■^'^' 
 
 A» McCalg 
 
 Verbal Inspiration 
 Vindicated 
 
 BS480 
 .MI2 
 
BS480 
 .MI2 
 
.rni2- 
 
 Verbal Inspiration 
 Vindicated. 
 
 J ♦ . 
 
 A PAPER READ AT THE THIRD CONFERENCE 
 
 OF THE 
 
 pastore' CoIIcgc JSvancjclical Bseociation, 
 
 APRIL 23rd, 1890, 
 
 BY 
 
 Pastor A. 'McCAIG, B.A., 
 
 Of Brannoxtown, Co. Kildare, Ireland. 
 
 PRICE ONE PENNY. 
 
 LONDON : 
 Elliot Stock, 62, Paternoster Row, E.G. 
 
J 
 
Derbal inspiration IDinbicateb, 
 
 Beloved President and Brethren, 
 
 As I have not sought the honour or the burden that 
 is placed upon me to-day, I need make no apology for 
 occupying this position, but at once proceed to read my 
 paper, which, I trust, may not altogether fail to justify the 
 title I have ventured to give it — Verbal Inspiration 
 Vindicated. 
 
 The grand old Book still challenges the attention of the 
 human race. Its existence cannot be ignored. Its far- 
 reaching influence cannot be gainsaid. That Christianity 
 rests upon a sure historical basis cannot, by the most 
 searching criticism, be denied. The synoptical Gospels 
 and the main Epistles of Paul are as well attested history 
 as the annals of Tacitus and the letters of Pliny, our 
 enemies themselves being judges, while the whole New 
 Testament Canon may be regarded as established beyond 
 all reasonable doubt. Standing upon this sure ground we 
 accept the Saviour and bow to His authority. We cannot 
 very consistently accept of this historical Christ, without 
 fully accepting the gospel accounts concerning Him. 
 There we find Him endorsing and accrediting the Old 
 Testament. We find him qualifying and commissioning 
 the disciples to declare His will to the churches. We 
 afterwards find these disciples expounding the Old and 
 giving forth a New revelation. We find them placing their 
 own writings on a level with the Old Testament, and un- 
 mistakeably claiming for both Divine Inspiration. The 
 fact of that inspiration is proved to us in many ways, and 
 the extent of that inspiration must be gathered from the 
 testimony of Scripture itself. We hold that the Scriptures 
 do claim for themselves the most extensive and intensive 
 inspiration. Inspiration for the thought — inspiration for 
 
the language. We are well aware that for any one to 
 speak in favour of "verbal" inspiration is to lay himself 
 open to the charge of being a theological fossil, a relic of a 
 bygone age. Yet we venture deliberately to use the- 
 obnoxious expression. At one time we might have 
 been content to speak of "plenary" inspiration, and of 
 course "plenary," rightly understood, includes "verbal," 
 but as it is under the name of "verbal inspiration" that 
 the doctrine is so much maligned, we feel all the more 
 disposed to defend it under that name, although, in the 
 course of our paper we shall not hesitate to use the word 
 plenary as synonymous with verbal. 
 
 The possibility of verbal inspiration must be admitted by 
 those who differ from us, for some parts of the Word are 
 confessedly verbally inspired. The reasonableness of the 
 doctrine we maintain in accord with our knowledge of the 
 human mind — the intimate and inseparable connection 
 between thought and language, while we hold that the 
 certainty of it is asserted throughout the whole Bible. 
 When we point to the various formulae used in the Bible 
 to describe inspiration, "Thus saith the Lord," "The word 
 of the Lord came unto me," "His word was upon my 
 tongue," &.C., as showing the fact of verbal inspiration, we 
 are told that it is only by a fallacy of extension that we 
 can apply that description to the whole Bible. But we 
 fail to see the fallacy. Christ speaks of the whole Old 
 Testament as an unbroken and unbreakable unity, and 
 regards all as equally inspired. His own words are of 
 course inspired. The inspiration He promised His disciples 
 guaranteed not only that their thoughts would be the fruit 
 of the Spirit, but that their utterances would be guided and 
 controlled by that Spirit. Peter, familiar with this idea of 
 inspiration, describes the "prophetic word," not as the 
 product of the ages, but as the result of Divine influence 
 extending even to the language, for "holy men of God 
 spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost." Paul has 
 the same conception of his own inspiration ; he speaks the 
 "things (thoughts) of God" in words "which the Holy 
 Ghost teacheth." And when he speaks of all Scripture 
 being Divinely inspired he must have in his mind the same 
 idea of inspiration ; and in spite of all the disputations 
 
over that classical passage in Timothy, we feel it matters 
 little which rendering of the words we adopt, for in any 
 case the context fixes the reference to the Old Testament 
 Canon in which Timothy had been instructed the "sacred 
 letters" which he had learned to prize. But it would 
 savour of impertinence were I to enter fully into the 
 proofs for verbal inspiration which must be familiar to you 
 all ;* I desire rather to say a little by way of vindicating 
 the doctrine, and I remark that Verbal inspiration is not 
 mechanical dictation. It is often so represented, or rather 
 misrepresented by its opponents, and so caricatured made 
 a subject of ridicule. It may be admitted that in some 
 portions of the Word we find dictation, but of the Word 
 as a whole the believers in plenary inspiration generally 
 do not predicate dictation. The moment you think of 
 inspiration as dictation you conceive a theory of the how, 
 which we submit is beyond our grasp. Our theory is not 
 " mechanical," but has been well described as "dynamical," 
 the word suggesting that there was a power in the sacred 
 writers so moving and guiding them that entire freedom 
 from error marks their utterances. 
 
 Verbal inspiration does not ignore the human element in Scripture. 
 The opponents of our theory seem to think they have 
 refuted it when they point to the humanitarian element 
 in the Bible. Against the "mechanical dictation" theory 
 the objection possesses great force, but it does not touch 
 the true plenary th(jory. We hold that the power in the 
 writer did not set aside his personality ; his faculties were 
 not suspended ; the spirits of the prophets were subject to 
 
 * One cannot fail to notice what stress is often laid upon particular 
 phrases and words, and even letters, by Christ and His Apostles in 
 their exposition of the Old Testament, see ?mong other passages 
 Matt, xxii, 32, 43, 44; iCcr. xv. 45; Heb iii and iv. the word "to-day " ; 
 Heb. xiii. 27 ; Gal. iii. 11-16. Such passages clearly show that Christ 
 and His Apostles believed in Keria/Inspiration. Another consideration 
 which supports the idea that inspiration was extended to the language 
 is that the Prophets often did not understand their own utterances, see 
 I Peter i. 10-12. Now as it is a well-known principle that whit a man 
 does not clearly understand he cannot clearly express, these Prophets. 
 left to themselves, could not have chosen words which would clearly and 
 fully set forth the Divine thought in their mind which they did not 
 understand. Manifestly the same Spirit which gave the thought was 
 needed to direct the expression of the thought. 
 
the prophets. How the Spirit moved them and yet left 
 them perfectly free we cannot tell any more than we can tell 
 hoii) the Spirit operates in regeneration and sanctification. 
 It is here we touch the verge of the great mystery — how 
 the Divine Spirit comes in contact with the human. Nor 
 does this difficulty affect the theory of plenary inspira- 
 tion alone ; it presses with equal force upon any theory 
 w4iich admits the supernatural, and where the super- 
 natural is denied or ignored a greater difficulty is created. 
 In truth the mystery belongs not so much to any theory as 
 to the fact of inspiration which necessarily implies contact 
 between the Spirit of God and the spirit of the writer. 
 We cannot explain the mystery ; we must admit the fact. 
 We believe that in the miracle of inspiration God, in 
 accordance with the principle generally exemplified in 
 His miracles, uses the natural powers of men as far as they 
 will go. He does not, we imagine, invent new words and 
 reveal them to the writers, but He directs them in the 
 choice and use of those words in their vocabulary which 
 most fitly express the Divine mind, and hence the promin- 
 ence of the human element in the Scriptures, and as He 
 has chosen men of varied capacity and attainments, we 
 have that wonderful variety in the Bible which constitutes 
 one of its greatest charms. Each man writing according 
 to his own bent of mind, using his own language, drawing 
 his illustrations from his own experience and surroundings, 
 we have a Book produced that appeals to men of every 
 country, of every social grade, of every cast of thought. 
 The Bible is no sickly exotic nursed in an oriental garden, 
 but a tree of Jehovah that can strike its roots into the 
 rocky hearts of men all the world over. 
 
 Verbal Inspiration is not Revelation. Questions are often 
 asked as to degrees of inspiration. Was as much inspira- 
 tion needed to record apparently trivial and well-known 
 historical facts as to make known a doctrine of the Gospel? 
 Are we to consider the speeches of Sennacherib's general, 
 the edict of Darius, the letter of Claudius Lysias as much 
 inspired and as really the Word of God as the Sermon on 
 the Mount or the Epistle to the Romans ? Here, I think, 
 some distinction is necessary. While believing that the 
 whole of the Bible is the Word of God, I do not see that 
 
7 
 
 every part of it is the Word of God in exactly the same 
 sense. The /?« of the serpent "Ye shall not surely die," 
 cannot be the Word of God in the same sense as the 
 Divine threat the very opposite is. I think the clue is to 
 be found in the distinction between inspiration and revela- 
 tion. We regard the Bible as an inspired record of facts, 
 facts of history, facts of experience, facts of revelation. 
 The sacred writers were inspired to relate these facts 
 in the way in which they have related them, but the 
 nature of the fact determines its value. In recording well- 
 known facts of history, in reporting what others had said, 
 it was only necessary that the writers should be preserved 
 from error ; that they should be guided what to insert and 
 what to leave out. In reporting truths before unknown, 
 they had, we conceive, just the same inspiration, the 
 difference lay in the fact that these truths were revealed to 
 them direct before they could report them. As in erecting 
 a house, a builder might direct his men to make use of 
 some old materials that were lying by, and to reject others, 
 while for the greater part of the building he provides new 
 material ; each part would go to make up the structure, 
 and would be in the same sense built. So the writers of 
 Scripture are directed to take materials already within 
 their reach, and they are furnished with much that was 
 before unknown, but the whole goes to make up the 
 Scriptural structure, and is in the same sense inspired. To 
 use another illustration — take up for instance Gibbon's 
 great historical work. You find that necessarily the bulk 
 of the work is founded on other historical documents. He 
 condenses, ampliiies, sifts, and systematizes the?e in his 
 own way, expressing their statements in his own language 
 according to his own judgment. Sometimes, however, he 
 quotes entire passages of important documents, while 
 throughout he is constantly givmg his own independent 
 reflections upon the events related; 3et we rightly call the 
 whole alike Gibbon's History, We do not say this part 
 was specially written and that was otherwise written. It 
 is all the work of his genius which shows itself as really in 
 the skilful incorporation of old matter as in the utterance 
 of philosophical sentiments. Instead of the spirit or genius 
 of a Gibbon, think of the Spirit of God. Why should not 
 
that Spirit in the mind of a man or different men lead 
 them to present formerly-known facts in a new way, quote 
 special documents or sayings, and bring to light entirely 
 new truths ? As the history produced with all its variations 
 under the direction of Gibbon's genius is his history, so 
 the Bible, with all its marvellous diversity, produced as it 
 is under the guidance of the Spirit of God, is emphatically 
 the Book of God. If the distinction between revtlation 
 and inspiration is kept in mind, it will preserve the subject 
 from some of the difficulties which have been suggested ; as, 
 for instance, not long ago, a noted Doctorof Divinit3'declared 
 that the presence of some of the devil's sayings in the 
 book of Job made it impossible for him to believe in what he 
 called "verbal dictation," though he evidently meant plenary 
 inspiration. But the presence of such sayings is clearly 
 on the explanantion given not inconsistent with the true 
 plenary theory. The fact that such sayings are reported, 
 and reported by inspiration so that we have a true record 
 of them, does not make the lie a truth, nor invest it with 
 Divine authority. Inspiration then we apply to the record 
 itself. Revelation to the communication of new truth to the mind 
 of the seer. Regarding the Bible as a whole we say it is the 
 Word of God, as a record inspired in every detail, but every 
 part is not of the same intrinsic value. Unless there was 
 inspiration in the act of writing, we could at best have a 
 human record of the Divine revelation ; while on the sup- 
 position that the thoughts of God in some way unknown 
 to metaphysicians reached the prophet's mind, and were 
 by him clothed in words, we have a human record of a 
 human conception of a Divine revelation; and in the cases 
 where the writer is a different person from the one receiv- 
 ing the revelation, we might only have a human and fallible 
 record of a human recollection of a human tradition, of a 
 human recollection of a human conception of a Divine 
 revelation. As that is a legitimate inference from some 
 of the theories, which, instead of the old plenary view, 
 seek our suffrages, we say emphatically, '■^The old is better." 
 In view of the distinction between Revelation and 
 Inspiration, we hold strongly that Verbal inspiration is not io 
 be denied to the historical portions of the Word. We are not 
 surprised at the groundwork of plain history which we 
 
find in the beautiful fabric of Scripture. History is the 
 Hfe of men, and will always possess interest for men, and 
 a history which shows us God in contact with the life of 
 man must have special significance. Why should not the 
 record of God's revealing Himself in the lives of men, be 
 as really inspired as the record of His revelation of 
 Himself to the mind of any seer ? As a history, compare 
 the Bible with any of the so-called " Sacred Books of the 
 East," and how conspicuously does its superiority appear ! 
 Compare it with other ancient stories, — the mythological 
 lore of Greece and Rome, the monumental records of 
 Egypt, Babylon and Assyria, and explain how it is that 
 the sacred penmen, writing of so much that was 
 mysterious and supernatural, exposed to the temptations 
 to which writers of mythology have always yielded, 
 should yet preserve their narratives entirely free from the 
 fantastic puerilities and absurd incongruities with which 
 these other scribes have embellished their stories ! On 
 first looking at the simple unadorned history of the Bible, 
 one is apt to think that no special help would be needed 
 to write such a narrative; but the simple in appear- 
 ance is often the most difficult of performance ; the 
 perfection of art is the concealment of art ; and when we 
 examine more closely, we find in the sober simplicity and 
 chaste dignity of the narration, as contrasted with the 
 grotesqueness of those other records, unmistakeable 
 marks of Divine inspiration. How idle is the assertion 
 that not the historical but only the moral and religious 
 truths of the Bible are inspired ! How shall we make the 
 separation ? Do we not find that the spiritual truths are 
 inextricably interwoven with the historical, and have in it 
 their basis, their illustrative force, their objective applica- 
 tion ! while at the same time the history itself is in a large 
 measure typical of spiritual and eternal truth ? How can 
 we get a correct idea of British Constitutional Law apart 
 from a knowledge of Constitutional History ? The great 
 enactments of Magna Charta, the Petition of Right, and 
 the Bill of Rights can only be fully understood as they 
 are studied in their historical settings. They are the 
 product of the long struggle of the people under 
 Plantagenets, Tudors and Stuarts. So the law of Moses 
 
lO 
 
 is to be studied in connection with the history of Israel, 
 and much of the precious truth contained in the Old 
 Testament is the fruit of the Divine forces operating in 
 the nation's history. The "foes of our faith " do not think 
 lightly of the historical parts of the Bible. Rationalistic 
 opposition has raged most fiercely against the Gospel 
 history ; and now the whole force ot its attack is directed 
 against the history of the Pentateuch, or including the 
 book of Joshua, the Hexateuch as the critics are fond of 
 calling it. Admirers of the Wellhausen school sometimes 
 tell us that the whole matter is a literary question, and 
 does not affect faith or morals, but some are more candid, 
 as, for instance. Professor Harper, in the Hebyaicn, has 
 confessed that it is far more than a question of literary 
 criticism, it is a question involving spiritual and theological 
 issues. Indeed, the Hextateuch is the basis upon which 
 the remainder of the Old Testament rests, while the New 
 in turn rests upon the Old. Discredit these books, and 
 you discredit the whole Revelation. Prove that they are 
 forgeries — inventions — compilations of a much later date 
 than the time of Moses, and you not only rob them of their 
 historical and truthful character, but you must also remove 
 from the rest of the book all allusions to the facts and 
 promises, the laws and institutions of those discredited 
 portions, and when you have done that what have you left ? 
 No, we are not prepared to give up any part of the history ; 
 we feel that of the Book as a whole it is true. 
 
 " Pluck one thread and the web you mar, — 
 
 Loose but one 
 Of a thousand strings, and the paining jar, 
 
 Through all will run." 
 Want of time compels me to pass by a consideration of 
 the fact that inspiration could only pertain to the original 
 M.S., and its bearing upon the question of transmission, 
 transcription and translation. The objections which arise 
 here might be easily answered,* but I go on to say that 
 
 * It is objected, "as the original manuscript has been lost and its 
 contents have only reached us through many human transcriptions ; 
 how can we be sure that we have the words as they came from the pen of 
 the writer, and to what purpose then is verbal inspiration ? " This 
 difficulty is more seeming than real. At any rate, it equally affects 
 
II 
 
 Verbal Inspiration is not inconsistent with variety of expression 
 There are, undoubtedly, great differences of statement in 
 the various portions of Scripture, as, for instance, in the 
 Gospels the same discourses are differently reported, the 
 same events are differently related, but we think such 
 differences can easily be reconciled with verbal inspiration. 
 We admit that the all-important matter for us is to 
 
 other theories of inspiration. Those who believe that only parts of 
 the Bible are inspired have the same question to face with regard to 
 those parts, while those who hold the inspiration of the thought alone 
 have this difficulty superadded to the initial difficulty of knowing 
 whether they can be sure of the thoughts as originally expressed. If 
 the arguments we have advaneed are worth anything in proving that 
 the words were inspired the non-preservation of the identical first 
 manuscript would not affect the real question ; though, indeed, it is 
 admitted by candid critics that we have the text transmitted to us 
 substantially as written. The variations are comparatively trifling, 
 and far less than might have been expected, and the way in which the 
 text has been preserved by Divine Providence is nothing short of 
 wonderful, and calls for our devout thanksgiving. Even the rivalries 
 of various sectaries have, in the Divine wisdom, been overruled for 
 good. For these differing on many points, but all appealing for support 
 to the one Word have made it far less likely that the text could be 
 tampered with, while the jealous and minute care of the early 
 custodians of the Word, in counting the very letters, &c., has con- 
 tributed not a little to the general purity of the text. That errors of 
 transcription in so long a period should have occurred is not strange, 
 nothing less than a continuous miracle could have prevented that, but 
 they are so minute as not to affect the general trustworthiness and 
 authoritativeness of the record. 
 
 But because there is some difficulty in ascertaining with absolute 
 precision every detail of the early text, is that any reason for saying 
 " It doesn't matter for the language, only let us be sure of the inspired 
 thought " ? Do men reason so with regard to other ancient MSS. ? 
 Are scholars content to say concerning the works of Plato and Horace, 
 &c., " It doesn't matter whether we have the words as they were 
 written, let us only seek to get the thought " ? Why all the labours of 
 commentators on the ancient classics, if it were not felt that it is 
 essential to a thorough understanding of these books, to get as exactly 
 as possible the original texts ? And where they cannot be sure of the 
 true reading there can be no absolute certainty of the thought 
 expressed by the writer. And so with the scripture text, in proportion 
 to the integrity of the language will be the apprehension of the 
 thought. We can only reach the thought through the language. The 
 kindred objection concerning the difficulty of maintaining verbal 
 inspiration through the medium of translations is hardly worth 
 noticing ; for when once the Divine thought has been embodied in 
 Divinely chosen or approved language, there is no difficulty in trans- 
 muting that thought into other languages without any uncertainty. 
 
learn the thou£;hts of Scripture, but just because we believe in 
 the importance of the thought, do we feel the necessity for 
 having it correctly expressed. But we are not so wedded 
 to the verbal expression as to believe that the same 
 thought must always be expressed in the same words. 
 For example, no one would contend that in setting forth 
 the Gospel to a sinner it is essential to state it in the very 
 words of Scripture ; for although every Christian worker 
 must know that in dealing with souls there is an 
 inexpressible charm about a Gospel text when spoken in 
 ipsissimis verbis, yet the truth contained in John iii., i6, may 
 be so expressed in our own words as to bring blessing to a 
 sin-laden soul. Here we are sure of the thought, because 
 we are sure of the Scriptural expression of it, and can easily 
 render it into our own words wathout much loss. Now 
 there seems no difficulty in supposing that Matthew and 
 Mark could each record the same truth, or relate the same 
 incident in different language, and yet the language in each 
 case be fully inspired. Indeed, this is involved in the 
 explanation given of our theory, that the Spirit of God in 
 each case made use of the particular writer's method of 
 expression. Often, too, it will be found that the difference 
 is accounted for by the fact that the writers contemplate a 
 truth in different aspects, or give special prominence to 
 certain features of an incident. Such variety is absolutely 
 consistent with plenar}' inspiration, if, indeed, we might not 
 sa}', demanded by it. I must here resist the temptation to 
 consider the question of the New Testament quotations 
 from the Old, simply remarking that I believe the principle 
 I have just mentioned will apply to these quotations.* 
 
 *The general fact concerning these quotations is that sometimes they 
 are direct tranlations from the Hebrew, sometimes direct quotations 
 from the Septuagint Greek version, sometimes they differ from both. 
 It would seem that when the thought of the Old Testament as expressed 
 in inspired language is correctly represented in the Greek version in 
 common use, that version is quoted ; when that version does not 
 accurately give the thought of the Hebrew, the original is literally 
 translated, while sometimes the thought is rendered in language more 
 or less free, or is even altered. But as an author in quoting his 
 own statements may modify them or express them differently, so 
 surely the Spirit of God, the Author of the Old Testament, might 
 lead the writers of the New, not only literally to quote, but also to 
 modify, amplify, or differently express the earlier statements and yet 
 the various expressions be inspired. 
 
13 
 
 Verbal Inspiration is not consistent mith errors of fact or doctrine. 
 When asked how it is possible to hold verbal inspiration 
 in view of contradictory statements and mistakes in the 
 record, our answer is a denial of these alleged contradic- 
 tions and mistakes. That there are seeming discrepances 
 of course, we admit, but as in the past, many of these have 
 been reconciled through fuller research, we are warranted 
 in believing that if we were acquainted with other circum- 
 stances, at present unknown, the apparent contradictions 
 would vanish. In the same way statements alleged to 
 contain scientific or other mistakes, have been fully vindi- 
 cated, and we have no fear that any real error will be 
 proved against the record. Be it observed, however, that 
 the language of the Bible, though Divinely inspired, is, 
 after all, only human language, and hence must be subject 
 to the ordinary rules of interpretation. We find the 
 language of poetry and rhetoric, and we are not surprised 
 to find that the writers, in describing or alluding to natural 
 phenomena, speak of them in popular phraseology, rather 
 than in the style of scientific text-books. But that there 
 can be in the statements, when properly understood, any 
 error, we do not believe. We feel inclined to ask our 
 friends who hold these other theories, if they are aware 
 of what is involved in the assertion, that the Bible contains 
 contradictions and mistakes, and so cannot be verbally 
 inspired ? Are these alleged mistakes a mere matter of 
 words? Do they not also apply to the thoughts? If 
 misiakes there are, they must have been in the conception 
 of the writer, else they could not have entered into his 
 words. Why is it that if you wish to bring a charge 
 against a public speaker, it is considered fair and necessary 
 first to be sure that you have a correct report of his 
 speech ? Is it not because, unless you are sure of the 
 words used, you may misapprehend the thought ? Why ! 
 recently an important libel case, tried in Dublin, turned 
 upon the omission of the small word " not " from a news- 
 paper despatch. The omission made the description of the 
 plaintiff, false and libelhous, and he secured a verdict 
 accordingly. 
 
 Verbal Inspiration supplies the sure basis for the Infallibiliy and 
 Supreme Authority of the Bible. We want infalhbility some- 
 
14 
 
 ■where. We do not believe in an infallible Pope or infallible 
 Church, and certainly not in the infallibility of our own 
 "consciousness." The oracles of earth are dumb to the 
 greatest questions of the human heart, or at best mutter 
 but indistinct and contradictor}^ responses and no satis- 
 factory answer can we obtain till we turn reverently and 
 believingly to the " Oracles of God." Those to whom the 
 Old and New Testaments came were taught to hold these 
 Oracles as possessing supreme authority, and infallibility, 
 and we unite with them in believing this Word to be the 
 infallible guide to God and heaven ; the authoritative 
 revelation of all that it behoves us to know of spiritual 
 and eternal things ; and I see not how it can be so unless 
 it is plenarily inspired. We can see no sure standing 
 ground between the naturalistic hypothesis and the plenary 
 view. All the intermediate modifications, more or less, 
 ascribe untrustworthiness to the record and if untrust- 
 worthy in one point, how can we be sure of it in another ? 
 It is all very well to speak of the importance of knowing 
 the spirit of Scripture : we yield to none in the desire to 
 reach that spirit, but we strongly, and surely not unreason- 
 ably, feel that we can only know the spirit of Scripture 
 through the body of Scripture language. 
 
 We read in Grecian history that when Nicias, the 
 Athenian general, was in difficulties in Sicily, he sent 
 messengers to Athens to explain the situation and seek 
 for help, and the historian says, " Fearing those sent, 
 either through incapacity for speaking, or through becoming 
 deficient in memory, or wishing to say something to 
 please the multitude should not report the real circum- 
 stances, he wrote a letter, thinking that thus most, 
 especially the Athenians should should learn his own 
 sentiments without their being obscured by the messenger, 
 and so would deliberate on the true state of the case." 
 What that letter was to the Athenians regarding that 
 matter, the infallible Word is to us concerning all 
 spiritual and eternal things. Firmly believing in the 
 infallibility of the Word as resting on plenary inspiration, 
 we have no intention of imitating Israel's aged priest, and 
 trembling for the Ark of God. Even the Philistinism of 
 the so-called " Higher Criticism " does not dismay us. 
 
15 
 
 The Ark may seem for the time to be in the enemies' 
 territory, but it is well able to take care of itself even 
 there. The Dragon of Higher Criticism shall fall and be 
 broken in pieces before it, and eventually it will come 
 from the land of the Philistines, bearing with it the 
 trophies extracted from its foes. Still, we do not intend 
 to let the enemies have all their own way meanwhile. 
 Hadthe Israelites of old had sufficient faith in God and true 
 patriotism, they would not have suffered the Philistines 
 to remain a week in undisturbed possession of their ark. 
 These new critics, who, instead of regarding the Pentateuch 
 as the work of Moses, treat it as a kind of iiusaic work, are 
 after all, perhaps, not such literary giants as some would 
 have us believe. With all their pretensions to learned 
 criticism, they reverse the soundest critical canons, and 
 rejecting all external evidence, apply their a priori theories 
 to the work of internal criticism, and strange work they 
 make of it. For instance, certain portions of the text are 
 attributed to various writers called P., J., E., &c. ; we find 
 the assertion that certain words are peculiar to the P. 
 section, and are never used by J. We take up our Hebrew 
 Bible to test the statement, and we soon find in what they 
 call a J. section some of the very words so distinctive of 
 P. We naturally think that overthrows the argument 
 founded on diversity of language. But no ! Here comes 
 in a developement of the theory. The P. words in the J. 
 section we are told were not really used by J., but inserted 
 into J.'s matter by a Redactor, whose business it was to 
 modify, alter, and combine the various sections as he 
 pleased. Of course, not a shred of evidence is given for 
 the assertion, and this wonderful Redactor is credited on 
 the one hand with the most marvellous skill and ingenuity, 
 and on the other with the most amazing stupidity. The 
 plan is to divide and sub-divide the text according to their 
 own arbitrary and ever-varying hypothesis, and when the 
 division thus made agrees with the hypothesis by which it 
 was made, they triumphantly declare the hypothesis 
 established. A more glaring instance of reasoning in a 
 circle and begging the whole question from centre to cir- 
 cumference, it would be hard to find. We feel inclined 
 to say to these gentlemen, "Moses we know, and the 
 
i6 
 
 prophets we know, but your P.'s and J.'s and Redactors 
 we know not." No! No! The Scriptures cannot be broken. 
 We might be wilUng to consign the extant Greek and 
 Latin classics to the fate of the Alexandrian library ; we 
 could give up all the scientific works ever written ; we 
 could see without a tear all the rationalistic German 
 theology committed to the deep ; we might bid farewell to 
 our Chancers and Spencers, our Shakespeares and Miltons ; 
 we could "even sacrifice, if need be, all the tomes of Puritan 
 and Calvinistic theology, including " Hodge's Outlines " and 
 " Spurgeon's Sermons," but one jot or tittle of the Word of 
 God we are not prepared to yield. 
 
 If around this Word the fiercest battle is destined to 
 rage, here let it rage ! A fairer field we could not desire. 
 Inspiration has been called the Thermopylae of Christen- 
 dom, and in some respects it is so, but that name calls up 
 visions, not only of splendid heroism and unsurpassable 
 fidelity, but also of disaster and defeat : we trust rather 
 that it will prove our Marathon or Salamis where we 
 shall witness a glorious victory. When the fortunes of 
 Rome were almost at the lowest ebb in the arduous struggle 
 with Carthage, the aged King of Sicily showed his friend- 
 ship for the Romans by sending them substantial help, 
 and as a token of confidence in the ultimate success of 
 their arms, he sent a golden statue of Victory, which the 
 Romans gratefully accepted and placed in the Capitol as 
 an omen. Brethren, in our gatherings here this week, in 
 the prayers and praises that rise from our midst, in the 
 inspiriting words of our President, in the brotherly love 
 which thrills through our united hearts, above all in the 
 loyalty to Christ and fidelity to His unchanging Word by 
 which our brotherhood is characterised may we not find 
 an omen of victory for our cause ; victory for the truth ; 
 *• Victory," asthe converted Hindus crj-, for "Jesus Christ" ? 
 " The voice said cry, and he said, what shall I cry. All 
 flesh (with Rationalism as a product of the flesh) is as 
 grass, and all the glory of man (including " modern 
 thought") as the flower of grass, the grass withereth, and 
 the flower thereof falleth away, but the Word of the Lord 
 endureth for ever." And with all our hearts we say 
 Hallelujah — So let it be. 
 
1 
 
 DATE DUE 
 
 i 
 
 
 
 
 1 
 
 -**•* 
 
 mk^ 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 j 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 HIGHSMITH «' 
 
 5230 
 
 
 Printed 
 in USA 
 
BS480.M12 
 
 Verbal inspiration vindicated : A paper 
 
 Princeton Theological Seminary-Speer Library 
 
 1 1012 00052 2146 
 
 .# 
 
 ^