THE INSPIRATION OF THE PROPHETICAL BOOKS OF THE OLD TESTAMENT.

HEN we come to the prophecies, every vestige of doubt concerning verbal inspiration must be removed from the minds of all who are in anywise subject to the authority of the Scriptures, and who possess a common degree of intelligence. Even those who hold that there are different kinds of inspiration, and those who hold that only the thoughts of the writers were inspired, have been constrained to admit that here, at least, the words are inspired. 'In the language of Robert Haldane, one of the noblest men, by the way, God has ever given to His church, "The words that are used in the prophetical parts of Scripture, must necessarily have been communicated to the prophets. They did not always comprehend the meaning of their own predictions, into which they ' searched diligently.' And in this case, it was impossible that, unless the words had been dictated to them, they could have written intelligibly. Although they had written the Scriptures, it was necessary to show them 'that which is noted in the Scripture of truth,' (Dan. X. 21). The writings of the prophets constitute a great portion of the Old Testament Scriptures, and God claims it as His sole prerogative, to know the things that are to come. We are therefore, certain that they enjoyed verbal inspiration; and, as we have not anywhere a hint of different kinds of inspiration by which the Scriptures are written, does it not discover the most presumptuous arrogance to assert that there are different kinds?"

To the same effect Gaussen, the able and distinguished Professor of Systematic Theology in Geneva, says: "This theory of a divine revelation, in which you would have the inspiration of the thoughts without the inspiration of the language, is so inevitably irrational that it cannot be sincere, and proves false even to those who propose it; for, without their suspecting it, it makes them come much further down in their arguments than their first position seems at first glance to indicate. Listen to them. Though the words are those of man, say they, the thoughts are those of God. And how will they prove this to you? Alas I once more, by attributing to this Scripture from God, contradictions, mistakes, proofs of ignorance 1 Is it then the words alone they attack? And are not these alleged errors much more in the ideas than in the words? So true it is that we cannot separate the one from the other, and that a revelation of God's thoughts, ever demands a revelation of God^s words also.

"This theory is not only antibiblical, irrational, and mischievous; further, it is taken up arbitrarily, and amounts at best to a gratuitous hypothesis.

"Besides, it is very useless; for it resolves no difficulty. You find it difficult, say you, to conceive how the Holy Ghost could have given the words in Holy Scripture; but can you tell us any better, how He gave the thoughts? . . . But we have much more to say than this. That which in this theory ought, above all, to strike every attentive mind, is its extreme inconsistency, seeing that those even, who hold it most strenuously, are forced withal to admit that, in its greatest part, the Scripture behoved to be inspired to the men of God, even in its words." The italics in both of these extracts are the authors'.

Turning, then to the prophets, and following the order observed in our English Bible, we find Isaiah saying, " Hear, heavens; and give ear O earth; for the Lord hath spoken;" " Hear the word of the Lord," (i. 2-10); "Also I heard the voice of the Lord, saying, whom shall I send, and who will go for us?" (vi. 8); "Thus saith the Lord God," (vii. 7); " For the Lord spake thus to me," (viii. 11); "Therefore, thus saith the Lord God of hosts," (x. 24); and everywhere in the prophecy, God is represented as speaking, using the personal pronoun, "I," and predicting future events with a minuteness and particularity, which make the suggestion of the very words, in which the predicted events are announced, absolutely essential to the communication of the divine purpose.

Jeremiah begins his prophecy by informing us that, like Moses, he pleaded for release from the painful and perilous mission which lay before him. " Then said I, Ah! Lord God! behold, I cannot speak; for I am a child. But the Lord said unto me, say not, I am a child; for thou shalt go to all that I shall send thee, and whatsoever I command thee thou shalt speak. . . . Then the Lord put forth his hand, and touched my mouth. And the Lord said unto me, Behold, I have put my words in thy mouth," (i. 6-9). It is impossible to teach the doctrine of verbal inspiration, unless it is distinctly set forth in these verses. God said to the trembling prophet, " I have put my words in thy mouth," and this at once made the child a man and relieved him of all responsibility, except to repeat as a child the words of another, and a Greater. "Moreover, the word of the Lord came unto me, saying:" "Then said the Lord unto me;" "And the word of the Lord came unto me the second time, saying;" " Then the Lord said unto me;" "I am with thee, saith the Lord;" "Moreover, the word of the Lord came to me, saying," "Thus saith the Lord;" "Evil shall come upon them, saith the Lord;" "Hear ye the word of the Lord;" "Thus saith the Lord;" "I will yet plead with you, saith the Lord;" "Be ye very desolate, saith the Lord;" "My fear is not in thee, saith the Lord God of hosts;" "Thine iniquity is marked bofore me, saith the Lord God;" "Ye all have transgressed against me, saith the Lord;" "O generation, see ye the word of the Lord."

These expressions are all taken from the first two chapters of the prophecy, and they occur at brief intervals, sometimes at the beginning and the end of a single verse, or a short paragraph, through the entire book. How much is involved in them is clearly expressed in the declaration of Jehovah Himself, " The prophet that hath a dream, let him tell a dream; and he that hath my word, let him speak my word faithfully. What is the chaff to the wheat? saith the Lord. Is not my word like a hammer that breaketh the rock in pieces? . . . Behold, I am against the prophets, saith the Lord, that use [margin, smooth] their tongues, and say. He saith" (xxiii. 28-31). The difference between inspired and uninspired words is the difference there is between chaff and wheat; and here there is the strongest affirmation that the words of true prophets were the very words of God.

The next prophecy opens with the announcement, "The word of the Lord came expressly unto Ezekiel the priest," (i. 3); "Thou shalt speak my words unto them, whether they will hear, or whether they will forbear," (ii. 7); "And he said unto me, Son of man, go, get thee unto the house of Israel, and speak with my words unto them," (iii. 4); and the phrases, "Thus saith the Lord," "The word of the Lord came," "Hear the word of the Lord," occur nearly two hundred times. Are we to make nothing of all this? Does it mean nothing? Are foolish men at liberty to imagine that the Lord said nothing, that the word of the Lord did not come to the prophet, that the people did not hear the word of the Lord, but only caught at His thought as expressed in the bungling language of mortals? Surely Christians should be on their guard against the acceptance of a wretched theory, however sanctioned by respected names, which make these emphatic and oft repeated testimonies to verbal inspiration of no force or effect.

Daniel was a diligent student of the Scriptures, and he "understood by books the number of the years, whereof the word of the Lord came to Jeremiah the prophet, that he would accomplish seventy years in the desolations of Jerusalem.'* In his prayer contained in the same chapter, he confessed that God "hath confirmed His words which He spake against us, and against our judges that judged us, by bringing upon us a great evil," thus witnessing that it was the word of the Lord which came to Jeremiah, and that God had. confirmed, not man's words, but His own words. At the close of his prophecy, which sweeps over all intervening time to the second advent of Christ, and embraces the rise and fall of the world's great empires, he says, "I heard, but I understood not; then said I, my Lord, What shall be the end of these things? And he said, Go thy way, Daniel; for the words are closed up and sealed till the time of the end." From this it is evident that Daniel did not understand the mighty scope and significance of his own predictions. Hence is it not true that the thoughts were always inspired; it is not true that the prophets or the apostles were always inspired; but, blessed be God, it is true that their word or writings, when delivered by them as His ambassadors, were, and are, always divinely, infallibly and perfectly inspired.

Even if time and space permitted, there is little need of a minute examination of the remaining prophets. Every one of them, without a single exception, bears the same testimony to the inspiration of the words uttered or written in their messages. Hosea says, "The word of the Lord that came unto Hosea; . . . the beginning of the word of the Lord by Hosea," (Hos. i. 1, 2). Joel says, "The word of the Lord that came to Joel," (Joel i. 1). Amos says, "Thus saith the Lord;" "Hear this word that the Lord hath spoken against you, O children of Israel," (Amos ii. 1; iii. 1). Obadiah says, "Thus saith the Lord God," (Obad. 1). Jonah says, "Now the word of the Lord came unto Jonah," (Jonah i. 1). Micah says, "The word of the Lord that came to Micah," (Mic. i. 1). " But truly I am full of power by the Spirit of the Lord, and of judgment, and of might, to declare unto Jacob his sin," (Mic. iii. 8). Nahum says, "Thus saith the Lord," (Nah. i. 12). Habakkuk says, " The Lord answered me, and said," (Hab. ii. 2). Zephaniah says, "The word of the Lord which came unto Zephaniah," (Zeph. i. 1). Haggai says, " In the first day of the month came the word of the Lord, by Haggai the prophet; . . . thus speaketh the Lord of hosts, saying," (Hag. i. 1-2). Zechariah says, " In the second year of Darius, came the word of the Lord unto Zechariah;.. therefore say thou unto them. Thus saith the Lord of hosts," (Zech. i. 1-3). "And the word of the Lord came unto Zechariah, saying. Thus speaketh the Lord of hosts, saying . . . . But they refused to hearken and pulled away the shoulder, and stopped their ears, that they should not hear. Yea, they made their hearts as an adamant stone, lest they should hear the law, and THE WORDS WHICH THE LORD OF HOSTS HATH SENT IN HIS SPIRIT BY THE FORMER PROPHETS: therefore came there a great wrath from the Lord of hosts," (Zech. vii. 8-12). Again it may be said, if this does not teach verbal inspiration, it cannot be taught in human language. Malachi says, " The burden of the word of the Lord to Israel by Malachi. I have loved you, saith the Lord," (Mai. i. 1. 2); and twenty-four times in the prophecy of four short chapters we find the phrase, "Thus saith the Lord."

This by no means exhausts the argument for the verbal inspiration of the Old Testament, but enough has been said to convince any mind that has not resolved to reject the truth.

The internal evidences of such an inspiration have not been touched, and these are not less weighty than the external. For example, the writers of the ancient Scriptures were all Jews, and can any one believe that they would have presented so humiliating a history of their countrymen unless the language had been dictated to them? The narrative they furnish of their own nation for a period of more than a thousand years is an almost continuous record of unbelief, rebellion, vile apostacy, and shameful idolatry. Not only so, but the failures and sins of their greatest men, as they would now be called, are faithfully related, and all the world knows to-day of Abraham's twice-told falsehood, of Moses' anger and disobedience, of David's adultery and murder, of Elijah's fear and despair. The mere inspiration of thoughts will not account for facts like these, for if the words had not been dictated by the Holy Ghost, the facts would have been suppressed; and as we contrast the unflinching fidelity of these Jews, notwithstanding their peculiar and passionate love of their country and their countrymen, with any uninspired history or biography, well may we ask with one of their own writers, "And is this the manner of man, Lord God?" (2 Sam. vii. 19).

But it is another striking feature of these old books, so strangely faithful to the truth, that the penmen, although living long before the discoveries of modern science, have fallen into no blunders, even of language, touching any really proved and accepted results of scientific investigation. This is a bold assertion, but instead of entering now upon a discussion of it, which would be out of place, it may be proved by the fact that the most learned and scientific men of the world, as Dr. Samuel Johnson, Sir Isaac Newton, Hugh Miller, Dr. Pye Smith, Sir Roderic Murchison, Faraday, Sir Humphrey Davy, Sir James Simpson, the Duke of Argyll, and scores of others, were or are devout Christians, some of them holding the highest views of a plenary and verbal inspiration, and finding, in their profound acquaintance with science, nothing whatever to contradict these views. But it is a still more suggestive fact that at the meeting of the British Association in 1865 a manifesto was drawn up and signed by 617 scientific men, most of whom were of the highest eminence, as shown by the long list of honorary titles attached to their names; and these men, including Dr. Balfour, Bentley, Bosworth, Sir David Brewster, Macleod, Sir John Richardson, and others of equal distinction, declare their belief not only in the inspiration of the Scriptures, but in the perfect harmony of these Scriptures with natural science. The original document is now in the Bodleian Library at Oxford, and it begins with the following declaration: 4

"We, the undersigned students of the natural sciences, desire to express our sincere regret that researches into scientific truth are perverted by some in our own times into occasion for casting doubt upon the truth and authenticity of the Holy Scriptures.

"We conceive that it is impossible for the word of God fts written in the book of nature, and God's written word written in Holy Scripture, to contradict one another, however much they may appear to differ.

"We are not forgetful that physical science is not complete, but is only in a condition of progress, and that at present our finite reason enables us only to see through a glass darkly, and we confidently believe that a time will come when the two records will be seen to agree in every particular."

These 617 scientific men, then, can find nothing even in the words of Scripture to contradict any known facts of the present day; and some of them, in the printed catalogue of their names, require five and six, and Sir David Brewster requires eleven, lines of small type to give in abbreviated form the names of the various learned societies and scientific associations of which they are members. It becomes young men and women, therefore, if they would escape the ridicule of sensible persons and the wrath of God, to pause and consider before accepting the second-hand ribaldry of infidels, or the impudent statements of half-fledged scientists. They might learn a valuable lesson from the old Christian who replied, when asked by a youth of soft moustache and softer head how he reconciled the language of the Bible with the most recent discoveries of science, "What are the most recent discoveries of science? I have not read the morning papers."

The more the ancient Scriptures are studied, the more certainly will the honest reader be constrained to admit that man could as easily have made the world as he could have conceived and recorded these writings. There is not a word used at haphazard, but there is the most precise accuracy of expression, the most suitable selections of language to convey the meaning intended, the most careful reference to the use of the right tense of every verb, and to every little particle. Much of this is necessarily lost or obscured in imperfect translations; but the most moderate acquaintance with the original will bring to light on every page such nice distinctions, such delicate shades of meaning, such pains-taking and suggestive choice of phraseology, that the Bible student will again and again be overwhelmed with amazement and awe, and reverently acknowledge that he holds in his hands the very words of God Himself.

It is true that in a few instances there are words which coarse and vulgar infidelity has pronounced to be indecent and unfit to be read in polite society; but it is strange that coarse and vulgar infidelity does not inquire, in the first place, whether this may not be due to the translators, and, in the second place, whether these words were considered indecent by polite society at the time the English translation of the Bible was made. There is nothing indecent in the words themselves, nothing improper except by the changing customs and usage of the world; and if coarse and vulgar infidelity was as intelligent as it pretends to be, it would know that these words were freely employed by the best and most classic English writers in the days of King James.

It is sad to think that there are many who eagerly respond to any objection that is urged against the perfect credibility and infallible inspiration of the Bible. They instantly leap to the conclusion that those who assail its authority must be right, and its defenders wrong. Their natural sympathies are with the "higher criticism" and other forms of skepticism, simply because their natural sympathies are not with God and His word. A gentleman who professes to be a Christian, and claims to be a great reader, came not long ago in a state of excitement to a minister of the gospel exclaiming, "I have just found a most wonderful book in the Mercantile Library." "What is it?" "It is a book by Prof. Robertson Smith of Scotland, who shows that the laws of Leviticus were unknown to the Jews for a thousand years after Moses, and that Deuteronomy was written at a period much later than his day." The minister looked at him a moment, and quietly said, "What is it in you that instantly takes sides against God's word? You did not inquire whether Prof. Robertson Smith had been utterly refuted and routed, but immediately jumped to the conclusion that he is right." "I did not know" the man sullenly answered, "that any one had replied to him." "Just so: you did not know, and you did not care to ask. Now let me inform you that Prof. Green of Princeton, to say nothing of Hengstenberg and others, whose scholarship is so far beyond that of young Smith that he is unworthy to untie their shoe lachet, has proved that all of his talk about Leviticus and Deuteronomy is the merest bosh." He promised to get the books, and to read them, but it is doubtful whether he did so, as he has never since appeared. He is the representative of a large class, who eagerly take up with anything that promises to shake the faith of men in the Scriptures. They hope to find the old book false because it bears so hard upon them in their unsaved state; and yet if it were proved false, they would be left in an infinitely more pitiable condition, to grope through darkness to an unknown eternity. But he who is brought to bow his proud will at the foot of the cross, and to accept of pardon and eternal life as the unmerited gift of God, through Jesus Christ our Lord, can turn to these inspired Scriptures as the unfailing fountain of wisdom, strength and consolation; and the more he resorts to them, the more surely he will see that "holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost."