number, was inspired in a plenary manner, and much the larger part of the Twelve never wrote any thing for the Canon. There is nothing in the New Testament which forbids our supposing, that other disciples might have been selected to write for the use of the church. We do not wish that this should be believed, in regard to any persons without evidence; but we think that the proof exists, and arises from the undeniable fact, that the writings of these two men were, from the beginning, received as inspired. And this belief must have prevailed before the death of the Apostles; for all the testimonies concur in stating, that the Gospel of Mark was seen by Peter, and that of Luke by Paul, and approved by them respectively. Now, is it credible that these Apostles, and John who survived them many years, would have recommended to the Christian church the productions of uninspired men? No doubt, all the churches at that time looked up to the Apostles for guidance in all matters that related to the rule of their faith; and a general opinion that these Gospels were Canonical, could not have obtained without their concurrence. The hypothesis of Michaelis, that they were recommended as useful human productions, and by degrees came to be considered as inspired writings, is in itself improbable, and repugnant to all the testimony which has come down to us on the subject. If this had been the fact, they would never have been placed among the books universally acknowledged, but would have been doubted of, or disputed by some. The difference made between inspired books and others, in those primitive times, was as great as at any subsequent period; and the line of distinction was not only broad, but great pains were taken to have it drawn accurately; and when the common opinion of the church, respecting the Gospels, was formed, there was no difficulty in coming to the certain knowledge of the truth. For thirty years and more before the death of the Apostle John, these two Gospels were in circulation. If any doubt had existed respecting their Canonical authority, would not the churches and their Elders have had recourse to this infallible authority? The general agreement of all Christians, over the whole world, respecting most of the books of the New Testament, doubtless, should be attributed to the authority of the Apostles. If, then, these Gospels had been mere human productions, they might have been read privately, but never could have found a place in the sacred Canon. The objection to these books comes entirely too late to be entitled to any weight. The opinion of a modern critic, however learned, is of small consideration, when opposed to the

testimony of the whole primitive church, and to the suffrage of the universal church, in every age since the days of the Apostles. The rule of the learned Huet, already cited, is sound, viz. “That all those books should be deemed Canonical and inspired, which were received as such by those who lived nearest to the time when they were published."

3. But if we should, for the sake of argument, concede, that no books should be considered as inspired but such as were the productions of Apostles, still these Gospels would not be excluded from the Canon. It is a fact, in which there is a wonderful agreement among the Fathers, that Mark wrote his Gospel from the mouth of Peter; that is, he wrote down what he had heard this Apostle every day declaring in his public Ministry. And Luke did the same, in regard to Paul's preaching. These Gospels therefore may, according to this testimony, be considered as more probably belonging to these two Apostles, than to the Evangelists who penned them. They were little more, it would seem, if we give full credit to the testimony which has been exhibited, than amanuenses to the Apostles on whom they attended. Paul, we know, dictated several of his Epistles to some of his companions; and if Mark and Luke heard the Gospel from Peter and Paul, so often repeated, that they were perfect masters of their respective narratives, and then committed the same to writing, are they not, virtually, the productions of these Apostles which have been handed down to us? And this was so much the opinion of some of the Fathers, that they speak of Mark's Gospel, as Peter's, and of Luke's, as Paul's.

But this is not all.-These Gospels were shown to these Apostles, and received their approbation. Thus speak the ancients, as with one voice; and if they had been silent, we might be certain, from the circumstances of the case, that these Evangelists would never have ventured to take such an important step, as to write and publish the preaching of these inspired men, without their express approbation. Now, let it be considered, that a narrative prepared by a man well acquainted with the facts related, may be entirely correct without inspiration; but of this we cannot be sure, and, therefore, it is of great importance to have a history of facts from men who were rendered infallible by the inspiration of the Holy Spirit. It should be remembered, however, that the only advantage of inspiration in giving such a narrative, consists in the proper selection of facts and circumstances, and in the infallible certainty of the writing. Suppose, then, that an uninspired man

should prepare an account of such transactions as he had seen, or heard from eye-witnesses of undoubted veracity, and that his narrative should be submitted to the inspection of an Apostle, and receive his full approbation; might not such a book be considered as inspired? If, in the original composition, there should have crept in some errors (for to err is human), the inspired reviewer would, of course, point them out and have them corrected. Now, such a book would be, for all important purposes, an inspired volume; and would deserve a place in the Canon of Holy Scripture. If any credit, then, is due to the testimony of the Christian Fathers, the Gospels of Mark and Luke are Canonical books; for, as was before stated, there is a general concurrence among them, that these Evangelists submitted their works to the inspection, and received the approbation of, the Apostles Peter and Paul.

4. Finally, the internal evidence is as strong in favour of the Gospels under consideration, as of any other books of the New Testament. There is no reason to think that Mark or Luke were capable of writing with such perfect simplicity and propriety, without the aid of inspiration, or the assistance of inspired men. If we reject these books from the Canon, we must give up the argument derived from internal evidence for the inspiration of the Sacred Scriptures altogether. It is true, the learned Professor, whose opinions we are opposing, has said, "The oftener I compare their writings (Mark's and Luke's) with those of St Matthew and St John, the greater are my doubts." And speaking in another place of Mark, he says, "In some immaterial instances he seems to have erred," and gives it as his opinion, "That they who undertake to reconcile St Mark with St Matthew, or to show that he is nowhere corrected by St John, experience great difficulty, and have not seldom to resort to unnatural explanations." But the learned Professor has not mentioned any particular cases of irreconcilable discrepancies between this Evangelist and St Matthew; nor does he indicate in what statements he is corrected by St John. Until something of this kind is exhibited, gene ral remarks of this sort are deserving of no consideration. To harmonize the Evangelists has always been found a difficult task, but this does not prove that they contradict each other, or that their accounts are irreconcilable. Many things which, at first sight, appear contradictory, are found, upon closer examination, to be perfectly harmonious; and if there be some things which commentators have been unable satisfactorily to reconcile, it is no more than what might be expected in nar

ratives so concise, and in which a strict regard to chronological order did not enter into the plan of the writers. And if this objection be permitted to influence our judgment in this case, it will operate against the inspiration of the other Evangelists as well as Mark; but in our apprehension, when the discrepancies are impartially considered, and all the circumstances of the facts candidly and accurately weighed, there will be found no solid ground of objection to the inspiration of any of the Gospels; certainly nothing which can counterbalance the strong evidence arising from the style and spirit of the writers. In what respects these two Evangelists fall short of the others, has never been shown; upon the most thorough examination and fair comparison of these inimitable productions, they appear to be all indited by the same Spirit, and to possess the same superiority to all human compositions.

Compare these Gospels with those which are acknowledged to have been written by uninspired men, and you will need no nice power of discrimination to see the difference: the first appear, in every respect, worthy of God; the last betray, in every page, the weakness of men.

I beg leave, here, to use the words of an excellent writer, in a late work: "The Gospel of St Luke was always, from the very moment of its publication, received as inspired, as well as authentic. It was published during the lives of St John, St Peter, and St Paul, and was approved and sanctioned by them as inspired; and received as such by the churches, in conformity to the Jewish Canon, which decided on the genuineness or spuriousness of the inspired books of their own church, by receiving him as a prophet, who was acknowledged as such by the testimony of an established prophet. On the same grounds, Luke must be considered as a true Evangelist: his Gospel being dictated and approved by an Apostle, of whose authority there can be no question. There is, likewise, sufficient evidence to warrant the conclusions of Whitby-that both St Mark and St Luke were of the number of the Seventy, who had a commission from Christ to preach the Gospel, not to the Jews only, but to the other nations-that the Holy Ghost fell on these among the numbers of the Seventy, who formed a part of the hundred-and-twenty, assembled on the day of Pentecost; and from that time they were guided by the influences of the Holy Spirit, in writing or preaching the Gospel. And if the Universal Church, from the first ages, received this Gospel as divinely inspired, on these satisfactory grounds, distance of time cannot weaken the evidences of truth, and we

GERMAN SCEPTICISM.

119

are required to receive it on the same testimony. That which satisfied those who had much better means of judging, should certainly satisfy us at this time.*

There is something reprehensible, not to say impious, in that bold spirit of modern criticism, which has led many eminent Biblical scholars, especially in Germany, first to attack the authority of particular books of Scripture, and next to call in question the inspiration of the whole volume. To what extent this licentiousness of criticism has been carried, I need not say for it is a matter of notoriety, that of late, the most dangerous enemies of the Bible have been found occupying the place of its advocates; and the critical art, which was intended for the correction of the text, and the interpretation of the Sacred books, has, in a most unnatural way, been turned against the Bible; and, finally, the inspiration of all the Sacred books has not only been questioned, but scornfully rejected, by Professors of Theology! And these men, while living on endowments which pious benevolence had consecrated for the support of religion, and openly connected with churches whose creeds contain orthodox opinions, have so far forgotten their high responsibilities, and neglected the claims which the church had on them, as to exert all their ingenuity and learning to sap the foundation of that system which they were sworn to defend. They have had the shameless hardihood, to send forth into the world, books under their own names, which contain fully as much of the poison of infidelity as ever distilled from the pens of the most malignant deists, whose writings have fallen as a curse upon the world. The only effectual security which we have against this new and most dangerous form of infidelity, is found in the spirit of the age, which is so superficial and cursory in its reading, that, however many elaborate critical works may be published in foreign languages, very few of them will be read, even by theological students in this country.

May God overrule the efforts of these enemies of Christ and the Bible, so that good may come out of evil!

New Testament, by the Rev. George Townsend, vol. i, p. 5.