ESSAY ON INSPIRATION,

TH

Occafioned by I TIM. V. 23.

HE APOSTOLIC INSPIRATION was the highest, under the New Testament; and may be called [Gradus apoftolicus] the apoftolic degree: as the Jews ufed to call that which Mofes had under the Old Testament [Gradus Mofaicus] the Mofaic degree.

Many of the difficulties and objections, which have been raised, concerning inspiration, appear to me to have been very much owing to the mistaken accounts, given by fome of the friends to revelation. But that which I take to be the genuine account doth not only appear, at first view, eafy and natural; but the most unexceptionable allo, upon examination; viz. As Mofes retained, in his head, the perfect and entire idea of "the pattern, shown him, in the Mount; according to which model, he was to make all things;" fo the apostles, and they alone, had, in their heads, the full and complete fcheme of whatever they were to preach, or write, concerning the Chriftian doctrine; and according to that model they were to found and erect the Chriftian church.

I do not mean that they had, any of them, the whole scheme of the Chriftian revelation, in its utmost extent, fully communicated unto them, at once. No; the contrary of this is plain and evident.. For, on the famous day of Pentecoft, the twelve apoftles of the circumcifion do not appear to have received any more than the revelation of that gospel which they were to preach to Jews only. They none of them had then (no, nor till feveral years after) the particular revelation, concerning their going to the devout Gentiles, much lefs what gofpel they were to preach to them. And it was ftill a longer time before the particular revelation was communicated to the apoftles of the uncircumcifion, concerning their going among the idolatrous Gentiles, or what gospel they were to preach among them.-And finally, different apoftles, both of the circumcifion and uncircumcifion, had (befides the general scheme) different revelations communicated unto them.But what I would fay is, that they had, by immediate revelation, the whole scheme of what they were to preach to the Jews, before they addreffed themfelves to the Jews; and the whole fcheme of what they were to preach to the devout or idolatrous Gentiles, before ever they addreffed themselves to devout or idolatrous Gentiles; and that they retained in their minds constantly the complete idea of the whole scheme, after the whole fcheme was communicated to them.---In this fenfe," the fpirit was in them, and abode with them; taught them all things, or brought all things to "their remembrance;" according to our Lord's exprefs promife,

Hh3

John

John xiv. 16, 17; 26. From this conftant fund of knowledge, they were enabled clearly to determine (as far as any cafe required) what was, or what was not, the Chriftian doctrine.

This revelation of the whole scheme of the religion of Jefus" is what I take St. Paul to have understood by " the word of wildom," I Cor. xii. 8. as it there ftandeth firft in the order of spiritual gifts, and answereth to the apostles, ver. 28, 29. who are ranged the first in the order of thofe that had fuch gifts. Accordingly, St. Paul (fpeaking of his own preaching the gospel) faith, "We fpeak wif"dom, and the wisdom of God, &c." I Cor. ii. 6, 7. And St. Peter faith, that his beloved brother, Paul, wrote his Epiftles accord"ing to the wifdom given unto him," 2 Pet. iii. 15, 16. However, I do not infift fo much upon the name, as upon the thing itfelf. That the apoftles had fuch an extenfive revelation, and they alone, appeareth abundantly from the Acts and Epiftles. And, accordingly, the words, or commandments, of the apoftles, are spoken of, Tit. i. 5. 2 Pet. iii. 2. Jude, ver. 17. but we never read of the commandments of prophets, or evangelifts.

The apoftles had their commiffion and revelation from our Lord Jefus Chrift, Matt. x. 40. John xvii. 6, 7, 8; 14. 26. and xx. 21. 1 Cor. vii. 10. and xi. 23. and xv. 3. 2 Cor. xii. 1–7. Gal. i. 1. 11, 12. Phil. ii. 12, Heb. xiii. 7, 8, 9.

Though the evangelifts and prophets had fome of the inferior gifts of the Spirit, yet it was what they had received from the apostles, that they were to teach, themfelves; and to commit to faithful men, who fhould be able to teach others alfo. 1 Tim. i. 18. and iii. 14, 15. and iv. 11. and v. 7. and vi. 2. 13, 14, 17, 20. 2 Tim. i. 13. and ii. 2. and iii. 14. Tit. i. 13, &c. and ii. 1, &c. and iii. 1. &c. 14.

The Old Teftament prophets were not under a conftant divine infpiration (unless we except Mofes during the time in which he was erecting "all things, according to the pattern fhown him in "the Mount"). But the apoftles had this fund of illumination conftantly refiding within them, from the time of its being communicated, to the end of their lives. Matth. xxviii. 20. John xiv. 16, 17. 26.

Chriftian prophets, as being of an order inferior to the apoftles, were neither under conftant infpiration, nor had they, at any time, any more than particular revelations, relating to particular cafes. But the apoftles were conftantly inspired with the whole scheme or the Chriftian revelation. And from them it flowed, like "rivers "of living water."

The Holy Spirit was (as I apprehend) poured out upon all the hundred and twenty, the apoftles and their company, mentioned, Acts i. 15. But (though all proceeded from the fame fpirit) different perfons had different gifts, according to the good pleasure of that frit of wifdom and knowledge, 1 Cor. xii. II. Our Lord, "when he afcended on high," gave fome gifts peculiar to apostles, others to quality men to be prophets, or evangelifts, &c. Eph. iv. 8. 11.

Agreeable

Agreeable to the account now given, we find that evangelifts and prophets did not go, immediately, upon the firft famous effufion of the holy fpirit, and preach in the courts of the temple; but Peter lifted up his voice, as he stood with the other eleven apoftles, Acts ii. 14. And, by the wife and good providence of God, the Chriftians were permitted to continue, about a year, at Jerufalem, before the perfecutions arofe and difperfed them. By which means many of them had an opportunity to learn the fcheme of the Chriftian doctrine from the apoftles; which they alone had received from our Lord Jefus Chrift.

It was, at first, entirely arbitrary what word fhould and for any particular idea. But, as common ufe hath affixed certain ideas to certain words, we ought to give notice of it, when we ufe any word in a larger or more reftricted fenfe than that in which it is generally understood. Though, therefore, that alone hath been commonly called "infpired fcripture," which was written by infpiration; yet we here extend that phrafe to fuch books as were reviewed and approved (as well as to those which were written) by infpiration. And the reader may take notice, that, in what followeth, the words, [authentic, canonical, infallible, and inspired scripture], are used promifcuoufly, and as fynonimous terms: though, according to the fcripture phrafeology, inspiration is afcribed to the Old Teftament prophets [2 Tim. iii. 16.]: and illumination to the apoftles, and New Teftament prophets [Eph. i. 18. Heb. vi. 4.]

But what I would chiefly have obferved is, that the books of the New Teftament derive their infallibility from their being written, taught, reviewed, or approved of, by fome of the apoftles, who alone had this fund of knowledge conftantly refiding in them.-And, accordingly, we are told, by the ancients, that St. Mark, the companion of St. Peter and St. Luke, the companion of St. Paul, wrote their hiftories from what they knew themselves, or had learned from others. But that, before St. Mark's gofpel was published, St. Peter is expressly faid to have confirmed it," by his authority σε (ἀποκαλύψανα αὐτῷ τῷ πνεύματα, the fpirit having revealed it to "him), that it might thence-forward be read in the churches.". [Vid. Eufeb. Eccl. Hift. I. II. c. 15.]

Jerome

Valefius hath, indeed, tranflated thefe words, as, they fignified "that St. Peter was, "by a revelation, acquainted with the fact, viz. that St. Mark had wrote fuch a gofpel." But furely, there was no occafion for a revelation, to acquaint him with a fact, of which St. Mark, and the Chriftians at Rome, could easily have informed him, and which they had no reafon to conceal from him.

Pefides; the fenfe given by Valefius is contradictory to the account which Eufebius hath given us elsewhere, from the hypotypofes, afcribed to Clemens Alexandrinus, [vid. Eufeb. H. E. 1. VI. c. 14.] viz that St. Peter (was fo far from wanting a revelation, to acquaint him of the fact, after St. Mark had written his gofpel, that he) knew the Chrif tians at Rome had requested of St. Mark to write fuch a gofpel; and that he neither shindered, nor incited him to it."

Thefe two accounts, in Eufebius, have been looked upon as contradicting one another. Valefius would reconcile them, by fuppofing that St. Peter privately approved of it, but not publicly. But this folution feems neither to reconcile them, nor to be confiftent with other teftimonies from the ancients.

Jerome (Lib. de vir. Illuftr. c. 8.) faith to the fame purpose, viz. "That Mark-wrote a fhort gofpel from what he had heard of "Peter, at the requeft of the brethren at Rome, which when "Peter knew, he approved, and published it in the churches, com"manding ths reading of it, by his own authority." Hence, very probably, it came to pafs, that Mark was called, by feveral of the fathers, "The interpreter of Peter." [Vid. Eufeb. H. E. 1. III. c. 39. and Origen. in Matt. laudat. ab Eufeb. 1. VI. c. 25. and Iren. adv. Hæref. 1. III. c. 1; 11. Eufeb. H, E. 1. V. c. 8.] And that the gofpel of St. Mark went, fometimes, by the name of the gofpel of St. Peter. [Vid. Juftin. M. Dial. cum Trypho. Jud. p. 333. edit. Parif. 1636. p. 365, Thirlbii, &c.] The words, referred to, are, Καὶ τὸ εἰπεῖν μετωνομακέναι αὐτὸν Πέτρον ἕνα τῶν ἀποδόλον, καὶ γεγράφθαι ἐν τοῖς ἀπομνημονεύμασιν αὐτο, γεγενημένον καὶ τᾶτο, μετὰ τὰ καὶ ἄλλες δύο αδελφὲς ὑιός Ζεβεδαίο όνίας, μετωνομακέναι ὀνόματα τα Βοανεργές, ὁ ἰσιν υιοὶ βροντής, &c. "It is faid that he furnamed "one of his apoftles, Peter; and this fact is recorded in his [i. e. "Peter's] commentaries, or gofpel; and, moreover, that two "other brethren, the fons of Zebedee, he furnamed Boanerges,

i. e. the fons of thunder, &c." Now, though our Lord's giving Simon the furname of Peter is mentioned, Luke vi. 14. yet this intire quotation is mentioned no where but Mark iii. 16, 17. From whence we may infer, that Juftin Martyr had feen the gospel according to St. Mark, and afcribed it to St. Peter, as his gospel.

Whereas they appear to me to be eafily reconciled, by only fuppofing, “That St. Peter knew of St. Mark's defign, before-hand; that, till he had wrote the gofpel, the apostle did not interpofe; but that, after St. Mark had finished, St. Peter, by revelation, revifed and confirmed it, and recommended it, by his own authority, to be publicly read in the churches."

We certainly ought to do all we can, fairly and reafonab'y, to keep up the credit of the facts, recorded by the ancients; and to take heed (when we charge them with contradicting themselves, or one another) that the contradiction proceed not from our own mistakes, rather than from their writings. However, in the cafe before us, there could scarcely be, originally, any contradiction: because (as Eufebius himself has intimated) it is one and the fame account, mentioned twice, but in different words, and taken from the fixth book of the hypotopofes (or inftitutions) of Clemens of Alexandria. Though, perhaps, Clemens his words are more fully and exactly recited in the latter place.

The words, in the two places referred to, run thus [Eusebi¡ H. E. lib. II. c. 15.]— Γνόντα δὲ τὸ παρακθὲν φασὶ τὸν ἀπόςολον, ἀποκαλύψαν Θ· αὐτῷ το πνεύμαλος, ἐσθῆναι τῇ τῶν ἀνδρῶν προθύμια κυρῶσαι τὲ τὴν γραφήν εἰς ἔνδειξιν ταῖς ἐκκλησίαις. And, [H. E. I. VI. c. 14.] Τὸ δὲ κατὰ Μάρκον, fc. Evangel. ταύτην ἐσχηκέναι τὴν οικονομίαν, τα Πείς” δημοσίᾳ ἐν Ρώμῃ κηρύξαλλος τὸν λόγον, καὶ πνεύματι τὸ ἐυαγγέλιον ἐξειπον Θ· τὰς παρόνιας πολλὰ, ένας παρακαλέσαι τὸν Μάρκον, ὡς ἂν ἀκολυθήσαντα αὐτῷ πόρρωθεν καὶ μεμνημένον τῶν λεχθενίων, αναγράψαι τὰ εἰρημένα, ποιήσαντα δὲ τὸ ἐυαγγέλιον, μεταδῶναι τοῖς δεομένοις αὐτῷ, ὅπερ ἐπιγνόνία τὸν Πέτρον προτρέπλωος μήτε κωλύσαι, μήτε προτρεψάσθαι. As there two must be looked upon as parallel places, or the fame flory related twice, I propose it as a query, whether dzoxakúlans αὐτῷ τῷ πνεύματος, in the former place, and πνεύματι τὸ ἐυαγγέλιον ἐξειπόντος, in the latter, may not refer to the fame thing, and intimate that St. Peter had the whole scheme of the gofpel, by revelation, from the fpirit, which enabled him both to preach and to confirm St. Mark's gospel. [See Dr. Lariner's Credibility, &c. Part. II. vol. II. p. 477. fecond edition.] Or, if we understand it, as Valefius feems to do, in his note on the latter of thefe two places, "that Peter, according to a divine revelation, confirmed the gospel, which "Mark, at the request of the brethren at Rome,, had written ;"-then, there will be one circumftance mentioned, in the former place, which is not taken notice of in the latter ;which is frequent, in all hiftorians, and does not imply any inconfiftency, or contradiction.

For

ὕτως

For that, by the memoirs, or commentaries, of the apostles, he meant the gofpels, appeareth evidently from his own words, [Apolog. I. p. 96. Thirlb. p. 98, Parif.] o yag åmórolni in Tois γενομένοις ὑπ' αὐτῶν ἀπομνημονευμασιν, ἃ καλεῖται ἐυαγγέλια, παρέδωκαν, wafidwear, &c. "For the apoftles, in the commentaries, written. "by them, which are called gofpels, &c." And from Tertullian [adverfus Marcion. 1. IV. c. 5.] whofe words are, "Evangelium, "quod Marcus edidit, Petri affirmetur, cujus interpres Marcus. « The gospel, which Mark published, may be affirmed to be Peter's, a whofe interpreter Mark was."

And that St. Luke wrote not by immediate infpiration, appeareth from what he himself faith, in his introduction, Luke i. 1-4. viz. That, "inafmuch as many had taken in hand to fet forth, "in order, a declaration of thofe things which were furely be"lieved (or done) among them; as they, that were eye-witnefies "and minifters of the word from the beginning had delivered "unto them, IT SEEMED GOOD UNTO HIM, ALSO, having taken care to inform himself exactly of every thing from the firft, to "write a faithful account;" which he infcribed to Theophilus, and afterwards publifhed to the world. And,

With this, the accounts of the Fathers do exactly agree. Irenæus [adv. Hæref. 1. III. c. 14.] fays, " Ea, quæ ab iis (fcil. apoftolis) didicerat, tradidit nobis." "Thofe things, which Luke had "learned of the apoftles, he hath delivered unto us." And Jerome, [de vir. Illuftr. c. 7.] "Lucam, non folum ab apoftolo Paulo di

diciffe evangelium, qui cum Domino in carne non fuerat, fed a "cæteris apoftolis, &c." "Luke learned his gofpel, not only of “Paul, who had not converfed with our Lord in the flesh, but of the "other apoftles, &c." And Irenæus, [L. III. c. 1. & laudat. ab Eufeb. Η. Ε. I. V. c. 8.] Καὶ Λυκᾶς δὲ, ὁ ἀκόλουθο. Πάυλε, τὸ ὑπ' ἐκείνῃ κηρυσσόμενον ευαγέλιον ἐν βιβλίω κατέθετο. "Luke, the follower "of Paul, hath wrote, in a book, the gofpel, which was preached "by him, [Paul]." And that St. Luke's hiftory was confirmed by, and refled upon, St. Paul's authority, fee Tertullian [adv. Marcion. I. IV. c. 5.], who faith, "Lucæ digeftum Paulo afcribere "folent." "Luke's hiftory is ufually afcribed to Paul." And Origen faith, that the "gofpel according to Luke was commended "by Paul." Τὸ κατὰ Λεκάν, τὸ ὑπὸ Πάυλε ἐπαινόμενον, ευαγέλιον. [Vid. Eufeb. H. E. 1. VI. c. 25. with which compare what is faid by Eufebius, ibid. 1. III. c. 4.] But this teftimony from Origen is fo commonly underfood to refer to Rom. ii. 16. 2 Tim, ii, 8. or to 2 Cor. viii. 18. that I lay no great ftrefs upon it, as having plenty of other teftimonies. Though, I confefs, I can fee nothing in the words of Origen, as cited by Eufebius, which neceffarily reftrict them to fuch a fignification as that in which they are commonly underflood.

As the gospel according to St. Mark was approved by St. Peter; and that of St. Luke, by St. Paul; who were both of them infpired,