Skip to main content

Full text of "Inspiration"

See other formats 


Shelf  No. 


LIBRARY 


TORONTO 


STACKS  + 

Register  No.     \V1  - 


INSPIRATION 


BY  THE  LATE 

FREDERICK   WATSON,   D.D. 

FELLOW  AND  THEOLOGICAL  LECTURER  IN  ST.  JOHN'S  COLLEGE,  CAMBRIDGE 

VICAR  OF  ST.  EDWARD'S,  CAMBRIDGE;  HON.  CANON  OF  ELY  CATHEDRAL 
I  AND  EXAMINING  CHAPLAIN  TO  THE  BISHOP  OF  ELY;  FORMERLY 

TYRWHITT  AND  CROSSE  SCHOLAR  IN  THE  UNIVERSITY 
HULSEAN  LECTURER,  1882 


I     f 


PUBLISHED  UNDER  THE  DIRECTION  OF  THE  TRACT  COMMITTEE 


LONDON 

SOCIETY  FOR   PROMOTING  CHRISTIAN   KNOWLEDGE 
NORTHUMBERLAND  AVENUE,  W.C. 

43,    QUEEN   VICTORIA   STREET,   E.C. 

BRIGHTON:  129,  NORTH  STREET 

NEW  YORK  :  E.  S.  GORHAM 

1906 


CONTENTS 


INTRODUCTORY  NOTE  ...     ...     ...     ...  "i 

I.  THE  PREFACE    ...     ...     ...     ...  i 

II.  INSPIRATION,   WHAT  IT  is — DIFFERENT  KINDS  OF 

INSPIRATION — USE  OF  THE  WORD  IN  HOLY  SCRIP 
TURE — DISTINCTION  BETWEEN  REVELATION,  IN 
SPIRATION,  AND  THE  BIBLE  ...  ...  ...  14 

III.  How  ALL  TEACHING  COMES  TO  MAN             ...  25 

IV.  WHAT  ANALOGY  INDICATES  AS  TO  THE  GENERAL 

METHOD  OF  GOD'S  WORKING  ...            ...            ...  39 

V.    WHAT  is  LEARNED  BY  ANALOGY  FROM  THE  SPECIAL 

WORKING  OF  THE  SPIRIT  OF  GOD              ...  52 

VI.    PROOFS  OF  THE  DIVINE  INSPIRATION  OF  THE  BIBLE  58 

VII.    PROOF  FROM  THE  BIBLICAL  DOCTRINE  OF  SIN  67 

VIII.    PROOF  FROM  THE  HARMONY  OF  THE  TEACHING  ...  74 

IX.    PROOF    FROM    THE    PURITY    OF    THE    BIBLICAL 

TEACHING            ...           ...           ...           ...  78 

X.    PROOF  FROM  THE  ABIDINGNESS  OF  THE  BIBLICAL 

TEACHING     ...           ...           ...           ...           ...  86 

XI.    PROOF  FROM  THE  HISTORY  OF  ISRAEL          ...  91 
XII.     PROOF  FROM  COMPARISON  OF  THE  RELIGIONS  OF 

BABYLON  AND  THE  BIBLE       ...           ...           ...  103 

XIII.  PROOF  FROM  PROPHECY       ...           ...           ...  134 

XIV.  THE  HUMAN  ELEMENT  IN  THE  BIBLE  ...           ...  148 

XV.    THE  COMPOSITION  OF  THE  BOOKS  OF  THE  BIBLE  A 

WORK  OF  MAN   ...           ...           ...            ...  152 

XVI.    THE  CANON  AND  THE  TEXT  OF  HOLY  SCRIPTURE  177 
XVII.    THE  IMPERFECTIONS  AND  ERRORS  OF  HOLY  SCRIP 
TURE             ...           ...           ...           ...           ...  189 

XVIII.    DEGREES  IN  INSPIRATION    ...           ...           ...  205 

XIX.    HISTORY  OF  THE  DOCTRINE  OF  INSPIRATION       ...  216 

XX.    CONCLUSION           ...           ...           ...            ...  234 


FREDERICK    WATSON 

ON  New  Year's  Day,  1906,  Cambridge  lost  one  of 
its  principal  teachers,  and  the  University  and 
Town  one  of  their  most  prominent  members  and 
citizens,  when  Frederick  Watson  passed  away.  His 
life  since  he  went  up  to  Cambridge  forty  years  ago 
had  revolved  round  two  centres,  the  cause  of  the 
Church  of  Christ  in  parochial  work  and  in  the  teach 
ing  of  Theology.  By  these  he  sought  to  promote  the 
glory  of  God  and  the  increase  of  learning  and  virtue 
with  a  definiteness  that  gave  a  marked  consistency  to 
a  strenuous  and  vigorous  life. 

Watson  was  born  in  the  city  of  York  in  1844, 
and  went  to  the  Cathedral  School,  St.  Peter's  College 
as  it  is  officially  designated.  His  attention  was 
directed  principally  to  Mathematics,  and  he  gained 
an  open  Exhibition  at  St.  John's,  which  was  exchanged 
next  year  for  a  Foundation  Scholarship. 

In  his  undergraduate  days  he  lived  the  life  of  a 
student,  making  his  Tripos  and  his  religious  duties 
the  main  business  for  which  he  came  up. 

His  Tripos  was  that  of  1868,  in  which  he  was 
placed  twelfth.  It  was  a  year  productive  of  notable 
men,  no  less  than  four  of  our  Judges  being  in  that 
Tripos  :  Moulton  (Senior  Wrangler),  Buckley,  Sutton, 
and  Barnes,  besides  Kennedy,  who  was  Senior  Classic. 

a  2 


iv  FREDERICK   WATSON 

The  Second  Wrangler  was  Sir  George  Darwin  ;  the 
present  Astronomer  Royal,  Christie,  was  fourth,  and 
the  Master  of  Sidney  third,  so  that  it  was  a  remark 
ably  strong  year.  But  Watson  immediately  turned 
to  Theological  studies,  taking  the  Theological  exami 
nation  for  Graduates  which  was  afterwards  formed 
into  the  Theological  Tripos  :  and  he  won  the  Hulsean 
Prize  for  an  Essay  on  the  Ante-Nicene  apologies. 
He  then  secured  in  succession  the  Carus  Greek 
Testament  prize,  the  Crosse  scholarship,  and  the 
Tyrrvvhitt  Hebrew  scholarship,  laying  the  foundations 
for  a  most  promising  academic  career.  In  1871  he 
was  elected  to  a  Fellowship.  He  was  ordained  in 
1871  and  served  the  curacy  of  Stow-cum-Ouy,  near 
Cambridge,  where  he  acquired  a  love  for  the  pastoral 
work  which  ever  afterwards  lay  very  near  his  aca 
demic  interests,  even  if  it  was  not  actually  the  stronger 
attraction.  He  then  took  the  curacy  of  St.  Giles 
under  Francis  Slater,  whose  name  is  still  honoured 
in  Cambridge,  and  with  him  Watson  had  the  most 
intimate  mental  and  spiritual  sympathies.  As  for 
efficiency,  Slater  said  afterwards  when  surrounded 
by  three  or  even  more  "  half-time  curates,"  College 
Fellows  mostly,  that  the  parish  was  never  so  well 
worked  as  when  he  and  Watson  alone  were  the  staff". 
Money  was  none  too  plentiful,  and  the  future  had  to 
be  provided  for,  yet  Watson's  Yorkshire  thriftiness 
did  not  prevent  his  expending  a  sum  which  came  to 
him  while  curate,  upon  a  mission  room  in  that  parish 
which  no  one  else  came  forward  to  provide.  As  he 
had  gone  up  to  Cambridge  from  an  Evangelical 
family  a  change  had  in  some  way  been  effected  in  his 
theological  views  but  inquiries  have  failed  to  elicit 


FREDERICK   WATSON  v 

any  personal  sources  of  influence,  and  it  may  be  pre 
sumed  that  the  tone  of  Professors  Jeremie,  Sehvyn, 
Swainson,  and  Lightfoot,  which  was  effective  in 
Cambridge  at  that  time,  was  congenial  to  Watson's 
temper  and  led  him  quietly  towards  the  calm  and 
cautious  churchmanship  by  which  Cambridge  has  been 
privileged  to  influence  a  large  number  of  English 
Churchmen.  But  Watson  was  never  an  extremist, 
emphatically  never  a  "  Ritualist,"  for  as  C.  B.  D.  wrote 
in  the  Church  Times,  "  he  held  that  ritual  divorced  from 
teaching  was  next  to  useless,  and  therefore  he  used 
ritual  as  a  means  of  teaching  the  Catholic  Faith,"  and 
though  he  joined  the  "  English  Church  Union "  he 
often  felt  qualms  about  what  was  done  by  that  Society, 
and  in  the  end  he  felt  obliged  to  leave  it. 

His  Cambridge  life  was  suspended  in  1878  when 
he  accepted  the  College  living  of  Starston  in  Norfolk  : 
but  not  for  long,  as  the  College  required  an  addition 
to  the  Theological  staff  when  the  present  Master 
vacated  a  Lectureship,  and  Mr.  C.  W.  E.  Body  went 
to  Canada,  and  Watson  was  invited  to  lecture  without 
leaving  Starston.  For  some  years  he  spent  part  of 
the  week  in  College,  lecturing  in  Theology  and 
latterly  assisting  Mr.  Mason  in  Hebrew.  It  was  an 
inconvenient  arrangement,  and  he  gladly  accepted 
an  invitation  to  be  Vicar  of  Ouy  in  1887,  combining 
this  with  his  lectures  more  easily.  In  1893  he  was 
appointed  by  Trinity  Hall  to  be  Vicar  of  St.  Edward's, 
the  Church  of  Maurice  and  Harvey  Goodwin,  and 
became  a  resident  of  Cambridge  altogether.  On  the 
retirement  of  Mr.  Mason  in  1904,  Watson  became 
principal  College  lecturer  in  Hebrew  and  in  Theology, 
with  the  further  title  of  Director  of  Theological  Studies 


vi  FREDERICK  WATSON 

in  the  College.  In  the  varied  occupations  of  these 
offices  together  with  those  of  his  parish  he  was  em 
ployed,  when  after  several  recurrences  of  exhaustion 
and  heart-trouble  he  had  the  seizure  on  January  ist 
which  laid  him  on  his  study-couch  and  closed  his 
earthly  life. 

Outside  the  College,  high  conscientiousness  made 
his  pastoral  duties  a  real  "  care "  to  him  :  the  pre 
paration  of  sermons,  frequently  two  for  every  Sunday, 
of  addresses  and  lessons  to  classes,  consumed  much 
energy.  All  his  sermons  were  prepared  with  scru 
pulous  attention  and  delivered  with  emphasis,  and 
must  have  drawn  considerably  on  his  mental  forces. 
It  was  in  consequence  of  this,  we  think  we  are  fully 
justified  in  saying,  that  he  was  not  able  to  devote 
time  and  thought  to  the  laborious  historical  and 
critical  studies  which  won  favour  at  Cambridge,  and 
have  brought  the  University  into  its  special  position 
in  theology  in  recent  years.  He  was  therefore  never 
elected  to  a  professorship,  equipped  though  he  was 
for  studying,  lecturing,  aed  writing,  with  the  abilities 
to  which  his  University  record  bore  witness  ;  and  his 
friends  always  desired  for  him  the  opportunity  of 
leisure  and  the  stimulus  afforded  by  a  University  Chair. 
He  issued  an  address  to  the  electors  to  the  Margaret 
Professorship  on  the  death  of  Hort,  but  Lumby 
secured  a  wider  support. 

For  University  business  he  had  little  taste,  and 
instead  of  it,  he  took  part  in  such  town  affairs  as  bore 
closely  on  his  duties  as  one  of  the  town  incumbents. 
In  the  elementary  schools  he  was  keenly  interested, 
and  held  several  laborious  offices ;  and  for  some  years 
he  was  one  of  the  local  secretaries  for  S.P.G.,  and 


FREDERICK   WATSON  vii 

organized  an  association  for  missionary  study  and 
intercession.  In  the  diocese  his  position  was  recog 
nized  by  Bishop  Alwyne  Compton,  who  conferred 
upon  him  one  of  the  honorary  canonries  of  Ely 
Cathedral,  and  just  before  his  death  Dr.  Chase  had 
appointed  him  one  of  his  Examining  Chaplains. 

Among  his  pastoral  duties  Watson  found  time — 
or  rather  made  time — for  an  extension  of  his  work  at 
St.  Edward's  by  instituting  a  Sunday  afternoon 
Children's  Service  designed  for  the  children  of  house 
holds,  in  all  parishes,  who  were  not  in  the  habit 
of  resorting  to  the  ordinary  Sunday  schools.  The 
response  was  very  encouraging  to  him,  and  Sunday 
by  Sunday  a  large  number  of  the  children  of  Univer 
sity  residents  and  others  benefited  by  his  admirable 
addresses.  He  never  spared  himself  in  preparing 
them  ;  indeed,  he  had  a  special  interest  in  them,  and 
by  his  keen  sympathy  with  young  minds  of  intelli 
gence  and  eagerness  to  learn  and  know,  he  won  many 
friends  among  the  boys  and  girls  of  Cambridge 
homes. 

Another  line  of  activity  was  formed  by  him  in 
the  very  important  part  he  played  in  the  inception 
and  organization  of  Cambridge  Missions  in  South 
London.  He  was  for  over  twenty  years  the  mainstay 
of  the  Lady  Margaret  Mission  in  Walworth  ;  between 
the  missioners,  the  undergraduates,  the  people  in  the 
district,  and  the  old  members  of  the  College  he  was 
the  principal  link — unwearied,  hopeful,  inspiring. 

In  his  many  avocations  time  was  lacking  for  the 
production  of  theology,  and  Watson's  writings  do  not 
show  what  he  was  capable  of  doing.  They  are  "  The 
Ante-Nicene  Apologies "  (his  Hulsean  Essay),  1870; 


viii  FREDERICK  WATSON 

"  Defenders  of  the  Faith  "  (for  an  S.P.C.K.  series), 
1878;  "The  Law  and  the  Prophets"  (his  Hulsean 
Lectures),  1882;  "The  Book  of  Genesis:  a  True 
History,"  1892;  and  an  Essay  in  "Lex  Mosaica." 
But  he  had  latterly  been  pondering  over  the  subject 
of  "  Inspiration,"  and  had  written  out  his  thoughts 
upon  it.  The  Manuscript  was  found  to  be  complete 
and  it  is  now  published  practically  as  he  left  it.  It 
indicates  a  very  cautious  and  well-considered  advance 
upon  his  earlier  attitude  towards  the  results  of  critical 
studies,  and  can  hardly  fail  to  be  helpful  to  those, 
both  of  the  clergy  and  the  laity,  who  desire  to  reap 
the  benefits  of  these  studies  in  a  conservative  spirit. 
Certainly  in  all  that  he  thought,  from  beginning  to 
end,  his  hearers  and  his  readers  are  appealed  to  on 
the  ground  that  every  doctrine  must  be  judged  by 
Christian  men  not  speculatively  but  in  relation  to  the 
manifestation  of  God  in  Christ. 

In  preparing  the  Manuscript  for  the  Press  I  have 
been  assisted  by  an  old  pupil  of  Dr.  Watson's,  the 
Rev.  J.  F.  Tarleton,  Rector  of  Great  Warley,  Essex ; 
and  by  members  of  Dr.  Watson's  family. 

A.   CALDECOTT. 
September  I,  1906. 


INSPIRATION 
i 

THE    PREFACE 

is  a  widespread  feeling  abroad  that  the 
.  Higher  Criticism  has  done  something  towards 
discrediting  the  Bible,  has  deprived  it  of  something 
of  its  authority  and  value,  and  has  in  a  greater  or 
less  degree  invalidated  its  claims  to  be  considered 
the  Inspired  Word  of  God.  There  is,  in  consequence, 
a  widespread  desire  amongst  Christian  people  to 
know  how  the  case  stands.  Many  are  fearing  the 
loss  of  their  Bible,  or  are  at  least  anxious  upon  the 
point.  Some  do  not  hesitate  to  say  that  an  investiga 
tion  producing  results  so  disturbing  to  faith,  must 
be  in  itself  indefensible.  They  insist  that  any  clergy 
man  who  belongs  to  the  critical  school,  or  uses 
critical  methods,  is  ipso  facto  unfaithful  to  his  ordina 
tion  vows.  On  the  other  hand  there  are  some 
persons  who  exult  that  at  length  the  foundations 
of  religion  have  been  undermined.  It  seems  to  me 
these  feelings,  whether  of  fear,  or  dislike,  or  of 
exultation,  are  not  and  cannot  be  justified.  They 
rest  on  a  misconception  of  Higher  Criticism,  the 
nature  of  the  inquiries  it  makes,  and  the  sphere 
and  limits  of  its  action.  It  would  no  doubt  be 

B 


2  INSPIRATION 

too  sweeping  an  assertion  to  say  that  no  result  of 
Higher  Criticism,  however  extreme,  could  possibly 
disprove  the  title  of  the  Bible  or  any  part  of  it,  to 
be  the  Inspired  Word  of  God.  But  this  is  certain, 
that  the  Higher  Criticism  has  nothing  to  say  on 
matters  of  faith,  and  such  the  Inspiration  of  the 
Bible  is.  The  object  of  this  book  is  to  endeavour  to 
do  something  to  relieve  the  anxiety  so  widely  felti 
by  defining  the  relations  between  Higher  Criticism 
and  Inspiration.  I  believe,  and  shall  endeavour  to 
show  that  the  Higher  Criticism  is,  when  applied  to 
the  Bible,  a  legitimate  method  of  inquiry.  I  am  not 
in  the  least  concerned  to  defend  the  results  of  Criti 
cism  as  they  are  called.  In  the  first  place  no  general 
agreement  as  to  these  has  been  reached  by  com 
petent  persons.  Also,  in  my  opinion,  it  is  a  gross 
abuse  of  language  to  give  the  name  of  result  to 
much  which  passes  under  that  name.  If  any  state 
ment  were  put  forth  at  the  present  time,  it  would  be 
scouted  by  some  scholars  as  ridiculously  inadequate, 
and  by  others  as  full  of  unverifiable  assumptions. 
These  are  often  nothing  more  than  plausible  hypo 
theses  at  the  best  and  little  better  than  vain  imagina 
tions  at  the  worst.  Unbelief  is  the  main  element  in 
a  very  large  number  of  "critical  results."  Still  it 
seems  clear  that  important  results  have  been  arrived 
at,  not,  indeed,  beyond  the  reach  of  modification,  but 
at  least  furnishing  a  basis  for  further  research.  Now 
there  are  two  fundamental  principles  which,  I  think, 
we,  as  Christian  men  and  rational  beings,  must  accept 
at  the  outset  in  any  inquiry  like  this,  viz.  (i)  That 
the  Bible  is  the  Inspired  Word  of  God,  or  to  put  it 
somewhat  differently,  is  the  Inspired  Record  of  God's 


INSPIRATION  3 

revelation  to  man  of  Himself;    (2)  That  the  form  in 
which  the  Divine  Revelation  has  come  down  to  us  is 
such  that   man   not  merely  may  but   must   use   his 
reason  upon  it.    In  other  words  the  Bible  is  also  truly 
and  substantially  the  word  of  man.     I  believe  that 
the  trouble  and  anxiety,  the  unreasoning  dislike  and 
premature   exultation  felt  concerning  the  Bible   by 
different  kinds  of  men,  all  arise  from  the  failure  to 
hold  both  truths,  viz.  that  the  Bible  is  the  Word  of 
God,  and  that  it  is  the  word  of  man,  with  an  equal 
grasp.     The   indications   of  the  Bible's  human  cha 
racter  have  been  passed  over  and  explained  away  in 
the  supposed  interests  of  its  Divine  character.     Its 
Divine  character    has    been    denied   when    manifest 
traces  of  human  imperfections  have  been  discovered 
in  it.     Faith  and  Reason  have  both  something  to  say 
upon   the  Bible.     Each  also  has  something  to  say 
which  the  other  has  no  right  to  contradict.     If  one 
may  judge  from  letters  written  to  newspapers  (but  it 
is  to  be  hoped  we  need  not),  men  are  rinding  it  well- 
nigh  impossible  to  deal  fairly  with  both  their  reason 
and    their   faith.     They  seem    to   think    that    they 
honour  the  one  Divine  light  of  man  by  extinguishing 
or  ignoring    the    other.     And    yet    can   the    battle 
against  materialism  be  fought  and  won  unless  Reason 
and  Faith  are  allied  ?     And  can  either  be  set  aside 
if  we  wish  to  arrive  at  the  full  truth  of  God's  Holy 
Word  ?     It  may  be  that,  giving   our   reason  its  fair 
scope,  we  shall   find    ourselves  obliged  to  abandon 
some    cherished   or   traditional    ideas    about    God's 
Book.     To  do  so  will  probably  give   us  pain.     It  is 
surely  our  wisdom   to    accept    thankfully   the   pain 
which  is  a  consequence  of  fuller  light.     We  may  trust 


4  INSPIRATION 

ourselves  to  the  guidance  of  the  kindly  light  of  God's 
truth.  It  is  commonly  argued  that  if  certain  startling 
critical  results  are  true  the  Bible  cannot  be  inspired. 
I  am  inclined  to  think  that  we  shall  find  that  some  of 
them  are  true,  and  yet  that  the  Bible  remains  God's 
Inspired  Word — the  lamp  unto  our  feet  and  the  guide 
unto  our  paths. 

Let  us  begin  by  considering  what  the  Higher 
Criticism  is.  The  reasons  will  become  clear,  I  hope,  as 
we  go  on,  why  Higher  Criticism  is  rightly  used  on 
the  Bible  ;  why  further,  if  we  are  faithful  to  God,  it 
must  be  so  used  ;  and  why,  also,  fuller  light  is  neces 
sarily  derived  from  its  rightful  use. 

The  Bible  is  a  unique  book,  unlike  all  other  books, 
transcending  them  all  in  its  influence  on  mankind, 
and  imparting  to  them  a  knowledge  not  to  be 
obtained  elsewhere  on  matters  of  supreme  import 
ance  to  man's  happiness  and  life.  As  Christians,  we 
acknowledge  the  Bible  to  be,  beyond  all  question, 
the  Word  of  God.  It  is  God's  making,  as  no  other 
book  can  be  said  to  be.  It  is  the  inspired  record  of 
the  Revelation  He  has  made  to  man.  Whatever  our 
attitude  to  criticism  we  agree  on  this.  It  is  an  article 
of  the  Church's  Faith  that  the  Holy  Scriptures  are 
inspired  by  God,  in  other  words  that  the  Holy  Ghost 
spake  by  the  prophets.  Let  me  express  again  my 
belief  that  the  Higher  Criticism  cannot  throw  doubt 
on  these  facts,  and  that  those  who  attempt  to  do  so 
in  its  name  pass  beyond  their  legitimate  spheres. 
The  whole  truth  about  the  Bible  has,  however,  not 
yet  been  stated.  The  Bible  is  literature,  and  so  it  is 
a  book,  or  rather  a  collection  of  books,  like  other 
books.  It  is  written  in  two  of  the  languages  of  men, 


INSPIRATION  5 

and  so  has  to  be  interpreted,  primarily  at  least,  by 
the  ordinary  rules  of  interpretation,  rules  which  it  has 
been  the  business  of  the  human  reason  to  establish. 
It  deals  with  history,  narrative,   philosophy,    moral 
teaching  and  the  like,  and  such  things  confessedly 
belong    to  Reason's  province.     We   cannot,  indeed, 
withdraw  these  from  its  cognizance,  wherever  they 
may  be  found.     The  Bible  also  has  itself  a  history. 
We  have  a  mass  of  facts  partly  derived  from  itself, 
and  partly  from  other  sources,  bearing  on  its  author 
ship,    date,    and    composition.     These    things    also 
belong   to   Reason's   sphere.     A  little   thought   will 
surely  convince  any  intelligent  person  that  the  Bible 
having  this  character,  Reason  cannot  be  warned  off 
it.      In    making   translations    from  the  original,   for 
example,  rules  of  thought  and  interpretation  cannot 
be  dispensed  with  for  the  Bible,  any  more  than  for 
other  books,  and  these  rules  are  of  Reason's  making. 
Now  the  Reason,  i.e.  the  critical  faculty  in  man, 
has  been,  through  many  generations,  in  God's  hands 
for  its  fashioning,  its  development,  and  its  sharpening. 
We  of  this  age  are  the  inheritors  of  the  wisdom  of 
all  the  preceding  ages.    The  stores  of  their  knowledge 
are  in  our  possession.     We  profit  alike  by  their  dis 
coveries   and   their   mistakes.      Man   has,   therefore, 
become  better  able   than    in   any  preceding  age  to 
discern  not  only  between  the  true  and  the  false ;  but 
also  to  discern    minute   differences   of  all  kinds  in 
thought  and  language  and  expression.     The  claim  is 
not  made  that  the  greatest  intellects  of  our  own  day 
are  more   powerful  than  those  found  in  past  ages. 
This  is  probably  not  the  case.     But  these  are  days  of 
free  communication.     Combined  study  is  not  only  a 


6  INSPIRATION 

possibility  but  a  fact.  There  is  universal  free  trade 
in  the  products  of  knowledge.  The  discoveries  and 
even  the  suggestions  of  one  scholar  become  imme 
diately  the  possession  of  all.  A  concentration  of 
reasoning  power  has  thus  become  possible,  and  it  has 
been  made.  Also,  in  our  age,  by  the  Providence  of 
God,  new  facts  bearing  on  the  Bible  have  been 
brought  to  light.  Travellers  have  explored  the  ruins 
of  ancient  civilizations,  and  have  found  in  them  records 
of  the  cities  and  nations  to  which  the  Bible  refers. 
These  records  are  specially  valuable,  because  they  are 
more  ancient  by  hundreds  and  thousands  of  years 
than  anything  to  be  found  in  the  Bible  in  its 
present  form.  The  books  of  the  Bible  can  no  longer 
be  regarded  as  the  most  ancient  extant  books  of 
mankind,  and  thus  the  literary  problems  they  present 
are  essentially  changed  in  character.  The  Higher 
Criticism  is  nothing  but  the  application  of  the  highly 
developed  human  reason  to  the  mass  of  facts,  old 
and  new,  which  bear  upon  the  outward  form  of  the 
Bible.  Since  Reason  is  a  lamp  which  God  Himself 
has  lit  in  man,  developed  reason  gives  brighter,  and 
combined  reason  fuller  light  to  man.  The  dis 
covery,  also,  of  every  new  fact  in  regard  to  Bible 
times,  or  lands,  or  nations,  is  an  addition  to  our  know 
ledge  of  the  Bible.  Such  being  the  case,  it  is  impos 
sible  to  deny  that  Higher  Criticism,  properly  used, 
illustrates  and  throws  light  upon  the  Holy  Scriptures  ; 
not,  indeed,  primarily  upon  the  spiritual  truths  con 
tained  in  them,  but  upon  their  outward  form,  the 
interpretation  of  their  history,  archaeology,  manners, 
and  customs.  The  opponents  of  Higher  Criticism 
should  ask  themselves,  "  Can  we  eschew  the  new 


INSPIRATION  7 

knowledge  of  ancient  times  that  God  in  His  goodness 
has  given  us  ?  Can  we  rightly  object  to  use  our 
reason  upon  it  ?  "  If  these  questions  can  have  but 
one  answer,  let  us  remember  that  it  is  an  invariable 
rule  that  fuller  light  changes  our  opinions  of  things. 
With  new  light  come  new  interpretations,  and  the 
abandonment  of  old.  When  we  call  in  our  own 
reason  to  our  aid,  we  must  deal  fairly  with  it.  When 
it  speaks  in  its  own  sphere,  it  claims  our  attention 
and  assent. 

But  it  will  be  said,  the  Higher  Criticism  does  not, 
as  a  matter  of  fact,  give  a  clearer  perception  of  truth. 
It  destroys  men's  faith.  It  declares  the  miraculous 
to  be  the  incredible.  It  throws  doubt  on  all  the 
articles  of  the  Christian  faith.  It  would  be  more 
accurate  to  say,  however,  that  some  higher  critics 
do  all  these  things.  Higher  Criticism  does  not,  and 
cannot ;  if  it  does,  it  ceases  to  be  Higher  Criticism. 
Here  comes  in  the  distinction  already  made  between 
Higher  Criticism,  considered  as  a  method,  and  the 
results  arrived  at  under  its  name.  The  one  must  be 
accepted,  if  we  are  reasoning  beings,  the  other  may 
be  utterly  unreasonable.  Higher  critics  are  not  in 
fallible,  nor  are  they  always  right  reasoners.  As 
there  were  prophets  who  prophesied  out  of  their  own 
hearts,  there  are  critics  who  criticize  out  of  their  own 
minds  or  imaginations  ;  or,  it  may  be,  they  start  with 
unbelieving  hypotheses,  and  are  consequently  unable 
to  come  to  the  full  knowledge  of  the  truth.  Critical 
results  of  all  kinds,  reasonable  and  unreasonable, 
come  promiscuously  before  the  public,  and  the  public 
is  incompetent  to  discriminate  between  them.  It 
is  not  impossible  that  the  most  extreme  results, 


8  INSPIRATION 

because  of  their  revolutionary  character,  are  the  most 
popular.  Thus  criticism  gets  a  bad  name.  We  must, 
none  the  less,  hold  by  the  maxim,  "  the  abuse  of  a 
thing  does  not  take  away  its  lawful  use."  The  right 
use  of  reason  must  not  be  abjured  because  some 
reasoners  are  unreasonable  and  unbelievers. 

I  have  already  said  that  in  this  inquiry  the  In 
spiration  of  the  Bible  will  be  assumed  throughout. 
Proofs  or  indications  of  its  inspiration  will  be  given — 
aids  to  faith,  one  might  call  them  ;  but  we  start  from 
the  standpoint  of  faith.  Perhaps  some  will  be  ready 
to  say  this  vitiates  the  inquiry  ab  initio.  Instead  of 
regarding  the  Bible  as  an  inspired  book,  we  should 
regard  it  with  neutral  eyes,  even  as  we  should  regard 
a  recently  discovered  book  lost  for  centuries.  It 
seems  to  me  impossible  for  any  Christian  to  assume 
this  mental  attitude.  To  dissever  himself  from  his 
Bible  is  to  cut  himself  in  twain.  The  Bible  is  part  of 
himself,  his  better  self.  It  has  moulded  his  thoughts, 
his  desires,  his  ideals.  It  has  given  to  him  his  hopes. 
It  has  formed  his  life.  It  has  nourished  his  spiritual 
being.  He  himself  would  be  a  different  person,  had 
he  never  known  and  valued  his  Bible.  All  who  are 
Christians  must  needs  approach  the  Bible  from  the 
position  of  belief  in  it — belief,  that  is  to  say,  that 
God  has  spoken  to  them,  and  continually  speaks  to 
them  through  it.  It  is  in  possession,  so  to  speak  ;  it 
has  our  hearts  and  minds  in  possession.  We  are  not 
unprejudiced  investigators,  we  fully  admit ;  neither, 
indeed,  are  unbelievers.  If  we  assume  the  truth  of 
Revelation,  they  assume  its  falsehood.  We  should 
have  to  go  to  another  planet  to  find  unprejudiced 
judges  of  the  Bible. 


INSPIRATION  9 

And  we  Christians  claim  that  we  have  good 
grounds  for  our  prejudice.  We  base  our  belief  on 
our  own  personal  experience.  And  our  experience 
is  not  individual  and  abnormal.  The  Bible  has  been 
a  prime  factor  for  centuries  in  the  development  of  the 
higher  life  of  mankind.  It  might  be  said  of  it,  as  of 
the  river  of  Ezekiel's  vision,  that  whereever  it  goes  it 
brings  life.  It  has  not  only  ennobled  the  ideals  of 
men  and  nations,  it  has  raised  their  practical  standards 
of  conduct.  It  has  made  some  vices,  once  common, 
impossible  ;  it  would,  if  it  had  been  followed,  have 
abolished  many  more.  It  has  brought  new  duties 
within  the  sight  and  practice  of  ordinary  men.  In 
view  of  these  facts,  it  would  be  thoroughly  unscientific 
to  regard  the  Bible  as  if  it  were  a  recently  discovered 
book,  apart  from  its  beneficent  history.  To  do  so 
would  be  to  ignore  facts. 

It  may  be  confidently  asserted  that  we  have  the 
same  reason  for  regarding  the  Bible  as  spiritual  food, 
that  ordinary  men  have  for  regarding  bread  as  bodily 
food.  No  analysis  could  shake  our  belief  in  the 
nourishing  properties  of  bread.  Should  some  higher 
critic,  i.e.  some  scientific  expert,  contradict  universal 
experience,  his  statement  would  be  disregarded. 
Similarly,  no  higher  criticism  should  have  any  power 
to  shake  our  belief  in  the  nourishing  properties  of 
the  Bible.  The  scientific  analyst  could  tell  us  per 
haps,  how  a  loaf  was  put  together,  he  might  be  able 
to  prove  that  it  was  not  entirely  free  from  adultera 
tion,  he  might  show  that  different  kinds  of  materials 
were  combined  in  it ;  he  might  be  able  to  demon 
strate  very  clearly  that  it  had  not  been  made  as  we 
supposed,  with  the  highest  skill.  He  could  further 


io  INSPIRATION 

prove  to  us  that  the  different  elements  of  bread  were 
not  all  alike  nourishing.  His  analysis  might  be  very 
useful  up  to  a  certain  point,  but  we  should  wait  for 
it  without  anxiety,  and  accept  it  without  panic,  being 
sure  that,  in  spite  of  any  imperfections,  bread  is  the 
staff  of  our  life.  The  analogy  between  bread  and 
the  Bible,  between  the  analyst  and  the  higher  critic, 
is  very  close.  There  is  only  one  distinction  of  im 
portance,  and  it  is  this.  There  are  innumerable 
loaves  of  bread  of  which  men  eat,  and  these  are  not 
identical  in  character.  A  particular  loaf  may  con 
ceivably  be  so  adulterated  as  to  be  positively  noxious. 
On  the  other  hand,  the  Bible,  which  nourishes  our 
souls,  and  which  is  tested  by  the  analyst  is  one  and 
the  same.  He  analyses  that  which  we  have  eaten. 
The  Bible,  however,  is  essentially  food,  and  the 
higher  critic  essentially  an  analyst — and  an  analyst 
of  the  Bible.  By  analysing  it  he  can  give  us  much 
information  of  a  certain  value  as  to  its  origin,  its 
growth,  its  substance  and  composition.  He  may 
make  it  clear  that  the  loaf  of  the  Bible,  or  if  we  may 
so  say,  the  loaves  of  its  different  books,  were  not 
composed  in  an  ideal  way,  and  are  not  all  equally 
nourishing.  As  has  been  pointed  out,  practical 
efficacy,  and  not  ideal  perfection,  is  wont  to  be  God's 
way  of  dealing  with  us  His  creatures.  But  nothing 
that  the  critic  may  say  can  alter  our  conviction  that 
the  Bible  is  bread,  i.e.  good  nourishing  food,  and  the 
bread  of  God — food  nourishing  the  Divine  element 
in  our  being.  If  he  says  anything  to  the  contrary — 
and  sometimes,  no  doubt,  he  passes  beyond  his 
province  and  does  say  something — we  may  laugh 
him  to  scorn,  for  we  know  he  is  wrong,  and  our  own 


INSPIRATION  ii 

experience  is  also  the  experience  of  countless  millions 
of  our  fellowmen. 

There  seems,  then,  to  be  sufficient  provisional 
justification  for  the  two  principles  on  which  we  base 
our  inquiry.  We  have  good  reason  to  believe  the 
Bible  is  inspired  ;  and  it  must  be  right  to  give  our 
reason  fair  play.  As  we  inquire  we  must  be  always 
bearing  in  mind  that  we  are  not  competent  judges 
of  the  methods  of  God's  workings.  We  know  what 
God's  will  for  us  is,  but  we  do  not  know  how  God 
will  accomplish  that  will.  We  must  take  up  the  same 
position  in  regard  to  God's  written  word,  which 
Bishop  Butler  took  in  regard  to  God's  moral  govern 
ment  of  the  world,  and  the  whole  Christian  religion. 
Christianity  is  a  scheme  beyond  our  comprehension, 
and  so,  necessarily,  are  the  ways  and  means  God 
uses  for  revealing  to  us  Divine  truths.  Everywhere, 
indeed,  whether  in  nature  or  in  grace,  we  find  that 
things  which  seem  foolish  to  us  are  the  means  em 
ployed  by  God  for  carrying  out  His  great  purposes  ; 

"God  moves  in  a  mysterious  way 
His  wonders  to  peiform  :  " 

and  incomparably  the  greatest  of  all  His  wonders  of 
which  we  have  knowledge  is  His  revelation  of  Him 
self  to  us.  How  He  reveals  Himself  we  cannot  fully 
know  ;  faith  believes,  nor  questions  how. 

It  is  well  to  remember  that  the  Church  has  never 
defined  the  doctrine  of  Inspiration.  We  are  taught 
to  believe  in  the  Holy  Ghost  who  spake  by  the 
prophets.  The  mode,  the  extent,  the  degree,  the 
exact  effects  of  His  Inspiration,  the  Church  has 
never  defined.  We  may  thank  God  for  it.  A 


12  INSPIRATION 

definition  of  an  uncritical  age  might  have  been 
difficult  to  reconcile  with  the  conclusions  of  developed 
reason  and  fuller  knowledge.  Again,  as  English 
Churchmen,  we  are  left  free  in  this  matter.  The 
sixth  of  the  XXXIX  Articles  declares  that  Holy 
Scripture  containeth  all  things  necessary  to  salvation, 
and  that  it  is  of  supreme  authority  in  matters  of  faith 
but  it  does  not  define  Inspiration.  And  it  is  note 
worthy  that  the  Article  does  not  rest  the  authority  of 
the  Holy  Scriptures  on  their  inspiration,  but  on  their 
canonicity.  The  word  "  Inspiration,"  in  its  technical 
sense,  does  not,  I  believe,  occur  in  the  Articles  or 
other  formularies  of  the  English  Church.  It  will  be 
remembered  that  assent  is  not  asked  from  the  lay- 
members  of  the  Church  to  the  Articles  or  Prayer- 
book.  No  one  in  our  day  will  be  likely  to  identify 
the  XXXIX  Articles  with  those  articles  of  the 
Christian  Faith  which  all  Christians  are  bound  to 
believe.  Deacons  at  their  ordination  profess  that 
they  unfeignedly  believe  all  the  Canonical  Scriptures 
of  the  Old  and  New  Testament.  To  believe  the 
Scriptures  is  to  believe  that  they  are  the  inspired 
Word  of  God. 

We  cannot,  if  we  are  intelligent  students  of  God's 
Holy  Word,  escape  from  critical  investigations,  nor 
can  we  keep  ourselves  in  ignorance  of  critical  dis 
coveries.  It  sounds  plausible  to  say  that  there  is 
something  of  profanity  and  ingratitude  for  creatures 
to  criticize  gifts  given  them  in  the  infinite  goodness 
and  mercy  of  God.  But  God's  good  gifts  are  good 
to  us  only  when  they  are  rightly  used,  and  unless  we 
criticize  them,  we  shall  never  know  how  to  use  them 
aright.  We  must  give  the  word  "  criticize  "  a  suitable 


INSPIRATION  13 

meaning.  To  criticize  the  Divine  Revelation  is  not 
to  justify  or  condemn  it,  far  less  is  it  to  carp  at  it  in  a 
superior  kind  of  way,  or  to  point  out  its  deficiencies. 
It  is  simply  to  ascertain  as  far  as  possible  its  ex 
ternal  character,  and  to  bring  it  within  our  intellectual 
grasp.  Our  holy  Religion  has  countless  points  of 
contact  with  the  world  in  which  we  live.  We  cannot 
withdraw  it  from  Reason's  criticisms  at  any  of  them. 
To  do  so  is  to  admit  that  our  faith  is  irrational.  If 
Reason  has  nothing  to  do  with  Revelation,  Revelation, 
in  her  turn,  can  have  nothing  to  do  with  Reason.  In 
that  case,  Christ's  salvation  does  not  embrace  the 
whole  man,  for  it  has  nothing  to  do  with  the  human 
mind. 


II 

INSPIRATION,  WHAT  IT  is — DIFFERENT  KINDS  OF 
INSPIRATION — USE  OF  THE  WORD  IN  HOLY 
SCRIPTURE  —  DISTINCTION  BETWEEN  REVE 
LATION,  INSPIRATION,  AND  THE  BIBLE 

WHAT  is  the  fundamental  idea  of  Inspiration  ? 
We  shall  have  no  difficulty  in  answering  this 
question.  Its  etymology  tells  us  that  inspiration  is 
inbreathing,  giving  of  breath.  Now  breath  is  that 
which  distinguishes  between  the  living  and  the  dead. 
All  in  whose  nostrils  is  the  breath  of  life,  whether 
man  or  cattle,  or  fowl  or  creeping  thing,  live.  When, 
however,  their  breath  is  taken  away  they  die,  and  are 
turned  again  to  their  dust.  Again,  breath  is  the  gift 
of  God.  Inspiration  is  a  Divine  operation.  "The 
Spirit  of  God  hath  made  me,"  says  Job,  "  and  the 
breath  of  the  Almighty  giveth  me  life."  *  In  God's 
hand  is  the  breath  of  all.  It  is  the  characteristic  of 
the  true  God  of  Israel,  as  compared  with  the  false 
gods  of  the  heathen,  that  whilst  He  gives  life  and 
breath  and  all  things,  they  have  no  breath  within 
them.  Nothing  can  show  more  clearly  the  intimate 
connection  between  God  and  breath,  than  that  one  and 
the  same  word  in  Hebrew,  Greek,  and  Latin  is  used 
for  the  Spirit  of  God  the  Giver  of  life  and  for  the  spirit; 

*  Job  xxxiii.  4  ;  Job  xii.  IO, 
14 


INSPIRATION  15 

of  life  in  man.     Life  is,  according  to  the  teaching  of 
Revelation,  even  in  its  lowest  form,  essentially  Divine. 
To   inspire   is   to   confer   something   of  the   Divine 
character.     It  is  the  giving  of  Divine  life  to  some 
thing  which  without  it  would  be  comparatively  or 
absolutely    lifeless.     The    difference    between    that 
which  is  inspired  and  that  which  is  destitute  of  in 
spiration  is  in  some  sense  the  difference  between  the 
living  and  the  dead.     But  there  are  diversities  of  life, 
and  so  diversities  of  inspiration  ;  there  are  degrees  of 
life,  and  so  degrees  of  inspiration.     Inspiration  is  the 
putting  of  life  into  something  of  the  nature  of  a  body. 
The  bodies  into  which  the   Divine  life  is  breathed 
condition  its  character  and  extent.     Lifeless  matter 
being  inspired   becomes  a  living  creature.     "  When 
Thou   lettest   Thy   breath   go   forth,    they  shall   be 
made,"  says  the  Psalmist.     Bodily  life  is  the  lowest 
kind  of  life  ;  but  even  in  it  there  are  many  degrees. 
A   higher  inspiration    makes  a  higher  kind  of  life. 
The  breath  of  life  breathed  by  God  into  man's  nostrils 
makes  intelligent  and  spiritual  men — beings  who  are 
in  God's  image  and  after  God's  likeness.     This  must 
mean   that  all  men  are  inspired  ;  while  some  men, 
having  received  a  higher  inspiration,  are  in  a  fuller  sense 
Divine.     But  we  must  also  distinguish  amongst  men 
in  regard  to  their  inspiration.     Man  in  his  natural 
state  has  not,  in  the  higher  sense,  the  Spirit  of  God  ; 
he  is  not  rilled  with  the  Divine  life  as  he  is  destined 
to  be.     His  spiritual  being  has  to  be  enlarged  and 
developed,  redeemed,  regenerated — in  a  word,  inspired 
by  new  infusions  of  the  Divine  breath.     The  Spirit  of 
the  Lord  comes  upon  him  to  make  him  a  nobler  man, 
stronger,  wiser,  holier— in  a  word,  to  make  him  more 


i6  INSPIRATION 

Godlike  ;  for  Strength,  Wisdom,  and  Holiness  are 
Divine  attributes.  In  this  sense,  the  promise  has 
been  made,  and  also  fulfilled,  "  I  will  pour  forth  My 
Spirit  upon  all  flesh."  For  Inspiration  of  this  kind 
we  are  taught  to  pray,  "  Come,  Holy  Ghost,  our 
souls  inspire,  and  cleanse  the  thoughts  of  our  hearts 
by  the  inspiration  of  Thy  Holy  Spirit."  And  over 
and  above  these  general  gifts  there  are  special  gifts 
granted  only  to  the  few.  All  have  been  made  to 
drink  of  one  Spirit,  but  only  some  are  apostles  and 
prophets  ;  only  some  receive  the  Spirit  for  the  various 
offices  and  ministries  of  the  Church  of  God.  The 
Veni  Creator  has  its  special  as  well  as  its  ordinary 
uses.  Lastly,  and  to  be  distinguished  from  all  other 
uses  of  the  word,  there  is  the  technical  sense  in  which 
it  is  applied  to  the  Holy  Scripture  and  its  different 
human  authors.  Holy  Scripture,  being  inspired,  is 
the  Word  of  God,  and  is  profitable  for  the  building 
up  and  perfecting  of  the  spiritual  life  of  Christians  in 
all  generations.  The  sacred  writers,  being  inspired, 
speak  as  they  are  moved  of  the  Holy  Ghost.  The 
Church  has  many  doctors,  and  all  are  inspired,  but 
the  sacred  writers  are  its  doctors  par  excellence,  and 
speak  with  an  authority  which  no  others  can  claim. 

Thus  we  see  that  as  there  are  many  and  different 
forms  of  life,  there  are  many  and  divers  kinds  of  inspira 
tion.  It  is  well  for  us  at  times  to  distinguish  between 
the  different  forms  of  life,  but  it  is  well  for  us  also  never 
to  forget  that  life  is  one — one  in  its  source  and  nature 
— because  life  is  essentially  Divine.  There  is,  beyond 
all  doubt,  more  of  life  and  more  of  God  in  one  thing 
than  in  another ;  or  putting  it  somewhat  differently, 
the  vessel  in  which  the  Divine  life  is  contained 


INSPIRATION  17 

determines  its  limits  and  character  and  intensity.  But 
there  is  a  kinship  between  all  living  creatures.  Have 
we  not  all  one  Father  ?  The  kinship  is,  in  part,  a 
kinship  of  material ;  i.e.  all  creatures  are  made  of  the 
same  material,  but  ours  is  a  kinship  rather  of  spirit  than 
of  matter.  We  are  joint  partakers  of  the  one  Divine 
life.  It  would  seem,  therefore,  not  to  be  wise  for  us 
to  make  a  great  gulf  of  separation  between  the  Bible 
and  other  noble  books  by  saying  that  it  is  inspired 
whilst  they  are  not.  The  Bible  differs  from  all  other 
books  in  the  character  and  degree  of  its  Inspiration, 
•ilt  is  the  supreme  manifestation  of  Divine  inspiration 
I  embodied  in  human  words.  Just  as  all  the  members 
of  the  human  body  are  partakers  of  one  life,  though 
they  possess  it  in  varying  degrees,  and  manifest  in 
different  activities,  some  less  and  some  more  honour 
able,  so  the  whole  creation  is  a  vast  embodiment  of 
Divine  life,  being  permeated  throughout  by  the  Spirit 
of  God,  yet  not  in  the  same  manner  or  for  the  same 
objects.  Again,  we  should  remember  that  as  by  the 
Divine  Inspiration  a  beginning  of  life  is  made,  so  by 
the  same  Inspiration  life  reaches  its  goal.  God  is  our 
Omega  as  well  as  our  Alpha.  That  this  purpose  of 
God  might  not  be  frustrated — that  life  might  attain 
to  The  Life — those  inspirations  which  are  character 
istic  of  the  New  Creation  were  given.  There  came 
to  us  men  in  the  fulness  of  time  One  who  is  The  Life, 
that  we  might  have  life  more  abundantly.  There  has 
been  breathed  into  us  One  who  is  the  Spirit  of  Life. 
„, Inspiration  may  thus  be  described  as  that  Divine  gift 
by  which  all  things  have  their  beginning,  and  also 
attain  their  end.  Thus,  though  it  is  of  infinite  variety 
in  its  outward  manifestation,  its  purpose,  as  well  as 

C 


iS  INSPIRATION 

its  origin  and  characteristic,  is  always  the  same,  viz. 
that  creation,  and  man  in  particular,  may  be  filled 
with  all  the  fulness  of  God. 

*  We  do  not  derive  much  information  in  regard  to 
the  meaning  of  Inspiration  from  the  actual  use  of 
the  word  in  the  Bible.  It  occurs  only  three  times 
in  the  Authorized  Version,  and  twice  in  the  Revised. 
But  the  three  occurrences  are  interesting,  because  they 
refer  to  three  different  kinds  of  Inspiration,  viz.,  the  In 
spiration  of  the  body,  the  mind,  and  the  spirit  of  man. 

The  book  of  Wisdom  speaks  of  the  Divine 
breathing  of  the  soul  into  man's  body.  The  idol- 
maker,  it  says,  is  vile,  inasmuch  as  he  knows  not  his 
Maker  and  Him  that  inspired  into  him  an  active 
soul.  The  Greek  for  "inspired"  is  tfjurvtvaavTa  and 
the  Vulgate  inspiravit. 

The  book  of  Job  speaks  of  the  Inspiration  of  the 
mind  :  *  "  There  is  a  spirit  in  man,  and  the  Inspira 
tion  of  the  Almighty  gives  him  understanding " 
(A.V.).  The  R.V.  with  greater  literality  changes 
"  Inspiration  "  into  "  breath."  The  LXX.  version 
has  Trvorj,  but  the  Vulgate  inspiratio.  Whatever 
the  translation,  the  thought  of  inspiration  and  of  the 
inspiration  of  the  human  mind  is  contained  in  the 
passage. 

The  third  passage  is  by  far  the  most  important 
because  it  speaks  of  Inspiration,  and  Inspiration  of 
the  Holy  Scriptures,  and  also  of  the  spirit  of  man.f 
Every  Scripture  inspired  of  God,  says  St.  Paul,  is 
also  profitable  for  teaching,  for  reproof,  for  correc 
tion,  for  instruction  which  is  in  righteousness ; 
that  the  man  of  God  may  be  complete,  furnished 

*  Jobxxxii.  8.  t  2  Tim.  iii.  16. 


INSPIRATION  19 

completely,  unto  every  good  work.  The  Greek  here 
is  iraaa  ypa<j*i) .  .  .  Qtoirvtvaros,  and  the  Vulgate,  Omnis 
Scriptura  Divinitus  inspirata.  There  are,  it  is  need 
less  to  say,  numerous  passages  in  which  Holy  Scrip 
ture  claims  implicitly  Inspiration  for  itself,  but  this 
is  the  only  one  in  which  Inspiration  is  ascribed  to  it  in 
express  terms.  It  is  the  passage  from  which,  through 
the  Vulgate,  Inspiration  has  become  a  technical 
theological  term.  It  is  to  be  noted  that  St.  Paul  is 
here  speaking  of  the  Old  Testament  Scriptures  only. 
The  New  Testament  writings  were  not  placed  on  a 
level  with  the  Old  till  nearly  the  end  of  the  second 
century.  Translating  as  in  R.V.  and  with  most 
modern  and  many  ancient  authorities,  we  see  that 
this  passage  is  not  an  assertion  of  the  Inspiration 
of  the  Old  Testament  Scriptures,  but  is  a  statement 
concerning  the  effects  of  Inspiration — the  practical 
spiritual  value  given  by  it  to  Holy  Scripture.  We 
might  say  that  the  passage  teaches  that  Holy  Scripture 
inspires  the  souls  of  men  so  that  they  go  on  to  their 
perfection  and  are  able  to  bring  forth  the  fruits  of 
good  works.  The  words  of  our  Lord,  "Ye  search 
the  Scriptures,  for  in  them  ye  think  ye  have  eternal 
life,"  convey  a  similar  meaning.  The  Scriptures  are 
a  means  of  communicating  Divine  and  spiritual  life. 
It  is  to  be  noted  that  the  effects  of  Inspiration,  as 
described  here,  are  purely  and  exclusively  spiritual 
and  practical.  It  is  not  said  that  Scripture,  because 
of  its  Divine  Inspiration,  becomes  profitable  for  the 
teaching  of  any  of  the  different  subjects  of  human 
knowledge.  Nor  again  is  Holy  Scripture  described  as 
perfect  and  infallible  in  itself.  It  has  been  wisely  said 
that  God's  methods  are  characterized  by  "  practical 


20  INSPIRATION 

efficiency"  and  not  "ideal  perfection."    It  is  "practical 
efficiency  "  which  is  claimed  for  Holy  Scripture  here. 
It  is  important  to  distinguish  clearly  between  Reve 
lation,  Inspiration,  and   the   Bible ;   though  closely 
connected   and    commonly  confused    one   with    the 
other,  they  are  three  different  things.     Inspiration  is 
the  link  or  medium  between  the  other  two,  for  it  is 
the  Divine  power  within  man  which  enables  him  first 
to  appreciate  the  Divine  self-manifestation,  and  after 
wards  to  place  it  on  permanent  record.     Revelation 
is  the  removal  of  the  veil  which  hides  Divine  things 
from  man's  eyes,  it  is  God's  manifestation  of  Himself 
to  man.     The  Bible  is  at  once  the  work  of  Inspira 
tion  and  the  written  record  of  Revelation.     It  is  a 
product  of  the  one   and  a   chronicle  of  the   other. 
Bishop  Westcott,  in  his  "  Introduction  to  the  Study  of 
the  Gospels,"  *  thus  admirably  distinguishes  between 
Inspiration  and   Revelation  :    "  Inspiration   may  be 
regarded  in  one  aspect  as  the  correlative  of  Revela 
tion.     Both  operations  imply  a  supernatural  exten 
sion   of  the   field   of  man's   spiritual  vision,  but  in 
different  ways.     By  Inspiration  we  conceive  that  his 
natural  powers  are  quickened  so  that  he  contemplates 
with   a   divine  intuition  the   truth  as  it  exists  still 
among  the  ruins  of  the  moral  and  physical  worlds. 
By  Revelation   we    see   as   it   were    the    dark   veil 
removed  from  the  face  of  things,  so  that  the  true 
springs  and  issues  of  life   stand   disclosed   in  their 
eternal  nature." 

We  see  then  that  Inspiration  and  Revelation 
are  both  equally  Divine  powers  working  for  man's 
spiritual  and  highest  good,  filling  him  with  that 

*  Page  8. 


INSPIRATION  21 

knowledge  of  God  which  is  Life  Eternal.     The  one 
works  within  man  and   the  other  outside  him ;   the 
one  gives  him  the  power  of  spiritual  sight,  the  other 
provides^spiritual  objects  for  his  spiritual  vision  ;  and 
so  he  is  filled  with  an  inner  light  by  which  He  is  able 
to  see  Him  who  is  the  Light  of  the  World.     In  the 
light  of  Inspiration,  we  see  the  light  of  Revelation. 
As   Mr.   Thomson    expresses    it,    "  In    this   act    of 
Revelation,  God  unveils  that  which  He  desires  men 
to  know  ;   in  His  act  of  Inspiration,  He  opens  the 
eyes  of  men's  minds  to  see  that  which  He  has  un 
veiled."  *     It  is  a  fact  worthy  of  special   attention 
that  in  Holy  Scripture  the  work    of   Inspiration   is 
assigned  to  the  Spirit  of  God,  whereas  the  Word  or 
Son  of  God  is  the  revealer  of  God  to  man.     St.  John 
says,  "  The  Only  Begotten  Son  who  is  in  the  bosom 
of  the  Father,  He  hath  declared  Him  ; "   and  "  He 
(the    Spirit)    shall   take  of  Mine  and  shall   shew  it 
unto   you."     The  Spiritual  World    is  revealed,  and, 
what  is  far  more,  opened  wide  to  man  by  the  Son. 
Man's   power   to   enter  in,   enjoy  it,   and,   in   some 
degree,  comprehend  it,  is  conferred  upon  him  by  the 
Spirit.     It  is  consonant  with  this   that   the  Son  of 
God  has  gone  to  prepare  a  place  for  redeemed  man. 
Man's  new  home  must  needs,  like  the  old,  be  a  revela 
tion  of  God  to  him.     On  the  other  hand  the  Spirit 
dwells  within  him  to  prepare  him  for  that  home. 

The  antithesis  drawn  by  Dr.  Fairbairn,  "  God 
inspires,  man  reveals,"  f  would  thus  seem  to  be  mis 
leading.  The  power  of  Inspiration  is  indeed  purely 
Divine ;  so  God  inspires.  But  Revelation  is  not, 

*  "  Revelation  and  the  Bible,"  p.  18. 
t  "  Christ  in  Modern  Theology,"  p.  496. 


22  INSPIRATION 

except  in  a  subordinate  sense,  the  work  of  man.  On 
the  contrary,  in  the  highest  sense,  God  alone  reveals 
— God  in  the  Person  of  the  Word.  That  which  man 
cannot  find  for  himself  God  declares  to  him.  It  is 
true  that  no  revelation  is  made  to  man  without  an 
embodiment,  and  that  man  provides  this  first,  and 
chiefly  in  the  person  of  The  Man,  and  afterwards  in 
human  words,  and  characters,  and  institutions,  but 
we  must  not  confound  Revelation  with  its  outward 
form.  Dr.  Sanday's  criticism  *  on  Dr.  Fairbairn's 
epigram  would  seem  to  be  fully  justified.  "The  con 
text  "  (in  Dr.  Fairbairn's  remarks)  "  shews  that  it  is 
as  correct  to  say,  '  God  reveals ' ;  but  it  is  through 
men  the  revelation  takes  concrete  shape."  But  if 
this  be  so  the  antithesis  is  false. 

God  having  made  a  revelation  of  Himself,  and 
having  also  given  man  spiritual  power  to  discern  it, 
man  attains  to  the  Divine  knowledge,  and  immediately, 
after  his  nature,  sets  himself  to  give  it  various  con 
crete  forms.  A  kingdom  of  heaven  is  established  ; 
the  Divine  life  is  faithfully  lived  ;  Divine  truth  is 
expressed  in  human  words  and  preserved  in  writing. 
It  is  the  last  of  these  forms  with  which  we  are  at 
present  concerned.  The  Bible,  we  see,  is  the  inspired 
record  of  Revelation.  Had  not  God  revealed  Him 
self  man  would  have  had  nothing  to  write.  Had  not 
He  put  of  His  Spirit  into  man,  man  would  not  have 
had  the  capacity  of  writing.  But  the  Bible  is  not  to 
be  identified  with  Revelation,  or  indeed  with  any  or 
all  of  its  human  embodiments.!  To  do  this  in  the 

*  "  Inspiration,"  note,  p.  125.    '• 

t  This  Dr.  Fairbairn  seems  to  do  when  he  says,  "Revelation  is 
the  mode  or  form — word,  character,  or  institution — in  which  man 
embodies  what  he  has  received." 


INSPIRATION  23 

case  of  the  Bible  is  to  confound  the  Word,  and  in 
particular  the  Word  Incarnate,  with  the  written  Word. 
In  the  highest  sense  the  Word  who. was  in  the  begin 
ning,  who  was  with  God  and  was  God,  and  who  in  the 
fulness  of  time  became  flesh,  is  the  only  Revelation 
of  God.  Nature  since  He  constituted  it,  History 
since  He  rules  in  it,  the  Church  since  it  is  His  Body, 
the  Bible  since  it  testifies  of  Him,  are  all  modes,  or 
forms,  or  means  of  His  Revelation.  They  are  but 
lamps :  He  is  the  True  Light  who  coming  into  the 
world  enlighteneth  every  man. 

A  practical  result  of  this  is  that  we  should  not 
inquire  too  carefully  what  it  is  in  any  passage  of 
Holy  Scripture  which  constitutes  its  Inspiration. 
The  Old  Testament  might  be  called  with  equal  truth 
the  historical  record  of  the  inspired  nation,  Israel ; 
or  the  inspired  record  of  Israel's  thought  and  national 
life.  So  far  as  the  two  things  are  different  the  Old 
Testament  is  both.  Israel  herself  as  well  as  her  book 
declare  to  us  the  character  of  the  Divine  Inspiration. 

The  difference  between  Revelation  and  Inspira 
tion  is  stated  with  great  clearness  by  Mr.  Thomson 
in  "  Revelation  and  the  Bible."  * 

"  Both  revelation  and  inspiration  are  the  result  of 
Divine  action.  The  object  of  both  is  to  impart  to 
man  the  knowledge  of  Divine  things.  Both  seek 
the  same  practical  outcome  from  this  knowledge,  in 
man's  heart  and  life.  And  both  the  act  of  revelation 
and  the  act  of  inspiration  on  the  part  of  God  would 
occur  without  the  knowledge  received  by  man  being 
committed  to  writing.  Yet  in  some  important  re 
spects  the  one  act  is  different  from  the  other.  There 

*  Page  1 8. 


24  INSPIRATION 

might  be  revelation  without  inspiration.  The  death 
of  Christ,  for  instance,  was  a  revelation  of  God's  holy 
love.  It  was  this  in  its  simple  character  as  a  fact. 
And  the  entire  revelation  was  in  the  fact  quite 
independently  of  the  apprehension  of  its  meaning 
on  the  part  of  any  human  being.  Nor  could  any 
thing  whatsoever,  happening  in  the  mind  of  any 
Apostle  or  of  any  other  person,  take  from  or  add  to 
or  modify  in  any  way  the  revelation  which  the  fact 
embodied.  The  revelation  was  there  whether  men 
were  able  or  not  to  apprehend  the  meaning  of  the  fact. 
Inspiration,  on  the  other  hand,  was  that  which 
enabled  men,  like  Paul,  to  understand  the  fact,  to 
see  the  revelation  of  God's  holy  love  embodied  in  it. 
In  His  act  of  revelation,  God  unveils  that  which  He 
desires  men  to  know ;  in  His  act  of  inspiration, 
He  opens  the  eyes  of  men's  minds  to  see  that  which 
He  has  unveiled.  Moreover,  the  act  of  revelation  and 
the  act  of  inspiration  might  not  take  place  at  one  and 
the  same  time.  There  was  a  revelation  conveyed  in 
the  fact  of  Christ's  resurrection  from  the  dead  ;  but  it 
was  a  considerable  time  after  the  event  that  Paul 
was  inspired  to  see  its  significance  and  its  bearings 
upon  human  destiny." 


Ill 

How  ALL  TEACHING  COMES  TO  MAN. 

THE  teaching  contained  in  the  Bible  is  a  particular 
kind  of  teaching,  and  so  it  seems  reasonable 
to  suppose  that  it  follows  the  laws  which  govern 
teaching  generally.  It  will  consequently  be  helpful 
to  us  in  our  inquiry  to  consider  how  all  teaching  is 
wont  to  come  to  man  and  become  his  own.  It  is  not 
the  various  ways  of  giving,  but  the  general  conditions 
governing  the  reception  of  teaching  which  we  need 
most  to  consider.  We  want  to  ascertain  the  kind  of 
teaching  which  men  are  able  to  appropriate. 

It  will  be  readily  admitted  that  teaching  of  every 
kind  and  on  every  subject  has  not  only  to  be  effec 
tively  given,  but  effectively  received.  The  disciple 
must  take  a  substantial  and  an  active  part  in  the  work 
of  his  own  education.  Knowledge  cannot  be  poured 
into  a  man  as  water  into  a  cistern.  It  is  a  homely 
proverb  that  any  man  can  take  a  horse  to  the  water, 
but  no  man  can  make  him  drink  ;  so  in  the  case  of 
the  higher  animal — man,  the  best  of  teachers  can  effect 
nothing  without  the  co-operation  of  his  scholar.  A 
man  cannot  be  fed  either  in  body  or  mind  unless  he 
himself  is  able  to  receive  and  digest  his  food.  As  we 
digest  it  we  impress  on  it  something  of  our  personal 

25 


26  INSPIRATION 

character.  The  knowledge  we  possess  is  ordinarily 
not  the  same  as  the  knowledge  given  to  us.  We 
modify  it  in  the  act  of  making  it  our  own. 

Our  knowledge  depends  for  its  reception  on  our 
faculties,  and  our  faculties  of  reception  depend  on 
their  previous  training,  and  on  the  knowledge  pre 
viously  digested.  In  consequence  the  teacher,  if  he 
is  to  be  efficient,  must  take  us  as  we  are,  build  on  pre 
viously  laid  foundations,  find  points  of  contact  between 
his  thoughts — the  thoughts  which  he  is  going  to  com 
municate  to  us — and  our  thoughts,  i.e.  the  thoughts 
and  ideas  which  we  have  already  made  our  own.  It  is 
absolutely  impossible  for  us  to  receive  some  teaching, 
and  why  ?  Because  we  have  not  mastered  the  know 
ledge  on  which  it  is  based.  Some  thoughts  our  teacher 
cannot  communicate  to  us,  and  why  ?  The  only  words 
in  which  he  could  express  them,  though  in  his  stock, 
are  not  in  ours.  We  possess  no  words  or  symbols  in 
which  he  could  embody  his  thoughts.  Every  great 
teacher  has  many  things  to  say  to  us  which  we  cannot 
bear  now.  In  consequence  he  is  obliged  to  do  what 
our  parents  did  for  us  long  ago.  They  took  us  as  we 
were,  and  accommodated  themselves  to  our  infant 
minds  and  conceptions.  They  taught  us  in  mono 
syllables,  they  gave  to  us  precept  upon  precept,  line 
upon  line,  a  little  here  and  a  little  there.  They 
pictured  the  truth  for  us  in  images,  they  drew  it  in 
outline.  They  gave  us  half-truths  since  we  could  not 
bear  the  whole.  They  did  more,  we  may  venture  to 
say,  and  used  unrealities  to  bring  home  to  us  some 
truth. 

Now  children's  minds  have  narrow  limitations,  but 
they  have  some  special  advantages.  The  time  of 


INSPIRATION  27 

childhood  is  the  time  for  learning.  Children  can  learn 
readily,  because  they  are  innocent,  they  have  not 
formed  false  conceptions  of  things.  There  is  little  or 
nothing  to  pluck  up  or  expel  before  the  planting  or 
imparting  work  begins.  There  are,  however,  full 
grown  men,  ignorant  as  children,  whose  minds  are 
besides  perverted  by  falsehood.  Now  it  is  impossible 
for  the  missionary  teacher  to  make  a  clean  sweep  of 
all  this  at  once.  It  is  part  of  the  man  he  is  seeking 
to  instruct.  He  must  seize  on  some  fragment  of  truth 
mixed  with  and  embedded  in  error.  He  must  pass 
over,  or  deal  very  tenderly  with,  the  error  for  the  sake 
of  its  accompanying  and  perhaps  hidden  truth.  He 
will  not  attempt  at  first  to  root  out  the  tares,  lest  he 
root  out  the  wheat  with  them.  He  bears  and  forbears 
in  order  that  he  may  be  able  to  bring  his  thoughts  in 
contact  with  his  disciples'  thoughts,  and  his  mind 
with  their  minds.  He  hopes  that  thus  he  may  be 
able  to  communicate  to  them  some  new  truth  which 
will  in  due  course  neutralize  or  annihilate  the  errors 
as  yet  part  of  his  disciples'  selves.  In  a  word,  he  must 
do  as  St.  Paul  did  on  Areopagus,  and  declare  to  them 
God  who  made  the  world  and  all  things  that  are 
therein — Jesus  and  the  Resurrection,  using  for  his 
text  a  heathen  altar  to  an  unknown  god.  Is  there 
any  presumption  in  saying  that  it  is  thus  all  teaching 
must  come  to  man  ?  Man  being  what  he  is,  his  teacher 
must  build  on  foundations,  or,  it  may  be,  ruins,  in  the 
man's  own  self;  he  must  accommodate  himself  and 
condescend  to  his  pupils'  ignorance  and  error.  No 
it  is  not  presumption  to  say  this,  for  our  experience 
indicates  that  it  is  thus,  by  God's  ordering,  all  teach 
ing  comes  to  man.  We  are  not,  it  is  true,  competent 


28  INSPIRATION 

judges  of  God's  methods — ?>.  the  ways  in  which  God 
dispenses  His  gifts — but  we  can  observe  them  ;  we 
know  something  of  human  nature,  and  know  in  con 
sequence  how  we  are  able  to  learn.     Applying  these 
principles  in  detail  to  the    Divine    Revelation,    we 
humbly  acknowledge  at  the  outset  that  God  must  take 
the  first  step  in  that  great  work.     From  Him  must 
issue  forth  the  Divine  Light,  Truth  and  Life.     Every 
good  giving  and  every  perfect  gift  is  from  above.    We 
believe,  further,  that  every  Revelation  of  truth  comes 
from  Him  in  whom  can  be  no  variableness  or  shadow 
caused  by  turning,  and  that  its  end  is  the  perfection 
of  man.     But  is  every  Divine  Revelation  perfect  in 
itself?     Can  we  regard  this  as  possible  since  it  must 
be  received  by  us  men  before  it  reveals  anything  to 
us  ?     At  the  best  we  are  ignorant  children,  but  at  our 
worst   we   are    degraded    heathen   whom,  since   we 
refused  to  have  God  in  our  knowledge,  God  gave  up 
unto  a  reprobate  mind.     God's  truth,  if  it  is  to  be 
made  ours,  must  needs  come  in  a  form  suited  to  our 
imperfect  and  perverted  capacities.      So  here  there 
rises  before  us  that  marvellous  fact  which  we  call  the 
Divine  condescension.     Without  it  no  revelation  of 
the  Infinite  to  the  Finite,  much  more  of  the  All-wise 
and  All-holy  God  to  the  fallen  creature,  is  possible. 
That  condescension  is  a  necessity  of  all  revelation, 
though  it  reached  its  crown  and  climax  in  the  Incarna 
tion.     The  Word  of  God  condescended  to  come  down 
from  heaven,  ages  before  He  was  incarnate  of  the 
Holy  Ghost  and  the  Virgin   Mary  ;  and  He   never 
ceases  to  condescend  to  speak  in  baby  language  to 
us  who  are  no  better  than  babes.     He  gives  pictures 
and  shadows  to  us  who  could  not  bear  the  glory  of 


INSPIRATION  29 

realities.     He  wraps  His  teaching  in  imperfect  images 
because  they  are  understood  by  us  ;  in  fables  which 
seem  to  us  verities,  in  shadows  which  we  deem  to  be 
substantial.     Direct  vision  is  impossible  to  us,  so  He 
ordains  that  we  should  see  through  a  mirror.     He 
half  veils  whilst  He  half  reveals  the  truth,  because 
the  whole  would  dazzle  our  eyes.     He  gives  us  a  little 
because  we  are  not  capable  of  much.   He  feeds  us  with 
milk  and  not  with  meat  because  we  are  not  able  to 
bear  it.     He  adapts  His  revelation,  not  merely  to  our 
weakness  and  childishness,  but  also  to  our  inherited 
and  established  falsehoods,  and  in  particular  to  our 
false  religious  and  moral  ideas.     He  takes  us  as  we 
are,  as  all  human  teachers  must,  in  order  to  make  us 
better  than  we  are.      He  suffers,  as  in  the  Mosaic 
Law,  things  that  He  disapproves,  that  He  may  re 
place  them  by  something  better.    He  suffers — nay,  the 
word  is  not  strong  enough — He  ordains  things  con 
trary  to  His  mind,  because  it  is  only  thus  we  can  be 
fashioned  according  to  His  mind.      Illustrations  of 
such  methods  of  work  abound   in   Holy  Scripture. 
The  law  of  divorce  contained  in  Deuteronomy  is  one 
of  the  Divine  statutes  and  ordinances  commanded  by 
God,  nevertheless  it  is  quite  plainly  contrary  to  His 
mind    as   declared    in    the    original     institution    of 
marriage,  or  by  the  prophet  Malachi,  "I  hate  putting 
away,"   or    by    our    Lord    Himself.      Men's   hearts 
are  so  hard  that  divorce  must  be  first  permitted  that 
at  last  it  may  be  abolished.     The  Lex  Talionis  and 
the  institution  of  the  Avenger  of  Blood — these,  again, 
receive  His  direct  sanction  until  the  time  comes  for 
the  higher  rule,  "  I  say  unto  you,  Resist  not  evil,  and 
Love  your  enemies."     The  law  of  animal  sacrifice — 


30  INSPIRATION 

this,  again,  is  a  remarkable  condescension  to  human 
weakness.  In  the  sacrificial  law  God  accepts  gifts 
which  have  no  value  in  His  eyes,  even  as  a  father 
would  accept  and  expect  worthless  or  even  distasteful 
gifts  from  his  little  child.  We  see  God's  mind  in  regard 
to  animal  sacrifices  in  the  prophets,  and  above  all 
in  the  New  Testament  (the  Epistle  to  the  Hebrews), 
and  not  in  the  Mosaic  Law.  Nevertheless  the  laws 
commanding  sacrifices  were  laws  of  God.  And  are 
there  also  similar  condescensions  in  Christianity  ? 
We  may  answer  confidently  that  there  are  some 
which  we  know  and  many  more  beyond  our  present 
thoughts.  Why  was  there  no  law  forbidding  slavery 
in  the  New  Testament?  Christian  people  took  eighteen 
centuries  to  learn  the  fact,  seemingly  so  obvious,  that 
slavery  was  contrary  to  the  mind  of  Christ.  Was  it 
not,  again,  because  of  the  hardness  of  Christian  hearts 
that  war  was  not  forbidden  by  an  express  command  ? 
Proofs  are  abundant  for  our  proposition  that  the 
Divine  Revelation,  in  order  that  it  may  be  efficacious, 
must  be  presented  in  a  manner  suited  to  human 
capacities  and  attainments.  The  ray  of  light  rfrom 
God  is  veiled  and  also  refracted  by  earth's  atmosphere 
and  clouds. 

And  here  we  may  notice  that  this  same  truth  is 
involved  in  the  fact  that  the  Bible  contains  a  pro 
gressive  revelation.  The  days  of  the  Patriarchs 
were  days  of  the  infancy,  the  days  of  Moses  and 
the  Judges  days  of  the  childhood  of  our  race.  We 
may,  perhaps,  regard  Adam  and  Eve  as  the  first 
beings  who  emerged  from  mere  animal  life  and 
attained  to — that  which  is  man's  distinguishing  cha 
racteristic — the  knowledge  of  God  and  the  power  of 


INSPIRATION  31 

holding  communion  with  Him.  However  this  may 
be,  it  is  inconceivable  to  regard  Adam  as  a  full-grown 
man  in  spiritual  things.  Wisdom  comes  from  ex 
perience  ;  Adam  could  have  none.  God  would  not 
create  for  him  an  unreal  history  in  the  past.  Those 
words,  "  First  the  blade,  then  the  ear,  then  the  full 
corn  in  the  ear,"  describe  the  invariable  Divine 
order  in  our  creation.  "Jesus  increased  in  wisdom 
and  stature,  and  in  favour  with  God  and  man,"  lights 
up  the  path  on  which  the  human  race  must  necessarily 
walk  towards  its  perfection.  But  if  Adam  and  the 
patriarchs  and  the  children  of  Israel  were  babes  or 
children,  compared  with  ourselves,  who  had  not 
passed  beyond  the  childish  stage,  must  not  Revela 
tion  have  done  much  in  the  way  of  accommodating 
itself  to  their  extreme  spiritual  childishness  ?  Things 
which  are  necessary  for  children  are  net  good  for 
full-grown  men,  and  a  father  delights  to  see  his 
children  put  away  the  childish  things  which  he  him 
self  gave.  But  the  children  must  have  what  is  good 
for  them ;  and  such  were  the  anthropomorphisms  of 
Genesis,  the  customs  and  institutions  of  a  crude  re 
ligion  and  a  rude  morality,  the  statutes  which  are  no 
longer  good  and  the  judgments  by  which  men  cannot 
live  now.  The  Father  gave  what  His  children  needed. 
When  we  study  these  primitive  things  we  should  not 
estimate  them  by  the  lofty  standard  of  Divine  wisdom 
and  goodness,  but  by  the  mean  standard  of  human 
capacity.  All  of  them  illustrate  the  Divine  con 
descension  to  childish  and  fallen  man.  In  all  of 
them,  we  might  say,  God  came  down  from  heaven 
for  us  men  and  for  our  salvation. 

The  first  stage  in  Revelation — the  initial  act  of 


32  INSPIRATION 

God  in  giving  life  or  light — has  been  described  ;  now 
let  us  pass  on  to  the  second.  The  Divine  thought 
having  been  fitted  to  the  human  capacity,  enters 
into  the  human  soul — the  inspired  human  soul,  it 
may  be,  i.e.  the  human  soul  prepared  and  assisted  and 
elevated  by  the  Spirit  to  receive  it.  Whether  inspired 
or  not,  the  receptacle  of  the  Divine  thought  is 
man,  and  nothing  more,  for  it  is  to  man  that  the 
revelation  is  being  made.  The  inspired  seer  is 
indeed  elevated  amongst  his  fellows,  but  he  is  not 
taken  away  from  their  ranks.  If  he  were,  Inspiration 
would  defeat  its  own  purpose — to  teach  man  Divine 
truths.  Now  it  seems  plain  that  one  who  is  only 
man  can  never  perfectly  comprehend  the  Divine 
teaching.  He  forms  an  idea  of  it,  an  idea  with  greater 
or  less  imperfection  ;  but  perfection  is  beyond  him. 
The  Divine  teaching  is  limited  by  his  own  limitations, 
it  is  corrupted  by  his  own  corruptions.  The  Divine 
Inspiration  enlarges  a  man's  limits  and  purifies  his 
conceptions,  but  does  not  wholly  remove  them.  The 
element  of  Time  comes  in  also  ;  seeds  take  time  to 
grow.  We  remember  our  Lord's  exclamation, "  Have 
I  been  so  long  time  with  you  and  yet  hast  thou  not 
known  Me,  Philip  ? "  We  know  that  the  apostles, 
even  after  they  had  received  the  Holy  Ghost,  arrived 
very  slowly  at  the  knowledge  of  certain  Christian 
truths.  And  that  knowledge  was  truly  their  own. 
It  took  form  and  shape  from  their  individual  minds 
and  characters.  The  apostle  St.  Paul  had  not  the 
same  idea  of  Christian  truth  as  the  apostles  St 
James  or  St.  John.  How  could  it  be  otherwise?  Is 
not  the  Gospel  of  Jesus  Christ  too  vast  a  treasure  to 
be  contained  in  any  earthen  vessel  ?  Now  a  truth 


INSPIRATION  33 

which  has  been  limited  must  have  the  character  of 
imperfection,  and  contain  in  itself  the  seed  of  error. 
And,  besides,  the  Gospel  of  Jesus  Christ,  according 
to  St.  Paul,  must  needs  have  much  of  St.  Paul  in 
it.  We  are  apt  to  forget  this — apt,  that  Is  to  say, 
to  forget  how  all  teaching,  when  received,  takes 
much  of  its  form  and  substance  from  the  receiving 
mind. 

There  are  two  events  recorded  in  Holy  Scripture 
which  seem  to  teach  us  how  materially  Divine 
teaching  is  thus  modified.  One  is  an  event  in  our 
Lord's  life.  In  answer  to  His  prayer,  "Father, 
glorify  Thy  Name,"  there  came  a  voice  from  heaven 
saying,  "  I  have  both  glorified  it,  and  will  glorify  it 
again."  *  It  would  seem,  though  it  is  not  expressly 
stated,  that  the  disciples,  and  not  our  Lord  only, 
heard  and  understood  this  voice.  It  came,  Our  Lord 
says,  for  their  sakes.  The  multitude,  on  the  other 
hand,  heard  nothing  but  an  inarticulate  sound  ;  "  It 
thundered,"  they  said.  Others  recognized  the  tones 
of  a  voice,  "  An  angel  spake  to  Him  ; "  but  they  did 
not  know  what  was  said.  It  is  to  be  observed  that 
one  and  the  same  revelation  is  given  to  all,  but  it  is 
received  and  understood  differently  according  to  the 
varying  spiritual  capacities  of  the  men  who  heard  it. 
Must  it  not  be  always  so  ?  And  again  the  Lord 
appeared  to  Saul  of  Tarsus  and  his  companions  on 
the  way  to  Damascus.  He  saw  the  Lord,  they  only 
saw  a  light.  He  heard  the  Lord  speak  and  recognized 
the  words  ;  they  heard  a  voice,  if  indeed  they  did 
hear  one,  but  they  heard  no  words. 

Now   it   should    be   observed   that   It   is   clearly 
*  John  xii.  28-30. 

D 


34  INSPIRATION 

indicated  in  both  cases  that  the  Revelation  was  not 
subjective.  A  noise  was  heard  by  many  in  our 
Lord's  vision ;  a  light  was  seen  and  a  voice  was 
heard  by  Saul's  companions.  These  visions,  it  is 
plain,  might  have  been  seen  by  many  if  they  had 
eyes  to  see.  Thus,  they  illustrate  the  assertion  made, 
that  the  Revelation  of  God  takes  its  form  and  character 
from  those  who  hear  it ;  it  becomes  real  and  intelli 
gible  according  to  their  spiritual  capacity. 

Now  comes  the  third  stage.     When  the  human 
heart  has  received  and  digested  the  Divine  truth,  it  be 
comes  a  human  conception.    It  has  passed  from  God  to 
man,  and  become  man's  own.     What  then  ?     It  has 
next  to  be  brought  to  the  birth  ;  it  must  be  clothed  in 
a  human  body  ;  i.e.  expressed  in  a  human  word.     The 
word  used  must  be  an  old  one  with  a  definite  mean 
ing  attached  to  it ;  otherwise  it  will  not  give  the  new 
truth  expression.     We  talk  about  coining  words,  but 
coining  words  is  simply  melting  up  old  words  and 
combining  them  into  new.     Now  words  are  imperfect 
expressions  of  our  thoughts.     It  is  often  impossible 
in  great  earthly  matters  to  find  words  which  express 
what  we  think,  or  feel,  or  see.     We  sometimes  find 
it  necessary  to  use  words  connoting  imperfect  and 
erroneous  ideas  to  express  great  truths.    Words,  more 
over,  cannot  be  otherwise  than  imperfect,  for  they  are 
children  of  men,  with  their  fathers'  natural  imperfec 
tions.     There  is,  it  is  clear,  no  sacred  language — i.e. 
no  language  revealed  by  God  for  the  embodiment  of 
Divine  truths.     The  idea  is  indeed  absurd.     A  word 
is  no  use  to  a  man  till,  by  passing  through  his  mind, 
it  becomes  his  own.     It  may  be  said,  Could  not  God. 
who  gave  the  word,  give  it  its  meaning  ?    The  idea 


INSPIRATION  35 

may  be  conceivable  in  the  case  of  an  individual — 
the  inspired  prophet.  A  Divine  explanation  might 
accompany  the  word,  but  it  is  certainly  a  reversal  of 
God's  ordinary  methods  ;  and  unless  this  instruction 
was  also  given  to  all  those  to  whom  the  prophet 
spoke,  he  would  speak  to  them  in  an  unknown 
tongue.  It  seems  clear  that  the  words  embodying 
Divine  truths  must,  like  all  other  words,  pass  through 
human  minds  before  they  can  be  used.  It  is  quite 
clear  that  Hebrew,  though  some  have  thought  the 
contrary,  has  no  claim  to  be  the  original  language  of 
man.  And  the  Bible  indicates,  in  conformity  with 
universal  experience,  that  man's  language  grew  with 
man's  growth,  and  in  correspondence  with  his  needs. 
"  The  Lord  God  formed  every  beast  of  the  field  and 
every  fowl  of  the  air,  and  brought  them  unto  the  man 
to  see  what  he  would  call  them  ;  and  whatever  the  man 
called  every  living  creature,  that  was  the  name  there 
of."  *  Man  gave  names  to  the  animals  as  they  were 
brought  to  his  notice ;  generalizing  somewhat,  we 
may  say  that  man  formed  his  own  language  as  he 
wanted  it.  It  would  seem  that  we  have  here  a 
parable  of  the  origin  of  all  language.  It  is  a 
human  product,  a  photograph  taken  by  the  human 
brain.  Like  all  photographs,  words  limit  and  some 
times  distort  the  things  they  picture.  They  can 
never  be  more  than  descriptions  from  one  point  of 
view. 

Church  history  very  clearly  illustrates  the  diffi 
culty  of  expressing  Divine  truths  in  human  words, 
and  also  new  truths  in  old  words.  Old  Greek  words 
were  modified  in  meaning,  that  they  might  describe 

*  Gen.  ii.  19. 


36  INSPIRATION 

doctrines  and  virtues  distinctively  Christian.  The 
early  controversies  owed  much  of  their  complexity 
and  difficulty  to  the  fact  that  the  words  of  theological 
terminology  had  not  been  fixed  in  their  meaning. 
Old  meanings  or  connected  ideas  had  not  been 
finally  excluded,  the  new  meanings  had  not  been 
exactly  defined.  And  it  should  be  noted  that 
troubles  arose  not  merely  with  words  used  in  the 
Creed,  but  also  with  words  used  in  the  Bible.  "  Son" 
and  "Word"  are  terms  which  the  Bible  adopts  to 
express  the  relation  of  the  Second  Person  of  the 
Blessed  Trinity  to  the  First.  Both  suggested  ideas 
justifiable  by  the  rules  of  etymology  or  previous 
history,  but  inadmissible  from  the  theological  point 
of  view.  It  could  not  be  otherwise.  Human  words, 
expressing  human  conceptions,  could  only  be  shadows 
of  shadows  when  expressing  Divine  truths. 

There  is  a  well-known  theory  of  Inspiration 
called  "verbal  Inspiration."  Its  object  is  to  minimize 
and  even  annihilate  the  human  element  in  the  Bible. 
It  is  open  to  objections  of  great  weight,  and  brings 
Reason  in  direct  conflict  with  Faith.  I  mention  this 
theory  here  because  it  fails  to  accomplish  its  ends.  If 
the  Bible  Is  verbally  inspired,  the  human  element 
remains  substantial.  Even  if  the  Holy  Spirit  chose 
the  words  for  His  revelation  of  truth,  they  were  all 
man-made  words  from  amongst  which  He  chose. 

We  have  traced  the  human  element  in  Revelation 
in  the  form  in  which  it  is  presented  by  God  to  man,  in 
its  reception  by  the  human  spirit,  in  its  embodiment  in 
human  words.  There  is  one  other  particular  in  which 
man  has  the  chief  part — God  uses  human  agents  for 
the  promulgation  of  His  Divine  message.  We  know 


INSPIRATION  37 

that  God  docs  not  create  new  beings,  of  a  higher  and 
purer  kind,  to  spread  the  knowledge  of  His  will ;  He 
uses  the  available  men  with  all  their  imperfections  : 
men  of  like  passions  with  ourselves,  as  the  prophet 
Elijah ;  unlearned  and  ignorant  men,  as  Peter  and 
John  ;  men,  however  great  their  qualifications,  spiri 
tual  and  intellectual,  who  are  of  the  same  limited 
nature  as  ourselves ;  sometimes  even  men  of  little 
spirituality  or  of  low  morality,  like  the  prophet 
Balaam  or  the  traitor  Judas.  It  is  very  remarkable 
how  God  respects  the  human  creature  He  has  made. 
He  respects  man's  will,  and  allows  it,  seemingly,  to 
thwart  His  own.  He  respects  man's  lordship  in 
creation.  He  assists,  He  rebukes,  He  chastises  His 
viceroy,  but  never  deposes  him.  Though  nothing  is 
done  on  earth  of  which  God  is  not  the  doer ;  there  is 
nothing  done  on  earth — in  the  intellectual  or  moral 
or  spiritual  domain — which  He  does  apart  from  His 
viceroy,  man. 

And  this  can  be  very  clearly  seen  in  the  several 
books  of  the  Bible.  The  individuality  of  the  different 
authors,  their  circumstances,  their  limitations,  are 
clearly  seen.  The  Old  Testament  authors  write 
their  books  in  Hebrew,  not  all  equally  good.  The 
New  Testament  authors  use  Greek  which  never 
conforms  to  the  classical  models.  The  Divine  Inspi 
ration  does  not  emancipate  men  from  the  danger  of 
grammatical  mistakes,  nor  does  It  endow  them  with 
excellence  of  style.  It  needs  no  highly  developed 
critical  faculty  to  discern  how  the  spirit  of  the  be 
loved  disciple  dominates  his  writings,  and  how  the 
Epistles  of  St.  Paul  are  imbued  with  his  impetuosity, 
earnestness,  and  zeal  for  souls.  The  books  of  the 


38  INSPIRATION 

Bible,  considered  as  literature,  are  not  all  on  the  same 
high  level.  In  a  word,  the  inspired  writers  of  the 
books  of  the  Bible  are  very  truly  and  really  authors 
still.  How  the  Spirit  of  the  Lord  came  to  these 
authors  is  uncertain.  How  God  and  His  human 
ministers  co-operated  together  we  cannot  say.  But  it 
is  clear  that  from  the  facts  before  us,  i.e>  the  internal 
phenomena  of  the  different  books,  that  the  writers  of 
the  record  of  the  Revelation  were  not  nominally  but 
actually  and  efficiently  fellow-workers  with  their  God. 


IV 

WHAT  ANALOGY  INDICATES  AS  TO  THE  GENERAL 
METHOD  OF  GOD'S  WORKING 

THE  Bible  is  not  the  only  means  used  by  God  for 
revealing  Himself  to  man.  He  reveals  Himself 
in  Nature — Heaven  and  earth  are  full  of  His  Glory  ; 
in  History — the  Most  High  ruleth  in  the  Kingdom 
of  man  and  appointeth  over  it  whomsoever  He  will. 
We  can  see  His  hand  if  we  have  eyes  to  see.  Above 
all  He  has  revealed  Himself  in  His  Only  Begotten 
Son.  No  man  hath  seen  God  at  any  time.  The 
Only  Begotten  Son  who  is  in  the  bosom  of  the 
Father  He  hath  declared  Him.  The  Revelations  made 
in  God's  Personal  Word,  and  in  His  Written  Word 
have  of  course  much  in  common,  but  they  are  not 
identical ;  the  one  is  the  written  record  of  the  other. 
We  men  have  therefore  considerable  experience  in 
regard  to  the  methods  God  is  wont  to  use  when 
making  a  Revelation  of  Himself.  The  different 
Revelations  since  they  all  alike  have  God  for  their 
Author,  since  they  have  the  same  great  purpose,  to 
manifest  God  to  man,  since  they  all  follow  the  same 
general  plan,  through  the  visible  to  reveal  Him  who 
is  invisible,  must  needs  be  to  some  extent  analogous 
one  to  the  other.  Reason  has  something  to  say 

39 


40  INSPIRATION 

about  the  Divine  workings  in  Nature.  It  is  not 
indeed  a  fit  judge  of  their  wisdom  and  goodness, 
but  it  can  discern  something  of  their  character.  We 
can  also  observe  God's  workings  in  human  and 
natural  life,  and  we  know  how  He  was  pleased  to 
reveal  Himself  in  Jesus  Christ  Thus  we  are  able  to 
discern,  to  some  extent,  how  God  works.  And  we 
are  entitled  to  say  that  no  a  priori  objection  against 
the  Bible  derived  from  the  means  apparently  used 
there,  can  have  any  force  if  we  find  a  similar  means 
for  revealing  Himself  used  elsewhere.  We  may  go 
further  and  say  that  the  observed  use  by  God  of 
some  particular  method  in  one  sphere  of  Revelation 
makes  it  to  some  extent  probable  that  He  will  use  a 
similar  method  in  another  sphere.  Possibly  the  chief 
result  of  our  observations  will  be  to  produce  in  us 
a  still  stronger  conviction  of  our  incompetency  to 
decide  what  methods  God  is  likely  or  unlikely  to 
use.  We  shall  realize  that  His  judgments  are  un 
searchable  and  His  ways  past  finding  out.  The  line 
of  argument  suggested  here  is  of  course  substantially 
the  same  as  that  followed  by  Butler  in  his  <c  Analogy." 
It  differs  of  course  in  its  assumptions,  because  it  is 
addressed,  not  to  Deists,  but  to  believers  in  the  Divine 
Revelation.  It  differs  likewise  in  its  objects,  because 
it  seeks,  not  to  remove  a  priori  objections  to  Revela 
tion  In  itself,  but  to  throw  light  on  the  character  of 
the  means  by  which  God  made  it.  The  argument, 
however,  is  identical  in  its  essence,  though  differing 
in  its  application,  and  it  is  suitable  to  the  times, 
for  both  believers  and  unbelievers,  like  the  Deists 
in  Butler's  days,  are  inclined  to  reason  on  hypo 
theses.  They  neglect  the  obligation  of  searching  the 


INSPIRATION  41 

Scriptures  in  order  to  see  what  the  scheme  of 
Revelation  really  is,  and  they  determine  beforehand 
(whether  on  grounds  of  reason  or  of  faith)  what  the 
scheme  of  it  must  be.  They  neglect  to  observe 
God's  methods  of  communicating  a  knowledge  of 
His  will  to  us  so  far  as  they  are  open  to  observation, 
and  determine  on  abstract  grounds,  that  if  the  Bible 
is  the  Word  of  God  this  or  that  quality  must  be 
present  or  absent.  This  human  quality  is  present,  say 
Rationalists,  therefore  the  Bible  cannot  be  the  Word 
of  God.  The  Bible  is  the  Word  of  God,  say  be 
lievers,  and  therefore  that  human  quality  cannot  be 
present.  Men's  reason,  which  affirms  that  it  is,  leads 
them  astray.  To  both  Butler's  warning  may  be 
addressed  :  "  We  are  in  no  sort  judges  what  are  the 
necessary  means  for  accomplishing  [God's]  ends." 

It  is  very  natural,  in  regarding  any  work  of  God, 
to  draw  the  inference  that  being  Divine  it  must  be 
perfect.  There  can  be  no  defect  or  flaw,  men  say,  in 
anything  which  is  truly  Divine.  Prove  the  defect  or 
flaw,  and  you  have  disproved  the  divinity.  This  is  an 
a  priori  argument,  and  observation  would  seem  to 
disprove  it.  There  is,  indeed,  no  work  of  God  within 
the  reach  of  our  knowledge  which  can  be  said  to  be 
perfect.  This  is  a  very  remarkable  fact,  and  has,  per 
haps,  this  explanation.  Under  the  present  order  every 
Work  of  God  is  imperfect  because  It  is  unfinished. 
We  see  rough-hewn  blocks,  not  the  polished  and 
perfect  statues.  A  more  common  explanation,  which 
seems  to  satisfy  many,  is  that  the  imperfection  we 
observe  in  God's  works  is  due  to  the  Fall  of  man. 
It  is  a  fallen  world  in  which  we  live.  Creation  was 
made  subject  to  vanity  and  participated  in  man's 


42  INSPIRATION 

curse.  But  can  every  evil  and  defect  in  Creation  be 
so  traced?  And  if  it  could,  ought  we  not  to  go 
further  back  and  inquire  to  what  cause  we  should 
trace  the  Fall  itself?  Is  not  liability  to  fall  itself 
an  imperfection?  There  is  a  law  of  our  Creation 
existing  unnumbered  years  before  the  Fall  of  Adam, 
according  to  which  everything  grows  gradually  to  its 
perfection.  Nothing,  such  is  God's  Will,  is  born 
full-grown.  "  First  the  blade,  then  the  ear,  then  the 
full  corn  in  the  ear,"  is  God's  way  with  all  the 
creatures  of  which  we  have  knowledge.  In  the  history 
of  man  first  there  comes  the  weakness  of  infancy, 
then  full-grown  strength ;  first  ignorance,  then  ex 
perience  ;  first  savagery,  then  civilization.  Science 
tells  us  of  its  stone  and  bronze  and  iron  ages,  and 
history  in  different  language  tells  us  the  same  thing. 
Revelation  speaks  of  its  fulness  of  time.  Everything 
in  this  world  seems  to  have  its  childhood  and  its 
manhood.  The  childhood  comes  first,  the  manhood 
is  very  slowly  reached.  We  can  discern  the  working 
of  this  law  even  in  such  things  as  minerals.  They  were 
prepared  for  man's  use  in  the  course  of  ages.  Now, 
is  this  law  of  growth  a  law  of  our  fallen  world  only  ? 
Is  it  reasonable  to  suppose  that  the  Fall  so  com 
pletely  revolutionized  the  conditions  of  creaturely 
existence  that  it  brought  the  different  forms  of  life 
for  the  first  time  under  the  law  of  growth.  Such  a 
supposition  seems  unnatural  in  the  highest  degree, 
and  there  is  no  doubt  what  the  judgment  of  science 
on  the  matter  is.  But  the  teaching  of  Revelation  is 
equally  plain.  The  first  chapter  of  Genesis  teaches 
us  that  Creation  was  under  the  law  of  growth  from 
its  beginning.  First  Chaos,  then  Kosmos ;  first  the 


INSPIRATION  43 

lowest,  last  the  highest  forms  of  life.  The  Divine 
Wisdom  is  revealed  to  us  not  so  much  in  the  begin 
ning  of  Creation  as  in  its  end.  Living  creatures 
have  implanted  within  them  a  marvellous  power  of 
growing  to  their  perfection,  or  as  we  may  more 
accurately  express  it,  living  creatures  never  cease  to 
be  the  subjects  of  God's  workings,  they  never  pass 
outside  Nature's  laws  which  are  His  moulding  hands. 

Cognate  to  what  has  been  said,  and  developing  it 
slightly,  is  the  fact  that  not  every  creature  of  God  is 
to  our  mind  beautiful,  or  lovely,  or  noble,  or  useful.  If 
we  say  they  are,  we  are  walking  by  faith,  not  by 
sight.  Faith  sees  them  as  they  will  be,  sight  as  they 
are.  Many  things  are  strange  and  weird,  we  might 
say  also,  mean,  ugly,  and  harmful.  Cunning  serpents 
and  savage  wild  beasts,  and  noxious  plants  and  vegeta 
tion,  the  foul  vapours  or  the  climatic  circumstances 
which  make  some  districts  deserts  or  valleys  of 
death — these,  so  far  as  we  can  view  them,  cannot  be 
regarded  as  anything  but  evil.  If  it  be  said  we  are 
not  qualified  to  judge,  the  answer  is,  Very  true, 
then  let  us  remember  that  things  which  the  sober 
judgment  and  universal  consent  of  mankind  pro 
nounce  to  be  evil  are  nevertheless  God's  works. 
Evil,  in  a  thing  seeming  evil,  does  not  entitle  us  to 
infer  that  the  Lord  has  not  done  it.  This  is  a  wide- 
reaching  principle,  and  it  should  be  consistently 
applied. 

And  Man — God's  noblest  work — how  chequered 
and  mysterious  is  his  history  !  He,  it  is  plain,  was 
not  born  full-grown.  He  had,  like  every  other  child, 
to  learn  to  be  a  man.  And  it  is  not  to  the  Fall  that 
he  can  trace  all  his  imperfections,  The  Bible  story 


44  INSPIRATION 

of  his  naming  the  living  creatures,  and  his  searching 
for  a  helpmeet  amongst  them,  indicates  this.  Ex 
perience  is  a  treasure  which  each  man  must  gather 
for  himself.  The  stores  of  human  knowledge  are 
gradually  collected.  Adam  and  Eve,  if  created  in  the 
full  perfection  of  their  bodily  powers,  could  not  have 
been  rich  as  men  now  are  in  regard  to  the  treasures 
of  the  past.  To  regard  Adam  and  Eve  in  the  garden 
of  Eden  as  perfect  is  to  confound  perfection  with 
innocence ;  and  Adam's  innocence  was  not  that  of 
beings  who  have  passed  through  evil,  but  the  inno 
cence  of  a  child  whose  senses  are  not  exercised  to 
discern  between  good  and  evil.  We  talk  sometimes 
of  a  perfect  child,  but  a  child  is  essentially  imperfect, 
and  the  man  Adam  was  in  many  senses  a  child. 
The  Fall  itself  proves  this.  The  serpent's  craft,  as 
it  is  described  to  us,  was  adapted  to  a  being  of 
extreme  simplicity  and  ignorance.  God's  noblest 
work  was  thus,  at  its  first  manifestation  in  the  world, 
full  of  imperfections. 

The    history   of  mankind  in  the  world  teaches 
similar  lessons.     There  have  been   many  saints   of 
God,  men    of   God's    own    making,   and   remaking 
besides.    These  walk  with  God,  have  God  for  their 
portion,  reflect  God's  image,  and  are  in  a  very  true 
sense    sons    of   God.     Nevertheless   none   of  these 
approached   perfection,   though    they   were    moving 
towards  it  and  will,  we  believe,  attain  it  in  the  end. 
Of  God's  own  fashioning  were  all  these,  although 
they  were,  nevertheless,  imperfect.     Yet  again,  God 
has  chosen  for  Himself  and  created  a  chosen  gene 
ration,  a  royal  priesthood,  a  holy  nation,  a  peculiar 
people.      Its    members    are    called    "the    general 


INSPIRATION  45 

assembly  and  church  of  the  first-born  which  are 
written  in  heaven."  Many  an  image  tells  of  the 
Church's  true  divinity  and  the  closeness  of  its 
relation  with  God.  Yet,  though  it  is  the  Body  to 
which  the  God  is  Son  of  Head,  and  which  the 
Spirit  of  God  fulfils,  in  it  evil  is  ever  mingled  with 
the  good.  History  proves  over  abundantly  that  it  is 
as  yet  far  removed  from  what  it  is  to  be,  viz.  a 
glorious  Church  not  having  spot  or  wrinkle  or  any 
such  thing.  The  Bride  of  the  Lamb  has  not  yet 
made  herself  ready  for  her  marriage.  The  strongest 
and  most  remarkable  proof  of  the  point  I  have  been 
labouring,  still  remains  to  be  given.  The  supreme 
Revelation  of  God  is  in  Jesus  Christ.  To  reveal 
God  to  man,  the  Only  Begotten  Son,  the  very  image 
of  God's  substance,  humbles  Himself  to  become  part 
of  this  world's  Creation.  Submitting  Himself  to  its 
laws,  He  became  imperfect  too.  He  came  to  be  the 
first  and  last  of  a  new  Creation  of  perfect  men,  and 
it  was  His  good  will  Himself  to  grow  to  His  perfec 
tion  like  every  man.  It  behoved  Him,  the  Epistle  to 
the  Hebrews  teaches  us,  for  whom  are  all  things  and 
through  whom  are  all  things,  to  make  the  Author  of 
man's  salvation  perfect  through  sufferings.  Though 
He  was  a  Son  yet  learned  He  obedience  through  the 
things  which  He  suffered  ;  and  having  been  made 
perfect  He  became  unto  all  them  that  obey  Him  the 
Author  of  eternal  salvation.  The  records  of  our 
Lord's  life  declare  clearly  our  Lord's  imperfection. 
At  the  beginning  of  His  life,  the  Son  of  God  was 
unable  to  take  in  hand  the  work  of  salvation  for 
which  He  came  down  from  heaven.  The  Word  of 
God  could  not  even  speak,  and  the  Saviour  Himself 


46  INSPIRATION 

stood  in  need  of  human  ministry  for  the  preservation 
of  His  infant  life.  During  the  first  thirty  years  of 
His  short  earthly  sojourn  the  weaknesses  natural  to 
immaturity  incapacitated  Him  from  beginning  His 
great  work.  Increase  in  wisdom  and  stature  implies 
previous  defects  therein.  And,  indeed,  human  weak 
nesses  hindered  Him  all  through  the  period  of  His 
condescension.  "  I  have  a  baptism  to  be  baptized 
with,"  He  says  ;  "and  how  am  I  straitened  till  it  be 
accomplished  ! "  *  He  was  a  creature  of  time  and 
His  day  was  short.  He  could  not,  being  man,  be 
everywhere  present,  and  so  His  manifestation  of 
God's  glory  Could  be  seen  only  by  a  few  in  a  single 
corner  of  the  world.  It  was  suffering  humanity  He 
assumed,  and  suffering  implies  imperfection  in  nature. 
We  could  not  have  imagined  that  so  it  would  be. 
We  should  have  clothed  the  Son  of  God  in  the  per 
fection  of  beauty,  whereas  it  is  said  that  He  had  no 
form  or  comeliness.  The  glory  of  the  Transfigura 
tion  should  have,  to  our  thinking,  been  His  perpetual 
state.  How  plainly  does  the  Incarnate  Son  of  God, 
despised  and  rejected  of  men,  teach  us  that  God's 
Revelations  of  Himself  come  to  us  in  unlikely  ways, 
and  in  unworthy  (to  our  thinking)  forms.  Readers  of 
Church  History  will  know  how  great  a  stumbling- 
block  the  weakness  and  sufferings  of  Jesus  Christ 
placed  in  the  way  of  belief  in  Him  in  the  early 
Christian  ages,  and  how  strong  was  the  tendency  for 
many  centuries  to  some  kind  of  Docetism.  It  was 
very  difficult  for  men  to  believe  that  the  human 
nature  of  the  Son  of  God  could  be  in  all  respects 
identical  with  our  own.  It  is  still  found  difficult  ; 

*  Luke  xii.  50. 


INSPIRATION  47 

but  if  we  can  conquer  the  difficulty  and  see  the  Son 
of  God  in  the  infant,  the  growing  child,  the  Man 
of  infirmities  and  weaknesses,  the  Crucified  Male 
factor,  we  shall  never  dare  to  say  that  the  Word  of 
God  cannot  be  embodied  in  forms  ignoble,  as  the 
critics  would  have  us  believe  certain  parts  of  the  Bible 
are.  The  critics  may  be  right  or  they  may  be  wrong. 
In  my  belief  they  are  very  often  wrong.  But  if  they 
are  right  in  their  analysis  of  the  outward  form  of  the 
Bible,  they  do  not  throw  doubts  on  its  Inspiration. 

Another  great  truth  which  the  analogy  of  God's 
workings  suggests  to  us  is  that  in  the  work  of  the 
formation  of  the  Bible,  man  is  a  true  co-operator 
with  God. 

It  is  said  expressly  of  men  once  or  twice  in  the 
Bible  that  they  are  fellow-workers  with  God,  and, 
what  is  far  more,  the  Bible  throughout  represents 
man  as  working  along  with  his  Maker.  Moreover, 
the  Bible  very  clearly  teaches  that  it  is  within  man's 
power  to  refuse  his  co-operation.  Notwithstanding 
this,  men  find  it  hard  to  believe  that  it  is  possible  for 
them  truly  to  co-operate  with  God.  "  Co-operation," 
or  working  along  with,  is  indeed  a  remarkable  word 
to  use  in  this  connection.  It  implies  something  like 
equality.  One  of  many  fellow-workers  may  be  indeed 
supreme,  but  all  have  a  substantial  share  in  the  work 
done  by  them  in  common.  The  co-operator  is  some 
thing  more  than  an  underling,  and  he  is  much  more 
than  a  tool.  The  co-operator  cannot  be  used  by 
the  master-workman  solely  at  his  good  will  and 
pleasure.  It  is  within  his  power  to  hinder  or  advance 
the  accomplishment  of  the  work  in  which  he  is 
engaged.  This  being  so,  it  is  not  unnatural  for  us 


43  INSPIRATION 

men  to  stagger  at  the  word  "  co-operate  "  because  of 
our  unbelief.  We  can  understand  how  the  dwarf 
might  on  occasion  aid  the  giant,  or  the  mouse,  the 
lion  ;  we  can  even  measure  the  strength  of  an  insignifi 
cant  insect  against  the  strength  of  man  ;  but  we  cannot 
compare  the  finite  with  the  infinite.  How  then  can 
a  man's  action  aid  or  hinder  the  action  of  God  ?  The 
thing  is  Inconceivable  by  human  reason,  yet  it  is  true. 
It  would  seem  as  if  in  some  spheres  of  God's  action 
and  pre-eminently  in  the  greatest  of  all — the  sphere  of 
regeneration  and  re-creation — He  does  nothing  with 
out  the  co-operation  of  man.  The  work,  remaining 
divine,  has  also  a  human  character.  It  would  also 
seem  that  man  can  frustrate  God's  purposes  for  him 
self,  not  indeed  eternally,  but  in  his  own  world  of  time. 
He  can  hasten  the  coming  of  the  day  of  God,  con 
sequently  he  can  retard  it.*  By  his  faith  and  patience 
he  can  spread  the  Gospel  amongst  ail  the  nations  ;  by 
his  unbelief  he  can  narrow,  for  a  time,  the  limits  of 
the  kingdom  of  Christ.  We  cannot  understand  how 
these  things  can  be,  but  we  have  sufficient  proof  that 
God  has  so  willed  it.  He  has  created  a  race  of  beings 
who  can,  if  they  please,  assume  an  attitude  of  opposi 
tion  to  Him,  and  who  have,  in  a  certain  sense,  a 
position  of  independence  in  regard  to  Him.  They 
are  called  to  work  for  Him  and  with  Him,  but  they 
can  refuse. 

The  co-operation  of  man  with  God  is  seen  in  the 
government  of  the  world.  Co-operation  between 
superior  and  inferior  beings  implies  authority  given 
by  the  one  and  received  by  the  other.  Man  has 
received  such  authority.  A  charge  has  been  given 
*  2  Pet.  iii.  12. 


INSPIRATION  49 

him  to  replenish  the  earth  and  subdue  it,  and  he  has 
been  given  dominion  over  the  fish  of  the  sea  and 
the  fowl  of  the  air,  and  over  every  living  thing  that 
creepeth  upon  the  earth.  God  remains  the  supreme 
King,  man  is  His  viceroy  in  the  world  of  matter  and 
of  sense,  and  all  things  have  been  placed  under  man's 
feet.  What  is  the  history  of  mankind,  but  a  history 
of  the  gradual  establishment  of  his  rule  over  the 
lower  animals,  and  his  control  over  the  powers  of 
Nature  ?  Gradually  he  brings  his  allotment  into 
cultivation.  He  who  is  truly  and  effectively  king  in 
one  of  the  kingdoms  of  the  universe,  must  needs  be  a 
co-operator  with  God.  But  it  is  in  the  history  of  the 
new  Creation  that  man's  co-operation  can  be  most 
clearly  traced.  It  would  be  impossible  for  us  to 
estimate  the  share  the  angels  take  in  this  work,  but 
apart  from  them,  men  are  the  chief,  as  they  are  the 
only  visible  workmen  whom  God  employs  in  this,  the 
greatest  of  God's  works. 

It  is  only  through  man  that  men  attain  to  the 
knowledge  of  God  and  His  will.  It  is  through  them 
alone  that  the  Gospel  is  preached  and  the  kingdom  of 
heaven  is  set  up.  And  man's  share  in  the  new 
Creation  is  rightly  called  "co-operation."  The  Body 
could  not  act  without  the  Spirit,  but  neither  is  the 
Spirit  wont  to  work  apart  from  the  Body.  Two  wills 
and  two  understandings  share  in  the  work  of  the 
salvation  of  man.  God  does  not  force  man's  will  or 
put  aside  his  understanding.  He  strengthens  the 
one  and  illumines  the  other,  and  so  raises  man  to  be 
an  effective  fellow-worker  with  Himself. 

But  the  greatest  proof  that  man  is  capable  of  being 
and  actually  is  a  fellow-worker  with  God  is  derived 

E 


50  INSPIRATION 

from  the  Incarnation.  The  work  of  salvation  is 
human  as  well  as  Divine.  The  power  was  Divine,  but 
the  instrument  used  was  human  nature  with  its  weak 
ness  and  sufferings.  It  may  be  said  that  our  Lord's 
condescension  consisted  in  doing  nothing  save  through 
the  instrumentality  of  that  human  nature  which  He 
had  assumed.  That  human  nature  was  altogether 
like  our  own,  weakened  by  the  Fall,  not  as  yet  glori 
fied  by  the  Resurrection.  The  co-operation  between 
the  Divine  and  the  human  in  the  person  of  our  Lord 
was  complete  and  it  was  effectual.  He  finished  the 
work  which  His  Father  had  given  Him  to  do.  So 
we  are  assured  that  human  faculties  are  such  that 
God  can  use  them,  and  that  they  are  capable  of 
accomplishing  the  most  difficult  and  the  greatest  of 
Divine  works.  By  man  came,  as  St.  Paul  says,  the 
abundance  of  grace,  justification  of  life,  and  righteous 
ness.  "  For  since  by  man  came  death,  by  man  came 
also  the  resurrection  of  the  dead."  * 

It  is  plain  that  in  our  Lord  Jesus  Christ  and  His 
work  upon  earth,  we  have  presented  to  us  the  ideal  of 
all  Divine  workings  upon  earth  and  of  all  co-operations 
between  God  and  Man.  Not  only  the  ideal,  but  the 
example :  what  the  God-man  accomplished,  all  men 
in  their  measure  are  called  upon  and  enabled  to  do. 
In  the  work  of  the  new  Creation,  there  is  nothing 
done  upon  earth  of  which  God  is  not  the  doer, 
there  is  also  nothing  done  by  God  which  is  not  done 
through  redeemed  and  re-created  man. 

If,  then,  in  the  great  work  of  Divine  salvation  God 
and  man  co-operate  in  the  Person  of  Jesus  Christ  first, 
and  afterwards  in  the  persons  of  those  who  have  been 

*  I  Cor.  xv.  21,  and  cf.  Rom.  v. 


INSPIRATION  51 

fulfilled  by  His  Spirit,  there  can  be  no  difficulty  in 
believing  that  God  and  man  co-operated  in  making 
the  written  record  of  Revelation.  If  the  work  of 
man  in  the  one  was  substantial,  it  surely  may  be  in 
the  other.  And  if  we  find  in  Revelation  the  usual 
traces  of  man's  work  we  cannot  be  surprised.  This 
seems  certain  if  the  one  Lord  Jesus  Christ  is  both 
God  and  Man  ;  one  book  can  be  both  human  and 
Divine.  Proofs  that  it  is  so  we  defer  for  the  present. 
All  that  we  contend  for  here  is  that  the  analogy  of 
the  Divine  rule  in  the  world  and  of  the  Divine  plan 
for  its  redemption  and  re-creation,  indicates  that  it  is 
likely  so  to  be. 


V 

WHAT   is    LEARNED    BY   ANALOGY   FROM   THE 
SPECIAL  WORKING  OF  THE  SPIRIT  OF  GOD 

THE  work  of  the  Inspiration  of  the  sacred  writers 
is  ascribed  in  the  Bible  and  in  the  Creed  to  the 
Holy  Spirit  of  God.  It  is  needless  to  prove  this  fact, 
for  it  is  universally  acknowledged.  And  it  cannot 
be  wrong  to  assume  that  the  works  of  the  Spirit 
may  have  a  specific  character.  By  considering  His 
different  works  we  may  be  able  to  throw  light  on 
His  work  of  Inspiration.  The  very  word  "  inspiration  " 
connects  it  with  the  Spirit  of  God.  It  suggests  to 
us  that  as  the  Father  is  the  Source  of  life,  and  Salva 
tion  is  the  work  of  the  Lord  Jesus,  so  it  may  be,  not 
merely  a  work,  but  the  Work  of  the  Spirit  to  inspire. 
It  will  be  observed  that  we  are  again  using  an  argu 
ment  of  an  analogical  kind.  The  Three  Persons  of  the 
Blessed  Trinity,  it  is  needless  to  say,  co-operated  in 
the  great  work  of  Creation.  But  distinctions  are 
drawn  between  their  operations.  The  Father  is  the 
First  Cause,  the  Son  is  the  Mediator  in  Creation, 
but  the  Holy  Spirit  is  described  as  the  Giver  of  Life. 
It  will  be  remembered  that,  in  the  Nicene  Creed,  it 
is  said  of  the  Father  that,  "  He  is  the  Maker  of 
heaven  and  earth,  and  of  all  things  visible  and 

52 


INSPIRATION  53 

invisible  ; "   similarly  it  is  said  of  the  Son,  "  By  or 
through  whom  all   things  were  made."     The  corre 
sponding  statement  concerning  the  Spirit  of  God  is 
that  He  is  "  the  Giver  of  Life."     It  is  undoubtedly 
the   teaching  of  the  Church   that   the  Spirit   along 
with  the  Father  and  the  Son  is  the  Creator.      Veni, 
Creator     Spiritus,    we     are    wont     to     sing.      The 
Anomoeans  in  the  fourth  century  declared    Him  to 
be  a  Creature  destitute  of  Deity  and  Creative  Power. 
Against  them  the  doctrine  of  the  Church  that  the 
Holy  Spirit  was  equal  in  power  to  the  Father  and 
the  Son  was   very  clear.     But   a   difference   in   the 
Spirit's    Creative    Power    seems    to    be    taught    us. 
Special    pains   are    taken    to   connect   the    Creative 
Power    of    the    Father    and    the    Son    with    things 
material,  as  well  as  with  things  spiritual.     Thus  the 
Father  is  the  Maker  of  earth  as  well  as  of  heaven, 
and,  with  something  of  repetition,  of  things  visible 
as  well   as  of  things  invisible.     The  Church  in  her 
Creed  looked  back  to  the  first  words  of  her  written 
revelation,  "In  the  beginning  God  created  the  heavens 
and  the  earth,"  and  was  careful  to  oppose  Gnostic  error 
in  regard  to  the  eternal  existence  and  evil  nature  of 
matter.     Similarly  the  clause,  "  By  whom  all  things 
were   made,"   connects   the    Son    likewise   with    the 
creation  of  material  substance.     And  here  again  the 
Scriptural  statements  are  clear,  for  St.  John  says,  "All 
things  were  made  by  Him  ;    and  without  Him  was 
not  anything  made."  *     And  St.  Paul  even  still  more 
definitely  says,  "  In  Him  were  all  things  created,  in  the 
heavens  and  upon  the  earth,  things  visible  and  things 
invisible,  ...  all  things  have  been  created  through 

*  John  i.  3. 


54  INSPIRATION 

Him  and  unto  Him."  *  The  statements  of  Holy 
Scripture  concerning  the  Spirit's  creative  work  are 
less  definite  and  formal,  but  they  seem  to  teach  us 
that  His  work  was  not  to  create  material  substances, 
but  to  give  life  to  them  when  made.  We  read  in  the 
first  words  of  Genesis, "  In  the  beginning  God  created 
the  heavens  and  the  earth,  and  the  earth  was  waste 
and  void,  and  darkness  was  upon  the  face  of  the  deep." 
The  first  act  of  Creation  was  thus  the  Creation  of 
matter — formless,  lifeless  matter.  Then  mention  is 
made  of  the  Spirit  and  His  work.  The  Spirit  of  God 
brooded  over  the  face  of  the  waters.  We  naturally 
connect  that  brooding  with  all  the  different  forms  of  life 
which  followed  in  their  due  order.  The  earth  having 
got  its  body,  it  was  the  function  of  the  Spirit  to 
supply  its  soul,  its  breath,  its  life,  and  this  under  very 
different  forms.  With  this  interpretation  the  words 
of  the  Psalm  of  Creation  agree.  Death  is  described 
as  the  taking  away  of  the  breath.f  "Thou  takest 
away  their  breath  they  die,  and  are  turned  again  to 
their  dust."  Creation  on  the  other  hand  is  the  giving 
of  the  breath — the  Divine  breath  or  Spirit.^  "  Thou 
sendest  forth  Thy  Spirit,  they  are  created."  Doubtless 
in  the  passages  quoted,  as  in  all  other  Old  Testament 
passages,  the  word  "  Spirit "  had  not  the  fulness  of 
its  New  Testament  meaning.  The  Divine  Spiritual 
energy  had  not  yet  been  revealed  as  a  Divine  Person. 
Nevertheless  the  undefined  "  Spirit "  of  the  Old 
Testament  is  one  and  the  same  with  the  revealed 
Spirit  of  the  New. 

The  same   inference    may  be   drawn   from   the 

*  Col.  i.  16.  t  Ps.  civ.  29,  30. 

J  The  Hebrew  word  for  "  Spirit"  and  "  breath  "  is  the  same. 


INSPIRATION  55 

record  of  the  making  of  man  which  we  find  in 
Genesis  ii.  7.  It  is  said  the  Lord  God  formed  man 
out  of  the  dust  of  the  ground  and  breathed  into  his 
nostrils  the  breath  of  life,  and  man  became  a  living 
soul.  There  seem  to  be,  or  rather  there  are  repre 
sented  to  us  two  Divine  acts  here  ;  first  the  forming 
of  the  body  out  of  the  dust,  and  second  its  inspiration 
by  the  breath  of  God.  The  work  characteristic  of 
the  Spirit  is  distinguished  from,  and  follows  after,  the 
forming  of  the  material  body.* 

There  is  a  marvellous  vision  in  the  thirty-seventh 
chapter  of  Ezekiel,  the  vision  of  the  Dry  Bones,  which 
describes  the  work  of  the  Spirit  in  re-creation.  Again 
we  find  the  same  sequence  of  events  as  at  the  original 
Creation.  First  there  is  chaos — the  waste  and  desolate 
valley  full  of  bones,  very  many  and  very  dry.  Next 
there  comes  order,  the  bodies  of  the  dead  are  re-formed. 
Bone  comes  to  his  bone,  sinews  and  flesh  come  up, 
and  skin  covers  all.  Last  of  all  these  bodies  are 
inspired.  "  Come  from  the  four  winds,  O  Breath, 
and  breathe  upon  these  slain  that  they  may  live." 
The  interpretation  follows,  "  I  will  put  My  Spirit  in 
you,  O  My  people,  and  ye  shall  live."  The  point  to 
observe  is  that  it  is  not  the  Spirit's  work  to  remake 
the  bodies,  but  to  fill  these  when  remade  with  life. 

The  work  of  the  Spirit  in  the  Incarnation  is 
closely  analogous  to  His  work  in  the  first  creation. 
The  Blessed  Virgin  conceives  and  is  quickened  by 
the  Holy  Ghost.  Our  Lord  takes  His  human  nature 

*  Contrast  this  verse  with  verse  19  which  tells  us  of  the  making  of 
the  animals.  It  is  only  into  man  that  God  is  said  to  have  breathed. 
All  animals  have, however,  this  breath.  Cf.  Gen.  vii.  22.  The  word  for 
"  breath  "  in  this  verse  is  not  the  same  word  as  "  breath  "  =  "  spirit  "  in 
Ps.  civ.  29,  30. 


56  INSPIRATION 

in  the  womb  of  the  Blessed  Virgin  of  her  substance. 
The  Spirit  gives  the  life.  The  Holy  Thing  that  is 
born  of  her  is  called  the  Son  of  God.  Again  the  day 
which  may  be  called  the  great  day  of  Divine  Inspira 
tion,  the  Day  of  Pentecost,  came.  On  that  day  the 
Holy  Spirit  does  not  form  new  men  to  be  His  living 
temples.  He  comes  down  upon  men  already  reformed 
by  the  hand  of  their  Master  Christ,  and  therefore  pre 
pared  to  receive  Him ;  men  with  established  characters 
of  their  own  ;  and  He  quickens  them  with  new  and 
higher  life. 

The  Day  of  Pentecost  initiated  a  new  era.  The 
Holy  Ghost  came  to  abide  in  His  Church  for  ever. 
We  remember  that  the  Church  and  the  Holy  Ghost 
are  placed  over  against  one  another  as  Body  and 
Spirit.  There  is  one  Body  and  one  Spirit — one 
organization  and  one  inspiring  life.  The  Holy 
Spirit,  moreover,  dwells  in  the  individual  Christian 
as  well  as  in  the  whole  Church.  As  the  human 
body  is  the  dwelling-place  of  the  human  spirit,  so 
the  bodies  and  souls  of  men  are  the  Spirit's  shrines. 

All  the  facts  recorded  concerning  the  nature  of 
the  work  of  the  Holy  Spirit  seem  to  suggest  the  same 
inference,  viz.,  that  the  work  of  the  Holy  Spirit  of 
God  is  the  work  of  Inspiration  or  the  giving  of  life  to 
something  which  has  the  nature  of  a  body.  The 
inference  I  wish  to  draw  by  way  of  analogy  is,  that 
the  Holy  Spirit,  when  inspiring  the  sacred  Scriptures 
or  their  writers,  acts  even  as  He  acted  at  the  Creation 
and  at  the  Re-Creation,  in  the  making  of  the  first  Adam 
and  of  the  Second ;  in  the  quickening  of  the  Second 
Adam's  natural  Body,  or  of  His  mystical  Body — the 
Church.  It  is  not  His  function,  we  infer,  to  create 


INSPIRATION  57 

an  organization  but  to  inspire  it  with  life  when  made. 
First  the  materials,  the  substance,  the  outward  form 
are  made,  and  then  the  Spirit  breathes  in  the  Divine 
life.  The  body  may  be  vile,  waste  and  void  as  the 
earth  in  the  beginning  ;  dust  of  the  ground,  the 
material  of  man's  body ;  dry  bones,  sinful  and  im 
perfect  man.  He  inspires  that  body,  whatever  it 
may  be,  and  transforms  and  quickens  it  by  His  in 
spiration.  To  apply  what  has  been  said  to  our 
special  subject — He  takes  the  thoughts  and  words 
of  men,  ancient  traditions,  family  narratives,  national 
records,  words  of  human  wisdom,  laws  and  institu 
tions — things  in  themselves  temporary  and  partial — 
and  makes  them  into  the  everlasting  Word  of  God, 
speaking  to  all  nations  and  generations  of  mankind, 
able  to  make  them  wise  unto  salvation  through  faith 
which  is  in  Christ  Jesus.  In  other  words  the  Bible 
has  a  human  body,  but  a  Divine  Spirit.  The  Bible  is 
not  wholly  Divine,  nor  is  it  wholly  human.  Like 
the  Personal  Revealer  of  God  to  man  it  is  both.  It 
is  the  Word  of  God,  and  also  the  Word  of  man. 
It  has  the  perfections  and  qualities  of  its  Divine 
character,  but  also  the  imperfections  and  qualities 
natural  to  all  works  of  men.  It  is  a  Divine  treasure 
contained  in  an  earthen  vessel.  Positive  proof  of 
their  twofold  character  will  be  supplied  as  we  go  on, 
meanwhile  the  analogy  of  the  workings  of  the  Spirit 
suggests  to  us  that  so  it  will  be. 


VI 

PROOFS  OF  THE  DIVINE  INSPIRATION  OF 
THE  BIBLE 

WE  believe  that  the  Holy  Scriptures  are  inspired 
by  God,  and  when  we  say  this  we  mean  that 
they  are  inspired  not  merely  as  all  noble  human 
works  are  rightly  said  to  be,  but  in  a  peculiar  and 
special  sense — inspired  so  that  we  are,  through  their 
guidance,  to  live  the  spiritual  heavenly  life  whilst 
still  on  earth,  and  to  attain  to  the  knowledge  of  God 
and  of  Jesus  Christ  in  which  Life  Eternal  consists. 
The  question  sooner  or  later  has  to  be  faced,  "Why 
do  we  believe  that  the  Scriptures  are  inspired  ? "  It 
is  plainly  arguing  in  a  circle  to  answer,  Because  they 
are  the  word  of  God.  Nor  is  the  answer,  "  Because 
they  say  they  are  inspired,"  any  more  satisfactory. 
We  are  not  wont  to  accept  self-assertions  without 
further  inquiry.  The  Koran  equally  with  the  Bible 
claims  inspiration  for  itself:  why  do  we  believe  the 
one  and  not  the  other  ? 

The  reason  to  be  derived  from  the  history  of  our 
own  spiritual  life,  and  of  that  of  mankind  has  been 
already  referred  to.  We  know  the  Bible  to  be 
Divine  because  it  has  nourished  the  Divine  within 
us  and  our  fellow-men.  This  is  a  sufficient  reason 

58 


INSPIRATION  59 

for  any  to  give  from  a  personal  point  of  view.  Some 
amongst  men  know  in  whom  they  have  believed,  and 
nothing  whatever  can  shake  their  confidence  that  the 
book  which  told  so  effectively  of  Him  was  truly  His. 
Experience  is  the  invincible  shield  of  Faith.  But 
though  this  reason  suffices  for  ourselves,  it  is,  being 
of  a  subjective  kind,  well  nigh  incommunicable 
to  others.  Doubtless  Christian  lives,  nourished  on 
the  Bible  food,  should  recommend  the  Bible  to 
others,  and  to  some  extent  they  do  this.  But 
Christian  lives  are  imperfect  at  the  best,  and  so  lose 
much  of  their  power  to  attract ;  and  on  the  other 
hand  it  is  not  all  men  who  are  capable  of  appreci 
ating  the  beauty  of  the  Christian  character.  Spiritual 
beauty  is  spiritually  discerned.  It  would  seem  that 
proofs  of  the  Divine  Inspiration  of  the  Scriptures 
appealing  to  men's  minds  rather  than  their  spirits,  or 
rather  appealing  to  men's  spirits  through  their  minds, 
is  what  is  required.  We  must  look  for  facts  which 
will  arrest  men's  attention,  and  force  them  to  inquire 
whether  such  things  do  not  imply  superhuman  power 
and  wisdom. 

It  must,  however,  be  borne  in  mind  that  though 
we  can  give  men  a  reason  for  the  hope  which  is  in 
us,  we  cannot  prove  to  their  intellects  spiritual  truths, 
and  in  particular  the  truth  of  the  Divine  Inspiration 
of  Holy  Scripture.  Proof  is  addressed  to  the  human 
reason.  Inspiration  is  not  a  natural  but  a  spiritual 
truth.  Spiritual  truths  are  discerned  by  the  spiritual 
and  not  by  the  natural  powers.  A  man's  reason 
cannot  find  out  God,  nor  can  it  discern  Him  when 
found.  Now  it  is  to  be  feared  that  few  men  are 
deeply  spiritual,  i.e.  could  be  rightly  called  spiritual 


60  INSPIRATION 

beings,     Wholly  unspiritual  they  may  rarely  be,  but 
their  spiritual  powers,  from  want  of  education  and 
use,  are  terribly  deficient,  and  are  not,  most  certainly, 
the  dominant  powers  in  their  lives.     Some  will  resent 
this  assertion  of  deficiency  in  capacity  ;  such  may  be 
asked  whether  they  would  not  admit  that  few  men 
can  establish  their  claim  to  the  title  of  rational  being. 
It  is  only  in  the  few  that  reason,  rather  than  custom, 
prejudice,  or  passion,  rules.      How  many  men  are 
able  to  follow  a  course  of  reasoning,  even  when  the 
different  steps  are  few,  easy,  and  plain  ?     Those  who 
can  discern  a  deficiency  of  reasoning  power  in  their 
fellow-men,  cannot  deny  that  there  may  be  a  deficency 
of  another  kind  of  power — spiritual  power — in  them 
selves.     The  blind  man  cannot  discern  the  things  of 
sight ;  he  does  not,  however,  deny  their  existence,  but 
acknowledges   his    own   defects.      The   unreasoning 
man  admits  the  existence  of  reasoning  powers,  but  is 
probably  unconscious  of  his  own  incapacity  to  reason 
The  unspiritual  man,  not  discerning  spiritual  things, 
goes  further  than  either,  and  denies  their  existence, 
and  claims  that  they  shall  be  made  clear  to  him  though 
he  has  no  spiritual  power  and  capacity.     That  surely 
is   an   unreasonable   request.      A   man    cannot   see 
material  sights   unless  he   has   eyes,  a  man  cannot 
appreciate  intellectual  facts  unless  he  has  developed 
reasoning  ;  so  a  man  cannot  discern  spiritual  truths 
unless  he  has  spiritual  powers.     Man  is  a  composite 
being,  and  the  possession  of  great  powers  in  one  of 
his  different  parts  does  not  involve  the  possession  of 
great  powers  in  another.     In  practice  the  contrary  is 
the  rule.      The  unbelief  of  men  possessed  of  great 
reasoning  power  is  sometimes  thought  to  tell  strongly 


INSPIRATION  61 

against  the  truth  of  the  Christian  Faith.  It  would 
be  as  reasonable  to  assert  that  the  denial  or  non- 
perception  of  the  truths  of  science  by  great  athletes 
discredited  those  truths.  We  have  not  been  left 
without  warning  that  the  wise  in  the  things  of  this 
world  will  not  commonly  be  found  to  be  rich  in 
faith. 

We  confess,  then,  frankly,  that  it  is  impossible  to 
prove  the  Inspiration  of  the  Bible  to  the  unbeliever  ; 
he  cannot  appreciate  the  proof.  But  if  men  have  a 
little  faith,  i.e.  a  little  spiritual  power,  reasons  can  be 
given  which  will  strengthen  and  support  it.  Traces 
of  the  Divine  workings  can  be  pointed  out  to  them 
in  the  pages  of  the  Bible. 

There  is  a  fact  which  all  may  recognize  as  differ 
entiating  the  Bible  from  all  other  books.  Regarding 
the  Bible  simply  as  literature,  all  can  see  that  it 
differs  from  other  literature  in  the  way  its  writers  see 
God  everywhere.  The  Bible  professes  to  be,  as  no 
other — even  amongst  sacred  books — professes,  the 
historical  record  of  the  meetings  of  the  Creator  and 
the  creature — of  God  with  man. 

The  Bible  claims,  I  say,  to  be  the  record  of  the 
actual  meetings,  of  the  continuous  dealings  of  God 
with  man.  We  are  apt  to  regard  the  Bible  as  con 
cerned  mainly  with  the  future — the  coming  age  and 
the  future  world.  But  it  is  concerned  with  the  future, 
as  wrapped  up  in  the  present.  There  are  better 
things  coming,  but  Israel  and  her  prophets  and  her 
saints  have  not  to  wait  for  God's  Presence.  God  is 
with  men.  In  the  Old  Testament,  Jehovah  is  de 
scribed  as  an  ever  present  Being,  ruling  in  the  midst 
of  His  people;  and  in  the  New  Testament,  God  has 


62  INSPIRATION 

visited  His  people — Emmanuel  has  come.  It  is  the 
realization  of  the  Divine  immanence  which  differenti 
ates  the  Old  Testament  prophets  and  writers  from 
all  other  wise  teachers  of  men.  They  see  God  every 
where.  They  are  able  to  trace  in  all  the  crises  of 
the  national  history,  and  in  all  the  events  of  individual 
lives,  the  working  of  God.  His  handwriting  is  always 
upon  the  wall,  and  they  can  interpret  it ;  above  all, 
they  see  His  hand.  In  the  New  Testament,  again, 
the  Gospels  supply  to  us  the  record  of  the  earthly 
life  of  the  Incarnate  God,  hence  their  pre-eminence 
amongst  the  books  of  the  Bible.  It  is  because  the 
New  Testament  describes  a  closer  union  and  commu 
nion  between  God  and  man  in  Jesus  Christ  that  it  is 
superior  to  the  Old.  It  is  because  the  New  Covenant 
effects  a  closer  union  between  God  and  man  that  it  is 
a  better  covenant.  The  sum  and  substance  of  Reve 
lation  is  expressed  in  those  words  of  the  Psalmist, 
"  Who  is  like  unto  the  Lord  our  God,  who  dwelleth 
on  high,  who  humbleth  Himself  to  behold  the  things 
that  are  in  heaven,  and  in  the  earth  ? "  and  yet  more, 
"  He  raiseth  up  the  poor  out  of  the  dust,  and  lifteth 
the  needy  out  of  the  dunghill  ;  that  He  may  set  him," 
not  merely  "with  princes,"  but  "at  His  own  right  hand." 
Or,  to  use  New  Testament  language,  "  Lo,  I  am  with 
you  all  the  days,  even  to  the  consummation  of  the 
age."  "  The  Comforter,  the  Spirit  of  Truth,  dwelleth 
with  you  and  shall  be  in  you."  "  The  Tabernacle  of 
God  is  with  men." 

Now,  why  is  it  that  the  writers  of  the  Old  and 
New  Covenants  thus  realize  the  Divine  immanence, 
thus  see  God  everywhere,  and  hold  close  communion 
with  Him  ?  Our  answer,  as  Christians,  is  because 


INSPIRATION  63 

they  have  that  spiritual  power  by  which  they  can  see 
God.  Here  is  a  manifest  fruit  of  the  power  which 
they  claim  for  themselves — the  Inspiration  of  the 
Spirit  of  God.  The  Koran  claims  for  itself  Inspira 
tion  ;  when  we  examine  it,  we  find  no  proofs  of 
its  claim.  It  is  different  with  the  writers  of  the 
Bible.  They  plainly  are  possessed  of  a  spiritual 
power  which  brings  them  into  close  touch  with  the 
unseen. 

Of  course  we  are  liable  to  the  retort  that  the 
Biblical  writers  were  mistaken  in  thus  seeing  God 
everywhere.  They  were  superstitious  and  fanatical 
some  might  say.  Superstition  and  fanaticism  are 
no  uncommon  things  in  any  age,  and  they  were 
specially  common  in  the  early  days  of  the  world's 
history. 

It  may  be  readily  admitted  that  superstition 
and  fanaticism  are  no  uncommon  things,  but  they 
never  make  those  under  their  influence  nobler 
and  greater  men.  Now,  it  is  certain — the  fact  is 
obvious  to  our  reason — that  the  men  of  the  Spirit, 
the  real  prophets  and  teachers  of  the  Bible,  were 
the  noblest  of  their  race  and  generation.  They  soar, 
indeed,  so  high  above  the  ordinary  people  of  their 
time  that  we  wonder  how  they  could  have  left  their 
own  people  so  far  behind.  Those  who  deny  the  truth 
of  their  religion  cannot  deny  the  purity  of  their 
morals  and  the  nobility  of  their  aims.  We  must  put 
side  by  side  the  strength  of  these  men,  which  is 
beyond  question,  and  that  which  they  tell  us  is  the 
secret  of  their  strength — the  Divine  Inspiration.  The 
one  accounts  for  the  other.  It  would  be  strange 
indeed,  if  they  became  strong  under  the  influence  of 


64  INSPIRATION 

a  lie.  And  we  may  add  to  what  has  been  already  said 
that  the  nation,  Israel,  though  less  consistently,  is  under 
a  lower  kind  of  the  same  influence.  Old  Testament 
history  tells  us  this,  that  Israel  is  strong  just  so  far  as 
she  recognizes  God's  presence  in  her  midst.  Can  the 
secret  of  her  strength  have  been  vain  imagination 
and  false  delusion  ?  It  should  be  observed  also  that 
it  is  a  number  of  men,  a  line  of  men,  a  number  of 
different  men  in  very  different  circumstances,  a  whole 
nation,  for  hundreds  of  years  of  their  history,  who 
believed  that  God  was  present  and  working  amongst 
men,  and  in  particular  amongst  themselves.  Now 
we  can  imagine  a  temporary  madness  passing  over  a 
people,  and  filling  it  with  strength  for  a  brief  period. 
But  the  case  is  very  different  when  you  have  a  school 
of  teachers  interpreting  facts  on  the  same  principles, 
able  to  show  how  former  interpretations  of  former 
prophets  and  former  recognitions  of  God's  dealings 
had  proved  to  be  true.  The  claim  of  the  prophets, 
that  they  see  God  and  hear  His  voice,  stands  the  test 
of  time.  Looking  back  on  the  history  of  the  Jewish 
nation,  we  can  hardly  deny  that  their  close  relation 
with  God  (real  or  supposed)  was  the  secret  of  their 
strength. 

One  of  the  results  of  the  modern  discoveries  of 
the  monuments  and  records  of  ancient  nations  is 
undoubtedly  this :  Israel,  in  many  particulars,  re 
sembled  the  other  nations  much  more  closely  than 
we  have  been  wont  to  think.  Further,  God's  dealings 
with  her  differed  less  widely  from  His  dealings  with 
them.  We  find  laws  very  like  the  laws  of  Moses  in 
the  codes  of  the  Babylonian  kings,  and  ideas  some 
what  like  the  Messianic  ideas  in  Babylonian  writings 


INSPIRATION  65 

also.  The  Moabite  Stone,  it  has  been  remarked, 
reads  very  like  a  chapter  of  The  Kings.  When 
Cyrus  sent  back  the  captive  Jews  to  Jerusalem,  and 
built  their  temple,  he  was  not  attracted  by  their  pure 
religious  ideas,  nor  had  he  been  brought  under  any 
supernatural  influence,  he  was  simply  following  a 
policy  which  political  motives  sufficiently  explain. 
But  when  we  have  fully  admitted  all  this,  we  have 
still  to  account  for  the  peculiar  genius  of  Israel,  and  the 
remarkable  influence  she  has  exerted  on  the  nations 
of  the  world.  It  seems  to  be  proved  to  us  more 
and  more  that  Israel's  pre-eminence  consists  not  so 
much  in  God's  dealings  with  her,  which,  ordinarily,  at 
least,  were  substantially  the  same  as  with  other 
nations,*  but  in  the  fact  that  she  had  men  who  were 
able  to  discern  God's  hand  in  every  event  of  national 
or  individual  life.  Whether  we  are  reading  history 
or  prophecy,  we  find  that  a  Divine  cause  is  assigned 
for  all  that  happens.  The  Jewish  historian  or  prophet 
does  not  stop  to  record  or  consider  earthly  causes,  he 
reckons  them  to  be  of  no  account  He  is  absorbed  in 
the  idea  that  God  is  working  His  righteous  work  upon 
the  earth.  Secondary  causes,  the  use  of  the  great 
empires  of  the  world,  Assyria,  Babylonia,  or  Persia, 
the  reigns  of  the  great  national  kings,  like  those  of  the 
eighth  century  B.C. — in  short,  the  political  events  which 
are  of  supreme  importance  to  some  minds,  are  not 
thought  worthy  of  mention  by  him.  He  passes  beyond 
these  immediately  to  Him  who  ruleth  in  heaven  and  on 
the  earth,  believing  that  whatever  is  done  upon  the 
earth  He  is  the  doer  of  it.  Whence  comes  this  power 

*  The    history   of    Israel    is    not    continuously   miraculous.     Few 
miracles  are  recorded  outside  the  periods  of  Moses,  Elijah,  and  Daniel. 

F 


66  INSPIRATION 

to  see  God  everywhere,  but  from  a  Divine  faculty  of 
spiritual  vision  ?  It  is  God-given  sight  by  which 
men  see  God.  I  say  again,  this  intensity  of  spiritual 
vision  is  a  strong  proof  of  the  inspiration  of  the 
Jewish  writers,  and,  in  a  less  degree,  of  the  Jewish 
nation. 


VII 

PROOF  FROM  THE  BIBLICAL  DOCTRINE  OF  SIN 

AS  we  have  seen,  the  Bible  claims,  as  no  other 
sacred  book  claims,  to  be  the  historical  record 
of  the  meetings  of  the  Creator  and  the  creature.  Its 
writers  claim,  as  no  other  writers  do,  to  see  God's 
workings.  It  is  a  very  considerable  substantiation  of 
this  claim,  that  their  great  theme  is  man's  sin  and  its 
doing  away.  Who  could  see  God  in  a  fallen  world 
and  not  see  sin  also  ?  Who  could  know  God  as  the 
Creator  of  all  things — and  as  a  God  merciful  and  long 
suffering,  and  not  hope  that  sin  would  be  done  away  ? 
Those  who  really  see  God  must  needs  say  what  Job 
says,  "  Now  mine  eye  seeth  Thee,  wherefore  I  abhor 
myself,  and  repent  in  dust  and  ashes  ;  "  *  or  what  Isaiah 
says,  "  Woe  is  me,  for  I  am  undone ;  because  I  am  a 
man  of  unclean  lips,  and  I  dwell  in  the  midst  of  a 
people  of  unclean  lips :  for  mine  eyes  have  seen  the 
King,  the  LORD  of  Hosts."  f  We  may  indeed  say 
that  the  prophet's  perception  of  sin  in  himself  and 
his  people  is  the  test  of  the  truth  of  his  vision.  The 
false  prophet  says,  "  Peace,  peace,  when  there  is  no 
peace."  The  true  prophet  knows  God  as  the 
Righteous  One  whose  name  is  Holy,  and  discerns 

*  Job  xlii.  5,  6.  t  Isa.  vi.  5. 


68  INSPIRATION 

with  terrible  distinctness,  the  national  sins  and  their 
consequences.  It  is  well  worthy  of  note  that  it  is  the 
sins  of  the  people  of  God,  not  the  sins  of  the  nations, 
which  the  prophets  specially  see.  Numerous  passages 
in  the  prophecies  of  Amos,  Hosea,  Isaiah,  and 
Jeremiah  testify  to  this.  The  Biblical  writers  also 
know  what  sin  really  is.  It  is  reckoned  to  be  alike  a 
crime  and  a  disease.  The  crime  is  capital  and  the 
disease  infectious  and  deadly.  It  cannot  be  atoned 
for  by  material  gifts.  And  sin  pervades  the  whole 
human  race  and  is  incurable  by  any  natural  remedy. 
It  separates  man  from  his  God,  and  so  from  the  one 
source  of  light  and  life.  It  brings  him  under  the 
sentence  of  death,  bodily  and  spiritual.  We  Christians 
reckon  ourselves  to  have  advanced  far  beyond  the 
men  of  the  Old  Covenant  in  our  knowledge  of  Divine 
truth  ;  it  would  be  well  for  us  if  we  equalled  them  in 
their  sense  of  the  guilt  and  destructive  power  of  sin. 

We  find  of  course  developments  in  the  later  as 
compared  with  the  earlier  teachings  of  Revelation  on 
the  nature  of  sin.  The  patriarchs  would  seem  to  have 
been  deficient  in  sense  of  it,  though  Joseph  says, 
when  tempted,  "  How  can  I  do  this  great  wickedness 
and  sin  against  God?"  By  the  law  came  its  knowledge, 
as  St  Paul  teaches,  and  by  the  Gospel  a  fuller  know- 
led^e  still.  The  Prophets,  spiritualizing  former  teach- 
in^  taught  men  its  true  nature,  the  Psalmists  show 
ho&w  the  Divine  teaching  had  been  assimilated  by 
men's  hearts.  The  life  and  death  of  Jesus  Christ 
declare  sin's  exceeding  sinfulness  with  unique  power. 
Nevertheless  the  basis  of  the  true  doctrine  was  laid 
with  precision  in  very  early  teachings  of  the  Old 
Testament,  The  narrative  of  the  Fall  shows  a 


INSPIRATION  69 

marvellous  insight  into  sin's  essential  character,  and 
declares  with  great  completeness  its  relations  to  the 
Divine  King  and  Judge,  the  human  conscience,  and 
to  the  whole  Creation.  Sin  was  not  a  part  of 
Creation  as  made  by  God.  It  did  not  take  its 
origin  from  man's  material  nature,  or  in  an  internal 
necessity  of  any  kind.  It  was  an  act  of  his  own 
free  will.  He  voluntarily  did  that  which  he  knew 
to  be  wrong.  He  set  his  own  will  against  the 
declared  will  of  God.  Neither  was  it  an  external 
necessity  which  caused  man  to  sin.  The  serpent  was 
indeed  more  subtle  than  all  the  beasts  of  the  field 
which  the  Lord  God  had  made,  and  man  had  the 
simplicity  of  a  child  ;  the  temptation  was  strong,  but 
man  might  have  resisted  it  if  he  had  so  willed.  The 
Fall  was  thus  man's  own  act  and  not  the  serpent's. 
The  narrative,  therefore,  establishes  fully  human  re 
sponsibility  ;  man  is  left  without  excuse.  Very  full 
teaching  concerning  the  consequences  of  sin  is  also 
given.  It  brings  man  under  the  Divine  displeasure 
and  separates  him  from  his  God.  It  causes  disturb 
ance  and  disorder  both  in  man  and  the  whole  Creation 
besides.  And  then  the  narrative  passes  beyond  sins, 
and  tells,  though  in  vague  terms,  of  human  redemp 
tion.  The  seed  of  the  woman  would  bruise  the 
serpent's  head.  Thus  the  narrative  of  the  Fall  con 
tains  in  itself  a  synopsis  of  the  Divine  Revelation. 
Human  sin  and  Divine  Grace  would  be  its  great 
theme.  We  notice  that  this  teaching  had  been  com 
mitted  to  writing  (even  according  to  the  latest  criticism) 
one  hundred  years  or  more  before  the  Canonical 
prophets  arose.  It  had  been  given  no  one  can  say  how 
many  centuries  before.  It  is  plain  that  Israel  had 


70  INSPIRATION 

great  nameless  inspired  teachers  before  the  Prophets 
arose.  It  is  noticeable  that  there  are  no  certain 
explicit  allusions  to  the  narrative  of  the  Fall  in  the 
Old  Testament ;  the  fact  shows  that  the  argument 
from  silence  cannot  be  safely  used  on  Old  Testament 
matters.  We  can  discern  in  the  narrative  of  the 
Fall  those  particulars  which  differentiate  the  Biblical 
doctrine  of  sin  from  those  of  other  religions.  There 
is  of  course  much  in  ancient  heathen  literature 
parallel  to  the  Biblical  teaching.  No  religion  pro 
fessed  by  man  can  be  without  its  doctrine  of  sin. 
Every  religion  implies  relations  between  God  and 
man,  and  sin  is  the  interruption  of  those  relations. 
Religious  rites,  prayers  and  sacrifices,  sometimes  also 
spells  and  incantations,  are  the  means  used  by  man 
to  restore  friendly  relations,  i.e.  to  put  away  sin.  So 
men  of  every  religion  acknowledge  they  are  sinners, 
seek  for  forgiveness,  are  in  fear  of  the  Divine  retribu 
tion  in  this  world  or  in  the  next.  But  there  is  nothing 
which  can  be  compared  with  the  Biblical  teaching  as 
a  whole.  Sin  is  the  refusal  to  give  the  Deity  that  which 
is  His  due  ;  but  what  is  God,  and  what  is  His  due  ? 
The  one  God,  says  Revelation,  is  a  Spirit  and  His  re 
quirements  are  spiritual.  He  asks  for  righteousness, 
purity,  mercy,  penitence  of  heart,  from  His  wor 
shippers.  Sin  is  the  withholding  of  these.  But  the 
heathen  deities  are  commonly  identified  with  the  forces 
of  nature,  so  they  require  natural  products,  the  fruits 
of  the  earth,  animal  sacrifices.  In  the  polytheistic 
systems  there  are  gods  who  are  patrons  of  the  sensual 
desires,  so  they  are  worshipped  in  acts  of  cruelty  and 
sensuality.  That  which  is  a  sin  according  to  Revela 
tion,  is  an  act  of  worship  according  to  heathen 


INSPIRATION  71 

teaching.  That  which  God  hates,  Baal  and  Ash- 
toreth  expect ;  that  which  He  desires  not,  they 
require.  The  polytheistic  conception  of  sin  is,  there 
fore,  immeasurably  inferior,  indeed  directly  contrary 
to  the  Biblical.  Mohammedan  morality  is  much  nobler 
than  the  polytheistic,  but  it  cannot  be  compared  with 
the  Biblical  for  this  one  sufficient  reason — it  leaves 
woman  out  of  its  code  of  morals. 

But  it  would  be  unfair  to  judge  non-Biblical  con 
ceptions  of  sin  by  the  nature-worships  and  by 
Mohammedanism.  There  are  higher  teachings  to 
be  found.  It  is  in  the  Assyrian  and  Babylonian 
Penitential  Psalms  that  we  have  the  nearest  approach 
to  the  Biblical  Psalms  of  Penitence  and  Confession. 
In  these,  men  humble  themselves  before  the  Deity, 
acknowledge  they  have  sinned,  and  fervently  beg 
for  a  removal  of  the  Divine  displeasure.  Dis 
solve  my  sin,  my  iniquity,  they  say,  forgive  my 
transgression,  accept  my  supplication.  Neverthe 
less,  the  true  sense  of  guilt  seems  to  be  absent. 
Men  do  not  feel  they  have  done  wrong,  they  only 
believe  their  god  to  be  angry.  "What  have  I 
done,  it  is  asked,  O  my  god,  my  goddess?  As 
though  I  did  not  reverence  my  god  and  my  goddess 
am  I  treated."  It  is  change  in  the  mind  of  the  god, 
not  cleansing  of  the  heart  and  conscience,  they  require. 
So  incantations  are  joined  to  the  penitential  prayers, 
and  even  the  finest  and  purest  appeals  for  Divine 
grace  and  mercy  are  called  incantations.  The  peni 
tence  of  the  Hebrew  and  that  of  the  Babylonian 
religions  are  two  utterly  different  things.* 

*  See  Jastrow,  Art.  "  Religion  of  Babylonia  "  in  Hastings'  "Dic 
tionary,"  additional  volume,  pp.  566,  567. 


72  INSPIRATION 

Again  in  the  Egyptian  religion  we  seem  to  have 
the  clearest  idea  of  retribution  for  sin.*  It  is  differenti 
ated  most  pointedly,  says  Rawlinson,  from  all  other 
non-Christian  systems  in  the  stress  that  is  laid  upon 
the  after-life.  The  worship  of  Osiris,  judge  of  the 
dead,  was  the  popular  worship.  The  code  according 
to  which  he  gave  judgment  was  a  moral  code.  But 
there  were  great  gaps  in  the  Egyptian  code  of 
morality.  The  list  of  virtues  was  a  short  one. 
The  Egyptian  expected  to  be  able  to  justify  him 
self  when  standing  before  the  tribunal  of  the 
dead.  He  would  be  able  to  protest,  "  I  am  pure."  He 
could,  like  the  Pharisee,  keep  all  the  command 
ments  from  his  youth  up.  And  if  he  had  offended 
there  was  an  elaborate  ritual  consisting  of  charms  and 
prayers,  by  which,  if  said  at  the  proper  time  or  place, 
the  dead  man  could  escape  the  consequences  of  his 
transgression.  It  is  plain  that  the  Egyptian  con 
ception  of  sin  was  very  imperfect. 

It  is  possible  that  the  ethical  code  of  the  Buddhist 
is  the  highest  and  purest  of  all  the  heathen  codes. 
Gotama's  teaching  has  many  points  of  contact  with 
the  ethical  teaching  of  Christ.  But  Buddhism  is 
atheistic,  so  sin  is  not  an  act  of  disobedience  and 
base  ingratitude  to  God,  it  is  simply  a  disturbance  in 
human  nature.  There  is  nothing  in  Buddhism  corre 
sponding  to  the  love  of  God  which  at  once  reveals  sin, 
creates  penitence  in  the  sinner,  and  delivers  him  from 
sinful  power.  It  is  the  experience  of  all  Christians 
that  they  had  not  known  and  hated  sin,  had  they  not 
first  known  the  love  of  God.  The  Buddhist  not 
knowing  God's  love,  cannot  know  sin  as  it  is. 
*  Canon  Rawlinson,  Art.  in  "Non-Biblical  Systems  of  Religion,"  p.  35. 


INSPIRATION  73 

In  reading  accounts  of  non-Biblical  religions  it  is 
common  to  find  remarks  to  the  effect  that  the  earlier 
simpler  teachings  had  been  overlaid  by  later  super 
stitions.  Doctrines  of  sin  amongst  the  heathen  ;were 
not  capable  of  growth,  they  could  not  grow  as  men 
grew  or  adapt  themselves  to  different  circumstances 
There  was  in  them  the  seed  of  their  own  destruction. 
The  Biblical  doctrine,  on  the  contrary,  founded  on  the 
Hebrew  doctrines  of  Creation  and  the  Fall,  is  deve 
loped  by  later  teachers,  and  is  finally  perfected  by 
the  Gospel  of  Christ.  The  Gospel  alone  reveals  to  man 
sin  in  its  true  nature  and  guilt,  and  the  Gospel  alone 
tells  how  man's  sins  can  be  done  away.  The  teachers 
who  discerned  with  special  truth  the  character  of  the 
darkness  must  have  been  specially  filled  with  Divine 
light.  The  teachers  who  regard  sin  as  a  pure  and 
righteous  God  must  needs  look  upon  it  must  have 
been  filled  with  the  Spirit  of  God. 


VIII 

PROOF  FROM  THE  HARMONY  OF  THE 
TEACHING 

/T"*HE  harmony  of  the  Biblical  teaching  throughout 
-L  is  a  clear  indication  of  its  Divine  character.  Men 
do  not  sufficiently  appreciate  the  significance  of  the 
fact  that  all  the  different  books  of  the  Bible  teach  the 
same  truths.  They  have  been  wont  from  long  use  to 
regard  the  Bible  as  one  book,  whereas  it  is  a  collection 
of  many.  Hundreds  of  years  in  times  long  past  seem 
to  us  as  no  greater  periods  of  time  than  tens  in  our 
own  days,  so  we  make  little  of  the  fact  that  thirteen 
hundred  years  at  least  separate  Revelation's  beginning 
from  its  end.  We  assume  the  fact  of  Inspiration, 
and  then  it  becomes  in  no  way  wonderful  that  the 
words  of  God  in  one  age  of  human  history  should 
agree  with  His  words  in  another.  What  we  should 
rather  do  is  to  regard  the  books  of  the  Canon  as 
separate  books,  to  observe  the  great  differences 
between  them  in  regard  to  time,  outward  form, 
and  even  internal  character,  and  then  to  consider 
what  the  secret  of  their  harmony  must  be.  It  is 
because  there  are  in  Revelation  many  parts  and 
many  ways,  it  is  because  it  is  spread  over  so  many 
different  ages,  it  is  because  its  human  writers  differed 

74 


INSPIRATION  75 

so  widely  in  character  and  circumstances  and  modes 
of  thought,  that  we  are  led  to  the  conclusion  that 
its  harmony  and  unity  are  Divine. 

Josephus  in  his  book  against  Apion  *  lays  stress  on 
the  harmony  of  the  teaching  of  the  Jewish  sacred 
books.  We  have  not,  he  says,  an  innumerable 
multitude  of  books  amongst  us,  disagreeing  from  and 
contradicting  one  another.  It  is  one  of  the  reasons 
for  which  it  became  natural  for  all  Jews  to  esteem 
these  books  to  contain  Divine  doctrines,  and  to  persist 
in  them,  and  if  occasion  be,  willingly  to  die  for  them. 
The  agreement  of  the  prophets  amongst  themselves 
is  a  point  often  insisted  on  by  the  Christian  Apolo 
gists.  They  contrast  this  with  the  wrangles  between 
the  different  schools  of  Greek  philosophers.  But  is 
there  the  harmony  of  teaching  claimed?  I  suppose 
few  would  deny  that  a  general  harmony  exists.  There 
are  of  course  differences  in  teaching.  The  writers  do 
not  all  take  the  same  note,  but  they  all  seem  to  write 
in  the  same  key.  The  significance  of  the  fact  might 
be  minimized  by  ascribing  it  to  the  work  of  late 
editors.  But  when  all  reasonable  weight  is  given  to  this 
the  agreement  still  remains  remarkable.  And  special 
attention  should  be  given  to  the  particular  character  of 
the  agreement  or  harmony.  Harmony  is  not  equiva 
lent  to  identity,  and  is  indeed  incompatible  with  it. 
The  teachings  of  the  different  Old  Testament,  books 
are  not  identical.  The  later  editors  did  not  give  them 
one  voice  and  tone.  It  is  recognized  that  the  Old 
Testament  embodies  a  progressive  Revelation.  The 
late  editing  has  not  ma.de  this  fact  obscure.  The 
harmony  of  the  writers  of  the  Old  Testament  is 
*  Book  i.  c.  8. 


76  INSPIRATION 

the  harmony  of  men  who  agree  on  fundamental  prin 
ciples.  The  first  section  of  Genesis  (i.-ii.  3)  is  re 
garded  by  the  critics  as  late  in  date.  However  that 
may  be,  all  Old  Testament  teachings  take  the  sub 
stance  of  that  section  as  the  basis  of  their  teaching. 
They  are  agreed,  therefore,  who  and  what  God  is,  and 
what  man  is,  and  what  are  the  relations  of  each  to 
Creation.  As  man's  knowledge  and  experience  are 
enlarged,  we  find  that  a  higher  education  is  given 
him.  He  advances  under  the  guidance  of  the  pro 
phets  from  laws  to  principle.  His  outlook  widens, 
his  ideas  of  God  and  of  duty  and  of  the  kingdom  of 
God  are  enlarged.  Being  a  strong  man  he  is  no 
longer  fed  with  food  fit  only  for  babes.  It  follows 
from  what  has  been  said  that  the  unity  of  the  Bible 
resembles  the  unity  of  a  living  creature — the  unity 
which  connects  the  youth  of  life  with  its  old  age,  so 
that  the  child  is  the  father  of  the  man.  No  doubt 
there  is  closer  agreement  amongst  the  teachings  of 
the  Koran,  than  amongst  the  books  of  the  Bible, 
but  the  unity  of  the  Koran  is  the  unity  of  a  single 
human  mind,  expressing  itself  always  in  the  same 
outward  forms.  The  unity  of  the  Bible  is  the  far 
more  subtle  and  wonderful  unity  of  many  minds  and 
of  many  forms.  Such  unity  cannot  be  manufactured. 
Unity  with  an  entire  absence  of  uniformity  cannot  be 
attributed  to  design. 

And  it  must  be  remembered  that  we  can  find  a 
more  wonderful  unity  in  our  Bible  than  Josephus 
found  in  his  Old  Testament.  The  relations  between 
the  teachings  of  the  Old  and  New  Testament  are 
peculiarly  instructive.  Some  might  say  that  the  Old 
Testament  is  superseded  by  the  New  ;  the  truth  rather 


INSPIRATION  77 

is  that  the  New  Testament  is  the  fulfilment  of  the 
Old.  Undoubtedly,  much  of  the  Old  Testament 
passes  away  when  the  Gospel  is  preached.  But  this 
takes  place  in  every  natural  and  true  fulfilment  Many 
things  fall  off  from  flowers  and  fruits,  their  use  being 
over,  in  different  stages  of  their  growth.  It  is  a 
simple  fact  that  the  New  Testament  is  unintelligible 
without  the  Old.  Those  heretics  who  threw  aside  the 
Old  Testament  misunderstood  the  New.  And  on 
the  other  hand  the  Old  Testament  is  the  first  volume 
in  an  incomplete  book.  The  New  Testament  gives 
the  sequel  which  the  Old  Testament  demands. 
Irenaeus  says  the  Gospel  was  fourfold,  but  that  it 
was  held  together  by  one  Spirit.  It  would  be  equally 
true  to  say  that  the  Bible  is  manifold,  but  that 
one  Spirit  breathes  in  it  all.  Knowing  as  we  do  the 
conflicting  voices  of  human  teachers,  knowing  besides 
that  conflict  in  religious  teaching  is  wont  to  be  peculi 
arly  sharp  and  severe,  knowing  also  the  constant 
change  in  human  opinions,  the  unity  of  teaching  to 
be  traced  in  the  widely  separated  writers  of  the  Bible 
is  a  proof  of  Divine  Inspiration. 


IX 

PROOF  FROM  THE  PURITY  OF  THE  BIBLICAL 
TEACHING 

A  NOTHER  proof  of  the  Divine  Inspiration  of  the 
Jr\  Holy  Scriptures  is  to  be  found  in  the  purity  of 
their  teaching.  The  Bible  is  unique  amongst  sacred 
books,  because  it  contains  very  little  teaching,  compara 
tively,  which  is  not  of  the  highest  and  noblest  morality. 
A  statement  so  guarded  and  limited  in  its  language 
will,  perhaps,  be  startling  to  many.  They  will  ask,  "  Is 
there  anything,  can  there  be  anything,  lower  than  the 
best  in  the  Inspired  Word  of  God  ? "  And  yet  is  not 
the  standard  of  right  in  the  New  Testament  higher 
than  in  the  Old  ?  There  are  precepts  in  the  Law  which 
were  given  because  of  the  hardness  of  Israel's  heart. 
Israel,  in  Old  Testament  times,  was  not  capable  of 
the  highest  and  noblest  morality,  and  the  Law  recog 
nizes,  and  to  some  extent  legalizes,  existing  facts. 
The  law  says,  "  An  eye  for  an  eye,  and  a  tooth  for  a 
tooth."  This  is  an  immoral  precept,  which  Christ  has 
done  away.  The  spirit  of  the  Law  is  embodied  in 
the  words,  "  Thou  shalt  hate  thine  enemy,"  and  this 
is  contrary  to  the  Spirit  of  Christ. 

Christian  people  could  not  rightly  obey  many  of  the 
commands  given  by  God  to  the  Israelites,  nor  can 

78 


INSPIRATION  79 

they  rightly  use  all  the  verses  of  the  Psalms.  To  say 
that  every  teaching  in  Holy  Writ  must  be  the  very 
noblest  and  best  is  to  obstinately  shut  our  eyes  to 
these  facts.  It  is  to  determine  on  a  priori  principles 
what  God's  methods  and  dealings  must  have  been, 
and  to  disregard  the  teaching  of  that  Book,  which 
describes  them  as  they  actually  were.  It  is,  in  our 
loyalty  to  the  Bible,  to  give  less  than  our  full  loyalty 
to  truth. 

With  these  necessary  deductions,  the  fact  remains 
that  the  Holy  Scriptures  throughout  are  remarkably 
free  from  impure  and  unworthy  teaching.  Had  the 
different  books  been  written  at  one  time,  or  conformed 
to  one  model,  or  even  edited  by  one  mind,  this  would 
not  have  been  very  surprising,  but  they  belong  to 
many  generations,  and  are  of  many  different  kinds, 
and  are  the  works  of  teachers  differing  widely  in  their 
thoughts  and  circumstances.  Israel  herself  was  a 
nation  of  low  civilization  and  morality,  and  never, 
before  the  Babylonian  Captivity,  assimilated  the 
lessons  she  was  divinely  taught.  The  materials 
which  her  teachers  worked  up  into  her  sacred  books 
must  have  been  full  of  the  corruptions  natural  to 
rude  and  primitive  times  and  nations.  A  book 
so  composite,  so  mixed,  we  might  say,  in  many 
ways,  might  have  been  expected  to  be  of  mixed 
morality  and  value.  Mixture,  in  these  respects,  is 
not  denied.  Not  all  books  of  the  Bible  are  equally 
lofty  in  their  teaching,  or  of  the  same  moral  and 
spiritual  value.  But  it  cannot  be  said  of  the  Bible,  as 
it  can  of  all  other  sacred  books,  that  stories  and 
passages,  which  are  puerile  or  grotesque,  or  super 
stitious,  and  even  immoral,  are  mixed  up  with 


8o  INSPIRATION 

narratives  or  teachings  of  great  beauty  and  truth. 
It  is  the  words  of  the  Lord  that  are  pure  words. 
It  will  be  well  to  trace  the  unique  purity  of  the  Bible 
with  some  detail.  Comparing  the  Canonical  Scrip 
tures  with  the  Apocryphal,  we  find,  in  the  latter, 
passages  worthy,  if  we  may  venture  to  say  so,  of  a 
very  high  place  amongst  the  former.  Not  without 
the  Spirit  of  God  were  these  written.  On  the  other 
hand,  there  are  to  be  found  in  the  Apocrypha  in 
credible  stories,  passages  which  do  not  tend  to 
edification,  or  which  ring  a  false  note.  Heathen 
sacred  literature  contains  much  grosser  corruptions. 
To  take  examples :  by  judiciously  selecting  passages, 
it  would  be  possible  to  prove  that  the  Egyptian  con 
ception  of  the  nature  and  attributes  of  God  was  in  no 
way  inferior  to  the  Hebrew ;  but  side  by  side  with 
these  are  statements  concerning  the  Deity  which 
startle  and  shock  the  devout  mind.*  Some,  again, 
of  the  teaching  in  the  Vedas  is  highly  elevated  in  its 
character  ;  but  it  is  "  found,  when  taken  as  a  whole, 
to  abound  more  in  puerile  ideas  than  in  striking 
thoughts  and  lofty  conceptions."  f  The  Babylonians, 
to  take  another  instance,  mixed  together  in  their 
worship,  incantations,  and  penitential  psalms.J  The 
absence  of  all  such  lower  elements  in  the  Bible  is 
very  remarkable. 

And  we  may  take,  as  a  conspicuous  instance  of 
this,  the  freedom  of  the  earliest  books  of  the  Bible 
from  grotesque  legend  and  mythology.  What  story 

*  Rawlinson,  "Non-Biblical  Systems  of  Religion,"  p.  29. 
t  "Hinduism"  (S.P.C.K.),  by  Prof.  Monier  Williams,  p.  31. 
J  Hastings'    "Dictionary,"  extra  vol.,  "Religion  of  Babylonia," 
p.  567. 


INSPIRATION  8 1 

of  Creation,  save  only  that  of  the  Bible,  does  not 
disgust  us  with  some  absurdities  and  monstrosities  ? 
One  cannot  doubt  that  the  people  of  Israel  had,  like 
every  other  ancient  nation,  its  folk-lore,  its  mytho 
logical  stories  about  the  origin  of  the  world  and  man. 
And  from  what  we  know  of  natural  Israel,  these 
stories  would  not  transcend  in  wisdom  and  truth  the 
similar  stones  current  amongst  other  nations.  And 
yet  the  Bible  is  wonderfully  free  from  them.  The 
nearest  approach  to  them  in  the  Bible  is  the  story  of 
the  intercourse  of  the  sons  of  God  with  the  daughters 
of  men,  for  which,  perhaps,  no  satisfactory  explana 
tion  has  been  found.  The  stories  of  the  formation  of 
woman,  and  of  the  Fall,  can  hardly  be  literal  history, 
and  may  have  a  mythical  basis,  but  both  enshrine 
with  marvellous  beauty  and  dignity  and  naturalness 
the  highest  spiritual  truths.  The  narratives  of  the 
patriarchs,  and  other  early  Israelites,  again,  are  said 
by  some  critics  to  have  a  mythical  character,  but 
the  "  impossible  "  element  is  absent,  and  they  are 
incomparable  with  ordinary  myths.  If  not  true 
history,  they  have,  at  least,  a  likeness  to  truth. 

And  if  we  would  rightly  appreciate  the  signi 
ficance  of  these  facts,  we  must  not  only  bear  in  mind 
the  early  times  in  which  these  narratives  originated, 
and  the  uncultivated  character  of  the  Jewish  nation, 
but  we  must,  even  more,  compare  the  lives  of  the 
Biblical  teachers  with  their  teachings.  The  lower 
elements  of  morality  are  much  more  conspicuous  in 
the  one  than  the  other.  Some  of  the  critics  would 
not  allow  us  to  compare  David's  life  with  David's 
Psalms,  for  they  deny  that  he  was  the  author  of  any 
of  them,  but  the  mixture  of  the  spiritual  and  the 

G 


82  INSPIRATION 

carnal  in  David  is  very  remarkable,  and  he  was,  it  will 
be  admitted,  the  Israelite  indeed  of  his  day  and  genera 
tion.  We  seemed  forced  to  believe  that  Israel's  teachers 
and  writers  were  endued  for  the  purpose  of  writing  the 
sacred  books  with  a  special  Divine  power. 

The  illustrations  of  the  "  purity  "  of  the  Biblical 
teaching  already  given  have  been  taken  from  the  Old 
Testament ;  but  it  can  be  abundantly  illustrated 
from  the  New.  The  same  influence  which  removed 
the  grotesque  and  the  unnatural  and  the  unworthy 
from  the  Old  Testament  narratives  purified  the 
Gospels  and  made  them  suitable  for  the  high  objects 
for  which  their  writers  designed  them,  and  it  may 
well  be  for  objects  higher  still. 

It  is  plain  from  St.  Luke's  Preface  to  his  Gospel 
that  many  lives  of  Jesus  Christ  had  been  written  in 
his  time.  Many,  he  says,  took  in  hand  to  draw  up  a 
narrative  concerning  those  matters  which  have  been 
fulfilled  amongst  us.  Most  of  these  have  perished, 
but  some  survive.  We  have  a  number  of  what  are 
called  Apocryphal  Gospels.  Now  it  is  very  remark 
able  that  there  is  scarcely  a  noble  word  or  deed  of 
Jesus  Christ  which  is  not  known  to  us  through  the 
four  Canonical  Gospels.  It  is  remarkable  also  that 
there  is  very  little  in  them  which  involves  us  in  any 
moral  difficulty — anything  which  is  a  stumbling- 
block  to  us  as  being  seemingly  unworthy  of  Jesus 
Christ.  The  cursing  of  the  fig  tree  and  the  destruc 
tion  of  the  swine  in  the  lake  are  perhaps  the  most 
remarkable  instances  of  what  may  be  called  moral 
difficulties  in  the  actions  of  our  Lord.  But  when  we 
pass  to  the  Apocryphal  Gospels  the  case  is  changed. 
There  are  many  deeds  ascribed  to  Jtsus  Christ, 


INSPIRATION  83 

especially  in  His  youth,  which  are  utterly  unworthy 
of  Him,  and  which  would,  if  they  came  to  us  with 
authority,  be  grievous  stumbling-blocks  to  our  faith 
in  Him.  There  must  have  been  numerous  such  false 
or  exaggerated  or  garbled  stories  current  about  our 
Lord  in  the  early  days,  and  the  wonder  is  that  all 
these  are  excluded  from  the  Gospels.  Thus  we 
discern  in  the  Gospels  traces  of  that  Divine  Inspira 
tion  which  enabled  the  Evangelists  rightly  to  select 
their  facts — to  distinguish  not  only  between  the  true 
and  the  false,  but  between  the  worthy  and  the  un 
worthy,  the  suitable  and  unsuitable.  There  was  a  crowd 
of  facts  before  them,  and  great  discrimination  was 
required.  St.  John,  speaking  of  the  many  other 
things  which  Jesus  did,  not  recorded  in  his  Gospel, 
supposes  that  if  they  should  be  written  every  one, 
not  even  the  world  itself  would  contain  the  books 
that  should  be  written.  And  besides  the  things 
which  Jesus  did  there  must  inevitably  have  been 
ascribed  to  Him,  as  at  His  trial  before  Annas,  words 
and  deeds  which  were  not  His.  How  can  we  fail  to 
see  the  work  of  the  Spirit  of  God  in  the  Evangelist's 
wonderful  discernment  of  facts  ? 

It  is  this  kind  of  Inspiration  to  which  Dr.  Liddon 
has  given  the  name  of  the  "  Inspiration  of  Selection." 
He  remarks  in  a  sermon  preached  one  Whitsunday,  * 
that  if  history  be  the  faithful  record  of  facts,  the 
function  of  inspiration  in  history  must  be  limited  to 
the  grouping  of  facts,  to  the  assigning  to  certain 
facts  a  relative  prominence,  above  all,  to  the  selection 
out  of  a  large  number  of  facts  those  which  illustrate  a 

*  See  "Anglican  Pulpit  Library,"  Whitsunday  to  the  9th  Sunday 
after  Trinity,  pp.  18-21. 


84  INSPIRATION 

particular  aspect  of  higher  truth.      He  goes  on  to 
observe  that  this  faculty  of  judicious  selection  is  higher 
and  rarer  than  may  be  at  first  supposed.     To  select 
wisely  out  of  an  embarassingly  large  assortment  of 
facts  and  thoughts,  requires  a  combination  of  penetra 
tion  and  resolve,  in  order  to  perceive  what  is  really 
worth   preserving,   and   to   resist   the  seductions   of 
what  is  not.     Without  this  gift  one  writer  will  bury 
his  true  purpose  beneath  a  mass  of  ill-selected  and 
undigested  details  ;   while  another  will  not   exhibit 
details    sufficient    to  give  his  subject  the  body  and 
outline  which  it  demands.      Such  books    may  have 
many  merits  but  they  lack  the  inspiration  of  selection. 
Now   contrast   with  this   the  work  of  the   Holy 
Spirit  in   the   composition    of    the    Gospels.      The 
supernatural  is  always  haunted  by  its   counterfeit ; 
but  the  Holy  Spirit  at  once  swept  aside  a  mass  of 
legends  such  as  are  handed  down  to  us  in  a  some 
what    later  shape    by  the  New  Testament  Apocry 
phal  literature.     Nay,  more,  He  took  only  some  of 
the  true  words  and  acts  of  Christ.     Christians  might 
well  believe  that  no  acts  or  words  of  the  Son  of  God 
during  His  earthly  life  could  have  been  without  high 
import  of  some  kind.     But  they  were  not  all  equally 
useful  for  the  specific  purposes  of  the  several  evange 
lists.     Each  Gospel  bears  trace  of  being  a  selection 
from  a  larger  assortment  of  materials  ;  the  last  says 
expressly  that  there  are  many  other   things  which 
Jesus  did,  and  which  the  evangelist  had  not  recorded. 
Each   writer  having  clearly  before  him  that  aspect 
of  the  life  of  Jesus  which  it  was  his  task  to  illustrate, 
whether    Messianic,   or    human,   or    redemptive,    or 
Divine,  traverses  with  this  object  the  stores  of  his  own 


INSPIRATION  85 

memory,  or  the  recitals  and  reports  of  other  eye 
witnesses,  and  records  just  so  much  as  is  needed  for 
his  purpose.  Each  fulfils  the  prediction — "  He  shall 
take  of  Mine,  and  shall  show  it  unto  you." 

Dr.  Liddon  remarks  that  the  same  principle  of 
selection,  although  it  is  differently  applied,  meets  us 
in  the  Apostolical  Epistles,  and  further  that  it  was 
not  a  new  procedure  of  the  Spirit  in  the  Apostolical 
age.  He  did  then  what  he  had  done  in  ages  before 
the  Incarnation.  The  prophets  by  whom  He  spake 
were  the  leading  rulers,  statesmen,  and  historians 
who  were  intrusted  with  the  guidance  of  the  people 
of  Revelation.  And  the  records  of  their  work,  as  the 
authors  of  the  historical  books  tell  us,  were  largely 
compiled  out  of  documents  already  in  existence. 
The  Spirit  takes  now  and  again  from  the  conglomer 
ate  mass  of  early  traditions  or  records,  and  shews 
them  in  a  new  and  inspired  combination  to  His  ancient 
people.  It  is  not  only  traditions  and  materials  of  the 
chosen  people  which  the  Holy  Spirit  thus  selects,  but 
those  of  imperfect  and  false  systems.  Whatever  is 
true  in  the  earlier  history  and  thought  of  our  race  is 
Christ's,  that  is  to  say  it  is  the  teaching  of  the 
Eternal  Word.  Being  His,  the  Holy  Spirit  takes  of 
it  and  shows  it  to  man. 

It  will  be  observed  that  Dr.  Liddon's  words  go 
somewhat  beyond  the  purpose  for  which  they  have 
been  quoted  ;  the  inspiration  of  selection  not  only 
gives  purity  to  the  sacred  writings,  but  efficiency  for 
the  special  purposes.  It  is  not  merely  true  facts  but 
the  right  facts  which  the  inspired  writers  use. 


X 

PROOF  FROM  THE  ABIDINGNESS  OF  THE  BIBLICAL 
TEACHING 

THE  abidingness  of  the  teaching  of  the  Bible  is 
another  indication  of  its  Inspiration  by  the 
Holy  Spirit  of  God.  What  is  the  Old  Testament  ? 
It  is  not  unfair  to  describe  it  as  the  literary  remains 
of  the  children  of  Israel  or  Jewish  nation.  What  was 
the  Jewish  nation  ?  A  nation  of  third-rate  import 
ance,  numerically  few  but  occupying  an  important 
position  in  the  south-western  corner  of  Asia.  There 
were  many  nations  in  Old  Testament  times  more 
civilized  and  more  important  from  every  natural  point 
of  view.  The  Jews  excelled  in  none  of  those  qualities 
which  made  the  Babylonians,  Greeks,  or  Romans 
prime  factors  in  the  history  of  man.  We  might 
almost  say  that  the  one  abiding  product  of  Judaism 
is  its  Book.  It  would  be  wholly  true  to  say  that  the 
power  which  made  the  book  of  the  Jews,  is  the  only 
power  belonging  to  the  Jewish  people  of  important 
influence  in  the  world.  That  book  beyond  doubt 
abides — abides  in  active  power.  It  has  exercised  and  is 
exercising  an  influence  on  the  race  of  man  with  which 
nothing  else — no  other  book,  and  no  other  force  in 
Creation,  can  compare.  When  we  study  it  we  find  to 

86 


INSPIRATION  87 

our  surprise  this  cosmopolitan  power  in  a  book 
which  is  essentially  national,  in  some  respects,  we 
might  say,  narrowly  national.  The  Jew  makes  himself 
a  citizen  of  the  world,  but  he  holds  himself  aloof  from 
the  world  in  which  he  dwells,  and  his  book  naturally 
possesses  something  of  his  own  character.  Moreover, 
the  greatest  of  Old  Testament  books  were  written 
before  the  Jews  had  ceased  to  dwell  alone  within 
the  narrow  limits  of  their  land.  It  would  be  reason 
able  to  presume  that  a  book  of  the  narrow  Jew  carried 
within  itself  the  elements  of  its  own  decay ;  that  a 
Jewish  book  could  not  be  generally  useful  and  there 
fore  could  not  abide.  Such  presumptions  are  we  know 
falsified  by  the  facts.  The  Old  Testament  (for  only 
this  part  of  the  Bible  is  being  referred  to  here)  is  the 
lesson  book  of  the  civilized  world.  It  has  the  rare 
and  surpassing  excellence  of  being  the  lesson-book  of 
all,  whether  wise  or  unwise,  educated  or  uneducated. 
It  is  the  delight  of  the  aged  and  of  little  children 
alike.  It  has  a  word  for  men  in  all  the  circumstances 
of  their  life.  Its  surpassing  merits  are  freely  acknow 
ledged  by  those  who  do  not  accept  its  distinctive 
teaching.  Its  writers,  whatever  they  are — and  they 
are  not  all  of  one  kind — have  the  marvellous  power  of 
using  the  passing  events  and  circumstances  of  the 
history  of  their  nation  to  embody  the  great  and 
spiritual  and  moral  truths  which  never  pass  away. 
Why  does  the  history  of  Israel  live  ?  Why  is  it 
better  known  than  any  other  history  by  the  many 
and  studied  with  greater  perseverance  and  anxiety 
by  the  few?  Most  certainly  not  because  of  its 
intrinsic  political  importance.  The  body  survives 
because  of  the  living  spirit  within.  Israel  as  a  nation 


88  INSPIRATION 

was  never  great,  and  has  long  ceased  to  exist ;  Israel 
as  a  teacher  of  moral  and  spiritual  truth  stands  alone 
amongst  the  nations  ;  there  is  none  beside  her. 

It  will  be  worth  while  to  illustrate  this  fact,  viz. 
the  abidingness  of  the  teaching  of  the  Bible,  in 
detail,  not  only  because  of  its  importance,  but  because 
it  is  easy  for  men  who  are  not  believers  in  Revela 
tion  to  appreciate  it.  Not  believing  in  the  Divine 
Inspiration  of  the  Bible,  they  have  to  account  for  it 
on  rational  and  non-spiritual  grounds.  The  Ten  Words 
said  to  be  given  to  the  children  of  Israel  on  Mount 
Sinai  are,  as  all  critics  allow,  a  very  ancient  code  of 
laws.  Many  critics  trace  them  to  a  Mosaic  source. 
They  are  now  more  than  three  thousand  years  old, 
but  they  remain  the  foundation  of  all  Christian  and 
most  civilized  morality.  The  Ten  Words  are  elemen 
tary  rules  and  require  Christian  development  and 
interpretation,  but  they  need  no  expurgation.  They 
are  a  working  code.  If  the  world  obeyed  them  all  the 
world  would  be  much  the  better,  and  this  the  world 
would  allow.  The  wisdom  of  the  fourth  command 
ment  is  acknowledged  by  everybody.  Man  needs 
one  day  in  seven  for  a  rest.  The  dangers  of  image 
worship  would  be  acknowledged  even  by  Agnostics. 
Polytheism  is  incomparably  inferior  to  Monotheism  ;  if 
there  be  a  God,  there  can  be  only  one.  That  law-giver 
was  in  advance  of  his  times  who  commanded  men  to 
honour  their  mothers  equally  with  their  fathers.  The 
Ten  Words  abide  in  moral  force,  and  there  is  good 
reason  that  they  should.  Again,  the  relation  between 
man  and  woman — the  relation  which  experience 
teaches  mankind  as  the  true  relation,  is  that  laid  down 
in  the  early  document  which  comes  to  us  in  the 


INSPIRATION  89 

second  chapter  of  Genesis.  Israelites  commonly  did 
not  act  up  to  the  teaching  given  there,  and  indeed  the 
principle  of  the  equality  of  the  sexes  is  far  from  being 
universally  realized  in  our  own  times.  The  fact  that 
the  teaching  was  given  so  long  ago  is  thus  made  more 
forcible  for  our  purposes.  It  had  an  abidingness  in 
it  which  generations  of  hostile  action  could  not 
destroy.  It  may  be  less  important,. but  not  wholly 
insignificant  that  the  Bible  stories  never  lose  their 
power  to  attract,  and  that  the  history  of  Israel  still 
gives  wise  lessons  as  to  the  causes  of  prosperity  and 
decay  in  nations.  It  is  remarkable  that  we  sing 
almost  daily,  psalms  which  give  details  of  Israel's 
history  and  never  think  they  are  no  concern  of  ours. 
The  devotional  psalms,  composed  as  they  necessarily 
must  have  been  by  particular  men  to  suit  particular 
occasions  in  their  own  or  in  the  national  life — how  is 
it  that  they  furnish  us  with  abiding  expressions  of  the 
various  feelings  of  our  own  hearts  ?  The  prophets 
continue  to  be  the  recognized  teachers  of  the  prin 
ciples  of  righteousness  in  every  age  of  the  world's 
history,  albeit  the  principles  they  teach  were  not  the 
principles  current  in  their  own  times.  They  did  not 
claim  to  be  teachers  for  all  time.  They  were  inter 
ested  in  the  special  national  crises  in  their  own  days. 
Their  denunciations,  exhortations,  advice  had  refer 
ence  to  the  immediate  present.  Nevertheless  their 
words  have  an  abiding  value.  When  we  consider  the 
New  Testament,  we  do  not  think  it  wonderful  that 
the  records  of  the  Divine-human  life  should  abide  in 
their  interest  and  power.  The  beginning  of  the 
great  kingdom  of  heaven  must  needs  also  continue  to 
interest  those  who  are  its  citizens,  and  many  more 


90  INSPIRATION 

besides.  But  how  is  it  that  the  teaching  of  the  Epistles 
abides?  They  were  in  their  purpose  essentially 
partial  and  temporary,  composed  to  meet  the  parti 
cular  wants  of  particular  Churches,  written  on  the 
spur  of  the  moment  as  the  messenger  was  available 
or  the  occasion  demanded.  The  Churches  to  whom 
they  were  written  consisted  only  of  handfuls  of  new 
converts  of  little  importance  in  the  world's  esteem, 
suffering  from  those  difficulties  which  arise  from 
defective  and  immoral  education  and  from  a  want  of 
historical  influence.  We  should  not  have  a  priori 
imagined  that  letters  so  written  would  have  been  of 
permanent  value.  And  yet  we  know  that  the  Epistles 
were  not  more  highly  valued  and  more  carefully 
studied  in  the  early  days  than  in  our  own.  There 
must,  we  infer,  have  been  some  Divine  power  at 
work  which  made  letters  written  to  particular  Churches 
at  particular  crises  oecumenical  Epistles  to  the  Church 
of  all  time.  The  Apostles,  it  is  clear,  were  not  con 
sciously  addressing  the  whole  Body  of  Christ.  It  is 
the  merits  of  the  writings  themselves  which  has  given 
them  their  abiding  value.  Now  what  is  it  which 
gives  permanence  to  human  words  ?  Everything  that 
is  human  naturally  passes  away.  We  answer  that 
the  thing  which  abides  partakes  in  a  peculiar  degree 
of  the  character  of  the  Eternal  God.  It  is  the  Word 
of  the  Lord  which  abideth  for  ever. 


XI 

PROOF  FROM  THE  HISTORY  OF  ISRAEL 

A  VERY  remarkable  argument  for  the  Inspiration 
of  the  Bible,  and  more  especially  the  Old  Testa 
ment  part  of  it,  is  to  be  derived  from  the  Jewish  nation 
itself.  The  Jewish  nation  cannot  be  separated  from 
its  book.  The  book  is  at  once  the  record  and  the 
manifestation  of  the  life  of  the  nation.  The  life  of 
the  nation  is  derived  from  the  teaching  contained  in 
the  book.  The  Bible  is  the  one  great  achievement 
of  the  Jewish  nation,  and  it  contains  the  secret  of  its 
unique  influence  on  humanity.  The  book  indicates 
that  the  Jews  came  under  a  special  education  fitting 
them  to  be  the  teachers  of  mankind  in  spiritual 
truth.  This  special  spiritual  teaching  is  what  we 
call  the  Divine  Inspiration.  An  English  king  once 
asked  a  bishop  to  give  him  a  proof  of  the  truth  of  the 
Divine  Revelation  in  a  nutshell.  "The  Jews,  your 
Majesty,"  was  the  reply.  It  was  an  admirable 
answer  for  many  reasons,  and  perhaps  chiefly  for  this  : 
the  Jews,  after  the  flesh,  had  not  the  capacity  to 
make  the  record  of  Revelation  contained  in  the 
Bible. 

It  is  clear  there  was  nothing  in  the  origin  of  the 
Jewish  nation  to  suggest  that  it  would  take  such  a 


92  INSPIRATION 

distinguished  part  in  the  history  of  men.  The 
religion  of  Abraham's  ancestors  was  not  a  survival  of 
some  particularly  pure  form  of  primitive  religion,  if, 
indeed,  we  may  assume  that  any  primitive  religion  was 
pure.  "Your  fathers,"  says  Joshua,  "dwelt  on  the  other 
side  of  the  river,  and  served  strange  gods."  "  Thy 
father  was  an  Amorite,  and  thy  mother  an  Hittite," 
says  the  prophet  Ezekiel.  Abraham  was  indeed  the 
rock  from  which  they  were  hewn,  and  faithful  Abra 
ham  was  doubtless  a  noble  ancestor.  Probably, 
however,  he  would  not  have  appeared  to  advantage 
in  some  important  particulars  if  he  could  have  been 
placed  beside  his  contemporary,  the  Babylonian  king 
Hammurabi.  However  this  may  be,  Abraham  was 
reckoned  to  be  the  father  of  Edomites,  Midianites, 
and  Arab  tribes  as  well — nations  of  small  account ; 
Moab  and  Ammon  and  Syria  also  were  accounted  to 
be  descendants  of  Abraham's  brothers.  Whether 
this  is  literally  true  or  not,  we  may  safely  reckon 
all  these  nations  to  be  cognate  with  Israel.  It  is 
certain  they  differed  comparatively  little  in  land, 
or  mode  of  life,  or  political  power.  But  what  does 
any  one  of  them,  or  all  of  them  together,  bring  into 
the  treasury  of  mankind  ?  Their  interest  to  man 
depends  simply  and  solely  on  their  connection  with 
the  Jews.  Now,  we  have  a  right  to  require  a  reason 
for  the  fact  that  the  Jews  were  at  once  so  like  and 
so  unlike  to  their  neighbours  and  relations.  M. 
Kenan's  suggestion  that  nomad  life  was  the  secret 
of  religious  power  breaks  down  when  it  is  applied  indis 
criminately  to  the  nations  of  Western  Asia.  Plainly 
the  Jews  and  their  neighbours  belonged  originally 
to  the  same  type  of  humanity.  We  have  not,  indeed, 


INSPIRATION  93 

much  historical  literature  of  the  latter  with  which  to 
compare  the  Bible  ;  but  we  have  the  Moabite  Stone. 
The  religious  ideas  of  the  Moabites  in  Ahabs  time 
were   plainly  very  similar   to  those   of  the  contem 
porary  Israelites,  and  were  expressed  in  similar  words 
and  images.     We  must  frankly  admit  that  it  Is  not 
very  easy  to   discern    any  great   superiority  of  the 
chosen    people    over    their    neighbours    during ;   the 
greater   part   of   the   Old  Testament    times, 
were  only  beginning-the  better  part  of  them-to  b 
different.  The  seeds  of  higher  things  were  being  sown, 
but   they  had   produced  no    general    harvest.        he 
nations  could  not  fall  into  grosser  sins  than  those  ot 
which  we  read  in  the  days   of  the   Judges, 
kings  could  not  offend  more  grievously  against 
principles   of  righteousness  than  David,  who  is  the 
ideal  Israelite  king.     From  a  secular  point  of  view, 
Israel  might  be  regarded  as  a  negligible  quantity  save 
for  the  strategical  importance  of  her  country,     bhe 
must  go  to  Tyre  for  the  arts  and  sciences,  her  craft! 
men  and  her   shipmen.      Solomon    must    get  from 
thence   his  architect  and  his  skilled  workmen,  and 
Hiram's  sailors  must  go  along  with  his.     One  fancies 
that   Sidonian  Jezebel  was  somewhat  contemptuous 
of  her   adopted    country.      Anyhow,     Israel    woke 
up  when    she  was   on   the   throne.     Again,   Egypt, 
Assyria,    and     Babylon    regarded    Israel    as    their 
humble  friend,  or,  if  not,  as  their  despised  foe,  to  be 
brushed  away  like  a  fly  when  the  opportunity  came. 
«  I  will  deliver  thee  two  thousand  horses  if  thou  be 
able,  on  thy  part,  to  set  riders  upon  them,"  expresses 
admirably  the  Assyrian  contempt.     Syria  of  Zobah 
and     Damascus    was    generally     Israel's    equal    in 


94  INSPIRATION 

strength.  Even  the  Philistines,  though  occupying 
only  the  south-west  corner  of  her  land,  made  the 
Israelites  for  many  years  their  helpless  slaves. 

But  when  we  have  depreciated  the  character  of 
national  Israel  as  thoroughly  as  we  ought  and  as 
we  can,  then  we  have  all  the  greater  difficulty  in 
accounting  for  Israel's  influence  on  mankind.  That 
influence  has  a  depth  and  permanency  incomparably 
greater  than  that  of  any  other  nation.  We  can  place 
two,  and  only  two  nations,  side  by  side  with  her — 
Greece  and  Rome.  Both,  we  may  remark,  were  her 
conquerors  for  a  time.  Both  she  has  brought  under 
her  permanent  dominion.  The  wisdom  of  Greece, 
the  organized  power  of  Rome,  and  the  religion  of 
Israel  are  the  three  great  forces  which  have  made 
the  human  race  what  it  now  is.  And  there  can  be 
little  doubt  that  the  influence  of  Israel  is  incompar 
ably  the  greatest  of  the  three.  Greece  has  given  the 
wise  man  his  thought,  and  Rome  has  given  civilized 
nations  their  organization  ;  but  Israel  has  given  the 
wise  and  the  foolish,  the  civilized  and  the  uncivilized, 
their  God  to  worship,  their  ideal  of  righteousness, 
their  rule  of  life,  and  their  sure  hope  of  immortality. 

We  observe,  when  we  compare  the  great  world 
forces  together,  that  Israel's  is  the  earliest  of  the 
three.  Israel's  religion  had  reached  its  distinctive  prin 
ciples,  though  not  its  final  development,  in  the  eighth 
century  B.C. — the  traditional  century  of  the  founda 
tion  of  Rome.  Isaiah  and  Romulus  were  contem 
poraries.  The  earliest  Greek  teachers  come  two 
centuries  later  ;  Socrates  and  Plato  are  a  century 
later  still.  It  is  worth  while  noticing  these  facts, 
because  they  prove  that  it  is  not  to  a  development  in 


INSPIRATION  95 

human  thought  that  we  can  ascribe  Israel's  religious 
power.  We  observe,  also,  that  the  forces  of  Greece 
and  Rome  are  the  forces  of  natural  man — human 
wisdom  and  human  power.  Israel  is  lacking  in 
both.  Hers  is  not  the  wise  head  or  the  strong  arm. 
But  she  has  given  the  civilized  world  her  conceptions 
of  God  and  of  duty.  It  is  to  be  remarked  that  she 
has  not  given  the  world  its  religious  forms,  but  that 
much  greater  gift — its  religious  principles.  The 
forms  of  Israel's  religion  as  found  in  the  law  of 
Moses  have  perished.  It  is  spiritual  power,  purely 
spiritual  power,  in  which  Israel  is  pre-eminent. 

Now,  how  does  she  get  her  spiritual  power? 
Whatever  positive  answer  may  be  given  we  may 
certainly  say  that  she  does  not  get  it  in  the  way  of 
natural  development.  The  Old  Testament  witnesses 
that  there  is  a  power  from  without  and  from  above 
working  upon  her ;  a  power  which  disciplines  and 
chastises  her,  and  purifies  her  religious  conceptions 
and  ideals.  This  power  she  fully  acknowledges,  and 
yet  she  generally  resists  it.  Israel  is  not  allowed  to 
go  on  her  own  way.  Hardly,  through  most  of  the  Old 
Testament,  does  she  attempt  to  reach  her  ideals. 
She  hardens  her  heart  against  her  teachers.  Her 
law,  whatever  we  may  take  it  to  be,  is  habitually 
flouted.  She  disobeys  the  Priestly  Code  with  no 
greater  consistency  than  the  Ten  Words.  She  has  a 
God  peculiarly  her  own — the  God  who  brought  her 
out  of  the  land  of  Egypt  and  gave  her  the  goodly 
land  He  had  promised  to  her  fathers.  But  she  is 
never,  till  after  her  exile  in  Babylon,  faithful  in  her 
allegiance  to  Him.  The  prophets  indeed  give  one 
the  idea  that  Israel  was  less  faithful  to  her  true  God 


96  INSPIRATION 

than  the  nations  to  their  false  ones.  "  Pass  over," 
says  Jeremiah,  "to  the  isles  of  Kittim  and  see  ;  and 
send  unto  Kedar,  and  consider  diligently,  and  see  if 
there  hath  been  such  a  thing.  Hath  a  nation  changed 
their  gods,  which  yet  are  no  gods  ?  But  my  people 
have  changed  their  glory  for  that  which  doth  not 
profit."  *  God's  deliverances  and  chastisements  seem 
to  have  had  no  effect  on  His  people  for  hundreds 
of  years.  What  a  pitiful  spectacle  does  the  remnant 
in  Egypt  present  when  they  maintained  that  all 
their  misfortunes  have  come  from  ceasing  to  make 
cakes  and  burn  incense  to  the  queen  of  heaven !  f 

Israel's  spiritual  influence  is  thus  not  a  natural 
product  of  Israel's  stock.  If  it  had  been  we  should 
have  expected  the  cognate  nations  which  lived 
around  her,  and  in  lands  like  hers,  to  have  it  too. 
Isaiah  complains  that  the  vineyard  of  his  Beloved's 
planting  and  care  brings  forth  wild  grapes  only. 
How,  then,  did  her  spiritual  powers  come  ?  The  Old 
Testament  is  very  clear  as  to  the  secret  of  her  power. 
Israel  has  specially  close  communion  with  God. 
God's  Presence  is  vouchsafed  to  her  and  goes  with 
her.  She  has  found  grace  in  God's  sight.  That  was 
one  of  her  earliest  and  her  strongest  traditions. 
Amos,  when  he  says  in  God's  Name,  "  You  only  have 
I  known  of  all  the  families  of  the  earth,"  says  what 
every  Israelite  firmly  believed.  The  words  of  Moses 
found  in  a  very  early  part  of  the  Pentateuch  J  are  very 
remarkable.  "Wherein,"  he  asks,  "shall  it  be  known 
that  I  and  Thy  people  have  found  grace  in  Thy  sight  ? 
Is  it  not  in  that  Thou  goest  with  us,  so  that  we  be 
separated,  I  and  Thy  people,  from  all  the  people  that 
*  Jer.  ii.  10.  f  Jer.  xliv.  17,  19.  J  Exod.  xxxiii.  16. 


INSPIRATION  97 

are  upon  the  face  of  the  earth  ?  "  God's  Presence  is 
thus  reckoned  to  be  Israel's  distinctive  privilege. 
This  same  truth  is,  also,  clearly  taught  in  the  patri 
archal  narratives.  The  word  of  blessing  to  Abraham 
repeated  to  him  and  his  children  on  several  occasions, 
is  the  charter  of  Israel's  birth,  or  stronger  still,  the 
very  begetting  of  the  people  of  God.  "  I  will  bless 
thee  and  make  thee  great.  I  will  be  with  thee," 
God  says.  The  history  from  end  to  end  is  regarded 
as  the  accomplishment  of  this  initial  promise.  God 
is  in  the  midst  of  Israel.  The  Lord  of  Hosts  is  with 
her,  the  God  of  Jacob  is  her  refuge. 

The  critics  would  not,  of  course,  allow  us  to  assume 
that  these  words  were  actually  said  to  Abraham,  but 
they  allow  that  they  are  contained  in  the  earliest 
portions  of  Genesis.  It  is  indeed  remarkable  that  all 
these  occurrences  are  found  in  the  earliest  portions. 
There  is  nothing  corresponding  to  these  in  the  latest. 
Hence  they  represent  a  very  early  tradition  amongst 
the  children  of  Israel.  Israel  from  her  earliest  days 
reckoned  herself  to  be  the  blessed  of  the  Lord.  And 
how  was  Israel  blessed  ?  There  can  be  only  one 
answer  to  this  question.  Not  in  her  land,  though  it 
was  goodly ;  not  in  her  wide  dominion,  for  it  is  no 
far  cry  from  the  Euphrates  to  the  river  of  Egypt ; 
not  in  her  wisdom,  for  she  had  none  of  the  worldly 
kind  :  Israel's  only  speciality  is  her  knowledge 
of  and  communion  with  God.  The  secret  of  that 
knowledge  and  communion  was  her  only  peculiar 
treasure. 

Now,  it  is  not  uncommon  for  nations  in  their 
pride  to  imagine  that  they  are  the  objects  of  God's 
special  favour.  Every  nation  in  olden  times  thought 

II 


93  INSPIRATION 

itself  the  favourite  of  its  own  god.  But  there  is 
something  distinctive  in  the  nature  and  tenure  of 
Israel's  Divine  blessing.  The  patriarchal  narratives, 
when  they  declare  Abraham's  seed  the  blessed  of  the 
Lord,  invariably  add  that  she  is  blessed  so  that  by 
means  of  her  all  nations  of  the  world  may  be  blessed 
too.  "  In  thee  and  in  thy  seed  shall  all  the  families 
of  the  earth  be  blessed."  *  It  is  thus  one  of  Israel's 
earliest  traditions  that  she  was  chosen  by  God  to  exert 
spiritual  power  and  influence — chosen,  that  is  to  say, 
to  do  the  very  thing  which  we  know  she  has  done. 
This,  it  is  clear,  is  no  vaticinium  post  eventum. 
Abraham's  seed  is  destined  to  her  high  office  hun 
dreds  of  years  before  she  attempted  to  fill  it. 
Abraham  himself  and  his  immediate  descendants 
are  never  recorded  to  have  done  any  missionary 
work.  The  Judges  were  not  qualified  to  instruct 
even  their  own  people.  It  is  never  said  of  Samuel 
and  David  and  Solomon  that  they  attempted  to 
spread  the  knowledge  of  the  true  God.  Not  even 
in  the  best  Israelites  is  the  missionary  spirit  to  be 
discerned.  Most  certainly  Israel  from  her  entry  into 
Canaan  up  to  the  Babylonian  Exile  is  not  a  missionary 
nation.  She  fully  believes  that  she  is  the  blessed  of 
God  ;  she  is  in  no  way  conscious  that  it  is  her  duty 
to  hand  on  His  blessing  to  others.  It  is  not  till  the 
days  of  the  later  Isaiah — not,  that  is,  till  the  years 
of  the  Babylonian  Captivity  were  drawing  to  their 
close — that  any  Israelite  seems  to  realize  fully  his 
nation's  office  in  the  world.  The  idea  of  a  universal 
kingdom  of  God  had  indeed  been  conceived  in 

*  If  the  translation  "  bless  themselves  "  be  preferred  the  meaning  ig 
hardly  altered. 


INSPIRATION  99 

earlier  times.*  If  there  was  but  one  God  there  could 
be  only  one  religion  and  worship.  The  earlier  Isaiah 
represents  the  nations  as  going  up  to  Zion  to  learn 
the  knowledge  of  Jehovah  and  of  His  ways.  But  it 
is  to  a  much  later  prophet  we  owe  the  description 
of  Israel  as  God's  servant,  commissioned  by  Him  to 
be  a  light  to  lighten  the  Gentiles,  and  to  be  His 
salvation  unto  the  ends  of  the  earth.  Hundreds  of 
years  had  passed  by  before  the  purpose  of  God  for 
Israel,  as  expressed  in  the  patriarchal  narratives,  was 
assimilated  even  by  her  greatest  teachers.  And 
even  then  hundreds  of  years  were  added  before 
Israel  fulfilled  God's  purpose  to  any  considerable 
extent. 

Do  not  these  facts  compel  us  to  believe  that  flesh 
and  blood  did  not  reveal  Israel's  office  to  her — that 
it  was  not  a  product  of  Israel's  heart  and  brain,  but 
that  it  was  an  inspiration — a  Divine  idea  communi 
cated  to  her — a  seed  sown  in  her  heart  and  lying 
dormant  for  hundreds  of  years  until  at  last  it  sprung 
up  and  bore  fruit  ?  And  how  rich  and  noble  was  the 
fruit  borne  at  last !  How  marvellously  did  Israel 
fulfil  her  Divine  vocation !  Israel  has  been  in  a 
manner  transcending  Old  Testament  thought,  God's 
light  to  the  world,  and  God's  salvation  to  all  men. 
Spite  of  her  patent  desire  to  keep  her  God  and 
her  blessing  to  herself;  spite  of  that  separate  spirit, 
we  see  predominant  amongst  the  returned  exiles  men 
like  Ezra,  Nehemiah,  and  others;  spite  of  her  very 
self,  we  might  say,  she  diffused  the  knowledge  of 
God  in  all  the  chief  centres  of  population  in  the 
Roman  Empire  before  her  Christ  came.  And  then 
*  /.  e.  from  the  eighth  century  B.C.  ouwards. 


ioo  INSPIRATION 

the  synagogue  became  the  seed-bed  of  the  Christian 
Church,  and  the  first  sowers  therein  were  all  Jews. 

It  is  marvellous  to  see  how  the  whole  matter 
hangs  together.  Very  early  in  her  history  Israel  is 
designated  for  a  spiritual  office.  She  did  not  take 
that  office  on  herself,  for  she  had  neither  capacity 
nor  wish  to  fill  it  For  tens  of  generations,  though 
in  God's  school,  she  is  a  pupil  who  will  not  learn  her 
own  lessons.  Though  conscious  of  God's  favour  she 
does  not  realize  God's  purpose,  and  makes  no  effort 
to  do  His  work.  At  length  a  few  of  the  nobler  sort 
began  to  understand  what  God  would  have  Israel  be. 
By  the  force  of  political  events  she  is  banished  to  her 
places  of  service.  Her  own  religious  needs  compel 
her  to  establish  her  worship  In  heathen  countries. 
Without  desiring  it,  she  attracts  by  the  purity  of  her 
religious  teaching  Gentiles  who  are  seeking  after 
God.  Then  come  the  Jewish  Apostles  publishing 
the  salvation  wrought  by  Jesus  Christ,  the  Son  of 
David,  the  Son  of  Abraham,  for  all  men.  They 
speak  first  to  the  Jews,  but  the  Jews  reject  the 
message  and  judge  themselves  unworthy  of  everlast 
ing  life.*  Then  they  turn  to  the  Gentiles  :  "  For  so," 
say  they,  "  hath  the  Lord  commanded  us.  I  have  set 
thee  to  be  a  light  of  the  Gentiles,  that  thou  should 
be  for  salvation  unto  the  ends  of  the  earth."  It  Is 
said  of  the  English  nation  that  it  has  acquired  its 
world-wide  Empire  in  a  fit  of  absence  of  mind. 
Surely  we  may  say  that  the  Catholic  kingdom  of 
heaven  has  been  set  up  by  Jews  without  previous 
intention  or  design.  It  is  not  the  Jewish  spirit 
which  is  at  work;  it  is  the  Divine  purpose,  which 

*  Acts  xiii.  46,  47. 


INSPIRATION  101 

is  accomplished  by  the  power  of  the  Divine  Spirit. 
"  This  is  the  Lord's  doing,  and  it  is  marvellous  in  our 
eyes." 

The  close  bearing  of  the  history  of  the  Jews  on 
the  Inspiration  of  the  Bible  will  be  clearly  seen  in 
the  light  of  the  following  three  great  facts  : — 

(i)  Israel  cannot  account  for  the  Bible,  i.e.  the 
Bible  is  not  one  of  her  natural  fruits  ;  it  is  not  such 
a  book  as  we  should  expect  to  come  from  such  a 
nation.  Its  statements  and  teachings  are  above  her 
and  beyond  her.  She  does  not  digest  them  till 
hundreds  of  years  after  they  were  uttered. 

But  (2)  the  Bible  docs  account  for  Israel.  We  see 
a  nation  of  no  great  power,  mental  or  spiritual,  under 
God's  special  and  continual  education.  God  forms 
Israel,  we  might  say,  out  of  the  common  dust  of  the 
ground,  but  He  breathes  into  her  nostrils  the  breath 
of  life — Divine  Life,  Spiritual  Life,  that  knowledge 
of  Himself  which  is  Eternal  Life  ;  then  He  gives  her 
the  power  and  the  opportunity  to  communicate  that 
life  to  the  other  nations  of  the  world. 

But  also  (3)  all  were  not  Israel  who  are  of  Israel, 
and  the  Bible  accounts  for  the  failure  of  Israel  after  the 
flesh  to  realize  the  Divine  purposes.  It  was  clearly 
stated  in  the  beginning  that  she  was  the  special  object 
of  God's  favour,  because  He  had  chosen  her  for  His 
special  service.  Violating  the  conditions  of  tenure 
she  forfeited  her  inheritance.  As  she,  i.e.  her  nobler 
remnant,  became  what  God  said  she  would  if  she 
was  faithful,  so  she  has  become  what  God  said  she 
would  become  if  she  was  faithless.  The  book  of 
the  Jews  and  the  history  of  the  world  thus  correspond 
the  one  to  the  other,  and  each  interprets  the  other. 


102  INSPIRATION 

History  records  the  fact  and  the  Bible  explains  the 
secret  of  the  Jews'  marvellous  influence  on  mankind. 

There  is  another  proof  of  Israel's  Divine  Inspira 
tion  which  must  be  briefly  referred  to.  What  is  the 
cause  of  Israel's  life,  her  unconquerable  life,  her 
separate  life?  How  is  it  that  she,  though  always 
crushed  between  the  millstones  of  the  world's  power, 
still  survives?  The  only  reason  seems  to  be,  her 
grasp  on  God's  promises  to  her,  her  firm  though 
narrow  and  even  wrongful  grasp.  When  she  loses 
that  grasp  she  mingles  among  the  heathen  and 
learns  their  works,  she  loses  her  individuality,  she 
is  absorbed  and  lost  Where  are  the  ten  tribes  ? 
Their  calves  and  idolatries  neutralized  the  Divine 
life  within  them,  and  they  ceased  to  maintain  their 
separate  existence.  Judah,  more  faithful,  or  rather, 
the  more  faithful  in  Judah,  continued  to  exist,  and 
for  this  reason :  because  they  had  within  them  a  life 
of  which  the  world  did  not  know.  The  vitality  of 
the  Jewish  nation  at  the  time  of  our  Lord  is  very 
remarkable.  Wrongly  directed,  it  bubbles  over  and 
is  wasted  in  sectarian  quarrels  and  financial  insurrec 
tions  against  the  irresistible  might  of  Rome.  Rightly 
directed,  it  inspires  the  Apostles  and  early  Christians 
and  enables  them  to  conquer  the  world. 


XII 

PROOF  FROM  COMPARISON  OF  THE  RELIGIONS  OF 
BABYLON  AND  THE  BIBLE 

WE  have  already  compared  together  Israel,  Greece, 
and  Rome — those  three  nations  which,  by 
their  special  gifts,  may  be  said  to  be  the  makers  of 
mankind  in  its  latter  days.  We  have  pointed  out, 
also,  that  contrary  to  all  natural  expectation,  Israel's 
influence  is  incomparably  the  greatest  of  the  three. 
But  there  is  another  nation  with  which  it  will  be 
advisable  to  compare  Israel  in  considerable  detail — 
the  great  ancient  world-power  of  Babylon,  with  whichi 
for  our  purposes,  Assyria  may  be  combined.  The 
comparison  will  have  greater  value,  because  we  shall 
be  comparing  nations  of  the  same  kind.  Nations  of 
the  East  and  Eastern  nations  differing  very  widely 
from  Western  have  many  common  characteristics  ; 
cognate  nations,  for  Babylon  is  partially,  and  Assyria 
is  wholly  Semitic  in  origin  ;  contemporaneous  nations, 
also,  for  many  hundreds  of  years,  though  Babylon 
long  precedes  Israel,  and  Israel  long  survives  Babylon. 
And  there  is  another  and  a  stronger  reason  than  any 
of  those  named.  Babylon  was  the  cradle  of  the 
Hebrew  race,  and  gave  to  her  those  first  ideas  which 
have  so  much  to  do  with  the  formation  of  children 
and  nations  alike.  Babylon  was  indeed  a  tree  in 

103 


104  INSPIRATION 

whose  shadow  all  the  nations  of  Western  Asia  lodged. 
She  was  the  home  of  all  Eastern  art  and  civilization. 
Professor  Friedrich  Delitzsch  describes  her  as  the 
focus  of  culture  and  science  and  literature,  the 
"  brain "  of  the  Nearer  East,  and  the  all-ruling 
power.*  Even  as  early  as  the  close  of  the  third  mil- 
leniura,  B.C.,  the  Tel-El-Amarna  tablets  "prove  the 
all-ruling  influence  of  the  Babylonian  culture  and 
literature  from  2200  to  beyond  1400  B.C.  When  the 
twelve  tribes  of  Israel  entered  Canaan,  they  came  to 
a  land  which  was  a  domain  completely  pervaded  by 
Babylonian  culture."  f  It  is  quite  clear  that  Babylon 
had  much  to  do  with  the  making  of  Israel. 

The  Bible  puts  Israel  and  Babylon  over  against 
one  another.  They  are  kingdoms  of  a  different  kind. 
Israel  is  the  kingdom  of  heaven,  and  Babylon  is  the 
typical  kingdom  of  the  world.  Babylon  is  the  head 
of  Nebuchadnezzar's  image,  and  Israel  is  the  stone 
cut  out  without  hands  which  breaks  that  image  to 
pieces,  and  becoming  a  great  mountain,  covers  the 
whole  earth.J  As  gold  transcends  stone,  so  does 
Babylon  transcend  Israel  in  worldly  power.  But 
Israel  has  a  Divine  Spirit  within  her  to  which  Babylon 
is  a  stranger.  Babylon's  soul  is  puffed  up,  it  is  not 
upright  in  him  ;  but  the  just — the  true  Israelite — 
shall  live  by  his  faith.  § 

Professor  Delitzsch  has  further  pointed  out  how 
much  Babylon  is  doing  for  the  elucidation  and  illus 
tration  of  the  Bible. ||  This  may  be  freely  admitted, 
though  his  language  is  somewhat  exaggerated.  It  is 

*  "  Babel  and  Bible,"  Crown  Theological  Library,  p.  38. 
t  Ibid.,  pp.  38,  39.  t  Dan.  ii.  35.  §  Hab.  ii.  4. 

||  In  his  lectures  on  "  Babel  and  Bible." 


INSPIRATION  105 

not  of  intense  importance  to  the  Biblical  student  to 
be  assured  that  there  is  such  a  place  as  Cuthah  ;  *  nor 
is  it  a  "  great  service  "  to  him  to  be  taught  the  exact 
shape  of  the  wild  ox  or  unicorn  (A.V).  The  likeness, 
also,  between  Babylonian  and  Biblical  ideas  and  laws 
is  very  considerable,  though  not  perhaps  so  close  as 
Professor  Delitzsch  thinks.  Mr.  S.  A.  Cook  f  thinks 
that  Israelite  legislation  was  not  to  any  consider 
able  extent  indebted  to  Babylonia.  Mr.  Johns  seems 
to  think  that  the  Babylonian  connection  with  Biblical 
legislation  is  in  the  main  indirect.  He  says,  "  There 
is  no  need  to  speak  of  borrowing  (from  Babylon)  as 
an  act  on  the  part  of  Israelite  legislators."  Still,  he 
sums  up  his  article  on  the  code  of  Hammurabi  by 
saying,  "  The  presumption  that  Babylonia  had  a 
prominent  influence  on  Palestine  long  before  Israelite 
codes  were  drawn  up,  is  one  that  grows  stronger  as 
time  goes  on."  }  To  our  mind  it  is  a  matter  of  small 
importance,  from  a  theological  point  of  view,  whether 
Babylon's  influence  on  Israel  was  great  or  compara 
tively  small.  The  fact  of  importance  is,  that  Israel 
emancipated  herself  from  that  influence,  purified 
herself  Irom  its  manifold  corruptions,  conceived  noble 
ideas  (and  what  is  more  practised  them)  in  regard 
to  God  and  man,  which  never  entered  into  the  heart  of 
any  Babylonian,  or  if  they  did,  never  became  in  the 
smallest  degree  ruling  ideas  in  Babylonian  life.  Pro 
fessor  Delitzsch's  remark,  "  How  utterly  alike  every 
thing  is  in  Babylon  and  Bible,"  §  is  a  gross  caricature 

*  "  Babel  and  Bible,"  pp.  152,  etc. 

t  "  The  Laws  of  Moses  and  the  Code  of  Hammurabi,"  p.  281, 

J  Hastings'  "  Dictionary,"  extra  vol.,  p.  612. 

§  ''Babel  and  Bible,"  p.  175. 


106  INSPIRATION 

of  the  truth.  If  future  discoveries  should  multiply 
the  resemblances  between  Babylon  and  the  Bible,  it 
would  still  be  true  that  the  Babylonian  religious 
thought  is  essentially  different  from  that  of  the  Bible. 
Recent  discoveries  have  shown  the  existence  of  much 
Babylonian  material  in  some  of  the  Biblical  writings. 
They  have  shown,  also,  that  the  Babylonian  spirit 
is  utterly  opposed  to  the  Biblical. 

The  resemblances  are  external  and  superficial ; 
the  differences  are  fundamental.  The  excavations 
have  illustrated  the  Bible's  outward  form,  they  have 
thrown  light  on  its  words,  animals,  kings,  cities,  etc. ; 
but  who  would  say  that  they  have  given  us  a  new 
revelation,  or  increased  man's  spiritual  knowledge  in 
the  smallest  degree?  Helps  for  the  better  under 
standing  of  the  Bible  is  all  that  they  can  give  us.  So 
their  value  is  secondary  and  subordinate,  and  so,  in 
fact,  Professor  Delitzsch  confesses.  "  What,"  he  asks, 
"  is  the  effect  of  these  labours  in  distant,  inhospitable, 
and  dangerous  lands  ?  To  what  end  this  costly  work 
of  rummaging  in  mounds  many  thousand  years  old,  of 
digging  deep  down  into  the  earth  in  places  where  no 
gold  or  silver  is  to  be  found  ?  Why  this  rivalry 
amongst  nations  for  the  purpose  of  securing,  each  for 
itself,  these  desolate  hills — and  the  more  the  better — 
in  which  to  excavate  ?  And  from  what  source,  on 
the  other  hand,  is  derived  the  self-sacrificing  interest, 
ever  on  the  increase,  that  is  shown  on  both  sides  of 
the  ocean,  in  the  excavations  in  Babylonia  and 
Assyria  ?  " 

To  either  question  there  is  one  answer,  which, 
if  not  exhaustive,  nevertheless  to  a  great  extent 
tells  us  the  cause  and  aim  :  it  is  the  Bible.  Professor 


INSPIRATION  107 

Delitzsch,  in  other  places,  seems  to  think  that  recent 
discoveries  have  proved  that  the  Bible  was  not  given 
by  Divine  Inspiration,  and  does  not  contain  a  Divine 
Revelation  ;*  he  endeavours  to  prove  that  the  morality 
of  Babylon  was  in  some  respects  higher  than  that  ot 
Israel,  f  So  doing  he  seems  to  leave  himself  destitute 
of  any  answer  to  the  question,  Why  is  it  the  nations 
brave  dangers,  spend  money,  dig  toilsomely  amongst 
the  Eastern  mounds  ?  It  seems  hardly  worth  doing 
it  for  such  a  Bible's  sake. 

Many  people  seem  to  think  that  the  more  clearly 
the  influences  of  foreign  nations  on  Israel's  thoughts 
and  customs  is  demonstrated,  the  more  numerous  the 
parallells  between  her  and  the  nations  of  the  world — 
the  less  reason  there  is  for  maintaining  that  she  came 
under   a   specially  Divine   influence.      The  contrary 
seems  to  be  the  case.      The    stronger   the   worldly 
influence,  the  stronger  must  have  been  that  spiritual 
and  Divine  power  which  counteracted  it,  and  made 
Israel  what  she  was.     No  one  can  deny  that  Israel 
came  to  be  a  different  kind   of  being  to  all  those 
nations — Egypt,  Assyria,  Babylon,  and  the  rest — who 
had  her  in  their  hands,  and  left  their  marks  upon  her. 
And  it  would  be  impossible  to  maintain,  as  we  have 
already   seen,   that    Israel,   weak   and   uncultivated, 
almost  always  in  the  presence  of  crushing  worldly 
power,  seldom  firmly  grasping  her  own  peculiar  gifts, 
was  self-made. 

Babylon  has  a  long  history  before  Israel  has  any. 
There  were,  it  is  thought,  kingdoms  with  consider 
able  civilization  and  organization  in  the  Euphrates 

*  Pp.  85,  86, 149, 176, 177,  209,  218,  219. 

f  See  Lecture  ii.  in  "  Babel  and  Bible." 


io8  INSPIRATION 

valley  before  the  date  at  which,  according  to  Jewish 
chronologists,  the  world  was  made.  Her  religious 
influence  was  indeed  unique.  "There  is  no  other 
ancient  religion,"  says  Professor  Jastrow,*  "which  may 
lay  claim  to  have  exercised  so  large  a  measure  of 
influence  over  surrounding  nations,  shaping  as  it  did 
the  myths  and  legends  of  the  Hebrews,  Phoenicians, 
and  Greeks  alike,  showing  its  traces  also  in  the  religion 
of  Egypt,  and  contributing  in  various  ways  to  the 
systems  of  religious  thought  produced  in  the  ancient 
East  and  West"  The  important  point  for  our  purpose 
to  notice  is  that  this  influence  was  exerted  in  very 
early  times  and  ceased  in  later  ages.  "  The  religion 
of  Babylonia  and  Assyria,"  adds  Professor  Jastrow, 
"  practically  finished  its  rdle  before  Hebrew  mono 
theism  asserted  itself ;"f  by  which  he  means,  we 
presume,  the  eighth  century  B.C. 

The  same  author  tells  us  that  there  is  no  religion, 
save  that  of  the  Hebrews,  whose  growth  we  can 
trace  more  satisfactorily  "  from  a  crude  polytheism 
based  on  nature  worship  and  accompanied  by  primi 
tive  rites,  to  a  striking  approach  towards  a  mono 
theistic  conception  of  the  Universe,  with  a  highly 
complicated  priestly  organization,  and  an  elaborated 
theological  system."  J  But  the  readers  of  his  article 
will  see  that  the  main  elements  of  Babylonian  religion 
and  morals  were  fixed  when  the  Babylonian  cos 
mology,  as  it  has  come  down  to  us,  had  been  put 
into  shape,  and  when  Hammurabi's  code  was  pro 
mulgated.  Unprogressiveness  seems  to  be  a  chief 

*  Professor  Jastrow  in  article  "  Religion  of  Babylonia,"  Hastings' 
"  Dictionary,"  extra  vol.  p.  533. 

f  Ibid.  J  Ibid. 


INSPIRATION  109 

characteristic  of  Babylonia's  religious  history  between 
the  days  of  Hammurabi  and  Nebuchadnezzar.*  Nebu 
chadnezzar's  prayers  and  the  Pentitential  Psalms 
show  that  her  religion  had  become  somewhat  more 
ethical  during  this  period,  but  she  seems  to  make  no 
effort  to  cast  off  her  old  superstitions  and  her  sense 
less  mythology.  She  reduces  the  number  of  her 
acting  deities,  but  she  never  grasps  the  principle  of 
monotheism.  The  code  of  Hammurabi  and  the  old 
traditions  of  Creation  and  the  Flood,  etc.,  as  they  had 
taken  shape  before  his  days  are,  so  far  as  we  are 
aware,  the  chief  contributions  which  she  makes  to 
the  library  collected  by  Assurbanipal  in  the  seventh 
century  B.C.  This,  at  least,  is  clear — the  higher  and 
more  spiritual  ideas  of  later  times  did  not  cast  out 
the  crude  polytheism  and  the  superstitious  practices 
of  the  earlier  period. 

However  great  the  religious  influence  of  Baby 
lonia  was  in  early  times,  it  has  not  been  permanent 
in  the  slightest  degree.  Babylon  has  not  given  even 
the  foundations  to  any  of  the  later  religions.  There 
is  no  doctrine  of  the  religion  of  Israel  which  can  be 
traced  to  Babylon.  She  gave,  no  doubt,  to  the 
Hebrews  (as  to  other  nations)  certain  rough  materials 
in  the  shape  of  primitive  myths  and  legends.  This 
Babylonian  clay  was  refined  in  the  Hebrew  furnace, 
it  may  be  for  centuries,  before  it  was  used  by  the 
Hebrew  architects  to  make  certain  narratives  in 

*  Bishop  Westcott  remarks  that  unprogressiveness  is  a  charac 
teristic  of  all  "  Gentile  Sacred  Books."  While  the  books  of  the  Bible, 
corresponding  with  successive  stages  in  the  religious  advances  of  men, 
go  forward  from  ritual  to  spiritual  service,  the  case  is  exactly  the  reverse 
with  the  other  canons  of  holy  writings. — "  The  Sacred  Books  of  Pre- 
Christian  Religions,"  p.  20,  in  "  Cambridge  Companion  to  the  Bible." 


i  io  INSPIRATION 

Genesis,  and  to  serve  spiritual  purposes  which  no 
Babylonian  had  ever  conceived.  When  we  read  those 
narratives  it  is  not  the  indebtedness  to  Babylonian 
sources  which  strikes  us,  but  rather  the  marvellous 
use  made  of  such  unpromising  materials. 

The  Babylonian  early  traditions  indicate  to  us 
clearly  and  sufficiently  the  nature  of  the  Babylonian 
religion  as  it  was,  and  as  it  never  ceased  to  be.  It 
was  crude  polytheism  based  on  nature  worship.  It 
became  something  more  than  this,  but  it  was  always 
this.  Babylon  is  always  a  city  of  many  gods,  and 
these  represent  forces  of  nature.  Moreover,  the  exist 
ence,  side  by  side,  of  powers  of  good  and  powers  of 
evil  is  an  essential  part  of  her  religious  belief.  The 
powers  of  good  are  stronger,  but  the  powers  of  evil 
exist  and  are  active  for  mischief.  How  could  it 
be  otherwise  when  Chaos,  identified  with  the  Evil 
Principle,  is  the  mother  alike  of  gods  and  monsters  ? 
Unity  in  the  unseen  world  and  amongst  those  unseen 
beings  which  determine  man's  destiny  is  denied 
to  Babylon  by  her  fundamental  conceptions. 

Still,  a  tendency  towards  unity  in  the  Babylonian 
Pantheon  is  to  be  discerned.  "A  striking  approach," 
Professor  Jastrow  calls  it,  "towards  a  monotheistic 
conception  of  the  Universe."  It  will  be  instructive  to 
examine  the  character  of  this  approach,  for  we  shall 
see  that  it  proceeded  on  principles  so  false  that  nothing 
really  good  could  be  expected  of  it.  Changes  made 
in  religious  teachings  for  political  causes  could  not 
possibly  lead  to  higher  conceptions  of  spiritual  truths.* 

*  For  the  facts,  on  which  the  author  has  no  independent  knowledge, 
confer  the  articles  in  Hastings'  "  Dictionary,"  and  especially  that  of 
Professor  Jastrow,  on  the  "  Religion  of  Babylonia,"  in  the  extra 
volume, 


INSPIRATION  in 

In  the  early  ages,  as  far  back  as  3500  B.C.,  there 
were  numbers  of  independent  states  in  the  Euphrates 
valley,  each  with  its  own  capital  and  each  with  its  own 
religious  cult.  The  god  worshipped  was  a  personifica 
tion  of  one  of  the  principal  forces  of  nature.  The 
fortunes  of  the  god  and  of  the  nation  were  in 
separably  connected.  A  god  rose  or  fell  in  impor 
tance,  even  as  his  tribe  or  city  rose  or  fell.  The  ancient 
gods  of  the  Babylonian  Pantheon  corresponded  to 
the  local  gods  of  these  numerous  states.  Now,  these 
Babylonian  petty  kingdoms  became  in  process  of 
time,  as  in  other  national  histories,  amalgamated  to 
gether.  In  the  latter  half  of  the  third  millenium  B.C. 
the  city  of  Babylon  gained  that  political  importance 
and  supremacy  which,  though  sometimes  challenged, 
was  never  wholly  lost  till  the  days  of  Cyrus,  King  of 
Persia.  Amidst  all  the  vicissitudes  of  the  seventeen 
centuries  following  Hammurabi,  Babylon  maintained 
its  position  as  the  capital  of  the  country,  while  the 
old  centres  lost  their  political  importance  or  dis 
appeared  altogether.* 

This  change  of  political  circumstances  naturally 
carried  with  it'  change,  not  indeed  in  the  concep 
tion  of  Deity,  but  in  the  character  of  the  religious 
cults.  Political  amalgamation  involved  religious 
amalgamation.  The  advance  in  the  position  of 
Babylon  meant  advance  in  the  position  of  Babylon's 
god.  There  had  been  different  personifications 
of  Nature's  forces  in  the  different  local  centres. 
The  work  of  Creation,  for  example,  had  been  the 
subject  of  different  traditions,  and  had,  indeed,  been 

*  Prof.  Jastrow,  Hastings'  "  Dictionary,"  Art.  "  Religion  of  Baby 
lonia,"  extra  vol.,  p.  534. 


H2  INSPIRATION 

assigned  to  different  gods.  The  one  Euphrates 
Valley  State,  with  Babylon  as  its  capital,  must  have 
one  religion  with  harmonized  primitive  traditions. 
The  Babylonian  priesthood  took  the  matter  in  hand. 
The  result  was  that  the  older  gods  disappeared  as 
acting  deities,  Marduk,  a  younger  deity,  the  god  of 
Babylon,  became  the  head  of  the  Pantheon.  The  old 
traditions,  as  current  in  the  different  old  centres,  were 
combined  and  harmonized.  The  roles  of  Bel  or  Ea  in 
the  establishment  of  the  Universe  were  transferred  to 
Marduk.  Theological  explanations  were  given  of 
accomplished  facts.  The  old  gods  are  described  as 
making  a  voluntary  surrender  of  their  powers  into 
Marduk's  hand.  The  Babylonian  cosmology  found 
on  the  seven  tablets  of  Creation  contains  and  illus 
trates  this  religious  change.  It  is  a  story  composed 
of  various  versions  of  Creation,  which  have  been 
carefully  edited  and  modified,  so  that  the  glory  of 
the  work  of  Creation  might  be  ascribed  to  Marduk, 
the  god  of  the  chief  city  in  the  Eastern  world. 

The  supremacy  of  Marduk  in  the  religious  world 
is  thus  a  consequence  of  the  supremacy  of  Babylon 
in  the  political  world.*  The  concentration  of  divine 
powers  in  his  person  is  a  consequence  of  the  centrali 
zation  and  unification  of  the  different  states  of  the 
Euphrates  Valley  under  the  headship  of  Babylon. 
The  tendency  to  monotheism,  if  such  it  can  be  called, 
is  the  reflex  of  political  facts  upon  the  religious  domain. 
The  process  of  unification  is  thus  based  on  false 
principles.  Things  in  heaven  are  regarded  as  shadows 
of  things  on  earth.  We  know  how  the  true  and  eternal 

*  There  are  some  interruptions  in  Marduk's  supremacy.  See  Article 
ast  cited,  p.  545. 


INSPIRATION  113 

doctrine  of  the  unity  of  God  has  tended  to  the 
recognition  of  unity  of  the  world  and  of  man.  We 
know,  to  take  a  local  illustration,  how  the  Divine 
unity  of  the  Church  in  England  welded  together  the 
different  kingdoms  of  the  Heptarchy.  In  these  cases 
the  eternal  spiritual  truth  came  first,  and  the  tem 
poral  political  fact  ensued.  The  Babylonians,  re 
versing  the  process,  placed  the  pyramid  on  its  apex, 
and  founded  their  heavenly  temples  on  the  shifting 
sands  of  earth. 

The  most  striking  approach  towards  monotheism 
is  connected  by  Prof.  Jastrow  with  Ashur,  the  god  of 
Nineveh.  Ashur's  supremacy  amongst  the  gods  was 
in  like  manner  connected  with  the  rise  of  the  Assyrian 
Empire.  The  Assyrian  Empire  is  stronger  than  the 
Babylonian  for  several  centuries,  ending  with  the 
seventh  B.C.  Nineveh,  not  Babylon,  is  the  capital  of 
the  Eastern  world.  Once  again  political  facts  modify 
religious  ideas,  though  not  fundamentally.  Marduk 
is  too  secure  in  his  supreme  position  to  be  deposed. 
Assyria  is  only  an  offshoot  from  Babylon,  and  she 
depended  on  Babylon  for  everything — culture  and 
religion  alike.  Assyria  simply  adapted  the  Babylo 
nian  worship  and  faith  to  her  own  political  and 
social  conditions.  Ashur  in  the  North  took  Marduk's 
place  in  the  South.  There  was  no  god  beside  him  in 
Assyria.  The  early  traditions  about  him  gave  some 
help  to  the  Assyrians  in  regarding  him  as  their  only 
god  ;  by  these  he  was  not  brought,  like  Marduk, 
into  direct  association  with  any  other  god.  But 
Ashur  was  essentially  the  god  whom  the  Assyrians 
made  ;  his  very  name  identified  him  with  the  Assyrian 
state,  and  he  was  a  representative  of  its  warlike 

I 


ii4  INSPIRATION 

genius.  Politics  gave  him  his  position,  and  he  never 
even  attained  the  position  of  Assyria's  only  god. 
This  approach  to  the  monotheistic  conception  of  the 
Universe  in  Ashur  cannot  be  regarded  as  very  close. 

It  may,  perhaps,  be  asked  whether  the  advance  of 
Marduk  in  the  Babylonian  Pantheon  is  not  similar  to 
that  advance  in  the  conception  of  Jehovah  amongst 
the  chosen  people  which  we  can  discern  in  the  Old 
Testament.  There  are  without  doubt  prima  facie  re 
semblances.  Undoubtedly  Jehovah  becomes  greater  in 
the  Jewish  mind  as  the  ages  pass  by.  Gradually 
He  is  recognized  to  be  the  only  God,  the  God  of  all 
the  families  of  the  earth ;  not  simply  the  God  which 
only  Israel  worships,  and  which  she  should  worship 
alone.  Jehovah,  God  of  Israel,  is  seen  to  be  Jehovah 
Sabaoth  as  well.  There  is  then  a  similar  exaltation  to 
be  found  in  the  history  of  the  worship  of  the  two 
national  deities  ;  but  the  causes  of  the  exaltations  will 
be  found  to  be  very  different.  The  one  rests  on  a 
material,  the  other  on  a  spiritual  basis.  Marduk  is 
reckoned  greater  because  his  city  Babylon  is  greater. 
Jehovah  is  felt  to  be  greater  because  the  teaching 
concerning  Him  becomes  more  spiritual.  The  Baby 
lonian  priests  manipulated  their  ancient  traditions  so 
as  to  make  them  correspond  to  existing  circumstances. 
The  Jewish  prophets  meditating  on  and  digesting 
their  national  history,  deduced  from  it  how  incom 
parably  great  and  righteous  and  holy  Jehovah  was. 
They  did  not  think  their  God  to  be  greater  because 
the  kingdoms  of  the  nations  were  being  delivered 
into  their  hands.  On  the  contrary,  the  greatness  of 
Israel's  God  was  realized  when  Israel's  own  poli 
tical  greatness  was  passing  away.  Thus  Marduk's 


INSPIRATION  115 

exaltation   in  Babylon  was  a  political  arrangement, 
Jehovah's  exaltation  in  Israel  a  spiritual  intuition. 

Professor  Jastrovv,  describing  the  growth  of  the 
Babylonian  religion,  speaks  not  only  of  progress 
from  polytheism  towards  monotheism,  but  also  from 
primitive  rites  to  a  highly  complicated  priestly 
organization  and  an  elaborate  theological  system. 
The  words,  when  weighed,  do  not  suggest  to  us 
progress  to  higher  and  better  things  ;  and,  as  a 
matter  of  fact,  there  was  very  little.  The  progress, 
such  as  it  was,  never  eliminated  the  old  gross  super 
stitions.  Here,  also,  the  Babylonian  primitive  beliefs 
were  the  cause  of  the  non-progressive  character  of 
its  religion.  Its  doctrine  of  a  first  cause  never  ceased 
to  dominate  its  development.  Chaos  is  the  first 
cause  of  all  good  and  evil  powers  and  existences. 
Naturally,  the  latter  have  as  much  right  to  live  as 
the  former.  Naturally,  also,  the  gods,  though  stronger, 
are  removed  to  a  higher  sphere,  whilst  the  evil 
remains  and  fills  the  air  breathed  by  man.  The  good 
powers  are  well  disposed  to  man,  and  they  are 
stronger  than  the  evil.  There  is  comfort  in  that 
thought.  Marduk,  we  know,  conquered  Tiamat.  But 
it  is  only  a  sort  of  general  surveillance  which  the  god 
exercises  over  human  affairs,  whereas  all  those  evils, 
great  and  small,  common  to  man — those  losses  and 
diseases  and  accidents  of  which  most  lives  are  full — 
are  the  work  of  evil  spirits. 

The  world,  then,  to  a  Babylonian,  was  full  of  evil 
spirits,  who  could,  at  their  pleasure,  be  invisible,  or 
assume  repulsive  forms.  And  along  with  them  there 
were  witches  and  sorcerers — evil  spirits  in  human 
form,  or  wicked  men  who  had  evil  spirits  at  their 


ii6  INSPIRATION 

command.  These  were  more  dangerous  than  the 
evil  spirits,  because  they  could  select  their  victims 
and  cast  their  spells  on  those  whom  they  hated, 
whilst  the  spirits  worked  their  mischief  in  a  blind 
kind  of  way.  Evil  powers  were  thus  always  lurking 
at  man's  door,  and  they  sometimes  took  up  their 
abode  within  his  body  for  his  destruction. 

Now,  it  is  the  belief  in  these  evil  powers  which 
determines  the  character  of  the  Babylonian  worship. 
They  have  to  be  neutralized  or  counteracted  by 
exorcisms,  spells,  and  symbolical  rites.  And,  more 
over,  the  gods,  tkough  beneficent  powers,  are  some 
what  capricious  in  their  favour.  They  could  be 
offended  by  the  withholding  of  gifts,  or  mistakes  in 
ritual,  or  other  causes  difficult  to  divine.  It  had  to 
be  determined  by  omens  and  oracles  when  they 
would  be  favourable,  and  what  help  they  would 
give.  The  worshipper  had  to  grope  in  the  dark  to 
find  the  right  god  to  address,  the  right  prayer  or 
formula  to  use,  and  the  right  time  to  use  it.  The 
greatest  care  had  to  be  taken  in  the  performance 
of  details.  Failure  to  obtain  the  request  was  due  to 
the  use  of  a  wrong  or  unfortunate  formula.  The 
consequence  was  the  compilation  of  many  series  of 
Incantation  rituals  :  "  hundreds  of  formulae  produced 
in  the  course  of  time  for  the  purpose  of  relieving 
those  attacked  by  the  demons  or  bewitched  by  the 
sorceress  and  sorceresses,  an  omen-literature  which 
assumed  enormous  dimensions."  *  The  Babylonian 
worshippers  were  thus  helpless  slaves  to  supersti 
tions  of  the  most  degrading  kind.  Their  lives  were 
darkened  by  the  terror  of  the  powers  of  evil. 

*  "  Religion  of  Babylonia,"  p.  551. 


INSPIRATION  117 

But  it  must  not  be  supposed  that  the  ethical 
element  was  absent  from  their  worship.  There  are 
prayers  and  hymns  which  show  a  true  sense  of  the 
Divine  greatness,  a  spirit  of  dependence  on  His  good 
ness  and  mercy,  and  deep  feelings  of  contrition  and 
self-humiliation  for  sin.  It  was  not  the  absence  of 
gifts  or  mistakes  in  ritual  only  which  caused  the 
Divine  displeasure.  The  gods,  or  some  of  them, 
required  justice  from  their  worshippers.  This  love  of 
righteousness  is  specially  connected  with  the  sun- 
god  Shamash.*  It  is  seen  in  the  prologue  to  the  code 
of  Hammurabi  and  in  the  Shamash  hymns,  f  Shamash 
destroys  those  who  plan  evil,  who  remove  boundaries, 
who  accept  bribes.  He  is  gracious  to  and  prolongs 
the  life  of  those  who  act  in  the  contrary  way.  Shamash 
hears  the  prayers  of  the  poor,  the  lowly,  the  needy, 
and  the  weak.  A  deep  sense  of  sin  is  shown,  also, 
in  the  Penitential  Psalms.  But  .it  is  an  external  sense 
rather  than  an  internal.  The  man  knows  he  has  done 
wrong,  because  he  is  suffering  chastisement,  but  he 
does  not  know  what  wrong  he  has  done.  Moreover, 
it  is  clear  that  the  good  spirit  in  Babylonian  worship 
was  unable  to  cast  out  the  evil.  The  ethical  ;hymns 
and  Penitential  Psalms  are  mixed  up  with  the 
Incantations  and  the  magical  rites,  and  are  themselves 
called  incantations.^ 

There  is  a  direct  and  detailed  comparison  between 
the  Bible  and  the  sacred  literature  of  Babylon  which 
recent  discoveries  enable  us  to  make,  which  should 

*  With  other  gods  as  well.     Cf.  Cook,  "  Laws  of  Moses,"  p.  7. 
t  Hammurabi  is  the  King  of  Justice  to  whom  Shamash  has  entrusted 
judgment:  ibid.,  p.  13. 

J  "  Religion  of  Babylonia,"  pp.  566,  567. 


iiS  INSPIRATION 

lead  to  valuable  results.  Comparisons  are  valuable 
according  as,  and  so  far  as  the  circumstances  of  the 
things  compared  are  similar.  Two  workmen  are  best 
compared  when  we  can  place  side  by  side  their 
finished  productions  formed  of  the  same  materials 
and  for  the  same  purposes.  Such  a  comparison  we 
are  able  to  make,  for  we  can  place  side  by  side 
the  traditions  current  amongst  the  Assyrians  and 
Babylonians  about  Creation  and  Primitive  man  and 
those  found  in  the  early  chapters  of  Genesis. 

The  close  connection  between  the  two  traditions 
is  beyond  all  doubt.  The  parallels  in  language, 
incident,  and  general  course  of  the  narrative, 
are  unmistakable.  Nevertheless,  close  as  are  the 
resemblances,  the  differences  in  thought  are  immense. 
How  is  it,  we  have  a  right  to  ask  all  those  who  deny 
to  the  Bible  any  special  Divine  Inspiration,  that 
Biblical  and  Babylonian  writers,  starting  with  the 
same  traditions,  moulded  and  modified  them  into  two 
different  things  ? 

For  our  purpose,  at  present,  it  is  not  of  primary 
importance  to  decide  the  exact  kind  of  the  connection 
between  the  Hebrew  and  the  Babylonian  primitive 
traditions.  Some  have  thought  that  the  narratives 
contained  in  the  early  chapters  of  Genesis  were  com 
municated  to  the  chosen  people  by  special  revelation. 
In  that  case  the  Babylonian  accounts  would  give  an 
instance,  startling  and  vivid,  of  the  possibility  of 
corruption  of  truth  into  error,  and  of  noble  and  digni 
fied  narrative  or  picture  into  grotesque  mythology. 
Others,  with  greater  probability,  believe  that  the 
Hebrews  got  their  conceptions  of  the  first  things  from 
Babylon,  whether  in  the  form  in  which  these  have  come 


INSPIRATION  119 

down  to  us  in  Babylonian  literature,  or,  more  probably, 
in  a  form  of  greater  simplicity  and  less  corruption.  In 
that  case  our  comparison  would  illustrate  the  power 
working  in  the  Hebrew  nation,  and  specially  her  great 
teachers,  to  prepare  and  use  material,  not  in  itself 
noble  or  true,  for  the  expression  and  communication 
of  the  highest  truths.  Bishop  Ryle's  words  would  be 
very  much  to  the  point :  "  The  saints  and  prophets  of 
Israel  stripped  the  old  legend  of  its  pagan  deformities. 
Its  shape  and  outline  survived.  But  its  spirit  was 
changed,  its  religious  teaching  and  significance  were 
transfigured,  in  the  light  of  the  Revelation  of  the  Lord. 
The  popular  tradition  was  not  abolished  ;  it  was  pre 
served,  purified,  hallowed,  that  it  might  subserve  the 
Divine  purpose  of  transmitting,  as  in  a  figure,  spiritual 
teaching  upon  eternal  truths."  * 

The  Babylonian  tradition  of  the  Creation  and 
Primitive  man  which  has  come  down  to  us  is  believed 
to  have  been  framed  considerably  more  than  two  thou 
sand  years  before  Christ.  It  is  thus  at  least  as  old  as 
Abraham.  The  Hebrew  accounts  of  the  same  are 
twofold  ;  the  earlier  being  put  into  writing  according 
to  the  critics  about  the  ninth  century,  and  the  latter 
somewhere  in  the  fifth  century  B.C.  The  thought 
naturally  arises,  Is  it  fair  to  compare  traditions 
differing  in  date  by  one  thousand,  and  perhaps  even 
by  two  thousand  years  ? 

It  would  not  be  fair  to  compare  an  earlier  stage 
of  the  growth  of  one  religion  with  a  later  stage  of 
another,  but  this  is  not  what  we  propose  to  do.  The 
Babylonian  nation  was  much  more  ancient  than  the 
Hebrew.  It  had  been  fully  established  a  thousand 

*  "  Early  Narratives  of  Genesis,"  p.  13  f. 


120  INSPIRATION 

years,  and  perhaps  more,  before  a  son  had  been  born 
to  Abraham.  The  religion  of  the  Babylonians  meets 
us,  we  are  told  in  the  oldest  inscriptions,  as  a  tolerably 
finished  system.*  Its  account  of  Creation,  etc., 
though  ancient  as  it  is,  bears  traces  of  editing  and 
modification.  The  Babylonian  kingdom  continues  to 
exist  and  prosper.  But  its  religion  has  not  within 
it  the  power  of  healthy  growth.  Fifteen  hundred 
years  after  Abraham  its  ideas  of  Creation  remain  in 
their  original  form.  The  folklore  of  Abraham's  family 
may  not  have  been  more  rational  than  that  of  the 
Babylonians  of  his  time.  However  that  may  be,  the 
grotesque  mythological  element  is  absent  from  both 
the  earlier  and  later  Biblical  narratives.  In  a  word, 
though  the  Babylonian  and  Hebrew  nations  start  origi 
nally  with  the  same  traditions,  the  one  speedily  puts 
away  its  childish  things,  whilst  the  other  retains  them. 

But  do  we  find,  after  all,  a  very  considerable 
difference  between  the  early  traditions  of  the  two 
nations  when,  without  religious  prejudices,  we  com 
pare  them  ?  Undoubtedly  there  is.  They  differ  as 
widely  as  truth  and  error,  or  if  this  is  to  assume  too 
much,  even  as  wisdom  and  folly.  This  will  be  seen 
when  we  examine  carefully  the  two  chief  points  on 
which  comparison  is  possible,  viz.  the  stories  of 
Creation  and  of  the  Flood. 

When  we  compare  the  two  stories  of  Creation, 
both,  it  may  be  maintained,  are  equally  unscientific. 
The  science  of  the  narrative  in  Genesis  seems  to 
be,  as  always  in  the  Bible,  the  science  of  the  times. 
It  adds  nothing  to  scientific  knowledge,  and  it 

*  Hommel,  in  Hastings'  <•  Dictionary,"  vol.  i.  p.  215,  Art.  "  Baby 
lonia." 


INSPIRATION  121 

contradicts,  in  some  points,  scientific  conclusions  now 
accepted.  The  Biblical  account  might  seem  to  be 
unable  to  claim  any  advantage  over  the  Babylonian 
in  the  scientific  field,  and  yet  that  would  not  be 
altogether  correct.  The  Babylonian  account  describes 
the  evolution  from  chaos  to  order.  That  is  a  subject 
on  which  science  has  a  right  to  speak.  The  Bible  is 
plainly  teaching  truths  of  religion  and  theology.  It 
is  telling  of  that  personal  will  behind  the  forces  of 
nature  which  many  scientific  men  postulate,  but  on 
which  they  have  no  word  to  say.  It  does  not  fly  in 
the  face  of  accurate  science.  Its  mythological 
elements  are  inoffensive  and  serve  noble  purposes  of 
a  moral  and  spiritual  kind.  In  all  fairness  writings 
must  be  judged  by  their  success  or  failure  to  accom 
plish  their  intentions.  The  Hebrew  writers  did  not 
propose  to  teach  men  concerning  the  laws  of 
Nature  or  methods  of  Creation :  they  did  desire  to 
point  to  the  One  Almighty  Creator  of  all,  and  they 
accomplished  their  aim.  The  wise  men  of  Baby 
lonia  teachers  on  the  other  hand  endeavoured  to 
frame  a  theory  of  beginnings  and  utterly  failed.  They 
involved  themselves  in  a  hopeless  tangle  of  contra 
diction  and  obscurity.*  To  make  Chaos  the  first 
principle,  both  for  the  gods  and  for  Creation  and 
man,  is  a  piece  of  utter  folly.  This  being  the  funda 
mental  idea  in  the  Babylonian  story  of  Creation, 
we  are  not  surprised  to  hear  it  described  as  "  wild, 
grotesque,  tumultuous  mythology."  The  Biblical 
story,  on  the  other  hand,  is  "  serene,  majestic,  calm, 
and  sober  prose."  | 

*  See  Hastings'  "  Dictionary,"  extra  vol.,  pp.  568,  572. 

t  Whitehouse,  Art.  "Cosmogony,"  Hastings'  "Dictionary,"!.  505. 


122  INSPIRATION 

Those  who  would  deny  the  spiritual  truths 
contained  in  the  Biblical  account  of  Creation,  would 
hardly  deny  also  the  wisdom  and  dignity  of  its 
religious  teaching.  Its  author  has  the  highest  con 
ceptions  of  the  greatness  and  wisdom  of  God  as 
shown  in  Creation,  and  he  adds  to  this  an  ade 
quate  conception  of  the  dignity  of  man's  nature  and 
office  in  the  world.  He  is  acquainted  with  teachings 
which  he  utterly  rejects.  The  Deity  is  not  Nature, 
nor  any  of  its  powers  or  elements.  He  is  not,  in 
particular,  the  Sun  or  Moon.  These  are  His  creatures, 
how  can  the  Creator  be  identified  with  the  works  of 
His  own  hands  ?  He  was  before  them  all ;  by  His 
word  were  they  made  and  set  in  their  own  proper 
place.  Again,  though  the  author  is  conscious  of  the 
existence  of  evil  and  sin,  he  is  clear  that  it  was  not 
an  original  element  in  Creation.  God  made  all  things, 
having  created  the  stuff  of  which  they  were  made, 
and  pronounced  them  all  to  be  very  good.  He  un 
hesitatingly  rejects  the  errors  of  polytheism.  There 
is  no  room  in  the  Universe  for  any  God  save  Him — 
the  Only  One  who  was  its  Creator  and  Fashioner. 
He  is  able  to  combine  these  two  truths — God's 
separateness  from  Creation  and  His  nearness  to  it — 
which  heathen  religions  and  philosophies  could  never 
hold  with  an  equal  grasp.  The  Most  High  humbleth 
Himself  to  make  as  well  as  to  behold  the  things 
which  are  in  heaven  and  earth.  And  when  the 
writer  comes  to  speak  of  man  we  feel  that  no  account 
could  establish,  on  a  firmer  base  the  inspiring  prin 
ciple,  "  Noblesse  oblige,"  for  the  human  race  of  all 
time.  Made  by  God  Himself,  in  His  own  image, 
exalted  above  the  animals  in  nature,  and  given 


INSPIRATION  123 

dominion  over  them,  man  is  worthy  to  be  God's 
representative  and  viceroy  in  the  world  of  matter 
and  sense,  and  also,  which  is  much  more,  he  is  made 
capable  of  knowing  his  God  and  holding  communion 
with  Him.  The  record  of  Creation  thus  contains  a 
first  Gospel  for  man  which  becomes  in  due  time  the 
foundation  to  the  second.*  The  first  and  later 
account  of  Creation  is,  no  doubt,  the  grander,  more 
developed  of  the  two.  But  the  second  is  remarkable 
because  it  puts  woman  in  her  proper  place  in  the 
world,  i.e.  in  independence,  but  also  in  close  relation 
with  and  on  equality  with  man.  She  alone  in  all 
creation  corresponds  to  him,  i.e.,  is  adequate  to  him, 
is  intellectually  his  equal,  and  is  capable  of  satisfying 
his  needs  and  instincts.  Marriage  with  one  woman 
is  declared  to  be  the  Divine  law,  and  to  be  the  closest 
of  all  possible  unions.  The  foundations  for  a  lofty 
religion  and  a  pure  morality  were  thus  laid  for  the 
nation  which  had  such  a  doctrine  of  God,  and  of  man, 
and  of  woman,  and  their  mutual  relations  one  with 
the  other.  And  the  race  which  had  such  a  noble 
beginning  could  not  fail  to  hope  that  it  would  have 
also  a  still  nobler  end. 

It  would  be  impossible  to  say  how  much  of  noble 
thought  and  life  has  had  its  source  in  the  Biblical 
record  of  Creation.  It  would  be  equally  impossible 
to  find  any  noble  teachings  in  the  Babylonian 
narrative.  The  Bible  begins  with  God  ;  the  Baby 
lonian  with  Chaos.  From  Chaos  as  a  first  principle, 
all  things  good  and  evil  alike  come.  She  is  the 
mother  at  once  of  the  gods  and  of  the  monsters. 
She  is  the  evil  principle  of  darkness  and  confusion 

*  Driver,  "Genesis,"  p.  41. 


124  INSPIRATION 

which  her  divine  children  fight  and  destroy.  Thus 
the  Babylonians  utterly  failed  to  frame  any  worthy 
conception  of  a  First  Cause.  Creation  and  man  and 
the  gods  themselves  are  dishonoured  and  discredited 
in  their  origin.  The  gods  are  many,  but  they  are  not 
all  powerful,  and  they  quail  and  flee  before  the 
might  of  Chaos  (Tiamat).  Different  members  of  the 
Pantheon  become  supreme  according  as  the  nations 
or  cities  in  which  they  are  worshipped  become 
supreme  amongst  the  nations.  Marduk  the  god 
of  Babylon  supersedes  Ea  and  Bel,  as  the  city  Baby 
lon  supersedes  Eridu  and  Nippur  amongst  the  cities 
of  the  world.  The  fortunes  of  the  nations  thus 
decide  who  shall  have  the  supremacy  amongst  the 
gods  above.  The  gift  of  the  title  and  office  of 
Creator  is  in  the  hands  of  man. 

This  farrago  of  nonsense  could  have  no  power  to 
help  any  man  to  feel  true  reverence  to  the  powers 
above  him,  neither  could  it  aid  him  to  live  a  worthy 
life.  We  must  bear  in  mind  that  it  represents 
the  matured  cosmological  theories  of  the  Babylonians 
— not  merely  the  primitive  traditions,  but  these,  com 
bined  with  the  scholastic  astrological  system,  and 
the  whole  interpreted  in  accord  with  the  theological 
doctrines  developed  in  the  schools  of  Babylon. 
These  grotesque  follies  are  the  matured  wisdom  of 
the  wise  men  of  Babylonia.*  It  attempts  to  explain 
the  evolution  from  chaos  to  order.  It  degrades  the 
nature  of  Deity,  it  lays  no  foundation  for  relations 
between  God  and  man. 

Similar  results  follow  a  comparison  between  the 

Biblical  and  the  Babylonian  accounts  of  the  Flood. 

*  Hastings'  "Dictionary,"  "  Religion  of  Babylon,"  extra  vol.  p.  572. 


INSPIRATION  125 

The  Biblical  account  is  full  of  moral  and  spiritual 
teaching.  The  Babylonian  is  destitute  of  all  moral 
and  spiritual  elements. 

As  the  Creation  story  in  the  Bible  tells  of  God's 
greatness  and  wisdom,  so  the  story  of  the  Flood 
declares  His  righteousness  and  mercy.  Sin  has  now 
entered  the  world,  and  has  indeed  covered  it.  "  God 
saw  the  earth,  and  behold,  it  was  corrupt ;  for  all  flesh 
had  corrupted  his  way  on  the  earth."  Sin  must  not 
go  unpunished,  so  man  and  all  living  creatures  must 
be  destroyed  ;  but  Noah  finds  grace  in  the  eyes  of  the 
Lord.  The  Flood  is  a  great  declaration  of  the  mind 
of  God  in  regard  to  sin.  It  also  declares  the  eternal 
truth  that  God's  judgments  are  mingled  with  mercy. 
Moreover,  a  promise  is  made  that  the  earth  should 
not  be  destroyed  again.  There  is,  however,  no  room 
for  the  suggestion  that  the  punishment  was  not  justly 
due,  or  not  wisely  administered.  To  use  the  words 
of  the  29th  Psalm,  Jehovah  sat  as  king  at  the  Flood. 
And  again,  though  Jehovah  is  said  to  smell  the  sweet 
savour  of  Noah's  sacrifice,  it  is  not  that,  but  His  know 
ledge  of  man's  innate  propensity  to  evil,  which  is 
described  as  the  cause  of  God's  forbearance  in  the  days 
to  come.  It  was  not  for  lack  of  burnt-offerings  and 
sacrifices  that  the  flood  came,  but  the  constantly  evil 
imaginations  of  the  thoughts  of  man's  heart,  and 
the  violence  and  corruption  with  which  he  had  filled 
the  earth.  The  narrative  in  its  earliest  form  gives 
clear  teaching  concerning  God's  requirements.  These 
are  not  burnt-offerings  and  sacrifices,  but  moral 
qualities,  such  as  righteousness.  It  is  said  to  Noah, 
"  Thee  have  I  seen  righteous  before  me  in  this  genera 
tion."  On  the  other  hand,  the  moral  element  in  the 


126  INSPIRATION 

Babylonian  account  of  the  Flood  is  hardly  discernible. 
It  is  in  no  way  calculated  to  fill  men's  minds  with 
holy  fear  of  the  just  punishment  of  sin. 

It  is  indeed,  in  some  sense,  a  Divine  judgment ; 
for  it  is  said,  yet  only  incidentally,  and  at  the  end  of 
the  narrative,  "  Let  no  flood  come  any  more  as  a 
punishment  upon  man."  But  the  idea  of  judgment 
is  by  no  means  prominent.  No  reason  whatever  is 
given  for  the  Divine  resolve  to  bring  a  flood  when  the 
narrative  records  it.  No  care  is  taken  to  vindicate 
the  justice  of  the  Divine  judgment.  On  the  contrary, 
the  gods  agree  that  the  flood  is  a  mistake  never  to 
be  repeated,  because  it  destroyed  all  indiscriminately, 
whether  sinners  or  not.  It  was  deeply  regretted  by 
some  of  them.  "Why,"  says  Ishtar,  "did  I  assent  to 
evil  ?  "  The  god  Bel,  who  was  most  responsible  for 
it,  is  to  be  punished  by  being  forbidden  to  come  to 
the  incense  offering.  He  had  acted  unadvisedly  in 
destroying  man.  Nor,  again,  is  it  made  clear  that 
Ut-Napishtin,  who  corresponds  to  Noah,  is  saved 
because  of  his  righteousness.  His  piety  is  mentioned 
incidentally.  The  real  reason  for  his  escape  is 
division  in  the  Divine  counsels.  One  god  reveals 
the  secrets  of  the  Pantheon,  to  the  disgust  of  another, 
and  preserves  Ut-Napishtin's  life.  Again,  the  Flood 
loses  all  moral  significance  if  it  does  not  make 
manifest  to  man  God's  righteousness.  The  Baby 
lonian  account  does  not  accomplish  this  purpose. 
The  fact  that  the  gods  themselves  are  said  to  assert 
its  injustice  shows  that  man  also  regarded  it  as 
unjust.  The  whole  spirit  of  the  narrative  proves 
this. 

God's  punishments,  the  Bible  teaches,  not  only 


INSPIRATION  127 

manifest  His  righteousness,  but  His  glory  also. 
They  fill  men  with  the  idea  of  His  majesty  and 
power.  The  Babylonian  narrative  is  very  far  from 
doing  this.  At  the  Flood  the  gods  set  loose  forces 
which  they  are  unable  to  control,  and  are  over 
whelmed  with  grief  and  terror.  When  it  comes  at 
their  bidding,  they  shrink  back  in  fear  to  the  highest 
heaven.  They  cower  like  dogs.  Ishtar  groans  like 
a  woman  in  travail,  and  laments  she  has  agreed  to 
the  infliction  of  such  an  evil.  The  gods  and  the 
spirits  of  the  earth  weep  along  with  her  with  bowed- 
down  heads  and  compressed  lips.  Again,  when  the 
flood  subsides  and  men's  sacrifice  is  offered,  they  gather 
like  flies,  it  is  said,  above  the  sacrifice.  Bel  is  for 
bidden  to  approach,  because  the  Flood  was  his  work. 
He,  on  the  other  hand,  is  angry  that  a  single  man 
has  escaped,  but  being  pacified,  he  raises  the  man 
and  his  wife  into  immortal  beings,  who  live  with  the 
gods  and  are  like  unto  them. 

Thus,  in  the  course  of  the  narrative,  we  see  the 
gods  acting  without  wisdom  and  justice,  trembling 
like  cowards,  cowering  like  dogs,  crying  like  women, 
quarrelling  like  men,  gorging  like  flies,  passing  from 
one  extreme  to  another  as  weak  men  are  wont, 
raising  to  immortality  and  deity  those  whom  they 
had  failed  to  destroy.  No  man  reading  the  narrative 
would  be  likely  to  say,  "  Who  is  able  to  stand  before 
these  wise  and  mighty,  holy  and  righteous  gods  ?  " 

In  any  comparison  between  Israel  and  Babylon 
the  code  of  Hammurabi  requires'  special  attention. 
Before  the  days  of  Abraham,  or,  at  least,  in  his  days, 
this  code  was  law  amongst  the  people  of  Babylonia. 
It  shows  clearly  that  the  fundamental  principles  of 


128  INSPIRATION 

justice  and  righteousness  were  understood  and  en 
forced  in  those  early  days.  The  code  of  Hammurabi 
is  in  the  main  a  righteous  code,  and  Hammurabi 
himself  has  a  lofty  idea  of  the  duties  and  responsi 
bilities  of  a  king. 

In  Hammurabi  we  see  a  king  who  is  pious  towards 
the  gods,  acting  by  their  inspiration,  and  in  accord 
ance  with  their  directions.  He  regards  himself  as 
chosen  by  them  to  be  the  shepherd  and  father  of  his 
people.  His  people  are  cherished  in  his  heart,  rest 
in  peace  under  his  protection,  and  are  concealed  in 
his  wisdom.  It  is  his  care  that  the  strong  shall  not 
oppress  the  feeble,  that  the  orphans  and  widows  shall 
dwell  securely,  and  that  all  shall  enjoy  happiness. 
His  idea  of  sovereignty  transcends  that  of  his  suc 
cessor,  Nebuchadnezzar,  as  it  is  described  in  the  book 
of  Daniel.  His  description  of  the  work  intrusted  to 
him  by  the  gods  would  increase  our  respect  for  the 
most  righteous  king  who  ever  reigned  in  Israel.  Nor 
was  this  merely  a  matter  of  theory.  Hammurabi's 
letters  prove  that  he  investigated  the  suits  of  his 
poorest  subjects,  and  did  not  hesitate  to  reverse  the 
decisions  of  his  governors.  He  was  a  king  who 
reigned  in  righteousness.  The  code  itself  hardly 
shows  the  same  lofty  spirit.  The  justice  of  Ham 
murabi's  code  is,  of  course,  crude  ;  but  we  could  not 
expect  it  to  be  otherwise  in  those  early  times.  On 
the  whole,  it  does  not  suffer  by  comparison  with  the 
Mosaic  code  in  this  respect.  It  seems  to  legalize  no 
flagrant  injustice,  except  those  which  arise  from 
regarding  the  family  and  not  the  individual  as  the 
unit  of  life.  The  Old  Testament,  it  is  well  known, 
does  the  same.  The  rights  of  the  slave,  it  may  be 


INSPIRATION  129 

observed,  are  recognized,  but  rather  in  the  interests 
of  his  master  than  in  his  own.  The  morality  of  the 
code  is  imperfect.  There  are  clear  indications  of  the 
practice  of  immoral  rites  in  connection  with  religion, 
similar  to  those  referred  to  in  the  Old  Testament. 
Still,  Babylonian  worship  was  not  all  immoral,  as 
Phoenician  worship  seems  to  have  been ;  the  votaries 
of  Marduk  vowed  perpetual  chastity.  If  the  moral 
laws  were  carried  out,  it  is  clear  that  the  gross  im 
morality  which,  according  to  Herodotus,  prevailed  in 
Babylon,  was  utterly  impossible.  Witchcraft,  again, 
is  recognized  in  Hammurabi's  laws  by  the  restrictions 
they  place  on  its  exercise.  On  the  whole,  however, 
we  must  acknowledge  that  the  law  of  Moses  does  not 
surpass  in  excellence  the  code  of  Hammurabi.  In 
any  fair  comparison  of  the  two  there  will  be  much  to 
be  said  for  each.  And  this  we  may  say,  the  law  was, 
apparently,  much  better  administered  in  Babylonia 
than  in  Israel.  In  Babylonia  there  were  proper 
courts  and  official  judges.  Israel,  on  the  other  hand, 
suffered  from  the  want  of  a  regular  executive  for 
justice.  Everything  depended  on  the  particular  cha 
racter  of  the  judge  or  king.  Local  judges  were  not 
able  to  hold  their  own  against  the  commands  of 
tyrants,  as  the  story  of  Naboth  illustrates.  The 
writings  of  the  prophets  of  the  eighth  and  seventh 
centuries  indicate  that  oppression  of  the  poor  and 
corrupt  administration  of  justice  were  the  crying  evils 
of  the  times. 

We  must  allow  to  Babylon,  as  against  Israel,  the 
great  advantages  of  superior  political  wisdom,  higher 
civilization,  and  better  organization.  We  must  admit 
also  against  Israel  the  existence  in  her  code  of  many 

K 


130  INSPIRATION 

laws  of  imperfect  justice  and  institutions  of  imperfect 
morality.  But  when  we  have  done  this,  we  may 
claim  that  the  Mosaic  law  made  more  effectually  for 
justice  and  righteousness  than  the  code  of  Hammu 
rabi.  As  in  everything  else,  so  in  the  Old  Testament 
laws,  the  superiority  is  not  to  be  found  in  the  letter, 
but  in  the  spirit.  The  Mosaic  law  is  mixed  with 
injunctions  and  teachings  which  tended  to  their  own 
abrogation.  They  educated  men  to  a  higher  morality 
than  their  own.  The  code  of  Hammurabi  i  in  the 
main  a  civil  code.  Religion  was  a  matter  of  deep 
concern  to  him,  but  he  separated  it  from  morality,  at 
the  least  in  his  laws.  Hebrew  law-givers  could  never 
have  done  this.  Professor  Kautzsch  says,  "  A  fair 
estimate  of  the  two  codes  is  reached,  not  by  com 
paring  the  matter  which  they  have  in  common,  but 
by  looking  at  the  sayings  where  the  Book  of  the 
Covenant  has  the  advantage  over  the  Babylonian 
code.  But  these  are  the  sayings  .  .  .  regarding  the 
poorgcrzm,  "  slaves,"  and  enemies,  and  for  parallels  to 
them  we  may  search  the  two  hundred  and  eighty-two 
paragraphs  of  Hammurabi  in  vain,  because  such  are 
impossible  on  the  soil  of  natural  religion."* 

Professor  Kautzsch  is  here  comparing  the  code  of 
Hammurabi  with  the  Book  of  the  Covenant.  In 
Hammurabi's  code,  Babylon's  highest  point  is 
reached.  The  Book  of  the  Covenant  is  Israel's 
earliest  code  of  law.  As  the  years  pass  by,  Israel's 
ideas  of  justice  develop.  It  is  almost  unnecessary  to 
say  that  there  is  nothing  in  Hammurabi's  code  com 
parable  to  the  Deuteronomist's  words,  that  God's 

*  Hastings'  "  Dictionary,"  extra  vol.,  Art.  "  Religion  of  Israel," 
p.  665. 


*  INSPIRATION  131 

commands  were  to  be  in  l4rael's  heart,  and  that  she 
was  to  love  the  Lord  her  God  with  all  her  heart  and 
soul  and  strength.  There  are  thus  breathings  of  a 
higher  Spirit  in  Israel's  code.*  Under  its  influence, 
and  the  influence  of  her  great  prophets,  she  advances 
to  higher  things.  The  change  from  Old  Testament 
to  New  Testament  morality  is  not  a  revolution  but  a 
development  to  a  higher  life.  No  such  development 
is  to  be  found,  or  was  even  possible  in  Babylon.  To 
Hammurabi  there  succeeded  no  line  of  prophets,  and 
no  Christ.  The  doctrine  of  "  survival  of  the  fittest  " 
would  seem  to  have  a  special  application  here.  The 
code  of  Moses  still  lives  ;  the  code  of  Hammurabi 
died  and  was  buried  hundreds  of  years  ago.  Recent 
excavators  have  found  its  tombs  and  its  body — 
nothing  more. 

A  comparison  between  Babylon's  and  Israel's 
religion  and  laws  is  a  comparison  between  the  dead 
and  the  living.  We  derive  our  knowledge  of  Babylon 
from  a  heap  of  ruins  ;  Israel's  teaching  and  influence 
we  discern  in  the  higher  life  of  mankind.  Even  in 
those  days,  when  Babylon  was  still  the  mistress  of 
the  nations,  little  religious  growth,  and,  therefore, 
little  religious  life  can  be  traced  in  her.  That  which 
might  be  called  growth  is  essentially  artificial.  It 
was  an  adjustment  of  old  beliefs  to  modern  circum 
stances  ;  it  was  a  condensation  of  religious  cults.  It 
was  not  an  elimination  of  childish  follies  or  a  purifi 
cation  from  corruptions.  It  was  not,  in  a  word,  like 

*  The  facts  concerning  Hammurabi's  code  are  derived  from  Johns' 
Article,  in  Hastings'  "  Dictionary,"  extra  vol.,  "  Code  of  Hammurabi," 
p.  584,  and  from  Cook's  "  The  Laws  of  Moses  and  the  Code  of  Ham 
murabi." 


132  INSPIRATION 

the  growth  of  the  healthy  child,  who  gradually  casts 
off  his  weaknesses  and  imperfections,  and  attains  to 
a  fuller  life.  It  is  in  this  point  that  we  contrast  it  with 
the  religion  of  Israel.  In  this  there  were,  at  first, 
many  crudenesses  and  imperfections,  but  Israel's 
spiritual  life  was  abundant,  and  it  was  being  con 
tinually  renewed,  and  its  religious  forms  were  simple 
and  pure.  So  we  see  it  gradually  cast  off  its  childish 
things  and  beggarly  elements  and  grow  into  the  per 
fection  of  man.  If,  indeed,  the  Priestly  code  had  been 
the  final  form  of  Israel's  religion,  it  would  have  been 
comparable  with  that  of  Babylon,  and  it  would  have 
died  as  Babylon's  religion  died,  and  its  remains  would 
have  been  found  by  the  Palestine  Exploration  Fund, 
if,  indeed,  any  had  cared  to  search  the  ruins  of  so 
unimportant  a  land.  The  final  form  of  Judaism  was 
not,  however,  the  Law,  nor  even  the  Prophets,  but 
the  teaching  of  Him  who  said  that  He  came  not  to 
destroy  the  Law,  but  to  fulfil  it.  The  Babylonian 
religion,  on  the  other  hand,  could  never  purge  out 
from  itself  its  original  falsehoods.  It  could  concen 
trate  its  many  deities  into  few ;  it  could  rearrange 
their  positions  in  the  Pantheon,  but  it  could  never 
rise  to  the  idea  of  one  God,  it  could  never  exorcise 
its  evil  spirits,  nor  cast  its  idols  to  the  moles  and  to 
the  bats.  All  its  life  it  is  subject  to  bondage  ;  always 
in  its  faith  and  worship  evil  and  good  are  inseparably 
mixed.  It  never  knows  one  God  of  infinite  wisdom 
and  power  and  love,  who  can  be  approached  without 
enchantments,  and  who,  being  righteous,  loves  beyond 
everything  righteousness  in  His  creatures.  Ethical 
monotheism  could  be  grafted  on  Israel's  law  and 
history,  but  not  on  the  Babylonian  nature-myths. 


INSPIRATION  133 

It  has  been  said  scoffingly,  that  men  make  gods  in 
their  own  image  and  likeness.  This  is  a  coarse  way 
of  stating  that  which  many  men  believe,  viz.  that  all 
religions  are  human  inventions.  Assuming  the  truth 
of  this  statement,  what  a  vast  difference  there  is 
between  the  Israelite  and  the  Babylonian !  The 
Babylonian's  idea  of  the  Deity  and  His  requirements, 
and  the  way  of  approach  to  Him,  differ  from  the 
Israelite's  as  light  from  darkness.  The  Babylonian, 
wise  and  great  and  mighty,  after  the  flesh,  is  a  child 
and  a  fool,  compared  with  the  Israelite,  in  spiritual 
things.  And  yet  the  Israelite  was  a  pupil  in  the 
Babylonian  school,  and  was  ultimately  crushed  by 
the  Babylonian  world  power.  Professor  Jastrow 
says  that  the  Babylonia-Assyria  religion  represents, 
on  its  best  side,  the  Hebrew  religion  alone  excepted, 
the  high-water  mark  of  ancient  thought.  One  thing 
only  remains  to  be  added — we  seem  entitled  to  ask 
for  a  sufficient  answer  to  the  question,  What  advantage 
had  the  Jew  ? 


XIII 

PROOF  FROM  PROPHECY 

A  VERY  powerful  proof  is  furnished  by  Prophecy 
to  the  Inspiration  of  the  Holy  Scriptures. 

Natural  Israel — Israel  after  the  flesh — was  never 
true  to  her  ideals  or  faithful  in  her  allegiance  to  God 
either  before  or  after  the  Babylonian  exile,  in  the 
times  of  the  Old  Covenant  or  of  the  New.  But  there 
were  some  very  remarkable  men — Israelites,  indeed 
— who  learned  what  God  taught  them,  and  they  are 
Israel's  prophets  and  seers.  It  is  to  them  the  Word  of 
God  came,  and  in  them  the  Word  of  God  took  root, 
sprang  up,  and  bare  fruit.  It  is  in  them,  the  true 
Israelites,  not  in  any  of  her  less  worthy  sons,  not, 
most  certainly,  in  Israel  at  large  who  was  unfaithful, 
that  we  can  discern  the  difference  between  the  People 
and  the  nations.  It  is  in  them,  in  Old  Testament 
times,  that  we  are  able  to  discern  most  clearly 
the  character  and  the  power  of  Inspiration.  The 
Holy  Ghost,  we  believe,  spake  by  the  prophets. 

Prophecy  cannot  be  said  to  be  a  gift  peculiar  to 
Israel.  Balaam,  son  of  Beor,  of  the  mountains  of 
Aram,  is  a  true  prophet,  though  a  bad  man,  and  there 
were  prophets  of  Baal  and  Asherah  which  fed  at 
Jezebel's  table.  The  Greeks,  also,  had  their  prophets, 

*34 


INSPIRATION  135 

soothsayers,  sibyls,  and  the  like.  And  all  of  these 
were  supposed  to  be  possessed  by  or  to  possess  a 
spirit  not  their  own,  and  to  speak  through  it  words 
beyond  human  knowledge.  It  is  not  of  any  impor 
tance  to  us  to  decide  what  truth,  or  how  much  of 
truth,  there  was  in  their  claim  to  superhuman  power. 
We  may  be  quite  willing  to  admit  provisionally  that 
amongst  the  Gentiles  true  prophets  were  to  be  found. 
Further,  we  should  acknowledge  that  the  madness 
of  the  Gentile  seer  or  Pythoness  had  some  points  of 
similarity  with  the  ecstasy  of  the  Hebrew  prophets, 
more  especially  in  the  early  times.  On  the  other 
hand,  Samuel,  as  described  by  Saul's  servant,  is  not 
unlike  the  wise  man  or  woman  of  later  times.  But 
we  must  judge  of  Hebrew  prophecy  by  its  choicest 
productions.  There  is  development  in  Hebrew 
prophecy  in  the  course  of  the  Old  Testament  times. 
In  heathendom  no  such  development  can  be  traced. 
Above  all,  Gentile  prophecy  is  not  a  practical  power. 
Professor  Mozley,  in  his  lectures  on  the  Old  Testa 
ment,*  points  out  that  though  Prophecy  "  belongs 
alike  to  both  the  Jewish  and  Pagan  dispensations 
the  difference  is  enormous  in  the  way  in  which  it  is 
treated,  and  the  account  to  which  it  is  turned  in  the 
two."  In  the  pagan  world  Prophecy  "founded 
nothing,  it  erected  no  institutions,  no  framework,  no 
body,  no  Church  ;  it  passed  away  and  wandered  into 
space."  It  "  never  grew  into  a  practical  and  directing 
power."  On  the  other  hand,  as  soon  as  Prophecy 
found  a  receptacle  in  the  chosen  race,  it  grew  strong, 
it  became  an  architect  and  builder,  it  raised  institu 
tions,  it  enacted  ordinances.  In  Abraham  it  founded 
*  Pp.  1 6,  18. 


136  INSPIRATION 

a  family,  in  Moses  it  framed  a  law,  in  David  it  erected 
a  kingdom.  It  was  closely  connected  with  the  chosen 
people,  for  the  Jewish  nation  became  the  regular  and 
guarded  depository  for  the  sacred  gift.  "  Prophecy 
had  thus  the  most  striking  practical  result,  and  proved 
itself  an  instrument  of  real  efficiency  and  power. 
There  is  nothing,"  he  adds,  "in  the  history  of  the 
character,  the  sentiment,  the  aspirations  of  nations, 
which  is  equal  to,  which  can  for  a  moment  be  com 
pared  with  the  mighty  impulse  and  current  of  faith 
in  the  Jewish  community." 

Prophecy,  though  not  peculiar  to  the  chosen  people, 
had,  we  see,  unique  power  in  them.  When  we  consider 
its  essential  character,  it  should  be  unnecessary  to 
say  that  Prophecy  is  not  identical  with  Prediction. 
Prophecy  is  of  closer  kin  to  preaching  than  to  pre 
diction.  The  prophets'  word  would  not  have  been 
the  practical  power  in  Israel  which  it  was  if  it  had 
related  solely  to  the  future.  It  is  for  the  present 
crisis  that  men  and  nations  need  guides,  and  it  was 
guidance  that  the  prophets  gave.  All  the  prophets 
did  not  predict.  He  who  is  reckoned  to  have  been 
the  greatest  of  all — Moses — made  very  few  predic 
tions.  A  prophet  is  one  who  speaks  for  another,  as  the 
Greek  etymology  teaches.  The  original  etymology  of 
the  Hebrew  word  for  prophet  is  unknown ;  but  usage 
declares  him  to  be  one  who  speaks  to  his  people  the 
word  which  God  puts  in  his  mouth.  In  a  word,  he 
is  God's  spokesman.  In  like  manner  Aaron  is  styled 
Moses'  prophet  and  mouthpiece.*  This  alone  would 
convince  us  that  prophecy  is  not  equivalent  to  pre 
diction.  God's  words,  we  shall  readily  admit,  refer  to 
*  Cf.  Exod.  iv.  15,  16,  with  Exod.  vii.  I. 


INSPIRATION  137 

the  past  and  present,  as  well  as  to  the  future.  Thus, 
we  may  say,  every  prediction  is  a  prophecy,  but  not 
every  prophecy  is  a  prediction. 

There  were  false  prophets  as  well  as  true  in 
Israel,  and  what  is  almost  of  more  importance, 
prophets  of  a  lower  as  well  as  of  a  higher  inspiration. 
Some  prophets  spake  out  of  their  own  heart ;  of 
some  it  is  said  that  they  were  even  inspired  by  a 
lying  spirit  from  the  Lord  ;  of  some  that  God  had 
not  sent  them.  There  are  cupboard  prophets,  whom 
Micah  describes  as  walking  in  the  wind  and  false 
hood,  and  prophesying  of  wine  and  strong  drink. 
There  was  a  large  prophetic  class  or  order,  and  as 
Professor  Sanday  says,  "  Where  there  is  a  professional 
class  there  are  sure  to  be  professional  failings." 
"  There  would  be  small  natures  among  them  as  well 
as  great.  They  would  be  apt  to  fall  into  conven 
tional  and  unreal  ways  of  speaking."  *  It  is  plain 
that  not  all  the  words  of  the  prophets  contained  in 
Holy  Scripture  have  the  same  abidingness  or  spiritual 
power.  Stranger  still,  it  would  seem  that  the  un 
doubted  word  of  a  true  prophet  needed  not  only 
interpretation,  but  testing.  Words  spoken  in  the 
Spirit  were  not  always  words  which  God  would  have 
His  people  obey.  St.  Paul  did  not  follow  the 
guidance  of  the  true  prophet  Agabus,  not  to  go  up 
to  Jerusalem,  though  other  disciples  speaking  in  the 
Spirit  had  said  the  same.  The  prophetic  word  was 
not  that  easy  and  simple,  far  less  that  infallible 
guide  which  we  are  inclined  to  suppose.  St.  Paul 
might  easily  have  been  deceived  by  Agabus.  And 
it  is  plain  that  prophecy,  like  all  institutions  in  which 
*  Bampton  Lectures,  chap.  iii.  p.  134. 


138  INSPIRATION 

man  has  a  substantial  part,  was  liable  to  fall  into 
utter  corruption.  Jeremiah  had  no  greater  or  more 
dangerous  enemies  than  the  prophets  of  his  time. 

Many  characteristics  of  the  teaching  of  the  Bible, 
and  so  of  prophetic  teaching,  tending  to  prove  its 
Divine  Inspiration,  have  been  already  spoken  of. 
There  are  two  others  peculiarly  prophetic  in  character, 
which  it  is  proposed  to  consider  now.  They  are  these : 
(i)  The  prophetic  words  have  a  life  within  them 
which  makes  them  capable  of  adaptation  and  expan 
sion  ;  (2)  The  prophetic  words  have  a  truth  within 
them  such  that  they  receive  fulfilment. 

(i)  Prophetic  words  are,  like  living  things,  capable 
of  growth.  They  have  a  certain  meaning  in  the 
prophets'  time  at  their  birth,  in  their  utterance,  or 
when  first  committed  to  writing  ;  but  it  is  commonly 
found,  after  the  lapse  of  time,  that  they  have  a  greater 
and  nobler  meaning  than  their  speakers  knew.  It  is 
in  this  particular,  no  doubt,  the  Inspiration  of  selection 
comes  in.  Many  a  true  prophetic  word  had  little 
permanent  value.  It  served  its  whole  purpose  at 
the  time  of  its  utterance.  The  words  contained  in 
the  Bible,  on  the  contrary,  abide  in  their  power. 
Whether  every  prophetic  word  had  a  literal  fulfilment 
in  the  present  or  the  immediate  future  we  are  unable 
to  say.  Some  think  this  is  not  often  the  case.  We 
hardly  know  enough  of  Old  Testament  history  to  say. 
But  this  seems  certain — the  prophetic  word  had  not 
the  fulfilment  we  expected,  especially  in  point  of 
time ;  but  it  is  characteristic  of  them  to  bear  a 
meaning  which  could  hardly  have  been  consciously  in 
the  speaker's  mind,  and  which  most  certainly  was 
not  fulfilled  till  long  after.  This  fact,  of  which  many 


INSPIRATION  139 

instances  could  be  adduced,  shows  that  prophetic 
words  fulfil  a  certain  law  everywhere  at  work  in  the 
world.  Things  with  life  have  a  potential  force  within 
them,  tending  to  make  them  greater  than  they  now 
are,  enabling  them  to  fulfil,  under  certain  circum 
stances,  purposes  beyond  their  present  capacity. 
Things  with  life,  in  a  word,  grow.  Things  with  life 
have  something  of  a  Divine  character,  for  God  is  the 
source  of  all  life.  Things  which  man  makes,  on  the 
other  hand,  are  dead  things.  They  may  be  thoroughly 
well  adapted  for  their  purpose,  they  may  be  full  of 
wisdom  and  beauty ;  but  there  is  in  them  no  life  of 
their  own,  they  cannot  grow  into  something  higher 
and  better.  Divine  things  have  the  nature  of  seeds. 
The  seed,  given  right  conditions,  will  expand  itself  into 
the  plant,  the  flower,  the  tree.  The  seed  has  the  poten 
tiality  of  that  plant  which  it  will  be  within  itself — a 
thing  much  greater  and  nobler  than  itself.  It  has  been 
already  said  that,  in  the  opinion  of  the  present  writer, 
the  Bible  differs  from  other  books,  not  so  much  in 
its  Inspiration  as  in  the  character  of  its  Inspiration. 
It  is  not  to  be  denied  that  many  human  words  contain 
a  life  within  them  which  those  who  read  and  ponder 
over  them  develop  into  something  nobler  and  higher 
than  that  which  was  in  their  author's  mind.  The 
true  poet,  the  nobler  teacher,  say  words  with  a 
meaning  deeper  than  they  are  aware  of.  But  it  must 
be  claimed  that  the  words  of  the  Bible  have  this 
power  within  them  in  a  marvellous  degree. 

There  are  numerous  passages  all  over  the  Old 
Testament  which  irresistibly  lead  us  to  ask,  "  Could 
the  writer  have  known  the  Christian  truth  which 
most  certainly  can  be  expressed  in  his  words  ? " 


140  INSPIRATION 

Our  answers  to  the  question  will  vary ;  but  some 
times  we  shall  be  compelled  to  admit  that  he  could 
not  have  known  it,  and  yet  the  truth  is  in  his  words, 
even  as  a  flower,  or  as  a  fruit  is  in  the  seeds.  His 
words  having  grown  in  Christian  minds  express 
admirably  Christian  verities.  The  principle  enun 
ciated  holds  specially  in  regard  to  what  are  called 
Messianic  prophecies.  Reading  the  Old  Testament 
with  Christian  eyes,  we  cannot  fail  to  see  Christ  and 
His  teaching  and  His  Church  there.  The  testi 
mony  of  Jesus  is  the  spirit  of  prophecy.  Were,  then, 
the  Old  Testament  teachers  premature  Christians  ? 
The  thing  is  impossible.  Was  the  prophet  speak 
ing  directly  and  solely  of  the  coming  Christ  ?  The 
prophet's  outlook  may  be  in  the  distant  future,  but 
his  standpoint  is  in  the  present  time.  His  words 
seem  generally,  at  least,  to  have  an  immediate  signi 
ficance.  He  is  speaking  of  some  king  or  deliverer, 
of  some  truth  or  salvation,  appropriate  to  his  own 
times.  The  earlier  Isaiah  spoke  of  deliverance  from 
Assyria  in  the  words  we  regard  as  peculiarly  Messi 
anic  ;  the  later  Isaiah  was  telling  of  the  deliverance 
from  Babylon  and  the  restoration  of  Jerusalem  and 
her  temple,  when  he  was  describing  the  mission  and 
work  of  the  Servant  of  the  Lord.  A  very  plain  in 
stance  may  be  found  in  Psalm  xlv.  It  describes  the 
marriage  of  a  Theocratic  king  with  a  foreign  princess. 
Reading  it,  one  is  forced  to  the  conclusion  that  the 
Psalmist  is  referring  to  a  contemporaneous  event. 
He  is  drawing  a  picture  of  a  reigning  monarch.  It 
is  a  marriage  ode  composed  for  some  particular  king 
of  David's  line  when  he  married  a  foreign  princess. 
Who  is  the  king  ?  Searching  Israelitish  history 


INSPIRATION  141 

through  there  is  none  to  whom  the  allusions  in  the 
Psalm  apply  so  well  as  Solomon.  For  our  purpose 
the  original  reference  is  immaterial.  Pharaoh's 
daughter  was  the  foreign  princess  whom  he  married. 

If  we  read  the  Psalm  with  Solomon  in  our  mind, 
we  see  that  he  realizes  very  poorly  the  description  of 
the  Psalmist.  Are  we,  then,  to  ascribe  the  Psalmist's 
glowing  description  to  Eastern  hyperbole,  or  to  the 
fulsome  flattery  of  a  court  poet  ?  Exaggerations  are 
wont  to  be  monstrosities ;  the  different  parts  of  the 
description  are  not  equally  balanced  ;  the  gods  of 
heathen  mythology,  of  Homer,  for  instance,  are 
enlarged  men,  but  not  nobler.  The  Psalmist,  on  the 
contrary,  is  able  when  idealizing  Solomon  to  describe, 
with  a  wonderful  accuracy,  the  second  Adam,  i.e.  the 
type  of  a  nobler  and  higher  humanity.  His  expecta 
tions  of  the  beneficent  consequences  of  the  marriage, 
disappointed  in  Solomon's  case,  adumbrate  those 
blessings  which  come  to  humanity  from  the  mystical 
union  between  Christ  and  His  Church.  His  words 
thus  express  truths  and  realities  and  not  monstrosi 
ties,  and  can  be  adapted  to  describe  persons  and 
things  far  beyond  his  ken.  It  is  so  with  many  other 
passages  in  the  Old  Testament.  We  read  them  and 
say,  "  Is  not  this  the  Christ  ? "  That  poetic  or  pro 
phetic  idealization  should  be  found  to  describe 
historical  realities  is  the  unique  property  of  the 
Old  Testament  Scriptures.  Other  nations  have  their 
pictures  of  golden  ages,  or  blessed  isles,  or  Utopias. 
But  where  are  the  corresponding  realities  to  be 
found  ? 

The  characteristic  of  the  Old  Testament  Scriptures 
we  are  considering  is  illustrated   admirably  by  the 


142  INSPIRATION 

doctrine  of  Eternal  Life.  Was  Eternal  Life  revealed 
to  the  men  of  the  Old  Covenant  ?  It  is  plain  that 
a  nation  which  lived  in  Egypt  so  long  must  have 
been  familiar  with  the  idea  of  continued  existence 
after  death.  Nevertheless,  rewards  or  punishments 
in  another  world  are  not  presented  to  the  Israelite 
mind  in  any  of  the  different  parts  of  the  Mosaic  Law, 
or  in  any  of  the  historical  books — as  a  motive  of 
conduct.  The  land  of  Canaan  bounds  the  horizon  of 
the  chosen  people,  whether  for  evil  or  for  good. 
Moreover,  it  must  have  been  difficult  to  formulate  a 
doctrine  of  retribution  in  another  world  whilst  the 
doctrine  of  personality  was  so  vague.  The  family 
could  not  share  Jthe  fortunes  of  the  individual  in 
another  world.  That  Eternal  Life  was  not  the  ac 
cepted  doctrine  of  all  Jews  in  our  Lord's  time  seems 
to  indicate  that  it  was,  like  other  doctrines,  a  later 
development — accepted  by  the  Pharisees,  the  teachers 
of  developed  Judaism  ;  rejected  by  the  Sadducees 
with  other  Pharisaic  developments. 

From  many  passages  in  the  Old  Testament  we 
should  gather  that  the  Jews  generally  believed  in 
survival  after  death.  The  story  of  Samuel  and 
the  witch  of  Endor,  the  words  of  David  concerning 
his  dead  child,  "  I  shall  go  to  him,  but  he  shall  not 
return  to  me,"  and  other  passages,  sufficiently 
prove  this.  But  survival  after  death  and  immor 
tality  are  wholly  different  things.  From  many 
passages  we  may  infer  that  the  Jews  believed  the 
state  of  the  dead  to  be  a  state  of  nothingness — 
existence  which  was  only  bare  existence,  not  worthy 
of  the  name  of  life,  and  not  connected  with  life  on 
earth  either  in  the  way  of  reward  or  of  punishment. 


INSPIRATION  143 

It  would  seem  that  the  Jewish  nation  arrived  at 
a  belief  in  eternal  life,  not  many  centuries  before 
Christ.  Some  of  the  great  teachers  probably  had 
hopes — hopes  of  the  nature  of  deductions  concerning 
the  nature  of  God  and  His  dealings  with  man,  but 
not  based  on  any  promises  of  God.  We  can  find 
no  book  of  the  canonical  Old  Testament  which 
expresses  a  hope  of  immortality  so  clearly  as  the 
Apocryphal  Book  of  Wisdom.* 

Nevertheless,  there  are  many  passages  in  the  Old 
Testament  in  which  we  can  express  with  force  and 
beauty  our  sure  and  certain  hope.  And  this  is  true 
because  the  Old  Testament  writers  have  a  firm  grasp 
of  the  foundation  truth  of  all  doctrines  of  life — 
because  they  believe  in  the  living  and  righteous  God. 
The  seed  truth  of  immortality  is  that  the  righteous 
are  bound  up  in  the  bundle  of  life  with  the  Lord  their 
God.  Because  He  lives  they  live  also.  He  is  their 
portion.  The  righteous  God  will  not  suffer  the 
righteous  to  fall  for  ever.  They  fail  in  drawing  the 
conclusion  which  their  belief  in  God  warrants,  and 
we  cannot  wonder  at  it,  for  life  and  immortality  had 
not  been  brought  to  light  by  the  gospel.  Neverthe 
less,  the  conclusion  which  their  belief  warrants  is 
contained  in  words  they  use. 

Our  Lord  reminded  His  disciples  that  new  wine 
could  not  be  placed  in  old  wine-skins  ;  and  thus 
the  new  wine  of  His  doctrine  could  not  find  suitable 
expression  in  the  old  Jewish  forms  and  ceremonies. 
But  we  find  that  some  new  wine  can  be  contained,  in 
part  at  least,  in  the  words  of  Old  Testament  prophets. 

*  Cf.  the  lessons  for  All  Saints'  Day,  Wisdom,  chaps,  iii.  and  v. 
N.B.  The  doctrine  is  not  found  in  Ecclesiasticus. 


144  INSPIRATION 

The  old  skins,  i.e.  the  form  and  ceremonies,  were  dead  ; 
they  could  not  be  stretched  ;  they  were  incapable  of 
adaptation.  It  was  otherwise  with  the  prophetic 
words  ;  they,  being  inspired  by  God,  were  living,  and 
so  could  grow  to  be  capable  of  new  and  higher 
meanings. 

(2)  There  is  a  particular  kind  of  prophetic  word 
which  we  call  "prediction."  The  prophets  shew  fore 
sight  of  the  future  beyond  the  power  of  man.  In 
particular  they  speak  of  the  Coming  Age,  and  its 
King,  and  its  characteristics,  and  their  words  have 
received  fulfilment.  It  is  probable,  we  think,  that  this 
is  really  a  particular  form  of  the  characteristic  already 
considered.  But  whether  this  is  so  or  not  it  deserves 
separate  treatment  The  evidence  for  the  truth  of 
Revelation  derived  from  the  fulfilment  of  prophecy 
has  lost  much  of  its  force — has  been  discredited,  we 
might  say,  by  its  uncritical  use.  In  order  that  it  may 
have  its  due  weight  it  needs  restating.  We  must 
always  bear  in  mind  that  if  the  fulfilment  of  prophecy 
is  to  have  any  evidential  force,  i.e.  force  to  one  who  is 
not  a  Christian  believer,  we  must  clearly  prove  that 
the  prophetic  word  was  spoken  before  its  fulfilment. 
Now  we  cannot  prove  this,  though  we  may  believe 
it,  of  many  primd  facie  predictions,  because  we  have 
no  means  of  proving  the  existence  of  the  books 
which  contain  them  till  after  these  predictions  were 
fulfilled.  Criticism  has  shewn  that  the  books  of  the 
Old  Testament  have  had  a  long  and  complicated 
literary  history.  They  are  compilations  of  materials 
widely  differing  in  time.  Later  scribes  may  have 
introduced  interpolations  or  corrections  into  the 
earlier  materials.  Such  prophecies  as  that  of 


INSPIRATION  145 

Joseph  at  his  death,  or  of  the  disobedient  prophet 
to  Jeroboam,  or  of  Jeremiah  about  the  seventy  years' 
captivity,  cannot  be  used  for  evidential  purposes. 

But  all  Old  Testament  predictions  are  not  open 
to  this  objection.  There  is  no  doubt  that  the  Old 
Testament  in  its  present  form  was  in  existence  before 
the  coming  of  our  Lord.  That  there  have  been  no 
serious  interpolations  or  corrections  made  in  its 
books,  whether  by  Christians  or  by  any  others,  since 
the  second  century  B.C.  is  proved  by  the  LXX.  transla 
tion.  So  it  comes  to  pass  that  all  those  predictions 
which  we  find,  especially  in  Isaiah,  Micah,  and 
Jeremiah,  of  the  things  which  would  come  to  pass 
in  the  latter  days — the  predictions  of  the  Messianic 
King  of  the  line  of  David  and  of  the  Servant  of 
the  Lord — the  predictions  concerning  the  kingdom  of 
heaven  He  would  set  up — its  spiritual  characteristics, 
its  universality,  its  eternity,  its  peacefulness,  its 
righteousness,  its  beneficence  and  the  like — were  in 
existence  hundreds  of  years  before  He  came  who 
so  marvellously  fulfilled  them  all.  The  picture  of 
the  Saviour  who  was  to  come  is  drawn  for  us  in  the 
Old  Testament.  We  can  see  its  close  correspondence 
with  Him  who  came.  Critics  may  imagine  or  even 
prove  that  the  Messianic  predictions  are,  some  or 
all  of  them,  late  interpolations  in  the  books  in 
which  they  are  found.  That  does  not  alter  the  fact 
that  they  are  predictions  manifesting  a  power  of 
anticipating  the  future  beyond  that  of  man. 

Great  expectations  are  no  uncommon  things  in 
the  history  of  nations.  Times  of  prosperity  lead 
men  on  to  hope  for  still  better  times.  Times  of 
adversity  cause  men  to  expect  deliverance.  But  it 

L 


146  INSPIRATION 

is  plain  that  all  expectations  must  have  some  basis. 
A  nation  cannot  be  most  hopeful  when  all  reasonable 
hope  has  fled.  Israel's  expectations  differ  from  all 
others  in  this  remarkable  respect,  that  they  are  most 
noble  and  magnificent  when  she  is  in  the  greatest 
danger,  or  in  the  depth  of  adversity.  The  prophets 
take  as  their  standpoint  the  circumstances  of  their 
own  times,  but  no  foundation  in  nature  or  reason 
can  be  found  for  their  great  expectations,  i.e.  their 
predictions  of  the  glorious  future.  The  chief  pro 
phecies  of  the  Messianic  King  date  from  the  time 
when  the  Assyrian  seemed  just  about  to  overwhelm 
the  chosen  people.  One,  the  stronger  part,  was  going 
or  had  gone  into  captivity,  the  other  and  weaker  part 
had  no  power  to  resist  its  mighty  foe.  The  prophets 
who  announced  Him  told  also  of  the  imminent  and 
irreversible  ruin  of  His  people.  They  predict  the 
establishment  throughout  the  world  of  a  Davidic 
kingdom  of  a  higher  and  nobler  kind  just  when  the 
Davidic  kingdom  is  tottering  to  its  fall.  Jeremiah 
similarly  prophesies  of  David's  Righteous  Branch — a 
king  who  should  reign  and  prosper  and  execute  judg 
ment  and  justice  in  the  earth,  when  the  axe  was  laid 
at  the  roots  of  the  Davidic  tree,  and  when  Josiah's 
weak  and  wicked  sons  were  on  the  throne.  The 
most  magnificent  pictures  of  Israel's  office  in  the 
world  are  drawn  towards  the  close  of  the  seventy 
years'  captivity,  when  the  holy  cities  have  become 
a  wilderness,  Zion  a  wilderness,  Jerusalem  a  wilder 
ness,  and  the  holy  and  beautiful  house  was  burned 
with  fire ;  *  when  Israel  was  a  people  snared  in 
holes  and  hid  in  prison-houses,  a  prey  which  none 

*  Isa.  Ixiv.  10,  ii. 


INSPIRATION  147 

delivered,  a  spoil  of  which  none  said,  Restore.  How 
strange  it  was  that  the  prophet  should  declare  her 
who  sat  in  darkness  to  be  God's  light  to  the  world, 
and  her  whom  none  saved,  His  salvation  to  the  ends 
of  the  earth.  We  marvel  much  that  the  prophet 
under  those  circumstances  could  have  been  filled 
with  such  magnificent  hopes,  we  marvel  still  more 
that  his  hopes  should  have  been  abundantly  fulfilled. 
The  fulfilment  of  his  vision  tarried,  but  when  it  came 
it  transcended  his  expectation.  And  it  was  always 
so.  It  was  not  more  but  less  than  the  truth 
which  the  prophet  saw  afar  off.  And  most  un 
doubtedly  it  was  nothing  in  the  situation  or  in 
human  power  which  filled  him  with  his  hope.  He 
was  always  fulfilling  the  word. 

"  Things  which  eye  saw  not,  and  ear  heard  not, 
And  which  entered  not  into  the  heart  of  man, 
Whatsoever  things  God  prepared  for  them  that 

love  Him. 
But   unto   us   God    revealed    them   through    the 

Spirit."  * 

*  I  Cor,  ii.  9,  10. 


XIV 

THE  HUMAN  ELEMENT  IN  THE  BIBLE 

WE  claim  to  have  shown  that  there  are  in  the 
Bible  many  and  various  indications  that  it  is 
a  book  unlike  all  other  books — that  for  many  reasons 
we  are  led  to  pause  and  say  that  this  or  that  fact 
suggests  a  power  more  than  man's,  and  even,  this 
is  the  ringer  of  God.  We  pass  on  now  to  the 
consideration  of  a  body  of  facts  of  a  very  different 
kind :  facts  which  show  the  presence  of  man,  facts 
which  show  that  the  Bible  has  the  characteristics  of 
all  books.  The  remark  to  be  made  here  seems  to 
be  this.  The  two  sets  of  facts  referred  to — the  one 
indicating  a  Divine  and  the  other  a  human  character 
— though  opposite,  are  not  contrary,  the  one  to  the 
other.  It  is  most  important  to  lay  stress  on  this 
point.  It  is  commonly  ignored  both  by  apologists 
and  opponents  of  the  Bible  considered  as  a  Divine 
Revelation.  It  has  commonly  been  assumed  by  both 
that  anything  in  the  nature  of  error  or  imperfection 
in  the  Bible  was  a  proof  positive  that  it  was  not 
Divine.  Does,  then,  the  presence  and  the  effective 
presence  of  man  imply  the  absence  of  God  ?  Are 
we  prepared  to  maintain  that  a  Divine  work  cannot 
be  human  also  ?  The  Jew  Philo,  when  describing 
the  inspiration  of  the  prophet  as  he  conceived  it, 

148 


INSPIRATION  149 

made  use  of  these  remarkable  words  :  "  It  is  not 
meet  and  right  (aOtfUTov)  that  the  mortal  should 
dwell  with  the  immortal."  There  could  not  be  two 
suns  in  the  sky  at  the  same  time.  When  the  Divine 
light  shone  the  human  light  set.  Now,  we  may 
find  some  excuse  for  Philo  as  a  Jew  of  the  Old 
Covenant,  when  he  says  this ;  but  what  believer  in 
Christ,  the  Son  of  God,  could  say  any  such  thing  ? 
He  Himself,  in  His  own  person,  proves  that  it  is 
not  so.  It  was  the  Divine  pleasure  that  in  Him 
God  and  man  should  be  united,  and  through  Him 
the  Tabernacle  of  God  is  with  men  evermore.  Those 
who  assert  that  one  and  the  same  thing  cannot 
have  Divine  perfections  and  human  imperfections 
must  be  asked  whether  they  do  not  believe  that 
our  Lord  Jesus  Christ  was  both  Very  God  and  Very 
Man.  We  claim,  then,  that  the  proofs  of  human 
handiwork,  omissions,  limitations,  imperfections, 
errors,  and  the  like,  which  we  are  about  to  allege, 
are  not  to  be  regarded  as  if  they  were  the  case  for 
the  other  side — the  case  against  Revelation.  We 
are  not,  as  in  a  lawsuit,  to  balance  one  set  of  facts 
against  another,  and  decide  which  set  on  the  whole 
has  preponderating  value.  They  prove  that,  on 
the  contrary,  the  Bible  has  two  characteristics — 
Divine  and  human.  The  Bible  is  like  man  himself; 
it  has  a  soul  and  a  body.  His  nature  is  com 
posite,  and  the  facts  that  he  is  both  a  natural  and 
a  spiritual  being  are  not,  as  we  all  acknowledge, 
contradictory,  but  complementary.  Or,  to  take 
another  illustration,  the  Bible  has  the  nature  of  a 
sacrament.  It  has  its  outward  and  visible  part,  as 
well  as  its  inward  and  spiritual  grace.  And  it  is 


ISO  INSPIRATION 

to  be  observed  that  it  is  impossible  for  us  to  separate 
the  Divine  and  the  human  portions.  We  could  not 
purify,  so  to  speak,  the  Bible  from  its  human  ele 
ments.  The  human  is  the  means  whereby  we  receive 
the  Divine.  To  take  away  the  human  is  to  lose 
grasp  of  the  Divine.  And  is  not  this  a  law  which 
governs  our  world  ?  Where  is  to  be  found  the  simply 
and  purely  spiritual  thing?  Every  spiritual  thing 
to  be  a  reality  to  us  must  become  incarnate.  So 
saying,  we  do  not  deny  the  reality  of  purely  spiritual 
things,  but  their  reality  to  ourselves.  When  a  man 
dies,  i.e.  when  his  spirit  loses  its  material  embodi 
ment,  we  are  unable  any  longer  to  hold  communion 
with  him.*  Our  conclusion  is  that  the  Divine 
Revelation,  according  to  the  laws  of  our  creation, 
must  needs  have  a  material  body ;  that  being  given 
to  man,  that  material  body  must  needs  be  of  a 
human  kind.  Being  human,  it  partakes  of  the  nature 
of  man,  and  also  of  man  as  he  is — a  man  who  has 
not  yet  reached  his  perfection,  and,  what  is  much 
more,  man  who  has  had  his  natural  powers  weakened 
and  darkened  by  sin. 

The  pointing  out  of  various  human  imperfections 
or  errors  in  the  Bible  is  not  a  pleasant  task.  But 
it  must  not  be  shirked  if  we  are  to  know  what  our 
Bibles  really  are.  It  is  an  act  of  folly  to  shut  our 
eyes  and  refuse  the  succour  which  our  reason  affords. 
And  if  we  may  be  allowed  to  say  so,  there  is  a 
kind  of  pleasure  which  we  may  derive  from  the 
contemplation  of  imperfections  in  the  Bible.  Standing 
firm  on  the  Rock  of  our  Faith,  fully  assured  that 
the  Bible  is  the  Word  of  God,  having  known  and 

*  The  spiritualists,  no  doubt,  deny  this. 


INSPIRATION  151 

experienced  in  some  small  way  what  the  Bible  is 
amongst  books  and  in  our  life,  we  exult  in  the 
exceeding  grace  of  God  by  which  He  has  allowed 
our  brother  men,  of  like  passions  and  weaknesses 
with  ourselves,  to  be  His  co-operators  in  this  Divine 
work.  Even  as  the  humiliation  of  the  Son  of  God 
into  the  form  of  a  man  is  in  itself  and  to  ourselves 
His  surpassing  glory,  so  is  the  humiliation  of  Divine 
truth  in  its  expression  by  human  persons  and 
human  words.  It  assures  us  that  man  can  know 
God,  and  that  he  can  utter  what  he  knows. 


XV 

THE  COMPOSITION  OF  THE  BOOKS  OF  THE 
BIBLE  A  WORK  OF  MAN 

WHAT  do  the  books  of  the  Bible  themselves  tell 
us,  concerning  the  manner  of  their  composition  ? 
The  information  given  us  is  scantier  than  we  could 
wish.  Concerning  many  books  nothing  definite  can 
be  said.  Our  knowledge  must  be  acquired  by  careful 
study,  and  much  of  it  may  be  little  better  than 
plausible  hypotheses.  But  we  have  definite  informa 
tion  in  certain  cases  which  will  supply  us  with  clues 
for  a  wider  generalization. 

A  general  remark  may  be  made  at  the  outset 
which  we  think  the  available  facts  will  verify  as  we 
proceed.  Hardly  anywhere  do  we  find  reason  to 
think  that  God  provided  the  sacred  writers  with 
materials  for  their  books.  A  possible  exception  to 
this  statement  is  the  law  of  Moses,  which  we  may 
think  from  the  language  used  came  directly  from  God. 
It  corresponds  to  the  Koran  in  the  direct  inspiration 
claimed  by  it.  We  shall  consider  this  more  fully  later 
on.  At  present,  we  may  make  this  general  statement. 
The  sacred  writers  are  sparing  in  their  citation  of 
authorities  even  when  they  are  obviously  using  them, 
but  when  they  do  refer  to  any,  we  gather  that  they 
get  their  materials  in  the  ordinary  way, 

152 


INSPIRATION  153 

The  plainest  account  of  the  composition  of  any 
sacred  book  is  to  be  found,  we  think,  in  the  preface 
of  St.  Luke's  Gospel.  In  it  St.  Luke  describes  his 
subject,  his  purpose,  his  qualifications,  and  his 
methods  of  work.  He  was  doing  what  many  had 
attempted  to  do  before  him,  viz.  draw  up  a  narrative 
of  the  things  which  had  been  fulfilled  amongst 
Christians.  There  is  a  silent  comparison  of  his  work 
with  theirs.  His  is  more  complete  and  trustworthy  ; 
still  we  should  not  gather  that  St.  Luke  thought  his 
account  to  differ  from  theirs  in  kind.  Though  not  an 
eyewitness  of  Christ's  life  personally,  he  had  received 
his  information  from  those  who  had  been  both  eye 
witnesses  and  ministers  of  the  word  from  the  begin 
ning.  He  thus  received  his  knowledge  of  facts  from 
men  and  not  God.  Thus  his  authorities,  though  first- 
rate,  are  simply  human.  His  knowledge  he  further 
tells  us,  was  continuous  from  the  very  beginning,  it 
was  complete,  and  it  was  exact.  He  thus  became 
competent,  from  a  human  point  of  view,  to  draw  up 
an  orderly  account  of  those  facts  in  which  Theophilus 
had  been  instructed  by  word  of  mouth.  We  notice 
that  whilst  St.  Luke  is  careful  to  point  out  his  com 
petency  for  the  task  he  is  undertaking,  he  claims  no 
Divine  Inspiration  for  himself,  and  no  Divine  com 
mand.  "  It  seemed  good  to  me  also,"  he  says.  This  is 
very  different  from  what  we  find  in  the  Old  Testa 
ment  sometimes.  "  Write  this  for  a  memorial  in  a 
book ; "  *  or  "  Take  thee  a  roll  of  a  book  and 
write  therein."  |  We  do  not  in  the  least  intend  to 
deny  St.  Luke's  inspiration.  But  we  should  not  go 
to  his  preface  to  prove  it.  And  that  preface  is 
*  Exod.  xvii.  14.  f  jer.  xxxvi.  2 


154  INSPIRATION 

wholly  misleading  if  St.  Luke's  share  in  the  writing 
of  his  Gospel  was  not  substantial.  He  was,  it  is 
plain,  no  mere  antomaton  or  penman  of  the  Holy 
Spirit.  He  does  not  write,  as  Ezra  is  said  to 
have  done,  in  ecstacy.  His  mental  powers  and  his 
research  and  his  special  opportunities  had  much  to 
do  in  the  making  and  in  the  value  of  his  Gospel. 
He  used  the  methods,  and  took  the  pains,  natural  to 
a  careful  and  faithful  historian.  It  is  well  worthy  of 
notice  that  in  the  clearest  account  given  us  in  the 
Bible  of  the  composition  of  any  of  its  books,  man's 
part  in  the  work  is  clearly  stated. 

St.  Mark  also  was  not  an  eye-witness.  We  have 
an  account  of  the  composition  of  his  Gospel  from  the 
very  early  writer,  Papias.  Mark  neither  heard  the  Lord 
nor  followed  Him,  but  he  was  Peter's  companion,  and 
heard  Peter's  teaching.  This  teaching  was  framed  to 
meet  the  wants  of  his  hearers,  but  was  not  a  connected 
narrative  of  the  Lord's  words.  In  due  course  Mark 
became  Peter's  interpreter,  i.e.  he  committed  to  writing 
what  Peter  taught.  In  that  capacity  he  wrote  accu 
rately  all  that  he  remembered — all  the  things  that  were 
said  and  done  by  Christ.  He  made  no  mistake,  but 
his  narrative  was  not  orderly.  He  wrote  things  down 
as  they  came  to  his  mind.  This  is  Papias'  account 
of  the  composition  of  the  second  Gospel.  Here  again 
we  find  that  the  evangelist  derives  his  materials  from 
human  sources,  and  he  commits  them  to  writing  in 
a  practical,  but  not  an  ideally  perfect  way.  It  would 
be  impossible  to  regard  St.  Peter's  interpreter  as  the 
Holy  Ghost's  penman.  There  is  nothing  of  ecstacy 
in  St.  Mark's  work.  Modern  criticism  has  not  as  yet 
solved  the  Synoptic  problem,  but  it  has  collected 


INSPIRATION  155 

materials  for  so  doing  and  has  arrived  at  certain 
preliminary  results.  It  has  shown  that  the  three 
Synoptic  Gospels  are  not  original  compositions,  that 
is,  that  there  is  something  lying  at  the  back  of  them. 
The  Evangelists  used  original  sources  and  put  them 
into  shape.  In  other  words,  the  historian  of  our 
Lord's  life  acted  as  all  historians  are  wont  to  do.  It 
has  been  already  noticed  that  they  seem  to  have  been 
endued  by  God  with  the  inspiration  of  selection.  That 
inspiration  did  not  set  them  free  from  the  necessity 
of  care  and  research,  or  from  the  use  of  materials 
collected  by  other  men.  The  human  element  in  the 
composition  of  the  Gospels  is  real  and  substantial. 
The  last  remark  is  obviously  true  also  of  the  Gospel 
of  St.  John. 

We  pass  on  to  the  Acts,  and  we  find  reason  to 
believe  that  it  is  written  by  a  man  who  is  sometimes 
an  eyewitness  of  the  events  he  records,  and  sometimes 
is  not.  It  is  natural  that  a  writer  who  derives  his 
information  partly  from  personal  observation,  and 
partly  from  sources  extraneous  to  himself,  should 
describe  the  things  he  personally  saw  with  much 
greater  fulness  and  exactitude  of  detail.  Now 
fulness  and  exactitude  of  detail  are  characteristic  of 
St.  Luke's  "  we  "  sections.  The  Acts,  we  infer,  is  a 
narrative  written  in  the  ordinary  way,  and  with  the 
use  of  ordinary  means  of  information.  Inspiration 
did  not  change  the  natural  order  and  give  St.  Luke 
as  full  a  knowledge  of  the  events  from  which  he  was 
absent,  as  of  the  events  at  which  he  was  present. 

Passing  on  to  the  Epistles  we  can  readily  see 
that,  whilst  the  Divine  truths  contained  in  them  may 
be  and  are  taught  to  all  generations  of  Christian 


i  $6  INSPIRATION 

people,  they  themselves  are  such  that  they  could  only 
be  written  in  one,  and  that  the  first  Christian  genera 
tion.  They  have  an  eternal  and  so  Divine  character, 
but  they  have  a  temporal  and  human  character  as  well. 
The  Epistles  were  written  to  meet  the  particular  wants 
of  particular  times  of  particular  Churches.  The  Divine 
Inspiration  renders  them  capable  of  meeting  needs 
of  all  generations  of  all  the  Church.  In  particular, 
in  the  case  of  St.  Paul's  Epistles,  we  can  also  see 
that  they  all  arose  out  of  historical  events  which  can 
never  occur  again.  We  observe  in  them  not  only 
his  circumstances  and  the  circumstances  of  the 
Church  to  which  He  was  writing,  but  also  himself — 
his  personal  feelings,  human  passions,  zeal,  indigna 
tion,  love,  sorrow,  and  the  like.  These  are  not 
always  of  the  highest  morality.  Paul  was  a  man  of 
like  passions  with  ourselves.* 

And  to  take  one  further  instance  only  from  the 
New  Testament — the  Revelation  of  St.  John.  This 
has  peculiar  value  for  our  present  purpose,  because  it 
differs  in  character  from  all  the  other  New  Testament 
books.  Narratives  and  letters  are  things  which  men 
write  in  the  natural  order,  using  ordinary  materials. 
The  Revelation  is  something  essentially  supernatural, 
i.e.  a  heavenly  vision.  St.  John  is  in  the  Spirit,  it  is 
not  earthly  things  which  he  sees,  or  men  of  earth  of 
whom  he  speaks,  but  heavenly  beings,  Angels  and 
Spirits  of  men  departed,  and  God  Himself.  The 
material  of  the  Revelation  is,  in  consequence,  of  a 
more  spiritual  and  heavenly  character  than  that  of  the 
other  New  Testament  books.  And  yet  how  much  of 
the  human  author  there  is  in  it !  The  Greek  is  the 
*  Qf,  Sapday,  "  Inspiration,"  p.  357, 


INSPIRATION  157 

Greek  of  a  man  who  does  not  know  Greek  well,  and 
cannot  write  it  accurately.  The  imagery  is  derived 
from  the  Old  Testament  and  former  Jewish  Apo 
calypses.  It  betrays  the  limitations  natural  to  an 
uncultivated  Jew.  Take  two  instances  of  this.  St. 
John  says  that  in  the  new  heavens  and  the  new  earth, 
there  shall  be  no  more  sea.  This  is  of  course  imagery 
or  parable,  and  it  is  unnecessary  to  consider  here  its 
spiritual  significance.  But  how  natural  it  was  for  a 
Jew  to  write  thus,  who  never  looked  on  the  sea  with 
loving  eyes.  The  Jewish  prophet  Isaiah  made 
the  troubled  sea  the  image  of  wickedness,  and  the 
ideal  sea  he  described  as  one  on  which  no  gallant  ship 
passed — a  desert  waste,  a  shipless  sea.  The  sea  to  a 
Jew  was  a  barrier  of  separation,  and  not  a  means  of 
communication.  There  is  no  word  equivalent  to 
"port"  in  the  Hebrew  language.  Had  St.  John  been  an 
Englishman  would  he  have  pictured  the  new  heavens 
and  new  earth  as  lacking  in  his  sea  ?  And  again  in 
St.  John's  description  of  the  new  Jerusalem,  we  find  no 
beauty  of  form.  The  splendour  is  barbaric.  There 
is  no  architecture,  all  its  glory  consists  of  richness  of 
materials.  The  city  is  four  square,  and  indeed  a 
perfect  cube.  The  length  and  the  breadth  and  the 
height  of  it  are  equal.  Our  taste  is  offended  by 
the  stiffness  of  this  shape.  The  writer  has  made 
Solomon's  temple  his  type.  His  mind  had  not  been 
educated  to  appreciate  beauty  of  form.  There  seem 
to  be  thus  clear  proofs  of  a  substantial  human  element 
even  in  the  record  of  the  Vision  of  St.  John. 

Then,  passing  back  to  the  Old  Testament,  we  find 
there  a  greater  variety  in  the  kinds  of  inspired  book 
than  in  the  New.  The  Divine  teaching  takes  hold 


158  INSPIRATION 

of  every  kind  of  human  life  and  activity,  and  naturally, 
in  the  many  generations  over  which  the  Old  Testament 
is  spread,  there  are  very  many  points  of  contact. 
There  is  law,  and  there  is  history  and  narrative  ;  there 
is  exhortation  and  prediction  ;  there  is  prayer  and 
thanksgiving;  there  is  wisdom,  and  there  is  apocalypse 
as  well.  It  is  far  more  difficult  in  most  cases  to 
trace  the  materials,  and  to  determine  the  methods  of 
composition  in  the  Old  than  in  the  New  Testament. 
We  are  dealing  with  very  ancient  books — books  which 
had  a  long  history,  now  wholly  lost.  Critics  think 
that  they  can  trace  the  workings  of  many  hands  in 
most  of  the  Old  Testament  books.  However  that 
may  be,  careful  study  convinces  us  that  Inspiration, 
whatever  effect  it  produces,  does  nothing  in  the  way 
of  creating  its  own  materials.  Divine  thoughts  and 
truths  come  to  the  inspired  prophets  by  vision,  or 
otherwise;  but  these,  when  published  among  men, 
are  clothed  in  the  prophets'  own  words.  Taking  the 
histories  and  narratives  first,  some  of  the  books, 
Kings  and  Chronicles,  constantly  quote  original 
authorities.  Express  quotations  are  rare  in  the 
earlier  histories,  but  traces  of  implicit  quotations 
are  clear  enough.  Ezra  and  Nehemiah  resemble 
the  earlier  books  in  this  respect.  They  refer  their 
readers  to  the  annals  of  the  Kings  of  Israel  and 
Judah,  and  other  books,  for  fuller  information.  It 
seems  to  follow  clearly  that  the  knowledge  of  the 
facts  recorded  was  acquired  in  an  ordinary  way.  It 
is  not  reasonable  that  the  writer  who  had  made  a 
book  out  of  information  revealed  him  by  God  would 
refer  for  fuller  knowledge  to  simply  human  books. 
We  arrive  at  the  same  result  when  we  note  the 


INSPIRATION  159 

character  of  much  that  is  recorded.  There  is  a  great 
deal  of  what  we  may  call  scaffolding  or  framework 
in  Kings — matter  such  as  would  naturally  be  found 
in  annals  of  kingdoms,  genealogies,  and  the  like. 
One  cannot  think  such  things  would  be  subjects  of 
Divine  communication.  Their  function  is  to  hold 
the  narratives  of  Israel's  history  together ;  they  are 
the  bones  and  skin — might  we  not  say  ? — belonging 
to  the  meat  of  God's  words. 

Much,  then,  of  the  materials  of  the  histories  is 
undoubtedly  human  in  its  origin.  Is  it  not  reasonable 
to  infer  that  the  rest  may  be  ?  We  have  other  reasons 
for  thinking  it,  for  though  many  results  of  the 
Higher  Criticism  are  uncertain  and  are  nothing  better 
than  clever  guesses,  there  is  one  result  which  seems 
quite  certain,  viz.  that  the  Old  Testament  histories 
and  narratives,  like  the  Gospels,  are  compositions  of 
different  documents,  and,  unlike  the  Gospels,  these 
documents  are  of  very  different  dates.  They  are, 
further,  compositions  put  together  with  very  little 
literary  art.  The  editors  did  very  little  in  the  way 
of  harmonizing  their  materials.  They  put  side  by 
side  narratives  not  quite  consistent  with  one  another, 
or,  at  least,  not  apparently  consistent  with  one  another, 
and  they  leave  the  discrepancies  unexplained. 

This  point  should  be  brought  out  in  some  detail. 
The  two  Books  of  Ezra  and  Nehemiah  (which  are 
really  one  book),  are  plainly  and  obviously  composi 
tions — compositions  put  together  with  very  small  lite 
rary  skill.*  Most  of  the  documents  quoted  or  used  are 

*  Cf.  Neh.  viii.  2  (where  had  Ezra  been  all  this  time  ?)  and 
Neh.  xiii.  I,  6.  We  are  not  told  of  Nehemiah's  departure  till  after 
his  return. 


i6o  INSPIRATION 

written  in  Hebrew,  but  some  are  in  Aramaic.  Very 
abruptly  one  document  ends,  very  abruptly  another 
begins.  We  are  told  about  the  beginnings  of  the 
missions  of  Zerubbabel,  Ezra,  and  Nehemiah,  but 
not  their  ends.  We  know  not  what  came  of  any  of 
those  three  leaders.  Two  considerable  sections  of 
the  book  are  composed  in  the  first  person,  but  the 
first  person  of  one  section  is  not  the  first  person  of  the 
other.  In  Ezra  and  Nehemiah,  also,  national  records 
and  royal  edicts  are  combined  with  the  personal 
memoirs. 

In  the  Book  of  Kings  the  sections  relating  to 
Elijah  and  Elisha  come  from  different  sources,  and 
are  written  on  different  lines  to  the  rest  of  the  book. 
The  king,  contrary  to  custom,  is  not  the  centre  of 
the  narrative.  There  is  a  section  of  peculiar  character, 
also,  relating  to  the  building  of  the  temple. 

In  Samuel  several  sources  have  been  traced. 
What  seems  pretty  clear  is  that  duplicate  narratives 
stand  side  by  side.  There  seem  to  be  two  accounts 
of  the  introduction  of  David  to  Saul's  court  which 
cannot  be  harmonized.  There  would  appear, :  also, 
to  be  two  narratives  of  the  establishment  of  the 
kingdom. 

In  Judges  the  two  sections  at  the  end  of  the  book 
differ  in  character  from  the  rest  They  are  narratives 
without  a  hero,  and  they  refer  to  the  earliest  days  of 
the  Judges.  In  the  body  of  the  book  we  find  ancient 
narratives  embedded  in  a  moral  setting,  which  shows 
how  they  illustrate  a  moral  sequence  of  events.  The 
setting  and  the  narrative  can  be  easily  distinguished. 
The  Book  of  Judges  has  two  beginnings,  moreover. 
It  begins  the  first  time  with  the  events  which 


INSPIRATION  161 

immediately  followed  Joshua's  death  ;  then,  in  ch.  ii.  6, 
Joshua's  last  act  and  his  death  are  recorded. 

It  is  needless  to  refer  to  the  composite  character 
of  the  Hexateuch.  Critics  have  discredited  their  case 
by  attempting  too  minute  discriminations  ;  but  there 
are  clear  indications  of  a  document  in  which  the 
interests  are  priestly  and  genealogical.  This  gives 
Genesis  its  framework  and  its  magnificent  first  section, 
and  in  it  we  find  fully  developed  Israel's  sacrificial 
system.  There  is  another  document  which  is  hortatory 
in  style.  It  abounds  in  exhortations  to  Israel  to  keep 
the  laws  and  commandments  given  them  by  God. 
There  is  a  third  document,  itself  a  combination  of 
two  according  to  the  critics,  in  which  we  find  those 
beautiful  stories  of  the  patriarchs,  which  have 
interested  and  instructed  so  many  generations  of 
Christians.  It  is  unnecessary  for  our  purpose  to 
consider  the  signs  of  greater  elaboration.  It  is  plain 
that  the  book,  composed  of  P,  D,  and  J,  E,  passed 
through  many  hands  before  it  reached  its  present 
form.  The  human  element  in  the  Hexateuch  must 
have  been  very  considerable.  We  have  already  seen 
reasons  for  thinking  that  the  first  chapters  in  Genesis 
have  for  their  groundwork  primitive  stories  which  are 
not  the  special  property  of  the  Jews,  and  we  have 
traced  the  hand  of  God  in  regard  to  them,  not  in 
their  origin,  but  in  their  purification.  Nowhere  in 
the  Book  of  Revelation  is  Divine  power  more  clearly 
manifested  than  in  that  age-long  process  which  divided 
the  precious  from  the  base,  and  elaborated  from  the 
mire  of  Babylonian  mythology  the  Hebrew  stories  of 
Creation,  the  Fall,  and  the  Flood. 

The  human  element  in  the  prophetical  writings  is 

M 


162  INSPIRATION 

not  less  substantial  than  in  the  histories  and  narra 
tives.  The  Hebrew  prophet  has  a  personality  of  his 
own ;  though  he  speaks  words  which  are  very  truly 
not  his  own.  He  is  moved  by  the  Holy  Ghost. 
The  Spirit  of  the  Lord  rushes  upon  him  and  con 
strains  him  at  times  to  speak  words  contrary  to  his 
natural  wishes.  In  the  words  of  Jeremiah,  "  I  said, 
I  will  not  make  mention  of  Him,  nor  speak  any  more 
in  His  Name.  But  His  word  was  in  mine  heart  as  a 
burning  fire  shut  up  in  my  bones,  and  I  was  weary 
with  forbearing,  and  I  could  not  stay."  The  true 
prophet  is  very  conscious  of  the  Divine  power  working 
within  him,  he  is  also  conscious  of  the  dignity  of  his 
office  amongst  men.  He  may  passively  receive 
words  from  God  in  dreams  and  visions  and  the  like, 
but  he  is  an  active  and  intelligent  agent  when  pro 
phesying  to  his  people.  He  does  not,  however, 
always  receive  his  message  in  ecstasy.  Isaiah's 
political  power  and  wisdom,  for  example,  show  us 
how  inspiration  enabled  a  prophet  to  discern  the 
affairs  of  the  people  and  the  nations  with  marvellous 
insight.  What  Isaiah  saw  was  the  political  situation 
as  it  really  was.  The  Divine  Spirit  does  not  carry 
the  prophet  away  so  that  he  is  beside  himself,  it 
quickens  his  natural  powers  so  that  he  is  above  him 
self.  He  sees  what  there  is  to  see,  other  men  com 
paratively  are  blind.  Even  as  the  descent  of  the 
Spirit  at  Pentecost  made  the  Apostles,  of  whom 
previously  little  that  is  great  and  noble  had  been 
recorded,  able  ministers  of  the  New  Covenant,  so  the 
power  of  the  Lord  made  the  prophets  the  greatest 
Israelites  of  their  day.  But  they  retain  their  con 
sciousness  when  they  are  most  conscious  of  God  and 


INSPIRATION  163 

His  will.  They  are  men  of  the  age  as  well  as  men  of 
God.  They  never  cease  to  be  competent  to  dis 
tinguish  their  own  thoughts  and  desires  from  the 
Divine  influences  and  directions.  They  have  their 
own  wishes  even  when  they  declare  the  will  of 
God.  So  the  prophets'  words  and  deeds  though 
God's  are  also  essentially  their  own.  And  yet,  surely, 
we  are  not  wrong  in  saying  that  the  prophets'  words 
have  more  of  the  Divine  in  them — give  to  us  more 
directly  a  Divine  Revelation  than  any  other  words  in 
the  Old  Testament. 

How  the  word  of  the  Lord  came  to  the  prophet 
we  do  not  know.  We  may  conjecture  with  very  con 
siderable  probability  that  it  did  not  come  always  in 
the  same  way.  It  is  plain,  however,  that,  like  the 
Apostle,  the  prophet  is  not  simply  the  messenger, 
but  is  also  the  delegate  of  his  God.  Isaiah  at  his 
inaugural  vision  receives  his  inspiration  and  also  his 
message  ;  but  that  message  was  only  the  fundamental 
idea  underlying  his  subsequent  very  various  prophetic 
utterances.  The  inaugural  vision  of  Ezekiel  teaches 
us  a  similar  truth.  Ezekiel  digests  the  Divine  words 
given  to  him  and  utters  them  to  his  people  in  a 
digested  form.  "  Son  of  man,  hear  what  I  say  to  thee. 
Open  thy  mouth  and  eat  that  I  give  to  thee."  Then 
a  roll  of  the  book  is  put  in  Ezekiel's  hand,  and  he  is 
caused  to  eat  the  roll.  The  command  follows,  "  Go, 
speak  unto  the  house  of  Israel."  First  he  must  eat, 
then  he  must  speak.  If  Ezekiel  had  been  commanded 
to  read  the  roll  put  in  his  hands  by  God  a  very 
different  idea  of  inspiration  would  have  been  con 
veyed  to  us.  Jeremiah  is  commanded  to  read  a  roll 
in  the  ears  of  the  people  assembled  in  the  Lord's 


164  INSPIRATION 

house,  but  this  was  a  roll  which  he  had  himself  first 
written.  That  roll,  we  remember,  was  burned  by  the 
king.  The  words  were  re-written  and  added  to. 
Plainly  the  book  of  the  prophet  Jeremiah  was  a  book 
of  human  composition.  What  is  more,  it  is,  in  the 
form  it  has  come  down  to  us,  a  book  of  disorderly 
composition. 

It  is  hardly  necessary  to  say  anything  of  the 
Wisdom  literature  of  the  Old  Testament.  The  Old 
Testament  wisdom  is  obviously  the  expression  of 
the  human  mind  under  Divine  guidance.  We  might 
call  it  human  reflections  on  Divine  truths.  The  mind 
of  man  assisted  by  the  Spirit  of  God — the  Spirit  of 
Wisdom — broods  over  Divine  rules  and  principles 
and  also  over  the  events  occurring  round  him  and 
embodies  his  thoughts  in  pithy  sayings.  There  is 
a  great  deal  of  human  reason  in  the  proverb,  but  it 
is  reason  sanctified  by  God.  There  was  a  theory  of 
Inspiration  held  by  some  in  early  times  according  to 
which  the  human  reason  departed  from  a  man  when 
the  Divine  Spirit  entered  within  him.  When  a  man 
prophesied  he  was  out  of  his  mind.*  The  books  of 
Proverbs  and  Ecclesiastes  indicate  to  us  very  clearly 
that  this  theory  of  Inspiration  is  false. 

It  is  perhaps  in  the  Psalms  that  the  most  con 
clusive  indication  of  a  substantial  human  element  in 
the  Old  Testament  or,  indeed,  the  Bible  is  to  be  found. 
What  are  the  Psalms  ?  Divine  ?  Most  surely.  David 
said,  "  The  Spirit  of  God  spake  by  me,  and  His  word 
was  on  my  tongue."  The  New  Testament  quotes  the 
Psalms  as  many  times  as  all  the  other  Old  Testament 
books  taken  together,  and  it  very  often  calls  them 

*  Amentia  in  quA  constat  prophetia.    Tertullian  :  "De  Aniina,"  21. 


INSPIRATION  165 

words  of  the  Psalmist  "  in  the  Spirit,"  or  even  words 
of  the  Spirit  Himself.  The  Saviour,  by  His  use  of 
the  Psalter  on  various  occasions,  more  especially  on 
the  Cross,  hallows  it  for  all  who  bear  the  Christian 
name.  The  Church  also,  whether  of  the  Old  or  New 
Covenant,  makes  it  the  staple  of  her  liturgical  services. 
And  besides  the  hearts  of  all  good  people  for  more  than 
two  thousand  years  set  to  their  seal,  that  through  the 
Psalms  God  speaks  to  them  and  they  speak  to  God. 
Penitential  Psalms  are  to  be  found  in  the  sacred  litera 
ture  of  other  ancient  nations,  and  yet  none  equal 
the  Hebrew  in  the  depth  of  their  sense  of  sin.  The 
others  are  hardly  more  than  guesses  or  fears  that  the 
Deity  is  angry  ;  these  are  the  outcome  of  a  know 
ledge  that  the  writer  and  his  nation  have  sinned 
against  a  personal  and  well-known  God  who  is  their 
own.  Moreover,  Hebrew  Psalms  are  not  merely 
penitential,  they  express  every  spiritual  feeling  in 
turn,  and  change  from  one  to  another  with  the 
rapidity  of  human  thought.  Whether  it  is  worship 
or  thanksgiving,  supplication  or  penitence,  joy  or 
sorrow,  they  give  us  words  by  which  we  can  rise 
to  God.  And  all  ages  and  peoples  have  recognized 
their  value.  Their  sound  has  gone  forth  unto  all  lands 
and  their  words  unto  the  ends  of  the  world.  Not 
being  of  use  in  those  matters  wherein  Christians 
differ  they  have  appealed  to  the  hearts  of  all  Christians 
alike.  Manuals  of  devotion,  however  excellent,  have 
but  a  short  day,  the  Psalter  of  the  Old  Covenant 
remains  a  Christian  book  of  prayer  and  praise.  It 
furnishes  in  large  part  the  substance  of  Christian 
hymns.  Ideas  distinctively  Christian  find  in  it 
appropriate  expression.  The  Scriptures  of  the  New 


166  INSPIRATION 

Covenant  need  to  do  little  in  the  way  of  supplement 
ing  the  book  of  the  Psalms  of  David.  We  can  thus 
claim  that  there  is  no  Old  Testament  writing  to 
whose  Divine  inspiration  such  strong  and  abundant 
and  varied  and  abiding  witness  is  given. 

But  are  not  the  words  of  the  Psalms  human  also  ? 
If  they  were  not,  should  we  be  able  to  use  them  so 
constantly,  so  generally,  and  so  well  ?  They  are 
Divine  aspirations  fitted  for  human  use.  They  ex 
press  human  feelings — feelings  which  men  having 
felt,  men  feel  again.  They  are  Divine  because  they 
are  so  human  ;  that  is,  because  they  are  suitable  for 
man  to  use  when  he  rises  to  the  full  height  of  his 
being,  realizes  his  Divine  origin  and  His  Divine  goal, 
and  claims  his  right  of  access  to  God.  Wherein  lies 
the  difference  between  a  man  and  a  brute  beast  but 
in  his  power  to  hold  communion  with  his  God? 
Children  of  God  and  man  the  Psalms  are,  we  make 
bold  to  say.  Divine  ;  human — God  their  Father, 
and  man  their  mother — they  partake  manifestly  of 
the  characters  of  both  parents.  So  good,  for  so  full 
of  God  ;  not  so  good  as  they  might  be,  for  so  full  of 
man.  Rising  to  God  on  eagle's  wings,  and  gazing  on 
His  face  as  the  eagles  on  the  sun,  and  then  falling 
back  to  earth  again  with  blinded  eyes.  Not  purely 
or  directly  Divine ;  how  could  such  groanings,  com 
plaints,  passions  and  doubts  be  so  called  ?  It  is  the 
human  spirit,  though  that  spirit  is  groping  and 
longing  after  God,  which  calls,  "  Awake,  why  sleepest 
thou  ?  Arise,  cast  us  not  off  for  ever.  Wherefore 
hidest  Thou  Thy  face  and  forgettest  our  affliction 
and  our  oppression  ? "  *  "  Hath  God  forgotten  to  be 
*  Ps.  xliv.  23,  24. 


INSPIRATION  167 

gracious  ?  Hath  He  in  anger  shut  up  His  tender 
mercies  ? "  *  It  is  again  the  human  spirit,  faithful 
and  true,  but  not  yet  wholly  enlightened,  which  asks, 
"  Do  not  I  hate  them,  O  Lord,  which  hate  Thee  ? " 
It  is  again  the  human  will,  not  thoroughly  conformed 
to  the  Divine,  which  says,  "  Let  them  be  wiped  out 
of  the  book  of  the  living,  and  not  be  written 
amongst  the  righteous  ?  "  "  Lord,  I  believe,"  many  a 
Psalm  seems  joyfully  to  begin,  yet,  ere  its  close  it 
is  constrained  to  add  with  grief,  "  Help  Thou  mine 
unbelief." 

This  is  not  as  it  should  be,  though  it  is,  as  we 
know,  as  it  must  be  for  man  in  this  state  of  im 
perfection.  The  Psalms  are  not  songs  of  angels — 
"  Clearer  loves  sound  other  ways  " — but  children's 
cries  in  the  dark.  Nevertheless  we  have  good  reason 
to  say  that  when  we  are  silent  God  in  heaven  says,  "  I 
miss  My  little  human  praise  ;  nor  day  nor  night  now 
brings  the  voice  of  My  delight."  Capable  of  use  by 
men,  worthy  of  acceptance  in  their  use  by  God,  are 
the  Psalms  ;  and  this,  because  they  are  so  human. 

But  what  an  unreal  and  Docetic  character  it  gives 
these  expressions  of  human  desires  and  experiences, 
if  we  regard  them  as  "  dictated  "  by  the  Holy  Spirit. 
A  prayer,  a  thanksgiving,  a  petition  must  be  in  the 
deepest  sense  a  man's  own.  God  does  not  dictate 
our  thoughts  and  feelings,  though  he  may  inspire 
them.  Man  gives  his  own  expression  to  his  own 
heart's  desires.  The  Holy  Spirit,  and  the  human 
spirit  at  its  best,  but  not  always  at  its  best,  met  and 
co-operated  in  the  making  of  the  Psalms,  and 
nowhere  can  we  see  more  clearly  the  human  spirit 

*  PS.  Ixxvii.  9. 


168  INSPIRATION 

making  the  Divine  Spirit  its  own.  Nevertheless,  the 
words  are  not  always  good,  and  the  feelings  are  not 
always  the  highest  and  purest.  It  is  surely  true  to 
say  that  neither  God,  being  what  He  is,  nor  man, 
being  what  he  is,  could  have  made  the  Psalms 
alone. 

The  phenomena  of  the  Psalms  may  be  illustrated 
from  nature.  To  what  first  causes  should  we  trace 
the  plants  which  spring  out  of  the  ground  ?  There 
is  the  seed,  we  know,  and  there  is  the  sun  in  the  sky, 
there  is  the  air  and  the  rain,  but  there  is  mother 
earth  as  well.  And  the  seed  itself  has  had  the  earth 
for  its  mother  in  days  gone  by.  Even  so  are  the 
Psalms  upspringing  from  the  human  heart.  The 
seed  of  the  Word  of  God  had  been  sown,  but  there 
was  something  human  even  in  that  seed.  The  sweet 
heavenly  influence,  such  as  the  light  and  love  of  God, 
made  the  seed  to  germinate.  But  besides  all  this 
there  was  the  soil,  itself,  which,  being  good  soil,  was 
not  left  uncultivated  by  the  heavenly  husbandman. 
The  particular  nature  of  the  soil  gave,  we  observe,  a 
particular  character  to  that  plant — that  feeling  and 
desire  which  sprang  up  towards  God.  Nay,  had  not 
that  soil  been  good,  spite  of  the  Divine  seed  and  sun 
no  plant  had  sprung  up  at  all.  We  see  here  co-opera 
tion  in  the  full  sense  of  the  word,  action  and  reaction 
— interaction  we  might  say.  We  cannot,  however,  be 
false  witnesses  for  God  by  maintaining  that  the  curses 
of  Psalms  69  and  109,  and  the  like,  are  after  His 
mind,  they  are  after  the  imperfectly  developed  Jewish 
mind.  We  will  not  place  side  by  side  with  our 
Lord's  beatitudes  that  beatitude  with  which  the  13/th 
Psalm  concludes.  It  will  be  seen  that  the  analogy 


INSPIRATION  169 

drawn  from  nature  is  specially  applicable  to  the 
words  of  the  Psalms.  Words  of  the  Prophets  and 
words  of  the  Psalms,  both  inspired,  differ  widely  in 
their  purposes.  Words  of  the  Prophets  are  as  seeds 
sown,  or  as  the  sun's  rays ;  they  are  God's  words  to 
us.  But  the  Psalms  are  the  plants  which  spring  up 
in  our  hearts  from  the  Divine  seed  ;  they  are  re 
flections  of  the  Divine  rays.  They  are  our  words  to 
God,  our  responses  to  His  teaching,  His  light  and 
His  life. 

The  character  of  the  human  element  in  one  im 
portant  section  of  the  Old  Testament  literature,  viz., 
the  section  of  laws,  still  remains  to  be  considered. 

The  laws  of  Moses  differ  primd  facie  in  the  cha 
racter  of  their  materials  from  the  other  books  of  the 
Old  Testament.  They  are  apparently  given  to  Moses 
in  the  same  way  as  the  laws  of  the  Koran  to 
Mahomet,  i.e.,  represented  as  dictated  in  substance  and 
in  language  by  God  Himself.  The  ceremonial  laws 
are  commonly  introduced  with  the  formula.  "The 
Lord  spake  unto  Moses,  saying,  speak  to  the  children 
of  Israel,"  and  the  like.  Minute  details  concerning 
ceremonies  or  institutions,  or  the  tabernacle  and  its 
furniture,  follow.  All  things  were  to  be  made  ac 
cording  to  the  pattern  shown  by  God  on  the  Mount. 
We  know,  also,  that  the  Ten  Words  are  described  as 
uttered  by  the  voice  of  God,  and  written  with  His 
finger.  The  sacred  narrative  also  regards  the  in 
spiration  of  Moses  as  differing  in  character  from  the 
inspiration  of  the  prophets.  God  spake  to  Moses 
face  to  face,  and  mouth  to  mouth,  as  a  man  speaketh 
unto  his  friend.  He  did  not  make  Himself  known  to 
him  jn  a  vision,  and  speak  to  him  in  a  dream.  There 


i;o  INSPIRATION 

hath  not  arisen,  says  the  writer  of  the  last  words  of 
Deuteronomy,  a  prophet  since  in  Israel  like  unto 
Moses,  whom  the  Lord  knew  face  to  face.*  Such 
passages  seem  to  claim  that  Moses  was  God's  pen 
man,  and  that  consequently  the  law  was  verbally 
inspired. 

The  phrase,  however,  "  God  spake,"  or  "  the  Lord 
said,"  and  their  like,  always  need  interpretation. 
God  has  many  ways  of  speaking.  The  words  "  face 
to  face/'f  and  "mouth  to  mouth,"  demand  limitation, 
and  especially  when  we  have  regard  to  the  words 
"  Thou  canst  not  see  My  face,  for  man  shall  not  see 
Me  and  live."  The  words  quoted  express  in  strong 
terms  the  truth  that  Israel  received  its  law  from 
God  through  Moses  ;  but  we  see  they  express  some 
thing  other  than  verbal  dictation.  For  there  are 
good  reasons  for  saying  that  Israel's  law  was  not 
verbally  dictated,  (i)  What  was  the  exact  form  of 
those  words  which  God  spake  to  Israel  from  Mount 
Sinai,  and  wrote  with  His  finger  on  the  two  tables  of 
stone  ?  We  have  two  versions  of  them,  one  in 
Exodus,  and  the  other  in  Deuteronomy ;  and  the  two 
differ  widely  in  language,  though  they  are  identical 
in  meaning.^  No  verbal  inspiration  can  therefore  be 
claimed  for  the  Ten  Words.  (2)  The  Mosaic  laws,  (a) 
were  largely  the  systematization  of  earlier  laws  and 
institutions  of  Israel,  (b}  were  derived  partially  from 
earlier  codes  and  institutions  of  foreign  nations.  In 
some  the  influence  of  Egypt  can  be  traced,  and  some 

*  Exod.  xxxiii.  II.     Numb.  xii.  6-8.    Deut.  xxxiv,  10. 

t  It  should  be  noted  that  Deut.  v.  4  says  the  Lord  spake  with  Israel 
also,  face  to  face  on  the  mount,  out  of  the  midst  of  the  fire. 

i  Cf.  Exod.  xx.  1-17,  xxxi.  1.8,  with  Deut.  v.  6-22.  The  second 
writing  was  the  same  as  the  first ;  cf.  Exod.  xxxiv.  i ;  Deut.  x.  4. 


INSPIRATION  171 

are  very  similar  to  laws  contained  in  the  code  of 
Hammurabi.    (3)  Criticism  seems  to  have  proved  the 
existence  of  different  codes  in  the  law,  and  it  would 
not  be  difficult  to  place  side  by  side  laws  from  these 
codes  which,  though  they  refer  to  the  same  matters, 
differ  from  one  another  in  character.      Our  reason 
seems  to  prove  to  us  that  the  laws  are  not  all  equally 
Mosaic,  and  our  faith  acknowledges  that  all  are  not 
equally  Divine.     Moses,  there  is  good  reason  to  say, 
is  rightly  regarded  as  the  source  of  law  in  Israel,  and 
Moses  was  Divinely  instructed  to  give  Israel  statutes 
and  judgments.     He  who  gives  the  seed  may  be  said 
to  give  the  plant.      He  who   lays  down  the  great 
principles  of  a  code  may  be  regarded  as  responsible 
for  their  developments  and  embodiments.     The  laws 
of   the    Pentateuch    may    be    regarded    as    Divine 
primarily,   and    Mosaic  secondarily ;    but   they   can 
hardly  be  either  immediately.     They  may  be  both  in 
spirit,  but  cannot  be  either  wholly,  whether  in  matter 
or  word. 

And  we  shall  be  ready  to  admit  this  if  we  give 
due  weight  to  the  following  consideration.  If  it  be 
true  that  the  laws  of  the  Pentateuch  come  more 
directly  from  God,  are  absolutely  and  exclusively 
Divine,  and  this  in  a  way  no  other  words  of  the  Sacred 
Book  can  be  said  to  be  ;  if,  consequently,  they  have 
less  of  the  human,  and  so  of  the  finite,  the  passing, 
the  imperfect,  in  them  than  other  words,  we  shall  be 
involved  in  this  difficulty :  the  words  externally  most 
Divine  in  the  Bible  will  be  the  least  so  internally;  or,  to 
put  it  still  more  strongly,  the  words  in  the  Bible  which 
are  absolutely  Divine  will  not  be  eternal.  Can  it  be  true 
that  the  weak  and  beggarly  elements  of  the  law,  as 


1/2  INSPIRATION 

St.  Paul  calls  them,  and  the  words  of  the  Covenant, 
which  eighteen  hundred  years  ago  were  decaying  and 
waxing  old,  and  ready  to  vanish  away,  as  the  author 
of  the  Epistle  to  the  Hebrews  tells  us,  are  absolutely 
or  even  pre-eminently  free  from  the  taint  of  human 
imperfection,  and  are  wholly  and  exclusively  the 
words  of  God  ?  To  believe  this  is  well-nigh  to  sub 
vert  the  faith  of  the  gospel.  It  seems  plain  that  the 
words  "  The  Lord  spake  unto  Moses,"  and  the 
like,  must  not  be  so  interpreted  as  to  annihilate  the 
human  element  in  the  laws  and  institutions  which 
succeed. 

Summing  up  the  facts  bearing  on  this  part 
of  our  subject,  we  may  say  that  the  traces  of  the 
human  mind  and  spirit  in  the  formation  of  the  sacred 
books  of  the  Bible  meet  us  at  every  turn,  and  that 
there  is  very  little  trace  of  ecstasy  on  the  part  of  the 
human  writer,  or  of  dictation  on  the  part  of  God. 
Prophets  and  apostles  receive  revelations  at  times  in 
visions  and  dreams,  but  it  is  in  their  waking  moments 
that  they  speak  or  write  the  Divine  words.  Nor  can 
they  be  compared  rightly  to  musical  instruments,  on 
which  the  Spirit  plays.  The  co-workers  with  God 
in  the  formation  of  the  sacred  writings  are  not  pas 
sive,  but  active  instruments.  The  human  element  in 
the  Bible  is,  indeed,  more  obvious  than  the  Divine. 
The  indications  of  the  Divine  Inspiration  lie  beneath 
the  surface,  and  must  be  spiritually  discerned.  In 
other  words,  man  supplies  the  Bible  with  its  body, 
the  Holy  Spirit  only  with  its  soul. 

There  are  three  stories  or  legends  with  which  we 
may  usefully  contrast  what  we  have  observed  about 
the  composition  of  the  books  of  the  Bible.  The  first 


INSPIRATION  173 

refers  to  the  composition  of  the  Koran  ;  the  second 
to  the  rewriting  of  the  Old  Testament  by  Ezra ;  and 
the  third  to  the  translation  of  the  Old  Testament  into 
Greek  by  the  seventy  interpreters. 

The  Koran  makes  a  definite  claim  as  to  how  it 
was  composed — which  the  Bible  never  does.*  Sir 
W.  Muir  tells  us  that  "  It  professes  to  be  a  revelation 
proceeding  immediately  from  the  Almighty.  Its  con 
tents  are  nowhere  subjective  ;  that  is,  they  nowhere 
represent  the  aspirations  of  an  inspired  heart,  or  the 
teachings  of  a  prophet  himself  enlightened  of  God. 
Word  for  word,  the  revelation  comes  direct  from 
heaven.  The  formula,  '  Speak,  thus  saith  the  Lord,' 
either  precedes  every  single  sentence,  or  must  be  so 
understood."  As  a  result  of  this  direct  claim,  the 
style  of  the  Koran  is  said  to  be  perfect,  and  every 
syllable  Divine.  The  text,  further,  is  incorruptible. 
It  is  an  absolute  authority,  not  only  in  religion  and 
ethics,  but  also  in  law,  science,  and  history.  Never 
theless,  Mahomet  acknowledges  that  two  lines  in  it 
allowing  idolatry  were  suggested  by  the  evil  one.f 
Discrepancies  between  the  different  revelations  are 
obvious.  Now,  it  is  conceivable  that  God  should 
abrogate  a  command,  but  it  is  not  possible  that  two 
revelations  made  by  Himself  concerning  Himself  can 
be  inconsistent.  A  theory  had  to  be  propounded  that 
a  later  revelation  abrogated  an  earlier.  "  Whatever 
verses  We  cancel  or  cause  thee  to  forget,  We  give  thee 
better  in  their  stead,  or  the  like  thereof."  J 

Again,  in  the  apocryphal  2  Esdras,  §  we  have 
a  Jewish  legend  of  the  restoration  of  the  Holy 

*  "The  Koran"  (S.P.C.K.),  PP-  12. 
f  Ibid,  p.  14.  J  Ibid,  p,  41.  §  Chap.  xiv.  21,  22. 


174  INSPIRATION 

Scriptures  after  they  had  perished  at  the  destruction 
of  Jerusalem  by  Nebuchadnezzar.    Esdras  complains, 
"Thy  law  is  burnt,  therefore  no  man  knoweth  the 
things  that  are  done  of  Thee,  or  the  works  that  shall 
be  done.   But  if  I  have  found  grace  before  Thee,  send 
the  Holy  Ghost  unto  me,  and  I  shall  write  all  things 
that  have  been  done  in  the  world  since  the  beginning, 
which  were   written   in    Thy  law."     The   request   is 
granted.    Esdras  drinks  of  a  full  cup,  and  he  has  under 
standing  given  him,  and  his  mouth  is  opened,  and  he 
dictates  night  and  day  continually  to  five  men  for 
forty  days,  and  they  write  two   hundred   and   four 
books ;  twenty-four  of  which  (the  books  of  the  Old 
Testament  Canon)  are  to  be  published,  and  the  rest 
hidden.    There  was  also  a  belief  current  in  the  Early 
Church  that  the  Septuagint  version  of  the  Old  Testa 
ment  was    a    miraculous    translation.      The    LXX. 
translators,  it  was  said,  translated  all  the  books  of  the 
Old  Testament,  separately  or  in  pairs,  being  shut  up 
in  cells  for  that  purpose.   Nevertheless,  they  produced 
seventy  translations,  which  agreed,  not  only  in  sense, 
but  in  form,  not  differing  the  slightest,  either  in  word 
or  in  order  of  words.     The  King  of  Egypt,  Ptolemy 
Philadelphus,  who  was  employing  them,  was  aston 
ished  at  this  exact  agreement,  and  ascribed  it  to  the 
power  of  the  Divine  Spirit.     This  story  is  often  re 
ferred  to  by  the  Fathers,  and  influences  their  exegesis 
of  the    Septuagint.     One  of   them,    Pseudo-Justin, 
indeed,  claims  to  have  seen  the  cells.    But  Jerome, 
who  was  a  Hebrew  scholar,  asks,  Who  by  his  lying 
has  built  those  cells,  and  draws  a  distinction  between 
translation    and   prophecy  ?     The  LXX.  translation 
notoriously   contains   many  errors.     It  was   not   all 


INSPIRATION  175 

translated  at  the  same  time,  or  by  the  same  men. 
Its  text  has  been  so  constantly  altered  by  later  trans 
lators  or  transcribers  that  it  is  impossible  to  recover 
it  in  its  original  form. 

Now  it  is  clear,  as  we  have  seen,  that  Holy 
Scripture  was  neither  written  nor  composed  in  any 
such  way.  The  three  accounts  have  two  points 
in  common  with  one  another.  The  human  element 
is  minimized.  Inspiration  is  equivalent  to  Dicta 
tion.  And  they  are  all  idle  legends,  manifestly 
untrue. 

Mahomet  is  the  mere  penman  of  the  Koran. 
Everything  in  the  Koran  comes  directly  from  God, 
and  is  infallibly  true.  But  the  method  intended  to 
secure  infallibility  and  accuracy  avowedly  breaks 
down.  Mahomet  owns  himself  deceived.  An  in 
fallible  revelation  has  to  be  received  as  well  as  given. 
Though  the  infallible  God  gives  it,  fallible  man 
receives  it  Where  can  be  the  infallible  certainty 
that  the  revelation  comes  from  God,  and  is  not  the 
outcome  of  the  man's  own  heart,  or  a  delusion  from 
the  evil  one  ?  It  is  plain  that  the  Koran,  since  it  is 
delivered  to  Mahomet  in  this  way,  and  nevertheless 
contains  palpable  errors  in  history,  science,  and  the 
rest,  discredits  itself. 

Ezra,  similarly,  is  described  as  an  automaton,  and 
not  a  co-worker  with  God.  He  has  no  intelligent 
share  in  the  re-writing  of  the  Sacred  Scriptures.  The 
story  is  obviously  contrary  to  the  statements  of  the 
Book  of  Ezra,  which  describe  the  Law  as  in  use  in 
the  days  of  Zerubbabel,  seventy  or  eighty  years 
before  Ezra  came  from  Babylon.  Curiously  enough, 
the  story  was  accepted  by  many  of  the  Fathers,  and 


i;6  INSPIRATION 

even  Bellarmine  thinks  there  is  some  truth  in  it. 
Still  more  curiously,  it  might  be  said  to  express  in 
enigmatic  form  the  critical  conclusions  of  the  present 
day.  Ezra  is  not,  indeed,  the  inspired  re-writer ;  but 
he  is  the  editor  of  many  books  of  the  Old  Testament, 
and  he  is  the  author  of  the  Priest  Code. 

The  account  of  the  origin  of  the  Septuagint 
translation  is  flatly  contradicted  by  the  translation 
itself.  We  are  able  to  trace,  in  some  measure,  the 
growth  of  the  legend.  It  is  nothing  but  a  piece  of 
Hellenistic  pride. 

All  three  accounts  imply  a  mode  of  composition 
of  which  we  have  no  trace  in  the  Old  or  New 
Testaments.  The  sacred  writers  bringing,  as  they 
do,  their  own  individualities  and  limitations  and  cir 
cumstances  into  their  books,  cannot  have  been  mere 
"  penmen  of  the  Holy  Ghost." 


XVI 

THE  CANON  AND  THE  TEXT  OF  HOLY 
SCRIPTURE 

WE  have  traced  the  human  element  in  the 
composition  of  the  different  books  in  the 
Bible,  and  have  seen  that  it  is  substantial  in  cha 
racter.  We  pass  on  now  to  the  composition  of  the 
Bible  as  a  whole — the  combination  of  its  several 
books  into  one — the  formation  of  the  Canon  of 
Scripture. 

The  Bible,  as  we  know,  is  a  collection  of  many 
books  of  different  times  and  authorship.  How,  when, 
and  by  whom  were  they  collected  together  ?  Who 
was  it  that  decided  that  this  book  should  be  admitted 
into  the  collection,  and  that  book  excluded  ?  We 
have  been  wont  to  acquiesce,  without  doubt  or  inquiry, 
in  the  contents  of  the  Old  and  New  Testaments. 
We  should  consider  it  almost  profane  and  unbeliev 
ing  to  doubt  whether  this  or  that  book  should  be 
included  in  the  Bible.  We  are  accustomed  to  think 
that  all  the  books  of  the  Bible  are  marked  off  by  a 
clear  line — even  more,  separated  by  a  deep  gulf  from 
all  other  writings.  Books  of  the  Bible  are  inspired, 
the  rest  are  not.  Books  of  the  Bible  are  the  words  of 
God$  all  others  are  words  of  man.  But  what  reasons 

177  N 


178  INSPIRATION 

have  we  for  this  opinion  ?  To  answer  that  the  Bible 
is  the  gift  of  God,  is  not  helpful.  The  question  we 
have  to  answer  is,  How  did  God  give  it  ?  How, 
that  is  to  say,  were  the  different  elements  of  the 
Bible  gathered  together  and  separated  from  all  other 
books  ? 

We  should,  without  doubt,  like  to  have  a  very 
clear  and  straightforward  answer  to  this  question ; 
but  none  such  can  be  given.  The  history  of  the 
formation  of  the  Canon,  both  of  the  Old  and  of  the 
New  Testament,  is  doubtful  and  obscure.  There  is 
a  lack  of  definiteness  and  formality  about  it  which 
is  disappointing.  There  are,  it  need  hardly  be  said,  no 
solemn  acts  of  delivery  by  God  of  His  Book  into  the 
hands  of  man.  Nor  are  there  solemn  decisions  of  the 
Church,  whether  of  the  Old  Covenant  or  of  the  New, 
in  regard  to  the  contents  of  the  Book  which  directed 
and  governed  her  life.  The  Canon  of  Scripture  grows, 
but  it  is  difficult  or  impossible  to  follow  the  stages  of 
its  growth.  The  Canon  is  at  length  fixed,  but  its 
settlement  cannot  be  ascribed  to  any  precise  act. 
Bishop  Westcott  has  said  that  the  historical  facts 
teach  us  that  the  formation  of  the  collection  of  Holy 
Scriptures  was — to  use  a  term  which  ought  never  to 
be  supposed  even  to  veil  the  action  of  a  Present  God 
• — according  to  natural  laws  ;  that  slowly  and  with 
an  ever-deepening  conviction  the  churches  received, 
after  trial,  and  in  some  cases  after  doubt  and  con 
tradiction,  the  books  which  we  now  receive  ;  that  the 
religious  consciousness,  which  was  quickened  by  the 
words  of  prophets  and  apostles  in  turn,  ratified  their 
writings.* 

*  Westcott,  "The  Bible  in  the  Church,"  Preface,  pp.  x.,  xi. 


INSPIRATION  179 

There  can  be  no  doubt  that  history  compels  us  to 
acknowledge  that  the  formation  of  the  Canon  was  a 
work  of  the  human  judgment — a  judgment  expressed 
without  the  precision  we  might  have  wished.  It  was  the 
Church,  not  so  much  by  her  synods,  but  by  a  general 
consensus,  gradually  arrived  at  and  expressed  in 
public  use,  which  defined  the  limits  of  the  Canon. 
We  receive  our  Bible  from  the  Church.  It  is  true 
that  many  Protestant  sects  who  reject  the  Church's 
authority  have  said  that  the  Bible  is  its  own  sufficient 
witness,  i.e.  that  its  books  testify  by  their  contents 
that  they  were  written  by  the  Spirit  of  God.  There 
is  considerable  truth  in  this.  Undoubtedly  some 
books  of  the  Bible  witness  powerfully  to  their  Divine 
origin.  But  can  this  be  said  of  all  ?  The  historical 
books,  for  example  :  can  we  discern  for  ourselves 
their  inspiration  with  clearness  and  certainty  ?  Do 
they  differ  in  kind  from  the  First  Book  of  the 
Maccabees  ?  There  are  doubtful  books  in  both 
Canons,  Old  and  New,  i.e.  books  admitted  into  the 
Canon  after  much  hesitation  and  doubt.  Such  are 
Ecclesiastes,  Song  of  Songs,  and  Esther  in  the  Old 
Testament,  and  II.  Peter  pre-eminently  in  the  New 
Testament.  Comparing  these  carefully  with  books  out 
side  the  Canon — the  books  of  the  Maccabees,  Wisdom, 
Ecclesiasticus,  and  the  First  Epistle  of  Clement — • 
it  would  certainly  be  beyond  our  power  to  say  without 
a  shadow  of  doubt,  "These  books  are  inspired,  and 
those  are  not."  Our  reasons  would,  at  the  best,  be 
subjective  in  character.  Our  only  reasonable  course 
we  shall  find,  is  to  acquiesce  in  the  judgment  of  the 
Church. 

The  matter  is,  after  all,  of  little  practical  importance. 


iSo  INSPIRATION 

As  we  have  seen,  there  is  a  Bible  within  the  Bible 
— a  Bible  which  we  read  again  and  again,  from 
which  we  have  received  our  knowledge  of  Divine 
and  heavenly  things,  and  this  does  not  include  all 
the  books  of  the  Canon.  Some  books  we  find  to  be 
of  little  use  to  us,  and  this  is  not  entirely  due 
to  their  obscurity  or  difficulty,  or  again,  to  the  one- 
sidedness  of  our  belief;  but  it  is  due  also  to  the 
fact  that  the  books  of  the  Canon  are  not  equally 
full  of  instruction. 

We  might  have  expected  that  the  Canon  of  Holy 
Scripture  would  have  been  given  to  us  by  a  direct 
revelation  from  God — that  He  would  have  indicated 
to  us,  in  some  unmistakable  and  supernatural  way, 
the  constituent  elements  of  His  Book  of  Revelation. 
We  should  like  Him  to  have  done  this,  because  we 
have  a  craving  for  certainty  in  all  these  matters — 
a  certainty,  by  the  way,  which  we  can  never  attain. 
But  how  could  this  have  been  done  ?  By  a  prophet 
speaking  in  the  name  of  the  Lord  ?  Can  we  con 
ceive  any  way  in  which  the  prophet  could  have  been 
accredited  to  all  time?  If  it  is  answered,  By  some 
miracle,  whether  a  voice  from  heaven  or  an  attesting 
sign.  These,  however  convincing  to  the  men  who 
witnessed  them,  could  never  have  convinced  us  who 
did  not  witness  them.  We  should  have  wanted  a 
record  for  that  voice,  and  this,  in  its  turn,  would 
need  miraculous  attestation.  If,  again,  the  authority 
of  the  Bible  rested  on  a  miracle,  to  disprove  the 
miracle  would  be  to  deprive  the  Bible  of  all  authority  ; 
to  make  the  miracle  doubtful  would  be  to  cast  doubt 
on  the  Bible.  The  Canon,  however,  has  not  been 
Divinely  revealed  to  us,  and  it  is  difficult  to  see  how 


INSPIRATION  181 

it  could  have  been.  Its  settlement  was  the  result 
of  research,  comparison,  weighing  of  historical  evi 
dence,  balancing  of  difficulties.  There  were  doubts 
as  to  certain  books  for  hundreds  of  years,  but  they 
gradually  disappeared.  The  Sixth  Article  of  our 
Church  says,  "  In  the  name  of  the  Holy  Scripture 
we  do  understand  those  Canonical  Books  of  the 
Old  and  New  Testament,  of  whose  authority  was 
never  any  doubt  in  the  Church."  If  we  take  these 
words  literally,  we  should  have  to  take  out  of  our 
Bibles  three  books  in  the  Old  Testament  and 
seven  in  the  New ;  viz.  Esther,  Ecclesiastes,  and 
Song  of  Songs ;  and  Hebrews,  James,  2  Peter, 
2  and  3  John,  Jude,  and  Revelation.  There  is  no 
doubt  felt  now  concerning  the  great  majority  of 
these  books,  but  this  does  not  alter  the  fact  that  up 
to  the  fifth  century  A.D.,  and  in  some  cases  still 
later,  there  were  doubts  concerning  their  authority  in. 
the  Church.* 

Bishop  Westcott,  commenting  on  these  historical 
facts,  says,  "They  teach  us  that  the  extreme  limits 
of  the  collection  were  not  marked  out  sharply,  but 
that  rather  the  outline  was  at  times  dim  and  waver 
ing,  yet  not  so  as  to  be  incapable  of  satisfactory 
adjustment."  And,  "  It  is  possible  that  we  might 
have  wished  much  of  this  or  all  this  otherwise ;  we 
might  have  thought  that  a  Bible,  of  which  every  part 
should  bear  a  visible  and  unquestioned  authentication 
of  its  Divine  origin,  separated  by  a  solemn  act  from 
the  first  from  the  sum  and  fate  of  all  other  literature, 

*  Professor  Sanday  says,  "  By  the  year  400  we  may  regard  the  Old 
Testament  as  practically  fixed  in  the  form  in  which  we  now  have  it." 
— Bampton  Lectures  on  "Inspiration,"  p.  6. 


182  INSPIRATION 

would  have  best  answered  our  conceptions  of  what 
the  written  records  of  Revelation  should  be.  But  it 
is  not  thus  that  God  works  among  us.  In  tJie  Church 
and  in  the  Bible  alike  He  works  through  men,  As 
we  follow  the  progress  of  their  formation,  each  step 
seems  to  be  truly  human ;  when  we  contemplate 
the  whole,  we  joyfully  recognize  that  every  part  is 
also  Divine." 

Professor  Sanday,*  treating  the  matter  somewhat 
differently,  says,  "If  we  take  our  New  Testament 
as  a  whole,  we  may  well  believe  that  a  Divine 
Providence  has  watched  over  it.  It  is  a  wonder  that 
in  such  an  age,  so  little  that  is  in  any  sense  unworthy 
has  found  its  way  into  it.  But  in  this,  as  in  other 
things,  the  Providence  of  God  does  not  absolutely 
exclude  the  infirmities  of  man." 

The  critical  investigations  of  the  last  fifty  years 
have  indeed  confirmed  very  remarkably  the  decision 
of  the  early  Church  on  the  contents  of  its  New 
Testament.  The  Second  Epistle  of  St.  Peter — the 
book  concerning  which  the  early  Church  was  most 
and  longest  doubtful — is  the  book  concerning  which 
most  doubt  is  reasonably  felt  at  the  present  day. 
There  are  many  reasons  for  thinking  it  was  not 
written  by  St.  Peter,t  and  it  claims  to  have  been 
written  by  him.  The  results  of  criticism  on  the 
contents  of  the  New  Testament  Canon  should  be 
regarded  by  us  as  reassuring.  When  critics,  at  once 
competent,  reverent,  and  believing,  have  looked  into 
the  matter,  they  find  only  one  book  out  of  twenty- 
seven  in  the  New  Testament  which  seems  to  have 

*   Bampton  Lectures  on"  Inspiration." 

t  See  Bishop  Chase,  in  Hastings'  "Dictionary,"  Art.  "II.  Peter." 


INSPIRATION  183 

been  placed  in  the  Canon  unadvisedly,  and  that 
book  is  the  one  concerning  which  the  early  Church 
was  most  doubtful. 

In  the  Old   Testament  the  limits  of  doubt  are 
somewhat  wider.     It  is  natural  that  it  should  be  so, 
because  of  its  earlier  date.     In  many  particulars,  we 
think,  the  evidence  for  the  books  of  the  Old  Testa 
ment,  and  for   the  facts  they  contained,  is   inferior 
to  that  for  the  New.     We  may  trace  God's  hand  in 
this.    It  is  of  essential  importance  to  us,  as  Christians 
that  we  should  be  established  in  the  truth  of  Christ's 
words  and  deeds,  so  God  has  given  to  us  four  Gospels 
— four  witnesses  to  these — and  each  of  them,  we  have 
good   grounds   for    saying,    is   contemporaneous,    or 
nearly  contemporaneous,  with  the  facts   it  records. 
On   the  other  hand,  it  is  not  essentially  important 
for  us  to  be  certified  beyond  all  doubt  concerning 
the  words  or  deeds  of  Old  Testament  prophets  and 
heroes.     We  find  in  the  Old  Testament  no  deed  in 
human   life   like   the   Resurrection  of  Jesus   Christ, 
which  forms  an  article  of  faith  for  us.     And  so   it 
need  matter  little  that  for  Old  Testament  facts  we 
have  only  one  witness,  mostly,  who  may  have  lived 
long  after  the  events  he  narrates.     It  is  the  general 
outline  of  Old  Testament  history  which  is  of  spiritual 
importance,   and  this   we   can    trace  with   sufficient 
definiteness,  though   the  details   may   be  uncertain. 
Similarly  in  regard  to  the   Old  Testament  Canon, 
there   is    much   greater   uncertainty  as   to   its   con 
tents.     We  cannot  say  that   the   Christian    Church 
formed    an    independent    judgment    about    it,    nor 
indeed    that    she    had    qualifications    for   so    doing. 
She  accepted  the  judgment  of  the  Jewish  Church. 


1 84  INSPIRATION 

Now,  we  might  almost  say  the  Jewish  Church  gave 
two  judgments,  though  no  doubt  one  of  the  two, 
the  Hebrew  as  distinct  from  the  Hellenistic,  is  the 
more  authoritative.  It  is  pretty  clear  that  the  Canon 
of  the  Old  Testament  was  gradually  built  up.  The 
three  volumes  of  the  Old  Testament — the  Law,  the 
Prophets,  and  the  Writings — were  probably  three 
separate  stages  in  its  growth.  It  was  practically 
complete  before  the  coming  of  the  Lord — how  much 
before,  whether  a  hundred  years  or  more,  we  cannot 
certainly  say.  It  was  not,  probably,  finally  and 
formally  settled  till  some  Rabbinical  meetings  at 
Jannea,  circa  loo  A.D.  We  should  observe  that  the 
light  of  the  Jewish  Church  had  been  put  out  before 
she  finally  decided  on  her  lamp.  It  is  a  dying  Church, 
or  rather,  a  dead  Church,  which  finally  admits  certain 
books  of  the  Old  Testament  into  the  Canon.  It  is 
idle  to  say  that  we  ought  to  receive  with  an  un 
questioning  faith  decisions  of  Scribes  and  Pharisees 
who  rejected  Christ.  The  books  doubted  in  our 
Lord's  time  were  three  only — Esther,  Ecclesiastes, 
and  Song  of  Songs — and  our  use  of  them  reflects 
the  doubts  felt  in  early  times.  They  were  not,  to  use 
Luther's  phrase,  "of  the  true  marrow  and  kernel  of 
the  Old  Testament  Scriptures." 

Our  conclusion,  having  regard  to  all  the  historical 
facts,  is  this :  the  formation  of  the  Canon,  whether 
of  the  Old  or  New  Testaments,  is  a  work  of  man ; 
the  Church,  using  ordinary  human  means  of  informa 
tion,  decided  what  books  should  be  included  in  it. 
We  have  good  reason  for  believing  that  she  acted 
not  without  Divine  help  and  guidance.  We  should 
hardly,  however,  be  able  to  say  that  she  was  specially 


INSPIRATION  185 

inspired  to  come  to  a  right  conclusion.  We  find  good 
reasons  for  acquiescing  in  her  judgment  as  a  whole, 
but  we  cannot  claim  infallible  certainty  for  it.  There 
came  no  voice  of  God  from  heaven  to  tell  men  the 
names  and  numbers  of  the  books  which  contain  His 
Divine  Word. 

There  is  a  certain,  though  not  very  considerable, 
element  of  uncertainty  in  regard  to  the  books  of  the 
Bible,  and  the  same  is  true  in  regard  to  the  text. 
The  ipsissima  verba  of  the  Sacred  writings  are  not 
now  in  our  possession.  We  have  no  original  auto 
graphs  of  Law,  Prophecy,  Gospel  or  Epistle,  or  even 
of  the  smallest  portion  of  them.  Our  earliest  Greek 
manuscripts  are  about  three  centuries  after  New 
Testament  times  and  our  earliest  Hebrew  manu 
scripts  are  later  by  at  least  one  thousand  years  than 
any  of  the  Old  Testament  books.  There  has  certainly 
been  no  miraculous  preservation  of  the  sacred  manu 
scripts  from  the  textual  corruptions  which  naturally 
arise  in  the  course  of  centuries  from  transmission 
through  human  hands. 

Now  it  is  quite  easy  for  us  to  imagine  a  way  in 
which  these  corruptions  could  have  been  avoided. 
The  sacred  writings  might  have  been  engraved  on 
rocks,  even  as  Job  wished  his  words  might  be,  as 
we  know  the  ancient  records  of  other  nations  actually 
were.  God  did  not  order  that  so  it  should  be.  There 
is  no  reason  to  suppose,  in  the  New  Testament  at 
least,  that  the  text  has  materially  suffered.  The 
various  readings  may  indeed  be  numbered  by  tens 
of  thousands.  But  it  is  said  that  the  worst  manu 
script  does  not  differ  substantially  from  the  best, 
and  that  it  represents  with  practical  sufficiency  the 


186  INSPIRATION 

truth  of  the  Divine  Revelation.     Still  there  is  a  great 
difference  between  verbal  accuracy  and  practical  suffi 
ciency.     In  the  Hebrew  text  of  the  Old  Testament 
it  is  impossible  to  speak  with  such  confidence.     The 
earliest  manuscripts  are  very  late  and  all  contain  one 
text.     The  Massorites  settled  the  Hebrew  text  some 
where  about  or  before  the  ninth  century  A.D.,  and 
all   varying  manuscripts  were  destroyed.     There  is 
little  doubt  that  the  Hebrew  text  is  corrupt  in  many 
places,  and  we  have  no  adequate  material  for  cor 
recting  it.     In  the  latter  part  of  the  history  of  the 
Hebrew  text  the  very  faults  of  the  Jewish  Church 
constituted  her  a  specially  trustworthy  guardian  of 
the  letter  of  Scripture,  and  we  know  that  the  text 
from  which  the  Septuagint  was  translated  was  sub 
stantially  though  not  identically  the  same  as  our  own. 
But  it  was  in  the  early  period  of  the  history  that 
important  corruptions  were  most  likely  to  arise,  and 
this  is  a  very  long  and  dark  age.    There  are  hundreds 
of  years  in  which  we  have  no  means  of  tracing  the 
history  of  the    tlebrew  text.     The  earliest  sources 
were,  during  this  time,  worked  up  into  the  books  as 
we  now  have  them.     There  seems  to  have  been  some 
editing  in  the  way  of  the  removal  of  archaic  forms 
and  expressions,  for  there  is  not  so  much  difference 
between  the  earliest  and  latest  Hebrew  as  we  should 
expect.     The  system  of  Hebrew  vocalization,  it   is 
thought,   was    gradually   developed ;    this    involved 
modifications  in  the  text.     Some  time  before  Christ, 
— we  know  nothing  of  the  cause  or  the  circumstances, 
• — the  Hebrews  changed  their  letters.    Transliteration 
was  likely  to  introduce  changes  of  greater  importance. 
On  the  whole,  the  long  dark  history  of  the  Hebrew 


INSPIRATION  187 

text  in  these  early  ages  forbids  us  to  lay  stress  on 
isolated  expressions  or  words  in  the  Old  Testament. 
We  have  no  works  of  Hebrew  Fathers  whose  quota 
tions  from  the  Old  Testament  help  us  to  correct  the 
manuscripts.  The  text  of  the  Septuagint  Version  is 
so  corrupt  that  it  fails  to  give  us  the  help  we  might 
have  hoped.  There  is  no  reason  to  believe  that  the 
corruptions  in  the  text  of  the  Old  Testament  inca 
pacitate  it  from  fulfiling  its  spiritual  office.  Still  we 
must  confess  the  Old  Testament  is  a  very  ancient 
book  whose  textual  history  cannot  be  written. 

In  view  of  all  these  facts  the  question  may  be 
reverently  asked,  "  If  it  had  been  of  practical  import 
ance  that  we  should  have  an  infallible  text  of  God's 
Revelation,  would  not  God  have  provided  means  for 
securing  it  to  us  ? "  Should  not  the  fact  that  He  has 
not  done  so  suggest  to  us  that  an  infallible  text  is  of 
no  great  practical  importance  ?  We  know  that  St. 
Paul  says,  "  The  letter  killeth,  but  the  Spirit  giveth 
life."  We  may  apply  the  principle  underlying  these 
words  in  a  practical  way.  We  observe  further  that 
when  greater  accuracy  was  needed  greater  accuracy 
was  preserved.  We  derive  general  lessons  mostly 
from  the  Old  Testament  ;  it  is  the  New  Testament 
which  teaches  us  lessons  of  a  particular  kind.  Each 
passage,  we  may  reasonably  hope,  comes  to  us  with  a 
text  sufficiently  accurate  for  the  fulfilment  of  God's 
gracious  purposes  to  us.  The  quotations  in  the  New 
Testament  from  the  Old  Testament  comfirm  us  in 
this  belief.  They  are  mostly  taken  from  a  very 
inaccurate  translation,  and,  speaking  generally,  verbal 
accuracy  in  quotation  did  not  seem  to  be  thought 
important.  The  same  lack  of  literal  accuracy  is 


i88  INSPIRATION 

discernible  in  the  quotations  from  the  New  Testa 
ment  in  the  early  Fathers,  and  they  use  the  Septua- 
gint  when  quoting  the  Old.  We  know,  further,  that 
the  vast  majority  of  the  members  of  the  Church 
throughout  the  world  must  read  their  Bible  in  a 
translation.  There  is  no  infallibility  in  a  translator. 


XVII 

THE  IMPERFECTIONS  AND  ERRORS  OF  HOLY 
SCRIPTURE 

WE  claim  to  have  proved  that  the  Bible,  though 
thoroughly  Divine,  is  thoroughly  human  also 
From  all  of  its  parts  we  hear  God's  voice  speaking 
to  us,  but  everywhere  we  see  also  the  hand  of  man. 
And  it  is  impossible  for  us  to  separate  the  Divine 
and  the  human  portions.  We  could  not  purify  the 
Bible,  so  to  speak,  from  its  human  elements.  The 
human  is  the  vehicle  of  the  Divine. 

The  Bible  has  indeed  the  nature  of  a  Sacrament. 
It  has  an  outward  and  visible  part  as  well  as  an  inward 
and  spiritual  grace,  and  the  outward  part  is  the 
means  whereby  we  receive  the  grace.  Or  to  put  it 
in  another  way,  the  Divine  and  the  human  in  the 
Bible  are  the  soul  and  body  of  one  living  thing.  To 
take  away  the  body  is  to  take  away  the  means  of 
communication  with  the  Spirit.  We  cannot  ordinarily, 
though  the  spiritualists  may  deny  the  fact,  hold 
communication  with  the  dead. 

Now  if  we  go  thus  far  and  admit  an  essentially 
human  character  in  the  Bible,  we  must  not  retract 
our  admission  and  deny  the  existence  in  it  of  the 
properties  of  human  character.  Man  being  man  is 
capable  of  being  deceived  and  is  liable  to  mistake-. 

189 


INSPIRATION 

Infallibility  and  inerrancy  are  impossible  to  man.  We 
naturally  recoil  from  this  conclusion.  Can  it  be  that 
there  is  anything  which  could  be  called  a  mistake 
in  the  Word  of  God  ?  In  the  Word  of  God  pure  and 
simple  there  can  be  no  mistake.  But  of  such  man 
has  and  can  have  no  cognizance.  It  would  be  seeing 
the  invisible.  It  is  the  Word  of  God  conceived  in 
human  thought,  expressed  in  human  words,  taught 
by  human  teachers,  transmitted  through  human 
hands,  that  comes  to  us.  As  well,  it  has  been  said, 
might  a  man  claim  to  be  immortal  in  his  body  as 
infallible  in  his  mind.  The  book  which  is  a  true 
product  of  the  human  mind  must  reflect  human 
limitations  and  imperfections. 

It  is  a  trial  of  our  faith  to  find  anything  like 
inperfection  in  the  Bible.  But  it  is  well  worth 
noticing  that  the  contemporaries  of  our  Lord's  human 
life  and  many  in  later  centuries  had  a  similar  trial 
to  bear.  "  Could,"  men  asked,  "  the  Almighty  Son  of 
God  have  really  submitted  Himself  to  the  limitations, 
the  sufferings,  the  humiliations  inherent  in  creaturely 
existence?"  Many  replied,  "No,  His  Body  was  not 
altogether  like  ours,  it  came  from  a  different  source, 
it  was  made  of  a  different  kind  of  stuff.  Its  needs 
and  sufferings  were  only  in  appearance.  The  Lord's 
life  was  a  drama,  not  a  reality."  Terrible  would  be 
the  loss  to  us  all  if  such  were  the  case.  We  should 
lose  our  brotherhood  with  the  Son  of  God.  We 
could  not  be  assured  of  His  sympathy.  The  example 
for  human  life  would  disappear,  and  what  would 
become  of  the  Sacrifice  of  the  Cross  ?  Docetism 
destroys  our  Holy  Faith,  let  us  beware  of  introducing 
it  into  the  Bible.  Those  who  believe  that  our 


INSPIRATION  191 

Lord  was  true  man,  and  therefore  weak  man,  should 
not  stagger  at  the  Bible's  true  humanity  or  at  the 
imperfections  which  its  humanity  involves. 

"But  where  are  these  imperfections  and  mis 
takes  ?  "  it  may  be  asked.  "  It  is  of  no  use  arguing  in 
an  a  priori  way  ;  prove  that  they  actually  exist." 

Before  we  endeavour  to  do  this  it  may  be  well  to 
make  some  general  remarks.  It  might  be  regarded 
as  a  piece  of  gross  ingratitude  in  a  man  to  point  out 
imperfections  in  that  great  gift  of  God  to  him — the 
written  record  of  His  Revelation.  But  it  will  be 
admitted  that  it  is  man's  duty  to  scrutinize  the 
Divine  gift,  otherwise  he  will  be  likely  to  use  it  in 
a  wrong  way.  No  one  would  deny  that  the  Bible 
has  been  so  wrongly  used.  We  must  then  examine 
the  Bible  with  the  greatest  care.  But  can  we  do 
this  and  shut  our  eyes  to  the  results  of  the  examina 
tion  ?  Our  scrutiny  or  criticism,  it  must  always  be 
remembered,  does  not  refer  to  the  Divine  gift  itself, 
but  to  the  form  in  which  it  has  come  to  us. 

And  if  we  find  errors  and  imperfections,  we  shall  be 
so  far  from  mocking  at  the  errors  in  the  Divine  Revela 
tion,  that  we  shall  wonder  at  and  adore  the  mystery 
of  the  Divine  condescension.  It  is  beyond  our 
power  to  see  how  it  is  possible  for  God  to  co-operate 
with  weak  and  sinful  man,  yet,  we  see,  in  many  other 
spheres  of  the  Divine  workings  that  so  He  docs. 
There  are  other  Divine  condescensions  than  the 
temporary  condescension  of  the  Incarnation  ;  there 
is  the  continual  condescension  in  which  God  deigns 
to  allow  His  great  designs  to  be  disparaged  and 
delayed  and  spoilt  by  the  co-operation  of  men  not 
yet  fully  capable  workers,  not  yet  wholly  submissive 


192  INSPIRATION 

to  His  will.  It  is  because  our  Lord  humbled  Himself 
that  God  gave  Him  the  Name  which  is  above  every 
Name.  So  the  very  imperfections  of  Scripture  should 
be  its  glory  in  our  eyes. 

It  should  be  observed  that  we  have  no  means  of 
testing  the  greater  number  of  the  statements  of  a 
historical  nature  made  in  the  Bible.  It  is  only  oc 
casionally  that  we  can  test  it  by  the  records  of  other 
nations.  The  Bible  has,  however,  not  uncommonly 
two  (or  even  more  in  the  New  Testament)  records  of 
the  same  events.  We  can  compare  these  together, 
and  see  whether  they  are  consistent  the  one  with  the 
other.  It  is  from  such  cases  that  we  can  form  an 
opinion  of  the  general  character  of  the  narratives.  It 
is  not  at  all  necessary  for  our  purpose  to  prove  that 
mistakes  are  common  in  the  Bible.  One  undoubted 
mistake  would  deprive  it  of  the  character  of  iner 
rancy.  And  also  it  would  be  utterly  false  to  say 
that  the  Bible  is  full  of  errors  and  mistakes.  The 
Biblical  narratives  are,  considered  as  a  whole,  honest 
and  trustworthy.  We  can  see  that  they  are  truthlike 
even  when  we  cannot  prove  them  to  be  truthful.  The 
Old  Testament  historians  are  keenly  conscious  of  the 
natural  faults,  and  in  particular  of  the  faults  of  great 
Israelites.  They  mourn  over  Israel,  they  glorify 
God.  It  may  be  too  much  to  say  that  they  are  free 
from  national  bias ;  it  would  be  utterly  false  to  say 
that  their  patriotism  caused  them  to  distort  the  truth. 
The  Old  Testament  writers,  we  believe,  give  a  faith 
ful  and  true  account  of  the  history  of  their  nation,  but 
it  will  be  readily  acknowledged  that  honesty  and 
reliability  are  not  equivalent  to  perfection  and  in 
fallibility. 


INSPIRATION  193 

The  Old  Testament  may  fairly  be  called  a  history 
of  the  chosen  people  of  God.  Could  we  say  that  it 
was  perfect  as  such  ?  It  is,  of  course,  very  brief,  and 
briefness  is  something  of  a  defect.  But  do  the  writers 
use  their  space  to  the  best  purpose?  We  can  hardly 
deny  that  events  unimportant  from  an  historical  point 
of  view  are  treated  at  times  with  great  fulness,  whilst 
great  national  crises  are  very  slightly  noticed.  How 
little  we  know  of  the  hundreds  of  years  of  the 
Israelitish  sojourn  in  Egypt !  Who  could  write  any 
account  of  those  seventy  years  of  the  Babylonion 
captivity  which  wrought  such  a  great  change  in  the 
spirit  of  the  chosen  people?  How  meagre  is  the 
account  of  that  greatest  of  centuries  in  Israel's 
history,  the  eighth  century  B.C.,  and  of  those  great 
kings,  Jeroboam  II.  of  Israel,  and  Uzziah  of  Judah! 
What  account  is  given  to  us  of  the  rise  of  the 
canonical  prophets?  We  must  admit  that  there  is 
an  absence  of  political  sagacity  in  the  historians. 
The  changes  in  the  balance  of  power,  the  rise  of 
world-empires  as  Assyria  and  Babylon — events  from 
a  political  point  of  view  of  vital  importance  in  Israel's 
history  —  are  never  noticed.  Old  Testament  his 
torians  discern  God  at  work  so  clearly  that  they 
hardly  notice  His  workmen,  and,  from  the  gaps  of 
the  history  we  may  reasonably  assume  that  very  often 
their  materials  were  deficient. 

There  is,  again,  a  defect  in  Old  Testament  his 
tories  very  natural  to  the  rudeness  and  simplicity  of 
the  times.  They  are  written  on  the  principle  of 
making  some  person  or  some  institution  the  centre 
of  the  narrative.  They  mention  the  facts  which 
circle  round  this  man  or  thing  and  leave  the  others 

O 


194  INSPIRATION 

out.  Consequently  they  are  both  narrow  in  plan  and 
defective  in  information.  They  do  not,  like  modern 
histories,  take  a  broad  and  complete  survey  of  the 
whole  nation ;  they  regard  it  from  a  single  point  of 
view.  Thus  the  narratives  have  a  partial  character. 
To  take  examples :  In  some  books  we  have  nothing 
about  the  priests  or  the  law  (Judges,  Samuel,  and 
even  Kings) ;  in  others  (Chronicles)  these  have  undue 
importance.  The  history  of  Judges  is  a  constant 
succession  of  falls  into  idolatry.  In  Samuel,  after 
Samuel's  reformation,  idolatry  is  hardly  mentioned. 
In  consequence,  we  are  left  in  complete  ignorance  of 
important  elements  in  Israel's  history.  To  argue 
that  the  author  knows  nothing,  because  he  says 
nothing  of  some  particular  thing,  is,  in  regard  to  the 
Old  Testament,  utterly  fallacious.  The  Old  Testa 
ment  authors  do  not  take  wide  general  views,  they 
do  not  write  chapters  describing  the  different  elements 
of  natural  life.  Their  narratives  serve  doubtless  the 
spiritual  purposes  for  which  they  are  designed.  But, 
considered  as  historical  records,  they  are  full  of 
defects. 

But  there  are  also  errors  of  statement  to  be  found 
in  Holy  Scripture.  Take  the  great  instance  of  the 
numbers  given  in  Scripture. 

We  cannot  read  the  Scriptures  carefully  without 
discovering  that  the  Semitic  mind  is  not  numerical 
or  chronological — that  it  is  deficient  in  its  computa 
tions  of  numbers  and  in  its  sense  of  the  order  of  time. 
It  is  quite  natural  that  it  should  be  so  ;  though  we 
can  think  in  hundreds  of  millions,  savages  can  only 
think  in  tens.  This  deficiency  is  to  be  discerned  in 
both  the  Old  and  New  Testament.  In  the  latter, 


INSPIRATION  195 

indeed,  because  all  the  facts  refer  to  a  single  genera 
tion,  the  limits  of  error  are  small  and  of  little  im 
portance.  But  who,  even  with  the  aid  of  contemporary 
history,  can  give  a  system  of  chronology  to  the  Acts  ? 
What  is  the  date  of  our  Lord's  birth  or  of  His  cruci 
fixion  ?  The  Gospels  are  so  deficient  in  notes  of 
time  that  we  do  not  know  how  long  our  Lord's 
ministry  lasted.  But  for  St.  John  we  might  have 
supposed  that  it  lasted  only  one  year.  Moreover, 
the  order  of  the  events  in  the  Divine  life  is  very 
uncertain.  The  sequence  of  events  in  the  Gospels 
is  moral,  we  are  told  ;  that  is  to  say  it  is  regardless  of 
time.  The  chronology  of  the  New  Testament  is,  we 
must  acknowledge,  very  imperfect,  so  imperfect  that 
it  tends  to  cause  mistakes  though  itself  may  contain 
none. 

The  case  is  much  worse  in  the  Old  Testament. 
We  have  probably  still  Bibles  in  our  possession  which 
place  B.C.  4004  opposite  the  first  verse  of  Genesis. 
This  date  is  an  inference  of  Archbishop  Usher,  and 
the  Bible  is  not  altogether  responsible  for  it.  But  if 
the  week  of  Creation  is  a  week  of  seven  days,  as  the 
letter  of  the  Bible  seems  to  assert,  that  date  is  a 
reasonable  though  not  a  certain  deduction  from  the 
Biblical  statements.  If,  however,  we  take  the  days 
of  Creation  as  unknown  periods  of  time;  this  leaves 
us  with  the  view  that  the  life  of  man  upon  this  earth 
had  lasted  only  some  four  thousand  years  when 
Christ  was  born.  The  different  computations  made 
by  other  chronologists,  and  the  different  numbers 
found  in  the  Versions,  increase  this  number  some 
what  But  if  it  is  asserted  that  man's  life  had  lasted 
even  six  or  seven  thousand  years,  it  is  hardly  to 


196  INSPIRATION 

much  to  say  that  this  is  an  erroneous  statement. 
There  is  a  consensus  of  testimony  that  man  had 
existed  on  the  earth  for  a  much  longer  period. 
Egyptian  remains,  says  Mr.  Curtis,  in  Hastings' 
"Dictionary,"  point  to  a  civilization  whose  begin 
nings  were  not  later  than  5000  B.C.  (the  word 
"civilization"  should  be  noted  in  this  statement), 
and  very  likely  millenniums  earlier. 

Passing  on,  the  chronological  notices  in  the 
earlier  books  of  the  Bible  are  meagre.  The  books 
are  written  on  chronological  lines.  But  there  is  a 
notice  in  Kings,*  which  enabled  Archbishop  Usher 
to  give  1491  for  the  date  of  the  Exodus.  Modern 
discoveries  throw  great  doubt  on  this  date.  We 
certainly  do  not  know  accurately  the  date  of  the 
year  of  Solomon  from  which  the  four  hundred  and 
eighty  years  are  reckoned.  Probably  it  was  later 
than  Usher,  following  the  Bible,  makes  it.  This  is 
not  an  important  source  of  error.  But  were  there 
four  hundred  and  eighty  years  between  Solomon  and 
the  Exodus?  We  observe  that  four  hundred  and 
eighty  years  is  a  round  number  (twelve  times  forty), 
and  forty  years  is  a  common  phrase  in  the  Bible, 
meaning,  probably,  not  a  definite  number  of  years, 
but  simply  a  long  time,  a  generation  perhaps.  So 
four  hundred  and  eighty  years,  though  it  seems  to 
be  a  particular  number,  is  probably  only  a  general 
one.  Also,  if  we  may  follow  the  guidance  of  Egyptian 
history,  1300  B.C.  is  more  nearly  the  date  for  the 
Exodus  than  1491  B.C.  The  Egyptian  history  of 
the  Pharaohs  of  the  nineteenth  dynasty  illustrates 
the  Biblical  narrative,  and  tends  to  show  its  historical 

*  I  Kings  vi.  I. 


INSPIRATION  197 

truth.  That  dynasty  reigned  in  the  fourteenth  and 
thirteenth  centuries  B.C. 

The  first  book  in  the  Bible  written  on  chrono 
logical  lines  is  the  Book  of  Kings.  We  are  able  to 
compare  the  different  chronological  notices  contained 
in  it,  and  see  whether  they  are  self-consistent.  We 
can  also  compare  the  chronology  of  the  chosen  people 
with  those  of  foreign  nations,  and  in  particular,  Assyria, 
and  see  whether  it  agrees  with  them.  The  result  of 
these  comparisons  shows  that  the  chronology  of  Kings 
is  full  of  errors. 

It  is  composed  on  a  bad  system — a  system  which 
makes  minute  accuracy  impossible.  It  does  not  date 
events  from  an  epoch,  nor  does  its  history  take  the 
form  of  annals.  It  reckons  by  years,  and  disregards 
months.  We  do  not  know  whether  it  reckons  the 
reigns  of  the  kings  from  the  accession,  or  from  the 
first  day  of  the  following  calendar  year. 

There  are  two  systems  in  Kings,  based  on  the 
years  of  the  reigns  of  the  kings  of  Northern  and 
Southern  Israel  respectively.  These  two  systems 
are  inconsistent  with  themselves,  and  with  each  other. 
Any  commentary  will  show  the  truth  of  this. 

The  Biblical  dates,  when  compared  with  those 
derived  from  foreign  sources,  in  particular  the 
Assyrian  Canon,  do  not  generally  agree.  Biblical 
chronology  is  always  earlier  than  Assyrian  till  the 
date  of  the  fall  of  the  Northern  kingdom.  The 
Assyrian  is  to  be  preferred  to  the  Biblical,  because 
it  is  drawn  up  on  a  better  system.  The  events  of 
each  year  are  placed  under  the  year,  each  year  having 
a  name  of  its  own.  The  year  of  a  total  eclipse 
settles  the  dates  of  the  rest,  and  we  can  trace  the 


198  INSPIRATION 

chronology  continuously  to  established  dates.  Most 
certainly  the  superiority  of  the  Bible  to  other  ancient 
records  is  not  to  be  found  in  its  chronology.  Other 
numbers  in  the  Old  Testament  are  similarly  faulty. 
The  numbers  of  the  children  of  Israel  cause  great 
difficulty  from  the  Exodus  to  the  Babylonian  captivity. 
They  imply  that  Israel  was  a  nation  numbering  from 
three  millions  in  the  desert  to  ten  millions  in  the 
time  of  the  kingdom.  Now  Palestine  west  of  the 
Jordan  is  about  the  size  of  Wales,  and  Eastern 
Palestine  is  two-thirds  that  size  ;  but  very  seldom 
were  the  chosen  people  in  full  possession  of  their 
land.  It  may  be  doubted  whether  the  land  near  the 
coast  of  the  Mediterranean  was  ever  theirs.  There 
was,  besides,  a  great  deal  of  barren  land,  and  still 
more  of  land  unfit  for  corn-growing.  It  is  difficult 
to  see  how  the  land  of  Israel  could  support  so  many 
people,  and  yet  it  was  a  food  and,  in  particular,  corn- 
exporting  country,  as  we  see  from  the  trade  with 
Tyre  in  Solomon's  time.  If  we  consider  the  territory 
of  Judah  only,  the  case  is  still  more  difficult.  The 
kingdom  of  Judah  was  about  the  size  of  Norfolk, 
but  Philistia,  a  part  of  it,  was  never  effectively 
occupied,  and  one-third  of  the  whole  was  wilderness. 
How  could  such  a  kingdom  have  an  army  of  over 
a  million,  as  in  Jehoshaphat's  time,  or  even  of  half  a 
million,  as  stated  in  the  account  of  David's  census  ? 
The  numbers  of  captives  taken  to  Babylon,  and  of 
exiles  returning  from  it,  are  much  more  reasonable. 
Tens  of  thousands  take  the  place  of  hundreds  of 
thousands.  It  is  worth  noticing  that  the  same 
excessive  numbers  are  to  be  found  in  the  history 
of  Josephus.  Travellers  say  that  Jerusalem  could 


INSPIRATION  199 

not  have  found  standing  ground  for  the  numbers  he 
says  attended  the  feasts,  or  were  hemmed  in  by  Titus 
during  the  siege.  It  is  plain  also  that  many  other 
numbers  in  the  Bible  cannot  be  defended,  and,  in 
particular,  the  numbers  of  Chronicles. 

There  is  no  battle  in  the  history  of  the  world 
comparable  in  numbers  to  the  first  battle  between 
the  rival  kingdoms  of  North  and  South.*  Four 
hundred  thousand  Judahites  meet  eight  hundred 
thousand  Israelites,  and  kill  five  hundred  thousand 
of  them.  The  defeated  nation,  so  far  from  being 
crushed  by  this  blow,  is  within  twenty  years  so  much 
stronger  than  the  victorious  nation  that  the  latter  has 
to  call  in  foreign  aid  against  it. 

Again,  the  gold  and  silver  laid  up  by  David  for 
the  building  of  the  temple  is  inconceivably  great. 
The  chronicler  makes  David  say,  "  Now,  behold  in  my 
affliction  I  have  prepared  for  the  house  of  the  Lord  an 
hundred  thousand  talents  of  gold,  and  a  thousand 
thousand  talents  of  silver."  t  There  are  good  reasons 
for  identifying  the  Hebrew  talent  with  the  Babylonian. 
The  Babylonian  talent  of  gold  being  worth  £6000, 
and  the  talent  of  silver  over  £400,  David's  treasure 
would  amount  to  six  hundred  millions  in  gold,  and 
four  hundred  millions  in  silver.  A  tenth  part  of  this 
money  seems  more  than  David  could  possibly  have 
accumulated. 

Numbers  are  no  doubt  specially  liable  to  corruption 
in  transmission,  but  corruptions  of  the  text  could  not 
account  for  the  numerical  difficulties  of  the  Bible. 
Biblical  numbers  are  systematically  extravagant. 

And   errors   in   the    Bible    are   not   confined    to 
*  2  Chron.  xiii.  f  I  Chron.  xxii.  14. 


200  INSPIRATION 

numbers.  It  is  probably  impossible  to  harmonize 
all  the  discrepancies  in  the  Evangelists.  These  dis 
crepancies  are  not  discoveries  of  modern  criticisms  ; 
they  were  discerned  by  Origen  seventeen  hundred 
years  ago,  and  he  was  convinced  they  could  not  be 
literally  or  historically  explained.*  They  are  slight 
and  unimportant ;  they  are  natural ;  they  tend,  rightly 
considered,  to  our  confirmation  in  the  truth  of  the 
gospel,  for  they  show  that  the  Evangelists  were  in 
dependent  witnesses,  but  it  can  hardly  be  denied  that 
they  exist.  What  words  were  written  on  the  cross  ? 
The  Evangelists  give  us  four  forms.  What  was  the 
question  our  Lord  asked  the  ruler  ?  Was  it  as 
St.  Matthew  says,  "  Why  askest  thou  Me  concerning 
that  which  is  good  ? "  or  as  St.  Mark,  "  Why  callest 
thou  Me  good  ?  "  What  was  the  exact  day  and  hour 
of  the  Crucifixion?  Can  we  reconcile  the  different 
accounts  of  the  Resurrection  ?  The  Evangelists 
differ  as  independent  witnesses  are  wont  to  differ. 
If  they  had  not  differed  we  could  not  have  main 
tained  their  independence.  Again,  St.  Matthew 
quotes  the  passage  of  Zechariah  about  the  thirty 
pieces  of  silver  as  spoken  by  Jeremiah  the  prophet. 
Can  we  accept  St.  Augustine's  explanation  that  St. 
Matthew  was  inspired  to  write  Jeremiah  instead  of 
Zechariah,  to  show  the  agreement  of  the  prophets  ? 
St.  Mark  makes  a  similar  error  when  in  the  first 
words  of  his  Gospel  he  quotes  a  passage  partly  from 
Isaiah  and  partly  from  Malachi,  as  if  it  were  Isaiah's 
alone.  A  later  scribe  saw  his  error,  and  corrected  it. 
Similar  instances  of  error  could  be  multiplied  from 
the  Old  Testament,  but  it  is  needless  to  quote  them. 
*  "  Comment,  on  John,"  book  x.  2,  3,  4. 


INSPIRATION  201 

Unimportant  as  they  are,  their  inconsistency  with 
the  theory  that  the  Divine  Inspiration  exempts  Holy 
Scripture  from  all,  even  the  slightest,  errors,  leads 
us  on  to  consider  how  we  should  use  and  interpret 
Holy  Scripture.  It  is  a  matter  of  faith  to  us  to 
acknowledge  that  Holy  Scripture  is  a  guide  to  our 
feet  and  a  light  to  our  paths.  If  we  followed  its 
spiritual  teaching  we  should  not  err  from  God's 
ways.  But  what  is  its  teaching  ?  Is  it  to  be  found 
in  every  text?  Every  heresy  has  been  able  to 
appeal  to  some  Scriptural  text.  Must  every  precept 
in  Scripture  be  obeyed  ?  Some  have  thought  so, 
and  have  committed  those  terrible  crimes  which  dis 
grace  the  Christian  name.  Take  for  example,  that 
precept,  "  Thou  shalt  not  suffer  a  witch  to  live."  In 
obedience  to  it  how  much  innocent  blood  has  been 
shed  ?  And  we  may  fairly  say  that  that  blood  was 
shed  not  because  of  the  mal-administration  of  a  good 
law,  but  in  the  administration  of  a  law  which  was 
not  good.  Wesley  said,  to  give  up  a  belief  in 
witchcraft  was  to  give  up  the  Bible.  Are  we  pre 
pared  to  accept  the  dilemma?  It  is  the  spirit,  not 
the  letter,  of  Scripture  which  is  our  spiritual  guide 
and  light.  If  it  is  to  direct  us  in  the  right  way  we 
must  not  only  read  and  mark,  but  inwardly  digest  it. 
Holy  Scripture  does  not  contain  a  code  of  laws  which 
give  definite  instructions  for  all  possible  emergencies, 
like  the  traditions  of  the  scribes,  but  it  contains 
principles  which,  under  the  guidance  of  the  Spirit,  we 
apply  to  our  own  particular  circumstances.  It  is  a 
gross  superstition  to  open  the  pages  of  Scripture,  as 
Wesley  and  others  did,  and  take  our  guidance  from  the 
first  words  we  see.  Bishop  Westcott,in  his  "  Revelation 


202  INSPIRATION 

of  the  Father,"  says :  "  No  doubt  we  have  often 
used  the  Scriptures  for  purposes  for  which  they  were 
not  designed.  We  have  treated  them  too  often  as 
the  one  mechanical  utterance  of  the  Spirit,  and  not 
as  writings  through  which  the  Spirit  Himself  still 
speaks." 

The  Book  of  Job  illustrates  admirably  the  truth 
of  Bishop  Westcott's  words.  That  book  is,  all  would 
acknowledge,  not  only  of  great  poetic  beauty,  but  also 
of  great  spiritual  value.  Nevertheless,  how  dangerous 
it  would  be  for  any  one  to  give  what  is  called  a  Scrip 
tural  proof  from  the  Book  of  Job.  The  three  friends 
whose  speeches  it  records  did  not,  we  know,  speak 
the  thing  which  was  right  as  Job  did.  Their  speeches 
plainly  do  not  contain  infallible  truth.  Job,  though 
right  comparatively  with  the  three  friends,  spake  un 
advisedly  with  his  lips,  and  inpugned  the  justice  and 
love  of  God.  All  that  he  said  was  not  true.  Would 
it  be  reasonable  to  affirm  that  Elihu's  words  differed 
essentially  from  those  of  others  ?  Job  is,  we  may 
suppose,  a  dramatic  poem,  and  its  author  represents 
the  Lord  as  giving  the  solution  of  the  problem  of 
suffering  which  the  book  proposes.  When  we  read 
the  words  put  into  the  Lord's  mouth,  we  know  that 
they  do  not  express  the  full  truth  on  the  matter. 
The  Lord  had  many  things  to  say  on  "suffering" 
which  men  could  not  bear  at  that  time.  The  problem 
of  suffering  is  not  wholly  solved  to  us,  but  the  funda 
mental  principles  which  govern  its  solution  had  not 
been  fully  revealed  to  any  of  mankind  when  Job 
lived.  How  could  the  problem  of  suffering  be  solved 
before  the  Life,  the  Death,  and  the  Resurrection  of 
Jesus  Christ? 


INSPIRATION  203 

It  is  a  well-known  fact  that  we  learn  most  from 
our  mistakes ;  so  we  learn  most  important  lessons 
from  Job's  mistakes.  The  Inspiration  of  the  book 
we  discern  in  its  general  instructiveness.  It  does  not 
consist  in  the  infallible  truth  of  each  sentence  or 
argument.  Job  is,  to  use  again  Bishop  Westcott's 
phrase,  no  "  mechanical  utterance  of  the  Spirit."  Its 
several  statements  and  arguments  are  not  free  from 
error,  but  it  is  a  writing  through  which  the  Spirit 
Himself  still  speaks  to  us.  It  describes  with  Divine 
power  the  sufferings  of  a  human  soul  which,  after 
many  an  impatient  struggle  and  unbelieving  com 
plaint,  found  its  rest  in  the  bosom  of  God. 

We  have  already  seen  that  we  must  regard  the 
Psalms  in  a  similar  way.  Not  every  statement  in 
the  Psalms  is  an  infallible  truth,  nor  is  every  wish  a 
godly  wish.  The  Psalmists  in  their  utterances  are 
set  for  our  warning  as  well  as  for  our  example.  God 
teaches  us  through  them  sometimes  what  we  ought 
not  to  say  or  feel.  The  Book  of  Ecclesiastes  must  be 
regarded  in  a  similar  way. 

And  the  principles  which  apply  so  clearly  to  the 
books  mentioned  apply  also  to  the  rest  of  the  Old 
Testament  books,  and  in  some  degree,  to  the  New 
Testament  books  as  well.  The  Old  Testament  books 
generally  give  us  examples  of  spiritual  life  from  men 
who  lived  and  died  in  faith.  They  are  recorded  for 
our  instruction,  and  for  our  warning  also,  but  not  for 
our  indiscriminate  imitation.  We  must  not,  like  the 
Puritans,  claim  the  Israelites  as  our  authority  for 
exterminating  our  enemies,  even  though  we  regard 
them  with  truth  as  the  enemies  of  the  Lord.  We 
mui>t  not  hew  captured  foes  in  pieces,  like  Samuel 


204  INSPIRATION 

What  Old  Testament  saints  or  New  Testament 
apostles  did  was  not  always  ideally  right ;  what  they 
said  was  not  always  perfectly  true.  Their  lives  were 
not  perfect  models,  nor  were  their  words  positive 
laws  to  us.  We  Christians  know  only  one  perfect 
example,  and  one  infallible  teacher — even  Christ. 
And  yet  the  lives  and  words  of  the  saints  of  both 
covenants  are  so  set  forth  to  us,  under  the  direction 
of  the  Spirit,  that  they  are  teachers  sent  from  God, 
telling  us  what  to  believe  and  what  to  do.  If  how 
ever,  we  regard  them  as  infallible  teachers  of  truth,  or 
perfect  models  of  action,  we  shall  be  liable  to  hear 
our  Master's  voice  saying  to  us,  "  Ye  know  not  what 
manner  of  Spirit  ye  are  of." 


XVIII 

DEGREES  IN  INSPIRATION 

ARE  there  such  things  as  degrees  in  Inspiration  ? 
In  other  words,  have  some  of  the  books  or 
passages  in  the  Bible  more  of  the  Divine  in  them 
than  others  ?  It  is  plain  that  there  cannot  be  such 
things  as  degrees  in  infallibility.  Infallibility  is  an 
absolute  thing.  It  would  appear,  however,  for  various 
reasons,  that  some  parts  of  Scripture  have  more  of 
God  and  less  of  man,  more  of  perfection  and  less  of 
imperfection  than  others. 

The  sacred  writers  themselves  occasionally  recog 
nize  different  degrees  of  authority  in  their  own 
teachings.  We  know  that  St.  Paul  says  that  some 
ot  his  words  are  spoken  by  the  Lord,  some  by  him 
self  and  not  by  the  Lord.  He  speaks  some  things  by 
permission  and  not  by  commandment.  He  gives  his 
judgment,  not  as  an  inspired  Apostle,  but  as  one  that 
had  obtained  mercy  of  the  Lord  to  be  faithful. 

Sometimes  the  prophets  speak  of  the  Word  of  the 
Lord  as  coming  to  them  with  an  overpowering  force. 
For  example,  Jeremiah  *  describes  God's  Word  in 
his  heart  as  like  a  burning  fire  shut  up  in  his  bones. 
This  can  hardly  have  been  an  habitual  feeling. 

*  Jer.  xx.  9. 

205 


206  INSPIRATION 

Again,  the  inspiration  of  Moses  is  said  to  have  been 
greater  than  that  of  the  other  prophets.  Some  of 
the  sacred  writers,  on  the  other  hand,  do  not  seem  to 
be  conscious  of  any  special  Divine  power  working 
within  them.  They  make  no  claim  to  be  inspired, 
or  to  be  acting  on  any  express  command  of  God. 
They  were  simply  acting  under  His  general  guidance. 
There  is  a  great  difference  between  the  "  It  seemed 
good  to  me  "  of  St.  Luke,  in  the  preface  of  his  Gospel, 
and  the  peremptory  commission  of  the  prophets 
unwillingly  obeyed. 

In  accordance  with  these  facts,  we  find  that  not 
every  sentence  in  the  Bible  contains  a  Divine  revela 
tion  ;  and  more,  not  every  book  in  the  Bible  makes 
any  addition  to  the  Divine  Revelation.  There  are 
some  books  of  the  Bible  which  we  could  not  spare ; 
there  are  some,  also,  which  we  should  hardly  miss  if 
they  were  lost. 

It  is  plain,  further,  that  degrees  in  Inspiration  were 
recognized  in  the  Church,  both  of  the  Old  and  New 
Covenant.  The  Jewish  Church,  rightly  or  wrongly, 
regarded  the  Law  as  the  fundamental  revelation  of 
God.  The  Prophets  added  nothing  to  the  Law,  for 
there  was  nothing  to  add.  The  Law  was  the  Divine 
text,  the  Prophets  the  comment  upon  it. 

Some  of  the  Fathers,  also,  recognized  differences 
between  the  canonical  books,  and  placed  them  in 
different  classes.  Some  of  them,  again,  gave  pre 
eminence  to  the  words  of  Christ.  Origen,  on  the 
contrary,  thought  that  the  words  of  the  Evangelists 
had  less  authority  than  those  which  were  introduced 
by  "  Thus  saith  the  Lord." 

Philo  said  there  were  three  different  degrees  of 


INSPIRATION  207 

Inspiration.  The  first  degree  was  when  God  spake 
and  the  prophet  was  His  interpreter,  or  mouthpiece  ; 
the  second,  when  God  and  the  prophet  spake  alter 
nately  ;  the  third,  when  the  prophet  spake  entirely 
possessed  by  the  Divine  Spirit.  Philo  believed  that 
the  less  of  the  human  mind  there  was  in  any  Divine 
word,  the  higher  was  its  inspiration. 

Now,  these  various  discriminations  in  regard  to 
inspired  words  may  or  may  not  be  true  and  accu 
rate;  at  least  they  prove  that  the  idea  of  degrees  in 
Inspiration  was  familiar  to  early  teachers,  Jewish  or 
Christian. 

The  teaching  of  the  Bible  in  regard  to  spiritual 
gifts  leads  us  to  the  same  conclusion.  We  know  that 
there  is  one  Spirit,  but  that  there  are  many  different 
\apia/j.aTa.  These  -^apLafiaTd  are  not  all  of  the  same 
value,  they  cannot  all  be  called  "the  best  gifts."  We 
find  also  various  phrases,  such  as  "  filled  with  the 
Spirit,"  "  giveth  the  Spirit  by  measure,"  and  others, 
which  suggest  greater  or  less  outpourings  of  the 
Spirit ;  and  we  know  also  that  the  Spirit  divides 
His  gifts,  "  severally  as  He  will."  It  seems  reasonable 
to  infer  that  not  all  kinds  of  Inspiration  are  equal.  The 
Apostle  and  Prophet  were  both  inspired  teachers 
but  the  inspiration  of  the  Apostle  was  higher  than 
that  of  the  Prophet  This  does  not  prove  that  the 
writers  of  the  different  sacred  books  had  different 
degrees  of  inspiration,  but  it  inclines  us  to  believe  it. 

And  the  analogy  of  God's  dealings  leads  us  to 
expect  it.  In  God's  universe  we  never  find  a  dead 
level  of  equality.  The  statement,  "  All  men  are  equal," 
is  belied  by  experience.  As  a  matter  of  fact,  all  men 
differ  in  gifts,  and  also  in  their  appropriation  of  them. 


208  INSPIRATION 

Things  of  pre-eminent  excellence  imply  the  existence 
of  things  not  quite  so  good.  Men  do  not  rise  by 
leaps,  but  rather  by  steps.  There  is  a  gradual  ascent 
to  the  highest  points.  The  works  of  genius  differ 
from  those  of  the  ordinary  kind  as  cream  from  milk. 
Without  the  milk  there  could  not  be  the  cream.  Man 
is  a  member  of  a  body.  Abnormal  power  in  a  single 
faculty  cannot  be  utilized.  In  harmony  with  all 
this,  we  find  in  the  Bible  not  only  prophets,  but  a 
prophetical  class.  The  prophets  of  supreme  prophetical 
power  are  heads  of  schools. 

The  Apostles  themselves,  though  on  all  of  them 
the  Spirit  came  with  power,  were  obviously  un 
equal  in  spiritual  things,  they  were  unequal  even  in 
their  grasp  of  the  great  principles  of  the  gospel 
of  Christ.  Also,  it  may  be  added,  the  Apostles 
were  not  always  equal  to  themselves.  There  is  the 
famous  example  of  St.  Peter's  dissimulation  at 
Antioch,  which  drew  down  St.  Paul's  stern  rebuke. 
And  as  for  St.  Paul  himself,  those  words  of  his,  "  I 
would  that  they  which  unsettle  you  would  even  cut 
themselves  off,"  do  not  breathe  the  Spirit  of  Christ  in 
its  purest  and  highest  form.  They  are  very  different 
from  other  words  in  his  Epistle  to  the  Romans, 
spoken,  we  may  notice,  of  almost  the  same  class  of 
persons,  "  I  could  wish  that  I  myself  were  anathema 
from  Christ  for  my  brethren's  sake."  He  was  willing 
himself  to  be  anathema  for  the  Jews,  whilst  he  wishes 
the  Judaizers  to  anathematize  themselves.  Can  these 
two  words  of  his  be  equally  inspired  by  the  Spirit  of 
God  ?  We  do  not  naturally  expect  equality  in  the 
distribution  of  God's  gifts.  We  may  confidently  say 
that,  as  a  matter  of  fact,  we  do  not  find  it  in  the 


INSPIRATION  209 

different  parts  of  Holy  Scripture.  The  books  of  the 
Bible  are  not  equally  full  of  Divine  teaching.  The 
Church's  use  of  Holy  Scripture  proves  this.  Christian 
people  recognize  in  a  practical  way  that  some  parts 
of  Holy  Scripture  contain  a  higher  measure  of  in 
spiration  than  others.  Christian  experience  marks 
out  a  Bible  within  a  Bible.  Now,  it  is  the  general 
consensus  which  gives  this  fact  its  importance.  The 
opinion  of  individuals  in  such  a  matter  has  little 
value.  Individuals  are  not  wont  to  hold  with  equal 
grasp  all  the  articles  of  the  Christian  Faith.  Having 
their  favourite  doctrines,  they  naturally  have  favourite 
sacred  books  or  chapters.  Heretics,  also,  who  avow 
edly  hold  only  certain  parts  of  the  Catholic  Faith 
and  reject  others,  naturally  lay  undue  stress  on  books 
of  the  Bible  in  which  their  favourite  doctrines  are 
taught,  and  ignore  formally  or  critically  books  in 
which  these  doctrines  are  not  prominent,  or  which 
oppose  their  false  teachings.  Luther's  depreciation 
of  the  Epistle  of  St.  James  and  other  sacred  books 
may  be  taken  as  an  instance  of  this.  A  single  phase 
of  St.  Paul's  teaching  was  to  him  the  article  of  a 
standing  or  falling  Church.  There  is  a  fundamental 
connection,  as  Bishop  Westcott  has  pointed  out, 
between  the  Catholic  Church  and  a  Catholic  canon  of 
Holy  Scripture.*  So  it  is  only  when  Christian  people 
generally  agree  as  to  the  comparative  values  of  the 
books  of  Holy  Scripture,  that  a  decision  of  value  is 
given  on  that  point.  And  there  can  be  no  doubt  that 
such  a  decision  has  been  given.  It  is  tacit  and 
informal,  but  it  is  none  the  less  real.  As  we  have 
already  pointed  out,  the  canon  of  Holy  Scripture 

*  "  The  Bible  in  the  Church,"  p.  296. 

P 


210  INSPIRATION 

itself  was  settled  by  some  such  tacit  and  informal 
consensus  of  the  different  Churches.  That  decision 
remains  in  full  force,  but  it  is  also  generally  agreed 
that  some  books  of  the  canon  are  primary,  whilst 
others  are  only  secondary  authorities.  It  would  be 
idle  to  maintain  that  all  books,  even  in  the  New 
Testament,  are  regarded  as  having  the  same  authority. 
St.  John's  Gospel  has  a  certain  pre-eminence  amongst 
the  Gospels.  The  simple  and  the  wise  would  gene 
rally  agree  on  this.  Primus  inter  pares  would  be  the 
verdict,  nothing  more.  St.  Paul  and  St.  John  are 
regarded  as  the  greatest  inspired  Doctors  of  the 
Church.  It  is  an  interesting  fact  that  Dr.  Vaughan 
made  this  dying  profession:  "In  the  prospect  of 
death,  a  little  nearer  or  a  little  further  off,  I  wish  to 
state  explicitly  that  I  have  put  my  trust  in  the 
revelation  of  the  Gospel  as  made  in  the  Gospel  of  St. 
John  and  in  the  Epistles  of  St.  John  and  St.  Paul." 
And  what  is  true  to  a  certain  degree  when  we 
compare  the  New  Testament  books  with  one  another, 
is  true  to  a  much  higher  extent  when  we  compare  the 
New  Testament  with  the  Old. 

The  Spirit  came  down  in  His  fulness,  and  abode 
with  the  Apostles.  Those  who  were  greatest  in  the 
kingdom  of  heaven,  being  much  greater  than  John 
the  Baptist,  must  needs  have  been  exalted  far  above 
the  greatest  of  the  Prophets.  Practically,  as  we 
know,  Christian  people  explain,  and  to  some  extent 
explain  away,  the  teachings  of  the  Old  Testament 
by  those  of  the  New.  And  for  this  they  have  the 
authority  of  their  Master  in  the  sermon  on  the 
Mount.  The  Old  Testament  books  themselves 
cannot  be  regarded  of  equal  authority.  The  laws  of 


INSPIRATION  2ii 

certain  books  are,  as  we  know,  superseded  by  higher 
laws.  The  Prophets  are  the  greatest  of  Old  Testament 
teachers,  but  they  were  diversely  and  unequally  gifted. 
Isaiah  takes  the  first  place,  or  that  later  unknown 
prophet  whose  prophecies  are  appended  to  Isaiah's 
book.  The  New  Testament  gives  us  our  standard  of 
excellence.  It  provides  us  with  a  criterion  by  which 
we  judge  the  books  of  the  Old  Testament  canon. 
We  reckon  those  teachers  to  be  greatest  who  most 
clearly  discerned  the  Coming  One  and  the  coming 
age — Christ  and  His  Church. 

On  the  other  hand,  in  some  Old  Testament  books 
the  Divine  Inspiration  can  be  very  dimly  discerned. 
The  Book  of  Esther, — is  it  history  ?  It  is  very 
strange  history.  The  Jews,  though  an  exiled  race, 
are  allowed  to  make  civil  war  in  the  kingdom  of 
Persia,  and  to  slay  seventy-five  thousand  of  their 
enemies  in  one  day.  True,  Ahasuerus  is  the  Xerxes 
of  history,  and  we  know  that  Xerxes  was  wont  to 
play  mad  tricks.  The  Book  Esther  teaches  us  trust 
in  Divine  providence ;  but  it  is  trust  in  a  God  which 
it  does  not  dare  to  name.  It  teaches  patriotism 
likewise ;  but  patriotism  which  is  not  of  the  purest 
and  noblest  kind.  Its  place  in  Christian  hearts 
corresponds  to  its  place  in  the  history  of  the  Old 
Testament  canon,  and  its  use  amongst  the  Jews  on 
the  Feast  of  Purim.  It  lies  on  the  very  borders  of 
the  sacred  enclosure.  It  is  not  to  Esther  we  turn  for 
help  and  instruction  in  our  time  of  need.  The  same 
remarks,  mutatis  mutandis,  may  be  applied  to  Eccle- 
siastes.  It  is  pessimistic  in  tone  ;  it  is  pseudonymous, 
we  must  needs  think.  The  witness  of  Ecclesiastes 
to  Jesus  is  very  slight  Yet  it  is  "  the  testimony  of 


212  INSPIRATION 

Jesus  "  which  is  "  the  spirit  of  prophecy."  There  is 
again  the  Song  of  Songs  of  which  Professor  Sanday 
says,  "  It  is  just  an  idyll  of  faithful  human  love,  and 
nothing  more.  It  is  never  quoted  in  the  New  Tes 
tament,  and  contributes  nothing  to  the  sum  of  Reve 
lation.  Its  place  in  our  Bibles  is  due  to  a  method  of 
interpretation,  which  is  now  generally  abandoned." 
We  may  add  to  these  the  Book  of  Chronicles,  which 
must  be  regarded  as  giving  a  one-sided  representa 
tion  of  Jewish  history.  It  has  its  value  as  supple 
menting  the  Book  of  Kings ;  but,  taken  by  itself,  it 
ascribes  an  exaggerated  and  unhistorical  importance 
to  the  priest  and  priestly  institutions.  We  shall 
have  to  shut  our  eyes  to  facts  if  we  assert  that 
books  like  these  are  as  full  of  life  and  light  Divine  as 
the  Prophets,  much  less  the  Gospels.  A  decision 
which  has  some  claims  to  the  title  "  Catholic  "  has  been 
given  on  this  point.  By  general  consent  we  commonly 
pass  these  books  over  in  our  study  of  God's  Word. 
There  is  something  very  wooden  and  mechanical  in 
that  piety  which  takes  delight  in  reading  the  Bible 
straight  through.  On  the  other  hand,  certain  passages 
are  to  us  as  a  cup  of  living  water,  always  full  and  inex 
haustible.  We  may  recoil  from  the  statement,  but 
our  action  establishes  it.  Some  of  the  sacred  writers 
less  fully  manifest  God  and  His  will,  and  so  are  less 
fully  inspired,  than  others. 

Inequality  in  Revelation  is  a  necessary  conse 
quence  of  the  fact  that  it  was  given,  during  the  course 
of  hundreds  of  years,  to  generations  of  the  human 
race  unequal  in  spiritual  capacity.  The  words, 
"  Hitherto  ye  have  been  unable  to  bear  it,"  might 
have  been  said  to  each  generation  in  turn.  Each 


INSPIRATION  213 

generation  in  turn  also  saw  some  part  of  the  veil 
uplifted,  and  somewhat  of  its  incapacity  to  receive 
Divine  truth  removed.  Every  age  showed  advance 
and  development  in  the  knowledge  of  God,  so  every 
age  was  in  some  sense  "a  fulness  of  time."  Of  every 
previous  age  men  could  say,  "  When  I  was  a  child  I 
spake  as  a  child,  I  felt  as  a  child,  I  thought  as  a 
child  ; "  saying  of  their  own,  "  Now  that  I  am  become 
a  man,  I  have  put  away  childish  things."  Inequality 
in  Revelation  is  also  a  consequence  of  the  fact  that 
God  spake  to  mankind  in  many  parts  and  in  many 
ways.  The  Bible  is  a  book,  and  yet  not  one  book. 
It  is  a  collection  of  books  ;  it  is  a  library.  It  is  a 
library,  and  yet  not  a  collection  of  books  placed  side 
by  side  on  one  shelf.  Its  different  volumes  are 
bound  together  by  a  unity  of  life  and  teaching.  It  is 
a  body  rather  than  a  library.  Being  a  body,  its 
members  are  not  all  equal.  Some  are  fuller  of  life, 
some  have  a  greater  beauty,  some  a  wider  usefulness. 
Some  we  could  lose  without  overpowering  loss  ;  some, 
on  the  other  hand,  are  essential  to  the  life  of  the 
whole.  The  Old  Testament  dies  if  cut  off  from  the 
New.  The  Epistles  lose  all  power  if  the  Gospels  are 
taken  away.  To  some  books,  as  to  certain  bodily 
members,  we  could  hardly  assign  any  useful  purpose 
in  the  present,  though  they  may  have  been  necessary 
in  the  past,  or  may  have  a  purpose  in  the  future. 
Some  books  or  parts  of  books  serve  the  purposes  of 
bones  and  sinews  in  the  body — they  hold  all  together. 
Bones  have  their  uses ;  there  could  be  no  growth  in  a 
body  without  them  ;  but  when  a  man's  hunger  has 
to  be  appeased,  he  removes  the  bones.  Baxter  the 
Puritan  says,  "  The  Scriptures  are  like  a  man's  body, 


214  INSPIRATION 

where  some  parts  are  for  the  preservation  of  the  rest, 
and  may  be  maimed  without  death.  The  sense 
is  the  soul  of  Scripture,  the  letter  but  the  body  or 
vehicle."  The  document  known  as  P  has  that  purpose 
in  Genesis.  It  is  the  skeleton  (with  some  scraps  of 
flesh)  which  unites  the  stories  of  J  and  E  into  one 
whole.  Regarding  Holy  Scripture  thus,  we  can  fully 
appreciate  its  inspiration,  whilst  at  the  same  time  we 
do  not  put  to  wrongful  use,  or  lay  too  much  stress  on, 
its  several  parts.  Every  book  and  statement  may 
have  its  Divine  purpose,  but  that  purpose  must  be 
sought  with  discernment,  and  all  are  not  equally 
valuable,  all  are  not  equal  sharers  in  the  life  of  the 
whole. 

There  is  proof,  as  Professor  Sanday  observes, 
of  a  "  central  mind  "  at  work  in  the  composition  of 
the  Bible.  "  The  diversified  products  of  individual 
Inspiration  combine  together  and  become  articulate 
members  in  a  connected  and  coherent  scheme."  *  The 
Four  Gospels  furnish  us  with  an  excellent  illustration 
of  this  statement.  "  They  supplement  one  another's 
deficiencies.  Each  adds  something  to  the  com 
pleteness  of  our  knowledge  of  our  Lord's  human  life." 
The  Divine  Spirit  we  believe  to  be  "the  Central 
Mind."  It  was  He  who  inspired  the  different  parts 
and  methods  o/  the  Divine  Revelation,  and  then 
combined  them  all  together  so  that  they  formed  one 
living  Body — the  written  record  of  the  Divine  Revela 
tion.  Nevertheless,  we  must  never  forget  that  there 
are  many  members  in  that  one  Body,  and  that  all  its 
members  have  not  the  same  office  or  the  same 
honour. 

*  "  Inspiration,"  p.  402. 


INSPIRATION  215 

And  if  we  admit  degrees  of  Inspiration  within  the 
canon  of  Holy  Scripture,  we  shall  be  prepared  to 
acknowledge  that  books  outside  it  were  in  some 
degree  inspired.  Those  words  of  Justin  Martyr,* 
that  everything  which  men  have  taught  reasonably 
they  have  taught  by  the  aid  of  the  Divine  Reason,  i.e. 
the  Word  of  God,  contain  a  deep  truth. 

The  Church  of  England  ascribes  authority  to  the 
Apocryphal  books  of  the  Old  Testament.  She 
reads  them  in  her  public  services,  yet  discriminat 
ingly  and  sparingly ;  but  she  does  not  use  them  to 
establish  any  doctrine.  It  is  well  worthy  of  notice 
that  she  treats  some  of  the  canonical  books  in  a  very 
similar  way.  Authority  of  a  secondary  kind,  whether 
in  theory  or  practice,  suggests  a  lower  kind  of  in 
spiration.  Hence  we  are  led  to  infer  that  the  books 
of  Holy  Scripture  cannot  be  placed  on  one  level  of 
equality,  and  sharply  separated  from  all  other  books. 
In  other  words,  that  Inspiration  is  not  confined  to 
Holy  Scripture,  and  admits  of  degrees. 

*  "Apol.,"i.  46, 


XIX 

HISTORY  OF  THE  DOCTRINE  OF  INSPIRATION 

'T^HERE  is  no  orthodox  doctrine  of  Inspiration. 
-L  The  Church,  whilst  firmly  believing  that  her 
sacred  Book  is  given  to  her  by  the  Inspiration  of 
God,  has  never  defined  what  Inspiration  is.  Christian 
people,  therefore,  holding  fast  to  Church  teaching  are 
free  in  the  matter.  It  has  been  the  object  of  this 
book  to  use  that  freedom  with  faith  and  reverence, 
by  inquiring  what  the  phenomena  of  Scripture  itself 
tell  us  concerning  that  Divine  character  which  dis 
tinguishes  it  from  all  other  books.  It  has  not  been  a 
matter  of  primary  importance  to  inquire  what  Church 
teachers  have  said  on  the  matter.  Nevertheless  this 
book  would  not  be  complete  if  it  did  not  attempt  to 
sketch  the  history  of  the  doctrine  of  the  Inspiration 
of  the  Bible,  and  this  we  propose  now  to  do. 

The  idea  of  Inspiration  is  very  early  to  be  found 
in  the  history  of  the  chosen  people.  From__the  days 
of  Abraham  onwards,  God  is  described  as  divinely 
leading  or  influencing  men  for  the  accomplishment  of 
His  great  purpose,  the  Revelation  of  Himself  ±o 
man,  so  that  they  might  be  able  to  receive  the  know 
ledge  of  Himself  and  of  His  will,  and  to  do  His  work. 
The  cognate  idea  of  an  inspired  record  of  Revelation 

216 


INSPIRATION  217 

does  not  seem  to  be  so  early.  The  germ  of  an 
inspired  book  is,  indeed,  found  in  the  Ten  Words, 
and  in  various  commands  to  and  notices  concerning 
Moses.*  But  this  seems  certain,  that  no  sacred  book 
was  in  general  use  amongst  the  chosen  people  before 
the  Babylonian  captivity.  We  know  that  the  book 
of  the  Law  was  found  in  Josiah's  reign,  but  it  would 
be  difficult  to  say  when  it  was  lost.  It  is  not,  indeed, 
till  the  Captivity  that  Israel  became,  what  she  never 
afterwards  ceased  to  be,  the  people  of  a  book.  The 
first  volume  of  that  book  was  the  Law,  and  the  Law 
never  ceased  to  have  supreme  authority  amongst  the 
Jews  ;  but  two  volumes  of  Prophets  and  Writings  were 
added,  and  these  also  were  regarded  as  Divine.  We 
cannot  trace  the  steps  of  the  process  by  which  the 
Old  Testament  was  recognized  to  be  Divine  by  the 
Jews.  But  we  know  that  Jesus,  son  of  Sirach, 
esteeming  his  own  book  highly,  placed  it  on  a  lower 
level  than  the  Law,  the  Prophets,  and  the  other 
Writings.  In  the  persecution  of  Antiochus  Epiphanes 
the  religious  importance  of  the  sacred  books  was  so 
well  known,  that  they  were  sought  for  specially  by 
the  king's  officers,  and  their  surrender  by  a  Jew  was 
regarded  as  an  act  of  apostacy.  The  canon  was 
practically  settled  more  than  a  hundred  years  before 
our  Lord  came,  and  in  His  day  the  Jews  were  estab 
lished  in  the  belief  that  their  Scriptures  were  Divine. 
Our  Lord  Himself  and  His  apostles  confirm  this  belief. 
Josephus,  the  Jewish  historian,  says  that  the  whole  Old 
Testament  is  justly  believed  to  be  Divine.  He  dis 
tinguishes  it  from  later  Jewish  writings,  and  describes 

*  Exod.  xvii.  14,  xxiv.  4,  xxxiv.  27;   Numb,  xxxiii.  2;  Deut. 
xxxi.  9. 


2i8  INSPIRATION 

the  unique  reverence  his  people  felt  for  it.  There 
were  no  books  for  which  the  Greeks  would  undergo 
the  least  harm ;  for  their  Bible  the  Jews  would 
willingly  suffer  and  die.  Passing  on  to  the  history  of 
the  Christian  Church,  at  first  the  Old  Testament  is  her 
only  Bible,  but  soon,  i.e.  before  A.D.  200,  the  Gospels 
and  apostolical  writings  are  regarded  as  of  equal 
authority  with  the  Law  and  the  prophets.  Fathers 
of  the  apostolical  age,  as  Clement  and  Ignatius, 
acknowledge  the  inferiority  of  their  own  writings. 
In  Justin's  days  the  memoirs  of  the  Apostles  are  read 
together  in  the  assemblies  for  Christian  worship.* 
Some  years  before  the  end  of  the  second  century, 
Irenaeus  declares  that  for  the  Church  the  Old  Testa 
ment  and  the  New  are  equally  the  rule  of  truth. 
Later  testimonies  to  the  Inspiration  of  both  volumes 
of  the  Church's  Bible  it  is  unnecessary  to  give.  The 
Church,  with  one  consent,  canonizes  the  books  con 
tained  in  them,  i.e.  pronounces  them  to  be  Divine. 
But  it  is  not  the  fact,  but  the  character  of  the  Inspira 
tion  of  the  Bible  which  is  the  subject  of  our  inquiry, 
and  the  first  writer  who  gives  us  important  informa 
tion  concerning  this  is  the  Jew  Philo. 

Philo  the  Alexandrian  Jew,  who  was  born  about 
twenty  years  before  our  Lord,  is,  indeed,  of  supreme 
importance  in  the  history  of  the  Inspiration  of  the  Bible. 
One  school  of  teachers  in  the  Churches  derives  from 
him  its  idea  of  the  relation  of  Inspiration  to  the 
inspired  man  ;  all  schools  of  interpreters,  with  very 
few  exceptions  up  to  the  time  of  the  Reformation, 
derive  from  him  that  quality  of  hidden  or  allegorical 
meaning  which  he  thought  Inspiration  gave  to  the 

*  Justin,  "  Apology,"  i.  66. 


INSPIRATION  219 

inspired  text.  In  both  respects,  we  think,  Philo's 
teaching — which  involved,  to  some  extent,  a  departure 
from  the  teaching  of  the  Old  Testament,  and  an 
acceptance  of  philosophical  theories  concerning  the 
nature  of  God  and  of  matter — was  mischievous  and 
misleading. 

The  power  of  combining  the  various  teachings 
of  the  different  and  even  contrary  schools  of  teachers 
is  Philo's  great  characteristic.  He  combines  ideas 
derived  from  different  schools  of  Greek  philosophy, 
and  also,  which  is  much  more  wonderful,  he  combines 
Greek  philosophy  with  the  Jewish  belief.  The  Old 
Testament  generally,  and  the  Law  of  Moses  pre 
eminently,  supplies  him  with  his  text-book.  Greek 
philosophy  explains  to  him  the  secrets  of  its  authority 
and  its  meaning.  His  idea  of  Inspiration  comes  from 
the  Platonic  philosophy.  That  philosophy  had  a 
noble  and  exalted  idea  of  the  Divine  Being :  He 
dwelt  in  the  highest  heavens.  But  it  had  also  a  very 
low  idea  of  material  existence,  and,  in  consequence, 
the  Most  High  could  not  humble  Himself  to  behold 
the  things  which  are  in  heaven  and  earth.  In  con 
sequence,  its  teachings  concerning  the  relations  be 
tween  God  and  the  world  differed  essentially  from 
those  of  the  Old  Testament.  Material  Creation  was 
not  the  work  of  the  Supreme  Being ;  it  would  have 
soiled  his  hands  to  come  in  contact  with  it  Plato's 
God  is  not  a  present  Deity,  ordering  all  things  in 
heaven  and  earth.  In  consequence,  God  and  man 
could  not  even  come  together,  much  less  could  they 
work  hand  in  hand.  In  accordance  with  this  teaching, 
it  was  necessary  for  Philo  to  minimize  man's  share 
in  the  Divine  book.  When  the  Divine  Spirit  entered 


220  INSPIRATION 

a  man,  his  reason  departed  from  him,  not  to  return 
again  till  the  Divine  Spirit  departed.  A^Jong_as_the 
prophet  was  under  inspiration,  he  was  in  ignorance. 
He  was  not  God's  intelligent  spokesman  ;  though  he 
seemed  to  speak,  Another  used  his  mouth  and  tongue. 
He  was  forced,  one  may  say,  to  these  conclusions  by 
his  philosophical  ideas,  and,  in  consequence,  forced 
to  explain  away,  spiritualize  away,  those  truths  con 
cerning  the  Divine  immanence  with  which  the  Old 
Testament  is  filled.  Now,  since  Philo  thus  believed 
that  the  more  of  God  there  was  in  anything  the  less 
there  was  of  man,  he  necessarily  taught  that  books 
of  the  highest  inspiration  were  dictated  by  God,  and 
were  verbally  inspired.  This  involved  him  in  two 
difficulties,  (i)  Not  being  a  good  Hebrew  scholar,  his 
Bible  was  the  Greek  Septuagint  Version.  He  was 
therefore  compelled  to  maintain  that  not  only  the 
Old  Testament  prophets,  but  also  the  Greek  trans 
lators  were  inspired  by  God.  Some  invisible  person, 
he  says,  was  at  the  ear  of  the  LXX.,  so  that  they 
used  the  same  words  and  expressions.  They  were 
prophets  in  whom  spake  the  Divine  Word.  Philo 
was  the  first,  so  far  as  we  know,  to  maintain  the 
inspiration  of  the  LXX.,  but  it  was  believed  after 
wards  by  a  great  number  of  Christians.  The  Jews,  on 
the  other  hand,  came  to  regard  it  with  suspicion 
because  of  its  Christian  use.  The  LXX.  was,  indeed, 
of  incalculable  value  for  the  spread  of  the  gospel. 
It  was  the  Gentiles'  gateway  to  Christ.  But  whilst 
we  thankfully  acknowledge  the  Divine  providence  in 
the  translation  of  the  Hebrew  Scriptures  into  Greek 
before  the  coming  of  the  Christ,  the  idea  of  its  in 
spiration  is  an  irrational  figment.  Its  errors  and 


INSPIRATION  221 

mistakes  are  manifold.  It  was  a  great  misfortune 
to  exegesis  that  Christian  teachers  should  regard 
a  corrupt  version  as  if  it  were  the  original  text 

Philo  believed  that  the  Greek  Bible  was  verbally 
inspired,  but  he  also  believed  that  it  contained  self- 
contradictory  statements,  and  also  many  ridiculous 
stories.  His  philosophic  training  had  given  him  con 
siderable  contempt  for  the  letter,  or  literal  meaning, 
or  narrative — in  one  word,  the  body  of  Scripture. 
The  words  of  the  Scriptures  were,  he  says,  but 
shadows  of  bodies,  and  the  meanings  which  are 
apparent  to  investigation,  beneath  them,  are  the  real 
things  to  be  pondered  upon.*  The  migration  of  Abra 
ham  from  his  country,  kindred,  and  home,  teaches  the 
alienation  of  the  mind  from  the  body,  the  outward 
senses,  and  uttered  speech.f  At  times,  indeed,  the 
letter  of  Scripture  teaches  mere  follies.  God  did  not 
really  plant  fruit  trees  in  Paradise,  nor  was  the  world 
created  in  six  days.  So,  then,  Philo  had  to  attempt 
to  reconcile  his  theory  of  verbal  inspiration  with 
the  blemishes  and  absurdities  which  he  observed 
in  the  letter  and  outward  form  of  Holy  Scripture. 
He  did  this  by  his  system  of  allegorical  interpre 
tation. 

Scripture  contained  two  elements — Body  and  Soul. 
The  Body  was  the  letter,  and  it  was  often  bad,  and 
always  of  little  value.  The  Soul  was  the  allegorical 
meaning,  and  it  was  Divine.  Some  passages  had  no 
literal  meaning ;  others,  both  literal  and  allegorical. 
The  one  was  for  the  common  herd,  the  other  for  the 
wise.  To  read  Scripture  with  real  profit,  the 

*   "  On  the  Confusion  of  Tongues,"  c.  37. 
t  "  On  the  Migration  of  Abraham,"  c.  2. 


222  INSPIRATION 

narratives  and  histories,  and  even  the  laws,  must  be 
made  into  philosophical  or  moral  teaching. 

Under  these  rules  of  exegesis,  the  trees  planted  in 
Paradise  became  terrestrial  virtues  ;  every  proper 
name,  even  in  its  Greek  form,  had  a  mystic  meaning ; 
the  most  ordinary  historical  detail,  or  most  material 
law,  became  a  vehicle  of  spiritual  Instruction.  The 
difference  between  allegorical  interpretation  and  the 
derivation  of  spiritual  lessons  from  a  narrative  should 
be  noted.  The  one  has  no  connection  in  thought 
with  the  literal  meaning  ;  the  other  is  based  upon  or 
proceeds  from  it.  For  example,  Philo  regards  Simeon, 
one  of  the  least  worthy  of  Jacob's  sons,  as  a  type  of 
spiritual  effort.  Joseph,  the  noblest,  is  in  one  passage 
the  type  of  the  sensual  mind,  and,  in  another,  of  one 
wise  in  his  own  conceit. 

Philo  was  not  the  inventor  of  allegorical  inter 
pretation.  It  was  a  method  which  heathen  philo 
sophy  (the  Stoics  in  particular)  had  found  useful  for 
the  purpose  of  giving  decent  and  worthy  meanings 
to  the  disgraceful  stories  told  about  the  gods  in 
Homer,  and  in  heathen  mythology  generally.  He  and 
other  Jews  with  him  were  induced  by  the  ridicule 
which  the  Greeks  poured  on  some  of  the  Old  Testa 
ment  stories  to  use  it  in  a  similar  way.  To  those 
imbued  with  Greek  thought  on  the  transcendental 
nature  of  God,  and  on  the  inherent  evil  in  matter, 
those  stories  naturally  seemed  ridiculous.  The 
Divine  character  of  the  Hebrew  books  had  to  be 
maintained,  and  the  philosophical  objections  had  to 
be  answered.  Stoic  philosophy  provided  Jews  of  the 
Hellenistic  type,  and  in  particular  Philo,  with  a 
weapon  ready  to  their  hand. 


INSPIRATION  223 

The  influence  of  Philo  on  the  history  of  the 
Inspiration  and  Interpretation  of  the  Bible  was 
immense.  The  early  Fathers,  who  were  mostly 
ignorant  of  Hebrew,  adopted  his  view  of  the  inspira 
tion  of  the  LXXj  and  interpreted  it  and  also  the  New 
Testament  in  the  same  way.  Photinus  remarks  that 
all  allegorical  teaching  in  the  Church  had  its  source 
in  Philo.  Origen,  in  particular,  used  Philo's  methods 
and  he  was  for  many  centuries  the  greatest  and 
most  used  commentator  on  the  Bible.  Allegorial 
interpretations  were  reckoned  to  be  the  orthodox 
interpretations — the  interpretations  which  gave  Holy 
Scripture  its  highest  and  noblest  meanings.  By  using 
them  Church  teachers  were  able  to  acknowledge  the 
existence  of  imperfections  and  mistakes  in  the  Bible 
whilst  maintaining  its  dictation  by  the  Holy  Spirit, 
They  thus  served  to  reconcile  the  supposed  demands 
of  faith  with  the  demands  of  reason,  Again,  the 
Fathers  following  him  interpreted  the  doctrines  of 
Revelation  by  Greek  Philosophy.  The  doctrine  of 
God  in  the  earlier  Fathers  and  especially  in  the 
Alexandrian  school  was  far  too  like  Philo's  or  Plato's. 
It  was  a  doctrine  of  philosophical  speculation  too 
little  based  on  the  Divine  history  of  the  chosen  people. 
The  Fathers  also  had  too  great  a  contempt  for  the 
human  body  ;  they  found  it  hard  to  get  rid  of  the  idea 
that  the  material  was  essentially  evil.  These  facts 
were  great  hindrances  in  the  way  of  formulating  a 
doctrine  of  the  Person  of  Christ,  and  also  of  Inspira 
tion,  because  they  made  it  difficult  to  conceive  the 
possibility  of  the  dwelling  of  God  in  man,  or  the  co 
operation  of  God  with  him. 

But  not  all  of  Philo's  teaching  was  accepted.     The 


224  INSPIRATION 

doctrine  of  ecstasy  as  the  prophetic  condition  during 
inspiration,  though  reproduced  by  the  Montanists  and 
some  Fathers,  is  rejected  by  the  Church.  Nor  again 
did  the  Church  despise  Old  Testament  history  as  he 
did,  and  they  valued  the  Prophets  more  than  the  Law. 

Philo's  essential  error  is  summed  up  in  his  total 
'rejection  of  any  possibility  of  the  communion  of  the 
mortal  with  the  Immortal. 

Greek  philosophy  taught  him  this  ;  the  Old  Testa 
ment  taught  him  the  exact  contrary.  We  as 
Christians  know  that  the  dwelling  of  the  Immortal 
with  the  mortal — of  God  with  man,  is  not  only  not 
nefas,  not  something  contrary  to  the  eternal  verities, 
or  morally  impossible,  but  a  historical  fact.  For  the 
eternal  Logos,  a  Logos  transcending  in  Divine  attri 
butes  the  Logos  of  whom  Philo  taught,  actually 
became  flesh,  and  dwelt  amongst  us  mortal  men,  and 
we  beheld  His  glory,  the  glory  of  the  only  begotten 
of  the  Father,  full  of  grace  and  truth. 

Josephus  is  much  more  definite  in  his  statements 
about  the  contents  of  the  Canon  than  Philo,  but  he 
says  nothing  of  importance  on  the  special  nature  of 
Inspiration,  and  we  may  pass  on  at  once  to  the 
writings  of  the  Fathers. 

The  Fathers  are  clear  that  all  the  Scriptures  of 
both  Testaments  are  Divine,  but  there  seem  to  be 
two  different  opinions  as  to  the  human  element  in 
Holy  Scripture. 

(i)  We  find  many  statements  that  the  Scriptures 

were  not  spoken   by  their  human   authors    but  by 

the    Holy    Spirit   Himself,  or   that   they  were   die-. 

tated  by  Him.*     Nothing  came  from  the  prophet's 

*  Justin,  "  Apol.,"  i.  36;  Origen,  "Jer.  Horn.,"  ii. 


INSPIRATION  225 

own  conception.*  Such  statements  may  simply  be 
emphatic  declarations  of  the  Divine  character  of 
Holy  Scripture,  and  need  not  always  have  any 
exclusive  meaning.  But  it  is  plain  that  some 
Fathers  regarded  the  human  part  in  Holy  Scripture 
as  passive  and  mechanical.  A  very  common  simile 
of  the  relation  of  the  sacred  writers  to  the  Spirit  is 
that  of  musical  instrument  to  musician.  The  Holy 
Spirit  is  the  musician  who  plays,  or  the  plectrum 
which  strikes  the  note  on  the  human  prophet.  In 
the  "  Cohortatio,"  |  ascribed  to  Justin,  we  find  the 
following  passage,  "  Holy  men  had  no  need  of 
rhetorical  art.  All  they  had  to  do  was  to  keep 
themselves  pure  and  so  open  to  the  workings  of  the 
Divine  Spirit."  The  Divine  Spirit  (whom  he  com 
pares  to  a  plectrum)  came  down  from  heaven  and 
used  righteous  men  like  a  harp  or  lyre  to  reveal  the 
knowledge  of  Divine  and  heavenly  things.  If  this 
statement  be  true,  man  cannot  be  called  a  co-opera 
tor  with  the  Spirit  in  the  work  of  the  Divine  Reve 
lation.  It  should  be  noted,  however,  that  the  human 
element  is  not  annihilated  by  this  simile,  for  every 
musical  instrument  has  a  character  of  its  own. 

Much  stronger  words  than  these  are  used  by 
sorne_Fathers  for  they  held  (like  Fhilo)  that  Inspira 
tion  deprived  a  man  of  his  reason. 

Athenagoras   said,{  that  the  prophets  were  en-  \ 
tranced  and  deprived  of  their  natural  power  of  reason 
when  they  came  under  the  power  of  the  Holy  Spirit, 
who  made   use  of  them  as  a   flute-player   breathes 
into  a  flute. 

This  was  the  Montanistic  teaching  on  Inspiration. 

*  "  Cohortatio,"  c.  18.  t  c.  8.  J  "Leg."  §  19. 

Q 


226  INSPIRATION 

The  error  of  the  Montanists  was  to  exaggerate  the 
difference  between  the  natural  and  the  supernatural, 
reason  and  faith,  the  Church  and  the  world.  Their 
chief  teachers  were  prophets  who  claimed  to  be  the 
possessors  of  a  special  inspiration.  They  received 
the  Holy  Spirit  in  a  state  of  ecstasy.  Their  inspira 
tion  was  overwhelming,  and  there  was  no  self-control. 
Tertullian,  himself  a  Montanist,  says  that  amentia, 
i.e.y  unintelligence,  want  of  reason,  madness,  is  the 
spiritual  force  in  which  prophecy  consists.  *  He 
says,  also,  that  when  a  man  is  in  the  Spirit,  and 
beholds  the  glory  of  God,  or  when  God  speaks 
through  him,  it  is  necessary  that  he  should  lose  his 
sense  (excidat  sensu}  inasmuch  as  he  is  overshadowed 
(pbumbratus}  by  the  Divine  power.  This  is  remark 
able  teaching,  and  seems  contrary  to  the  facts.  Do 
we  connect  amentia  with  prophetic  utterances  ?  The 
prophets  seem  to  be  the  wisest,  most  far-seeing,  and 
most  intelligent  men  of  their  day.  Does  God's  Spirit 
mutilate  a  man  by  depriving  him  of  his  sense  ? 
Surely  it  rather  makes  him  a  noble  and  perfect 
man.  And,  again,  can  it  be  that  God's  Spirit  over 
shadows  the  prophet  when  it  enlightens  him  in 
regard  to  spiritual  truths  ? 

It  must  be  noticed  that  this  Montanistic  teaching — 
that  inspiration  can  in  ecstasy  deprive  a  man  of  his 
reason — was  much  disliked  by  the  Church  generally. 
Many  Fathers  say  that  ecstasy  is  the  mark  of  the 
false  prophet.t  The  Hebrew  prophets  are  not  like 

*  "  De  Anima,"  c.  21. 

t  Cf.  Clement,  "Stromata,"  i.  17  ;  Eusebius,  v.  17;  Origen, 
"  Contra  Celsum,"  vii.  4  ;  Ath.,  "  Discourse  against  Arians,"  iii.  47  ; 
Chrysostom,  "  Homily,"  28,  on  i  Corinthians. 


INSPIRATION  227 

the  Pythian  priestess.  Their  natural  powers  are  not 
clouded  or  confused  or  lost ;  they  are  not  possessed 
like  demoniacs,  or  carried  away  like  madmen.  Their 
understandings  are  awake,  and  their  minds  are  sober 
and  orderly.  They  do  not  lose  their  reason,  but 
their  reason  is  purified  from  sensuality. 

(2)  There  is  also  a  school  of  teachers  which 
brings  out  the  prophets'  share,  a  full  and  intelligent 
share,  in  their  prophetic  utterances.  Stress  is  laid  by 
them  on  the  previous  preparation  of  the  prophet  for 
his  office,  and  on  his  moral  affinity  with  God.  There 
is  a  spirit  in  the  prophet  which  responds  to  the  teach 
ing  of  the  Spirit  of  God.  And  the  Divine  power 
works  within  them  and  with  them,  rather  than  from 
without  and  upon  them.  Hippolytus  describes  this 
previous  preparation  of  the  prophet  and  his  har 
monious  working  along  with  God  with  great  fulness. 
He  retains  the  metaphor  which  described  the  prophet 
as  the  musical  instrument  and  God  as  the  player, 
but  he  guards  it  against  erroneous  ideas.  First,  he 
teaches,  there  is  a  tuning  of  the  instrument.  The 
prophet  is  perfected,*  all  his  powers  arc  put  to  rights. 
He  is  made  worthy  of  the  honour,  which  is  his,  of 
union  with  God  and  fulfilment  with  wisdom.  It  is 
thus  a  man  perfected  in  natural  capacity,  as  well  as 
a  man  of  God,  to  whom  the  Word  of  God,  the  Divine 
Revelation,  comes.  And  when  it  has  been  received 
the  prophet  meditates  upon  it  and  becomes  perfectly 
persuaded  of  its  truth.  Last  of  all,  he  utters  that 
which  has  been  revealed  to  him  ;  he  is  God's  spokes 
man.  There  is,  we  see,  a  true  co-operation  between 
God  and  man  here,  between  the  Spirit  and  the  human 

*  KarripTLfffji.fi/os.     Cf.  Luke  vi.  40. 


228  INSPIRATION 

will  and  understanding.  The  prophets  spake  what 
God  willed,  Hippolytus  says,  but  they  willed  it  also. 
Clement  of  Alexandria  *  also  gives  the  same  teaching, 
with  beautiful  imagery.  He  remarks  that  it  was  a 
higher  inspiration  than  the  Greek  philosophers  which 
the  Masters  of  Israel  received,  because  they,  speaking 
to  man  in  the  Law,  the  Psalms,  and  the  Prophets,  led 
men  to  Christ.  The  Word  of  God,  he  goes  on  to  say 
— He  was  of  David's  seed,  and  yet  before  David — 
thought  little  of  lifeless  instruments  of  music,  as  the 
lyre  or  harp.  The  instruments  He  used  were  the 
world,  and  in  particular  the  little  world  of  man's  body 
and  soul.  Through  them  He  made,  by  means  of  the 
Holy  Spirit,  His  music.  "  Thou  art  My  harp,  My 
flute,  and  My  temple,"  He  said  to  man — "  My  har 
monious  flute,  My  spiritual  flute,  the  temple  of  My 
Word."  The  harp  was  to  sound  ;  the  lute  was 
to  be  inspired  ;  the  temple  was  to  be  inhabited. 
So  man  was  regarded  as  a  living  and  reasonable 
instrument  of  music  on  which  God  played,  and  who 
was  able  to  respond  in  many  ways  to  the  Divine 
touch  and  breath  and  presence.  Man  was  an  instru 
ment  with  many  sounds.  He  was  a  temple  which 
contained  the  Lord. 

Enough  has  been  said  concerning  the  relation 
between  the  Divine  Spirit  and  the  Inspired  Prophet ; 
let  us  now  see  what  the  Fathers  say  as  to  the  cha 
racter  of  the  Inspired  Word.  There  are  many  state 
ments  to  the  effect  that  the  word  is  perfect  and 
contains  no  mistake.f  The  Apostles  had  a  perfect 

*  "  Protreptikos,"  i.  5. 

t  Irenseus,  "  Haer."  iii.  1.  I  ;  iii.  1.  5.    Origen,  "Com.  Matt."xv.  8. 
Augustine,  "  Ep.  to  Jerome,"  and  many  others. 


INSPIRATION  229 

knowledge  and  were  beyond  all  falsehood.  On  the 
other  hand,  some  even  of  the  same  Fathers  made 
statements  which  seem  to  say  the  direct  contrary. 
Origen  has  the  highest  appreciation  of  Holy  Scripture. 
The  sacred  writers  can  tell  no  lie  or  make  no  slip. 
The  Bible  contains  mysteries  of  Divine  knowledge 
and  wisdom  which  will  nourish  the  souls  of  the 
saints  even  in  the  future  life.  God's  words  are  to  be 
treated  with  as  great  reverence  as  the  Blessed 
Sacrament,  It  is  no  less  offence  to  disregard  the 
Word  of  God  than  His  Body.  Notwithstanding  all 
this  he  is  most  free  in  his  criticisms  of  the  letter  of 
Holy  Scripture.  It  would  turn  a  man  dizzy,  he  says,* 
to  set  forth  all  the  discrepancies  of  the  Evangelists. 
He  who  carefully  examines  the  question  will  find 
countless  incidents  in  the  Gospels  not  literally  true.j 
The  Scripture  interweaves  into  its  narrative  some 
things  which  have  never  happened  and  which  could  not 
have  happened.  These  things  are  not  facts  but  mystic 
economies.  Some  things  also  are  untrue  morally 
as  well  as  historically.  J  And  from  these  the  literal 
sense  leads  to  all  sorts  of  error  in  doctrine  and 
practice,  to  unworthy  ideas  of  God  and  even  to 
immoral  deeds.  §  Further  still,  these  literal  errors  in 
Scripture  have  been  introduced  by  God  Himself ;  He 
has  arranged  the  introduction  of  these  stumbling  blocks 
and  impossibilities  in  history  and  law  in  order  that 
we  should  not  believe  the  obvious  meaning  of  Holy 
Scripture,  but  might  come  to  the  knowledge  of  some 
thing  aaore  Divine. ||  Some  history,  however,  he 
acknowledges  is  literal  and  some  laws  must  be  obeyed. 

*  "  Comment,  on  Job.,"  x.  2.    f  "  De  Principiis,"  Bk.  4,  ch.  i.,  §  16. 
J  «  Contra  Celsum,"  iv.  48.        §  "  De  Princ.,"  iv.  I.       ||  Ibid. 


230  INSPIRATION 

None  of  the  Fathers  speaks  so  strongly  as  Origen,  but 
many  recognize  the  existence  of  mistakes  in  Holy 
Scripture.  Jerome^ criticizes  the  style  and _the_ argu 
ments  of  sacred  writers  and  points  out  a  mistake  in 
Matt,  xxviii.  9.  Chrysostom  speaks  of  the  condescen 
sion  of  Holy  Scripture.  He  says  that  God  lowers 
His  Revelation  because  of  human  weakness  from  a 
perfect  to  an  inferior  standard.  Now,  how  is  it 
possible  that  Origen  and  others  can  at  one  time  say 
Scripture  is  perfect  and  absolutely  free  from  error,  and 
at  another  point  out  numerous  errors  in  it  ?  The 
answer  is  because  of  the  allegorical  meaning,  because 
of  the  under  or  hidden  meaning  which  Scripture  is 
supposed  to  have  in  contrast  with  the  obvious  and 
literal  meaning.  This  principle  the  Fathers  got  from 
Philo,  as  we  have  already  pointed  out.  By  its  means 
all  New  Testament  doctrines  could  be  found  in  the 
Old,  and  all  difficulties  of  the  letter  of  both  Testa 
ments  could  be  evaded.  This  principle  Origen 
systematized  and  it  became  universal. 

According  to  Origen,  Scripture  has  a  threefold 
sense.*  Just  as  a  man  has  a  body,  a  soul,  and  a 
spirit,  so  Scripture  has  a  literal,  a  moral,  and  a 
spiritual  sense.  Holding  this  theory  of  interpretation, 
Origen  and  others  are  able  to  maintain  (i)  that  every 
thing  in  Holy  Scripture  comes  from  God  and  is 
perfect ;  and  yet  (2)  that  much  in  Holy  Scripture, 
i.e.,  in  its  body  or  letter,  is  unworthy  of  God  and 
untrue.  The  three  senses  have  the  following  uses. 
The  Body  was  properly  for  the  Old  Dispensation,  and 
is  useful  for  the  simple.  The  Soul  is  for  Christians 
living  in  the  world  and  those  who  have  advanced 

*  This  is  proved  by  the  LXX.  of  Prov.  xxii. ;  cf.  "  De  Princ.,"  iv.  I. 


INSPIRATION  231 

somewhat  in  the  spiritual  life.  The  Spirit  is  for  the 
perfect,*  and  for  those  now  or  hereafter  living  in  the 
spiritual  world.  With  his  philosophical  principles 
concerning  God  and  the  world,  the  literal  and 
historical  meanings  are  of  little  value  in  his  eyes. 
The  highest  form  of  Inspiration  is  a  direct  word  of 
God — that  in  which  there  is  least  of  man. 

The  influence  of  Origen  on  Scripture  exegesis  in 
the  Church  can  hardly  be  exaggerated.  Bishop 
Lightfoot  says  of  him,  "  That  in  spite  of  his  very 
patent  faults  ...  a  very  considerable  part  of  what  is 
valuable  in  subsequent  commentaries,  whether  ancient 
or  modern,  is  due  to  him."  f  The  same  testimony  is 
borne  by  many  others.  Even  those  who  were  strongly 
opposed  to  Origen  in  many  of  his  teachings  adopt  his 
system  of  allegorical  interpretations.  The  school  of 
Antioch,  however,  opposed  it,  and  the  Cappadocian 
Fathers  avoided  its  worst  extravagances.  Neverthe 
less,  through  his  influence  allegorical  interpretation 
was  adopted  by  the  Church.  It  was  further  deve 
loped  by  the  Schoolmen.  The  threefold  sense 
became  fourfold — literal,  moral,  anagogical,  and 
allegorical.  Holy  Scripture  was  overwhelmed  by  its 
interpretations,  and  the  interpretation  of  its  interpre 
tations.  The  Renaissance  bringing  back  the  study  of 
Greek,  and  the  Greek  Testament  brought  men  back 
from  fanciful  interpretations  of  Scripture  to  Scripture 
itself. 

The  Reformation  inaugurated  a  new  era  in  the  -> 
history  of  the  Bible  in  the  Church.     Greece  rose,  as 
it  has  been  said,  from  the  dead  with  the  New  Testa 
ment    in  her  hand.      The  Bible  is  studied   on   new 


Cf.  I  Cor.  ii.  6,  7.  t  "  Ep.  to  Galatians,"  p.'227. 


232  INSPIRATION 

principles  and  with  a  new  eagerness.  The  comments 
which  had  over  laid  it  and  smothered  it,  so  to  speak, 
were  cast  aside. 

Long  before  the  beginning  of  the  doctrinal 
Reformation  in  the  fifteenth  century,  we  find  men 
who  revolted  against  the  old  studies  and  interpreta 
tions  of  scholasticism.  Men  studied  the  Bible  in 
the  original,  and  tried  to  interpret  it  grammatically. 
This  necessarily  lead  to  criticisms  of  the  Vulgate, 
and  of  the  interpretations  of  the  Fathers  and  School 
men.  The  great  pioneer  in  the  study  of  Holy 
Scripture  on  grammatical  and  critical  principles  was 
Erasmus.  He  acknowledged  the  existence  of  the 
human  element,  and  therefore  of  human  error  in 
Holy  Scripture.  He  did  not  altogether  break  with 
allegorical  interpretations,  but  he  did  much  to  pre 
pare  the  way  for  interpreting  the  Scriptures  on 
sounder  principles.* 

Now  we  come  to  the  chief  German  reformers — 
Luther,  Zwingli,  and  Calvin.  Luther  repudiates 
with  scorn  all  allegorical  interpretation,  and  in  this 
particular  he  is  followed  by  all  the  Reformers.  The 
literal  sense  of  Scripture  alone,  he  says,  is  the  whole 
essence  of  faith  and  of  Christian  Theology.  Each 
passage  has  one  clear,  definite,  and  true  sense  of  its 
own.  An  interpreter  must,  as  much  as  possible,  avoid 
allegory,  that  he  may  not  wander  in  idle  dreams. 
Origen's  allegories  are  not  worth  so  much  dirt.  To 
allegorise  is  to  juggle  with  Scripture.  Luther  speaks 
very  freely  of  Scripture  itself,  and  plainly  did  not 
regard  it  as  an  infallible  authority. 

He  described  the  argument  St.  Paul  derived  from 
*  See  Farrar,  "  History  of  Interpretation,"  pp.  320-322. 


INSPIRATION  233 

Hagar  and  Sarah  in  the  Galatians  as  too  weak  to 
hold.  There  was  hay  and  stubble  as  well  as  gold 
and  precious  stones  in  the  writings  of  the  prophets. 
St.  James'  Epistle  is  an  "Epistle  of  Straw,"  and 
St.  Paul's  Epistles  contained  more  of  a  gospel  than 
the  three  synoptic  gospels  themselves. 


XX 

CONCLUSION 

MANIFOLD  reasons  have  now  been  adduced 
in  support  of  the  thesis  that  the  Bible  is  at 
once  the  Word  of  God  and  of  man.  The  single  yet 
twofold  object  throughout  has  been  to  establish  in 
the  faith  those  who  have  been  disquieted  by  reports 
about  the  destructive  character  of  critical  results,  and 
at  the  same  time  to  demonstrate  the  substantial 
character  of  the  human  element  on  Holy  Scripture. 
A  single  yet  twofold  object,  we  say,  because  we  are 
convinced  that  the  disquiet  cannot  be  removed  until 
the  human  element  is  frankly  acknowledged.  In 
the  course  of  our  enquiry  we  have  seen  in  the  Bible 
abundant  instances  of  the  workings  of  human  minds 
and  hands,  of  human  methods  and  human  materials  ; 
we  have  also  seen  the  necessary  consequences  of  all 
these — errors  and  imperfections  natural  to  man.  We 
are  not  called  upon  to  accept  the  critical  results 
generally.  Many  of  them  have  indeed,  their  chief 
basis  in  the  critics'  imagination,  and  it  may  be 
the  unbelieving  imagination.  Nevertheless,  we  are 
unable  to  deny  that  the  human  element  in  Holy 
Scripture  is  much  greater  than  former  ages  have 
thought.  Every  age,  we  may  humbly  hope,  adds 

234 


INSPIRATION  235 

something  to  our  knowledge  of  truth.  The  Scribes 
of  every  age,  in  turn,  who  have  been  made  disciples 
unto  the  kingdom  of  heaven,  bring  out  of  their 
treasure  new  things,  whilst  they  retain  and  appreciate 
the  old.  The  old  thing  in  this  case  is  the  Bible's 
true  Divinity,  the  new  (not  altogether  new)  is  that 
the  Bible  is  essentially  a  book  of  man. 

The  important  admission  which  we  in  consequence 
are  called  upon  to  make  is :  The  Bible  has  not  the 
quality  of  inerrancy.  It  would  seem  that  our  reason 
compels  us  to  acknowledge  this  fact,  however  painful 
it  may  be  to  do  so.  Then  comes  the  all-important 
decision.  Shall  we  regard  this  observed  fact  as 
destructive  of  all  unbelief  in  a  Divine  revelation  ? 
Shall  we  throw  our  reason  over  altogether?  Or, 
shall  we  seek  to  reconcile  the  claims  of  reason  with 
the  claims  of  faith  ? 

There  is  no  doubt  what  unbelievers  generally  do  ; 
they  raise  a  shout  of  triumph.  The  victory  is  at 
last  won.  No  one  can  any  longer  maintain  that  the 
Bible  is  free  from  all  error.  It  is  a  human  book,  and 
therefore  not  Divine. 

Simple  Christians  established  in  the  faith  hear 
the  shout  and  say,  What  right  has  any  one  to 
criticize  the  Bible  ?  How  false  that  process  of 
reasoning  must  be  which  proves  that  error  of  any 
kind  exists  in  the  Word  of  God.  The  thing  cannot 
be.  The  Bible,  we  know,  is  the  Word  of  God. 
Whatever  reason  says  the  Bible  cannot  err. 

Other  Christians,  whose  faith  is  as  yet  not  firmly 
settled,  whose  creed,  it  may  be,  is  inherited  rather 
than  their  own,  become  acquainted  with  certain 
allegations  of  error  in  the  Bible.  They  look  for 


236  INSPIRATION 

themselves  and  find  that  these  allegations  are  true. 
The  Bible  has  not  the  character,  it  is  made  plain 
to  them,  that  they  were  led  to  believe  it  had.  Such 
persons  will  not  give  up  their  reason,  so  they  come 
under  strong  temptation  to  abandon  their  faith. 
There  are  errors  in  the  Bible,  say  they ;  we  are 
quite  sure  of  the  matter,  we  can  see  them  for  our 
selves.  We  fear,  therefore,  that  we  can  no  longer 
believe,  as  our  fathers  believed,  that  it  is  Divine. 

In  all  these  three  different  cases,  the  reasoning 
involves  the  assumption  that  inspiration  is  nearly 
equivalent  to  verbal  dictation,  or,  at  least,  that  the 
human  element  in  the  Bible  is  unsubstantial,  or,  to 
put  it  somewhat  differently,  that  the  Divine  element 
in  Holy  Scripture  neutralizes  or  even  annihilates  the 
human.  In  one  word,  it  involves  the  assumption 
that  one  and  the  same  thing  cannot  be  at  once  truly 
human  and  truly  Divine. 

The  object  of  this  book  has  been  to  show  the 
falsehood  of  this  assumption.  We  have  given 
numerous  proofs  that  in  the  Bible  are  found,  side  by 
side,  two  sets  of  opposite  qualities,  without  division 
and  without  confusion.  The  Divine  do  not  absorb 
the  human,  nor  do  the  human  vitiate  the  Divine.  Thei 
human  word  is  the  medium  of  the  manifestation  of 
Divine  truth.  If  this  be  so,  it  becomes  possible  to 
reconcile  the  postulates  of  Faith  with  the  conclusions 
of  Reason.  Stumbling-blocks  are  removed  from  the 
way  of  belief,  whilst  reason  is  given  fair  play.  We 
cease  to  say  these  things  cannot  be  when  we  see  with 
our  own  eyes  that  they  are. 

Our  acceptance  of  this  conclusion  undoubtedly 
depends  on  our  readiness  frankly  to  acknowledge  that 


INSPIRATION  237 

Reason  is  the  gift  of  God,  and,  indeed,  one  of  the  two 
chiefest  of  those  good  gifts  and  perfect  boons  which 
come  down  from  the  Father  of  Light.  Whilst  we 
admit  that  it  has  been,  to  a  considerable  extent,  cor 
rupted  and  darkened  by  man's  sin,  nevertheless  it 
has  not  been  wholly  put  out.  It  cannot  indeed  be 
reckoned  by  us  to  be  a  vain  and  deceiving  guide  ;  its 
processes  cannot  be  stigmatized  as  unsound  when  we 
consider  how  magnificent  are  its  achievements  in 
other  spheres  of  thought.  Sad  indeed  for  us  if  it 
were  so,  for  we  have  nothing  which  can  supply  its 
place.  We  must  take  care,  with  Bishop  Butler,  not 
to  vilify  reason,  since  it  is  the  only  faculty  we  have 
wherewith  to  judge  concerning  anything,  even  revela 
tion  itself.  Man,  by  his  possession  of  reason  joined 
with  faith,  is  constituted  God's  greatest  work  in 
this  world,  and  is  distinguished  from  all  the  rest. 
Each  is  intended  to  supplement  the  other,  and  each 
has  its  own  share  in  making  the  perfect  man.  God 
has  joined  them  together  in  the  unity  of  the  Person 
of  Man.  What  God  has  joined  together,  man  should 
not  put  asunder. 

But  if  this  happy  and  fruitful  union  is  to  be  main 
tained  in  its  integrity,  it  will  be  necessary  that  each 
should  abjure  all  pretences  to  infallibility  in  the  con 
clusions  it  attains.  There  is,  indeed,  no  possibility  of 
infallibility  in  the  human  sphere,  for  man  cannot,  at 
least  in  this  phase  of  his  existence,  be  in  possession 
of  absolute  truth.  Some  one  has  said  that  it  is  as 
impossible  that  a  man  should  be  immortal  in  body  as 
infallible  in  mind.  Every  kind  of  truth,  though  it 
comes  from  God,  has  to  be  received  into  his  heart 
and  mind,  and  these  certainly  limit  and  probably 


238  INSPIRATION 

distort  and  corrupt  This  world  is  a  place  of 
shadows,  and  not  of  substantial  realities ;  so  we 
possess  only  ideas  of  things,  shadows  of  truths,  and 
not  the  things  or  truths  themselves.  We  can  only 
see  in  a  mirror  and  in  an  enigma,  and  not  face 
to  face. 

Nevertheless,  a  craving  for  an  infallible  guide 
seems  to  be  bound  up  in  the  heart  of  man,  at  least  in 
matters  of  religion.  Infallibility  has  been  supposed, 
or,  rather,  is  supposed,  by  different  persons  to  belong 
to  three  different  subjects — the  Church,  the  Bible,  the 
Pope.  It  may  be  questioned  whether  any  one  of  the 
three  could  make  good  its  claim ;  but  the  matter  is 
of  little  practical  importance,  because  a  fourth  infal 
libility — the  infallibility  of  the  individual — must  be 
added,  if  any  of  the  other  three  is  to  be  effective. 
Otherwise,  infallibility  will  be  beyond  his  reach.  We 
believe  the  Church  to  be  a  Divine  Teacher.  The  Spirit 
of  God  abides  within  her.  She  is  called  the  pillar 
and  ground  of  the  truth.  She  has  been  promised  that 
the  gates  of  hell  shall  not  prevail  against  her.  To 
believe  what  the  Church  believes  seems  to  myself 
personally  a  bounden  duty.  I  would  desire  to 
submit  myself  loyally  to  every  teaching  on  matters 
of  faith  the  Church  has  ever  given  or  shall  give.  But 
we  follow  guides  and  teachers  without  being  certain 
that  their  guidance  or  teaching  is  wholly  free  from 
error,  and  the  gift  of  inerrancy  or  infallibility  does 
not  seem  to  be  promised  to  the  Church.  It  would 
indeed  be  difficult,  in  the  face  of  history,  to  maintain 
that  that  gift  has  been  actually  hers.  Even  Roman 
Catholic  theologians  acknowledge  that  councils  can 
err,  and  they  describe  the  Divine  guidance  given  to  the 


INSPIRATION  239 

Church  as  assistance — something  less  than  inspira 
tion.  But  if  we  admit  not  only  the  Church's  authority 
but  also  her  infallibility,  there  are  two  questions 
which  we  must  answer  each  for  himself:  What  is  the 
Church  ?  and  What  is  her  teaching  ?  We  may  have 
the  best  of  reasons  for  our  answers,  but  we  cannot  be 
certain  that  we  are  right.  And  consequently  the  in 
fallibility  supposed  to  be  inherent  in  the  Church  is 
lost  before  it  comes  to  us. 

Again,  some  Christians,  on  grounds  which  we 
think  to  be  insufficient  and  indeed  untenable,  main 
tain  the  infallibility  of  the  Pope.  That  doctrine  was, 
in  the  opinion  of  the  Ultramontanists,  to  do  great 
things  for  the  Church,  and  it  excited  great  indigna 
tion  and  opposition  amongst  all  other  Christians. 
Thirty-five  years  have  now  passed  since  the  promul 
gation  of  Papal  infallibility,  and  we  can  ask,  without 
undue  haste,  whether  it  has  had  any  effect — good  or 
bad — save  only  the  bad  effect  of  placing  one  more 
barrier  in  the  way  of  the  union  of  the  divided  Body 
of  Christ.  It  will  be  remembered  that  Dr.  Newman, 
though  he  accepted  the  dogma  as  true,  was  strongly 
opposed  to  the  policy  by  which  it  was  made  an 
article  of  faith.  He  wrote  a  letter  to  the  Duke  of 
Norfolk  in  1875,  m  which  he  pointed  out  the  limita 
tions  by  which  it  was  surrounded.  It  was  not  every 
utterance  of  the  Pope,  but  only  his  ex  catJiedrd 
utterances  which  were  infallible.  Some  utterances 
of  some  Popes  had  indeed  been  declared  to  be 
heretical.  It  was  only  when  the  Pope  spoke  as  a 
universal  teacher,  in  the  name  and  with  the  authority 
of  the  Apostles,  on  a  point  of  faith  and  morals,  and 
with  the  intention  of  binding  every  member  of  the 


240  INSPIRATION 

Church  to  accept  and  believe  his  decision,  that  he 
spoke  ex  cathedrd,  and  so  infallibly.  These  limita 
tions,  Dr.  Newman  observes,  contract  the  range  of 
the  Pope's  infallibility  most  materially.  They  have 
to  be  observed  most  strictly,  and,  in  consequence,  there 
is  always  room  for  doubt  whether  in  any  particular 
case  they  have  been  properly  observed.  Instances 
frequently  occur  in  which  the  Pope's  act  does  not 
imply  what  it  has  seemed  to  imply,  and  questions 
which  seemed  to  be  closed  are,  after  a  course  of 
years,  re-opened.  It  would  seem  that  though 
Romanists  may  say,  Habemus  Papam  infallibilem,  he 
is  not  really  in  their  possession,  for  they  can  never 
infallibly  know  whether  he  has  spoken  infallibly. 

Once  more  we  accept  the  Bible  as  bringing  to  us 
the  Word  of  God.  It  is  the  Divine  guide,  according 
to  which  we  should  order  our  life.  Applied  by  the 
Spirit  it  will  lead  us  into  all  truth.  We  search  the 
Scriptures,  relying  on  the  Divine  promises,  and  not 
in  vain.  There  is,  however,  no  infallibility  in  our 
results,  because  our  own  individual  self  is  an 
integral  part  of  our  results.  We  know  that  the 
conclusions  to  which  truly  good  men  have  come  from 
searching  the  Scriptures  are  mistaken.  We  find, 
further,  that  they  contain  errors  and  mistakes. 

We  cannot  overestimate  the  value  of  God's  Word 
for  our  advance  in  spiritual  life,  but  infallibility  does 
not  add  to  its  value,  because  infallibility  is  a  thing 
beyond  our  reach.  To  contend  for  it  is  to  contend 
to  no  profit  at  the  best ;  it  is  to  ignore  obvious 
facts  at  the  worst.  Let  us  remember  what  Hooker 
says,  "  Whatsoever  is  spoken  of  God,  or  things  apper 
taining  to  God,  otherwise  than  as  the  truth  is,  though 


INSPIRATION  241 

it  seems  an  honour  it  is  an  injury.  And  as  incredible 
praises  given  unto  men  do  often  abate  and  impair  the 
credit  of  the  deserved  commendation  ;  so  we  must 
likewise  take  great  heed,  lest  in  attributing  unto 
Scripture  more  than  it  can  have,  the  incredibility  of 
that  do  cause  even  those  things  which  indeed  it  hath 
most  abundantly  to  be  less  reverently  esteemed." 
The  warning  is  peculiarly  appropriate  to  the  present 
instance,  for  are  there  not  many  who,  having  been 
taught  that  the  Bible  being  the  Word  of  God  can 
contain  no  error,  have,  when  errors  in  it  have  been 
made  plain  to  them,  forthwith  denied  that  the  Bible 
is  the  Word  of  God  ? 

The  conclusion  we  come  to  is  that  infallibility 
cannot,  if  found,  be  used  by  fallible  man  ;  and  further, 
that  it  cannot  be  found  anywhere  in  the  human  sphere. 
Probability,  not  certainty,  is  our  guide.  Those  who 
know  only  in  part  must  be  liable  to  error.  All 
analogy  teaches  us  the  same  truth.  Practical  efficiency, 
not  ideal  perfection,  is  the  way  of  God's  dealings 
with  man.  Thus  it  would  seem  idle  to  contend 
earnestly  for  the  abstract  existence  in  the  Bible  of 
a  quality  which  cannot  be  found  anywhere  else  in 
this  world  of  ours,  which  we  cannot  discern  when 
present,  and  which  we  cannot  use  when  found. 
And  it  is  not  only  idle,  but  harmful,  since  Faith 
must  abandon  her  claim  to  infallibility  for  her 
record  of  revelation,  if  she  is  to  gain  Reason  for 
her  ally. 

Another  condition  of  alliance  between  our  two 
Divine  gifts  is  that  the  limits  of  each  should  be 
defined  and  respected.  It  will  be  readily  admitted  that 
two  guides  have  been  given  by  God  to  men,  because 

R 


242  INSPIRATION 

He  dwells  in  two  worlds — the  world  unseen  and  the 
world  of  sight  and  sense. 

It  should  also  be  generally  admitted  that  Faith 
and  Reason  are  supreme  each  in  its  own  sphere. 
The  histories,  both  of  religion  and  science,  give 
abundant  testimony  that  this  principle  has  not  been 
recognized.  To  judge  from  the  letters  written  in 
newspapers,  the  greater  number  of  men,  whether 
believers  or  unbelievers,  do  not  recognize  it  still. 
Until  men  frankly  and  fully  allow  that  for  either 
Faith  or  Reason  to  go  into  the  other's  sphere,  and 
claim  to  be  lord  there,  is  a  piece  of  unwarrantable 
usurpation,  there  can  be  no  hope  of  concord,  far  less 
of  active  alliance,  between  them.  It  is  not  wished 
that  each  should  abide  in  his  own  domain  ;  but  when 
either  goes  beyond  it,  he  must  go  simply  as  a  friend 
or  assessor. 

There  are  some  truths  which  belong  wholly  or 
substantially  to  the  spiritual,  whilst  others  belong  to 
the  material  sphere  of  human  life.  For  example, 
science  alone  can  tell  us  methods  of  Creation  ;  Faith 
alone  can  discern  the  First  Cause.  It  may  be  hoped 
that  some,  at  least,  recognize  this  division  of  spheres. 
Sovereign  powers  can  never  be  on  friendly  terms 
until  the  limits  of  their  respective  domains  have  been 
defined.  It  may  be  hoped  that  some  such  settlement 
of  the  spheres  of  Faith  and  Reason  has  been  made. 

But  the  larger  number  of  facts  in  human  life  are 
like  man  himself,  neither  purely  spiritual,  nor  purely 
material ;  but  are  both.  In  these  it  is  difficult  to  say 
whether  Faith  or  Reason  has  the  right  to  the  last 
word.  Both,  it  is  certain,  have  something  to  say. 
Here  it  is  important  to  establish  the  principle  of 


INSPIRATION  243 

co-operation.  Now,  co-operation  between  Faith  and 
Reason  must  be  possible  in  theory,  because  both  are 
Divine  gifts  and  powers  in  one  being — man.  It  will 
become  possible  in  practice  when  each  abandons  its 
suspicions  of  the  other.  It  is  not  to  be  supposed 
that  both  are  equal  in  power  and  range.  Faith  would 
seem  to  have  precedence,  because  she  lays  hold  of 
God ;  Reason,  only  of  God's  works.  Faith  has  the 
promise  of  eternity  ;  Reason,  only  of  time.  But  what 
ever  their  respective  power,  neither  can  be  regarded 
as  always  subordinate  to  the  other.  They  must  treat 
one  another  with  mutual  deference.  It  may  be  said 
that  when  there  are  two  in  a  single  house,  one  must 
rule  and  the  other  must  obey.  That  is  a  piece  of 
theory  not  in  accordance  with  practice,  as  many  a 
husband  and  wife  testify.  If  the  two  are  on  proper 
terms  each  will  influence  and  modify  the  other.  Both 
will  have  a  share  in  the  final  decision,  which  may  be 
given  only  by  one.  The  dogmas  of  Faith  will  be 
moulded  by  Reason,  the  decisions  of  Reason  not 
unseldom  will  be  influenced  by  Faith. 

The  matters  in  which  Faith  and  Reason  have 
both  a  right  to  speak  are  often  of  great  practical 
importance.  For  example,  the  Resurrection  of  our 
Lord  is  both  a  theological  truth  and  a  historical  fact. 
And,  to  come  back  to  our  special  subject,  the  Bible, 
being  the  human  record  of  the  Divine  Revelation, 
comes  into  the  spheres  both  of  Faith  and  Reason. 
Faith  has  to  do  with  the  Revelation  which  it  alone 
can  discern  ;  Reason,  with  the  record  which  it  alone 
can  properly  appreciate.  We  cannot  arrive  at  the 
Revelation  save  through  the  record,  so  Faith  must 
not  disdain,  far  less  refuse,  Reason's  aid  ;  but  Reason 


244  INSPIRATION 

can   only  be   Faith's   handmaid  in  seeing  the  God 
which  the  Bible  reveals. 

If  we  use  Reason  fairly,  we  shall  accept  its  aid  not 
only  when  it  in  some  way  confirms  our  theological 
opinions,  but  also  when  it  casts  doubt  upon  some  of 
them.  Articles  of  Faith  it  cannot  touch,  for  these  are 
purely  spiritual  ;  but  it  will  have  something  to  say 
about  the  mass  of  theological  opinion  which  clusters 
round  them.  When  God  gives  us  new  light,  and  puts 
us  in  possession  of  new  knowledge,  we  cannot  expect 
that  everything  will  remain  as  it  was  before  the 
light  and  knowledge  came.  But  if  we  refuse  to 
accept  and  trust  our  Reason  as  an  ally  in  religious 
matters ;  if  we  regard  it  as  an  underworker,  to  be 
used  or  refused  at  our  pleasure  ;  if  it  is  to  be  told 
when  it  arrives  at  some  conclusion  in  its  own  sphere, 
"  The  Bible  says  the  contrary,  and  I  believe  the 
Bible,"  then  we  must  give  up  all  hopes  of  a  rational 
faith.  We  must  accept  the  position  that  a  reasonable 
man  cannot  believe,  and  that  a  believer  must  not 
reason.  We  must  accept  the  false  principle  of 
Dualism  in  Creation — i.e.  that  the  material  world  was 
not  made  by  God,  and  is  not  ruled  by  Him.  We 
must  hold  that  Reason  was  not  originally  God's  gift 
to  man,  or  that  it  has  become  so  corrupted  by  sin 
as  to  be  a  deceitful  guide  even  in  its  own  field.  Who 
that  has  the  slightest  appreciation  of  the  splendid 
discoveries  of  Reason  in  these  latter  days  can  take 
up  this  position  ? 

That  quality  which  is  constantly — we  might  almost 
say  daily — discovering  secrets  hidden  from  the  ages, 
and  now  revealed  in  these  latter  days,  cannot  be 
essentially  corrupt.  It  is  not  too  much  to  say  that 


INSPIRATION  245 

it  is  fatal  for  us  to  refuse  the  aid  of  Reason  in  the 
battle  against  unbelief.  We  must  give  her  free  entry 
into  the  Bible  field  and  wait  patiently,  calmly,  and 
believingly  for  all  she  can  tell  us  concerning  it. 

Reason  has  been  specially  engaged  on  the  Bible 
during  the  last  fifty  years.  From  time  to  time  we 
hear  results  of  her  search.  It  is  not  necessary,  it  is 
not  indeed  possible,  to  believe  all  we  hear.  She  is 
most  certainly  not  an  infallible  authority.  First 
results  in  any  investigation  are  sure  to  be  crude  and 
partial.  Investigators  are  at  variance  one  with 
another.  It  is  only  reasonable  to  hold  our  judgment 
in  suspense.  We  have,  moreover,  every  right  to 
observe  the  character,  the  methods,  and  the  motives  of 
the  investigators.  They  may  be  unbelievers,  and  begin 
by  assuming  tacitly  that  the  supernatural  is  the 
impossible.  They  may  show  their  animus  by  seizing 
every  opportunity  of  discrediting  Holy  Scripture,  or 
by  their  utter  failure  to  recognize  its  peculiar  merits. 
We  need  not  trouble  ourselves  much  about  such 
men.  Irrational  faith  is  an  imperfect  guide  ;  but  un 
believing  reason  is  sure  to  lead  us  astray.  Neverthe 
less,  fas  est  ab  hoste  doceri.  If  unbelievers  demonstrate 
facts  to  us  we  must  accept  their  demonstration. 

But  it  is  quite  clear  that  many  critics  are  humble 
and  reverent  believers  in  Revelation.  They  make 
no  preconceptions  as  to  the  impossibility  of  the 
miraculous.  They  use  their  devout  reason  on  Holy 
Scripture,  and,  never  losing  their  faith,  arrive  at 
certain  conclusions.  These  conclusions  have  no 
pretence  to  infallibility,  but  arrived  at  in  this  way  they 
claim  our  respect  and  attention.  Their  general,  as 
distinct  from  their  particular  conclusions  cannot,  at 


246  INSPIRATION 

least,  be  rejected  peremptorily.  That  conclusion  is  : 
the  Bible  is  a  book  like  every  other.  It  has  all 
human  qualities  and  all  the  defects  of  those  qualities. 
This  is  the  crucial  point,  and  here  the  paths  of 
irrational  faith,  rational  faith,  and  unbelief  divide. 

But  still  we  ask,  Can  anything  have  at  once  the 
perfections  of  God  and  the  imperfections  of  man  ? 
Can  anything  be  not  only  made  out  of  Divine  and 
human  elements,  but  remain  perfectly  human  and 
Divine?  Let  us  remember  that  the  problem  of 
Inspiration  involves  the  solution  of  that  most  dif 
ficult  of  all  problems — the  co-existence  of  the  Finite 
and  the  Infinite.  How  can  God  be  infinite,  and  yet 
something  which  is  not  God  also  exist  ?  How,  further, 
can  that  finite  something  which  is  not  God  have  a  will 
of  its  own — thwart  seemingly  by  its  incapacity  God's 
purpose — even  more  be  rebellious,  and  in  a  sense 
successfully  rebellious,  against  the  Infinite  God  ?  We 
must  be  content  to  leave  such  problems  unsolved. 
We  should  be  ready  to  allow  that  the  problem  may 
be  so  large  because  we  are  so  small.  We  must  be 
content  to  know  God  is,  and  we  are  by  His  will. 
And  then  the  Incarnation — the  key  to  all  mysteries 
— comes  to  our  aid  and  teaches  us  that,  however 
immense  the  a  priori  impossibility  may  seem  to  us, 
Deity  and  perfect  Deity,  humanity  and  perfect 
humanity — Deity  co-essential  with  the  Deity  of  the 
Father — humanityco-essential  with  our  own — actually 
co-existed  and  co-exist  in  the  closest  of  all  unities — 
the  unity  of  one  Person,  one  Lord  Jesus  Christ  It 
would  have  been  easier  for  us  to  comprehend  this, 
or,  at  any  rate,  many  have  thought  so,  if  our  Lord's 
Deity  had  been  of  an  inferior,  and  His  humanity  of 


INSPIRATION  247 

a  superior  kind  ;  if,  that  is  to  say,  the  gulf  between 
God  and  man  had  been  filled  up  somewhat,  and  our 
Lord  Jesus  Christ  had  wanted  some  of  the  perfec 
tions  of  God,  and  had  not  taken  upon  Him  all  the 
imperfections  of  man.  The  case  is  otherwise.  He 
has  all  Divine  and  all  human  attributes.  And  we 
know,  further,  that  perfect  Deity  and  perfect  humanity 
co-operate,  and  that  in  the  greatest  of  all  Divine 
works — the  work  of  the  New  Creation,  the  making 
of  the  higher  man.  That  work  was  begun  on  earth, 
and  no  part  of  it  was  accomplished  save  through  the 
medium  of  that  weakened  human  nature — weakened 
though  not  tainted  by  sin — which  our  Redeemer 
took.  That  work  is  being  continued  on  earth,  and 
the  instruments  which  God  uses  are  men,  who  are 
not  only  weak,  but  actually  sinful.  That  work  is 
being  consummated  in  heaven,  and  the  ascended 
Lord  works  nothing  wherein  His  human  nature,  now 
glorified — that  human  nature  which  is  to  be  ours — 
is  absent  or  idle.  Thus  it  has  been  made  abundantly 
clear  that  Divine  Nature  is  such,  and  human  nature, 
even  fallen  human  nature,  is  such,  that  God  and  man 
can  fully  co-operate  together. 

We  apply  this  great  truth  to  formulate  and 
explain  the  doctrine  of  Inspiration.  We  discern  in 
the  written  word,  only  less  clearly  than  in  the 
Incarnate  Word,  the  properties  of  God  and  the  pro 
perties  of  man.  Our  experience  in  regard  to  the 
Incarnation  teaches  us  not  to  explain  away  either  set 
of  facts  presented  to  us  in  the  Record  of  Revelation 
— to  make  no  confusion  between  its  two  substances, 
Divine  and  human  ;  to  accept  to  the  fullest  extent,  and 
in  their  fullest  consequences  as  well,  those  facts  which 


248  INSPIRATION 

manifest  to  us  the  ignorance  and  weakness  of  man  as 
well  as  those  which  manifest  the  wisdom  and  power 
of  God.  Believing  in  one  Lord  Jesus  Christ,  Word 
of  God  and  Son  of  man,  it  becomes  not  impossible 
for  us  to  believe  that  God  and  man  have  co-operated 
in  the  making  of  the  Bible.  We  feel  ourselves  in 
no  way  compelled  to  admit  that  it  is  not  the  Word 
of  God,  when  it  is  proved  to  us  by  unmistakable  signs 
that  it  is  the  word  of  man. 


THE  END 


PRINTED   BY  WILLIAM   CLOWES  AND  SONS,    LIMITED,  LONDON   AND   BECCLES. 


SOCIETY  FOR  PROMOTING  CHRISTIAN  KNOWLEDGE, 


WORKS  BY   THE 
RIGHT  Rsv.  A.  F.  WINNINGTON  INGRAM,  D.D., 

BISHOP  OF   LONDON. 

Old  Testament  Difficulties.     Cloth,  6d. 

New  Testament  Difficulties.     First  and  Second  Series.     Cloth, 
each  (>d. 

Popular  Objections  to  Christianity.     Cloth,  6d. 

Seasons  for  Faith.     Lectures  to  Men  at  St.  Paul's   Cathedral. 
Cloth,  6d. 

The  above  in  one  volume,  cloth  boards,  is. 

Holy  Week  Addresses.     Preached  in  St.  Paul's  Cathedral.    Cloth 
boards,  is.  fid. 

Lenten  Addresses,  19O5.     6d. ;  cloth  boards,  u. 

Keliglon  in   Relation  to   Social  Duties  and  Pleasures.     An 

Address  to  Girls  and  Young  Women,     id.  ;  Fine  Edition,  with 
Portrait,  cloth  boards,  is. 

The  Duty  of  Service.     An  Address  to  the  Lend-a-Hand  Club. 
id. 

The  Athanasian  Creed.     Paper  cover,  id. 

"  The   Corruption  which  is  in   the   World    through    Lust." 
A  Sermon,     id.  ' 

Church  Difficulties.     6d. ;  cloth  boards,  is. 

The  Ideal  Worker.      ?  /. 

Apathy  and  Indifference,      id. 

Proportion  in  Life.      id. 

Addresses  to  Working1  Lads.     Cloth,  6d. 

Paperi  for  Working:  Hen.     Cloth,  (id. 


Of  THE  SOCIfctV. 


WORKS  BY  MRS.  RUNDLE  CHARLES,  AUTHOR  OF 

"The  Chronicles  of  the  Schonberg-Cotta  Family." 

The   Beatitudes.      Thoughts   for   All    Saints'   Day.      Post  8v<x. 

Cloth  boards,     is. 
"  By  the  Mystery  of  Thy  Holy  Incarnation."    Post  Svo.    Cloth 

boards,     is. 
"By  Thy  Cross  and  Passion."     Thoughts  on  the  words  spoken 

around  and  on  the  Cross.     Post  Svo.     Cloth  boards,     is. 

"  By  Thy  Glorious  Resurrection  and  Ascension."  Easter 
Thoughts.  Post  Svo.  Cloth  boards,  it. 

"  By  the  Coming  of  the  Holy  Ghost."   Thoughts  for  Whitsuntide. 

Post  Svo.     Cloth  boards.      \s. 

The  Trne  Vine.    Post  Svo.     Cloth  boards,     it. 

The  Great  Prayer  of  Christendom.  Thoughts  on  the  Lord's 
Prayer.  Post  Svo.  Cloth  boards,  is. 

An  Old  Story  of  Bethlehem.  One  link  in  the  great  Pedigree. 
Fcap.  410,  with  six  plates,  beautifully  printed  in  colours.  Cloth 
boards.  2s. 

Joan  the  Maid,  Deliverer  of  England  and  France.  Demy  Svo. 
Cloth  boards,  is.  6d. 

Songs,  Old  and  New.     Demy  i6mo.     Cloth  boards.    2s.  6d. 

Ecce  Ancilla  Domini.  Mary  the  Mother  of  our  Lord.  Studies  in 
the  Ideal  of  \Yomanhood.  Post  Svo.  Cloth  boards.  is*  6d. 

Eoce  Homo,  Ecce  Rex.  Pages  from  the  Story  of  the  Moral  Con 
quests  of  Christianity.  Crown  Svo.  Cloth  boards.  2s.  6d. 

Three  Martyrs  of  the  Nineteenth  Century.  Studies  from  the 
Lives  of  Gordon,  Livingstone,  and  Pattesou.  Crown  Svo. 
Cloth  boards.  2s.  6d. 

Martyrs  and  Saints  of  the  First  Twelve  Centuries.  Studies 
from  the  Lives  of  the  Black-letter  Saints  of  the  English 
Calendar.  Crown  Svo.  Cloth  boards.  3*.  6d. 

Against  the  Stream.  The  Story  of  an  Heroic  Age  in  England. 
With  eight  page  woodcuts.  Crown  Svo.  Cloth  boards.  2s.  6d. 

Conquering  and  to  Conquer.  A  Story  of  Rome  in  the  days  of 
St.  Jerome.  Illustrated.  Crown  Svo.  Cloth  boards,  as. 

Attila  and  his  Conquerors.  A  Story  of  the  days  of  St.  Patiiti 
and  St.  Leo  the  Great.  Crown  Svo.  Clot  A  boards.  21. 


PUBLICATIONS   OT  THE  SOCIETY. 


WORKS  BY  MRS.  RUNDLB  CHARLES  (continued). 

Early  Christian  Missions  of  Ireland,  Scotland,  and  England. 

Crown  Svo.     Cloth  boards,    as.  6J. 
Lapsed,  not  Lost.      A  Story  of  Roman  Carthage.      Crown  Svo. 

Cloth  boards,     is. 
Within  the  Veil.     Studies  in  the  Epistle  to  the  Hebrew*.     Po«t 

Svo.     Cloth  boards,     is. 
The  Book  of  the  Unveiling.     Studies  in  the  Revelation  of  St. 

John  the  Divine.     Post  Svo.     Cloth  boards,     is. 
Lady  Augusta  Stanley.    Reminiscences.    i8mo.    Limp  cloth.    6d. 
Sketches  of  the  Women  of  Christendom.     Crown  Svo.     as.  f>d. 


EARLY   BRITAIN. 

This  Scries  ha*  for  its  aim  the  presentation  of  Early  Britain  at  great  historic 
periods.  Each  volume  is  the  work  of  an  accredited  specialist,  and  the 
whole  gives  the  result  of  recent  critical  examinations  of  oui  Eaily  Records. 

Anglo-Saxon  Britain.     By  the  late  GRANT  ALLEN.     With  Map. 

2J.    6J. 

Celtic  Britain.     By  Professor  RHYS.     With  two  Maps.      35. 
Norman  Britain.     P.y  the  Rev.  W.  HUNT.     With  Map.     2S. 
Post-Norman  Britain.    By  II EN RY  G.  HEWLETT.    With  Map.    3*. 
Roman  Britain.    By  the  Rev.  E.  CONYBEARE.    With  Map.    p,s.6J. 
Roman  Eoads  in  Britain.       By  THOMAS  C&DRINGTON,  M.Inst 
C.E.,  F.G.S.     With  several  Maps.     5*. 


CONVERSION   OF  THE  WEST. 

These  are  intended  to  show  the  condition  of  the  chief  races  of  the  West  hefore 
they  were  brought  into  contact  with  Christianity  ;  and  how  their  Con 
version  was  brought  about,  and  the  immediate  results. 

Fcap.  Svo,  with  Map,  cloth  boards,  2s.  each. 
The  Continental  Teutons,  by  the  late  Very  Rev.  C.  MERIVALK, 
The  English,  by  the  late  Rev.  G.  F.  MACLEAR,  D.D. 
The  Northmen,  by  the  late  Rev.  G.  F.  MACLEAR,  D.D. 
The  Slavs,  by  the  late  Rev.  G.  F.  MACLEAR,  D.D. 


PUBLICATIONS  OF  THE  SOCIETY. 


THE 

DAWN  OF  EUROPEAN  LITERATURE. 

A  set  of  Works  designed  to  present  the  chief  races  of  Europe  as  they  emerge 
out  of  pre-historic  darkness  into  the  light  furnished  by  their  earliest  recorded 
words. 

Post  Svo,  cloth  boards,  2a.  6d.  each. 

Anglo-Saxon  Literature.     By  the  Rev.  Professor  EARLK. 
French  Literature.     By  the  late  GUSTAVK  MASSON,  B.A. 
Slavonic  Literature.     By  W.  R.  MoRFILL,  M.A. 
The  Greek  Epic.     By  GEORGE  C.  W.  WARR,  M.A.     j*. 


THE 

FATHERS  FOR  ENGLISH  READERS. 

A  Series  of  Monograms  on  the  Chief  Fathers  of  the  Church,  the  Fathers  selected 
being  centres  of  influence  at  important  periods  of  Church  History,  and  in 
important  spheres  of  action. 

Foap.  Svo,  cloth  boards,  2a.  each. 


Boniface.  By  the  Rev.  Canon 
GREGORY  SMITH,  is.  6d. 

Clement  of  Alexandria.  By  the 
Rev.  F.  R.  MONTGOMERY 
HITCHCOCK,  B.D.  3*. 

Leo  the  Great.  By  the  Right 
Re*.  C.  GORE,  D.D. 

Gregory  the  Great.  By  the 
late  Rev.  J.  BARMBY,  B.D. 

Saint  Ambrose :  his  Life, 
Times,  and  Teaching.  By 
the  Rev.  R.  THORNTON, 
D.D. 

Saint  Athanasins :  his  Life 
and  Times.  By  the  Rev. 
R.  WHELER  BUSH.  2s.  6d. 

Saint  Augnistine.  By  the  late 
Rev.  E.  L.  CUTTS,  D.D. 

Saint  Basil  the  Great.  By  the 
Rev.  R.  T.  SMITH,  B.D. 

Saint  Bernard:  Abbot  of 
Clairvaux,  A.D.  1091-1153. 
ByRev.S.J.EALES.  tt.fd. 


Saint  Jerome.   By  the  late  Rev. 

EDWARD  L.  CUTTS,  D.D. 
Saint  Hilary  of  Poitiers,  and 

Saint   Martin   of  Tours. 

By    the    Rev.    J.    GIBSON 

CAZENOVE,  D.D. 
Saint  John  of  Damascus.    By 

the  Rev.  J.  H.  LUPTON. 
Saint   Patrick  :    his  Life  and 

Teaching.     By  the  Rev.  E. 

J.  NEWELL,  M.A.     2s.  6d. 
Synesins  of  Gyrene,  Philoso 
pher     and      Bishop.        By 

ALICE  GARDNER. 
The  Apostolic   Fathers.     By 

the     Rev.     Canon    SCOTT 

HOLLAND. 
The  Defenders  of  the  Faith ; 

or,  The  Christian  Apologists 

of  the   Second   and   Third 

Centuries.     By  the  Rev.  F. 

WATSON,  D.D.       < 
The  Venerable  Bede.     By  the 

Right  Rev.  G.  F,  BROWNK. 


PUBLICATIONS   OF  THE  SOCIETY. 


THE  HISTORY  OF  THE  ANCIENT 
PEOPLES  OF  THE  CLASSIC  EAST. 

By  Professor  MAsrERO.     Edited  by  the  Rev.  Professor  SAYCE. 
Translated   by   M.  L.   McCLURE.      Each   volume  contains   Maps, 
coloured   Plates,  and   numerous   other   Illustrations.      Demy   410, 
cloth,  bevelled  boards : 
Volume  I.     The  Dawn  of  Civilization :  Egypt  and  Chaldaea. 

Fourth  Edition.     241. ;  half-morocco,  48^. 
Volume  II.     The  Stritggle  of  the  Nations  :  Egypt,  Syria,  and 

Assyria.      25^.  ;  half-morocco,  50.?. 
Volume    III.      The     Passing    of    the    Empires,   850     B.C.— 

33O  B.C.      25^.  ;  halt-morocco,  50^. 


ANCIENT    HISTORY  FROM   THE 
MONUMENTS. 

Fcap.  8vo,  cloth,  boards,  2s.  each. 

Assyria,   from  the   Earliest   Times  to  the  Fall  of  Nineveh. 

By  the  late  GKORGE  SMITH,  of  the  British  Museum.    A  Revised 

Edition,  by  the  Rev.  Professor  SAYCE. 
Sinai,  from  the   Fourth   Egyptian    Dynasty  to  the   Present 

Day.     By  the  late  HENRY  S.  PALMER.     A  Revised  Edition, 

by  the  Rev.  Professor  SAYCE.     "\Yith  Map. 
Babylonia    (The    History   of).      By  the  late  GEORGE   SMITH. 

Edited  and  brought  up  to  date  by  the  Rev.  Professor  SAYCE. 
Persia,  from  the  Earliest  Period  to  the  Arab  Conquest.     By 

the  late  W.  S.  W.  VAUX,  M.A.     A  Revised  Edition,  by  the 

Rev.  Professor  SAYCE. 


The  "  Higher  Criticism  "  and  the  Verdict  of  the  Monuments. 

By  Rev.  Professor  SAYCE.    Demy  8vo.     Buckram,  boards,  7*.  6d. 
The   Archaeology    of    the    Cuneiform    Inscriptions.       Rhind 

Lectures  by  Rev.  Professor  SAYCE.     Demy  Svo,  cloth,  5$. 
Egypt  and  Western  Asia  in  the  Light  of  Recent  Discoveries. 

By  L.  W.  KING,  M.A.,   F.S.A.,  and  H.  R.  HALL,  M.A.,  of 

the  British  Museum.     Small  410,  cloth  boards,  los. 


PUBLICATIONS   OF  THE   SOCIETY. 


CHIEF  ANCIENT  PHILOSOPHIES. 

This  Series  deals  with  the  chief  systems  of  Ancient  Thought,  not  merely  as  dry 
matters  of  History,  but  as  having;  a  bearing  on  Modern  Speculation. 

Fcap.  8vo,  cloth  boards,  2s.  6d.  each. 

Neoplatonism.     By  the  Rev.  C.  BIGG,  D.D.     3*. 

Flatonism.     By  the  Rev.  THOMAS  B.  STRONG,  M.A.     3*. 

Epicureanism.     By  the  late  Professor  WILLIAM  WALLACE. 

Stoicism.     By  Rev.  W.  W.  CAPES,  Fellow  of  Hertford  College. 

Aristotelianism.  The  Ethics  of  Aristotle.  By  the  Rev.  I. 
GREGORY  SMITH.  The  Logical  Treatises,  the  Metaphysics, 
the  Psychology,  the  Politics.  By  the  Rev.  W.  GRUNDY. 


DIOCESAN   HISTORIES. 

This  Series  furnishes  a  perfect  Library  of  English  Ecclesiastical  History.  Each 
volume  is  complete  in  itself,  and  the  possibility  of  repetition  has  been  care 
fully  guarded  ajjainst. 

Fcap.  8vo,  with  Map,  cloth  boards. 


Bath  and  Wells.     By  the  Rev. 

W.  HUNT.     2s.  6d. 
Canterbury.     By  the  late  Rev. 

R.  C.  JENKINS.     3.5-.  6d. 
Carlisle.    By  the  late  RICHARD 

S.  FERGUSON.     2s.  6d. 
Chester.     By  the  Rev.  RUPERT 

H.  MORRIS.     With  Map. 
Chichester.      By  the  late  Very 

Rev.  W.  R.  W.  STEPHENS. 

With  Map  and  Plan.   is.  6d. 
Durham.     By  Rev.  J.  L.  Low. 

With  Map  and  Plan.    2s.  6d. 
Hereford.      By  the  late    Rev. 

Canon  PHILLPOTT.     3*. 
Lichneld.       By   the   Rev.    W. 

BERESFORD.    is.  6d. 
Lincoln.  By  the  late  Rev.  Canon 

E.  VENABLES,  and  the  late 

Ven.    Archdeacon   PERRY. 

With  Map.     4^. 
Uandaff.      By  the  Rev.  E.  J. 

NEWELL,  M.A.  With  Map. 

3*.  6d. 


Norwich.  By  the  Rev.  A. 
JESSOPP,  D.D.  2s.  6d. 

Oxford.  By  the  Rev.  E.  MAR 
SHALL.  2s.  6d. 

Feterboroug-h.  By  the  Rev. 
G.  A.  POOLE,  M.A.  21.  6J. 

Hochester.  By  the  Rev.  A.  J. 
PEARMAN.  With  Map.  4.?. 

Salisbury.  By  the  Rev.  W.  H. 
JONES.  With  Map.  2t.  6d. 

Sodor  and  Man.  By  A.  W. 
MOORE,  M.A.  3*. 

St.  Asaph.  By  the  Ven.  Arch 
deacon  THOMAS.  2s. 

St.  David's.  By  the  Rev.  Canon 
BEVAN.  With  Map.  2s.  6d. 

Winchester.  By  the  Rev.  W. 
BENHAM,  B.D.  3^. 

Worcester.  By  the  Rev.  I. 
GREGORY  SMITH  and  Rev. 
PHIPPS  ONSLOW.  3^-.  6d. 

York.  .By  the  Rev.  Canon 
ORNSBY,M.A.,F.S.A.  3.r.6</. 


PUBLICATIONS  OF  THE  SOCIETY. 


EARLY   CHURCH   CLASSICS. 

Small  post  8vo,  cloth,  boards. 

A  Homily  of  Clement  of  Alexandria,  entitled.  Who  is  the  Rich 
Man  that  is  Being  Saved  ?  By  Rev.  P.  MURDAUNT  BARNARD,  u. 

Bisliop  Sarapion's  Prayer-Book:  An  Egyptian  Pontifical  dated 
probably  about  350-356  A.  D.  Translated  from  the  Edition  of 
Dr.  G.  WoBBERMIN.  With  Introduction.  Notes,  and  Indices, 
by  the  Right  Rev.  JOHN  WORDSWORTH,  D.D.  u.  6J. 

Origen  the  Teacher.  Being  the  Address  of  Gregory  the  Wonder 
worker,  to  Origen,  together  with  Origen's  Letter  to  Gregory. 
Translated,  with  an  Introduction  and  Notes,  by  the  Rev. 
WILLIAM  METCALFE,  B.D.  is.  6d. 

St.  Crypian  on  the  Lord's  Prayer.  An  English  Translation 
with  Introduction.  By  the  Rev.  T.  HERBERT  BINDLEY,  M.A., 
D.I),  is.  6</. 

St.  Polycarp,  Bishop  of  Smyrna.  By  the  Rev.  BI.OMFIELD 
JACKSON,  M.A.  is. 

The  Apostolical  Constitutions  and  Cognate  Documents,  with 
special  reference  to  their  Liturgical  Elements.  By  the  Rev. 
DE  LACY  O'I.EARY.  M.A.  is. 

The  Doctrine  of  the  Twelve  Apostles.  Translated  into  English, 
with  Introduction  and  Notes,  by  the  Rev.  CHARLES  BIGG,  D.I). 
is. 

The  Epistle  of  St.  Clement,  Bishop  of  Home.  By  the  Rev. 
JOHN  A.  E.  GREGG,  M.A.  is. 

St.  Augustine's  Treatise  on  the  City  of  God.  By  Rev.  E.  R.  M. 
HITCHCOCK,  M.A.,  B.D.  is.  6d. 

St.  Chrysostom  on  the  Priesthood.  By  the  Rev.  T.  ALLEN 
MOXON,  M.A.  With  a  Preface  by  the  Lord  ISishop  of  South 
well.  25. 

The  Epistle  of  the  Gallican  Churches :  Lugdumim  and  Vienna. 
With  an  Appendix  containing  Tertullian's  Address  to  Martyrs 
and  the  Passion  of  St.  Perpetua.  Translated,  with  Introduction 
and  Notes,  by  Rev.  T.  IlEkiiEKT  BINDLEY,  D.D.  is. 

The  Epistles  of  St.  Ignatius,  Bishop  of  Antioch.  By  Rev.  J.  H. 
SRAWI.KY,  M.A.  In  two  volumes,  is.  each. 

The  Liturgy  of  the  Eighth  Book  of  "  the  Apostolic  Constitu 
tions,"  commonly  called  the  Clementine  Liturgy.  Translated 
into  English,  with  Introductions  and  Notes,  by  Rev.  R.  H. 
CRESSWELL,  M.A.  is.  (>J. 

The  Shepherd  of  Hermas.  By  the  Rev.  C.  TAYLOR,  D.D.,  Master 
of  St.  John's  College,  Cambridge.  Vols.  I  and  II.  Each  2J. 


PUBLICATIONS  OF  THE  SOCIETY. 


NON-CHRISTIAN  RELIGIOUS  SYSTEMS. 

Fcap.  8vo,  cloth,  boards,  2s.  Cd.  each. 

Buddhism :  being  a  sketch  of  the  Life  and  Teachings  of  Gautama, 
the  Buddha.  By  T.  W.  RHYS  DAVIDS,  M.A.,  Ph.D. 

Buddhism  in  China.     By  the  Rev.  S.  BEAL.     With  Map. 

Christianity  and  Buddhism  :  a  Comparison  and  a  Contrast.  By 
the  Rev.  T.  STERLING  BERRY,  D.D. 

Confucianism  and  Taouism.  By  Sir  ROBERT  K.  DOUGLAS,  of 
the  British  Museum.  With  Map. 

Hinduism.     By  the  late  Sir  M.  MONlER-WlLLiAMS,  M.A.,  D.C.L. 
Islam  and  its  Pounder.     By  J.  W.  H.  STOBART.     With  Map. 
Islam  as  a  Missionary  Religion.    By  CHARLES  R.  HAINES.    2s. 
Studies  of  Non-Christian  Religions.  By  ELIOT  HOWARD.  2s.6d. 

The  Coran:  its  Composition  and  Teaching,  and  the  Testimony  it 
bears  to  the  Holy  Scriptures.  By  Sir  WILLIAM  MUIR,  K.C.S.I. 

The  Religion  of  the  Crescent,  or  Islam:  its  Strength,  its  Weak 
ness,  its  Origin,  its  Influence.  By  the  Rev.  W.  St.  CLAIR 
TISDALL,  M.A.  45. 


COLONIAL  CHURCH  HISTORIES. 

Fcap.  8vo,  with  Map,  cloth  boards. 

Diocese  of  Mackenzie  River,  by  the  Right  Rev.  W.  C.  BOMPAS, 
D.D.,  Bishop  of  the  Diocese.  2s. 

New  Zealand,  by  the  late  Very  Rev.  HENRY  JACOBS,  D.D.,  Dean 
of  Christchurch.  Containing  the  Dioceses  of  Auckland,  Christ- 
church,  Dunedin,  Nelson, Waiapu,  Wellington  and  Melanesia.  5^. 

History  of  the  Church  in  Eastern  Canada  and  Newfoundland, 

by  the  Rev.  J.  LANGTRY.     35. 

The  Church  in  the  West  Indies,  by  the  Rev.  A.  CALDECOTT, 
B.D.  3*.  6<t. 

The  Story  of  the  Australian  Church,  by  the  Rev.  E.  SYMQNDS. 
2s.  6d. 

LONDON  :   NORTHUMBERLAND  AVENUE,  W.C. 
43  QUEEN  VICTORIA  STREET,  E.G.    BRIGHTON:  129  NORTH  STREET. 


t 

fa  OAJU*SHJU  yum'-