LECTURE XXXII.

THE

HE several books, which constitute the Old Testament, were examined in the last Lecture, with reference to their Authenticity and Credibility. Such examination was necessary for a right understanding of the subjects, which we are now considering. It was necessary to ascertain how far those terms, which are applicable to every book of the New Testament, are applicable to the books of the Old Testament. The result of the examination was, that both of those terms are not applicable to every book of the Old Testament.

I propose therefore in the present Lecture to take a different view of those writings and to consider them not individually, but collectively. For this purpose it will be necessary to adopt a term, which may be applied to them all. Such B

a term is the term 'authority,' which may include both authenticity and credibility, where both terms are applicable, and denote credibility or truth, where the other term cannot be applied. In this general view of the Old Testament we shall be freed from various difficulties, which may attend the examination of single books. If then we can find a solid basis, on which the whole superstructure can be securely built, the authority of the Old Testament will be established

at once.

Now the credibility of the New Testament, as proved in the preceding Lectures, is not confined to facts of ordinary occurrence. It extends also to the miracles recorded in the New Testament. But a miracle is nothing less than a suspension of the laws of nature and those laws can be suspended by no other power, than that almighty power, by which those laws were ordained. Every miracle therefore performed by our Saviour was a proof of divine interposition and the argument of Nicodemus was irresistible, when he said, "no man can do the miracles, which thou doest, except God be with him." The testimony of our Saviour therefore was more than the testimony of man: it was testimony, which carried with it divine authority.

The evidence produced from the Greek and Latin Fathers in favour of the New Testament, went no further, than to prove its authenticity. The fact, that a certain book was written by a certain author, being a fact, which lies open to the observation of man, may be established by the testimony of man. But such proofs of authenticity are distinct from the proofs of credibility. We may argue indeed, in many cases, from the former to the latter: we may in such cases make the former the basis, on which the latter is raised as a superstructure. In such cases we argue from the character and situation of the writer to the credibility of his writings. But we cannot thus argue upon every occasion; for the character and situation of a writer may be such, as to destroy the credit of his writings. The proof of credibility therefore must generally be conducted in a manner, which is distinct from the proof of authenticity. And these distinct proofs were given in regard to the New Testament.

But the testimony of our Saviour to a book of the Old Testament establishes its authority The two separate processes of authenticity and credibility are then unnecessary. It is then immaterial, whether we know the name

at once.

of the author, or not. Whatever name he bore, his work has the stamp of authority: and this authority renders it worthy of credit, even if we are unable to discover in the work itself sufficient data for the establishment of its own credibility.

There are various ways in which our Saviour has borne testimony to the books of the Old Testament. The books of Moses he has quoted repeatedly, and quoted them, as the work of Moses. Next to the books of Moses he made the greatest use of the book of Psalms: and in quoting the 110th Psalm he expressly ascribed it to David'. The books of Isaiah and of Daniel he both quoted and ascribed to Isaiah and Daniel. But the greater part of his quotations from the Old Testament were made without reference to the particular book, from which the passages were taken. This mode of quotation was agreeable to the practice of the Jews. The learned among the Jews in the time of our Saviour confined their studies almost wholly to the Old Testament, with which therefore they were so well acquainted, that a quotation from the Hebrew Scriptures suggested of itself the place from which the passage was taken. It is true, that there are several books of the Old

1 Matt. xxii. 43, 44.

Testament, which are neither named nor quoted in any part of the New Testament. But no conclusion injurious to those books can thence fairly be deduced. Though every book, which was actually quoted by our Saviour derives authority from that quotation, it would be unjust to argue, as if the books, which were not quoted, were books devoid of authority. We must consider the purpose, for which our Saviour appealed to the books of the Old Testament. The immediate object of every such quotation was to illustrate some fact, or some doctrine, to which the passage was applied. If therefore on such occasions we do not find all the books of the Old Testament applied in illustration, the obvious conclusion is, not that the books, which were omitted, had less authority, than those which were quoted, but that they were less applicable to the immediate object, than the books, which were selected for quotation.

If indeed our Saviour had intended to enumerate the books of the Old Testament, or to determine the Canon of the Hebrew Scriptures, the omission of any book in that catalogue or canon would have been fatal to the authority of the book omitted. But neither our Saviour nor his Apostles had any such intention. The