so that while they transferred to their writings the exact mind of the Spirit, they at the same time acted in perfect harmony with the laws of their own intellectual and moral nature, all this there is no attempt to explain. In fact, the mode of divine operation in the inspiration of the Bible transcends the reach of human comprehension altogether. Nor is this a matter of wonder when it is considered that the modes of divine operation even within the sphere of nature, whether in the material or intellectual world, are to the eye of man wrapped in impenetrable mystery. How much more may mystery be expected when we ascend to the sphere of the supernatural. Here we are brought into direct contact with the Infinite, and all rational men acknowledge that a philosophy of the infinite is impossible.

Before proceeding with the argument for plenary inspiration we claim that the Bible be recognised as a veracious, trustworthy record of divine revelation. And this preliminary claim may be allowed altogether apart from, and independent of, the question of inspiration; indeed, it must be allowed before the question of inspiration can be fairly discussed. If this claim be disputed, satisfaction must be sought for elsewhere, as this is not the place to show the grounds on which it rests. In our essay on "Revelation" the line of argument for the historic veracity of the Bible is sketched in a manner which, if followed out, may lead a candid mind to satisfaction. Taking it for granted, then, that the Bible is a veracious record of divine revelation, the record itself becomes available for argument on the question of inspiration. Nor must it be concluded, that in drawing arguments from the Bible on this question we reason in a circle, as if we were attempting to prove the inspiration of the Bible from the inspiration of the Bible. The preliminary claim we prefer is not for divine inspiration, but for human veracity. Admit the Bible to be veracious or trustworthy in the ordinary human sense of the word, and then it is perfectly legitimate to ask for its evidence on the question of its inspiration. Indeed, properly speaking, there is no other reliable source of evidence. It is from the Bible alone that the question of Bible inspiration must be decided. For the sake of convenience we shall examine the question in reference to the Old and New Testaments separately.

મેં

Guided by the only authentic record of early human history, it seems that from the dawn of time God drew to himself a class of men whom he made the repositories and exponents of such revelations as he saw fit to communicate for the spiritual culture of the race. In the ante-diluvian world, Enoch and Noah belonged to this prophetic order; the one prophesied of the second coming of Christ, the other, under the impulse of inspiration, was a preacher of righteousness. After the flood the line of prophets

is confined chiefly to the Hebrew nation, although insulated casesof prophetic endowment are to be found among other nations, as for instance Melchisedec, Job, and Balaam. At first, and for many ages, the prophetic function consisted exclusively in making oral announcements of the divine mind; but in process of time writing was superadded. Moses, Joshua, Samuel, Isaiah, and others of the prophets, were expressly commanded by God to commit to written documents, for the instruction of succeeding generations, the revelations they received. Joshua xxiv. 26, 1 Samuel x. 25, Isa. viii. 1, Jer. xxxvi. 1, Dan. ix. 2. These writings, which were highly reverenced and carefully guarded, gradually accumulated by successive additions, and became the acknowledged embodiment of supernatural truth. The men from whom these writings eminated were publicly known and recognised as God's inspired servants, so that whatever came from their pen when in the exercise of their prophetic functions, was regarded as of divine authority, and added to the sacred canon; and any writing recognised as canonical, though not formally claiming inspiration, was believed to be inspired.

Generally the writers of the Old Testament testify to their owninspiration in the clearest and most emphatic manner. In several of the sacred books there is indeed no such testimony furnished; but this argues nothing against their inspiration, when it is considered that their authors were well known to belong to theprophetic order, and that they were placed by competent authority in the canon of inspired books. But, as a rule, the sacred writers speak of their own inspiration with a fulness and frequency which remove all doubt as to their own convictions on the subject. The prefatory forms of speech they were wont to use when making special divine announcements are peculiarly significant. Let us quote a few: "Hear, O heavens, and give ear, O earth, for the Lord hath spoken;" "Then the word of the Lord came unto me, saying;"The Lord hath spoken;" "The mouth of the Lordhath spoken;""Thus saith the Lord;" "The word that came to Jeremiah from the Lord, saying;" "The word of the Lord came expressly to Ezekiel ;" "The beginning of the word of the Lord by Hosea ;""Now the word of the Lord came unto Jonah, the son of Amittai, saying;" "In the first day of the month came the word of the Lord by Haggai, the prophet;" "The burden of the word of the Lord to Israel, by Malachi." Hundreds of expressions of similar form and import to these are scattered over the Old Testament, plainly asserting or obviously implying the inspiration of the men by whom they are used. And who will venture to question the competency of this testimony? If these men were actually inspired by God, if he selected them from their fellows to be the bearers of supernatural messages, and if he imparted

such a measure of his own Spirit as enabled them to communicate those messages with perfect accuracy, whether orally or by writing, who so competent to know and report upon these transcendent facts as the men themselves? Unless God had wrought a miracle to attest the fact of their inspiration, it could only become known in the first instance by their assertion of it; and we are bound to believe what they testify in this case as in other cases, unless we are prepared to question their intellectual or moral competency.

The direct and indirect evidence furnished by the New Testament writers in proof of the inspiration of the Old Testament may be classified under the following heads:

Acts

First Divine inspiration is expressly ascribed to the Old Testament Scriptures. Paul, writing to Timothy, says, “From a child thou hast known the holy scriptures, which are able to make thee wise unto salvation, through faith which is Christ Jesus. All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness, that the man of God may be perfect, throughly furnished unto all good works." 2 Tim. iii. 15-17. The scriptures which Timothy had known from his childhood were the Jewish scriptures, the identical writings now forming the Old Testament. His maternal parents, who were Jewesses, took the utmost pains to have his mind well-grounded in a knowledge of their own sacred books. xvi. 1. 2 Tim. i. 5. Now these writings Paul expressly affirms were given by inspiration of God; and the very solemn and emphatic manner in which he affirms this shows that he meant supernatural inspiration. The Socinian criticism on this passage, which transposes the order of the words for the purpose of destroying the force of the argument for inspiration, misses its mark. Let it be granted that the proper rendering of the passage is, "All scripture given by inspiration of God is profitable," as Socinians contend for, rather than the received rendering, "All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable." What then? The only difference is that in the one case inspiration is broadly affirmed, in the other it is clearly implied; in both the full and complete inspiration of the Old Testament is unmistakably taught. Let us now turn to the apostle Peter. In his second Epistle, he says, "No prophecy of the scripture is of any private interpretation. For the prophecy came not in old time by the will of man: but holy men spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost, i. 20, 21. Here are three weighty utterances on the subject of Old Testament inspiration: No prophecy is of private interpretation, or a mere unfolding of the writer's own personal resources; prophecy came not by the will of man, as is invariably the case, with merely human writings; holy men spake, and by implication wrote, as they were moved by the Holy Ghost. The

words uttered by them whether by tongue or pen, when discharging their prophetic functions, were not the developments of their own private thinkings, prompted by their own personal will, but of divine dictation. They were "moved," impelled, carried forward, in what they spake and wrote, by divine impulse.

Second: Divine authorship is expressly or implicitly ascribed to the Old Testament Scriptures. Repeatedly they are called, "The Word of God," "The Commandments of God," "The Oracles of God,"―plainly implying that in the judgment of the men who use these and similar forms of speech-the Old Testament Scriptures emenated from the Divine mind and bore the stamp of Divine authorship, Mark vii. 9-13, Acts vii. 38, Rom. iii. 2, Heb. v. 12.

Third: Divine prescience is expressly or implicitly ascribed to the Old Testament Scriptures. This appears in the numerous instances of the fulfilment of prophecy mentioned by New Testament writers. Referring to John's ministry in the Wilderness, it is said, "This is he that was spoken of by the prophet Esaias," Mark i. 2. Christ commenced his ministry in the neighbourhood of the Sea of Galilee, "that it might be fulfilled which was spoken by Esaias the prophet," Matt. iv. 12-16. Christ bore our griefs and carried our sorrows, "that it might be fulfilled which was spoken by Esaias the prophet," Matt. viii. 16, 17. Language similar to this abounds throughout the whole of the New Testament, and was intended to show that the prophecies of the Old Testament were inspired by a wisdom which saw the end from the beginning.

Fourth: Divine authority is expressly or implicitly ascribed to the Old Testament Scriptures. On this point the example of Christ is singularly pertinent. When he would vanquish the assaults of the tempter, or confute the sophistry of the Pharisees, or establish his own claims to the Messiahship, the divine authority of the Scriptures is his ordinary weapon of offence, his ordinary tribunal of appeal, Matt. iv. 4-12, xix. 4-6; Luke xxiv. 45-47. The example of the apostles is equally pertinent. With what reverence and confidence does Paul refer to the authority of the Old Testament, both in his preaching and writings. Their decision on any question of faith or practice is with him an end of controversy. Instances illustrative of this, too numerous to quote, are to be found in the book of Acts, and also in his own Epistles, more especially in his Epistle to the Hebrews.

Finally: Divine infallibility is expressly or implicitly ascribed to the Old Testament Scriptures. Here we restrict ourselves to the testimony of Christ. He to whose dictum we bow without demur says, with regard to the Old Testament, "Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law till all

be fulfilled." Matthew v. 18. As if he had said, this glorious edifice of Holy Scripture, not made with human hands but of divine erection, is inviolable even in its minutest particles, and is destined for an endurance surpassing that of the material universe. Speaking again of his own Godhead, a doctrine to which the Jews felt and expressed the utmost abhorrence, as if it embodied the very essence of blasphemy, he says, "The scriptures cannot be broken." John x. 35. This saying is used parenthetically, but if the reader turns to the passage, he will see it is of all the greater weight and significance on that account. It is not only on the particular matter of which Christ was speaking that the scriptures are infallible; infallibility is stamped on the whole: "All flesh is as grass, and all the glory of man as the flower of grass. The grass withereth, and the flower thereof falleth away; but the word of the Lord endureth for ever." 1 Peter i. 24-25.

The particular proofs of Old Testament inspiration here drawn from the New Testament, so far from exhausting this mine of evidence, serve merely to indicate and afford samples of the wealth it contains. Were the reader to go carefully through the New Testament, for the purpose of noting every reference and allusion to the inspiration of the Old, he would be surprised at the mass of evidence accumulating in his hands. With this evidence before us, we cannot well have a doubt that Christ and his apostles were thoroughly penetrated with a belief in the plenary inspiration of the Old Testament scriptures.

If the foregoing arguments designed to prove the inspiration of the Old Testament be valid, a strong presumption thence arises, antecedent to all formal proof, in favour of New Testament inspiration. Although we have separated the two Testaments for argumentative convenience, they are in point of fact a strict organic unity. They emanate from the same source, they embody the same truth, they contemplate the same end: they are the complement of each other. As the fruit is developed from the seed, and the man from the boy, so the New Testament is the outgrowth of the Old, absorbing in itself all that is vital in the Old. Neither is complete without the other, neither is intelligible without the other; by a thousand living fibres interpenetrating each other organic oneness is constituted between the two. But though they be organically one and may not be disjoined without mortal injury to both, still in point of practical importance the New Testament is superior to the Old, just as the fruit is superior to the seed, and the man to the boy. Hence, there arises a double presumption in favour of New Testament inspiration. If the New Testament is part and parcel of God's blessed revelation begun in the Old, it is to be presumed, unless reason can be shown to the contrary, that the inspiration vouchsafed in the first part will be continued in the