ADVERSE THEORIES OF INSPIRATION.

Instead of propounding a theory of inspiration, our course has been to examine in detail the New Testament statements which hear directly on the subject, setting these forth as conclusions, and then searching for other facts and statements which might in any way modify the conclusions. In doing so we have come into conflict with certain theories on the subject which have found more or less acceptance among scholars, and it is now proper that we test these theories by the facts which we have collected.

1. We begin with that which is styled the Mechanical Theory. This theory has been defined as teaching that not only "the sense of Scripture, and the facts and sentiments therein recorded, but each and every word, phrase and expression, as well as the order and arrangement of such words, phrases and expressions, has been separately supplied, breathed into, as it were, and dictated to the writers by the Spirit of God."1

If this theory had been propounded to explain the miracle of speaking in tongues alone, it would seem to be adequate; for in that particular instance absolute dictation of all that was uttered certainly took place. But this is not true of inspired utterances in general. The theory fails to account for the play of the writer's human feelings; and for the obvious facts that in recalling to their memory what Jesus had said the Spirit only recalled what they did not already remember; and in guiding them into all truth he did not guide them into that which they already possessed. The theory is then inadequate because it can account for only a small part of the facts, and it is in conflict with some others.  

Some early writers who seemed to hold to this theory have illustrated it by performance on a musical instrument. Thus Justin Martyr says that the Spirit "acted on just men as a plectrum on a harp or lyre;" Athenagoras, that inspired men "uttered that which was wrought in them, the Spirit using them as its instruments, as a flute player might play a flute; "and Hyppolitus, that they "were brought to an inner harmony, like instruments, and having the Word within them, as it were to strike the notes, by him they were moved, and announced that which God wished."2 It is not probable that these, and other ancient writers with whom this figure was common, regarded the inspired men as always passive, as a musical instrument is in the hands of the musician, although when speaking in tongues they were very nearly so; but they probably used this figure to illustrate a single feature of the work, that of the Spirit's action and the ready response of the inspired mind. As a representation of the whole work it is clearly inadequate. It would be nearer the truth to compare the whole work of the Spirit to that of driving a well trained horse. You draw the lines to the right or the left as you see that the horse needs guidance; you check him when he would go too fast, and urge him forward when he would go too slow; but he usually keeps the road and maintains the desired gait and speed of his own accord; still your hand is ever on the lines, and its pressure on the bit is constantly felt, so that you are controlling the horse's movements when he is going most completely at his own will. Indeed, the horse is all the time going very much at his own will, and yet he is never without the control of the driver.  

This illustration, however, although it covers much more or the ground than the former, is still defective, for you can not drive a horse over precipitous hillsides, nor can you make him trot without touching the ground; but the Spirit enabled the inspired to do things comparable to these--to speak in tongues never learned, and to look into the secrets of the spiritual and the eternal world. In this last respect alone does the comparison to performance on a musical instrument seem appropriate; and lest we disparage it below its merits, let us remember that as the exact tone brought out by the performer depends on the character of the instrument as well as on the skill of the performer, so when the Spirit acted on the inspired the words come forth in the style and vocabulary of the writer.

2. At the opposite extreme from the preceding is the theory of ordinary inspiration, so styled because it recognizes only an ordinary, as opposed to a miraculous, exercise of the Spirit's power. It holds that the action of the Holy Spirit on the minds of the inspired was not different, unless it be in degree, from that influence which it exerts on the uninspired Christian.3 This theory, which is semi-rationalistic, is not defective merely, but it is contradictory to all the statements adduced in former chapters which set forth the miraculous nature of the Spirit's action. We dismiss it, therefore, without further consideration.

3. We next consider the theory which assumes different degrees of inspiration. Certain Jewish writers of the middle ages originated this theory, and applied it to the Old Testament books, which were divided into three classes according to the degree of inspiration supposed to be possessed by their authors. In more recent times it bus been accepted and applied to the New Testament by some Christian writers.4 The essential objection to it is that inspiration is a fact, and not a quality which admits of degrees. It is the fact of an active force exerted by the Spirit. This force may have different degrees, but the fact can not. The movement of the air called wind is a fact, whether the movement be rapid or slow. The force with which it moves may vary in degree, but not the fact that it moves. So, the degree of intensity with which the Spirit acted on the inspired might differ, as it doubt less did, being greater when the inspired man spoke in tongues than when he mentioned incidents in his own experience; but the inspiration itself was one and the same fact throughout. As a theory of inspiration, then, even if it were confined to the degrees of power exercised by the Spirit, it would express no more than one obvious feature of the Spirit's work, and would leave all the rest out of sight.

4. Still another theory, which has been styled the essential theory.5 teaches that the sacred writers were guided by the Holy Spirit in all matters essential to the great purposes of revelation, such as matters of doctrine, morals and faith; but that in all other matters they were left to their natural powers, and that therefore they were, in regard to these, as liable to mistakes as other men. The chief objection to this theory, in the light of our collation of New Testament statements, is that a very large portion of the matter found in the speeches of the apostles, and in their writings, to which reference is made in the promises of Jesus, consists of just such matter as is excluded by the theory from inspiration; and thus the theory contradicts the divine promises which are mentioned by the sacred writers as having been fulfilled. It is also obvious that if the apostles were liable to error in matters of ordinary knowledge, in regard to which we have the means of testing them, this would necessarily throw discredit on all that they say of things in which we can not test them. Really our confidence in what they say of doctrine, of the will of God, and of moral and spiritual truths and facts, is based on their perfect reliability concerning things within the range of our investigation. And as to their liability to make mistakes, inasmuch as they do not avow such liability, the only way that we can know that it existed is by discovering mistakes which they have made: this, we have seen in Part Third, has not been done.6 This theory, then, with its other defects, makes a gratuitous admission unfavorable to the inspired writers, and it must for this reason, if for no other, be rejected.

5. The theory most commonly accepted by scholars who are not inclined to be rationalistic on the subject, is styled the dynamical theory. It is defined by Lee as the theory "which implies such a divine influence as employs man's faculties according to their natural laws."7 F. W. Farrar says of it: "It holds that Holy Scripture was not dictated by, but committed to writing under the guidance of, the Holy Spirit."8 Westcott, in defining it, says: "The human powers of the divine messenger act according to their natural laws even when these powers are supernaturally strengthened;" and in regard to the word dynamical, with which he expresses some dissatisfaction, he says: "It is used to describe an influence acting upon living powers, and manifesting itself through them according to their natural laws, as distinguished from that influence which merely uses human organs for its outward expression; as, for instance, in the accounts of the demoniacs." He might have added, as also in the account of the Spirit's action on King Saul. He adds to his definition, as still further setting forth his conception of the subject, the following statements: "It supposes that the same providential power which gave the message selected the messenger; and implies that the traits of individual character and the peculiarity of manner and purpose which are displayed in the composition and language of the sacred writings, are essential to the perfect exhibition of their meaning." . . . "It preserves absolute truthfulness with perfect humanity, so that the nature of man is not neutralized, if we may thus speak, by the divine agency, and the truth of God is not impaired but, exactly expressed, in one of its several aspects, by the individual mind."9

This theory is an attempt to state the method in which the divine Spirit and the human soul were united in producing the sacred writings, and thus far it harmonizes with the facts which we have collected from the Scriptures. But it goes no further than this; it leaves us still dependent on the promises and their fulfillment, together with the modifying facts which we have Collected from the Scriptures, for the details of the outworking of this combination. We may safely say, then, that no theory which has been propounded covers correctly the whole ground of the Spirit's work in inspiration; but that the subject as a whole can be understood only by taking into view, and keeping in view, all the facts and statements which have formed the conclusions laid down at the close of chapter v. 

1 Lee, On Inspiration, 33. and note.

2 See these and other citations in Lee On Inspiration, Appendix S; Westcott's Introduction, Appendix B.

3 Lee, On Inspiration, 34, Appendix C; Farrar, Essay on Inspiration, Sec. 4; Curtis, On Inspiration, 51,218.

4 See citations. by Lee and Farrar, referred to in last note.

5 Farrar, l. c.; Alford, Prolegomena to Commentary, see vii.

6 "That they did so err, I am not so irreverent as to assert, nor has the widest learning and the acutest ingenuity of skepticism ever pointed nut one complete and demonstrable error of fact or doctrine in the Old or New Testament." Farrar, Lecture on Inspiration, sec. 6.

7 Lee, On Inspiration,

8 Lectures on Inspiration, see. 4, ii.

9 Introduction to Study of Gospels, 39, 41.