tion to this he quotes the following words from Jerome, "Mark wrote a short Gospel from what he had heard of Peter, at the request of the brethren at Rome; which, when Peter knew, he approved and published it in the churches, commanding the reading of it by his own authority."

Similar to this is the testimony concerning Luke. He is several times mentioned by St. Paul, in terms of regard and affection. He is enumerated among Paul's fellow laborers, and is called "the beloved physician." As he accompanied St. Paul in many of his journeys, and participated his labors, he enjoyed the most important facilities for ascertaining doctrinal truth, i. e. on supposition the latter was inspired, (a subject to which our attention will soon be directed.) In addition to this, the circumstance that Luke for so long a time accompanied St. Paul, must have brought him to the knowledge and intimacy of some who had attended Christ in his ministry, and been eye witnesses of his miracles.

In the case of Luke as well as Mark, we are told by the ancients, says Benson, "that he wrote his history from what he knew himself, or had learned from others." He does not profess to have been an eye witness, but to have compiled his account from scrupulously examining and collating different sources of evidence: Forasmuch as many have undertaken to compose a narrative of those things which have been accomplished among us, as they who were from the beginning, eye witnesses, and afterwards ministers of the word, delivered them to us; I have also determined, having exactly traced every thing from the first, to write a most particular account to thee, most excellent Theophilus; that thou mayest know the certainty of these matters, in which thou hast been instructed.

Agreeably to this, it is asserted by Jerome, as quoted by Benson, that "Luke learned his Gospel, not only of Paul, who had not conversed with our Lord in the flesh, but of the other apostles ;" and that Luke's Gospel was confirmed by St. Paul, * Watson's Tracts, Vol. iv. 173.

and rested upon his authority, is affirmed by Tertullian. As the Gospel according to St. Mark was approved by St. Peter; and that of St. Luke by St. Paul; who were both furnished with apostolic illumination, so we are informed by Eusebius, that when the Gospels of Matthew, Mark, and Luke, had become very public, St. John, whose inspiration has already been proved, saw these Gospels and approved them, and confirmed the truth of them by his own testimony. (Eccl. Hist. p. 59.) Similar testimony is given by Jerome, as appears from the following quotation, "When John had read the volumes of Matthew, Mark, and Luke, he approved of the history, and confirmed the truth of what they had said."

Moreover this Gospel of Luke is quoted, according to Dr. Campbell, by St. Paul, under the name of Scripture, the same appellation that he gives to those writings of the Old Testament which he tells us, were given by inspiration of God. "It may, indeed, be justly affirmed, that Paul appears to have been the first, who quoted this Gospel, though he does not name Luke, and quoted it, as of authority. In writing to Timothy, he has these words: For the Scripture saith, Thou shalt not muzzle the ox, that treadeth out the corn; and, The laborer is worthy of his hire. The former of these sayings is a quotation from the pentateuch. (Deut. 25: 4.) The latter is found nowhere else in these terms, but in Luke, whose very words the apostle has adopted."*

I am not, indeed, prepared to say that the evidence supporting the inspiration of the various parts of Scripture, is precisely equal. In regard to some parts of that volume, it is stronger and more obviously decisive, than with respect to others. It would be incorrect to say that in this respect, there is no difference between the two Gospels, written by Christ's habitual followers, to whom he had promised to send the Holy Spirit, who should teach them all things, and bring all things to their remembrance, and the other two Gospels, whose authors did not,

* Campb. Pref. to Luke.

that we are ascertained, receive the same promise. But inequality of evidence in regard to two objects, does not disprove its adequateness in either case. As historians, both Mark and Luke had easy access to abundant sources of information; and their testimony in general is amply confirmed by the testimony of Matthew and John. Luke's Gospel is, by Paul, himself divinely inspired, denominated Scripture, and mentioned with the same respect, as the ancient volume, which he asserts to have been given by inspiration. Luke's Gospel was, according to historical evidence, examined and approved by Paul; that of Mark by Peter, and both by St. John. The object of inspiration is to give certainty to that which is written under its guidance. And I see not why the certainty of what is examined and approved by an inspired apostle, is not as great, as the certainty of that, which is written by such a person. In addition to this, they have in all ages of the church, been received as possessing divine authority. No doubts were ever entertained, as to admitting them into the sacred canon.

I now come to notice the epistles, contained in the New Testament. With the exception of Paul, the authors of these belonged to the twelve disciples, to whom were made those promises of divine illumination, which have several times been mentioned. Whenever, therefore, they had occasion to exercise their apostolic functions, whether by writing, or speaking, the word of their divine Master was pledged for their direction : That the Holy Spirit should guide them into all truth. Under such illumination, they actually professed to write. St. Peter says that the apostles preached the Gospel with the Holy Ghost sent down from heaven. He places the prophetic and apostolic Scriptures on the same ground: That ye may be mindful of the words which were spoken before by the holy prophets, and of the commandments of us the apostles of the Lord and Saviour. John represents his own inspiration and that of his brethren, as so manifest that every man who knew God, would listen to them: We are of God. He that knoweth God, heareth us. He that is not of God, heareth not us. Hereby know we the

spirit of truth, and the spirit of error. All the churches and individuals, that received these epistles, must have considered them either as true or false. That they were believed false, will not be asserted by any, who considers the proofs which in preceding lectures, were brought forward to support the christian religion, or the great regard which was paid to these epistles by christian churches. But, if they believed them true, they must have believed them written under divine illumination; because the epistles themselves claim to have been thus written.

At the time when the apostles were asserting such claims, it should not be forgotten that they were exhibiting numerous and public miracles, restoring limbs to the lame, sight to the blind, and health to the sick. Now, if they falsely pretended to diGod have continued to them these supernatural powers? Would he have given his own sanction to pretensions which had no other foundation than enthusiasm or fraud?

vine illumination, would

It is now apparent, therefore, that the author of Christianity, whom the Father sanctified and sent into the world, before his crucifixion, promised that the Holy Spirit should lead the apostles into all truth; that after his resurrection, he commanded them to continue at Jerusalem until they should receive miraculous powers, qualifying them for their apostolical office; that they received these powers, and went forth preaching every where, the Lord also working with them; that not only in their preaching, but in their more important duty of committing their doctrines to writing, they professed to be divinely instructed; and that they to whom these writings were sent, must have received them as the result of divine inspiration.

So far as this argument depends on the promise of our Lord to his twelve disciples, it does not apply to the writings of St. Paul, who was not of that number, and who speaks of himself, as one born out of due time. As his epistles constitute so important a part of the Christian volume, their inspiration will be the subject of inquiry in the next lecture.

LECTURE XXVII.

INSPIRATION.

In my last lecture, I endeavored to show the inspiration of those parts of Scripture which have for their author any one of the twelve disciples who received from Christ a special commission, and to whom Christ promised to send the Holy Spirit, teaching them all things and bringing all things to their remembrance. As Mark and Luke were not of the twelve, their narratives were distinctly considered. St. Paul's writings, for a similar reason, and likewise because they compose so valuable a portion of the New Testament, are entitled to a separate enquiry.

The question now before us, is not whether the epistles attributed to Paul, were written by him, nor whether he was an apostle of Christ; nor whether he was honestly engaged in the christian cause; but only, whether in writing these epistles, he was so far guided by divine influence, as infallibly to secure him from communicating any thing inconsistent with truth, on the subject of religion.

Paul, it is well known, was an unbeliever not only during the ministry of Christ, but for some time after his resurrection. Nor was Christianity a subject in which he took but little interest. He rejected it not with decision only, but with strong aversion; proclaiming against all its adherents a war of extermination. By what means his religious opinions and character