REVELATION AND INSPIRATION.
WHAT Peter thought of the writings of Paul appears in the following passage found in his second epistle:— "Even as our beloved brother Paul also, according to the wisdom given unto him, hath written unto you; as also in all his epistles, speaking in them of these things; in which are some things hard to be understood, which they that are unlearned and unstable wrest, as they do also the other scriptures, unto their own destruction." 2 Peter 3:15, 16. It should be remembered that the term "scripture" or "scriptures" had a technical meaning, and was applied to inspired writings in distinction from those not inspired. The phrase "the other scriptures," as here used by Peter, implies that he regarded the epistles of Paul, to which he refers, as coming under the general category of "scriptures," and standing on the same basis of inspiration as the scriptures of the Old Testament. He classes these epistles with "the other scriptures," in respect to whose inspiration there was no question in his mind. So, also, Peter, in his first epistle to "the strangers scattered" in different parts of Asia Minor, alludes to the fact that the gospel was preached to them "with the Holy Ghost sent down from heaven." 1 Peter 1:12. The history of Paul's missionary labors, as given in the book of Acts, shows that he was at least one of the preachers referred to by Peter. He traveled extensively through that country, and preached the gospel "with the Holy Ghost sent down from heaven." He afterward wrote epistles to several of the churches planted by him; and these epistles, as Peter assumes in the passage above quoted, like the scriptures of the Old Testament, were given by the inspiration of God. 5. The book of Revelation, written by the apostle John, in the most express manner affirms its own inspiration, or rather that of the man who wrote it. The first five words—564"The Revelation of Jesus Christ"—constitute its proper title. John was directed to write this book and told what to write. The exact words, to be sent respectively to the seven churches in Asia, were in each case dictated to him. The symbolic visions which he had were "signified" to him by the angel of God; and all that he did was to record what he had seen and heard when he "was in the spirit on the Lord's day." 6. Taking, then, into the account the promise of inspiration made by Christ to the apostles as a permanent endowment of their office, and the fulfillment thereof on the day of Pentecost and its further fulfillment in their subsequent history, and also the apostleship of Paul and what he says in regard to apostolic inspiration, together with Peter's reference to the epistles of Paul and also the book of Revelation, we come to the conclusion that the sacred writings composing the New Testament and appearing in the apostolic age, which, with the exception of the Gospels of Mark and Luke and the book of Acts, are apostolic in their direct authorship, were originally produced under the full and complete inspiration that these writings assign to the Old Testament; and that, like the latter, they are, upon their own showing, to be accepted as a part of the revealed word of God. The writings, not directly apostolic, were prepared by those who had the advantage of apostolic companionship. Mark, the writer of the book bearing his name, is spoken of by Peter as his "son" in the gospel; and Luke, the writer of the Gospel of Luke and the book of Acts, is spoken of by Paul as his "fellow-laborer." Both held a close relation to the apostolic ministry. It is not true, as has sometimes been said, that the New Testament, while asserting the inspiration of the Old Testament, fails to assert its own inspiration. One who looks at all the facts appearing in the New Testament, if believing them to be facts, cannot fail to see that its inspiration is involved in these facts. It is, with the exceptions above stated, directly apostolic in its source, and was written to give instruction, sometimes to individuals, and at others to churches organized by apostolic labors. The writings of the New Testament were generally received by the early church as having apostolic and divine authority; and such has been the view of the Christian church in all subsequent ages, and such it will be to the end of time. 7. The result is that the church of God on earth is and must be a Bible church—a church with the Bible for its final authority and supreme guide in respect to all matters coming within the circle of its teaching. The Bible is by it regarded as the word of God in human language. The inspiration of its record, including alike its ideas and its language, is the certificate of its divine authority. Dispossess it in thought of this quality, and to thought it ceases to be the word of God, and becomes simply the word of man, and may hence be disputed in respect to any statement made therein, whether relating to doctrine or matters of fact. The moment we make the Bible less than what it purports to be, and by so much detach God's authority from it, whether by limitation, exclusion, qualification, or denial, we place ourselves in a position that either impairs or wholly destroys its power to govern our faith, or supply to us the grounds of religious comfort and hope. We have no living prophet or apostle to teach us; and if we discard or doubt what, according to the Bible, was taught by prophets, by Christ, and by his apostles, with the sanction and authority of God, in ages long since past, then, as to what we shall believe, we are stranded upon a shoreless sea. Looseness of thought in respect to the inspiration of the Bible, may do for infidels, cavilers, and free-thinkers, but for Christians, never. Peter wrote very wisely when he penned the following words: "If any man speak, let him speak as the oracles of God." 1 Peter 4:11. There is no danger that the church will make too much of the authority of the Bible founded on the doctrine of its inspiration, or that it will too implicitly believe the doctrine and the record which is thereby authenticated. The danger lies wholly in the opposite direction. The inspiration of the Bible record and the authority of God, as connected therewith, must stand or fall together. We must have his presence and authority in the words of the holy Scriptures, or we cannot, through these words, have any assurance of his presence and authority in their contents. His authority attaches to the Scripture record, if at all, through the inspiration of the latter, in a sense that makes it a true record, and without this element in it, the record carries with it no such authority. If the inspiration be so defective that human errancy is inextricably mingled with it, then the record ceases to be a sure and infallible guide to thought. God, on the other hand, being in the Scripture record, alike in respect to its language and its contents, then what it says he says. We read to hear. When we have the Bible in our hands and look upon its pages, we have before our eyes words to which he has annexed his sanction—words not to be trifled with or treated as a fable, but to be soberly considered and implicitly believed, and, when they prescribe a duty, to be earnestly and honestly obeyed. We are dealing with God himself and not merely with man. He is speaking to us through his word. It makes a vast difference with the impression of the Bible upon the head and the heart, whether we do or do not regard it as the inspired word of God. His authority in the Book, acting upon us through the Book, constitutes a very large element of its power to govern, sanctify, and bless the mind and heart of man. "Within this ample volume lies
The mystery of mysteries.
Happiest they of human race
To whom their God has given grace
To read, to fear, to hope, to pray,
To lift the latch, to force the way;
And better had they ne'er been born
That rued to doubt, or read to scorn."
—Samuel T. Spear, D.D., in N. Y. Independent.