irrational to trust in demons and enchantments, to the neglect of suitable natural means; but it is also irrational, and, considering the light we now enjoy, very sinful, for patients to seek to physicians, and not also to the Lord; and for either patients or physicians to trust in natural means, independently on the divine blessing. Let none say that it matters nothing what may be the religious and moral character of the physician, provided he be skilful in his profession. It matters much, very much, at least to himself; and it may be of more consequence, in some instances, to his patients than may at first be supposed. Surely it will not be said that his skill is the consequence of impiety. Is he skilful and successful, though irreligious? He would be more skilful, and more successful, were he accustomed, in his studies and in his practice, to look for the guidance and the blessing of God. It is certain, too, that much good may thus often be done by him to the spiritual interests of men; and he may be, in some cases, serviceable in inducing that composed and resigned frame of mind which is very favourable to a bodily cure. There is something truly captivating and refreshing to the Christian mind in the whole demeanour of those medical men who are both eminent in their profession, and habitually influenced by religious principle.

It is affirmed by some that Luke was also a painter; and so far has this idea been carried, that in some places there are pictures of the Virgin Mary shown, which are said to have been drawn by him, or at least to be copies of originals by his hand. But neither the Scriptures, nor the early Christian historians, say a word of Luke being possessed of this elegant accomplishment.* Had he been thus qualified, and could he have seen the effects which his performances, if extant, would have produced, there can be no doubt that he would rather never have touched a pencil, or that, if he had, he would rather have committed his finest works to the flames, than have left them to future ages as an incentive to superstition and idolatry. If, however, he did not paint the faces of the Virgin and her Son with the colours of the limner, he did what was of much more importance; he, in the book before us, drew to the life an exquisite portraiture of their character, which continues with us long after the master-pieces of the ancient painters have vanished, and which will continue to the end of time-the antidote of

*Nicephorus (Callistus) is the first who mentions it, and he did not write till the fourteenth century.

superstition, the guide of the serious inquirer, and the admiration of all good men.

It has been already stated, that the latter part of the Acts of the Apostles shows Luke to have been much in company with the apostle Paul. This is further corroborated in 2 Tim. iv. 11, where Paul says: "Only Luke is with me; and in the 24th verse of the Epistle to Philemon, where the apostle mentions Luke or Lucas (for the names are one) among his fellow-labourers. Ecclesiastical historians, and other early Christian writers, state a variety of circumstances relating to his labours, and to the time, place, and manner of his death; but their accounts and opinions are too contradictory for any of them being adopted here with confidence.

The works of Luke are two, namely, his Gospel, and his Acts of the Apostles. The universal consent of the Church, from the earliest times, is satisfactory evidence that he was the author of both.

2. The second point we proposed to consider is the divine authority of this Gospel, including, of course, its genuineness. And here it may be observed, first of all, that the great care which the Church took to distinguish the genuine and divinely inspired Gospels from the spurious, and their unanimity of decision, clearly prove the authority of those Gospels which are now received. None of these spurious Gospels are mentioned till towards the end of the second century, and few of them till the third or fourth century; whereas the earliest Christian writers, such as Justin Martyr, Irenæus, Clemens of Alexandria, then others in succession, all show that our four Gospels were received as canonical, and these four alone. They were constantly read in the public assemblies. Copies of them were transcribed, and dispersed into various quarters; and the very disputes which arose preserved them, as well as the rest of the Scriptures, from alteration.

Again: if, as is probable, Luke was one of the seventy who were commissioned to preach and work miracles, then was he also miraculously qualified to compose this history; and we have as good reason to admit the divine authority of this evangelist, and also of Mark, as of the apostolic evangelists, Matthew and John. Nay, though we were to doubt as to Luke being one of the seventy, yet both his human and his divine qualifications for this work might be safely rested solely on his being called to preach the gospel, and to act and write under the eye and approval of the apostle Paul.

A third argument for the divine origin of the Gospel by Luke, and an argument which is independent on the other sacred books, is, that various circumstantial particulars respecting the destruction of Jerusalem, therein and nowhere else foretold, have been exactly fulfilled.

A very satisfactory proof also arises from the mutual dependence and connection of this and the other sacred books, especially the other three Gospels. In the midst of a delightful and instructive variety, there is such a harmony of fact, of doctrine, and of spirit, as to demonstrate that all these holy men had one common guide, and wrote not only truly, but by inspiration, as they were moved by the Holy Ghost.

With regard to the nature and degree of this inspiration, theologians are accustomed to speak of the inspiration of suggestion, and the inspiration of direction-suggestion conveying to the mind of the inspired person the knowledge of things of which he previously was ignorant; and direction so guiding the mouth or the pen of the inspired person, as to secure the correct representation of things which he already knew. There is, unquestionably, a foundation in nature for this distinction; but it should only be stated, if stated at all, in a way perfectly consistent with the doctrine of plenary, or full and verbal inspiration.

Its very early reception and divine authority being clear, it is comparatively of small importance that we are not able to ascertain exactly, in the

3d place, The time when this Gospel was written. Thus far is certain, that it was written before the Acts of the Apostles, in the commencement of which it is referred to as Luke's former treatise." And it being probable, from the conclusion of the Acts, that they were written at least before the ninth year of Nero, it seems to follow, that this Gospel was composed at an earlier period than some suppose, and before the death of the Apostle Paul.

4. The original language of this Gospel was unquestionably the Greek, which was the language in most general use in those days. Luke must have been a man of education, and of a polished mind. His style, though not altogether free of Hebrew idioms, approaches nearer to the pure Greek than that of the other New Testament writers. Good judges are of opinion that his writings, considered merely as compositions, are able to bear a comparison with those of the finest classical authors; and it must be obvious to the readers of our version, that his manner of writing is very accurate, engaging, copious, emphatical, and sublime. Nor

ought these characteristics to be considered as trivial or useless. They may, indeed, be thought so by some who are not capable of judging; but as the Word of God was intended for the wise as well as for the unwise, for the scholar as well as for the unlearned, these diversities of manner afford, in the estimation of those whose education and habits qualify them to judge of such matters, an interesting view of the genius, and a very gratifying confirmation of the truth, of the whole.

The

5. The person to whom this Gospel is addressed. name "Theophilus," signifies a lover, or beloved of God; but it would be very unnatural to suppose, with some, that the word is here used as a feigned name, to signify any Christian. Though this method has been adopted by other writers, it is not agreeable to the practice of the inspired. Theophilus is plainly the same real individual to whom the book of the Acts of the Apostles also is addressed. He is here styled "Most Excellent." This was an honorary title bestowed on persons high in office, and of nobility, somewhat similar to the title of "Excellency" with us. Thus it is given to Felix, in Acts xxiii. 26: "Claudius Lysias unto the most excellent governor Felix." Exactly the same title, too, in the original, though differently rendered in our version, is given to Festus in Acts xxvi. 25, where Paul says: “I am not mad, most noble Festus." Theophilus, therefore, was not only a Christian, but a nobleman, and probably high in office.

Thus, though "not many mighty, not many noble, were called," yet some such were called from the first; and thus some such are still found among the faithful. Such instances are highly important and pleasing. Not but that the soul of the meanest peasant is, in itself, as precious as the soul of the most illustrious nobleman-not but that the salvation of every soul transcends in importance every worldly consideration; but in reference to the probable effect on others, there is an undeniable difference. Every good man may be of some service to the cause of Christ; but when rank, and office, and wealth, and talent, are engaged, God may be considered as himself putting more powerful means in operation; and when his own blessing is superinduced, the good effects are correspondingly extensive.

From this form of address, used by an inspired writer, may be fairly deduced the lawfulness and propriety, generally speaking, of giving to men the ordinary titles of respect. As to our Lord's teaching his disciples not to be

called rabbi, and to call no man father, or master, on earth, Scripture must be interpreted consistently with itself, and that passage, of course, consistently with such as the one now before us; and this rule of interpretation leads to the conclusion that Christ forbade, not the use of common terms in common life, but the assumption, on the one hand, and the yielding, on the other, of any human authority in matters of religion which might at all interfere with his own. They err, therefore, who think that there is any propriety or religion in assuming a singularity in such things, or in sturdily refusing what are usually considered marks of civility and of respect. It is unworthy at once of the Christian and of the man, to be guilty of hollow hypocrisy or fawning servility; but it is both dutiful and adorning to be courteous, and to give honour to whom honour is due.

It has been usual with authors to dedicate their works to particular persons, sometimes with the design of securing their patronage, sometimes merely as a mark of respect and affection, and sometimes with a particular view to the benefit of the individuals themselves. The dictates of inspiration needed not, it is true, the support of any human authority; yet it would not have been unworthy of divine wisdom to have adopted such secondary means. While the dedication before us is an obvious expression of high regard to Theophilus, it distinctly states that his personal improvement was what Luke greatly desired: "That thou mightest know the certainty of those things wherein thou hast been instructed." The word rendered "instructed," though of more extensive meaning, answers exactly to our word "catechised;" and, therefore (if the practice existed so early), may be considered as referring to the instruction given to catechumens before their full admission to the communion of the Church. These things Luke wished Theophilus to know more certainly, accurately, and fully; and for this purpose wrote them down. Mark here the great superiority, of written records over oral traditions; and also how obviously it is implied, in this clause, that the Scriptures are a full, plain, and sufficient rule, which the laity may with safety and profit, and should from conscience, consult for themselves.

Though immediately addressed, however, to Theophilus, this book, like the rest of Scripture, comes, with the stamp of divine authority, for the edification of all who may peruse it.

6. The goodness of God is worthy of notice in some of the peculiar advantages of this Gospel. It not only corroborates many of the facts previously related by Matthew and