istry as soon as their fulfilment took place. Thus, when the day of Pentecost was fully come, and the Spirit descended upon them, "they were all filled with the Holy Ghost," and "began to speak as the Spirit gave them utterance." By this inspiration they were enabled to preach in all languages the wonderful works of God. The sermon of Peter on that day was spoken under this influence. By the same help he discerned the spirit of Ananias and Sapphira. Their lie was unto the Holy Ghost, inasmuch as it was unto one whom the Holy Ghost inspired. Directed by the same Spirit, Peter journeyed from Joppa to the house of Cornelius, and first opened the door of faith to the Gentiles. Paul, by inspiration, went forth on his mission from Antioch to the lesser Asia; being "full of the Holy Ghost," he searched the conscience of Elymas the sorcerer, and punished his wickedness with blindness. When the apostles and elders and brethren were assembled in council about the question sent up from Antioch for their decision, they consulted and determined as they were guided by inspiration of God. "It seemeth good to the Holy Ghost," was the solemn sanction annexed to their sentence. They claimed to be always received as inspired. Their speech and their preaching, they asserted, were "in demonstration of the Spirit;" "not in the words which man's wisdom teacheth, but which the Holy Ghost teacheth." It is expressly declared by St. Peter, that his brethren and himself "preached the gospel with the Holy Ghost sent down from heaven." All these

statements, and many others which might be adduced, abundantly confirm the position, that the apostles in their preaching and other official actions were in the highest sense inspired.

Hence it would seem to be very naturally and reasonably inferred, that when they wrote for the permanent guidance of the churches they were inspired also. Can it be supposed that St. Paul, in preaching to the Ephesians or Corinthians, spoke as he was moved by the Holy Ghost, and yet was entirely bereft of that divine aid when he sat down to the much more important work of composing epistles to those churches? When it is considered how entirely all the oral communications of the apostles ceased to be remembered in a short time after they were uttered, except as they were recorded in the Scriptures, and how their written communications to the churches have remained unmutilated these eighteen hundred years, and are now circulated in upwards of one hundred and seventy languages, and will continue to be the guide and treasure of the church to the end of the world, can it be believed that in these the apostles were left to their own fallible wisdom, though guided in the others by the inspiration of God? Such an opinion would be absurd in the extreme.

It seems to be a necessary conclusion, from the above premises, that the authors of the New Testament were divinely inspired, as well when writing for all people and all ages, as when speaking to the congregation of a single synagogue.

3. If the apostles did not intend to impress the church with a belief that they wrote by divine inspiration, they adopted the very means that were most likely to lead its members into a most important heresy. St. Paul, in an epistle to Timothy, which he knew would be universally circulated, published the broad assertion, "All Scripture is given by inspiration of God." Now it is worthy of note, that the epistle containing this declaration is generally supposed to have been written after all the other works of St. Paul, and but a short time before his martyrdom at Rome. At any rate it was one of his latest works. The gospel of St. Matthew had been written and circulated at least twenty years. Those by St. Mark and St. Luke were already in the possession of the churches. The same is true of the Acts of the Apostles. We know of no part of the whole New Testament that was written subsequently to the uttering of the above declaration, except the gospel, epistles, and Revelation by St. John.

In connection with this be it observed, that when the primitive Christians received an epistle or gospel from one of the apostles or evangelists, they regarded it as a portion of Holy Scripture. By this familiar name it was universally known, and with this high honor it was always treated. Precisely as the writers of the New Testament speak of the books of the Old Testament, calling them the Scriptures, do the Christian writers who were contemporaneous with the apostles continually quote their books. This cannot be questioned. Then consider the circumstances of the

1

churches. They have in possession and in daily use a number of writings which have been sent them by the apostles and evangelists, the greater part of them by St. Paul himself. It is well known to the latter that those writings are universally revered and read as holy Scriptures. In these circumstances he declares that "all Scripture is given by inspiration of God." How are they to understand him? Shall they say, he speaks in that passage only of the Jewish Scriptures? His primary reference was unquestionably to them. But in what sense can his assertion be true of all Scripture, if so large a part as that comprising the New Testament, and which was universally denominated Scripture, came only "by the will of man?" But this is not all that the apostles did to promote the belief of the inspiration of their writings.

The Christian churches were accustomed to appeal to the Old Testament as an inspired volume. A large number of their members had been educated in the Jewish faith, and by habit, as well as reflection, always associated the idea of divine inspiration with that of a book of Scripture. Consequently, when the writings of the New Testament were received, when they came to occupy, in regard to the Christian church, a corresponding place to that of the Old Testament books in regard to the Jewish church, when they were honored by universal consent with the same title of "holy Scriptures" as was applied to the sacred books of the former dispensation, it was extremely natural that the churches should treat them precisely

as they treated the older books, and believe them also to have been written by inspiration of God. That they did thus regard them is indisputable. Clement bishop of Rome, a contemporary of the apostles, says, "Look into the holy Scriptures, which are the true words of the Holy Ghost. Take the epistle of the blessed Paul the apostle into your hands: verily he did by the Spirit admonish you." The primitive Christians rejected from the canon of Scripture certain books, because, though true and edifying, they were not inspired by the Holy Ghost. They habitually spoke of the New Testament, as "the word of God," "the voice of God," "the oracles of the Holy Ghost."

Now, in such circumstances, how would the apostles, as men of common honesty and candor, have acted, in case they did not consider their writings to be inspired? Knowing the natural tendency and the actual state of public opinion among the churches, could they have been even silent on this subject? Must they not have warned their disciples against a disposition so dangerous, and a heresy so conspicuous? Would not the most ordinary measure of humility and faithfulness have impelled them to draw the line of distinction too plainly to be mistaken, between what they had written by their own wisdom, and what holy men of old had written "as they were moved by the Holy Ghost?" What course do they pursue ? Not only do they allow the natural disposition of those accustomed to attach inspiration to the Scripture to have its way; not only do they say nothing having the least tendency to correct the universal impression