to his authority; but instead of disavowing inspiration, he only distinguishes betwixt the commands delivered immediately by our Lord himself, and those which his servant was now instructed by his Spirit to declare. On this point we may quote the expressions of Pictet, as follows:

"After having said, verse 10th, And unto the married I command, yet not I but the Lord, let not the wife depart from her husband, &c., he adds, verse 12th, But to the rest speak I, not the Lord. Lest any one should say to him, would you have us to believe a doctrine which you have not received from the Lord? he answers, that in truth Jesus Christ had taught nothing on that matter during his abode on the earth, before his ascension into heaven; but that, nevertheless, he (Paul) said only that which had been inspired into him by the Spirit of God, by whom he was guided.”

A similar interpretation, it is obvious, should be put on the 25th verse, where the Apostle says, "Now, concerning virgins, I have no commandment of the Lord; yet I give my judgment as one that hath obtained mercy of the Lord to be faithful."" In these words," says Beza, "the Apostle asserts the authority of his ministry, that his judgment might not be contemned by the Corinthians, as if it proceeded from man, and not from God."t

With regard to the expression, verse 40th, "I think I have the Spirit of God," instead of intimating that Paul entertained doubts of his being inspired by the Spirit, it is a declaration of positive certainty. Dr Macknight accordingly thus renders it," I am certain that even I have the Spirit of God." The original term, translated I think, usually denotes full convic

Apres avoir dit, Quant aux mariez, je leur comande, non pas moi mais le Seigneur, que la femme ne se separe point du mari, &c., il ajoûte au vers 12. Mais aux autres je leur dit, non point le Seigneur: De peur que quelq'un ne lui eût dit, veux tu que nous croyions une doctrine que tu n'as pas receuè du Seigneur? Il repond qu'à la verité Jèsus Christ n' avoit rien enseignè sur la matiére qu'il traitoit, pendant qu'il étoit sur la terre, avant que de monter au ciel; mais que cependant il ne disoit rien, qui ne lui eut éte inspiré par l'esprit de Dieu, par lequel il etoit conduit." -La Theol. Chretienne, Par B. Pictet, tome i. p. 85.

t "Asserit autem his verbis Apostolus ministerii sui auctoritatem, ne spernatur a Corinthiis ipsius sententia, quasi ab homine, non a Deo profecta."-Beza in loc.

Macknight vindicates this translation in a note. The same version is supported by the Rev. William Lothian in his valuable Lectures on the Epistles to the Corinthians, as well as by Wolfius in loc. See Parkhurst on the word doxia.

tion, whether well or ill founded. In this same Epistle, Paul repeatedly expresses his firm and well-grounded persuasion of his own inspiration. Thus, in a former chapter, he had said, "We have the mind of Christ;" and, in a subsequent one, he adds, " If any man think himself to be a prophet or spiritual, let him acknowledge that the things which I write unto you are the commandments of the Lord."t To have intimated the faintest doubt or suspicion regarding his inspiration would have been quite contrary to the tenor of the passage. To impress the Corinthians with a deep sense of the truth and importance of his doctrines on the point in question, he assures them that on this, as well as every other topic pertaining to the Christian system, he delivered not merely the opinion of a fallible man, but the mind of the infallible Spirit. Calvin not unnaturally supposes that the expression involves a tacit reproof to those false Apostles who attempted to deceive the churches by arrogant pretensions to divine inspiration.

From these illustrations it appears, that in this chapter Paul does not really disclaim inspiration, even with regard to the questions on which he here delivers his judgment. But, as many have justly observed, supposing him to admit that on these matters he was uninspired, or felt himself uncertain whether or not he were inspired, his candid admissions only serve the more clearly to establish the full inspiration of every passage in his writings, where he gives no express notice to the contrary. "If, as some understand it," says Dr Guyse, "he thereby means that he then spoke the particulars there mentioned as his private opinion, and not by divine suggestion, this shows his great integrity and honest simplicity in giving such plain notice, when he ventured to offer only his private thoughts; and is a good argument that, where he does not give the like notice, he is to be understood as speaking under inspiration."

Nay, further:-" Admitting," says a warm advocate in this cause, "that Paul disclaims inspiration on this point, I maintain that the chapter containing the admission, as a part of Scripture, is inspired equally with any chapter in the Bible. Though he was not inspired to decide the question, he was inspired to write the account which he has given of the matter. If the Apostle has told us that he is not inspired on this point, he has been inspired to make the denial. Not a line has he • See Mat. vi. 7-Luke xiii. 2, 4; ch. xvii. 9-John v. 39; ch. xvi. 2 Acts xxvi. 9, &c. † Chap. ii. 16; ch. xiv. 37. Guyse's Standing Use of the Scripture, p. 214.

written in that chapter that is not immediately from the Holy Ghost.'

III. It is objected, "that each of the sacred writers is distinguished by his own words, manner, and style."

This has been deemed a most formidable objection to full and Verbal Inspiration, and has, more perhaps than any other, served to steel the minds of not a few against all that is advanced in its behalf. "The great diversity of style and diction," says a learned author, "which may be observed in several books, is almost a sure indication that they themselves had some share in the composition, and that the Holy Ghost was not the sole author of every word and expression; for if this had been the case, the style of each book had been alike and uniform; at least there had not been that apparent difference in it which we now see. If the Holy Ghost had dictated every word, I say, why should Isaiah, who was bred in a court, be more florid and magnificent in his expression than Amos, who had his education among the herds? It is the more easy supposition, therefore, of the two, that God should suggest the matter of his revelation first to their minds, and then leave them to weigh it in their thoughts (as they did other truths), and so put it into such a form of words as their own minds, or the tenor of their education, naturally inclined to."t

A

This reasoning, though specious, is not unanswerable. little dispassionate inquiry has enabled wise men to conquer difficulties still more Herculean.

The diversity of diction apparent in the Scriptures is fully admitted. It arises in part, we should recollect, from the diversity of the matter. Variety of subject often gives occasion to very considerable variety of expression and style in the works of the same author. The diversity of style, however, apparent in the Bible, corresponds in a great degree, we concede, with the discriminating features of the age and country in which the writers respectively lived; and, at the same time, with the distinctions amongst these writers, in reference to talent, education, temper, and habit.

Yet, it may be asked, was not this diversity desirable? Human nature is so formed, that it delights far more in variety than in a continued monotony. The wonderful variety which characterizes, as well the diction as the matter of the Sacred Oracles, allures thousands to peruse them, who, otherwise, • Carson on Theories of Inspiration, p. 153.

+ Stackhouse's History of the Holy Bible, vol. i. pp. 42, 43.

would have probably treated them with total neglect. This pleasing variety serves also to confirm their authenticity. Had the style of the whole Bible been exactly uniform, however excellent; had there been no differences in idiom, expression, and manner, corresponding to the diversified ages and countries, advantages and habits of the penmen, this monotonous exhibition would have been loudly appealed to by Deists as an incontestable proof of imposture. Besides, while the whole Canon of Scripture was intended for the permanent use of the church, the various parts of which it consists were, in the first instance, intended for the edification of those who lived at the period in which they were written; and how could that object have been satisfactorily accomplished, unless the penmen had employed a style suited to the prevailing taste and habits of their contemporaries whom they addressed?

It will not be denied that verbal inspiration is possible, and that, for aught we know, it might, to infinite wisdom, have appeared expedient. Supposing, therefore, that inspiration of this sort had been resolved on by the All-wise, and supposing also that one unvarying style was necessary to prove that the words were suggested by the Spirit, it belongs to objectors to point out the particular style fit to be selected. Would it have been right to prefer the style of one age or country, or of one sacred writer, as that of Moses, and appoint it the standard to which all other sacred writers were to conform, whatever might be the peculiarities of their own genius and circumstances, or whatever changes the course of time might produce on the customary arrangement of words and idioms of speech? Whether is a plain and popular, or a highly classical style, entitled to the preference? If a highly classical, is the palm to be assigned to that which is considered so in ancient or in modern times, in oriental or in western countries? Or, should all inspired men have been made to employ a superhuman diction, an angelical style of composition, foreign to all the usual modes of communication amongst mankind, and too refined for them to understand? If none of these forms be approved of, what other style can our opponents recommend as the most eligible vehicle of all inspired sentiments? Let them attempt themselves to solve this difficulty, before they renew their vehement representations of the diversity of diction observed in Scripture, as an insuperable objection to verbal inspiration.

Allowing the propriety of diversified phraseology in Scripture, and of each writer being distinguished by his own style,

it was certainly not impossible for the omniscient and allpowerful Spirit to furnish every penman with terms and expressions adapted to his own capacity and circumstances. To render the whole current of Scripture language singularly good, and at the same time varied in its peculiar tints and features, according to the varied ability, education, and condition of the writers, was not beyond the circle of possibilities. The Spirit of God is not restricted to any one particular mode of operation or expression. With perfect facility, he could utter the same ideas in many different forms of speech, and cause each penman to employ his own characteristic style. The words of the sacred writers are, in fact, at once God's words and their own. The words, and the style, which is just the arrangement of the words, must be attributed to God as the author, and yet to the penmen as the instruments from whom they naturally flowed according to the particular cast of their minds respectively. Whilst they exercised their own judgment and ability in the choice of expressions, the Holy Spirit, who has immediate access to the human soul, “did so guide and operate in them," to adopt the language of Dr Owen, "as that the words they fixed upon were as directly and certainly from him, as if they had been spoken to them by an audible voice." On these principles, verbal inspiration is not inconsistent with the most palpable differences in style; and it is no valid objection against the Spirit's dictating every word, that "Isaiah is more florid and magnificent in his expression than Amos."†

The objection before us, it must be further remarked, if it prove any thing at all, proves by far too much. The sacred writers are distinguished from each other, be it observed, not

Owen on the Spirit, book ii. ch. i. sect. 20.

An able writer, formerly quoted, has the following remarks on "the argument against the plenary inspiration of the Apostles, drawn from the variety of style observable in their writings:"-" It is an argument," says he, which leads to conclusions which, we suppose, they who use it never dream of. One of these is, that there is only one style in which truth can be accurately expressed; and another is, that with the exception, perhaps, of the 14th chapter of Isaiah, there is not an inspired chapter in the Bible. But that the real value of the argument may be clearly seen, we shall throw it into the form of a syllogism, which shall stand thus:-The Spirit of God who giveth to all men their knowledge, cannot adapt the expression of that knowledge to every man's peculiar habits of thinking, and modes of composition; but has a style of his own, which must characterize every writing inspired by him. But great variety of style is observable in the writings of the Bible. Therefore, they cannot all be inspired by him."— Christian Instructor, vol. xxv. p. 107.