing, that she should be no longer stewardess As another proof of the defectiveness of the Pro testant Canon, it has been urged by Romanists that the original of Matthew's Gospel, which the objector alleges was written in Hebrew, has been lost. To this objection, the answer given to its predecessor may be urged with equal force and pertinency. Assuming that Matthew's Gospel was, as the objector alleges, written in Hebrew, and that both the original and all copies of it have been lost,
ROMISH OBJECTIONS BASELESS AXD SUICIDAL. 89
who is to blame ? Docs the loss of the treasure not prove the inefficiency or the faithlessness of the treasurer? How is Rome to reconcile her claims to plenary endowment for the execution of her functions as the sole guardian of this sacred trust with the loss of these important documents ? She has manifestly no alternative on her own showing but to submit to the charge of incapacity or un faithfulness, and this is a grave alternative for an infallible custodian cf the Rule of Faith.
As to this alleged loss of this alleged Hebrew gospel, suffice it to say that, if we are to credit Pope Sixtus V., there was no such document to lose. In his preface to his revision of the Latin Vulgate, this infallible revisionist accepts the rule laid down by Jerome, and endorsed by Augustine, for the settlement of questions arising from variation among manuscripts. His words arc : " Sapicntcr B. Hieronymus in cxplanandis Sacris Scripturis Doctor maximus admonebat, ut quemadmodum in novo Testamento, si quando apud Latinos quajstio exoritur, et cst inter cxemplaria varictas, ad fontcm Grajci sermonis, quo novum Tcstamentum cst Scriptum, recurri solct ; ita si quando inter Gra^cos Latinosque diversitas cst in vetcri Testamento, tune ad Hebraicam rccurramus vcritatem, ut quidquid de fonte proficiscitur, hoc qurcrimus in rivulis ; quod ctiam B. Augustinus iis, qui Scripturam tractant, inter alias regulas tradidit." Here then is the way in
90 SCRIPTURE DOCTRINE OF INSPIRATION.
which Jerome, Augustine, and Pope Sixtus V. would have settled the question regarding the accuracy of the translation of Matthew's Gospel. They would not have gone in search of an alleged Hebrew original, because they believed that the New Testament (the whole of it) was written in Greek. It is true Jerome once believed the theory of a Hebrew original of this gospel, but he after ward abandoned that opinion and accepted the theory that it was written in Greek — a theory endorsed, as the above quotation proves, by an infallible pope.
SCRIPTURE DOCTRINE OF INSPIRATION.
Having discussed, under the head of the Romish rule of faith, the questions respecting the perfection and perspicuity of Scripture, the only question remaining for consideration is the infallibility of Scripture. To serve as a rule of faith and life the Scriptures must be infallible, and to be infallible they must be the word of God, and to be the word of God they must be Divinely inspired. We are thus brought face to face with one of the most important questions within the whole range of Theology, and which at present is absorbing more attention than any other, viz. the question of In spiration. The foes as well as the friends of Chris tianity feel that this question is fundamental, and
RELATION OF THE WORD TO FAITH. 91
the assailants as well as the defendants are acting in accordance with their convictions. The estimate on which both proceed is not a mistaken one. Faith is correlative to testimony, and saving faith is based upon the testimony of God Himself, and no book can serve as a foundation for faith which cannot furnish proof of its Divine origin. In a word, nothing can serve as a rule of faith, nothing can satisfy the conditions of the rise and progress of religion in the soul, except the very word of God. lie is not a Christian who believes or obeys Matthew, or John, or Peter, or Paul. Our faith, and obedience, and love must terminate on God. No subjective affections which arc destitute of this Godward reference can be considered religious. In all our religious experiences, in all our inter course with the Bible, this principle is recognised : " Faith comcth by hearing, and hearing by the word of God " (Rom. x. 1 7). It is God's word that faith hears, and it is to God that the believer gives ear. A man is born again, not by the corrup tible seed of man's word, but by the incorruptible seed of the word of God, which liveth and abideth for ever (i Peter i. 23). The voice which makes a man's heart tremble in the reading of the law not the voice of man, but the voice of God. The voice which waked the spiritually dead in Christ's day was the voice of the Son of God, and it is the same voice which wakes the spiritually dead now.
akcs i wjsj
92 SCRIPTURE DOCTRINE OF INSPIRATION.
The word on which the soul rests when it accepts the invitations of the Gospel must, if the act be an act whereby the soul comes to God, be none other than the very word of God. The promises which a Christian man pleads at the mercy seat are always regarded by him as promises made by Him who cannot lie, promises to every syllable of which His truth and faithfulness are pledged. On this assump tion all his wrestlings proceed, and on it all his pleas are founded. Prayer is God's remembrancer, and it is to uttered promises it points. Its language is : " Hast Thou not promised ? " What errand has any sinner, or what right of approach, in prayer, if he has not as his warrant the Divine word pledged in the promises of God ? In brief, the necessity of an infallible rule, a rule whose infallibility arises from the fact that it consists of the words of Him who cannot deceive, is laid in the very nature of religion in its rise and progress in the soul. All theories, therefore, whose tendency is to shake confi dence in the doctrine that the Scriptures of the Old and New Testament, in which alone the Rule of Faith is found, are the word of God, must be injurious to vital godliness, and, where accepted in full conscious ness of their legitimate consequences, must be, not only injurious to piety, but altogether subversive of faith.
INSPIRATION AND REVELATION. Ruled by mere etymological considerations, some
IMPORT OF
93
have confounded Inspiration with Revelation. As ^eoV^eucrTos means God-breathed, sucli writers have restricted the act expressed by that term to the communication of truth to the sacred writers, and have held that the Divine agency ceased with the communication of the message to the messenger, leaving him free in the delivery of it to others, whether orally or in writing. This argument from etymology, however, is not in harmony with the history of the Divine communications, and may be at once dismissed. It is not by mere etymology, but by the usage of terms as they arc employed by standard writers, that their meaning is to be ascer tained.
It is true that ^eoTT^evcrTo? means God-breathed, but this fact does not warrant the conclusion that the final object of the inbreathing was the communi cation of information to the human agent. On the contrary, as all the communications recorded in the Sacred Scriptures were intended for the instruction of others besides the agents themselves, the most reasonable conclusion is that the inbreathing was designed to render the agents infallible mediums for the communication of the knowledge imparted to them to others ; and as this infallibility could be secured only by the continuance of the Divine agency until the message was delivered, cither orally or in writing, it is certainly not too much to assume that it would not cease until this the final end was
94 SCRIPTURE DOCTRINE OF INSPIRATION.
attained. This assumption receives a very striking confirmation in the very passage in which #eo- Tn'euorros occurs (2 Tim. iii. 1 6), for it is there employed as qualifying, not the sacred writers, but the sacred writing. This is worthy of special note, as a recent advocate of " the ne\ver criticism," in attempting to overthrow the doctrine of Plenary Inspiration, has appealed to this passage as a proof that the record, and not the writers, was the subject of the OeoTTvevcTTLa. This concession, of course, implies all for which the advocates of Verbal In spiration contend, for in conceding that the record was God-breathed, it concedes, by manifest implica tion, that the Divine afflatus reached the writing through the writers. An inspired record penned by uninspired penmen is, of course, an absolute im possibility.
This style of argumentation, and the confusion of thought underlying it, shows the importance of the comparatively modern distinction between Revelation and Inspiration. Dr. Chalmers very happily dis criminates the two ideas by the antithetical terms influx and efflux, designating the process of Revela tion by the former and the inspiring agency by the latter. In the influx the Divine communication was effectually borne in upon the mind of the sacred writer, and in the efflux the knowledge thus com municated was infallibly expressed to others, either orally or in writing. " By Revelation," says Dr. Lee,
REVELATION AND INSPIRATION. 95
" I understand a direct communication from God to man either of such knowledge as man could not of himself attain to, because its subject matter tran scends human sagacity or human reason — such, for example, were the prophetical announcements of the future, and the peculiar doctrines of Christianity — or the communication of information which, although it might have been attained in the ordinary way, was not, in point of fact, from whatever cause, known to the person who received the Revelation. Hy In spiration, on the other 'hand, I understand that actuating energy of the Holy Spirit in whatever degree or manner it ma}- have been exercised, guided by which the human agents chosen by God have officially proclaimed His will by word of mouth, or have committed to writing the several portions of the Bible" ("Inspiration of Holy Scripture," Lcct. I. P- 30;.
In illustration of this distinction Dr. Lee refers to revelations received by the patriarchs, who, although favoured with such Divine communications, were not inspired to place them on record for the instruction of others, and cites the case of " the writer of the Acts of the Apostles, who," he says, " was inspired for his task, but we are not told that he ever enjoyed a revelation." Without endorsing this view of Luke's relation to what he wrote, or to the Divine communications made to the ministers of the word in Apostolic times, it serves well enough as an
96 SCRIPTURE DOCTRINE OF INSPIRATION.
illustration of the distinction in question. Revelation had to do with the subjective informing of the human agent, and Inspiration had to do with the actuating and energising of the agent in giving forth, in audi ble utterance or in writing, that which was made known to him by Revelation. The knowledge communicated to John in Patmos was imparted to him by Revelation ; our knowledge of what John saw and heard has been communicated to us by Inspiration.
In his " Theopncustia," Gaussen very accurately marks this distinction. " This miraculous operation of the Holy Ghost," he says, " had not the sacred writers themselves for its object, for these were only His instruments, and were soon to pass away, but its objects were the holy books themselves, which were destined to reveal from age to age to the Church the counsels of God, and which were never to pass away." His idea is that if the writers them selves had been the object of the miraculous agency in question, the process would be properly designated a process of Revelation, whereas Inspiration has regard to the communication of truth to others through the medium of those who are themselves the subject of the inspiring agency.
INSPIRATION AND ILLUMINATION.
And as Inspiration is to be distinguished from Revelation, so is it to be distinguished from that
INSPIRATION EXTENDS TO THE LA \GUAGE. 97
illumination by which the Holy Spirit opens the eyes of the understanding to apprehend the truths of Revelation. The object aimed at in illumination is to make the subjects of it wise unto salvation, to impart unto them that knowledge of God, as He is •revealed in Christ, which is, in its very nature, eter.ua! life. From its very nature, therefore, illumination is limited to the people of God, as none but they have such apprehensions of truth, while men who were not themselves possessed of the saving knowledge of the truth have sometimes been made the vehicle of Revelation and inspired to communicate it to others.
INSJ'IRATION K.Vl'ENDS TO THE LANGUAGE EMPLOYED.
1 he term commonly employed by orthodox writers to indicate the fulness and perfection of the Divine agency in Inspiration is the epithet "plenary." As this term is now employed by those whose views of Inspiration arc not altogether satisfactory, it is best to employ the term Verbal Inspiration, which properly understood expresses the doctrine of Scrip ture on this subject. By Verbal Inspiration is meant such an agency of the Holy Spirit as ren dered the sacred writers absolutely infallible in the communication of the Divine will to men, determin ing not only the substance (which were all one with Revelation), but the fown also of the message they
7
98' SCRIPTURE DOC'lRfhE OF INSPIRATION.
were commissioned to deliver, and extending, not simply to the ideas (which were Revelation again), but reaching to the words in which the Revelation was conveyed. As Gaussen admirably expresses it, "God -Himself has not only put His seal to all these facts, and constituted Himself the Author of all these- commands and the Revealer of all these truths, but further He has caused them to be given to His Church in the order, and in the measure, and in the terms which He has deemed most suitable to His heavenly purpose." Such is the doctrine of Inspiration which it is now proposed to establish, and in support of it the following arguments are submitted : —
i. In the first place, such agency as is implied in Verbal Inspiration seems to be demanded by the nature of the case. If God proposed to make a revelation of His will to men, He would doubtlessly employ all the means necessary to ensure the faithful and accurate communication of it. For this end, however, no means which left the language absolutely to man could be sufficient. There docs not seem to be much room for argument here. The intro duction of the agency of man was confessedly the introduction of an element of weakness and fallibility, which, if not overborne and controlled by the agency of the Divine and infallible, must issue in a fallible communication. The men employed might be honest, but honest men may err both in regard to their own apprehension of what they see and hear,
THE RELATION OF LANGUAGE TO THOUGHT. 99
and in regard to the language they employ in com municating their impressions to others. If men with their passions and prejudices, men with their liability to misconception, men deficient in know ledge, and defective in memory, and prone to all- the inaccuracy incident to the use of human language as a vehicle of thought, are introduced as the medium of communication, nothing short of an inspiration which extended to and determined the laniruatre
t> o
employed, initiating, conducting, and completing the entire process, could possibly secure an infallible record. 2. Closely connected with this point is the argu ment from the connection which obtains between language and thought, between words and ideas, between the conceptions of the mind and the symbols by which the mind endeavours to give ex pression to them in communicating them to others. Thought intrinsically invests itself with an habili ment of language, and is never regarded as complete until it is expressed in words. Indeed, some go so far as to say that thought is never matured until' it is expressed in writing. Without endorsing this opinion, this much may be said : that written language is the most perfect vehicle of thought. All that is necessary to the present argument, how ever, is the unquestionable fact that our ideas are inseparable from language. It has been well said that it is just as impossible fur thoughts to come into tangible objective, existence without language,
ioo SCRIPTURE DOCTRINE OF INSPIRATION.
as it is for souls to be born without bodies. From this it must follow that an ideal inspiration, as dis tinguished from a verbal inspiration, is an utter impossibility. If the inspiration extended to the perfecting of the idea, it must have extended to the determination of the words without which the idea was still unformed and imperfect. Divine guidance within the former sphere can never be fairly sepa rated from Divine guidance within the latter. The artist who simply furnishes the material of the future figure which is to express his own ideal and leaves the mould to be supplied by another not in posses sion t)f that ideal, would be acting exactly on the same principle as that advocated by the ideal inspirationists. To secure the result aimed at, the artist must go far beyond what the idealist regards as necessary. He must make a model representation of his conception, and from that model he must take a cast which constitutes the mould into which he pours the material of the future figure ; or taking the model furnished 'out of plastic material as the standard ideal, he chips, and chisels the marble or other material into the closest possible conformity to the ideal standard. As is the model, so will the mould or the future figure be. An imperfect model or an imperfect mould will produce an imperfect figure, and so far as its imperfection extends will it mar the original ideal. And so, and not otherwise, will the result be in the publication and exhibition
CHRlSrS ESTIMATE OF APOSTOLIC TAl.EXTS. 101
to men of the archetypes of truth which were hidden in the mind of God before all worlds. The accuracy of the representation, and the harmony of the doc trine revealed, with the Divine ideal, will, be deter mined, ultimately, by the accuracy of the verbal mould into which the Revelation has been cast. In other words, the doctrine of Verbal Inspiration, of which some, who claim to be advanced thinkers, and who would have men believe that they speak in the interests of Christianity and Philosophy, speak with contempt, is, after all, the only doctrine in harmony with the laws which govern the relation of thought to language, or that furnishes a sufficient guarantee of the infallible accuracy of the Revelation trans mitted to us in the Sacred Scriptures.
3. The necessity thus established was recognised by Christ. Although the Apostles had abundant opportunity during His earthly ministration of seeing His mighty works and hearing His discourses, lie nevertheless did not regard them as qualified for the task of witnessing for Him without a very special influence from above. After telling them that they were His witnesses He immediately intimates their need of the gift of the Holy Ghost to qualify them for the work of witness-bearing. " Ye are," He says, " My witnesses of these things, and behold, I send the promise of My Father upon you ; but tarry ye in the city of Jerusalem, until yc be endued with power from on high " (Luke xxiv. 48, 49).
102 SCRIPTURE DOCTRINE OF INSPIRATION.
Now surely if there were historical facts not requir ing supernatural aid for their rehearsal, one might suppose that those of which the Apostles were com missioned to bear witness might be regarded as belonging to that class. The things of which they were to testify were things, one would think, they could never forget. They were things which had engraven themselves indelibly upon their minds. Could they ever forget the capture in Gethsemane, or the closing scene on Calvary, or the triumph of the resurrection of their Lord ? These were the great burden of their testimony — how that Christ died for our sins and that He was raised for our justification. Yet these are the things for the publication of which the Saviour felt and avowed their need of preparation, and it was with reference to their equipment for testifying concerning these never-to-be-forgotten facts that He commands them to tarry in the city of Jerusalem. He sends them not forth immediately, but enjoins them to await the endowment from on high, to be communicated by the gift of the Holy Ghost. Is it not manifest from this injunction that He regarded it as indispensable to their qualification as witnesses even to historical facts enacted before their eyes — facts which must have branded themselves on their inmost souls — that they should not be left to the exercise of their natural powers of apprehension and memory in administering such a trust ?
EXTEXT OF THE SPIRITS AGENCY. 103
In conformity with this estimate of their capacity is the promise made by Christ in John xv. 26, 27 : " But when the Comforter is come, whom I will send unto you from the Father, even the Spirit of truth, which proceedeth from the Father, He shall testify of Me. And yc also shall bear witness, because yc have been with Me from the beginning." Thir "s a very remarkable* promise. One would almost think that it was originally uttered, not simply for the sake of those immediately concerned, but with special reference to the theory that in matters of which the sacred writers had personal cognisance, there was no need of Inspiration, but simply of intelligence and fidelity.
Corresponding to the foregoing, and bearing still further upon the same point, arc two passages in John xvi. 12, 13, and xvi. 26: "I have many things to say unto you, but ye cannot bear them now. Ilowbcit when He, the Spirit of truth, is come, He will guide you into all truth, for lie shall not speak of Himself, but whatsoever He shall hear, that shall He speak, and He will show you things to come.' And, if possible, still more conclusive is the language of the latter passage : " Hut the Comforter, which is the Holy Ghost, whonn 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."
Now consider the range of subjects of which
104
SCRIPTURE DOCTRINE OF INSPIRATION.
according to these t\vo passages, the Holy Ghost was to inform the disciples of Christ. I. All things of which Christ had Himself in person informed them already. 2. Things which He could not tell them just then because of their inability to bear them. 3. Things to come. 4. And, as if to cover everything which by any possibility might be cpn- strued as not embraced under these comprehensive categories, He was to guide them into all truth. To render His disciples infallible witness-bearers within all these spheres, our Saviour promised to send upon them the gift of the Holy Ghost. Is it not manifest that throughout the wide range of this all-comprehending classification of subjects, the absolute necessity of the agency of the Holy Ghost was recognised ?
If it be said that the promise had reference to the revelation of these truths to the disciples themselves, and not to the communication of them to others, all that is necessary in reply is to refer to the language employed and the design of the endowment. The language of the passages now adduced proves beyond doubt that the Spirit was to be given in order to qualify the disciples as witnesses. For this purpose He was to "bring all things to their remembrance," etc., etc., and the end aimed at in the gift could not be regarded as attained when the reminiscence of an old fact or an old truth was recalled or a new one communicated. The recall or the fresh -com-
VERBAL INSPIRATION AND PENTECOSTAL GIFTS. 105
munication was subordinate to the end of witness- bearing, and the agency by which the agent was informed for his task, we are warranted in conclud ing, would not cease to operate until the testimony was uttered, whether orally or in writing.
4. The argument from the promise itself is con firmed by the remarkable manner in which it was fulfilled. The disciples tarry at Jerusalem, according to their Master's injunction, and await the promise of the Father from the hand of their ascended Lord. What is the testimony of the fulfilment of that promise in regard to the extent of their inspiration ? Was it an inspiration as to substance, or did it extend to the form and language of the message ? " They were," we are told, " all filled with the Holy Ghost, and began to speak with other tongues as the Spirit gave them utterance," so that the hetero geneous assemblage of men out of every nation under heaven heard them speak, every man in his own tongue, the wonderful works of God. Here was certainly an influence vouchsafed which extended to words. It was, however, an influence which came clown upon the disciples in fulfilment of the promised qualification. The outward symbols of the gifts bestowed bespeak an inspiration which extended to the language of the message they were to utter. Tongues are not mere symbols of ideas or thoughts. On the contrary, from their very nature, they indicate the medium whereby thought obtains expression.
io6 SCRIPTURE DOCTRINE OF INSPIRATION.
Thus qualified, the Apostle Peter, who was certainly in a position to judge of the design of the miraculous cndowrrlcnt conferred upon him, entered upon the work to which he had been called and for which he soon gave evidence that he was qualified ; and it will, be observed that the things of which he bears witness belong to that class of things for the pro clamation of which some allege he needed no supernatural guidance at all, or at most only a general superintendence.
5. This argument from the necessity of the case is greatly strengthened by a reference to the work to which the Apostles were called. To them was assigned the work of expounding the Gospel preached before to Abraham and the saints of the Old Testa ment, and of showing that all that was foreshadowed in the types, and signified in the symbols, of the ancient economics, had been fulfilled in Christ Jesus. Their natural unfitness for the accomplishment of such a mighty task is too palpably impressed in their history prior to the day of Pentecost to justify any lengthened proof. Let the case of Peter him self serve as an example. Of all the truths of the Old Testament Revelation, the most important was the expiation of sin by atonement through sacrificial blood. Yet this great truth, which lay at the very heart of the Mosaic economy, as it had at the heart of every preceding economy, had not been appre hended by Peter as one that was to have its true
IXFEKE\CE FROM CHARACTER OF THE RECORD. 107
expression and full significance in the atoning death of Christ. So little idea had he of the relation of all that sacrificial symbolism to Christ, that when Christ broached to His disciples the subject of His death, he began to rebuke Him, saying, "That be far from Thee." And what is true of Peter was true of them all. They had gross misconceptions regarding both the King and the kingdom they were to be commissioned to proclaim. Such men, untaught by the direct agency of the Holy Ghost, were utterly unfit to inaugurate the new dispensa tion ; and left to themselves cither in their conceptions of the rank, or the mission, of the Messiah, or in their attempts to instruct others in the mysteries of Redemption, they must have utterly failed to comprehend the Old Testarrtent Revelation, or to communicate to men "an authoritative and infallible account of the unsearchable riches of Christ.
6. Now if we turn from the consideration of the work as a task to be achieved to the contemplation of it as actually accomplished, we shall find our selves in the presence of a problem defying all attempts at solution save on the assumption of an absolutely plenary verbal inspiration. These evan gelists have succeeded in portraying the grandest character that has ever appeared on the stage of time. Speaking of this achievement, Prebendary Row, in his Hampton Lectures on " Christian Evidences viewed in relation to Modern Thought "
io8 SCRIPTURE DOCTRINE OF INSPIRATION.
(second edition, p. 179), says: "It is the grandest character known to history. Not only have all the ^rcatcst and best of men bowed before it in humble
o
adoration, but very many eminent unbelievers have confessed its greatness and perfection. Even those who deny its historical reality cannot help allowing that it is the grandest ideal creation of the human mind. Equally certain is it that whether the character be an ideal or an historical one, if has proved for eighteen centuries the mightiest influence for good which has been exerted on mankind. . . . Another fact, apparent on the surface of the Gospels, has. a most important bearing on this question. Of this great character they present us with no formal delineation. Nothing is more common than for or dinary historians to Furnish us with formal por traitures of the characters of the persons whose actions they narrate, and to render them the meed of praise or blame. All this is totally wanting in the pages of the Evangelists. Not one of them has attempted to depict the character of the Master. Yet so conspicuously does it stand forth in them that it is obvious to every reader, and .produces a more distinct impression than the most elaborate delineation. The almost entire absence of praise or blame assigned to the different agents in the scenes which they depict is a most striking feature in the Evangelists. The absence of the expression of any personal feeling on the part of the writers seems
TESTIMONY OF ROUSSEAU AND MILL. 109
almost like coldness. They have not one word in commendation of the absolute self-sacrifice mani fested in their Master's life, nor of His unwearied labours in doing good, nor of His benevolence, His holiness, or His humility, or any of the striking traits of His character. They must have viewed His death as the most atrocious of murders ; yet not one word have they uttered for the purpose of heightening the effect of His cruel sufferings, or even of drawing our attention to His patient endurance."
Nor is this estimate of the work achieved by the Evangelists peculiar to Christian writers. The following passage from Rousseau, quoted by the Prebendary, speaks of it in the same strain of admiration. " The Gospel," he says, " has marks of truth so great, so striking, so perfectly inimitable, that the inventor of it would be more astonishing than the hero. If the life and death of Socrates are those of a sage, the life and death of Jesus arc those of a God." Mr. Wirt, the author of " The British Spy," refers to a very striking effect pro duced by the quotation of this last sentence in a sacramental address which he heard delivered by Mr. Waddell, the celebrated blind preacher of West ern Virginia.
John Stuart Mill, in his essays on "Theism" (p. 2 5 2), puts the case with great force. " Who among the disciples of Jesus or among the proselytes
SCRIPTURE DOCTRINE OF INSPIRATION.
was capable of inventing the sayings ascribed to Jesus, or of imagining the life and character re vealed in the Gospels ? Certainly not the fishermen of Galilee ; as certainly not St. Paul."
The question which Mr. Row, in considering these facts, thinks " urgently demands solution," is — « If a large portion" of the Gospels consists of myths and legends, how has the delineation got into their pages ? " This is in the connection in which it occurs in his lectures on the Evidences a most appropriate question, and admits of but one answer, viz. that apart from the actual" enactment of the life and death they describe, the Evangelists had never produced the Gospel narratives. The facts adduced, however, \varrant a larger conclusion than Mr. Row, as his lecture on Inspiration in the same book shows, will admit. The very doctrine of Verbal Inspiration, against which that lecture has been written, is the only one which will account for the wondrous achievement which has arrested the attention, and excited the astonishment, of friend and foe. The structure of the narratives, the self-abnegation of the writers, the utter repres sion of all feelings of revenge towards the murderers of their Lord, together with the absence of all remarks commendatory of His self-sacrificing love or condemnatory of the cruelty of His enemies, and the simple majesty of the style in which the un adorned facts are allowed to tell the story of the
THE INSCRUTABLE NESS OP THE MYSTERIES, in
Man of sorrows, bespeak an inspiration which took possession of every passion and power of the human agents, arid extended, not only to the selection of the facts, but to the disposition of them, not only to the substance, but to the form and language in which it has been so felicitously expressed. On any other assumption than that of Verbal Inspiration, the sacred narratives of the four Evangelists present an unsolvable problem. It is difficult to conceive any thing more unreasonable, or more at variance with the personal characteristics of the men, as manifested in their intercourse with one another and with their common Master, or with His estimate of them, as indicated in the rebukes lie administered to their rivalry and self-assertion, and in the restrictions wherewith He accompanied their commission, and the provision vouchsafed for the execution of it; than to assume that to such men would be left the selection and arrangement of the materials, historical and doctrinal, through which the personal rank and character and work of the Son of God were to be revealed for the salvation of men. Theories, how ever plausible, which proceed upon such assumptions, if they do not originate in, must, if logically carried out, end in, defective views of man's fallen estate and of the remedy provided in. the person and work of the Redeemer and the office work of the Holy Ghost. It is hardly credible that any one believing what the Scriptures declare respecting the unsearch-
SCRIPTURE DOCTRINE OF INSPIRATION.
ablencss of the mystery that was hid in God, mysteries known only to the Son, who alone was commissioned to reveal them, mysteries which He was qualified to reveal by the unction of the Holy Ghost, who alone searchcth the deep things of God — it is hardly credible that any one believing all this and believing, at the same time, what the Scriptures declare respecting the native darkness and depravity of men in their fallen estate, could believe that such mysteries would be committed to any class of sinful men for utterance, or for record, under the guidance of a partial, and therefore im perfect, inspiration. This may by some be pro nounced a priori reasoning, but it is reasoning whose premisses are furnished by the Scripture account of the ruin and recovery of men.
LECTURE V.
INSPIRATION OF CHRIST.
T3UT the argument drawn from the necessity of -*-* the case reaches its climax in the case of Christ Himself. To understand the full force of the argument furnished by the equipment of Christ for the office of prophecy, it is necessary to recur to the normal prediction respecting His rise recorded in Deuteronomy xviii. 15-19: "The LORD thy God will raise up unto thce a Prophet from the midst of thee, of thy brethren, like unto me ; unto Him ye shall hearken ; according to all that thou desircdst of the LORD thy God in Horcb in the day of the assembly, saying, Let me not hear again the voice of the LORD my God, neither let me sec this great fire any more, that I die not. And the LORD said unto me, They have well spoken that which they have spoken. I will raise them up a Prophet from among their brethren, like unto thec, and I will put My words in His mouth; and He shall speak unto them all that I shall command Him." This prophecy is rightly regarded as a Messianic prophecy, embracing all the typical prophets that
n4 SCRIPTURE DOCTRINE OF INSPIRATION.
should arise in Israel prior to the actual advent of Him to whom Moses and all the prophets bare witness, and the doctrine the passage teaches is that in the execution of His prophetic office He would be God's Messenger and deliver the message to men as lie received it from God. According to the promise here made, the words the Messianic Prophet was to use were to be words put in His mouth, and what He was to speak was to be what God should command Him.
Our warrant for the application of this promise to Christ, in its fullest sense, seems to be unquestion able. The application has been made by Christ Himself (John xii. 49, 50): "I have not spoken of Myself ; but the Father which sent Me, He gave me a commandment what I should say" (ei7ro>) "and what I should speak " (XaXw). " And I know that His commandment is everlasting life. Whatsoever I speak " (XaXw; " therefore, even as the Father said " (€ipir)K€v) " unto Me, so I speak " (XaXwj. In the same strain does our Saviour recognise His official subordination as a Prophet, and His dependence upon the Father, in that wondrous prayer (John 8), "I have given unto them the words" (TO. pTJfjiaTa) "which Thou hast given Me, and they have received them, and have known surely that I came out from Thee, and they have believed that Thou didst send Me." It was on the ground of the original Dcutcronomic promise that the Jews looked
C//AVS7 A.\D THE DRUTERONOMIC PROPHECY. 115
for the rise of a particular Prophet distinguished pre-eminently above all others. Because of this ex pectation the Jews sent priests and Lcvitcs from Jerusalem to question the Baptist respecting this among other things : whether he \verc that Prophet. John disclaimed all right to such prophetic honour, and informed them that lie was simply the fore runner of Another, intimating, at the same time, the high rank of Him whom he was sent to introduce. The question put to John about the Prophet proves the prevalence of the expectation of a particular Prophet, an expectation that could have arisen in Israel only in consequence of the Dcutcronomic prediction. When, therefore, our Lord appropriates and applies to Himself the language of that prc diction, He must be regarded as claiming, and would be understood by the Jews as claiming, to be the Great Prophet whom the God of Israel had, through His servant Moses, promised to raise up. This identification, however, involves the conclusion that He, in His prophetic capacity, received the messages I Te delivered from God the Father, and that these messages were not given to Him for communication in a vague indefinite way, or (as the custom with some is to express it) " as to sub stance, but not as to form." In conformity with the original normal promise, the language in which He delivered the messages to men, was language taught Him of the Father.
n6 SCRIPTURE DOCTRINE OF INSPIRATION.
But the Scriptures shed still greater light upon Christ's equipment for the execution of this Messianic function of prophecy. As one might infer from the very name Messiah, He was anointed for this office, and as the unction He received was the unction of the Holy Ghost, it must follow that for the execution of this function He needed the baptism of the Spirit. We are, however, not left to inference or conjecture in regard to this matter. It is expressly stated that the Spirit of the Lord was given Him for this very purpose. " The Spirit of the Lord God is upon Me, because the LORD hath anointed Me to preach good tidings unto the meek ; He hath sent Me to bind up the broken-hearted, to proclaim liberty to the captives and the opening of the prison to them that arc bound," etc. (Isa. Ixi. I, 2).
This passage our Lord applied to Himself in the synagogue at Nazareth, and thus put the reference beyond all possibility of doubt (Luke iv. 16-2 1). This appropriation of this prophecy not only iden tifies our Saviour with the appointed Herald of Israel's jubilee, but formally recognises, as one of the qualifications for the proclamation of it, the unction of the Holy Ghost. In harmony with the prediction, and with the recognition of its application to Himself, is the historic incident of the descent upon Him of the Holy Ghost, at His baptism by John. This baptism, as the narrative shows, was designed to prepare Him for the temptation in the
LIMITATION OF CHRIST AS A PROPHET. 117
wilderness and for His public ministry. That ministry was not formally entered upon until He was Himself endued with power from on high.
This doctrine of dependence upon the presence and power of the Holy Ghost even in the case of Christ Himself is presented very prominently in the book of the Revelation. The title of the book is itself suggestive. It is entitled, " The Revelation of Jesus Christ which God gave unto Him, to show unto His servants things which must shortly come to pass" (Rev. i. i). There is here official sub ordination, coupled with authoritative communication and commission. What our Lord is commissioned to communicate He receives from God the Father, and the dcfinitencss of the revelation He is to make is symbolised by the term book (chap. v. i). This latter term occurs more than once, and is manifestly used in a symbolical sense, and must be regarded as teaching that, as the Prophet ordained and commissioned to reveal the will of God to men, our Lord received a strictly defined system of truth. As the Son of God, whose native dwelling place is the bosom of the Father, He knew all that the Father knows, as He does all that the Father doeth, but the knowledge He came to communicate was not omniscience. He came to reveal the Divine purpose of mercy, to proclaim the way of salvation to be opened up by His o\vn obedience and death. To the crreat themes embraced within this scheme
nS SCRIPTURE DOCTRINE OF INSPIRATION.
of grace were His prophetic functions limited. He was simply the mediatorial Agent appointed to make known a definite purpose of grace. This the book of the Revelation clearly establishes ; but this is not all it teaches in relation to this mysterious mission of our Lord. It teaches also that in com municating this definitely determined revelation, our Saviour was under the fullest possible inspira tion of the Holy Ghost. This comes out very clearly in connection with the seven letters He commissions John to write to the seven churches in Asia. Although He is personally present with the aged Apostle, and is, in His own person, holding converse with him, He, nevertheless, ascribes what is recorded in the letters to the Holy Ghost. The ever- recurring admonition with which each letter closes is : " He that hath an ear, let him hear what the Spirit saith unto the churches."
Now surely if ever there were material out of which to frame an a fortiori argument, it is furnished in these unquestionable representations of the Sacred Scriptures respecting the dependence of the Qeaz/- Opconos, as the Prophet of the Church, upon the special endowment of the Holy Ghost. If these passages warrant, as they unquestionably do, the conclusion that the eternal Logos, in His mediatorial prophetic capacity, was restricted, in His communi cations to the sons of men, to a predetermined Revelation confided to Him by the Father, restricted
INFERENCE EROM THE UXCTIO.V OF CHRIST. 119
to the words which the Father commanded Him to speak, so that He could say, as He did, that the words He had given to His disciples were words which the Father had given Him; and if, besides, these Scriptures teach, as they undoubtedly do, that the Hoi}- Spirit was given Him to qualify Him for the delivery of the message of mercy which He brought from heaven to earth, and sustained towards Him relations of such intimacy in the communica tion that what He spoke, or placed on record, was really and truly the sayings of the Spirit Himself; if, let it be repeated again, these things be taught in the passages above cited, then surely it is most warrantable to conclude, with all the force and triumph of an a fortiori argument, thai; much more would weak, erring, fallible men, who formed the last links in the revealing medium, be placed under limitation as to the subject matter of their communications, and endued with such a measure of the Holy Ghost as would determine them in the choice of language which would infallibly convey the messages they were commissioned to communicate. Surely it were most unreasonable to hold that He who knows the Father even as the Father knoweth Him, should be placed under such official limitations and, at the same time, to hold that the Prophets, Apostles, and Evangelists were left untrammelled by any restrictions whatever save what were imposed by honesty and fidelity ; or to hold that while the Son of God, who
SCRIPTURE DOCTRINE OF INSPIRATION.
possesses all Divine attributes, needed, as the Prophet of the Church, in communicating- to His people the will of God for their salvation, the unction of the Holy Ghost — an unction which, as has been shown, identified the Spirit with the utterance and record of the Revelation — and yet to hold that Peter, or James, or John, or Paul, was left free to make selections from what he had seen and heard, and utter them or record them in such form and in such terms as his own unaided genius might suggest ! The facts and teaching of the Sacred Scriptures, reverence for the Divine Saviour and the anointing of the Holy Ghost wherewith He was qualified for His prophetic office, and regard for the salvation of men whose eternal interests are involved in the accuracy of the sacred record, forbid such limitation in the one case and such licence in the other.
APOSTOLIC ESTIMATE OF THE INSPIRING AGENCY.
The conclusion thus reached is confirmed by the views which the sacred writers themselves held in regard to the extent of the spiritual influence under which they wrote, and by which they were moved to write. There occurs in the first epistle of Paul to the Corinthians (chap, ii.) a remarkable testimony on this point. The Apostle is vindicating his method of preaching — a method which he had learned was not acceptable to some of the Corinthians, inasmuch as he did not adorn his discourses with philosophy
ARGUMENT FROM i CORINTHIANS II.
and rhetoric. As to the former of these alleged defects, he tells them that the subject matter of his preaching was not, as human philosophy, a thing of man's discovery, or the offspring of human specu lation. The things he was commissioned to preach were things which eye hath not seen nor ear heard, things which have not entered into the heart of man, things which none of the princes of this world knew, things which he designates as the wisdom of God in a mystery, and which were made known to himself by revelation. Regarding the second point, he informs the Church at Corinth that these Heaven- revealed mysteries were to be communicated to others through a Heaven-revealed medium. He gives them to understand that he was not at liberty to act the rhetorician in delivering these heavenly truths to men. The Spirit by whose revealing agency these truths were given to him was bestowed upon him, not simply to communicate to himself a know ledge of them for his own sake or his own personal salvation, but, in addition to all this, to secure the infallible communication of them to others. Hence human rhetoric was out of the question as the arbiter of the style of his discourses. He spoke these things, not in the words which man's wisdom teacheth, but in the words which the Holy Ghost teacheth, comparing spiritual things with spiritual, i.e. giving expression to the things of the Spirit in the words of the Spirit. Emphasising these two
122 SCRIPTURE DUCTRINE OF INSPIRATION.
points of his vindication, he adds, as a reason for both, that the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God, for they are foolishness unto him, and affirms it as a truth that he cannot know them for lack of a discernment which the Spirit alone can impart. Such statements were, doubtless, very humbling to the Corinthians, as they are to men in all ages, who would reduce the matter of Revela tion to the limitations of human Reason, and bring the utterance and the record of it under the rules and appliances of human literature. The bands of all such human imposed restrictions burst before the revealing, inspiring energy of the Holy Ghost, as did the green withes, wherewith Delilah thought she had bound him, from the limbs of Samson. The Apostle teaches, in this his vindication, that the mysteries which were hid in God were such as man could not discover by any powers he possesses ; that these hidden mysteries could be brought forth from their concealment in the mind and counsel of the unsearchable Jehovah by none save the Spirit of God ; that as the Spirit alone could reveal them to the sacred writers or preachers, none save the same I Spirit could frame an infallible vehicle for the com- / munication of them to others ; and in confirmation \ of all this the Apostle winds up with an appeal to , the known and clearly established doctrine of the spiritual blindness and inability of men in their natural estate. It is only by ignoring these express
TRANSMISSION AS IMPORTANT AS REVELATION. 123
testimonies of an inspired apostle that men can be led to call in question the doctrine of an inspiring agency of the Holy Spirit which extended to the form, and determined the language, of the sacred record.
Nor can it be said that the foregoing is an excep tional utterance of an exceptional claim. The pas sage itself is sufficient proof of this, for the claim advanced is a claim in regard to the entire ministry of the Apostle, embracing all the subject matter of his preaching and the language of his discourses But, besides, all that he claims here, he claims else where. In correcting the abuses connected with the observance of the Lord's Supper, he informs these same Corinthians (i Cor. xi. 23) that what he had delivered unto them he had himself received of the Lord Jesus. He advances a like claim for the entire Gospel which he preached to the Galatians. " I certify unto you 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. i. 11, 12). These passages, it is true, have special reference to the revelation of the Gospel to the mind of the Apostle himself, but they nevertheless constitute, indirectly, proofs of the doctrine of Inspiration established already, for it is certainly most un reasonable to hold that a supernatural agency would be employed to communicate the Gospel mysteries to Paul, and that, too, in his Apostolic capacity, and,
124 SCRIPTURE DOCTRINE OF INSPIRATION.
at the same time, to hold that such agency would be withheld when he was actually engaged in the execution of the task for which he was brought under the revealing agency of the Holy Ghost.
Nor can it be said that such claims are peculiar to one Apostle, or to one ambassador. The Apostle Peter takes the same ground, and advances the same claim on behalf of all the speakers on the day of Pentecost (Acts ii. 33). He refers what the people saw and heard on that day to the agency of the Holy Ghost as the gift of the Father and the Son. " Therefore being by the right hand of God exalted, and having received of the Father the promise of the Holy Ghost, He hath shed forth this which ye now sec and hear." In Acts iv. 8-12, this same Apostle, we are told, " filled with the Holy Ghost," preached before the Jewish council. Under a like plenary power of the Holy Ghost did the first Christian martyr deliver his memorable speech, which led to his martyrdom. The synod of Jeru salem (Acts xv.) lay claim to a like guidance of the Holy Ghost in their letter to the churches of Antioch, Syria, and Cilicia. " It seemed good to the Holy Ghost and to us."
The same claim is manifestly implied in those passages in which revelations made to the Prophets and Apostles of the New Testament are placed on a footing of equality with those made to the Prophets under the Old Testament. In his epistle to the
A POS TLES EQUAL TO OLD TES TA ME NT PR OPHE TS. 1 2 5
Ephcsians (chap, iii.) the Apostle Paul refers to his writings in proof of his knowledge of the mystery of Christ, and adds that this mystery, in one of its aspects, " was not made known to the sons of men in other ages as it is now revealed to His holy apostles and prophets by the Spirit," thus mani festly claiming for himself and his brethren coequal authority with the entire array of the Old Testament Prophets.
In accordance with this estimate, Paul instructs the Colossians (chap. iv. 1 6) to cause that the epi