MODERN THEORIES OF INSPIRATION,

T was reserved for a time near our own to witness the first serious departure from this universal faith of the church. In Germany, the birth-place of the reformation, and the birth-place of much that is far less desirable, there was heard about a century ago, even among many who had not abandoned Christianity, a denial of all that is supernatural in inspiration. It was held that the only inspiration is found in the sublime thoughts and devotional feelings of the men who wrote the Bible, and that these thoughts and feelings did not guard them against error and imperfection, anymore than do similar thoughts and feelings as expressed in the opinions and writings of other Christians, their equals in other respects.

Perhaps the most prominent, or at least the most influential of this school, was Schleiermacher, pronounced by Dr. Schaff, "the greatest divine of the nineteenth century," although he admits that he was a Universalist, and that "he shook almost every dogma of orthodoxy." Of this man the Biblical Cyclopaedia says that, "ignoring the dogma of inspiration, he laid free hand upon the sacred book, just as upon the dialogues of Plato, or any other ancient documents. But he did not doubt the substantial genuineness of the Bible, and he was confident that critical science is capable of drawing the line between the essential and the non-essential." The legitimate and logical result of such teaching, the natural and inevitable fruit of such planting, was seen in the terrible assault of his pupil Strauss upon the New Testament, an assault which has exhausted the armory of the devil in his hatred of Christianity.

This view, so fatal not only to inspiration, but to revelation itself, passed over into England, and was adopted in a modified form by Coleridge, and then by Arnold of Rugby, but was carried to its unavoidable extreme as seen in the writings of his son Matthew, and as seen also in the teachings of Coleridge's admirers and pupils, Maurice and Macnaught the latter of whom says, "Milton and Shakespeare and Bacon, and Canticles and the Apocalypse, and the sermon on the mount and the eighth chapter of Romans, are, in our estimation, 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 — these are questions that must be decided by examining the observable character and tendency of each book, and the beneficial effect that history may show that each has produced."

It is not surprising to find such a writer claiming that "there is a true inspiration in 'the instinct of the owl;' that it is heard in the rushing of the wind;' that it is seen in 'the springing of a blade of grass;' that it murmurs along 'the streams that flow among the hills;' that 'the herds of the field calve' by inspiration."

Of course any half idiot can see that this is infidelity in the thinnest disguise. If the inspiration of the Bible is only the inspiration common to men who may write readable books, nay, common to the lower animals and to inanimate creation, it is worse than foolish to say that the Bible contains a revelation at all. Hence such a view needs no discussion, for it is unworthy of refutation. There is not a particle of difference between it and the coarse blasphemies of Tom Payne and Bob Ingersoll, except that it is more decent in its expressions, and more respectful in its treatment of God's great book.

Another view, scarcely less dangerous in its practical effects, but held by men of undoubted piety and ability, and of general soundness in the faith, supposes that there are different degrees in inspiration. Drs. Hill and Dick taught their theological classes that there is an inspiration of superintendence, an inspiration of elevation, and an inspiration of suggestion. Dr. Henderson increased the number to five, the inspiration of excitement, the inspiration of invigoration, the inspiration of superintendence, the inspiration of guidance, and the inspiration of direct revelation. They imagined that the Holy Spirit was not needed, when the writers of the Bible were able to discover for themselves the facts which they recorded, as their historical narratives, and that divine help was bestowed in exact proportion to the necessities of the penmen. In other words, God threw them upon their own resources, and when nature failed, He interposed to supply the information which they could not otherwise obtain.

Yet, Dr. Hill admits that, at least, '*in the prophecies which the New Testament contains, there must have been the inspiration of suggestion. Neither the words nor the thoughts could there come by the will of man; and the writers spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost." Dr. Dick has most completely refuted his own. view when he says, " Others have maintained, that the inspiration of the apostles was only occasional; that they were not always assisted and guided by the Holy Spirit; and that consequently, being sometimes left to themselves, they thought and reasoned like ordinary men. As this is a mere hypothesis, unsupported by proof, it is entitled to very little attention. If admitted, it would involve us in very great perplexity, because, not knowing when they did, and when they did not, enjoy the presence of the Spirit, we should be utterly at a loss to determine what parts of their writings we ought to believe. There would be truth, and there might be error in them, but how to distinguish and separate them, would puzzle the wisest head. And it comes to the same thing at last, whether you say that they were not inspired at all, or that they were inspired on certain occasions, while you do not furnish us with the means of ascertaining those occasions." And it comes to the same thing at last, it may be added, whether you say, that they were not inspired at all, or that they were inspired in various degrees, while you do not furnish us with the means of ascertaining what portion of the Bible was written by inspiration, and what portion was left to man's treacherous memory, and fallible judgment, and educational facilities, and peculiar temperament, and natural prejudice, and inborn tendency to lie.

Dr. Bannerman, Professor of Theology in New College, Edinburgh, has truly said, "The origin and occasion of this theory cast no small measure of light upon the character of it. It was introduced avowedly for the purpose of meeting the allegations of error and imperfection in Scripture, and in order to reconcile the existence of real defects with the belief of a divine agency employed in the composition of it. And had there been any foundation of truth in the theory itself, it would have answered the purpose for which it was used. Wherever imperfection existed in Scripture, it was sufficient for the advocates of such a scheme to say that there the human element was present to the exclusion of the divine, and that the error was due to the former in the absence of the latter. The theory was undoubtedly based upon a compromise between the friends and the enemies of inspiration, in which the enemies were allowed to retain the errors which they alleged in the sacred volume, and the friends were enabled to account for them, while yet retaining the general doctrine of an inspiration, at least in name." As the theory, however, is totally abandoned, or, at least, is never advanced, it requires no further notice.

There is yet another theory, still more absurd than the last, which is now commonly held, and held by many who claim to be thoroughly evangelical. It supposes that the thoughts of the Scripture writers were inspired — that is, that the Holy Spirit gave them correct conceptions of the truth to be recorded, and then left them wholly to their own taste and understanding and mental culture to select the words which form the vehicle for the transmission of these thoughts into utterance. Truly this would be a mockery of our agony in the yearning of the soul to know what God has said to a lost world. It would be like one pointing us to a priceless treasure locked in a casket, and then throwing away the key and leaving us as poor as ever. However true or important or sublime the thoughts may be, they are of no value to us, unless expressed in words that suitably and accurately convey them to our minds, for we can get at thoughts only through words. It is the same, therefore, as saying that we have no Bible at all to affirm that the thoughts of the writers were inspired, but that their words were compelled to run the chances of human error or ignorance. So far as we knew men really think only in words, and if God could have inspired the thoughts of these penmen, and then cast them upon their own choice to select language for the utterance of their thoughts, we would have precisely the same ground for our faith and hope, which we find in uninspired authors, neither more nor less. There would be no divine testimony, and therefore no certainty about anything that touches the tremendous question of our salvation.

But apart from this conclusive objection to the view, which, alas! now seems to be generally entertained, it is enough to say that there is not a line in the Bible to give it the least foundation. As Dr. Bannerman has well said again, " All these theories of inspiration are wrong, simply because they are theories — human and unauthorized attempts to explain a supernatural mystery, the reality of which is plainly asserted in the Bible, but the solution of which is left untouched. But some of them [and this among them] are still further wrong as running counter to the facts which they are framed to explain." Never was the caution more needed than here, " not to think above that which is written," (1 Cor. iv. 6), for man is no more competent to deal with the mystery of inspiration than he is with the mystery of the incarnation. We only know, and thank God for it, that we have a book divinely inspired, divinely infallible both in its thoughts and words; and while we may be assured of this by the Scriptures themselves, we are not called to fathom the infinitudes of Jehovah's unsearchable wisdom and knowledge. When He has spoken, it is our privilege to stand firmly and fearlessly upon the truth of His testimony; when He has not spoken, it is wisdom on our part to be silent.

There is one other theory of inspiration called dynamic, whatever that means. But it has no meaning. It is a high sounding term, which, like many other high-sounding terms, is only a sound, for it has no sense. If those who use the expression intend by it powerful, efficient, or that which is effectual for attaining the end and accomplishing the purpose for which revelation was given, it explains nothing and helps nothing to the better understanding of the subject. If they intend by it that the power or the influence is from God while the action is human, the term is admissable; but it leaves us just where we were before, to inquire whether there is a plenary inspiration of the Scriptures, and of all the Scriptures; that is, a full, complete inspiration, "an inspiration in which there is no mixture whatever of error," or whether revelation comes to us in an imperfect and mutilated form, the thoughts originating with God, the words descending from no higher source than man's poor intellect.

The importance of this inquiry it is impossible to overstate. It is obvious that upon the conclusion we reach will largely depend our interest in the study of the Scriptures, our confidence in the testimony they bear, and our certainty as to the ground of our standing before God for all eternity. Moreover, whether we are living " in the last days" or not, these are certainly "perilous times," for the state of the world, the unrest of men, the plottings of revolutionists, the decay of ancient governments, the rapid spread of communism, nihilism, agnosticism and hydra-headed infidelity, the hurricanes rushing through the air, the disasters upon land and sea, crowding each other so rapidly that it is impossible to keep them in memory, the marked increase of rationalism in the church itself, all portend that we are called to face formidable dangers, and that we stand at the threshhold of momentous changes. If we have no earnest and positive faith in the Bible as the very word of God, where shall we look for guidance and comfort and refuge? "If the foundations be destroyed what can the righteous do?"

Prof. Green, of Princeton Theological Seminary, in his crushing review of Prof. Robertson's Smith's "Higher Criticism," opens his admirable book with these words: " All the signs of the times indicate that the American church, and, in fact, the whole of English-speaking Christendom, is upon the eve of an agitation upon the vital and fundamental question of the inspiration and infallibility of the Bible, such as it has never known before. The divinity and authorship of the Scriptures have heretofore been defended against the outside world of unbelievers, against pagans, infidels and skeptics; but the question is now raised, and the supreme authority of the Scriptures contested within the church itself. In the controversies which have agitated the churches of Great Britain and of this country heretofore, the infallible authority of Scripture has been admitted as the ultimate test of doctrine by all contending parties. All made their appeal to this standard. The settlement of every question depended upon its interpretation, or upon inferences fairly deducible from it. But now the standard is itself brought into question. Utterances which fill the air upon every side, and are borne to us from every quarter, from professors' chairs, from pulpits, from the religious press, not to speak of what is incidentally woven into general literature and promiscuous conversation, show abundantly that the burning question of the age is not. What does the Bible teach? It is one yet more radical and fundamental: What is the Bible? In what sense is it the word of God? Is it a revelation from him and divinely authoritative; or is it to be left to the interpreter to say what in it is from God and worthy of our faith, and what is the fallible human element that may be rejected? This question is approached from all sides, and the most diverse and conflicting answers have been given."

Again he says in his introductory chapter: "The venerable Dr. Hodge, who w^as for nearly three score years the glory and strength of Princeton Seminary, was called upon for some remarks in the Week of Prayer, at the beginning, I think, of the last year of his life. The subject before the meeting was the conversion of the world. It was his habit, on such occasions, to present a cheering view derived from the progress which the gospel had made or was making, or from the accomplished work of redemption which is the assured basis of the world's salvation, or the unfailing promise of God which makes the issue certain; but at the time referred to he recited, in long and formidable array, the various forms of opposition which are directed against the gospel within the bounds of Christendom itself — the materialistic philosophy, the oppositions of science, the socialistic excesses — and showed in what various ways unsanctified learning, power and influence in irreligious hands, and unchristianized masses, stand as barriers to the progress of truth and holiness. His aim was not to discourage, but to present a truthful and sober view of the actual aspect of the world, and of the forces which are at war against the progress of the gospel. It was the trumpet-call of the veteran who had fought his battles and won his victories, summoning new recruits to the holy war, and uttering loud notes of warning, that the strife was by no means ended; that there are many and fierce battles yet to fight, and that others must take up the weapons which he was laying down. We are coming now, as it would seem, to the culmination of the struggle. The battle rages around the citadel. No drones or cowards are wanted now."

It is a significant fact that the man who for half a century stood as the leading witness for the truth in America, felt constrained to sound such a note of warning amid his last public utterances. That it was a needed and timely note has been plainly shown by the current of events since his departure to be with the Lord. Professors in theological seminaries, that claim to be evangelical, have sought to tear the Pentateuch into shreds, denying in the face of Christ's oft-repeated testimony, that Moses was its human author, pretending to discover in it the traces of many writers and redactors and sub-redactors, and asserting with amazing effrontery that Deuteronomy was not known until the time of King Josiah, nor Leviticus until the time of Ezra. Meanwhile the most popular preacher in the United States travels through the country scouting the Bible account of the creation of man, whom he prefers to regard as a developed tadpole, denouncing with fierce invective the God of the Calvinist, and denying the punishment of the wicked in the future world.

All such men, and their numbers are rapidly increasing, are in secret sympathy, and many of them in confessed sympathy with the Unitarian Review of September, 1883, which boldly says: "According to Unitarianism man judges the Bible. According to Orthodoxy the Bible judges man. On this point everything turns. Newman Smyth, in a moment when he was evidently not thinking of denominational barriers, gave expression to this sentiment: 'When Jesus said, Every one that is of the truth heareth my voice. He declared, unequivocally, that the sense of moral truth within man is the test of revelation.' . . . Some would say. The mind of the Christ is the testimony to truth, but how are we to know the mind of the Christ? How are we to discriminate the thought of Jesus from that of Confucius or Rousseau, except by the exercise of that cultivated and inherited moral and intellectual sense which is the birthright of our race. Let us be 'consistent on this point of the authority of truth."

For brazen impudence and self-conceit this is hard to surpass. Each man's cultivated and inherited moral and intellectual sense is to sit in judgment upon God's word, and to treat it as his idea of truth demands. Ingersoll's cultivated and inherited moral and intellectual sense, and his conception of truth, lead him to pour forth a torrent of the foulest and vilest abuse of the Bible and the Saviour; but according to the requirement of this Unitarian Review he is entirely right. What, however, is to be the final judge with those who have no cultivated and inherited moral and intellectual sense, the mass of ruffians who furnish an unfailing supply of thieves and burglars and murderers, and crowd our jails and state prisons? Of course we should be consistent on this point of the authority of truth, and approve their conduct when they spurn the Bible with obscene jest, and honestly believe that they have a right to prey upon their fellow men.

If the sentiment of this Review, now so widely accepted beyond the ranks of Unitarian infidelity, is correct, and every man is left to decide for himself what in the Bible is worthy of respect, and what is to be despised as error, the advice of Job's wife to her distressed husband was eminently wise, for we can do no better thing than to '^ curse God and die." We have no Bible, or at least a Bible that is not worth a straw. What one man's cultivated and inherited moral and intellectual sense may accept as reasonable, and according to his view of truth, may seem to another absurd; and so each one picks out the little that may suit his own appetite, rejecting all the rest.

Alas! it comes to this: Have we any Bible at all? If so, is it inspired? Is all of it inspired? Is it inspired in such way that in reading its words we may be assured we are reading the words of God? Can we rest our faith and our hope of eternal life upon the Scriptures, the very writings, as perfectly truthful and free from error in their narratives, their doctrines and their promises? This is the question which it is proposed to discuss by consult-' ing the writings to see what they say of themselves. Let no one imagine that the method of investigation here adopted is a begging of the question, for the argument is not addressed to the infidel, but to those who already believe that the Bible is in some way, and to some extent at least, the book of God. It is perfectly proper, therefore, and indeed, it is the only course left open to ask what the book affirms of its own inspiration.