But the question may be raised, has been raised, Is it right to describe the Bible as the Word of God? Is it possible to vindicate such a name for the whole Bible in the face of criticism and its results? Is it not better to say that the Bible contains the Word of God? I think it is possible to use the phrase "Word of God" in a sense that is not justified. But the phrase, "the Bible is the Word of God," expresses a truth which is denied in the other phrase, "the Bible contains the Word of God." I appeal again to Dr. Robertson Smith, whose place among Biblical scholars will not lightly be contested. He says: "People now say that the Scripture contains God's Word, when they mean that part of the Bible is the Word of God and another part is the word of man. That is not the doctrine of our churches, which hold that the substance of _all_ Scripture is God's Word. What is not part of the record of God's Word is no part of Scripture. Only we must distinguish between the record and the Divine communications of God's heart and will which the record conveys." Defining his position still further, the same illustrious scholar said: "We may say that silver is contained in the mould into which it is run. If the silver is only in the leaden ore, the man who has no means of smelting is no richer by having it in his possession. If the Bible only contains the Word of God mixed with man's word, like silver in the leaden ore, then no one could use Scripture for his own religious life who did not possess the requisite scholarship, as in the other case the man could not get silver without having a smelting to separate it from the leaden ore. Therefore that view is untenable. But there is another way in which Scripture may contain the Word of God, the pure Word of God--as the mould contains the silver seven times tried. The pure silver takes the shape of the mould--it may be an imperfect shape--but it is pure silver, and the man is enriched thereby at once without any further act."