The Verbal Inspiration of the Scriptures

The Verbal Inspiration of the Scriptures
VERBAL INSPIRATION OE THE SCRIPTURES.
BY MAURICE D. GANO.

Paul, writing to the church at Corinth with reference to the great truths and facts of the Gospel which he and other inspired teachers were then revealing to the world, made this positive statement: "We speak not in the words which man's wisdom teacheth, but in the words which the Holy Spirit teacheth." Through the address tonight let us each bear in mind this inspired utterance of the great apostle. A serious question confronts us upon the very threshold, or rather before we reach the threshold of our discussion. The question is this: when the words of the scriptures are alleged to be inspired what specific words are meant? Cer­tainly not the words of any translation of the scriptures, because no translator has ever been inspired, either in the understanding and exact comprehension of the divine thought which he is translating, or in the selection of words in which to clothe what he conceives the divine thought to be. The translation may possibly contain errors in failing to grasp the thought of the original and also errors in failing to express aright the thought of the original when understood. Hence inspiration cannot be claimed for the words of any translation.

Inspiration can only be alleged with reference to the words used in the original manuscripts written or dictated by the inspired authors themselves. An objection to the discussion of this proposition has been urged and admirably stated by Isaac Errett, for whose Christian character and splendid talents every one has the profoundest respect. He objected to the discussion of the question as to whether or not the words of the original manuscripts were inspired be­cause the gift of inspired thought ceased with the death of the last apostle, and the original manuscripts perished from the face of the earth before the close of the second century; and therefore the discussion of inspiration or lack of inspira­tion in the words of the original manuscript is now an aca­demic question of no practical interest whatever to any Christian, man, woman, girl or boy upon the broad face of the earth, The great editor in stating his objection does not fairly state the question. He appears to overlook transmitted copies of the original manuscripts. We have to do with the original words not documents. Suppose the original manu­scripts are gone but the original words remain, preserved in copies. If we have the original words what matters it if the original manuscripts did perish from the earth in the long ago, or that grasses have for centuries been growing upon the graves of the apostles? If we have the original words, then proof that these words are inspired is not a theoretical or academic question as suggested; upon the contrary it is a burning,, practical question of temporal and eternal moment. But have we the original words? Important as is this question, only brief time and space can be given it here and now. The work accomplished by the church in answering this question occupies one of the most stirring epochs of church history, and the volumes which set forth how the work was done fill many of the most intensely interesting chapters of church history. Perhaps the Christian world never received a greater shock than when, in the year 1707, John Mills, an eminent critic of Oxford University, an­nounced that the manuscript copies of the New Testament scriptures including the two accepted versions in use in Europe and England contained over thirty thousand errors or differences in text readings. Subsequently upon exam­ination of additional manuscripts the number of errors was increased.

It was not until the sixteenth century, many years after the invention of the art of printing, that the Greek New Testament was given to the world in printed form. After this editions and copies were multiplied rapidly and the at­tention of scholars was drawn more closely to the differ­ences among the printed editions, and between them and the manuscript copies. The art of printing, while it brought into clearer light the various readings also brought to a close the possibility of future errors. The American Bible Society claims there is not a single misprint in the myriads of copies of the English Bible which they are annually printing in various editions. It follows, since the perfection of printing, that the language of the ancient texts, if corrected, will no longer be exposed to such errors. These errors, however, upon close examination, were found to consist in differences of Greek orthography; in the form of words not affecting the meaning; in the insertion or omission of words not essential to the sense; in the use of one synonym for another; in punctuation; in errors of spelling; and in the transposition of words where the order was immaterial. These errors, immaterial in nature, would naturally result from the work of the copyist under then existing circum­stances, however careful he might be. For we must remem­ber that in ancient times the letters extended across the page in unbroken succession with only pause marks at stated intervals. There were no sentences, no accents, no division of words, no punctuation and no division into chapters or verses.' It is no cause for wonder that copyists made many clerical errors and yet there is much consolation in the state­ment made by Hort and Westcott, two of the most eminent Bible critics of the last half century, to the effect that "only one thousandth part of the New Testament was so variously expressed as to make any substantial differences in the meaning; and that at the time of the discovery of the various readings the book of the New Testament as preserved in extant manuscripts assuredly spoke in every important re­spect in language identical to that in which they spoke to those for whom they were originally written." Of the thousands of errors noted, "only about four hundred mate­rially affected the sense; of these not more than fifty were really worthy of notice; and of these fifty not one affects an article of faith or a precept of duty." Such was the wonder­ful preservation of the original text, notwithstanding the errors found. The existence, however, of a single error in the text, it mattered not how trivial or insignificant, was of deepest concern to the church. The accurate and sensitive scholarship of the Christian world, Catholic and Protestant, immediately set about to remove this cloud upon the text. The task assigned by the church and undertaken by the ripest scholars of the age was to correct every error however insignificant and restore in all their purity the words of the original apostolic documents. The task was great but the means requisite for the work had been preserved and were at hand ready for use. Never in history was such an abundance of materials found for the correction of error and the restoration of an ancient text. The scriptures in ancient Greek manuscripts, in ancient versions, in verbal quotations scattered through the writings of the church fathers, containing text and internal evidence of the great originals, were gathered from the four corners of the religious world. The number of recovered manuscripts was legion because no text of ancient times was ever studied, circulated, preserved, and transmitted like the text of the sacred scriptures. The reason is evident. To those who believed, these writings contained the plan of salvation and hope for the human race; and these believers were the ones who copied, studied and preserved the manu­scripts. Under such conditions who need wonder at the abundance of materials found and furnished. More than two thousand manuscripts were found. These manuscripts included eighty-three uncial manuscripts (i. e. written in uncial letters which prevailed from the fourth century to the tenth century); and one thousand nine hundred ninety- seven cursive manuscripts (i. e. written in cursive letters which were employed as early as the tenth century and con­tinued in use until the invention of printing which super­seded the humble labors of the scribe). Among these manu­scripts were the four great uncials and the seven famous versions known to all Bible scholars. The work of restor­ing the identical words of the original text from this great mass of material was an herculean task; it required the comparison and grouping into families of the numerous manuscripts; it required the careful detection and elimina­tion of each error; it required patience, perseverance and sound judgment; it required time. But the result, the rest­oration of the identical words of the original text of the in­spired writer, was sure and certain. The great mass of material increased the labor but rendered the result the surer, provided the work was faithfully done. A few words upon this feature. Dr. Philip Shaff, perhaps more deeply and broadly versed in the history of this work than any scholar living in the generation just passed, says that no work involving the restoration of an ancient text ever en­listed the talents and abilities possessed by the scholars of international reputation who toiled successively from 1707, when John Mill, of Oxford University, published his critical Greek text of the New Testament, until the 17th day of May, 1881, when Hort and Westcott, of Cambridge Uni­versity, gave to the world the purest Greek text of the New Testament. These two eminent scholars last named, stand­ing upon the shoulders of the great English, French, Ger­man, Swiss, Danish, Italian and Russian critics who had gone before, and devoting their own lives to the work, gave to Christendom the Greek text which was used in the Re­vised Version and in the American Revision with which we are all familiar. In this Greek text of the New Testament the warranted word, the word supported by the evidence as the correct word, was placed in the. body of the text and the few words of doubtful claim to notice were placed upon the margin. This text contains the identical words of the orig­inal manuscripts written or dictated by the Inspired Writers. Why not? Virgil's Aenead, Sophocles' Oedipus Tyrannus, and Euripides' Medea were written before Christ, (with the exception of Virgil, centuries before), and each contained thousands upon thousands of errors when the printed text was first produced. If the original text of each of these classics has been restored from only one uncial copy and a relatively small number of cursive copies; if Homer's im­mortal epic, written hundreds of years before Christ and containing fifty thousand errors, has been completely re­stored from a few fragmentary uncial copies, one complete cursive copy of the thirteenth century and a few fragments of cursive copies; then I ask in the name of reason and common sense, yes, I reverently ask in the name of Heaven, why have not the identical words of the New Testament scriptures been restored by the greatest specialists in this particular character of criticism after devoting nearly two hundred years to the work and with nearly two thousand manuscripts as a basis for the detection and correction of errors? Brethren, the task has been accomplished. Thank God we have the words of the original manuscripts (in­spired or uninspired) and tonight can propound a practical question of vital import by asking, are these words inspired?

These ancient manuscripts, penned or dictated by those specially prepared and commissioned of God to communicate revealed truth, are contained in the genuine books of the New Testament Scriptures. Here are revealed to the world the fundamental principles of the Christian Religion, the plan of human redemption, the conditions of salvation, and that vast fund of infinite wisdom which Christ gave to his chosen apostles and specially commissioned them to teach all nations. The New Testament text contains thoughts and words. Thought and word are distinct, though one is the medium through which the other is expressed. This enables us to state the issues raised and the specific issue before us.

There are those who believe this so-called sacred text contains only the thoughts of men expressed in the language of men; that neither language nor thought is in any sense inspired; that it is the word of man and not the word of God; that this side of the grave its moral maxims may be used with profit, but with reference to matters beyond the grave its statements are human guesses and its promises a delusion and a snare. With that class we have nothing whatever to do tonight. We shall not prove the truths of the scriptures, we shall assume them. We shall not prove the thought which God gave the writers of his book inspired. This, too, is assumed. The discussion is with Christians, not infidels. We are taking part in the great battle raging within and not without the Church.

There are those within the Church, thoughtful men and women, who believe that this book contains the thoughts of God expressed in the language of God's own selection; and that it is what it purports to be, the word of God. These brethren to converts of a like faith can say in the words of Paul to the converts at Thessalonica: "We thank God without ceasing because when ye received the word of God, ye received it not as the word of man but as it is in truth the word of the living God."

Again, there are those within the Church, thoughtful men and women, who say, "No, that cannot be. We con­cede that the thoughts are the thoughts of God, but the words are the words of men. God gave the thoughts, safely lodged them in the minds of men, but left to these men the expression of those inspired thoughts."

They tell us that the language of the sacred writers is the language exclusively of men because of the different, distinctive and personal styles of the various writers. Paul's style differs widely from Matthew's, and his in turn differs from Luke's, and so on through the entire list; and further that the style changes with the same writer at different ages, citing in proof of this contention John's Gospel and John's Revelation. This position overlooks the principle that miraculous power is never exercised beyond the neces­sities of the case, and further overlooks the fact that whether God selected the words or did not select them a change of style or unity of style has nothing whatever to do with the issue. The purpose was the expression of truth. Clearness of thought and accurate selection of the proper word is absolutely essential to the expression of truth; but peculiarities of style have nothing whatever to do with the expression of truth. Truth can be expressed and a lie can be told in any style. Style has to do with personal habits of thought, with the arrangement of the elements of a sent­ence, the marshalling of clauses, the arrangement of phrases, the use of connectives and the selection of synonyms. The Stoic philosophy has been presented to the world by two men whose styles widely differ. Its truths were clearly and truthfully presented in the terse, graphic style of Seneca; but no less clearly and no less truthfully were the same truths presented in the rounded and beautiful periods of Cicero.

You will pardon a homely illustration which will make my meaning clear to all. My Grandfather many years ago told a story which I shall never forget. In the early days a certain fop (they called dudes "fops" in those days) was traveling in a one horse gig along a public road in Old Vir­ginia. Just about nightfall he stopped in front of an old fashioned inn beside the road. A little negro opened the door, stuck his head out and held it out long enough to hear this remarkable speech: "Youth, extricate the noble Pegasus from the vehicle; stabulate and donate him with a suf­ficient supply of nutritious aliment, and when the Aurora shall adorn the Eastern horizon I will compensate thee with a reward suitable to thy genial hospitality." You would not have used a single clause of that stilted and bombastic style. You would not have said "Youth, extricate the noble Peg­asus from the vehicle." You would have said, "Boy, un­hitch the horse." You would not have said, "stabulate and donate him with a sufficient supply of nutritious aliment." You would have said, "'put him in the stable and give him plenty to eat." You would not have said, "when the Aurora shall adorn the Eastern horizon I will compensate thee with a reward suitable to thy genial hospitality." You would have said, "at sunrise I'll pay you what it is worth." How widely different these styles, and yet the thought expressed is identically the same. What on earth has difference of style to do with the accurate expression of truth? Any fact of history, any proposition of mathematics, any truth of philosophy can be stated as clearly in the terse Anglo Saxon style of Dean Swift as in the involved Latin English style of Joseph Addison. It was not necessary to change Paul's style, or Matthew's style or John's style in order to secure an accurate and truthful expression of the truths with which they were each inspired, provided the proper words were chosen. It would be as sensible to urge sameness of color in Apostolic eyes, as to urge sameness of style in Apostolic writing.

Again it is urged that the writers of the sacred scrip­tures were only mouthpieces if they stated the truths of God in the language of God; that such a contention destroys the originality of the writers. The thoughts are confessedly not theirs and if you deny to them the selection of the words in which those thoughts are clothed, the last vestige of orig­inality is gone. This is true, but certainty and authenticity in the scriptures is of infinitely greater value than originality on the part of the writers. I know not how others may feel, but as for me I can look with the kindling eye of faith and trust upon God's great plan of human redemption if it rests for its expression upon words of God's own choosing —be­cause then I know it rests upon the rock of eternal truth. But I look with distrust and fear and trembling upon that same great plan of human redemption if it rests for its ex­pression upon the possibly fallible words of fallible men, because then I know it is resting upon the sand.

We do not wish to limit or qualify the meaning of the word inspired when applied to the words of the Scriptures. The word is used in its broadest and deepest and truest sense. As God illumined the human mind in the concep­tion of divine thought, so he illumined the human mind in the accurate verbal expression of that thought. Did he miraculously coin the thought? Then he miraculously selected the words in which to express that thought. We contend that as the thoughts are God's, the words are God's; that God inspired the thought and censored the word. Under this broad and comprehensive statement of inspira­tion, rather than definition of it, we affirm the proposition that wherever in the Holy Scriptures the thought is inspired the language is inspired; and the thought is inspired in all matters of duty, in all matters "profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, for instruction and for the com­plete furnishing of the man of God for every good work;" and this comprises all of it except certain statements of fact or opinion declared by the writer to be uninspired, both in thought and language.

Apart from the plain scriptural teaching touching this question of verbal inspiration, there are three unanswerable reasons why the writers of the sacred text did not person­ally and unaided select the words in which to express in­spired thought:

First. The inherent difficulty in the accurate expression of thought in words and the absolute impossibility of so expressing it in the case before us. It requires long prac­tice and patient training to express well known and clearly conceived thought in words. In this particular not one but all writers have made mistakes. Pardon a shop illustration. Lord Tenterton perhaps knew the law of wills as thoroughly as any man in England. He had threaded all the shallows and sounded all the deeps of that intricate subject. He was regarded as a great authority upon that branch of the law. He was also a trained specialist in the use of language. A short time before his death he wrote a short will making disposition of his properties. After his death this docu­ment, scarcely more than a page in length, came before the courts for examination and construction. It was declared of no force and effect. An ambiguous word did the work. If I should ask the name of the profoundest thinker, the most critical student that England has ever produced, your minds would almost instinctively turn to Sir Isaac Newton. It is not generally known that an unfortunate clause, an ambiguous term, so obstructed the meaning of one of his laws that the world was delayed a quarter of a century in the comprehension and acceptance of a great law of nature,. King James gathered together a body of men who were past grand masters in the use of language. They gave us a trans­lation that for graphic power has never been equalled and we can safely predict that it will never be surpassed. And yet this learned body of great linguists darkened the heavens of religious thought and blinded the world's conception of the great underlying principle of the Christian religion and of the chief attribute of God himself by using the word "charity" where God had used the word "love." How necessary and how natural it was, human agency considered, that these mistakes should occur both in translation and in the framing of simple and thoroughly comprehended thought into words! Think a moment of the character and scope of the thought which called upon the sacred writers for ex­pression. The New Testament deals with every phrase of human life and human character. It deals with the entire human family. It comprises two worlds. It presents a broad comprehensive plan of human redemption that touches every spiritual life at every vital point. It is God's hand­book containing the true philosophy of life, temporal and eternal. Its principles, applicable to the affairs of every day life, a child can comprehend and apply; its broader and deeper principles have tested the strength of the giant minds of earth. It is like the ocean, said a wise one; in the shal­lows along the shore line a child can wade; out farther the strong can go in safety; farther yet the mental giants may venture; while far out in the deeps rise and fall and ebb and flow the great tides of eternal and unchangeable truth in the comprehension and application of which God alone can move and not be lost. And yet we are requested to believe that God gathered together some ignorant and untrained fishermen, one educated doctor and one Jewish philosopher and passed through their minds this great gulf stream of infinite wisdom with the instruction that they should sit down and word it for him, without miraculous assistance or supervision. Could the great masters in the use of language, had they been simply inspired with the thought, have per­formed the task? Lord Tenterton could not have written the will of God, he made a mistake trying to write his own. Sir Isaac Newton could not have written the Infinite law of God. He made a mistake trying to express one of his own exceedingly finite and well known laws. The great trans­lators could not have furnished the words; they made mis­takes just trying to translate it, with thought and words both given. And yet we are told that Peter and the rest in their ignorance and inexperience selected the right words and clothed in language infallibly correct infinite truths which they did not and could not understand and concerning which they were explicitly told to take no thought. Do you believe that? If you do, you are not illumined by faith, you are afflicted with credulity.

Second. The church has no means of testing the cor­rectness of the thought except by and through the language in which it is expressed. Primarily the words are all the church has. If this language does not express the inspired thought then we have not the inspired thought and have no means of ascertaining it. If the language may not express the inspired thought then all is confusion and uncertainty. If the words of the book are the words of men, then an erring human agency is placed between the inspired message and the sinner for whom it was intended. Thus is intro­duced the most pronounced rationalism into the interpreta­tion and application of the scriptures. It makes the human judgment the supreme test. If the principle of conduct plainly expressed does not secure the sanction of my judg­ment or contradict conclusions drawn from my personal experience, then the writer may have made a mistake in the statement of the principle; and if not, why not? He was as liable to err in the proper selection of words as I in the in­terpretation and application of the principle. Thus the Im­perial Book, the Book of books drops from the hand of God into the hand of man. It becomes logically and practically the word of man and ceases to be the word of the living God.

Third. The perfection and use of the Greek language in connection with the inspired message suggests a question worthy of our serious consideration. No study is more fascinating than the study of linguistic expression —the clothing of thought in appropriate and accurate language. Professors tell us that no medium for the expression of thought has ever equalled the Greek language. Under the fair skies of Greece, in the hearts of her poets, on the tongues of her orators, in the reason of her logicians, flow­ing from the pens of all her gifted sons and her one gifted daughter, the Greek language slowly perfected until at last it became easily expressive of every thought of the mind and of every emotion of the heart from the lightest play of human fancy to the deepest surge of human passion. This language at last in its perfection became a fit medium for the expression of God's thought. At this opportune time Christ came, and the plan of salvation, the Gospel for the human race, was written in the words of this perfect lan­guage. And then God suffered the language to die. Its terms became rigid in death. A dead language does not change. The meaning of its words remain fixed forever. Thus for that age and for all coming time we have the per­fect law crystallized in the perfect language, the living, changeless and perfect law expressed in the dead, changeless and perfect language. This is a comforting thought. But tell me. Do you believe that this wonderful language was slowly perfected through the centuries in order that men, lettered or unlettered, should grope among the words of the ripest and richest vocabulary on earth, and select such words as erring judgment or arrant fancy might prompt to clothe in language for all time a law infinite in scope and application, and of which they had personally no correct or adequate conception? And do you further be­lieve that God then killed the language in order to crystallize forever the possible errors of fallible men? If I believed that fully and conscientiously, I would take my Bible and my pencil and after every duty of the present and every promise of the future I would put a question mark.

These are cogent reasons why we should believe the scriptural language inspired; but was that language in fact and in accord with plain scriptural teaching inspired?

We are all familiar with the Mosaic law, resting upon the ten commandments as a foundation broad and secure. This law was not universal; it was in this sense imperfect; it was restricted; it covered only a brief span in the history of one people; it was simply a means of preparation, a make shift. It was a schoolmaster whose cradle was rocked upon the summit of Mount Sinai and whose grave was dug at the foot of the cross. Its work was soon finished and in the light of the grander law that followed the old law was cruci­fied, nailed to the cross as the Apostle Paul expresses it. And yet Moses says that God worded the old law himself. He says this twice in Exodus and once in Deuteronomy. The following passages can bear no other construction: "He (God) gave unto me (Moses) the two tables of stone written upon with the finger of God." "The tables were the work of God and the writing was the writing of God." "God wrote them (the commandments) upon two tables of stone and then gave them to me." Oh, yes, short lived though it was, temporal though it was, narrow in its appli­cation though it was, God would not permit the greatest writer of Jewish antiquity to word it for him, but came down and traced the words with his own finger, so careful and solicitous was God concerning the wording of the old law. But in the ripeness of time when the perfect law came, the eternal law, the universal law, broad enough to compass the human race and strong enough to save those upon the outskirts, imposing duties in one world and rewards and penalties in another; when the time came for the expression of this law, some Christians would have us believe that God selected some ignorant, inexperienced and fallible men and gave them full authority without his help or supervision to word this infinite law. If there is any kind of sense in this proposition it is non-sense.

Let us look a little more closely into the fundamental law of the New Testament as expressed in the Sermon on the Mount. "How do you know the ten commandments are imperfect?" some one asked Isaac Barrow, the greatest preacher of his day and generation. "Because," said he, "I have read the Sermon on the Mount containing the Golden Rule." Who worded that sermon? Matthew was only an inspired reporter who reproduced word and thought. The words were the words of the Master. This would be sufficient to insure their inspiration, but we need not rest here. The words in which that wondrous sermon was expressed were the words of God. The Savior, speak­ing to bis Father of those whom he had taught and whom he had brought into the fold, said, "Father, I have given unto them the words Thou gavest to me." So says John in the eighteenth verse of the seventeenth chapter of his Gospel. The words that clothed the inspired thought of the Savior in the Sermon on the Mount and in all his teachings were the words which God had given. Think you that he gave the words to his son and did not give the words to Paul and Peter and Matthew and the rest?

John wrote Revelation. The language of Revelation is inspired because God says, " I f any man shall add to the words of this prophecy, to him shall be added the plagues written therein; and if any man shall take away from the words of this prophecy God shall take away his part from the Tree of Life and the Holy City." The language of that book must needs be apt and accurate. It had to be. The book was a prophecy. If a mistake was made in a word the thought was apt to be corrupted. So God supervised the words of that book. It was a glorious vision that greeted the eyes of the lonely exile when God touched them. It is a grand thought that the grave stone of the Christian does not mark the end of the journey; that it is only a mile stone upon a road that is ever brightening as it sweeps upward and onward to the very gates of the City. John saw that City with its gates of pearl, its walls of jasper and its streets of burnished gold. So vivid is his description that we too can see it. But, Oh, John, there is a question of vaster import­ance to us than a vision of that City, and that is how can we reach it? John answers our question in his Gospel. They would have us believe that God gave the words to describe the city and let John in uninspired words try to tell us how to reach that City. My Christian friends, I know that my Father in Heaven is concerned that even I shall know some­thing about the City not made with hands; but I know with far greater certainty that he is infinitely more concerned that my wayward soul shall know the way home. And if God inspired the words of John's Revelation telling me about the City, then I know of a certainty that God inspired the words of John's Gospel showing me the way to reach that City. The second chapter of Acts presents an unanswerable answer in the affirmative to the question, "Were the words of the Apostolic teachers inspired?" The apostles were to tarry at Jerusalem until they should be endowed with power from on high. The day for this miraculous endowment came, and filled with the Holy Spirit, the apostles began to speak with other tongues as the Spirit gave them utterance." Among the listeners were gathered devout men from every nation under Heaven; men who were amazed, as well they might be, when they every one heard the message presented in his own language. The words spoken were, to the speaker, words in an unknown tongue. The Holy Spirit giving utterance in a language unknown to the speaker must have selected the words. These inspired speakers in the first place did not know the words of the language spoken, save and except as such word was given by the Holy Spirit, and in the second place the inspired speakers did not under­stand the thoughts presented, and hence could not have selected the words even had the language been known. On that day the Apostle Peter said, addressing the Jews, " T o you is the. promise and to your children, and to them that are afar off." —(meaning the Gentiles). That statement was as broad as humanity. It meant the arm of the Gospel was long enough to reach and strong enough to save a recreant sinner upon the uttermost limits of the human race; but the apostle did not so understand it then. It sub­sequently took a miracle to induce him to preach the Gospel to the Gentiles. He thus stated broadly and accurately a truth which he not only did not comprehend but which was contrary to his own conscientious conviction touching the matter; and he further stated this and other truths equally broad and equally incomprehensible in a language the words of which he did not know. The surrounding conditions here demonstrate that thought and words were both inspired and that the speakers conceived the thoughts and expressed the appropriate words by virtue of the miraculous power with which they were endowed from on high, and by virtue of this power alone. No evidence of insanity could be pro­duced more conclusive than a serious and conscientious statement upon the part of the accused that he could express accurately truths he did not understand in the words of a language he did not know.

However conclusive the argument may be and however strongly reason may establish verbal inspiration, the convic­tion remains that upon a subject of such great importance the scriptures should speak, and in no uncertain terms. And so they do. The Savior said to his apostles, "Take no thought what ye shall speak; for it is not you that speak but the Holy Spirit." These are his words reported by Mark in the elev­enth verse of his thirteenth chapter. Let us examine these words closely. What is it to speak? What does speaking include? Thinking alone is not speaking. You are at this moment thinking but you are not speaking. Upon the other hand the expression of thought does not necessarily involve speaking. Both thought and feeling may be expressed with­out speaking. A smile may express happiness or content­ment; but a smile is no form of speech. The poet reads, "joy unconfined in sparkling eyes, those open windows of the soul;" but eyes do not speak except in metaphor. The hog wallowing in the mire may grunt his satisfaction and the serpent may hiss his venomous anger, and yet hogs and serpents cannot speak. To speak is to express thoughts in spoken words. Speech includes thought and words; but primarily words, since it is literally the words that are spoken. Let us paraphrase by substituting in the passage quoted the meaning of the word speak, and we have the Savior saying, "It is not you that express these thoughts in words, it is the Holy Spirit which expresses these thoughts in words through you." Language could not be more ex­plicit. The speaking Apostle was simply an agent for the expression of divinely inspired thought and divinely chosen word. The Holy Spirit in speaking through the apostle ex­pressed both thought and word.

Excepting speech there is only one other way of ex­pressing inspired thought in words, and that is by writing. The Scriptures are the expression of inspired thought in written words. The Scriptures or writings include thoughts and words, but primarily the words, since it is literally and directly the words that are written. Paul says in his second letter to Timothy, (Chapter 3, verse 16) "All Scripture is given by inspiration of God and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction and for instruction." This set­tles the question. All words expressing inspired thought whether such words were spoken or written are inspired.

Lest, however, some dreamer should dream, or some caviller should cavil, or some hair-splitting reasoner should seek to confuse, and for the purpose of laying the question forever at rest, Paul says, (1 Corinthians 2:13) "We speak not the words which man's wisdom teacheth, but the words which the Holy Ghost teacheth." Thus endeth the discus­sion.

Let us not forget the conclusion of the whole matter. This is God's Book, God's Imperial Book. It contains thoughts of God, expressed in the inspired words of God's own choosing. Such is the rock upon which rests the plan of human salvation and the faith and hope of the human race. How comforting is a conclusion like that! It gives to the martial spirit something in the noon-day of life to fight for; and it gives to the poor, frail, unanchored soul some­thing in the hour of death to which to cling.