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 (voc), and spiritual activity (TVεvμa) 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 (vous) was enlightened so as to be in perfect accordance with the Spiritual 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 (ȧπоkaλúεiç) had been conveyed to their minds; unclouded insight, and clear perception (yvwσis) had next been granted; the power of expounding (πроÓηTεía)' 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 (didaxn). (See Beck, loc. cit., s. 234.) 2 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 not “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 ỏ прŵτоç σɩуúτш is no impossibility, but in their power to effect: 'For ye have the power, one by one, all to prophesy (i. e. you have power 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 (see, 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 πрʊøηтɛía:—for to the mind of the προφητεία: Gentile world the рopnτns was no more than the interpreter of the inspired μάντις. 2 See, supra, p. 197, on the relation between Revelation and Prophecy, knowledge and teaching. (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-пáνта dè dокιμáGEтe." (1 Thess. v. 0 ά 19-21); words which, as the context shows, can only refer to the diákpiois πνεύματων πvεúμaτwv of 1 Cor. xii. 10; and to which S. John also alludes: "Beloved, believe not every spirit; but try (dokiμášeтE) 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 Cor. 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 diákpioiç.”—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.1 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 1 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," 8. 5 ff. hypothesis of Eichhorn, with whom the modern aspect of the question may be fairly said to have commenced. Eichhorn 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. Tтεрúуιоv тоv iɛpov, S. Matt. iv. 5; S. Luke, iv.'9; ¿πιοúσios, 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 . (2) A translation of this into Greek, (3) This latter document with certain additions (+A+a). (4) A variation of this (+B+ß). (5) A combination of Nos. (3) and (4) was the foundation of S. Mark's Gospel (+A+B+a+ß). (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 (+B+T+ẞ+y). (8) An auxiliary document was employed by S. Matthew and S. Luke. "The genealogy, when simplified," writes Ebrard, "appears thus:" "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. "Let x 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 x in the Gospels of S. Matthew and S. Mark, but not in that of S. Luke. B. 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. T. Whole sections found in the Gospels of S. Matthew and S. Luke, but not in that of S. Mark."-Marsh's Dissertation, p. 148. 8. A translation of D, in which 2 was made use of (=d). 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: 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.' S. Mark, S. Luke, (( 66 66 S. Matt., S. Mark, 66 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 über die Enstehung und die frühesten 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 a permanent 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. Comment." B. i. Einleit., § 3) have combined this "Tradition-theory" with that of the successive use, by the Evangelists, of the earlier written Gospels. În 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 (ěžodov), 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).” 1 APPENDIX M. DID S. MATTHEW WRITE IN GREEK ? (LECTURE VIII.—PAGE 342.) "Ir 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 may be briefly stated :—We learn from Eusebius (iii. 39), that S. Papias, bishop of Hierapolis, (circ. A. D. 110—'Iwávvov μèv 1 "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. 185. 3 11 Einleitung," Th. ii. s. 14 ff. |