INSPIRATION OF MARK, LUKE, JAMES, AND JUDAS.

Thus far the evidence of inspiration, explicit and doubly reiterated as it is, applies only to the Apostles. We have now to inquire to what extent it may be affirmed that Mark, Luke, James, and Judas, the other New Testament writers, were also inspired. It is well known that concerning the inspiration of these we have no explicit statement as in case of the Apostles; and that if there is evidence of their inspiration, it must be of an inferential kind.

To begin with Luke, it is often said that he expressly disclaims inspiration, by asserting for himself, in the preface to his Gospel, a different source of information. It is true that he does claim a different source of information; but this is not disclaiming the Holy Spirit's aid in composing his narrative. The Apostles are not represented as obtaining their information by inspiration; that is, their information about the earthly career of Jesus; but as being guided by the Spirit in recording it. If, then, Luke was as fully inspired as they, he still must have resorted to eye-witnesses for his information, while like them he would have been aided by the Holy Spirit in discriminating between what was accurate and inaccurate in the information, and in writing just that, no more, no less, which God willed that he should write. Indeed, the Apostles were themselves dependent on eye-witnesses other than themselves for information about some matters, but this detracts nothing from their claim to inspiration; and the difference between them and Luke in this particular is one only of degree. Luke, then, does not by any means disclaim inspiration.

The implication in Luke's preface really looks in the opposite direction. He avows the purpose of his narrative in the words, "That thou mightest know the certainty concerning the things wherein thou wast instructed;" and he avows this in the face of the preceding statement, that many had "taken in hand to draw up a narrative concerning those matters which have been fulfilled among us, even as they delivered them to us who were eye-witnesses and ministers of the word." Now there must have been something attached to the person of Luke, on which Theophilus could rely for the certainty in question--something which distinguished him in point of reliability from the previous reporters of the same original testimony. What could this have been unless it were the fact known to Theophilus, that Luke was inspired, and that those other writers were not? If it be answered that it was the fact of his having "traced the course of all things from the first.," we reply that he does not deny this qualification to the previous writers; for he includes these with himself in the words, "even as they delivered them to us who were from the beginning eye-witnesses and ministers of the word."  

The principal grounds for believing that Mark and Luke were inspired men are these: first, they both belonged to that class of fellow-laborers of the Apostles on whom they were accustomed, as we have seen in our citations from the Epistles and Acts, to confer miraculous gifts of the Spirit; and it is in the highest degree improbable that in the bestowment of these gifts these two men were slighted. Such gifts were bestowed on many, as in the church at Corinth and others, who sustained no such relation of intimacy with the Apostles as did these two. Second, had these men not Possessed such a gift, it is highly improbable that they would have undertaken, like the writers to whom Luke refers in his preface, to compose these narratives: they would have left such work, as becoming prudence and modesty would have prompted, to others who were more competent. Finally, all the evidences of inspiration based on the unique character of our Gospels, marking them out as writings characteristically different from all others in the range of literature, support as strongly the inspiration of these two writers as they do that of Matthew and John. For these reasons both believers and unbelievers have classed these two Gospels with the other two in respect to inspiration, unbelievers pronouncing them all alike uninspired, and believers pronouncing them all alike inspired. Among all the theorists on the subject no party has been formed holding to the inspiration of Matthew and John, and denying that of Mark and Luke.

As to James and Judas, all that we have said about Mark and Luke may he said of them, and more besides, dames, the author of the Epistle which bears his name, is the very James who, together with Peter and John, sent forth the decree concerning the Gentiles, and said in the introduction of it, "It seemed good to the Holy Spirit and to us," thus claiming to decide and to write by the guidance of the Holy Spirit. This is a direct claim of inspiration for James. Furthermore, it is incredible that he could have occupied the position of authority which he did in Jerusalem for many years if he had not been credited with full inspiration. As to Judas, he was a brother of James, and also a brother of the Lord; and it is incredible that in the distribution of miraculous gifts by the Apostles he was overlooked or slighted.

Now if to any one the evidence for the inspiration of these four writers shall appear unsatisfactory, he may still accept their writings as the uninspired productions of good men, thoroughly competent, so far as uninspired men could he, to write reliable narratives concerning Jesus. Much in the way of truths and facts which they have written is also contained in the writings of Apostles; and this much rests unquestionably on inspired authority. The rest, while void of this authority, would still be as credible as any mere human productions could be. So, then, the practical difference between the matter of the faith of the man who can not receive the writings of these four as inspired, if such there be, and that of him who receives all, amounts to but little, and is not worthy of much serious discussion.