design of the former is to render certain men infallible as teachers; the design of the latter is to render men holy ; and of course they differ as to their effects. Inspiration in itself has no sanctifying influence. Balaam was inspired. Saul was among the prophets. Caiaphas uttered a prediction which " he spake not of himself." (Jolin xi. 51.) In the last day many will be able to say to Christ, "Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied in thy name? and in thj name have cast out devils ? and in thy name done many wonder- ful works ? " To whom he will say : " I never knew you ; depart from me, ye that work iniquity." (Matt. vii. 22, 23.)
C. Distinction between Revelation and Inspiration. Second. The above definition assumes a difference between rev ■ elation and inspiration. They differ, first, as to their object. The object of revelation is the communication of knowledge. The ob- ject or design of inspiration is to secure infallibility in teaching. Consequently they differ, secondly, in their effects. The effect of revelatiojii_was to render its recipient wiser. The effect of inspira- tion was to preserve him from error in teaching. These tw(. gifts were often enjoyed by the same person at the same time. That i-s the Spirit often imparted knowledge, and controlled in its commu- nication orally or in writing to others. This was no doubt the case with the Psalmists, and often with the Prophets and Apostles. Often, however, the revelations were made at one time, and were subsequently, under the guidance of the Spirit, committed to writ- ing. Thus the Apostle Paul tells us that he received his knowl- edge of the gospel not fi'om man, but by revelation from Jesus Christ ; and this knowledge he communicated from time to time in his discourses and epistles. In many cases these gifts were separ- ated. Many of the^ sacred writers, although inspired, received no revelations. This was probably the fact with the authors of the historical books of tlie Old Testament. The evangelist Luke does not refer his knowledge of the events whicii he records to revela- tion, but says he derived it from those " which fi'om the beginning were eyewitnesses, and ministers of the Word." (Luke i. 2.) It is immaterial to us where Moses obtained his knowledge of the events recoi'ded in the book of Genesis ; whether from early documents, from tradition, or from direct revelation. No more causes are to be assumed for any effect than arg necessary. If the sacred writ- ers had sufficient sources of knowledge in themselves, or in those aoout them, there is no need to assume any direct revelation. It is enough for us that they were rendered infallible as teachers.
156 INTRODUCTION. [Ch. VI. — P. R. of Faith.
This distinction between revelation and inspiration is commonly made by systematic writers. Thus Quenstedt (1685) ^says: "Dis- tingue inter revelationem et inspirationem. Revelatio vi vocis est manifestatio rerum ignotarum et occultarum, et potest fieri multis
et diversis modis Inspiratio .... est interna conceptura
suggestio, seu infusio, sive res conceptae jam ante scriptori fuerint cognitae, sive occultse. Ilia potuit tempore antecedere scri))tionem, hnec cum scriptione semper fuit conjuncta et in ipsam scriptionem influebat." Often, however, the distinction in question is over- looked. In popular language, inspiration is made to include both the supernatural communication of truth to the mind, and a super- natural control in making known that truth to others. The two gifts, however, differ in their natui'e, and should therefore be dis- tinguished. Confoundino; them has sometimes led to serious error. When no revelation was necessary, no inspiration is admitted. Thus Grotius says : " Vere dixi non omnes libros qui sunt in He- brseo Canone dictatos a Spiritu Sancto. Scriptos esse cum pic animi motu, non nego ; et hoc est quod judicavit Synagoga Magna, cujus judicio in hac re stant Hebrsei. Sed a Spiritu Sancto dictari historias nihil fuit opus : satis fuit scriptorem memoria valere circa res spectatas, aut diligentia in describendis veterum commentariis."^ It is an illogical conclusion, however, to infer that because a histo- rian did not need to have the facts dictated to him, that therefore he needed no control to preserve him from error.
D. Inspired Men the Organs of Grod. A third point included in the Church doctrine of inspiration is, that the sacred writers were the organs of God, so that what they taught, God taught. It is to be remembered, however, that when God uses any of his creatures as his instruments. He uses them according to their nature. He uses angels as angels, men as men, the elements as elements. Men are intelligent voluntary agents ; and as such were made the organs of God. The sacred writers were not made unconscious or irrational. The spirits of the prophets were subject to the prophets. (1 Cor. xiv. 32.) They were not like calculating machines which grind out logarithms with infallible correctness. The ancients, indeed, were accustomed to say, as some theologians have also said, that the sacred writers were as pens in the hand of the Spirit ; or as harps, from which He drew what sounds He pleased. These representations were, however,
1 Theologia, I. iv. ii. qu. iii. exeeo-.?, 3; edit. Wittenberg, 1685, p. 68, a. i* " Votuii) pro Pace Ecclesiastiea." Opern. Londini, 1679, t. iii. p. 672.