would not have perpetrated such a fraud even in the. interests of truth, morality, or religion. We are therefore shut up to the only rational con- clusion left us—that the Bible is true, having been written, as it purports to have been, by holy men who were moved by the spirit of God. I believe that along that line alone, if we had no other line of defense, we could vindicate the Divine origin of the Bible. There are two ways of studying the question of inspiration. One is the spiritual and the other is the mechanical method. At present the mechanical method is the one more in vogue by the critics. I cannot better describe this method than the reference to what has been called "Thé'dissection of the body in search of the soul." This method proceeds up a Priori- denial of the existence of the supernatural, and assumes that whatever is is material, as we use the word in common parlance. Well, I think we may say the sèarch after the soul of men by dissection has proved to be a false method. Just às long ago the folly of examining the so-called physical basis-of life, and resolving that into its chemical elements for the purposes of determining what life is, has long ago been given up. Even Professor Huxley has not succeeded in telling us what life is by this method. So it seems strange that this discredited method of searching after inspiration by examining the dead body of Scripture should be adopted. It cannot be very reliable. T speak advisedly when I say the dead body or the dead letter of Scripture. For the critics proceed»-first of all, to deny inspiration, and tell us that we must begin by treating this book as a purely human composition. I may illustrate my meaning a little further by allusion to an incidènt in the career of the g^eat chemist Faraday. It is said that he was once giving' a popular lecture to ^n .audience in which there were a large number of school children. The subject of his lecture was "The Chemical Analysis of a Tear.". In this lecture -h'è ' demonstrated - that mother's tears were but little drops of salt water. This is the scientific result of that inquiry. No doubt he was per- fectly right from thé point of view of the physical scientist. ! But the effect of this conclusion was most startling upon a small boy in the audiénce, and said: "Then, if that is the case, I will never be sorry again when mother cries. For'if mother's tears are only drops of salt water, I do not see why I should be distressed by the sight of them." Ah, yes ! But while mother's tears were, from the scientific point of view but drops of salt water, it was not within the province of thé' scientist to discover the deep emotion, the heart-breaking sorrow that wèlled behind every tear, and caused it to flow down her cheeks. Now, it seems to me that the modern method of examining the Bible in respect of its inspiration is much the same as this analysis of a tear. The Bible may turn out under the hands of the critics (at least to their satisfaction) to be only literary salt water, but who. bv any of the methods of modern criticism, can discover the deep well of Divine emotion and heavenly love that flows and throbs and beats through every word of the book that God has given to man ?
Made with FlippingBook Online newsletter