manner naturally arising from the diversified character of their minds.

But there is another argument, perhaps the most plausible of all, against supposing that inspiration had any respect to language; which is, that the supposition of any divine influence in this respect is wholly unnecessary; that the sacred writers, having the requisite information in regard to the subjects on which they were to write, might, so far as language is concerned, be left entirely to their own judgement and fidelity.

But this view of the subject is not satisfactory. For whatever may be said as to the judgement and fidelity of those who wrote the Scriptures, there is one important circumstance which cannot be accounted for, without supposing them to have enjoyed a guidance above that of their own minds; namely, that they were infallibly preserved from every mistake or impropriety in the manner of writing. If we should admit that the divine superintendence and guidance afforded to the inspired writers had no relation at all to the manner in which they exhibited either doctrines or facts; how easily might we be disturbed with doubts, in regard to the propriety of some of their representations? We should most certainly consider them as liable to all the inadvertencies and mistakes, to which uninspired men are commonly liable; and we should think ourselves perfectly justified in undertaking to charge them with real errors and faults as to style, and to show how their language might have been improved; and, in short, to treat their writings just as we treat the writings of Shakspeare and Addison. "Here," we might say, "Paul was unfortunate in the choice of words; and here his language does not express the ideas which he must have intended to convey. Here the style of John was inadvertent; and here it was faulty; and here it would have been more agreeable to the nature of the subject, and would have more accurately expressed the truth, had it been altered thus." If the language of the sacred writers did not in any way come under the inspection of the Holy Spirit, and if they were left, just as other writers are, to their own unaided faculties in regard to everything which pertained to the manner of writing; then, evidently, we might use the same freedom in animadverting upon their style, as upon the style of any other writers. But who could treat the volume of inspiration in this manner, without impiety and profaneness? And rather than make any approach to this, who would not choose to go to an excess, if there could be an excess, in reverence for the word of God? On this subject, far be it from me to indulge a curiosity, which would pry into things not intended for human intelligence. And far be it from me to expend zeal in supporting opinions not warranted by the word of God. But this one point I think it specially important to maintain; namely, that the sacred writers had such direction of the Holy Spirit, that they were secured against all lia

bility to error, and enabled to write just what God pleased; so that what they wrote is, in truth, the word of God, and can never be subject to any charge of mistake, either as to matter or form. Whether this perfect correctness and propriety as to language resulted from the divine guidance directly, or indirectly, is a question of no particular consequence. If the Spirit of God directs the minds of inspired men, and gives them just conceptions relative to the subjects on which they are to write; and if he constitutes and maintains a connexion, true and invariable, between their conceptions, and the language they employ to express them; the language must, in this way, be as infallible, and as worthy of God, as though it were dictated directly by the Holy Spirit. But to assert that the sacred writers used such language as they chose, or such as was natural to them, without any special divine superintendence, and that, in respect to style, they are to be regarded in the same light, and equally liable to mistakes, as other writers, is plainly contrary to the representations which they themselves make, and is suited to diminish our confidence in the word of God. For how could we have entire confidence in the representations of Scripture, if, after God had instructed the minds of the sacred writers in the truth to be communicated, he gave them up to all the inadvertencies and errors, to which human nature in general is exposed, and took no effectual care that their manner of writing should be according to his will?

But besides what has been said, I have a strong objection to the principle which is involved in the reasoning now under consideration. For if we may properly deny that the divine guidance afforded to the sacred writers had any respect to their language, on the pretence, that they were able to write without it, and so that the divine guidance was unnecessary; we might, on the same pretence, deny that the divine guidance had any respect to the greater part of the subjects on which they wrote. We might ask; what necessity could there be for divine inspiration in writing the historical or didactic parts of Scripture? Could not Moses write a history of events which took place under his own eye, and in which he himself was particularly concerned, without supernatural aid? And could he not, without supernatural aid, make a record of what he received from tradition? Could not Joshua and subsequent prophets write a history of what took place in their respective generations, without being moved by the Holy Ghost? So of a great part of the Psalms and Proverbs. Let any man carefully attend to these writings, and then say, whether, on the common principles of reasoning, and independently of the testimony of inspired writers, he could prove the necessity of supernatural assistance. We may indeed prove the necessity of such assistance in regard to things which are manifestly beyond the reach of uninspired men. But in regard to a majority of things contained in the Bible, how could we prove

that they were written by those who were divinely inspired, except by the declaration of the writers themselves? The same as to the case in hand. I admit that, independently of what we learn from the inspired writers themselves, we could not prove the necessity of supernatural divine aid in regard to the language they employed, and could not prove that they generally had any such aid. But if this is expressly taught, or fairly implied in their own declarations; then there are no presumptions, and no reasonings, which we can admit to be conclusive against it, and, to be consistent Christians, we must believe it simply on the authority of God's word.

Let us then briefly examine the subject, as it is presented in the Holy Scriptures, and see whether we find sufficient reason to deny that inspiration had any relation whatever to language.

The first thing I notice is, that the Apostles were the subjects of such a divine inspiration as enabled them to speak with other tongues. Here, as I have already remarked, inspiration related directly to language.

Secondly; It is the opinion of most writers, that, in some instances, inspired men had not in their own minds a clear understanding of the things which they spake or wrote. One instance of this commonly referred to, is the case of Daniel, who heard and repeated what the Angel said, though he did not understand it. Dan. xii. 7--9. This has also been thought to be in some measure the case with the prophets referred to, 1 Peter i. 10-12. And is there not reason to think this may have been the case with many of the prophetic representations contained in the Psalms, and many of the symbolic rites of the Mosaic institute? Various matters are found in the Old Testament, which evidently were not intended so much for the benefit of the writers, or their contemporaries, as for the benefit of future ages. And this might have been a sufficient reason why they should be left without a clear understanding of the things which they wrote. In such cases, if the opinion above stated is correct, inspired men were led to make use of expressions, the meaning of which they did not fully understand. And according to this view, it would seem that the teaching of the Spirit which they enjoyed, must have related rather to the words, than to the

sense.

Those who deny that the divine influence afforded to the sacred writers had any respect to language, can find no support in the texts which most directly relate to the subject of inspiration. And it is surely in such texts, if anywhere, that we should suppose they would find support.

The passage, 1 Pet. i. 21, is a remarkable one. It asserts that "holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost." There is surely nothing here, which limits the divine influence to the thoughts or conceptions of their minds: They were moved by the Holy Ghost to speak or write. 2 Tim. iii. 16. "All Scrip

ture is divinely inspired." Does this text afford any proof that the divine influence granted to the inspired penmen, was confined to their inward conceptions, and had no respect whatever to the manner in which they expressed their conceptions? What is Scripture? Is it divine truth conceived in the mind, or divine truth written.

In Heb. i. 1. it is said that "God spake to the fathers by the prophets." Does this afford any proof, that the divine guidance which the prophets enjoyed, related exclusively to the conceptions of their own minds, and had no respect to the manner in which they communicated those conceptions? Must we not rather think the meaning to be, that God influenced the prophets to utter, or make known important truths? And how could they do this, except by the use of proper words?

I have argued in favor of the inspiration of the Apostles, from their commission. They were sent by Christ to teach the truths of religion in his stead. It was an arduous work, and in the execution of it they needed and enjoyed much divine assistance. But forming right conceptions of Christianity in their own minds, was not the great work assigned to the Apostles. And if the divine assistance reached only to this, it reached only to that which concerned them as private men, and which they might have possessed, though they had never been commissioned to teach others. As Apostles, they were to preach the Gospel to all who could be brought to hear it, and to make a record of divine truth for the benefit of future ages. Now is it at all reasonable to suppose, that the divine assistance afforded them had no respect to their main business, and that, in the momentous and difficult work of communicating the truths of religion, either orally, or by writing, they were left to themselves, and so exposed to all the errors and inadvertencies of uninspired men?

But our reasoning does not stop here. For that divine assistance, which we might reasonably suppose would have been granted to the Apostles in the work of teaching divine truth, is the very thing which Christ promised them, in the texts before cited. I shall refer only to Matt. x. 19, 20, "When they shall deliver you up, take no thought how or what ye shall speak; for it shall be given you in the same hour what ye shall speak. For it is not ye that speak, but the Spirit of your Father that speaketh in you." This promise, as Knapp understands it, implies, that "divine assistance should extend not only to what they should say, but to the manner in which they should say it." It is not, however, to be understood as implying, that the Apostles were not rational and voluntary agents in the discharge of their office. But it implies that, in consequence of the influence of the Spirit to be exercised over them, they should say what God would have them to say, without any liability to mistake, either as to matter or manner.

From the above cited promise, taken in connexion with the instances of its accomplishment which are recorded in the Acts of the Apostles, it becomes evident, that God may exert his highest influence upon his servants, so as completely to guide them in thought and in utterance, in regard to subjects which lie within the province of their natural faculties. For in those speeches of the Apostles which are left on record, we find that most of the things which they declared, were things which, for aught that appears, they might have known, and might have expressed to others, in the natural exercise of their own faculties. This principle being admitted, and kept steadily in view, will relieve us of many difficulties in regard to the doctrine of inspiration.

The passage, 1 Cor. ii, 12, 13, already cited as proof of the inspiration of the Apostles, is very far from favoring the opinion that inspiration had no respect whatever to their language, or that it related exclusively to their thoughts. "Which things we speak, not in the words which man's wisdom teacheth, but which the Holy Ghost teacheth." The Apostle avoided the style and the manner of teaching, which prevailed among the wise men of Greece, and made use of a style, which corresponded with the nature of his subject, and the end he had in view. And this, he tells us, he did, under the guidance of the Holy Spirit. His language, or manner of teaching, was the thing to which the divine influence imparted to him, particularly referred. Storr and Flatt give the following interpretation of this text: "Paul," they say, "asserts that the doctrines of Christianity were revealed to him by the Almighty agency of God himself; and finally, that the inspiration of the divine Spirit extended even to his words, and to all his exhibitions of revealed truths." They add, that "Paul clearly distinguishes between the doctrine itself, and the manner in which it is communicated."

I quote the following passages from the same learned and judicious authors, as a farther illustration of the views which have been exhibited in this discussion.

"The Apostles doubtless thought for themselves; that is, exercised their natural faculties, and communicated their own thoughts, both in their oral and written instructions. Still, their instructions are to be considered rather the instructions of God, than of the Apostles for the substance or matter of them was, for the most part, communicated to them, if not at the moment when they were speaking or writing, yet previously, either by Christ during his abode with them on earth, or by the Spirit of God. Moreover, this perpetual coadjutor exercised a constant superintendence over all their communications, both oral and written; and where anything had escaped their memory, recalled it; and where there was ignorance or error in their views, afforded them the necessary instruction; thus preventing the omission of anything which the