them? and are they to be considered as merely fallible men, when they inculcated and enforced the same truths, not only upon their contemporaries, but upon all succeeding generations? The assurance that the Spirit should abide with the Apostles for ever, must necessarily imply a constant Inspiration, without change or intermission, whenever they exercised the office of a teacher of the Gospel, whether by writing or by speaking. It may perhaps be questioned, whether this reasoning will apply with equal force to the writings of St. Mark and St. Luke, who were not themselves Apostles, but only companions and assistants of those who were Apostles. But though it be true that these evangelists were not of the twelve Apostles, nor were they miraculously called to the office of an Apostle, like St. Paul, yet we have the strongest reason to believe that they were partakers of the extraordinary effusion of the Holy Spirit granted to the disciples of Christ; and such was the unanimous opinion of the primitive Christians. It is moreover generally believed, that the Gospels of St. Mark and St. Luke were respectively approved by St. Peter and St. Paul, and that they both received the sanction of St. John; and it is universally acknowledged, that these two Gospels, and the Acts of the Apostles, were considered as canonical Scripture from the earliest earliest time. "If the Church had not heard from the Apostles, that the writings of their assistants were divine, these writings would not have been received in the sacred canon; and if they had not been in the canon at the end of the first century, they would not have been received in the second and following centuries so generally, and without contradiction (s)." There is also a perfect harmony between the doctrines delivered by St. Mark and St. Luke, and by the other writers of the New Testament; and we can indeed scarcely conceive it possible, that God would suffer four Gospels to be transmitted, as a rule of faith and practice to all succeeding generations, two of which were written under the immediate direction of his Holy Spirit, and the other two by the unassisted powers of the human intellect. We are told that the Gospels contain but a very small part of the transactions of our Saviour's (s) Margh's Michaelis, vol. 1. page 93. This argument, quoted in the first two editions of this work, by a singular mistake in the marks of reference in my note book, as the opinion of Michaelis, is introduced by him as commonly urged in support of the doctrine which he endeavours to refute. But whoever will examine the passage as it stands in his work, must, I think, perceive the point in question to be greatly strengthened by the weakness of the learned Author's answer to this argument. Saviour's life, "And there are also many other things which Jesus did, the which, if they should be written every one, I suppose that even the world itself could not contain the books that should be written (s)." We are therefore to conclude that the Evangelists were supernaturally enabled to make a proper selection from this great mass of materials, and that they were directed to record such things as were best calculated to convey a just idea of the Religion of Christ. It seems impossible that St. John, who wrote his Gospel, as will hereafter appear, more than thirty years after the death of Christ, should have been able, by the natural power of his memory, to recollect those numerous discourses of our Saviour which he has related And indeed all the Evangelists must have stood in need of the promised assistance of the Holy Ghost, to bring to remembrance the things which Christ had said during his Ministry. We are to consider St. Luke in writing the Acts of the Apostles, and the Apostles themselves in writing the Epistles, as under a similar guidance and direction. St. Paul, the only writer of the New Testament who remains to be considered, in several passages (8) John, c. 21. V. 25. of of his Epistles, asserts his own Inspiration in the most positive and unequivocal terms. In his Epistle to the Galatians, he says, "I certify you, brethren, that the Gospel which was preached of me, is not after man; for I neither received it of man, neither was I taught it, but by the revelation of Jesus Christ (t)." In his first Epistle to the Corinthians, after giving them advice concerning some points upon which they had consulted him, he adds, "I speak this by permission, and not by commandment (u);" and soon after, "to the rest speak I, not the Lord." By thus declaring, that upon these particular subjects he only delivered his own private opinion, (though always under the superintending influence of the Holy Spirit (w),) he plainly implies, that upon other occasions he wrote under the immediate direction and especial authority of God himself; and indeed in this very chapter he says, "Unto the married I command, yet not I, but the Lord." Hence also it follows, that the Apostles had some certain method, although utterly unknown to us, of distinguishing that knowledge, which was the effect of Inspiration, from the ordinary suggestions and conclusions of their (t) c. 1. v. 11 & 12. Own soused of the Lostes, and other Writers of De Vos teen vice I desire to recommang tilers as erataining plain misloa the subject of Ine mis chapter with the - nur work, although it f some things which -A second and ever to be drawn from ~ and which is of most As that the Apostles Lee guidance religious senHere it may Te sense in which this religious sentiment Kinment that constitutes a Ann Christian duty. In a very testimony --- our Lord, in every encerning the import recept, exhortation and - to men, it appears to erte of illine dance By being under his |