m^^ i'lUlli^''-' c'^'^^'f : mi \}J ^y OF fmcif^ ■ired. / When the light of the reformation broke upon Europe the same profound reverence for the Scrip- tures, as fully and equally inspired, is discovered in all of the writings and confessions of the church. Thus we find according to Schafif's Creeds of Chris- tendom in the Belgic Confession, A. D. 1561, Arti- cle III., as follows : " We confess that this word of God was not sent nor delivered by the will of man, but that holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost, as the apostle Peter saith. And that afterwards God, from a special care which he has for us and our salvation, commanded his ser- vants, the prophets and apostles, to commit his revealed word to writing ; and he himself wrote with his own fingers the two tables of stone. Therefore we call such writings holy and divine Scriptures." So the Helvetic confession of 1566 starts out with the declaration, "We believe and confess, the canonical Scriptures of the Holy prophets and apostles of both Testaments to be the true w^ord of God itself, for God himself spoke to the fathers, the prophets and the apostles, and still speaks to us by the sacred Scriptures." " The Irish Articles of Religion," adopted in 1615, state: 1. "The ground of our religion and the rule of faith and all saving truth is the word of God, contained in the Holy Scriptures. 2. By the name of Holy Scrip- tures we understand all the canonical books of the THE FAITH OF THE CHURCH. 11 Old and New Testament." Then follow the names of the books in the precise order in which we have them to-day. "All which we acknowledge to be given by the inspiration of God, and in that regard to be of most certain credit and highest authority. ''The Westminster Confession of Faith," 1647, opens Avith these striking words : '^ Although the light of nature, and the works of creation and providence, do so far manifest the goodness, wis- dom and power of God, as to leave men inexcus- able; yet are they not sufficient to give that knowl- edge of God, and of his will, which is necessary unto salvation ; therefore it pleased the Lord, at sundry times, and in divers manners, to reveal himself, and to declare that his will unto his church ; and afterwards for the better preserving and propagating of the truth, and for the more sure establishment and comfort of the church against the corruption of the flesh, and the malice of Satan and the world, to commit the same wholly unto writing ; which maketh the Holy Scripture to be most necessary; those former ways of God's re- vealing His will unto his people being now ceased. II. " Under the name of Holy Scripture, or the word of God written, are now contained all the books of the Old and New Testament, which are these : [the books of the Old and New Testament are then mentioned as they occur in our English Bible,] all which are given by inspiration of God, to be the rule of faith and life. III. ''The books commonly called Apocrypha, not being of divine inspiration, are no part of the canon of the Scripture ; and therefore are of no 12 IS THE BIBLE INSPIRED? authority in the church of God, nor to be any other- wise approved or made use of than other human writings. IV. "The authority of the Holy Scripture, for which it ought to be believed and obeyed, depend- eth not upon the testimony of any man or church, but wholly upon God (who is truth itself,) the author thereof; and therefore it is to be received, because it is the word of God. VIII. "The Old Testament in Hebrew (whicb was the native language of the people of God of old,) and the New Testament in Greek (which at the time of the writing of it was most generally known to the nations,) being immediately inspired by God ; and by his singular care and providence kept pure in all ages, are therefore authentical ; so as in all controversies of religion the church is finally to appeal unto them. IX. "The infallible rule of interpretation of Scripture is the Scripture itself; and therefore, when there is a question about the true or full sense of any Scripture (which is not manifold, but one,) it must be searched and known by other places that speak more clearly. X. "The Supreme Judge, by which all contro- versies of religion are to be determined, and all de- crees, councils, opinions of ancient writings, doc- trines of men, and private spirits, are to be exam- ined, and in whose sentence we are to rest, can be no other but the Holy Spirit speaking in the Scripture." Even the famous Roman Catholic Council of Trent, 1546, "following," as it declares, "the ex- THE FAITH OF THE CHURCH. 13 amples of orthodox fathers, receives and venerates with an equal affection of piety and reverence, all the books both of the Old and New Testament — seeing that one God is the author of both — as also the said traditions, as well as those appertaining to faith as to morals, as having been dictated, either by Christ's own word of mouth, or by the Holy Ghost, and preserved in the Catholic church by a continuous succession." So among the " Dogmatic Decrees of the Vatican Council," 1870, it is said that "this supernatural revelation, according to the universal belief of thie church, declared by th6 sacred Synod of Trent, is contained in the written books and unwritten tradi- tions which have come down to us, having been re- ceived by the apostles from the mouth of Christ himself; or from the apostles themselves by the dictation of the Holy Spirit, have been transmitted, as it were, from hand to hand. And these books of the Old and New Testament are to be received as sacred and canonical in their integrity with all their parts, as they are enumerated in the decrees of the said Council, and are contained in the ancient Latin edition of the Vulgate. These the church holds to be sacred and canonical, not because hav- ing been carefully composed by mere human indus- try, they were afterwards approved by her authority, nor merely because they contained revelations with no admixture of error, but because having been written by the inspiration of the Holy Ghost, they have God for their authority, and have been deliv- ered as such to the church herself." In the Longer Catechism of the Eastern church 14 IS THE BIBLE INSPIRED ? also, " Examined and approved by the most holy- governing Synod, and published for the use of schools and of all orthodox Christians, by order of his imperial majesty at Moscow, 1839, we find question 19, '^ What is that which you call Holy Scripture? Answer: Certain books written by the Spirit of God through men sanctified by God, called propliets and apostles. These books are common- ly termed the Bible. Question 20, What does the word Bihle mean ? Answer : It is Greek and means the hooks. The name signifies that the sacred books deserve attention before all others. Question 22, Why, then, was the holy scripture given? An- swer : To this end that divine revelation might be preserved more exactly and unchangeably. In holy Scripture we read the words of the prophets and apostles precisely as if we were living with them and listening to them. Question 23, Must we follow holy tradition, even when we possess holy Scripture ? Answer : We must follow that tradition which agrees with the divine revelation, and with holy Scripture.'^ These extracts must serve at present as samples of many similar testimonies that might be given from those who are known as " the fathers," and from all branches of the Christian church. They show with singular unanimity the belief of the entire body of the Saviour's professed followers in the divine inspiration of all the books that compose the Bible, however wide apart and discordant, and sharply opposed in many things pertaining to eccle- siastical ordinances, to forms of government, and to doctrines of minor importance. The Roman THE FAITH OF THE CHURCH. 15 Catholic, the Greek, and the Protestant communion and the various parties and factions in each of these, may have little or nothing to do with one another, but they all unite with one voice in pro- claiming that the sacred Scriptures are the word and work of God. It is worthy of notice that they advance no theory about the mode of inspiration, nor is any theory held and maintained, so far as is known, for per- haps seventeen hundred years after the death of Christ. They content themselves with asserting in the strongest terms that we are indebted for the writings called the sacred Scriptures to the Holy Ghost, that the words we there read are the words of God, and hence that in the perusal of them we may be assured of entire exemption from the ignor- ance, the folly and the mistakes of men. Through all these centuries the church in every branch and portion that has the slightest ground for claiming the name of a church, has steadily and stoutly affirmed that the Bible is God's book in a sense that belongs to no other book, and hence that all of its commands are authoritative, all of its teachings are infallible, all of its narratives are indisputable, and all of its decisions are final. II. MODERN THEORIES OF INSPIRATION, T was reserved for a time near our own to witness the first serious departure from this universal faith of the church. In Germany, the birth-place of the reformation, and the birth-place of much that is far less desirable, there was heard about a century ago, even among many who had not aban- doned Christianity, a denial of all that is super- natural in inspiration. It was held that the only inspiration is found in the sublime thoughts and devotional feelings of the men Avho wrote the Bible, and that these thoughts and feelings did not guard them against error and imperfection, anymore than do similar thoughts and feelings as expressed in the opinions and writings of other Christians, their equals in other respects. Perhaps the most prominent, or at least the most influential of this school, was Schleiermacher, pro- nounced by Dr. SchafF, ''the greatest divine of the nineteenth century," although he admits that he was a Universalist, and that ''he shook almost every dogma of orthodoxy." Of this man the Biblical Cyclopaedia says that, " ignoring the dog- ma of inspiration, he laid free hand upon the sacred book, just as upon the dialogues of Plato, or any other ancient documents. But he did not doubt the substantial genuineness of the Bible, and he was confident that critical science is capable of drawing the line between the essential and the non- 16 MODERN THEORIES OF INSPIRATION. 17 essential." The legitimate and logical result of such teaching, the natural and inevitable fruit of such planting, was seen in the terrible assault of his pupil Strauss upon the New Testament, an assault which has exhausted the armory of the devil in his hatred of Christianity. This view, so fatal not only to inspiration, but to revelation itself, passed over into England, and was adopted in a modified form by Coleridge, and then by Arnold of Rugby, but was carried to its unavoid- able extreme as seen in the writings of his son Matthew, and as seen also in the teachings of Cole- ridge's admirers and pupils, Maurice and Macnaught the latter of whom says, '' Milton and Shakespeare and Bacon, and Canticles and the Apocalypse, and the sermon on the mount and the eighth chapter of Romans, are, in our estimation, all inspired, but which of them is the most valuable inspired docu- ment, or whether the Bible, as a whole, is not in- comparably more precious than any other book — these are questions that must be decided by exam- ining the observable character and tendency of each book, and the beneficial effect that history may show that each has produced." It is not surprising to find such a writer claiming that " there is a true inspiration in ' the instinct of the owl;' that it is heard in the rushing of Hhe wind ;' that it is seen in ' the springing of a blade of grass ;' that it murmurs along ' the streams that flow among the hills ;' that ' the herds of the field calve ' by inspiration." Of course any half idiot can see that this is infi- delity in the thinnest disguise. If the inspiration 2 18 IS THE BIBLE INSPIRED? of the Bible is only the inspiration common to men who may write readable books, nay, common to the lower animals and to inanimate creation, it is worse than foolish to say that the Bible contains a revela- tion at all. Hence such a view needs no discussion, for it is unworthy of refutation. There is not a particle of difference between it and the coarse blas- phemies of Tom Payne and Bob Ingersoll, except that it is more decent in its expressions, and more respectful in its treatment of God's great book. Another view, scarcely less dangerous in its prac^ tical effects, but held by men of undoubted piety and ability, and of general soundness in the faith, supposes that there are different degrees in inspira- tion. Drs. Hill and Dick taught their theological classes that there is an inspiration of superintend- ence, an inspi-ration of elevation, and an inspiration of suggestion. Dr. Henderson increased the num- ber to five, the inspiration of excitement, the in- spiration of invigoration, the inspiration of super- intendence, the inspiration of guidance, and the inspiration of direct revelation. They imagined that the Holy Spirit was not needed, when the writers of the Bible were able to discover for them- selves the facts which they recorded, as their his- torical narratives, and that divine help was be- stowed in exact proportion to the necessities of the penmen. In other words, God threw them upon their own resources, and when nature failed, He interposed to supply the information which they could not otherwise obtain. Yet, Dr. Hill admits that, at least, '*in the prophecies which the New Testament contains, MODERN THEORIES OF INSPIRATION. 19 there must have been the inspiration of suggestion. Neither the words nor the thoughts could there come by the will of man ; and the writers spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost." Dr. Dick has most completely refuted his own. view when he says, '' Others have maintained, that the inspira- tion of the apostles was only occasional ; that they were not always assisted and guided by the Holy Spirit; and that consequently, being sometimes left to themselves, they thought and reasoned like ordinary men. As this is a mere hypothesis, un- supported by proof, it is entitled to very little attention. If admitted, it would involve us in very great perplexity, because, not knowing when they did, and when they did not, enjoy the presence of the Spirit, we should be utterly at a loss to deter- mine what parts of their writings we ought to be- lieve. There would be truth, and there might be error in them , but how to distinguish and separate them, would puzzle the wisest head. And it comes to the same thing at last, whether you say that they were not inspired at all, or that they were inspired on certain occasions, while you do not furnish us with the means of* ascertaining those occasions.'' And it comes to the same thing at last, it may be addedjWhether you say, that they were not inspired at all, or that they were inspired in various degrees, while you do not furnish us with the means of ascertaining what portion of the Bible was written by inspiration, and what portion was left to man's treacherous memory, and fallible judgment, and educational facilities, and peculiar temperament, and natural prejudice, and inborn tendency to lie. 20 IS THE BIBLE INSPIRED? Dr. Bannerman, Professor of Theology in New College, Edinburgh, has truly said, ''The origin and occasion of this theory cast no small measure of light upon the character of it. It was intro- duced avowedly for the purpose of meeting the allegations of error and imperfection in Scripture, and in order to reconcile the existence of real de- fects with the belief of a divine agency employed in the composition of it. And had there been any foundation of truth in the theory itself, it would have answered the pur^^ose for which it was used. Wherever imperfection existed in Scripture, it was sufficient for the advocates of such a scheme to say that there the human element was present to the exclusion of the divine, and that the error was due to the former in the absence of the latter. The theory was undoubtedly based upon a compromise between the friends and the enemies of inspiration, in which the enemies were allowed to retain the errors which they alleged in the sacred volume, and the friends were enabled to account for them, while yet retaining the general doctrine of an in- spiration, at least in name." As the theory, how- ever, is totally abandoned, or, at least, is never advanced, it requires no further notice. There is yet another theory, still more absurd than the last, which is now commonly held, and held by many who claim to be thoroughly evan- gelical. It supposes that the thoughts of the Scrip- ture writers were inspired — that is, that the Holy Spirit gave them correct conceptions of the truth to be recorded, and then left them wholly to their own taste and understanding and mental culture to MODERN THEORIES OF INSPIRATION. 21 select the words which form the vehicle for the transmission of these thoughts into utterance. Truly this would be a mockery of our agony in the yearning of the soul to know what God has said to a lost world. It would be like one pointing us to a priceless treasure locked in a casket, and then throwing away the key and leaving us as poor as ever. However true or important or sublime the thoughts may be, they are of no value to us, unless expressed in words that suitably and accurately convey them to our minds, for we can get at thoughts only through words. It is the same, therefore, as saying that we have no Bible at all to affirm that the thoughts of the writers were inspired, but that their words were compelled to run the cha.xces of human error or ignorance. So far as we knew men really think only in words, and if God could have inspired the thoughts of these penmen, and then cast them upon their own choice to select language for the utterance of their thoughts, we would have precisely the same ground for our faith and hope, which we find in uninspired authors, neither more nor less. There would be no divine testimony, and therefore no certainty about any- thing that touches the tremendous question of our salvation. But apart from this conclusive objection to the view, whijch, alas ! now seems to be generally enter- tained, it is enough to say that there is not a line in the Bible to give it the least foundation. As Dr. Bannerman has well said again, " All these theories of inspiration are wrong, simply because they are theories — human and unauthorized at- 22 IS THE BIBLE INSPIRED ? tempts to explain a supernatural mystery, the real- ity of which is plainly asserted in the Bible, but the solution of which is left untouched. But some of them [and this among them] are still further wrong as running counter to the facts which they are framed to explain." Never was the caution more needed than here, " not to think above that which is written," (1 Cor. iv. 6), for man is no more competent to deal with the mystery of inspiration than he is with the mystery of the incarnation. We only know, and thank God for it, that we have a book divinely inspired, divinely infallible both in its thoughts and words ; and while we may be assured of this by the Scriptures themselves, we are not called to fathom the infinitudes of Jeho- vah's unsearchable wisdom and knowledge. When He has spoken, it is our privilege to stand firmly and fearlessly upon the truth of His testimony ; when He has not spoken, it is wisdom on our part to be silent. There is one other theory of inspiration called dynamic, whatever that means. But it has no mean- ing. It is a high sounding term, which, like many other high-sounding terms, is only a sound, for it has no sense. If those who use the expression intend by it powerful, efficient, or that which is effectual for attaining the end and accomplishing the purpose for which revelation was given, it ex- plains nothing and helps nothing to the better un- derstanding of the subj ect . If they intend by it that the power or the influence is from God while the action is human, the term is admissable ; but it leaves us just where we were before, to inquire MODERN THEORIES OF INSPIRATION. 23 whether there is a plenary inspiration of the Scrip- tures, and of all the Scriptures ; that is, a full, complete inspiration, "an inspiration in which there is no mixture whatever of error," or whether revelation comes to us in an imperfect and mutilated form, the thoughts originating with God, the words descending from no higher source than man's poor intellect. The importance of this inquiry it is impossible to overstate. Itis obvious that upon the conclusion we reach will largely depend our interest in the study of the Scriptures, our confidence in the testi- mony they bear, and our certainty as to the ground of our standing before God for all eternity. More- over, whether we are living " in the last days" or not, these are certainly ''perilous times," for the state of the world, the unrest of men, the plottings of revolutionists, the decay of ancient governments, the rapid spread of communism, nihilism, agnos- ticism and hydra-headed infidelity, the hurricanes rushing through the air, the disasters upon land and sea, crowding each other so rapidly that it is impossible to keep them in memory, the marked increase of rationalism in the church itself, all por- tend that we are called to face formidable dangers, and that we stand at the threshhold of momentous changes. If we have no earnest and positive faith in the Bible as the very word of God, where shall we look for guidance and comfort and refuge ? "If the foundations be destroyed what can the right- eous do?" Prof. Green, of Princeton Theological Seminary, in his crushing review of Prof. Robertson's Smith's 24 IS THE BIBLE INSPIRED? ''Higher Criticism," opens his admirable book with these words : " All the signs of the times indi- cate that the American church, and, in fact, the whole of English-speaking Christendom, is upon the eve of an agitation upon the vital and fundamen- tal question of the inspiration and infallibility of the Bible, such as it has never known before. The divinity and authorship of the Scriptures have heretofore been defended against the outside world of unbelievers, against pagans, infidels and skep- tics ; but the question is now raised, and the supreme authority of the Scriptures contested within the church itself. In the controversies which have agitated the churches of Great Britain and of this country heretofore, the infallible author- ity of Scripture has been admitted as the ultimate test of doctrine by all contending parties. All made their appeal to this standard. The settlement of every question depended upon its interpretation, or upon inferences fairly deducible from it. But now the standard is itself brought into question. Utterances which fill the air upon every side, and are borne to us from every quarter, from professors' chairs, from pulpits, from the religious press, not to speak of what is incidentally woven into general literature and promiscuous conversation, show abundantly that the burning question of the age is not. What does the Bible teach? It is one yet more radical and fundamental : What is the Bible ? In what sense is it the word of God? Is it a rev- elation from him and divinely authoritative ; or is it to be left to ihh interpreter to say what in it is from God and worthv of our faith, and what is the MODERN THEORIES OF INSPIRATION. 25 fallible human element that may be rej ected ? This question is approached from all sides, and the most diverse and conflicting answers have been given." Again he says in his introductory chapter : ' ' The venerable Dr. Hodge, who w^as for nearly three score years the glory and strength of Princeton Seminary, was called upon for some remarks in the Week of Prayer, at the beginning, I think, of the last year of his life. The subject before the meet- ing was the conversion of the world. It was his habit, on such occasions, to present a cheering view derived from the progress which the gospel had made or was making, or from the accomplished work of redemption which is the assured basis of the world's salvation, or the unfailing promise of God which makes the issue certain ; but at the time referred to he recited, in long and formidable array, the various forms of opposition which are directed against the gospel within the bounds of Christendom itself — the materialistic philosophy, the oppositions of science, the socialistic excesses — and showed in what various ways unsanctified learning, power and influence in irreligious hands, and unchrist- ianized masses, stand as barriers to the progress of truth and holiness. His aim was not to discourage, but to present a truthful and sober view of the actual aspect of the world, and of the forces which are at war against the progress of the gospel. It was the trumpet-call of the veteran who had fought his battles and won his victories, summoning new recruits to the holy war, and uttering loud notes of warning, that the strife was by no means ended ; that there are many and fierce battles yet to fight. 26 IS THE BIBLE INSPIRED? and that others must take up the weapons which he was laying down. We are coming now, as it would seem, to the culmination of the struggle. The battle rages around the citadel. No drones or cowards are wanted now." It is a significant fact that the man who for half a century stood as the leading witness for the truth in America, felt constrained to sound such a note of warning amid his last public utterances. That it was a needed and timely note has been plainly shown by the current of events since his departure to be with the Lord. Professors in theological seminaries, that claim to be evangelical, have sought to tear the pentateuch into shreds, denying in the face of Christ's oft-repeated testimony, that Moses was its human author, pretending to discover in it the traces of many writers and redactors and sub-redactors, and asserting with amazing effron- tery that Deuteronomy was not known until the time of King Josiah, nor Leviticus until the time of Ezra. Meanwhile the most popular preacher in the United States travels through the country scouting the Bible account of the creation of man, whom he prefers to regard as a developed tadpole, denouncing with fierce invective the God of the Calvinist, and denying the punishment of the wicked in the future world. All such men, and their numbers are rapidly in- creasing, are in secret sympathy, and many of them in confessed sympathy with the Unitarian Review of September, 1883, which boldly says : ^' According to Unitarianism man judges the Bible. According to Orthodoxy the Bible judges man. On MODERN THEORIES OF INSPIRATION. 27 this point everything turns. Newman Smyth, in a moment when he was evidently not thinking of denominational barriers, gave expression to this sentiment : ' When Jesus said, Every one that is of the truth heareth my voice. He declared, unequiv- ocally, that the sense of moral truth within man is the test of revelation.' . . . Some would say. The mind of the Christ is the testimony to truth, but how are we to know the mind of the Christ ? How are we to discriminate the thought of Jesus from that of Confucius or Rousseau, except by the exercise of that cultivated and inherited moral and intellectual sense which is the birthright of our race. Let us be 'consistent on this point of the authority of truth." For brazen impudence and self-conceit this is hard to surpass. Each man's cultivated and in- herited moral and intellectual sense is to sit in judgment upon God's word, and to treat it as his idea of truth demands. Ingersoll's cultivated and inherited moral and intellectual sense, and his con- ception of truth, lead him to pour forth a torrent of the foulest and vilest abuse of the Bible and the Saviour ; but according to the requirement of this Unitarian Review he is entirely right. What, how- ever, is to be the final judge with those who have no cultivated and inherited moral and intellectual sense, the mass of ruffians who furnish an unfailing supply of thieves and burglars and murderers, and crowd our jails and state prisons ? Of course we should be consistent on this point of the authority of truth, and approve their conduct when they spurn the Bible with obscene jest, and honestly believe that they have a right to prey upon their fellow men. 28 IS THE BIBLE INSPIRED ? If the sentiment of this Review, now so widely accepted beyond the ranks of Unitarian infidelity, is correct, and every man is left to decide for him- self what in the Bible is worthy of respect, and what is to be despised as error, the advice of Job's wife to her distressed husband was eminently wise, for we can do no better thing than to '^ curse God and die." We have no Bible, or at least a Bible that is not worth a straw. What one man's cul- tivated and inherited moral and intellectual sense may accept as reasonable, and according to his view of truth, may seem to another absurd ; and so each one picks out the little that may suit his own appetite, rejecting all the rest. Alas ! it comes to this : Have we any Bible at all ? If so, is it inspired ? Is all of it inspired ? Is it inspired in such way that in reading its words we may be assured we are reading the words of God? Can we rest our faith and our hope of eternal life upon the Scriptures, the very writings, as perfectly truthful and free from error in their narratives, their doctrines and their promises? This is the question which it is proposed to discuss by consult-' ing the writings to see what they say of themselves. Let no one imagine that the method of investigation here adopted is a begging of the question, for the argument is not addressed to the infidel, but to those who already believe that the Bible is in some way, and to some extent at least, the book of God. It is perfectly proper, therefore, and indeed, it is the only course left open to ask what the book affirms of its own inspiration. III. THE INSPIRATION OF THE HISTORICAL BOOKS AND PSALMS OF THE OLD TESTAMENT. fHE moment we open the Bible the eye rests upon the words, ''God said." These words occur ten times in the first chapter of Genesis, and the same words, or the equivalent expressions, ''the Lord said," "God," or "the Lord spake, saying," "thus saith the Lord," " the word of the Lord came," are found 501 times in the Pentateuch, 292 times in the historical book and Psalms, 1111 time in the Prophets, or 1904 times in the Old Tes- tament, besides almost innumerable allusions to the words contained in these ancient Scriptures, as in fact the words of Jehovah. It is undeniable that from the time of Moses to the time ©f Malachi, those who claimed to be the revealers of the divine will usually commence the message, which they declared they were commis- sioned to deliver, with some such preface as " Thus saith the Lord." Then follow certain words, sometimes many and sometimes few, sometimes addressed to an entire nation, sometimes addressed to a group or family, sometimes addressed to in- dividuals ; and it is admitted that the persons utter- ing the words wished them to be understood as directly received from God himself, and plainly declared that they were so received. There is not an intimation that they were communicating only the thoughts of God, or that they were giving in 29 30 IS THE BIBLE INSPIRED ? substance what He told them to reveal, but there is a positive assertion that they were repeating the words which He commanded them to speak. The question at once arises, were these men mis- taken ? Were they deceived? Were they deceivers, coming before their hearers with a proclamation that God had directed them to make certain state- ments in certain forms of expression, and yet, after all, He had given them no such direction ? If this be so, there is manifestly an end of the Bible and of revelation, and not one of their statements upon any subject can be worthy of the slightest credit. Very frequently they used words touching events that were still in the future when they spoke or wrote, and they did not hesitate to enter into the minutest details concerning these predicted events, foretelling, for example, the very name of Cyrus, the precise number of years that should be spent in Egyptian bondage and in Babylonian captivity, and giving more than one hundred particulars with regard to the birth, life, death and character of the promised Messiah. Later Scriptures affirm that every one of these particulars was literally fulfilled, and if these later Scriptures tell the truth, it is evident that the very words in which the predictions were made must have been communicated to the ancient prophets. Inspired thoughts, apart from inspired words, could have been of no force in the numerous instances of this kind found all through the Old Testament. But again, there are very many artless narratives purporting to give accounts of personal interviews between the Creator and his creatures. Thus we HISTORICAL BOOKS AND PSALMS. 31 are told that '' the Lord God commanded the man, saying, Of every tree of the garden thou mayest freely eat, but of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil thou shalt not eat of it," (Gen. ii. 16, 17). "And the Lord God called unto Adam and said unto him. Where art thou? . . . And the Lord God said unto the woman, What is this that thou hast done ? (Gen. iii. 9-13). '' And the Lord said unto Cain, Where is Abel, thy brother ?" (Gen. iv. 9). '' And the Lord said unto Noah, Come thou, and all thy house, into the ark," (Gen. vii. 1). ''And the Lord appeared unto Abram and said, Unto thy seed will I give this land," (Gen. xii. 7). ''And when Abram was ninety years old and nine the Lord appeared to Abram and said unto him, I am the almighty God ; walk before me and be thou perfect," (Gen. xvii. 1). The same directand per- sonal intercourse between God and man addressing each other in customary converse and articulate human speech appears in almost every chapter of Genesis, embracing a period of about 2500 years of the world's history. In like manner, when we turn to Exodus, we see it recorded that " God said unto Moses, I AM THAT I AM," (Ex. iii. 14). That "afterward Moses and Aaron went in and told Pharaoh, Thus saith the Lord God of Israel," (Ex. v. 1). " Then the Lord said unto Moses," (Ex. vi. 1). "And the Lord said unto Moses," (Ex. vii. 1). "And the Lord spake unto Moses," (Ex. viii. 1). "Then the Lord said unto Moses," (Ex. ix. 1). " And the Lord said unto Moses," (Ex. x. 1). "And the Lord said unto Moses," (Ex. xi. 1). " And the 32 IS THE BIBLE INSPIRED ? Lord spake unto Moses and Aaron in the land of Egypt, saying," (Ex. xii. 1). "And the Lord spake unto Moses, saying," (Ex. xiii. 1). "Then said the Lord unto Moses," (Ex. xvi. 4). "And the Lord called unto him out of the mountain, say- ing," (Ex. xix. 3). "And God spake all these words, saying, I am the Lord thy God, which have brought thee out of the land of Egypt, out of the house of bondage," (Ex. xx. 1, 2). " And the tables were the work of God, and the writing was the writing of God, graven upon the tables," (Ex. xxxii. 16). " And the Lord spake unto Moses, face to face, as a man speaketh unto his friend," (Ex. xxxiii. 11). Is all this, and much more like it, true, or is it false ? Did Moses and others only imagine that the Lord spoke to them, or did they pretend that He had spoken to them in order to maintain their power by the appearance of divine authority and sanction ? Or did they mean that He did not speak to them but merely excited their thoughts to nobler conceptions and sublimer aspirations, so that their exalted ideas were the same in practical effect as if He had spoken in actual words ? If there is any deception or delusion about it, evidently there is nothing in the Bible upon which we can rest with the least degree of certainty and confidence, for the writers prove themselves to be impostors or fanat- ics, worthy of nothing but contempt ; and at best we are left to vague conjecture as to the value of its testimony upon any subject. On the other hand, if these repeated declarations are to be taken in their natural and obvious import, it is definitely HISTORICAL BOOKS AND PSALMS. 33 established that God can communicate and that He has communicated not only His thoughts but His words to men, and that His words at any rate are unquestionably inspired. But let us see how clearly this inspiration of words, when uttered by His commissioned servants, is proved at His first appearance to Moses, who recoiled from the task which was set before him, and " said unto the Lord, O, my Lord, I am not eloquent, neither heretofore nor since thou hast spoken unto thy servant, but I am slow of speech and of a slow tongue . And the Lord said unto him , Who hath made man's mouth? . . . Now, therefore, go and I will be with thy mouth and teach thee what thou shalt say." (Ex. iv. 10-12). Here, it will be observed, God promises to be not only with his mind but with his mouth, and to teach him not only what to think but what to say. He was not required to rely upon his own choice or culture for the selection of suitable language with which he was to address the Israelites and Pharoah ; but notwithstanding his lack of eloquence, and although he was slow of speech and of a slow tongue, he would experience no difficulty in delivering his message, because he would speak what his divine Teacher told him to utter. Does not this at once account for a fact, otherwise unaccountable, that the same Moses who "was very meek above all the men which were upon the face of the earth," afterward said to the children of Israel, ''Ye shall not add to the word which I command you, neither shall ye diminish ought from it,"? (Deut. iv. 2). Would such a man assert 3 34 IS THE BIBLE INSPIRED ? such a claim for the value, the sacredness, the im- mutable perfection of the least word, unless he knew that it was not his word but God's ? Again he says, " These words which I command thee this day- shall be in thine heart ; and thou shalt teach them diligently unto thy children, and shalt talk of them when thou sittest in thine house, and when thou walkest by the way, and when thou liest down, and when thou risest up. And thou shalt bind them for a sign upon thine hand, and they shall be as frontlets between thine eyes. And thou shalt WTite them upon the posts of thy house and on thy gates," (Deut. vi. 6-9). Surely they were not the words' of Moses alone which were exalted to this place of supreme ex- cellence and of divine authority, and of vital moment to the present and eternal interests of the people and their children, and which led the man, who had long before renounced all ambition, to repeat the solemn warning, " What thing soever I com- mand you, observe to do it ; thou shalt not add thereto, nor diminish from it," (Deut. xii. 82). He remembered the promise of God at the com- mencement of his painful and self-denying work, '' I will be with thy mouth and teach thee what thou shalt say;" and he knew that the words he uttered were the words of God, which man must not seek to improve, nor to change in the least syllable or letter. Among the last acts of his sorely tried and toilsome life, he " made an end of writing the words of this law," [that is, as contained in the Pentateuch,] " and put it in the side of the ark of the covenant of the Lord" as an inspired witness of HISTORICAL BOOKS AND PSALMS. 35 God's truth, (Deut. xxxi. 24). We must conclude with the lowest of infidels that Moses was a cun- ning and cruel trickster who played upon the super- stition of his brethren, or we must acknowledge that his words were given by inspiration of God. There is another man mentioned in the Penta- teuch who was unlike Moses in every respect. This was Balaam, " who loved the wages of un- righteousness," and who was willing enough to curse Israel for the sake of the reward offered by Balak, King of Moab. The monarch was impatient with the prophet for so long delaying to obey his summons, not knowing that words had been put into the mouth even of a dumb ass to rebuke that prophet for his madness, ''and Balak said unto Balaam, Did I not earnestly send unto thee to call thee ? Wherefore camest thou not unto me ? Am I not able indeed to promote thee to honor ? And Balaam said unto Balak, Lo, I am come unto thee ; have I any power at all to say anything? The word that God putteth in my mouth that shall I speak," (Num. xxii. 37, 38). He did not say the thought that God putteth in my mind, but the word that God putteth in my mouth ; and the sub- sequent part of the narrative shows that he uttered words he did not wish to utter — words he was com- pelled to pronounce in obedience to a mightier and an irresistible power — words that condemned him- self—words that foretell his doom at the second coming of Christ as he exclaims, *' I shall see him but not now ; I shall behold him but not nigh" — words that reach on to the final catastrophe at the close of the present dispensation, causing him to 36 IS THE BIBLE INSPIRED ? cry out in terror : " Alas, who shall live when God doeth this ?" It is certain, therefore, that whether the words of the" true prophets were or were not in- spired, the words put into the mouth of the ass, and the words of the false prophet were inspired, for he was the unwilling medium of their utterance. So it was in the historical books, when Saul sent messengers to take David, and ''the Spirit of God was upon the messengers of Saul, and they also prophesied. And when it was told Saul he sent other messengers, and they prophesied likewise. And Saul sent messengers again the third time, and they prophesied also. Then went he also to Ramah, . . . and the Spirit of God was upon him also," (1 Sam. xix. 20-23). Clearly it is not a question here of inspired thoughts, but of words that flowed from lips subject to the external and overpowering will of the Holy Spirit like the keys of an instrument under a master hand, compelling them to yield the sound he wishes them to produce. Or look again at the old prophet of Bethel, who in- vited the prophet of Judah to eat bread with him. The latter had been charged by the word of the Lord, saying. Eat no bread nor drink water in the land under Jeroboam's rule ; but he yielded to the entreaty and accepted the invitation of his brother. '' And it came to pass, as they sat at the table, that the word of the Lord came unto the prophet that brought him back, and he cried unto the man of God that came from Judah, saying. Thus saith the Lord," and then immediately announced the doom of his guest, although not wishing to speak what \ he was compelled to say, (1 Kings xiii. 20). These HISTORICAL BOOKS A>'D PSALMS. 37 will doubtless be accepted by all Christians as proofs and examples of verbal inspiration, but they are not more remarkable than the fact that the Lord spoke to the child Samuel words, the very meaning of which the child could not fully understand, or the fact that '^ the word of the Lord came unto Nathan," (1 Sam. iii. 11 ; 2 Sam. vii. 4), or many similar facts recorded in the same books. Among the last words of David we have the foU lowing striking testimony : " The Spirit of the Lord spake by me, and His word was in my tongue," (2 Sam. xxiii. 2). He does not say, The spirit of the Lord thought by me, but spake by me; nor does he say, the truth of God was in my mind, but His word was in my tongue. That is, what he spake, he spake as the mouth-piece of the Spirit, and the word which his tongue proclaimed was the word of God. Hence it is not surprising to find scattered through the Psalms such strong expressions as these: '' The words of the Lord are pure words, as silver ^ tried in a furnace of earth, purified seven times," (Ps. xii. 6). " The law of the Lord is perfect, con- verting the soul ; the testimony of the Lord is sure, making wise the simple ; the statutes of the Lord are right, rejoicing the heart; the commandment of the Lord is pure, enlightening the eyes," (Ps. xix. 7, 8). " Forever O Lord, thy word is settled in heaven." '^ Thy word is a lamp unto my feet, and a light unto my path." '* The entrance of thy words giveth light." " Thy word is true from the beginning," or as Dr. Clark renders it, '^ true from the first word," (Ps. cxix.). " Thou hast magnified thy word above all thy name," or above any other