we necessitated to abandon the doctrine of inspiration altogether, the historic veracity, the substantive truthfulness of the Bible would remain untouched. But we have no fear whatever of being driven to that necessity. The old orthodox doctrine of inspiration, which has been rooted in the belief of the Church ever since the Church was instituted, will, we are persuaded, emerge from the billows of controversy more complete and perfect than ever, having lost nothing in the ordeal of controversy but that rust which even the divinest treasures acquire when trusted to the keeping of man.

The diverse and conflicting views of inspiration prevailing at the present day may, for convenience, be grouped under four distinct heads:-NATURAL INSPIRATION, PARTIAL INSPIRATION, GRADUATED INSPIRATION, PLENARY INSPIRATION.

First: NATURAL INSPIRATION. This theory, though differently modified in the writings of different men, excludes the supernatural element altogether, reducing inspiration within the sphere of natural processes, and subjecting it to the exclusive operation of natural laws. The mildest form it has hitherto assumed is exhibited in the writings of Coleridge, Maurice, Morell, and men of the same theological type. Coleridge, with sundry inconsistences and waverings of sentiment, indicative of higher leanings, maintains that inspiration is wholly subjective, and "identical with that grace and communion with the Spirit which the Church under all circumstances, and every regenerate member of the Church, is permitted to hope and instructed to pray for ;" Maurice, that it is "generically the same as that which God bestows on his children in this day;" and Morell, that it is "the natural and spontaneous expression of that divine life which the inspired apostle received immediately from God," and "depends upon the manner, form, and accuracy of a man's religious intuitions." "Let there be a due purification of the moral And what is there to prevent the immediate intuition of divine things? and what do we require in inspiration more than this?"

nature.

While these writers exhibit the theory of natural inspiration in a mild form, based upon and evolved from that grace which is the common possession of all true Christians, others, with bolder logic and more fearless hand, push it to greater extremes and exhibit it in a more offensive garb. Wegscheider in Germany and Parker in America hold that "the power by which the authors of the New Testament wrote is nothing but the power possessed by all men, in consequence of that truth of the Almighty which has given them their rational and moral nature, and actuates them in the exercise of it." And Mr. Macnaught, in our own country, with still greater temerity, affirms that "Milton, and Shakspere, and

Bacon, and the Canticles, and the Sermon on the mount, and the eighth chapter of the epistle to the Romans, and the apocalypse, are all inspired; but which of them is the most valuable inspired document, or whether the Bible as a whole is not incomparably more precious than any other book, must be decided by examining the observable character and tendency of each book and the beneficial effect that history may show each book has produced." And he goes on to say, "the only true idea of inspiration is that action of the divine Spirit by which, apart from any idea of infallibility, all that is good in man, beast, or matter, is originated and sustained;" so that the inspiration of Isaiah, and Paul, and Shakspere, and Milton, and that of an elephant, a lobster, a cedar, or a rock, is generically the same; the difference being not in the nature of the inspiration itself, but in the subjective capacity of the recipient.

Now if this theory of inspiration be true, the authors of the Bible must have been either fanatics or imposters. In their writings all the forms and forces of language are exhausted with the intention of producing the impression that they speak by supernatural authority, that the messages they deliver come by special revelation from God, that the words they utter are not their own, but divinely, supernaturally, miraculously inspired, and that to show contempt of what they utter is nothing short of rebellion against God. The claim of supernatural authority thus preferred is either true or false. If true, the theory of natural inspiration is disposed of. If false, the sacred writers were either deluded themselves, or wished to delude others; they were either persuaded of being miraculously inspired without any ground of truth for the persuasion, or, knowing that their claim of miraculous inspiration was false, they sought by systematic and studied fraud to blindfold and mislead their fellow men. Besides, how have we to account for the supernatural elements of Bible teaching? Whence did the sacred writers derive the professedly supernatural facts, doctrines, and predictions they record? If the source was divine, then the theory of natural inspiration is exploded. If it was human, then the sacred writers were either dupes of imagination or designing knaves. Thus this theory, when applied to the phenomena it is designed to explain, locks us up in a dilemma from which even its boldest advocates would shrink.

Second: PARTIAL INSPIRATION. While this theory admits the presence of the supernatural element, it restricts it to certain parts of the Bible. Ordinarily, the restriction is confined to such parts as are devoted to doctrinal or didactic truth, but the separating line is differently drawn by different authors. Michaelis, in his Introduction to the New Testament, says, "To the Epistles inspiration is of real consequence, but with respect to the historical

books, viz., the Gospels and the Acts of the Apostles, we should really be no losers if we abandoned the system of inspiration, and in some respects have a real advantage. We should even be considerable gainers, in adjusting the harmony of the Gospels, if we were permitted to suppose that some one of the Evangelists had committed an immaterial error, and that St. John has rectified some trifling mistakes in the preceding Gospels." In accordance with this view, he attempts to show that while Matthew and John were divinely inspired, Mark and Luke were left to their own resources. In the volume contributed by Dr. Davidson to Horne's Introduction, the author asks, "Why extend their [the sacred writers'] inspiration of correctness beyond what is properly moral and religious truth? Why not suppose that their knowledge of the subjects to which we have been adverting [natural science, chronology, archeology, geography, history,] was not always perfect or accurate, that they were led into religious, not natural truth?" The opinions of Michaelis and Davidson, differently modified, are identical with those broached in the volume of "Essays and Reviews," and are largely shared in by many divines in Germany and England.

Now, as it is for the purpose of preserving from error that inspiration is given, if, as Michaelis intimates, there are errors to be found in any one of the Evangelists, or in any other of the sacred books, supposing the errors proceed from the original authors, and not from blundering copyists,-that fact at once destroys the claim of the book in question to inspiration. But it remains to be proved that there are errors in any part of the Bible. We admit the existence of numerous and formidable difficulties; but we deny the existence of errors fairly chargeable upon the sacred writers. Charges of error, supported by all the resources of ingenuity and learning, have been alledged; but we are bold to affirm, without effect. In every instance of alledged error satisfactory solutions have been furnished, solutions sufficiently reasonable to protect the sacred authors from the charge of ignorance or inconsistency. Why it should be thought that while inspiration is of real consequence to the Epistles," it is a positive encumbrance to the Gospels, Michaelis explains from his own point of view; but the explanation is wholly unsatisfactory, unless we admit the existence of errors in the Gospels. But if errors be admitted to exist in the Gospels, the very foundations of the Christian religion are vitiated. Instead of having the solid rock of truth to build upon we shall have the treacherous sands of uncertainty and doubt. If one part of the New Testament more than another required the supernatural aids of inspiration in its composition it is, we should think, that very part devoted to the history of our Lord. As to Dr. Davidson's question, "Why extend inspiration beyond what is properly moral

66

and religious truth?" we reply-1. Why restrict inspiration to what is properly moral and religious truth? 2. Is not moral and religious truth of the highest kind bound up in the historic facts of the New Testament? 3. Is it not equally presumptuous and unscientific to determine a priori the limits within which inspiration operates? 4. Does not the Bible itself, in the plainest and most expressive terms, say, "All scripture is given by inspiration of God ?"

Third: GRADUATED INSPIRATION. This theory extends inspiration to the whole of Scripture, but in different degrees, according to a graduated scale of necessity. In those parts where necessity is urgent, inspiration is found in plenitude and perfection; in other parts, where the resources of the writers were available, and in so far as they were available, inspiration is diminished. From an examination of Scripture phenomena, Dr. Hill found three degrees of inspiration,-superintendence, elevation, and suggestion; Dr. Pye Smith, four degrees,-superintendence, elevation, direction, and suggestion; and Dr. Henderson, five degrees,-excitement, invigoration, superintendence, guidance, and direct revelation. But there is no reason why the number of degrees should be limited to three, four, or five. As necessity determines the number, a man of subtle brain might, without much straining, find necessity for a round dozen at least.

The authors of this theory designed it as a breakwater against the surge of infidel objections to the perfect accuracy of the Bible. Unable to find any other satisfactory way of answering these objections, this theory was devised and designed as a compromise, allowing errors to exist in the Bible side by side with truth, attributing the truth to God and the error to man. And it must

be granted, the device is admirably fitted for the intended purpose. Sufficiently elastic to be turned in any way or expanded to any extent, as exigence requires, there is no kind or amount of error which it may not be made to explain and cover. Whenever a supposed error is pointed out, this theory is at hand to show that the degree of inspiration in that particular case was not of the higher kind, and that the writer was left chiefly to his own

resources.

Now, apart from the grave consideration that instead of this theory proving a breakwater, it in effect overthrows the embankments which protect the Bible from the floods of infidelity, there are other objections to it equally fatal. In the first place, so far from having any warrant or ground of evidence in the Bible, not a syllable can be found showing it the slightest countenance. In the second place, it cannot be defended on grounds of utility, for while it enters into disloyal compromise with the enemies of the Christian faith, affording them vantage ground from which to

assault the citadel of divine truth, it also introduces confusion and perplexity into the mind of the Bible reader. In the third place, the theory is self-contradictory. If inspiration be synonimous with the supernatural, or the miraculous, it cannot have degrees. As well talk about degrees in the infinite. If the sacred writers were inspired in a supernatural or miraculous sense, they were wholly inspired; what they wrote under the inspirational influence would not but be absolutely true.

Fourth PLENARY INSPIRATION. This theory attributes supernatural inspiration to all parts of the Bible and to all parts equally, regarding the entire contents as stamped with the impress of infallible truth and divine authority. The theory of plenary inspiration is therefore identical with that of verbal inspiration: the Spirit of God so controlled and guided the minds of the sacred writers that the very words they used exactly express the divine meaning. But this claim of perfect verbal accuracy is only meant to apply to the scriptures as they came from the hands of their respective authors. The supernatural influence vouchsafed in their original production, securing them from error, was not continued for their preservation in the hands of copyists. While is is indisputable that no other books have been so carefully guarded and scrupulously watched against the inroads of interpolation or corruption, and while it is equally indisputable that the acknowledged mistakes of copyists do not affect the substance of the sacred text in any appreciable degree, still, as it must be allowed that an element of imperfection mixes with the divine word, as we now have it, the most strenuous advocates of plenary inspiration restrict that theory to the text as originally written. The business of sacred criticism is, by a careful comparison of manuscripts, to elimenate from the original text the imperfections that have crept into it during the course of time, so that we may have the word of God pure and incorrupt as it was written by its inspired authors. It is also to be noted, that this theory does not ignore, or deny, the human element in the Bible. The sacred writers were not mere machines, acting by dynamical or any other physical impulse. Allowed ample scope for the play of their own faculties, their writings reflect with the exactness of a mirror their distinctive individuality, their intellectual and moral idiosyncransies. There are no books in the world more intensely human than the scriptures, and yet the human element is so overruled and interpenetrated by the divine, as to stamp the whole with the mark of divinity. It is further to be noted that this theory does not profess to explain the mode of inspiration. The divine communications were imparted, as the Bible itself informs us, in "divers manners," by dreams, visions, and audible words; but what is the actual import of those modes, and how the Spirit of God guided the minds of the writers