before the tribunals of Judges. So that if there were nothing else in it, this passage would not at all favour the common opinion. But there is more in it: for it wholly destroys it. If Jesus Christ had resolved to give his apostles the Holy Spirit to inspire them perpetually, he would not have told them singly, that they should not trouble themselves for what they had to say before the judges, because then the Spirit should speak in them. But he would have said that they need not fear that at any time they should want words, because the Holy Spirit should accompany them without ceasing, as well before the powers of the world, as when they should speak to the people. If a man had a design to supply another with money for all his expences; would he say to him, do not trouble yourself to get money for the journeys you are to take, for you shall then be supplied? He would rather say to him, doubtless, that he should not fear to want money, because he should be supplied constantly for all his occasions. A man promises not for a particular occasion, that which he intends to give alike at all times. And when a man makes a particular pro

mise, it is a plain sign that he intends to perform it but upon certain occasions.

In the second place; as I acknowledge that the apostles may have had prophetic inspirations on certain occasions, and that in effect they have had them; so I confess that I find myself tempted to believe, that by these words, The Holy Ghost shall teach you in that hour what ye ought to say: or, as St. Matthew has expressed it, It is not ye that speak, it is the Spirit of your heavenly Father that speaks in you; I am, I say, tempted to believe, that by these words Christ meant only to say this; viz. The spirit of courage and holiness, which the gospel produces in your hearts, will teach you what ye ought to say. That is to say, that the apostles had no more to do, but to believe in the gospel, to be assured that the disposition of spirit which that heavenly doctrine would give them, would never let them want words; not even when they were to defend themselves before the tribunals of the greatest powers. That which inclines me to this explication of Christ's words, is, that in comparing this promise with the event, it seems not to have been performed in any other

sense than that which I have now observed; and that neither ought it to be interpreted so strictly, as if on these occasions a word might not slip from the apostles, that were not conformable to the spirit of the gospel.

St. Luke tells us, Acts xxiii. that St. Paul having been brought before the Sanhedrim, began to speak after this manner; Men and Brethren, I have lived in all good conscience before God until this day. Here is nothing yet that one might not say without inspiration; as neither is there any thing but what is conformable to the gospel. But what follows is a sign of passion, wherewith neither the spirit of prophecy, nor the patient spirit of the gospel inspired St. Paul. At that word, says St. Luke, Ananias the high priest commanded them that stood by, to smite him on the mouth. The apostle, provoked by this injustice, answers him angrily, God shall smite thee, thou whited wall. For sittest thou to judge me according to the Law, and commandest thou me to be smitten contrary to the Law? And they that stood by, says St. Luke, said to Paul, revilest thou God's high priest? Then said Paul, I wist not brethren that

he was the high priest: For it is written, thou shalt not speak evil of the ruler of thy people. It is plain, methinks, that if the spirit of prophecy had inspired St. Paul with the beginning of this discourse; it did not so neither with the answer he made the high priest; nor with the excuse he made use of afterward when they told him he was the high priest that he spoke to. He gave sentence against himself by his answer, supposing that he had known him who ordered him to be smitten. And as for the excuse, it is plain it is not very good; because the gospel allows not to revile any man, whether he be a magistrate, or a private man. Jesus Christ, says St. Peter, has suffered for us, leaving us an example that we should follow his steps; who when he was reviled, reviled not again; when he suffered, threatened not, but committed himself to him that judgeth righteously.

Neither do I believe that the spirit of prophecy inspired St. Paul with what he said afterward: at least there is no body but could have said as much, without inspiration. Now St. Paul knowing, says the historian, that the one part were Sad

ducees, and the other Pharisees, cried out in the council, men and brethren, I am a Pharisee, the son of a Pharisee of the hope and resurrection of the dead, I am called in question. This expression also of St. Luke, (Paul knowing) makes it evident that his speech was an effect of his prudence, rather than of prophetic inspiration.

I am not the first that has made such like observations. St. Jerom in his dialogue against the Pelagians, Lib. 3. brings in Atticus, who bears the part of an orthodox doctor, speaking of St. Paul; “do you think St. Paul, at that time when he writ, (the cloak which I left at Troas, when thou comest bring with thee, and the books, but especially the parchments) did think of the heavenly mysteries, and not of those things which are useful to human life, and necessary to the body, &c.? The Apostle is struck by an officer, and he falls foul upon the high priest that commanded him to be smitten: God shall smite thee, thou whited wall. Where is that patience of our Saviour, who as a lamb led to the slaughter opened not his mouth, but answered mildly to him that