THE
INSPIRATION
OF
H OLY SCRIPTURE,
ITS NATURE AND PROOF:
EIGHT DISCOURSES,
PREACHED BEFORE THE UNIVERSITY OF DUBLIN.
B Y
WILLIAM LEE, M.A.,
FELLOW AND TUTOR OF TBINITY COLLBEB.'Eart yap Ev roZf TCUV rpao3v  fiJaaatv'0 KTPIO0.
S. ATHANASIuS, Ad Marcellin.
NEW  YORK:
ROBERT CARTER & BROTHERS,
No. 530 BROADWAY.
1858.




TEREOTYPE D BY                         L B. THOMSON,                    PRINTED BY
THOMAS B. SMITH,                       BINDER,                    K. O. JENKINS,
82 & 84 Beekman Street.                82 & 84 Beekman St.             26 Frankfort St.




PREFACE,
I Do not feel that any lengthened defence is necessary
for having undertaken an inquiry into the subject with
which the present work is occupied. Independently of
the intrinsic importance of every question connected with
the elucidation of Holy Scripture-the vagueness which
too often characterizes the language employed by writers
who, in modern times, have treated of its Inspiration seems
to render a fundamental examination into the nature of this
Divine influence daily more desirable.
So long, indeed, as the'mechanical' theory of Inspiration was generally maintained, there was no want of distinctness or consistency in the views put forward.  So
long as it was believed that each word and phrase to be
found in the Bible-nay, even the order and grammatical
connection of such words and phrases-had been infused
by the Holy Ghost into the minds of the sacred writers,
or dictated to them by His immediate suggestion, so long
must the opinion held respecting Inspiration have been
clear, intelligible, and accurately defined.  But such a
theory could not stand the test of close examination. The
strongest evidence against it has been supplied by the
Bible itself; and each additional discovery in the criticism




iv                   PREFACE.
of the Greek or Hebrew text confirms anew the conclusion
that the great doctrine of the infallibility of Holy Scripture can no longer rely upon such a principle for its
defence.
The'mechanical' theory having been tacitly abandoned
— at least by all who are capable of appreciating the results of criticism-and no system altogether satisfactory
having been proposed in its stead, there has gradually
sprung up a want of definiteness and an absence of consistency in the language used when speaking of Inspiration,
owing to which those who are most sincere in maintaining
the Divine character of the Bible have, not unfrequently,
been betrayed into concessions fatal to its supreme authority.
And not only is there a vagueness in the language which
most writers employ when approaching this topic, there is
also a want of completeness in the method usually adopted
when discussing it. It is true that on one branch of the
subject abundant and valuable information is to be found
in various treatises; and so far as relates to the direct
arguments which may be deduced from the expressions of
the sacred penmen themselves in proof of their Inspiration,
but little remains to be said that has not been forcibly said
already. With reference, however, to the nature of Inspiration itself, and to the possibility of reconciling the unquestionable stamp of humanity impressed upon every page
of the Bible with that undoubting belief in its perfection
and infallibility which is the Christian's most precious inheritance-it may safely be maintained that in English
theology almost nothing has been done; and that no effort




PREFACE.                       V
has hitherto been made to grapple directly with the difficulties of the subject. At least I am unacquainted with
any works in our language (with the exception of Mr.
Westcott's " Gospel Harmony," where sonme valuable but
brief remarks are thrown out incidentally, and the treatise
of Mr. Morell, to which I shall presently revert,) that even
profess to entertain the question.
There is one principle, too, which forms a chief element
of the theory proposed in the following Discourses,-I
mean the distinction between Revelation and Inspiration,that has never, to my knowledge, been consistently applied
to the contents of Holy Scripture, even by those writers
who insist upon its importance. At all events, the principle has never hitherto been made use.of to the extent of
which it is obviously capable.
In advancing such assertions respecting the labors of
others, I do not presume to lay claim to any amount of
originality for my own.  My object, throughout, has simply been to collect as many facts and results as my acquaintance with ancient or modern researches into the text
or interpretation of Scripture could supply; and thence to
deduce what appeared to be the necessary inference.  In
every inquiry so conducted, the safety of the inference
must, of course, depend upon the extent of the induction:
and, consequently, the success of the method which I have
ventured to suggest is susceptible of being indefinitely increased, in proportion to the number of new facts and
results which may hereafter be accumulated by those
whose learning and attainments far surpass any that I can
pretend to possess. At all evellts, there is one obvious,




Vi                        PREFACE.
and by no means inconsiderable, advantage to be gained
by  pursuing this method.   Valuable hints casting light
upon the nature of Inspiration are being continually suggested; conclusive evidence in reply to the cavils of objectors is gradually accumulating; many positive arguments
in support of the Church's belief in the Divine influence
under which the Bible was composed repeatedly present
themselves in the writings of theologians;-but the information thus existing is only to be discovered after diligent
and patient toil. Such hints and arguments are, for the
most part, confusedly scattered through the various " Introductions" to the Old and the New  Testament; or they
occur in the course  of works which  treat of' Christian
Evidences' in general; or they are to be occasionally found
in some of those learned monographs with which the periodical literature of our time, and especially that of Germany,
is enriched.  To the ordinary inquirer, however, such information is practically inaccessible: and the labor must,
therefore, be regarded as not destitute of utility that shall
present, in a compact and intelligible form, elements so
varied, and, in their original shape, so unconnected.
I have not scrupled, as I have said, to avail myself
largely  of the  learning  and  researches  of others: and
among the works to which I owe the greatest obligations I
may  mention  Olshausen's' " Commentary  on  the  New'It may not be unnecessary to add that, when I make use of the writings of others,
it is by no means to be understood that I adopt any opinions put forward in the works
referred to beyond those conveyed by the words which I have expressly quoted. E.
g.: in Lecture vii. I have directly opposed certain views maintained by Olshausen;
and, in Lecture i., the closing words of the former of the passages quoted in page 9,
note'-viz: "und nur zufdllig des Gesites nicht auch Erwahnung thut"-have been
omitted, as conveying an idea altogether indefensible.




PREFACE.                        Vii
Testament;" Havernick's "Introduction to the Old Testament;" Sack's " Christliche Apologetik;" Beck's "Propideutische  Entwicklung;"  and, especially, Rudelbach's
treatise on Inspiration, published in his and Guerike's
"Zeitscrift."  I have endeavored, in all cases, honestly to
state how far I have thus borrowed, even at the risk of incurring the charge of pedantry. Should I be found, however, to have appropriated the labors of others without due
acknowledgment, I trust that the manner in which I have
treated the present subject will plead my excuse; since,
in reproducing an extensive body of facts and results, it is
occasionally impossible to trace to their source certain of
the suggestions and ideas previously collected,-owing
either to the loss of the original reference, or to some inadvertence in taking note of it.
There are two English treatises on the subject of Inspiration to which constant allusions will be found in the
following pages:-Mr. Coleridge's "Confessions of an Inquiring Spirit;" and Mr. Morell's "Philosophy  of Religion."
The former work has been thus alluded to by Dr. Arnold:-" Have you seen your uncle's' Letters on Inspiration,' which I believe are to be published? They are well
fitted to break ground in the approaches to that momentous
question which involves in it so great a shock to existing
notions; the greatest, probably, that has ever been given
since the discovery of the falsehood of the doctrine of the
Pope's infallibility."'' "To Mr. Justice Coleridge, Jan. 24, 1835."-" Life and Correspondence," Letter
xciv., 6th ed., p. 317.




Viii                  PREFACE.
It cannot be doubted, I apprehend, that Dr. Arnold's
remark is, to a certain extent, well founded; and that this
treatise of Mr. Coleridge has done more than any modern
work to unsettle the pub'ic mind, in these countries, with
respect to the authority due to the Bible considered as a
whole. Independently of the high reputation and welldeserved influence of its author,-the peculiar charm of
Mr. Coleridge's style and diction and the atmosphere of
poetry with which his pen invests every subject on which
it touches have gained for this posthumous work a celebrity
which, I venture to think, is altogether disproportionate to
its merits. Its leading features will be considered in the
course of the following pages: for the present, therefore, I
content myself with referring to Mr. Coleridge's statement
of what he considered to be the strength of the argument
with which he had to contend:-" It will, perhaps, appear
a paradox," he observes, while repeating some of the popular objections to the infallibility of Scripture, "if, after all
these reasons, I should avow that they weigh less in my
mind against the Doctrine, than the motives usually assigned
for naintaining and enjoining it.  Such, for instance, are
the arguments drawn from the anticipated loss and damage
that would result from its abandonment; as that it would
deprive the Christian world of its only infallible arbiter in
questions of Faith and Duty; suppress the only common
and inappellable tribunal; that Ihe Bible is the only religious bond of union and ground of unity among Protestants,
and the like."-Letter iv. Such having been his notion of
the proofs which an upholder of the strict idea of Inspiration could allege in its behalf, it is not going too far to say




PREFACE.                       iX
that, of the many brilliant compositions with which he has
enriched our literature, these " Letters" are the least worthy of Mr. Coleridge's genius; and that their subject was
one upon which the extent of his information did not entitle him to pronounce an opinion.
The other treatise to which I have, in like manner, devoted considerable attention, is that of Mr. Morell; in
which he professedly undertakes to. recommend to English
readers the theology of Schleiermacher (see infra, p. 11,
note').  No stronger proof can be given of the unsettled
state of opinion respecting Inspiration prevalent even with
well-informed persons, than the manner in which the observations of Mr. Morell have been accepted by Dr. Peile.
Dr. Peile, in his "Annotations on the Apostolical Epistles,"
when giving at length the passage of which I have cited a
portion in Lecture i., page 21, introduces the quotation
with the remark -" To borrow the words of Mr. Morell,
who, in his'Philosophy of Religion,' has devoted two invaluable chapters to the elucidation of this deeply interesting subject."'
The extent to which the system  of Schleiermacher
strikes at the root of all objective Christianity, I have
endeavored to exhibit in the following pages. I trust, however, that, while noticing Mr. Morell's adoption of Schleiermacher's views respecting Scripture, I have not expressed
myself so as to appear insensible to the merits possessed
by other portions of his remarks on the " Philosophy of
Religion."
The form which the present work has, owing to special
"Annotations on the Apostolical Epistles," vol. iii. p. 178.




x                        PREFACE.
circumstances,l assumed, is, perhaps, attended with some
inconvenience; inasmuch as certain portions of the subject
which might have been more fitly conjoined have been, of
necessity, considered separately. I have endeavored, however, to remedy this inconvenience, such as it is, by the
adoption of a system of cross references, whereby all that
is said on any particular branch of the inquiry can be
taken in at a single view.  I may be permitted also to
observe, that a reader who  does not desire  to enter
minutely into the different questions discussed in the
following pages, can obtain a full idea of the theory of
Inspiration which I have proposed from  Lectures i., iv.,
vi., and viii.
I cannot conclude without taking the opportunity of
returning my warm thanks to the friends whose kindness
and valuable assistance I have so repeatedly tasked during
the progress of this volume through the press.
W.L.
DUBrw, TRIITY COLLEGE,
June, 1854.
This form has been imposed by the fact that the first six of the following Discourses were preached in the course of my duty as Donnellan Lecturer in this University for the year 1852.




CONTENT S.
LECTURE I.
THE  QUESTION  STATED.
PAeG
REVELATION.-The LOGOS reveals. The Holy Spirit inspires. Each Book of the
Old, or of the New Testament, considered as a record of Revelation, forms an
essential part of one organized whole.
The Bible contains a Human as well as a Divine Element. Hence, from the undue prominence given to one or other of these elements, have arisen two opposite views respecting Inspiration. (1.) The' mechanical' theory of Inspiration. (2.) The various schemes founded upon the exaggeration of the Human
element;-which, again, may be classed under three heads. Each of these
extremes, although in a very different degree, erroneous.
The problem to be solved supplies two Conditions. (1.) The co-existence, in
the Bible, of its Human and Divine Elements. (2.) The fact that certain
portions of the Bible are not Revelations. The first Condition is satisfied by
the' dynamical' theory of Inspiration. The second Condition is satisfied by
the distinction between Revelation and Inspiration.
The character and value of the proof of Inspiration founded upon "The witness
of  the  Spirit,"....................         19
LECTURE II.
THE IMMEMORIAL DOCTRINE OF THE CHURCH OF GOD.
The Canon of Scripture. Why did not the Jewish Church accept as inspired the
Book of Ecclesiasticus; or the Christian Church the Epistle of S. Clement of
Rome?
The proofs of Inspiration supplied by the Jewish Church. The Apocrypha.
Philo. Josephus. The opinions of the Jews accepted in the New Testament.
Not from the motive of' accommodating' Christianity to Judaism. The principle of' Accommodation' considered.
The proofs of Inspiration supplied by the Christian Church. The judgment of
the Fathers,......................51




lii                              CONTENTS.
LECTURE III.
THE OLD TESTAMENT AND THE NEW.-THE LOGOS THE REVEALER.
PAGO
To adduce proofs of Inspiration from Scripture itself is not a petitio principii.
The indissoluble connexion, and co-equal authority, of the Old and the New
Testament. The revival in modern times of early errors on this subject:
the school of Schleiermacher. The connexion proved (1.) from the statements
of the New Testament; (2.) from a comparison of the supernatural agencies
employed under both the Jewish and the Christian Dispensation. The LOGOS
the Revealer in both.  " The Angel of Jehovah."  The expressions rb 6il/ua
roi Oeov, and o Aoyog TOV Oiov, how related,..........    91
LECTURE IV.
REVELATION AND INSPIRATION.
The' dynamical' theory of Inspiration. Not of itself sufficient to account for all
the phenomena. Inspiration essential to the record of Revelation. Proofs
of the' dynamical' theory. The'Law' generally observed in the development
of Revelation.
The Theocracy. The Prophetic Office. The "Schools of the Prophets."  Prophetic intuition. The personal condition in which Revelations were received.
The state of Ecstasy. Visions the result of Ecstasy. The function of the
Imagination.  Symbolic actions.  Symbolic visions.  The poetry and the
symbolism of the Prophets.  The'perspective' character of Prophecy. How
to be explained,.................... 139
LECTURE V.
REVELATION AND INSPIRATION.
(Subject continued.)
The full bearing of their predictions was not disclosed to the Prophets. The explanation of this fact offered by Dr. Hengstenberg. This explanation erroneous. The Prophets retained their consciousness while giving utterance to
their predictions. The case of Balaam considered.
How was the Divine character of Revelation attested?  Miracles. Prophecy.
Schleiermacher's objections. Proofs of the constant supervision exercised
over the acts and words of the "Servants of God."
The Inspiration of Scripture specifically distinct from  the ordinary influence of
the Holy Spirit in the Church. Errors resulting from confounding these two
senses of the term. This distinction illustrated by S. Peter's'dissimulation'
Antioch,...........187




CONTENTS.                                 Xl
LECTURE VI.
SCRIPTURAL  PROOF.
PAGS
General presumptions. The titles appropriated to the sacred writings. The guidance of the Holy Ghost promised to the Disciples by Christ, on four distinct
occasions. These promises may be divided into two classes:-~those recorded
in the Synoptical Gospels, and those recorded by S. John. Theformer class
of promises fulfilled. Admission of Paulus to this effect. The nature of the
second class of promises considered. Misconception of the school of Schleiermacher refuted from what the New Testament tells of S. Peter and S. Paul.
This class of promises also fulfilled. Confirmation of this inference supplied
by an argument of Strauss.
The testimony of Scripture as to the result of the Divine assistance thus conferred upon its authors. The Harmony of the Human and the Divine Intelligence. The infallible authority claimed by the sacred writers.
The seventh chapter of the first Epistle to the Corinthians,...... 235
LECTURE VII.
THE COMMISSION TO WRITE.-THE FORM OF WHAT WAS WRITTEN.
The closing of the Old Testament Canon. The Commission to write.
Earlier portions of the Bible made use of in those Books which are of later date.
The theories as to the source of the Synoptical Gospels. The Inspiration of
the Evangelists unaffected by the result of such inquiries.  References
by the Old Testament writers to the Books composed by their predecessors.
The quotations from  the Old Testament in the New afford an experimentum
crucis of every theory of Inspiration.  Such quotations may be divided
into (1.) the strictly prophetical;-of which four subdivisions present themselves: and (2.) those in which the language of the Old Testament is incorporated with the body of Christian doctrine.'Collective' quotations.
How far the New Testament writers have adopted the literal;-how far
the allegorical method of exposition.  Their quotations never introduced by
way of mere' application.' Four classes of quotations with reference to the 
relation of the Hebrew text to the Septuagint Version. The form of such
quotations is, in no instance, to be explained by the principle of quoting
from memory."
The style of the New Testament,..............281




xiv                              CONTENTS.
LECTURE VIII.
RECAPITULATION.-OBJECTIONS CONSIDERED.
PAg
The nature of the facts recorded in Scripture. No distinction between " matters
of fact," and "matters of doctrine."  The Divine character of Scripture extends to its language.
OBJECTIONS:
I. "The sacred writers contradict each other."  This objection tested by its
application to the Gospel Harmony. Illustrations from Astronomy (the
perturbations of Uranus), and History (the death of Alexander the Great),
exhibit its unphilosophical character. The facts exhibited by S. John's
Gospel confirm this conclusion.
IT. " The statements of Scripture contradict those of profane history." This
objection tested by examining Strauss's attack upon S. Luke. S. Luke, ii. 2,
and iii. 1, considered.  The historical accuracy of the Evangelist proved.
III. "The statements of Scripture are often at variance with the results
of Science." This objection illustrated and tested by the example of
"Joshua's Miracle."
How is the language of Scripture related to the language of Science?  The respective duties of the Theologian and the Philosopher. Conclusion,..   333
APPENDIX.
A. Fichte,.......................    381
B. Scripture an organized whole,................   389
C. Modern theories of Inspiration,................   395
D. The " lost" Books of the Old Testament,.......... 408
E. The Epistle of S. Barnabas,............... 415
F. Philo and Josephus,...................418
G. The judgment of the Fathers,................423
H. The Address of S. Stephen,.................   448
I. "The Captain of the Lord's Host,"..............454
T. Nabi,-Roeh, —Chozeh,..................  456
K.   Spiritual Gifts," 1 Cor. xii.-xiv................459
L. The origin of the Synoptical Gospels,............464
M. Did S. Matthew write in Greek?................467
N. "Inspired reasoning,".................. 474




EDITIONS REFERRED TO IN THE FOLLOWING PAGES.
Novum Testamentum Greece,.........  Ed. Tischendorf, Paris. 1842.
Vetus Test. Greece, juxta LXX. Interpretes,...Ed. Tischendorf, Lips. 1850.
Josephus,..............           Ed. Havercamp. Amst. 1726.
Philo Judaeus,.............                            Ed. Mangey, Lond. 1742.
"SS. Patres Apostolici,".........                     Ed. Coteler. Amst. 1724.
"Scriptor. Ecclesiast. Opusc." (rec. Routh),...    Ed. altera, Oxon. 1840.
"Reliquie Sacre" (rec. Routh),.......    Ed. altera, Oxon. 1846.
S. Ambrosius,........                    Ed. Ben. Paris. 1686.
S. Athanasius,..........                   Ed. Ben. Paris. 1698.
Athenagoras (ap. Opp. S. Justin. Mart.),.....   Ed. Ben. Paris. 1742.
S. Augustinus,.............  Ed. Ben. Paris. 1679.
S. Basilius M.,..........           Ed. Ben. Paris. 1721.
Cassiodorus,.............. Ed. Ben. Rothom. 1679.
Clemens Alex.,............. Ed. Potter, Oxon. 1715.
S. Cyprianus,............                            Ed. Ben. Paris. 1726.
S. Cyrill. Alex..............Ed. Aubert. Paris. 1638.
S. Cyrill. Hieros.,............Ed. Ben. Paris. 1720.
S. Ephrem Syr.,............    Ed. Asseman, Romce. 1732.
S. Epiphanius,..............    Ed. Petav. Paris. 1622.
Eusebius Pamphili ("Hist. Eccl."),......              Ed. Reading, Cantab. 1720.
S. Gregor. M.,..............    Ed. Ben. Paris. 1705.
S. Gregor. Nazianz.,..........    Ed. Ben. Paris. 1718, 1840.
S. Gregor. Neoctes.,............ Paris. 1622.
S. Gregor. Nyssen.,...........                         Paris. 1638.
S. Hieronymus............ Ed. Vallars. Veron. 1734.
S. Hilarius Pictav.,...........    Ed. Ben. alt. Veron. 1730.
S. Hippolytus,............                             Ed. Fabric. Hamb. 1716.
S. Irenaeus,........                                   Ed. Ben. Paris. 1710.
S. Isidorus Hispal.,...C......    Colon. 1617.
S. Isidorus Pelus.,.......... Paris. 1638.
S. Johannes Chrysost.,......... Ed. Ben. Paris. 1718.
S. Johannes Damascen........Ed. Le Quien, Paris. 1712.
S. Justin. Martyr............   Ed. Ben. Paris. 1742.
S. Macarius JEgypt. (ap. Opp. S. Gregor. Neocaes),  ~  Paris. 1622.
Origenes,...............   Ed. Ben. Paris. 1733.
Tertullianus,.............. Ed. Rigalt. Paris. 1634.
Theodoretus........                                   Ed. Sirmond. Paris. 1642.
Theophilus Antioch. (ap. Opp. S. Justin. Mart.),..Ed. Ben. Paris. 1742.
Theophylact.,..............    Ed. De Rubeis, Venet. 1754.
S. Thomas Aquinas.........            Venet. 1745.








LECTURE I.
TB E QUESTION STATED.




" Quod colimus, Deus unus est, qui totam molem istam cum omni instrumento elementorum, corporum, spirituum, verbo quo jussit, ratione qua disposuit, virtute qua
potuit, de nihilo expressit in ornamentum majestatis sums, unde et G-raci nomen mundo
KO0MON accommodaverunt.  *  *  *  Sed quo plenius et impressius tam Ipsum,
quam dispositiones ejus et voluntates adiremus, instrumentum adjecit literaturse, si qui
velit de Deo inquirere, et inquisito invenire, et invento credere, et credito deservire."
TERTULL. Apolog. c. xvii. xviii.
"Scripturse quidem perfect'e sunt, quippe a Verbo Dei et Spiritu ejus dictre."
S. IRENEJUS, Cont. Hcer. lib. ii. xxviii. 2.'Oaa Ij Oea ypao)b?Lyet, -rov lIve'v/ar6o elt rTO'Ayiov 0OEv&.
S. GREGOR. Nyssen. Cont. Eunom. Orat. vi




LECTURE I.
THE QUESTION STATED.
WE ARE LABORERS TOGETHER WITH GOD.-1 Cor. iii. 9.
IN tracing the foundation of the Christian doctrine of Inspiration, all researches must arrive at one ultimate fact. Man, by
his natural powers, can not attain to the knowledge of his Maker.
" No man hath seen God at any time."' "Dwelling in the light
which no man can approach unto, Him no man hath seen, nor
can see."2 Whence, then, is derived that knowledge on the degree of which depends the perfection of man's nature, and the
ground of his hopes?
A philosopher of modern times, who makes no profession of any
Christian sympathies, thus aptly states the question:-" It is a
phenomenon which merits the attention, at least, of an observer,
that among all nations, so far as they have raised themselves from
the perfectly savage state to that of a community, there are to be
found opinions of a communication between higher beings and
men; traditions of supernatural inspirations and influences of the
Deity upon mortals; in a word, although presented here more
rudely, there under an aspect more refined, still, as a universal
fact, the observer finds the notion of Revelation. This notion
seems, of itself, were it only on account of its universality, to deserve some respect; and it appears more worthy of a fundamental
philosophy to trace out its origin, to seek for its claims and its
authority, and to pass sentence upon it according to the measure
of these discoveries, rather than at once, and without a hearing,
to class it among the inventions of deceivers, or to banish it to
the land of dreams."  It is unnecessary here to state how far such'John i. 18.                                   2 1 Tim. vi. 16.
s' Versuch einer Kritik aller Offenbarung," von Johann Gottlieb Fichte.-s. 1.
2te Auflage. Konigsberg, 1793. See Appendix A.




20                      THE QUESTION  STATED.                     [LECT. 1.
a criticism has resulted in adding a further confirmation to the
universal belief of mankind-a belief which has been expressed
in every age and in every land. The fact, however, of such communications from the Supreme Being is one which may fairly be
assumed; and  with  an examination of what is implied  by  a
Divine Revelation, our inquiry must commence.
According to the usage of language, the word expressing this
idea is employed in two different senses. It either denotes the
Divine act of unveiling, or disclosing, or manifesting information
to man-that is, the manner or form  of the Revelation; or it
signifies the very information thus imparted,-that is, the matter
or contents. During the course of our inquiry we shall have occasion to consider each of these two significations, although.the
latter relates chiefly to the province of Bibilical exposition. As
all knowledge of God  is essentially  connected with  the  idea
of Religion, it may be well, in order to avoid ambiguity, to
commence with the ordinary and  real distinction  conveyed by
the phrases Natural and Revealed  Religion; the former being
founded upon such manifestations of the Divine Being, His will
and acts, as are made by, or may be inferred from,-firstly, external nature, and, secondly, the inward constitution of man;
the latter having as its basis the revelation, strictly so-called,
which rests upon facts,2 and of which the record is the Bible, to
which sense also it may be well to restrict the term " Revelation,"'
(adroiKaUvibt).  The former class of Divine manifestations is implied and assumed in the Bible itself, which, as I have said, is
the record of the latter; the term  "manifestation" (Oavpwoat.),
too, being appropriated by St. Paul to this very idea.'
* "So ist die naturliche Religion die Erkennbarkeit Gottes, das yv&oarv tov~
Oeov (Rom. i. 19) aus den Werken, wofern diese nur mit Einsclluss des Menschen
als seines hdchsten Werks gefasst werden  *  *  *  so ist auch die natiirliche Religion ihrem Wesen nach Offenbarung."-Sack's Christliche Apologetik, s. 63.
2 I mean facts, as opposed to phenomena.' In the New Testament dialect acroKaXvVbLt has the fixed signification, "divine
communication," " revelation." S. Jerome observes:
"Verbum quoque ipsum d7rTKaoiceXo, id est, revelationis, proprie Scripturarum
est, et a nullo sapientum saeculi apud Graecos usurpatum. Unde mihi videntur quemadmodum in aliis verbis, quae de Hebrseo in Graecum Septuaginta Interpretes transtulerunt, ita et in hoc magnopere esse conatos, ut proprietatem peregrini sermonis exprimerent, nova novis rebus verba fingentes." —Comment. in Ep. ad Gal., lib. i. cap.
1. tom. vii. p. 387.
In the LXX. the word droKia'Lvctf is found but seldom; viz., 1 Sam. xx. 30;
Ecclus.xi. 27; xxii. 22; xli. 23: but in none of these cases has it the sense of
"divine communication."
Rom. i. 19, 20: " That which may be known of God is manifest (Oavepov) in




LECT. I.]              THE QUESTION STATED.                          21
In the first place, in the world of sense, Nature' is represented
in Scripture as disclosing the Being and the Agency of God.
From it, as the organ of the Divine power, the super-natural
shines forth: " The heavens declare the glory of God, and the
firmament showeth his handywork."2   The creation itself is an
instance of God's coming forth from  the mysterious and silent
depths of his invisible Being; its pages present, as it were, a marvellous language in cipher, from which the Author permits some
of His thoughts to be more or less distinctly inferred; "' The invisible things of Him from the creation of the world are clearly
seen, being understood by the things that are made, even His
eternal power and Godhead."" Again, in the intimations afforded
by the inward constitution of man, God manifests himself no less
plainly in the world of thought; partly by the higher powers of
knowledge, partly by the voice of conscience and the moral sense.
In the depths of our souls we are conscious of feelings more sublime than can spring from  our own finite and limited individuality.'  "The Gentiles," writes the Apostle, " having not the Law,
are a Law unto themselves, which show the work of the Law
written  in  their hearts, their conscience also  bearing  witness."5   These two sources of Divine knowledge imply each other,
and belong to the province of philosophy. They are as universal
as the human race; "there is no speech nor language where their
voice is not heard."' God has never left Himself without a witness "in that He did good, and gave us rain from heaven, and
fruitful seasons, filling our heart with food and gladness."' For,
such "manifestations" of God's Being it is the duty of all to
seek: "He hath made of one blood all nations of men, that they
should seek the Lord, if haply they might feel after Him, and
them; for God hath showed it (etfavEpwaev) unto them."  Cf. Acts, xiv. 17. Bretschneider was, I believe, the first thus to employ the term " manifestation" as expressive of the peculiar sense in which the Apostle here applies the idea.-Cf. " Handbuch der Dogmatik," ler Band. s. 155, 4te Auflage.
Cf. Bockshammer's " Offenbarung und Theologie," s. 5.
2 Ps. xix. 1.
s Rom. i. 20.
4 Twesten, referring to the arguments which reason supplies for the existence of
God, justly appeals to the results of modern investigations in proof of the proposition
that reflecting upon the finite can never lead man beyond the finite, if he does not
already bear within himself the consciousness of the Infinite.-Cf. " Vorlesungen fiber
die Dogmatik," ler Band. s. 345.
5 Rom. ii. 14, 15.
6 Ps. xix. 3.                                        7 Acts, xiv. 17




22                       THE QUESTION  STATED.                     [LECT..
find him, though He be not far from  every one of us, for in Him
we live, and move, and have our being."'
The particulars just considered form the groundwork of what
is termed  Natural Religion; the conveyance  of God's will by
means of facts' is the foundation of what we term Revealed Religion. Natural and Revealed Religion can never be contrasted;
but there is a real, although it is but relative contrast between
the channels through which they are conveyed, i. e., between Nature and Revelation.3   How, then, are they related; and where in
nature can we recognise a Divine activity other than that exhibited
in the order of the universe?' Nature and Revelation alike proceed from God, and, consequently, if their relation to each other be
correctly expressed, all semblance of absolute opposition must, of
itself, disappear. We have, therefore, to seek for some point in
which they both unite; in  which  Nature assumes a religious
aspect, as plainlyas Revelation presents itself as a matter of fact.
We have assumed that the Divine influence over Nature did
not cease at the act by which the world was called into being:the perfection of creation, surely, does not suspend the vital impulse which it received from God, nor is the Creator's power to
be restricted to the original imposition of purely mechanical
laws.  Now, if God speak by. means of the phenomena of the
universe to the spirit of man, such a result can never be ascribed
to the purely natural element which pervades the world. This
only points to some other element of the same kind, equally finite
with itself; and by virtue of the chain of causes reveals to us
1 Alluding to the passage here cited (Acts, xvii. 26-28) Bretschneider (loc. cit.)
observes: "Bei der Manifestation ist der Mensch activ, und muss Gott suchen und
ergreifen." This writer goes on to confound the ideas of Revelation and Inspiration.
Inspiration he defines to be that species of Revelation in which God acts without the
intervention of any intermediate cause (" sine causarum externarum interventu;
and as man is active in the case of " Manifestation," so in " Inspiration" he is passice
(" Bei der Inspiration verhalt sich der Mensch leidend"); in proof of which he quotes
2 Pet. i. 21. But see infra, p. 40.
To the class of Divine "Manifestations" some writers (e. g. C. F. Fritzsche, "De
Revelationis notione Biblica, p. 13) add that effected by the course of history: " Our
fathers understood not Thy wonders in Egypt. *  *  *  Nevertheless He saved
them for His name's sake, that He might make his mighty power to be known."Ps. cvi. 7, 8, cf. Ps. cxxxvi
2 E. g. the giving of the Law from Sinai-the Incarnation, &c.
3 " Differunt certe informationes oraculi et sensus et re et modo insinuandi: sed
spiritus humanus unus est, ejusque arculke et cellee eedem. Fit itaque, ac si diversi
liquores, atque per diversa infundibula, in unum atque idem vas recipiantur."-Bacon,
De Aungment. Scient. lib. ii. cap. i.
4 This subject is discussed by Sack in his remarks, " Vom Begriffe der Off-abarung," Apologetic, ss. 114-147




LECT. I.]               THE  QUESTION  STATED.                             23
nothing more than the mutual dependence of the particular existences in the world of Nature, but not the sovereignty of God.
That which reveals the Supreme Being, and thus mediates between
God and  man, is the divine LOGos, or Creating  Word; which
proceeds from the essence of Deity. Without this notion there is
no religious view of Nature, nor can we recognize its Divine Author
as revealed by it.' It is only the relationship of our spirit to this
Original Intelligence (which is at once exalted above Nature, and
really operative within it), which renders it even conceivable that
Nature should thus influence us.  Between this view of the world
and Atheism  (which banishes God  from  His universe), or Pantheism   (which identifies  Him  with it), there is no alternative.
Hence it is that the active revealing power in Nature, and the
historically revealing element in Religion, have one and the same
principle. In short, the true notion of all Revelation is expressed
in a saying of S. Athanasius when speaking of the Incarnation:
-" It was the office of the Divine Word, who by His peculiar
providence, and setting in order of the universe, affords instruction  concerning  the Father, to  renew  that same instruction."'
This renewed instruction effected by direct communications from
above, as well as that "manifestation" of God effected through
the medium  of Nature, are alike to be traced to the same Eternal
Word.  No man hath seen God at any time, the only-begotten
Son, which  is in the bosom   of the Father, He hath  declared
Him."'  Now, Revelation, properly so called, is distinguished in
Scripture into Revelation by Word, and Revelation by Act-the
I " So ist alle Offenbarung ein Thatwort des Logos an den Geist des Menschen; und
dieses Thatwort auch in der Natur zu erkennen, ist die einzige Art, die Natur religios und als Mittel der Offenbarung anzusehen."-Sack's Apologetik, s. 121.
2S. Athanasius, De Incarn. cap. 14, tom i. par. i. p. 59. The chapter begins by
stating that when the features of a portrait have been effaced, it is necessary that the
original should again be present, in order that the likeness may be restored.  Kanr
TOVTO Kat 6 7ravaytog TOV 7rarpof vCt', ehmKlv  7v TOV 7rarpo), 7rapeyevero e7r  r To' r//FTCpoVg Trrovg, Eva r6v Kar' dvrbv ireTrotLyfvov advOpTrov dvaicatviap   *' * rivof uOV
jv rTTitv Xpeia, 7 TOV Oeoi o6yov TOV Kai 0v vX  v Kat vovv O6pCvrof, Tro Ka tl r'2L   a iv TKTiaet KLvoVVTOf, Kat dt' advTrV yvopiCovrou TOV rrarepa; Tro  yap Ldt Tr/C i(iar VpovoiaC
Kati iaKCoa/irneo rG TUwV 0   &dv 6tL6cKOVTO 70 repi TOV Trarpbg, avrov av Kai Tr v VT1rv &(aCaKa2iav vvnveciaat.
In addition to this passage (the closing sentence of which is quoted by Sack, p.
132), r may adduce the expression of the same thought by S. Irenteus:' Per ipsam
conditionem, revelat Verbum conditorem Deum, et per mundum fabrificatorern mundi
Dominum, et per plasma eum qui plasmaverit artificem, et per Filium eum Patrem
qui generaverit Filium  *  *  *  Sed per Legem et Prophetas similiter Verbum et
Semetipsum et Patrem praedicabat."- Cont. Hear., lib. iv. cap. vi. p. 234.
3 John i. 18.




24                      THE QUESTION STATED.                   [LECT. 1.
Act, or miracle, representing and expressing, in the world of sense,
what the Word, or knowledge communicated, expresses in the
world of thought: the former being to the ordinary law of Nature, what the latter is to the light of Reason.' In one point of
time, and in one form  of life, both these elements have found
their perfect union. Both have been united in Him who is the
subject of all Revelation.2   The being to whom  we must ascribe
the words, although expressed by the messengers of God; He
who, in like manner, performed the acts, although by the instrumentality of these same agents, was the LOGos, God's eternal,
personal, self-Revelation,-God, who as Word, spiritually, and
yet really, maintains the world.' But now the fact of the Incarnation presents to our view both these forms of Revelation combined;-that entrance of the Eternal Word  into the personal
and historical limitations of a " Son of Man." In this great fact
Revelation, on its historical side, has been closed, on its spiritual
side has been rendered perfect and immortal. And thus we can
not conceive (nor does Scripture record) that any Revelation was
ever made to Christ.  He was not only the Revealer, —   the true
Light which lighteth every man that cometh into the world,"'but also the Revelation, " God manifest in the flesh."
There are three epochs in which Divine Revelation gives to
the history of religion the very condition of its existence: —The
Primitive Revelation; the Covenant Revelation to Israel; Revelation in the appearance of Christ. It has pleased God that of this
Revelation a record should be conveyed to after times. It could
only be conveyed by the medium  of language; and since Scripture appears, in history, as the acknowledged means of preserving
this record, we here behold the transmission of Revelation by a
written  document.   But whence  the  title  Holy  Scripture?
1 Cf. " Twelve Sermons on Heb. i. 1, 2," delivered at the Boyle Lecture, A. D. 1708,
by Bishop Williams (of Chichester), p. 17: a work which, notwithstanding some (as
I conceive) erroneous statements as to Inspiration, is of much value.
2 In God as Logos, Word and Act are ever united: " He spake, and it was done;
He commanded, and it stood fast."-Ps. xxxiii. 9. " Wie sein Wort immer die allererfolgreichste That ist, schlechtin schaffend: so ist auch seine That immer im hochsten Grade redend und unendlich Gedanken erzeugend."-Sack, s. 136.
3 Nature, observes S. Athanasius, is sustained and preserved by the Logos from
that dissolution which its own fleeting and frail materials must have induced. For
God who by His eternal Word gave existence to the Creation,-'Q2 dyao06 rT) avro9v 2o6y  Kai aVT(rc3 v  OejT rO v 7  vracav 6LaLcvfepv E cat tcaaBiaT-rjiv,'va Tj, TOO 2i6yov) lyeuovia Kat Trpovoia Kna d6taKo0z0oCGe o)Tl7OEtvri i KTaLffL, itf
paiw dta/ugvetYv 6dvvw,6. —Orat. cont. Gentes. n. 41, tom. i. p. 40.
4 John, i. 9, cf. Luke, ii. 32.




LECT. I.]                THE  QUESTION  STATED.                             25
Traced to its true source, this notion depends upon the fact, that
the ideas of the Eternal Word, and  of the  Divine  Spirit, are
here, to a certain degree, correlative.' The Word, as divine and
eternally creative, has the Spirit as the divine and eternally animating principle, in and with  Himself.  By the agency of the
Divine Spirit the meaning and the will of the Eternal Word are
introduced into the real being of things.' All divine activity in
the world is organic.   So also the arrangements of God's Revelation form  a system  which comprehends all things; which aids in
bringing light into darkness; whose centre is Christ, to whom
every Revelation in earlier times must be referred, and from
whom every Revelation, of a later period, has proceeded, by vir1 Cf. Sack, "Von der heiligen Schrift," Apologetik, s. 418.
The topic here introduced is so essential to a just view of the present subject, that
I am induced to quote in full the following passages. On Rom. xi. 36 (  daTOVro  Kaa
st' dvrov Kal Etc dvrTOv rd TTavra), Olshausen observes:"Paul at length closes his great dogmatic discussion with a doxology, in which
God is described as embracing all things-as the Beginning, Middle, and End, of all
things, and, consequently, of the believing Israel as a whole, and of every individual.
That these references are what is intended by the prepositions, dSia, and ekl, is no
longer questioned by later expositors. But, on the other hand, they continue blind
to the fact that these references also express the relation of Father, Son, and Spirit.
In an exactly similar way it is said of God, Eph. iv. 6, o e 7r   riv-rv Kat 6 t ai TirVToV,
Kcai kv rdalv. Of the Father as the source of all being, EK or V7r6 is always (stets) used
in the New Testament, and i7r with respect to His absolute power; of the Son, always &6U, as the Revealer of the Father, the organ of His agency (comp. on John i. 3);
of the Spirit, eti, so far as He is the End to which the divine agency leads, or ev, so
far as He is the element which penetrates and supports all things. 1 Cor. viii. 6, is
decisive in favor of this interpretation; where Paul himself explains the 1i ov and 61'
ov of the Father and the Son."-Der Brief an die oSm., Comm. 3er Band. s. 420.
Again, on Col. i. 17, Olshausen, returning to this subject, writes as follows:"The various relations of the creature to the Eternal are expressed by the prepositions d6, elf, and ev. The dta refers to the origin of the creature, which proceeds
from the Father through the Son; elt refers to the end of the creature, as all is created
to or for Him, as the final aim of things (cf. verse 20); on the other hand Iv points, as
the avvEarT7rKe unmistakeably shows, to the present stability of the world, which is
always in the Son, so far as He supports and upholds the world with His word (Heb.
i. 3), and the upholding may also be considered as a continuation of the creation.
There is but one difficult point in this description, which sets forth Christ's divine nature in the most distinct manner; namely, that elsewhere the relation of the Holy
Ghost to the creature is usually expressed by the prepositions elc and ev (cf. on Rom.
xi. 36); but here the Son is always the subject. In other passages, e. g. 1 Cor. viii.
6, elf is also used of the Father. However, this difficulty is satisfactorily explained
by the fact, that to each of the three Divine Persons, by Himself; just because they
are real Persons, and carry life in themselves, all relations of the Trinity can be attributed."-Der Brief an die Coloss., Comm. 4er Band. s. 339.
This reference to the mystery of the Trinity, as denoted by the three prepositions,
is noticed by Origen, Comm. in Epist. ad Rom. lib. viii. tom. iv. p. 642. The passage
is quoted by Mr. Alford in loc.
2 It is well observed by Rudelbach, in his Essay " Die Lehre von der Inspiration
der heil. Schrift," published in his Journal for 1840, that "the transition to a written
document, composed according to God's will, can detract in no respect from the power
and efficacy of His Word. On this assumption rests the whole notion of Inspiration."-ler Theil. s. 24.




26                      THE QUESTION STATED.                     [LECT. I.
tue of that Holy Spirit imparted, through Him, to the world.'
This agency of the Holy Spirit, by the very force of the term,
forms the essence of the idea of Inspiration; and the two conceptions thus pointed out, of the Eternal Word as the Divine
Person who reveals, and of the Holy Spirit as the Divine Person
who inspires, are the pillars upon which must rest any theory respecting  the  Bible  and  its  origin  which  can deserve  serious
notice.
But, before entering upon the direct question of Inspiration,
a matter of vital moment must be adverted to, any confusion of
ideas respecting which must perforce mar and distort the whole
aspect of the inquiry. It must first be settled, What is the Bible?
and In what light are we to regard it? In reply to the former of
these questions, with which the present investigation is not directly concerned, I point to that collection of writings, whether
of the Old or New Testament, which our Church accepts as Canonical, and which she defines in her Sixth Article. The answer
to the latter question, viz., " In what light is the Bible, as a collection of such and such books, to be regarded?" demands some
observation. There is an error growing up in our time, closely
allied to that false spiritualism which in the second century
formed the essence of the heresy  of Marcion, which  draws a
sharp line of distinction between the Old Testament and the
New.  The  leading  representative  of this opinion  in  modern
times is the founder of a school which commands extensive influence on the Continent, and the principles of which have been
recently advocated with no small ability among ourselves. The
I Cf. Twesten's "Vorlesungen," ler Band. p. 289.
" See on this question Lecture iii. infra.
" The Philosophy of Religion, by J. D. Morell, A.M. London, 1849."
" If there be one mind whose personality may have impressed itself more than
any other upon my own, in tracing out the whole course of the following treatise, it
is assuredly that of the revered Schleiermacher; indeed the analysis of the idea of religion, and its reference to the absolute feeling of dependence, is taken substantially
out of the introduction to his great work, the'Glaubenslehre.' That God would
send such a mind and such a heart to shed their influence upon ourselves, and guide
us from the barren region of mere logical forms into the hallowed paths of a divine
life, is the best wish I can breathe for the true welfare of every religious community
in our land."-Pref. p. xxxiii.
Quinet, in his eloquent essay on Strauss in the " Revue des Deux Mondes" for
1838 (tom. 4me., p, 463, &c.), adverts with justice to the influence of Schleiermacher.
He observes, that in the commotion of the German mind, and the daily increasing
destruction of all belief, nothing oauses him greater surprise than the calmness of
those writers " qui, effaaant chaque jour un mot de la Bible, ne sont pas moins tranquilles sur l'avenir de leur croyance."  Schleiermacher was the greatest of them all



LECT. I.]                THE QUESTION  STATED.                              27
founder of this school, the celebrated Schleiermacher, maintains
that while Christianity is no doubt connected historically with
Judaism   by the fact that Jesus was born  among  the  Jewish
people, still the reason of this merely was, that the universal
Redeemer could not well appear except among  a monotheistic
people.! This whole system regards the Old and New Testament
as factors of a perfectly heterogeneous nature: the Law is not
inspired; nor even the historical parts of the Old Testament;'
and  Christianity, so far as its peculiar features are concerned,
stands in precisely the same relation to Judaism as to Heathenism. But not to dwell upon sentiments so extreme, and from
which even the followers of Schleiermacher seem to recoil,3 I can
refer to the views of a respectable English writer. Dr. Pye Smith
thus expresses himself in some remarks' upon the Old Testament
contained  in  his work  on  " The  Scripture  Testimony to  the
Messiah:" —   Many of the facts thus recorded have not directly
a religious interest, but they were valuable to the Israelites and
Jews as fragments of national and family history; and in our times
they have proved to be of great importance in casting light upon
the almost lost history of several nations."'
"fait pour regner dans ce trouble universel si l'anarchie des intelligences eut consenti
a recevoir un maitre."
1 Cf. " Der Christliche Glaube von Dr. Friedrich Schleiermacher," 4te Aufgabe, Berlin, 1842. ler Band. s. 77. And even this prerogative of the Jews must be received
with qualifications: "Und so war auf der andern Seite auch das hellenische und romische Heidenthum  auf mancherlei Weise monotheistisch vorbereitet, und dort die
Erwartung auf eine neue Gestaltung aufs ausserste gespannt, so wie im Gegentheil
unter den Juden die messianischen Verheissungen theils aufgegeben waren, theils
missverstanden.  So dass wenn man alle geschichtlichen Verhiltnisse zusammenfasst, der Unterschied weit geringer ausfillt, als auf den ersten Anblick scheint."s. 78.
2 Nay more, as to the value of the Old Testament for Christians: "Werden wir
gewiss eben so nahe und zusammenstimmende Anklange auch in den Aeusserungen
des edleren und reineren Heidenthums antreffen."-s. 80.
3 E. g. Twesten, who, as Nitzsch justly observes (" Studien und Kritiken," 1828,
s. 227), rather omits the consideration of this question, than treats it with the attention which its importance deserves. Nevertheless he follows in the footsteps of his
master so far as to assert, "We cannot regard these writings as a rule for Christians,
and, therefore, the question arises, how we are to regard them from the stand-point
of Christian theology."-Vorlesungen, ler Band. s. 322.
4 "The Scripture Testimony to the Messiah."  2d Ed. vol. i., notes, p. 41.  Of
this "note" Mr. Morell observes, " So, also, to some extent that admirable scholar
and theologian, Dr. J. P. Smith, in one of his notes to the Scripture Testimony to the
Messiah; a note which had almost brought out the controversy [as to Inspiration]
fairly into this country, but that its hour was not yet arrived."-The Philosophy of
Religion, p. 189. I quote this observation as illustrating the extent to which the
question has been fermenting in the public mind.
Mr. Morell himself observes, with respect to the books of the Old Testament from
Joshua to Chronicles: " All that we can say is, that they were universally received,




28                     THE QUESTION STATED.                    [LECT. I.
All such views, according to the principles which it will be my
endeavor to establish, are founded upon a fundamentally erroneous conception of the nature and structure of the Bible. This
Divine record, comprising the two great divisions of Old and New
Testament, presents itself to the acceptance of mankind as one
organized whole: as an elaborate structure whose various parts
conspire to the attainment of one definite end, the entire edifice
being constructed according to one grand design.  That one end
is the Salvation of man,-that grand design is the economy of
Redemption.  The stage on which this great drama was to be
enacted was the history of the human race; and in no other language than that of the Bible itself can be described the antithesis which this history affords: " God saw  every thing  that He
had made, and behold it was very good,"  is the statement of the
first chapter of the Old Testament;-the writer who closes the
New Testament, on the other hand, proclaims, " We know that
we are of God, and the whole world lieth in wickedness."'  With
the two ideas of Redemption and Salvation, the entire framework
of Revelation is inseparably connected. To the first man was
given a hope of the redemption of his race; and beyond this the
last of the Prophets can not go.' The appearance of the Redeemer Himself did no more than give reality to these anticipations.
There is an inseparable bond of union connecting the two
divisions of the inspired volume: "The law was our schoolmaster
to bring us unto Christ."' The aim of each earlier Revelation
of, the Eternal Word was to restore, in their original purity, the
lost truths of religion, and to build them up anew in the midst
both as veracious histories, and as containing correct religious sentiments, by the
Jewish people."-Ibid. p. 161.
Of the Psalms, he concludes:"All we can say is, that they embodied the religious consciousness, or, if the term
be preferred, the state of inspiration to which the mind of the writer was elevated."P. 162. This view may be illustrated by what the author had just observed as to the
Pentateuch: " All we mean is, that the inspiration here involved did not spring from
any outward commission to write that particular book; but only from the Divine light
which was granted to the age, and to the mind of the author-a gift which he was
left to make use of as necessity or propriety might suggest."-Ibid. p. 161.
Gen. i. 31.'1 John, v. 19.
3 See Davison, "Discourses on Prophecy," 5th Ed. p. 74. Twesten has received
much praise for having similarly connected the ideas of Revelation and Redemption.
"Unter Offenbarung verstehen wir hier die Aeusserung der gottlichen Gnade zum
Heile (ek; aor7Tpiav) des gefallenen Menschen in ihrer urspriinglichen Wirkung auf
die menschliche Erkentniss."-Vorlesungen, ler Band. s. 345.
4 Gal. iii. 24.




LECT. I.]           THE QUESTION STATED.                       29
of historical and positive false religions.' This latter circumstance, of necessity, stamped a character of separation upon the
Revelation of the Old Testament; which Revelation, however,
from its design of restoration, must be also characterized by a
principle of development. The patriarchal Revelation elected
and separated an individual and his family; the sanctions of its
covenant were faith and hope.2 When this became clouded by
idolatry and unbelief, a new Revelation was annexed to and
founded upon it; and which, while it imposed, in the Mosaic
Law, a more positive or penal discipline,' held out in the field of
prophecy a greater fulness of promise, and a brighter prospect of
hope. In the legal element, Revelation develops more strongly
its separating character; in the element of promise, its movement in advance is more apparent, removing more and more the
barriers which confined the covenant people. Lastly, the Dispensation introduced by Christ includes and perfects all previous
phases of Revelation, and combines them in itself into an organism complete on all sides. It perfects both the legal and promissory side of the Old Testament Revelation. The Law becomes
real, living truth; the promise becomes actual grace: "The
Law was given by Moses, but grace and truth came by Jesus
Christ."4 Its individuality is now stamped with universality:
" Many shall come from the east and west, and shall sit down
with Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, in the kingdom of heaven."'
Its character of separation at length expands into that of a kingdom of the elect, extending over all the people of the world.
And thus, following the course and progress of Revelation, the
several parts of the inspired volume sprang gradually into being:
" The brook became a river, and the riVer became a sea."6
The immediate design, indeed, of each element of this collection of writings, or the precise end attained by its connection with
the others, we may not as yet be able to discern-although the
progress of knowledge, and the light afforded by the fulfilment
of prophecy, have largely extended our information as to these
Compare, on this point, the admirable remarks of Beck, pp. 120-143 of his
"Propideutische Entwicklung der Christlichen Lehr-Wissenschaft," Stuttgart, 1838.
" Your father Abraham," said Christ to the Jews, "rejoiced to see my day, and
he saw it and was glad."-John, viii. 56; cf. Heb. xi.
S " Wherefore then serveth the Law? It was added because of transgressions." —
Gal. iii. 19; cf Rom. vii. 7.
4 John, i. 17.      " Matt. viii. 11.      6 Ecclus. xxiv. 31.




30                        THE  QUESTION  STATED.                      [LECT. I.
matters.   But, the fact of such ignorance respecting the purpose
of each portion, and the functions performed by it in the organized structure of the Holy Scriptures, is no reason for our denying that a purpose was designed; while, as in the case of every
organized whole, each discovery of such or such a final cause but
serves to illustrate the connection and mutual relation of all its
parts, although our researches may fall very far short of perfection.  Take, for example, the animal economy.  The veins and
arteries had performed their appointed functions, and diffused
the vital current through the frame for thousands of years before
their final cause was pointed out.  To the present hour the nervous system  remains a mystery; and yet, who will question its
importance or its utility?  And, to carry the analogy one step
farther,-as the various portions of the animal structure are
called at different times and for different purposes into different
degrees of activity, so the relative value and prominence of the
various parts of Scripture alter according to the wants and interests of the age.  In  our day, certain  portions  of Holy  Writ,
which were of main importance in the early ages of the Church
(and which will maintain to the last their vital, though relative,
value), may not be of such immediate practical applicability;
while, on the other hand, what is all essential now was not then
so peculiarly called into action. The character of the inspired
record itself, however, does not vary. The landscape remains
Thus St. Jerome profoundly observes:-" Paralipomenon liber, id est, Instrumenti veteris 7rt.ru-ou, tantus ac talis est, ut absque illo si quis scientiam Scripturarum
sibi voluerit arrogare, se ipsum irrideat. Per singula quippe nomina, juncturasque
verborum, et praetermisse in Regum libris tanguntur historic, et innumerabiles explicantur Evangelii qusestiones."-Epist. liii. ad Paulinum, tom. i. p. 277.
Thus it is that Ezra, i. 1, is inexplicable without the predictions of Isaiah and Jeremiah; which, in their turn would be altogether obscure without the record of their
fulfilment preserved by Ezra and Nehemiah. Again, as Mr. Westcott justly remarks,
"The relation of Christianity to the old dispensation, which is historically exhibited
in St. Matthew, is argumentatively deduced and specially illustrated in the Epistle
to the Hebrews, the authority of which can never be doubted by those who have any
deep sense of the perfect providential instruction of the Church; for without it the
types of the Old Testament are, in most cases, unexplained, and the full significance
of the past unrecognized and undeclared."-Elements of the Gospel Harmony, p. 140.
See Appendix B.
2 Origen has well developed this same analogy:
*  *  *  O vydp Crepi rdag daroniz( 7vpayuarevaFupevot rTSv larpwv, 6vvavraLt Eyev
icaarov Kati Tb etXar-ov UiOptOv E  rT Xpt l#iov tiTO raT Tpovoiac yeyEvnrrat vo6t [Lot
roivvv Kal rcTU  paqbf TOrrTOV rbv TrpOOV,riaac  poravao, v) ev rTZeCov O6yov a6Cua' Et
d6 avo1 Ure floravluKC et ypaS3v, joire avaropev'O rTSv wpo7TrlKtJV X6ySv, fi) vo6iute wept.
etKelw rt rTv yeypajclEvwv dXld aeavrbv icovov   rTa lepd ypaciara ciTrl, 6re [7) vpiaKeLC rTOv 6oyov Tr  yeypayievivv.-Homil. xxxix in Jerem. tom. iii. p. 286.




LECT. I.]                THE  QUESTION  STATED.                             81
still the same, although the sun, as the storm-cloud floats along,
may lend greater brilliancy to some features of the scene, and cast
others for a moment into the shade.
The various parts of Holy Scripture, then, I would again repeat, in order to be rightly understood, or justly valued, must be
regarded as the different members of one vitally organized structure; each performing its appropriate function, and each conveying its own portion of the truth. Consider the parts sustained
by two of our four Gospels. A one-sided apprehension of Apostolic teaching had introduced in the early Church different phases
of false doctrine.  Had there been but one Gospel, the Church's
teaching might have been, in like manner, one-sided. From the
Gospel of St. Matthew  the higher nature of Christ could not
have been so clearly proved to the Ebionites, as from that of S.
John; while the former was better calculated to oppose the dreams
of the Gnostics.! But the four Gospels having been combined in
the  Canon, the  Church  has thus been  defended on  all sides.
Hence the Gospels were well termed by an early Father' the four' Of these heresies S. Irenaeus observes:
"Ebionei eo Evangelio, quod est secundum Matthaeum, solo utentes, ex illo ipso
convincuntur, non recte preesumentes de Domino. *  *  *  Hi autem qui a Valentino sunt, eo quod est secundum Joannem plenissime utentes ad ostensionem conjugationum      m suarum ex ipso detegntur," &c.-Cont. Hcer., lib. iii. 11, p 189.
2 S. Irenseus.'EFretE   *  *  * arTvo 6e Kali c T jpLyfIa EKK2yia;c TO rvayyitlov,
Kai ryveiya Cwc, EiKOTuGw  rEcaapaf  V  vretv avrT)v ar'Xov. — Ibid. p. 190. S. Irenaus
adds the well-known comparisons of the four regions of the world, the four principal
spirits, and, in fine, the four forms which made up the Cherubim, (Ezek. i. 10. Rev.
iv. 7.); observing that the Divine Logos, who sits upon the Cherubim, " dedit nobis
quadriforme (rerpd)uopoov) Evangelium, quod uno spiritu continetur."  In like manner, S. Cyprian: "Ecclesia Paradisi instar exprimens, arbores fructiferas intra muros
sues intus includit. *  *  *  Has arbores rigat quatuor fluminibus, id est Evangeliis
quatuor."-Ep. lxxiii. p. 132. On this passage Mr. Westcott aptly observes:-" An
old Father compared our four Evangelists to the rivers which encircled the earthly
Paradise: truly their streamsspring from different lands, and flow in different ways:
yet each protects some boundary of the Church, and conveys to it the waters of
life."-Elements of Gospel Harmony, p. 73. To the same effect S. Jerome styles the
four Evangelists "quadriga Domini, et verum  Cherubim."-Ep. liii. ad Paulinwm,
tom. i. p. 278.
Gieseler, in his essay "On the origin of the written Gospels," p. 200, points out
with his usual learning the source of such metaphorical language, which writers unacquainted with the questions agitated in the primitive Church are wont to regard as
puerile or unmeaning. The heretics continually objected that the Church claimed
four Gospels, while the Apostles taught but one. Thus, in the " Dialogus de recta in
Deum fide," which is contained in the first volume of the works of Origen, the Marcionite argues:'Eyt iY eeyXo  ETre ev, 6rLt 0p.aa 6aorv  t eivayy/E'ea. a yel yap 6 dTiroCroo ev ivay.
yeXtov, 6vpet (/ rTnaaapa Xeyere.-P. 807.
Hence, observes Gieseler, "the Fathers are at great pains to Ioint out that their
Gospel is always One; presented, nevertheless, under four forms, handed down by
four witnesses, divided into four books."  How well suited to the taste of the age




32                     THE QUESTION STATED.                  [LECT. I.
pillars of the Church, each supporting its own portion of the
structure, and guarding it from subsiding into any of those forms
of false doctrine to which partial views of the truth had given
rise.
In seeking for the grounds of that peculiar authority which is
claimed for the Bible, we are first of all met by the question as to
the authorship and genuineness of the separate writings of which
the volume is composed.  With this portion of the subject our
present inquiry has no immediate concern. The various points
connected with it constitute a distinct branch of theological science, to which in recent times the title " Introduction" (Einleitung) has been appropriated;' and the results of which the present investigation  must assume.  Were we to content ourselves
with such results, no small advantage would be attained. The
Holy Scriptures would still be to us objects of the highest value
were we merely to regard them  as historical documents from
which we might learn to know the doctrine of Christ, as we learn
the opinions of Socrates from the pages of Xenophon and Plato.
But we have too much depending on the certainty of these documents not to feel ourselves disquieted by the doubt, Is the original Revelation transmitted to us through them in its primitive
purity?-a doubt which at once disappears if we firmly establish
the Inspiration of the writers; and show how such Inspiration is
reflected by and preserved in the pages of Scripture.
The Bible presents to us, in whatever light we regard it, two
distinct elements,-the Divine and the Human.  This is a matter
of fact.  On the one hand, God has granted a Revelation; on the
other, human language has been made the channel to convey, and
men have been chosen as the agents to record it. From this point
all theories on the subject of Revelation take their rise; and all
the varieties of opinion respecting it have sprung from the manner in which the fact referred to has been taken into account.
There are two leading systems in this department of theology:
were the comparisons employed in the elucidation of this fact, appears from the general custom, founded upon the simile of the Cherubim, of ascribing to each Evangelist
one of the forms of which the Cherubim consisted.
1 Perhaps the earliest instance of the use of this term is to be found in the Preface
to the treatise by Cassiodorus (A.D. 538), "De Institutione Divinarum Literarum,"
where he styles his work "introductorios libros." Ed. Bened. tom. ii. p. 537. He
refers subsequently to previous " Introductores Scripturae divine;" of whom he names
Tichonius the Donatist, S. Augustine, in his work, " De doctrina Christiana," Hadrian,
Eucherius, and Junilius. Ibid. c. x. p. 545.




LECT. I.]              THE QUESTION STATED.                            33
the one suggested by the prominence assigned to the Divine element, the other resulting from the undue weight attached to the
Human.  The former of these systems practically ignores the
Human element of the Bible, and fixes its exclusive attention
upon the Divine agency exerted in its composition. This system
admits and can admit of no degrees. It puts forward one consistent and intelligible theory, without subdivisions or gradations.
According to it, each particular doctrine or fact contained in
Scripture, whether in all respects naturally and necessarily unknown to the writers, or which, although it might have been ascertained by them in the ordinary course of things, they were not,
in point of fact, acquainted with; or in fine, everything, whether
actually known to them, or which might become so, by means of
personal experience or otherwise,-each and every such point has
not only been committed to writing under the infallible assistance
and guidance of God, but is to be ascribed to the special and immediate suggestion, embreathment, and dictation of the Holy
Ghost. Nor does this hold true merely with respect to the sense
of Scripture and the facts and sentiments therein recorded, but
each and every word, phrase, and expression, as well as the order
and arrangement of such words, phrases, and expressions, has
been separately supplied, breathed into (as it were) and dictated
to the sacred writers, by the Spirit of God.!  For the present, I
shall merely observe, that, while I can by no means accept this
system as correct, or as consistent with the facts to be explained,
it will be my object in the present Discourses to establish in the
broadest extent all that its supporters desire to maintain; namely, the infallible certainty, the indisputable authority, the perfect and entire truthfulness of all and every the parts of Holy
Scripture.
The characteristic of the other system to which I have alluded,
and to which the great majority of the modern theories of InspiI "Omnia et singulse res quse in S. Scriptura continentur, sive illse fuerint S. Scriptoribus naturaliter prorsus incognitas, sive naturaliter quidem cognoscibiles, actu tamen incognitae, sive denique, non tantum naturaliter cognoscibiles, sed etiam actu
ipso notse, vel aliunde, vel per experientiam, et sensuum ministerium, non solum
per assistentiam et directionem divinam infallibilem literis consignatte sunt, sed singulari Spiritis S. suggestioni, inspirationi, et dictamini acceptse ferendae sunt. Omnia
enim, quse scribenda erant a Spiritu S. sacris Scriptoribus in actu isto scribendi suggesta, et intellectui eorum quasi in calamum dictitata sunt, ut his et non allis circumstantiis, hoc, et non alio modo, aut ordine scriberertur." —J.. A, Quenstedt. Theologia Didactico-Polemica, cap. iv. sect. ii. p. 67.
3




34                      THE QUESTION STATED.                    [LECT. I.
ration are to be referred, is that of ascribing  undue prominence
to the Human element of the Bible.  I must content myself
here' with briefly stating the three heads to which, I conceive, all
the varieties of opinion, which may be traced to this source, can,
with more or less definiteness, be reduced.
I. To the first head may be referred those writers who have
changed the formula' The Bible is the Word of God,' into' The
Bible contains the word of God.' Writers of this class, while they
generally shrink fiom  absolutely drawing the line between what
is and what is not inspired, yet broadly assert as well the possibility as the existence of imperfections in Scripture, whether resulting from  limited  knowledge, or inadvertence, or defective
memory on the part of its authors.2   Such imperfections are often
restricted to what are termed'unimportant matters.'
II. Under the second head may be placed the different hypotheses which  assume various Degrees of Inspiration; the Divine
influence by which the sacred writers were actuated having been
universal, but unequally distributed.  The tendency of all such
hypotheses-for even their authors allow  that as hypotheses
-alone can they be regarded-is to fine down to the minutest point,
if not altogether to deny, the agency of the Holy Spirit in certain
portions of the Bible.  "What the extent of the Inspiration was
in each case" (I quote the words of Bishop Daniel Wilson, who
maintains this view of various "Degrees" of Inspiration)-" What
the extent of tjhe Inspiration was in each case, we need not, indeed we cannot, determine. We infer from  the uniform  language
of the New Testament that in each case such assistance, and only
such  assistance, was afforded as the exigencies of it required.
Where nature ended, and Inspiration began, it is not for man to
say."
III. The third head comprises Schleiermacher and his follow1 For some account of the modern theories of Inspiration, see Appendix C.
2 Cf. Ebrard. " Kritik der Evang. Geschichte."  ler Th. s. 63.
"  The Evidences of Christianity, by Daniel Wilson," London, 1828, vol. i. p. 506.
The " Degrees" of Inspiration usually laid down are as follows: " By the Inspiration
of Suggestion, is meant, such communications of the Holy Spirit as suggested and dictated minutely every part of the truths delivered. The Inspiration of Direction, is
meant, of such assistance as left the writers to describe the matter revealed in their
own way, directing only the mind in the exercise of its powers. The Inspiration of
Elevation added a greater strength and vigor to the efforts of the mind, than the
writers could otherwise have attained, The Inspiration of Superinten.dncy was thtit
watchful care which preserved generally from anything being put down derogatory
to the revelation with which it was connected".-Ibid. p. 508.




LECT. I.]               THE QUESTION  STATED.                            35
ers; the Shibboleth of whose school, in brief, is this,'The letter
killeth, the spirit giveth life."   The idea of Revelation, according
to Schleiermacher, is confined to the person of Christ:-the notion of Inspiration he considers to be one of completely subordinate
importance in Christianity;" the sole power which the Bible
" possesses of conveying a Revelation to us, consisting in its aiding
in the awakenment and elevation of our religious consciousness;
in its presenting to us a mirror of the history of Christ; in its
depicting the intense religious life of His first followers; and in
giving  us the letter through which the spirit of truth may be
brought home in vital experience to the human heart."'
I now proceed to that view of Inspiration, to establish which
will be the object of the present inquiry. In entering upon the
task my first object will be to look steadily at the facts of the
case, which, while it is our duty never to distort or exaggerate
them, it is equally our duty to recognise, and estimate at their
true value. The Bible, I have already observed, consists of both
a Divine and a Human element.  This leading fact may be regarded as the first of the two Conditions of our problem; a Condition which can only be satisfied  by showing  how the two elements may be combined.  According to the former of the systems
to which I have just referred, the Human element is entirely lost
sight of. On its principles the sacred writers, on receiving the
Divine impulse, resigned both mind and body to God, who influenced and guided both at Iis sole pleasure; the human agent
contributing, the while, no more than the pen of the scribe: in a
word, he was the pen, not the penman, of the Spirit.'  Now, cerI Quinet, in the essay already referred to, well describes the result of this principle
when so applied: " Mais qui ne voit qu' a son tour l'esprit en grandissant pent tuer,
et remplacer la lettre?"
2 " Was die Eingebung betrifft, so hat dieser Begriff im Christenthum eine durchaus untergeordnete Bedeutung. Denn eine Beziehung desselben auf Christum findet
gar nicht statt, indem die gottliche Offenbarung durch ihn immer, wie sie auch gedacht werde, mit seiner ganzen Existenz identisch gedacht wird. und nicht als fragmentarisch in zerstreuten Augenblicken erscheinend."-Der Christliche Glaube. ler
Band. s. 97.
s This statement of Schleiermacher's system is taken from Mr. Morell's exposition
of his views on Inspiration, "Philosophy of Religion," pp. 143-4.
Cf. Westcott's "Gospel Harmony," p. 6. Thus, even Hooker in his first sermon
on Jude, 17-21, having quoted 1 Cor. ii. 12, 13, gives expression to the following sentiment: "This is that which the Prophets mean by those books written full within
and without; which books were so often delivered them to eat, not because God fed
them with ink and paper, but to teach us, that, so often as lIe employed them in this
heavenly work they neither spake nor wrote any word of their own, but uttered syllable by syllable as the Spirit put it into their mouthl" —Vol. iii. p. 6G2, Keblo's Ed.




36                       THE QUESTION  STATED.                      [LEOT. I.
tain phenomena, obvious of themselves, and  brought still more
prominently forward by the progress of criticism, demand explanation upon this, as upon every other, theory. The varieties in
diction which meet the student as he examines the original text
of Scripture, arising partly from the changes undergone by the
Hebrew  language during the lapse of ages,l partly from  the natural genius and personal peculiarities of the writers of either
Testament;2 the differences in point of style which are so apparent between the prophetical and historical parts of Scriptures as
well as between the different prophets and historians themselves;
-all these  are matters of which  some account must be given.
The maintainers of the theory of Inspiration which we are now
considering, either offer no explanation at all of such phenomena
-except by employing some rather general metaphors 4-or are
reduced to the necessity of putting forward another hypothesis,
which, although in one point of view a real advance in the true
direction, yet closely resembles the doctrine of the Docetae of old.'
It is asserted that the Holy Ghost merely " accommodated Himself" to the different peculiarities of the sacred writers.6 An admission of the originator of this hypothesis exhibits its insufficiency.  " The Holy Ghost," he observes, " inspired His amanuenses
with those expressions which they would have employed had they
been left to themselves."    It is, perhaps, unnecessary to remark,
But see the context for some profound remarks on one of the most obscure parts of
this subject.
1 Cf. iHvernick's " Einleitung." ler. Thell, Ite Abtheil. 2er Kap., ~ 34, s. 225 ff.
2 E. g. The use, by S. John alone, of the term TrapoLtia, the other Evangelists employing the word,rapa3o2o.
3 E. g. Compare Isa. xxxvi., and Jer. xxxvi., with other portions of these books.
" Andr. Rivetus Isag. ad Script. S. cap. ii. T. ii. Opp. f. 858, simili a perito scriba
petito illustrat, qui diversis calamis commode utitur, aliquando subtilioribus et magis
acutis, aliquando crassioribus et obtusis, ubi literie quidem et scriptura scribse in solidum tribuenda, ductus autem vel subtilior vel crassior, indoli et habitui pennae vel
gracilioris, vel crassioris est adscribendus."-Carpzovius, Critica Sacra Vet. list. p. 59.
~ The Docetme held that all relating to Christ's human appearance was a mere vision; and hence their name. The idea thus applied was of long standing among the
Jews.  Thus Raphael tells Tobit, "All these days I did appear unto you; but I did
neither eat nor drink, but ye did see a vision."-Tobit xii. 19.
Neander, in his remarks on the Docetse, observes; " The opinion corresponding to
the fantastic tendency of the East, and which had long obtained currency among the
Jews, that a higher spirit has the power of representing himself to the eye of sense in
various deceptive forms, which possess no reality, was transferred to Christ."-Allgem.
Geschichte der Kirche, 2te Aufl. ler Band. s. 667.
o "Fatendum est Spiritum S. in suggerendis verborum conceptibus accommodasse
se ad indolem et conditionem amanuensium."-Baier, Prol. ii. ~ 7, note g, quoted by
Twesten, Vorlesungen, ler Band, s. 418.
7 " Ea verba Spiritus S. amanuensibus inspiravit, quibus alias usi fuissent, si sibi
fuissent relieti."-Quenstedt, cap. iv. p. 76. Rudelbach, who states that Musaus tirst




LEOT. I.]              THE QUESTION STATED.                          37
that this wholly hypothetical statement assumes an exercise of
the Divine agency for which no motive can be assigned, or end
pointed out; while it seems impossible to reconcile this phase of
the purely organic, or as it has, of late pears, been termed, Mechanical, theory of Inspiration with the highest aim of religionthe elevation and enlightenment of the faculties of man.
Are we then compelled, by this failure of the theory before
us, to solve the difficulties of the question, to accept as true that
other system which ascribes undue influence to the Human element of the Scriptures?  Assuredly not; our task is rather to
make our own those portions of the truth which each system  may
contain.
In whatever manner we conceive the Bible to convey to us a
Revelation, we must, from  the nature of the case, recognise its
two elements. Without the Divine element it would cease to be
a Revelation; without the Human, the communication from God
would have been confined to the individual to whom it was originally made. The whole analogy of nature, too, teaches us that
God accomplishes all His ends by the intervention of certain
means.  Here, the end is the conveyance of Divine truth; while
the means consist in exhibiting that truth in those aspects under
which alone it can be grasped by man. That it should be possible for man to apprehend it, it must present itself allied  to
human conceptions, and clothed in human language.' To attain
this object, the same power which gave the message selected the
messenger; and the grounds of this selection we can clearly discern to have been the natural capacities and the opportunities, as
well as the traits of individual character, which marked each sacred
writer.  Moses was skilled in all the wisdom  of the Egyptians;
and S. Paul, who had been the pagan scholar in the school of Tarsus, and the Jewish scholar in the schools of Jerusalem, while by
his Jewish learning he could show from the Scripture that Jesus
started this idea, entertains a far more favorable view of it than I have been able to
form. It is a conception, he remarks, " welche die tiefsten Blicke in den ganzen Organismus der Offenbarung verrith, und mit Recht die Theodicee der Inspiration genannt werden mag."-Die Lehre von der Insp. 4es Kap. s. 24.
1 "The narrowness and imbecility of the human mind being such as scarcely to
comprehend or attain a clear idea of any part of the Divine nature by its utmost exertions; God has condescended, in a manner, to contract the infinity of His glory,
and to exhibit it to our understandings under such imagery as our feeble optics are
capable of contemplating."-Lowth, Lectures on the Sacred Poetry of the Hebrews, Lect.
xxxi. 2d ed. vol. ii p. 312.




38                     THE QUESTION  STATED.                    [LECT. I.
was Christ, could also appeal to the hearts of his Gentile hearers
in the words of their own philosophers and poets. No less conducive to the successful communication of Divine truth was the
calling into activity the individual peculiarities of the agents thus
chosen.  The unbending intellect of Paul; the practical temperament of James; the heart which throbbed alike with zeal and
love in the bosom of John, were chosen, in their turn, to convey
the message best suited  to each;-while  the principle which
linked together the several parts of the chain of doctrine thus
called into being was the one Divine Spirit which selected, and
guided, and inspired each writer. What just reason indeed can
possibly be assigned for supposing that the Divine power should
have obliterated the peculiar characteristics of each before it
qualified him for his task? Must we not rather assume that,
when the individual was chosen, there were certain grounds existing in his nature, in consequence of which the lot fell upon
him?   Such peculiarities of character, therefore, are rather to be
regarded as the condition of the particular form  under which the
Divine influence willed to exhibit itself in operation.  And thus,
the actuation of the Spirit will not consist in the exclusion of the
Human element, but rather in illuminating and exalting it, according to its several varieties, for the attainment of the end proposed.' Shall we, then, in consequence of this variety of means,
and diversity of agencies, refuse to recognise the power which
stamps its unity and confers its vital energy upon the whole? On
grounds equally appropriate here did the Christian Apologist
maintain before the masters of the world the Personality and the
Majesty of God.  In opposition to the prevailing  Pantheism  of
his age, he appeals to the structure and the harmony of the universe. "I adore," said Athenagoras,'the Being who harmonized
the strains, and leads the melody, not the instrument which He
plays. What umpires at the Games, omitting to crown the minstrel, place the garland upon his lyre?" 
1Cf. Steudel's excellent treatise, "Ueber Inspiration der Apostel."  "Tiubinger
Zeitschriftfiir Theologie."  1832. 2te Heft. s. 117.
2'E roivvv E/1zeXfe 6 tc6ao KOf opyavov Kat KLtcOVuI'evov Cv tvO/tO), TOv utp/ioayevov Kat
ir27aaovra rovf 00boyyov, Kcat r6 aVxjtovov iwTidovra y/egof(, ov TO o6pyavov, T7poKtvvut.'Ov&  ydp 1rt' rtiv dyovlortcv, TrapatLurt6vreC Oi d(f6XoOerna r7T-0 Kt aptLr(i,, Tar Ktt6(ipac
areTavooatv avrTv. —Legatio pro Christianis, cap. xvi. p. 291.
This Apology was presented by Athenagora.s (circ. A. D. 177) to the Emperor
Marcus Aurelius and his son Commodus. Guericke (" De Schola Alexandriae," p. 22)




LECT. I.]            THE QUESTION STATED.                       39
According to the view here taken, and which has been termed
the " Dynamical" theory of Inspiration,-or that which implies
such a Divine influence as employs man's faculties according to
their natural laws,-man is not considered as being in any sense
the cause or the originator of the Revelation of which God alone is
the source, but human agency is regarded as the condition under
which the Revelation becomes known to others.  Nature itself
supplies a striking analogy to this species of co-operation. When
the principle of life has been communicated to any portion of unorganized matter, the power which animates receives, indeed, its
condition from  the matter to be animated, but in no sense can
we ascribe its source to the inorganic mass to which it is annexed.
Nevertheless the further development of that which has once received the vital influence admits of no separation between the
purely passive matter and the principle of life, which alone is active. Or, to take an illustration from the province of theology:in Regeneration it is allowed by all that Divine Grace is the sole
influence which operates at the instant when Regeneration takes
place. Afterwards it is the joint influence which co-operates with
the human powers and human will.' From this view, then, it
results that that peculiar, natural type, according to which each
sacred writer was moulded at his creation, was assimilated, as it
were, by the power of Inspiration, and appropriated by the Spirit;
while, at the same time, the Spiritual Influence is no more to be
confounded with the tokens of individual character than it is to
be identified with the essence of the natural life.  In short, the
Divine and Human elements, mutually interpenetrating and coimbined, form one vital, organic whole,-not mechanically, still less
ideally, but, as it has been termed, Dynamically united.' So far
as to the first Condition of our problem.
The second, and no less important Condition, is supplied by a
fact which must have forced itself in some shape or other upon
the attention of every reader of the Bible, and which presents
another phase of its Human element.  Certain portions of the
Bible are, strictly speaking, Revelations; that is, such as, from
mentions that Philippus Sidetes alle(res that this work was dedicated to the Emperors
Hadrian and Antoninus Pius. At all events it was composed in the latter half of the
second century.
See Twesten, "Vorlestuncen," ler Band, s. 418.
3 Cf Beck's "Prop-ideutisch Entwicklung," s. 240.




40                       THE QUESTION  STATED.                     [LECT. I.
their supernatural character or the circumstances of the writer
who records them, could not have been known to him  without a
special communication from  heaven.  Other portions, again, are
not of this nature.  The historical incidents, for example, recorded
in both the Old and New Testament were such as must frequently
have been familiar to the sacred writers, either from  their own
observation, or from sources which were at their command: and
this very fact, like their individual peculiarities, is employed by
the Holy Spirit as a vehicle of truth and a ground for conviction.
This may be distinctly seen from the case of S. John, who thus
opens his first Epistle:  "That which was from  the beginning,
which we have heard, which we have seen with our eyes, which
we have looked upon, and our hands have handled, of the Word
of life, *   *   * that which we have seen and heard, declare we
unto  you."   On  this fact, which cannot be gainsayed, rests a
distinction which claims particular attention, as it forms a leading idea of the theory adopted in the present inquiry. The distinction is that between Revelation and Inspiration.'
By Revelation I understand a direct communication from God
to man, either of such knowledge as man could not of himself
attain to, because its subject-matter transcends human sagacity
or human reason (such, for example, were the prophetical announcements of the future, and the peculiar doctrines of Christianity), or which (although it might have been attained in the
ordinary way) was not, in point of fact, from whatever cause,
known to the person who received the Revelation. By InspiraSontag (" Doctrina Inspirationis," p. 134), states that this distinction was first
introduced by Quenstedt. This is an error. The earliest work in which I have noticed an express allusion to the subject is that of Melchior Canus (obiit, an. 1560).
"De Locis Theologicis," Colon. 1605:" Non enim asserimus, per immediatam Spiritus Sancti revelationem, qume quidem
proprie revelatio dicenda sit, quamlibet Scripture Sacra partem fuisse editam. Quin
Lucas, qum ab Apostolis accepit, ea scripto ipse mandavit, ut in Evangelii sui procemio
testatur. Et Marcum, quae a Petro didicerat, rogatum a discipulis scripsisse. * * *
Sive ergo Matthaus et Joannes, sive Marcus et Lucas, quamvis illi visa, hi audita referrent, non egebant quidem nova Spiritus Sancti revelatione, egebant tamen peculiari
Spiritus Sancti directione."-Lib. ii. cap. xviii. p. 126.
I conceive that Origen has clearly noticed the distinction in question in a wellknown passage in his commentary on S. John (Opp. tom. iv. p. 4). On this point see
Appendix C. I may observe that I have not been able to procure or consult a work
constantly referred to as fully discussing this subject, viz., Baumgarten's treatise " De
discrimine Revelationis et Inspirationis." Hal. 1745.
2 This latter point will be illustrated by an incident in the history of Elisha, stated
in the fourth chapter of the second Book of Kings, as contrasted with what is told of
the prophet Ahijah in the fourteenth chapter of the first Book of Kings:
"And when she came to the man of God to the hill, she caught him by the feet:




LECT. I.]                THE QUESTION  STATED.                              41
tion, on the other hand, I understand that actuating  energy of
the Holy Spirit, in whatever degree or manner it may have been
exercised, guided  by which  the  human  agents chosen  by God
have officially proclaimed  His will by  word  of mouth, or have
committed  to writing  the  several portions of the Bible.'  I repeat, in whatever degree or manner this actuation by the Holy
Spirit may have been exercised: for it should never be forgotten
that the real question with which our inquiry is concerned is the
result of this Divine influence as presented to us in the Holy
Scriptures, not the manner according to which it has pleased God
that this result should be'attained. Moses unquestionably received more abundant tokens of the Divine favor than Ezra, or
but Gehazi came near to thrust her away. And the man of God said, Let her alone,
for her soul is vexed within her; and the Lord hath hid it from me, and hath not
told me."-2 Kings, iv. 27.
"And Jeroboam's wife arose, and went to Shiloh, and came to the house of Ahijah. But Ahijah could not see, for his eves were set by reason of his age. And the
Lord said unto Ahijah, Behold the wife of Jeroboam cometh to ask a thing of thee
for her son, for he is sick: thus and thus shalt thou say unto her: for it shall be, when
she cometh in, that she shall feign herself to be another woman." —  Kings, xiv. 4, 5.
1 Understanding the several portions of the Bible, whether they consist of actual
Revelations, in the strict sense of the term, or of moral teaching, or of mere historical
details. Thus, the Revelation of the Law from Sinai, and the facts connected with the
wanderings of the Israelites, were alike recorded under the influence of Inspiration.
Or, again, the facts connected with the personal history of Job, the words of God
Himself from "out of the whirlwind," the sayings of the Patriarch, and the reasoning
of his friends,were all committed to writing under the actuation of the Holy Ghost,although "the Lord said to Eliphaz the Temanite, My wrath is kindled against thee,
and against thy two friends: for ye have not spoken of Me the thing that is right, as
my servant Job hath."-Job, xlii. 7. Indeed, it is plain that neglecting to attend to
this application of the term Inspiration is to overlook the design of the Scriptures as
defined by S. Paul: "Whatsoever things were written aforetime were written for
our learning that we through patience and comfort of the Scriptures might have
hope."-Rom. xv. 4.
Mr. Coleridge's " Confessions of an Inquiring Spirit" afford a pregnant illustration
of this neglect. He is throughout haunted by the belief that no other view of Inspiration is conceivable than the " mechanical" theory in its baldest form. His remarks,
consequently, tend to subvert the entire authority of the Bible. If the reader will
bear in mind the distinction which I have drawn between Revelation and Inspiration,
and will also substitute for the phrase "dictated by" in the following extract, the
words "committed to writing under the guidance of"-the objection which it expresses will appear absolutely pointless:-" Yet one other instance, and let this be
the crucial test of the Doctrine. Say that the Book of Job was [dictated by] an infallible Intelligence. Then re-peruse the book, and still, as you proceed, try to apply
the tenet: try if you can even attach any sense or semblance of meaning to the
speeches which you are reading. What! were the hollow truisms, the unsufficing
half-truths, the false assumptions and malignant insinuations of the supercilious bigots, who corruptly defended the truth:-were the impressive facts, the piercing outcries, the pathetic appeals, and the close and powerful reasoning with which the poor
sufferer-smarting at once from his wounds, and from the oil of vitriol which the orthodox liars for God were dropping into them-impatiently, but uprightly and holily controverted this truth, while in will and in spirit he clung to it;-were both
[dictated by] an infallible Intelligence?"-Letter iii. p. 38.




42                        THE  QUESTION  STATED.                     [LECT. I.
Nehemiah, or the author of the Books of Chronicles; but this
does not render that element of the Bible, in  composing which
Moses was the agent, one whit more true or more accurrate in its
details than the writings of the others.' The Disciple whom
Jesus loved, and who reclined upon His bosom, enjoyed person-:1aly far higher privileges than  S. Mark  or S. Luke.   But still
this affection  of his Divine  Master does not render S. John's
Gospel, in one single feature, a more trustworthy vehicle of that
portion  of Divine  truth which  it conveys than  the records of
those who were but the companions of the Apostles.
It has been already observed, that Revelation and Inspiration
are also to be distinguished by the sources from  which they proceed,-Revelation  being  the  peculiar function  of the Eternal
Word; Inspiration  the result of the agency of the Holy Spirit.
Their difference, in short, is specific, and not merely one of degree:2 a point which is amply confirmed by the consideration,
that either of these Divine influences may be exerted, although
the other be not called into action. The Patriarchs received
Revelations, but they were not  inspired  to  record them; the
writer of the Acts of the Apostles was inspired for his task, but
we are not told that he ever enjoyed a Revelation.3 But although
The importance of the distinction on which I am insisting will be further apparent from the following statement of Dr. Pye Smith: " Those who affirm in a general
and indiscriminate manner, that all and every the parts of the Old Testament were
immediately dictated by [see last note] the Holy Spirit, and that, to each the same
kind of inspiration belongs, appear to me to go farther than the evidence warrants,
and to lay tte cause of revealed religion under the feet of its enemies."-Scripture Testimiony? to the ilfessiah, vol. i. Notes, p. 39.
2 This view differs altogether from the popular employment of the terms, according
to whi1ch their d stinction is wholly lost sight of. Thus Mr. Morell writes:"All Revelation, as we showed, implies two conditions: it implies, namely, an
intelli.oible olject presented, and a given power of recipiency in the subject: and in
polp'llr language, when speaking of the manifestation of Christianity to the world, we
confine the term Revelation to the former of these conditions, and appropriate the
word I sptiration to designate the latter.  According to this convenient distinction,
therefore, we may say, that revelation, in the Christian sense, indicates that act of
Divine power by which God presents the realities of the spiritual world immediately
to the human mind; while inspiration denotes that especial influence wrought upon
the faculties of the subject, by virtue of which he is able to grasp these realities in
their perfect filness and integrity.  God made a revelation of Himself to the world
in Jesus Christ; but it was the inspiration of the Apostles which enabledthem clearly
to discern it. Here, of course, the objective arrangements and the subjective influences perfectly blend in the production of the whole result; so that, whether we
speak of Revelation or of Inspiration, we are, in fact, merely looking at two different
sides of that same great act of Divine beneficence and mercy, by which the truths of
Christianity have been brought home to the human consciousness. Revelation and
Inspiration then indicate one united process."-Philosophy of Religion, p. 150.
So again, we have no reason to suppose that when Samuel was composing the




LECT. I.]               THE QUESTION  STATED.                          43
thus specifically distinct, a fixed relation subsisting between the
two ideas, as applied to the Bible, must be noticed. It is plain
that, without Inspiration a Divine communication would have
been, in a measure, useless as a guide and a rule; for without
such Spiritual illumination how could we be assured that the
Revelation would be correctly transmitted to others, or even
rightly apprehended by the recipients themselves? Consider a
single case, which exhibits the relation of the two ideas. Certain
Tyrian prophets, mentioned in the twenty-first chapter of the
Acts, "said to Paul, through the Spirit, that he should not go
up to Jerusalem."   To them  had been revealed what the Holy
Ghost was witnessing "in every city"' namely, that bonds and
afflictions awaited S. Paul in Jerusalem.  These prophets, however, enjoyed no Inspiration; they adulterated the Revelation
which they had received with human wishes and human feelings,
and thus directly contradicted the will of God, which the guidance of the Spirit enabled S. Paul himself to understand and
to obey.  "And now, behold! I go bound in the Spirit unto
Jerusalem, not knowing the things that shall befall me there,
save that the Holy Ghost witnesseth in every city that bonds
and afflictions abide me."2
But whatever may be the result of this distinction between
Revelation and Inspiration, as applied to the contents of the
Bible; in whatever manner we can satisfy ourselves that certain
portions convey to us a message direct from heaven, or that
others simply record historical facts which were naturally known
to the writers,-it must over be borne in mind that the true idea
of Inspiration is altogether objective, extending to every portion
of every book; and that it stamps the Word of God, as such,
book which bears his name, he received a renewal of the Revelations which God had
made to him in his youth.
K;ppen (" Die Bibel ein Werk der Gdttlichen Weisheit," 3te Aufl. 2er Band, s.
307) draws attention to a fallacious mode of reasoning often employed:-" In order
to prove that the books of the Bible have been written under Divine Inspiration, appeal is sometimes made to the extraordinary Revelations which are here and there announced in the Bible; but this is plainly a false conclusion, and a weakness not to
be concealed. Although God has revealed Himself to certain persons by means.of a
supernatural influence, the question, notwithstanding all this, still remains,-how has
the Divine influence exerted itself in the composition of the Bible?" For an instance
of an express Revelation being intermingled with inspired teaching, see I Tim. iv. 1.'Acts, xx. 23.
2 bid. See Olshausen, in loc. Also Storr and Flatt, " Biblical Theology," Part
iii. ~ 11.




44                 THE QUESTION STATED.             [LECT. 1
in the most profound sense of the term; thereby distinguishing
it from every thing which is merely human. Inspiration, in
short, as the attestation of God's Spirit, in, through, and for
man, belongs essentially to the organism  of Scripture as the
record of Revelation; and is at length unfolded to us in its full
bearings in that department of it where God reveals Himself as
the Spirit.
In theological language the ordinary operations of the Holy
Ghost are divided into preventing, operating, co-operating; a
division which may help to guide us in our conception of the
manner in which the sacred writers were influenced: although
their Inspiration (I would observe in passing) differs. not merely
in degree, but absolutely in kind, from that ordinary operation
of the Spirit usually called by the same name.' We may distinguish in the first place, the stage in which the Holy Spirit
prevents; that is, prompts to the task of writing: the outward
channel through which such suggestion was usually conveyed
being the various occasions or motives which, in what men call
the ordinary course of things, have led to the composition of
most of the books of the Bible.2  The task having been thus
undertaken, in the second stage the Holy Spirit operates; that
is, selects from the mass of materials which were at the writer's
command,-whatever may have been their character, whether
naturally known, or supernaturally revealed-and so disposes the
course of his labors, that S. Paul could say of certain parts of
the Jewish history that " they were written for our admonition."3
In the third stage, the Holy Spirit co-operates with the natural
faculties of the mind, in the manner already dwelt upon when
considering the first Condition of our problem; the result of this
co-operation being the different books which in their combination
constitute the Bible, and which have been molded into unity by
the power of the Spirit.
And here we shall most fitly advert to the language employed under the influence of Inspiration. In the common
course of things men of ordinary capacity have the power of
clothing their thoughts and feeling in appropriate words; and
from the very nature of the case we cannot but believe that the
words adopted by the sacred writers must, in like manner, be
I See infra, Lecture v.  2 See infra, Lecture iv.' 1 Cor. x. 11.




LECT. I.]             THE QUESTION STATED.                          45
the adequate expression of their inward conceptions, and, therefore, of that internal life produced by the Holy Spirit. But,
furthermore, the same Divine power which breathed this life into
the soul must be regarded as the vital principle of the language
which represents it.  To this utterance of that Spirit, Whose
glance penetrates the universe, Whose intimations extend to
every age, and apply to every circumstance with a fullness and
definiteness which embrace time and eternity-to this utterance
of the Spirit there is essentially appropriated that pregnant style
which in a few syllables conveys such infinitude of meaning,'
which is unexhausted by all commentators, and which possesses
that marvellous " capacity of translation into any dialect which
has a living and human quality."' The opinion, that the subject-matter alone of the Bible proceeded from the Holy Spirit,
while its language was left to the unaided choice' of the various
writers, amounts to that fantastic notion which is the grand fallacy of many theories of Inspiration; namely, that two different
spiritual agencies were in operation, one of which produced the
phraseology in its outward form, while the other created within
the soul the conceptions and thoughts of which such phraseology
was the expression.  The Holy Spirit, on the contrary, as the
productive principle, embraces the entire activity of those whom
He inspires, rendering their language the word of God.4  The
entire substance and form  of Scripture, whether resulting from
Revelation or natural knowledge, are thus blended together into
one harmonious whole: direct communications of religious truth,
as well as the inferences which the sacred writers deduced therefrom; the lessons to be learned, whether from exhibitions of
miraculous power, or from the facts of history; such matters,
together with all the collateral details of Scripture, have been
assimilated into one homogeneous organism by the vital energy
of the Spirit.
J'Aro jtdLg i~e(oc Eveortv o6XoKupov Evpesv voov.-S. Chrysost. Homn. 1. in Joan. tom.
viii. p. 293.
2 F. D. Maurice.:' The Kingdom of Christ," vol. ii. p. 246.
An opinion held by Seb. Castalio, Episcopius, Geo. Calixtus, &c., who assert
" res inspiravit Deus, voces a scriptore sunt." But see the remarks of Beck, " Propadeutische Entwicklung," s. 240.
"For this cause also thank we God without ceasing, because when ye received
the word of God which ye heard of us, ye received it not as the word of nen, but as
it is in truth, the word of God."-l Thoss. ii. 13. Cf iv. 1, 2, 8.




46                        THE  QUESTION  STATED.                      [LECT. I.
Such is the aspect under which I propose, in the present investigation, to consider the question of the inspiration  of Holy
Scripture.   In order to establish this theory, it will be necessary
to prove that the two Conditions of the problem  which it involves
have been  satisfied; one of these Conditions being defined in
that expression of S. Paul which forms the text of this Discourse, " We are laborers together with God;" the other being
presented  by that distinction  pointed out between the ideas of
Itevelation  and Inspiration.   The proof must rest, as in all departments of knowledge, upon a patient examination and induction  of facts;  and  such is the task which lies before us.  Previously to entering upon that proof, however, I would refer, once
for all, to a line of argument which has often been adopted, and
which has been as unduly exalted on the one hand, as it has been
the subject of unmerited ridicule on the other.' I allude to what
Thus it is laid down in Art. Iv. of the Gallican Confession of 1561:"Nous connoisons ces livres estre canoniques et reigle tres certaine de nostre Foy
non tant par le commun accord et consentement de l'Eglise, que par le tesmoignage
et interieure persuasion du S. Esprit, qui les nous fait discerner d'avec les autres livres
Ecclesiastiques."
So also in the " Westminster Confession," c. i. ~ 4, 5:
"The authority of the Holy Scripture, for which it ought to be believed and
obeyed, dependeth not upon the testimony of any man or Church, but wholly upon
God (who is Truth itself), the author thereof; and therefore it is to be received because it is the Word of God. *  *  *  Our full persuasion and assurance of the infallible truth and divine authority thereof is from the inward work of the Holy Spirit
bearing witness by and with the word in our hearts."
On the other hand, J. D. Michaelis writes as follows:"An inward sensation of the effects of the Holy Ghost, and the consciousness of
the utility of these writings in improving the heart and purifying our morals, are criterions as uncertain as the foregoing. With respect to that inward sensation, I must
confess that I have never experienced it in the whole course of my life; nor are those
persons who have felt it either deserving of envy or nearer the truth, since the Muhammedan feels it as well as the Christian."-Jarsh's lichaelis, vol. i. part i. p. 77.
Ilofmann justly observes:-" Ob ein Wort der Wahrheit, zu welchem sich der Geist
bekennt, kanonisch sey oder nicht, Wort der heiligen Schrift oder Wort der UeberlifeCrunrg, dariiber sagt jenes Zeugniss des Geistes nichts, und nicht bios einem J. D.
Miehaelis nichts, sondern auch einem Luther beim Briefe Jacobi und der Apokalypsis."
-Wei.qsagilng und Erfuillung, i. s. 44. Iofinann's allusion to Luther su,!gests at once
the great danger of this exclusive reliance on "the witness of the Spirit" as the foundation of our belief in the Bible.  " Luther," observes Olshausen, in his treatise on
the " Genuineness of the Writings of the New Testament," "shows himself a deterninedt opponent of John's Revelation. He says, in his Preface to it:' There are
various and abundant reasons why I regard this book a, neither apostolical nor prophetic. *  *  *  But let every man think of it as his spirit prompts him. My
spirit cannot adapt itself to the production, and this is reason enough for me why I
should  not esteem it very highly.' "-Clarke's For. Theol. Lib. p. cv. For a more
derailed 1account of Luther's opinion on this subject, see Appendix C. The distinction which is to be made between erroneous views respecting the Canon of Scripture
and erroneous views respecting Inspiration is one which deserves particular attention.
See inf-a, Lecture ii. p. 71, note, the remarks as to Theodore of Mopsuestia.




LECT. I.]              THE QUESTION STATED.                            47
is usually termed " the witness of the Spirit," or the testimony
which  the Holy Ghost Himself conveys to each reader of the
Scriptures.  The fundamental defect of this mode of upholding
Inspiration appears to consist, not in the conception itself, but
in the place assigned to it in the chain of Christian evidencns,
when employed to prove, and not to confirm,-when addressed to
the judgment of the understanding, not to the affections of the
heart.  If offered as the  sole, or even  leading  proof, we can
scarcely feel surprise  at its rejection by the sceptic or the unbeliever.  To the intellect of such persons, the alleging such a
fact, as proof, must be absolutely unintelligible.  As well mIight
any of us discourse with the blind upon the varieties of c llu s;
or a being of some higher order offer to our minds some new idea
for the reception of which the proper sense was wanting.  The
Bible must be recognised as Divine, before such a witness can be
called in confirmation of previous evidence. But to the Christian,
who, with willing mind  and humble  acquiescence, accepts the
Scriptures as the word of God, this testimony of the Holy Spirit
is a precious treasure. The proof is one which is even sealed
with the promise of Christ. It results from no chain of elaborate
argumentation; it rests upon that living and intuitive syllogism
of the heart, "If any man is willing  to do His will, he shall
know of the doctrine, whether it be of God."' The Spirit which
breathes the principle of Christian  life into  the being of man
produces, as we read the words of the sacred writers, this recognition of His own former agency; and unconsciously, like the
statue of ancient story, the soul makes symphony when the ray
touches it from above.'
And here, if one might venture to be eclectic as to any part
of Holy Scripture, and to  point out any portion  of it which
most fitly illustrates this idea, we may, perhaps, safely refer to
that discourse of the Lord, beginning at the fourteenltl and ending with  the seventeenth  chapter of S. John's Gospel: that'Ed1 rTi GEAn TO ON. ai'T TOte'7v. S. John, vii. 17. Cf. Nitzscl, "Sst em der
Christi. Lehre," ler Th.  3 32, who justly observes that in this point of view Christianity can not be a matter of demonstration.
" Why has the Holy Scripture its peculiar adaptation to man's nature, save because it is His Word, after whose image man was originally fashioned, andl who is
Himself the'true light which lighteth every man?' Therefore, when we read it. we
recognise the higher rule of our original composition." —Wilberforce, On the I,2carnaionr, 2d ed. p. 481.




48                 THE QUESTION STATED.             [LECT. L
Holy of Holies, as it has been aptly termed, of Christ's history;
that wonderful passage from every line of which shines forth the
Divinity of Him who spake, though each syllable be tinged with
the sadness of a soul which even now gazed full upon the agony
in the Garden, and bore, in prospect, the crown of thorns-syllables, too, which were uttered from the very shadow of the
tomb! Who is there that peruses those solemn words, whose
heart does not burn within him as each expression of human affection-that sympathy with His earthly brethren which every
tone conveys-becomes the point of contact through which those
Revelations of the Etqrnal Word reach the spirit of man? Who
is there that does not recognise the impress of the Divine nature
in every sentence of that discourse, which, while it announces to
the Disciples the sorrows of earth, at the same time pledges to
them  the aid and the joys of heaven: that discourse, so commanding, while shaded with the gloom of human anguish; so
sublime in its tenderness; so majestic in its repose? From this
source still streams forth a light which illumines the Christian's
path, and cheers him on his pilgrimage; and hence, too, if his
trust be shaken, can he draw conviction unclouded and serene.
When difficulties embarrass the reason, and perplexities entangle
the intellect,-and who is that man over whose understanding
doubt has not at times cast its shadow, or whose faith the stern
realities of life have not put to the trial?-the fainting soul will
find its refuge in the words which introduce this series of promise
and encouragement; words which still whisper to our ear the
same assurance which once supported the Apostle sinking in the
wind-tossed sea, "Let not your heart be troubled, ye believe in
God, believe also in Me."




LECTURE  II.
THE IMMEMORIAL DOCTRINE OF THE
CHURCH OF GOD.




"Scripture teacheth us that saving truth which God hath discovered unto the world
by Revelation, and it presumeth us taught otherwise that itself is Divine and Sacred."
HOOKER, Eccl. Pol. b. iii. c. 8.'Epllvevf y7p EoTtV O 6  poqTj~r, EvboeiV VThrr7XOVVTOf T7d XTcEra Trob OEv.
PHILO, De Prcem. et Pcen.
Ei 6' diKptfi(c3  Xp   3 7tu  2y/ElV Tv Tr pOf rtO  Ke2aOov, oi6yZevov rT' aVTrd  ti2fC'IovdaiotL
7rep rTdv  yKertioEVwv 6o2ectv'   7jCaOUEV 6oTr, rT(i /iv (t3)xia O6ei  yeypdOcatL nIlveuat,
OuoXoyoVi7ev dOT6repot.
ORIGENES, Cont. Gels. v. 60.
"Quid est autem Scriptura Sacra nisi quaedam Epistola omnipotentis Dei ad creaturam suam?  *  *  *  Imperator cceli, Dominus hominum et angelorum, pro vita tua
tibi Suas Epistolas transmisit: et tamen, gloriose fill, easdem Epistolas ardenter legere
negligis.  Stude ergo, qumeso, et quotidie Creatoris tui verba meditare.  Disce cor Dei
in verbis Dei, ut ardentius ad eterna suspires, ut mens vestra ad ccelestia gaudia majoribus desideriis accendatur."
S. GREGOR. M. Ep. xxxi. Ad Theodorum Medicunm.




LECTURE II.
THE IMMEMORIAL DOCTRINE OF THE CHURCH
OF GOD.
WHAT ADVANTAGE THEN HATH THE JEW? OR WHAT PROFIT IS THERE OF CIRCUMCISION? MUCH EVERY WAY: CHIEFLY, BECAUSE THAT UNTO THEM WERE COMMITTED THE ORACLES OF GOD.-Rom. iii. 1, 2.
WHEN intimating in this passage the leading prerogatives of
the Jewish people, the Apostle employs a phrase,' correctly rendered in our version by the word "chiefly," but which, if we
look merely to the form of the expression, points to other advantages which he had intended to name. His pausing, however,
without pursuing the idea any further, proves how deeply S.
Paul felt that all was in reality contained in that one privilege
which he had particularized. The entire history of the ancient
Church of God tells how this treasure was revered; and that it
had been guarded with the most scrupulous fidelity is evident,
as well from the Apostle's allusion in this place, as from the
whole tone and tenor of the New Testament.
To the Christian Church, in like manner, were confided, not
only the new documents which were added to the Canon;-the
Scriptures of the Old Testament also were transferred to its
care. That it was the privilege of the Christian Church, as it
had been of the Jewish, to be the " witness and keeper of Holy
Writ,"2 and that to the chief officer in each of its divisions was
intrusted the fulfilment of this commission, is proved by the existence of a rite which has been retained in every branch of the
Church Catholic since the second century. As our own Ordinal
presents it, the words of Episcopal Consecration are immediately followed by the delivery of the Bible into the hand of the
1 IP(7rov iEv. Cf. Olshausen's remarks on this text.
Art. xx. Eccles. Anglic. " De Ecclesise Auctoritate."




52                    THE IMMEMORIAL DOCTRINE                     [LECT. II.
newly-made Bishop; the Church  symbolizing  thereby two aspects of the duty which he must discharge: —the maintenance
of the doctrine, and the preservation of the record.,
When we consider, then, the  fact, that to  the Jewish and
Christian Churches, respectively, and in their capacity of divinely
instituted Societies, "the oracles of God" have been committed,
no inquiry respecting the subject of Inspiration can possess greater
importance, than that which will exhibit the degree and kind of
estimation in which the writings which contain those " oracles,"
have been always held, as well as the spirit in which the trust
thus reposed has been discharged.  This inquiry is to  be distinguished from the examination of that testimony which proves
the genuineness and authenticity of the different parts of the
Bible;-although  the  two  questions  are  often  confounded.
Greater clearness will also  be attained, if it be kept apart from
what are usually termed Christian evidences; for these relate to
the belief in the contents of the Scriptures, rather than to the
nature of the agency employed in their composition. Its bearing, too, will be better understood when we reflect upon the
manner in which opinions, such as we are about to consider, have
influenced the actions of those who held them; as also when we
picture to ourselves the impression which would have been produced upon our minds had the expression of those sentiments been
less decided, orless peculiar. I propose in the present Discourse
to give the leading outlines of the doctrine respecting the inspiration of the Bible held by the Jews who lived, before the birth
of Christ, or who were His contemporaries, as well as by the
1 Immediately after the Imposition of Hands by the "Archbishops and Bishops
present *  *  *  upon the head of the.elected Bishop," the Rubric of our Ordinal
further directs-" Then the Archbishop shall deliver him the Bible, saying:'Give
heed unto reading, exhortation, and doctrine. Think upon the things contained in
this Book,' " &c., &c.
The antiquity of this rite is proved by the words of the Apostolic Constitutions,
lib. viii. cap. 4, nepj XEltpoovVLv. The direction there given is as follows: cUTwTrc
yevojEv7fy, eif Tr)v TrpUTrov E7'tLKO7()v uaia lKa dvaclv rEpotL, nrqaoiov 7TOV OvLtacrlpiov
tarSf, r3v XotCv rottrlc67rv Kai crpec a vrpc v atTE rV ff 7rpgTroa~VXOelV, rT3V (E dtaKO6vV
Tid Oda e'ayy)Qta eTri rayy C TOV XEtporovoviZevov Kekaofj duveTrrvyjtva KacreXovrtv, AeyErTO 7rpof Oe6v0'0 "2v, 6da7ora, KVpte, Kc.. 2.-Cotelerius, t. i. p. 395.
Gieseler, to whom I am indebted for this remark and reference, observes: " Dieser
Ritus scheint die Collation des Zeugnisses symbolisch dargestellt zu haben, und entstand wahrscheinlich, nachdem die schriftlichen Evangelien als heilige Schriften an
die Stelle der Tradition gesetzt waren."-Die Entstehung der schriftl. Evangelien, s. 171.
I may add, that Gieseler employs this and kindred facts in order to develop his ingenious argument in support of the genuineness of the Ignatian Epistles.




LECT. II.]              OF THE  CHURCH  OF  GOD.                            53
Christian Church from the earliest period.' The importance of
such external evidence, before adducing that supplied by the
nature and contents of the Scriptures themselves, is too obvious
to permit us to pass it over without due consideration, or, as is
too frequently the case, to assign it a subordinate place in our
chain of proofs.
It has been already pointed out that the Bible must be regarded as no fortuitous compilation of scattered writings; that
the several books which make up the Old and New Testaments
conspire to form one organized whole; and that each member
of the inspired volume performs its own part in completing the
record of Revelation.2 In short, the completion of this assemblage of writings may be compared to that of a pre-arranged
structure, to which many laborers contribute their toil, of whom
l On this evidence Doddridge observes: "I greatly revere the testimony of the
primitive Christian writers, not only to the real existence of the sacred books in those
early ages, but also to their divine original: their persuasion of which most evidently
appears from the veneration with which they speak of them, even while miraculous
gifts remained in the Church; and consequently, an exact attendance to a written
rule might seem less absolutely necessary, and the authority of inferior teachers
might approach nearer to that of the Apostles."-A Dissertation on the Inspiration of
the New Testament: Works, vol. v. p. 531. That miraculous gifts were continued for
at least half a century after the death of the Evangelist'John, we have the express
testimony of S. Justin Martyr.  Hap' ipev ieorv I(eLv Kat fOlyeiar Ka cupaeevac, xaptaaara (iob TOV IIveVi/arog TOV Oeov iov rag.-Dial. c. Tryph., c. 88, p. 185. Cf. ibid. c.
82. Alluding to the uncertainty which exists as to the authors of some portions of
the Bible, whether didactic or historical-e. g. the Books of Kings, the Book of Job,
&c.,-Sack observes, "that the recognition of any Book by the Church (of either Old
or New Covenant) is a fact, at least, as important as its having been written by such
or such a person. For the question does not so much relate to the author in his individual capacity, but to the circumstance that, as a matter of fact, he was acknowledged by the Church as a person divinely qualified or called to write of divine things
for the Church."-Apologetik, s. 434.
2 It could only have arisen from a complete ignoring of this idea, that Mr. Coleridge has given utterance to the following sentiment, with which he closes a denunciation of "indiscriminate Bibliolatry:" "And. lastly, add to all these [evils] the
strange-in all other writings unexampled-practice of bringing together into logical
dependency detached sentences from books composed at the distance of centuries, nay,
sometimes a millennium, from each other, under different dispensations, and for different objects. Accommodations of elder Scriptural phrases-that favorite ornament
and garnish of Jewish eloquence-incidental allusions to popular notions, traditions,
apologues-(for example, the dispute between the Devil and the Archangel Michael
about the body of Moses, Jude, 9),-fancies and anachronisms imported fiom the synagogue of Alexandria into Palestine by, or together with, the Septuagint Version, and
applied as mere argumenta ad homines-(for example, the delivery of the Law by
the disposition of the Angels, Acts, vii. 53; Gal. iii. 19; Heb. ii. 2)-these, detached
from their context, and, contrary to the intention of the sacred writer, first raised into
independent theses, and then brought together to produce or sanction some new credendum for which neither separately could have furnished a pretence!"-Confess. of
an Inquiring Spirit, letter iv. p. 50. As to Mr. Coleridge's assertion that the writers
of the New Testament have cited the Old merely by way of " accommodation," "that
favorite garnish of Jewish eloquence."-see infra, p. 71, &c.




54              THE IMMEMORIAL DOCTRINE             [LECT. II
none, perhaps, have any adequate notion of the Architect's design-some being occupied upon that portion of the building
committed to their own workmanship; others overseeing sections of the plan, and perfecting its various parts as the work
proceeds-the Master-builder alone overlooking the whole, distributing his orders to one immediately, to another mediately,
and rejecting every addition inconsistent with his original conception. And so the structure grows to completion according
to the original idea, but, in no part, without the Master-builder's
care.1
It must be at once conceded that this theory, as to the design
and compilation of the several elements of the Bible, cannot be
proved by direct, historical evidence. The very nature of the
case precludes such proof. But if it can be shown that such a
theory supplies a full and satisfactory explanation of the facts to
be accounted for, and that, unless we assume its truth, a series
of remarkable phenomena in the history of human conduct must
remain an inexplicable enigma, then, I submit, that evidence, as
satisfactory as men are capable of attaining, has been adduced
in proof of the position here laid down; and further, that if it
be rejected as in itself insufficient, the rejection of such evidence
cannot be restricted to the province of religion.
The facts to be explained are briefly as follows:-Firstly, from
a multitude of writings extant among the ancient Jews and
Christians, a selection of certain books was made, to the exclusion
of others. Secondly, the several books thus selected were received as infallible and divine; those which were excluded being
regarded as fallible and human. Thirdly, in defence, not merely
of the doctrines and religious system contained in these books,
but of the very books themselves, both Jews and Christians have
submitted to persecution and to death.
To the first class of facts I can only advert in the most cursory
manner. The selection of the writings acknowledged as sacred
by the Jews cannot have been owing to their antiquity merely,
for we learn from the fourteenth verse of the twenty-first chapter
of the Book of Numbers, that even in the days of Moses there
was extant a record entitled " the Book of the Wars of the Lord."
Nor, in order to confer Divine authority upon any book, was the' Cf KRppen, " Die Bibel ein Werk der gottlichen Weisheit," Band. ii. s. 59.




LECT. II.]             OF THE  CHURCH  OF GOD.                              55
fact sufficient that it had been written by a prophet known to
have received revelations from heaven; for, if so, why do we not
find in the Canon " the acts of Uzziah first and last" written by
"Isaiah the Prophet, the son of Amoz?"'  Nor, again, did the
circumstance of a document having been composed in the Hebrew
language secure its recognition as Divine; for the Jews never admitted among their sacred writings the book  of Ecclesiasticus,
which was undoubtedly drawn up in Hebrew, and whose author,
moreover, assumes the prophetic tone, and lays no  small claim
to authority.2 Add to all this, the astonishing fidelity and affection with which the Jews preserved the writings which they did
receive into their Canon,-writings, too, which were not the memorial of their glory, but of their shame; and in which their
Lawgiver, from the very first, calls heaven and earth to witness
against them.'
1 2 Chron. xxvi. 22. For some account of this class of writings, see Appendix D.
With respect to such books, Prof. Moses Stuart observes, that if any one should hesitate to acknowledge that the works of this class written by Nathan, Gad, Isaiah, and
others, were counted of Divine authority by the Hebrews, " on the ground that prophets might write other books than those which were inspired, still the manner of appeal
to the works in question which are now lost, both in Kings and Chronicles, shows beyond all reasonable doubt that they were regarded as authoritative and sacred."The Old Testamen't Canon, p. 163. That these "lost" writings were regarded as veracious annals is no doubt evident; but the mere fact of their not having been even
preserved by the Jews "shows beyond all reasonable doubt" that they were not "regarded as authoritative and sacred." Cf infra, p. 68, the remarks of Josephus.
The author of this book, to whose grandson we are fhdebted for the present
Greek version, is said to have lived either 300 or 200 years before Christ. Cf. Hfivernick's " Einleitung," ler Th. ler Abth., s. 29. That it was composed in Hebrew
or Aramaic is clear from the Prologue, where the translator requests of his readers
"to pardon us wherein we may seem to come short of some words which we have labored to interpret. For the same things uttered in Hebrew, and translated into another tongue, have not the same force in them."
The author, however, as I have observed, claims for himself full canonical authority. He writes: "I will yet make doctrine to shine as the morning, and will send
forth her light afar off. I will yet pour out doctrine as prophecy, and leave it to all
ages for ever. Behold that I have not labored for myself only, but for all them that
seek wisdom."-clh. xxiv. 32-34. He assumes the propb jtic tone: " Hear me, 0 ye
great men of the people, and hearken with your ears,' ye rulers of the congregation."ch. xxxiii. 18. And he closes with the words:-" Blessed is he that shall be exe:cised in these things: and he that layeth them up in his heart shall become wise.
For if he do them he shall be strong to all things: for the light of the Lord leadeth
him."-ch. 1. 28, 29.
3 Pascal remarks: "Ils portent avec amour et fidelite le livre o l Moisa d-clara qu'
ils ont et6 ingrats envers Dieu toute leur vie, et qu' il sait qu' ils le seront encore plus
apres sa mort; mais qu' il appelle le ciel et la terre a t6moin contre eux."-tom. ii. p.
188, ed. Faugere. To the same effect Mr. Davison remarks: "The words of the prophets are said to have beeen' graven on a rock, and written with iron.' Had they not
been so written and engraved, by an irresistible evidence of their inspiration, how
could they have withstood the odium and adverse prejudice which they provoked?
How could they have survived with the unqualified and public acknowledgment of
their inspiration from the Jewish people, who hereby are witnesses in their own




56                    THE IMMEMORIAL DOCTRINE                       [LECT. II.
The case of the New Testament is no less peculiar. It is plain
that the primitive Christians did not consider Apostles as alone
qualified to compose inspired documents; for, were such their
belief, how can we acccount for the reception of the Gospels of
S. Mark and S. Luke?   Nor is the admission  of these Gospels
to be explained by saying, that no other memorials of the life of
Christ existed than the four Evangelical narratives, and that the
early Christians gladly collected every fragment of their Master's
history:-for not only, as the best criticism explains, does the introduction of S. Luke's Gospel refer to " many who had taken in
hand' to set forth" a narrative of the events of that period, but
the earliest of the Fathers also (e. g. S. Irenaeus, A. D. 167), describe the Apocryphal Gospels as being  "countless in number."'
shame; and survive, too, with that admitted character, when every thing else of any
high antiquity has been permitted to perish, or remains only as a comment confessing
the inspiration of these prophetic writings? And the stress of the argument lies in
this, that these writings were not merely preserved, but adopted into the public monuments of their Church and nation; strange archives of libel to be so exalted, if their
authority could have been resisted. But the Jews slew their prophets, and then built
their sepulchres and confessed their mission. There is but one reason why they did
so, a constrained and extorted conviction."-Discourses on Prophecy, p. 51.' Origen considers that this term conveys a latent reproof of those who undertook
to write without the Divine commission. As the gift of "discerning of spirits," conferred upon the Jewish Church, enabled it to select the true Prophets, and to reject
the false; so, he argues, in like manner did the Church of God choose four Gospels
only, from the many writings which claimed that name. He says:
T6Xa oiv r'TO,'  eX e i p 7]  a v, enr2Oviav Ixet Kar7yopiav rc3v 7por0erTT  Kae XOpte
XapiaTarog 0O6vro v iTVri TVri dr'aypao'v rTV eVayyeiwv *    * *  T& d6 rerrapa 6nva
7rpoepiveL n Qeovi eKKrLaya. — From. 1. in Lucam. tom. iii. p. 932. S. Ambrose, in his
"Exposit Evang. sec. Lucam," adopts this passage, and gives an almost literal translation of it. Thus he renders nearly word for word the sentence omitted in the extract just given:
"Non conatus est Mattheus, non conatus est Marcus, non conatus est Johannes,
non conatus est Lucas: sed Divino Spiritu ubertatem dictorum rerumque omnium
ministrante, sine ullo molimine ccepta complerunt."-Lib. i. tom. I. p. 1265.
2'AuivdOrov TrLOor d7TOKepiov    Katl v60ov ypa(c.v.-Cont. Har., lib. I. xx. p. 91.
So also S. Jerome, "Illud juxta JEgyptios, et Thomam, et Matthiam, et Bartholomeeum, duodecim quoque Apostolorum, et Basilidis atque Apellis, ac reliquorum, quos
enumerare longissimum est."-Prooem in. Comm. super Matt. tom. vii. p. 3. Cf. Gieseler, "Die Entst. der schriftl. Evang." s 8.
Incessant vigilance was required to guard the Canon of Scripture against such
spurious additions. Thus Eusebius records that one Themison, a Montanist, in the second century, had "dared to imitate the Apostle (ero;uXyae futuovuevo r6v'AwOOrTO;oV)
by composing a catholic epistle to instruct those who had a sounder faith than himself."-Eccl. Hist. v. xviii. p. 234.
Such attempts were severely punished. S. Jerome writes: "Igitur r'ep6LdovPauli et Theclae, et totam baptizati Leonis fabulam, inter Apocryphas Scripturas computamus.  Quale enim est, ut individuus comes Apostoli, inter caeteras ejus res hoc
solum ignoraverit?  Sed et Tertullianus, vicinus eorumn temporum, refert Presbyterum quemdam in Asia ar'ovdar27v Apostoli Pauli, convictum apud Joannem, quod
esset auctor libri, et confessum se hoc Pauli amore fecisse, loco excidisse."-De Tiris
Illust., t. II. c. vii. p. 827. The statement of Tertullian is as follows: " Quod si qua
Paulo perperam adscripta sunt, ad licentiam mulierum docendi tinguendique defend



LECT. II.]             OF THE CHURCH  OF GOD.                              57
Nor, again, can we account for the admission into the New Testament of the writings of S. Mark and S. Luke, by alleging that,
as companions and  friends of Apostles, these Evangelists had
opportunities of gaining such accurate information respecting the
doctrines of the Christian faith as was not within the reach of
others:-for, if this be so, why did  the Church  never recognise
as canonical the Epistle of S. Clement of Rome-" my fellowlaborer," writes S. Paul, "whose name is in the  book of life;"
or, what is still more remarkable, when we recollect the relation
of S. Barnabas to S. Paul, how comes it to pass that the Epistle
of S. Barnabas was rejected from the New Testament, while the
Gospel of S. Mark, "his sister's son," was received?2   It may
unt; sciant in Asia presbyterum, qui ear Scripturam construxit, quasi titulo Pauli
de suo cumulans, convictum atque confessum id so amore Pauli fecisse, loco decessisse." —ZDe Baptismo, c. xvii. p. 263.
The caution thus exercised by the Church was in obedience to express Apostolic
commands. Thus S. Paul warns the Thessalonians not to be troubled "either by
spirit, or by word, or by letter as from us."-2 Thess. ii. 2. So, again, S. John writes:
" Beloved, believe not every spirit, but try the spirits whether they are of God."-l
S. John, iv. 1. When any book was offered to the Church's acceptance as being inspired, full proof of the fact, were its claims well founded, could and would be forthcoming in due time. On the other hand, if any uninspired book were once received
as Scripture, it was probable that false doctrine would come in with it; and it was
certain that the confidence of the people in the authority of the books which really
were inspired would be rudely shaken. See Wordsworth " On the Canon," p. 260.'Phil. iv. 3.
2 Tholuck's account of the principle which guided the selection of the Books of the
New Testament is not very clear. Having observed that S. Mark and S. Luke were
not Apostles, and that it is at least a matter of doubt whether S. James and S. Jude
(the authors of our Epistles) were so,-this writer goes on to say that the primitive
Church was, nevertheless, led " by an unconscious but sure historico-religious tact"
to receive their writings into the Canon of the New Testament. " This tact," continues Tholuck, " is vouched for especially by this, that none of the many impure, apocryphal Gospels-nay, not even the HloqLtv of Hermas, so highly prized by individuals, but yet impure in spirit,-nor the Epistle of Barnabas, found admission into the
Canon. On the other hand, the Epistle of Clemens, which was used in a wider circle,
approaches most nearly the spirit of the Pauline Epistles; and can have been judged
undeserving of reception into the New Testament Canon only on account of its want
of originality."-Comm. zum. Br. an die Hebr., Einleit, kap. vi. s. 84.
By the phrase "want of originality," Tholuck, I presume, means to repeat what
he had just said of the approach of S. Clement "to the spirit of the Pauline Epistles."
That the primitive Church did not consider such a fact any reason for refusing to receive a document as portion of Scripture, is demonstrated by the reception into the
New Testament Canon of both the second Epistle of S. Peter, and the Epistle of S.
Jude. Whichever of these two Epistles is of earlier date, the most careless reader
cannot have failed to ndtice that one of them is not " original," and that its author has
reiterated the inspired language of the other.
It has been doubted whether the " Shepherd of Hermas" was written by the individual named by S. Paul; " Salute Asyncritus. Phlegon, Hermas, &c."-Rom. xvi. 14.
Origen, when commenting on these words (t. iv. p. 683) states his opinion that Hermas was the author, and expresses the highest respect for the work itself. Elsewhere
(Hom. 35. in Luc. xii. 58, t. iii. p. 973) he implies that the authorship is doubtful.
This doubt is confirmed by a passage in the celebrated Fragment preserved by Muratori, the date of which Credner (" Zur Geschichte des Kanons," s.. 84.) places about




58                    THE IMMEMORIAL DOCTRINE                        [LECT. II.
be said, it is true, that grave doubts exist as to whether the treatise which we  now  possess under the  name  of S. Barnabas was
really written  by  the companion  of S. Paul-although, if any
weight be attached to external evidence, such doubts seem unintelligible; but, admitting this, there can be no question that,
so early as the days of Clement of Alexandria (A. D. 192) a work
was well known in  the  Church which  Clement constantly refers
to as proceeding from  S. Barnabas, whom  he styles " the Apostle,"
" an Apostolic man," " one of the Seventy Disciples, and fellowlabourer of S. Paul."2
The several details connected with the general question here
considered belong, however, to another department of theology:
the year 170. The writer of this Fragment, of which we possess only a Latin translation, having given a catalogue of the Books of the New Testament, proceeds to
mention some other Christian compositions. I quote the following extract according
to Dr. Routh's emendation of the very corrupt text: " Pastorem vero nuperrime temporibus nostris in urbe Roma Ilermas conscripsit, sedente in cathedra urbis Roma
ecclesiae Pio episcopo fratre ejus [i.e. A. D. 142-157]. Et ideo legi eum quidem oportet, sed publicari vero [ald  rfy/io'teveoOaL di] in ecclesia populo. neque inter Prophetas completos numero, [cf. S. Matt. xi. 13; S. Luke, xvi. 16.] neque inter Apostolos, in finem temporum potest."-Reliq. Sacrce, t. i. p. 396.
On this question see Appendix E.
2 The fact of Clement recognising this Epistle in such terms, has been met by the
assertion that his acceptance of it arose from the correspondence of his own views
with its general tone of doctrine. This allegation has been fully set aside by Gieseler: " The ancient testimony of Clement, that Barnabas was the author, cannot be
ascribed to the partisan prejudice of an Alexandrian for the production of a kindred
spirit: for neither could the Millenarian views (der Chiliasmus) of the Epistle (c. 15)
please the Alexandrians; nor do all its interpretations suit Clement, who contradicts
one of them (Peedag. ii. p. 221), and who prefers another interpretation of Ps. i. 1, to
that given in our Epistle (Strom. ii. p. 464)."-Kirchengeschichte, ler Band. s. 122.
In the former of the two latter passages referred to by the learned historian, Clement
observes: "Consider how Moses forbids to eat a hare or a hyena;" adding a reason
which had been assigned for this prohibition, and which he quotes nearly verbatim
from the Epistle of S. Barnabas, c. x. This quotation is introduced with the formula
"they say" (eaat), and Clement goes on to refuse his assent to the allegorical interpretation annexed to it: o6 fievroL rTOde R6sy7aeL r vv cVf3ouolKc  elpuE'(iv avyKariOe/ual.-Paedag. ii. p. 221; on which Potter observes: "Porro hoc loco Clemens Barnabme contradicit, sed tanti viri reverentia ductus, nomen ejus reticet."  In the last
passage alluded to by Gieseler, Clement quotes this same chapter of the Epistle, where
S. Barnabas refers Psalm i. 1, to the prohibition of Moses respecting meats: I] ept Trv
ppu(o/iTdv Iyd ovv M~oa~f rpia 66oyara ev TrvevauaTL e'td2yaev  *  *  *'a/z/3aveL 6E
TpiWv doy/laTlV yvcYatv Aafi6. To these words Clement refers with the single remark: T(rvra /uv 6 Bapvdu3ag. He then quotes another "wise man," who applies
the three classes of " blessedness" in the Psalm in a different manner,-viz., to those
who kept themselves apart from the Gentiles, the Jews, and the Heretics. But, adds
Clement. "another explains the verse with still greater propriety," (erep~ c ev KaVp)trTEpov Aeeyev)-viz., understanding the words, in their literal sense, as conveying a moral
lesson.
I have dwelt upon this point as it proves that the primitive Christians drew a
broad line of distinction between inspired and non-inspired writings, even though the
latter were composed by "Apostolic Men"-men, too, who possessed the same natural
sources of information as the Apostles. For Clement's views on Inspiration, see Ap-,pendix G




LECT. II.]             OF THE CHURCH  OF GOD.                             59
I would merely add, and this even the most reluctant are forced
to admit, that the reception of the different parts of the New
Testament as Scripture took  place without external concert, —
from an inward impulse, as it were,-at the same time and in
the most different places; and that, with scarcely an exception,
each writing which it contains was all at once, and without a
word of doubt, placed on a level with the Old Testament, which
had hitherto been regarded as exclusively divine.' In short, the
authority  conceded to  this new  component of the  Scriptures,
seems to have grown up without any one being able to place his
The importance of this circumstance, as bearing upon the inspiration of the New
Testament, cannot be too highly estimated. Hug observes: " it was the distinguished
and peculiar prerogative accorded to these writings, and for a long time the only mark
of distinction which could be given them, that they were publicly read in the Christian
assemblies. As in the religious meetings of the Jews, this honor was usually conferred
only upon the Law and the Prophets, so among the Christians this eminent prerogative was granted only to the writings of the Apostles, together with the Old Testa
ment which they retained from the Jews. Thus Peter reckons Paul's Epistles, while
the author was still alive, among the ypapuf, Holy Scriptures (2 Pet. iii 15, 16)."Einleitung, kap. iii., 16. This fact is allowed even by De Wette: "Die heiligen
Schriften des N. T. wurden in Einen Rang gestellt mit denen des A. T., welche ebenfells vorgelesen wurden."-Einleitung, 6ste Ausg. ler Th. ~ 25. s. 37. Cf. the extract from the Fragment of Muratori, already quoted, p. 57, note. See also Appendix D.
It will be observed that I have omitted to urge a fact on which modern writers
on the New Testament seem to be unanimous, viz., that one Epistle at least of S. Paul
has been lost. The absence, however, of all external evidence on this subject is, I
cannot help thinking, sufficient to cause considerable doubt as to the fact. The internal evidence is contained in the words: " I wrote unto you in an Epistle (Ev ri
ErLfrTo;'A) not to company with fornicators." —1 Cor. v. 9. It may be well to remark
that to the History of Moses of Chorene, published by W. and G. Whiston, in the year
1736, there is added (p. 371) an Appendix, "Quse continet Epistolas duas, primam
Corinthiorum ad Paulur  Apostolum, alteram Pauli Apostoli ad Corinthios, nunc primum ex codice MS. Armeniaco integre pleneque editas, et Graece Latineque versas.'
The editor observes (p. 383, note.) that the Armenian Church did not receive the
Scriptures before the end of Cent. IV.; and that these Epistles neither occur in their
version of the Bible, nor are mentioned by any ancient Armenian writer. Cf. Thiersch,
" Versuch zur Herstell. des hist. Standp." s. 104. But the list of " lost Epistles" does
not stop here. Olshausen observes: "According to Bleek's conjecture, before the
sending of our second Epistle [to the Corinthians], the Apostle wrote from Macedonia
another Epistle to the Corinthians, couched in terms of strong reproof, which has not
been preserved (so that Paul wrote to them in all four Epistles, of which two have
been lost and two preserved), and I am much inclined to support this conjecture.
For, unquestionably, the apprehension experienced by Paul in regard to the impression
produced upon the Corinthians by his Epistle, and which the arrival of Titus first
allayed (2 Cor. vii. 2-10.)-is not justified by the nature of the first Epistle." —Die
Br. an die Corinthier, Einleit. s. 495. Olshausen further considers that "the Epistle
from Laodicea" (Col. iv. 16.) was an Epistle from S. Paul to that Church, which is
now " lost," and not the Epistle to the Ephesians. Prof. Moses Stuart thinks that 3
S. John, 9: "I wrote unto the Church, but Diotrephes  *  *  *  receiveth us not,"
also points to a "lost Epistle."- On the Old Testament Canon, p. 162.
Were these hypotheses correct, the conclusions stated above would be still more
strongly confirmed.




60                 THE IMMEMORIAL DOCTRINE                [LECT. II.
finger upon the place or moment when adhesion to it was first
yielded.
It may be urged, in explanation of such facts, that the very
nature of the books themselves occasioned the preference given to
them.  It may be said that the difference, in point of style, and
manner, and contents, as well of the books of the Old Testament
from the Apocrypha, as of the New Testament from the writings
of the Apostolical Fathers, is such as admits of no comparison;
that the superiority of the books of Scripture is uncontested and
incontestable; and that, as Hooker observes of the sacred writers,
"a greater difference there seemeth not to be between the manner of their knowledge, than there is between the manner of
their speech and others."' And, finally,-it may be further argued,-without any need of supposing special Divine guidance,
the simple facts of the case account for the formation of the
Canon, and enabled the early Christians, not only to judge certain writings to be unworthy of the name of Scripture, but also
to select others as deserving such acknowledgment. Be it so.
Such an explanation but serves to exalt the critical accuracy,
the profound insight, the refined taste, of those who passed that
judgment, and made that selection. The admission which such
an explanation involves I claim wholly on the side of the present
argument, and at once transfer it to the cause of Inspiration.
That continued exercise of solid judgment which selected such
writings, and such writings only; that critical sagacity which the
most ingenious and subtle investigations of modern times have
never been able to prove at fault; that unceasing caution and
anxious vigilance, which never admitted into the Canon a single
book for the rejection of which any valid reasons have ever been
shown: such qualities, conceded to the Fathers of the first ages
of the Church, only serve to enhance the value of their opinions
upon every point connected with the Scriptures, and, above all,
upon the subject of their Inspiration.
Sermon on S. Jude, 17-21; vol. iii. p. 661, Keble's ed. To the same effect
Neander observes:  In other cases, transitions are wont to form themselves by degrees; but in this instance we observe a sudden change to take place. There are here
no gentle gradations, but, all at once, a bound (ein Sprung) from one style of language
to another; which remark may lead us to an acknowledgment of the special activity,
in the souls of the Apostles, of the Divine Spirit-the new, creative element of that
first epoch."-Allg. Gesch. der Kirche, ler Band. s. 1133.




LECT. II.]              OF THE CHURCH  OF GOD.                              61
In no nation was the universal belief of the ancient world' in
an intercourse between earth and heaven, so deeply rooted as
among the Jews.  Their writings, composed subsequently to the
completion of the Old Testament, afford the most decisive proof
of their ascribing Inspiration to the authors of its several parts;
and leave no doubt as to their conviction that the collection of
Sacred Books was defined under the Divine guidance, and closed
at the Divine command.'  And I would here remark, that considerable misapprehension has arisen from not carefully distinguishing  the  opinions  of the Jews who  have lived  since  the
coming of Christ, from the views of those who wrote before or at
that period.' This feature of the case is peculiarly important,
when we regard Inspiration, under its Christian aspect, as the
characteristic function of the Holy Ghost. One of the principal
doctrines of Christianity which Jews, of later times, have assailed
with vehemence and vituperation, is that respecting the nature
and operations of the Third Person of the Holy Trinity;4 and to
this fact we may, perhaps not unfairly, attribute the prevalence
of a peculiar tenet, first advanced by Maimonides in the twelfth
century: adopting whose theory, modern Jews ascribe to  their
sacred  Books  three  degrees  of  Inspiration —the  Mosaic, the
Prophetical, and that of the Holy Spirit, which last they re"Vetus opinio est, jam usque ab heroicis ducta temporibus, eaque et populi Romani et omnium gentium firmata consensu, versari quandam inter homines divinationem."-Cicero de Divin. i. 1.'2," Let us only hear some of these testimonies which are just as decisive as they
are unanimous; and every doubt must disappear as to the conviction that it was the
fact of Inspiration which caused the reception of certain Books into the Canon, and
the exclusion from it of others."-lHavernick, Einleit. ler Th. lte Abth. s. 51.
3 This confusion is to be noted, for example, in Mr. Coleridge's "Confessions of
an Inquiring Spirit."-Letter ii. p. 21.
4 In proof of this assertion, I refer to J. A. Eisenmenger's " Entdecktes Judenthum."  Konigsberg, 1711, ch. vi. p. 264. For example: The Nizzachon, p. 12,
observes on the words, "And lo, three men stood by him."-Gen. xviii. 2: " The
heretics (D:'",n) [i. e. the Christians] say he saw three, and worshipped one; and
these are the Father, the Son, and the impure spirit (,tDzltt  rt',) whom they
name the Holy Ghost; these three he saw in the form of one, and him he worshipped." At page 142 of this same work, occurs, according to Eisenmenger, the following passage:
"It stands, according to them, in the Gospel of Luke (pu5 ~a.e): Whoever
sins against the Father, he finds forgiveness; whoever sins against the Son, he, too,
finds forgiveness; but he who sins against the impure spirit (nNm, rt:.) finds no
forgiveness either in this, or that world. Now, when all three are one, why should
he who sins against the impure spirit find no forgiveness?"
Eisenmenger adduces several passages to the same purpose, concluding, "Ist
dieses nicht eine erschreckliche Lasterung?"




62                    THE  IMMEMORIAL DOCTRINE                      [LECT. II.
gard as the lowest of all.' But to return to the early Jewish
writers.
The writers of the Apocrypha invariably represent God as the
real Author of the Law, which is styled  " Holy,"  " made and
given" by Him."   Moses is a " Holy Prophet:"  his words' are
quoted  with  the form,  0"   Lord  our God:'::  as thou
spakest by thy servant Moses in the day when thou  didst command him to write thy Law.""  That Law " which Moses commanded for an heritage unto the congregations of Jacob," is
" the book of the covenant of the Most High God;"  this covenant is "everlasting;" its "light is uncorrupt;" and its " decrees eternal."   " Faithfulness" and  " truth," and the " showing  secret things  or  ever they  came,"  are  the  tokens of a
Prophet.'   On  his  predictions  the  most implicit reliance  is
placed. Thus it is said: "  My son, depart out of Ninive, because that those things which the prophet Jonas spake shall
surely come to pass;" and of Isaiah, " He saw by an excellent
spirit what should come to pass at the last."' The study of the
This theory has arisen from an attempt to explain the cause of the ancient
division of the Old Testament writings-a division recognised by our Lord Himself
(Luke, xxiv. 44.)-into the Law, the Prophets, and the Kethubim or Hagiographa:
-the 6 v6Iof Kai oti 7poSrant Kai To ausa PitfXica, of the Prologue to the Book of Ecclesiasticus:-the tnr=nn,:^=:, r~nn of the Jews. The source of this distinction the
Jewish Rabbins placed in the different degrees of Inspiration possessed by the writers of the respective parts of the Old Testament. The Mosaic degree of Inspiration,
under which the Law was written, was the most exalted; in it no other man of
God was thought to share, cf. Numb. xii 6-8: while Prophecy, properly so called
(Nre:), was distinguished from  that degree which was entitled "the Holy Spirit"
(      );r  r-nT). This view is developed at considerable length in the "Moreh Nebochim" of Maimonides.  "Its leading idea amounts to this, that the degree of the
Holy Spirit is lower than that of Prophecy. It consisted chiefly in a revelation by
dreams, so that the authors of the Hagiographa knew only a part of the truth, while
Prophecy, properly so called, is pure, i. e., unveils the truth completely. This theory
has, perhaps, been borrowed from the Muhammedan philosophers, who make a similar distinction between the Koran and the Sunnah, or other alleged prophetical
writings."-Havernick, Einleitung, ler Th. Ite Abth. s. 66. We have already seen
(Lecture i. p. 34.) how this Jewish notion has been introduced into Christian Theology. For further remarks on the subject, see Appendix C.
2 2 Mace. vi. 23.'I'/ dUyiag Kai 0eoKriarov vooloOeaiat.  Cf. Ecclus. xxviii. 7.
s Wisdom, xi. 1.
4 "The Lord shall scatter you among the nations. and ye shall be left few in
number among the heathen whither the Lord shall lead you."-Deut. iv. 27.
b Baruch, ii. 28.
Ecclus. xxiv. 23; xvii. 12. Wisdom, xviii. 4. Tobit, i. 6.
"  By his faithfulness he [Samuel] was found a true Prophet, and by his word
he was known to be faithful in vision."-Ecclus. xlvi. 15. So also of Isaiah:',Haatac o  7poTbirlf 6 tueya  a Kan rtari, f tv OpdaEl aVroe. *    *   "EC roiV &dLVOr
vTrretzie Tfi ea6oueva Kai rT draOKpv0a Trpiv T rapayevilOa avrd. —. xlviii. 22, 25.
8 Tobit, xiv. 8. Ecclus. xlviii. 24




LECT. 11.]              OF THE  CHURCH  OF GOD.                              63
Law and Prophets is stated to be the source of wisdom.' Even
life itself must be sacrificed by the Jew in their defence: " My
sons," said their dying leader,  " be ye zealous for the Law, and
give your lives for the covenant of your fathers." In fine, they
represent these  books as the shield  and  safeguard  of their nation; and even when soliciting the alliance and friendship of the
Gentiles,' they add, "Albeit we need none of these things, for
that we have the holy books of Scripture in our hands to comfort us."
In addition to such writings, which, while they date events
from the period of the cessation of prophecy,4 direct the people
to earnest prayer for its restoration,' we have the important remains of two contemporaries of the Apostles, Josephus and Philo,
who may be regarded as representing  respectively the Judaism
of Palestine and of Alexandria."
1 Ecclus. xxiv. 18, &c,; xxxix. 1, &c.        2 Mattathias; 1 Mace. ii. 50.
"This is the copy of the letters which Jonathan wrote to the Lacedemonians."
-1 Mace. -xii. 5.  Kai i//elf oiv Trpouceec TrOVTurv ovref, 7rap(&.crltv eXovTreS  rd
ftf3tLia ra yti a ra v raiZ xepair p(u)v.-ver. 9. This statement, observes Havernick,
" is a characteristic expression of the tone of thought which marks the Judaism of
that period, which founded its high esteem for the Canonical Scriptures upon their
holiness, their Divine origin, their Inspiration.  *   *      These opinions, [i. e. of
the authors of the Apocrypha in general] far from betraying an uncritical spirit,
rather denote the sharp line of distinction which they drew between canonical and
uncanonical writings."-Neue krit. Untersuch. iiber das B. Daniel, s. 22. Hamburg,
1838. De Wette admits that, whatever may have been the reasons for admitting
the several books into the Canon, the ancient Jews "regarded the authors as inspired (begeistert), and their writings as the product of holy Inspiration (als Friichte
heiliger Begeisterung)."-Einleitung, s. 21: and to this effect lie quotes R. Azaria
Meor Enaim.: " Esras non admovit manus nisi ad libros, qui compositi sunt a
Prophetis per Spiritum S. et in lingua sacra."
" So there was a great affliction in Israel, the like whereof was not since the
time that a prophet was not seen among them."-1 Mace. ix. 27. Cf iv. 46; xiv. 41.
5 " Give testimony unto those that thou hast possessed from the beginning, and
raise up prophets that have been in thy name."-Ecclus. xxxvi. 15.
Eusebius (" Preparat. Evang.") has preserved a few fragments of two Jewish
writers of an earlier date, who represent in like manner the opinion of the Jews of
Palestine and Alexandria-the high priest Eleazar, and Aristobulus. Eleazar, in his
Epistle to Ptolemy Philadelphus (B. C. 285.) observes, that Moses had been instructed
in all matters by G-ol Himself: VTro 0so KearTe vea O eva'pEO o iO f TiyvvuLto TCv Tdrdvrv — Prcep. Ev. viii. 9, t. ii. p. 282. ed. Gaisford.  Aristobulus,-who endeavored to
trace the philosophy of Aristotle in the Old Testament, as Philo aftewards sought in
its pages tor that of Plato,-is identified by Eusebius (ibid. p. 291.) with the individual
mentioned 2 Mace. i. 10, where he is called " Aristobulus, King Ptolemeus' Master,
who was of the stock of the anointed Priests."  In his treatise rj) vpv tEpV v6O.v
ipunlveia (Euseb. ibid. vii. 13, p. 184.) addressed to Ptolemy Philometer (B. C. 180.),
Aristobulus observes that competent judges marvel at the wisdom of Moses, and
the Divine Spirit by whose inspiration he has been proclaimed a Prophet: Olf fLv
ovv r(tpeart r TO Kai(Sf voelv, Oavfluovat TrjV rrepi aivrv oopiav, Kaci 7 O elv TT1ve'pa, KaO'
O Kaci rporoTry]  d('vaKEKlcpvicrTat.-Ibid. viii. 10, p. 292. In reply to H. Hody's denial
(Cont. Hist. lxx. Interp. lib. I. c. ix. p. 49.) of the authenticity of this treatise, see L.




64                    THE IMMEMORIAL DOCTRINE                        [LECT. II.
Philo' gives an elaborate theory of Inspiration, of which he
distinguishes two species,'Interpretation' and' Prophecy.'2 To
the former he ascribes by far the higher dignity. To it are to be
referred those divine oracles which are spoken in the person of
God by the Prophet who is' Interpreter;' who is thus united, as
it were, in one person with the Deity, and thus becomes a living
word of God, since he speaks in the person of the Divine Being.
As the power of'Interpretation,' thus understood, enters upon
the profoundest mysteries of the Godhead, Philo declines to discuss its nature, as transcending the power of human understanding: and it is, perhaps, needless to conjecture how far this
thought may have been suggested by some vague anticipation of
the coming of the Divine Word Incarnate, the true source of all
Revelation.3   To'Prophecy,' on the  other hand, he frequently
adverts.  It includes as well those cases in which the Prophet inquires of God, and God answers and instructs him, as those in
which  God  confers upon  man  the power of foreknowledge, by
which he predicts future events. The distinction, however, beC. Valckenaer's Diatribe de Aristobulo, reprinted by Dr. Gaisford in his edition of the
"Praeparatio. Evang."-It is to be observed, that Eleazar and Josephus may be regarded as exponents of the views of the Essenes, while Aristobulus and Philo represent those of the Therapeutae. The Therapeutme, according to Philo, regarded the
Law as a living organism (5ov) consisting of body and soul:
"Araaa ydp ) voloOeaia y vooea   TOlf dv6pdat rTOVrotf EoucKvatc C5.' Kal aocua yiv.Xetv Trg pir-JT(  dtari ef, TpvvXv 6i riv i varnoreiitEvov rai Lf 2eectv d6parov vovv.-De
Vita Contempl. tom. ii. p. 483. Cf. Olshausen, "Ein Wort iiber tiefern Schriftsinn," s. 16, ff.
1 See Gfrorer, "Philo und die alexandr. Theosophie," ler Theil. s. 46. ff.; and
also Eichhorn's "Einleitung in das A. T." ler Band. s. 126. For a more extended
examination of the opinions of Philo and Josephus, see Appendix F.
2'EpnIveia 6d KatI lpo0Treia dGapEpoval.-De Vita Aosis, t. ii. p. 164.
E. g. the following singular phrase is applied by Philo to the words of Moses,
Dent. viii. 2: O6 r p o  r rf 4    C  5 y o, ovo/ya MoiaFj epie. —Lib. de Congr. queer. Erud.
grat. t. i p. 543.  "As if," observes Gfrorer, "Moses were the Prophet above all
others, rPOqOrT  c KaT-' tefoXv."-Philo, s. 60. That Philo believed in the impersonation of the Logos is evident from numerous passages in his writings. Thus he applies
the title of High Priest to the  6oyo. The abode of the homicide in the city of refuge
is not to terminate until the death of the High Priest (Numb. xxxv. 25). The inequality of punishment inevitable in this case affords Philo much perplexity. He
solves the difficulty by allegorizing the command: ZyoOuev yap, rTv dpcepea ovK
aveporrov, daLa   6 yov 0 e Z o v elvat, 7rdvrov ovi bKovaiov /y6vov, d2aX   Kat dcKOvaiov
ddctic7airW v ad/iroXov.-De Profugiys, t. i. p. 562. Cf. also "De Somniis," t. i. p. 683692; "De Migrat. Abrah." t. i. p. 452. In like manner, the Logos is frequently
called by Philo "the image of God" (elyciv Oeov. Cf. 2 Cor. iv. 4; Col. i. 15). Thus,
speaking of Exod. xxiv. 10, "And they saw the God of Israel," Philo observes: "It
is fit that they who are allied to knowledge should desire to behold Jehovah
(tQieeaOat ulv rTO  rb "Ov ideZv. But if they cannot behold Him, at least, His image,
the most sacred Word."  (T)v yoiv  eilva arovO, rTO  lepurarov  o6yov).-De Ling
Confis. t. i. p. 419. Cf Gfrorer, "Philo," ler Th. s. 243, ff.




LECT. II.]              OF THE  CHURCH  OF GOD.                             65
tween'Interpretation' and'Prophecy' is too subtle and too refined for Philo.  He continually represents the'Prophet' as an'Interpreter;' what he utters as Prophet not being his own, but
the  sentiment of another.  Hence we find  the  two  ideas not
unfrequently  interchanged:  for  example, Philo  says:  "The
prophets are'Interpreters,' God making use of their organs to
manifest His will."   According  to  this theory, the state of the
Prophet, under the influence of Inspiration, is one of total unconsciousness.  He is, as it were, an instrument of music, moved
invisibly by God's power; all his utterances proceed from   the
suggestions of another, the prophetic rapture having  mastered
his faculties, and " the power of reflection having  retired from
the citadel of his soul."' The Divine Spirit comes upon him,
and dwells within  him, and  moves the entire  organism   of his
voice, prompting to the announcement of all that he foretells.'
To that aspect of this theory, which represents unconsciousness
as the essential condition of thle Prophet's inspiration, we shall
advert again. I would only observe at present, that although in
his definitions of the psychological basis of prophecy, Philo's
statements are exaggerated, still his favorite explanation:  "The
Prophet is an'Interpreter;' God within his  soul suggesting
what must be said,"' contains a main element of the truth.
The point of practical moment, however, to be noticed here,
is the importance attached by Philo to the notion implied by the
term Prophet; for we can thence understand the degree of estimation in which the authors of the Old Testament were held by
him, when he applies to them, in general, that title:-thereby
exhibiting, as it were unconsciously, the light in which he regarded their writings.' To Moses, Philo, after the manner of his
t The principle from which Philo draws this inference, powerfully illustrates how
deeply he felt the reality of the Divine influence which actuated the Prophets: T5 6d
rrpoTrTlK  yivEL Let et TroVT~o  cv/aiveV elv' K:olTac ra    v yaEV yp iv njilv 0 VOV~, KarT TrV
Too Oeiov wrvevLyarof d(Littv, Kara d6 TrV FEravuiaraatv avrovi, 7Trtv eilotKi'serat. 0 iteL  y dp Ov K e ar7t Ovr       v (ieav  rTo avvo t Kc at.-Quis. Rer. Div. Hcer.
t. i. p. 511.'EVOtK7tKoroO TOV deiov 7rTVeVaTOrC, Kal Tarraav Trg lovi7l 0opyavoTottav KpoveOVOf,
Kai Ea v7XovVTo eif evap'))r 6du7WOT   v iTpoOe0wiet.-~De Special. Leg. t. ii. p. 343.
3'Ep/8vevC yap eCrTv o TTpoOITrC, E56Oei V TTfXOvrvTOC  a T eria e roV Oeov. —De
Preem. et Poen. t. ii. p. 417.
Cf. Rudelbach's Essay, " Die Lehre von der Inspiration," 1840. 2es Kap. s. 17.
4 Besides the title )po0Or77TC, Philo employs various terms to, denote the sacred
writers: e. g. M)oiV(e'o) ETraTpoe, or OtaSrocTi. rTg r Tv  OLetrrTSV rOikiaofg, iOepodivT7lf,
FpvrTa7-yy5', &c. The greater portion of the Old Testament, moreover, is quoted so aa
5




66                     THE  IMMEMORIAL  DOCTRINE                        [LECT. II.
nation, ascribes the pre-eminence. He was "that purest mind,
which received at once the gift of legislation and prophecy, with
divinely inspired wisdom."'   "He was breathed upon with heavenly love."'  His words are " Oracles,"3  and  divinely true.   To
David, Philo expressly gives the title of Prophet;' to the Books
of Kings he refers under the form, " As saith the sacred word.""
He quotes Isaiah " as one of the Prophets of old who spake by
divine Inspiration."' And he clearly intimates that such opinions were not peculiar to himself,;  but were shared  by his whole
to express the most undoubted belief in its inspiration; nor is there the least reason
to suppose that Philo did not receive as canonical the Books which he does not refer
to by name.
To give a few examples: Genesis is styled lepal ypaa.i.-De 3Mund. Opp., t. i.
p. 18.
Exodus, iepd,3i3o2.-~De AMigr. Abr., t. i. p. 438, where even Moses is styled o
iepo wavr77f.
Leviticus, ipoS 26oyog.-Alleg. In. t. i. p 85.
Numbers, iepDrarov ypui//a.-Deus Immut. t. i. p. 273.
Deuteronomy, Xpy/quc.-De Migr. Abr., t. i. p. 454.
Joshua (ch. i. 5) is quoted as 6.y7tov toS iXew O.eo -. —De Ling. Confus. t. i. p. 430.
The words of Ezra (ch. viii. 2) are called rT iv pactatcaF 3i fji3otiof iepobavr7i-ivra.
-Ibid. t. i. p. 427.
Hosea (xiv. 8) is quoted as 7rapi rTvL r( t)V rpo0)7TrV XprO'v.-De Plantat. Noe, t.
i. p. 350.
See " Liber de Cong. quaer. Erudit. grat." t. i. p. 538.
2 On this phrase Gfrorer observes: "The complete perfection of Moses' nature
(seines Wesens) is described in the third book,' De Vita Mosis,' t. ii. p. 145, by the
beautiful expression which includes in itself every other quality, KararTavvOev0ei vr'
ipwrof ov)paviov."-Philo, i. s. 63.
3 The words of Moses, in general, are styled aoyta in the locus classicus, " De Vita
Mosis," Ii. t. ii. p. 163. See Appendix F.
Quoting Ps. xxiii. 1: o6x   rvX6Sv, udXXa T rpoTrT.-De Agricult. t. i. p. 308. Ps.
xxxviii. 4, is quoted with the form O rov MovaeG  OtscaCuTf Uve0BeOQaro.-De Plant.
Noe, t. i. p. 335. And of Ps. xciv. 9, Philo observes: 5 Oaetrioco d'v p ev'vuvotg 2eyov
66e.-I bid. p. 334.
This mode of referring to the Psalms proves that Philo was unconscious of any distinction between the inspiration of the prophetical books, and that of the Hagiographa. See p. 62, note', supra.
The first Book of Samuel (ch. i. 11.) is quoted with the words:'c 6 hepbf 2/yor
n7cai.- De Ebrietat. i. p. 379.  This book was accounted by the Alexandrian Jews
the " First Book of Kings."
6 TtG rSv TraXat 7rTpo0P7CTSv ETTLriOcduoa  el'rev.-De Somniis, t. i. p. 681.  And Jeremiah is quoted with the words: To v7rpoO7rTIKov Otac(r7)T1f  opovb, o6 KaTa7rvEvoeeif ivOovaLSv dvesofWaro.-De Ling. Confus. t. i. p. 411.
7 It is to be observed, with reference to a common misapprehension, that although
Philo often claims an exaggerated degree of insight into the sense of Scripture, he
does not venture to compare himself with the sacred writers. Take, for example, the
following passage, in which, while claiming the deepest insight into the divine mysteries, Philo represents himself as an humble disciple at the feet of the Prophet Jeremiah, who " announces his oracle filled with divine inspiration, and impersonating
God:"-~
Kat yap Ey)b irapd MoaeZ Tr(  eorteEl vclOrfi rTi  ey6aa /vcrTlpta, o5uto aevOtf'Iepe.
iav riv T rpoo~j~rv ildv, Kal yvovf  rt o    i 6vov o V     V  rf Tf e a T v', ad? X     K a. ep o  a' v r  c &ava6, OVK OKv?7a ooLTTaac s o6ao avrov.'0 61, dre ra TroX2ia ivdov.




LECT. II.]              OF THE  CHURCH  OF GOD.                               67
nation; for, describing  how  his  countrymen  had  excited  the
anger of the Emperor Cahgula by opposing his design of profaning the Temple, Philo adds, that the Jews would gladly embrace death, as immortality, sooner than overlook the abrogation
of even the least of their country's laws.'  Nor, while on this topic,
should we omit to bear in mind Philo's entire system  of allegorizing, exaggerated and forced though it was, but which, like that
of Origen, was grounded upon the firm  conviction that the most
pregnant signification  is couched  beneath  the  literal meaning
of each expression of Scripture.
The belief of Josephus in the authority of the Old Testament,
and  the  nature  of the  Divine  influence  which  actuated  the
Prophets, perfectly coincides with that of Philo.  This agreement
is particularly to be noticed with reference to the prophetic state,
and to the manner in which both writers have employed the title'Prophet."   From  this we can infer in what a profound sense Joafilv, Xpra/o6v rtva  e eTrev EK TrpocJUTOV ro0V  OeoV  eyovra 7rpOf Trv 6'prqvtKuTTrrpV dpcr7jv Trava [scil. Jer. iii. 4]. —De Cherubim, t. i. p. 147.
Gfrorer, having quoted a number of passages to prove that Philo occasionally
claims supernatural aid when interpreting portions of the Old Testament, justly observes: " Doch muss man desswegen nicht glauben, dass unser Verfasser die Propheten des alten Bundes in eine Reihe mit den gewohnlichen Menschen, oder mit denm
lebenden Geschlechte, stellte."-Philo, i. s. 60.
1 "Ev 6 dei /vov  iOvof eiaipeTov rT T7SV'Iouvaidv v'TO'irTv 7v advrtwpuieLv, elwobf
tKovoiovf dva6dexe0at OdavaTov, (djraep dcavacriav, v'-rp ero0 prj6Gv rT)V nraTpiwv iTepldetv
c:vatpovfevov, ei Kai /paXvrarov eij. —De Legat. ad Caium, t. ii. p. 562.
M. Gaussen ('"Theopneustia-The Plenary Inspiration of the Holy Scriptures,"
London, 1841.) observes, " The Jewish philosopher Philo, in the narrative which he
has left of his embassy to the Emperor Caligula, making use also of a term very similar to that of St. Paul [O-errvevarof, 2 Tim. iii. 16.], calls the Scriptures' oracles the6cristes,' that is to say, oracles given under an unction from God." —p. 24. But this
writer has been led astray by not consulting the original authority. His note of reference is "0e6Xpto6a  6oyta P. 1022, Edit. Francof."  Now, both in this edition of
Philo's works, and in that of Mangey (t. ii. p. 5 7,), the words are, 0 e 6 X p     r a  
ydp  o6yla rTOV v6povf elvat vToeaiduvovrec [scil. oi IovdaZot]: and Philo uses them
to prove how much more tenacious of their customs the Jews were than other nations.  Since they believed, he argues, their laws to have " proceeded from Divine
oracles," they would submit to every extremity rather than admit the erection of a
statue in the Temple.
2 Thus, Josephus represent Moses as a Prophet in so exalted a sense that his
words are to be regarded as those of God: 7rpoprniTf  6 olo  O')iK  Loc, c  0' o TL (Iv
p907yatiT  d6oKcet avTrov 70yovro, dKspoaaat rotf Oeo. —Ant. Iv. viii. 49, p. 258.
So sacred are the words of the Decalogue that Josephus dares not divulge them
to the Gentiles except in the form of a brief summary: ovc [scil. 26yovc] ov OeiTO6
kCTtv 7U#iv 2eyetv favep)- 7rpof XZiv, rTg 6dE vviLdetf aqirvv 6VdXao/yev.-Ant. III. v. 4,
p. 129. Josephus gives another example of the reverence with which his countrymen regarded the Old Testament.  He relates that when the Seventy Interpreters
had completed their version, the King (Ptolemy Philadelphus) asked how it happened
that no poet or historian had made any mention of so admirable a work. He was
told, in reply, that the judgments of God had fallen upon all who had dared to treat
of these Divine records: o 6& A/-frptoc, / liVecva roTluiaat rTi TiV v6Y rov  OVTdV iva



68                     THE  IMMEMORIAL DOCTRINE                        [LECT. II.
sephus calls Isaiah " a Prophet confessedly Divine;" and how
much he intends to convey when he says that all the events of
his  nation  had  happened  according  to  the  predictions  of the
Twelve Minor Prophets.'  But I must confine myself here to a
few  remarks on the celebrated passage in his work against Apion.2
In this statement Josephus maintains that the records of no nation can compare with those of the Jews in point of historic truth.
To establish this assertion he points out the care taken to preserve the Sacred Books, and also the strict rules which regulated
their composition. The Sacred Books, he tells his opponent, were
delivered to the charge of the High Priest, the purity of whose
descent was guarded by the most stringent laws, and whose genealogy from father to son was set down in the public archives,
and could be traced back for two thousand years.   Such precautions, observes Josephus, to guard the purity of the sacerdotal
race, are not only natural, but necessary. It is not in the power
of every one to draw up such records, nor does any contradiction
exist in them, because the privilege of writing them belongs to
Prophets alone. They alone were acquainted with the facts of
earliest date, which they have learned by direct inspiration from
God.  The history of their own times they have also written with
unerring certainty, according  as events occurred.    " With  us,"
he continues, "there is no endless series of works, discordant and
contradictory; two-and-twenty books contain  the  annals of all
time, and are justly believed to be divine.  *   *: From  the age
ypa4bC aiiaaOat, 6tci rd OeGav avrn7v elvat Kae aefuvjv,'EraaKe, cKat ort 3apaelev y6d7 TLVrf, 70VTOL EIrtLXetpp7a7avTeC, VTrb rTOV OoV. —Ant. XII. ii. 13, p. 595.
And the case of the poet Theodectes (mentioned by Aristotle, " De Poet." xviii.)
is adduced, who, desiring to dramatize some scriptural narrative, (3ov20 Oe2S Ev rtLV
dptiuaarl T 7v iv ri- iepi /3if32f  yeypafFUivov LYv7Jcl7/va7,) was deprived, for a time, of
sight.
Alluding to the judgment pronounced by Isaiah against Hezekiah, 2 Kings, xx.
16: aiv  o6e oTroc O rpoT#r  Kuo2loXyoviv&f 6eios eZ  KCavi  avLaoO 7V T OdZO, iTer'oLetb
Tr/),76Ev  6?og Kevd6  eiprelv, drravO' boa rrpoeTrTevaev EyypiTaf fi1PioLt KcareoTlrev, EK
roi riTeovf yvwptal07a/ueva roif avOtg dvOp6rotlf. Kal ovix otTof Ou6voC 6  7poiO-Tr, adXd
Kat ci?2ot  6dus6ea rTv dplObiv rTO avirT o oigvaav  Kai traTv eTe ayaObv eZTe e3av2ov yiverat irap' ilZv Kara T7 rV EKEeivov aTdropaivLt irpo07Trieav.-Ant. x. ii. 2, p. 515.
Cont. Apion. i. 7, 8, t. ii. p. 441. This passage has been regarded from  the
earliest times as of the highest importance.  Thus Eusebius quotes it, as giving rOV
dptO/6zv T7i?eyofi~vnw TraeZata TrCv ivd6taeOLcov ypaec)v, r  v a r ap' E 3i p a i o f a v avri )  )7} T a.-Eccl. Hist. iii. 9, p. 103.
8 Eit6rOTU V, fUi ov,  Fdarov 6   Tvayc70af, UTe   Te TOV  rOo/piEtv avTeovciov TaeLY
dOVTO, t4iTre rtvg E Tro7i ypaqbofivoqtC  voVef dtla0ivica A'  Zt't6v w Tovv TCV  po7bpOTv  ad
)v uvorrTarTa    Ta2 ai rraXt6raa, K a   r    eiv erirvotav r v i r    rTO   0 6  eo 0 V  a 0 v
Trv, Ta 6d KaO' avTrovc, 6( EytveTo aaq Cf avyypa05vrto. —Cont. Apion. i. 7.




LECT. II.]          OF THE CHURCH OF GOD.                       69
of Artaxerxes, it is true, narratives of events extending to our day
have been written, but they have not been counted of equal
credit with books composed at an earlier period, because there
has been no accurate succession of Prophets. Facts clearly prove
how great trust we repose in our Sacred Books, for, although so
many ages have passed away, no man has dared to add to, or
take away from, or alter aught in them.  Nay, it is implanted in
every Jew, from the hour of his birth, to esteem as the ordinances
of God, and to stand fast by these writings, and in defence of
them, if need be, cheerfully to die."' This remarkable passage
speaks for itself; and I would merely point out its illustration
of a topic to which considerable weight was attached in the last
Discourse, as forming the second " Condition" of the problem to
be solved. The invariable rule that all writers of the Old Testament should be Prophets-the word being understood in the
sense given to it by Josephus and Philo, and on which the
former founds his proof of the unerring certainty of the Hebrew
Scriptures-ensures that every portion of every book, whether
relating to ancient events, or to facts which occurred in the lifetime of the writers, has been written under Divine Inspiration;
while the direct communication from God of those matters the
knowledge of which could not be naturally acquired by the Prophet, corresponds to the definition which I have assigned to Revelation.'
I cannot leave this branch of our subject without pausing to
inquire whether, in that portion of the Bible which constitutes
the New Testament, and which was written by the contemporaries of Philo and Josephus, we can find any traces of sentiments
analogous to those which formed, as we have just seen, so important an element of the intense religious consciousness of the Jews.
Such traces are to be found: and thus the stamp of Divine
approval is given to the general features of the Jewish doctrine
of Inspiration. A few instances will prove this. The phrase
" oracles of God" is employed by Philo to denote not only the' See Appendix F. Winer("Reai-Wdrterbuch," art. "Sadducaer.") argues with
great justice from these words of Josephus, that ancient and modern writers, from
Tertullian (" Praescr. Haer." c. 45.) downwards, are in error when they assert that the
Sadducees differed from the rest of the Jews in receiving as divine the Pentateuch
alone. See also Havernick, "Einleitung," t. i s. s4.
2 See Lecture i. p. 27.




70                      THE  IMMEMORIAL DOCTRINE                      [LECT. II.
Pentateuch, but also the Book of Joshua,' and therefore must
be understood to apply to the entire of the Old Testament as a
generic term. Now this is the very expression employed by S.
Paul, in the text, to describe the inestimable value of the treasure committed to the Jews; and the word is of no unfrequent
use in the New  Testament in this same sense.2   Josephus, as we
have seen, has expressed the belief of his nation that the authors
of the different Books of the Old Testament were all entitled to
the appellation of Prophets. Adopting this principle as an undoubted truth, S. Peter, having quoted a prediction of Moses,
goes on to enumerate the other sacred writers in the words:
" Yea, and all the Prophets from Samuel and those that follow
after." And Christ Himself, in the apologue of Lazarus and
the rich man, represents Abraham as describing the Old Testament by the comprehensive phrase, " Moses and the Prophets."'
Again; Philo  observes, referring  to  the  Prophet "like  unto
Moses"4 who was at length to appear, that although he was to
prophesy, and announce his oracles at the Divine instigation, yet
his words were not to be his own, and that each utterance with
which he had been inspired was to proceed from the suggestion
of another.' It is impossible to avoid being struck by the general resemblance of this sentiment to an inspired statement of the
New Testament in a much contested passage, on the meaning
of which it casts considerable light: " No prophecy of the ScripAoya; see p. 66, note, supra. Compare too (p. 65, note 4) Philo's expression for
the book of Numbers-iepJrarov ypcilua-with the rTi iepu yppiuqara of S. Paul, 2
Tim. iii. 15.
2 T~i o6yta rf TO  eo.-~Rom. iii. 2. S. Stephen (Acts, vii. 38.) reminds the Jewish
Council how Moses " received the lively oracles (ytcyca  0vra) to give unto us." So,
again, 1 Peter, iv. 11, ei rtL Xaeln, Sc 6 oyta OeoV; and Heb. v. 12, rTi  d(pX;S rSv' /(oyiwv rTOV Oeo. As a further instance of such analogies, cf. Gal. iv. 22, &c., which
contains t'e allegorical exposition of the history of the two sons of Abraham.  The
Apostle's inference is prefaced by the words, "which things are an allegory," ritV(,
i rTv r u2y7opovueva, ver. 24.-language intimating a view of the Old Testament altogether analogous to that which characterizes the writings of Philo. For example:Philo's sentiments as to the relation of the letter of Scripture, to its spiritual or allegorical sense, may be illustrated by his remark on the migrations of Abraham: ai
6rtao)elaat auroLtKat, T, r v' duvpoba   oopov yey6vact, Kard 6& rogV
dZAryyopiag vo6ovg, VIrrb tLapirov rbvx7C, rTv dX7180 C7ro'6ary7 06eov.-De Vita Abrah. t.
ii. p. 11. But see infra, Lecture vii.
Acts, iii. 22-24. S. Luke, xvi. 29, 31.
Dent. xviii. 18.
6 *  *  *  rTf e7rtLave~ EaraTlrvaioUf po7oTr]<f OeobFopTr7   OeeatLeZ Kai rrporeTevaet,
y w v   v o 1 K e o   o v  v6  v  "*   *    *  o a 6' fv7VXeCrat, &derevCaera KCa0Trep
Tropfadovroc tErpov.-De Monarch. i. t. ii. p. 222. And again, rTpoqr771C y a p i 6 t o
I  v o  6 P v duroPQeyyeraL, d(iairpLa 6b irdvra V7r;XofvroV    Eripov.- Quis Rer. Div
Hceres, t. i. p. 510.




LECT. II.]               OF THE  CHURCH  OF  GOD.                              71
tures," writes  S. Peter, "is of any private  interpretation;1  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."  But
a higher instance  still remains.   " Moses alone," writes Philo,
"has fully realized the qualities of a legislator.   All know  this
who are versed in the sacred books, which none could have written without the guidance  of God,-those  most glorious of possessions, the image and copy of models stamped upon his soul.
That these laws are truly Divine, and omit nothing needful, is our
surest trust. The words of Moses alone, steadfast and unshaken,
stamped, as it were, with the seal of nature itself, remain fixed
since the day they were written until now; and our hope is that
for all future time they will abide immortal as long as sun and
moon, and the universal heaven, and the world itself endure."'
It is almost unnecessary to point out the striking resemblance
of these words to the language of our Lord Himself when speaking of the Law: " Verily I say unto you, till heaven and earth
pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the Law, till
all be fulfilled;" or, again: "It is easier for heaven  and  earth
to pass, than one tittle of the Law to fail."3
But it may be said that Christ and His Apostles, by adopting
this language, merely'accommodated' themselves to the prejudices of the Jewish  people; and  that by this principle  of'accommodation' are to be  explained  all the  strong  expressions'Iltac lirtXCaeo.-2 Peter, i. 20, of which passage several commentators give
the following interpretation: "The writings of the Prophets are not of their (the
Prophets') own revelation, disclosure, proprice patefactionis; they did not communicate their own thoughts, but the counsels of' God."  Mangey observes on the sentiment of Philo here referred to: "Non multum a Philone discrepat D. Petrus, 2 Ep.
i. 20, ubi ErwtLtvoeo   non de interpretatione, ut vulgo, sed de motu, et suggestione est
exponendum ob sequentia."-t. i. p. 510.  Whether Mangey's exposition of this obscure passage be correct or not, the principle conveyed by it is quite consistent with
that which will be laid down in Lecture v., infra.
2 Td 6 ri TVTOV iO6vov pe:fta, did'tAevra dTcpadn vra,  Icar, K rp abpayalt foreoS avrm7i
ael7ya'7fw.Eva, uFVet'irayx; f d' rj,upac eypuc n prxptiXp, vivv, Ka 7rpob rebv  rnelTa Trdvra
dtuceveiv E'Aert (LVTa  auva cSrTep cOvarna, E S  (C v  X L t o   Kr a e   e rv   if Ka a  o
auv ir ac o Vp av c  Te K a   K c6o(T g  71i.-De Vita Mosis, t. ii. p. 136.
S. Matt. v. 18; S. Luke, xvi. 17. Manogey's note on the passage just quoted
from Philo is as follows: —' Legenl Mosis, quoad morum saltem  praecepta, esse perpetuam, non Philo solus docuit, id enim sibi spondebant Judeei omnibus fere seculis.
Siracid. xxxvii. 25, Kcal at siepal rod'lapaZ vapFT d-vapirol. *  *     Joseph. Ant. lib.
ii. c. 8, circa finem. vou.v ol), Kcpeirrova   Kicar&  ai9veorV avpt)ol7r'rVv ovaTU, eilf TO
cr(2vra e3:j3iat)a aliva cuvir3y  v;ca6X0Ovat, dSpedv elvat 66oavrag Tod Oero, &c.
Compare also with Christ's language as to the Law, the language of the book of
Baruch, c. iv. 1: " This is the book of the commandments of God, and the Law that
endureth for ever."




72                    THE IMMEMORIAL DOCTRINE                      [LECT. II.
employed  in the New  Testament respecting  the authority and
inspiration of the Old.  This objection will meet us again in the
course of our investigation, and it may be well to discuss it here,
once for all.
It is plain, that in any communication from an infinite Being
to creatures of finite capacities, one of two things must happen.
Either the former must raise the latter almost to His own level;
or else He must suit the form of His communication to their powers
of apprehension.  In  a word, unless God's Revelation be meant
to extend to the removal of every error, and to afford man an
unclouded view  of the Divine councils and nature,-and we have
no reason to suppose that either our senses could perfectly take
in, or the capabilities of language correctly convey, such knowledge,-unless, I repeat, this be insisted upon, we must believe
that Revelation has been'accommodated' to the understanding
and opinions of mankind, in all points in which it was not God's
will further to enlighten the understanding, or specially to correct
such opinions.'  Indeed, by insisting upon the former part of this
alternative, a late writer attempts to defend his denial of the possibility of a Revelation;-" Even the Omnipotence of God," he
observes, "cannot infuse infinite conceptions into  finite minds."2
If we turn to Scripture, however, we shall see how this matter
is decided.  In God's dealings with men we find " wrath," "jealousy," " repentance," and other affections, ascribed to the Divine
CE Arnold,-" On the Right Interpretation of the Scriptures," Sermons, 4th Ed.
vol. ii. p. 385; who also observes: " When God chooses a beinc of finite knowledge
to be the medium of His revelations, it is at once understood that the faculties of this
being are left in their natural state, except so far as regards the especial message with
which he is intrusted. But, perhaps, we do not enough consider how in the very
message itself there must be a mixture of accommodation to our ignorance;-for
complete knowledge on any one point could not be given without extending itself to
other points;-nay, the very means by which we receive all our knowledge, that is,
language, and the observation of our senses. are themselves so imperfect, that they
could not probably convey to the mind other than imperfect notions of truth."
2 "The Creed of Christendom;" by William  Rathbone Greg.  London, 1851.
"Being finite, we can form no correct or adequate idea of the Infinite: being material, we can form no clear conception of the Spiritual.  The question of a Revelation
can in no way affect this conclusion; since even the Omnipotence of God cannot infuse infinite conceptions into finite minds,-cannot, without an entire change of the
conditions of our being, pour a just and full knowledge of His nature into the bounded
capacity of a mortal's soul. Human intelligence could not grasp it; human language
could not express it."-Preface, p. x. Even Mr. Coleridge has so completely overlooked the fact which we are now considering, as to observe: " How can absolute infallibility be blended with fallibility?  How can infallible truth be infallibly conveyed
in defective and fallible expressions?"-Confessions of an Inquiring Spirit, Letter n.
p. 21. What! not even in the words of Christ?
See also Mr. Coleridge's remarks on'accommodation,' supra, p. 53, note.




LECT. II.]             OF THE CHURCH  OF GOD.                             73
Being.  He is described "as sitting on a throne;" His eyes are
said c to behold the children of men;" not to mention other instances, which must suggest themselves to  every one, in which
God condescends to convey to us, not the very reality indeed,
but something as near the reality as He sees it expedient for us
to know.  Without this species of' accommodation' there could
be no such thing as instruction.! Every instructor must begin
upon ground common to his pupils, with  principles presupposed
as known  to  them, in  order to  extend  the  sphere  of their
knowledge  to  other  truths.   The  missionary, for  example,
must adopt some such process when he speaks of " God" to  a
heathen; he adopts the term of the heathen dialect, but he refines and exalts its meaning.' In fact, the principle of all such
adaptations is expressed in the explanation of S. Paul to the
Athenians: " Whom  ye ignorantly worship, Him  declare I unto
you."'
1 Thus, Dante writes:
"Cosi parlar conviensi al vostro ingegno,
Perocch6 solo da sensato apprende
Cio che fa poscia d' intelletto degno.
Per questo la Scrittura coudiscende
A vostra facultate; e piedi e mano
Attribuisce a Dio, ed altro intendre."
Paradiso, Canto Iv.
In this task the missionary is beset with no small difficulties; a consideration of
which will illustrate the necessity of Divine guidance in order thus to refine the sense
of human language, and to overcome its imperfections. See, for example, " An Inquiry into the proper mode of rendering the word'God,' in translating the Scriptures
into the Chinese language;" by Sir G. S. Staunton, 1849, who writes: "Drs. Morrison, Milne, and Marsham, used SHIN to render Elohim and Theos in all cases. Dr.
Medhurst and Mr. Gutzlaff used SHANG-TEE to render these words, when the true
God was referred to, and SHIN when the reference was to a false God."  The early
Christian missionaries " accepted without scruple TIEN and SHANG-TEE, which they
found in popular use, to convey the Scriptural ideas of heaven and the true God."
"In 1715 the Dominicans obtained from the Pope an apostolic precept, ordaining
among other things that the term SHANG-TEE should be no longer used in the Christian Ritual of the Chinese, and that the term TIEN-CHU, signifying literally,'Lord of
heaven,' and already occasionally used, should be substituted in its place."  *  *  *
" It has been shown that SHANG-TEE, or Tien, may be said to be the immediate object
of the Emperor's public worship on certain State occasions. Yet it must be confessed
that neither Tien nor SHANG-TEE, practically speaking, is viewed by the people of
China generally, as an object of direct worship at all  The religious worship of the
Chinese people, such as it is, is practically transferred to the multitude of SHIN
('gods,' according to some translators, and' spirits,' according to others), whose images
are honored under various names."-pp. 2-18. The Protestant missionaries propose
to introduce the word SHIN.-p. 27.
3 Acts, xvii. 23. I have not alluded to the use of the term Aoyoc by S. John,
which is commonly adduced as an illustration. Thus, Olshausen, on S. John, i. 1,
observes: "If it be assumed (and this, if it cannot be demonstrated, cannot be proved
untrue), that John was acquainted with the writings of Philo, *  *  *  we have
then an external reason for the use of this term; only we are not to assume that John




74                     THE  IMMEMORIAL  DOCTRINE                        [LECT. II.
The importance of this subject has called attention to it from
the earliest period of Christianity: and while the Fathers recognise  and  state  with  accuracy  the nature  of this'economy'
(oi'ovo-pia), or'condescension'  (avyiaTa-raoat), or'accommodation' (avn7repLtopa), as it is exhibited in God's revelations, or in the
inspired teaching  of the Apostles, they are careful to  point out
the distinction  between  this characteristic  of the language of
Scripture, and  the'hypocrisy' (VrOn6ptat), which  through  cowardice  conceals  a  truth, or the'dissimulation' (dissimnulatio),
which to attain its ends stoops to tolerate error.' In modern
times much attention has been directed to  the  principle  of' acgained the idea itself through any historical medium whatever. Even if he did receive some external notice of it, he obtained it first in reality through the illumination
of the Spirit." See also some interesting remarks on this subject in a Lecture " On
the Platonic Philosophy," by the late Professor W. A. Butler, published in the Irish
Eccl. Journal for October, 1849, p. 342.
A few illustrations will suffice to prove this statement: S. Cyril of Alexandria
writes of the Holy Ghost:-'OT  Te rXecov rT Ilvev/ta T  "'Aytov Kca  ovd6v dref  E'v
avir)' Kcav yap OEp7rTaL TLtva irept avTOv 7rapT  raiT  Geiatf ypabail, wVrE/usaivovTr  TI
rTOOVrOV, rTil  OlKOVOl iaa  ~veKa  r iS  dC' S/(c d   elpTrOatL J6couev.-Thesaur.
Assert. xxxiv. t. v. p. 343.  The recognised use of oliovoFuia to signify the mystery
of thy Incarnation comes under this head: T/)v EvavOpJ'rraclv roV OEOV AOyov Ka'oViUev
o IK  0 o v o  i a v.-Theodoret. Dial. IH. t. iv. p. 62.
S. Paul circumcised Timothy "because of the Jews."-Acts, xvi. 3.  On this,
Clement of Alex. justly refers to the words 1 Cor. ix. 19-22, ending: " I am made all
things to all men, that I might by all means save some;" adding the remark (according to Potter's emendation of the text): O' oivvv /eiXpl Ta( v l n'    e p tL o p d 
av y K aa r    a  i a   i v   V   tXjr, 6ti T7v TOr V 6t' OVi  v   Tr e p t P    i  p e T a t Crpicav,
oVdeuiag   r  O K p i a e u t 6it Tbv e7 r)prT7tvov roZ 6LKicaotL d7rTi  T()V 2u7oVITOV Ki'v6vvov
FLerT ouv, OVrTO ov6aCdafC( vaXu(erat.-Strom. vii. ix. p. 863.
Similarly, S. Chrysostom,-speaking of S. Paul's conduct, Acts, xxi. 20-2G:-,;o.c oTrt 7/vi a / ziv Kalprbf   vyKcarTafdCetf /v, Ka'l IavfXo  iov6Sicev.-Hom. in Gal. ii.
Il, t. iii. p. 372.
W hile the fact of such'accommodation' is thus distinctly admitted, all notion of' dissimulation' is as rigidly excluded.  Thus: Tertullian, referring to S Mark, x.
46-52, where the multitude charge the blind Bartimmus that he should hold his
peace, rejects a cavil of Marcion:-" Aut doce increpantes illos scisse quod Jesus non
esset filius David; ut idcirco silentium caeco indixisse credantur. Sed et si doceres,
facilius illos ignorasse praesumeretur, quzm  Dominum  falsam in se prcedicationem
sustinere potui;sse.  Sed patiens Dominus: non tamen confirmator erroris, immo etiam
detector Creatoris; ut non prius hanc caecitatem hominis illius enubillasset, ne ultra
Jesum filium David existimaret.  Atquin, ne patientiam Ejus infamaretis, nec ullam
rationem  dissimulationis Illi affingeretis, nec filium  David negaretis, manifestissime
confirmavit cseci praedicationem, et ipsa remuneratione medicinae et testimonio fidei.
Fides, inquit, tua te salvum fecit."-Advers. Marc. iv. 36, p. 564.
Bretschneider (" Handbuch der Dogmatik," ler Band. s. 422) justly observes that
Origen rejects all false'accommodation' when he explains, as follows, the calumny
of the Jews: " Say we not well that thou art a Samaritan" (S. John, viii. 48): eclKb 6d
tca 6rOT TwvCgf  OVTO avrTo  [scil. Christ] I z  d6r b d ta 0 E   ( e  f rT repi pie9tXovroc
alhvoc, Kal T(i Tirepi Kpiaeof, Kal udvacadaeof ddlUcKElV, dltaKElevov 1ihv  a/xapetrtLI(f,
dC Fnadevf vje l TruV pioV aT7OKcUet/VOV TOig dv0pirotf, TrpOairot7 aeOf d 6vKEev, KarT rT
Ev6oov cKal dpEcGKv Trol'Iovn6aotl, rT TrepL dva7arcaeo   Ka2 rTS  alivoov  coigf rrpooe.
o6/evov. —Comm. in Joann. t. iv. p. 353.
For further instances, cf. Suicer, " Thesaurus," sub voc. olcovoglia.




LECT. II.]              OF THE  CHURCH  OF GOD.                              75
commodation,' in consequence of the uses to which it has been
perverted by Rationalists of every school.' It has been distinguished into' accommodation in theform,' and'accommodation
in  the  matter,' of the  information  communicated.'   To  the
former belong  the  style and  popular mode of instruction  employed by Christ and His Apostles, as well as their practice of
clothing the truths of religion in parables, or allegories, or similitudes borrowed from the range of ordinary experience. Take,
for example, the figurative analogies which Christ applies in the
twelfth chapter of S. Matthew's Gospel, like a parable, in order
to exhibit an idea vividly to  His hearers-the  connexion  being
such that He could not possibly be  misunderstood.3'Accommodation in the matter' of the information communicated is laid
down as being twofold: negative and positive.   Negative accommodation is that in which either a command is not enforced in its
full rigor, or in which the whole truth is not at once disclosed,
but is imparted gradually. As an instance of not insisting upon
the strict letter of a Divine injunction, we may cite the relaxation
of the law of marriage, by which a system of divorce was permitted to the Jews " because of the hardness of their hearts;"'
but even here the moral obligation of the command was never allowed to be forgotten, as is plainly intimated by the Prophet
Malachi.' As cases in which the truth is unfolded gradually, we
I Spinoza, in this, as in other kindred topics, seems to have led the way: "Nec
aliter de Christi rationibus, quibus Phariseos contumacime et ignorantise convincit
discipulosque ad veram  vitam  hortatur, statuendum; quod nempe suas rationes
opinionibus et principiis uniuscujusque accomodavit.  Ex. gr. Cum Pharisseis dixit
vide Matt. xi. 26,'et si Satanas Satanam ejicit, adversus seipsum divisus est,' &c.,
nihil nisi Pharisaeos ex suis principiis convincere voluit, non autem docere, dari Deemones, ant aliquod DIemonum regnum." Spinoza adds: "Si mihi enumeranda essent
omnia Scripturei loca, quae tantum ad hominem, sive ad captum alicujus scripta sunt,
et quae non sine magno Philosophie prejudicio tanquam divina doctrina defenduntur,
a brevitate cui studeo longe discederem."-Tractatus Theol. Polit. cap. ii. circ. fin.
Cf. Bretschneider, "Handb. der Dogm." ~ 42, ss. 418-430; whose rationalistic
views here, as elsewhere, disfigure the accuracy of his distinctions.
s S. Matt. xii. 43-45.  "When the unclean spirit is gone out of a man, he walketh through dry places, seeking rest, and findeth none," &c.
4 S. Matt. xix. 8.
5 " The Lord hath been witness between thee and the wife of thy youth, against
whom thou hast dealt treacherously: yet is she thy companion, and the wife of thy
covenant. And did not He make one? * * * Therefore take heed to your spirit,
and let none deal treacherously against the wife of his youth."-Mal. ii. 14, 15. Cf.
too, Christ's appeal to the original law of marriage, S. Matt. xix. 4: " Have ye not
read," &c. Mr. Greg asserts that our Lord "contradicted Moses, and abrogated his
ordinances in an authoritative and peremptory manner, which precludes the idea that
he supposed himself dealing with the direct commands of God. This is done in many
points specified in Matt. v. 34-44;-in the case of divorce in the most positive and




76                   THE IMMEMORIAL DOCTRINE                     [LECT. II.
may adduce the passages in which S. Paul tells the Corinthians
that he had " fed them with milk, and not with meat;"1 and in
which Christ Himself told His disciples: —" I have  yet many
things to say unto you, but ye cannot cannot bear them  now."2
Positive  accommodation, however,-which brings us to the
objection from  which we started,-is that in which the teacher
adopts as true, principles which he knows to be erroneous, and
uses them so as to confirm his pupils in their errors. Of this a
remarkable instance occurs in the New  Testament, in the case
of S. Peter's " dissimulation" at Antioch; and there it is treated
with severe and marked reprobation.  "I withstood him  to the
face," writes S. Paul,' because he was to be blamed."'
It will be easily seen how the other examples of just and necessary' accommodation' to human imperfection, have supplied to
over-ingenious and perverse minds that coloring of truth which
has served to lend even a semblance of plausibility to their statement, when they ascribe positive or false' accommodation' to our
Lord and His disciples. In the particular case before us, in which.
as I have shown, Christ has given His sanction to the sentiments of
the Jews respecting the permanence of the Law, and the authority
of the Old Testament, His discourses were, it is true, delivered
to the multitude on the Mount, and to the Pharisees: but we
find Him  still urging these same principles when alone with His
most trusted friends both before and after His Resurrection;His chief argument, in all cases, being an appeal to the Prophecies
respecting Himself.4   S. Paul, too, when writing to his confinaked manner."-Creed of Christendom, p. 11. On this subject Mr. Davison, with his
usual accuracy, observes: " The Law forbore, in some few points, a perfection of its
discipline. It practised an unwilling condescension, in yielding to the'hardness of
heart,' the gross and refractory temper of the people to whom it was given. This was
seen in its non-prohibition of a plurality of wives, and in its permission of divorce.
But the Holy Jesus, who came to restore the Divine Law to its first integrity, as well
as to make atonement for the transgression of it, He, in His Institutes. reformed these
temporary concessions. Meanwhile, one of the Prophets [Malachi] had given a clear
intimation that God approved not the permission so allowed, but would draw the
domestic charities into stricter bonds of union and severity."-Discourses on Prophecy,
p. 44.
1 Cor. iii. 2.                                     2 S. John, xvi. 12.
Gal. ii. 11-18. "The other Jews dissembled likewise with him (evvv1rncpL0lcav); insomuch that Barnabas also was carried away with their dissimulation (V-roKpOgcL)."-ver. 13. Cf. the words of Clement of Alex. already quoted, p. 74, note.
On the question of S. Peter's conduct at Antioch, see Lecture v.
4 E. g. S. Matt. xxvi. 24, 54; S. Luke, xxiv. 44-47. Even in prayer to His Father,
our Lord appeals to the Old Testament: "While I was with them in the world, I
kept them in Thy name: those that Thou gavest Me I have kept, and none of them




LECT. II.]           OF THE CHURCH OF GOD.                          77
dential disciple Timothy, and to those most opposed to Judaism
at Corinth'-for the Judaizing Christians were surely not those
who boasted that they were " of Paul," or " of Apollos,"-S. Paul,
I say, maintains the Divine inspiration of the Old Testament as
strictly as the most rigid Israelite of the school of Philo. But
our denial of the use of false' accommodation' is not to be limited
to this one point.  It may be confidently affirmed, that the teaching of the New Testament affords no single instance of such deception. Christ neither denies the existence of Spirits in order
to conciliate the Sadducees, nor does He instruct the woman of
Samaria in doctrines which He opposed before the Jews. S. Paul
proclaims the same Divine truths before kings and rulers, before
Jews and Greeks; and he tells us that the doctrine of a crucified
Redeemer was alike offensive to both. In a word, we find Christ
quoting Moses and the Prophets to friend and to foe; to Pharisee
and to Sadducee; to the people and to His disciples; in the desert'
and in the Temple; at the commencement of His ministry and
at its close; in exposition by acts and exposition by doctrine,combining it, in all matters, with the new revelation as being
conveyed by the same Spirit.
From  all this, therefore, it may be concluded, that the sentiments of Philo and Josephus and the early Jews, were not the
mere private assertions of good and pious men, or the exaggerated
expression of Hebrew nationality: those sentiments rather exhibit
authentic information respecting the real character of the Old
Testament; information stamped with the seal of Christ Himself,-the source of all Revelation-who would have counteracted His own sole purpose had he ascribed to the ancient Scriptures authority to which they could lay no claim.
I now turn to the evidence afforded by the Christian Church;
and in doing so it may be well to notice, in the first instance, any
traces that exist of exceptions to the singular uniformity which
is lost, but the son of perdition, that the Scripture might be fulfilled."-S. John, xvii.
12. Cf. xiii 18.
2 Tim. iii. 16; 1 Cor. iii. 4. The great majority of S. Paul's Epistles, and, to a
great degree, the Gospels, were intended for those who were not Jews, and who,
therefore, could not have been prejudiced in favor of the Old Testament.
2 See especially the accounts of His Temptation,-S. Matt. iv.; S. Luke, iv.
3 For a more extended discussion of the opinions of the Fathers, see Appendix G.
So unexceptionable a witness as De Wette introduces his list of authorities from the
early Christian writers, from S. Irenmeus downwards, with the remark:' Man er.
kannte diese Bucher als heilig und gtttlich."'Einleit.'22, s. 30.




78                    THE  IMMEMORIAL DOCTRINE                        [LECT. II.
has prevailed upon the question of Inspiration in every age. It
has become the fashion, indeed, among modern writers, following,
I apprehend, in the footsteps of Neander,' to  point to  the  celebrated Tleodore of Mopsuestia, who lived at the opening of the
fifth century, as having led the way in questioning the inspiration
of the Scriptures." I believe this charge to be altogether without' Neander observes, in the first edition of his history (A. D. 1829): " The germs
of this tendency [viz. to a " grammatico-logical" method of interpreting the Bible]
were still further developed by distinguished men in the fourth century, and in the
commencement of the fifth  *  *  *  above all by the acute and original Theodore
of Mopsuestia.  *  * *    We find, in fact, traces of a more free mode of apprehending the idea of Inspiration in this period, only in those cases where a more unprejudiced grammatico-logical interpretation of the Bible conduced to that result, as in the
case of a Jerome, a Theodore of Mopsuestia, and a Chrysostom." —Allg. Gesch. der
Kirche, 2er Band. s. 503. Neander has considerably modified his opinion as to the
views respecting Inspiration maintained by the three writers named in this extract
In the second edition of his history, published in 1846, the entire of the section, from
which I have just quoted, has been re-written to the extent of several pages; the
author contenting himself with adducing a series of quotations from Theodore, S.
Chrysostdm, and S. Jerome, to illustrate the proposition, that in consequence of the
principles according to which those writers expounded the Bible, they have advanced
certain ideas, "at the foundation of which lies a peculiar modification of the notion of
Inspiration."-2te Aufl. 2er Band, s. 661, ff.
For an examination of Theodore's estimation of Scripture, see Appendix G. The
reader may form a judgment with respect to S. Jerome's views from the following
comment on Eph. iii. 6:-" Scio appositionem  conjunctionis ejus, per quam dicitur,'cohaeredes, et concorporales, et corrparticipes,' indecoram facere in Latino sermone
sententiam. Sed quia ita habetwr in Grceco, et singuli sermones, syllabce, apices, puncta,
in divinis Scripturis plena sunt sensibus, propterea magis volumus in compositione
structuraque verborum, quam intelligentia periclitari"-T. vii., p. 591. For S. Chrysostom's theory of Inspiration, see, for the present, p. 88, note 6, infra.
2 Thus, for example, M. Gaussen writes: " With the exception, we say, of Theodore de Mopsueste, the long period of the first eight centuries of Christianity did not
produce a single theologian who disavowed the plenary inspiration of the Scriptures,
save only among the most violent of the heretical sects which have troubled the
Christian Church; I mean the Gnostics, the Manichaeans, the Anomoeans, and the
Mahometans."-Theopneustia, p. 353.
One feels more surprise, however, at so well-informed a writer as Rudelbach
making the same assertion; especially since he adduces as his sole grounds the fact
of Theodore having denied the Canonical authority of the Book of Job, of Proverbs,
and of Ecclesiastes. See his " Zeitschrift" for 1840: " Die Lehre von der Inspir.," 2es
Kap., s. 46. 1 have already observed (p. 46), when referring to the similar error of
Luther as to certain Books of the New Testament, that it is an obvious mistake to
represent the denial of the Canonicity of a particular Book as being equivalent to a
denial of the inspiration of Scripture in general. In Theodore's, as in Luther's case.
the low estimate in which particular Books were regarded, arose from the exalted
sense in which the Divine character of Scripture was felt and recognised:-their common error consisting in the belief, that such and such portions of the Bible did not
satisfy the tests of Inspiration which they ventured to define.  This distinction, Rudelbach insists upon when speaking of Luther, while he forgets to acknowledge its
existence in the parallel case of Theodore of Mopsuestia.  He remarks:' Passages lie
before us from Luther's writings, writings, too, composed at very different periods of
his life, (even at the date of his rude decision as to the Epistle of James,) which satisfactorily prove that he never ceased to assert the verbal inspiration of the Holy
Scriptures, and that we, consequently, do violenee to his words if we impute to hilm
any other principle."-Ibid. 4es Kap. s. 8. See Appendix C.




LECT. II.]              OF THE  CHURCH  OF  GOD.                             79
foundation.  Suffice it here to  observe, that when  the doctrinal
views of Theodore were condemned at the Fifth General Council,
nearly one hundred and thirty years after his death; and when
every imputation which controversial animosity could suggest, was
cast in after-times upon his memory by individual opponents'-no
allusion whatever was made to his having deviated, on  this cardinal point, from  the universal belief of Christendom.  This harmony of opinion, indeed, will appear the more striking when the
nature of the exceptions which do exist is duly considered.
It is a common  and a just remark of Christian writers from
the earliest times, that amid  the various contests in which  the
Church has had  to  engage with  the  different forms of heresy,
both sides have appealed to the Divine authority of the Bible."
The single exception to this uniformity of sentiment which the
records of antiquity appear to afford occurs in the case of such a
controversy. This contradiction of the unanimous voice of the
Church proceeded from  the Anomoeans-that extreme section of
the Arians, in the fourth century, whose heretical tenet of the
complete dissimilarity between the Father and the Son gave rise
to their name. Of this party S. Epiphanius tells us, and he mentions it as an offence unheard of in any previous controversy, that
when pressed by arguments from Scripture, its defenders replied,
1 E. g. Leontius of Byzantium (A. D. 590), in his work "Contra Nestorianos et
Eutychianos," of which merely a Latin version had been published by Canisius, in
his "Lectiones Antiquae," (ed. Basnage. Ant. 1725. t. i. p. 525.) the original Greek
text not having been accessible before the year 1844, when it was given by Cardinal
Mai in his " Spicilegium Romanum," t. x. pars ii. p. 1, &c. While defending Theodore from the charge of having called in question the inspiration of Scripture, I must
altogether disclaim any desire to defend his orthodoxy on other points: " Est enim
manifestum, Theodorum  Nestorii magistrum, utpote Nestoriani erroris auctorem, a
veteribus vocari."-O. F. Fritsche, De. Theodori Vita, p. 15. His merit, however, as
an expositor of Scripture has never been called in question.  Cardinal Mai, in the
Preface to his edition of Theodore's Commentary on the Twelve Minor Prophets,
(" Scriptorum Veterum Collectio," Rome, A. D. 1832. tom. vi.) expresses the estimation in which he was held: "Ab Orientalibus'Sapientiue mare,' et Scripturartur' Ilterpres Kar' eioXjv dictus, universe Ecclesie Doctor interdum appellatus, et Magni
denique, cognomento donatus."-p. v. Cardinal Mai, having pointed out the faults
usually noted in Theodore's Commentaries, goes on to speak in the highest terms of
his exposition of the Minor Prophets; observing, that notwithstanding the obscurity
of the subject, Theodore "non verba legere, sed in Prophetse cujusque meilteI
oculorum  aciem  intende'e videatur.  Quamobrem, non sine causa, a nultis arceoi
Interpretum tenere dictus est."-p. xv.
2 Thus S. Irenasus writes: " Tanta est autem circa Evangelia haec firmitas, ut et
ipsi heretici testimonium reddant eis, et ex ipsis egrediens unusquisque eorum conetur suam confirmare doctrinam."-Cont. Hiar. lib. iii. 11. p. 189. So also Theodoret,
in his Dialogues, makes the representative of heresy observe: M/ ypol'oya/odaf U'fp)wi-vovS TrpoOev)eyK,. ey,  yp,aup  ovy ireiGOoual r  Oei a ypa g7.  Eranistes, Dial. L t.
iv. p. 13.




80                    THE  IMMEMORIAL DOCTRINE                      [LECT. II.
either-" The Apostle makes that statement merely as a man;'
or,-" Why do you quote the Old Testament against me?"'  It
is generally believed, too, that the objections noticed by S. Jerome in his Preface to the Epistle to Philemon proceeded in like
manner from  the Anomceans.2   The only other instance which I
have been able to discover of the subsequent revival, in any part
of the Church, of erroneous views upon the  subject of Inspiration, is in the case of a monk of Constantinople, of the twelfth
century.
The positive testimonies to which I now proceed may with
some propriety be arranged under three heads: the First, relating
to the Divine influence exerted in the composition of the Bible;
the Second, to the human agents selected to write the different
books; the Third, to the nature of the writings thus produced. I
shall not attempt here4 to give more than a rapid sketch of the
nature and weight of the proofs which may be adduced; and I
would merely observe, before entering upon  this  branch  of the
subject, that we must not expect to find in the annals of the early
Church any such elaborate theory, or series of systematized propositions on the subject of Inspiration, as we meet with in the
case of other doctrines. The absence, indeed, of dogmatic teaching on this question during the first fifteen centuries of the Church
affords a clear illustration of the harmony of opinion which prevailed respecting it; while the unhappy distractions  of modern
1 Orav " T SeyX6Olevol iTor rltvoV vwrrortlaovrat, eOVC (dTToTrpXov17e Kati uiTOT7ruvTfVc,
Kalc XyOVTrg, rTO7r  6'Ar6rrroToc  OC dv vOp u roC o   ( 7. adXore 6i, T  oi yoUL ipEfL Ta
T7r  n ira2atC 6dlaOiKyf; "Nor is this strange," proceeds S. Epiphanius, "for'if they
have called the master of the house B]eelzebub, how much more shall they call them
of His household?' viz. His Prophets and Apostles."-Adv. Hexr. lib. iii. Itaeresis 76.
t. i. p. 992. Of. Rudelbach, loc. cit. 2es Kap. s. 45.
2 This seems to be the earliest allusion to the vulgar objection against Inspiration,
founded upon the Apostle's words-" The cloke which I left at Troas," &c.-2 Tim.
iv. 13. On such passages the heretics founded the conclusion: " Non semper Apostolum, nec omnia, Christo in se loquente dixisse."-S. Jerome, Pref. in Ep. ad Philem.
t. vii. p. 742.
3 Euthymius Zigabenus, A. D. 1116. S. Mark (ii. 27) adds to the words of our
Lord recorded by S. Matthew (xii. 8), the saying: " The Sabbath was made for man,
and not man for the Sabbath." On this Euthymius observes, that we need not wonder at such variations, for the Evangelists wrote many years after these words were
spoken; and since they were but men, it is natural they should occasionly forget what
had been said: ob Xp) 6. Oeav/u;iwetv ei rT  I.VT oiTOr 6 evayyeltar/f  TrpooriOTi, rT 6'
nelvoc Tcrapair(ltrlavet. Kal yap ovX (tila rT) 2kyelv rvo XptaTrv eypaQov r7  evayyiLta
iva Kae riVTWuvrov 6[ooi rv aTCrTOVb o6yv auro/itv7uovevetv iXotLV' d2Ua /Ieri( To2Uxoic ivJTeoov evtavrovS. K(c elbCiK, dvOp jT ov   r a e   arirog E i t L aO  a l rtvC.v.Comm. in S. Matt. xii. 8. t. i. p. 465. Ed. Matthaei. Leipzig, 1792.
See Appendix G.




LECT. II.]             OF THE CHURCH  OF GOD.                            81
times, sufficiently account for the want of any authoritative decision since the sacred precincts have been invaded. This absence,
however, of recognised theory or system serves but to exhibit in
bolder relief how profoundly incorporated with the Christian consciousness of those times was the belief in the inspiration of
Scripture; and undesignedly represents its depth, its fervor, and
its source.
I. The evidence as to the belief of the Church in the Divine
influence exerted in the composition of the Bible, naturally starts
frbm that Article of the Creed in which Christians to the present
day profess:-" We believe in  the Holy Ghost, the Lord, the
Life-giver  *' * who spake by the Prophets."' This Confession
not only defines the inspiration of the sacred writers to be the act
of the Holy Ghost; but it also lays down as a fundamental doctrine of Christianity, that Old and New Testament have proceeded from the same source, and are alike Divine. That to this
latter truth the Article of the Creed chiefly refers, admits of no
doubt. In fact, it merely embodies a tenet maintained from the
very first in opposition to the various phases of Gnosticism; for
in the earliest writings composed in defence of Christianity, the
epithet' Prophetic' (Irpo0rt1r6v) is the title usually assigned to the
Holy Ghost.2   We observe this co-ordination of Old and New
Testament so early as the days of S. Polycarp, who, when referring to " the Scriptures," combines in one quotation a passage
from the Psalms, and a text from the Epistle to the Ephesians.'
So also S. Justin Martyr having quoted to the Jew  Trypho the
words of the Prophet Malachi,' breaks forth into praise of God's
goodness, adding: "These words have not been devised by me,' ltarevoTev    * * *   e* el TO lvevUa rTO ~ytov, rT KVctov, rO bo7rot6v  *  *  *
rTb aaXaav d6ir Tv trporTSv. —Symb. Coastant. Mansi. t. iii. p. 565.
2 E. g. by S. Justin Mart.:'EKeivov T-, cai Triv Trap' AVTOV'tbLv Euovra *  *  *
Ivev/ia T  TO I' pO 9 q  TL tC Kb   ae35 ea, Kai  rpocKvvoVi/ev.-Apol. i. ~ 6. p. 47.
And, again, quoting Gen.. xlix. 10: cg) rrpoePEiOt Vrl TOV 0o Oov ayiov Xr p o y   tI  o V
IIvevfuaTro.6d  TOV M(t)vo~SE, t7} k2EiteLv dpXovra K. r.. —Ibid. ~ 32. p. 63.
3 This passage, which is extant only in the old Latin version, is quite obscure
according to the ordinary punctuation. I quote it after Dr. Jacobson's judicious suggestion (" Patres Apostolici," ed. 3tia, t. ii. p. 527.): "Confido enim vos bene exercitatos esse in sacris literis, et nihil vos latet; mihi autem non est concessum [post
"concessum," vos ediflcare, ex verbis adfin. ~ 11, subaud.]  Modo ut HIs SRIPTURIS
dictum est; Irascimini, et nolite peccare [Ps. iv. 4, LXX.]; et, Sol non occidat super
iracundiam vestram [Eph. iv. 26]."-S. Polycarpi, Ep. ad Philipp. ~ 12.
" I have no pleasure in you, saith the Lord of Hosts, neither will I accept an
offering at your hand. For from the rising of the sun even unto the going down of
the same, My Name shall be great among the Gentiles," &c.-Mal. i. 10, 11.
6




82                     THE IMMEMORIAL  DOCTRINE                      [LECT. II.
nor have they been embellished by any human skill. Such were
the songs of David; so Isaiah proclaimed glad tidings, and Zechariah preached, and Moses composed his record. Dost thou recognise them, Trypho? They are preserved in the writings of
your people-nay, I should rather say, in ours; for we obey them,
but you, though reading them, do not discern their sense."' And
the belief that both Testaments enforce the same lesson is implied
in the striking parallel of Origen: "When the people murmured
against Moses in the wilderness, he led them  to the rock to drink;
and even now he leadeth them to Christ."2
The ordinary style in quoting Scripture was, either to omit,the writer's name-" Thus spake the Holy Ghost;" or to supply
it thus-" So spake the Spirit by Solomon,"  or " by  Isaiah," or
" by Paul."    " It is needless to seek," said S. Gregory the Great,
"who wrote the  Book  of Job, since we  may faithfully  believe
that the Holy Ghost was its author."    " What avails it," said
Theodoret, " to know whether all the Psalms were written by
David, it being plain that all were composed under the influence
of the Divine Spirit?"" Hence the numerous epithets applied to
every part of Scriptue:-"  The Scriptures of the  Lord;" " the
Divine Scriptures;" " Heavenly Letters." The phrase, however,
most usually employed is that of S. Paul: " Scriptures given by
inspiration of God." la a word, the evidence under this head
may be summed up in the language of S. Clement of Rome:' Ov yap,r"',Uov svvea7KevaapELvot elalv oi?Loyot, ov6e tEXV   v6 aVOpwivW  KeKa2XT7rrtaLvot, daUa roVTovf Aa/31i viv /a2'aLev,'Haataf 6d  evlyyerteTO, Zaxapiac 6d
eK2fpvcE, M(ja(Y  6&  dv vypatpev.'E'rtylvujaKet,  avrov7, TpSowv;'Ev rotf 5IferTpotl
aT7roKetvTa ypa/tiaat, Fuiiov 6& ovx' uf/erTpotl, dJA2' iPreTpoLf' 7/yei yap aVroZf wretO6ieO   eC 6, dva e vaore o, ayVKov   voetre TrV v aviol vooiv.Dial. cum Tryph. c. 29. p.127.
2 "Murmuraverunt adversus Moysen, et propterea jubet Dominus ut ostendat eis
petram, ex qua bibant.  Si quis est, qui legens Moysen murmurat adversus eum, et
displicet ei lux, quae secundum literam scripta est  *  *  *  ostendit ei Moyses petram, qua est Christus, et adducit eum ad ipsam ut inde bibat, et reficiat sitim suam."
— Hon. in Exod. xi. 2, t. ii p. 169.
3 For example, S. Cyprian: " Loquitur per Salomonem Spiritus S."-De Opere et
Eleemos. p. 240. Tertullian:-" Spiritus Sanctus bane Scripturee sure rationem constituit, ut cum quid ex aliquo fit, et quod fit, et unde fit, referat.'Fruticet,' inquit,'terra herbam fceni, seminantem semen;'" &c. &c.-Adv. Hermogen. cap. xxii. p. 276.
To the same effect Clemens Alex.:
Exetf TOV Xopov rdvTia rbv TrpoT777TKov, rogf awvvOtaacaf ro  MwUfaiw. Ti 0biv a'rolC rb Ilvefla rOb'Ayiov dia'Qi2at, OvK O'KVjfaO?eyev  *  *   * iTt 6& Ka  dali'HaatoV K. T.. —Cohortat. ad Gentes, c. viii p. 67.
4 " Sed quis hae scripserit, valde supervacue quaeritur, cum tamen auctor libri Spiritus Sanctus fideliter credatur."'-Proef. in Moralia in Lib. Job. t. i. p. 7.'Eyo    nIrepi TOVTeroV 8v oVtv lV aXvpi~ofea.  Troiav yap floc rpoariTO8vav  deqetlav,
etTe TOVTO2V sravTE, e'e kKKeVtOV eliv TIvre' odf2ov ye OVTO,, 6d cK ro Trod Oeiov Ilveviarot Evepyeiaf cvveypcaijav ditavre;-Protheoria in Psalmos, t. i. p. 395.




LECT. II.]              OF THE  CHURCH  OF GOD.                               83
Give diligent heed to  the  Scriptures, the  true  sayings of the
Holy Ghost."'
From such principles the Church inferred the sufficiency, the
infallible certainty, and the perfection of Scripture. On this
foundation  S. Athanasius argues against the  Gentiles: "The
holy and divinely inspired Scriptures are sufficient to express the
truth."2 So, again, the critical and unimpassioned Eusebius,
alluding to an assertion that in the superscription of the thirtyfourth  Psalm, the  name Abimelech  had  been, by an  oversight,
substituted for Achish, rejects the idea with indignation:    I hold
it," he observes, " to be alike rashness and  presumption  to venture to prove that the Divine Scriptures have erred."'
I may also observe that the joint participation of the Eternal
WAord and  of the Holy Spirit in  bringing  the  Scriptures into
being, to which I have already drawn attention, was a truth fully
appreciated by the Fathers.  The sacred writers are said to "have
been moved by the Spirit," as well as " moved by Christ."   " They
who prophesy," said S. Justin M., " are actuated by no other than
the Divine Logos."' On other occasions this same writer ascribes
the prediction to " the Prophetic Spirit."6 And in one place he
combines the two ideas:      Think  not that the words which you
hear the Prophet speaking in his own person were uttered by
himself, when filled with the Spirit, but by the Divine Word who
moved him."'
1 Ev [KVTr7ET7E] er TaiC ypaoa'c, raiC a'dOelC [LjcrEtl] IvevZUaTOf rov.'Ayiov.-Ad
Corinth. c. 45. t. i. p. 162. ed. Jacobson.
2 AvTAiPKEIC ie'V yap Elatv al aytal Ka Oe6orvevrotL ypabal Ipr Tpbcr  Tfj d?6 aezda
d7rayyeuiav.-Or. cont. Gentes, t. i. p. i. Still more strongly, on another occasion, this
great Father writes:
MiaT)v yoiv 7rept7pEXovTec 7rpofiaaciovTa, 6tlI Iaritv  SioKVal, yeveOat r1aY  cvvdove. Eiart ulv yap lcavwrKpa   rv  -ewv     Oca             ypa 7i.-Ep2ist. de Synodis Arim. et Seleuc. t. i. p. 720.
S'0 fv o v rtC Ipel, ETwe2 u7 k0eeperal Ev T7- airopia r- Kar  rbv'AXteq.EX'   otiLoaat rb iTrp6oarov avTroV 6 Aavi6, KaTar a   Ka'cia KEloOat rT 6vooa TroV'AfltaXeX  VirT TOV
ov6otaro7'AyxoiC. oaaqSc yip Ekr rov'AyXotC eipyTra' adLotla aa b  rrpo6aorov K. r. X.
[lSam.xxi 13] * * * Ipyov 6 SOpa ai  Kai  rp o7rETr     elv at   yov(ia   T r i diro4ovaaOat ro T      dav Trv Oeiav  ypa;bv  iapaprri Oa i.
-Comment. in Psal. ed. Montf —Coll. nov. Patr. t. i. p. 129.
lvevaTroqo6pot.-Theophilus, ad Autolyc. lib. ii. 9, p. 354.
XplarTo6pot.-S. Athanasius, Cont. Gentes, 5. t. i. 5.-De Incarnatione, 10. t. i
p. 56.' Orn 6S ozldev2 Ud2) 60o opoP vrat aLi Opl TTO6TEVOVTeF el i) Ao/y< OEi4, Kal VPedi 
d7roXa/dciavw q71evE. —Apol. l~ 33. p. 64.
6'0 avio r7rpoc067Tr7f'Haatag Oeoqopo' a e vo  i, TfIVeViaTL rC TrTpoo7rlucTK  Et. —Ibid.
~ 35. p. 65.'7 OTav 6E TC X' e~tL< TSrV iTpo07TCv  yotieva~ wC adrb irpoafT'ov dcOV7rTe, ri,   a'
aVTucv T   V i pv  r er E v e  fVv   v   yecOal VOU'a7rTe, da3.' drnb TOOV KlvoCuroC aVTroi




84                    THE  IMMEMORIAL DOCTRINE                       [LECT. II.
II. Under the second head may be comprised all allusions to
the effect of the Divine influence upon the intellectual faculties
of the  Prophets.  The Fathers  of the Church  at a very early
period expressed their opinions on the subject; and this fact is
the more important, inasmuch as by their contact with heathenism on the one side, and the impure element of Montanism on
the other, they stood sufficiently near the phenomena presented
by those false systems to be conscious of their tendency, and to
feel the necessity of guarding against either extreme.  We know
from  the writings of Plato that the Seers or Diviners (ta'v-ret) of
the heathen were so called from the state of phrensy in which they
uttered their oracles; the Prophet (TTpo T'-r$) being merely the interpreter of the unconscious Diviner (iavrTt.)'  The early Church
clearly perceived that the difference between this natural divination-the  Mantike  of the  old world-and  true  prophecy, is
essential and specific. Origen argues, at some length, that the
ecstatic and phrensied condition of the Pythian prophetess,
whose  hallucinations  Celsus had  adduced  in  opposition to the
Prophets of the  Old  Testament, could  not be  the  product of
the  Spirit of God.   The  Jewish  Prophets, he  urges, "were
illuminated by the Divine Spirit; their understanding becoming more perspicacious, and their souls more lucid by the touch,
as it were, of the  Holy  Ghost.  But if the  Pythia, while delivering her oracle, is in ecstacy, and no longer self-possessed,
what sort of  spirit must we  deem  that to  be which  darkens
her  understanding, and  clouds the faculties of her  mind?""
Oeiov A6yov.-Ibid. ~ 36. p. 65. The principle expressed by this language, and
which I have already stated, Lecture i. p. 25, note 1, is clearly laid down by S. Athanasius: ov yap EKTOg aSTt TOVi Aoyov TO  Hvebva, du';A  Ev TS Ao6yJ Ov, ev rT  Oe) Je'
aTroV Ekartv'  Tare Tvl  apiqaiara ev rT- Tptalt d ioaOaL.-Epist. iii. ad Serap. 5. t. i.
p. 694.
See above, p. 65, the opinion of Philo. Baumgarten Crusius observes that the
word rpoojrT7f is employed by the Alexandrian writers in a sense different from its
classical usage. With the Alexandrians it denotes merely' one who foretells;' with
the Greeks,'one who announces' (~pJFZveV, eyyrTjc, cf Ruhnken on Timaeus),
what the /avrtc had uttered.-Grundziige der bibl. Theologie, s. 40.
" The derivation [of juvrtC] from eaivoyaL is found as early as Plato (Tim. 72 b.)
where he distinguishes ilavTetc from  rpoF/ral, the former being persons who uttered
oracles in a state of divine frenzy, the latter the interpreters of those oracles."-Liddell
and Scott. I shall have occasion to return to the point here adverted to.
2'Ata2d Ka Tri el bKcarracwv ai /favtKv  dyev ye  Karaaraatv  v T Ofev Trpo0rTeovaav,
iC /fnl'apJCy aVT/rv iavT  nrapaKoXovOelv, ov Oeiov Hverparov  Vpyov EarTv  *  *  *
60ev nielf d' 7To6eiKVVIev, avvdyovrTe drl Trv irepiv ypaa1UTdro, iOT oi kv'Iovdaiot;.rpoi)Tral, E?"aywr6,evot vwrb roV Oeiov IHvevj/aro  roaoorTov, Oiov  cv Kat avTroi Trol
irpo0yr7Tevovat Xp7atjov, rTpoarTXavov rTjf TO  KpEcTTrrOVOg el avrrovg lrt6drltiac' Kal dil




LECT. II.]               OF  THE  CHURCH  OF  GOD.                              85
The principles of Montanism,' on the other hand, grew out of
the desire to see perpetuated, through all future ages of the
Church, that extraordinary effusion of spiritual gifts poured
out in the days of the Apostles. It was held by the sect which
acknowledged Montanus as its leader, that the office of Prophet
was to be permanent; and that by the existence of this order of
ministers was to be fulfilled Christ's promise of the Paraclete,
whose continued revelations were to possess equal or even superior
authority to the voice of Scripture.2 According to this system,
the influence of the Spirit, when exerted, produced a state of
ecstacy in which the consciousness of the Prophet is altogether
suppressed; and God alone speaks, as if in His own name, from
the soul of which He takes possession.3 With reasoning similar
to that adopted in rejecting the heathen divination, the Church
rose in opposition to this fanaticism; and here also it was argued,
that the existence of a state of unconsciousness proved that Montanism was in no sort allied to the true prophetic Spirit. Thus,
S. Epiphanius urges against Montanus, " that whatsoever the
Prophets have said, they spake with understanding;" he refers
to their " settled  mind," "their self-possession," and  their not
r       rf T'pbT trv bvX7Zv  aVr3v, lv' OVr(Sf hoVedaO,  a O   rT O i Ca X   o v y ev    o v'A y  o v
v e v  a  o, dtopartlCJTEpoi T7E TiV V0V  EyiVOVTO, Kai rT7v  1bvX7/v?aL7rp6rTpoL
*  *  *  ei 6' iiTararat, ncal OVK tv iavrT/  aTL'V r/ HvOia, OTe jeavreVeTral-'  odarrbv
voteloarOV Tvvedva, Tb aKO6TOV KaTeXevav TO7 voo Kca' rTv?oylcvtaCv, f Trotovrov 67roiOv Eart
Kai Tr TrV 6datyovuv yivo. —Cont. Cels. vii. 4. t. i. p. 696.
l Cf. Bishop Kaye's "Account of the Writings of Tertullian," ch. i.: and especially Neander's "Allgemeine Geschichte der Kirche," ler Band, 2te Aufl. s. 877
ff; as well as the comparison of Gnosticism  and Montanism in the Introduction to
this latter writer's " Antignosticus."
2 The revelations of the Paraclete, were to render perfect, and even supersede, all
previous divine commands.  Thus Tertallian writes: Si enim Christus abstulit quod
Moyses praecepit, quia ab initio non fuit sic [S. Matt. xix. 8]  *  *  *  cur non et
Paracletus abstulerit, quod Paulus indulsit."-De Monogamia, c. 14, p. 686.  Tertullian elsewhere insists upon a similar gradation in the divine communications. e. g.
"'Etenim estprophetica vox veteris Testamenti,'Sancti eritis,' &c. *  *  *  Debemus
enim ita ingredi in disciplina Domini  *  *  *  Ita enim et Apostolus dicit'quod
sapere secundum  carnem,' &c. *  *  *  Item  per sanctar  prophetidem  Priscam
ita evangelizatur," &c.-De Exhort. Castit. c. 10. p. 670.  See also t. i. p..752, ed
Oehler, Lipsiae 1853; for I should add, that this reference to Prisea is not received
by Rigaltius in his edition. It occurs only in the "Codex Agobardinus."
Take, for example, one of the passages from  Tertullian to which Bishop Kaye
(p. 52) has referred, as containing "positive allusions" to the system of Montanus:
"In spiritu enim homo constitutus, presertim quum gloriam Dei conspicit, vel quuvm
per ipsum Deus loquitur, necesse est excidat sensu obumbratus scilicet virtute divina."-Adver. Marc. iv. c. 22. p. 537.  Again: Adam, observes Tertullian, prophetically announced the mysterious union of Christ and the Church, when he spoke of
the marriage tie-Gen. ii. 24; cf. Eph. v. 31.  On that occasion "in illum  Deus
amentiam immisit, spiritalem vim qua constatprophetia."-De Anima, c. 21. p. 324.




86                    THE  IMMEMORIAL DOCTRINE                       [LECT. II.
being " carried away as if in ecstacy."' So also S. Cyril of Jerusalem, alluding to this question, says of the true Spirit: " His
coming is gentle; most light is His burden; beams of light and
knowledge gleam  forth before His coming."'
With such  extremes, however, on either side, which  it alike
opposed and rejected, the primitive Church did not shrink from
expressing a decided opinion as to the effect produced upon the sacred penmen while actuated by the Spirit's influence;-an opinion
clearly indicated by the series of similitudes which the different
writers employed who approached the subject of Inspiration, and
which were admirably calculated, had there been occasion to develop them, to illustrate that mutual co-operation of the Divine
and  Human  agencies, which, as we have  seen, forms the first
Condition of our problem.3 The language made use of plainly denotes that the human element was not thought to have been suppressed or suspended, but to have been filled and exalted by the
divine illumination; and to this notion belongs that entire system
of illustration so familiar to the Fathers from the earliest times.
They compared the soul of the man of God, when  subjected
to the Divine influence, to an instrument of music into which
the Holy Spirit breathes, or the strings of which He sways,'
See Haer. XLVIII. lib. ii. t. i., passim.  E. g. 6 rpofirruC f/erT  KaraarTaroC?oyla(Siv, Ka 7r apaKo2Lov0OTerjf  E X aX  e t Ka  E  0 E yy eT o i n IIeaveoaTO r'Ayiov, rd rrdvra
)     vuwfe.voc 2iyov.-Ibid. p. 404. It may be well to observe here, that what the Fathers
denounce as false in this system is not the allegation that prophets received Divine
Revelations while in a state of ecstacy, but,-and this they almost unanimously point
out, as a proof of the falsehood of the claims of Montanus,-that his Prophetesses
gave utterance to their asserted revelations during their state of unconsciousness.
This fact seems to have been wholly overlooked by late writers.  But on this subject
see Lecture v., and Appendix G.
2,HieUpoc 7 7rapovia' evc6rfrI   vT ('vrTiX7PlC KovQrTarov rT qbopriov' 7Tpoarraarpd7rro)vrv diKrZ'!ef ~(rfi)  Kca yvK te)eo, Trpo r  iC Trapovaiac.-Catech. xvi. 16. p. 252. Cf.
the remarks of the Benedictine Editor on the word dvriA7ptc.
3 See Lecture i. pp. 35-39.
Thus Athenagoras writes:'avyyxpraaeivov roiv IvevIarof, Coaei Kar av 7aTrif a&obv ejurrvev'aal.-Legat. pro Christ, ix. p. 286. For a catena of such illustrations see
Appendix G.
I must here express my dissent from a remark of Mr. Westcott, in his valuable
"Catena on Inspiration," to the effect that' the language of Athenagoras  *  *  *
has been regarded, with good reason, as expressing the doctrine of Montanism."Elem. of Gosp. Harm. p. 166. It is true that Athenagoras considers the Prophets
of the Old Testament to have uttered their predictions while in a state of ecstacy-thus
adopting the sentiments of Philo; but that he held, on any point, the extravagant
opinions of Montanus, cannot, I apprehend, be alleged with any justice. Thus Neander observes: " Neither the remarks of Athenagoras concerning the second marriage,
nor what he says of theecstacy of the Prophets, when acting as blind organs of the operation of the Divine Spirit, can prove that he was a Montanist; for, as we remarked
above, the Montanists said nothing on these points that was altogether new: they




LECT. II.]              OF THE  CHURCH  OF GOD.                              87
like the plectrum of a harp or lyre, in order to evoke its vital
tones.   Such  illustrations were obviously suggested  by the very
etymology  of the  word  Inspiration-or,  as  S. Paul terms  it,
Theopneustia;' and when they are applied to men, as the agents
of the Holy Spirit, we should remember that the tone and quality
of the note depend as much upon the instrument itself, as upon
the hand which sweeps over its strings.    And  carrying  out the
analogy, we can easily see, when we reflect upon the full and deep
harmonies of Scripture, how  much  of their power and beauty
lies in the Divine union of the different human instruments
through which we listen to the breathings of the Spirit. Thus,
Origen, speaking of the consistency of the various parts of Scripture, finely observed: " Scripture, as a whole, is God's  one, perfect, and complete instrument; giving forth to those who wish to
learn its one saving music from many notes combined; stilling
and restraining all strivings of the evil one, as David's music
calmed the madness of Saul."3 All such illustrations, no doubt,
clearly recognise a relatively passive state in the sacred penmen;
but they by no means imply that such a state involved inaction
or unconsciousness.   On the contrary, the decided  manner in
which the very writers, who have made use of the similitudes in
question, opposed the erroneous views as to Prophecy with which
they had to contend, proves how sensibly they felt the distinction
which subsists between the vibration of the strings of an instrument of music, and the pulsations of a human heart touched and
animated by the Spirit of God.4   Add to this, the marked omismerely pushed to the extreme a way of thinking on religious and moral subjects
which was already existing."-Allg. Gesch. der Kirche, ler Band, s. 1162.
1 2 Tim. iii. 16.  Hl2aa ypa)  EO rF67'rve7og.
2 I avail myself here of some excellent remarks of Mr Westcott (p. 164), whose
language also I make use of, with a few alterations.
3 "Ev yip rO re'TeLOV olIe Kai p/ioloo'ivov opyavov tro0  eov elvact ruaaa  v V ypaO(pv, fiiav lT7rTeovv eK t(a~S)ov (a) 7o 96yyv Cow7ipov  roZ' uav0dvetv E)id.ovot. 9)uc,  KCaT7ara'vovaav K(ci it wovaav vevrpyetav Trcv  7rovlpoV TmrvEvyaTro, 5 Kar7iravaev?1 Aa,3id
(LOVatLKj rTa v r-) EaovX mrovrlpv rveLtzla.-Comm. in AMatt. v. 9, t. iii. p. 441.
4 This idea is beautifully expressed by Hooker, at the close of a passage already
quoted, Lecture i. p. 35, note 4; where he refers to Ezek. iii. 3, on which text that
passage is a comment: "'Iate it, and it was sweet in my mouth as honey,' saith the
Prophet. Yea, sweeter, I am persuaded than either honey or the honeycomb. For
herein they were not like harps or lutes, but they felt, they felt the power and
strength of their own words.  When they spake of our peace, every corner of their
hearts was filled with joy. When they prophesied of mourning, lamentations, and
woes, to fall upon us, they wept in bitterness and indignation of spirit, the arm of the
Lord being mighty and strong upon them." —Srmon v. on S. Jude, 17-21. Vol. iii.,
p. 663. Keble's ed. Cf. also Rudelbach, loc. cit. 2es Kap. s. 27.




88                    THE IMMEMORIAL DOCTRINE                     [LECT. II.
sion by the Fathers,' while adopting the language and analogies
employed by Philo, of any allusion to that suppression of intellectual energy and of the exercise of reason, which, as we have
seen, was so much insisted upon by the Jewish philosopher.
Neander, indeed, alleges that the opposition of the Church to
Montanism  introduced a considerable modification into its sentiments respecting Inspiration; and that the modte of regarding the
operation of the Divine influence, which has just been considered,
gradually disappeared.' I believe this opinion of the learned historian to be opposed to facts. The theory of Inspiration, which
is founded upon the illustration of the lyre, began with S. Justin
Martyr,' about the year 140, and prior to the rise of Montanism:
and although the opinions of Montanus were still maintained in
the sixth century,' we can trace a series of writers by whom the
same similitude was employed, down to S. Chrysostom, who on
more than one occasion falls into the same train of thought.
For example, he describes S. Paul as " the chosen vessel, the
temple of God, the mouth of Christ, the lyre of the Spirit."'
III. To the third division of our subject belong those testimonies of the Fathers which relate to the nature of the Bible'as
a written document, the joint product of the Holy Spirit and the
men of God.  The evidence  on this point is varied and extensive; a few quotations, however, must, for the present, suffice.
There is nothing superfluous in the Bible. In S. Mark's account of our Lord's miracle at Jericho, the blind Bartimaeus,
" casting away his garment, rose, and came to Jesus."' Origen
asks upon this: "Shall we venture to say that these words have
I With the exception, of course, of Athenagoras. See p. 86, note 4, supra.
2' That mode of regarding Inspiration, which had passed over from the Jews, had
up to this time [viz. of Tertullian] prevailed even among the teachers of the Church;
but now, in consequence of the opposition to Montanism, this view was gradually
suppressed."-Allg. Gesch. der Kirche, B. 1, s. 895.
s Oil ov 6oyov EflaerE TEXVr)   *  *  * da'2i KaOapogf iavTovg rT ro T Oeiov IlvevItarof rrapaacElv Evepyeil,, lv' a 7rb TO eliov E ovpavoO KartLv TriKTrpOV, tfTre0o 6PY7vM(
KLctpaf TlvOf )  avpaC, roZC dtcaiotcf dv6pdaL Xp6,Upevov, 7r/V TjTV OeiCV lU' KaIv ai opaviOv
ci7roKav/p, yvcoav.-Cohort. ad Grcec. 8, p. 13.
Eusebius (Eccl. Hist. iv. 27), mentions that Apollinaris of Hierapolis (circA.A. D.
170,) wrote against a sect of the Montanists. S. Epiphanius places the rise of Montanism in the year 157. See Kaye's " Tertullian," p. 13.
See Gieseler, "Lehrbuch der Kirchengeschichte," 1te Periode, ~ 47, s. 168;
who observes, that the last edicts against Montanism occur in the Code of Justinian,
A. D. 530-532.
6 lHaviXo 6 b (idoroof,, r  axKEVOf rT/f EKboy7f, 6 vabo roi  Eoe C, rb Gar6a roY Xplao70,   v 2   pa r o    II  v e v   a ro C.-De Lazaro, Concio vI. t. i. p. 786.
7 S. Mark, x. 50.




LECT. II.]              OF  THE  CHURCH  OF GOD.                              89
been inserted in the Gospel without a purpose?   I do not believe
that one jot or one tittle of the Divine instruction is in vain."'
Again: that Scripture can contain  no  contradictions is the  uniform language of every writer. Julius Africanus, having proposed
one of the most ingenious modes of harmonizing the genealogies
of Christ which has ever been suggested,' concludes his remarks
by observing: "Whether this explanation be correct or not, the
Gospels in all points state the truth."' His Jewish adversary
had attempted to force S. Justin Martyr to admit that, according
to the Christian exposition of the Old Testament, he must allow
the existence of contradictions.   S. Justin  replies: "I dare not
either imagine or assert, that the Scriptures contradict each
other; but were any passage to be adduced which  has even  the
semblance of being  opposed  to  another, being  altogether persuaded that no such opposition really exists, I will rather confess that I  myself do not understand what is said."'  No  less' Kai Troyirjaoltev fO cata iTrlv ravra Tooaeqit00Oat lT  evayyeXi9; ty, fPiv oVv l(Tra
tv / eiav Kepaiav ov rL(aTv(reo  Kevjv eivaC Oeitcv pyaOjdraTv.-Comm. in Matt. xvi. 12.
t. ii p. 734.
2 The apparent discrepancy in the accounts of the Genealogies has attracted attention from the earliest times.  Olshausen on S. Matt. i. 1, observes: " Julius Africanus
especially (Euseb. H. E. i 7.) had his attention engaged in it. Three hypotheses
were formed with unusual acuteness for the solution of this difficulty." That of Julius
Africanus is as follows:-he supposes Heli (S. Luke, iii. 23) and Jacob (S. Matt. i. 15)
to have been half-brothers by the same mother; the same father would, clearly, have
rendered the genealogies identical: and he also supposes Heli to have died without
issue, on which, by the law of the Levirate marriage (Deut. xxv. 5, 6)-so called
from Levir, a husband's brother-Jacob married the widow.  From this union was
born "Joseph the husband of Mary, of whom was born Jesus, who is called Christ."
-S. Matt. i. 16. This hypothesis of Julius Africanus is thus stated in his Epistle to
Aristides: iK dtaf6opov 6do yevov evpjaopuev r6v re'IaKcd3 Kiai rov'HaX2 6,oForpiovg
d6e2~ovg.  Sv 6 irepof'IaKc ae drKVOv ro  d6e0ovi reTevr7jaavrof'Ha2i, rTv yvvalKa
TrapaLafpiv, etyvvrlaEv e' avr7f Trpirov rv'Ihoa.-Routh, Reliq. Sacrce, t. ii. p. 234.
3 Er' ovv OVTir, ei'' Uto           * iXot, *   *  *  rOb  yvrot evayy-eAov 7rTavTv
uXyOeivet.-Ibid. p. 237.
4 Trypho, pressed by quotations from the prophetical writings, had appealed to
Isai. xlii. 8, in proof that God would not communicate His glory to another. S. Justin proceeds to reply:
Kiy6' el uiv  r2uLgf Kai ua7 FeTra KaKiaf roVrovf roof  26oyovg eiTcrv, Eotiyroaa, 
Tpiv, )v, irTE Tro7f rrpO av'irv irpoeLrr'v, jU7re TOV EriTaiCcoAol6oivTac a vvdbafc, avyyvcoaroi el. el 6& xaptv ro voi[etvw d6vaaOal elf ciropiav tfi3a2AeLv TrV d o6yov, iv' elro evav
irea elyva raig ypaq(aC L ud2atl, 7re7rAdivraaL. ov yalp roX2lmao roTr6o 7 ore 07 ivOv/u70ivat,
71 elTret- l' ia' v rotavr  Tlri  doKlooaa elvat ypao  orrpo,32nOrQ, Kcai rp6oaatv Xi7 6g
Evavr7a oaa, EKI ravrof 7r E retr E of o6r ov?e /ia ypai a   r  7 tr ipa Evavria
- ai Tv, avrob urj voelv pca2I ov 6o/oyisOn(  ra eliprpiva.-Dial. cum Tryph. c. 65, p. 162.
To the same effect, S. Dionysius of Alexandria-(obiit A. D. 264; and of whom
Mosheim says, "the ancients used no flattery when they styled him Dionysius the
Great,"-Cent. III. part ii. ch. 2.)-referring to one of the difficulties connected with
the harmony of the Resurrection, observes: " Let us not suppose that the Evangelists
differ, or that they are at variance with each other; but even though there shall
seem to be some trifling question as to the matter in hand  *  *  *  still let us be




90                   THE IMMEMORIAL DOCTRINE                     [LECT. II.
marked, from the very first, was the importance ascribed to each
phrase which the sacred penmen  employ.  S. Irenaeus observes,
that " S. Matthew might, no doubt, have said:'The generation
of Jesus was on this wise;' but the Holy Ghost, foreseeing that
men would deprave the truth, and fortifying us against their deceptions, says, by Matthew,'the generation of Christ was on
this wise.' "   One instance more may be added, which places in
the clearest light the belief; both of the members of the Church
at large, and of the greatest of the Fathers, in the Divine source
of the language of Scripture. I allude to a passage in the correspondence between S. Augustine and S. Jerome, with reference
to the labors of the latter in expounding and translating the
Bible; and this instance is the more significant for our purpose
when we consider the question discussed, as well as the solemn
manner in which S. Augustine solicits a reply. The Bishop of
a certain city, which is not named, had desired to introduce S.
Jerome's new version of the Old Testament. On the first occasion of its being used in public worship, the portion of Scripture
read was the fourth chapter of the Book of Jonah, where it is
said, at the sixth verse, that " the Lord God prepared a gourd,
and made it to come up over Jonah." In this passage the word
rendered  in the old  Italic version-" gourd"  (cucurbita), had
been taken by S. Jerome to signify " ivy" (hedera). The change
was at once discovered, and a violent tumult was excited among
the people, especially among such of them as were Greeks, who
accused the Bishop of corrupting the text of the Bible. The result, S. Augustine tells us, was, that the Bishop was compelled
to restore the old translation, "not wishing, after the great danger he had encountered, to continue without a flock."2
zealous honestly and faithfully to harmonize what has been said."  (M6e dta0ovezv,
7)6l' Gvavrtovafatt rovg evayye8Ltar(if Trpo' uJXiovf vno27/3to/ieev' K. T. L.)-Epist.
Canon. ap. Routh, Rel. Sacrce, t. iii. p. 225.
"Potuerat dicere Matthaeus:'Jesu vero generatio sic erat;' sed preevidens
Spiritus S. depravatores, et praemuniens contra fraudulentiam eorum, per Matthaeum
ait:'Christi autem generatio sic erat.'" —Cont. Hcer. lib. IlI. xvi. 2, p. 204. It is
clear that had the copy of the Gospels used by S. Irenaeus given the correct reading
of S. Matth. i. 1, viz., "Jesus Christ," his argument would have been considerably
strengthened. See D. Massuet's note in loc.
2 "Quidam frater noster Episcopus, cum lectitari instituisset in ecclesia cui praeest,
interpretationem  tuam, movit quiddam longo aliter abs te positum apud Jonam
Prophetam, quam erat omniurn sensibus memoriseque inveteratum, et tot retatum
successionibus decantatum. Factu3 est tantus tumultus in plebe, maxime Grecis arguentibus et inclarnantibus calumniam falsitatis, ut cogeretur Episcopus (ea quippe




LECT. II.]             OF THE CHURCH  OF GOD.                            91
I have thus attempted to give some idea of the sentiments
cherished in every age by both Jews and Christians, as to the nature  and  value  of the sacred  documents committed  to their
charge.' This belief was no merely speculative tenet; nor did it
rest upon some general feeling that the writings which taught the
doctrines of revealed religion were deserving of reverence. Their
conviction of the  Divine  source of that faith which  the Bible
unfolds, was not more firm than their conviction that the origin
of the records which contain its history was, in like manner, Divine. Proofs, equally incontrovertible, were given of both. The
soldier of the Cross, in our day, goes forth to heathen lands, supported, it is true, by the sense of duty, and animated by his glorious message: but he is also cheered on his path, and stimulated
in his toil —for he is but man,-by the consciousness of universal
sympathy, and the  tokens of public  applause.  Once this was
not so. There were days when the Christian missionary, although
in the land of his fathers, and surrounded by the civilization of
the world, was  encountered  on  every  side, did  he  suffer his
thoughts to dwell upon aught but the task before him, by the
certainty of persecution, and contumely, and wrong. " If the
Tiber," said Tertullian, "floods to the walls, if the Nile does
not irrigate  the  fields, if the  heavens  are  shut, if the earth
civitas erat,) Judeorum testimonium flagitare. Utrum autem illi imperitia an malitia,
hoc esse in Hebraeis codicibus responderunt, quod et Greeci et Latini habebant atque
dicebant. Quid plura? Coactus est homo velut mendositatem corrigere, volens, post
magnum periculum, non remanere sine plebe."-August. ad Hieron. Epist. lxxi. t. ii.
p. 161; S. Augustine concluding with the words: " Sed obsecro te per Dominum, ne
te pigeat ad omnia respondere."
S. Jerome in his reply explains the cause of the commotion: " Dicis me in Jonam
Prophetam male quiddam interpretatum, et seditione populi conclamante, propter
unius verbi dissonantiam Episcopum paene Sacerdotium perdidisse; et quid sit illud
*  *  *  subtrahis *  *  *  nisi-forte, ut ante annos plurimos, cucurbita venit in
medium, asserente illius temporis Cornelio et Asinio Pollione, me hederam pro cucurbita transtulisse. Super qua re in commentario Jonae Prophetae plenius respondimus."-Hieron. ad August. Ep. cxii. t. i. p. 748.
The kind of effect which the argument built upon this universal consent, is calculated to produce, has been beautifully expressed by Mr. Coleridge: "In every generation, and wherever the light of Revelation has shone, men of all ranks, conditions,
and states of mind, have found in this Volume a correspondent for every movement
toward the Better felt in their own hearts  *  *  * As if on some dark night a pilgrim, suddenly beholding a bright star moving before him, should stop in fear and
perplexity. But lo  traveller after traveller passes by him, and each, being questioned whither he is going, makes answer,'I am following yon guiding Star' The
pilgrim quickens his own steps, and presses onward in confidence. More confident
still will he be, if by the wayside he should find, here and there, ancient monuments,
each with its votive lamp, and on each the name of some former pilgrim, and a record that there he had first seen or begun to follow the benignant Star I"-Confess. of
an Inquiring Spirit, Letter vi. p. 73.




92                     THE  IMMEMORIAL  DOCTRINE                       [LECT. II.
quakes, if there is a famine or a pestilence, —at once the cry is
raised, CHRISTIANOS AD  LEONEM."'  In  attestation  of the truth
and origin of the facts on which Christianity relies, no more convincing proof can be alleged than the endurance of such trials,
and the triumphs thus achieved. The proof, too, is one of which
Christian Apologists in every age have not been slow to avail
themselves."   But the argument should not pause here.   It exhibits the Church's belief in the Divine character and inspiration
of the Bible, no less than in the truth and heavenly origin of its
contents. Jew and Christian alike were eager to sacrifice life itself, not merely in defence of the doctrines of revealed religion,
but of the very documents in which  those  doctrines were contained.   Within  so  short a  space  of time  as ten  years before
the public recognition of Christianity, the persecution of Diocletian carried torture and death to every section of the Church.
The trial of the martyr's faith was not now to sacrifice to the
gods, or to adore the Emperor;-the edict went forth,' Give up
your sacred writings, or die.'3   There was no longer that actual
" Si Tiberis ascendit ad mcenia, si Nilus non ascendit in arva, si coelum stetit,
si terra movit, si fames, si lues, statim, CHRISTIANOS AD LEONXEI."-Apolog. c. 40,
p. 36.
a Thus S. Justin Mart. writes:
Ovdva oVdeTrore id6ev Eoriv iVrroielvavra d6i TrV TpbO roV 712Xov 7rin7LV dTroOaveZv'
dIZ d6 Trb 6voa Tro'laUov, ec iravrbf y7vovf dvOp'7(jrv Ka~ vroeiivavTaf Kai vrroevor -
Tag aravra 7r(aaxetv crrp Tro  Il' (TIpvpjoaaOat AVP rb, i6(ev ecti. —Dial. cum Tryph. c.
121. p. 214. Cf. Apol. ii. 12, p. 96.
3 Credner, in his treatise "Zur Geschichte des Kanons." p. 65, quotes "two documents which are the most ancient which we possess on this subject."  In the Donatist
controversy, Felix, Bishop of Aptungis, was accused of having been a " Traditor,"
or one who had given up his sacred books, in the persecution of Diocletian. Felix was
tried on this charge in the year 320, on which occasion were adduced the official
documents, which had been received in his house in the year 303. The former of
these documents runs as follows: " Diocletiano VIII. et Maximiano VII. Coss.; XIV.
Kal. Jun., ex actis Munatii Felicis, flaminis perpetui, Curatoris colonite Cirtensium.
Cum ventum esset ad domum in qua Christiani conveniebant, Felix flamen perpetuus
Curator Paulo Episcopo dixit,' Proferte scripturas legis, et si quid aliud hie habetis,
ut praecepto et jussioni parere possitis, &c.'  This document is taken from the " Monumenta vetera ad Donat. hist. pertinentia," published by Dupin in his edition of the
treatise of S. Optatus, "De Schism. Donatistarum," Ant. 1702, p. 168.
In'the second document which Credner quotes, and which also is of the year 303,
occurs a letter from Felix to Caecilianus, to the effect that inquiry had been made " an
aliquae scripturce legis vestrce secundum sacram legem adustce sint, &c."-lbid. p. 164.
Ruinart refers to this same Edict, with the addition: " et propositum est per colonias et civitates Principibus et Magistratibus, suo cuique loco, ut LIBROS DEIFICOS
peterent de manu Episcoporum et Presbyterorum."-Acta Primrorum Martyr. p. 355.
In pursuance of this Edict " the divinely inspired Scriptures"-Eusebius records as
an eye-witness-were publicly committed to the flames: Tr(i 6dt  vOEov   Icai ieoac
ypauSg iaTr(i yeag cdyopag  7rvp2  qrapa6d6opdvac   avroic e7recidoev  oqOatiole.-~Ecc.
Hist. lib. viii 2. p. 377. Lactantius fixes the day on which this persecution commenced, as the Terminalia "a. d. vii. Kal. Martias" (A.D. 303) " Qui dies cum illux



LECT. II.]              OF THE  CHURCH  OF GOD.                                93
knowledge of the facts of Christ's life, or of the teaching of His
Apostles, which had cheered the martyr Stephen, and supported
the dying Polycarp. The personal recollection of such matters
had  now  ceased; the belief in the facts had become, as with us,
but historical: and yet such was the firm conviction of the Divine
inspiration and heavenly origin of the Scriptures of Truth, that
death with all its horrors was embraced rather than resign them
to the heathen." To use the profound observation of Pascal:' This is a sincerity which has no example in the world, nor its
root in nature."
isset  *  *  * repente, adhuc dubia luce, ad ecclesiam profectus  *  *  *  revulsis foribus, simulacrum Dei quaeritur: Scriplurce repertce incendundur," &c.-De Mort.
Persecut. c. xii.
Take the case of the martyrdom of the Bishop of Tibiura, in Africa:
*    " Postera autem die Felix Episcopus venit Carthagine Tibiuram   *  *  *
cui Magnilianus Curator dixit,'Felix Episcope, da libros, vel membranas quascunque
habes.' Felix Episcopus dixit,'Habeo, sed non do.' Magnilianus Curator dixit,'Prius est quod Imperatores jusserunt, quam quod tu loqueris. Da libros, ut possint
igni aduri.' Felix Episcopus dixit,' ielius est me igne aduri, quam Scripturas Deificas: quia bonum est obedire Deo magis quam hominibus' *  *  *  Magnilianus C.
dixit,'Ibis ergo ad Proconsulem' *  *  *  Tunc profectus est Felix a Tibiura
*  *  *  cui dixit Proconsul,'Quare scripturas supervacuas non reddis?' Felix
Episcopus dixit,'Habeo sed non dabo.' *  *  *  Tunc prefectus jussit Felicem de
vinculis eripi; et dixit,'Felix, quare Scripturas Dominicas non das? ant forsitan non
habes?' Cui respondit,'Habeo quidem, sed non do.' Prrefectus dixit,'Felicem
gladio interficite.' Felix Episcopus, dixit voce clara,'Gratias tibi Domine, qui me
dignatus es liberare.' "-Acta S. Felicis, Episc. et MIart., ap. Ruinart, p. 356.
Again: in the year 304 several ladies of Thessalonica, named Agape, Chionia,
Irene, &c., were burned alive under circumstances of revolting atrocity.  The Pre-ect,
we are told, addressed Irene as follows:
"Dulcetius vero:'Quisnam tibi auctor fuit ut membranas istas atque scripturas
ad hodiernum usque diem custodires?''Ille,' inquit Irene,'Deus Omnipotens, qui
jussit nobis ad mortem usque Ipsum diligere.  Qua de causa non ausae sumus Eum
prodere, sed maluimus aut viventes comburi, aut quecumque alia nobis acciderint
perpeti, quam talia scripta prodere.' "-Ibid. p. 394.
2 Pascal is speaking of the Jews:- "Cependant ce livre qui les deshonore en tant
de fagons, il le conservent aux depens de leur vie. C'est une sincerite qui n'a point
d'exemple dans le monde, ni sa racine dans la nature."-ed Faugere, t. ii. p. 189.
In proof of this assertion, we may adduce the language of Philo:
Kat r;tAel6vv T-Sv 6dEXrX.2v6oTov, Tr /uEV  dcKpltfe  OVK XtO E 2eyetv oir6aa, 7rX&o) 6' oNv
d6vaXiLta 17r7, n' p,U ad ye a   r o        6 v o v o v  T  v   r T' a v ro v [scil. Moses]
yeyp a/ziev tv Klvaatl, (Z2a K (Iv  tvpt  K L   avroc (i 7ro  avev ev ov a e  v a t OaTTOV,  Tr70~c Keivov v6Fot Kaci Oe'LV Evavria Trel.aOvV<tt.-De Judtor. ex
Egypto Profect. t. ii. p. 628. As to the sense of t0oo, in this passage, compare the
following:
OVC O iepgS?7yof 6tLdaGKEIt Xp7r7T   V'Tvo2'7eO) 7TE0bpovrTlKEval, Kal /ti(TE T7V ~v V roi7
iOeat VetLV,   0 e ae  - T  a t o t Ktai' eiovf avdpef i KaO' 47/itaf 5 p t a a v.-De Migr. Abr.
t. i. p. 450. In both these places W0og clearly denotes not merely customs, rites; but
the Law itselE  Cf. Acts, vi. 14; xv. 1; xxi. 21.








LECTURE  IIlI
THE OLD TESTAMENT AND THE NEWT-THE
LOGOS THE REVEALER.




HpoKUeOic     TOLvvv  *  *  *  TrSg iETErpac 7tr'reoT.  o A6oyo, Cral Evayye:iov o opoo,
Kai r3v'A oroarT6Xv ro Kr/pvyua, Ka' r6Uv nIpo 7rpuv 4 yiaprvpia.
S. ATHANASIUS, Cont. Apollinar. ii 4.
"Scriptura omnis in duo Testamenta divisa est  *  *  *  Judei Veteri utuntur.
nos Novo: sed tamen diversa non sunt, quia Novum  Veteris adimpletio est, et in
utroque idem Testator est Christus."
LACTANTIUS, Divin. Instit. iv. 20.
"Prophetre, ab Ipso habentes donum, in Illum prophetaverunt."
S. BARNABAS, Epist. ~ v.
Ihavra 6' AI'rov, Kac elf AbrOTv KTLtTrat. oTw  6!d, 65C 2X0'C) dvro' tca Ki vep'yo'vv7ro,
53 A6yov ia Kat OeoO  di' ovi   o  nalarp 7irvra 7rreT7KoiKev,     o   px A     dt' 6pyavov, o06' (') di''il7ar7T/L7f divVroar7iTOV  *  *  *  Torov  Elvat, 06f iT7rlpC  rv ivrarTpltKvpovXvr;v  roic
rrarTptupxaf 1aiveTca   *  *   Trore /i'V cdg'Ayye 7o,  7orT  66  (qg KvploC, 7TOnT 6~
OeSC yapTVpOvfElVOg.
SYN. ANTIOCH. Adv. Paulum  Samosat.'AKcO'ovOa e,'piatKETal Kai Ta Tr3v IpoprrSdv Kal Ta r Erv EVayyE2iwtv dXetv, 6id ro
roVg Trdvra 7rTVEvaToro6povg  Ev2 nvedvuart Oeoiv XeXaXtKevat.
THEOPHILUS, Ad Autolycum, iii. 12.




LECTURE III.
THEE OLi if' \'VSAMENT AND THE NEW: THE LOGOS
THE REVEALER.
NO MAN KNOWETH wiFO THE SON IS, BUT THE FATHER; AND WHO THE FATHER IS, BUT
THE SON, AND HE TO WrHOM THEI SON WILL REVEAL HIM."-S. Luke, x. 22.
THE course of our inquiry respecting the inspiration of Holy
Scripture has brought us to the examination of the Scriptures
themselves.  We have now to seek for the intimations given by
the sacred writers as to the nature of the influence by which they
were actuated; and also to collect whatever inferences, relating
to the manner of the Divine co-operation, can be drawn from the
internal structure of the Bible in confirmation of the claim  to
infallible authority which it asserts for itself, and which, as we
have seen, has been in all ages ascribed to it by the Church of
God.
This line of argument is by no means fairly open to an objection often urged against it. You require us, it is said, to
receive the Bible as true because it is inspired, and you then
undertake to prove its inspiration from its own pages. This is
not so. It will be remembered that, from the outset, the present
investigation has taken for granted the entire array of Christian
evidence-embracing, together with the proofs of supernatural
agency, the vast extent of antiquarian and grammatical criticism,
the profound argument from the analogy of nature,' as well as a
Bishop Butler observes, in a well-known passage: "Hence, namely from analogical reasoning, Origen has with singular sagacity observed, that' he who believes
the Scripture to have proceeded from Him, who is the Author of Nature, may well
expect to find the same sort of difficulties in it as are found in the constitution of
Nature.' And in a like way of reflection, it may be added, that he who denies the
Scripture to have been from God, upon account of these difficulties, may, for the very,
same reason, deny the world to have been formed by Him."-Analogy, Introd.
The passage which Butler has here quoted continues as follows: Crt &6 ye aiz ev ro
7




98           THE OLD TESTAMENT AND THE NEW:   [LECT. III.
comparison of our sacred records with the whole range of profane
history, and with the present aspect of the world.  On such evidence we are entitled to assume the genuineness, the authenticity, and the perfect truthfulness of the several books to which
the name of Holy Scripture has been assigned.  To examine.
therefore, the nature of the influence under which those books
have been drawn up, by the light which they themselves afford,
can never be justly charged with logical fallacy.  As well might
we reject the. personal statements of an ambassador, with respect
to the nature of his powers and the source of his instructions,
after we had verified his credentials, and satisfied ourselves as
to his veracity.  And thus the adducing arguments from Scripture itself, in proof of its own inspiration, is no petitio principii.
It would only become so, were we to assume the fact of its inspiration in order to infer therefrom the credibility of its contents.
This credibility we establish by independent proofs.  We regard
the sacred books, in the first instance, as historical documents
drawn up by men whose honesty and truthfulness rest upon the
ordinary grounds of human belief, and whose qualifications are
further attested by that Society, to whose charge the writings
which they composed have confessedly been committed. Having
thus convinced ourselves of the authority of the Bible, that its
doctrines are revealed, and that its facts are true, we can feel no
scruple in admitting as accurate the character which its own
writers ascribe to it.
Still less can any objection be made to our drawing inferences
as to the nature of the influence under which the Bible was composed, from the phenomena which its pages present to view, or
its contents record. Such a process of reasoning is as sound as
it is philosophical. The argument from Final Causes is admitted
by all to afford the plainest evidence that the Creator of the world
is God.'The traces of design which are engraved upon the face
of Nature, are universally received as the clearest proof that its
Author is Divine.  On the whole, then, the Bible, as history,
testifies of Christ: Christ, moreover, as the Lord who animates
His Church with His Spirit, testifies that Scripture is " Holy
KrTaeL rtva daV0rpuivr bfVet 6v6Ev7pera 7 KIa avevpesra. Kat oV JLC TOVTO  KaT?7yoprr)ov
TOo rotr07TOV rTV O8Xov. 4/pe el7redv, Tret oVX eVptaGKO/Lev arTiav PaaLClKwV KV T(ECSo, Ka)
Trv UX2tv lof36.oUv 87piOv * * * OTr) Trotvvv KaC Ekv raZS 0EcatL ypadatc Xoi opaSv,,rTt rooA& dro6Ketvral v. avraiC 6vaaod6ora rlZav.-Selecta in Psalmos, t. ii. p. 528.




LECT. III.]             THE  LOGOS THE  REVEALER.                              99
Scripture:"' and hence we do not, at starting, believe what is
contained in the Bible, because it is inspired; —but, having previously established its claims to our belief, we are fully entitled to
draw  our main argument for its inspiration from  its own pages.2
The present stage of our inquiry brings before us a fact to
which attention has been already drawn:-I mean  the indissoluble connection, and coequal authority, of the two great divisions
of the inspired  record.  These two  collections of ancient documents we receive on the testimony of the bodies of men to whose
trust they were respectively committed.   The Jewish Church, in
its day, has borne witness to the Old Testament: the Christian
Church, in like manner, bears witness to the  New.3   The  Christian Church, moreover, has an additional testimony to offer;testimony, I mean, to the continuity of both Old and New Testament, to their mutual relation, and to the identity of their
Divine Author.4   From  the very dawn of Christianity, it is true,
1 "Die Schrift, als Geschichte, beweiset fur Christus; Christus, als der seine Gemeine mit seinen Geiste belebende Herr, beweiset fir die Schrift als heilige Schrift.
Hiedurch entgehen wir griiudlich dem mit Recht gerigten Zirkel, dem in der Schrift
Enthaltenen zu glauben, weil sie inspirirt ist, aber dass sie inspirirt sei, wiederum aus
den Aussagen der Schrift zu beweisen."-Sack, Apologetik, s. 429.
2 Modern writers have drawn a distinction between the fides humana and the fides
divina of Scripture.  The fides humana of the Bible is founded upon its authenticity,
its credibility, and its integrity.  By the authenticity (avOevria) of a writing is meant,
that it has been composed by the author to whom it is ascribed; or, if the author has
not named himself, that it has been composed at the time, among the people, and
under the circumstances assigned in its contents.  The credibility (dciowrarTia) of a
writing, which depends on the credibility of its author, and on its contents, consists
in those particulars which gain for it public belief. The integrity of a writing appears
from the proofs given that we possess it in the form in which it was originally composed, and that it has undergone no such falsifications as render its use uncertain, or
its author's meaning undiscoverable. The fides divina of Scripture presupposes the
fides humana.  Cf. Bretschneider, " Handb. der Dogm." i. s. 338.
s In his review of Twesten's "Vorlesungen," Nitzsch well describes the function
of the Church: "Die Kirche ist veranlassende, vermittlende, vorbereiterde Ursache
unserer Ueberzeugung von der Gottlichkeit einer Schrift."-Studien u. Kritiken,
1828. s. 240.
On such testimony rests " The Canon of Scripture."  According to Christian
usage, the word Kavuv does not differ in signification from what, in heathen philosophy. was termed decretum or dSoya,-namely, the leading principles of a philosophical system.  Thus Seneca writes: "Nulla ars contemplativa sine decretis suis est,
qua Graeci vocant d6y/arar.  *  *  *  Aliqua vel casu vel exercitatione, exibunt
recta: sed non erit in manu regula, ad quam exigantur, cui credat recta esse quee
fecit."-Epist. 95. Hence the phrases KactVcl iKK1'2ataJT7tKcOf, and regula fidei, were
used as synonymous, and as denoting both Old and New Testaments. Clemens Alex.
defines the Kavev EKKfCalaL7tKO6f to be "' the harmony of the Law and the Prophets
with the New Testament."  It is —LI cvvd6ia ca ij avylwvia v6yov re KaZ;rpoTur1,,,
7r icara 7'V rTO  KvpiTv rapovaiav 7rapadtSozivy r   a6terjK.-Strom. vi. 15. p. 803.
Thus, too, Tertullian says of the Church of Rome in his day: " Legem et Prophetas
cum Evangelicis et Apostolicis literis miscet, et inde potat fidem."-De Prcescr. Hacr.
c. xxxvi p. 245. See Credner, "Zur Gesehichte des Kanons," s. 20-22. The firm




100            THE  OLD  TESTAMENT AND  THE NEW:    [LECT. III.
some have been found to question that identity, and even to assert that the two portions of the Bible are heterogeneous and
opposed.   Of such  importance, however, has the exposure of
this error been always deemed, that, as I have  already pointed
out, the Church declares by an express article of the Creed, that
it was the Holy Ghost " who spake through the Prophets."'
The revival, in our own day, of opinions whose tendency at
least is not dissimilar,' may, to a certain extent, be inferred from
the absence of any reference to the Old Testament, in the great
majority of modern treatises which allude to the subject of Inspiration; an omission so remarkable, that a reader, unfamiliar with
the Bible, might imagine that no Church of old had ever received
"the oracles of God;" that no prophet had ever foretold the Advent of the  Messiah; that no  elaborate  ceremonial had  ever
typified the mysteries of the Kingdom of Christ. The revival
of such views with respect to the Old Testament is not, however,
a  matter of mere  inference.   The  opinion  has  been  openly
avowed, and eagerly defended, that the Old Testament is either
totally unconnected with the New-except indeed by chance; or
that its importance has passed away, and that the Gospel dispensation can tolerate no remnant of the covenant under which
the Jewish nation was chosen." It is needless to inquire to what
belief of the Church in the continuity of both Old and New Testament is well described in the following verses of S. Gregory of Nazianzum:
X6ptala 6' oida Ilvev'farof Oeiav dociv.
Krpvyyu' iddijvov, rV, rrpoonreiav 7'eyw
Evayy6etov d6, rl vEaf aworypiac''AroaTro07)v 6d, avuauaXiav KIc7pvJyfaTro'
A6yov 6 yv3aLtv, rTjv KaTjX7ovGw, vIotL
Carmen xxxiv. t. ii. p. 622.
See Lecture ii. p. 81.
2 Thus Mr. Morell writes:-" If the Jewish dispensation was Divine, if God communed in secret with the nation, if His Spirit was in the Church, then the writings
which embody this religious state are inspired,-inspired, however, not as being
penned under any specific commission from heaven, but as being the productions of
those who were enlightened by special influences, and as being universally received
by the Jews as the purest representations both of their national and their individual
religious vitality. In such representations of course we could not expect to see described a higher religion or a more perfect morality than actually existed in those
times; hence accordingly the imperfections both in moral and religious ideas which
are mixed up with all their sacred writings."-Philosophy of Religion, p. 169.' Bretschneider argues, that since " doctrines relating to God and morality are far
more perfectly stated in the New Testament by Jesus and the Apostles, and have
been sufficiently attested by the latter as Divine; and since this system of teaching
requires no attestation by means of the Old Testament, it is clear that there is no need
of a theory of Revelation for the Old Testament, which cannot be'judex et norma
fidei et vitae' for Christians in the same sense as the New Testament."-Handb.




LECT. III.]           THE LOGOS THE REVEALER                             101
extent we are to look upon such conclusions as the result of a
false conception of spiritual religion, or how far they may be
traced to certain dogmatic views on points of Christian doctrine;
it is more to our purpose to  examine whether such  sentiments
have any foundation, and, if not, to expose their falsehood.  Let
us then examine, in the first place, under what aspect the Old
Testament is presented to us in the New;' and inquire, secondly,
whether a comparison of the two great divisions of the Bible
offers such analogies, as may justify our maintaining that their
authors equally shared in the same guiding influence of the Spirit
of God.
der Dogm. I. S. 159. See, too, the remarks of Twesten, quoted Lecture i. p. 27, note 3;
where also the opinions of Schleiermacher have been referred to, and where we have
seen (note 2) how this latter writer has gone so far as to consider " the expressions
of the nobler and purer heathenism" of equal value for Christians as the sentiments
of the Old Testament. To which I may add that in his chapter, " Von der Methode
der Dogmatik," Schleiermacher refuses to quote the Old Testament in support of his
views, alleging it to be, as an authority, "superfluous:" — ithin erscheint das alte
Testament doch fur die Dogmatik nur als eine iiberfissige Autoritiit."-Der christl.
Glaube, I. s. 147. It may be well to observe, as bearing upon a topic to be discussed
in the present Lecture, that Schleiermacher's views on this subject appear to have
arisen, from his having perceived but partially the connexion of Revelation with the
Person of Christ. The leading feature of his system is, that the Person of the Redeemer, and it alone, is the Revelation to man; and that a belief in the reality of this
Person forms the essence of (what Schleiermacher terms) "the Christian consciousness."  Thus he concludes, " that if belief in the Revelation of God in Christ, and in
the Redemption through Him, has not already sprung up spontaneously and originally (auf dem urspriinglichen Wege), by means of experience as the demonstration of
the Spirit and of power, neither miracles nor prophecies can produce it; nay more,
that this belief would be just as immoveable, even if Christianity could point to neither
prophecies nor miracles." —Ibid. s. 97. According to this theory, therefore, all Revelation is excluded, except the fact of Christ's Personal appearance, and the Redemption which He effected:-in other words, because Christ is Himself (in the highest
sense) the Revelation of God, Schleiermacher infers that He cannot have communicated Divine knowledge by the intervention of human agents. Hence his denial of
any revelation in the Old Testament, and his undervaluing Inspiration in general.
See Lecture i. pp. 34, 35, supra.
Sack, commenting on the various modes of stating this principle in the successive
editions of the " Christliche Glaube," truly remarks that all those statements have this
in common, " dass eigentliche Offenbarung nur in der Person Christi sci, ausser derselben nur in dem allgemeineren Sinne, wie man es auch von Entstehung eines neuen
Kunstlebens sagen konne. —Apologetik s. 123. And Nitzsch justly sums up thiis
theory of Scllleiermacher by saying: " This theologian has taken his idea of Revelation, not from the Holy Scriptures, but firom the philosophy of the general usage of
language; and indeed this is the reason why he considers this idea as too slight to
express the peculiarity of Christianity. That which is wholly direct in the Revelation would appear to him to be perfectly applicable only to Christ, as an intelligent
recipient; but it is deserving of remark that, according to Scriptural guidance, this
view is here inapplicable; for *  *  *  an a7rooiavgtf, or revelation in the above
sense, has not been given to Christ. That He taught what IHe heard is something quite different, for that even does the Holy Spirit."-System der Christl.
Lehre, ~ 24.
l As to the principle on which the writers of the New Testament have appealed
to the Old, see infra, Lecture vii.




102            THE  OLD  TESTAMENT AND  THE  NEW:    [LECT. III.
Now when we seek for the judgment passed by Him, who is
the central point to which all the rays of Revelation converge, we
are at once met by a statement, which might seem to set this
question at rest for ever. Christ has said, " Search the Scriptures"-that is, of the  Old  Testament-" they are they which
testify of Me."' In the vision of the Prophet Evangelist, the
same truth has been repeated by a messenger from heaven: "The
testimony of Jesus is the spirit of prophecy."' The Old Testament, then, " testifies" of Christ —and this by no isolated predictions; for the entire  history of God's Revelation, under the
former dispensation, is one great reference to the future Messiah: and upon that revelation byfacts, and prediction byfacts,
is grounded that series of predictions by words, which God has
been pleased to communicate, in a supernatural manner, by His
special agents.
I S. John, v. 39. The constant use which our Lord Himself makes of the Old Testament may, indeed, be considered to decide this question:-especially His manner
of quoting it on the occasion of His Temptation (S. Matt. iv. 4, 7, 10). Parallel to
this instance is that in which the angel, when announcing the birth of John the Baptist (S. Luke, i 17), makes use of the prediction of Malachi: " Behold I will send you
Elijah the prophet, before the great and dreadful day of the Lord. And he shall turn
the heart of the fathers to the children," &c.-Mal. iv. 5, 6: on which Olshausen profoundly observes:-" Such cases are clearly not to be understood as if angels quote
from, Scripture, but the words occur in Scripture, because it has been so resolved in
the heavenly world to which the spiritual beings who speak belong. The supporting a thought by the words of Scripture is to be regarded only as the clothing it in
the form accessible to man, and which he can comprehend. Angels, therefore, do
not quote the language of Scripture, because they desire to take a proof from the Bible, or a reference for their words; but the thoughts applied are to be found in the
Bible, because they contain a truth which holds good as well in heaven as upon
earth."-Comm. iib. Luc. i. 17, B. i. s. 93.
2 Rev. xix. 10, "I am thy fellow servant" said the Angel to S. John, "and of thy
brethren that have the testimony (rTv #anpvplav) of Jesus: * * * for the testimony
(:i japrvpia) of Jesus is the spirit of prophecy:" i. e. (as Bishop Hurd remarks)-" the
testimony of, or concerning Jesus. *   *   *  I affirm its sense to be'That the scope
and end of Prophecy was the testimony of Jesus.'" On Prophecy, Sermon ii. Compare with this our Lord's own words just quoted: IpevdarT T(;i ypanuf *  *  *  eai.KelvaiO eltLv ai / a p r  p o v) a a t Trep e/iov.-S. John, v. 39.
The view adopted by lIengstenberg is but slightly different: "The testimony of
Jesus is the testimony which Jesus delivers. According to the point of view taken
in the Apocalypse, the testifier is always properly Christ-cf. at ch. i. 2; vi. 9. * * *
All doubt is removed by the explanation given in this passage itself. According to
it,' those who have the testimony of Jesus' is equivalent to those who have the Spirit
of Prophecy. *  *  *  The for introduces the reason, on account of which the angel
had spoken of a testimony of Jesus. It stands in this, that the testimony of Jesus,
which alone could here be made account of, is all one with the Spirit of Prophecy. That
the testimony concerning Christ, is, at the same time, the testimony of Christ; and,prophecy has its source in the spirit of prophecy,-these correspond to each other.
Christ testifies in the prophets through His Spirit (1 Pet. i. 11)."-The Revelation of
S. John expouuded. (Clarke's For. Theol. Lib. vol. ii. p. 256.) It will be seen, as we
proceed, how this view of the passage falls in with the main object of this Lecture.




LECT  III.]           THE LOGOS THE  REVEALER.                             103
Those parts of the New Testament in which the Holy Ghost
has brought to full maturity the spirit of the Old Testament revelations are, the  Gospel of S. Matthew, the Epistle to the Hebrews, and the discourse of S. Stephen in the seventh chapter of
the Acts of the Apostles.'  S. Stephen, when defending himself
from  the charge of " blaspheming the holy place and the Law,"'
takes occasion to prove, negatively, that the Law and the Temple,
though Divine, were not the highest and last form of God's
Revelation.3    S. Matthew  takes the positive line of argument,
that Jesus  is the  promised  seed  of Abraham,  "the  Son of
David:" —an  argument which  opens by  exhibiting  the three
great periods of the Genealogy,4 and which  unfolds itself on the' Cf. " Der Brief an die Hebraer erklirt," von Dr. J. H. A. Ebrard, Konigsberg,
1850. Einleit., s. 5. There is no portion of the New Testament on which so little attention has been bestowed by commentators, or which has suffered so much from misconception, as that passage in the Acts of the Apostles which relates to S. Stephen.
Some remarks on the subject of his address, and, especially, of the "demonstrable historical mistakes" charged against him (see Alford's Greek Testament, Proleg, vol. i.
~ 6.), will be found in Appendix H. Meanwhile I would draw attention to the impressive manner in which S. Luke dwells upon the character of the First Martyr. He
alone of the Deacons is described as " a man full of faith and of the Holy Ghost."Acts, vi. 5. "Stephen," it is added, "full of faith and power, did great wonders and
miracles among the people" (ver. 8); the learning of the Jewish synagogue was unable
"to resist the wisdom and the Spirit by which he spake" (ver. 10); and at ch. vii. 55,
it is said of him again, V ir i p X u v d6' rrprpC lIve~6atrof'Ayt6v, revioaac elf r. ovp.that he was a person "full of the Holy Ghost," not one who became so (yev/evo)e at
that moment;-as appears from the junction of the aorist dTrlvicaa, with vnrdpXv. Cf
Luger, "Die Rede des Stephanus," s. 9.
"Then there arose certain of the synagogue  *  *  *  disputing with Stephen
*  *  *  and set up false witnesses which said, This man ceaseth not to speak blasphemous words against this holy place and the Law."-Acts, vi. 9, 13.
S. Stephen, reviewing the course of Jewish history, argues: (1.) That the Law is
not to be regarded as an isolated revelation, but as that in which the promise already
given to Abraham (Acts, vii. 5) received its fulfilment; nay, more, that it carried in
itself the pledge of another revelation still future, and connected with the accomplishment of the former promise: —"A Prophet shall the Lord your God raise up unto
you," &c. (ver. 37).  The Law was added, writes S. Paul, " till the Seed should come
to whom the promise was made."-Gal. iii. 19. (2.) That the temple built by Solomon
could not have been the full realization of the Divine purpose: "Tlie Most High
dwelleth not in temples made with.hands," &c. (ver. 46-50). (3.) To the Jews it was
particularly offensive that Jesus, whom they had crucified, should be represented as
the great Prophet of the new dispensation.  S. Stephen argues, therefore. that such
a fact could form no objection whatsoever against Jesus, for this same rejection of
God's messengers had accompanied every former phase of Revelation:' Which of
the Prophets have not your fathers persecuted?" (ver. 52). See Ebrard, "Kritik der
Evang. Geschichte," s. 689; and Luger, "Die Rede des Stephanus," s. 27.
4I. The period ascending to David. II. That descending to Jechonias.  III.
That, in which the house of David is found in poverty, extending to the Blessed Virgin.  Cf Ebrard, "Der Br. an die Hebr." s. 5. Or, as Townson expresses it:' He
begins with entitling Jesus Christ' the son of Abraham,' and the'son of David:' and
divides his genealogy into three parts, answering to so many remarkable periods in
their history; every one of which was early distinguished by predictions concerning
the Messiah, peculiarly interesting to thein: the first by the promise to Abraham,




104            THE OLD  TESTAMENT AND  THE NEW:    [LECT. III,
field of the New  Testament narrative.   The Epistle to the Hebrews, on the other hand, sets out from the Old Testament, the
leading features of which  it formally develops in  a  systematic
treatise; and points out how the former Scriptures, in all their
details, ever refer to Jesus. It proves that the Revelation and
Redemption  by the Messiah, promised in  the Old  Testament,
have already become absolute and complete; and tha, while by
His coming, the types of the Law, if understood literally, have
received their full accomplishment, their spiritual signification,
nevertheless, and allusive power, abide for ever as exponents of
the Person and Office of Christ.2   But to proceed with somewhat
more particularly.
We observe that our Lord, throughout the entire duration of
His ministry, represents Himself as fulfilling, in Person, the
scheme of the former covenant: we know, too, that He has made
the Old Testament the basis of His teaching, continually employing it, as it was received in His time by the Jews, without
letting fall the slightest hint that any portion of it was done
away. So far from stating anything to that effect, He has expressed Himself in a manner which proves the very reverse, employing language by which He has not only defined  the permanent authority of the Old Testament, but also indicated its true
place in the new dispensation. The words are recorded by S.
Matthew, whose Gospel, we also know, was designed to illustrate
the connection of the two Covenants:-" Think not," said Christ,
that'in his seed all the nations of the earth should be blessed,' (Gen. xxii. 18)
*  *  *  the second, by assurances to David, that the promised seed should spring
from his loins (2 Sam. vii. 16) *  *  *  the third, by marking an era of seventy
weeks, or 490 years, before the end of which the Messiah should come (Dan. ix. 2427)."-Discourses on the Four Gospels, iv. ~ 5, p. 116, Elrington's ed.
For references to the title " Son of David," cf. S. Matt. ix. 27; xii. 23; xv. 22;
xx. 30, 31; xxi. 9; xxii. 42, 45.
2 "The history of the people, as well as its sacred rites, are all applied to Christian relations. In the fourth chapter, the march of Israel from Egypt to the land of
Canaan, is used as a type of the march of the people of God, in spirit, to the land of
eternal repose. With the High Priest of the Old Testament is Christ-the Eternal
High Priest-compared; and in the seventh chapter, He is found again in Melchizedek, the king of Righteousness and of Peace. In the ninth chapter, follows a widelydrawn parallel of the spiritual blessings of the New Testament, its ordinances and
privileges, with the institutions of the old Levitical Priesthood; of the Tabernacle of
Testimony, with the perfect Tabernacle of God not made with hands; of the sacrifice,
with the eternal, atoning Sacrifice of the Son of God. Even the parts of the Tabernacle of Testimony are again referred to in a spiritual sense: the flesh of the Son of
God, it is said, is the veil; through the blood of Jesus we have boldness to enter into
the Holy Place,-He has prepared it for us as a new and living way."-Olshausen,
Ein Wort iiber tiefern Schriftsinn, s. 59.




LECT. III.]           THE LOGOS THE REVEALER.                              105
" that I am  come to destroy the Law  or the Prophets: I am  not
come to destroy, but to fulfill."'  Christ here points out that, of
what might appear new  in His office or His teaching, there was
nothing which could be separated from its historical foundation.
In this passage He exhibits the  internal connection  of Old and
New  Testament.   His words denote, in  the first place, the unquestionable authority of the former Scriptures; secondly, that
the New  Testament can be regarded  only as their fulfilment;
thirdly, that the Law, consummated in this sense, is Divine and
Everlasting. In the former part of this statement our Lord declares that the Old Testament was not abrogated-an opinion then
held, perhaps, by His followers;2 in the latter, He announces that
such was not the object of His ministry. And it is to be well
noted that the language employed by Him, in the verses which
follow, to express the permanence of the Old Testament,' He
has elsewhere made use of, in order to assert the same of His own
revelations: " Heaven and earth shall pass away, but My words
S. Matt. v. 17. This passage has been felt, from the earliest times, to be the
authoritative announcement of the connexion of Old and New Testament.  It was,
accordingly, the chief difficulty of Marcion; and, in general, of the Gnostic school.
Thus Tertullian writes: "Venisse Se [scil. Christum] non ut Legem et Prophetas dissolveret, sed ut potius adimpleret.  Hoc enim Marcion, ut additum, erasit."-Adv.
JIarcion, iv. 7, p. 507. The manner in which the Marcionites attempted to evade the
force of this text by a different reading, is stated in the Dialogue "De recta fide adv.
Marcionitas:" A. oavepug yoiv rTV  er0 poOr Or2ypupaaLt 2O6vrTO rTb v6iov, OVrTO Kara26vev 0aKtcovct. MA. ToVro ol'Iov6ailraaiT  ypabav, rT' oiVK Y6Oov KaTavcra La rOV vo6ov,
(ia'ZX 7rZi7puoaL' oiX OVTirC de el7rev O XptLarr' Xiye  yuap, OVK 7z6ov 7TrpCoaL TOr v6(ov, (iXaa Karaav(at.-Ap. Origenis Opp., t. i p. 830.
The opposition to the force of this text was further encountered by S. Augustin.
(cont. Faust. xix. 6, t. viii. p. 316), S. Isidor. Pelus. (lib. I. Epist. 371, ad Pansoph.
p. 97), Theodoret. (Hmeret. Fab. lib. v. ~ 17, t. iv. p. 291). Cf. Tholuck, "Auslegung
der Bergpredigt," s. 131.
2 The intention of Christ's words, " Think not (/tO vo/taTre), &c."-was, it may be,
to set aside a misconception of the passage: "Behold the days come, saith the Lord,
that I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel, and with the house of Judah: not according to the covenant that I made with their fathers," &c.-Jer. xxxi.
31, 32.
3 "Verily I say unto you, till heaven and earth pass (E'oc iv 7rapefO), one
jot, or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the Law till all be fulfilled."-ver 18. Cf.
too, ver 19, as further illustrating the importance to be attached to the Law: " Whosoever, therefore, shall break one of these least commandments (r-dv tevTro2' v TOrVTrV
r T  v i 2X a X  ao T  v), &c."  It is to be remarked also, that the words of Christ, fixing,
as it were, a certain period when the Law shall pass away~-E'o i'v rduvra yivclra —
point to a certain epoch of which Prophets and Apostles have spoken. Cf. for example, the references to the "new heavens and the new earth" by Isaiah (ch. lxv. 17;
lxvi. 22), and by S. John (Rev. xxi. 1.): see also 1 Cor. xv. 24. Our Lord, therefore,
here expresses something more than a mere proverbial description of the permanence
of the Law, such as He has given elsewhere-" It is easier for heaven and earth to
pass, than one tittle of the law to fail."-S. Luke, xvi. 17. See Ritschl, " Die Entsteh. der altkath Kirche," s. 28.




106            THE OLD  TESTAMENT  AND  THE  NEW:    [LECT. III.
shall not pass away,"'-that is, the Old Testament and the sayings of Christ are alike imperishable, because both are the Word
of God.  Nor does our Lord  confine  this solemn  ratification  to
any  particular portion  of the  former Scriptures.   Here, it is
true, he speaks but of " the Law  and the Prophets," and in another place" He refers merely to " the Prophets;" but we know
that in S. John's Gospel3 He frequently cites certain words from
the Psalms, which, He observes, were "written in the Law;"
and in S. Luke's He adopts the Old Testament in full, according
to  the received division  of the Jews, when  He says that " all
things must be fulfilled which were written in the Law of Moses,
and in the Prophets, and in the Psalms concerning Me."'
But further:-in this passage from the fifth chapter of S.
Matthew, the expressions "to  destroy," and "to fulfill," do not
of themselves present an immediate contrast.' Opposed to the'S. Matt. xxiv. 35. The fact that S. Matthew, alone of the Evangelists, has
preserved both these expressions of our Lord, is not to be overlooked. There can
be no doubt the design was, that one passage should illustrate the other.
2 S. Luke, xviii. 31.
S. John, x. 34; xii. 34; xv. 25. Cf. also S. Matt. xiii. 35, where words from the
Psalms are quoted as " spoken by the Prophet."
4S. Luke, xxiv. 44.  Rudelbach observes:-" The threefold division here,where, for the last time, an allusion to the Old Testament falls from the lips of Jesus,
-combined with the earlier mode of citation,'the Law and.the Prophets,' is not
without deep significance. The Lord has hereby sanctioned all the divisions which
were current in the Jewish Church, and attested in the most perfect manner the integrity of the whole of the Old Testament."-Die Lehre von der Inspir., 1841, H. iv.
s. 38. S. Paul (1 Cor. xiv. 21) quotes Isai. xxviii. 11, with the words, "In the Law
it is written;" and in Rom. iii. 19, he describes his previous citations from both Isaiah
and the Psalms as " what the Law saith."  Cf. too, the words recorded by Josephus:
Db tMtidaaKev'7/Utf, ert (v avv Ijuyv, rov vo6oov cal rofV 7rpo7jTra.-De Maccabeis, 18, t.
ii. p. 519; under which description the speaker expressly includes Daniel, the Psalms,
and the Proverbs;-each of these instances clearly proving how completely unsupported, by ancient Jewish usage, is that theory of the modern Rabbins as to the different degrees of Inspiration under which the Old Testament was written (see Lecture
ii. p. 62, note 1). The quotations here adduced show, beyond any doubt, that in the
days of Christ the Jews included the whole body of the Old Testament writings under
the name of the Law, which portion of the Bible their modern representatives would
exalt so highly above all the other books.
5 Kara;Aviat, rr'Yprdcat. The phrase Kara2vetv voyov, in'Hellenistic as in classic
Greek, is equivalent to Utvpoi3v: see S. Matt. xv. 6 (" Ye have made the commandment of God of none effect;" or rather, "Ye have cancelled, abrogated the word
of God"); or Gal. iii. 17 (" The law cannot disannul" the covenant.) In this latter
instance follows S. Paul's customary phrase iKrapyl7aat, expressing the result which
must have attended the dlKVpwrlot v6/ov; —the " disannulling of the covenant" must,
of itself "make of none effect," "leave idle, or useless," "the promises."  (Cf. S.
Luke, xiii. 7, the barren fig-tree "cumbereth," "makes barren," Karapyez, "the
ground.").On the other hand, 7rrypofv v6juov signifies, in Hellenistic as in classic
Greek, explere legem, peragere que sunt officii. (Cf. S. Matt. iii. 15, " Thus it becometh
us to fulfil-TrXTyp3aatl-all righteousness."  Acts, xiv. 26, "The work which they
fulfilled" -6 irrlpuoaav). Its use is sometimes founded on the trope offilling a mneasure: " Fill ye up then (wrTTpcGar.e) the measure of your fathers."  S. Matt. xxiii. 32.




LECT. III.]           THE  LOGOS THE  REVEALER.                             107
abrogation of a Law we should rather look for its confirmation, or
its re-institution; and S. Paul, in his Epistle to  the Galatians,
supplies the  complete  idea, when  he  places in  opposition, the
phrases " to destroy," and " to build  again."'  It was not, however, the Divine will to perpetuate the former scheme, but to
extend and to develop it; and hence the absence of complete
antithesis in the expressions which we are considering. By them
our Lord would seem to suggest the significant figure of a building, to the foundations of which additional strength has been
given, and which has been in part remodelled, but which, at the
same time, has been renovated and brought to completion on its
former foundations;-the Architect now bringing to light certain
features of His original design which had previously been concealed from view, hereby exhibiting their relation to the stability
of the entire structure.3   Hence the Old Testament is the basis,
on which the New was to be erected. It presents the outlines
of the picture, which were afterwards to be filled up. It affords
the shadow of good things, while the body was of Christ.4 No
stronger confirmation, indeed, can be given of the fact that
Christ was, in His own Person, the fulfilment of the Old Testament, than His statement that He could not withdraw  Himself
For its signification, "to fulfil" a prophecy, see Lecture iv. Cf. Tholuck, " Die Bergpredigt," s. 133.' "If I build again the things which I destroyed" —E yap U K a re X v   a, ravra
rci.tv O tK o  o o  c).-Gal. ii. 18. See Olshausen on S. Matt. v. 17. B. i. s. 212.' It has been already pointed out (Lecture i. p. 28), that this principle of development has been, from the first, the characteristic of Revelation.
3 Twesten forcibly observes of the words of Christ and flis Apostles, which refer
to the Old Testament, that "' ivat is ever a 7r27p(oat; that Karapycal is, at the
same time, a cr7,act."  Thus S. Paul writes, "Do we then make void (KaTapyovuev)
the Law through faith? God forbid: yea, we establish (IcrTvo/iev) the Law."  (Rom.
iii. 31.)-Vorles. iiber die Dogm. ler Band, s. 333. Compare, too, the Apostle's language at the close of this Epistle' (ch. xiii. 8-10), " Love is the fulfilling (7r1 0pwua) of
the Law."
4 Col. ii. 17. Olshausen has remarked in his second Tract on " The deeper sense
of Scripture" that-" The Law, with all its ordinances, is like a grain of seed which
includes in itself the whole law of formation of the plant. Should the plant spring
up, the grain of seed must die; a power, which would cause it to continue in its isolated subsistence, would be just as destructive as the Judaizing teachers, with whom
Paul was forced to contend. But notwithstanding such a fact, the law of the germ
which lives no longer, invisibly penetrates the entire plant; so that in the plant's
concentrated formations, the law, renewing its youth, repeatedly presents itself again
in the fruit. Thus the Law was apparently dissolved by Christ, but only in order to
be fulfilled, in its spirit, in every iota."-Noch ein Wort, &c., s. 23. Jehovah, Himself,
announced this same truth by the last of the Prophets: " From the rising of the sun,
even unto the going down of the same, My name shall be great among the Gen.
tiles; and in every place incense shall be offered unto My name, and a pure offer.
ing."-Mal. i. 11.




108             THE  OLD  TESTAMENT  AND  THE  NEW:    [LECT. III.
from   that death, the mere prospect of which overpowered His
soul, because He  would  thereby  contravene  the  language  of
Prophecy, —" How then shall the Scriptures be fulfilled that it
must be?"'
It has been attempted by some writers to take a sort of middle course in this question, and  to  make  a  distinction  between
the contents of the Old Testament.  Divine authority they allow
to those parts only which bear directly upon the office of Christ;
while they deny Inspiration to those other portions which, they
conceive, must be opposed to  the Christian scheme: and in this
latter class, the writers in question place the Law, as being that
one of " the two covenants" contrasted by S. Paul,  " which gendereth to bondage," and the ministration of which he elsewhere
terms that " of the letter.""   Such  writers  are, however, forced
of themselves to admit, that the exact line of distinction cannot
be drawn; that the Law, too, has its prophetical side; and that
we have it upon  the  authority  of Christ himself, that Moses
"wrote" of Him.'  In truth, this notion, which would  represent
the doctrines of Scripture as distinct from  its history, and which
assumes that portions  of the  Old  Testament, which  it regards
merely as the annals of a particular nation," do not treat of Christ,
S. Matt. xxvi. 54. Compare, also, the striking passage: "After this Jesus,knowing that all things were now accomplished,-that the Scripture might be fulfilled,
saith, I thirst."-S. John, xix. 28. A short time previously he had rejected the proffered "wine mingled with myrrh" (S. Mark, xv. 23); but at this moment, in the extremity of bodily exhaustion (Ps. xxii. 15), he accepts the "vinegar to drink" (Ps.
lxix. 21);-the Evangelist expressly pointing out the fulfilment of the prediction:
Jesus said "It is finished (rerTE'eara ); and'He bowed His head, and gave up the
ghost."-S. John, xix. 30. See the excellent remarks of Rudelbach, " Die Lehre von
der Inspir." 1841, H. iv. s. 35.
2 Gal. iv. 24.                                             s 2 Cor. iii. 6.
S. John, v. 46. Thus Twesten writes:-" We have distinguished in the Old Testament elements of two kinds, those whereby it is related to the New, and those
whereby it is opposed to it. It lies in the nature of the case, that the former only,
not the latter, can be referred to the Spirit of Christ: not the Law, but the Promises.
Moreover, all th9se passages which prove an inspiration of the Old Testament, relate,
in point of fact, to prophetic writings, including the Psalms (for David also was a
prophet, Acts, ii. 30). Hence Paul contrasts the two Testaments. as the son of the
bondmaid born after the flesh, and the son of the freewoman born after the Spirit
(Gal. iv. 24, 29): their service, too, he opposes as that of the letter and of the spirit
(2 Cor. iii. 6, &c). Since, however, even Moses has written of Christ (John, v. 46),
since even the Law has a typical and also a prophetical side,-one dare not separate
mechanically what is inspired in the Old Testament from what is not."-Vorles. iiber
die Dogrn., ler Band, s. 412. Cf. Lecture i. p. 27, note.
6 The true conception of the historical parts of Scripture, has been laid down by
the Schoolmen with their customary acuteness. Thus Alexander Alensis-the " Irrefragable Doctor"-discussing the question,'An Theologia sit scientia'? points out
the essential distinction between sacred and profane history:-" Aliter est historia in




LECT. III.]            THE  LOGOS THE REVEALER.                            109
-is of itself untenable. It is forgotten that the Jewish people
themselves, their history, their ritual, their government, all present one grand prophecy of the future Redeemer;1 that in the
New Testament, fully to the same extent as in the Old, doctrines
are based upon history; and that the Old Testament is as entirely occupied with the Messiah still future, as the New with
the Christ who has already come. Thus the Apostles see the
Christian element in the narrative of Hagar and Ishmael;2 of
the miracle of the water which flowed from  the rock at the word
of Moses;3 of the vision of the Lord of Hosts by Isaiah.4 Does
not the New Testament explain the saying of the prophet —
" Behold I, and the children which God hath given me,"  to have
been fulfilled in Christ as perfectly as the words of any Messianic
Psalm;  and in the same degree as what is specially honored,
sacra Scriptura; aliter in allis. In aliis enim historia significatione sermonum exprimit singularia gesta hominum; nec est intentio significationis interioris. *  *  *  In
sacra vero Scriptura ponitur historia non ea ratione seu fine, ut significentur singulares
actus hominum significatione sermonum; sed ut significentur universales actus: et
conditiones pertinentes ad informationem hominum, et contemplationis divinorum mysteriorum  significatione rerum. *  *  *  Introducitur ergo in historia sacrte Scripturae factum singulare ad significandum universale: et inde est, quod ejus est intellectus et scientia. *  *  *  In litterali historia Abrahoe, et Job, singulare est, quod
narratur: sed ad hoc in Scriptura narratur, ut exemplar sit vitre ct conversatiolis bonorum: unde Rom. xv.'Quaecunque scripta sunt, ad nostram  doctrinem scripta
sunt.' Et Jacob. ult.' Exemplum accipite patientiae et longanimitatis prophetas.' "
Summce Theolog. Pars. lma, qu. i. Albertus Magnus, "Summae Theol. Tract. i.,"
argues precisely in the same manner.
1 "Tota divina oliovo/ia priorum temporum  hunc ipsum Christum ejusque res
gestas, ut pulcherrimam ac perfectissimam speciem, perpetuo velut ante oculos habens,
cetera omnia ad illud instar effinxit."-Grotius ad Matt. i. 22; Opp. Theol. t. ii. p. 11
(quoted by Rudelbach, 1842, II. ii. s. 39). Take as a single illustration, the parallel
between Israel and Christ: " Thou shalt say unto Pharaoh, Thus saith the Lord, Israel is My son, even My first born: and I say unto thee, Let My son go," &c.-Exod.
iv. 22. The Prophet applies the words: " When Israel was a child, then I loved
him, and called My son out of Egypt." — osea, xi. 1. The Evangelist, in fine, fills
up the outlines of the history: Joseph "took the young child and His mother, and
departed into Egypt *  *  *  that it might be fufilled (va 7rTpo,)pO) which was
spoken of the Lord by the Prophet, saying, Out of Egypt have I called lMy Son."-S.
Matt. ii. 14, 15.
2 Gal. iv. 24-26. The argument of S. Paul in this passage affords a striking illustration of that characteristic of Revelation, according to which it is fully developed
by means of a succession of repeated acts on God's part.  The Law, so far from disannulling the promise to Abraham, and the covenant of circumcision made with him,
was, in its day, the fulfilment of that promise, and the ratification of that covenant.
In its turn the Law. in like manner, received its further completion in the Christian
scheme:-the son of " the freewoman" has now become the son of "the bondmaid,"
through the coming of the "Jerusalem which is above."  "Agar is Mount Sinai in
Arabia, and is in the same rank with (as the margin of our version renders the original
-— varotXei (5d) Jerusalem which now is, and is in bondage with her children; but
Jerusalem which is above is free, which is the mother of us all."  Cf. Luger, "Die Rede
des Stephanus, s. 28.
3 1 Cor. x. 4.        4 S. John, xii. 41.      5 Heb. ii. 13; Isai. viii. 18.




110            THE OLD TESTAMENT AND  THE NEW:    [LECT. III.
as the Christian element of the Old Testament? Nay, S. Paul
teaches Timothy,' that by " the holy Scriptures"-that is, of the
Old Testament taken in its entire extent-"is the man of God"
made wise unto Salvation through faith which is in Christ:" in
other words, because Christ is their object.
The manner in which S. Paul relies upon the Old Testament
is peculiarly striking.  Men are almost invariably tempted, after
a change of opinion, to make little of the system which they have
left; nay, even to reject what truth may be in it, rather than
transfer any of their former views to their new line of thought.
Had S. Paul acted as men are wont to do, he must, unquestionably, have rather avoided attaching importance to, or upholding
the authority of the Old Testament;-especially as his chief task
was, that of opposing the introduction  of Jewish practices into
Christianity. We know, for example, how Marcion and his followers, from their hostility to Jewish opinions, rejected the Old
Testament altogether.2 Now, S. Paul adopts a course the very
reverse of this.' He recognises the Old Testament as an essential
component of the Faith, profitable for all times; and as containing in its doctrines, in its types, in its history, the germs of all
the leading truths of Christianity. For example: Moses and the
Prophets had laid down in express terms, that the true end and
design of the Law was the circumcision of the heart.' Need one
point out how forcibly S. Paul insists that " that is not circumcision, which is outward in the flesh;" and that the true circumcision is that of the heart?5 The very sense, indeed, in which
he teaches that the Law is annulled, assumes not only a continual
connexion of it with the New Testament, but also the union of
1 2 Tim. iii. 15.
" Cerdo preceded him in this, as in his tenets generally; having at an earlier period asserted this contrariety between the two Testaments. * * * It would appear
that Marcion went beyond his master in this matter, since he not only maintained a
contrariety between the two Testaments, but even assumed a contrariety between
the Apostles in the New  *  *  *  Relying upon this contrariety, he charged a
Jewish bias upon the writings of all the Apostles, with the exception of Paul, who
has declared the abolition of Judaism without indulgence."  Hug, Enleitung, ler Th.
Kap. 1, ~ 8. (Fosdick's transl. p. 44.)
3 It is interesting to observe that the Apostle designates the gross immorality of
Heathenism. when contrasting it with Judaism, by the term  d v o /i i a.-2 Cor. vi.
14; Rom. vi. 19.
4 " Circumcise. therefore, the foreskin of your heart, and be no more stiffnecked."
-Dent. x. 16. Cf. xxx. 6. Again: "Circumcise yourselves to the Lord, and take
away the foreskin of your hearts, ye men of Judah, and the inhabitants of Jerusalem."-Jer. iv. 4.
6 Rom. ii. 28, 29. Cf. Col. ii. 11; Phil. iii. 3.




LECT. III.]          THE LOGOS THE REVEALER.                            111
both in one Divine plan.  Look to  the  fourth  chapter of the
Epistle to the Romans, and the entire treatment of the subject
of Faith.  The  Apostle  shows that the  object of the  Divine
Author of the Pentateuch was neither temporary, nor restricted
to the immediate subject of its history. It was not written for
Abraham's sake only that his faith  was imputed  to  him   for
righteousness, but for us also.' When addressing the Gentile
church at Corinth-a church for which the Jewish law, as such,
could possess neither interest nor importance,-the Apostle enforces the practical lesson which he was inculcating, by assuming
the Divine nature  and  standing  authority  of that Law, as opposed to anything human:    Say I these things as a man? or
saith not the Law the same also?"' In proof of this position, he
goes on to quote -as being " written in the Law of Moses"-the
apparently trivial command, "Thou shalt not muzzle the mouth
of the ox, that treadeth out the corn;" observing, in explanation,
"for our sakes no doubt this is written:" and in the tenth chapter of the same Epistle he adds, that the history of Israel is our
"example."'  Again, in the second  chapter of the Acts of. the
Apostles, S. Peter, and, in the thirteenth chapter, S. Paul, demonstrate to the Jews, from  the  pages of the  Old Testament,
that the " same Jesus whom  they had crucified was both Lord
and Christ:"' the former Apostle further teaching that the Spirit
of Christ which was in the Prophets " testified beforehand the
sufferings of Christ, and the glory that should follow;"" and the
Rom. iv. 23, 24. Cf spra, p. 108, n. 5.
2 1 Cor. ix. 8; and the Apostle proceeds: "For it is written in the Law of
Moses ('v y a p rT Mutvaoiuc vo65 yeypanrat), Thou shalt not muzzle the mouth of
the ox that treadeth out the corn. Doth God take care for oxen? Or saith He it
altogether for our sakes? For our sakes no doubt this is written."-ver 9, 10; S.
Paul clearly intimating by the question, "Doth God take care for oxen?" that the
Holy Spirit had from the first intended that the expression should apply to human
laborers. It is worth noticing, too, in how unconnected a manner, if we take them
in their bare literal sense, the original words occur in Dent. xxv. 4. This same quotation is made for a kindred purpose in 1 Tim. v. 18; where in the next verse the
Apostle goes on to apply the ordinance of the Law (Dent. xvii. 6; xix. 15): "At
the mouth of two witnesses, or at the mouth of three witnesses shall the matter be
established;-an ordinance to which he had already referred,-2 Cor. xiii. 1; and to
which our Lord Himself had on two occasions appealed,-S. Matt. xviii. 16; S.
John, viii. 17.
3 " With many of them [viz., " our fathers"] God was not well pleased: for they
were overthrown in the wilderness. Now these things were our examples (ri-rot)."
-1 Cor. x. 5, 6.
"4  Therefore let all the house of Israel know assuredly, that God hath made
that same Jesus, whom ve have crucified, both Lord and Christ.'"-Acts, ii. 36.
" I Peter, i. 11




112          THE OLD TESTAMENT AND THE NEW:   [LECT. III.
latter reminding the church of Corinth how, from the first, he
had taught them  that Christ had died, was buried, and rose
again "the third day, according to the Scriptures."'  And this
same doctrine, expressing as it does the complete harmony of the
two great divisions of the Bible, S. Paul again proclaims, if pos-:;ible, more clearly, before King Agrippa: "I continue unto this
da-y, witnessing both to  small and  great; saying none other
things than those which the Prophets and Moses did say should
come."
In short, the words and the Spirit of Christ alike guided the
Apostles to combine their teaching and their acts, their faith and
their hopes, with the substance and language of the Old Testament. Hence it is that, in presence of the Christian Church, they
insist not only upon the preparatory relation of the former Scriptures to Christ, but also upon their permanent authority as a
Divine source of life. Their type of Truth is declared to preform
in itself the image of the future destinies of the world to the final
consummation:" The heaven," said S. Peter, "must receive
Jesus Christ until the times of restitution of all things which
God hath spoken by the mouth of all His holy prophets since
the world began."4 The centuries, therefore, which are still future, and the hidden germs of whose development the Old Testament bears within it, will successively unfold its exposition and
fulfilment, just as the Old Testament itself, during the centuries
which are now past, had beforehand indicated and prepared for
the arrival of the Lord.  In a word, we find Christ Himself addressing His disciples in the language of the Theocracy, even
when He refers to the consummation of the Christian scheme.
Then, he tells them, they also "shall sit upon twelve thrones,
judging the twelve tribes of Israel.""  He employs the phraseology of the Old Testament when He speaks of His own return
and  its  signs"  He  applies the  predictions of Joel and of
Daniel, and adds nothing to what those prophets had announced
1 Cor. xv. 3, 4.                  " Acts, xxvi. 22. Cf. xxviii. 23.
3 To the iO6pcoutf rgf yveorwSf Kca rT7 aXdtOeia in the Old Testament (Rom. ii.
20) corresponds in Christianity the 7rVptdasf. While the v61Lof rCv  vro7^3v, so far as
it was contained'v 6oyiaautv was abolished by Christ (Eph. ii. 15; cf. Col. ii. 14);
the substance of the Law, its 8tKcaiwfa —as the evro7ai prove it to be-remains and.
receives its full accomplishment. See Rom. iii 31; viii. 4. Cf. Beck, "Propad.
Entwickl.," s. 247.
4 Acts, iii. 21.                               5 S. Matt. xix. 28.
6 S. Matt. xxiv.; S. Mark, xiii.; S. Luke, xxi.




LECT. III.]           THE LOGOS THE REVEALER.                            113
beyond what was disclosed by His personal humiliation. The
Apostles, too, when they describe the features of their Master's
life, simply present them as the accomplishment of what had
"been written aforetime:" so that the whole record of Prophecy
revives, as it were, in their testimony, standing there in its full
brilliancy, as Moses and Elias near Christ upon the Mount of
Transfiguration.' Even S. John, in after times, when he beheld
the felicity of the Saints in Glory, and was permitted to hear
the voice of praise  and thanksgiving with which  the courts of
heaven resound, records how both Old and New Testament furnish, even there, the language  of adoration.  He  tells us how
those " who have gotten the victory, and who have the harps of
God," still sing " the song of Moses the servant of God, and the
song of the Lamb."3  In fine, in the historical, the didactic, the
prophetical portions of the New Testament alike, we discern the
Old Testament, "the old Law) living again," as it has been finely
remarked, " in a new and spiritual life; not embalmed and laid
with reverential care aside in the grave, but arisen from the dead
and alive for evermore, like its own Divine Founder."'
The passages of Scripture, which have been reviewed in the
remarks just made, not only enable us to refute those systems
which reject or disparage one portion of the inspired writings, but
also supply an argument bearing with great force upon our more
immediate subject.  The summary, which  has been  given, preSee Hofmann, "Weissagung und Erfillung," s. 59.' "Inde apparent Moyses et Elias, hoc est, Lex et Prophetia cum Verbo; neque
enim Lex potest esse sine Verbo: neque propheta, nisi qui de Dei Filio prophetarit.
Et illi quidem filii tonitrui corporali gloria Moysen quoque et Eliam speculati sunt:
sed etiam nos quotidie videmus Moysen cum Dei Filio; videmus enim Legem in
Evangelio cum legimus:'Diliges Dominum Deum tuum.' Videmus Eliam cum Dei
Verbo, cum legimus:' Ecce Virgo, in utero accipiet.' "-S. Ambros., Exposit. Evang.
sec. Luc. lib. VII. t. i. p. 1413.
8 Rev. xv. 3. Compare this verse with the allusion in Isai. xii. 1, 2, to Exod. xv.
1, &c. Olshausen, having observed that Heb. iv. shows how the Jews must have understood the spiritual import of the departure from Egypt, and the entrance under
Joshua into the promised land, proceeds to say:-" In accordance with this conception, the miraculous passage through the Red Sea, was the miraculous aid whereby
the Lord perfects the deliverance from the power of the evil one; and the song of
Moses which was based upon that event becomes the triumphal song of the Elect.
*  *  *  If the Law has led on the way to the land of rest, as far as Jordan, so the
heavenly Joshua has guided with strong hand, through its waves, into the fatherland.
Not otherwise are all of mankind, who have been ordained to life, guided, like Israel,
through the wilderness, after they have been drawn out of darkness, in order to enter
once for all into the eternal land of peace, and to sing the song of Moses and of the
Lamb, when the land of darkness lies behind."-Ein Wort., &c., s. 52, u. s. 95.
4 Williams on the Apocalypse, Preface, p. vi. For some further remarks on the
use of the Old Testament in the New, see infra, Lecture vii.




114           THE OLD TESTAMENT AND THE NEW:   [LECT. III.
sents in a tangible shape, one of the strongest proofs of the continuous exercise of the Divine influence, throughout every page
of the Bible.  It exhibits, as a matter of fact, the unity of design which pervades writings of such various forms, and such diversified contents: writings, too, which were not the product of
a single age, or of one particular stage of human civilization, but
whose authors are scattered over more than twenty centuries.
So intimate, indeed, is the connexion which subsists between the
Old and New Testament, in language, in thought, and in the
mutual relation of means and end, that we can regard their several books no otherwise than as the different members of one organized whole; each member fulfilling its own proper function,
and, by its perfect adaptation to the great purpose, which all the
parts alike subserve, pointing to One Divine Author.
This same conclusion presents itself no less forcibly if we turn
our view to the supernatural means employed under both dispensations. The analogy, which has subsisted from the first between
the different phases of the Divine operations, is as striking as it
is perfect.  "The divers manners" in which God had of old time
spoken by the prophets, are repeated, in strictly identical forms,
in the case of those servants of God, of whose acts the New Testament gives the history. In both narratives the Divine suggestions are represented as having been conveyed by the same channels:-Angelic appearances, Dreams, Visions, Ecstacy, Voices
from heaven,' Symbolic acts.  The angel Gabriel informs Daniel
when  "Messiah the Prince" should come; the same celestial
messenger announces to the blessed Virgin the Incarnation of
Christ.' The dreams by which warnings were conveyed, and commands issued to Joseph, as related in the opening chapters of
S. Matthew's Gospel, in no respect differ from the dreams of
E. g. we read that, at S. Paul's conversion, "there shined round about him a light
from heaven: and he fell to the earth, and heard a voice saying unto him, Saul, Saul,
why persecutest thou Me?"-Acts, ix. 3, 4; just as we read that when the Prophet
of God had heard the " still small voice," "he wrapped his face in his mantle, and
went out, and stood in the entering in of the cave. And behold there came a voice
unto him and said, What doest thou here, Elijah?"-1 Kings, xix. 12, 13. As a
further example of these analogies between the Old and New Testaments, we may
add the election of Matthias by lot (Acts, i), as being parallel to the singling out of
Achan (Josh. vii.); of Jonathan (1 Sam. xiv. 41); of Jonah (ch. i. 7): the principle
of such acts being stated in the words: "The lot is cast into the lap, but the whole
disposing thereof is of the Lord."-Prov. xvi. 33.
2 Dan. ix. 21-25; S. Luke, i. 26.




LECT. III.]           THE LOGOS THE REVEALER.                            115
the Patriarchs.' The visions recorded by S. Luke in the Acts of
the Apostles, are but a repetition of those seen by men of God
in other days.2 The trance of S. Peter, mentioned in the tenth
chapter of the Acts, and that of S. Paul, of which he speaks in
the twelfth chapter of the Second Epistle to the Corinthians, resemble in every particular the states of prophetic rapture.  We
read, moreover, that revelations were constantly conveyed to men,
under the Old, Testament, by means of symbolical actions;-the
writings of Jeremiah  or Ezekiel will supply abundant illustrations.9 This fact presents itself no less prominently in the New
Testament.  Agabus' makes use of a symbolical act, when predicting S. Paul's approaching captivity: and Christ Himself
adopted symbolical language when alluding to  the manner of
S. Peter's death; —this latter instance being, in strict conformity
with similar prophetic intimations, both brief and obscure.
Neander, alluding to this portion of the evangelical history, makes the strange
remark: " We need be the less afraid of a free, unliteral interpretation, when we find
a difference in the subjective conception of these events by even the Evangelists themselves, Matthew speaking only of dreams and visions, and Luke of objective phenomena, viz. the appearance of angels."-The Life of Jesus Christ. ~ 14. (Bohn's Transl.,
p. 21.) Mr. Westcott, in reply to this attempt to exhibit the statements of the Gospels as a result of the " subjective" influence of each writer's mind, observes:-" But
surely those are right who see in this difference an adaptation to the peculiar state
of the recipient,"-(Elements of the Gospel Harmony, p.'1),-meaning, I presume,
that an announcement by a dream was the form of Revelation best suited to the apprehension of Joseph; while the appearance of an angel was adapted to the moro
spiritual mind of Mary. This may be so,-if we merely regard the manner of the
Divine communication. But the natural remark, that each evangelist wrote as he
has written, simply because he was narrating facts, affords the direct answer: and Mr.
Westcott completely overturns the notion that S. Matthew, in consequence of his
" subjective" views, refrains from allusion to angelic appearances-by referring to this
Evangelist's description of the angel of the Lord, who appeared at the Sepulchre
(S. Matt. xxviii. 2-1); while the visions recorded in the Acts of the Apostles prove
that no "subjective" prejudice in favor of "objective phenomena" induced S. Luke to
write only of angels. See Acts, xvi. 9; xviii. 9, 10. Cf. ch. xxvii. 23.' See last note. Compare for example, the statement: "Then spake the Lord to
Paul in the night by a vision," &c. (Acts, xviii. 9);-with the language of the Old
Testament: "It came to pass that night that the word of the Lord came unto Nathan  *  *  *  and according to all this vision so did Nathan speak unto David."2 Sam. vii. 4, 17.
8 E. g. " Thus saith the Lord unto me, Make thee bonds and yokes, and put them
upon thy neck." —Jer. xxvii. 2. Again: "Thou also, son of man, take thee a tile,
and lay it before thee, and pourtray upon it the city, even Jerusalem."-Ezek. iv. 1.
4 "' And when he was come unto us, he took Paul's girdle, and bound his own
hands and feet, and said, Thus saith the Holy Ghost, So shall the Jews at Jerusalem
bind the man," &c.-Acts, xxi 11.
I " Verily, verily, I say unto thee, when thou wast young, thou girdedst thyself
and walkedst whither thou wouldest: but when thou shalt be old thou shalt stretch
forth thy hands and another shall gird thee," &c.-S. John, xxi. 18. Cf. Olshausen in
loc., who quotes:'Tune Petrus ab altero cingitur, quum cruci adstringitur."-Tertullian. Scorpiace, ~ 15, p. 633. "It is worthy of notice that Jesus is represented as
veiling the great mystery of His death under symbolic language, both in S. John and




116            THE  OLD TESTAMENT AND  THE NEW:    [LECT. III.
In the structure, too, of both divisions of the Bible, we notice
the same resemblance.  The history of events occupies a considerable portion of each.  Without such details, their other portions
would be unintelligible; and accordingly, both Testaments combine the history and the doctrines of religion.  As a single instance
of didactic teaching  in the New  Testament, we may adduce the
Epistle of S. James; who, after the manner of the ancient Prophets, raises his voice against the rich, and whose words, in their Hebrew form, bear all the stamp of Old Testament Prophecy.' Again,
the hymns of Mary and Zacharias, in the opening  of S. Luke's
Gospel, present a perfect sample of the  Hebrew  type  of the
Psalms.'  Many other analogies, similar to those just pointed out,
will meet us in the course of this inquiry: it must suffice, for the
present, to allude to one other of much  interest;-I mean the
echo of the last tones of Old Testament prophecy in the Revelain the Synoptists. Cf. John, iii. 14; Matt. xii. 40; John, ii. 22; Luke, xiii. 32. For
a still earlier revelation of the same truth, cf. John, i. 29; Luke, ii. 35."-Westcott,
Elem. of Gosp. Harm., p. 60.
1 "The Christian Jeremiah."-Wordsworth, On the Canon, p. 257.
2 "The hymns of Mary and Zacharias perfectly represent the Old Hebrew type of
the Psalms, and may be restored word for word, into pure Hebrew."-Thiersch Versuch zur Herstell. fir die Krit. der N. T. Schriften, s. 48. The hymn of the Blessed
Virgin (S. Luke, i. 46, &c.) may be regarded as the closing Psalm of the Old Testament-" Dieser Lobgesang ist ja eigentlich der Schlusspsalm des alten Testamentes."
-Ebrard, Kritik der Evang. Gesch., s. 221. It may not be amiss to observe, that the
nature of these hymns affords a powerful argument against the mythic theory of
Strauss. The hope of the coming Messiah is here depicted, colored with all the hues
of Hebrew nationality. The strain of sentiment is purely Israelitic throughout: e. g.
the raising up "the horn of salvation" in the house of David; the fulfilment of the
promise to Abraham, &c.-S. Luke, i. 68-79: while the blessing of salvation through
the remission of sins-" which the song of Simeon expands further to a light to
lighten the Gentiles, as well as the peculiar glory of God's ancient people, is spoken
of as one yet to be revealed." These hymns, in short, "differ in no other respect
from the ordinary tenor of the Psalms, and other ancient predictions of the same mercies, than in the announcement of their time as now at length close at hand; and the
designation of the instruments of their approaching but yet unreached fulfilment, as now
actually present. Could this have been the case, if they were written in the times of
Christianity? *  *  *  They who saw in the Incarnate Godhead, vanquishing death
by death  *  *  *  a reign more glorious and more secure than any earthly image
whatever could adequately reach,-could they have failed to exhibit some explicit
statement of this, bursting through the more sensible imagery with which it is encompassed, as we see continually in the visions of the Apocalypse [e. g. ch. v. 5-14] *  *  *
Such a vision of coming power, and light, and majesty, as these hymns indicate,
*  *  *  could belong only to the particular position assigned to it in the boundary
of the old and new covenants. The projection of a vision like this from the point of
view under the New Testament, is what cannot in sound reason or just criticism be
maintained: with the possession of such explicit knowledge as even Christ's earthly
life supplied,-but still more His death, and the events that followed,-such reserve,
united to such imagined anticipation, were to an earnest mind, unnatural, to a deceitful mind, impossible."-W. H. Mill, The Christian Advocate's Publication for 1841,
p. 44-51.




LECT. III.]          THE LOGOS THE REVEALER.                            117
tion of S. Johl. It does not arise from accidental coincidence, or
mere subjective peculiarities, that S. John follows so nearly the
closing prophets of the Old Testament,-Ezekiel, Daniel, Zechariah;' it rather springs from the serial character of Scripture in
general, and of the prophets in particular. As the Bible is no
fortuitous assemblage of writings, but one organic whole, S. John
had the double end in view of connecting what he wrote with the
preceding books of the New Testament, and with the last predictions of the Old, whose authors he, in a certain sense, immediately
follows, as the writer of the only prophetical book of the New
Testament.2   One feature  of this analogy  may  be mentioned.
The Apocalypse opens with the words: " The revelation of Jesus
Christ, which God gave Him, and He signified it by His angel to
His servant John;" and again, in its closing chapter,2 Christ reveals the knowledge of the future by the mediation of His angel.
Here  then we find that, together with  the Divine Revealerthe Eternal Word-an angel is placed in a subordinate relation to
Him, as His ministering attendant.  So also, in those prophetical
books with which the Apocalypse has the closest affinity, a particular angel is brought into notice, who in like manner stands
beside the Eternal Son as the mediating agent of His revelations.'  Thus Daniel writes:-" And  I heard a man's voice between the banks of Ulai, which called and  said, Gabriel, make
this man to understand the vision."
I To take a few out of many examples: " Behold He cometh with clouds; and
every eye shall see Him, and they also which pierced Him, and all kindreds of the
earth shall wail because of Him."-Rev. i. 7. This passage, while it is a reflexion of
Christ's words, S. Matt. xxiv. 30, literally repeats the language of the prophets:-of
Daniel, who speaks of the Son of Man coming in the clouds of heaven (ch. vii. 13);
and of Zechariah, who writes: " They shall look upon Me whom they have pierced,
and they shall mourn for Him."-xii. 10. Again, S. John, in his Gospel, had merely
pointed to his own name by implication, but here he states it: at ver. 9, we read " I
John;"-a phrase which follows the style of Daniel, who alone of the prophets says
"I Daniel" (vii. 28: viii. 1; ix. 2; x. 2): "We find the same difference in the Old
Testament also, between the historical and the prophetical writings of the prophets.
The history had its security in the joint knowledge of contemporaries; but in Prophecy
personality is of the greatest moment, and the anonymous is excluded. Nameless
prophecies have no place in Old Testament Scripture."-Eenstenberg, The Revelation
of S. John, (Clarke's For. Theol. Lib., i. p. 52.) The doubts which have been insinuated against this portion of the New Testament add great importance to this remark.
Compare, also, Zech. iv. 2, with Rev. i. 12; and Ezek. ii. 9; iii. 1-3, with the language of Rev. x.
2 Hengstenberg on Rev. i. 9, ibid. p. 85.
" The angel which showed me these things."-Rev. xxii. 8.
4 CE Hengstenberg, ibid. p. 50.
5 Dan. viii. 16. Again: " The man Gabriel whom I had seen in the vision at the
beginning, being caused to fly swiftly, touched me  *  *  *  and said, O Daniel, I




118           THE OLD TESTAMENT AND THE NEW:    [LECT. III.
This latter remark leads directly to the chief bond of union
between the two parts of the inspired record. It has been shown
in the first of these Discourses, that one of the two conditions
which must be satisfied by any solution of the problem now under
consideration, is imposed by the essential distinction which subsists between Revelation and Inspiration.' According to that
distinction, while Scripture is, throughout all its parts, inspired,
it cannot be said that all its contents are revelations. This principle, which is suggested by the mere inspection of the contents
of the sacred volume, is connected with a fact already adverted
to, and of which some proof must now be given; namely, that
while Inspiration  (as the signification  of the term  denotes) is
the peculiar function of the Holy Ghost,-so, in like manner, to
reveal is the office appropriated to the  Eternal Word.'  In the
New Testament this fact is obvious.  In  its pages we see the
Divine Logos,-the Eternal Word Himself Incarnate-no longer
by His mediating angel, but in His own Person leading to their
completion, the disclosures of the Divine will which had been
given  through  "all His holy  prophets  since  the  world  began."  In the Gospel history, we see the Son of God combining
in His own Person the two great phases of all immediate Revelation; unfolding, that is, the mystery of the Divine counsels by
His words; displaying the wonders of Divine power by His acts.3
In days of old the Creator of the physical world-for God has
"created all things by Jesus Christ,"'-He is here manifested as
the restorer of the moral world, as the author of " a New  Creation."'  The scheme of Revelation  was not, indeed, completed
by Himself while on earth.  " I have yet many  things to say
unto you,"' was His statement to His disciples on the eve of His
am now come forth to give thee skill and understanding."-ix. 21, 22. So also Zechariah writes: "And the Lord answered the angel that talked with me with good
words. *  *  *  So the angel that communed with me said unto me, Cry thou saying, Thus saith the Lord of Hosts, I am jealous," &c.-Zech. i. 13, 14.'Lecture i. p. 40.
" Non enim aliter nos discere poteramus qua sunt Dei, nisi Magister noster,
Verbum existens, homo factus fuisset. Neque enim alius poterat enarrare nobis qus
sunt Patris, nisi proprium ipsius Verbum.  Quis enim alius cognovit sensum Domini?
ant quis alius ejus consiliarius factus est "-S. Irenmeus, Cont. icer., lib. v. i. 1, p. 292.
3 See Lecture i. p. 24.                                 4 Eph. iii. 9.
5 "2are ei Ti- kV XpLtar,, K a Lv rv  K r T  t  ~.-2 Cor. v. 17. " For in Christ Jesus
neither circumcision availeth anything, nor uncircumcision, but a new creation (KC a  v 
T i a L ). —Gal. vi. 15. Cf. the remarkable words-" And He that sat upon the
throne said-Behold, I make all things new (Katvd TroeL mr(vra)."-Rev. xxi. 5.
6 S. John, xvi. 12.




LECT. III.]          THE LOGOS THE REVEALER.                         119
departure from them; and although He may have disclosed many
of such things during the " forty days" of His appearance " after
His Passion," when He spake to them  " of the things pertaining
to the kingdom  of God,"1 yet we know that, even after Pentecost, new revelations were needed by them, and that new revelations were given.'  But whence did these proceed, and by what channels were
they conveyed?  He Himself has told  us how this was to be.
"When He, the  Spirit of truth  is come, He will guide you
into all truth: for He shall not speak of Himself; but whatsoever
He shall hear, that shall He speak; and He will show you things
to come. He shall glorify Me; for He shall receive of Mine, and
shall show it unto you."2 These words place it beyond question,
that the entire scheme of the new dispensation (not only that portion of it unfolded  by Himself while on earth, but also what
was revealed to the Apostles after His Ascension), proceeded
directly from the Eternal Son; while the Divine Being under
whose influence the Apostles were enabled to apprehend such
mysteries, and who shielded them  from  all error,-who taught
them  " all things," and who brought "all things to their remembrance,"-who gave them, in fine, " a mouth and wisdom  which
all their adversaries could neither gainsay nor resist" — was the
Spirit of Truth, the Holy Ghost, the source of Inspiration. This
very principle, indeed, that from  the revelations of the Eternal
Son alone, can man attain to any knowledge of God, His nature,
or His counsels, is expressly defined in the passage which I have
chosen as the text of this Discourse: " No   ian knoweth who
the Son is, but the Father; and who the Father is, but the Son,
and he to whom the Son wills to reveal Him."4  Thus it is, that
S. Paul, when referring to the source of his knowledge of Christian truth, writes so explicitly-" I neither received it of man,
Acts, i. 3.                                   2 S. John, xvi. 13, 14.
s S. John, xiv. 26. S. Luke, xxi. 15.
4   y ai (ov j7yTratL  Tlo dr Oa'AC&iP.VI.. Baumgarten Crusius attempts to maintain,
without adducing a particle of proof; that in the preceding verse, and in the parallel
passage, S. Matt. xi. 25, the word dureK'Avuzp, in the sentence, " Thou hast hid these
things from the wise and.prudent, and hast revealed them unto babes (vrroiolt),"
merely signifies, "hast made it possible for them to understand;"-thius losing the
entire force of the idea "to reveal."  In a note, however, this writer qualifies bis assertion, and considers that the sense which he assigns to ui'reic'Zvetac may lie in the
word v-riotl ("' ad intelligentian eorum"), and,lTroKavirre, v still retain its proper
signification:'Cause it to be known through Me," i. e. Christ.-~Gruadziige der Bibl
Theologie, s. 223.




120             THE  OLD  TESTAMENT  AND  THE  NEW:    [LECT. III.
neither was I taught it, but by the revelation of Jesus Christ;"'
while he further informs us of the channel of conveyance,-" God
hath revealed them unto us by His Spirit."' In fine, the first
words of the Apocalypse announce that the Book is " the revelation of Jesus Christ:" and S. Peter teaches, generally, respecting
the Prophets of the Old  Testament, that it was "the  Spirit of
Christ, which was in them."3
But do the statements of the Old Testament itself correspond
to these intimations of the New?   While proceeding to seek for
the evidence which is there supplied, let us reflect for a moment
on the idea of the Divine Word, as Creator of all things. The
original act of Creation is the foundation of all exhibitions of
supernatural power, whether by word or by act:-whether they
be, in short, Revelations, properly so called, or Miracles.' Could
we conceive this world of ours to have existed from eternity, the
subject of fixed determinate laws, then, indeed, the introduction
among the phenomena which surround us, of any power which
does not follow the course of nature, must positively disturb and
disorganize the adjustments of the universe. But seeing that all
1A' d^roKaavipewo''Ilaoi Xptarovi.-Gal. i. 12.
2'H/1v 6e UdTTEKUXvev O eO   6 6   a r ov 0  I v e 6,i a   o. —1 Cor. ii. 10.
"Of which salvation the prophets have inquired  *  *  *  who prophesied of
the grace that should come unto you: searching what or what manner of time the
Spirit of Christ which was in them (rT  Ev avrol Invefva XpLarov) did signify, when
it testified beforehand," &c.-1 Pet. i. 10, 11. These intimations of Scripture have
been accurately interpreted by the Fathers. See the passages quoted, Lecture ii. p.
83. To which may be added the express language of two disciples of the Apostles,
-S. Clement of Rome, and S. Ignatius. S. Clement, referring to Psalm xxxiv. 1117, writes as follows: ra  ra &6 erdvra  e3atoi e/  Ev XpLT, 7rtriaTt' K a I y c p A iv T o 
d6ai ro Tl ve~6VaroC tooi'Ayiov OVTco9 rpooKa.erTacl ju2S" AeAre, TEKva, /. i.  A. —Ad
Corinth. xxii  And S. Ignatius observes:'rrca ile' 6vvav77oieaOa 7,aac Xowplc AvTrov
[scil.'Iy7aoo XpLtarov], ov Ka oi rrpoiiracl a7OlTal OvreT Tr  llve~a nV aTi 6C dca6ioKaov
AVTarv irpocE6OKovv.-Ad Magnes. ix.
In the case of the physical world, as Twesten justly observes, there have been
certain epochs in which plants, and animals, and man, have for the first time appeared; and it is capable of demonstration that, up to a certain point of time, none
of these existences had as yet made their appearance. If we cannot avoid acknowledging here, that certain forces were exercised at such epochs, why not acknowledge
the same in the realm of history?  Jean Paul writes: "Wenigstens zwei Wunder
oder Offenbarungen bleiben euch unbestritten, namlich die Geburt der Endlichkeit,
und die Geburt des Lebens, mitten ins diirre Holz der Materie hinein."-Levana, Th.
1, a 126. Religion, continues Twesten,'represents itself to our inward experience
as a power to make happy, as a principle of new operations,-nay, of a transformation of the whole thought and will; as a new power of life, elevated above that to
which we formerly belonged, as high as human life is raised above the animal, or the
physical power of life above the merely mechanical and chemical processes of inanimate nature. Therefore we can regard the origin of Christianity [qu. Revelation] in
no other light than the origin of vegetable or animal life,-of the instincts of brutes,
or the consciousness of man; in short, as a New Creation."- Vorlesungen, ler Band,
a 352, f.




LECT. III.]           THE  LOGOS THE  REVEALER.                            121
around us has been called into being at the fiat of Omnipotence,
each manifestation of supernatural agency, is but a re-appearance
of the original Creative Power' penetrating the veil of nature, determining anew, and giving a new direction to the course of this
world's history.   The  immediate  intervention  of God in  such
cases, is not to be referred merely to His general activity in Nature, but must rather be regarded as a concentration, as it were,
of that activity in certain definite acts, or in certain definite
organs which  represent the  spirit and  power of the  universal
Revelation. This concentration, again, can come to pass only
through the creative and revealing Presence of that Divine Being,
who, having ordained the laws of Nature, and provided for their
permanence by His unceasing energy, nevertheless at times further unveils His character and His will in new and special revelations.' The Old Testament, in remarkable language, intimates
that the special miracles of Revelation have ever proceeded from
such renewed activity of the Creative3 Power; while it describes
those miracles as being themselves new  centres, as it were, of
Creation, from  which new  epochs date, and which manifest, once
more, as on the  first day, the  glory;of Jehovah.'  The  sacred
1 "When mankind," writes Bishop Butler, "was first placed in this state, there
was a power exerted, totally different from  the present course of nature. Now
whether this power stopped immediately after it had made man, or went on and exerted itself farther in giving him a revelation, is a question," &c., &c.-Analogy,
part ii. ch. 2.
2 "Miracles and Prophecy are, properly speaking, nothing more than particularly
energetic displays of the' demonstration of the Spirit and of power' (7roei5eef 7rvev(aTro KaL d6vacieuewf 1 Cor. ii. 4); and accordingly only different modes of operation of
one and the same Cause. What the Miracle is in the department of action, Prophecy
is'in the department of knowledge (miraculum potentice, scientice)"-Beck, Propad. Entwicklung, s. 178. Hence the scriptural titles of such exhibitions of the Divine energy,
dvv(iiEgt, repara, aorueZa. Cf. Acts, ii. 22; 2 Cor. xii. 12.  "ALva/ytl expresses rather
the objective idea of miracle; repac, the subjective; a7yeliov the visible sign of the
spiritual fact of God's kingdom."-Nitzsch, Syst. der Christl. Lehre, ~ 34. (Montgomery's transl., p. 84.) Sack truly observes: "Die Offenbarung ist nicht Natur im
empirisch-kosmischen Sinne, sie tritt zwar in die Natur hinein, aber sie ist wesentlich
fiber der Natur, oder ibernatiirlich, da sie die Selbstdarstellung des Schopfers ind
Herrn der Natur ist."-Apologetik, s. 121. And he quotes the apposite remark of
Dr. Julius Miiller: "Ut miraculuni non possit non obscurum esse a parte legis naturalis, tamen apertum estra parte superioris ordinis."-Ibid. s. 138.
s Mr. Rogers, in his Essay, " Reason and Faith," observes that the time " is coming when even those who shall object to the evidence which sustains the Christian
miracles will acknowledge that philosophy requires them to admit that men have no
ground whatever to dogmatise on the antecedent impossibility of miracles in general
*  *  *  not only because the geologist will have familiarized the world with the
idea of successive interventions, and, in fact, distinct creative acts, having all the nature
of miracles," &c.-p. 43.
4 For example: " Because all those men which have seen My glory, and My miracles which I did in Egypt and in the wilderness," &c.-Numb. xiv. 22. Again:




122            THE OLD  TESTAMENT  AND  TIE'NEW:    [LECT. III.
writers represent God as concentrating His " great and unsearchable" doings,' in single, visible acts of Creation, whereby elements
absolutely new are introduced into the usual series of events. For
example, Moses thus announces the Divine punishment inflicted
fbr the rebellion of Korah: " But if the Lord make a new thing
(the margin of our version renders the original literally, " create
a creature,")2 and the earth open her mouth, and they go down
quick (or still living) into the pit, then ye shall understand that
these men have provoked the Lord." In the same manner Jeremiah announces the grand  miracle of the  Incarnation: " The
Lord hath created a new thing' in the earth."   And-to quote a
passage which expands the idea implied by the texts just adduced-the Lord of Hosts is described by Isaiah as upbraiding
the house of Jacob for its " obstinacy:" " I have even from the
beginning declared it to thee, before it came to pass I showed it
thee.  *    *    *    I have showed thee new  things from  this time,
even hidden things, and thou  didst not know  them.  They are
created now, and not from  the beginning::  lest thou
shouldest say, Behold I knew them."'
But the Old Testament does not confine itself to this representation of the fact, that the revelations which it contains are
but new instances of Creative Power, thereby leading us back to
" This beginning of miracles did Jesus in Cana of Galilee, and manifested forth His
glory." —S. John, ii. 11. Cf. ix. 3-5; xi. 40.
1 "Which doeth great things, and unsearchable; marvellous things without number."-Job, v. 9. For this conception of the question I am largely indebted to the
profound remarks of Beck, loc cit. s. 186 if.
2'   7: c~q:.-~Numb. xvi. 30. To take another example from the Pentateuch:"Behold I make a covenant: before all thy   eopie will I do marvels, such as have
not been done [i. e. created, ^-i-5 ard] in all the earth."-Exod. xxxiv. 10. Gesenius thus explains the term rendered " marvels," rm)5N: " Mirabiliter facta, miracula Dei, turn in mundo creando et sustentando (Ps. ix. 2; xxvi. 7; xl. 6), tur in
populo suo juvando patrata (Ex. xxxiv. 10; Jos. iii. 5)."
a  i;rn n tsr'n.-Jer. xxxi. 22.
Isai. xlviii. 5-7. "New things," nrtrin; "they are created," )sri.
Cf. also the following texts: "Behold the former things are come to pass, and
new things (rw:^ ) do I declare," Isai. xlii. 9); "Remember ye not the former things,
neither consider the things of old. Behold I will do a new thing  *  *  *  I will
even make a way in the wilderness, and rivers in the desert" (xliii. 18, 19). Cf.
Isai. iv. 5; xli. 20; xlv. 8. That the ideas expressed by the terms.=m and,Dr
are considered by the sacred writers strictly cognate, will appear from the following
passages: "So is this great and wide sea wherein are things creeping innumerable,
both small and great beasts. *  *  *  Thou sendest forth Thy Spirit, they are created (1]frG): and thou renewest (vmnrln ) the face of the earth."-Ps. civ. 30. " Create
(Wr~) in me a clean heart, 0 God; and renew (=nri) a right spirit within me."-Ps.
li. 10. "Behold I create new heavens (:3r>n  ln- bunij], and a new earth."-Isai.
lxv. 17; cf. lxvi. 22.




LECT. TII.]           THE  LOGOS THE  REVEALER.                            123
the Author of all creation-the Eternal Son;' it presents Him
directly to our view, as unfolding in Person the Divine counsels,
under the mysterious character of the ANGEL OF JEHOVAH. To
this title,-employed for the first time to describe His appearance
in the age of Abraham, laying the foundation, as it were, of all
future revelations to the chosen race,-some attention must be
devoted.
The passages of the Old Testament which refer to this aspect
of Revelation may be  reduced  to  three  heads.'   In  the  first
place, the Angel of Jehovah, by the use of the first person singular, identifies Himself with the Divine Nature. Thus, " The
Angel of the Lord' said unto Hagar, I will multiply thy seed
exceedingly;" and  in  a subsequent verse we read, that " She
called the name of JEHOVAII that spake unto  her, Thou  God
seest me." Secondly, reference is made to the Angel, so as to
prevent our understanding  any other than  a  Being  essentially
Divine.   For  example, Jacob  says,  "God, before  whom  my
fathers Abraham and Isaac did walk, the God which fed me all
my life long unto this day, the ANGEL which redeemed me from
I Bishop Bull writes: " Esto igitur, inquies, fuerit Deus, qui in veteri Testamento,
sive per Angelnm, sive sub Angelica representatione sanctis viris apparuit, et locutus
est; at qua demum ratione adducti crediderunt Doctores, fuisse Dei Filium? Respondeo: Ratione, ni fallor, optima, quam ex traditione Apostolica edidicerant.  Scilicet
Deus Pater, quemadmodum per Filium Suum mundum primitus condidit creavitque;
ita per eundem Filium Se deinceps mundo patefecit."-Defensio Fid. Nicence, sect. I.
ch. i. ~ 12, p. 11. ed. 1721.
2 This classification of the passages in question, I borrow from Sack, "Apologetik,"
s. 170 if.
3, 7nE2. —Genl. xvi. 9-11. Again we read: "And the Angel of the Lord
("i'1x) called unto him out of heaven and said, Abraham, Abraham; and he said,
Here am I. And He said, Lay not thine hand upon the lad  *  *  *  for now I
know that thou fearest God (t,7iE), seeing thou hast not withheld thy son, thine only
son from ME" (7r2  nzr:h  N).-Gen. xxii. 11, 12. So also Exod. iii. 2: " The Angel
of the Lord (1""1 "Qn) appeared unto" Moses " in a flame of fire out of the midst of a
hush;"  *  *  *  "And when the Lord (rnhn) saw that he turned aside to see, God
(-'n5x) called unto him out of the midst of the bush" (ver. 4)  *  *  *  "Moreover
lie said, I am the God of thy father, the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, and the
God of Jacob. And Moses hid his face; for he was afraid to look upon God (an;nj). And the Lord (,rmr) said" &c. (ver. 6, 7). Bishop Bull observes: "Cum Patres
communiter asserunt, Angelum, qui Abrahamo et Mosi apparuit, cuiquo nomen Jehovae, et divini honores tribuuntur, fuisse Dei Filium, duplicem  id sensum  admittit:
nempe, vel fuisse Deum, i. e. Filium Dei, nomine Angeli significatum, quia Ipse corpus assurnserit, sive speciem visibilem, qualem Angeli usurpare solent; vel Filium
)ei fuisse in Angelo, hoc est, Angelum fuisse, qui corpus assumsit, et Filium  Dei
fuisso in Angelo, per assistentiam nempe et preesentiam singularem." —Def. Fid. Nic.,
Sect. i. ch. i. ~ 11, p. 10. Bishop Bull considers the latter of these senses to be that
which the Ancients approved. E. g. he quotes the words of S. Athanasius on Exod.
iii. 2-6 (Cont Arian. Orat. iii. ~ 14, t. i. p. 563): " What was seen was an Angel; but
God spoke in him;" and he refers, in confirmation of this view, to Exod. xxiii. 20,
"My NAME is in Him,"-words which will be considered under the third head.




124             THE  OLD  TESTAMENT  AND  THE NEW:    [LECT. III
all evil, bless the lads;'-where the identification  of the Angel
with Him  from  whom  alone all blessing flows, and who redeems
from evil, cannot be doubted. Thirdly, a certain distinction is
made between the Angel of Jehovah and Jehovah Himself; but
in such a manner as to represent that the essence of Deity had
become manifest and  operative  in  the  former.  Thus Jehovah
says:    Behold I send an ANGEL before thee to keep thee in the
way.    Beware of Him, and  obey His voice; provoke
Him  not; for He will not pardon your transgressions: for My
NAME is in Him;" —where, even without dwelling upon the signification of the phrase " the Name  of Jehovah," we can  only
understand such words as describing a distinct, Divine Personality.'
An expression in the Epistle to the Hebrews, casts further
light on the class of texts which have been just considered. The
sacred writer observes: " Wherefore, holy brethren, partakers of
1 Gen. xlviii. 15, 16. S. Athanasius writes: "None of created and natural angels
did he join to God their Creator, nor rejecting God that fed him did he from angel ask
the blessing on his grandsons; but in saying' Who delivered me from  all evil'
[C7'w-   x   lxt, "1'7r] he showed that it was no created angel, but the WORD OF
GOD, whom he joined to the Father in his prayer, through Whom, whomsoever He
will, God doth deliver. For knowing that He is also called the Father's'Angel of
great counsel' [Isai. ix. 6, jty7nL f3Pov^ZiC'A y y e X o g, LXX.], he said that none other
than He was the Giver of blessing, and Deliverer from evil. Nor was it that he desired a blessing for himself from God, but for his grandchildren from the Angel, but
Whom he himself had besought saying,'I will not let Thee go except Thou bless
me,' (for that was God, as he says himself,' I have seen God face to face,' [Gen. xxxii.
26, 30] )-Him he prayed to bless also the sons of Joseph."-Cont. Arian. Orat. iii.
~ 12. t. i. p. 561. (Oxf. Transl. p. 418.)
2 Exod. xxiii 20, 21. Hence Sack concludes "that "" "   i: is to be translated
not "an Angel of Jehovah," but "the Angel of Jehovah,"-or the appearing, the
revelation of Jehovah; the idea being'Jehovah in His visibility.' "-Apologetik, s.
171. Cf. the promise vouchsafed on the withdrawal (see infra, p. 127, note') of the
Uncreated Angel (" My Presence (u5) shall go with thee, and I will give thee rest"Ex. xxxiii. 14), with the statement:' In all their afflictions he was afflicted, and the
Angel of His Presence (q = 7]xe) saved them."-Isai. lxiii. 9. On the phrase here
employed Olshausen observes: "In Exod. xxxiii. 20, 23, t:5t is used for the mysterious, invisible God; while His becoming revealed, and therefore the Son [das Offenbarwerdende (also der Sohn,)] is called' His back' q li. In Isaiah, lxiii. 9, however, the Revealer of God Himself is called w:n l7xt."-Comm. iiber Johann, i. 1,
B. ii. s. 34.
T The manner in which Jewish writers have understood the texts just quoted will
be seen from the following extracts:-Philo writes: "Ewc /juv yap ov re2eioral, r/yF6ovt r7,C 66o0 XpirraL 3 6 y   e i e'   Xpplltof y(p iarTv,'Idov  Taroar7ALZd royv /Eye6v
yLov 7rpo,rpofT7reov aov K. T. X. [Exod. xxiii. 20]. —De Migr. Abr. t. i. p. 463. In the
remarkable personification of the Divine Wisdom to be found in the Apocrypha, we
find this same truth developed. We are told that wisdom guided them in a marvelous way, and was unto them for a cover by day and a light of stars in the night season; brought them through the Red Sea  *  *  *  drowned their enemies," &c.Wisdom, x. 17-19. Compare the words of S. Paul,-" Neither let us tempt Christ as
some of them also tempted, and were destroyed of serpents."-1 Cor. x. 9.




LECT. III.]            THE LtAGOS THE REVEALER.                            125
the heavenly calling, consider the APOSTLE and High Priest of
our profession, Christ Jesus."' The true force of these words
will at once appear, if we compare the etymology of the expression " Apostle," with that of the title applied in the Old Testament, as we have seen, to  the  Person  of the Eternal Word, in
His character of Revealer. Christ is here called "Apostle," or
"Messenger," with plain reference to His office, under the former
dispensation, as "Angel of Jehovah."   The  term  "Angel," indeed, could not have been employed without confusing the meaning; for, in the two preceding chapters, it had been used to denote  the species of Angels  as distinguished  from  the  human
race; and hence, it could  not fitly describe, in the passage before us, the peculiar office of Christ as " the Angel." The inspired
writer, accordingly, selects for this purpose the term " Apostle;"
which equally denotes the same idea, and which is borrowed from
a verb continually employed by S. John, in a strictly technical
sense, to signify the' mission' of the Eternal Son into the world,
-this Evangelist repeatedly describing Christ as " the Apostle,"
or as He "whom   God  hath  sent.""   S. Paul, therefore, in the
I Heb. iii. 1. It is to be observed that in the previous portion of this Epistle (ch.
i. 4; ii. 9), a contrast is drawn between Christ and angels (ayye2ot in the plural).
At first sight it might appear that this contrast would have been heightened, had
the opposition been drawn between the Son of God and "The Angel of Jehovah"
('1"i    son), so often referred to in the Old Testament. The remarks already made
explain why this has not been done:-~" the Angel of Jehovah" was no definite angelic being. The I">'~5n  was not a person in subordination to God,-was no individual
of the number of created angels, of whose instrumentality God might have availed
Himself, but He was Himself God, as he appeared in the form of an Angel. See
Ebrard, "Der Brief an die Hebrier," s. 33.
2 "Ov y(p dirri   reL, ev  6  eoS6.-S. John, iii. 34. 6 Ilar7/p ie u T  rr 7 a a    K e v.
-v. 36. Cf. vi. 29; x. 36; and in fine: "As my Father hath sent (dTreiraXKev)
Me, even so send (7rrrro) I you"-xx. 21, where the difference of the two verbs,
clearly denotes the technical application of the former. This same technical signifi.
cation of the verb, by which S. John denotes the' mission' of the Son into the world,
we find elsewhere in the language of S. Paul: " When the fulness of time was come,
God sent forth (earia7reLtXev) His Son."-Gal. iv. 4. See Ebrard, ibid. s. 126.
C. A. Keil (" Opuscula Academica" Lipsiae, 1821.) gives some important references, which illustrate that view of the text in the Epistle to the Hebrews which I
have taken from Ebrard, and also the general notion of the Logos as the Revealer.
E. g. Oeb( o'v v v   A6yor, cKat bK Oeob rreocVKc, O6TT' Uv fovi97Trat o Tlar7p rT'V 62,o1,
Tirwretl avrbv el' rtva roTrov, of 7rapaytv6/oevog  Kata dtKOeraTl Ka dpdrTat.-Theophilus,
Ad Autolyc. ii. ~ 22. p. 365. " Atque hac ipsa de causa [observes Keil] Oeov etiam
dyyetoc et     T 6  r oXo  iis [scil. Patribus] dicitur, quod diserte docent Justini
Mart. et Originis loca, quorum ille quidem ita habet: Kal dyyeXocr 6 Kaeirata, Kao
air6arofroo. avroc yaip a7rayyeUaet  oa dEl yvwaOirvat, Kact ad er  ae A    e r a   t  Lvvaou
o6a dcyyXt2erat.-Apol. i. ~ 63, p. 81; hie autem sic: d6varae 6e Kaa 6 A6yof'rlTb
elvac rrapa r  (iTrrayyiA7 etv rai cpCvQa TOV llarp'Keivov  *  *  *  Ka Kal co Ao6yo
iarTt ueyiig7s  TvyxuveLt ovXSc'AyyeXoc Cv. K. T...-Tom. i. in Joan. t. iv. p. 45 [cf.
the use of this quotation from the LXX. of Isaiah, ix. 6, by S. Athanasius, supra, p.




126             THE  OLD  TESTAMENT  AND  THE NEW:    [LECT. III.
Epistle to the Hebrews alludes to the Angel of Jehovah, who,
under the Law, had revealed God to the people; referring at the
same time to the High Priest who was the representative of the
people before God.' With these features of the Theocratic dispensation he compares the  Christian  scheme.   "Consider," he
writes, "the Apostle and High Priest of our (i. e. the Christian)
profession;" and he then goes on to develop at some length  the
comparison thus instituted.
These statements of Scripture having been  premised, let us
look to the circumstances under which  the  immediate intervention of the Uncreated Angel was withdrawn.' As in after times
the Jewish people " denied the Holy One and the Just," so in the
days of Moses they rebelled  against their Divine Guide: they
despised the stern warning of Jehovah, and worshipped the calf
in Horeb. On that occasion the solemn promise, that the Uncreated Angel should continue to precede the armies of Israel,
was as solemnly revoked, and a created angel assigned as their
leader.   "I  will send  an  angel before  thee," said the Lord,
":;':  *   for I will not go up in the midst of thee, for thou
art a stiff-necked  people: lest I consume  thee  in  the way."3
124, note ]. "Hinc vero jam illud etiam repetendum  est, quod hunc A6yov Vet.
quidem Test. temporibus non modo sub variis formis hominibus docuerunt adparuisse,
sed prophetis etiam, quse tradi ab iis vellet, suppeditasse. Nov. autem Test. tern
poribus in Mariam  eum dicebat se demisisse, hominemque factum esse." —p. 503.
To which I may add the words of Clemens Alex.:'TO ILv ovv 7rporepov r 7rTpeE3VtrEp
2La6, 7rpEeaCvrTpa dtaOcr7l'v, Ka2 v6ooq ETratdayiJyet TrOV Xabv /era( e63oov, Kai' A67yo
UyyeEoc r v Kcatcv  d& Kai 1ve)  Laa, KaLtv) Kai via dtaO71crl 6edSpTrat, Icac o Aoyor yeyevr/Tat *  *  *  Kai 6 IvaUrTiKC 1iKeivoC'Ayye2oc'Iyaof~ rlcKTerCat.-Pedagogus. lib. i.
c 7. p. 133.
1 Ebrard writes as follows: " Betrachten wir nun das Attribut bTv Uirnro;oov Kai
al.ptep a Tr7  o6yooyia~ i/ljv naher.'Ar6aroto~ heisst Jesus nach seiner Analogie
mit dem  I"N n'17z, als Bote Gottes an die Menschen, apXtepevf nach seiner Analogie
mit dem }~;n  ]:n als Vertreter der Menschen vor Gott."-Ibid. s. 125.
2 The view which I take of this question is, I am aware, attended with some difficulty. So profound a theologian as Bishop Bull has observed: " Ad ertbaveria sub
Veteri Testamento quod attinet, hactenus cum Augustino consentimus, non semper
in Angelo prmsentia singulari adfuisse Deum; sed multa per solos angelos administrasse: quin et modum excessisse in hac questione Veteres nonnullos, haud negamus.
Prmterea quando merus angelus, quando autem Deus in Angelo apparuerit, ssepe difficilem esse conjecturam, ultro fatemur."-Def. Fid. Nic. Sect. iv. cap. iii. ~ 15, p. 245.
The difficulty has been also noticed by S. Athanasius: " Nor on seeing an angel
would a man say he had seen the Father; for angels, as it is written, are' ministering, spirits sent forth to minister' [Heb. i. 14], and are heralds of gifts given by Him
through the Word to those who receive them. *  *  *  And he who beholds a vision of angels knows that he has seen the angel, and not God. For Zacharias saw an
angel: and Esaias saw the Lord. Manoe, the father of Samson, saw an angel; but
Moses beheld God. Gideon saw an angel, but to Abraham appeared God."-Cont.
Arian. Orat. iii. ~ 14. t. i. p. 563 (Oxf. Transl. p. 420.)' Exod. xxxiii. 2, 3.




LECT. III.]           THE LOGOS THE REVEALER.                             127
Here, then, as in the age of the Incarnation, the Personal Presence of the Eternal Son is withdrawn; and here, too, although
in a veiled and mysterious manner, that Presence was supplied.
God  promises the  people that  they  should  not be  forsaken
"My Presence  shall go with  thee, and I will give  thee  rest."'
Henceforward, as in the Gospel times,2 God's dispensation was
no longer administered by the Personal Presence of the Eternal
Son; but in both cases certain  glimpses of His appearance were,
from  time to  time, vouchsafed.  Not to  dwell upon  other instances, Daniel" saw  " one like the Son of Man, who came to the
Ancient of Days;" just as S. Stephen4 beheld " the Son of Mtn,
standing  on  the  right hand  of God."   So, too, the  object of
Zechariah's vision seems to have been identical with  the Divine
] Ibid. ver. 14. Dr. Mill writes as follows: —  That the Angel of the Lord who
preceded the children of Israel from Egypt in the cloud and in the fire was (agreeably
to Exod. xiii. 20, 21; coll. xiv. 19, 20; Numb. xx. 6, &c.), the Lord Iimself, possessor of the incommunicable name,ri; and that this Angel of the Covenant, as he
is termed in Mal. iii. 1 coil. Gen. xlviii. 15, 16, &c., is the Uncreated Word, who appeared in visible form to Jacob and Moses, and who was in the fulness of time incarnate in the Person of Jesus Christ, is the known undoubted faith of the Church of
God, and needs not to be enlarged on here. This same Uncreated Angel, in whom
was the Name of the Lord, is promised by the mouth of Moses in Exod. xxiii. 20-23,
to continue to precede the armies of Israel, and cut off the Canaanites before them:
but with an awful caution annexed, that they should be careful not to provoke that
august Presence, intolerant of any contact with sin. But after the transgression of the
calf in Horeb, it is as solemnly propounded in Exod. xxxiii. 2, 3, that another angel,
expressly distinguished from the Divinity, and therefore a created being, should execute that part of the former's province which consisted in preceding their host and
exterminating their enemies; the Divine Presence which would otherwise consume
them being withdrawn. And though the worst part of this sentence was removed,
as we find in the subsequent part of the chapter, by the intercession of Moses,-and
the cloudy pillar that indicated the Divine Shekinah or inhabitation was restored to
the tabernacle, and continued there,-there is no proof that the function assigned in
ver. 2 to the created angel should be superseded; while in the later Prophets, and in
the testimony of the New Testament respecting the elder Sinaitic dispensation as
subjected to created angels (Acts, vii. 53; Gal. iii. 19; Heb. i.; ii. 2-5), we have a
strong argument for its continuance."-The Christian Advocate's Publication for 1841,
Note A, p. 92.
Dr. Mill then proceeds to consider the passage, where one who describe? himself
as Captain or Prince of the host of the Lord (a s,-X:_-nr), appears to Joshua. —Josh.
v. 13-15. " In expressing the belief that this leader of the heavenly host, who conducted the people of Israel into Canaan, and vanquished their enemies before them,
was a created angel, i. e. the Michael of Daniel, to whom the same functions with
respect to Israel are ascribed,-and not, as many have supposed, the Divine Word or
Angel of the Presence, who appeared in various manners to Jacob in Feniel, to Moses
in the flaming bush, and elsewhere, I follow the general consent of ancient interpreters, and what appears to me the obvious sense of the Scripture."-Ibid. p. 54. For
Dr. Mill's remarks on this question see Appendix I.
2  When the Comforter is come, whom I will send unto you from the Father,
*  *  *  He shall testify of me."-S. John, xv. 26. "It is expedient for you that
I go away."-xvi. 7.
9 Dan. vii. 13.                                          4 Acts, vii. 56.




128           THE OLD TESTAMENT AND THE NEW:    [LECT. III.
Being whom  S. John  describes: "And  I saw heaven opened,
and behold a white horse; and He that sat upon him  was called
Faithful and True:  *          *        and He was clothed with a vesture dipped in blood, and His name is called THE  WORD  OF
GOD."'  At all events, we know  that, subsequently to the age
of Moses, the immediate communications of Jehovah, as a general rule, ceased; and that. certain means were made use of for
conveying His revelations: "There arose not"-such is the definite information given in the last words of the Pentateuch" There arose not a prophet since in Israel like unto Moses, whom
Jehovah knew face to face."  For the Prophets who followed,
God appointed certain channels, through which His revelations
were to flow.  "If there be a prophet among you, I the Lord
will make myself known unto him  in a vision, and will speak unto
him in a dream."'
But although the Personal Presence of the Logos was thus
withdrawn, the language in which the sacred writers who followed
Moses speak of the Divine influence under which they acted,
while it distinctly points to an intermediate agency, intimates, at
the same time, the indissoluble connexion with, and relation to
the Eternal Word, of the means by which  His Presence was
supplied, and His revelations were communicated. Let us briefly
consider how  the agency now  introduced is spoken of.  It is
described, generically, as " the Spirit of God."  Thus " the Spirit
of God" comes equally upon Balaam and Saul, as upon the prophets Azariah and Ezekiel.3   The exercise of the Divine influ1 Rev. xix. 11-13. Cf. "I saw by night, and behold a man riding upon a red
horse, and he stood among the myrtle trees that were in the bottom; and behind
him were there red horses speckled and white," &c.-Zech. i. 8.
2 Numb. xii. 6. Besides those passages in which mention is made of the Personal
appearance of the Divine Being, the Old Testament refers to a twofold manifestation
of God in the world: (1.) He dwells in the midst of Israel:-" Let them make me a
sanctuary that I may dwell (n::rl) among them"-Ex. xxv. 8; cf. Dent. xxxiii. 12,
16. (2.) The Lord continually speaks with Patriarchs and Prophets. "For both
exhibitions of the divine agency, the Jewish Mystics have formed peculiar expressions-the Shekinah and the Memra (um7vz7 and;n:.). * *  *  The term Shekinah is found as well in the purely Pharisaical books (e. g. the Talmud) as in the Mystical. The Memra, on the other hand, belongs merely to the Targums."  *  *  *
" In fact, the Memra is a Hebrew coloring of the Alexandrine Logos."-Gfrorer, )as
Jahrhundert des Heils, i. s. 300 ff. The term  ETrtaKrwvjaop    in the New Testament
(" that the power of Christ might rest upon me," 2 Cor. xii. 9), has been thought to
contain an allusion to the Shekinah.
s In such cases we find the "Spirit of Jehovah," and the " Spirit of Elohim" used
indifferently. Thus, "The Spirit of God (>l, trr) came upon" Balaam-Numb.
xxiv. 2; Samuel tells Saul that "the Spirit of the Lord (,Tr''1) will come upon"
him.-1 Sam. x. 6; and at ver. 10 we read that "the Spirit of God (DiSK  I,) came




LECT. III.]          THE LOGOS THE REVEALER.                            129
ence, however, is more frequently represented by certain metaphorical expressions.  Of Ezekiel, for example, we read: "The
Spirit of the Lord fell upon  me, and  said unto  me,"'-words
which are immediately preceded by the statement: "The Spirit
lifted me up, and brought me unto the east gate of the Lord's
house;" which passages, taken  together, denote  that by the
power of the Spirit he was raised to  the  state of prophetic ecstacy, analogous to that described in the New  Testament, where
it is said of S. Peter, that " a trance or ecstacyfell upon" him.'
Again, it is said of Zechariah the son of Jehoiada, of Amasai,
and of Gideon, that they were " clothed" (as the margin of our
version correctly renders the Hebrew term) with the Spirit;' a
phrase identical with  that employed  by  our Lord  Himself:
" Tarry ye in  the city of Jerusalem, until ye be endued  with
power from on high."'
The Divine influence is also frequently denoted by the expression, " the hand of the Lord."   Thus we read  that "the hand
of the Lord was on Elijah."6 Ezekiel writes: " The hand of the
Lord God fell there upon me"" —meaning that he there became
conscious of the mental excitement produced by the Spirit.  And
to the same effect, Jeremiah says: "I sat alone, because of Thy
hand;" or, in the language of Isaiah, " The Lord spake thus to
me with  a strong hand."   This latter phrase  is repeated by
Ezekiel,-" The hand of the Lord was strong upon me," and denotes: " I was impelled by Divine  Spirit:" or, as the  Chaldee
paraphrase renders, " I was under the influence  of prophecy."7
upon him."  Again, " The Spirit of God (arr> rrn) came upon Azariah the son of
Oded,"-2 Chron. xv. 1; while Ezekiel writes: " The Spirit of the Lord (I-rT rHI*)
fell upon me."-xi. 5. In Isaiah we meet with a slight variation of the phrase, " The
Spirit of the Lord God (mnr, n:   r'n) is upon me."-lxi. 1. Hence the New Testament phrase to denote the state in which revelations were received, tv rvev'artl -
rnn. E. g. our Lord says: " How then doth David in spirit (Eiv nIvevfaTt) call Him
Lord?"S. Matt. xxii. 43; and S. John,-" I was in the Spirit (&v TIvEV~art) on the
Lord's day."-Rev. i. 10; iv. 2; xvii. 3: cf. Ev tKoTaoet.-Acts, xi. 5.
Ezek. xi. 5. n"' min ri   Dr.   At ver. 1, we read simply Mil.
" Acts, x. 10, Griesbach reads, e7reaevv; Lachmann and Tischendorf, tyeveTo.
In either case, however, the parallel holds; for while we find >_3 in the case before
us, we read,nTl in several others, e. g. Numb. xxiv. 2; 2 Chron. xv. 1, &c. &c. In
support of kirereaev, cf. Gen. xv. 12 (LXX.) iKcTarotf t erece (,'3u) rTi'Appau.
8 Of Zechariah (2 Chron. xxiv. 20), it is said, rtrn  1i,  rin.  Of Amasai (1
Chron. xii. 18), simply tm5> rmn.  Of Gideon (Judges, vi. 34), rmz   t-, rn-o.
S. Luke, xxiv. 49. EvdiaraO6e.       51I Kings, xviii. 46.,n,' -'I.
* Ezek. viii. 1.,nr tv "    Q   lrnr.
Jer. xv. 17; Isai. viii. 11; Ezek. iii. 14. Gesenius translates the original of
Isai. viii. 11, by the words: " Denn also sprach Jehovah zu mir in der Entziickung;"
on which he observes;:-"Of the spiritual influence (Begeisterung) which comes
9




130            THE OLD  TESTAMENT  AND  THE NEW:    [LECT. III.
That this is the true signification of the metaphor, " the hand
of the Lord," will appear more distinctly from a statement of
Ezekiel: " The hand of the Lord was upon me, and carried me
out in the Spirit of the Lord,"-a  condition  analogous to that
described more concisely by S. John in the Apocalypse, as being
" in the Spirit."'  With reference to this subject the New  Testament, indeed, but repeats the language of the Old. For example:
S. Luke writes of S. John  the Baptist: " The hand of the Lord
was with him;"' and the same Evangelist records the expression
of Christ: "If I by the finger of God"-that is, as S. Matthew
in the parallel passage explains the words, " If I by the Spirit
of God"-" cast out devils."'  This phrase, "the  hand  of the
upon the Prophet, when the Deity appears to him, and urges him to speak, to act,
and to work in Its name, the Hebrew says not merely:'the Spirit of God came
upon him' (Ezek. xi. 5), but still more frequently: i,ner ""''-' the hand of Jehovah came upon' (Ezek. i. 3; iii. 14, 22; xxxiii. 22; xxxvii. 1, and with it:'fell
upon me,' viii. 1), and once:'the hand of the Lord was strong upon me,' pr -r,'
"" r —Ezek. iii. 14 [Gesenius translates " die Hand Jehova's trieb mich an"], cf. on
pTh Exod. xii 33. [" The Egyptians were urgent"]. Hence ThT-'r   directly implies
the spiritual influences which constitute a Prophet, and the revelations which he received. Thus Jer. xv. 17:' I sat not in the assembly of the mockers, nor rejoiced;
I sat alone because of Thy hand:'-~r-bo  T'T 1'Tr r:)3 (" wegen deiner Offenbarungen
sass ich einsam"). To the latter passages, and especially Ezek. iii. 14 (a comparison
which Jarchi has already with great aptness pointed out), the passage before us
(Isai. viii. 11) is to be joined:'rn npTit, properly'in the impulse of the hand of
God' (im Antrieb der Hand Gottes), i. e. when I was urged by the Divine Spirit,
when God revealed Himself to me. Excellently the Chaldee: unmi    r  in, in impetuprophetice.  *  *  *  The Syriac, Luther, Lowth, &c. explained, from an unacquaintance with this usage of language,'while,' or' as if He caught me by the hand'
(indem, od. als ob er mich bey der Hand fasste); cf.'  plr'nT to catch by the hand."Der Prophet Jesaia, i. s. 338.
Ezek. xxxvii. 1; Rev. i. 10. This conclusion is fully confirmed by the following striking passage: " All this, said David, the Lord made me understand in writing
by his hand upon me," (5rn,': I'd btr  fn: ), 1 Chron. xxviii. 19; as well as
by the statement of the New Testament, that the men of God spake 6 flo nveYuaTrof'Ayiov  e p 6,oev o.-2 S. Pet. i. 21.
2 S. Luke, i. 66. xetp Kvptov==-' -ln. This sense of'r denoting power, influence,
is quite in accordance with Hebrew usage. E. g. " Their inhabitants were of small
power."  2 Kings, xix. 26; where the marginal reading " short of hand" gives a
literal rendering of the original, r-r.lp. We may also compare the use, by the New
Testament writers, of dsvauLt and Sjvaptu vbi7arov, parallel with a reference to the
Holy Ghost-S. Luke, i. 35.; Acts, x. 38; 1 Thess. i. 5.
s S. Luke, xi. 20, ei 6' iv 6aKTvcw,  Oeov eiK/3(ao. S. Matt. xii 28, eil   k"v rlHevfiaTt Oeov iy&3  tKd3a2. Cf. Exod. viii. 19 [15], " This is the finger of God," r8i  T_
Dif,: — LXX. A(Urvfoc Oeo5v kTai rTOiro. This parallelism has been noti2ed from a
very early period. Thus Didymus of Alexandria (flor. A. D. 370, " Magna, apud omnes, admiratione habitus."-Cave, Hist. Lit.) writes:-" Salvator ait:' Si autem ego
in digito Dei ejicio daemonia, ergo supervenit in vos regnum Dei.' Hunc eundem
locum alius Evangelista describens, loquentem  intulit Filium:'Si autem  ego in
Spiritu Dei ejicie daemonia.'  Ex quibus ostenditur, digitum  Dei esse Spiritum
Sanctum. Si ergo conjunctus est digitus manui, et manus ei cujus manus est: et
digitus sine dubio ad ejus substantiam refertur eujus digitus est."-De Spiritu Saicto,
c. xx. (ap. Galland. t. vi. p. 271.)




LECT. mI.]            THE  LOGOS THE REVEALER.                              131
Lord," we meet in  combination with  another as frequently employed, and no less important: " The word of the Lord came expressly unto Ezekiel,'   and the hand of the Lord was
there upon him."'  It is needless to adduce examples of the recurrence of the expression —" The word of the Lord" came to
such or such a prophet: Moses thus denotes revelations in the
time of Abraham; it is used by David,' as well as by those who
were officially prophets.   In the Gospels, too, the phrase is applied to S. John the  Baptist in  the very language  and  tone of
the Old Testament: "The word of God came unto John the son
of Zacharias in the wilderness;" —the identity of expression in1 Ezek. i. 3. While considering such phrases, the following unique form of quotation cannot be passed over.  Our Lord Himself says: "Therefore also said the
Wisdom of God (6tc TOVTO Icab?i  o 0 i a rTO Oeov e7rev), I will send them prophets,"
&c.-S. Luke, xi. 49. The parallel passage in S. Matthew (xxiii. 34) simply gives"Wherefore behold I send unto you prophets," &c.-without any indication of the
words being a quotation. One can hardly doubt, however, that our Lord expressly
refers to 2 Chron. xxiv. 19: "Yet He sent prophets to them, to bring them again
unto the Lord; and they testified against them: but they would not give ear;"especially as this statement of the sacred writer is at once followed by the account of
the putting Zechariah to death, to which event Christ has alluded, in immediate connexion with the words just adduced from S. Luke and S. Matthew. The difficulty
arising from the want of exact agreement of this quotation with any passage of the
Old Testament is somewhat exaggerated by Olshausen; nevertheless, assuming that
there is a reference, he acutely observes: " If this be so, then the Redeemer in Matthew speaks not merely as a Person bounded by the limits of a temporal life, but as
the Son of God, as the essential Wisdom (Prov. viii.; Ecclus. xxiv.), which S. Luke
introduces as speaking, and by whose intervention from the beginning all prophets
and holy men of God have entered on their office (Wisd. vii. 27). [" In all ages entering into holy souls, she (Wisdom) maketh them friends of God, and prophets"].
In this case there would be no essential difference between Matthew and Luke."
Olshausen adds, " if Jesus calls Himself, in John, the Truth, the Resurrection, and
the Life, why shall He not also describe Himself as Wisdom?"-Comment. B. i. s.
850. That an absence of literal agreement is no proof that the Old Testament has
not been directly referred to, will be shown in Lecture vii. infra.
2 " The word of the Lord came unto Abram."-Gen. xv. 1. "And David said to
Solomon  *  *  *  the word of the Lord came to me." —1  hron. xxii. 8. In both
cases we read rn-rT"n^: the LXX., however, have translated the original in the
former of these passages by,,7jya Kvpiov, in the latter by foyog Kvpiov,-employing
by/a and  o/yof indifferently. See infra, p. 132, &c. With such phrases we may
compare the words of Simeon (S. Luke, ii. 29): "according to Thy word"-sarid r)
p/,ad Eov (scil.'rpoa ea!  pX6ouevov); in which expression he, of course, refers to the
fact stated by the Evangelist: Kai'iv atri K,expor1artazaevov v'b roV llvev/LaTrof TO'Ayiov (ver. 26), on the form of which Xpy/aiar, 6C o S. Luke is silent.  As to the term
by which the Divine communication is here expressed, it is to be noted that "XP?ttarietv, in profane Greek, denotes'to transact public business,''to communicate
answers and decrees;'-*-eOan,'to receive such decrees, &c.' In Hellenistic Greek,
the expression appears in the same sense, with a reference, however, to the province
of Divine things: Xporluari^elv,'to give Divine commands' (cf. Hob. xii. 25); —eaOa,'to receive the same.' [So Jer. xxvi. 2; xxix 23.]  C. S. Matth. ii. 12,22.  For
the signification,'to take and bear a title or name,' quite usual among profane
writers, see Acts, xi. 26; Rom. vii. 3."-Olshausen, Comment., i. s. 69.
3 S. Luke, iii. 2. On this passage Olshausen observes:-" Peculiar to Luke, iii. 2,
is the addition, YyeVerITO f5/a Oeoe iLrr'lwd',vr),', which corresponds to the phrase so




132            THE OLD TESTAMENT AND  THE NEW:    [LECT. HII.
dicating, doubtless, the continuity of the Baptist's position with
that of the servants of God, under the old dispensation whose
ranks he closed:   For the Law  and  the  Prophets were until
John."
The New  Testament usage of the expression, " The word of
God" (Wpia Oeov, in the singular, as employed by S. Luke in the
passage just quoted,) may help to discover its true force.   It results from an examination of the texts in which the phrase occurs,
that it invariably implies the Divine spiritual influence. To
usual among the prophets,     n l"   e trtrn. This remark represents, in the first place,
the public appearance of John as an act not proceeding from his own reflexion, but
as conditioned by a higher impulse. Secondly, the mode of operation of the higher
world upon the mind of John appears hence not to differ from that which took place
in the prophets of the Old Testament."-B. i. s. 157. Olshausen subsequently resumes
the subject when commenting on S. John, i. 1: —" The writers of the Old Testament
are, no doubt, acquainted with the idea of the Divine Utterance (des gottlichen Sprechens), and in like manner with the plurality of Persons in God; but the WORD Itself
nowhere appears as a Personality, but only as an Activity of God. Even in the remarkable passage, Ps. xxxiii. 6, where the Word is placed in conjunction with the
Spirit, we can, no doubt, looking backwards from the stand-point of the New Testament, recognise the Eternal Word; but the idea of Personality is not as yet distinctly
expressed, even in this passage. *  *  *  Nay, even in the New Testament, the
Divine Utterance (pjua -TOV eov) appears still to predominate merely as Divine Activity,-whether it be a single operation which is to be described by the phrase, or
the collective Activity of the Divine Nature (cf. Heb. iv. 12; xi. 3). Only in the language of John is the idea of the Personality of the Word distinctly expressed (cf.
1 John, i. 1; Rev. xix. 13). The other writers use for this exalted Personality a different name. It is called o Tl6b TOV eeov, as born from God's Nature; o Tri6 ToV dyv
Opjt7rov- =T3K     (Dan. vii. 13) as the original type of Humanity [cf: Gen. i. 26, 27].
Only in the profound language of the Book of Proverbs (viii. 22, ff.; cf. with xxx. 4),
does the idea of the Logos appear, which is there introduced under the name of Wisdom, as if in the transition, from the more universal impersonal conception, to the
personal. However, the name' Word of God' is wanting for the idea, in Prov. xxx.
4; it appears, on the contrary, in the New Testament name' Son of God.' "-Comm.
B. ii. s. 33.
1 Viz., (1) S. Luke, iii. 2; (2) Rom. x. 17, " Faith cometh by hearing, and hearing
by the word of God."  (Lachmann reads j6a-rog XptaroV.) (3) Eph. vi. 17 (see next
note). (4) Heb. vi. 5, " Were made partakers of the Holy Ghost, and have tasted
the good word of God."  (KaL6v should, perhaps, be rather taken as the predicate.)
(5) Heb. xi. 3, " Through faith we understand that the worlds were framed by the
word of God." (Cf. Heb. i. 3-r, Ti/7art Tef 6vv/uewS  AirVTO.) The texts, S. Luke iv.
4, and 1 S. Pet. i. 25, are quotations. On Rom. x. 17, Olshausen observes:-~" ijf/a
Oeoi is, no doubt, to be referred to the doctrine of the revelation which forms the
foundation of preaching, but yet so that this doctrine is conceived as being wholly
animated (beseelte und belebte) by the Spirit of God, so that it might even have been
written: 7 d6 uocot d6c Ivedvaroc Oeov."-B. iii. s. 388.
To these texts may be added Eph. v. 26, "That he might sanctify and cleanse it
with the washing of water by the word, that He might," &c. "There is some uncertainty as to the explanation of kv kunart. Most interpretations are seen, at the first
glance, to be false, as, e. g,, that of Koppe, according to which iv f7,tuart iva forms
one phrase, which stands, as he believed, for the Hebrew nzx Anit  V, words which
the LXX. never translate in this manner. Against the connexion with aytLag there
is the position of the words; otherwise the junction of the expressions would not be
unsuitable, according to the analogy of the iuytiEev iv ad'0Oeita of John, xvii. 17 and
19. The words can only be united with?ovrpbv roT  iaro7.. In this connexioD




LECT. III.]            THE LOGOS THE RIEVEALER.                             133
take a single instance, S. Paul writes: " The sword of the Spirit,
which [Spirit] is the word of God."' In fact, when the term
pepa is employed in the New  Testament in the singular number,
and as distinct from that which usually implies the same idea
(06yog), it points to  some  Divine  agency which  always  accompanies, or proceeds  from, the  Eternal Word;-an  operation
which  He  produces, but not the  Divine  Logos Himself.   It
is only  in  the  language  of S. John  that the idea of the Personality of the  WORD  is expressed; and  it is deserving of remark  that this term  (pI~ a) which denotes the  Divine utterance
does  not occur in  the  singular  in  his  Gospel.'  In  the  Old
Testament, with the exceptions already noted, Christ appears
to  act rather through  the  medium   of this operative  power,
than after the manner of a Person; and thus, in the passage,
"Through  faith  we understand  that the  worlds were  framed
by the word of God,"' not the Personal Word (Aoyog), but this
Divine operative energy (Oiua  Oeoi) is represented  as the  immediate source of all created things. In conformity with this
writers usually recur either to the ordinance of Christ in the institution of Baptism,
whereby' the washing of water' (das Wasserbad) receives its purifying power; or to
the word of reconciliation and forgiveness of sins. But in neither allusion do we see
how the article before )rjuaTr could be omitted; for in either case the Apostle would
have had a definite word in view.  Here iv p/(a7t rather stands as equivalent in
signification to eiv irveviart (Eph. ii. 22): and this with the design of pointing out
that Baptism is no mere' washing of water,' but a'washing of water in the word;'
i. e. by means of which man is born again of water, and of the Spirit (John, iii. 5).
*  *  *'PrWia is therefore, here, as in Heb. i. 3, xi. 3, a description of the Divine
power and agency in general which according to their nature must be a spiritual influence."-Olshausen, in loc. B. iv. s. 279.
1 Eph. vi. 17. (Trv /(iX. TOV  llV6IveaTrof, O' af  t v   7i y a 0 e o v.)  " How Paul
can add as an explanation of the Spirit, 5 Eiarv /fipa Oeov, presents some obscurity.
That this expression describes some one particular of the word of God,-His threats
against the wicked, or the commands of Christianity, —is, considering the universality
of the phrase, highly improbable.  *  *  *  But how can this'word of God' be described as the Spirit Himself'? The Holy Spirit, it appears, exerts an influence which
accompanies the word of God,-an agency which the word of God calls forth, but
which is distinct from the word of God itself. *  *  *  Whether it be conceived as
word of God the Father, or as word of Christ (Col. iii. 16), or as influence of the Holy
Spirit, depends solely on the manner in which the writer regards it: as Revelation
of the Triune God, it also reconciles the different relations to the Trinity."-Olshausen, Comm. B. iv. s. 298.
2 Mr. Westcott, although his attention has been directed to this subject, has not
noticed the distinct signification of these phrases. He merely observes: "It is important to notice the difference between rT  t7la roiJ Oeoi and 6  o6yof TOV Oeov,
which are both translated in E. V.'the word of God"' —Elem. of Gosp. Hfarm., p.
12. He then contents himself with referring to the passages in which these expressions occur; and among others to S. John, iii. 34; viii. 47, in which texts we
find the pluralform-rTa lriara roiV  eoi.
3 Heb. xi. 3.




134             THE  OLD  TESTAMENT  AND  THE  NEW:    [LECT. III.
idea S. Peter tells us that it was " the Spirit of Christ" which
spake in the prophets.'
In bringing to a close this branch of our inquiry, I would
briefly draw  attention to the powerful evidence for the essential
Divinity of Christ, which is afforded by a comparison of the language  employed  when  referring  to  His inspired servants, with
that in which Scripture alludes to Himself.   The words " to  reveal," "to manifest," or kindred  expressions, are  never applied
to  Christ, although  often  used  of Him.2   S. Paul writes: "It
pleased God to reveal His Son in me;"' and S. John: " The Son
of God was manifested that He might destroy the works of the
Devil."4 Christ was the Revealer, but received no revelation:
He was the source of all Divine communications, not the channel
merely through which they were to be derived.   To Him  belongs
the necessary and essential possession of knowledge; the highest
perfection of mere human nature consists in its acquisition. The
knowledge of Him  is as essential to the life of the soul as that
of the  Father-" This is life  eternal, that  they  might know
Thee, the  only  true  God, and  Jesus  Christ whom   thou  hast
] I S. Pet. i. 1I. This discussion will suitably terminate with the following quotations.  S. Athanasius writes: al'dUE OVLT(C  Tar rb llvevua ddiaipeTov nrpb rbv Tibv,
pj U) p d  tpiSdeLV cK TOV Zeyoaivov. Ore yap 6 A6oyoC' ke'yyvero irpOf rTv TrpoTrTlv, Ta
irapi roi Aoyov kv 7v T  Ilvev/taTL Xd2et O TpofrTlf.-Ad Serapion.  Ep. iii. 5. t. i. p.
694.  This great writer goes on to quote S. Peter's saying, that "the Holy Ghost
spake by the mouth of David" (Acts, i. 16); and the words of S. Paul: "Since ye
seek a proof of Christ speakinog in me" (2 Cor. xiii. 3); which he compares with the
Apostle's remark, "The Holy Ghost witnesseth in every city," &c.-Acts, xx. 23.
Cf also the reference to S. Athanasius, Lecture ii. p. 84, note.
Didyimus of Alexandria observes:-" Porro jam frequenter ostendimus ejusdem
operationis esse Spiritun Sanctum, cujus est Pater et Filius, et in eadem operatione
unam esse substantiam; et reciproce eorum quae 6ooov,,ta sunt, operationem quoque
non ess3 diversam."-De Spiritu Sancto, c. xxxii, (ap. Galland. t. vi. p. 275.)
2 " Ubi scientime religionis. qume in Jesu fuerit, divina origo describitur, non usurpari solent verba airocKabvnrr-e Oan aut mavepoVDOat; id quod nos jam admonere potest,
Eum revelationis,qume vulgo laudetur, non fuisse participem.  In unico tantum  loco
Apoc. i. 1, vox d,o)K^iAvtCL ita adhibetur  *  *  *  ad indicandam Ejus veritatem
et divinam auctoritatem verba addebantur: 7Iv Ed:csye AVrT  6 Ilarp. Atque hmec
verba etiam verti possunt: quam demandavit Ei Pater.  Hie igitur locus ne continere quidem videtur exemplum contrarium.  *  *  *  Spiritum ilium, qui Apostolos
edocturus et adjuturus erat, non minus sibi ipsi vindicat Jesus, quam  Patri.'De
Meo Ille sumet,' inquit, (Joan. xvi. 14)'que vos edoceat;' causam interserens Se
omnia cum Patre communia habere.  *  *  *  Dicitur Ipse de coelo venisse, et in
coelo versari (Joan. iii. 13); dicitur Patri proximus assidere (i. 18), cernere quae Pater
agat (v. 19 sq.), solus vidisse Patrem (vi. 46), solus, qualis sit Pater, scire, aliisque
pro benignitate Sua patefacere (Luc. x. 22). Sic describitur non tam acquisitio quam
necessaria possessio scientiae." —. L. Nitzsch, De Revel. externa eademque publica,
pp. 10-12.
Gal i. i15, 16 —iuroi KaXvpat.'1 S. John, iii. 8 —eavepj(rO.




LECT. III.]            THE LOGOS THE  REVEALER.                             135
sent."' And that it is the office of the Eternal Son alone to
convey  such  knowledge  to  mankind, and  that at  His  good
pleasure alone it can be imparted, we learn from the words of
our text: "No  man  knoweth who the Son is, but the Father;
and who the Father is, but the Son, and he to whom the Son
wills to reveal Him."
I S. John, xvii. 3.
The argument for the Divinity of Christ, to which I have here drawn attention,
has not been unnoticed by the Fathers.  S. Gregory Naz., describing the nature of
Inspiration as possessed by the sacred writers of both Testaments, observes to this
effect: TOVTO [scil. rb lIvEVia] ievpyet *   *  *  Ev roltz narp at, KaC ev ro0g IIpoOTalLt, )V ol,pv t0avTra07Vaav eObv,,, ol d6 Kai rb /iOe;ov p7poeyv)oav TVrOVsevoL T i n IveuaT r  rb  TyeLovLKtOv, Kcal (Cg 7rapofiat avv6vrec roT  taoEIVOtc. rotavTrr  yap
7 r          TOV UIvevaTrof  d uwva. E7retra ev rolo XptrCTOV uaOr7Talgf'     C C yc p X p  ar TOV
elTrreiv,     7irapjv, o x (6  v vepyov v, da;'' d 6pooriyu ) avy/apoI a p r o  v' Tca rovrotf rpt6acS, Kaa' 5aov oioi re Viaav Xopeiv, Kca Kara Katpovg rpei.
-Orat. xli. c. 11. t. i. p. 739.
These three stages are to be dated, as S. Gregory explains,-(1) from before
Christ's glorification by Iis Passion; (2) from His Resurrection; (3) from His Asoension.








LECTURE IV.
REVELATION AND INSPIRATION.




" Ecce apertis eisdem  oculis fidei, David, Amos, Danielem, Petrum, Paulum, MattIlrum intueor, et Sanctus iste Spiritus qualis sit Artifex, considerare volo, sed in ipsa
mea consideratione deficio.  Implet namque citharoedum puerum, et Psalmistam facit.
Inmplet pastorem armentarium sycomoros vellicantem, et Prophetam facit.  *  *  *
Implet piscatorem, et Praedicatorem facit.  Implet persecutorem, et Doctorem gentium
facit.  *  *  *  0 qualis est Artifex iste Spiritus   NullA ad discendum mora, agitur
in omne quod voluerit.  Mox ut tetizerit mentem docet; solumque tetigisse docuisse
est."
S. GREGOR M., fomil. xxx. c. 8.
2a6Sf E(Jel ze TOV AeCOTrov XptaroC   Kal Trv Ipo0TreSv T rb d6&opov  *  *  *  ro
EtvTrot Tro2vzepuf, rdU rravro6ardaf oiKovobuiag arluaiveL  rT  6  iroLXvrpo67rtif, rTU  Oeiov
orTra(7i7v TO &6ci0opov. UXLSfC yap cJpOr tr'A/3paaui, Kaci dioX  T7) Movoa    *   *   *
Kai'Hoataf 6E, Kal Aavtl2L, Kat'Iea1eKtl)  (ltuopa Oeaa6avro    X/flaTra. ororo  dt(iaK(ov
6 Tr3v 6o'(v  07 0eoef'' Ey7  6p(piacLtc E7rrOvva, cKat'v Xepa  IlpojryTdv Wi otuOyrv. ov yap
7rovipopf)og 7i Oeia ~Vqat, uXA2 acvae6Se6of t  Kaca   daX/uTtarlo   *  *  *  OVK atrVv
Trovvv etbpov TrjV UV()LrKTOv pvaClv, Dial riva aX7tylara, a wrpbc r( v,ypetav 6 a6paro7
MeIKVve Oeec.
THEODORETUS, In Epist. ad Heb. i. 1.
"Qui a nobis Prophetae, in Vetere Testamento Videntes appellabantur: quia videbant ea quas camteri non videbant, et prospiciebant ea, qua  in mysterio abscondita
erant."
S. ISIDORUS, HispaL Etymolog. lib. vii. 8.




LECTURE IV.
REVELATION AND INSPIRATION.
I HAVE ALSO SPOKEN BY THE PROPHETS, AND I HAVE MULTIPLIED VISIONS, AND USED
SIMILITUDES BY THE MINISTRY OF THE PROPHETS.-Hosea, xii. 10.
WHEN entering in the last Discourse upon an  examination
of the Scriptures themselves, it was necessary, in the first instance, to define the field over which that examination must extend.   It was accordingly  shown, from  a comparison  of both
portions of the inspired record, and from a consideration of the
specific analogies which present themselves at every step of our
progress, that the same organic relation subsists between the Old
and the New Testament, as between the germ  and the flower;
and that no just or satisfactory theory of Inspiration can be
proposed, which does not exhibit the inseparable connexion of
the different books which  the Bible combines; or which does
not recognise the claim of their respective authors to an equal
share in the controlling influence and active co-operation of the
Holy Ghost.
The facts by which we must be guided, when attempting to
form any definite idea of Inspiration, may be reduced to two
classes. Of these classes, one consists of those indications, which
enable us to infer, with absolute certainty, that the subject matter of many portions of Scripture must have been supernaturally
revealed, while they, with equal clearness, denote that other deThis relation is very clearly illustrated by a remark of Dr. Mill in "The Christian Advocate's Publication" for 1844, p. 413, note: " The Catholic interpretation of
the citation of Hosea [xi. 1.] by S. Matthew [ii. 151 makes Israel and the promised
Seed to stand in the place of type and antitype, the latter the full development of
what the other was in germ; -yrc~ —as Eusebius says, when Joseph in this instance brought the infant Jesus from literal Egypt,-~Kara dLavoiav 6d, 6drviKvKa kc
r7'f VOVT[rT AiyVrTrOV Kal rTCSV rte r6ToTv E7rl roVd ovpavovf ata  a/c(/3avov avrov 6
IlarTp iS67ynafev.-Eclog. Prophet. p. 48, ed. Gaisford." Cf. Lect. iii p. 109, note, and
infra, p. 153, note 1.




140            REVELATION AND INSPIRATION.         [LECT. IV.
tails of the sacred history have been derived from natural sources.
Such indications are presented by the contents of both the Old
and the New Testament.  The other class of facts —presented
by its whole manner, and language, and style-comprises, not
only the direct evidence which the Bible itself bears to the constant presence of the Divine element involved in its composition,
but also certain phenomena which no less plainly attest the coexistence of a human element.  To show how these elements,
apparently so heterogeneous, may be combined; to exhibit them
as not merely concurrent, but as absolutely amalgamated in one
distinct energy;-to prove, moreover, that under the controlling
influence of the Divine principle, there has hence resulted the
perfect inspiration of all the parts of Scripture, whatever be their
subject matter,-such is the task to which I must now address
myself.
In adopting this course, the direct evidence which the Bible
supplies is necessarily postponed. That evidence is made up of
those statements in which the sacred penmen tell us that promises
of spiritual guidance were given them;-of the intimations which
they convey that such promises were fulfilled;-and of the claims
to infallible authority which they consequently advance on behalf
of their own writings, or which they ascribe to the writings of
their fellows. This portion of the subject will be considered on a
future occasion.' Our attention must, for the present, be restricted to the facts which attest the coexistence of the Divine
and human elements in the composition of the Scriptures, and
which supply us with one of the conditions to be satisfied by
any theory of Inspiration that can claim respect, or challenge impartial consideration.
Two such conditions I have already pointed out,2 as being necessary and sufficient for the satisfactory solution of the problem
before us. In the first place, we know, as a matter of fact, that
the authorship of the different books of both the Old and the
New Testament must be referred to certain human agents; and
we further perceive, on every page of those books, traces of the
distinct individuality and personal characteristics of their respective authors.' This co-existence of human agency with the im1 See infra, Lecture vi.               Lecture i. pp. 35-40.
Bishop Lowth, referring to the qualities called by Longinius Grandeur of Con.




LECT. IV.]          REVELATION  AND INSPIRATION.                        141
pelling influence of the Holy Spirit, constitutes the  first Condition to be satisfied by our theory. The facts which impose
this Condition  are not to be  questioned.  The language, the
imagery, the forms of expression made use of by the writers of
Scripture, all correspond, in their most minute details, with what
we might of ourselves expect from  men  whose education, and
social position, and native temperament, were such as theirs are
known to have been.  This feature  of the inspired  record will
appear more  clearly  as we proceed.  The style, too, in which
the  different books are written  is adapted  with  the  strictest propriety to their subject.  The  grave and unimaginative
language which befits historical narrative; the solemn tone appropriate to didactic composition; the poetic coloring naturally
suited, as we shall see, to Prophecy-all such characteristics meet
our view in the several divisions of the  Bible.  In  a word, the
agents upon whom  the Divine influence was exerted, were men
whose whole lives exemplified, and whose writings, now before
us, exhibit, all the peculiarities of genius, character, thought,
and feeling, belonging to their nature as human beings, and resulting from the several social positions which they respectively
occupied, as represented in the sacred history.
In the combination of the two elements thus co-operating,
-namely, the actuation by the Spirit of God, and the distinct,
but subordinate, agency of man,-consists what has been usually
termed  the'dynamical' theory of Inspiration.   According to
this theory the Holy Ghost employs man's faculties in conformity
with their natural laws;' at the same time, animating, guiding,
moulding them so as to accomplish the Divine purpose:' just as
ception, and Vehemence or Enthusiasm of Passion, observes:-" To each of these we
must have recourse in the present disquisition, and in applying them to the sacred
Poets, I shall endeavor to detract nothing from the dignity of that Inspiration which
proceeds from higher causes, while I allow to the genius of each writer his own peculiar excellence and accomplishments. I am indeed of opinion, that the Divine Spirit
by no means takes such an entire possession of the mind of the Prophet as to subdue
or extinguish the character and genius of the man: the natural powers of the mind
are in general elevated and refined, they are neither eradicated nor totally obscured;
and though the writings of Moses, of David, and of Isaiah, always bear the marks of
a Divine and celestial impulse, we may nevertheless plainly discover in them the
particular characters of their respective authors."-On the Sacred Poetry of the Hebrews, Lect. xvi. (Gregory's transl., vol i. p. 346).' See Westcott's "Elements of the Gospel Harmony," p. 8, note'
3 For some remarks respecting the design and structure of the Bible, see LecturA
i. p. 28, &c. How admirably even the structure of the inspired writings has been
adapted to the wants and imperfections of mankind, has been noticed in very striking




142                 REVELATION  AND  INSPIRATION.                  [LECT. IV.
in nature, the principle of life, when annexed to certain portions of matter, exhibits its vital energy in accordance with
conditions which that matter imposes; while it governs and directs, at the same time, the organism with which it is combined.'
We must, therefore, look upon  Inspiration  as a Divine power
acting not only on, but through, man.  We must not regard  the
sacred penmen, on the  one hand, as passive machines, yielding
to an external mechanical force —such a view takes in merely the
language by S. Basil when explaining the nature of the Psalms (Homil. in Ps. i., Opp.
t. i. p. 90). This passage is quoted by ITooker, where he observes that the Church's
use of psalmody is (as Rabanus Maurus had expressed it) " to the end that unto
grosser and heavier minds. whom bare words do not easily move, the sweetness of
melody might make some entrance for good things."  "S. Basil," continues Ilooker,
"himself acknowledging as much, did not think that from such inventions the least
jot of estimation and credit thereby should be derogated,-' For' (saith he)'whereas
the Holy Spirit saw that mankind is unto virtue hardly drawn, and that righteousness
is the less accounted of by reason of the proneness of our affections to that which delighteth; it pleased the wisdom of the same Spirit to borrow from melody that pleasure, which mingleth with heavenly mysteries, causeth the smoothness and softness
of that which toucheth the ear, to convey as it were by stealth the treasure of good
things unto man's mind. To this purpose were those harmonius tunes of psalms devised for us, that they which are either in years but young, or touching perfection of
virtue as not yet grown to ripeness, might, when they think they sing, learn. O the
wise conceit of that Heavenly Teacher, which hath by His skill found out a way, that
doing those things wherein we delight, we may also learn that whereby we profit' "Ecl. Pol. B. v. 38. Keble's ed. vol. ii. p. 162.
1 I have already (Lect. i. p. 39) adduced this illustration, as well as that supplied
by the received doctrine of the Church, respecting the co-operation of Divine Grace.
That in the ordinary exercise of the Holy Spirit's influence, man's distinct working
must ever be combined with God's continual aiding, is expressly taught by S. Paul:
" Work out your own salvation with fear and trembling, FOR it is God which worketh
in you both to will and to do."  (T/v kavrdv aorTpiav KaTrepyaeCE6Oe' 0e~O ydp arTLv
o Evepyv v    uv j/ul,.)-Phil. ii. 12, 13. On this statement of Scripture is founded S.
Augustine's great proposition, incorporated by the Anglican Church in her Tenth
Article: "Sine Illo vel operante ut velimus, vel co-operante cum volumus, ad bona
pietatis opera nihil valemus."-De Gra. et Lib. Arbit. ~ 33. t. x. p. 735. See also
supra, p. 44. It must be borne in mind, however, that no more than an analogy exists, between this ordinary influence of the Holy Ghost upon Christians in general,
and that Inspiration which prompted and guided the sacred writers. These two
agencies of the same Spirit, although analogous, are specifically distinct. This question will be discussed in Lecture v.
2 The objections, to which such a view of Inspiration is obnoxious, have been
briefly noticed in Lecture i. p. 36; to which remarks I may here add the observations
of a celebrated writer to the same effect. Bishop Warburton, arguing against what
he calls the "idea of organic [or as it is now usually termed' mechanical'] Inspiration," objects, among other matters: " (1.) It would be putting the Holy Spirit on an
unnecessary employment; for much of these sacred volumes being historical, and of
tfcts and discourses which had fallen under the observations of the writers, they did
not need His immediate assistance to do this part of their business for them. (2.) Had
the Scriptures been written under this organic Inspiration, there must have been the
most perfect agreement amongst the four Evangelists, in every circumstance of the
smal]est flct. But we see there is not this perfect agreement. *  *  *  (3.) Were
this the true idea of Scripture-inspiration, that each writer was but the mere organ
of the Spirit, the phraseology or turn of expression had been one and the same
throughout all the sacred books written in the same language."-A Discourse on the
Office of the Holy Spirit, ed. 1788, vol. iv. p. 566. In avoiding one extreme, however,




LECT. IV.]           REVELATION  AND  INSPIRATION.                         143
objective  side of Inspiration:  on  the other hand, if we dwell
solely upon the subjective phase of this influence, we lose sight
of the living connexion of the writer with God. Were this latter
conception correct, the authors of Scripture, following the imlpulse
of their own genius, and in accordance with their own judgment;
proceeded, in the  natural course of things, to  develop  new  inferences from the germ of Truth implanted within them;' and
hence, as some have  argued, we cannot accept  all  the  conclusions at which they have arrived as either infallible  or authoritative.  The true theory, as it recoils from  any such negation
of the Divine majesty of the Bible, so it equally ignores the defective estimate of the opposite extreme.2 The human element,
Bishop Warburton has fallen into another. His definition of Inspiration opens with
the statement: "That the Holy Spirit so directed the pens of these writers that no
considerable error should fall from them   *  *  *  by preserving them by the more
ordinary means of Providence, from any mistakes of consequence," &c.-p. 568: to
which remarks he appends the curious conclusion: "This seems to be the true idea
of the Inspiration in question. This only doth agree with all appearances; and will
fully answer the purpose of an inspired writing, which is to afford an INFALLIBLE RULE
[the emphasis is the Bishop's own] for the direction of the Catholic Church."
l "A gift," observes Mr. Morell, speaking of the Pentateuch. which its author
" was left to make use of as necessity or propriety might suggest." See the passage
already quoted, p. 27, note 4. "I know," continues Mr. Morell, "that I am speaking
the conviction of many learned men and devout Christians, when I say, that the
blind determination to represent every portion of the Old Testament as being alike
written entirely under the guidance of God, and by the special direction of the Spirit,
has been one of the most fearful hinderances which ever stood in the way of an
honest, firm, and rational belief in the reality of a Divine Inspiration at all."-Philosophy of Religion, p. 178.
2 " The earliest apologists of modern times confined themselves to the literal assertion of a mechanical power. They regarded the Divine agency as operating externally and not internally;-as acting on man and not through man; they lost the
idea of an active energy in that of a passive state. At present the case seems reversed, and the reason is evident. Our predecessors had to assert the reality of
Inspiration against those who ridiculed its very name, and denied the possibility of a
revelation; while we have to show that it is a peculiar influence, against those who see
in the Apostles only the ordinary working of God. They had to contend with those
who denied the spirit through the outward form; while we have to resist those who
deny the outward form to secure the spirit,-who claim as the primal attributes of
man what we hold to be the after-gifts of heaven."-Westcott, Elements of the Gospel
Harmony, p. 5. Mr. Morell again supplies us with an illustration which will exhibit
the justice of Mr. Westcott's remark: " If it be said that the Providence of God nmust
have watched over the composition and construction of a canonical book, which was
to have so vast an influence on the destiny of the world,-we are quite ready to admit, and even ourselves to assert it. But in the same sense Providence watches over
every other event which bears upon the welfare of man, although the execution of it
be left to the freedom of human endeavor.  And what, after all, need we in the
Scriptures more than this?  Why should we be perpetually craving afcer a stiff,
literal, verbal infallibility? Christianity consists not in propositions-it is a life in
the soul; its laws and precepts are not engraven on stone; they can only be engraven on the fleshy tables of the heart."-Ibid. p. 183. Few, indeed, will be found
to deny that "Christianity consists not in propositions:"-as few, perhaps, as would
allege that an electric current consists in the formulae by which Gauss or Faraday




144               REVELATION AND INSPIRATION.                [LECT. IV.
instead of being suppressed, becomes an integral part of the
agency employed;-moulded, it is true, and guided, and brought
into action by the co-operation of the Spirit, but not the less
really, on that account, participating in the result produced.
Nay more, the peculiar type of each writer's nature was even essential to the due reception of that particular phase of truth
presented by his statements: his share in the great work was
apportioned to the order of his intellect and the class of his emotions; while his characteristic form of expression was absolutely
requisite, for the adequate and complete conveyance of his Divine
message.   Without the  moving  power, man could  not have
grasped the Divine communications; without the living instrument those communications could not have received fitting expression. The Bible, it has been well observed, " is authoritative, for it is the voice of God; it is intelligible, for it is in the
language of men."'
It appears to me, however, that the'dynamical' theory,
taken alone, is not sufficient to  account for all the phenomena
which the Bible presents to our view. By it, the first Condition,
only, of our problem  is satisfied.  We must, therefore, seek for
a further principle, according to which the remaining Condition,
which the nature of the case equally imposes, may be complied
with. This Condition arises from that class of facts which indicate, as I have observed above, that a considerable portion of
what the Bible contains consists of matters already known to
the sacred writers, or the knowledge of which might be-nay,
which we actually know  often was-derived from  the ordinary
sources of information that were at their command.2 Other portions, again, are such as they could not have become acquainted
with, except by an immediate communication from heaven.' The
have expressed its laws. The knowledge, however, of what Christianity is, as well as
of the laws of electricity, must be communicated by propositions; and it is not more
unnatural that the Christian should " crave" for an assurance that God's Revelation
has came to him unclouded by human error, than that the student in the exact
sciences should " crave" for perfect accuracy in the structure of the formulle, by which
the philosopher from whom he derives his information, has expressed the secrets of
Nature. For some remarks on the meaning of the phrase'Christian knowledge,'
see infra, Lecture vi.
Westcott.-Ibid. p. 8.
2 See, for example, the statement of S. Luke in the introduction to his Gospel,the opening of S. John's First Epistle, &c. Compare also the remarks on this subject in Lecture i. pp. 39, 40, &c.
3 E. g. The announcements of the future; the account of the Creation, &c. I




LECT. IV.]           REVELATION  AND  INSPIRATION.                          145
principle which satisfies this Condition is that of the distinction
between Revelation and Inspiration.  I have shown, on a former
occasion,' that this distinction is specific, and not merely one of
degree; and we perceived, in the last Discourse, that the sources,
too, from  which Revelation and Inspiration  respectively proceed,
are also different:-the former having as its author the  Second,
the latter the Third, Person, in the Holy Trinity.
It may be well, moreover, again to observe, that the  gift of
Inspiration was equally required by those among the authors of
Scripture  who  had  received  revelations, as by those to  whom
Divine knowledge was never thus imparted.   In the former case
Inspiration was necessary, not only in order to enable the sacred
writer correctly to apprehend, and faithfully  to express, the substance of the Divine communication;' but also for a further reason.
It is to be remembered, that when  a revelation  had  been  once
conveyed  to  any individual and  publicly  announced  by him, it
became as much a matter of history as any natural event of which
the Bible takes notice.  We have reason to  believe that, in  the
great  majority  of cases, the  Divine  communications were not
committed to writing, for some time after they were received:
there are even instances of several years having  elapsed  before
they were thus placed on record.'  Now, in all such cases the codo not, of course, mean to deny that some of the sacred writers received immediate
revelations even of matters of fact which they might have learned from human testimony. I have already adduced one instance of this kind, recorded in the passage
quoted (p. 40, note 2) from 1 Kings, xiv. 5. The case of S. Paul is still more to the
point. He tells us of " the Gospel which was preached of him," that he "neither
received it of man, neither was he taught it, but by the revelation of Jesus Christ"Gal. i. 11, 12; and we know from 1 Cor. xi. 23; xv. 3, that such revelations conveyed the knowledge of matters of fact which he might have learned from the other
Apostles, as well as of matters of doctrine. It is plain, however, that such cases
were exceptions to the usual course of the Divine Economy-see e. g. the last note.
Lecture i. p. 42, &c.
See Lecture i. p. 43, and infra, p. 175, note.
3 This obviously took place whenever God's will was unfolded by means of
dreams; whether we regard the dreams of men who were never inspired,-as Pharaoh, Nebuchadnezzar, &c.,-or those of prophets, who were also to the fullest extent
guided by Inspiration.  Thus Daniel writes: "In the first year of Belshazzar king
of Babylon, Daniel had a dream and vision of his head upon his bed: then he wrote
the dream, and told the sum of the matters. Daniel spake and said, I saw in my
vision by night," &c.-vii. 1, 2. The same is to be said of the communications from
heaven which the Patriarchs received, and which Moses has recorded in the Book of
Genesis.  We cannot doubt that the promises to Abraham, for example, were handed
down and preserved by his descendants; and that Moses was familiar, from his childhood, with those revelations which unfolded the future glories of his'nation. Thus,
too, in the New Testament, S. Luke has given an account of the Annunciation (ch. i.
26-38), of the communication of the Angel to Cornelius (Acts, x.), &c. &c.
Thus we read: "And it came to pass in the fourth year of Jehoiakim, the son of
10




146                 REVELATION  AND  INSPIRATION.                   [LECT. IV.
operation of the Holy Spirit was indispensable, in order both to
bring the original revelation before the mind of the sacred writer,
in its primitive perfection, and to  enable him  to record  it with
infallible accuracy.'
By attending  to these  principles, which  satisfy  the second
Condition of our problem, we are able at once to  perceive the
weakness of the great mass of those arguments, which  are commonly brought forward in order to prove the existence of error or
imperfection in the Bible.'  In  such  objections it is tacitly assumed that the matters, to which exception is taken, are recorded
as being  actually revelations from  God; while in truth they are
often nothing more than historical details, which  have  been inserted, as simple matters of fact, in the Scripture narrative, under
the guidance of its Divine Author.3
Josiah king of Judah, that this word came unto Jeremiah from the Lord, saying, Take.thee a roll of a book, and write therein all the words that I have spoken unto thee,;against Israel, and against Judah, and against all the nations, from the day I spake
Iznto thee, from the days of Josiah, even unto this dav."-Jer. xxxvi. 1, 2. But we:lso know that such revelations were given during a period of twenty-three years:
"The word that came to Jeremiah concerning all the people of Judah in the fourth
year.of Jehoiakim   *  *  *  saying, from the thirteenth year of Josiah  *  *  *
even unto this day, that is, the three and twentieth year, the word of the Lord hath
come unto roe, and I have spoken unto you rising early and speaking."-Jer. xxv. 1-3.
E. g. i' the case to which the last note refers, " after that the king had burned
the roll" on which the prophet had written all that God had commanded him —" the
word of the Lord came to Jeremiah  *  *  *  saying, Take thee again another roll
and write in it aU the former words that were in the first roll."-Jer. xxxvi. 27, 28.
Indeed, if a record of Prophecy was to be preserved at all, this Divine guidance was
obviously indispensable. Eichhorn observes that Greek antiquity seems to have attached no importance to such preservation of the words of an oracular announcement.
Hence, when one writer has not copied another, such oracles have been handed down
in different forms, which often convey meanings altogether dissimilar.  E. g.-When
the Thasians, in obedience to the laws of Draco, cast into the sea the statue of the
athlete Theagenes (by the fall of which a man had been accidentally killed), the
Pythia, consulted on the subject of a famine which occurred shortly afterwards, replied: Oeay/vl1v (' (iluvJcrov d0Vlcare rOv /zeyav VUeMv-according to the version given
by Pausanias (Lib. vi. 11); while the form in which it is reported by Eusebius
("Prsepar. Evang." v. 34), is altogether different: El 7rcrplv ~vy5dacr iar (e)'Ty'
Aiyrlrpav (ijlyoetr. See his " Einleitung in das A. T."  B. iv. s. xxiii.
2 As exemplifying the neglect of the distinction here insisted upon, and its results,
I may adduce the words of M. Athanase Coquerel: " God's share in Revelation is
called Inspiration. Inspiration is a transmission of ideas from God to man."- Christianity, p. 202. " Religious and moral truth exist in Revelation in a relative d(lree
only; scientific truth, therefore, could not be found there in an absolute degree.
These considerations end in leading to the discovery that Revelation must contain
errors in what regards scientific truth.  This was a condition strictly necessary to the
gift of Revelation."-Ibid. p. 211.' See, for example, the quotation from Mr. Coleridge, supra, Lecture i. p. 41, note'.
Or, still more to the point, take the class of objections founded, as in the case of M.
Coquerel, upon the (alleged) mistakes committed by the writers of Scripture, when
touching upon matters of science. As illustrating the bearing of the distinction between Revelation and Inspiration ia answer:ug such objtction;, I wculd 1ifer the




LECT. IV.]       REVELATION AND INSPIRATION.                   147
Having made these preliminary remarks, I now proceed to
state the arguments by which the'dynamical' theory of Inspiration may be supported. Inspiration, I must again repeat, is
to be understood as denoting that Divine influence, under which
all the parts of the Bible have been committed to writingwhether they contain an account of ordinary historical facts, or
the narrative of supernatural revelations. In the reception and
utterance of such revelations, it is admitted by all who allow that
any communication has taken place between earth and heaven,
that the human agent can be regarded in no other light than as
an instrument in the hand of God, by whose intervention His
counsels have been made known to man.  If in any case here
assuredly, the strict' mechanical' theory of Inspiration (if true)
must hold good;-a theory according to which each phrase and
expression in the Bible has been set down by the sacred penmen
at the dictation of the Holy Ghost.  But if the facts which we
are about to consider warrant our asserting that, even in the reception of what are, in the most literal sense, revelations, human
agency has had its full scope; and that each prophetic announcement, as recorded in the pages of Scripture, bears the undoubted stamp of the genius, and mental culture, and circumstances of the prophet who has given it utterance;-we are surely
justified in concluding that, when relating matters of history or
drawing inferences from previous revelations, the same scope, at
least, was allowed to the individual characteristics of the inspired
writers.
The general method according to which the Divine Scheme
has been developed, might, indeed, of itself, justify such a conclusion. We are expressly taught by the whole tenor of Scripture, that the course which God has pursued in conveying His
revelations to man has been always singularly marked by the
employment of natural means: and further, that at each step
in the progress of His providential dispensations, and in the accomplishment of prophetic announcements, the expenditure (if
one may reverentially use the term) of miraculous agency has
reader to the remarks on " Joshua's Miracle," Lecture viii. infra, where other topics
of this nature will be considered. With great truth Jahn observes: Diese Bestimmung des Begriffs der Inspiration, und der Unterschied von Offenbarung muss sorgfaltig beobachtet werden, indem beyde sehr haufig verweehselt werden, woraus dann
grosse Sclwierigkeiten erwachsen."-Einldit. ler Tb. s. 92.




148                REVELATION  AND INSPIRATION.                  [LECT. IV.
ever been strikingly sparing. This principle may be briefly illustrated. Take, for example, a fact pointed out by a distinguished
writer on  Prophecy.  David  was anointed, and  therefore predicted, as king long before he ascended the throne.  " By a series
of events, fbllowing in the ordinary course of Providence, without
any miracle  interposed, this  prediction  was brought to  pass.
^:     No other single narrative of Scripture is so prolix and
circuitous as that which describes the accomplishment of this particular prediction. The sequel of things described is protracted,
often retrograde in the expectation, and apparently receding from
the event; and it fills many chapters' before  it is brought to a
close.  Upon which  I would  observe," continues Mr. Davison,
"that it offers, and seems to be designed to offer, an example, in
the actual development, of the progress of Prophecy to its completion, whatever may be the mazes and flexures through which
it has to work its way; and suggests to us, in other cases not
so particularly narrated, how  the Divine prescience  penetrates
through  the  perplexity  of human  affairs, and  its predictions,
without a sensible miracle, pass to their near or their remote fulfilment."2 To this acute observation another illustration may be
added.  In considering the single predictions of Scripture apart
from the complete structure of Prophecy, we may observe, that
a certain method has been almost uniformly pursued, which constitutes, as it were, the Law  according  to  which  the different
portions of God's Revelation have been communicated:' —namely,: From 1 Sam. xvi. to 2 Sam. v.
2 " Discourses on Prophecy," pp. 183, 4.
3 I am anxious to speak here with the utmost caution; as my object is merely to
illustrate the ordinary course of Revelation, not to take any part in the controversy
which has arisen on a subject with which the present work is concerned but indirectly. Some valuable remarks on this controversy are to be found in the opening
chapter of Hofmann's treatise-" Weissagung und Erfillung."  Many writers of recent times, it is there pointed out, have laid down such' Laws' of the relation of
Prophecy to its fulfilment, as only embrace certain cases; and consequently they exclude from the rank of Prophecy all those parts of Scripture to which their arbitrary'Law' does not apply. Others, again, fearing the excesses to which such views have
led, have gone into the opposite extreme; and by looking merely to the single phenomena, have given up, from the first, all idea of the existence of any relation or order in the scheme of Prophecy:-of this latter class Hengstenberg may be adduced
as an example (see infra, p. 150, note 1). Among writers of the former class may be
reckoned Dr. Arnold.  "Prophecy," he observes, "fixes our attention on principles,
on good and evil, on truth and falsehood, on God and on His enemy. *  *  *
Prophecy then is God's voice, speaking to us respecting the issue, in all time, of that
great struggle which is the real interest of human life, the struggle between good and
evil. *  *  *  The Seed 6f the woman shall bruise the serpent's head, but the serpent notwithstanding shall first bruise His heel. So completely is the earliest




LECT. IV.]          REVELATION  AND  INSPIRATION.                         149
that each prediction, with scarcely an exception, proceeds from
and  attaches itself to some definite fact in  the historical present.' In other words, when the future is to be foreshadowed,
certain events of the time, historical or incidental, are selected
as  occasions  on  which  may  be  founded  the  several disclosures of the  Divine  will.2   The  Almighty-who can question
prophecy recorded in Scripture, the sum and substance, so to speak, of the whole
language of Prophecy, how diversified soever in its particular forms."-Sermonos, 5th
ed. vol. i. p. 377. And again: "Other events, lesser mercies, earthly deliverances,
are in part the subject of Prophecy, and in part its fulfilment. But its language, the
language of hope in God, naturally goes beyond these. *  *  *  And therefore it
seeks elsewhere its real fulfilments; it tarries not on those lower heights which
would receive it on its first ascent from the valley, but ascends and mounts continually to the mountain of God."-Ibid. p. 400, note. Almost to the same effect Olshauson remarks, that the Bible represents the contest between Good and Evil as
foreshadowed by the relation between Israel and other nations.  "Israel has continually its opponents among the other nations, who contravene its efforts towards
Good, but who serve, at the same time, in the season of its disobedience, as a scourge
in the hand of God. First, the Egyptians with their Pharaoh; then, the Canaanites
with their kings; again, Babylon with its despots; Rome, in fine,-the eagles who
devour the carcass. These references, the Bible again understands in a higher sense
of humanity, of the spiritual Israel, which struggles towards its lofty aim: it, too, has
its Egyptians, its Babylon, as well as' Israel after the flesh' (Rev. xi. 8; xiv. 8). "
Ein Wort uib. tief. Schriftsinn, s. 96.
This mode of regarding Prophecy involves much that is just as well as profound;
and the principle of the pregnant signification of Scripture which it implies will be
adverted to in Lecture vii. The objection, however, to which Dr. Arnold's view is
obnoxious, refers to the exclusive manner in which he has applied this principle, and
to the consequences which he has inferred from it. In the year 1825 he wrote as
follows:-" I think that, with the exception of those prophecies which relate to our
Lord, the object of Prophecy is rather to delineate principles and states of opinion
which shall come, than external events. I grant that Daniel seems to furnish an exception."-Life and Correspondence, 6th ed. p. 59. In 1840, however, the full result
is stated:' I am very glad, indeed, that you like my Prophecy Sermons: the points
in particular on which I did not wish to enter, ii I could help it, but which very
likely I shall be forced to touch on, relate to the latter chapters of Daniel, which, if
genuine,would be a clear exception to my canon of interpretation, as there can be no
reasonable spiritual meaning made out of the Kings of the North and South. But
I have long thought that the greater part of the book of Daniel is most certainly a
very late work, of the time of the Maccabees; and the pretended prophecy, about the
kings of Grecia and Persia, and of the North and South, is mere history, like the
poetical prophecies in Virgil and elsewhere  *  *  *  that there may be genuine
fragments in it, is very likely." —bid. p. 505.
"Die achte Prophetie wurzelt zunachst aufderr historischen Grunde der Gegenwart." —Havernick, Einlet. Th. Ir. Abth. ii. s. 52. S. Augustine clearly recognises
this principle, when, speaking of the prediction of Nathan, 2 Sam. vii. 12-14 (se3 infra,
p. 152, note 1); he observes:-" Facta est quidem nonnulla imago rei futurae etiam in
Salomone, in eo quod Templum asdificavit, et pacem habuit secundum nomen suum
*  *  *  sed eadem sua persona per umbram futuri praenunciabat etiam ipse Christum Dominum nostrum, non exhibebat. Unde quadam de illo ita scripta sunt, quasi
de ipso ista preedicta sint, dum Scriptura Sancta etiam rebus gestis prophetans, quodam modo in eo figuram delineat futurorum."-De Civ. Dei, xvii. 8, t. vii. p. 471.
2 Otto Strauss, in his' Exposition of the Prophecy of Nahum, illustrated from the
Monuments of Assyria" (Berlin, 1853) has pointed out the important bearing of this
principle upon the interpretation of Prophecy: "Sacros Israelitarum prophetas constat non temere nec nulla provocatos occasione et necessitate fuisse vaticinatos.
*  *  *  Cujusvis igitur vaticinii causa et ratio e temporis sui conditione eruenda




150                 REVELATION  AND  INSPIRATION.                  [LECT. IV.
it? —could  in  all cases  have unveiled  His purpose, without
observing any such method, or acting in accordance with any
such  Law: but, He has not only  thought fit to  disclose His
will gradually-as  the  Scripture  narrative  clearly  implies,est."-c. IT. p. xix. As an example of this, we may adduce the connexion of the
sins of Manasseh with the predictions respecting the Exile in Babylon (cf. 2 Kings,
xxiv. 3; Jer. xv. 4). Observe, too, that the duration of that exile exactly corresponded with the space of time which elapsed between the first year of the reign of
Manasseh, and the carrying out of the reformation by Josiah.  Manasseh reigned
fifty-five years (2 Chron. xxxiii. 1); Amen, two years (ver. 21); and in the twelfth
year of his reign Josiah " began to, purge Judah and Jerusalem from the high places"
(2 Chron. xxxiv. 3), Now 55   - 2 +- 13    70. See O. Strauss, ibid. p. xxx.
1 This the objection of Dr. Hengstenberg, who is quoted by Hofmann (loc. cit. s.
3) as a type of the second class of writers to whom I have referred, p. 149, note; and
who contend that a prediction is to be prized the more, the more isolated it appears,
-its superhuman origin being thus rendered, it is thought, of easier proof. Hengstenberg's words are: "Wer will Gott die Regel vorschreiben, welche er bei seinen
Offenbarungen befolgen soll?  Wer will sagen, dass er das was er in der Regel nicht
thut, nie thun durfe?"- Christologie des A. T., I. ii. s. 193. And he elsewhere alleges,
as a reason for his rejection of the'Law' of Prophecy now before us, that what is
thus connected with an actual event might easily be regarded not as a Divine revelation, but as a mere subjective foreboding-" blosse subjective Vorahnung."Beitrage zur Einleit. ins A. T., i. s. 188. This latter remark, I should observe, is
directed immedietely, and with justice, against the theory of Nitzsch, that Prophecy
is "the represented future of the kingdom of God, grounded on an internal perception
of the Divine decree, which, ever proceeding from a definite point of the historical
present, points out with more or less dictilctness of detail the completion of the Divine economy; and whilst it is conversant with the Divine in history, but not with
the outward matter, characterizes reality only in those leading points wherein it especially accords with truth."-System der christl. Lehre, s. 67. (Montgomery's transl.
~ 35, p. 88.) On such a theory (as Hengstenberg truly observes), all that is Divine
in Prophecy would disappear, and " the prophecy of Redemption in general could be
derived from man's need of Redemption, combined with the knowledge of Divine
love."-Beitrdge, 1. c.
But still the perversion of a principle must not induce us to overlook its truth, or
tempt us to pass over the facts which Scripture offers to our view. No doubt the
Lord Almighty can convey the knowledge of His will when and how He pleases; and
they who venture to argue, a priori, that such or such a'Law' expresses the relation
of all Prophecy to its fulfilment, enter upon depths which human reason cannot pretend to fathom: but we may reverentially approach this inquiry, following the course
allowed to be just and reasonable in all sound philosophy. In other words, we may
investigate the occasions on which, as the Bible tells us, God's revelations have been
given; and we may inquire,-not assuredly what has determined the course of the
Divine conduct,-but what, in point of fact, has constituted it. In short, we may seek
in the pages of Scripture whether the revelations of God have come to man without
order, or connexion, or method; —-or whether they have been communicated (to borrow the language of philosophy) according to some'Law.' Now the Bible, by no
means obscurely, points out the existence of a remarkable relation between the Divine announcements and certain historical events; nay more (in opposition to the
doctrine laid down by Nitzsch), we can continually point out the mutual connexion
which subsists between the Divine element in history, and its external matter. Thus
Israel, in all its institutions, as well as in its external history, is one grand prophecy
of the future. Take, e. g. the 78th Psalm, in which the entire history of the chosen
people is specially particularized, and expounded in a spiritual manner. The New
Testament (1 Cor. x.) informs us how S. Paul understood this Psalm, and applied it
to Christ: nay more, an Evangelist places its Messianic reference beyond any doubt,
by his adoption of its opening words to describe the Saviour's mode of instruction:
"Without a parable spake He not unto them: that it might be fulfilled which was




LECCT. IV.]           REVELATION  AND  INSPIRATION.                             151
He  has  also, as a  general rule, availed  Himself  (if we  may
use  the  phrase)  of  certain   occasions  which  were  presented
from   time  to  time, and  which  formed  a  species  of natural
channel for the  conveyance  of His Soevelations.'  Instances of
spoken by the prophet. saying, I will open my mouth in parables; I will utter things
which have been kept secret from the foundation of the world."-S. Matt. xiii. 35.
In opposition to the view here stated, Hengstenberg considers it a needless task
to seek for the relation of Prophecy to the time and occasion of its delivery.  His
error will be seen at once, if we bear in mind his mode of treating the Psalms, in
which it is especially important to trace those occasions in David's history, which were
selected as points to wiich predictions respecting: Christ might be, as it were, attacled.  Neglecting this principle, Hengstenberg regards the fulfilment in our Lord's
history of some ofthe Psalms to be merely casual; and excludes tniom his "Christology" others which the New Testament unquestionably  reprseiits as Messianic.
In that work (B. I. i. s. 91, u. s. 154), he divides those Psalmns which alone he allows
to be Messianic, into two classes: (1) those which describe the Messiah in Glory;
viz., Psalns ii., xlv., lxxii., cx.; (2) those in which a suffering iMessiah is depicted
viz., Psalms xvi., xxii., xl. liof:uanu with reason observes: " Why is the 45th Psalm
to be preferred to the 8th, when both are referred in the same manner to Jesus in
the Epistle to the liebrews, and nowhere else?  Jesus Himself quotes a passage
from Ps. xli. with the words, "that the Scripture may be fulfilled." and refers it to
Himself [viz. Ps. xli. 9, "He that eateth bread with Me hath lifted up his heel
against Me"-S. John, xiii. 18]; is this Psalm to be regarded as less Messianic than
the 22nd?  We clearly see why Hengstenberg has omitted the 8th and 41st Psalms;
he found it impossible to refer them throughout to Jesus."-loc. cit. s. 4.
We can trace this'Law' of Prophecy even in cases which may appear to present an exception: I mean the announcement by name, so many years before their
appearance, of Josiah (1 Kings, xiii. 2), and Cyrus (Isai. xliv. 28; xlv. 1),-the solitary instances of this kind of prediction to be found in the Old Testament.  In each
of these cases there is the closest connexion with the immediate occasion of the prophetic communication.  In 1 Kings, xiii. 2, the name Josiah (,rre'x: ) expresses the
fundamental thought of the prediction of which it is a part.  The prediction directly
refers to the signification of this name [Gesenius explains it to mean: "quem Jehovah sanat: a rad. mt':  saiavzit et fmr"j, whichl is as expressive here, as is that of
Immanuel, when employed by Isaiah (ch. vii. 14).  The announcelment of "the man
of God" that' Jehovah founds, or supports"-which is implied by the name Josiah
-is obviously opposed to the erection of that altar by Jeroboan. the destruction
of which it was the prophet's ilmmediate (design to proclaim: " 0 altar, altar, thus
saith the Lord; Behold a clild shall be born unto the house of David, Josiah by
name.  *  *  *  And lie gave a sign the same day, saying  *  *  Behold the
altar shall be rent,"'&c.,-in other words, Jehovah, not Jeroboam, is the true founder
of the altar.  In the next place, as to Isaiah's prediction of Cyrus:-(1.) We are to
notice how completely ideal is the prophet's description of this king. By him, for the
first time among the rulers of the heathen, will homage be paid to the (God of Israel.
Ile is to be the counterpart to i'gyptian' Pharaohl: " lie shall build My city, and lie
shall let go My captives, not for price nor reward, saith the Lord of Iosts."-Isai
xlv. 13.  lie is God's'ishepherd," His. "anointed."  Jehovah declares of him:'I
have raised up ono fromi the north, and lie shiall come: from, the rising of the sun
(7a:: -ni7m n) shall he call upon My NaXane."-xii. 25  (2 ) The passage just quoted,
combined with tho statements tlhat "the ri ihteous man" (xl:. 2), and " a ravenous
bird" (xlvi. 11) were to come, " from the east," supplies the occasion on which is founded
the prophet's allusion to the primary signification of the name Coresch (,:"' ), or
Cyrus, which corresponds to the old Persiatl-' "luare ksa-ta," i. e. S)l rex (the final: belonging to the nominative).  The name, therefore, is to be regarded as a regal
appellative; as a'nomne  dignitatis.' It is, moreover, certain, that Cyrus before he
ascended the tiroloe was called Agradatos, the title Cyrus being a species of apotheosis.  Bournouf observes: "Le titre de soleil s'cst inaturellement attache au nom du
alonarque, surtout dans uil pays conrme ia lerse, oi cet astre recevait sous son propre




152                 REVELATION  AND  INSPIRATION.                  [LECT. IV.
this  mode  of acting  will present  themselves  to  every  mind.
Suffice it here  to  mention  the  memorable  example  afforded
by the narrative contained in the seventh chapter of the' second  Book of Samuel, where  God  employs the occasion of correcting the error into which Nathan's precipitancy had led him,
for the purpose of conveying the fundamental prediction, whick
represents Christ as the Son of David, and on which are founded
all the Messianic Psalms.'  By this fact of the connexion of single
nom de' huare' les adorations des hommes."  The employment by Isaiah of the foreign word Coresch, is not more strange than the use by Nahur  (ch iii. 17) of tile
Persian -tr', which our version renders " captains," and Gesenius " Satraps." There
is, besides, a strong resemblance in sound between tni_, and the Hebrew  -hr which
occurs in Isaiah, xix. 18, and where it is rendered in the margin of our Bibles, " Heres or the Sun."  That Isaiah himself employs Coresch merely as a' nomen dignitatis," and that he is unconscious (see infra, Lecture v.) of its personal application, is
further confirmed by the absence, in his use of the word, of the predicate' King of
Persia," by which Cyrus is invariably designated when named elsewhere in the Old
Testament,-in Chronicles, in Ezra, and in Daniel. See iHivernick's " Einleitung,"
Th. II. Abth. ii. s. 163 ff. Gesenius' remark on m,:S is " Grreci hoc nomen Persis solem
notasse observant (v. Ctesias ap. Plut. Artax. Opp., t. i. p. 1012. Etym. M. Kvpog
KovpoCf Lkto), et recte quidem."' "And when thy days be fulfilled, and thou shalt sleep with thy fathers, I will
set up thy seed after thee  *  *  *  and I will establish his kingdom. He shall
build an house for My Name, and I will establish the throne of his kingdom for
ever. I will be his Father, and he shall be My son."-vers. 12-14. " Almost all the
more ancient Christian expositors, and several of the Jewish, refer this prediction to
Christ:  *  *  *  the majority of the earlier Christian writers discern in it a'double
sense,' either by referring part of it to Solomon, and part to Christ; or by regarding
Solomon as its proper object, and representing him and his kingdom as types of the
Kingdom of Christ."-Sack, Apologetik, s. 274.
Ebrard, in his comment on Heb. i. 5, points out how the inspired writer exhibits,
in that passage, the connexion of the Messianic Psalms with this grand announcement of Nathan, by combining it with the unquestionable prediction of the Second
Psalm: "For," argues the Apostle, " unto which of the angels said He at any time,
Thou art My Son, this day have I begotten Thee? And again, I will be to Him a
Father, and He shall be to Me a Son." The language of Gen. iii. 15, and Dent. xviii.
15, denoted, it is true, the Messiah in general terms: in the words of Nathan, however, was it for the first time revealed, that He should spring from the line of David;
and also that His Sonship should be such as could not properly be derived from David, but only from God. S. Augustine has acutely remarked, that the fact of Solomon
having been anointed king, during David's lifetime (1 Kings, i. 32-53), of itself proves
that this prediction of Nathan could not have been fulfilled literally in his person:
"Nec ob aliud, vivente adhuc patre suo David, regnare Salomon coepit, quod nulli
illorum regum contigit, nisi ut hinc quoque satis eluceat, non esse ipsum, quem prophetia ista prsesignat, quae ad ejus patrem loquitur, dicens'Et erit cum repteti fierint
dies tui,'" &c.-De Civ. Dei, xvii. 8. t. vii. p. 471. Indeed, S:-lomon himself implies
as much, 1 Kings, viii. 27. "Not less clearly," writes Ebrard, "was David conscious
of the fact that Nathan's words were to find their full accomplishment, for the first
time,'in the distant future (p7ru<5) in a Man, who is Himself the Lord Jehovah.'
-2 Sam. vii. 19 [" Thou hast spoken also of Thy servant's house for a great while to
come. And is this the manner of man, O Lord God?" E.V.:-the latter words meaning, according to Ebrard: " And this is the manner of the Man, The Lord Jehovah"];
or as it is explained 1 Chron. xvii. 17,'in a Man who is exalted to the rank of Jehovah.' [The English version reads here: " Thou hast regarded me according to the
estate of a man of high degree, 0 Lord God."] On this promise, so well understood,
David builds the hope which he expresses in the Second Psalm."-s. 42. (Cf. Acts, ii.




LECT. IV.]          REVELATION  AND  INSPIRATION.                         153
predictions with the historical present, may be explained, I conceive, that characteristic of Prophecy which consists in its' double
sense;" according to which the particular is brought forward as a
pledge of what lies far beyond, without representing  the former
as the true or highest end. Thus the prediction which foreshadowed the restoration of Judah from captivity in Babylon,2 had a
further end.   " It is a subject," observes Mr. Davison, "akin  to
the Evangelical Restoration. Every Christian understands the
resemblance.'"
30, 31). Of the manner in which the English Version renders these passages Ebrard
remarks: " If 1"1,:?  were not in apposition to,kq-nmTn, but a vocative, the latter
words would be altogether without meaning."-Ibid. For an analogous, but different,
interpretation, see Kennicott's " Remarks on select passages in the Old Testament,"
p. 115.
"This age of Prophecy [viz. that of David and Solomon], in particular, brings
the doctrine of the'double sense,' as it has been called, before us.  For Scripture
Prophecy is so framed in some of its predictions, as to bear a sense directed to two
objects, of which structure the predictions concerning the kingdom of David furnish
a conspicuous example; and I should say, an unquestionable one, if the whole principle of that kind of interpretation had not been by some disputed and denied.
*  *  *  The double sense of Prophecy, however, is of all things the most remote
from fraud or equivocation, and has its ground of reason perfectly clear. For what is
it? Not the convenient latitude of two unconnected senses, wide of each other, and
giving room to a fallacious ambiguity; but the combination of two related, analogous,
and harmonizing, though disparate subjects, each clear and definite in itself; implying
a two-fold truth in the prescience, and creating an aggravated difficulty, and thereby
an accumulated proof in the completion."-Davison, Discourses on Prophecy, p. 195.
In his application of this important principle, Mr. Davison appears to me to exhibit
too great caution when he observes: "I would understand the double sense to obtain only in some of the more distinguished monuments of Prophecy."-p. 198. Olshausen seems to have had a more just apprehension of its applicability.  Equally
cautious with Mr. Davison, he guards against the abuse of this principle of the'double sense,' by refusing to accept any interpretation of Scripture which the words
of Scripture do not justify:-" This is to be laid down, in the first instance, as the rule
of every system of exposition, that Scripture has no other meaning in addition to
the simple meaning of its own words; but yet under this it again has the same, only
lying somewhat more deeply. *  *  *  A firm, necessary connexion must always
be maintained between the literal sense of the words, and the more profound import
of this verbal sense."-Ein Wort, &c. s. 90. This pregnant sense of the language of
Prophecy has been clearly pointed out by Bacon: " Secunda pars [Historiae Ecclesiasticae] quae est historia ad prophetias, ex duobis relativis constat; prophetia ipsa, et
ejus adimpletione  *  *  *  atque licet plenitude et fastigium complementi eorum
[vaticiniorum] plerumque alicui certae Stati vel etiam certo momento destinetur; attamen habent interim gradus nonnullos et scalas complementi, per diversas mundi
aetates." —De Augm. Scient. lib. II. c. xi. The importance of giving due weight to the
comprehensive signification of the language of Scripture will be shown more fully in
Lecture vii. Meanwhile I may refer to a remarkable illustration already given, Lecture iii. p. 109, note.
2 Isai. lii.; Jer. xxxi. "In like manner the prophecy of the judicial destruction
of Jerusalem with the dissolution of the Jewish Economy, symbolizes with that which
relates to the final judgment, which will shut up the whole temporal Economy of God
at the end of the world. In the New Testament they are united."-Davison, Discourses, p. 199.
a I'bid. p. 198. It may be well to observe here, that the whole system ot Types
to which the Bible attaches so much importance, affords an obvious illustration of
the'double sense' of prophecy. See on this subject Lecture v. infra.




154               REVELATION  AND  INSPIRATION.                   [LECT. IV.
What we know  respecting the occasional composition  of the
several books of the New Testament, supplies a striking analogy
to that' Law' of Prophecy to which I have now  drawn attention.
The external occasions which have called forth the successive components of the New  Testament, are precisely parallel to the historicIl events to which particular predictions have been annexed;
and may, in this light, be regarded as the providential element,
by which the free agency of the sacred writers was brought under
the guidance of Inspiration. The Epistles of S. Paul to the Corinthians, for example, were called forth by certain events in one
of the  churches which  he had  planted.  This was confessedly
their primary intent. And yet such was the occasion made use
of by the Holy Ghost for the purpose of conveying Divine instruction to the remotest futurity.'
Before entering upon an examination of the particular facts
by which, as I have said, the' dynamical' theory of Inspiration
may be proved, it is necessary to consider the nature of the Prophetic Office.
The great doctrine of Monotheism  formed the essence of the
Patriarchal Creed; and presented, as taught by Moses, the leading idea of the Jewish nation. On Sinai was announced from
heaven the complete polity of Israel, according to which the people were to acknowledge Jehovah as their invisible Lord and King.
The duty of the Hebrew as a citizen thus became equivalent to
his religious duty;-each particular of his life being referred to
his duty to God.  In the words of the Prophet-" Jehoveh was
I We learn from a passage in Tertullian's controversy with Marcion, that the
Church has, from the first, recognised the principle that the external occasion of each
inspired document is altogether subordinate to its destination for the future: "Ecclesia quidern veritate epistolam istan ad Ephesios habemus ernissam, non ad LaoL icenos; seo Marcion ei titulum aliquando interpolare gcstiit, quasi et in i-to diligentissinus explorator. Nihil autem de titulis interest, cume ad omnes Apostolus scripserit,
dam ad quosdaori."'-Adv. Marcion, v. 17, p. 607. So also in the Fragment preserved
by Muratori (see supra, Lecture ii. p. 57, note 2), we read: " Cum ipse beatus Apostolus Paulus sequens prnedecessoris sui Johannis ordinem, nonnisi nomination septem
Ecclesiis scribat. *  *  *  Et Johannes enim in Apocalypsi licet septern Ecclesiis
scribat, TAMEN OMNIBUS DIIT."-ap. Routh, Reliq Sacre. t. i. p. 395. Of this passage Credner, having remarked that S. John is called the " praedecessor" of S. Paul
with reference to Gal. i. 17 (oI rpb( euob'A.Tr6orotoL)-gives the following paraphrase:''Although Paul has directed Epistles to seven churches defined by name, still these
writings possess a value not merely local, but rather universal; just as the Revelation of John addressed, in the first instance, to seven churches has a universal value.
This comparison is rendered a demonstration by the fact that in the Revelation itself
(ch. ii. 23), what is said to the Seven Churches is extended to all, by the words: *ai
yvurovcaL 7irUac ali c;cKAreiZa."-Zar Geschichte des Canons, s. 86.




LECT. IV.]          REVELATION  AND  INSPIRATION.                         155
their Judge, Jehovah  was their Lawgiver, Jehovah  was their
King."' This conception received from Josephus the appropriate
appellation of the " Theocracy."2 In it consisted the germ of
that future Kingdom of God, the erection of which was the great
end of the former Covenant. In the different features of the
Theocracy can be traced the outline of that agency which has
been ordained by the Divine decree for the Redemption of mankind.  Here were displayed the preparations for, and  the types
of, that Church of Christ to be founded in " the latter days," and
unto which all nations are yet to flow; — which stretches out
her boughs unto the sea, and her branches unto the river;"-of
which " kings shall be the nursing fathers, and queens the nursing mothers;"-" She that looketh forth as the morning, fair as
the moon, clear as the son, terrible as an army with banners!"'
The Theocracy presents two great periods: the one starting
from  Moses, the other taking its rise from  Samuel.  During  the
former, its chief ministers were the Priests, who, to the end, represented one of the  most essential elements of the  Law.  To
them  was intrusted the sacred  symbolism  of Divine worship, to
which even the oral teaching of the Law yielded in importance;'
the sacerdotal instruction, throughout the entire course of the
Theocracy, being a system of teaching by acts. Together with
the institution of the Sacerdotal Order, the germ of a new ministry-that of the Prophets-was placed by Moses in the Law,'
I Isai. xxxiii. 22. Cf. 1 Sam. viii. 7; Micah, iv. 7. Cf. on this subject the remarks of Baumgarten Crusius, " Grundziige der bibl. Theol.," s. 35.
2 Alluding to the various forms of earthly governments, Josephus observes: 6 d'
iT:Urepo~ voyOeTr7nf ecl Etv roV TOrv odort. OVV dTretdev' 6( 6' (l, rtL ETrotL l3ta&aUevoe'6v?'oyov, 0 e o K p a r t a v drTedetie T7O trotT~reva, 0e, 7tV upXj)v Kal rT KpUroc dvaoelF,
Kat Lreiaac elf Ecervov u7ravra dciopav cdg alrtov /uev i7rdvr7&o  ovra r)v dy/aOuv. -Cont
Apion, Ir. xvi. t. ii. p. 482.
Ps. lxxx. 11; Isai. xlix. 23; Cant. vi. 10.
4 Hdvernick justly rejects the opinion that the Priests represent merely the formal and external side of the Theocracy, while the Prophets exhibit its spiritual tendency and internal character. The symbolical ordinances and the oral teaching of
the Law are placed side by side, in the following command of the Lord to Aaron:
" It shall be a statute for ever throughout your generations: and that ye may put
difference between holy and unholy, and between unclean and clean; and that ye
may teach the children of Israel all the statutes which the Lord hath spoken unto
them by the hand of Moses."-Lev. x. 9-11.  " Einleit." Th. ii. Abth. ii. s. 4.
6 " Prophecy belongs rather to the promissory side of the Law, than to its commands. The Prophets are a free gift of Divine Grace, designed to bless the Theocracy
as instruments of Jehovah, and in whom His love for His people finds expression."
— 1iavernick, loc. cit. s. 5. This writer further points out how fully the freedom of the
Spirit's influence was exhibited, even under the Old Covenant, by the fact,-so remarkable when Oriental manners are taken into account,-that the exercise of the




156                 REVELATION  AND  INSPIRATION.                [LECT. IV.
although its full development was reserved for a later period.
That the Spirit of Prophecy was poured out in his days, appears
not only from the account of the seventy Elders who " prophesied"
(as we read in the eleventh  chapter of the  book  of Numbers),'
but also from  the tests which the Law  had  already defined foi
distinguishing between true and false prophets.'  The age of the
Judges, towards its close, presents an instance in which the gift
of Prophecy was conferred even to the fullest extent, in the case
of the " man of God" who came " unto Eli, and said unto him,
Thus saith the Lord;"' and whose announcements are conceived
in a form, and expressed in a manner, identical with those of
subsequent prophets. As time went on, together with the total
degeneracy of the Priesthood, this dawning light of Prophecy
was almost quenched  in  Israel.4   Under such  circumstances,
Somuel was called  by God, not only to reform  the Sacerdotal
Order, but also to restore Prophecy to its true legal basis, by
prophetic agency was independent of sex. This is proved by the examples of Miriam
(Exod. xv. 20), Deborah (Judg. iv. 4)-whose genuinely prophetical song is a sublime echo of the age of Moses,-and Huldah (2 Kings, xxii. 14) to each of whom
the official title (see infra, p. 158, note'), of Prophetess-rNt'_, is applied. Mention
is also made of the existence of Prophetesses in the age of the New Testament: e
g. Anla (S. Luke, ii. 36), and the daughters of Philip the Evangelist (Acts, xxi. 9).
Moses, filled with a growing sense of his powerlessness to keep the people true to
their allegiance to God, had said unto the Lord: "I am not able to bear all this people alone, because it is too heavy for me. *  *  *  And the Lord came down in a
cloud, and spake unto him, and took of the Spirit that was upon him, and gave it
unto the seventy Elders: and it came to pass that when the Spirit rested upon them
they prophesied (eN-nn),and did not cease. *  *  *  And there ran a young man,
and told Moses and said, Eldad and Medad do prophesy in the camp. *   *  And
Moses said unto [Joshua], Enviest thou for my sake? would God that all the Lord's
people were prophets (D::"), and that the Lord would put his Spirit upon them!"vss. 14, 25, 27, 29; which latter words, observes Havernick, "express as well an
earnest longing for the perfection of the Theocracy, as a profound insight into the essence of the Kingdom of God,-nay more, which contain a prophetic announcement
of Its glorious future."-loc. cit. s. 17.
2  If there arise among you a prophet (x>+=) *  *  * and the sign or the wonder come to pass whereof he spake unto thee, saying, Let us go after other gods
* * *  thou shalt not hearken unto the words of that prophet."-Deut. xiii. 1-3.
"The prophet (X,_?:), which shall presume to speak a word in My Name, which I
have not commanded him to speak, or that shall speak in the name of other gods,
even that prophet shall die."-Deut. xviii. 20. These preparatory ordinances pointing to tile institution of a Prophetic Order, although the office itself was not as yet
fully developed, are perfectly analogous to the directions which related to the future
introduction of kingly rule: e. g. "And it shall be, when he sitteth upon the throne
of his kingdom, that he shall write him  a copy of this Law in a book," &c.-Deut.
xvii. 18.
3 Sam. ii. 27-36.
The influence of the Spirit of God was, however, still exerted, although in a
lower and far different manner, in the persons of the Judges, by whom, during this
interval, the Theocracy was administered. E. g. " The Spirit of the Lord came upon
Gideon."-Judges, vi. 34; "upon Jephthah,"-xi. 29; upon Samson, xv. 14, &c. &e.




LECT. IV.]           REVELATION  ANt  INSPIRATION.                           157
proving that the guidance of the people must rest upon an inward religious life. His function was not, as has been erroneously
maintained, to create anew, but simply to re-organize;' and the
sacred history informs us of his success. The child Samuel saw
a time " when the word of the  Lord was precious," when  there
was " no open vision:" —the man Samuel beheld around him a
host of prophets, who, together with  him, served  Jehovah. sangHis praises, received His revelations, and proclaimed His Name.'
In the interval between Moses and  Samuel, the  official title  of
the Prophetic Order, (Nabi),4 together with the office itself, had
1 "As the whole tendency of Samuel's labors," observes Havernick, "can only
be understood by looking constantly to the Law,-as he is to be accounted merely
the Theocratic Reformer, not the founder of Theocracy —such is also his relation to
Prophecy."-loc. cit. s. 18. Indeed Samuel's entire life was, as it were, a reflection
of that of Moses; and hence he is referred to in Scripture as a second Law-giver:
"Then said the Lord unto me, Though Moses and Samuel stood before Me."-Jer.
xv. 1. And again: " Moses and Aaron among His Priests, and Samuel among them
that call upon Ilis name."-Ps. xcix. 6. Although no information on the subject is
given in 1 Sam. i., we learn from 1 Chron. vi. 22-28, that Samuel was of the tribe of
Levi, and the family of Kohath; while we can infer that he performed the functions
of a Priest from 1 Sam. vii. 9. (See Winer, "Real Worterb."  Art.'Samuel.')  He
was not High Priest, Eli having been the last individual who filled at once the
highest ecclesiastical and civil offices.
2 1 Sam. iii. 1.
3 The system of Revelation is most plainly exhibited by a review of the periods
which start from Moses and Samuel respectively. I have already alluded (Lecture i. pp.
23, 24.) to the distinction which exists between God's revelations by Act, and by Word;
i. e. between the manifestation of IHis power over the material universe, and the proofs
of His omniscience by the mouth of His prophets.  The former is chiefly attested in
that series of sublime acts of Omnipotence, displayed during the space of time which
elapsed from the Exodus to the conquest of Canaan:-for, although in the Patriarchal
age also, there were exhibited proofs of miraculous power, they were comparatively
few and far between.  " This relative withdrawal of miracles in the history of the
Patriarchs," observes Sack, " is an incomparable proof of the historic truth and the
Divine nature of the Patriarchal Revelation.  What opportunities has a mythicopoetical narrative here let slip!" —Apologetik, s. 174. After the possession of Canaan
was secured, displays of miraculous power appear to have been gradually withdrawn;
and the course of Revelation was now marked by the series of prophetic announcements which signalized the period from Samuel to Malachi. We must, however, bear
in mind that, as in the Divine economy in general there are no abrupt transitions, so
here, too, each of these phases of Revelation fades away into the other.  In the age
of Moses there were displays of omniscience; in the Prophetic period there were exhibitions of miraculous power. After Malachi there was indeed, for a considerable
time, a cessation from such supernatural revelations; but this was merely the prelude
to the advent of the Divine Revealer Himself, in whom both phases were united. Cf.
Koppen, "Die Bibel ein Werk der gottl. Weisheit." B. ii. s. 100.
4 The earliest occasion on which the word Nabi is used in Scripture, is when God
commands Abimelech to restore Sarah to Abraham, adding: "He is a Prophet
(xn   =:-'nD) and he shall pray for thee, and thou shalt live."-Gen. xx. 7.  " Here
Abraham is so called, for the Patriarch combined in his person the kingly, the sacerdotal, and the prophetical office." —Ilavernick, Einleit. Th. I. Abth. i. s. 54.  Cf. Ps.
cv. 15.  During the age of Moses mention is made, as we have seen (p. 156, notes
and 2), of both Prophets and Prophetesses: e. g. " If there be a Prophet (n::) among
you, I the Lord will make Myself known unto him in a vision," &c.-NXum. xii. 6.
It is to be observed that Moses himself is styled Nabi in Hos. xii. 13 [14].




158                 REVELATION  AND  INSPIRATION.                   [LECT. IV.
fallen into oblivion; and hence it was said in the days of Samuel:
" He that is now  called a Prophet (Nabi) was beforetime called
a Secr (Roeh)."'  A  regular line of prophets having been formed
by Samuel, the title, defined  by the Law, was restored; and the
appellation " Prophet" (Nabi) henceforward  denotes the  fficial
character of chosen ministers of the  Theocracy, who are distinguished by this title from those other men of God, who possessed,
indeed, the prophetic gift, but not the prophetic office.  The signification of the term Nabi may be inferred, not only from its
admitted etymology,-according to which it implies " a speaker,"
" one who announces the sayings and revelations of God," —but
also from   the  explanation  given  by  Jehovah  Himself: "The
Lord said unto Moses, See, I have made thee a god  (Elohim) to
1 Sam. ix. 9. There are three distinct Hebrew terms, for which our English
version gives but these two equivalents: viz. a' a (Nabi, i. e. the official title of the
chief agent of the Theocracy)-which is translated a Prophet;,ixn (Roeh), and mTrr
(Chozeh), which are rendered by the single term a Seer.  The question whether any
or what distinction exists between these three terms has been much discussed. It
seems plain, however, notwithstanding some apparent exceptions, that they are not
employed indiscriminately by the sacred writers.  E. g. in 1 Chron. xxix. 29, Samuel
is styled "Roeh;" Nathan. " Nabi;" and Gad, "'Chozeh;"-the English version, here
as elsewhere, making no distinction between Roeh and Chozeh. The conclusion at
which I have arrived, and which in some respects differs, so far as I am aware,
from any which has been hitherto suggested, is that Nabi and Roeh are equivalent
in their meaning —as, indeed, the text 1 Sam. ix. 9, of itself intimates; each denoting
the official minister of the Theocracy, and Roeh being merely the archaic form of
expression. Chozeh, on the other hand, is the general title applied to any agent of
God to whom revelations were occasionally made; and to whom, on certain exigencies, Divine communications were vouchsafed. According to this view every " Nabi"
could receive the title " Chozeb," but not conversely. But on this question see
Appendix J.
I may add, that the LXX. invariably render ":3 by 7rpoorT7jf (or prev6orpob77r7c,
e. g. Jer. vi. 13); and that they make no distinction between,tis  and ITT (see 1
Chron. xxix. 29, where both terms are rendered pfte-ruv), translating in numerous
places by op)v, 3Ai;rrv, and rporpiryc indifferently: see 2 Sam. xxiv. 11; 1 Chron.
xxvi. 28. This general use of TrporOT71Jr to denote all classes of God's messengers,
is further exhibited by the writings of Philo and Josephus. See Lecture ii. p. 65,
&c. The term rrpooif7t, Eusebius observes, is derived rrapa Tr   p o  a i vv e    1v 
p  f) Mo  i;   e t v v a'vrof TO Oeiov llvevlia,  / l6Ovov Tai 7rapovra, aX2 Au  Kal Tr(v
e/.eA.jrT.ov 1',q9, al diptKpi3r yvuatv.-Demons. Evang., lib. v. p. 209, ed. Paris.  On
tile other hand, S. Isidore of Seville observes: " Quos gentilitas vates appellat, hos
nostri prophetas vocant, quasi prsefantores, quia porro fantur, et de futuris vera prsedicunt."-Etymolog., lib. vii. c. viii. p. 60.
2 Both Knobel ("Der Prophetismus der Hebraer," Th. i. s. 137) and Hivernick
explain  -i: (which is found only in Niphal and Hithp.) to mean "to stream forth,"
"to gush forth from a source," after the analogy of:=, scaturivit.  Cf.,=: 5r:, "a
stream gueshing out," or "flowing brook."-Prov. xviii. 4. Hence, by a transition not
unusual, it is transferred to the flow of words; see Ps. lxxviii. 2. Compare the
manner in which t':n (which literally signifies stillavit), is used to express the idea
of prophesying;-see Micah, ii. 6, and cf. Ezek. xxi. 2. The trope cannot be better
expressed than by the words: "My doctrine shall drop as the rain, My speech shall
distil as the dvw.''-Deut. xxxii. 2.




LECT. IV.]           REVELATION  AND  INSPIRATION.                           159
Pharaoh: and Aaron thy brother shall be thy prophet (Nabi;)"
the Lord having previously announced  to Moses,-Aaron " shall
be thy spokesman to the people: and he shall be to  thee instead
of a mouth: and thou shalt be to him  instead  of God."'  And
thus the official Prophet was, above all others, God's spokesman
to the people; the mouth, as it were, by which Jehovah uttered
His commands.
Closely connected with the organization of the Prophetic Order, was the institution of those  Societies or Schools established
by Samuel at Ramah, Bethel, Gibea, Jericho, and Gilgal; the
members of which were called " prophets," or   sons of the pr',plhets," indifferently.2   Over these Societies the leading prophots of
t Exod. vii. 1; Exod. iv. 16 ("and he shall be thy spokesman"-~15 Ju-"-').
Knobel observes that Onkelos has rendered ^= ("prophet") in the former of these
passages, as well as Dn (" mnouth") in the latter, by the word l7=nnn= interpres. —Iid.
Th. i. s. 104. In this sense Jehovah promises Jeremiah: "If thou take forth the
precious from the vile, thou shalt be as fMy mouth"-Jer. xv. 19; and- also declares
respecting "the Prophet like unto Moses"-" I will put My words in his mnoutib."Deut. xviii. 18.
2 1 Sam. x. 5, 10; xix. 20; 2 Kings, ii. 3, 5; iv. 38.  Cf. too, 2 Kings, xxii. 14,
and 2 Chron. xxxiv. 22, where it is said of " Huldah the Prophetess" that " she dwelt
in Jerusalem, in the College," (:173, which the Chaldee parauhrast renders domus
doctrince, and Kimchi a school-see " Select Discourses" by John Smith, of Cambridge,
"On Prophecy," ch. ix.)  Havernick thinks that Samuel did not appoint any fixed
constitution of these assemblies, merely because we do not meet the phrase "Sons
of the Prophets" until after his death: during his lifetime they were called " the company (-mrr, ripi7,) of the Prophets."  That their number was considerable, may be inferred from the fact that Ahab on one occasion "gathered the prophets together about
four hundred men"-1 Kings, xxii. 6; and that in Jezebel's persecution "Obadiah
took an hundred prophets and hid them by fifty in a cave." —1 Kings, xviii. 4. See
Knobel, "Der Proph. der Ilebrier," Th. ii. s. 39 if. Over these Schools, as I have
said, one of the leading prophets of the age usually presided.  Thus Saul's messengers "saw the company of the prophets prophesying, and Samuel standing as appointed over them"- -1 Sam. xix. 20: so also, when Elisha came again to Gilgal
*  *  *  the sons of the prophets were sitting before him"-2 Kings, iv. 38. Hence
the title " Sons or pupils of the Prophets."  That such was the origin of the phrase is
evident from the question asked, on one occasion, respecting them: " But who is
their father?" —  Sam. x. 12. In this sense, too, Elisha addressed Elijah when taken
from him to heaven: " Mly father, my father, the chariot of Israel, and the horsemen
thereof."-2 Kings, ii. 12. See J. Smith, loc. cit.  They were also sometiens calledl
simply prophets:-as we learn from 1 Kings, xx., where the person who, at ver.'.5,
is described as " a certain man of the sons of the prophets," is na:med at ver. 38 " the
prophet;" see also 2 Kings, ix. 1, 4:-in both of which cases we observe that the individual named executed a Divine commission. Indeed we can infer that Divine
revelations were at times made to these assemblies collectively: e. g.'"Tele sons
of the prophets that were at Bethel came forth to Elisha and said unto him. Knowest
thou that the Lord will take away thy master from thy head to-day?"-2 Kings, ii.
3, 5. That "the Master" or chief Prophet was always regularly instituted in his
functions, we may, perhaps, conclude from the command of God to Elijah: "Elisha,
the son of Shaphat of Abelmeholah, shalt thou anoint to be Prophet in thy room."1 Kings, xix. 16. From these Societies the selection of the leading prophets was ordinarily made.  " Elisha himself was trained up by Elijah as his disciple [see e. g. 1
Kings, xix. 21,'Then Elisha arose, and went after Elijah. and ministered unto him:'
and also 2 Kings, ix. 1]; and therefore in 2 Kings, iii 11, it was thought a reason




160                 REVELATION  AND  INSPIRATION.                    [LECT. IV.
the age presided; and the course of instruction imparted in them
appears to have embraced the following subjects: music,'-which
so far back as the time of Moses formed an important feature of
Divine worship; the composition of lyrical poetry,-the connexion of which with Prophecy is shown  by the predictions of Balaaml, and the  songs interwoven  in the writings of Isaiah  (both
instances exhibiting how  closely Prophecy bordered  upon  sacred
lyrics;)2 and above all, as we may safely conclude from  the chargood enough to prove that he was a prophet, for that he had been Elijah's disciple,
and'poured water upon his hands,' as all the Jewish scholastics observe.  *  *  *
And hence it was that Amos urgeth the extraordinariness of his commission from
God:'I wa~ no prophet, nor was I a prophet's son' (Amos, vii. 14)-' lie was not
prepared for Prophecy, or trained up so as to be fitted for a prophetical function by
his discipleship,' as Abarbanel glosseth upon the place. And therefore Divine Inspiration found him out of the ordinary road of Prophets, among his herds of cattle."
-J. Smith, loc. cit.' Carpzovius observes:-" Notamus earn [musicam] partim ad prophetarum exercitia, et munia, partim  ad dispositiones pertinere eorum qui huic se muneri destinabant."-Iatrod., ~ ix. p. 21.  The most obvious proof of the latter fact here adverted
to, is afforded by the case of Elisha when solicited to declare the Lord's will to King
Jehoram: "And Elisha said, As the Lord of Hosts liveth  *  *  *  surely were it
not that I regard the presence of Jehoshaphat the King of Judah,. I would not look toward thee, nor see thee. But now bring me a minstrel. And it came to pass, when
the minstrel played, that the hand of the Lord came upon him'. And he said, Thus
saith the Lord" &c.-2 Kings, iii. 14-16.  The relation of music to the functions of
a prophet, may be noticed so early as the age of Moses:-" Then sang Moses and
the children of Israel this song unto the Lord.  *  *    *  And Miriam the prophetess  *   *    took a timbrel in her hand," &c.-Exod. xv. 1, 20. Cf. Judges, iv.
4; v. 1. The intimate connexion of music with the prophetical office, and of both
with the service of the Temple, we learn from 1 Chron. xxv. 1, where David " separated to the service of the sons of Asaph, &c. who should prophesy (=,x'::) with
harps, with psalteries, and with cymbals."  The word nr:, too,-which must be
rendered "to the chief'musician," and which stands at the head of fifty-three Psalms,
affords a proof that the Psalms, in the superscription of which it occurs, were intended
for public use in the Temple.  Compare Hab. iii. 19, where the prophet manifestly
imitates the superscription of the Psalms: " the words (ulS::Jn ttn rS5), with which the
song of the Church is there closed, can be no otherwise explained than as meaning,'to
the chief musician upon my (Israel's, for it is the Church that speaks through the
whole chapter) stringed instrument,' assigned to the chief musician, that he might
publicly sing it with the accompaniment of sacred music in the Temple."-Hengstenberg, Comnm. on Ps. iv. (Clarke's For. Theol. Lib., i. p. 57.) While considering the Divine institution of the musical element of the Temple worship, we must not forget
the external qualifications which Moses possessed, in consequence of his Egyptian
education.  C. F. Keil, in his continuation of Havernick's "Einleitung," (s. 6) calls
attention to the words of Philo, in which he enumerates the human acquirements of
Moses:  *  *  *  rTv re pLVLatujv cKai upiovtLK7v cKal aerpLKTcv OecF)upu, Keai tuovcti'/v
T/,v aLt#iuracav, d6t re Xpjaecog 6Opyavuv  *  *  *  AiyvrT"cv ol i6ytot iapEdoeav~-s
De Vita Mosis, I. t. ii. p. 84,-a statement which is quoted by Clemens Alex., Strom.
i. p. 413. It is to be observed, moreover, that not the sacred music alone, but everything relating to the worship of Jehovah, was the result of Divine command: " And
the Lord spake unto Moses saying, See I have called by name Bezaleel *  *  *
and I have filled him with the Spirit of God  *  *  *  to devise cunning works, to
work in gold," &c.-Exod. xxxi. 1-4.
2 By sacred lyrical poetry is meant songs of praise and thanksgiving to Jehovah,
as distinguished from those poetical compositions which are stamped with the strictly
prophetical character. The song of the children of Israel, after the passage of the




LECT. IV.]          REVELATION  AND  INSPIRATION.                         161
acter of the founder, Samuel,-the Divine ordinances of the Law,
and the spirit of the Theocracy.  This necessity of systematic
education, in order to qualify men to become spokesmen of God,
is in every respect analogous to that course of instruction and
experience, and personal companionship with their Master, which
was required under the New  Testament by the Apostles, before
Red Sea (Ex. xv.), is an example of the former; the Messianic Psalms, of the latter.
That the lyrical poetry of Israel, like all the other features of the Theocracy, must
be traced to a Divine source, is proved by Keil in the work referred to in the last
note. The attempt to trace its origin in the warlike spirit of the people, is utterly
without support. Of such songs as must, if this theory were correct, have been produced in the earlier times, we know absolutely nothing. Neither the "Book of the
wars of Jehovah" (Numb. xxi. 14), nor the war song of Deborah (Judges, v.) form
exceptions,-for the genuine Theocratic character is stamped upon both. In the
history of the Hebrews there occurs no such " Heroic Age," to which the origin of
the poetic art can be ascribed. The poetry of Israel was most copious in those times
when religion had the greatest power over the popular mind; not in those periods
when war was the leading tendency, as during the rule of the Judges. In short,
there is no historical foundation for such an opinion: it rests upon a perfectly defective view of the true characteristics of Hebrew poetry.  " If, with the Hebrews,
Religion is related to Poetry as cause to effect, it is clear that even the historical formation of their poetry must be connected, in the most intimate manner, with the
entire course of development of the Theocracy. The sacred lyrics, consequently, received their condition wholly from the revelations of God in word and act, so that
they are to be regarded as the corresponding echo of the faithful community."-Keil,
loc. cit. s. 5. The song of Moses (Exod. xv.) is a poetic piece in a highly cultivated
form, and Ps. xc. is also ascribed to him in its superscription.  That in his age the
arrangements of public worship required a liturgical use of such songs, is placed beyond any doubt by Numb. x. 35, 36 (cf. Ps. lxviii. 1;) nor was this species of inspired poetry ever discontinued (see Judges, v; 1 Sam. ii. 1-10, which pieces have
the greatest community with Ex. xv.) We have also to notice another species of
versification of a less formal nature, and more akin to the original character of poetry.
It is characterized by the name of the poets-3=1'an T, "they that speak in proverbs"
-Numb. xxi. 27, of which class of sayings that chapter affords a remarkable example (ver. 27-30:) such are also the adages or "parables" of Balaam (Numb. xxiv.
3). (In proof of Balaam's inspiration see Lecture v.)
We must remember, however, that all Hebrew poetry was not inspired. Although
it is said of Solomon that " his songs were a thousand and five" (1 Kings, iv. 32), yet
only two of his poetical compositions stand in the Canon (Ps. lxxii. and cxxvii.)
From the age of Solomon, to the opening of the Chaldean catastrophe, we possess
(in addition to some Psalms of Asaph and the sons of Korah, from the times of Jehoshaphat and the Assyrian invasion,)-the song of Jonah (ch. ii.), of Hezekiah (Isai.
xxxviii. 10, &c.), and some hymns interwoven in the prophecies of Isaiah (ch. xii.
and xxvi.) To these prophetical songs belongs the hymn of Habakkuk (ch. iii.),
which in part relates to Ps. lxxvii.; and which repeats in lyrical form the impression
produced by the revelation which the prophet had received. Bishop Lowth observes:
-" It is sufficiently evident that the Prophetic Office had a most strict connexion
with the poetic art. They had one common name, one common origin, one common author,-the Holy Spirit. Those, in particular, were called to the exercise
of the Prophetic Office who were previously conversant with the sacred poetry.
It was equally a part of their duty to compose verses for the service of the Church,
and to declare the oracles of God: it cannot, therefore, be doubted that a great portion of the sacred hymns may properly be termed prophecies, or that many of the
prophecies are in reality hymns. *  *  *  Of this we have an illustrious proof in
that prophetic ode of Moses (Deut. xxxii.) which he composed by the especial command of God, to be learned by the Israelites."-The Sacred Poetry of the Hebrews
Lect. xviii. (Gregory's transl., vol. ii. p. 18).
11




162               REVELATION  AND INSPIRATION.                [LECT. IV
they could enter upon their peculiar functions. That such preparatory discipline was necessary, is proved by the statement of
S. Peter, that the successor to the Apostleship of Judas should
be one "who  had companied" with the disciples, " beginning
from  the baptism  of John:" for to those who were qualified by
knowledge thus acquired S. Peter restricts the choice; declaring
that from  such persons only " must one be ordained to be a witness" of Christ's Resurrection.'  The case of S. Paul, it is true,
proves, that while this was the ordinary rule of God's selection,
certain other agents of the Divine will could be raised  up, who
were not thus qualified by personal experience;-just as the preparatory training of a Prophet under the Old Testament might
be dispensed with.  Amos, for example, replied to the cavils of
Amaziah-" I was no prophet, neither was I a  prophet's son;
but I was an herdman, and  a gatherer of sycamore fruit: and
the Lord took me as I followed the flock, and the Lord said unto
me, Go, prophesy unto Mly people Israel."' Such cases, however,
were exceptions: and the ordinary method by which the scheme
of Revelation was carried on, was the employment of men whose
education, experience, and natural capacity qualified them to become ministers of God's will.
This remark brings immediately before us the facts to which
I have adverted above; or, in other words, the process by which
the revelations of God have been introduced into the sphere of
human knowledge.  And here, at the outset, I would observe,although after what has been said the caution may appear unaecessary,-that we must ever keep in mind, that the internal
suggestion which prompts his utterance neither proceeds from,
nor is produced by, the prophet's natural powers or personal condition:' it is a new principle which is infused into his soul, with
1 Aets, i. 21, 22. See on this point Lecture vi.
2 Amos, -vii. 14. Cf. ver. 12, where Amaziah calls him " seer" (rmT); see supra,
p. 159, note 2. IHavernick, (Th. Ii. Abth. ii. s. 303 ff.) observes that, in consequence
of the circumstances which thus marked the call of Amos, we have more minute information concerning his history than is usual in the case of the minor prophets.
He was " among the herdmen of Tekoa  *  *  *  in the days of Uzziah King of
Judah, and in the days of Jeroboam, the son of Joash, King of Israel, two years before the earthquake."-Amos, L 1.
3 " God reveals Himself externally in the history of the people; internally in the
spirit of man by His Spirit: while neither the world nor humanity are brought into
any false identity with the Divine Being. Thus Hebrew Prophecy, according to its
subjective starting-point, stands in contrast to all heathen notions, according to which
the Divine life comes forth in the multiplicity of the powers of Nature. Prophecy is
not, like the heathen fantik, tied to the concealed, mysterious, gloomy energies and




LECT  IV.]          REVELATION  AND  INSPIRATION.                        163
an energy transcending all that is human. This fact is completely
established by the uniformity with which the prophets themselves
point out one characteristic of every species of Divine revelation.
They invariably represent their knowledge as proceeding from  an
immediate intuition.'  Such is the obvious sense of the constant
expressions, "Seer,"  "Vision."'   All revelations were "seen,"
or "gazed  upon;" and were, therefore, apprehended  by the inward intelligence instantaneously, and in a manner analogous to
the reception of impressions by the outward senses. Thus the
revelations which the prophets received, could be neither the
mere result of their own power of reflection, nor fictions suggested
powers of Nature. Hence there is found in genuine Hebraism no divination of many
different kinds; no uncertain, fluctuating struggle and effort to place one's self in
community with the Deity. *  *  *  The essence and subjective peculiarity of
prophetic inspiration lies in this, that it finds its origin, not in the natural consciousness of man, nor yet in any eminent natural parts and abilities, but proves itself to
be the higher supernatural operation of the Spirit of God."-Havernick, Einleitung, loc.
cit. s. 29 f.: The Bible notion of Revelation, says Baumgarten Crusius, proceeds from
the idea of the guardian God of Israel, and of the union with the people of Him who is
also Deity of the Universe. With the Greeks and Romans the notion was connected
with that of Deity in the Universe (in a Pantheistic or Polytheistic sense); or it was related (as in the case of Socrates), to a mystic conception of a union with God; or, in
fine, as denoting something exalted and excellent.-Grundzige der bibl. Theol., s. 215.
1 "The perception of the'word' which God communicated to the prophets, was
made by means of the spiritual sense, the apprehension of which is named, in reference to the noblest of the natural senses, a seeing. *  *  *  As the Divine idea
presents itself not mediately through the natural sense, but directly to the spirit of
the prophet, the notion of seeing is in its proper place."-Delitzsch, Der Proph. Habak.
s. 3. (Fairbairn's "Ezekiel," p. 96.) Hence the comprehensive, and significantly
descriptive terms  nTtr,,  nI-,;,;,n7, &c. Thus Isaiah "saw the vision concerning Judah."-i. 1. Ezekiel " beheld" the vision of "dry bones."-xxxvii. 8. Micah
"saw the word of the Lord concerning Samaria,"-i. 1; and, in like manner, we read
of " the burden which Habakuk the Prophet did see."-i. 1. On the word ga,
translated "burden" in the passage last quoted, S. Jerome observes: "MASSA nunquam praefertur in titulo, nisi quum grave, et ponderis laborisque plenum  est quod
videtur."-Comment. in Abac. Prol. t. vi. p. 587. And to the same effect, in his Prologue to Nahum: " Assumptio, quam LXX. interpretantur ^t/#/ua [they also render by;pa/ta, ppanat,;/ll/a,] et Aquila idpa interpretatus est, apud Hebraeos MASSA ponitur,
id est, grave onus: eo quod ear adversus quam videtur premat, nec sinat elevare
cervicem." —Ibid. p. 535. On Isai. xiii. 1, see t. iv. p. 169. Hengstenberg ably defends this interpretation against those moderns (viz., Vitringa, Michaelis, Gesenius,
&c.) who have revived the notion of the LXX. See his': Christologie," ii s. 102; and
s. 272, where he proves that the only passage urged in opposition to S. Jerome's view
(viz. Zech. xii. 1) does not really militate against it.
2 When S. John says that he " bare record of the word of God, and of the testimony of Jesuls Christ, and of all things that he saw,"-Rev. i. 2,-the latter words
clearly signify the Apostle's prophetic visions. On the passage, "The book of the vifion
(piTrn  m) of Nahum the Elkoshite," &c., Nah. i. 1, Otto Strauss observes: " Adjectus
genitivus 1mTn omnino propheticum esse librwm ostendit; monemur, describendum hostium interitum nec conspectum oculis esse, nec post eventurn enarratum, neque ratione antea et conjectura nuntiatum, sed animo extrinsecus rapto oblatum per speciem
et visionem, et sic perceptum literis exinde exaratum." —Nahumi de Nino Vaticin., p.
7. The words, "the book of the vision," point to the Divine Author; while the addition of the prophet's name directs attention to the human agent.




164               REVELATION  AND  INSPIRATION.                  [LECT. IV.
by their own imagination.' Of this there can be no clearer proof,
than the plain and unaffected manner in which they intimate,
that their gift of prophesying was neither permanent, nor the result of their own volition, but depending wholly on the Divine
pleasure. For example, when the Shunamite fell at the feet of
Elisha, and his servant " came near to thrust her away, the man
of God said, Let her alone; for her soul is vexed in her, and the
Lord hath hid it from me, and hath not told me." In like manner S. Paul does not scruple to declare-" I go bound in spirit
unto  Jerusalem, not knowing the  things that shall befall me
there."' In short, the men of God were as fully assured of the
objective reality of the Divine communications, conveyed thus
immediately to their souls, as we are of the objective reality of
the world which surrounds us.'
The revelations conveyed to God's servants may, speaking
generally, be reduced to  two  classes.   They were either com* "The prophets feel themselves elevated to a new and higher sphere,-a world living beyond common reality; in the midst of which they hear the Truth-the voice of
God. God is Himself the author of such a state: He qualifies the soul of the prophet
for those intuitions, causes him to' see visions,'' opens his ear,' &c.; and also endows
the inward organs of his spirit, so that they are capable of attaining to those intuitions (Anschauungen). By means of this Divine starting-point, as the principle operating in the prophets, the prophetic intuitions do not fall into the category of mere
subjectivity; but lay just claim to be entitled actual states which have an objective
reality."-Hivernick, loc. cit., s. 34.
2 Kings, iv. 27; Acts, xx. 22. Cf. also what we read of Jeremiah having addressed prayers to God, at the request of his countrymen; promising them that
" whatsoever thing the Lord shall answer you, I will declare it unto you."-xlii. 4.
Although his prayer was offered at a season of urgent emergency (cf. ch. xli. 17,
with xlii. 15-19), several days elapse before the prophet receives his answer. " And
it came to pass after ten days, that tbh word of the Lord came unto Jeremiah."ver. 7.
I For some further remarks on this question, see Lecture v.
I have not attempted any formal classification of the various means by which
revelations have been conveyed to man. Attempts of this nature must to a great
extent be arbitrary, and inexact; nor is such a classification at all essential to the
present subject. I may, however, adduce that which has been given by S. Isidore
of Seville (circ. A.D. 595) —"Prophetie autem genera sunt septem. Primum genus,
Ecstasis, quod est mentis excessus: sicut vidit Petrus vas illud submissum de coelo,
in stupore mentis, cum variis animalibus. Secundum genus, Visio: sicut apud Esaiam
dicentem,' Vidi Dominum sedentem,' &c. (cap. vi.). Tertium genus, Somnium: sicut
Jacob subnixam in coelum scalam dormiens vidit. Quartum genus, per Nubem: sicut ad
Moysem et ad Job post plagam loquitur Deus. Quintum genus, Vox de colo: sicut
ad Abraham sonuit dicens:'Ne injicias manum tuam super puerum;' et ad Saulum
in via:'Saule, Saule, quid Me persequeris?' Sextum genus, Accepta parabola: sicut
apud Salomonem in Proverbiis, et apud Balaam cum evocaretur a Balac. Septimus
genus, Repletio Sancti Spiritus: sicut paene omnes Prophetas."-Etymolog. lib. viII. c.
viii. p. 61. S. Isidore adds: "Alii tria genera visionum esse dixerunt." I. " Secundum oculos corporis,"-(as Abraham saw the three men under the oak at Mamre).
II. " Secundum  spiritum, quo imaginamur ea, qum per corpus sentimus," —(as S.
Peter's vision, Acts, x.) III. " Quod neque corporeis sensibus, neque ulla parte ani



LECT. IV.]           REVELATION  AND  INSPIRATION.                          165
munications made  when  the action  of the external senses was
suspended, and there was no consciousness of passing events;
or they were communications made in the natural waking state,
when the prophet was conscious of all that took place around
him.' This division, to some extent, corresponds with that intimated in the words of S. Paul —" I will come to visions and
revelations of the Lord:" where the term Visions implies that
certain ideas had been imparted by means of an image, while by
Revelations is denoted an unfigurative communication from the
Divine to the human spirit.3 Of these classes both may be, and
often are, united, but always so that one or other predominates:
here, however, we are chiefly concerned with the former, in which
the action of the outward senses was suspended, and in which
state the human soul, like a pure mirror undimmed by any cloud
of earth, received and reflected the beams of Divine Truth which
were presented to it.4 This class comprises but two species of
revelations,-revelations by Dreams, and revelations by Ecstatic
Visions; which channels of the Divine communications seem to
differ principally in this, that in Ecstasy the activity of the menmae qua corporalium rerum imagines capiuntur: sed per intuitum mentis, quo intellecta conspicitur veritas: sicut Daniel, hoc praeditus, mente vidit, quod Balthasar
viderat corpore." For the distinctions of the mediaeval Jews, see Appendix C.
I S. Thomas Aquinas discusses this subject with his usual acuteness.  Considering the question "De modo propheticae cognitionis,"-he observes: " Prophetica Revelatio fit secundum quatuor, scil. secundum influxum intelligibilis luminis; secundum
immissionem intelligibilium  specierum; secundum  impressionem, vel ordinationem
imaginabilium formarum; et secundum expressionem formarum sensibilium.  Manifestum est autem quod non fit abstractio a sensibus, quando aliquid repraesentatur
menti prophets per species sensibiles, sive ad hoc specialiter formatas divinitus, sicut
rubus ostensus Moysi (Ex. iii.)  *  *  *  Similiter etiam  non est necesse ut fiat
alienatio a sensibus exterioribus per hoc quod mens Prophetae illustratur intelligibili
lumine, aut formatur intelligibilibus speciebus. *  *  *  Sed quando fit revelatio
prophetica secundum formas imaginarias, necesse est fieri abstractionem  a sensibus,
ut talis apparitio phantasmatum  non referatur ad ea quae exterius sentiuntur."Summ. Theol. 2da 2dee, qu. clxxiii. art. 3. t. xxiii. p. 307.
2 2 Cor. xii. 1, i'e2jaopat y(lp eir o7raaiag Kai duroKcaiv'bet~ Kvpiov.  The verb
up7rnieaO6a ("caught up," ver. 2) points out the ecstatic condition, in which the
vision was accompanied by impressions upon the sense of hearing —KovaeV l uS77Ta
nruera (ver. 4).
8 Thus Havernick distinguishes between'Prophecy,' and'Vision' understood in
the strict sense of the word. In the former, Divine truth is represented to the
Prophet's mind in a more simple, spiritual, and unveiled manner; in the latter, in a
more concrete manner, under the veil of symbols. Modern writers, overlooking the
fact, already adverted to (p. 164, note'),-viz. that the notion of Intuition (Anschauung) is essential to all kinds of Prophecy, have applied it solely to Visions, which
are but a particular species of Intuition. See his " Einleitung," Th. Ii. Abth. ii. s. 39.'4 ing 7TpoeqOVrevov al KaOapa2 KCa  dtavyeig lpvxdt; olove) Kironrpa ytvwoeva Irf
Oeia' kwvepyetia, Trv ipaacv 7avj'v Ka' (iVyXvT ov, ca' ovdiv k'rt6loovev7y v CrK TWV
TraO3v rTf aapKOc k&redeiKVvvro. Troat pv yadp nrdpECrt Tr'Aytov rveia. —-S. BasiL
Comm. in Esai. Prooem. ~ 3, t. i. p. 379.




166                 REVELATION  AND INSPIRATION.                  [LECT. IV
tal faculties was called into exercise.  We meet with Dreams in
the case of Jacob, Solomon, Daniel, and others in the Old Testament; in the case of Joseph in the New.'  In all such instances
we see how  one of the most ordinary of natural facts was made
use of, as the means of conveying  a revelation; and  how  the
action of the senses was suspended by purely natural causes. In
the state of Ecstasy,-itself also to be met with, although more
rarely, in the department of natural facts,-the suspension of
certain faculties was produced, either by the sublime and overpowering character of the conceptions infused into the mind, or
by the direct operation of the Divine energy, or by both causes
conjoined.   A  striking example of the ecstatic condition is supplied  by the trance of S. Peter, recorded  in  the  Acts of the
Apostles; which at the same time affords a complete proof of
how the natural condition and circumstances of the person who
Gen. xxviii.; 1 Kings, iii. 5; Dan. vii. 1; S. Matt. i. 20; ii. 19:-see supra,
Lecture iii. p. 114. S. Thomas Aquinas excellentlyobserves, with reference to Divine
communications of this class:-" Si cui fiat divinitus reprmssentatio aliquarum rerum
per similitudines imaginarias (ut Pharaoni et Nabuchodonosor), ant etiam per similitudines corporales (ut Balthassar), non est talis censendus Propheta, nisi illuminetur
ejus mens ad judicandum."-loc. cit. art. 2. Cf. what has been already said, p. 145,
and Lecture i. p. 42, as to the necessity of Inspiration even in cases where a revelation had been received. For further instances in which men, who were not Divine
agents, in the sense in which Prophets are to be considered as such, have received
intimations from God in dreams, cf. Gen. xx. 6 (Abimelech); xxxi. 24 (Laban); xl. 5
(Pharaoh's Butler and Baker); Judges, vii. 13 (the Jewish soldier).
2 Scripture affords some information as to the personal state of the prophet while
in the ecstatic condition, and which may be exemplified by the case of Daniel. (1.) He
is overpowered by the Divine influence: "Now as he was speaking with me, I was
in a deep sleep ("rn'c') on my face toward the ground'-Dan. viii. 18. (2.) He is
next raised to the state of spiritual intuition: "He touched me, and set me upright."-ibid. (3.) The revelation is now communicated: "And he said, Behold I
will make thee know what shall be in the last end,' &c.-ver. 19, &c. (4.) To this
condition of spiritual excitement succeeds a state of bodily exhaustion: "And I
Daniel fainted, and was sick certain days."-ver. 27.  See also Dan. x. 7-21: "I retained no strength, yet heard I the voice of his words * * * then was I in a deep
sleep (tnn:) on my face  *  *  *  and behold an hand touched me, which set me
upon my knees," etc. The account of the Transfiguration presents a remarkable
analogy:   While he [S. Peter] yet spake, behold a bright cloud overshadowed' them:
and behold a voice out of the cloud  *  *  *  and when the disciples heard it they
fell on their face  *  *  *  and Jesus came and touched them," etc.-S. Matt. xvii.
5-7: cf. Rev. i. 17. In all such instances the touch of the hand acted restoratively in
the case of those who had been overpowered by the sight of the Divine glory (cf. Ezek.
iii. 23, &c.: see also Lecture iii. p. 129, &c). The suppression of the external senses
is referred to more expressly in Gen. xv. 12: "And when the sun was going down,
a deep sleep fell upon Abraham."  On the term here employed (and also, as we have
seen, in Dan. viii. 18; x. 9), Feurstius in his Concordance (p. 1043) observes:
", rT7n-~Somnus gravior et profundior, sive naturalis sive supernaturalis, e quo non
facile homo expergefieri potest, a v. -_r=t-n~, vi dormiendi, non obturandi s. obstruendi, uti nonnuli finxere.  LXX. 0Qupor, bcKTraltf, KaTarvvlf, ~fioof..  Karatopa.
S. KdpoC. Th. iKaraar. Gen. ii. 21. Job, iv. 13; xxxiiL 15. Prov. ix. 15. IsTi.
xxix. 10. Gen. xv. 12. 1 Sam. xxvi 12."




LECT. IV.]            REVELATION  AND  INSPIRATION.                           167
received this species of revelation, were employed by the Almighty  to  furnish  thie form   under  which  His  communications
were conveyed.  S. Peter, we are told, " went up upon the housetop to pray, about the  sixth hour: and he became very hungry,
and would have eaten;  but while they made  ready, he fell into
a trance."'   We all know  the nature of the vision then presented
to his mind's view; and how  the momentous revelation which the
Apostle received, was embodied  in  a symbolical representation,
of which his natural condition at the time supplied the form.
And here the course of our inquiry brings before us the  peculiar character of the ecstatic condition.   Our ignorance of the
manner according to which God acted directly upon the mind of
the  prophet will, no doubt, always continue: but this no  more
affects the reality of such operations, than  our ignorance of the
modus operandi in the world of nature affects the reality of the
operations of God in  it.   Assuming, therefore, that certain  immediate  suggestions  have  been  conveyed  to  the  soul of the
prophet, we have to consider in what manner they were received
and appropriated by him, in his state of trance or ecstasy.
In this condition the entire vital energy is concentrated on
the world within, the activity of the outward senses passing into
repose' —for example, S. Paul " cannot tell" whether what took
place  in  his ecstasy, happened while he was "in  the  body," or
I Acts, x. 9-16. Cf. 0lshausen, in loc. The following words-" Now while Peter
doubted in himself what this vision which he had seen should mean" (v. 17)-exemplify in the clearest manner how the prophets were, throughout their ecstasy, conscious of their state; and accurately remembered both the fact of their condition. and
what had taken place in it,  Hlivernick (' Einl.," IT. ii. s. 36), alludingi to this feature
of the case, draws attention to a remark of Tholnck ( Vermislcte Schriften," i. s. 87),
to the effect that this continued consciousness completely severs the connexion,
alleged to exist, betweeln the prophetic ecstasy and (the so-called) facts of somnambulism.  Nothing exhibits more fully the prejudices and prepossessions with which
some modern writers approach the whole subject, than the remark of Knobel, that
prophetic visions cannot have taken place as they are represented, " because (1) most
of them are described so circumstantially and diffusely, and withal so clearly, accurately, and perfectly, that they cannot possibly have been so seen."-loc. cit.  Th.
i. s. 170.  But see infra. Lecture v.
2 On this subject I avail myself partially of the remarks of Knobol (" Der Proph.
der Hebraer," Th. i. s. 155 ff.), from whose general principles, however, I totally dissent.  HIe quotes the following apposite passages from  S. Augustine: "Quando
penitus avertitur atque abripitur animi intentio a sensibus corporis. tune magis Ecstasis
dici solet. Tune omnino qumecunque sint presentia corpora. etiam patentibus oculis
non videntur, nec ulle voces prorsus audiuntur: totus animi contuitus aut in corporum imaginibus est per spiritalem, aut in rebus incorporeis nulla corporis imagine
figuratis per intellectualeln visionem."-De Genesi, lib. xii. 25, t. iii. p. 305. And
again: "Ecstasis mentis excassus est."-Enarr. in Ps. xxxiv.-lxvii. t. iv. p. 242,
683.




168               REVELATION AND INSPIRATION.                 [LECT. IV.
" out of the body."' The infusion of the spiritual influence suspends, at the same time, the usual succession of ideas and ordinary current of thought; the power of imagination alone remaining active, and the sense of spiritual vision being excited to the
highest degree of intensity. As the bodily senses exert their
agency impelled by the vital principle which pervades man's animal organization, so the sense of spiritual intuition is called into
action by means of the new life poured into the soul. Hence
Visions are the result of Ecstasy. Now, as it is only by the creation of new ideas and conceptions in the mind, that the mysteries
of God, and revelations of things unseen can, in most instances,
be conveyed to the soul still fettered by its bodily organization,
such ideas and conceptions must receive a certain clothing,-assume certain forms,-be embodied, as it were, in certain shapes,
-before they can be apprehended by an understanding, limited
to the experience of this life of ours. If this be not effected,
such revelation, at the utmost, must be confined to the individual
who received it: for, were he even enabled, under the guidance
of the Holy Spirit, to comprehend disclosures thus transcending
the powers of human thought, and the range of human experience,
-human language would obviously be incapable of conveying any
representation of those ideas to others. Of this nature, would
seem to have been the revelations vouchsafed to S. Paul, when
"he was caught up into Paradise, and heard unspeakable words
which it is not lawful" (or rather " possible") " for a man to utter."' But, if it were designed that the revelation should be
communicated to others, the ideas, by which it was conveyed to
the prophet's mind, must be there invested with certain forms
supplied by such intellectual powers as now possess activity. In
dreams and ecstasy, imagination alone is active;' and the forms
1 2 Cor. xii. 2. E7re Ev awcuart OvK ol6a, eire c KTO; T7OV aC)IU6TO OVK olda.
2  Per 4qPum prophetiae confertur aliud humanae menti supra id quod pertinet ad
naturalem fa(taem, quantum ad utrumque, scilicet et quantum ad judicium per influxumr luminis intellectualis, et quantum ad acceptionem, seu representationem rerum,
quae fit per aliquas species. Et quantum ad hoc secundum potest assimilari doctrina
humana revelationi propheticae, non autem quantum ad primum. Homo enim suo
discipulo repraesentat aliquas res per signa locutionum; non autem potest interius
illuminare, sicut facit Deus."-S. Th. Aquinas, Summ. Theol. 2da 2dae, qu. clxxiii. art.
2, t. xxiii p. 305.
3 2 Cor. xii. 4. a oVK   b e f v UvOptrw 2a^i/(7at.
4 The moder Jewish writers (e. g. Maimonides, R. Joseph Albo, etc.), seem to
have had a just apprehension of the manner in which human agency was thus employed. The learned J. Smith of Cambridge thus sums up their views: " They sup



LECT. IV.]           REVELATION  AND  INSPIRATION.                          169
or symbols created by this faculty, acting according to its natural
laws, are presented to the spiritual vision of the prophet, to be
gazed  at as an  object of thought; although, previously, the
original of such symbols had been but the subject of thoughtor, in other words, mere ideas or conceptions.
The nature of the case, of necessity, imposes the several steps
of the process which has here been described; and in it we can
trace the source of that human coloring, by means of which the
prophets have been enabled to render intelligible to their fellowmen the mysteries of the Kingdom  of God,-so far, at least, as
God has been pleased to reveal them.
To this origin, therefore, we are to ascribe symbolic actions
and symbolic visions.' The peculiarity of the former consists in
this, that the prophet's own personality is so mingled with the
objects which are presented to his spiritual gaze, that he takes an
active part in the drama, representing one or other of the parties
engaged  in all such intuitions,-Jehovah, or the people.  The
symbolic action, however, was no more intended to facilitate the
understanding of the revelation, than were the Parables of the
New  Testament to  elucidate  the  sense of the doctrines which
they  convey.2    Symbolic  visions  differ from   symbolic  actions
posed the imaginative power to be set forth as a stage, upon which certain visa and
sinulacra were represented to their understandings, just indeed as they are to us in
our common dreams; only that the understandings of the prophets were always kept
awake and strongly acted upon by God in the midst of these apparitions, to see the
intelligible mysteries in them; and so in these types and shadows, which were symbols of some spiritual things, to behold the antitypes themselves; which is the meaning of that old maxim of the Jews which we formerly cited out of Maimonides,'Magna est virtus seu fortitudo prophetarum, qui assimilant formam cum formante
eam," [i. e. "Great is the power of the prophets, who, while they looked down upon
these sensible and conspicable things, were able to furnish out the notion of intelligent and inconspicable beings thereby, to the rude senses of illiterate people."]
Smith proceeds to observe: "Now these ecstatical impressions, whereby the imagination and mind of the prophet was thus ravished from itself, and was made subject wholly to some agent intellect, informing it and shining upon it, I suppose S.
Paul had respect to.'Now we see 61i eo6rrTpov 1v aiviyypart, by a glass, in riddles or
parables' (1 Cor. xiii. 12); for so he seems to compare the highest illuminations which
we have here with that constant irradiation of the Divinity upon the souls of men in
the life to come: and this glassing of Divine things byhieroglyphics and emblems in
the fancy, which he speaks of, was the proper way of prophetical inspiration."- Of
Prophecy, ch. ii.
1 See Hiivernick, "Einleit." 1i. ii. s. 41 ff.
2 "Ueberhaupt aber darf die symbolische Handlung nicht so zu einem verstandig
berechneten Mittel herab gedriickt werden, da sie vielmehr die hochste innerlichste
Erregung im Gemiithsleben des Propheten voraussetzt. Sie ist also vielmehr der
nichstliegende unmittelbare Ausdruck des innerlich Erlebten, ihre Anwendung daher
jedesmal von der Individualitat des Propheten und seinem Verhiiltnisse zur Zeit
abhingig."-Hdvernick, ibid. s. 42.




170                 REVELATION  AND  INSPIRATION.                  [LECT. IV.
merely  in  this, that the prophet is no longer an  actor in the
scenes which he describes: he  now  regards them  simply as a
spectator.1   And here the general question of the symbolism  of
Scripture suggests itself.
When the ideas, Divinely infused into the prophet's mind,
related to things which surpass the bounds of human experience,
it is plain, as I have observed, that ordinary language  must fail
to convey to others what was thus revealed. It was necessary,
therefore, that such representations or symbols should be moulded,
as it were, for the occasion, which would best conform  to those
ideas. In this case we may regard the imagination as productive.
Of this nature, for example, was the symbolism employed by
Ezekiel, "as he was among the captives by the river of Chebar,
and the heavens were opened, and he saw visions of God."' But
there were occasions, on which the ideas supplied to the prophet's
mind were in  some measure related to the world of sense; and
here the symbol corresponds to the form which such ideas had
actually represented. In this case the imagination may be regarded as reproductive'-for example, when "the rod of an almond  tree" is the  object of Jeremiah's  vision.'  In  such  an
instance there is not, necessarily, any essential connexion between
the image, and the idea represented; there is merely what we
It is not material to the present inquiry to examine whether the symbolic act was,
in any case, performed externally, or was (as'some maintain) at all times merely exhlibited on the scene of the prophet's imagination,-as we know to have been the
case in many instances: e. g. "Thus saith the Lord God of Israel unto me: Take the
wine-cup of this fury at Miy hand, and cause all the nations, to whom I send thee, to
drink it.      *  *  Then took I the cup at the Lord's hand, and made all the nations to drink."-Jer. xxv. 15, &c. An analogy to such inward acts is afforded by
what took place in prophetic vision. Thus God, we are told, "brought forth Abraham, abroad, and said, Look now toward heaven, and tell the stars, if thou be able
to number them."-Gen. xv. 5; while we know from ver. 12, that the stars were
then invisible to the eye of sense, for the sun had not as yet gone down. See J.
Smith's discussion of this question (loc. cit. ch. vi.) Hengstenberg ("Christol," I. i.
cap. v. s. 331, and III. s. 14 ff.) maintains that, with a few exceptions, the symbolical
act wns never performed externally. The obscurity, however (as Havernick remarks),
in wliLh th> sacred writers have left this subject, proves of how little real moment
the question is: and it is only material to observe, that the prophets have, in either
case, equally placed on record a perfect description of their inward intuitions.
2 " And I looked and behold a whirlwind came out of the north, a great cloud,
and a fire unfolding itself, and a brightness was about it, and out of the midst thereof
as the color of amber out of the midst of the fire. Also out of the midst thereof
came the likeness of four living creatures," &c., &c.-Ezek. i. 4, &c.
3 See Knobel, " Der Proph. der Hebraer," i. s. 158.
4 " The word of the Lord came unto me, saying, Jeremiah, what seest thou? And
I said, I see a rod of an almond-tree.  Then said the Lord unto me, Thou hast well
seen; for I will hasten my word to perform it."-Jer. i. 11, 12.




LECT. IV.]           REVELATION  AND  INSPIRATION.                          171
should term a poetical allusion. Thus, in the passage before us,
the prophet sees " the rod of an almond tree"'-a tree which has
received its Hebrew name from its being the first of plants to
awake from the sleep of winter. The conclusion to be drawn is,
that Jehovah will soon awaken, and hasten to perform  His word.'
The process by which the imagination was thus called into
activity, and the laws according to which it acted, seem here also
to  have followed  the  course  of nature; and  to  have  been  as
strictly in conformity with ordinary laws, as in the case of prophetic dreams. This assertion is fully borne out by the striking
analogy which a remarkable class of intellectual phenomena affords. To the mental vision of the painter or the poet, certain
ideas and conceptions offer themselves spontaneously. In this
consists his creative genius. The ideas and conceptions thus
brought before his mind, the artist then invests with certainforms
of beauty, or sublimity, suggested by his imagination,-of which
it is the peculiar function to enlist in its service " those mysterious relations, by which visible  external things are assimilated
with inward thoughts and emotions, and become the images and:r~;-"Amygdalus, ita dicta, quia omnium  arborum prima e somno hiberno
evigilat et expergiscitur, Jer. i. 11 (ubi alluditur ad vim festinationis et studii, quma in
hac rad. inest)."-Gesenii Lex. in voc. Somewhat more suggestive of the import of
the vision was the symbol of the "linen girdle" which Jeremiah "put on his loins,"
which he afterwards hid "in a hole of the rock by Euphrates," and which when taken
thence "after many days," "was marred and profitable for nothing:"-for God declared, "After this manner will I mar the pride of Judah  *  *  * for as this girdle
cleaveth to the loins of a man, so have I caused to cleave unto me the whole house
of Israel," &c.-Jer. xiii. 1-11. In this case we perceive how an additional revelation was required in order to explain to the prophet the meaning of the symbol which
he employed.  Cf: also the symbol of the potter's vessel, ch. xviii. 1-6.
2 The following inenious summary of the different elements of which the Divine
communications consisted includes the principle which I am anxious to establish;
" Repraesentantur autem divinitus menti Prophetre, quandoque quidem modiante sensu
exterius, quaedam Formce Sensibiles; sicut Daniel vidit scripturam parietis, ut legitur
Dan. v.: quandoque autem perFormas Fmaginarias, sive omnino divinitus impressas,
non per sensum acceptas (puta si alicui cceco nato imprimerentur in imaginatione
colorunm similitudines), vel etiam  divinitus ordinatas ex iis qume a sensibus sunt acceptae; sicut Hieremias'vidit ollam succensam a facie Aquilonis,' ut habetur Hier. i.:
sive etiam imprimendo Species Intelligibiles ipsi menti; sicut patet de his qui accipiunt scientiam, vel sapientiam infusam, sicut Salomon, et Apostoli. Lumen autem
intelligibiile quandoque quidem imprimitur menti humanse divinitus ad dijudicandum
ea quae ab aliis visa sunt; sicut dictum  est de Joseph [qui exposuit somnium
Pharaonis], et sicut patet de Apostolis, quibus' Dominus aperuit sensum, ut intelligerent Scripturas,' et dicitur Lucr xxiv. 45; et ad hoc pertinct interpretatio sermonum: sive etiam ad dijudicandum  secundum divinam veritatem  ea qume cursu
naturali homo apprehendit; sive etiam ad dijudicandum veraciter et efficaciter ea
quae agenda sunt. *  *  *  Sic igitur patet quod prophetica revelatio quandoque
quidem fit per solam luminis influentiam, quandoque autem per Species de novo impressas, vet aliter ordinatas."-S. Th. Aquinas, Summ. Thleol. 2da 2de, qu. clxxiii. art.
2. t. xxiii. p. 306.




172               REVELATION AND INSPIRATION.               [LECT. IV.
exponents of all passions and affections."' It is true that in the
case which we are considering the conceptions no longer arise
spontaneously, but spring from a Divine revelation;-the Divine
Spirit, moreover, guiding the imagination while clothing them
with  the appropriate symbols:  nevertheless, the means employed for this purpose were strictly natural;-a fact which will
appear more clearly when we consider the phenomena which result.
In the first place, we have to notice the peculiar style in
which all Visions are described.  Compare, for example, the
character of those historical pieces which occur in the writings
of Isaiah and Jeremiah, with the language of the prophetical
portions in which their Visions are related.  We have already
seen that, in the case of Visions, the imaginative faculty of the
prophets was called into play; and we consequently find here
too, as in the purely natural exercise of this faculty to which I
have referred, that poetic diction and poetic imagery color all
their writings. Thus it is that the treasures of the unseen are
poured forth in all the riches of the visible. The jewels of earth,
the stars of heaven, sea, fountains and rivers, mountains and
hills,-every object of creation, visible and invisible,-all are
blended in the sublime poetry of the prophets. In it is interwoven all that can stir the imagination of man; armies and their
array, the battle and the siege:-all that is terrible or imposing
in nature; the dragon and the beast, the lion and the eagle:the brightest and the fairest of the objects we behold; the rainbow and the morning star.  In the prophetic language, in fine
(to borrow a beautiful thought applied to the Revelation of S.
John), " we recognise the rapidity of the eagle's wing over earth,
heaven, and sea, with plumage catching the varied light without
end.',
In the next place, the language and style of the prophets
vary, not only according to the genius, and character, and eduSee Jeffrey's Essays, vol. iii. p. 105.
2 The favorite idea of Philo (see supra, Lecture ii. p. 65), that prophets are' Interpreters' of the inward suggestions which they receive from God, not inaptly expresses this mode of recording their Visions;-whereby the prophets translate, as it
were, the Divine communication into symbolical language.
3 " The Apocalypse," by the Rev. Isaac Williams, Preface, p. vii. In the passage
above, which precedes this quotation, I have availed myself, with some slight verbal alterations, of the eloquent language with which Mr. Williams goes on to describe the characteristics of the Revelation of S. John.




LECT. IV.]            REVELATION  AND  INSPIRATION.                           173
cation of each, but also according to the manner in which they
received the Divine revelation. In Hosea imagination seems inexhaustible, and picture follows picture without pause or stay.
Habakkuk rejects ordinary rules, and is hurried away into varied
and lofty imagery; observing, at the same time, purity of taste
and unity of design. When the prophet has been of sacerdotal
race, the various features of the Theocracy,-the Temple and
the Altar, the Ark  and the  Cherubim-float before his view, as
in the writings of Jeremiah and  Ezekiel.'   The shepherd Amos
still wanders in  his pastures; his imagination  lingers with  his
flocks, and dwells on the culture of his fields; his similitudes are
taken from the mildew which blights the vineyard, or the lion
which  invades the  fold.2   When  the  revelation, on  the  other
hand, has been  given  directly, and without the  intervention  of
Visions, all this is changed; and we observe a serene and unimpassioned course of thought, as in the books of Haggai and Malachi.3' Jeremiah was " son of Hilkiah of the Priests that were in Anathoth."-Jer. i.
1. Ezekiel is expressly called "the Priest, the son of Buzi."-Ezek. i. 3.  Cf. Jer.
iii. 16; xi. 15; xii. 7; xxiii. 11; 1. 28; li. 11, and Ezekiel passim.' Cf. Amos, iii. 4; iv. 9.  See supra, p. 162, note 2.  The permanence of the
stamp of individual character is particularly remarkable in the case of this prophet.
While the writings of Amos present a striking contrast to his humble origin, distinct
traces of a harsh and rustic dialect are continually to be met with. E. g. a peculiar
orthography; such as  rxnl  fr'5nn, ch. vi. 8: a softening of guttural sounds;
tnt for ntp, vi. 10: the contraction nNa, viii. 8, for mn, ix. 5, &c., &c. (see Havernick, Einleit. L i. s. 218).  His imagery, as I have observed, denotes his occupation
as shepherd.  "Notwithstanding all this, he closely approaches his contemporaries
Isaiah, Hosea, Joel, and is not inferior to them  in power, beauty, and richness of
style.  Eichhorn even remarks:'His language is in many places very learned, and
fall of allusions to history, geography and antiquities (cf. ch. v. 26, vi. 2, 14; viii.
8; ix. 7).' "- Hvernick, Einleit. Th. IT. Abth. ii. s. 306.  Indeed, it may be said of
Amos, as of S. Paul, to whom, as I have already observed, he bears a remarkable
analogy (see supra, p. 162), that " though he was rude in speech, yet not in knowledge."
I may observe that the idea, embodied by S. Gregory the Great in the words prefixed to this Lecture, may be clearly traced to the following passage from S. Gregory
of Nazianzum: roTro rb IHveviya, ao;6rarov ydp Kal ~teavOpUor6rarov, (iv 7roteva
Xaci3i, l/aLTrv Trotel *  *  *  ~av al7r6otov avlcciuva cKviTovra, 7rpo7)rTyv ipy   eral.
r7v Aai3Bd Ka rTy'AjuG iArvvt,9rrjTL *  *  *   e'2, 5iLEa7  eVp,, eay/vevel XpLTU7',
KOuLOV ioov  tioy T2 roV  6y)ov TrOKi cV^aZ2Ba1/i3vovTraC  *  *  * viv 6dSKtrat Oepipo)f, Tov
(i/lov ue-raeTrOnlt, Kal TroLte IIavoov  (avr7i EavL)v, KaltO rOVTOV   o eli evoietav, oaov
eic KIaKav Kare'a/lev. — Orat. xli. c. 14. t. i. p. 742.
3 These same facts have been noticed by Spinoza, who, as usual, has distorted and
misapplied them: "Sic etiam ipsa revelatio variabat, ut jam  diximus, in unoquoque
Propheta pro dispositione temperamenti corporis, imaginationis, et pro ratione opinionum, quas antea amplexus fuerat.  Pro ratione enim temperamenti variabat hoc modo, nempe; si Propheta erat hilaris, ei revelabantur victoriae, pax, et qume porro
homines ad leetitiam movent: tales enim  similia seepius imaginari solent.  Si contra
tristis erat, bella, supplicia, et omnia mala ei revelabantur.  *  *  *  Pro dispositione imaginationis autem sic etiam variabat, nempe; si Propheta erat elegans, stylo




174               REVELATION  AND  INSPIRATION.                     [LECT. IV.
It remains for us to notice another class of facts which supply,
perhaps, the most forcible illustration of the aspect of Prophecy
now under consideration: I mean the source of the symbols made
use of by the prophets, and the influence which not only the
spirit of the Theocracy, but also  the scenes among which their
lot was cast, exercised  upon  the  imagery which  they  employ.'
Thus the imagery of the prophets who  shared the exile of their
countrymen  continually  reminds  us of the land  of their captivity; and the gorgeous and attractive symbolism of Chaldea
is reflected from  every page of the books of Daniel and  Ezekiel.'
The influence of Chaldean art in giving a colour to the predictions of Daniel will be at once apparent, when his own visions
are compared with the form  assumed by the dreams of Nebuchadnezzar, which the prophet has recorded in his second and fourth
chapters;' while the language of both Daniel and Ezekiel is
abundantly illustrated by the results of those recent investigations which have brought to light the long-buried  memorials of
Oriental symbolism. Mr. Layard, in his work on Nineveh, thus
speaks of the imagery of Ezekiel:-" The resemblance between
the symbolical figures I have described, and those seen by Ezekiel
in  his vision, can  scarcely  fail to  strike  the  reader.  As  the
etiam eleganti Dei mentem percipiebat.  *  *  *  Si Propheta erat rusticus, boves,
et vaccae, &c. *  *  *  reprmesentabantur."-Tractat. Theol. Polit. cap. ii.
Hengstenberg has justly observed that the imagery of the prophets must, from
the nature of the case, have been borrowed from objects and relations with which
they were familiar.  Prophecies conveyed in unknown imagery could not have answered any purpose, and would have been unintelligible. Thus, in the Messianic predictions, it seems to be founded in the very essence of Prophecy, that the Messiah's
Kingdom should be described in language taken from the earlier Theocracy. And so,
speaking of the three Offices of Christ as foreshadowed by the Priests, Kings, and
Prophets of Israel, Eusebius (Hist. Eccl. i. 3, p. 12) says: d TTroyov  Ui7ravTraO rTv
airri rTv (dr7/9.~ Xptarr)v, rV V0eov Kal oVI:idavov Ar}ov, d vaPopaiv  xetv. —Christol. I. i.
cap. v. s. 313.
This same fact has been long since noticed by S. Th. Aquinas:-" Species praeexistentes in imaginatione Prophete sunt quasi elementa illius visionis imaginariae,
(luoe diviuitus ostenduntur, cum ex iis quodammodo componatur: et exinde contingit
quod- Propheta utitur similitudinibus rerum in quibus conversatur." —De Veritate, qu.
xii. art. 7. t. xvi. p. 419.
2 Having alluded to the nature of Ezekiel's prophecy, Havernick observes:
"Dazu trat nun ein ausserer Umstand, die Berihrung mit heidnischer Weise und
Sitte, insbesondere mit der reichen, iuppigen und anziehenden Symbolik Chaldaas.
* *  ~  Wie sollten wir es bei Daniel auch anders erwarten, dessen Stellung am chaldaischen Hofe ihm, dem in die Weisheit der Magier eingeweiheten, seiner Ausdrucksweise ein Colorit durchaus verleihen musste, welcues von dem der iibrigen prophetischen Gesichte bedeuterd verschieden ist."-Comm. ib. das B. Daniel, Einleit, s.
xxxiii. Arid Hiivernick quotes a remark of Eichhorn to the effect that the book of
Daniel opens to us an entirely new world, the reflection not of Palestine, but of scenes
altogether diferent from those in which the life of the other prophets was cast.
See Iiaver lick, ibid. s. xxxiv.




LECT. IV.]          REVELATION  AND  INSPIRATION.                       175
prophet had beheld the Assyrian palaces, with their mysterious
images and gorgeous decorations, it is highly probable that, when
seeking to typify certain Divine attributes, and to describe tile
Divine glory, he chose forms that were not only familiar to him,
but to the people whom  he addressed —captives like hilnself in
the land of Assyria.`' *    *    It will be observed," continues
this writer, "that the four forms chosen by Ezekiel to illustrate
his description,-the man, the lion, the bull, and  the eagle,are precisely those which are constantly found on Assyrian monuments as religious types."'
But even here we are  reminded, notwithstanding all such
traces of the prophet's own personality, how a  higher priaciple
moulds and directs their words.  There was one topic which was
not submitted to their own style  of representation.  Amid  the
copious and varied symbolism  of Scripture, we can observe how
the pictures of those visions in which  Jehovah  Himself is revealed always preserve a character quite peculiar; alihough when
describing certain attributes of Deity,-which in no case can be
described otherwise than by metaphors,-each prophet still employs his wonted imagery.  When Jehovah Himself appears, the
sacred writers borrow no coloring from external sources;-were
they to do so, indeed, they would manifestly abandon the whole
genius and spirit of the Theocracy; and this uniformity in describing their visions of God characterizes the compositions of
all the prophets, notwithstanding the prominence, in other parts
of their writings, of their own individuality.    To satisfy ourselves of this fact, it will be sufficient to compare the accounts
of the visions of Jehovah  vouchsafed  to  Isaiah, Daniel, ani
Ezekiel.'
* "Nineveh and its Remains," vol. ii. p. 464.
2 See Havernick, ibid. s. xxxv.' "I saw the Lord sitting upon a throne, high and lifted up, and His train filled
the Temple. Above it stood the Seraphims. *   *   *  And the posts of the door
moved at the voice of him that cried, and the house was filled with smoke."-Isai.
vi. 1-4.
"I beheld till the throne was cast down, and the Ancient of Days did sit.
*  *'* IHis throne was like the fiery flame, and His wheels as burning fire. A
fiery stream issued and came forth from before Him; thousand thousands ministered unto Him," &c.-Dan. vii 9, 10.
" Above the firmament was the likeness of a throne, as the appearance of a sapphire stone: and upon the likeness of the throne was the likeness as the appearance
of a man above upon it. *  *  *  I saw as it were the appearance of fire, and it
had brightness round about. *  *  *  This was the appearance of the likeness
of the glory of Jehovah."-Ezek. i. 26-28. (Cf. " And they saw the God of Israel:




176               REVELATION  AND INSPIRATION.                [LECT. IV.
The manner in which the prophets have described those portions of their spiritual intuitions which relate to future events
comes next under our notice.  This peculiarity  of the sacred
narrative affords a further example, no less striking than the cases
hitherto considered, of the preservation of the natural characteristics of humanity  even while  the Divine  influence was most
directly exerted.  In no department of the prophetic statements'
is the supernatural element confessedly so conspicuous as in the
predictions of the future.  To such Jehovah Himself appeals, as
proof of an intervention  undoubtedly Divine.  "Produce your
cause, saith the Lord; bring forth your strong reasons, saith the
King of Jacob.  Let them  bring them  forth  and  show us what
shall happen.:  Show the things that are to come hereafter, that we may know that ye are gods."" If, therefore, in
such portions also of the record of Revelation, we can discern
traces of the employment, by the Holy Spirit, of the natural capacity of man; nay more, if it shall appear that the very limitations of the human understanding have been moulded into an
agency which most fitly carries out the Divine purpose,-then
may this fact too be adduced, as still further attesting the justice of those principles, on which alone, as I submit, can the inspiration of Scripture be explained and defended.
The leading phenomena in all predictions of the future may
be reduced to two classes'  The first class includes those cases
in which the idea intended to be conveyed by the revelation is
represented under a particular form:-for example, the perfection of the Theocracy is described as a return from the Dispersion to Canaan, a judgment of the nations in the valley of
Jehoshaphat, and so forth. This phase of Prophecy appertains
to that department of Theology, whose function it is to disenand there was under His feet as it were a paved work of a sapphire stone," &c.Exod. xxiv. 10).
See also Micaiah's vision: " I saw Jehovah sitting on His throne, and all the host
of heaven standing by Him on His right hand and on His left."-1 Kings, xxii. 19.
It is unnecessary to quote from the Apocalypse:-cf. e. g. Rev. iv.
It may not be superfluous to observe, that the idea of Prophecy or prophetic
revelation is by no means to be restricted to the announcement of future events.
Moses recorded the past history of the creation, and Daniel (ch. ii.) recalled to Nebuchadnezzar the dream which he had forgotten, The present was revealed to Elisha,
as he himself informed his guilty servant, who had received the Syrian's gifts:
" Went not mine heart with thee, when the man turned again from his chariot to
meet thee."-2 Kings, v. 26.
2 Isai. xli. 21-23.
3 IIlvernick, "Einleitung," Th. II. Abth. ii. s. 44, ff.




LECT. IV.]          REVELATION  AND INSPIRATION.                        177
tangle the spiritual idea from the form in which it is presented,
and the imagery in which it is clothed. With this branch of the
subject we have no immediate concern: it belongs to the interpretation of Prophecy. The second class embraces the phenomena exhibited by the manner in which prophets, in consequence
of their vivid intuition of the future, bring remote events before
us.  The title of " Seer," as well as that of "Watchman," so
often applied to the men of God, suggests of itself a comparison
with the literal watchmen to whom they are thus likened, who,
placed  upon some lofty tower, gaze upon the far off distance.
From this analogy has been borrowed the appropriate phrase of
the'perspective' character of Prophecy.' As to the eye of the
watchman upon his eminence nearer objects appear more distinct, while those more remote are wrapped in the haze of distance, and in all cases each point of the landscape is projected
on some other,-so, in a similar manner, the prophet's mental
vision takes in the varied events of future times to which his
spiritual gaze is directed.' Thus it is that he describes events
yet to come, as if they were present:-" Unto us," said Isaiah
of the far remote birth of the  Messiah,    a Child is born; unto
us a Son is given."" Thus it is that the order of events is often
1 Hivernick loc. cit. s. 45, gives a list of writers who have advocated this view.
See especially Hengstenberg, " Christologie," I. i. s. 305 if.; Jahn, "Einleitung," Th.
ir. Abschn. ii. s. 368 ff.
2 Hengstenberg (loc. cit. s. 306 and s. 308) quotes the following ingenious illustrations of this fact: "Prophetae, divina luce qua illuminantur, ad futura plerumque
prospexerunt, quemadmodum fit, quando ccelum stelliferum  intuemur. Videmus
enim supra nos sidera; quanto a nobis intervallo absint, neenon quse propius, qua
remotius distent, non item  animadvertimus."-Crusius, Theol. Proph. i. p. 622.
"Quemadmodum, simili fallacia optica, longissime distans turris domus propinqua
tecto incumbere, aut lunme discus montibus nemoribusque contiguus videtur."-Velthusen, p. 89.
2 Isai. ix. 6. So also the future is represented as if already past; and hence the
use of what has been termed the "prseter. propheticum," which Ewald (" Grammat."
~ 262, quoted by Havernick), defines: " die Phantasie des Dichters und Propheten
schauet oft die Zukunft schon als ihr klar vorliegend und erlebt." Even Vitringa (on
Isai. vii. 14), observes Hengstenberg (loc. cit.), seems to have adopted the vulgar notion that the use of the prseterite by the prophet was to indicate the certainty of the
event. As an example of this principle, Otto Strauss alleges the words, "Art thou
better than populous No?  *  *  *  yet was she carried away, she went into captivity," &c.-Nahum, iii. 8, 10; observing: "Paucos illos sequimur interpretes, qui
futuram Thebarum fortunam prenunciatam viderunt, Hieron., Theodoretum, Cyrillum, Cocceium; verborum igitur formee pro propheticis, quae aiunt, prceteritis habenda
erunt."-Nahumi de Nino Vaticin., p. 101.
This characteristic of Prophecy has not been overlooked by the Fathers: e. g.
"Mos iste sit Scripturarum, ut interdum futura tempore prmterito declinentur: Verbi
causa, de cruce Domini: Foderunt manus meas et pedes."-S. Hieron. Comm. in Ep.
ad Eph. lib. i. c. ii. t. vii. p. 575. Some of them, moreover, suggest explanations:
2




178                 REVELATION  AND  INSPIRATION.                 [LECT. IV.
neglected; and facts, widely separate, are intermingled in apparent confusion. For example, in the ninth chapter of Zechariah, from the first to the ninth verse, the prophet sees the
triumphant march of Alexander through Syria; in the ninth and
tenth verses he gazes upon the Person of Christ in the distant
future;  and then, from   the eleventh verse to  the end  of the
chapter, he suddenly reverts to the age of the Maccabees.' Thus
also it is that events, parted by long intervals of time, are represented as continuous; the prophet beholding the occurrences
of future history in juxtaposition, not in succession. For example, in his fiftieth and fifty-first chapters, Jeremiah represents
the capture of Babylon by the Persians, and its final overthrow,
as a single event; and yet these two occurrences were separated
by several centuries.
Such is the' perspective' character of the predictions of Scripture.  In those inspired pictures of the future there is, however,
no confused  intermingling of foreground and background: and
whenever the observer can take his stand at the proper point of
view, and at the requisite distance, he may discern how accurately
order and proportion have been preserved, amid all the seeming
confusion.2   To  an  ancient Jew  the predictions concerning the
"In Scripturis Sanctis sepe ea, quee futura sunt, quasi facta narrantur, sicut est illud:'Dederunt in escam meam fel, et in siti mea potaverunt me aceto.' Sed cur futura
quasi prteterita scribuntur, nisi quia ea, quae adhuc facienda sunt in opere, jam facta,sunt in divina predestinatione?"-S. Isidor. Hispal. Sentent. lib. i. c. 18, p. 421.
1 This is the ordinary and received interpretation (see W. Lowth on Zech. ix. 1).
Jahn, in his "Einleitung" (.loc. cit. s. 370), adds some further examples. In the
prophecy to Abraham theforeground is quite clear,-the promise of a son, and that
son by Sarah; a multitude of descendants countless as the stars of heaven, or the
sands of the sea: somewhat more obscurely appears the sojourn of those descendants
in a foreign land for four hundred years; their oppression, their deliverance, the punishment of the oppressors, and the possession of Canaan: still more darkly in the
background, and without any allusion to the far greater distance of time, the blessing
to accrue to all nations by the seed of Abraham. (Cf. Gen. xii. 1-4; xv. 1-21;
xvii. 18-21; xviii. 10-14; xxii. 16-18).  Again, cf. the prediction of Nathan, 2
Sam. vii.; 1 Chron. xvii.-the background being more obscurely supplied by P.
lxxxix. 20-38.
2 In the most important of predictions-the Messianic-this want of distinctness
is often avoided by the standing formula, owmn ntrncn  ("in the last days," Isai. ii. 2);
a phrase which, while it removes the period predicted to the distant future, yet contents itself with describing it as the close of one epoch, and as the prelude to a new.
See Havernick, loc cit. s. 45. Cf. ]-'rTK, Joel, ii. 28. Hengstenberg observes that,
in general, the various parts of a prediction may be arranged in due chronological
order. (1.) There are eases in which the revelation itself gives clear intimation as to
the time. E. g. the seventy years of the Babylonian Exile, Jer. xxix. 10. (2.) In
eases where events are blended together in the prophet's description (e. g. the deliverance by Cyrus, and the Redemption by Christ, Isai. xliv.; xlv.), we can appeal to
other passages in which the same events are separated. (3.) We obtain an insight




LECT. IV.]           REVELATION  AND  INSPIRATION.                        179
liberation from  exile were blended with  those which related to
the Messianic age, so as to present a mass, as it were, of undistinguishable  tracery:  but when  the due distance in point of
time had been attained, the several outlines of the picture were
brought out in true perspective.   Seen by the light which the
fulfilment of Prophecy affords, the two events exhibit their mutual relations: the return from captivity contains the germ and
presents the pledge of the Messianic deliverance; the one being
the beginning, the other the completion.  Hence, too, we can at
once discern how it came to pass that Jeremiah connects in one
picture the first conversion of the Jews in the days of Christ,
with their general conversion in the ages yet to come, passing
over their intervening rejection;-a fact which is referred to by
Daniel and Malachi.'
into the true sense by considering the point from which the glance of the prophet is
directed. Thus Isaiah (ch. liii.) appears to take his stand between the past sufferings
and thefuture glories of the Messiah; because the former were to be described as the
condition of the latter. (4.) We receive aid from knowing that certain parts of the
prediction have been fulfilled. Thus, when the deliverance fiom Exile, and the Redemption by Christ are blended together; the former event having taken place, we
can distinguish which relates to each respectively.-loc. cit. s. 310 if.
Jer. xxiii. 5-8. Our Lord's discourse in S. Matt. xxiv. supplies an important
illustration of this phase of Prophecy. After He had announced the future triumphs
of the Cross, and the consummation of all things (" This Gospel of the Kingdom shall
be preached in all the world for a witness unto all nations; and then shall the end
come." —ver. 14), there immediately follows a minute account of the destruction of
Jerusalem, without any intimation that what related to events close at hand was to
be separated from His previous reference to the remote future. Nay, after dwelling
upon the horrors of the siege, our Lord, giving up all determination of time, goes on
to observe: "Immediately (e v 0 i o g) after the tribulation of those days shall the sun be
darkened  *       *  *  and then shall appear the sign of the Son of Man in heaven,:
and then shall all the tribes of the earth mourn. *  *  *  And He shall send His
angels  *  *  *  and they shall gather together His elect," &c.-ver. 29-31. In
verses 34 and 36, however, He takes care to separate the two epochs which His foregoing prophetic announcement had seemed to place in juxtaposition; fixing the limits
of one of them (" Verily, I say unto you, this generation shall not pass, till all these
things be fulfilled"), while He projects the other to the remoteness of the future (" Of
that day and hour knoweth no man, no, not the angels of heaven"). Nor is this the
only instance in the New Testament of this characteristic of Prophecy. S. Matthew,
in his narrative of our Lord's words, supplies two further examples, viz. cli. x. 23, and
xvi. 27, 28. And, not to adduce the various parables relating to the "Kingdom of
God," we can refer to 1 Cor. x. 11; 1 S. John, ii. 18; S. James, v. 8; all expressing
the same sentiment-" The end of all things is at hand."-1 S. Peter, iv. 7.
" These latter texts suggest a few remarks on a common misconception which, from
its bearing on the question of Inspiration, demands some notice. I may take Dr.
Arnold as a suitable exponent of this misconception. Having alluded to the preeminent inspiration of S. Paul, he goes on to say: "Yet this great Apostle expected
that the world would come to an end in the generation then existing  * * *  Shall
we say then that S. Paul entertained and expressed a belief which the event did not
verify? We may say so, safely and reverently, in this instance; for here he was most
certainly speaking as a man, and not by revelation; as it has been providentially
ordered that our Lord's express words on this point have been recorded [S. Matt




180                 REVELATION  AND  INSPIRATION.                 [LECT. IV.
From the consideration of such phenomena, it is not difficult
to infer several important results.  Without presumption we may
fairly assume, that certain portions only of the Divine counsels
were unveiled before the view of the individual prophets. " They
knew  in part, and they prophesied  in part:"'-their respective
predictions being but fragments of one vast whole; the single
lines, as it were, which each prophet has contributed to the
sketch of the great picture of the future. In this point of view,
therefore, the prophetic  descriptions suggest to  the mind  the
comparison of some elaborate picture of which the outlines, indeed, are traced, but of which the details have not as yet been
xxiv. 36]."-Sermons on the Christian Life, its Course, &c., p. 489. In the first place,
then, it may be urged in reply that it is, of itself, inconceivable that S. Paul should
have been ignorant of our Lord's words here quoted by Dr. Arnold; or that, knowing his determination of the matter, he should have hazarded a mere conjecture of
his own. Secondly, we are to remember that S. Paul himself has warned the Church
against such a misinterpretation of his words, when he writes: "We beseech you,
brethren, by the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ *  *  *  that ye be not soon
shaken in mind, or be troubled, neither by spirit, nor by word, nor by letter as from
us, as that the day of Christ is at hand."-2 Thess. ii. 1, 2. The following criticism,
too, on Dr. Arnold's statement deserves all attention. Mr. Greg, whom I have already
adduced (Lecture ii. p. 72) as denying the possibility of a Revelation from God to
man, having quoted the remark of Dr. Arnold —" Most truly do I believe the Scriptures to be inspired; the proofs of their inspiration grow with the study of them,"
&c. (loc. cit. p. 486),-proceeds to comment on it as follows: "Yet he [Dr. Arnold]
immediately afterwards says in reference to one of S. Paul's most certain and often
repeated statements (regarding the approaching end of the world),'we may safely
and reverently say that S. Paul in this instance entertained and expressed a belief
which the event did not justify.' "  Again: " It is particularly worthy of remark
(and seems to have been most unaccountably and entirely overlooked by Dr. Arnold
throughout his argument), that in the assertion of this erroneous belief, S. Paul expressly declares himself to be speaking'by the word of the Lord' [" This we say unto
you by the word of the Lord, that we which are alive and remain unto the coming
of the Lord, &c."-1 Thess. iv. 15]."-The Creedof Christendom, p. 25. From the further observation of Dr. Arnold-" Can any reasonable mind doubt that in what he
[S. Paul] has told us * * * of that Great Day when we shall arise incorruptible,
and meet our Lord in the air, he spoke what he had heard from God?"-Mr. Greg
draws the irresistible conclusion: " What is this but to say, not only that portions of
the Scripture are from God, and other portions are from man-that some parts are
inspired, and others are not-but that, of the very same letter by the very same
Apostle, some portions are inspired, and others are not-and that Dr. Arnold and
every man must judge for himself which are which,-must separate by his own skill
the Divine from the human assertions in the Bible?"-Ibid.
The misconception which we are considering is, however, altogether removed by
bearing in mind the characteristic of Prophecy which has been already explained.
In fact, the New Testament writers, who have made the statements in question, but
reiterate the invariable language of the Old Testament prophets when referring to
this same subject: " The day of the Lord is at hand" —n,,r t= 2q-'; see Isa. xiii.
6; Ezek. xxx. 3; Joel, ii 1; Obad. 15. And yet the prophets expressly state that
the time when their predictions shall be accomplished is not known except to God:
"It shall be one day which shall be known to the Lord."-Zech. xiv. 7. They were
conscious that this was a portion of the revelation not unveiled for their understanding, and, accordingly, they searched "what or what manner of time, the Spirit which
was in them did signify."-1 S. Pet. i. 11. On this text see Lecture v.
I'EK uepovf, 1 Cor. xiii. 9. Cf. Hengstenberg, " Christologie," I. i. s. 303.




LECT. IV.]           REVELATION  AND INSPIRATION.                         181
completed.  In its first stage all appears indistinct and obscure;
objects seem crowded together without order or proportion; no
correct judgment can be formed as to either magnitude or distance; and the spectator must pause, until the progress of the
work gradually unfolds the artist's design. But according as that
design is unfolded, each former difficulty insensibly fades away.
The introduction of light and shadow determines the relative
distances which were before undefined. A few strokes of the
pencil add form and meaning to certain outlines previously unintelligible. And, at last, the artist affords the highest exhibition and most conclusive evidence of his skill, by adding those
touches which give unity to his composition, and spread over his
canvass the tokens of a matured and connected plan.
The comparison here instituted is no mere figment of the imagination.  A  moment's thought will show  how  completely this
similitude is borne out by the expression employed in the New
Testament to denote the accomplishment of Prophecy: 7rrpwoatg
-the filling up, as it were, by the events of history, and the progress of Revelation, of the outlines of that sketch of the future
which the prophets had traced upon the pages of their inspired
compositions. Accordingly S. Paul observes, that the Law contained  but the form  or outline of Knowledge and  of Truth:'
while S. John declares that both have been introduced really,
and no longer by shadows, in the Christian scheme.2: Rom. ii. 20. "EXovra rjv /6 p o al t v rT  yvaeo' Kcal rTI f dr78eiac iv r)
v6oui. Cf. 2 Tim. iii. 5, "Having aform  (,u6po(atv) of godliness, but denying the
power (66vautv) thereof."  Although (as S. Paul here teaches) the Law conveyed
Knowledge and Truth but typically, both are really imparted in the Gospel; for S.
John, ch. xvii. 3, explains how we thence learn to know "the only true God;" while
he further tells us that " the Law was given by Moses, but Grace and Truth came
by Jesus Christ."-ch. i. 17. See Olshausen on S. Matt. v., B. i. s. 212.
2 Tholuck (" Die Berg-predigt," s. 134) calls attention to the fact that two passages in the New Testament suggest the analogy of a painting as elucidating the trope
of fulfilling a prophecy. The ordinances of the Law were but "a shadow (OKLU) of
things to come, but the body (aJuya) is of Christ."-Col ii. 17. Again, we read of
"the Law having a shadow of good things to come, and not the very image of the
things"-Heb. x. 1; where axt i is contrasted with ar7)     elKyv. Now this metaphor is plainly borrowed from the technical terms of art employed by Greek writers,
urepyaaia (" direpy6(oyat, to finish off, esp. of a painter, to fill up with color, opp. to
v7roypc6taL to sketch," Liddell and Scott); or Cwypapia (" -wypaeio to paint, esp. from
life," L. and S.), in contrast to vroypaori (" afirst sketch, design, outline, Lat. adumbratio,
opp. to reTeor(irUl dtrepyaaia,"-L. and S.) or attaypaqia (" a sketching, rough painting, such as to produce an effect at a distance," L. and S.) This remark Tholuck
illustrates by the following passages. Synesius (flor. A. D. 410), commenting on the
words "In the hand of the Lord there is a cup, and the wine is red, it is full mixed,"
&c., explains that this mixture denotes the union of both Old and New Testament:
v yt7p rBTO Ef d0poi, vvtarTdLteUOV, 7Teeitat  V yVuawEf.  rl tjv TraZata TrTV vToaXeflV




182                 REVELATION  AND  INSPIRATION.                   [LECT. IV.
This view of the subject renders it manifest in what sense
only the prophet can be said to have anticipated history. Time
and the relations of time are matters quite subordinate in his
descriptions: and while the distinct tracery of events yet to
come can be discerned in his predictions when illumined  by the
light of their fulfilment, still his words had  previously been invested with a degree of obscurity amply sufficient to allow the
free course of history to proceed,-an  obscurity, too, which was
indispensably necessary in order to secure that object.' This, no.doubt, was  the  end  which  God designed  wherever  Scripture
shrouds prophetic announcements in dark words and mysterious
symbols; and, above all, when it leaves the distinctions of time
undefined.  Now the method adopted by the Holy Spirit, in order
to attain this end, consisted, I venture to submit, in the application of natural agencies; and in the employment of even the
limitation  of the  human  intellect, so  as to  subserve  His will.
For Him, to whom  " a thousand years are  but as yesterday,"before Whose eye the past, the present, and the future, alike are
ever spread clear and well defined,-the relations of time can
have no existence.   The vision of the Almighty embraces, witha'ev' -  6s vena 7OV rUTTrJTO3OV e,^Ve'yK   *  *  *  Kat TO Trorjplov Ev. iv yup  Trvevae
Illevfia, Kai eit wTpor)O i 1 v, K ai eig r6TaroXov. Kal, K a r a T o i  a y a 0 o v     y p a -
~ o v f, 7r1zal (/"v E a K t a yo Pi d   7# a e v   r, teltra /tiVTOL 6 L  K p i iP  a E o e    /ra /ei r
yvJaeoc.-Homil. in Ps. lxxiv. (ed. Petav., p. 295);-the closing words of which
passage Petavius translates as follows: "Et quod boni pictores faciunt, olim quidem
adumbrate delineavit; postea vero singulas cognitionis partes elaboravit."
The second illustration is from Theophylact:.r)- 6 de t7rXrpwae; rpoprov /Liv ort,
6ca eiTrov  rep~ avrov ol irpo~/rai, iirotefor. d6L Kat 6 Elaayye\taw-T/ avXVKlf XLe.yeiva tr?'rpw(fi rib  tOv  6itei rot T'poVt;0rov. (daa cal ras  re(  v67( ov v tvroaf' rwdaac
e"7rt7pcae1v. ptlapriav /yp OVK  T'ooinasv, ov't evpOl fo6od eiv Tro aro6part atrov. Kai
d/.rcAf 6!'  r:TX A  p  a e TTVv V,UVov, TovT'rTtv, a v e'r T   p p  a e v'    aa yaip   tKelvof
(  K t a y p a d'1 a e, -raOv  o ro Treciw.C o o (y p   a   e     V. iKeivoC, t-, TO) 0ove6aif7.
o-roT, rS trl r   OvuOiS elKgi. uKa'orep  Ka ao         o CYUO  07c    h8aaaCet r Tv a  Kay ) a 0 i a v, aiLa fi.oial n    v a vT X r.p o.  Commn. in S. Matt. v. 18, t. i. p. 25.
Any difficulty, connected with the relation of Prophecy to History, is no other
than the old question as to how the freewill of the creature can be reconciled with
the foreknowledge of the Creator. - The obscurity with which prophetical announcements are invested (the existence of which Scripture itself points out), has been
clearly designed in order to leave the freedom of human actions undisturbed.  " If
thou hadst known" (said our Lord, when' He beheld the city, and wept over it")
" even thou, at least in this thy day, the things which belong unto thy peace I but
now they are hid from thine eyes."-S. Luke, xix. 42. Dr. Arnold has truly observed: "It is a very misleading notion of Prophecy, if we regard it as an anticipation of History. History, in our common sense of the term, is busy with particular
nations, times, places, actions, and even persons. If, in this sense, Prophecy were a
history written beforehand, it would alter the very condition of humanity, by removing from us our uncertainty as to the future; it would make us acquainted with
those times and seasons which the Father hath put in Iis own power. It is anticipated History, not in our common sense of the word, but in another, and far
higher sense."-On the Interpret. of Prophecy, Sermon L vol. i. p. 375.




LECT. IV.]         REVELATION AND INSPIRATION.                        183
out separation, events which the intellect of man can only contemplate in  succession; and which, if presented  to his mind
simultaneously, must, from his very nature, become undistinguishable  the one from  the  other.   Before  the  gaze of the
Omniscient is unfolded the entire course of future history,-its
various agencies defined, its epochs distinguished, its relations
fixed. From before certain portions of such a scene the veil is
withdrawn at God's pleasure, when He discloses the future in
prophetic Vision, and opens to the eye of man the vista of events
yet to come.  The human understanding, however, fettered by
its natural laws, can no more discriminate, when thus presented
simultaneously, events separated by time, than the eye could
originally form any judgment, before experience, respecting the
distance or relative position of objects separated by space. In
both cases the mind must necessarily regard the objects presented
to it as projected the one upon the other: and thus it came to
pass, that the prophet beheld future events in his Visions, unconnected by the relations of time.'
From this result of the laws of the human mind it follows,
that all disclosures which God has vouchsafed of occurrences yet
to come must have been expressed (wherever no overruling power
had otherwise directed the pen of the sacred writers), with that
degree and kind of obscurity, which ensures that the free course
of history shall be preserved, notwithstanding such predictions
of the future. Hence the very limitations of man's intellectual
capacity have become the means-it may, perhaps, without presumption be alleged-whereby His ends have been attained by
the Almighty: and thus we are supplied with another striking
example of how  the peculiar characteristics of humanity have
been incorporated in the organism of Inspiration.
1 Hengstenberg observes, with reference to this'perspective' character of Prophecy,
that its consideration is particularly important in removing objections against the
Divine origin of the prophetic statements, founded on their not being fulfilled at the
time when the objector fancies that they ought: no period having been in reality
marked by the prophet. When, in accordance with the nature of prophetic intuition,
the prophet refrains from all determination of time, and makes no claim to fix its
limits, we can as little take exception, on such grounds, to the Divine source of what
he has announced, as object that every prophet has not foreseen every event of
futurity. This mode of regarding the nature of Prophecy obviates, moreover, the
necessity of the forced interpretations, to which those who maintain its Divine origin
have sometimes recourse, when they set out from the principle that each prophetic
description must relate to one and the same time, as well as object.-Christologi/,
i. 1, a. 308.








LECTURE  V.
REVELATION AND INSPIRATION.




AXs.O Kai bT  Ef EKTaraazv Kai FavtlKv  yeLt Katcaicratlv T77r  60tev 7rpo7reTVovaanv,
4  l77,5au1w3a avr7iv tavrfy 7rapaKco.ovOeZv, ov eov IvevaT   pyo v vearaov  *  *  *  El
e t rarTQat, I/al. OvtK lv tavTr eartv i? nvOia, Ore aiavreverat, 7ro6arrbv vo/orTEOV 7rvei)a.
rTv ocKOTOV KarexeVav TOV voV Kcal rC)v Xoytaqudv, ~ roOVTrov 6roZ6v oart  Kca rT; TrV dat/oviov yivog;
ORIGENES, Contra Celsum, lib. vii. 3, 4.
"Aut igitur, juxta Montanum, Patriarchas et Prophetas in ecstasi locutos accipiendum, et nescisse quEe dixerint: aut si hoc impium est (spiritus quippe Prophetarum Prophetis subjectus est), intellexerunt utique quoe locuti sunt.  Et si intellexerunt, quaritur
quomodo nunc Paulus dicat, quod aliis generationibus non fuit notum, fuisse Christi
Apostolis revelatum.  *  *  *  Aut ille igitur, de quo jam supra disseruimus, tenendus
est sensus, ita Patriarchas et Prophetas, ut nune Apostolis revelatum est, Christi ignorasse mysterium, quia aliud' sit tenere  quid manibus, aliud futururn in Spiritu
praevidere."
S. HIERON. Comm. in Epist. ad Eph. lib. ii. cap. 3.
ZTr7JaeoSg uft6uv  art r b Irep, roV'Ayiov IvevMaroo  el 6dvarat evvact ca kEv upaprTsAi
ORIGENES, Comn. in Joann. tom. xxviii. 13.'EKevo 6i TrpoariOeeEV Tr.  XOy), orT oT~rre TTf 6 0r poofreTmv 6ato' oL re  O rc  6 d6au.Ov'ac e vaivlv  y)10o. Kai  yap cKai Bcaaau 6O rOV Be'p 6 iuivrtf 7rpoeprTrevaev, 6vaeF3 f  (,JV.
Kai Kai'fdac  6 oevJdvvuiof'Aplteepe  c.
S. HIPPOLYTUS, De Charisnatibus.




LECTURE V.
REVELATION AND INSPIRATION.
" OF WHICH SALVATION THE PROPHETS HAVE ENQUIRED AND SEARCHED DILIGENTLY,
WHO PROPHESIED OF THE GRACE THAT SHOULD COME UNTO YOU: SEARCHING WHAT,
OR WHAT MIANNER OF TIME THE SPIRIT OF CHRIST WHICH WAS IN THEM DID SIGNIFY."-1 S. Peter, i. 10, 11.
THE last Discourse was mainly occupied with one only of
the two elements which co-exist in the composition of the Holy
Scriptures.  In it attention was chiefly directed to the phenomena which exhibit the active co-operation of the human agents
who have been chosen to convey to us the history of God's Providence, and God's Revelation. It was there shown how the intellectual emancipation of the state of sleep, and the intellectual
intensity of the state of ecstasy, have been made use of as the
natural means by which was effected the concourse of the spirit
of man  with  the  Spirit of God.!  And  although  what was
said upon this branch of the subject was, I trust, sufficiently
guarded, so as to preclude any misconception of the reasons advanced, and to avoid even the semblance of lending support to
the error against which these Discourses are principally addressed,
-an error of which the source consists in giving undue prominence to the human element of the Bible,-still this department
of our inquiry is too important, and too vitally connected with
the whole question of Inspiration, to be dismissed by a simple
reference to those illustrations of the constant exercise of the
1 See M. Athanase Coquerel's " Christianity," p. 205; who observes-" The more
the means of Inspiration [meaning Revelation-see supra, Lecture iv. p. 146, note 2]
are independent of time, space, matter, and death, the more conformable they are to
the nature of God. But there are to be met with in our present human existence,
our actual phase of progress, momentary conditions of being, which disengage our
minds from the bondage of time, space, matter, and death. These accidents of our
present state of being are especially sleep and ecstasy."




188                 REVELATION  AND INSPIRATION.                   [LECT. V.
Divine agency with which the argument was interspersed. It is
a duty obligatory above all on the defender of the theory of Inspiration here maintained, to establish the reality not only of
that influence which conveyed to man the Revelation of God, or
which enabled the Prophet to express what was thus suggested
to his mind in human language; but also of that further agency
of the Holy Spirit whereby the sacred writers have been moved
to embody Divine communications, history, and doctrine, in one
organic whole, of which each member transmits its own heavenly
message to every age.
This aspect of our inquiry, moreover, follows, in natural order,
the subjects with which.the last Discourse was occupied.  Certain questions were then considered relating to the form under
which revelations of the future were conveyed to the prophets of
God, as well as to the manner in which chronological arrangement has been disregarded  in  their pictures of events yet to
come. Attention was also drawn to that obscurity of expression
which, as a consequence of such facts, meets us in the prophetic
writings; —an obscurity by means of which the free course of
history is maintained,' which restrains the rashness of unreflectThe fact of this obscurity is clearly referred to in the New Testament. The destruction of Jerusalem had been foretold by Daniel (ix. 26; cf. S. Matt. xxiv. 15),
and yet the Jewish nation would not see the application of his words.  "Thou
knewest not the time of thy visitation" was Christ's remark, when he wept over
Jerusalem, saying, "If thou hadst known, even thou, at least in this thy day, the
things which belong unto thy peace I but now they are hid from thine eyes."-S.
Luke, xix. 41-44. So S. Paul tells the " men of Israel"-" They that dwell at Jerusalem, and their rulers, because they knew him not, nor yet the voices of the prophets
which are read every Sabbath day, they have fulfilled them in condemning Him."Acts, xiii. 27. Cf ch. iii. 17.
2 A fact related by Josephus supplies an apposite illustration. With the most
minute particularity Ezekiel (ch. xii.; cf. 2 Kings, xxv.; Jer. lii.) had foretold the
captivity of Zedekiah: "I will bring him to Babylon to the land of the Chaldeans:
yet shal he not see it, though he shall die there."-ver. 13. Josephus informs us
that Ezekiel, who resided in Mesopotamia "among the captives by the river of
Chebar," sent a copy of this prediction to Zedekiah, who set about comparing it
with the language of Jeremiah (xxxii. 4; xxxviii. 23). Finding, however, that
Jeremiah had merely foretold that he should be carried to Babylon, while Ezekiel
had affirmed that he should be brought to Babylon, indeed, but should not see it, the
king drew the inference that the statement of Ezekiel contradicted that of Jeremiah,
and consequently rejected both as false.-See Fairbairn's "Ezekiel," p. 87. The words
of Josephus are as follows: ralZ 6 TwpoqTrlreat~ avrdv lZe6eKiaC 7)aia77icE', tK roLavre T
airia~. rd (2v (a v   a rvra av/bqcvovvra Vrovg 7rpoq7rap f dXXotf eiTelv uvvP afr, dare
i 7ro6lgt u&aaerat Kal2 XedeKiar arbgr ailxyaTorofr laratc &e6tev7nae a6'IeCEKit7?Xo eitTrv,
OVxK 6pea6at BaflvuSva rov XedeKCiav, rto'Iepeiiov (daiKOvrTO avrT, i-it de&uevov avr7v
6 Bapva'vtoc d7rraet PfaatLXev. Kal 6ai To,ui ravTirTV avrovc tKarepovg Xeyetv, Kai irepl
Wv avzuqwveiv EdOKovv, f ov0d' ieKelva ianXq XeayeaOal Karayvov',?7Triarae. —Antiq. lib.
x. vii 2, p. 523-"although," adds Josephus, " everything did fall out in accordance




LECT. V.]             REVELATION  AND  INSPIRATION.                           189
ing zeal, leaves full room for the seeds of faith to germinate, and
withholds from human presumption the temptatian to oppose the
will of heaven. From none of the phenomena presented by the
contents of the Bible can we infer more plainly the distinct recognition, by its authors, of the predominating influence of its
Divine Element, than from  the  manner in which  such dark  allusions to the future became subjects of speculation to the
prophets themselves. This is a circumstance which at once suggests several important considerations; and, above all others, it
leads naturally to the inquiry-Did the men  of God themselves
fully comprehend the sense of the revelations to which they gave
utterance? That this question must be answered in the negative is so obvious that the fact has furnished sceptics with an argument-superficial, it is true, but still an argument-against the
evidence which  Prophecy supplies.   A  late writer, for example,
of the modern school of disbelievers, observes, with respect to
the proof of Christianity founded upon the fulfilment in Christ's
Person  of predictions uttered  long  previously to His coming," This  is  true, and  the  argument  would  have  all the  force
which is attributed to it, were the objectors able to lay their finger  on  a  single  Old  Testament prediction  clearly  referring  to
with these prophecies, as we shall in a fitting place make clear." This explanation
he appends, as a sort of moral, to the sequel of this narrative: cKaL raira y'v'lepE/uia
Eisre' Trv2XO0e^ 6  cai cxeOc Ftc Ba,3vauva, raivryv o'K eFie KaOf)'Iee(,FIKroF rwpoelTre.
-Ibid. viii. 2, p. 527.  It is interesting to notice how the Jewish historian insists
upon this illustration of the harmony which exists among the sacred writers. We
have already seen (Lecture ii. p. 68, note 3) how he has adduced the absence of contradictions as a proof of the Divine origin of the Old Testament: and here he observes
how the fulfillment of Prophecy confounds " the ignorance and the faithlessness of
men:" Taira iyv ovv, lKavc)s itoaviaat dvv(tieva rTjV Tlro  OEov o  v(tv rotg dyvooiVtv,
eipyKayfev, OT 7rOt1ti7'  ar  ca7t K   rotCirponrog, Kay Ttrvra KaO'' upav anavry Trerayivc7U,
re 6e! ytvaOat rp TOXYE -    rTrV TE T)V (iavpuSTSrv  Luvotav KaI drnrariav K. T. L~.-Ibid.
viii. 3, p. 527. We have, on the other hand, striking proofs that this half light of
Prophecy, which thus leaves the freedom of the human will unfettered, has nevertheless been made an instrument for guiding the course of history. There is no room
to doubt that Daniel brought before Cyrus the different predictions which foreshadowed his instrumentality as agent of God's will, viz., the capture of Babylon in the
height of a festival (Jer. li. 57; cf. ver. 39); how the Assyrian power should be utterly overthrown by the Medes (Isai. xiii. 17-19; cf. ch. xiv.); in fine, how Cyrus
should rebuild Jerusalem and the Temple of Jehovah (Isai. xliv. 28; xlv. 13)-and
it is to be observed that the edict of Cyrus is drawn up in the language of this latter
announcement, see 2 Chron. xxxvi. 23; Ezra, i. 2. Josephus tells us that Cyrus
issued a proclamation "throughout all Asia," to the effect that the Supreme God (6
OebO   O t'ytarog) had, by His prophet, foretold his name, and that he should restore
the Temple at Jerusalem.  This, adds Josephus, Cyrus knew from reading the prediction of Isaiah written 210 years before,-a fact which he acknowledged as an undoubted proof of its Divine origin: racr' ovv a(vayvovra rTv Kvpov, Kai Oavuadaavra TO
OCov, K. r. A.- Antiq. lib. xi. i. 2. p. 547. See infra, p. 212, note.




190               REVELATION  AND  INSPIRATION.                     [LECT. V.
Jesus Christ, intended  by the utterers of it to relate to Him, prefiguring His character and career, and manifestly fulfilled in His
appearance  on  earth.  This  they  cannot do."'  The  fallacious
character of such  reasoning  has been  long  since  exposed  by
Bishop  Butler: — " To  say that the  Scriptures, and the  things
contained in them, can have no other or farther meaning than
those persons thought or had, who first recited or wrote them, is
evidently saying that those persons were the original, proper, and
sole authors of those books; that is, that they are not inspired
which is absurd, whilst the authority of these books is under examination; that is, till you have determined they are of no
Divine authority at all."2 Holy Scripture, in short, presents
the prophets to our view as human instruments through whom
the Spirit of God  speaks, and  by whose lips He announces the
Divine Oracles,-the sense of which, however, the Prophet himself does not always understand, but after which he " diligently
seeks" like other men.
Before entering fully upon this topic, it must be disconnected
1 "The Creed of Christendom," by W. Rathbone Greg, p. 61.' "Analogy," Part ii. chap. 7. The passage to which I here refer is preceded by
the remark: "A long series of prophecy being applicable to such and such events
is itself a proof that it was intended of them: as the rules by which we naturally
judge and determine, in common cases parallel to this, will show. *  *  *  Now,
there are two kinds of writing which bear a great resemblance to Prophecy, with
respect to the matter before us: the mythological, and the satirical where the satire
is, to a certain degree, concealed. And a man might be assured that he understood
what an author intended by a fable or parable, related without any application or
moral, merely from seeing it to be easily capable of such application, and that such a
moral might naturally be deduced from it. And he might be fully assured that such
persons and events were intended in a satirical writing, merely from its being applicable to them.  And, agreeably to this last observation, he might be in a good
measure satisfied of it, though he were not enough informed in affairs, or in the story
of such persons, to understand half the satire.  *  *  *  And from these things it
may be made appear that the showing even to a high probability, if that could be,
that the prophets thought of some other events, in such and such predictions, and not
those at all which Christians allege to be completions of those predictions; or that
such and such prophecies are capable of being applied to other events than those to
which Christians apply them,-that this would not confute or destroy the force of the
argument from Prophecy, even with regard to those very instances."  To the same
effect Hengstenberg observes that, when we speak of the fulfilment of Prophecy, two
quest.ons must be kept apart,-What meaning did the Prophets attach to their own
words? and, What sense has God designed to convey by them?  For reasons which
will be presently considered, Hengstenberg decides that the answer to the former
question is wholly immaterial; while he enters upon the second by observing that
the proper author of all Prophecy is God: on which he further remarks: " The hermeneutic rule, that we must always seek for the sense designed and perceived by the
author, is not violated thereby. The difference between us and our opponents lies
rather in the different answer to the question, Who is to be regarded as the proper
author of the prophecies?"- Christologie, L i. s. 317.




LECT. V.]           REVELATION  AND  INSPIRATION.                        191
from  an  opinion, condemned  by the primitive Church, but revived in recent times by Dr. Hengstenberg, which, from an erroneous conception of the nature of the Divine influence, and an
undue depreciation of the human agency employed by the Holy
Spirit, goes into another extreme.  This opinion has been already
touched  upon in  the  second  of these  Discourses, where it has
been  shown how  the Fathers,-in opposition alike to heathen
divination, and the fanaticism  of the followers of Montanus,strenuously insisted  upon  the  fact that the prophets retained
perfect consciousness of all that passed within them, although
their senses were closed against the impressions of the external
world.' In that Discourse it has been also pointed out, how the
first Christian Apologists employed this same fact as the criterion
whereby to distinguish the condition of the prophets of God from
the phrensy of the heathen diviners on the one hand, and the
hallucinations of the Montanists on the other,2 in each of which
cases the intelligent consciousness of the speaker was suppressed
to such an extent, that he was totally ignorant of all that he
himself had  uttered.  The opinion that this was also the condition of the prophets of God is advocated, as I have observed,
by Dr. Hengstenberg; who has  asserted  that the  distinction
which the primitive Church laid down  between true and false
Prophecy is unfounded; and who  indentifies the  ecstatic condition of the prophets with the state of the Pythoness or the
Montanist,-so far as relates to  the suppression, in both cases,
of intelligent consciousness.
I See Lecture ii. p. 84, &c.
2 Cf. Havernick, "Einleitung," Th. ii. Abth. ii. s. 35. The accuracy with which
the Fathers, in this case, eliminated truth from error, as well as the difficulty of doing
so, is illustrated in an interesting manner by the extreme views put forward by the
author of the " Clementine Homilies." There can be little doubt that this apocryphal
work (the composition of which the learned place at different periods, from the second
to the fourth century,) was one of the many writings elicited by the reaction against
Montanism. (See A. Schliemann, ".Die Clementinen," s. 185, u. 548.) The "Honmilies" lay down two criterions of true Prophecy: (1.) The prophet of God has permanent possession of the gifts of the Holy Spirit (Hveuya. i. v  r o v caai id  v a. o v).
To suppose him for any interval abandoned by the Divine influence, is to reduce him
to the character of a heathen diviner (rT yLp TroOVtro' /avtclJ  Ev0ovaLot'Trv)v i'r.rv iTr
7rvepatrog dTragiac, rTSV Trapa f/3u(oZ:c FeOv6vT)v, ca Klt'iCmq7j i)bopovi:v'..-I-tom  iii.
13, ap. Coteler. t. i. p. 643). (2.) The consciousness of the true prophet must be so
perfectly retained, that his condition admits neither dreams, nor visions (;Iev Onrraaoia,            oal beiK(po  Va9E,  /doKd~LHvrni x'rtV.-Hon. xvii. 18. ibid. p. 743).  Cf. Schliemann, s. 186, if.; Neander, "Kirchengeschichte," i. s. 610. if.
3 Hengstenberg, appealing to the facts to which attention has been already drawn
(Lecture iv. pp. 165, 166, &c.), concludes that the state of ecstasy (which he represents




192                 REVELATION  AND  INSPIRATION.                  [LECT. V
This learned writer has misapprehended as well the line of
argument pursued by the early Christian writers, as the true nature of the prophetic condition.' In the two extreme cases with
which the Church had to  contend, the individual, for whom  the
as involving an entire suppression of consciousness and intellectual activity) is not
merely a frequent concomitant, but the necessary and essential condition of Prophecy.
His adoption, as we shall see, of the statements of Plato and Tertullian, further
shows how strangely this learned writer has failed to appreciate the nature of the
difficulties, on either side, with which the early Church had to contend. Hengstenberg's view, as laid down in his "Christologie" (i. 1, s. 294 if.), is as follows:-In distinguishing between true and false Prophecy, the Fathers have misapprehended the
facts as stated in Scripture. From those statements''it appears that true prophets
also found themselves in an extraordinary and unusual condition,-in an Kcaraat, —
in which their intelligent consciousness retired, and their entire self-life (Selbstleben)
was suppressed by a powerful operation of the Divine Spirit, and rendered passive to
such a degree that, as Philo says, they became'Interpreters,' of whose organs God
made use, in order to impart His revelations." —s. 294.  "It admits of no doubt," he
continues, " that the Hebrew prophets, just as the heathen seers (ebenso wie die heidnischen Seher), found themselves in an ecstasy. *  *  *  Even to the true prophets
may be applied what Plato alleges in the Ion and Phcedrus, that with the prophetic gift
was joined, of necessity, the suppression of human activity, and of intellectual consciousness." He then proceeds to quote, with approval, a passage from Philo to which
I have already adverted (Lecture ii. p. 65, note' —eotKier-at yiyp ev Retlv o vovC Kari
rTv roV 8Oeov 7rveviyarog( (tsitv),-adding: " Since, therefore, we have found the distinction laid down by the Fathers between true and false Prophecy to be without foundation, the question arises, in the next place, In what does the distinction consist?
Already has Tertullian placed a difference between the KoraTac, and the Pavia, or
furor; and ascribed the latter to the false prophets. And this, with justice. * * *
In the heathen seers the E7ac7at, it is true, also consisted in the suppression of intelligent consciousness, but this was effected by the lower portion of the soul having
been excited to a contest against the higher." And he goes on to say: " The state
of the prophets was supernatural, the state of the heathen seers unnatural-a momentary phrensy."-s. 296 if. In these remarks it is clear that Hengstenberg accepts Tertullian's statement, and identifies the condition of a prophet of God with
that claimed by the fanatical followers of Montanus. This view is but a poor substitute for the sound and rational course pursued by the Church. " Wir halten (observes
Havernick of Hengstenberg's theory) dieselbe fiir keineswegs berechtigt, an die
Stelle der alten kirchlichen Ansicht gesetzt zu werden."-loc. cit. s. 36. Hengstenberg
draws the following distinction (without alleging any reason for it) between the
prophets and the Apostles-" All Divine revelations were known by the prophets
through an immediate perception (ein unmittelbares Vernehmen). While in the case
of the Apostles, the illumination of the Holy Ghost penetrated all the faculties of the
soul in an equal manner, and did not exclude the activity of the understanding;-all
impressions were made in their case upon the inward sense, which (while reflection
and the outward senses were in repose) was impregnated (befruchtet) by the Divine
Spirit."-Ibid. s. 299. By the absence of intelligent consciousness in the case of the
prophets, he accounts for the want of perfect connexion and clearness in Prophecys. 302; see supra, p 177, &c.
Compare with the view of this question which I have suggested in Lecture ii. p.
86, note', the following remark of S. Jerome: "Simul et hoc attendendum quod hec
ipsa vel'assumptio,' vel'onus,' vel'pondus,' prophetse visio sit. Non enim loquitur
in eKcCiriet, ut Montanus et Prisca Maximillaque delirant; sed quod prophetat, liber
est visionis intelligentis universa quce loquitur, et pondus hostium facientis in suo populo visionem." —In Naum Prophet. Praefat. t. vi. p. 535. Rudelbach, having quoted
this passage, justly observes that the Fathers, by such statements, neither denied the
relative obscurity of Prophecy-which had its ground in the Divine economy; nor did
they question that the ecstatic condition was a frequent accompaniment of the Divine
communications. But they steadily maintained " that it was altogether inadmissible




LECT. V.]            REVELATION  AND  INSPIRATION.                         193
possession  of a Divine afflatus was claimed, communicated his
pretended  revelations while totally unconscious of what passed
around him; and the intervention of another party was required
for the purpose of interpreting what was uttered in his state of
phrensied enthusiasm.' It was this absence of reason or intelligence, when  giving  utterance  to  oracular sayings, which the
primitive Christians justly regarded  as a token of estrangement
from the Divine Spirit. The Fathers never questioned, or thought
of questioning, the fact that, in many instances, the prophets received revelations from  God while in the state of ecstasy: they
did deny, and in strict accordance with the intimations of Scripture, —firstly, that the prophets were at any time bereft of intelligent consciousness; and, secondly, that they gave utterance
to the Divine communications while in the ecstatic condition, or
while the exercise of their faculties was thereby affected. Eusebius, who enters at considerable length upon the literature of this
controversy,' refers to a treatise, composed expressly against the
to represent ecstasy as the psychical foundation of Prophecy,-as Hengstenberg has
represented it in his Christology of the Old Testament."-Die Lehre von der Inspir.,
1840. H. i. s. 30.
As to heathen divination, we are indebted to Plato for our knowledge of the
distinction between the UaVT-ret and the rpofirat. He says, in a well-known passage:
o V 6 ei  f y  p E v v o v (f t'dirTerat yavrt5ic eivOov Kat dcarltOo, d2'l 7/ KaO' Virvov T7rv T-rf
ppovwjaeJg T7rElOefit' 6lvaLzv, i 6dt& vo6ov,   Tva t'vOovtoaopui)v 7rapa2udiaf * * * 7r 
r ( V 7ip o    r  v Y   v o 5 ETr raiCf vOiOtf pavreiatc KpLr(tf'7rttKacoTrdvat v6Mot'  oVf
(Lavretf avTOV;f e7rovoalovai Trveg  *  *  *  Kai  ov T  IuvretLS,, 7r p o 0 71  a t 6d favrevoyuEvuv dtKatTrara 6vo6iolvr'' dv.-Timceus, ed. Bekker. vol. vii. p. 337. Cf. Lecture
ii. p. 84, note'. Tertullian similarly describes the pretended revelations of the Montanists: "Edat [Marcion] aliquem psalmum, aliquam visionem, aliquam orationem,
dumtaxat spiritalem, in ecstasi, id est, amentia, si qua linguce interpretatio accessit."Adv. Marcion. v. ~ 8, p. 591.  On this passage Neander observes: "' The interpretation of the tongue,' in Tertullian's sense, can only mean that when a person in such
an ecstatic state had spoken in a manner unintelligible to others, he, or another person-a point which we must here leave undetermined-repeated what had been
uttered, in language that would be generally understood."-Antignosticus, Th. iii. ~ 2.
(Bohn's ed., p. 509).
It has been already pointed out (see Lecture iv. p. 145), how Scripture intimates
that the prophets did not commit to writing, or announce the subjects of their visions
until some time after they had received the revelations thus imparted: and consequently not until all ecstatic excitement had passed away.  E. g. "Then was the
secret revealed unto Daniel in a night vision." On this he blessed God, who "revealeth the deep and secret things," and went to Arioch, " and said thus unto him, * * *
bring me in before the king, and I will show unto the king the interpretation."-Dan.
ii. 19-24. Again: "Daniel, whose name was Belteshazzar, was astonied for one
hour, and his thoughts troubled him. The king spake and said, Let not the dream
or the interpretation thereof trouble thee. Belteshazzar answered and said, My
Lord, the dream be to them that hate thee," &c.-Dan. iv. 19.'So, in the New Testament, some time had elapsed before S. Peter, restored to his ordinary condition,
related and acted upon the Divine communication made to him in his ecstasy.
(Acts, x.)
3 The writers, to whom  Eusebius refers as having composed special treatises
13




194                  REVELATION AND INSPIRATION.                         [LECT. V.
Montanists  by  a  very  early  writer  named  Miltiades, entitled
"The  Prophet may not speak  in  ecstasy;"' and  the  historian
further quotes, as the leading authority upon this wilhle subject,
an anonymous author, who wrote at the opening of the tlhird century, by whom  a marked distinction was drawn between the true
prophetic ecstasy, and the false ecstasy of the lMontanists, which
he discriminated  by a  special name.'   The  pseudo-prophet,"
against the Montanists, are-Apollinaris, Bishop of Hierapol;s,. D. 170 (Eccl. Hist.,
iv. 27; v. 16); Miltiades (v. 17); Apollonius, who stntes that lie wrote his work forty
years after the appearance of Montanus (v. 18); S. Serapion, Bishop of Antioch, A. D.
182 (v. 19); and especially an author whose name he does not give, but whom  he
quotes at considerable length, and to whose opinions he evidently attaches much importance.  There has been great diversity of opinion as to who this writer was.  S.
Jerome identifies him with Rhodon, who, as he states, composed " adverslm Phrygas
insigne opus: temporibusque Commodi, et Severi floruit."-Lib. de  r. Iillustr., cap.
xxxvii. t. ii. p. 863; cf. cap. xxxix. p. 865.  See also Routh, "Reliquise Sacre)," t. ii.
p. 195, and t. i. p. 437.
The anonymous author, fiom whom Eusebius derived his information, describes
the work of his "brother Miltiades" as one —v u  1rodegrclvvr 7r'p'  t oo,) 6dev 7rpo(o,rV       v     K rIc a  Tia e t X a.; e  v.-Eccl. Tist., v. xvii. p. 232. Cf Lecture ii. p. 86,
note'. M. Gaussen (" Theopneustia," p. 409) having observed that the ancient Church
regarded as of great importance the principle "that it is not necessary to attribute to
the prophets a state of excitement and enthuqiasm which prevented due control of
their faculties," refers to this work of Miltiades; adding, " See the same principles in
Tertullianus (against Marcion, iv. ch. 22); in Epiphanius, Jerome,:Basilius the Great,
&c." A reference on this head to Tertullian is unfortunate: the passage, too, quoted
by M. Gaussen, is perhaps the strongest proof of his Montanist opinions.  In it, alluding to S. Peter's words at the Transfiguration, which the Apostle uttered, " not
knowing what he said" (S. Luke, ix. 33),-Tertullian asks: "Quomnodo nesciens?;Utrumne simplici errore, au ratione quam defendimus in causa novce prophetice, gratias.ecstasin, id est, amentiam convenire?  In Spiritu enim  homo constitutus, praesertim.quum gloriam Dei conspicit, vel quumper ipsum Deus loquitur, necesse est excidat sen-su,
obumbratus scilicet virtute Divina; de quo inter nos ct Psychicos [scil. Catholicos]
qusestio est.  Interim, facile est amentiam Petri probare.  Quomnodo enim Moysem et
Heliam  cognovisset nisi in Spiritu?"-Adv. ifarcion., iv. 22, p. 537.  Speaking of
Apollonius, to whose work I have referred in the last note, S. Jerome tells us:
" Apollonius vir disertissimus, scripsit adversus Montanum.  *  *  *  Tertullianus
sex voluminibus adversus ecclesiam  editis, que scripsit rtep eKiaTrS(bTu', septimum
proprie adversus Apollonium elaboravit." —De Vir. Illustr., cap. xl. t. ii. p. 867.
2' Parecstasis.' His words are;'A;X2' oye 1pe6or07pop7z'rmC' v T  a p e:  r  a  e t' *
Tretrat 6LaetK(oa'a dpooia dpX6oevo  Lv iK EKooviov dlfaOiac, Kara9Tp:pov. ()' 6I sft KOtMorov
uaviav ipvx;7j, 5u 7rpoeip7fTa t. TrUTro 6 TrbV Trpo6ov, OV Ti roTa rTCv Karn, rv Tra2.alv,
OVT~ rT)v Knar  ri7v Kancv)v 7rvev/aro0op0epOvra  ppo00Trv 6eel;a. (vv,7j7ooTar'  o^rTe'AyaBov K. T, X.-Eusebius, Eccl. Hist,, v., xvii. p. 233; on which words. Valesius remarks: " Notandum est hune anonymum scriptorem nunquam ECSTASPS appellare vanes
illos mentis excessus Montanistarum, sed semper PARECSTACES,  *  *  *  Quippe ecstasesfere in bonam partem sumuntur.  *  *  *  At' Parecstasis' semlper in malam
partem accipitur."  This writer constantly employs the term' parecstasis.' Thus he
describes Montanus as ativtdiwG   v KTarIOX, TVI Ka t   a pE   K f7 T (oi  e   yevo.#evov.
-Ibid. v. xvi. p. 229; and he mentions, respecting a certain Theodotus, that he
irap e K C rT 7lv a i re Kta KaTaTrtareVfaaL avrTv rT  Tr (a71-TT Trve,~ViTr.-T   bid. p. 231;
on which Valesius again notes: "Male interpretes omnes hune locum cepere.  hIapeKTarTvat est falso mentis excessu abripi.  Sic 7rap Kcroaaet supra sumitur, id est falsa
ecstasis.  Sunt cnim  verae ecstaces in Ecclesia, cujusmodi fuit Petri Apostoli, in Actibus cap. x. et xi. ubi Petrus vidisse dicitur in ecstasi visionem.  Talis item fifit ec-.tasis Pauli Apostoli, cum  ad tertium  usque ccelum  abreptus est.  *  *  *  Sunt




LECT. V.]          REVELATION AND INSPIRATION.                      195
observed this writer, "is sunk in his'false ecstasy.'  Beginning
by a voluntary ignorance, he ends by involuntary phrensy: but
they will never be able to prove that any prophet in either the
Old or the New Testament was hurried away by the Spirit after
this manner;" and, as exemplifying the true prophetic state,
the case of Agabus is adduced, of whom mention is made on two
occasions in the Acts of the Apostles."
Turning, in the second place, to the other misapprehension
into which Dr. Hengstenberg has fallen,-namely, as to the true
nature of the prophetic condition itself,-it is to be observed that
any theory which represents the state of those who have received
revelations from God, as offering any real analogy to that of the
heathen diviners, or fanatical Montanists, rests upon  principles
wholly unsupported by facts. Such a theory must confound what
is supernatural, with what is altogether unnatural;' or with
what, on the most favorable supposition (as will be shown elsewhere), is but a perversion3 of the Divine influence. The simple
fact, that the prophets of God subsequently describe the scenes
enacted before the eye of the soul,-even entering with the utmost minuteness upon all the details connected with their visions,'-affords the clearest proofs that their powers of memory
were retained throughout unimpaired, and of itself precludes the
possibility of their having been unconscious. It would be equally
inconsistent, indeed, with the character of the Divine influence,
and the nature of the human spirit, were we to regard the former
as a crushing and disturbing power, instead of one which elevates
and calms the soul of man; or, on the other hand, were we to
consider the human spirit as so estranged from and unrelated to
God, that, in order to become capable of transmitting the revelation from heaven, it must lose its vital power, and remain sunk
in its former darkness and inability to comprehend the Divine
item falsse ecstaces apud haereticos, qua 7rapeKoTcdael eleganter dicuntur ab hoc
scriptore.  Eodem modo quo 7rapadtopjoretL false emendationes dicuntur a Porphyrio in questionibus Homericis."
Acts, xi. 28; xxi 10.
2 Hivernick truly remarks that the manner in which Hengstenberg has attempted
to distinguish the supernatural state of the true prophet from the unnatural state of
heathen diviners (see supra, note, p. 192), altogether fails: "A forcible suppression of
the self-life (Selbstlebens) is, and ever remains, an unnatural state."-Einleit. n.
ii. s. 37.
3 I refer to S. Paul's remarks on "spiritual gifts," 1 Cor. xii. and xiv. See infra,
p. 223, note 2
4 See Lecture iv. p. 167, note'




196            REVELATION AND INSPIRATION.          [LECT. V.
mysteries, rather than be reanimated, and enlightened, and raised
above the limits of earthly experience.
The prophets tell us, it is true, how the energy of the Spirit
of God mastered their natural strength; but they also tell us
how their souls were supported, and enabled to endure the sublime visions upon which they gazed.' This is a fact which, while
it proves that the object of their intuitions was no mere creation
of their own imagination,-no mere subjective phantasm, —exhibits, at the same time, how their understanding was qualified
to apprehend the Divine communication, and enabled to reproduce it for the benefit of others. Strange, above all,' would the
phenomenon be, to which I have so repeatedly alluded, of the
preservation of each writer's peculiar individuality,-an individuality so plainly stamped upon the form of his representations,
-had he been deprived of the use of those natural faculties, by
means of which he has embodied in suitable language the ideas
which were supernaturally infused into his soul, and placed on
record the details of the revelation which they conveyed. So far,
indeed, are the facts of the case from suggesting a suppression
of the Prophet's intelligent consciousness as being essential or
even congruous, that we can at once discern how an elevation,
rather, of all the powers.whereby ideas are apprehended was, of
necessity, required for the purpose of enabling him to receive, or
to transmit to others, the mysterious truths which were disclosed
to him. None felt more sensibly than the men of God themselves how incompetent, without such spiritual support, are the
ordinary faculties of man to grasp conceptions so widely transcending the natural limits of the human soul. The prophet
Isaiah, in that most sublime of visions recorded in his sixth chapter, thus felt his innate incapacity: " Woe is me!" he exclaims,
"for I am undone, because I am a man of unclean lips -:   *
for mine eyes have seen the King, the Lord of Hosts."  But, on
a sudden we find his whole being transformed, and his fears dispelled; he comes boldly forward with the words, " Here am I;
send me:" for his weakness became strength, and his iniquity
was taken away, as soon as the seraph had touched his lips with
fire from the Altar of God.3
See Lecture iv. p. 166, note'.     2 Cf. tHvernick loc. cit.
" Then flew one of the Seraphims unto me, having a live coal in his hand which




LECT. V.]           REVELATION  AND  INSPIRATION.                        197
From  the remarks just made it follows, that the continued
preservation of the human agent's intelligent consciousness, and
the elevation of his natural faculties for the reception of the Divine suggestions, are the characteristics of true Prophecy.  Nor
does the opinion, already referred  to, which denies the force of
the Christian  argument from  Prophecy derive the least support
from  such a conclusion.  It is no legitimate inference from  the
facts which have been adduced, that the understanding also of
the Prophet' must have been so far enlightened as to enable him
to  comprehend  the  full signification, and  to  perceive all the
bearings of the Oracle which he uttered.  The passage which I
have quoted from  Bishop Butler points out where the fallacy of
such a notion lies.  But the subject demands some further consideration, inasmuch as there is no feature of our inquiry which,
when justly apprehended, exhibits more clearly the Divine element of Scripture.
It was well remarked by S. Irenaeus,2 that " every prophecy
is an enigma before its accomplishment."   Let us examine on
what foundation this principle rests.  In  the  supernatural and
natural worlds, Revelation and  Prophecy are, in  some obvious
respects, parallel to knowledge and teaching.3   In  giving utterhe had taken from off the Altar, and he laid it upon my mouth, and said, Lo, this
hath touched thy lips," &c.-Isai. vi. 6.
The following judicious remarks supply an apt illustration: Isaac gave a prophetic blessing to his son, and was therein inspired, and yet mistook as to the person
to whom he applied it; wherein the matter was overruled without his privity.
*  *  *  Inspiration, therefore, is confined to the purposes which God has to serve
by it. On which account we need not wonder that some prophets, though inspired, yet
did not understand distinctly their own predictions. Indeed, it was not for God's purpose in those cases that they should understand distinctly. He revealed Himself to
them, not so much for themselves, as for others. Much less have we any reason to
wonder that some inspired persons should not understand the predictions of other
inspired persons, but search diligently into their meaning (Dan. ix. 2: 1 Peter, i. 10,
11)."-Edm. Calamy, The Inspiration of the Old ad. New Testament, p. 127.
2 He had just observed, that " Christ is the treasure hid in the field, which is the
world [S. Matt. xiii. 38, 44]: He was pointed out by types and parables which
could not be understood rpb -oi T ronv Kc3actv TrCv 1rpo0TrevoYevuv ktoeiv, which is
the coming of the Lord." S Irenaeus then quotes in proof the words of Daniel:
" But thou, O Daniel, shut up the words, and seal the book, even to the time of the
end," &c. (xii. 4, 7;) and of Jeremiah; "In the latter days ye shall consider it perfectly" (xxiii. 20),-on which follow the words which I have referred to: 7r  a a
yap rrporTeia irpo T ri  e (3ide ( s, aivty  ia ecart  K(ai UvTrtoya Totf
adv6pdUrro     oav (i 6e A7'  o caLtpbf, Kati Uro/:'     T 7TporITEVO6Tl, TOTC 7r r1  lCptefTeaTrl
erTTrvXev ~r7yrjaeGw.-~Gont. fHres. iv. xxvi. p. 262.
3' When Paul asks,' What shall I profit you, except I shall speak to you either
by revelation or by knowledge, or by prophesying, or by doctrine?' (i ev daroKa~L2bt T ~iv yv5set ) tv Tpo7rpo1)reca    v d60ax, —1 Cor. xiv. 6)-'revelation' and'prophecy' unquestionably correspond to each other, just as'knowledge' and teach



198               REVELATION AND INSPIRATION.                 [LECT. V,
ance, however, to miraculous communications from God, it would
seem, even d priori, to be the more reasonable supposition that
the Prophet should not comprehend the mysteries which have
been divinely imparted to him, to the like extent, or in the same
degree as an ordinary teacher understands the various branches
of information which he has acquired by study and meditation,
-by the exercise of human  intellect and the employment of
human industry.  The full meaning of the language which he
utters must, from the very nature of the case, extend beyond the
Prophet's own mental vision.  That supernatural intuition in
which the present and the future are intermingled,' and which
has arisen independently of the human agent's own reflection,
transcends the power of his understanding, and cannot be analyzed by the discursive faculty of the mind. This analysis, we
are told in the words of our text, the prophets attempted to perform.  When their spiritual intuitions had ceased, their ordinary
powers of reflection came into play; and the subject of their
prophetic communications, when presented to the judgment of
their understandings, naturally prompted effort and research.
"The prophets," writes S. Peter, " have inquired, and searched
diligently':'  searching what, or what manner of time
the Spirit of Christ, which was in them, did signify."   The
foundation of this inquiry lay in the pre-forming character of
Revelation; according to which it ever veiled, in its intimate
reference to the present, a constant reference to the future. This
peculiar feature of the Divine communications was implied by
Christ Himself, when He taught that " the seed is the word of
God:"' and, according to this principle, the future development
of the sense of Prophecy is to be regarded as the product of the
germinating power of the " seed," which lies still dormant until
the " fulness of time."'
That the predictions of Scripture are not to be thoroughly uning;' and are therefore evidently to be distinguished as supernatural information and
as natural acquirements."-Ritschl, Die Eatstehung der altkath. Kirche, s. 489. To the
same effect Hengstenberg, having observed, that " What viewed in respect to the
manner of receiving it, is'revelation;' the same, when viewed in respect to the
manner of its delivery, is'prophecy' " —goes on to remark on 1 Cor. xiv. 6: " Here
we have a double pair of corresponding parts: revelation and prophecy constitute
the one, knowledge and doctrine the other."-The Rev. of S. John, Prologue. (Clarke's
For. Theol., Lib. i. p. 40).
1 See Lecture iv. p. 176, &c.                  2 S. Luke, viii. 11.
s Cf Beck, "Propad. Entwicklung," s. 252; and Lecture iv. pp. 149-154.




LECT. V.]            REVELATION  AND  INSPIRATION.                           199
derstood before their fulfilment is clearly indicated by our Lord's
language when He points out their nature and their object:' "And
now  I have told you before it come to pass, that when it is come to
pass ye might believe."   Thus  it is that Prophecy is likened
unto the rays of a taper, which glimmers by night, and faintly
illumines the darkness, until the appearance of the morning star.'
The  progress of history, meanwhile,  enables  us  to  ascertain
what prophetical announcements have already received their ful-' S. John, xiv. 29. Cf. "And when this cometh to pass (lo it will come), then
shall they know that a prophet hath been among them."-Ezek. xxxiii. 33.
2 2 S. Pet. i. 16-21. The sense of this much disputed passage which I have here
adopted may be thus stated somewhat more fully.  S. Peter had summed up for the'brethren," from whom he was about to be parted for ever (ver. 15), the grounds
of the Faith: viz., the testimnoy of the Apostles, and the language of Prophecy.
"We have not," lie argues, "followed cunningly devised fables, when we made
known the power and coming of Christ, but were eye-witnesses of His Majesty
*  *  *  when we were with Him in the holy mount."  Wre have also, continues
S. Peter, a further reason for our belief,-viz., " the word of Prophecy," which has
now been rendered " more sure" and stedfast (,3e3at(.rTepov) by those proofs of its fulfilment with which you are acquainted.  (Cf. "Verily I say unto you, that many
prophets have desired to see those things which ye see, and have not seen them."S. Matt. xiii. 17). To this "ye do well that ye take heed;" for before its accomplishment-" until the day dawn"-the language of Prophecy is ever obscure, and
casts but a feeble light upon the future, as a taper dimly shining where its rays cannot. be reflected ((dt;Xl9'  aaiivovLt ev a'^x/ipO rpJrc.):-avXjfXlpoS= avvpof). Nor
need this cause you surprise. Even the prophets could not expound the revelations
which were committed to them;-the meaning which the event fixes upon their
language was not a meaning infused into it by their own design;-the sense of
their predictions, as it did not proceed from themselves, could not be unravelled by
their own powers of interpretation (ila6s  [rtkilSv <)o ob  ileTrat:-for which sense of
irriXvvcir, cf S. Mark, iv. 34; Acts, xix. 39):-and the reason is obvious: "Prophecy
came not in old time by the will of' man [i. e. so that the prophet gave utterance
to his own thoughts and feelings —7~ [c("f]: but holy men of God spake as they
were moved (p),i/t.evot) by the Holy Ghost."  (Cf. the favorite expression of the
Fathers-ivvt,/taroSi)poL'; see Lecture ii. p. 83, and supra, p. 191, note R.) Rudelbach (" Die Lehre von der Inspir." 1842. HI. ii. s. 15) justly observes, that this Oopd,
or impulse of the Holy Spirit, is by no means to be confounded with' the  -li:o',.l', or
personal condition of the prophet. In confounding these distinct notions consists the
error of Hengsteliberg on this question; see supra, p. 191, note 3. This explanation
of the passage plainly includes that to which I have alluded in Lecture ii. p. 71,
note'.)
Here we see Prophecy illustrated under that aspect according to which the Divine
agents appear pJassive: the words of the text (1 S. Pet. i. 10-12) exhibit them, on
the other hand, as active and conscious.  We thence learn-(l) that the prophets diligently applied their understandings to ascertain the sense of their predictiols (e;ri/r7iJyav Koi.frlepvvcn'a.").  (2) The chief object of their search was, "What, or what
manner of time (   riva j} /i rolov Kat p!v) the Spirit of Christ which was in them did
signify."  (" Quod innuit terpus per se, quasi dicas wram, suis numeris notatam:
quale dicit temnpus ex eventibus variis noscendum."-Bengel.) (3) The reason is
added of the obscurity in which their words were shrouded;-they were not personally concerned in the event: " it was revealed to them that not unto themselves did
they minister" such things.  (4) Tle Apostle intimates that all this was no accidental
mystery, no undesigned f:)rm of ambiguous words. Not to prophets alone was this
knowledge denied; even the highest of created beings were not admitted to these
secret counsels of tlie Almighty: "which things the angels desire to look into."
Or;\ro~~vii~cib  vLuii I 0           CD 0-r




200                  REVELATION  AND  INSPIRATION.                    [LECT. V.
filment; and to recognise the bearing upon the future of certain
statements of Scripture which we might otherwise regard as unconnected with the Christian scheme, or as merely figurative
allusions.'  For example:-in  the twenty-second Psalm, "the
This subject is further elucidated by the nature of Types (TirToc-a blow, that
which is produced by a blow, or its mark (S. John, xx. 25); the impress of a seal; also
a model or mold (e. g. rTViroc aK7vi/c,-Hebr. viii. 5); used also of the resemblance between two opposite things (e. g. Adam by whom came death is the rT-,OC of Christ by
Whom came Life,-Rom. v. 14.) That a type differs in no essential particular from
a prediction, is proved by the application to both of the New Testament formula,
lva       / ypaei 7r'rpwOr, (e. g. the ordinances which regulated the type of the Paschal
Lamb are quoted as constituting, in the most literal sense, a prediction: "These
things were done that the Scripture should be fulfilled, A bone of Him should not be
broken."-S. John, xix. 36.) The only distinction which can be maintained is this,
that in Types, whether consisting of words, things, or persons, the concealment, not
only of their ultimate design, but even of any further reference beyond the mere representation of each particular type,-was carried to a greater extent than in Prophecy; in which, as we have seen, the prophets were conscious that their language had
a more extensive application than they could themselves perceive, For example:
-the type of the Paschal Lamb was repeated yearly for many centuries, its reference
to the future being neither understood nor suspected. Referring to this fact, Mr. Davison defines "the genuine Type of the Old Testament" to be "a concealed prophecy, which the completion explains."-On Prophecy, p. 275.  " The Sense of the
[ritual] Types," he observes, "was a latent one. It was a Sense not disclosed to
the Hebrew worshipper.  *  *  *  When those types are instituted, there is no
discovery of their principle, nor hint of their interior signification joined with them.
*  *  *  Whatever access the Israelite had to the great significations of his sacrificial and ritual worship, he obtained it by the insinuation of Prophecy, by imperfect
and partial arguments, which could not go so far as to reveal the truth." —Ibid. p.
135. But to take a more extended view of this matter:-Types are usually divided
into those which are represented by persons (viz., Melchizedek, David, Jonah, &c.);
or by things (viz., the Tabernacle, the Sacrifices, the Brazen Serpent, &c.). To this
division Rudelbach ("Zeitschrift," 1842. H. ii. s. 38 ff.) adds what he terms (" on
account of their prevailing typical character," s. 46) " verbal types," or typical
prophecies; of which he gives as examples, Hos. xi. 1 [see supra, Lecture iii. p. 109.
note'; "Rachel weeping for her children," Jer. xxxi. 15, quoted S. Matt. ii. 18,
and the words of Ps. lxix. 25, "Let their habitation be desolate," &c., quoted Acts,
i. 20, as predicting the fall of Judas.  Considering the question thus generally, we
shall perceive a further analogy between Types and Prophecy properly so called. S.
Peter (1 Ep. i. 12) expressly tells us, that "it was revealed" (diareKa2v5fO7) to the
prophets that their words had a significance extending to the future.  Now, similar
"revelations" were made as to the allusions embodied in Types: e. g. Psalm  cx.
disclosed the spiritual nature of Melchizedek's Priesthood; while the manner in
which the history of David is made use of in the language of Prophecy gave the
people clear intimations how closely the Psalmist's person was connected with the
development of the Divine Scheme.  (Cf. Jer. xxxiii. 26; Ezek. xxxiv. 23, 24;
Amos, ix. 11; Zech. xli. 7, 8, &c. &c.) Even where we have not express information of such disclosures, we may safely infer that the pious Jew was not left in ignorance of the true bearing of the system  of Types in which his religion was
shrouded.  Take the single case of the Brazen Serpent.  In the Book of Wisdom it
is expressly called "a sign of salvation;"-" for he that turned himself toward it
was not saved by the thing that he saw; but by Thee, that art the Saviour of all."
-Wisd. xvi. 6, 7.
Olshausen does not, perhaps, go too far when he lays down in his first Tract, " On
the more profound Sense of Scripture," that " Types, Symbols, Allegory [cf. Gal. iv. 24;
Rev. xi. 8], Prophecy, are not to be regarded as differing in essence, but merely with
reference to what is externally visible" (s. 70): to which he adds, in his second Tract
on the same subject, "What regarded as an act is a Type, when expressed in words




LECT. V.]           REVELATION  AND  INSPIRATION.                        201
piercing of the hands and the feet;" Zechariah's description of
the Messiah entering Jerusalem  riding "upon an ass " or this
same prophet's mention of the "thirty pieces of silver."'
Such considerations clearly show  how  essential it was that
the historian of a revelation should have been inspired;-or, in
other words, that his writings should have been Divinely guarded
from  all possibility of omission or misstatement.  The meaning
of the predictions which he has recorded frequently depends upon
the turn of a sentence, upon a metaphor, or an expression, which
if writing without the guidance of the Holy Spirit, he might have
deemed trivial or unnecessary; especially when we know that
even the Prophet himself did not, in general, understand how far
such features of his announcements were, or might be, of importance.2   This remark will appear more obvious from  an example.
In the last chapter of Daniel, the date of a future event is darkly
foreshadowed: " It shall be for a time, times, and an half." On
is called an Allegory: but because every word is a spiritual act, and every act an
embodied word, they are to be distinguished only after a human manner, for in their
inward nature both are but one. And inasmuch as no prophecy is arbitrary or magical, but the spiritual foreshadowing of that which is to be-so far all Prophecy is
typical, and every Type a prophecy. And so of the whole: for the entire Old Testament is a great prophecy, because its history is an eternal Type."-s. 19.
1 Zech. ix. 9; xi. 13. To these examples we may add the prediction of Haggai:
"Speak to Zerubbabel saying, I will shake the heavens and the earth. *  *  *  In
that day, saith the Lord of Hosts, will I take thee, 0 Zerubbabel, *  *  *  and
will make thee as a signet: for I have chosen thee."-Hagg. ii. 21, 23. "Why"
(writes Mr. Davison) "is Zerubbabel so distinguished in the prophecy, when it looks
so far beyond him? Why is he characterized as the signet of God? He is so distinguished as being the Representative of Christ; and his fitness to be that Representative is most evident. Of his line and seed was Christ born into the world. When
God, therefore, restored His people, and reinstated them in their covenant and their
land again, by this prophecy He designated Zerubbabel. and set His choice upon him,
as the signet of His hand and purpose, in whom some work of His providence and
mercy should be accomplished. *  *  *  In Zerubbabel the genealogy of the Messiah, after the restoration from Babylon, begins. Zerubbabel is the head of that
genealogy: in him it has its double concourse (S. Matt. i. 12; S. Luke, iii. 27): both
lines of the descent of the Messiah meeting in his person. *  *  *  Such prediction
was the more opportune when we consider the state of doubt and ambiguity which
might now seem to attach to the former promises of God, given to the family of David,
when that family had been set aside from the throne. *  *  *  To Zerubbabel no
throne is promised, and none was given. Yet he is chosen. *  *  *  Whence I infer
that that adoption or acknowledgment of him, in relation to' the sure' and yet remaining'mercies of David,' the promises of the Christian Covenant, is the specific point
of the prophecy of Haggai. It is not to be maintained that all this force and connexion of the prophecy could be understood from the first utterance of it, but they
may be understood now."-Discourses on Prophecy, p. 340-342.
2 Jahn has forcibly urged this fact, as exhibiting the distinct functions of Revelation and Inspiration; the latter being always necessary-" weil die Propheten selbst,
oft diese gOttliche Offenbarungen nicht, oder doch nicht ganz verstanden, und folglich
ohne g6ttliche Verwahrung leicht hatten Irrthiimer einmengen, und so die Offenbarung
selbst wesentlich entstellen konnen."-Einleitung, Th. i. s. 95.




202                 REVELATION  AND  INSPIRATION.                   [LECT. V.
this the prophet takes occasion to observe: " And I heard, but I
understood not: then  said I, 0 my Lord, what shall be the end
of these things?   And  he  said, Go thy way, Daniel: for the
words are closed up and sealed till the time of the end."' Such
passages not only illustrate the assertion of S. Peter, in the text,
that the prophets " searched diligently" for the meaning of their
own words; —they also  afford  conclusive evidence that as each
prediction was uttered, reason continued its habitual efforts to
penetrate  the unknown; and  exhibit the  important fact, that,
while he was subject to the Divine influence, there was carried on,
simultaneously, a parallel exercise Qf the natural faculties of the
human  agent, who was thus employed to express the revelations
of God in the language of men.2
Dan. xii. 7-9. Cf. " It shall be one day which shall be known to the Lord, not
day, nor night: but it shall come to pass that at evening time it shall be light."-Zech.
xiv. 7. The New Testament affords some striking illustrations of the fact that the
full sense of a Divine revelation was frequently unperceived by the person who received it. After the effusion of the Holy Ghost at Pentecost, S. Peter announces to
the Jews-" The promise is unto you and to your children, and to all that are afar off
even as many as the Lord our God shall call."-Acts, ii. 39. Looking from our point
of view, no one can doubt that by those words the admission of the Gentiles to Gospel privileges was plainly intimated: and yet it was not for some time afterwardsand that, too, by aid of a new revelation (Acts, x.; cf. xi. 15-17)-that S. Peter, still
fettered by his Jewish creed, fully understood the force of what he himself had uttered. The case of Caiaphas "prophesying," unconsciously, that' one man should
die for the people," is still more remarkable, " This spake he not of himself (dc' cavrov
ovK eiTnev); but, being High Priest that year, he prophesied (E'ipo0jiTvoee)..-S. John,
xi. 51. Here the Evangelist leaves no room for supposing his own interpretation to
be a mere "subjective exposition." The express denial that Caiaphas " spake of himself' is introduced in such a manner as to place it beyond any doubt that "he prophesied.' that is, "spake under the influence of God."  The reference to the office of
C(aiaphas does not imply that S. John considered that every High Priest necessarily
prophesied; but merely points out that the High Priest was the natural medium
through which God might at times reveal Himself.  "Fuit, inquam, sacerdos; o 6-,:   t:;1).A"/Ofeti, ie'e)f ti',0r     7,TL TiTpOoiTTq, ut Philo ait."-C. F. Fritzsche, De Revel.
7locionie Bail., p. 62. Cf. also Olshausen, in loc.
In considering the question, "Utrum  prophetse semper cognoscant ea quse prop'iltant," S. Thomas Aquinas decides in the negative, by a reference to this case of
C;aiaphas; laying down the principle: "In revelatione prophetica, movetur mens
prophete a Spiritu Sancto, sicut instrumentum deficiens respectu principalis agentis:"
-from which he infers, "Etiam  veri prophetse non omnia cognoscunt que in eorur
visis, aut verbis, aut etiam factis, Spiritus Sanctus intendit."-Summ. Theol. 2da 2dM.,
qu. clxxiii. art. iv. t. xxiii. p. 308.
2 Before leaving this branch of our subject, a word may be said as to the numerical
statements of Prophecy.  Numbers are sometimes employed, as natural facts or historical events, in their ordinary signification: e. g. Jer. xxviii. 16, 17; Isai. vii. 8.
In the great majority of cases, however, they are symbolically significant: e. g. the
mystic number seven-as in the days of Creation, and throughout the ordinances of
the Law; cf. also Dan. ix. 24-27; Rev. xiii. 18.."The numbers of Prophecy," observes Beck,'are to it means of representation as essential as its natural and historical characteristics;-only most difficult to be deciphered, because our computations are chieffy dependent on the proportions of the outward world: Die prophetischen
Zahlen dagegeng sind zusammengesctzt theils aus den innersten Urbestimmungen der




LECT. V.]            REVELATION  AND  INSPIRATION.                         203
The history of Balaam illustrates still further the principles
which  I have  endeavored  to  establish.   Balaam  was, in  the
strictest sense (although not officially'), a prophet, or agent
through whom   God revealed  His will.  This may be inferred,
partly from the language made use of by the sacred historian
when narrating the personal history of Balaam, and recording his
predictions; partly from  the nature of the predictions themselves.
In the first place, Balaam expressly calls Jehovah his God;2 and
he nowhere disclaims the justice of the reputation which had attracted the notice of the King  of Moab: "I wot," said Balak,
"that he  whom  thou  blessest is blessed, and  he whom  thou
cursest is cursed;" —on the contrary, the phraseology employed
throughout denotes his intimate relation to the Supreme God.
Thus it is plainly stated that he " heard the words of God;"
that he saw  "the vision of the Almighty;"' that " the Spirit of
God"  came upon  him;" that Jehovah "met him," and "put a
aussenweltlichen Maassverhiltnisse, heilige Urzahlen, die elementare Welt-Organisation bemessend, zu deren Entrathselung nur die biblischen Aufschliisse iiber Schipfung
und Urzeit dienen; theils aus den Grundbestimmungen der theocratischen Chronologie
und Arithmotik (namentlich Festrechnung), heilige Ziffern, geschopft aus der Zeit-und
Maass-Ordnung der Theocratie."-Propid. Entwickl., s. 201.
See Lecture iv. p. 175, note 2. That Balaam must be distinguished from the
ordinary ministers of the Theocracy, whether officially Prophets, or Seers, may be inferred from the title given to him in Josh. xiii. 22, "the Soothsayer" (n^upi):-a
term which the LXX. render by /uivrtc, and which is usually employed in a bad sense;
e. g. "There shall not be found among you any one  *  *  *  that useth divination"
(D p s tcp).-Deut. xviii. 10. Balaam himself, too (Numb. xxiii. 23), places "divination" (ati), together with "enchantment" ('r7:), in contrast to true prophecy, as
found only in Israel.  Compare, however, Prov. xvi. 10-" A Divine sentence (Dtip)
is in the lips of the king."
" If Balak would give me his house full of silver and gold, I cannot go beyond
the word of Jehovah my God (,j>; nmrm) to do less or more."-Num. xxii. 18. Balaam no less plainly asserts the great truth that Jehovah was the God of Israel: " He
hath not beheld iniquity in Jacob, neither hath he seen perverseness in Israel: Jehovah his God ("n1>  inrm) is with him."-xxiii. 21. This use of the term Jehovah
is peculiar to those who stood within the sphere of Revelation.  See Hengstenborr's
"Beitrage," ii. s. 300 u. 407; as well as his Dissertation on B;laam.
3 Num. xxii. 6: see also Balaam's reply: "Lodge here this night, and I will brin',
you word again, as JEHOVAH shall speak unto me."-ver. 8.' ",. Num. xxiv. 4.
56      rL^,  Tlm.  Ibid. ver. 2. Cf. Lecture iii. p. 128, &c. Deylingius (' Observ. Sacrme," vol. iii. p. 105, &c.) points out some analogies between the expressions employed in this narrative and those which occur in the propheticll writings.  E. g.
Balaam describes his predictions by the term i:e (ch. xxiv. 4, 16), which is usually
employed in the exordiums of prophetic announcements to denote a revelation from
God.  "Thus, David the son of Jesse said" (i:X)-2 Sam. xxiii. 1; " Saith the Lord
God of Hosts"-Isai. iii. 15; "I am against the prophets, saith the Lord, that use
their tongues, and say, ie saith."-Jer. xxiii. 31. So also the term used to signify
the ecstatic condition: " He hath said  *  *  *  which saw the vision of the Almighty, falling" [ ~t: —the words "into a trance" do not occur in the original], &c.
Num. xxiv. 4, 16. Compare Ezek. i. 28; iii. 23; Dan. viii. 17, &c.




204                 REVELATION  AND  INSPIRATION.                    [LECT. V.
word in his mouth."'  His sacrifice, too, of seven  bullocks and
seven rams, was of a form identical with that which Jehovah
Himself prescribed in the book of Job;' a form, moreover, which,
we are told, was employed on one of the most solemn  occasions
of Jewish history,-the bringing  " up the Ark of the Covenant
of the Lord out of the house of Obed-Edom:" "And it came to
pass, when  God helped  the Levites that bare the  Ark  of the
Covenant of the Lord, that they offered seven bullocks and seven
rams."3   In the  second place, if we look to his predictions,4 we
shall find that they  comprise the  entire  range  of Prophecy:
Jewish, —namely, the condition, safety, and conquests of the Hebrews; Christian,-the  dominion  of the  "Star and  Sceptre;"
Pagan,-the visitation  of the heathen  enemies of Israel.'  Of
one of his predictions, indeed, we ourselves can judge: even in
that early stage of their history, Balaam foretold the wonderful
isolation of the Israelites among the inhabitants of the earth:
"Lo! the people shall dwell alone, and shall not be reckoned
among the nations."'  In  fine, the  manner in  which  Jeremiah
Num. xxiii. 16. "And Jehovah met Balaam" (o,'jpi ). Alluding to this expression, Tholuck (" Vermischte Schriften," i. s. 409) obser7es that commentators have
seldom noticed a feature in this narrative by which Balaam is distinguished from other
prophets. It is always said that he went apart when he desired to prophesy, and that
God met him. Thus: " Balaam said unto Balak, Stand by thy burnt-offering, and I
will go: peradventure Jehovah will come to meet me.  *  *  *  And God met Balaam."-xxiii. 3, 4. Compare ch. xxii. 19, 20. It may be noticed, that Tholuck is
inclined to regard the fact of Balaam's exhibiting no surprise at the miracle of the ass
speaking to him (Num. xxii. 29) as a proof that this entire transaction was purely
subjective; and that there was no external reality corresponding to the details narrated.  On the other hand, S. Augustine more profoundly observes: " Nihil hic sani
mirabilius videtur, quam quod loquente asina territus non est, sed insuper ei, velut
talibus monstris assuetus, ird perseverante respondit."- Quest. in Non., xlviii. lib. iv.
t. iii. p. 549.
2 "Jehovah said to Eliphaz the Temanite, My wrath is kindled against thee
*  *  *  therefore take unto you now seven bullocks and seven rams, and go to my
servant Job, and offer up for yourselves a burnt-offering."-Job, xlii. 7, 8. See Deylingius, loc. cit. p. 112.
3 1 Chron. xv. 26. Cf. also the solemn sacrifice of Hezekiah: "Then Hezekiah
the king rose early, and gathered the rulers of the city, and went up to the house of
the Lord. And they brought seven bullocks and seven rams. *  *  *  And he
commanded the priests the sons of Aaron to offer them on the altar of the Lord."-2
Chron. xxix. 20, 21.
4 Gesenius prefaces his comments on Isai. xv. and xvi. by a dissertation on the
history of Moab: "Among the oracles, that of Balaam (Num. xxii. xxiv.) is specially remarkable, in which that early, although not Israelitic, prophet-urged by
Moab to curse Israel-is moved by the Divine Spirit to bless it, and to announce to
Moab its future destruction by a mighty hero in Israel (David), (Num. xxiv. 17, 18;
cf. 2 Sam. viii. 2):-a genuinely epic piece, worthy of the greatest poets of all times."
-Der Prophet Jesaia, i. s. 504.
5 Davison, "Discourses on Prophecy," p. 290.
6 Num. xxiii. 9.




LECT. V.]          REVELATION  AND INSPIRATION.                        205
makes use of Balaam's oracle against Moab' affords the fullest
sanction to his prophetic authority;-an authority which commands the repeated recognition of the sacred writers; as we learn
from the books of Moses, Joshua, Nehemiah, and Micah.'
The Divine source of his predictions having been thus pointed
out, it is to be remarked, in the next place, how the very defects
of Balaam's character were bent to serve the purpose of Jehovah.
We see, as subsequently in the history of Jonah,' how vain was
his opposition to the will of heaven: both cases affording, perhaps, the most striking examples in the sacred narrative, of that'Law' of Prophecy already dwelt upon at some length,' according to which each single prediction attaches itself to certain
events or occasions presented at the period of its delivery. The
disobedience of Balaam  became the occasion of that prediction
which filled the Gentile world, at the eve of Christ's Nativity,
with  the expectation of a Universal Monarch.  The flight of
Jonah from the presence of the Lord was made the occasion of
that marvellous type which symbolically foretold Christ's sojourn
in the tomb.'
We have further to notice how  Balaam  (whose visions are so
plainly described as the result of genuine prophetic ecstasy), in
the midst of his announcements retains his consciousness unimpaired, and exhibits the unclouded exercise of his natural understanding. When about to be dismissed by the King of Moab, he
I C. Jer. xlviii. 45, with Num. xxiv. 17. See infra, Lecture vii.
2 Deut. xxiii. 4, 5; Josh. xxiv. 9; Neh. xiii. 2; Micah, vi. 5.
3 "The word of the Lord came unto Jonah, saying, Arise, go to Nineveh, and
cry against it. But Jonas rose up. to flee unto Tarshish from the presence of the
Lord; and he found a ship going to Tarshish. But the Lord sent out a great wind
into the sea," &c.-Jonah, i.
4 Lecture iv. p. 147, &c.
5 "As Jonas was three days and three nights in the whale's belly; so shall the
Son of Man be three days and three nights in the heart of the earth."-S. Matt. xii. 40.
The manner in which German writers, even of the school considered pre-eminently
" Evangelical," venture, without any external evidence whatsoever, to tamper with
the text of Scripture, is painfully illustrated by the following remark of Neander on
the Type of Jonah: "In Matt. xii. 40, the reference is made to bear upon the Resurrection of Christ, which is quite foreign to the original sense and connexion of the
passage. *  *  *  A special application of the type in this way would have drawn
the attention of the hearers away from the main point of comparison. For these
reasons we think the verse in question is a commentary by a later hand."-The Life
of Jesus Christ, ~ 165. (Bohn's transl., p. 266.) It is well to compare the language
of Mr. Davison: "Jonah is in his own person a Type, a prophetic Sign of Christ.
*  *  *  Our Saviour has fixed the truth and certainty of this Type; the correspondence of the miracle has fixed it. * * * Jonah, as I may say, compensates for
the absence of any direct Christian prediction in what he delivers, by the typical
prophecy embodied in his personal history."-On Prophecy, p. 275.




206                 REVELATION  AND  INSPIRATION.                   [LECT. V
again reminds him  of his powerlessness in the hands of God: "If
Balak would give me his house full of silver and gold, I cannot
go beyond  the commandment of the  Lord to do either good or
bad of mine own mind; but what the Lord  saith, that will I
speak.  And  now  (he continues) behold  I go  unto  my people;
conic therefore and I will advertise thee what this people shall do
to thy people in the latter days;"' —words which are followed, in
continuation, as it were, of his personal observations, by that
grand series of predictions with which his ministry as God's
prophet closes.2
To the examples already adduced  in illustration of the principle which we are considering must be added an incident recorded by Ezekiel. According to that principle, the continued
exercise of each prophet's consciousness was preserved unimpaired,
and his understanding  still reflected  upon the visions which his
spiritual sense had contemplated, even while his imagination was
engaged in embodying them  in certain forms or symbols.  "The
word of the Lord," writes Ezekiel, "came unto me, saying, Son
of man, set thy face toward the south:   *:   and prophesy
against the forest of the south field:"-a command which is followed by a representation of the vision, composed in a style so
Numb. xxiv. 12-14. The continued struggle between Balaam's covetousness
and the Divine impulse which prompted his words is forcibly described by the inspired historian. At first, having sacrificed, he goes to meet Jehovah (ch. xxiii. 1-3).
This he does a second time, at Balak's request: " Come, I pray thee, with me unto
another place, and curse me them from thence" (ver. 13). Having again " received
commandment to bless," and having said, "He hath blessed; and I cannot reverse
it" (ver. 20), he is led "unto the top of Peor," a hill dedicated to the idol of Moab
(Dout. iii. 29; iv. 46). Here Balaam "went not as at other times to seek for enchantments" (>>vn: —of the nature of which nothing is known)-but, urged by an irresistible impulse, he proclaims again his blessing; and even after the indignant remonstrance of Balak (xxiv. 10), he feels himself compelled once more to bless the people
of G od.
2 Le Clere observes, on Numb. xxiv. 2-" The Spirit of God came upon him,""Vult Philo hoc et reliqua vota emissa esse a Balaamo invito, et contra animi sentclatiam loqueente, sed Deum non multo aliter organa ejus movisse ac asinte (lib. i. De
Vila Mosi.). Verumn affectio animi vatis hujus verius describetur, si dicatur, phrasi
HIomeric.l, IK.v ('E0'ovri ye OvF( lhaec prolocutus esse; nam voluisset quidem gratific.eri Balako, ut prmmium ab eo auferret, sed subjecta sibi a Deo non audebat subticere, aut iis contraria proferre.  Erat plane compos sui, nec alienatl mente vaticinabatur, ut ex tota historia liquet." This narrative is employed by Philo to illustrate
his theory of Inspiration already described, Lecture ii. pp. 64-7. He represents the
angel who met Balaam on the way as indignant at his dissimulation, and comnmanding. him to proceed; for, the angel assures him, his resistance to God's will
would be of no avail: OvYC~et )'0p OlbdP, o ty o i   Te ~e   KT  a iv n'7 X o   v TO   ( It V e
rT    a o      f  lavo i a, tKa2 7(i r  ov/t  pyava TrpTroVTro, votoxao yiap eye rbv o6yov,
Osr(Titwv c'cnaoTa 6du  Ta g fa aq g Y A XT T r lf   oV vv i e v ro f.-De Vita MAosis, ii
p. 124.




LECT. V.]            REVELATION  AND  INSPIRATION.                          207
abrupt, and conveyed in language so obscurely metaphorical, as
to be justly regarded one of the darkest portions of even Ezekiel's
writings.' Of this the prophet himself was thoroughly conscious.
Having received the mysterious communication, he is evidently
struck  by its enigmatical character; and he at once proceeds to)
remonstrate, as it were, with the Lord on account of its obscurity: " Then  said I, Ah, Lord God, they say of me, Doth he not
speak parables?"
In all the cases which we have just considered, it is obvious
if any confidence is to be placed in, or value ascribed to, their
assertions-that the different sacred writers aver, as a simple miatter of fact, that they received certain communications from  without which they pointedly distinguish from the suggestions of their
own  minds, and  the results of their own  reflection.'  The two
questions, then, arise, by what means were they  assured  themselves,3 and how  did they convince others, that such communica1 Ezek. xx. 45-49. [xxi. 1-5]'- It is written throughout in a style so singularly
abrupt, and in some parts so utterly enigmatical, that it may certainly be considered,
as a whole, one of the darkest portions of Ezekiel's writings."-" Ezekiel," p. 185, by
Mr. Fairbairn; who observes that Bishop Horsley ["Bibl. Crit.," vol. ii., 2nd ed. p.
97] "has here simply left a record of his inability to proceed, in the brief note,' The
difficulties of this chapter are to me insuperable.'"
2 This fact appears most clearly in the contrast which the prophets of God draw
between their own words and the predictions of the false prophets. Ezekiel represents that distinction as being threefold: " Son of man, prophesy against the prophets
of Israel, and say thou unto them  (1) that prophesy out of their own hearts, Hear ye
the word of the Lord; Woe unto the foolish prophets (2) that follow their own spirit,
and (3) have seen nothing."-Ezek. xiii. 2, 3. On this description of false prophecy
Mr. Fairbairn well observes: " Expressed in philosophical language, the whole was
subjective merely, without any objective reality. The true prophet differed in each
particular from the false one: He prophesied not from his own heart, but from the
heart of God; in conceiving and uttering his message, he followed not his own spirit,
but the Spirit of God; and consequently the word he spake contained a true and
Divine reality.       * *   Hence the peculiar expression which is frequently employed of seeing the word of the Lord —(Isai. ii. 1; xiii. 1; Amos, i. 1; Mic. i. 1)."
Ezekiel. p. 96.
3 With respect to the absolute assurance which the prophets had of the' objective'
reality of the Divine communications, S. Thomas Aquinas argues with great acuteness.  (1) He alludes to the conviction of the truth of his message which Jereumiah
must have felt when he braved the death to which the Law (Dent. xviii. 20) had
condemned the false prophet: "Know  ye for certain," said Jeremiah, "that if ye
put me to death ye shall surely bring innocent blood upon yourselves: for of a truth
the Lord hath sent me unto you."-Jer. xxvi. 15. (2) He points out the readiness
of Abraham to slay his son: " Signum prophetice certitudinis accipere possumus ex
hoc quod Abraham, admonitzs in prophetica visione, se preparavit ad filium unigenitum immolandum: quod nullatenus fecisset, nisi de divi;a revelatione faisset certissimus."-Summ. Theol. 2da 2dae, qu. clxxi. art. 5. t. xxiii. p. 295. We may add the
case of S. Paul. Can. we feel any doubt as to the force of those proofs which convinced that profound intellect of the truth of the revelations which he received; and
which effected a revolution in his nature that impelled him, without' conferring with
flesh and blood," to come forward as the most zealous and enlightened promulgator




208                REVELATION  AND INSPIRATION.                   [LECT. V.
tions were undoubtedly Divine? As to the manner, indeed, by
which the external suggestions were conveyed to the mind, we
know nothing.  They only who  received  those revelations from
God  could  have imparted  this information,-for they only had
experience of the feelings which accompanied the illapse of the
Divine energy: and  they  are  silent.  Or, if a  casual hint be
dropped with reference to this action of the Divine influence on
the soul, it is simply by employing a material image to express
the inward  experience.  Thus Jeremiah  says: "The Lord  put
forth His hand, and  touched  my mouth:" and Ezekiel records
how  "an hand was sent unto me; and lo, a roll of a book was
therein; and   *    *    *  He said unto me, Son of man, eat this
roll, and go speak unto the house of Israel."' Respecting this
want of information, the defender of Revealed Religion need feel
neither concern nor surprise.2 It is but another example of that
ignorance which is the natural condition of humanity. In our
intercourse with  our fellow-men, we cannot tell how  spirit acts
upon spirit. In our every-day life, we cannot tell how matter acts
upon mind.' Persons who are without the sense of sight cannot
represent to themselves the perceptions which accompany the
of doctrines which he had hitherto mistaken, and persecuted to the death?-G-al. i.
16-23.
1 Jer. i. 9; Ezek. ii. 9, iii. 1. Cf. Rev. x. 8-10; and supra, p. 196, note 2.
2 " As our sensations carry the notions of material things to our understandings
which before were unacquainted with them; so there is some analogical way whereby
the knowledge of Divine Truth may also be revealed to us. For so we may call as
well that historical truth of corporeal and material things, which we are informed of
by our senses, truth of revelation, as that Divine Truth which we now speak of; and
therefore we may have as certain and infallible a way of being acquainted with the
one, as with the other. And God having so contrived the nature of our souls, that
we may converse one with another, and inform one another of things we knew not
before, would not make us so deaf to His Divine voice that breaks the rocks, and
rends the mountains asunder; He would not make us so undisciplinable in Divine
things as that we should not be capable of receiving any impressions from Himself
of those things which we were before unacquainted with."-J. Smith (of Cambridge.)
Of Prophecy, ch. i.
"  What are the facts which are the objects of intuition or consciousness, and
what are those which we merely infer? But this inquiry has never been considered
a portion of logic. Its place is in another and a perfectly distinct department of
science, to which the name metaphysics more particularly belongs. *  *  *  To
this science appertain the great and much debated questions of the existence of matter; the existence of spirit, and of a distinction between it and matter; the reality
of time and space, as things without the mind, and distinguishable from the objects
which are said to exist in them. For in the present state of the discussion on these
topics, it is universally allowed that the existence of matter or of spirit, of space or
of time is, in its nature, unsusceptible of being proved; and that if anything is known
of th6m, it must be by immediate intuition."-J. S. Mil, A system of Logic, vol. i.
3rd ed. p. 7.




LECT. V.]           REVELATION  AND  INSPIRATION.                         209
ideas of light and color; and yet they do not question the existence of those qualities of the material world, convinced by the
evidence which the experience of others supply. Shall we, then,
ungifted with the power of spiritual vision, deny the reality of
that knowledge which God has conveyed by it, while moral evidence equally powerful is at our command?   Or to state the
same thing  more  generally, and with  reference to  speculative
difficulties respecting both the questions above proposed:-we
know  how  the Idealist triumphs in his supposed refutation  of
the existence of the external world; and yet men of ordinary understanding still listen to his arguments with wondering disdain,
or regard it, at the most, as a clever exhibition of dialectical skill.
We live, and  act, and  think, perfectly indifferent to the arguments which should convince us that the world without is a nonentity.  The original reception  of Christianity  by the Gentile
world enables us, here also, to appeal to the common sense of
mankind, in reply to an analogous exhibition of mere intellectual
ingenuity.  Not to dwell upon  Hume's notorious argument to
show that no evidence can prove a miracle,' or upon the practical
answer to it which such a fact supplies, the speculations of a
writer, to whom allusion has been made more than once in these
Discourses, afford an immediate illustration. Schleiermacher argues against the efficacy of miracles, and chiefly against the
efficacy of Prophecy, as proofs of Christianity; and with his de1 The only consistent view is that which denies the possibility of a revelation:
"If we may be well enough assured of the author of any book, and also of his honesty, yet it was further objected that this author, whoever he was, could not be sure
that he himself was not deceived in his opinion of his own inspiration, or of a revelation made to himself. *  *  *  But, First, if he could not be sure of his own inspiration, or of a revelation made to himself, how then could any man now-a-days
be sure of the same, if God should vouchsafe to speak to us now, as'tis said He
did in former times to the prophets and other inspired men, by Himself, or an
Angel?'So that this objection, if it be well grounded, cuts off not only all reasonable belief of former revelations, but likewise all reasonable belief of any revelation
that can now be made to ourselves, or others. And'tis to no purpose to offer at
anything to convince those of the truth of any revelation who are of opinion that
even the infinite power and wisdom of God cannot make such a revelation of His
will to them as would be credible, such as they should reasonably judge sufficient
for their conviction."-Fourteen Sermons by Bishop O. Blackall, p. 21.
2 Schleiermacher sets out from the following proposition: "There is no other
means of obtaining a share in the Christian Community, than through Faith in Jesus
as the Redeemer."  By the expression, "Faith in Christ," Schleiermacher understands "The certainty accompanying a state of the higher self-consciousness; which
consequently is different from, but not therefore inferior to, that which accompanies
the objective consciousness. In the same sense Faith in God is used to denote
nothing else than the certainty concerning the absolute feeling of dependence as
such, i. e. as conditioned (bedingt) by a Being placed without us, and expressing our
14




210                 REVELATION  AND  INSPIRATION.                     [LECT. V.
nial of the latter is closely connected his rejection of the authority
of the Old  Testament.'  But the  Christian Apologist will turn
from  the subtlety of the mere dialectician to the facts of history,
relation to Him.  *  *  *  The expression, Faith in Christ (as that of Faith in God)
is the reference of the state, as effect, to Christ as cause.  *  *  *  Although in
Scripture itself arguments, of which the witnesses to the Gospel have availed themselves, are frequently mentioned (Acts, vi. 9, 10; ix. 20-22; xviii. 27, 28), still, it is
never maintained that Faith has arisen from the adducing of proofs, but from the
announcement."  Such proofs, he adds, were solely designed to point out the applicability of the prophecies to this Jesus as Redeemer-otherwise the Gentiles must
have first become Jews in order to be brought to Christianity by the afthoritly of the
prophets.  Here, therefore, all demonstration must be excluded:-but " Men would
fain bring about the acknowledgment of Christ, by means of the Miracles which He
has wrought, or the Prophecies which have announced His coming, or the peculiar
nature of the evidence originally given concerning Him, that it is a work of Divine
Inspiration. The fallacy here (speaking generally) is, that the efficacy of these circumstances always presupposes Faith as already existing, and therefore cannot produce it. As to Miracles, in the strict sense of the word (i. e. excluding Prophecy,
Inspiration, &c.), if we confine ourselves to those which Jesus Himself has wrought,
or even take in those wrought with reference to Him-these can by no means effect
such an acknowledgment. *  *  *  For Scripture itself attests, partly that Faith
has been produced without Miracles, partly, that Miracles have not produced it; from
which it can be concluded that where Faith has been produced even in connexion
with Miracles, it has not been produced by them, but in that original manner."  As
to Prophecy, we can easily conceive that a Jew might admit its reference to Jesus,
and, nevertheless, that he neither had true Faith, nor was a member of the Church
-because he did not yet feel the need of Redemption.  And were a Gentile even
to be convinced that the Prophecies were connected with each other; and that all
of them have in view one and the same subject; and, further, that they have been
all strictly fulfilled in Christ,-still it must be assumed that Jesus is the Redeemer,
because the Redeemer has been predicted by such intimations as the Gentile finds
applicable to Jesus. Nay, more-we cannot see how a Gentile could have confidence
in the men who uttered the Prophecies, unless we further assume that their inspiration has been proved to him. But further:-since it can never be proved that the
prophets have foreseen Christ as He has actually existed, and still less the Kingdom
of the Messiah, as it has been actually developed in Christianity, " it must be conceded that a proof of Christ as the Redeemer is impossible by means of Prophecy.
*  *  *  We must therefore clearly distinguish between the apologetic use of the
Prophecies made by the Apostles in their relation to the Jews, and a general use of
them as means of proof."-Der Christl. Glaube, B. i. s. 87 ff. (Cf. also Lecture iii. p.
100, note 3.) Schleiermacher next proceeds to the question of Inspiration, for his remarks on which see supra, Lecture i. p. 35.
1 Quinet says of Schleiermacher, that no man has made greater efforts to reconcile
ancient faith with modern science. The concessions into which he has been drawn
are incredible:-" Comme un homme battu par un violent orage, il a sacrifie les mats
et la voilure pour sauver le corps du vaisseau." At first he gives up the Old Testament; "c'est ce qu'il appelait rompre avec l'ancienne alliance." At a later period,
having made an Old Testament without prophecies, he makes a Gospel without miracles: "Encore arrivait-il i ce debris de r6velation, non plus par les tcritures, mais
par une esp6ce de ravissement de conscience, ou plut6t par un miracle de la parole
int6rieure." —Revue des deux Mondes, 1838, t. iv. p. 473. In a series of papers published in the "Studien und Kritiken," for 1829, entitled,  Ueber seine Glaubenslehre
an Dr. Licke," Schleiermacher avers that he neither can nor will maintain against
external investigation a dominant ecclesiastical doctrine, which, to all who are without, appears an unsubstantial spectre; but that he will avail himself of history as it
develops itself, and then will resign much which many are still disposed to consider
inseparably connected with the essence of Christianity. "I will not speak," he ob
serves, " of the Six Days' Work; but the very idea of Creation, as it is usually con




LECT. V.]             REVELATION  AND  INSPIRATION.                            211
in whose pages he will read that no evidence has appeared more
overpowering to the mind  of enlightened Heathenism, than the
fulfilment of the predictions of ancient times in the Person of
Jesus of Nazareth.'
strued-even abstracting from  all return to the Mosaic Chronology-how long will
it be able still to maintain itself against the power of a cultivated view of the world
resulting from scientific combinations which no one can escape?"  How long, he
asks, will the New Testament miracles,-he will not waste time upon those of the
Old,-maintain their place against far weightier objections than those advanced by
the French Encyclopedists? " Either the whole history to which they belong must
be regarded as a fable, from which what is historical in its foundation can no longer
be extricated,-and then Christianity appears no longer to proceed from the Being
of God, but from nothing: or if they be really regarded as matters of fact, we must
grant that so far as they have been produced in nature, analogies to them must be
also found in nature-and thus the old idea of a miracle must be given up."-(s.
489.) On these remarks Quinet observes: " Je ne crois pas que l'on ait jamais considere l'abime avec un plus tranquille d6sespoir."
t In every age of the world the prescience of future contingents has appeared to
human reason the most incomprehensible of the attributes ascribed to Deity. Cicero,
ridiculing the pretensions of the heathen oracles (he describes the oracles of Apollo
as being " partim falsa, partim  casu vera, partim flexiloqua et obscura, ut interpres
egeat interprete." c. 56), represents the philosophy of his age when he denied the existence of any such power: " Nihil est tam contrarium  rationi et constantine quam
fortuna: ut mihi ne in Deum quidem  cadere videatur, ut sciat, quid casu et fortuito
futurum sit. Si enim scit, certe illud eveniet: sin certe eveniet, nulla fortuna est.
Est autem fortuna.  Rerum igitur fortuitarum nulla est praesensio." —De Divinat. lib.
ii. c. 7. From this we can at once see how forcibly, in those days, the plain fulfilment of an ancient prediction must have told upon an honest mind. Hence the object of the early Apologists, when they insist so repeatedly on the antiquity of the
prophetic writings (Cf. S. Justin M. Apol. i. ~ 31. p. 62; Tatian, Adv. Groecos. ~
xxxi; p. 268; Clemens Alex. (who quotes Tatian) Strom. r. xxi.p. 378, &c.); while
they further tell us that the proof of the fulfilment of Prophecy was the chief agent
in their own conversion.  Such was the statement of S. Justin M. to Trypho.  The
aged Christian who had instructed him, brought before him the words of the prophets,
men-OeI) nveviyar7t AanOaavreS, Ica  Tr /eir2ovra Oeaioaavrec, ( d' vvv ylverat. —i
vii. p. 109. Theophilus of Antioch similarly describes the arguments by which he
had been convinced: Mie ovv UT7rlT'aEL, aUa 7TriCTeve' KCai yap'y 7T77riCtrovv rorO eao7eaOt
[scil. advaTraav], adia2 vvv KcaTavorjcaa avra TCrltrevo, uya Kcal ei'rtlrvXv lepalC ypafa7c
TyiV UyiV 7rTpO-7lTSV, oC K(caM  poeclTov dtai  vevaTroa  Oeov Tra rpoyeyovOTa M rpp6ro y',yove,
Ka' Tia  VErvtSrTa TVi TrpO6Tr  yiverat, cal T 7r n'7epXoyteva 7roic TUrilt UnapTr6tjOaerat.
(7ro5decLv oiv  af3ipv rT)V ytvofievv Kai 7rpoava7re6o)vrlvTevv, ovc drraLrTC' d- aul  TIrtareVo
TretLapXitv 0en.-Ad Autolyc. lib. i. ~ 14. p. 346. The manner in which Tatian states
this same fact is peculiarly forcible: 7reptvooivTrc  6s  ot ra aorovSdca, tvvi3rl ypafaZC
Trtav EvrvXeLv (laplaptKaLt, Tpea/3vrTpat~ NEv, Cf  ~ rpTo rl'Eal  vwov d6oyaTa, Oetotpatf
(d (g TTrpbc rTv EKCivwv rruiVTv. Kai /ltot 7lrecat/vat rTaVatf cvvi3  61a r, rT Sv  etEV rT
(7TVQOV, iKat TSv EiTlVTV rO dvertrridevrov, Kcal Tr  Toi T ravr7Of TrrolF(eo    Tb ~eVKarTiZ77rrov, KcaM T iV    e7A6 OV rT  V rO  r po yv  ar T t K   v.-Adv Grccos, ~ 29. p. 267.
Paley (" Evidences," part iii. ch. 5) gives another reason why the argument from
Prophecy was so much dwelt upon.  He quotes S. Irenaeus, Tertullian, Origen, Lactantius, who agree in stating that the miracles of Christ were ascribed bv the heathen
to magic; observing that while these Apologists insist upon the force of the proof of
Christianity from Miracles, they were compelled, in consequence of this objection, to
rely rather upon the evidence of Prophecy. Strange to say, Paley is inclined to condemn " the judgment of the defenders" of Christianity for taking this course. I may
remark that Arnobius (A. D. 298) forms an exception to this exclusive reliance upon
the evidence of Prophecy: he lays much stress on Miracles in his work " Adv. Gentes," observing: "Nulla major est comprobatio quam gestarum  ab Eo [Christo] fides




212                  REVELATION  AND INSPIRATION.                    [LECT. V.
This last allusion at once brings before us those proofs by
which God's servants, however silent as to their own inward feelings, have  convinced  the  world  of their Divine  Commission.
There must, clearly, be external, sensible proof given that any
human being has been selected as a messenger of God. Without
such proof we should have no evidence of the fact beyond the assertion of the individual himself who claims our belief.' Revelation, therefore, has always been accompanied by certain indications which evince that its source must be attributed to other
faculties, and a higher power, than could have naturally characterized the agent by whom it has been conveyed.
Two  proofs, only, of this sensible  nature  are conceivableProphecy  and Miracles.  Prophecy, from  its embracing  at once
events of which living men might judge,2 and the history of the
far distant future, performs the function of a witness to every
age. Miracles, by virtue of the Creative and Revealing Presence,
apparent in them, offer to all conscientious minds the clearest of
proofs.  The language of unprejudiced reason must ever be" We know  that thou art a teacher come from  God: for no man
can do these miracles that thou doest except God be with him."'
rerum, quam virtutum novitas," &c.-Lib. i. c. 42, ap. Routh, "Script. Eccl. Opusc."
t. ii. p. 277.
1 Scripture itself acknowledges the justice of this principle: " Long time therefore
abode they speaking boldly in the Lord, Which gave testimony (rT,aiaprvpoivrt) unto
the word of His grace, and granted signs and wonders (ayeiza cKa riEpaTa) to be done
by their hands."-Acts, xiv. 3. So also of Prophecy: " When the word of the prophet shall come to pass, then shall the prophet be known that the Lord hath truly sent
him."-Jer. xxviii. 9. And thus Jeroboam acknowledges the Divine mission of Ahijah: " Behold there is Ahijah the prophet, which told me that I should be king over
this people." — Kings, xiv. 2.
2 Thus the prediction of "the man of God" that the altar at Bethel should be rent
(1 Kings, xiii. 3; cf. ver. 5), was addressed to the generation then living; the announcement of the reign of Josiah (ver. 2) was addressed to generations yet to come.
To the same effect were the prediction of the death of Jeroboam's child (1 Kings, xiv.
12; cf. ver. 17), and the announcement of the future destruction of his race (ver. 10).
Cf. too, Jer. xxviii. 16, 17. In this sense Origen argued that before the coming of
the Messiah the inspiration of the Old Testament could not have been clearly proved;
but now the appearance of Christ has dispelled all doubts: kvapyl rrapa6deiyaTa 7rep)
rTOV eo7rvevarovf elvat Trdf Trataaif ypacaf TrphO Tio errtdyLtdiaf TOV XpiarTOv~ rapaTcraaai  oV
irhvv dvvaOrv Yjv XU L' 7j'Irsov iwrrt6luia, 6vvapiivov VTororrevefa0at -l  vO6ov Kaci Tro'
7rpoSjraf d(  ov Oeza, elf ro Tovuavgf 7yayev, Ad oppavvi) Xiptrt dvayeypa(etiiva.-De
Princip. lib. iv. t. i. p. 161.
s S. John, iii. 2: cf. 1 Kings. xvii. 22-24: " And the Lord heard the voice of
Elijah, and the soul of the child came unto him, and he revived. *  *  *  And.the
woman said to Elijah, Now by this I know that thou art a man of God, and that the
word of the Lord in thy mouth is truth." Bishop Hinds ingeniously observes: " In
the case of a person claiming to be commissioned with a message from God, the only
proof which ought to be admitted is miraculous attestation of some sort. *  *  *
The miracle, in these cases, is, in fact, a specimen of that violation of the ordinary




LECT. V.]           REVELATION  AND INSPIRATION.                         213
Miracles both accredit those who work with them, as organs of
God; and  seal as truth what such organs utter.  This demonstrative power abides even in the record of the miracles, the
truth of that record being assumed.'  That our minds can imagine no other species of proof is shown by this circumstance,
that these are invariably offered to us as tests, wherever claims,
well or ill-founded, are made to Divine Inspiration. S. Paul considers such tokens to be as indispensable a requisite of an Apostle
as they had been of the Old Testament prophets. " Truly," he
argues, " the signs of an Apostle were wrought among you in all
patience, in signs, and wonders, and mighty deeds."' And so far
is the claim of false prophets to the possession of such gifts from
being any objection  to their force as proofs, that it rather exhibits more clearly their validity. They are the only proofs
given, because they are the only proofs admissible.' It is true,
that in the case of the authors of Scripture, there are many instances, in which, to our knowledge at least, such sensible proofs
were not given. But that proofs were at all times given of a sufficiently overpowering kind to silence every reasonable doubt, and
to remove every natural scruple, we have abundant reason to conclude.4 Should any difficulty arise (on the part either of the
course of nature, which the person inspired is asserting to have taken place in his appointment and ministry; and corresponds to the exhibition of specimens and experiments, which we should require of a geologist, mineralogist, or chemist, if he asserted
his discovery of any natural phenomena-especially of any at variance with received
theories."-Inspiration, p. 9.
"  Single miracles are often said to have convinced eye-witnesses on the first
publication of the Gospel.-John, vi. 14.'Then those men, when they had seen the
miracle which Jesus did, said, This is of a truth that Prophet which should come
into the world.'-So ch. ii. 11. The same Evangelist puts the miracles collectively
for the written evidence to the future faith of the world:'Many other signs truly did
Jesus in the presence of His disciples which are not written in this book; but these
are written, that ye might believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God.'-xx. 30,
31."-Davison, On Prophecy, p. 406.
2 2 Cor. xii. 12.
3 See M. Athanase Coquerel, "Christianity," p. 219.
4 Take, e. g. the important event of the separation of Israel and Judah. Ahijah
the Shilonite announced to Jeroboam, " Thus saith the Lord, Behold I wil rend the
kingdom out of the hand of Solomon, and will give Ten Tribes to thee."-1 Kings,
xi. 31. That this prediction became notorious, and obtained general belief, we learn
from the statement: "Solomon sought therefore to kill Jeroboam. And Jeroboam
arose and fled into Egypt."-ver. 40. After Rehoboam's accession to the throne,
"Israel rebelled against the house of David;" and Rehoboam  "assembled all the
house of Judah, with the Tribe of Benjamin, an hundred and fourscore thousand
chosen men which were warriors, to fight against the house of Israel, to bring the
kingdom again to Rehoboam."  " But the word of the Lord came to Shemaiah the
man of God, saying, Thus saith the Lord, Ye shall not go up, nor fight against your
brethren: return every man to his house; for this thing is done of Me. And they




214                 REVELATION  AND  INSPIRATION.                   [LECT. V.
agent himself when receiving his powers from God, or of those
to whom his commission was addressed), as to whether the announcement were  really Divine, we  are often  informed of the
means by which  such  difficulty was dispelled.  To  this effect
were the signs given to Moses, to Gideon, to Hezekiah.1 On the
other hand, when the sacred writers do not refer to Divine Revelation, or to the means by which it was imparted, we observe how
carefully they indicate their clear appreciation of the fact, that
ordinary dreams or visions are altogether valueless. The Psalmist,
for example, writes: "As  a dream  when one awaketh; so, 0
Lord, when  Thou awakest, Thou  shalt despise their image:"
while in the case of visions a broad line of distinction  is drawn
between  the real communications which  God thus conveyed to
the mind, and the hallucinations of false prophecy, the worthlessness of which  is pointed  out by Ezekiel: " Thus saith the
Lord God, Woe unto  the foolish  prophets that follow their own
spirit, and have seen nothing."
Intimations no less clear are also conveyed to us, from  time
to time, by the sacred writers, that the Divine Author of Scripture exercised a constant supervision over their acts and words.
Such intimations relate either to those cases in which the human
agent, trusting to his previous participation in the Divine influence, and relying upon his own judgment, presumes to decide
obeyed the words of the Lord, and returned from going against Jeroboam." —1 Kings,
xii. 21; 2 Chron. xi. 4. Speaking of these two predictions Mr. Davison observes:
"The agency of man had been prophetically foreshown in the one instance; it was
authoritatively suspended in the other. A ferocious and self-willed king, who would
take no counsel before the revolt, acquiesced, and all Judah with him, in the dictate
of a prophet, after it. Why did he and his people so act except upon a conviction,
which they could not resist, of that prophet's authority?  *  *  *  I infer that they
had reason to know Whose word it was which they obeyed."-O l Prophecy, p. 236.
Exod. iv. 1-9; Judges, vi. 36-40; 2 Kings, xx. 8-11. Of this nature was the
confirmation which S. Peter received as to the source and reality of his trance:
"While Peter thought on the vision, the Spirit said unto him, Behold three men seek
thee," &c.-Acts, x. 19: cf. xii. 7-11. A striking example is afforded by an incident recorded of Jeremiah. He had predicted, at God's command, the subjection of his
country by the Chaldeans. Immediately afterwards he is directed to act in a manner
which seems to have excited not unreasonable doubts in his mind. The existence
of such doubts he clearly intimates, and he relates, with the most perfect simplicity,
the means by which they were dispelled: " And Jeremiah said, The word of the Lord
came unto me, saying, Behold, Hanameel the son of Shallum, thine uncle shall come
unto thee, saying, Buy thee my field that is in Anathoth, for the right of redemption
is thine to buy it. So Hanameel, mine uncle's son, came to me in the court of the
prison, according to the word of the Lord, and said unto me. Buy my field, I pray
thee, &c. *  *  *  Then I knew that this was the word of the Lord. And I bought
the field, &c." —Jer. xxxii. 6-9. Cf. Zech. xi. 11.
2 Ps. lxxiii. 20. Cf. Eccl. v. 1.  3 Ezek. xiii. 3. Cf supra, p. 207, note.




LECT. V.]           REVELATION  AND  INSPIRATION.                         215
without the immediate suggestion of the Holy Spirit; or to those
in which a line of action that we should otherwise have looked
upon as purely natural, or as dictated by the circumstances of the
time, is referred to the direct intervention of God. In such
instances the veil is, as it were, withdrawn;  and we are  permitted to see how  the Spirit of God acts upon, and guides the
spirit of man.  For example, in the Old Testament, when Samuel, in  pursuance of the Divine  command, was about to  select
the future king from  among the sons of Jesse, following his own
judgment, his choice was about to fall upon Eliab.  But " the
Lord said unto him," "I have refused him."   When, at length,
David is introduced, "the Lord  said, Arise, anoint him, for this
is he."' Again, we read that David, when the Lord had given
him  peace from  his enemies, called for Nathan the prophet, and
said, " Lo, I dwell in an house of cedars, but the Ark of the covenant of the Lord remaineth under curtains.  Then Nathan said
unto David, Do all that is thine  heart; for God is with thee."
In this, his natural approval of the pious design of the king,
Nathan acted on his own human judgment, and erred; for "it
came to  pass the same night, that the word of God came to
Nathan, saying, Go and tell David  my servant, Thus saith  the
Lord, Thou shalt not build me an house to dwell in."2   Similar
instances, in which the human judgment of men, who acted as
agents of the Divine commands, was thus controlled, are recorded
in the New  Testament.  We read  how  S. Paul had laid out fbr
himself a practical field of labor.3   He would have preached in
Galatia, but " was forbidden of the Holy Ghost."   lie "assayed
1  Sam. xvi. 6-12.
2 2 Sam. vii. 1 Chron. xvii. On this case S. Gregory the Great observes: "Aliquando propletm sancti dum contsuluntur, ex magno usu propphetandi quadam ex suo
spiritu proferunt, et se haec ex prophetise Spiritu dicere suspicantur. Sod quia sancti
sunt, per Sanctum  Spiritum  citils correcti, et,Ib Eo quire vera salt audiunt, et
sometipsos, quia falsa dixerint, reprehenduilt."  IF 1 E kiel, lib. i. Hom. i. t. i. p.
1180.
3 Acts, xvi. 6-10.  " The manner in which L uke describes this hindrance is well
calculated to bring to view the oneration of tihe higher IIl'e/a in the souls of the
Apostles. The pvyl' of him, -who had received the Holy Ghost, was in no way so
identified with the Spirit as to take away a full consciousness of the distinction which
existed(; he could, oil the contrary, very clearly distingoishi the impulses of his own
soul from the suggestion of the Spirit. The former often prompted (if not to what
was sinful) to what was erroneous or unsuitable [see infra, p. 222, Ac.; the latter in
such cases checked the soul in its activity, and guided it to what was right *  *  *
In this passage wreppaol'e describes the natural impulse of tie  pv r,; oK,, eczlav ar''To0;
the restraining agency of the far-seeing Spirit."-Olshausen, Coimnient in oc. B. ii.
8. 829.




216             REVELATION AND INSPIRATION.            [LECT. V.
to go into Bithynia, but the Spirit suffered him not." And when
he paused, doubting where God's will would lead him, " a vision
appeared to Paul in the night: There stood a man of Macedonia,
and prayed him, saying, Come over into Macedonia, and help us.
And after he had seen the vision," continues the sacred historian,
"immediately we endeavored to go into Macedonia, assuredly
gathering that the Lord had called us for to preach the Gospel
unto them."  The history of S. Paul affords another instance of
the constancy of this Divine supervision;-an instance which,
taken in connexion with those already adduced, warrants our concluding, as a just and natural inference, that, in other cases also
where such information may not be expressly given, the servants
of God were in like manner specially guided and directed by Him.
In the account of the controversy respecting circumcision we are
told that the Church of Antioch " determined that Paul and
Barnabas, and certain other of them, should go up to Jerusalem
unto the Apostles and elders about this question."' Here everything appears natural, and what might have been expected.
There was a division in a certain branch of the Church upon an
important question; and it was resolved to refer the matter to
the Apostles. Had this entire discussion been conducted by mere
human wisdom, this was precisely the course which we should
have anticipated.  Without some express intimation, therefore,
from Scripture itself, we could not, perhaps, have safely ventured
to maintain, that each step in this matter was regulated by the
immediate guidance of the Holy Spirit. But of thisfact we have
special information. S. Paul himself tells us, that his journey to
Jerusalem was not the mere result of his or the Church's human
judgment. He writes expressly, that he " went up" to Jerusalem
"by Revelation."2
But another topic of the utmost moment must be referred to
before we close this branch of our inquiry. In order to preserve
the due subordination of the human to the Divine element of the
Bible, it is altogether essential that we should bear in mind the
distinction between that extraordinary influence under which the
1 Acts, xv. 2.
2 Gal. ii. 2.'Avefigv d& Karc d7roKa6Xvltv. Cf. S. Luke, ii 26, 27, where Simeon's
presence in the Temple, which from his character (ver. 25) might have appeared a
purely natural circumstance, is ascribed to the special guidance of the Holy Ghost
"He came by the Spirit (ev IIvevFart) into the Temple."




LECT. V.]           REVELATION  AND INSPIRATION.                         217
sacred writers have composed their respective works, and that
ordinary actuation by the Holy Spirit, to which in like manner
the term  Inspiration' has been assigned. From  neglecting or refusing to discriminate between these two aspects of the Divine
agency, a greater number, perhaps, of erroneous views with respect to our present subject have taken their rise, than from any
other source. In illustration of the importance of attending to
the distinction which exists between the two classes of spiritual
gifts, I would adduce an observation of a well-known writer,
whose statements have been  considerably  embarrassed  by  his
having continued to regard as identical these speciJically different phases of the operations of the Holy Ghost.  Dr. Arnold,
when  enumerating  certain  inferences  relating  to  Inspiration
which he considers " unwarranted,"  goes on to say:   It is no
less an unwarranted interpretation of the term' Inspiration' to
suppose that it is equivalent to a communication of the Divine
perfections. Surely, many of our words and many of our actions
are spoken and done by the inspiration of God's Spirit, without
Whom  we can do  nothing  acceptable to God.  Yet does the
Holy Spirit so inspire us as to communicate to us His own perfections? Are our best words or works utterly free from error or
from  sin?   All inspiration does not, then, destroy the  human
and fallible part in the nature which it inspires; it does not
change man into God."3   The result, which legitimately follows
from this confusion of the two significations conveyed by the
I My object here is to prove that these two significations of the word'Inspiration' are specifically distinct; denoting operations of the same Divine Spirit which
differ in kind, as well as in degree. On the other hand, their identity in kind is continually laid down as a great principle in treatises on this subject. Thus, in an essay
often quoted, entitled "De revelatione Religionis externa, eademque publica," by C.
L. Nitzsch (Lipsiae, 1808), one of the theses maintained is-" Quod inspiratio Apostolorum ejusdem plane generis fuit cum revelatione interna, quse reliquis omnibus veri
nominis Christianis contigisse dicitur:" where, for "generis," "speciei" should, strictly
speaking, be substituted; as appears from the further remark: "Minime negamus
gradu diversam, sive modo et mensura potiorem fuisse Apostolorum inspirationem."p. 67. See infra, p. 226, note 3.
" If a single error can be discovered [in Scripture], it is supposed to be fatal to
the credibility of the whole. This has arisen from an unwarranted interpretation of
the word'Inspiration,' and by a still more unwarranted inference. An inspired work
is supposed to mean a work to which God has communicated His own perfections; so
that the slightest error or defect of any kind in it is inconceivable, and that which is
other than perfect in all points cannot be inspired. This is the unwarranted interpretation of the word'Inspiration.' "-Sermons on the Christian Life, ed. 1841,
p. 486.
J Sermons on the Christian Life, p. 487.




218                 REVELATION  AND  INSPIRATION.                   [LECT. V.
word' Inspiration,' is exemplified by Dr. Arnold himself when
speaking of the pre-eminent inspiration of S. Paul. He observes
" Yet this great Apostle expected that the world would come
to an end in the generation then  existing.:"':   Shall we
then say that S. Paul entertained  and  expressed  a  belief which
the event did not verify? We may say so, safely and reverently,
in this instance."'
Another aspect-attended with consequences if possible more
important-under which this same misconception presents itself,
is that of regarding the degree of authority due to the several
parts of Scripture as depending upon the personal qualities of
their respective authors, or the opportunities of acquiring information which they possessed. One modern theory of Inspiration,
for example, makes the  possession  of religious Truth  by the
Apostles to depend  on the measure of their sinlessness;  while
another estimates the Divine character of Scripture by the relation in which its authors stood to Christ.  From  this latter view
it results, we are further told, that a distinction  is to be drawn
between  the different parts  of the New  Testament; and  that
higher authority must be ascribed to the writings of the Apostles,
than to those portions of it which have been composed by their
disciples and assistants:-hence it follows that the Gospels of S.
Ibid. p. 488. See Lecture iv. p. 180, note. A still greater degree of confusion
is to be traced in the language of Mr. Coleridge.  "The main error," according to
him, of the principle maintained by the assertors of "Bibliolatry"-" consists in the
confounding of two distinct conceptions, revelation by the Eternal Word, and actuation of the Holy Spirit. The former, indeed, is not always or necessarily united with
the latter —the prophecy of Balaam is an instance of the contrary-but yet being
ordinarily, and only not always, so united, the term, Inspiration, has acquired a double
sense. First, the term is used in the sense of Information miraculously communicated
by voice or vision [here Mr. Coleridge confounds Revelation and Inspiration]; and
secondly, where, without any sensible addition or infusion, the writer or speaker uses
and applies his existing gifts of power and knowledge under the predisposing, aiding,
and directing actuation of God's Holy Spirit. Now, between the first sense, that is,
inspired revelation, and the highest degree of that grace and communion with the
Spirit which the Church under all circumstances, and every regenerate member of
the Church of Christ, is permitted to hope, and instructed to pray for-there is a
positive difference of kind,-a chasm, the pretended overleaping of which constitutes
imposture, or betrays insanity. Of the first kind are the Law and the Prophets.
*  *  *  But with regard to the second, neither the holy writers-the so-called
Hagiographi [i. e. Job, David, Solomon, Jeremiah in the Lamentations, Daniel, &c.]themselves, nor any fair interpretations of Scripture, assert any such absolute diversity,
or enjoin the belief of any greater difference of degree, than the experience of the
Christian World grounded on, and growing with the comparison of these Scriptures
with other works holden in honor by the Churches, has established."-Confessions
of an Inquiring Spirit, Letter vii. p. 94.




LECT. V.]           REVELATION  AND  INSPIRATION.                         219
Mark and S. Luke possess less authority than those of S. Matthew  or S. John.'
With  reference to the principle on which  such  theories are
founded, there is, it is true, a certain  sense  in  which we may
I The writer who first suggested this view in modern times was, I believe, Dr.
George Benson, in an "Essay concerning Inspiration," to be found in Bishop Watson's
collection of Theological Tracts (vol iv. p. 469), and which was received with much
applause in Gemany. Cf. T611ner, "Die gottliche Eingebung," s. 69, u. s. 127. Dr.
Benson considers the degree of Inspiration possessed by the Apostles to have been
the highest under the New Testament: it may be called Gradus Apostolicus, as the
Jews called that which Moses had under the Old Testament Gradus Mosaicus. (See
supra, Lecture ii. p. 61 ) Hence he infers that the Gospels of S. Mark and S. Luke
are inferior in authority to the writings of the Apostles. Schleiermacher and his
school have derived the same result from their peculiar principles. Schleiermacher,
in his "Critical Essay on the Gospel of S. Luke," objecting to the notion that "the
agency of the Holy Spirit in the composition of the Scriptures is of a specific kind,
distinct from its working in the universal Church, and from its general agency in the
disciples of Christ," draws the following distinction: "There is first the agency of the
Divine Spirit in those who were witnesses of the events, and heard and reported the
speeches of Christ. *  *  *  In the second place, there is the agency of the Spirit
in the persons who collected and digested. *       *  *     ow, if the compiler of our
Gospel IS. Luke's] was one of whom it may seem doubtful whether, as he does not
belong to the number of the Twelve, an extraordinary influence of the Spirit can, with
propriety, be attributed to him, it is, at all events, safer that he should appear as the
compiler and arranger only, not as the author, and that we should have to look for the
first and largest portion of the extraordinary agency, not in him, but only in those who
stood in immediate connexion with the Redeemer."-Preface, (Thirlwall's transl.,
p. iv.) Tholuck describes some other modifications of this view.  "If a less degree
of authority belong to the writings of the Apostles' disciples than to those of the
Apostles themselves, the question arises, what degree of difference exists between
the illumination of both? and consequently between their normative authority?
*  *  *  A fundamental inquiry concerning this topic must proceed from the determination of the manner in which the consciousness of truth has existed in Christ
Himself. The dogmatic system  (die Dogmatik) of Schleiermacher has placed this
question, in a peculiar manner, in connexion with the doctrine of the sinlessness of
Christ.  *  *  *  Proceeding from Schleiermacher's stand-point, Elwert makes the
possession of religious truth in the Apostles, too, to depend on the measure of their
sinlessness; while Twesten (in whom the views of Schleiermacher retire before the
interest of supernaturalism), proves the Inspiration of the Apostles to be free from
error, in consequence of its destination for the Church."-Comm. zum Br. an die
Hebr., Einleit. kap. vi. s. 87. The natural remark suggests itself, that if Inspiration,
in its only true sense, be confined to the Apostles, why do we not receive many other
writings, in addition to those of S. Luke, or S. Mark, or the Epistle of S. James, &c.,
as in like manner canonical? (Cf. Lecture ii. p. 56, note 2.) Twesten notices this
point as follows: "If all Christians have the Holy Ghost (as Scripture teaches), can
then every religious statement of a Christian be called inspired? But we make a
distinction between Apostolic writings and others,-between Inspiration and Christian illumination; although this, too, must be looked upon rather as gradual than
specific. For of a specific contrast between the Apostles and other Christians, Scripture says nothing, but only of the distinction between them and the world (John,
xiv. 17): so that we shall not go astray if we suppose Inspiration to be something analogous to illumination.-Vorlesungen, i. s. 407. Although, he continues,
the disciples of the Apostles "stand a degree lower than the Apostles, still we
must place them  higher, speaking generally, than other enlightened Christians"
(e. g. "Clemens, Ignatius, Polycarp, who had seen, no doubt, individuals of the
Apostles, but had scarcely associated long with them.") —Ibid. p. 412.  "The nearer
or more remote connexion with Christ, as the centre of our Faith, presents a measure according to which we can distinguish what is to be deemed more or less




220                  REVELATION  AND  INSPIRATION.                     [LECT. V.
say that an analogy subsists between the manner in which the
Holy Spirit has actuated  the  sacred writers, and  His influence
on believers in general: for in neither case are certain attributes, with which  man  has been  gifted, suppressed, or obliterated.   Thus, in  the case  of each  inspired  penman, as I have
repeatedly argued, that type of thought, and those personal chartcteristics which  he  inherited  from   nature, are still retained,
and  may be traced  in  every page  of his writings.   Even when
acting officially as organs of the Holy Spirit, the agents chosen
exhibit styles quite  dissimilar,-they pursue  different paths of
teaching,-they grasp the Truth from  different sides: such individual peculiarities being, in fact, the means which God has employed for the purpose of exhibiting and developing the different
phases of Divine Truth. Again, in their ordinary lif6, and when
not acting oficially, there does not appear to have been any distinction (at least in  kind) between  the  Divine  guidance which
the authors of Scripture enjoyed, and that in which all Christians
share.   We see S. Peter, for example, still ardent and impetuous,
still sensitive to  the breath  of human  disapproval; we see S.
John still exhibiting the  same union  of deep  love  and  burning
zeal.  Here therefore, a certain  analogy  exists; but here, also,
all analogy  ceases.'  When  acting  directly under the  impulse
of the Holy Spirit as official ministers of the Kingdom of God,
we cannot admit that either imperfection in conduct, or fallibility
essential for Christian consciousness, and, therefore, more mediately, or immzediately,
under the influence of the Holy Ghost."  Hence, argues Twesten, is to be derived
the distinction between the Old and New Testaments, and also between the writings
of the Apostles and their disciples, —"between that which has been spoken or
written in the name of Christ, in the consciousness of the call received fiom Him,and what has been produced, to a certain degree, in the writer's own name, and occasioned by more personal relations and objects."-Ibid. s. 421.
It is interesting to observe (as illustrating the fact that Christianity has had to
encounter, from the very first, the same difficulties which modern criticism prides
itself on having originated), that this objection against the authority of the Gospels
of S. Luke and S. Mark was urged by the earliest of heretics-the Marcionites: M.
MdpKcov Kai AOVK6V  ov'd  ioX~e pyaVOruf 6o Xptlr6(c'   i'TrevOev  i.'-,eo(,e  (Uz2oa
TOLOIVTreg. dLi ri yap ol (aO1Tra0, d v yiypaTrrat rTa ov6tara iv rT  Ev(ayy'e~i, OVK
lppaanv, (dta' oi uI TvrT~ef yaOrTai.-Dial. de recta in Deum fide, Sect. i. ap.
Origenis Opp. t. i. p. 806.)  The voice of the Church, in opposition to all such views,
may be expressed in the words of S. Augustine: "Divina Providentia procuratum
est per Spiritum Sanctum, ut quibusdam etiam  ex illis qui primes Apostolos sequebantur, non solum annuntiandi, verum etiam  scribendi Evangellum  tribucreter auctoritas.  Hi sunt Marcus et Lucas."-De Consens. Evang., lib. i. 1. t. iii. pars ii. p. 3I have here adopted some remarks of Mr. Alford in the Prolegomena to his edition of the Greek Testament (vol. i. ch. i. sect. vi). I cannot, however, accept many
of the observations with which they are accompanied.




LECT. V.]            REVELATION  AND  INSPIRATION.                         221
in teaching, has adhered to the authors of Scripture. It is true,
that to Christ alone was " the Spirit given without measure;"
to the sacred writers His influence was communicated but partially:-it was only in their character of official teachers' that the
Lord promised His Disciples that perfection which the immediate
guidance of the  Holy Ghost implies.  Nor do  they themselves
ever base their claim to Inspiration upon the degree of sinlessness which  they possessed.   S. Paul, who, when he speaks as a
teacher to the  Thessalonians, thanks God " that they received
the word of God which they heard of him, not as the word of
men, but as it is in truth, the word of God,"3 speaks to the Philippians of his personal attainments with great humility.   "He
had not already attained, nor was he already perfect."4 Nay, his
remark in this latter epistle as to  those who  preach  Christ of
envy and strife-" that whether in  pretence or in  truth, Christ
is preached, and I therein  do rejoice; yea, and will rejoice,"of itself proves that certain truths can come home with convincing and life-imparting power to the souls of men, independently
of the personal excellence of him who communicates them.
Hence it was that S. Peter, who, in his vocation as a witness
We are clearly told that, in the discharge of such duties, the influence of the
Spirit was felt in a peculiar manner. E. g. when brought before the Jewish Council
"Peter filled with the Holy Ghost (Tr;  a O ef ilve/maTroc'Ayiov), said unto them,"
&c.-Acts, iv. 8; cf. ver. 31. Again: when rebuking Elymas, S. Paul, "filled with the
Holy Ghost, set his eyes on him, and said," &c.-xiii. 9; and thus he exhorts the
Ephesians to pray for him  "that utterance may be given unto him."-Eph. vi. 19.
" One may find a difficulty in the fact that Paul had certainly received, once for all,
the Holy Ghost, and with it also the full power of utterance, so that he needed for
this no request of the Church. But the agency of the Holy Ghost in the Apostles
is not to be conceived as a permanently operating power, but as a power which revealed itself, at different times, in different degrees and forms of activity."-Olshausen,
Comment. in loc. B. iv. s. 300. Cf. Acts, xvi. 6, and supra, p. 215, note 3. So, too,
in the case of the Apostles' power of working miracles, the manifestation of their
supernatural gifts was not left to their own discretion. S. Paul could strike Elymas
blind, because, as we have just seen, he was so directed by the Spirit; but he could
not miraculously restore to health Epaphroditus, his " brother and companion in
labor" (Phil. ii. 25-27): he had the spirit of prophecy as to Antichrist (2 Thess. ii. 3),
and he was enabled to predict the safety and fate of his fellow-travellers (Acts,
xxvii. 24-26); but he could not foresee what was to befall himself, when about to
encounter persecution, or when suffering imprisonment (Acts, xx. 22, 23; Phil. i.
1-25; ii. 17). But see infra, Lecture vi.
2 On this whole question see the very remarkable treatise of Dr. J. C. F. Steudel,
entitled " Ueber Inspiration der Apostel," published in the second and third parts
of the " Tiibinger Zeitschrift fur Theologie," for the year 1832; and directed principally against the theory of Elwert already referred to, p. 219, note.
s 1 Thess. ii. 13.                                     4 Phil. iii. 12, 13.
6 Phil. i. 15, 18. Cf. Steudel, loc. cit. H. iii. s. 18.
6 " When Peter was come to Antioch, I withstood him to the face, because he was
to be blamed.  For before that certain came from James (observe rTLV' a Ti o'IaK.




222                REVELATION AND INSPIRATION.                   [LECT. V.
to Christ, was furnished by successive revelations with unclouded
knowledge respecting the relation of Jews and Gentiles, in his
vocation as a Christian  man  could become untrue  to  his own
knowledge and testimony.  In that testimony is to be found the
condemnation of his acts; although his acts could not overthrow
Iis testimony.'  Indeed S. Paul, in his whole address on this subj.ct, appeals to the previous conduct of his brother Apostle in
opposition to that Apostle's present conduct: "If I build again
the things which I destroyed, I make myself a transgressor."'  It
is strange, no doubt, how the Judaizing Christians were able to
exercise so great an influence over S. Peter and S. Barnabas: but
the fact that the proceedings of all parties are expressly ascribed
to " dissimulation,"' taken in connexion with  the principle laid
down  on  another occasion by S. Paul, " We also  are men of
like passions with you,"4-denotes clearly that the Apostles did
not cease, after receiving their spiritual impulse from  above, to
be frail human beings.  Like the " men of God" under the Old
Testament, they also carried their treasure " in earthen vessels:""
whether Prophets or Apostles, the authority of the doctrines officially declared was independent of the measure of their personal
holiness, and rested on the purely objective communication to
them of the Truth from on high. The only supposition on which
the authority of Scripture could be affected by such facts as the
error of S. Peter would be if that error had been inserted as truth.
Its exposure, on the other hand, proves the purity of the record;
while it also shows how God has ever provided" that His inspired
Word should not suffer through the error of an individual; but
i. e. from the Church at Jerusalem over which S. James presided,-not persons commissioned by him, which would require v 7r 6, or 7rapd] he did eat with the Gentiles;
but when they were come he withdrew and separated himself, fearing them which
were of the circumcision."-Gal. ii. 11, 12.' ee Beck, " Propad. Entwicklung," s. 231.' Gal. ii. 18.
3 "The other Jews dissembled likewise with him (avvvrreKpiOceaa v aiTy)); insomuch that Barnabas also was carried away with their dissimulation (avrTiv r, VTrofIpioF;)." —ver. 13. On this "dissimulation" see supra, Lecture ii. p. 76. Olshausen
remarks: " Peter taught quite correctly, and had not at all misapprehended the decree
of the Council [Acts, xv.]; he merely acted weakly, because he allowed himself to be
intimidated. lhis error was, therefore, a purely personal one, and one by which his
official character as an Apostle was not in the least compromised. With reference
to his personal character, it is meanwhile remarkable that he, the Rock (der Felsennann), could here too be overcome by fear, as formerly when he denied the
Lord."'-Comment. iib. Gal. ii. 11-13, B. iv. s. 46.'OFoLtoraei-fc -Acts, xiv. 15.
For example, Jonah; " The man of God," in 1 Kings, xiii. 1, &c.
Cf. supra, p. 215, the cases of Samuel and Nathan.




LECT. V.]            REVELATION  AND  INSPIRATION.                            223
that, if the occasion required, a corrective should be supplied by
the instrumentality of others.   In  a word, the promised  impartation of the Holy Ghost to the Apostles had not the  object of
making them  morally perfect, but simply that of raising them  in
their teaching to be infallible organs of the Truth. A single remark of S. Augustine, when discussing this very question, contains the pith of the whole  matter.   In  reply  to  the objection
that S. Paul, by circumcising  Timothy, had  himself committed
the error which he censured in S. Peter, S. Augustine observes:
"I do not now  inquire  how  he acted; I seek what he has written."l
It seems difficult to  understand  how  the opinion could ever
have been entertained that the deference due to the different components of the Bible is to be measured by the personal qualities
of their respective authors. That opinion, surely, has no warrant
in the language of Scripture. S. Paul interrupts his discourse
on the subject of miraculous gifts, contained in the twelfth and
fourteenth chapters of the first Epistle to the Corinthians, in
order to lay down, in the most express manner, that such gifts
could exist without " love:"-" Though I have the gift of prophecy, and understand all mysteries, and all knowledge; and
though I have all faith, so that I could  remove  mountains, and
have  not  charity,  I  am   nothing.""   Christ Himself declares:
S. Paul " took and circumcised Timothy because of the Jews which were in
those quarters: for they knew all that his father was a Greek" (Acts, xvi. 3). S.
Augustine's remark is: "Non est, inquis, credibile hoc in Petro Paulum, quod ipse
Paulus fecerat, arguisse. Non nunc inquire quid fecerit; quid scripserit qucero. * * *
Si autem verum scripsit Paulus, verum est, quod Petrus non recte tune ingrediebatur
ad veritatem Evangelii. Id ergo faciebat, quod facere non debebat: et si tale aliquid
Paulus ipse jam fecerat, correctum potius etiam ipsum credam co-apostoli sui correctionem non potuisse negligere, quam mendaciter aliquid in sua Epistola posuisse; et
in Epistola qualibet: quanto magis in illa, in qua praelocutus ait,' Que autem scribo
vobis, ecce coram  Deo quia non mentior'? [scil. Gal. i 20]."-Ad S. IHieron. Ep.
lxxxii. t. ii. p. 191.
Equally strong is the judicious remark of Tertullian: "Ceterum si reprehensus
est Petrus, quod cum convixisset ethnicis, postea se a convictu eorum separabat personarum respectu: utique conversationis fuit vitiumn non prcedicatioeis."-.De PrI^sor.
Her. ~ 23, p. 239.
2 1 Cor. xiii. 2. This is but a single instance of the fact that, althou- h there is
but "the same Spirit," there are, at the same time, those "diversities of gifts"
(d6atpEcetc XapLt/(tTov), which S. Paul had just explained in ch. xii. 4-;i,-t passage
which Mr. Alford thus excellently paraphrases: "But (as C' )ntastod to this absolute
unity, in ground and principle, of all spiritual influencei, there are varieties of gifts
(Xapiufara - eminent endowments of individuals, in andl  y which the Spirit in.
dwelling in them  manifested Himself-the OavipwolC  T  ro  [lle/Jntrofr in each man),
but the same Spirit (as their Bestower). And there are varieties of ministries (appointed services in the Church in which as their channels of manifestation the




224                 REVELATION  AND  INSPIRATION.                     [LECT. V.
" Many will say to Me in that day, Lord, Lord, have we not
prophesied in Thy name, and in Thy name done many wonderful works?   And then will I profess unto  them, I never knew
you!"'
From  what has been just said it will appear that the character of that Divine influence, under which the Bible has been
composed, was absolutely unique, and specifically different from
those preventing and assisting graces of the Holy Ghost which
have been the gift of Christ to His Church.  I have not, for obvious reasons, thought it advisable to lay aside the established
theological term, or to substitute for'Inspiration' the word'TheXanpia/ara would work), but the same Lord (Christ, the Lord of the Church, Whose
it is to appoint all ministrations in it); and varieties of operations (effects of Divine
ivipyetaL), and the same God, Who works all of them in all persons (all the xapiaTaa
in all who are gifted). Thus we have God the Father, the first source and operator
of all spiritual influence in all: God the Son, the Ordainer in His Church of all ministries by which this influence may be legitimately brought out for edification: God
the Holy Ghost, dwelling and working in the Church, and effectuating in each man
such measure of His gifts as He sees fit."
The distribution of those gifts is thus described by the Apostle: "To one is given
by the Spirit the word of wisdom; to another the word of knowledge; to another
faith; to another the gifts of healing; to another the working of miracles; to another prophecy; to another discerning of spirits, to another divers kinds of tongues;
to another the interpretation of tongues. But all these worketh (ivepyeZ) that one
and the self-same Spirit, dividing to every man severally as He will."-ver. 8-11. The
case of the Tyrian prophets, already quoted (Lecture i. p. 43), affords a striking illustration of this division of " spiritual gifts." On the other hand, in the persons of the
different authors of Scripture, as such, those various gifts were combined and cooperated. Cf. their union in the persons of the Apostles after Pentecost, when they
spoke with tongues, performed miracles, expounded, taught, &c., &c. In this fact
consisted the pre-eminence of such men over all others: —Crav oiv dicoviar  (writes
S. Chrysostom), irpTrov dToirTOriov, deirepov Tpo7jrTac, rpirov xrotuivaC Kcal dtdavcKaXovf, Xapio/ara iay6urv, xapv7aT/,ara  a vpvjEV,  yVrit y'aOtfv, uKviepvef, yev  y,   e OLt 7r  a a 
Xopqyi a rTv  lXOtTrv Xaplta TrJT V, SaTrepp  e v /KeCaX/, r'Avroar o 2 i,1 E v a 7r  T  e   Lt  a t.-Homil. de util. lect. Script. t.;. p. 77. For some additional
remarks on this subject, see Appendix K.
S. Matt. vii. 22, 23. The remarks of S. Thomas Aquinas on this subject are as
profound as they are philosophical.  He is discussing the question: " Utrum bonitas
morum requiratur ad Prophetiam."  After stating the arguments urged in support
of the affirmative, he adds: "Sed contra est, quod Matt. vii. 22, his qui dixerant:'Domine, nonne in nomine tuo prophetavimus?' respondetur:'Nunquam novi vos.''Novit' autem'Dominus eos qui sunt Ejus,' ut dicitur 2 ad Timoth. ii. 19. Ergo
prophetia potest esse in his qui non sunt Dei per gratiam. *  *  *  Prophetia
potest esse sine charitate: quod apparet ex duobus. Primo, quidem, ex actu utriusque.
Nam Prophetia pertinet ad intellectum, cujus actus pracedit actum voluntatis, quam
perficit caritas: unde et Apostolus, 1. ad Cor. xiii., Prophetiam connumerat aliis ad
intellectum pertinentibus, quae possunt sine caritate haberi.  Secundo, ex fine utriusque: datur enim Prophetia ad utilitatem ecclesixe, sicut et aliat gratiae gratis datee, secundum illud Apostoli 1 ad Corinth. xii. 7:'Unicuique datur manifestatio Spiritus ad
utilitatem.' Non autem ordinatur directe ad hoc quod affectus ipsius Prophetre conjungatur Deo, ad quod ordinatur caritas.  Et ideo Prophetia potest esse sine bonitate
morum, quantum ad propriam radicem hujus bonitatis."-Summ. Theol., 2da 2de, qu.
clxxii. art. 4. t. xxiii. p. 301.




LECT. V.]           REVELATION  AND  INSPIRATION.                         225
opneustia,' which many writers seem inclined to prefer.' The
distinction, however, to which I have adverted must be carefully
borne in mind.  The inspiration of the authors of the Bible was
an energy altogether objective, and directed to supply the wants
of the Church.  The inspiration  of the Christian  is altoetlher
subjective, and directed to the moral improvement of the individual.'  The sacred narrative decides this question.  The histories of David' and  Solomon, of Balaam4 and  Jonah,   of the
The word'Theopneustia' has been formed from the adjective Oe6rnevaroc, which
S. Paul applies to the Old Testament Scriptures-see infra, Lecture vi. The term'Inspiratio' seems to have been used from the earliest times as expressive o the
Holy Ghost's agency in the composition of Scripture.  Thus the Vulgate translates
2 Tim. iii. 16-"Omnis Scriptura divinitus inspirata" (OeOTrvevTaro): and again 2
S. Pet. i. 21-" Spiritu Sancto inspirati (Oep6Uevot), locuti sunt sancti Dei homines."
The substantive occurs in its version of Job, xxxii. 8, " Spiritus est in hominibus, et
inspiratio Omnipotentis (rz, nr:n:) dat intelligentiam;" where the LXX. has 7rvo/ (s
lavrTKpaTopof. The Vulgate, however, translates the same phrase in Job, xxxiii. 4,
by "spiraculum Omnipotentis;" by which it also renders nrz: —" the breath of life"
(Gen. ii. 7). See Tollner, "Die gottl. Eingebung," s. 85 ff.
2 As further exemplifying this principle, it may not be amiss to observe that the
influence of the Holy Spirit, in this sense, is represented in Scripture as the distinctive
gift of the Christian dispensation. Our Lord has, indeed, expressly declared that the
Holy Ghost co-operated in the composition of the Old Testament (" How then doth
David in Spirit —y  HIveuuar —call Him Lord," &c.-S. Matt. xxii. 43); but we also
read again: "This spake He of the Spirit (r'ep TO'V TIvev/aTof), which they that believe on Him should receive (3o @/e?2ov Aa/13divetv): for the Holy Ghost WAS NOT YET
( o 7r cT  y u p r  H II v e /pI a) because that Jesus was not yet glorified."-S. John, vii. 39.
C~ the saying of Christ: "Verily I say unto you, among them  that are born of
women there hath not risen a greater than John the Baptist [" A prophet? yea, I say
unto you and more than a prophet"-ver. 9]: notwithstanding, he that is least in the
Kingdom of Heaven is greater than he."-S. Matt. xi. 11.
3 Referring to the occasion on which S. Paul had rebuked S. Peter, the question is
put hypothetically by S. Augustine: " At enim satius est credere, apostolum Paulum
aliquid non vere scripsisse, quam apostolum Petrum  non recte aliquid egisse."  To
which he replies: " Hoc si ita est; dicamus (quod absit) satius esse credere mentiri
Evangelium, quam negatum esse a Petro Christum; et mentiri Regnorum librum
quam tantum Prophetam, a Domino Deo tam excellenter electum, et in concupiscenda
atque abducenda uxore aliena commisisse adulterium." * * * Immo vero Sanctam
Scripturam, in summo et ccelesti auctoritatis culmine collocatam, do veritate ejus certus
et securus legam  *  *  *  potius quam, facta humana dum in quibusdam laudabilis
excellentise personis aliquando credere timeo reprehendenda, ipsa divina eloquia mili
sint ubique suspecta.-Ad Hieron. Ep. lxxxii. t. ii. p. 191.
4 S. Augustine observes as to Balaam's character: "Postea illi et angelus loquitur,
arguens et improbans ejus viam: quo viso tamen exterritus adoravit. Deinde ire
permissus est, ut jam per ipsum prophetia clarissima proferretur. Nam omnino permissus non est dicere quod volebat, sed quod virtute Spiritus co-cebatur. Et ipse
quidem reprobus mansit."-Quost. in Num. xlviii. lib. iv. t. iii. p. 549. S. Ambrose
writes as follows: "Sed non mireris infusum  auguri a Domino quod loqueretur,
quando infusum legis in Evangelio etiam principi Synagogae [scii. Caiaphsej uni ex
persequentibus Christum, quia oportet unum hominem mori pro populo. In quo nose
prophetise meritum, sed adsertio veritatis est; ut adversariorum testimonio maiifestaretur, quo perfidia non credentium vocibus suorum augurum redargueretur. —
Epist. 1. t. ii. p. 994.
5 The case of Jonah illustrates, in a striking manner, the distinction which our
Lord has drawn between "a prophet" and "a righteous man"-the chief forms of
15




226                 REVELATION  AND INSPIRATION.                     [LECT. V.
disobedient Prophet' and S. Peter himself, all prove that personal
excellence is not essential to the due reception, and perfect transmission of God's Revelation. Whatever may have been our anticipations on this subject, such facts cannot be disputed; and
a moment's consideration will show  that the fullest recognition
of them not only does not derogate from, but, on the contrary,
establishes the supreme authority of the  Bible.  On  any other
view, however we may exalt the  personal excellence  of the sacred writers, in that same degree must we diminish the obligation to regard what they have written as infallible.  Infallibility
does not admit of degrees.  Now  there was but ONE Who " was
in all points tempted like as we are, yet without sin."" Whenever, therefore, we attempt to estimate the amount of deference
due  to  Holy  Scripture by  the  amount of moral perfection  to
which its various authors have attained, we can no longer refuse
to  admit that imperfect views of doctrine, and partial, if not
erroneous, representations  of facts may-nay, must-exist in
its pages; for we are at once encountered by the argument, the
truth of which experience proves, and Scripture itself teaches,
that the brightest purity, if enshrined in merely human form,
will yet be clouded by the shadow which still rests upon the gates
of Paradise.'
Old Testament piety: " He that receiveth a prophet in the name of a prophet shall
receive a prophet's reward; and he that receiveth a righteous man, in the name of a
righteous man, shall receive a righteous man's reward."-S. Matt. x. 41. Cf. Olshausen,
in loc.
I Kings, xiii.                                         2 Hebr. iv. 15.
3 Mr. Maurice, in his volume of " Theological Essays," has devoted the thirteenth
essay to the question of Inspiration. The chief topic there discussed is that distinction
between the significations of the word'Inspiration' which has been now considered;
and on this subject Mr. Maurice's opinion is adverse to that which I have advocated. I
venture to think that this difference of opinion has arisen from one of those ambiguities
of language which have tended to obscure the question of Inspiration to a greater extent, perhaps, than any other within the range of Theology. Mr. Maurice approaches this
topic as follows: "R eligious men, the most earnestly religious men, speak of themselves
as taught, actuated, inhabited by a Divine Spirit. They declare that they could know
nothing of the Scriptures except they were under this guidance. Is this the Inspiration
which we attribute to the writers of the Old and New Testament, or is that different
from it in kind?"-p. 321. Mr. Maurice then proceeds to observe that " the Church of
England has used this very word'Inspiration,' "-viz., in the Collect for the Fifth
Sunday after Easter, and in the Communion Service, on which he asks: "Are we
paltering with words in a double sense? When we speak of Inspiration, do we mean
Inspiration?  When we refer to the Inspiration of the Scriptures in our sermons,
ought we to say,' Brethren, we beseech you not to suppose that this Inspiration at
all resembles that for which we have been praying. They are generically, essentially
unlike.' "-p. 323. The use here of the word' generically' indicates, I apprehend, the
source of Mr. Maurice's opinion on this subject. He appears to have thought that if
the word'Inspiration' implies two distinct kinds of influence, the reference of either




LECT. V.]           REVELATION  AND  INSPIRATION.                         227
The  very manner in which  Scripture notices this inherent
frailty of even the organs of Revelation, forcibly illustrates how
the Divine element engaged in its composition has neutralized
every tendency which is merely human. Take the case of S. Peter's denial of his Master.  We can find in the Gospel narrative
no stern denunciation of the act; no indignant allusion to its
cowardice or its ingratitude  lightly as the glance of the Lord
Himself fell upon the Apostle while he disowned Him, the pen
of the sacred writers but touches on the occurrence, and passes
on.' Such failings are, in general, noticed, as we should say, in
to the Holy Ghost must exclude His agency in exercising the other. " Can we conceive," he asks, "any view of the IIoly Scriptures which would have seemed to him
[S. Paul] more dreadful, than one which, under color of exalting them, should set
aside their own express testimony concerning the unspeakable gift which God had conferred on His creatures?"  *  *  *  "In solitary chambers, among bedridden sufferers, the words of these good men [" our Venns and Newtons"] have still a living
force. The Bible is read there truly as an inspired book; as a book which does not
stand aloof from human life, but meets it; which proves itself not to be the work of a
DIFFERENT SPIRIT from that which is reproving and comforting the sinner, but of the
same." —p. 333. Here the writer seems to have overlooked the bearing upon this
question of S. Paul's express statement: "There are diversities of gifts, but TIlE S.mIE
Spirit" (1 Cor. xii. 4). These words assuredly imply a specific difference in the manifestations of spiritual agency; and hence the iollowing alternative does not convey an
accurate statement of the opinion on which Mr. Maurice pronounces judgment:
" ither we must set at nought the faith of those who have clung to the Bible, and
found a meaning in it when the doctors could not interpret it; or we must forego the
demand which we make on the consciences of young men, when we compel them to
say that they regard the Inspiration of the Bible as GENERICALLY unlike that which
God bestows on His children in this day."-p. 334.
Mr. Maurice's motive for dwelling on this question, of itself, accounts for the view
which he has propounded: "I have appeared to protest against current theories of
Inspiration because they fail to assert the actual presence of that Spirit whom it has
been one of the standing articles of his [the Unitarian's] creed not to confess. I cannot deny this charge.  I do think that our theories of Inspiration, however little
they may accord with Unitarian notions, have a semi-Unitarian character; that they
are derived from that unbelief in the Holy Ghost which is latent in us all, but which
was developed and embodied in the Unitarianism of the last century."-p. 346. Mr.
Maurice, in fact, conceives that the theories "about Inspiration current among our
Evangelical and High Church teachers," and according to which the agency of the
Holy Ghost in the composition of Scripture differs from the influences which lie sheds
upon Christians in every age,-have tended to prevent " a full assertion of that portion of our creed which refers to the Person of the Comforter."  Without considering
whether this notion is well or ill'founded, I would merely observe that'the theory'
advanced in these Discourses is certainly not obnoxious to the charge of casting a
cloud over the Personal agency of the Holy Spirit.
"And the Lord turned, and looked upon Peter. And Peter remembered the
word of the Lord, how He had said unto him, Before the cock crow, thou shalt deny
me thrice. And Peter went out, and wept bitterly. And the men that held Jesus
mocked him," &c.-S. Luke, xxii. 61-G3. Compare the single remark which the
Evangelists make use of when referring historically to the name of Judas Iscariot"who also betrayed Him," (S Matt. x. 4.); or, again, the narrative of the murder of
S. John the Baptist (S. Matt. xiv. 3-12) which closes with the simple statement:
" His disciples came, and took up the body and buried it, and went and told Jesus."
So, too, in the Old Testacnent, the sia of Lot (Gen xix. 30-38) is recorded without




228                 REVELATION  AND  INSPIRATION.                   [LECT. V.
the most cursory manner.  The sinful act is dwelt upon, and the
violation of the command of God by His ambassador is held up
as an object of reprobation, in such cases only where there might
be danger of misapprehension, or where the moral sense of itself
might not at once reconcile the difficulty. Thus, in the thirteenth
chapter of the first Book of Kings, we read how the " old prophet
who dwelt in Bethel" seduced "the man  of God" by whom, in
the strength n of the Spirit, the King of Israel had been  braved
beside the altar. At first, indeed, " the man of God" refused to
disobey the express command of the Lord; but he  is answered
by the assertion, " I am a prophet also as thou art, and an angel
spake unto me by the word of the Lord." Here there is plainly
room  for the utmost offence and misapprehension, which, the inspired historian, without any comment, at once dispels by the
single phrase, " But he lied unto him."'
There are many other characteristics of the  sacred  volume
which cannot fail, in like manner, to impress the mind with the
deepest conviction of the unceasing presence and controlling influence of its Divine Author. Consider, for example, the superhuman wisdom  with which  the language of Scripture  touches
upon  the institutions of the old Gentile world in  their relation
to Christianity. Need I mention here the often quoted instance
of how the New Testament writers abstain from all direct reprobation of the great social crime of slavery? They confine themselves to pointing out the source, and inculcating the great prinany comment. The incest of Reuben (Gen. xxxv. 22) is noticed with the single remark: "And Israel heard it."  In 2 Kings, xvi. 10-16, an act of peculiar impiety is
recorded as having been committed by King Ahaz and the High Priest Urijah: we
are, no doubt, informed in the beginning of the chapter of the character of Ahaz; but
were we unacquainted with the ordinances of the Mosaic Law, we assuredly could
not have formed any adequate notion of the nature of his crime, from what the narrative itself unfolds.
Ver. 18. The importance of these facts will be at once seen, if we remember
t'.lat the manner in which Scripture touches upon the morality of many actions related
in its pagoes has been urged as an objection against a strict view of its inspiration.
iThus, alluding to "the progressive character of the Scripture morality," and having
assorted that an "imperfect morality is plainly discernible throughout the period of
tie ()ld Testamrent dispensation, and frequently embodied, too, in the Old Testament
Scriptures," Mr. Moreil observes: "These things, it is said, may be explained as
being permitted by God for a time on account of the weakness of human nature, or,
as our Saviour expressed it on one occasion,' on account of the hardness of their
hearts.' But surely it is one thing to suppose that God would tolerate these things,
just as he tolerates sin in Hiis creatures, while the struggle against evil is going on,
and quite anooter thing to have them either justified (?) or spoken of as matters of;moral indife'rence, in words dictated immediately by the Holy Spirit."-Philos. of
Rei7Aion..G. 1 8.




LECT. V.]            REVELATION  AND  INSPIRATION.                         229
ciple of Christian brotherhood: the result they leave to the
fructifying influence  of the  Holy Spirit, and  to  time.  Again,
observe the marked  distinction which  exists between  the Bible
and all other writings which relate to the history of man individually or collectively.  To take a single illustration:-we may
remark throughout the Scripture narrative the absence of personal feeling, and the suppression of personal emotion.2 Josephus,
observes Pascal, conceals the dishonor of his nation: Moses does
not conceal his own.3   What reader has failed to notice how the
cold  sententiousness of Tacitus expands into  tenderness, and
warms with passion, when he turns aside to weep over the last
moments of Agricola?'  But compare with this  natural outpouring of feeling the record of the Evangelists. There no expression of human sympathy accompanies the story of the Agony
in  the Garden,-the awfil scene before Pilate,-the horrors of
the Cross!  No  burst of emotion  attends their Master's body
to the grave, or welcomes His Resurrection:-and yet who has
not felt how this treatment of their theme but adds to its pathos
and its grandeur?5
" By one Spirit are we all baptized into one body, whether we be Jews or Gentiles, whether we be bond or free." — Cor. xii. 13. Cf. ch. vii. 20, 21; 1 Tim. vi. 1, 2;
1 S. Pet. ii. 18, &c., &c.' Speaking of the predictions contained in Lev. xxvi. and Deut. xxviii., Mr. Davison observes: "It is a striking fact in the delivery of this prophecy, that it comes
from the mouth of Moses, the legislator of the commonwealth whose dissolution he
is directed to foreshow.  *  *  *  How unlike is it to the ordinary course of man's
own spirit or wisdom to dwell upon the downfall of his own works, just at the moilent when they come fresh from his hands. *  *  *  The approaching settlement
of this chosen people, their first advance to Canaan, is the season when their ruin,
and their expulsion from that land, are introduced to view. The prophetic tidings
of their distant overthrow are made to sound in our ears as loud as the song of their
present victory. A combination of things rarely made, and not conformable to the
human feeling left to itself; but which is not without example in other conspicuous
parts of Prophecy. For as Moses foretells the desolation of his people at the moment
wvhen he reared them into a community, so to Solomon were foreshown the ruins of
his Temple at the like season, when he beheld it completed in its magnificence, and
bearing upon it the omens of hope and joy in the blessing of its first Inauguration."On Prophecy, p. 164.
3 "Josephe cache la honte de sa nation; Moise ne cache pas sa honte propre."ed. Faugere, t. ii. p. 193.
4 Cf. "Julii Agricolae Vita,". cap. xliii.-xlvi. E. g. " Tu vero felix, Agricola, non
vitm tantumn claritate, sed etiam opportunitate mortis: ut perhibent, qui interfuerunt
novissimis sermonibus tuis, constans et libens fatum excepisti, tamquam pro virili
portione innocentiam Principi donares. Sed mihi filieque, praeter acerbitatem parentis erepti, auget mcestitiam, quod adsidere valetudini, fovere deficientem, satiari
vultu, complexu, non contigit. Excepissemus certe mandata vocesque, quas penitus
animo figeremus. Noster hie dolor, nostrum vulnus:" &c.-cap. xlv.
"5  On the subject of miracles, the means to this great end, they speak in calm,
unimpassioned language; on man's sins, change of heart, on hope, faith, and charity;




230                 REVELATION  AND  INSPIRATION.                   [LECT. V.
And thus it is that human instrumentality, according to the
various aspects under which we have considered it, has been
moulded by the Holy Spirit into the organism of Revelation.
Each ray of the Divine Light has been borne to mankind through
the medium  best suited for its transmission: and yet, while borrowing, on its course, that particular hue which the medium  lends
through which it passes, it retains, no less sensibly, the purity
of the source from  which  it streams.  In  past ages God  had
spoken unto the fathers by means of sundry partitions of the
Truth, and in  divers manners.'  The  constituent elements  of
Revelation were thus conveyed gradually, and under aspects best
suited to the time: and this partial communication of His decrees was, no doubt, one consequence of the Fall;-rendered
necessary by man's incapacity to receive, and so ordained by
God's wise counsel to withhold.  But in  these "last days" He
has spoken to us by His Son.2 In the language of Christ we can
discern no features tinged by human genius, no hues borrowed
from  human thought.  In His words the  severed  rays of Revelation have been re-combined in one uncolored beam of Truth.
on the objects in short to be effected, they exhaust all their feelings and eloquence.
Their history, from the narrative of our Lord's persecutions to those of Paul, the
abomination of the Jews, embraces scenes and personages which claim from the ordinary reader a continual effusion of sorrow, or wonder, or indignation. In writers
who were friends of the parties, and adherents of the cause for which they did and
suffered so great things, the absence of it is, on ordinary grounds, incomprehensible.
*  *  *  Had these authors no feeling?  Had their mode of life bereaved them
of the common sympathies and sensibilities of human nature? Read such passages
as Paul's parting address to the elders of Miletus; the same Apostle's recommendation of the offending member of the Corinthian Church to pardon; and, more than
all, the occasional bursts of conflicting feeling, in which anxious apprehension for
the faith and good behavior of his converts is mixed with the pleasing recollection
of their conversion, and the minister and the man are alike strongly displayed-and
it will be plain that Christianity exercised no benumbing influence on the heart.
*  *  *  Still, is it possible that the natural man should have sustained, without
one relapse, one single deviation, a tone of feeling so much beyond man? Could
the circumstances of these writers, overpoweringly impressive though they were,
have secured them  against even an occasional betrayal of wonder, of pity, of indignation, or of sorrow?  The more we reflect on the nature of the scenes they describe, the more forcibly will the question be suggested. Must not such emotions
have arisen, on some occasions at least, in the breast even of men so circumstancedmen who were still of like passions with ourselves?  That the expression of such
feelings should nowhere appear, throughout the narratives of each and of all, does
certainly seem inexplicable; unless we admit a miraculous control of their authorship,-unless we suppose them, in short, to have been, not merely workers and witnesses of miracles, but miraculously guided in their writings."-Bishop Hinds, On
Inspiration, p. 83, &c.
1 Hov/iLepS( /ac rTOvrpoTv f'r(iXat 6 0Oe6  LaoaXafr. —Heb. i. 1.'EiLaXffev jilv tv Til.-Ibid.




LECT. V.J      REVELATION AND INSPIRATION.            231
The clouds have now parted which once veiled from the eye of
fallen man the gracious purpose of his heavenly Father. " God
who commanded the light to shine out of darkness hath shined
in our hearts, to give the light of the knowledge of the glory of
God, in the face of Jesus Christ."' The Sun of Righteousness
has arisen with healing in His wings:-the Eternal Word has
become incarnate, to regenerate, and to redeem.
I 2 Cor. iv. 6.








LECTURE VI,
SCRIPTURAL PROOF.




Oav/laar7Tv 6d 2lav iXovroUV iCv 6'y4wv Ev'a-yeaCTr(tv Tr7V e T() yp)Lpetv dKpi/3etav'
4V y(p avTro0 Z^a2.ovCl, KarTu 7rv TOV 7     orT7ipof 0wv5)v, dau2a 7TO lveiVa TOV rlaTpOrp   TO Ev
avro.
S. CYRILL. Alex. Comm. in S. Joan. Evang., lib. i Prooem.
"Cedamus igitur et consentiamus auctoritati Sanctae Scripturae, quae nescit falli nec
fallere."
S. AUGUST. De peccator. merit., lib. i. c. 22.
TO 6doptaLjt  Xp7aaluEvorg UTibKplve Tr rT jvf v6pOpwv    Gaoq iacf  vyypdi#uara. Oe6Trvevarov 6d ypaq57v Tr7v wvevv/aTcKl7v dvoyzaaev. 4 y'ip rTOV 0eov HvevtarToc Xudpt dla
trV TIpOl7TVlr   Kcal Tcv'A.roaTor6o v Ei' 0yV aro.  OeOf Troivvv 0'TO Ivevfia rO "A7yov, eiT~ep
Ui7jOtSc Kara TOV A7rOTaroxov  Oe67rvevcTog roT  IveviuaTrof 7 ypag4.
THEODORETUS, In Epist. ii. ad Tim.




LECTURE VI.
SCRIPTURAL PROOF.
WHICH THINGS ALSO WE SPEAK, NOT IN THE WORDS WHICH MAN'S WISDOM TEACHETH, BUT WHICH THE HOLY GHOST TEACHETH. —1 Cor. ii. 13.
THE topics which have hitherto chiefly engaged our attention have been the reality of a Divine Revelation, and the nature
of the Holy Spirit's agency by means of which that Revelation
has been imparted to mankind.  The co-operation of the Holy
Spirit for such a purpose has been termed'Inspiration;' and
the evidence already adduced, in order to exhibit the character
of this peculiar influence, has consisted principally of inferences
from certain phenomena presented by the Bible, as well as from
the structure of its various parts. An important subject, therefore, still remains untouched, the consideration of which, as stated
on a previous occasion, has been necessarily postponed: —I mean
the direct evidence which the sacred writers themselves supply.
The connexion of this branch of our inquiry with what has preceded is too obvious to require comment: a few preliminary remarks, however, may serve to strengthen the combined force of
the two lines of proof, and to illustrate the general tendency of
the course of reasoning here pursued.
I would observe, therefore, that if the fact of a Revelation
having been given be not questioned; and if the Bible be, confessedly, the repository of such a communication from God,See Lecture iv. p. 140.
2 Even those systems which profess to be founded on a new revelation unite with
the Christian in admitting the Divine authority of the Bible. Thus Mohammed was
content to appeal to the facts of Scripture as precedents: " Verily we have revealed
our will unto thee, as we have revealed it unto Noah, and the prophets who succeeded him, and as we revealed it unto Abraham and Ismael, and Isaac and Jacob,
and the tribes, and unto Jesus, and Job, and Jonas, and Aaron, and Solomon; and
we have given thee the Koran as we gave the Psalms unto David," &c. &c.-Sale's
Koran, ch. iv. &c. &c. See Dr. Henderson's work entitled " Divine Inspiration," p. 11.




236                        SCRIPTURAL PROOF.                       [LECT. VL
there is the highest possible presumption, a priori, that a certain
degree of Divine assistance has been superadcled, for the purpose
of enabling the authors of this record to compose their narratives
with perfect accuracy, and to transmit the Revelation to others
in its original purity. If this Revelation was intended for men
in every age,-and so much, at least, the nature of the case entitles us to assume, —on what grounds can any doubt be cast on
the credibility of God's having specially commissioned certain
agents to hand down the history of it to future times, or of His
having bestowed upon them such aid as would ensure that the
knowledge which He had disclosed should be preserved free from
all alloy of human imperfection? Such precautions, in fact, are
no more than what any man, who has made a great discovery in
some department of science, is sure to take, if he only desire that
the knowledge of his discovery should not be lost. Nay, when
we bear in mind that so many astonishing  miracles  have  been
performed in order to convey this Revelation to mall, and to
bring to pass the system of things which it announces, we feel
instinctively inclined to presuppose that God cannot have withheld the far less striking miracle of providing against error in
the  documents which  preserve it.'  When we remember, too,
how vast a space of human history is included in the narratives
of which the sacred volume  is composed, this presumption becomes still stronger. Without such superhuman guidance, it is
We are told, moreover, that the Mohammedan Doctors teach that both the Gospel
and the Koran were predicted in the Old Testament. In the " Specimen Hist.
Arabum," by Abul-Faragius, we read: "Porro asserunt Islamitarum  docti, factam
fuisse ientionein Mohammedis in libris a Deo demissis, sc. in Lege, isto textu;'Venit Deus a Sina, et ortus est a Sair, et manifestatus est a monte Paranis' (Deut.
xxxiii. 2): quibus verbis indicari dicunt descensum  Legis ad Mosem, Evangelii ad
Jesum, et Alcorani ad Mohammedem."-(Pococke's transl., pp. 14 and 183.) It is,
in like manner, one of the articles of the Mormon "Creed:"-" We believe in the
word of God recorded in the Bible."
1 To this effect Bishop Warburton observes: "They [the Apostles] worked miracles, they spake with tongues, they explained mysteries, they interpreted prophecies, they discerned the true from the false pretences to the Spirit: and all this for
the temporary and occasional discharge of their ministry. Is it possible, then, to
suppose the:n to be deserted by their Divine Inlightener when they sat down to the
other part of their work; to frame a rule for the lasting service of the Church?
Can we believe that that Spirit, which so bountifully assisted them in their assemblies, had withdrawn Himself when they retired to their private oratories; or that,
when their speech was with all power, their writings should convey no more than the
created fallible dictates of human knowledge? To suppose the endowments of the
Spirit to be so capriciously bestowed, would make it look more like a mockery than
a gift. And to believe all this would be a harder task than what (the Deist tells us)
religious credulity imposes on us."-On the Office of the Holy Spirit: Works, vol. iv.
p. 561.




LECT. VI.]               SCRIPTURAL PROOF.                           237
inexplicable, considering the contents of the Bible, that just so
much should have been placed on record, and no more.'  Were
we to admit that any portion of Scripture has resulted from the
unaided exercise of human judgment or of human faculties, it
would always be possible to argue that the historian has omitted
much information which it concerns us to know, or that he has
preserved many facts which are trivial or unnecessary; that he
has but partially or imperfectly handed down the communication from  heaven; that such or such a fact has not been reported
with  accuracy; or, in  fine, that some particular expression or
doctrine has not been conveyed to us as God intended:-especially in cases where the subject matter of the narrative appears
strange, or opposed to human preconceptions.  If we had never
heard of the difficulties which have been urged against Inspiration-if we had never opened the Scriptures themselves-could
the suspicion have ever occurred to any fair mind, that God may
have thus left to all the chances of human fallibility the history
of that Revelation which (it is assumed) He has given to His
creatures, instructing them in their duties, and unfolding to them
His decrees?'-above all, when we know, as a matter of fact,
that in every age an unhesitating conviction has been expressed
by the Jewish, and subsequently by the Christian  Church, that
the different portions of the Bible have been composed under the
immediate direction and impulse of the Holy Ghost. Now if all
this must appear highly credible to any unprejudiced inquirer,
who had never opened the pages of Scripture, it remains for us
to see whether, having opened its several Books, and studied
their contents, such credibility either diminishes or disappears.
The value of the inspired writers' own statements is naturally
of the highest order.'  Those statements fully confirm  the herel Take, for example, the Gospel narrative. S. John's account embraces but few
of the particulars recorded by the Synoptists; while they, in turn, omit all mention
of such facts as the raising of Lazarus, the prophecy of Caiaphas, &c. Indeed we
are expressly told that no record has been preserved of " many other things which
Jesus did."-S. John, xxi. 25.
2 Cf. Tllner, "Die g5ttl. Eingebung der heil. Schrift." s. 148 ff. —" Fir Leute,
welche nicht nur die Eingebung sondern auch die Wahrheit und Glaubwiurdigkeit der
heiligen Schrift bestreiten, schreibe ich nicht."-s. 149.
3 In considering the evidence supplied by the statements of Scripture itself I
would observe that the full bearing of the different texts can only be appreciated
when we regard them as combined in one argument-an argument, moreover; which
must not be separated from the other proofs adduced. The opponent cannot be permitted to pass judgment upon the several statements of the sacred writers in detail,




238                        SCRIPTURAL PROOF.                     [LECT. VI.
ditary doctrines of the Church upon the subject of Inspiration,
as well as complete that testimony where it is, of necessity, defective;-for the authors of Scripture alone could bear direct
evidence to the fact, that they had received revelations from God,
or that they had been inspired to compose the sacred narrative.
Every other species of evidence must either be traced back to
that of the writers themselves, or have been founded partly on
the tokens of miraculous power which they displayed, partly on
the information supplied by other agents of God, who were similarly endowed.  We naturally expect, as I have said, to find information on this matter in the pages of Scripture. When we
read this account, so minute and circumstantial, of the various
disclosures which God has made to man, we cannot believe' that
no information has been imparted as to the amount of care taken
to ensure the purity of the documents in which they are preserved. Were the Bible altogether silent upon this subject, we
can easily picture to ourselves the use which would be made of
such a fact; but when the very reverse is the case, as I now proceed to show, the force of the argument which thence results, in
proof of the perfect inspiration of all the parts of Scripture,
and to argue that such or such a passage of Scripture does not, taken separately, support the whole weight uf the conclusion which it is sought to establish on the basis
of all combined. Nor, indeed, can justice be done to the reasoning by which the inspiration of the Bible is proved, were either the force of the direct evidence to be
estimated merely by the force which will still be retained, after all evasion, by its
constituent parts taken singly; or were such evidence to be considered apart from
the many collateral proofs which have been adduced in confirmation. To borrow the
admirable illustration of Bishop Butler when speaking of the "evidence of Christianity,"-The evidence for Inspiration combines many things "of great variety and
compass  *  *  *  making up, all of them together, one argument; the conviction
arising from which kind of proof may be compared to what they call the effect in
architecture or other works of art; a result from a great number of things so and so
disposed, and taken into one view."-Analogy, Part ii. ch. vii.
In saying this, I take for granted, as a matter of fact, that we possess in the
Bible a written narrative of God's Revelation to man;-a narrative, too, which can
be shown to have been composed in accordance with a Divine command (see supra,
Lecture ii. p. 53, &c.; and infra, Lecture vii). I do not, therefore, in any way
contravene the following important principles laid down by Bishop Butler: "We
are in no sort judges by what methods, and in what proportion, it were to be
expected that this supernatural light and instruction would be afforded us. * * *
Nay, we are not in any sort able to judge whether it were to have been expected,
that the revelation should have been committed to writing; or left to be handed
down, and consequently corrupted by verbal tradition. *  *  *  It may be said,'that a revelation  * *  *  which was not committed to writing  * * *  would
not have answered its purpose.' I ask, what purpose?  It would not have answered all the purposes, which it has now answered, and in the same degree;
but it would have answered others, or the same in different degrees."-Analogy,
Part ii. ch. iii.




LECT. VI.]                  SCRIPTURAL PROOF.                                239
will best be estimated by reflecting upon the desperate efforts
which have been made to evade it.'
And, first of all, as to the titles which have been appropriated
to the sacred writings. This collection of documents is styled,
either absolutely and simply " Scripture," in the singular; or
"the Scriptures," in the  plural: —the term  " Scripture," moreover, being on more than one occasion' used as if it were synonymous with its Author, where, from the references to the Old Tes1 I cannot avoid alluding to the manner in which Perrone copies, as one may say,
the words of the most extreme Rationalists, in his desire to prove that the authority
of the Church is the sole ground for our belief in the inspiration of Scripture. He
argues thus: " Seclusa Ecclesiae auctoritate nulla alia nobis superest via ad divinam
sacrorum librorum inspirationem internoscendam nisi aut Scriptura ipsa, aut antiqua
documenta, aut intrinsica quaedam librorum illorum proprietas. * * *  Porro nihil
horum ad rem conficiendam valet." In reply to the second and third members of this
alternative, see Lecture ii., and Lecture i. p. 46, &c. As to the first, Perrone writes:
"Non Scriptura ipsa; nuspiam  enir  Scriptura declarat quinam  singillatim  libri
Spiritu S. afflante conscripti sint, quinam vero nequaquam.  Et quamvis nonnulla
huc illuc afferantur dicta tanquam  oracula a Spiritu S. dictata, hme praecise non
afficiunt integrum librum ex quo peculiaria illa testimonia promuntur, ita ut presse
inferri possit ac debeat, librum integrum cum omnibus suis partibus fuisse Spiritu S.
afflante conscriptum.  Si interdum  legitur'omnem  Scripturam  esse divinitus inspiratam' ejusmodi effata nonnisi de libris Vet. Test. accipi possunt, idque sane generatim, sic ut semper incertum maneat quinam libri singillatim Spiritu S. afflante,
fuerint exarati, seu quinam illam'omnem  Scripturam' Spiritu S. inspiratam  revera
constituant."-Prcelect. Theol., vol. ii. par. ii. cap. 2. p. 89. The resemblance of this passage to the following statement of Bretschneider is very remarkable: "Dasselbe gilt
von den Stellen, wo sich die Apostel den Geist zuschreiben, und in seiner Kraft zu
lehren versichern, wie 1 Kor. ii. 4 ff. Denn daraus folgt, dass sie den Geist hatten,
dass also der Inhalt ihrer Lehre, Lehre des Geistes sei, keineswegs aber, dass ihnen
der Geist ihre Schreiben dictire. Noch weniger mag 2 Tim. iii. 16, beweisen, da dort
Paulus vom alten Test. spricht, und nicht von seinen eignen oder andern neutestamentlichen Schriften." — andb. der Dogmat., B. i. s. 393. Indeed the Roman Catholic
theologian goes further than the Rationalist; especially when he replies as follows to
the argument in support of the inspiration of the Old Testament, derived from the
manner in which Christ and His Apostles refer to it: "Formulae quas Christus et
Apostoli adhibuere vagce ac generates sunt. *   *  Multo vero minus ex generalibus
illis formulis constare nobis poterit singulas uniuscujusque libri partes iuisse inspiratas."-Perrone, loc. cit. p. 97.
2'H ypaor. S. John, ii. 22; Acts, viii. 32; Rom. iv. 3, &c., &c.; al ypapai, S. Matt.
xxii. 29; S. Mark, xiv. 49; S. Luke, xxiv. 27; S. John, v. 39, and passim.
"The Scripture (i? ypa7/), foreseeing that God would justify the heathen through
faith, preached before the Gospel unto Abraham, saying, In thee shall all nations be
blessed."-Gal. iii. 8; while in Gen. xii. 1-3, we read: "Now the Lord had said unto
Abram, Get thee out of thy country  *  *  *  unto a land that I will show thee
*  *  *  and in thee shall all the families of the earth be blessed."  Again, S. Paul
writes: " The Scripture saith unto Pharaoh,. Even for this same purpose have I raised
thee up," &c.-Rom. ix. 17; words which Mr. Alford paraphrases as follows: "Ihe
Scripture (identified with God, its Author: the case, as Tholuck remarks, is different
when merely something contained in Scripture is introduced by r ypaoq;iyeL: there
7j yp. is merely personified. The justice of Tholuck's remark will be apparent, if we
reflect that this expression could not be used of the mere ordinary words of any man
in the historical Scriptures, Ahab or Hezekiah,-but only where the text itself speaks,
or where God spoke, or, as here, some man under inspiration of God) saith to Pharaoh."
Cf. also the general mode of quoting the Old Testament in the Epistle to the
Hebrews.




240                         SCRIPTURAL PROOF.                       [LECT. VI.
tament, the Author can be no other than God Himself. As might
be expected, the term  is generally applied to the Old Testament 
the New  Testament Canon not having  been  as yet completed.
In one instance, however, S. Paul's Epistles are implicitly referred
to by S. Peter under this name,' and are, consequently, declared
by him to be inspired; since in all the fifty places where the term
"Scripture" occurs elsewhere in  the New  Testament, it is employed solely with reference to that collection of writings which
the Jews regarded as the " oracles of God;"2-or, to speak more
accurately, perhaps, it is applied only to the Old Testament, and
to those portions of the New which had been composed at the
time; for no argument which  has hitherto  been advanced  explains away the fact that our Lord's words in the Gospel, " the
laborer is worthy of his hire," are quoted verbatim  as " Scripture"
by S. Paul, in the same sense as the passage from the Pentateuch
which is coupled with them.3 We also find distinctive epithets
added:-" The Prophetic Scriptures;"4 or "Prophecy of Scrip1 "Even as our beloved brother Paul also  *    * *  hath written (Eypafev) unto
you; as also in all his Epistles  *  *  *  in which are some things hard to be understood, which they that are unlearned and unstable wrest, as they do also the other
Scriptures (~ Kical rT 2 C otrin  ypaa5i)."-2 S. Pet. iii. 15, 16.  "Peter reckons Paul's
Epistles, while the author was still alive, among the ypa0(6, Holy Scriptures."-Hug,
Einleitung. Th. i. ~ 17. 4te Aufl. s. 101.
2 See Wordsworth, "On the Canon," p. 185. Hence, in the language of the
New Testament, the term ypao7  must be understood, in the strictest sense, as a proper
name.
3 S. Paul, referring to the provision which the Church is bound to set apart for its
ministers,-a duty to which he has elsewhere (1 Cor. ix. 14) adverted as being what
"the Lord hath ordained"-writes: " For the Scripture saith (Qyet yip 7 ypa7j),'Thou shalt not muzzle the ox that treadeth out the corn' [Deut. xxv. 4]. And,'The laborer is worthy of his reward' ("Ato o 6 pycTdr7  ro~faV 1to) avrov)." —   Tim.
v. 18. The words of the second quotation are nowhere to be found in the Old Testament: but our Lord, prescribing to the Church the same duty to which the Apostle has
here adverted, on one occasion observes (to the "Twelve"), iStor yap o ipy. rSO rpo95C
avro —S. Matt. x. 10; and on another (to the "Seventy"), (utoc yap o tpy. rov ul0oov
aTrov-S. Luke, x. 7. It surely will not do to say, with Wiesinger, in loc.: "If he
[S. Paul] desired to support this dictum by an authority, he would have appealed, as in
Acts, xx. 35 [where, be it observed, S. Paul adduces an unwritten saying of Christ],
or 1 Cor. ix. 14, to the Kvptoc, and not to the Gospel of his helper Luke [whose words,
however, S. Paul literally copies], including this along with the Old Testament under
77 ypaori. *  *  *  The words,' the Scripture saith,' are therefore not to be connected with this citation, and Calvin is right when he says,'citat * * * quasi
dictum  proverbiale, quod omnibus dictat communis sensus.  Quemadmodum  et
Christus quum idem dicebat nihil aliud quam sententiam proferebat omnium consensu
approbatam.' "-s. 524.
It may be observed, that the Apostle here combines the Old and the New Testament under the title ypaon, when addressing the same person to whom he subsequently writes, 7ruaa ypa&) O0eorevr6TO —2 Tim. iii. 16.
4 " Made known by the Scriptures of the Prophets (dti Tre ypauCv Trpo0TrlKtSv)."Rom. xvi. 26.




LECT. VI.]                  SCRIPTURAL  PROOF.                               241
ture;"' or the significant phrase " Scripture given by Inspiration
of God."" In fine, there are the two emphatic expressions " the
Holy  Scriptures," and  " the  Hallowed Writings,"' —the  latter
being the technical phrase by which the Jews were wont to designate the Books of the Old Testament.    There exists, however,
an  important distinction  between the ideas which these two expressions convey, although  our English  Version represents them
as being equivalent.   The  epithet "Holy" Scripture intimates
the special relation of the Bible to God the Holy Ghost;' and in
this  sense  it is  that  the  Apostle  defines  "all Scripture"  as
1 TpobIreia ypnar/.-2 S. Pet. i. 20.
rpape  Oe6OvevaTro.-~2 Tim. iii. 16,-an expression which may be illustrated by
the New Testament phrase, ev Hvevr/arL [Oeof], as denoting the state in which the
Divine influence was felt: see supra, Lecture iii. p. 129, note. Thus, having quoted
our Lord's words: "How then doth David in Spirit call Him Lord," &c. (S. Matt.
xxii. 43),-S. Gregory of Nyssa observes: OVcKOTv rT 6vv7 er TOV IIveVaTrof ol 6eo0opovj/evot rUv U)'iv lulrveovTat. cKal 6dt roi, ro 7raa ypaoi' Oer7Trvevarogf "eyeTat, dla rTO
rf e-i aS ina Tve~rae(f ervat dt(aaKa2aiav.-Cont. Eunom., Orat. vI. t. ii. p. 605. We
may also compare the words of the text prefixed to the present Lecture (1 Cor. ii. 13)
with the statement of David himself: "The Spirit of the Lord spake by me, and His
word was in my tongue."-2 Sam. xxiii. 2.  Cf. too, virb 1v v e v6  a r o C'A y  o v
ep 6 je vot i    L (i Ar  a v d rO a   eor (vOpuero. —2 S. Pet. i. 21. To which illustrations of the force of OeTrvevarof may be-added the analogy of a similar term likewise
employed by S. Paul alone: "Ye yourselves are taught of God (OeodfdiaKTo0) to love
one another."-1 Thess. iv. 9. (Cf. 6dtaKToC7' Oeov-S. John. vi. 45.) As further illustrating the signification which such a compound term as reotrvevaroC must have conveyed to the mind of a Jew, we may compare the following form of expression: " The
holy Law made and given by God (rT// cayiac Ka  0 eo K r i a r o v voyoOeaiac)"2 Mace. vi. 23; and also that of Philo —f e6  p n 7  a  l6yoya-already quoted, Lecture ii. p. 67, note 1. According to some, who follow  the analogy of the word
a1rveVTaro which has an active sense ("without breath, breathless, Od. v. 456: hence
lifeless"-L. and S.), Ger-jvevvaroc = spirans Deum, or, as we may say, "plenus Deo,"
without much affecting the signification. Baumgarten Crusius considers analogy to
be decisive in favor of this active sense: "Die active giebt noch den angemessenen
Zusammenhang: was den g6ttlichen Geist in sich hat, wirkt auch durch diesen
auf das Leben ein."-Grundziige der bibl. Theol., s. 235; and he considers that the
Apostle in order to express this idea employs Oeo6rvevarov, not Tpobr)TCKO6v (Rom.
xvi. 26).
3 rp a   ( a   t y e a l.-Rom. i. 2; and rd i epa yp ai/ a r a-2 Tim. iii. 15. The
English Version translates in both places, "the Holy Scriptures."
4 See Havernick, "Einleitung," Th. i. Abth. i. s. 79; who compares "the distinction between iep6c and dyiog; sacer and sanctus;" (e. g. "'Aytof, Sanctus, ut UytcirT77r V7yaiuwv, Callim. H. in Del. (275) Pint. in Probl. T, di TtIU TTOLOiacv aVTrv iepbv,
Kal aylov, Kal (tavov, ubi lepov Kt' iiycnv, pro Sacrum et Sanctum ponit, quod vocabulo
composito Latini Sacrosanctum  appellant."-H. Stephanus, Thesaur. Gr. Ling., ed.
Valpy, vol. iii. p. 1331.) Havernick also calls attention to the following illustrations
of the sense in which'ept -yp(juieara  must have been understood (cf. supra, Lecture
ii. p. 70, note'): Josephus, having quoted Daniel's exposition of Nebuchadnezzar's
dream, adds, that if any of his readers desires to know more on the subject: arovsaad roTO r- fi iov dva/yvcSvat roV AoavLrjov- evplare  6i TOVTO eiv To   f   p o po  yp dau  a c tv. —Antiq., lib. x. x. 4 t. i. p. 535. Speaking of the Therapeutse Philo writes:'EVTVYX(vovTTE  yap T o t f t e pl   p (i p    y a a, ~lpto9oqovfaL 7riv 7rarpLav 6ltXoao70av,
Diu7vyopovvTre. —De Vita Contempl., t. ii. p. 475.
See supra, Lecture i. p. 24, &e.
16




242                         SCRIPTURAL PROOF.                       [LECT. VI.
"given  by Inspiration  of God."   The designation  "Hallowed
Writings" refers to the human  recognition of these sacred compositions; which are, accordingly, elsewhere  described  by the
same  Apostle as containing  " the  ancient covenant"  between
God and man.' We are also to note how  S. Paul, when about to
be withdrawn from  the scene of his labors,2 unites these two senses
in his final instructions to his disciple and  successor; and how
he combines an assertion of the practical value of " the Hallowed
Writings," with the statement of the source whence their vitality
is derived.   " The Hallowed Writings,  he argues, " have power
to  make thee wise unto  salvation, because Scripture, in all its
parts, is given by Inspiration of God."3
I do  not pause to  consider the  objections which have  been
urged against the rendering of this passage.4 Without entering
1 "Until this day, remaineth the same vail untaken away in the reading ofthe Old
Testament (r,/f rraaiatu  dLtaqKrlf)" — 2 Cor. iii. 14. See Hivernick, loc. cit.; who points
out the reference to certain written documents which is contained in the expression
Tr (ivayvuoeL; to which is added in explanation, /viKa  av a'va,,'t1n(cfK7ra Mim,'.-~
ver. 15. Cf. "And he [Moses] took the Book of the Covenant"-Exod. xxiv. 7;
"And the Lord said unto Moses, Write thou these words: for after the tenor of these
words I have made a covenant with thee, and with Israel"-xxxiv. 27; together with
the phrase ft^liov Trig dtaOidlyK, 2 Kings, xxiii 2 (LXX.): see also Ecclus. xxiv. 23;
1 Mace. i. 57.
2 The idea that this passage forms the parting admonition and rule of action bequeathed by S. Paul to Timothy has been beautifully expressed by S. Chrysostom,
who explains the connexion of the words as follows:-The Apostle naturally consoles
his disciple, since he was about to impart a great sorrow. If Elisha, who to the last
had accompanied his master, rent his garments when he beheld him departing, and
the glory of his departure,-what must one so beloved, so loving, have suffered, upon
hearing that the life of his instructor was drawing to a close,-a life, too, the last moments of which it was not to be his lot to soothe? Therefore, before he announces
his approaching death (2 Tim. iv. 6, 7), S. Paul proceeds to administer consolation:
"and this in no ordinary way, but in words adapted to comfort him, and fill him with
joy. *  *  *'For I am now ready to be offered up,' he says. For this reason he
writes:'All Scripture is given by Inspiration of God, and is profitable,' &c. All what
Scripture?  All that sacred writing, he means, of which I was speaking. This is said
of what he was discoursing of; about which he said,'From a child thou hast known
the Holy Scriptures.' All such, then,' is given by Inspiration of God;' therefore, he
means, do not doubt. *  *  *  Thou hast the Scriptures, he says, in place of me.
If thou wouldest learn anything, thou mayest learn it from them. ('A v r' E'  o v,
P r7 ai, TS   -y p a up   s  e Lc'     ei T7  3oo t  aOc aev, eKceiOev devv'/7l.)  *  *  *
And if he thus wrote to Timothy, who was filled with the Spirit, how much more
unto us I"-Homil. ix. in 2 Tim., t. xi. p. 715. (Oxf. transl., p. 249.)
3 Ta lepia 7ypdi/ara oldaf rdcv dvvevdu  as oroa pn:a els aJrrpiav d6a vriorTcu rS ev)
X.'I. ll(aa ypa~o Oe06TvVvarog Kat  10Z0Ct,.of 7rpog d(taul alIcaav, c. r. 7.-2 Tim. iii.
15, 16.
4 Thus Bishop Middleton observes:-" This is one of the texts usually adduced
in support of the inspiration of the Jewish Scriptures; but it has been doubted whether
the rendering of the English Version be the true one. *  *  *  Mr. Wakefield remarks, that the' Ethiopic alone of the old Versions does not omit Kai, and that the
Ethiopic is with him equivalent to all the rest in a difficult or disputed passage.'
Notwithstan ling this declaration, Mr. W., without assigning any reason, renders in




LECT. VI.]                  SCRIPTURAL PROOF.                                243
Upon the  grammatical or other difficulties,' it is manifestly impossible, however we translate the words, that S. Paul could have
meant by them   anything  else than  the whole  body of the Old
Testament writings; since no Jew,-and he was addressing a man
of Jewish descent, to whom  he had just appealed as being versed
in the sacred literature of the nation,-could have attached  any
other meaning to his language, or could  have supposed that, in
the expressions here employed, some particular writings only, or
certain portions of them, were referred to as the work of the
Spirit of God.    This passage, indeed, does no more than  apply
the  general principle  laid  down  by  S. Peter in  each  of his
Epistles, namely, that the Spirit of Christ " was in the prophets;"
and that "holy men  of God  spake as they were moved  by the
Holy Ghost." 
defiance of the AEthiopic,'every writing inspired by God is useful,' &c. I agree, however, with him in his translation of 7riat  yp.'ap   *  *  *  and I take the assertion
to be,'every writing (viz., of the ep2 yp(,uLara just mentioned) is Divinely inspired,
and is useful,' &c. I do not recollect any passage in the New Testament in which
two Adjectives, apparently connected by the Copulative, were intended by the Writer
to be so unnaturally disjoined."-Doctrine of the Greek Article, Rose's ed, p. 391. On
the other hand, Dr. Pye Smith translates:'' Every writing Divinely inspired [is] also
profitable for instruction," &c.-on which one may ask how is the absence of iori to
be accounted for?  "It is evident (continues Dr. Smith) that the Apostle, in ver. 16,
resumes distributively what he had before advanced collectively: so that'every writing Divinely inspired' is a description, by which the Apostle designates each and every
one of the writings comprised under the well-understood collective denomination ri
lep& ypu /iara, the holy writings."-The Scripture Testimony to the Messiah, vol i. note,
p. 32. 3rd ed.' Winer (" Grammatik," Abschn. iii. ~ 17, s. 104), lays down the following general
Canon respecting the use of the article. "The article stands before a substantive conhected with 7r5i in the singular, when this adjective describes the totality of the object, and is to be translated'the whole'-e. g.'the whole city' —rdaa 71 r62t —S.
Matt. viii. 34; xxi. 10."  Cf. S. Matt. vi. 29; S. Luke, ii. 1. When on the other
hand 7rde denotes some object out of a multitude, and is to be rendered'every,' the
article is wanting"-cf. radv d&vdpov-S. Matt. iii. 10; rodaa fipay~ —S Luke, iii. 5.
This Canon does not, however, apply to the case of proper names: e. g. Herod' was
troubled and all Jerusalem (7rdaa'iepoa.) with him"-S. Matt. ii. 3; " Let the whole
house of Israel (nrSd olcof'Iapa7Z.) know, &c."-Acts, ii. 36 (cf. e,'rEiPAebe 7rii-  o/iioc'ifpaXij-1 Sam. vii. 2, 3; n7rio  nravrTv  olov'lovda-Neh. iv. 16):-where o/l.'lap.,
according to the Old Testament usage, and the practice of the LXX. (cf. XapIUosvvWv
oibcov'lapa7iJ —Judith, viii. 6): takes the nature of a proper name. So also, in the
New Testament, in the words Tad rp6o3ara rTe dTroo Ar2 a ol/iov'IapalA-S. Matt. x. 6,
and xv. 24. Now if any term can strictly claim the title of a proper name, from its
exclusive application to a single object, assuredly ypan9ij is such.-See supra, p. 240,
note.
2 Tollner (" Die gott]. Eingebung," s. 228) well observes, that S. Paul must have
expected that Timothy would understand the terms which he employed in the same
sense which the Jews of his time were accustomed to affix to them. If, on the other
hand, dissenting from the well-known doctrine of the Jews as to the inspiration of
their sacred books, the Apostle nevertheless made use of expressions which they
could only understand in a sense different from that which he desired that his words
should convey, he has written so as to confirm an error.
3 The prophets searched' what manner of time the Spirit of Christ which was in




244                    SCRIPTURAL PROOF.                [LECT. VI.
The point of view from which the Apostles thus regarded the
Old Testament suggests an immediate answer to the questions,
How did they judge of their own writings? and, By what prepossessions on the subject of Inspiration were they influenced?
While they plainly announced their belief that the Old Testament is the work of the Holy Ghost, they, with equal distinctness, proclaimed, as a leading doctrine of the Gospel, that in their
days spiritual gifts were diffused in a greater measure than in any
former age. If, therefore, they regarded the Old Testament as
authoritative and infallible, because it was " given by Inspiration
of God," no less authority and infallibility must they have ascribed to the writings composed by themselves -bountifully endowed, as they were, by the same Divine Spirit. This inference
would be legitimate, even if we could not point to any express
statement respecting that supernatural assistance which they received as authors of the New Testament. Let us merely conceive
that they did not depart from the whole frame of thought which
prevailed around them, and we can at once confidently pronounce
as to their estimate of those portions which they themselves contributed to the Canon of Scripture.  But if their express statements on this subject be taken into account, it is of itself manifest
that they who, as Jews, well knew what was the signification of
the words " the Spirit of the Lord fell upon me," must have apprehended, in a similar manner, the meaning of the promises of
Christ which we are about to consider: and we may safely infer
that in every exigency they counted upon, and failed not to receive, a degree of aid and guidance corresponding to that by
which the prophets had been directed, and of which the prophets
also had had previous assurance. Thus, when Moses had pleaded
-" 0 my Lord, I am not eloquent:   but I am slow of
speech, and of a slow tongue;" "the Lord said unto him, Who
hath made man's mouth?    *  *:    have not I, the Lord?
Now, therefore, go, and I will be with thy mouth, and teach thee
what thou shalt say."'  And that this promise was not to rest
them did signify;" and again, " The things which are now reported unto you by them
that have preached the Gospel unto you with the Holy Ghost sent down from heaven."
-1 S. Pet. i. 11, 12: see also 2 S. Pet. i. 21.
1 Exod. iv. 10-12. Cf. "My Spirit that is upon thee, and My words which I
have put in thy mouth"-Isai. lix. 21; " The Lord said unto me, Say not I am a
child * * * whatsoever I command thee, thou shalt speak. * * * Then the
Lord put forth His hand, and touched my mouth. And the Lord said unto me, Be



LECT. VI.]                 SCRIPTURAL PROOF.                              245
here, but that it was to apply to the succession also of prophets
after Moses, was again expressly declared by Jehovah Himself:
"I will raise them  up a Prophet from  among their brethren  like
unto thee, and will put My words in his mouth; and he shall
speak unto them  all that I shall command him:"'-words which,
as the context proves, must have related in their primary sense
to the Prophetic Office in general, although they werefilly realized only in the Person of Christ.
To the New Testament writers similar assurances were given.
We are told that Christ, on four distinct occasions2 previously to
His passion, promised His Disciples the assistance of the Holy
Ghost;-the promises of Divine aid which He gave them  after
His Resurrection being altogether subsidiary to His former statements.3 The first occasion on which such an assurance was given
hold I have put My words in thy mouth."-Jer. i. 7-9. " I am full of power by the
Spirit of the Lord  *  *  *  to declare unto Jacob his transgression and to Israel
his sin."-Micah, iii. 8.' Deut. xviii. 18. It has often been argued that these words refer exclusively to
a single individual, and consequently to the Messiah alone. But the context seems
decisive against this view. The contrast with the false prophets, which is there instituted, requires us to understand a plurality of individuals opposed to them; while,
as nothing in the passage points to a single person endowed with special prophetic
gifts,-so everything suggests the application to the collective body of the true prophets of Jehovah. The use of the singular number, —~: "a Prophet,"-has, indeed,
been strongly pressed in opposition to the admissibility of this interpretation: but we
have an exact parallel in the use of the singular ~1, "a King"-Deut. xvii. 14-20.
The occasion, too, on which Moses employed this form of speech at once accounts for
it. His design, in the book of Deuteronomy, is to announce each crisis in the future
history of his nation: for it is his duty, as Legislator, to provide for each exigency
which is to come. He accordingly declares that, whenever need may require, a true
prophet shall appear in Israel. The greater the need, therefore, and the longer the
interval during which this promise might remain suspended, the more distinguished
must be the fulfilment of the prediction; and in this consideration we see the force
of the allusions in the New Testament.-Acts, iii. 22; vii. 37. Even without such
allusions, indeed, we might of ourselves discern how Christ alone has fully realized
this Theocratic ideal of Prophecy,-He who has accomplished for the human race,
what the prophets attempted for a single nation: but still the fact of the primary
reference of the words remains unaffected. The following conclusions result: (1.)
All prophecy, which is not of Hebrew origin, is excluded by the Law (cf. ver. 15"from the midst of thee, of thy brethren" —7luhn: 7tpi).  (2.) Every true prophet
must resemble Moses (" like unto me" —::): i. e. there can be no opposition between the earlier and later revelation of God: the one being a necessary continuation,
and development of the other. (3.) The prophet must receive a special call from Jehovah (" The Lord thy God will raise up" —~ip);-herein consists the distinction
between the Prophet and the Priest. (4.) By virtue of this special appointment, such
a Prophet represents Jehovah to the people:-Jehovah "puts His words in his
mouth" (ver. 18); and the prophet speaks "in His name," (ver. 20). And thus, as
has been already observed (Lecture iv. p. 156), the Law, without calling forth the full
activity of Prophecy, recognised its existence, and announced its privileges. See
Havernick, "Einleit," Th. II. Abth. ii. s. 9 ff.
2 See C. F. Fritzsche, " De Revelat. notione Biblica," p. 54.
3 E. g. "Behold I send the promise of My Father upon you," &c.-S. Luke,
xxiv. 49. Cf Acts i 8.




246                        SCRIPTURAL PROOF.                       [LECT. VI.
was when  He instructed  and  sent forth  the Twelve, as we read
in the tenth  chapter of S. Matthew's Gospel;' the  second  was
during that discourse to His disciples which has been preserved
in the twelfth chapter of S. Luke;2 the third was on the third
day of the week in which He suffered, "as He sat upon the Mount
of Olives;"3 and the fourth promise is contained in the discourse
which  S. John  has  recorded  in  the fourteenth  and  following
chapters of his Gospel.   These passages are at once reducible to
two classes; the three former being  so similar in  their import
that they may be considered together, and apart from  the fourth.
I. Each of the passages of which the first class consists expresses the same idea:-" When they deliver you up, take  no
thought how or what ye shall speak; for it shall be given you in
that same hour what ye shall speak: for it is not ye that speak,
but the Spirit of your Father which speaketh in you."'   In such
l Ver. 19, 20. See, infra, note 4.
"  When they bring you unto the synagogues, and unto magistrates, and powers,
take ye no thought (/) /l SptUjvIojrTeV): for the Holy Ghost shall teach you in the same
hour what ye ought to say."-S. Luke, xii. 11, 12.
S. Mark, xiii. 3; see Wieseler, " Chronol. Synopse der vier Evang.," s. 393.
The forms of this promise are as follows: "When they shall lead you, and deliver
you up, take no thought beforehand (uti rrpouepqv6ire) what ye shall speak, neither
do ye premeditate: but whatsoever shall be given you (3o Eav do60 ivvl) in that
hour, that speak ye: for it is not ye that speak, but the Holy Ghost."-S. Mark, xiii.
11.  "Settle it therefore in your hearts, not to meditate before (Y) 7rpo/e-Ter7v) what
ye shall answer: for I will. give you ('Ey/  yap 6d(d  illv) a mouth and wisdom,
which all your adversaries shall not be able to gainsay or resist."-S. Luke, xxi. 14,
15. Cf. "They were not able to resist the wisdom  and the Spirit by which he [S.
Stephen] spake."-Acts, vi. 10.
4 "O ra' Jd 7TapaSLtdSatv vladf,,ptuv7al7tre rtC  7v ry aXc]77yTre' doPiaerat yap ivylv
iv'eiv LV  T/ c(l' rTi a2arer' oi yXp hiet aore ol yapovrTef, F J2aXa rO Ilvefula ro  l nar,)O V/u'vf rT  1ea/iov:v vFitv.-S. Matt. x. 19, 20. Perrone attempts to evade, as follows, the force of these texts; arguing against the method adopted by Michaelis, of
inferring the inspiration of the Books of the New Testament from the inspiration of
the Apostles: "Sic, e. g. Matt. x. 19, 20, loquitur Christus de fortitudine quam, prme'sidibus coram positi, discipuli Sui essent patefacturi, atque de sapientia qua sua essent daturi responsa: idem die de Luc. xii. 11, 12; Marc. xiii. 11; et iterum  Luc.
xxi. 14, 15."-loc. cit. p. 98. It is to be noticed, in addition to what I have already
said, p. 239, note', that this is precisely the argument by which Le Clere (next to
Spinoza, the chief assailant of Inspiration during the 17th century), has attempted to
evade these same texts. Having quoted S John, xvi. 13, and S. Luke, xii. 11,-of
which he observes, " Ce sent les deux passages les plus formels, que l'on puisse citer
sur cette matire,"-Le Clere proceeds: "Pour commencer par le dernier, je remarque
premidrement, qu'il ne promet point une inspiration perpBtuelle, mais seulement en
certaines occasions, savoir quand les Ap6tres seroient conduits devant les tribunaux
des juges."-p. 240. In such situations, he adds: "on reconnoit sans peine qu'ils parlent avec beaucoup de piet6 et de courage, mais il semble qu' ils ne disent rien qu' on
ne puisse bien dire sans inspiration. *  *  *  Au reste, on ne pent pas trouver
etrange que par le S. Esprit, ou 1' Esprit de Dieu, on entende Esprit de saintete et de
constance que 1' Evangile inspire," &c.-Sentimens de quelques Theolog. de Hollande,
Lettre xi., p. 243, &c.




LECT. VI.]            SCRIPTURAL PROOF.                      247
words Christ plainly declared that they should be guided by a
real positive influence from without. A marked distinction is
drawn between the result of their own judgment and what the
Spirit of God was to effect;-the expression "it is not ye that
speak" being placed in strong contrast to the assurance that " the
Spirit of their Father should speak in them."  The three promises which we are now considering embrace, moreover, all the
public occasions on which the Apostles could be called upon to
defend themselves, whether before councils or synagogues, before
governors or kings. In every such case the assurance is to the
same effect-" Take no thought beforehand what ye shall speak,
neither do ye premeditate; but whatsoever shall be given to you
in that hour, that speak ye: for it is not ye that speak, but the
Holy Ghost:" where the objective nature of the Divine influence
is denoted by the words " it shall be given you," which are continually employed by the New Testament writers to express this
fact. Thus, S. Peter subsequently speaks of " the wisdom given"
to " our beloved brother Paul;"' and S. Paul himself writes:
" When James, Cephas, and John perceived the grace that was
given unto me."2 The practical signification, indeed, of all such
assurances may be briefly illustrated by the words with which a
New  Testament prophet, Agabus, introduced his prediction:
"Thus saith the Holy Ghost."3
In connexion with this class of promises, and as the fittest explanation of their design, we must bear in mind the language of
Christ to the Eleven shortly before His Ascension-"Go ye,
therefore, and make disciples of all nations'::- teaching
them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you:
and lo! I am with you alway, even unto the end of the world."'
The inference from such words, regarded as the sequel of the
former passages, is plain. If any confidence is to be placed in
the Gospel narratives, repeated pledges were given from the lips
of the Son of God Himself; that no occasion should arise during
the course of their ministerial labors in which the Holy Ghost
should not instruct them " how and what they should say:"-in
other words, that in every exercise of their Apostolic office, both
Ka ra Tv ( o 0 e Z   a v air (7 oofiav.-2 S. Pet. iii. 15.
2 Pv6VTE7  Tf'V XIptlV r)'o d6oe' 6(v f0t.-Gal. ii. 9.
3 TdtSe 23'yel rTO ve,ua rTO Ayio'.-Acts, xxi. 11.
~4 S. Matt. xxviii. 19, 20.




248                       SCRIPTURAL PROOF.                     [LECT. VI.
the form and the substance of their statements' should be given
them  " in that same hour."'  We know that this was the interpretation which the Apostles themselves placed upon their Lord's
words; and hence S. Paul entreats the Ephesians to pray on his
behalf'that utterance might be given unto him, that he may
open his mouth boldly, to make known the mystery of the Gospel."3 Such assurances of Christ's continued presence with them
in their teaching are most conclusive; for it cannot, surely, be
regarded as either just or reasonable to maintain that the Divine
influence guarded the Apostles from  error when orally conveying
the Truth to their hearers; but. that they were left to all the
hazard of human fallibility when instructing by letter their converts in Corinth or Colosse,-when writing to the Twelve Tribes
"which  are  scattered  abroad," or to  "the strangers scattered
throughout Pontus and Bithynia."4
As to the actual fulfilment of their Master's promises, the
sacred narrative enables us ourselves to form  an opinion.  It has
been observed, by one of the chiefs of modern Rationalism, that,
"if we embrace in historic glance the record of the origin of
Christianity, from the last evening of the life of Jesus, to the
close of the fifty days next following, it is undeniable that, in that
short interval, something of a nature  encouraging beyond what
was ordinary must have taken place, to transform the trembling
and irresolute Apostles of that evening into men exalted above
all fear of death, who could exclaim before the most embittered
judges of the murdered Jesus,-' We  must obey God, rather
than man.' "" This remark is as just as it is confirmatory of our'See supra, p. 246, note 4: Tri f   ri-CSf indicating the form, and Ti the substance of the statements which they were to make.
2 It is to be remarked that this phrase occurs in each of the three promises:
iv rKeivp T- Spa —S. Matt. x. 19, and S. Mark, xiii. 11; ev avTr- Tr  pa —S. Luke, xii.
12: see also next note.
3 "Iva IOLt 606o Xoyo,   e v dvoitet TO i 6To6aTrf Uov, Ev 7raPefrai yvOpal t, K. T. X.Eph. vi. 19. Cf. Col. iv. 3; 2 Thess. iii. 1; and "Open Thou my lips," &c.-Ps. li.
15. In opposition to a common error,-viz., that the Apostles were distinguished
from the Old Testament prophets, by the fact of being permanently endowed with the
highest gifts of the Spirit,-it appears both from the tenor of Christ's promises, and
from S. Paul's practice, as here, of soliciting the prayers of the Church on his behalf,
that Inspiration, in its highest sense, and as it related to the promulgation of the Gospel, was not conferred except on special occasions, and for special purposes. Cf.
supra, Lecture v. p. 221, note 1.
See supra, p. 236, note, the remarks of Bishop Warburton on this subject.
s Dr. Paulus, "Kommentar," Th. iii. s. 867-quoted by Tholuck " Glaubwiirdigkeit der evang. Geschichte," s. 371. Tholuck adds that even Strauss admits this
transformation in the character and conduct of the Apostles to be inexplicable, unless




LECT. VI.]                 SCRIPTURAL PROOF.                            249
present argument.  A  transformation of the whole nature of the
Apostles seems to have followed Christ's Ascension, analogous to
that described in the words of Samuel to Saul: "The Spirit of
the Lord will come upon thee, and thou shalt be turned into
another man."'  We find these poor fishermen of.Galilee, whose
whole tone of thought and line of conduct before their Lord's departure had remained so true to the character of " unlearned and
ignorant men," changed, on a sudden, into the courageous rivals
of the philosophers and rhetoricians of their age. We see then,
at first restless from  doubts and fettered by prejudice, now immovable in their convictions and alive to each new aspect of the
Truth.  Formerly timid and wavering, they now are fearless and
resolved. Their delusive dream of temporal deliverance becomes
a real assurance of eternal Redemption. Their narrow estimate
of the Divine covenant with their nation expands, under the
guidance of the Holy Ghost, into the sublime conception of " the
Israel of God."2
That this subjection to the Divine influence was no result of
their spontaneous efforts, no effect of their own volition, we can
collect from the language of those who were the subjects of that
influence, under both the Old and the New Testament. Jeremiah tells us that, because the word of the Lord was daily made
a reproach unto him, he had said, " I will not make mention of
Him, nor speak any more in His name.  But His word was in
mine heart as a burning fire shut up in my bones, and I was
weary with forbearing, and I could not stay."" Such, too, is S.
SOMETHING extraordinary be supposed to have occurred during this interval. The
Apologists, he observes, with justice insist upon the fact that-" der ungeheure Umschwung  *  *  * sich nicht erklaren liesse, wenn nicht in der Zwischenzeit ETWAS
ganz ausserordentlich Ermuthigendes vorgefallen ware."-Ibid.!1 Sam. x. 6.
2 This idea has been finely expressed by S. Gregory the Great: " Tune Petrus
negavit in terra, cum latro confiteretur in Cruce. *  *  *  Ecce gaudet Petris in
verberibus, qui ante in verbis timebat. Et qui prius ancillae voce requisitus timuit,
post adventum  Sancti Spiritus vires principum cesus premit."-In Evang. Honm
xxx. lib. ii., t. i. p. 1580.
3 Jer. xx. 8, 9. See also the seventh verse, the force of which is lost in the English Version: the marginal reading, however, approaches the true meaning-" 0
Lord, thou hast deceived me, (marg. "enticed") and I was deceived (marg. " enticed":)
thou art stronger than I, and hast prevailed: I am in derision daily," &c.-where the
original conveys a sense still stronger than " enticed;" denoting-" Thou hast put
forth Thy powers of persuasion (~:nrn), and I have suffered myself to be persuaded
(nr))," as Gesenius renders: —"mn, Niph.-sibi persuaderi passus est; Pi.-persuasit alicui (wreiOw) Jer. xx. 7." Cf. " Is not My Word like a fire, saith the Lord
and like a hammer that breaketh the rock in pieces?"-Jer. xxiii. 29. See also Ps.
xxxix. 2, 3.




250                    SCRIPTURAL PROOF.                [LECT. VI.
Paul's express assertion with respect to the urgency of the Divine impulse:-" Though I preach the Gospel, I have nothing
to glory of: for necessity is laid upon me; yea, woe is unto me, if
I preach not the Gospel!"'
II. Those sayings of our Lord recorded by S. John, which
(conveyed to the Disciples the second class of promises above referred to, come next under consideration.  Here too, as. in the
other passages which have been already dwelt upon, the gift of
the Holy Ghost forms the subject of the assurance: " I will pray
the Father, and He shall give you another Comforter, that He
may abide with you for ever,-even the Spirit of Truth;,2 to
which it is subsequently added that their Master's presence was
to be supplied in such a sense that His departure would prove a
real good: " It is expedient for you that I go away; for, if I go
not away, the Comforter will not come unto you."3  The Apostles
who had followed their Divine Teacher during His sojourn on
earth were, no doubt, acquainted with the facts of His life: but
there was, as yet, no object of Christian Faith, in the true sense
of the term, until the Lord had been received into glory, and had
triumphed over death and the grave.  When He was removed
from them, and His words no longer served as their guide, it became indispensable that His Presence should be supplied.  The
suggestions of the Holy Ghost were then required in order to
qualify them for their future labors:-to develop the full signification of the great events of which they had been spectators, and
which now lay before them as matters of history; to give them a
just insight into the Divine counsels; to enable them  to insert
in their teaching, without interweaving any heterogeneous element, each particular circumstance as it contributed to the elucidation of the general scheme; to remind them  of what had
passed, without any distortion of the whole series of facts; and,
in fine; to disclose the future so that they might be able to decide, without error, in all the exigencies which should befall the
Church. And this, in point of fact, is what the language of Christ
1 Cor. ix. 16. Compare the language of Amos, the analogy of whose history
to that of S. Paul has been pointed out supra, Lecture iv. p. 162: "Surely the Lord
God will do nothing, but He revealeth His secret unto His servants the prophets.
Tne lion hath roared; who will not fear? The Lord God hath spoken; who can but
prophesy?"-Amos, iii. 7, 8; see also ch. vii. 15.
2 To fvebua rt7:'Ab,0eiac.-S. John, xiv. 16, 17.
S & John, xvi. 7.




LECT. VI.]             SCRIPTURAL PROOF.                        251
here amounts to.  The Holy Spirit, Who was thenceforward to
supply His Personal Presence, is emphatically described as " the
Spirit of Truth," by Whose agency the most essential features
of the Gospel were to be gradually unveiled: " At that day ye
shall know that I am in my Father, and ye in Me, and I in you."'
The influence of their Divine Guide shall be directed, they are
told, to the attainment of two separate ends; —the additional
information to be imparted by the Comforter being contrasted
with what the Disciples had already learned from their Lord,
while "He spake unto them, being yet present with them."
" The Holy Ghost," shall not only " bring all things to their remembrance, whatsoever Christ had said unto them;" He shall
also " teach them all things:"-thus not only reproducing the
doctrines which they had already heard, but imparting fresh
knowledge from the treasures of Divine Truth.2 For the reception of such spiritual gifts, and for the due performance of their
future duties, the Disciples had been qualified by having been
companions of their  t;Laster during  His earthly pilgrimage.
" When the Comforter is come, Whom I will send unto you from
the Father, even the Spirit of Truth which proceedeth from the
Father, He shall testify of Me, and ye also shall bear witness,
because ye have been with Me from the beginning."   Here it is
manifestly implied that the Holy Ghost was further to testify of
Christ; and, therefore, that the future knowledge of His followers was not to be confined to what they had heard from Himself;
-an inference which is fully established by the additional statement: "I have yet many things to say unto you, but ye cannot
bear them now: howbeit, when He, the Spirit of Truth, is come,
He will guide you into all truth.:''        He will show you
things to come.' S  *  He shall take of Mine, and shall
show it unto you."4 In these words the Lord plainly intimated
that the guidance of the Spirit was designed to supply the need
which the Apostles had of still further instruction. The influence
1 S. John, xiv. 20.
2 "These things have I spoken unto you, being yet present with you. But the
Comforter, which is the Holy Ghost, whom the Father will send in My name, He
shall teach you all things, and bring all things to your remembrance whatsoever I
have said unto you."-Ibid. xiv. 25, 26.
3 S. John, xv. 26, 27.
4 Ibid. xvi. 12-15. Cf. the remarks of Steudel, "Ueber Inspiration der Apostel
und.damit Verwandtes," published in the Tibingen Journal for 1832 (Heft ii. &
128 ff).




252                      SCRIPTURAL PROOF.                     [LECT. VL
of the Holy Ghost was to be exerted, not merely in reproducing
with infallible accuracy what they had heard from Christ, or in
guarding them  from  all error in their inferences from the facts of
His life, but also in suggesting the knowledge of " the many
things" which He had still to say to them, but which they could
not then " bear." In fact, our Lord here distinguishes the two
elements of the Divine  agency to which  I have  so repeatedly
called attention, under the names of Revelation and Inspiration.
He separates.that exercise of supernatural power which is truly
creative and derived from  the Eternal Word, through the Spirit,
and which consists in disclosing new truths,-from that distinct
agency of the Spirit Himself whereby " all things are brought to
remembrance."  It is not said,'the  Spirit shall teach you all
things which I have told you;'-such matters He was to recall to
their recollection; but He was to unfold those new features of
the Gospel scheme which had not, as yet, been communicated to
mankind.  Of this fact we shall presently examine some striking
instances: meanwhile, it may be noticed here, that the extent
of this latter assurance completely removes the idea that the
spiritual aid which  it announced was to  be confined to such
contingencies as might appear to have been more specially implied in the former group of promises; namely, when they should
be brought "unto  the synagogues, and unto magistrates, and
powers."'  We can also infer from  the language of S. John that
the additional instructions of the Holy Ghost were to bear the
same stamp of infallibility as those which had been imparted by
Christ Himself. On no just or reasonable interpretation does this
promise lend the slightest color to the notion that the guidance
into truth, and preservation from  forgetfulness to which it refers,
related merely to the'leading truths' of the Gospel.  The plain
inference from  such expressions as " all the truth,"" and " shall
See supra, p. 246, note 2.
2 I have adopted this rendering of r(iaav rTv duiOetjav in S. John, xvi. 13 (where
Tischendorf and Lachmann, after Codices A and B, read rjv cidOetav -ruTav). instead
of that given in our English Version "all truth," chiefly for the purpose of noting that
the argument which I have founded on the passage is unaffected by the adoption of
either translation. Bishop Middleton, who translates "all the truth," does not speak
with perfect certainty, observing: "It is frequently difficult, and even impossible, to
ascertain where the Article should be used before abstract Nouns; yet there is not
the same difficulty when such Nouns are preceded by crci."-loc. cit. p. 258. In whatever manner the words are to be translated, it is manifest, on the one hand, that our
Lord assured His Disciples that they should be divinely guided in every particular
which related to the preaching of the Gospel; and, on the other hand, that He did




LECT. VI.]                 SCRIPTURAL PROOF.                             253
teach you all things," is simply this, that when the Apostles acted
in any way as the official teachers of Christianity, not only was
every species of error to be excluded, but new truths also were
to be unfolded, as need required.
The character and extent of our Lord's assurance in this passage of itself supplies a complete answer to a modern theory of
Inspiration which is founded upon a misconception opposed in
the  last Discourse.'   According  to  this theory, there was no
peculiar spiritual gift conferred upon the sacred writers:-their
pre-eminence over others consisting merely in their greater opportunities of becoming acquainted with the facts of their great
Teacher's life, and in their having received the truths of Christianity  as they  were  enunciated  by  Himself.   The  spiritual
guidance bestowed  upon  them  was, it is maintained, identical
with that in which all Christians, less favorably circumstanced,
equally share: its effect, in the case of the Apostles, being nothing
more than an  opening  out, and a developing of certain results
from their previous experience, and awakened spiritual life.' The
not promise to impart to them supernatural information in every department of human
knowledge. To draw such an inference fiom His words would be to violate the most
elementary principles of reasoning; and to take in a universal sense a term which,
as the whole tenor of the discourse in which it occurs proves, must be understood in
a limited sense, and as denoting solely Evangelical Truth. Archdeacon Hare has devoted several pages,. as I venture to think very unnecessarily, to a refutation of this
exaggerated view of the passage; and I advert to his remark merely for the purpose
of drawing attention to the following statement: " Assuredly the misprision of this
passage has aided in fostering the delusive notion that the Bible is a kind of encyclopedia of universal knowledge, and that every expression in it bearing however allusively upon astronomy, or geology, or history, has the same Divine attestation of its
infallibility as what it reveals concerning God, and concerning man in his relation to
God. *  *  *  This notion has ever been still more injurious to Religion than to
Science: for Science soon overleaps and treads down the fences which are thus
erected to check it; but as Religion cannot possibly maintain the positions, which she
is thus engaged to defend, her failure in this field shakes the confidence in her power
even within her own province."-lhe Mission of the Comforter, note B. p. 395.
In this passage the writer appears to me to have fallen into another extreme. I
must, however, refer the reader to Lecture viii. infra, for some remarks in reply to the
general idea thus put forward respecting the fallibility of Scripture when alluding to
"astronomy, or geology, or history."
I See the remarks on the nature of that Scriptural influence which presided over
the composition of the Bible, as distinguished from the ordinary graces of the Holy
Ghost to which the name Inspiration has also been assigned,-p. 230, &c.
2 Such is the theory of Elwert, a follower of Schleiermacher, to whose views I
have already referred, Lecture v. p. 221, note'; and from whose works Steudel, in
the treatise quoted above, p. 251, note 4, adduces the following propositions: " The
influence of the Holy Spirit, in the case of the Apostles, was not a suggestion of
elaborated ideas, and knowledge; still less a dictation of words: but the Spirit wrought
in them Faith, by virtue of which they appropriated the revelation of Christ; and
from this revelation, by means of Faith, they developed, in the natural way of reflection, their religious ideas and conceptions. * * * Infallibility is not to be




254                          SCRIPTURAL PROOF.                       [LECT. VI.
foregoing remarks, of themselves, afford, as I have just observed,
a sufficient refutation of this theory; but it is completely subverted by what the New  Testament tells  us  of the  tw-o great
preachers of Christianity, S. Peter and S. Paul."
The most superficial glance at the  history of S. Peter must
render it impossible to  maintain that his statement of Christian
doctrine on the Day of Pentecost was the mere deduction of his
own judgment from  his previous knowledge  of Christ's life and
acts. Should it, however, be regarded as a matter of doubt
whether his development of the Christian  scheme  on that occaattributed to them in historical matters of a collateral nature, in unessential points of
deduction from their ideas, and of statement of doctrine;-and generally, in anything
which when compared with the foundation of Faith (regarded as the spirit of Holy
Scripture). appears to be formal."-loc. cit. s. 109. In the following number of his
Journal (s. 3 ff.), Steudel proceeds to examine the statement here made, viz., that in
the representation of religious truth by the Apostles error could not find room; adducing Elwert's principle, that " Christian knowledge is based upon a Christian frame
of mind."  Referring to this principle, Steudel shows how the source of this writer's
error consists in his confounding the two significations of which the expression
"Christian knowledge" is susceptible. This phrase denotes, (1.) the knowledge, obtained by revelation or by personal experience or historically, of what Christianity
imports to be; or (2.) it denotes the manner in which Christian Truth (when the historical knowledge of it has been already conveyed to us), has been appropriated by
us, and made our own. In this latter sense our Lord observes: "If any man is
willing (der Trg ieaqn) to do His will he shall know (veJerTat) of the doctrine whether
it be of God."-S. John, vii. 17. Now when Christ again tells the Apostles, "I have
yet many things to say unto you, but ye cannot bear them now. Howbeit when He,
the Spirit of Truth, is come, He shall guide you into all truth,"-He, assuredly, cannot
have meant that the knowledge to be thus acquired was of the same nature as that resulting from  the mode of appropriating Divine Truth of which He had formerly
spoken: tie must clearly have intended to intimate those new disclosures by the
Holy Ghost, which, like His own teaching, could subsequently be brought home to
the hearts of believers. S. Paul points but the distinction between these two senses" Knowledge (yvcaf [Li. e. a mere acquaintance with the facts of Christianity] puffeth
up, but charity edifieth." —    Cor. viii. 1: in other words, the link that unites both
kinds of knowledge, and stamps the former as genuinely Christian, is "love;" or, as
S. John declares, "he that loveth not, knoweth not (obve Eyv) God."-i S. John, iv. 8.
C(t the language of Eph. i. 17, 18, with the grounds of "ignorance" assigned in ch.
iv. L8. Filom the necessity of the Spirit's influence to evoke in the souls of all Christoails -whether writers of Scripture, or members of the Church at large-the state
of' eeling here described, the school of Schleiermacher has strangely inferred that no
otiler species of Spiritual influence was required in order originally to communicate'historical Christianity" to the Apostles.  Who, for example, can imagine that when
S. Paul speaks of'the knowledge of Jesus Christ," and " counts all things but loss"
in comparison with "knowing Him, and the power of His resurrection;"-Phil. iii.
8-10-who, I say, can imagine that the Apostle was not already in possession of the
whole Gospel scheme? It surely cannot be inferred from the Apostle's fervent prayer
bor a more personal appropriation of the great truths which he had preached, that he
had hitherto been but imperfectly acquainted with those truths themselves; or that his
knowledge of them could have been intermingled with error.  See supra, Lecture iv.
1p. 143, note 2.
Thus passages such as Acts, iv. 8; xiii. 9; clearly imply a special illapse of
Spiritual influence, distinct fiorn any sense in which Inspiration, as bestowed upon
thristians in general, can be understood.  Cf. supra, Lecture v. p. 221, note'




LECT. VI.]                 SCRIPTURAL PROOF.                             255
sion were really a direct result from  the inward suiggestions of
the Holy Ghost, such doubt must disappear when the subsequent
narrative is considered. Were we ignorant, indeed, of the events
which followed, it might have appeared inconceivable that the
principle laid down by the Apostle in this his first address after
the descent of the Holy Ghost,-" The promise is unto you, and
to your children, and to all that are afar off, even as many as the
Lord our God shall call,"' could have left behind  aly scruple as
to the reception of the Gentiles into the Church of Christ.  The
account, nevertheless, of the ecstatic Vision in the tanner's house
at Joppa proves that S. Peter quite misapprehended the bearling
of these words.  No one can assert for a moment that the knowledge which he derived from that Vision was the result of his previous Christian experience. He expressly states that it was a
completely new disclosure, which he could not have elicited of
himself, but which God unfolded to his view, in opposition to his
former prejudices; —a fact which  clearly  indicates  that, when
need required, the Holy Ghost poured new light upon certain of
the  Apostles' own statements which had not previously  been
illuminated, even for themselves.!   We further learn  from  the
sacred historian that even this revelation did not remove all occasion of doubt.' It settled, it is true, the controversy as to the
reception of the Gentiles into the Church: but the question of
discipline still remained open; and this difficulty was only solved
after protracted discussion,5 and by the renewed guidance of the
1 Ka TrfiaLv row7 elf /uaKcpav.-Acts, ii. 39.
S. Peter said to the company at the house of Cornelius: " Ye know that it is
an unlawful thing for a man that is a Jew to keep company, or come unto one of another nation; but God hath showed me that I should not call any man common or unclean."-Acts, x. 28; cf. ver. 14, 15. See Steudel, loc. cit. s. 7. It may be well to
observe, that S. Peter in this memorable discourse conveys in si- verses (vor. 36-4-1)
an epitome of the Gospel of S. Mark. In ver. 36, 37, is defined the point of tilne
from which the Synoptical Gospels date the opening of Christ's ministry: ver. 38
details His Unction by the Holy Spirit from which that ministry and its miraculous
course proceeded: ver. 39 indicates the events in which the Evangelists were cliled
to bear witness: ver. 40, 41, comprise the Lord's Crucifixion, Resurrection, and how
He appeared to the disciples, together with His eating and drinking with them' after
He rose from the dead."  Cf. Thiersch, "Versuch zur Herstell," s. 111.
3 See supra, Lecture v. p. 202, note 1.
4 "And certain men which came down from Judea taught the brethren, and said,
Except ye be circumcised after the manner of Moses, ye cannot be saved."-Acts,
xv. 1, &c.
5 "And the Apostles and elders came together for to consider of this matter
And when there had been much disputing (atV;ro-eoc), Peter rose up and said," &c.ver. 6, 7.




256                       SCRIPTURAL PROOF.                   [LECT. VI.
Holy Ghost.'  Thus we see how very gradually the whole truth
burst upon the Apostles. Not even S. Peter's Vision displayed
it on all its sides; and hence, even of ourselves, we can discern
how truly Christ could say of the revelations to be subsequently
given, " Ye cannot bear them now."
Fresh light is cast upon the nature of the Spirit's agency in
the case of the Apostles by the statements of S. Paul, in his
ELiLstle to the Galatians.  In that Epistle he pointedly and repeatedly declares, and, as one might almost say, goes out of his
way to insist uH on the fact, that never, during many years of
his labors as a preacher of the Gospel, had his intimacy with
the other Apostles been such as that from it his knowledge of
Christian doctrine  could, in  anywise, be  explained.   As he
dwells, with emphasis, on the additional circumstance that, in
his final interview with the chief pillars of the Church, he had
proved his perfect agreement with them in doctrine, and that
those great Apostles had made no new  disclosures to him,3 it
must have been his own peculiar acquirements which caused them
to acknowledge him as a person qualified above others for laboring among the Gentiles, and to entrust to him  "the Gospel
of the uncircumcision." Without a special revelation, the knowledge which S. Paul thus claims for himself could only have been
obtained from the most intimate converse with the other Disciples of Christ; we are compelled, therefore, to admit, in the
absence of any such converse, that the effect of the Divine influence was far different from that of merely casting new light
upon particulars of which he had been previously aware. Had
the promised  aid of the  Holy Ghost been merely designed to
unfold the sense of what Christ had taught while on earth;(lid the Inspiration of the Apostles, in short, merely consist in
"It seemed good to the Holy Ghost, and to us ("Edoe yaip Tr ILvere/aTl Tr'A4i
ncai /.lv)." —ver. 28. See infra, p. 268, note 2.
2 " I certify you, brethren, that the Gospel which was preached of me is not after
man; for I neither received it of man, neither was I taught it, but by the revelation
of Jesus Christ. * *  *  When it pleased God  * *  * to reveal His Son in
me  * *  *  immediately I conferred not with flesh and blood: neither went I up
to Jerusalem  to them which were Apostles before me: but I went into Arabia.
*  *  *  Then after three years I went up to Jerusalem to see Peter, and abode with
him fifteen days. But other of the Apostles saw I none, save James the Lord's
brother. * * * Then, fourteen years after, I went up again to Jerusalem. * * *
And when James, Cephas, and John, who seemed to be pillars, perceived the
grace that was given unto me (r7v Xptv  Tr )  dv O e o    av uO)," o &c.-Gal. i
and ii.
8'Elyoi yIp ol doKoOvvre   oVddFe, 7poaaveOevro.-Gal. ii. 6.




LECT. VI.]               SCRIPTURAL PROOF.                          257
the fact of the Divine Spirit kindling a new life in their souls
by which a greater degree of clearness was diffused over their
former ideas;-how can we account for S. Paul's disclaimer of
all the human means which alone could have enabled him  to
acquire any accurate knowledge of our Lord's teaching?  We
can only explain this passage in his Epistle, therefore, by admitting that the Apostle had received a direct revelation from Christ,
imparting to him new truths, and giving him  a more comprehensive insight into the doctrines of Christianity.
S. Paul's express statement to this effect is illustrated, in an
interesting manner, by the fact that although he was the bearer of
the inspired decree of the Council of Jerusalem to the Churches,'
-which decree, be it observed, related to the very question discussed in his Epistle to the Galatians,-he never alludes to this
decision of the Council; nor does he, in any part of his writings,
appeal to its authority.2 Of the historical facts made known to
S. Paul by immediate revelation, and which enabled him to dispense with the ordinary sources of information, I need only mention the Institution of the Eucharist; the knowledge of which
he expressly tells us he had " received of the Lord."3
The facts, to which attention has been drawn in these latter
remarks, afford examples of how the promise was accomplished
that the  " Comforter" was to  teach the  Apostles all things.
Christ's additional assurance, that all things were to be brought
to their remembrance, was no less accurately fulfilled.  This circumstance the sacred writers expressly take notice of, and intimate by the established formula —gavjor0oav.  Thus S. John, having related the question of the Jews, " What sign showest Thou
unto us?" and our Lord's reply, " Destroy this Temple, and in
three days I will raise it up,"-goes on to  explain, "But He
spake of the Temple of His Body: when, therefore, He was
Acts, xv. 25.
Thiersch ("Versuch zur Herstell.," s. 81), on the other hand, considers this fact
to be merely a proof that the Epistle of the' Council of Jerusalem" was not regarded
as conveying permanent commands, or as a sacred document. To which I would
answer, that the opposite conclusion seems established by the manner in which
"James and all the elders" subsequently appealed to this same Epistle: " As touching the Gentiles which believe, we have written (or rather " enjoined by letter,"
TnereiTc/iev), and concluded," &c.-Acts, xxi. 25. Cf. infra, p. 268, note 2.
s " I have received of the Lord, that which also I delivered unto you; that the
Lord Jesus, the same night in which He was betrayed," &c.-1 Cor. xi. 23. CE ch.
xv. 3, &ce
17




258                      SCRIPTURAL PROOF.                    [LECT. VI.
risen from the dead, His Disciples remembered that He had said
this unto them."' Again, as the same Evangelist observes more
fully:-" These things understood not His Disciples at the first:
but when Jesus was glorified, then remembered they that these
things were written of Him, and that they had done these things
unto Him."2   Or, to quote a still more apposite example: in the
account of another inspired historian we read that S. Peter, when
describing to those " that were of the circumcision" the descent
of the Holy Ghost in the house of Cornelius, takes occasion to
observe,-" Then remembered I the'word of the Lord, how that
He said, John indeed baptized with water, but ye shall be baptized with the Holy Ghost."3
It has been already noted, when referring to the accounts
transmitted to us in the Synoptical Gospels of the promises of
Divine guidance which Christ gave to His disciples, that we are
ourselves able to form an opinion as to the manner in which those
promises have been fulfilled. The same remark may also be made
as to the accomplishment of the assurance recorded by S. John.
How aptly each speech or saying, recorded by the different sacred
writers, corresponds to  the  speaker's exact position; how  the
language of Christ soars above the range of human expression,
and is, in all the Gospels, stamped with a unity and a sublimity
peculiarly its own;-how, on the other hand, the various traits
of individual character are preserved in the case of each personage whose history or words are introduced by the Evangelists, or
in the Acts of the Apostles;4-all such topics have been often
and forcibly dwelt upon.  To take a single instance; how completely does that precious fragment of one of our Lord's disS. John, ii. 18-22. Cf. ver. 17, where Ps. lxix. 9 is quoted, with the remark"His Disciples remembered (/uv aQ86av) that it was written," &c.
2 S. John, xii. 16. Cf S. Luke, xxiv. 8.
s Acts, xi. 16. See the remark of Tholuck on S. John, ii. 17: "Wie sie bei
solchen Anfihrungen durch die iiberraschende Ueberstimmung der Sache geleitet
wurden, zeigt die Formel,uvffrOqaav."-Comm. zum Ev. Johan., s. 87.
4 A competent judge has observed of the Acts of the Apostles: " It deserves particularly to be remarked that S. Luke has well supported the character of each person,
whom he has introduced as delivering a public harangue, and has very fdithfully and
happily preserved the manner of speaking which was peculiar to each of his orators."
J. D. Michaeiis, Introduction to the New Testament (Marsh's transl., vol. iii. part i.
p. 332). Take, as a single example, the often quoted fact by which the Epistle of
the Church, Acts, xv. 23-29, is shown to have been the composition of S. James;
viz. the occurrence in its superscription of the term xaipetv which is found in the
superscription of the Epistle of S. James, but in none other of the New Testament
Epistles.




LECT. VI.]                 SCRIPTURAL PROOF.                              259
courses, commencing with the words " Come unto Me all ye that
labor and are heavy laden," and which S. Matthew  alone of the
Evangelists has preserved,'-bring before us the whole genius and
spirit of those sayings of Christ which are recorded in the narrative of'the Apostle of Love!'  For those, indeed, who question
the inspiration of the sacred writers it becomes a duty to explain
how  men uneducated  and  unrefined, writing, too, without mutual concert, and. harassed as well by internal controversy as by
external persecution, could ever have painted such a Character'
as that of Christ, or how could they have preserved its peculiar
features untinged by any colors reflected from their own.3 Or
1 S. Matt. xi. 28-30. Cf. also the statement ofver. 27, and of S. Luke, x. 22, with
the doctrine which is developed in the opening verses of S. John's Gospel. Numerous instances of this same unity of character may be adduced. Compare, for example, as follows: S. John, xii. 25, 26, with S. Matt. x. 38, 39; S. John, iv. 44, with
S. Matt. xiii. 57; S. John, xiii. 20, with S. Matt. x. 40; S. John, xv. 20, with S. Matt.
x. 24, &c., &c. Not less remarkable is the agreement of the Evangelists in their narratives of events. E. g. The betrayal of S. Peter; the anointing of Christ's feet (c.
especially S. John, xii. 7, 8, with S. Matt. xxvi. 11. 12); the conduct of Pilate, &c.
See Tholuck's "Glaubwird. der evang. Gesch.," s. 324 ff.; and Gieseler "Die Ensteh. der schriftl. Evang.," s. 137. Hug points out that any apparent difference in
the features of our Lord's character, as drawn by S. John and by the other Evangelists, has arisen solely from  the different nature of the subjects of their respective
Gospels: S. John chiefly referring to Christ's ministry and discourses in Judea among
the learned of His nation, to whom it was necessary to expound His high origin, and
His future destiny; the Synoptists, on the other hand, confining themselves, in great
measure, to a narrative of the events in Galilee, and of our Lord's addresses to the
people at large. See his " Einleit." Th. ii. ~ 57, s. 184.
2 It has been well remarked that no single expression of a trivial character, or
which does not convey the most profound truth, has been ascribed to our Lord in the
Gospels. Compare, on the other hand, the few sayings attributed to him and preserved by Tradition, which Mr. Jones has collected in his work on the Canon, vol. i
p. 408, &c. The Character of our Lord, as it stands forth in the New Testament narrative, in its unity and its sublimity, is unique in history. Are we to believe, asks
Quin'et ("Revue des deux Mondes," 1838, p. 495), that the strange mixture of races,
Hebrews, Greeks, Syrians, Egyptians, Romans, the Grammarians of Alexandria, and
the Scribes of Jerusalem,-the worshippers of Jehovah, of Mithras, and of Serapis,have all combined, notwithstanding their diverse origin, creeds, institutions, and manners, in inventing, with one spirit, the same ideal? So far, indeed, were the peasants
of Palestine from having the capacity to develop this ideal, that we find the great
majority of Christ's Parables end with the allegation that His doctrine was too sublime for the people to comprehend.
3 The truth of this assertion has been denied by Strauss, who alleges that S. John
not only makes our Lord speak (e. g. ch. iii. 16-21) in "that metaphysical strain" peculiar to the Evangelist himself; but also S. John the Baptist " that unmystical Old
Testament Prophet" (i. 15-18: iii. 27-36): on which facts Strauss especially insists,
terming them, " das Hauptmoment in dieser Sache." In reply Tholuck (loc. cit. s. 330
ff.) justly asks, on what ground does Strauss assume that the passage S. John, iii. 16,
&c., is anything else than the Evangelist's own inspired comment on his Master's
words?  It is true that S. John does not mark the transition from ver. 15 to ver. 16;
but this is an ordinary feature of his style.  Thus, in ch. i. 16-18, the words are assuredly not those of the Baptist;-ver. 16 ("Of His fulness have all we received, and
grace for grace"), being obviously a continuation of the words ar X J p  g X ca p t o ~
Kai dej7Oeiar in ver. 14, and ver. 15 being inserted parenthetically in order to strengthen




260                       SCRIPTURAL PROOF.                      [LECT. VI.
when, in  the New  Testament history, we find details of events,
of discourses, of parables-the significance of which often depends upon the force  of a single term-all repeated, after the
lapse of so many years, with every internal mark of truthfulness
and accuracy,-for example, the discourses preserved in the Gospel of S. John,-our opponents may again be fairly asked, what
unassisted human memory could have achieved  such  a task as
this? But here, also, as in the case of the accomplishment of
the other promises already referred to, we can summon to our aid
a witness whose testimony is unexceptionable; whose testimony,
moreover, shows how weighty an argument the fact now before us
supplies.
One of the services which Strauss has unconsciously rendered
to the Christian cause is the clear light in which he has exhibited
the alternatives between which we have to choose. This writer
has devoted a considerable portion of his elaborate treatise to a
discussion of two classes of opinions which are logical' opposites;'
and between which he considers the opposition to be that technically termed' contrariety:'-in other words, he considers both
opinions to be false.' The one class of opinions is that of the
Rationalists; the other, that of the Supernaturalists-as Strauss
the Evangelist's statement; for we are to remember that S. John had been the Baptist's disciple. Of this mode of writing, ver. 7 affords another example. As to ch.
iii. 27-36: (1.) The form of the passage ver. 31-36, is in obvious contrast with the
Baptist's usual mode of expression; and at once leads to the conclusion that the
Evangelist himself is the speaker. (2.) This conclusion is supported by the analogy
of S. John's style, of which some instances have been just exhibited. (3.) In ver. 26
the Baptist states of Christ-" all men come to Him;" while at ver. 32, the Evangelist, speaking of a different period, alleges that "no man receiveth his testimony:"
cf. ch. xii. 37. (4.) If we examine the words which S. John actually does ascribe to
the Baptist,-viz. ch. i. 19-36, and ch. iii. 27-30-we shall perceive that they either
are identical with his language as given in the other Gospels, or contain no more than
what is perfectly explicable as proceeding from one who filled the character of an
Old Testament Prophet.  Mr. Westcott observes: "Though no one will deny that
S. John was led by his natural peculiarities to dwell chiefly on a certain form of our
Lord's teaching, and to employ a singular phraseology in setting forth its import, yet
he nowhere attributes the key-words of his system to others: our Saviour still speaks
in his Gospel as the'Son of God,' or the'Son of Man,' and not as the'Word,' or'God.' "-Elements of Gosp. Harm., p. 68. As to S. John, iii. 10-21, Mr. Westcott,
like Tholuck, points out that ver. 16 is a parenthesis suggested by the last words of
ver. 15, and ver. 18-21, a similar commentary on ver. 17.-Ibid. note.
l In the Preface to the first German edition of the " Life of Jesus," Strauss writes:
"The exegesis of the ancient Church set out from the double presupposition; first,
that the Gospels contained a history, and secondly, that this history was a supernatural one. Rationalism rejected the latter of these presuppositions, but only to
cling the more tenaciously to the former, maintaining that these books present unadulterated, though only natural, history. Science cannot rest satisfied with this half
measure: the other presupposition also must be relinquished."-Chapman's tranaL
voL i. p. x.. London, 1846.




LECT. VI.]                  SCRIPTURAL PROOF.                             261
terms those who maintain the possibility and the fact of a Divine
Revelation. Parallel with his series of assaults upon each particular of the Gospel narrative, Strauss combats separately each
of these opinions. The Rationalist-to borrow Strauss's own description-" firmly maintains the historical truth  of the Gospel
narratives, and he aims  to  weave them   into  one consecutive,
chronologically arranged, detail of facts; but he explains away
every trace of immediate Divine agency, and denies all supernatural intervention."' Accepting as perfectly conclusive this
writer's refutation of Rationalism,2 there remain but two systems
1 Ibid. p. 19. Eichhorn and the other Rationalists, continues Strauss, considered
"the miraculous in the sacred history as a drapery which needs only to be drawn
aside, in order to disclose the pure historic form."-p. 21. Of Rationalism in general, and its source, Quinet pointedly observes: "Ce systeme conservait fidelement,
comme on le voit, le corps entier de la tradition; il n' en supprimait que 1' ame.
C'6tait 1' application de la thiologie de Spinosa dans le sens le plus born6, a la maniere de ceux qui ne voient dans sa metaphysique que 1' apoth6ose de la matiere
brute."-loc. cit. p. 469.
2 Referring to the efforts of the rationalistic school, and especially of Paulus,
Strauss observes: " With regard to this account of the angelic apparition [S. Luke, i.
26] given by Paulus —and the other explanations are either of essentially similar
character, or are so manifestly untenable as not to need refutation,-it may be observed that the object so laboriously striven after is not attained. Paulus fails to free
the narrative of the marvellous. *  *  *  Paulus has in fact substituted a miracle
of chance for a miracle of God. Should it be said, that to God nothing is impossible,
or to chance nothing is impossible, both explanations are equally precarious and unscientific. *  *  *  The natural explanation makes too light of the incredibly accurate fulfilment of a prediction originating, as it supposes, in an unnatural overexcited state of mind. In no other province of inquiry would the realization of a
prediction which owed its birth to a vision be found credible, even by the Rationalist.
*  *  *  Is biblical history to be judged by one set of laws, and profane history by
another?-an assumption which the Rationalist is compelled to make, if he admits as
credible in the Gospels that which he rejects as unworthy of credit in every other
history:-which is, in fact, to fall back on the supranaturalistic point of view; since
the assumption, that the natural laws which govern in every other province are not
applicable to sacred history, is the very essential of supranaturalism." Part I. ch. i.
~ 18 (loc. cit. vol. i. p. 110, &c.) Again: " The narrative of the cure of the blind man
at Bethsaida, and that of the cure of'a man that was deaf and had an impediment in
his speech,' which are both peculiar to Mark (viii. 22, &c.; vii. 32, &c.), are the especial favorites of all rationalistic commentators. If, they exclaim, in the other evangelical narratives of cures, the accessory circumstances by which the facts might be
explained were but preserved as they are here, we could prove historically that Jesus
did not heal by His mere word, and profound investigators might discover the natural
means by which His cures were effected. [Strauss adds in a note, " These are nearly
the words of Paulus,'Exeg. Hand-buch,' ii. s. 312,391."]  *  *  *  The complacency of the rationalistic commentators in these narratives of Mark, is liable to be
disturbed by the frigid observation, that, here also, the circumstances which are requisite to render the natural explanation possible are not given by the evangelists
themselves, but are interpolated by the said commentators. For in both cases Mark
furnishes the saliva only; the efficacious powder is infused by Paulus and Venturini:
it is they alone who make the introduction of the fingers into the ears first a medical
examination, and then an operation; and it is they alone who, contrary to the signification of language, explain the words, itLrtrOatL r7(rf epaf -nt -robgf eOauovrf,'to lay the hands upon the eyes,' as implying a surgical operation on those organs"Part II. ch. ix, ~ 95. (loc. cit. vol. ii. p. 293, &c.)




262                       SCRIPTURAL PROOF.                   [LECT. VI.
which are, logically speaking,'contradictory' one to the other;
that is, one of which must be false, and the other true: namely,
the system  of Strauss himself-according to which the Gospel
history is a fable,-and that which he justly describes as " the
doctrine of the Church." In this point of view, therefore, I adduce Strauss as a witness in support of that argument for Inspiration  from  which  this digression  has started.  When  laying
down "criteria by which to distinguish the unhistorical' in the
Gospel narrative," Strauss gives as his negative criterion-" That
the matter related by an Evangelist could not have taken place
in  the manner described, when  the narration is irreconcilable
with the known and universal laws which govern the course of
events."  Of this dogma he gives the following illustration: "By
the same rule it is contrary to all the laws belonging to the human faculty of memory that long discourses, such as those of
Jesus given in the fourth Gospel, could have been faithfully recollected and reproduced."" All must admit that evidence more
unexceptionable as to the fact here stated cannot be adduced;
and I build upon it a conclusion which is, as I have observed, the
logical' contradictory' of that of Strauss.
We come next to consider the manner in which  the sacred
writers express themselves as to the result of the Divine influence
by which, as we have seen, they had been so distinctly assured
that their words and acts were to be guided.  The passages of
Scripture which bear upon this branch of the subject may be reduced to two  classes.  The first class illustrates the  harmony
which is assumed to subsist between the Divine and the human
intelligence; and affords a striking confirmation of the views respecting Inspiration which have been advocated in these, Discourses. The second class of passages exhibits the manner in
1 This is the usual euphemism employed in modern times as a substitute for the
more honest adjective-false. E. g. Neander writes: "Matthew (iii. 7) states expressly
that'many Pharisees and Sadducees came to John's baptism;' and the form of the
statement distinguishes these from the ordinary throng. It seems somewhat unhistorical that these sects, so opposite to each other, should be named together here.
*  *  *  It does not follow, however, that the mention of the Pharisees is in the
same predicament: on the contrary, the historical citation of the latter, may have given
rise to the unhistorical mention of the Sadducees."-Life of Christ, ~ 36. (Bohn's
transl., p. 51.) Having noticed Neander's assertion, Mr. Westcott acutely points out
that in S. Matthew's Gospel alone is the Baptist " particularly described as addressing the several bodies of the Jewish Church;" and observes: "S Matthew gives the
relation of each religious party of the Jews to Christianity, as S. Luke of each social
class." —loc. cit. p. 97.
2 Loc. cit. ~ 16, vol. i. p. 89.




LECT. VI.]                 SCRIPTURAL PROOF.                             263
which inspired men claim  infallible authority for their own words
and writings.
I. In the first place, the texts already quoted, and especially
those from  S. John's Gospel, imply that a Presence ofthe Lord,
by His Spirit, was to abide with his chosen witnesses. In such
statements, it is also implied, that there was to be no contrast
between the Divine and human principles of life;-no such contrast, I mean, as subsists (to borrow the language of philosophy)
between object and subject: nor was there to be, on the other hand,
a merely'mechanical,' or a merely ideal intermixture of the two
principles; but a vital'dynamical' combination, or interpenetration of the human spirit and the Divine. It is to be inferred,
therefore, that the effect produced in every such case by the
Holy Spirit's influence was a completely harmonious blending of
the human and the Divine intelligence; and that the result of
this combination-whether we speak of the Old or of the New
Testament-was that distinct energy which  has received  the
name of Inspiration. This fact is clearly exemplified by the manner in which the words of the Old Testament are quoted, and
are, at times, attributed to their Divine and their human author,
indifferently.'  For example: Christ, having  prefaced His quotation from  one of the Psalms' with the words,    David himself
said by the Holy Ghost," immediately adds: " David, therefore,
himself calleth  Him  Lord, and whence is He  then  his son?"
Again: S. Matthew  writes that Christ on  one. occasion quoted
the Fourth Commandment with  the remark, "For God  commanded, saying;"' while in the parallel narrative of S. Mark we
read: "For Moses said, Honor thy father and thy  mother."'
See sup'ra, p. 239, note. A striking example is supplied by Christ's quotation:
"Have ye not read that He, which made them  (o'otovaac) at the beginning, made
them male and female; and said (Kat EiTreev), For this cause," &c.-S. Matt. xix. 4, 5,
-where,Ka e'7rev must be referred to o T7io/jac: while we know from Gen. ii. 24
that Adam was the speaker. The inference is obvious: God, by His Spirit, was the
source from which the sentiment proceeded.
2 Ps. ex., quoted in S. Mark, xii. 36-Air'c AaVt,  eairev i  (:, T v. r('Ay. In
proof of the assertion that " the Spirit of God and of His Logos spoke in the authors
of the Psalas," Sack observes, that " David's own testimony respecting his call to
speak through the Spirit of the Lord [' The Spirit of the Lord spake by me, and His
Word was in my tongue], 2 Sam. xxiii. 1, 2, is as clear as it is important; with which
agrees Christ's recognition of David having spoken'in Spirit' (S. Matt. xxii. 43): and
the Apostle Peter's recognition of his being a Prophet in the fullest sense of the word
(Acts, ii. 30)."-Apologetik, s. 280.
3 S. Matt. xv. 4; or as Tischendorf and Lachmann read,'O yap ODeSf acev.
S. Mark, vii. 10-Mwvib/  yap elre,. So also, in S. Luke's account, (xx. 37),




264                        SCRIPTURAL PROOF.                        [LECT. VI.
Once more;  S. Paul applied to the Jews at Rome the language
of Prophecy —" Well spake the Holy Ghost by Esaias the prophet:" the same passage being cited by S. John under the simple form, " These things said Esaias."' And this class of illustrations, founded on the  manner of quoting the Old Testament,
may be summed  up  by the usage, so striking  in the Epistle to
the Hebrews,2 according  to which each  of the three divisions of
the former Scriptures-" the Law, the Prophets, and the Psalms"
-is, in express terms, adduced as the language of the Holy
Ghost.   The Old  Testament writings, therefore, with  reference
to their inward principle, are described as " given by Inspiration
of God;" their language being  regarded as the language of the
Holy Ghost: and  thus the Evangelist can say, "All this was
done, that it might be fulfilled which was spoken of the Lord by
the Prophet."3
From all such passages it is clear, that no artificial line of
distinction  is to  be drawn  between the  human  and the Divine
our Lord quotes Exod. iii. 6, with the words "Moses showed at the bush, when he
calleth the Lord the God of Abraham," &c.; while in S. Matthew (xxii. 31) the form
of citation, "Have ye not read that which was spoken unto you by God," is given as
being equivalent.
To IIHveVa TOb "Aytov Eiu620 ev 6ta'Hloaiov-Acts, xxviii. 25. Tavra eirev
LHIataC-S. John, xii. 41; cf. ver. 38. Origen, commenting on the quotation from the
Psalms by S. Peter, Acts, i. 16 (r7v ypa7)iv'v rpoe8wEv rT HV. rT "Aytov 6dt aro6/arof
Aavid), profoundly observes: 7poao7Woz07oel r[ 0lvefVa rT "Aytov Iv ro7f 7rpo-cratf, Kai
si'v 7rpoan7Qro.7otrCV r7bv OeOv oK 6(UTLV 6 Qe~S 6; 0aUv, dl2u (i TO iT. r3 "AA. iK Trpo6aorov roV Oeov Xahel- Kat Edv irpoawn'o'otOap   rTvO Xptlarov, OVK icrtv o Xptvr6C 6 2a)0v,
du2d rb ITv. rO "Ay. eK 1rpoaOG7TV ToV XptCTrov Xaaeel. oVT7-) K&V 7rpootoG7o7ro.t7jY T7V
irpo0c7TvV,              y tO aov  KEl ov,   TOV   rO rovV, 7   OTeL 67j7TOTe TTpO6W7O'TOLEi, rT "Aytov
Tlvev/a Er-i) Tr 7vavra rpoauT)ro7otolvv. Homil. in Act. Apost. t. iv. p. 457.
2 (1.) The references to the description given by Moses of the Holy of Holies, and
of the rites connected with the Temple-ceremonial, are followed by an exposition introduced with the words, "The Holy Ghost this signifying."-Heb. ix. 8. (2.) The
words of Jeremiah are applied with the remark, " The Holy Ghost also is a witness
to us."-ch. x. 15. (3.) The elaborate argument founded on Ps. xcv. commences
thus: "Wherefore (as the Holy Ghost saith), To-day if ye will hear His voice."-ch.
iii. 7.  "In this remarkable Epistle, God or the Holy Ghost is constantly named as
the speaker in the passages which are adduced from the Old Testament; and this not
only in regard to those which are accompanied in the Old Testament by the expression,'God said,' but also to those in which some man speaks,-for instance, David, as
author of a Psalm. Herein is clearly exhibited the view of the author il relation to
the Old Testament and the writers of it. He considered that God was, by His Holy
Spirit, the living agent and speaker in them all: so that, consequently, the Holy
Scriptures were to him purely a work of God, although brought forward by men." —
Olshausen, The Genuineness of the N  T. Writings.  (Clarke's For. Theol. Lib, p.
cxxv.)
S Tb pOEv V riT  Kvptov dad TOV TrpoobTov-S. Matt. i. 22; ii. 15; where ivTO denotes that the Lord Himself was the source of what had been foretold; and dSd, in
contrast with Lror, points out the Prophet as the instrument, merely, by which the
Divine will had been announced.




LECT. VI.]                 SCRIPTURAL PROOF.                               265
elements of Scripture; while the Old Testament itself presents
Revelation to our view as it is incorporated with the realities of
human life by means of Divine instruction and Divine acts. The
language and the conduct of men, therefore, become the channels
whereby God communicates His will; presenting, in some cases,
a certain opposition to that will: while in others we find perfect
submission to the training and the guidance of Heaven. This
relation of mankind to the Divine Revelation the Old Testament
exhibits, not only under the form of external events, but also by
means of dramatic pictures of the inward life of the soul;-as in
the book of Job, and in the Psalms, where we look, as it were,
into the very hearts of our fellow-men: where the Omnipotence
of Deity is displayed, not in mastering the phenomena of nature,
or controlling the course of history; but where the  strife takes
place in the world within, and presents to the gaze of all time
the different aspects of human life in conflict with the Spirit of
God.'  Hence the  profound  remark  of S. Athanasius, that the
Psalms present to each of us a mirror wherein we can see reflected the emotions of our souls.' These inspired pictures of the
inward life of man are to be distinguished from what is more
properly styled Revelation, partly by the express statements of
the sacred writers themselves, partly by the manner in which, on
"The more closely we connect ourselves with them [the Psalms], the more will
(God cease to be to us a shadowy form, which can neither hear, nor help, nor judge
us, and to which we can present no supplication." —Hengstenberg, Comm. on the
Psalms, App. vii. (Clarke's For. Theol. Lib., vol. iii. p. liv.) "What is there necessary
for man to know," writes Hooker, "which the Psalms are not able to teach? * * *
Heroical magnanimity, exquisite justice, grave moderation, exact wisdom, repentance
unfeigned, unwearied patience, the mysteries of God, the sufferings of Christ, the terrors of wrath, the comforts of grace, the works of Providence over this world, and
the promised joys of that world which is to come; all good necessary to be either
known, or done, or had, this one celestial fountain yieldeth."-Eccl. Polity, B. v. c. 37,
vol. ii. p. 159. Keble's ed. Nor is this the language of "mere theologians" alone:"David's life and history, as written for us in those Psalms of his, I consider to be the
truest emblem ever given of a man's moral progress and warfare here below. All
earnest souls will ever discern in it the faithful struggle of an earnest human soul
toward what is good and best. Struggle often baffled, sore baffled, down as into entire wreck; yet a struggle never ended; ever, with tears, repentance, true unconquerable purpose, begun anew. Poor human nature! Is not a man's walking, in
truth, always that:'a succession of falls?' Man can do no other. In this wild element of a Life, he has to struggle onwards; now fallen, deep abased; and ever with
tears, repentance, with bleeding heart, he has to rise again, struggle again still onwards."-Hero Worship, by Thomas Carlyle, p. 75.
a Kai fit dosEZ T5) 1>a,)X2OVTt yevecar, TOrVTOV, SCT7rep UColrTpov elIr TO Karavoeiv KaL
avirv tv avroZl   rai   P vX~C avro7  Klvr/uara *  * * Kaai  w o6rcd OVT(, eKaoTro  I)aur
rapa ro  IlHvevillaro  etprTraL KCI avvrTeraKTa(, tl   v arosC, Ka  a   Ka rpirepov Eiplrp7a, rT
clv jiaTa tri7 ipvXic ilC~v KaravoelOal. —Epist. ad Marcellin., t. i. p. 988.




266                        SCRIPTURAL PROOF.                      [LECT. VI.
the one hand, the beams of Divine truth penetrate the physiognomy, as it were, of human life; while, on the other hand (as in
the book of Job, where God's Revelation has recognised the great
enigma of humanity,') the outlines of that human  physiognomy
are still retained: the master-hand of the Spirit preserving for
our instruction  all the features of the portrait; supplying  the
lover of truth with  an  infallible key to human  knowledge and
experience; and the most experienced with new pictures of human life, in exhaustless variety.2
Turning, in the next place, to the New Testament, this same
fact of the harmony of the Divine and the human intelligence is
equally clear, although deducible from premises somewhat different.  "Ye are witnesses of these things," said Christ; "and
behold I send the promise of My Father upon you."' Such was
the pledge given to the Apostles; and S. Peter subsequently asserts its fulfilment, in words which supply the strongest proof,
perhaps, which the New Testament affords of the point now under consideration:-" We are His witnesses of these things, and
so is also the Holy Ghost."' By thus conjoining the Holy Ghost
as a Witness with themselves, they claim  and assert the accomplishment of the promise  already quoted; —" The  Comforter
whom  I will send unto you from  the Father:  ":   shall
testify of Me, and ye also  shall bear witness;"5-a  pledge  to
which S. Peter again alludes where he speaks of himself and the
other Apostles as men who " preached the Gospel with the Holy
I To quote again the language of Mr. Carlyle: " Biblical critics seem agreed that
our own Book of Job was written in that region of the world. I call that, apart
from all theories about it, one of the grandest things ever written with pen. One
feels, indeed, as if it were not Hebrew; such a noble universality, different from noble
patriotism or sectarianism, reigns in it. A noble Book; all men's Book! It is our
first, oldest statement of the never-ending Problem, —man's destiny, and God's ways
with him here in this earth. And all in such free flowing outlines; grand in its sincerity, in its simplicity; in its epic melody, and repose of reconcilement. There is
the seeing eye, the mildly understanding heart. So true, every way; true eyesight
and vision for all things; material things no less than spiritual: the Horse,-' hast thou
clothed his neck with thunder.'-he' laughs at the shaking of the spear!' Such living
likenesses were never since drawn. Sublime sorrow, sublime reconciliation; oldest
choral melody as of the heart of mankind;-so soft and great — as the summer midnight, as the world with its seas and stars I There is nothing written, I think, in the
Bible, or out of it, of equal literary merit." —Ibid. p. 78.
2 Cf. Beck, "Propad. Entwicklung," s. 250.'TYef Ul  p Tr  p e f TOV7UV. Kai M6ov,'Eyd earTO7re2o rTv Erayyeiav TroV
Ilarp6c fov k~' iudc. —S. Luke, xxiv. 48, 49.
4 Ka) 7]/eit( EeE/ev /upTrVpe  T rV fia/rTv rTOrVTV Kad TO vIvevua rb "Aylov.-Acts,
v. 32.
5'EKcevo j/uapTvp7eel r'epl'E/ov' ical vt/eif 6 de  prvpeTie.-S. John, xv. 26, 27.




LECT. VI.]                  SCRIPTURAL PROOF.                              267
Ghost sent down from  heaven.""   The New  Testament writers,
in short, express themselves so as to convey the notion that the
Holy Ghost AND the Disciples-in  other words, the  Holy Ghost
by their ag-ency-bore testimony to the Gospel, and  made provision for the future fortunes of the Church."  The fact moreover,
which all such expressions imply, affords a further illustration of
an important characteristic of the theory which I advocate: f)r such
statements disclose to us the principle, that God, when  bestowing the guidance of the Holy Spirit upon the Apostles, still employed  those  natural3  means whereby  their testimony  should
acquire the utmost  credibility  which  uninspired  human  testimony could claim. Hence it is that the preaching of the Apostles
is invariably represented, throughout the entire New Testament,
as a testimony, and that peculiar importance is attached to the
fact of their having been eye-witnesses of the events of Christ's
life. This is a point equally insisted upon in the first discourse
after Pentecost,4 and in the last revelation of the New Testament.1   Such was the qualification required  on  the part of the
successor to Judas;~ and such was the proof of his Apostleship
to which S. Paul himself appealed.   Now, bearing this circum1  S. Peter, i. 12. Cf. also 2 Cor. iii. 8, where their ministry is termed j dtLaeovia
ro7 nT'iive/aro.
2 "Now the Spirit speaketh expressly (To 6e IveSu.a prOrf T   yeL) that in the
latter times some shall depart from the faith," &c. —1Tim. iv. 1. On these words
Wiesinger observes: "The expression p-7rSc, as also the whole tenor of the passage,
teaches us that the Apostle appeals to predictions of the Spirit lying before him;"
and these Wiesinger considers to have been our Lord's prophecy in S. Matt. xxiv. 11,
24, or S. Paul's own words in 2 Thess. ii. 3, &c., in allusion to Dan. vii. 25; viii. 23;
xi. 30. Cf. 1 S. John, ii. 18; 2 S. Pet. iii. 3; S. Jude, 18. Olshausen, on the other
hand, considers that S. Paul appeals to a prediction uttered by the prophets of that
period,-referring in support of this view to Acts, xi 28 (Agabus); xiii. 1, 2 ("Now
there were in the Church that was at Antioch certain prophets.  *  *  *  And as
they ministered to the Lord and fasted, the Holy Ghost said," &c.); xx. 23 ("The
Holy Ghost witnesseth in every city, saying (Xyov) that bonds," &c.); xxi. 11 (Agabus
again prophesies: "Thus saith the Holy Ghost," &c).- Comm. B. v. s. 469. But why
not adopt the simple explanation that S. Paul refers to a revelation which he had
himself received?
3 See supra, Lecture iv. p. 147.
4 0  rT(rivrTf jiei a Eev 7ciprvpef.-Acts, ii. 32. Cf. ch. iii. 15; x. 39; 1 S. John,
i. 1-3; 2 S. Pet. i. 16-18.
"  Who bare record (EuapTrp7aev) of the Word of God, and of the testimony (rT/
tmaprvpiav) of Jesus Christ, and of all things that he saw (6aa ei6ev)."-Rev. i. 2; see
Lecture iv. p. 163, note 2.
c Acts, i. 21, 22.
7 " Am I not an Apostle, am I not free, have I not seen (eopalca) Jesus Christ our
Lord." —1 Cor. ix. 1. Sack appears to me to transgress the limits of warrantable
speculation in his application of this principle. Having truly observed, " dass der
Mangel unmittelbarer Augen. und-Ohrenzeugenschaft an sich nicht ton der Inspiration ausschliesst"-he goes on to say: "Auf der anderen Seite ist es auch klar,




268                        SCRIPTURAL PROOF.                       [LECT. VI.
stance in mind, if we combine the words of S. Peter, " We are
His witnesses, and  so is also the Holy Ghost," with the suggestive statement of S. James, by which he prefaced the decision of
the Council of Jerusalem, " It seemed  good to the Holy Ghost
AND to us"' —our conclusion is still further strengthened. The
words " and to us," can never be taken to represent the Apostles
as separated from  the  influence of the Spirit: and whether we
understand  the  passage to  mean "it seemed  good  to the Holy
Ghost working in us;" or, rather, as signifying the employment,
by the Spirit, of the personal agency of the Apostles, and that
His Divine Testimony was conjoined with their human testimony,
-we equally see the fact expressed of the harmonious combination of the Divine and the human  intelligence.   The language,
in a word, is that of men who are moved by the Divine impulse;
but who  do  not lay aside their own intellectual individuality,
which is made use of by the Supreme Ihtelligence, in order to
shed a human coloring over the truths which He imparts.2
dass Mangel an Befahigung, das Thatsachliche zu wissen und zu schreiben, entschieden
ausschliesst."-Apologetik, s. 421.
1 "EdJoev yep r) IHvevf/aTL rT)'Ayi) K a  Lt ZI v-Acts, xv. 28; "which style,"
observes Hooker, " they did not use as matching themselves in power with the Holy
Ghost, but as testifying the Holy Ghost to be the Author, and themselves but only
utterers of that decree."-Eccl. Pol., B. iii. c. x., vol. i. p. 385.
2 The unhesitating submission of the whole Christian community to this decree of
the Council of Jerusalem-which in fact abrogated the literal signification of the
Law,-was the clearest proof that the Church could have given of its belief in the
inspired authority of the Apostles, and in the justice of the claim, here advanced by
them, of combining in their decision their own conclusion with that suggested by the
Holy Ghost. A very different interpretation has been given by Bishop Burnet, when
arguing that this passage affords no support to the authority claimed for General
Councils: "The Apostles here, receiving no inspiration to direct them in this case, but
observing well what S. Peter put them in mind of, concerning God's sending him by
a special vision to preach to the Gentiles,  *  *  *  they upon this did by their
judgment conclude from thence, that what God had done in the particular instance of
Cornelius was now to be extended to all the Gentiles. So by this we see that those
words'seemed good to the Holy Ghost' relate to the case of Cornelius; and those
words'seemed good to us' import that they [i. e. by their own uninspired judgment]
resolved to extend that to be a general rule to all the Gentiles." —On the XXXIX.
Articles, Art. xxi. The acute writer seems, however, not to have observed that such
an interpretation of the passage overturns the conclusion which he sought to build
upon it. If the Apostles, assembled in Council at Jerusalem,.had " received no inspiration to direct them,"-an assertion which the mere nature of the question they
were discussing proves to be wholly gratuitous; if, indeed, this were not a case per se,
and the Apostles differed in no respect from the members of any future Council in the
matter of immediate supernatural aid. then, assuredly, such future Councils must have
a perfect right to claim authority equal to that of any other which was similarly
without "inspiration to direct" it. Any Council at the present day may, therefore,
according to Bishop Burnet's hypothesis, similarly preface its decrees by the formula,
"It seemed good to the Holy Ghost and to us"-in whatever sense these words are
to be taken, and may fairly demand the same deference for its Canons, as Scripture




LECT. VI.]               SCRIPTURAL PROOF.                           269
II. The second class of passages above referred to, in which
inspired men claim infallible authority for their own words and
writings, may now be briefly examined. We have just seen how the
human testimony of the Apostles was exalted into Divine Testimony by the co-operation of the Spirit of God. The effect of
this influence upon their minds cannot be more forcibly illustrated
than by the confident tone in which all their statements are advanced.  No honest and merely human historian has ever dared
to write thus. When recording the minute facts of his history,
the greater his honesty the less willing is he to express himself
with too great assurance.  The writers of Scripture, on the other
hand, never admit the possibility of their assertions being erroneous.  I need only mention the Preface to S. Luke's Gospel.
Although "many had taken in hand" to record the facts of the
Life of Christ, this Evangelist takes up his pen to represent them
with " unerring accuracy."' Modestly though the sacred penmen
judged of themselves on other occasions, they never drop the
slightest hint that aught which could be regarded as the effect
of their former prejudices adheres to their teaching.   Nay, if the
doctrine imparted by them is assailed in any of its aspects, they
reject such opposition with the utmost energy as something perverse, and wholly untenable. This feature of their writings we
can trace in the language of S. Paul and S. Peter, of S. James
and S. John.3 S. Paul even pronounces the most fearful malediction upon all who advance doctrines contrary to his own:
" Though an angel from  heaven preach any other Gospel unto
you than that which we have preached unto you, let him be accursed."4 They neither intimate, as I have already shown, that
this infallible doctrine had been derived from previous principles
by their own reasoning powers, nor do they ever pride themselves
implies that the Church was bound to pay.to the decision of the "uninspired" members of the Council of Jerusalem.
1'Aau~eLa. —S. Luke, i. 4. Cf. supra, Lecture ii. p. 56, note.
2 The argument, derived from the silence of the sacred writers on this head, becomes much stronger when we remember that, as has been proved in the last Discourse (see supra, p. 221, &c.), they were perfectly conscious that infallibility did not
attach itself to their conduct on those occasions when they did not act under the immediate influence of Inspiration.
3 Cf. Col. ii.; 2 S. Pet. ii.; S. James, ii.; 2 S. John, 9, &c. See Steudel's "Zeitschrift," for 1832. H. iii. s. 13.
4 Hap' Oi eV'ryeyLoXt(ueOa vyutv, dv6fOia  7aru.-Gal. i. 8. Cf. too, the tone of command so constantly assumed: e g. "Them that are such we command and exhort
bl, our Lord Jesus Christ," &c.-2 Thess. iii 12.




270                       SCRIPTURAL PROOF.                   [LECT. VL
upon their disinterested devotion to the service of the Gospel
They refer all to  the illuminating  influence of God.  "Unto
me," writes S. Paul, "who am  less than the least of all saints,
is this grace given, that I should preach among the Gentiles the
unsearchable riches of Christ."' The obligation under which
all men are placed of accepting with entire submission the doctrines thus preached, the sacred writers infer from the fact that
their labors had been accompanied by such miracles as attest the
authority of an Apostle.   This authority, moreover, the New
Testament defines as being equal to that of the Prophets: " You
are built," declares S. Paul, "upon the foundation of the Apostles and Prophets;"' and S. Peter admonishes the Church to be
"mindful of the words which were spoken before by the holy
Prophets, and of the commandment of us the Apostles of the
Lord and Saviour."'  And when we bear in mind the manner in
which the different authors of the New Testament refer to the
Prophets, and how they declare the old Testament to have been
" given by Inspiration of God;" we cannot escape from the conclusion that they claim for their own teaching the same Divine
guidance which they, on all occasions, attribute to those " men
of God, who spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost."
It has been objected, indeed, that the promises of Christ had
relation merely to the oral teaching of the Apostles, not to their
written compositions.' Not to insist again upon the obvious remark already made, that if the guidance of the Holy Spirit was
needed to direct them when teaching their contemporaries or
pleading their cause before rulers, cdfortiori was similar guidance
necessary when they were about to bequeath instruction to every
future age;-not to repeat, I say, such an observation, the sacred
e)nmen themselves expressly claim  the same authority whether' Eph. iii. 8.                2 Rom. xv. 19; 2 Cor. xii. 12; Heb. ii. 4.
3 Eph. ii. 20. The Apostles, observes S. Chrysostom on this passage, are placed
first in order, although last in point of time: S. Paul hereby declaring —iTr Oe/e2lt6re
eit. Kai ObrTOL KMa eKeLvoL, Kat [ia oiteodojoi rb 7rTV, Kai fiiaa lia. —omil. vi. in Ep. ad
Eph., t. xi. p.?:9.
4 2 S. Pet. iii. 2. Cf. S. Jude, 17, 18.
5 Mr. Morell seems to consider-no doubt consistently with his general viewsthat neither the oral nor the written teaching of the Apostles can be regarded as inspired: " We cannot infer that they [the Books of the New Testament] are verbally
inspired, any more than were tie oral teachings of the Apostles.  We cannot infer
that they had any greater authority attached to them  than the general authority
which was attached to the apostolic office."-Philoso phy of Religion, p. 182. See
supra, Lecture iv. p. 143, note 2.




LECT. VI.]                  SCRIPTURAL  PROOF.                                271
they refer to their written or to their oral teaching. S. John declares 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."'  S. Paul admonishes the
Thessalonians to " stand fast, and hold the traditions which they
had been taught, whether by word, or our Epistle."2   Nor are we
to imagine that the influence of the Holy Spirit extended merely
to the contents of the Apostles' writings, suggesting the doctrines
which they were to teach, and  the  facts which  they were to  record:-we find the same Divine guidance  claimed  for the  language also which they employ.3   The passage selected as the test
of this Discourse of itself establishes this fact: " Which things
we speak, not in the words which man's wisdom teacheth, but
which the Holy Ghost teacheth."4   And  to  the  same  effect, S.
Paul again thanks God that the Thessalonians received the word
of God which they had  heard  from   him, " not as the word  of
men, but as it is in truth, the word of God."1
I Tafra (d yeyp(arr7rt.  S. John, xx. 31.
2 ETre dl( AOYov Zire dt' knLtaroSo2L  ruwv.-2 Thess. ii. 15.
3 Dr. Henderson urges the following curious objection against views of this nature: "A fourth argument against the notion of an entirely literal inspiration of the
sacred Scriptures, is its tendency to sink the authority of faithful translations, by depriving them of all claim to that quality."-Divine Inspiration, p. 433.
4 1 Cor. ii. 13. "A Kad Xa2oi)uev OViK ev d6LaJKTOTa    (ivOpTri'Vr/f rooier Z6yoLt dd' Ev
/,aKTcoif llveraTof. If any objective truth is to be ascribed to these words, we can
entertain but one opinion as to the source and character of the language of Scripture.
1 Thess. ii. 13. In the neglect of this great truth-viz., that the genuine idea
of "the word of God" is not only to be found in the Bible, but that it is the very
condition of its existence as Holy Scripture,-consists the grand defect of many modern theories on the subject of Inspiration.  That Scripture is "the word of God" to
man, conveyed, it is true, at different periods, and with different degrees of clearness-but ever acomplishing the end for which it was designed —was the foundation
of the creed of the early Church.  Hence the language of the inspired writers has
been profoundly termed by Origen, EpyartKbv tuFya. To this effect he observes: ri
XP' VOCeV 7Trp). TrV 7Tp) Tori, V, 7' OTrL TTrv  7/10Ia aaXOE6v dta ar6oiarTO  aV(I7V'p/aTLKro,
tV;  Ka   o Oavuaa7r v ei K ay v 7v ua TO ra2oviluevov irn    rv rpopyqTr'uv ELpyu'ITro /P')o:;
ro rpeirov  5/jFuarT. iLZZ    a yap oeiatr or  Kat trav Oavadiatov ypuiia rb ye/patlc:'volv i.'
rolZ aoy/tot TOV Oeon  py(TeCrat. Kai ou  oarTl V itTa tv, I, ia Kepala;ney/)ia'nz/e' el T.U
ypao/, r/TL Tol rei  i(7Tauiavotcf Xpr7Oai rT  6vvT Uel rTv }ypaltuaT'r, oV'iK  py}',tenrae rI
eavrT/f ipyov.-Homil. xxxix. in Jerem., t. iii. p. 286. Cf. Rudelbach, "Die Lehre
von der Insp."  1840. H. i. s. 7.  "' The only-begotten Son, which is in the bosom
of the Father, He hath revealed Him.' It is as a Personal Being, therefore, communicating with us through those functions of soul and body, which lHe has vouchsafed
to share with ourselves, that the Eternal Word discovers Himself.  But so far as the
knowledge which He communicates is clothed in earthly words, it is as capable of
being conveyed to those to whom  it comes in books, as it was to those to whom it
addressed itself through their hearing.  Therefore were men who'had perfect understanding of all things from the very first' moved'to write in' order,' that subsequent
generations might'know the certainty of those things wherein' they had' been instructed.' Thus did it please Him, who made Himself visible only to the men of




272                         SCRIPTURAL PROOF.                       [LECT. VI.
I cannot close this branch  of the  subject without adverting
to the objection usually urged against all arguments such  as -I
have just advanced.  If, indeed, the nature of those arguments
be kept in view-founded as they are  upon  the whole tenor of
Scripture, and the express statements of the sacred writers-it
must surely appear antecedently improbable in  the highest degree, that any difficulty, suggested by the language of the inspired
penmI en themselves, can be either real or valid.  The objection,
however, to which I allude is founded upon a passage in the New
Testamant; and it furnishes the ordinary burden of all popular
reasoning against any strict view of Inspiration.' In the seventh
chapter of the first Epistle to the Corinthians, S. Paul writes at
the tenth verse: " Unto the married I command, yet not I, but
the Lord"2-words in which he obviously places his own injunction on a perfect equality with that " of the Lord," and which,
therefore, merely supply another proof of his inspired authority
in addition to the kindred passages already considered. So far,
it is plain, no objection arises. But the Apostle, continuing his
subject, shortly afterwards adds, " To the rest speak  I, not the
Lord;" observing further, with reference to a third class, " I have
no commandment of the Lord, yet I give my judgment:"3-by
which language he is supposed to intimate that, in certain parts
one generation, to' pour out doctrine as prophecy, and leave it to all ages for ever.'"
-Wilberforce, On the Incarnation, p. 476.
1 Thus Perrone writes, in continuation of the passage already cited (p. 239,
note 1): " Quamvis porro videantur apostoli privilegium de quo est sormo sibi tribuere,
alibi tamen, si insistas literae, videntur sibi denegare, ut 1 Cor. vii. 12, 40; xiv. 37,
38 (?), quae reipsa loca, una cum pluribus adiis, nobis objiciuntur a rationalistis ad excludendam divinorum Bibliorum  inspirationem."  See also Spinoza, " Tract. Theol.
Polit., cap. xi.
2 It must be carefully noted here, that the difficulty which this chapter has suggested to many, does not commence at ver. 6 (" I speak this by permission, and not
of commandment —rTOV     (  E7yu tcarT  a vyyv/rzUv, ob ear''TrrTay)Ilv."), as the ambiguity of the English word "permission" by which avyyvw3,uy is rendered, might
lead us at first to suppose:-but where avyyv(u^ty, which does not occur elsewhere
in the New Testament, can only mean, () forgiveness; (2) indulgence. As Olshausen
observes, avyyvdun7 differs from yv6uy (ver. 25) only so far as the "judgment" of
the Apostle comprises the additional notion of a concession; cf. Vulg., " Secundum
indulgentiam."  The meaning, then, of ver. 6 is, 1"But this I say by way of allowance (for you), not by way of command,"-" this" (roVro) referring to the whole recommendation given in ver. 5; or, perhaps, as Olshausen thinks, to the preceding
verses also. This is proved beyond a question by ver. 7-" For I would that all
men were even as I myself," &c. The recommendation, therefore, of ver. 5 is given
not. " as a command in all cases, but as an allowance to those to whom he [S. Paul]
was writing, whom he knew and assumes to be thus tempted."-Alford, in loc. The
difficulty first arises at the passage commencing with ver. 10.
a Verses 12 and 25




LECT. VI.]                 SCRIPTURAL PROOF.                             273
of Scripture, the author may write according to his own uninspired human judgment, although guided in other portions of
his work by the Holy Ghost.'  Such an inference, however, is altogether at variance with S. Paul's design, whose words in this
place can only be distorted into the form  of an argument against
Inspiration  by utterly  overlooking his object and his meaning.
The first of the three expressions which have been quoted, " I
command, yet not I, but the Lord,"' obviously refers to the reinstitution by Christ (as S. Mark has recorded the circumstance)
of the original Law of Marriage, and relates to an ordinance revealed from  the very first, and obligatory on every occasion, and
in every age; while by the two latter passages'-on which the
i This opinion is sometimes held by persons who love and reverence the Bible,
but who conceive that they are required, by the Apostle's language here, to relax
their views as to Inspiration. Such persons are surely not aware of the extent of
their admission; and in order to show what this opinion really amounts to, I would
refer to the unanswerable remark of a writer who denies altogether the authority
and truth of Scripture, and which I have already quoted in connexion with a similar admission as to the fallibility of the Apostles: —see the words of Mr. Greg,
quoted in Lecture iv. at the close of the note, p. 180.
In this place (ver. 10) S. Paul "is about to give them a command, resting, not
merely on inspired Apostolic authority, great and undoubted as that was, but on that
of THE LORD HIMSELF, SO that all supposed distinction between the Apostle's own
writing of himself, and of the Lord, is quite irrelevant."-Alford, in loc. The Lord's
command, to which the Apostle refers, had been already given (" And if a woman
shall put away her husband, and be married to another, she committeth adultery,"
S. Mark, x. 12-in which place only is the woman's part brought out).
3 In ver. 12 ("But to the rest speak I, not the Lord"-Tons d&  ot-roig  iyo kiey6,
orX o Kvptoc) S. Paul for the first time states the result of his own inspired judgment:
"I," i. e. "I, Paul, in my own apostolic office, under the authority of the Holy
Spirit-'not the Lord,' i. e. not Christ, by any direct command spoken by Him; it
was a question with which Christ did not deal, in His recorded discourses."  Again,
in ver. 25, ("Now concerning virgins I have no commandment of the Lord-E7Lraayiv
Kvpiov oVle Xo —yet I give my judgment (yvcJtnv), as one that hath obtained mercy
of the Lord to be faithful —Vrr  Kvpiov 7rtLarb elvat.") there is no contrast between 6
KvptoC and Iy'; the emphasis is on i7rtray Av —"' command of the Lord have I none,'
i. e. no expressed precept."  See Mr. Alford's judicious summary. In ver. 25, LtrtTO6
elvat can only mean, says Olshausen: "be worthy of belief, i. e. of confidence. To
this there is a reference altogether peculiar, in the mention of his yvjur/. He was,
however, worthy of confidence because he had the Spirit of God, which determines
all relations correctly, a fact referred to in ver. 40."-in loc. B. iv. s. 615. In a word,
S. Paul does not distinguish between his own commands, and those received by an
immediate revelation from Christ, but between his own commands, and those which
Christ had given when on earth, and which were now historical. To such injunctions
of the Lord, S. Paul more than once refers in this Epistle. Alluding to the provision
of Christ for the ministers of the Gospel (S. Matt. x. 10), he writes: " Even so hath
the Lord ordained (&/traeev)"-ix. 14; and again: "I praise you brethren, that you
keep the ordinances (7rapad6aetr-traditions, as the margin renders) as I delivered
(rrapiodwa) them to you"-xi. 2: cf. ver. 23.
Even rationalistic commentators have been compelled to arrive at this conclusion.
Thus De Wette observes: "Hitherto the Apostle has spoken from his own judgment
illuminated by the Holy Ghost (v. 40); so also in what follows (vv. 12, 25, 40); but
here (v. 10) he appeals to an expression of the Lord (Mark, x. 12). The distinction




274                        SCRIPTURAL PROOF.                        [LECT. VI.
argument  against Inspiration  rests-S. Paul, as  the  context
clearly proves, merely intends to convey, that Christ had not
directly provided for those particular cases in which  His Apostle
now pronounces his inspired and authoritative opinion.
In the former of these passages, the very nature of the question respecting which the Apostle issues his directions, namely,
" It any brother hath a wife that believeth not,"-an exceptional
case which arose from the state of society then existing, and
which could not be of frequent recurrence in after times,-of itself explains why our Lord had not Himself promulgated an express law  respecting it.  Here, as in other matters of discipline,
the Holy Ghost was to  guide the Apostles into "all the truth;"
and the decisions at which they arrived are therefore equally
binding with  those  of Christ Himself, in  every case to which
those decisions can  apply.  This, indeed, is clear from  S. Paul's
own words when summing up the question:  " So ordain I in all
churches.""   And  accordingly he is so far from  representing his
"judgment," delivered  in  the various aspects of the temporary
exigency which he discusses in this chapter, as a mere human
and fallible opinion, that he closes his remarks by the apparently
uncalled-for assertion, " I think  also that I have the Spirit of
God."2
is not that which subsists between human and Divine Truth, but between immediate
revelation and that which has been appropriated and recalled to mind by the assistance of the Spirit-since the Spirit takes from. Christ that which He teaches (John,
xvi. 14): thus can even the commands of the Apostle be regarded as the commands
of Christ (xiv. 37)." And Meyer writes with reference to the contrast between tEy6
and 6 KVptog (ver. 10): "As to his Eyd, the Apostle was conscious that his individuality was under the influence of the Holy Ghost.-ver. 40. He therefore distinguishes
here and vv. 12, 25 not between his own and inspired commands, but between those
which proceeded from his own inspired (theopneusten) subjectivity, and those which
Christ Himself maintained by His objective word."
1 Ver. 17- ei z/z 6Ka(1T T) u Eiptaev o K K7pto,                       o<aorov d   eK IclueKCV o O Vr6, OVeret
vveptLaTreiT  Ka OBVTWC iv Tai eKKA7c aicatc c t'araatg  a(raeoluac: —where  Lardt(i7oual in
the middle has the force of "to make a decree."  Mr. Alford thus accurately points
out the connexion with the previous verses: "el jiU  takes an exception, by way of
caution, to the foregoing motive for not remaining together (ver. 16).  The Christian
partner might carry that motive too far, and be tempted by it to break the connoxion
on his own part: a course already prohibited (vv. 12-14). Therefore the Apostle adds,'But (i. e. only be careful not to make this a ground for yourselves causing the separation) as to each (KCai(Tu (cdCJ    EKci rT.) the Lord has distributed his lot, as (i. e., KAbfet,
ver. 20) God has called each, so (in that state, without change) let him walk.' And
so ordain I," &c.
2 Ver. 40 —6olc 6e Kedys llvevlta Oeov ixev.  Observe, too, that in ch. ii. 16, S. Paul
similarly declares:' But we have the mind of Christ." As might be expected, objectors urge the use of 6o0K, in this verse, as a proof that the Apostle felt no certainty as to his having spoken under the guidance of the Spirit: in which sense, also,
Baur considers the words. " When James, Cephas, and John, who seemed to be pillars




LECT. VI.]                  SCRIPTURAL PROOF.                              275
If we turn, in the next place, to the other passage on which
the objector relies,-" Now  concerning virgins I have no commandment of the Lord: yet I give my judgment, as one that
hath obtained mercy of the Lord to be faithful"-we again perceive an allusion to the fact that Christ, when laying down His
commands, had.made no provision for this special exigency. Under such circumstances, therefore, an exercise of apostolic authority was again required: and consequently S. Paul proceeds here
also to pronounce his "judgment," introducing his decision with
the words: "I suppose (or rather consider), therefore, that this
is good for the present distress."
On the whole, then, we observe that three questions are here
discussed by the Apostle. The first relates to the Law of Marriage, where both husband  and wife were believers: and  in this
instance, having pointed out that it had been decided once for all
by Christ, S. Paul contents himself with simply repeating that
decision. The second question has also reference to the marriage
state, in cases where one of the parties had not as yet embraced
the Christian faith; the third, on the other hand, being " concerning virgins:" and  in  these latter questions it is expressly
pointed  out, although the rules laid down did  not directly pro(ol 60doovreg arviol  elvat)"-Gal. ii. 9, to import " zweideutige ironische Seitenblicke"
of S. Paul against the Twelve. Ebrard (" Krit. der evang. Gesch.," s. 702) justly observes that any Lexicon might have taught him that ol dOKOVVTET' means'those who
are held in repute (by others),' not'those who would fain be so esteemed.' For the
classical usage, cf. "oi doIcoivreg eli'ai rt, men who are held to be something, men of
repute, Plat. Gorg. 472. A; so oi oicOVvTvrec alone, Eur. Hec. 295."-Lidd. and Scott.
As to the usage of 6oKiE by the Greek Fathers, one of the greatest of patristic scholars observes: " Alia vox est, in qua item Latine transferenda non pauci interpretes
labuntur, scil. ooiceiv, videri; d6oKi, videtur: quod verbum vulgo usurpatur ad minuendam adfirmationem; ita ut si, verbi causa, de' quopiam dicatur 6oKnl eivat aoo6c,
videtur esse sapiens, id ut asseveranter dictum non habeatur, sed dubitationem quamdam prmeferat. Verum frequentissime apud scriptores bene multos doeZl nihil minuit
adfirmationem; ut e. g. in his Commentariis, ad Ps. cxviii. p. 729, de Deo dicitur
dtKatoraroc elvatl 6oKei, ubi vertendum sine dubio, justissimus est. Innumera proferri
Rossunt cum ex Eusebio, turn ex aliis Scriptoribus exempla. Sic apud Athanasium,
iva Trovvv Kal u)v ETrt6LOviet TeTVX7Kevat 60 KO  o ir, ut igitur optata consequaris."
Montfaucon, Prtelim. in Euseb. Comm. in Psal., c. x. 2. Such a sense is frequent in
the New Testament. E. g. "I think ((OK(o) that God hath set forth us the Apostles,"
&c.-1 Cor. iv. 9. Cf. "From  him that hath not, even that he hath (a axet) shall be
taken away from him"-S. Luke, xix. 26 (see S. Matt. xiii. 12), with the parallel
words, in the same Gospel, "even that which he seemeth to have" (3 doKei PLetv)viii 18. So, also, 1 Cor. xi. 16; Heb. iv. i.
In considering the passage before us we are also to remember that the Apostle
was writing to men who would gladly have shaken off his authority, and who continually sought " a proof of Christ speaking in him" (2 Cor. xiii. 3); to whom, moreover, in ch. xii. he adduced the two great proofs of his being God's agent-viz., the
working of miracles, and the receiving of revelations.




276                        SCRIPTURAL PROOF.                       [LECT, VI.
ceed from Christ, yet that they are prescribed by one who " had
the Spirit of God." And not only do we thus see how untenable
is this objection which has been founded upon the Apostle's
language, but we can also point out the fallacy on which it depends. The objection, in fact, is based upon the assumptionequally opposed to the context, and to the whole tenor of those
numerous passages of Scripture considered  in this Discoursethat the phrase " the commandment of the Lord"' signifies the
inward suggestion of the Holy Ghost by which the Apostles were
guided and prompted in the discharge of their labors. By pointing out the injunction of Christ to which alone that phrase makes
allusion, commentators  have  proved, that such cannot be the
meaning  of S. Paul's words;  and  in  doing  so they  have also
proved that nothing  could have been further from  the Apostle's
design than to institute any contrast unfavorable to his own inspired authority. So far, indeed, was he from intending to convey by them the idea that any of his inspired directions to the
Church was to be looked upon as of less authority than even
those of Christ Himself-that in this same Epistle,2 having reMr. Westcott is certainly in error when he says: "The reality of an objective Inspiration  *  *  *  seems to be implied in the Pauline formula Kar' Ei7traysjv (Rom.
xvi. 26; 1 Tim. i. 1; Titus, i. 3; 1 Cor. vii. 6, 25; 2 Cor. viii. 8)."-Elem. of Gosp.
Harm., p. 11. The import of bkrtray) in I Cor. vii. 6, has been pointed out p. 272,
note 2; and in 2 Cor. viii. 8, its meaning is clearly the same. In neither case is there
the slightest allusion to a Divine command. The other texts referred to by Mr.
Westcott have clearly nothing to do with the inspiration of Scripture. In the same
general sense I 7 t r a y 2 is used in Titus, ii. 15, and it is not found again in the New
Testament.
2 1 Cor. xiv. 37. Olshausen sums up the question as follows: "We find (ch,
vii. 10, 12, 25, 40) that the Apostle distinguishes between what he says, and what
the Lord says; between a definite command of Christ (iTL rayi), and his own subjective
judgment (yv/Lroj). *  *  *  Suppose, therefore, that Paul had no traditional command of Christ upon a certain subject, yet we must esteem his inspired conviction
equivalent to such a command, for Christ wrought it in him by His Holy Spirit I In
clh. xiv. 37, he openly lays claim to this privilege. It is there said: ei Trg doKei
ao0()0irT7f edvvat v 7rvevyarTKirS, EwitytvvOK'ro i ypapW /  vULv, OTt Kvpiov eloZv vTroXai [or,
adopting the reading which criticism has established, "the things which I write unto
you proceed from the Lord (Kvpiov ftMv)"]. Here no traditional commands of Christ
can be intended,-for in order to know such commands one need not be a prophet;
but the expressions of Paul are so far called Christ's commands, inasmuch as He
wrought them in him by His Spirit." —oc. cit., s. 600.
There are two other passages in the writings of S. Paul which have been sometimes considered to imply that the great Apostle did not always write under the
guidance of Inspiration. (1.) "Being then made free from sin, ye became the servants
(;i:6uvXt)jre) of righteousness. I speak after the manner of men (dvOputrvov?o eyw)
because of the inlirmity of your flesh."-Rom. vi. 18, 19. This passage is well exphined by Mr. Alford: "For the expression IeovX26L0re the Apostle apologises:'it
is not literally so; the servant of righteousness is no slave, under no yoke of bondage;
but in order to set the contrast between the former and the new state better before




LECT. VI.]                    SCRIPTURAL  PROOF.                                 277
ferred at considerable length to the existence of special miraculous
gifts in the Church (of which a prominent gift was the faculty
of "discerning  of spirits"), he appeals to persons thus endowed
inl  the remarkable words: " If any  man  think  himself to  be a
prophet, or spiritual, let him   acknowledge that the things that I
write unto you are the commandments of the Lord."
you. I have used this word:'I speak as a man (according to the requirements of
rhetorical antithesis) on account of the (intellectual) weakness of your flesh,' *    * 
and want such figures to set the truth before you."  On such words, therefore, no
argument against Inspiration can be founded.
(2.) The next passage is as follows: "I say again, let no man think me a fool
(pq;pova): if otherwise (etl 6  1 rY y e) yet as a fool receive me, that I may boast myself a
little.'That which I speak, Ispeak it not after the Lord (5o 2ac5, ov Kard KiU'tov Xal,),
but as it were foolishly, in this confidence of boasting." — 2 Cor. xi. 16, 17.  Here,
however, Mr. Alford says: "Proceeding on the d  ( dppova he disclaims for this selfboasting the character of inspiration-or of being said in pursuance of his mission
from  the Lord."  But there is no question here of the Apostle's "mission."  The
"false Apostles" (ver. 13) had compelled him to enter upon the subject of his privileges; S. Paul, therefore, considers it prudent, in order to guard against a possible
perversion of his words, to point out that the apparent boasting or self-glory to which
he is thus compelled is not in itself to be approved, or, as a general rule, in accordance
with the Lord's will.  He accordingly uses the words,' not after the Lord" (ver. 17),
in strong contrast to the expression "after the flesh (cart7 T7iv a(dRpK)" in ver. 18. His
meaning, therefore, is-" Since many glory after the flesh, I will glory also:-but, in
so doing, I am compelled to adopt a course of which, as a general rule, I cannot approve; self-boasting is not after the Lord; and this I forewarn you of, as I do all
things, dearly beloved, for your edifying (ch. xii. 19)."  "In ver. 16 the Apostle plays
on the idea implied by (;pwov. At first, he requests them not to regard him as such,
because he boasts himself (want of understanding is charged against those who really
do so out of self-conceit); but if they would not obey him in this instance (ei &d sf y e),
yet they might, if they pleased, look upon him even as upw(v) —as those vaunting individuals-provided he may pride himself even in a small degree.  In these last
words, together with a refined irony, is contained a censure of the Corinthians, that
they permitted those false prophets so to exalt themselves.  In ver. 17 the Ad ev
doq)povvy shows that the Apostle does not mean to say that he really speaks with a
want of understanding, but that his speech has merely a semblance of it."-Olshausen,
Comm. B. iii. s. 867.  Indeed S. Paul expressly declares that it is in this sense only
that the charge of "folly" can be brought against him: "For though I would desire
to glory, I shall not be a fool; for I will say the truth: but now  I forbear."xii. 6.
The passages, "By the grace of God I am what I am: I labored more abundantly
than they all: yet not I, but the grace of God wh:ch was in me'"-   Cor. xv. 10; and
again, "God forbid that I should glory, save in the cross of our Lord Jesus Christ"
(Gal. vi. 14), convey the principle against any violation of which S. Paul desires to
guard; and hence we can explain his reiteration of the charge of "folly" against
himself in that assertion of his privileges to which he next proceeds, viz., ver. 21,
23; and especially, ch. xii. 11, "I am become a fool in glorying; ye have compelled
rme:" cf. also xi. 30; xii. 1-5.








LECTURE  V11,
THE COMMISSION TO WRITE.-THE FORM OF
WHAT WAS WRITTEN.




At,')rep ro70  7rEtOojEvotf uj1 (dvOp6jrrov elvat svyyp flara Tr(  epp2  f3iP3fLv,  a3' lE
rtw^nvozag TOV'Ayiov flvev/4uaTo  flovX7Fart TOV 7   rIaTrpo T7SV  Rov dti' I7aoV XPLTroV
ra7raf dvayeypd.Oat Kcal eizg?jyudf TLAvOeval, ratg (atvoye'vag 66ovf V-7ro6eLtrov.
ORIGENES, De PrincSp., lib. iv. ix.
"Duo vero Cherubim  pennis suis obumbrant Propitiatorium, id est honorant velando; quoniam mysteria ista ibi sunt: et invicem se adtendunt, quia consonant; duo
quippe ibi Testamenta figurantur: et vultus eorum sunt in Propitiatorium, quia misericordiam Dei, in qua una spes est, valde commendant."
S. AUGUSTIN., Qucest. in Exodum, lib. II. qu. cv.
"'Vox in excelso audita est lamentationis, fletus et luctus, Rachel plorantis filios
suos.' Nec juxta Hebraicum, nec juxta Septuaginta, Matthaeus sumsit testimonium
*  *  *  Ex quo perspicuum  est, Evangelistas et Apostolos nequaquam ex Hebraeo
interpretationem  alicujus sequutos; sed quasi Hebraeos ex Hebraeis, quod legebant
Hebraice, suis sermonibus expressisse."
S. HIERON., Comm. in Jerem., lib. vi.
TV'v Oeiav aiTlTvrat ypao'v, )~ Tr) replTTr  Kal Keca~Ka'21Ort9l1,teV  XpuriEvv 7V  6y),
CaLd Tr, Tra7rtvL) Kca Trei.
S. ISIDOR. Pelus., Epist. lib. iv. lxvii.
Oi b6c (OcT tot Kal 6u  luyi0o5f Oeorrpere, S )7}u (6 roV Xptlrov TroV'ATrotr6Sovg, dpe7rf
r(rt7a raT'bVX(a KeKoa/iL77 Tvot, /'v 6d yuTrrav iMOTeVOVT7e, Trj y    iCpv rp f rov`rS-T7
poC aV7TO7 L&E6oprdvy OQeai Kail rTapadoforot5OL dvvuiet OapaoovTre, rTO     v ri Teplvoig it K
rF,')  tay)v T7     r TO  A6tdacKXov /aeOuara rTpefrpEivEl, OVTrE  deoav OVTre veXeipovv.
EUSEBIUS Pamph., Eccl. Hist., lib. III. xxiv.




LECTURE VII.
THE COMMISSION TO WRITE.-THE FORM OF
WHAT WAS WRITTEN.
YEA, THEY MADE THEIR HEARTS AS AN ADAMANT STONE, LEST THEY SHOULD HEAR
THE LAW, AND THE WORDS WHICH THE LORD OF HOSTS HATH SENT IN HIS SPIRIT
~BY THE FORMER PROPHETS.-ZecharZah, vii. 12.
HAVING examined those statements of the New Testament
which, in express terms, ascribe Inspiration to our sacred books
taken collectively, or from which the influence of the Holy Ghost
upon their authors may be inferred,-it still remains for us to
inquire whether the Old Testament, either by its own intimations
confirms, or by the manner in which its language is made use of
in the New, tends to support, the views hitherto maintained as
to the co-operation of the Divine Spirit in the composition of
the Bible. To the consideration of these questions the present
Discourse must be chiefly devoted.
The words of the text form a portion of an immediate revelation from God; the passage from which.they are taken opening
with the customary formula, " The word of the Lord came unto
Zechariah, saying, Thus speaketh the Lord of Hosts." In this
prophetic announcement two important facts are implied. It is
implied, in the first place, that a collection of sacred writings was
already in existence when Zechariah received this communication,
-for not only " the Law," bui also " the words which the Lord
of Hosts hath sent by the former prophets," are expressly referred
to: and secondly, that those writings had been composed under
Divine guidance,-for, with respect to the words of the prophets,
Jehovah declares that He had sent them by " His Spirit;" while
the Law, strictly so called, is on all occasions represented in
Scripture as the voice of God Himself. We meet with statements of a similar character in other portions of the Bible which




282                    THE  COMMISSION  TO  WRITE.                  [LECT. VIL
were written at this same period;-statements which possess the
greater importance from the fact that they proceeded from those
men to whom both Jewish tradition, and the most advanced
criticism of modern times, unite in ascribing the formation of the
Old Testament Canon: I mean Ezra and Nehemiah.'
This fact is conclusively established by Havernick, " Einleitung," Th. I. Abth. is. 27 ff. "All reasons," he observes, "if correctly estimated, lead us to the time of
Ezra and Nehemiah, as that which can alone accord with the closing of the Canon:"e. g. the circumstances of Jewish history (see infra, p. 284); the reverential allusions
for the first time to the Canon, taken collectively as a sacred document, in the period which followed Ezra and Nehemiah (see supra, Lecture ii. p. 61, &c.); the refusal
to receive as canonical such a work as the book of Ecclosiasticus, of which the claims
to authority are so prominently advanced (see supra, p 55, note 2); the testimony of
Josephus to the failure of a " succession of prophets" (see supra, p. 68) &c. Hivernick
appeals, in the next place, to the Tradition of the Jews, the importance of which he
justly insists upon. This Tradition expressly refers the collection of the sacred books
to Ezra, and "the Great Synagogue."  (1.) One of the oldest parts of the Talmud,
the "Capita Patrum," or "Sayings of the Fathers" (ro   1p~i~-see Mischna, ed.
Surenhus. iv. p. 409), begins with the words: "Moses received the Law from Sinai,
and transferred it to Joshua; Joshua to the Elders; the Elders to the Prophets; the
Prophets to the men of the Great Synagogue," which consisted of one hundred and
twenty Elders in the time of Ezra; among whom  were Zerubbabel, Seraiah, the
prophets Haggai, Zechariah, and Malachi, &c.: see Surenhusius, ibid.  (2.) The important passage in the Gemara of Babylon (Tr. Baba Bathra, fol. xv. col. 1), declares
that "the Wise Men"' have left to us the Thorah, the Prophets, and the Kethubim,
Collected into one whole (nm: t:p "nu)."  "Who," asks the Talmudists, "has inserted
these books in the Canon (1nz  rn~)?" in which phrase, as Havernick proves conclusively-and here he follows Vitringa (" In lib. Isai." t. i. p. 13) and Gesenius (" Der
Proph. Jesaiah," i. s. 16), in opposition to De Wette ("Einleit." ~ 14, s. 17) and
Hengstenberg (" Beitrage," i s. 2), —nr  can only mean "inserted" (i. e. in the Canon)
or " edited."  Thus ark is employed in this passage to express that "Hezekiah and
his College wrote out (or formed into one collection) Isaiah, Proverbs, Canticles, and
Ecclesiastes,"-clearly referring to the statement of Scripture itself: " These are the
Proverbs of Solomon, which the men of Hezekiah King of Judah copied out."-Prov.
xxv. 1. It surely cannot be imagined that the Talmudists regarded " Hezekiah and
his College" as the authors of the Book of Proverbs! This extract from the Gemara
ends by ascribing to Ezra the book which bears his name, and the genealogies in the
books of Chronicles; the completion of the Chronicles it ascribes to Nehemiah.
"Jewish Tradition, therefore," concludes Havernick, "concurs with historical, positive testimony in proving that Ezra, in connexion with other famous men of his time,
completed the collection of the Sacred Writings."-loc. cit. s. 49. To his labors in
arranging the Canon is clearly to be referred the origin of Ezra's title-" A Scribe of
the words of the commandments of the Lord and of His statutes to Israel;" "A
Scribe of the Law of the God of Heaven."-Ezra, vii. 11, 12; on which passages,
taken in connexion with the Jewish Tradition already considered, was founded the
opinion of the primitive Church.  Thus S. Irenveus writes: [Oeuf] vi7rvevnaev'Ea6pa
rT)'Iepel  *  *  *  roDe Trv rpoyeyov6rTV rrpor7UiV (irvTaf  aa rV   a   a 0 a t
aoyovf, Kca ciroKaraarOiaal r5?H.aT rTv dia MOcriE   vouoOefaiav.-Contr. HeTr. iii. 21,
p. 216; words which have been erroneously understood to imply that S. Irenaeus
adopted the modern fiction (2 Esdras, xiv. 21) that Ezra "composed anew" all the
books of the Old Testament which had perished during the Exile.  Thus the old
Latin version renders divardaaaOaL by rememorare; and Valesius (Euseb. H. E., lib.
v. c. 8, p. 222) by " denuo componeret."  D. Massuet (in loc.) justly observes: " Verterem ego, digerere;" giving to dvarad. its legitimate meaning. To the same effect
Feuardentius (in loc.) quotes Tertullian: " Hierosolymis Babylonia expugnatione deletis, omne instrumentum Judaice literaturae per Esdram constat restauratum." —D
cuUu mulier., c. iii. p. 171. Cf. Clemens AL, " Strom.," i 22, p. 410.




LECT. VII.]   THE FORM  OF WHAT WAS WRITTEN.                       283
When God again committed to Moses upon Sinai the Law
engraved on the two Tables of stone, it had been expressly commanded that the Israelites should not intermarry with the inhabitants of the land.' Ezra, when recording how this law had
been broken, observes: " Then were assembled unto me every
one that trembled at the words of the God of Israel."' This,
however, as I have just remarked, was but the formal creed of
his nation as to the  Pentateuch.  But Ezra proceeds, in his
prayer, to combine the commands of God by His prophets with
those which had been enunciated by the Jewish lawgiver: "And
now, 0 our God, what shall we say after this? for we have forsaken Thy commandments which Thou hast commanded by Thy
servants the prophets,"'-this latter phrase, as we learn from
other writers of the Old Testament, embracing the entire body
of God's inspired messengers.  For example, the Lord declares
by the mouth of Jeremiah: " Since the day that your fathers
came forth out of the land of Egypt unto this day, I have even
sent unto you all My servants the prophets."'
The Divine character of the Old Testament is expressed with
equal distinctness by Nehemiah.  He tells us how Ezra complied
with the desire of the people that he should read before them
the Book of the Law of Moses which the Lord had commanded
to Israel."' And again, in the prayer of the Levites (which is
followed by the covenant which Nehemiah, and the Levites, and
people, "sealed" "to walk in  God's Law  which was given by
Moses the servant of God"), it is said: " Yet many years didst
Thou forbear them, and testifiedst against them by Thy Spirit
in Thy prophets:" —expressions which, like those of Ezra, exactly correspond to the statement of our text.' Exod. xxxiv. 16; cf. Deut. vii. 3.               2 Ezra, ix. 1-4.
3 Ibid. ver. 10, 11.
4 Jer. vii. 25; xxv. 4; cf. 2 Kings, xvii. 6-23; 2 Chron. xxxvi. 14-16.
6 Nell. viii. 1.
o Neh. ix. 30; see ch. x. 29; in which passages the'Law' and the' Prophets'
only are referred to. In ch. xii., however, Nehemiah farther alludes to the third division of the Old Testament as forming, with the other parts, an authoritative code.
Having spoken of the ordinances of the Law respecting the Priests, he adds that
"singers and porters kept the ward of' their God * * * according to the corn
mandment of David and of Solomon his son. For in the days of David. and Asaph
of old, there were chief of the singers, and songs of praise and thanksgiving unto
God."-ver. 44-46.
The relation of Nehemiah to the formation of the Canon is confirmed by the
author of the second book of Maccabees. Having stated the zeal of Jeremiah for the
preservation of the Ark, and of the Law, which the writer tells us that he had




284                   THE  COMMISSION  TO WRITE.                   [LECT. VII.
Such allusions to the Law and the Prophets, implying, as
they do, that a collection of sacred documents was already in
existence, suggest a brief consideration of some circumstances
connected with the closing of the Old Testament Canon. Here
also, as in those numerous instances so frequently noticed, we can
trace the continued use of natural means, and the employment
of what, to a human eye, might appear merely natural motives,
in securing this permanent record of Divine Revelation. The
various incidents of Jewish history, in the age of Ezra and  Nehemiah, had a necessary tendency to turn the attention of their
countrymen to the books of the prophets. Even so early as the
Assyrian period of Prophecy,' the calamities which impended
over the kingdoms of Israel and Judah  had  cast their shadows
before. In the midst of the gloomy present the future became
gradually invested with greater interest. Through the entrance
of the penalties which had been foretold, the blessings, of which
the chosen people had  received  an  equal assurance, acquired a
new significance.; and hence the promissory side of the Law attracted the hopes, as its denunciations awoke the fears, of the
nation. The history of Josiah2 exemplifies the existence of this
latter state of feeling; while the former is accounted for by the
light which passing  events cast upon  the language  of the pro"found in the records (ebptiKerat 6  Ev rail droypa0ai~)"-ch. ii 1, &c., he adds:
" The same things also were reported in the writings and commentaries of Neemias 
and how he, founding a library ((t3X1toOiKv), gathered together the Acts of the Kings,
and the Prophets, and of David, and the Epistles of the Kings concerning the holy
gifts (rTd rep2 Tr)v f3aot^Xuv, Kai T7po0Ti/v, Kai rt  TOf Aauid', Kal eTrteroGo0d (eCaatX. 7rept
(ivaeyfSuT(v)t'-ver. 13.  Thus Nehemiah is compared with Jeremiah; the latter having preserved the Law, the former the other writings, of which he proceeded to form
a collection-(Havernick, loc. cit. s. 46, shows that i3i/to10jK7 is to be understood in
this sense: cf. Maitland's " Dark Ages," p. 194). It is also to be particularly noted
that Nehemiah is here said to have " gathered together" (eravvijyaye) the different
elements of Jewish literature, and thence selected what was to be reckoned as Canonical. As to the principle on which this selection was made see supra Lect. ii. p. 54, &c.
The'prophetic age' of Jewish history commences from  Samuel (cf. "All the
prophets from Samuel," &c.-Acts, iii. 24; "David also, and Samuel, and the prophets"-Heb. xi. 32), and includes about seven hundred years, viz., B. C. 1100-400.
It has been thus divided: (1.) The'early period' tB. C. 1100-800), in which the collective activity of the' Prophetic Order' was conspicuous, and which terminated with
the contemporaries of Elijah and Elisha. (2.) The'Assyrian period' (B. C. 800-700),
in which, as in the periods which followed, the agency of individual prophets is employed. Here the leading subject is the relation of the Assyrians to the people of
God: under this head are included the predictions of Isaiah. (3.) The'Chaldaean
period' (B. C. 625-536). (4.) The period which followed the Captivity, viz., B. C.
636-400.  See Knobel, "Prophetismus der Hebraer," ii s. 18 ff.
2 Kings, xxii.; 2 Chron. xxxiv. The thirteenth year of Josiah's reign, in which
year Jeremiah's functions commenced (Jer. i. 2), was B. C. 629.




LECT. VII.]   THE FORM OF WHAT WAS WRITTEN.                    285
phets respecting the future,-language which was but a development of the predictions of the Law.'  In proportion to the
importance thus attached to the prophetic announcements, was
felt to be the need of preserving the records in which they were
perpetuated.  Such, we cannot doubt, was the external motive
which occasioned the collection of those sacred writings in which
the past glories of Israel were still recalled to mind; and by
which, in the depth of their present humiliation, the children
of Abraham were solaced by a series of imperishable Prophecy.
Acting, therefore, upon this external impulse, the inspired men,2
who formed the collection of the books of the Old Testament,
were divinely guided to select from the literature of their nation
those documents only " which had been written for our learning"
at the express command of God.  With reference to this subject it has been already shown that in order to give any account
of the selection of such books, and such books only, as components of the Canon, their Divine inspiration must be assumed:2
another feature of the case, however, remains to be examined
here.
It is not unfrequently urged by the opponents of a definite
theory of Inspiration that, admitting the authenticity and genuineness of the sacred books, we have no evidence which shall
entitle us to assert that their authors claimed for themselves any
distinct Commission from God to preserve a written record of His
successive revelations, or to compose a narrative of the events
which marked the development of the Theocracy.  Still less, it
has been argued, can we maintain that such a Commission was
actually given.  Hence it follows, we are also told, that a profound sense of the importance of the facts recorded, or of the
communications which, the prophets had received from heaven,
must be regarded as the only motive which caused the composition of the different parts of the Bible.4 It may be well to examine such a statement with some particularity.
1 Cf. Deut. xxviii.-xxx.
2 "The agency of the Holy Spirit has brought into existence the books of the
Bible; the agency of the Holy Spirit has also brought them together. The former
agency alone is not sufficient to account for all that is peculiar to Scripture; under
that influence, which we are accustomed to name Inspiration, we must comprehend
both agencies."-Hofmann, Weissajung und Erfillung, s. 49.
3 See supra, Lecture ii. p. 53, &c.
4 " A third form, in which the mechanical idea of Inspiration has been upheld,"
writes Mr. Morell, "is that which asserts a distinct commission in respect to the au




286                   THE COMMISSION  TO WRITE.                 [LECT. VII.
Were it possible to prove that God had issued to chosen individuals a special Commission to compose certain narratives, no
one, it may be presumed, would venture to assert that the sacred
penmen were left unaided in the performance of that duty, or
that any imperfection could possibly exist in the work so produced.'  There are, it is true, many cases in which we have no
specific intimation of such a Divine Commission; and yet, even
here, the Old Testament writers often employ language which implies that they had abundant reason to believe that they were
moved by an impulse from  above. Take, for example, the phrase
so continually made use of, " Thus saith Jehovah;" or the words
of David, " The Spirit of the Lord spake by me, and His word
was in my tongue.""   So also the prophets at times inform  us
of the manner in which they received their Commission from
God.  " Gird up thy loins," said the Lord to Jeremiah, " and
speak unto them  all that I command thee."'  And to such commands, we are  told, was added an inward  spiritual impulse:' Truly," said Micah, " I am  full of power by the Spirit of the
Lord, and of judgment, and of might, to declare unto Jacob his
transgressions, and to Israel his sin."' Frequent intimations of
this nature, clearly denoting their Divine source and their Divine
thorship of each one of the sacred books."  *  *  *  "Admitting them [the Sacred
Books now constituting the Canon] to be genuine, and admitting them to be inspired,
-what did the authors themselves in good faith mean to include under the notion
of Inspiration? Did they claim for themselves any distinct commission to pen the
works in question? was such a commission at the time awarded to them? or was
not the whole of the Inspiration attaching to them rather viewed as resulting simply
from the extraordinary intuitions of Divine truth which they had received, and which
they were here impelled by a deep sense of their infinite value to depict?" * * *
" With regard to the prophetic writings, these certainly occupy a much higher position than the historical books, inasmuch as we learn that the authors actually received a prophetic commission to declare the counsels of God to the people, but this
does not necessarily involve any distinct and separate commission to write the books
in question;-nor have we any reason to regard their writings as inspired in any
other sense than as being the rescript of their inward prophetic consciousness."Philos. of Religion, pp. 159-162. See also supra, Lecture i. p. 27, note 4
1 "Though the origin of the words, even as of the miraculous acts, be supernatural-yet the former once uttered-the latter once having taken their place among
the phcenomena of the senses, the faithful recording of the same does not of itself imply, or seem to require, any supernatural working, other than as all truth and goodness are such [but see supra, Lecture vi. p. 236]. In the books of Moses, and once
or twice in the prophecy of Jeremiah, I find it, indeed, asserted that riot only the
words were given, but the recording of the same enjoined by the special command of
God, and doubtless executed under the special guidance of the Divine Spirit. As to aU
such passages, therefore, there can be no dispute." —Coleridge, Confess. of an Inquiring
Spirit, Letter ii. p. 16.
2 Sam. xxiii. 2.  Jer. i. 17.
Micah, iii. 8. Cf. Lect. iii p. 128, &c.




LECT. VII.]   THE FORM  OF WHAT WAS WRITTEN.                             287
authority, present themselves in various books of Scripture: to
which  must be added the many external reasons' which in like
manner guided the Jewish Church to recognise their inspiration.
We are not left, however, to such intimations, conclusive as they
must appear to every unprejudiced mind: instances of an express
command from  God to commit to writing various portions of the
Bible are far more numerous and  significant than may at first
sight be supposed.
"The Lord said unto Moses, Write this for a memorial in a
book, and rehearse it in the ears of Joshua.2" Here we are to
observe, that Jehovah commands His servant to place on record,
not some revelation of His secret counsels,-not any express prediction of events still future,-not a class of precepts relating to
spiritual or ritual worship,-but a simple narrative of an historical fact; namely, the defeat of the Amalekites at Rephidim.3 It
is also to be noticed, that this record was designed to serve for a
"memorial:" "for," the Lord further informs Moses, " I will utterly put out the remembrance of Amalek from under heaven:"
— words which refer to a people of whom it is afterward said
that they  "feared  not God."   Here  we see foreshadowed the
great truth subsequently enunciated by the Apostle when adducing the facts of Jewish history; " All these things happened unto
1 E. g. the miracles performed by individual prophets; the accomplishment of
their predictions (cf. Lecture v. p. 212, note 1); such acts as that performed by Isaiah,
of which we read in his eighth chapter (see infra, p. 291); &c. &c.
2 Exod. xvii. 14.
3 Mr. Blunt ("Undesigned Coincidences," ~ xvi. 3rd ed. p. 69, &c.) has pointed
out the connexion of this narrative with the sacred history: " All the congregation
of the children of Israel journeyed  *  *  *  and pitched in Rephidim: and there
was no water for the people to drink."-Exod. xvii. 1. On this the people " murmured
against Moses" (ver. 3), who entreats the Lord. -"And the Lord said unto Moses
*  *  *  Behold [ will stand before thee there upon the rock in Horeb, and thou
shalt smite the rock, and there shall come water out of it. * * * And Moses did
so * *  *  Then came Amalek and fought with Israel in Rephidim" (ver. 4-8). In
order to perceive the connexion here, it is only necessary to call to mind, on the one
hand, the miraculous supply of water in an arid wilderness; and, on the other, the repeated allusions, in the narrative of Moses, to disputes for the possession of a well (e.
g. Gen. xxi. 25; xxvi. 22; Exod. ii. 17; Numb xx. 17; xxi. 22; Deut. ii. 6; Judges,
v. 11). The sudden gushing of water from the rock conferred upon the Israelites an
invaluable treasure; and the sin of Amalek consisted, not in their natural desire to
possess or share this unexpected supply, but in their refusing to recognise the Divine
intervention; and, by fighting against Israel, fighting against God.  "Such," observes Mr. Blunt, "I persuade myself, is the true force of an expression in Dent. xxv.
18, used in reference to this very incident,-for Amalek is there said to' have smitten
them when they were weary, and to have feared not God;' that is, to have done it in
defiance of a miracle, which ought to have impressed them with a fear of God; indicating, as of course it did, that God willed not the destruction of this people. —p. 74.




288                   THE COMMISSION  TO  WRITE.                [LECT. VII.
them for ensamples; and they are written for our admonition."'
From this statement of S. Paul, taken by itself, we might have
inferred that Moses received a Commission from God to compose
a written narrative of the various historical events which he records: but we are able to appeal to his express announcement
of the fact.  " These are the journeys of the children of Israel,
which went forth out of the land of Egypt with their armies under the hand of Moses and Aaron. And Moses wrote their goings
out according  to  their journeys, by the commandment of the
Lord."2   It is needless to dwell upon the motives which led to
the composition of those portions of the books of Moses which were
not of a strictly historical character; suffice it to quote the words
of the Lord by the prophet Hosea: "I have written to Ephraim the
great things of My Law, but they were counted as a strange thing."3
1 Cor. x. 11.                                    2 Numb. xxxiii. 1, 2.
H Hosea, viii. 12. With respect to this portion also of the Pentateuch, we read of
various commands which Moses received. Thus in the case of the " Song" contained
in Deut. xxxii. 1-43, it is written: " And the Lord said unto Moses  * * * Write
ye tlis Song for you, and teach it the children of Israel; that this Song may be a witness for Me against the children of Israel. * * * Moses therefore wrote this Song
the same day."-Deut. xxxi. 16-22. Ct too, ibid., ver. 9-11: "And Moses wrote
this Law, and delivered it unto the Priests the sons of Levi," &c.: on which practice
see supra, Lect. ii. p. 68, the remarks of Josephus. That Moses from time to time
committed to writing the words of the Lord as he received them (and we cannot-doubt
that he did so at God's command, as in the particular case of this " Song"), we learn
from Ex. xxiv. 4, where, after Moses had "told the people all the words of the Lord,
and all the judgments," we read that he "wrote all the words of the Lord." Then
follows the remarkable narrative of the delivery of the Tables of stone: " I will give
thee," said Jehovah Himself, " Tables of stone, and a Law, and Commandments which
Ihave written" (ver. 12),-of which we further read that they were " written with the
finger of God" (Ex. xxxi. 18; Dent. ix. 10); and which when broken by Moses (Ex.
xxxii. 19). were renewed by the Lord (see Ex. xxxiv. 1-28; Deut. x. 1-4) on the
Mount. On this occasion Moses mentions again that he received a command to write:
"The Lord said unto Moses, Write thou these words," &c. —Ex. xxxiv. 27.
Such was the commencement of the Old Testament Canon, for the preservation of
which provision was made as follows: " It came to pass when Moses had made an
end of writing the words of this Law in a Book until they were finished, that Moses
commanded the Levites, saying, Take the Book of the Law and put it in the side of
the Ark of the Covenant" (Dent. xxxi. 24-26)-where it was kept with the most holy
badges of their faith. To this collection of writings, combining a narrative of historical facts, doctrinal precepts, and predictions of the future, Joshua is referred by God
Himself: "This Book of the Law shall not depart out of thy mouth; but thou shalt
meditate therein day and night."-Josh. i. 8. And here, considering the hallowed
character of the Law, as well as the express statements which have been just quoted,
the remark is obvibus that, to a collection so made, no Israelite, in future times, could
have ventured to add any further documents without a command from Jehovah equally
explicit with those which Moses had received. And yet we know that Joshua himself, as well as the successive writers of Scripture, did make such additions as if they
were performing what was their obvious duty. Thus we read, without a word of
comment on the part of the historian, that Joshua "wrote in the Book of the Law of
God" (ch. xxiv. 26). Samuel, too, when he " told the people the manner of the king
1om," " wrote in the Book (-ns), and laid it up before the Lord." —  Sam. x. 25.




LECT. VII.]   THE FORM  OF WHAT WAS WRITTEN.                             289
Precise information, as to the manner in which the prophets
obeyed the Divine command to place their predictions on record,
is supplied in the thirty-sixth chapter of the book of Jeremiah.
The chapter opens with the following injunction: " This word
came unto Jeremiah from the Lord, saying, Take thee a roll of
a book, and write therein all the words that I have spoken unto
thee against Israel, and against Judah, and against all the nations." The prophet then proceeds to recount how he dictated
his work to his amanuensis;1 and how it came to pass that no
human opposition, or attempt to destroy the document so drawn
up, availed to impede the promulgation of the Divine decrees.
In this instance we perceive that a Commission to write was
given: we are informed of the manner in which the Commission
was executed; and  also  of the means by which God provided
that His will thus to transmit to after-times the memorial of His
revelations should overrule all resistance whether of king or of
people.2
"Here [as well as in Exod. xvii. 14; Deut. xxviii. 58] the expression  h.,rn shows
that reference is made to a definite Book, already in existence, to which Samuel's
document was now added, and thus the previous collection increased." —Hvernick,
loc. cit., s. 20. This same proceeding was continued in future ages. Isaiah,-in imagination, regarding his denunciations against Idumea as already fulfilled,-irvites
all who doubted to compare with this fulfilment his recorded prediction: "Seek ye
out of the Book of the Lord (n" = D-^Q'ITi) and read; no one of these shall fail,
none shall want her mate: for My [i. e. Jehovah's] mouth it hath commanded, and
[resumes the prophet] His Spirit it hath gathered them."-xxxiv. 16. (Observe the
union here of the Divine and human agencies in uttering this prediction.) Isaiah
" seems here to refer to the depositing his prophecy in a collection of oracles and
sacred writings, from which posterity could judge of the justice of his predictions.
Towards the close of the Exile a beginning had, beyond any doubt, been made of a
collection, and editing of the national literature,-there was a beginning, in short, of
the formation of a Sacred Codex. A later trace of this collection occurs in Dan. ix. 2
[" I Daniel understood by Books the number of the years, whereof the word of the
Lord came to Jeremiah the prophet"], where mention is made of scow-, "books,"
among which was the book of Jeremiah. The employment of =ti, which approximates to the ipevvTre rd( ypacrc (John, v. 39; cf. vii. 52), presupposes even now a
time when men began to study the Holy Scriptures."-Gesenius, Der. Proph. Jesaia,
i. s. 921 (Cf. Ps. xl. 7; Is. xxix. 18.) See also Jer. xxv. 13: "I will bring upon
that land all My words which I have pronounced against it, even all that is written
in this book which Jeremiah hath prophesied against all the nations." Cf. Lecture
vi. p. 242, note.
I "Then Jeremiah called Baruch the son of Neriah: and Baruch wrote from the
mouth of Jeremiah all the words of the Lord, which He had spoken unto him, upon
a roll of a book."-ver. 4.
2 " Then the word of the Lord came to Jeremiah, after that the King had burned
the roll *  *  *  saying, Take thee again another roll, and write in it all the former
words," &c.-ver. 27, 28. Cf. "The word that came to Jeremiah from the Lord, saying  *  *  *  Write thee all the words that I have spoken unto thee in a book."Jer. xxx. 1, 2. See also ch. xxii 30; li. 60: ch. xxix. is clearly of the same class;
-ompare ver. 1 and 4. Commands of the same nature were given to Ezekiel: "The
19




290                   THE COMMISSION  TO  WRITE.                [LECT. VII.
Nor is this the only information which has been vouchsafed
to us on this matter.  We are also told by Isaiah what measures
were taken to attest for after-times the Divine character of the
books thus written.  The Law, it is to be remembered, had expressly enjoined that false prophets should be put to death: not
only those who should prophesy in the name of other gods, but
also those who should presume to speak in Jehovah's Name without His command.'  To  the latest period  of Prophecy this injunction was rigidly enforced.  God  Himself declared, by the
mouth of Zechariah, that it was the duty of even parents to inflict this penalty upon the false prophet:-" Then his father and
his mother that begat him  shall say unto him, Thou shalt not
live; for thou  speakest lies in the name of the Lord: and his
father and his mother shall thrust him through when he prophesieth."'  The permanent obligation of this precept-a fact
which the repetition of it by so late a prophet as Zechariah establishes-enables us clearly to discern the grounds which guided
Ezra and Nehemiah in their selection of those books which were
word of the Lord came to me, saying, Son of man, write thee the name of the day,"
&c.-xxiv. 1, 2; "Thou son of man, show the House to the house of Israel * * *
and all the Laws thereof: and write it in their sight, that they may keep the whole
form thereof, and all the ordinances thereof, and do them."-xliii. 10, ll. Can we
suppose, when we read " Daniel had a dream, and vision of his head upon his bed:
then he wrote the dream," &c.-vii. 1, that the prophet placed this revelation on
record without the Divine sanction, merely because we are not expressly told that the
command was given?
1 Deut. xiii. 1-3: xviii. 20. "And if thou say in thine heart, How shall we
know the word which the Lord hath not spoken? When a prophet speaketh in the
name of the Lord, if the thing follow not, nor come to pass, that is the thing which
the Lord hath not spoken, but the prophet hath spoken it presumptuously."'-ver. 21,
22. Hence, in the case of predictions, the accomplishment of which was reserved for
the distant future, some proofs of the nature here promised by Jehovah Himself, or
some exhibition of miraculous agency were required, and were given. E. g. Hananiah
of Gibeon, in direct opposition to Jeremiah (cf. xxvii. 2, xxviii. 10), had ventured to
prophesy: "Thus saith the Lord, Even so will I break the yoke of Nebuchadnezzar
within the space of two full years."  But Jeremiah immediately declared. "The Lord
hath not sent thee. *  *  *  Therefore thus saith the Lord, Behold this year thou
shalt die, because thou hast taught rebellion against the Lord. So lIananiah the
prophet died the same year."-Jer. xxviii. 11-17. See also Lecture v. p. 214, note'.
The opposing claims of false prophets were among the most severe trials which the
servants of God had to encounter.  "Mine heart within me," said Jeremiah, "is
broken because of the prophets."-xxiii. 9; and he writes to the captives in Babylon:
"Let not your prophets and your diviners  *  *  *  deceive you  *  *  *  for
they prophesy falsely unto you in My Name: I have not sent them, saith the Lord."
-ch. xxix. 8, 9. Again: "Because that Shemaiah hath prophesied unto you, and I
sent him not, and he caused you to trust in a lie: therefore thus saith the Lord, Behold
I will punish Shemaiah and his seed."-ver. 31, 32. See also (ver. 21) the reference
to Ahab and Zedekiah. Compare to the same effect Ezek. xiii.
s Zech. xiii. 3.




LECT. VII.]    THE  FORM  OF WHAT WAS WRITTEN.                             291
inspired: for, independently of their own inspiration when discharging  this function, we at once perceive that no book could
have been put forward as Divine had there not been a public
recognition that it had been composed at God's command.1 How
this was effected, Isaiah, as I have observed, informs us, when
giving a narrative of the manner in which he announced to King
Ahaz  the  approaching conquest of Israel by the Assyrians:
"The Lord said unto me, Take thee a great roll, and write in it
with a man's pen concerning Maher-shalal-hash-baz."'  The brief
prediction conveyed by this name is then developed; previously
to which the prophet had taken two " faithful witnesses" to  attest his words' which  he commits to  a formal legal document;
thus ensuring, in opposition to the prevailing incredulity of the
See supra, Lecture ii. p. 53, note', an important remark quoted from Sack.
2 Isai. viii. 1: "a great roll"-irn 713. Vitringa (in loc., t. i. p. 203) compares
the "roll of a book ('xx-ra).)"-Jer. xxxvi. 4; and explains that there were two
modes employed by the prophets for the purpose of recording the Divine communications. (1.) As here, by means of a series of "rolls," or sheets of parchment wrapped
round a cylindrical roller, which admitted of being preserved with greater care; and
which method was therefore employed for transmitting the prophecy to future times
(cf. supra, p. 289, note 2). (2.) By means of tablets of some smooth material (nr'1,)
which were hung up in some public place so that the people might the sooner become
acquainted with the Divine will. Such were the Tables of stone on which the Ten
Commandments were first written (Exod. xxxi. 18; Deut. ix. 9); and thus the
prophet Habakkuk explains the custom, " The Lord answered me and said, Write the
Vision and make it plain upon tables, that he may run that readeth it. "-ii. 2. Both
methods are described where the Lord tells Isaiah: " Now go, write it before them in
a table (rm>-)v,zr. _), and note it in a book ('-)) that it may be for the time to come
forever and ever."-xxx. 8:-" Sensus mandati cst, ut Propheta suum hunc Elenchum
scriberet in tabula quam ipsis hoc tempore committeret legendam; et simul exararet
in Libro in usum et memoriam posterorum."-Vitringa, in loc. t. ii. p. 171. (Gesenius,
however, observes that in place of ]p5  the Chaldee reads tr  in Isai. viii. 1.-Der
Proph. Jesaia, i. s. 324). The theory which Calvin has advanced on this subject is, no
doubt, ingenious; but is, as he himself admits, merely conjectural: "'Posteaquam
prophetie concionem habuerant ad populum, brevem ejus summam colligebant, quam
valvis templi affigerent, ut omnibus pateret ac melius innotesceret prophetia.  Quce
cum per aliquot dies satis patuisset, auferebatur a ministris templi, atque reponebatur in
thesaurum, ut perpetuum ejus rei monumentum extaret. Hinc confectos esse libros prophetarum verisimile est: idque colligi potest ex secundo capite Habac. ver. 2, siquis
ipsum  rite expendat: atque etiam  ex capite octavo hujus prophetse."- Comm. in
Isai., Praef.
3 " And I took unto me faithful witnesses to record, Uriah the priest, and Zechar.ah tsh sop of Jebereclah." —-ver. 2.   ll admit that Uriah was the person mentioned in 2 Kings, xvi. 10-16: " King Ahaz sent to Urijah the priest the fashion of
the altar. *  *  *  Thus did Urijah the priest according to all that King Ahaz
commanded."  Gesenius (in loc., s. 327) thinks that Zechariah was the Levite mentioned in 2 Chron. xxix. 13. On the other hand, Mr. Blunt with great probability
conjectures that the father of the wife of Ahaz was the witness thus chosen by Isaiah;
inasmuch as we read of " TIezekiah the son of Ahaz," that " his mother's name was
Abi the daughter of Zachariah."-2 Kings, xviii. 2. " We can account for the choice
of Isaiah, who wished the transaction in which he was engaged to be enforced upon
the attention of Ahaz with all the advantages he could command, and so selected two
of the King's bosom friends to testify concerning it."-loc. cit., p. 233.




292                  THE COMMISSION  TO WRITE.                   [LECT. VII.
age, that what he had written could not, at a future period, be
looked upon as a mere'prophecy after the event.'  As long as
the event did not come to pass, Isaiah was prepared to find his
announcement disregarded. Before the fulfilment of their predictions, the prophets were continually subjected to scorn and
ridicule:-" The  word  of  the  Lord  came  unto  me,"  writes
Ezekiel, "saying, Son of man, what is that proverb that ye have
in the land of Israel saying, The days are prolonged, and every
vision faileth?"'  The precaution, therefore, taken  by Isaiah in
the case before us, had reference to the attestation of his words
for future ages: and accordingly, having secured witnesses to the
date and performance of his Commission, he received another express command from  God " to bind up and seal" the document
to which he had committed the record of this revelation.    The
prophet obeys, and, suspending his reputation, and perhaps his
life, upon the issue, calmly awaits the accomplishment of his
prediction."
From all this we may infer, with a degree of confidence proportional to our trust in the veracity of Scripture, that its several
books were designed by their Divine Author to serve as a standEzek. xii. 21, 22.
2 " Bind up (^') the testimony (rn'e —the attested oracle, cf. ver, 2), and the Law
( min) among My disciples."-ver. 16. These words, in which the prophet refers to
vv. 21, 22, form part of a new revelation supplementary to the former, and introduced
by the phrase: "The Lord spake thus to me with a strong hand."-ver. 11. (See
supra, Lect. iii. p. 129, note 7.)  This prediction, observe Gesenius (loc. cit., s. 341),
Isaiah was commanded to secure against every suspicion of falsification by binding
it up ('TS, to wrap in a cloth), and sealing it till its fulfilment: cf. Dan. xii. 4:
"Thou, 0 Daniel, shut up the words, and seal the book, even to the time of the
end," &c.
9 The intrepid discharge of their duty by the prophets affords a conclusive proof
of their conviction that their mission was from God. The danger which they encountered was no imaginary one. The people, writes Nehemiah, "cast Thy Law behind their backs, and slew Thy prophets which testified against them."-ix. 26. Cf.
the case of Zechariah the son of Jehoiada, put to death by King Joash, 2 Chron.
xxiv. 21; or the statement of Jeremiah: " Then spake the priests and the prophets
unto the princes and to all the people, saying, This man is worthy to die: for he
hath prophesied against this city. Then spake Jeremiah, The Lord sent me to prophesy against this House, and against this city all the words that ye have heard.
Therefore now mend your ways  *  *  *  as for me, behold I am in your hand: do
with me as seemeth good unto you,"-xxvi. 11-24; see also the account of the
murder of Urijah by Jehoiakim, ibid., ver. 20-23. Notwithstanding this certainty
of persecution, the prophets fearlessly performed their duty. Amos disregarded the
power of Jeroboam (ch. vii. 10, &c.); and Elijah, although he avoided unnecessary
danger ("When he saw that, he arose, and went for his life," &c.-1 Kings, xix. 3),
did not shrink from denouncing the sins of Ahab (1 Kings, xxi. 17, &c). Even
Balaam resisted the solicitation of the King of Moab; and the " disobedient prophet"
braved the King beside the altar (1 Kings, xiii).




LECT. VII.]   THE FORM  OF WHAT WAS WRITTEN.                            293
ing witness and memorial of His Revelation whether declared by
the mouth of prophets, or manifested inl 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."2  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,'-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."1
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.                                 2 nx  rI-Dan. x. 21.
s "Moses " wrote of Me."-S. John, v. 46.
4 " What thou seest, write in a Book (io 326rELtf yp6ov eklf fit3iov)"-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 persona. 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 distributing them to the utmost of his ability:-see Hug, " Einleit.," Th.
i. ~ 13. s. 93




294                 THE COMMISSION TO WRITE.               [LECT. VII.
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.2 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;3 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'"4 —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.
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,
l 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"
8. 255.
2 Wordsworth, "On the Canon," p. 169.
3 AaKpilfElct  vevju(;v —1 Cor. xii. 10. "Let the prophets speak two or three.
and let the others judge (ol d;Uot dLaKpLvertv&av)."-xiv. 29; cf. ver. 37.  See
Appendix K.
4 AoKlctdETre r  Trveij;UaTa.-1 S. John, iv. 1. See supra, Lecture ii. p. 53,
note'.
5 See supra, Lecture vi. p. 263, &c.




LE(CT. VII.]   THE FOR-M  OF WHAT WAS WRITTEN.                    295
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.
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 each 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 dwell2 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
I quote here the statement of Gieseler, "Die Entst. der schriftl. Evangelien,"
~ i. s. 3; who adds that five sections ire altogether peculiar to S. Matthew, two to
S. Mark, and nine to S. Luke. These facts had been already noticed by S. Augustine: "Marcus eum [scil. Matthalum] subsecutus, tanquam pedissequus, et breviator
ejus videtur. Cum solo quippe Johanne, nihil dixit: solus ipse, perpauca; cum solo.
Luca, pauciora; cum Mattheo vero, plurima; et multa pene totidem atque ipsis verbis, sive cum sola sive cum ctteris consonante."-De Consesu Evangelist., lib. i. c. 2,
t. IIT. pars. ii. p. 3.'
2 See Appendix L




296                   THE COMMISSION  TO WRITE.                  [LECT. VII.
on the subject; and that, at most, we can only arrive at that
degree of probability attainable, in general, by historical conjectures.'
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, therefore, 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,2 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
1 " Man muss sich gleich im Anfange bescheiden, dass man, so verschiedene Wege
man auch zur Erklarung 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 iuberhaupt fahig sind."-Gieseler, loc. cit. s. 1. Schleiermacher's remark has been often
quoted: "For my part I find it quite enough to prevent nm  from  conceiving the
origin of our three Gospels according to Eichhorn's theory, tun  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)."-Havernick, Einleit., Th. ii. 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. 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." —  Chron. vi, 15. See Movers,
"Krit. Untersuch. ib. die bibl. Chronik," s. 234. For some further remarks as to
this branch of Hebrew literature, see Appendix D.




LECT. VII.]   THE FORM OF WHAT WAS WRITTEN.                 297
Scripture were not all matters of Revelation; the sacred writers
have 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 exaggeration, indeed, we may apply to this subject of modern research
Bacon's apposite illustration of the labors of the Alchemists.
They sought for a phantom  of their own imagining, 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.'
"Neque tamen negandum est Alchemistas non pauca invenisse, et inventis utilibus homines donasse. Verum fabula illa non male in illos quadrat de sene qui fflis




298                    THE  COMMISSION  TO WRITE.                   [LECT. VII.
I. To revert, however, to the facts which have suggested this
digression,-I mean the use made by the sacred writers of those
books of Scripture which had been already composed, and which
lay before them  while engaged themselves  in  drawing  up  their
own portion of the Bible,-we have to notice, in the first place,
the constant references by the Old Testament writers to  the labors of their predecessors.  For example: the prophecy of Jeremiah  against Moab  is manifestly founded  upon  the  previous
prediction contained in the twenty-first chapter of the book of
Numbers.1  Indeed it appears, even from   the  English Version,
how  Jeremiah repeats, almost verbatim, the words of the Oracle
preserved by Moses.  We have, in  point of fact, but this one
prophecy against Moab; and yet in what various forms is it repeated by the prophets! The language of Isaiah, in his fifteenth
and sixteenth chapters, as well as that of Zephaniah referring in
like manner to this same subject, are equally based upon the
original prediction in the Pentateuch.2   Again: among  the anaurum in vinea defossum (sed locum se nescire simulans) Iegaverit; undo illi vineas
foliendse diligenter incubuerunt, et aurum quidem nullum repertum; sed vindemia ex
ea cultura facta est uberior."-Nov. Organ., lib. i. Aphor. 85.
"A fire shall come forth out of HIeshbon, and a flame from the midst of Sihon,
and shall devour the corner of Moab, and the crown of the head of the tumultuous
ones 58u  Aa, pIV' NP  nr-  r niu inrn pr:-_,r.. i ~;~a:nn   it *-~. Woe be
unto thee, 0 Moabl the people of Chemosh perisheth: for thy sons are taken captives, and thy daughters captives."-Jer. xlviii. 45, 46.  Cf. "There is a fire gone
out of Heshbon, a flame from the city of Sihon (Irrt ntrpt,, 71 P:rrin,nz'" m''-3)
it hath consumed Ar of Moab, and the lords of the high places of Amen.  Woe to
thee, Moab! Thou art undone, 0 people of Chemosh: he hath given his sons that
escaped, and his daughters into captivity, unto Sihon King of the Amorites."Numb. xxi. 28, 29; cf. also ver. 30, with Jer. xlviii. 18, 22.  We see, too, that Jereniah has also embodied here the prediction of Balaam: " There shall come a Star out,f Jacob. and a Sceptre shall rise out of Israel, and shall smite the corners of 1Moab
arid destroy all the children of Sheth [(r~:-=^:-f'ppi t=    \n-X  yr:72)."-Numb.
xxiv. 17. For some remarks on Jeremiah's substitution of the noun p'tVp for the
verb -jp~, see Tholuck's "Vermischte Schriften," Th. I. s. 431; where Tholuck also
observes: " A second example is supplied by the word pXw:, which Jeremiah has
eip)loyel instead of the archaic term rn. Here also our lexicographers acknowledge
that the term used by Jeremiah is to be regarded as an explanatory translation."
Thus: "  n",:m, filii tumullus bellici, i. e. Israelis hostes tumultuantes. Ap. Jeremiam
xlviii. 45 (qui locus ex nostro [Num. xxiv. 17] expressus est), pro eo est: IpIx'^."(Gesenii Lex. in voc.  As we shall have occasion to revert to the principle which these
ficts embody (see itfra, p. 308, and p. 325, note 2), the reader will bear in mind what
his been just noticed, viz., the combination of two texts (Num. xxi. 28, 29; xxiv.
17) in one quotation, and the alteration by Jeremiah of an expression in the passage
which he borrows fiom ain earlier writer. Ilavernick observes that it is characteristic' of Jeremiah to refer particularly often to earlier writings of the Old Testament,
and to copy them."-Einleit, Th. ii. Abth. ii. s. 200.
2 Zeph. ii. 8-10.  Cf. "He is gone up to Bajith, and to Dibon, the high places,
to weep: Moab shall howl over Nebo, and over Medeba," &c.-Isai. xv. 2, with
"Heshbon is perished  even unto Dibon, and we have laid them  waste even
unto Nophah which reacheth unto NMeleba."-Numb. xxi. 30. See also Amos, ii. 1-3.




LECT. VII.]   THE FORM  OF WHAT WAS WRITTEN.                              299
nouncements of Jeremiah  we find  an epitome  of the  denunciation of Obadiah against Edom.'  In  all these cases, however,
certain points of difference are observable, which prevent such
instances of parallelism from degenerating into mere imitation,
or becoming simple repetitions. Thus, in the case before us,
the allusions contained in the seventh verse  of Obadiah, and in
the passage from  the nineteenth  verse  to the  end  of his preJer. xlix. 7-22: cf. "I have heard a rumor from the Lord, and an ambassador
is sent unto the heathen, saying, Gather ye together and come against her and rise up
to the battle. For lo! I will make thee small among the heathen, and despised among
men. Thy terribleness hath deceived thee, and the pride of thine heart, 0 thou that
dwellest in the clefts of the rock; that holdest the height of the hill: though thou
shouldest make thy nest as high as the eagle, I will bring thee down from thence, saith
the Lord"-ver. 14-16, with-" We have heard a rumor from the Lord, and an ambassador is sent among the heathen, Arise ye, and let us rise up against her in battle.
Behold I have made thee small among the heathen: thou art greatly despised, The
pride of thine heart hath deceived thee, thou that dwellest in the clefts of the rock
whose habitation is high. *  *  *  Though thou exalt thyself as the eagle, and
though thou set thy nest among the stars, thence will I bring thee down, saith the
Lord."-Obad. 1-4. Obadiah had "already before him the more ancient predictions
of Balaam  (Numb. xxiv. 18). of Joel (iii. 19), of Amos (i. 11, 12; ix. 12), on the
ground of -which he makes this [viz., the eventual triumph of the Kingdom of God
(cf. ver. 21) over the powers of this world, as typified by Israel's conquest of Edom]
the object of a more detailed prediction."-HIvernick, Einleit, Th. II. Abth. ii. s. 317.
The points of agreement between Isaiah and other writers of Scripture are particularly to be noted. Thus we may compare Isai. xii. 2, with Exod. xv. 2; Isai. xiii.
with Jer. 1. and li. (cf. Isai. xiii. 19-22, with Jer. 1. 39, 40); Isai. xiii. 6, with Joel, i. 15.
Or, more particularly still, the passage,'"The earth shall be full of the knowledge of
the Lord, as the waters cover the sea"-Isai. xi. 9, is repeated with the addition of a
single term by Habakkuk: "The earth shall be filled with the knowledge of the
glory of the Lord, as the waters cover the sea" —Hab. ii. 14: words which are employed by Isaiah to denote the blessings and the peaceful tenor of the Kingdom of
Christ; but which are quoted by Habakkuk for the purpose of describing the judgments and the wrath of God:-see Hengstenberg on Rev. i. 7. (Clarke's For. Theol.
Lib. i. p. 81.) The importance of this remark will be seen further on, p. 321, note 4
Cf. again, Isai. v. 14, with Hab. ii. 5; Isai. xiv. 4, 13, &c., with Hab. ii. 6, 9.  "The
expressions of Habakkuk," writes Havernick, "rest so obviously upon the predictions of Isaiah, that they may be regarded as their further development."-loc. cit.
s. 388. 0. Strauss observes on the language of Nahum: "Luculentissima vestigia
Jesaise librum indigitant."-Nahumi de Nino Vaticin., p. xv. E. g.'How beautiful
upon the mountains are the feet of him that bringeth good tidings, that publisheth
peace," &c.-Isai. lii. 7. "Behold upon the mountains the feet of him that bringeth
good tidings, that publisheth peace l"-Nah. i. 15. Cf. also Isai. xlvii. 2, 3, with Nah.
iii. 5 (see Jer. xiii. 22); Isai. li. 19, with Nah. iii. 7. So, too, Zeph. ii. 15, repeats
almost word for word the expressions of Isai. xlvii. 8; and the words of Amos, ix. 13,
are found again in Joel, iii. 18. The well-known relation between Isai. ii. 2-4, and
biich. iv. 1-3, cannot be passed over without notice; especially as the remarks of
commentators upon it afford an interesting illustration of the controversy as to the
source of the Gospels. Thus Hengstenberg ("Christol.," Th. I. Abth. ii. s. 20) and
Gesenius (' Der Proph. Jesatas," i. s. 171) consider that Micah was the first to utter
this prediction, and that Isaiah made use of Micah's language when recording his own
vision in which the same revelation was conveyed. Abarbanel, on the contrary, held
that Isaiah's words were copied by Micah. Others again maintain that both prophets
availed themselves of an earlier prediction, of which their writings now afford the
only trace: see Gesenius loc. cit.




300                   THE  COMMISSION  TO WRITE.                   [LECT. VII.
diction, convey sundry particulars which are not touched upon
by Jeremiah.1
Here, again, as I have observed with respect to the Gospels,
the distinction between Revelation and Inspiration comes to our
aid in explaining such phenomena. Historical facts formed the
basis of the evangelical narrative; and, under the guidance of the
Holy Spirit, those facts were worked up by each writer into  his
independent statement, which, accordingly, presents certain features of resemblance to the records of his fellow-laborers.  In the
prophetical books, on the other hand, the basis of the written
document was the direct revelation  presented  to  the  intuitive
faculty of each prophet.2 Such revelations, when once received,
correspond to the facts in the case of historical narratives;3 and
they, consequently, became, in like manner, the groundwork of
the various prophetic announcements, which (under that same
guiding influence of the Holy Ghost to which I have restricted
the term Inspiration), have assumed the form of prediction, denunciation, didactic statement, or such like phases of Prophecy.
This feature of the question will be brought out more fully
by an example. If we compare the opening verses of the seventh
chapter of the Book of Amos with the first and second chapters
of the Book of Joel, it will at once appear that at the ground of
each prophetic warning lies the same Vision of the desolation of
the land by locusts.4 But observe how different is the treatment
i See Koppen, "Die Bibel, ein Werk der gbttl. Weisheit," B. ii. s. 115. In order
to establish the fact in proof of which I have adduced this example,-viz., that the
one prophecy was a development of the other,-it would be necessary to show that
Obadiah wrote subsequently to Jeremiah: but this has been denied by other writers
(e. g. by Hiivernick, "Einleit.," loc. cit. s 319 ff). Zechariah's prophecy of "the
Branch" (Zech. vi. 10-15), however, affords an incontestable illustration.  "The title
of'the Branch' had been already consecrated in Prophecy to the Messiah.  It is so
given once by Isaiah [" Isai. iv. 2. In xi. 1, a different, though equivalent word, is
employed"], twice by Jeremiah (xxiii. 5; xxxiii. 15). *  *  *  Zechariah's prophecy is a revival of Jeremiah's; he introduces it as of a person already known:'Behold the Man whose name is the Branch.' "-Davison, On Prophecy, pp. 320-323.
See also the remarks of Hengstenberg ("Beitrdge," B. ii. s. 48 if.) on the manner in
which Hosea develops the idea, so often repeated in the Pentateucl, according to
which the relation of Jehovah to Israel is symbolized by the relation of marriage;
and idolatry denounced under the image of whoredom.  E. g. "I will set my faice
against that man  *  *  *  and all that go a whoring after him to commit whoredom
with Moloch," &c.-Lev. xx. 5. Cf. ch. xix. 29; Numb. xiv. 33, &c., &c. Observe,
too, how Hosea's prophecy opens with a literal repetition of the promises contained
in Gen. xxii. 17; xxxii. 12: "Yet the number of the children of Israel shall be as
the sand of the sea, which cannot be measured nor numbered"-Hos. i. 10; the spiritual import of which allusion is still further explained by S. Paul, Rom. ix. 26.
2 See supra, Lecture iv. p. 162, &c.     3 See supra, Lecture iv. p. 146, &c.
4 "Thus hath the Lord God showed unto me; and behold he formed grass



LECT. VII.]   THE FORM  OF WHAT WAS WRITTEN.                             301
of this theme in the two cases.  While Amos confines himself
to a simple record of the Vision, Joel has given an elaborate description of its details; employing the imagery and style peculiar
to his writings, in which his conception of the future and his allusions to the present are combined with threats and exhortations. Each prophet, we can scarcely doubt, had received the
same revelation; but see how differently each, under the guidance of the Holy Spirit, has applied the Divine communication.'
II. I turn, in the second place, to the quotations from  the
Old Testament which meet us in the New.2 Certain aspects of this
subject have been already touched upon, not only when it was argued, from the nature of such quotations, that the Old and New
Testaments are both portions of one organized whole,-every section of each subserving the accomplishment of the Divine Counsels;' but also, as in the last Discourse, where it was shown how
the New  Testament writers, as well as our Lord Himself, ascribe
hoppers in the beginning of the shooting up of the latter growth. *  *  *  And it
came to pass, that when they had made an end of eating the grass of the land, then
I said," &c.-Amos, vii. 1, 2.
1 The assertion that the same Vision was the germ of each prophetic announcement, does not; of course, imply that the perceptions offered to the spiritual sense of
Amos were presented under as fully-developed a form as the revelation to Joel. As
O. Strauss observes, Joel "universce  Prophetice brevem quodammodo exhibet conspectum  *  *  *  Amos hostium non immensas omnino catervas vidit, sicuti Joel;
verum certam populi speciem, longe remoti cujusdam et ferocissimi, cujus tamen nomen
ignorat (cf. Amos, vi. 14; v. 27)."-loc. cit. p. lxvii. See also Havernick, loc. cit., s. 43,
u. 295.
2 The following remarks will fitly introduce this subject:-" In the freedom of the
Spirit of Truth, the question is not whether Divine sayings already promulgated have
been quoted with rigid adherence to their mere letter, but whether they have been
given anew, true to their spirit: a repetition which, under different circumstances,
takes a direction, towards their spiritual end, both new, and withal appropriate; in
which, moreover, the original import is not falsified, and suited to error or prejudice,
but, in the sense of its Author, the Spirit, is now developed further and more profoundly-is defined more nearly, and adapted to the new requirements of Truth, to
the meaning which is spiritual and not carnal, to the requirements of Divine and not
of worldly progress. *  *  *  Such is the manner in which the Holy Ghost, at
every higher stage of His communications, acts with respect to what has been already
given within the limits of a lower or preparatory stage of Revelation. Such things
as could not, as yet, be there expressed, and were still veiled under figure or symbol,
are, at a later period, proclaimed without reserve from the house tops. According to
this principle are to be estimated the quotations and expositions of the Old Testament
sayings, and narratives in the Apostolic writings:-matters which, when handled by
men unconsecrated, and endowed with merely human cultivation, are lost in frivolous allegory, as in the expositions of Philo. Such expositions, when proceeding from
the Spirit, the authentic Author and Expounder of His own work, become a higher
and more profound development of Truth:-that which, were it combined, from a
purely human stand-point, out of doctrine and history, would be fiction or conjecture,
becomes, in the Divine Author's own representation, an infusion of life, and the completion of His design."-Beck, Propad. Entwickl., s. 242.' See Lecture i. p. 26, &c.; and Lecture iii. Cf. Appendix B.




302                    THE  COMMISSION  TO  WRITE.                  [LECT. VII.
the Old Testament to the immediate agency of the Holy Ghost.
On these occasions I confined myself either to an examination of
the manner in which such passages from the former Scriptures
are introduced, or to the general points of connexion between the
sacred writings which  they exhibit: it still remains to  consider
thle   orm  and substance of the quotations themselves.  The imIortance of this subject arises from  the fact that the two divisions of the Bible are composed in different languages; combined
with the parallel fact that, at the period when the New  Testamnent was written,' there had  already existed, for a considerable
time, a translation of the Old Testament into Greek, which, although of great value, is not inspired,' but of which the writers
of the New Testament have confessedly availed themselves. This
fact at once presents a kind of experimentum crucis of every
theory of Inspiration.!   Not to dwell upon the extravagant opint See the valuable discussion of Hug (" Einleit.," Th. ii. cap. i. ~ 10) as to the
language of Palestine in the Apostolic age. Too great importance, he observes, " is
attached to the fact that Jesus is represented as speaking in Hebrew (Mark, v. 41Ta;LtO( KO'it; vii. 34-'EOna05; and Matt. -xvii. 46; Mark, xv. 34). It might be
replied that the Hebrew words in these passages are quoted by the Evangelists as
something remarkable, which would not have been the case had Jesus for the most
part spoken in Hebrew; and what could reasonably be objected to this answer? We
will not, however, dismiss the matter so hastily.  The Lord may have adddressed
the Jewish multitude in their own language, on account of their predilection for it.
But how did He address a mixed assembly collected from different regions and cities?
How did He speak to proselytes and pagans, as at Gadaris (Matt. viii. 28, &c., Mark,
v. 1; Luke, viii. 26)?  How in the district of Tyre and Sidon (Mark, vii. 24, &c.),
where the Syrophenician Greek woman (yvvir'E;,Arvi Y.vpooLtviKtaaa) entered into
conversation with Him?  How in Decapolis, which consisted of Greek cities, such
as Philadelphia, Gerasa, Gadara, Hippos, and Pella?"-s. 46.
2 I do not consider it necessary to discuss the question as to the inspiration of the
LXX.  The labulous character of the narrative of Aristeas, to a belief in the truth of
which that notion chiefly owes its currency, has been sufficiently exposed by Hody,
in his well-known work, "De Bibliorum Text. Originalibus."
3 Tholuck (" Das A. Test. im N. Test," s. 7) quotes a remark of Billroth on I Cor.
i. 19,-where S. Paul does not adhere literally to either the Hebrew or the LXX,vwhiich forcibly expresses the alternative in this question: "According to his wont,
the Apostle quotes, in proof; passages of the Old Testament which certainly do not
always suit in a strictly historical sense (i. e. so that the respective authors had meant
what Paul means in the connexion in which he quotes them), but which, however,
so far as regards the words, imply what they are applied to. In order not to accuse
Paul (as well as the other writers of the New Testament-nay, Christ ILmself) of
either ignorance, or even perhaps dishonesty in this point, we must firmly maintain
tihe principle according to which the Old Testament, taken collectively, is a type of
the New:-so that the predictions of the prophets (e. g. those relating to the Messilh)
are not to be understood as if the writers had consciously referred to the historical
Christ, who was born under the reign of Augustus (every child perceives that this
is not the case, and the fact is one which writers need not make so much of), but so
that, in the words which they utter, that same Divine Spirit expresses Itself, which
9rganically penetrates the entire history, and which, consequently, has also appeared
in Cllristianty."




LECT. VII.]    THE  FORM  OF WHAT  WAS WRITTEN.                              303
ion that the Apostles have often misunderstood' or misquoted
the Hebrew Scriptures, it is held by an extensive class of modern
commentators  that the  authors of the  New  Testament, when
making use of the Septuagint Version, continually " quote from
memory."    This assertion can  only mean, that the passages adduced  by the inspired writers are not cited with  as  much  accuracy, or correctness, as might have been attained hlad they
been  at the  pains to  consult the  source from  which  they have
borrowed the form  of their quotations.   Nay more, such a principle  would  undoubtedly  lend  some  color to the  statement,which, as we shall presently see, has actually been advanc-dl,I In the " Studien u. Kritiken" for 1835 a writer of considerable repute, Dr. Bleek,
in an essay on " The dogmatic use of Old Testament sayings in the New," proposes
the following question:-" If an Old Testament saying is employed in the New Testament, in such a manner that we cannot question the fact that the New Testament
writer has referred it to the Messiah,-and this, too, not by way of mere application;
while, at the same time, his use of it does not throughout belong strictly to the original sense and original reference,-is, then, such a use of the passage binding upon
us; and a rule of itself sufficient to determine us to understand, in the same sense,
the Old Testament saying?"-s. 443.  This question, in all its generality, Dr. Bleek
answers in the negative,-addiug that he has' on his side the majority of German
theologians of the present age,"-on the ground that we cannot imagine the language
of the Old Testament to have any other meaning than that which the Old Testament
writer him;seif perceived in it. Thus in the case of the second Psalm, which is applied so frequently to the Messiah in the New Testament (e. g. Acts, iv. 25, 26; xiii.
33; Heb. i. 2; v. 5; Rev. ii. 27; xii 5; xix. 15), Dr. Bleek considers that there is
not the slightest intimation that any other time or person was intended than the
time when the Psalmist wrote, and the king then "anointed on Zion" (s. 456).  To
suppose " that the Holy Spirit so guided the Psalmist in his poetry and his composition, that his words present a second more remote and higher reference extending
beyond this immediate sense, and of which he himself was unconscious, or at least,
not clearly conscious," would be to assume an inspiration by the Holy Ghost of such
a nature as Dr. Bleek is not disposed to concede (s. 458). (In reply to this principle,
which assumes that the human agents were the sole and proper authors of the
Bible, see what has been already said, Lecture v. p. 189, &c.)  The use of the Old
Testament in the New (chiefly by S. Matthew and S. John), Dr. Bleek describes as
resulting from an " earlier exegetical tradition of the Jewish schools; an exegesis,
too, which we are not "justified in regarding as founded upon perfectly just principles, or as treated in a perfectly correct manner."-s. 447. Such Jewish views, lie
adds, we cannot but expect to have had their influence on the New Testament
writers; who accordingly have understood sundry texts of the Old Testament'iin
a sense which would not be received as either correct or accurate had they attained
to a greater perfection of exegetical science and skill."-s. 448.
2 E. g. Olshausen (see infra, p. 323, note 4); Bleek; Mr. Alford (who writes on
S. Matt. xxvii. 9: " The citation is not from Jeremiah, and is probabiy quote.t firm
memory, and inaccurately [but see infra, p. 308, note3); we have similiar mIislakes ill
two places in the apology of Stephen, Acts, vii. 4, 16, and in Mark. ii. 26. *  *  *
The quotation here is very different from  the LXX., and not miuch more like the
Hebrew;" cf. also his notes on Rom. xi. 34; and 2 Cor. vi. 17); Tlholuck (who observes: " In very many, nay in most cases, in consequence of quoting fromn memory,
the passage, so far as the words are concerned, is altered sometimes to such an extent
that the deviation, as is the case in 1 Cor. ii. 9 (Eph. v. 14) [but see infra, p. 307,
note 2], has even caused the supposition that the citation belongs to some apocryphal
book." —Das A. Test. im N. Test., s. 39.)




304                   THE  COMMISSION  TO WRITE.                 [LECT. VII.
that, in consequence of thus citing the Greek translation from
memory, the  Apostles may, at times, although  undesignedly,
have missed the sense of the original.  Such a doctrine, if capable of proof, is obviously fatal to that view of the inspiration of
Scripture which I have endeavored to maintain; according to
which each and every portion of the Bible is perfect and Divine.
On the other hand, if this latter inference be legitimate, any
opinion which ascribes to the form   in which the Old Testament
is quoted a less degree of perfection than might have been secured by a somewhat greater amount of diligence or care on the
part of those New  Testament writers who  adduce it must be
radically and essentially unsound; and to establish this conclusion must now be my task.
The references to the Old Testament which meet us in the
New  may be arranged  under two  classes.!   The first embraces
those passages which are strictly prophetical; and of this class
the following subdivisions present themselves:-(1.) Those texts
which refer almost exclusively to the Messiah's Personal history
or Character; and in which the principle of pointing to Him as
their end is clearly intimated:-such texts being brought forward, not as mere illustrations, or by way of adaptation to the
events of His life, but as requiring  an  actual fulfilment in an
actual fact. Predictions of this kind are referred to with the
words, " That the Scripture might be fulfilled;" or, "Now  all
this was done that it might be fulfilled;"2 or, " Then was fulfilled that which was spoken by the prophet:" the New TestaIn the following discussion I avail myself of the excellent remarks of Rudelbach in his " Zeitschrift" for 1842, H. ii. s. 42 ff.
2 "Iva, or (irwcf 77rtpuo0. —e. g. " I know whom I have chosen: but that the Scripture may be fulfilled (It j' lva I ypan  r2u7paO1,) He that eateth bread with Me,"
&c.-S. John, xiii. 18; or "Now  all this was done that it might be fulfilled (Qva
wr'Apw0lJj) which was spoken of the Lord by the prophet, saying, Behold a Virgin
shall be with child," &c.-S. Matt. i. 22, 23. Again: " Without a parable spake He
not unto them; that it might be fulfilled (o5rwt 7rnVpwO,-) which was spoken by the
prophet, saying, I will open My mouth in parables," &c.-S. Matt. xiii. 34, 35.
"The signification of the oft-recurring phrase, iva 7rk7pw06,  as involving a real connexion between Prophecy and its fulfilment, is no longer questioned by the more judicious expositors. The fact that Grammar itself, against the will of those who handle
it, is compelled to give at least formal testimony to the Faith, is not to be overlooked
as an apologetic element of the Christian Evidences; and indeed it has never, when
the occasion offered, been overlooked by the Ancients. The sense, however, of that
formula (cf. e. g. in the first Gospel, S. Matt. ii. 15; viii. 17; xii. 17; xiii. 35; xxi. 4;
xxvi. 56; xxvii. 35) is plainly nothing else than what lies in the expression itself,
viz., that the fulfilment has taken place in order to display the truth of Prophecy."Rudelbach, Zeitschr., 1840. H. i. s. 3.
"Then was fulfilled that which was spoken by Jeremy the prophet (TOTI




LECT. VII.]    THE FORM  OF WHAT WAS WRITTEN.                              305
ment writers thereby declaring that God had pre-ordained that
the prophet's announcement should-receive its true accomplishment in the single fact to which it is thus applied. (2.) To this
subdivision may be added those which are in the strictest sense
typical predictions:-that is, where the words or symbols of the
Old Testament are adduced as having conveyed, from  the  first,
an allusion to the particular fact or event in which they are
stated to have been now at length realized; and respecting the
true signification of which the fulfilment alone could have given
certainty.! Although the reference is made under the form of
an involved type, its substance is always prophetical, as we learn
from the use, here also, of the phrase, " That it might be fulfilled which was spoken by the prophet," or such like expressions.
Of this nature was the mention  by S. John  of the  ceremonies
connected with the Paschal Lamb, which he represents as being
at length truly exhibited in the Sacrifice upon the Cross: " These
things were done that the Scripture should be fulfilled, A bone
of Him shall not be broken."" (3.) There are also those passages
ET7rXlpp6l Ti  EPiV dtia'Iep.), saying, In Rama was there a voice heard," &c.-S.
Matt. ii. 17.
1 See supra, Lecture v. p. 200, note 1, where I have differed from  Rudelbach
("Zeitschr.," 1842. H. ii. s. 38) in regarding the relation of Types to Prophecy as
more intimate than he is disposed to admit. In accordance with his views, instead
of referring such quotations il the New Testament to the class of strictly prophetical
passages, Rudelbach regards the "vaticinia typica," there adduced by the sacred
writers, as forming a distinct class.
2'Eyivero Yyap ravra i'va r ypao' 7rX7lpo6, —S. John, xix. 36; and in the same
sense another Apostle writes: "Ye were not redeemed with corruptible things
*  *  *  but with the precious blood of Christ, as of a Lamb without blemish." —1
S. Pet. i. 18, 19 (cf. also ver. 2); S. John, i. 29; 1 Cor. v. 7; &c. Quite similar is S.
Matthew's allusion, in his account of the rending of the Vail of the Temple (xxvii.
51); on which feature of the Tabernacle S. Paul dwells with such particularity (Heb.
ix. 3, 11, 12; x. 20). The following instances may be added: Joseph arose and
" took the Young Child and His Mother by night, and departed into Egypt, that it
might be fulfilled ('va 7r).npuOe) which was spoken of the Lord by the prophet, saying, Out of Egypt have I called My Son"-S. Matt. ii. 14, 15; for the sense of which
typical prediction see supra, Lecture iii. p. 109, note. Still more forcibly illustrative
of this class of typical predictions is the manner in which the New Testament teaches
that the entire course of Jewish history, and not the Exodus merely, pointed to
Christ. This we learn from the reference to Ps. lxxviii., by both S. Paul and S.
Matthew: the former declaring that "these things were our examples," or rather
"types" —Tavra 6 r  rT o t L?/iv eyevilOrav —1 Cor. x. 6; and the latter quoting its
words with the formula, " That it might be fulfilled which was spoken by the prophet."
-xiii. 35. On the use of this Psalm see also supra, Lecture iv. p. 151, note. Cf., too,
the well-known difficulty connected with the words, " He came and dwelt in a city
called Nazareth: that it might be fulfilled (io7rf'rr7p.) which was spoken by the prophets, He shall be called a Nazarene."-S. Matt. ii. 23: where, as Olshausen (" Ein
Wort ib. tief. Schriftsinn," s. 64) conjectures, the Evangelist may refer to the saying
of Jacob that Joseph " was separate from his brethren (nrr   TS)~G)-Gen. xlix. 26 (cC
Num. vi. 1-22); considering Joseph as a type of the Messiah,-a character already
20




306                   THE  COMMISSION  TO WRITE.                   [LECT. VII.
which  are quoted so that their direct reference  to  a particular
person or event cannot be questioned. Thus Isaiah's prediction
that S. John the Baptist should appear in the character of the
Messiah's forerunner is introduced by S. Matthew with the words:
" This is he that was spoken of by the prophet Esaias."'  (4.) The
last subdivision embraces those texts which are cited so that the
causative particle connects the Messianic fact with the prediction,
-thus assuring  us, in  the way of inference, that such  was the
end at which  the  prophet's  language  aimed.  For example, S.
Peter explains how  " it was impossible" that Jesus of Nazareth
"should be holden  of" death, "For David speaketh concerning
him" the prophecy which has been handed down as the sixteenth
Psalm.2
As forming the second class of quotations are to be counted
those passages in which the language of the Old Testament is incorporated with the body of Christian doctrine; and in which the
prophets are represented  in the same light as the men who directly announced the New  Covenant.  In such instances we have
a practical illustration of Christ's saying that heaven and earth
should disappear rather than " one jot or one tittle pass from the
Law  till all be fulfilled."'  In  this case the  language  of the
former Scriptures is sometimes introduced without an express
reference:-as in the first Epistle of S. Peter, where passages
from Isaiah and Ezekiel are embodied in the Apostle's argument,
implied in the name " Saviour of the World" ("Zaphnath Paaneah") assigned to him
by Pharaoh (Gen. xli. 45). It is clear that Napaper (whence Nasopaiof-the despised
one) cannot, as many writers hold, be derived from ^: —a branch (Isai. xi. 1); since
C invariably corresponds to T, not 1. (E. g. in S. Matt. i.; S. Luke, iii.'Axa;== Thn-,
ZopofcJiPeu  - i'T, &c.: while ZtdwJv = ]:z=, ZLtv- =1 ]'.) Cf. the employment by
Christ Himself of the type of Jonah: "Q&2aep yap 9iv'IWvac ev ri KoLt/a  *  *  *
oTrog arart 6 TYib  roV'AvOp. K. r. ~.-S. Matt. xii. 40; as well as that of the "brazen
serpent," Kas6e  Mwo)(T/  vtipuaev rTv O6lV, OVrTU(of'bOivat 6toel  rbv   TOVi, ro'Arop.
-S. John, iii. 14; which latter exposition teaches us how fully our Lord has adopted
the typical mode interpretation.
1 S. Matt. iii. 3; Isai. xl. 3. The purchase of " the potter's field" with " the price
of blood," is described as follows: " Then was fulfilled (r6re l7rZpS60iY) that which
was spoken," &c.-S. Matt. xxvii. 9. So also S. Peter explains as the fulfilment of
the words of Joel, ii 28, 29, the events on "the Day of Pentecost" (Acts, ii. 16)dXad TOTrot6 IETTV TrO elpYIivov 6  TOV rTptporTOV'In0a.
* Acts, ii. 24, 25-otVK Vv dvvarbv KpareiaOat AVTOrV  *  *  *  Aave y (p p 2Lyet.
K. r. XL. Or again: "Therefore they could not believe, because that Esaias said again,"
&c. (o r i ITrALv elTTr'H.). —S. John, xii. 39. Or: "For it is written in the Book
of Psalms (rPyparrca y d p Ev (i313b/L  OaB.)  *  *  *  his bishopric let another take.
Wherefore (6 e  o v v) of these men which have companied, &c. *  *  *  must one
be ordained," &c.-Acts, i. 20-22. Cf. Eph. iv. 8 —lAo  kiyeet.
3 See supra, Lecture iii. p. 104, &c.




LECT. VII.]    THE  FORM  OF WHAT  WAS WRITTEN.                            307
unaccompanied by any observation denoting the sources from
which they were taken.' On the other hand, the reference to the
Old Testament is sometimes plainly expressed.2 Again: a statement of some former inspired writer is employed in such a manner as to connect the prediction which it conveys, with a series of
historical facts:-those facts indicating, on  some occasions, that
the accomplishment of the prediction had commenced (thus S.
Matthew adduces Isaiah's language, which describes the sufferings of the  Messiah, as beginning  to  receive  its fulfilment in
Christ's miracles of healing: " Himself took our infirmities, and
bare our sicknessess");' or at other times signifying the continuous accomplishment of the prophetic declaration (as when S.
Paul interprets.the nineteenth Psalm as having foreshadowed
the  permanent preaching  of the Gospel: "Their sound  went
into all the earth, and their words unto the ends of the world."')
Under this class comes also a series of references by which the
writers of the New  Testament exemplify, in the plainest manner, their belief in the inspiration of the Old Testament; and
from which it obviously results that each portion of Scripture
"'' Who His own Self bare our sins in his own Body on the tree  *  *  *  by
Whose stripes ye were healed (Isai. liii. 4, 5). For ye were as sheep going astray
(Ezek. xxxiv. 11, 12); but are now returned unto the Shepherd and Bishop of your
souls (Ezek. xxxvii. 24)."-1 S. Pet. ii. 24, 25. Cf. also ch. i. 24, 25: " All flesh is as
grass, and all the glory of man as the flower of grass. The grass withereth * * *
but the word of the Lord endureth for ever,"-words which are incorporated in the
Apostle's exhortation from Isai. xl. 6-8. This mode of employing the Old Testament,
as Rudelbach observes, "is a surety to us that, in the judgment of the Apostle, there
lies in its language a 7//za OeoS, zievov elf rbv alSva." — oc. cit., s. 47. Such also is the
mode of referring to Hab. ii. 4, " The just shall live by his faith"-in Gal. iii. 11; and
Hebr. x. 38.
2 E. g. " Dearly beloved, avenge not yourselves    *  * *for it is written (yFyparrat ydp), Vengeance is Mine," &c.-Rom. xii. 19. Again: "That, according as
it is written (KaO&( y~ypanrTal), He that glorieth," &c.-1 Cor. i. 31. Cf. Acts, xiii
40. A still more striking instance is supplied by the passage: " Wherefore he saith,
Awake, thou that sleepest, and arise from the dead, and Christ shall give thee light"
-Eph. v. 14-a passage which is not to be found in express words in either the
Hebrew or the LXX.; while the formula d6b yOyet (as Olshausen, B. iv. s. 270, truly
says) points infallibly to a quotation from Scripture. S. Paul here clearly refers to
Isai. lx. 1.
3 " He cast out the spirits with His word, and healed all that were sick. That
it might be fulfilled which was spoken by Esaias the prophet [liii. 4], saying, Himself
took our infirmities, and bare our sicknesses."-S. Matt. viii. 16, 17. So also ch. iv.
14, 15, the first dawn of the Gospel and the future conversion of the Heathen, when
"the people which sat in darkness saw great light"-is inferred from Isai. ix. 1, 2
with the formula of citation, Zva 7rZlpo6,:-the Evangelist adding, " From that time
Jesus began to preach."-ver. 17.
4 Rom. x. 18. Compare, too, the reference, in ver. 8, to Dent. xxx. 12-14.
From Heb. viii. 8-12, we learn that the days of the Gospel afford the never-ceasing
accomplishment of Jer. xxxi. 31-34.




308                   THE COMMISSION  TO WRITE.                  [LECT. VII.
must be regarded as part of one Divine whole:-I mean the system of collective quotations, where a number of passages are
brought together, in the same connexion, from various books of
the Bible, in order to establish some one point of Christian doctrine.' Of this, the Epistle to the Hebrews affords many instances:" but the most striking example is, perhaps, supplied by
the passage commencing at the tenth verse of the third chapter
of the Epistle to the Romans, where five different texts from the
Psalms are combined in the same quotation with a text from
Isaiah:-the whole series commencing with the formula " As it
is written."3 It is plain that in these collective quotations the
This fact affords a satisfactory reply to the opening observations of Mr. Coleridge in the passage quoted supra, Lecture ii. p. 53, note 2  Had the Bible not been
generically different from "all other writings," such a "practice" would be indeed
unexampled."
2 In Heb. i. 5-13, the exaltation of Christ above all creatures and angels is inferred from Ps. ii. 7; 2 Sam. vii. 14; Ps. xcvii. 7; xlv. 6, 7; cii. 25-27. In ch. ii. 68, 12, 13, the true human nature of Christ is inferred from Ps. viii. 4-6; xxii. 22;
xviii. 2. In ch. iv. 4-10, the'Rest of the people of God' is shown to have been predicted in Gen. ii. 2; Ps. xcv. 7-9. "No more instructive codex of prophetical theology could be presented to us than in these highly fruitful quotations."-Rudelbach,
loc. cit., s. 48.
3 KaOfBc yeypa7r7at —Rorn. iii. 10-18,-where the following passages are combined: Ps. liii. 1; v. 9; cxl. 3; x. 7; Isai. lix. 7, 8; Ps. xxxvi. 1. So also in Rom.
x. 19, 20, with reference to the obstinacy of Israel and the call of the Gentiles, we
find Deut. xxxii. 21, and Isai. lxv. 1, 2, united. Cf. in Rom. xi. 8-10, the quotations
from Isai. xxix. 10; Deut. xxix. 4; Ps. lxix. 22, 23: where also (Rom. ix. 33), Isai.
viii. 14, is combined with Isai. xxviii. 16;-the same combination occurring in 1 S.
Pet. ii. 6-8, with the addition of a further quotation from Ps. cxviii. 22 (cf. S. Matt.
xxi. 42, &c.). In the same manner 2 Cor. vi. 16, is composed of Lev. xxvi. 12, and
Ezek. xxxvii. 26, 27; while in ver. 17, to the quotation from Isai. lii. 11, there is
added an expression (eiade&ouaet i7u(g) from Ezek. xx. 34, which briefly sums up the
promise of Isai. lii. 12:-ver. 18 being taken from Jer. xxxi. 1-9, 33; xxxii. 38.
Again, the words of S. Stephen (Acts, vii. 7), "and serve me in this place," are not
found in either the Hebrew or LXX. of Gen. xv. 14. They are taken from God's
words, Exod. iii. 12:-the combination of the two passages pointing out the connexion of the different parts of the Divine Scheme. The following examples of this
procedure require some remarks: In S. Mark, i. 2-where the reading adopted in the
English Version, " As it is written in the prophets" (ev roi7 7popratt), is certainly incorrect; and where we should read " in Isaiah the prophet" (Iv'Haata Ti) n~pop07iT),
-we find the language of Mal. iii. 1, combined with that of Isai. xl. 3. It is obvious
that the words of Malachi, "he shall prepare the [a] way before Me" are based upon
the expression of Isaiah —  Prepare ye the [a] way of the Lord:" and that this is
not a mere undesigned coincidence on the part of the later prophet is proved by
Malachi (iii. 2; iv. 5) having similarly incorporated in his own statements the language of another and earlier servant of God, viz., Joel, ii. 11, and 31. The design of
Malachi here was to show the Jews who had returned from the Exile, and whose
temporal condition seemed to present a contradiction to the promised glories of Messiah's reign, that Isaiah himself had already foretold that the evangelical promises
were not as yet at hand; and that "the preparation of the way" must precede
Messiah's glory. The passage quoted by S. Mark from Malachi, therefore, is not an
independent prediction. Malachi is merely the auctor secundarius; and the Evangelist
points out that this is the case by ascribing both commentary and text to Isaiah,
whom he thus represents as the auctor primarius,-the commentary being placed




LECT. VII.]    THE FORM  OF WHAT  WAS WRITTEN.                             309
Apostles adduce the several passages as all denoting, and from
the first pointing  to, one great truth;-although  separately, in
their primary connexion, such statements of the Old Testament
had often merely a reference to more special relations.
This review of what are plain matters of fact of itself brings
to light the principle which guided the sacred writers, under the
Gospel Dispensation, in the use which they have made of the Old
Testament.   The Holy Spirit, when inspiring God's servants in
former times, had infused a deeper significance into their words
than the men who uttered them, or who committed them  to writing, perceived.'  The depth of meaning conveyed  could only be
apprehended, in the fulness of time, by those who, like the
authors of the New  Testament, "had the mind of Christ;,2 and
who were thereby enabled to unfold the hidden mystery couched
under the earlier form.'  Consider how Christ Himself has exemfirst, as it serves to elucidate the text. S. Mark's exordium, "The beginning of the
Gospel," also shows that he had in view the closing book of the Old Testament.
That in S. Matt. iii. 1-4, these words of Isaiah are in like manner quoted with reference to Malachi is clear from the use of Jeravoeire-ver. 2, compared with Mal. iv. 5,
6, where "Elijah the prophet" is described as the preacher of pe7rvota. See Hengstenberg, " Christol.," B. iii. s. 398. On the principle here laid down, Hengstenberg
(B. ii. s. 259) explains why S. Matthew (xxvii. 9) has ascribed to Jeremiah the words of
Zechariah (xi. 13):-the Evangelist desiring to explain that Jeremiah was to be regarded as the auctor primarius of a prediction with which his readers were well acquainted, and to whose words (Jer. xviii. 1-3; xix. 2) the expression of Zechariah,
" And the Lord said unto me, Cast it unto the potter," refers us; Jeremiah standing to
Zechariah in the same relation as Ezekiel and Daniel to the Apocalypse. Nor is the
reference in such cases to a single prophet unusual. The quotation, " That it might
be fulfilled which was spoken by the prophet, Tell ye the daughter of Sion, Behold thy
king cometh unto thee, meek," &c., in S. Matt. xxi. 4, 5, is taken from Isai. lxii. 11,
and Zech. ix. 9; on which Bengel observes: " Hic locus exemplo est multos sermones apud prophetas accipi debere, non solum ut ab illis dictos sed ut ab Apostolis
dicendos." Cf. too, our Lord's words, S. Matt. xxiv. 30, with Dan. vii. 13; Zech. xii.
10-12. This combination of different passages meets us even in the Old Testament.
Thus Nahum, in the words, "For now I will break his yoke from off thee, and will
burst thy bonds in sunder."-i. 13, alludes to the expressions of Tsai. x. 27 in language
differing from them in some respects (e. g. no:); both statements being combined in
Jer. xxx. 8. See O. Strauss, loc. cit., p. 40.
See supra, Lecture v. p. 189, &c.
2 "Who hath known the mind of the Lord (vowv Kvpiov)?  *  *  *  But we
have the mind of Christ" (/4eZC (. voiv XptsroV EXo/eev). —   Cor. ii. 16.
3 Rudelbach (following Olshausen) has truly observed that "a Vn-7vota-a deeper
sense, intended by the Holy Ghost,-must be allowed, in the interpretation of Scripture, by all who have a clear apprehension of the objectivity of the Holy Spirit's influence upon the prophets."-Zeitschrift, 1842, H. ii. s. 34. Olshausen ("Ein Wort
ib. tief. Schriftsinn," s. 70) establishes the justice of this principle by an appeal to the
plain statements of the sacred writers.  In this sense S. Paul expounds the history of
Hagar and Ishmael (see supra, Lecture iii. p. 109),-" which things," writes the Apostle, " are an Allegory" (artcvi aT(Jv  a'   7 y o p o I / e v a).-Gal. iv. 24. So also S.
John writes: "Their dead bodies shall lie in the street of the great city, which spiritually is called (trlr  KacAeiraLt  v e v   a r T   U C) Sodom and Egypt."-Rev. xi. 8. Cf
Rom. ix. 7, 8; 2 Cor. iii. 13, &c.; Eph. v. 32, &c. The classical phrase vi7rvota is ad



310                   THE  COMMISSION  TO WRITE.                   [LECT. VII.
plified this principle: —His saying, " Blessed  are the meek, for
they shall inherit the earth,"' exhibits the spiritual sense of that
inheritance of the promised land which so constantly forms the
theme of Old Testament Prophecy; and  in which  Canaan, the
terrestrial object of the Divine promises, symbolizes every Divine
blessing.  The argument founded upon  these  same promises in
the Epistle to the Hebrews' clearly shows how this idea pervades
the entire organism of the Bible, and how it implies the realization of the Kingdom  of God even in its earthly form.
But while the  authors of the  New  Testament, by their full
appreciation of the deeper meaning conveyed in the words of earlier sacred writers, show how widely they differ from that class
of expositors who see no further intent in the language of Inspiration than its naked, literal signification; they are, at the
same time, as widely opposed to that other class which fixes its
exclusive attention upon the allegorical or mystical sense of Scripture.' From this latter school the inspired penmen are severed
by broad lines of distinction. In the first place, they assert unconditionally the literal signification and historical reality of every
narrative in the Bible; insisting, nevertheless, upon the spiritual
mirably suited to express the truth which such texts convey: inasmuch as it implies
that under the obvious signification of the words there lies, not indeed a different, but
the same signification again, more profoundly apprehended. See also supra, Lecture
iv. p. 153, note.
S. Matt. v. 5~K2tpovow/f0ovtV r77v yiv. Cf. " I will give unto thee, and to thy
seed  *  *  *  all the land of Canaanfor an everlasting possession."-Gen. xvii. 8.
" Sic ergo et promissio Dei, quam promisit Abrahle, firma perseverat *  *  *  Repromisit autem Deus haereditatem terrm Abrahae et semini ejus: et neque Abraham,
neque semen ejus, hoc est, qui ex fide justificantur, nunc sumunt in ea. haereditatem:
accipient autein eam in resurrectione justorum. Verus enim et firmus Deus: et propter hoc'beatos' dicebat'mites, quoniam  ipsi haereditabunt terram.' "-S. Iren'eus,
Cort. IHTr., lib. v. xxxii. p. 331. See Olshausen in loc.
" Seeing, therefore, it remaineth that some must enter therein, and they to whom
it was first preached entered not in because of unbelief: again He limiteth a certain
day, saying in David, To-day, &c. There remaineth, therefore, a rest to the people of
God."-Heb. iv. 6-9. In a similar manner Christ has pointed out the spiritual signification of the Mosaic rites, by referring the ordinance that all sacrifices must be
sprinkled with salt (Lev. ii. 13) to the spiritual sprinkling of the soul with the salt of
suffering and self-denial: " Every one shall be salted with fire, and every sacrifice
shall be salted with salt. Salt is good; but if the salt have lost his saltness, wherewith will ye season it?  Have salt in yourselves, and have peace one with another."
-S. Mark, ix, 49, 50.
3 Two celebrated names in the early Church may be taken as representing these
extreme opinions, Origen, and Theodore of Mopsuestia, the leaders of the schools of
Alexandria and Antioch. Assuming alike the Divine origin and inspiration of the
Bible, these teachers founded their systems of exposition on principles diametrically
opposed; and which, moreover, are equally removed from that line of interpretation
which Scripture itself has suggested. For some remarks on these two opposing systems, see Appendix G.




LECT. VII.]    THE  FORM  OF WHAT  WAS WRITTEN.                              311
and heavenly import which underlies the earthly record. Secondly, their use of the Old Testament unfolds what the passage
to  be interpreted, taken  in  strict connexion  with  its context,
actually does mean; in no instance exhibiting the capricious and
arbitrary subtlety of allegorical expositors-their unnatural applications, or overstrained  ingenuity.  And, thirdly, their expositions invariably  refer to  the  grand  design  of promoting  the
moral welfare of man.  They do not strive to point out how far
the sense of scriptural expressions may actually extend; they content themselves with  indicating what shall profit those whom
they  address.'  Thus  S. Paul, when  expounding  the  spiritual
significance of the Legal ceremonial, refuses  to dwell upon  the
mysteries of the Cherubim.2
Having thus pointed out the principle  on which  the sacred
writers themselves have treated the language  of Scripture; and
having shown how, in pursuance of that principle, their system
of interpretation  attaches equal weight to the  historical reality,
and the spiritual import,-we are prepared to enter upon the question of the form  under which quotations from  the Old Testament
See the excellent remarks of Olshausen, "Ein Wort," &c. s. 71 ff.  Compare,
too, the profound remark of S. Jerome, referring to Rev. v. 2: " Leo autem de Tribu
Juda, Dominus Jesus Christus est, qui solvit signacula libri, non proprie unius, ut
multi putant, Psalmorum  David, sed omnium  Scripturarum, qume uno Scriptura
[scriptT] sunt Spiritu Sancto; et propterea unus liber appellantur.  De quo Ezekiel
mystico sermone testatur, quod scriptus fuerit intus et foris; in sensu, et in litera. De
quo et Salvator loquitur in Psalinis:'In capitulo libri scriptur  est de Me;' non
Jeremie, non Isaihe, sed in omnli Scriptura Sancta, que unus liber appellatur."Cornm. in Isaiam, lib. ix., t. iv. p. 393.
The following remarks of S. Th. A quinas, discussing the question, " Utrum Sacra
Scriptura sub una litera habeat plules sensus," may serve to connect with the present
stage of this inquiry what has been said, supra, Lecture iv. p. 153, note'; "Auctor
Sacri Scrlipture e3t Deus, in cujus potestate est ut non solum voces ad sig'ificandum
accommodet (quod etiam homo facere potest), sed etiam res ipsas. *  *  *  Illa
prima significatio qua voces significant res pertinet ad primum sensum, qui est sensus
historicus, vel literalis. IIla veio significatio qua res signiticatae per voces iterum res
alias significant dicitur sensus spiritualis, qui super literalem fundatur, et eum supponit *  *  *  Multiplicitas horurn sensuum non facit aequivocationem, aut aliam
speciem multiplicitatis: quia sensus isti non multiplicantur propter hloc quod una vox
multa significet, sed quia ipsme res significatms per voces aliaruml rerum possunt esse
signa.  EPL ita etiam Lnuila confusio sequitur in Sacra Scriptura, cumn omnes sensus
fundentur super unum, scilicet literalem, ex quo solo potest trahi a'rjnmeztum.; non autem
ex iis quae secundum allegoriam dicuntur.  *  *  *  Non tanmen ex hoc aliquid deperit Sacrae Scripturae: quia nihil sub spirituali sensu continotur fidei necessarium
quod Scriptura per literalem sensum alicubi manifeste non tradat."-Summ. Theol.
Pars Ima, qu. i. art. x. t. xx. p. 9. Cf. too, Lecture iii. p. 108, note 5.
" And over it the Cherubirs of glory shadowing the mercy-seat; of which we
cannot now speak particularly."-Heb. ix 5. Cf. too, the remark as to Melchizedek:
"Of whom we have many things to say, and hard to be uttered, seeing ye are dull
of hearing-." —bid., v. 11.




312                    THE  COMMISSION  TO  WRITE.                  [LECT. VII.
meet us in the New. On a former occasion I have proved that,
in no instance can we account for such quotations by our Lord
and His Disciples on the plea of' accommodation' to the prejudices or errors of the Jews:' it is therefore unnecessary again to
enter upon that question.  I would now  observe further, that we
must with equal earnestness reject the notion that the facts and
statements of the Old Testament are introduced  merely by way
of'application,' or as illustrations founded on some features of
general resemblance. Were this view correct, the idea that the
employment of such passages in the New Testament had been
originally designed by the Holy Spirit of itself disappears: nay,
Lecture ii. p. 71-77.  The single fact, indeed, that to a great extent the Gospels,
as well as the majority of S. Paul's Epistles, were not addressed to Jews but to Gentiles, may of itself suffice to answer those who still maintain that the writers of the
New Testament employed, in their citations from the Old, the principle of'accommodation.' In addition to the answer of Tertullian to Marcion, which I have quoted
supra, p. 74, note, I may adduce the reply of S. Irenaeus to the same argument when
advanced by the Gnostics: " Quemadmodum dicunt hi, qui snnt vanissimi Sophiste,
quoniam Apostoli cum hypocrisi fecerunt doctrinam secundum audientium capacitatem,
et responsiones secundum interrogantium suspiciones [i. e. w'roIppetf]  *  *  *  uti
[i e. adeo ut] non quemadmodum habet ipsa veritas, sed in hypocrisi, et quemadmodum  oapiebat unusquisque, Dominum  et Apostolos edidisse magisterium   *  *  *
Quis autem medicus volens curare segrotum, faciat secundum concupiscentias segrotantium, et non secundum quod aptum est medicine? Quoniam autem Dominus Medicus
venit [S.Luke,v.31], *  *  *  non igitur jam secundum pristinam opinionem loquebatur eis," &c.-Cont. ieer., lib. II. v. p. 179. Tholuck, therefore, is inaccurate when
he observes: "A peculiarity of modern times is the theory of'accommodation,' according to which all quotations of this class (viz., the entire mode of proof adopted
in the Epistle to the Hebrews) are disposed of as an'argumentatio e concessis'-so
Semler, Ernesti, Teller, Griesbach, and also, for the most part, Stuart."-Das A. Test.
im N. Test., s. 5.
2 Tholuck, for example, arranges the quotations to be found in the New Testament under the following classes: (1.) Direct prophecies. (2.) Typical prophecies.
(These two classes I have considered already.)  (3.) Supports (Anlehnungen), and
Adaptations or Applications (Anwendungen).  The quotations which he terms'supports' are the same as those described supra, p. 307, notes' and 2. An'adaptation,'
or'application,' Tholuck defines to be the citation of a parallel, with some formula of
quotation; of which class he gives the following as examples: S. Matt. xiii. 35
('' That it might be fulfilled which was spoken by the prophet"); xxvi. 31 (" For it is
written"); S. John, ii 17 (" It was written"); Acts, i. 20 ("For it is written"); xiii. 40
(" Is spoken of in the prophets"); Rom. xi. 8 (" According as it is written"); 1 Cor.
ix. 9 (" For it is written"); xiv. 21 ("In the Law it is written"); 2 Cor. vi. 2 (" For
He saith"); viii. 15 ("As it is written").-loc. cit., s. 26 f. On which see infra.
Stuart appears to reduce such passages to the principle of'accommodation'-an'accommodation,' however, to the writer's own views. "Such cases," he observes,
" are frequent in the New Testament. God says by the prophet Hosea,' When Israel
was a child, then I loved him, and called My Son out of Egypt'-ch. xi. 1. Now this
is not prediction, but narration. But when Matthew describes the flight of Joseph
and Mary, with the infant Jesus, to Egypt, he says,'This took place, so that this
passage of Scripture [in Hosea] had an accomplishment, iva 7rnTlpdO,, K. r. A.' Now
here is, evidently, nothing more than a similarity of events."-A Comm. on the Hebrews, p. 600. The remarks already made will, I trust, supply the answer to such a
system of exposition.




LECT. VII.]   THE FORM OF WHAT WAS WRITTEN.                     313
we could not even reasonably maintain that this alleged' adaptation' of the language of the earlier writers was made under the
Holy Spirit's direction; and, consequently, the inspiration of
those parts of Scripture in which such'applications' occur is altogether subverted. In addition to what has been already said
with reference to the grounds on which the authors of the New
Testament rest their system of interpretation, it is a sufficient
answer to the allegation which we are considering, that in all the
instances of this mere' application' of the Old Testament which
are usually brought forward, we find the quotation introduced by
the phrases, "For it is written;"-" That it might be fulfilled
which was spoken by the prophet;"-or some other expression
to the same effect. Thus S. John, when relating how the soldiers
cast lots for our Lord's garments, refers as follows to the words
of the twenty-second Psalm:-" That the Scripture might be
fulfilled which saith, They parted My raiment among them, and
for My vesture they did cast lots. These things therefore the
soldiers did."' In the use of this passage by the Evangelist it is
impossible to regard the expressions of the Psalmist otherwise
than as conveying a strictly typical prophecy; since even the
plain grammatical sense renders it impossible to deny that the
passage is represented in the Gospel as a direct prediction, which
at this point of time, and at no other, found its perfect accomplishment.  Or, to take another example which perhaps of all
others might seem  most to resemble a mere'adaptation' of a
prophetic saying,-I mean where our Lord quotes the language
of Zechariah: " Awake, O  sword, against My Shepherd, and
against the Man that is My fellow, saith the Lord of hosts: smite
the Shepherd, and the sheep shall be scattered."' Here it will,
no doubt, be admitted that Christ Himself is a competent expositor; and His allusion to these words is as follows: " All ye
shall be offended because of Me this night: for it is written,' I
will smite the shepherd, and the sheep of the flock shall be scattered abroad.' "" In short, that freedom with which the writers
of the New Testament employed the language of the Old,4 and
1 "Iva r ypao 7rTnlpoO8' Altepeptaavro rT iydaTri Fov avro7Z  * * * oi erV
o V v cTparTtCTal rara Eotiraav. —S. John, xix. 24.
" Zech. xiii. 7.                3 S. Matt. xxvi. 31-y'ypartrat yap.
4 It is, perhaps, unnecessary to refer specially to such objections as are founded on
the absence of the most exact and literal translation, even where no object could be




314                   THE COMMISSION  TO WRITE.                 [LECT. VII.
which we are about to glance at more nearly, was the natural
result of the fact that they spoke under the guidance of that same
Divine  Spirit under Whose  inspiration  the words which  they
quoted had been recorded, and under Whose instruction were at
length developed the manifold allusions which the sayings of the
former Scriptures contained.!
On this same principle, indeed, the Evangelists adduced the
sayings of Christ. In His prayer to His Father, before His betrayal, occur the words: "Those that Thou  gavest Me I have
kept, and none of them  is lost but the son of perdition."'  After
His betrayal, however, when our Lord gave  Himself up  to the
" band of men and officers from the chief priests and Pharisees,"
attained by such adherence to the original. Such objections, indeed, proceed on the
tacit assumption that the writers of the New Testament were bound to act as a translator of the Bible must act now; in other words, on the assumption that they were
not inspired. To such arguments the ingenious illustration of S. Jerome supplies a
sufficient answer: " Legimus, in Marco, dicentem Dominum, TALITHA CUMI; statimque subjectum est,'quod interpretatur, Puella tibi dico, surge.' Arguatur Evangelista mendacii, quare addiderit,'tibi dico,' quum in Hebraeo tantum  est,'puella
surge.' " —De opt. gen. interpret., Ad Pammach., Ep. lvii. t. i. p. 308. That the object
of the New Testament writers was merely to represent with fidelity the idea to be
conveyed, and not to strive after strict verbal agreement, is clear from another fact
analogous to that alluded to by S. Jerome. The constant asseveration of Christ,
Amen, is to be found in Jer. xxviii. 6; where the LXX. render it by (dzi05O. Now
S. Matt. xvi. 28; xxiv. 47; and S. Mark, xii. 43, give dueXv Xiyw Vr'iv: while S. Luke,
recording the same sayings of Christ, renders, as do the LXX., (705gf 2eyo  viZ.v.ix. 27; xii. 44; xxi. 3.
Having alluded to the very accurate citation of Jer. xxxi. 15, in S. Matt. ii.
18, Dr. W. H. Mill observes: " Shall we then call this an application or accommodation of the Old Testament passage to things beyond its immediate visible occasion?
There would be no need to scruple the term, if it were not meant to imply that this
accommodation was arbitrary on the part of the Evangelist, or that the mind of the
Spirit that spoke by Jeremiah does not most fully include this application. But thus
meant, we are concerned to repudiate the proposition; and to appeal to the ample
r:;lge of the prophecy itself as forbidding this restriction of its import."  *  *  *' We think it most reasonable to believe that the distress of the 15th verse is not necessarily confined to the case of these deported captives of Benjamin, among whom the
prophet of Anathoth had lived. And as the coming of the Great Ieliverer is the
principal end to which all Prophecy is directed, we hold that the afflictions which
more immediately preceded Christ's mediation and its results, those especially by
which Hlis first manifestation to mankind was signalized, lay entirely within the
scope of the Divine Spirit in inditing these consolations. *  *  *  The place
which these considerations hold in the argument with objectors like Strauss is this
only; to prove tht ththey are simply begging the question, when they treat the prophecies as merely human writings, and, applying the rules of criticism not only to the
language of the document, where they are truly applicable, but to the supposed mind
of the writer as the sole measure of its import, they denounce every application as
false and gratuitous, when it lies beyond the primary or immediate occasion."-The
Christian Advocate's Publication for 1844, pp. 405-414. Cf., also, ibid.. p. 391, &c.
2 S. John, xvii. 12, where our Lord adds lva 1 ypa'n 7rTrtpo0 —/with an obvious
reference to His previous statement (ch. xiii. 18): "I speak not of you all; I know
whom I have chosen: but that the Scripture may be fulfilled, He that eateth bread
with Me hath lifted up his heel against Me."




LECT. VII.]    THE  FORM  OF WHAT WAS WRITTEN.                             315
S. John again tells us: " Jesus answered, I have told you that I
am  He; if therefore ye seek  Me let these go  their way.  That
the saying (observes the Evangelist) might be fulfilled which He
spake, Of them  which Thou  gavest Me  have  I lost none:"'where we perceive that an expression, which the Lord had employed with reference to the' preservation of His followers from
spiritual loss, is appealed to by S. John as predicting their escape
from  temporal danger.  Hence we clearly see that His Disciples
regarded their Master's words as containing manifold allusions:
and hence we also derive a most important intimation as to the
light in which they must have similarly regarded the Old Testament prophecies.
In entering upon the subject of the form under which the
Old Testament is quoted, I shall pass over, as not directly bearing upon the present inquiry, the many ingenious explanations,
by Oriental scholars, of how the Hebrew text and the New Testament reference  may, in  several cases, be  directly reconciled.
The writers to whom I refer have endeavored to attain this object
by pointing out the different senses of which the original terms
are susceptible;2  by  adopting  some of those various  readings
which may be suggested in  the  Hebrew  text in  consequence of
the similarity of several of the Hebrew letters;3-or, in fine, by
S. John, xviii. 9 —va 7iXpl)Lw0/ o 5)'yoc ov eirev. Cf. Olshausen in loc., B. ii s. 470;
and Tholuck, "Comm. zum Ev. Johan.," s. 299.
2 For example: In S. Matt. iv. 16, "The people which sat in darkness saw great
light" —~sc e6er! lE/iy-in accordance with the pointing of our present Hebrew text
of Isai. ix. 2 [1]~- n; while the LXX. translate —dere p(Ab yTya, and therefore
must have read —.n.  Similarly where the E. V. translates " From the prey my son
thou art gone up"-Gen. xlix. 9, the LXX. render iK pf2aorov, the word qt]t being
susceptible of both meanings. In some cases, even the Massora authorizes us to correct the Hebrew text according to the New Testament. E. g. S. Peter quotes Ps.
xvi. 10-"Neither wilt Thou suffer Thine Holy One (rTv'"Oot6v  ov) to see corruption"-Acts, ii. 27, which corresponds to the Massoretic reading-'l"rtn, in place of'p-crT" (" Thy holy ones") which our present Hebrew text presents. On this whole
subject see H. Hody, "De Bibl. Text. Original." lib. III. pars i. c. 2, p. 243, &c.
3 E. g. the quotation, "Behold ye despisers, and wonder," &c.-Acts, xiii. 41,
where, in place of the version authorized by our present Hebrew text, " Behold ye
among the heathen (Q.lJ), and regard and wonder," &c.-Habak. i. 5, S. Paul adopts
the translation of the LXX. who render KaTrapov7Trai; reading (with the change of
| for 1) w,=. This explanation is fully confirmed by the fact that in Habak. ii. 5,
the LXX. render this same word:7: by /arapovr71ri. See H. Hody, loc. cit., p. 261.
Similarly (with the change of n for C) in Ps. xix. 13, the LXX. instead of'iTnz,
superbi, read t"T7-(ir  dZ'OTrpiuv.  See infra, p. 319, note'.  Cf. De Wette,
"Einleit." ~ 83, s. 125. An interesting confirmation of the justice of such a method for
reconciling difficulties has been lately pointed out. Mr. Layard, in his second work on
"Nineveh and Babylon," gives the following note of Mr. Thomas Ellis of the British
Museum: "A discovery relating to the Jews of the. captivity in Babylon, and con



316                    THE  COMMISSION  TO  WRITE.                  [LECT. VII.
showing, from a comparison of certain cognate dialects, that the
Hebrew terms actually convey the sense ascribed to them in what
the  New   Testament  represents  as  their  Greek  equivalents.'
These are topics on which I shall not pause; because, although
throwing mush light upon the  correct rendering of several parts
of Scripture, they do not in any way affect the  principle of that
fiee use of the Old Testament on which I am  now insisting.  Indeed, the Old Testament itself points out that we are not to anticipate  in  the  New  that strict, literal subserviency, at establishing which, in all cases, the researches  to which  I  have just
sequently of great interest to Oriental scholars, and especially to Biblical students,
was made by Mr. Layard during his second expedition to Assyria.  Amongst the
various curious objects found on the banks of the Euphrates, and in the ruins of ancient Babylonia, were several bowls or cups of terra cotta, round the inner surface of
which were inscriptions in the ancient Chaldean language, written in characters
wholly unknown, and, I believe, never before seen in Europe.  *  *  *  They must
have been written long prior to any existing MSS. of the ancient Hebrew and Chaldean languages that we know of. *  *  *  But the most remarkable circumstance
connected with these inscriptions is, that the characters used on the bowl marked
No. 1 answer precisely to the description given of the most ancient Hebrew letters in
the Babylonian Talmud, which contains an account of the nature and origin of the
letters used by the Jews.  *  *  *  With respect to the translation, I have only to
state that in many passages it is mere conjecture  *  *  *  but the difficulty is increased tenfold through there being no distinction between C, -, and frequently };
nor is there any distinction between i, T, and medial:; nor between T and r, and
sometimes n is written like r."-pp. 509-511.
E. g. S. Paul, Rom. x. 18, quotes, according to LXX., " Their sound (o t00'-yyoavTiSv) went into all the earth,"-the ordinary rendering of Ps. xix. 5, being " Their
line (Dap) is gone out through all the earth." (Gesenius renders: " (b) Clwrda citharae,
deinde sonus.")  On the principle that the original has both significatiols. Dr. Pococke
here observes: "Concludunt multi lectum ab illis [scil. LXX.] non &trp Kavan,'linea
eorum,' sed tSp Kolam,' vox eorum.' *  *  *  Quam in sententiam qui descendere
recusaverit  *  *  *  aliam, si libet, viam  mecum experiatur, scil. dictioni  p: Kaw
significatum  suum (licet minus notum) restituendo.  *  *  *  Fiet id (ni fallor) linguse etiam Arabicte ope, &c."-Porta JMosis, app. p. 47. Again, Isai. xxviii. 16: "He
that believeth, shall not make haste" (':nr of) is quoted in Rom. ix. 33, after the
LXX., under the form, "Whosoever believeth on Him  shall not be ashamed" (o'
KIaTatLXvvOiaerlTa ); and in 1 S. Pet. ii. 6, "shall not be confounded" (otv /,) Karat7,telvOi).
"Aliter legisse olim Grecze Versionis authores quos secutus est Apostolus, asserunt
docti, scil. I:n= Yebosh vel 1a0"  Yabish quod sonat'erubesoet.' *  *  *  Quidni
potius et hos et illos,rrm Yachish olim, prout nune habetur, legisse? alios tantum
ejusdem significatus quam recentiores prmtulisse, quos ambitu suo continere verbum
illud suadent, et loci circumstantie et interpretum authoritati additus linguae affinis
Arabicte usus in qua themata Haush, et Hish quae Hebr.:7n respondent, tres nobis
istos (cum aliis) significatus exhibent *  *  *  scil. festinare, timere, pudore suffundi.
quorum tertium prmferunt LXX., secundum Chaldaeus et Syrus, primum recentiores."
-Pococke, loc. cit., pp. 10, 11.  Once more, Jer. xxxi. 9: " Which My covenant they
brake, althou'gh I was an Husband (n>SY) unto them, saith the Lord"-is quoted, according to the LXX., in Heb. viii. 9, " And I regarded them not (tciyd7 2['ztttj),  saith
the Lord."  Here the probability certainly is that, by an interchange of: for:, the
LXX. read nr,}~:, which means Ijuy;r)7a; Pococke, however, writes: "Lingeu Arabicme ope  *  *  *  si quid adhuc restat scrupuli, plane tollitur.  In ea enim verbum
L5= Baala est, non modo Dominum esse, et maritari, sed et perturbari, separari, fas.
ridire, nauseare."-loc. cit., p. 9.




LECT. VII.]    THE FORM  OF WHAT  WAS WRITTEN.                             317
alluded sometimes aim.  Consider, for example, how  Moses himself, in the book of Deuteronomy gives a version of the Fourth
Commandment differing in many respects from  its original announcement, as written in the book of Exodus; and how, at the
same time, he enforces by the terms of this second version a new
and special admonition.'
The quotations, by the New  Testament writers, to which it
is necessary to call attention, are as follows:I. In the first place there are those passages which are taken
strictly and literally from  the Septuagint Version where it differs
from  the Hebrew.  Thus our Lord  Himself adopted  and sanctioned the interpretation which the Seventy Interpreters had
given of the original institution of marriage by accepting from
their translation  the  important words "and they twain," which
do not occur in the Hebrew:2 and this same rendering is repeated
by S. Paul.3 In all such cases the Greek translation is followed,
as exhibiting a true and clear perception of the meaning intended
by the  language of the  Old  Testament: the  idea which  the
words of the original had veiled being thus brought to light, in
the New Testament, by that same Divine authority whereby, at
the first, the form  had  been  suggested  under which it was expressed by the Old Testament writers.4
1 "Remember the Sabbath Day to keep it holy  *  *  *  in it thou shalt not do
any work, thou, nor thy son, *  *  *  nor thy cattle, nor thy stranger that is
within thy gates: for in six days the Lord made heaven and earth, &c. *  *  *
wherefore the Lord blessed the Sabbath Day and hallowed it."-Exod. xx. 8-11.
Keep the Sabbath Day to sanctify it, as the Lord thy God hath commanded thee
*  *  *  in it thou shalt not do any work, thou, nor thy son, *  *  *  nor any of
thy cattle, nor thy stranger that is within thy gates: that thy man-servant and thy
maid-servant may rest as well as thou. And remember that thou wast a servant in
the land of Egypt, and that the Lord thy God brought thee out hence through a
a mighty hand, and by a stretched-out arm: therefore the Lord thy God commanded
thee to keep the Sabbath Day."-Deut. v. 12-15.
2 " For this cause shall a man leave father and mother, and shall cleave to his
wife: and they twain shall be one flesh" (cal eoovrat o  6 o ei ouidpwa yiav)-S.
Matt. xix. 5; S. Mark, x. 8, which verbatim agrees with the LXX. rendering of Gen.
ii. 24, where the Hebrew has merely —i7rw o+> ot.
3 Eph. v. 31.
4 The most remarkable instance of this class of quotations is unquestionably the
citation of Ps. xl. 6-" Mine ears hast thou opened (,I rTm'T~x),"-in Ileb. x. 5,
where we read, "A body hast Thou prepared Me" (auJ/a KarTpTfiawo [ot); in exact
conformity with the LXX. Commentators of the most opposite schools, are singularly
unanimous in regarding the New Testament form  of exhibiting this passage as a
strictly correct representation of the sense of the original. Bishop Pearson, referring
to Phil. ii. 8, has pointed out one line of exposition: " Being the boring of the ear under the Law (Exod xxi. 6; Dent. xv. 17) was a note of perpetual servitude; being
this was expressed in the words of the Psalmist, and changed by the Apostle into the
preparing of a body; it followeth that when Christ's Body first was framed, even then




318                    THE  COMMISSION  TO  WRITE.                  [LECT. VII.
II. On the other hand, —and this constitutes the second class
of quotations to  be considered,-wherever the  Septuagint does
not represent the true sense of the Prophet's words, the authors
of the New  Testament altogether abandon it, and give their own
translation  of the Hebrew.  For example, S. John  quotes the
iprcdiction, " They shall look on Him whom  they pierced,"' which
presents a literal version  of the Hebrew  of Zechariah, with the
slight but, as S. John  quotes, necessary  change  of "Him" for
Me."'  These words the Seventy had  translated:'                      They shall
look  upon  Ie, because they  have mocked M1e,"3-a  translation
did He assume the form  of a servant."-Exposition of the Apostle's Creed, Art. ii.
On a different principle, Rudelbach observes: " The apparent difficulty here is most
easily removed by the obvious remark that the'perfodere aures.' according to Exod.
xxi. 5, 6, was the token of servants who from love for their master desired to remain
his servants for ever"-Zeitschrift, 1841. H. iv. s. 5; the Psalmist contrasting obedience. the true sacrifice, with the animal sacrifices of the Law. Thus, as Ebrard in
loc. ("Der Br. an die Hebr.," s. 331) observes, the LXX. have not altered the real
meaning, of the original, viz., "Thou desirest not beasts for sacrifice, but Myself."
Many modern expositors (Hengstenberg, Stier, Hitzig, Tholuck, Bleek, Stuart), on
the other hand, reject the reference to the Law, and take rn', fodit, in the sense of,-n, retexit. Thus Hengstenberg translates " Ears hast Thou dug through for me""The Psalmist must in these words place the obedience, to which he was internally
drawn by God, in contrast to sacrifices, i e.' Thou hast made me hearing, obedient.'"
In the epistle to the Hebrews the thought is not altered by the LXX. translation,
"'Thou hast given me a Body, so that I willingly serve Thee in the execution of
Thy will.' "-Comm. on Psalms (Clarke's For. Theol. Lib., vol. ii. p. 71). So Tholuck
(in loc., s. 350): "' Thou hast prepared for me a body, which I am to consecrate as a
sacrifice to Thee;'" and he also observes: "To the difference in Heb. x. 5, particularly great importance has been attached; meanwhile, according to what has been
adduced by us on that passage, we venture to consider it as decided, that the sense
of the Psalmist has been just as little altered by the Greek translator, as when on
Hosea, xiv. 3 [" The calves of our lips"], he translated [see Heb. xiii. 15, "The fruit
of our lips"] according to the reading, nIt) [capTr6v], where we have ^':D."-loc. cit. s.
41. And that this opinion has not arisen from any antecedent prejudice on Tholuck's
part in favor of the infallibility of the sacred writers, is clear from his remark as to
Heb. ii. 7: "In the application which he [the inspired writer] makes of the 7rap' dyy',ovg, and,paXv Tr, his translation has led him astray (hat ihn seine Uebersetzung
irre geleitet)"-s. 34. And again: " In reference to this [the quotation Heb. ii. 7]
it must be acknowledged that our author has allowed himself to be guided by his
translation to an application which does not correspond to the Old Testament text.
A ccording to the principles which we have laid down in general concerning the inspiration of the Apostles, we feel no hesitation in acknowledging this. In the same
manrler, in Heb. xi. 21, the version of the LXX. which the author follows must be
held to be erroneous. In importance, these mistakes (diese Versehen) stand in the
same category as when Matthew (ch. xxi. 5) quotes, according to the Hebrew, ierv'r-5,iy,,v  crV K rdai    nv veov [LXX.], and refers this to the two animals in the entry
of Christ."-s. 41. Tholuck's reason for charging S. Matthew with error here, appears to be merely the fact that S. John (xii, 14, 15) alludes only to the animal on
wthich the Lord sat.  But cf. Olshausen, B. i. s. 766: and Hengstenberg, "Christol.,"
B. ii. ii. 132 f.
I',irea y.ao' iZ-yeL''O"Oovrat elc v ieci~'rTr cav.-S. John, xix. 37.
2     r'p:-"   nN x  c.n\r. — Zech. xii. 10.
K Kai trel/Xiovrat rrpoSg ie duv' ev KarTopXr/aavro. It is not necessary to consider whether the LXX. gave this version, because (as Olshausen in loc. suggests) the




LECT. VII.]    THE  FORM  OF WHAT  WAS WRITTEN.                            319
which  not only was unsuited               to the Evangelist's object, but is
also irreconcilable with  our Hebrew  text.   The principle of this
class of quotations is accurately described by S. Jerome when, in
his exposition  of the passage, he observes:  " The Evangelist
John, who drank  wisdom  from  the Lord's bosom, a Hebrew of
the Hebrews, whom  the Saviour dearly loved, has not paid much
regard to the import of the Greek Version; but has inter-prleted
word for word  as he had read  in the  Hebrew, and  has told us
that it was fulfilled at the period of the Lord's Passion."'
III. The third  class consists of quotations which differ from
both the original text and the Septuagint Version, even whl,,
according  to  our exegesis, the Hebrew   and  the  Greek  translation correspond with each other.   S. Paul, for example, quotes
the sixty-eighth Psalm  under the following form: " Wherefore
he saith, When He ascended  up on high, He led captivity captive, and gave gifts unto  men," —which  latter words present a
meaning  apparently the reverse  of that conveyed  by both  the
Hebrew  and the Septuagint, according to which the sense of the
passage is, " Thou hast received gifts for men."3  In this instance
commentators have been singularly perplexed.   Some have prooriginal, as applied to God, was to them unintelligible; or whether, as S. Jerome
thought (see next note), their copies presented a different reading. It is, however, to
be observed, that the later Jewish versions of Aquila, Symmachus, and Theodotion,
coincide with S. John, and with each other, in employing the verb  eKrevtri. Cf.
Rev. i. 7.
1 " Hebraicm literae Daleth (-r) et Res (m), hoc est D et R similes sunt, et parvo
tantum apice distinguuntur.  Ex quo evenit ut idem verbum diverse legentes, aliter
atque aliter transferant. *  *  *  Si enim legatur DACARU (np"T)  /cKrEVT7cpcv, id
est'compunxerunt' sive'confixerunt' accipitur: sin autem contrario ordine literis
commutatis RACADU (npe), upAoAiavTro, id est,' saltaverunt' intelligitur, et ob similitudiner literarum error est natus. Joannes autem Evangelista, qui de pectore Domini
hausit sapientiam, lebraeus ex Hebraeis, quemn Salvator amabat plurimumnn, non magnopere curavit quid Graecme litere continerent; sed verbum interpretatus e verbo est,
ut in Hebraeo legerat, et tempore Dominicae Passionis dixit esse completum."-Comment. in Zach., lib. iii., tom  vi. p. 903.
a.t6  yeL'A"va(30S eki  ibog,Lxua2X. aictX.K teal Ke o/Ml Ta Tro7   dvOpt',(rol'.Eph. iv. 8.
3 t: x= nl=na  trpi-PPs. lxviii. 18; 1X ae e g 6ara e v ad1vOprU. —LXX.
"Thou hast received gifts for men."-E. V. The manner in which the Apostle, in the
earlier part of the verse ('Avai3iCg eib vot'oc jX/iaurevcev ciextla'2wtcva'). follows, word
for word, the version of the LXX. ('Avai3c ei  1 ipot0C,jIaTevvac  aiIa/enpuoiav),
proves to a demonstration that his departure from it, towards the close, was designed.
Olshausen, speaking of the difficulties connected with this passage, and having referred to the 665 of ver. 8, and the obvious reference of the Kal arT6 Ed&u/EPv, of ver.
11, to the avir6S ecv Kab 6 diva,36u, in ver. 10, as proving that the Apostle designedly
quoted as he has done,-observes: "The expositor must look for the fault in himself,
if he cannot point to the connecting links of the argument, rather than in his author."
It will be well to bear this remark in mind when we proceed to consiler the assertion
that the New Testament writers quote " from memory."




320                  THE COMMISSION TO WRITE.                  [LECT. VII.
posed to alter the Hebrew according to S. Paul; others have
suggested that there is here no quotation from the Psalmist, but
a reference  to  some unknown  Christian  hymn; while others,
again, favor what has been  styled  " the milder expedient" of
saying that S. Paul has arbitrarily altered the meaning according to his own views, or, undesignedly, when citing from memory,
missed the sense.  But all such " expedients" are as unnecessary
as they are untenable: the context of itself affords the clue to
the Apostle's line of argument.  In the previous verse he had
observed,    Unto every one of us is given grace according to the
measure of the gift of Christ:" and this great truth-namely the
universality of Christ's gifts, to Jew and Gentile alike,-is what
lie goes on, in the quotation before us, to prove from the Old
Testament itself. By means of the Redemption, argues S. Paul,
spiritual gifts have been bestowed on all mankind. We know
too-for S. John" has fully  disclosed  the  doctrine,-that our
Lord's bestowal of the gifts of the Holy Ghost is inseparably connected with the fact of His Ascension. In a word, Christ, by His
Ascension, has redeemed the captive human race, and has thereby
"taken" to Himself (as the Psalmist had directly stated the matter) gifts among men.  Now it is implied in the mere statement
of this fact, that they, whom God thus chooses for Himself must,
as such, have been furnished with the necessary qualifications:
and this is the aspect of the question which S. Paul desires to
render prominent.2 It is only by attending to the context that
we can ever discern the drift of the inspired writers: or discover
how justly the Apostle can here attach to the " taking" of the
Hebrew  and the Septuagint the sense of "giving."   That God
should " take" to Himself, He must first, from  the very nature of
the case, " give" certain graces to man.3
S. John, vii. 39; xiv. 16; xvi. 7.
2 I have here adopted Olshausen's excellent remarks on this text (B. iv. s. 226 if).
So also Hengstenberg observes: "It is evident that by the'He gave,' which occurs in Eph. iv. 8, instead of'Thou takest,' the sense is not altered, but only brought
out: the'giving' presupposes the'taking;' the'taking' is succeeded by the'giving,'
as its consequence. *  *  *  We observe, further, that the quotation of our passage
in the Epistle to the Ephesians is not a mere accommodation, as the character and
manner of that quotation evidently show."-Comm. on Psalms. (Clarke's For. Theol.
Lib., vol. ii. p; 354.) I may add that Dr. Pococke, unable to adduce any authority
from the Arabic, brings forward a number of Arabic words which have opposite significations; and then attempts to explain S. Paul's quotation by the conjecture that
the same holds good here:-" Quam sifnificatuum varietatem et olim apud Hebreos
liabuisse verbum jnp mihi plusqanm probabile videtur."-loc. cit., p. 24.




LECT. VII.]    THE FORM  OF WHAT  WAS WRITTEN.                            321
IV. The last class of quotations to be considered is one which
combines some of those just described; namely, when the Septuagint having attached a particular meaning to a passage in the
Hebrew, one New  Testament writer builds his argument upon
the literal sense of the Original, while another adopts for his purpose the sense given to it in the Greek Version; thus affording
an additional illustration of the pregnant significance of the Old
Testament.  For example, S. Matthew  adduces, with  close adherence to the Hebrew, the words of Isaiah, "Surely He hath
borne our griefs, and carried our sorrows;"  or as the Evangelist
quotes: " That it might be fulfilled which was spoken by Esaias
the Prophet, saying, Himself took our infirmities, and bare our
sicknesses."2   Here  he quite  abandons the  Septuagint, which
translates " He bears our sins and is pained for us;"'-a sense
which would plainly not have been appropriate in the passage of
the Gospel, but which entirely corresponds to the purpose of S.
Peter, when dilating upon the internal maladies of humanity,
and the healing of sin. That Apostle consequently accepts the
signification ascribed to the original by the Seventy Interpreters,
when he quotes, as follows, the prophet's words: " Who His own
Self bare our sins in His own  Body on the tree   *:   *   by
Whose stripes ye were healed."" In this case, the seeming difference in the explanation of the same passage, by the two inspired writers, disappears if we remember that physical sufferings
(and death is to be placed at their head),' present one of the asIsai. liii. 4.
2 AvTOS riuf  d6Oevelaf ucv n2af3ev, Kal TUcr vOrov(,BaaraTerv.-S. Matt. viii. 17.
3 OVTOC rTC UdjCapriaf 7,iCv 09pet, Kai Twepl'FuCv o6vviat *   *  *  Tr, fyU6)7rt
aiTOV T iUez tidOien/ev.-ver. 4, 5.
4 "O  ra( duilaprTiCa r/iv avrbf uvrveyKev  *  *  *  OV rTS fyLaourrt i0Tre. —1 S.
Pet. ii. 24 (see p. 307, note 1). As exhibiting the use of the same passage to illustrate different aspects of Christian doctrine, cf. the references to Ps. lxxviii. by both
S. Matthew and S. Paul; see supra, Lecture iv. p. 151, note. Compare, too (supra,
p. 299, note), the manner in which Habakkuk (ii. 14) employs the words of Isaiah
(xi. 9).
5 " The wages of sin is death."-Rom. vi. 23. To the same effect Vitringa observes: " Apostolus, spirituali oculo videns, Beneficium illud Christi, quo homines a
morbis et aegritudinibus pravisque affectionibus suis liberabat, aut earum auferendarum
cura se fatigabat ad seram vesperam (de eo enim proprie agitur:), in se habere typum
et figuram laboris quem Dominus sumeret in ferendis et auferendis segritudinibus spiritualibus, h. e. peccatis, et vera peccatorum poena: verba Prophetse eo scopo allegavit,
ut apertis oculis ipsum Beneficium peccatorum latorum et ablatorum in ipso hoc typo
et figura contemplaremur."  *  *  *  "Apostoli et Evangelistae in explicandis et
allegandis dictis Prophetarum, banc ubique secuti sunt hypothesin; omnem emphasin
quce in verbis et phrasi latet, per implementum representandam esse. Quandoquidem
vero videret Evangelista voces tn:   et t:I-:e   quoque significare posse morbos et




322                THE COMMISSION TO WRITE.            [LECT. VII.
pects under which we are taught in Scripture to regard the consequences of sin.
I have dwelt thus minutely on this question for two reasons:
Firstly, because its discussion adds considerably to the amount of
proof already advanced in support of the inspiration of Scripture:
-the manner in which the words of the Old Testament are employed exhibiting, in the strongest light, the deep and pregnant
sense of its most casual expressions; while, conversely, the free
use thus made of documents which they firmly believed to be
Divine no less clearly denotes the influence by which the authors
of the New Testament were themselves guided.  And, secondly,
because the facts, elicited during its examination, supply a complete answer to the assertion which, I have observed above, must
be, in every point of view, repudiated;-namely, that we are to
ascribe to errors of memory, on the part of the authors of the
New Testament, those variations from the Septuagint translation
which the form  of their quotations presents.  The principles
which have been laid down in the preceding remarks, if consistently carried out, must, I submit, ultimately establish the truth
of the proposition, that in all cases,-even where the acuteness
of expositors has hitherto been at fault, and where they have not
as yet succeeded in accounting for the form  of the New Testament quotation,-the sacred writers, however their language is
to be explained, really unfold for us the true import of those
words of the Old Testament which they adduce; an import,
moreover, which the same Holy Spirit by Whom they too were
guided had designed, from the first, that its language should convey.  An example will briefly show  how weak the reasons are
which serve as a sufficient inducement for expositors to ascribe
their own ill success in accounting for the difficulty before them
to a want of accuracy on the part of the sacred writer.
In the ninth chapter of his Epistle to the Romans, S. Paul,
who required a striking fact to illustrate his meaning, has quoted
the language which God had addressed to Pharaoh' when wilfully
affectiones corporales, quibus tanquampeccati consequentibus homines afficiuntur; et in
cura qua Dominus se fatigabat * * * preeludium quoddam esse ejus laboris,
quem in extremis sustineret * * * locum, oculo Divino inspectum, hue quoque
transtulit."-Comm. in Jesai., t. ii. p. 667.
1 Ayet yao 4 ypaqo rT Iapa& ort el  aVTr  Troiro  Erjyetpa Be, 05ruo
tv6eiua Etv Cao TV   v v 4    ~ v a   i v? o v, nKai orre dtayyE,3? Tr 6voyii ylov tv Trdai rT)
ye.-Rom. ix. 17.




LECT. VII.]    THE FORM  OF  WHAT WAS WRITTEN.                              323
and  perversely resisting the continued  exhibition  of His power,
and the repeated announcement of His commands. Of necessity,
therefore, the Apostle abandoned the Septuagint Version, which
had softened down  the force of the original by rendering-" On
this account hast thou  been preserved  "' and supplies his own
accurate and literal translation of the Hebrew, " For this same
purpose have I raised thee up."   In the remainder of this quotation-with  one trifling  exception, for which, however, commentators have satisfactorily accounted, —S. Paul strictly adheres to
the Septuagint.  If we now turn to the twenty-fifth and twentysixth verses of this same chapter, which consist of two quotations
from the prophet Hosea,3 we are told by the expositor to whom I
refer, and whose explanation of the former quotation I have just
adopted, that, as the difference does not at all affect the thought,
it must only be ranked  among those incidental to " quotations
from memory:"' while in the case of the next three verses, in'"E v  e   r o r ov d  e r T   p O 0 7 7   ( "n271r~-" have I made thee stand") Z v a
Evdeifyat iv col rT v  i  X l v    op 0 V, Kat i 7rog 6dayyeOrb Tr  vopi /tov iv rcdap Tr7
y,.-Exod. ix. 16.
2 The adoption of (vvafitl  by S. Paul in place of laXvS is well explained by Mr.
Alford in loc.: "r. ltxv /0ov LXX.: (dvv. is perhaps chosen by the Apostle as more
general, lvxgC applying rather to those deeds of miraculous power of which Egypt
was then witness."
3 "As He saith also in Osee, I will call them  My people," &c.-KafLo7 TrOV oV
a6ov yov ia6ov # Kov, Ka Tirv OVK yyaw7ye',v7yv /ya7rryl7l'7v' Kal eCarat kv rTu rO67r oh Eipel7
avroo'. Or  aoc /yov /vyeli, eKel KI'lQ7fy0ovTat viol Geov JvTrof. —Rom. ix. 25, 26. Which
passage the LXX. present under the following version: dya7rijo  rn)v OVK iya7raeivlv,
Kcal tpc rT oh 2a6 yiov Aa6o luov el av. (Hos. ii. 23) Ka  arat ETav rw T6rr TO    ov eppp7i)
avTrog' O6 Xao6f,ov vyfelf, Kxir071Oaovrat cal avroe viol Oeoiv (Dvrof (Hos. i. 10.) Here
we perceive that the Apostle not only combines two distinct passages; but also inverts the order of one of them, in which, too, he consistently substitutes KaZeact for
Ep C:-the Hebrew verb in both places being "72m. Now if it be borne in mind that
Ka2io, according to the usage of the New Testament, is the technical termfor expressing the Divine' call' to nman, we can discern, I conceive, an obvious motive as well for
the arrangement of the words as for their selection; especially if we admit the justice
of the following remarks of Mr. Alford: " It is difficult to ascertain in what sense the
Apostle cites these two passages from Hosea as applicable to the Gentiles being called
to be the people of God. That he does so is manifest from the words themselves, and
from the transition to the Jews in ver. 27. In the prophet they are spoken of Israel;
see ch. i. 6-11, and ch. ii. throughout." Mr. Alford-justly rejecting the notion of a
mere'application'-then explains: " Ie brings them forward to show that it is consonant with what we know of God's dealings, to receive as His people those who were
formerly not His people,-that this may now take place with regard to the Gentiles, as
it was announced to happen with regard to Israel,-and even more,-that Israel in
this, as in so many other things, was the prophetic mirror in which God foreshowed, on
a small scale. His future dealings with mankind."
4 "Aus dem Gedachtniss-citiren."-Olshausen, in loc. B. iii. s. 376. It is strange
that in all cases whore he feels a similar difficulty, Olshausen should have recourse to
this solution: e. g. " This passage of Mark [ch. i. 2, see supra, p. 308, note] is an unmistakable indication that he had documents before him of which he made use: he
borrowed from Matthew and Luke the formula of citation, but inserted from memory




324                   THE COMMISSION  TO  WRITE.                   [LECT. VII.
which the words of Isaiah are adduced,' this same writer points
out how exactly they agree with the Greek Version,-the single
exception being no longer ascribed to imperfect recollection, but
being justly explained by the requirements of the Apostle's argument.
A direct answer, however, to the assertion that the New Testament writers have quoted the former Scriptures "from  memory" is supplied by the striking fact to which a distinguished
scholar has drawn attention; namely, that "the  verbal agreement of the Evangelists with each other is particularly remarkable in many citations from the Old Testament, in which they
follow neither the Hebrew text nor the Septuagint with exactness."2
The principle on which I have thus insisted is forcibly illustrated by the only instance where the Greek Version, and not
the Hebrew text of a passage in the Old Testament, necessarily
supplied the source of the quotation. In the eighth chapter of
the Acts of the Apostles, the Ethiopian Eunuch is represented
as " reading"'-of course in the translation  of the Seventy-a
(aus dem  Gedachtniss) the words out of Malachi without altering the formula."Comm., B. i. s. 163.
i Namely, verses 21 and 28 from Isai. x. 22, 23; and ver. 29 from Isai. i. 9. "The
words of the [former of these] quotations follow the LXX. with accuracy up to err
rOT yap [viz., "Because a short work will the Lord make upon the earth. — ver. 28],
for which that version reads, iv ro oiov11vn iivy. It may be that Paul selected the former phrase, because it expresses more definitely the universality of the Judgment."-loc. cit.
B. iii. s. 376. Touching the latter quotation (ver. 29), Mr. Alford draws attention to
the fact of its literal agreement with the LXX., even in the adoption of the word
a7repla as the equivalent for the Hebrew  r'w, residuum-" implying a remnant for a
fresh planting."  In ver. 33 the citation is composed of Isai. viii. 14 (quoted from the
Hebrew, and already applied to Christ in S. Luke, ii. 34), and Isai. xxviii. 16:-the
"stone of stumbling" of the former, being substituted for the "precious corner-stone"
of the latter passage. These texts are again conjoined in 1 S. Pet. ii. 6-8 (cf. Alford
in loc.)
2 Gieseler, "Die Entstehung der schriftl. Evangelien," s. 4. E. g. S. Matt. xi. 10,
and S. Luke, vii. 21 (see also S. Mark, i. 2), agree verbatim as follows: "This is he
of whom it is written,'Id6oiv Ey3 croarieXao  rov ayye26v /ov irpo 7rpoaTrov coy, oC
Karaalcevc a     TT v 66v coy ly rpoaOev cov.-while the LXX., which in all points corresponds with the Hebrew, thus renders the words of Mal. iii. 1:'I6ov efa7rooaTeX7r
rbv dyye6Xov  uov, Kai 7ri3EeTaiperat 66bv irpb irporu6rov yuov. "Remarkable," writes
Olshausen,-unable to have recourse here to the " quotation from memory" theory,"is the extremely accurate agreement of the Evangelists in this section, as well in
single expressions (e. g. Luke, vii. 23), as particularly (Matt. xi. 10) in the Old Testament quotation from Mal. iii. 1. The LXX. translate the passage accurately according to
the Hebrew text,-both Evangelists, however, deviate uniformly from both translations."B. i. s. 353. Gieseler points out that a similar fact is to be noticed in other parts of
the New Testament: " There is also found, in quotations in the Epistles of different
Apostles, an equal relation to each other and to their sources" (e. g. I Pet. ii. 6. 8;
Rom. ix. 33 [see supra, p. 316, note']). —bid., s. 89.
Acts,;ii. 32, 33-'H 6& 7repLoAX  r T  ypa~b~  vv a v e y  v o ag Kxe  v jv ar)l, K. r A.




LECT. VII.]    THE FORM  OF WHAT WAS WRITTEN.                             325
passage from   the  fifty-third  chapter of Isaiah.  In  this case
(with  the exception  of the  pronouns "him"  and  " his;" and
even here the reading is not absolutely fixed),' the extract is
word for word coincident with the Septuagint translation, even
where it deviates from the Hebrew text. If, indeed, in this quotation, where  no  motive for any  departure from  the  original
could possibly be assigned, we meet with such deviations as occur elsewhere, the assertion that the sacred writers quote "from
memory" could not, perhaps, be justly questioned: but here a
literal transcript was to be looked for; and that literal transcript
is to be found.  The Eunuch had  read the  passage from  the
Greek Version, and accordingly the inspired historian accurately
copies that translation.2
The deviation of the LXX. from the Hebrew text of this passage is notoriously very
considerable. Vitringa observes on this place (Isai. liii. 8): "Qui hic pluribus
aKptilpoVa in Versione Graeca cum Hebrea comparanda, nihil agunt, et, ut quod verum
est dicam, ineptiunt. Interpres enim Grcecus hujus libri fuit imperitus; et Lucas recenset
verba ab Eunucho ex Graeco textu lecta."-Comm. in Jesai., t. ii. p. 673.
1 Our text reads in Acts, viii. 32 —ro  Keipavrog a  v T6 v, and rT oro6a a v r o V.
But see Lachman's Apparat. Crit.
2 An interesting parallel to this fact is found in Jer. xxvi. 18: "Micah the
Morasthite prophesied in the days of Hezekiah King of Judah, and spake to all the
people of Judah, saying, Thus saith the Lord of Hosts: Zion shall be plowed like a
field, and Jerusalem shall become heaps, and the mountain of the house as the high places
of aforest,"-words which are copied verbatim from Micah, iii. 12. We have seen in
the instances already examined that, as in the New Testament, where there was not
a direct transcript of the words, this literal coincidence was not observed:-here there
is a direct transcript, and we have, therefore, a faithful adherence to the original. See
supra, p. 298, note 1. This deviation from the LXX. of our Lord's reference to Isai.
lxi. 1 (in the Synagogue at Nazareth where He " stood up for to read (dvayv6wva)"S. Luke, iv. 16-19), may, at first sight, be regarded as an objection to what I have just
advanced: but a moment's attention to the nature of the Synagogue worship (see
Jahn's " Archaologie," Th. iii. s. 438 if.) will show that it is not so. That service commenced with a doxology; a section was next read from the Law, which was followed
by a second doxology; then came the reading of a passage from the Prophets. These
portions of Scripture were read from the Hebrew text, and were immediately translated
into the vernacular tongue. On this the reader or some other person present addressed
the people. Thus S. Paul went into the Synagogue at Antioch, " and sat down. And
after the reading of the Law and the Prophets, the rulers of the Synagogue sent unto
them, saying, Ye men and brethren, if ye have any word of exhortation for the people, say on. Then Paul stood up," &c.-Acts, xiii. 15. In the case before us our Lord,
who was also the reader, addressed the people; and we cannot doubt that the parallel
passage from the prophet, which S. Luke has incorporated in his translation of the
words which Christ had read, was actually adduced by Him in the course of His exhortation when " He began to say unto them, This day is this Scripture fulfilled in
your ears," and when all "wondered at the gracious words which proceeded out of
His mouth" (ver. 21, 22). These remarks not only answer the supposed objection
which we are considering (since our Lord read from the Hebrew text), but also show
the weakness of Olshausen's observation: "The words, adrocTre7 l.a repavay/vovr ev
diiaetL, are found neither in the Hebrew text, nor in the LXX. translation of this
passage, and have therefore been certainly (wohl) inserted, from memory, by the
Evangelist. *  *  *  These words, which are altogether wanting in Isai. lxi. 1,
have been doubtless taken by Luke from the parallel passage in Isai lviii 6, and in



326                   THE  COMMISSION  TO WRITE.                 [LECT. VII.
The foregoing  examination  of the language  of the sacred
writers naturally leads to a topic which, from the earliest times,
has attracted attention. From the very first, the absence from
the diction of Scripture of that rhetorical science which was so
carefully studied by the  Greeks and  Romans has been made a
source of cavil against the maintainers of Christianity.'  If "holy
men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost," why,
it has been demanded, do we not find in their writings that perfection of style, or that ornate eloquence, which distinguishes
the language of the Orators and Philosophers of ancient times,
who thereby acquired their personal influence, and have won imperishable fame?" This objection, which has been renewed in
terwoven with the other. Here again he followed the LXX. The writers of the
New Testament, therefore, treat the Old with great freedom. Wavering in their
memories in a manner altogether human; confounding (verwechselnd) passages, interchanging (vertauschend) words,-everything was so directed, nevertheless, by the
higher Spirit of Truth, Who animated and guided them, that nowhere does anything
untrue or leading to error result; but even the Truth rather presents itself from a new
aspect, and accordingly reveals itself, in its nature, so much the more perfectly."B. i. s. 461 ff
Arnobius (flor. A. D. 298) enumerates the ordinary objections of this nature:
"Sed ab indoctis hominibus, et rudibus, scripta sunt, et idcirco non sunt facili auditione credenda. *  *  *  Trivialis et sordidus sermo est. *  *  *  Barbarismis,
soloecismis, obsitae sunt, inquit, res vestree, et vitiorum deformitate pollutee. Puerilis
sane, atque angusti pectoris reprehensio. *  *  *  Cum de rebus agitur ab ostentatione submotis, quid dicatur, spectandum est, non quali cum amoenitate dicatur:
nec quid aures commulceat, sed quas afferat audientibus utilitates; maxime cum
sciamus etiam quosdam sapientiae deditos, non tantum  abjecisse sermonis cultum,
verum etiam, cum possent ornatius atque uberius eloqui, trivialem studio humilitatem
secutos, ne corrumperent scilicet gravitatis rigorem, et sophistica se potius ostentatione jactarent."-Adv. Gentes, lib. I. c. lviii., lix. (ap. Routh "Script. Eccl. Opusc.,"
t. ii. p. 291). To the same effect S. Isidore of Pelusium (flor. A. D. 412) defends the
style of the sacred writers, which had been urged against him as a proof Trov  j elvat
OeGov K7pvy/la, by alleging the authority of Plato, who had asserted:,OTt tL;Ao06()v
(uv dva-tov T  ev'yTTria, /fetpaKtiv di e Ttalevrtv 7  tlXort/ia.-Epist., lib. iv. n. 30,
p. 429.
2 Dr. Conyers Middleton,-who, in his " Essay on the Gift of Tongues," has exaggerated to an absurd degree the peculiarities of the Hellenistic dialect,-having
quoted the words of Oicero, " Quis uberior in dicendo Platone? Jovem, qnidem,
aiunt Philosophi, si Greece loquatur, sic loqui," goes on to represent at some length
how the Fathers fully recognised the absence of all such rhetorical ornament in the
New Testament; and how they founded upon the fact a powerful argument in support of Christianity. His quotation from S. Chrysostom may serve as an illustration: " That Father tells us'how he once happened to hear a ridiculous dispute between a Greek and a Christian on this very subject,-the Greek maintained that
Paul was utterly illiterate; the Christian, on the other hand, was simple enough to
affirm that he was more eloquent even than Plato. By which they each of them,
severally, hurt their own cause. For if Paul was really the more learned of the
two, the wonder would presently cease how he came to get the better of Plato, and
to draw all his followers to himself;-since it would appear to be owing to the superiority of his talents, not to the Divine grace: whereas if Paul, illiterate as he was,
could vanquish the learned Plato, such a victory was glorious, and the hand of God
manifest in it' [In Ep. i. ad Cor. Hom. iii., t. x. p. 20.]" —Miscell. Works, vol. ii. p.




LECT. VII.]   THE FORM  OF WHAT WAS WRITTEN.                         327
our own day, is based upon a misconception; as well of the nature of Inspiration, as of the ends designed by God in the composition of the Bible.  The Holy Spirit, as we have seen, did
not employ the human agents whom  He had selected to be His
organs as mere lifeless machines, but as rational beings whose
genius, and natural temperament, and individual characteristics,
were penetrated by, and combined with, His guiding influence.
Nay, it was only by means of these peculiar attributes of each
sacred writer that Divine Truth could have reached the soul of
man, as being thus united to a basis which is genuinely human:
-by such agencies alone could those mysteries " which the angels desire to look into" have been brought home to the universal
consciousness of mankind.   If it be argued that, on such a
theory, we should still expect to find in Scripture perfection of
form and of language as the result of human intelligence thus
divinely inspired;'-the answer is plain, that here too, as in God's
other works, we can never argue from preconceived expectations.
The method of d priori reasoning, long banished from the science
of Nature cannot be permitted still to linger in the domain of
Revelation. As the laws, therefore, according to which the Manifestation of God3 by Nature is unfolded, can only be deduced
from the information which Nature's phenomena supply to the
observer; so our knowledge as to  the method by which  His
Revelation in Scripture has been recorded can be derived solely
from the statements of the sacred writers themselves. If the
authors of the Bible inform us that the overruling guidance of
the Holy Spirit extended so far, and no further; or that it referred to such and such matters, and not to others;-then is it
99. Cf. also the words of S. Ambrose: " Negant plerique nostros secundum artem
scripsisse. Nec nos obnitimur; non enim secundum artem scripserunt, sed secondum
Gratiam, quae super omnem artem est: scripserunt enim qume Spiritus iis loqui dabat."
-Epist. ad Justurn, t. ii. p. 783.
E. g. in the treatise of Elwert, to which I have already referred (Lecture vi. p.
253, note 2), published in "Klaiber's Studien der evang. G(eistlichkeit," B. III. H. ii.
s. I ff.-my acquaintance with which is derived from Steudel's essay in the " Tiibinger Zeitschrift fur Theol." for 1832. In Elwert's treatise, observes Steudel, "the
preliminary question is proposed-What expectations are to be formed of a written
document, and of its structure, the authors of which were supernaturally guided in
the act of writing by the Divine Spirit?  In such a document, according to this
treatise, we should expect perfection of form (Vollkommenheit der Form)." —Ueber
Insp. der Apostel, Th. i. s. 116.
2 This is, indeed, in the words of Bacon, still to argue " Ex analogia hominis, non
ex analogia universi."
3 See supra, Lecture i. p. 20, &c.




328                   THE  COMMISSION  TO WRITE.                   [LECT. VII.
plain that all anticipations which overlook such statements are,
in their very nature, without foundation. When S. Paul, in his
Epistle to the Corinthian cavillers, concedes that he is " rude in
speech;"' and at the same time appeals to the fact that, notwithstanding this his want of polished language, his labors had
been marked by the Divine favor, and exhibited " all the signs
of an Apostle," —it is clear that he presupposes such an  aid of
the Holy Spirit, in support of those labors, which did not consist
in transforming his speech to suit the demands of grammatical
criticism, or the subtleties of a refined elocution; but which, by
the very absence of such effects, had exhibited more fully the
Divine source of the power that it conferred; —since  that power
thus proved its independence of all those resources which are
essential to the acquiring, by human means, an influence over
one's fellow-men.  How, then, can  we require  that a  writing
composed by S. Paul should not exhibit him as " rude in speech?"
or why should the absence of rhetorical embellishment prevent
El d6 Ka2 iL6iT716  rJ 16yto (idV' ao rOy yvuaet.-2 Cor. xi. 6.
It may be well to notice here the very unjust censure by the learned Cave of S.
Jerome's criticisms upon S. Paul's style. Having alluded in strong terms to S. Jerome's well-known vehemence in controversy, Cave proceeds to add: " Et quid
mirum? cum in ipsum  D. Paulum  Apostolum  duram nimis et plane insolentem (?)
censuram exercere solet. *  *  *  Mitto plura in hominern Oeoveva7Tov, et Apostolorum longe eruditissimum durius dicta, ne viri doctissimi et de Ecclesia optime
meriti manes nimis sollicitare videar."-Hist. Literaria, Art. Hieronymus.' Among
the passages which Cave considers deserving of censure are the following. S. Jerome had just quoted 2 Cor. xi. 6; on which he proceeds,-evidently in answer to
an objection,-"Nos quotiescunque soloecismos, aut tale quid annotavimus, non
Apostolum pulsamus, ut malevoli criminantur, sed magis Apostoli assertores sumus:
quod Hebraeus ex Hebraeis, absque Rhetorici nitore sermonis, et verborum compositione, et eloquii venustate, nunquam  ad fidem Christi totum mundum  transducere
valuisset, nisi evangelizasset eum non in sapientia verbi, sed in virtute Dei. Nam
et ipse ad Corinthios ait:'Et ego, quum venissem  ad vos, fratres, veni non in eminentia verbi aut sapientia, annuncians vobis testimonium  Dei [1 Cor. ii. 1]'"Comm. in Ep. ad Eph., c. iii. lib. ii. t. vii. p. 587,-a passage obviously identical in
spirit with those quoted, p. 326, note 2. Again: "Non juxta humilitatem, ut plerique aestimant, sed vere [Paulus] dixerat:' Et si imperitus sermone, non tamen scientia.' "-Comm. in Ep. ad Titum, c,. ibid., p. 689. S. Jerome gives an example of
what he means when explaining Gal. vi. 1 ('Ade6Xoi, v/eiC oi 7rvevuurLcoi KarapriTere
TOY TrOOVTV *       *   *  a  K7 o  rr v a e a v r o v, K. r. 2L.)-" Qui putant Paulum juxta
humilitatem, et non vere dixisse,' et si imperitus sermone non tamen scientia,' defendant hujus loci consequentiam. Debuit quippe secundum  ordinem  dicere:'Vos qui
spirituales instruite hujusmodi *  *  *  considerantes vosmet ipsos,' &c. et non plurali inferre numerum  singularem. Hebreus igitur ex Hebrmis, et qui esset in vernaculo sermone doctissimus, profundos sensus aliena lingua exprimere non valebat,
nee curabat magnopere de verbis, quum sensum haberet in tuto."- Comm. in Ep. ad
Gal., ibid., p. 520.
2 "In nothing am I behind the very chiefest Apostles, though I be nothing.
Truly the signs of an Apostle were wrought among you in all patience, in signs, and
wonders, and mighty deed." —xii. 11, 12.




LECT. VII.]   THE FORM  OF WHAT WAS WRITTEN.                          329
our acknowledging the immediate Divine causality under which
the Epistles of the great Apostle were composed?'
It has, however, been further objected that this reflection
from the pages of Scripture of the peculiar characters and distinct individuality of the various writers leaves ample room  for
the admission of human fallibility.  Such  an  objection manifestly assumes that the same truth is incapable of being presented under different forms, without contracting thereby a certain coloring of error, or losing its invigorating power. But so
far is this assumption from being valid or just, that we are able
of ourselves to perceive the obvious fitness and necessity, from
the very nature of man, of this variety in the mode of conveying Divine knowledge.  We find that Christ Himself communicated, under various aspects, the one Truth which He came to
reveal; and that He imparted to  His words that power with
which they come home to every heart, by diversifying the form
in  which  He gave them  utterance: just as He disclosed His
Godhead more fully, by manifesting His Omnipotence in miracles not always the same. So little support, indeed, does this
variety of form lend to the notion that there was a corresponding
variety in the mode of apprehending Divine Truth by the authors
of Scripture, and a consequent possibility of error,-that the
contrary inference is the only one admissible. We here perceive
each inspired writer, without any toilsome effort after some predetermined type of language or of style, at once bringing home
to each conscience his sacred message: the Divine nature of
which appears the more plainly from its not being confined to
one order of expression, or running in one narrow channel; but
rather in its mastery over all such externals, whereby it has be"Divine truth hath its humiliation and exinanition, as well as its exaltation.
Divine truth becomes many times in Scripture incarnate, debasing itself to assume
our rude conceptions, that so it might converse more freely with us, and infuse its
own Divinity into us. God having been pleased herein to manifest Himself not
more jealous of His own glory than He is (as I may say) zealous of our good.'Nos non habemus aures, sicut Deus habet linguam.' If He should speak the language of eternity, who could understand Him, or interpret His meaning? * * *
Truth is content when it comes into the world, to wear our mantles, to learn our language, to conform itself as it were to our dress and fashions: it affects not that state
orfastus which the disdainful rhetorician sets out his style withal,' Non Tarentinis,
aut Siculis haec scribimus;' but it *  *  *  becomes all things to all men, as every
son of truth should do, for their good. Which was well observed in that old cabalistical axiom among the Jews,'Lumen supernum nunquam descendit sine indumento.' "-J. Smith (of Cambridge), Of Prophecy, ch. i.




330               THE COMMISSION TO WRITE.            [LECT. VII.
come the common property of the human race.  No truth can
be grasped under the same exact form by every intelligence:
witness the varied illustrations, borrowed from every walk of human life, or every line of human industry, or every branch of
human science, which a skilful teacher adopts in order to render
his meaning intelligible to each class of his hearers.  From this
common fact we learn how necessary it was that in the instruments selected by the Holy Spirit to convey the Truth to man,
an analogous variety of character should prevail. Thus only
could provision be made to meet the widely different requirements of human intellect and human susceptibility: thus only
could the light of Divine knowledge be brought, in every variety
of circumstance, to bear upon the ever-changing aspects of mankind. 
In reply to the preceding objection, I have availed myself of the remarks of
Steudel, in the second part of the essay already quoted —s. 21 ff.




LECTURE  VIII,
RECAPITULATION.-OBJECTIONS CONSIDERED,




" Quam non sibi adversantur iidem Scriptores quatuor ostendendum est. Hoc enim
solent (illi, scil., imperita temeritate calumniis appetentes, ut eis veracis narrationis
derogent fidem), quasi palmare sua  vanitatis objicere, quod ipsi Evangelistsc inter
seipsos dissentiant."
S. AUGUSTIN., De Consensu Evangelist., lib. I. vii.
"Primum te scire volumus, omnem  sanctam  Scripturam non posse sibi esse contrariam."
S. HIERON., Pauloe et East. ad Marcel., Ep. xlvi.
2Q yap ai td6opopot TroV ba2raT7piov r T7rfi KLtOpaf Xopdal, dv eKadGTr] dWv rtva 0doy'7ov
Kal dOKOvvTra  ttu  0poto1' elvaL T(r) rTjC brpa  uTiroreael, vo09i;ovrTa  T  o duoV5c Ktcatl t
~i7rtalraslEvol w6yov [aovcalcSg avt0wviaf 6t  T1;rV dvotot6rtCra r)V f006yyy(ov d(ZV/izOvcZ
TVYXuvetv'  OirwTO  oti Fu  eTTilTa(ievot dtKOiEV TrC roD O eob  v Tf raC epatc'L paqalt upLovina, oiovrat  vdpipuoa7Tv elvat Tr  Kamvi rT)v 7raaltav,; TGr v6ow rogV Trpo~i;rzc,  7 d(i
EvayyeOta (2t/l2otf,  rTOv'ATr6ATOTO)OOV rT  Eiayyei,, ta Eav-l, ", roT'ArTOnTr)o lO.
ORIGENES, Comm. ia S. Matthcunz, t. ii.' Ego enim fateor caritati tue, SOLIS EIS Scripturarum libris, qui jam Canonici apnellantur, didici hunc timorem  honoremque deferre, ut nullum eorum auctorem scribendo aliquid errasse f inissime credam.  Ac si aliquld in eis offendero literis, quod
videattur contrarium veritati, nihil aliud, quam vel mendosum esse codicem, vel interpretem  non assecutum  esse quod dictum est, vel me minime intellexisse, non ambigam."
S. AUGUSTIN., Ad Hieron., Ep. lxxxii.




LECTURE VIII.
RECAPITULATION-OBJECTIONS CONSIDERED.
HEAVEN AND EARTH SHALL PASS AWAY, BUT MY WORDS SHALL NOT PASS AWAY.S. Matt. xxiv. 35.
IN considering the subject of Inspiration in general, a prominent feature of the theory advocated in the preceding Discourses
has been the co-existence and combination of the two elements
engaged in the composition of the Bible:-the originating influence of God, and the subordinate agency of man. The phenomena which the Universe presents to view have guided the
Philosopher to a knowledge of that wondrous mechanism, whereby " seed-time and harvest, and cold and heat, and summer and
winter, and day and night," keep the appointed times of their
coming: while the daily-advancing labors of Science open new
vistas along which the eye can gaze upon the ever active energies
of Nature, and discern, more and more clearly, the ends which
they respectively subserve. The phenomena which the Bible
presents to the Theologian enable him, in like manner, to trace
in its pages the course of the Divine operations; and to develop
more fully those laws according to which the influence of the
Holy Spirit has been exerted in its production. This topic has
been discussed at some length, and the results have been stated
as the inquiry proceeded.
It has been pointed out how God, from time to time, during
the successive stages of Revelation, set apart certain individuals
to be the exponents of His will; and how the agents chosen by
Him were selected in consequence of such natural characteristics
as qualified them for their task, and on account of their peculiar
fitness, in other respects, to perform the several duties thus com



334                      RECAPITULATION.                 [LECT. VIII
mitted to them.'  We have seen how Scripture, as a document
intended for all mankind, has been adapted to the complex susceptibilities of our race, not only by its presenting, under different aspects, the one Great Truth which it unfolds;" but also by
that marvellous exclusion of those subjective influences and personal feelings which color the language of profane history:-the
sacred writers depicting facts as with the pencil of Nature, and
thus bringing home to the mind, as it were, the reality itself.
We have noticed too, how the writings which thus convey the
Divine Revelation, and perpetuate the history upon which that
Revelation rests, have been, in every age, distinctly ascribed to
the influence of Inspiration; and how it results from both internal and external evidence that " holy men of God spake as they
were moved by the Holy Ghost."4  Attention has also been directed to the contents of the'Books thus composed   and the
question has been considered why such facts were recorded rather
than others, and what was the principle of their selection.8
The importance of this last feature of the inquiry is so great,
that it will be useful to glance at it once more.
S. Paul, when entering upon his grand exposition of Christian
Faith, introduces the statement of Moses, " Abraham believed
God, and it was counted unto him for righteousness"'-with the
explanatory remark, " Now it was not written for his sake alone
that it was imputed to him; but for us also."' This illustration
of the great doctrine before him, as well as the Apostle's repeated use, for the same purpose, of the words of the prophet
Habakkuk, " The just shall live by faith,"8 denotes how thoroughly the writers of the New  Testament believed the former
Scriptures to be impregnated with the influence of the Spirit:
a belief which is equally exhibited by their allusions to the Old
Testament history; according to which-to take a single illustration-we find adduced as an element of Christian instruction
the events preserved from the circumstances attending the Exodus of the Israelites.9 On this principle it is that we must ever
I Lecture i. pp. 37, 38; Lecture iv.; Lecture vi. p. 265.
2 Lecture vii. p. 329.                      8 Lecture v. p. 228, &c.
4 Lecture ii.; Lecture vi.                  5 Lecture iii. p. 108, &c.
6 Gen. xv. 6, as quoted Rom. iv. 3; Gal. iii. 6.
7 Rom. iv. 23-oK/ bPypcip7y dS 8t' v a  6vov *'v  * *, (,aa Kdai h' ld.
8 Hab. ii. 4; quoted Rom. i. 17; Gal. iii. 11; Heb. x. 38.
9 1 Cor. x. See supra, Lecture iii. p. 109, &c.




LECT. VIII.]            OBJECTIONS CONSIDERED.                           335
regard as both unfounded and superficial that view of Inspiration
which distinguishes, in the sacred narrative, between matters of
fact and matters of doctrine.' In the Christian Faith matters of
fact exhibit and convey doctrines; while doctrines are presented
to us as matters of fact. Christ's Birth, Death, and Resurrection,
are the most sublime of doctrines.  That he is coessential and
coequal with the Father; His atonement, and His bestowal of
spiritual gifts, we receive as matters of fact. Nay, Scripture expressly informs us that those features, whether of the Old or the
New  Testament, which at first sight might seem  destitute of
doctrinal significance,2 continually express the highest truths of
Revelation.  We know, for example, that the record of Christ's' Pere R. Simon, speaking of H. Holden's assertion of this theory (see Appendic
C), observes: "II eat ete bon qu' il eut donn6 quelques exemples de ce qu' il entend
par les mnatieres qui ne sont point purement de doctrine; ou qui n' y ont point une entiere relation." —Hist. Grit. du N. T., ch. xxiv. p. 295. A writer in "The Christian
Remembrancer" for July, 1849 (p. 231), acutely observes that this view of the inspired
writings "is precisely that which the Roman Church maintains with regard to the
authority of the existing Church in successive ages."  *  *  *  If, for example,
"the Church declares ex cathedra that a certain doctrine was maintained by Origen,
and that it is heretical: the latter of these declarations rests, according to their belief,
upon a Divine, the former upon a merely human, authority. Whether or not it would
be consistent with the principles of the Roman Church to extend this distinction to
the writers of Holy Scripture, and to maintain as de fide that their religion and doctrinal assertions are from God; admitting, meanwhile, that upon other questions they
were left to the unaided light of fallible human testimony and human intellect,-we
do not here inquire. Such at best must be the view maintained by those Protestant
philosophers who reject any fact really recorded by the inspired writers upon any
subject whatever, while at the same time they admit their inspiration upon matters
of religion." I have already alluded (Lecture iii. p. 108) to Twesten's assertion of this
distinction. Having referred to the' mechanical' theory of Inspiration (see Lecture
i. p. 37), the next "excess" which Twesten condemns is that which extends the exercise of the Divine influence, in an equal degree, "to all and everything in Holy
Scripture, without making any distinction between the different components; —between Oid and New Testament, Law and Gospel, historical and prophetical;-between the writings of the Apostles and those of their disciples [see supra, Lecture
v. p. 218];-between expressions which belonged to the fulfilling of their Commission
and which had for their object the promotion of the Kingdom of God, and those which
occur merely incidentally and in another view; or, further, without distinguishing between the different elements of each statement; —between words and thoughts;between doctrine and history;-between the religious contents and the garb in which
such contents are presented to us."- Vorlesungen, B. i. s. 419.
With such a statement may be advantageously contrasted the following remark
of Sack: "There can be no mention here of a separation between what is historical
and doctrinal, as if the former could not be written by Inspiration. For since Revelation is pre-eminently and always an historical fact [see supra, Lecture i, p. 20, note 2],
it could not have been committed to writing at all merely as doctrine, and not in connexion with the history of the Church."-Apologetik, s. 420.
* A profound observation of Bishop Butler, which applies to God's Revelation in
Scripture as well as in Nature, seems to go to the root of this matter: "We are
greatly ignorant how far things are considered by the Author of Nature under the
single notion of means and ends; so as that it may be said, this is merely an end,
and that merely means, in His regard."-Analogy, part iI. ch. iv.




336                         RECAPITULATION.                    [LECT. VIII.
acts is as important as that of His words. He taught by the
former, not less than by the latter: and for this reason alone,
the narrative of His earthly life could not have been excluded
from  the statement of His doctrines;-even were it conceivable
(which it is not) that an historically faithful account of His sayings could be imparted without including His acts. His miracles
are themselves expressions of His dignity and exalted Nature;
and, at the  same time, typical representations of His invisible
agency.  The doctrine of the Redeemer Himself, and  of His
Kingdom, is involved in them: most of them  unfolding, together
with their immediate design of being deeds of beneficence, and
pledges of his grace and power, the further design of conveying
instruction under the form of symbolical acts. Thus S. John explains how the change of water into wine was a " manifestation
of the glory" of Jesus;2 that the feeding of the "five thousand"
was not merely an intimation of His beneficence, but also a token
of the grace to be bestowed;3 that the healing of " the man born
blind" symbolized how "for judgment Christ was come into this
world, that they which see not might see; and that they which
see might be made blind."'  From  all this we learn that " the
voice from the excellent glory," at the Transfiguration, was not
the only Manifestation of His essential Godhead. Each of His
miraculous acts was but the natural expression of the higher
reality concealed beneath His human  form: and hence, in the
Epistle to the Hebrews, Miracles in general, whether wrought
immediately by Christ Himself, or, after His Ascension, by means
I See some remarks of H. W. J. Thiersch, " Versuch zur Herstell. des hist. Standpuncts fur die Kritik der N. T. Schriften," s. 123; who, having laid down in the first
place, the principle-" that an isolation of Christ's sayings from the facts which accompanied them was partly unnatural, partly inconceivable and impracticable"-goes
on to give " a special proof" that it was Divinely appointed, and designed by Christ
Himself, that the minutest facts connected with the close of His life upon earth should
be included in the Gospel narrative. This proof is supplied by the saying recorded
in S. Matt. xxvi. 13. When Mary had anointed the Lord in Bethany, and the act
was censured by His disciples, His reproof was accompanied with the words: "Verily
I say unto you, Wheresoever this Gospel shall be preached in the whole world, there shall
also this, that this woman hath done, be told for a memorial of her."
2 " This beginning of miracles did Jesus in Cana of Galilee, and manifested forth
His glory."-S. John, ii. 11.
3 " Ye seek Me, not because ye saw the miracles, but because ye did eat of the
loaves, and were filled. Labor not for the meat which perisheth, but for that meat
which endureth unto everlasting life, which the Son of Man shall give unto you."S. John, vi. 26, 27.
4 S. John, ix. 39.




LECT. VIII.]             OBJECTIONS CONSIDERED.                            337
of His Spirit in His Disciples, are termed  "the powers of the
world to come."'
The principle  involved in  the foregoing remarks,-namely,
that the narrative portion of the Bible, whether contained in the
historical books of the  Old  Testament,  or in the Gospels and
Acts of the Apostles, is to be looked upon as stamped with the
same infallible truth as the account of Christ's discourses, or of
what are, strictly speaking, revelations, or of doctrinal teaching
in general,-this principle is fully borne out by many characteristics of the inspired record.  That even the form  and language
in which its truths are expressed bear the impress of its Divine
origin no less plainly than those truths themselves, may be inferred, with absolute certainty, from the nature of the reasoning
employed by our Lord and His Apostles; in which it is invariably
assumed that the words of Scripture are no less Divine than the
doctrines which they convey.  The following examples will illustrate this assertion.
Christ proves the great doctrine of the Resurrection of the
dead from  the tense of the  substantive verb.  Jehovah had declared to Moses, "I AM  the God  of Abraham, and  the God of
Isaac, and the God of Jacob;" from  which our Lord at once con-' Avv4/uelf IE.ti2ovrof aDlvo~ —Heb. vi. 5; "a description (observes Thiersch)
which is calculated to serve as a just point of entering upon a genuine Biblical
theory of Miracles."-loc. cit., s. 146. In illustration of the use of aiiv /feAcL)v,
Ritschl (" Die Entst. der altkath. Kirche," s. 56) quotes: " Propalavit Dominus per
prophetas, quae praterierunt; et futurorum nobis dedit initia scire."-Ep. S. Barnab.,
nap. i.
2 Christ (S. Matt. xii. 3-7) argues from  the seemingly unimportant incident of
David, "when he was an hungred," eating "the shewbread, which it was not lawful
for him to eat *  *  *  but only for the priests:" —which allusion he combines
(ver. 5) with an inference drawn from the necessary performance of the Sacerdotal
functions on the Sabbath-day, "Have ye not read in the Law, how that on the Sabbath days the Priests in the Temple profane the Sabbath, and are blameless?"-and
hence proves that the Law and its ordinances possessed a spirtual meaning which the
Pharisees, notwithstanding their familiarity with its literal sense, had not as yet apprehended.  This lesson lie shows here (as He had already done, ch. ix. 13) was
contained in the Divine principle enunciated by the prophet of old, "I desired mercy,
and not sacrifice."-Hos. vi. 6. (Cf. Butler's Analogy," Part ii. ch. i)  Again: He
teaches that the grand doctrine of the passing away of the Kingdom of God from
the Jews to the Gentiles had been foreshadowed by the exhibition of miraculous
power on the part of Elijah and Elisha in the cases of the widow of Sarepta, and of
Naaman the Syrian-S. Luke, iv. 25-27. Cf. too, how S. Paul at Antioch reasons
from the Old Testament history in general (Acts, xiii. 17-23); how he points out that
"God hath not cast away His people whom He foreknew," by adducing an incident
in the life of Elijah (Rom. xi. 2-4); and how in Heb. xi. he recapitulates the eventful
annals of former days,-even those "of Gedeon and of Barak, of Samson and of
Jephtha,"-the foundation of all such reasoning being the great truth,'; Whatsoever
things were written aforetime (o6a 7rpoeypdci) were written for our learning."-Rom.
xv. 4
22




338                          RECAPITULATION.                    [LECT. VIII.
eludes: " God is not the God of the dead, but of the living."'
Again, He reasons with the Jews as follows: "Is it not written
in your Law, I said ye are gods? If He called them gods unto
whom  the word  of God  came,-and  the  Scripture  cannot be
broken,-say ye of Him  whom  the Father hath  sanctified and
sent into the world, Thou blasphemest; because I said I am  the
Son of God?"'-where our Lord founds His whole argumeint on
the use by the Psalmist of the single term, ELOHIMI, " gods."  In
the Pentateuch also, the representatives of Jehovah had  been
dignified with this name:-Moses was so called, as representing
God to Aaron; he was in like manner called " a god to Pharaoh;"' and in this same sense, the title is, more than once, applied to those who filled judicial offices in Israel.'  From  this
1 S. Matt. xxii. 32; cf. Exod. iii. 6,-where "the addition of the name,'God of
Isaac and God of Jacob,' can only mean that the genuine character of the Abrahamitic life has been transmitted solely through Isaac (not through Ishmael), and through
Jacob (not through Esau)."-Olshausen, Comm., B. i. s. 818. Cf. also Gen. xxviii. 13.
Even Meyer and De Wette refrain from pressing here their theory of " Rabbinical
exposition" (cf Dr. Bleek's remarks quoted, Lecture vii. p. 303, note'). Meyer observes: "The view of Strauss and Hase, that this reasoning contains merely Rabbinical dialectics, is in itself arbitrary; mistakes the justice and the truth of the consequence drawn by Jesus from  the passage, and is derogatory to His character and
dignity."  On the contrary, he adds: "The quite similar reasoning of _anasse ~ lsr.
De Resurr. i. 10, 6, seems to have been derived from our passage." —Comm. in loc.,
s. 363, De Wette writes: "Not by means of Rabbinical dialectics, but from a profound apprehension of the sense of Scripture, is the continued existence of the
Patriarchs proved  *  *  *  Jesus does not go beyond the leading idea; since
elsewhere dvidaracac=ronRom. vi. 8, 10; 1 Cor. xv. 21 ff." —Cnmm., in loc.,
s. 236.
2 S. John, x. 34. See Ps. lxxxii. 6-" I have said ye are gods (r,5nx); and all
of you are children of the Most High (1: "i)"' —the expression, " I have said,"
referring to that class of passages " in which the magistracy, and in particular the
judicial office, is designated by the name Elohim."-~Hengstenberg, in loc. (Clarke's
For. Theol. Lib., vol. iii. p. 37):-see also the following notes.
Exod. iv. 16; vii. 1.
Thus among the laws relating to the Hebrew servant we read: "Then his master shall bring him unto the judges-Elohim (Dn-m   i-vrx 11:7u,irn")"-Exod. xxi. 6.
In this sense the word Elohim occurs three times in ch. xxii. 8, 9; where at ver. 28,.we again read, "Thou shalt not revile the gods, nor curse the rulers of thy people."
CE. Deut. i. 16, 17 ("I charged your judges (D~'zu:) saying,  *     *  *  Ye shall
mot be afraid of the face of man, for the judgment is God's" —=,>? ); Dent. xix. 17;:and especially 2 Chron. xix. 6, 7 (Jehoshaphat " said to the judges, Take heed what
ye do, for ye judge not for man, but for the Lord, who is with you in the judgment.")
Hengstenberg further compares 1 Chron. xxix. 23, " Solomon sat upon the throne of
Jehovah"-adding: "It was in connexion with the office of judge that the stamp of
Divinity was most conspicuous; inasmuch as that office led the people, under the
foreground of an humble earthly tribunal, to contemplate the background of a lofty
Divine judgment (p. 31). Hence the reproof of the wicked judges contained in this
Psalm is introduced with the words: "God (u'1n) standeth in the congregation of
the mighty; He judgeth among the gods (=',,ix.)"-ver. 1. Olshausen refers to
Exod. xviii. 15, as giving the clearest information on the subject. " In this passage
it is said:'And Moses said unto his father-in-law, Because the people come unto me
to inquire of God.' These words are to be understood of the kingly and judicial




LECT. VIII.]             OBJECTIONS CONSIDERED.                            339
derived  signification  of the word Christ argues by rising  to its
proper force, and higher import; and He explains the fitness of
this His more profound use of the passage by the remark, "The
Scripture cannot be broken:"-that is, each  expression of Holy
Writ must possess a depth of meaning which cannot be reached
by confining ourselves to its single primary object, or mere allusive application.'
This Divine character of the language which  the writers of
Scripture have employed is nowhere more clearly denoted than
by a passage in  the Epistle  to  the  Galatians: " To Abraham
and his seed were the promises made. He saith not, And to seeds,
as of many; but as of one: and to thy seed, which  is Christ."2
activity of Moses; and we therefore see that God is Himself properly understood,
according to the genuine Theocratic view [cf. supra, Lecture iv. p. 154], as the true
King and Judge of Israel, who merely has His organs through whom  He reveals
Himself.  [Here Olshausen notes: " Magistrates are not called' gods' because an office
has been outwardly entrusted to them by God; but because they are said to be organs of the Divine will, which they must be, even although their disposition be impure (cf. the case of Caiaphas, John, xi. 49-52)"]. "That the Redeemer desires the
passage in Ps. lxxxii. 6, to be thus understood, is clearly shown by the words:,roof
ovc O6 6yof ro7  Oeov iyive-ro-a formula parallel to the well-known phrase, m'_ Tn,
b: trt  (cf. supra, Lecture iii. p. 130, &c.], by which phrase, as is well known, the
point of time is described when communications were received by the prophets from
above. *  *  *  All such persons [viz., Magistrates, Prophets, Men illuminated by
God] are called sons of God, because God's power and Essence wrought in them, and
were revealed through them.  *  *  *  In order to strengthen the argument, and
to make it obligatory on His hearers, Jesus adds: Ka~ ov 6iuvarat ZvvOvaL i7 ypaop.
The idea of 2XvO/vaL is to be taken here as in Matt. v. 17, and Gal. ii. 18: —the
Scripture, as the expressed will of the unchangeable God, is itself unchangeable and
indissoluble."-Comm. in loc., B. ii. s. 278. Rudelbach ("Zeitschrift," 1841, H. iv. s.
27) points out that the conclusion is here drawn from the improper, or allusive, to the
proper application (not merely a minori ad majus): its force resting on the principle,
that " otherwise a single word of Scripture-the Q,}xe of the Psalmist-would be
deprived of its essence and its power."
1 Analogous to this argument of Christ from the words of Scripture is His mode
of reasoning from Ps. ex. 1; " How then doth David in Spirit call Him Lord, saying,
The Lord [Jehovah] said unto my Lord [1:nui], Sit Thou on My right hand, till I
make thine enemies Thy footstool?  If David then call Him Lord (El o   v vA a v I 6
Katel Avr('v K 6 p   o v), how is He his Son?"-S. Matt. xxii. 43-45.  Here He plainly
argues from the use of the word 71n — lord or master (e. g. Joseph says that He had
been macde "lord" of Pharaoh's house, Gen. xlv. 8; and Jacob calls Esau "nx, Gen.
xxxiii. 8]. Were it possible that this expression had been, or could have been, employed erroneously or improperly by the Psalmist, any argument such as Christ here
urged against the Pharisees would be without point or force.  "If David," writes
T6llner, "could have erred in the words which he employed, no certain conclusion
could be thence inferred; it were possible that he had falsely described magistrates as
gods, and the Messiah as his lord."-Die gottl. Eingebung, s. 419. Cf. also supra, Lecture v. p. 201.
2 T  de'A.           ry.   Al PO.  a 7   t a'ray',o. oaL Tr&  h'fpLart aVroL.  Ov Peyet' Kat r o  i f ar pO a a  v, d e7ri 7roilAuv, dc 2i' (of e' iv6'c Ka' r X a r e p  a    a o v, of iartv Xptarr6.
-Gal. iii. 16. (Cf. 1":5:-Gen. xvii. 8; xxviii. 13: LXX. —aci   ri aCrep/ari aov.)
Olshausen refers to Gen. xxii. 18; xxvi. 4; xxviii. 13, 14; making Gen. xxii. 18,
the special object of the Apostle's allusion.




340                         RECAPITULATION.                    [LECT. VIII.
Here  S. Paul, without making  an  express quotation, confines
himself to the exposition of a single word,' founding his argument
on the force of the singular number. His object is to point out
the deep sense concealed under the form of this promise to the
Patriarch. As there was but one chosen race sprung from Abraham, one covenant-people  of the promise:-in  other words, as
not all the offspring of Abraham's body were heirs of the blessing, but the posterity of Isaac alone; on a similar principle, argues the Apostle, " the  blessing  of Abraham" comes now too,
not upon his mere bodily descendants, as such, but upon those
who, whether they be " Jews or Greeks," " are One in  Christ;"
and who, "if they be Christ's are therefore Abraham's seed, and
heirs according to the promise."'
p= —=aorepya —a collective term, signifying seed, race, posterity; and which S.
Paul does not mean to contrast with the plural,:p'nTl,-in which form the word occurs but once in the Old Testament, where it has the determinate sense of "grain,"
"' seeds of corn:" " He will take the tenth of your seed;" (1 Sam. viii. 15-cf. too, Dan.
i. 12, 16, where in its Chaldee form it denotes "pulse"),-but, on the contrary, founds
his argument on the collective force of the term in the singular; drawing the distinction between arrCpya, posterity, and a7ripyara, posterities. That is, he explains how
God's promise applied to the line of Abraham's posterity through Isaac; not to his
descendants generally, whether derived through Isaac or Ishmael indifferently (cf.
supra, p. 338, note 1). In his exposition of this passage, Tholuck (" Das A. T. im N.
T." s. 51 if.) points out that this use of:r' as a collective term is one familiar to S.
Paul, who explains the words of Gen. xxi. 12, " In Isaac shall thy seed be called."
as meaning " the children of God" —v'loaadK Ki7,t;jaovrai Cot a rr i p U a' TOVT' CarTV,
ov r c   T E EC v a Tr  f   a ap tc 6 C, -rara  Cva TroT Oeo~ —Rom. ix. 7, 8; cf. Heb. xi. 18.
2 This explanation (that of Tholuck and Olshausen-Bengel's is somewhat different) is founded upon the principle laid down in the words: " There is neither Jew
nor Greek  *  *  *  FOR YE ARE ALL ONE IN CHRIST JESUS. And if ye be Christ's,
then are ye Abraham's seed, and heirs according to the promise"-Gal. iii. 28, 29.
Hence Xptr6TO (ver. 16) is put for the community of believers, who are " His body,"
and of whom He is the Head (cf. " We are members of His Body, of His Flesh, and
of His Bones"-Eph. v. 30; see, too, ch. i. 23; iv. 12; and 1 Cor. xii. 12, 27,) This
exposition is further confirmed by the continuation of the argument, " Now we, brethren, as Isaac was, are the children of promise," &c.-Gal. iv. 28, &c,; see last note.
The Apostle elsewhere explains the true force of the promises to Abraham. The
"seed" are they " who walk in the steps of the faith of our father Abraham;" and
" the promise" is " sure to all the seed; not to that only which is of the Law, but
to that also which is of the faith of Abraham."-Rom. iv. 12, 16. This exposition,
writes Tholuck, "the Jew himself must concede the more willingly, since it would
prove too much, even in his view, were the prediction to embrace unconditionally
every descendant of Abraham:-even he would desire to exclude the line through
Ishmael, and that through Esau."-loc. cit., s. 58. With reference to the objection
that the force thus given to the singular of arip/pya could not have been designedly
attached to it by the author of Genesis, Olshausen observes: " The Apostles, like all
the other writers of the New Testament, had, in the illumination of the Holy Spirit,
the full authority to pass beyond the standpoint of consciousness in the Old Testament writer [cf. Lecture v. p. 197, &c.], and to unveil the innermost truth of the
thought according to the sense of Him Who promised and foretold. If, therefore,
Jewish learning also has made similar applications of Old Testament passages, still
the distinction of the Apostolic mode of procedure from the Rabbinical always consisted in this, that the learned Jews acted merely according to the arbitrary manner




LECT. VIII.]            OBJECTIONS CONSIDERED.                             341
To the foregoing examples must be added a single illustration
of that Divine  superintendence  which  guided  the authors of
Scripture in their selection of expressions from which, as we have
just seen, such important truths could be inferred. Christ's
title, " Son of Man,"' constantly recurs in each of the four Gospels. It is never applied to Him, however, by any other than
Himself, so long as He walked on earth.  On one occasion, after
He was glorified, it is given Him  by S. Stephen;' but throughout
the Apostolic Epistles the title is not once to be found. The conclusion is obvious: and  the  marked  agreement of the sacred
writers, even in this single particular, is a manifest proof that
they have written  under the  same Divine  influence.'  In  two
passages of the Apocalypse,' moreover, the title " Son of MIan"
is employed; there being in both cases an obvious reference, according to S. John's practice in that book, to the great prediction
of Daniel: "I saw in the night visions, and behold one like the
Son of Man came with the clouds of heaven." And, in continuation of what has been just said, it particularly is worthy of remark, that while a  Hebrew  phrase, which  the  English  Version
similarly translates, " son of man," is of frequent occurrence (as
in the book of Ezekiel), the form of expression employed by
Daniel is to be met with in no other portion of the Old Testament.'
of human beings by which their acuteness often degenerated into mere conceits;while the Apostles, guided by the Spirit, ever unveiled infallibly the true sense of
the predicting Spirit (2 Pet. i. 20, 21)."-Comm. in loc. B. iv. s. 65. Cf. supra, Lecture vii. p. 309, &c.'O Tof TOT'Avp6Jrov. Bishop Middleton observes on S. John, v. 27, where
both articles are omitted: "If it be thought remarkable  *  *  *  that vbig dvhOp6trov, as applied to Christ, now first occurs without the articles, it is sufficient to answer
that now, for the first time, has Christ asserted His claim to the title: in all other
places He has assumed it."  Meyer, in loc., considers that " vito dvp. ist als Nomen
propr. behandelt, daher artikellos."
a Acts, vii. 56.
3 " Apostolorum vel in hoc uno idiomate convenientia ostendit eos eodem divino
motu scripsisse."-Bengelii Gnomon, in S. Matt. xvi. 13.
4 Rev. i. 13; xiv. 14:-in both cases the articles are wanting.
5 Dan. vii. 13, where we read —:xs m'. The phrase in Ezekiel is'lx-1:. (In
Psalm cxliv. 3,:;:-]= occurs, cf. Ps. viii. 5. We also find   x':. —e. g. Psalm xlix.
2. The verb:x —ceger mate affectus fuit. May we not hence (" LEgritudinis et
morbi significatu, qui inest in rad. m::," &c.-Gesenius in voc.) infer that this phrase
thus appropriated to the Messiah, conveys the idea of the " Man (':x) of sorrows"Isai. liii. 3? and therefore conclude that, until after His period of humiliation, no one
was permitted to apply to the Lord a title thus indicative of his exinanition: but that
when He had resumed His own glory, the restriction was removed-as in the cases
of S. Stephen and S. John?
To the foregoing examples, which so clearly exhibit the superintendence exer



342                         RECAPITULATION.                     [LECT. VIII.
Thus far I have endeavored to lay down principles from which
the Divine authority, the infallible certainty, and the entire
truthfulness, of every part of the Scriptures must necessarily result.  To this conclusion many exceptions have been taken; and
with some  general observations on the nature  and foundation
of such exceptions these Discourses shall fitly terminate. From
the outset I have endeavoured, as far as it was possible, to keep
the inquiry as to Inspiration distinct from the many kindred
questions, relating to the Bible, with which it has been so continually interwoven in the course of modern criticism;' and I
shall now content myself with stating the grounds on which I
conceive the weakness of the objections to which I have alluded
may in all cases be exposed: —to enter with any particularity on
so vast a field would, it is clear, necessitate a discussion on almost
every topic connected with the Evidences of Christianity. In illustration of the grounds on which I thus rely, I purposely select
those examples which are the most obvious, and the  most facised over the language of Scripture, the following may be added. In order to prove
that through the One Son, others, too, should be exalted to be the sons of God, S.
Paul insists upon the single term " brethren" in Ps. xxii. 22: "For both He that
sanctifieth, and they who are sanctified, are all of one; for which cause (di' v alriav)
He is not ashamed [even under the Old Covenant] to call them brethren; saying, I
will declare Thy name unto My brethren."-Hebr. ii. 11, 12. Cf. our Lord's argument from Gen. i. 27, and v. 2; in S. Matt. xix. 4, &c. Again, S. Mark and S. Luke
thus give the demoniac's address to Christ: " What have I to do with Thee, Jesus,
Thou Son of the Most High God?" (S. Mark, v. 7; S. Luke, viii. 26; cf. S. Matt. viii.
29).  " In no other part of the Gospels do we find the Most High as an epithet to God:
they are used separately as equivalent terms. Why, then, are they united by S.
Mark and S. Luke? The man and his friends were Pagans; and he was constrained
by an overruling power to confess the true God in this explicit manner: just as the
Pythonissa did afterwards at Philippi. by saying,'These men are the servants of the
Most High God.'-Acts, xvi. 17. And they [who wrote not as S. Matthew for Jews]
retain the very form of words used by the demoniac, for the sake of those who had
believed in'gods many and lords many;' and to whom the bare name of God did
not so surely present the proper and sublime notion of the word." * * * " The
most high God occurs but once more in the New Testament, Heb. vii. 1, and is there
taken from Gen. xiv. 18, where Melchizedek is called' The priest of the most high
God,' to show that the God whom he served was the true God, and not one of the
gods of the nations. *  *  *  And I believe, throughout the Old Testament, The
Most High is conjoined with the name of God only in the like cases."-Townson, On
the Four Gospels, Disc. v. p. 156. For additional examples cf. Tollner "Die gottl.
Eingebung," s. 17 ff. and M. Gaussen, "Theopneustia," p. 411, &c. As I have adduced some passages from S. Matthew in support of this line of argument, it is obviously necessary (as indeed for other reasons connected with the subject of these
Discourses) to advert to the question as to the original language of his Gospel. That
it was originally composed in Hebrew cannot, I apprehend, be denied. On this subject some remarks will be found in Appendix M.
" Die Untersuchung fiber die Theopneustie der heiligen Schrift gehort also nicht
in die Einleitung, wohin sie z. B. Bauer, Jahn, u. a. ziehen."-Havernick, Einleit., Th,
i s. 3. Cf. supra, Lecture i. p. 32.




LECT. VIII.]            OBJECTIONS CONSIDERED.                             343
miliar. It will manifestly save us the pains of any collateral
controversy if such instances only are brought forward, the difficulties connected with which are generally allowed  to  have received a satisfactory solution.
I. The objections which first demand our notice are those
founded upon the assertion that the sacred writers contradict
each other. It is the more necessary to insist upon this topic,
since, as it has been well observed, " much  of the  criticism   at
the  present day seems to  assume that there  is some restingplace between the perfect truthfulness of Inspiration, and the
uncertainty of ordinary writing."'   Of this class of objections the
want of harmony alleged to exist among the Evangelists affords
the most ordinary (as they are the most important) examples.
That in the Gospel narrative certain  statements are to  be
found which, at first sight, seem at variance, every one is aware.
It is also well known that many commentators have not been
happy in their efforts to reconcile the seeming discrepancies:
and hence' it has resulted that some advocates of Christianity
have been tempted to make admissions which are gratuitous as
they are unwarranted. It is too often conceded to the adversary,
Westcott, "Elements of the Gospel Harmony," p. 131.  "A subjective standard is erected, which, if once admitted, will be used as much to measure the doctrines
as the facts of Scripture; and while many speculators boldly avow this, others are
contented to admit the premises from which the conlusion necessarily follows."ibid. The most obvious illustration of the truth of this remark is Schleiermacher's
theory of the "Christian Consciousness."  "'As the intuitive consciousness of God
indicates to the human mind the existence  *  *  *  of a Personal Deity, so does
this' Christian Consciousness' testify that Christ lived, and that He continues, by His
Spirit, to operate upon mankind. *  *  *  It is only he who has a'Christian Consciousness' that can recognize Christ in the fragments of tradition, and the manifestations of history."-Neandar, The Life of Jesus Christ, Introd. ~ 2 (Bohn's trhnsl.
p. 3).' Mr. Coleridge writes: "On what other ground [than on the reception "of the
plenary inspiration of the Old and New Testaments"] can I account for the whimsical
subintelligi urs of our numerous harmonists,-for the curiously inferred facts, the inventive circumstantial detail, the complemental and supplemental history which, in
the utter silence of all historians and absence of all historical documents, they bring
to light by mere force of logic?-And all to do away with some half score apparent
discrepancies in the chronicles and memoirs of the Old and New Testaments * * *
discrepancies so trifling in circumstance and import, that, although in some instances
it is highly probable, and in all instances, perhaps, possible that they are only apparent and reconcilable, no wise man would care a straw whether they were real or
apparent, reconciled or left in harmless and friendly variance."- Confess. of an Enquiring Spirit, Letter iv. p. 41. Mankind, unhappily, are not content to regard this subject from the heights of such sublime philosophy. A melancholy page in the history
of the Church informs us that, from the earliest period to the days of Strauss, the
enemies of Christianity (in the words of S. Augustine prefixed to this Discourse) "hoc
solent quasi palmare sue vanitatis objicere, quod ipsi Evangelistme inter seipsos di.
sentiant."




344                          RECAPITULATION.                     [LECT. VIII.
that the discrepancies alleged are, in point of fact, real. Truth
and candor, we are sometimes told, require that this concession.should be made: and since a leading argument against any strict
view of Inspiration is based upon this assumed want of harmony,
these advocates attempt to evade it either by maintaining that
such contradictions (which, as they are willing to allow, really exist) are of a trifling character; or by alleging that the independence of the sacred writers, as well as the absence of concert
among them, is the only thing which the existence of discrepancies proves.  Nay, we are sometimes told, that nothing  but the
force of prejudice, or attachment to some preconceived and  erroneous theory, can possibly induce any defender of Christianity
to uphold the infallibility of the Evangelists in all the details of
their Gospels.'  I would  further premise, that this  objection,
which we are about to  examine more closely, is of no  modern
date. So early as the middle of the second century the Epicurean philosopher Celsus urged the existence of such apparent contradictions against the truth of the Gospel history: —he argued,
for example, that S. Matthew and S. Mark made mention of but
one angel at the Sepulchre, while S. Luke and S. John speak of
two.2 On which I would observe in passing, that we learn from
^ Mr. Alford, in the Prolegomena to his edition of the Greek Testament (vol. i.
ch. 1, ~ 4), observes to this effect; " Christian commentators have been driven to a
system of harmonizing which condescends to adopt the weakest compromises, and to
do the utmost violence to probability and fairness, in its zeal for the veracity of the
Evangelists. It becomes important, therefore, critically to discriminate between apparent and real discrepancy; and while with all fairness we acknowledge the latter
where it exists, to lay down certain common-sense rules whereby the former may be
also ascertained. The real discrepancies between our Evangelistic histories are very
few, and those all of one kind. *  *  *  They consist in different chronological arrangements, expressed or implied. *  *  *  The fair Christian critic will pursue a
plan different from both ['the enemies of the faith,' and'the orthodox Harmonists'].
With no desire to create discrepancies, but rather every desire truthfully and justly
to solve them, if it may be,-he will candidly recognise them where they unquestionably exist. By this he loses nothing, and the Evangelists lose nothing. *  *  *
Christianity never was, and never can be, the gainer by any concealment, warping, or
avoidance of the plain truth, wherever it is to be found."  Th:e emphasis which Mr. Alford gives, by his italics, to the truism contained in the closing words of this extract
would seem to point to a notorious class of writers, whose principle has been a " concealment, warping, or avoidance of the plain truth." In the absence, however, of any
direct mention of such writers, the remark appears, to say the least of it, superfluous.
To the same effect Neander writes: "It must be regarded as one of the greatest
boons which the purifying process of Protestant theology in Germany has conferred
upon Faith, as well as Science, that the old.'mechanical' view of Inspiration has
been so generally abandoned. That doctrine, and the forced harmonies to which it
led, demanded a clerk-like accuracy in the Evangelical accounts, and could not admit
even the slightest contradictions in them; but we are now no more compelled to have
recourse to subtleties against which our sense of truth rebels."-Loc. cit. p. 8.
2 Celsus, writes Origen, objected:'rt Kai irpb Trbv arroe TOV'17yaoo dov aov irop7lvrat




LECT. VIII.]            OBJECTIONS CONSIDERED.                             345
the numerous accounts of similar objections that the primitive
Church did not receive the books of the New  Testament as Divine, without a full appreciation of the difficulties which, from
the very first, have been  so pertinaciously urged against them.1
Indeed we have an express intimation to this effect in the celebrated  Fragment brought to light by  Muratori; which  is the
earliest document extant, with one exception, in which the
Evangelists are named, and which is the first catalogue of the
Books of the New  Testament."   The author of this Fragment,
having  enumerated  the  four Evangelists, pauses to  observe:
" Although sundry articles of belief are announced in the several
er7zlvOevat Vr6O TtvoV /iv dyye2OLt dvo, i7r0 TTVUV D6  ec' e (k  oeyat, r/prcaa~ MarOaZov
1KEV [xxviii. 5] Kal MdpKov [xvi. 5] E'va 1aropr7Kevat, AOVKcdv 5 [xxiv. 4] Kca'IcoWvnv
[xx. 12] 6do'  7r ep o  K 7c  v    v avria  oi opev yCp, K. r.. — Cont. Celsum, lib.
v. ~ 56, t. i. p. 621.
1 Take, e. g., the difficulty which Gibbon has specially singled out to form the
climax of his well-known "fifteenth" chapter: "Under the reign of Tiberius, the
whole earth, or at least a celebrated province of the Roman empire, was involved in
a preternatural darkness of three hours [S. Matt. xxvii. 45]. Even this miraculous
event, which ought to have excited the wonder, the curiosity, and the devotion of
mankind, passed without notice in an age of science and history. It happened during
the lifetime of Seneca and the elder Pliny, who must have experienced the immediate
effects, or received the earliest intelligence, of the prodigy," &c., &c.-The Decline, &c.
of the Roman Empire, ch. xv. This sarcasm has not even the poor merit of originality. Origen informs us that, in his day, two objections were urged against this portion of the Gospel narrative. (1.)' Quomodo hoc factum tam mirabile, nemo Graecorum, nemo Barbarorum factum conscripsit in tempore illo, maxime qui Chronica
conscripserunt, et notaverunt sicubi tale aliquid novum factum est aliquando; sed
soli hoc scripserunt vestri auctores?"-Comm. Series in Matt., ~ 134, t. iii. p. 923.
(2.) It was also objected, that the only natural cause by which such a phenomenon
could be explained, viz., an eclipse of the sun, is here excluded; because, "in tempore quo passus est Christus, manifestum est quoniam conventus non erat Lunae ad
Solem quoniam tempus erat Paschale."  To the former objection Origen replies as
follows: "Arbitror ergo, sicut cetera signa qum facta sunt in Passionem Ipsius, in
Jerusalem tantummodo facta sunt. *  *  *  Nec alia terra tremuit tune, nisi terra
Jerusalem  *  *  *  ut sentirent (verbi gratia) et qui in LEthiopia erant, et in
India, et in Scythia: quod si factum fuisset, sine dubio inveniretur in historiis aliquibus eorum qui in Chronicis scripserunt nova aliqua facta." —bid. And Origen goes
on to adduce in illustration how " there was a thick darkness in all the land of Egypt
three days  *  *  *  but all the children of Israel had light in their dwellings."Exod. x. 22, 23;-considering the statement of the Evangelist that there was "darkness over all the land," as parallel to the hyperbole of Obadiah, that there was " no
nation or kingdom" in which Ahab had not sought for Elijah.-l Kings, xviii. 10.
The second objection Origen answers by alleging that another natural cause might be
assigned, viz.: " Quasdam tenebrosissimas nubes, et forte non unam, sed multas et
majores concurrisse super terram Judaeam et Jerusalem, ad cooperiendos radios solis,
et ideo profundle factae sunt tenebrae a sexta hora usque ad nonam."  For the usual
cavil as to the Ark of Noah, cf. " In Genes." Hom. ii., t. ii. p. 61.
2 Cf. supra, Lecture ii. p. 57, note 2. Dr. Routh observes: "Quum vero ponendus
sit auctor ejus [Eragmenti] inter scriptores, qui primi omnium, excepto Papia, de
Evangelistis ipsis vel commemoraverint, vel ipsorum scripta adjectis nominibus protulerint, fieri non potest quin primus hic librorum Novi Testamenti Catalogus curia
nostris dignus censeatur." —Reliq. Sacr t. i. p. 400.




346                        RECAPITULATION.                   [LECT. VIII.
Gospels, there is no difference in the Faith of believers; since all
things relating to the Lord's history have been declared by One
overruling Spirit."'
There are four points of view from which this subject of the
Gospel Harmony has been regarded: —(1.) It was argued by a
writer who attracted  some notice during the last century, that
" the Resurrection of Christ is not true, because the narratives
of the Evangelists do not harmonize." (2.) He was met by the
reply, " This great doctrine is true because the accounts do coincide."  (3.) A third opinion was interposed: "It may, after all,
be true, although discrepancies actually exist in the statements
of the Gospels." (4.) But there remains yet a fourth mode of
regarding the question: "It is, and must be true, even though
I should  not succeed  in  bringing the representations of the
Evangelists into harmony; or in solving all the difficulties which
an ingenious mind may suggest.""   This last proposition is obviously the only just or philosophical conclusion for those to arrive at, who  ascribe, in any  true  sense of the word, Divine
authority to the Bible. I repeat that if we fully and entirely
believe in the Divine origin of Holy Scripture, to assert that its
statements do not harmonize is a contradiction in terms.  Who
but the veriest sciolist would question the universality of one of
Nature's Laws, because the powers of Science have not as yet
brought into subjection certain phenomena, to which this Law,
if true, must extend.  There are difficulties, no doubt, in explaining all the phenomena which the Gospels present.  Such
difficulties, however, arise, not from any real discordance among
the Evangelists, but from our not being, as yet at least, in possession of the clue which would reconcile their statements: just
as certain difficulties occur in the application of the theory of
Gravitation;-not from any want of universality in the Law, but
from our ignorance of the conditions of the problem.3
l "Et ideo licet varia singulis Evangeliorum libris principia doceantur, nihil tamen differt credentium fides, cum uno ac principali Spiritu declarata sint in omnibus
de Nativitate, de Passione, de Resurrectione, de Conversatione Domini cum Discipulis Suis."-ap. Routh., loc. cit. p. 394: where Dr. Routh considers " voce principia,
capita seu articulos hic signiticari, quippe cum in ore omnibus sit, doceri principia sive
capita fidei." —bid. p. 411.
2 See Thiersch, "Versuch zur Herstell," s. 30. The three former opinions Lessing
mentions as being held by the author of the " Wolfenbittel Fragments" (Reimarus),
by' the Orthodox," who opposed that writer, and by himself respectively; the fourth
is that which Thiersch maintains.
I Cf. the remar ks of Mr. Westcott, " Elements of the Gospel Harmony," p. 136.




LECT. VIII.]           OBJECTIONS CONSIDERED.                          347
Let us examine how, in  such  a case, all sound  philosophy
proceeds: and let us take for our illustration the late solution of
a celebrated astronomical problem. " No sooner," observes one
of the distinguished men who have afforded Science this triumph,
" No sooner had astronomers commenced, some years ago, to
suspect that the motion of Uranus was modified by some unknown cause, than all possible hypotheses were at once hazarded
as to  its  nature."'  The writer then  proceeds to  discuss the
merits of these several hypotheses, with the significant exception
of that which would explain the phenomenon by asserting that
the Law  of Gravitation  is not universal: —"I will not stop,"
continues M. Le Verrier, "to consider this idea, that the laws of
Gravitation may cease to be rigorous at the great distance of
Uranus from  the Sun.  It is not the first time that, in order to
explain inequalities for which they were unable to account, certain persons have betaken themselves to the principle of universal Gravitation. But we also know that.these hypotheses have
always disappeared before a more profound examination of facts."
Let us then apply to the question  of the Gospel Harmony the
principle which, as we learn from the instance just cited, is recognised as legitimate in the exact sciences. In doing so, let us,
for a moment, lay aside the notion that the Evangelical narratives are inspired; and consider them merely as ordinary histories, of which we have no reason to question the general trustworthiness.
The contradictions alleged to exist in the Gospels either are
apparent only, or they are assumed to be absolute.2 In the former case, there is clearly no difficulty at all; and we need only
point out that the discrepancy is but apparent. In the latter,
I In an essay read by M. Le Verrier before the "Academie des Sciences." June
1st, 1846, an historical account is given of previous investigations relating to the perturbations observed in the motion of the planet Uranus. " A peine avait-on commence, il y a quelques annees, a soupqonner que le mouvement d'Uranus 6tait modifie
par quelque cause inconnue, que d6ja toutes les hypothises possibles ttaient hasard6es
sur la nature de cette cause. Chacun, il est vrai, suivit simplement le penchant de
son imagination, sans apporter aucune consideration a l'appui de son assertion. On
songea a la resistance de l'ether; on parla d'un gros satellite qui accompagnerait Uranus; ou bien d'un planete encore inconnue, dont la force perturbatrice devrait 6tre
prise en consideration; on alla meme jusqu' a supposer qu' a cette 6norme distance
du Soleil, la loi de la gravitation pourrait perdre quelque chose de sa rigueur. Enfin,
une comete n'aurait-elle pas pu troubler brusquement Uranus dans sa marche?"
2 For some acute remarks on this aspect of the question, see Mr. Rogers' Essay,
"Reason and Faith," p. 69, &c.




348                          RECAPITULATION.                      [LECT. VIII.
where it is objected that an absolute contradiction exists,' it is
equally plain that any hypothetical, or even possible solution,
must, in all fairness, be accepted as a sufficient answer, if we
only allow  the general truthfulness of the narratives which  we
compare:-indeed to deny this principle is to assume that there
is no single circumstance omitted by the Evangelists which, if
known, would harmonize their statements.   Even were we unable
to adduce any example in which the application of such a principle has been successful, every impartial mind must admit its
sufficiency as a reply. Many examples, however, illustrative of
this position, may be pointed out; and others are being daily
K6ppen observes that, in narratives drawn up by men who wrote like the Evangelists, independently of each other, in different places and at different times, the nature of the case requires that there should be considerable diversity of manner in the
account which they have given of events. And yet all four perfectly agree as to
what constitutes the essence of their statements. In no single passage of the Gospel
is there a contradiction in matters of fact; but there is variety in the form of representation, and must be so, if everything was honestly set down.  The opponents of the
Gospels interchange these two features of the case; which are in the nature of things,
unquestionably different. They seek out passages in which variety in the form of representation is to be found, and these they term mutual contradictions.-" Die Bibel ein
Werk der gottl. Weisheit," B. ii. s. 117.' With reference to the narratives by S. Matthew and S. Luke of the death of
Judas, Mr. Alford (on Acts, i. 18, 19) observes: "The iTcroaaro Xwpiov does not appear to agree with the account in Matt. xxvii. 6-8; nor, consistently with common
honesty can they be reconciled, unless we knew more of the facts than we do. *  *  *
Whether Judas, as Bengel supposes,'initio emtionis facto, occasionem  dederit ut
Sacerdotes eam consummarent,' we cannot say: such a thing is of course possible.
*  *  *   WVith regard to the purchase of the field, the more circumstantial account in
Matthew is to be adopted; with regard to the death of Jalas, the more circumstantial
account of Luke. The clue which joins these has been lost to us; and in tlis, only those
will find any stumbling-block, whose faith in the veracity of the Evangelists is very
weak indeed."  Ebrard gives a striking example of an apparent contradiction, arising
fiom the manner in which the same fact has impressed itself on different eye-witnesses.
On the evening of September 5, 1839, a rumor prevailed in Zurich that an attack was
to be apprehended from an armed force of Bernese. The greatest commotion was excited, and a body of men was drawn together in the district of Pfdffikon, to repel the
attack. The rumor was soon found to be without any foundation, and means were
taken by the Government to allay the popular tumult.  On subsequently inquiring as
to these events, Ebrard was informed, by one person, that the Government despatched
N., one of their number, at a late hour, with a letter, to Pfaffikon: on another occasion, Ebrard was told, by a second informant, that N., after going a short distance,
returned with the intelligence that the tocsin was already ringing in Pf.iffikon.  A
third related that two persons on horseback had been despatched; while a fourth
averred that N. had sent two messengers on horseback to the disturbed district.  "If
ever four accounts appear irreconcilable, these are so. And if a harmonist were to
conjecture that N. had been sent to Pfaffikon; that he had been met on the Zarichberg by two peasants, coming from that place with the intelligence that the people
were already on the march; that he had returned with them to Zurich, and, entering
the neighboring house of a magistrate, had caused two horses to be at once saddled,
and commanded the peasants to ride back in haste, to proclaim peace:-all this would,
no doubt, be set down as a highly improbable and artificial conjecture. And yet it is
no conjecture, but the simple, true account which N. himself gave me, when I asked
him about that event."-Kritik der evang. Geschichte, s. 12.




LECT. VIII.]            OBJECTIONS CONSIDERED.                            349
brought to light by the diligence of the learned.'  It is by no
means uncommon to find in the accounts of two perfectly honest
historians, referring to the same event from  different points of
view, certain  peculiarities in the structure of their compositions
which, when noticed, at once reconcile the seeming variance
which such peculiarities may have occasioned: or some fact may
have been omitted which lends an air of opposition to their statements, —an opposition which the mention of the omitted fact by
The account given in Dan. v. 30, of the death of "Belshazzar the king of the
Chaldeans" (a name which does not occur except in the Bible), on the night of the
conquest of Babylon by Cyrus, seems to present an irreconcilable opposition to that
of the Chaldean historians.
Josephus ("Cont. Apion.," lib. i. c. 20, t. ii. p. 452) has preserved a fragment of
Berosus, in which it is stated that Cyrus invaded Babylonia in the seventeenth year
of the reign of Nabonnedus; that as soon as Nabonnedus was aware of his approach, he assembled his forces to oppose him, but was defeated, and fled with a
few adherents to the city of Borsippus (elf T7-V Bopat7rwrVvCv T7r6ttl): and, in fine, that
Cyrus took that place, treated Nabonnedus with kindness, and provided him with a
settlement in Carmania, where he died. The name here given by Berosus to the last
Chaldean king is repeated, with immaterial variations, in the Canon of Ptolemy, by
Alexander Polyhist. and Abydenus (Euseb. " Chron. Armen.," i. pp. 45, 63), and by
Megasthenes (Euseb., " Prepar. Evang.," ix. 41, ed. Gaisford, t. ii. p. 442). Herodoius
alone calls him Labynetus (" Clio," 188), adding (191), that the city was stormed by
night during a festival; which fact is also vouched for by Xenophon, who states further ("Cyrop.," vii. 5. 30), that the King (whom he merely describes as Cdaii' at), 3(yA1:.Tf)
then perished. On these facts Winer (" Real-Wjrterb.," art. Belsazzar) observes:
"Berosus is, at all events, more trustworthy than a foreign writer who lived long after
the transaction. *  *  *  Concerning the fate, too. of the Babylonian King, Berosus
is perhaps in the right; and deserves more credit than Xenophon and Daniel."
Hengstenberg, however (although he had just adduced the authority of Berosus to
confirm the statement of Dan. iv. 30, in opposition to Ctesias and the Greek historians),' finds no difficulty in rejecting the accoant" of Berosus in the case before us, and in
accepting the narrative of Xenophon. ("Beitrage, i. s. 316, u. 326.) But another
voice is to be heard on this question.
Colonel Rawlinson (dating from Bagdad, January 25, 1854) has communicated to
the "Athenaeum" (No. 1377, p. 341, March 18, 1854), a discovery which he has "recently made in Babylonian history, and which is of the utmost importance for Scriptural illustration."  A number of clay cylinders have been lately disinterred in the
ruins of Um-Qeer (the ancient Ur of the Chaldees), two of which contain a memorial
of the works executed by Nabonidus (the last king of Babylon) in southern Chaldaea.
" The most important fact which they disclose is, that the eldest son of Nabonidus
was named Bel-shar-ezar, and that he was admitted by his father to a share in the
government. This name is undoubtedly the Belshazzar ('~i:5) of Daniel, and thus
furnishes us with a key to the explanation of that great historical problem which has
hitherto defied solution. We can now understand how Belshazzar, as joint king with
his father, may have been governor of Babylon, when the city was attacked by the
combined forces of the Medes and Persians, and may have perished in the assault
which followed; while Nabonidus, leading a force to the relief of the place, was defeated, and obliged to take refuge in the neighboring town of Borsippa (or Birs-iNimrud), capitulating, after a short resistance, and being subsequently assigned, aocording to Berosus, an honorable retirement in Carmania. By the discovery, indeed,
of the name of Bel-shar-ezar, as appertaining to the son of Nabonidus, we are, for the
first time, enabled to reconcile authentic history with the inspired record of
Daniel."




350                          RECAPITULATION.                      [LECT. VIII.
a third writer instantly clears up.' The following solution of a
difficulty in ordinary history, together with the application of
the principle on which it rests to a parallel case in the Evangelical record, will amply confirm  what has been just stated.
Aristobulus, the  friend  of Alexander the  Great, and  who
watched by his death-bed, relates that he died on the 30th of
the Macedonian  month Daesius.   On the  other hand, Eumenes
and Diodotus, who kept the journal of Alexander, and who recount the progress of his malady, place his death on the evening
of the 28th of the same month. Here is an obvious variance in
statement; and yet no critic has for a moment considered that
there is any real contradiction;-although  the solutions which
have been given are very different. Thus it is shown by some,
how the variance will disappear if we call to mind the manner of
counting the days of the month by the Greeks; while the explanation of another writer is founded upon the difference in the
point of time from which the beginning of the day was reckoned:
-whether from  sunrise, as at Babylon, or from  sunset, according
to Grecian usage.2  Other explanations are also supplied, and any
To take an instance from the Old Testament: Sennacherib had invaded Judea,
and Hezekiah endeavored to buy off the approaching attack upon Jerusalem:
"That which thou puttest on me," said he, "will I bear."  The sum  demanded exhausted the Jewish resources to such an extent, that Hezekiah was reduced to the
necessity of cutting off the gold from the doors of the Temple (2 Kings, xviii. 13-16).
This cowardly sacrifice was in vain; for we know how the Assyrians broke faith
with the Jews, and we are also told of God's miraculous interposition in their favor
(Isai. xxxvi., xxxvii). Shortly after this event, however, the ambassadors sent to
congratulate Hezekiah found his treasury full to overflowing (Isai. xxxix). The apparent contradiction is at once cleared up by a few lines incidentally introduced in
the Second Book of Chronicles: "Thus the Lord saved Hezekiah  *  *  *  and
many brought presents to Hezekiah, so that he was magnified in the sight of all nations from thenceforth,"-2 Chron. xxxii. 22, 23; see Blunt's "Undesigned Coincidences," p. 236, &c.
1 St. Croix observes, in his "Examen Critique des Historiens d'Alexandre," "Les
Eph6merides dont l'autorite est ici d'un grand poids, et qu'on ne peut soupgonner ni
Plutarque, ni Arrien, d'avoir falsifiees marquent ce jour au vingt-huit du mois Macedonien D  sius, et Aristobule fixoit cet evenement au trente du meme mois.  C ette
difference n'est peut-etre qu'apparente; car, comme il y avoit dans l'annee Grecque
six mois de 29 jours, et que le dernier de ces mois portoit le nom de 30, quoiqu'il ne
fut reellement que de 29, il est possible que la difference des deux dates ne fdt que
du vingt-huit finissant au vingt-neuf commengant, et comme chez les Grecs le jour
commenfoit le soir, ainsi que chez presque tous les peuples qui avoient des mois lunaires, ces dates pouvoient ne diff6rer en tout que de quelques heures au plus. Longuerue (" De Epoch. et Ann. vet. Orient.," c. 1) et M. Larcher (" Trad. d'Ierodote,"
t. vii. p. 709) proposent d'autres moyens de conciliation sur lesquels je no prononcerai pas, mais qui ne tendent pas moins a resoudre la difficulty" (p. 633).  Larcher's
explanation is as follows: "Mort d'Alexandre le 29 du mois Macedonien D'msius, qui
repond au 30 Thargslion des Atheniens et au 2 Juin.-(Plutarch. in Alexand, p. 706;
Arrian., lib. vii. cap. xxviii. p. 309). Il se presente ici une difficult6 quo je crois devoir 6claircir. Aristobule, ami d'Alexandre, et qui ne l'avoit pas quitte pendant sa




LECT. VIII.]              OBJECTIONS CONSIDERED.                              351
one  among  them   is considered  to  remove every appearance  of
contradiction. The history of the Gospel Harmony supplies an
example exactly parallel. The case is one of peculiar interest;
and  from   a very  early  period  it has  presented  a  difficulty  to
Christian Apologists.  I allude to the statements of S. Mark and
S. John, as to the hour of Christ's  Passion:-" A  question,"
says S. Augustine, " which, above all others, is wont to  stir up
the  shamelessness of the contentious, and to disturb the unskilfulness  of the  weak."'   S. Augustine  himself proposed  two
methods whereby the accounts might be reconciled; and, while
admitting the difficulties with which his suggestions were encumbered, he lays down  the principle for which  I now  contend.
Referring to a supposed objection to one of his solutions, he asks:
" If we both alike believe the Evangelists, do you point out how
their accounts can be otherwise reconciled, and I will acquiesce
most cheerfully; for I love not my own opinion, but the truth of
the Gospel. Until some other explanation is discovered, this of
mine  shall suffice; and when that other is demonstrated, I too
will adopt it."2   It has been  reserved for modern times to suggest a solution which has been almost universally accepted, and
which removes every shade of difficulty from the case. S. Mark
asserts that our Lord was crucified  at " the  third  hour,"  or at
maladie, dit qu'il mourut le 30 Daesius TptaKdlt, tandis que le journal de la maladie
de ce prince porte qu'il mourut le 28 sur le soir-T, d  prpry Oivovrof  TirpOc 6ei
urieOavev.  Cette contradiction n'est qu'apparente.  1~. Le mois Daesius avoit 31
jours; par consequent le troisieme du mois finissant r6pondoit au 29 Tharge'lion.
2~. Celui qui tenoit le journal de la maladie etant'a Babylone, suivoit l'usage des
Babyloniens, qui comptoient le jour depuis le lever du soleil jusqu'au lever du jour
suivant. Alexandre etant mort sur les huit a neuf heures du soir, c'etoit encore pour
eux le 29 Tharg6lion.  Mais Aristobule, qui ecrivoit pour les Grecs, suit l'usage de
ces peuples, qui commengoit le jour au coucher du soleil et le finissoient le lendemain
au coucher. Alexandre, otant mort apres le coucher du soleil, etoit mort r6ellement le
30, selon leur maniere do calculer les temps, c'est-a-dire, le 2 juin."  This example is
referred to by Tholuck, in his " Glaubwiird. der evang. Geschichte," s. 447.
1 Qu'stio de hora Dominicam Passionis, qua maxime solet et contentiosorum corcitare impudentiam, et infirmorum imperitiam perturbare." —De Consens. Evangelist.
lib. iii. ~ 13, t. iii. pars ii. p. 127.
2 " Unde, inquis, probas horam tertiam  fuisse?  Respondeo, Quia credo Evangelistis: quibus et tu si credis, ostende quemadmodum  et hora sexta et hora tertia
potuerit Dominus crucifigi?  De sexta enim, ut fateamur, narratione Johannis urgemur; tertiam Marcus commemorat: quibus si uterque nostrum  credit, ostende tu
aliter quemadmodum  fieri utrumque potuerit, libentissime adquiescam.  Non enim
sententiarn mearn, sod Evangelii diligo veritatem.  Atque utinam etiam plures ab aliis
inveniantur hujus exitus qumestionis: quod donec fiat, utere mecum isto si placet.  Si
enim nullus alius exitus potuerit inveniri, solus iste sufficiet: si autem potuerit, cum
demonstratus fuerit, eligemus. Tantum  non putes consequens esse, ut quilbet omnium  quatuor Evangelistarum  mentitus sit, aut in tanto et tam sancto culmine auctoritatis erraverit."-Ibid. p. 123.




352                           RECAPITULATION.                      [LECT. VIII.
nine o'clock in the forenoon; while according to S. John, Pilate
"about the sixth hour" was still sitting in judgment.   The explanation of this apparent discordance in time-an  explanation
which even  Strauss, while exaggerating  "the difficulty" to the
utnost, allows to be " possible"'-is, that S. John has given the
hour according to the Roman calculation of time, which counted
as we do, from  midnight; while S. Mark  adheres to the Jewish
custom  of counting from  sunrise.'
The  principle, therefore, pointed  out by S. Augustine is, I
submit, the only one admissible by those who do not deny the
Divine origin  of the Bible altogether.  Any solution, which  affords a possible mode of harmonizing those statements of the
sacred writers which present a semblance of opposition, is to be
admitted  before we can  allow  the existence of a contradiction:
and it is a circumstance deserving of all attention, that for every
example of such variance in the narratives of the Evangelists, no
matter how carefully sought out, some solution offers itself as' "According to Mark, it was the third hour (Spa rpirn) (nine in the morning) when
Jesus was crucified (xv. 25). On the other hand, John says (xix. 14) that it was
about the sixth hour [cSpa 7iv gf (or  een) EK/T], (when, according to Mark, Jesus had
already hung three hours on the cross), that Pilate first sat in judgment over him.
Unless we are to suppose that the sun-dial went backward, as in the time of Hezekiah, this is a contradiction which is not to be removed by a violent alteration of the
reading, nor by appealing to the  (cEi (about) in John, or to the inability of the disciples to take note of the hours under such afflictive circumstances: at the utmost it
might, perhaps, be cancelled, if it were possible to prove that the fourth Gospel throughout proceeds upon another mode of reckoning time than that used by the Synoptists."
-The Life of Jesus, part iii. ch. 3, ~ 132 (Chapman's transl. vol. iii. p. 276).
2 For a full discussion of this question see the eighth of Townson's " Discourses
on the Four Gospels;" where it is shown that S. John has, on all occasions, "reckoned the hours as we do, from midnight to noon, and again from noon to midnight:"
and also that the interval of time between the "sixth hour" of S. John, and the "third
hour" of S. Mark (i. e. between six and nine o'clock in the forenoon), must have been
fully occupied by the vacillation of Pilate, in consequence of his wife's message (S.
Matt. xxvii. 19),-by the trial and condemnation of the two malefactors,-and by the
prooession to Calvary. Adopting this view, Rettig, in the " Studien und Kritiken"
fbr 1830 (s. 103), quotes the words of Pliny: "Ipsum diem alii aliter observavere.
*  *  *  Sacerdotes, et qui diem  definiere civilem, item JEgyptii et Hipparchus a
mredia nocte in mediam."-Hist. Nat., lib. ii. 77; and Le Clerc (by whom this solution
was first suggested), quotes the question of Plutarch —dti Tr t   Ti/v T' r uepae (apv/ eKc
-; vv KrTOC  auil3avoUvt;-QuCt. Rom., lxxxiii.  Tholuck ("Glaubwiird. der cv.
G-esch." s. 306) shows that the time of sunrise at the vernal equinox, taken in connexion with the rules of Roman jurisprudence, fully confirms the explanation thus
given of S. John's expression, "about the sixth hour."  He also quotes Macrobius,
"Magistratus post mediam noctem auspicantur; et post exortum solem  agunt"-Saturtal. i. 3; and Aulus Gellius, "Senatus-consulta ante exortum solem, aut post solis
occasum facta, rata non esse."-Noct. Att. xiv. 7.
It is strange that the latest English commentator, 5Mr. Alford, should have taken
no notice of this celebrated solution.  He writes: "There is an insuperable difficulty
as the text now  stands. *  *  *  We must certainly suppose that there has beer
some very early erratum in our copies."




LECT. VIII.]             OBJECTIONS CONSIDERED.                              353
being  possible-possible  I say, since the nature  of the case, at
times, admits of no more than suggesting such an explanation as
may not be improbable.'  In apparent discrepancies of this kind,
the difficulty often  arises from  the simple fact, that we have altogether  lost the  clue  which  unites  the different statements.
Sometimes, it is true, that difficulty may arise from  misconception  of what has been written, —a misconception which  patient
study  may, and  frequently  does, clear  up:-as, for example,
Cf Steudel, "Ueber Inspir. der Apost.," H. ii. s. 72. For example: "As He
was come nigh unto Jericho," our Lord restored s ght to "a certain blind man" who' sat by the waysido begging," and who'cried, saying, Jesus, thou Son of David,
have mercy on me."-S. Luke, xviii. 35-43.  In S. Mark, x. 46-52, we read that "as
Ie went out of Jericho," Iel performed the same miracle on "blind Bartimaeus, the
son of Timaeus," who also "sat by the highway side begging," and who addressed
the Lord in the very same words as the blind man in S. Luke's account.  But where
is the contradiction here?  What is there improbable or overstrained in supposing
that a blind man may have sat " by the wayside begging," on both occasions;-on the
road leading to, as well as that leadingfrom, Jericho?  Assuming this. what can be
thought more probable (as Origen has already suggested-" Comm. in S. Matt.," t
iii. p. 732) than that the news of the former miracle should have reached "blind Bartimaeus;" and that he too should have placed himself i- the way of the great Prophet,
and supplicated Him in language which had already arrested His attention, and won
His pity?  Ebrard (loc. cit., s. 469), moreover, points out that the accounts of the
Evangelists themselves intimate that the two transactions were different. Bartimieus, at the mere sound of Christ's voice, colimes himself without any one to lead
him; while the other blind man must have been at some distance; for Jesus " commanded him to be brought unto Him,"-ver. 40 (cf. also iyyioavtroe 6d avrToI).
Again, what real difficulty arises here fiom the fact of S. Matthew (xx. 29-34),
when relating Christ's departure from Jericho, having combined facts so strikingly similar in one summary: "Behold two blind men sitting by the wayside, when they heard
that Jesus passed by, cried out, saying, Have mercy on us, 0 Lord, thou Son of
David?" There can clearly be no exception taken to the general assertion, that eeents,
strikingly analogous, may have happened on different occasions:-for (not to mention
the similarity between the miracles performed by Elijah and Elis;ia), (Christ Himself
refers to the two instances of His feeding the multitude (see S. Matt. xvi. 9, 10; S.
Mark, viii. 19, 20); and S. John, (ii. 14, 15) relates that He cast " the money-changers"
out of the Temple at the opening of His ministry; while the other Evangelists tell us
that He repeated the same act towards its close (S. Matt. xxi. 12; S. Mark, xi. 15;
S. Luke, xix. 45).  Cf. also the repetition of the same command, S. Matt. v. 32, and
xix. 9. We learn incidentally, from the manner in which S. Augustine employs this
principle, the nature of the arguments with which, even in his time, this truth of the
Gospel history wad assailed. In one of the miracles of feeding the multitude, S. Mark
(vi. 40) tells us that "they sat down by hundreds anzd by fifties." According to S. Luka
(ix. 14), our Lord said, "Make them sit down by fifties.;"  Had S. Mark, observes t.
Augustine, omitted the "fifties," it would be called a contradiction. And, as to thl^
repetition of the miracle itself, " Hoc sane non ab re fuerit admonere in hoc miraculo
de septem panibus, quod duo Evangelistse Matthaeus Marcusque posuerunt; quia si
aliquis eorum id dixisset, qui de ills quinque panibus non dixisset, contrarius caeteris
putaretur. Quis enim non existimaret unum idemque factum esse  *  *  *  sed aut
ilium pro quinque panibus septem dum falleretur commemorasse, aut illos pro septem
quinque, aut utrosque mentitos, vel oblivione deceptos?  *  *  *  Hoc ideo diximus
ut sicubi simile inveniturfactum a Domino, quod in aliquo alteri Evangelistae ita re,
pugnare videatur ut omnino solvi non possit, nihil aliud intelligatur quam utrumque
factum esse."-De Consensu Evang., lib. ii. ~ 50, loc. cit. p. 77.  Schleiermacher calmly
observes: "I cannot prevail on myself to believe the second feeding."-Essay on S.
Luke, p. 144.
23




354                       RECAPITULATION.                 [LECT. VIII.
where Neander (who does not, in general, scruple to impeach the
accuracy of the Evangelists) observes, with reference to the return
of the Holy Family to Nazareth after the flight to Egypt: "It
was formerly thought that Matthew and Luke contradicted each
other here.:  Both accounts may be equally true, and
harmonize well with each other, although those who put them
imperfectly together may not perceive the agreement."'  But
there are instances over which it is conceivable, from the nature
of the case, that some obscurity must for ever rest. Let any
single event be described by different eye-witnesses, and their accounts will present variations, and apparent contradictions, simply
because each of them  seizes strongly upon some one salient point,
which serves to elucidate his purpose, and leaves the rest comparatively in the background. In entering upon the subject of
the Gospel Harmony, we must ever remember that our four
Evangelists regarded the facts of the Saviour's history each under a different aspect. The essential point of difference between
S. John and the others' lies in his having in view the opponents
of the Gospel within the Church: while the Synoptical writers
mainly addressed themselves to the wants of those who stood
without its pale, whether Jews or Gentiles. S. Matthew's aim is
to establish the identity of the New Testament Revelation with
that of the Old; and to prove to the people of Israel that in
Jesus, as the Christ, were fulfilled the promises to Abraham and
to David. S. Mark desires to exhibit the sublime facts of Christianity, in opposition to the degraded supestitions of heathenism.
The narrative of S. Luke, commencing at Jerusalem  with the
Vision of the Priest in the Sanctuary, closes with S. Paul's address in his prison at Rome;-the design of the inspired historian
being to describe the several stages by which the message of Salvation advanced, from the Temple of Jehovah, to the metropolis
of the Gentile world." In narratives composed with objects thus
I "The Life of Jesus Christ," Book i. ch iii. ~ 21 (Bohn's transl. p. 31). Neander had immediately before (~ 19) stated: "We cannot vouch with equal positiveness
for the accuracy of Matthew's statement of the means by which the Sages learned,
after their arrival in Jerusalem, that the chosen Child was to be born in Bethlehem."
2 See Ebrard, loc. cit., s. 143.
3 Cf Hofmann, "Weissagung u. Erfullufig," s. 48; and Luger, "Die Rede des
Stephanus," s. 2, who refers to the commission given by Christ at the close of S.
Luke's Gospel: " That repentance and remission of sins should be preached in His
name among all nations, beginning at Jerusaem" —xxiv. 47; observing that the address of the Lord (Acts, i. 8), before His Ascension, supplies an index to the con



LECT. VIII.]            OBJECTIONS CONSIDERED.                              355
distinct, we can feel no surprise at the absence of sundry particulars which, if known to us, would at once clear up many of
those obscurities that afford so great a source of perplexity to
several minds.  Nor should the silence of the Evangelists as to
such  particulars in any  wise disconcert us; unless we impose
other rules on them than those by which we are content to test
the fidelity of ordinary writers. The omission of a contemporary
author to notice a fact which we, from whatever reason, may consider of the greatest moment, is a case by no  means unusual.
The younger Pliny,-although  giving  a circumstantial detail of
so many  physical facts, and  describing  the  great eruption  of
Vesuvius, the earthquake, and the showers of ashes that issued
from  the volcano,-makes  no  allusion whatever to  the  sudden
overwhelming of two large and populous cities, Herculaneum  and
Pompeii.'
In illustration of the foregoing observations I would further
add, that wha{ we know of the motives which led to the composition of our Gospels renders the existence of contradictions antecedently improbable in the very highest degree. Eusebius, in
his chapter " On the order of the Gospels," ratifies the  concurrent voice of earlier history which is to the effect that S. John's
narrative was the last in  point of time; and that he gave his
testimony to the truth of what had been previously written.'
tents of the Acts of the Apostles regarded as a continuation of the former narrative:
-the substance of the first seven chapters being described in the words, " Ye shall
be witnesses unto Me in Jerusalem;" of the eighth and ninth chapters in the words,
" And in all Judea and Samaria;" while chapters x.-xxviii. are summed up in the
words, " And unto the uttermost parts of the earth."
See Lyell's "Principles of Geology," 8th ed., p. 348. The principle on which
the omission has been explained, viz., that Pliny's " chief object was simply to give
Tacitus a full account of the particulars of his uncle's death,"-suggests, in like manner, the explanation of the Evangelists' silence respecting subjects not connected
with their " chief object."
2 T6v 7rpoavacypa0Evrcv TrpLU  ei  iravracf idrl tca  elf aVrbv ['Iodivvnv] dtadedoyuevwv, dlroSdaacat yezv Casiv, (iXOetav avrol7 eTLrvtapvprfaavTa. —Eccl. Hist., lib.
III c. xxiv. p. 116. The earlier writers by whom this fact has been stated are, the
author of Muratori's Fragment (ap. Routh, "Reliq. Sacr.," t. i. p. 394); Clemens
Alex. in his " Hypotyposes" (ap. Euseb., "Eccl. Hist.," lib. vi. c. xiv. p. 274-Tbv
uLeVTO'lOUavv7v ecxarov, K. r. A.); S. Victorinus (" qui sub finern seculi tertii floruit; ita enim ille de Joanne Apostolo in' Commentario' ei adscripto in Apocalypsim, p. 1253, in'Biblioth. Parisinae PP.,' t. i."-Routh. ibid., p. 408); S. Epiphanius,
" Hares." li. ~ 12, p. 434. S. Jerome sums up the earlier testimonies with the
words: "Joannes Apostolus  *  *  *  novissimus omnium scripsit Evangelium,
rogatus ab Asiae Episcopis, adversus Cerinthum, aliosque haereticos * * * sed et
aliam causam hujus scripturae ferunt. Quod cum legisset [Joannes] Matthaei, Marci,
et Lucae volumina, probaverit quidem textum historiae, et vera eos dixisse firmaverit,"
&c. De Vir. IUustr., c. ix. t. ii. p. 829.  " In ancient times," writes Gieseler, "they




356                          RECAPITULATION.                     [LECT. VIII.
The great historian of the Church then goes on to point out how
S. John has supplied details which the other Evangelists had
omitted; and he concludes with the remark: " One who attends
to these circumstances can no longer entertain  the opinion that
the Gospels are at variance with  each  other."'  It is interesting
to observe  from   what a very  early period  this  entire  question
has been discussed. It was impossible, indeed, not to have noticed the remarkable omission by S. John of those facts which
the Synoptical writers had recorded, but which, at the same
time, his whole line of argument perpetually assumes to be well
known.2   It was equally impossible to have  overlooked  the solicitude with which he often obviates,-by the introduction  of a
sentence,  or even of a single word, occurring, as one  might at
first sight imagine, without design,-some difficulty  likely  to
regarded this Gospel as a supplement to the three former, as is expressed in the tradition that John tested, and approved, and completed them by his own."-Die Enst.
der schriftl. Evang., s. 133. And Hug concludes, from both internal and external
evidence: "John, therefore, saw the others; and this was one of the circumstances
on which the plan and tendency of his own Gospel depended; and the selection of
the facts to be introduced in it." —Einleit., Th. ii. c. i. ~ 56. s. 183. I profess myself
quite unable to understand how Dr. Davidson, who has fairly stated the evidence,
can consider himself "justified in pronouncing the hypothesis in question [viz., that
S. John had seen the Synoptical Gospels] unsupported either by external tradition
or internal grounds."-An Introd. to the New Test., vol. i. p. 324.
Oi KCai tl'Trraavri, oViCir' (ev d6ae dtLaeoveh, d2E; iA otl Ti  e3ayy9t4a.-Ibid.
p. 117.
E. g. the Transfiguration; thefact of the descent of the Holy Ghost at Christ's
baptism,-the Baptist being introduced as referring to that fact in words which,
without a previous knowledge of it, would have been, at least, exceedingly obscure
(S. John, i. 32-34). Especially remarkable is this Evangelist's silence as to Christ's
miracles, on which his argument so constantly depends (e. g. ch. iii. 2; v. 36, and
passim); but of which he has detailed only five. Who (remarks Hug, " Einleit.,"
loc. cit. ~ 53, s. 176) was better fitted to describe the particulars with which the institution of the Eucharist was accompanied than the disciple who, during the Supper,
lay on Jesus' bosom?  And yet he alludes to it only to show  that he designedly
passed over the narrative because it needed no mention; while he recounts other incidental circumstances which are not found elsewhere: " Now before the feast of the
Passover, supper being ended (deiwvov ytvoievov), He riseth, and took a towel, and
girded Himself. After that He poureth water into a basin, and began to wash the
Disciples' feet. So after He had washed their feet, and was set down again-dvaGreadsV Trdtv," &c.-ch. xiii..1-12.
3 Compare the remark, " For neither did His brethren believe on Him" (vii. 5),
with the statement, "And when His friends (oi Trap' AVTroV) heard of it, they went
out to lay hold on Him: for they said, He is beside Himself" (S. Mark, iii. 21). So
also the particularity in S. John's account of the raising of Lazarus from the deada miracle which was performed in the immediate neighborhood of Jerusalem, and in
presence of a large assembly (ch. xi 18, 19)-was clearly designed to explain the
Synoptists' account of the rejoicing with which the people celebrated Christ's entry
into Jerusalem (S. Matt. xxi.; S. Mark, xi.; S. Luke, xix.); as well as the sudden
determination of the Council to put Him to death (ch. xi. 47-53),-a resolution from
which their fears seem to have frequently deterred them on former occasions: cf ch.
Yii. 25; see also S. Matt. xxi. 46.




LECT. VIII.]            OBJECTIONS CONSIDERED.                             357
arise from  a comparison  of the  narratives  of his predecessors.
To give an example:-According to S. Matthew  it was " another
maid," according to S. Mark, " a maid;" and  a man, according
to S. Luke, whose questioning led S. Peter, on the second occasion, to deny his Master.  S. John, by means of a single expression, reconciles at once what might have appeared a contradiction
in these statements.  lie tells us,-and we are to remember that
he was an  eye-witness of' what passed,-that, at this moment,
several persons together interrogated the Apostle: his description  of the circumstance is, "They said, therefore, unto  him."'
Thus we see that S. John has, in certain cases, solved difficulties
which, without his comment, might have been suggested by the
narratives of the Synoptists: and surely we cannot believe that
had any statements fairly open to objection really existed, they
would have been permitted by him  to  remain without some similar explanation. We cannot doubt, therefore, that the contemporaries of the Evangelists were altogether unconscious of such
discordance; and that they possessed the clue to those difficulties which to us appear so perplexing. Indeed the captious spirit
of the Jews' must necessarily have compelled the writers of the
Eldev avrbv d a 2  ~ —S. Matt. xxvi. 71;'1 7ratdioKy' dobva —-. Mark, xiv. 69;
r ep of i6Sv awSrv-S. Luke, xxii. 58; while S. John writes ei7rov oev avri —
xviii. 25. Hug observes: "Matthew (xxvi. 69-75) describes the denial by Peter,
relating simply the fact, but not dwelling upon the place or persons who occasioned
it; in his footsteps Mark (xiv. 66-72) and Luke (xxii. 54-63). John, on the other
hand, states very accurately the place of the transaction.  It commenced in the palace
of the High Priest Annas [xviii. 16].  There, in the court into which John had
procured him admission, Peter denied our Lord, for the first time, to the woman who
kept the door (ver. 17). John then changes the scene to the presence of Caiaphas,
where the other three Evangelists first take up the narrative, and begin the story of
Peter's denial of his Master [by no means implying, however, even by a casual phrase,
that the first denial had not taken place previously]; while, according to John, he
only finished, in this place, what he began in the house of Annas, and for the second
and third time disowned acquaintance with Jesus (ver. 25-27)."-loc. cit. ~ 54. s. 180.
If we attend to the language of the context in this place, the explanation suggested by the English Version (viz. translating the dtTreEt/eiev [o(v] Aifrv 6'Avvac,
K. T. A.-ver. 24, by, "Now  Annas had sent Him  bound unto Caiaphas") seems
wholly untenable; especially if we observe the impossibility of identifying the examination of our Lord which S. John relates (ver. 19-23), with that before Caiaphas,
as recorded by the Synoptists; and which S. John has altogether omitted. Compare
Ebrard, loc. cit. s. 535 ff.
* Gieseler, having quoted the testimony of S. Justin M. as to the exhibition of
this spirit by the Jews (6uaTrep ycp ai tviLat iTrT rT'i2KY 7rporTpixe-ea Kai  9)iwrTa(T.  KU
ydp,uvpia Tri etn7r KaX(cS, ev 6( zttKpDv rTLOVV eTl7 // evapearov vilvs,     1Tj vooeteevo,
i' rp Tp  rO TO  ICKptfti Trv Liv Toe loXSV KalX3v oV TreopovrTKae, reTO  6~ IUKpOV PrIfaiov E'rtZayai/uve60eO, K. r 2.-Dial. cum. Tryph. ~ 115, p. 209), goes on to say: "It
is clear that, under these circumstances, the strictest agreement alone could secure
the Apostles from the reproach of contradicting each other; and that an exact sele



358                        RECAPITULATION.                  [LECT. VIII.
Gospels of themselves to avoid even the semblance of any contradiction in records the design of which was to overthrow the
exclusive claims of the children of Abraham. Nay, the established principles of Judaism must have rendered an avoidance of
even seeming discrepancies essential to the acceptance of any
historical narrative as deserving of belief: —for, as a well-known
argument of Josephus informs us, a Jew considered no proof of
the Divine origin of the Old Testament more conclusive, in controversy with a Gentile, than the absence of any contradictions
in the several books of which it is composed.
II. The question just examined refers to the supposed want
of harmony between one sacred writer and another. The objection which demands our notice in the next place is founded upon
the alleged collision between the statements of Scripture and
those of profane history. And here that want of argumentative
fairness, so often pointed out in the reasoning employed by the
impugners of Revealed Religion, cannot be  passed  over.  In
ordinary writings, when one author disagrees with another, the
most captious critic contents himself with comparing the probabilities on both sides; and, if he can discern no prospect of
reconciling the conflicting accounts, he decides without hesitation in favor of that party whose veracity appears the more unexceptionable. In the case of the Bible, however, the course
pursued is very different. Should any statement of the Old, or
of the New Testament, seem  to be at variance with that of an
ordinary historian, it is taken for granted, without further inquiry,
that the sacred narrative is false. Every presumption in favor
of the accuracy of the uninspired writer is brought prominently
forward; nor are his statements, as to matters of fact unnoticed
by others, thought to require corroboration: while the assertion
of a Prophet, or of an Evangelist, if similarly unsupported, is
tion of language was requisite in order to afford the malicious no opening for attack
in this respect."-Die Entst. der schriftl. Evang. s. 101.
See Lecture ii. page 68, note'; cf. too, Lecture v. p. 188, note. In addition to
the "Contradictions" of Scripture, its alleged " Immoralities" (e. g. Jael's putting
Sisera to death; the command to Abraham to slay his son; the extermination of the
Canaanites, &c.,) have supplied a fruitful source of objections, not, indeed, so much
against the Inspiration of the Bible, as against its truth;-professing, as it does, to
give an account of God's dealings with man. In addition to Bishop Butler's conclusive argument on this subject ("Analogy," Part ii. ch. iii.), see the excellent remarks of Dr. Arnold in his " Essay on the right Interpretation of the Scriptures'
("Sermons," 4th ed., vol. ii. p. 390, &c.); and of Mr. Rogers, in "The Eclipse of
Faith,'" p. 148, &c.




LECT. VIII.]             OBJECTIONS CONSIDERED.                            359
immediately subjected to an unscrupulous or prejudiced criticism.
This is a species of unfairness to which the Bible, above all other
books, affords an opportunity: for it is remarkable with what
uniformity the sacred writers abstain from directly touching
upon topics of common history, except in cases where their narrative absolutely requires it. There are, however, such points of
contact with the ordinary events of the world; and on these sceptics are never slow to  fasten.  For example:-S. Luke, in the
opening verses of the second and third chapters of his Gospel,
alludes to external history.  In  the  former passage1  the Evangelist, when enumerating the circumstances connected with the
birth of Christ, dwells with much particularity on the fact that
a general census had been  decreed  by the  Emperor Augustus;
adding that this census " was first made when Cyrenius was governor of Syria." Against the truth of this statement Strauss
argues, in the first place, that no author, except S. Luke, makes
mention  of such  a  general census having  been prescribed  by
the Emperor:" and, secondly, that Tacitus informs us that Cy1'EF2tOev d6oya rrap5 Kai-rapog AVyoiarov, duroyipepueo a 7-riaoav T?/v olKov#Ev,7v.
A.vr77   iT7roypao' 7rpUrj7 eyevero 7ey/Lo'EVovrTO T7rq Zvp)iat Kvpy7viov.-S. Luke, ii. 2.
The objections urged against this statement are as follows: (1.) There was no census
of the'Orbis Romanus' under Augustus. (2.) As nruaa x oilcovuievw refers merely to
Judea (cf. Acts, xi. 28), such a census could not have been held in what was not as
yet a Roman Province; and which did not become so until Archelaus, Herod's son,
had been deposed by Augustus, after a reign of ten years. Herod, therefore, as "Rex
Socius," would have conducted the census by his own authority, without the intervention of the Emperor. (3.) According to Tacitus, P. Sulp. Quirinius was first sent
firom Rome eleven or twelve years after the birth of (Christ, to form Judea into a
Roman Province; Sentius Saturninus being the Governor at the time of our Lord's
birth. From which premises it follows, that (4.) Joseph and Mary cannot have come
to Bethlehem for the purpose stated by S. Luke; and, consequently, this portion of
his narrative is "unhistorical."  Although many, observes Tholuck, have adopted a
theory of Inspiration, according to which the credibility of the religious contents of the
Bible is not weakened by the historical mistakes of its authors; still " were we to admit
here such a nest of the rudest blunders, it may well be doubted whether the canon of
credibility can apply to such an extent. Give up the occasion and the truth of the journey to Bethlehem, and the truth of the Miraculous Birth at Bethlehem become equally
mythical"- Glaubwiid., s. 158. As to objections (1.) and (3.), see infra: with reference to (2.), it is to be observed that hlerod was no'Rex Socius;" but merely a
Governor, with a kind of regal authority, whom Augustus, notwithstanding Herod's
fidelity to M. Antonius, had, in an exceptional manner, and with his usual astute
policy, continued to entrust with authority in Palestine.  See W. Hoffmann's "Das
Leben Jesu," s. 233.
2 lIoffmann (s. 231) replies with great force to this objection: "Passages from
Livy, Dio Cassius, Tacitus, &c., prove to the celebrated Savigny ["Zeitschrift fur
geschichtl. Rechtswissenschaften," vi. s. 350], who has collected them, that'at the
very commencement of this Emperor's reign an effort was made to introduce a uniform system of taxation into the Provinces.' " S. Isidore of Seville, in a treatise
compiled from historical sources extant in his time, and without any design of supporting S. Luke's statement, tells us: "Era singulorun annorum constituta est a




360                           RECAPITULATION.                      [LECT. VIII.
renius was for the  first time  sent from   Romne, as Proconsul of
Syria, eleven or twelve years after the birth of Christ.' In the
second passage, S. Luke mentions that when S. John the Baptist
entered  on  his  ministry  Lysanias  was  Tetrarch  of  Abilene.
Here, again, Strauss objects that Josephus, it is true, speaks of a
Lysanias as governor of Abilene, but that the Jewish historian
further states that this Lysanias had been put to death thirtyfour years before  the  birth  of Christ; while neither Josephus,
COesare Augusto, quando primum censum  exegit, ac Romanum orbem descripsit."Originum, lib. v. c. 36, p. 41. So also Cassiodorus, one of the most learned men of
his age (born circ. A. D. 469.  He filled successively the highest civil and judicial
offices, and was appointed Consul by Theodoric, A. D. 514), has preserved an Epistle,
entitled "Consulari Viro Illustri, Theodoricus Rex," appointing an umpire in a dispute relating to the division of certain lands. In this Epistle the passage occurs:
"Augusti siquidem temporibus Orbis Romanus agris divisus, censuque descriptus est;
ut possessio sna nulli haberetur incerta, quam pro tributorum  susceperat quantitate
solvenda."  Variarum, lib. iii. Ep. 52, t. i. p. 57. The very nature of these quotations refutes the evasion of Strauss and Bauer:-viz., that the information which they
convey respecting this census was borrowed from S. Luke.  According to Suetonius
("Augustus," c. 27), "Censum  populi ter egit [Augustus] primum ac tertium cum
collega, medium solus;" and the monument of Ancyra indicates that the census which
was carried into effect by himself alone fell in the year before the birth of Christ
(Ideler, B. ii. s. 380, quoted by Hoffmann). These latter references, no doubt, refer in
the first instance to the city of Rome; but they prove the Emperor's solicitude on
the subject: and although S. Luke states that the "Decree" related to "all the
world," he does not state that it was everywhere carried out at the same time.
Ebrard (s. 170) appeals to the "Breviarium  Imperii" (Tac. "Ann." i. 11; Suet.
"Octav." ci.) detailing the "tributa aut vectigalia" "civium sociorumque" which Augustus left at his death.
i Ussher reconciles these statements (" Annal. Yet. Test." Elrington's ed., vol. x.
p. 471) by quoting the reference of Tacitus ("Annal.," lib. iii. c. 48) to P. Sulpicius
Quirinius (the Cyrenius of S. Luke): "Impiger militia et acribus ministeriis Consulatum sub D. Augusto; mox expugnatis p)er Ciliciam Homonadensiuln castellis, insignia triumphi adeptus."  Cyrenius had been Consul A. u. c. 742 (see Ioffmann,
s. 236); and, therefore, according to the system  of Augustus (cf Dio Cassius, lib.
liii. 14), could not have gone to his Proconsulate in Cilicia until A. u. c. 747. From
Cilicia he might readily have been sent to the neighboring district of Syria, either to
conduct the census with extraordinary powers; or, as the Emperor's Procurator, with
ordinary:-Cyrenius himself still retaining the Proconsulate of Cilicia, and Sentius
Saturninus that of Syria.  Josephus more than once, in a similar manner calls both
Volumnius and Saturninus 7yeuz6var of Syria, although Volumnius was merely erirTporof.
or Procurator (B. J. lib. L xxvii. 2. t. ii. p. 124):-and thus we can at once explain
Tertullian's statement (" Adv. Marcion.," lib. iv. c. 19, p. 532): "Census constat actos
sub Augusto nunc in Judaea per Sentium  Saturninum."  S. Luke has preferred to
bring forward the part taken in this transaction by Cyrenius, since he desired to
combine it with his subsequent allusion (Acts, v. 37) to the second aJ.roypaprj carried
out by Cyrenius ten years later; his object being to point out that, of the two
T7roypaeai conducted by the same magistrate, that connected with the birth of Christ
was the earlier: —which exactly agrees with the statement of S. Justin M.-' roypa7  OV oa7cf  v Tty'lovcai,  r6re a pTJ r    ni Kvpiviov, h. r. l. —Dial. cum
Tryph. ~ 78, p. 175. In confirmation of this view, Hoffmann (loc. cit.) draws attention
to the information, given by Suidas ("Lexicon," s. v. aroyparo), that twenty Commissaries had been appointed by Augustus to carry out the census through the whole
Empire.'O 6E KaZaap AAVyovarTOf ecKOal (vdpaf roof ucpiarovc Trbv tiov Ka( rTi' rp6arov
rJTL'ae(6levoC, eaTT Urcirav TriV v7j/V tW' VawKOcv Ei'TEtr e'  6d 6 V Idroyoa,'!if ETrolTaaro
rSv TE (UvBp7Girv Kca oVoalv.




LECT. VIII.]             OBJECTIONS CONSIDERED.                             361
nor any author of that time, alludes to the existence of a second
ruler of Abilene who bore' this name.  As  I  have  already  observed, it does not lie within  my province to  examine these objections in detail; I must confine myself to  suggesting  certain
principles which may enable us to form  a just estimate of si:ilar
exceptions, when urged  against the veracity or the  accuracy of
the sacred writers.
In the cases before us, we may fairly demand for S. Luke —waiving, as before, his claim  to  Inspiration-the  same justice
which all persons yield to  any ancient historian whose facts are
doubted or denied.  When instances of such assumed inaccuracy
are  alleged, two  simple  questions  are  proposed.  In  the  first
place, does what we know of the external relations of the author
to the events which he records render it probable that he could
have committed, in  a single passage of his narrative, two such
Tholuck (loc. cit. s. 200), admitting the accuracy of Strauss's historical representation, naturally asks, where is the difficulty of supposing the existence of a second
Lysunias, who was also Tetrarch of Abilene at the time assigned by S. Luke?  And
he quotes the still stronger case afforded by Tacitus (writing of A. D. 36), where he
speaks of " Clitarum natio, Cappadoci Archelao subjecta" (' Annal." vi. c. 41), while
lie also states (" Annal." ii. c. 42; cf. too, Suetonius "Tiberius," cap. viii.) that Archelaus had died, A. D. 17; and that Cappadocia had then become a Roman Province.
See, to the same effect, Winer, " Real-Worterb.," art. "Abilene."  Strauss, however,
refuses to accept this reply of Tholuck, alleging that the nature of Tacitus' statements
of itself supplies "a clear historical datum that there were two such persons:" but
that "it is quite otherwise when, as in the case of Lysanias, two writers have each
one of the same name, but assign him  distinct epochs."-The Life of Jesus, part ii.
oh. i. ~ 44 (vol. i. p. 302). Ebrard, however ("Kritik der ev. Gesch.," s. 180 ff.),
pcoves that this entire objection is nothing more than an historical blunder on the
part of Strauss himself. The statements of Josephus, on which the objection is
tLunded, are as follows: Ptolemaeus, son of Mennaeus, ruled over Chalcis ("Ant.,"
rxv. vii. 4, t. i. p. 696); and was succeeded by his son Lysanias ("Bel. Jud." i. xiii.
1, t. ii. p. 83). This Lysanias of Chalcis was put to death (B. C. 34) by Antonius, at
the instigation of Cleopatra (" Ant.," xv. iv. 1, t. i. p. 749). Seventy-five years later
(viz. A. D. 41) Agrippa I. was restored by Claudius to the kingdom of his ancestors,
and received in addition an "Abila of Lysanias" —'Ajtav r7V  Avaaviov ("Ant.,"
xx. v. 1, t. i. p. 943; "Bel. Jud." i. xi. 5, t. ii. p. 172). This Lysanias is assumed
by Strauss to have been the same person as the Lysanias of Chalcis, who had been
put to death by Antonius; and on this assumption, which, however, is utterly subverted by another statement of Josephus, his objection rests. This additional stateinent of Josephus is to the effect that Claudius removed Agrippa II. (A. D. 52) "from
Chalcis [the kingdom, be it remembered, of Strauss's Lysanias] to a greater kingdom,
giving him, in addition, the kingdom of Lyscnias (c d6e r/f Xa.lidc(o'Aypin7rrav rt'
(Ife(ova aacLteiav, ierariOilat *  *  *'rpo761K  (RKe    rTv re Avaa.viov PfItbAeti(L).'"Bel. Jud. ii. xii. 8, t. ii., p. 176,-words which, according to Strauss, must mean
Agrippa was deprived of Chalcis, receiving in exchange a larger kingdom, and also
Chialcis!" Hence, therefore, Josephus does make mention of a later Lysanias; and,
by doing so, fully corroborates the fact of S. Luke's intimate acquaintance with the
tangled details of Jewish history in his day. Even Meyer (in loc.) fully accepts this
conclusion of Ebrard: " So wird die Notiz des Luk. durch Joseph. nicht als Irrthum
dargestellt, sondern bestatiget.




362                          RECAPITULATION.                      LLECT. VIII.
blunders as are charged against our Evangelist; especially when
writing of facts notorious at the time? And, secondly, is his
historical inaccuracy, elsewhere, so patent that such anachronisms cannot surprise  us?   If each of these  questions must be
answered in the negative, then the objector's interpretation of
the passages on which he insists would at once, in the case of a
)rof ine historian, be set aside as being utterly improbable   priori: and  if we cannot point out the fallacy of the objection by
translating the historian's words differently,' we forthwith enter
on the path of historical inquiry in order to arrive at the author's
real meaning.  Now   S. Luke's' Preface' supplies  a sufficient
answer to the former of the questions just proposed. There he
explicitly lays down, not only that the details of his narrative
" were delivered" to him  by those who "from  the beginning were
eye-witnesses;" but also that he had " perfect understanding of
all things from the very first." A review of his allusions, in the
Acts of the Apostles, to the particulars of the Roman Govern1 The following modes of translating S. Luke, ii. 2, have been suggested: (1.)
7rprTnl stands for rporTpa; and i7yeyovevovroc depends on the comparative.  Thus we
should render "This census took place before Cyrenius was Praetor of Syria"-words
which are added in order to obviate the possibility of misconception-just as S. John
(xiv. 22) has inserted the parenthesis, " not Iscariot."  For the use of Trp6Tqr for T-porepa, cf S. John, i. 15, 30; and for the use of the participle (as if S. Luke had written
7rpb TOV ye, uovevelv), Jer. xxix. 2 (LXX.): oVirot ol Z67oot r/ fjipXtov, ob9'i(L7Trelrttev'Iepeuiac  *  *  *                    Trepov     ee O 6 v   o'Ieoviov, K. r.. —i. e. "afterJechonias had departed," instead of Vaorpov TroiV ieateZv.
(2.) Ilpjri) is to be taken in connexion with the verb te)vero; and stands in place
of the adverb-" This census took place for the first time under Cyrenius"-a parenthetical clause, denoting that the Emperor's decree was first carried out under Cyrenius, and that then for the first time was taxation imposed upon the Jews:-the
dlnuypaop, at first imperfect, being at length completed, and rendered an actual udroTIr/1TLe.
(3.) By changing the accents; if in place of aCrL- we read avr: —rendering, "In
the days of Herod the decree went forth, but the taxing itself took place for the first
tiule under Cyrenius."  Strauss admits that by this translation the chief difficulty is
"' most easily" removed; but he strongly protests against such an arbitrary alteration
in the text I "It is well known," observes Tholuck, (s. 186) "that, with the excep-'tion of the single codex D. Claromontanus, our uncial-codices are written without accent and spiritus; and even as to this codex, connoisseurs decide that, in the gre it
m;iajority oi passages, the accents have been added by a later hand. Gr'esbach,
Symb. Crit. ii. a. 82."  So also Hofmann' Weissagung und Erfdllung," ii. s. 54.
(4.) S. Luke desired to show that the birth of the Messiah coincided with the
political slavery of his nation which now, for the first time, was practically exhibited
in consequence of the Emperor's edict:'- The taxing itself [see (3.)] took plce-and
this, too, the first unheard-of insult of the kind — when Cyrenius, &c.,"-the census
at our Lord's birth being regarded merely as the preliminary stage of the taxing
(i7roypael being susceptible of this double sense) conducted by Cyrenius (Acts, v.
37):-both events being necessarily known to, and thus distinguished by S. Luke
(f. Ebrard, loc. cit. s. 175 ff.




LECT. VIII.]           OBJECTIONS CONSIDERED.                          363
ment, and to other circumstances of the time, in like manner,
affords an answer in the negative to the second question.!
Of S. Luke's minute accuracy I proceed to give a well-known
instance; which I would preface by a parallel example illustrative of the apparent contradictions so constantly to be met with
in ordinary history.2 The medals struck for the coronation of
Louis XIV. gave a different day from that which all contemporary historians agree in fixing for the date of that event. Of all
these writers one only has noticed a circumstance which accounts
for this discrepancy: for he alone mentions that the-coronation
had been appointed to take place on the day given by the medals,
-which  were  accordingly  prepared, —but that circumstances
caused a delay till the date assigned by the historians. Nothing
can be more simple than this: and yet in a thousand years, had
no such explanation been given, antiquarians would have been
sadly perplexed  in  their efforts to reconcile the contradiction.
Let us now turn to the parallel case in the Acts of the Apostles:
S. Luke in the thirteenth chapter gives the title of Proconsuls
to the Governor of Cyprus.  In  the  division, however, of the
Roman Empire by Augustus, this island  had been reserved for
his own jurisdiction: and consequently its Governor must have
borne the rank of Procurator;-that of Proconsul being appropriated to those who ruled the provinces which the Emperor had
ceded to the Senate. The title here assigned by S. Luke to Sergius Paulus had for a long time perplexed commentators; who
knew not how to reconcile the statement of the sacred historian
with the assumed facts of the case. Some coins, however, were
found bearing the effigy of the Emperor Claudius; and in the
1 In illustration of the perplexity of Jewish history at this period-not to mention
the fiequent redistribution of territory-consider the mistakes likely to occur in the
case of writers imperfectly informed as to the family of Herod, arising from the identity of the name Herod for the father and all his descendants: e. g. S. Epiphanius
(" Haeres." xxx. 13, t. i. p. 138) quotes a passage from the Gospel of the Ebionites,
in which Herod the Great is confounded with Herod Antipas. CC Tholuck, loc. cit.. 159, u. 162.
2 " Apparent contradictions, indeed, must meet us in every part of history; the
difficulty is where to lay the blame. The medals struck for the coronation of Louis
XIV. give a different day from that which all contemporary historians accord in fixing for the date of that event. Of them all, one only, D. Ruinart, has noticed a circumstance which reconciles this discrepancy. For he alone has recorded," &c. Wiseman, Lectures on the Connexion between Science and Revealed Religion, &c., vol. ii.
p. 125.
2'AvOvraror, Acts, xiii. 7. See Tholuck, loc. cit. s. 172; Paley, "Evidences,"
Part IL. cl. vi




364                          RECAPITULATION.                      [LECT. VIII.
centre of the reverse occurs the word KTIIPI2N, while the surrounding legend gives the title in question of Proconsul to an individual who must have been the immediate successor or predecessor  of Sergius  Paulus.'   In  addition  to  this  evidence, a
passage has been pointed out in the writings of Dio Cassius who
mentions that Augustus, subsequently to his original settlement,
had  changed  Cyprus  and  Gallia  Narbonensis  into  Senatorial
Provinces; the  historian adding, as if with the design of establishing  S. Luke's accuracy, "And  so it came to pass, that Proconsuls  began  to  be  sent to  these  nations  also."2   Had  the
writings of Dio Cassius perished amid the wreck of ancient literature, and the coins alluded to never been found, we should, unquestionably, have seen this hypothetical blunder of the inspired
historian foremost among the array  of cases adduced  by such
writers as Strauss. Is not the Christian Apologist therefore fully
justified  in deprecating the precipitancy of criticism?   Has he
not ample  grounds for  maintaining  that difficulties, such  as
those which we have considered, arise from our ignorance of the
whole of the case; and that we have good reason to expect that
they eventually will disappear as similar evidence accumulates?'
i EIII KOMINIOT IPOKAOT ANOTTIATOY.   ug, "Einleit.," i.  4. s. 21.
2 Kai onTew~ dvO6TrartL icai  (k' KE~va T rtavr T7erEel acat?pp'avTo.-Dio Cassius, liv.
4. So also, the title ivOu'7raro is assigned with the strictest propriety to Gallio (Acts,
xviii. 12, &c.). Achaia had been a " Provincia Senatoria" (Dio Cassius. liii. 12) but
it had been changed by Tiberius into a " Provincia Imperatoria" (Tacitus, " Annal.,"
i. 76); and was, therefore, governed by Procurators.  It had, however, been again
restored to the Senate by Claudius (Suetonius, " Claudius," xxv.), on which its rulers
resumed their title of Proconsuls.  Again: in Acts, xxviii. 7, the ruler of Melita is
styled o T'-r-og TiC;'jaov-an appellation in itself' suitable, since Malta was a dependency on Sicily (Cicero, 4. " Verr.," c. xviii.). A coin, however, has been found on
which a Roman knight Prudens is styled 1HP2TOE MEAlTAIN2N. cf Tholuck, lhc. cit,
s. 172. Again: in Acts, viii. 26, the city Gaza is described as being " desert."' It
is true," observes Hug (loc. cit. s. 39), "this was often its fate; but it was invariably
rebuilt, and was so in the days of Herod the Great, not long before the event here related. Uncommon erudition has been employed to solve this difficulty; but there
are two words in Josephns which have escaped the learned, from which we learn
how well Luke was acquainted with an event concerning which all history else is
silent."  During the commotions which preceded the siege of Jerusalem, the Jews
laid waste manly towns in Syria and the vicinity; and among these was Gaza: Er7
TaevTlrr.  7vp^-7ro/.'HfiOeaLt'AvOy66ova cai udav CaeTacKaTirrov.-.Bel. Jud.. II. xviii. 1, t. ii.
p. 197; and in this state S. Luke describes it.
s Under the head of "contradictions" or " real discrepancies," some writers place
those seeming variations of statement, which are at once accounted for by errors in
the transcription of the early Hebrew MSS., in which letters or cyphers have been
made use of to express numbers. E. g., in the account of the plagues between
which God commanded David to choose, we read of " three [3 =-  ] years' famine,"1 Chron. xxi. 12; for which the transcriber of 2 Sam. xxiv. 13, has substituted
"seven" (7 = T): the LXX., in both places, having read 3. Again: according to 2
Chron. viii. 10, the number of "Solomon's officers that bare rule over the people" was




LECT. VIII.]             OBJECTIONS CONSIDERED.                              365
III. Having thus referred to the arguments against the inspiration of Scripture, founded upon the supposed fact that its
authors contradict each other, and that they advance statements
at variance with the accounts of profane history,-it remains to
examine the assertion, that the language of the Bible is opposed
to many truths which the progress of Philosophy has brought to
light in unveiling the secrets of Nature.   The rapid strides with
which the material sciences have advanced in our own age render an examination of this objection more than ever necessary:
250 =-'; for which we now read   =- 550, in 1 Kings, ix. 23. In 2 Kings, viii.
26, it is said that Ahaziah was 22 (=) years old when he began to reign; in 2 Chron.
xxii. 2, the present Hebrew text gives his age as 42 (7:)-an evident oversight of
the transcriber; since from ch. xxi. 20, we know that his father died when only 40
years old. Here for Z (20) has been substituted m (40), which was formerly shaped
(see Montfaucon's "Praelim. in Origenis Hexapla," p. 22). This same interchange
of z2 20, for   — 40, may be noticed again in Neh. vii. 44, where the number of
the children of Asaph is given as 148, instead of 128, Ezra, ii. 41.
To take another class of examples:-In 2 Sam. viii. 4, David took from HIadadezer 700 horsemen: for which we read 7000 in 1 Chron. xviii. 4. Here there is an
obvious interchange by the transcriber of I (700), for T (7000); cf. the same interchange of 700 and 7000 in 2 Sam. x. 18, and 1 Chron. xix. 18.  Again:-in 1 Sam.
vi. 19, we read that the Lord smote 50,070 of the men of Bethhemesh; while in the
Syriac and Arabic Versions the number is stated to be 5070. In 1 Kings, iv. 2(6,
"Solomon had 40.000 stalls of horses;" in 2 Chron. ix. 25, we read of but 4000.
Let us now consider a case which has supplied Mr. Coleridg3 with an objection
(" Confess. of an Enquir. Spirit," Letter vi.):-" Abijah set the battle in array with
an army of 400,000 chosen men: Jeroboam  also set the battle in array against him
with 800,000 chosen men"-2 Chron. xiii. 3; and' there fell down slain of Israel
500,000 chosen men."-ver. 17. Does not the analogy of the cases last cited at once
suggest that here, too, each number has been multiplied by ten?  Dr. Kennicott
(' Dissert. on the state of printed Hebrew Text," p. 533) observes that the smaller
numbers are given in the old Latin translation of Josephus; and we may fairly presume that the Greek text formerly gave the same, from  the fact that' Abarbanel
[see Meyer's " Chronicon," p. 797] accuses Josephus of having made Jeroboam's loss
no more than 50,000, contrary to the Hebrew text."  "An Arabic cipher," adds Dr.
Kennicott, might very easily be added or omitted, because it is nothing more than
our period (.)."  "That the Hebrews," writes Movers, "had certain signs to denote
numbers is undeniable.  *  *  *  The ancient Phoen'cians and  Aram'eans had
also a system of ciphers, in all essentials the same; and since the IIebrews had constant intercourse especially with the latter, they must have been acquainted with it."
-Krit. Untersuch. ib. die bibl. Chronik, s. 54. These remarks are filly confirmed by
the existence of numeral letters on the coins of the Maccabees. -(Ibid s. 60.)
The remark of Mr. Rogers on this subject is open to serious objection:-" We are
fully disposed to concede to the objector that there are in the books of Scripture, not
only apparent but real discrepancies,-a point which many of the advocates of Christianity are indeed reluctant to admit, but which, we think, no candid advocate will
feel to be the less true. *  *  *  The discrepancies to which we refer are just those
which, in the course of the transmission of ancient books, Divine or human, through
many ages,-their constant transcription by different hands,-their translation into
various languages, —may not only be expected to occur, but which gner t occur, unless
there be a perpetual series of most minute and ludicrous miracles."-Reason and
Faith, p. 72. This sense of the phrase "real discrepancies" is certainly not that in
which it is generally understood: and the employment of it is unquestionably calculated to mislead.




366                      RECAPITULATION.                 [LECT. VIII.
and I feel particularly called upon to consider what force it may
possess, because, as I conceive, the answers usually given to it
concede almost everything for which one need care to contend.
The objection may be stated as follows:-The language of Scripture, when touching upon topics which involve allusions to the
results of Science, is expressed so as to betray complete ignorance
of those laws of Nature which modern researches have brought to
light: and consequently (it is argued) the Book in which such
ignorance is displayed cannot have been inspired by the Holy
Ghost.  The popular form  under which the objection is commonly urged will fairly exhibit the force of this argument against
Inspiration.  In this form  it was, I believe, first suggested by
Spinoza;' and it is founded on a principle to which, somewhat
differently applied, Galileo was the victim. We read in the
book of Joshua, "Then  spake Joshua to the Lord    *  *   *
and he said in the sight of Israel, Sun, stand thou still upon
Gibeon; and thou, Moon, in the valley of Ajalon.  And the Sun
stood still, and the Moon stayed, until the people had avenged
themselves upon their enemies.  *:*   So the Sun stood
still in the midst of heaven, and hasted not to go down, about a
whole day:" —of which passage it is said, that the motion ascribed by its writer to the Sun is in manifest contradiction to an
established law of Nature.
The usual reply to this objection is as follows: —' Your remark is, in point of fact, well founded; the contradiction which
you urge does really exist: but Scripture was not intended to
teach mankind the conclusions of Natural Philosophy; and you
are not entitled to expect that its statements on such topics shall
be found in accordance with the results of scientific discovery.'
To a certain extent, all will admit the force of such an answer:
for, as it has been justly said, " to seek for an exposition of the
phenomena of the natural world among the records of the moral
destinies of mankind, would be as unwise as to look for rules of' "Multi, quia nolunt concedere in coelis aliquam posse dari mutationem, illum
locum ita explicant, ut nihil simile dicere videatur; alii autem qui rectius philosophari
didicerunt, quoniam intelligunt terram moveri, solem contra quiescere, sive circum
terram non moveri, summis viribus idem ex Scriptura, quamvis aperte reclamante, extorquere conantur."-Tract. Theol. Pol., cap. ii.
2 Josh. x. 12-14. CC "It shall come to pass in that day, that I will cause the
Sun to go down at noon, and I will darken the earth in the clear day"-Amos,
viii. 9; "The Sun and Moon stood still in their habitation."-Hab. iii. 11.




LECT. VIII.]           OBJECTIONS CONSIDERED.                           367
moral government in a treatise on chemistry."' But I altogether
deny that the concession implied, at the same time, in such an
answer,-namely, that there does exist a real contradiction between this statement of the book of Joshua and the results of
Science,-is justified by anything in the sacred narrative.  Let
us examine more nearly the bearing of the objection, as well as
the cause which has produced in the language of Scripture even
a semblance of opposition to physical facts.
Now, at the outset, I would observe,-and this no one can
deny who admits, in any degree, the force of what the objector
has here urged against the accuracy of the sacred writers, —tat
there are very many passages in the Bible, in addition to the one
before us, which are equally obnoxious to the same exception.
In the account of Abraham's sacrifice, for example, we read, " It
came to pass that when the Sun went down.""   So also, in the
Gospels, our Lord Himself has spoken in a similar manner. He
tells us that our " Father which is in Heaven maketh His Sun to
rise on the evil and on the good."" In all such instances the alleged "contradiction" to scientific truth  is, to the fullest extent,
as patent as in the case of " Joshua's miracle:" and it cannot be
too frequently repeated, that they who press the argument which
we are considering  must not be allowed to pause at the example
"Allusions and facts relating to the material world are, indeed, incidentally introduced into this Spiritual Revelation, both in the way of historical record, and apt
moral illustration; and when so introduced, bearing as they do the direct impress of
Divine Inspiration, they are religiously to be received as undoubted facts; but as facts,
nevertheless, to be read, and understood by the light of that other more express and
explicit revelation of Himself in the ways of His natural operations, which God additionally, but equally under the sovereign impress of His hand, has opened to us in
the unfolded volume of His Works." —Gray, Harm. of Scripture and Geology, 2d ed.,
p. 23. An interesting example of such allusions by the sacred writers to the facts
of the natural world has been pointed out by one of the most distinguished geologists of the day. It has been found that the distribution of gold in its original veinstone, or parent rock, differs from that of every other metal in the superficial range
of its particles or threads. Lodes of iron, copper, and argentiferous lead ores, when
followed downwards, generally become more and more productive-the reverse being
the case with gold. "Such has been the loss attending deep gold mining," observes
Sir R. Murchison, "that it has passed into a proverb with the Spaniards. *  *  *
In Europe also the same law has been found to prevail, of the deterioration of the
quality of gold veins in depth  *  *  *  showing how modern researches sustain
the truthfulness of the words of Job-' Surely there is a vein for the silver,' and the
earth'hath dust of gold' (Job, xxviii 1, 6)."-Athenceum, March 9, 1850, No. 1167,
p. 266.
2 Gen. xv. 17; cf. ver. 12. See also: "And as he passed over Penuel the Sun
rose upon him."-xxxii. 31. "The Sun also ariseth, and the Sun goeth down, and
hasteth to his place where he arose."-Eccl i. 5; cE Ps. xix. 5, 6; &c., &c.
~ S. Matt. v. 45.




368                    RECAPITULATION.             [LECT. VIII.
which serves as its popular representative.  It would not be difficult, indeed, to multiply illustrations: for there are numerous
instances in which the language of Scripture presents difficulties
precisely analogous. The sacred writers describe God as " sitting
up.tl)n His throne:" they tell us of the pleasures which are at
H is right hand;" and how " His eyes behold the children of
m.'n." But that all such expressions are employed solely through
co-lndlescensionl to human imperfection, will assuredly be hereafter
perceived as vividly, as all now feel them to be inadequate,-for
then " we shall know, even as also we are known."  And yet,
who that believes does not gratefully accept, as the clearest intimnation of the Divine benignity, such language of Inspiration;
lby means of which He, Whom  " Heaven, and the Heaven of
Heavens, cannot contain," becomes a possible subject of human
thoughtt? while, on the other hand, they who now venture to
take exceptions against its use must confess that they are incapable of forming an adequate conception of even a single attribute of God.
These considerations being premised, the objection before us
is, I submit, on two distincts grounds, untenable.  In the first
place, it is to be borne in mind, that whatever difficulty the case
presents arises altogether from the necessity of making human
language the vehicle of communication to human beings.  It is
conceivable that the writers of Scripture should have made use
of one or other of two languages:-that of Sense, as objects appear to the beholder on this earth; or that of Science.  Now it
is obvious that the language of Science would have been, in
every point of view, unsuited for their purpose. " Science is constantly teaching us to describe known facts in new language;
but the language of Scripture is always the same. And not only
so, but the language of Scripture is necessarily adapted to the
common state of man's intellectual development, in which he is
supposed not to be possessed of Science.  Hence, the phrases
used by Scripture are precisely those which Science soon teaches
man to consider as inaccurate. Yet they are not, on that account, the less fitted for their proper purpose: for if any terms
had been used, adapted to a more advanced state of knowledge,
they must have been unintelligible among those to whom the
1 C". sztpra, lecture ii. pp. 71-77.




LECT. VIII.]            OBJECTIONS CONSIDERED.                            369
Scripture was first addressed."'  The  only language which  is
fixed is that of ordinary life; whereby phenomena are described
as they appear to Sense.  The terms used in Science change as
each  new  system   is proposed:-in  Botany the classification  of
Jussieu differs from  that of Linnaeus; in Optics the nomenclature of Newton differs from that of Fresnel. It is plain, therefore,-and the very design of Scripture proves it to be necessary,
that the language of Inspiration must have been the language of
all mankind.  To press as an  objection the original and  literal
sense of particular words and  phrases, may, no  doubt, exhibit
the only channel of conveying knowledge, language, as being,
like all else that is human, alloyed with imperfection:" we must
remember, however, that the earth  is our habitation; and  that
Scripture was composed as a record for man.  The sacred historian, consequently, has drawn up his narrative, as a narrative of
facts can only be drawn  up, in the language of those for whom
he writes.  The Judge  of Israel addresses his prayer to God;
Whewell, "Philosophy of the Inductive Sciences," vol. i.p. (686. Again:"The meaning which any generation puts upon the phrases of Scripture depends,
more than is at first supposed, upon the received philosophy of the time. Hence,
while men imagine that they are contending for Revelation, they are, in fact, contending for their own interpretation of Revelation, unconsciously adapted to what
they believe to be rationally probable. And the new interpretation, which the new
philosophy requires, and which appears to the older school to be a fatal violence done
-to the authority of religion, is accepted by their successors without the dangerous results which were apprehended. When the language of Scripture, invested with its
new meaning, has become familiar to men, it is found that the ideas which it calls up
are quite as reconcilable as the former ones were with the soundest religious views.
And the world then looks back with surprise at the error of those who thought that
the essence of Revelation was involved in their own arbitrary version of some collateral circumstance.  At the present day we can hardly conceive how reasonable men
should have imagined that religious reflections on the stability of the earth, and the
beauty and use of the luminaries which revolve round it, would be interfered with
by its being acknowledged that this rest and motion are apparent only."-History of
the Inductive Sciences, Book v. vol. i. p. 424.
a Bishop Butler, when developing his remark, that "we are not in any sort competent judges, what supernatural instruction were to have been expected," observes in
illustration: " So likewise the imperfections attending the only method by which nature enables and directs us to communicate our thoughts to each other, are innumerable. Language is, in its very nature, inadequate, ambiguous, liable to infinite abuse,"
&c.-Analogy, Part ii. ch. iii. And Dugald Stewart writes: "I cannot help pausing
a little to remark how much more imperfect language is than is commonly supposed,
when considered as an organ of mental intercourse. *  *  *  Even in conversing
on the plainest and most familiar subjects, however full and circumstantial our statements may be, the words which we employ, if examined with accuracy, will be found
to do nothing more than to suggest hints to our hearers, leaving by far the principal
part of the process of interpretation to be performed by the mind itself. In this respect the effect of words bears some resemblance to the stimulus given to the memory
and imagination by an outline or a shadow, exhibiting tle profile of a countenance
familiar to the eye."- Philosophical Essays, v. ch. 1..
24




370                          RECAPITULATION.                     [LECT. VIII.
and that prayer is recorded in the form in which it was uttered
A  miracle is wrought for the deliverance of the people; and that
miracle  is recorded  as human  Sense  discerned  it: —and  it is
manifest that no other language than that of the  sacred writer
could have been employed, even by a historian of our own day,'
without disclosing the manner in  which  the  miracle  had  been
effected.2
In the second place, this objection, as employed in the case
before us, is altogether set aside by attending to that distinction
between Revelation and Inspiration to which I have so often adverted; and of which this example of Joshua's miracle is perhaps
Historians of the present age can describe the brilliant rising of "the Sun of
Austerlitz" without being considered ignorant of the laws of nature: nay, the most
celebrated astronomers, even when explaining the principles of their own science,
employ the language of Sense. Sir J. IHerschel tells his readers that "the Sun, which
at a considerable altitude always appears round, assumes, as it approaches the horizon,
a flattened or oval outline."- Outlines of Astronomy, p. 34. Again: on crossing the
equator the stars which at the spectator's "original station described their whole
diurnal circles above his horizon, and never set, now describe them entirely below it,
and never rise." —-bid., p. 46;-so universal, when touching upon the province of
phenomena, is the employment by all writers of the language of Sense. In the words
of Kepler (quoted by Mr. Gray, loc. cit., p. 28): " Astronomy unfolds the causes of
natural things; it professedly investigates optical illusions. For even we astronomers
do not pursue this science with the design of altering common language. We say
with the common people, the planets stand still, or go down; the Sun rises and sets.
These forms of speech we use with the common people: meaning only, that so the
thing appears to us, although it is not truly so, as all astronomers are agreed. How
much less should we require that the Scriptures of Divine Inspiration, setting aside
the common modes of speech, should shape their words according to the model of the
natural sciences; and by employing a dark and inappropriate phraseology about things
which surpass the comprehension of those whom it designs to instruct, perplex the
simple people of God, and thus obstruct its own way towards the attainment of the
far more exalted end at which it aims."
2 The reserve (involved in the very nature of a Miracle) with which the Scripture
narrative has treated the modus operandi here, as in the case of all other exhibitions
of Divine power, has not been respected by either the assailants or the defenders of
Inspiration. Thus, a very amiable writer, M. Gaussen, undertakes to explain the
miracle before us: "It is easy to understand that if God, in the day of the battle of
Beth-hdron, had employed two-thirds of a minute to arrest, by brief and successive
retardations, the rotation of our globe," &c. On which he adds, "It will, perhaps
here be objected that the rotation of the earth at Beth-horon is twenty-seven times
more rapid than that of a steam-carriage on a railroad. It is true; —but since the
force of retardation necessary to overcome a given impulsion, is in inverse proportion
to the time it occupies, the miracle would be accomplished in eighteen minutes. Let
us suppose, then, eighteen minutes, instead of forty seconds, to completely arrest the
movement of the earth at the voice of Joshua; and then'the warring alrmies, instead of being swept as chaff before the tempest,' would no more feel what was going
on than do, at present, thousands of railroad travellers, when stopping at the assigned
stations."  M. Gaussen enters still more deeply into the successive steps of the procedure: "Let us suppose a double concussion communicated to the earth, above and
below its centre, in two opposite and parallel directions; and it will be explained how
rotation on its axis may have been suspended, without its progressive motion being.at all affected."-.Theopneustia, p. 174, &c.




LECT. VIII.]            OBJECTIONS CONSIDERED.                           371
the most striking illustration.' It is assumed by the objector,and in this assumption lies the whole strength of his argument,
-that the inspired language of Scripture was directly communicated to its writers by the Holy Ghost: that is to say, its several statements, whether historical or doctrinal, are assumed to
be the result of an immediate infusion of both words and thoughts
into the minds of the human agents who composed the different
parts of the Bible. In short, the objection before us rests upon
the supposition that the passage against which it is directed is
not the inspired narrative of an historical event faithfully related
as an eye-witness must have related it; but that it was designed
to be an express impartation of scientific knowledge revealed by
the Most High.  Here the remark above adverted to, that Scripture does not teach matters of science, comes in with all its force
-not, indeed, to explain how the language of Joshua may be reconciled with the language of Philosophy; but to explain why
we are not to regard  his language as a special revelation, communicating the results of future discoveries.'' See supra, Lecture iv. p. 146, note 3.
2 There is yet another class of " discrepancies" which Spinoza was, I believe, the
first to urge against the authority of Scripture; and the same objection has been lately
pressed, with the same object, by Mr. F. W. Newman ("Phases of Faith," p. 147).
It has been even advanced by Mr. Morell, who thus states his views: " Once more
we may refer to discrepancies in reasoning, in definition, and in other purely formal
and logical processes. By those who have most closely analyzed the trains of thought
which we have in the Apostolic writings, and especially those of S. Paul, it is well
understood how great the difficulty often is to reconcile particular definitions, and
passing arguments, with logical order and consistency. To some it might, doubtless,
seem very irreverent to speak of errors in reasoning as occurring in the sacred writings; but the irreverence, if there be any, really lies on the part of those who deny
their possibility. We have already shown that to speak of Logic, as such, being inspired, is a sheer absurdity. The process either of defining or of reasoning requires
simply the employment of the formal laws of thought, the accuracy of which can be
in no way affected by any amount of inspiration whatever."-Philosophy of Religion,
p. 173. The distinction between Revelation and Inspiration indicates one of the
mistakes involved in this statement. On Mr. Morell's principles it must be equally
absurd to speak of "inspired history" as of "inspired logic." It may, with equal
truth, be said of one, as of the other, that its accuracy " can be in no way affected
by any amount of inspiration whatever." But the followiug profound remarks point
out the radical fallacy of any attempt to analyze the reasoning of Scripture by the
ordinary rules of Logic:'"Inspired teaching (explain it how we may) seems comparatively indifferent to (what seems to us so peculiarly important) close logical connexion, and the intellectual symmetry of doctrines. *  *  *  The necessity of
confuting gainsayers at times forced one of the greatest of His [Christ's] inspired
servants, S. Paul, to prosecute continuous argument; yet even with him how abrupt
are the transitions, how intricate the connexion, how much is conveyed by assumptions such as Inspiration alone can make, without any violation of the canons of
reasoning —FOR WITH IT ALONE ASSERTION IS ARGUMENT. *  *  *  The same may
be said of some passages of S. John, supposed to have been similarly occasioned.
Inspiration has ever left to human Reason the filling up of its outlines, the careful
connexion of its more isolated truths. The two are as the lightning of Heaven, bril



372                         RECAPITULATION.                    [LECT. Vm.
I have paused upon this particular objection longer, perhaps,
than its intrinsic weight may have appeared to demand or deserve, because it has enabled me to introduce some observations
which will facilitate the just apprehension of a topic of growing
importance, and to which every year that passes by adds a graver
interest: I mean the connexion, in general, between the results
of scientific discovery, and the statements of Scripture. It is a
fact of common notoriety, that men have not yet ceased to feel
alarm for the truths of Religion. Let us only bear in mind the
spirit with which any progress in the  Philosophy of Nature is
received. Take, for example, the case of Astronomy, which opens
to our view the boundless regions of space; or of Geology, which
discloses to our understanding the boundless regions of time.
The history of Galileo illustrates the difficulties with which the
former has had to struggle. The memory of living men attests
the opposition encountered by the latter;' an opposition which
-it is not going too far to  aver-has not as yet disappeared.
Strange, indeed, that such misconceptions should still prevail
as to the respective provinces of Science and  Religion!  The
great founder of the Inductive  Philosophy  has from  the first
raised his warning voice in deprecation of the error: " The unskilfulness of certain Theologians," observed Lord Bacon, " would
exclude the study of all Philosophy, however guarded. Some
entertain a latent fear lest they may intrude into Divine Mysliant, penetrating, far-flashing, abrupt-compared with the feebler but continuous
illuminatioh of some earthly beacon."-Professor Archer Butler, On Development, p.
245. In other words, Mr. Morell's criticism on the Logic of Scripture assumes that
Scripture is not inspired. But see irfra, Appendix N, the truly philosophical principles laid down on this subject by Mr. J. S. Mill.' It is important, however, to bear in mind that objections to Geology as a science
have not originated with the friends of Religion. Voltaire denied the existence of
fossils, lest he should be compelled to admit the fact of the Deluge:-" As the readiest way of shaking this article of faith, he endeavored to inculcate scepticism as
to the real nature of such shells, and to recall from contempt the exploded dogma
of the 16th century, that they were sports of nature."-Lyell's Principles of Geology,
8th ed., p. 56. Or, shifting his ground to suit the apprehension of the vulgar, he
maintained that the shells collected in the Alps were no doubt real shells, but that
they were "Eastern species which had fallen from the hats of pilgrims coming from
Syria."-Ibid. " It is interesting and instructive to observe," remarks an able writer
in the "Christian Remembrancer" for July, 1849, "how speedily and entirely unbelievers changed their views of Geology. It was soon whispered that geological phenomena seemed to indicate that the antiquity of the globe was much greater than
that attributed by the Mosaic account to the human race. *  *  *  In Mr. Brydone's' Tour through Sicily and Malta in 1770,' eight years before the death of Voltaire. the immense antiquity of the globe, as proved by the geological phenomena
of JEtna, is treated of with a radiant satisfaction which is hardly exceeded when
he descants upon the profligacy of the Sicilian ronks or knights of Malta"'-p. 228.




LECT. VIII.]          OBJECTIONS CONSIDERED.                         373
teries by  penetrating too deeply into  the  secrets of Nature.
Others conceive that, by remaining ignorant of the means, the
effects can be more easily ascribed to the agency of God. Others,
again, apprehend  that changes in  Philosophy may produce results injurious to Religion.  While a fourth class seems alarmed
lest researches into Nature's laws shall bring to light what may
subvert or weaken their faith. These two latter apprehensions,"
continues this great writer, "appear to us to savor of a wisdom
altogether animal:-as if, in the recesses of their breasts, men
mistrusted the certainty of Religion; and, therefore, feared that
danger impends from  a search after Truth."'
With reference to this supposed variance between the conclusions of Science and the received interpretation  of Scripture, it
is entirely overlooked by those to whose minds such a result presents a difficulty, that the constant recurrence of apparent contradictions  between  the  observed  facts  of every  progressive
science, and the sense which we are in the habit of attaching
to the statements of the Bible, seems, beforehand, almost a matter of certainty. This has already been the case with Astronomy, Geology, Ethnology:-we may expect it in the continued
investigation of these sciences; and, no doubt the same will occur in other cases also.  There  are some-and these persons
Bacon has described-who take alarm  at every investigation in
Natural Philosophy.  To the minds of such men, the theory of
Nebulae, started by philosophers, suggests a doubt of the creation
of the world by God; the truth of the Mosaic narrative appears
to waver before the facts of Geology; the descent of man from
one original stock seems impugned by an examination into the
history of nations.2 To all such apprehensions one only answer
can be given. " No one Truth can be contradictory to any other
Truth."   The question which we must settle, in the first instance, and on its own peculiar evidence, is-Does the Bible
Novum Organum," lib. i. aphor. 89.
2 " When men had conceived the occurrences of the Sacred Narrative in a particular manner, they could not readily and willingly adopt a new mode of conception;
and all attempts to recommend to them such novelties, they resisted as attacks upon
the sacredness of the Narrative. They had clothed their belief of the workings of
Providence in certain images; and they clung to those images with the persuasion
that, without them, their belief could not subsist. * *  *  The most memorable
instance of a struggle of this kind is to be found in the circumstances which attended the introduction of the Heliocentric Theory of Copernicus to general acceptancr."-Whewell, Phil. of the Indwut. Sciences, vol. i. p. 685.




374                         RECAPITULATION.                    [LECT. VIII.
come from  God?   And if it be  Divine  (and  therefore  true),
" then is it certain, demonstrably certain-that no fact in the
universe,-in heaven above, or earth beneath, or in the waters
or the rocks under the earth,-can by possibility be really inconsistent with it."' Hence, the conclusion which Theologian and
Philosopher alike must admit is simply this:-Let each inquirer
produce his results; the one from God's words in His Scriptures,
the other from  God's acts in His Creation; and  should any inconsistency present itself, it is either because the pages of Inspiration do not really say what the former supposes: or else because the theory of the latter is founded upon an imperfect or
erroneous induction. On such a principle the Philosopher may be
invited to collect his facts, and to build up his theory, undismayed
by any alarm lest his conclusions shall contravene a single truth
of Religion: while it becomes the duty of Divines-a duty increasing in its obligation as Science advances,-in the first place,
to qualify themselves to understand and appreciate such conclusions; and, when the evidence on which they rest is weighed and
accepted, the next duty of Theology is to compare the results
with the preconceived opinions of religious men, and, should they
be found not to agree, to examine how  this discrepancy is to be
set right, and to teach in what other' way the face of the world
and the words of God  miay  be shown  to be,-as when rightly
understood, they must, of necessity be,-perfectly harmonious.'
1 I here avail myself of the very forcible argument of the writer in the "Christian
Remembrancer," loc. cit., pp. 232-234.
I " Other apparent difficulties arise from the accounts given in the Scripture of the
first origin of the world in which we live: for example, Light is represented as created before the Sun. With regard to difficulties of this kind, it appears that we may
derive some instruction from the result to which we were led in the last chapter;namely, that in the sciences which trace the progress of natural occurrences, we can
in no case go back to an origin, but in every instance appear to find ourselves separated from it by a state of things, and an order of events, of a kind altogether different from those which come under our experience. The thread of induction respecting
the natural course of the world snaps in our fingers, when we try to ascertain where
its beginning is. Since, then, Science can teach us nothing positive respecting the
beginning of things, she can neither contradict nor confirm what is taught by Scripture on that subject; and thus, as it is unworthy timidity in the lover of Scripture to
fear contradiction, so is it ungrounded presumption to look for confirmation in such
cases."-Whewell, loc. cit. p. 687. In one of Mr. Chapman's publications, entitled
"The Hebrew Cosmogony," the author, drawing all his inferences from the most literal construction of the English translation of the Hebrew text, observes: "Thus,
between indolent surmises and absurd theories, the world has (with few exceptions)
permitted itself to be blind to the fact that Moses' narrative is entirely at variance
with existing phenomena; and that that error is one of the most vital importance,
affecting the proof of his inspiration"-p. 9; and the writer concludes with the re



LECT. VIII.]             OBJECTIONS CONSIDERED.                               375
Nor can it for a moment be maintained  that such  endeavors to
readjust our interpretation  of the  language  of Holy  Scripture
can derogate from  its supreme  authority.   A  remark  of Bishop
Butler with reference to " the scheme of Scripture," holds equally
true with reference  to  its interpretation,- if we only substitute
the facts of Science for the events of History: " Nor is it at all
incredible, that a Book which has been so long in the possession
of mankind  should  contain  many  truths  as yet.undiscovered.
For all the  same  phenomena, and  the  same  faculties  of investigation from which such great discoveries in natural knowledge have been  made  in  the present and  last age, were equally
in  the  possession  of mankind   several thousand  years  before.
And possibly it might be intended that events, as they come
to  pass,  should   open  and  ascertain  the meaning  of several
parts of Scripture."' It may be well, too, to note that the same
objections which have been advanced against inquiring into the
laws of Nature have been equally urged even against inquiries
into the text of Scripture. When Dr. Kennicott commenced his
labors on the text of the  Old  Testament, all the world was in
commotion; and  it was apprehended  that Christianity  itself
would be sorely shaken.   But men's fears were soon  appeased;
mark: "Whether these objections affect the evidence for the inspiration of the preceptive and prophetic portions of the Old Testament is quite another question." Or,
to take the less offensive statement of Mr. Morell: " Under this head we may refer
to the acknowledged (?) discrepancies between some of the Scriptural statements and
scientific truth. The account of the Creation, for example, as given in the Book of
Genesis, is by no means exactly reconcilable (viewed as a scientific account) with the
most palpable facts of Geology.  We do not doubt but that ingenuity may smooth
down one expression, and give a broad meaning to another, and after all may bring
out a tolerable case of consistency; but still it is impossible to say that, as a scientific
view of the creation of the world, the Book of Genesis would convey at all the same
impression to the mind of any ordinary reader as do the results of geological research."-Philosophy of Religion, p. 170.  To this class of objections the following
remarks suggest the true answer: " The Sacred Narrative, in some of its earliest portions, speaks of natural objects and occurrences respecting them.  In the very beginning of the course of the world, we may readily believe (indeed as we have seen
in the last chapter, our scientific researches lead us to believe) that such occurrences
were very different fiom anything which now takes place;-different to an extent
and in a manner which we cannot estimate.  Now the narrative must speak of objects and occurrences in the words and phrases which have derived their meaning
from their application to the existing natural state of things.  When applied to an
initial supernatural state, therefore, these words and phrases cannot help being to us
obscure and mysterious, perhaps ambiguous and seemingly contradictory."-Whewell,
loc. cit., p. 684.
"Analogy," Part ii. ch. iii. Cf. the remark of Cassiodorus: "Nequaquam vobis
modernos expositores interdico.  Caute tamen quaerendos esse Catholicos; quoniam
accessu temporum  multis noviter gratia Divinitatis infunditur, quae forsitan priscis
doctoribus c;elata lmonsfratua."-D~   lastit. Div. Liter., c. viii. t. ii. p. 544.




376                          RECAPITULATION.                      [LECT. VII.
and they were amazed at the triviAl  anl  easily explicable variations  which the  Hebrew  manuscripts presented:-so trivial
indeed are they, that they have almost ceased to possess any
interest in the eyes of critics.1
What Religion, then, has to  fear is not the most searching
criticism of the contents of Scripture; not any fundamental inquiry into the laws of physical phenomena; not the fullest examination of every vestige upon the field of Nature left by  the
footsteps of Time:-her true  source of alarm  is the danger to
their faith  which  those  persons  must encounter who  content
themselves with superficial information, or partial knowledge.
Scripture has never anything to apprehend  from  the results of
any branch of Science; a semblance of investigation  and  halflearned sciolism alone can represent its great truths in a disadvantageous light.  They who seek in the announcements of Scripture for positive information on matters appertaining to Natural
Science will, indeed, ever seek in vain. For those, on the other
hand, who, while they venture not to deliver physical doctrines as
the teaching of Revelation,2 recognise the undoubted  supremacy
Dr. Moses Stuart observes: "In the Hebrew MSS. that have been examined,
some 800,000 various readings actually occur as to the Hebrew consonants.  How
many as to the vowel-points and accents, no man knows. But at the same time it is
equally true, that all these taken together do not change or materially affect any important point of doctrine, precept, or even history.  A great proportion, indeed the
mass, of variations in Hebrew MSS. when minutely scanned, amount to nothing
more than the difference in spelling a multitude of English words [e. g., or ~i;
as hdnour or honor].  *  *  *  "Indeed one may travel through the immense desert
(so I can hardly help naming it) of Kennicott and De Rossi, and (if I may venture to
speak in homely phrase) not find game enough to be worth the hunting.  So completely is this chase given up by recent critics on the Iebrew Scriptures, that a refelrence to either of these famous collators of MSS. who once created a great sensation
among philologers is rarely to be found."- On the Old Test. Canon, p. 169.
"When the very erudite and truly pious Professor Bengel of Tiibingen published
his New Testament, with all the various readings which he had been able to discover,
many minds were filled with anxiety, thinking that an entirely New Testament would
be the result in the end, if all the various readings were hunted up. They thought it
would be better to leave things as they were. But mark:-although 40,000 various
readings were discovered in the ancient MSS., the New Testament was hardly at all
altered thereby."-Olshausen, The Genuineness of the N. T. Writings (Clarke's For.
Theol. Lib. p. vii).
2 "By delivering physical doctrines as the teaching of Revelation, Religion may
lose much, but cannot gain anything. This maxim of practical wisdom has often
been urged by Christian writers. Thus S. Augustine says (lib. I. "De Genesi,"
c. xviii.):'In obscure matters and things far removed from our senses, if we read
anything, even in the Divine Scripture, which may produce diverse opinions without
damaging the faith which we cherish, let us not rush headlong by positive assertion
to either the one opinion or the other; lest when a more thorough discussion has
shown the opinion we had adopted to be false, our faith may fall with it: and we
should be found contending, not for the doctrine of the Sacred Scriptures, but for our




LECT. VIII.]           OBJECTIONS CONSIDERED.                           377
of that Revelation  in its own  province;-for those who thus
take up the " Oracles of God" with integrity and honesty (and,
again to use the words of Bishop Butler, "Religion presupposes
this as much, and in the same sense, as speaking  to a man presupposes he understands the language  in which you  speak")for all such inquirers the Bible will ever possess the peculiarity
of meeting  every want, and  appeasing  every difficulty.  In its
pages every longing of our nature, the most superficial and the
most profound, will find satisfaction.  Here provision has been
made alike for the tender susceptibility of the child, and the mature intellect of manhood: and whatever shadow our imperfect
knowledge may allow, for the present, to rest upon certain of its
statements, the Mourner will still find  solace in  the songs of
Sion, and Philosophy still drink wisdom from the parables of
Galilee.  It is true, as I have said, that all difficulties may not
have  been  removed which  the  enemies of Christianity  have
started: nevertheless, the marvellous success with which most
of them have already been met must convince any fair mind that
such as still remain are not insurmountable; and that here, if
anywhere, it befits our weakness " to be thankful and to wait."'
The supercilious philosophy which refuses to Religion this justice,-which scorns " to conciliate the finger and the tongue of
God, His works and His word,"i —must answer, as best it may,
the demand of the Most High: " Where wast thou when I laid
the  foundations of the earth?   Declare  if thou  hast understanding."   The Christian, on the other hand, fearlessly accepts
the source of Divine  knowledge which has been vouchsafed to
him. In the pages of Scripture he recognises the record of imperishable Truth; and as he shrinks from no inquiry, so he chalown; endeavoring to make our doctrine to be that of the Scriptures, instead of
taking the doctrine of the Scriptures to be ours.' "-Whewell, loc. cit. p. 693.
Mr. Westcott, loc. cit., p. 133, quotes the words of Origen: dazt/;S  oi!v 7O
7neptLivev 7')v pur)yveiav ro~  a0l0Vto7ToV  6'oyov.-Philocalia.
2, We may add, as a further reason for mutual forbearance in such cases, that the
true interests of both parties are the same. The man of Science is concerned, no less
than any other person, in the truth and import of the Divine dispensation; the religious man, no less than the man of Science, is, by the nature of his intellect, incapable of believing two contradictory declarations. Hence they have botl alike a need
for understanding the Scripture in some way in which it shall be consistent with their
understanding of Nature. It is for their common advantage to conciliate, as Kepler
says, the finger and the tongue of God, His works and His word."-Whewell, loc. cit.
p. 695.
3 Job, xxxviii. 4.




378                   RECAPITULATION.            [LECT. VIII.
lenges all examination. His sole demand is, justice in the conduct of this inquiry, and due qualifications on the part of those
who enter on this examination.  He knows that every assault
which has marked the course of nineteen hundred years has but
served to strengthen the bulwarks of his belief; and that above
the chaos of human systems, and the wreck of philosophical
speculation, the light of Inspiration shines more brightly than
ever. Earthly dynasties have passed away, while the Kingdom
of Christ has but enlarged its borders. Empires have crumbled
into ruins, but the Religion of the Cross shows no symptoms of
decrepitude. Under the banner of that Cross will yet be signalized the further triumphs of the Church of God: and, unfailing as that Church Herself, are those Divine Institutes which
are entrusted to Her charge, and which contain Her Commission. " Heaven and earth shall pass away, but My words shall
not pass away,"-is the assurance of the Church's Head. And
although philosophers object, or critics cavil, or unbelievers scorn,
the Christian calmly abides the issue, with a confidence " strong
as Faith, and patient as Time."




A P P E N DIX 








APPENDIX
APPENDIX A.
FICHTE.
(LECTURE I.-PAGE 19.)
"IT is needless," observes a rationalistic writer, " to prove the necessity
of a Revelation.  For, if Reason allow that a Revelation is possible, Theology has merely to adduce the historical proof that God has revealed
Himself."'  To prove the possibility of such a communication from  the
Divine Being is the problem  which Fichte undertakes to solve; and, in
entering upon his "Attempt at a Criticism of all Revelation," he sets out
fiom an analysis of the actual state and constitution of man-his faculties
and his susceptibilities.
The result of this analysis differs but little, if at all, froml the followingr
description given by Bishop Butler:-" Together with the general principle of moral understanding we have, in our inward fiame, various affections towards particular external objects.  These affections are naturally,
and of right, subject to the government of the moral principle, as to the
occasions upon which they may be gratified; as to the times, degrees, and
manner, in which the objects of them may be pursued: but thenr the principle of virtue can neither excite them, nor prevent their being excited. On
the contrary, they are naturally felt when the objects of them are present
to the mind, not only before all consideration whether they can be obtained by lawful means, but after it is found they cannot."-Analogy,
Part i. ch. v.
Fichte opens his " Criticism" by laying down a " Theory of the Will as
preparation, in general, for a deduction of Religion" (~ 2).  " The determining one's self; with the consciousness of our own activity, to produce a
conception is called will (Wollen): the power to determine one's self, with
this consciousness of the self activity, is called the power of desire (Begehrungs-Vermogen).  The will is distinguished from  the power of desire, as
the actual from the possible."  " There must be a medium which is capable
of being determined, on the one hand, by the conception to which the subject is but passively related; and, on the other, by spontaneity, the consciousness of which is the exclusive echaracter of all will.  This medilumm we
name propension (den Trieb)."'That which existing in the subject-mnatBretschneider, " IIndbuch der Dogmatik," B. i. s. 2.10.




382                         APPENDIX A.
ter of the sensation determines the propension we name agreeable; and the
propension, so far as it is thereby determined, we name the sensuous (sinnlichen) propension" (s. 5).
The higher power of desire-the object of which is the idea of what is
absolutely right-is to be distinguished from the lower. To the former no
object is given,-it gives to itself its object: to the latter its object must be
given. The former is absolutely independent; the latter is, in many respects, merely passive. That this higher power of desire, which is merely
a power, should produce a willing as an actual process of the mind, something further is required; and that the determination of the will in finite
creatures should be possible, a certain medium must be pointed out. This
is called the feeling of respect (das Gefuhl der Achtung), which is, as it
were, the point in which the rational and sensuous natures of finite beings
inwardly combine. It is therefore a perfectly just maxim of morality, " Respect thyself:" and hence we see why minds which are not ignoble prize
the approval of their own hearts far higher than the plaudits of a universe.
This self-respect, as an active propension determining the will is called
moral interest: which must necessarily be accompanied by a feeling of
pleasure. Respect (Achtung) is the earliest feeling which, displaying itself
in every man, is not to be explained by his whole sensuous nature, and immediately points to his connexion with a higher world. The sensuous propension on the one hand, and tie purely moral propension, on the other,
hold the scales in the human will; the pleasure arising from the submission of the former to the Law imposed by the latter is a spark of the Deity
within us, and a pledge that we are of His race (s. 25).
The Moral Law demands supremacy within us. According to its prohibition, or non-prohibition, a propension is allowable or the reverse. " The
Moral Law, if it shall not contradict itself, and cease to be a Law, must
maintain the rights imparted by itself: —it must, consequently exercise not
only command, but absolute rule over Nature.  This cannot take place in
beings who are themselves passively affected by Nature,-but in a Being
only Who, in all respects independently, determines Nature: in Whose
Person are united moral necessity, and absolute physical freedom. This
Being we name God" (s. 41). By virtue of the demands of the Moral
Law, God must produce perfect congruence between morality and the happiness of finite rational beings.  "The determinations in the idea of God
(which Reason, practically determined by the injunctions of morality, has
laid down) are-(1.) Those presented by His very idea: viz. that He is
determined wholly and solely by the Moral Law (i. e. the demand of the
practical Reason on Him is not a command, but a Law;-it is with respect
to Him not imperative, but constitutive): and-(2.) Those which belong
to Him, so far as relates to the possibility of finite moral beings; on account of which possibility we were just now obliged to assume His existence. The former represent God as the most perfect Holiness:-as the
Alone-Happy, because He is the Alone-Holy.  Hence He represents the
fighest Good —the attained end of practical Reason-the possibility of
which was Reason's postulate.  The latter represent Him as the Supreme
Ruler of the world by moral laws; the Judge of all rational spirits.  The
former regard Him in, and for, Iimself, according to His Being; and He
thereby appears the most perfect observer of the Moral Law: the latter,




APPENDIX A.                             883
according to the operations of this Being upon other moral natures, and by
virtue of which He is the highest executor of the requirements of the Moral
Law; and therefore a Legislator.  Hence we get a Theology (which we
must have in order not to place in contradiction our theoretical convictions
and the practical determinations of our will); but not as yet a Religion,
which itself, in turn, might, as Cause, exert an influence upon this determination of the will. Theology is mere Science: Religion, as its very name
imports (religio), is that which binds us; and this, too, more powerfully
than we were bound without it" (s. 46).  Theology becomes Religion,
when the propositions assumed to determine our will by means of the Law
of Reason operate practically upon us, in consequence of the further motive that such is God's command.
The Moral Law in us contains the law of God to us; and is, according
to its matter, His Law. We have still to inquire whether it is also) Ilis
Law, according to its form: i. e. whether it has been promulged by Him,
and as His.  In other words:-" Has God really promulged His Law to
us? Can we point out a fact which proves itself to be such a promulgation?" (s. 71).  The problem  to be solved, therefore, is-" Has God announced Himself to us as a Moral Legislator? and, how has He done so?"
This is conceivable in two ways.  God has promulged His Law either in
us, as moral beings, in our rational nature; or in a way exterior to that
nature.  There arc, therefore, two principles of Religion:-the principle
of the supernatural within us; and the principle of the supernatural without us.  A Religion based upon the former is called Natural Religion: if
based upon the latter it is called Revealed Religion.    According to the
second principle, the announcement of the Legislator without us either
sends us back to our rational nature, and the entire Revelation, expressed
in words, merely says:' God is the Legislator; the Law written in your
hearts is His;'-or, it prescribes to us, in a special manner, God's Law
once more, in the same way in which it makes Him known as Legislator.
In the case of a Revelation given in concreto, there is no reason why both
may not take place" (s. 79).  (Cf. Butler's "Analogy," Part ii. ch. i.)
" Revelation, according to its form, is a kind of making known (eine Art
von Bekanntmachung); and every thing which holds good of this its species holds good also of it.  Of all " making known" there are two internal
conditions: viz. (1), the something which is made known, the subject matter (der Stoff); and (2) the manner in which it is made known, theform
of the " making known."  The external conditions are also twofold: —a
person who makes known, and one to whom  it is made known.  That
which is made known is made known only because I knew it not before.
Knowledge which is d priori possible is developed, or pointed out, not
made known: it is only knowledge which is possible ad  osteriori that is
made known."  Hence it follows that we must exclude from  the idea of
Revelation all possible instruction and knowledge derived from a contemplation of the world of sense.  "Revelation is therefore a perception which
is wrought in us by God, in conformity with the idea of some instruction
to be given us thereby, as its end or object."  As to the logical possibility
of this notion there can be no doubt.  Its physical possibility is founded
upon the postulate of the Moral Law that a free intelligent being can be a
cause in the world of sense, in conformity with an idea of the end to be




384                           APPENDIX  A.
effected.  But how shall we know that God has thus wrought a certain
perception in us?
Although we cannot penetrate the notion of a Revelation on the side of
its form; the idea of Religion enables us to attain to it on the side of its,ter (s. 96).
If the existence of finite moral beings-i. e. beings who besides the
Moratl TLaw are likewise subject to laws of Nature-be assumed, we may
anticipate that the operations of these two causalities (whose laws are recipolo ally quite independent of each other) will fall into collision in det erliainig tile will of such beings.  "If such beings shall not in this case
be(come quite incapable of morality, their sensuous (sinnliche) nature must
be determined by impulses of sense to allow itself to be determined by the
Moral  Law."  The sole purely moral impulse is the inward holiness of
Right (des Rechts).  This holiness, by virtue of a postulate of the pure
practical Reason, exists in God in concreto: He is, therefore, the Legislator
of all rational beings;- and must, therefore, announce Himself to them, and
His will as their law, in the world of sense. Now the world of sense does
not contain an announcement of this law-giving holiness. God must, therefore, announce Himself to those beings in the world of sense as Legislator,
by means of a special phenomenon expressly designed for this purpose and
f r them.  And since God is determined by the Moral Law to forward by
all moral means the highest possible morality in all rational beings, we
may expect, if such beings exist, that He will avail Himself of those means,
if they be physically possible. This deduced idea is really the idea of
Revelation:-i. e. the idea of a phenomenon produced in the world of
sense by the causality of God, whereby He announces Himself as moral
Legislator" (s. 106).
" In deducing the notion of Revelation from the practical principles of
Reason, the fact was assumed a priori that there can be moral beings in
whom the Moral Law loses its casuality for ever, or only in certain cases.
The Moral Law claims a casuality over the higher power of desire, in order
to determine the will; and over the lower, in order to produce the perfect
freedom of the moral subject from the constraint of the impulse of Nature.
If theformer kind of causality be removed, the will to recognise and obey
the Law is wanting: if the latter only be hindered, man, however good
his will may be, is too weak actually to practise the good that he wills.
The empirical possibility of this hypothesis, if proved, answers the question, Why was a Revelation needed? and why could not man make shift
with Natural Religion alone?" (s. 112).  The highest moral perfection of
man (impossible to be determined a priori as existing in any individual
i an, and in the present state of humanity improbable) is that pure religion
of Reason which waits for no demand of God to obey Hinm; but only for
per:nission to look up to Him with willing obedience.  The second degree
of moral perfection (and which is the foundation of Natural Religion), is
that in which Reason seeks for proof of the notion of God, as moral Legislator; and finds it in the idea of Him as Creator of the world.  The lowest
fall of rational beings with respect to morality, is when not even the will
exists to recognise and obey a moral law.
In each of these cases Religion is required.  In the first, to satisfy the
emotion of reverence and gratitude towards to   he Supreme Being; in the
"""''"^`  "'""~~""''~""  b"`""~'"'  """^"~'"' ""~~I"Y' ~ v"-'t~z




APPENDIX A.                          385
second, to add a new weight to the authority of the Moral Law; in the
third, to produce the will to acknowledge that Law. This Religion can
attain to humanity thus constituted, only by the way in which everything
reaches it which it conceives, or by which it allows itself to be determined:
-viz., by the senses. "Humanity may fall so deeply into moral degradation, that it is not to be brougnt back to morality by any other means
than by Religion; and to Religion by any other means than by the senses.
A religion which shall take effect upon such men can no otherwise be
founded than immediately upon Divine authority.  Since God cannot will
that any moral being should forge (erdichte) such an authority, He Himself, it must be, who confers it upon such a religion" (p. 134). But upon
what can God found this authority?  Clearly not upon a Sublimity for
which men have no sense and no reverence; nor yet upon His Holiness,
which were to presuppose a moral feeling already existing in them, which
Religion has yet to develop; but upon that which they are capable of
marvelling at on natural grounds —is greatness, and power, as Lord of
Nature, and as their Lord.  Hence results merely attention on man's part
to the motives to obedience which are at a later period to be laid before
him.  The demand, therefore, of God, in a possible Revelation, that we
should hearken to Him is founded upon His Omnipotence: His demand
that we should obey Him  can only be founded upon His Holiness; but
the notion of Holiness, as well as of reverence for it, must have been
already developed by means of Revelation.  We have a sublime expression which explains this: " Be ye holy, for I am Holy, saith the Lord"
(p. 136).
But, before the moral feelings are excited, how are men to judge if it can
be God that speaks I"
The counterpoise to those determinations that resist duty and have
strength sufficient to suppress altogether the voice of Reason, is the power
of imagination (die Einbildungs-kraft); which, on the one hand, appertains to sense (and is thus capable of a determination to work in opposition
to the sensuous nature of man); on the other, is determinable by freedom,
and has spontaneity. By means of it, therefore, must the sole possible
motive of morality-viz., the conception of the legislation of the Holy One
-be brought before the soul. In Natural Religion this conception is
founded on principles of Reason; but if this Reason (as we assume) is
completely suppressed, then its results appear dark, uncertain, insecure.
The principles therefore of this conception also should be capable of representation by the power of imagination. Now principles of this class
would be facts in the world of sense,-or a Revelation.  In such moments
man must be able to say to himself: "It is God, for He has spoken, and
acted: He wills that I should not act so now, for He has expressly forbidden it, in such words, and under such circumstances," &c. If conceptions
of this nature shall make an impression upon him, he must be able to assume as perfectly true, and just, the facts which lie at their foundation;
they must, therefore, not be anything feigned by his own power of imagination, but be given to it.
Is it, in general, possible-is it, in general, conceivable-that anything
without Nature, should have a causality in Nature?  That this must be,
in general, possible, is the first postulate which the practical Reason makes
25




386                          APPENDIX A.
a priori, when it determines the supernatural element within us (our higher
power of desire) to be a cause without itself in the world of sense whether
within us or without us.  The entire philosophy of Nature knows notl-in
of a causality by means of fieedom: so long, therefore, as we speak of the
mere determining by the higher power of desire, it is needless to pay any
regard to the existence of Nature.  These two causalities, viz., of Nature,
and of the Moral Law, are infinitely different as well in the kind of their
causality, as their objects.  The Law of Nature ordains with absolute necessity; the Moral Law commands freedom: the former rules Nature; the
latter the world of spirits.  Their operations in the world of sense, however, come in contact, and may even not be contradictory. Their harmony
may be conceived possible by their mutual dependence on a higher legislation, which lies at the foundation of both; which is, however, for us quite
inaccessible.  Were we able, indeed, to place such a principle at the basis
of our view of the Universe, the same effect which appears to us when referred to the world of sense according to the Moral Law as free, and in
Nature as contingent, would be recognised as altogether necessary.  But
since we cannot do so, it follows plainly that so soon as we pay regard to
a causality by means of freedom, we must not assume all phenomena in
the world of sense as necessary, according to mere laws of Nature, but
many merely as contingent: and that we may not, therefore, explain them
all from the laws of Nature, but many merely according to such laws:by which latter phrase is meant that we are to assume the causality of the
matter of the operation to be without Nature, and the causality of its form
to be within Nature.
In God, Who determines Nature according to the Moral Law, the two
legislations spoken of unite. We are compelled by our Reason to derive
the whole system of phenomena-the entire world of sense-from  a causality by means of freedom, according to laws of Reason; and that, too,
from  the causality of God.  The whole world is for us this supernatural
operation; and it is conceivable (1) that God, from the first, has interwoven
in the plan of the Universe the first natural cause of a phenomenon, which
was in conformity with one of His moral designs.  (The objection that
this is to do in a roundabout way (durch einen  Umweg) what could be
done directly, is based upon a gross anthropomorphosis, as if God stood
under the conditions of time).  In this case the phenomenon might be
perfectly explicable from the laws of Nature, up to the supernatural origin
of all Nature itself, were we able to take a connected survey of it;-and
yet it must be also regarded as effected by the causality of a Divine idea
of the moral end to be attained thereby. Or, again, (2) we might assume
that God has actually interrupted the series of causes and effects already
commenced and proceeding according to natural laws; and that by the immediate causality of His moral idea He has brought to pass an effect different from what would have followed by means of the mere causality of
the course of Nature according to its laws: still we have not determined
at what link of the chain He should interfere;-whether at that immediately preceding the designed effect, or whether He might not do so at a link,
perhaps, very far removed from  it in time, and intermediate effects.  In
this latter case (if we are thoroughly acquainted with the laws of Nature)
we shall at length ascertain, by a progress in infinitum, that a certain effect




APPENDIX  A.                           387
is to be explained notfrom but according to natural laws.  Suppose, however, we were unable, or unwilling, to trace the series of natural causes
beyond a certain point, it might be very possible that the effect, no longer
to be explained naturally, did not fall within these limits placed by usstill we should not yet be justified in concluding that the phenomenon in
question could not have been effected by a supernatural causality. In the
first case only would we at once infer from the phenomenon a causality not
to be explained from natural laws, and which rendered it theoretically possible to assume for it a supernatural cause.  Since all that is required is to
afford grounds, not of conviction, but of attention to the Moral Law, this
theoretical possibility is quite sufficient; and for this nothing more is required than that we see no natural causes of this phenomenon.  Suppose,
however, it could be shown by means of an exalted insight into the laws of
nature, that certain phenomena, on which this Revelation is founded, and
which had been regarded as supernatural, were perfectly explicable from
the laws of nature, no conclusion can be drawn from this against the possible Divine character of such a Revelation; inasmuch as an operationespecially if it be ascribed to the original Source of all laws of Naturemay be wrought in a perfectly natural manner, and yet, at the same time,
supernaturally; i. e. by the causality of His freedom, in conformity with
the idea of a moral design. Hence, therefore, little though it can be perinitted the dogmatic defender of the notion of Revelation to infer a supernatural causality from  the inexplicability of a certain phenomenon by.
natural laws, and thence directly inferring the causality of God: just as
little is it allowable for the dogmatic opponent of this notion to infer from
the explicability of these same phenomena by natural laws, that they
are possible neither by means of supernatural causality in general, nor,
in particular, by means of the causality of God" (s. 157).  " By this
criticism," concludes Fichte, "the possibility of a Revelation in itself,
and the possibility of a belief in a given definite Revelation in particular, is rendered perfectly certain; all objections against it are set at
rest for ever; and all controversy on the subject eternally removed."(s. 233.)
Such, briefly stated, is Fichte's " Criticism  of all Revelation;" and it
requires but little attention to perceive how far it assumes some of the
most profound of those truths which, as experience has taught, Revelation
alone has been able to convey to man:-the perfect holiness of God, the
depravation of human nature, the supremacy of the Moral Law (Rom. ii.
14, 15). In such inquiries, as Twestenb has remarked, the error has generaly prevailed "of wishing to explain and found Revelation in a purely
speculative manner, and from a merely philosophical point of view, without any regard to the system  to which it belongs.  And yet it is impossible for the man who proceeds from a view so opposed to the Christian
(as, e. g. Fichte, the author of the' Versuch einer Kritik aller Offenbarung')
to arrive at the Christian idea of Revelation.  If, however, he find it on
his path, perhaps only through an inconsequence, yet it has for him a different meaning."  A single example will show the nature of such " inconsequences" in this attempt of Fichte.  Having inferred from  his views
respecting the mutual relation of "the sensuous propension" and "the
"Vorlesungen iiber die Dogmatik," B. i., 340.




888                            APPENDIX  A.
Moral Law," that " he who has not sacrificed his life at the demand of
the Law is unworthy of life; and must lose it, if the Moral Law is to
have force for the world of phenomena,"-he adds in a note," What a
curious coincidence! —' He that loveth his life shall lose it; and he that
loseth his life in this world shall keep it unto life eternal' [S. John, xii. 25,]
said Jesus; a sentiment which has precisely the same import as the
above"'.-(s. 36.)
The manner in which Kant has availed himself of the actual Divine
Revelation is far less disguised. In the Preface to the second edition of
his treatise-" Die Religion innerhalb der Grenzen der blossen Vernunft,"
he states that his design is, assuming Revelation as an historical system, to
see if it does not lead back to a pure religion of Reason.    If this attempt
succeeds, then can we say that there is to be found not merely a compatibility between Reason and Scripture, but also unity; so that whoever
(under the guidance of the moral idea) follows the one shall not fail to
meet with the other."-(s. xxiii.)
Referring to that view which allows Revelation to be no more than " a
public and actual introduction, and exciting cause of rational religion confined to the world," Nitzsch observes: " With regard to this element of
the idea of Revelation-which we call historical,-Lessing and Kant, who
are opposed to naturalism, as well as supernaturalism, deserve more credit
than has yet been acknowledged.   *   *   *   Kant, who at all times
seizes on the practical point of view, requires, in order to maintain a good
fight against the evil principle, an ethical commonwealth. Now he deems
it a weakness that this commonwealth cannot be realized by pure religious
faith alone; but, notwithstanding, he esteems it a proportional gain, that
there should exist a reuniting Church Faith. It is a direct consequence
of his hypothesis, that in the sense in which contemporary theologians
spoke of Revelation, he could neither discern its necessity nor its reality.
Proceeding, however, from the undisputed fact, that pure morality never
possessed a firmer basis than the monotheism of the Biblical Church Faith,
he insisted on its records and its use of the idea of Revelation being so
treated as that the combined effect of the mysteries, which otherwise were
passive  and indifferent or even injurious, might be accommodated  to
ethico-theistical decisions.  His doctrine was, that we should avail our1 In the "gtudien u. Kritiken" for 1832 (s. 378 if.), Ullmann has given an essay,
entitled, " Parallels from the writings of Porphyry to passages from the New Testament, as proof of the remarkable influence of Christianity upon one of its opponents."
Porphyry was born A.D. 233, and according to Socrates (" Hist. Eccl." iii. 23) had been
originally a Christian. Although one of the most bitter foes of Christianity, he could
not divest himself of its influence, or refrain from accepting the truths for which human
Reason, however unconsciously, is indebted to it.
Ullmann, in proceeding to cite his parallels which he takes from the epistle of
Porphyry to his wife Marcella, first published by Cardinal Mai (Milan, 1816), observes: " Even that truth which is opposed exerts a quiet and involuntary influence
upon its opponents. While Porphyry resisted the light, its beams unceasingly forced
themselves upon his vision." E. g. S. Paul writes: "Know ye not that ye are the
temple of God." —  Cor. iii. 16; a saying which Porphyry imitates in the words: 2:o,
d6, aTrep eip7Trat, ven( / ev ac-T7 TOo Oe ov o ev cot  voV.-Ad Marcellam, c. xix. Again
we read: "Let no man say when he is tempted, I am tempted of God."-S. James,
i. 13; with which cf. —rT  61 KaKcdv at-rtot ueif EiaCLv oi t6/tevot' Oeba 6 dlvairlo7. —
Ibid. c. xii.




APPENDIX B.                          389
selves of the Son of God, and His atoning death, &c., as historical expressions, as active types and pledges of practical and rational truths; and
thus he sketched out a philosophy of Christianity, which comprehended
the nature of the subject matter as truly as it ever possibly could do from
that point of view."'
The value of the speculations to which allusions have now been made is
in one point of view, by no means inconsiderable. It may safely be maintained, to borrow a profound remark, that " even in the assertion that the
most important truths of Religion belong not to Revelation but to Reason,
the Christian perceives an indirect proof of the reality of the former idea.
Such an assertion testifies of the power which Revelation has exercised
over the world; since it has effected that what was formerly hidden from
even the wisest of our race appears now as the common possession of all
rational men."2 Or, as Mr. Davison has forcibly expressed the same idea,
-" the fact is not to be denied; the Religion of Nature has had the opportunity of rekindling her faded taper by the Gospel light, whether furtively or unconsciously taken. Let her not dissemble the obligation and
the conveyance, and make a boast of the splendor, as though it were
originally her own, or had always, in her hands, been sufficient for the
illumination of the world."3
APPENDIX B.
SCRIPTURE AN ORGANIZED WHOLE.
(LECTURE I.-PAGE 30.)
To enter, at any length, upon the mutual relation of the different portions
of Scripture is of course impossible here: such a subject would occupy
volumes. A few instances, however, may be stated:
I. The Book of Job'. Before Christ had brought " life and immortality to
light," to those only who had drunk deeply of the sources of Revelation, and
had formed the true idea of the Deity (which of itself implies future union
with Him " in Whom we live, and move, and have our being,")-to such
persons only was a future state an object of Faith.  To the mass of mankind this world was their abiding place; and therefore, with those on
whom Religion exerted its sway, it was a main object to exhibit virtue ever
triumphant, and vice undergoing the merited penalties:-in fact to deny,
as an article of their belief, the disorders which the government of the
world presents to view. How profoundly this principle was implanted in
the Jewish mind we learn from the Gospels themselves. " Hath this man
sinned, or his parents, that he was born blind?" asked the Jew in the days
of Christ: and such, too, was the opinion, which He refutes, as to the guilt
of those upon whom the Tower of Siloam fell, and of those Galileans
"System der christi. Lehre," ~ 25 (Montgomery's transl., p. 69).
2 Twesten, loc. cit. s. 342.
3 " Discourses on Prophecy," Introd. p. 7.
4 I have compressed under this head some suggestions of a very able article in
the "Christian Remembrancer" for January, 1849, entitled "The Book of Job."




390                         APPENDIX B.
whom Pilate had slain when in the act of worship. This sentiment-the
natural result of man's innate sense of justice-appears to be the ground
of the reasoning of Job's friends. Anxious to maintain that this world is
a scene of satisfactory Divine justice, they argue that, pre-eminently devout,
holy, and charitable though Job to all appearance had been, some secret
iniquity, some weighty sin close locked in his bosom, must have been
cherished amidst all the goodness of his outward life.  "Doth God pervert judgment?" reasoned Bildad the Shuhite, "or doth the Almighty
pervert justice? If thou wert pure and upright, surely now He would
awake for thee, and make the habitation of thy righteousness prosperous."
-viii. 3-6. Against the principles and conclusion alike of such reasoning
Job utters his protest. He maintains that this visible system of things is
irregular and unjust. He insists upon facts, and demands their recognition, whatever difficulties may ensue. He therefore steadily asserts his
own righteousness, from which fact, combined with that of his affliction, he
draws a conclusion the very opposite to the favorite one which his
" friends" maintained.
Such is the process by which the Book of Job opens at length upon
that great question which has grieved, and perplexed, and embittered men
from the beginning of the world. The entire tone of the popular literature of every age re-echoes the same sentiment; and in the same words
have Poet and Philosopher alike sighed over the grand problem of humanity —v 6e 1i rtLj Iuev KacKO, 8sE KIcai EuO2g.
We might have expected from the mere fact of its being a Book intended for the consolation and instruction of the human race, that the
Bible should touch upon this feeling; and this would of itself account for
an ample recognition in its pages of the difficulty which impelled the
Psalmist to exclaim, "My feet were almost gone; my steps had well nigh
slipped, for I was envious at the foolish when I saw the prosperity of the
wicked."  But a further end is to be pointed out, which the Book of Job
accomplishes in the Divine Scheme.
The Jew expected a temporal deliverer; and " his hopes and aspirations
in behalf of his nation and race combined with his previous prejudice in
favor of present rewards in committing him to the confident expectation
of a visibly prosperous and glorious Messiah. It is evident that to resist
such a traditional notion of a Messiah some book would be serviceable
which would specially resist that view of this world upon which such a
notion was founded. If the Jew was to accept a Messiah who was to lead
a life of sorrow and abasement, and to be crucified between thieves, it was
necessary that he should be somewhere or other distinctly taught that virtue
was not always rewarded here, and that therefore no argument could be
drawn from affliction and ignominy against the person who suffered it.
The Book of Job does this. It spoke things ovi)avTa avvwTroa'lv, in describing the afflictions of one, whom when the ear heard, it' blessed him,
and when the eye saw, it gave witness unto him; who delivered the poor
that cried, the fatherless and him that had none to help him.' And thus
it stood in a particular relation to the prophetic books of Scripture-a
kind of interpretative one; supplying a caution where they raised hopes,
suggesting suspicions of apparent meaning and conjectures as to a deeper
one, and drawing men from a too material to a more refined faith. Ac



APPENDIX  B.                                391
cordingly, all the Fathers agree in declaring that Job prefigured Christ:
that as David typified the Conqueror, he typified the Victim; and that,
put before us in the one special character of an undeserving sufferer, he
foreshadowed the great undeserving Sufferer of all, the Sufferer upon the
Cross."'
These principles have been well summed up by the latest writer on the
subject:-" The Book of Job has for its strictly elaborated theme, a problem  which, as the ample discussion of it proves, impressed most profoundly the religious life of men under the Theocracy: the question, namely,
how the sufferings of the righteous are related to the Divine justice; or'the Mystery of the Cross.' "
IL. The Book of Esther.  Difficulties have been raised with respect to
the fitness of this Book to form  an element of the Canon of Scripture;
but as to the fact of its recognition as Canonical no doubt can be entertained: from the first it has ever stood in the highest estimation among
the Jews.' As to its relation to other parts of the Divine Scheme, it may
be observed that fiorn this Book only can we answer the question, Did
God confine to the one or two Tribes that returned to Jerusalem  the many
promises which He had given to the people of Israel in general, that when
they turned to Him again, they should find Him  in the hour of their need?
1 See loc. cit. p. 208. I do not, of course, mean to imply that this is the only object designed by the Holy Spirit in the composition of the Book of Job.  See, for
example, the very interesting (and to the present view by no means inappropriate)
remarks of Mr. De Burgh, in his lately published " Donnellan Lectures," on the title
" Redeemer" (5X, Job, xix. 25), " here first given to the Saviour  *  *  *  but applicable to redemption only in a special sense, and literally denoting an' Avenger'"
(cf. Num. xxv.; Josh. xx.)  *  *  *  "When redemption by sacrifice or atonement
is spoken of, a different term  is invariably employed (nl:): as in Ex. xiii. 13."
*  *  *  "' I know that my AVENGER liveth, and that He shall stand at the latter
day upon the earth,' Who in that day, as' the righteous Judge' should vindicate him
[Job] from the unjust judgment of his persecutors; and also avenge him of that which
is the great power of the sp.ritual adversary-Death, with its forerunner, Disease,
and its follower, the Grave" (pp. 64-66).  Nor, again, do I mean to imply that,
although Scripture, at the close of the Book, in passing judgment upon the whole
discussion between Job and his fiiends, definitely declares that he " had spoken the
thing that was right," whereas his fiiends, who had taken tke opposite line to him,
had offended,-I do not mean to imply, I say, that Job's treatment of the subject is,
in all respects, unQxceptionable.  Indeed, that his feelings hurried him away, and
required correction, we learn not only fiom the rebuke which Jehovah administered
(" The Lord answered Job out of the whirlwind, and said,  *  *  *  Shall he that
contendeth with the Almighty instruct him? he that reproveth God, let him answer
it"-xl 2), but also from Job's own retractation:-" I know that Thou canst do everything, and that no thought can be withholdea from Thee.  *  *  *  I uttered that I
understood not; things too wonderful for me, which I knew not. *  *  *  Wherefore I abhor myself, and repent' in dust and ashes."-xlii. 2-6.  That such an admission does not, however, involve anything in the least derogatory to the inspired
character of the Book will at once appear fiomn atteading to the true idea of Inspiration, as laid down in the preceding p mges. -Cfl sapra, p. 41, note'
2 C. F. Keil, in his continuation of'lilvernick's " Einleitunr," B. iii. s. 300.
3 In proof of its historical character it is unnecessary to say more than that the institution of the Feast of Purim (ch. ix. 21, &c.)-founded upon the fact which forms the
entire theme of the Book-can receive no other possible explanation than by admitting the reality of that fact. This is granted in substance even by D0 Wette (~ 198,
b.). In proof of its inspiratior, it need only be said thlat it was reai-.'ed into the
Canon (see Lecture ii. p. 43, &c).




892                           APPENDIX  B.
or had the Israelites who continued to dwell in the land of the Gentiles
any share in those promises?  The Book of Esther affords one great proof,
-from which many others may be inferred,-that even in the Dispersion
the children of Abraham, if they only sought their God, ever experienced
His support; if not, as in other days, by manifestations of miraculous
power, yet an assistance which proved that His word had not been spoken
in vain.'  "The manner in which the deliverance, at that time, ensued,
affords, next to the history of Joseph, the greatest proof which the Bible
contains, of how God, in the ordinary course of His Providence, with quiet,
noiseless rule, connects, ordains, guides the most minute circumstances:everything appearing to come to pass as if by chance; and everything, at
the same time, contributing to His ends as certainly as by means of a
manifestly miraculous dispensation."2
One word as to the popular objection, that the absence of the name of
God from the Book of Esther deprives it of a religious character.  It might
be sufficient to reply, that were this conclusion just, it would never have
been received into the Canon by the Jews of Palestine:-but a full answer
is supplied by that portion of the narrative which describes the cause of the
calamity which threatened the Jews-ch. iii. 1, &c.  The occasion from
which it arose was in the strictest sense a religious question: namely, the
refusal to perform an act of heathen adoration, because the Law of the Jews
did not permit it. The author points out this fact in the clearest manner:
"The King's servants that were in the King's gate bowed and reverenced
Haman: for the King had so commanded concerning him.  But Mordecai
bowed not.  *  *  *  And Haman said unto King Ahasuerus, There is a
certain people scattered abroad and dispersed among the people in all the
provinces of thy kingdom; and their laws are diverse fiorn all people,
neither keep they the King's laws."-iii. 2-8'. This conduct of Mordecai,
in fact, is an exact parallel to what is recorded of Daniel (ch. iii. and
vi.): all such instances exhibiting on the part of the different individuals,
the same intense devotion to the Law, and the institutions of the Theocracy.4
1 That such was the impression produced by this narrative upon the Jewish mind,
is plain from the traditional statements preserved in the apocryphal additions to the
Book: "Then Mardocheus said, God hath done these things. *  *  *  My nation is
this Israel which cried to God and were saved: for the Lord hath saved His people.
* *   *  God remembered His people, and justified his inheritance."-ch. x. 4-12
(after the Greek). - Is what Bishop Butler calls " The appearance of a standing miracle in the Jews remaining a distinct people in their dispersion," notwithstanding their
almost uninterrupted persecution, anything else than a perpetuated repetition of the
events of this history?
2 Koppen "Die Bibel ein Werk der gottl. Weisheit," B. ii. s. 102.
3 This fact is again confirmed by the tradition:-" Then Mardocheus thought upon
all the works of the Lord, and made his prayer unto Him, saying, Thou art Lord of all
things, Thou knowest, Lord, that it was neither in contempt nor pride, nor for any
desire of glory, that I did not bow down to proud Aman. For I could have been
content with good will for the salvation of Israel to kiss the soles of his feet. But I
did this that I might not prefer the glory of man above the glory of God: neither
will I worship any but Thee, 0 God."-ch. xiii. 8-14. Mordecai's conduct is explained on the same grounds by Josephus, Ant. xi. vi. 5.
4 See Havernick, " Einleitung," Th. ii. Abth. i. s. 360. To the same effect also is
the tone of Es;hdr's prayer, which the tradition has also preserved, and which ends
thus: "O oai ieighty God above all, hear the voice of the forlorn." —h. xiv. 19.
Cf. also tlb lraers preserved by Josephus. See Koppen, loc. cit. s. 107.




APPENDIX  B.                            393
III. The Books of Chronicles.' Even a rapid survey of the Books of
Chronicles will exhibit their object as both strictly defined, and of the most
profound importance.
On the return of the Jews from their Captivity not only the means of
reviving the spirit of the nation, crushed by a protracted exile, but also
the renewal of the ancient sacred institutions and a fundamental reform of
the abuses that had crept in, were the subjects which occupied all minds.
Hence, the promises to the dynasty of David, the restoration of the Temple,
and the details of public worship, were topics of absorbing interest. The
contents of the Books of Chronicles exemplify this state of feeling:-The
section 1 Chron. i.-ix. is devoted to genealogies; ch. x.-xxix. to the history
of David; 2 Chron. i.-ix. contain the history of Solomon,-and this chiefly
as regards his part as builder of the Temple; ch. x.-xxxvi. embrace the
events of the Kingdom of Judah, with special reference to the worship of
Jehovah.  As to the historical details, it may be observed, in general, that
their bearing upon other parts of the Old Testament, and their relation to
the Divine Scheme, as there exhibited, do not yield in point of interest or
importance to any other portion of Scripture. To prove this latter assertion I must restrict myself to a single example elucidating a principle
already pointed out,'-viz., that God's Revelation has been, for the most
part, conveyed according to the remarkable Law that "each prediction
proceeds from, and attaches itself to, some definite fact in the historical
present."
The twentieth chapter of the second Book of Chronicles contains an account of Jehoshaphat's victory over the Moabites, Ammonites, and other
tribes. " A brilliant confirmation of this account is afforded by the prediction (without this information quite unintelligible) contained in Joel, iii.
The entire form of the prophetic intuition rests upon the ground of this
narrative: it is the substratum of the great judgment pronounced by God
upon the enemies of the Theocracy.  In the valley of Jehoshaphat the
heathen are gathered to be judged (Joel, iii. 2).  As in that war, so here
also Jehovah leads His heroes (' Thither cause Thy mighty ones to come
do  n, O  Lord,'-ver. 11).  Hosts upon  hosts have  assembled  (ver.
14. —::o:n t:,r;n; cf. 2 Chron. xx. 2, 15-~n lian). It is not now "the
valley of blessing" (nn: p1a — 2 Chron. xx. 26), but "the valley of decision" (it-inn p ~ —Joel, iii. 14).  A time still more happy, and incomparably more glorious than that under Jehoshaphat, (2 Chron. xx. 27, &c.)
follows the victory of the Lord (Joel, iii. 18, &c.)"'
To return to the genealogies.  The account of the genealogy of the
See Havernick, "Einleitung," Th. II. Abth. i. s. 174 ff. Dr. Moses Stuarthaving enumerated, without annexing any refutation, most of the strong points which
De Wette and others conceive that they have established against the inspiration of
these books,-observes: "The devout and reverential reader of the Old Testament
has, it must be confessed, some difficulties of a serious nature to encounter in regard
to such things in the Chronicles as have been pointed out. The tyro in matters of
sacred criticism must certainly feel that he has a formidable task before him; specially
if he adopts the theory of plenary verbal inspiration."-On the 0. T. Canon, p. 142.
On the consideration of so extensive a subject I cannot enter here; but would refer
to Hiivernick's admirable criticism, which, I should observe, Dr. Stuart states (p. 146)
that he has not seen.
2 Lecture iv. p. 147, &c.                    Havernick, loc. cit. s. 216.




394                          APPENDIX  B.
Patriarchs is followed by that of the Tribe of Judah, and of the house of
l)avid —1 Chron. ii.-iv. 23.  Compared with this statement, the genealogical notices relative to Simeon, Reuben, Gad, and Manasseh (iv. 24-v.
26) are exceedingly brief; and these again are followed by the particularly
copious gnealogies of the Levites (vi. 1-18).  The Tribe of Benjamin is
lnenltioned at great length (vii. 6-12; viii. 1-40; ix. 35-44); but the
Tribes of the Kingdom of Israel are either glanced at cursorily (as Naphtali, ch. vii. 13), or passed over in silence (as Zebulon and Dan): while,
on the other hand, the sacred writer comes back once more to the families
of the Levites in ch. ix. 1-34. Two important features of the case thus
present themselves: —(1) We know that on the return from the Exile in
Babylon all persons were excluded from the sacerdotal office who were unable to prove their Levitical descent (Ezra, ii. 61, 62; Neh, vii. 64, 65);
and we learn from  Josephus (" Cont. Apion.," lib. I. vii., and "Vita," ~1)
that this strictness was never relaxed. Josephus also tells us the motive
of such precautions: to this chosen family was committed the custody of
the Sacred Books; and the accurate preservation of the genealogies he
considers "both natural and necessary," in order to secure more perfectly
a deposit so precious.' Hence, therefore, we clearly discern the importance of this portion of the genealogical records of the Books of Chronicles.
But (2) we can at once perceive how the family annals of David's line are
inseparably connected with the whole scheme of Redemption.  The manner in which this record is inserted (see 1 Chron. iii.) is particularly striking.  "In communicating the genealogy of the Davidic family alone the
author makes an exception, and continues it to his own time. Not without just grounds.  In the period that followed the Exile the Messianic
hopes, awakened by the subjection of the people, were again excited: the
Messiah Himself, in accordance with a promise recently given, was to adorn
by His Presence the Temple which had been erected anew. It must have
been a matter of importance for the writer's contemporaries to find collected here the names of the still remaining descendants of the ancient
reigning house; who, although little celebrated, and even otherwise unknown to us from the Books of Ezra and Nehemiah, were yet to be the
ancestors of the longed-for Deliverer.  He therefore continues the genealogy of the line of Solomon up to two generations after the Exile-i.e.,
perhaps up to his own time. Thus, ch. iii. 19, 20, the sons of Zerubbabel
are named:-Meshullam, Hananiah, &c; to which are added the names
of two sons of Hananiah, Pelatiah and Jesaiah, with whom  the genealogy terminates-the author then proceeding to enumerate some of the
posteiity of David."'
l See Lecture ii. p. 68, and infra, Appendix F.
2 Movers, "Kritische Untersuch," s. 29. Havernick confirms the justice of this
remark by pointing out that, in a similar period of humiliation,-" in which but the
faintest traces of the Messianic idea can be pointed out," viz., the age of the Maccabees, —the idea of the permanence of the royal line of David was still vividly cherished: "David for being merciful possessed the throne of an everlasting kingdom."1 Mace. ii. 57; cf. Ecclus. xlvii. 11; and as to the future glories of Jerusalem, see
Tobit, xiii. 7-18; xiv. 4-7 —-ca3r'ailr/gav oi nrpo7Orat;-see his "Neue kritische
Untersuch. ib. das B. Daniel," s. 34.




APPENDIX  C.                              395
APPENDIX C.
MODERN THEORIES OF INSPIRATION.
(LECTURE I.-PAGE 34.)
ANY account of the theories of Inspiration which have been put forward
in modern times naturally commences with the period of the Reformation.  In the general religious commotion of that epoch, it could scarcely
have been expected that the heat of party controversy should not have
prompted men of the most opposite views to hazard opinions respecting
the authority of Scripture, which in a cooler frame of mind they would
have wholly disavowed.   And, accordingly, we find  both  Protestants
and adherents of the Church of Rome equally obnoxious to such a charge.
In proof of this assertion one can appeal to the writings of Luther and
of Erasmus.
I. The opinions of Luther with respect to Scripture,-the Divine character of which, it is, perhaps, needless to remark, he resolutely and consistently maintained, —had relation to two distinct subjects: the canonical
authority of certain portions of the Bible, and the nature of Inspiration
in general. It has been already observed that these two questions, although  continually confounded, are wholly distinct; and attention has
been drawn to the fact-exhibited by every page of his writings-that
Luther's rejection of particular Books arose, not from  his refusing to acknowledge the Divine origin and character of the Bible, but from  his
venturing to lay down a certain standard by which to test the claim  of
any composition to have proceeded from  God.  The natural result of
such a procedure on his part-and the same must necessarily happen in
every similar case-was the rejection of those writings which failed, in his
estimation, to satisfy the criterion by which he assumled that they must be
judged.'
"These views of Luther," writes H. W. J. Thiersch,   of which the
subordinate position occupied in our German editions of the Bible by the
Epistle of the Hebrews, the Epistles of James and Jude, together with
the Apocalypse, is a permanent memorial,-were either upheld for a period
by his successors, the orthodox Lutherans (although in a milder form), or,
at least, were judged very leniently."'
l See supra, Lect. i. p. 47, and Lect. ii. p. 79. The criterion which Luther proposed will be seen from the following extract from his Preface to the Epistles of S.
James and S. Jude: " Das Amt eines rechten Apostels ist, dass er von Christi Leiden,
und Auferstehung, und Amt predige, und lege desselbigen Glauberns Grand, wie er
selbst saget, Joh. xv. 27:'Ihr werdet von mir zeugen.' Urd darinne srimmen alle
rechtschaffene heilige Bilcher iberein, dass sie allesammt Christurn predigen und
treiben.  Auch ist das der rechte Prdfestein aller Bilcher zc tadela, wenn nmac siehlt, OB
SIE CHRiSrUI  TREIBEN ODER NICHT. *  *  *  Was Christuin nicht lehret, dals ist
noch nicht Apostolisch, wenne gleich Sanct Petrus oder St. Paulus lehrete. Wiederum,
was Christum prediget, das ware Apostolisch wenns gleich Judas, Ilannas, Pilatus,
und Herodes that."- Werke (Walch's Aufg., B. xiv. s. 149).
2 " Versuch zur Herstell," s. 17. Of the evil consequences of Luther's rash decisions on this subject, every one who has looked into the writings of neologists, of
whatever school, must be painfully aware. His expressions are invariably brought




396                             APPENDIX  C.
With respect to the other subject touched upon by Luther-viz., the
nature of Inspiration itself,-the following passage from  the "Elementa
Theologiae Dognaticae" of the learned Mosheim gives a succinct and just
account:"Dae sunt sententiae de vocabulo Sacrae Scripturae.  Multi, in primis
doctores ecclesiT nostrae, hoc vocabulum  sensu latissimo sumunt, et per id
intelligunt ornne quod scriptum  est, ut non modo veritates, sed etiam  formain Spiritui S. tribuant.  Duo nempe sunt in Sacra Scliptura: materia,
et forrna.  Materia sunt ipsse veritates; forma est stilus, vocabula, phrases,
et constructiones, &c. At sunt tamen in ecclesia nostra nonnulli qui secus
sentiunt, et docent Spiritum S. tantum materiam Sacrae Scripturae inspirasse:
sed non formam.  Esto propositio: Fides sola justificat; haec veritas a
Spiritu S. proficiscitur, et forma ejus a sancto Paulo.  Hujus sententiae in
nostra ecclesia auctor est ipse Lutherus, qui in nonnullis locis scriptorum
suorum  dare fatetur Spiritum  S. modo materiam  inspirasse.  Praecipue
Theologi Ssec. xvi. hanc sententiam  habuere.  Sed haec sententia a Pontificiis in defensionem propositionum  suarum  trahebatur.  Hanc enim Pontificii conclusionem  fecerunt: —Si Spiritus S. materiam  tantum  inspiravit,
fieri potuit ut Prophetse et Apostoli in enunciando et scribendo erraverint,
et satis luculenter propositiones et veritates a Spiritu S. inspiratas non proposuerint.  Inde concludebant: necessarium  ergo est, ut Scripturae Sacre
aliud principium  adjungatur.  Quum ita concluderent Pontificii, Theologi
nostri deserebant Lutheri sententiam, et sub fine Smec. xvi. et sub initium
Siec. xvii. hanc sententiam  assumserunt: Sacram  Scripturam  non modo
quoad materiam, sed etiam  quoad formam  a Spiritu S. inspiratam  esse.
Haec sententia primo in Saxonia oriebatur, et deinde per totam  fere ecclesiam dilatata est.  At supersunt tamen quidam  Theologi, qui sententiam
Lutheri dimittere nolunt."-pp. 111, 112.
The reaction to which Mosheim here refers may be exemplified by the
theory of the younger Buxtorf, who went so far as to maintain the inspired
authority of even the Hebrew vowel-points and accents:' and the strict'mechanical' theory itself of Inspiration (cf. supra, p. 21, &c.), in which
that reaction terminated, is accurately laid down by Carpzovius, in his
Critica Sacra Veteris Testamenti:"
" Plura involvit Inspiratio momenta.  (1) Nihil hic tribuendum  esse
hominibus praeter operam solum  ministerialem, qua illapsum  divinum  percipientes, prompte ac alacriter mentem  manumque Deo commodarent, qui
forward, however unjustly, as a justification of any amount of scepticism or disrespect
to which such writers think fit to subject Holy Scripture.  As examples I rmay refer
to tlhe complacency with which Bretschneider ('  Handb. der Dogmatik," B. i. s. 342)
alludes to Luther's opinions; as well as to the remark of Mr. Greg (" The Creed of
Christendom"): " Luther, in the Preface to his translation, inserted a protest against
the inspiration of the Apocalypse, which protest he solemnly charged every one to
prefix who chose to publish the translation.  In this protest one of his chief grounds
for the rejection is the suspicious fact that this writer alone blazons forth his own inspiration," p. 19.' " Si Punctatio, et Accentuatio Biblica non profecta esset a Viris Propheticis, et
extraordinariis Spiritus S. instructis donis; sed a sapientibus vulgaribus, quales seu
his nostris temporibus, seu superioribus saeculis, post Prophetarum tempora, imo post
absolutum et obsignatum Talmud, fuerunt; nullo modo ita ira/u nei et dvav-rljT5irr
a gente Judaica esset acceptata," &c.-Tract. de Punct. Vocal., Pars It. c. v.
p. 335.




APPENDIX  C.                           397
utramque pro libitu suo ageret, moveret, ac dirigeret.  (2) Ad unum
solumque Deum quicquid est Scripturae S., tanquam ad causam principem,
referri debere, ita quidem, ut non modo mysteria scripta, inde divina, sed
ipsa quoque ypa)lf (tam  scribendi aotio transiens, quam  ejus effectus,
voces, apices, ac literae) Oe6nTvevaTVo  esset, ac iepa ypaLtla-ra prodirent.
(3) Idque propter immediatum  et singularissimum  cum  amanuensibus,
ad scribendi ministerium  excitatis, concursum, quo eorum  et voluntatem
imnpulit ut prompte scriberent, et mentem  illuminavit, ac suggestione
rerum  vocumque consignandarum  replevit, ut intelligenter scriberent,
et manum  direxit, ut infallibiliter scriberent, neque tamen plus conferrent ad Scripturam, quam  calamus velocis scribae (Ps. xlv. 1)."-Pars
I. p. 43.
II. The opinions of Erasmus may be inferred from an Epistle written
to him by Eckius, dated " Ingolstadt, 2 Feb. A.D. 1518:"-" Prinio autem
omnium, ut hinc exordiar, plures moleste ferunt, te in Annotationibus
Matthaei capite secundo sic scripsisse:' Sive quod ipsi Evangelistme testimonia hujusmodi non e libris deprompserint: sed memoriae fidentes, ita
ut fit, lapsi sint.' Istis enim verbis innuere videris, Evangelistas more humane scripsisse: et quod memorire confisi haec scripserint, quod libros
videre neglexerint, quod ita, hoe est, ob earn causam lapsi sint. Audi, mi
Erasme, arbitrarisne Christianum  patienter laturum, Evangelistas in Evangeliis lapses? Si hic vacillat Sacrae Scripturae auctoritas, quae pars alia
sine suspicione erroris erit? ut pulcherrimo argumento A. Augustinus colligit."-(ap. Erasmi opp., Epist. 303, Lugd. Bat. 1703, t. iii. p. 296.)
These views of Erasmus were chiefly assailed by the church of Spain;
and the excitement which they occasioned he himself describes in his address, "Candido Lectori," at the close of the writing entitled, Desid.
Erasmi Apologia adv. articulos aliquot per Monachos quosdam  in Hispaniis exhibitos" (Opp. t. ix. p. 1015).  "Quid hic colnmemorem  quos
tumultus excitarint primum in aula Cmsaris, deinde Salamanticae; quoties
palam  ac publice vociferati sint hbereticum  et Luthero deteriorem Erasmum?"-(p. 1092).  As an example of the objections of the Spanish
Monks, may be taken the following, as stated under the heading, " Contra
auctoritatem  Sacrse Scripturae, Evangelistarum, et Apostolorum:"-" Objectio 45. In annotationibus Matthaei cap. ii. in editione 3tia manifeste
labitur Erasmus, si quis Christiana pietate rem  consideret, non contentus
verborum implicamentis. Nam et Evangelistas errasse, lapsosque esse memoria contendit:  Asserit item ex uno errore in Sacris Literis non derogaii
totius Scripturae auctoritati."-(Ibid. p. 1070.)  Erasmus replied that he
had not himself maintained this opinion, but had proposed it " adversus
morosos et impios calumniatores," in order to defend the authority of Scripture; so that, even had its writers erred in unimportant matters, the whole
structure might not be thereby overturned.  Explanations of this nature,
he adds, had been introduced by him " per fictionemr;" and he obviously
submits to the objections urged against him, when he says, " Responsio
45:"-"Et tamen quod ad meum  sensum attinet, magis eorum sententiae
faveo qui credunt Apostolos in Scripturis canonicis duntaxat, nec sententia
nec verbo lapsos fuisse."  The objectionable passages, too, appear to have
been erased from subsequent editions of his Commentary.
The next appearance of any controversy upon this question within the




398                             APPENDIX  C.
Church of Rome was during the Jansenist dispute.  In 1586 the Jesuits,
Leonard Less, and John Halmel, in their public lectures in the University
of Louvain, on L  Scripture, Grace, and Predestination," advanced, among
others, the following propositions:-(1) "Ut aliquid sit Scriptura Sacra,
non est necessarium singula ejus verba inspirata esse a Spiritu S."  (2)' Non est necessarium ut singulae veritates et sententire sint immediate a
Spiritu S. ipsi scriptori inspirate."  (3) "Liber-aliquis (qualis forte est
secundus Machabaeorum) humana industria, sine assistentia  Spiritus S.
soriptus, si Spiritus S. postea testetur nihil ibi esse falsuin, efficitur Scriptura sacra."  These propositions were at once condemned.  The Archbishops of Cambray and Mechlin submitted them  to the University of
Douai; and the learned Estius' having drawn up a severe criticism, in the
name of the Theological Faculty, the Propositions were publicly censured
by both Universities' (A. D. 1588).  The third "Proposition" was specially condemned:-the " Censura" of Douais declaring, " Multo magis hsec
quam duse superiores improbanda est assertio, tanquam  manifesti erroris
periculum cottinens."  This " Censura" also justly argues that, on such a
principle, any  writing  of which  the truth has been proved (e. g. the
Athanasian Creed, or a book of Livy or Thucydides of which the facts
are admitted), might be classed with Scripture: adding, " Non enim ideo
inspiratum aliquid divinitus est, quia postea sit approbatum, sed ideo est
approbatum  quiafaerat divinitus inspiratum."  The " Censura" of Louvain
compares the doctrine maintained in the objectionable propositions4 to the
heresy of the Anomceans (see supra, Lecture ii. p. 87).
1 The opinions of Estius as to Inspiration may be estimated from the following remarks on 2 Tim. iii. 16; where, having quoted the Vulgate, he states that the passage
may be more clearly understood from the Greek:
"'Omnis Scriptura divinitus inspirata, et utilis:'-Subaudi est. Itaque duo affirmantur:-omnem Scripturam esse divinitus inspiratam; et, eandam esse utilem ad ea
quse sequuntur.  Scripturam intelligit sacram, de qua dixerat: Sacras literas nosti.
Nam Scripturae nomine passim in Bibliis Sacra Scriptura, per antonomasiam significatur:'ut Matt. xxii. 29, John, v. 39, et x. 35. Recte igitur et verissime, ex hoc loco
statuitur omnem Scripturam sacram et canonicam Spiritu Sancto dictante esse conscriptam; ita nimirum ut non solum sententiae, sed et verba singula, et verborum
ordo, ac tota dispositio sit a Deo, tanquam per Semetipsum loquente, aut scribente.
Hoc enim est'Scripturam esse Divinitus inspiratam.' "-Comm. in D. Pauli Epist.
2 See Schrockh, "Kirchen-Geschichte seit der Reformation," B. iv. s. 293.
3  Censurae Facultatum Sacra Theologiae Lovaniensis ac Duacensis, super quibusdam articulis de Sacra Scriptura, Gratia, et Praedestinatione, A. D. 1586. Lovanii
scripto traditis."-Paris, 1641.
4 Rudelbach (" Die Lehre von der Inspir.," Zeitschr. 1840, H. ii. s. 40) makes the
judicious remark that the view advanced in Proposition (3) is plainly founded upon an
incapacity to regard the Word of God as one organized whole. He also draws attention to an.article in Bayle's "Dictionary" on Father Adam, a Jesuit, who in 1650
published a sermon against the Jansenists, in which, according to Bayle, he spoke
very freely of the Inspiration of both the Old and the New Testament.  The Jansenists replied in a pamphlet entitled "Defense de S. Augustin contre le PSre Adam," in
which they appealed to the "Censurie" of Louvain and Douai in the case of Less and
Iamnel. Rudelbach states that he has been unable to see this pamphlet.  I have
myself been equally unsuccessful; a circumstance not unusual in any matter connected with tle Jansenist controversy.
In Dodddridlg's' I)issertation on the Inspiration of the New Testament," a curious
opinion is advanced, in some respects analogous to the Jesuits' Proposition (3):
"Should God miraculously assure me that any particular writing contained nothing
but the truth; and should He, at the same time, tell me it had been drawn up with



APPENDIX  C.                               399
The Jesuits having appealed to the Sorbonne, and to the Universities
of Treves and Mayence, forwarded a copy of the " Propositions" to their
General at Rome.  The dispute was, however, terminated by an " Apostolical Breve," dated April 15, A.D. 1588, in which Pope Sixtus V. enjoined silence on all parties until the affair should be decided by the Holy
See. In this state it still remains.
In Calmet's " Dissertation sur l'Inspiration des Livres Sacres"l mention
is made of a treatise by Claude Frassen, a Franciscan monk (A. D. 1662),
in  which  three kinds of Inspiration are distinguished: "antecedent,"
" concomitant," " consequent"-the last being identical with the Jesuit's
third Proposition already referred to.
The following opinion was maintained by Henry Holden, a Doctor of
the Theological Faculty of Paris (A. D. 1650):"Auxilium  speciale, divinitus praestitum authori cujuslibet scripti quod
pro verbo Dei recipit Ecclesia, ad ea solummodo se porrigit quae vel sint
pure doctrinalia, vel proximum aliquem aut necessarium  habeant ad doctrinalia respectum. In iis vero quae non sunt de instituto scriptoris, vel ad
alia referuntur, eo tantum  subsidio Deum  illi adfuisse judicamus, quod
piisilis cTteris authoi'ibus commune sit."-Divince Fidei Anal., lib. i. c.
v.  P. R. Simon, having  quoted this passage, and having stated that
Holden's work had been approved by the Chancellor of the University
of Paris, adds:-" Je me contente d'exposer 1' opinion de ce Docteur de
la Faculte de Theologie de Paris sans oser la combattre, la voyant autorisee
par de si sages Maitres.  Je a' ose pourtant pas l'appuyer dans toute son
Ctendue.  II eut ete bon qu'il eus donne quelques exemples de ce qu' il entend par les matieres qui ne sent point purement de doctrine, ou qui n'y
out point une entiere relation."-" Hist. Critique du texte du N. T.," ch.
xxiv. p. 295.
The view maintained, at present, in the Church of Rome, may be gathered
from Perrone, the latest writer of authority in that Communion: " Jure merito Concilium  Tridentinum  docet unum Deum esse librorum canonicorum
utriusque Testamenti auctorem, seu eos esse libros sacros, utpote Spiritu
S. afflante, salten quoad res et sententias, conscriptos.  *  *  *   Diximus
saltern quoad res et sententias, quia cum noluerit Ecclesia definire, seu dirimere questionem inter scholasticos agitatam, utrum praeterea Deus verba
ipsa dictaverit, nexumque verborum et periodorum; ideo ne controversiam
domesticam  cum  Ecclesiae doctrina teinere permisceremus, coarctavimus
propositionis sensum ad rei substantiam, sine qua vera Inspiratio Divina
neque est, neque intelligi quidem potest.'"
out any miraculous assistance at all,-though I could not then call it inspired, I
should be as much obliged to receive and submit to it, on its being thus attested by
God, as if every single word had been immediately dictated by Him."- Works, vol. v.
p. 346, ed. 1801.
" Commentaire sur la Bible," t. viii. p. 741.
"Pnralectiones Theologice," voL ii. pars ii. p. T1. The opinion of Maldonatus
is hardly reconcilable with such a conclusion:-"Marcus iisdemquibus Matthaeus
[c. xxvi. 28] verbis, scribit,'Hic est Sanguis Meus Novi Test.;' Lucas vero'Hie est
calix Novum Test. in Meo Sanguine.' Paulus autem'Hie calix N. T. est in Meo
Sanguine. * *   *  Nego Christum  hec verba dixisse. Cum  enim Matthaeus, qui
aderat, et Marcus, qui ex lMatttheo didicerat, scribant Christum his verbis Sanguinem
Suum tradidisse:'iAic est Sanguis Meus, N  T.' *  *  *  aquum est credere Mat



400                            APPENDIX  C.
Meanwhile a systematized opposition to the inspiration of Scripture
was growing up in another quarter; suggested by the writings of an individual through whom, as will presently be seen, the source of every hue
and shade of modern scepticism  on this question may be ultimately traced.
Quinet has truly said: "L'homme qui de nos jours a fait faire le plus
grand pas a l'Allemagne, ce n'est ni Kant, ni Lessing, ni le grand Frederic; c'est Benedict Spinosa."  Benedict (or Baruch) Spinoza was born
in 1632, and died in 1677.  He was the first, observes Tollner, "who
Imade a tolerably complete collection of the objections against Inspiration.
The result was curious. Some theologians gave up the cause as entirely lost;
while others attempted still to maintain it, according to tfe usual theory."'
The subject, thus placed upon a new  footing, was soon taken up in a
kindred spirit by Le Clerc, whose celebrated Letters, entitled "Sentimens
de quelques Theologiens de Hollande,"  were first published in 1685.
These Letters excited an immense sensation, especially in England;2 but
they were after all a mere reflexion of the ideas of Spinoza. As P. R.
Simon truly observed: "En effet, ces Theologiens [from whom  Le Clerc's
work purported to have proceeded] n' ont fait autre chose pour combattre
l' Inspiration de l' Ecriture Sainte, que de mettre en un plus grand jour les
raisons de Spinosa, qui a outre cette matiere sur de faux prejuges dont il
etoit preoccupe."' It is unnecessary to give a particular account of Le
Clerc's system.  Suffice it to say, that he denied the fact of any Divine
assistance in the composition of the Bible; maintaining that the ordinary
powers of memory were sufficient to enable the authors of Scripture to
record any communications from God which the prophets might have received, or the facts of history. His interpretation of some of the promises
of Christ to His Disciples has been already quoted (Lecture vi. p. 246,
note 4); in addition to which he further asserted that S. Peter's Vision
(Acts, x.), and  the controversy  respecting  Circumcision, proved that
Christ's promises that they should be guided into "all truth" were not
fulfilled..FLom this period the works of Semler (A.. D  1771-1773), and
the tratise of TOllner4 (A. D. 1772), may be said to form  the transition
thaei potius et Marci, quam  Lucre et Pauli, verbis Christum usum fuisse. *  *  *
Credendum igitur est, verbis potius Matthcei et Marci, quam Lucac et Pauli usum esse."Comm. in Matth. c. xxvi., ed. Mogunt. t. i. p. 314.
1 "Die gottliche Eingebung," s. 453.
2 A few of the works which were published in reply may be mentioned:-" A
Vindication of the Divine Authority and Inspiration of the writings of the Old and
New Testament.  In answer to the' Five Letters concerning the Inspiration of Scripture,' " by W. Lowth, B. D.: Oxford, 1692.-" The Inspiration of the New Testalment asserted and explained in answer to some modern writers," by C. J. Lamothe:
London, 1694; the occasion of which the author states (Pref p. 3) to have been Le
Clerc's "Letters," to which replies had already appeared from "M. Witsius of Holland,
Mr. Lowth, a divine of Oxford, Father Simon, and Father Lo Vassour."-" The Inspiration of the Old and New Testament," by Edm. Calamy, D. D.: London, 1710;
who observes in his Prefice: "There is more of subtilty and artifice in those Letters than in anything of that kind I ever yet met with."
3 " Histoire Critique du Nouv. Test.," ch. xxv. p. 303. To the same effect Tollner
writes: "Spinoza und Le Clerc begegnen hier einander." —loc. cit. s. 314.
4 The unsatisfactory character of this work is well described by Rudelbach:
"Tollner stellt uns klar die Fraction in der Zeit dar: viele schine apologetische
Reminiscenzen; daneben aber ein wiistes Streben, alle Gewissheit bis auf einen
gewissen Grad zu verfiiichtigen, um nachher gerade so viel in seine Construction




APPENDIX  C.                             401
to the systems of more modern times; —times in which, as De Maistre
has remarked with too great truth: " Uu savant, en cominentant Anacreon
ou Catulle, trouvera 1' occasion naturelle d' attaquer Moise."
But I have said that the writings of Spinoza point out the source to
which the several varieties of modern errors respecting Inspiration may be
traced. Spinoza, in a word, by bringing the opinions of his nation under
the notice of subsequent writers, has introduced into Christian theology
the speculations of the mediaeval Jews, and more particularly the philosophy of Maimonides, the master spirit of his race during the Christian era.'
To such  speculations are to be referred, I conceive, each of the three
classes of opinions under Which the various theories of Inspiration that
exaggerate the human element of Scripture, may, speaking generally, be
arranged 2
I. The two leading representatives of the views held by the first class
of writers-those, viz., " Who have changed the formula'The Bible is the
Word of God,' into'The Bible contains the Word of God,' "-are, Le
Clerc (whose connexion with Maimonides through Spinoza has been already traced), and Grotius, who may be regarded as the representative of
the Arminian school.  Grotius openly avows the source of his opinions:"Vere dixi non omnes libros qui sunt in Hebraeo Canone dictatos a
Spiritu Sancto. Scriptos esse cum pio animi motu, non nego: et hoc est
quod judicavit Synagoga Magna, cujus judicio in hac re stant Hebraei.
Sed a Spiritu Sancto dictari historias nihil fuit opus: satis fuit scriptorem
memoria valere circa res spectatas, aut diligentia in describendis Veterum
commentariis.  Vox quoque Spiritus Sancti ambigua est: nam  aut significat, quomodo ego accepi, afflaturm Divinum, qualem habuere turn
Prophetra ordinarii, tmu interdam David et Daniel; aut significat pium
motum, sive facullatem imnpellentem  ad loquendum  salutaria vivendi praecepta, vel res politicas et civiles, quomodo vocern Spiritus Sancti interpretatur Maimonides ubi de scriptis illis aut historicis, aut moralibus agit.
Si Lucas, Divino afflatu dictante, sua scripsisset, inde potius sibi sumsisset
auctoritatem, ut Prophetae faciunt, quam a testibus quorum fidem est
secutus.  Sic in iis que Paulum  agentem vidit scribendis, nullo ipsi dictante afflatu opus. Quid ergo est, cur Lucae libri sint Canonici? Quia
pie ac fideliter scriptos, et de rebus momenti ad salutem  maximi, Ecclesia
primorum  temporuin judicavit." —Votum pro pace Ecclesiastica, Opera,
ed. 1679, t. iii. p. 672.
The parentage, therefore, of this class of opinions is clear. Grotius,
however, received his principles directly from the Jewish Doctors.
II. The origin of the second class, comprising those hypotheses " which
assume various Degrees of Inspiration," is no less obvious. I have already
alluded (Lecture ii. p. 62, note') to the three " Degrees of Inspiration"
aufzunehmen, als ihm wahrscheinlich diinkte; als eine zweite Penelope zerst6rt er
das Tagsgewebe ur Nachtzeit wieder, nur dass er keinen heirnkehrenden Herrn
erwartet."- oc. cit. s. 61.
Baumgartenr Crusius (" Bibl. Theol." s. 220) having alluded to the notion of the
"intellectus agens" put forward by Maimonides, truly says: " Maimonides ist in diesem Artikel, und iibeCrhaapt, die Quelle des Spinoza."
2 See Lecture i. p. 31, &c. It is, of course, to be understood that any one of
these three classes may be held in combination with either or both of the others.
26




402                             APPENDIX  C.
ascribed by the Jewish Docto:s to the writers of the Old Testament; but
some additional remarks on the subject are necessary here.
The Old Testament, froml a period lolln anterior to the birth of Christ,
has been divided into three parts, the Kethubim  or Hagiographa (including the Psalms, Proverbs, Job, the Song of Solomon, Ruth, Lament ltions,
Ecclesiastes, Esther, Daniel, Ezra, Nehemiah, and the Chronicles); the
Law (including the five Books of Moses); and the Prophets (including
the remaining books).  This division our Lord Himself recognised, when
He spoke of "The Law  of Moses, the Prophets, and the Psalms."-S.
Luke, xxiv. 44.  To explain this fact, of which no account altogether satisfactory has ever been assigned,' the Jews have invented the notion of
three Degrees of Inspiration; of which hypothesis Havernick truly says:
"This asserted diversity of Inspiration appears, even its definitions, to be
so vague and so inexact, that one can hardly forin  any regular conception
of it.  Of Biblical grounds it is wholly deficient:-nay, the New Testament rather decides quite against it, fromn the manner in which it speaks
of David, Daniel," &c. [cf. e. g. Lecture vi. p. 263, note 2.]-Enleitung,
Th. i. Abth. i. s. 67.'
Hengstenberg, who accepts and defends the Jewish tradition that this "threefold division rests upon the different relations in which the authors of the Sacred
Books stood to God," attempts to explain, as follows, the obvious difficulty of such a
position. He is speaking of the place of Daniel among the Hagiographa.:'The
name:"t: was the official title of the Prophets [see supra, Lecture iv. p. 158, and
infra, Appendix J]; and the more ancient and more general meaning (Gen. xx. 7)
received, in the Theocracy, a closer limitation, and appears only once in poetry
(Psalm cv. 15), and this, too, applied to those who lived before the age of Theocratic
Prophecy. On the supposition that all the authors of Scripture could be called a'=:,
it remains inexplicable why the Books of Ruth and Ezra, which were generally received, and which were extant at the time of the second collection, were not admitted
into it. This fact proves, that in separating the historical books into two divisions,
they were guided by definite reasons. It remains inexplicable why they parted the
Lamentations of Jeremiah from his Predictions, and took them  into the third collection. The reason of which can be nothing else than the opinion that the Divine
influence which the author received in this Book-bearing as it does a character predominantly subjective-was not the same as in his Predictions. *  *  *  In determining the second division the collectors could not possibly receive Daniel into it.
He had not (like the other prophets in Palestine, and Ezekiel in the Exile) labored
among his own people as a Prophet."-Die Authentie des Daniels, s. 25 ff. Havernick
truly observes with respect to this attempt to solve the problem: "Einen neuen
Erklarungsversuch macht Dr. Hengstenberg; doch, wie es scheint, auch nicht
geniigend."-Comm. ib das B. Daniel, Einleit. s. xl.
2 Hivernick observes, in his introduction to the Book of Daniel (s. xxxix.):"The motives which floated before the collectors of the Canon, in their threefold
division of it, are, for the most part, altogether unknown to us; and the knowledge
of the reasons which influenced them seems to have been lost at a very early period.
Josephus is altogether silent on the subject. Jerome notes the position of our Book
[Daniel] as being something remarkable, but can give no explanation of it. Theodoret makes it a matter of reproach to the Jews, that they have placed Daniel in this
[third] division."  And yet, in his "Einleitung," he accepts, with some modifications,
the explanation proposed by Hengstenberg,-observing, however:-';There is no distinction between the Inspiration of the Prophets, and the writers of the Hagiographa;
any distinction that exists consists merely in the peculiar Theocratic posilion of the
authors" (s. 65). Thus it is easy to understand why the Books of Moses formed by
themselves a distinct class. The Books composed by those who were officially
Prophets were placed in a second division: the third consisting of "the remaining"
Books,-as they are called in the Prologue to the Book of Ecclesiasticus (rov viCov,




APPENDIX  C.                              403
Let us see, however, what Maimonides says on this subject.  This
learned Rabbi was born at Corduba in Spain, A.D. 1131.  He was the
pupil, Brucker tells us (" Hist. Phil." vol. ii. p. 857), according to L. Africanus, of Ibnu Thophail, Ibnu Saig, and Averroes, the Arabians.  Hence
his knowledge of the writings of Aristotle, of whom  Averroes was the
ardent disciple; and hence also the justice of Havernick's remark as to
the source of his notion respecting the "degrees" of Inspiration (See Lecture ii. p. 62, notel).  The Jews say of him, "A Mose ad Mosen, non surrexit sicut Moses."  In accordance with the general opinion of his nation,
lie held that a supereminent degree of Inspiration must be ascribed to
Moses, who is to be distinguished from all other prophets by four peculiar
characteristics:(1) "All the other prophets saw the prophecy in a dream  or in a
vision; but our Rabbi Moses saw it whilst he was awake."  (2) "To all
the other prophets it was revealed through the medium of an angel, and
therefore they saw that which they saw in an allegory or enigma, but to
Moses it is said,' With him I will speak mouth to mouth' (rm-bs n3, Num.
xii. 8); and'face to face'" (:,:a->     b  Ex, Ex. xxxiii. 11).1  (3) "All the
other prophets were terr'ifid, but with Moses it was not so; and this is
what the Scripture says:'As ia ma:l speaketh unto his friend'" (Ex.
xxxiii. 11). (4)"All the othe.' prophets eould not prophesy at any time
that they wished: but with Moses it was not so; but at any time when
he wished for it, the Ioly Spirit c:lm  upon him n; so that it was not necessary for him to prepaie his mindl, for he was always ready for it, like
the ministering angels" (nV:,n Axi:N).-Yad Hachazakah, c. vii. (Bernard's transl. p. 116.)   With special reference  to this superiority of
Moses, Maimonides proceeds in his other great work, the " Moreh Nebochim," to lay down eleven distinct "Degrees of Prophecy," from  which
Abarbanel has deduced the modern Jewish notion as to the three " Degrees
of Inspiration" under which the Old Testament was written:' 
KaZ rTv 7rpoqr7STv, K a    r ) v (a 7 X ( v,-or, o No/zo, Kai al wrporbT7eZat, Ka t T a
Xo i r a T  V  t P3X i  v). Daniel was placed in this last class, merely because he
does not appear to have been a ~i:", but simply a lrt (see Appendix J). The Book
of Lamentations Havernick admits to present an exception to this rule: but he thinks
that, from its character as a collection of poetical dirges, it was placed among the
Ilagiographa, just as Psalm xc., which was written by Moses, was also included in the
third division.
I I have suggested (supra, Lecture iii. p. 128) what appears to be the true meaning of the remarkable prerogatives ascribed to Moses in these passages; and have
also drawn attention (Lecture i. p. 41) to the unimportance of such prerogatives, as
bearing upon the Inspiration of Scripture.
" The younger Buxtorf has translated "Is. Abarbenelis [nat. A. D. 1437] aliquot
Dissertationes" (Basil. 1662); of which the eighth (p. 496), taken from the preface to
his Commentary on Joshua, commences thus: "Qumritur quare veteres Libros sacros
diviserint in Leger, Prophetas, et Hagiographa, et quae sit harum trium appellationum
ratio?"  One only of our wise men, says Abarbanel, has alluded to this question,
Ephodeus, who attempts to explain it from the analogy of the three divisions of the
Sanctuary; but this does not meet the difficulty.  " Mihi ergo videtur sapientes nostros voluisse nominibus istis monere de perfectione singularum harum partium, et
gradu supreme quo unaquceque aleram superat."  The superiority of the Thorah consists in its being the Law of God. As to the other two divisions, in the one case the
authors of the books were prophets; while the authors of the Hagiographa were not
prophets,-' sed'Loquentes per Spiritum Sanctum,' unde et illorum libri non vocan



404                          APPENDIX  C.
I. " Cum quis auxilio Divino ita instructus est et preditus ut eo moveatur et animetur, ad magnum et heroicum aliquod facinus perpetrandum.
Hoc donum vocatur Spiritus Domini.  Et hic est gradus Judicum Israelis
omnium."  II. " Cum  homo in se sentit rem  vel facultatem  quampiam
exoriri et super se quiescere, quae eum impellit ad loquendum vel de scientiis et artibus, vel Psalmos et Hymnos.  Et hic est de quo dicitur, quod
loquatur per Spiritum  Sanctum.  Hac specie Spiritus Sancti instinctus,
Psalmos suos scripsit David; Proverbia, Ecclesiasten, et Cant. Canticorum,
Salomon.  Hoc afflatu scripti sullt Danielis, Jobi, et Chronicorum  Libri,
et reliqua Hagiographa, unde etian Kethubim appellantur, quia scripta
sunt per Spiritum  Sanctum.  De libello Esther palam dicunt sapientes
nostri:' Libellus Esther per Spirituln Sanctum dictatus est"' [" Primus et
secundus sunt gradus ad Prophetiam, unde ii, qui ad duos illos gradus
pervenerunt, non numerantur inter prophetas illos, de quibus egimus hactenus" (p. 315).]  III. "Qui est primus Prophetie veife, est eorum  qui
dicunt:'Et fuit verbum Domini ad me."'  IV. " Cum Propheta verbum
aliquod dare et distincte audit in somnio Prophetie, sed non videt loquentem illud."  V. "Quando Vir aliquis in somnio loquitur cum  propheta."
VI. "Quando Angelus cum  ipso loquitur in somnio."  VII. " Cum Propheta existimat Deum secum loqui in somnio."  VIII. " Cum offertur ipsi
Visio in Visione prophetica, et cum  Parabolas videt."  IX. " Quando audit verba in Visione."  X. "Quando videt Virum  secum  loquentem  in
Visione."  XI. " Quando videt Angelum  loquentem  secum in Visione."Pars ii. cap. 45 (Buxtorfs transl. p. 316, &c.).
By virtue of the principle, "Omnis sermo qui auditur, quocunque
etiam modo id fiat, in Somnio auditur," Maimonides reduces these degrees
to eight (" Nam  si falsum  sit, in Visione audiri sermonem, concident tres
ultimi gradus."-Ibid. p. 321.
To this source, therefore, may at once be traced the modern theory of
various "degrees" of Inspiration.  An example of such a theory has been
given in Lecture i. p. 34, note3; where the obvious objection to which the
entire view is obnoxious has also been stated,-not to mention the fact
that the opinion is, at the most, a mere hypothesis, without the slightest
warrant in Scripture. Nor are the writers who maintain the theory even
agreed as to the number of these "degrees.";Thus Doddridge, in his
" Dissertation on Inspiration" (Works, vol. v. p. 346)-from  whom  Dr.
Dick (" Lectures on Theology," vol i. p. 195, &c.) does not materially differ-omits,' from  the four "degrees" usually defined as I have given
them  in the place cited, the " degree" denominated " the Inspiration of
Direction"  On the other hand, Dr. Henderson, in his "Lectures on Inspiration," (p. 364, &c.) lays down five "degrees:" viz. (1) A  Divine
Excitement; (2) An Invigoration (usually called Elevation)  (3) Superintendence; (4) Guidance; (5) Direct Revelation.  Among the advocates
tur prophetiae." The books, written by those "qui locuti sunt per Spiritum Sanctum, vocarunt, =-lzn~, scripta, Hagiographa * * * a gradu quem  habuerunt
ratione influentice Divince in illis; hoc est, quia gradus scriptorum illorum non fuit
quod viderint formas propheticas, nec quod audiverint verba Dei Vivi, sed quod fuerint
in gradu Spiritus Sancti:"-for an account of which influence he appeals to the " More
Nebochim" of Maimonides, pars ii. cap. 45.
Doddridge (loc. cit. p. 347, note), expressly refers to the authority of Maimonides,
and this may account for his reducing the number of "degrees" to three.




APPENDIX  C.                           405
of this theory is to be reckoned Professor J. T. Beck of Basle, a writer to
whose treatise, entitled " Einleitung in das System der christl. Lehre; oder
propadeutische Entwicklung der christl. Lehr-Wissenschaft," I have already acknowledged my many obligations.  According to this view the
Old and New Testaments each exhibit three'degrees' of Inspiration.  The'degrees of Theopneustia' in the New Testament are as follows:-(1)
" The pisteo-dynamical: or the concentration of the universal spirit of
Christian faith in particular organs, distinguished by the power of faith,
for the authentic reproduction of doctrine and history already revealed."
To this'degree' belong the Gospels of S. Mark and S. Luke, and the
Acts; and with this influence the Deacons and some others, e. g. S. Barnabas, were endowed:-cf. Acts, vi.-viii.; xi. 22-26; 1 Tim. iii. 9.  (2)
"The charismatical: or the distribution of the miraculous power of the
Spirit in extraordinary gifts, extending to ecstasy." This'degree' distributed over the first community of believers (Rom. xii. 5 ff; 1 Cor. xii.
4, 7), unites itself to the first'degree of Theopneustia' "according to its
more spontaneous side, yv(dltg and aoota; while its more receptive side,
drroKdXvbLtf and Trpoqr7-eia, joins on to the third degree of Theopneustia:'
-(3) " The apocalyptic," which was combined with the two former, in the
persons of the Apostles: —men called and set apart for the work, in order
to transmit to all the world, by means of written documents, the announcement of the mystery of God:-cf. Rom. i. I; Eph. iii. 2-10; Col. i. 2529.  The "degrees of Theopneustia" in the Old Testament are:-(1)
"Where, in order to present with fidelity the Revelation which had already become positive in history and doctrine, there was need of certain
organs in which the general covenant-spirit was energetically concentrated."
It is difficult to point out what books belong to this' degree;' there are,
perhaps, few in which the second does not enter. (2) "The Spirit of special
illumination, where, by the moulding energy of the Spirit, a certain virtuosity (Virtuositat) appears developed for the further dissemination of truth
revealed in doctrine and history:-such are most of the Psalms." Here also
there is a transition to the third'degree,' (3) which "combines and perfects both the former'degrees' in the spirit of the progressive Revelation."
Tlus the prophets wrote of history, and of doctrine, whether relating to
the past, the present, or the future; and the Pentateuch "appears as a
combination of the entire spiritual activity of the Old Testament." —~ 9096, s. 235 if.
III. We now come to the third class of modern theories of Inspiration, of which Schleiermacher may be taken to be the representative, and
the opinions of whose school have been discussed, Lecture iii. p. 100, &c.;
Lecture v. p. 219; Lecture vi. p. 253; and Lecture vii. p. 326, &c.  According to this school, "The idea of Inspiration is of quite subordinate
importance in Christianity;" the statements of the sacred writers being
in fact nothing more than the results of the natural faculties of the human
mind, exercised in reflecting upon the revelation exhibited in the Person
of Christ (see Lecture vi. p. 253, note 2). The connexion of this system
with Judaism is remarkable.
There are three opinions, writes Maimonides, as to Prophecy.  "Ima.
Sententia est vulgi et imperitie multitudinis quod Deus Opt. Max. aliquem
ex hominibus, qui ipsi placuerit, eligat eunque mittat, nulla habita ratione,




406                             APPENDIX  C.
an sit sapiens et eruditus, an vero indoctus et imperitus, senex an juveni!
Tantum  hoc requirunt, ut sit vir probus, bonus, honestus."
" 2da. Sententia est sententia Philosophorum, qui dicunt: Prophetiain
esse pel'fectionern quandlun in natura hominis.  Hanc autem  perfectionem,
dicunt, neminem  adipisci, nisi studio, industria, et diligentia, quae id quod
in potentia speciei inest, in actum  educat; nisi impediatur vel ab impedimento aliquo interno  proveniente a temperamento  hominis.  * * * 
Juxta hane opinionem  fieri non potest, si quis idoneus sit ad Prophetiam,
et prout decet se ad illam praeparaverit, ut actu ipso non prophetet."
" 3tia. Sententia est Legis nostrle.  Fundamentum  enim Legis nostroe
plane cumn sententia Philosophorum convenit, unica tantum re excepta, hac
videlicet, quod credimus flei posse, ut quis sit idoneus ad Prophetiam, et
se ad illam decenter praeparet, et tamen non prophetet, propter voluntatem
et beneplacitum Divinum.  Meo itaque judicio res hic se habet sicut in
Miraculis.  Ratio enim naturalis postulat, ut qui a natura sua idoneus est
ad Prophetiam, prophetare deberet: qui autem  id non potest facere, similis
est ei, qui nequit movere manuni suam, sicut Jeroboam.  Fundamentum
namque hujus rei et prcecipuum, quod nos quoque requirimus, est dispositio
vel dexteritas naturalis, et perfectio tam in moribus et qualitatibus externis,
quam in rationalibus et iutellectualibus."'-Moreh Nebochim, Pars ii. cap.
xxxii. (Buxtorf's transl. p. 284.)
The chief element among the natural faculties from which Prophecy is
thus said to result, viz. the "intellectus agens," has been borrowed from
the Peripatetics.  As the learned John  Smith  (of Cambridge) explains
the language of Maimonides, "The true essence of Prophecy is nothing
else but an influence from the Deity upon the rational first, and afterwards
the imaginative faculty by the mediation  of the active intellect,"-(" On
Prophecy," ch. ii.) And this doctrine Maimonides proceeds to apply as
follows:" Si influentia ista intellectualis influat in facultatem rationalem solum
nihilque in facultatem imaginatricein destillet, inde oriri sectanz sapientum,
speculatorum seu theoricorum.  Quando vero influentia illa in utramque
facultatem, rationaler  nempe et imaginativam, easque ab illarum  creatione
in summno gradu perfectas inifluit, exinde fit secta prophetarum.  Quando
It should be added here that Abarbanel rejects this theory of Maimonides:" Mens mihi hoc loci non est, de preparatione loquenti, istas dispositiones praedicare,
quas vel ex nature homo possederit vel acquisiverit studio, uti factum R. Maimonidi,
dum vias recenset per quas ad Prophetiam necessario perveniatur; nam illis (uti Legis
nos scientia docet) nulla necessitas adest, conferens ipsam Prophetiam. Verum enir
vero prpeparationes seu dispositiones hoe plurimulm valent, &c."-Comml. in xii. Proph.
Kin., Prff (Husen's transl. p. 16).
2 "Veritas et quidditas Prophetiae nihil aliud est, quam influentia, a Deo Opt.
Max., mediante intellectu aqente, super facultatem rationalem  primo, deinde super
facultatem  imaginatricein influens."  It is not to be found in every one, no matter
what his other perfections may be, " nisi simul conjuncta sit summa facultatis imaginatricis, inde ab ipsa hora nativitatis, perfectio."  *  *  *  "Has autem tres perfectiones quod attinet:-perfectionem videlicet facultatis rationalis in studendo; perfectionem facultatis imaginatricis in nativitate; et perfectionem morum seu qualitatum
in puritate cogitationum   *  *  *  has inquam quod attinet, notum est magnam
earum inter perfectos esse differentiam et praecellentiam.  Et secundum illam  differentiam  distincti quoque sunt prophetarum  gradus." —2or. Neb. Ibid. c. xxxvi.
p. 292, &c.




APPENDIX  C.                             407
denique influentia illa influit solum in facultatem imaginatricem; et in facultate rationali imperfectio aliqua existit, exsurgit inde secta Politicorum,
Jurisperitorum, Legislatorlam, Divinatorum, Incantatorum, Sonniatorum,
et Prcestigiatorum."-Ibid. cap. xxxvii. p. 296. " It is needless to remark,"
writes Rudelbach, " that this psychical founding of Prophecy, according
to which the leading idea is the' natural disposition,' in no sense comes up
to the idea of tthe'Servant of God,' which, according to Holy Scripture,
is common to all prophets;  still less to the idea of' the word of God'
which called them, prepared them, and was the principle of their life.  It
is, perhaps, worth observing that one of the latest dogmatic writers is quite
in accord with the Jewish teachers as to this fundamental view.  Schleiermacher does not even conceal his belief'that the idea or Inspiration appears, in this same sense, in every pious community which has a scriptural
basis; nay, even in the orioin of civil government.' -Zcitschrift, 1840, H.
i. s. 51.  And aglin: havinr referred to Spinoza, as confessedly the leader
of all modern opposition to Inspiration; and having quoted his principle,
-" Merito mendis natutrar, quatenus talis concipitur. primanz  Divince
Revelationis causamz   statuere possuinus" (Tract. Theol., Pol. cap. i.), borrowed  fromn  Maimonides,-which  refers  Revelation to  merely natural
causes, he observes that such opinions " deserve attention were it merely
to recall to mind the essential elements of the system  canonized by the
modern pantheists."  On which he notes:   It is well known that Schleiermacher, in his'Discourses concerning Religion' (3rd edit., 1821), has
completed the apotheosis of Spinoza; out certainly in a heathenish manner, by sacrificing on his grave a lock of his hair (indem  er eine Locke
opfert an seinern Grabe)."-Loc. cit., H. ii. s. 48.
It is needless to refer, with any greater particularity, to the numerous
varieties of opinion into which the theories of Inspiration, which have
been now considered, nmay be subdivided.  Nor, with respect to the distinction between Revelation and Inspiration, is it necessary to add anything
to what has been alreadly said in the foregoing pages.  It has, however,
been observed (Lecture i. p. 40, note') that Origen noticed this distinction.  The occasion on which he has done so is the followi!g:-lHe had
just applied to the Law or Moses the title of pTTpoToyeVV?1,Pa of Scripture;
and to the Gospels that of drapX'i; the meaningl of whicih terms lhe thus
explains:   e T'a Y Tp r'ovg rdvl ag tiapTovvg davac~perat /il dirapf' 7pob 6e
xTdvT(ov 7T rpOToyEvv,'ua-  and he goes on to anticipate the objection,
that as the Acts and the Epistles were disseminatled after the Gospels, his
use of the word   7ra p'  X   is objetionable.  To whlic!  he replies:Aei-rkTOV iTOL VOVV ilval ao(Juv' V XpairLTO5, W)4X, 7l{VJwV k[jEV] t'V T-al
Opepoevvatg irtLaroaZl, deo/ttlvwv [61]'va,rta-T-evwvr at [IapTvpLbtv T)v
iv rTof VOltiOf 01  icai iapo1TI77TLlO 1' 6yoL Z )/o  KEItvwv, j.TE aoda 1v Kcat
t(TaI XIyelv icai aio6dpa  T'rLerTa)'/Iva  -7a adTrofTOtcm,   oV [rnv rrapanXljata Tr('  I -ae Xeyet KvpLOg Ilbavl1)olfpaT'  KilZ tara T-OV7   ETirTorl7ov
&i e:rav X'y/  ~ HavAioS,,raJOa ypap)) OeT6rveva)rof Kcal  OLctltoq, prrsepLacpa3dvet rcal  Ta  av7roi  ypa',dulaa, i ov  6'- Kaicdy) Xeyo  rKcai ovX b
Kvptog, Kcal TO -'v iTrcraiCT C,  eI{c7/cTua  6tlaTdrdajosat, cKai TO  ota E'TraOov
ev'AVTloXeia, Ev'Igcovzic, EV  AvarpoL9 Kcai  rao roV7OLt 7rapan-roiaa,
evioTe V T' alvroV  pava Tca i a       i-' a a  o  ov r  a v, o)v ffqv -TO eiltKcpltvcq -()v ki Oeiag e-rrlvoiaclf X6)wv.-Conn,. in Johann., t. iv. p. 4.




408                           APPENDIX  D.
Here it is clear that the distinction is drawn not between one portion
of Scripture which is inspired, and another portion which is not inspired;
but between words which had been uttered by "the Lord Almighty"
(2 Cor. vi. 18), and those which were spoken in the persons of the sacred
writers themselves (observe that in each of the three quotations S. Paul
speaks in the first person):-both classes of passages having been written
under " Divine Inspiration," but the former being, as it were, " unmixed"
with human agency.  And, on this principle, he goes on to consider S.
John's to be the darapyX   of the Gospels.  Cf: Cassiodorus, "In Psalter"
cap. i., t. ii. p. 3; and S. Basil,l "Adv. Eunom." lib. v., t. i. p. 319, who
refers to 1 Cor. vii. (cf. Lecture vi. p. 272, &c).
APPENDIX D.
THE c" LOST" BOOKS OF THE OLD TESTAMENT.
LECTURE II.-PAGE 55.
WE meet with frequent reference in the Old Testament to a class of
writings devotional and historical-writings, too, in many cases composed
by the authors of inspired books,-which were never received into the
Canon of Scripture.  Of such compositions, some (1) are quoted to a
greater or less extent in different parts of the Old Testament; or, without
any express quotation, are alluded to as being extant; while others (2)
are plainly spoken of as the sources from which the sacred writers derived, in certain cases, their information as to historical facts.  (Cf. Lecture
vii. p. 296, note 2.)
(1) "The Book of the wars of Jehovah," quoted Numbers, xxi. 14,
15, appears to have been one of the earliest instances of a collection of the
popular lyrical poetry of the Hebrews (cf. Lecture iv. p. 160, note 2);
and the hymn, quoted in the same chapter (vv. 17, 18), seems to have
been also taken from that collection  In such poetical pieces was re-echoed
the impression which the Lord's dealings with His people were fitted to
produce; and from them was reflected the spirit of the Pentateuch, where
Jehovah is represented fighting for Israel, as " a Man of war," Exod. xv.
3; cf. xiv. 14, 25.  To this collection may, perhaps, also be referred the
prophetic sayings (otherwise forming a distinct work) which are described
as having been delivered by them "that speak in proverbs" (Num. xxi.
MeIchior Canus, who, so far as I am aware, was the first to state expressly this
distinction between Revelation and Inspiration (see supra, p. 40), appears to have inferred it from these statements of the Fathers. Thus lie observes, with reference to
this passage from S. Basil:-" Quae sacri auctores scripsere, haec in duolici sunt differentia. Qusedam, quae supernaturali solum revelatione cognoscebant: et ea Basihus
tradit a Spiritu Sancto esse. Alia vero naturali cognitione tenebant, quae scilicet aut
oculis viderant, aut manibus etiam attrectaverant. Atque haec quidem, ut paulo ante
diximus, supernaturali lumine et expressa revelatione, ut scriberentur, not egebant,
sed egebant tamen Spiritus Sancti praesentia et auxilio peculiari, ut licet humana essent,
et natures ratione cognita, Divinitus tamen sine ullo errore scriberentur. Haec vero
illa sunt, quse, juxta Basilium, Paulus et Prophetae de suo loquebantur."-De Locis
Theolog. lib. ii. c. xviii., p. 127.




APPENDIX  D.                            409
17); and with which many of the predictions of the future prophets are
so intimately connected (Lect. iv. p. 160, note 2; cf. Lect. vii. p. 298, &c.)
" By the side of the objective statements of the Pentateuch," observes
Hengstenberg, "proceeded the subjective in'the Book of the wars of
the Lord.'  How they were -related to each other, with respect to the
preceding historical narrative, we perceive from  Exod. xv."-Beitrage,
B. iii. s. 226.
As the "Book of the wars of Jehovah" contained the praises of the
Lord for the wonders wrought by Him for Israel, so, as a continuation, it
may be, of that collection, but certainly not identical with it, " the Book
of Jasher" (" the upright,"-nv,7n i.:, i. e. of the ideal true Israel), Josh.
x. 13;1 2 Sam. i. 18, contained odes in honour of God's distinguished
servants. It was so called, perhaps, with a reference to the passages
where Israel is described as "Jeshurun" (li~u, or,T'-n-Deut. xxxii. 15;
xxxiii. 5, 26; Numb. xxiii. 10)-see Keil's continuation of Havernick's
" Einleitung," s. 8.
In 1 Chron. xxviii. 11-19, we read that "David gave to Solomon the
pattern of the porch  *  *  *  and the pattern of all that he had, by
the Spirit, of the courts of the House of the Lord.  *   *  *  Also for
the courses of the Priests and the Levites.  *  *  *  All this, said
David, the Lord made me understand in writing by His hand upon me,
even all the works of this pattern." That this document was the recognised guide in the ritual worship of the Temple, we learn from the words
of Josiah to the Priests and Levites: " Prepare yourselves by the houses
of your fathers, after your courses, according to the writing of David
King of Israel, and according to the writing of Solomon his son."-2
Chron. xxxv. 4.
In 1 Kings, iv. 32, we read that Solomon" spake three thousand
proverbs, and his songs were a thousand and five:" and yet only two of
his Psalms are in the Canon-viz. Psalm lxxii. and cxxvii.
It seems clear from 2 Chron. xxxv. 25, that Jeremiah composed a dirge
on the death of Josiah: "Jeremiah lamented for Josiah,  *  *  *  and
behold they are written in the Lamentations."'
(2) To turn, in the next place, to those prophetical and other writings
which are appealed to by the authors of the Old Testament, as the sources
from which their statements have been taken.3 The division of the land,
described by Joshua in the section ch. xiii.-xxii., is founded upon adocument drawn up by the " three men for each tribe" " who passed througrl
the land, and described it by cities, into seven parts, in a Book ('a.-~)."
-Josh. xviii. 9.  And here a remark may be made, the importance of
It is curious to observe what slender grounds are sufficient for an assault upon
the integrity of Scripture:-" It is worthy of remark that the Book of Joshua (x. 13)
quotes the book of Jasher which must have been written as late as the time of David
(2 Sam. i. 18). See De Wette, ii. 187."-Greg, The Creed of Christendom, p. 38. The
bare mention of the fact that this work consisted of a collection of popular poetry,to which, of course, additions were made from time to time,-exposes the weakness
of this cavil.
2 To this class of writings some add "The manner of the kingdom" which Samuel
"wrote in a book." —1 Sam. x. 25. This does not appear, however, to have been a
distinct work: see Lecture vii. p. 289, note.
I For the remarks which follow, cf. Havernick, "Einleitung," Th. ii. Abth. i.




410                           APPENDIX  D.
which will presently appear, that the author of the Books of Chronicles
lad other sources of information with respect to such facts, than the Book
of Joshua. Thus the account of the possessions of the Levites in I Chron.
vi. 54-81, differs from that given in Josh. xxi.  The progress of time, in<-el, must necessarily have rendered the former description inexact: e. g.
Zikl:a (Josh. xix. 5) was assigned to the Tribe of Simeon; but we learn
from  I Sam. xxvii. 6, that it afterwards "pertained unto the Kings of
Judah."
The author of the Books of Samuel, on one occasion only (namely, 2
Sam. i. 18, already noticed) makes express mention of documentary sources.
The frequent insertion, however, of poetic pieces plainly intimates that
such sources were at his command:-viz. the Song of Hannah, 1 Sam. ii.
1-10; the Hymn of Victory, xviii. 6, &c.; the Lament of David for Saul
and Jonathan, 2 Sam. i. 17-27, and for Abner, iii. 33, 34; David's Psalms,
contained in ch. xxii. and in xxiii. 1-7.  Hence we may not unfairly form
a conjecture as to the source of such quotations; and conclude that these
poetic pieces were selected from the " Book of Jasher."  We read, too, in
1 Chrol. xxix. 29, that "the acts of David are written in the Book of
Samuel, and in the Book of Nathan, and in the Book of Gad;" any or all
of which may have been the author's sources:-for it is clear that these
were distinct works, since the " Book of Nathan" alone is referred to in 2
Chron. ix. 29 (" The acts of Solomon, are they not written in the Book of
Nathan, and in the prophecy of Ahijah, and in the visions of Iddo.") without any allusion to the Books of Samuel or Gad.
The author of the Books of Kings on one occasion appeals to "the
Book of the acts of Solomon (nitna atn a55)"-1 Kinos, xi. 41: the
other sources to which he has referred being' The Book of the Chronicles
(,,7~n   n'o1 c3 0) of the Kings of Judah," or of " Israel:"-writings which
ure quoted thirty-one times up to the history of Jehoiakim, 2 Kings, xxiv.
5.  That a selection only was made froml such documents is obvious from
the use, in all cases, of the phrase " the rest of ('ho) the acts," &c.; while
it is also plain that our books of Chronicles are not the sources employed.
The documents in question were the public records of the kingdom, which
the sacred historians of the Hebrews, like other Oriental annalists, were
accustomed to adduce as their authorities (cf. Ezra, iv. 15; Esther, vi. i;
x. 2.)  The passage Neh. xii. 23, is conclusive on this point, as has been
already proved, Lecture vii. p. 296, note 2
That the documents thus made use of were in most, if not all, instances,
co;posed by Prophets, will be seen farther on.
In the Books of Chronicles, with the exception of the section 1 Chron.
i.-ii. 2,-and even here the facts borrowed are compressed as much as;ossible (cf. i. 24-27, with Gen. xi. 10-26; and i. 32, 33, with Gen. xxv.
1-4), —the canonical Books of Scripture are not employed as the sources:
this assertion, however, must be proved.  The Books of Chronicles may
be divided into the following sections:I. The Genealogies, 1 Chron. i.-ix.:- (1) The author gives ample information as to the authorities to which he refers.  He appeals to the
public register of the Tribes, of which Nehemiah writes:-" I found a
register of the genealogy (,,n m5o) of them which came up at the first,
and found written thlelein,"  c. —vii. 5.  See 1 Chron. iv. 33; v. 1, 7, 17;




APPENDIX  D.                             411
vii. 7, 9, 40; ix. 1.   To the collection of such registers he refers ch. ix. 1;
and we learn from ch. v. 17, that we are to refer the origin of census-lists
of this nature to the times of Jotham and Jeroboam II.  (2) He does not
borrow from the other canonical books. This appears, speaking generally,
not only from  the absence of any such striking agreement with those
books, as must have existed had the Chronicler taken them as his sources;
but also fiorm the additional information which his statements so often supply: e. g. I Chron. ii. 13-17 (cf. 1 Sam. xvi. 6, &c.); iii. 20-24; iv. 123; v. 16-34.   But this feature of the case must be examined somewhat
more particularly, namely, —Has the author, or has he not, made use of
the Books of Samuel and the Books of Kings? a question with which the
present inquiry, as to the existence of a distinct branch of Hebrew literature is essentially connected.  The reply to this question will inform us of
the authorities from which the Chronicler has actually derived his facts.
II. In the section 1 Chron. x.-xxix., which contains the history of
David, the sources appear to have been (1) works written by early prophets, and contemporaneous with the events which they record; together
with (2) a book of later date, compiled from the annals which the author
had employed in the opening chapters.  (1) The account of David's reign
closes with the words: "Now the acts of David the King, first and last,
behold, they are written in the book of Samuel the Seer, and in the Book
of Nathan the Prophet, and in the Book of Gad the Seer"-1 Chron.
xxix. 29:-we have already seen that these were separate, independent
works.
(2) The lists of David's heroes (ch. xi. 10, &c.), and of those who
came to him  to Ziklag (ch. xii. 1-22); the information as to the Levites
(ch. xv. 17, &o.), and as to Divine worship (ch. xxii. xxvi); &c. &c.-all
such statements point to the use of a document analogous to those employed in the opening chapters.  But we are also informed of the exact
nature of this document.  We read, "The Levites were numbered from
the age of thirty years and upward.  *  *  *  By the last words of
David the Levites were numbered from twenty years old and above."-1
Chron. xxiii. 3, 27: we are told, moreover, that its author, " Shemaiah the
son of Nethaneel the scribe, one of the Levites, wrote them before the
King and the Princes, &c."-xxiv. 6.  To this document the reader is
more than once referred for special information, when the Chronicler
speaks of classes of persons who were "expressed by name"-(cf. xii. 31,
xvi. 41); its nature being more explicitly declared in the statement:"Joab began to number, but he finished not, because there fell wrath for
it against Israel; neither was the number put in the account of the Chronicles of King David."-xxvii. 24.
III. In 2 Chron. i.-ix. is contained the history of Solomon.  We have
The facts borrowed from those documents often afford occasion for explanatory
remarks:-e. g. on the transfer of Reuben's Birthright to the sons of Joseph —
ch. v. 1.
2 One example may be given of the light which the Books of Chronicles cast upon
other obscure portions of Scripture. 1 Chronicles, iv. 23, we read: " These were the
potters, and those that dwelt among plants and hedges: there they dwelt with the
king for his work."  Thus we learn that there was a well-known family of potters, of
the tribe of Judah, set apart to labor for the kings. To these the passages, Jer. xviii.
1, 2; xix. 1, 2; Zech. xi. 13, evidently refer.




412                           APPENDIX  D.
seen to what source the author of the Books of Kings referred on this
subject (1 Kings, xi. 41); but here other authorities are adduced: "The
rest of the acts of Solomon, first and last, are they not written in the
Book of Nathan the Prophet, and in the Prophecy of Ahijah the Shilonite, and in the Visions of Iddo the Seer against Jeroboam the son of Nebat"-2 Chron. ix. 29: —the silence of the Books of Kings with respect
to any "Vision of Iddo against Jeroboam," proving that the Chronicler
does not refer to them.
IV. In the Section 2 Chron. x.-xxxvi., which contains the succeeding
llistory of the kingdom of Judah, the document most frequently quoted is'the Book of the Kings of Judah and Israel"-(xvi. 11; xxv. 26; xxvii.
7; xxviii. 26; xxxii. 32; xxxv. 27; xxxvi. 8).  In xx. 34 we meet with
"the Book (mt5) of the Kings of Israel;" and in xxxiii. 18 "the aino  of
the Kings of Israel"-which latter work, however, was clearly not confined
to the Ten Tribes, as it contained the history of Manasseh.  These documents are not the Books of Kings.  This is proved by the fact that, in
many instances, the Books of Kings do not contain the information for
which the Chronicler refers to his sources:-e. g. 2 Chron. xxvii. 7;
xxxiii. 18. From considering the nature of his references it will appear
that the Chronicler has borrowed here from three separate authorities:(1) From a distinct compilation, which contained genealogical details (cf.
xxxi. 16, &c.), and also writings composed by prophets-e. g.: "The rest
of the acts of Jehoshaphat are written in the Book of Jehu, the son of
Hanani"-xx. 34 (Jehu is called a prophet, 1 Kings, xvi. 7); and, again:
" The rest of the acts of Hezekiah are written in the Vision of Isaiah
the Prophet, the son of Amoz, in the Book of the Kings of Judah. and
Israel"-xxxii. 32.  That the different elements thus referred to formed
one compilation is confirmed by the title given in ch. xxiv. 27,1 to the
work which the Chronicler had before him, viz. " the Story [or Commentary] of the Book' of the Kings (:ts~n -I3  trt?),"-i. e. an historical
commentary or accurate account of Jewish history, gathered out of the
writings of the prophets; a sense which is further confirmed by the passage:'The rest of the acts of Ahijah are written in the Story or Commentary (wtnm) of the prophet Iddo."-xiii. 22.  The other element of
this compilation is referred to in the words: " The acts of Rehoboam, are
they not written in the book of Shemaiah the prophet, and of Iddo the
Seer, concerning genealogies?"-xii. 15.
(2) The second authority referred to is expressly distinguished from
the compilation just spoken of in the following manner.  We read: "The
rest of the acts of Manasseh, and his prayer unto his God, and the words
of the Seers [cf. ver. 10 and 2 Kings, xxi. 10, &c.] that spake to him  in
the name of the Lord God of Israel, behold they are written in the book
(words) of the Kings of Israel."-xxxiii. 18.  But in ver. 19, the Chron1 "Now concerning his [Joash] sons, and the greatness of the burdens laid upon
himL (  >N xrni7n:=), and the repairing of the house of God, behold they are written
in the story of the Book of the Kings"-where, as Havernick suggests, in place of the
words in Italics, we should read "the number of the prophetic denunciations against
Joash" tsee Lecture iv. p. 163, note, on xNIzr)-spoken of in ver. 19. The different
subjects which this passage embraces show how the whole compilation could
receive the name of i'n~,-" Commentary," or "Prophetical illustrations of History."




APPENDIX D.                            413
icier proceeds: " His prayer also, and how God was entreated of him, &c.,
behold they are written among the sayings of the Seers:" or,-as the
margin correctly renders-" the sayings of Hosai (-t    ma-T):" in which
words the writer clearly refers to a distinct document.
(3) Isaiah's biography of Uzziah: "The rest of the acts of Uzziah,
first and last, did Isaiah the Prophet, the son of Amoz, write"-xxvi. 22;
but which work was not, like Isaiah's history of Hezekiah, inserted in the
" Book of the Kings."-xxxii. 32.
Here, then, may be repeated the questions already proposed in Lecture
ii. p. 55:-Why do we not find in the Old Testament Canon the documents which have been enumerated in the preceding remarks?  And
again:-Why do we not find placed on a par with the inspired writings,
such works as the Book of Ecclesiasticus, and the other components of
the Apocrypha, which, it is on all hands admitted, the Jewish Church
never received as Canonical? Only one answer, I conceive, can be given
to such questions, viz.: " That the collection of Sacred Books was defined
under the Divine guidance, and closed at the Divine command" (see
supra, p. 61).
It is unnecessary to enter here upon the modern phase of the question
relating to the Apocrypha.  Suffice it to say, that the Community which
has exalted these writings to the dignity of Canonical Scripture, has,
nevertheless, been compelled to place them  in a lower rank than the
Books acknowledged by all to be inspired. How a member of the Church
of Rome can draw such a distinction, consistently with the Tridentine Decrees, it is needless to inquire: the agreement, however, of both Roman
Catholics and Lutherans in their estimate of the Apocrypha is remarkable;-one party t.esiring to exalt the Apocrypha, the other to lower the
authority of portions of the New Testament.  Perrone-having quoted
the Canon of Trent (Sess. iv.), in which both the Canonical and Apocryphal Books of the Old Testament are enumerated, and which concludes
with these words: " Si quis libros ipsos cum omsznibus suis partibus, prout
in Ecclesia Catholica legi consueverunt, et in veteri Vulgata Editione habenturpro Sacris et Canonicis non susceperit  *        *  anathema sit"
-proceeds to say: "Ex his porro turn Veteris turn Novi Test. libris alii
dicuntur'proto-canonici,' alii'deutero-canonici'  *  *  *  Libri'protocanonici' Vet. Test., auctore Josepho Flavio, xxii. sunt; nempe omnes enumerati prseter Baruch, Tobiam, Judith, Sapientiam, Ecclesiasticum, ac
duos Machabseorum, qui serius in Canonem  ab Ecclesia  relati sunt,
adeoque'deutero-canonici' nuncupati.  Libri'proto-canonici' N. T., sunt
pariter omnes recensiti, exceptis Epistola B. Pauli ad Hebrceos, 2 Ep.
B. Petri, duabus posterioribus S. Joannis, Ep. S. Jacobi, item  Ep. S.
Judce, et Apocalypsi B. Joannis: ut nonnullas quorumdamn librorumn partes
omittamus," (viz.: " quod attinet ad V. T., sunt hymnus trium puerorum,
Dan. iii. 24-90; historia Sqsannae, cap. xiii; ac destructio Beli et Draconis, cap. xiv.; septem postrema capita libri Esther, nemnpe a cap. x. 4 et
xvi. 24.  Quod vero spectat ad libros N. T., sunt (1) posteriores versiculi
cap. xvi. S. Marci, nempe a ver. 9 ad finenl; (2) historia sudoris Christi
sanguinei quse legitur ap. S. Lucam cap. xxii. 43, 44; (3) historia Iulieris
adulterae Joan. viii. 2-12")-Prcelect Theol., t. ii. pars 2, p. 12.
Tholuck accepts this statement as follows: " Auf diese Weise bildete




414                          APPENDIX D.
sic' auch unter den neutestanzentlichen Schriften, wie unter den alttestamentlichen, der Unterschied aus zwischen kanonischen im  engeren Sinne,
und apokryphischen.  Diesen letzteren  Namen gebraucht Hieronymus
geiraezu von den Antilegomenen, und bezeichnet sie dadurch als solche,' quae Ecclesia legit ad mdificationem plebis,' welche aber die Kirche nicht
gebraucht' a  auctoritatenm  ecclesiasticorum  dogmatum  confirmandam.'
Eben dieser Unterschied der neutestamentlichen Schriften ist nun auch
von der lutherischen ILirche angenommen worden, welche ebenso im  N.
T., wie die katholische im A. T.,' libri proto-canonici,' und' deutero-canonici' unterscheidet."-Der Br. an die Hebr., Einleitung, kap. vi., s. 86.
In concluding this subject an observation must be made with reference
to the remark of Hug, quoted p. 59, note', to the effect that the primitive
practice of publicly reading in the Christian assemblies the Books of the
New Testament was the mark of distinction by which the Church formally
declared its belief in their inspired authority. When such an argument
is employed, we are of course to understand the practice of the Church,
in general, as that to which the appeal is made: for it is well known that
there were some exceptions to this principle.  When it can be proved,
however, that the use, in public worship, of any books which were not inspired was, at the utmost, only partial; and that, in the most remarkable
case, such use can be at once accounted for from  local causes; the argument for the inspiration of the Canonical Books only which is founded
upon the general practice of the Church, is strengthened rather than diminished by the knowledge of such exceptions.  Thus the Epistle of S.
Clement of Rome, written in the name of the Roman Church to the Church
of Corinth, was occasioned by a division which had arisen among the
members of the latter, and which was healed by the wise admonitions of
S. Clement.  What more natural than that the Cliurch of Corinth should
continue publicly to read a document with which its history was so closely
connected? Accordingly, S. Dionysius, bishop of Corinth (circ. A.D. 170),
wrote to Soter, bishop. of Rome, informing him, among other matters,
that it had been the practice of his Church, from  the first, to read this
Epistle.  As Eusebius interprets his meaning: —7rf KX4tevTro  rTTbof
KoptvOiovg LtetvrIral ttaroXh i, 6       d2Xv dvetcaOev    dpaiov ov g Oovi ri
-rij  encXat(yiaS -riv dvdayvo6tv avrlg -JrrotLaOat. —Hist. JEccl. iv. c. 23, p.
187.  Considering the person by whom  this Epistle had been written, we
should rather feel surprise that the practice had not become universal (see
sppra, p. 57, &c.); but that it had not, we again learn from  Eusebius,
who, when desiring himself to express the great estimation in which S.
Clcment's Epistle was held, can say no more than that it was read ev
7T A eit  T a t  e iqatriat  (H. E., iii. c. 16, p. 108). The " Shepherd of
H-errnas," too, was held in the greatest veneration by so high an authority
as S. Irenmus (cf. e. g. " Cont. Haer.," lib. iv. c. xx. p. 253); and yet, the
" Fragment of Muratori" expressly mentions it as a book which was not
publicly read as Scripture:-see supra, p. 57, note.  It is thus referred to
by S. Athanasius: —ev de r() lnotLsvt yeypa7rTat'  7re1t86  Ktal -roVT
K ai r o t I   ov  K T ro  Ko av6 Vvo g rpoqepovat'  TWTOV  It.. L.
De Decr. Nic. Syn., t. i. p. 223.'  The case of the Epistle of S. Barnabas
has been considered already, p. 57, note 2
2 Bishop Beveridge's assertion, therefore, as to the universal practice of reading




APPENDIX  E.                              415
APPENDIX E.
THE EPISTLE OF S. BARNABAS.
(LECTURE II.-PAGE 58.)
OUR information, as to the personal history of S. Barnabas,' is very
scanty.  According to Acts, iv. 36, he was a " Levite of the country of
Cyprus." Clemens Al. (" Strom." II. xx. p. 489) and Eusebius (" 11. E.,"
i. 12; ii. 1) tell us that he was one of the Seventy Disciples. This
statement fully accords with the inspired historian's account of his early
attachment to the Church, and zeal in its cause; for S. Barnabas was the
first who "having land sold it, and brought the money, and laid it at
the Apostles' feet."-Acts, iv. 37.  We next find him  introducing the
lately converted S. Paul to the Apostles (ix. 27); and subsequently journeying from Antioch " to Tarsus for to seek Saul" (xi. 25), whom  he accompanied on his first mission as an Apostle (xiii). In consequence of the
dispute respecting his kinsman "John, whose surname was Mark," he was
for a time separated from S. Paul (xv. 36-39); and we learn from Gal. ii.
13, that S. Barnabas, in common with S. Peter, was led astray  by the
dissimulation of the Jews.
Referring to the early records of the Church, we learn further that an
Epistle was generally received as proceeding from the pen of S. Barnabas,
which is fiequently quoted in the writings of Clemens Alexhndrinus and
Origen. I's existence is also mentioned by Eusebius, S. Jerome, and Nicephorus.  For many centuries all knowledge of this Epistle was confined to
such allusions. It was for the first time printed in 1643 by Archbishop
Ussher, at Oxford; but the entire of this impression was destroyed during
a great fire in that city. The first edition, therefore, actually published was
that of Ifugo Menardus, in 1645; and it was followed in the next year by
another, edited by Is. Vossius.  Ussher and Menardus were inclined to
doubt the genuineness of this composition, which, on the other hand, Vossius defended: and thus the controversy on the subject commenced. This
controversy is free from one difficulty, which, in such cases, is usually the
most formidable: all parties admitting that, were we to confine ourselves
to EXTERNAL EVIDENCE, there can be no doubt that S. Barnabas was the
author.2  The manner in which early writers accepted this Epistle as the
these three writings in the Church is, I venture to think, unsupported by sufficient
evidence. (See his "Codex Canonum," lib. II. cap. ix. ~ 11.)
Ullman ("Studien u. Kritiken," 1828, s. 38 ff) identifies S. Barnabas with Barsabas (Acts, i. 23); on the grounds that the Peschito and some MSS., in Acts, i. 2;,
for'IWau,0 read'Jlg/-i  (who "was surnamed Barnabas"-Acts, iv. 36); and that, fur
Bapafipu(, Cod. D and the Ethiopian Version read Bapvu3aS. With this agrees the
statement of Clemens Al. and Eusebius, that S. Barnabas was one of the Seventy;
for Barsabas is described as having been an eye-witness of the Life of Christ.
Although not elected into the place of Judas, he is called an Apostle (Acts,
xiv. 4). How does it happen, also, that we hear no more of Barsabas? Cf. the
curious statement of the "Recogn. S. Clementis" (ap. Cotelor., t i. p. 507)
"Post quem Barnabas, qui et Matthias, qui in locum Judae subrogatus est Apostolus," &c.
2 Even Ullman, who, in the essay alluded to, attempts in vain to weaken the external evilence admits: "Das Ilochste, was wir den Verfechtern der Aechtheit




416                           APPENDIX  E.
work of S. Barnabas, has been already pointed out (Lecture ii. p. 58, and
p. 58, note 2); and so high an authority as Bishop Pearson can be appealed
to as deciding "hanc Epistolam  eandem  esse quam  veteres in manibus
lhauerunt."'   Nor is this fact, that all external evidence is decisive in support of its genuineness, questioned by its leading opponent in modern times,
the Iistorian Neander, who does not, however, condescend to discuss this
branch of the question.  In his remarks on the most distinguished teachc. s of the Church, he writes:-" We must mention here, in the first place,
Barnabas, the well-known companion of the Apostle Paul, if an Epistle
really belonged to him, which was known in the second century, in the
ChAurch of Alexandria, under his name, and which bore the superscription
t)f a Catholic Epistle.  But we cannot possibly recognise in it the Barnabas who was worthy to be a companion of the apostolic labors of Paul,
and who had received his name in the Church from the power of his inspired elocution (viog rapaKaseoUg, vio nrpofq-retiag).  There floats before us here a spirit altogether different from that of such an apostolic man.
We here remark an educated Alexandrian Jew, who had gone over to
Christianity; who, by his Alexandrian education, was prepared for a more
spiritual apprehension of Christianity, but who laid too great stress upon
an untenable Alexandrian, artificial Jewish, gnosis; who, in a mystical exposition,-which plays upon the words of the Old Testament, and which
seems to resemble the spirit of Philo rather than the spirit of Paul, or even
(f the Epistle to the Hebrews,- sought for special wisdom, and therein idly
indulged himself."'  This statement of the case involves two assumptions,
neither of which appears capable of support.  (1) It is assumed, in the
first place, that an Epistle proceeding from a companion of the Apostles, who, on certain occasions, was inspired in his preaching, must of
necessity have been written under the influence of Inspiration. This assumption, however, is founded upon the twofold error,-that the gift of
Inspiration was permanent (in answer to which compare the Scriptural
facts brought forward, p. 221, note'); and that Inspiration itself is of such
a nature as the school of Schleiermacher has defined it to be (see also p. 34,
and p. 219, note').  (2) The second principle assumed by Neander, or, at
least, by the majority of writers who agree with him  in his argument
against this Epistle,-is that the system of allegorical exposition, which is
there carried to such an extent, was unsuited alike to the age, and the object, of S. Barnabas, supposing him to have been the author. But both
branches of this assumption also are again unfounded.  That the principle
of spiritually expounding the events and language of the Old Testament
was not unsuited to the Apostolic age, we learn from the fact of the frequent
adoption of such a system of interpretation by the New Testament writers
zugeben, ist, dass der Brief, sofern wir bloss die Tradition [i. e. historical evidence],
ins Auge fassen, von Barnabas seyn kann."-Loc. cit. s. 387.
l"Minor Theol. Works"-" Lect. in A.cta Apost. ii."-ed. Churton, vol. i. p. 335.
As J. C. Rordam observes: "Unam  eandemque esse Epistolam Barnabae dubitari
nequit; hoc enim satis probant loci ii, quos ex epistola Barnabax laudarunt Patres ecclesiastici, qui verbo tenus in epistola nostra extant; quod neque inficias quisquam ivit
printer Abr. Calovium, qui conjecturae vento leviori obtemperans, Epistolse hujus consarcinatorem fi'agmenta illa Barnabae ex Clemente Alex. et Origene suo figmento inseruisse suspicatur."-De Authent. Ep. Barnabce, Hafn. 1828. p. 9.
2 Alltem. Gesch. der christl. Kiiche," B. i. s. 1133. 2te Aufl.




APPENDIX  E.                               417
themselves (e. g. Gal. iv. 22, &c.; Rom. ix. 8; 2 Cor. iii. 13, &c.; Eph.
v. 32; Heb. vii.; ix.; x. 1; xi. 19-cf. Lecture vii. p. 318, &c.): as well
as fiom  its use by S. Clement of Rome in his Epistle.'  Any objection,
therefore, founded upon the exaggeration of this principle by S. Barnabas
(an exaggeration which I am not prepared to deny), rests upon the assumption, already shown to be without foundation, that any composition of his
must have been fiee from defects; i. e. that it must have been inspired.
Equally untenable is the objection that an allegorical exposition of the Old
Testament was not suited to the writer's object.  The Epistle, as all critics
(except Lardner,-  Works, vol. ii. p. 19,-who thinks it was written  to
Gentiles) allow, was addressed to Jewish Christians; for whom the author
was bound to prove that the " Old Testament was not contrary to the New."
Accordingly, S. Barnabas argues (ch. i.-ix.), that, in the prophecies and
types of the Old Testament sufficient is contained, relating to Christ and
His death, to serve as the foundation of the New Covenant: and hence
that the Jews cannot argue against Christianity from their own inspired
writings.  He then goes on to show that the Old Testament, as the Jews
understood it, was but an external system; and, consequently, was to be
done away by means of a system of internal religion which was to be perfected (ch. x.); that both Christian Baptism, and the manner of the Messiah's death, were predicted in the Old Testament (xi.; xii.); and therefore
that not Jews but Christians are the people of the inheritance. From which
it follows (ch. xiii.-xviii.) that neither was the Jewish Sabbath the true day
of rest, but merely a type of the great Day of Rest at the end of the
world; nor was the Temple of Jerusalem  the true dwelling of God, for It
is in the hearts of believers (Aaf36vrTg TV abeotv TrV a dap-rt6V, cai
e.irnaavref E7  T J dovo6art toV Kvpiov, eyev6teO0a  actvoi,  *  *  *
d6l  Ev TG  KaTOK7arT ptPi qtzL v al{ r076 o   O eb  Ka-roLte  ev  ttlv —c. xvi).
From ch. xviii. to xxi., the contents of the Epistle are hortatory.2
It is to be added, that neither in the salutation nor elsewhere does the
author name himself; nor does the Epistle appear to have had any title
originally (see Wake's "Prel. Disc.," ~ 35):-facts which, coupled with
the frequent citation of it by Clemens Al. as the production of S. Barna1 E. g. his exposition of the "line of scarlet thread," given by the spies to Rahab
(Josh. ii. 18; cf. Heb. xi. 31), as symbolizing "the Redemption by the Lord's Blood
(6rCt 6t TOV aiaTrof TOV Kvpiov LvTrpoatfC irat"a)"-Ep. ad Cor. c. xii.:-see R6rdam,
loc. cit. pp. 33, 86.
2 See the essay by C. E. Francke in Rudelbach and Guerike's Journal for 1840,
H. ii. s. 67 ff. In ch. xv., speaking of the Lord's rest on the Seventh Day (Gen. ii. 2);
S. Barnabas says: " We are greatly deceived if we imagine that any one can now
sanctify that day which God has made holy, without having a heart pure in all
things. *  *  *  He saith unto them, Your new moons and your sabbaths, I cannot
bear them (Isai. i. 13);-the sabbaths, says He, which ye now keep, are not acceptable unto Me, but those which I have made; when resting from all things, I shall begin
the Eighth Day, that is the beginning of the other world. For which cause we observe the eighth day with gladness, in which Jesus rose from the dead; and having
manifested Himself to His Disciples, He ascended into Heaven (iv, Kal o'It7aoov dyvirea
eK veKp&v, Katl ~avepuwOei (civfln Eki rovb oipavotiv)" (" Wake's transl.) On this passage
Rurdam ingeniously observes: "Crediderim  peene, baud veri absimilem  esse conjecturam, vestigium  quoddam  certce cujusdam  et universalis de ultimis Jesu fatis
loquendi rationis, forsan Symboli Apostolici elementum in hoc loco inesse."-Loc. cit.
p. 60.
27




418                          APPENDIX F.
bas, at once meet any allegation as to the work being an intentional forgery.  Hefele, who, on the usual grounds, refuses to acknowledge the
authorship of S. Barnabas, thus speaks of its date:-" Revera primis seculi secundi temporibus 107-120 epistolam nostram exaratam esse putein."
-Proleg. ed. altera.
Whatever decision the reader may arrive at, from  considering the foregoing observations, it is plain that the argument, which I have founded
upon the admitted fact of the recognition, by the early Church, o, this
Epistle as the composition of S. Barnabas, remains altogether unaffected —
(see supra, p. 58).  One of the leading arguments of Ullmaun  is consequently proved to be altogether destitute of weight:"Wenn der Brief aus dem Kanon ausoeschlossen wurde, so war eben
hiermit auch seine Aechtheit geleugnet; denn Kanonicitat und Authentic
fallen hier zusainmen:"-because, he adds, had the Epistle proceeded fiom
the pen of S. Barnabas, the Church would have felt no scruple as to receiving it into the Canon!-Loc. cit. s. 385.  It has been shown, however,
that Clemens Al., who expressly states that it proceeded from " the companion of S. Paul," did not regard this Epistle as a portion of Scripture.See Lecture ii. p. 58, note 2
APPENDIX F.
PHILO AND JOSEPHUS.
(LECTURE II.-PAGE 64, &c.)
THE following extracts, in addition to those which have been already
given from the writings of Philo and Josephus, may in each case be ranged
under two heads;-namely, those which express (1) their opinions with
respect to Inspiration in general; and (2) those which contain references
to the separate books of the Old Testament.
I. The locus classicus ("Vita Mosis," lib. III. t. ii. p. 163), in which
Philo's theory of inspiration is conveyed, and which has been already
dwelt upon (see supra, p. 64), as follows:
OVKc ayvoto pev ovv, o  ir wavra eloi Xpatjyoti  a ev -ra'g iepa7l fiftXolt
dvayeypaiTrat, XP7VO8EVTge dt' aVTro.  A(o 6E Ti  idlai-repa, rp6repov
ei7rWV EKeivo. Triv Zoyiov yap, Ta [lev sK 7poawSTov oV0 Oeov;eyerat d6'
eppnvrl    TOV Oetiov TrporT7ov' r  6de sK TreVaeog aitaL aroiKpiaeog eOearior6]' ra 6' ~ec rrpoa6'7rov Moia vew  eiE7rrLOetdaavTog, icat e avrov IaraoXeOvTrog. Ta tev ovv irp6)Ta oXa d6' Oiwv aper)v OEiwv 6eiysayar' oUTt, iT 7e
ZeiE Kcal evepy7irt6o, d' jv  aravraf ptev dvOpurovg rpbO icaXoKayaOav
aeie&et' acldtara 6s TO OeparTevrtblKO  avTro'5V yvof,   T-rv 7rpbg eiVSaLoviav ayovaav avareive obd6v.  Ta 6de d6evepa tidtv %etL cai colwvia'v,
TrvvOavoptevov fev TOV rppO0rTOV Trepl WV rErEiTetL, daTOicpLVOtlVO V 6de TOVi
Oeov ital 6d6aicovrog.  Ta 6~ ipi[a dva-iOerTa T & vooOerT, sT-a66v-TO
avT- T'OV Oeovi  Tg  7 rrpoyvoarT-cTfgc 6vvdaeGwg, j OeaierZl Ta-  CiXXovTa. Ta
tev OVv rrpoTra VirrpOep0Tov-' fteiova yap earTlv 7i 6g Virr' advOptVrov iTLvo
6eratveOlvaL, p6gLt av vnr' ovpavov Tre  ai  Ot6atov, nat T2 r   Tvov  )ctv
(Pveasg aciiwg eylcKG)Iyta0~evTa, Kcal auofg  Eye-ratl acavei 6d' epnrpl'6




APPENDIX F.                            419'Ep71veta d Kati 7rporq-Teia 6dtaepovao.  HIepi de ri-v d6evrTpv avriKa
"retpdaopatL dr]ogv, avvvbivag aviro'  ai' TO Tp' rtprov eldog, Ev 4 TOb TOV
XEyov7ro  EvOovatuL56e8 eFpaive'iat, KaO' o peduoria Kati vpiwg vev6otoarac
TrpoprT7.
Ol this statement I have already commented.  From it we learn the
views of Philo as to the source of the" Sacred Books," and the relations
in which their different writers stood to God.  His opinion, also, as to the
personal state of the Prophets while subject to the Divine influence is laid
down in the words which immediately precede the passage quoted p. 65,
note:
"Eo) t'TC 7TeptlCaudrc  al ira rept'o2el7 Tuv O voVi,  reoaytpfpltvv ola
Opyyog el Tr7raav?T'v apvXnv avaxtov, ev EavTrogf v-TEq, O0V KaTrEXOeOa'
errelda6v 6e rpbO 6dva(sa  yeTv-'ra, KacTa TO i  eltbgo' K c  T a a  g' i  vOeog
ieirrcrriTet, IaLTOXTLCK  -E KtatL 1avia.  "OTE ptv yap (S)' ETrLXapbel TOib
Oeov, 6T~e-a  -'b dvOpoertvov, 0-e 6' cE'Kvo 6dee,' TOVT' davIOe l Kai avaTirXEL. TE 6t 7pofi7OTlicII yevet.  eo   u  TOVTO  v PyaiveLv' *. T!.. —where
Philo is speaking of Gen. xv. 12 [LXX.]: nrepl 6q'Xiov dvaFag EKcaTraaL
T67reae  Tir  "A/ApaF, —and where he understands by  tXlog the human
spirit, and explains 6van7 by ecaT-rivat.
Philo's opinion, too, as to the result of the influence (Inspirationwhich he names rrpoqT-reia, in its general sense), under which the "Sacred Books" were written, as distinct fiom the reception and promulgation
by their writers of new truths fiom God (Revelation-Eppyrvesa), is clearly
intimated by the language in which he adopts the tradition as to the manner in which the Seventy Interpreters translated the Hebrew Scriptures:
viz., that each, in his separate cell, completed the whole work; and that
the seventy translations thus produced agreed even in the most minute
particulars. He writes (" De Vita Mosis," lib. ii. t. ii. p. 140):-Kda01avTeg
6' Ev dWaorp4VW., tai Ftd1svobg rap6vTOg ont [TjL  TV T)V Tg OvaeoC   Fepuv, yig,
d6arog, dapog, ovpavoiv, -ep' 4Sv rVrp(Tov Trq yeveacEwf o'leov iepofavTroetv' Kovo0roota yap 7 TWSv VO[V'uv EaTtv apx~ taOarrep EvOovoaVliVTE
n7poe-Te-evov OViK adXXa adXot, T-  6' avTa' 7ardvTesg ovoytaa  al pjnpara,
warep Vro3poXgo  ekca'a-ro  aopaTu-og Evr'Xov-ro.
His previous account, too (ibid. p. 139), of the notion which the translators entertained as to what was required in a correct Version of the
Divine Oracles, exhibits in the clearest manner the opinion which the Jews
held as to the original' Scriptures themselves: —oytadjievot rrap' av-roZ
oaov eil TO rrpayFaa Oea  ltaO  vT-a   v 6F ov   Xpv la  o Zg 6tepVrl6veleV,,          T"' adXelv T-,  TE rpoOeZvat, fT- re eraOeZvatl vvawsvovq,
aXXL T-rrv e    adipXg  i6gav  tai T-bv -Trrov aIvT-O  6davXitdaTrovTag, K. T. X.
Believing the history of this miracle to be true, Philo naturally regarded
the LXX. as inspired; and his opinion as to the nature of its Inspiration
(and therefore of Inspiration in general), we can infer from the fact that he
constantly founds his reasoning on the language employed in the Greek
Version: —e. g. on the insertion or omission of the article before Oe6q;
as well as upon the mere selection of the words employed by the translators. Thus, in his Treatise "De Somniis," lib. i. (t. i. p. 655), he argues:o hepbg X6yof (i. e. the Old Testament) -rbv v   iv aOeira Oebv 6 t a r o 
p  po v O        eV nvvicev, edr~cv'Evy6 eity  o Oe6q [e. g. Ex. xx. 2]. -bv 6''i KaTaxpaoet X  p t    p 0p o v. (See Gfrirer, " Philo," s. 51 ff.) And




420                         APPENDIX F.
again, in his treatise "De Confus. Linguar." (t. i. p. 434), having quoted
Gen. xi. 7 (LXX.), ZvyXewev ElKe avr'u'v T'V  yXTTav I. T. X.-he proceeds to argue from  these words "tropologically" (er''t-r  -portuKa
aTrod6oetl); observing, Tra ev pnra Ti-v XpoaFtiv  Kagd TL rvagq daved
qTF1daTv elvat: his argument resting solely on the use in this place, by
the LXX., of avytvaoq instead of 6tdicptoLf: and he goes on (ibid.) to
reason similarly from the use (ve'. 8) of the word dlteaetpev.
IT. In addition to the references to the Books'of the Old Testament,
given supra, pp. 66, 67, may be cited the following:-Ps. xx. 22 is quoted
with the phrase rtv M(i)voEo yv6opiUWv -rig' V vULvotI evX6tOevoq elTevDe Confus. Ling., t. i. p. 410; and David is elsewhere styled e-ra7po
Moi)ovoes-Quod a Deo Somnia, t. i. 691.
The Proverbs are quoted in the treatise "De Ebrietate," t. i. p. 369;
and Solomon is called a member kc roV Oeiov XopoV (ibid. p. 362); and
IT-  TV f)Ov PotrTSv M o/vge). —" De Congr. queer. Erud. Grat.," t. i.
p. 544.
The words of Jeremiah (ii. 3) are introduced as uttered by "the Father
of the Universe:" —o IIar7p,T)v P5wov 6ta ripor)iprtlKiv MO~E'(Ire aTOuaTrov. —De Profugis, t. i. p. 575.
Philo quotes Hosea (see p. 65, note 4) and Zechariah alone of Minor
Prophets. Hos. xiv. 24, is referred to with the words;-~aTo6taTL zrpoOri-rtK(c
OemaerO0v-ra 6tdarvpov Xp7afiov. —De Mutat. Nom., t. i. p. 599. And
Zech. vi. 12, is thus introduced:-rKovoaa Fevrot Ka Ta 7C-v Moi)vkho   sTratipov rltvo6.ao0Oey/aVvvov Iroto6vde  6ov''Id6ov dvOpwroq  ) ovota
avaro0r. —De Confus. Ling., t. i. p. 414.
Philo refers to several of the other Books without any distinctive epithet; but, as Eichhorn observes (" Einleit. in das A. T.," B. i. s. 135), since
he nowhere quotes any part of the Apocrypha, although necessarily, and,
from  his allusions, obviously, familiar with this portion of the LXX., it
clearly follows that'the mere reference to a Book of Scripture, although
unaccompanied by any title of respect, exhibits its pre-eminence, in Philo's
opinion, above all other writings; and is equivalent to a full recognition
of its inspiration. E. g. he quotes Job, xiv. 4, with the simple phrase, d6q
o'1013 frl7ao.-De Mut. Nom., t. i. p. 585.
In the writings of Josephus, the locus classicus alluded to supra, p. 68,
occurs in his treatise against Apion, and is as follows:I. Josephus had just alluded to the contradictions to be continually met
with in the Greek historians. The Egyptians and Babylonians, indeed,
paid great attention to the composition of their records; but the Jews excel
all others:-Tepl 6dE Trv flereptov  7Tpoy6vov, OTl- TiVv avriv, E& yap
4Xyelv el al TrrXeio Ti rv eipqrzvov ErotaOravaro -rv vrepp raq avaypafak
irtElelav, -ol5 apXLepeV5(  Kal To^  n7pocjraTal i  TOVTO ipoaora:avres. Kca
W(4 FXpLt -rSv icaO' rVaa g Xp6vovv 7ev/aSKTai-L tiera 7roZXXi daKpctetia, el
6e Opaa5rVTpov elrTelv, aZ Kal fvaXOi6rETaa, rrelpdaofpalt VVT6otoq d66dacKcev.
03 yap )u6vov eF dpX1i ~irc T-OVTrov -rov' dpiTaov9, cKai T' Oepanreia Tro
Oeoi Trpoe6ipeSvovTag KaTsa-raTclav,  adX' onrrug TO yevoq Tr&v lepE'o
taplKTOV Kat KaaOapbv dlta1vqp, rrpovv6Olaav.  Ase yap TOV [teTr~ovra -rTi
lepoaSvrvlg E' 6ooeOvoVg yvvalKcbq Trat6o7rolteToOat, cKal    TTrpb XpFLaTa,
fdr/6e Tar a   Xa  a dron'o3Zerev Tl-fi, dXa2a 7r  yEvoq  erTadCLV, EK 7T1V
apxaiov, Xapf3dvovra Trv dlad6oX v, tKal 7,o'ov)gq napaaXo6eLvov Idaprv



APPENDIX F.                          421
pag.  Kal -raVTa 7padrTOe v ov p6vov er' avrTc'Iovdaiaf, daXX' o'rov
7rOTr avaTr-Lta 7TOV Y4vovV e7rTlv jftjVv. iKatie Tr adiptLfte diroatose-at T'oif
lspevatl tret?. rov ydatov'   *  *  *  TesKtiplov d6  pyLetaov Ti? (diplp3eia. ol dapXsepEf ol rap''plZv daro StaXlXlwv ET'v 6vomaaroi nraide gK,raTrpog Elav Ev rTal dvaypaaaaf. ToZl 6de T-rv EipjEtvwv 8 Tl ovv
yevoTro Edlf rapad3aaLv, darryo6pevTraL tirTe roTlf  o ftoL0 r api'TafOal,'iTre
Te-xELv?Tig dg  dciy aorTdtia. Eti6OTwo  oVV, uaiVXov d6 dvaytaiaot), are
fTre TOV v7*roypdaLtv avTreovatov Iraiav OVTOf, IL7Te Ttvo~ ev -TOlg ypaqpoFevoLtf voviar  6dtaowviagaf adXXa t6vov  T'(V Trpo0TV Ta7d feLV adv-TaT'd
Kal Ta Tra2iaLTaTa, IcTa Trl E-rv  r lV rvoav Trv dr TOV Oeov  aOov, Ta
6e iKa' avrov)g W(f  ayevero  7aa(~f av/yypa~6ovTwo.  Oiv yap  vpta6ef
PL/3tiov elit nrap' rtLZv aovv~pjvwvuv icai taXopevCwv 6dvo e e6va nrpo
Trog e'Kcoat ft3Lj3ia, -TOV TravTorq Xovra Xp6vov Trv cavaypaoriv, Ta dtiai&o 0 ea ne7rmTrevueva. Kal TOVTG.)V 7rVTe tEv EoTtL Ta McovigeWo, a TOVS
Tr vo6Lovg TrepteXet, ica Tr7V T   cg avOpuroyoviag irapadoatv, fXp t -Trf
avrTOV -TErevTri. OvTog 6 XPovog daroiueTre TpLt7UXtwv OXiyov ri ETv.'Arrb 6e Trf MMi)Va&e() TreXevTrf LXpl' T1rf'ApTa:p0ov -TO  peTra EpSnrv
Hepat(v f3aaLwig dpyapg, oi  eTa' Moauvilv rpo4Tjrat TO rca O' avTrovi
7rpa0OevTa avveypaTbav ev TptaL tica 6eica tlp)iolgf.  Al 6e XooLrai Teraaapef ivvovg, elf TOV 0eov ial Trof davOpWrotnf voroOqticag TOV fiov rreplEXOValv.'ATrO d6'AprTa:pfov pLXp' TOV iaO' nl'aig Xp6vov yeypanrral
fiev hiaoTar' lrTa-re   6e oX ob zoia rTl7oTaL T o7g 7rpo avTrSv, dta'T (1)
yevEaSOac TiV TWV  por07jT7C)V aCKp43i dtiadoXrjv.  AiXov 6' ^eTL cVpy
1ir 8eZgf Troz l6iolf ypattaoal rertarevIcafLev.  ToaoLrov yap aLivof
67] Trapc)7icrOTOra  OVTe TRPOfOeT0vai Tig oviev, OvTe  doee Zv avTv aVTS, OVTe
[leTaOelva& TrETOdqrVcev.  Hlatl 6E aVziJVTOV EarTLV ei)V0q l Tc  7v *rp&7r)T
yeveaewg'IovdaioLf, TO vopteltv avTa Oeov do6ylaTa, iKa TOVTOlS Eqpevetv,
Kcai v7rp avT-rv, el 6doc, OVtiacELV 7]6)o."-Cont. Apion. lib. i. ~ 6-8,
t. ii. p. 440.
In this same treatise (lib. ii. t. ii. p. 472), speaking of the origin of the
LXX., Josephus styles the Old Testament "Holy Scripture;" Ptolemy
Philadelphus, he observes, Enl,7rOv(?rTjg EyvevTO TO yvwvaL T ovg?'1ELTpov
v6opovg, ial TaLg T  V     p  V i    a ypa    v pin3oleg eVTVrvXeV. (Cf. supra,
p. 212.)
That the views of Philo and Josephus, as to Inspiration, agree in all
essential particulars appears (1) from the fact that Josephus also has used
the tertm Eptzvevci in the sense in which it is employed by Philo (see Lecture ii. p. 64, &c.), although he has not developed his meaning so fully.
Thus ("Ant." III. v. 3, t. i. p. 128) Moses is introduced as addressing the
people previously to giving them the Ten Commandments.  He declares
that it is not Moses, the son of Arram and Jochebed, from whom these
precepts proceed: they have come from Him Who made the Nile run with
blood; Who brought water from the rock; and Who preserved Noah
from  the Deluge-OOVTO  VilAv TOVTOVg Xapi'cTac Tovg q Z6yovg d'
e p tlv Eg 6  ov. Cf. also his opinion as to the meaning of 7rpof)Trqg.-Lecture ii. p. 67, note'. (2) Their agreement may also be inferred
from the description which Josephus has given of the effects of the Divine
influence, as exemplified in the case of Balaam:Kai o IEv.TOtavTa ireOetiaGv, ou   V ev Ev'avrv, T() 6E Oe, TrVevpaTt Trpog avTa Ietilvvijuvo. Toi 6e BaXdicov dvaXepaivovrog. * * *




422                          APPENDIX  F.
c Bdcaare, crni, Trepi Try)v OL&)v,oyiq Kiai'   doxe7' I0 iv elval Tlt rep
rC)v 7TOOVJto )V (Tfylav   Xeyetv, Stav iaLf    TO- — oU  OsoiV  de3o   T veyta;
/wvaqS yap ag f3ovserat rTO TO, Kca.  i6oyovg, oV6Ev 7tJv e166ro0T, daClie V.
*  *  *  TravreXwg yap daceve'7g ol rpoytlVaicKev Trept Trv dvOpTrreiSwv
Trap' eavTcrv  apFadvovTzre,  ar'e fti rav0' a7rep virayopevei -r  OE7ov
eayeltv, 3ctdiaffOat de T-v  rcetvov tPoVi' L.atv.  Ov6ev yap ev lU-tv'itl
(OdaavTog diaeXOrEv EIceivov ilTrepov.~-Ant. lib. iv. vi. 5, t. i. p. 216.
With this passage we can compare not only the statement of Philo when
referring to this same subject (see Lecture v. p. 206, note 2); but also his
general opinion as to the personal condition of the Prophets, already
quoted Lecture ii. p. 70, note.
II. As to the opinion of Josephus with respect to the Old Testament,
it is sufficiently indicated in the passage, from his work against Apion,
quoted above; and, therefore, special reference to his manner of citing the
several books is not necessary here. The twenty-two books, there spoken
of, comprise the Five books of Moses; the following thirteen written " by
the Prophets after Moses:"-viz., (1) Joshua, (2) Judges and Ruth, (3) 1
and 2 Samuel, (4) 1 and 2 Kinigs, (5) 1 and 2 Chronicles, (6) Ezra and
Nehemiah, (7) Esther, (8) Isaiah, (9) Jeremiah and Lamentations, (10)
Ezekiel, (I1) Daniel, (12) The Twelve Minor Prophets, (13) Job; while
the Xotwrat riaaapeq consist of the Books of Psalms and Proverbs, Ecclesiastes, and the Song of Solomon (see De Wette on the passage,
" Einleit.," ~ 15, s. 20).  It is needless, after so explicit a statement, to
enter into particulars:-one may refer either to his manner of appealing
to Isaiah and the Twelve Minor Prophets, as adduced in Lecture ii. p. 68,
note'; or to his allusions to Isaiah, Jeremiah, and Ezekiel, as cited Lecture v., p. 188, note 2. It has been also pointed out (Lecture vi., p. 256,
note 2) that he places the Book of Daniel among the iepa ypcadaTa; to
which statement the following remarkable passage may be added ("Ant."
x. xi. 7, t. i. p. 543): —arravra yap avr)'rrapad6owg d~ evi TrLVL Tr)V
peyilarTv evrvx v Or TTpo 7aT Cv  *  *  *'a yap PtftLXia, oaa 61 avyypaacbdpevog KaraZi2otLev, avaytvwoteraLt rap' 1juiv tr7t ical vvv' icai
7Tetrlre-triVanev e' avrov, S t Aavtl,oq W)iet  IMe OI. ov yap'ra,tXtovra ft6vov TRpo0rq rev v  LerTEeL, KiaOadrrp  ca\ ol dX;ot,rrpooijral,
dXXa Ktal tKatpov yptIev, elg v -raVa aTro aerat  cairl rT)v TrpoTprv 7ra
Xeip) 7rpoXey6ovTWo, Kca dta TOrTO d6voXpatvofvVov VrTO, rc(v 3aatiwv
ical TroV 7rriOovg, AavLt71oq acyaOv EytverTo rpo0T'rrqg avro7l, 6S a0rr7
ptev -T'i e6v&)7lFiag -;v Trpoeyo1ie'vwv eVvotaV'torTTraOaaL Trapa Travrov,
da7r 6e   ov Tegeovg aVTrv [i. e. "ex eventutm certitudine"] aciXOe8ag rioTLt, tai d65av btovi Oset60rrog rapa Tolqg iXooLt daroEqpsa0at. iaTei-rntr
6e ypd'pag, Osev rpT'iv TOb ri'q  pofq77Treiagc aCKpt     av'rov cal drrapaUXaCTov E7Toit7rlq  6drov [he quotes Dan. viii.]  *  *  *  rav-a  advTa
ketLvog, OEoiov Steavro  aivT-r, avyypa'af Ka-r0eetbe v  3Tare TOV)g advaytvwtacovTra, tcat ra oav/t3aivovTa  KtorovrTag OavlaLetv erfl T-r Trapa 70T
Oeov'TJt,  OV iv AavtXiov.'  From this we learn that Josephus considered
We learn from this passage that the fulfilment of an ancient prediction was the
criterion, to a Jew, of the Divine mission of the Prophet-a principle, indeed, which
the Old Testament itself had laid down: cf. Deut. xviii. 22. See also the passages
quoted from Josephus, p. 68, note 1, and at the close of the note, p. 189. In the
same manner Philo represents Moses as announcing before his death the future




APPENDIX  G.                             423
a Book which has been placed among the lagiographa (see App. C)
equal to any production of the greatest Prophets: while we learn from
other passages in his writings, that he regarded the second division of the
Old Testament-" the Prophets"-as undistinguishable from  "the Law."
E. g. he mentions the Translation of Elijah, and that of Enoch, as being
alike contained in the "Sacred Books: —" Trepi tiVTOL'Hia, icai'EvSXov
rTOV yevopLvov  rpO T'i' rn knoyppiaa, Ev -raZq iepa7t dvaTEyparrrat Pfi3otLc.-Ant. Ix. ii. 2, t. i.p. 475.
APPENDIX G.
THE  JUDGMENT  OF THE  FATHERS,
(LECTURE Il.-PAGE 77, &C.)
BEFORE entering fully upon the opinions of the Fathers, it may be
useful to point out the critical spirit with which they approached the discussion of all questions connected with the Bible; whether relating to the
authenticity of its several parts, its text, or its interpretation. These
three particulars may be briefly illustrated.
(a) Julius Africanus (A.D. 220), whose critical acumen has been already exemplified (Lecture ii. p. 89), argues, in an epistle addressed to
Origen, against the canonical authority of the History of Susanna.  The
learned, to the present day, have accepted his reasoning as conclusive;
and have contented themselves with repeating his proof that this Apocryphal book must have been written originally in Greek, and not in Hebrew.
One of his arguments is founded on the paronomasias which occur in the
language ascribed to Daniel (Susan. 51-59).  Thus on the mention of a
" mastick tree" (uXZvo~), Daniel replies that the angel shall "cut thee in
two" (axiaet ae teaov); and on the " honl tree" (rp7vo~) being named,
he replies, with a similar allusion, that the angel waits " to cut thee in
two" (rrpiaat as peLov). Here Julius Afr. observes: —Ev pm v ov'EUlvtKaq vg P     Twva7g r' -rotavra bOto0wvelv avli3alvet, Trapa fiv rr p iv o v T
7rpi,r a at ai a % iat a a    n 7rapa -V aXvov' ev  e'Ef3patidL,T
Trav-r2  dte'rTrfIEv.-(ap. Routh. "Reliq.'Sacr.," vol. ii. p. 226.)
(b) Cassiodorus (see Lect. viii. p. 359, note2), in his treatise " De Institutione Divinarum Literarum," speaking of the order to be observed in
conducting the studies of youth, directs, " Ut tirones Christi, postquam
Psalmos didicerint, auctoritatem divinam  in codicibus emendatis jugi exercitatione meditentur."  I-e states as follows the malnner in which his
own labors were conducted:
"Sed qu!mnvis oiinis S' iptu'ra Divina superna luce resplendeat, et in
ca virtus Spiritis Smncti evidenter irradiet, in Psalterio tamen, et Prophetis,
et Epistol's Apostolorumn  stulium  inaximllum  laboris impendi.  ** * 
Quos ego cu:ictos naovem  codices auctoritatis divinae (ut senex potui) sub
collatione priscorum  codicam, amicis ante me legentibus, sedul' lectione
transivi.  Ubi nLe muitlum  laborasse, Domino adjuvante, piofiteor; quadestinies of Israel: — Tw ra #,'v,d1q av/it3,,i3llKe, r.T 6- 7,9pofoKcKTat. 6tSlt riaTrlt( rv
FeAoL6vrwcl  r} rTu)V rpo)eyToJv6rwv TreSEoS. — De Vita Mosis, lib. III. t. ii. p. 179.




424                         APPENDIX G.
tenus nec eloquentiae modificata deessem, nec libros sacros telneraria
praesumptione lacerarem."-Praef., t. ii. p. 538.
(c) S. Augustine, in his treatise " De Consensu Evangelistarum," compares the accounts, given by S. Mark and S. Luke, of the words from
heaven at our Lord's Baptism:
" Illud vero quod nonnulli codices habent secundum Lucam, hoc illa
voce sonuisse quod in Psalmo scriptuin est:' Filius meus es tu, ego hodie
genui te;' quamquam in antiquioribus codicibus Grcecis non inveniri perhibeatur, tamen si aliquibus fide dignis exemplaribas confirmari possit, quid
aliquid quam utrumque intelligendum  est quolibet verborum ordine de
caelo sonuisse'"-Lib. ii. c. xiv. t. iii. pars ii. p. 46.
Again: discussing the well-known difficulty as to the quotation ascribed, in S. Matt. xxvii. 9, to Jeremiah, S. Augustine objects to the
explanation which considers our present text itrcorrect:"Mihi autem  cur non placeat haec causa est, quia et plures codices
habent Jeremiae nomen; et qui diligentius in Grecis exemplaribus Evangelium consideraverunt, in antiquioribus Grcecis ita se perhibent invenisse:
et nulla fuit causa cur adderetur hoc nomen, ut mendositas fieret: cur
autem de nonnullis codicibus tolleretur, fuit utique causa, ut hoc audax
imperitia faceret, cum turbaretur quaestione quod hoc testimonium apud
Jeremiam non inveniretur."-Ibid. lib. IIl. c. vii. p. 114.
The profound scholarship of S. Jerome has been sufficiently illustrated
by those remarks respecting the relation of the LXX. to the Hebrew text
of the Old Testament, which have been quoted from his writings in Lecture vii.
Similar illustrations of the critical spirit with which the Fathers conducted their theological investigations might be multiplied to any extent.
The foregoing remarks have been introduced merely for the purpose of
drawing attention to the fact, that the judgment of the Church on the
subject of Inspiration-pronounced, as we shall see, in every age, with
such decision, and with such unanimity,-has not been formed under the
influence of blind prejudice, or in consequence of an ignorant and unreasoning submission to a mere traditional dogma.
The following inquiry will be most fitly conducted according to the
method laid down in Lecture ii. p. 81; the quotations being arranged
under the heads which have been there adopted.
I. Testimonies relating to the Divine influence exerted in the composition of the Bible. These, again, may be divided into the following
classes:
(1) The Article of the Creed-" We believe in the Holy Ghost, Who
spake by the Prophets."
S. Irenaeus (A. D. 167):'H Iev yap'Eycr,aia  *  *  *   rrapa,T(V'A7roaor6wv  *  *  *  rrapaaf3ovoaa -r1v elf iva Oeov  *        * *  t7aTtV  *  *  *  Kca Ei IIveg za'Aytov, Tr   6 t a r iv  r p o      -r /  v
i e R cpv X6 o.-Cont. Htr., lib. i. cap. x. p. 48.
Origen (A. D. 230) lays down the articles of the Faith in the opening
of his treatise "De Principiis."  Redepenning (in loc. p. 90) justly observes: "Inter omnes Fidei regulas, Niceno Symbolo priores, nulla hac,
quam  Origenes hoc loco, xi. capitibus sive articulis comprehensam, exhibet, uberior est."  Origen there states: "Species eorum, qua per prae



APPENDIX  G.                           425
dicationem Apostolicam  manifeste traduntur, istse sunt.  *  *  *  Sane
quod Iste Spiritus unumquemque sanctorunl, vel Prophetarum, vel Apostolorum  inspiraverit, et non alius Spiritus in veteribus, alius vero in his
qui in adventu Christi inspirati sunt fuelit, manifestissime in Ecclesiis
praedicatur."-Lib. i. ~ 4, t. i. p. 48.
S. Epiphanius (A. D. 368), at the close of his " Ancoratus," gives two
formule of Faith (t. ii. p. 122, sqq.), in accordance (as he himself states,
ibid. p. 123) with that which had been laid down at Nicaea.  In the
former he recites the words of the Symbol of Constantinople quoted
supra, p. 81, note'. In the second his definition is as follows:-ei  To
"Ay   v. 7TLv.7rvotLE~, TO;XaOaraav ev v6tp,, Kai lipvfav'v ToZg 7rpof)TatL Kal      *  *  AaXov v'AVroaro6TO2og, i. T. X.
And S. Cyril of Jerusalem (A. D. 350) declares:'H KaOoXlKri'EKKrXiaa, lrapevdwtev  lv Vi-j        rtiu7gew  brrayyeJar, reai-&erv 8ig eiv "AyLov
Ivevipa, TObv IapdaKAi-rov, -TO;aXiaav ev ToZlg rporTTa..- Catech. xvii.
~ 3, p. 265.
This doctrine was not denied even by the heretics. In Theodoret's
(AD. 423) " Dialogues," the answer of theheretic Eranistes (quoted supra,
Lecture ii. p. 79, note 2) is preceded by the following question and the answer to it by the representative of the Church:-EPAN. Ti ovv,  eiv6eTae
7Trpo0)Tr7q;  OPO.  M? y7voLTO' TOV Oeiov yap HIvevplaTog ial Tavra
atcieiva Ta pr4aT-ra.-Eranistes, Dial. i. t. iv. p. 12.
Hence the title rTpofrTiK6ov so frequently given to the Holy Ghost; and
this even with reference to His ordinary operations upon all Christians.
S. Justin M. (A.D. 140) writes (cf. too, supra, p. 81, note 2):-VE Jv
taMelv bVlv rrdpeare, 7rr5  7rporoTrerae TaLv i-TOv  av6lp67rovg TO 7r p o  7]Tt c  v IT v ev e     a.-Apolog., i. ~ 40, p. 67.
Nor was this expression used merely in the case of prophets, strictly
so called.  S. Justin M. again writes:'Epa) Vliv  Kai aiovg X6yovq Tovg
eiprlfzvovqg dLa Aafi6  To5  alcapiov' Ei Jv icai Kivptov rov XptCrTv V7TO
TOV'Ayiov  rpo rp7  li K O       vs   E v  a To    ey6opevov VOijaETE.Dial. cum Tryph., ~ 32, p. 129.
Thus, too, where he adduces Prov. viii. 22, it is employed by Athenagoras (A.D. 177) in a passage which should be taken in conjunction with
his words quoted infra, No. (7), p. 431: —vva6dete d6 Tr  Ao6yw icat T
n po 0  rL  t c b v Hlvevita  Kviptog yap, )7laiv, Eir-tae jte apl*v bo6v
av-roV eig  pya avroV. Kai Trole ca  aTrb T'O EyepyoVv'To7g EIcovoV5t
7poqnTlKrucJ  "AyIov IlveVgaa, arroppotav elvatc Oaziev -rTOV  eov, adroppeov
icai Erravafsepo'6evov, Scg adKcrva i)tov.-Leg. pro Christ., ~ 10, p. 287.
See also the words of S. Hippolytus quoted under the second head,
No. (1) class (a), p. 432.
(2.) The general manner of alluding to the Holy Spirit's influence upon
the writers of Scripture, founded upon the principle laid down in the passages just considered, will appear from  the following statements.  The
result of the Spirit's influence S. Justin M. terms "Divine Inspiration:"lavrTaXoOev Trotvvv el6val rpoTr Kel, oTr  ov6ajlwg eepog irepi Oeov )
T4  6pi04f Oeoaoeeiag mav0dveev ol6v TE, " Trapa Trv Trpor7Tlr(Sv jL6vov,
rT)V 6de         O ia Trf  e  a r v oi a  S 6ddaartvrTov viaq. — Cohort. ad
Grcec., ~ 38, p. 35.
And as to the Old Testament writers in general: —'EyevovrTO TLve




426                           APPENDIX  G.
iTpb nro2OV Xp6Oov'dVTC-wv rTOVTi-V iT-v vojtlotev v qftlXou6O~bv 7ra.
Xat6lot,  aK, IEai diao, aa2 E OaptoE, am  OelacoL,  e 0of,  1vev'3art,a)aav-T' e
* *  *  rrTop'-raf de6 avirov'g aaovoLtv  *  *  *  Lo6va TaviTa elrr6TVTda Kovaav tai a eldov,'AyiTp rXpr 7p0oOevTe  lIvev'ta-t.  vTyy/pd!uaTa
6a avTU-V'rTt eal viv dtapyvet.-Dial. curm  Tryph., ~ 7, p. 109.
Clem:ns Alex. (A.D. 192), speaking of those heretics (especially the
Gnostics) who had excluded the prophetical books from  their Canon, observes:-Tavrq-i   ovv ovK evioe3elf, d6vaapeaoT-ovLevot TaZ  Oeialt Ev-roXalg,
-rov-reot -i,C'Ay IItw   ve6Vaa-tt.-Strom. vii. c. 16, p. 893.
The pa:.ssage from Tertullian (A.D. 692) prefixed to Lecture i. continues
as follows:-"  Viros enim justitia et innocentia dignos Deum  nosse et ostendere a primordio in seculum emisit Spiritu Divino inundatos quo praedicarent Deum unicum esse."-Apolog., ~ xviii. p. 18.
Similarly S. Augustine (A.D. 396): " Si igitur, ut oportet, nihil aliud
intueamur in Scripturis illis, nisi quid per homines dixerit Dei Spiritus."De Civit. Dei, xviii. ~ 43, t. vii. p. 526.
And again:-" Hic insinuatur nobis, ea loqui prophetas Dei quae
atudiuiit ab Eo, nihilque aliud  esse prophetam  Dei, nisi enunciatorem
verboruin  Dei honinibus."-Qucest. in  Ex., lib. ii. qu. 19, t. iii.
p. 426.
Such statements, indeed, are merely developments of the doctrine laid
down from  the first, by the Apostolic. Fathers, as to both the Apostles
and the Prophets.  S. Clement of Rome (A.D. 65) introduces a quotation
from Ezekiel (xxxiii. 11) with the words: —Oi EeLTOVp7yo Tf'g XdaplTog 701
Oeov 6dtaLb   vevpSarog'AyIov  rrepi  sTeravoiag EdadXoav. —Ad Corinth.,
~ viii.  Of Jer. ix. 23, he writes: —lotLat[suev rb yeypaFttkEvov, syelt Ttap
rb lIvevta -b "Aytov.-ibid., ~ xiii.  Of Isai. liii.:-KaOk  TO HvI. bT
"Ay. Trepi AvTrov  eadArfaev.-ibid., ~ xvi.  And of the New  Testament
writers he observes: —Oi'ATr6aroXot  *  *   *  7rtaroOreV-e   Ev -
X6y^ Tro  OeoV, fLeTa'7i'po0oplag lvesvdtai-oq'Ayiov.-ibid., ~ xlii.
So also S. Ignatius (A.D. 101) writes: —Oi yTp Oet6rTa-ot 7rrpo4~rTat
Kca-' XptgTbvo'Irvovv  le7aav.  Ata -rovo 0 ai EdtlXO av, e  Tr v e 6If  v o t V;7r T-~ XdapLTog ArTOV. —Ep. ad Mlagnes., c. viii.  (Cf. the passage quoted Lecture iii. p. 120, note.)  And as to the New Testament, he
refers to 1 Cor. iii. 16; vi. 19, with the words: —Tb  6  HvevpLa eicrpvarev.-Ad Philadelph., ~ vii.
(3.) Hence the Fathers, in opposition to the Gnostic heresy, infer the
co-ordinate authority of the Old and the New Testament.
Tertullian writes: " He sunt antitheses Marcionis, id est, contrariae
oppositiones; quae conantur discordiain Evangelii cum  Lege committere,
ut ex diversitate sententiarum utriusque Instrumenti, diversitatem  quoque
aIgumeutentur Deorum."-Adv. Marcion., lib. i. ~ 19, p. 443.
S. Ireneus argues to the same effect:-"Unde autem  poterant praedicere prophetae Regis adventum   *      *  si ab altero Deo propheticam
Inspirationern acceperunt? —Cont. Hoer., lib. iv. cap. xxxiv. p. 275.
So also Origen: "Si qui sunt qui Spiritum  S. alium  quidem  dicant
esse qui tuit in Prophelis, alium  autem qui fuit in Apostolis Domini nostri
Jesu Christi, unum atque idem  delictum impietatis admittunt, quod illi
qui, quantum in se est, naturam  Deitatis secant, et scindunt unum  Legis
et Ev:anli)rlim D)u:n."-In Titum, iii. 10, t. iv. p. 695.




APPENDIX  G.                           427
The doctrine of the primitive Church is thus summed up by S. Cyril
of Jerusalem: —MI6ef ov Xvoptsr r7v rraXatav adrr T7f Katlvi  d6taO1rJ5f. 1nq7 elf XeyJT- O TL aLo bTO  lvevita ecKle, Kal aXXo I)de  *  * 
o68afiev -r HvIstVa TrO Ayltov, rTO aXioaav Ev Trpo0Taratg~  caK   v er lsEvrT-lOT-rq, KareTEOv er?. TrooV'A7roa6TOov.- Catech., xvi. ~ 4, p. 244.
And this doctrine, as it has ever been maintained in the West, so it
has been expressly repeated by that Father to whose opinions the Eastern
Church pays the highest deference, S. Joannes Damascenus (A.D. 730);
who concludes, as follows, an enumeration of the Books of Scripture idential with the Canon of the Anglican Church: E' 8'a Vt  O eO',  VOr6
-e TraXaag 6dta071 Kr)g Ka atvi aL    icripv-rr-Oevo, o ev Tpta'dl Vtvovievo6
-re fca  do5a56jtevo, -TOV Kvpiov  ojiavTro, OVK, )X0ov KcaTavoaat l-,
vOl ov, da)a 7rrpfaat  a*  *  *              Aar TOV'A7roarTO6ov eTrr6vTro  [scil.
Heb..  1]  *  *  *  6ta HlveviaTrog Trovv'Ayiov, 6 re v6oof lcal oi
Trpoof)raL, EbayyeXltaorai isal'A6aro6ToXo, EXdcilaav.  Ilaaa Toivvv
ypaf)r Ose6rvsvaTrof, 7rdavTro  KtaI d1eLutjLof. aTE re idtariTOV Kcat bvxo-,exi'TaraTOv Epevvav -ra  Oetag ypadag.-De Fide Orthod., lib. iv. ~ 17,
t. i. p. 282.
(4.) The manner in which the Fathers specially quote or refer to Scripture will appearf fiomn the following illustrations (cf. Lecture ii. p. 84,
notes', 4, )
S. Clement of Rome thus quotes 1 Cor. i. 10:'AvaatETre TiJV E7rtarTO2rv  -TOV talcapiov IIaXov   *  *  *   nr' daqOseiaf 7TrvEvaT-tKu
[" certe  divinitus  inspiratus."-  Vet. Lat. Int.]  r8TreztXev VilZv.-Ad
Corinth., ~ xlvii.
Tertullian, having quoted 1 Cor. iv. 9, with the words, " Providentia
Spiritus Sancti demonslravit," proceeds to comment on it with the prefatory remark: " Verebatur nimiruin  tante constantine vir, ne dicam
Spiritus Sanctus," &c. —Adv. larccion., lib. v. ~ 7, p. 587. And he thus
quotes 1 Tim. vi. 10: "Spiritus Doriini per Apostolum pronuntiavit."De Patientia, ~ 7, p. 163.
Theophilus of Antioch (A.D. 168) refers b7r? TrV adpyXv ri- T-roV KOatLov KrTai(s-, )v dv k y p a  v  yp   Mwriag R     O epad7rv roV Oseo, 6ia llvevfa-~og'Ayiov.-Ad Autolyc., lib. iii. ~ 23, p. 395.
Clemens Al. writes: Atoa roVio apa jvaT-rlKU   Trb ev rT'AroarTO6)r'AytOV 1Hvevta, Tr  TOVi Kvptov aCroXpwLjevov  wv v, raPda vlag eT6-rtaa
[1 Cor iii. 2], e7yet.-PcedaYog., lib. i. ~ 6, p. 127.
S. Hippolytus, Bishop of Portus (A.D. 220.), in a remarkable manner
ascribes the quotation of the words of Isaiah in the New Testament, immediately to the Holy Ghosl: —To Ilvesiua -r "Aytov [7va  0op3oa7,] ex
rpoai7rov rW v'Arroa7 STT 5v dLeamaprTparT,   /lywV'   lcal Tigf EifTrevaev Tv
adcoj'Fr5,iv [Isai. liii. 1; S. John, xii. 38; Rom. x. 16.]-Cont Hcer. Noeti,
~ 17 (ap. Routh. " Script. Eccl. Opusc.," t. i. p. 75.)
S. Cyprian (A. D. 248): "Loquitur in Scripturis Divinis Spiritus
Sznctus."-De Opere et Eleemos., p. 237.  Again:-" Item beatus Apostolus Paulus Dominice  inspirationis gratia plenus:' Qui administrat' (2
Cor. ix. 10), inquit," &c.-Ibid., p. 240.  So also:-" Denunciat Spiritus
S. in Psalmis dicens:'Deus qui inhabitare' (Ps. lxviii. 6)," &c.-De Unitate Eccl., p. 196.  And, "Per Apostolum premonet Spiritus S., et dicit:'Oportet et htereses esse' (1 Cor. xi. 19)," &c.-Ibid., p. 111.




428                          APPENDIX G.
Eusebius Pamph. (A.D. 315): —Tb Ilvevta Ob OZov ev v  poT-retatg,
i-v yeveav AVTOV,, 70,  T dlyf 6t aerat [Isai. liii.];  *  *  *  Ktal 
^tcyag Mi)-vaig, g( adv 7porjT7iv dardvwrov rraato6Ta-ro9, Oeit  lvelvrtarviroypd/a'0v, K. -. l.-Eccl. Hist., lib. I. cap. ii. p. 4.
And to add the testimony of both East and West:-" How often,"
asks S. Ephrlmem Syrrs (A.D. 370) have we despised the warnings of Holy
Scripture: —", rT(g Ti(Sv ypao5v dtcoviov-ref eiEvdaotev; bcZ     O eob
iakdZEt'Sa nrrv ypatvv, iKa ov 7TpoaeiXotev. — In secundum Domini Advent., t. ii. p. 201.  And S. Jerome (A.D. 378) writes: " Hieretici quum
ante crediderint in Scripturis, que a Spiritu S. conscriplae sunt et editoe,
transferunt se ad novas doctrinas," &c.-Comm. in Mich., cap. viI. lib. ii.
t. vi. p. 520.
(5.) The epithets applied to Scripture (see Lecture ii. p. 82) are next
to be considered:a. "Scripture given by Inspiration of God" (2 Tim. iii. 16.)  From
the countless passages in which this expression is employed, by all the
Fathers, the following may be cited:HTarrat ai 08e6rvevaTOLt ypafai O8sOv -v TOV    v -ro  OeoiV tjrlvovatv.Syn. Antioch adv. Paulum  Samosat. (A.D. 270). (ap. Routh. "Rel.
Sacr.," t. iii. p. 292.)
S. Athanasius (A.D. 325):-HIiaoa ~v, I TIErVov, i uaO'  jiag ypa f,,r a   a X a  Lt    ea re K  a   tK a Ovv v-r, 6ai7TVVT   e,    ta b)0eLog!rrpog Bd6aaxaXiav, cS  yeyparrrat.-Epist. ad Marcellin., t. i. p. 982.
And S. Basil:-HdIaa  ypaor  Oe6rveva?6TO   cai  Kd?)OtLog, d L a
- O VT   avy ypa af Eaa tra  pa TOV  11ve v p aor o g,  lv'  tTrep Ev
KcoLvp T'(V  bvXV laTrpeit, ardvrTE  avOpTwrotL rb  alla rTO  olteLov iraOovq fiaarTog eieyWiueOa.-Hom.r in Psal. i., t. i. 90.  Cf. the words of
S. Gregory of Nyssa, quoted supra, Lecture vi. p. 241, note 2.
[3. Scripture is styled "Spiritual;" or "the words of the Spirit."  S.
Ireneus writes: —"OXov T(v ypa/(Sv TrvevmaTLKuwv ov'acv.-Cont. Hwres.,
lib. ii. cap. 28, p. 156. And Origen eloquently asks:-" Vis tibi ostendam
quomodo de verbis Spiritis S. ignis exeat, et accendat corda credentium l
Audi dicentemi  David  in Psalmo;'Eloquium  Domini ignivit eum.'
*  *  *  Tu ergo unde ardebis?  Unde invenientur in te carbones ignis,
qui nunquam Domini igniris eloquio, nunquam verbis Spiritis S. inflammaris? I"-I  Levit., Hom. ix. ~ 9, t. ii. p. 243.
And again: "Sed non possumus hoc dicere de S. Spiritus literis, quod
aliquid in eis otiosum  sit aut superfluum, etiamsi aliquibus videntur obscura. Sed hoc potius facere debemus, ut oculos mentis nostrae convertamus
ad Eum, qui haec sc!ibi jussit."-Homil. in Nurm. xxvii., t. ii. p. 375.
Or, as Clemens Al. expresses it: Ta vTrob rV'Ayiov IvevrLaT og aOrljpiof  etprIfeva.-Strom., vi. ~ 15, p. 803.
To the same effect Rufinus writes: " Milites diviserunt sibi vestiinen'a
Jesu: hoc etiam curae fuit Spiritui S. prophetarum vocibus protestari, curn
dicit.' Diviserunt sibi,' &c. [Ps. xxii. 18]."-Expos. in Symb. Apost. (al
calc. opp. S. Cypriani, p. ccxvi). He also refers those who desire to inquire particularly as to the doctrine of the Resurrection, " ad ipsos fontes
Divinorurn Voluminum."-Ibid., p. ccxviii.
y. The epithet "Divine" is used in different forms.  The Presbyter
Caius (A.D. 211), a leading opponent of Montanism, writes in a remark



APPENDIX G.                              429
able passage: —Kav avrog  rrpoTeivj rifg pT-rbv ypagij   0 e t c K  g  * *   *  *
iaTa,7Trov-re  6d  -ag dy  a g rov 0eoi  ypa/ag  *  *   *  j yap ov
7rtlaEVovltv'Ayi/,  HIvevjmaT -rZ se Oat -rag 0 e a g ypaa'g, icai elotv
artlarOtL' ri eavrovg ^yorvTal 7ao0wiTpovq  rTo'Ayiov lvevijaToq vtrapXeIv' tca Ti' repov    JdatlovOv5av. —Parv. Labyrinth. (ap. Routh. "Rel.
Sacr.," t. ii. p. 132.)
Origen's fourth book, "De Principiis," is entitled-H- ep -roV OBeorvevrTov: Tg Oeiag ypa0fig.  The question of Inspiration itself, however,
he regards as so completely settled that he declines to dwell upon it at
any length:-Meta TO () f ev E  t 6 po lt   eipnKltvaL rrep   - To  OConrvevarTovg dvaL -ra Oeiaf ypaafg, dvayicaLov Enei;rreeX0v T-  TpO6rr  TIq
avayv6)aewfg Ica vofaeeog avr(wv.-cap. viii. t. i. p. 164.
S. Cyprian writes: "In Apocalypsi Scriptura Divina declarat."-Epist.
lxiii., p. 108.
Tertullian, interpreting 1 Cor. xi. 5, observes: "Nec mirum, si Apostolus eodem utique Spiritu actus, quo cum oinnis Scriptura'Divina, tur
et illa Genesis (c. ii. 23) digesta est, eadem voce usus est mulierem ponendo; quae exemplo Evae," &c.-De Oratione, cap. xxii. (ap. Routh.
"Script. Eccl. Opusc.," t. i. p. 114).
" Crescens a Cirta [ap. Concil. Carthag.,' vii.] dixit.: In tanto ccetu
sanctissimorum  consacerdotum  lectis literis Cypriani   *   *   *  quwe
tantum in se sanctorum testimoniorum descendentium ex Scripturis Deificis continent," &e. (ad calc. opp. S. Cypriani, p. 331).  Cf. the use of
the title " Deificce" by the Martyr Felix, as well as of " Doninicce" by the
Pagan Proconsul (proving the universality of such expressions), quoted
Lecture ii. p. 93, note'
Again: we  find the expressions  " Heavenly  Scriptures:"-" Non
utique ex Scripturarum ccelestium vitio, que nunquam  fallunt," &c.-Novatianus (A.D. 251), De  Trinitate, cap. xxx. (ed. Welchman);  and
" Scriptures of the Lord."  Clemens Al., speaking of those auditors who
had been attracted from  the schools of the Greeks, observes:  Tre Tr)v
ypaqpv  -T ( v K v p t a K C v avdyvwa()g elig d66etSev T'7V,eyo0Ev1   v
avayKaia.-Strom. vi. ~ ii., p. 786
S. Jerome writes: " Non adeo me hebetis fuisse cordis, et tam  crassae
rusticitatis ut aliquid de Dominicis verbis aut corrigendum  putaverim, aut
non divinitus inspiratum."-Ad Marcellam, Ep. xxvii. t. i. p. 132.
So also Tertullian: " Evolverem Prophetias, si Dominus ipse tacuisset,
nisi quod et Prophetiae, vox erant Domini."-De Resurr. Camr., ~ xxii.
p. 394.
And to the same effect:-" Qui ergo putaveris nihil nos de salute Cmesarum curare, inspice Dei voces, literas nostras  *  *  *' Orate,' inquit,'pro regibus, et pro principibus, et potestatibus,'" &c.-Apolog., ~ xxxi.
p. 30.
And again: "Communes sententias ab argumentationibus philosophorum  liberare  *  *  *  revocando quaestiones ad Dei literas." —De Anima, ~ ii. p. 306.
Mr. Westcott, in the "Catena" appended to his " Gospel Harmony," has collected
the following expressions employed in this Council: "Scripturae Sanctae" (5, 6, 74);
"Scripturae Deificae" (8); "Sancta et admirabilia Scripturarum verba" (31);' Divina
Scripturae" (33).




430                          APPENDIX G.
In like manner, Lactantius (A.D. 303) arguing that Vespasian had
fulfilled Prophecy by destroying Jerusalem: " Confirmata sunt, quae falsa
et incredibilia putanlur ab iis, quos vera coelestium  literarum doctrina non
imbuit." —Inst. Div., lib. iv. cap. xxii.
All which passages but express the following thought of S. Gregory
of Neocaes.  (A.D. 254): Ov  yap Eoar Xwptg N6oov icai Ipooqr1Sv,
r' Evayye\trTT)iv KaL'Arroa7Toriwv v e     v] T[V  Tv], r I cpt3ij -.qg awo-rpiaa
etrrida. d6a yap -~'q T'Wv aytyiv Hpo)'1T!)v, ncat'A7nroa70T v y2 —T?/ O~
Kl'vptogf Ij(v pOeyye-rat  *  ^  * -orav 6i dvaytvU65lcera  TO? EivayyLtov, I7'A.7TOTOXLV, v  i -T RpoueXj7   T  (31( 3xi, 1 TrJ avayLvtvafOVTt I
ci2A  Tr  air' ovpavov 0peyyoev()o 6Oe(. —Sermo ii. in Annunc., p. 19.
d. Still Imore strongly the Books of Scripture are termed " Epistles
from  God to man."  In addition to the passage from  S. Gregory the
Great (A. D. 590), prefixed to Lecture ii., the following words of S. Macarius ~Eogypt. (A. D. 373) m:ly be quoted: "2arrep faaeibvg ypadaf
ertaTroXa~, oLf foverait  uwLucE2ov  ical d6opeat Id6ia~ XapioaoOat,
a7tatvel Triatlv, OTCt Tao6f U7ovda'aae 7Tpog fLe   *  *  oVrw6g Kca
Tra  Og af ypa0ag wa7ersp ErLtaro2ra  arTTe',eLCev o BaotXevig  oge Trot
advOpUTfrotl. —Homil. xxxix. p. 203.
(6.) As the result of such principles, the Church inferred, as I have
already observed (Lecture ii. p. 83), "the sufficiency, the infallible certainty,
and the perfection of Scripture."  In addition to the opinions there adduced (notes 2 and'), the following may be cited:Tertullian writes: "Adoro Scripture plenitudinem, qua mihi et Factorem  manifestat et facta.       * *    Scriptum  esse doceat Hermogenis
officina. Si non est scriptum, timeat Vae illud, adjicientibus aut detrahentibus destinatum." — dv. Hermogen. ~ 22, p. 277.
S. Hippolytus enforces the same lesson: Eti  Oeso, ov ov' Ki aXoOev
ErrtyLVtaUKCOlIeV,   c -K Trov adytv ypacS3v.  "Ov yap T7Or6ov eav rtlf povXOy10 Tr)v aofiav TOV alivog TOV7rV daiKelv, OVKi aXct&)g dvv7 erTaL TOVTOV TrXelv, eav  q) d6oytaaLt ftXooa6q wv evrTVX%, rTO  avT'Ov 6?  Trp6OOV
O5ot Oseoaefetav daoKev 3ovX6OteOa, o V t a    XX o 0e v d a  0 a o p e v
rl K  TSV Xoyiwv TOV OOV  *  *          MI) eiaT' 6iav rrpoatpeatv, 7d68"
KcaT' ldtov vov,  jqd6 P3tLaC6[tevoL Tai Vira   TOV OEOV 6edotlEva. daX' bv
Tp7rrov AVTOb g  3ovX0i1Or d(a5 T-6V dyiwv ypab&ov delal, oVTroq [loev. —
Cont. Noeti. Hcer., ~ ix. (ap. Routh. "S-ipt. Eccl. Opuse.," vol. i. p. 64).
S. Hilary of Poitiers (A. D. 354): " Quid enim infidelibus stultius est,
qui prieter illurm communem  irreligiosorumn errorem  etiam  hoc adjiciunt.iaculi, ut Divina Scripturarum  eloquia putent perfecte doctrince carere
latioue?      *  *    Verum quamvis  *  *  *  his qui sapientiam Dei
sequuntur cognitam  dictorum ccelestium perfectionern  existimem, nihilque
eolum (csse, quod non consummatum atque omni ex parte perfectum  sit,"
&c. —Tract. in Psal. cxviii., t. i. p. 314.
NovatianIus: "Scriptura caelesti abundans plenitudine." —De Trinitate,
cap. xxiv.
The following  is the conclusion of S. Joannes Damascen.: —Ata
VOf/tv de, icai, 7Tpop1TrSV TTpOTrpOV, 6ETetTa 6s  Klai dta TOV fiovo)yvoVg
avTro  Tiov, Kvptov 6d, tca,  Oeov, Kai Yt-T7po F rLGv'IJriov Xpta-OV,
IaTa TO r  LtuiTOV?L'iv T?-V eavrov lfav/pf'o e yvGLYrtv' 7ravTa Trovvv ra
7Taoad6eSoL~eva?Lt'iv d6id re v6potv, ca  r-'poTrlTVi, Kal'A7roaTOAr)v, tKca




APPENDIX G.                            431
EvayyOeai-,-(ov d6eX6eOa, Kcai ytv(atcojev,  cat aotoev,   o i' do,  O    v  r a -
p a t T  p Wo T o   T   e v     r t  7 T o V v T e g. —De fide Orthodoxa, lib.
i. cap. 1, t. i. p. 123.
(7.) In fine, " the joint participation of the Eternal Word and of the
Holy Spirit in bringing the Scriptures into being, was a truth fully appreciated by the Fathers" (see Lecture ii. p. 83).
The principle on which such statements were founded is thus laid
down by S. Athanasius:KaiZ Ore pev ieyeLt r ypaqi, 5OTt Hveipa "AyLov eUlOZt ev'rol,rTporataLS,, dAZaXoi Xyeu o  aica'aptoS Ilai5Xog, OTI   l la-T'p EXadet i v 0o7t'
Trpooliratg [Heb. i. 1]  *  *  *  ica' adXaxo  Xeyet, Ortl 6 Tio  Xa)ec
L2 Cor. xiii. 3]    * *     6 de ToBg, rT  I vevta ed7re i7 o  aXovv ev r0T7
diroaro6otg [S. Matt. x. ~0, and S. Luke, xii. 12]  *          *  *  bpa  o-t
T7rep  ai'-rv epya TV HaIarpog, -raVra'yelt 7 ypa5?1 -'oi TOV  io  elvat, KaL
Tro'Ayiov llvevlLaTof. —.De Incarnat. cap. xiv., t. i. p. 881.  (Cf. also the
similar statements ibid., cap. xviii. p. 884; and the words quoted supra, p.
83, note 2.)
According to Tertullian: "Regula est autem  fidei  *  *  *  qua
creditur: Unum  omnino Deum  esse  *  *  *  qui universa de nihilo procluxerit, per Verbum  Suum    *  *  *  Id Verbum, Filium Ejus
appellatum, in nomine Dei varie visum  a patriarchis, in prophetis semper
auditum," &c.-De Prcescr. Jceret. ~ 13, p. 235 (cf. Lecture iii. p. 118,
&c.)  So also: "Nos quidem  certi, Christum  semper in prophetis locutum."-Adv. Mfarcion. lib. iii. ~ 6., p. 481. (Cf. ibid., lib. iv. ~ 13, p.
519.)  While, at the same time, he writes: "De illuminatione mundi,
quis Christo ait,'Posui Te in lumen nationum,' &c.  *  *  *  Cui respondet Spiritus in Psalmo," &c.-Ibid. lib. v. ~ 11, p. 598.
S. Ireneus writes: "Est autem  Hie, Verbum  Ejus, Dominus noster
Jesus Christus  *  *  *  Et propterea prophetse ab eodem  Verbo propheticum  accipientes Charisma, predicaverunt Ejus scundum  carnem adventum       r *  *  Quoniam  ergo Spiritus lDei per prophetas futura
significavit," &c.-Cont. Hoer. lib. iv. cap. xx., p. 254.  (Cf. the words
prefixed to Lecture i.; and Lecture iii. p. 118, note.  See also p. 120,
note.
Clemens Alex. refers to Jer. 1. 20, with the words: adirai aTE ra
dftapTLa9 o  o-Tri;wv A6yog' Kai ev Ti  Kalpp5 eceiv?, (qrla'v     Kptlog,
7lrTOaovafv t. T. 2~.-Strom. ii. ~ 14, p. 463. While, quoting Jer. xxiii.
23, 24, he equally represents the Holy Ghost as the speaker: Mc2Aov 6e
ev'Iepetia bT "Ay. lvevpa.-Cohort. ad Gent. cap. viii., p. 66.  Agail:'0 v6oogS dtl  Mwaw oqaS    O e60'  ovXl v  rrt M)a7~w6, aOa v 7r o Ii    v To v'
A 6oy ov, 6da MTofaew  6d  OepdTrovTro AVTroV. —Pcedag. lib. i. cap. vii.,
p. 134.  While he.also writes, quoting Dcut. xxxii. 10-12: ATyeL 6d  7ro
dia T a'   G -ir'S   TO llve[vta -ri "Ayov' K. T.,.-lbid. c. 7, p. 131.
Origen argues that Celsus shoul:l in fairness have stat el the very expressions of the prophecies: —E'r' Ev as Oeo r7TavTroKpdaTrp errJYd/XLErTO
elval 6  eywov, eiT'' v agS b Tibg Oi-  OeoU, E, e-e cai Ev al TOb IllvFvla
bT "Aytov  dTyov elvaL ErtarTevero.-~Cont. Celsum, lib. vii. ~ 10, t. i. p.
700.  And he elsewhere writes:   Christus, Dei Verbum, ia Moyse atque
prophetis erat.  Nam  sine Verbo Dei qzomodo poterant prophetare de
Christo?  Ad cujus rei probationem  non esset difficile ex Divinis Scrip



432                         APPENDIX G.
turis ostendere, quomodo vel Moyses vel prophetre Spiritu Christi repleti,
vel locuti sunt vel gesserunt," &c.-De Princip. lib. i. ~ 1, t. i. p. 47.
Hence were derived the titles Xptalrof6pot and. HvevFtaTof6pot applied,
indifierently, to the sacred writers (see supra, p. 83, note 4).  It may be
well to a Id that S. Ephraem Syrus, enumerating the different sacred writers,
refers to them as ot Oeoco6pot: and that he calls David 6 Oe6oaroq. In
sLcundum Domini Advent., t. ii. p. 202.
Co!npare, too, the language of Athenagoras:-At' av'-rv Trv doyLda7rov oiq wpoaoeopev OVK dvOpowTTvol  oVaOt, daXa 0 e o f d r o t g tiaT
0 e o 6 L 6 a K T o tL.-Leg. pro Christ. ~ xi., p. 288. (see, supra, p. 429).
II. The second division of the subject embraces the allusions, by the
Fathers, to " the effect of the Divine influence upon the intellectual faculties of the prophets."  The notion that, while giving utterance to their
l)redictions, the prophets were sunk in a state of unconsciousness, has
been shown, in the Fifth of the preceding Discourses, to have been repugnant to the general teaching of the primitive Church.' Nothing more,
therefore, is necessary here than (1) to give a Catena of those passages in
which the Fathers have employed a material similitude to illustrate the
effect of the Divine influence upon the souls of those " holy men of old,
who spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost;" and (2) to adduce
some examples which exhibit the Church's belief in the coexistence of
the human with the Divine Intelligence.  (See Lecture vi. p. 263, &c.)
(1) The similitudes employed may be arranged under two classes: (a)
those founded upon the analogy of a musical instrument, and obviously
suggested by the primary sense of the word " Spirit," (" breath," rrvevgta):
and (b) material similitudes of any kind.
(a) Similitudes, founded upon the analogy of a musical instrument,
and suggested by the etymology of the word " Inspiration:"S. Justin Martyr:-OVT-re yap fCaet, oVir' avOpo7riv0 evvoia ov'T(
peyada Kai Oeta yLv6acetv dvOpUoroLg dvvarov 0a2a T-r' advokev ecri
rovg acyiovg avpag r-yvticarva gare0,Oovoa  d&opea, ocs ov X6ywv e6erlae
T'rXv~  *  *  *  da2 a KaOapovi   eav-rovg f       r'or  Oeiov nvem'aToq
rapaaXelv evepyeita, lv' avir Ta-b Oe7ov: ovpavov,caT-Lv rr 2 7 K T- p O v,
ao Trep      pydvp   ctO t a pag  r LVObq     X v.pa, -oZlq 6LKaiotg
avdpdaa XpStevov, T-rv T-rv Oeilwv''jt7v cal ovpaviwv adrotKavY'5b yvoLaV.
-Cohort. ad Grcec. ~ viii., p. 13.
Athenagoras expressly develops the idea suggested by the term
Jvevpa:-Nohi') gca? vCdg  LcoftamOea-rdT'ovg KLca  EnlrtUTa ove&TaTdovf
ovTra, oVKc avoOrovg yeyovevaL ovTre 0-   MoaeOg, OVre TroV'Haaiov, iat'Iepelttov, Kail -r-v XotlrV v rpor]T-ri5v, oi taar' EosTaaav rCi)v ev avroZl
loytajlov sKtvoavTro  avrov'   TOV - Eiov IlvevSaT-o, a Ev17yoiv-o e'E0 )vrlaav' ovyXp  aaaevov'TOV HlveSF a                T    o aeL   K ai  av -
- r T1  a v'  b v e   Tr v ev o a L.-Leg. pro Christianis, ~ ix. p. 286.
To which statement may be added the following, where the same comparison is given under the form of a musical instrument (opydvov) in
general (cf. the quotations of class (b) ):-'Hegde 6e, )V voov!/ev sca
rremtareVKatsev, eXOtUev 7rpoOr-TaFg apTVpag, Ol HIvevtmaTrL EvO  [EvOeot]
e7re)w)vqisaat Lai rr epi 7TO  OeOV, tal  nepi TUv  ToV Oeov. el'roLTrE d'av
gal iVtl, avvsaet Kal      ca pl r TO Orrepi T, vg Oov e'aVEfeia -TOVg adovq
TrpoVxov -e,          Ugf  orTlV dZoyov, rrapa~tro6vTag rnoareeVev T) 7rrapa TOV




APPENDIX  G.                           433
Oeov II vevpaT, 5  O 5 py a v a IeKitvi5OTIrt ra'-r(v rrpoqrTSv a Tr 6  a' a,
rrpoaxeLtv &o6atg dvOporrivat.-Ilbid. ~ vii., p. 285.  (See supra, p. 86,
note 4.)
Clemens Alex.: —'O 6' e  aa3id, ical i-rpo airo, bo TOV  eoV A6yo-,
bvpav ps'v icai Kt0apav, -a'  abva 6vpyava, VrreptdL6v KOc6aov 6 Tr6v6e,
Kai d  ical TO7-v c[tlKpv ic602tov, -iv    p  v,   vyTOV  v T-E cal oia a avTOV,'Ayit IHvesvlart dpfcoadjievo, abdr Taet,O, ida -TOV rO7ToXV0qvov
opyavov, eal TrpoaideL TOVTrp Tr  opyav), Tw avOp6)rrt' av yap el icOapa,
rat avaiSbg  ai) vaog'EtE6g' icOapa, dL T' qv dapoviav' a v     g, 6 l a T b
l v e  L a' vabo, d6ta rTO  A6Oyov i' iv' p v, iKpEK-' 7- 6d, e  crr v e' 6 d6
X(oparv  TOVb  Kivpov. —Cohort. ad Gentes, c. i. p. 5.  And to the same
effect:-Alve7-re a&-bv o v ba i'Triqpi' OT l  YT ySTTa irTO -barTptov
Kvpiov. tcai ev iuOdpa alvETe avTov K t 0 apa v oe l i   TO a  a  6   a,
o  o v el  rr  KT prc o  o  e v -   ICO         I v ev  t a -T t.-Pcedagogus, lib. ii. c. iv. p. 193.
S. Hippolytus Portuens. (see, supra, p. 425): —Or7ot yap II V e8-, a T lt  p o 0 b7 T L K t    o -l 7aT-epe   K;aT7pTlueVOl, ital VTr' AVi-TOZV TOV
Aoyov daiwg T'eTlT7rltsVOlt, opyavov dtICrv eavTrot? rV)Oevot, XovTrs   E v
eavroZg  dae?rv  A 6yov  Wg  rr7 ic Tpo v, 6t' OV  fitv o V p e v o c adryyekov TavTa         e      v 6, orep  TrOeev b  O, poTIrat. ov
)ap E f         i d i a g 6d v v  a,c   e   g e' 0 0 E y    OV T o, L? 7rav  [al. cq TTrrdvot] ov'6e aTrep av' -ol' Oa /ovroTO         TOV, araa  ppUTOV  rpro V tev 6ta
T-oV A6yov EGaoi'ov7o  OpOcg, E7erieta dl' bpaftadrv TrrpOsdLddaKOVTo Ta
XZeovTa Ka2(!) eto' eO' o   rTl) retre7pEvot v )cyeyov -rara, aTrep av'iroTi   v
lO6votL darb'-TO    Oeoi adTrolcepvuleva. De Antichristo, cap. ii. p. 5.
S. Ephraem Syr.:-" Praise thou the Lord of all, Who fashioned and
strung for Himself two lyres, that of the Prophets, and also of the Apostles.  Thus one finger struck the two distinct sounds of the two Covenants.  And yet, though the lyre hath different sounds, it is the same
lyre and the same player; the lyres of Truth also, my son, have different
sounds, though the Truth be one."-Rythm, xxii. (" Select Works, transl.
out of the original Syriac," by the Rev. J. B. Morris, Oxf. 1847, p. 178).
S. Macarius ~Egypt., having treated allegorically the history of the
deliverance from  Pharaoh's bondage, proceeds to say:-To llvev8la orrep
Eaj3E [scil. 7] fbvyr] icacvbv JaiFa -T() e08,e a68e d6a -TOV TVf7avov 7yovv TOV
a(Jca-aTro, Sial TlV T-7  Kl- itOpa  -TO1-ot bvXiOg Xl o y t i  V Xop6d(v icKal EXrTOTrT-rwV  oylaftClv, Kal T roV T rr   T p ov -T i    0 e  a  p  C T op, tKa
ava7reTrete acvov9g ~i' ~orot7OL  Xpltart.   g ya p  d6a TOV a vov,
TOb  llvevta  6tepX6olevov e        aAeZ' OVo-wo  dta T-r  v dyiov
Kai  rrvev   aro f 6 p wv avp 0 p  rr v   bTO lvev-ia bT "Ayt6ov Ealrv
Vb'VOVV, iKai tabdiov, tcKa  7Tpoaeevx6toevo v Tr  O8e   ev icaOapia cap6ia.Homil. xlvii., p. 232.
S. Chrysostom repeats the title, the " Lyre of the Spirit," by which, as
already quoted (Lecture ii. p. 88, note 6), he was wont to designate S. Paul.
His Homily on I Tim. v. 23 (" Drink no longer water, but use a little wine,
for thy stomach's sake and thine often infirmities") commences with words
in which the same simile is combined with one still more closely allied to
the idea of Inspiration:'liKcoViaa-r Ti'4 daroa-Toiteug  f)v1g, T-  o a d   -
rr yyog - rle t iT vcv opavwv, rT r 1g  v p a  Ti-f rrvevfaTl; *  *  *
ov yap rlfuTepa -   Aeyo6teva, adi' arep av 4 rTo  IHvev4aTroS  lnT7rvevcOa
28




434                         APPENDIX G.
Xdptg  *  *  *  M  Totivvv fir6de ra vopt6seva eLval  tLa TrSv ypa)xuv
vorta-ra TrapaTrpeowev.-Ad pop. Antioch. Hom. i., t. ii. p. 1. And elsewhere, with another form  of illustration, he enters more fully into the
grounds of such comparisons:-TTOrov -TOV STofarog  (3ov6,Or17v T7,'
K6OVtV deZv, dt' oV rT eydXa  itcyaa   dr6a arppTa o Xptarbog EXacqrle,      *  *
Ot' ov TO llveiVta T' olKiovpuvql TOVg OavtaaoiroVg EKEivovf Xp%7atoiVg
(i)WKe. * *    *  " "Apa'ECivov [scil. -TOV Xp-TroiV] Kapdia iv qi HTavXov Kapdia, ic a  TOV  HI v e    aTa  o    TOV'Ayiov  7r/dS. —In
Epist. ad Rom. Horn. xxxii., t. ix. p. 758. The following words apply this
principle to the sacred writers in general: —"Oav 6e Ilav)tov lrln), ov
toi5roVTOV  Ovov XiyE, adXXa Kai THTpov, cal'IdaOfov, nai Iwodvvl7v, ital
7r a  r a a vTi)'v T v X.o p ov. KaOdarep yap Ev Xv'pa ltai da&dopot
gev ai vevpai, pia 6d q' avft)ovila' OVTi) IaL Et   v T') Xop& T-)V'ArTroT'o6XWv
idtdopa FEV ra TTrp6aorTa, Fia 6d r 6tdlaatcaia, e7rTeLt6j tCa eq o T-EXvi-T
irv TO Hlvel Vpa  rO "AAytov T-O  ItvoVv T-fag EIEvwv   vXadg.
Hom. in S. Ignat. M., t. ii. p. 594.
A comparison of the illustrations thus employed by S. Chrysostom,
according to which the sacred writers may appear to have been regarded
by him as merely passive instruments, with his remarks on their unadorned
style of writing (quoted, supra, Lecture vii. p. 326, note 2), clearly exemlifies his appreciation of that co-existence of the human and the Divine
Intelligence, to be presently considered, which forms so important an element of any just view of Inspiration.
(b) The comparisons employed by Theophilus of Antioch are founded
upon the general idea of a musical instrument:O1 6d   TV  Esoiv avOpworot, rrveevpaTofO6pot IlvevLaTrog AyTov Kai
T7pofrlTraL yev6Oesvot, VTr' AVTOV TV   eoi O     Er V e V a 0 T  V eT E, tKa
aotlpaO6viTeg, yzYvovro Oeo6diaKTrot, Kal OL ot, Kai ditatot' 6dtb Nca KaTrSt0?)aav -Tr'v dv-rttaOiav  T irai-v Xafgeiv,   py ava v 0  o 9    yev 6 I  -
v o.-Ad Autolye. lib. ii. ~ ix., p. 354.
And again: —-OVroSg oviv Sv Hlveva 0sov, Ka"l dipX K ia aocia, Kai
divalfg Vt biarov, KaTr4pXeTo elf Tiovgf rpo0iOTag, Kal dt' aivTSriv EadXet
*  *  *  Kail dta IoXoliSvo  7rrpo7'fTov oVTrw Xyet-' ivitKa 6d7 iroitaaue
Tbv ovpavov, avf7rapi7fflv AVT)-. K. T. X. [Prov. viii.]. Moaig  6  b Ktai.oXopoiuvoq nrpo rroXC)vv ErTv yev6Ojevofg paXov 6E b A6yog o TOV Q0eo
)g 6dt1  opydvov dt' avrov, 0r7 aiv' evadpX. Tr./X.[Gen. i. 1.]
-Ibid. ~ x., p. 355.
S. Basil:-'O pe~v yap -rapeowv Eavrov a  t o v    pyavov  T-o 
evepyeita -TOV  lv ev   aT o, nrpo0q-Tnfg egTiv.-Comm. in Esai.
Procem. ~ i., t. i. p. 378.
The important adjective " rational" (XoyutcS) is added by the author of
a treatise, entitled "Synopsis Prophetiarum," published by D. Hoeschelius
in his edition (Aug. Vind. 1602) of "Adriani Isagoge" (A. D. 433): —
Kvpito) 7rpoOfmira-  Kai dalkOr1g, ot rr'dat 7rapa Tolg'Ep3paiotl, cfg TOV
dXlOtvo I HvevilaTog   o y t K ta  cKa  TrrpoatperttlKa   p y a v a,-p. 29.
Compare also the use of the same term  by S. Macarius in the passage
quoted under class (a), p. 433, supra.
The expression of the Psalmist, "My tongue is the pen of a ready
writer"-Ps. xlv. 1, affords a constant illustration.
Theodoret:-lpooTrov d6 1thov, bTO T-V y37-TTav V-7rovpyobv  apexelv




APPENDIX  G.                              435
7j TOtV lnvevuaT-rog' daptrt, Ka-rda T7V E'v iroig tbaXtto7 (epotyevlv ()v)v,
1j yX)oaad ptov, )r7ti, KdXafaoqg ypaFLtarTew  6ovypdfov.-Protheoria in
Psalm., t. i. p. 396.
Procopius Gazmus' (A. D. 520):-(Sanrep  yap v7rlpeT-r7  ptaolatXtob
3aaXtLeug (/)ovlv v rTroipiverat,c SKgievaa  ^yywv, b&opcrd1aav, ovrwg oi
rrpoorTat 1caOdTrep  aciUa1fov Ti'v yXi7T-av 6ivypdqcS   rTapeovrTa  ypaaVaret, Kara -TOv [eyav Aafid. —Prcef. in Genes. (ap. A. Mai, t. vi. p. 2).
S. Gregory the Great writes in continuation of the words cited, supra,
p. 82, note 4: —  Ipse igitur haec scripsit, qui scribenda dictavit. Ipse scripsit, qui et in Illius opere Inspirator extitit, et per scribentis vocem imitanda
ad nos ejus facta tiansmisit.  Si magni cujusdam viri susceptis epistolis
legeremus verba, sed quo calamo fuissent scripta, quaereremus; ridiculum
profecto esset, epistolarum auctorem scire, sensumque cognoscere, sed quali
calamo earum  verba impressa fuerint indagare.  Cum ergo rem  cognoscimus, ejusque rei Spiriturn S. auctorem tenemus, quia scriptorem quverimus,
quid aliud agimus nisi legentes literas, de calamo percontamur?" —Proef.
in Moral. in Job, t. i. p. 7.
Other comparisons are instituted, of which the following instances
must suffice:-S. Augustine, answering the objection, "Cur Ipsius Christi
nulla scripta'?" s.lys in conclusion: " Itaque cum illi scripserunt, qua Ille
ostendit et dixit, nequaquam  dicendumn est quod Ipse non scripserit: quandoquidem membra Ejas id operata sunt,quod dictante Capite cognoverunt.
Quidquid enim Ille de Suis factis et dictis nos legere voluit, hoc scribendum
Illis tamquam  Suis manibus imperavit.  Hoc unitatis consortium  et in
diversis officiis concordium  membrorum sub uno capite ministerium quisquis intellexerit, non aliter accipiet quod narrantibus Discipulis Christi in
Evangelio legerit, quam si ipsam manum Domini, quam in proprio Corpore
gestabat, scribentem  conspexerit."-De Consens. Evang. lib. i. cap. xxxv.,
t. iii. par. ii., p. 26. The following, not unusual, simile may be added:"Has Domini sanctas Quadrigas, quibus per orbem vectus subigit populos
leni suo jugo et sarcinae levi," &c. —Ibid. lib. i. cap. vii., p. 6.
And S. Jerome writes: —" Matthaeus, Marcus, Lucas, et Joannes, Quadriga Domini et verum  Cherubim.  *  *  *  Tenent se mutuo, sibique
perplexi sunt, et quasi rota in rota volvuntur, et pergunt quocumque eos
flatus S. Spiritus perduxerit."-Ad Paulinum, Ep. liii. t. i. p. 278.
(2.) The co-existence of the human and the Divine  Intelligence is
1 A curious example of the manner in which a translator sometimes improves
upon the sense of his author is supplied by the remains of Procopius. Quenstedt
("Theologia Didactico-Polemica," cap. iv. ~ 2, p. 55) quotes the following passage
from the "Comment. in Octateuchum" of Procopius, with which he was acquainted
only through the Latin Version (" ap. Gesneros fratres," s. a.):-" Oportet eum, qui
operam daturus est Scripturae Sacre, non accipere illa que ibi traduntur, quasi proveniant ex hominibus: altius initium sive prlncipium  spectandum  reor: firmiter
credat necesse est, illa sacrosancta dogmata ex Ipso originem sumere Deo, et inde per
homines quasi canales sen instrumentum ad nos promanare."-Prcef. in Genes. p. 1.
This language, so utterly foreign from the style and tone of thought of any other
writer of that age, is at once shown to be solely attributable to the translator by the
publication, in the original Greek, of the " Comm. in Ges." of Procopius, as far as ch.
xviii., in Card. Mais edition, "Classicorum Auctorum" (Romae, 1834, t. vi.);-where
the original of the entire passage, just quoted, is simply as follows: —Ae rOv 7rpoatlvra
rj Oeia ypapO, t7 ig dvOpiwou eir6vrov,   (idL' vSp Oeov  6 t' a 6 r 5 v T (Oeaaeuvov r(T
eipi7nevuv duKouetv.-Loc. cit. p. 2 —in which the words "per homines quasi canales"
are represented merely by 6 t' a  r T  v.




436                           APPENDIX  G.
clearly implied in numerous passages, as examples of which the following
general statement may be cited:-'Iepeptia 6de o Tpo/prrlO, o Tvrdvaosoo, a0tXXov de ev'Iepef4ia Tb "Aytov
llvevaa, e'rt6eiKvvaL TO'v Oe6v I K....-Clemens Al., Cohort. ad Gentes,
c. viii. p. 66. Such; also, is the language in which Origen expresses his
belief that S. Matthew's account of the healing of the two blind men at
Jericho (ch. xx. 30) is not in contradiction to the accounts of S. Mark and
S. Luke: —Eirep daKpcf36g TTrta-revopev avayeydaOat, a v v ep y o v v T og 
ica -roi'Ayiov IIvesvia0o, ra EtvayyE/ca.-Comm. in Matthceum, t. iii.
p. 732. Compare, too, the words of Eusebius, which form the continuation
of the passage prefixed to Lecture vii.:-T  6de' -ro  Oeeiov HIvevlaTi-og - o 
avvepy OVVTO   avro7g diro6diCet, ic, T... —loc. cit. p. 116.
But this conclusion is brought out still more plainly by the manner in
which the Fathers reject the idea, that the condition of the sacred writers,
when under the influence of Inspiration, at all resembled that state of unconsciousness which the Montanists represented as the essence of true
Prophecy. In addition to the passages cited in Lecture v. p. 191, &c., the
following may be given:S. Basil (if, indeed, the commentary on Isaiah be his) writes of the
notion, put forward, by some, as to the ecstatic state of Isaiah and Ezekiel:-~aa.l 8d T-tveq 4ea`ET7KO6Taa avrovbg rpo0ripEVetvL, ErtKaXvTrTroY Evov
-TOV  vOpUoVrelov voV 7apa rTOV IIvevlaTi-of. TOVT-O 6e rrapa T r  av erayyeXiav ETarl Ti- Oeiag eTrltdiag, etkicpova  rotelv TObv Oe60T0rr7ov, iKal 5Oie
wr2pnp.g yeyove T-cv Oelov dL6aypaTdvv,  6        T E    a   T  fi  o  K  i a 
e ^i o -  a o a t 6L av o ia. —Comm. in Esai., t. i. p. 381.
S. Chrysostom  briefly, but completely, points out the distinction:TOVTO yap fdavirecs  6ltov, TOb  ea-ifTe'vat, -Tb avayirv VTvofvetvv, rT
OelaOeaL, tob XKceaOal, -Tb aperOatl &orrep Latvofevov.'0 6e Trpo4rTrl
oX oi OTr)o, datXa  e-Ta 6avolia v/qovoray',  ai aoppovovi7?ry  Karaaairafaeo,
cKa   e l dG   C a q  y yerat L,  Q                 v  a   r  av   a.-In Epist. ad
I Cor. xii., Hom. xxix., t. x. p. 259.
The condition of the Prophets is thus clearly described by S. Gregory
the Great: —"Scriptores igitur sacri eloquii, quia impulsu S. Spiritus
agitantur, sic de se in illo testimonium tanquam de aliis proferunt. Ergo
S. Spiritus per Moysen locutus est de Moyse: S. Spiritus per Johannemr
locutus est de Johanne.  Paulus quoque quia non ex se ipso loqueretur,
insinuat dicens:'An experimenturn quaeritis Ejus qui in me loquitur
Christus.' [2 Cor. xiii. 3.] * * * Itaque scriptores sacri eloquii, quia
repleti S. Spiritu super se trahuntur, QUASI extra semetipsos fiunt: et sio
de se sententias, quasi de aliis, proferunt. Unde et beatus Job S. Spiritu
afflatus, potuit sua gesta, quoe erant videlicet supernma aspirationis dona,
quasi non sua scribere: quia eo alterius erant quae loquebatur, quo homo
loquebatur quae Dei sunt: et eo alter quae erant illius loquebatur, quo
Spiritus S. loquebatur quae hominis sunt."-Proef. in Moral. in Job
t. i. p. 8.
The opinions of S. Jerome are well known, and are to be seen in his
different "Prefaces," usually prefixed to the editions of the Vulgate:-cf.
e. g., his words quoted, supra, p. 192, note'.
The following statement of the same principle occurs in the " Synopsis
Prophetiarum" already quoted (p. 484):



APPENDIX  G.                               437
IIodwl   dse 6   cal 6dca riv TOV Xfyov-TO rTrep7  TO ayyeXelv l6c6rOrT'a,
ylve-rat adoa'ea.    ical eva ava Oa  [scil. Ex. xxv.; Ezek. xl.] TOb tv IlveV4a
ra  vojLeara    r e 3 a XZe v  eiKacd       Ti)v 7rponrTp(Sv, aV-roC  6e XotrbOV
aTrrj)yy/eov,  g i'aaoTog?'dVvaTO, Tr  TOV llvevaTroS. ov  yap (Sg aLtZvrTotL arvToTg eXpiaaTO, tcaOdrrep 7j - v 6attz6vwv Trr7rrvota *.'  c3oVoerTO
avrovi   nata Tycvaicetv Ti   7rap' avTroiv EtLrves6teva, Kat peTea T-g olceiaa'yvuLfg arravTa  t~yetv. tLj yap 6R  TOVSo TOV adOov Movravo9v X'povf
7rapa6efaiteOa, pr)aav-rog' Trovg  rpof7i-ra  KaTeXoFevovg trapa Oeov pLt
ei6dvat'a Zyovt.' —Loc. cit., p. 31.
III. The third division of the subject may now be considered; viz."Those testimonies of the Fathers which relate to the nature of the Bible
as a written document, the joint product of the Holy Spirit and the men
of God" (see, supra, p. 88). The uniform manner in which even the language employed by the sacred writers is ascribed to the suggestion of the
Divine influence, —and this, too, by those who, like S. Jerome (see, supra,
p. 328, note 1), fully recognised the human element of Scripture,-affords
unquestionable evidence as to the doctrine of the Church respecting the
written document itself.
Tertullian, having quoted 1 Thess. iv. 14, 16, proceeds:-" Et ideo
majestas Spiritus S. perspicax ejusmodi sensuum, et in ipsa ad Thessalonicenses epistola suggerit:' De temporibus autem et temporum  spatiis,' &c.
(c. v. 1)."-De Resurrectione Carnis, c. 24, p. 396.
S. Irenaeus: " Non enim solo sermone prophetabant Prophetae, sed et
Visione,  *  *  *  secundum id quod suggerebat Spiritus."- Cont. Hoeres.
lib. iv. xx., p. 255.
Origen:-T o 6 t 6 d      a av Mwoalva   lvEe a   -lv  Tv 7rpeaopvTrpav avrov
ai-Topiav   *      **  *  TOV' E  d6i  a  e  ca irov   ypadibavrTa  rT  Evayy~itov. —Cont. Celsum, lib. i. ~ 44, p. 360.
S. Cyprian:-" Per Hiereniaml quoque haec eadem Spiritus S. suggerit,
et docet, dicens," &c.-De Orat. Dominic., p. 205.
S. Jerome:-" Pharisaei stupent ad doctrinam Domini; et mirantur in
Petro et Johanne quomodo legem  sciant, quum  literas non didicerint.
Quidquid enim  aliis exercitatio et quotidiana in Lege meditatio tribuere
solet, illis Spiritus S. suggerebat; et erant, juxta quod scriptum est, Oeodi6aKtTot."-Ad Paulin. Ep. liii., t. i. p. 271.  Cf. also the passage quoted,
I The cases in which the Fathers do ascribe unconsciousness to the utterer of a
Divine revelation confirm what has been said. This they considered to have been the
state of such agents of God only as were Balaam and Caiaphas; whose unconsciousness is
attributed to their personal unworthiness. S. Ambrose (A. D. 374), writes:' Sed non
mireris infusum auguri a Domino quod loqueretur; quando infusum legis in Evangelio
etiam principi Synagogae uni ex persequentibus Christum (Joan. xi. 50). *  *  *
Indignatus Dominus per angelum dixit:' Vade, sed quecumque tibi inspiravero, hac
dices,'-id est, non que vis, sed quae cogeris loqui. Quasi organunm inane sonum Meis
praebebis sermonibus: Ego sum, qui loquar, non tu qui ea quma audieris, resultabis, et
qume non intelliges. *  *  *  Balac indignatus est. *  *  *  Respondit ille [Balaam],'Calumniam patior de eo, quod nescio; ego enim nihil meum loquor, sed quasi
cymbalum tinniens sonum reddo.' "-Ad. Chromat., Ep. 1.. t. ii. p. 994. And Theodoret repeats this statement, assigning as a cause the unworthiness of the recipient:Trb d, ie r o p e  0 n ET'  i'( 0  i a v [Num. xxiii. 4], 6dq2o Ort dUrOS rb TrpacErov
ij)ovXZ07l jIaOelv. O79TTOV X(iptv Tr (dKaprov S(TTOa 70V iravayiov nve6VaTroC ig6iare
rT7v EvEpyeLav, Ka qOQyyETal a   u'  po)e/3oral.-Quast. xlii in Num., t. i. p. 161.




438                          APPENDIX  G.
supra, p. 311, note', adopting the varia lectio, "scriptae," given in the
"edit. Bened.," Paris, 1704, t. iii. 246.
S. Augustine, referring to the events which followed the "Sermon on
the Mount" (S. Matt. viii. 1, 2), observes: —"Hujus leprosi etiam  Lucas
meminit (v. 12, 13), non sane hoc ordine, sed ut solent praetermissa recordari, vel posterius facta praeoccupare, sicut divinitus suggerebantur, quae
antea cognita, postea recordando conscriberent."-De Consens. Evang. lib.
ii. c. xix., loc. cit. p. 51.
The following expressions of Origen, founded upon the saying of our
Lord, that " one jot or one tittle (tlra a,v   e ula icepata) shall in no wise
pass from  the Law" (S. Matt. v. 18),-words which convey an idea to
which he repeatedly recurs (cf. supra, p. 89, note', and p. 271, note "),
and in which he is followed by many other Fathers,-connect the foregoing passages with those which still more directly point to the language
of Scripture:Et 6de -ra X6ya Kvpiov  o6yta cayvd. *            *  *  Ka'  TerTa  arday
acpLt3 eiag   iraaFevog TO "Aytov Ilvevila v 7r o 0 (  13  X  ct  e v a v   a
dLa Ti'Sv VTrrpeTrcTv TOV X6yov, trrTore Kai veig 6dtapevy/ 7' advaZoyia,
KaO' i)v 8r 2 rriaav kBOace ypa/i"v 7 aofia TOV i  eoi  OevevaTrov it X p l
To0  TVVXo6VTo  ypapdltaroT- o        al a  Taa d a'rVTOrO 6   r-)Tp E~rn'
iira "v i) jta Kepaia ov l' Trraper0   dTrr  TOVi vOFOV,'g(i) av navTra
v7-T1Tat.  *  *  *  o~Trwg  ljzetl V6roXapafvofev rrep" radvTrv  TSv
7trtvotag -rTO'Aytov Ilvevtaroo  dvayeypatpFvwv, v 7(  T    *  *  *
rrpovotag  *  *  *  X6yta awr)Tpta  EvearapKcviag, Jq  a-rTlv  elTrev,
Et  d a  - T   y p ad I t a T t caTa T6b Ve8X6F6peVOV 7Xrl  T   foji[ag.-Sel.
in Psalm., t. ii. p. 527.
This principle he applies as follows:-" Sacra volumina Spiritils plenitudinem spirant; nihilaue est sive in Prophetia, sive in Lege, sive in Evangelio, sive in Apostolo, quod non a plenitudine majestatis descendat.
*  *  *  Neque vero dixit [Jer. li. 6], salvare, sed resalvare.  Appositio syllabce significat sacramentum."-Hom. xxi. in Jerem., t. iii.
p. 282.
And again: God said to Jeremiah (ch. i. 5) —Ipob roV lte rr  d a a t a 
V KotXLia, and not, nrpo ro TcV eroiaai ae:-for, adds Origen, dvayvov<
TV Teveatv, cal  T7prrlp7aa  ra elpTlteva rrepl Trl  KTt~E()~ TOV KOaC6tOV,
evpelosg OTrt T1 ypaqb rdvv d6   a a  e K T r K    T'   d'.-Horm. i. in Jerem.,
t. iii. p. 131.
On such principles was found'ed Origen's allegorizing system of interpretation. This he states in the following words, which are important as
proving both that his exalted idea of Inspiration was the established doctrine of the Church, and also that he never abandoned the truth of the
literal sense of Scripture:-" Est preterea et illud IN ECCLESIASTICA PREDICATIONE quod mundus iste factus sit,  *  *  *  tum demun quod per
SpirituIn Dei Scripturae conscriptae sint, et sensum habeant, NON EAM SOLUM
qui in manifesto est, sed et alium quemdam latentem quamplurimos."-De
Princip. lib. i. ~ viii., t. i. p. 48.  These words are particularly interesting
as having been already quoted by S. Pamphilus, Mart. (A. D. 294.-" Apol.
pro Origene," ap. Galland., t. iv. p. 11), in reply to the charge brought
against Origen of denying the literal truth of Scripture:-a clharge to
which he certainly left himself open in some unguarded statements. But




APPENDIX  G.                          439
see the additional remarks at the close of this Appendix. Although departing from the chronological order hitherto followed, it may be well to
quote here the views of so sober a commentator as S. Chrysostom, in
order to prove that such opinions, as to the profound meaning latent in
every word of Scripture, were not confined to the school of the Allegorists.
S. Chrysostom observes that some surprise may have been felt at the
frequency of the Salutations in the Epistles of S. Paul. He proposes, therefore, to point out their utility; laying down the proposition —"Ort T'v 0eiov
ypaO/xv ov6ev  reptLTrbv, ov6ev Trapepy6v ~aTt, t a v I   T a e v, t a v, i a xK ep   a  a, aatXl  Ktai ltX)7 irp6aprqatLf roXV'rieXayog rltLv dvoiyet
ovota-rov. Kai ri i/lyo, lbtji) rrp6apolatg; r'oXXdKl tta a  Evbg f TOleov
irpoaOKi7] OX6`OKitpov voyTjdrov ela'yaye d6valtv. Kta TOVT-o 7rl Trf TOV'Af3aaL 7rrpoayyopiag iEoriv ids8v.-In illud,'Salut. Priscil. et Aquil.'
Hom. i., t. iii. p. 172.
And to the same effect:-" Certain illiterate persons (Ttvkg elatv avOpcotol ftdvavaot) taking up the Divine Books and perceiving statements
as to chronology, or catalogues of names, pass such matters by with the
remark,-'Ov6ota, a L6vov Ea-r, cal o'v6v XplOatlov'Xet. Ti ZAyetg;'0
eeog 0OeyyeTat, eaL at rvOa        eiretv, ovv o6v  p Xpatlov rciv eipELpLev v
EaTiv;"-In illud,' Vidi Dominum' (Esai. vi. 1) Hom. ii., t. vi. p. 109.
(C. also his remarks, to the same effect, on Rom. xvi. 5: "Salute Epaenetus." —Iomil. xxxi. in Ep. ad Rom. t. ix. p. 745.)
The principle of the foregoing statements is contained in the following
explanation: —Ov yap p)Olara EaTlv darXIS, adXXa TOVI HTve8taroq Tro'Ayiov pr'tara, Kcai 6da rTOVi O 7roXvv ea-rT TOv O6'raavpBv eipelv tai ev pla
avXXaf3j. Ilpoa'eeTE  obv, irapaKta, iE-a daKpt/3eia   *  *  *  fr]6eqg
6S pe'Stf3O  TOV Xoytajlov  *      *          evv *  *  *       OdTlvvov    d6*a
T-7g Tr)V rTpoqTIr(v yXi-rTTr  TOV  OeoV TTpobg  Lgaig dta0eyoYevov aKdovojiev
*  *  *  "Opa Ti'v adKpiE3tav T7q 6LtdaaiKaXia.'A6gT'epa TOetitev 6
aitaptpog ov-oq rTrpo0iT-qg, a&XXov 6e TOI Hvevia -TO "AyLov dt La Trg roVrTOV y^X7rTT-, Trat6eVov  taug T-wv yeyVeivrgvvwv iT'v daKoXovOiav.-In
Gen. ii., iom. xv., t. iv. p. 115.  (Cf. Hon. xlii., in Gen. xviii., Ibid.,
p. 425.)
To return, however, to earlier writers.  Alluding to our Lord's words
when He wept over Jerusalem, " How often (rrooadtg) would I have gathered," &c. (S. Matt. xxiii. 37), C!emens Al. a.ks,-Ti o.vv; jt:1OaE 2 e'v,
ova'dsvv'q0 6de- rooadict 6s,'I nrov; 6if, 6da  e rpo7liTcv, tKai  ia iTg
rTapovatia. TroXrVTpo7rov ev ovv T-rI'v aoqiav fI Ho a d K lt g  K 6 e i K v v -
- a  Xaif. —Strom. i. p. 332.  Having observed that Pythagoras held
him to be the wisest of men who gave names to things, he adds:-~Ae
roivvv Tag ypaoag acptlf3oq 6tepevvoLtevovg, e7rEtdl iv  -rapafo0alg elp4a
Oat advwiooyXo7VT-ra, arb Trv ovo aTdrwv O]poevovvq -raq doa6   aqg -rb
"Aytov Hvevpita 7repl -,&v -payFaTdrv eXov, e l  T aq a   E e  t c, dig
eireZv, rT  v avTrov   tdavotav  EIKTvrUT ad levov 6tddaKtet,
lva qliav adptlftq  eSTra6FLev'a dLar'7rTVTala'rat  v Ta ov6otaTa rooXvatfol)
elpryteva.-Prophet. EJcloyce, ~ xxxii. p. 998.
And again, in language subsequently employed by Origen:-Kai lfvpiag
av eXOLti aot ypaagq rrapa0'ftv, W)v ovd6e tepaia irape6evoaerat pia, l77
OVXt irtreXmgq yevoLtvTV'  i-b yap  ro-6za Kvpiov, rb "AyTou Ilvevta.
eaidXraev -raTa. —Cohort. ad Gentes, ~ ix. p. 68.




440                         APPENDIX G.
S. Athaniasius: —Tlve   v t av yap T&v  7rap'?ut' aKedpaiOv, ic a i TO
ItlOrevov re   elvaL  Oe67'vevaa  oavev      a a  p   paa,'wc
votitovat 6dta T'b e'bwvov,  aL T'-'p~beOf e'veHa ia Ufo dF io 0 pe'w&coOab
rTOVg ~/alotov. OVK 6aTrt 6e Oav'roS'  oV yap rob  dV Id ai a 7LOavov bErV ]Cev
f'Ypa.'XI' Ja:            a Ka i TOVTO xeeiag   avyc rla T~ pvxi v T~TVO-rTa-1 ~-at.-Epist.
ad Marcellin. ~ xxvii., t. i. p. 999.
S. Gregory, of Nyssa (A. D. 370): —"Oa i1 Oeia ypal) XZeyeL, -TO
llvev^ta-f eioLt -oi'A.yiov Qtovai. KaXCi  yap 7rpoe~j7iTevce,b Illvevpa
rb "Aytov' -roii-o rrpbo Trov~ Katar'P1t)p7v'Iov6aiov  El~7r)v Taf'Haaiov
(S) vag ert'peL. Kat irrpob'E,3paiov9 Ti- ll2veIva rrporidaa, Ev oil (4oaiv,
ot dto Ka03    Xke'yet [Heb. iii.] iTO Ilvevcta i- "AyLov, eTrayet ia Trlf
datp6adiag p7rja-ra, Ta eCc 7rQoawov TOV 0)eoiv dtEo06tIu9g elpyjELva. Kai
7rapa avTrov d6e Tro  Kvpiov rb toov FejdOote&v,;T-t Aafi' ovic ev eavw/LEv)Ov, -TOVT' EoTLV OV KaTva T-V avOpv avdvOpwivv  V5atv  Oe6yyoeEVOf, Ta
oorpdva dte:jet pvar-Tpta [scil. S. Matt. xxii. 43].-Cont. Eunorm. Orat.
vi., t. ii. p. 604.
S. Gregory, of Nazianz. (A. D. 370):-Let us not suppose that Scripture
has been written without design (eitc); or that it presents an idle crowd
of words and facts to amuse the hearers," —'Hes dZ 6 o ICai a   eXpL Tigq
rvXoval0f Kepaiagf ca  ypabtarl5 TOv 7rv 1vtaEoVaT   Tv acKptfetav'KcOVTegf,
ov yap Oatov, ov6E raif  XahTaXaraf Trpadstlf E1tci o-rovdaaOrvat ToZl
avaypdpaaot, Kal l XptL 0roV'rapovTrog pvrp'j.6tao0woivaL drX' Zv' l7tteZ
eXwuev  ov7rovtiaTra Ka ratda6EvpaTa Trqa Tr)v optoiwv 6taaKcbew.  Orat.
Secunda, t. i. p. 60.
S. Jerome:-" Ego enim non solum fateor; sed libera voce profiteor, me
in interpretatione Graecoruri, absque Scripturis Sanctis usI ET VERBORUM
ORDO MYSTERIUM EST, non verbum e verbo, sed sensum exprimere de sensu."
-Ad Pammachium, Epist. lvii. t. i. p.. 306. Again:-" Patet Exodus
cum decem plagis, cum Decalogo, cum mysticis divinisque praeceptis. In
promtu est Leviticus liber, in quo singula sacrificia, immo singulce poene
syllabce, et vestes Aaron, et totus ordo Leviticus, spirant ccelestia sacramenta."-Ad Paulinum, Ep. liii. t. i. p. 274.  (See also S. Jeiome's words
quoted, supra, p. 78, note').
S. Augustine, speaking of " the waters which were above the firmament"-Gen. i. 7, observes: "Quoque modo autem, et qualeslibet aquse ibi
sint, esse eas ibi minime dubitemus: major est quippe Scripturae hujus
auctoritas, quam omnis humani ingenii capacitas."-De Genesiad. lit.lib.
ii. c. 5, t. iii. p. 135.
To this division of the subject belong the following passages, where the
principle is stated on which the harmony of the different parts of Scripture depends.  Theophilus of Antioch:II6oac ovv raflov rt'if ra il a04XOQ  ealo6eOa, oi pavOdvovTesg drab Triaylov 7rporp-r]Tv, T&v Xopr?7advrTov rT  "AyItov Hlveva -,o  Oeov. 6 t
o v  )Va t     a          I ) a di a  X      X    o t g ol Trdavre 7rpo071Tat eLrov. —
Ad Autol. lib. iii. c. xvii., p. 390.  (Cf., also, Ibid. lib. ii. c. xxxv.,
p. 374:)
S. Epiphanius: —Ovix  EcKdaTrp lepiaev o Oebg,'va ol Teiaaapeg EvayyeXl7aial 6d)besovregf  pIa pat,  a    epspooav eaKaa7oQ - TpTdol-)vat; Kcat TiIeV wvp) wvwo gcaKl Lawf Krpv5oatV*' lva 6etLOoTatv, OTiL e'   a V' r Tq rg -  q
w 1Ty 1 f upMtjPvTat' a& o6s EcdT  nrraparPOevTaira, a6Xoq dlqyaje-rat, oq




APPENDIX G.                           441
Eaf3e 7rapa T-V l vevyuaTog ptpoS i-rg avaLoyiag. —Adv. Hcer. lib. ii.
Haeres. li., t. i. p. 427.
Origen states the result:-TpiroS etprnvoTrotlb, o r)iv daXotLg   a t v o
E kvr)v   f dv   y  v T1 V ypa- ov airo6vLv3vg elvat ov fadxrv, nai naptas
r 7) v aFv ILOw v ia v cai T71V Elp7)v iv TOVT(wV, 70TL 7anatalwv rTpog KicLvagl
7} VO[MLCEV TTpg i-,,porp7TiKadg, i7 E'vayyEXcil)v rTpog arroa-owLafg, i' a'TO7TOAiEZv rpUg ariTo-ToIXctK.- Comm. in Matth., t. iii. p. 441.
That such statements by no means imply that the Fathers held the'mechanical' theory of Inspiration, in its modern sense, is obvious from
the passages already quoted in Lecture vii. p. 326, &c. The principles
there laid down had been already defined by Origen, whose views as to
the Divine authority of even the words of Scripture, were, as we know, so
rigid:Oi'AMToroTot  *  *  *   )aolv idtutSaL ElvaLt T,(),6yc, a5X' ov r?
yvia6Et  voulttreov yap avro oiX VTTb Iaviov i      a6vov, daXla ti cai ro -Cv
OLot7cU'A7roTOr-6Xov XeyEaOat av.  In illustration of which fact, he quotes
the saying of S. Paul: "We have this treasure in earthen vessels (ev
oadpacivotg aceveoLtv), that the excellency of the power may be of God,
and not of us."-2 Cor. iv. 7; explaining, Oa-rpaiivov 6e aicKEVv -rq
evresXog Kcai  earaTaovrTov rrap' "EZlalt ae6efog 7iWv ypafrlv adXqO?
vrepI3oif 6dvvdaleoS-) TOV Oeol U(SE)aLvouv172C9, Srit l'Cyvae  *  * *  ]
dvvaltg T-V J  Xeyopv0Ev OiVK ETT0o6LodL0V  ir VTbTO TigS eVeToVg Opdaeog,
bOaaL  go rrepadi-rv Tyic:-and he concludes by the argument, which
appears to have been an established principle in the Church (see, supra,
p. 326, note 2), that, had the sacred writers exhibited that rhetorical style
and diction which the Greeks cultivated with such care, their success in
converting the world might have been ascribed not to the truth of their
doctrine, but to the eloquence with which it had been enforced.-Comm.
in Joann. (t. iv.), t. iv. p. 93.
The absence of exact definitions on the subject is at once accounted for
by the fact, that no party, or even individual writer, denied or questioned
the perfect Inspiration of Scripture (see, supra, p. 79, where also the only
exceptions to this statement are noticed). The single occasion, too, on
which any controversy seems to have arisen respecting the result of the
Divine influence fully confirms so wide an assertion; and also shows that
the Church was in possession of principles which, had the occasion presented itself, would at once have led to the most accurate dogmatical
definitions. It may be well briefly to state the leading facts as to this controversy; both because the opinions that were then elicited form the
natural point of transition between the views of the early Church, and
those which have been considered in Appendix C; and also because they
exhibit the exact agreement existing, as I venture to think, between the
doctrine of Inspiration maintained in the present work, and that which has
been inculcated by the Church Catholic from the earliest times.
The controversy to which I refer took place between S. Agobard, Archbishop of Lyons (A. D. 841), and the Abbot Fredegisus, Chancellor of the
Emperor Ludovicus Pius, and pupil of Alcuin. Fredegisus had accused
S. Agobard of asserting " that the Apostles and Evangelists, the translators
of Scripture and its Catholic expositors," had committed grammatical




44-2                           APPENDIX  G.
errors.'  In reply to this charge S. Agobard commences by stating his
opinion as to Scripture:" Ista tamen iuconcussa et firma auctoritas illorum  auctorum est, per
quos Spiritus S. Novi et Veteris Testamenti volumina confecit; de quibus
nulli unquam  homini licuit aut licet cogitare vel unam literam aliter eos
dicere debuisse quam  dixerunt, quoniam eorum auctoritas firmior est celo
ac terra, secundum quod Dominus ait:' Facilius est ccelum et terram transire, quain de Lege unum apicem cadere.' "-Adv. Fredegisum, cap. ix. ed.
Baluz., t. i. p. 174.
The case, he adds, is altogether different with respect to translators,
whose errors S. Jerome censures in his Prefaces; or expositors, of whom
S. Augustine, in his book against Faustus the Manichean (and this " non
solum de illis qui reprehensi sunt a Doctoribus, etiam de probatissimis"),
writes as follows: —" Quod genus literarum, id est expositionum, non cum
credendi necessitate, sed cum judicandi libertate, legendum  est. Soli namque Divince auctoritatis libri legendi sunt non cum judicandi libertate, sed
cum credendi necessitate."  Hence S. Agobard argues:-You, Fredegisus,
have acted far more erroneously, inasmuch as "quoscumque interpretes
atque expositores coaequatis Apostolis et Evangelistis; cum Symmachum
et Paulurn, et Didymum et Johannem, una defensione indifferentique laude
dignos ducitis" (p. 176).  The next charge of Fredegisus which he notices,
is the following-" Turpe est enim  Spiritum  S. qui omnium gentium linguas mentibus Apostolorum  infudit, rusticitatem  potius per eos quam nobilitatem  uniuscujusque lingure locutum  esse."  S. Agoburd denies, with
much solemnity, the charge of having ascribed " rusticitas" to the Holy
Spirit; but he retorts again upon Fredegisus:-"Extra hoc autem  quod
tale sacrilegium nobis impingere videmini, apparet etiam in his verbis vestris quod ita sentiatis de Prophetis et Apostolis, ut non solum sensum praedicationis, et modos, vel argumenta dictionur, Spiritus S. eis inspiraverit,
sed etiam ipsa corporalia verba extrinsecus in ora illorum Ipse formaverit.
Quod si ita sentitis quanta absurditas sequetur quis dinumerare poterit?"Ibid. c. xii. p. 177.  In proof of this statement he quotes Moses' assertion,
that he was "slow  of speech," and the fact that God admitted its truth
(Ex. iv.; vi.); adding:-" Restat ergo ut sicut ministerio angelico vox articulata forlnata est in are asinse, ita dicatis formari in ore Prophetarum.
Et tune talis etiam  absurditas sequetur, ut si tali mode verba et voces verboruln acceperunt, sensum  ignorarent.  Sed absit talia deliramenta cogitari." In illustration, he refers to S. Jerome's remarks on 2 Cor. xi. 6
(quoted, supra, p. 328, note'); and also to his Prefaces:-" Qui etiam in
priefationibus Esaiae, Hieremiae, et Ezekielis quid de differentia locutionis
Prophetarumn eorum  dixerit, diligenter perpendite; et invenietis nobilitatern divini eloquii, non secundum vestram assertionem, more Philosophorum,
in tumore et pompa esse verborum, sed in virtute sententiarum, secundum
I In the conduct of this controversy Neander observes that S. Agobard " nahe
daran anstreifte, in dem Inspirations-begriffe das Gottliche und das EigenthimlichMenschliche schirfer zu sondern, wenn gleich er nicht dazu gelangte, dies vollstandig
zu entwickeln."-Allg. Gesch. der christl. Kirche, B. iv. s. 388. It will be seen with
what injustice Dupin adduces S. Agobard as an authority to prove that translations
of Scripture have as full a claim to be considered inspired as the original.-See his'Hist. of the Canon," Book i. ch. ii. ~ 6.




APPENDIX G.                           443
quod ipse Apostolus ait: "Non enim in sermone est regnum  Dei, sed in
virtute.' "-Ibid. p. 178.
The opinion that Theodore of Mopsuestia affords the example of an
early opposition to the Church's doctrine of Inspiration (see supra, p. 78,
&c.), is next to be considered.
Theodore was born about the year 350, and died about 428.' S. Chrysostom was the friend of his youth; and he was one of the most distinguished ornaments of the celebrated school of Antioch. It is unnecessary
to add anything, in proof of Theodore's literary merit, to what has been
already quoted, p. 79, note'.  The unquestionable tendency, however, of
his writings to support those views which were subsequently developed in
the heresy of Nestorius, led to Theodore's condemnation by the Fifth General Council (A. D. 553). He was likewise assailed with great bitterness
some years later by Leontius, an advocate of Byzantium (circ. A. D. 590).
Previously to the condemnation of his opinions by the Council, there appears to have been a warm discussion on the subject: and Theodore was
ardently defended by Facundus, Bishop of Hermiane, in Africa (A. D. 540),
in a work entitled "Pro Defensione Trium  Capitulorum  Concilii Chalcedonensis" (ed. Sirmondi, Paris, 1629), and addressed to the Emperor Jus
tinian.  In addition to what may be gathered from his own writings, the
opinions of Theodore with respect to Inspiration may be inferred not only
from the recorded opinions of his defender on the subject,-who assuredly
would not have upheld the cause of one who, in any sense, questioned the
authority of Scripture; but also from the nature of the charges which
were urged against him.2
The views of Facundus himself may be collected from the following
words -" Nam si obstinatus ille dicendus est, qui non cedit Ecclesiae constitutis, earundem Scripturarumn auctorilate firmatis, quanto deterioris obstinationis dicendus est, qui ipsis Divinis Scriptur-s dedignans acquiescere,
inviolabili earum plenitudini aut abrogat veritatem, aut aliquid deesse
putat quod propria debeat adinventione supplere?"-Loc. cit. lib. xii.
p. 514.
The error of Theodore, with respect to Scripture, was twofold. (1) The
extreme into which he was led by his opposition to the principles of the
Allegorists, against whom he wrote a special treatise; and (2) his rejection
from the Canon of portions of the Old and New Testaments.
(1) Theodore seems to have borrowed his system of interpretation from
his teacher, Diodorus of Tarsus,-a name unhappily too notorious in the
controversies of that age,-whose principle it was to pay regard to the
mere letter of Scripture (tzX) -) ypdtzia-rt -rCv Oeiwv TrpoaeYWV ypadC)v.
-Socrates, Hist. Eccl. lib. vi. cap. 3, p. 311). Hence resulted the method
of typical, as opposed to allegorical exposition; a method which is thus
described by Theodore himself:"All things in both the Old and the New Testament have been ordained
by one and the same God, intent upon one end (7rpbg Eva Ocorrbv bpv).
Having of old determined with Himself to make known the constitution
I See 0. F. Fritzsohe, "De Theodori Mopsuest. Vita et Scriptis," Halhe, 1836.
2 A valuable result will follow from this inquiry, namely, that we shall learn
tlhe opinion of an (Ecumenical Council on the important question which we are considering.




444                           APPENDIX  G.
of the Future (T7jv teiX2ovaav eKc  vat Kairdaraoatv), the commencement
of which He has exhibited in the economy introduced by the Lord Christ;
and considering it necessary that we should first exist in this present state
of things, and be afterwards transferred to that other, by means of the Resurrection fiom the dead, *  *  *  in order that this might become manifist, and that it might not be thought that He had afterwards determined
anytlhing new  concerning us,-by many and different means He already
suggested (iva-rOeTo) to men the Advent of the Lord Christ."  The proaises to Abraham and to David have been fulfilled in the dispensation introduced by Christ; in Whom  all nations have been truly blessed, and
Whose kingdom  shall not be moved.  For this purpose, God preserved
with care His people, who waited for the coming of the Lord Christ. For
this cause He disposed most things under the Old Covenant in such a
manner that they might not only afford the greatest profit to those who
then lived, but might also indicate what was to be manifested afterwards:
and thus the things of old were a type of what was to come: —eVpitaCeo6
T- tiaa -TOVTOVTOv T-rv rprov -77rog -itf -  ra  atla Tj'v V5repov, -XovTa
E zv rtva ptfltotv rrpOg ravra.-Prooem. in Jonam  (ap. A. Mai., "Script.
Vet. Nova Coll.," t. vi. p. 114).  E. g. God released Israel from Egypt and
from all that bitter bondage; He saved them by the death of the first-born;
and by anointing the door-posts with blood distinguished between His
people and the Egyptians: by types (ev rTiTrolg), denoting beforehand that
the Lord Christ would so deliver us, not from the bondage of Egypt, but
from that of death and of sin.
Theodore divided the Psalms into four classes,' Historical, Prophetical,
Moral, and Messianic. According to his disciple, Cosmas Indicopleustes
(A. D. 535), the school of Theodore regarded four Psalms only as Messianic,2 i. e. as applicable throughout to Christ alone: o Aavi d 5 t l'   0 r
E i II v E v I a   Tr  g 7rpoeLtreZv Trep  TroV  nearr6Orov XpLar-o) i)aXlovq d6.,
bTOV f3. Ica TOV rI. Kcai -TOV  d'. cai TO-v p0'., oUovg TovgS 6'. d6' oXov eli
AiTObv eiprticS.- Christian. Opinio de Mundo, lib. v. (" Collect. Nov. Patr."
ed. Montfauc., t. ii. p. 224.)  Without dwelling upon the fact that Facundus
(loc. cit., lib. iii. p. 130) quotes a statement of Theodore to the effect that
his Commentary upon the Psalms was no more than a crude production
of his pen in early youth; or adducing the case of many other writers who
have equally limited the number of the Messianic Psalms (e. g. Hengstenberg, see supra, p. 151, note), but who have never been regarded, on that
account, as opponents of Inspiration;-it will be sufficient, in proof (A,
Theodore's profound sense of the Divine nature of Scripture, to quote two
passages from hiis Commentary on the Minor Prophets, selected almost at
random.  Explaining Hos. i. 1 ("The word of the Lord that came unto
Hosea"), he writes: —A6yov 6s Kvpiov Ti7v EvepyeLav aravTraXoaov Ayet
Ti-V Oeiav -I)V E  6Ts-r  d7roTE ytyvopevrv  *  *       *  Oeiav 6d evepylEa
tcav- avOa  XhyeL, acaO' riv aciotdavLbt9g -Tr&v Eaote v yivero  ytV   irpop07i'' See Fritzsche, loc. cit. p. 32.
2 Leontius has charged Theodore with allowing only three Psalms to be Messianic,
referring the others, in a Judaizing manner, to Zorobabel and Hezekiah:-TroV 7r(dvrac
)pakyovic iovda(ltcC  roor  rept Tr(V ZopoidfOe Kail'ECeKiav diveOrtKe TpezF L6'vov~ T() KvpiG
irrpoapirpa.-Adv. Nestorian., ~ xv. (ap. A. Mai., "Spicileg. Rom." t. x., par. ii.
p. 73).




APPENDIX  G.                             445
dq' rr Trep avr,) Icat T'b Xeltv  - TaO  pvev T            a6ielv a   aeOeva d6vajL(t
vir;ipxev.-Comm. in Oseam (loc. cit., p. 2).
Again: —TiS  avTriq T-oi'A/yiov HvevlaToiog XdptiTo  ol Tre 7ard)Xa
Ei-eTeXov ica   oi Ti) T-g  icalvig 6dlaOK7]g iT7r)pe-TOVeVOl vt v-rTnpig).Comm. in Nahum, i. I (loc. cit., p. 163).  (The discussion which follows
here, on the ecstatic condition of the prophets, and founded on 1 Cor. xii.,
is full of interest.)
The Books of Scripture which Theodore rejected were, in the Old Testament, the writings of Solomon, the Chronicles, Job, Ezra; and in the
New, as Leontius (1. c. p. 73) states, the Catholic Epistles.  The principle
on which he did so,-at least in some of these cases, as appears from his
own words quoted at the Council of Constantinople,-was not founded
upon a denial of Inspiration, but (as I have already observed) upon his
attempt to lay down a criterion which all inspired books must satisfy:"His quae pro doctrina hominum  scripta sunt, et Salomonis libri connunerandi sunt, id est, Proverbia et Ecclesiaste; quae ipse ex sua persona
ad alioruin utilitatem composuit, cum Prophetice quidem  gratiam  non accepisset, prudentice vero gratiam, quae evidenter altera est proeter illam, secundum beati Pauli vocem."-Art. lxiii. (ap. Mansi, t. ix. p. 223).
The following extracts exhibit not only the opinion of that Council on
the subject of Inspiration, but also the nature of the error respecting
Scripture for which Theodore was condemned.  A series of " Articles" selected from his writings was recited before the Council,-throughout which,
as, indeed, throughout all his writings, the title "Divine Scripture" repeatedly occurs,-each Artic!e being preceded by a brief statement of its conttents.
Ar.. lxiii. is headed "Ejusdem  Theodori reprobantis et libruln Job, et
contra Conscriptorem ejus, id est Sanctum  Spiritum, dicentis," &c.  And
again: Art. lxvi. is headed-" Per omnia reprobans Scripturam  Job, et
Conscriptovi maledicens (idem autem est dicere Sancto Spiritui)," &c.
The Council next proceeded (" Collatio 5ta," ibid., p. 230, &c.) to read
over "ea quae contra Theodorum Mopsuestenum et ejus blasphemias sancti
patres scripserunt;" in which, however, no mention whatever is made of
Theodore's having questioned the authority or Inspiration of Scripture, the
whole controversy turning upon his interpretation of it.  That interpretation was obviously founded upon his exalted estimate of the letter of Scripture; an estimate which, by a different process, led Origen into an opposite
extreme.  And here the subject of these two opposite schools' of expositors, to which reference has been made in Lecture vii. (p. 310), must be
briefly considered.
The light in which Origen regarded the language of Scripture, and
which may be inferred fiom his words already quoted, is laid down in the
following striking passage:-" Videtur mihi unusquisque sermo Divinae
Scripturae similis esse alicui seminum, cujus nature haec est, ut cum jactum
fuerit in terrain, regeneratum  in spicam,  *  *  *  multiplicitel diffundatur; et tanto cumulatius, quanto vel peritus agricola plus seminibus
laboris impenderit, vel beneficium terrae fcecundioris indulserit." —n Exod.
Horn. i. ~ i., t. ii. p. 129.
Origen had also a clear apprehension of the still more important principle, that the Bible must be regarded as one organic whole, not as a for



446                            APPENDIX  G.
tuitous assemblage of independent writings: but he does not seem to have
been capable of grasping the great truth which he thus perceived.  He
observed, that as man consists of body, soul, and spirit, so Scripture consists of the letter, the sense contained under the letter, and a certain shadow
of heavenly things (Heb. viii. 5).  Thus he writes:-" Triplicem in Scripturis Divinis intelligentise inveniri ssepe diximus modum,-historicum,
inoralem, et mysticuin.  Unde et corpus inesse ei, et animam, ac spiritum
intelleximus."-In Levit. Hom. v. ~ 5, t. ii. p. 209.  And again: —"2arep
yap    davOpWTrog ovvE9orifcev ieK a6c1)a-rog iKai  bvXrj  Kal 7Tvevi aTarof Tbv
abrVv Tp6Orov Kcat i olcovoFlrqeEoa VTrro TOV Oeov eilf avOpu7rwv awooT7piav
doO0vat yQapj. —De Princip. lib. iv., t. i. p. 168.1  Now  it is plain, if
this analogy is to be carried out, that, in order to form a just conception of
what Scripture means, due value must be assigned to each of its three ele
ments; and the relation to each other which they respectively hold must
be maintained. The spirit of man confers its vital power upon the material
substance into which it has been infused: while the soul, the product, as it
were, of this union of the spiritual and the corporeal,2 is that in which
consists the real existence of the living man.  To consider the material
substance alone, or the spirit alone, is at once to abandon the region of
actual being.  We should then contemplate an inanimate mass; or speculate respecting the nature of an immaterial element which transcends the
limit of all human experience.  While if we grasp the full idea of the
living man, his material substance becomes the outward, but necessary,
garb of the spiritual essence; the union of both being expressed by the
Soul, which derives its vital principle from what is spiritual, and the condition of its existence from the bodily organization-an organization which
(as we learn from the doctrine of the Resurrection of the body), is as
essential to its future as to its present being. The fixed relation of these
three components was what Origen failed to maintain when he proceeded
to apply the analogy which he so acutely pointed out.  Neglecting, and
at times appearing even to deny, the historical sense of Scripture, he dwelt
exclusively upon its spiritual element: nay, so far did his one-sided system
It is interesting to observe how Origen follows here in the footsteps of Philo.
Philo having said that "he, to whom God has granted to be, as well as to seem, honorable and virtuous, is truly happy," continues: —Eia  yap TLVef ol Tr O  f  75 T  r o  
v 6 t o v f avitz/oLa VOyTrV 7rpayauTrv Vz7O/agzl3(ivovTre, rd it v dyav 7japifluaav, rTv 6b
pavic(; 6XAtLy6p7laav, oVS te(liyaiu7iv    yO e yue r7/ evxepeiac. We are not, he goes on
to say, to omit the actual observance of a festival because it symbolizes (ipo3o06v
tirt) joy of soul, and thanksgiving to God.  Nor because Circumcision denotes
(i;laivel) the excision (eKTroz7jv) of pleasures and affections, must we therefore abrogate the law which commands the rite itself. On such a principle we should do
away with the Temple-worship, and innumerable other ceremonies, if we shall attend
merely to what the latent sense denotes (e'i ujvotc 7rpoatFo/zev roZi d6' Vrrovotv d71XovC4vo/.). He then proceeds to anticipate Origen in his analogy, using almost the same
words: —'A2;ai X()r ravra puev a d 1 a r          a   voFli etLV, PvLUX 6e tKeCva * uoaep
o'vv aSjuaTof &ret67 T/rXgfI IoTtoV olCOC r7oovojTeOV, OVT    Kt a  T 7V  5r C)v vo  o v
7irt/ieAr/Trov..-De  tigr. Abr., t. i. p. 450.
2 " The Lord God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his
nostrils the breath [or spirit,,i7, —cf. Lecture v. p. 225, note'] of life, and man
became a living soul (r:5)."-Gen. ii. 7. Cf. "I pray God your whole spirit, and soul,
and body (Tr 7rve'faa, Kai f Pvxj, icai rb acJia) be preserved blameless," &c.-I Thes&
v, 23. See Mr. Westcott's remarks on this subject, " Elem. of Gosp. Harmony," App
B, p. 207.




APPENDIX G.                                 447
of interpretation lead him, that he ventured to assert-~icov6ourae -rtva
oiovei actvdav   a Kai 7rpoa6fiya'ra  tal adSivara.  *   *   *   6 rov eov
A6yo~. lva.  *   *   *   fi  KtLVOtV daro TOV ypapparog,  r?6Edv Oet.
repov  a'dOwuev. —De Princip. lib. iv., t. i. p. 173.1
From  the'natural reaction against such exaggerated allegorizing arose
the school of Theodore; which, from  an undue depreciation of the spiritual
element, and an exclusive assertion of the mere literal sense, fell into the
opposite extreme.  In consequence of this error, Theodore regarded the
primary application  (see Lecture iv. p. 153, note') of the Old Tcs'amnent
prophecies as their complete and sole meaning; and hence he was charged
with "Judaizing"2 by the different writers, who opposed his views. E. g.
the prediction as to our Lord's triumphant entry into Jerusalem, which the
Evangelists (S. Matt. xxi. 4; S. John, xii. 14) quote from Zechariah (ix. 9),
Theodore considered as designed to point out Zorobabel alone; allcging
that it is referred in the Gospels to Christ, solely because He, too, was great,
and just, and a deliverer.  The principle according to which part of the
prediction applies to Zorobabel, and part to our Lord, in Theodore's judginent, bvXpo0oyiagf Ear  7repr-TTr g  tcai adnetpia  Tg-Swv Oe0iv ypaxvv.Comm. in Zach. (loc. cit. p. 255).
It is not difficult to perceive how the analogy suggested by Oi'igen, if
consistently applied, leads to the true principle of interpretation. The
"Soul" of the sacred writings can never be appreciated by fixing our whole' As might naturally be supposed, the passages in which such statements occur
have been laid hold of by Strauss (" Introduct." ~ 4); and with his usual unfairness.
Origen's principle was that every isolated phrase and expression of Scripture is replete
with profit and instruction: even the ordinances of the Jewish Law, apart from the
great Scheme of which they formed an element, abound with instruction for Christians.
Hence, speaking of the Law as to " the sin-offering," Lev. vi. 24, &c., he argues that
the passage must be expounded spiritually, since to announce to a Christian assembly
the benetit of animal sacrifices as an atonement for sin must lead to offence and to
error:-" HIec omnia nisi alio sensu accipiamus, quam  literae textus ostendit, sicut
sape jam  diximus, cam  in Ecclesia recitantur, obstaculum  magis et subversionem
Christianae religioni, quam  hortationem  aedificationemque praestabunt."-ln Levit.
Hom. v., t. ii. p. 205.  " What edification (he asks, in a passage quoted by Strauss)
shall we derive from the history of Abraham and Abimelech (Quae nobis aedificatio
erit)?"  " Hec Judaei putent, et si qui cum eis literae amici non Spiritus." —In Genes.
Hom. vi., ~ 3, t. ii. p. 78.-" Origen by no means requires that we should not believe
this narrative (l-tarevetv, credere); but only that we should not think (voyietv, putare)
that it so conveyed edification, or that it was written for the sake of its merely verbal
sense. This latter view is Jewish or literal."-Hoffman Das Leben Jesu, s. 42. As
Origen himself observes:-" Haec interim propter eos qui amici sunt litere. *  *  *
Sed nos qui omnia que scripta sunt non pro narrationibus antiquitatum, sed pro disciplina et utilitate nostra didicimus scripta," &c.-In Exod. Hom. ii., t. ii. p. 133.
a As the extreme maintained by Theodore arose from the reaction against the excessive allegorizing of Origen, so Origen's excesses may, not unfairly, be attributed to
his opposition to the Chiliasts, or Millenarians (see Neander,' Kirchen-Gesecl," B. i.
s. 1125), whom he describes as "solius literae discipulos.  *    *  Christo quidem
credentes, Judaico autem quodam sensu Scripturas Divinas intelligeutes."'-De Princip.
lib. ii., t. i. p. 104. (See, also, his "Comm. in Matt.," t. iii. p. 827; " Prolog. in Cantic.,"
t. iii. p. 28; "Sel. ad Psal.," t. ii. p. 570). Eusebius has preserved the account given
by S. Dionysius of Alex. of his controversy, at a later period in the third century
(A. D. 255), with the Millenarian bishop, Nepos, who was also obnoxious to this
charge of "Judaizing:"-'iovdaui'KTre O   Trdg eirT yye2Xiva  TroC'yiolts iev Talc Oeial
ypaqalg kTrayye'iac dirodo6obaeaOeat (diatocwv.-Hist. Eccl. lib. vn. c. xxiv., p. 349). Cf
Olshausen, " Ein Wort Ub. tief. Schriftsinn," s. 13 ff.




448                           APPENDIX  H.
attention, with Origen, upon their purely spiritual application; or, with
Theodore, upon their merely literal sense.  The true signification of Scripture results from the due combination of both the spiritual idea, and the
historical fact: and this, as I have shown in the Seventh of the preceding
Discourses, is the method which the inspired writers themselves prescribe.
APPENDIX H.
THE  ADDRESS OF S. STEPHEN.
(LECTURE III.-PAGE 103.)
IT has been often, and with too little consideration, assumed that S.
Luke, in the Book of the Acts, has selected for his theme, through preference merely, the labors of Apostles; and especially of S. Peter and S.
Paul.  And yet with what particularity does he record the preaching of
the other ministers of the Gospel: —e. g. of S. Philip (ch. viii. 5, &c.), and
S. Stephen (ch. vi., vii.); the history and martyrdom of the latter being
described with such minuteness, while the death of the Apostle James is
barely touched upon (ch. xii. 2).  To which when we add the obvious
design of S. Luke, in each of his writings, to supply instruction for Gentile
readers, — a design to be inferred from his language and style, and choice
of subjects, as well as from the care with which he relates not merely how
the preachers of the Gospel, to a great extent abandoning Jerusalem, turned
to the heathen world; but also how in each heathen city they turned from
the Jews to the Gentiles,-we cannot doubt that he has composed the Acts
of the Apostles, not under the influence of mere subjective preference; but,
impelled by the objective necessity of the Divine Scheme, in order to represent the passing of the message of Salvation from the people of Israel to
the Pagan world (cf., supra, p. 354). We at once perceive the importance
of the history of S. Stephen for such an object.  His death was the event
by which the Jews once more publicly showed themselves to be unworthy
of the Gospel; and which, at the same time, not only led to its diffusion,
through  Samaria, among  the Gentiles (ch. viii. 4, &c.; ix. 32, &c.;
xi. 19, &c.), but also  conduced  immediately to  the conversion  of
S. Paul.
Attention has been already drawn (supra, p. 103, notes 1 and 3), to the
repeated and emphatic mention of S. Stephen's Spiritual Gifts; and also to
the three subjects of which he has treated in his review of Jewish history.
These three subjects are not introduced in succession, but are intermingled
with each other; the history supplying the different links of the argument.
Special pains, too, are taken to point out that that peculiar characteristic
of Revelation which consists in the repetition of Divine acts2 is reflected
from the entire history of the people; and that its principle of repetition
"Ueber Zweck, Inhalt, und Eigenthilmlichkeit der Rede des Stephanus, Ap.
Gesch. cap. vii.," von Friedrich Luger, Liibeck, 1838.
E. g., Divine Revelation was not restricted to the Law and the Temple; but was
perfected only in a repeated act of Revelation-viz., in the accomplishment of the
promise which accompllanied the Lawv.




APPENDIX H.                            449
is to be found visibly stamped upon events seemingly the least important.
Thus, Abraham  "came out of the land of the Chaldeans and dwelt
(KaTrUKrloEv) in Charran: and from  thence He [i. e. God] removed
(fteTruLtev) him," &c.-ver. 4.  God gave him no inheritance in the land
which he showed him; but promised its possession "to his seed after him
(MeT' a vrov)."-ver. 5. This seed should be in bondage 400 years; "and
after that (tseira ravTa) shall they come forth."-ver. 7.  Jacob sent the
patriarchs to Egypt first (rrpoT-ov); " and at the second time (Ev iT) 6evrep.c) Joseph was made known to his brethren."-ver. 12, 13.  Joseph
sent and called (QireKesaifaTro) his father to him; "so Jacob went down
(care-3pr) unto Egypt, and died, he and our fathers, and were carried over
(eTreT'Orjeoav) into Sychem."-ver. 14, 16.  "Another king arose," &c.ver. 18.  " The next day Moses showed himself unto them."-ver. 26.
Another leader, Joshua, conducted the people into the promised land-ver.
45, &c., &c.
In speaking thus, S. Stephen clearly adopted that view of the Old Testament which regards no expression of Scripture, no event which it records,
as superfluous or unimportant.  In this treatment of his subject he is
closely followed by S. Paul:-compare, for example, the Apostle's use of
Jewish history in Gal. iv., and 1 Cor. x., to which allusion has so often
been made (see supra, p. 104, note'; p. 109, note 2); consider, also, how
he argues from the most casual expressions (see Lecture viii. p. 339), and
even omissions of the Old Testament (e. g. Heb. vii. 3, 8). Is it unreasonable to suppose that this address of S. Stephen, of which S. Paul was a
hearer,-and which appears to have roused him, at the moment, to frenzy
in his zeal for the Law and the Temple (cf. vii. 58; viii. 1, 3),-was not
the least among the providential means by which his mind was prepared for
his miraculous conversion? Compare, too, the whole tenor of his first address (ch. xiii. 16, &c.), which, equally with the discourse of S. Stephen, is
based upon the Old Testament; and, especially, the nature of the reproach
brought against him by the Jews, "This is the man that teacheth all men
everywhere, against the people, and the Law, and this place."-xxi. 28; a
charge which presents an exact parallel to that brought by the " false witnesses" against S. Stephen, "This man ceaseth not to speak blasphemous
words against this (1) holy place, and (2) the Law. For (3) we have heard
him say that this Jesus of Nazareth shall destroy this place, and shall
change the'customs which Moses delivered us."-vi. 13, 14.
I. Here the three subjects of this discourse are imposed, by the necessity of the case, upon S. Stephen: —(1.) The Temple of Solomon, as he
proves from Isaiah, lxvi., was not a dwelling worthy of the God " Who inhabiteth eternity."-ver. 47, 49.  Indeed, the previous history of Israel
had shown that wherever God appeared, were, it even " in the wilderness,"
was "holy ground" (ver. 33, cf. ver. 30, 31): and this not merely in the
promised land; for "the God of glory appeared unto our father Abraham
when he was in Mesopotamia."-ver. 2.  (2.) From  these latter words,
" The God of glory appeared unto our father Abraham," the entire argument starts.  The Law was merely an additional element in the fulfilment
of the promise then made (cf. Rom. v. 20; Gal. iii. 19):-this fulfilment
being the essential circumstance, not the Law. Nay, even Moses, by whom
God accomplished the deliverance promised to Abraham  (ver. 36), wrote
29




450                            APPENDIX  H.
of the new promise added to the fulfilment of the formrer: "A prophet
shall the Lord raise up unto you, like unto me."-ver. 37.  (3.) It was
the chief ground of reproach against S. Stephen that he had taught that
"Jesus of Nazareth" was to be the subverter of Temple and Law.  In his
reply S. Stephen does not expressly mention our Lord until tie close of his
address, where he announces the principle on which he had throughout
encountered this charge: "Ye do always resist the Holy Ghost, as your
fathers did, so do ye."-ver. 51.  Thus, "the patriarchs moved with envy
sold Joseph."-ver. 9.  Moses "supposed his brethren would have understood how that God by his hand would deliver them: but they understood
not."-ver. 25.  It was said to him, "Who made thee a ruler and a judge
over us?"-ver. 27.  "This Moses, whom they refused, did God send to be
a ruler and a deliverer" (XVTpoT7') (ver. 35); "to whom our fathers would
not obey, but thrust him from them."-ver. 39.  In fine, S. Stephen asks,
"Which of the prophets have not your fathers persecuted?  They have
murdered those who announced the Messiah's coming; you have betrayed
and murdered Him when He came."-ver. 52.  Hence therefore his reply
to the scorn exhibited against the despised Nazarene.  The patriarchs sold
Joseph, "but God was with him" (ver. 9); our fathers would not obey
Moses, and yet Jehovah "had sent him as a ruler and deliverer."  Now,
too, exclaims S. Stephen, the people have rejected the Prophet of the Law
written in the heart; they have not understood, in His High Priesthood,
the fulfilment of the design of the Temple; and yet, behold! I see Him
now "standing at the right hand of God.""En a dextris Dei stantem
Jesum pro te dimicantem,
Stephane considera.
Tibi cmelos reserari
Tibi Christum revelari
Clama voce libera"'
II. To turn, in the next place, to the historial objections  which have
l CG  ver. 51,~-Zc7porpaXr2ot Ka T urCepTtir/TroL rTI KapS6a, with the exhortation of
Mooses, Kal 7reptreiUei6ae rTv aKcKpoKapdiav V /)v, Kal rt rbV rpdX7ov iC)tv o  acKX71pvveire.-Deut. x. 16.
* Adam of S. Victor. Bengel well explains:-" ieotSra (stantem), quasi obvium
Sephano, cf. ver. 59. Nam alias ubique, sedere, dicitur. Egregie Arator:-'Lumina cordis habens caelos conspexit apertos,
Ne lateat, quid Christus agat: pro Martyre surgit.
Quem nunc stare videt, confessio nostra sedentem
Cum soleat celebrare magis. Caro juncta Tonanti
In Stephano favet Ipsa Sibi.' "
It is scarcely necessary, perhaps, to allude to the following objection. S. Stephen
says:-" The God of glory appeared unto our father Abraham, before He dwelt in
Charran, and said unto him, Get thee out of thy country, and from thy kindred," &c.
(vv. 2, 3); while in Gen. xii. 1, it is said (we are told) that God appeared for the
first time to Abraham in Haran, after he had left Ur of the Chaldees. The English
Version avoids the force of this by translating, "Now God had said unto Abraham."  The words of Genesis, however, at once afford the answer. God commands,
nil,-:'l"~x7'-ir~; where,-although it cannot, perhaps, be proved that n7fla
can only be taken in the sense given by the LXX., avyy'veta,-the only meaning
that 7V'x can possibly have is Ur of the Chaldees, the native country of Abraham:
in which place, therefore, and not. as the objection assumes, in Haran, God must have
appeared.




APPENDIX H.                           451
been urged against this address.  "In the last apology of Stephen," writes
Mr. Alford, "which he spoke being full of the Holy Ghost, and with Divine
influence beaming from his countenance, we have at least two demonstrable
historical mistakes."-The Greek Test., vol. I. Proleg., ch. i. ~ 6.  These
cases must be considered in order. On the words, " Then came he [Abraham] out of the land of the Chaldeans, and dwelt in Charran: and fiom
thence when his father was dead he removed him into this land."  (Acts,
vii. 4),-Mr. Alford notes as follows: "In Gen. xi. 26, we read that Terah
lived 70 years, and begat Abram, Nahor, and Haran; in xi. 32, that Terah
lived 205 years, and died in Haran; and in xii. 4, that Abram was 75 years
old when he left Haran.  Since then 70 + 75  145, Terah must have lived
60 years in Haran after Abram's departure. It seems evident that the
Jewish chronology, which Stephen follows, was at fault here, owing to the
circumstance of Terah's death being mentioned, Gen. xi. 32, before the command to Abram to leave Haran;-it not having been observed that the mention is anticipatory. And this is confirmed by Philo having fallen into the
same mistake: —1p6Orepov  pEv in T4f XaX6aiat4g dvaara' yif'A3paay
(Ky4aev dei Xap)pav  reTeevrr-aav-rog d6 avrov TOIV rarpog E&Ee0Oe Kxa  rairf1g PeraviaraTat.-~De lfigr. Abr., t. i. p. 463.
Now, without going any further, the remark is obvious, that for critics
of the present day to convict S. Stephen of historical inaccuracy,-a man
so versed in the sacred literature of his nation as to vanquish in argument
the most learned of the Jewish Synagogue, who " were not able to resist
the wisdom and the Spirit by which he spake" (Acts, vi. 10); and whose
possession of Spiritual Gifts S. Luke has brought so prominently forward,must be regarded, to say the least of it, as a judgment somewhat precipitate.
Such a mode of evading a difficulty in the work of an ancient writer would
assuredly be tolerated in no other province than that of religion. But let
the objection itself be considered.
The statement of Genesis is, that " Terah lived seventy years, and begat
Abraham, Nahor, and Haran."-xi. 26.
From the single fact that Abraham's name occurs first in this passage
it is inferred by commentators that he must have been the eldest son. On
the other hand, Philo and S. Stephen, as we have seen, agree in a statement
which, if they understood the words of Moses, is not easily reconcilable
with such an assumption. But is it very unreasonable to assume, in turn,
that they did understand the language of the Old Testament; and that the
opinion of such men may be better founded than the conclusions of modern
critics? Now the analogy of the whole Patriarchal history intimates that
it was not the first born who, in those days, succeeded to the inheritance.
We read that "Noah was 500 years old, and begat Shem, Ham, and
Japhet."-Gen. v. 32, &c. (cf. also vi. 10; x. 1); while we are expressly
told in ch. x. 21, that Japhet was the eldest son. Compare also the cases
of Seth, Isaac, Jacob, and Judah. Josephus, moreover, fully confirms the
inference that Abraham could not have been the first-born.  We know
from  Gen. xvii. 17, that he was but ten years older than Sarah; and
although she is called " the daughter of his father" (xx. 12), it is plain that,
according to Hebrew usage, the phrase would be fully as applicable to the
grand-daughter, as to the daughter of Terah.' Josephus, moreover, exE. g. Gen. xxix. 5, Laban is called the "son of Nahor;" but we know from ch.




452                         APPENDIX H.
plicitly states that Sarah was his grand-daughter, —the daughter of Haran,
and sister of Lot and Milcah,-and that Abraham married his niece; a
fact which, taken in connexion with their relative ages, demonstrates that
Haran must have been many years older than Abraham.  The words of
Josephus are:'Apadvrwl  lev icaraXttrv vlbv Ar ov Kcai Sappav.~Ka}
Me&Xav OvyarepaS   *          *  *  ya t o   ot d6   T a   ade  fL t d d'
MesXav pstv NaXi)p7i, Yappav 6e "Appato~.-Ant. lib. i. vi. 5, p. 27.
Ussher writes as follows: "1948 [A. M.]-Postquam Thara 70 vixisset
annos, natus est 2etate primus trium ipsius filiorum.  Non Abram  quidem
(quem post 60 demum annos natum infra videbimus), sed Earan  *  *  *
2008.-Abram  natus est: quippe 75 annorum existens, quum pater Thara
moreretur, annum agens setatis 205. (Acts, vii. 4), 2018.-Sarai, quoe et
Iscah, Haranis fratris Abrami filia, nata est: utpote decennio, marito suo
Abramo aetate. minor."-Annales Vet. Test., Works, Elrington's ed., vol.
viii. p. 21.
Accepting this fact, viz. that Abraham was not Terah's eldest son,
Luger (~ 41 ff.) considers another element necessary to explain S. Stephen's
allusion. He adopts Bengel's remark: " Abram, dum Thara vixit in Haran,
domum quodammodo paternam habuit in Haran, in terra Canaan duntaxat
peregrinum  agens: mortuo autem  patre, plane in terra Canaan domum
unice habere coepit;"-which, however, he explains to mean (rightly translating ftsrotLitet,, " to lead to another domicile," not, " to emigrate," a sense
which would require the passive), that, according to the Patriarchal relations,
and nomadic usage, the dwelling-place of the head of the Tribe alone could be
regarded as the domicile of the members of the Tribe: and that although
Abraham may have commenced his wanderings before his father's death,
yet that he did not receive another domicile (as S. Stephen states) until
after the death of Terah: Terah's name being introduced by S. Stephen
merely to denote that he was the first member in the series of the disobedient (cf. Josh. xxiv. 2).
The second " historical mistake" which Mr. Alford ascribes to S. Stephen
is founded on ver. 16: "Jacob died, he and our fathers, and were carried
over into Sychem, and laid in the sepulchre that Abraham had bought for
a sum  of money of the sons of Emmor, the father of Sychem."  Luger
refers here to Calvin's comment, " In nomine Abrahae erratum esse palam
est.  *  *  *  quare hic locus corrigendus est;" and adds: "Stier, on
the other hand, justly remarks that to ascribe to Stephen an error of memory in the statement of a fact so well known, may be named almost a piece
of infatuation (fast thbricht)" (s. 45). Mr. Alford thus states the difficulty:
"The facts, as related in the Old Testament, were these:-Jacob, dying in
Egypt, was (Gen. 1. 13) taken into the land of Canaan, and buried in the
cave of Macpelah, before Mamre: Joseph, dying also in Egypt, was taken
in a coffin (Gen. 1. 26), at the Exodus (Exod. xiii. 19), and finally buried
(Josh. xxiv. 32) at Shechem. Of the burial of the other patriarchs the
xxviii. 5, that he was the son of Bethuel, who was the son of Nahor (ch. xxiv. 15;
xxii. 20-23). Cf. also 1 Kings, xix. 16, with 2 Kings, ix. 2; 2 Sam. ix. 6, with 2
Sam. xix. 24; Josh. vii 1, 18, with ver. 24; 1 Chron. i. 17, with Gen. x. 23, &c., &c.
Nor was Sarah's having two names (viz. Sarai and Iscah, Gen. xi. 29) at all unusual.
Thus the name of Samuel's eldest son is Joel, in 1 Sam. viii. 2; and Vashni, in 1
Chron. vi. 28.




APPENDIX  H.                             453
sacred text says nothing, but by the specification in Exod. xiii. 19, leaves it
to be inferred (?) that they were buried in Egypt. Josephus (Ant. ii. viii. 2)
relates that they were taken and buried in Hebron:  *  *  *  the Rabbinical traditions mentioned by Wetst. and Lightf. report them to have
been buried in Sychem.  *  *  *  These traditions probably Stephen
followed; and in haste or inadvertence classed Jacob with the rest. The
burying-place which Abraham bought was not at Sychem, but (Gen. xxiii.
3-20) at Hebron, and was bought of Ephron the Hittite.  It was Jacob who
(Gen. xxxiii. 19) bought a field where he had pitched his tent, near Sychem,
of the children of Hamor, Shechem's father: and no mention is made of
its being for a burying-place. The two incidents are certainly here confused;
and no ingenuity of the commentators has ever devised an escape from the
inference." Luger answers this common objection by pointing to the peculiar manner in which, as we have already seen, S. Stephen alludes to the
national history.  Abraham  bought the sepulchre near Mamre, and there
Jacob was buried (Gen. 1. 13); Jacob bought "a parcel of a field" at
Sychem, and there Joseph was buried (Josh. xxiv. 32). That is, Abraham
purchased a grave for Jacob; and so did Jacob for Joseph; and thus we
have an additional instance of the law of repetition above alluded to.
These two facts S. Stephen combines in a single phrase; and this same
system  of combination is constantly repeated throughout his address:e. g. cf. ver. 7, with Gen. xv. 13, 14, and Ex. iii. 12 (see, supra, p. 308,
note); cf., too, the statement of ver. 9. Compare, especially, the reference
of ver. 43,1 " I will carry you away beyond Babylon," with the denunciation
of Amos (v. 27) against the Ten Tribes: "Therefore will I cause you to
go into captivity beyond Damascus;"-in which words the deportation to
Assyria (2 Kings, xvii. 6), is alone spoken of.  Babylon, however, as the
Prophets declared, was to be the exile of disobedient Judah; and both
denunciations are here combined by S. Stephen. So also in the passage
before us, it is, with similar brevity, implied that Jacob was laid in the
grave which Abraham  had purchased in Hebron,' Gen. xxiii. 19; 1. 13;
1 It may be well to allude to the substitution of Remphan, or Rephan ('Peafrv), in
this verse, for the "Chiun, r1:" of Amos, v. 26. Of this, two explanations are
given: —(1) Chiun-Saturn; Kircher ("(Edip. 2Egypt," t. i. p. 384) having proved
the existence of a Coptic word,'Pifav or'Pebdv (by which all Versions render the
"Chiun" of Amos), which also stands for Saturn. (2)'PT(iv- ]^; and the LXX.,
who give'PaL(iv, had this reading instead of 1]r,-'  standing for D. See Hengstenberg, "Beitriage," ii. s. 110 ff., and Winer, "Real-Worterb.," art. Saturn.
2 This explanation has been given, in substance, by Bishop Kidder, in his
"Demonstration of the Messias," Part ii. p. 86, &c.; where he also answers another
objection hinted at by Mr. Alford, who writes on ver. 14:-" In the Hebrew text,
Gen. xlvi. 27; Exod. i. 5; Deut. x. 22, seventy souls are reckoned, viz., sixty-six born
of Jacob, Jacob himself, Joseph, and his two sons born in Egypt. So also Josephus,
Ant. ii. vii. 4; vi. v. 6. But the LXX., whom Stephen follows, insert in Gen. xlvi. 20
an account of the children and grandchildren of Manasseh and Ephraim, five in number; and in ver. 27 read tuvXai e,36o/lKovrTa'treVT-reckoning, as it appears, curiously
enough, among the sons of Joseph, Joseph himself, and Jacob; for these are required to
make up the nine according to their ver. 20." Bishop Kidder considers " that Moses
designs to give an account of Jacob's whole family, or such as' came out of his loins,'
Gen. xlvi. 6-8, and ver. 26; in order that by comparing the small number who went
down to Egypt, with the great number who came out of that land, the protection of
God might be the more manifest. Hence he does not include the wives of Jacob's sons,
enumerating merely Jacob, his sons, and also Joseph's sons, which were born him in




454                           APPENDIX  I.
and Joseph in the possession which Jacob had purchased at Sychem, Gen.
xxxiii. 19; Josh. xxiv. 32.
APPENDIX I.; THE CAPTAIN OF THE LORD'S HOST."
(LECTURE III.-PAGE 127.)
DR. MILL'S note on "The Captain of the Lord's Host" (Josh. v. 13-15)
is as follows:" The question now proposed is this. Whether of these two, the Uncreated or the created Angel, the Angel of Exod. xxiii. 20, or that of
xxxiii. 2, is he who appeared to Joshua on the plain of Jericho, and announced himself as come to him in the character of' Captain of the host
of the Lord' This is stated with other biblical questions by Theodoret,
in the fourth century, as one debated among Christians: and he answers,
on the ground of the last-cited passage of Exodus, on the latter side, against
some, apparently a minority in the Church, who asserted the former. Quaest.
iv. in Jesum filium  Naue.  Tiva VO)TEOV lV' A p X t  r p adr 7y o v
- i  6 v v a  e     g K v p i o v; Trveg  aa, rbv Oebv A60yov 6(Q6Ovac.'EyT  6d ol'at MtXa, -robv'ApXdyyErov ebvat' rvitea yap e-nrspyei2aav,
6 7T-V;ov'qrl Be Og  ov 7 J  avvavaf3(  era a ov d t a T   Tr    O    X a   bv
crK1X7POTrpda%1     Xov eltva'  dXXL' drroaTreXO;             bv a y eX6v  p0ov 7rpb  7rpoa 7rrov  aov  rrpoTep6v  aov.   ToiVTov
oltat viv 6006rvat T-I'Iraoov rTapaOappvvovTa Kcai -Tv Oeiav f3or6eetav
rrpooajtaivovra.  [Opera, ed. Schulze, tom. I. p. 308.]  What Theodoret
here expresses as his own opinion, is that which (with two remarkable exceptions which shall be presently noticed) has received the sanction of the
ancient Church."
"The same is also the oldest tradition of the Jews, as exemplified in
Jonathan's Chaldean paraphrase of the passage in Joshua, where the Captain of God's host is twice termed  "' rp In rmb'maN' an Angel sent from
the presence of the Lord,' an expression incompatible with the belief that
he comprised that Presence in his own person."  *  *  *
"Agreeably to this view, we do not find that the Christian Fathers,
when speaking, as they frequently do, of the Son of God as appearing in
Egypt" (see vv. 26 and 27). But take now the words and the design of S. Stephen.
He does not confine himself to those who came "out of Jacob's loins:"-he plainly
includes all those whom Joseph called into Egypt. " Then sent Joseph and called his
father to him, and all his kindred, threescore and fifteen souls." " Moses tells us how
many Jacob and his seed amounted to; omitting his sons' wives. Stephen tells us how
many they were that Joseph called into Egypt." Some, therefore, in the list of Moses,
must be left out of the number given by S. Stephen. Joseph and his two sons could
not be said to be called into Egypt; still less could Hezron and Hamul, the sons of
Phares (Gen. xlvi. 12), who were not yet born. Besides, Jacob too must be considered apart. Hence six persons are to be deducted from the number of Moses (viz. Jacob, Joseph and his two sons, with Hezron and Hamul), in order to find those who
are reckoned by S. Stephen:-and hence sixty-four only are common to both. Add
now the eleven wives of the sons of Jacob, and we get the number seventy-five given
by S. Stephen.




APPENDIX  I.                          455
the Old Testament, and as the special object of the provocation of the
Israelites,-include this appearance to Joshua among the Oeoadvetat. But
to this there are two distinguished exceptions.  The one is Justin Martyr,
who, after describing the appearance to Moses in the bush, says [Dial. cum
Tryphore, p. 183, ed. Jebb], Mapr-ptov 68 IaZ ao d2o VlUv, ( OiUot, drTT
TrSv ypa9V 6(S Joa, OTL dpXnv npo.wdav-ov -Jrv KTlldraTOV O E60O yeyevV7tce A 6vafLv -rtva  E: eav-rov XoyLiqv, 17TLt Kcai Ao6a Kvpiov VOrro Tro
HvevparTOf TOV dylov tKaZeLat, T7OT-  6e Trl, 7iOTi'  6e Zopia, oro-E 6de'Ayye0og, Tro-r 6de Oe4O, rroT-r 6e K'vptog icai A6yo' ro  *  O    6 e' A pXt   
TpadTryov  Eavrov Xsyet, Ev davOpWirov  t o>poF    pavevr a T O  T o  N a v i' I r a o.-The other is Eusebius, who, in the
second prefatory chapter to his Ecclesiastical History,' concerning the preexistence and Divinity of our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ,' adds to the
indubitable instances of His manifestation as the sole image of God to
man, this revelation of himself as Leader of the Army of God: relating
the appearance at length friom  the LXX. version of Joshua, and arguing
the identity of the person manifested with Him who appeared to Moses,
from the command to both to loose the sandals from their feet, because the
place on which they stood was sanctified by that Presence. Against this
sentiment of Eusebius an ancient annotator has inserted in the margin this
remarkable protest, preserved on account of its antiquity and its elegance
of style by Valesius ad loc.'AXX' 0f ecKrKcTaia, o) ayt-rare EvaE3te,
erepog -ra TrepC T-o7rov votiet Ka cal o    vX ~5 TO' bv tiEv yiiap Ev  j  draTi)
favev-Ta -Tr  Movay Oeo0 oyeZ' -TO  6e Ev'IeptC 5 T' fIer' avi)rv obOeva,
rTv TrV'Ef3paiov,rntaraaiav iax6ova, Fdxataav ETraaFevov, tcal T7r'ILraov Xvioat rpoarTTrov-ra rT virr6or'ia, TOVrOV 68 ye rTv dpXayye)ov
iV7rreiXle MtXaL' ical 6i~ov 6-rt apeT-rrov OT  Vreitrlqbe oo    r6toOev; EpO)T7e0i  nrapa Tr 13d-rp  favei b6 Oeq  Ev eL6et rTvp4o  - T( ~avTO   0epdrrovTl
Mwvoa, tcal dr6iX)v oTorl e vl, TOVTO avTr TrpavrTaTra lraptorT, OTL 6I O
6eb  EaTitv. o 6s Ti''Iraov fqaverS, oV6~ Oebv EavTbv, ad2''ApXtarpdTryov 65v6,aa(e TOV Oeo *' -TOVTO 6e TO aci;ofa Trq avo)TdaT-  6vvaoa-,ta  re
cat Oe6TrTo7g V-7o6ea7Tepov Ov, Ical o iv x    p X t c o v a' iv n a p X i -
K   v.  [Euseb. H. E. Tomr. I. pp. 17, 18, ed. Heinichen.]"
" The interpreter of Scripture has to choose between the reasons of this
anonymous writer, supported as they are by the unquestionably true allegation of general Catholic consent, and those of the learned historian on
whom he is commenting.  That this Angel, in describing his name and
dignity to Joshua, so far fiom exhibiting any analogy with the assertion of
Supreme Deity in Exod. iii. 6, gives a name implying only a ministerial
superintendence, is undeniable: (for to say that the chief of the army of
the LORD must be the LORD Himself is the same as saying that the captain
of the guard, the chief of the butlers and of the bakers, all denoted by the
same world o   in Gen. xxxix., xl., must mean Pharaoh the sovereign of all.)
And the impression of this signal difference can only be removed by the
most distinct proof that the act commanded severally in Exod. iii. 5, and
Josh. v. 15, was in both instances similarly referred to the immediate speaker,
and that an honor and obeisance were rendered to the latter by Josnua,
beyond what is allowed to any created being.  *  *  *  But as, with the
example of all the earlier as well as the later Scriptures before us, it seems
most natural and obvious to conceive that the LORD sent this message to




456                          APPENDIX J.
Joshua (cf. vi. 2) by the mouth of his Archangel, so there seems no derogation to the Divine honor in believing, with the Fathers of old, that the
ground was hallowed which was trodden by such an exalted servant of
God,-and that the prostrate adoration of Joshua, like that of Daniel before the angel in Dan. x. 15' (if it were such), was directed, not to the
Captain of the LORD'S host, but to the LORD of Hosts who sent him.
"With respect to the identity of this,     -n -'~s'~  with Michael, to
whom the same title of ot is given in Dan. x. 13, 21, xii. 1 (there translated Prince), it is sufficiently established by the functions ascribed to the
latter in that book and in the Apocalypse, as well with respect to the
celestial host, as to the people of God whom he defends. But there is one
species of testimony to this identity too remarkable to be overlooked,
though not proposed to be followed or imitated. The same divines of the
foreign reformation, who contend for the Prince of the LORD'S host in
Joshua being no less than the Second Person of the Ever-blessed Trinity,
are most commonly impelled by the same process of argument to predicate
the same of the Archangel Michael also.  The process may be seen by
consulting the notes of Masius and Drusius on this place of Joshua; the
latter of whom  however shrinks, as he well may, from  asserting that
Michael (called in Dan. x. 13, one of the Primary chiefs, tantrr -rih
VtNi~l. ), always denotes the Uncreated Word."
APPENDIX J.
N A B I,-R O E H,-C H O Z E H.
(LECTURE IV.-PAGE 158.)
THERE is, perhaps, no single point in the exegesis of the Old Testament
respecting which the information to be gleaned from critics is so meagre,
and so unsatisfactory, as that relating to the distinction which subsists between
the terms, rn, t, asn.  That a distinction does exist is unquestionable.
This we learn chiefly from the Books of Chronicles; in which the author
has on all occasions assigned, with such particularity, his official title to
each person named.  E. g., "The acts of David the king, first and last,
behold they are written in the book of Samuel the seer (rnrn); and in the
book of Nathan the prophet (Razz), and in the book of Gad the seer
(ntrhn)."-1 Chron. xxix. 29.  Cf. also, Nathan "the prophet," and Iddo
"the seer."-2 Chron. ix. 29.  Shemaiah "the prophet" and Iddo "the
seer."-2 Chron. xii. 15.  Isaiah "the prophet, the son of Amoz."-2
Chron. xxvi. 22.
Witsius observes: —"Quenam  ergo inter hae tria nomina significationis est diversitas?  Enimvero fateor me ignorare."' Carpzovius contents
himself with stating that the learned profess ignorance on the subject;
quoting a conjecture of Vitringa which explains nothing, and which is des"But respecting the quality of this obeisance, see Mr. Todd's remarks in p. 138,,not. e of his fourth Lecture on Antichrist."' "MiscelL Sacra," lib. i. cap. 1, ~ 19.




APPENDIX  J.                               457
titute of support.'  Winer merely says:-" All three names, Nabi, Roeh,
Chozeh, occur together, but applied to different individuals, in 1 Chron.
xxix. 29.  In the Books of Chronicles this distinction is, in general, observed, and Samuel is named Roeh; Gad, Chozeh; and Nathan, Nabi."2
Dr. Moses Stuart has thought fit to speak contemptuously of any attempt
to explain the use of any of these terms, and denies the existence of any
distinction at all!3 The following remarks may, perhaps, serve to express
how the case really stands.
Havernick4 (who considers that Roeh and Chozeh have the same signification) clearly proves that Nabi has a meaning peculiar to itself, and
that it invariably expresses the official title of the prophets of God. On
the other hand, the word nl (and, according to Havernick,,nxi), denotes
"the act of receiving a single revelation (cf. the New Testament phrase
daroKadvLbtv'XeLv —1 Cor. xiv. 26), but not the particularfunction."  Of
this distinctive use of Nabi he gives the following examples. In 2 Kings,
xvii. 13, we read: " The Lord testified against Israel and against Judah by
the hand of all His Prophets (nio ), and of every kind of seers (ntm-b:):"
— i. e. the prophets, as public teachers of the people, gave their testimony
in Israel; but, at the same time, other private individuals also received
communications from  God,-the personal pronoun pointing out the distinction between the official prophets and ordinary seers.  (" Here the
words are rendered according to the' kethib.' The Masorets omitted the
pronoun because mnh has no suffix; and they were either ignorant of, or
did not observe, the distinction between the two ideas.") Again, 1 Sam.
xxviii. 6, the Lord answered Saul, " Neither by dreams [i. e.-employing
part of the idea for the whole-by the non-official seers, brth], nor by
UJrim [i. e. by the High Priest; cf. the case of Caiaphas, supra, p. 202,
note ], nor by prophets [i. e. by the official agents of the Theocracy]."
Isaiah, too, has no less clearly pointed out the distinction: " The Lord hath
poured out upon you the spirit of deep sleep, and hath closed your eyes,
I "Quanquam autem nonnihil discriminis inter haec tria vocabula intercedere, ex
1 Chron. xxix. 29, satis appareat *  *  *  quod sane casu, aut temere factum,
nemo facile dixerit: ipsum tamen discrepantiae momentum, in quo versetur cardine,
doctissimi virorum se ignorare fatentur. *  *  *  Vero itaque paulo videtur similius
lrMT proprie esse eKcaTaTKrov, qui oculos mentis in rem, contemplationi suae oblatam,
alte defigit, et vultu immoto in ejus intuitu haeret, I Reg. vi. 11; que omnis vis non
est in voce Alnx, quippe quee simpliciter notat qualficunque rei speciem in phantasia
descriptam videre, non in ecstasi tantum, sed et per quietem Gen. xxxi. 10; xli. 22,
vocisque adeo nri, latiorem esse significationem; quse Vitringae erudita est hariolatio
in' Typo doctrince prophetica,' cap. i. ~ 3, p. 4, quod tamen discrimen in Scriptura ubivis
servari, ipse vir clariss. pro certo affirmare non audet. * * * Unde satis, opinor,
constat esse quidem  aliquod inter hec vocabula aeque ac munia discrimen, quod
tamen, quale sit, hodie ignoretur."-Introd. ad Libros  Canon. V. T., par. iii.
cap. i. ~ 2.' "Real-Wdrterbuch," art. Propheten.
3 " Hivernick," writes Dr. Stuart, "has labored at length to show that even the
Scriptures themselves make a distinction-a palpable one-between s",, a prophet, —
rm'r or nT,r a seer. Labor surely bestowed in vain. *  *  *  How easy to have
prevented such a mistake as he has made, by duly consulting a Hebrew Concordance.
Had he done this, he must have seen that Nabi, and Roeh, or Chozeh are undistinguishingly (!) used to designate the very same individuals."-The Old T'est. Canon,
p. 254.
4 "Einleitung," Th. L Abth. i. s. 56 ff




458                            APPENDIX  J.
the prophets (b:^:,nn); and hath veiled your heads, the seers (::ttn)."xxix. 10; where Isaiah, as appears from the principle of "parallelism," has
cleaily two distinct classes of persons in view; the seers being termed
heads," inasmuch as they were usually leading personages in the Theocracy, either kings or priests.  Observe, David " the king" is never called
Nabi.'
Now, while fully adopting the principle that bat: is a distictintive term,
censtingr those "mIen of God" who were officially prophets, and, therefore,
couveying an idea altogether different from that expressed by trm, —I must
dissent from the other branch of Havernick's conclusion, viz., that nsrn and
nvm are synonymous.  On the contrary, the term nam, is, I submit, simply
equiv.llent to so:, and, consequently, as distinct from  rnt  as:*,N itself.
Thls appears ftom the statement of I Sam. ix. 9, where the term Roeh first
oLcu! s as applied to an agent of God:-" Beforetime in Israel, when a man
we!t to inquire of God, thus he spake, Come, and let us go to the seer:
for he that is now called a prophet (:ev>) was beforetime called a seer
(;ns-)."-words which expressly state that Roeh was merely the ancient title
assignled, in popular usage, to the official Nabi.  The usage of the Old Testament fully confirms this view.  Samuel (to whom the title sn: is given,
I Sam. iii. 20;' 2 Chron. xxxv. 18) calls himself "the seer" (nmirn) in
1 Sam. ix. 19; and such, in, general, is his title throughout the Books of
Chronicles, viz., 1 Chron. ix. 22; xxvi. 28; xxix. 29.  The term  ntm  is
nowhere applied to him.  The only other individual to whom  the title
Roeh is given in the Old Testatament is Hanani, who is called,nxsn in 2
Chron. xvi. 7, 10.
Let us now turn to the term  ntn.  In the first place, Roeh is distinguished from it precisely in the same manner as Nabi: " Which say to the
seers (t3a'1), See not; and to the prophets (:mth), Prophesy not (itn-m)
unto us right things," &c.,-Isaiah, xxx. 10, a passage where the distinction
is quite lost in the English Version, but which is exactly parallel to Isaiah
xxix. 10, already quoted.  In the next place Chozeh and Nabi are both
applied to Jehu, the son of Hanani; who is called Nabi in I Kings, xvi. 7,
12, and Chozeh in 2 Chron. xix. 2.  The only other instance in which
these titles are interchanged is that of Gad, who is called Nabi in 1 Sam.
xxii. 5; while he is described as "the prophet (Nabi) Gad, David's seer
(Chozeh)," in 2 Sam. xxiv. 11.  Gad is in like manner called "David's
seer," 1 Chron. xxi. 9; and "the King's seer," 2 Chron. xxix. 25.  In 1
Chron. xxix. 29, he is simply styled " the seer." With respect to these apThis official position seems also indicated by the duties which the prophet (by=")
discharged. Thus, at stated times, the people were wont to assemble to hear his
words and admonitions. The Shunamite's husband said to her, "Wherefore wilt
thou go to him  [Elisha] to-day? it is neither new moon, nor sabbath."-2 Kings,
iv. 23. We are told that "Elisha sat in his house, and the elders sat with him."vi. 32. The "Elders of Judah," and the " Elders of Israel" came to Ezekiel and "sat
before him."-viii. 1; xiv. 1. We also read:- "And they come unto thee as the
people cometh, and they sit before thee as My people, and they hear thy words, but
they will not do them."-Ezek. xxxiii. 31. Cf. too, the obvious reference to the
official position of the >x": in the following passages:-Jer. xiv. 18; Amos, vii. 14;
Ps. lxxiv. 9; Dan. ix. 24; and in many other places.
" "All Israel, from Dan even to Beersheba, knew that Samuel was established to
be a Prophet (,x\::) of the Lord."




APPENDIX K.                           459
parent exceptions, adopting Havernick's premises, I again dissent from his
inference as to the manner in which they are to be explained. The case
of Gad affords the clue to the difficulty; as it clearly indicates that, attached to the royal establishment, there was usually an individual styled
" the king's seer" (who might at the same time be a Nabi), by whom the
Lord was wont to reveal His will on any emergency, and by whose instrumentality the king could seek for the Divine assistance.  Thus we read of
"the seers (trmn) that spake to Manasseh, in the name of the Lord God
of Israel."-2 Chron. xxxiii. 18. With respect to the application of the
title Chozeh to Jehu, son of Hanani, everything, as in the case of Gad, denotes that it was in his capacity of "king's seer" that he went out to meet
Jehoshaphat: "And Jehu, the son of Hanani, the seer went out to meet
him, and said to king Jehoshaphat, Shouldst thou help the ungodly?
Nevertheless there are good things found in thee," &c.-2 Chron. xix. 2.
Hence, therefore, I infer that both Gad and Jehu were officially prophets:
and that each also filled the office of Chozeh in the royal household.
(Iavernick considers that Gad was not, properly speaking, a Nabi at all:
he does not consider the case of Jehu.')
If the foregoing remarks have any weight, the titles Roeh and Nabi
equally point out the official prophet (the former term being merely the
archaic and popular designation of an office which had been defined from
the very first by Moses,-see, supra, p. 156, note 2): while by Chozeh are
indicated those individuals who occasionally, or for some specific purpose,
were chosen to convey a communication from God; and, who possessed
the prophetic gift, but not the prophetic office:-e. g. the authors of sacred
poetry, such as Asaph (2 Chron. xxix. 30) are so called. And hence the
Nabi might be styled Chozeh, but not conversely.
APPENDIX K.
C SPIRITUAL GIFTS, I. COR. Xii.-xiV.
(LECTURE V.-PAGE 224.)
IN the following remarks it is not by any means intended to enter upon
a minute inquiry into the nature of those Spiritual Gifts, or Charismata, so
often referred to in the New Testament, and especially in 1 Cor. xii., and
xiv. My object here is merely to illustrate the fact that there are such
" diversities of gifts," —even of the extraordinary gifts of the Holy Ghost,
-a fact which fully confirms, a fortiori, the conclusion that there also exists an absolute difference in kind between the Inspiration of Scripture, and
that ordinary operation of the Holy Spirit on the hearts of all Christians
to which the name Inspiration has likewise been assigned.
In the Apostolic age two contrary tendencies exhibited themselves,
which were afterwards developed into the Gnostic,2 and Montanist systems.
The former resulted from that effort of the mind of the ancient world, in
Havernick proves that "Iddo the seer,"-2 Chron. xii. 15, and "the prophet
Iddo,"-2 Chron. xiii. 22, are different persons.-loc. cit. s. 59.
2 Cf. dvrtOiffae rT7'rev6coviuov yv5Jewf.-1 Tim. vi. 20.




460                          APPENDIX K.
its yearnings after knowledge and dissatisfaction with the present, to appropriate the treasures which the Gospel proffered to mankind;' it consequently aimed at incorporating into Christianity the existing elements of
mental culture.  The tendency of the latter system, on the other hand,
was to repel and abjure what was natural: its aim was to retain for ever
in the Church, in their primitive energy, all the elements of the Supernatural. The germs of this latter extreme are prominent in that abuse of
Spiritual Gifts against which S. Paul directs his warning in the chapters
under consideration. Everything connected with the operation of these
Spiritual Gifts is now involved in the darkest obscurity. S. Chrysostom,
who lived so many centuries nearer the Apostolic age than we do, confesses
his ignorance on the subject. His exposition of 1 Cor. xii. opens with the
remark:-" This entire passage is exceedingly obscure; an obscurity which
is caused as well by our ignorance of the facts, as by the circumstance that
what then took place happens no longer."2 He proceeds, however, to point
out, with great acuteness, some particulars which may guide us in applying
the Apostle's words. The abuse of Spiritual Gifts arose, he suggests, not
only from a spirit of envious rivalry among those who possessed the different Charismata,-an abuse not peculiar to the Corinthians, as we learn
from  Rom. xii. 6,-but also from  the fact that the system  of heathen
divination prevailed extensively in Corinth, with which the converts to
Christianity had been tempted to compare the Gifts of the Spirit of God.
Hence,3 the Apostle commences (xii. 1):-" Concerning the endowments
imparted by the Spirit (TZ)v nlvevtIaTlK5V) I would not have you ignorant.
Ye know that ye were Gentiles carried away unto these dumb idols.
Wherefore I give you to understand," &c. The Apostle, adds S. Chrysostom, does not broadly state his purpose, because he wrote to persons who
clearly understood his allusions: and to this absence of detail, throughout,
the obscurity of the passage is chiefly owing.
The nature of a "Spiritual Gift" (Xaptalu a), in general, has been well
defined by Neander to be "that predominant endowment (Tiichtigkeit) of
an individual in which the power and working of the Holy Ghost, Who
animates him, manifest themselves:-the favepoatLg roTi IlvevuaTro  (1
Cor. xii. 7) peculiar to each."   The comparison of the members of the
human body, of which the Apostle avails himself (1 Cor. xii. 12-27),
points out, moreover, that there was no capricious or arbitrary distribution of these qualifications, but a "regulated development of the New
Creation in a sanctified natural order."  In ch. xii. 4-6, before proceeding
to enumerate the distinct Charismata, S. Paul guards himself against any
possible misconception by expressly laying down that, distinct and diverse
though the Gifts may be, their source is still the same (see, supra, p. 223,
note 3)-viz., the Godhead Itself, to each Person of Which each particular
Charisma can be referred, under whatever external form it may have appeared to the observer.' This being premised, he proceeds, ver. 8-10, to
See Neander's "Anti-Guosticus," Einleit.
" In Epist. i. ad Cor. Homil. xxix.," t. x., p. 257.
3 At' Kai ipx6eZvof, rpSTOV Tb luiov /u av r e i a  K Ka X p o  71 r e i a   TirOlct.loc cit. p. 258.
"Geschichte der Pflanzung der christl. Kirche," B. i. s. 233, 4te. Aufi.
" On ver. 4, "Now there are diversities of Gifts, but the same Spirit," S. Chrysos.
tom writes:-" And first he attends on him that had the lesser Gift, and was grieved




APPENDIX  K.                              461
give a definite enumeration of nine distinct Gifts which he classifies under
three heads (which, however, by no means correspond to the three dtatpEIetl of ver. 4-6; since there, each member comprehends, as has been
said, all the Gifts): —the distinction being marked (1) ver. 8, by, Mv;
(2) ver. 9, by eTEp   6d5E; (3) ver. 10, again by er8ec,   68.  The change
from  adXX   to E7epW, whereby each new  catagory is introduced, places
this beyond doubt.  Meyer (in loc.) clearly exhibits this classification:I. Gifts which are to be referred to the intellectual powers: —(1) 2O7yo9
aoopia; (2)  o6yog yv6faeog.
II. Gifts of which the condition is the zealous exhibition of Faith:(1) TrTirTf itself.  (2) The efficiency of this Faith in acts, viz., a. Idtaara;
b. dvvduetL.  (3) The efficiency of this Faith in words, viz., TrpoqTlreia.
(4) Its efficiency in power of discernment, viz., ddaKpitatp  rrvevira-rov.
III. Gifts of tongues:-(1) speaking with tongues; (2) interpretation
of tongues.
This enumeration is preceded by the emphatic statement of the principle that "the manifestation of the Spirit is given to every man to profit
withal"-ver. 7: a statement which enables us to turn to ch. xiv., in which
S. Paul discusses the violation of this principle.l
Let us consider, for a moment, the manner in which one of the Gifts,
the Gift of Tongues, had been abused. An instance of this is given in ch.
xiv. 14, a verse which Mr. Alford well explains:" To rv. ftov,'my (own) spirit,' taking himself as an example, as above,
ver. 6: a use of the word familiar to our Apostle, and here necessary on
account of b vovg pov following.' When I pray in a tonyue, my higher
being, my spirit, filled with the Holy Ghost, is inflamed with holy desires,
and rapt in prayer: but my intellectual part, having no matter before it on
which its power can be exercised, bears no fruit to the edification of
others.' "    The Gift of Tongues had a twofold object:-the edification of
on this account.' For wherefore,' saith he,'art thou dejected? because thou hast not
received as much as another?' *  *  *  Wherefore he added,'but the same Spirit.'
So that even if there be a difference in the Gift, yet is there no difference in the Giver.
For from the same Fountain ye are drawing, both thou and he. *  *  *  Seest thou
(ver. 5, 6),-that he implies there being no difference in the Gifts of the Father, and
the Son, and the Holy Ghost?  *  *  *  For that which the Spirit bestows, this he
saith that God also works; this, that the Son likewise ordains and grants."-loc. cit.
p. 261. (Oxf. transl. p. 401.)
I The possibility of such abuse of Spiritual Gifts is declared by S. Paul himself
where he tells us that "the spirits of the prophets are subject to the prophets."xiv. 32. " Consider," observes Bishop Butler, "a person endued with any of these
Gifts; for instance, that of tongues: it is to be supposed that he had the same power
over this miraculous Gift as he would have had over it had it been the effect of habit,
of study, and use, as it ordinarily is; or the same power over it as he had over any
other natural endowment."-Analogy, Part ii. ch. iii.
2 Meyer correctly observes, that, as this passage proves, Trveva in ver. 2 "is not
to be understood of the objective Holy Spirit, but of the higher spiritual being of man
(opposed to the voiu [cf., supra, Appendix G, p. 446, note 2]); which, however, in
those who are inspired is filled by the Holy Spirit (Rom. viii. 16): and thus TrvevuaLr
aadteZv (ver. 2), means-"to speak by means of the activity of the higher consciousness raised above all concerns of life (iiberweltlichen) without the intervention of reflection."  What is uttered, therefore, is termed puvarT7pta,-i. e. its sense is hidden
from the hearers. On the other hand. Olshausen (in loc. s. 713) and Beck (" Propad.
Entwickl.," s. 232) consider that the state of ecstasy, proceeding from the impulse of
the Holy Spirit (cf. 2 Cor. xii. 2; Acts, xxii. 17), is intended:-7-rvEv/  piov (writes




462                              APPENDIX K.
the individual who possessed the gift (ver. 4); and to serve " for a sign to
them that believe not" (ver. 22). In the case described by the Apostle,
neither end was attained: the speaker's "understanding was unfruitful"
(ver. 14); and the Church was not edified (cf. ver. 5): "If, therefore, there
come in those that are unlearned (idiTrat-' plain believers,' i. e. not endowed with the Gift of Tongues, see ver. 16), or unbelievers, will they not
say that ye are mad?"-ver. 23.  As at Pentecost the charge of drunkenness had been brought, so the yXiaaaa  must sound to hearers now, as an
unmeaning jargon.  It is only when the Gifts of Class I. (ch. xii. 8, viz,
"the word of wisdom" and "the word of knowledge") are possessed that
any communication of religious truth can take place.
The Apostle, in short, teaches that general edification could only be
obtained  when  several of the single Gifts co-operated: either by their
combination in the same individual' (ver. 5 and 13); or when the Gift
possessed by one individual completed those possessed by others, as we learn
from ver. 26, &c. Finally, the principle, according to which all Scriptural
Gifts should be employed, is defined in the words, " God is not the author
of confusion but of peace" (ver. 33); and on it is founded the general
regulation, "Let all things be done unto edifying" (ver. 26), which S. Paul,
in the verses that follow, applies to the case before him.2
Olshausen on ver. 14)=r  IIv. 0ro/ En i  oi:-and these writers compare Xa2ei
pvo1rTpta with upi7ra p/iara —2 Cor. xii. 4.
"Let him that speaketh in an unknown tongue pray that he may interpret"
(ver. 13), i. e. pray for the Gift of interpretation, —va 6teptUIvevn. Meyer, on the
other hand, appealing to the connexion of n7ponei'yea6at (ver. 14), by ydp, to rrpooevxeaOo in ver. 13, translates, "Let him  pray with the view afterwards to expound
what he had spoken with the tongue."-" For if I pray with a tongue, my spirit
prayeth, but my understanding is unfruitful" (ver. 14). Mr. Alford thus explains
ver. 15: "'I will pray with the (my) spirit; I will pray also with my mind' (i. e. will
interpret my prayer for the benefit of myself and the Church), &c. This resolution
or expression of self-obligation evidently leads to the inference by and by clearly expressed, ver. 28, that if he could not pray T, voot, he would keep silence. areld] hence
we gather that the two departments in which the Gift of tongues was exercised
were prayer and praise.  On the day of Pentecost it was confined to the latter of
these."  (Observe that Tischendorf here omits y6p; and also reads simply ErTp), in
xii. 9, 10.)
2 Mr. Alford explains this application:-" Ver. 26, 7pato6v] most probably a hymn
of praise, to sing in the power of the Spirit, as did Miriam, Deborah, Simeon, &c., see
ver. 15. AtlaXrv] an'exposition of doctrine' or moral teaching: belonging to the
Gift of prophecy, as indeed do also bafIu. and d-oK(iavJLtv, the latter being something
revealed to him  to be prophetically uttered."  The general rule, ver. 26, "Let all
things be done unto edifying" is applied to the several gifts:-In ver. 27, 28, to the
speaking with tongues.  [Meyer explains ver. 27:-" KarTa 6do) &c. sc. ateiiroaav (as
v. 11, 16);-' Let him know that in any assembly two, or at the most three, are to
appear speaking with tongues:' —a)t div( tepog)-' and this, too, in succession, one
after the other, not several at once:'-Kai en'i dLepf.)'and let one (not several) state
the exposition:''unus aliquis, qui id donur  habet' (Grotius); and it appears from
ver. 13, that the speaker with a tongue might himself interpret.  Ver. 28,'but in
case no interpreter is present, let the speaker with tongues keep silence; in private devotion, let himt speak to himself and to God.' "]  Ver. 29-33 give the regulations as to
prophecy.  [Meyer on ver. 29.-"'Let the prophets speak two or three' (the dv~:
eipot, ver. 27, is rendered specially prominent, ver. 30), (ai o l iXAot d6a/,).)'and let
the other prophets (i. e. who do not come to speak) judge' (i. e. whether what has been
said proceeds or not fiom the Divine Spirit). Thus we see that the Charisma of' discerning of Spirits' (with which even those who were not prophets might be endowed),




APPENDIX  K.                               463
In the case of the Apostles this end was attained in the highest degree.
All possibility of abuse was precluded by the union, in their persons, of the
several Charismata. In their inward life personal consciousness (vowSf),
and spiritual activity (Tvev[a) co-operated.  S. Paul, who says that he
spoke with tongues more than all the others (ver. 18), had already stated,
"I will pray with the (my) spirit, and I will pray with the (my) understanding also" (ver. 15). In the Apostles their spontaneous feelings, and
their reception of the several Spiritual Gifts, were harmoniously and mutually balanced. The full energy of the Spirit was infused into each element
of their being, and was, therefore, apprehended with a clear consciousness..
Consequently, when they acted as instruments of God for the edification
of the universal Church, they were supplied with every needful qualification. To adopt S. Paul's own conclusion (xiv. 18, 19), their understanding
(vovg) was enlightened so as to be in perfect accordance with the S iritual
influence. For the attainment of this end the following gradation in the
conferring of Spiritual Gifts had been (as he points out in ver. 6) necessarily observed: —Revelations, or new  communications of Divine Truth
(a7roicai beipeg) had been conveyed to their minds; unclouded insight, and
clear perception (yvC(af) had next been granted; the power of expounding (Trporretia)l had also been conferred, and of expressing what others
could only utter in an unknown tongue; to all which had been added the
Gift of doctrinal application (6ddaxe).2  (See Beck, loc. cit., s. 234.)
Hence we perceive that, while in those who received the Gifts of the
Spirit in and for themselves, the separate Gifts (" the Spirit dividing to
every man severally as He will"-xii. 11) appeared singly, or two or more
combined (xii. 8-10);-nevertheless, in order to secure that such Charismata should be productive, in any degree, for general edification, several of
them  must have co-operated.  Taken singly, they were not designed to
propagate the Gospel; but, under due restrictions, to adorn it before the
world, and to support individual members of the Church during her early
struggles. Such was the case of the Tyrian prophets (Acts, xxi. 4), who
had hot "the word of knowledge" (cf. what has been said on this subject,
supra, p. 43); or of S. Philip who had " the Gift of healing" (Acts, viii. 6),
but who could not confer the Holy Ghost by the "laying on of hands"
(xii. 10), was in certain cases combined with the Gift of prophecy"]. Ver. 30.]
"'But if a Revelation shall have been made to another (prophet) while sitting by,
let the first (who was prophesying) hold his peace' (give place to the other: but
clearly not as ejected by the second in any disorderly manner: probably, by being
made aware of it, and ceasing his discourse). Ver. 31, 32.] He shows that the 6
rpn-rof o ) i'rT is no impossibility, but in their power to effect:' For ye have the
power, one by one, all to prophesy (i. e. you have vower to bring about this resultyou can be silent if you please), in order that all,' &c. 32.]'And' (not, for: but a
parallel assertion to the last,'Ye have power, &c., and') the spirits of (the) prophets
(i. e. their own spirits filled with the Holy Spirit) are subject to (the) prophets.' "
(See, supra, p. 461, note 1.)
1 Cf. S. Chrysostom's remark, quoted above, respecting the question which S. Paul
here discusses, with what we know of the nature of heathen divination (se, supra,
p. 84, and p. 193, note 1); and we can feel little doubt as to the sense in which the
Corinthians must have understood the word irpopyreia:-for to the mind of the
Gentile world the'rpuoiTj7r   was no more than the interpreter of the inspired
uv7TLC.' See, supra, p. 197, on the relation between Revelation and Prophecy, knowledge
and teaching.




464                          APPENDIX  L.
(ver. 14, 15); or, again, of the other inferior teachers "Judas and Silas,
who being prophets also themselves, exhorted the brethren with many
words and confirmed them."-Acts, xv. 32.  With respect to this last Gift,
special care was requisite:-so much so that the distinct Charisma of " discerning of spirits" was added for the purpose of checking any abuse. Thus
S. Paul wrote to the Thessalonians: "Quench not the Spirit: despise not
prophesyings: prove all things —avT-ra 6' 6 o ic t d'E r E." (1 Thess. v.
19-21); words which, as the context shows, can only refer to the dtdKparat
rvevL-arUwv of 1 Cor. xii. 10; and to which S. John also alludes: "Beloved, believe not every spirit; but try (doKctldere) the spirits whether
they are of God; because many false prophets are gone out into the world."
-1 S. John, iv. 1.  "It was only in the Apostles," writes Olshausen on 1
Col. xiv. 29, " that the power of the Spirit revealed itself with an energy
so mighty, and of so many aspects, that all error was removed. In their case
alone one Gift immediately completed another, so that their expressions were
subjected to no further 6da'ptaotc."-Commentar, B. iii. s. 728.
It follows from the foregoing remarks as an additional, and no less important, result, that, notwithstanding the preservation of the human element
in the composition of the different portions of Scripture, ample provision
was made for securing to the sacred writers perfect freedom from error of
every kind. And this was effected by means of the principle that the distinc Charismata co-operated, whenever the general edification of the Church
required. See, supra, Lecture vii. p. 329.
APPENDIX L.
THE ORIGIN  OF THE SYNOPTICAL GOSPELS.
(LECTURE VII.-PAGE 295.)
THE following statement of the different theories which have been proposed for the purpose of accounting for the " origin" of the Gospels, unaccompanied as it is by any comment, will, perhaps, of itself justify the
remarks in which I have alluded (p. 295, &c.) to this branch of criticism.
I am far from insinuating that the several hypotheses are on a par in point
of ingenuity, or of literary merit; but it can scarcely be asserted that any
among them  possesses much superiority over its fellows on the score of
probability.
I. The hypothesis that the Evangelists made use of a common document or common documents.l
Without dwelling upon the various hints thrown out in the different
works which have appeared between more recent times and the days of Le
Clerc, who first suggested the idea of a common Greek source of the Synoptical Gospels; or of Lessing, who (in 1778) conceived the idea of a
common Syriac or Chaldaic original,-it will be sufficient to start from the
See Marsh's " Dissertation on the Origin and Composition of our three first Gospels," to be found in vol. iii. part 1, of his translation of Michaelis' "Introduction to
the New Testament." Also Ebrard's " Wissenschaftliche Kritik der evang. Geschichte,"
a 5 ff.




APPENDIX  L.                             465
hypothesis of Eichhorn, with whom the modern aspect of the question may,be fairly said to have commenced.
Eichlhorn at first assumed the existence of an " Original Gospel" in the
Aramaic dialect. A particular recension of this document (which he named
A) was the basis of the Gospel of S. Matthew.  To a second recension,
B, S. Luke's Gospel owes its origin. A third, C, arising from a comparison
of A and B, was employed by S. Mark.  In fine, S. Mark and S. Luke, in
addition to these distinct sources, both made use of a fourth recension, D,
with which S. Matthew had not been acquainted.
According to this hypothesis, A, B, C, and D, were written in Aramaic;
it afforded, consequently, no explanation of the agreement of the Evangelists in single Greek expressions (e. g. 7rrepVytov rTO  iepoV, S. Matt. iv. 5;
S. Luke, iv.'9; E'rtovaLto?, S. Matt. vi. 11; S. Luke, xi. 3, &c.)  To meet
this difficulty, Bishop Marsh' suggested another hypothesis "compared
with which the former appears as an innocent child." (Ebrard.) He assumed (1) an Aramaic original document x. (2) A translation of this into
Greek,.  (3) This latter document with certain additions (++A+a).
(4) A variation of this ( +B+ i).  (5) A combination of Nos. (3) and
(4) was the foundation of S. Mark's Gospel ( i+A+B+a +).  (6)
No. (3), with  other additions, was the foundation of S. Matthew's
( +A + r a+y).  (7) No. (4), with other additions, was the foundation of S. Luke's (ri + B + r +P  + y).  (8) An auxiliary document = was
employed by S. Matthew and S. Luke.  "The genealogy, when simplified,"
writes Ebrard, "appears thus:"
K
K+m  +n
R+m+r                 RI+m+n             +, -n+r
S. Matthew.           S. Mark.               S. Luke.
Where m=A+a, n=B+03, r=r+y+:.
"Since this hypothesis," continues Ebrard, "was evidently still far too
simple, Eichhorn devised a second:"
1. An Aramaic document.
2. Its Greek translation (=a).
3.=A. A recension of 1.-S. Matthew.
4.=A  Greek translation of 3, in which 2 was made use of (=a')..
5.=B. Another recension of 1.-S. Luke.
6.=C. A document resulting from A and B.-S. Mark.
7.=-D. A third recension of 1.-S. Matthew and S. Luke.
1 "Let u denote all those parts of the XLII. general sections, which are contained;
in all three Evangelists [see, supra, p. 295]. Let a denote the additions made to D in
the Gospels of S. Matthew and S. Mlark, but not in that of S. Luke. f.. The additions made to X in the Gospels of S. Mark and S. Luke, but not in that of S. Matthew. y. The additions made to X in the Gospels of S. Matthew and S. Luke, but
not in that of S. Mark. A. Whole sections found in the Gospels of S. Matthew and'
S. Mark, but not in that of S. Luke. B. Whole sections found in the Gospels of S.
Mark and S. Luke, but not in that of S. Matthew. r. Whole sections found in the
Gospels of S. Matthew and S. Luke, but not in that of S. Mark."'-Marsh's Dissertation, p. 148.
30




466                         APPENDIX L.
8.=A translation of D, in which 2 was made use of (=6).
9.=E. An Aramaic Gospel of S. Matthew (A+D).
10. The Greek form of S. Matthew, arising from E, with an abridgment
of 4 and 8.
11. S. Mark, arising from C; use having been made of 4 and 5.
12. S. Luke, the result of B and 8.
Simplified, the matter stands thus:ma
A-a              B             d- D
S. Mark.   S. Luke.
v,.
S. Matthew in Greek.
S. Matthew in Hebrew.
II. Such views having soon lost favor with critics, it was next attempted
to explain the convergence of the Gospels by assuming that each Evangelist was acquainted with, and made use of, the Gospel or Gospels which
had been written earlier than his own.  The question, however, at once
arose, in what order did this take place? and hence, from the very nature
of the case, this hypothesis branched into six divisions, each of which has
had its advocates:1. S. Matt., the first.  S. Mark, the second.  S. Luke, the third.'
2. S. Matt., "  "    S. Luke, "    "       S. Mark, "   "
3. S. Mark, "  "    S. Matt., "    "       S. Luke, "   "
4. S. Mark, "  "    S. Luke, "    "        S. Matt., "   "
5. S. Luke, "  "    S. Matt., "    "       S. Mark,"   "
6. S. Luke, "        S.S. Mark,"    "      S. Matt., "   "
III. The third hypothesis, although suggested at an earlier period, owes
its celebrity chiefly to the learned essay of Gieseler, so often quoted in the
preceding pages-" Historisch-kritischer Versuch iber die Enstehung und
die frihesten Schicksale der schriftlichen Evangelien," Leipzig, 1818.  In
it Gieseler maintained that, for several years after our Lord's death, the
Apostles,-at least the majority of them,-lived together at Jerusalem.
The events of their Master's life, as well as his discourses, naturally formed
a constant subject of their conversation; and thus, mutually aiding each
other's reminiscences, facts and doctrines became fixed in their memory.
Hence arose apermanent type of oral teaching, diversified by the private
recollections of the different Apostles: and from this traditional source the
Gospels in process of time were reduced to their present written form.2
It is unnecessary to recount how later writers (e. g. Olshausen, "Bibl.
1 Townson and Hug advocate this aspect of the present hypothesis.
2 It may be well to mention here the just remark of Thiersch ("Versuch der
Herstell.," s. 120), that this theory of Gieseler, according to which the composition
of the Gospels has been brought down to the latest possible period consistently with
historical statements, has formed the point of transition to the mythical hypothesis of
Strauss.




APPENDIX M.                          467
Comment." B. i. Einleit., ~ 3) have combined this " Tradition-theory" with
that of the successive use, by the Evangelists, of the earlier written
Gospels.
In addition to the preceding, the following theory has lately been proposed:"1st. Several of the Apostles, including Matthew, Peter, and John,
committed to writing accounts of the transactions of our Lord and his
Disciples in the language spoken by them, i. e. Syro-Chaldaic or Aramaic,
known in the New Testament and the works of the Fathers as Hebrew.
"2d. When the Apostles were driven by persecution, from Judea, a
history of the life of our Lord was drawn up from the original memoirs,
in Hebrew and in Greek, by the Apostle Matthew, for the use of the Jewish
converts-the Greek being the same as the Gospel according to Matthew.
"3d. S. Luke drew up, for the use of Theophilus [but see, supra, Lecture vii. p. 293, note'], a new life of our Lord, founded upon the authority
of eye-witnesses and ministers of the Word, —including the Hebrew memoir
of Peter, and the Greek Gospel of Matthew.
"4th. After Peter's death, or departure from Rome (Eodov), S. Mark
translated the memoir, written by Peter, into Greek.
"5th. John, at a still later period, composed his Gospel from his own
original memoirs, omitting much that was already narrated by the other
Evangelists, for reasons assigned by himself (xxi. 25)."'
APPENDIX M.
DID S. MATTHEW WRITE IN GREEK?
(LECTURE VIII.-PAGE  342.)
" IF any statement of the ancients," observes Thiersch, " can lay claim
to our confidence as being primitive, universal, and never contested, it is
this — that Matthew wrote his Gospel in the Hebrew language. On this
point all writers, including those best informed, are agreed: but as to how
the Greek copy, received in the universal Church, has come into existence,
they leave us (to all appearance at least) strangely in the dark. In its
place the Apocryphal Gospel of the Hebrews-that Proteus of criticismlets itself be seen in enigmatically changing forms, and is by many of
the Hebrew Christians asserted to be the original document written by
Matthew."
Such appears to be the natural result to which external evidence leads
when we inquire as to the original form of our Gospel; ond which, notwithstanding the ingenious efforts of Hug3 to prove that S. Matthew never
wrote in Hebrew, is generally received by critics as the only legitimate
conclusion.
The evidence maybe briefly stated:-We learn from Eusebius (iii. 39),
that S. Papias, bishop of Hierapolis, (cire. A. D. 110 —'Iadvvov iev
I " Dissertation on the Origin and Connexion of the Gospels," by James Smith, Esq.
of Jordan Hill, F. R. S., p. xxv. London: 1853.
" Versuch der Herstell.," s. 186.     3 "Einleitung," Th. ii s. 14 fft




468                            APPENDIX  M.
daovari'f, IIovrctaprrov 6de  ira7po —S. Irenseus, lib. v. xxxiii. p. 333) was
the author of a work wherein several particulars were detailed respecting
the contemporaries of the Evangelists, and the composition of the Gospels;
and in which "John the Presbyter"' was referred to as the chief authority.
The statement of S. Papias commences thus, Kal ToV0' o 7rpea3vTepog
Gxeye, and it proceeds to describe the origin of S. Mark's Gospel.  Tavira
pev o'v, adds Eusebius, taT6praT  TU llaTia  repi TOY Mdptov. repi 6s
TroV MarOaiov raTr' eLpwrat' MaTrOaZogf uv ovv'Efpaidt dtaxlT-ro   ra
o6yea avvera-aro. rjptrvevave d' av'Tra' ic  lv dvva-Og [s,'dVva-o]'tcaoTog.-(ap. Routh. "Rel. Sacrae," vol. i. p. 13.)  This passage,2 which must
be regarded as the keystone of the controversy, may be designated (A).
S. Irenaeus writes:'-'O ~    ev d6   MarOaiof Ev rTo7'E3paiotq Tidi a  6 ta       a  KT     av T( &v, icaL  ypay'jIv Eqiveyucev  Evayyeiov,
7TV iEllpov tcal TOV IIaviov ev'P6uJ       evayyeXtiotvwov, icai OetmeXLovTr)v -Trv eiKKtyaiav.-Cont. Hcer. lib. II. c. i., p. 174.
There are many other vouchers for this fact. E. g. Origen (ap. Euseb.
"Hist. Eccl.," lib. vi. c. 25, p. 290.; of. Origen's " Comm. in Joann.," t. iv.
p. 132); Eusebius himself (" Hist. Eccl.," lib. iii. c. 24, p. 116); and S.
Jerome in several places, of which the following must for the present suffice:-   Matthaeus  *  *  *  primus in Judaa propter eos, qui ex Circumcisione crediderant, Evangelium Christi Hebraicis literis verbisque
composuit:' quod quis postea in Graecum  transtulerit, non satis certum
est."-De  Vir. Illustr. cap. iii., t. ii. p. 819.  This passage I shall
call (B).
To the foregoing passages must be added the strictly independent, and,
therefore, from the nature of this controversy, most important, testimony
of S. Pantaenus (A. D. 181). Eusebius tells us that S. Pantaenus preached
the Gospel as far as India; and that he there found some persons acquainted with S. Matthew's Gospel, to whom S. Bartholomew the Apostle
I "Halloixius,' Vit. S. Papise, p. 661, Vitt. P. P. Oriental." qui ait, hunc Joannem
unum fuisse e LXX. discipulis. *  *  *  Nec amplius habeo, prseter'Constit. Apost.'
illud in lib. vii. c. 46, quod tradit constituisse Joannem Apostolum cognominem hune
suum Ephesi episcopum."-Routh. Rel. Sacr., vol. i. p. 36.
2 Hug, who considers the testimony of S. Papias to be of no value, but who cannot reject that of John the Presbyter, admits that we must ascribe to John the statement of this passage as to S. Mark; he attempts to show, however, that we are not
authorized to understand it as implying that S. Papias derived from the same source
the information which it gives with reference to S. Matthew. —Ic. cit. s. 16.
3 Hug endeavors to evade the force of these words by arguing that this statement
is but a repetition of that of S. Papias, whom S. Ireneus venerated (which of itself
is surely some reason why the testimony of S. Papias should be regarded of weight);
and, therefore, that it cannot be considered as independent evidence (s. 17). It is curious to notice, however, that, when subsequently quoting the words with which the
passage in the text concludes, viz., /eTri 6 rTv rTOVTeV [scil. S. Paul and S. Peter] eoS6ov,
MdpKOr o 5aOYrTT7' Ka)a, EpuivevTr/f ETirpov, K. T. a.,-Hug should write:   This witness
(S. Irenaeus), whose veracity has never been impeached, informs us as follows respecting Mark's Gospel," &c.-Ibid., ~ 16, s. 61.
4 S. Jerome founded upon this fact an important apologetic argument. Julian had
urged as an objection against Christianity, that "quod de Israel scriptum est [Hos.
xi. 1, cf. S. Matt. ii. 15], MIatthceus Evangelista ad Christum transtulit, ut simplicitati
eorum qui de Gentibus crediderant, illuderet."  S. Jerome replies: —; Cui nos breviter
respondebimus; primum Mattheeum Evangelium Heebreis literis edidisse, quod non
poterant legere nisi hi, qui ex Hebrseis erant, &c."- Comm. in Osee, t. vi p. 123.




APPENDIX  M.                              469
had already preached, avro2g re'Eo3pahov ypalymaat -riv roV  MarOaiov
Kara0Xe,'i ate ypa/r v' v nai oreuOat eitg'bv 6gXo Vzevov XpOvov.-Hist.
Eccl. lib. v. c. 10, p. 223.
The evidence, of which a sketch has thus been given,' must be held to
establish the fact that S. Matthew  originally wrote in Hebrew, or rather
Syro-Chaldaic; on which the important question arises:-Whence the
Greek form of the Gospel which bears his name?  Now, while it must be
admitted that Hug has altogether failed in shaking the evidence which
has been adduced on this subject, he has, at the same time, urged with
great force many considerations which prove that our Gospel of S. Matthew is itself an original work; and that S. Matthew was its author. As
Townson has truly observed: "There seems more reason for allowing two
originals than for contesting either." The following arguments, in support
of this opinion, may be assigned:
Olshausen has drawn attention to the fact that: "While all the Fathers of the Church declare Matthew to have written in Hebrew, they all,
notwithstanding, make use of the Greek text, as of genuine Apostolic origin,
without remarking what relation the Hebrew Matthew bore to our Greek
Gospel:-for that the oldest Fathers of the Church did not possess Matthew's Gospel in any other form than that in which we now have it, is
fully  settled."'  A  few  illustrations of this important fact may  be
given:Origen, who, in the passage referred to above, had stated that " Four
Gospels only are admitted without controversy by the Church of God"
(cf. supra, Lecture ii. p. 56, note'), and had  described S. Matthew  as
ypapLaLatv'EppaiKo7g avy-reTaypevov-" seems in his book' On Prayer,'
to suppose it published by hiin in Greek too; for, in discoursing on the
word'EirtLOvatov, he considers it as a word formed by the Evangelist himself."4
S. Cyril of Jerus., when arguing with the Jews in proof of the Resurrection, having observed that the Apostles were all Jews, asks: —At  rT
ovv roZg'IovdaaioLt  dtarerreT; Nay, he adds, MarOaTog, o yIpadCa  TO
EvayyE2tov,'E/3patdt yy6aal TroVO'eypabse.-Catechesis, xiv. ~ 15,
p. 212. But, within a few pages, he quotes the Greek Gospel under S.
Matthew's name:'Ev lev yap T-  Kara MaTOaZov EvayysAei    yeypa7rrra -
TrrXAv 2eTy&  vpUv, aCr' apprt O'IEaOe Trv Triv rTOV'AvO. I. T... S. Matt.
A complete summary of the evidence on this subject will be found in Michaelis'
"Introd. to the N. T.," Marsh's ed., vol. iii. part i page 116, &c.
"'The Genuineness of the New Testament writings" (Clarke's For. Theol. Lib.
p. xxviii).
3 Cf. the following testimonies from the first two centuries:-Clemens Alex. quotes
S. Matt. i. 17, with the words:-~-v rT Knara MCarE. Evayye?. —Strom. i. p. 409. S.
Irenaeus quotes verbatim  S. Matt. i. 1, and 18, as follows: —MauraTao  6 T'v Kar'
vOCepowov avTrov )'KIVu/ltv KrpVTrTetL, /y7v' K, T. ~.-Cont. Hcer. ill. c. xi., p. 191 (cf
supra, p. 90, note'). So also Tertullian:-" Ipse in primis Matthmus, fidelissimus
Evangelii commentator *  *  *  ita exorsus est;'Liber geniturwe Jesu Christi,
Filii David, Filii Abraham.' "-De Carne Christi, ~ 22, p. 316.
4 Townson, " Discourse" ii. ~ 2, p. 29. The words of Origen are: —Ti 6~ ca2 O6
7t o a  o  Lov, dq5r KacravoTrpeov  *  *  *  avvve6rX0aav yovv 6 MaTrOaiof tKa 
AOVKlac Trep airsrf ufl6dafuf d6taepova7, aTriv e evqvoX6reT.-De   Oratione, t. i.
p. 245.




470                            APPENDIX  M.
xxvi. 64]. —Ibid. ~ 29, p. 220 (cf. too his literal transcription of S. Matt.
i. 1, "Catech." xi. ~ 5, p. 151).
Eusebius, commnenting on Ps. lxxviii., observes that the phraseology of
the LXX. is different from  that employed by S. Matthew, who, himself
master of the Hebrew language, has cited the words according to his own
translation: —"O  6dq 666dafetr KCai 7 T- wSv lepiv EvayiyeXiov ypaa, 6V' B'
ElpqrTat, o(t rrava ravra'XaXiarlev o'I7aov(; iv rapa3oXaT' roeS QX~otL,
K. T.. [S. Matt. xiii. 35].  *  *  *'AvTi  yap rov, p 0  y   o   a t
rpo 3ir j ara  adr' a p Xi,'Epaloq X v b MarOaZog, ot e    a
IC 6  ae Ka epqT-ac  erTO6V          p ev   opat i e spvp peva   drro
Karapoijo' avO'      ov ob lev'AKvciXa, o5f3p'(ao  aiviT/aTra e:  apXp Oev,
e  6    6 ( K u     e v'    6 de  IvpqaXo, avaf3Xviao. -. L.-  Comm. in Psalm.
(ed. Montfaucon, p. 463)'
Having quoted this statement, Hug' refers to the objection that, as S.
Matthew had written in Syriac, the version of the Psalmist's words given
in our Greek Gospel is made not from the Hebrew, but from the Syriac:
and he appeals, in reply, to the manner in which Eusebius compares this
version with that of Aquila; adding:-" Did Matthew then write his Gospel in Syriac, and cite passages in it from the Old Testament in the Greek
language?"-loc. cit. s. 19.
In connexion with the argument founded upon thAi passage from Esebia, and still more unambiguously intimating that S. Matthew  himself
translated the Hebrew text of the Psalm  into Greek, cf. the quotation from
S. Jerome prefixed to Lecture vii. S. Jerome, it is true, says in the passage
(B) that it is not quite certain who was the translator of the Hebrew
Gospel.  It would appear, too, from  many parts of his writings, that he
1 The following remarks of Eusebius have also been quoted. He is discussing the
relation of S. Matt. xxviii. 1, to S. John, xx. 1:-'0 eKv yap EvayyefiTr^r' MarTOaZo'E/3pat6e y'rTTgr Tape6uKE rb Ev'ayyi2lov  65 d& n- rJrv'E/rjvwv q0b)vjv etrapa   v avri,
Trv E1I7pKo0aovav  pav elc rv icptWiy i~ Ftopaw, 4f/ safjatdrtV irpoveirnEv.  On this, he
proceeds to argue as if the Greek term 6oe had proceeded from S. Matthew; as well
as from the use of the plural, aapft3ciov: —oVr(uf oVv O Mar7OaZo  rov Kcatpov rbv
e'tlfavarKovra elf TIV kc) t rf vptaKcEf iepaf, a a 3 ( r o v o b  u votaacev' oVK elrr'v
itarepav TOV a a/       r ov, ovde o6pE  a1 a fi    ro v.-Qucest. ad Marin. (ap. A. Mai,
"Script. Vet. Nova Coll.," t. i. pp. 64-66).
2 On Hug's inference from this passage,-to which he considers it "hardly necessry to allude,"-Dr. Davidson (and here he follows Meyer, "Evang. des Matt,"
Einleit., s. 7) observes: "But the term  ICKoatc does not signify translation.  It denotes recension. The phrase'E3paZoc  v indicates the native country of the Apostle,
and so determines the sense of oi0eiog. Matthew, being a Hebrew, used that recension of the Old Testament text, which was current in his native land: and had the
Hebrew words to which ipev6oyat KeKpv//IjEva, K. r. X., and not 0Seyfooyua, K. r. X. correspond."-Introd. to the New Test., vol. i. p. 12. Were such a principle indeed true,
or capable of even probable proof, it would afford a simple means of accounting in all
cases for the form in which quotations from the Old Testament meet us in the New.
It would at once entitle us, on the authority of the inspired writers of the New Testament, to alter the Hebrew text in conformity with the " recension" to which our
Lord and his Apostles must (on Dr. Davidson's supposition) have given their sanction.  The existence of such "recension," however, has yet to be proved: and I do
not find that Dr. Davidson has availed himself of this principle in his useful discus
sion of " Quotations from the Old Testament in the New."  (" Sacred Hermeneutics,'
ch. xi. pp. 334-515.)  But the matter is placed beyond discussion by the use of'  6 i 6  K e v in this very passage, to signify the manner in which Aquila interpreted
or rendered the same words.




APPENDIX  M.                            471
regarded S. Matthew's Hebrew Gospel as agreeing substantially with that
received by the Nazarenes and Ebionites, and which he himself had translated.  E. g. —"In Evangelio, quo utuntur Nazarani et Ebionite (quod
nuper in Graecum  de Hebraeo sermone transtulimus, et quod vocatur a
plerisque Matthaei authenticur) &c."-Comment. in Matt. xii. 13, t. vii,
p. 77.'  On all such statements two remarks are to be made:-(1) S.
Jerome would surely not have translated this document into Greek, had it
not differed considerably from the Canonical Gospel. (2) Whenever S.
Jerome refers to the Gospel of S. Matthew, he quotes it according to our
present Greek text; and when he introduces diverging statements of the
" Hebrew Gospel," he does so in a manner which proves that he regarded
it as of no authority whatsoever. Thus, when alluding to the difference
between S. Matthew's mode of giving an Old Testament passage and the
translation of the LXX. (e. g. ch. ii. 6) he writes: "Quanta sit inter
Matthzeum et LXX. verborum  ordinisque discordia, magis admiraberis, si
Hebraicum videas, in quo ita scriptum est," &c.-Ad Pammach., Ep. lvii.
t. i. p. 311.  And again, discussing what the rending of the Veil of the
Temple might mean, he incidentally alludes to a statement of the " Hebrew Gospel,"-of which he takes no further notice; and then proceeds
with his examination of the Greek text: "In Evangelio autem  quod Hebraicis literis scriptum est, legimus, non velum Templi scissum; sed superliminare Templi mirwe magnitudinis corruisse."-Ad Hedibiam, Ep. cxx.
t. i. p. 825.
To which considerations if we add the fact that all Versions, even the
ancient Syriac (in which dialect, be it observed, the Gospel is said to have
been originally written),2 are taken from the present Greek text of S. Matthew, and not from an unknown Aramaic original,-it clearly follows, (1)
that the Hebrew Gospel can never have been regarded as Canonical; (2)
that it belonged to that class of writings to which I have referred, supra,
Lecture ii. p. 54, &c., which, although composed by inspired men, were
never designed to form part of the Bible; and (3) that, since the concurrent voice of antiquity declares the first of our four Greek Gospels to have
proceeded from  S. Matthew, we are justified in assuming that it actually
has proceeded, in its present form, from the pen of that Apostle.  ButII. This inference is strongly confirmed by the admitted fact that, " our
t A writer in "The Edinburgh Review" (July, 1851, p. 39), observes:-" Jerome
himself at first thought that it was the authentic Matthew, and translated it into
both Greek and Latin from a copy which he obtained at Bercea in Syria. This appears from his Catalogue of Illustrious Men, written in the year 392. Six years
later, in his Commentary on Matthew, he spoke more doubtfully about it,-'quod
vocatur a plerisque Matthaei authenticum.' Later still, in his book on the Pelagian
heresy, written in the year 415, he modifies this account still further, describing the
work as the'Evangelium juxta Hebreos, quod Chaldaico quidem Syroque sermone,
sed Hebraicis literis scriptum est, quo utuntur usque hodie Nazareni, secundum Apostolos, sive, ut plerique autumant juxta Matthaeum, quod et in Caesariensi habetur
Bibliotheca.' "
2 This fact is the more to our purpose when we call to mind the nature of the
Syrian tradition on this subject. Assemanni (" Bibl. Orient.," vol. iii. p. 8) thus translates a passage in Ebedjesu's "Catal. Libror. Syrorum:" "Cujus [scil. Novi Testamenti] caput est Mattheus, qui'Hebraice in Palestina scripsit." On which Assemanni
notes:-" Hac est vommunis Syrorum sententia de sermone, quo primum Evangelia
conscripta dicuntur," &c.




472                            APPENDIX  M.
Greek Gospel of Matthew is of such a peculiar character, that it is impossible for us to regard it as a mere version. Does a man who is translating
an important work from one language into another allow himself to make
alterations in the book which he is translating, to change the ideas it presents?  Something of the kind must be supposed to have been done in the
Greek Gospel of Matthew  with regard to the Iebrew.                  " *  *  Now
as sometimes the argument is wholly based on this independent character
of the text in the citations from  the books of the Old Testament, and could
not have accorded at all with the Hebrew Gospel of Matthew, it is clear
that our Greek Gospel must be sonmething else than a mere version."Olshausen, loc. cit.'  This independent character of our Greek Gospel, as
inferred from its manner of quoting the Old Testament, is allowed almost
universally by critics.' (I should add that Ebrard questions the force of
this argument; on the ground that the Greek Gospel is but the translation
of an Aramaic original, in which the Hebrew texts had been already translated.  No independence, therefore, he argues, can be ascribed to the
Greek:-see his "Krit. der ev. Gesch.," s. 766.)
III. But the most important branch of the argument remains:-" The
idea that some unknown individual translated the Hebrew Gospel of Matthew, and that this translation is our Canonical Gospel, is, in the first place,
contradicted by the circumstance of the universal diffusion of this same
Greek Gospel of Matthew, which makes it absolutely necessary to suppose
that the translation was executed by some one of acknowledged influence
in the Church, indeed, of Apostolic authority. In any other case, would
not objections to this Gospel have been urged in some quarter or other,
particularly in the country where Matthew himself labored, and where his
writings were familiarly known? There is not, however, the slightest trace
of any such opposition to it." 3 Let some particular features of the case
be here glanced at. All are agreed that S. Matthew was the first to write.
The passage from S. Irenaeus, quoted above (p. 526), places the date of S.
Matthew's (Hebrew, Gospel between the years 60-70: and Eusebius states
what he had ascertained as to the occasion of its composition;-viz., that
when S. Matthew (who alone had remained up to this date at Jerusalem)
"was on the point of going to preach elsewhere, he left the Church his
Gospel, written in his native tongue, in order to supply the want of his
presence (W(g 6'/eZee Kal  E+' krTEpov9 livat, TrarpiW  yXT-r,7 ypac)j rnapaA translator, in short, would either have borrowed from the LXX. its version of
the Hebrew quotations inserted in the Aramaic original; or he would have himself
supplied a translation according to the Hebrew:-in no case would he have ventured
to alter the literal meaning by a free translation. The cases in which the author of
our Greek Gospel has freely used the Hebrew text of the Old Testament, and departed from the LXX., are, S. Matt. xii. 19; xiii. 35; viii. 17 (cf., supra, p. 321);
xxvii. 9, 10 (cf., supra, p. 309, note); xv. 9. See Hug, loc. cit. ~ 12, s. 52.
2 De Wette observes: "On account of its relation to the other Gospels,-partly in
its use of the LXX., partly in Greek expressions,-so much is certain, that we by no
means have in it the simple translation of an Aramaic original composition proceeding
from an Apostle "-Einleit., Th. ii. s. 166. And he quotes Credner, who has proved
(" Einleit.," s. 94) that all the quotations from the Pentateuch evince, by the form in
which they are cited, their Greek origin; especially ch. xix. 5; xv. 4; xviii. 16, &c.
The Greek foundation. too, of the form in which the Prophets are quoted is no less.unmistakeable. —(ibid. s. 168.)
8 Olshausen, loc. cit.




APPENDIX  M.                             473
dovg TO  ca-r' av'rov EvayyeLtov i. T..)" —(H. E. iii. c. 24, p. 116).
Here comes in the important testimony of S. Papias (A); -which, as
Thiersch shows, directs us to the author of the Greek Gospel, and which
he translates as follows: "Matthew had composed the sacred traditions in
the  Hebrew  language, and  each  interpreted  them  as best he could,"
["if we thus," writes Thiersch, "translate his words (the aorist as pluperfect), they point-if they are not to be considered as fragmentary to
the extent of being unintelligible-to the following thought as their completion"]-until Matthew  himself published the Greek document, which
is read in the whole Church as his Gospel."'  If mere natural capabilities
be looked for, who more competent to undertake such a translation than
"Matthew the Publican," who, from  his office, was necessarily acquainted
with the Greek language, so generally spoken in Palestine?  And as to
the solicitude of the Apostles for the Hellenistic Jews, we have a sufficient
proof in the case where " there arose a murmuring of the Grecians against
the Hebrews," in a matter of ordinary detail (Acts, vi. 1).2 We cannot
doubt, therefore, that, as soon as the want was felt of a Greek translation
of the Hebrew Gospel, means were taken to supply it: to which the additional motive was added of providing a work profitable for the Church
universal, which day after day was taking deeper root among the Gentiles
as it was spurned by the Jews.  The Hebrew  Gospel, therefore, was at
once supplanted by its Greek successor, which from the earliest times has
occupied the first place in the New  Testament Canon.  On no other
hypothesis, indeed, than that of S. Matthew himself having supplied the
present form of his earlier work, can we account either for the profound
silence of ancient writers respecting the translator —whose version, as we' "Versuch der Herstell.," s 193. Thiersch explains the meaning of the word
"interpreted" (lpiujvevce) in this place, by assuming that in this Christian community
of native-born Jews, the established custom of the Synagogue worship (see, surra,
Lecture vii. p. 325, note 2) had been adopted; and that the reading of the Hebrew
document was followed by an " interpretation" for the benefit of those who understood only Greek. He refers to Neander " Kirchen-Geschichte," B. i. s. 522) who states
that "in many Egyptian and Syrian towns, there were ecclesiastics, as in the Jewish
Synagogues, who forthwith translated what was publicly read into the vernacular
tongue, in order that it might be generally intelligible,-quoting the words of S.
Epiphanius when enumerating the different ecclesiastical offices:'E pu  vev  a
yAt6caf eif y2sDaaav, av   iv Iraic dvayvJaeotv, 7 Ev ralf rrpocolidLatt.-Expos. Fid.
Cathol., c. xxi. (" Adv. HIer." lib. iii., t. i. p. 1104).
2 That the publication of such a translation by the author himself was nothing unusual, Townson proves by the evidence of Josephus; who states, in the preface to his
narrative of the Jewish War, that his Greek work is but the translation of an earlier
composition in Hebrew; which he translates from motives nearly the same as those
that have been suggested in the text as likely to have given rise to the Greek torm
of our Gospel.
3 When I say that we have no early information as to the translator, of course I
do not mean to ignore the existence of the following hypotheses, which have been
started by later writers:-E. g. In the "Synopsis Scripturae Sacre,' to be found among
the works of S. Athanasius (t. ii. p. 202), (but which Credner "Zur Geschichte des
Kanons," s. 127 ff., proves to be, at the earliest, a work of the tenth century), the ingenious conjecture is offered that it was translated by S. James, "the Lord's brother,
and first Bishop of Jerusalem."  (Cf. what has been said in the text as to the solicitude of the Church for the Hellenizing Christians at Jerusalem.)  In the "Citionicon"
of S. Isidore of Seville, S. Barnabas.is named (p. 272): Theophylact. ("Comment.
in Matt." PraEf., t. i. p. 2) is followed by Euthymius Zigabenus (" Comm. in. Evang.
MattlL," t i. p. 15, ed. Matthaei Lips. 1792) in representing S. John as the translator.




474                         APPENDIX N.
have seen (p. 469), was everywhere received and quoted as if it actually
proceeded from S. Matthew himself; or for the absence of the least trace
of any other Greek translation of the Hebrew original. John the Presbyter (to whom unquestionably the statement of S. Papias (A) must be
traced) clearly represents the time as past, when each used to interpret for
himself the Hebrew Gospel.  He evidently implies that our present Greek
Gospel was the element of the Canon contributed by S. Matthew; and he
states the fact of its original form merely as a piece of casual information,
likely to interest those who inquired respecting the origin of the Gospels.
The same may be said of all succeeding writers, who repeat that information; but who quote, as we have seen, the Greek Gospel as an original
work of S. Matthew. 
Should this conclusion not be received, no one, at least, can refuse to
accept the conclusion of Ebrard, " that the translation was prepared during
the lifetime of the Apostles; unquestionably, too, under their inspection,
and by their commission" (loc. cit. s. 786). It is only by means of these
facts-viz. the early composition, and Apostolic recognition of our Greek
Gospel-that we can account for the disappearance of the Hebrew original,
or explain the absence of any satisfactory information respecting it. And
this is all that is required, in order to remove every difficulty as to the Inspiration of the Greek form of S. Matthew's Gospel.
APPENDIX N.
INSPIRED REASONING."
(LECTURE VIII.-PAGE 372.)
I HAVE selected Mr. Morell as the exponent of this opinion, merely
because his statement of it is characterized by considerable ability, and is
advocated with more than usual force. In general the character of Inspiration has been denied to the Reasoning of the sacred writers for the
sole purpose of evading the force of certain passages in Scripture, which
could not be reconciled with some favorite theory.  Thus Bishop Burnet,
in his remarks on the sixth Article of the Church of England, observes:"When Divine writers argue upon any point, we are always bound to
believe the conclusions that their reasonings end in, as parts of Divine
Revelation: but we are not bound to be able to make out, or even to assent
to, all the premises made use of by them." Paley, who quotes and adopts
this statement, adds:-" In reading the Apostolic writings, we distinguish
between their doctrines and their arguments.  Their doctrines came to
them by Revelation, properly so called; yet in propounding these doctrines
in their writings or discourses, they were wont to illustrate, support, and
enforce them, by such analogies, arguments, and considerations, as their
own thoughts suggested. *  *  *  The doctrine [of the call of the Gentiles] itself must be received; but it is not necessary in order to defend
Christianity to defend the propriety of every comparison, or the validity
of every aryument, which the Apostle has brought into the discussion.




APPENDIX  N.                               475
The same observation applies to some other instances."'-Evidences of
Christianity, part iii. ch. 2.
The form  in which Mr. Morell has stated this objection  is plainly
founded upon that particular view of syllogistic Reasoning according to
which, when you admit the major premiss, you assert the conclusion either
directly, or by implication;. —in other words, the view  which represents
the conclusion as an inference from the major premiss.3 If this doctrine
of the syllogism be received, the reply to the objection may be briefly
stated.  The major premiss being allowed (as by Mr. Morell) to be some
truth divinely revealed, the objector argues that, as the human mind by
its own powers can proceed according to the rules of Logic, no Inspiration
was required to draw  the conclusion; which, according to the doctrine
assumed, is but an inference from the one admitted truth. Is it, however,
so very obvious a fact, that human Reasoning proceeds in such an orderly
and undeviating a course as to require no guidance? Do the opinions of
mankind, deduced from facts universally received, or from principles which
the understanding, of necessity, acknowledges,-present a unanimity so
striking as to justify the assertion that an inspired development of that
Truth which God has revealed is either superfluous, or unnecessary   Of.
course no one will maintain such an assertion for a moment: and, accordingly, the objection, as I have already observed (see, supra, p. 371, note 2),
is at once removed by referring to the distinction between Inspiration and
Revelation; as well as to the importance of the former in relation to tihe
1 Bishop Hinds justly points out that to suppose the writers of the New Testament
"left liable to any false reasoning or to any mistaken application of old prophecy," is
simply to theorize gratuitously:' because the question is not really one of fact, as the
Bible may be confidently defended against the charge of actual error of either kind."
— Inspiration, p. 162.
2 Thus Archbishop Whately (" Logic," 9th ed, p. 239), states that "the object of
all Reasoning is merely to expand and unfold the assertions wrapt up, as it were, and
implied in those with which we set out, and to bring a person to perceive and acknowledge the full force of that which he has admitted." Mr. J. S. Mill illustrates as
follows, the nature of his objections to this theory: " I do not say that a person who
affirmed, before the Duke of Wellington was born, that all men are mortal, knew that
the Duke of Wellington was mortal; but I do say, that he asserted it: and I ask for
an explanation of the apparent logical fallacy of adducing, in proof of the Duke of
Wellington's mortality, a general statement which presupposes it. Finding no sufficient resolution of this difficulty in any of the writers on logic, I have attempted to
supply one."-A System of Logic, vol. i. ch. iii., 3d ed., p. 207, note.
3 Under this aspect the subject is discussed by S. Th. Aquinas, when considering
the question, "Utrum Sacra Doctrina sit argumentativa:"-" Sicut alime scientise non
argumentantur ad sua principia probanda, sed ex principiis argumentantur ad ostendendum alia in ipsis scientiis; ita hmec doctrina non argumentatur ad sua principia
probanda, quae sunt articuli Fidei; sed ex iis procedit ad aliquid ostendendum: sicut
Apostolus 1 ad Cor. xv. ex Resurrectione Christi argumentatur ad resurrectionem
communemr probandam. *  *  *  Utitur Sacra Doctrina etiam ratione humana, non
quidem ad probandam Fidem sed ad manife/standum aliqua alia quce traduatur in hac
Doctrina.  Cum igitur gratia non tollat naturam, sed perficiat, oportet quod naturalis
ratio subserviat Fidei, sicut et naturalis inclinatio voluntatis obsequitur calitati.
Unde et Apostolus dicit 2 ad Cor. x. 5:'In captivitatem  redigentes omnem intellectum in obsequium Christi.' Et inde est quod etiam auctoritatibus Philosophorum
sacra doctrina utitur, ubi per rationem  naturalem  veritatem  cognoscere potuerunt,
sicut Paulus, Act. xvii. 28, inducit verbum  Arati, dicens:'Sicut et quidam poetarum vestrorum dixerunt: Genus Dei sumus.' "-Summ. Theol., pars 1 ma, qu. i. art.
viii., t. xx. p. 7.




476                            APPENDIX  N.
latter (see, supra, p. 145). Of the neglect of this distinction no clearer
illustration can be given than the remark of Paley just quoted:' what I
have already said, therefore  (p. 371), is of itself sufficient to meet this
aspect of the question.
A still more complete answer, however, is supplied, and this whole
subject has been placed in its true light, by the profound theory of syllogistic Reasoning lately put forward by Mr. J. S. Mill;   of which the following is a rapid sketch:Ordinarily the major premiss of a syllogism  may be regarded  as a
general proposition or formula which records or registers the inferences
already made from particular cases; and "the conclusion is not an inference drawn from the formula, but an inference drawn according to the formula: the real logical antecedent, or premisses being the particular facts
from which the general proposition was collection by induction." According to the indications of this record we draw our conclusion: and the rules
of the syllogism are a set of precautions to ensure our reading the record
correctly. In this view of the question we assume that our knowledge has
been derived from observation; but there are other sources from which we
may also suppose it to come. It may present itself as coming from testimony, and it may present itself as coming from Revelation; and this latter
species of knowledge, "thus supernaturally communicated, may be conceived to comprise not only particular facts but general propositions, such
as occur so abundantly in the writings of Solomon and in the Apostolic
Epistles.'  Or the generalization may not be, in the ordinary sense, an assertion at all, but a command; a law, not in the philosophical, but in the
moral and political sense of the term: an expression of the desire of a
superior, that we, or any number of persons, shall conform our conduct to
certain general instructions.  So far as this asserts a fact, namely, a volition
of the legislator, that fact is an individual fact, and the proposition, therefore, is not a general proposition. But the description therein contained
of the conduct which it is the will of the legislator that his subjects should
observe, is general. The proposition asserts not that all men are anything,
but that all men shall do something."  "These two4 cases, of a truth re-' Compare also Spinoza's representation of this objection:-" Si ad modum etiam
attendamus, quo in his Epistolis Apostoli doctrinam Evangelicam tradunt, eum etiam
a modo Prophetarum valde discedere videbimus. Apostoli namque ubique ratiocinantur, ita ut non prophetare sed disputare videantur. Prophetiae vero contra mera tanturn dogmata et decreta continent, quia in iis Deus quasi loquens introducitur, qui non
ratiocinatur, sed ex absoluto sure naturae imperio decernit. Et etiam qlia Prophetse
auctoritas ratiocinari non patitur; quisquis enim vult sua dogmata ratione confirmare,
eo iiso ea arbitrali uniuscujusque judicio submittit.  *  *  *  Itaque tam  modi
loquendi quam disserendi Apostolorum in Epistolis clarissime indicant easdem non ex
revelati)not et divino mandato, sed tantum ex ipsorum naturali judicio scriptas fuisse."
-Tract. Theol. Polit., cap. xi.' Loc. cit. 216, &c.
3 These latter words are taken from the first edition of Mr. Mill's work (vol. i
p. 2601. In the third edition the passage stands thus, more generally expressed, but
equally conveying the same sense:-" It may present itself as coming from testimony,
which on the occasion and for the purpose in hand, is accepted as of an authoritative
character: and the information thus communicated may be conceived to comprise not
only particular facts, but general propositions, as when a scientific doctrine is accepted
without examination on the authority of writers."-p. 217.
4 This statement is omitted in the third edition: cf. the first ed. vol. i. p. 260.




APPENDIX  N.                             477
vealed in general terms, and a command intimated in the like manner,
might be exchanged for the more extensive cases of any general statement
received upon testimony' and any general practical precept.  But the more
limited illustrations suit us better, being drawn from subjects where long
and complicated trains of ratiocination have actually been grounded upon
premisses which came to mankind from the first in a general form, the
subjects of Scriptural Theology, and of positive Law."'  "In both these
cases the generalities are the original data, and the particulars are elicited
from  them  by a process which correctly resolves itself into a series of
syllogisms.  *  *  *  The only point to be determined is whether the
authority which declared the general proposition intended to include this
case in it:"-and this "operation is not a process of inference, but a process
of interpretation."  "When the premisses are given by authority, the
function of Reasoning is to ascertain the testimony of a witness, or the
will of a legislator, by interpreting the signs in which the one has intimated his assertion, and the other his command.  In like manner, when
the premisses are derived from observation, the function of Reasoning is to
ascertain what we (or our predecessors) formerly thought might be inferred from the observed facts, and to do this by interpreting a memorandum of ours or of theirs."
Now, were we to pause here, it would of itself be obvious how essential
it was that the sacred writer, when interpreting the divinely revealed Truth
from which his Reasoning flows, should have been himself divinely guided,
in order to ensure certainty, or even to obtain an insight into the applicability of the Divine command to any particular instance: but we must go
a step farther. There are cases, it is true, in which the minor premiss
(which "always affirms a resemblance between a new case, and some cases
previously known")' is obvious to the senses, or at once ascertainable by
direct observation: it may not, however, be thus intuitively evident, but
may itself be known only by inference.  It may itself be the conclusion
of another argument; and must, therefore, be inferred from  some other
general proposition, which presents the record of a class of observations
that may be totally different.4 This clearly may take place many times in
succession; and hence arises a train of Reasoning.
Under this form almost every instance of Reasoning in Scripture presents itself. The sacred writer, desiring to apply some one proposition that
I See note 3 page 476.
2 On this theory of Mr. Mill, Dr. Whewell observes: —"I say, then, that Mr. Mill
appears to me especially instructive in his discussion of the nature of the proof which
is conveyed by the syllogism; and that his doctrine, that the form of the syllogism
consists in an inductive assertion, with an interpretation added to it, solves very happily
the difficulties which baffle the other theories of this subject. I think that this doctrine of his is made still more instructive by his excepting from it the cases of Scriptural Theology and of Positive Law, as cases in which general propositions, not
particular facts, are our original data."-Of Induction, p. 85.
3 See Mr. Mills remarks, loc. cit. ch. iv. p. 233, &c.
4 Mr. Mill gives the follow example:-" All arsenic is poisonous; the substance
which is before me is arsenic; therefore it is poisonous." Here to prove the minor,
viz., "the substance which is before me is arsenic," we proceed thus:-" Whatever
forms a compound with hydrogen, which yields a black precipitate with nitrate of
silver, is arsenic: the substance before me conforms to this condition; therefore it is
arsenic."-Ibid. p. 234.




478                           APPENDIX  N.
expresses the Revelation from which he proceeds, introduces a second proposition in order to exhibit its applicability. Now, this second proposition
may be merely the result of some other Divine Truth; or be itself a revealed proposition. In such a train of Reasoning each new premiss may
have been supernaturally communicated (cf. the remark of Professor Butler
quoted, supra, p. 369, note 2); and thus, in point of fact, the inspired
reasoner but connects the different threads of the Divine Counsels, exemplifies how "deep answereth to deep" in the mysteries of Revelation, and
presents in one connected train of argument those words of God which
had been uttered " at sundry times and in divers manners." 
E. g. the reasoning of S. Paul, 1 Cor. iii. 16, is plainly a case of this kind. His
argument may be thus stated:-" The habitation of the Spirit of God becomes
thereby the Temple of God; you are the habitation of the Spirit of God; therefore,
know ye not that ye are the Temple of God."  Here (the argument having been
stated under the form of an Enthymeme, the minor premiss being expressed), the suppressed major premiss is a general proposition which defines the true nature of the
Temple of God; and may be regarded either as being itself a new revelation, or,
perhaps, merely as the record or register of earlier revelations on the subject. The
minor premiss, in turn, is itself a revelation; for Christ had already declared:-" The
Spirit of Truth Whom the world cannot receive. *  *' *  He dwelleth with you,
and shall be in you." —S. John, xiv. 17. The conclusion, thus deduced, becomes, in
the next place, a premiss in the argument stated in the following verse:-" If any
man defile the Temple of God, him shall God destroy; FOr the Temple of God is
holy, which Temple ye are."
THE END,