genius. This definition is as bad if not worse than the other. The particular inspiration the Apostles had, was a direct command from Christ to communicate and preserve his revelation to all the world; and in order to the execution of this command Christ gave them his Spirit to help them in carrying it out. Now, a man might have all the genius in the world, and unless he had such a command from God and the gift of the Spirit to help him, he would not be inspired in the way the Apostles were. Indeed, if you say inspiration is genius, Satan himself will have a chance, for he displays considerable genius.

Another view is known as the partial theory, or inspiration in spots. You ask such a man to point out the spots in the New Testament which he believes are inspired, and he will tell you, "Oh, every man must decide that for himself!" A very convenient thing you see! Every man can have a Bible of his own making and made to suit! Quote a text of scripture to such a man, and if it crowds him badly he will say, "Oh, I don't believe in that!" That is one of the spots which are uninspired. Now, the trouble with this theory is that its advocates deny the New Testament record to be credible history. The record, they say, is true only in spots. If they did not deny that Christ wrought the miracles as he is said to have done, that he taught as he is said to have done, that he died, rose from the dead and ascended into heaven, and that he gave his disciples. their commission, as he is said to have done-they would not be talking about inspiration in spots. Grant the history, and inspiration such as we have pointed out is a foregone conclusion. But these people fall into another dilemma. They quite generally admit that a revelation has come from God through Christ, and yet seem to deny that the Almighty has had either the wis

dom, the will, or the ability to preserve to all ages a faithful record of that revelation.

Accepting the record then as true history, the question comes, what does such particular inspiration as the record teaches imply?

(1) It does not mean that the individuality of the Apostles was lost. I have heard men speak who were manifestly "full of the Holy Ghost and of power," but they never seemed to lose their individuality. They had the same mental characteristics, the same style of speech, the same peculiarities of disposition as before. So when the Holy Spirit is poured out in unusual measure upon a church or a community, I have never observed that any one lost in individuality. So although the Apostles were inspired for a particular purpose, Paul continues to have the style, the mental characteristics of Paul-Peter those of Peter-and John those belonging to John. The light of heaven comes through the stained glass of our churches. It is colored by the medium through which it passes, but for all that it is the light of heaven still. So in all inspiration there is both the Human and the Divine element. The Human is found in the coloring which the individuality of the writer gives. The Divine is the light which comes from heaven by the Spirit of God. It is a significant fact that the writers of the New Testament are all strongly contrasted in individuality. Compare Peter and Paul and John and Matthew. How marked the contrast is! But by the light from heaven shining through such varied media, our common humanity is touched at a greater number of points, and our needs are more fully met.

(2) Nor does this particular inspiration mean the Apostles wrote all they might have written; but that they wrote sufficient to accomplish the mission for

which God sent them, that is, in a way to communicate and preserve to us the revelation of God.

Matthew writes from the Jewish point of view, proclaiming the Messianic Kingdom of God and Christ the King. He groups the materials of Christ's life and works with reference to this truth. One should not expect, therefore, to find in Matthew the precise historical order of the events.

Christ is pre

The Roman idea of It is written with the

In Mark we have Peter's gospel. sented as the Strong Son of God. power is the controlling one. Roman empire in view.

In Luke you have Paul's gospel. He was Paul's companion. It is written more especially with the Greek or Gentile world in view. John's gospel is supplemental. It is written last. It speaks more fully of the person of Christ and records what the others had omitted. Now every one sees at once that this four-fold and varied presentation of Christ gives us a larger and more complete view of Christ as a whole than could be given in any single way. The way of the Spirit, therefore, as traced in the record, shows not only that a sufficient presentation of Christ and his revelation has been preserved to us, but a very full and composite presentation.

(3). Inspiration as applied to the Bible means in short, that a true and sufficient record of God's revelation to men has come down to us. The meaning of it is that we have here in the New Testament God's word, his revelation of himself, his teaching for you and me. The record is his own authorized record, made by men divinely called, trained and set apart for this work. The record, by the providence and grace of God, has been preserved to us. God in making a revelation in the person of Christ did not leave that revelation to

perish from the memory of men and so be lost to the world. Through men who were commissioned to this work, and by his providence in all time since, that revelation has been preserved. These are the simple facts which define and describe Bible Inspiration.

FOURTH: Objections.

First: It is said there are contradictions in the

record.

Answer: (1). The majority of these discrepancies, so-called, are trivial, and affect in no way the substance of that revelation which it was the commission of the Apostles to transmit.

(2). A large number of the contradictions are only so in appearance. They yield readily to careful examination and study. Commonly the patient study of a contradiction leads to the discovery of a larger truth which lay concealed within, and then everything falls into harmony. Often such contradiction simply illustrates the individuality of the different writers, and serves to show the varied view-points of different minds when looking at one and the same truth. In short the

Bible student comes to look upon these contradictions as but the outcropping of rich veins of truth which, like gold in the mountains, await the discoverer.

(3) Some are merely errors in numbers or dates, and are fairly explained by the mistakes of copyists.

Second: But, says some one, there is considerable variation in the testimony itself. The story of the four evangelists, even when describing the same event, is not always exactly the same. This is true, for instance, of the crucifixion.

Answer: (1) It is just this variation in details, while there is general agreement, which convinces us that we have the testimony of independent and honest witnesses. If in a trial in one of our courts, four wit

nesses testifying at great length, should agree not only in general but in all the minutest details, the suspicion would at once fasten upon them that they were fixed, or that there was a conspiracy. Counsel would at once try by cross-examination to prove collusion between the witnesses, and it would be hard to remove the suspicion of such collusion from the minds of the jury or the judge. So every one knows that the four evangelists agree as closely as is well for them. If the agreement was more minute, the cry of "collusion "or conspiracy" would at once be raised.

66

(2) When Christ called the Apostles to be his witnesses, what he wanted, of course, was their independent testimony, not a conspiracy of testimony. All this variation, therefore, proves inspiration, rather than disproves it. Men led by the Spirit of God would certainly never testify in a way to spoil the force of their own evidence.

(3) With all the variation there is no evidence that one of the gospel witnesses ever tells a thing which is not true. One omits what another relates. One gives a more historical and detailed account, another a more graphic account; one names the most striking thing, where another gives more of the particulars. Yet taken together their stories appear to be supplementary, and like the independent testimony of honest witnesses, are easily woven into one seamless garment. The substantial agreement is out of all proportion to the minor points in variation.

Third: But, say some, there are trivial things occasionally put in the New Testament writings, which do not seem in keeping with the Spirit of God, but are purely human. For example take Paul's message to Timothy (2 Tim. 4:13) where he tells him to fetch his cloak. Was that inspired?