ing witness and memorial of His Revelation whether declared by the mouth of prophets, or manifested in the history of the covenant-people. Hence it is that Daniel has quoted by name the predictions of Jeremiah, as being contained in the books which he was enabled to understand;' hence, too, the Divine messenger who instructs him declares: "I will show thee that which is noted in the Scripture of Truth." The very phrase "Scripture," indeed, or written document, as employed in this saying,-as made use of also by the various writers of the New Testament, and even by Christ Himself,3-of itself proves the justice of the inferences already drawn. S. John, moreover, in the Apocalypse, on twelve different occasions, states that he received a command to write the narrative of his visions : and to the narrative thus composed were applied by the angel words which equally describe each portion of the Bible: "He saith unto me, These are the true sayings of God."

4

That the New Testament, like the Old, was designed as a memorial for after times, S. John has not obscurely intimated when he announced the motive which led to the composition of his Gospel: "These are written that ye might believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, and that believing ye might have life through His name." Of this destination of the sacred writings for the use of every future age, a striking proof is afforded by the fact that, while combating the errors and heresies of their day, the Apostles never descend into details, neither naming the heresiarchs, nor describing the factions with which they had to contend: the only exception to this reserve occurs

1 Dan. ix. 2.

3 "Moses "wrote of Me."-S. John, v. 46.

2

.21 .Dan, x- בכתב אמת

4 "What thou seest, write in a Book (ô ẞhérɛis ypúpov eis ßißλíov)”—Rev. i 11: cf. 19; ii. 1, 8, 12, 18; iii. 1, 7, 14; xiv. 13; xix. 9; xxi. 5.

5 Rev. xix. 9.

6 S. John, xx. 31. The fact of S. Luke having addressed each of his writings to an individual may seem inconsistent with this idea; and may appear to prove that they were not intended for general use. The contrary, however, is the case. S. Luke's writings, as internal evidence shows, were designed for Gentile readers; and at this period there was only one channel through which the works of a Christian could be published at Rome. By the Roman law literary production, when presented to some man of station, could claim, were the gift ("strena, munusculum"), accepted, his support as patronus libri;—a relation which imposed duties analogous to those of the patronus personce. In the case before us, therefore, S. Luke's dedication imposed upon Theophilus the duty of multiplying copies of the Gospel and of the Acts, and of distril uting them to the utmost of his ability:-see Hug, "Einleit.," Th. i. § 13, s. 93

2

in the confidential communications of S. Paul to Timothy.' It is not to be denied, that the New Testament affords no direct information on this subject, and that it is equally silent as to the collection of its several parts. So far, indeed, are the sacred writers from taking notice of matters respecting which we might beforehand have anticipated some information that, throughout the Acts of the Apostles, which enter with such minuteness into S. Paul's history, we can trace no hint of his ever having written an Epistle. But if we add to the arguments respecting these questions which are founded upon external testimony and internal presumptions, the fact of the existence of "spiritual gifts" in the early Church, especially that of "discerning of spirits" which S. Paul ranks so highly; and if we, at the same time, bear in mind how S. John appeals to this test, and alludes to its necessity: "Beloved, believe not every spirit, but try the spirits whether they are of God, because many false prophets are gone out into the world -if these circumstances, I say, be borne in mind, we can feel as little doubt respecting the Divine influence which effected the formation of the New Testament Canon, and designed the composition of its several parts, as the observations already made allow us to entertain with reference to the Old.

3

The various parts of the Canon having been successively committed to writing at the Divine command, and thus presenting to inspired men in after-times certain records which they also could consult, the question at once suggests itself-How far, and in what sense, have its earlier portions been made use of in those books which are of later date? That the successive authors of Scripture have availed themselves of the works of their predecessors, requires no proof; and we have already considered the manner in which the sacred writers, when referring to previous portions of the Bible, have quoted its language as proceeding from God, or from the Holy Ghost. It only remains for us, therefore,

1

1 Tim. i. 20; 2 Tim. ii. 17, 18. The fault of Diotrephes (3 S. John, 9) was plainly one of insubordination merely. Cf. Thiersch, "Versuch zur Herstell" 3.255.

2 Wordsworth, "On the Canon,” p. 169.

3

Διακρίσεις πνευμάτων---1 Cor. xii. 10. "Let the prophets speak two or three, and let the others judge (oi äλhoi diakpivétwoav).”—xiv. 29; cf. ver. 37. See Appendix K.

4 AokiμάGETε Tà пvɛúμата.—1 S. John, iv. 1. See supra, Lecture ii. p. 53, Δοκιμάζετε πνεύματα. -1 note 1.

• See supra, Lecture vi. p. 263, &c.

now to examine the form of the passages in which such quotations occur; to inquire how the frequent deviations from the words of the authors cited are to be explained; and to prove that no conclusion adverse to the perfect inspiration of Holy Scripture can be drawn from any deviations of this nature.

1

Before entering upon this feature of the question, I would briefly touch upon one of the leading topics of modern criticism, -I mean the relation of the Synoptical Gospels, one to the other. Every reader of the New Testament must have noticed, not merely the similarity of certain sections occurring in the Gospels of S. Matthew, S. Mark, and S. Luke, but also the repetition of whole passages, frequently without the least variation of language or expression. Thus there are forty-two sections common to these three Evangelists: in addition to which there are twelve sections common to the Gospels of S. Matthew and S. Mark; five to those of S. Mark and S. Luke; and fourteen to those of S. Luke and S. Matthew, which in cach case are wanting in the third Gospel. To explain these facts three principal hypotheses have been started: Firstly, that there was an original Gospel, no longer extant, which served as the basis of those which have come down to us. Secondly, that among our Synoptical Gospels whichever was of earliest date was made use of by the writer of that which came next in order of time; both having been, in like manner, employed by the author of the third. Thirdly, That a body of oral teaching had been preserved for some years by tradition; and that each Evangelist made use of this tradition as he judged most suitable for the end at which he aimed. It is unnecessary here to dwell upon the numerous variations and combinations of these different hypotheses: their value cannot be better estimated than by keeping in mind what has been justly remarked by the author of the most celebrated of the three :—namely, that in consequence of the insufficiency of historical information, we can never possess perfect certainty

1 I quote here the statement of Gieseler, "Die Entst. der schriftl. Evangelien," i. s. 3; who adds that five sections are altogether peculiar to S. Matthew, two to Š. Mark, and nine to S. Luke. These facts had been already noticed by S. Augustine: "Marcus eum [scil. Matthæum] subsecutus, tanquam pedissequus, et breviator ejus videtur. Cum solo quippe Johanne, nihil dixit; solus ipse, perpauca; cum solo Luca, pauciora; cum Matthæo vero, plurima; et multa pene totidem atque ipsis verbis, sive cum sola sive cum cæteris consonante."-De Consensu Evangelist., lib. i. c. 2, t. I. pars. ii. p. 3.

" See Appendix L

on the subject; and that, at most, we can only arrive at that degree of probability attainable, in general, by historical conjectures.1

To which observation I would add, that even were certainty attainable in this matter,—were any phase of any of the hypotheses in question capable of demonstration, and we were, there fore, able to point out the external sources by the aid of which, as such hypotheses assume, each Evangelist composed his Gospel, -such a result could, in no particular, invalidate, or weaken, or in any manner affect, the inspired authority of the New Testament. It forms a prominent feature, it will be remembered, of the theory of Inspiration maintained in these Discourses, that each writer of Scripture made use, on all occasions, of such materials as were in his power, whether supplied by his own experience or by the information of others. This principle, as we have seen, forms the foundation of the distinction between Revelation and Inspiration. The particulars recorded in the pages of

2

1 "Man muss sich gleich im Anfange bescheiden, dass man, so verschiedene Wege man auch zur Erklärung dieser Dunkelheiten einschlagen mag, bei dem Unzureichenden der historischen Nachrichten doch nie zu vollkommener Gewissheit, sondern nur zu der Wahrscheinlichkeit gelangen kann, welcher historische Conjecturen überhaupt fähig sind."-Gieseler, loc. cit. s. 1. Schleiermacher's remark has been often quoted: "For my part I find it quite enough to prevent me from conceiving the origin of our three Gospels according to Eichhorn's theory, tuer I am to figure to myself our good Evangelists surrounded by five or six open rolls or books, and that, too, in different languages, looking by turns from one into another, and writing a compilation from them. I fancy myself in a German study of the eighteenth or nineteenth century, rather than in the primitive age of Christianity; and if this resemblance diminishes, perhaps, my surprise at the well-known image having suggested itself to the critic in the construction of his hypothesis, it renders it the less possible for me to believe that such was the actual state of the case.”—The Gospel of S. Luke. (Thirlwall's transl., p. 6.)

2 As S. Luke tells us, in the Preface to his Gospel (ch. i. 1-3); or, to take the case of the Old Testament, as we learn from the frequent references, by the authors of the Books of Kings and Chronicles, to the public documents from which they derived their information. Thus we read "the rest of the acts of Solomon * * are they not written in the book of the acts of Solomon ?"-1 Kings, xi. 41 Such were the documents entitled "the book of the chronicles of the kings of Israel," or “of Judah,” which "are quoted in the Books of Kings thirty-one times up to the history of Jehoiakim, inclusive (2 Kings, xxiv. 5).”—Hävernick, Einleit., Th. 11. Abth. i. s. 151; while Nehemiah appeals to these same public records in attestation of his own accuracy: "The sons of Levi * * * were written in the book of the chronicles, even unto the days of Johanan the son of Eliashib."--Neh. xii. 23. -Neh. xii. 23. That Nehemiah does not refer in these words to our Books of Chronicles, is clear from the fact, that while the document quoted by him counts up the High Priests as far as the time of "Darius the Persian" (ver. 22), the catalogue in the Chronicles terminates with Jehozadak, who "went into captivity, when the Lord carried away Judah and Jerusalem by the hand of Nebuchadnezzar."-1 Chron. vi, 15. See Movers, "Krit. Untersuch. üb. die bibl. Chronik," s. 234. For some further remarks as to

this branch of Hebrew literature, see Appendix D.

Scripture were not all matters of Revelation; the sacred writers Lave touched upon many topics which were not originally communicated to them from heaven: but this circumstance in no respect invalidates the assertion, that the narrative of each and every fact of which the Bible takes notice has been handed down to future ages under the influence of Inspiration. In other words, the Holy Spirit provided that each portion of the Bible should convey such information as best subserved the Divine purpose, irrespectively of any consideration as to the character of that information,-whether it consisted of plain historical facts, or of immediate disclosures of supernatural truths. Hence therefore, any one of the hypotheses proposed in order to explain the origin of the Gospels may be accepted as true, without in the least affecting the force of a single argument put forward in this investigation. Each Evangelist may have borrowed, to the fullest extent, from those sources which modern critics have attempted to define, and yet his entire composition will remain, in the most literal sense, inspired. But however irrelevant to the inspiration of Scripture the fate of all or any of the hypotheses alluded to has thus been shown to be, it would be ungrateful of the Biblical student to deny that the thorough ventilation which this question has received, has been productive of the most beneficial results as regards the elucidation of the New Testament. The mutual connexion of the different portions of the Gospel history has been more fully brought to light; the phraseology of the sacred writers has been more accurately analyzed; and the structure of the whole Evangelical record more perfectly exhibited, in consequence of this discussion, than in any previous stage of Biblical exegesis. Without any exag geration, indeed, we may apply to this subject of modern researc Bacon's apposite illustration of the labors of the Alchemists. They sought for a phantom of their own imaginin;. and their efforts were not rewarded by the prize for which they struggled ; but the results which met them on their progress were neither few nor unprofitable for other times. The buried treasure, it is true, was not discovered in the vineyard, but the toil expended in the search found a rich return.'

1 "Neque tamen negandum est Alchemistas non pauca invenisse, et inventis utilibus bomines donasse. Verum fabula illa non male in illos quadrat de sene qui filiis