apostolic writers have quoted from the Old Testament, and

ii. The analogy of the apostolic use of the Old Testament.

iii. The testimony of the Church.

comparing the spiritual lessons which they draw from them with the simplest meaning of the text, form some general conclusions as to the sense in which they regarded the words of the prophets, as indeed the Word of God.1 Or, descending still lower, we may show that the Christian Fathers with one consent affirmed in the most complete manner the inspiration of the Scriptures, placing the writings of the New Testament on the same footing with those of the Old, as soon as it was possible that the apostolic records could rise with clear preeminence above the oral tradition of the apostolic teaching. On the other hand, we may examine the character and objects of the

(b) Internal.

2

books themselves, and put together the various facts which appear to indicate in them the presence of more than human authority and wisdom, no less in the simplicity and apparent rudeness of their general form than in the subtle harmony and marvellous connection of their various elements. And if this method of proof is

1 Tim. i. 1; Tit. i. 3. And on the other hand the corresponding change in the believer" the revelation of eye and ear" is vividly set forth; 2 Cor. iii. 18; Col. iii. 10. This change extends to each element of man's complex nature. His spirit (veûua) is aided by the Spirit of God that it may know the blessings of the Gospel (1 Cor. ii. 12). His reason (vous) is furnished with new intuitional principles by which to test the Divine counsels (Rom. xii. 2, avakalYcGIS Tou voós). His under standing (diávota, Eph. iv. 18) is enlightened so as to recognize the True One (1 John v. 20. Cf. Eph. i. 18, πεφωτισμένους τοὺς ὀφθαλμοὺς τῆς καρδίας, al. διανοίας). And according to the measure of this change Inspiration is a blessing of all ages and all Christians.

and & λóyos Toû Ozoû, which are both rendered the Word of God in the Eng, lish version, and Verbum Dei in the Vulgate, is important in relation to the doctrine of the Inspiration of Scripture. The former phrase occurs: Matt. iv. 4 (Deut. viii. 3); Luke (ii. 29); iii. 2; John iii. 34; viii. 47; Rom. x. 17; Eph. vi. 17; Heb. vi. 5; xi. 3; 1 Pet. i. 25 (= Is. x1.8). The latter is more frequent: Mark vii. 13; Luke v. . 1, etc.; John x. 35, etc.; Acts iv. 81, etc.; Rom. ix. 6; Col. i. 25; Heb. iv. 12, etc.; 1 Pet. i. 23, etc. The distinction is lost also in the Syriac and Gothic Versions. In Eph. vi. 17, Tertullian (i. p. 152) strangely reads Sermo Dei.

1 Cf. App. A. On the Quotations in the Gospels.

2 Cf. App. B. On the Primitive Doc

The distinction of тò ¿âμа тоû eoû trine of Inspiration.

less direct and definite than the other; if it calls for calm patience and compels thought in each inquirer; it is also broader and more elastic, capable of infinite extensions and applications. Nor is it less powerful even while it is cogent. To many, perhaps, the inward assurance which it creates is more satisfactory than the rigid deductions of direct argument. The unlimited multiplication of convergent presumptions and analogies builds up a strong and sure conviction possessing a moral force which can never belong to a mere formal proof, even where the premises are necessary truths.

To speak of the proof of the Inspiration of the Scriptures involves, indeed, an unworthy limitation

In what sense a proof of Inspiration is possible.

of the idea itself. In the fullest sense of the word we cannot prove the presence of life, but are simply conscious of it; and Inspiration is the manifestation of a higher life. The words of Scripture are spiritual words, and as such are spiritually discerned.' The ultimate test of the reality of Inspiration lies in the intuition of that personal faculty (veμa) by which inspired men once recorded the words of God, and are still able to hold communion with Him. Everything short of this leaves the great truth still without us; and that which should be a source of life is in danger of becoming a mere dogma. At the same time, it is as unfair and dangerous to reject the teaching of a formal proof as it is to rely upon it exclusively. It cannot be an indifferent matter to us to bring into harmonious combination the work and the writings of the Apostles; to follow and faithfully continue the clear outlines of scriptural criticism as traced in the writings of the New Testament; to recognize the power which the Bible has hitherto exercised upon the heart of the Church, and the depths which others have found in it. Such investigations will necessarily lead to other and more personal questions. We shall ask naturally whether we have any clear conception of the position which the first

1 1 Cor. vii. 12-16.

Christian teachers occupied, and the results which they accomplished? Whether we have ever fairly estimated the extent to which the different Books of Scripture are penetrated by a common spirit? Whether the fault be not in ourselves, if occasional difficulties are allowed to destroy the effect of those divine words which have been for ages a spring of life? And thus a new field will be opened before us; and in this case ever-deepening conviction is the result and the reward of labor. For there is this essential difference between an outward and an inward

a logical and a moral-proof, that while the one can be handed down from one generation to another, in all its formal completeness, gaining no fresh force and admitting of no wider application, the latter only exercises its full influence by the personal appreciation of each element of which it consists, and adapts itself to every shifting phase of thought from which it draws its strength.

dence of Inspira

tion illustrated specially by

To examine at length the details which suggest this internal proof of inspiration is at once useThe internal evi- less and impossible. Their effect lies in the individual point of sight from which they are regarded, and their weight in their infinite variety. But one or two remarks on the Gospels may serve to illustrate different lines of thought which will furnish abundant materials for private study; and it is by this only that their real value can be estimated.

i. The negative character of the Gospels.

a. Their frag

In the first place, the negative character of the Gospels, the absence of certain features which we should have expected to find in them, is too striking not to arrest attention. They are mentariness; while fragmentary in form. Their writers make no attempt to relate all the actions or discourses of our Lord, and show no wish to select the most marvellous series of his mighty works; and probably no impartial judge will find in any one of them a conscious attempt to form a narrative supplementary to those of the others. But if we know by the ordinary laws of criticism that our

Gospels are the only authentic records of the Saviour's life, while we believe that Providence regards the well-being of the Christian Church, are we not necessarily led to conclude that some divine power overruled their composition, so that what must otherwise seem a meagre and incomplete record should contain all that is fittest historically to aid our progress and determine our faith? Nor can it be unworthy of notice that while the Gospels evidently contain so small a selection from the works and words of Christ, so few details unrecorded by the Evangelists should have been preserved in other ways. The interval between the Gospel of St. John and the Synoptists indicates the existence of

they contain nearly all that we know of

the life of Christ.

many intermediate forms of doctrine of which tradition has preserved no trace. The numerous witnesses of our Lord's works and teaching must have treasured up with affection each recollection of their past intercourse; but the cycle of the Evangelic narrative is clearly marked; and it cannot but seem that the same Power which so definitely circumscribed its limits determined its contents.1

b. Their deficiency in chronology.

Again, the Gospels are unchronological in order. We are at once cautioned against regarding them as mere history, and encouraged to look for some new law of arrangement in their contents, which, as I shall endeavor to prove, must result from a higher power than an unaided instinct or an enlightened consciousness.

c. Their simplicity of style.

Once more, the Gospels are brief and apparently confused in style. There is no trace in them of the anxious care or ostentatious zeal which mark the ordinary productions of curiosity or devotion. The Evangelists write as men who see through all time, and only contemplate the events which they record in their spiritual relations. But, at the same time, there is an originality and vigor in every part of the

1 Cf. App. C. On the Apocryphal Traditions of the Lord's Words and Works.

Gospels which become a divine energy in the Gospel of St. John. As mere compositions they stand out from all other histories with the noble impress of simplicity and power; and it is as if the faithful reflection of the Image of God shed a clear light on the whole narrative. The answer was once given to the Pharisees when they sought to take Jesus, that never man spake like that man, and those who assail the authority of the Gospels have been constrained to confess that never was history written as in them.1

John 7: 46.

If we regard the subject of the Gospels it would indeed be strange if this were not so. The New

. The subject of Testament does not contain a mere record the Gospels.. of ordinary facts, or a collection of indifferent conclusions, but lays the historic groundwork of man's redemption, and builds up his practical faith. In narrative, in doctrine, and in prophecy, the same great truths are brought forth under different relations of time. And thus the connection of events, the arrangement of arguments, and the choice of symbols, may serve to exhibit in clearer and more varied outline the whole structure of Christianity. For nothing can be immaterial which is able to influence our idea of the Saviour's life, or to alter the application of Christ's teaching. The history must be not only true to the outward form, but true to the inward spirit; the proof must be not only convincing, but effectual; the prediction must not only answer to the event, but cohere with the whole scope of prophetic revelation. It may, indeed, be easy to quote passages in which we do not see the importance of the minuter details of the Scriptures; for we cannot know the secret experience of all Christians; but it would be equally easy to prove that there is no singu larity in expression or detail, no trait of personal feeling or individual conception, in the Gospels, which does not in some one place greatly affect our notion of Christ's teaching. And thus, unless the peculiarities of each writer were

1 Cf. Gaussen, Theopneustia, pp. 238 ff. (Eng. Tr.)