has no other possible source than inspiration. And if it be false, seeing what it is, how is it to be accounted for? Is it a structure which it is conceivable to have been built up by a series of impostors? The dilemma is here again; the authors of the Bible professed to have received its religion from God, and therefore unless that was an actual fact, they were nothing else than conscious, or unconscious, impostors. Now it may be said that the innumerable correspondences in the Bible render the idea of its being an unconscious imposture impossible. Passages from its different books could not have been woven together, in the way in which they are woven together, without definite intention: and if this were not done by the intention of God, it must have been done by the intention of man; that is, if there were imposture, it must certainly have been intentional imposture. Hence we are reduced to the question-could the religion of the Bible be regarded as an intentional imposture? Its nature, its scope, its origin, its structure must be examined on that hypothesis. If it was an imposture, what was its purpose? What good was it to do? Certainly it brought no temporal benefits to its authors; their earthly position was not improved by their writings, often the reverse. Nor could its object have been to bring good to those to whom it was written, seeing that its authors knew it to be a fraud. So, unless the Bible was inspired, its religion was built up without purpose. And the effect it has had upon mankind is the accidental effect of a fraud. That effect has only to be measured to prove the absurdity of such a supposition. Consequently it is evident that the religion set forth by the Bible, is in itself a proof of its inspiration.

(6) Most of all it is to be observed that there exists, over and above all else, a direct proof of the inspiration of Scripture following on a personal knowledge of Christ. This proof is of course only available to those who are convinced Christians. To all others, the premises are unknown; and therefore the consequent result cannot be demanded. But even as the

want of the knowledge of Greek in some renders the Iliad a closed book to them, but does not debar those who do know Greek from understanding the Iliad; so the absence of a personal knowledge of the Lord Jesus Christ in some does not lessen the value of His authority to those who do personally know Him. So this proof must be stated for the sake of those to whom it is available; all others must stand by and only judge its weight, by what they see in those whom it affects. Now it is alleged by no inconsiderable number of mankind that

they do personally know the Lord Jesus Christ. Moreover this. asserted knowledge is commonly seen to have a most marked effect on their lives. Their lives, and sometimes their deaths, are proofs that this asserted knowledge becomes the dominant factor in their being. It results among other things in their regarding the teaching of Christ not only as authoritative, but as having infallible authority, based on their personal experience of the infallibility of its Author. They believe Him implicitly; therefore they believe His testimony implicitly. And His testimony concerning the Scripture is that it is the Word of God. Of that he spoke with authority and not as the scribes. His words in St. Mark x, 6, 7, alone mark its first chapters as the authentic records of creation. "From the beginning" (Gen. i, 1) "He made them male and female' (Gen. i, 27)" therefore shall, etc." (Gen. ii, 24). And as the seal of Christ stamps the Old Testament as the inspired word of God, so is the New Testament stamped as such by the fact of Christ, for it is composed either of His own words or of teaching derived from Him.

3. The revelation of God in the Bible.

Thus we have found that the Bible can on many independent grounds be definitely proved as a revelation from God; and that this proof may be reached in two distinct ways: (1) by a personal knowledge of the Lord Jesus Christ, who then becomes, to those who know Him, the final authority on its inspiration, and (2) by the ordinary scientific examination of its history and its contents, and of all the facts that are known about it from whatever source. Consequently, as it is given by inspiration of God, its words are true words in regard to that which it is its purpose to reveal. Now what at present we are seeking is to form a conception of God Himself. May we therefore seek to form that from the Bible? Without the slightest doubt the primary purpose of the Bible is this very actual thing-to reveal God to men. Even if we might use the Bible for nothing else, at least we may use it for this. It is the handbook to the knowledge of God. It is a storehouse of data, authoritative for the science of God. It is the revelation of God by God. As the Bible conveys the true word of God, the view which it presents to us of God Himself must infallibly be true.

4. God, as seen in Nature and in the Bible, identical.

But before going further, a question may be asked, and a

limitation suggested, which it may be simpler to consider at the outset, although in doing so we may have to use by anticipation some of the evidence about God, which we shall presently draw from the sacred storehouse of Scripture.

First, then, it may be asked, "is the God whom we have found from Nature the same God whom we find in the Bible ?," It might be conceived, that, after all, they might be different beings. Gnostic notions might be brought in to suggest a relationship with a difference. But to answer this we have only to compare the two conceptions of God, given to us respectively by Nature and by Scripture. We look in brief to the view of the Being of God which is presented to us in Holy Writ. He is described (to take but three places out of many) as, "the King Eternal, immortal, invisible, the only wise God," "the Lord God omnipotent," "the Creator of the ends of the earth"; and everywhere throughout Scripture the same view of His peerless Majesty is given. If Scripture be true, He is God supreme and God alone. But we have already seen that the God about whom we learn in Nature is single and supreme, its one first cause. Therefore, the God of Nature and the God of the Bible must be one and the same. There is no room in the universe for more than one God, whether as revealed by nature or by Scripture. Therefore, whatever we learn of God in nature is knowledge of the God of the Bible; and whatever we learn of God in the Bible is knowledge of the God of Nature; and, therefore, whatever we know about God is knowledge which applies to either sphere; and more particularly for our present purpose, whatever we discover of the character of God from the Bible may be scientifically used to explain the ways of God in the realms of Nature.

5. The Bible not a scientific text-book, but authoritative about God.

It

Secondly, the limitation may be suggested that the Bible, however true as a revelation, has no scientific purpose, and therefore cannot be consulted as a compendium of Science. may be said, and very often is said, that its expressions are those of the current state of science at its time, and that later discoveries have accumulated vast stores of natural knowledge of which its human authors were entirely ignorant. We may freely grant all this. We have no wish to turn the Bible into a scientific text-book. Its purpose was certainly not to record philosophic theories, or to chronicle natural research No one supposes that its ancient writers were versed in the scientific

methods of modern days. No one imagines that Moses, or David, or Paul, were acquainted with the doctrines of evolution or the laws of electricity. But for all that, it is not wise to forget that the Bible has not only a human but a Divine side. If God is indeed the actual Maker of Nature, He must have known all about its true laws and methods, even if Moses did not; nay, even if possibly philosophers of the present day have not yet quite fathomed them fully. And the Bible is the Word of God, that is, it is inspired by the Author of Nature; so it is not quite safe for any man, however learned, to scout its science, or to charge it with ignorance or misconception of natural facts; for it is quite possible that its simple statements may go further down into the roots of knowledge than do the most recent researches of current philosophy. Its words of truth, unscientifically stated, yet may antedate the scientific unveiling of the truths which they contain; and the office of science may be not to surpass the natural facts of the inspired record, but to elucidate them and interpret their real unappreciated meaning. What does the idea of inspiration imply? To say the least, it implies that the human authors were not the unaided authors of what they wrote. To assert that they only wrote what they themselves knew by their human learning is simply to rob inspiration of its force. On the contrary, the set claim of the Bible is that its authors did not themselves fully understand "what things the Spirit of God which was in them did testify." They sought, and sought in vain, to measure the ultimate meaning of the words they uttered. Inspiration, apart from its methods, is the assertion of the fact that God gave men His messages to deliver to their fellow men. It does not indicate that His messengers understood the message. Nor does it affect this question whether the message was delivered in the words of the Sender or of the Messenger. If the message was rightly delivered (and that at least is implied by inspiration) it must have carried the Sender's meaning in whatever words the Messenger delivered it.

And therefore, it must be concluded that the assertions of the Scripture are in themselves intrinsically true, in whatever phraseology they may be clothed. Consequently the meaning of statements given by inspiration is not to be measured by the amount of knowledge which the writers of the Bible had, or may be supposed to have had; and to set up their personal knowledge as a limitation to the scientific truth of what they wrote, is to strike out the major factor in the equation of Scripture.

But, after all, this suggested limitation does not affect our immediate question. We are not at this stage of our inquiry

attempting to learn any science from the Bible. We are not now intending to examine any statements it makes about natural phenomena. We are only seeking to form a conception of God Himself from what is revealed to us by the Bible about Him. And this, undoubtedly, is the Bible's own peculiar sphere. This is its first object, the keystone to its meaning in all besides. On this question it is paramount; on this it is peerless; on this it is authoritative. If the Bible is not a true revelation of God it could not be a revelation from God.

6. The Biblical Conception of God.

What then is the conception of God, which is given to us from Holy Scripture? Thus He is described. He is the one and only God (Mark xii, 32). He is untiring (Is. xl, 28), eternal (Rom. i, 20), infinite (Rom. xi, 33-36), omnipotent (Rev. xix, 6), omniscient (Acts xv, 18), onnipresent (Jer. xxiii, 24), unsearchable (Rom. xi, 33), unapproachable (1 Tim. vi, 16), immutable (James i, 17), patient (Ex. xxxiv, 6), invisible (St. John i, 18), all wise (Rom. xvi, 27), righteous (Ps. cxlv, 17), good (Nah. i, 17), merciful (Ex. xxxiv, 6), bountiful (1 Tim. vi, 17), glorious (Ex. xv, 11), just (Is. xlv, 21), holy (Lev. xx, 26), and true (1 John x, 20). He is love (1 John iv, 8), and the source of love (1 John iv, 7). He is living (St. John i, 4), and life-giving (Acts xvii, 25). He is the first and the last (Rev. i, 8). He is before all things (Col. i, 17). He it is in whom all things consist (Col. i, 17). He knows the end from the beginning (Is. xxvi, 10). He is perfect (St. Matt. v, 48). He made the worlds (Heb. i, 3). He created all things (St. John i, 3). From everlasting to everlasting He is God (Ps. xe, 2).

Yet further of His Being we have three majestic views. He is unapproachable (Ex. xxxiii, 20). He is a Spirit (St. John iv, 24). He "is" (Ex. iii, 14, St. John viii, 58).

Such wonderful truths do we learn from Scripture about God. Much more indeed is told us, which carries our conception further. But the data here given seem enough, and more than enough, for the object before us; always remembering that, where one text has been quoted, it is frequently but one out of many with the same relation; and that in the Bible God is constantly displayed not only by descriptive words but by the portraits of His acts and purposes.

Can anyone consider this manifold revelation without awe? Verily, as we calmly survey it, all other facts in heaven and earth sink into insignificance beside this stupendous con