Year: 1878




PREACHED IN THE BROADWAY TABERNACLE


New York.


"And Satan answered the Lord, and said
Skin for skin, yea all that man hath Will ne
give for his life" "-LJob II, 4.


The book of Job is historical poem
and is one of the most ancient compost
tions, of its kind, now known to be in
existence. Its dateis generally supposed
to be about the time of Abraham; and
thus, altogether apart from its position in
the sacred canon, it is possessed OF the
richest antiquarian interest. In its form
it is dramatic, and it consists, for the
most part, of a series of conversations be-
tween Job and his friends. We have,
therefore, to be on our guard as to the
degree of authority with which we invest
the statements of the different interlocu-
tors for the fact that it stands among
the books ofinspiration does not at all in
volve that either Job or his friends spoke
by the infallible guidance of the Holy
Ghost. What the inspiration of the book
does vouch for is that the sentiments as
cribed to each of the speakers are those
which he really expressed-in other
words, that we have an accurate report OF
the discussion which they carried on
with each other; but each individual is
to be held responsible for his own opin-
ions Hence, in seeking to establish
some doctrine by divine authority, we
must beware how we use citations from
the book Of job Bildad, Zophar, and
| Eliphaz spoke for themselves only; and
we shall find that. at the close, Jehovah
blames not only them, but Job himself
also, for some of the words which they
! I,,4f -o1J r,01 ai
pie that, in the books of Scripture, we
must guard against ascribing to the Holy
| Ghost that which his inspired servant
simply reports as having been spoken or
written by another. Thus in the Book
of the Acts of the Apostles, when Luke
cites the letter written by Claudius Lysias
| to Felix, it would be monstrously absurd
if we should conclude, from the presence
of that letter in the sacred narrative, that
Claudius wrote it by divine inspiration
Equally absurd would it be if we should
conclude that the various parties to this
ancient discussion in the Book of Job
were speaking under the infallible guild
ance of the Holy Ghost. | am the more
particular to set this clearly before you
because Coleridge, in his letters to an In
quiring Spirit, brings forward this very
book as furnishing what he believes to
be an unanswerable objection to the COM
mon view of inspiration. say the COM
mon view, for, though he specifies the
dictation theory, his argument, if sound
at all, would be as strong against the pie
nary hypothesis, which is now generally
held. Here are his words: "Say that the
Book of Job, throughout, was dictated
by an infallible intelligence, then repe-
ruse the book, and still, as you proceed,
try to apply the tenet-try if you can
even attach any sense, or semblance of
meaning, to the speeches which you are
reading. What! were the hollow truisms,
the unsufficing halftruths, the false as
sumptions and malignant insinuatlops of
the supercilious bigots who oorruptly de-
Tended the truth were the impressive
facts, the piercing outcries, the pathetic
appeals, and the close and powerful rea-
soning with which the poor sufferer
smarting at once from his wounds, and
from the oil of vitrol which these ortho-
dox liars for God were dropping into
patiently, but uprightly and
holly controverted this truth, while in
will and spirit he clung to it-were both
dictated be an infallible intelligence p
Alas if l may judge from the manner in
which both are Unfortunately recited,
quoted, appealed to, preached upon by
the routiniers of desk and pulpit, l cannot
doubt that they think so, or, rather, per-
haps, without thinking, take it for grant
ed, that so they are to think" That is
pretty strong indictment. Yet take
leave to say that no man.of sense, even
of those holding to the strictest verbal
theory of inspiration, ever dreamed of
maintaining that all the speakers in this
Holy Spirit The inspiration of the au-
thor of the book is one thing that of the
speakers whose addresses he reports is
another His inspiration vouches for
the accuracy of the record as reproduc
ton of their addresses but for the SEN
timents which they uttered the speakers
are themselves responsible. If anything
were needed to place this beyond doubt,
it is the fact that Jobs wife is represent
ed as urging him to curse God and die;
for we cannot for moment imagine that
she was moved by the Holy Chest Ia say
anything like that. Resides, in at least
two Of the scenes Satan is one OF the
speakers, and itwou!d need long stretch
OF faith to believe that he spoke as he
was inspired by the Holy Spirit AL
though, therefore, | have taken the
words OF the great adversary, at this time,
for my text | have doaa so not out of
any Difference TO their authority or be
cause | believe that in this instance they
were dictated by an infallible intelli
gence;" but because | wish to show Yea
their real falsehood, despite the air OF
plausibility which is thrown arn.".,.,,
them. 1t is commonly supposed that,
Tor at least n.,oe in the course of his ex.
istence, the father of lies spoke the truth
when he gave utterance to the sentiment
in my text. Let US see, however, if in
this we are not giving him more credit
than of right belongs to him. 1t is un-
necessary to enter upon the numerous
explanations of the proverb skin for
skin" which have beensuggestedb by mod
ern commentators. In effect they all
amount to this, that a man will give up
everything to save his life; and the in
sinuation of Satan is that Job served
God from merely selfish considerations,
so that if the alternative should be pre-
sented that he must either give up God
or give up his life, he would unhesita-
Satan was only measuring Job, and man
kind generally, by his own bushel; and
for the honor of humanity, as well as
because | may make it the occasion of
presenting to you some important prac-
tical suggestions, | deem it right to spend
a short while in disposing of this diabol-
ical assertion.


OF course, it must be admitted that
there is degree of truth in it. Indeed,
if that had not been the case, there would
have been no plausibility about it and it
could have imposed on no one A lie
pure, simple, unadulterated does little
harm in the world To make it in the
highest degree injurious, there must be
some truth mixed up with it. AS one
has pithily said: "a lie always needs a
truth for handle to it; else the hand