PRINCIPAL VIEWS OF INSPIRATION NOW HELD.

We pass over for the present any minute review of the history and progress of opinion in the past, as to Inspiration. It could readily be shown how present controversies are but reproductions of the old; and also that the views which have been fairly tried and found wanting might justly be now set aside. It must suffice to state in a summary way the principal views of Inspiration prevalent in the present day.

I. The first is the theory of MECHANICAL INSPIRATION, or, as it has been termed, the Dictation Theory. This ignores any real human authorship whatever in the Scriptures. Each of the various books, and every part of them, is ascribed to God, in such a sense as to leave no room for human intelligence or activity. The inspired man was as truly and merely a mechanical instrument as the pen with which the writing was done.

This view was vigorously and unmistakably ex pressed by J. A. Quenstedt: —

All and each of the things which are contained in the Sacred Scriptures, whether they were naturally entirely unknown to the sacred writers, or indeed naturally knowable yet actually unknown, or finally not only naturally knowable but even actually known, whether from some other source or by experience and the ministry of the senses, were not only committed to letters by divine, infallible assistance and direction, but are to be regarded as received by the special suggestion, inspiration, and dictation of the Holy Spirit. For all things which were to be written were suggested by the Holy Spirit to the sacred writers in the very act of writing, and were dictated to their intellect as if unto a pen (quasi in calamum), so that they might be written in these and no other circumstances, in this and no other inode or order. — Theol. Didactico Polemica, IV. 2, p. 67.

In like manner Carpzovius says: —

He both impelled their will that they might write, and he illuminated their mind and filled it by the suggestion of the things and words to be indicated that they might write intelligently, and he directed their hand that they might write infallibly, and yet might not contribute anything more to the Scripture than does the pen of the ready writer. — Critica Sacra Veteris Testamenti, Pars I. p. 43.

Robert Hooker — the " judicious Hooker " — says: —

They neither spoke nor wrote any words of their own, but uttered, syllable by syllable, as the Spirit put it into their mouths. — Works, II. 383.

Perhaps Haldane and Carson, among recent writers on the subject, would be regarded as approximating most nearly to this Dictation Theory. But it is scarcely fair to charge them with holding it. Carson says:“ The Bible, as originally given, is divine in every word. ” (A. Carson's Works, Vol. V. p. 5.) But he affirms as clearly as any one the voluntary and conscious activity of the inspired men. “ The Holy Spirit speaks through man, not as he did through Balaam's ass, or as he might do through a statue, but as a rational instrument. But in all this working of the mind of man, there is nothing that is not truly God's.” (p. 12.) “ If God has employed them as rational instruments with respect to style, he has likewise employed them as rational instruments with respect to reasonings, thoughts, arguments, and words. ” (p. 21.) He accounts that one would be “ frantic to believe that the writers of the Scriptures were unconscious organs.” (p. 73.) And again he says:“ I never met an individual who looked upon the Evangelists as merely mechanical hand writers. It is universally believed that the inspired writers were rational organs through which the Holy Spirit communicated his mind, though every word written by them in the Scriptures was from God. . . . God can surely speak his words through man in such a way that the words and thoughts shall be the words and thoughts of both. ” (p. 105.)

Dr. Ladd, who is certainly the most elaborate, and probably the ablest, of all the recent assailants of the strict doctrine of the Inspiration of Sacred Scripture, admits that the view of inspiration which he regards as incorrect because “ incompatible with the real authorship of the Biblical writers," " has doubtless been, on the whole, most generally prevalent ” in the Christian Church. 6. This view of inspiration, ” he says, “ refers the minute peculiarities and variations of the writers, as well as their more important authorial characteristics, to the dictation of the Holy Spirit. That such was the prevalent view in the period preceding the Christian era, not only the express teachings of Philo and of other authors make us aware, but also the entire manner of rabbinical interpretation and dialectics from the Hebrew text. That this was the predominant view among the Church Fathers, we have also seen. In the medieval Church, and for a time after the Reformation, this element of the dogma was more loosely held. But it became again an inseparable and vital element of the subsequent Protestant view." He thinks that the discussions which followed have “ explicated and exalted the distinctively human elements in all inspired Scripture,” and have “ proved that the differences in the phenomena cannot in general be referred to the immediate influence of the Holy Spirit. ” (Doctrine of Sacred Scripture, II. 259.) Without sharing his opinions on that subject, it is safe to say that the convictions of the great body of Christian people in every age have referred the Scriptures as a whole to a divine origin, while we do not believe they have intended to deny the real human authorship con current with this, however much their language may seem sometimes to look that way.

II. Somewhat as a reaction from extreme statements like those of Quenstedt and others of his time, another class of views arose which may be spoken of together under the title of PARTIAL INSPIRATION, including all which limit the inspiration to certain parts or sorts of the sacred writings. Under this may be distinguished sundry divisions, as e. g. those which ascribe inspiration —

a. To the doctrinal teachings and precepts, excluding the narrative and emotional parts; or

b. To the things naturally unknown to the writers, and therefore needing to be communicated divinely to them, while in all other matters they were left to themselves, and consequently fell into the natural inaccuracies ordinarily incident to all human knowledge and speech, however sincere and honest; or

c. To the ideas in their general train, but not to the language used, the illustrations, the quotations and allusions.

Thus it is sometimes said that divine inspiration belongs to the truth conveyed, but not to the frame work in which it is set; that the kernel is divine, but the shell is human and imperfect.

Among those who would change the statement “ The Bible is the Word of God," into “ The Bible contains the Word of God,” may be named Le Clerc and Grotius, whose views may be readily traced back to Maimonides, the celebrated Jewish Rabbi of the Middle Ages.

Semler says:“ It is inconceivable how thoughtful Christians confound the Sacred Scripture of the Jews, and the Word of God which is here and there contained and enveloped therein.” (Quoted in Ladd, II. 222.) He rejected also whole books as uninspired, such as Chronicles, Ezra, Nehemiah, Esther, Ruth, Canticles, Mark, Philemon, and the Apocalypse, as well as numerous narratives of the Old Testament.

Professor George T. Ladd, in his recent learned and able work on the Doctrine of Sacred Scripture, vehemently maintains the distinction between the Bible and the Word of God. It “brings us the Word of God "; he thinks it cannot be said to be the Word of God. “ The claims and the phenomena of the Bible entitle us to call a large proportion of its writings inspired.” (I. 759.) “ The most obvious and necessary of all the distinctions to be made, as the prerequisite of the dogmatic construction of our idea of Sacred Scripture, is the distinction between the Bible and the Word of God.” (II. 275, 497.) “Its most untenable extremes ” (those of the Post -Reformation dogma) " are all traceable to that fundamental misconception which identifies the Bible and the Word of God.” (II. 178.)

How then, it may be asked, are we to distinguish between the Bible and this “ inner Bible "? By the Christian consciousness, is the reply. “ It belongs, then, to the Church, in every age, to ex amine the sacred writings by the light both of tradition and of its own spiritually illumined self consciousness. By the light of tradition each age discovers what the previous ages have considered to be canonical Scriptures; by the light of its own spiritually illumined consciousness it discerns the Word of God within those Scriptures.” (II. 502.)

Of course no one doubts that “ the Word was first preached before it was written, and that this phrase is not improperly applied to the general message of the Gospel, which message is contained in the Bible. (Compare Luke i. 2; Mark ii. 2; xiv. 14; Acts x. 36; 1 Thessalonians ii. 13; 2 Thessalonians ii. 15; 2 Corinthians v. 19.) It is also used in a peculiar sense for the Son of God, the second person in the Holy Trinity, as being the utterance or manifestation of the Father, “ the personal principle of divine life and revelation.” But neither of these uses need be confounded with the sense in which the Bible, as being the summary of the words of God, is called the Word of God.

Dr. Ladd claims for “ the Church " the “ right of rejecting from this Word whatever does not satisfy the demands of its ethico-religious consciousness "; and he perceives that this is liable to the objection that " it attaches to the Word of God a strange and dangerous quality of mutability, and thus places the doctrine and life of the Church in constant jeopardy.” He replies, that " a certain mutability necessarily belongs to the precise limits of the Word of God, as scripturally fixed, however we endeavor to determine those limits.” But that is a question of Canon, not of the nature of Inspiration. If Second Peter, for instance, be clearly ascertained to be not genuine, not by the Apostle Peter, we should not regard it as inspired, or as any part of God's Word. It professes to be from “ Simon Peter ”; if it is not, but from some other author, it bears a falsehood on its face. It is a fraud. And there is no room for “ pious frauds,” or any other sort of fraud, in the Word of God.

How large a part of the Bible this “ Christian consciousness" would recognize and admit to be the Word of God, is not anywhere clearly defined by Dr. Ladd. “ A marked difference must be acknowledged between the Old Testament and the New. " The New Testament is “ in nearly all its extent the vehicle of the Divine Word of salvation.” The Old Testament " contains many divine words,” nevertheless it “ contains also many statements of fact and doctrine which are not thus established, confirmed, and approbated. And in general we must admit that it contains the Word of God only in a preparatory and anticipating way.” (II. 508–512.)

III. Another view is that of DIFFERENT DEGREES OF INSPIRATION. Those who hold this opinion insist that all Scripture was inspired, but not all alike; some parts absolutely and fully, others less completely, and some in such a way as to give considerable room for imperfection and error. Three, four, or five degrees are alleged by different authors; but those usually stated are superintendence, elevation, direction, suggestion, — the degrees rising respectively in the amount and nature of the divine control supposed to be exercised.

These authors proceed on the assumption that there is error in the Scripture, and that this is to be explained consistently with its divine origin by the supposition of a variable mingling of the human and the divine agency in the composition of the Word; that so far as the divine element predominated there was infallible accuracy and authority, but so far as the human element was combined with it there was or might be failure.

Two very different classes of writers, however, have united in the use of this phraseology; some who seem eager mainly to exhibit the supposed errors and mistakes of the inspired writers; others who have been evidently actuated by a sincere zeal for the honor of the Word, and the vindication of truth, and have held fast to the integrity and infallibility of the Bible.

Among the eminent writers, generally orthodox, who have been advocates of the theory which lays stress on Different Degrees of Inspiration, are Bp. Daniel Wilson, Philip Doddridge, John Dick, Leonard Woods, and Enoch Henderson.

It is obvious that this theory also may be traced back to the Jewish Rabbins, who undertook to ex plain the division of the Old Testament into the three parts, the Law, the Prophets, and the Hagiographa, by inventing the notion of three degrees of inspiration; the Mosaic, peculiar to him, and high est of all; the Prophetic, by prophets; while the authors of the Hagiographa were not prophets, but had communications chiefly by dreams, and were supposed to know only a part of the truth. This degree they called that of the Holy Spirit. As Hävernick truly says:“ This asserted diversity of Inspiration appears, even in its definition, to be so vague and inexact that one can hardly form any regular conception of it. Of Biblical grounds it is wholly deficient: nay, the New Testament rather decides against it, from the manner in which it speaks of David and Daniel as prophets.” (Introduction, I. 67.)

The modern writers who adopt this theory of Degrees are not agreed as to the number of the “ degrees," nor as to the use they propose to make of the distinction. Wilson gives four degrees, - suggestion, direction, elevation, superintendence; Doddridge omits direction; Henderson makes five, — a divine excitement, invigoration, superintendence, guidance, direct revelation; J. T. Beck of Basle gives three degrees, — the pisteo-dynamical (Mark, Luke, Acts), the charismatical, distributed over the first community of believers, and the apocalyptic (the Apostles).

Carson objects, with decided force, to this whole theory of Degrees, that, “ if this distinction of inspiration be true, the greatest part of the Bible is not the Word of God at all. When a pupil writes a theme by the direction of his teacher, with every help usually afforded, and when it is so corrected by the latter that nothing remains but what is proper in his estimation, is it not still the pupil's production? Could it be said to be the composition or the work of the teacher? No more can the Scriptures be called the Word of God according to this mischievous theory. A book might all be true, and good, and important, yet not be the book of God. " (Works, V. 31.)

IV. More recently a view has arisen which may be termed that of NATURAL INSPIRATION. This affirms, in glowing and often complimentary phrases, an inspiration everywhere in the Scriptures, and the same throughout substantially; not dictation as the first; nor inspiration in spots, as the second; nor in varying degrees, as the third. But it de grades the whole idea, so as to be little more than a strong excitement or fervor, which all men have in some measure; which many who are not even good men, but simply heroes, poets, or men of genius, may share; and which in some vague, poetic sense may be called divine. The inspiration which they allow is such as Milton and Shakespeare, Bjron and Shelley, possessed, or even Homer, Plato, and Socrates, in pre-Christian times. It traces all the sacred books of the world to substantially the same origin, recognizing Christianity as a religion, but simply as one of the great religions of the world; nothing less, but also nothing more. Such is the view of Kuenen and other Rationalist theologians of Holland and Germany, of F. W. Newman in England, and of Theodore Parker in America.

Morell in his Philosophy of Religion (127–179) comes dangerously near to this, if not fully adopting it. “ Inspiration,” he says, “ is only a higher potency of what every man possesses in some degree ”; to which Dr. A. H. Strong pertinently replies, that “ the inspiration of everybody is equivalent to the inspiration of nobody.” This view overlooks the fact, that man's natural insight into moral truth is vitiated by wrong affections, so that unless he is guided from above he is certain to err. It is self-contradictory in admitting inspirations which annihilate each other, the Vedas and the Koran as well as the Bible. It confounds the in ward impulse of genius with the impulse from above, man's fancies with God's voice.

Theodore Parker did not deny inspiration to the Scriptures, but did not confine the term to any religious sense. He considered works of intellectual genius also as produced by its influence, and that good men of old spake according to the light which was in them.

V. Another view closely allied to this, but still quite distinguishable from it, is that of UNIVERSAL CHRISTIAN INSPIRATION. It refers the sacred books, not to the natural suggestions of man, but to the personal influence of the Holy Spirit; but represents that as the same in kind with the ordinary illumination of every Christian. As the theory last named readily connects itself with Pelagian views of man's nature, so this is not unnaturally associated with those ideas which unduly exalt man's agency, and affirm his co-operation with God in the matter of salvation.

This is substantially the view advanced by Schleiermacher, whose ideas have dominated so largely modern theological thought in Germany; and, with some modifications, by Tholuck and Neander; also by Coleridge, Thomas Arnold, F. W. Farrar, Frederick W. Robertson, and Martineau in England, and by T. F. Curtis and J. F. Clarke in America.

Schleiermacher¹ regarded Inspiration as not in fallible, yet as something higher than human genius, — " an awakening and excitement of the religious consciousness, different in degree rather than in kind from the pious inspiration or intuitive feelings of holy men. ” (Curtis, p. 88.)

Coleridge in his “ Confessions of an Inquiring Spirit ” contends earnestly that the line of demarcation between the primitive gifts of Spiritual Inspiration and the inspirations of the Spirit now, was a line drawn without authority. Edward Ivring seems to have received from Coleridge's conversations the start of his fanaticism. (Com pare Curtis on Inspiration, p. 94.)

F. W. ROBERTSON. I think it all comes to this; God is the Father of Lights, the King in his beauty, the Lord of love. All our several degrees of knowledge attained in these departments [referring to the Excursion of Anaxagoras, and Newton's revelation of the order of the heavens] are from him. One department is higher than another; in each department the degree of knowledge may vary from a glimmering glimpse to infallibility, so that all is properly inspiration, but immensely differing in value and in degree. If it be replied that this degrades Inspiration, by classing it with things so common, the answer is plain: A sponge and a man are both animals, but the degrees between them are incalculable. I think this view of the matter is important, because in the other way, some twenty or thirty men in the world's history have had special communication, miraculous and from God; in this way, all have it, and by devout and earnest cultivation of the mind and heart may have it illimitably increased. — Life and Letters, Vol. I. p. 271, Vol. II. pp. 143-150, Sermon I.

F. W. FARRAR. To us, as to the holy men of old, the Spirit still utters the living oracles of God. — History of Interpretation, Preface, p. xvi.

T. F. Curtis divides the views held into three classes, and describes the first as that of absolute infallibility of Scripture in every part; and the second, that which considers the scientific and historical matter of the Bible as colored by the age and opinions of the writer, and therefore not rendered infallible by Inspiration, while yet the religious portions are thus absolutely and entirely infallible.” He objects to both of these, and classes himself with the third, “ who look upon Inspiration as a positive and not a negative divine power; as not destroying but elevating the human element in man [?]; as not conferring a necessary or absolute immunity from all error or infirmity, but as guiding the authors and quickening their writings with a divine life, and clothing them with a divine authority similar precisely to that with which the Apostles themselves were endowed, when commissioned to institute and establish the primitive Church. That is to say, their inspiration gave them certain Divine powers as a whole, leaving their individual and human errors to be eliminated by degrees as necessary for the life of truth.” (Human Element in the Inspiration of the Scriptures, p. 120.) The Church of Christ, he thinks, is an inspired body. “Though the membership of it may be invisible to mortal eyes, it acts with a visible and inspired power and authority upon each age, nation, and community, leading it forward with a heavenly instinct and superior wisdom. There is the home of the Paraclete on earth. Thus all become in measure inspired with the presence of the Saviour, the life of God.” (Ibid., p. 311.)

VI. The doctrine which we hold is that commonly styled PLENARY INSPIRATION, or Full Inspiration. It is that the Bible as a whole is the Word of God, so that in every part of Scripture there is both infallible truth and divine authority.

These two characteristics are distinguishable. Statements might be true, exactly true, yet not conveyed to us on divine authority. The union of absolute truth and divine authority constitutes the claim of the Scripture to our faith and obedience. This brief statement comprehends the whole of our doctrine on the subject. Nevertheless, in order to promote the clearer understanding of our view, it may be desirable to present some explanations and distinctions, and to exhibit the doctrine both negatively and positively.

1) The venerable Dr. Hodge of Princeton was once lecturing on the theological position of Schleiermacher. As the lecture in its more formal part was over, one of the young men asked, “ Then, Dr. Hodge, should you recommend Schleiermacher's teachings as good and helpful? " The Doctor in answer made reference to the materialism of Germany, pointed out how the almost mystic teachings of the great philosopher might have been of great good for his own German people, when they would not be so for England or America, and then concluded by saying:“ It is something like the case of the ladder in the pit. We are passing through a meadow, let us say, where we come upon a deep pit. In the bottom you see mire and filth, while against the sides a ladder rests. You say to me, Dr. Hodge, is it a good thing to have that ladder there? ' I should answer, " That depends entirely upon what purpose you would put it to. If men have stumbled into the pit, and the ladder serves to help them get out, then it is surely a good thing. But if it should only be there to lead men who are on dry ground into the pit, it would manifestly not be a good thing. So Schleiermacher's theology might stand to Germany and to ourselves.'” It is need less to say that no one remained in darkness as to Schleiermacher's place after that. — Westminster Teacher, September, 1887.