De Moor II:5: The Infallible Inspiration of the Scriptures

Hitherto concerning the Word; now it is necessary to see why the Scripture is called the Word of God.

The Scripture is so called principally by reason of its infallible Inspiration.  Indeed, our AUTHOR in his Compendio enumerates more reasons why the Scripture is able to be called the Word of God; namely, α.  the Divine Command, concerning which see the preceding §; β.  the Divine Example in the writing of the Law, Exodus 31:18; Deuteronomy 9:10; γ.  the Divine Preservation of the Scriptures as God’s peculiar property in the midst of the power of the Babylonians, Syrians, and Romans.  But the principal reason that it is so called is its Infallible Inspiration, according to 2 Timothy 3:16, πᾶσα γραφὴ θεόπνευστος, all Scripture is given by inspiration of God.  2 Peter 1:21:  οὐ γὰρ θελήματι ἀνθρώπου ἠνέχθη ποτὲ προφητεία, ἀλλ᾽ ὑπὸ Πνεύματος Ἁγίου φερόμενοι ἐλάλησαν ἅγιοι Θεοῦ ἄνθρωποι, for the prophecy came not in old time by the will of man:  but holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost, on which passage see my Commentarium.  And so Holy Men were internally urged and impelled by the Divine Spirit in the writing of His dictates, no less powerfully than various bodies are wont to be impelled and propelled by the wind.  That θεοπνευστία/inspiration is not to be understood of the more common concurrence of Providence, by comparison with Job 32:8, but of the immediate and infallible guidance of the Holy Spirit, who impressed upon the minds of holy men the matters to be committed to writing, and illuminated their understanding with an extraordinary and preternatural light, so that they might perceive what they had to write, and be completely persuaded of the truth and divine ἀσφαλείᾳ/certainty of the things to be written;[1] and so that they might actually judge that these matters are to be set down on paper in these and no other words and in this order.  Which sort of unusual leading was required, so that the Word of the Prophets and Apostles might be able to be held as divine:  while in the rest, which we speak or write, we also enjoy either a common concurrence of divine providence, or the saving guidance of the Holy Spirit; nevertheless, what things we thus speak or write are said to be merely human words and writings, set forth θελήματι ἀνθρώπων, by the will of men, which concerning the Prophecy of Scripture, delivered to the Church θεοπνεύστως, by inspiration, is denied by Peter, who in this matter opposes the will of men to the impulse of the Holy Spirit:  consult LAMPE’S[2] Dissertationem philologico-theologicam, volume II, Disputation X, which is de Θεοπνευστίᾳ Auctorum Sacrorum, pages 354 and following.  That this is to be held, which was just now taught concerning the reason for the denomination of the Word of God, against Hobbes,[3] among others, see above, Chapter I, § 1.  The Reverend PETRUS DINANT, in his tractate called de Achtbaarheid van Godts Woord, chapter III, pages 345-561, will by not means displease anyone to consult here; where, 1.  he defines the state of the controversy concerning the Infallible Inspiration of the Word of God, and sets forth the position of the reformed Church concerning this matter.  2.  He justifies his own assertions with respect to the Books of the Old Testament.  3.  He demonstrates that the same infallible guidance of the Holy Spirit is not to be denied to the Writers of the New Testament.  4.  He more distinctly explains that Inspiration; he shows what the Holy Spirit furnished to the Holy Men of God in θεοπνευστίᾳ/inspiration; and how that extraordinary influx and guidance of the Spirit did not at all exclude the diligence of the Holy Men, and the use of appropriate means to acquire the knowledge of divine things.  5.  He answers certain difficulties that are wont to be moved against this Infallible Inspiration.  You will see here also that the text of 2 Timothy 3:16 is cleared by Grotius from παρερμηνείᾳ/ misinterpretation, § 17, 18, pages 390-398.

It is worth the effort to see to what this divine Inspiration pertains, and to what it extends itself.

1.  It ought to refer to All the Persons, α.  that wrote, β.  and that are introduced as speaking, having been urged by the Spirit, of which sort are, for example, Zacharias the Priest, the father of John the Baptist, Luke 1:67; Mary, whose Song is related as worthy of God, Luke 1:46, etc.; Simeon, whose Song is found in Luke 2:29-32, together with the benediction of Joseph and Mary and the connected prophecy, verses 33-35, after it was narrated concerning Simeon that Πνεῦμα Ἅγιον ἦν ἐπ᾽ αὐτόν, the Holy Ghost was upon him, verse 25, καὶ ἦλθεν ἐν τῷ Πνεύματι εἰς τὸ ἱερόν, and he came by the Spirit into the temple, verse 27; while also it is related that he had previously enjoyed extraordinary revelation of the Spirit, verse 26, ἦν αὐτῷ κεχρηματισμένον ὑπὸ τοῦ Πνεύματος τοῦ Ἁγίου, etc., it was revealed unto him by the Holy Ghost, etc.  Stephen also, who after his great sermon was presented, is said, Acts 7:55, ὑπάρχων—πλήρης Πνεύματος Ἁγίου, to be full of the Holy Ghost:  while in Acts 6:8, he is already praised as one who πλήρης πίστεως καὶ  υνάμεως ἐποίει τέρατα καὶ σημεῖα μεγάλα ἐν τῷ λαῷ, being full of faith and power, did great wonders and miracles among the people; and when some opposed themselves to him, undertaking to quarrel with him, Luke testifies, Acts 6:10, καὶ οὐκ ἴσχυον ἀντιστῆναι τῇ σοφίᾳ καὶ τῷ πνεύματι ᾧ ἐλάλει, and they were not able to resist the wisdom and the spirit by which he spake; indeed, when he was about to speak before the Sanhedrin, all saw his face as it had been the face of an angel, verse 15.  But if to those, to whom, besides a splendor so extraordinary and procuring veneration, is so emphatically assigned the Spirit, by whom they were speaking, and here to Stephen, according to the promise made previously to them, Matthew 10:19, 20; John 16:13, etc.; the same Spirit yet comes to be denied, then He shall easily be able to be denied to all.  And so it is not permissible for us to banish Stephen from the number of those that, having been urged by the Spirit, have spoken.  The Chronological Difficulties that occur in his discourse are no reason that with MELCHIOR CANO[4] in NICHOLAS ABRAM[5] we should dare to say that Stephan slipped in memory; or with BUCHOLZER[6] that his words are to be taken with a grain of salt; or with CALVISIUS[7] that Stephan, as far as it concerns times and other circumstances, speaks according to the opinion of his adversaries, who were thus teaching these things in their Synagogues out of the Septuagint or out of the Rabbis:  consult our AUTHOR’S Exercitationes textuales III, § 4, pages 39, 41; Exercitationes Part III.  The θεοπνευστίαν/inspiration of Stephen WITSIUS vindicates from the rash cavils of the Critics, Miscellaneorum sacrorum, tome 1, book I, chapter XXI, § 54-56, pages 316-318.  The θεοπνευστία/inspiration of Stephen in his discourse related in Acts 7 is also found to be approved by many and vindicated against Johann David Michaelis,[8] Professor of Gottingen, in de Nederlandse Bibliotheek, volume 3, n. 1, Mengelst, pages 1-13.

Nevertheless, it is to be observed, 1.  that the Afflatus of the Spirit in the θεοπνεύστοις/inspired Men was not universal nor continuous, such that Men of God were also able to err in those things that they wrote or spoke, not as θεοπνεύστως, by inspiration, but as men; like David in the Letter written concerning the murder of Uriah;[9] like Nathan in the counsel that he gave to David concerning the building of the Temple, but without consulting God.[10]  2.  That the Apostles and the Prophets were infallible in faith, not in manners.  The Spirit was going to lead them into all truth, lest they should ever err, not into all piety, such that they might never sin.  Hence the dissembling of Peter, concerning which Galatians 2:13 is no obstacle to the θεοπνευστίᾳ/ inspiration of his sermons and Epistles; indeed, his hypocrisy was a sin of life, not an error of faith; a moral lapse of conversation from infirmity and fear, lest he should incur the odium of the Jews; not an error of the mind from ignorance of Christian liberty, of which he had already previously shown himself to be well aware:  consult WITSIUS’ Miscellaneorum sacrorum, tome 1, book I, chapter XXII, § 22, 23.

Our AUTHOR himself excepts from the Men speaking by the infallible Inspiration of the Holy Spirit Job and his Friends, since, α. indeed, these (especially three of them, Eliphaz, Bildad, and Zophar) are reproved by God on account of their speeches, Job 42:7, 8; neither, β.  is anything read concerning the divine Inspiration of these:  neither is it able to be gathered, α.  whether from the citation of Paul, 1 Corinthians 3:19,[11] common to the Poetic Writings of the Gentiles;[12] β.  or from their Poetic and lengthy Discourse, refined afterwards by the Holy Spirit through some Prophet.  The θεοπνευστίᾳ/ inspiration and αὐθεντίᾳ/authority of the speeches of Job and his friends were sharply debated in the preceding century by two celebrated Theologians, GISBERTUS VOETIUS,[13] in his Disputationum theologicarum, part I, pages 31, 41, 42, and part V, pages 634-640, and, opposing him, SAMUEL MARESIUS,[14] in his adversus Tirinum,[15] tome 2, preface, and at greater length in Controversiarium XXX, pages 1028, 1029, and also in Theologo paradox detecto et refutato, pages 83-87; of which the former appears to detract too much from the normative Authority of the book of Job; the latter appears to ascribe too much authority to the speeches of Job and his Friends.  But the Most Illustrious WESSELIUS not so long ago examined painstakingly this controversy in the preface set before the Dutch tractate of a certain Wilhelm van Houten, the title of which is Materiæ selectæ Biblicæ; and, holding the middle way, in this place he proposed this modest judgment concerning the whole matter.

He supposes it to be granted on both sides that the entire Book of Job was written by the impulse and infallible guidance of the divine Spirit, and that it exhibits an infallible narration of history that most certainly transpired; that, moreover, this Book has, with the remaining Canonical Books of the Old Testament, with which it is enrolled, Authority in all matters of History.  Although the Pauline citation of the Book of Job is certainly not able of itself to procure for all the sayings of Job and his Friends the θεοπνευστίαν/inspiration and Authority of a Norm; nevertheless, the Most Illustrious Wesselius contends that the mode of citation, where in 1 Corinthians 3:19 the Apostle prefixes that γέγραπται γάρ, for it is written, to the sentence of Eliphaz, no less than to the words of Psalm 94:11, is a proof, 1.  that the Book of Job, from which the following sentence is obtained, belongs to the Canon of the Old Testament:  2.  and that, since this saying is cited as Canonical for the sake of proof, the same formula of citation attributes the Authority of a Norm to the sentence of Eliphaz.

Then Wesselius judges:

1.  That Maresius thought too much of the words of Job’s Friends, since he pronounces those to be, not only true in Thesis, but also divine.  Seeing that this thesis of theirs was most certainly erroneous, that the pious are not wont to be afflicted so grievously, but only the impious and hypocrites, by a comparison with Job 4:7, 8; and so their Conclusion with respect to Job was not only false, but also the major premise of the Syllogism:  and, if they had been enjoying the infallible guidance of the Spirit, they would have been immune, not only to error in thesis, but also in hypothesis/supposition.

2.  That Voetius falls unto the other extreme, when he writes:  “I myself abstain, and teach my students to abstain, from demonstrating the truths of the faith from that place, lest they should appear to adversaries to be built upon sand.”  For the middle is granted; while not indeed from all the words of Job or his Friends, but nevertheless from certain of them, to be distinguished easily from the rest, one may obtain arguments confirming the truths of the faith.

3.  That the Authenticity of History and the Authenticity of Norm are to be properly distinguished.

4.  That the whole argument of this Book has the Authenticity of History, as written at the guidance of the Spirit, and is consequently infallibly true.

5.  But, as far as the Authenticity of Norm is concerned, he observes:

              α.  That all the words of God, Job 38-41, as truly set forth by Himself, most certainly have Authenticity of Norm.

              β.  That Job said some things, either when the weight of his miseries had nearly conquered patience, or when he was in the heat of disputation with his Friends, which do not have the Authenticity of Norm, but were written for our dehortation and admonition:  but that a great many other words of Job entirely have the Authenticity of Norm, whether mediate or immediate.

              γ.  That likewise a great many words of Job’s Friends only have the Authenticity of History; but others, set forth summarily by them, but drawn out by the Writer of the Book of Job at length, have Normative Authenticity:

                             a.  Partly indeed Immediate, which is established on Immediate Revelation, which is not able to be denied either to the Writer of the Book of Job, mingling in more things for the sake of extension; or to the Friends of Job, Job 4:17, 18; 33:14-16; or to Job also, Job 6:10; 22:22; 23:12.

                             b.  Partly Mediate, or

                                           a.  By a common divine approbation of the same words as good and Right, Job 1:21, 22; 2:10, 13, to which refer the sum of those things that were pertaining to the principal thesis of Job’s disputations against his Friends, Job 42:7.

                                           b.  Or by special approbation of the Spirit of God, found in the citation of several notable sentences out of the book of Job in the books of the Old or New Testament, as was seen above out of 1 Corinthians 3:19.

                                           c.  Or they are matters that have regard unto the common doctrine of faith and manners, and that had come from the school of the Patriarchs unto these men; revealed immediately to the Patriarchs, and by these men, although not enjoying at this time the impulse of the Spirit, faithfully set forth:  consult CARPZOV’S Introductionem ad Libros Poeticos Veteris Testamenti, chapter II, § 8, pages 49-51, § 13, pages 64-69.

What our AUTHOR has concerning some Prophet by the Holy Spirit afterwards polishing the speech of Job and his Friends; it is a matter for deeper research, and our limitations do not comprehend his worthy discussion.  Some at this point name Moses; others, one of Job’s friends, perhaps Elihu:  others make Solomon, or a contemporary Prophet, the Writer of this Book.  But what would prevent us from thinking with the Most Illustrious SCHULTENS, that those things, which are continuous from chapter 3 to the end of chapter 41, or rather verse 6 of chapter 42, in uninterrupted poetry, are the work of Job himself, now restored unto wholeness, and of memory hallowing the plight and most grievous conflict, in which he had been entangled, according to the manner of the times, in the very Tongue and connection of the matters and sentences, to which today we apply our eyes and minds?  But, that the Introduction, chapters 1 and 2, and the Conclusion, from verse 7 of chapter 42 to the end, at least in that habit, were probably attached by one of the Hebrew Prophets, when this Hebræo-Arabic Codex was received into the Canon of the Jewish Church:  but, that when, or under what auspices, this was done is more curious than necessary for the understanding of the Book:  see SCHULTENS’ preface to his Commentario in Jobum; SPANHEIM’S[16] Historiam Jobi, chapter XVI; WOLF’S Bibliothecam Hebraicam; CARPZOV’S Introductionem ad Libros Poeticos Veteris Testamenti, chapter II, § 9-11, pages 51-60; MICHAELIS’ preface in librum Jobi; our AUTHOR’S Exercise I in Exercitationibus textualibus, Part VI, § 18, in which with censure he notes some things that the Most Illustrious VITRINGA wrote sometimes concerning the writing of the Book of Job and its Arabisms, little agreeing in the judgment of MARCKIUS with the divine authority of this Book.

2.  Inspiration pertains to all Matters contained in Sacred Scripture, α.  whether Dogmatic, or Historical, of whatever time these might be, whether conducted in the age of the Writers or before.  Indeed, the Historians often knew without new revelation and infallible inspiration the matters that they were relating, whether by the power of memory, or by the testimony of ἀξιοπίστων/ trustworthy men, from a comparison with Luke 1:2:  but if in narrating these things they were not enjoying θεοπνευστίᾳ/inspiration, their history would only be a human narration, which would not be able to be the foundation of divine Faith, by which on account of the testimony of God we receive something, as what is not liable, nor is even able to be, to any error at all.

This is to be held against Grotius, who in Voto pro Pace Ecclesiastica, pages 99, 100, has this:  “I have indeed said that not all the books that are in the Hebrew Canon were dictated by the Holy Spirit.  —It was not needful that the histories be dictated by the Holy Spirit.  It was enough that the writer by memory be proficient concerning the matters observed, or by diligence be proficient in describing the historical journals of the ancients.  —If Luke, with the divine afflatus dictating, had written his own, thence he would have taken authority to himself, as the Prophets did, rather than from witnesses, whose faith he followed.[17]  Thus in writing those things that he saw Paul doing, he had no need of any afflatus dictating.  What, therefore, is the reason why the books of Luke are Canonical? because the Church of the first ages judged them to be written piously and faithfully, and concerning matters of the greatest moment to salvation.”  This opinion of Grotius is followed by Spinoza,[18] in his Tractato Theologico-Politico, chapter XI, and by the Author of the book, Sentimens de quelques Theologiens de Hollande:[19]  see SIMON’S[20] Critique de Nouveau Testament, chapter XXIII, pages 273, 274.  Thus also Hobbes in Leviathan, chapter VII:  “The same is the manner of the histories written by Prophets in the name of God and of the others written, for example, by Livy,[21] Curtius;[22] so, if we would not believe Livy, that an ox spoke,[23] we disbelieve, not God, but Livy, etc.”:  against whom see COCQUIUS’[24] Hobbesianismi Anatomen, locus I, chapter I, § 3, pages 5-7.  This also is the objection of the Jews against the divinity of the Books of the New Testament, that Luke himself, Luke 1:1-3, testifies that he did not write his Gospel by the afflatus and inspiration of the Holy Spirit, but of his own will and according to the relation of trustworthy witnesses; unto which STAPFER responds, in his Theologicæ polemicæ, tome 3, chapter XI, section I, § 331, 333, 334, pages 265, 266, 268-271.  Consult CARPZOV’S Critica Sacra Veteris Testamenti, part I, chapter I, § 8, canon 1, 2, pages 54-56; RIVET’S[25] Isagogen ad Scripturam Sacram, chapter II, § 4-8, opera, tome 2, page 856.  Add SPANHEIM’S de Historicis Euangeliorum Scriptoribus, in the Appendix to book II of Miscellaneorum Sacrorum Antiquorum, § 2-9, opera, tome 2, column 266-274, where he encounters Henry Dodwell, in whose Dissertationibus in Irenæum he relates, “He, being unwilling, and not without some upset, read some things, which, as they lie, appear not a little to disturb the authenticity and reverence of the Gospels.  That is, that the Writers of the Gospel History have no other infallibility than that they were faithful witnesses of those things that either they had seen or heard, in an ordinary manner of relating, with no interposition of any afflatus, or θεοπνευστίας/inspiration.  Thus Tradition, upon which the belief of the Books of the New Testament, and of the Gospels in particular, rests, is no firmer than that which belongs to Irenæus; Irenæus, Clement, and the rest have an Equal Authority with them, nor were these Fathers of the second Century less infallible, in matters of history and of fact; —Neither does any note appear from which you might gather that less was attributed to the Apocryphal Gospels, than to the true; the Apocrypha is praised with equal honor, for example, by Ignatius of Antioch, with which the true are also honored:”  then read Spanheim disputing against these things.  Consult also the things to be taught below, Chapter 33, § 10.  That θεοπνευστίαν/inspiration is not to be denied to the Writers of the Historical Books, whether of the Old or New Testament, DINANT also contends in his de Achtbaarheid van Godts Woord, chapter III, § 16, 20, pages 387-390, 399-404, § 22, pages 405-414, § 30-33, pages 427-444, § 38, 39, 458-465.

And, among these inspired histories, our AUTHOR says that the Mosaic Genesis is to be held specifically and in the first place:  while Episcopius[26] hardly appears to recognize any other foundation for the verity of the primeval history that is contained in Genesis, than human reason and tradition, and the confidence of posterity applied to this tradition:  whom, therefore, TRIGLAND refutes in his Antapologia, chapter XVII, pages 258, 259, observing that reason is not sufficient for the understanding of the things that are narrated at the beginning of Genesis; neither is tradition, unless you would say that the same is similarly sufficient for founding Papal Theological science and doctrine.  And our AUTHOR rightly observes:  α.  that Moses is set forth to us as the greatest and most faithful of the Prophets, to whom, before others, divine revelations were familiar, Numbers 12:7, 8, upon which text see above, Chapter 1, and DINANT’S de Achtbaarheid van Godts Woord, chapter III, § 13, pages 373-378; Deuteronomy 34:10.  β.  That the narration of Moses concerning the first Creation no man without the revelation of God was able to know.  γ.  But if θεοπνευστίᾳ/inspiration was ever needful, certainly it was needful in the writing of Genesis, since upon that hangs all the confidence of the Creation, Integrity, Fall, and Restoration of mankind.

And it was not necessary that Moses either note the individual moments of Time in which the divine Revelations came to him; or note on the individual parts of the history that these were divinely revealed to him.

It was possible that in some things Moses had certain Historical Helps from the Fathers, yet this cannot be demonstrated with certainty:  if those helps were available to Moses, it is not thence concluded that he, with respect to those, did not need the immediate guidance of the Spirit; just as in the Conversion of man the immediate Grace of God  is conjoined with the Word:  see at length MARCKIUS’ Exercitationes textuales I, Part VI, § 16, 21; with whom compare VITRINGA’S Sacrarum Observationum, book I, chapters IV, V; PETRUS BROUWER, Pastor of Barneveld, in his Dissertatione philologico-theologica, qua disquiritur, unde Moses res in libro Geneseos descriptas didicerit, publicly set forth at Leiden in 1753.  Especially in the place cited of our AUTHOR, § 16, pages 37, 39, you will see the twofold hypothesis of Vitringa recalled to the anvil, a hypothesis insufficiently agreeing, according to our AUTHOR, with the reverence due to the divine origin of Genesis.  Also deserving of attention is an Anonymous French tract, published at Brussels:  Conjectures sur les Memoires Originaux, dont il pariot que Moyse s’est servi pour composer le Livre de la Genese, avec des Remarques, etc.:[27]  in this tract the AUTHOR at great length attempts to render it probable that Moses had multiple historical journals, from which he composed the Book of Genesis, both written by the Patriarchs, and received by the neighboring nations also; among which two stand out as distinguished everywhere by the use of the divine name, אֱלֹהִים/Elohim in the one, and יְהוָה/Jehovah in the other; and, arranging the text of Genesis by various columns, by conjecture he attempts to show what Moses took from each journal.  Now, conjectures of this sort are able with due solemnity to be harmonized with the θεοπνευστίᾳ/inspiration of the subject matter of the Book of Genesis; if we observe, that if, 1.  the history of Creation and similar things, which were not able to be known by any mortal man without divine Revelation, Moses now found among the papers of the Patriarchs, those things were necessarily revealed by God to the earlier Patriarchs:  2.  That Moses described neither these things nor all the other things in the Book of Genesis, unless taught by the guidance of the Spirit concerning those things that were to be referred unto the use of the Church, and advised concerning the most certain truth of all these.  Now, from those papers, of which Moses not improbably made use, the AUTHOR of that French tract seeks an argument for Moses as the author of Genesis, against those that maintain that at a much later time this book was stitched together by human effort:  since Moses was well able to obtain the necessary helps for the writing of this history; but at a later time it would have been impossible to obtain the journals necessary for this matter:  see Remarque XVI, page 452-464; but compare TRIGLAND’S Antapologiam, chapter II, pages 38; and HENDRIK LUSSING’S de Noodzekelykheid van den Godtsdienst in ’t gemeen, en de Zekerheid van den Christelyken in ’t byzonder, veweert, volume 2, treatise 6, chapter 3, § 690-707, pages 86-126, where he recalls to the anvil the hypotheses of that French Author just now mentioned.

β.  It is likewise so that Inspiration pertains to all the Matters contained in Sacred Scripture, whether the Matters delivered be Good or Evil:  in both the Sacred Scriptures are equally Infallible and trustworthy, on account of the same guidance of the Holy Spirit in both.  Nevertheless, in this they differ, that evil Matters have only the Authenticity of History, not of Norm, for example, when it is read in Psalm 14:1, The fool hath said in his heart, There is no God, etc.  But good Matters have the Authenticity of History and of Norm at the same time.  So, the Authenticity of History is universal, and it has equal regard to all the parts of Sacred Scripture:  now, that procures for its an historical faith, for whatever is delivered in the Sacred Codex is believed to have been written down θεοπνεύστως, by inspiration, with the greatest trustworthiness and without any error, and to that extent is not able to be called into doubt with respect to historical truthfulness.  But the Authenticity of Norm binds at once to obedience or adherence, whereby many things contained in Sacred Scripture, are not only narrated truly, but also have a binding virtue; so that they might oblige the conscience of man to faith, obedience, and the observation and imitation of those things that are set forth as to be believed, observed, done, and imitated for salvation.

γ.  No distinction is to be made between Matters Weightier and Lighter, as do the Socinians,[28] and, among the Remonstrants, Episcopius and his followers, as if the Holy Writers, at least in some things, in minute matters, in historical circumstances, were without the infallible guidance of the Holy Spirit, and hence in those things they were able to err by lapse of memory, ignorance, human frailty, or they did err actually and on some occasions:  see HOORNBEECK’S Socinianismum confutatum, tome I, book I, chapter I, section I, pages 2-8; TRIGLAND’S[29] Kerckelycke Geschiedenissen, volume 4, page 585; Catechesin Racovianam “de Scriptura Sacra”, chapter I, question 10, page 6 at the beginning.

Their πρῶτα ψεύδη, principal errors, are, that what things are diverse are adverse; that what things are δυσνόητα, hard to understand, are false; that some errors, that were introduced into the Codices, were innate in the Scripture.  Their Scope/Goal:  to loose the reigns to reason in explaining and accommodating Sacred Scripture to their own ideas.

But opposing are, α.  general passages, 2 Timothy 3:16; Psalm 12:6.  β.  In this way the weight of the things contained in Sacred Scripture is rashly lightened, while the greatest things often depend upon the least (the least at least in appearance); and thus is suspended the weight of the argument of Sacred Scripture upon the changing will of men:  while there is controversy concerning many heads of the faith; what one esteems little, the other judges to be of great moment.  γ.  Whence in this way divine faith concerning the whole Codex of Scripture is very much shaken:  see HOORNBEECK at some length in his Socinianismo confutato, tome I, book I, chapter I, section II, pages 8-20; ARNOLDI’S[30] Refutationem Catecheseos Racovianæ, pages 16, 17, § 11.

a.  Neither ought it to be objected by the Author of the Criticism also upon the Critique of Simon, or Le Clerc, that the Apostles themselves distinguish their own sayings from the sayings of Christ; therefore, they are not equally infallible in all things, from a comparison with 1 Corinthians 7:10, 12, 25:  as if Paul had not thus spoken, if his hearers had believed that his words are equally infallible with those of Christ Himself.  But well does WITSIUS observe, in his Miscellaneorum sacrorum, tome 1, book I, chapter XXII, § 31, that Paul in this chapter treats matters of a diverse sort.  Concerning some things the express commandment of the Lord was formerly heard, as concerning Divorce, from a comparison with Matthew 5:32; 19:3-9; concerning other things the commandment was not yet explicit.  Concerning the former, says Paul, I do not speak, ye do not hear this for the first time from me, but the Lord spoke previously.  Concerning the latter, I speak, not the Lord, that is, Christ hitherto commanded nothing concerning this matter; I am the first to set forth the mind of the Lord.  Yet not by human argumentation only without internal Revelation, but by the instinct of Christ.  For there was not wanting to him δοκιμὴν τοῦ ἐν αὐτῷ λαλοῦντος Χριστου, proof of Christ speaking in him, 2 Corinthians 13:3.  Similarly in 1 Corinthians 7:25, I do not have a precept of the Lord, that is, on formerly expressed, which would oblige all universally.  Γνώμην δὲ δίδωμι, but I give a judgment, that is, I suggest a counsel of prudence concerning that which may be expedient, here and now.  Yet it was not fetched from my stock, but from the instinct of the Spirit, as one to whom the Lord through mercy has granted to be faithful.  Verse 40 is altogether to be brought in for comparison, μακαριωτέρα δέ ἐστιν ἐὰν οὕτω μείνῃ, κατὰ τὴν ἐμὴν γνώμην·  δοκῶ δὲ κἀγὼ Πνεῦμα Θεοῦ ἔχειν, But she is happier if she so abide, after my judgment:  and I think also that I have the Spirit of God.  See also HEIDEGGER’S Exercitationes Biblicas, Dissertation II, § 19; DINANT’S de Achtbaarheid van Godts Woord, chapter III, § 34, pages 448-452, § 73, pages 551-555.

b.  The δυσνόητα, things hard to understand, or the various Doubts agitated, which are found in the Sacred Codex, are not to be objected:  since the δυσνόητα, things hard to understand, are not then ἄπορα/impossible or false; neither are things always truly opposed, which indeed seem so to us.  α.  The Scripture is not to be rashly accused of error here, but rather the sluggishness of our nature is to be acknowledged, on account of which it is not given to us to discover the fitting manner of solution, perhaps yet to be uncovered to posterity.  Thus, for example, many things are given in Sacred Scripture, which perhaps a simple rustic will never solve, yet easily to be resolved by us:  so also other difficulties are able to be presented, of which the correct explanation exceeds the keenness of our ability.  β.  All ways of harmonization are to be attempted, according to which the difficulties presented are able to be loosed, if not demonstratively, at least probably.  γ.  If an error, which nevertheless happens exceedingly rarely, be most manifest, it is never to be attributed to the Writers, but to the Copyists, who were not θεοπνεύστοις/inspired:  and the Sacred Codex is not so much to be accused because of one or two lapses of this sort by copyists, as, on the other hand, the goodness and singular care come to be proclaimed and adored with admiration, by which it has happened that with the passing of so many ages have errors of this sort crept into so few passages.  Best of all, AUGUSTINE, Epistola XIX, ad Hieronymum, or according to the Benedictine edition, LXXXII, chapter III, opera, tome 2, column 144, which GRATIAN also entered into his Decretum,[31] Distinction IX, Canon V:  “I have learned to bestow only upon those Books of Scripture that are called Canonical this fear and honor, that I most firmly believe that none of those authors has erred in the writing of anything.  And if I might encounter anything in those books, which might appear to be contrary to the truth; it must be the case that either the codex is faulty, or the interpreter has not followed what has been said, or I have not understood:”  consult HOORNBEECK’S Socinianismum confutatum, tome I, book I, chapter I, section III, pages 20-23.

3.  Finally, Inspiration pertains, not only to Matters, but also to all the Words, 2 Samuel 23:2; 2 Peter 1:21; Matthew 10:19, 20, in which then nothing unsuitable occurs, but the words are always agreeable to the substance and worthy of God.  The Apostles spoke τὰ μεγαλεῖα τοῦ Θεοῦ, καθὼς τὸ Πνεῦμα ἐδίδου αὐτοῖς ἀποφθέγγεσθαι, the wonderful works of God, as the Spirit gave to them utterance, Acts 2:4; add the assertion of Paul concerning this mark, 1 Corinthian 2:4, 13.  Hence Sacred Scripture is so often called דְבַר־אֱלֹהֵינוּ, the word of our God,דְבַר־יְהוָה , the word of the Lord, τὰ λόγια τοῦ Θεοῦ, the oracles of God, ῥῆμα Θεοῦ, the word/utterance of God, τὸ ῥῆμα Κυρίου, the word/utterance of the Lord, Psalm 119 everywhere, Isaiah 40:8;[32] Romans 3:2;[33] Ephesians 6:17;[34] 1 Peter 1:25.[35]  Consult on 2 Samuel 23:2, DINANT’S de Achtbaarheid van Godts Woord, chapter III, § 14, pages 378-381:  on 2 Peter 1:21, my Commentarium in loco; DINANT’S de Achtbaarheid van Godts Woord, chapter III, § 15, pages 381-387:  on Matthew 10:19, 20, DINANT’S de Achtbaarheid van Godts Woord, chapter III, § 23, 24, 32, pages 414-420, 435-437:  on Acts 2:4, DINANT’S de Achtbaarheid van Godts Woord, chapter III, § 27, pages 423, 424, who also strenuously fights for the extension of the θεοπνευστίᾳ/inspiration of the Sacred Codex to the very Words against Simon, Le Clerc, etc., de Achtbaarheid van Godts Woord, chapter III, § 43-49, pages 473-494:  and then he writes an exceptional apology for the Style of the Sacred Amanuenses, both of the Old and New Testaments, against all Pseudo-critics, de Achtbaarheid van Godts Woord, chapter IV, pages 561-742.  That the Inspiration of the divine Word pertains, not only to the Matter, but also to all the Words, LAMPE elaborates admirably well, Dissertatione philologico-theologica, volume II, Disputation X, § 9-31, pages 359-378.

α.  In vain is the Diversity of Styles and Expressions in the diverse Writers Objected.  Since to this God prudently accommodated Himself in writing, as to the sound of one’s voice in speaking; as one had a greater and clearer, and another a more feeble, which here implies no difference.  The Diversity of Styles is also able to be compared with the diverse sounds of Musical Instruments, although they be played and beaten by the same Artist.  That is, on the one hand, the Holy Spirit by His supernatural influence did not overwhelm the natural faculty of the holy Prophets and Amanuenses, and so dictate by some ἐνθουσιασμῷ/ enthusiasm the particular Words that they should write, that no rational operation of the Men of God in considering and arranging them intervened; that in their own mind they conceived, arranged, and shaped nothing.  For this does not agree with a difference of Style.  Neither, on the other hand, is it to be said that the matters were inspired by God; but that the Style, Speech, and Words were left to the will of the Writer:  that the Holy Spirit only took care of His directing, lest they should stray at all from His intention.  But the native habit and character of Style is to be distinguished from its accommodation to the divine mysteries and writing to be noted down.  The Holy Spirit left to each his character, his customary manner of speaking, and his natural gifts:  but, when the Holy Spirit applied these natural gifts, this manner of speaking proper to each, to the setting forth of the divine oracles, or to the consigning of them to letters, He supplied Words to them according to their ability, and in suggesting words accommodated Himself to the particular character and diction of the Writer; indeed, He selected for Himself such a Writer, of which sort He knew to be especially suitable to express this or that character of speech, so that the construction of the speech might flow naturally, as it were.  Therefore, the Style was proper and peculiar to the individual Writers; but the Words, which, having been accommodated to this Style, they were setting forth or writing, belonged to the Holy Spirit, making use of their ministry in speaking or writing.  Most aptly does the Most Illustrious RIVET, in his Isagoge ad Scripturam Sacram, chapter II, § 18, call the holy Writers living pens, and illustrate this matter by a comparison drawn from a skilled Scribe, who aptly makes use of diverse pens, sometimes finer and sharper, sometimes thicker and blunt; in which case indeed the letters and writing of the are to be fully attributed to the Scribe; but a guidance subtler or coarser is to be ascribed to the character and habit of the pen, being finer or thicker:  see and read over RIVET’S Isagogen ad Scripturam Sacram, chapter II, § 9 and following, opera, tome 2, page 856-858; HEIDANUS’[36] Corpus Theologiæ, tome I, locus I, page 36; HEIDEGGER’S Exercitationes Biblicas, Dissertation II, § 20, page 23; CARPZOV’S Critica Sacra Veteris Testamenti, part I, chapter I, § 8, canon 3, pages 57, 58; Introductionem ad Libros Propheticos Veteris Testamenti, chapter I, § 23, pages 62, 63; BUDDEUS’ Institutiones Theologiæ dogmaticæ, book I, chapter II, § 10, pages 121-127, tome I; WITSIUS’ Miscellaneorum sacrorum, tome 1, book I, chapter XI, § 11-14; SCHULTENS’ Excursus III, adversus Honert,[37] chapter V, § 53, 54, page 229-231.  Compare SIMON’S Critique du Nouveau Testament, chapters XXIII, XXIV, where with criticism he relates a contention, which in the year 1586, because of this business, came between the Jesuits of Louvain with the Theological Professors of Louvain and Douai.  Add PFAFF’S[38] Historiam Formulæ Consensus Helveticæ, chapter I, § 8, in which he relates the history of the controversy concerning the Inspiration of the Sacred Scripture, whether substantial only, or also verbal, and on behalf of verbal Inspiration also he cites the most excellent of the Reformed and of the Lutherans; by which latter he affirms this opinion to be universally received at this day.  The Most Illustrious GISBERT AB ISENDOORN, Professor of Philosophy at Harderwijk,[39] related to my reverend grandfather, Peter Montanus,[40] that he heard Daniel Tilenus of Sedan,[41] at which time he was beginning to befriend members of the Remonstrants, in the public reading reciting these words:  “The Prophets of God in the Old Testament and the Apostles in the New Testament were not led by the Holy Spirit in such a way that they were His own proper organs and instruments:  they were able to write, now one way, now another, what was pleasing to themselves; not necessarily what the Holy Spirit dictated.”

β.  It is likewise objected in vain, that Every error was not able to be prevented by the Men of God, which is inconsistent with the θεοπνευστίᾳ/inspiration of the words:  since Paul, in Acts 23:5, a.  professes that he did not know the High Priest, which is scarcely credible; b.  with an excuse added, he acknowledges the weakness of the soul, whence some harsh words had fallen from his lips:  for which he now begs pardon with an excuse absurd and inept, saying:  Οὐκ ᾔδειν, ἀδελφοί, ὅτι ἐστὶν ἀρχιερεύς·  γέγραπται γάρ, Ἄρχοντα τοῦ λαοῦ σου οὐκ ἐρεῖς κακῶς, I wist not, brethren, that he was the high priest:  for it is written, Thou shalt not speak evil of the ruler of thy people.

Response:  a.  With respect to the first:  1.  It is not so unbelievable that Paul simply did not know that Ananias was at that time High Priest, since the Apostle had been absent from Jerusalem, and that for a long time; neither was the High Priest by any notable sign distinguished in the Senate from the rest; and the Pontifical dignity was very desultory, bestowed at one time by the Roman Prefects, at another time by the Jewish Kings, now to this one, not to that one, and a little afterward at pleasure withdrawn from the same, so that within the space of one year, sometimes as many as three managed the Pontificate.

2.  Also, Paul was able to have heard that a voice was uttered by one of the Jews, but to have been ignorant from whom that had proceeded:  at the same time, against him that had ordered that he be struck, he warned that a punishment had been prepared by the Lord, whoever he might be:  to which exegesis, whether that πρὸς αὐτὸν εἶπε, he said unto him, verse 3, is so great a hindrance, as indeed it appears to WOLF in his Curis Philologicis on verse 5, I doubt.

3.  Others explain not to know as not to acknowledge; whether Paul, a.  speaks in general, I do not acknowledge him to be High Priest, in addition to Jesus Christ, after this latter High Priest has been made manifest and perfected through sufferings;[42] so that whoever might now carry himself as High Priest is to be held as a whited wall, and only bears an empty name, which is the opinion of LIGHTFOOT.[43]  b.  Or he also asserts concerning Ananias in particular, I do not acknowledge this man to be High Priest; because this Pontifical dignity he had acquired for money, as GROTIUS has it.  Now, this Illustrious Man adds, Paul had learned this from Gamaliel, that the Judge that gave money in order to acquire this honor is actually not Judge, nor to be honored, but to be held as an ass:  as it is in the portion of the Talmud:  de Synedrio.  In a peculiar manner, the Jews call such Magistrates Gods of gold and silver, and deny that they are to be reverenced.

4.  Perhaps best of all, with our AUTHOR you might take these words ironically or sarcastically, of a witty reproof of behavior not at all fitting, because of which Paul had not been able to identify the High Priest.  “From the High Priest,” says the Most Illustrious RIVET, Isagoge ad Scripturam Sacram, chapter XXI, § 7, opera, tome 2, page 971a, “Paul had not thought this voice to have proceeded, because of his authority, of which it was unworthy that so rash a sign of displeasure be displayed, and because of his at least simulated holiness, from which it was not appearing that so iniquitous a voice would proceed.”  The Most Illustrious WERENFELS,[44] in Cogitationibus ad loca Novi Testamenti, Opuscula, page 327, calls this ignorance legal, when, for example, we say that we do not know that which we have the right not to know:  thus, for the sake of example, it is not known that one is a Legate, until he shows letters held in trust; it is not known that one is a Prince, unless he makes known his dignity, as it is needful, and maintains it, which Ananias does not here do.

b.  But with respect to the remaining words added;

1.  Those things do not imply that Paul unknowingly violated that commandment concerning not cursing the Prince.[45]  For this would be an inept excuse:  for even if Paul had not known Ananias to be High Priest, yet he did know him to be one of the Judges:  but neither was it lawful to curse a private man.

2.  Now, Paul, when he said in verse 3, τύπτειν σε μέλλει ὁ Θεός, τοῖχε κεκονιαμένε, etc., God shall smite thee, thou whited wall, etc., by the prophetic Spirit according to the manner of the Prophets he frankly rebuked the hypocrisy of this Assessor of the Sanhedrin, and he did not in fact imprecate the judgments of God, but rather foretold them, with the event confirming the prophecy.  For, according to the observation of GROTIUS, whether by Ananias’ death or removal, not long after this time Ishmael ben Fabus was appointed.[46]

3.  Therefore, Paul does not make use of an excuse in verse 5, in which he acknowledges fault; but he utters an apology, in which he exculpates himself, and demonstrates himself to have acted rightly.  Indeed, he protests that he, well mindful of the divine Law, did not break out into these words contrary to the Law, neither did he utter abuse forbidden by the Law.  Seeing that his speech is not a hot-tempered imprecation, but a just rebuke of a man not maintaining, as it is proper, his dignity, with a warning of punishment conjoined; neither did it proceed from a bad spirit, but from a better and superior principle.  And thus that apology is not all unworthy of the Spirit of God.  Consult WITSIUS’ Miscellaneorum sacrorum, tome I, book I, chapter XXII, § 24-27, where he defends this saying of Paul against Le Clerc.

[1] Luke 1:4:  “That thou mightest know the certainty (τὴν ἀσφάλειαν) of those things, wherein thou hast been instructed.”

[2] Frederic Adolphus Lampe (1683-1729) studied under Campegius Vitringa, and held various ministerial posts.  At Utrecht he was appointed Professor of Theology (1720), then of Church History (1726).  He departed to teach at Bremen in 1727, and died there in 1729.  He was especially learned in ecclesiastical history and antiquities.

[3] Thomas Hobbes (1588-1679) was an English philosopher, remembered for his work in political philosophy and social contract theory.  He was also interested in theology, but heterodox in his beliefs, denying incorporeal substance (reducing all things to matter and motion), and the divine inspiration of the Biblical prophets.

[4] Melchior Cano (c. 1509-1560) was a Spanish Dominican and Scholastic theologian; he served as Professor of Theology at Salamanca (1546-1552).

[5] Nicholas Abram (1589-1655) was a French Jesuit theologian.

[6] Abraham Bucholtzer (1529-1584) was a Lutheran theologian and historian.  He wrote Indicem chronologicum, monstrantem annorum seriem a mundo condito usque ad annum nati Christi 1616.

[7] This is likely Sethus Calvisius the Younger (1639-1698), a Lutheran theologian.

[8] Johann David Michaelis (1717-1791) was a German biblical scholar and orientalist.  He served as Professor at Gottingen from 1746 to 1791.

[9] 2 Samuel 11:14, 15.

[10] See 2 Samuel 7.

[11] Citing Job 5:13.

[12] Acts 17:28; 1 Corinthians 15:33; Titus 1:12.

[13] Gisbertus Voetius (1589-1676) was a Dutch Reformed minister and theologian.  In 1619, he attended the Synod of Dort as its youngest member.  Some years later he was appointed as Professor of Theology at Utrecht (1636-1676).

[14] Maresius, or Samuel Desmarets (1599-1673), was a French Huguenot minister and polemist.  He held various ministerial posts, and served as Professor of Theology at Sedan (1625-1636), and at Groningen (1643-1673).

[15] James Tirinus (1580-1636) was a Flemish Jesuit priest.  His abilities as a Biblical exegete are displayed in his Commentaria in Sacram Scripturam.

[16] That is, the Younger.

[17] Luke 1:1-4; Hebrews 13:7.

[18] Baruch Spinoza (1632-1677) was a Jewish-Dutch philosopher, and one of the great Rationalists in the tradition of Descartes.

[19] Jean Le Clerc (1657-1736) was educated in Geneva, under the tutelage of Philippe Mestrezat and Francis Turretin, and ordained circa 1680.  His sympathy for the theology of the Remonstrants made it impossible for him to continue in Geneva.  He settled as Professor of Philosophy at Amsterdam (1684-1731).  In his Sentimens, Le Clerc finds fault with much of Richard Simon’s work, but his critical approach to the Scripture is similar to that of Simon.

[20] Richard Simon (1638-1712) was a French priest, orientalist, and biblical critic, sometimes called “the father of higher criticism”.

[21] Titus Livius (c. 59 BC-17 AD) wrote a history of Rome, Ab Urbe Condita, from its founding to the time of Augustus.

[22] Quintus Curtius Rufus (d. 53) was a Roman and a historian.  Historiæ Alexandri Magni is his only surviving work.

[23] Ab Urbe Condita 35.

[24] Gisbertus Cocquius (1630-1708) of Utrecht was a Reformed thinker and doctor of philosophy; he opposed Hobbes.

[25] Andrew Rivet (1573-1651) was a Huguenot minister and divine.  He ministered at Sedan and at Thouara; he went on to teach at the University of Leiden (1619-1632) and at the college at Breda.  His influence among Protestants extended well beyond France.

[26] Simon Episcopius (1583-1643) was a Dutch theologian.  He studied at the University of Leiden under Jacobus Arminius, and embraced his teacher’s distinctive doctrines.  He became a leader among the Remonstrants, playing a significant role at the Synod of Dort (1618).

[27] Written by Jean Astruc.

[28] Fausto Paolo Sozzini, or Faustus Socinus (1539-1604), was the father of Socinianism, a rationalistic heresy (denying the Deity of Christ, the satisfaction theory of the atonement, etc.), an aberration of the Reformation.

[29] That is, Jacob Trigland the Elder.

[30] Nicolaus Arnoldi (1618-1680) was Professor of Theology at Franeker (1651-1680).

[31] Johannes Gratian was a theologian and canon lawyer from Bologna.  He composed his Concordia discordantium canonum, commonly called Decretum Gratiani (circa 1150), to aid in the study of canon law.

[32] Isaiah 40:8:  “The grass withereth, the flower fadeth:  but the word of our God (וּדְבַר־אֱלֹהֵ֖ינוּ; τὸ δὲ ῥῆμα τοῦ θεοῦ ἡμῶν, in the Septuagint) shall stand for ever.”

[33] Romans 3:2:  “Much every way:  chiefly, because that unto them were committed the oracles of God (τὰ λόγια τοῦ Θεοῦ).”

[34] Ephesians 6:17:  “And take the helmet of salvation, and the sword of the Spirit, which is the word of God (ῥῆμα Θεοῦ)…”

[35] 1 Peter 1:25:  “But the word of the Lord (τὸ δὲ ῥῆμα Κυρίου) endureth for ever.  And this is the word which by the gospel is preached unto you.”

[36] Abraham Heidanus (1597-1678) was a Dutch Reformed minister and Cocceian theologian.  He served as professor of theology at Leiden from 1648 to 1676, but he was ultimately dismissed for his Cartesianism.

[37] Jan van den Honert (1693-1758) was a Dutch Reformed theologian.  He served as Professor of Theology at Utrecht (1727-1734), and later at Leiden (1734-1758).

[38] Christoph Matthæus Pfaff (1686-1760) was a German Lutheran Theologian of encyclopedic learning.  He was appointed Professor of Theology at Tubingen (1716).  Within four years, he became chancellor, and held the post for thirty-six years.

[39] Gisbert ab Isendoorn (1601-1657) served as Professor of Philosophy, first at Deventer (1634-1647), than at Harderwijk (1647-1657).

[40] Petrus Montanus (1631-1679), a Dutch Reformed minister, was the grandfather of De Moor’s wife, Alida Frederica Montanus.

[41] Daniel Tilenus (1563-1633) was a Protestant theologian of the Academy of Sedan.  Although initially a Calvinist, he embraced the Arminian teaching, and was embroiled in controversy the rest of his life.

[42] 1 Peter 1:20; Hebrews 2:10; 5:9, 10.

[43] John Lightfoot (1602-1675) was a minister and divine of such distinction and learning that he was invited to sit as a member of the Assembly of Divines at Westminster.  He specialized in Rabbinic learning and lore.  He brought that learning to bear in his defense of Erastianism in the Assembly, and in his comments upon Holy Scripture.

[44] Samuel Werenfels (1657-1740) was a Swiss theologian.  He served as a member of the theological faculty at Basel (1696-1740).  He was a moderate Calvinist, seeking to harmonize Reformed theology and Enlightenment thought.

[45] Exodus 22:28.

[46] Ananias ben Nebedeus was High Priest from 46 to 58; Ishmael ben Fabus, from 58 to 62.