ally human; he was also strictly and literally divine; the two natures co-existing in one person. And this is just what may be said of the sacred volume. It is throughout human, a book of man and for man, bearing on its face the tokens that it is earthly; yet it is throughout divine, coming from God and leading to God, and hence separated by an immeasurable interval from all others books, of whatever character. A devout mind, therefore, is comforted amid the perplexities of the subject by the thought that the divine-human of the Scripture has a strict parallel in the divine-human of his Lord and Savior." Theorists of the liberal school have inappropriately used this comparison. They hold that the human element in Scripture is defective, whereas Christ as a man was perfect. The fact of his human perfection is what stamps the atonement with infinite value. "For He who can for sin atone Must have no failings of his own." But this comparison is in entire harmony with the dynamical theory, which holds that the human element in inspiration was rendered morally and intellectually perfect, uniting with the divine, and forming the infallible Word of God. Unless the human in inspiration is perfect, or at least rendered so for the time being, the Scripture is not an infallible guide to faith and practice, and it can not be perfect if constantly blundering into erroneous statements. And that the Scriptures themselves accord with this view may be apparent from a few quotations, including those above given. "Holy men spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost." Here the Holy Ghost moved and men spake, the two uniting to complete the Scripture "given by inspiration of God." This refers to those prophecies which must necessarily have been the direct result of divine revelation. So Paul spake the things freely given him of God, in words taught by the Holy Ghost. David declares, "The Spirit of the Lord spake by me, and his words were in my tongue." Paul refers to some utterances as his own, though conveying authorized truth: "My speech and my preaching was not with enticing words of man's wisdom, but in demonstration of the Spirit and of power." We have the fullest confidence that God guided the sacred writers in the use of language in so far forth as was necessary to the absolute reliability of the truth revealed. There is a wide difference in what the Bible reveals and what it simply records. Stephen could easily have been mistaken in speaking of a fact of history, but if "being full of the Holy Ghost," he looked not up "steadfastly into heaven, and saw the un glory of God, and Jesus on the right hand of God," then no theory of inspiration will save the Bible from the imputation of being fallible, even untruthful. Men make history, and can settle its data for themselves, but only God can throw open the gate of heaven and allow a mortal to gaze upon its glories. It is fair to conclude that if he does. this, he will see that the favored one either is silent as to the “ speakable things," or else speaks in such a way as not to mislead. The Ten Commandments are generally accepted as "the very words" of God. Moses wrote as a preface to them (Ex. xx, 1): "And God spake all these words." They contain truth that man could not have known had not God revealed it. Further, the truth is of such a character that its force depends upon the language employed to express it. Here, then, we take our stand. The Bible contains the "record of a revelation which God has given to the world." Every word containing revealed truth—that is, truth which man could never otherwise have known, and which is essential to his salvation-is infallibly chosen. Whatever else the Bible contains is of little comparative importance. The plan of salvation it does contain in language so simple that none need err therein, and yet so God-like that all who receive it may have the witness in themselves that this is the infallible record which God gave of his Son. This view is satisfying to true reason. No concession, within evangelical limitations, would satisfy the quibblings of modern infidelity. Infidelity is too cold, too dishonest, to accept any theory of revelation which gives indubitable authority to the fundamental claims of Christianity respecting a new heart and a new life; in others words, which requires unhesitating obedience to the commands of God, as literally construed wherever it is expressly affirmed that God speaks. It is not for the Christian to study what will please skepticism, but what is truth. The Scripture saith: "Be ready always to give an answer to every man that asketh you a reason of the hope that is in you, with meekness and fear." It is ours to know the truth-to understand the ground whereon our souls' anchor may remain sure-and to endeavor to meet the earnest inquiries of our fellows with satisfactory responses. Is there any theory of inspiration more likely to answer the purposes of careful and honest criticism, and at the same time satisfy rational inquiry, than the one above designated? In the whole round of our investigation we find none comparable with it. This view is also encouraging to faith. How cheering the thought that in no particular, essential to man's well-being and happiness, does the Bible contain an erroneous or defective statement; that in making known his will respecting man's character, conduct, and destiny, God carefully directed every utterance, that it might imply no more, and mean no less, than is expressly declared. He allowed the inspired writers freedom in so far forth as their freedom was consistent with the safety of their fellow-men throughout the ages of time. He breathed upon them, and they felt the thrill of inspiration. Their powers of thought and memory and will were aroused. They began to record their impressions. God worked in them and with them. The human and the divine were in sweet accord. God spake; they listened. The words uttered were put down, and words were always suggested when words were necessary. Otherwise, the writers wrote as they were moved by the strange and powerful influence which was upon them. Thus, within a period of perhaps sixteen hundred years, with men of different ages, places, nationalities, training, and circumstances, God worked, until he had declared his will in various forms and divers manners, but always in substantial accord, and frequently with verbal similarity, so that in the end we have the Bible-the Book of books-the Word of God. Only one type of doctrine and morality is unfolded in the entire sixty-six canonical books of the Old and New Testaments. The same Infinite One, whose glory Moses saw, and whose words Moses heard on the holy mount in the long-ago, revealed himself to John on Patmos sixteen centuries later; and as Moses said of the moral law, "All these words God spake," so John could say: "I was in the Spirit on the Lord's-day, and heard behind me a great voice, saying, What thou seest write in a book, and send it unto the Churches." So Isaiah heard, wrote, and recorded. So did Daniel, and Paul, and the rest. The believer can say: "The hopes that holy Word supplies- And every beam conducts to Thee." THE OLD TESTAMENT. For more than a generation after the death, resurrection, and ascension of Jesus Christ, the Old Testament was used by Christians, in their services and worship generally, as their Bible; and it is still held by them as of divine authority, though from them has proceeded the New Testament. Christianity, therefore, rests upon the whole Bible, though the books of the New Testament may be regarded as more distinctively Christian than those of the Old. There is no question of the authenticity of the books of the Old Testament. The first five books, usually designated as the Law of Moses, were kept in the ark of the covenant as a witness. (Deut. xxxi, 9, 26.) Samuel wrote the manner of the kingdom, and laid it up before the Lord. (1 Sam. x, 25.) Solomon placed the books of Scripture in the new temple. The people are invited to "seek out of the Book of the Lord and read." (Isa. xxxiv, 16.) Moreover, in several places it is prescribed as a duty to recite the Scriptures publicly, which implies their being preserved and authenticated. Then, again, the different parts of Scripture bear witness to the rest-the later books to the earlier, the New Testament to the Old Testament. We may notice, too, such expressions as the following: "The Spirit of the Lord spake by me, and his word was in my tongue." (2 Sam. xxiii, 2.) "Thus saith the Lord." (Jer. i, 6.) We know that the Jews were exceedingly careful of their sacred writings, and in remembrance of the injunction (Deut. iv, 2; xii, 32) could neither add to nor take from the Written Word except under the manifest command of the Spirit. That our Lord Jesus Christ recognized the authority of the Old Testament is evident from such passages as John v, 39; Matt. xxii, 29; Luke xxiv, 27, and others. The New Testament writers frequently quote from the books of the Old Testament as the Word of God. By the side of this evidence from the books themselves may be placed the fact that a number of books, now collected in the Apocrypha, were in use among the Jews for centuries after the last of the prophets wrote, but were never regarded as sacred Scripture by the Jews of Palestine, nor by the New Testament writers. After the time of the return of the Jews from Baby'lon synagogue worship prevailed, and copies of the sacred books became common. The persecution under Antiochus Epiphanes (168 B. C.) promoted the preservation of that which maintained the life of Judaism. From that time the books were put together as a single volume, and regarded as a Bible. (R. A. Redford, M. A.) ARE THE FOUR GOSPELS TRUSTWORTHY? From the very able writings of Prof. Henry Wace, D. D., of King's College, London, we extract an outline of proofs of the credibility of the four Gospels: "Nothing can be of more consequence to Christians than to know whether they have good reason for their belief that in the four Gospels they possess four faithful records of the life, the teaching, the death, and the resurrection of their Lord and Master. We are by no means, indeed, entirely dependent on those records for the grounds of our faith, since the Epistles of St. Paul, even if they stood alone, would afford strong testimony to the main facts respecting our Lord. But the Gospels alone afford us full information respecting our Lord's character and work; and they must ever be regarded as the most precious and important of testimonies to his claims. "It is this, indeed, which has led the skeptics and unbelievers of this century to direct such persistent and fierce attacks upon the Gospels. It has been felt that if they are trustworthy records of what our Lord said and did, the chief positions for which skeptics have contended are at once overthrown. Christ himself bears witness in those Gospels to his own claims, to his supernatural powers, to all that Christians believe respecting him. In fact, all cardinal questions of religion are practically answered if the Gospels can be trusted. Our Lord there bears overwhelming testimony to the existence and character of God, to the fact that we are now under God's government, and shall hereafter be judged by him, and to the truth that he himself can alone save us from our sins and their consequences. Accordingly, the simple facts of the Gospel history were from the earliest moment the sum and substance of the apostles' preaching. the tenth chapter of the Acts of the Apostles we have a record of St. Peter's first address to a Gentile audience, and it is like a brief summary of one of our Gospels. He tells Cornelius how God anointed Jesus of Nazareth with the Holy Ghost and with power; who went about doing good, and healing all that were oppressed of the devil; for God was with him . . . whom they slew and hanged on a tree; him God raised up the third day, and showed him openly; . . . and he commanded us to preach unto the people, and to testify that it is he which was ordained of God to be the Judge of quick and dead. To him give all the prophets witness, that through his name whosoever believeth in him shall receive remission of sins.' Such has ever been in substance the message of the Gospel. The chief question which has exercised the minds of men in our own time is whether the four records we possess of that Gospel can be relied upon." BY WHOM WERE THE GOSPELS WRITTEN? Professor Wace continues: "If there is good reason to believe that they were written by apostles or intimate friends of apostles, the maiu objections to their credibility fall to the ground. But what do the |