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. 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

2

1 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. Παρ' ἡμῖν ἐστὶν ἰδεῖν καὶ θηλείας καὶ ἄρσενας, χαριστ μara ¿ñò тov Ivɛúμatos тoû Оεov čxovтaç.—Dial. c. Tryph., c. 88, p. 185. Cf. ibid. c. ματα 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 from 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.

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. Köppen, "Die Bibel ein Werk der göttlichen Weisheit," Band. ii. s. 59.

66

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. 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

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 Testament 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.

2 The author of this book, to whose grandson we are indebted for the present Greek version, is said to have lived either 300 or 200 years before Christ. Cf. Hävernick's "Einleitung," ler Th. 1er 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."-ch. xxiv. 32-34. He assumes the prophetic tone: "Hear me, O 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 exercised 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

3 Pascal remarks: "Ils portent avec amour et fidélité le livre où Moise déclare qu' ils ont été ingrats envers Dieu toute leur vie, et qu' il sait qu'ils le seront encore plus après sa mort; mais qu'il appelle le ciel et la terre à témoin contre eux."-tom. ii. p. 188, ed. Faugère. To the same effect Mr. Davison remarks: "The words of the proph ets 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

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. Irenæus, 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.

1

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:

Τάχα οὖν τὸ, ἐπεχείρησαν, λεληθυῖαν ἔχει κατηγορίαν τῶν προπετῶς καὶ χωρὶς χαρίσματος ελθόντων ἐπὶ τὴν ἀναγραφὴν τῶν εὐαγγελίων * * * τὰ δὲ τέτταρα μόνα πρокρíνει η ¦εоυ ¿kkλŋoía.—Hom. I. 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 Matthæus, non conatus est Marcus, non conatus est Johannes, non conatus est Lucas: sed Divino Spiritu ubertatem dictorum rerumque omnium ministrante, sine ullo molimine cœpta complerunt."—Lib. i. tom. I. p. 1265.

**Αμύθητον πλῆθος ἀποκρύφων καὶ νόθων γραφῶν. Cont. Har., lib. I. xx. p. 91. So also S. Jerome, "Illud juxta Ægyptios, et Thomam, et Matthiam, et Bartholomæum, duodecim quoque Apostolorum, et Basilidis atque Apellis, ac reliquorum, quos enumerare longissimum est."-Proam 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 (ἐτόλμησε μιμούμενος τὸν ̓Απόστολον) 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 TeρLÓDOVS Pauli et Thecla, et totam baptizati Leonis fabulam, inter Apocryphas Scripturas computamus. Quale enim est, ut individuus comes Apostoli, inter cæteras ejus res hoc solum ignoraverit? Sed et Tertullianus, vicinus eorum temporum, refert Presbyterum quemdam in Asia σñovdaσrýv Apostoli Pauli, convictum apud Joannem, quod esset auctor libri, et confessum se hoc Pauli amore fecisse, loco excidisse."-De Viris Illust., t. II. c. vii. p. 827. The statement of Tertullian is as follows: "Quod si quæ Paulo perperam adscripta sunt, ad licentiam mulierum docendi tinguendique defend

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 eam Scripturam construxit, quasi titulo Pauli de suo cumulans, convictum atque confessum id se amore Pauli fecisse, loco decessisse."De 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.”—1 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 corne 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. 1 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 Пon 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 notice 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