In answer to the question; "Why do you believe the Bible to be the Word of God?" I may say that, as the supernatural character of Christ surpassed the possibility of invention by man, so the supernatural contents of the Bible surpass the genius of man, and prove the book Divine. It is absurd to suppose its authors weak or dishonest; and it is no less absurd to suppose them clear-sighted and upright, yet deceived. They were moved by the Spirit of God to gives these writings to men ; and the more just and profound one's knowledge of the Scriptures, the more confident will he be of their plenary inspiration. In particular, the specific promise of Jesus to his disciples, as recorded by John, the manner in which that promise began to be fulfilled on the day of Pentecost, the gift of prophecy to many in the apostolic churches, the power, purity, and practical perfection of the New Testament writings, the vast superiority of these writings to the remaining Christian literature of that age, or of the next, and the inexhaustible vitality which has enabled them to survive the assaults of foes and the mistakes of friends, convince me that their excellence and authority are due to the inspiration of their writers, "who spake from God, being moved by the Holy Spirit." But if the New Testament is from God, I must accept the Old Testament as no less Divine; for the two are bound together by innumerable ties, and especially by the words of Jesus Christ and his apostles. The historical sketches, the mighty psalms, and the marvelous and golden threads of Messianic prediction running through the library of sacred literature bound up in the Old Testament confirm my faith in the inspiration of its writers. Novum Testamentum in vetere latet: Vetus Testamentum in novo patet. ALVAH HOVEY.

Newton Theological Seminary.

XI.

I believe the Bible, as a whole, to be the Word of God. I do not consider it sufficient to say, "The Bible contains words from God," because I consider the book itself God's gift to He sends us his message, and sends it in such a form as He sees to be best adapted to our needs. We understand his

man.

will better by reading the whole of it than by reading a part of it. The book as a whole is in accord with his design and plan.

I state, very briefly, my reasons for this belief. I think it must be admitted that the various books of the Bible are authentic and well-attested records. If this is granted, it cannot be denied that Jesus Christ is the Incarnate Word of God. If this is granted, then the words of Christ, many of them confessedly reported in the Scriptures, must be God's words. Those persons whom Christ sent out to preach the gospel must, if Christ fulfilled his promise, have received Divine aid in their teachings. They must have spoken as the Holy Spirit gave them utterance. Any one who will compare the Epistles in the New Testament with the Acts of the Apostles will be convinced that we have in those Epistles the apostolic teaching and preaching. We have, then, an undoubted right to say that we have in the Epistles the filling out of the Christian doctrines which Christ promised to his disciples. This work was to be performed by the Spirit because the disciples were not able to understand the entire range of the doctrines before the sacrificial death. If we accept the parts of the New Testament now spoken of as from God, we must accept the Old Testament as from Him. Paul ascribes it to men taught of God. Christ treats the Jews of his own generation as incompetent to understand the Bible, of course incompetent to write it; yet treats them as the true successors of their fathers. It is not possible to believe that Christ considered the Bible to be the product of the Jewish mind of any age. He treats it as a book consisting of instructions, rebukes, warnings sent from God to his chosen but wayward people.

If the Old Testament, as a whole, came from God, it is easy to infer, with Tholuck and others, that the entire New Testament proceeded from the same source. I give this, not as the only line of argument that leads to a belief in the inspiration of the Bible, but as a convenient one. I have had no reference here to questions relating to the canon of the Scriptures. G. N. BOARDMAN.

Chicago Theological Seminary.

66

XII.

I shall answer the last part of the question, or why, first, because if the fact of inspiration be established, the manner, or how, is of subsidiary importance. If it be once proved that the Scriptures are the Word of God, the failure to be able to explain satisfactorily how they are so cannot set aside the fact. I. I believe the Bible is the Word of God from its effect and from its character. By their fruits ye shall know them." 1. No book has so moulded society for good as the Bible. No book has given the peoples who have come under its sway such vitality. The gospel delivered to the eleven has had such power of conquest, morally and spiritually, that now, according to Professor A. J. Schem, nearly half of the world's inhabitants are under Christian governments.1

Even the Jews, who build on the Old Testament alone, are the miracle of history in their vitality and their promise for the future. This is undoubtedly in accordance with God's purpose, but the means through which it has been effected has been through a belief and practice of the old covenant. The Jews exist to-day as leading powers among many of the nations whither they have been scattered, because during more than twenty-three centuries they have recognized the Old Testament Scriptures as the Word of God, and have regulated their lives according to their principles.

Much is claimed for Mohammedanism as a great missionary religion. Some are so blind as almost to consider it a rival of Christianity in this respect;2 but Mohammedanism largely owes its existence and its progress to that which it derived from Judaism, to the grand principle of monotheism which it has received from the Old Testament Scriptures.3 It is this more than any other feature which makes it a missionary religion at the present day.

1 Christian Work in New York, 1888, p. 119: "He reports the population of the world at 1,396,752,000 souls, of whom 685,459,411 are under Christian governments, and 711,383,589 under non-Christian governments.

2 Cf. R. Bosworth Smith, Mohammed and Mohammedanism. New York, 1875, pp. 50 ff.

3 Cf. Kuenen, National Religions and Universal Religions. New York, 1882, pp. 26, 27, 30, 57.

These considerations in a general way seem to show the effects of the Bible as seen in Mohammedanism, Judaism, and Christianity.

Whatever may be said of the ancient civilizations, there can be no question that that of ancient Israel, which has its roots in Old Testament teaching, with all its failings, was incomparably the best. Those of Assyria, Egypt, Babylonia, and Phoenicia cannot be compared for a moment with that of ancient Israel.

There is certainly no book that exerts such transforming power to-day as the Bible, when brought home by the faithful preacher, with the power of the Spirit, to the vicious classes in our land and the lowest heathen in foreign lands. Our civilization, devoid of the restraints of Bible teaching, innoculates the Sandwich Islander with a dry rot, drugs the Chinese with opium, and makes the African a slave of men. But our Bible transforms whole populations. It makes good Christians out of the cannibal Fiji Islanders; it completely changes the drunken and profligate in our own land, and lifts them into positions of usefulness and influence. Now a book that has such effects must be the Word of God.

2. There is no book which can lay such claims to being a Divine book. This clearly appears from admissions and positive statements of those who have devoted their lives to the study of the sacred books of the East, and especially from the view of every unbiased and sympathetic student of the Scriptures. Max Müller admits that "readers who have been led to believe that [these sacred books, the Vedas, etc.]. are full of primeval wisdom and religious enthusiasm, or at least of sound and simple moral teaching, will be disappointed on consulting these volumes." He further adds: "It is but natural that scholars, in their joy at finding one or two fragrant fruits and flowers, should gladly forget the brambles and thorns that have to be thrown aside in the course of their search." 2

1

...

While this is negative testimony, Sir Monier-Williams, who has spent his life in the study of these books, has spoken strongly of the incomparable superiority of the Scriptures.3

1 The Sacred Books of the East. Oxford, 1879, vol. i. p. ix.

2 Ibid. p. x.

8 The Missionary Herald. Boston, 1887, pp. 305 ff.

There is, indeed, an effort among students of comparative religions (e. g. Tiele, Müller, etc.), and of the Old Testament (e. g. Stade and others) to explain the Bible on naturalistic principles, and to show that it is not the product of the Divine mind, but rather of human minds gradually rising from the grossest superstitions of fetishism and animism to the sublimest conceptions of God and immortality. But such a theory does not account for the Bible. It leads us simply to the place where there is a great gulf fixed between human superstitions and Divine revelation.

Certainly one idea runs through the sixty-six books of the Bible from Genesis to Revelation, embracing a period of more than twelve hundred years, one Spirit animates it. It is the idea of the redemption of man, through an individual, a family, a people, and finally through the God-man.

II. In determining in what sense the Bible is the Word of God, we ought not to adopt an a priori method. If we do, we are liable to be led astray. According to such a theory, we may hold a mechanical or verbal or plenary hypothesis of inspiration, and may find that it is not sustained by the facts. Our theory should be determined by an inductive method. But whatever this may be, with the evidence that we have that the Bible is the Word of God, as demonstrated by its character and effects, no army of scientists or critics, however destructive, can shake our belief in the inspiration of the Scriptures. We do not need to put our fingers into the print of the nails of Scripture or thrust our hands into its side; our evidence is what we have seen and experienced of its power in the hearts of others as well as in our own.

Perhaps it is enough to say of Scripture that it possesses an essential inspiration. It is nowhere said in Scripture that it is infallible in matters of science and in the details of history and chronology; but that it is "profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, for instruction which is in righteousness." (2 Tim. iii. 16.) It was not designed, then, that the scientist should go to the Bible for ultimate science, although I do not imply by this that it is not in agreement with the established facts of science; it was designed that saving truth should be