of the New Testament history, whether the Gospels or the Book of Acts, can be complete which omits the doctrine of the Inspiration of Holy Scripture; and this applies equally to the history of the Old Testament. Out of the mass of the national records of the Jewish people, vastly, no doubt, more voluminous than the fragments which have come down to us, those portions were to be chosen which should illustrate the dealings of Divine Providence, or throw light upon the accomplishment of prophecy; and what merely human wisdom would have been adequate to the task of selection? So, as regards the New Testament, Saint John tells us, that if all the things that Jesus did were to be written, the world could not contain the things that should be written" (xxi. 25); how, then, were the Evangelists enabled to cull from the mass just so much as was necessary to give us a perfect portraiture of their Divine Master? That each of them had "a particular design at the time of writing is insufficient to account for the fact, unless we add that they were divinely guided in their selection. This principle applies even to the epistolary portion of the New Testament. It is difficult to believe that the Apostles wrote only the Epistles contained in the Canon; especially so, that Saint Paul, in the course of his long ministry, should have written no more than the fourteen which go under his name. Indeed, it is almost certain that an epistle of his to the Corinthians (1 Cor. v. 9), and, very probable, that another to the Laodiceans (Col. iv. 16), have not come down to us. But, as it is difficult to conceive that an inspired writing could have been lost, we must suppose that not every epistle of an Apostle was necessarily inspired; and that the writers affixed a distinguishing mark to those which the Holy Spirit intended to be of permanent use in the Church, and in the composition of which they were conscious of being under a special Divine superintendence.-Editor.

CHAPTER II.

ERRONEOUS OPINIONS IMPUTED TO THE APOSTLES.

A SPECIES of candour which is shown towards every other book, is sometimes refused to the Scriptures; and that is, the placing of a distinction between judgment and testimony. We do not usually question the credit of a writer, by reason of any opinion he may have delivered upon subjects unconnected with his evidence: and even upon subjects connected with his account, or mixed with it in the same discourse or writing, we naturally separate facts from opinions, testimony from observation, narrative from argument.

To apply this equitable consideration to the Christian records; much controversy and much objection have been raised concerning the quotations of the Old Testament found in the New; some of which quotations, it is said, are applied in a sense, and to events, apparently different from that which they bear, and from those to which they belong, in the original. It is probable, to my apprehension, that many of those quotations were intended by the writers of the New Testament as nothing more than accommo

dations. They quoted passages of their Scripture, which suited and fell in with, the occasion before them, without always undertaking to assert, that the occasion was in the view of the author of the words. Such accommodations of passages from old authors, from books especially which are in every one's hands, are common with writers of all countries; but in none, perhaps, were more to be expected than in the writings of the Jews, whose literature was almost entirely confined to their Scriptures. Those prophecies which are alleged with more solemnity, and which are accompanied with a precise declaration, that they originally respected the event then related, are, I think, truly alleged. But were it otherwise; is the judgment of the writers of the New Testament, in interpreting passages of the Old, or sometimes, perhaps, in receiving established interpretations, so connected either with their veracity, or with their means of information concerning what was passing in their own times, as that a critical mistake, even were it clearly made out, should overthrow their historical credit? Does it diminish it? Has it anything to do with it?1

1 For some remarks on the quotations from the Old Testament in the New-a subject too extensive for a notesee Appendix V.-EDITOR.

Another error imputed to the first Christians, was the expected approach of the day of judg ment. I would introduce this objection by a remark upon what appears to me a somewhat similar example. Our Saviour, speaking to Peter of John, said, "If I will that he tarry till I come, what is that to thee?"2 These words, we find, had been so misconstrued, as that a report from thence "went abroad among the brethren, that that disciple should not die." Suppose that this had come down to us among the prevailing opinions of the early Christians, and that the particular circumstance from which the mistake sprang had been lost (which, humanly speaking, was most likely to have been the case), some, at this day, would have been ready to regard and quote the error, as an impeachment of the whole Christian system. Yet with how little justice such a conclusion would have been drawn, or rather such a presumption taken up, the information which we happen to possess, enables us now to perceive. To those who think that the Scriptures lead us to believe that the early Christians and even the Apostles expected the approach of the day of judgment in their own times, the same reflection will occur as that which we have made with respect to the more

2 John xxi. 22.

partial, perhaps, and temporary, but still no less ancient, error concerning the duration of Saint John's life. It was an error, it may be likewise said, which would effectually hinder those who entertained it from acting the part of impostors.3

The difficulty which attends the subject of the present chapter is contained in this question; If we once admit the fallibility of the apostolic judgment, where are we to stop, or in what can we rely upon it? To which question, as arguing with unbelievers, and as arguing for the substantial truth of the Christian history, and for that alone, it is competent to the advocate of Chris

3 There is no doubt that the writers of the New Testa

ment (Saint Paul included) looked upon "the day of Christ" as near at hand (1 Thess. iv. 15. 1 Cor. xv. 51. 1 Pet. iv. 7. James v. 8); or rather, perhaps, hoped it might be so. In the mere matter of the time they were mistaken; and can hardly be supposed, with our Lord's words before them (Mark xiii. 32), to have intended to fix it. In the attitude which Christians ought to maintainan attitude of expectation and desire-they were not mistaken, and only expressed what ought to be the state of mind of the Church in every age. In the chief passage which has occasioned the difficulty ("This we say unto you by the word of the Lord, that we which are alive and remain unto the coming of the Lord," &c., 1 Thess. iv. 15), the expression word of the Lord," which certainly implies a special revelation, is to be connected, not with the incidental circumstance, 66 we which are alive," but with the main topic of the passage, viz. that "the dead in Christ shall rise first."-EDITOR.

66