_sq._)? Does not the main part of his argument in the very next
chapter (Rom. iv.) depend more on the narrative of God's dealings
than His words? Again, when the author of the Epistle to the Hebrews
refers to 'the first principles of the oracles of God' (v. 12), his
meaning is explained by his practice; for he elicits the Divine
teaching quite as much from the history as from the direct precepts
of the Old Testament. But if the language of the New Testament
writers leaves any loophole for doubt, this is not the case with
their contemporary Philo. In one place, he speaks of the words in
Deut. x. 9, 'The Lord is his inheritance,' as an 'oracle' ([Greek:
logion]); in another he quotes as an 'oracle' ([Greek: logion]) the
_narrative_ in Gen. iv. 15: 'The Lord God set a mark upon Cain, lest
anyone finding him should kill him.' [125:3] From this and other
passages it is clear that with Philo an 'oracle' is a synonyme for a
Scripture. Similarly Clement of Rome writes: 'Ye know well the
sacred Scriptures, and have studied the oracles of God;' [125:4] and
immediately he recalls to their mind the account in Deut. ix. 12
_sq._, Exod. xxxii. 7 _sq._, of which the point is not any Divine
precept or prediction, but _the example of Moses_. A few years later
Polycarp speaks in condemnation of those who 'pervert the oracles of
the Lord." [126:1]

He then goes on to refer to Irenaeus, Clement of Alexandria, Origen, and
Basil, but I need not follow him to these later writers, but confine
myself to that which I have quoted.

"When Paul writes in the Epistle to the Romans iii. 2, 'They were
entrusted with the oracles of God,' can he mean anything else but
the Old Testament Scriptures, including the historical books?" argues
Dr. Lightfoot. I maintain, on the contrary, that he certainly does not