whom the promises just cited were made. Of the other three, one, namely, Luke, is generally admitted to have been of the seventy disciples sent out by Christ, and who received the promise of divine superintendence and inspiration recorded in his Gospel. (6) With regard to Mark, if his own immediate inspiration cannot be established, that of his Gospel can, since it has never been questioned that he wrote under the superintendence of Peter, an inspired apostle. There then remains only Paul, who repeatedly and solemnly asserts his own inspiration, and his equality in every respect with all the other apostles : who even taught before he conversed with them, recorded words of our Lord referred to by none of the Evangelists, and appeals to miracles publicly wrought by himself in proof of his divine commission.

That the apostles themselves had a firm persuasion that they wrote under Divine inspiration is evident from a great variety of texts; to some of the most important of which I shall refer you, (p) that you may consult them carefully, and allow them their full impression upon your mind. They professed themselves to be inspired by God, in books whose genuineness and authenticity we have established; and God has attested their commission by miracles; therefore we are bound to believe them. You will find, too, that the apostles considered themselves as communicating to the world a perpetual rule of faith and practice, which would be comprehended by all except the finally impenitent. If, say they, “ if our Gospel be under a veil, it is “ veiled to those that destroy themselves." (9) On these accounts, as it should seem, they preferred themselves before the Prophets, not merely of their own but of preceding times, saying (r) “ God hath set in the “ church, first, Apostles ; secondly, Prophets ; thirdly, “ Teachers :" language which could not properly have been employed, had the apostles been inspired only to preach and not to write; for in that case they would manifestly be inferior to the Prophets, who in their writings, as well as their oral denunciations,“ spake as " they were moved by the Holy Ghost.”

The preceding are arguments for the general inspiration of the writers of the New Testament; but it also behoves me farther to remark, that the care with which the most voluminous writer among the apostles distinguishes between those instances in which he delivers the dictates of the Spirit, and those in which he presents merely his own private judgment, leads us naturally to infer that, wherever he has not made such distinction, he ought to be understood as teaching with Divine authority. Thus, when he treats of the relative advantages and disadvantages of the single and the married state in the perilous times in which he lived, he says, “ I speak this by permission, not by command“ ment.” Again, a little farther on, « Unto the “ married I command, yet not I, but the Lord.” And soon afterwards, “ To the rest speak I, not the Lord.”

(9) 2 Cor. iv. 3. See the original. (r) 1 Cor. xii. 28. Eph. ii. 20.

Again, (f) “ Concerning virgins, I have no command“ mand of the Lord; yet I give my judgment.” And once more, at the conclusion of the same chapter, “ She is happier if she so abide, after my judgment ; 6 and I think also that (in this particular) I have the “ Spirit of God.” Is it not absurd to imagine that an

. apostle, who guards his readers four if not five times in one chapter against making his private judgment of equal authority with commandments dictated to him by God, would on all other occasions assume the authority of a divine and inspired teacher, without a full and per

a fect consciousness that he had a just claim to it? (t)

These observations will, I trust, convince you that the historical and doctrinal parts of the New Testament, and the prophetical portions of both the Old and New Testaments, contain, in the complete sense of the phrase, “ the word of God." It remains that I state to you two or three cogent reasons for admitting that the whole of the received Jewish Scriptures is entitled to the same character, and of course to the same submission of intellect and of heart. In order to this I shall first lay before you the language of Dr. Doddridge in his valuable Dissertation on the Inspiration of the Scriptures: “ The inspiration, and consequently the “ genuineness and credibility, of the Old Testament, “ may be certainly inferred from that of the New, be

(s) 1 Cor. vii. 6, 10, 12, 25, 40.

(t) See also 2 Cor. viii. 8. Admitting, with Wolfius and others, that dokw, in 1 Cor. vii. 40, imports not an uncertain opinion, but conviction and knowledge, as in John, v. 39, still the argument as to the distinction made by the Apostle between the authority of his private sentiments and his inspired doctrines remains unimpaired.

66

66

66

6 cause our Lord and his apostles were so far from

charging the Scribes and Pharisees (who on all

proper occasions are censured so freely) with having “ introduced into the sacred volume any merely human “ compositions; that, on the contrary, they not only “ recommend a diligent and constant perusal of these “ Scriptures, as of the greatest importance to men's “ eternal happiness, but speak of them as divine oracles, “and as written by the extraordinary influence of the

Holy Spirit upon the minds of the authors.

“ I desire that the following list of Scriptures may “ be attentively consulted and reflected on in this “6 view. I might have added a great many more, “ indeed several hundreds, in which the sacred writers “ of the New Testament argue from those of the Old “ in such a manner, as nothing could have justified “ but a firm persuasion that they were divinely in“ spired. Now as the Jews always allowed that the “ testimony of an approved prophet was sufficient to “ confirm the mission of one who was supported by it, “ so I think every reasonable man will readily con“clude, that no inspired person can erroneously attest “ another to be inspired ; and indeed the very defini“ tion of plenary inspiration absolutely excludes any “ room for cavilling on so plain a head. I throw the “ particular passages which I choose to mention into “ the margin below; (v) and he must be a very indo

(v) John, v. 39. Matt. iv. 4, 7, 10. Mark, xii. 24. Luke, x. 26, 27. Matt. v. 17, 18. xxi. 42. xxii. 29, 31, 43. xxiv. 15. xxvi. 54, 56. Luke, i. 67, 69, 70. xvi. 31. xxiv. 25, 27. John, vi. 31. x. 35. Acts, ii. 16, 25. iii. 22, 24. iv. 25. xvii. ll. xviii. 24, 28. xxvii. 25.

“ lent inquirer into a question of so much importance, “ who does not think it worth his while to turn care

fully to them; unless he have already such a convic“tion of the argument that it should need no farther « to be illustrated or confirmed." : But, before you totally dismiss the subject, meditate upon a few important particulars, in which those portions of the Old Testament which are not altogether or principally prophetic, differ from all compositions that are merely human.

Thus 1st. They do not accommodate themselves to the tastes, inclinations, and prejudices of mankind. For, instead of fostering the voluptuousness of men, they extirpate it; at least, that is their tendency; as well as to eradicate injustice, self-love, and all unholy passions. Instead of gratifying our pride, they tend to overthrow it, by presenting a most vivid picture of our weakness, misery, and corruption. Instead of feeding the vain curiosity of those who would fain know the nature of things, that they may have the fame which accrues from the knowledge, or become wise, that they may be thought wise; the Hebrew Scriptures teach us that this knowledge is but vanity and vexation of spirit. Instead of exhibiting to us the niceties, and dwelling upon the distinctions of polished life, they present an amiable simplicity of manners, and teach us that “ though a man have riches, and

Rom. iii. 2, 10. ix. 17, 25, 27, 29. x. 5, 11, 16. XV. 4. xvi. 26. 1 Cor. x. Il. 2 Cor. iv. 13. vi. 16, 17. Gal. iii. 8. 1. Tim. v. 18. 2 Tim, iii. 15, 16. Heb. i. 1, 5-13. iii. 7. Jam. ii. 8. iv. 5,6. 1 Pet. i. 10-12. 2. Pet, i. 19-21.