2

to an unsophisticated reader to teach pretty plainly the doctrine of Plenary Inspiration. But no: our moderns will teach him (and that with an eloquence so fascinating as to be all but persuasive) that that doctrine is all a mistake; the relic of a now-exploded superstition. He may believe-and if he would escape the denunciations of his teachers he must believe-with Mr. Goodwin,' that the Mosaic cosmogony was merely the guesswork of an "early speculator" harassed by no scruples, "and asserting as facts what he knew only as probabilities;" with Dr. Williams, that the lives of the first patriarchs are to be "relegated to the domain of legend or symbolical cycle," and that the book of Jonah "contains a late legend, founded on misconception; or, with Mr. Wilson, that "the story of a serpent tempter, of an ass speaking with man's voice, of an arresting of the earth's motion, of waters standing in a solid heap," may all be accepted as "poetry, or legend:" for (O sapient observation !) it was not to the poets, geographers, and historians, that God spake, but only "to the prophets." The fact that these prophets were themselves the poets, geographers, and historians whom it is attempted thus to silence, is of course a circumstance too trivial and insignificant (not to say too inconvenient), to be allowed to interfere with the settled purpose of this "free handling."

Never mind: let that pass. Suppose it possible to effect a separation of the prophetic utterances of these "holy men of old" from the historic or topographic statements with which they are inseparably associated: what then? May we then accept those prophetic utterances as divine? By no means. It is true that the prophets or at least some of them - were inspired; but so were Bezaleel and Aholiab, Shakspeare and Molière. In fact, it is hard to say who is not inspired for

Inspiration, like God's omnipresence, is not limited to the few writers claimed by the Jews, Christians, or Mahometans, but is co-extensive with the race. . . . It is wide as the world, and common as God." (So then, God did speak to the "poets, geographers, and historians," after all!) You therefore, good

'Essays and Reviews, p. 252. Ibid., pp. 57, 77. Ibid., p. 177. Theodore Parker: Discourses, pp. 161, 171.

EXTENT OF INSPIRATION.

181

reader, may judge of the inspiration of the prophets from your own. For "the sacred writers acknowledge themselves men of like passions with ourselves, and we are promised illumination from the Spirit which dwelt in them." The gentleman who

tells you this has furnished you with an example. He finds St. Paul quoting the second Psalm in his epistle to the Hebrews, and he tells you, in effect, that he, the vicar of Broad Chalke, knows better what is the Hebrew idiom than does the scholar of Gamaliel, the Jew of Tarsus. He finds Philip the Evangelist, under the special influence of the Holy Ghost applying Isaiah's prophecy' to Christ; but that is nothing to one who is every whit as much inspired as Philip was, (more so indeed, or how could he correct him?) and therefore he boldly pronounces that if that prophecy should be applied to "any single person," "Jeremiah should be the one!" See now what it is to be an adept at "free handling." Nor is it the learned alone who, being thus "inspired," are permitted to be thus profane. It is "a matter of duty" "if possible, to discriminate the authoritative from the unauthoritative in Scripture ; and "those who are able to do so, ought to lead the less educated to distinguish between the different kinds of words which it contains; between the dark patches of human passion and error which form a partial crust upon it, and the bright centre of spiritual truth within.""

"Dark patches of human passion and error" are to be "distinguished:"-by whom? By "those who are able to do so!" A safe answer, certainly. "The unauthoritative in Scripture" is to be "discriminated" "if possible." But after the utter failure of the attempt as made by Mr. Newman himself, we are shut up to the inevitable conclusion that it is not possible. What course then remains for us? When the learned leaders lose their way, who shall direct the "less educated" crowd, deluded and misled? For a moment indeed it seems as if light sprang up in the darkness. Amid so many dreary negations there is one little bit of positivism: one little

'Essays and Reviews, p. 78. • Ch. i. v. 5.

7 Ch. liii.

Essays and Reviews, p. 73.

9

F. W. Newman: Phases of Faith, p. 121.

10 Essays and Reviews, p. 177.

spot of firm ground somewhere in the quagmire. Under all the "dark patches" there is a "bright centre." There is at least one authoritative element among so many of an opposite kind. Let us find it out. Alas! when we make the attempt we learn how vain it is. The more we search, the more hopeless does the search become. All that we can find is, that the authoritative element is not to be found. The bright centre flits before us like an ignis fatuus; appears, and disappears, and re-appears, now there, now here-no, not here yet, but somewhere; not far off however, not out of sight, for all our guides have seen it (so they say); but no two of them tell the same story about it. The highly gifted author of the Lectures on the Jewish Church tells us it is in "the prophets;" and in one of its "phases" Mr. Newman thought so too; but he quickly changed his mind. A friend of his told him it was in the fourth Gospel; and the bewildered seeker, who had lost all trace of it among the most remarkable of the prophets, looked eagerly into the fourth Gospel, and saw it too. Not for long, however; he soon found out that "John had made both the Baptist and Jesus speak as John himself would have spoken,” and that "we cannot trust the historic reality of the discourses in the fourth Gospel." Thus, says he, "Thus was I flung back to the three first gospels, as on the whole, more faithful as a picture of the true Jesus than that which is exhibited in John.” “ Thus faded the light from the pages of the beloved disciple. No wonder after this that it quickly faded from all the rest, and left the poor benighted wanderer, with dimmed and darkened vision, vainly endeavouring to elicit some spark from his own conflicting intuitions, and loudly affirming that all "book revelation" is impossible.

To escape this miserable conclusion, we must have recourse to the "old paths." There the direction is unmistakeably distinct and plain, and he that runs may read. "ALL Scripture is given by inspiration of God:" and "If any man will do His will, he shall know of the doctrine, whether it be of God."

Many theories of inspiration have been started, but they may all be resolved (with some trifling modifications) into one or other of these four :

"Phases of Faith: pp. 173, 176.

THEORIES OF INSPIRATION.

183

I. That whatever sort of inspiration was possessed by the writers of the Bible, it was not peculiar to themselves. "Minos and Moses, David and Pindar, Leibnitz and Paul, receive into their various forms the one Spirit from God most high. This inspiration is limited to no sect, age, or nation.""

This is the theory of that class of writers whose vagaries we have just been considering. It calls for no further remark here, since it must be at once discarded by all who make a distinction between reason and revelation. But its advocates are fond of asserting that those who reject it must hold its opposite, viz. :— II. That the human writers of the Bible were mere machines, and had no more to do with what was written than the pen with which they wrote.

13

Thus, e.g., Dr Williams, after claiming for his own writings as much authority as is conceded to prophets and apostles,—on the ground that if they are inspired, so is he; and if he is fallible, so are they;-describes those who demur to this claim as "thinking the sacred writers passionless machines, and calling Luther and Milton 'uninspired.' But this theory, Dr Williams may perhaps be glad to learn, is rejected by his opponents as being little less untenable than his own (though not a thousandth part so fatal). And that too on good ground. If the human writers were merely passive instruments in the hand of the Holy Spirit, how is it that we can trace so clearly in the language of each, his own distinguishing characteristics? How is it that each writer uses exactly that style which our knowledge of his antecedents would lead us to expect? Yet so it is. Isaiah writes like a courtier; Amos, like a herdsman; and Ezekiel, the Hebrew Eschylus, in a style different from both. Micah is nervously concise, and Nahum is sublimely bold. The Rabbinical lore, the classics, the poetry, poured out with the Tarsic eloquence of Paul, procured for him, naturally enough,

13 This is an exaggerated statement of the theory of verbal dictation held by Calamy, Haldane, and others.

"Parker's Discourse, p. 171. | spiritûs divini. Thus, too, Schleiermacher (der Christliche Glaube, band 1. 3. 115) and De Wette (Lehrbuch Anmerk.) allow the Sacred Writers no more inspiration than Cicero accorded to the poets :-afflatum

"Essays and Reviews, p. 78.

the imputation of "much learning;" while those who heard the powerful appeals of Peter and John, could yet not fail to recognise in their unadorned simplicity of speech and Galilean provincialisms, the marks of "unlearned and ignorant men." It was through human speech, and in accordance with the laws of man's nature, that He who spake as never man spake, uttered the lessons of heavenly wisdom. And similarly, it is through human instrumentality, and often through the peculiarities of individual character, that God has spoken in His Word. We perceive in the sacred volume the distinct individuality of the different writers, and discern at the same time the wonderful wisdom of God. It is at once human and Divine.

III. A third theory may be stated thus :-That the writers of the Bible were specially and divinely inspired, when treating on matters of faith and practice, religion and morals; but that in other matters (e.g., history, science, &c.) they were left to themselves, and were thus as liable to errors and inaccuracies as other authors.

This theory, as it is eminently the refuge of DOUBT, is the one with which we are here specially concerned. When one hears not only that the Bible contains statements on scientific subjects which are demonstrably false, but that eminent scholars and ecclesiastical dignitaries are among those who impute these false statements to Holy Scripture; it is no wonder if, among those who are unable to refute the assertion on its own ground, there should be some who feel compelled to bow to that which carries with it such a parade of authority. But these very persons cannot close their eyes to the moral influence of the Bible, and to those vast results which that influence has effected wherever it has been allowed to operate. Confronting these results, it is impossible to believe that the Bible is a merely human production. On the other hand, confronted by the dogmatic assertions of a "philosophy falsely so called," it is impossible to attribute scientific error to the God of all truth. Hence this compromise between the two opposite subjects of disbelief. It is their best refuge from doubt. What relates to morals is of God: what relates to inferior subjects is of man. We answer

The distinction here drawn is impossible; and even were it otherwise, it would be useless.