into the World a Revelation intended for all times and all lands, should provide for its faithful record and transmission by inspiring the transmitters and recorders.

III. That the Apostles, whose unquestioned writings form a large portion of the Canon, distinctly affirm their own inspiration; and that this inspiration was distinctly promised them by Christ.

IV. That the Contents of the New Testament are their own credentials, and by their sublime tone and character, proclaim their superhuman origin.

V. That the inspiration of most of the writers may be considered as attested by the miracles they wrought, or had the power of working,

I. The writings which compose the volume called by us the New Testament, had assumed their present collective form, and were generally received throughout the Christian Churches, about the end of the second century. They were selected out of a number of others; but by whom they were selected, or what principle guided the selection, history leaves in doubt. We have reason to believe that in several instances, writings were selected or rejected, not from a consideration of the external or traditional evidence of their genuineness or antiquity, but from the supposed heresy or orthodoxy of the doctrines they contained. We find, moreover, that the early Fathers disagreed among themselves in their estimate of the genuineness and authority of many of the books'; that some of them received books which we exclude, and excluded others which we admit ;-while we have good reason to believe that some of the rejected writings, as the Gospel of the Hebrews, and that for the Egyptians, and the Epistles of Clement and Barnabas, have at least as much title to be placed in the sacred Canon as some already there the Epistle to the Hebrews, and those of Peter and Jude, for example.

--

It is true that several of the Christian Fathers who lived about the end of the second century, as Irenæus, Tertullian,

66

1 See the celebrated account of the Canon given by Eusebius, where five of our epistles are disputed; "the Apocalypse, which we receive, is by many considered "spurious;" and the Gospel of the Hebrews, which we reject, is stated to have been by many, especially of the Palestinian Christians, placed among the "acknowledged writings.' De Wette, i. 76.

and Clement of Alexandria, distinctly affirm the inspiration of the Sacred Writings, as those writings were received, and as that word was understood, by them'. But we find that they were in the habit of referring to and quoting indiscriminately the Apocryphal, as well as the Canonical Scriptures. Instances of this kind occur in Clement of Rome (A.D. 100), Clement of Alexandria (A.D. 200), and, according to Jerome, in Ignatius also, who lived about A.D. 1072, Their testimony, therefore, if valid to prove the inspiration of the Canonical Scriptures, proves the inspiration of the rejected Scriptures likewise; and by necessary sequence, proves the error and incompetency of the compilers of the Canon, who rejected them. No one, however, well acquainted with the writings of the Fathers, will be of opinion that their judgment in these matters, or in any matters, ought to guide our own 3.

II. The second argument certainly carries with it, at first sight, an appearance of much weight; and is we believe with most minds, however unconsciously, the argument which (as Paley expresses it) "does the business." The idea of Gospel inspiration is received, not from any proof that it is so, but from an opinion, or feeling, that it ought to be So. The doctrine arose, not because it was proveable, but because it was wanted. Divines can produce no stronger reason for believing in the inspiration of the Gospel narratives, than their own opinion that it is not likely God should have left so important a series of facts to the ordinary chances of History. But on a little reflection it will be obvious that we have no ground whatever for presuming that God will act in this or in that manner under any given circumstances, beyond what previous analogies may furnish; and in this case no analoga exist. We cannot even form a probable guess à priori of His mode of operation ;—but we find that generally, and indeed in all cases of which we have any certain knowledge, He leaves things to the ordinary action of natural laws;-and if, therefore, it is "natural" to presume anything at all in this instance, that presumption should be that God did not inspire the New Testament

1 De Wette, i. 63-66.

2 Ibid. p. 54, &c.

3 See Ancient Christianity, by Isaac Taylor, passim-for an exposition of what these Fathers could write and believe.

writers, but left them to convey what they saw, heard, or believed, as their intellectual powers and moral qualities enabled them.

The Gospels, as professed records of Christ's deeds and words, will be allowed to form the most important portion of the New Testament Collection.-Now, the idea of God having inspired four different men to write a history of the same transactions-or rather of many different men having undertaken to write such a history, of whom God inspired four only to write correctly, leaving the others to their own unaided resources, and giving us no test by which to distinguish the inspired from the uninspired-certainly appears self-confuting, and anything but "natural." If the accounts of the same transactions agree, where was the necessity for more than one? If they differ (as they notoriously do), it is certain that only one can be inspired;—and which is that one? In all other religions claiming a divine origin, this incongruity is avoided.

Further, the Gospels nowhere affirm, or even intimate, their own inspiration'-a claim to credence, which, had they possessed it, they assuredly would not have failed to put forth. Luke, it is clear from his exordium, had no notion of his own inspiration, but founds his title to take his place among the annalists, and to be listened to as at least equally competent with any of his competitors, on his having been from the first cognizant of the transactions he was about to relate. Nor do the Apostolic writings bear any such testimony to them; nor could they well do so, having (with the exception of the Epistles of John) been composed previous to them.

III. When we come to the consideration of the Apostolic writings, the case is different. There are, scattered through these, apparent claims to superhuman guidance and teaching, though not any direct assertion of inspiration. It is, however, worthy of remark that none of these occur in the writings of any of the Apostles who were contemporary with Jesus, and who attended his ministry;-in whom, if in any, might inspiration be expected; to whom, if to any,

1 Dr. Arnold, Christian Life, &c., p. 487,-"I must acknowledge that the Scriptural narratives do not claim this inspiration for themselves." Coleridge, Confessions, &c., p. 16,-"I cannot find any such claim made by these writers, either explicitly or by implication."

was inspiration promised. It is true that we find in John much dogmatic assertion of being the sole teacher of truth, and much denunciation of all who did not listen submissively to him; but neither in his epistles nor in those of Peter, James, nor Jude, do we find any claim to special knowledge of truth, or guarantee from error by direct spiritual aid. All assertions of inspiration are, we believe, confined to the epistles of Paul, and may be found in 1 Cor. ii. 10-16. Gal. i. 11, 12. 1 Thess. iv. 8. 1 Tim. ii. 7.

Now, on these passages we have to remark, first, that "having the Holy Spirit," in the parlance of that day, by no means implied our modern idea of inspiration, or anything approaching to it; for Paul often affirms that it was given to many, nay, to most, of the believers, and in different degrees'. Moreover, it is probable that a man who believed he was inspired by God would have been more dogmatic and less argumentative. He would scarcely have run the risk of weakening his revelation by a presumptuous endeavour to prove it; still less by adducing in its behalf arguments which are often far from being irrefragable.

Secondly. In two or three passages he makes a marked distinction between what he delivers as his own opinion, and what he speaks by authority:-"The Lord says, not I;"--"I, not the Lord;"-" This I give by permission, not commandment," &c., &c. Hence Dr. Arnold infers', that we are to consider Paul as speaking from inspiration wherever he does not warn us that he " speaks as a man." But unfortunately for this argument the Apostle expressly declares himself to be "speaking by the word of the Lord," in at least one case where he is manifestly and admittedly in error, viz., in 1 Thess. iv. 15; of which we shall speak further in the following chapter.

Thirdly. The Apostles, all of whom are supposed to be alike inspired, differed among themselves, contradicted, depreciated, and "withstood" one another".

Fourthly. As we showed before in the case of the Old Testament writers, the Apostles' assertion of their own in

1 1 Cor. xii. 8; and xiv. passim.

2 Christian Course and Character, pp. 488-9.

3 Gal. ii. 11-14. 2 Pet. iii. 16. Acts xv. C-39. Compare Rom.[iii., and Gal. ii. and iii., with James ii.

spiration, even were it ten times more clear and explicit than it is, being their testimony to themselves, could have no weight or validity as evidence.

But, it will be urged, the Gospels record that Christ promised inspiration to his apostles. In the first place, Paul was not included in this promise. In the next place, we have already seen that the divine origin of these books is a doctrine for which no ground can be shown; and their correctness, as records of Christ's words, is still to be established. When, however, we shall have clearly made out that the words promising inspiration were really uttered by Christ, and meant what we interpret them to mean, we shall have brought ourselves into the singular and embarrassing position of maintaining that Christ promised them that which in result they did not possess; since there can be no degrees of inspiration, in the ordinary and dogmatic sense of the word; and since the Apostles clearly were not altogether inspired, inasmuch as they fell into mistakes', disputed, and disagreed among themselves.

The only one of the New Testament writings which contains a clear affirmation of its own inspiration, is the one which in all ages has been regarded as of the most doubtful authenticity-viz., the Apocalypse. It was rejected by many of the earliest Christian authorities. It is rejected by most of the ablest Biblical critics of to-day. Luther, in the preface to his translation, inserted a protest against the inspiration of the Apocalypse, which protest he solemnly charged every one to prefix, who chose to publish the translation. In this protest one of his chief grounds for the rejection is, the suspicious fact that this writer alone blazons forth his own inspiration.

IV. The common impression seems to be that the contents of the New Testament are their own credentials that their superhuman excellence attests their divine origin. This may be perfectly true in substance without affecting the present question; since it is evident that the excellence. of particular passages, or even of the great mass of passages, in a book, can prove nothing for the divine origin of the whole-unless it can be shown that all the portions of it are indissolubly connected. This or that portion of

1 The error of Paul about the approaching end of the world was shared by all the Apostles. James v. 8. 2 Pet. iii. 12. 1 John ii. 18. Jude, verse 18. C