commissioned apostles of God. So that whether they published the gospel by preaching or writing, to their cotemporaries or to future times, all that they said or wrote was authorized of God, unless we find something which expressly qualified or limited their commission.

The presence and power of God went with them in their ministry. Ananias and Sapphira fall dead at Peter's word. By his touch, the cripple at the temple gate, walks and leaps and praises God. Dorcas is brought back from the dead at his summons. An angel described him to Cornelius, the inquiring Gentile, as the man appointed of God to teach the Gentiles the Christian religion. When Herod would have put him to death, and he was sleeping between two soldiers, bound with two chains, an angel brought him out of prison; the great gate of the prison opened to him of its own accord.

John, the author of the Gospel, and of three Epistles, and of Revelation, being a prisoner in Patmos for the Word of God and the testimony of Jesus, Christ appeared to him personally, and commissioned him to write. Paul was caught up into the third heavens. Is it possible that these acknowledged ministers of God could be permitted to record any thing as direct revelation for the use of men in all ages of the world, and be neglected or forsaken of God while they did it? The same necessity that the Holy Ghost should lead them into all truth while they were speaking, existed in a still higher degree when engaged in so great a work as composing the Bible.

Admitting what the New Testament asserts respecting these men merely as facts of history, remembering that most of them sealed the record of these facts with their blood, and you cannot resist the inference that, in all they did or said or wrote, which is essential to a correct knowledge of religious truth, they have the sanction of Almighty God.

Receiving the New Testament as written by divinely inspired men, we then find that Christ and the writers of the New Testament refer to the books of the Old Testament as of divine authority.

When one asked the Saviour what good thing he should do to inherit eternal life, Christ said: "What saith the Scripture? How readest thou?" He quoted Moses, and David, and the Prophets, as inspired of God, as we have before observed. He

gave the whole of the Old Testament his solemn sanction, when he said, "Search the Scriptures, for in them ye think ye have eternal life; and they are they which testify of me."

The apostles used such expressions as these in speaking of the Old Testament: "Well spake the Holy Ghost by the mouth of Esaias; ""Wherefore as also the Holy Ghost saith, saying in David: ""The prophecy came not in old time by the will of man, but holy men of old spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost;""All Scripture is given by inspiration of God," &c. The books referred to in these expressions, let it be remembered, were the identical books which now compose the Old Testament, Every one of these books is quoted, or its writer is mentioned with implied approbation, or in confirmation of what he said, in the New Testament.

The following are illustrations of the sense in which the writers of the Bible were divinely inspired.

The writers of the Bible were some of them miraculously informed of future events.

"The burden of Tyre," "of Nineveh," "of Damascus," compared with subsequent history, show that the writers of those prophecies were inspired men. How did Isaiah know that there was to be a monarch on the throne of Persia, whose name would be Cyrus, and that he would restore the Jews from their captivity? Isa. xlv. 1, 4. How could he describe the life and sufferings of Christ so accurately, a thousand years before Christ was born, that Porphyry, an infidel, told the early Christians that the Book of Isaiah was a forgery, because none but an eyewitness could have written thus about the sufferings, death, and burial of Christ? The writers of the Bible were some of them inspired to foretell future events.

The writers of the Bible had divine aid in recording things which were past.

Moses could not have given the history of the creation in so many particulars, without divine aid; nor, if he had received them from tradition, is it probable, that God would have left him to the liabilities, to which every unassisted mind is exposed, of injurious mistakes. His account of the creation was written at an age when comparatively nothing was known about astronomy and other branches of science. Yet the Mosaic account says nothing inconsistent with science; but the successive rev

elations of science illustrate its beautiful simplicity and truthfulness. The religious books of heathenism, on the contrary, in their accounts of the creation, abound in foolish and stupid narratives. In contrast with them, the first chapter of Genesis is like the well-ordered firmament compared with chaos.

One of the most remarkable things in literary history, as all must acknowledge, is the record of the Saviour's life, and espe cially of his various discourses. Suppose that we have listened to an impressive and affecting discourse; how much of it could the most of us narrate at the end of three or four years, without the help of notes taken at the time? Especially, who could give the substance of all the discourses which his minister had preached for the preceding three years? But in the Gospels we see a record made by four men, one of whom was a publican, and another a fisherman, consisting of a well-digested narrative of facts; and, more than this, of short sayings, illustrations, arguments, and long discourses, expressed with a simplicity, conciseness, and force, which has no parallel in any human production. As we read, for example, the farewell discourse of Christ to his disciples, in the Gospel according to John, we are forcibly reminded of the Saviour's promise to them: "The Holy Ghost shall bring to remembrance all things whatsoever I have said unto you." Without such supernatural aid, it seems impossible that this discourse could have been recollected and recorded.

While it was by no means necessary that every word which the writers of the Bible recorded should have been suggested by the Holy Spirit, nor that he should inform them, for example, how far Bethany was from Jerusalem; yet it is reasonable to suppose that he superintended all they wrote, so that they should be essentially correct in their expressions and in their statements. This is essential to a professed revelation from God. For what confidence can we have in a professed revelation, unless we know that, while the natural powers and faculties of men were used in writing it, God superintended the use of them, that they might not err? Our reasons for believing that God gave a revelation constrain us to believe, that he so superintended and guided those who wrote it, that it should be his approved and sanctioned word.

It is asked, Whether we believe that all the words of Scripture were inspired? that is, divinely suggested. We answer: Of the direct suggestion of very many of the words there can be no

question; for the writers themselves in many cases report that which they heard the Almighty speak. In regard to other cases, it should be remembered that words are associated with thought; we do not have definite logical thoughts without the help of silent words. The sacred writers could not, in the nature of things, receive a direct and silent communication from God, except by the suggestion in their minds of words. When a symbol was presented to awaken thought, for example, the figs to Jeremiah, that thought must clothe itself in words before it could become an intelligible thought. When the prophet came to utter or record those thoughts, would he not use those words which shone vividly into his mind at the moment of inspiration? It is but reasonable to believe that he would speak as he was moved by the Holy Ghost.

There are many statements in the Bible which any man could write as well as one inspired; for example, that Nicodemus was a ruler of the Jews, or that Emmaus was threescore furlongs from Jerusalem. But there is nothing irrational in supposing, that the Holy Spirit watched over the minds of the writers, to see that they did not err in these incidental statements. On the contrary, the smaller and the more seemingly unimportant the statement, the more necessary that it should be correct. In cross-questioning a witness, an advocate catches at the incidental expressions, and from them sometimes constructs his most effective arguments. The "undesigned coincidences" between the Gospels and the Acts of the Apostles, as is well known, are made by Dr. Paley a strong proof in favor of their credibility. Suppose that the sacred writers had made mistakes in geography; it would serve to bring discredit on all they said. It is true they could tell without inspiration whether Derbe and Lystra were near together; but suppose that the historian, instead of saying Derbe and Lystra, had inadvertently written Derbe and Iconium, it would disparage his credibility in more important things. It is reasonable, then, to believe, that if we have a revelation from God, there was a constant, superintending, divine influence, extending even to those narratives and observations which needed no suggestive inspiration, but the minute correctness of which was of the utmost importance for the credit of the revelation.

The objection is sometimes made to the plenary inspiration of the Scriptures, that there are discrepancies between the sacred historians in their accounts of the same facts.

A single illustration, and a striking one, will serve for all.

An evangelist says, that one of the thieves who were crucified with Christ was penitent, and that he rebuked his fellow for upbraiding Christ. But another evangelist says, while speaking of the insults offered to Christ by the populace: "The thieves which were crucified with him cast the same in his teeth." The argument is, that there is a degree of carelessness in the statement of this evangelist which is inconsistent with his being inspired.

We may remark, here that the employment of four men to write and publish the same history would have been useless, had they each recorded the same facts in the same way. But, not to dwell on this, the objection, so far from disproving the inspiration. of the evangelist, illustrates the truth, that inspiration follows the common laws of human thought and speech.

Let us suppose that you are giving an account of the ill treatment which an innocent man received from a mob, and from the civil authorities. After describing the indignities offered to his person, you say: "They then hurried him to the common jail, and put him in a ward of the prison where criminals were confined, two of whom were committed for murder. As he passed by their cell, the convicts hissed at him." This narrative having been published, you are brought before a court, and examined as to the facts in the case. "You said that when this man went through the entry of the jail, the convicts hissed at him; please to say whether or not both persisted in the insult." You might then further state, that after a while one of them relented, and rebuked his fellow. This would not invalidate your previous statement, that your friend was insulted by both the convicts. If another man, narrating the incidents, should omit the fact that both of the convicts at one time offered him insults, and should speak only of the relenting on the part of one of them, and his rebuke of his fellow, he would not be considered as conflicting with your testimony. The two narratives would be true, and each of you honest reporters. Thus in the case before us, there is no difficulty or danger of contradiction in the supposition, that, during the first part of the time occupied in the crucifixion, the two thieves which were crucified with Christ cast reproaches upon him, till at length one of them relented.

We read in the newspapers several different accounts of the