fit to the church. Indeed, as both the Jewish and Christian religion are founded upon facts, it seems a sort of inconsistency in the divine conduct, that the historians who record these facts should be left exposed to all the mistakes and inconveniences of human frailty. God himself was the King of the Jews in a peculiar manner, and the history of that church and nation is in effect the history of his government. And therefore it seems not at all wonderful, that men raised up by his providence should be guided by his Spirit, to record, as it were, the actions of his own reign.

But I have been too tedious already to engage in this point at present; let me only say, that from the character of the persons who wrote these histories, as far as these authors can be known; from the character they have always borne in the Jewish and in the Christian church, and from the countenance given to this character by our Lord and his apostles, it should seem that they are of a class far superior to any human writings. Jews as well as Christians have had other historians who wrote with great faithfulness, as well as other moralists who wrote with a pious intention; yet we see these qualifications did not advance them to the same high rank with the other, nor are their compositions reckoned a part of the sacred volume. It must be want of acquaintance with the scriptures, or prejudice against them, that hinders us from subscribing to this judgment of antiquity. For to a mind duly disposed to study them, they discover their origin by their own intrinsic excellence. They may not be all of the same usefulness and dignity; nor are any other of

L 3

the works of God; but in this, as in other respects, resemble the lights of heaven; where though one star differeth from another star in glory, yet they all declare the glory of God, and proclaim the omnipotence and the wisdom of him that made them.

SERMON VIII.

1 COR. vii. 40.

And I think also that I have the Spirit of God. THIS chapter, I believe, always makes a part of the conversation, when the inspiration of scripture is the subject in debate. They who are inclined to the libertine side of the question, never forget to mention, that St. Paul himself confesses that he sometimes writes only his own private sentiments and opinion, without any direction or assistance of the Spirit of God. The consequence is easy, with regard

to the rest of the sacred writers; for if St. Paul, who was not a whit behind the very chiefest apostles, was not always inspired when he wrote his Epistles, there is no reason to doubt but that others were in the same case, though they had not the ingenuity to make the same confession. But this consequence, however easy, may not be just; because an exception strengthens the cases that are not excepted; and if a person who claims to write by inspiration, and proves his claim, tells you, in two or three instances, that he, gives only his private opinion, or his private advice, it is a fair presumption that every where else, where no such caution is inserted, he really does write under the influence of that inspiration which he claims. If men therefore would argue fairly, and with candour, it would not affect the doc

trine of the general inspiration of scripture; though we should allow, that a particular apostle in answer to some particular questions, relating chiefly to the state of the church at that time, ventured to give his private opinion or advice, without being inspired just at that juncture by the Holy Ghost.

But the safer way, perhaps, is not to stand to their courtesy. Some people, if you grant a little, will assume a great deal; and the more they find you disposed to yield, the more unreasonable they grow in their demands. I shall therefore consider the particular passages in this chapter which are liable to the exception of being not inspired, and shew that, when rightly understood, no such conclusion follows from them. And when these appearances are removed, there is nothing to hinder us from subscribing to the apostle's own judgment in his own case, which he certainly knew better than any other man; and this he gives us in the text, I think also that I have the Spirit of God.

It is evident, from the first verse of this chapter, that it is the apostle's reply to some questions which the Corinthian converts had sent to him; for he begins, Now concerning the things whereof ye wrote unto me; i. e. I am now going to return my answer to your inquiries. These inquiries related to marriage and divorce, and other cases of that nature; some of which our Lord himself had determined, while he was here on earth, in his own doctrine, and by his own express commandments, which oblige all Christians, in all ages of the world. But some others of less consequence he had not decided. This distinction is the key, which lets us into the meaning of some of the disputed passages in this chapter;

and the obscurity of others lies only in the manner of expression. Let us examine them in their order.

The first is, verse the sixth; where the apostle says, But I speak this by permission, and not of commandment. There the outcry begins, that St. Paul was not inspired when he wrote this; since he himself confesses, that he had no commandment to write what he did, but only a bare permission. A permission from whom? or whence? From heaven? or of men? If the permission was from heaven, from God, or the Spirit of God, it shews, even in the lowest sense, that the apostle had some intercourse and communication with heaven, and received his instructions from thence. Though the Holy Spirit did not command him to write what he did, yet if he permitted him to do so, it is plain that he received counsel from him, that the Holy Ghost was his guide and director; and consequently that his decisions, even here, are not mere human decisions, but authorized in some degree by the Holy Ghost. But the truth of the matter is, this is not the meaning of the place. The permission spoken of is not the Holy Spirit's permission to St. Paul to write what he did; but St. Paul's permission to the Corinthians to judge for themselves in the affair of marrying, or not marrying, as their own case and constitution required, notwithstanding any thing he said about it. For what he said was not a commandment of religion, or general law of the gospel, but counsel, or good advice, suitable to the state of the church there, and at that time. "As to marrying in general, I wish that you were all unmarried, as I am; but this I say "to you by way of advice, not of command," is Mr.

66