In the case of most persons educated in the Christian faith, their first introduction to the Bible is accompanied by an assurance that it was dictated by God, and is therefore true ; and this is told them at a time when its claims, as an authentic history, independently of its inspiration, neither are nor can be explained to them. This early impression, perhaps unavoidable, that the Scriptures are to be received as true, only because they are the Word of God, is probably retained for the most part without question, in spite of its inconsistency with the method and object of books which are given, almost as universally as the Bible, to all educated persons for the purpose of establishing their faith on rational grounds. Hence they are habituated from the very nursery to confound in their minds two questions essentially distinct, the divine origin of the Christian religion, and the divine origin of the scriptural records of it. All might easily remove this confusion by sirnply.answering the question, what would be the natural course of our inquiries, and by what steps should we arrive at con viction of the divine origin of the Christian religion, if the volume of the New Testament were for the first time put into our hands for examination, at au age when we were capable of making it? It is obvious that we should not begin with assuming the inspiration of the writers ; for that would be assuming the very point in debate, assuming that for which we had not as yet a shadow of evidence. But neither is it of their inspiration that it would be our first object to find evidence ; for such evidence could not at first be obtained. If we ever came to the conclusion that they were inspired, it must be because either the very supposition of a revelation from God included in it the supposition of a revelation on the part of those who communicated it, or because all the writers themselves claimed inspiration, or some, whose claims we had already allowed, attributed it to the rest. In the former case we must find have believed that a revelation was made ; in other words, that the origin of the religion was divine : in the other, if we assent to the claim of inspiration, we must first have admitted the credibility, the veracity of those who make it ; that is, if we believe them to be inspired because they say so, we must have had reason for believing what they say, on other ground than that of their inspiration. It seems then that it would be our first object to establish, not the inspiration, but the credibility of the sacred writers apart from their inspiration. We should proceed from the establishment of their credibility, to inquire, in the second place, if they were inspired. The result, in short, to which we have actually come is this : the New Testament is put into our hands for examination, and we find that the claims of Jesus and his followers to a divine commission rest on the miracles which they are said to have performed. Our belief of the fact of the miracles depends on the credit we attach to the story of the witnesses. If that is substantially true, Jesus came from God. With the arguments by which the credibility of the gospel history is proved we have here no concern. It is plain that it is not proved by the inspiration of the authors. Some confusion seems to have arisen from a strange mistake respecting the kind of satisfaction which the inspiration of the sacred writers, when established, is capable of supplying. It does not confirm their veracity, it only implies their accuracy. It secures us from their mistakes, not from their falsehood. Now if it should be argued that without inspiration we can have no assurance that they were not mistaken, when they tell us that they saw a man dead on the cross, laid in his grave, and afterwards alive, it may be asked, how can they be secured from their liability to mistake, when they tell us that they are inspired ? It is at least as likely that they should be mistaken in the one case as in the other. The obvious truth is, that if we cannot rely on their veracity when they vouch for miracles, we can trust none of their assertions, and admit none of their claims ; and if they might be mistaken as to the fact of a miracle, they might be equally mistaken in their claim a inspiration for themselves or for others.
It is hardly necessary to observe that the various methods followed by writers on the evidences of the Christian religion are all in con formity with the view that has been taken of this subject. They endeavour to show the genuineness and authenticity of the books of the New Testament, the fidelity, disinterestedness, and integrity of the writers; to point out their means of information as human historians, and to confirm the accuracy of their accounts by comparison with other records. The question of inspiration forms no part of their
inquiry. It is beside their object, which is to prove the divine origin of Christianity; and this is fully proved if their arguments are satis factory.
It is not meant, of course, that all who are brought to a conviction of the truth of Christianity, arrive at it in the same manner. It is sufficient for our argument that it may be reached in the manner we have supposed. In short, on whatever support the believer himself may eventually feel that his faith habitually reposes, if he should ever be impelled by any motive to trace his conviction to a source from which it can be shown to others by reasoning that it may legitimately flow, he will find that he must rely, in the first instance, on the credi bility of the sacred writers, however established, considered as unin spired historians. With this foundation laid, he may commence an inquiry into the proofs of their inspiration ; and he may pursue it with a full assurance that to whatever result it may lead, the divine origin of his religion is already secured ; that he has in possession a revelation from God, truths divinely communicated to men. We may seem to have taken unnecessary pains to establish a point too plain to be disputed. Our justification must be, that it does not seem to have been so plain to some even of those who have written on the subject, and are occasionally quoted as authorities, and who have been led, apparently by the confusion which we deprecate, into unwarrantable insinuations of infidelity against those who differ from them in opinion.
If the question should be asked, where, when the divine origin of the religion is supposed to be established on the credibility of the sacred writers, we should look for proof that the books which are the records of it were written under the security of inspiration ? the natural answer would be that it must be looked for in the books them selves, from the claims, declarations, and intimations of the writers. When, for example, one of the evangelists has recorded a distinct promise made by their master to his Apostles, of a divine gift for the declared purpose of assisting the memory and enlightening the under standing, the inference seems to be unavoidable that those to whom the promise was given must have written with more than natural advantages. The argument founded on the necessity of inspiration to render the sacred books effectual for the purpose for which they were intended, ought not perhaps to be slighted. We have seen indeed that the supposition of the divine origin of the religion does not necessarily require the admission of inspiration ; yet the peculiar character of the contents of the hooks, together with the service they were destined to perform, may raise a presumption in its favour. The direct testimony however from the writers themselves must be principally regarded. But when commencing the examination, whilst the evidence is yet to be found, we must be careful to estimate correctly the degree of authority which ought in this stage of the inquiry to be attributed to the words of Scripture. They are not yet proved to be the words of God. The declarations of the writers must be received and interpreted fairly and liberally, as the solemn declarations on a solemn subject, of honest and credible writers, ought to be received and interpreted. If the evidence which we seek to obtain from them cannot be obtained in this manner, it cannot be obtained at all. To search Scripture for proofs of its inspiration whilst at the same time we assume it to be inspired, is a proceeding so obviously absurd, that if experience did not teach us otherwise, any caution against it would seem to be unnecessary. But even when this strange error is not committed, declarations of the sacred writers, apparently bearing on this subject, may be and often are improperly summoned to the cause. When a writer professes to have received secret suggestions from the deity, that is, to be the subject of inspiration in one sense of the word, he is represented as claiming it in the other, as though the privilege of receiving communications necessarily implied the privilege of infalli bility in recording them. This confusion has been noticed on another occasion.