REVELATION AND INSPIRATION

By Revelation is meant a direct communication from God to man, either of such knowledge as man needed to know and could not of himself attain to, or which, in point of fact, was not known to the person who received the revelation. The subject matter of the revelation might transcend human sagacity or human reason. Such were the facts about the creation of the world revealed to Moses; the tripersonality of the Godhead, called the doctrine of the Trinity; God's atonement through the death of His Son; His method of forgiving sin. Human reason never would have discovered these truths, and man needed to know them. They were graciously revealed to man by a loving Father.

By inspiration is meant that actuating energy of the Holy Spirit, under the guidance of which, the men chosen by God, have accurately and authoritatively proclaimed His will by word of mouth, or have committed to writing the several portions of the Bible.

Definitions:

1. "Divine inspiration is that supernatural divine influence on the prophets, apostles, or sacred writers, by which they were qualified to communicate truth without error; a supernatural influence which qualifies men to receive and communicate divine truth."-Webster.

2. "Inspiration literally signifies a breathing into; it denotes that extraordinary agency of the Holy Spirit on the mind, in consequence of which the person who partakes of it, is enabled to embrace and communicate the truth of God without error, infirmity, or defect."-Dr. Hannah.

3. "Divine Inspiration is the imparting of such a degree of Divine assistance, influence or guidance, as should enable the authors of the Scriptures to communicate religious knowledge to others without error or mistake, whether the subjects of such communications were things then immediately revealed to those who declare them, or things with which they were before acquainted." -Home.

4. "Divine Inspiration may be defined to be that extraordinary influence of the Holy Spirit upon the human mind by which men were qualified to communicate to others religious knowledge without error or mistake."-Wakefield.

5. "On this subject the common doctrine of the Church is and ever has been, that inspiration was an influence of the Holy Spirit on the minds of certain select men, which rendered them the organs of God, for the infallible communication of His mind and will. They were in such a sense the organs of God, that what they said, God said."-Dr. Charles Hodge.

It will be noticed that there is substantial agreement between these definitions. A dozen more might be quoted from eminent theologians, of a similar trend; They fairly state the faith of the orthodox Church through the centuries. Let it be observed and distinctly understood, that these definitions refer to the original documents of Scripture as they came from the hands of their authors-Moses, David, Isaiah, Matthew, John, Peter or Paul. The Bible, as we now have it, is marred somewhat by the infirmities of human copyists. Here and there a few interpolations have crept in, and different readings in different manuscripts, which, as every honest scholar will admit, mars the absolute verbal perfection of our Bible. Probably no translation ever made was absolutely perfect. These minor errors could not have been avoided unless God had worked a perpetual miracle upon the minds and fingers of every copyist and translator and type-setter that ever worked upon our precious Book.

But such reverent care and prayerful thought have been bestowed upon it through all the centuries that we still have substantially the divinely inspired Book, as God gave it.

We may now define what is not meant by saying that the Bible is divinely inspired.

1. We do not mean merely that it is a work of human genius. Some flippant writers say, "0 yes, the Bible is inspired like the Iliad of Homer, or Shakespeare's Hamlet, or Milton's Paradise Lost." We mean, and the Bible, when it speaks of inspiration, means vastly more. The Bible is inspired as no other book ever written. The works of human genius however excellent are the natural products of the human mind; the Inspiration of the Bible is Supernatural. It is a "Thus saith the Lord."

2. It is not merely a divine illumination. Every regenerated Christian is more or less taught, and led, and indwelt, by the Holy Spirit. But they are not inspired in the sense that the writers of the Old and New Testament were. The inspiration of the ordinary Christian, which we by no means under-rate, may coexist with many errors, and crude notions; but the Divine Inspiration of the authors of the Word enabled them to give us the mind of God without crudity or error. Eminent Christians now often have given them an inspired insight into the Scriptures; but the authors of the Bible were inspired to write them.

3. Inspiration did not imply or involve any suppression or setting aside of the natural power and faculties of the writers. It did not destroy their individuality, nor restrain the free play of their thoughts and feelings. The natural poet, when inspired, still wrote as a poet. The logician, when inspired, did not forget his logic. The clear thinker, when inspired, lost none of his lucidity. God used the men as intelligent, voluntary agents, and his inspiration neither made them unconscious nor irrational. Each author preserved his peculiar style and mode of expression, yet God used the author to record his own thought. Hence the marvelous variety of the sacred writings, and their perfect adaptation to interest all classes of minds and meet the needs of every condition of men. The human and the Divine are so inextricably blended that it is impossible to separate them or discriminate between them.

4. Divine Inspiration does not imply an equal clearness and fulness in the exhibition of Divine truth, in every part of the sacred Book. Jesus plainly affirmed that revelation was progressive, and that not all truth could be given in fulness in the Old Testament times. Even in his own day, Jesus said: "I have many things to say unto you; but ye cannot bear them now"; but he assured them that the Spirit would guide them into all truth.

The religion of the Old Testament and The New Testament are different, yet are parts of the same. Beyond all question the Bible comes to flower and fruitage in the New Testament. But neither part is complete without the other.

The New Testament authors and Jesus himself always treated the Old Testament with profoundest respect, as inspired, even though some things were tolerated in it "because of the hardness of men's hearts." The original writers of the Old Testament were inspired to write, just as the writers of the New Testament were; but any spiritual mind will feel that the New Testament, as a. whole, is on a higher, moral plane, and reveals more of the spirituality of a Holy God than does the Old Testament.

Yet Jesus and His Apostles refer to nearly all parts of the volume as the Word of God. They make no distinction as to the authority of the Law, the Psalms and the Prophets. They quote from the Pentateuch, the historical books, the Psalms and the Prophets. They treat all they quote from as the Word of God. They also refer to all classes of facts as infallibly true.

Not only great doctrinal facts, such as the creation and probation of man; his apostasy; the call of Abraham; the giving of the Law upon Mount Sinai; not only great historical facts, as the deluge, the deliverance of the people out of Egypt, the passage of the Red Sea and of the Jordan, and the like; but incidental circumstances, and things of minor importance, such as Moses' lifting up the brazen serpent in the wilderness, and the healing of Naaman's leprosy, and the visit of the queen of Sheba to Solomon, and even Jonah's experience with the whale, are all mentioned with a childlike faith in their absolute truthfulness.

Dr. Charles Hodge gives, on this subject, this striking illustration: "Some members of the body are more important than others; and some books of the Bible could be far better spared than others. There may be as great a difference between St. John's gospel and the Book of Chronicles as between a man's brain and the hair of his head; nevertheless the life of the body is as truly in the hair as in the brain."

We may consider:

I. The Proof of Inspiration.

1. As Dr. Gray has observed: "The Inspiration of the Bible is proved by the philosophy, or what may be called the nature of the case." As we have before observed, we needed to know kinds of truth which the unaided human reason was incapable of discovering. The nature of God, how sin could be forgiven, the origin of man, and his future destiny, had never been known and would not have been, except by a direct revelation from God. That revelation was given, and the Bible is the

History of the Divine method of redeeming the race. But such is the imperfection of man, so fallible in judgment, so feeble in memory, so defective in spirituality, that he would not have given a full, and accurate, and worthy account of it without a supernatural inspiration.

2. This may be further inferred from what has been already said about the genuineness, integrity, credibility, and authenticity of the Bible. Whatever goes to prove that in its fulness, tends also to prove the inspiration.

3. Proof from the character of the Bible, as the Westminster Confession says: "The heavenliness of its matter, the efficacy of its doctrine, the unity of its various parts, the majesty of its style, and the scope and completeness of its design" indicate the divinity of its origin.

The Bible is manifestly a book written to lead men out of sin into holiness. Its great fundamentals are (1) The story of God's infinite love that from eternity purposed to provide salvation for the fallen race of man. .(2) To consummate that holy purpose, He sent His Only Begotten Son into the world to make an atonement for human sin. (3) That on the ground of that atonement salvation can be obtained by complying with the simple' conditions of repentance and faith.

Now if our Bible and this Christian scheme of salvation is not truthful and of superhuman origin, as infidel critics would have us believe, who were the forgers and fable-mongers clever enough to invent so divine a tale? Who invented the idea of an incarnation? It was "to the Jews a stumbling block, and to the Greeks foolishness." Who put together the picture of the Divine-human Jesus, as He appears in the Gospels? Who conceived the notion of making Him a sinless man, and doing it so successfully that all subsequent generations have been unable to find a flaw in His character? Yet a sinless man had never been seen before, nor has one been seen since on the planet. Who supplied this Jesus with the superhuman power to perform works possible only to God? Whence came the superhuman wisdom that fell from His lips, if He was not a real, but only an imaginary, person? The really great men of the Christian centuries have universally acknowledged that Jesus was immeasurably above them in wisdom and greatness and power. Who was the daring genius that conceived the idea of making atonement for sin, and that, too, by the voluntary sacrifice of the Son of God? Who would have pictured Him as rising from the dead and ascending to heaven in a most skeptical age, when the very immortality of the soul was doubted? These conceptions were so incredible to Jesus' own followers at the first, and so unacceptable to the natural man ever since, that no forger of a religious tale would ever have conceived of them, much less given them to the world as a reality. And who suggested the doctrine of a general resurrection at the end of time, a doctrine which human philosophy can not explain, and has ever laughed to scorn?

"The impartial reasoner must perceive that in all these themes we are dealing not with purely human thoughts, but with thoughts that are divine, and that it is idle to talk of them as fabulous, or untrue or uninspired."1 1. Rev. Dr. Thomas Whitelaw, Fundamentals, Vol. Ill, pp. 88, 89.

Such a genius as would be necessary to invent the New Testament and the character of Jesus, would be vastly more miraculous and more difficult to explain than revelation and inspiration combined. In comparison with Him, these critics, who are drunk with conceit of their own infallible greatness, would be only puling babes.

4. The strongest proof of the Inspiration of Scriptures is the claims of the Bible writers themselves. This would be no proof whatever, apart from the character of the writers, and the character of the Book. But, in view of the holy men who wrote, and the abiding influence of the Book, in every age, and in every clime, and on every class of people, always against sin and in favor of righteousness, we have ample reason to accept the testimony of the authors on this point.

Notice how they acknowledge that they received their messages from God. Dr. James H. Brooks tells us that they use the phrase, "Thus saith the Lord," or its equivalent two thousand times. Matthew quotes from the Old Testament sixty-four times, often introducing the quotation by such words as, "That it might be fulfilled which was spoken by the Lord, through the prophet, saying" (see Matt. 1: 22 and 2: IS). The New Testament writers believed that the writers of the Old Testament got their message through inspiration. Peter said, "No prophecy ever came by the will of man; but men spake from God, being moved by the Holy Spirit. Jesus talked in the same way: "But as touching the resurrection of the dead, have ye not read that which was spoken unto you by God saying, I am the God of Abraham, and the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob" (Matt. 22: 31, 32). After the ascension, Peter stood up in Jerusalem and said: "Brethren, it was needful that the Scripture should be fulfilled, which the Holy Spirit spake by the mouth of David, concerning Judas, who was guide to them that took Jesus" (Acts 1: 16). St. Paul said: "Well spake the Holy Spirit through Isaiah the prophet unto your fathers" (Acts 28: 25). He also wrote to Timothy, "Every Scripture inspired of God, is also profitable," or "Every Scripture is inspired of God and profitable" (2 Tim. 3: 16). Scholars differ as to which is the better Greek reading; but either one has an assertion that God inspired Scripture, and each says "Every Scripture."

Dr. Nathaniel West, commenting upon this verse, says: "The distributive word 'every' is used not only to particularize each individual Scripture of the Canon that Timothy had studied from his youth, but also to include, along with the Old Testament, the New Testament Scriptures extant in Paul's day, and any others, such as those that John wrote after him." Perhaps not every reverent scholar would say so much as Dr. West did on this passage. But it shows what St. Paul and the early Church thought about the inspiration of the Scriptures. And that ancient faith produced the faith of Dr. West and millions of other scholars who would die for that old inspired Book. St. Peter endorsed "all" of St. Paul's epistles as inspired in 2 Peter 3: 16. "Our beloved brother Paul also, according to the wisdom given to him, wrote unto you, as also in all his Epistles"

The Epistle to the Hebrews begins thus: "God, having of old time spoken unto the fathers in the prophets by divers portions, and in divers manners, hath, at the end of these days, spoken to us in His Son."

But why multiply passages to prove what is so evident to any thoughtful and reverent reader of the holy Book. It goes without saying, that the authors claimed to be inspired, and nobody has ever yet been able to disprove their claim.

II. Extent of Inspiration.

There are various theories among the reverent defenders of the doctrine of inspiration as to the extent of it. Some limit it to the prophetical parts of Scriptures; while others extend it to the doctrinal part also, but not to the historical.

Others maintain that the inspiration of the sacred writers was only occasional; that they were not always, even when writing, under the influence of the Spirit which rendered their writings the unerring word of God; and that consequently, when they were writing without it, they were liable to make mistakes like other men. So that, as a result, there is in the Bible an admixture of error and truth, the human and the divine. The logical difficulty of this theory is that, if it be once granted that there is an alloy of error in the Word, an opening is made for the assumption of every imaginable corruption. To admit that the sacred writers were only occasionally inspired would involve us in the greatest perplexity; for not knowing when they were or were not inspired, we could not determine what parts of their writings should be regarded as the infallible Word of God.

Among the stronger, and seemingly safer and more consistent views of inspiration are,

1. The theory of plenary inspiration. This regards the inspiration as extending to all parts of the Scripture, whether prophetical, doctrinal, or historical. It is held to cover, also, all the separate books, and all the subjects discussed, and all the statements made. So that every statement is always to be looked upon as true and authoritative. This is the view of Dr. Charles Hodge, and he says: "It denies that the sacred writers were merely partially inspired; it asserts that they were fully inspired as to all that they teach whether of doctrine or fact. This of course does not imply that the sacred writers were infallible, except for the special purpose for which they were employed. They were not imbued with plenary knowledge. As to all matters of science, philosophy, and history they stood on the same level with their contemporaries. They were infallible only as teachers, and when acting as the spokesmen of God. Their inspiration no more made them astronomers than it made them agriculturists. Isaiah was infallible in his predictions, although he shared with his countrymen the views then prevalent as to the mechanism of the universe. Paul could not err in anything he taught, although he could not recollect how many persons he had baptized in Corinth. The sacred writers also, doubtless, differed as to insight into the truths which they taught. The apostle Peter intimates that the prophets searched diligently into the meaning of their own predictions."1 The inspiration extends to everything which any sacred writer asserts to be true. 1. Hodge, Vol. I, p. 165.

2. The theory of verbal inspiration. This is a still stronger theory than the other. It has been thus defined: "By Verbal Inspiration is meant that the inspired servants of God, while they retained the proper use of their powers and faculties, were always guided, or assisted to use such language as would convey 'the mind of the Spirit' in its full and unimpaired integrity."2 . . . "Verbal inspiration asserts that there was a concurrence of the act of God with the act of man. (1) He endowed the man with those particular gifts, and chose him to be His particular instrument. (2) He guided his mind in the selection of what he should say, and in the revelation of the material of his writing, where it was necessary through the defect of human knowledge. (3) He acted in and on the intellect and heart of the writer, in the act of committing the words to writing, not only in bestowing a more than human elevation, but securing the truthfulness of the thing written, and moulding the language into the form accordant to His own will. To sum up the whole, verbal inspiration simply amounts to this-that while the words of Scripture are truly and characteristically the words of men, they are at the same time fully and concurrently the words of God."3 2. Dr. Hannah, quoted by "Field's Theology," p. 74. 3. Field's Theology, p. 75.

Strong as this statement is, there is much in the Scripture to support it. A large portion of the entire Bible consists in direct messages from God, e. g., a large part of Exodus, most of Leviticus, much of Deuteronomy and Numbers, the greater part of the prophecies of Isaiah, Jeremiah, Ezekiel, Hosea, Joel, Amos, Zechariah, Zephaniah, Habakkuk and Malachi, also much of the New Testament.

Such words, and texts, as the following are very significant. "Thus saith the Lord," "The Spirit of God said," "Howbeit when He, the Spirit of truth is come, He shall guide you into all the truth, for He shall not speak from himself; but what things, soever He shall hear, these shall He speak" (John 16: 13). "Behold, I have put my words in thy mouth" (Jer. 1: 9 and Isaiah 51: 15). "For this cause also thank we God without ceasing, because when ye received the word of God which ye heard of us, ye received it not as the word of man, but as it is in truth the word of God" (1 Thess. 2: 13). St. Paul wrote to the Corinthians: "My speech and my preaching were not in persuasive words of wisdom, but in demonstration of the Spirit and of power; that your faith should not stand in the wisdom of men, but in the power of God. . . . Which things also we speak, not in words which man's wisdom teacheth, but which the Spirit teacheth, combining spiritual things with spiritual words" (1 Cor. 2:4, 5, 13).

Paul wrote to the Galatians: "I marvel that ye are so quickly removing from Him that called you in the grace of Christ unto a different gospel. . . . But though we or an angel from heaven should preach unto you any gospel other than that which we preached unto you, let him, be Anathema. . . . For I make known unto you brethren, as touching the Gospel which was preached by me that it is not after man. For neither did I receive it from man, nor was I taught it; but it came to me through the revelation of Jesus Christ" (Gal. 1: 6-11). Paul tells the Ephesians where he got his Gospel: "If so be that ye have heard of the dispensation of that grace of God which was given me to you-ward; how that by revelation was made known unto me the mystery, as I wrote before in few words; whereby, when ye read, ye can perceive my understanding in the mystery of Christ; which in other generations was not made known unto the Sons of men, as it hath now been revealed unto His holy apostles and prophets in the Spirit" (Eph. 3: 2-5).

Such verbal inspiration is always affirmed of Jesus. It was foretold of Him: "I will put my words in His mouth and He shall speak unto them all that I shall command Him." Jesus always spoke so of His own utterances. "The things which I heard from Him, these speak I unto the world" (John 8: 26). "As the Father hath taught me I speak these things" (28). "But now ye seek to kill me, a man that hath told you the truth, which I heard jrom God" (verse 40). "I spake not from myself; but the Father that sent me, He hath given me a commandment, what I should say, and what I should speak, and I know that His commandment is life eternal; the things therefore which I speak even as the Father hath said unto me, so I speak" (John 12: 49, SO). "He had given commandment through the Holy Spirit unto the apostles whom He had chosen'' (Acts 1:2). "The Revelation of Jesus Christ which God gave Him to show unto His servants" (Rev. 1:1).

It has been well asked, "If the incarnate Word needed the unction of the Holy Ghost to give to men the revelation He received from the Father, in whose bosom He dwells, . . . how much more must it be so in the case of ordinary men?"

From these statements of the Bible writers themselves it is evident that very much at least of the Bible is verbally inspired, so that the authors recorded the very words God would have them use.

We have stated the two strongest theories of inspiration the plenary and the verbal, and pointed out the evidence that may fairly be advanced in their defence, in respect to a considerable portion of the Bible. But to say that all the Scripture was So inspired, is to put too great a tax upon faith. In view of discrepancies, and disagreements and misquotations, or inaccurate quotations, and the manifestly lower moral and spiritual tone in some passages than in others, these strong theories, if applied to the whole Bible cannot be successfully defended. "The theory of a common verbal inspiration is beset with very serious difficulties-enough indeed to disprove it" (Miley). A universal plenary inspiration of the Scripture, especially as we have it now, faces the same difficulty. "It is impossible to prove absolute inspiration, in the sense claimed. The Scriptures do not affirm it, and no other proof is possible. It might be safely claimed that there is marvelous accuracy, even in the geographical and historical statements, and marvelous wisdom in reference to all matters of science-such wisdom as seems to imply divine guidance; securing, the use of popular expressions which are always appropriate, and the avoidance of all technical terms which imply a scientific theory. But to go farther and claim the absolute accuracy of all minute statement of fact, or the absolute harmony of all these statements with one another-this is a task which the broadest and most thorough scholarship would not undertake. . . . But if the inspiration of the original text were absolute and complete, and were absolutely proved, no one can maintain that we have that original text in every minute particular. Again the canon has not been determined by inspiration. Still again there is no absolutely inspired translator or Interpreter of the Scriptures; and honest and earnest and scholarly men differ widely upon the translation and interpretation of many important passages." "Those who maintain this absolute inspiration, put themselves at a disadvantage. They feel obliged to explain every difficulty, or discrepancy, important, or unimportant; because their theory makes no provision even for minute differences" (Fairchild).

3. There is a theory called Essential Inspiration which holds that the Scriptures are inspired to such a degree as to present, with all required fullness and accuracy, the great truths which it is the purpose of Scripture to present. There is also the Dynamical Theory, which holds that there is a supernatural operation of the Spirit within the consciousness and appropriate faculties of the mediate agent. Through the agency of the Holy Spirit He is so enlightened and possessed of the truth, and so guided in its expression, that the truth so given forth, whether by the spoken or written word, is from God. Through this agency, the true and sufficient authorship of the Scriptures is with the Holy Spirit. This Dynamical theory leaves a proper place for the human element, yet in a sense entirely consistent with the true and proper authorship of the Holy Spirit. This theory avoids the insuperable difficulties of a plenary and verbal inspiration throughout all the Scriptures. "The Scriptures are as really a divine revelation on this theory as they could be on that of verbal inspiration. This can be true and is true, because an exact set of words, dictated by the Spirit, is not necessary either to the truthful expression of the divine mind, or to the divine authorship of the Scriptures" (Miley).

4. The theory of Moral Inspiration. This theory limits the inspiration to the moral and religious instruction which the Bible contains. In the matter of conveying religious truth alone, is it inerrant and authoritative. Those who hold this view are often most devout Christian men. They think that the Bible is so inspired that it is a perfectly safe guide to salvation and heaven. It is a common saying with those who hold this view that the Bible contains a Word of God; but is not all of it the Word of God. It is believed by the Advocates of this theory that it obviates the difficulty arising from the admitted, though relatively insignificant, errors, discrepancies, contradictions, and interpolations that are known to have crept into the text, and are admittedly found in the sacred writings.

There is a measure of truth in this theory, that the Bible is certainly a safe moral and spiritual guide; and that, aside from all human elements, there is a Word of God. But the theory is stated so loosely and held so carelessly that it is open to grave objections which have been stated as follows: 1. "What part is spiritual truth? 2. What are the value and authority of the portions of Scripture which do not deal with this? Who will undertake the task of making the separation? What and how much of the Bible would be left to us, when the different advocates of this theory have each performed the part of Jehoiakim's penknife? Infallibility, in the sense of entire freedom from errors in the Bible, such as arise from errors of copyists and other contingences to which all ancient manuscripts are liable, we do not insist upon; but that the Bible is not only a sufficient witness to the truth of Salvation, but one that is rich and abundant in other truth above measure."1 1. Field's Theology, p. 60.

III. The Degree of Inspiration.

This refers to the action of the Holy Spirit upon the inspired writer. To what extent was he acted upon. Theologians have mentioned superintendence, elevation, and suggestion. Let us briefly consider the nature of each.

1. Superintendence. This term signifies that controlling influence of the Holy Spirit by which the sacred writers, in relating what they knew by ordinary means, were preserved from error, and divinely guided as to what they should record.

There were many things that Moses and the other historians, and the authors of the Gospels and the Acts knew which are not recorded. They did not need a revelation to inform them of what passed before their eyes. But they did need an inspiration to enable them to be accurate, and a superintendence, to guide them as to what, out of the vast abundance of material at hand, they should select to record, and what they should leave unrecorded.

Nothing is more impressive to any thoughtful literary man than the sacred writings, in respect to their surprising brevity; their graphic descriptions, their matchless picture of the Son of God, and the statement of sublimest doctrines, all drawn in the fewest possible words, without introducing one opinion or personal reflection of their own into the sacred narrative. A little illustration will make this plain. The best four lives of Christ in the English language are said to be Andrews', Geikie's, Hanna's and Edersheim's. The four combined have no less than 5,490 large pages. But Bagster prints our four Gospels, which are simply inspired biographies of Christ, in eighty-two pages; Matthew occupies but twenty-three pages, and Mark but thirteen! Who taught the evangelists this superhuman power of condensation and graphic statement, sifting the vast mass of material, and treasuring the gems of truth, without note or comment of their own? There can be but one answer. The Spirit of God superintended their minds and pens with His unerring wisdom.

2. Elevation, denotes that Divine influence by which the mental faculties of the sacred writers, even though acting naturally, were raised to an extraordinary degree of power and skill. Therefore their writings exhibit a felicitous choice of words, a charm of style, a dignity of expression, and a power of statement entirely beyond what their natural gifts could have achieved, fitly clothing the heavenly truths they taught.

It seemed to matter little whether the author was educated or unlearned, whether he was the trained Law-giver, or the Poet-King, or the Unknown Son of Amoz, or the Herdman of Tekoa, or the Gatherer of Sycomore fruit, or the Tax-collector or the beloved Physician, or the Fisherman of Galilee. However untrained or illiterate they were in themselves, when the inspiring Holy Spirit selected them to write the sacred Word, they were at once lifted above themselves. Where an uninspired writer would have been inclined to attempt to heighten the impression by glowing and elaborate description, these preserved a chastened simplicity. "These sober recorders of events the most astonishing, are never carried away by the circumstances they relate, into any pomp of diction or use of superlatives. Absorbed in their holy task, no alien idea presents itself to their mind. The object before them engrosses their whole attention. They never digress, are never drawn aside from their purpose by personal vanity. They never fill up the intervals between the events which they record. They leave the events to make their own impression, instead of trying to help the reader by reflections of their own. They preserve the gravity of history and the severity of truth, without any exaggeration or appeals to emotion. Yet they often burst forth in strains of eloquence and sublimity of thought and expression not equalled in profane literature. The only explanation is that they wrote as they were inspired by the Holy Spirit.

3. Suggestion. This, as treated by the theologians who use these terms, is the highest degree of inspiration, and includes all those direct revelations which were made to the sacred writers, of such things as they could not have discovered by ordinary means.

Of course this is confusing revelation and inspiration, which differ from each other in critically accurate discussion. But all writings on the subject of inspiration sooner or later seem to make it include revelation. In this larger meaning, suggestion would be supremely important. It is manifest to every reverent mind that the subjects of which much Scripture treats were matters that needed to be revealed. They could not have been discovered by the natural mind of man, however elevated. No angel was great enough to pry into the secrets of the Divine Mind and discover His plans and purposes, and communicate them to mortal men. Such truths, therefore, could not have been known save as they were communicated by the omniscient God. How God proposed to save men, what would be the fate of various nations and the fate of his own kingdom, and the destinies of men, only God could make known.

It is even doubtful if the prophets often half understood their own sublime messages, which the inspiring Spirit gave them. "They sought and searched diligently . . . what the Spirit of Christ which was in them did point unto" (1 Peter 1: 10, 11). And some of the truths they taught even "the angels desired to look into."

And so in all these ways, and often in all of them combined, "holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost"; and we most properly call their combined writings "The Word of God." The several authors were taught, elevated, divinely guided, and led into truth, and kept from error and folly, by the inspiring Spirit. It reaches the hearts of men, and moulds human society, and influences it for good as does no other book that was ever written, because in its pages we hear from heaven, and listen to the voice of the Infinite God. Its histories are true, its promises are faithful, its precepts are gracious, its warnings are helpful, its "commandments are true and righteous altogether; and in the keeping of them there is great reward."

4. There is another theory called the mechanical theory of inspiration. It is usually discussed under the subject-"the mode of inspiration." It holds that the personality of the authors was superseded or set aside, and inspired men were used by the Spirit of God as a typist might use his typewriter. Others have reduced the sacred writer to a mere amanuensis, simply recording indifferently what was dictated by God.

None of these figures of speech are fortunate, or true to fact. The Christian Church, as a whole, has never held to the mechanical theory of inspiration, or to any theory that approximates to it. The sacred writers were never reduced to machines. It was "men" not machines, "that spake as they were moved by the Holy Spirit." Their self-consciousness was not suspended, nor their intellectual powers superseded, nor their personality set aside. The authors were not unconscious instruments, but living, breathing, thinking, feeling, emotional men, preserving their own peculiar individuality, but still inspired and used by God. The inspired penmen wrote out of the fulness of their own hearts and thoughts, and employed language which at the time seemed to them the most fit. Yet none the less God was using them to convey His own messages to men.

Some most devout believers in the Bible, think that the exact words of the Scriptures were not always dictated by the Spirit. In the "histories, moral reflections, and devotional pieces, they do not contend for the inspiration of the language in the same sense" as in prophecies and commands and teachings of truths revealed by God. But even then, while the writers were using their own knowledge, and powers of expression, and language and modes of thought, when most at liberty, they were still under a restraining and guiding influence of God.

IV. Difficidties and Objections.

Difficulties may be suggested and clever objections may be raised against any and all of these theories. Materialists and all kindred thinkers, who deny the existence of a personal, extra-mundane God, of course must deny inspiration. If the supernatural is impossible, inspiration would be impossible.

There is also a large class of skeptics of every name and hue, who deny the need of any revelation, and are therefore quite prepared to reject the inspiration of any book that claims to be inspired by the Spirit of God.

Then there are the infidel higher critics whose sole aim is to break down all confidence in the authenticity and credibility of the Book. By their very aim and purpose, they are logically compelled to deny the inspiration of these writings. They must do it to be consistent with their own infidel theories.

Others deny inspiration because they do not understand what the doctrine means. They have picked up some fallacious definitions of inspiration which have appeared, and have rejected with derision the idea of "automaton compositors." But no accredited theologian teaches that inspiration transformed the sacred writers into machines and'"automatons." Such objectors are only opposing a man of straw of their own invention.

There are, however, other objections arising from disagreements, discrepancies, interpolations, and inaccurate quotations from the Old Testament by writers in the New Testament, and various readings which do have a basis in facts.

We can say to these that:

1. We admit that we have not at this age of the world, the accurate Books, as they first came from the hands of the authors. We have alluded to this before, and called attention to the comparative insignificance of these defects from the mistakes of copyists. But it does make it true that we no longer Have an absolutely inerrant Bible. We may, affirm, however, that all this does not militate against the original inspiration of the Holy Word.

We saw in the Louvre in Paris, two years ago, the famous portrait of Mona Lisa, by Leonardo da Vinci, said to, be the finest portrait painting in the world, and of priceless value. It has since been stolen, but has been found and is now restored to its place. If we had as nearly an exact copy of it as any artist could make, with a fly-speck on it, we should not, 1. Deny that Leonardo painted Mona Lisa. 2. Neither would we argue that he painted the fly-speck. 3. Neither would we insist that the fly-speck was not there. Let us be honest on all sides when we talk about the Bible; or the Book itself will rebuke us for untruthfulness.

2. If we knew all the facts, these trivial discrepancies, could probably most of them be satisfactorily explained. But some of them would doubtless remain, as unexplainable. They are the human elements that have accrued in the transmission through the ages of our blessed Bible. We are grieved when defenders of the Word deny these disagreements; for it does not seem to be honest.

3. These inaccurate quotations from the Old Testament by the New, do lend color to an argument against universal verbal inspiration. It looks as if the inspired writers often thought more of the truth than they did of the exact words, that expressed it. Compare Isaiah 59: 20 with Romans 11: 26 and Amos 9: 11 with Acts 15: 16. There are scores of such inaccurate quotations.

We are compelled to conclude that two outstanding facts are absolutely incompatible with the theory of universal verbal inspiration.

(1) The first of these is the manner in which quotations from the Old Testament are made in the New. Remember that the Old Testament generally used in Christ's day and for centuries before was the Septuagint, Greek translation of the original Hebrew writings. "But the Septuagint is, to a considerable extent, different from our (Hebrew) Bible. Not only are incidents in the life of David, which we read in our text, omitted from the Septuagint, but in a prophet so important as Jeremiah about one-eighth of what we find in the Hebrew is omitted from the Greek, while the arrangement of the material widely differs. No one can tell us which of these texts, the Hebrew we now use, or the Hebrew translated by the Septuagint, is nearer the original.

Now, of the quotations made from these differing Old Testaments (Hebrew, and Greek Septuagint), there are two hundred and seventy-five in the New Testament.

a. Of these there are only 53 in which the Hebrew, the Septuagint and the New Testament agree; that is, in which the Septuagint correctly translated the Hebrew, and has been correctly quoted by the New Testament writer,

b. There are 10 interesting passages in which the Septuagint has been corrected, and brought into harmony with the Hebrew.

c. There are 37 passages in which the faulty rendering of the Septuagint has been accepted and repeated in the New Testament quotation... 37.

d. There are 76 passages in which the correct version of the Septuagint, has been altered into a rendering which does not agree with the original... 76.

e. And there are 99 passages in which the New Testament quotations differ both from the Hebrew and from the Septuagint. 99

Now the above statistics prove that the New Testament writers thought much more of the sense of the sacred Scriptures than of the exact language, and that they set no special store by the exact words in which the Old Testament writers expressed themselves.

(2) The second fact of Scripture which appears to be incompatible with the idea of (universal) verbal inspiration, is the fact that those who record the sayings of our Lord greatly differ in their reports. One would expect that here if anywhere, sacredness would attach to the very letter and precise language used. But it is not so. Even in reporting the Lord's Prayer the evangelists differ; and in His ordinary sayings and conversations we congratulate ourselves if the sense is the same in the different Gospels, and scarcely expect to find absolute identity of language. But if inspiration involved perfect accuracy of language no such phenomena as the Gospels present would appear. It would seem, then, that not always the very words, but the man himselj is inspired, so that he with all his natural powers and idiosyncrasies, becomes the organ of the Spirit. Inspiration does not lift the inspired person out of all his limitations, but uses him as he is, and all his faculties as they are, for the fulfilment of a Divine purpose.

Abandoning, then the theory of possession (and universal verbal inspiration) as untenable, we find a proposed relief from its inconsistencies in the theory that the Divine energy did not annihilate the human co-operation. The Divine influence was dominant, but not overpowering" (Marcus Dod's "The Bible; Its Origin and Nature," pp. 113-118).

In the human element there is always room for inaccuracy. Many have thought that the difficulty would be escaped, and the accuracy of Scripture sufficiently guaranteed if it were held that God inspired the thoughts, but not always at least the words; that the truths are communicated by the Holy Spirit; but the form, the words and the phrases in which they are delivered, are often due to the writer's own individuality.

The Infallibility of Scripture.

"Criticism justly and with virtually unanimous voice declares that literal inerrancy cannot be claimed for the books either of the Old or New Testament, that Scripture is not absolutely free, from error. Mark quotes Malachi under the name of Isaiah; and Matthew ascribes to Jeremiah words spoken by Zechariah. Now there are three methods of dealing with these and other more serious findings of criticism.

(1) The first is to deny the existence of these or any errors.

(2) The second is to admit the errors, and to infer from their existence that the Bible is untrustworthy, not infallible.

(3) The third is to admit the errors, while at the same time maintaining and exhibiting the infallibility of the Bible notwithstanding.

The first method seems likely to blind men to the true nature of the Bible, and to lead to disingenuousness, mischief, and unbelief. The second method is the result of ignorance, and especially of a misunderstanding of infallibility. The third gives us a sure standing ground, and leads us to recognize the actual infallibility of Scripture; that (in spite of errors) the Bible remains the infallible and authoritative Word of God. It is truly said that "the man who binds up the cause of Christianity with the literal accuracy of the Bible, is no friend of Christianity; for with the rejection of that theory, too often comes the rejection of the Bible itself, and faith is shattered." Those who maintain that we must accept every statement of Scripture, or none of it, should consider that no doctrine more surely makes skeptics. "It seems," says Dr. Stearns, "a very good and pious thing to insist that the Bible is absolutely without error. But nothing is good or pious that is contrary to facts."

But, in spite of all discrepancies, and disagreements, and errors, and minor inaccuracies, the Bible still remains God's inspired and infallible book. But infallible for whafi The whole matter hinges here. What is the infallibility we claim for the Bible? It is infallible as regards the purpose for which it was written. It is infallible as a revelation of God's saving love in Christ to a wicked world. It infallibly guides all honest, and willing and seeking souls, to Christ, to holiness, and to heaven (Marcus Dod's "The Bible," etc., pp. 135-155).

(4) The marvel and the miracle is that there are so few discrepancies of any real importance. Considering that the different books of the Bible were written by men of different degrees of culture, scattered through a period of more than fifteen hundred years, it is unaccountable that they should have such moral agreement on any other hypothesis than that the various writers were under the common guidance of the Spirit of God. In this respect the Bible stands alone. "It is enough to fill any mind with awe, when it contemplates the Sacred Scriptures filled with the highest truths, speaking with authority in the name of God, and so won-drously free from the soiling touch of human fingers. The errors in matter of fact which skeptics search out bear no proportion to the whole. No sane man would deny that the Parthenon was built of marble, even if, here and there, a speck of sandstone or granite should be detected in its structure. Not less unreasonable is it to deny the inspiration of such a book as the Bible, because one sacred writer says that on a given occasion twenty-four, and another says that twenty-three thousand, men were slain. Surely a Christian may be allowed to tread such objections under his feet."1 1. Hodge, Vol. I, p. 170.

(5) Let it be noted that the hardest theory to defend concerning inspiration is that which denies it altogether. The next most difficult are those which entertain low and loose views of inspiration. The stronger theories are those most scriptural, most logical and most rational, and have the authority of God on their side- To deny inspiration is akin to all the other infidel attacks upon the wonderful Book that has produced our civilization, of which our times are so rife.

And this is not all. The vast majority of the real scholars of the Christian centuries have been devout believers in, and loyal defenders of this inspired Book. Their name is legion in every great field of human effort. Also the effective workers in the kingdom of Christ, the great teachers and soul winning evangelists, and mighty preachers who made an impress upon their times, and lifted the masses heavenward, and left a bright wake of holy influence behind them as they crossed the seas of human life,-the men who have built up States and shaped civilizations, have been men of profound faith in the inspired oracles of God. It should be esteemed a privilege for the very strongest of us to be numbered among them.