only came, but that it comes, is coming, has always been coming, and that as a gracious necessity of spiritual progress it will always come to living and holy souls. It is important, even at the risk of verbal tediousness, to make this clear, because, differ from them or agree with them, we are dealing with friends and allies who are spending their lives in the exposition and propagation of their own view of "the truth as it is in Jesus," and whose holy zeal warms and stimulates the whole action of the Christian Church. We are dealing with brethren, not with enemies, with believers, not with infidels, and with men whose conception of the case may some day prove itself to be right. It is a worthless orthodoxy that cannot stand the test of all fair criticism, and it must be a superstitious and faithless faith that conceals its credentials in fear of their possible invalidation. On all sides of these great inquiries we are in quest of truth. We want to get down to the rock of reality. We desire, however much we may be unable to agree in intellectual opinions, to realize the presence of that Blessed Paraclete-God the Holy Ghost-whose office it is to guide the meek and the faithful into all truth. The brethren whose theory

I am about to consider, and in parts strongly to oppose, are of opinion that no little harm has been done to the Bible itself by claiming that as a book it

God."

is "the Word of God." They wish the Bible to be properly defined. They regard it not as being but as containing the Word of God. They are not afraid to say that the Bible as a book abounds in errors, that some of the authorships are nominally fictitious, that many of its dates are incorrect, that some of its books are of composite and not of individual authorship, that Moses may have written little or none of the books which bear his name, and that David may never have heard of the Psalms which are ascribed

to his harp and pen. Yet they claim that humble and obedient souls may find "the Word of God" in the Bible, but not in the Bible alone, for that Word, they say, comes to men every day as a distinct and direct message from God. Every day brings its own message. That may be so. Certainly this view does not discredit or limit inspiration. On the contrary, it insists upon the fact and worthily magnifies ` its value. But the view must not be regarded as original. It must not be supposed that some man discovered it yesterday. It is a view for which other

men have suffered. Young men are now gaining applause for saying that for which older men suffered social and professional martyrdom. The least such young men can do is to acknowledge the wisdom and courage of their forerunners. In discrediting the value of second-hand learning we should take great pains to escape the humiliation of second-hand originality. Gratitude never disgraces Genius.

It has been said by writers whose view I am about to consider that the Bible itself nowhere claims to be "the Word of God." Very much is made of this point. It is said there is no foundation in the Bible itself for the common practice of speaking of it as the Word of God. "Boldly challenge those who thoughtlessly employ the term." Who are they? I would first inquire. The word " thoughtlessly" sets up a prejudice. It is misplaced. Having regard to the whole history of the Church, it may be unjust and impertinent, certainly it cannot assist in the elucidation of the argument. A man is not necessarily "thoughtless" because he differs from me. He may

be only modifying my omniscience. If the Bible nowhere claims to be "the Word of God," and if the

absence of a claim is equivalent to the absence of a right, we must carefully consider the issues. Suppose the Bible does not claim to be the Word of God, what then? Is it not, therefore, the Word of God? May it not be all the more the Word of God on that very account? Does the Bible ever claim to be a book at all? Then it is not a book. Does the Bible ever claim to be a unit? Then it is not a unit. If the Bible is only what it claims to be, then what is it? Does it make any claim? Is it, to speak figuratively, at all conscious of its own existence? Besides, if inspiration comes daily, if it is always with us, if "we may find truth flowing toward us like the dayspring from the dewy eyelids of the morning," if all this is really a fact, who is able to say that inspiration may not be retrospective as well as prospective? That it may not claim for the Bible what the Bible does not formally claim for itself? That it may not inspire its readers as certainly as it inspired its writers? It is not for us to dogmatize. Possibly God may interpret the past as surely as he may reveal the future. It was precisely in this way that Jesus Christ dealt with his disciples. He took them back upon the old records. the old records. He showed what Moses

meant in a way which Moses probably never knew or understood. So it is just possible, for manifold is God's counsel and his paths are in the great deep, that he may have put it into the hearts of his people to speak of the Bible as the Word of God.

There are some rights which do not require to be formally "claimed." They wait for recognition. They are self-revealing; they establish themselves little by little; they grow, so to say, like reason and conscience and sense of responsibility. I am speaking of the mere matter of "claim," and inquiring what it amounts to as an argument. I suggest that it may amount to nothing. Shakespeare may or

may not claim to be a poet. The mere matter of claim is frivolous. Sometimes the claim may have to be set up by the observer. We come upon some conceptions unexpectedly and suddenly, as when the startled dreamer said, "Surely the Lord is in this place, and I knew it not." There was no finger-post at Haran pointing out the road to a sanctuary and setting up a claim, yet Jacob found "a certain place" concerning which he exclaimed, “How dreadful is this place! this is none other but the house of God,