GOD has spoken. As a fact, this is easily stated. As a truth, it is one of immense importance, and we learn from it that He willed not to abide in the solitude of His being without creatures to whom He might communicate of His thoughts, for all intelligent creatures, as well as all created things, owe their existence to His word. " By the word of the Lord were the heavens made, and all the host of them- by the breath of His mouth." " He spake, and it was. done. He commanded, and it stood fast" (Psa. 33:6-9). A graphic description of the power of that word-" He spake, and it was done." For who hath resisted His will? All, then, that we see around us was called into existence and order by His word, and we learn, as we survey the heavens above and the earth beneath, something of what were the conceptions in the mind of Jehovah, which in obedience to His mighty word took shape and form. But when did He first speak, and call creation into being? Who can tell us but Himself; and to Him are we indebted for all that we know, or can know about it. " In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth" (Gen. 1:1), is the simple statement of the Almighty One, made thousands of years ago for the instruction of His earthly people, called out from the nations to own and to maintain the truth of the unity of God (Deut. 6:4).
" He spake, and it was done." We look around, and see some of the results of that speaking in the heavenly bodies, created before the earth, and the atmosphere which surrounds us, were made for man, whom the Lord God intended to bring on the scene when the time should arrive in accordance with His purpose for the display of His glory, greatness, goodness, and love. This earth having, however, been reduced to chaos (for He formed it not empty, as Isa. 45:18 really wrote; that is, not in the condition in which it was as described in Gen. 1:2), God spake again, and brought it into order, ready for His counsels to begin their accomplishment by the bringing in of man upon the scene. When God spake at the beginning no angel had been created. When He spake to bring this earth out of its chaotic state, the angelic hosts, eye-witnesses of what He did,, shouted for joy (Job 38:7). The power of His word was displayed as created things assumed their form, created beings appeared in all the activity of life, and at last the head of this creation, formed out of the dust of the ground, with the breath of life breathed into him by God, and so becoming a living soul, was seen in the garden of Eden, with his helpmeet by his side. Thus created things, animate and inanimate, brought into existence by God's word, the earth prepared for man, with man himself and his partner on the scene, the invisible things of God were clearly seen, being understood by the things that were made, even His eternal power and Godhead (Rom. 1:20). By His word of power God had so far revealed Himself. A Being at once absolute in power and excellent in working willed not to abide forever alone, but surrounded Himself with creatures animate and inanimate, with orders and ranks of intelligent creatures who could take delight in what He had done, finding their proper object of worship in Him, the Creator and the Holy One, and whose command it should be their freedom and their delight to obey.
But rebellion wrought its dire work among the angelic hosts, and disobedience displayed itself in man, who was made in the image and likeness of God. Ere man was created the devil had fallen (Ezek. 28:13-15), and ere the flood took place, apostasy had developed itself among the angels of God (Gen. 6:2; Jude 6). Divine power to deal with evil was therefore of necessity called forth, and men and angels experienced it. The apostate angels were cast into dens σιροῖς (not chains σειραῖς) of
darkness (2 Peter 2:4); and the ungodly amongst men were cut off by the flood, and imprisoned in the other world (1 Peter 3:19) to await their righteous doom.
Was this, then, all that was to be known of God? A Being almighty, beneficent, gracious, merciful, and yet just, and dealing in unsparing judgment with those who rebelled against Him? No. He was minded to make Himself known in another way, so in due time He sent His only-begotten Son, who is the Word of God (John 1:1), by whom He is declared to us (John 1:18), and seeing whom, men saw the Father; and knowing whom, they could know the Father (John 14:7-9). He is the Word of God, for by Him God has been declared to us.
But there is a third way in which God has spoken to us, viz. by the written word, placing on record not only what He has done, and declaring to us what He is, as revealed by the Son, -the Word; but acquainting us also with that which He desires, and will do, for the instruction of all that shall hearken to Him. God's works tell us something of what He is, but they cannot make known to us His purposes in the future. In the person of the Lord Jesus Christ God's heart was opened up to us, and in His words the Father's thoughts were expressed. None of us, how- ever, have seen God, or heard Him. Hence, for the abiding instruction of souls, God is pleased to communicate His thoughts in words which men may understand, and in such a way that they may trust implicitly to that which has been written. For the Scriptures are inspired, θεόπνευστος, i.e. God-breathed. By revelation God's mind is communicated to them to whom the revelation is made. By inspiration the person selected by God is enabled to express the truth in words chosen of the Holy Ghost, God thus providing for His truth to be transmitted without error or misconception on the part of the one chosen to communicate it; for the words in which it is expressed are the words selected by God. This David in the Old Testament, and Paul in the New Testament, have taught us.
David tells us (2 Sam. 23:2), " The Spirit of the Lord spake by me, and His word was in, or on, my tongue;" and His tongue, he elsewhere states, was the pen of a ready writer (Psa. 45:1). What the Psalmist affirmed, Paul endorsed, and explained more at length (1 Cor. 2:10-13). The truth, the Apostle tells us, was revealed to the writers by the Holy Ghost, and they understood it by the same Spirit given to them, and were guided to communicate it in words chosen of the Holy Ghost, " communicating," as we should probably better translate the Apostle's statement, " spiritual things by spiritual means." That done, it was for the hearer or the reader to receive the truth. The Apostle then distinguishes between revelation, inspiration, and the inspired word being received by the hearer, and tells us that, differing from God's servants of old (1 Peter 1:11,12), who had not always full understanding of that which they set forth, the person in Christian times was the intelligent communicator of that which he had received, and authoritatively set forth. How all this witnesses of God's real desire for His intelligent creature man to become acquainted with the Divine communications! God has taken great pains, we may say it with reverence, that His mind should be correctly made known; but His mind cannot be apprehended by mere human intellect. " The natural man understandeth not the things of the Spirit of God, neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned" (1 Cor. 2:14).
Hence, with such a statement from God before us, we need not be surprised to learn that man steps in, and challenges the word of the Divine Being by His servants in denying the inspiration claimed for the Scriptures. Now, it should be remembered that it is from such as were guided of God to set forth the truth that we learn anything at all about inspiration. And the two witnesses whom we have adduced both assert that they expressed what they did in words chosen. of God. But if such be the case, says an objector, why have we different accounts of the inscription on the Cross? If the words of the sacred writers were taught them by the Holy Ghost, why do they not verbally agree in their statement of that which was placed by Pilate over the head of the Lord Jesus Christ? An answer to this objection is furnished by the Evangelists themselves. It was a trilingual inscription, and therefore probably not meant to be word for word the same in each language. What it actually was Luke and John profess to give us, whereas Matthew only professes to furnish his readers with the accusation made against the Lord. And they " set up over His head this accusation (αὀτία), written, This is Jesus, the king of the Jews;" so wrote the son of Alpheus
(Matt. 27:37). Luke writes, " A superscription (έπιγραφὴ) also was written over Him in letters of Greek, Latin, and Hebrew, This is the King of the Jews " (23: 38). By John we are told that " Pilate wrote a title (τίτλος), and put it on the cross, and the writing was, Jesus the Nazoraean, the King of the Jews. This title then read many of the Jews, for the place where Jesus was crucified was nigh unto the city, and it was written in Hebrew, Greek, and Latin" (19: 19-20), or, according to some of the best uncial MSS. "in Hebrew, Latin, and Greek." Of this trilingual inscription Luke probably gives his readers the Greek one and John the Hebrew, since he mentions that first. For a Greek it would be enough to know that the crucified one laid claim to the throne of David. But to a Jew, and that a Palestinian one, the addition of Nazoraean would have a marked significance. The derision of a Greek would be excited as he thought of the king of the Jews ending His life on the cross (1 Cor. 1:23). The contempt of the Jew would be stimulated as he was reminded of the connection of the crucified one with Nazareth. For the words of Nathaniel, recorded by John, tell us in what light that Galilean city was generally viewed (1: 46). This explanation, as it affects Luke and John, would be further strengthened could we build unhesitatingly on the clause in the former Gospel, " in letters of Greek, Latin, and Hebrew " (23: 38),. which is omitted by the uncial MSS. BC IL with sonic versions, and was struck out from the Codex Sinaiticus by a late corrector of that ancient copy. If we agree to omit the clause, we are of course deprived of its support to the view just expressed, but its omission in no way controverts it.
There remains, then, only the Gospel of Mark, to which we have not referred. He tells us, " The superscription of his accusation (ἡ ἐπιγραφὴ τῆς αἰτίας αἠτοῦ was written over, The King of the Jews" (xv. 26). Does Mark profess to give us the full inscription like Luke and John, or only the statement of the accusation like his brother Evangelist Matthew? If the former supposition be correct, it may well be the Latin one which he has recorded, and that would be quite in harmony with his habit of using so many Latin terms in his narrative. But without pronouncing definitely about Mark, since Matthew clearly does not profess to give us more than the charge against the Lord, there is nothing in what any of the Evangelists state to militate against the truth of inspiration as taught us by the Apostle of the Gentiles. Mark may well have given us the Latin inscription, Luke that which was in Greek, and John the Hebrew one.
Another objection to the verbal inspiration of the Scriptures is based on the different accounts of Peter's denial of the Lord Jesus. Here, again, attention to details and patient investigation helps to the unraveling of that which, to some, is a real difficulty. The history of the Apostle's denial is given us by all four Evangelists (Matt. 26:34,69-75; Mark 14:30,66-72; Luke 22:34,54-60; John 13:38;18:18-27). Now Matthew, Luke, and John wrote of one cockcrowing; Mark, on the other hand, tells us the Lord spoke of the cock crowing twice, which really did take place. Are these different statements irreconcilable? We think not. It may very possibly be that the three Evangelists above named give us the Lord's rejoinder to Peter in a general way, whereas Mark, with his usual accuracy, has doubtless given us the exact answer made by the Master on this occasion; and if there be any truth in the tradition that Mark learned many things which he recounts from Peter, it would be only in keeping with it that he should have given us the exact words of Christ on this occasion, words which we may well believe were ever after indelibly fixed in Peter's mind. Besides this, Mark gives us a clue to the meaning of the Lord's answer as stated by the three Evangelists, in that he acquaints his readers with the special time of night called cockcrowing, a period between midnight and the early dawn (13: 35). The three Evangelists then turn our attention to that period of the night known as the cockcrowing, before which Peter would thrice deny the Lord, which really came true; but Mark, with his attention to details, gives us the full text of the Lord's answer to Peter, and points out how accurately (14: 68, 72) all was fulfilled. And we learn from Luke that between the second and third denial nearly one hour elapsed. Hence the first crowing must have taken place some time before that period of the night called cockcrowing.
Turning now to the actual denials of the Lord by Peter, is there anything in the different accounts to militate against the truth of the full inspiration of the Scriptures? From Matthew we learn that a damsel in the palace-court first addressed him, and he denied that he understood what she said. Another damsel subsequently addressed the bystanders, not Peter, and he denied, but Matthew does not say to whom, that he knew the Lord. Then the bystanders challenged him, and he denied again that he knew Christ. In Mark we read a damsel of the high priest's house first challenged Peter in the court, when he assured her that he knew not what she said, but, evidently afraid of recognition, he went out into the vestibule, and the cock crew. Then a damsel addressed the bystanders, not Peter, and he denied that he was one of the disciples of Christ. At length, challenged by the bystanders, he denied again. Luke's account is very different, but perfectly consistent. Sitting with the servants round the fire, by the light of it a damsel recognized him as a disciple of the Lord, but he denied it. Again challenged personally, but this time by a man, he denied his association with Christ. A third time challenged, and again by a man, he affirmed that he knew not what he said. According to John, the damsel doorkeeper first affirmed that he was of Christ's disciples. Next those standing by repeated the question, but he would not acknowledge it. At last a kinsman of Malchus, whose ear Peter had cut off, averred that he had seen him in the garden with the Lord, but he stoutly again denied any association with Him.
According, then, to Luke's account and John's, Peter was personally addressed three times, whereas from those of Matthew and Mark, we should only have known that he was directly spoken to twice. Do the Evangelists contradict each other? We think not. All agree that a woman first spoke to Peter. Then, whilst Matthew and Mark tell us of a woman addressing the bystanders, which elicited a second denial, Luke says that one of the men directly challenged him, and John states that the general company did. Doubtless the whole company, when told by the damsel, did accuse him; but Luke gives us only the direct charge of one of them. Then as to the third denial, Matthew and Mark tell us the general accusations of the company. Luke makes us acquainted with the fact that one man in particular challenged him, and John tells us who it was. All this seems natural, and the accounts do not really contradict one another. We can understand the general company receiving the damsel's affirmation, and one of their number being prominent in taxing Peter with it, on which all joined in. it. Luke never asserts that only one man accosted him, nor do the other Evangelists affirm that it was merely a chorus of voices to which the Apostle replied.
How helpful, too, the different accounts are for the full understanding of all that took place. Peter's change of place between the first and second challenge Matthew and Mark have noticed, but Luke it is who gives us the explanation of it, in that the firelight had evidently betrayed him to the damsel, and he was aware of it. They had lit a fire in the court. And a certain maid having seen him sitting by the light, πρὸς τὸ φῶς, as the Evangelist mentions, and having earnestly looked at him, said, " This man was also with Him." How naturally all is related! No apparent attempt is made to harmonize the accounts, yet they can, we believe, be harmonized. Then John, the only disciple who was present as a looker-on, tells us who was the damsel who first spoke to Peter, viz. the porteress, and who was the man who personally elicited the third denial from the failing Apostle. And as Luke acquaints us with the lapse of nearly an hour between the second and third denial, John in his narrative interposes severalverses (18: 19-24) between them, recounting all that he gives us of the Lord's examination before Caiaphas. We submit then that there is nothing really in the four different accounts of Peter's denial to show that the words of Paul, already referred to, are not applicable to the writings of the Evangelists.
Another class of objections against the true doctrine of inspiration is grounded on what are called the needless and unmeaning repetitions met with in the Scriptures, and we are pointed to Levit. 19: 9, 10, compared with chapter 23: 22, for an illustration in point. Why, it is asked, if the writer was guided in his words by the Holy Ghost, did he repeat himself, and on this occasion in such close proximity to the previous command? Such an objection betrays the ignorance of the objector as to the teaching of that twenty-third chapter of Leviticus, which may be called the sacred calendar of the people of Israel. The lawgiver has, it is true, repeated himself, but why? In Levit. 19: 9, 10, consideration for the poor and the needy in the time of harvest and vintage is pressed on all the children of Israel. In chapter 23. we have the outline of Israel's history from Exodus to millennial rest, the chief features of which may be thus summed up:-Sheltered by blood from divine judgment, and redeemed out of Egypt, of which the Passover and the feast of unleavened bread reminded them; the wave sheaf was next to be offered, and the feast of weeks was to be kept. Thus far, the festivals of that sacred calendar have had their accomplishment in the death of the Lord Jesus Christ, the true paschal Lamb; in His resurrection on the first day of the week, the morrow after the Sabbath; and in the coming of the Holy Ghost in Pentecostal blessing. By and by, after the Church has been caught up (1 Thess. 4: 15-17), but ere the Lord returns to reign, there will be found on earth souls converted by the testimony of God. To this Rev. 6:9 and 7. refer; and of this Levit. 23: 22 typically treats. Then, Israel brought back to their land, the Feast of Trumpets will have received its accomplishment, and, atonement known by them, they will keep the real Feast of Tabernacles by enjoying millennial rest. We have thus sketched out, as we have said, the nation's history from its commencement at the Exodus to its entrance into full and final blessing under the reign of their Messiah the Lord Jesus Christ. Now, if the lawgiver merely repeated what he had previously written, apart from divine guidance in the matter, why did he recapitulate the command in Levit. 19: 9 with the concluding clause of the following verse, and omit all notice here of the vintage? The omission of that points to method in his writing, and a sketching out of Israel's history, which by no possibility could he have known by mere intuition. For the mention of the unreaped corners in the field teaches us that God was referring to that work of blessing on earth, which will take place after the Church's departure, when souls will be in great numbers converted and owned as saints. Had the lawgiver brought in of his own accord the mention of the vintage there would have been confusion. Saints of God are likened to wheat, the produce of the harvest (Matt. 3:12; 13:38), but the vintage is only used as an emblem of unsparing judgment on the ungodly (Isa. 3; Rev. 14:18,19). There was method and meaning in this repetition. And as none but God then knew the future, the lawgiver was really guided by the Spirit as to how much of what he had previously written in Levit. 19 should be incorporated in chapter 23. Had there, been no mention of
the harvest field in the connection in which it appears, an important part of God's ways with Israel, and Gentiles would have been, we can see, wholly passed over, causing thereby a real gap in the history of God's ways on earth. That verse, however, just fills in what is wanted to complete the sketch, and surely tends to confirm the intelligent student of Scripture in the conviction that the lawgiver was guided of God in that which he wrote.
But why should not God be at liberty to repeat Himself when and where He pleases? Are men to be allowed a freedom which is to be denied to the Almighty? He does repeat Himself in His Word, but for purposes which, when understood, only deepen the sense in the heart that the Scriptures are from God. Compare for instance Psa. 14 with Psa. 53; Psa. 40:13-17 with Psa. 70; Psa. 57:7-11 and 60: 5-12 with Psa. 108 Patient study of the word may be required to understand the reason of any repetition in the sacred pages; but where the soul reverently waits on God, light in due time, if it be His will, is accorded.
But there are some true-hearted souls who may ask with a real desire to learn, How may we be assured that the Scriptures are the word of God? To this let us now turn. It would be strange, certainly, if God had spoken in language man could understand, and for man's everlasting blessing, and yet had left him in real doubt as to whether or not he did possess a revelation from his Creator. God does not thus mock His creatures. He desires too that His children should have fellowship with Himself. But how can that be if we know not, cannot know for certain, what is His mind? No man knoweth the things of a man save the spirit of a man which is in him, even so the things of God knoweth no one, οὐδεὶς (not merely, no man), but the Spirit of God" (1 Cor, 11). A revelation, therefore, is requisite, if any creature is to know them. Now God has chosen man, His people, amongst men, to have understanding of His mind. Wonderful privilege! Immense blessing! The thoughts and purposes of God hidden from ages and generations (1 Cor. 2:9,10; Col. 1:26) are now made manifest. But are those so deeply concerned in them to remain in uncertainty regarding God's revelation of them? Oh no. How then, some may ask, shall we be sure about this? If we turn to Deut. 18: 21, 22, we shall find a principle there enunciated of use to us. " If thou shalt say in thine heart, How shall we know the word which the Lord hath not spoken? When a prophet speaketh in the name of the Lord, if the thing follow not, nor come to pass, that is the thing which the Lord hath not spoken." Thus God guarded His people of old from being led away by pretended revelation. They were to judge of the word by the results. Now we can judge of it in a similar way. But for Israel it was the prophetic word of which they were thus to judge. With us it is the revelation God has given for our instruction and encouragemen'6 which we can test by this principle.
For the word of God professes to act on souls in ways which are characteristic either of what God is, or of what He does, and these characteristic actings of the word are proofs that it is God's word. First, God is the source of life. If we speak of the Father, He is called the living Father (John 6:57), having life in Himself (John 5:26), deriving His being from no one. If we think of the Son of God, we read, " In Him was life" (John 1: 4), and He is the life of all who believe on Him. For " He that hath the Son hath life, and he that hath not the Son of God hath not life " (1 John 5:12). In keeping with this the word of God quickens. " Of His own will begat He us with the word of truth," wrote James (1: 18). " Being born again, not of corruptible seed, but of incorruptible, by the word of God, which liveth and abideth forever," writes Peter (1 Peter 1:23). Now these two, themselves subjects of the quickening power of the word, have placed on record how it acts; and the Master Himself, who came from heaven, also declared this when He told Nicodemus that "Except a man be born of water and of the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God" (John 3:5); for water here is the emblem of the word of God.
But this leads us to another acting of the word. It not only quickens, but it cleanses, acting on the soul as water does on the body. Hence we read, "Wherewithal shall a young man cleanse his way? By taking heed thereto, according to thy word" (Psa. 119:9). God is holy, and the man who is subject to the word is thereby cleansed from his old evil ways. And this the Lord Jesus fully corroborated, when he said to the eleven, " Now ye are clean through the word which I have spoken unto you" (John 15:3). Thus the Holy Ghost in the Old Testament affirmed how the word could act, and the Lord Jesus, speaking of the eleven after Judas had gone out, declared that it had really acted in this way on them. They were examples of the cleansing action of the divine word. But, thank God, they stand not alone in this, for the Lord Jesus Christ, the Head of His body, the Church, has cleansed (or cleanses) καθαρίσας it by the washing of water by the word (Eph. 5:26). With this passage then before us we can understand the meaning of the figure used in John 3:5, where water is a symbol for the divine word. For the word showing the person what he ought to be, and in consequence manifesting to him what in himself and in his ways is contrary to God, he, if subject to its teaching, separates himself from that which by the word he learns is inconsistent with Christian life and practice. Thus the word cleanses. How it could act the Psalmist, as we have seen, long ago declared. How it acted on the eleven the Lord affirmed. And that it can effectually cleanse every soul which is subject to it, the ministry of the Lord Jesus Christ, described in Eph. 5, plainly intimates.
Further, the divine word enlightens, as the Psalmist also found, who has placed on record what it was to him. " Thy word," he wrote, " is a lamp unto my feet, and a light unto my path: " and again, " The entrance, or opening up, of thy words gives light: it gives understanding to the simple"
(Psa. 119: 105, 130). " God is light, and in Him is no darkness at all " (1 John 1:5). To that which He is the written word corresponds, and by its entrance into man's heart enlightens him, and dwelling in the saint of God sheds light on his way. Nor is this all, for it can do what no word of man ever did, being " quick and powerful, and sharper than any two-edged sword, piercing even to the dividing asunder of soul and spirit, and of the joints and marrow, and is a discerner of the thoughts and intents of the heart "
(Heb. 4:12). No instrument is like it, no weapon so sharp, no edge so fine, detecting as it does, for the instruction of him who is subject to it, that which comes from the soul, the emotional part of man, in contradistinction to that which comes from his spirit, and discerns the thoughts and intents of the heart. Nothing then is there in man's innermost being which the word cannot search out and lay bare. And this is its action on the heart of a saint, who needs this application of it, as he pursues his path across the scene of this world. It is part of God's provision for His people in the wilderness. What care on the part of God for His people! It is God's prerogative to search the heart and try the reins. "Deceitful above all things and desperately wicked," as man's heart is, who can know it? Man knows it not. How often has that been illustrated, as crimes, which at one time would have been abhorred as too bad to be committed, have afterward been registered against the memory on earth of such as have been left to carry out the desires of their nature (2 Kings 8:13). What, however, man does not know, God does; for it is His prerogative to search the heart (Jerem. 17: 9, 10). So His word acts in accordance with what He is and does, and thus proves whose word it really is.
One other of its 'characteristics must be noticed ere we pass on. Born of the word, it is also the means by which the soul is instructed, and by which the believer grows unto salvation, as Peter most probably wrote (1 Peter 2:2). Arid to this Paul bore witness, as writing to Timothy he reminded him of the
value of that inspired word, which was able to make souls wise unto salvation through faith which is in Christ Jesus. Thus the word of God acts. It quickens, it cleanses, it enlightens, it discerns the thoughts and intents of the heart, and by it the saint, the child of God, becomes wise unto salvation. Its characteristic actings show whose word it is, for it acts in accordance with the nature and ways of God towards sinners and towards saints. Hence, each one who hears the gospel of the grace of God, and receives it, has proof in himself whose word it really is. The question then for the soul is not one for argument or intellectual apprehension, for the man himself who receives the truth is a living witness that the revelation is from God. And by and by those who now reject it will learn whose word they slighted on earth, when the prophetic announcement of the Savior is fulfilled, " He that rejecteth me, and receiveth not my words, hath one that judgeth him: for the word that I have spoken, the same shall judge him in the last day " (John 12:48). But, thank God, the person who learns that the word is of God through being quickened, cleansed, enlightened, and instructed by it, will never know that it is from God in the manner the Lord has described in His last appeal to the world in the Gospel by John. For it is from His last appeal, as given us in that Gospel that we have quoted, when, in the urgency of desire that souls should hear Him and live, He " cried and said, He that believeth on me, believeth not on me, but on Him that sent me. And he that seeth me seeth Him that sent me. I am come a light into the world, that whosoever believeth on me should not abide in darkness " (John 12:44-46). But what a solemn thought, that in the other world there will be no difference of opinion as to whether or not the written word is from God. The saints will know it, and be forever the proofs of it. The lost, who have heard it, will then know it, and will suffer forever because they rejected it.
There is no real difficulty, then, for any one who desires now to know whether or not the word is of God. Its action on the heart which believes it, evidences from whom it comes. And since it is part of God's provision for our wilderness journey, we may further inquire how we should make use of it? What answer can the Scriptures give us as to this? What principles are there that we should keep in mind when we study it? Now there is an incident related by Luke (10: 25) of a certain lawyer (his name is unknown to us), who, tempting the Lord Jesus, asked Him, " Master, what shall I do to inherit eternal life?" The Lord's answer is instructive, and illustrates one important principle needed to be remembered in the study of the divine word. " What is written in the law-How readest thou? " was His reply. Had God spoken on that subject? Then there was no room for opinion. God had spoken, as the lawyer proved by quoting what the law had said, and the Lord intimated that it was enough. It answered his question. Impossible, morally impossible was it, that God had given a revelation to man, and for man, and omitted that which it was of the first importance for him to 'know. Now God had spoken, and what was wanted for that time the word of God contained. But more. If the Word has spoken, man has only to hear. Opinions of men can have no place where God's mind for the creature has been declared. How much surely the Lord could have revealed, for He came from heaven. But He would not. And He made the lawyer own two important things, first, that if God gives a revelation, He does not omit what man has need to know for his real blessing; and secondly-and this is the reason that we especially turn to it—that when God has spoken, man cannot be allowed to have opinions or thoughts which are divergent from that which the Almighty has declared. The authority of the word is to be paramount.
Another thing we must also bear in mind, and in that too the Lord instructs us. Dispensational teaching cannot be ignored, if we would rightly apprehend the bearing of the divine word. Judaism and Christianity are very different. Principles and practices in harmony with the one are not of necessity in harmony with the other. Law and grace must not be confounded. Kingdom truth, too, and Church truth must be kept distinct. For illustrations of dispensational differences we would point to the Lord's instruction about divorces (Matt. 19:8), and to His teaching at the well of Sychar about acceptable worship (John 4:21-24). Dispensational differences then there are, and the teaching for those under law will not always do for those under grace. The want of seeing this has caused widespread confusion in Christendom, and the loss really to souls of what is proper Christian truth. Hence all that Judaizing, so rife in apostolic times, and so rife still, and which is based on the assumption that what God once revealed must be His mind for His people at all times and in all ages. One great evil of it the Epistle to the Galatians exposed. Turning to the observance of days, months, times, and years, the Galatian Christians were in principle going back to the idolatry out of which they had been brought, for they were turning again to weak and beggarly elements to which they desired again to be in bondage (Gal. 4:9); and if Judaizing was right, Christ, said the Apostle, is become the minister of sin (2: 17). In language clear, decided, but startling, does He expose it. For; teaching then against Judaizing we may turn to the Galatians. For that which guards against Ritualism we would point to the Hebrews. God's mind therefore for His people in their own day is what souls have to seek after, and those Epistles just named, in common with the New Testament revelation, will furnish us with all that is wanted.
The paramount authority of the word of God accepted, and the importance of dispensational teaching being admitted, another thing must be carefully borne in mind, viz. that the teaching of the word is that for which we are to search, and not merely to hunt for a text. Where God has definitely pronounced what is His mind in any text, of course every one should bow to it at once. But there are important points for which we may not be able to find a text, though we may, as taught of God, discern what is the truth about them from the teaching of a passage of the word. An instance in point we are furnished with in the Lord's answer to the Sadducees, who denied the resurrection of the dead and the existence of angels and spirits. Coming to Him with a case, to their minds conclusive against it, He told them that they erred, not knowing the Scriptures, nor the power of God. Fools they were in limiting God's power to the illustrations of it with which they were acquainted; arguing that man's condition could never differ from that of which they had experience. But, further, they knew not the Scriptures. Often, doubtless, had its pages been searched by them and their opponents for proofs in support of their doctrine or against it. Had they overlooked a text which openly declared it? A text about it the law did not contain; but teaching about it was really to be found in a section of it, and the Lord drew it forth. "Now that the dead are raised even Moses showed at the bush (or perhaps in the section on the bush), when he called the Lord the God of Abraham, and the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob. For He is not a God of the dead but of the living; for all live unto Him" (Luke 20:37,38). The effect of this answer on His questioners Matthew has related, for he tells us the Pharisees heard that the Lord Jesus had put the Sadducees to silence. In truth what could they say in answer? The Scriptures taught unhesitatingly the doctrine of the resurrection, though Moses had not formulated that truth in a text. What results beyond silencing them at the moment arose from the Lord's answer we have no means of ascertaining, but the record of that incident will not be destitute of real results if we gather from it this principle, that to the teaching of Scripture we have to bow, though the doctrine in question may not be expressly stated in plain words in any one passage. Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob could not have ceased to exist, for the Lord declared He was, not He had been, their God, two centuries almost after Jacob had been laid in the patriarchal burying-place at Hebron.
These three leading principles kept in view, we would now call our reader's attention to the way God's saints of old made use of His written word. The Old Testament saints studied it as well as those who lived in Christian times. Of this Jeremiah and Daniel are examples. Jeremiah evidently studied what had been written before him, and fed on the inspired word. Compare Jer. 4:2 with Psa. 72:17; 4: 3 with Hos. 10:12; 7: 23 with Levit. 26:12; 10: 25 with Psa. 79:6,7; 11: 5 with Ex. 3:8, Levit.20:24; 12: 4 with Psa. 107:34; 15: 14 with Deut. 32:22; 17: 8 with Psa. 1:3; 20:10 with Psa. 20: 11,13; 48: 34 with Isa. 15:6; 48:44 with Isa. 24:17,18; 48:45, 46, with Numb. 21: 28, 29; 49:3 with Amos 1:15; 49: 27 with Amos 1: 4; 51: 58 with Hab. 2:13; Lament. 2: 15 with Psa. 1: 2; 3: 6 with Psa. 143:3; 5:19 with Psa. 102:12. How he delighted too in God's word we gather from the manner in which he expressed himself to God when suffering for the truth, and feeling keenly his isolation in consequence. " 0 Lord, Thou knowest, remember me and visit me, and revenge me of my persecutors; take me not away in Thy longsuffering; know that for Thy sake I have suffered rebuke. Thy words were found, and I did eat them, and Thy word was unto me the joy and rejoicing of mine heart; for I am called by Thy name, 0 Lord God of hosts. I sat not in the assembly of the mockers, nor rejoiced; I sat alone because of Thy hand: for Thou hast filled me with indignation" (Jer. 15:15-17). What the divine word was in the Psalmist's eyes he too tells the Lord. "Thy word is very pure, therefore Thy servant loveth it. I am small and greatly despised, yet do I not forget Thy precepts" (Psa. 119:140,141).
These holy men were in the land of Israel's possession, yet found support in their trials from what God had declared to them. So too Daniel, an exile, a captive, the witness by his condition of the nation's sin, studied the Scriptures, and put implicit confidence in the divine statements. The authority of the written word he fully accepted, and awaited in the province of Babylon the fulfillment of God's announcement by Jeremiah (Jer. 25:11; 27: 6, 7; 29: 10) of the duration and termination of the captivity by Nebuchadnezzar. His condition in Babylon was a proof that the word by that prophet was of God; and understanding by books that the termination of the captivity was at hand, he prayed to God about the people, the city, and the sanctuary. Evidently the predictions by Jeremiah had been a light and comfort to him, and he reckoned on Jehovah's faithfulness to that which had been declared. What grace on the part of God to give that word before the captivity began! What comfort and hope it must have afforded Daniel as he knew that which had been predicted! So he turned to speak to God about it, assured by the prophetic word of the favor for his people which then was close at hand. What had the people done to deserve such goodness?-nothing. But God had promised it, so Daniel expected it, and counted on it; and became in his turn the channel of divine communications for his people at a future day, who will learn, as he proved, the help the Scriptures can give when suffering righteously for their fathers' sins (Dan. 9:24-27;12:10).
Turning to New Testament times, we are favored in Acts 15 with instruction most helpful to us of the way the apostles and elders assembled in council at Jerusalem received the written word, and got the required guidance from it. A question had been raised which really struck at the root of dispensational teaching. Converts from among the Gentiles were now numerous, for the. Lord had blessed amazingly the preaching of His word among them. Those ignorant of dispensational changes, and of the essential difference between Christianity and Judaism, were urging on those converts circumcision and the keeping of the law for salvation. To settle this question Paul and Barnabas went up, at the request, it would seem, of those gathered out at Antioch (Acts 15:2); though Paul's visit to Jerusalem on this occasion and for this purpose was in consequence of a divine revelation (Gal. 2:2). The question was debated by the apostles and elders. It was a new one, an important one, and, as we learn from the Epistle to the Galatians, a vital one. A new revelation from God at that moment when gathered in council would of course have determined the controversy. But none was vouchsafed. No prophet on that occasion, speaking by the Spirit, communicated the mind of the Lord. But they had the written word, and that was to be sufficient, and that was found to be enough. To it James turned, quoting the prophet (Amos 9:11,12), who had already foretold that Gentiles would be converted, as he wrote, " And all the Gentiles upon whom My name is called" (Acts 15:17). Their conversion then was no afterthought of the divine mind, for the words of Amos were the words of the Lord, who " doeth these things known from the beginning," as James most likely really said.
But as to circumcising them, or putting them under the law of Moses, the written word was silent, though it was plain God intended that some from among Gentiles should be converted, and stand out as His people, His name being called on them. Then they accepted the silence of the word on the question raised as a settlement of it. What it did not enjoin, that they would not impose on the converts from the nations. Dispensational teaching therefore they quite accepted, and though no text could be quoted which treated of the matter on hand dogmatically, the tenor of the word they gathered from that to which James referred. So if Daniel rested on the faithfulness of God to His word, the apostles and elders owned its paramount authority, acknowledged dispensational teaching, and correctly discerned what it taught, though no formal text could be quoted to settle the controversy. The three principles, then, to which we have called attention above, the acts of the council at Jerusalem fully illustrate and endorse.
But a further point comes out, and it is one to which all do well to take heed. Dispensational differences may necessitate changes in practice, and even call forth fresh revelations. God may alter His word, or it may for a time fall into abeyance should He be pleased to introduce any changes on earth; but unless He does cancel it, or announce such changes, that which He has once declared never becomes obsolete. He canceled His word to Adam in the garden with reference to the food of which he was to eat, when he had sinned and was driven out of Paradise (compare Gen. 1:29 with 3:18). Again God changed His ordinance about man's food after the sweet savor of Noah's burnt-offering had ascended up heavenward (Gen. 9:3,4). But the injunction against eating blood, given then to Noah and his sons, and through them really to all mankind, God has never canceled, nor modified. Hence that is binding on all men, and to be obeyed by those who are God's children. To that the council at Jerusalem directed the attention of the Christians gathered out from amongst the nations. God's word does not become obsolete by age, nor from lack of observance.
But we can turn from examples furnished us by saints in the Old Testament and by saints in the New, to one of whom it was written, "Thy law is within my heart" (Psa. 40:8), and whose ear God wakened morning by morning to hear as the learned, i.e. taught ones (Isa. 1: 4). Maintaining the paramount authority of God's word by his answer to the lawyer, He wielded it as the sword of the Spirit in His conflict with Satan in the wilderness (Matt. 4:1-17). There hungry, His wants as yet unsupplied, the enemy suggested to Him to use His power, if the Son of God, to turn the stones into bread. Should the Son of God want for food in the wilderness? If He was the Son, why not minister to His own need. This was in principle the same snare as that by which the arch tempter had caught our first parents-viz, that God had not furnished those dependent on Him with all that they needed, and therefore they would be justified in caring for themselves. The Lord's answer to this temptation was drawn from the armory of God's word. " It is written, Man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word that proceedeth out of the mouth of God." God had not spoken to Him to turn stones into bread, therefore He would not do it. When God was silent, He would not act. How fully was the Lord vindicated in this; for when the temptation was ended, and the devil had departed, foiled in all his efforts, angels came and minister d unto Him. God had not forgotten Him, nor was He left to care for Himself. Dependent, obedient, in due time His wants were supplied.
But a second time the tempter assailed Him. The Lord had quoted Scripture (Deut. 5: 3), the devil would quote it also (Psa. 91:11,12). But one Scripture is not to be used to overturn another. What the devil had quoted was God's word, but there was another Scripture with which the Lord would have come in conflict had he done that in support of which the Psalm was quoted. So the Lord replied to the enemy's suggestion by the simple but forcible words, " It is written again, Thou shalt not tempt the Lord thy God " (Deut. 6:16). The command addressed to Israel by Moses was binding still. A third time the devil tempted Him by the promise of all the kingdoms of the world, and their glory, if only He would worship him. Again the Lord answered him from the word (Deut. 6:13). A positive command from God was not to be disobeyed." It is written; Thou shalt worship the Lord thy God, and Him only shalt thou serve." So where God had not spoken He would not act. One Scripture, He teaches us, is not to override another, unless God has distinctly intimated that the former one is no longer to be observed. And lastly, where God has spoken definitely there is an end of all controversy. How fully were those words of the Psalmist exemplified in the Lord Jesus in the wilderness, " By the word of Thy lips I have kept me from the paths of the destroyer" (Psa. 17:4). By that same word are saints to keep themselves still.
Of this we are reminded in the valedictory address of Paul to the elders of Ephesus, in the writings of John and Jude, and in the Lord's own address to the angel of the church in Sardis. At Ephesus Paul had labored, God had wrought by him in a marked way; but after his departure grievous wolves would come in, not sparing the flock, and from among themselves would men arise speaking perverse things, to draw away disciples after them. What ravages would be committed in the flock! Wolves from without, men speaking perverted things from within What were the elders to do under such circumstances? What was their resource? The Apostle tells them: " I commend you to God, and to the word of His grace, which is able to build you up, and to give you an inheritance among all them which are sanctified " (Acts 20:32). Paul was leaving them, but God would not pass away. Apostolic counsel and labors they might enjoy and witness no more; but the word of God remained the same. To that and to God he commended them, as all that was needed to build up their souls. Of God he had taught them, and that fully (20: 21, 24, 25, 27, 28); of repentance towards God he had witnessed both in public and private; to the gospel of God's grace he had borne a full and clear testimony. Further, he had preached among them the kingdom, declared to them all the counsel of God, and taught them about His church purchased by the blood of Christ. Now no more to be with them as once he had been, he commends them to God, and the word of His grace, as all-sufficient under all circumstances. Development of truth he does not hint at. To God's word he commended them. In the same spirit John, addressing the babes in Christ, conscious that it is the last hour, and with many antichrists around, exhorts, them to let that abide in them that they had heard from the beginning (1 John 2:24); for it was enough, and it was that which he, writing by the Spirit of God, was authorized to press on them; and, in truth, as he tells them, those who did not hear the apostles were not of God, whatever pretensions they might put forth to be teachers and leaders among the saints. " Hereby," he writes, " know we the spirit of truth, and the spirit of error" (1 John 4:6). Similarly Jude, in view of the apostasy, the elements of which he could discern already at work, warns Christians of it, and exhorts them to contend earnestly for the faith once delivered unto the saints (Jude 3). What had been delivered, that they were to contend for, and to build themselves up in it. The apostasy was coming on. God's word, God's truth, would be sufficient for them all. The apostates would turn from the truth. They were to keep by it; for the Divine word was a faithful one, and would surely be fulfilled; and of this he gives a striking and unique illustration, by quoting the prophecy of Enoch. Those who had heard that prophecy, and to whom it was primarily addressed, had all passed away. The flood had come on the world of the ungodly; but Enoch's prophecy, hitherto unrecorded in the word, God had not forgotten, and from henceforth it would have a place in the sacred volume. For, as Jehovah was not now dealing in goodness with one nation to the exclusion of other nations from the enjoyment of the privileges and favors which He deigned to bestow, but was dealing in grace with man, and would come to judge the ungodly, the terms of Enoch's prophecy were in harmony with the present ways and warnings of God. So that which Moses had not been commissioned to record, Jude was chosen to write down for the instruction of saints and for the warning of the ungodly.
And now, for a moment, we would once more direct the reader's attention to the instruction furnished us by the ways of the Lord Jesus Christ. We have seen how He used the word, and turned to it when he sojourned amongst men. We learn from His address to the angel of the church in Sardis what He thinks of it now that He is in glory. Deadness had come over that assembly, but He would minister to it to arouse it if possible. Had God failed in providing all that they required, that a state of deadness characterized them? Could they blame God for that condition for which the Lord rebuked them? No; all that was requisite they already possessed, but they had forgotten to make use of it. Hence His word to the angel, " Remember how thou hast received, and heard; and hold fast, and repent." That was all. He adds nothing to that which they already possessed, save His commendation of the faithful amongst them, His promise to the overcomer, and His word of warning for the impenitent. How persistently does God keep before His people the sufficiency of the written word, and the value of it! In it there is already provided all that individuals or assemblies need to walk by, and to be fruitful for God through the power of the Holy Ghost. We cannot do without it, but in it we can find all that we need to know of God's mind for us, as Peter writes, " that we may grow thereby unto salvation" (1 Peter 2:2). If false teachers arise, we are to test them by the word. Since the apostasy is fast approaching, our resource is to keep close to the word. If a state of deadness characterizes those who profess to be Christians, minister to them the simple word of God. These are the lessons the apostles and the Lord Jesus Himself would impress on each one of us.
In the spirit of this teaching Paul wrote his second letter to Timothy, his son in the faith, who, filling a position such as none but Titus, that we read of, ever occupied, viz. that of apostolic delegate, was, nevertheless, placed in circumstances very similar to those in which all God's servants since his day have found themselves. He was not a channel made use of by the Spirit for the revelation of truth, but he heard what had been communicated through others; he received it, and was to keep it. Paul was shortly to leave earth, but Timothy would survive him. Thus the canon of Scripture comes down to that time when servants of Christ would be on earth, who had been taught indeed by apostles and prophets, but who were not themselves prophets in that sense of the word, and it views such as continuing on earth, and in service, when the apostles should have passed away. God's wisdom is thus seen in not closing, the canon till such should be called out, and put into their respective spheres of service, and authoritatively addressed by one competent to do it, to tell them how they were to work, and from what sources they were to draw the instructions of which they had need. Of all this Timothy is an illustration for
God's saints as long as the church shall continue upon earth; for what was sufficient for him will also be sufficient for us.
The freshness, devotedness, and life, depicted in the Acts as characterizing the early converts to Christianity, had begun to decline ere the apostles were removed (Rev. 2:4; Phil. 2:21). Peter, John, Jude, and Paul, all warn believers of that which was coming on the professing church, the seeds of which had already begun to germinate. Defection, desertion, declension, both John and Paul witnessed, and experienced from some who had been reckoned amongst the saints (3 John 9; 2 Tim. 1:15; 4:10). The brightest, the unclouded days of the Church's earthly history were already past, to be seen no longer. Faithful souls there still were, but amongst a mass of profession in which there were many who had life, but who lacked Christian firmness, faithfulness, and devotedness. Was Timothy then, when deprived of the Apostle's counsel. and presence, to sink down to the level of the declension which was rife around him? That would not become -a true servant of Christ. So he was exhorted in Paul's second letter to him, and the latest in the sacred canon that came from the aged Apostle, to stand his ground, and if need be even alone, though, thank God, he never could be, nor can any one of us ever be the only faithful soul upon earth. There will always be some who call on the Lord out of a pure heart (2 Tim. 2:22).
What thoughts must have crowded into his mind if he looked on to the future. Weak in body, probably timid in character, and surely a man of warm affections (1 Tim. 5:23; 2 Tim. 1:4), the departure of the Apostle to be with Christ must have been to him a prospect, as far as he was concerned, anything but cheering. To him, -then, the Apostle writes exhorting him to maintain his ground, and to keep hold of the revealed mind of God. And how pointed are the exhortations! Evil men and seducers would wax worse and worse, deceiving and being deceived (2 Tim. 3:13). A prospect that was anything but cheering, and one not calculated to encourage a person of Timothy's disposition. Men, too, would turn away their ears from the truth, and be turned unto fables (2 Tim. 4:4). From the outward aspect of things in the Church of God, what comfort indeed could he get? Should he become faint hearted and despairing? That would not befit the servant of Christ. Whatever others might do, "continue thou," writes the Apostle, " in the things which thou hast learned and hast been assured of, knowing of whom thou hast learned them"
(2 Tim. 3:14). And again, " But watch thou in all things, endure afflictions, do the work of an evangelist, make full proof of thy ministry" (2 Tim. 4:5). Nothing was to shake him, or seduce him from the path of obedience. But who goeth to warfare at his own charges? or who enlists a soldier without providing him also with arms and ammunition? The weapon of Timothy's warfare was the word of God. Of this he is reminded, and the importance of the divine revelation comes out in every chapter of this epistle.
Paul was looking forward to his death, so he turns to Timothy to maintain the testimony
(2 Tim. 4:1-6). " Have " or "hold fast," he writes " a form (or outline) of sound words which thou hast heard of me, in faith and love which is in Christ Jesus " (2 Tim. 1:13). Taught by Paul, he was to keep hold of that which he had been taught. Sound words he had heard of Paul. An outline of them he was to keep in faith and love which is in Christ Jesus. Apostolic teaching he was to remember, having a form, or outline, of the sound words which he had heard from Paul. The wisdom of such an injunction we can all understand, and the value of such a summary Christians in all ages have endorsed in principle. Creeds, articles of faith, confessions, are all admissions of the wisdom of the apostolic word, though all fall short of that full teaching of which Timothy was to have an outline. For it was not to be limited in scope or extent to that which man had apprehended. The outline was to be of sound words, which Timothy had heard from Paul-a real full summary of apostolic teaching. Such an outline we may boldly assert the church has not held from Timothy's time to our own. The recovery of truths at different epochs in her history, and especially those brought out afresh from the word in our own time respecting the Holy Ghost, the Church of God, and even the full preaching of the gospel, warrant us fully in making that statement. But besides having an outline of apostolic teaching, the good deposit of the faith entrusted to him he was to keep by the Holy Ghost which dwelt in him. His responsibility is here pressed on him. The faith once delivered is to be kept. What we have is to be held fast (Rev. 3:11). Thus saints are held responsible to maintain the truth which they have received. So Timothy was to prove that he profited by intercourse with Paul. He was to keep the deposit entrusted to him Thus far we have what concerned himself. But what about others? Provision is next made for the transmission of sound teaching to them. " Thou therefore, my son, be strong in the- grace which is in Christ Jesus; and the things which thou hast heard of me among many witnesses, the same commit thou to faithful men, who shall be able to teach others also"
(2 Tim. 2:1,2). Again, we may remark, there is no hint of development, or of further revelation. The things which he had heard of Paul among many witnesses, those he was to commit to faithful men, who in their turn would be able to teach others also. Thus God provided for the work to spread, but also for the preservation intact, if men continued faithful, of that teaching which had produced such marked effects. What Timothy had heard, and that among many witnesses, he was to hand on. So, if development is excluded, tradition also is shut out. What Timothy had heard from Paul he was to hand on, being attested as apostolic teaching by many witnesses. What care for the correct transmission of the truth have we here, coupled, however, with his responsibility and that of the attesting witnesses. Timothy was a recipient and a transmitter of true doctrine. He was not the originator of it, nor was it revealed to him. As such, then, he was to be careful. But the doctrine had not been hidden in a corner, nor under a bushel. Many witnesses could attest it. It had been openly, fully, and doubtless frequently set forth. When the Lord was going away, He told His disciples that the Holy Ghost would bring to their remembrance all that. He had said unto them (John 14:26). To Timothy no such promise was made. Then God intended to provide for the infallible setting forth of true Christian teaching. Having been once thus set forth, God's servants are to keep it and hand it on.
As a transmitter of truth care was to be exercised and pains taken, committing it to faithful men, who, in their turn, were to teach others also. For it is not authority but truth which Timothy was commissioned to hand on: what he had heard. One hears truth, one receives authority. Further, as a teacher of the truth he was to cut it in a straight line, ὀρθοτομεῖν (2 Tim. 2:15), a much needed and wise admonition. Quirks and fancies were to have no place where the truth was concerned. And surely he cut the word in a straight line when he took it simply as he found it, got from it what really was in it, and refrained from importing man's ideas into the exposition of God's truth. In so doing he would be a workman that needed not to be ashamed. How important is this injunction as to the right way of dealing with the word! It is the word of truth, and we can only learn the truth as we bow to the word in which it is expressed to us in words taught the sacred writer by the Holy Ghost. Hence there is no other source to which we can turn for the unfolding of the mind of God. But more: we have in the Scriptures all that is requisite to make us wise unto salvation, and that the man of God should be perfect, thoroughly furnished, or fitted, unto all good works (2 Tim. 3:15,17). Hence Timothy is told to preach it: " I charge thee before God, and the Lord Jesus Christ, who shall judge the quick and dead, and by His appearing and His kingdom; preach the word; be instant in season, out of season; reprove, rebuke, exhort, with all long- suffering and doctrine " (4: 1, 2). The door was then open. It would not always remain open.
Keeping the truth, handing it on, remembering the sufficiency of the written word, and preaching it, such were the Apostle's exhortations to his child in the faith. Development the word knows nothing of. When God gave the law, He gave it all ere Moses died. When God revealed Christian truth, He revealed it all whilst the Apostles continued on earth. Going forward, as. John wrote to the elect lady, and abiding not in the doctrine of Christ, is not advancing in revelation, but pursuing the road which ends in perdition. It is apostasy (2 John 9). The doctrine of Christ has been fully revealed, though one may have much to learn about it from the word in which it has been unfolded. And we shall miss full instruction, and the full profit for our souls, if we study one part only of the Scriptures and neglect the rest. The Old Testament, Peter reminds us, is profitable, and should be kept hold of as much as the New. In the Old we read of the coming kingdom and glory. In the New we have in addition the Church's hope (2 Peter 1:19). The one must not displace the other in our minds. Both are to be held fast. And when scoffers rise up in their scoffing to deny the promise of the Lord, their very reasoning, he tells us, evidences their willing ignorance of Scripture, the Old Testament part of which refutes their arguments, and opens up to us the future of this earth beyond the millennial reign of the Lord Jesus Christ, when the eternal state shall have begun (2 Peter 3) Man's history from first to last, God's counsels about His Son in connection with man, this earth, the universe, and above all for the display of His own glory, and of His ways in grace, with the triumph of His Son, and the final and abiding condition of men, both of the righteous and of the impenitent; these are subjects of divine revelation. So with man's final destiny unfolded, and God's supremacy re-established forever, the volume of inspiration brings to a close the history of time in relation to man, as far as God has opened it up to us. All then that man has need to know of his origin, his future, and his salvation, this book can tell him, and in this alone is it revealed to him. We have, therefore, attempted in this article to make it speak for itself, calling attention to the claim it puts forth as the inspired word of God, the proofs it affords that it is the Divine word, the way to use it as illustrated from its pages, and its all-sufficiency to guide the soul that will submit to it in the days of declension and of the denial of truth in which our lot is cast.