A church dictionary

by Walter Farquhar Hook

The discourses of Christ were several of them so long, and some likewise of so curious and delicate a nature, that it is not to be imagined the apostles should have been able exactly to record them, especially so many years after they were delivered, and amidst such a variety of cares and dangers, without such extraordinary Divine assistance, or without an inspiration of superintendency.

Many of the doctrines which the apostles delivered in their writings were so sublime and so new, that as they could not have been known at first otherwise than by an inspiration of suggestion, so they would need an inspiration of superintendency in delivering an accurate account of them.

There is reason to believe, from the promise of Christ, that such parts of the New Testament as were written by the apostles were written by an inspiration of superintendency.

It is not to be thought that persons, so eminent for humility, piety, humanity, and other virtues, as the apostles were, would have spoken of their writings as the words and the commands of the Lord as the test of truth and falsehood, and gloried so much in being under the direction of the Spirit, if they had not certainly known themselves to be so in their writings, as well as in their preaching; and the force of this argument is greatly illustrated, by recollecting the extraordinary miraculous powers with which they were honoured, while making exhortations and pretensions of this kind, as was hinted above.

There was an ancient tradition that St. Mark and St. Luke were in the number of the seventy disciples who were furnished with extraordinary powers from Christ, and received from him promises of assistance much resembling those made to the apostles (compare Luke x. 9, 16, 19); and if it were so, as the arguments used to prove both the understanding and integrity of the apostles may be in great measure applied to them, we may, on the principles laid down, conclude that they also had some inspiration of superintendency. But there is much reason to regard that received and ancient tradition in the Christian Church, that St. Mark wrote his Gospel instructed by St. Peter, and St. Luke his by St. Paul’s assistance; which, if it be allowed, their writings will stand nearly on the same footing with those of Peter and Paul.

It may not be improper here just to mention the internal marks of a Divine original in Scripture. The excellence of its doctrines, the spirituality and elevation of its design, the majesty and simplicity of its style, the agreement of its parts, and its efficacy upon the hearts and consciences of men, concur to give us a high idea of it, and corroborate the external arguments for its being written by a superintendent inspiration at least.

There has been in the Christian Church, from its earliest ages, a constant tradition, that these books were written by the extraordinary assistance of the Spirit, which must at least amount to superintendent inspiration.

With respect to the Old Testament, the books we have inherited from the Jews were always regarded by them as authentic and inspired. And our blessed Lord and his apostles were so far from accusing the Jews of superstition, in the regard which they paid to the writings of the Old Testament, or from charging the scribes and Pharisees (whom Christ, on all proper occasions, censured so freely) with having introduced into the sacred volume mere human compositions, that, on the contrary, they not only recommend the diligent and constant perusal of them, as of the greatest importance to men’s eternal happiness, but speak of them as Divine oracles, and as written by an extraordinary influence of the Divine Spirit upon the minds of the authors. (Vide John v. 39; x. 35; Mark xii. 24; Matt. iv. 4, 7, 10; v. 17, 18; xxi. 42; xxii. 29, 31, 43; xxiv. 15; xxvi. 54, 56; Luke i. 67, 69, 70; x. 26, 27; xvi. 31; Acts iv. 25; xvii. 11; xviii. 24–28; Rom. iii. 2; xv. 4; xvi. 26; Gal. iii. 8; 1 Tim. v. 17, 18; 2 Tim. iii. 14–17; James ii. 8; iv. 5; 1 Pet. i. 10–12; 2 Pet. i. 19–21.) To this list may be added many other places,—on the whole, more than five hundred,—in which the sacred writers of the New Testament quote and argue from those of the Old, in such a manner as they would surely not have done, if they had apprehended there were room to allege that it contained at least a mixture of what was spurious and of no authority.—Lowth on Inspiration. Tillotson’s Sermons. Doddridge’s Lectures.

The argument of the Divine inspiration of Scripture as an induction from its adaptation to the nature of man—even as regards those parts of the Old Testament which have been most obnoxious to cavil—is ably maintained in the Bampton Lectures of 1817, preached by the Rev. John Miller, from which the following is extracted:—“Although Scripture presents the most humiliating portraiture of human nature, and that intentionally, to lead man into a knowledge of himself, as the subject of its operation; it should be added that the Bible does not exhibit an unmixed image of evil, inasmuch as, if it did, it would not be that exact resemblance of the character of man, which it is now affirmed to be. Nor do I, in subjoining this qualification, feel a consciousness either of having carried the main proposition unreasonably far, to countenance a partial construction, or of now adding any such inconsistent exception as may neutralize or destroy its force.

“The representation of evil was intended, and is necessary, for the analysis of doctrine. We hold the opinion, that a man is a being, ‘very far gone from an original righteousness,’ in which he was created. And it is maintained that the whole substance of Scripture so fully justifies this doctrine as to be quite inexplicable, and therefore, as a record of Divine wisdom, inadmissible, without it.