It may be proper to remark, by way of caution, that an inquiry into the principle or principles by which the Church was guided in her selection of authoritative Gospels is not precluded by any theory of inspiration. Even if we hold that the sacred books only are inspired, and that the Church was not inspired, or guided by the Holy Spirit, in her choice of them, the question must arise, How did the Church recognize the inspiration of the books ?
'As the Father hath sent me, even so send I you' (Jn 20-'). These words of the risen Lord express the idea that the Church is the representa- tive of Christ on earth, and that, as 'in him dwelleth all the fulness of the Godhead bodily' (Col '2->), so is the Church His body, a body not only quickened by His life, but indwelt by His mmd: 'We have the mind of Christ' (I Co 2^^). In the context immediately jireceding tliis quota- tion, St. Paul claims for tliose \\lio have this mind the posse.ssiou of a special critical .sense, a faculty of discernment in spiritual uiatters; and other passages exhibit the practical operation of this critical sense, as it may be termed, e.g. 1 Co 14^ 'Let the prophets speak by two or three, and let the others discern,' and v.^' 'If any man thinketh himself to be a prophet, or spiritual, let liim take knowledge of the things which I write unto you, that they are the commandments of the Lord.' This special sense was formed liy those who had been 'from the beginning eye-« itiiesses and mini- sters of the word? Their' rep.. n^ nt what their Ma.ster had done and said, the luudii i..us in which He worked, the tone and teiuper ut His utterances, formed a standard by which it was jiossible to de- cide the claims to genuineness of stories told about Him. There is really nothing fanciful in this : it only supposes the Apostolic Church, or at least the leading members of it, to have had the same sort of sense of discernment which is imdoubtedly pos- sessed by good critics in other departments of literature. The very best attem])ts to imitate tha style of a great poet or prose writer ring false in the ear of one who knows.
But not only did the Church, thinkin^^ through the accrediteil teachers ' who had the spirit,' or if
it be preferred, the sanctified 'common sense of most,' determine wliicli were tlie Gospels inspired by God ; but also their form — at least so far as the Synoptics are concerned — was in all proba- bility determined by the use made of them in the weekly Church assemblies. This use must have obtained from the very earliest times at which meetings were held for distinctively CInistian worship. We cannot otherwise account for the familiarity on the part of his readers with the general tenor of the Evangelic story wliich is assumed by St. Paul in his Epistles.
In Justin iMart.vr's time (Apot. i. 6") the established custom was that two lessons were read, one from the Prophets, another from the Gospels. We cannot press Justin's language too closely, BO as to exclude from public l-eadin^ the non-Pro- phetical parts of the OT, or the Apostolic Epistles. We must remember that his intention was to give heathens a general idea as to the nature of the Christian worship ; he was_ not composing rubrical directions for the rler;;y. It is more likely
of any other portion of the ' >!' : i'll m m ■ i- , i' i-i.-Uiem that Justin most constantly i ■ i l .■ That
the Apostolic Kpistles were .li- i I ' ■ ,, ,v„.tn-
blies we know from other wn, II. ■-. , i .^ ii' iii. K ili;ita
Lord's Day ever passed without a r-'iialiju ii --jny^ i.'jiLi'jn of the narratives of the works and words of Jesus.
When we examine the canonical Gospels with this consideration in our mind, we are struck by the fact that it is easy to imagine that the first three were compiled from sections read with a view to practical instruction, and that it is not so easy to tliink of the Fourth Gospel as having had this origin. Tlie stories and discourses in the Synoptics have the ett'ect of pictures reproduced in the words of the original witness, while the im-
{)ression was still fiesh in his memory, and before le had time to place them in any systematized doctrinal setting. St. John's Gospel, on the other hand, has the aii- of being an attempt to write a history, a spiritual history if you will, still a his- tory, an orderly statement of words and deeds meditated on in the study, and recorded as they emerged from the writer's inner consciousness after the lapse of many years. To say this is not to undervalue the historical truth, nuich less the inspiration, of the Fourth Gospel. The difference between it and the Synoptics is similar to that between a diarist and a historian : a diary chron- icles facts, a history interprets them.
It is possible that St. John's Gospel was known as a history for private reading only, for some considerable time before it was read in the congregation. This supposition would partly • of Justin's quotations of Christ's words are 3 sutficient proof of his .a(;quaint- ance with it. Even in our own day it is doubtful whether any judicious apologist for Christianity, in '-itiri^^ examples of our Lord's discourses to a non-Chn^t . ,'. i i!.:i • .:.! malvi- niiK-hu.se of the Fourth Gospel, thougti h' ■ ( .■ ^f iii..-.liniable