But there is clear concurrent evidence, and evi dence still more specific, in the writings of the apostles. In two texts in particular, divine inspi ration is positively asserted. In the first (2 Tim. iii. 16), Paul lays it down as the characteristic of all Scripture,' that it is given by inspiration of God' (0E6T-yeycrros, divinely inspired') ; and from this results its profitableness. Some writers think that the passa,ge should be rendered thus : divinely inspired Scripture, or, all Scripture, being divinely inspired, is preifilable. According to the common rendering, inspiration is predicated of all Scripture. According to the other, it is presup posed, as the attribute of the subject. But this rendering is liable to insuperable objections. For Ock-yevo-ros and f..50Alktos are connected by the conjunction Kat, and must both be predicates, if either of them is ; and unless one of them is a pre dicate there is no complete sentence. Henderson remarks, that the mode of construction referred to is at variance with a common rule of Greek syn tax, which requires, that when two adjectives are closely joined, as Ocb7rycliaros and thOeNt,ttos here are, if there be an ellipsis of the substantive verb lem, this verb must be supplied after the former of the two, and regarded as repeated after the latter. Now there exists precisely such an ellipsis in the case before us ; and as there is nothing in the con text which would lead to any exception to the rule, we are bound to yield to its force.' And he adds, that the evidence in favour of the common ren dering, derived from the Fathers, and almost all the versions, is most decided.' It cannot for a moment be admitted, that the rtpostle meant to signify that divine inspiration belongs to a part of Scripture, but not to the whole ; or that he meant, as Semler supposes, to furnish a criterion by which to judge whether any work is inspired or not, namely, its utility. That author proceeds fear lessly to apply this criterion to the books of the O. T., and to lop off eight of them, as not pos sessing the requisite marks of legitimacy. Most of the German divines adopt Semler's hypothesis.' But it is very manifest that such a sense is not by any means suggested by the passage itself, and that it is utterly precluded by other parts of the NT. T. For neither Christ nor any one of his apostles ever intimates a distinction between some parts of Scrip ture which are inspired and other parts which are not inspired. The doctrine which is plainly as serted in the text under consideration, and which is fully sustained by the current language of the N. T., is, that all the writings denominated the Scriptures are divinely inspired.
The other text (2 Pet. i. 21) teaches that ` pro phecy came not by the will of man, but holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost.' This passage, which the apostle Peter applied particularly to the subject of wh7ch he was speaking, may be considered as explanatory of what is intended by inspiration. For to say that all Scripture is divinely inspired, and that men of God wrote it as they were moved by the Holy Ghost, is one and the same thing.
The various texts in which Christ and the apos tles speak of Scripture as the word of God, and as invested with authority to decide all questions of truth and duty, fully correspond with the texts above considered.
From this view of the subject it follows, that the attempt which has been made by a certain class of writers, to account for the production of the whole or any part of the criptures by the will or agency, the ingenuity, diligence or fidelity of men, in the use of the means within their reach, without the supernatural influence of the Spirit, is utterly at variance with the teachings of Christ and the apostles as to the origin of the sacred writings.
As the Christian dispensation surpasses the for mer in all spiritual privileges and gifts, it is reason able to presume that the N. T. was written under at least an equal degree of divine influence with the Old, and that it comes recommended to us by equal characteristics of infallible truth. But of this there is clear positive evidence from the N. T. itself.
In the first place, 7esus Christ, whose works proved him to be the great unerring Teacher, and to be possessed of all power in Heaven and earth, gave commission to his apostles to act in his stead, ana' to carry out the work of instruction which he had begun, confirming their authority by investing them with power to perform miracles. But how could such a commission have answered the end proposed, had not the Divine Spirit so guided the apostles as to render them infallible and perfect teachers of divine truth ? But, secondly, in addition to this, Jesus expressly promised to give them the lioly Spirit, to abide with them continually, and to guide them into all the truth. He said to them, When they shall deliver you up, take no thought how or what ye shall speak ; for it shall be given you in the same hour what ye shall speak. For it is not ye that speak, but the Spirit of your Father that speaketh in you.' Storr and Flatt think this is the idea in tended : The instructions which ye in general give are derived not so much from yourselves as from the Holy Spirit. Hence, when ye are called on to defend your doctrines, ye need feel no anxiety, but may confidently rely on the Holy Spirit to vindicate his own doctrines, by suggesting to you the very words of your defence.' If these promises were not fulfilled, then Jesus was not a true prophet. If they were fulfilled, as they cer tainly were, then the apostles had the constant as sistance of the Holy Spirit, and, whether engaged in speaking or writing, were under divine guidance, and, of course, were liable to no mistakes either as to the matter or manner of their instructions.
In the third place, the writers of the N. T. manifestly consia'ered themselves to be under the guidance of the Holy Spirit, and their instructions, whether oral or written, to be clothed with divine authority, as the word of Goa'.
We speak,' they say, as of God.' Again, Which things we speak, not in the words which man's wisdom teacheth, but in words which the Holy Ghost teacheth."rhey declared what they taught to be the ward of God, and.the things they wrote to be the commandments of Goa'. Now the apostles, being honest, unassuming, humble men, would never have spoken of themselves and their writings in such a manner, had they not known themselves to be under the unerring guidance of the Holy Spirit, and their instructions perfectly in accordance with the mind of God.
From several passages in Paul's epistles to the Corinthians, it has been supposed that, in the cases referred to, he meant to disclaim inspiration_ But that those passages will bear another construction, and ought to be understood in another manner, has been satisfactorily argued by several writers, particularly by Haldane and Gaussen in their treatises on inspiration, and by Henderson in his lectures. And the writer of this article would take the liberty to refer also to his lectures on the same subject.