.:'6./. ^^ S^ ^ ^t Wc\ixAn^xtul ^ ^^, '* PRINCETON, N. J. % "r^ "IDv^. I3cANro^a YTAoCo^Vn . Division. ftkJ.. Section.. ..t..\. \v "THE LAW, THE PROPHETS, AND THE PSALMS;'' Sljcir gibiiu litspiriitbix ASSERTED UPON THE AUTHORITY OF OUR LORD, AND VINDICATED FROM OBJECTIONS. WITH AxiMABVERSIONS I^f DiSPKOOF OF THE TESTIMONY OF JOSEPHUS IN KEFERENCE TO THE CaNON. JOHN COLLYER KiNIGHt . ^-'^M OF THE BRITISH MUSEUM, X:<.".''//»« AtTTHOK OF "THE PENTATEUCHAL NAHRATIVE VINDICATED FHOM^T- "" *' ' ABSUKUIT1E3 CHARGED AGAINST IT BX THE BISHOP OF NATAL," ETC. LONDON: LONGMAN & CO., PATEENOSTEE EOW. 1866. ''THE LAW, THE PEOPHETS, AND THE PSALMS." From the earliest ages of tlie world down to tte days of Malachi, and then, after an interval, from the days of our Lord to the death of the last of his apostles, there has been, according to the admitted facts of Bible history, a succession of men who have at least professed to have received from God instruc- tions and revelations in reference to religious truth. To some extent this was the case even in the days of the patriarchs ; indeed, there is reason to believe that it was by revelation to a succession of selected recipients, that religious truth was made known to men from the very beginning. The revelations given, or said to have been given, to these men — to the patriarchs, to Moses, to Samuel, and after them to a long series of prophets — we possess. Are they to be depended upon? Were they inspired ? 4 "the law, thu prophets, Insjpired or uninspired, tlie Bible is certainly a very extraordinary book, a very different one from any that has ever been written. 'No other so recognises God, his rights, his claimSj, his excellence ; no other so speaks to and affects our moral sense of right and wrong ; no other seems so divine. And yet, it is not to be denied that, in many respects, ft is not what one might a priori have expected it would have been. There is in it, for instance, mixed tip with much that is of the highest religious importance, much also that religiously is, or appears to be, of no importance at all ; and, in so far as this is the case, Scripture, it is argued, cannot be inspired. We are willing to admit the premises. To a certain extent the sacred history, like any other history, is, of course, mere history. Like any other, it treats mainly of the public acts of kings, and warriors, and others. Its authors care as much as other his- torians to preserve remnants of mere archaeo- logy and the like, and to stereotype, by trans- ferring to their pages, in reference to times or persons of whom little was known, such frag- ments of information or of remembrance as re- mained : as that '' Jubal was the father of all AND THE PSALMS." 5 gucli as liandle tlie harp and organ ;" or as that " Tubal- Cain was an instructor of every artificer in brass and iron ;" or that Lamecb said to his wives as is stated ; and to record, as in their -stimation worthy of being preserved, many facts and circumstances that in a religious re- spect were, or seem to have been, altogether valueless. If, then, the end contemplated by the histories of Scripture was simply to make known religious truth, there would be force in the ob- jection. But this was not the case. Facts prove that it was not. As histories, their main and direct end was simply to make known or to perpetuate the remembrance of the events of the times of which they treat. Their religious instruction, in consequence, is, and must be for the most part, only incidental and only occa- sional. Their peculiarity, as compared with other histories, consists not in that all their details convey moral or religious instruction, but in that when they do convey such instruc- tion, the instruction conveyed is the result of the divine enlightenment of the writers of those histories, and, therefore, truthful and au- thoritative. Admitting, then, the premises of this objection, we deny the inference. 6 " THE LAW, THE PROPHETS, But it is further objected tliat duplicate accounts of one and the same event occasionally so differ, or seem so to differ, the one from the other (not, perhaps, in their main features, but in some one or two small particulars, such as the locality of an incident, or the name or names of the party or parties concerned in the same, or some such small matter), as to beget the suspi- cion that if the one account be strictly accurate, the other cannot be so too. Discrepancies of so trivial a character of course leave unaffected the substantial tmthfulness of the narrative, and, in themselves considered, are of small importance ; but then, it is argued, discrepancy of statement, however minute and unimportant in itself, is inconsistent with inspiration ; and that the writ- ings, therefore, in which such discrepancy is found, whatever their value as a whole, and as the production of honest and well-intentioned men, cannot be inspired. The latter of these two charges is ordinarily met by a denial that the alleged inaccuracies exist (which denial, as the text now stands, facts will not warrant), or by an assumption that the inexactnesses in question are the fault of a cor- rupted text. But with a view to the refutation AXD THE rSALMS." of the inference based upon them, we assume, in reference to each, of these charges, that the case is as stated, viz., that in the histories of Scrip- ture there is at times a certain looseness of state- ment, a certain neglect of strict, rigid literaKty, a certain measure of inexactness ; and that there is, or seems to be, unimportant and uninstruc- tive narrative. For though there can be no question that Scripture has not unfrequently been charged with contradictions, and inconsis- tencies, and inutilities, groundlessly, it is no less certain that there are instances in which one who in the main believes, or is disposed to believe, in the inspiration of Scripture, is sorely perplexed by at least the appearance of them. To relieve one thus perplexed — not to reply to the objections of the determined, willing sceptic — is the object of these pages. As the basis of our remarks, then, we assume that there are, or seem to be, such narratives, and such discrepan- cies. Most, if not all of them, may, we beKeve, be satisfactorily accounted for and vindicated ; but, upon the supposition that they cannot, that we have occasionally real discrepancies, positive contradictions, conflicting accounts of one and the same event, useless narratives, or anything 8 "the law, the prophets, else tliat may be tliought to be incompatible witli inspiration, does it follow that the books in wbich they are found cannot therefore be in- spired ? May not the reality of the discrepancy, or the non-importance of the narrative, be ad- mitted, without impeachment of the inspiration of the writings containing them ? We believe that it may. In the first place, a writer or a book may clearly be inspired in one respect — in a religious, for instance — and not in another. ISTow Scrip- ture, if inspired at all, is of course inspired in reference to what it tells us of God. Its non- inspiration in other respects, whether apparent only or whether real, whether suspected only or whether proved, can be no disproof of its in- spiration in this. It may be that, here and there, some small inexactnesses of minor, petty detail meet us — some unimportant non-accuracy as to the locality or date of an event — or some other one or two of those thousand things to which, through human infirmity, a writer may be liable. But if that which it tells us of God, of God's will, and of God's j)urposes, and of God's attributes, and of God's character, it tells us because upon these points its writers were AND THE rSALMS.'* 9 divinely instructed and divinely enliglitencd, then tlie Look must be, is inspired, whether there be in it also human infirmity or not. To say that its teachings upon these points are the result of divine enlightenment, and to say that the book is inspired, is indeed to say one and the same thing. The two propositions are identical. To prove that it is inspired in this respect, I make no attempt. This I assume ; chiefly upon the authority of our Lord. Other and more critical, and, as some may think, more satisfac- tory reasons, might be assigned for the belief, but to me this is sufficient ; and it is sufficient also for the object contemplated by the present essay ; which is not to prove the inspiration of Scripture, but, assuming that, to set aside the ob- jection to its inspiration arising from the dis- crepancies and contradictions upon unimportant non-religious matters, and certain other objec- tions named above, which, whether truly or falsely, have been urged against it. To suppose, as has been done, that our Lord, in quoting or referring to the writings of the Old Testament as " Scripture,'' or as the '' word of God," spake either in ignorance, or simply out of deference to popular opinion, cannot be 10 "the law, the prophets, admitted for one moment. As regards the sup- position tliat lie spake in ignorance, it is true that we are told that the wisdom of the child Jesus, like that of any other human being, in- creased with his years (Luke ii. 52). But his increase in wisdom is no proof that he was not always wise up to the point that the occasion required. As a child, the same kind and the same amount of wisdom was not requisite as when, in the maturity of manhood, he became a public teacher ; nor the same mental power.* But his recognition of the writings of the Old Testament was not the recognition of a child, * " It is perfectly consistent with, the most entire belief of our Lord's divinity, to hold that when he vouchsafed to become a Son of Man he took our nature fully, and volun- taiily entered into all the conditions of humanity, and, among others, into that which makes our growth in knowledge gradual and limited. With St. Luke's ex- pression before us, it cannot be seriously maintained that as an infant or young child he possessed a knowledge surpassing that of the most pious and learned adults of his nation upon the subject of the authorship and age of the different portions of the Pentateuch. At what period, then, of his life upon earth is it to be supposed that he had granted to him, as the Son of Man, supernaturally, full and accurate information on these points ? Why should it be thought that he would speak with certain divine knowledge on this matter more than upon other matters of ordinary science or history ?" — " The Pentateuch, &c. examined," by Bishop Colenso, Preface, xxxi. AND THE PSALMS." 11 but of a full-grown man, upon whom, at bap- tism, the Spirit bad visibly descended — to wbom tbat Spirit was " given without measure," whose "words" were "the words of God" (John iii. 34) — who taught, not as the scribes, but " as one who had authority." If, when a child even, he was " filled with wisdom" (Luke ii. 40), and if thenceforth he " increased in wisdom " (ver. 52), surely when he had attained full manhood, his recognition of these writings is of more worth than our own private judgment, or than the private judgment of any man, episcopal or non- episcopal. "VVe read that if there be faith in Christ as a Saviour, there shall be salvation. I can con- ceive it to be possible, therefore, for a man to profess this faith, and even to have it, and yet to doubt as to the full inspiration and strict accuracy of certain of the Old Testament writings ; * but it does seem hardly consistent with Christianity to doubt of their inspiration altogether, or of their general and substantial truthfulness — especially with regard to those books (the Pentateuch, for instance, or the Psalms, or the writings of the Prophets) which * See extract from Birks given in Appendix. 12 " THE LAW, THE PROPHETS, our Lord and his apostles so often quote or refer to as Scripture. It would perhaps be harsh, to say that a man cannot be a Christian who has these doubts ; for he may, perhaps, by some subtle reasoning or hypothesis, reconcile them consistently with his faith in Christ as a Saviour. Still, the doubts and the belief do seem not to hold well together. If our Lord be mistaken upon the point, the writer, for one, can have no faith in him in other respects, and is a sinner without a Saviour. But to proceed with our argument. ISTon- inspiration in one respect is, we have said, no proof of non-inspiration in another. ISTon- inspiration, then, in regard to such unimportant details as the precise date or the exact locality of an occurrence (supposing Scripture to have been sometimes inexact in such small matters), is no proof that it was not inspired in reference to religious truth. If the religious teachings of the Bible were meant to be authoritative ; if, as a standard of doctrinal and didactic truth, it was meant to be decisive, trustworthy, in- fallible, and binding, it was of course necessary that upon all religious points it should be divinely inspired. But it was not, upon re- ASD THE PSALMS." 13 ligious grounds, needful that its insj)iration should extend beyond its religious element — ■ except, perhaps, for this reason, viz., that if found to be not inspired in other respects also, men -^ some men at least — ^might possibly reject it in the mass, and deny or doubt whether it was inspired at all. And this men do. But it may be that such a possibility was contem- plated, foreseen, designed ; that God wiUed that there should be this ground of offence, this difficulty, this stumbling-block, this test of sincerity and earnestness. Truth is seldom attested by overwhelming evidence — seldom compels assent. Probabilities may be in its favour — may preponderate — but there may be circumstances notwithstanding that may induce some to doubt its truthfulness, and to withhold, in consequence, a hearty, full acceptance of it. And if that which is true they wish to be untrue, they will do this, glad to find in those circumstances what they will regard as a justi- fication of their unbelief. Such a ground of offence, then, may have been designed. It would be but one probation out of the many by which in this state of pro- bation we are surrounded and tested. 14 "the law, the prophets, But, it may be asked, does not tlie assertion that all Scripture is given by inspiration of God, prove the inspiration of Scripture, not in re- ligious respects alone, but in every respect ? No ; it does not. For what is — not tbe forced, but tbe fair meaning of tbe words, " all Scripture " ? — every word, every sentence, every small detail, every unimportant narrative ? or, every Book ? The words are as susceptible of the latter of these two senses as of the former. Whether, therefore, they are to be understood in the one, or whether in the other, must be determined upon other grounds than those furnished by the phrase itself. If upon independent grounds there is reason for believ- ing that every word and every narrative of Scripture is alike inspired, then we must of course accept the words in the former of these senses ; but if, upon independent grounds, we have reason to believe that the inspiration of Scripture is restricted to its religious teachings, then not only will the words admit gram- matically of the sense in which we understand them, but they will even demand it. And if so, then the declaration that all Scripture is inspired asserts, not the inspiration of every sepa- AND TIJE PSALMS.'* 15 rate narrative, and of every separate sentence, but the inspiration upon religious matters of every Book — of the historical no less than of the prophetical and doctrinal, and of the propheti- cal and doctrinal no less than the historical. '^V^ith regard to the translation in this pas- sage of the word Ottve udrog, " given by inspira- tion of God," we have a further remark to make, viz., that such translation is not exact. It goes beyond the original. It implies, or seems to imply, what the original does not imply. The word "given" suggests some- thing like a continuous dictation, or suggestion, or something of that sort. But the translation is paraphrastical, not literal. The Greek word is more literally translated if ''given" be omitted ; that which it asserts being not the divinity and authority of all Scripture as given by inspiration of God, but its divinity and authority as heing by inspiration of God. I prefer, therefore, to say that all Scripture is ''hy inspiration of God" than to say that it was ^^ given by inspiration of God." But, leaving these general remarks, there are certain of these books that demand a more especial notice. 16 " THE LAW, THE PROPHETS, As regards tliat of the Psalms, the impre- catory passages contained therein are very commonly urged in disproof of its inspiration ; and to most Christian minds these passages have always presented more or less of diffi- culty. "Give them according to their deeds; render to them their desert" (xxviii. 4). "Let death seize upon them, and let them go down quick into hell (Sheol, i.e., the grave, or the unseen world) ; for wickedness is in their dwell- ings, and among them" (Iv. 15). "Be not merciful to any wicked transgressors. Con- sume them in thy wrath, consume them, that they may not be" (lix. 5). "Persecute them with thy tempest, and make them afraid with thy storm. Let them be confounded and troubled for ever ; yea, let them be put to shame, and perish" (Ixxxiii. 15, 17). These, it is granted, are very fearful passages ; but they are, after all, at least so we think, not so incapable of vindication as some may imagine. "We rest our vindication of them not upon the mere fact that the impiety of those against whom they were directed was great and defiant, and their cruelty fierce and bloody ; nor upon the mere fact that the evil imprecated was merited ; but AND THE PSALMS.'* 17 upon the fact that these imprecations are in strict keeping with the character of God's ordinary course of action under the Old Testament dispensa- tion. Under that dispensation, his proceedings, whether as regards his own people or the nations immediately around them, were, in reference to sin, to gross sin especially, marked by a severity which, under the reign of the Messiah, no longer exists. The Israelites transgress in the matter of the golden calf ; and the command goes forth, " Put every man his sword by his side, and go in and out from gate to gate throughout the camp, and slay every man his brother, and every man his com- panion, and every man his neighbour." The Canaanites ha\TLng exhausted God's long- suffering, and filled up the measure of their iniquities, the IsraeKtes are commissioned (or commanded rather) to extirpate them utterly. " Thine eye shall not pity nor thy hand spare, but thou shall utterly destroy them ; both man and woman, infant and suckling, ox and sheep, camel and ass ;" and "cursed be he that doeth the work of the Lord deceitfully." It seems as if a dispensation of unsparing severity was a necessary preliminary to one of mercy and 18 " THE LAW, THE PROPHETS, long-suffering — as if, without it, men would altogether refuse to believe that God so hated sin as very much to care for it, or as to be willing or disposed to punish it very severely. Under the Old Testament dispensation, there- fore, not only was temporal punishment God's ordinary course in reference to the flagrantly impenitent, but that punishment also for the most part was stern, severe, relentless ; and included in its fell swoop (in order the more vividly to mark the reality and intensity of the indignation against the sin that had pro- voked it) not the sinner himself only, but all that appertained to him. This was terrible ; but it taught a lesson ; and that lesson, if we will learn it, it teaches us to this day. For not being like-minded with God in this respect, Saul moreover is rejected, and Achan dies ; whilst Jehu, for his vigorous execution of God's will in reference to the worshippers of Baal, though " he took no heed to walk in the law of the Lord" in other respects, is com- mended ; and David, for his like-mindedness in the matter, is declared to be "a man after God's own heart." The ordinary character of God's dealings in AND THE PSALMS." 19 these respects had. so associated in tlie Jewish mind the ideas of flagrant transgression and of flagrant punishment, that the existence of the one appears to have suggested at once, and. as it were naturally, the expectation of the other. In the case of gross impiety no other issue seems to have been thought of ; so that when the pious among them witnessed persistency in impenitence, and cruel Avrong and sin, no other course seemed open to them but to pray that the impenitence and sin in question might meet with their deserved reward, and that the wicked doer of the same might be destroyed. In the case, then, of those against whom these imprecations were directed, we may without difficulty believe that God, willing their destruction, prompted the prayers in question. There is no need to assume personal vindictiveness for personal injury. The flagrancy of the impiety of those denounced, taken in connection with the fact, that to visit flagrant transgression with stern, unsparing, flagrant punishment, was then God's ordinary course, is quite sufficient to account for these terrible imprecations, without any such gra- tuitous supposition as that the petitioner was 20 "the law, the prophets, actuated by personal yindictiveness ; quite sufficient to warrant the belief tbat tbey were prompted not by a spirit of revenge on account of personal wrongs, but inspired by God*s own Spirit, as mucb so as any otber of tbe petitions of the Psalms. It is idle to allege that Christianity incul- cates a different spirit ; that the Christian is called upon to bless them that curse him, and to pray for them that despitefully use him and persecute him ; and that Christian pity would prompt rather a prayer that the wicked, how- eyer wicked, may turn from their wickedness and live. As under the Old dispensation God revealed himself chiefly as severe to punish, so under the New he reveals himself chiefly as ready to forgive. And as under the Old he required of his people the entertainment of sen- timents and feelings in reference to gross sin that should be consonant with his own, so under the New he requires a corresponding consonance. No Christian man, consequently, would be justified in so denouncing his enemies as David did : neither, on the other hand, might David innocently pity those whom God AND THE PSALMS." 21 had denounced, or bless those whom he had cursed.* Should it be thought by any one that these remarks are not sufficient to set aside the objection urged, upon the ground of these pas- sages, against the Psalms, no Christian man can hesitate to believe, if upon no other authority, upon that of our Lord, that the Psalms are inspired in some respect. Upon the supposition, then, that they were not inspired as regards these imprecations, it will not follow that they were not inspired as regards the de- * To suppose, however, as men for the most part do, that the command to love one's enemies, to return good for evil, not to avenge oneself, and the like, is peculiar to the gospel, is a mistake. The like command is as plainly given under the Old economy as under the New. " If thou meet thine enemy's ox or his ass going astray, thou shalt bring it back to him. If thou see the ass of him that hateth thee lying under his burden, thou shalt surely help him" (Exod. xxiii. 4, 5). "Thou shalt not avenge nor bear grudge against the children of thy people, but thou shalt love thy nvighbour as thyself'^ (Lev. xix. 18). It is true that our Lord, in his Sennon on the Mount, says, " Ye have heard that it hath been said, Thou shalt love thy neighbour, and hate thine enemy,'" but the words, " and hate thine enemy," are clearly a Jewish gloss. In the Old Testament itself no such addition to the command to love one's neighbour, is anywhere to be met with. In it, vindictivencss upon personal grounds is as much condemned as in the New. 22 "the law, the prophets, votional spirit and language tliat pervade them, nor as regards the predictions so won- derfully accomplished in our Lord's life and passion. But, for our own part, we believe that the consonancy of the passages objected to with God's ordinary course of action, in reference to flagrant impenitence under the Old Testament dispensation, sufficiently vindi- cates the belief that they were as much inspired as any other portion of the Psalms. In some cases these passages will admit of special vindication upon the ground of miscon- ception or mistranslation ; as in Ps. cix. ; Ixix. 27; cxxxvii. 8, 9 ; xli. 10 ; Ixxix. 6 : but even upon the supposition that they will not, it still remains true that we have our Lord's authority for asserting their inspiration, at least in some respect, and that non-inspiration in one particular is no disproof of full inspiration in another. The grounds, founded upon the nature of their contents, upon which the inspiration of the Song of Solomon and Ecclesiastes have been ques- tioned, are so well known that it is needless to repeat them. Next to them, perhaps, no books of the Old Testament have been m.ore strongly AND THE PSALMS." 23 objected to than the two Books of the Chronicles, chiefly upon the ground of the constantly recur- ring differences of statements in them from those given in the parallel accounts of Samuel and Kings. These, though none of them are of any practical importance, are certainly very remarkable, as the subjoined instances will show, and at the same time very numerous. We subjoin a few of the more obvious ones : 2 Sam. xxiv. 9.—" And 1 Chron. xxi. 5.— "And Joab gave up the sum of Joab gave the sum of the the number of the people number of the people unto unto the king; and there David; and all they of ■were in Israel light hundred Israel were a thousand thou- thousand valiant men that sand and a hundred thousand drew the sword ; and the men that drew sword ; and men of Judah were Jive Judah was four hundred hundred thousand men.'" three score and ten thousand men that drew sword." 2 Sam. xxiv. 24.— " So 1 Chron. xxi. 25.— " So David bought the threshing- David gave to Oman /or the floor and the oxen for fifty place six hundred shekels of sh ekels of silver. " gold.'' [As regards these two passages, it is possible, indeed, that the " threshing-floor" and " the place" are not identical.] 1 Kings vii. 15.— "For 2 Chron. iii. 15.— "Also he [Solomon] cast two pillars he made before the house of brass, of eighteen cubits two pillars of thirty and five high." cubits high." 24 THE LAW, THE PROPHETS, 1 Kings vii-. 26.—" And it [the molten sea] contained two thousand baths." 1 Kings ix. 28.— "And they came to Ophir, and fetched from thence gold, four hundred and twenty talents, and brought it to King Solomon." 2 Kings ix. 27.—" And he [Ahaziah] fled to Megiddo, and died there."' 1 Kings XT. 32, 33.—" In the third year of Asa, King of Judah, began Baasha to reign over all Israel in Tirzah, twenty and four years. And there was war between Asa and Baasha, King of Israel, all their days." 1 Kings xxii. 43. — " And he [Jehoshaphat] walked in 2 Chron. iv. 5.— "And it [the molten sea] held three thousand baths." 2 Chron. viii. 18.— "And they went with the sei-vants of Solomon to Ophir, and took thence yb?riori probability or improbability we are not perhaps very competent judges. There are many things which a prejudgment would lead us to expect, that in actual fact are not as were anticipated. Especially is this the case in refer- ence to the things of God ; here, our prejudg- ments are falsified continually, and in reference c 34 **THE LAW, THE PROPHETS, to Scripture no less than in reference to otlier things. If, for instance, we should a priori have expected that Scripture, if inspired, would be infallibly accurate and exact upon every little point ; a priori we should have equally expected that the integrity and purity of its text would have been so watched over by a superintending Providence, as to be preserved throughout all time as free from error as when it was first penned. But we know that it has not been so watched over ; that errors of various kinds have changed it ; that that which has happened to all other books has happened to the Bible also ; that the text, in short, is, in certain places, more or less corrupted from what it originally was ; and what is more, that in many cases it is obviously inaccurate and conflicting. It has been said that the preservation of the text from all error would have demanded miraculous intervention, and that miraculous intervention was a thing not to be expected. Cannot God bring about a designed result otherwise than by miracle ? Can he accom- plish a purpose only miraculously ? If so, then (miracles having ceased) his agency no longer AND THE PSALMS." 35 begets events, no longer effects purposes, no longer answers praj^er, no longer rules tlie world. Witliout miracle lie has watclied over and preserved the Scriptures themselves from perishing ; and without a miracle he could, had he seen fit, as easily have preserved the sacred text from corruption ; but he has not. Again, a 2)rioriy we should have expected that all translations of Holy Scripture would have been divinely preserved from at least all m.aterial error. Has this been done? It has not. Could it not have been done ? It could. Without miracle ? Yes, without miracle. A j^i'ion'f we shoidd have expected (since one at least of the ends contemplated by Scripture was the enlightenment and instruction of those who desired to know God's will) that God would have preserved his church from all mis- conception as to what was inspired Scripture and what was not. But not even this has been done. To say nothing of the conflicting opinions upon this point in our own day, what difficulties did not the early Christian church experience in this respect, and how discrepant were the conclusions of those who gave themselves to the inquiry — some receiving as Scripture only those 36 *' THE LAW, THE PROPHETS, books whicli tlie Jews tliemselves acloiowledged, as Melito (a.d. 170), Epiphanius (a.d. 368), Jerome (a.d. 380), and Ruiinus (a.d. 390) ; otliers inclining to tlie opinion that all the Greek additions of the LXX version were of equal authority, equally divine ; and others holding this opinion in reference only to some of them. Cyril (a.d. 350), for instance, recognises only Baruch, with its appendix, the Epistle of Jere- miah ; as does also the Council of Laodicea (a.d. 360). Origen (a.d. 230) rejects all these Greek additions, except the Epistle, as does also Hilary (a.d. 254). ''But," says Hilary, "to some it seems good to add Tobit and Judith." Augus- tine (a.d. 400), together with the Councils of Hippo and of Carthage (a.d. 397), accept not these only, but the Books of Wisdom, Ecclesias- ticus, and the Maccabees as well ; whilst Jerome and other of the Fathers, together with the Church of England and Protestants generally, reject them all. A priori expectations, then, in reference to Scripture, may be, have been falsified. Why, then, may not those which lead us to anticipate that if Scripture be inspired in one respect, viz., in a religious, it will be equally inspired in all ? AND THE PSALMS. 37 In itself considered, it is clearly possible that a certain amount of small inaccuracies upon mat- ters of no religious importance should co-exist with infallible accuracy in reference to religious truth ; and whatever may be men's a priori ex- pectations upon the matter, we will not under- take to say that the expectation that they would not co-exist, has not been as much falsified by fact, as those others adverted to above. God's proceedings in reference to revelation have failed to realize a priori expectations in other particulars also, besides those already noticed ; viz., in that it is not universal ; in that upon some points it is incomplete, upon others obscure ; and the like. Why then may not ex- pectation have been falsified in this as well ? *' Since upon experience/' says Bishop Butler, who has a chapter upon the subject,* " the ac- knowledged constitution and course of nature is found to be greatly difierent from what before experience would have been expected ; it is be- forehand highly credible that the revealed dis- pensation will likewise be found to be very diff'erent from expectations formed beforehand." The Bishop's illustrations of his argument are, * " Analogy," part ii. chap. 3. 38 "the law, the prophets, we tMnk, very forcible. His " Analogy " is in every one's hand ; let the reader turn to them. Men may, if they please, make this absence of things expected by them, a reason for reject- ing Scripture — some do. But the fact referred to by Butler as to God's proceedings in nature? may well cause us to suspect that such may also have been his proceedings in reference to revelation. As regards the Book of Esther, the absence in it of a religious tone and spirit is particularly striking, and seems hardly to consist with the supposition of its being an inspired document. " The other sacred writings of the Jews,'' says Stuart, " represent God not only as the theoretical, but as the practical sovereign of the universe, dispensing both good and evil. Not 80 the Book of Esther. Omitting, as it does, all reference to an overruling Providence, it shows how transformed as to this style of thinking and writing the writer had become by living in a foreign country. The fasting and weeping (chap, iv.) betoken indeed a sense of religious dependence ; and in iv. 14 there is an evident allusion to the promises of preserving the Jew- ish nation, let the danger be what it might. AND THE PSALMS." 39 But, whatever tlie writer's reasons were for an uniform silence on tlie subject of religion and divine interposition, he has not given them to us, and it is certainly with no small difficulty that we can make out reasons satisfactory to our own minds." — " Defence of the Canon," p. 161. Dr. Davidson, as might be expected, puts this matter yet more strongly. " The Jews were delivered from an unde- served and indiscriminate destruction by means which human forethought could not have de- vised. Their salvation was almost miraculous. Instead of being slaughtered by their enemies, their enemies were put to death by them. The history is pregnant with the manifestations of an overriding Providence, yet there is no recog- nition of the Supreme One to whom they owed their preservation. 'No gratitude is expressed for his favour. Indeed, there is an entire sup- pression of the religious spirit ; the events being described in the cold manner of a secular writer whose philosophy rises no higher than the out- ward phenomena around him." — " Introduction to the Old Testament," ii. 166. Its authorship has been variously conjectured. Our own belief (and it is, we believe, the only one which will satisfactorily account for its ut'ter 40 "the law, the prophets, want of reKgious tone and spirit) is that advo- cated by tlie late Mr. Home, viz., that it is a *' translated extract from the memoirs of the reign of the Persian monarch Ahasuerus. The Asiatic sovereigns, it is well known, caused annals of their reigns to be kept, and the book itself attests that Ahasuerus had such records. Now, if it was necessary that the Jews should have a faithful narrative of their history under Queen Esther, from what more certain source could they derive such history than from the memoirs of the king, her consort ? Either Ezra or Mordecai had authority or credit enough to obtain such an extract. In this case, too, we can better account for the retaining of the Per- sian word Furim, as well as for the details which we read concerning the empire of Ahasuerus, and for the exactness with which the names of his ministers and of Haman's sons are recorded. The circumstance of this history being an ex- tract from the Persian annals will also account for the Jews being mentioned only in the third person, and why Esther is so frequently desig- nated by the title of Queen, and Mordecai by the epithet of ' the Jew.^ It will also account for those numerous parentheses which interrupt AND THE PSALMS." 41 tlie narrative, in order to subjoin the illustra- tions whicli were necessary for a Jewish reader ; and for the abrupt termination of the narrative by one sentence relative to the power of Ahas- uerus, followed by another relative to Mordecai's greatness. Finally, it is evident that the author of this extract, whoever he was, wished to make a final appeal to the source whence he derived it (x. 2, 'Are they not written?' &c.). This very plausible conjecture, we apprehend, will also satisfactorily answer the objection that this book contains nothing peculiar to the Israelites except Mordecai's genealogy. There is, un- questionably, no mention made of Divine Pro- vidence or of the name of God in these memoirs or chronicles ; and if the author of the extract had given it a more Jewish complexion — if he had spoken of the God of Israel — instead of ren- dering his narrative more credible, he would have deprived it of an internal character of truth." — "Introduction to the Holy Scriptures," edit. 7, iv. pp. 65, 66. Whether the non-religious tone of the book be or be not a valid objection to its being of in- spired authorship, we do not pretend to deter- mine. But upon the supposition that it is, 42 "the law, the prophets, it must be borne in mind tbat the disproof of the inspiration of any one or more of the several books of the Old Testament as we now have it, in no respect invalidates the proof of the in- spiration of the rest. The alternative is not either to receive in the mass or to reject in the mass. People in general are accustomed to believe that it is ; that the canon, as it is called, has been authoritatively determined ; and that no reasonable doubt exists that the whole of the books that were recognised as inspired and divine by Josephus, Melito, and others, were so recognised also by our Lord, and by the Jews of our Lord's time ; and it is mainly from this consideration that Stuart, in spite of the diffi- culties to which we have adverted, and which he confesses to be embarrassing, maintains their right to be accepted as inspired. But this is not the case. The only writings of the Old Testament that can with certainty be proved to have been recognised by our Lord as Scripture, are " The Law, the Prophets, and the Psalms " (or, according to the briefer and more usual formula, as in Matt. vii. 12 ; xi. 13 ; xxii. 40, &c., " The Law and the Prophets"*)— * The Psalms, Idj an understood conventionalism, being of course included. See Luke xxiv. 44, and Acts ii. 30. AND THE PSALMS." 43 these, and no other. There may be some difficulty in ascertaining with certainty the books that are included in this phrase ; but, be they what they may, they and they only are the books recognised by our Lord as Scrij)ture. By '' the Law," we understand, of course, the Pentateuch, or five books called the Books of Moses ; all of which are repeatedly quoted in the New Testament, or referred to, as of divine authority.* But what books are to be * "Within certain limits, tlie inspii'ation of the Pentateuch is in no respect afl'ected by the authorship either of Genesis or Deuteronomy. It is quite possible that the former was, strictly speaking, not so much written by Moses as collected and edited by him ; and the latter, though spoken by him, may have been committed to actual writing, not by IMoses himself, but by a contemporary, perhaps Joshua. Who actually ■wrote it, is, however, not material. It is referred to in the New Testament as haAdng been at least spoken by l^Ioses, and for us that is sufiicient. For this reason, and for others also, we feel sure that at least Jeremiah did not ■write it. As regards Bishop Colenso's other fancy, viz., that the other portion of the Pentateuch was written " probably by Samuel," a well-known writer who has taken no pai-t whatever in the recent controversy, Dean Milman, makes a remark that, considering the quarter from which it comes, is extremely gratifying. " A recent view," says the Dean, " assigns the Pentateuch to the age of Samuel. This appears to me by no means a happy conjecture. Among the most remarkable points in the record in Exodus is its intimate and familiar knowledge of Egypt. AU the allusions, with which it teems, to the polity, laws, usages, 44 *' THE LAW, THE PROPHETS, included in the second of these divisions, viz., " the Prophets," must, to a great extent, be a matter of almost mere conjecture. It comprises of course the Prophetical Writings commonly so called (Isaiah, Jeremiah, &c.) ; and, as through- out the whole of the theocracy, from the days of the patriarchs down to the days of the last of the prophets, there appears to have been an uninterrupted succession of divinely enlightened and therefore of divinely inspired men, perhaps most of the historical books. Samuel, together with the prophets or seers. Gad, Nathan, Iddo, Isaiah, and Shemaiah, are expressly spoken of as having written more or less fully the histories of their respective times ; so that whether those productions, arts, to the whole Egyptian life, with which we have lately hecome so well acquainted, are minutely and unerringly true. Even the wonders are Egyptian, and exclusively Egyptian. " But for the two or thi-ee centuries between the Exodus and Samuel, all intercourse with Egypt seems to have been entirely broken off. Between the Exodus and the Egyptian wife of Solomon (excepting an adventure with an Egyptian slave, in David's wars) there is no word which betrays relation to Egypt. Dirring the Judges the Israelites are warred upon and war with all the bordering nations, but of Egypt not a word. The writer of that book, as well as of those of Samuel, seem even as if ignorant of the existence of such a country." — " History of the Jews," thii'd edition, vol. i., Preface, p. xxvii. AND THE PSALMS." 45 wliicli we have of those times are or are not those very histories, it cannot be doubted that they were, at the least, compiled therefrom. One of these books, viz., the First Book of Kings, is, upon one occasion, expressly quoted as " Scripture " {" Wot ye not what the Scripture saith of Elias?" &c. — Eom. xi. 2); and the histories of all of them (those of Esther, Ezra, Kehemiah, and perhaps Chronicles ex- cepted) are repeatedly more or less referred to in the New Testament as veracious and authoritative. We may therefore conclude that at least the Books of Samuel and Kings, pro- bably also of Joshua, Judges, and Ruth, and possibly of Chronicles, and of Ezra, and Nehemiah also, were so regarded and so classed. The Book of Job likewise (to which Ezekiel and St. Peter both refer, and which St. Paul also apparently quotes — 1 Cor. iii. 19) may be presumed to have belonged to this division, and perhaps the Book of Proverbs. It is thrice quoted in the New Testament, and that probably, though not expressly, as Scrip- ture (viz., in Heb. xii. 5 ; 1 Peter ii. 8 ; Pom. xii. 20). It is true that the mere fact that it is quoted does not prove it to have been such ; 46 "the law, the prophets, and that some liave objected, in reference to this book, that its maxims are to a great extent prudential rather than religions. Perhaps they are, perhaps they are not ; let each man judge for himself. No authorized canon, no divinely inspired council, has any authority over our faith in the matter. The third division, " the Psalms," so far as we have the means of knowing, contained, or seems to have contained, only the Psalms. It is easy to assert that this third division con- sisted of more books than one, the first (that of the Psalms) giving name to the whole of them ; but the assertion is an assumption. It may be true, or it may not ; but there is no evidence to prove it. All that one can feel sure of is that our Lord's recognition as Scripture, of " the Law, the. Prophets, and the Psalms," was, of course, the recognition of all the books that rightfully belonged to the one or the other of these divisions ; but whether the books assigned to them by Josephus of right belonged to them, or whether they did not, of this we cannot feel sure. If it were, as Stuart asserts, and as indeed is commonly asserted, certain that the books recognised by our Lord as Scripture were iden- AND THE PSALMS." 47 tical witb. those recognised by Joseplius, and by Melito and others who wrote after the destruc- tion of Jerusalem, then indeed we should as Christians be bound, upon our Lord's authority, to receive them as such ourselves. But the asser- tion that they were identical is a mere assump- tion, and cannot be substantiated. With a view to the proving that it cannot, and for a clear apprehension of the facts of the question, it is desirable, before proceeding fur- ther, to give in full, and in their very words, the evidence (furnished by Sirachides, byPhilo, by Josephus, and by Melito respectivelj^), which has been supposed to warrant the con- clusion which we have ventured to call a mere assumption. The earliest, indeed the only evidence bearing upon the question prior to the time of Christ, is that of Sirachides, in whose Prologue to the Book of Ecclesiasticus we meet with the following expressions : — ""WTicrcas many and great things have heen delivered unto ns b)j the Laiv, and the Prophets, and by others that have followed in their steps" «S:c. (5io rov fJo/xov nai ruv UpocpriTuv, KOI Tuv aXXwu kot uvtovs rjKoKovd-qKOTwv.) *' My grandfather, when he had much given himself to the reading the Law and the Prophets, and the other books of our Fathers,'' &c. (wai tcdv aWuu iraTpiuv fii^Kioov.) 48 "the law, the prophets, " The same things uttered in Hehrew, and thence translated into another tongue, have not the same force in them ; and not only these things, but the Law itself and the Prophets (or Prophecies), and the rest of the books (o "No/xos, Kai at npocprjTeiai Kai ra Xonra rwu PifiAiwv), have no small difference when they are spoken in their own lan- guage." The evidence supplied by the writings of Philo (who flourished about a.d. 40), occurs in his treatise " De Yita Contemplativa," where, speaking of the Therapeutse, or Essenes, he says : — " In every house is a sanctuary, which is called the sacred place or monastery, in which they perform the mysteries of a holy life, introducing nothing into it hut the Laws and oracles predicted by the Prophets, and Hymns, and the other [writings] by which knowledge and piety are increased and perfected. {Noixovs, Kai Koyia decrTTicrdevTa 5ia IIpo(p7]TUP, Kai T/xvovs, Kai ra aWa ois CTTKTTrijXT] Kai evae^eia ffwav^ovrai Kai TeXciowrai.) Addressing themselves to the sacred writings," &c. " They have also writings of their elders," &c. Then comes that of Josephus, who in his book against Apion (I. 8.), written about A.D. 100, i.e., about 30 years after the de- struction of Jerusalem, writes as follows : — " We have not an innumerable number of books among us, disagreeing from and contradicting one another, as AND THE PSALMS." 49 the Greeks have, but only twenty-two, which contain the records of all the past times, and which are justly believed to be dixdne. Of these, five belong to Moses. As to the time from the death of Moses till the reign of Artaxerxes, King of Persia, the Prophets who were after Moses wrote down what was done in their times in thirteen books. The remaining four books contain hymns to God and precepts for the conduct of human life. It is true our history hath been written since Artaxerxes very particularly, but it hath not been esteemed of the like authority with the former by our foi-efathers, because there hath not been an exact succession of prophets since that time." The 13 books of the ''Prophets" of this passage are, as is well known, commonly re- garded as comprising — 1, Joshua; 2, Judges and E/Uth in one book ; 3, the two Books of Samuel ; 4, the two Books of Kings; 5, the two Books of Chronicles ; 6, Ezra and Nehemiah in one book ; 7, Esther ; 8, Job ; 9, Isaiah ; 10, Jere- miah and Lamentations in one book ; 11, Eze- kiel ; 12, Daniel; 13, the twelve minor Pro- phets, Hosea, &c., and the 4 of " Hymns and Rules of Life," the Psalms, the Proverbs, the Song of Solomon, and the Book of Ecclesiastes. The testimony of Melito, Bishop of Sardis, who flourished about a.d. 170, as given by Eusebius in his *' Ecclesiastical History " (lib. iv. c. 26), is as follows : — 50 <( THE LAW, THE PROPHETS, " In the ■beginning of his preface, Melito gives a cata- logue of the books of the Old Testament acknowledged as canonical. This we have thought necessary to give here literally, as follows : — " ' Melito to Onesimus, his brother, greeting. Since you have often requested, through the earnest desire that you cherish for the Word, that you might have a selection made for you from the Law and the Prophets, which has respect to our Saviour and the whole of our faith; and since, moreover, you have been desirous to obtain an accurate account of the ancient books, both as to their number and their order, I have taken pains to accomplish this. . . . . Making a journey, therefore, into the East, and having arrived at the place where these things were proclaimed and transacted, I there learned accurately the books of the Old Testament, which I here arrange and transmit to you. The names are as follows : — The five books of Moses (Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, Deuteronomy) ; then Joshua of Nun, Judges, Euth, four books of Kings, two of Chronicles, the Psalms of David, the Proverbs of Solomon (also called Wisdom), Ecclesiastes, the Song of Songs, Job. Prophets : Isaiah, Jeremiah, the Twelve in one book, Daniel, Ezekiel, Ezra' [including probably Nehemiah]."* ]^ow it is obvious, from a comparison of tlie testimony of Joseplius with, that given by * Counting the books as arranged by Melito, we find them only twenty-one in number, which lacks one of the number as given by Josephus. The Book of Esther has been thought to have been dropped by accident, and perhaps it was; but both Athanasius (a.d. 326) and Gregory Nazianzen (a.d. 370) also omit it. AND THE PSALMS." 51 Melito, that his Old Testament and the Old Testament as now printed, are, as regards the writinofs recos-nised, one and the same. The only difference is that he arranges them differently. But it must be remembered that the book that contains the testimony of Josephus upon the point (viz., his treatise against Apion) was not written until after the destruction of Jerusalem, (a fact of which I cannot find that any defender of the common Hebrew canon takes the smallest notice,) when all that remained of ancient Hebrew literature (including that which, upon religious or national grounds, the Jews had been accustomed more or less to reve- rence, though not inspired) may have been over- estimated ; so that to assume that the whole of the books recognised by Josephus and the Jews of his time were recognised also by our Lord and by the Jews of his time, is clearly a mere begging of the question. We do not say that they were not, but that there is no proof that they were. So far as testimony goes, they may or they may not. If it be true that there is not in any of the books of the Old Testament as recognised by Josephus anything that is in 52 "the law, the prophets, any respect inconsistent with inspiration, they may have been the same ; but if, on the other hand, any of them contain matter that is in any respect inconsistent therewith, then we may feel sure that they were not. We may wonder that the canon, as it is called, should be in any respect a matter of uncertainty. But it is. We have no divine, no authoritative decision upon the point. The tradition, though there is no proof of its being of ancient date,* that after the return from Babylon, Ezra and others collected into one volume all the then existing sacred writings, may be quite true. There is no improbability in it. On the contrary, it is more probable, perhaps, than otherwise. But there is no proof, even upon the supposition that he did so collect them, that the books collected by him and his successors as " sacred ^^ included the whole of the books that were received by Josephus as sacred. Judging from our Lord's often- repeated formula, it is quite as probable, or rather much more, that the books regarded as "sacred," were simply "the Law, the Prophets, and the Psalms" — not the Law, the Prophets, * The earliest mention of it being that of the Talmud. AND THE PSALMS.'* 53 and the Psalms, ''and rules of life," as in Josephus ; not the Law, the Prophets, and the Psalms, "and the other writings," as in Sirachides and Philo ; but "the Law, the Prophets (understanding the term as above), and the Psalms " only. The other — the non-prophetical books — those referred to apparently by Sirachides and by Philo, and by them referred to expressly as "the other" — (by them so spoken of, there- fore, as if they were distinct from and belonged to neither of the three divisions into which the Scriptures proper were divided) — may have been added indeed as a sort of appendage, and probably were : just as the Jews of Alexandria added to their Greek version of the Hebrew Scriptures the writings of the Greek Apo- crypha; and just as the Church of England appends, to this day, to its printed Bibles, books which it believes to be uninspired. But though added, there is no ground whatever for sup- posing that they formed any part of Scrip- ture proper; or were collected or appended as divinely inspired ; or were regarded as such until the time of Josephus, i.e., until after the destruction of Jerusalem. If we are to infer from the fact of the whole 54 "the law, the prophets, of tliese books being collected into one volume, that they were equally regarded as Scripture proper, we must infer from the equally certain fact that the LXX (a Jewish translation, be it remembered) contained the apocryphal books, that these apocryphal books were also regarded as sacred — and that by and in the time of our Lord, who uses this version. But if they (the apocryphal books) were not so regarded (although in this translation appended to and even intermingled with the sacred writings), it follows that in the Hebrew volume also, no less than in the Gfreek translation, books that, upon religious or national grounds, were reverenced, though not inspired, may have been appended to books that were. So long as " the Law, the Prophets (as that term was understood by the Jews, and by our Lord), and the Psalms," were alone recognised as Scripture — so long as non-Prophetical books were regarded as non- Prophetical, and non- Psalmistic as non-Psalmistic — no harm could result from their being appended, nor even from their being intermingled with them ; any more than harm can result from the Bible and the Book of Common Prayer, or the Homilies, AND THE PSALMS." 55 or Brady and Tate, being issued in one volume, and under one cover. The phrase defined as well as divided Scripture ; so that mischief could arise only from a lax interpretation of it — only by so understanding it as to include under the one or the other of these divisions books that the definition did not comprehend — books that were not of the prophets among "the Prophets," and books that were not Psalms among " the Psalms." There is (as we have already said) no evi- dence to show that this was done prior to the days of Josephus, i.e., prior to the destruction of Jerusalem. These " other books " were reverenced, and cared for, and preserved, but there is no proof that they were ever regarded as Scnpture, prior to his days — prior to that event. It is just possible that they may have been ; we cannot venture to say that they were not ; but we can venture to say that proof is wanting that they were. But then, when Jerusalem had fallen, when its polity and worship were subverted, when its temple lay in ruins, then all that remained to the Jews of their ancient religious literature, whether inspired or not, would, we may pre- 56 "the law, the prophets, sume, assume, in Jewisli estimation, an increased importance. Books which up to this period had been preserved, not as inspired, but only as more or less valuable, those especially in which were preserved fragments of documents henceforth irrecoverably lost, they would, it is very likely, be disposed to over-estimate ; and to receive, even as inspired, not only the hitherto recognised Scriptures of '' the Law, the Prophets, and the Psalms,'' but all that remained to them of the writings of their ancient worthies — all those post-Babylonian fragments of their national history that were extant in their ancient native language, in- spired or uninspired. Under these circum- stances, and acting no longer under pro^^hetic guidance, how natural then would it be that they should be disposed to incorporate with the Prophets and the Psalms of their Scriptures proper, those Hebrew books which hitherto may have been only appended to them ? The LXX having fallen into disrepute, in consequence, it is said, of the use made of it by the Christians, it is no wonder that they did not receive, as inspired, LXX contributions towards the history of their nation — the books AND THE PSALMS." 67 of the Maccabees for instance ; but tliose which were extant and ancient in their own language, and which custom had associated with their own Hebrew Scriptures, would naturally be very differently regarded by them. Thus it is that we account for the reception by Josephus and his contemporaries, of books, as sacred and as inspired, which possibly were not inspired ; and which there is no evidence what- ever to show were ever regarded as such by our Lord, or in his time. These other writings, moreover, are thence- forth (Jerusalem having fallen) no longer spoken of as '' the other books," as by Sira- chides and Philo; but classed, as we learn from Josephus, some with the Prophets, some with the Psalms. But this, the classification of his time, was temporary only ; a subsequent one, that of the Masorites, transferring the books of Job, Ruth, the Lamentations, Esther, Ezra, Nehemiah, and Chronicles, together (strangely enough) with the Book of Daniel, to the latter of these divisions (to which in Josephus's time the writings of Solomon had already been appended), and changing the designation by which in our Lord's time this division was 58 "the law, the prophets, known, from "the Psalms," into tliat of "the Writings/'* And now comes the question, What are we to understand by the word " inspired," as applied to Scripture ? Does it always indicate such suggestion or supervision — -that unimport- ance, or incorrectness, or inexactness of state- ment, though of the most trivial kind, and upon subordinate and merely secular matters, are sufficient to disprove the inspiration of the * The very fact that the classification of the Jews in the time of Josephus was supposed to need a revision, would of itself seem to indicate that this classification was not the original one, not that which was current in the time of our Lord, and which we may assume to have been of prophetic origin, and virtually, therefore, divine and autho- ritative ; and so far, therefore, confirms, or seems to confirm, the opinion advocated in these pages as to the possible difference between the Old Testament of Josephus and the Old Testament of our Lord. The changing also of the designation of the division known in our Lord's time as " The Psalms " (an appropriate designation if it contained the Psalms only), into that of *' The Writings," upon the addition to it of writings that were not Psalms, and when, therefore, the appropriateness of the designation no longer existed, would seem also to confirm our yet further opinion that the third of the three divisions of our Lord's time included only the Psalms. With regard to the insertion in this division of the book of Daniel, see Stuart, p. 263 ; and for an admirable defence of its veracity and inspiration, see Walton's recently pub- lished " Geniiineness of the Book of Daniel." AND THE PSALMS." 59 ■writing containing them ? We have already said that we believe that it does not. If the writers of Scripture (whether in matters of petty and unimportant detail occasionally in- exact or not) were, upon matters of religious truth, enlightened by God's Spirit above their fellows, so as to qualify them to make known to others, infallibly and authoritatively, the things of the Spirit of God, Scripture is cer- tainly to that extent inspired ; and if to that extent, sufficiently inspired for the purposes for which Scripture was given. If that which, in virtue of Ihis enlightenment, they tell us re- specting God and ourselves could not have been known to them apart from such enlightenment, or apart from express revelation, it follows, whether Scripture be or be not inspired in other respects, that it must be inspired in this. If that which it teaches us it teaches us not as a matter of opinion, but authoritatively, as that there is a God, that he is just, merciful, good, a moral governor, and the like — if it makes known to us his will, and to a certain extent his purposes, authoritatively , together with our obligations, our needs, and his provision for those needs ; if it tells us authoritatively, how we may be saved, and how we may be lost ; if it makes 60 "the law, the prophets, known authoritatively, tliat the body shall rise again, that there is a day of future and of righteous retribution, and that that retribution is eternal, unchanging, final — if it does this, it must, if it be inspired in no other respect, be inspired in this, viz., as regards religious truth. Now it professes to do this, namely, to teach authoritatively, and our Lord recognises the claim ; for he appeals to Scripture as conclusive, and therefore as being, as regards religious truth, inspired. Doubt, suspicion, disproof even, as to its inspiration in other respects, would be no disproof then of its inspiration in this. Some of its statements upon religious points so commend themselves to our reason, that Keason not only accepts them, but thinks that she has, or could have, attained to the convic- tion of them by efforts of her own ; though no people, either in ancient or modern times, un- acquainted with the teachings of the Bible, has ever done so. But, upon the supposition that she could, it is manifest that she could not have attained to them all ; for some of them ra- tionalism rejects, as that God will so severely punish impenitence and sin, that he will save AND THE PSALMS." 61 from such punisliment only as tliere is faith in a provided Redeemer, and the like. That which they make known to us respect- ing God is, for the most part, not that which naturally suggests itself to the human mind ; nor when made known, is it that which men, without very much qualifying it, are at all dis- posed to receive. God's will is too much in- sisted on, and man's too little. No scheme of man's devising would have rej)resented God, on the one hand, as so merciful, nor, on the other, as so severe as the Bible does ; as offering to us the free forgiveness of all our offences, to- gether with the renovation of our verv nature, independently of any condition to be fulfilled on our part in the way of purchase or of atone- ment. No merely human scheme would have represented man as, in himself, completely lost ; as incapable, by any striving or amendment of his own, to recover and save himself ; as lying wholly at God's mercy. That the Bible method of reconciliation stands directl}^ opposed to every scheme which human wisdom would have de- vised, is evident from the reluctance with which it is received, though revealed, and the objec- tions by which it has been assailed. Naturally, 62 " THE LAW, THE PROPHETS, men like ratlier to regard God as a God of mere love — as forgiving sin solely on tlie ground of pity, and out of indulgence to what are termed the weaknesses and imperfections of human nature. Men in general have no more idea of the perfection of God's mercy than they have of the perfection of his justice. They ascribe the salvation of sinners neither to the one nor to the other in perfection and in harmony, but in some way or other to the claims of both as miti- gated by opposition. But the salvation of the Bible is of perfect justice as well as of perfect mercy, and of perfect mercy as well as of per- fect justice ; of perfect mercy, inasmuch as it declares salvation to be wholly of grace, without works of any kind as meriting or even as pro- curing it ; and of perfect justice, inasmuch as in the rightful punishment of a willing substi- tute (for sin demands punishment — sin ought to be punished) law has been vindicated, and justice has had a full and more honourable vin- dication than it could ever have had in the punishment of the sinner himself. Human wisdom invariably expects either that God will not very severely punish sin ; or else, if it take a sterner and juster view of sin's demerit, that AND THE PSALMS." 63 exemption from deserved penalty is only to be expected so far as tlie sinner is or has something himself to merit it. The grace of God is not regarded as consisting in giving for nothing, but in giving at an under- value. Upon these points, then, and such as these — points wherein the theology of Scripture diiffers from every other theology that has ever been accepted or conceived — we believe Scripture, all Scripture, to be clearly, truly, fully inspired ; and he, in our opinion, is the happiest and wisest believer, and most correctly understands the word ''inspired'' as applied to Scripture, who (without very precisely defining the term, and without troubling himself with petty objections and petty difiiculties that may or may not be valid, but that leave untouched and undisproved the divinity of its religious teachings) believes that the theology, the promises, the precepts, the doctrines of Scripture are all of them divine, all of them true, all of them to be depended upon, all of them authoritative, whether imme- diately suggested or not, whether directly dic- tated or not, and whether there be these objec- tions and these difficulties or not. The word " inspiration " has been very variously defined ; 64 " THE LAW, THE PROPHETS, but if this be believed, all is believed that can be known, and all is believed that is essential. A more precise definition is a mere speculation, a question ministering to strife rather than to edifying, a mere dogma that cannot be proved : and we doubt much whether St. Paul, in his well-known words to Timothy, ("All Scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correc- tion, for instruction in righteousness ; that the man of God may be perfect, throughly fur- nished unto all good works,") designed to affirm anything more definite. For all practical purposes, the sufficiency of such an inspiration as this is undeniable ; for, upon the supposition that the various books of Scripture were in any respect inspired (and that they were is assumed, and even asserted, by our Lord), for what end may we suppose them to have been so? Was it not that the church might, in all ages, have an infallible standard of religious doctrine to fall back upon ? — that we might not be at the mercy of mere tradition ? — that religious truth might be authoritatively, and divinely, and permanently stereotyped? If, then, the inspiration under which these AND THE PSALMS.'* 65 books were written was an inspiration securing their writers infallibly from all error upon points of religious truth, shall we presume to doubt their inspiration because their writers were, or seem to have been, permitted to fall occasionally into some such petty misstatement upon points of unimportant detail as left un- touched the substantial truthfulness and credi- bility of their various histories, and could be accounted for without impeachment of their in- tegrity? Was it essential to the design con- templated by their inspiration that they should record, with rigid exactness, the precise locality and circumstances of Ahaziah's death; or whether the Syrians slain by David were horsemen or footmen ; or whether Ahaz, when he died, was buried with his fathers or was not ? If inspiration were in all cases what it doubt- less was in some, a simple, direct, immediate infusion into the minds of those whom we are accustomed to regard as inspired, both of mat- ter and of words, then, if there be inexactnesses or discrepancies that cannot be reconciled, such inexactnesses and such discrepancies would of course, and at once, disprove their inspiration. They might be honest men, and, in the main, 66 . "the law, the prophets, trutli- telling and trustworthy ; but if infusion or dictation were the meaning, the necessary and sole meaning of the word, or if inspiration, in a religious respect, could not co- exist with non-inspiration in other and unessential respects, then it is clear that we must either be able to maintain that there are no such discrepancies, or give up, as disproved, the inspiration of their writings. But under what necessity are we of so limit- ing the word, or of making any such supposi- tion ? God, in time past, spake no less in divers manners than at sundry times. If the writers of Scripture were so superintended as to be preserved from all error on religious points, and so directed and so influenced as to make known correctly and infallibly all religious truth, why should I doubt the inspiration of their writings because of certain small inexact- nesses of unimportant detail, or why, on the other hand, claim for them an inspiration which they claim not for themselves — an inspiration securing them from all, even the least, discre- pancy. I know that if inexactnesses, however minute and unimportant, and though only occasional, be AND THE PSALMS." 67 admitted, or, if admitted (for there are cases in wliicli they must be admitted), be ascribed to any other cause than clerical error, the next step taken may be an inference that Scrip- ture cannot be implicitly depended upon in any of its statements. But this next step, if it follow, follows as an abuse. It does not follow as a legitimate and necessary consequence. If there be honesty of purpose, however, mischief can scarcely arise from the belief that Scripture, though inspired, is not so inspired as to be in every respect the very word of God himself, unless that belief be held so vaguely that we cannot draw a line between that which, making known to us religious truth, we receive as in- spired, and that which, being inexact or inaccu- rate, or the like, (for that is the h^^Dothesis,) is manifestly human. Mischief may arise from the admission ; but if there be discrepancy, inexactness, or inaccuracy, will none arise from their denial ? will none arise from sophistical concealment ? will none arise from forced, violent, improbable solutions ? But the question is not whether the admission may or may not be abused, but whether it be or be not demanded by the facts of the case, 68 " THE LAW, THE PROPHETS, and whetlier, if it be, tlie inspiration of all Scripture must be given up in consequence. All truth is liable to abuse. Tbe long-suffering and mercy of God, bis willingness for Christ's sake alone to forgive all sin, the doctrine that we are justified not of works but by grace, the help- lessness of man, the necessity of regeneration, — all truth may be abused, and is. He that desires to emancipate himself from the re- straints of the word of God, may easily do so by means of a little sophistry, even though he should believe in the inspiration of every detail and of every word. But he who is honest of purpose — who seeks to know the truth, and to know and to do the will of God — how will his faith be endangered, if, admitting that there are or seem to be petty inexactnesses in some of the minor details of Scripture narrative, he nevertheless believes that, upon all points of religious truth, all Scripture is inspired ? Nay, will he not even more heartily believe in the in- spiration of Scripture in this respect, when he sees that the belief does not necessitate the reception, as inspired, of statements that con- flict ? He can now afford to admit the validity of many an objection against his favourite book, AND THE PSALMS." 69 and yet still resort to it as being to him, as iniieh as ever, tlie very book of books, the very truth of God. He will rejoice that its value as a standard of religious truth is altogether un- affected by matters that (even though admit- ted) detract in no respect from its worth as a religious guide, leaving its value in that respect unsullied and intact. He will feel that he may now hold fast the word of truth, with- out being at the same time compelled to fight, at a disadvantage, in the face of appearances, if not of facts — maintaining that to be no in- accuracy which he nevertheless secretly believes, or fears, or suspects to be one — anxious about the solution of every petty difficulty — uneasy if he cannot satisfactorily refute every small objection ; for, holding fast to the conviction that the Bible is religiously inspired, he can even admit (should truth, or honesty, or pro- babilities demand it) the occasional inaccura- cies, or inexactnesses of statement (such as they are) that may be alleged by scoffers against the book, together with many other matters equally irrelevant (that leave untouched the truthfulness of its religious teachings) that have been urged as objections ; and yet feel that 70 *' THE LAW, THE PROPHETS, the admission would still leave tlie book, in religious respects, as mucli tlie word of God — as mucli the "inspired'' word of God — as ever. Men may shrink from this restriction of the applicability of the term " inspired " to the religious teachings of Scripture, as if it were dangerous. It shocks their preconceptions. They have been accustomed to regard every narrative, and every small detail of every nar- rative, as being equally inspired with every precept, every religious truth, every doctrine ; and they cannot bring themselves to adopt any new opinion upon the subject. But it is not dangerous ; it is safe. Their opinion is dan- gerous ; for the question before us is not. Are there, or are there not, inexactnesses, contradictions, and the like ? but, upon the supposition that there are such. Is the inspi- ration of Scripture to be given up ? They say, perhaps. Yes, perhaps, No. If they say Yes, we deny it ; if No, we too say No — but with this difference : according to them, the inexactnesses and the contradictions and the like are inspired ; according to the opposite opinion, the inexactnesses and the contradic- tions and the like are not inspired. It is of AND THE PSALMS." 71 no avail to say that there are not any ; tlie hypotliesis is, "i/' there be." Incorrectness cannot have been inspired- Why then, if there be such, may not the in- spiration of the writers of Scripture have had regard solely to the qualifying them to make known correctly and infallibly religious truth ? Was it essential to the ends contemplated by it, that it shoidd be characterized, not only by a rigid rightness of theology, and of religious sentiment, but by a rigid exactness of petty incident as well ? It is quite conceivable that God may have divinely preserved a writer from error where error would have been important ; and not from error where error was not important. May he not even have permitted the petty in- accuracies (for the errors with which the nar- rative has been charged are nothing more) for probational ends — to test our disposedness to receive upon sufficient grounds as divine, the religious teachings of Scripture, which, upon the insufficient ground of certain unimportant inexactnesses, or some such small matter, in the histories in which those teachings are found, we might be tempted to believe to be merely 72 "the law, the prophets, human ? Are we not, in reference to the things of God, continually thus tested ? The goodness of God, theefficacy of prayer, the superintendence of God's providence — our belief in these, and a variety of other the like points, is based upon what we consider strong and sufficient evidence, but not upon evidence that is demonstrably con- clusive ; not upon evidence that is altogether free from difficulty ; not even upon evidence against which opposing evidence may not be brought. It is clearly the will of God that probabili- ties should content us in the affairs of ordinary life ; and it seems no less clear that it is his will that probabilities should content us also in reference to the inspiration of Scripture. There is nothing unreasonable, then, or unlikely, in the supposition that it was agreeable to the wisdom of God that that which is substantially correct in the narratives of Scripture, and that the religious truths imbedded in them, should be mixed up with such unimportant inaccura- cies, or seeming inaccuracies, or inutilities, or the like, as should suffice to form such an amount of uncertainty and of difficulty as would test our sincerity and candour. Indeed, even upon the supposition that there AND THE PSALMS." 73 were no inexactnesses, no morally useless and religiously useless narratives, no stumbling- block of any kind, and tbat we received the Scriptures as throughout and in every respect inspired, we should still be obliged to fall back upon probabilities as to its teachings ; for we can so prove from them as to be able to demon- strate, scarcely any one point, whether of doc- trine or of duty. The divinity of Christ, for instance, might have been so asserted as, on Scriptural grounds, to admit of no debate. The perpetual obligation of the Sabbath ; the mode of its observance ; what upon that day was lawful, and what was not ; the rights and duties of governments in reference to religious questions ; the admissibility or the inadmissi- bility of infants to the ordinance of baptism ; the lawfulness or unlawfulness of war ; — these, and many other such points (respecting which men who alike accept Scripture as their rule, differ in sentiment), might have been so stated as to render all doubt respecting them impossible. But God has willed otherwise. Our belief, consequently, upon religious, no less than upon many other points, is almost always a belief in probabilities ; so much so, that if 74 "the law, the pkophets, not content with probabilities for our guidance, we must either drift along without any guide at all, or else, resigning the duty of investi- gation, and of using to the best of our power the divine gifts of reason and of judgment with which we have been endowed, recreantly dele- gate, sluggard-like, our duties and our rights in these respects to others, and submit ourselves to the guidance of whatever church or party may chose to call itself infallible. Let it not be thought that there is danger only in rejecting, as uninspired, books that are inspired. If it be dangerous to reject wrongfully, it is as dangerous, and may even be more so, to receive wrongfully. Take, for instance, the books of which we have been speaking. In rejecting them, we reject no doctrine, no religious teaching, that we do not find elsewhere in books that are of admitted inspiration. In accepting them, we accept books whose inaccuracies or inexactnesses are such that even apologists are sorely puzzled to account for them upon the supposition of the inspiration of those books — to say nothing of the absence of religious tone and sj)irit by which one of them, the Book of Esther, is so re- AND THE PSALMS." 75 markably distinguislied ; or wliose religious teaching, as in the case of the Song of Solo- mon, is so obscure, so uncertain, that men doubt to this day whether to regard it as a religious allegory or whether as an amatory poem ; or, as in that of Ecclesiastes, so questionable, that even its defenders admit that '' apparently sceptical sentiments are found in it " (" Stuart's Defence of the Canon," p. 338) ; and can har- monize with these sentiments their belief in its inspiration, only conjee turally.* Now, upon the supposition that these books are not inspired, with what needless embarrass- * Viz., either by supposing that the hook is dialogistic, and that one of the colloquists is a sceptic ; or, as Stuart, by supposing that its "writer " gives the tenor and drift of his cogitations tvhile he was in doubt, thereby disclosing," says Stuart, p. 339, " mani/ a sceptical t/ioiif/Iit." As regards the wisdom with which Solomon was gifted, whether it is to be considered as having been tantamount to an inspiration such as would qualify him to make known authoritatively and unerringly religious truth, is, we think, somewhat questionable. The narratives in reference to it, as given in the Books of Kings and Chronicles, would lead us rather to infer that the wisdom asked for was simply political or judicial wisdom. "Give thy servant," such is the prayer, " an understanding heart tojiuhje thy people ;" " Wisdom and knowledge, tliat I may go out and come in before this people : for who can judge this thy people, that is so great ?" (1 Kings iii. 9 ; 2 Chi'on. i. 10.) 76 "the law, the prophets, and the psalms." ments does championslilp in their defence en- cumber us ; and, failing to prove their inspira- tion to the satisfaction of the sceptic, who doubts not resjDecting these books only, but respecting all Scripture, how readily and na- turally will the inference be made by him, that the inspiration of all Scripture is equally inde- fensible. This is the certain consequence of an attempt to defend at all risks. While maintaining then the inspiration of all those books which our Lord clearly acknow- ledged, how much safer is it to admit the pos- sibility of the non-inspiration of the rest — to be non-dogmatical respecting them — and to admit that the ivhole of the books recognised by Josephus and those recognised by our Lord, were possibly not identical. APPENDIX. ON THE DISCEEPANCIES AND CANON OF THE NEW TESTAMENT.* Tlie same arguments will apply to the New Testament as to the Old. It is true that dis- crepancy (we mean discrepancy in the sense of difi'ering and conflicting statements) has often been imputed to it where no such discrepancy exists. As instances, we might refer to such apparently conflicting accounts as those given respecting the two thieves : St. Matthew and St. Mark representing them as alike railing upon our Lord, whilst St. Luke's account would seem to represent only one of them as doing so ; the apparent difference between St. Matthew and St. Luke as to the time of the return from Beth- lehem, to Nazareth, St. Luke appearing to speak of our Lord's parents, Joseph and Mar}'-, as proceeding, so soon as the mother was puri- fied, at once to Nazareth, informing us that * Condensed from a paper contributed by the ■writer, in 1854, to Dr. Kitto's "Journal of Sacred Literature," entitled, " Discrepancy and Inspiration not incom- patible." 78 APPENDIX. '' when fhe days of her purification (i.e., forty days from the birth, Lev. xii. 2 — 6) were ac- complished, they brought him to Jerusalem, and thence returned to Galilee to their own city Nazareth ;" whilst Matthew relates that they went direct from Bethlehem to Egypt, re- maining there until the death of Herod, and that it was not until after his death that they returned to Nazareth. Condensation, or amplification, as the case may be, will, however, sufiiciently account for and vindicate all such discrej)ancies as these. Since, for instance, the ultimate abode of our Lord's childhood was not Egypt, but Nazareth, and since the episode of the flight into Egypt is altogether omitted by St. Luke, it was quite justifiable on the part of the latter, and as truthful as it was justifiable (and if condensation was intended, unavoidable), so to speak of the movements of our Lord's j)arents as to represent them as passing, as if directly, from Jerusalem or from Bethlehem to Nazareth. And so, also, in the case of the two thieves. In the course of the three hours during which they and He who hung between them were living and sus- pended, there may have been the united re\dling, but then there may also have been, on the part of one of the two, the subsequent repentance and rebuking, and on the part of the other mocking and obduracy up to the very last. St. Luke does not say that this was not the case ; nor is his account at all inconsistent with the supposition that it was. Confining himself to a APPENDIX. 79 single circumstance, and to a single point of time, there was no need that he should relate in detail all that had occurred previously. But there are instances in which their varied accounts cannot be so easily disposed of. St. Matthew, for instance, in the account given by him of the circumstances connected with the crossing of the lake of Grennesaret, having in- formed us (viii. 18) that "when Jesus saw great multitudes about him, he gave commandment to depart to the other side," proceeds as follows : — " And a certain scribe came and said unto liim, Master, I will follow thee whithersoever thou goest. And Jesua saith unto him, The foxes have holes, and the birds of the air have nests, but the Son of Man hath not where to lay his head. And another of his disciples said unto him. Lord, suffer me first to go and bury my father. But Jesus said unto him, Follow me, and let the dead buiy their dead. And when he was entered into a ship, his disciples followed him" (Matt. viii. 19-23). Whereas, by St. Luke, the declaration on the part of one of our Lord's hearers or dis- ciples, that he would follow him whithersoever he went, together with the same reply ; and the request on the part of another, that he might be suffered first to go and bury his father, are represented as having occurred at a much later period, and upon a totally different occasion — being by him (St. Luke) related as having taken place, not on the borders of the lake of Gennesaret, but in Samaria, and as our Lord and his disciples were journejdng to Jerusalem. " And it came to pass when the time was come that lie (Jesus) should be received up, he steadfastly set his face 80 APPENDIX. to go to Jerusalem, and sent messengers before his face : and they went, and entered into a village of the Samaritans, to make ready for him. And they did not receive him, because his face was as though he would go to Jerusalem. And when his disciples James and John saw this, they said," &c. "And they went to another village. And it came to pass, that, as they went in the way, a certain man said unto him, Lord, I will follow thee whithersoever thou goest. And Jesus said unto him. Foxes have holes," &c. " And he said unto another. Follow me. But he said, Lord, suffer me first to go and bury my father. Jesus said unto him. Let the dead," &c. (Luke ix. 51-60). A circumstance not mentioned in St. Matthew's account is then added, viz., that — "Another also said. Lord, I will follow thee; but let me first go bid them farewell which are at home. And Jesus said unto him, No man having put his hand to the plough, and looking back, is fit for the kingdom of God." Yarious attempts have been made to reconcile these apparently conflicting accounts as to the time and locality of these sayings. By some — by Macknight, by Birks, and by Greswell, for instance — it has been supposed that on each of the two occasions spoken of, parties may have come forward and have addressed our Lord, and have been replied to as related ; in other words, that the circumstance of the sayings in question, and of their repKes, may have happened once and again. Now it is quite conceivable that instances may have frequently occurred of individuals expressing a readiness to follow our Lord *' whithersoever he went," and to such our Lord may have been accustomed to make the same reply as the reply here recorded. Instances APPENDIX. 81 may have occurred more tlian once also, of others excusing themselves when commanded by our Lord to follow him, upon the plea that an aged parent was still living, and perhaps de- pendent upon them for support ; and they may have asked to be excused until after their father's death (for so it is that we understand the request " Suffer me first to go and bury my father ") ; and to them our Lord may possibly have been accustomed to give always one and the same reply. But we can scarcely think it at all probable that incidents such as these should have twice occurred in pairs. The sus- picion, therefore, will suggest itself, and that in spite of our eyerj effort to repress it, that either the one evangelist or the other has recorded the circumstances in question in a wrong connection. We do not, we dare not, say that such is the case, but we do dare to say that such seems to be the case. But be it so ; be it that either the one evangelist or the other has assigned to these sayings a date and a connection which do not belong to them. Not only is the fact that these circumstances are, or seem to be, differently reported, a proof, in addition to a multitude of others, of the absence of all collusion ; but neither is the inspiration of either of these evangelists, if we understand the term inspiration in the sense attached to it in our previous pages (viz., as having reference solely to the qualifying of those inspired to impart correctly and authori- tatively religious truth), at all affected by the difference. F 82 APPENDIX. Perhaps a more obvious instance of inaccuracy is that where Stephen, in his defence before the Council of the Jews, says : — " So Jacob went down into Egypt, and died, he, and our fathers, and were carried over into Sychem, and laid in the sepulchre that Abraham bought for a sum of money of the sons of Emmor, the father of Sychem" — confounding together two separate purchases — viz., that of the sepulchre purchased by Abraham of Ephron, the Hittite, at or near Hebron, where Jacob was buried (Gen. xxiii. 3 — 20, andl. 13), and that of a field at or near Shechem, or Sychem, purchased of the sons of Emm or, by, not Abraham, but Jacob, in which Joseph was buried (Gen. xxxiii. 19 ; Josh. xxiv. 32). But here again, the error, if there be one — which seems unquestionable — {see Alford in he.) is of no religious importance at all. Upon the supposition, then, that it is one, the inspiration of the discourse or book containing it, in a reli- gious respect, remains as before. Discrepancies or inexactnesses such as these may serve to dis- abuse us of the opinion that the historical books of Scripture are verbally inspired, but as re- gards the religious inspiration of those books, they prove nothing either way. Their exist- ence then may be admitted without detriment to the inspiration of the books containing them ; and it is, we believe, wiser and more honest to grant their existence, at least in cases such as the above, than to labour to disprove them by violent and improbable interpretations, such as no Protestant apologist would admit to be valid, APPENDIX. 83 if tlie conflicting, or seemingly conflicting state- ments, were found in the Maccabees or Tobit, instead of in the Gospels or the Acts. A few words respecting the canonicity, as it is called, of the books of the New Testament, and we have done. As there is no satisfactory evidence to show that the canon of the Old Testament was ever determined authoritatively, so neither is there any evidence to show that that of the New Tes- tament was ever so determined. All that evi- dence can do is to supply us with the sentiments of the early church in reference to its several books, leaving us to infer therefrom according to the best of our ability. It is satisfactory to know that most of its books have been univer- sally received by the early church as genuine and as inspired from the very first. But others of them, viz., the Epistle to the Hebrews, to- gether with the Epistle of St. James, the Second Epistle of St. Peter, that of Jude, the Second and third of John, and the Book of the Revela- tion, as we learn from Eusebius, and from other sources, were not so received ; and it is right that this difierence as to the evidence upon which our reception of its several books is grounded, should be known.* * Respecting the Epistle to the Hebrews, the testimony of Eusebius varies. See " Hist. Eccles.," iii. c. 25, 38, and vi. 20. 84 APPENDIX. Why tlie early diurclies doubted, except in the case of the Book of Bevelation, is not known ; but in modern times doubts have been entertained respecting five of these books, upon the ground of their respective contents. Whether justly or not, is another question; that, each one must determine for himself as he best can. It is not possible to discuss the grounds upon which they have been severally rejected or received, within the brief limits of an Ap- pendix ; nor does such discussion fall within the design contemplated by these pages. All that an adherence to our main object permits us to observe is, that as is the Old Testa- ment so is the New a collection of many writings ; that these many writings are not equally attested ; and that disproof or doubt in reference to any one or more of them, leaves unafiected the credibility and value of the rest. We are so accustomed to the Bible as a whole, and to its two divisions — the Old Testament and the New Testament — as wholes, that we forget, or do not adequately realize, the fact that it is not one writing, but many writings — not one book which must stand or fall in its entirety, but many books, variously and un- equally attested. This being a fact, it is right that it should be known and remembered — not forgotten or ignored. It may be abused, as all APPENDIX. 85 facts may ; but it need not be. It may, on the contrary, be advantageously remembered and made use of ; and, being a fact, those conclu- sions (whatever they may be) are more likely to be correct that are based upon it, than those that are formed in ignorance of it, or in for get- fulness. The natural tendency of the know- ledge of facts is, not to lead to false conclu- sions, but to right ones. But, after all, let us not forget that right conclusions and intellectual certainty in refer- ence to Scripture is a thing of little consequence (or rather, of none at all) if there be not at the same time a cordial reception of its truths, and a firm determination, as God shall help us, to live on them, and by them, and to act them thoroughly out. A merely speculative faith is a thing of small value. Extract referred to in Note, page 11. "Theological triflers, who keep the truth at arm's length from their own conscience, for subtle and cuiious speculation alone, too often fall under the edge of the solemn warning — * From him that hath not, even that he hath shall bo taken away.' " There may be a stage, however, in the course of serious and thoughtful inquirers, in which their faith in the gospel itself is unshaken, but their traditional trust in the Bible is sorely tried, and in some measure gives way. With growing thought and knowledge, difficulties once overlooked start out into sudden rt'lief, and may seem for a time to be insur- mountable. They have been accustomed from childhood to hear the Bible spoken of as one book, the Word of God. 86 APPENDIX. They examine it more closely, and find that it consists of many works, written by many diflFerent writers at remote periods of time, and bears traces, in every part, of its human authorship, in language, grammar, idiom, style, historical features, and even, in some cases, in doctrinal tone. They have been accustomed, again, to hear it defined by entire freedom from all error. But they find that errors of trans- lation, errors of transcription, and readings probably defec- tive, though comparatively shght in amount, are admitted almost universally by well-informed scholars, to exist within its pages ; so that the ideal perfection, once ascribed to it, seems to disappear. They find nvmibers here and there which seem plainly to need emendation ; and details, which appear more or less contradictory in difierent accoimts of the same event. Quotations from the Old Testament in the New do not seem always strictly to correspond, even in words ; and the meaning assigned, in some cases, does not appear, on the first glance, to be the natural and gentdne interpretation. Again, large portions in some of the books of the Old Testament seem to be useless details, that bear no stamp of divinity, and are difl&cult to reconcile with the theory of a direct, miraculous, and all-perfect inspiration. These perplexities, when they first dawn upon the young Christian student (without, perhaps, destroying or sensibly weakening his faith in the gospel itself), may induce him to imitate the Alexandrian mariners when they cast out the wheat into the sea to lessen or avert the danger of a total shipwreck. The plenary inspiration of the Scriptures may then be regarded as a superstitious accessary, a needless incumbrance of the Christian faith, which, in an hour of peril, and out of love to that faith itself, it maybe [thought], needful to sacrifice and cast away. " A looser faith in the inspiration of the whole Bible, when it arises from such causes, ought not to he confounded with a settled spirit of unbelief" — "The Bible and Modem Thought." By the Eev. T. K. Birks. Page 204. Kote^ supplementary to that given at page 43. Whether we can perceive it or not, the laws of Moses, as they are called, being in strictness the laws not of Moses but of God himself, must of necessity be so characterized by con- APPENDIX. 87 siimmate wisdom and strict rectitude as to prove thereby, more or less clearly, the divinity of their original. We be- lieve that they are so characterized. This, however, is a large subject, and its illustration and defence would demand much space; especially as the writer difiers from current opinions upon many points of detail. He must, therefore, reserve it for a separate volume, which, being to a great ex- tent already written, he hopes to have ready for press in the course of a few months. LOlfBOM ! B. K. BUBT, FBIKlBBt HOLBORK HILL. BY THE SAME AUTHOE. THE PENTATEUCHAL NARRA- TIVE VINDICATED FEOM THE ABSUEDITIES CHAEGED AGAINST IT BY THE BISHOP OF NATAL. Second Edition. 1862. 8vo. Price 8d. Bagster & Sons, Paternoster Eow. THE INCREDIBILITIES of PART II. OF THE BISHOP OF NATAL'S WOEK UPON THE PENTATEUCH. 1863. 8vo. Price 8d. Bagster & Sons, Paternoster Eow. BS480 .K69 The law, the prophets, and the Psalms Princeton Theological Semmary-Speer Library 1 1012 00052 1023