THE SPIRIT OF TRUTH.

The Nicene Creed expresses a great truth when it associates the Holy Spirit with the Old Testament; ' Who spake by the prophets '; for it implies and involves the entire question of a Divine revelation to man. The various points may first be stated in outline. That such a revelation is possible we infer from the Divine power, and that it is probable we naturally assume from the Divine love. That a revelation is necessary we conclude from the nature of man, as at once limited and sinful. That a revelation has been given we believe from the manifestation of Christ. That a revelation is available in the New Testament we hold from the facts and necessity of the case, since only in some such permanent form can continuity and accuracy of transmission be guaranteed through the centuries.

The need of a revelation, however, calls for further and more special consideration. Man, even as man, needs a guide in things spiritual, above, outside, and greater than himself; someone supernatural, superhuman. Divine. Still more, man as a sinner requires a Divine revelation. Amid the sins and sorrows, the fears and difficulties, the trials and problems of life he needs an authoritative guide concerning the way of salvation, holiness, and glory. Looking away from himself and from his fellows who are in the same position, the cry wells up from the heart of everyone who is concerned about the meaning of life: What is truth? Where can it be found? Where is power for life? How may I obtain it? Thus as a rational being man needs light; as a sinful being he needs life. And it is only from God that light and life can come. It is thus that at the foundation of all matters of religious belief and practice lies the great question of authority. The need and value of authority are recognised in every aspect of life and in every branch of knowledge. The child at home, the boy at school, the youth in business, the man in the city, the politician, the scientist, the artist, the soldier, the writer — all in one way or another testify to the fact and power of authority. It is not otherwise when we come to religion; man needs an authority, and authority in religion has been defined as ' the existence of an ethical standard.'1 Authority is based on superior knowledge. It is the right to claim the assent of the intellect, the trust of the heart, the control of the conscience, the consent of the will, and the submission of the whole being. Men of all schools and views are practically agreed as to the need of some authority; they differ only as to the character and place of it. Two things are essential to every man: truth, and an eye to see it. These two, external and internal, are united and inseparable, and meet every conceivable situation. Truth alone would not suffice, for in spite of the old saying, ' Truth is mighty and prevails,' it is not mighty and does not prevail unless there is life behind it. The man who needs guidance needs perception to see and power to follow that guidance, and herein lies the close and essential connection between the Word of God and the Spirit of God. The one provides the truth, the other gives perception and power. The one bestows the hght, the other the Life. This is only another way of saying that God is the primary Authority as the Source of all grace and righteousness. Authority is found in the revelation of God to the world, in His presence here, and His action on behalf of man. This revelation is a personal one, personal in source and destination. It is the revelation of a Person to a person, of God to man, and is intended to affect with transforming influence every part of our life. When, therefore, we realise that the Source of Authority is the Divine Person of Christ as expressing and revealing God, the only question that remains is as to where this personal revelation is embodied or recorded. As God is invisible, it is essential to know where and how His personal revelation may become available for life.

It is at this point that we come to understand the truth of the Nicene Creed, when it refers to the Holy Ghost as having spoken by the prophets. This is another way of saying that Holy Scripture preserves for us the revelation of God in its purest available form. Christianity has a historic basis in the Person of Christ, and our one need is the clearest and completest form of that revelation. All that we ask is that the vehicle of transmission shall be certain and assuring. It matters not whether the vehicle is a book, or a man, or an institution, so long as we can be sure of its faithfulness in conveying God's revelation. There is no a priori necessity that this revelation should take permanent form in a written word. There are other means of preservation and transmission. Still, there are obvious reasons why written language should best serve the purpose, for it has the valuable and essential marks of durability, catholicity, fixity, and purity, and the testimony of the entire Church through the ages corresponds to the truth of the Creed, that in Holy Scripture God has spoken and has revealed Himself.

But, more precisely, what is the character of revelation, as embodied in Holy Scripture? If we approach the Bible desiring to know what it contains, and if we read it with due attention to its statements, claims and characteristics. what do we find? (1) We find events recorded which admittedly were not seen by man, and the records must be due either to human speculation or Divine revelation. (2) We find announcements of coming events made ages before their fulfilment, and certainly beyond the possibility of any guess-work or pre-arrangement. (3) We find assertion after assertion of a Divine Speaker uttering words to a human being, who first declares them orally and then records them in writing. (4) We find the history of a people whose relations to God were unique in the records of the world, and whose history testifies to this uniqueness. (5) We find the exquisite picture of a perfect Character, worthily recorded by ordinary men, who have thus accomplished what no literary genius of the world has ever dared to attempt.2 (6) We find in the latter books definite claims that all preceding writings were due to supernatural power, and that they possessed the authority of a Divine revelation. (7) We find the record of a religion which, starting without any compulsion or material advantage to the adherents, is received on every hand, grows to large proportions, maintains itself for years, overcomes opposition, and blesses and transforms every recipient. Now it is all this that we find in Scripture, and on these grounds we call it a revelation.

At this point the question arises as to its source. Whence is this Book? We believe it comes from God, through the Spirit. There are three lines of argument, (a) The Old Testament prophets claimed to be the recipients of a revelation that came from God; such phrases as ' the word of the Lord came,' and ' the Lord spake ' are found almost everywhere. There is no possibility of doubt that the prophets made this claim and believed they were justified in so doing, (b) In harmony with this the New Testament bears witness to the presence and power of the Holy Spirit in the Old Testament. In some passages the Holy Spirit is declared to be the Author or Speaker of Scripture: ' The Holy Ghost saith' (Heb. iii. 7), and actually the human instrument is not named. In other passages both the Divine and human are mentioned; ' The Holy Ghost by the mouth of David spake' (Acts i. 16). Elsewhere the men who wrote are said to have been ' moved by the Holy Ghost ' (2 Pet. i. 21); and yet again, their writings are said to have been inspired of God, or ' God-breathed ' (2 Tim. iii. 16). (c) When we turn to the New Testament itself, we see the claim to authority and inspiration implicit in the attitude and words of the writers. A claim is made to authority similar to that made by the Old Testament prophet.3 St. Paul challenges the spiritual man to admit that what he wrote was ' the commandment of the Lord ' (1 Cor. xiv. 37).

' The whole of 1 Corinthians ii. is of classic value for the Apostle's view of his own inspiration; and it certainly does not allow us to think that he regarded himself as groping after great truths, making great guesses, or feeling about at an inchoate stage in the understanding of Christ and His work.'4

The New Testament is thus fundamental for Christianity, and, as it has been well said, it is ' not the first stage of the evolution, but the last phase of the revelationary fact and deed.'5 On these three grounds we believe that Scripture came from God, that it is the work of the Holy Spirit, that the Spirit spake by prophets and apostles.

This position constitutes the uniqueness of Scripture. There is that in Scripture, call it inspiration or give it any other name, which stands out absolutely alone from all else in literature and history. And if we call it inspiration, we mean a special influence, differing not only in degree but in kind from the ordinary spiritual influence of the Holy Spirit. The word ' inspiration ' is variously applied. It is used of the communication of knowledge to the natural man (Job. xxxii. 8). It may also be associated with the ordinary work of the Holy Spirit on the heart, as in the Prayer Book: ' Cleanse the thoughts of our hearts by the inspiration of Thy Holy Spirit ' (First Collect at Holy Communion); and ' By Thy holy inspiration we may think those things that be good ' (Collect for the Fifth Sunday after Easter). But by the inspiration of Holy Scripture we understand the communication of Divine truth in a way unique in degree and kind. The Apostles were evidently inspired to teach orally (John xiv.-xvi.), and it is natural to suppose that they were inspired to teach by writing as well. The New Testament is clear as to the position of the Apostles as founders of the Church. They were unique, and with reference to oral teaching, they had full authority and plenary inspiration. Of the eight writers of the New Testament five were Apostles, and their inspiration could hardly have left them when they began to write. As to the other books, they are written by men who were in special relation to the Apostles, and come to us with apostolic sanction. Inspiration, therefore, means the special influence of the Holy Spirit by which the Apostles and their close companions were enabled to transmit the revelation as they received it. The fundamental ground of our acceptance of the New Testament is our belief, based on adequate evidence, that it came from the apostolic age and from apostolic men who were authorised by the exponents of the Divine will. No one can doubt that the earliest ground of canonicity was apostolicity.

The New Testament dates show the limited period of the unique activity of the Holy Spirit as the Spirit of inspiration. It extended to about fifty years. Just as soon as the facts of redemption were thoroughly announced, the work of transcription began. Then came a chasm which has been rightly described as ' abrupt, sheer, abysmal.' Schaff says no transition has been so radical and sudden and yet so silent. Writers of various schools testify to the remarkable difference between the New Testament and the writings of the second century.

' A phenomenon singular in its kind is the striking difference between the writings of the Apostles and those of the Apostolic Fathers, so nearly their contemporaries. In other instances transitions are wont to be gradual, but in this instance we observe a sudden change. There is no gentle gradation here, but all at once an abrupt transition from one style of language to another — a phenomenon which should lead us to acknowledge the fact of a special agency of the Divine Spirit in the souls of the Apostles and of a new creative element in the first period.'6

' When the student of early Christian literature passes from the New Testament to the post-canonical writers, he becomes aware of a loss of both literary and spiritual power. There is no immediate change in the form of the writings; the earhest remains of the subapostolic age consist of letters addressed to Churches or individuals after the model of the Apostolic Epistles. But the note of authority which is heard in the Epistles of St. Peter, St. Paul, and St. John has no place in those of Clement of Rome and Ignatius of Antioch; and there is little evidence in the latter of the originality or the inspiration by which the leaders of the first generation were distinguished. The spiritual giants of the Apostolic age are succeeded by men of lower stature and poorer capacity. Nor does the fresh power of the first century altogether return to the Church in the years that follow. A higher literary standard is reached in the second century; the third is adorned by the great name of Origen; the fourth and fifth centuries can boast of an Athanasius, a Basil, a Gregory Nazianzen, a Chrysostom, an Augustine. But none of these classical authors of Christian antiquity profess to originate or to reveal; all recognize in the Apostolic writers their masters, and their best work is done in the field of New Testament exposition or in expressing New Testament doctrine in the terms of a later theology.'7

' There is no more striking contrast in the whole range of literature than that between the creative energy of the apostolic writers and the imitative poverty of the subapostolic.... The difference of canonical and uncanonical, so studiously ignored by some of the literary critics, is not a fiction of some church authority, but a fact which no serious reader can fail to notice.... We miss the spiritual depth and the intellectual force and clearness of the New Testament.'8

One simple but adequate proof of this is seen by reference to the Epistle to Diognetus, which is a vindication of the superiority of Christianity over heathenism. It is interesting and beautiful, but it is not the New Testament. From this we argue that the very dates of the New Testament books are evidences of a special spiritual activity of the Holy Spirit, and of a limitation of this activity to these dates. The Holy Spirit was active subsequently, but not in the same way, and it is therefore correct to speak of inspiration as a peculiar activity and function of the Holy Spirit, and to distinguish between His inspiration and His illumination. Since the New Testament times the Holy Spirit has illuminated truth, but has not revealed anything new.

The fundamental proof of this unique influence of the Holy Spirit in Scripture is the fact that, as we have seen. Scripture embodies a Divine revelation of redemption in Christ. It is this that gives Scripture its uniqueness. The revelation is the proof of the inspiration, and the inspiration in turn guarantees the revelation. The proof of inspiration is thus to be sought in the record itself, and the record must be tested by its own claims. Faith in the Bible means ultimately faith in God's revelation of Himself, and faith in the revelation will do more than anything else to establish our faith in Scripture. It is Divine revelation that gives substance to Scripture, as it is the Divine purpose that gives unity to Scripture. Both argue a unique presence of the Holy Spirit, for there is no other way in which revelation could be preserved and its reality demonstrated.

' Many current controversies concerning inspiration might be ended, if a clear conception were gained of the unity of the revelation given by the Holy Spirit in history, from those early days in which Israel had some dim conception of His operations, up to the time when revelation culminated in Christ, and some of His followers were inspired to write the records concerning Him so precious to us.'9

We conclude, therefore, that the possibility of a Divine authority, and therefore also of the inspiration of the Bible, lie in the fact of our need of an objective standard, and this need is created by the fact and circumstances of Christian experience. We need an authority because we need an ethical standard and a moral dynamic. At first Christ provided these in Person. Then came the Apostles as the revealers and interpreters of Christ by the Spirit. It was their death that really made the Bible necessary, and now the body of truth ' once for all delivered ' takes their place. There are only two ways of perpetuating the presence and authority of Christ through the ages; the one is by means of Scripture, the other by means of an Institution like the Church.

' If He died to make a Church that Church should continue to be made by some permanent thing from Himself, either by a continuous Apostolate supernaturally secured in the charisma veritatis, as Rome claims, or by a book which should be the real successor of the Apostles, with a real authority on the vital matters of truth and faith. But, we discard the supernatural pope for the supernatural book.'10

As therefore the Gospel is essential to the Church, it is natural and necessary for it to be embodied in a written record.

It may seem necessary at this point to go a step further, and enquire as to the theory of inspiration. We are met at once by the fact that no theory is given, and that whatever may be the true one, it is to be derived and deduced from the facts of the case. By Divine revelation we mean the thought of God for the life of man, and as thought needs words for its embodiment it would seem essential to any view of inspiration that the thought should be adequately and accurately expressed in words. St. Paul seems to imply this when he speaks of ' words which the Holy Ghost teacheth' (1 Cor. ii. 13). And this view has found wide acceptance and endorsement.

' We can in fact speak with good reason of a language of the Holy Ghost. For it lies in the Bible plainly before our eyes, how the Divine Spirit, Who is the agent of revelation, has fashioned for Himself a quite peculiar religious dialect out of the speech of that people which forms its theatre.'11

The connection between thoughts and words has been well stated by Bishop Westcott:

' The slightest consideration will shew that words are as essential to intellectual processes as they are to mutual intercourse. For man the purely spiritual and absolute is but an inspiration or a dream. Thoughts are wedded to words as necessarily as soul to body. Language is a condition of our being, determining the conception as well as the communication of ideas.... The Book is thus rightly said to be inspired no less than the Prophet. The Book reflects and perpetuates the personal characteristics of the Prophet, but it does not create them. Writing introduces no limitation into the representation of truth which does not already exist in the first conception and expression of it. The isolated writing bears the same relation to the whole work of the Prophet as the Prophet himself to the world from which he is chosen.'12

But if, as the result of this view, we employ the phrase, ' verbal inspiration,' we must be careful to notice that it does not say anything as to the method, only the result of the Holy Spirit's work. It does not tell us how, but it does tell us how far God has revealed His will. Inspiration is not dictation, and all that is needed is to show that inspiration extends to form as well as substance. The true view of inspiration means such a union of the Divine and human elements that the result is guaranteed to us as the thought of God for the life of man. Such an idea

' combines harmoniously the two terms in that relation of the finite to the infinite which is involved in the very idea of Revelation. It preserves absolute truthfulness with perfect humanity, so that the nature of man is not neutrahzed, if we may thus speak, by the Divine agency, and the truth of God is not impaired, but exactly expressed in one of its several aspects by the individual mind.'13

The Holy Spirit possessed and used the faculties in such a way that without supersession or mechanical compulsion, but working through them, the revelation of God was to come to, through, and for man.14 The inspiring operation of the Holy Spirit joined with the mental activity of the workers, working through it, determining it, and leading it (i Cor. xiv. 37). While the process lies beneath our consciousness and we cannot explain the mode, we certainly know the results. No theory of inspiration can satisfy the conditions which allows the human to exclude the Divine at any point, or the Divine to supersede the human.

' For how does Divine inspiration act upon a writer? In two ways: first by strengthening and intensifying his natural powers, and second, by producing in him what William James has called an uprush of the subconscious. I should prefer to call the last an inrush of the super-conscious. It makes a man a vehicle of deep-lying forces, so that he builds better than he knows. He may think that he is writing for a society, or even for an individual, when he is really writing for future ages, and to meet needs of which he is unconscious.'15

This view of inspiration may be justified by several considerations. The Bible is universally employed to-day in the life and work of the Church with an authoritative emphasis on verbal teaching. In all ages scholarly minute exegesis has been prominent, and never more so than to-day. Even the employment of concordances is a testimony in this direction. Then, too, the Bible has always been appealed to in matters of controversy, and the Apostolic Churches undoubtedly held this opinion, believing in an inspiration which was ' supernatural in its source, unerring in its truthfulness, and comprising words as well as subject matter.'16 The use of the Old Testament by New Testament writers supports this contention with the large number of quotations and the constant use of the phrase, ' It is written.' Our Lord's endorsement of the Old Testament must not be overlooked (John x. 34-36). Nor can we forget the claim of the prophets and other writers to Divine inspiration (Numb, xxiii. 5, 12, 13; 2 Sam. xxiii. 2; 1 Chron. xxviii. 19; Jer. xxx. 2; xxxvi. 4-8; Luke i. 70; I Cor. ii. 13; xiv. 37).

But this view of inspiration does not mean that every part of Scripture is of equal value or of equal spiritual importance. The idea of inspiration includes several aspects which need to be carefully distinguished. There is, as we have seen, the inspiration of direct communication from God, as claimed by Prophets and Apostles, and as possibly intended by the Apostle's words of ' receiving from the Lord ' (i Cor. xi. 23). There is also what Canon Liddon rightly called ' the inspiration of selection,' as witnessed by our Gospels (Luke i. 1-4; John xx. 30, 31). There is also the inspiration of accurate record, for while at times inspiration guarantees the truth of what is written, at other times it only guarantees the report or record of what is written, which may in substance be untrue. Thus, the speeches of Job's friends, the acts of Jael, the sins of God's people, are all recorded, and in such cases inspiration concerns the accuracy of the report, not the truth of the contents. The fact of recording these sayings and doings does not justify them. Perhaps above all other distinctions is the important one of the inspiration of progressive revelation. It is obvious that from our present Christian standpoint every part of the Bible cannot possibly be of equal importance, though everything is necessary in its place and for its purpose. Revelation is progressive. While it was adequate and even perfect at each stage for that particular stage, these characteristics do not necessarily extend beyond that time. Its morality must be judged from the standpoint of each stage, and not from ours to-day.

' The Divine teaching, though one, is not uniform. Truth is indeed immutable, but humanity is progressive; and thus the form in which truth is presented must be examined in relation to the age in which the revelation was made. At one time it is to be sought in the simple relations of the patriarchal household: at another in the more complicated interests of national existence: at another in the still deeper mysteries of individual life: at another in the infinite fulness of the Saviour's work, or in the perplexing difficulties which beset the infant Churches. But each form has its proper and enduring lesson: each record constitutes a link in the golden chain which, to use the Homeric allegory, has again bound the earth with all its varied interests to the throne of God.'17

It is such distinctions as these which call for great carefulness in our use of Holy Scripture, and when it is said, ' All Scripture is inspired of God,' it does not in the least mean that every word is true in itself, for the sentiment may be human while the record is Divine. While all is inspired all is not revealed, and for this reason, while we say the Bible is inspired, we also say that it contains a revelation.

From the uniqueness of Scripture as embodying a Divine revelation, we naturally infer what is called the canonicity of Scripture. What are we to understand by this term? Scripture, as we have seen, contains a Divine revelation for human life which is to exercise moral and spiritual authority over everything. But the authority does not lie in the volume; it resides in each book, as it proceeded from an apostolic source, or was sent out by apostolic sanction. Canonicity was the collection of books already authoritative by reason of their source and substance. The Church is described in Article XX. as ' a witness and keeper of Holy Writ,' but it is never the maker of Scripture. It is not even the judge, for Councils, when they at length assembled, only testified to already existing facts and conditions in the separate Churches. It was not the canonicity which gave the books authority, but the authority which led to their canonicity. As it has been well said, the New Testament is not an authorised collection of books, but a collection of authorised books. The principle on which we receive a book as canonical is the belief, grounded on proper evidence, that the book is an apostolic gift to the Church. This constitutes the possession of canonicity. We accept the books as authoritative because they proceed from apostolic sources, from men uniquely qualified to reveal and record God's will to man. And then the Holy Spirit enables the soul to perceive that these books possess Divine authority. The Holy Spirit does not confer canonicity, but attests it. His witness is evidence to the illuminated and regenerate soul that these books come from God.18 And thus the ground of canonicity is apostolicity, but the ground of our conviction of canonicity is the witness of the Holy Ghost. The Holy Spirit enables the soul to see the evidences of God's work in the Bible and to realise that it has its origin above. The darkness caused by sin is removed, and the light given illuminates Scripture as a book of Divine origin and authorship. This is something altogether different from the argument from experience. No mere experience can guarantee the Divine character or canonicity of any book, for not only is experience variable and subjective, but it is our own testimony to God, while the work of the Holy Spirit is God's testimony to us. The Holy Spirit Who regenerates and by regenerating illuminates the soul of the believer, enables it to become convinced on proper grounds of evidence that this Book comes from God, has indications of God's work in it, and is thereby authoritative for human life.

It is now necessary to speak of the interpretation of Scripture, for the truth in the Word needs to be applied to the heart. Here is the Word; how are we to use it? The Church of Rome says that we must have an interpreter, and in so saying is perfectly right, but when it is further urged that the Church is the interpreter, Rome is perfectly wrong. We do indeed need a teacher, an interpreter, and we have it in the Author of the Book, Who also is its Expounder, This is the work of the Holy Spirit as the Spirit of Truth. Scripture is full of the thought of the intellectual and moral darkness caused by sin, the necessity of spiritual illumination, and the light and leading bestowed by the Spirit on the repentant and trustful soul. Our Lord speaks of the new birth to enable us to see the Kingdom of God (John iii. 3). St. Paul speaks of the Holy Spirit revealing and teaching that which man cannot see for himself (i Cor. ii. 14 ff.; 2 Cor. iv. 6). St. John reminds us of the anointing which teaches us (i John ii. 27). And the Apocalypse bids us ' hear what the Spirit saith unto the Churches ' (Rev. ii. 11). The test of views professing to come from the Holy Spirit is agreement with the Word. There is great significance in the parallels referring to the fulness of the Spirit in Eph. v. 18 and the richness of the indwelling word in Col. iii. 16. The Spirit enlightens and the Word attests in regard both to doctrine and duty, word and work, revelation and morality, character and conduct. In relation to doctrine, no man speaking by the Holy Spirit calls Jesus accursed, and no man can say that Jesus is the Lord, but by the Holy Ghost (1 Cor. xii. 3). And the unction from the Holy One will enable a Christian to perceive the true and reject the false (1 John ii. 20, 21). In relation to morality, the one supreme proof of everything in Christianity is ethical, and the fruit of the Spirit will always proceed along this line (Gal. v. 22-25). The illumination is intended for application, and the more we have of the one, the more we shall practise of the other. Illumination will lead to discernment, discernment to duty, and duty in turn will produce delight in the will of God.

It is often said to-day that historical criticism has made it impossible to use the Bible as in former days, and that it cannot any longer be appealed to as ' an unquestionable authority, of equal value wherever it is opened.' It should be observed, however, that these two statements are not identical, though they are often confused. The Bible can be appealed to as ' an unquestionable authority ' without being ' of equal value wherever it is opened.' This distinction should be borne in mind when what is generally regarded as the conservative view of Holy Scripture is considered and criticised. But be this as it may, it is said on many hands that Biblical criticism has compelled us to abandon once for all the older views of Biblical inspiration and infallibility. In reply to this, the words of Dr. Denney seem pertinent:

' This depends, of course, on how we define the older views; but even if it were true, the question would remain whether " Biblical inspiration and infallibility " were not names for something real, and something essential to the effective maintenance of the Christian Church and the Christian religion. Our fathers may have drawn wrong inferences from what they called the inspiration of the Bible, but they did not believe in it for nothing. They may have misconceived the mode or some of the results of that character or virtue of the Bible which they designated by this term, but the term itself designated something real. And so it does still. The inspiration of the Bible is not an outworn dogma, it is the constant experience of the Church. The Bible itself is not merely a record of what God said or was believed to say long ago; it is an organ through which God speaks perpetually to souls still. Even the modern mind can hear Him speak in it as He speaks nowhere else in the world, and can enter into fellowship with Him through it as through no other voice audible on earth.'19

As we have already seen, the uniqueness of Scripture lies in its possession of the record of a Divine revelation of Christ as Redeemer. It is this, and this alone, which is worth emphasising, and apparently it needs emphasising to-day, by reason of the prevalence of an attitude of critical subjectivity which tends to ignore, if not to destroy it.

' Criticism was entitled to some latitude in discrediting false inferences that had been attached to such words as inspiration and infallibility; but it is time for Christian experience to assert again, even for the modern mind, the truth which these words were intended to express, and to vindicate the authority of the Bible in the Church. That to which the Spirit of God bears witness, by and with the Word, in our hearts, can and will hold its ground as the truth from which there is no appeal.'20

What our fathers claimed was that Scripture revealed Christ in the fulness of His Person and Work for Salvation, and herein lies the unique authority and inspiration of Holy Writ.

' Perhaps the old views of inspiration and infallibility — apart from illegitimate inferences — were not so inadequate as is sometimes supposed.... A man may have ten thousand questions to answer about the Bible, and yet be as certain, on the ground of the Bible, as he is of his own existence, that a Divine redeeming love has come into the world, and has come for him. The book that can give a sinful soul that certainty is the book of God, and that book is the Bible, and the Bible alone.... When a man submits his mind to the Spirit which is in it, it never misleads him about the way of salvation. It brings him infallibly to that knowledge of God, in His judgment and mercy, which is eternal life.... The most vital truth about it is covered by the terms inspiration and infallibility, and in virtue of this truth it is indispensable and authoritative to the mind of every age.'21

The probable explanation of some modem views on this subject is the absence of any true doctrine of the Holy Spirit. It is significant that amid the multitude of theological works of high value which have proceeded from able writers in Germany, England, Scotland, and America during the last century very few have treated with anything like proper fulness and emphasis the Scripture revelation of the Holy Spirit. Whatever may have been the cause, no one can doubt the fact that both in theology and also in the ordinary life of the Christian Church the place of the Holy Spirit has often been sadly to seek.

' Had a scriptural view of the Person and work of the Holy Ghost been more powerfully prevalent in the Church, not merely in her formularies, but in reality and life, there would never have been so much occasion given to represent the teaching of the Church on the inspiration of Scripture as " mechanical," " converting men into automata," etc.; and the whole question would not have assumed such a scholastic and metaphysical form. For then the living testimony and the written testimony would appear both as supernatural and Spirit-breathed. The more the supremacy of the Holy Ghost, divine, loving, and present, is acknowledged, the more the Bible is fixed in the heart and conscience. But if the "Book " is viewed as the relic and substitute of a now absent and inactive Spirit, Bibliolatry and Bible-rejection are the necessary results.'22

But it is simply impossible to understand a Book which emanates from the Holy Spirit without the Spirit Himself as the Illuminator of our spirit.23 This is why so much is found in Scripture, as already seen, about the darkness and dulness of the intellect, and the consequent need of spiritual insight, perception, illumination. And when the modern reader on Holy Scripture comes to Christianity with a humble, earnest desire to learn from Scripture what the Holy Spirit has there recorded, he will soon discover the reality and blessedness of its unique power.

' It will teach him also that many of the so-called religious difficulties of the modern mind are the penalty of the excessive intellectualising of religion in the past, and that they are not to be solved on the plane on which they are propounded, but dismissed as irrelevant to the soul's relation to God.'24

Literature. — Swete, The Holy Spirit in the New Testament, pp. 328, 388; Moule, Veni Creator, pp. 47-55; Davison, The Indwelling Spirit, ch. xi.; Welldon, The Revelation of the Holy Spirit, p. 302; Denio, The Supreme Leader, pp. 147, 179; Smeaton, The Doctrine of the Holy Spirit, p. 137; Humphries, The Holy Spirit in Faith and Experience, ch. xi.; Johnson, The Holy Spirit, pp. 173, 194, 291; Parker, The Paraclete, chs. iii., v., vi.; Elder Gumming, Through the Eternal Spirit, ch. iv.; Masterman, ' I believe in the Holy Ghost,' ch. v.; Robson, The Holy Spirit the Paraclete, p. 225; A. J. Gordon, The Ministry of the Spirit, ch. viii.; Ridout, The Person and Work of the Holy Spirit, ch. vi.; J. M. Campbell, After Pentecost, What? chs. v., ix.; Tophel, The Work of the Holy Spirit in Man, p. 24; Swete, Article, 'Holy Spirit,' Hastings' Bible Dictionary, p. 407; Kuyper, The Work of the Holy Spirit, pp. 56, 146, 164.

1 M'Pheeters, Article ' Authority in Religion,' Dictionary of Christ and the Gospels.

2 Bushnell, The Character of Christ.

3 Sanday, Inspiration, ch. i.

4 Forsyth, The Person and Place of Jesus Christ, p. 164.

5 Forsyth, op. cit. p. 152.

6 Neander, Church History, Vol. II. p. 405.

7 Swete, The Holy Spirit in the Ancient Church, p. 3.

8 Gwatkin, Early Church History, Vol. I. pp. 98, 99.

9 Davison, ' The Person and Work of the Holy Spirit,' London Quarterly Review, April, 1905, p. 217.

10 Forsyth, op. cit. p. 171.

11 Rothe, Dogmatics, p. 238.

12 Introduction to the Study of the Gospels, pp. 14, 15. See also Saphir, Christ and the Scriptures, p. 90, and Gaussen, Theopneustia.

13 Westcott, op. cit. p. 16.

14 For passages expressive of the Divine source and the human channel, see Matt. i. 22, ' Spoken of the Lord by the prophet '; Matt. ii. 15; Acts i. 16; iii. i8; iv. 25.

15 Sanday, ' Cambridge Biblical Essays,' Journal of Theologica Studies, January, 191 o, p. 417.

16 Westcott, op. cit. Appendix B.

17 Westcott, op. cit. pp. i6, 17.

18 C. W. Hodge, 'The Witness of the Holy Spirit to the Bible,' Princeton Theological Review, January, 1913, p. 41 (Vol. XI.).

19 Denney, ' The Preacher and the Bible,' The British Weekly, August 22, 1912.

20 Denney, ut supra.

21 Denney, ut supra.

22 Saphir, Christ and the Scriptures, p. 83..

23 Saphir, ut supra, p. 112.

24 Denney, ut supra.