PREFACE.

HIS book has been written almost wholly from

Ta preacher's point of view. In these days the

position of the preacher is often one of embarrassment, because he cannot fail to be aware that the Book out of which he takes his texts is regarded, probably by some of his own hearers, as at best but partially and intermittently inspired. The first thing the preacher has to do is to establish the inspiration of his text, or, against the will of his more critical hearers, to take it for granted. If preacher and hearer are disagreed as to the inspiration of the text, and the consequent authority of the text, the cleavage cannot but have a disastrous effect upon the sermon. The sermon may, indeed, not be lacking in good things, it may even be instructive and interesting; yet, de

riving no authority from the text, it starts with the initial difficulty of claiming faith upon the pretenses of an invalid certificate. In view of such a possibility it might be well to consider whether the text is not a snare and a disadvantage.

In maintaining the inspiration and authority of the Bible—and in deliberately and gratefully describing it as the Word of God-I have not overlooked the claim which has been set up for present-day inspiration, quite as direct and effective as the inspiration of the prophets and apostles. I regard such a claim with extreme suspicion, for reasons fully stated in the book. If present-day inspiration, of a prophetic and apostolic kind, is possible, and is, indeed, actual, why so vehement an appreciation of the inspired parts of the Bible? If inspiration is a commonplace in spiritual experience, if we always had it, if we have it now in greater measure than the Church ever had it before, why make so much of Isaiah and Jeremiah, the disciple John and the apostle Paul? Why this adoration of ancient names? Why go to them for texts when we can have both texts and sermons as directly from above as we had this morning's

If John and Paul

dawn or yesterday's refreshing rain? Respect for antiquity may be pleaded, or reverence for the continuance of inspiration, but the plea does not rise above the level of pious and chastened sentiment; certainly it strikes no note of authority, and certainly whatever it may do indirectly for the sustenance of independent faith, it can inflict no just rebuke upon independent doubt or unbelief. only had what we may have, why take texts from them instead of taking them from ourselves? We cannot first deprive the apostles of uniqueness and then clothe them with authority. Where there is no authority there can be no appeal. Where the authority is upon a level with our own, why not fix the responsibility upon our own inspiration instead of citing texts and doctrines propounded by men who are not here to be cross-examined and tested? Men ought to have the courage of their inspiration. Has history magnified any inspiration that did not involve contempt, loss, reproach, expulsion, and crucifixion? Did inspiration of an apostolic sort ever fit itself into a popular and highly honored position? Inspiration is always proved on Golgotha. It is not an ornament: it is a sacrifice.

It is strongly asserted that inspiration does not guarantee historical accuracy. This is indeed a bold assertion; from my point of view wholly incredible, and especially incredible in reference to the New Testament. But the point cannot be argued in a prefatory explanation. Enough to say that infinite division, exasperation, bigotry, and heart-burning— the unhappy experience of many centuries-would have been saved if in one pregnant sentence the Church had been warned by the Revealing and Inspiring Spirit that the truth of the Bible was interspersed in a mass of historical impossibility, misstatement, and postdated interpolation. That no such warning is given is a fact which has with me the force of an argument.

THE CITY TEMPLE, London.

JOSEPH PARKER.