What do we mean by the word? The Church has nowhere defined it, and we are not tied to any one interpretation; but the Bible itself suggests a possible meaning. It is the Word of God heard through the voice of man. Think of some such expression as: "_The Revelation of Jesus Christ which God gave by His angel unto His servant John_" (Rev. i. 1). Here two facts are stated: (1) The revelation is from Jesus Christ; (2) It was given through a human agent--John. God gave it; man conveyed it. Again: "_Holy men of old spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost_" (2 Pet. i. 21). The Holy Ghost moved them; they spake: the speakers, not the writings, were inspired. Again: "_As He spake by the mouth of His holy Prophets_"[10] (St. Luke i. 70). He spake; but He spake through the mouthpiece of the human agent. And once again, as the Collect for the second Sunday in Advent tells us, it is the "_blessed Lord Who (hast) caused all Holy Scriptures to be written_". God was the initiating {35} cause of writings: man was the inspired writer. Each messenger received the message, but each passed it on in his own way. It was with each as it was with Haggai: "Then spake Haggai, the _Lord's messenger_ in the _Lord's message_" (Haggai i. 13). The message was Divine, though the messenger was human; the message was infallible, though the messenger was fallible; the vessel was earthen, though the contents were golden. In this unique sense, the Bible is indeed "the Word of God". It is the "Word of God," delivered in the words of man. Thus, as Dr. Sanday puts it, the Bible is, at once, both human and Divine; not less Divine because thoroughly human, and not less human because essentially Divine. We need not necessarily parcel it out and say such and such things are human and such and such things are Divine, though there are instances in which we may do this, and the Scriptures would justify us in so doing. There will be much in Holy Scripture which is at once very human and very Divine. The two aspects are not incompatible with each other; rather, they are intimately united. Look at them in one light, and you will see the one; look at them in another light, and you will see {36} the other. But the substance of that which gives these different impressions is one and the same. It is from no irreverence, but because of the over-towering importance of the book, that the best scholars (devout, prayerful scholars, as well as the reverse) have given the best of their lives to the study of its text, its history, its writers, its contents. Their criticism has, as we know, been classified under three heads:-- (1) Lower, or _textual_ criticism. (2) Higher, or _documentary_ criticism. (3) Historical, or _contemporary_ criticism. _Lower criticism_ seeks for, and studies, the best and purest text obtainable--the text nearest to the original, from which fresh translations can be made.