ba^jL- CfrCUp^ iidy^M**/

The Doctrine of Ippo

An Outline Historical Study.

THEODORE W. HOPKINS.

5m

YALE
UNIVERSITY LIBRARY

THE

DOCTRINE OF INSPIRATION

AN-

OUTLINE HISTORICAL STUDY,

BY

THEODORE W. HOPKINS.

[not published.]

ROCHESTER, N. Y.
PRINTED FOR THE AJUTHOR.
1891.

COPYRIGHT. 1881.
Br t"heodobe w. Hopkins.

CONTENTS

Page.
Introduction, . . .1
Heathen Doctrine of Inspiration, 2-8
Vedic — Buddhistic — Zoroastrian — Chinese — Mohammedan — Clas
sic Pagan — General Conclusions.
Jewish Doctrine of Inspiration to the Close of the First
Century, A. D.,  . . 8- 13
Palestinian Judaism — Alexandrian Judaism — Testimony of Jew
ish Writers.
Christian Doctrine of Inspiration— Ante-Nicene Period, A. D.
100-325, . .  . 13-24
Terms — Unity of Inspiration in Old and New Testaments — Extra-
Canonical Inspiration — Nature of Inspiration — Degrees of Inspi
ration — Verbal Inspiration — General Conclusions.
P0ST-NlCENE AND SUBSEQUENT HISTORY OF INSPIRATION TO THE
Close of Ancient Christianity, A. D. 325-750, . 24- 29
Causes of Diminished Importance Attached to this Doctrine —
Nature of Inspiration — Degrees of Inspiration — Verbal Inspira
tion — General Conclusions.
Doctrine of Inspiration in the Middle Ages, A. D. 750-1517, . 29- 37
Views of Individual Writers in Chronological Order — Scholastics
— Mystics — Forerunners of Reformation — Jewish Doctrine — Gen
eral Conclusions.
Doctrine of Inspiration during the Reformation Era, A. D.
. 1517-1600  ... 37- 45
Views of Leading Reformers — Followers of Great Reformers —
Remarks on Apparent Inconsislencies'in Attitude of Reformers
toward Scriptures.
Doctrine of Inspiration in the Seventeenth Century, . 45- 60
Lutheran — Reformed — Roman Catholic — Arminian — Socinian —
Mystic — Opinion in England.
Doctrine of Inspiration jk the Eighteenth Century, . . 61- 73
Causes of Modification of Rigid Theories — Rationalistic Writers —
More Evangelical— Swedenborg — Opinion in England.
Doctrine of Inspiration in the Nineteenth Century, . 73-106
German Rationalists — Schleiermacher — Supernaturalism — More
General Evangelical — French Orlhodoxy— Opinion in England —
Greek and Roman Catholic Churches.
General Conclusions from the Whole Survey, . . . 106-108
See Index of Authors ad. fin.

The Doctrine of Inspiration
An Outline Historical Study.

INTRODUCTION.

The ^companying sketch does not aim to present a complete,
critical history of the Doctrine of Inspiration. It simply embod
ies the results of some special studies, which may be of interest in
view of current biblical and theological discussions.
It will be noticed that the method of treatment is not uniform.
Somewhat frequent changes of plan were necessitated by the
varying nature and amount of the material at command. In the
latter part of the essay it has been deemed advisable to allow
writers, to speak, partially at least, for themselves, though great
condensation has been necessary in order to bring detailed state
ments within a reasonable compass.
The author feels it due to himself to state that while he has
endeavored to keep this sketch, as far as possible, free from
subjective coloring, his personal convictions and sympathies are
wholly in the direction of conservative orthodox opinions.

The science of Comparative Religion teaches that many ideas
commonly associated with Christianity alone, and supposed to be
its exclusive property, really belong to man as a religious being.
No matter how rude the conception or imperfect their expres
sion, they enter into every form of faith, and are coextensive with
a belief in Deity. In other systems they voice deep needs of
human souls and earnest though impotent efforts to supply them ;

2 THE DOCTBINE OF INSPIRATION '.
in Christianity the wants are fully met, the ideas become glori
ous realities.
Such an idea is that of Inspiration, in the broad sense of the
word. In the historical survey proposed, we must be content to
employ the term, as past ages have done, with some latitude of
meaning, leaving nice distinctions and close definitions to the
province of doctrinal polemics. We shall not undertake a study
of the subject in its more general relations to the canon, but shall
confine our investigations in the main to two specific points : the
Nature, and the Extent of Inspiration.

A. THE HEATHEN DOCTRINE
OF INSPIRATION.
I. The Vedic.
Nowhere in the world have such elaborate and minute theories
of inspiration been developed as in western and southern Asia —
especially in India. The Brahmahs teach that even before time
was, the Yedic hymns in their minutest parts lived in the mind
of Deity, and were immediately communicated, not to common
men, but to superior beings raised up and prepared to receive
them. Of course but one element, the divine, is conceded in
their composition ; no room is left for trace or tinge of human
coloring. With such an origin and character, they must form for
the Hindu an absolutely infallible revelation.
Sanscrit scholars tell us that these high claims are nowhere put
forth in the hymns themselves,1 though the authors at itimes
vaguely assert the presence of a higher consciousness and influ
ence under which they wrote. Thus they would declare their felt
dependence on an unseen Power, self -surrender to a higher Will —
this and nothing more. But from such a small beginning there
gradually grew up among the ancient Brahmans a belief in the
supernatural origin and character of the Vedas, which was at last
formulated into the extreme and artificial theory of inspiration
above described. The same attribute is now ascribed also to the

Chips from a German Workshop, I. 18.

AN OUTLINE HISTORICAL STUDY.

Brahmanas (commentaries on the ancient Vedic sacrificial rites
and the hymns therewith connected), but to no other Hindu
writings.

II. The Buddhistic.
Buddhism can be properly understood only when viewed as a
reaction against Brahmanism. Properly speaking, it is not a
religion at all, for it has no real Deity ; it is rather a metaphysical
philosophy, — a system, not revealed, but discovered by a man,
Gautama. Even after the sage attained the final truth, becoming
Buddha, the Enlightened, he left in his gospel of annihilation no
room for nature, much less for the supernatural.
Buddhism began by denying the-authenticity and revealed
character of the Vedas, but yet went on to develop an immense
sacred canon of its own (two hundred and twenty-five folio vol
umes), for which, however, it dare make no claim of divine
origin, or any sort of inspiration whatever. For our purposes,
therefore, the system of Sakya-Mouni, thougli in form a book-
religion, may be left out of the account.
III. The Zoroastrian.
Tradition among the Parsis ascribes the immediate and exclu
sive authorship of the whole Zend-Avesta to Ahura-Mazda, who
delivered it complete to Zoroaster, that he might publish its
contents among men.
The sacred books themselves, however, as now extant, make no
such lofty assertions on their own behalf. The Yasna, not the
Vendidad, according to Haug, does claim to be a divine revela
tion, but not in such a sense as to imply pure passivity on the
part of the human organ. Zoroaster is admitted to immediate .
intercourse with the Deity, plies him with questions on every
subject of great interest and moment, and receives full and trust
worthy replies, which he makes known to his immediate follow
ers and to mankind in general.
It is highly probable that Zoroaster committed none of his
doctrines to writing. Like the Vedic hymns, they were trans
mitted through many centuries by oral tradition alone. The
first penmen in each case are of necessity unknown.

4 THE DOCTEINE OF INSPIRATION :
It thus appears that the development of the doctrine of inspi
ration was substantially the same in the case of the Persian canon
as in that of the Hindu.
IV. The Chinese.
It" has been said of the three great religions of China, Con
fucianism, Buddhism and Taoism, that in their true conception
they are not religions at all, as having no personal God ; but
that they are rather systems of philosophy, one moral, another
metaphysical, and a third materialistic. If this be so, none
of the sacred books can logically claim divine origin, or the
attribute of inspiration in any form. The facts as established by
modern scholarship seem to show :
1. That the idea of revelation, as a possibility, is common to
both Confucianism and Taoism.
Dr. Legge says : " Among the primitive characters of the Chi
nese was one, symbol of manifestation or revelation from above.
That God should make known his will from above, did not seem
strange to the Chinese fathers. In ' Shih ' we read : ' God spake
to king Wan,' as in the Old Testament God spake to Moses.
Hundreds of Taoist tracts are circulated in China purporting to be
the teaching of this god or that, warning or advising mankind."1
2. As matter of fact, however, according to the same author,
the various sacred books of China do not profess to have been
inspired or to constitute what we should call a revelation. Histo
rians, poets, or others wrote them as they wTere moved in their
own minds. An old poem may occasionally contain what it says
was spoken by God, but we can only understand that language as
calling attention emphatically to the statement to which it is
prefixed.2
V. The Mohammedan.
Though chronologically out of place, it is most convenient to
notice here the view of inspiration implied in the Koran.
Mohammed professed to be the recipient of manifold visions
and revelations, which came to him, not in waking, self-conscious

1 Religions of China, p. 245.
2 Sacred, Boohs of the East, Vol. III. , Introduction, xv.

AN OUTLINE HISTORICAL STUDY. 5
moments, but in fits of ecstasy. The appearance of his person
at such times was repulsive, terrible. "He roared like a camel ;
his eyes rolled and glowed like red coals, and on the coldest day
terrible perspiration would break out all over his body. When
the terror ceased, it seemed to him as if he had heard bells ring
ing, ' the sound whereof seemed to rend him to pieces,' — as if he
had heard the voice of a man, — as if he had seen Gabriel, — or as
if words had been written in his heart."1 When the paroxysm
was over and consciousness returned, then, .and not before, did
Mohammed begin to dictate to scribes that which he had heard
in the state of ecstasy.
The prophet was a victim of epilepsy, but no diagnosis of this
disease could explain all these symptoms with their attendant
results. They seemed intelligible only as signs of the veritable
prophetic frenzy. Thus classic paganism would have interpreted
them, and it was quite natural that the religious credulity of the
seventh century should do the same.
Turn now to the Koran. It purports to be a direct revelation
from God in the highest sense. The inner consciousness df the
prophet is not elevated and illumined with celestial light ; rather
is the human element driven from every nook and hiding place,.
while the divine element is sole and supreme. Every word
individually, from the beginning to the end, is the direct utter
ance of Allah. " The formula, ' Speak, thus saith the Lord,'
either precedes every single sentence, or must be so understood."
It is to be observed that this extreme and artificial theory of
inspiration is not, as in the case of the Vedas and the Zend-
Avesta, a gradual growth of ages, but rather an original claim made
by Mohammed himself. When demand is now made for some
miraculous sign of his prophetic mission and authority, Mussul
mans appeal to the Koran itself as the most stupendous of all
miracles. It is eternal and uncreated, being first written in the
highest heavens, but carried by Gabriel to the lowest heaven,
and thence at intervals made known" to the prophet. As the
immediate handiwork of God, it is faultless in style and inimi
table in its beauty, but is for this very reason untranslatable into
foreign tongues. The doctrine of inspiration could no farther
go. It would be interesting, but is perhaps impossible to know,

Litera/ry Remains of Tmmanuel Deuisch, 81.

6 THE DOCTRINE OF INSPIRATION :
whether and how far its development in Mohammedanism was
influenced by crude and exaggerated views prevalent in the cor
rupt Christianity and Judaism of the time and region.
VI. Classic Paganism.
It has been said, somewhat rashly perhaps, that " we search
the literature of Greece and Rome in vain for the idea of revela
tion." If the affirmation *be restricted to book-revelation, it may,
perhaps, be approximately true, though the Sibylline books with
their sacred character and supposed divine origin should count
for something. But the idea of revelation in itself was common
to the whole ancient world, and was nowhere more generally
credited than in Greece and Pome. What else mean the Dodo-
nian, Delphic and numerous other oracles, the Pythian priestess,
the various sibyls, and the whole class of seers, soothsayers and
diviners ?
Apollo was the special god of prophecy, and he as well as
other deities made known the future and all other needful mat
ters of command and counsel through inspired human organs.-
Inspiration had its certain signs ; its outward phenomena and
internal characteristics were carefully analyzed and noted. Even
the means of inducing it were discovered, so that to classic
paganism it became an art.
There is no need of repeating the story of the distressing signs
under which the Pythian priestess uttered her responses. The
lofty tripod on which she sat, the smoke issuing from the well
below, throwing her into delirium and convulsions, her wild and
incoherent ejaculations, noted by attendants as the divine answer
to anxious questionings, — all these are familiar to the intelligent
schoolboy. Pagan orthodoxy believed devoutly that Apollo himself dwelt
in the priestess, prompting every word she spoke, annihilating
for the time her human consciousness and personality, and mak
ing her his blind instrument. Even Plato could not rise above
this vulgar idea, but maintained, with the Stoics and almost the
whole of antiquity, that the sense for higher revelation arises in
a condition of unconsciousness, in sleep, and most of all in ecstasy.
" No man, when in his senses, attains prophetic truth and
inspiration ; but when he receives the inspired word, either his

AN OUTLINE HISTORICAL STUDY. -7
intelligence is enthralled by sleep, or he is demented by some
distemper or possession. And he who would understand what he
remembers to have bee;i said, whether he was in dream, or when
he was awake, by the prophetic and enthusiastic nature, or what
he has seen^must recover his senses."1
There were others, however, who took a different and a higher
view. Plutarch, for example, excused the bad poetry with which
sceptical ridicule charged the Pythian priestess, and yet main
tained its inspiration by asserting that the deity made use of her
imperfect natural faculties ior conveying and embodying his
own infallible truth. Here he clearly distinguishes two elements
and factors in inspiration, a divine and a human, and seeks by
attributing to each its proper share in the complex product, to
avoid either extreme, credulity or unbelief.
He says : " We are not to believe that the god made the verses ;
but, after he has communicated the moving impulse, each of the
prophetesses is moved in a way that corresponds to her own
peculiar nature. For let us suppose that the oracles were not to
be spoken, but recorded in writing, we should not, I imagine,
ascribe to the god the strokes of the letters, and find fault with
him because the writing was not so beautiful as that of the impe
rial edicts. Not the language, nor the tone, nor the expression,
nor the measure of the verse comes from the god — all this comes
from the woman. He simply communicates the intuitions, and
kindles up a light in the soul with regard to the future."2 More
to the same purport might be quoted.
General Conclusions.
Enough has probably now been said respecting extra-Christian
views of inspiration. We see that the idea exists in various forms
and degrees, and shall find that it exerted, in its Platonic form,
much influence upon Alexandrian Judaism, and thus mediately
at least upon Christianity.
Two things at this stage of our inquiries demand notice.
1. It is not true, without exception, as commonly supposed,
that heathen inspiration acknowledges but one factor, the divine,

1 Plato, Tirmms, 71, 72. Jowett's Trans., vol. II., 563.
2 Be Pythim OraeuUs, cxxi.

8 THE DOCTRTNE OF INSPIRATION :
and that it wholly suppresses — absolutely obliterates, for, the time
— the human consciousness of its organ. There are at least inti
mations of the conscious coexistence and cooperation of the divine
and human.
2. Extravagant, artificial, and rigidly mechanical theories of
inspiration are not always the immediate and inevitable accompa
niment of a sacred canon. As in the case of the Vedic hymns
and the Zend-Avesta, they are apt to be the result of a long and
gradual growth of tradition and superstition.

B. THE JEWISH DOCTRINE OF INSPIRATION,
TO THE CLOSE OF THE FIRST CENTURY.
It may be said in general that the Jews always and all of them
cherished a deep reverence for their sacred books, conceding their
divine origin and their unique and binding authority. . The
specific doctrine or theory of inspiration, however, was a gradual
growth, and was formulated mainly at Alexandria during the
period between the cessation of prophecy and the close of the
Old Testament canon. Opinions on this subject varied somewhat.
I. Palestinian Judaism.
It is here that we would naturally expect to find prevalent the
strictest views on this subject. Two degrees of inspiration (not
three as in the case of Maimonides and other Jewish doctors of
the Middle Ages) were admitted.
1. Legal or Mosaic.
This was peculiar to Moses alone, being shared by no other one
of the sacred writers. The Law came direct from God, being
either written by his own hand, or else dictated to Moses as his
amanuensis.1 As to inherent character, it is in itself an original
and perfectly sufficient revelation, and if Israel had acted in a
worthy manner, no further divine communication through the
other sacred books would have been needful.
Nothing is contained in the Hagiographa which is not implied

1 Cremer in Herzog, Real Encyclopadie, art. Inspiration.

AN OUTLINE HISTORICAL STUDY. 9
in the Law, nor dare any prophet give utterance to anything
which is not founded on the same. All indeed which the
prophets afterwards predicted was already beforehand revealed
from Sinai.
The Law is called Holy Scripture absolutely, the other writings
attain a like dignity only from their constituent relation to this.1
2. Prophetic.
All the other books of the Old Testament, though divinely
revealed, must take a second rank.2 This results from the fact
that they reveal nothing new in substance, but simply teach the
correct understanding and explanation of the Law. ¦ The differ
ence of the two classes of writings was illustrated by the saying
that ' Moses looked upon a clear mirror, other prophets upon one
whose surface was dim'; or, that 'he looked through one, other
prophets through several mirrors.' 3 Notwithstanding this lower
degree of inspiration and consequent inferiority of rank, Palestin
ian Jewish theology insisted upon the inclusion of the Prophets
and Hagiographa with the Law in 'Holy Scripture.' Those
who denied the claim were branded as apostates from Israel.
It was not held that the process of inspiration in these writers
annihilated their human personality and made them unconscious
organs of the Spirit.3 It did not even obliterate diversities of gifts,
or peculiarities of literary style by which the productions of one
might be distinguished from those of another. Apparently, more
pronounced individuality was conceded to the writers of the his
torical books than to the prophets strictly so called.
II. Alexandrian Judaism.
Very different was the case with Alexandrian Judaism. Seem
ingly more liberal in general character, its theory of inspiration
was far more strict. This is seen in the credit given to the fable
of the miraculous origin of the Septuagint translation. Aristeas,
followed by Philo and Josephus, relates that Ptolemy Philadel-
phus summoned seventy-two rabbins from Palestine to make a
translation of the sacred books from the Hebrew original into

1 Weber, Alt-8ynagogal. Palmstin. Theol., 78-80.
2 Weber, Alt-Bynagogal. Palcest. Theol, 78.
3 Cremer, 747.

10 THE DOCTRINE OF INSPIRATION :
Greek. These men performed the task, translating each one by
himself, in a separate cell, in such a way that their productions
agreed exactly, word for word, from beginning to end. Such
unity could be attributed, as Irenseus says,1 only to immediate
divine inspiration.
This legend was generally credited, and greatly influenced the
development of the doctrine of inspiration ; in fact, it shows
how lofty was the. idea then already prevailing. Of course,
arguing from the less to the greater, any reverence given to the
translation would be intensified in the case of the Hebrew
original. The Hellenistic view of inspiration, if generally less elaborate
and exact in form and statement than the Palestinian Jewish,
was grosser, more extravagant, and mechanical in character. It
assigned the rank of prophet to all Old Testament writers. All
spoke and wrote in a state of ecstasy, which was normal to one
under the influence of inspiration. Self-consciousness and free
will were suspended, and the seer became the merely . passive
organ of the Holy Ghost.
III. Testimony of Jewish Writers.
Of express testimonies to the inspiration of the Jewish canonical
books, we can notice but three.
1. The Apochryphal Writers.
These bear clear and abundant witness to their belief in the
divine origin and character of the Old Testament Scriptures.
Moses is spoken of as ' commanded by God to write his Law ; '
the Law itself is ' the book of the covenant of the Most High
God.'2 Comfort is said to be derived from the 'holy books
of Scripture, which we have in our hands.' The communica
tions made to Moses and other sacred writers bear the character
of divine revelations, and are the words of God himself.3
2. Josephus.
Josephus, born at Jerusalem, and a' member of the sect of the

1 Adv. Easr., Lib. III. 24.
2 Quoted Lee on Inspiration, 62.
3 Bannerman on Inspiration, 117.

AN OUTLINE HISTORICAL STUDY. 11
Pharisees, ought to serve as a representative example of Pales
tinian Jewish orthodoxy. Indeed, he is quoted by most orthodox
writers as a valuable witness to the general acceptance of the
doctrine of plenary and verbal inspiration among his countrymen.
He says : " Every one is not permitted, of his own accord, to
be a writer, nor is there any disagreement in what is written ;
they being only prophets that have written the original and
earliest accounts of things, as they learned them of God
himself, by inspiration ; and others have written what hath hap
pened in their own time, and that in a very distinct manner also.
.For we have not an innumerable multitude of books among
us, disagreeing from and contradicting one another, [as the>
Greeks have], but only twenty-two books, which contain the
records of all past times, which are justly believed to be divine."1
If this correctly represents the Jewish orthodoxy of the first cen
tury A. D., it does not necessarily indicate the personal opinions
of the author. It seems doubtful whether Josephus had any
real belief in the inspiration of the Old Testament Scriptures.
If he had, how could he treat them as he does, while claiming
to make them the basis of his own history? How could he
jumble together fact and fancy, divine wisdom and foolish phi
losophy, veritable history and baseless tradition ? Why should
he be so anxious to eliminate, by any and every possible method,
the miraculous and Messianic elements from the narrative with
which he has to deal ? It will probably be hard to find such an
answer to these questions as will save the consistency and
character of the author. Still, the testimony of Josephus, such
as it is, is one which, in the meagreness of our information, we
could ill afford to lose.
3. Philo.
This learned Alexandrian is generally, and on the whole cor
rectly, taken as the representative of the Hellenistic Jewish view
of inspiration. What has been said above of the general view
(II.) will for the most part apply to him. When his opinions
are subjected to a close examination, they are found to be vague,
especially on the psychological phenomena in question — how
much or how little activity he would assign to the personal

1 Contra Apion, Lib. I. : cap. 7, 8.

12 THE DOCTRINE OF INSPIRATION :
mental powers of inspired men. He may have entertained
mutually conflicting ideas on the whole subject.
When under the influence of inspiration, a person was in a
state of ecstasy ; and this to Philo was the ' goal of ambition,'
and, as he testifies, in some sense a matter of personal experience
with him. He claims inspiration not only for himself, but for
every pious man ; and yet he t>y no means attempts to place his
own productions, or those of his fellows, on a level with Holy
Scripture. His idea of ecstasy implies such a perfect self-
surrender to the fellowship and influence of Deity, as to result
in a complete suppression of the human consciousness and will*
before those which are divine. " The prophet," he says, " is the
interpreter of the Deity, and God uses him as an instrument to
make known what he will. A prophet says nothing of his own,
but merely what another inspires within him."
Somewhat inconsistently with his magical view of inspiration,
Philo admits a difference of degree in the same. In the highest
(ipfirjvela) the utterances are immediately from God ; the human
element wholly recedes, the divine only comes to view, and that
pure and unmixed. There is a union, or rather absorption of the
person inspired in the God who moves and speaks within him.
In the second or intermediate stage, there is a mingling of the
purely divine with the human, both of which appear ; the prophet
questions and God replies (as in the Zend-Avesta) ; thus he is
able to predict the future with infallible certainty. In the
lowest stage, the inspiration proceeds from the divine, which has
become the personal possession of the prophet. The latter speaks
in Ids own name from his own consciousness, though the substance
of the message is from God.
Careful scrutiny shows that at the bottom of Philo's idea of
prophetic ecstasy there is no higher element than is drawn from
heathen divination and mystery-worship. His syncretistic system
allowed him to transfer the heathen conceptions of fiavritcij, or
'divine possessions,' to the prophets of the Old Testament.
But more than this, the whole Philonic (and thus far, Hellenistic)
theory is of heathen origin.
Conceding, as all critics do, the . immense influence which
Philo exerted ultimately upon this, as well as upon the whole
circle of Christian doctrine, it is not enough to admit, with Hagen-
bach, that the external form of the theory of inspiration was

AN OUTLINE HISTORICAL STUDY. 13
mixed up with heatlien notions ; .the pagan conception entered
into and largely -determined that of early Christianity. Valuable,
then, as is Philo's witness, from the historical and apologetic
pdints of view, his influence upon the actual development of the
doctrine was to a great extent unwholesome and disastrous.

C. THE CHRISTIAN DOCTRINE OF INSPIRA
TION.— ANTE-NICENE PERIOD.
I. Terms.
The word i Qeotrvevtnia (borrowed from 2 Tim. 3:16,) was
first made current in ecclesiastical language by Origen and
Chrysostom. It became the most common term to express our
modern English idea of inspiration. In the old Greek church,
the meaning of the expression was indefinite. Most theologians,
however, understood it, doubtless, in an active, rather than a
passive sense — ' full of the divine Spirit,' ' God-breathing' (Gott-
athmend). The passive signification, ' breathed into,' ' in-spired
by God,' appears to have been made prominent by Chrysostom ;
later it become controlling in the church.
The Latin word inspiration, first applied by Tertullian to the
sacred books, and thus introduced into the dogmatic Christian
vocabulary, occurs in many passages of the Vulgate, where a
divine 'breathing,' 'breathing upon,' is mentioned, but it an
swers not so much to the word OeoTrvevo-ria, as to the itrltrvoLa
of the old Greeks, — a word which in the Christian church also
came to possess precisely the same signification as BeoirvevcrTia}
II. Unity of Inspiration in the Old and New Tes
taments. , .
With the Jewish canon, passed over also to the primitive Chris
tians, naturally and inevitably, Jewish ideas and views of its in
spiration. From the very first, the apostolic writings were
regarded with great reverence,and were considered as authoritative
for those to whom they were immediately addressed. No complete

1 Milnscher, Lehrb. Dogm.-gesch. (Neudecker), II: 2, 220.

14 THE DOCTRINE OF INSPIRATION :
collection of Christian sacred writings, /however, had yet been
made ; and consequently the precise relation of those already
known and used, to the Old Testament Scriptures was not defi
nitely ' settled in the consciousness of the Church. Certainly
the formulated theory of Jewish inspiration was not at the out
set applied to them. This application, however, was speedily
made, and several things conspired to effect it. One was the
habit of reading sections from the writings of the prophets and
apostles in the public assemblies of the Christians.1 Equal dignity
seemed thus to be ascribed to both. Then, again, careful scrutiny
disclosed the indissoluble internal connection and unity of both :
the one, as containing the predictions of the Messiah and his
mission of salvation ; the other, as proclaiming his actual advent,
and the completion of his redeeming work.
¦ Witness as to the belief of the church in the common divine
origin and character of both classes of sacred books is abundant,
clear and decisive.
Thus Justin (f 163) says : " We have believed God's voice,
spoken again by the apostles of Christ, and proclaimed by the
prophets."2 Theophilus: "Concerning the righteousness which the Law
enjoined, confirmatory utterances are found, both within the
Prophets and in the Gospels, because they all spoke inspired by
one Spirit of God."3
Yet more distinctly, Irenseus (f 202) : " For the one and same
Spirit of God, who proclaimed by the prophets what and of what
sort the advent of the Lord should be, announced also that the
fulness of the times had come."4
Of Tertullian (t cir. 230), an old German writer says : " His
whole theory is summed up in these two propositions : ' The Old
and New Testaments are inspired ; and, both collections of writ
ings are inspired by one and the same God.' This he proves in
detail, in his treatise 'Against Marcion,' especially Chapters
xix., xxv.

1 Justin Martyr, First Apol., c. Ixvii.
2 Dial, cum Tryph. , c. cxix.
3AdAutol, III : 12.
4 Adv. Row., iii : 21, 4.

AN OUTLINE HISTORICAL STUDY. 15
Origen's testimony is peculiarly clear and explicit. In the
preface to his treatise De Principiis, (c. 4), he .says : " That
this Spirit inspired each one of the saints, whether prophets or
apostles, and that there was not one Spirit in the men of the old
dispensation, and another in those who were inspired at the advent
of Christ, is most clearly taught throughout the churches."
Cyril of Jerusalem, living at the end of our period, maintained
that the same Spirit spoke through prophets and apostles : " Let
no man divide the Old from the New Testament, or say that the
Spirit in one is different from the Spirit in the other, else he
offends against the Holy Ghost himself."1
Much more testimony to the same effect, both direct and indi
rect, might be drawn from the ante-Nicene writers, but it seems
unnecessary. Thus not only did the ante-Nicene church acknowledge the unity
and equality of the inspiration of the Old and New Testaments, but
various circumstances conspired to increase the emphasis placed
upon it. Chief among these was the opposition of the Gnostics,
who either wholly rejected the Old Testament, maintaining that
it was inspired by the Demiurge ; or, as Irenseus says of the
Valentinians, ascribed great difference in character, not only to
the prophetic books, but even to the discourses of Christ, accord
ing as they were inspired by higher or lower, more or less perfect
spiritual principles.
III. Extra-Canonical Inspiration.
Destructive critics have made much of the fact that the idea
of inspiration was not strictly limited by the early church-fathers
to the canonical writings, but was extended by some to the
apochryphal books of the Old Testament, and to post-apostolic
Christian writings. We see, for example, that —
Justin Martyr and Theophilus attributed inspiration to the
Sibylline books, and those of the Persian Hystaspes. Clement
of Alexandria (f cir. 220) appears to hold that every extraordinary
talent and all knowledge of the true and good is the result of
divine influence — is inspired. He also says that among heathen

Cateehesis, XVI : 4.

16 THE DOCTRINE OF INSPIRATION".
as well as Jews, God endowed distinguished men with prophetic
gifts. He here refers to philosophers.
Tertullian gives the impression that he also regarded every
writing useful for edification as inspired.1
Origen (f 254), thought that perhaps a place in the canon
should be assigned to the Shepherd of Hermas.
Cyprian (f 258) declared that he was favored with visions, and
speaks of writing certain epistles under the inspiration of God.2
These facts do indeed show that the ideas of these church-fathers
upon the subject of inspiration were in some respects indefinite,
but the reason is not far to seek. Some of them were acquainted
with the Old Testament only as existing in the version of the
Seventy, and therefore were inclined to view it with that rever
ence which later orthodoxy accorded only to the Hebrew original.
It is to be remembered also that the canon of the New Testament
was not yet finally determined in the consciousness of the church.
More accurate investigations in this department had yet to be
made. A more exact definition of inspiration itself had yet to be
supplied, and a more scientific theory of the same to be developed.
On the other hand, it is to be observed that the church never
committed itself to the sanction of any of the doctrinal vagaries
of individual fathers with reference to the sacred Scriptures and
their divine inspiration. Certain it is that ' always, everywhere
and by all' a higher degree of inspiration was attributed to the
Old and New Testaments than to any other writings, one that
implied a clear and absolute infallibility of essential contents, and
a unique divine character.
Clement of Alexandria, who perhaps dwells more at length
than any other ante-Nicene writer upon this aspect of the subject,
while he concedes a kind of inspiration to' the philosophers, and
thinks the Holy Ghost had imparted some truths to them, in
other passages expressly concedes that they have fallen into error ;
but he says of the Old and New Testaments : " I could cite many
Other passages of which no point remains unfulfilled, for the
mouth of the Lord, the Holy Ghost, has spoken it." 3

1 De Cultu Fern., c. 3.
2 Epist. Ixiii., lxxvii.
3 Cohort, ad Oentes, c. 9.

AN OUTLINE HISTORICAL ' STUDY. IT
Tertullian declared that the apostles were made possessors of
the fulness of the Holy Ghost, while all others shared his gifts
only in measure} This would probably express the general judg
ment of the ancient- church concerning his divine relation to the
different classes of writings.2
IV. The Nature of Inspiration.
No formal definition of inspiration, nor any connected sys
tematic doctrine of the same was established during the period
with which we are now concerned.
At the very first, the church seems to have contented herself
with the conviction of the apostolic authority of the authors,
and the conceded truth of the contents of the sacred books.
Soon, however, questionings began to arise respecting the nature
of the divine influence under which the various writers did their
work. Two diverging views were developed among the ante-
Nicene fathers.
1. The first and stricter one was, as is evident, of heathen
origin, and was mixed up with ideas of heathen soothsaying.
Starting from the idea of the prophet as the interpreter of Deity,
— a conception common to Christianity with other forms of faith —
it taught an overwhelming of the human mind and spirit by divine
power, though probably never in such an absolute and unqualified
sense as in Montanism and classic paganism.
2. The second more sober and liberal theory had its source in
Palestinian Judaism, and conceives the divine influence as exerted
rather in the way of ' in-spiriting,' furthering and assisting the
life and the writing of the holy men.
The real difference between the two views was involved in
the question at issue, viz. : Whether the condition of ecstasy in

1 Exhort, ad Cast., c. 4.
2 If some of the ante-Nicene fathers did fail to grasp (and this is by no means
certain) the generic and fundamental distinction between supernatural inspi
ration bestowed upon prophets and apostles, and mere divine illumination
vouchsafed to them and their contemporaries, they were only the precursors
of a long array of reputedly able and orthodox writers on inspiration in the
church of the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries, whose ideas upon this point
are. certainly confused.
4

18 THE DOCTRINE OF INSPIRATION :
the penmen was essential as a guarantee of the supernatural
character of the prophecies and other Scriptures.
Representatives of the former opinion were found chiefly
among the Apologists.
Justin Martyr speaks of the divine plectrum itself descending
from heaven, and using righteous men like a harp or lyre.1
Again : " When you hear the utterances of the apostles,
spoken as it were personally, you must not suppose that they
are spoken by the inspired themselves, but by the divine Word
who moves them."2
Athenagoras employs a figure similar to that of Justin, saying :
" The Spirit made use of the prophets, as a flute-player breathes
into a flute."3
He also describes the condition of those who were under the
influence of inspiration, as a condition of ecstasy. "Moses,
Isaiah, Jeremiah and other prophets, lifted in ecstasy above the
natural operations of their own minds, by the impulses of the
divine Spirit, uttered the things with which they were inspired."4
Theophilus similarly calls the sacred writers ' instruments,
organs of God.'
The use of the figure of musical instruments in this connection
was probably borrowed from Philo, and shows that as his mind
was impregnated with heathen notions concerning the nature
and process of inspiration, so the minds of most of the Apolo
gists were tainted with the same. This indeed seems natural,
when we remember that they were trained in heathenism, and
that their first knowledge of Christian truth was not the result
of logical thought, but was referred solely to revelation and the
action of the Spirit of God. The whole conception could not
fail to receive powerful impression from traditional habits of
thought respecting the Sibyls, the Pythian priestess and other
seers and soothsayers of antiquity. The evidence here is cumu
lative, and cannot be given in detail, but will repay careful study,5
provided only it be constantly borne in mind that the idea of

1 Cohort, ad Grose, c. viii.
2 First Apol. , c. xxxvi.
3 Legat. pro Christ., c. ix.
4 Ad Autol. , ii. 9.
6 Nitzsch, Dogm^-gesch. , 259-60.

AN OUTLINE HISTORICAL STUDY. 19
prophecy formed the point of departure in all discussions of
this age upon the nature of the inspiration of the sacred books.1
[It is worthy of note, m passing, that Rudelbach, in common
with various other orthodox writers, has made labored, though
ineffectual attempts,2 to clear Justin Martyr and other early
fathers from the charge of holding essentially heathen ideas
upon the nature of inspiration. He seeks to explain away the
inferences naturally drawn from their use of the figure of mus
ical instruments, and thinks they did not with Philo make
ecstasy a fundamental element of prophecy, nor teach a motion
less and unconscious passivity, but rather an elevated and illum
inated rational consciousness in the inspired seer. The apolo
getic and polemic aim, however, in Rudelbach, Lee3, Banner-
man,4 and others who have attempted partial sketches of the
development of the doctrine of inspiration, is stronger than the
true historic instinct.]
The view thus indicated of prophetic inspiration, as presup
posing a passive state of absolute receptivity, continued in the
main the controlling one, until toward the middle of the third
century. It reached its climax and wrought its own ruin in
the fanatical excesses of Montanism, when God-sent madness
or insanity was demanded as the test of the true prophet.
The subject of inspiration here sank into a state of delirium and
took leave of his senses ; his spirit slept under the sole and
forceful waking, moving influence of the Paraclete. Thus Ter-
tullian says": " To grace ecstasy or rapture is incident. For
when a man is rapt in the Spirit, especially when he beholds the
glory of God, or when God speaks through him, he necessarily
loses his sensation (excidat sensu), because he is overshadowed
with the power of God."5 Nitzsch thus comments : " The Mon-
tanists sought in ecstasy as a supernatural medium of the concep
tion of the divine, at the same time the satisfaction of a kind of
mystical voluptuousness ; and, moreover, this is to them, not only

1 Cremer, 747.
2 Zeitschr. fur die Gesammt. Luth. Theol., Erst. Quart., 27.
3 Inspiration of the Scriptures, 86-8.
4 Inspiration of the Scriptures, 122-4.
5 Adv. Marc, iv : 22.

20 THE DOCTRINE OF INSPffiATION :
for the sacred writers, but above all for their own new prophets,
the sufficient means of inspiration."1
From the time of Aurelius at least (A.D. 161-80), the more liberal
view of inspiration had its advocates (though in a minority), and
it indicated the progressive drift of thought ; but only in the
general reaction .of the church against Montanism did it come to
the surface, assert itself with energy, and finally after the middle
of the third century become controlling in the church. The aim
henceforward was the rigid exclusion of all heathen elements
from the conception, especially the idea of ecstasy or suspension
of the human consciousness in the sacred writers. A human as
well as a divine side was reckoned to inspiration, the elevated self-
consciousness and spontaneous activity of the person filled with
the Holy Ghost. This freer view was chiefly, though not exclu
sively, represented in the school of Alexan(lria.
The author of the Clementine Homilies holds that the prophecy
of the true prophet is not ecstatic ; he does not- speak in a state
of madness, but knows what he says. Beholding it, he reveals it.
And what he reveals, he reveals clearly, unambiguously. He
does not utter doubts and uncertainties.
Miltiades, an Apologist, wrote, according to Eusebius,2 a treatise
in the reign of Aurelius, to prove that it was not needful for the
prophet to speak in ecstasy.
Clement of Alexandria, in his Stromata, designates ecstasy as
a characteristic of false prophets and of the Evil Spirit. If he
compares mankind in general to an instrument upon which the
Logos plays, it is in a very different sense from Philo and Athen-
agoras, who represent it as a merely passive organ of revelation.3
Origen, if not the pioneer in this process of theological purga
tion, certainly did much to establish upon grounds of reason,
and to fix indelibly in the consciousness of the church the
higher view which in his day was surely, if slowly and irregularly,
working its way to recognition. He reckoned inspiration as be
longing to the circle of church doctrines ; and in the fourth book
of his dogmatic work De Principiis devotes a special chapter-

1 Dogm.-gesch., 261.
2 Hist. Eccles., v : 17.
3Nitzsch, Dogm.-gesch., 262.

AN OUTLINE HISTORICAL STUDY. 21
to it. He avoids the sensuous comparisons employed by the
Apologists, and thus escapes their errors.
Origen made at least a first approach to ar more exact definition
of the nature and process of inspiration, understanding by it not
the mere inpouring of foreign tlioughts, but an elevation of the
natural powers of the soul through the touch of the Holy Ghost.
Though he expresses doubts upon some important points, e. g.,
whether inspiration extends to every passage of the word of God,
yet his heart and the general tenor of his teaching was true at
bottom, as when he says in one of his homilies : " The holy books
contain the fulness of the Spirit, and neither in the law, nor in
the prophets, nor in the apostolic writings is there anything
which has not its origin in the fulness of the divine Majesty."
The same general view was maintained by his pupils and suc
cessors.

V. Degrees of Inspiration.
We have seen above that both Palestinian and Alexandrian
Judaism distinguish degrees in inspiration. The same thing is
done by some of the ante-Nicene fathers, though from a different
point of view.
Origen makes the degree of inspiration dependent upon the
moral state of the subject, i. e., upon the measure of his moral
and personal appropriation of the divine. He places the pro
phetic writings above all others, as beginning with ' Thus saith
the Lord.' He values the gospels more highly than the epistles,
because, though Jesus and Paul were both filled with the Holy
Ghost, the vessel of the latter was much smaller than that of
the former.1 He speaks of the apostolic writings as 'full of
wisdom and trustworthy,' but doubts whether Paul intended to
range his own under the head of ' Scripture given by inspiration
of God,' (2 Tim. 3 : 16). He calls attention to the fact that Paul
makes a difference in the Second Epistle to the Corinthians,
between what he said in his own spirit, and in the spirit of
Christ. The former utterances, he says, 'are spoken under
divine impulse, and have authority and weight, but are not to be

1 Homily on Lulce, xxix.

22 THE DOCTRINE OF INSPIRATION :
i
derived strictly and immediately from divine revelation.'1 [This
is one of the points on which, as above indicated, there seems
to have been some wavering in Origen's own mind.] He also
ranks Paul one degree higher than Timothy and Luke, and
finds greater perfection in Romans than in any other of the
Pauline epistles.
2. Tertullian indeed admits degrees in inspiration, but refers
them, not to the sacred writers as compared among themselves,
but to Christ, the apostles and prophets on the one hand, and
ordinary Christians on the other. His views, therefore, are not
pertinent to our present inquiry.
3. Novatian taught2 that the same Holy Spirit was in
prophets and apostles, but to the former it was given only at
certain times and in smaller measure., while upon the latter it
was bestowed in its fulness, and as a perpetual endowment.
This writer clearly held that the inspiration apparent in the
writings of the apostles was not the result of a special divine
influence, but was only a part of the general divine assistance
vouchsafed them in all their work.
VI. Verbal Inspiration.
Did the early fathers extend the inspiration of the Holy Scrip
tures to their form and expression, as well as their substance ?
This is a most important question in connection with the ante-
Nicene doctrine of inspiration. It is generally, though not uni
versally, answered by writers on doctrine-history in the affirma
tive. The facts are substantially as follows :
Justin Martyr says : " The holy men needed no art of words
nor skill in captious and contentious speaking," etc.3
Irenseus seems not only to have believed in verbal inspiration
in general, but (if wfe may deduce his general view from one
special passage), to have held that the Holy Spirit selected the
words from special foresight of the needs of future ages. Thus
he remarks : " Matthew might certainly have said (in the begin
ning of his gospel), < Now the birth of Jesus was on this wise ;'
but the Holy Ghost, foreseeing that corrupters would arise, (viz.,
1 Com. on Jno., Vol. I : c. 4.
2 De Trinitate, c. 29.
3 Cohort, ad Grascos, c. 8.

AN OUTLINE HISTORICAL STUDY. 23
the Gnostics who wished to distinguish between Jesus and Christ)
and guarding by anticipation against their deceit, says: 'But the
birth of Christ was on this wise.' m
Yet the same father acknowledges imperfections2 in the style
of Paul, and attributes them to the impetuosity and fire of the
apostle-r-in short, to his temperament.
3. Tertullian seems clear and explicit in his declarations : " Our
sacred Scriptures," he says, " are the very words and letters of
God." As a Montanist lie could consistently hold no other view
than that of absolute dictation ; yet expressions occur which it is
hard logically to reconcile with this belief. His general position,
however, cannot be considered doubtful.
4. Clement of Alexandria says : " Truly holy are those letters
that sanctify and deify, and the writings that consist of those holy
letters and syllables, this same apostle (Paul) calls inspired of
God."3 5. Origen appears to accept verbal inspiration without qualifica
tion, holding that every iota of the Scriptures has a special value ;4
yet one finds scattered in his [writings passages which seem in
consistent with this view, as e. g. when he calls attention to sole
cisms in the language of the sacred writers.
6. Eusebius5 may be credited with the same opinion, since he
considers ' each one who proposes to alter the words of, the Bible
as esteeming himself wiser than the Holy Ghost.'
From these and similar testimonies the inference may be drawn
that among the ante-Nicene fathers verbal inspiration was in
some sense a general article of faith, though some wavered, and
it is hard to say just how much weight is to be given to indi
vidual utterances.
Nitzsch6 endeavors to explain away the force, of such testi
monies as we have quoted above, and maintains that, apart from
the ecstatics (Athenagoras, the Montanists, etc.,) no church teacher
positively and consistently taught the theory of verbal inspiration.

lAdv. Hmr., iii : 16, 2.
2 Id. , iii : 7,2.
3 Cohort, ad Gentes, c. ix.
4 Homily on Jeremiah.
5 Hist. Bed., v : 28.
6 Dogm.-gesch., 263.

24 THE DOCTRINE OF INSPIRATION :
General Conclusions.
As the general result of our survey of the history of the doc
trine of inspiration during the first three centuries, we see that
the Christian church inherited the idea as a legacy from the
Jewish, and extended it to the writings of the New Testament.
It was for the most part an article of faith, rather than the sub
ject of curious speculations. No definite and artificial theory
was as yet established. As a consequence, differing views as to
the nature and extent of the same, and all doubtful utterances
are to be referred, not to the great fact itself, but to the lack of
clear and systematic doctrinal development.

D. POST-NICENE AND SUBSEQUENT HISTORY
OF INSPIRATION TO THE CLOSE OF AN
CIENT CHRISTIANITY. 325—750 A. D.
It will be convenient, for the sake of brevity, to group together
the next four hundred and twenty-five years in one survey.
Henceforward inspiration and kindred questions occupy rela
tively a less important place in the development of doctrine. It
is easy to account for this.
1. The age of apologies was past, and the Montanistic heresy
had received its death-blow, so that there seemed neither reason
nor interest in prolonging a war of words.
2. In the great doctrinal controversies which now emerged, and
which for centuries engrossed the attention of the church,'
the subject did not come under special discussion. The fact of
inspiration was universally conceded, as it always had been. The
idea lay deep in the consciousness of the church, though the dog
matic conception was not as yet strictly and accurately defined.
3. A rival to the sole supremacy of the Scriptures was
rapidly growing up within the church : viz., the authority of the
hierarchy, especially that of the united body in council assembled.
Conciliar decisions were viewed as inspired, therefore as infallible,
and of binding force upon the conscience. They were pro
claimed as utterances of Christ, or of the Holy Ghost. Inspi
ration thus came to be a permanent attribute of the body eccle-

AN OUTLINE HISTORICAL STUDY. 25
siastical, and was no longer viewed as the exclusive - possession of
a written code.

I. The Nature of Inspiration.
In general throughout this long period, though perhaps more
especially at its beginning and its close, ideas on this subject were
strict — frequently exaggerated, sometimes utterly inconsistent.
We notice —
1. That the theologians of the Nicene age inherited from their
predecessors a tendency to emphasize strongly the difference be
tween the inspiration of heathenism and that of their own sacred
books. Eusebius attempted to set forth and explain the points
of difference. A summary of his statements is given from an
old German writer.
a. The oracular responses are absurd, immoral and impious,both
in themselves and in the practical results to which they lead in
human life. On the other hand, men who ' speak as moved
by the Holy Ghost,' dissuade from idolatry and heathen crimes,
and reveal Christ, the great Teacher and Redeemer.
b. Demoniac influence darkens the mind, and deprives it of the
use of reason, so that the inspired appear frantic. The divine
Spirit, on the other hand, who is himself the purest light, illu
mines the soul, and thus fits it for the apprehension of super-
sensuous things. ' The inspired remain sober and awake, under
stand and pass judgment on the things they utter. i
c. Heathen oracles are made known through unworthy men or
through animals ; God's Spirit, on the other hand, honors only
such men with his influence as have rendered themselves fit for
the same by the practice of virtue.
2. It is clear, without further illustration, that the church held
rigidly for a considerable period to the idea, so emphasized by
Origen and others, of the elevation and illumination, not the
suppression of the human consciousness of the person under
divine influence.
3. Quite inconsistently, there was still a strong tendency among
most of the Nicene. and later fathers to make the sacred writers
the mere instruments of the Holy Spirit, who is the sole author
of Scripture, even in the process of recording.
[This is seen in the legend of the loss pi the Jewish sacred

26 THE DOCTRINE OF INSPIRATION :
writings during the Exile, and their restoration by Ezra through
the power of the Holy Ghost.]
a. Chrysostom (f 407) says that ' John and Paul in their writings
did not speak themselves, but that God spoke through them.'1
He also calls the ' the mouth of the prophets and apostles the
mouth of God.'2
b. Augustine (f 430) speaks of the apostles as ' the hands who
wrote down what was dictated by Christ the head.'3 He calls
Holy Scripture, ' the venerable stylus of the Holy Ghost,' and de
clares that ' no word and no syllable in the Bible is superfluous,
and without great and deep meaning.'
" I have learned to render to those books of Scripture alone
which are now called canonical, reverence and honor to such a
degree that I most firmly believe that no one of the authors
erred in writing anything."4
c. Theodoret (f 457) held it to be a matter of indifference who
wrote any of the sacred books, since the Holy Ghost was the real
author; d. Cassiodorus (f 562) speaks of the Bible as ' a writing which
was not invented by human reason, but by a heavenly power was
poured into the holy men.' Here is represented the infusion
both of ideas and words.
e. Gregory the Great (+ 604) said ' it was superfluous to ascertain
the author of any book of the Bible, since the Holy Ghost was
the real author of the same ;' and ' it was absurd when one read
the writing o^l a great monarch to ask what pen it was written
with.' 4. Though the activity of the Holy Ghost in inspiration was
the main and generally engrossing thought, it is yet true that
the human element was not wholly overlooked. Something was
yet attributed to the individuality and spontaneity of the sacred
writers themselves.
a. Chrysostom notices the alleged discrepancies in the Gospels,
but attributes them to the nature and pecularity of historical

1 Evangel. Joh. , Horn. I.
'ActaApost, Horn. XIX.
3 De Consens. Evangel., I : 35.
1 Epist. 82, I : 3.

AN OUTLINE HISTORICAL STUDY. 27
I
composition as a human art.1 Viewing them as intrinsically un
important, he yet finds in them valuable evidence of the trust
worthiness of the writers in all essential facts.2
c. Jerome (f 420) entertained similar ideas. He had no hesi
tation in acknowledging peculiarities of expression and concep
tion, and differences in less weighty matters among the apostles.
These are of purely human, not of divine origin. He finds va
rious literary defects in Paul's epistles, and more than these, some
traces of a spirit not altogether Christian. Yet he views the whole
human side of the Scriptures as subserving in God's providential
order important apologetic ends.
c. Augustine, speaking of the minor differences of the Evan
gelists, says : " It is evident that they have set forth these matters
just in accordance with the recollection which each retained of
them, and just according as their several predilections led them
to employ greater brevity or richer detail."3
d. Quite in the same line do Theodore of Mopsuestia (f 429)
and Theodoret, among the Antiochian church-teachers, affirm
characteristic peculiarities in the human authors of Scripture, and
in their methods of conceiving truth.
e. Basil the Great (f 379) compares the sacred writers to mir
rors, whose surfaces, according to the, degree of their polish and
clearness, condition the reception and reflection of the images.
5. From what has been already said, especially from the extracts
given, one may form a general idea of patristic views as to the
nature of inspiration in the fourth, fifth, and following centuries.
From these views there were, in the case of individuals, notable
deviations. a. Theodore of Mopsuestia looked at the inspiration of the sacred
books chiefly from the human point of view. He maintained, in
regard to the writings of Solomon, i. e., Proverbs, Ecclesiastes and
Canticles, that their author had not the gift of prophecy, but only
that of wisdom. The Song of Songs was a merely human writing
— an offensive poem of Solomon's, composed on the occasion of his
illegal marriage with an Egyptian princess. Theodore dealt very

"Neander, Hist, of Chr. Dogm., I : 280-1.
2 Homily on Matt, I : 2.
"De Consens. Evangel, II : 12 (p. 232).

28 THE DOCTRINE OF INSPIRATION :
freely also with the book of Job, censuring the author for ambi
tion, and for offensive allusions to heathen mythology. Some
truer ideas seem also to have taken possession of- his mind. He
made a distinction between the conscious thought and intent of
the sacred writers themselves, and of the higher mind and mean
ing of the Spirit who spoke through them. He also combatted
the ideas of those who were supremely bent on finding a full-
fledged system of theology in the Old Testament. Unfortunately
his zeal carried him too far in the opposite direction. For these
and other heresies he was condemned by the Fifth Oecumenical
Council, 553 A. D.
Equally unorthodox ideas appear in the writings of Junilius,
an African bishop of the sixth century. Thus in answer to the
question, ' How is the authority of the sacred books to be con
sidered V he replies : " Some are of perfect authority, some of
partial authority, and some of none at all."1 In the second class,
he enumerates Job, Chronicles, Ezra, etc.; in the third, our Old
Testament Apocrypha.
II. Degrees of Inspiration.
In regard to this it is sufficient to say that such difference
was not and could not generally be admitted by the church of this
age, being precluded by prevailing views as to the nature of the
divine influence exerted upon the human organs. Certain writers,
however, appear to favor it, viz. : Basil and Theodore of Mopsuestia
just quoted.
III. Verbal Inspiration.
This was most commonly recognized, as will appear by consulting
the citations given above under 1:1. It was believed that in the
sacred records there exists nothing in any wise superflous. Every
word and syllable has an important aim, and every proposition
embraces in itself an inexhaustible richness of thought.
IV. General Conclusions.
In one word, at the close of ancient Christianity, little interest
was felt in the question of inspiration. It was quite overshad-
lDe Part Div. Leg., I : 8.

AN OUTLINE HISTORICAL STUDY.- 29
owed by others of greater apparent importance. The strictest
ideas prevailed both as to its nature and extent, but these were
based upon merely mechanical assent to the statements of earlier
fathers, and not upon any intelligent and impartial investigations
of the facts and teachings of the sacred records themselves.
There was a relapse toward the ideas and views of paganism and
Alexandrian Judaism upon the subject. Like many other yital
doctrines of theology, that of inspiration seemed to suffer a well-
nigh total eclipse.

E. THE DOCTRINE OF INSPIRATION DURING
THE MIDDLE AGES. 750 — 1517 A. D.
The Middle Ages constitute almost a blank in the history of
the doctrine of inspiration — in fact quite a blank, so far as pro
gressive development is concerned. The subject was indeed
discussed in the general connection of the Scholastic system, but
there was little interest in it, primarily because a continuously
inspired church and infallible tradition occupied in the minds of
the multitude the place of religious authority otherwise ascribed
to an inspired book. The orthodox belief generally remained
in the ascendant, but ideas were exaggerated and indefinite. This
appears from the fact that now, as at the very first among the
Apologists, prophecy formed the great centre around which the
whole conception turned.
The .utterances of the Mediseval theologians on inspiration are
so few, vague and disjointed as to be incapable of classification
under proper headings. We must be content here to state the
views of a few authors in chronological order.
I. John of Damascus.
John of Damascus, (f circ. 760), is the first writer who
comes under our notice. Though he attempted the construction
of a doctrinal system, and ' concentrated in Mmself the expiring
energies of Greek theology,' yet he makes no definite deliver
ance on this subject. He employs revelation and Holy Scrip
ture as interchangeable terms and says:1 " By the Holy Ghost,

1 De Fide Orthod., IV., c. 17.

30 THE DOCTRINE OF INSPIRATION :
both law and prophets, evangelists, apostles, pastors and teachers
spoke. ' All Scripture, therefore, is given by inspiration of God,'
2. Tim. 3 : 16." Little more than this can be gleaned from his
writings. II. Fridegisus.
Fridegisus, Abbot of Tours and pupil of Alcnin, appears as
an advocate of verbal inspiration in the most rigid sense, main
taining that the divine Spirit inspired not only the meaning of
the Scriptures, their contents and methods of expression, but
actually formed the very words in the mouths of the writers.
He appears also to extend infallibility even to translators and
commentators.1 III. Agobard.
Agobard, Archbishop of Lyons (f 841) stoutly opposed these
extreme views, and held them up to ridicule, by showing the
absurd consequences to which they led.2 He had some concep
tions of, though he did not fully develop, the distinction of the
divine and human < elements in the Scriptures.3 He conceded
also the existence of grammatical inaccuracies there, which, how
ever, should be attributed not to the Holy Ghost, but to man,
who is responsible for the form of the language. The essence
of inspiration consists in the general character of the contents,
not in the mere words themselves.
IV. Euthymius Zigabenus.
Euthymius Zigabenus (about 1116) indirectly discloses his views
respecting inspiration, when he accounts for the insertion of
given particulars in one gospel, and their omission in another, by
the fact of the greater or less completeness and exactness of
the recollections of the writers. This again is explained by the
fact that they composed their narratives at some considerable
time after the occurrence of the events themselves.4

'Hagenbach, Hist. Doct, I : 425.
2 Adv. Fridegis., c. 12.
3 Neander, Church History.
4 Comment Matt, XII : 8.

AN OUTLINE HISTORICAL STUDY. 31
V. Anselm.
Anselm, Archbishop of Canterbury (f 1109) indulged in no
sceptical questionings of the orthodox theory of inspiration, but
set himself to give a rational account of the contents of his faith
concerning it. He devoted whole nights to the consideration of
various intricate questions connected with the dogma, especially
how the prophets could view the future as present. By a broad
generalization from a kind of vision in which he was enabled to
look through a stone wall and see the monks celebrating mass,
he concluded that as space had been annihilated for him, so the
other dimension was done away for the prophets under inspiration.
Things to come were revealed to them as present.
This method of argumentation certainly possessed the method
of originality, if no other excellence.
VI. Abelard.
Abelard's (f 1142) whole conception of the doctrine of inspira
tion was very loose. In the introduction to his Sic et Non,
he explicitly denied that prophets and apostles were infallible.1
He distinguished degrees in the bestowment of the divine in
fluence, and held that the prophets did not always speak under
the impulse of the Spirit, even when they thought they did.
They were allowed to mingle truth with error, and the natural
with the supernatural, in order to keep them humble, and lead
them to discriminate more carefully between their own utterances
and those proceeding from the Spirit of God.
VII. Thomas Aquinas.
Thomas (f 1274) expresses himself upon the question
of inspiration with more fulness, precision and clearness
than is usual with the Scholastics. He makes God the author
of Scripture, but like Abelard admits degrees in the divine
influence exerted upon the sacred writers. He distinguishes
express revelation from an instinct which the human mind may
possess sometimes unconsciously. This divine instinct is a lower
degree of inspiration than prophetic certainty.2 Thomas also

1 Sic et Non., Edn. Cousin, p. 11.
2 Baur, Dogm.-gesch., II : 295.

32 THE DOCTRINE OF INSPIRATION :
calls attention -to the fact that divine illumination may relate to
strictly supernatural matters, or may merely be* designed to give
perfect certainty concerning those things which the human
mind can apprehend by its own unaided powers. The former
is exemplified in the case of the authors of the Hagiographa,
the latter in the prophets properly so called. The nearer to
Christ the greater was the degree of illumination, until when
Christ came the mystery of the Trinity was revealed. For
this reason the writers of the New Testament rank higher than
Moses.1 '
Revelation may be made in four ways : through inward
enlightenment, which elevates the mental powers, through the
communication of id-eas, through images of the imagination and
through the perception of sensuous objects, as e. g. the burning
bush of Moses. Thomas does not appear to have regarded the
activity of the Holy Spirit in inspiration as violent, or as crippling
in any way the spontaneity of his .human organs.
VIII. The Scholastics.
These theologians generally did little toward defining and de
veloping the idea of inspiration. For the most part they accepted
the traditional doctrine, assumed it as a first principle admitted
by all, and made it a basis for further theological investigation.
There seemed to be no need of proving, explaining or applying
that which was unquestioned in the church.
IX. The Mystics.
The Mystics had naturally,— or at least should have had,— ;a
keener sense of the divine wisdom and power displayed in the
composition of the Scriptures, than the average Scholastic. To
the Bible the more evangelical among them adhered, confessing
it to be in some special sense the Word of God. Yet the truly
Biblical idea of inspiration was obscured, if not wholly lost, for
the great majority of them, by belief in the continued presence
of this miraculous power in the church, and by confounding the
nature of inspiration proper with that of divine illumination in
general. Abstraction from the outward, close contemplation of

Cremer, 753.

AN OUTLINE HISTORICAL STUDY. , 33
things eternal and divine, — even the immediate vision of the
face of God was not only possible to man, but was the free
privilege of him who would seek it in the way appointed.
Divine visits and immediate revelations were esteemed matters
of common experience among men of their own school of faith.
They thus became objects of lawful desire and expectation.
All this, indeed the whole grotesque and exaggerated concep
tion of the supernatural in mediseval Christianity, tended to
obliterate the distinction between the immediate inspiration be
stowed upon prophets and apostles, and the general enlighten
ment of ordinary believers.
Another tendency of Mysticism operated in the same direction.
Absorption in God, loss of human will, desire and conscious
ness in the divine, of course meant the identification of man
with God. Deity dwelt, it was said, within the recesses of
the human spirit, and needed only to be roused to activity ;
every objective element in religion must retire before that
which is subjective — what was this but pantheism, and that more
than half-fledged? Not a few among the mystic sects went
quite over, embracing pantheistic tenets in all their length
and breadth. No doctrine of the inspiration of the Scriptures,
it is plain, could find room here. There was nothing to distin
guish it from the ravings of fanatical enthusiasm on the one
hand, or the phenomena of human genius on the other.
Save in the development of a biblical tendency, mysticism
contributed little to the growth and progress of the great doc-
trinewith which we are concerned.
1. Tauler.
John Tauler (f 1361), a noted evangelical mystic, has an utter
ance on inspiration which may be worth quoting, as relating to
the extent of the divine influence upon the sacred writers in
secular matters.1
"Did-the disciple in the highest school of the Spirit obtain
an insight into all those sciences which are learned in the school
of nature '. I answer ' Yes '; it was given them to understand
all science, whether touching" the courses of the heavenly bodies
or what not, in so far as it might conduce to God's glory, or con-

1 But see Tauler' s Bekehrung von H. 8. Denifle ; also review of same in
Presbyterian Review, July, 1881.
6

34 , THE DOCTRINE OF INSPIRATION :
4
cern the salvation of man ; but those points of science which
bear no fruits for the soul, they were not given to know."
X. Forerunners of the Reformation.
It is to those who are usually called ' forerunners of the
Reformation ' that we naturally look for the fullest, clearest and
loftiest ideas of inspiration possible to this age. But our ex
pectations are only partially realized.
1. Wiclif
We search the writings of Wiclif (fl384) in vain for any extended
formal discussion of the subject, though he published a treatise,
iOf the Truth of Holy Scripture} Bred to scholastic habits of
thought, and to the acceptance of prevalent views respecting
the two-fold source of Christian knowledge in reason and authority
(which latter, nominally including Scripture, really meant eccle
siastical tradition), the reformer could work his way but slowly
to that point where he could openly confess the exclusive and
decisive divine authorityof Scripture. He 'says that Scripture ' is
the word of God ' — that ' it is the will and testament of God the
Father, which cannot be broken ' — and yet again that ' God and
his word are one, and cannot be separated the one from the other'.1
He declares Christ to be the proper author of Scripture, and in
fers from this fact its absolute authority. As Christ is infi
nitely superior to every other man, so is the book which is his law
to every other writing which can be named.2 He makes the
Bible the supreme standard by which even the doctrines of the
church-fathers are to be tried.
While missing, then, in Wiclif all abstract discussions of the
question of inspiration, especially theorizings as to its nature or
extent, we do see his ardent belief in the fact brought out, and
the general complexion of his views. We are really at no loss to
know where he stood. , *
2. Savonarola.
Savonarola (f 1495) was orthodox in reference to our doctrine
according to the idea of his time, though his opinions had a de-

1 Lechler, Life of Wiclif, II : 19-20.
2 Id., p. 20.

AN OUTLINE HISTORICAL STUDY. . 35
cidedly mystical tinge. He attributed unique inspiration to the
Scriptures, but conceived that the energy and operation of the Holy
Ghost were directed rather to impressing truth on the minds and
hearts of his human organs, than to mechanical composition upon
tables of stone or pieces of parchment. He held that the in
spired -writers retained their self-consciousness, spontaneity and
other individual mental characteristics. He fell, however, into the
common error of maintaining the continuance of inspiration,
which he attributed, in the form of prophecy, to himself.
3. John Wessel.
Wessel (-j-1489), who was a contemporary of Savonarola, treats the
question of inspiration at length, but in such a way as to show
that his ideas were not free from confusion, especially as to the
nature of the process. As Ulhnann expresses it : " On the
one hand, as he is convinced, a certain amount of imperfection
cleaves to every human notion of revelation. The subject is
never exhausted in the description ; the substance always
stretches beyond the form." " On the other hand, he adheres
firmly to the strict notion of inspiration, and looks upon Scrip
ture, both in its totality and in its minutest facts, as a thor
oughly divine work."1
XI. The Jewish Doctrine.
The Jewish doctors of the Middle Ages sought to build up a
theory of inspiration upon the foundation of the Talmud and
Aristotelic philosophy. The tracing of its details is of no special
importance to our immediate purpose. A few general statements
will suffice.
Like the early Christian Apologists, and the contemporary
Schoolmen, the Rabbins could conceive the doctrine only from the
standpoint and under the typical form of prophecy. Their de
velopment of the same was marred by gross contradictions. They
wavered notably in their idea of the
1. Nature
of the prophetic condition. Sometimes it was represented as one,
not merely of pure passivity, but of absolute ecstasy in the strict
est sense of the word.2 Maimonides declares that every vision is

1 Reformers before the Reformation, II : 420.
2 Kudelbach, Zeitsch. fur die Gesammt. Luther. Theol. , Zweit. Quart. , 54.

36 THE DOCTRINE OF INSPIRATION :
accompanied with a state of panic terror, and that ail the senses
rest from their functions.1 He quotes Daniel x : 8 ff. in proof of
his assertion.
None the less was it maintained that the seer could exercise his
office only in a calm and joyons frame of mind, because ' proph
ecy could not dwell amid confusion of the senses or pain, but only
in the midst of joy.1
Rudelbach observes that both of these definitions must be taken
as imperfect attempts to explain that which the Scripture em
braces under the common name of prophecy.2
2. Degrees.
Various degrees of inspiration in prophecy were admitted.
Maimonides attempted to determine them at ' eleven or eight,'
of which the first two could only by a figure of speech be reck
oned to the head of prophecy. Albo reduced these to four, and
Abarbanel to three, corresponding to the three-fold division of
the Jewish Scriptures into the Law, Prophets and Hagiographa.s
The Law embodied the highest stage of prophecy, and was the
fountain-head of revelation ; the Prophets ranked next, while the
Hagiographa, being given not by the ' Spirit of prophecy," but
only by that of ' holiness,' could not be considered as in any real
sense inspired at all.3 *
Maimonides (+1104), the only one of the later Jewish doctors
whose opinion is of especial historical importance, far from conced
ing that the Bible was the pure product of the divine activity upon
the human spirit, saw in it a book differing from other books, even
on its religious side, not in kind, but only in degree. The me
diaeval Spanish rabbi here shaped the thinking of the great Jewish
pantheist of the seventeenth century, Spinoza, through hiin in
fluenced the later German rationalism, and thus powerfully,
though mediately, the English thought of our own age.
XII. General Conclusions.
If now we ask what is the significance of the Middle Ages, as
a whole, for the history of our doctrine, it is hard to make answer.

'Maimon., Moreh Nebuchim, P. II., c. 41.
2 Zeitsch. fur die Ges. Luth. Theol, Zw. Quart, 54.
3 Rudelbach, Zeitsch. &c., 57.

AN OUTLINE HISTORICAL STUDY. 37
So far as progressive development is concerned, really nothing.
In the general preparation for the Reformation, however, espe
cially for the enunciation of its formal principle of the sole au
thority and sufficiency of the Scriptures as a rule of faith and
practice — above all in the growth of the biblical factor in mysti
cism, we may trace . the opening of the way for the subsequent
definition, formulation and elevation of the doctrine to its proper
place in the system of Protestant theology.

F. THE DOCTRINE OF INSPIRATION DURING
THE REFORMATION ERA.
As Scholasticism left the idea of inspiration undeveloped, so
the views of the leading reformers on the subject were in many
respects indefinite. The matter did not come up for specific dis
cussion, inasmuch as it did not form a subject of controversy with
Rome. All parties agreed that the Scriptures of the Old and
New Testament are the word of God, and authoritative in mat
ters of faith and practice. Subordinate differences, however, did
exist among the reformers in reference to the nature and extent
of inspiration ; and these appear, not as formally stated in express
theories, but rather as incidentally developed in various utterances
concerning the Holy Scriptures.
I. Erasmus.
It lay, as Kahnis admits,1 in the very nature of Humanism, with
all its emphasis of the biblical principle, to take a very free
view of the human side of Scripture. Thus Erasmus (fl536)
said : " Only Christ is free from error. The authority of Scrip
ture is not destroyed if the sacred writers do sometimes disagree
in word or meaning, provided only there remains unmoved the
sum total of that upon which rests our salvation.
The divine Spirit who controlled the minds of the apostles
suffered them to be ignorant of some things, — sometimes to mis
take and err in judgment or affection, though never to the preju
dice of the gospel."
This utterance he subsequently recalled.

1 Luther : Dogm.,I:274:.

38 THE DOCTRINE OF INSPIRATION :
II. Luther.
The general attitude of Luther on the subject of inspiration
was that of freedom, though in matters of detail it must be con
fessed that he stands in dogmatic contradiction with himself. All
becomes clear only upon careful eonside'ration, both of the man
himself in his personal character and experience, and of the
theologian, especially his views on the general doctrine of the
Scriptures. This lies beyond our present purpose. We can at
tempt only the briefest outline of the subject immediately in
question. 1. Luther calls the Bible ' the greatest and best book of God,'
sees in it the ' living truth of the Holy Spirit,' and exalts it as
,'the only source of knowledge of the pure apostolic wordj' and
as ' the only test and rule of the Christian life.'
2. He concedes a union of the divine and human factors in in
spiration : and it is in this very distinction that one finds the se
cret of his two-fold and apparently inconsistent method of speak- '
ing/ of the Scriptures. The Holy Spirit, by his illuminating
power, secured in the minds of the biblical writers all needful
knowledge of divine truth, but this truth took on a human form,
and thus became their inward personal possession. These writers
made use of their own faculties in the attainment of historical
knowledge, ' but they sifted it, arranged it, and set it in the true
divine light by the power of the illuminating Spirit working in
them.'1 Thus Luther calls the books of Moses, ' writings of the
Holy Ghost,' while he supposes that the legislator derived his
laws from the traditional customs of the fathers of the Jewish
nation. Of the prophets, he says: "Doubtless the prophets
studied Moses, and the later prophets studied the earlier ones, and
wrote down in a book their good thoughts inspired by the Holy
Ghost." All this goes to show that Luther entertained no mechanical view
of inspiration, but held that the Holy Ghost made use of the hu
man individuality of the Scripture writers as his free organs.2
3. As Luther insisted on the independence of faith with ref
erence to the Scriptures, and demanded that it exercise the critical

Corner, Mod. Prot, Theol, 1:255.
2Kahnis, Luther. Dogm., 275.

*
AN OUTLINE HISTORICAL STUDY. 39
office with regard to the canon, we are not surprised at the way
in which he himself proceeded to the practical execution of the
task. He freely conceded the existence of imperfections and errors in
the sacred records, arising either from undue haste, or from for-
getfulness on the part of their authors : such, e. g., as Paul's use of
the allegory of Hagar and Ishmael (Gal. 4 : 22), and Peter's allu
sion to Christ's preaching to the spirits in prison (1 Peter, 3 : 19).
'All in the Bible is not pure silver, gold and precious stones ;
one must look to find along with these hay, straw, stubble.' Still
no harm is done, he thinks, provided only the foundation is w^ell
laid. This is always the main thing to be regarded.1
It may be well to notice (though not quite germane to our im
mediate subject), that Luther attributed very unequal value to
different books of the Old and New Testaments. Of the former,
he prized the Psalms most highly, while he rejected Esther and
Ecclesiastes as uncanonical, declared the history of Jonah so mon
strous as to be absolutely incredible, rated Chronicles as of in
ferior authority to Kings, thought that other books suffered re
vision by unknown hands, and doubted the Mosaic authorship of
the Pentateuch.
In the New Testament, he assigned the chief rank to the gos
pel of John (' the one unique, tender, true, main gospel, far to be
preferred to the others'), the Pauline epistles (especially those to
the Romans, Galatians and Ephesians), and the First of Peter.
The epistle of James, he designated as an ' epistle of straw,' ' with
nothing evangelical about it,' because it exalts good works as re
lated to faith. He felt the absence of the apostolic spirit in the
epistle to the Hebrews, (which he attributed to Apollos,) and
refused either an apostolic or prophetic character to the Apoca
lypse. He says : " I certainly cannot detect any trace of its
having been inspired by the Holy Ghost."
He specifies certain books which he regards as the kernel and
marrow of the sacred canon, because of their abundant testimony
to Christ. . :
Witness to Christ, and not apostolic authorship ¦ is: in , his
opinion the universal test of inspiration and canonicity. " What
does not teach Christ, this is not apostolic even though Peter or

1 Baur, Dogm.-gesch., 111:60.

40 THE DOCTRINE OF INSPIRATION :
Paul teach it. And again, what teaches Christ, that is apostolic,
even if Judas, Annas, Pilate and Herod teach it." 1
We see from this that the critical spirit had been awakened in
Luther's mind iii reaction against the easy and unquestioning cred
ulity of the church in whichhe had been trained. Although this
spirit proceeded from and was governed by a living faith, rather
than by a merely intellectual interest and curiosity, yet it was not
sufficiently well instructed to restrain itself within due bounds.
4. To be at all consistent with himself, Luther should have res
olutely rejected the strict theory of inspiration, which applied it
to the form as well as to the substance— the words as well as the
thoughts of the Scriptures. This he did in general. He would
acknowledge no mechanical dictation of phraseology on the part
of the inspiring Spirit to the sacred writers.
In his doctrine of the sacraments, however, he was compelled
to contradict himself, and make everything dependent on word
and letter. Here he found the Bible ' a book in which more de
pended on a single letter or a turn of the same, than on heaven
and earth.'
5. It is evident, from what has already been said, that Luther ad
mitted degrees in inspiration, which he determined according to
the measure in which certain doctrines were more or less clearly,
intelligibly and convincingly set forth.
III. Melancthon.
Heppe has said that no traces of a proper theory of inspiration
are to be found in Melancthon. No inference, however, is to be
drawn from this as to the doctrinal unsoundness of the reformer
on this subject. He clearly taught the infallibility of the apos
tles in the statement, if not in the application of doctrinal
truth. IV. Zwingle.
Zwingle does not, in his writings, enter into detailed statements
concerning the theory of inspiration. His views, however, while
preserving some features in common with those of Luther, appear
to have been much sounder, more churchly, and comparatively
free from the exaggerations of a critical spirit. They were de-
1 Preface to Epistle of James.

AN OUTLINE HISTORICAL STUDY. 41
termined by the fact that in the Bible he found that rest from
doubt and disquiet of conscience which he sought in vain from
philosophy and scholasticism.
1. He held that the Scriptures are from God ; that they con
tain the infallible revelation of his character and will, and form
the only and sufficient source of knowledge in matters of faith, as
well as an unerring rule in the conduct of daily life. v
2. Like Luther, he seems to have conceded the existence of
some distinction between the Scriptures and the word of God,
finding the latter imbedded in the former like gold in the rock.
He admitted inaccuracies of historical statement in the Bible,
and consequently could not predicate absolute infallibility of every
writer on every subject. His words are as follows : " It is not
true that the writings of all holy men are infallible ; nor is it true
that they do not err. This preeminence must be given to the Son
of God alone, out of the whole human race."
This admission, however, did not interfere with the exalted
estimate which he placed upon the Bible, or with the unique po
sition which he assigned to it.
3. He denied the canonicity of the Apocalypse.
V. Calvin.
Calvin's views of inspiration were much stricter than those of
either Luther or Zwingle, as he maintained approximately what
is known as the ' plenary theory.' To mention some specific dif
ferences between Calvin and other reformers on the subject, we
note: 1. He did not, like others, distinguish the form from the sub
stance of Christian truth, but extended the influence of inspira
tion to both.
2. He refused to grant such free scope for the exercise of the
critical spirit as Luther had done.
3. He gave preference to the formal over the material princi
ple of the Reformation, i. e., dwelt more on the authority and
sufficiency of the Scriptures than on the doctrine of justification
by faith.
4. He extended the infallibility and authoritativeness of the
Scriptures not only to matters of doctrine, but also to those of
discipline and life. Hence his presbyterian church polity and
theocratic civil government for Geneva.

42 THE DOCTRINE OF INSPIRATION :
Calvin calls God 'the author of the Scriptures,' notes their
divine majesty, and speaks of the Holy Spirit who ' uttered his
voice by the mouth of the prophets.' He attributes to the sacred
records the same authority as though the ' living words of God
were heard from heaven ;' and yet unhesitatingly concedes slight
inaccuracies and errors, e. g., in citations (Matt. 27 : 9). He also
acknowledges the human element in the biblical writers,, espec
ially in their style. " Some prophets have a brilliant style, but
by such the Holy Spirit wished to show that eloquence was not
wanting to him, while elsewhere he made use of a rough and un
couth style."
Calvin confessed to certain critical scruples concerning the
canonicity of the Second Epistle of Peter.
VI. Followers of the Great Reformers.
Among the immediate followers of the German and Swiss1 re
formers, opinions were propounded implying somewhat free views
of inspiration. Thus —
1. Bugenhagen (fl558) says incidentally : " Consider that
the evangelists wrote each for himself what they saw, and often
times while they record what occurred, they are heedless of the
order of occurrences."
2. Bullinger (f 1575) writes in reference to 1 Cor. 10:8: " Tran
scribers easily fall into error in stating numbers ; but sometimes
the writers were also led by treacherous memories into the com
mission of mistakes."
VII. Remarks on Apparent Inconsistencies in the At
titude of the Reformers toward the Scriptures.
It is difficult to study the writings of the reformers without
gaining the impression that their attitude toward the Holy Scrip
tures was in some sense anomalous and inconsistent. On the one
hand, they declare them to be of divine origin, the word of God,
the sole source and. standard of all religious faith and practice,
and, apart from tradition, themselves alone sufficient for salva
tion. On the other hand, some of the reformers at least allow
themselves such freedom in the expression of critical opinion as
seems incompatible with belief in the really supernatural in
spiration of the Scriptures, their infallible truth and authorita-
tiveness in the entire range of their contents. The apparent dis-

AN OUTLINE HISTORICAL STUDY. 43
crepancies of views and statements may be explained somewhat
as follows :
1. The hierarchical church for centuries exerted herself to the
utmost to suppress all independence and individuality of thought,*
all close investigation of the substance of religious truth, and es
pecially all study of the Scriptures. By unsparing use of the
powers at her command— penalties civil and ecclesiastical, terrors .
temporal and eternal — she in the main succeeded in her aim. As
the human mind, however, must have some field for its activities,
she graciously permitted a measure of freedom in dealing with
the forms of faith. Theologians, if first supremely loyal to the
church, and submissive to her arbitrary restraints upon learning,
might take the material which she provided and work upon it.
They might define, systematize, demonstrate and defend ancient
ecclesiastical dogmas — in short, might justify to reason what had
first been received by faith. This produced the scholastic, theol
ogy which rose, culminated, declined and died a natural death
before the time of Luther.
But if the system itself had passed away, the spirit which' it
nurtured, its methods and many of its most untoward efforts re
mained. Among these none was more disastrous than that of a
subtle and acute, but superficial and cold questioning of the forms
of truth— -forms, we say, for it lacked the vitality to go below
the surface to the deep reality of things.
When now the Revival of Letters opened up the treasures of
classical antiquity, the sources of early Christian history, and the
Scriptures themselves in their original tongues, then under the
impulse inspired by Humanism, this same critical spirit, furnished
with a new and worthy object, turned its attention to the whole
church-system 'from turret to foundation stone.' Not only was
the real character of the existing theology exposed to view, but
the sources of that theology in Scripture and ecclesiastical tra
dition were subjected to rigid scrutiny. One idol of infallibility
was at once destroyed, and the sceptical Humanism was not slow
to ask whether a fallible element might not exist within the other.
Not only did the Reformation movement itself in general tend to
boldness of thought and freedom of inquiry, but this critical
spirit, roused in reaction against the unquestioning credulity of
'mother-church,' — eager, self-confident, but not half instructed,
knew not to restrain itself within due bounds ; but, in regard to

44 THE DOCTRINE OF INSPIRATION".
problems presented by the Holy Scriptures, often jumped at con
clusions irom questionable premises, especially if thereby a blow
might be dealt at the hierarchy and the traditional system it sup
ported. We do not forget that in Germany the new studies were pres
ented in a more religious spirit than elsewhere, and that litera
ture ultimately became the handmaid of religion ; neither do we
claim that the spirit above described was at all that in which the
reformers consciously approached the Scriptures; but we do claim
that this was the atmosphere in which they grew up, and the
school in which they had their training. It was not possible,
humanly speaking, that they should wholly escape its influence
in forming judgment of the Bible (then first made accessible),
whether regard was had to its character and contents, or the influ
ences under which it was composed.
2. On the other hand, we must give due weight to the part
which mysticism played, not only in preparation for the Re
formation in general, but especially in determining the views of
the reformers with reference to the written word of God. Its in
fluence was two-fold — helpful and harmful. It led its adherents-^-
a. From the abstruse, barren speculations of the schools to per
sonal, spiritual life.
b. In its later stages, from tradition to Scripture. As the
practical and biblical factors in mysticism were developed, the
circulation of the Bible and of religious writings among the laity
was widely extended.
c. From dependence on Outward works, -and faith in sacraments
and ceremonies, to attention to the inward spirit and the motives
which govern conduct, and to direct approach to Christ and the
Holy Spirit.
d. From sermonizing in the traditional Latin, on the legends of
the saints, the story of the Trojan war, and like themes, to preach
ing in the vernacular the doctrine of salvation by Christ.
None the less was mysticism defective (as seen in its operations
during the Middle Ages) in overestimating the subjective, and
underrating the objective element in religion. It regarded what
Christ does in us rather than for us, and overlooked the necessity
and unique divinity of the written word, while it exalted the ' in
ward light,' the personal dealings of the Holy Ghost with be-

AN OUTLINE HISTORICAL STUDY. 45
lievers — indeed practically deified humanity. Mysticism had, it
is true, been purified in proportion to the development of its bibli
cal factor, but its (in measure at least untoward) influence upon
the reformers, especially upon Luther, Zwingle and others is not
only traceable outwardly, but is clearly proved by internal evi
dence. Example is seen in the tendency of these men to judge
of Holy Scripture according to a standard purely subjective —
what it had done for them in personal experience, rather than by
any objective test whatever. From this point of view, defects
as well as excellencieswere freely predicated of that which after all
their hearts embraced and treasured as God's most precious gift
to man.
Of course nothing here said will be interpreted as hinting that
the reformers ever intended to question the supernatural inspira
tion of the Scriptures, deny to them supreme authority as the
court of last appeal in matters of doctrine, or regard them as
other than the infallible standard of perfect rectitude of life. No
Christian teachers in any age, not even the advocates of the most
rigid theory of mechanical inspiration, ever so exalted the dig
nity and glory of the Word as did the great leaders of Christian
thought and life injhe sixteenth century. It is simply hoped
that the suggestions given may throw some light upon that which-
has often otherwise seemed anomalous and unaccountable.

G. THE DOCTRINE OF INSPIRATION DURING
THE SEVENTEENTH CENTURY.
I. Lutheran.
It was, partially at least, a polemic interest and tendency that
led to the abandonment of the generally free view of inspiration
held by the early reformers, and the development of those ex
treme ideas, especially in the Lutheran theology of the seven
teenth century, which wholly suppressed the human element in
the composition of the sacred records, and attributed to their con
tents a mechanical, literal divinity. Luther's free view had been
abused by the church of Rome to the furtherance of her doctrine
of the insufficiency and obscurity of the Scriptures, and of the
authority and supremacy of ecclesiastical tradition. Protestant

46 THE DOCTRINE OF INSPIRATION :
orthodoxy, however, asserted itself with vigor, not only against
Romanists, but also against Arminians, Socinians and Mystics.
The material here is so abundant as to forbid the presentation of
the views of individual theologians in detail. It must be ar
ranged under a few specific heads :
1. The Nature of Inspiration.
a. Authorship.
The theologians of this school taught that God is the only real
author of Scripture. As Quenstedt (f 1688) says : " God alone,
if we wish to speak accurately, should be called the author of sa
cred Scripture." Of the persons of the Trinity, it is the Holy
Ghost to whom inspiration pertains as part of his especial eco
nomic functions. He, however, did npt write immediately, but
made use of the sacred penmen. He therefore is the primary
Author, they the secondary authors.1
The relation of inspired men to the inspiring Spirit was con
ceived as purely passive. From the latter only proceeded the
impulse to write, and in the process of writing itself, men could
rank only as 'the pens or the amanuenses of the Holy Ghost.'2
Thus Gerhard (fl637) says : " The efficient, principal cause of
sacred Scripture is God ; the instrumental causes were holy men.
They wrote not as men, but as men of God ; i. e., servants of
God and special organs of the Holy Ghost." 8
Again : " One may rightly call the apostles and prophets aman
uenses of God, hands of Christ, and notaries or secretaries of the
Holy Ghost, since they spoke or wrote nothing according to their
own human will. All therefore was suggested and inspired with
in them."4
Quite in the same strain, Quenstedt labors to define the nature of
the state of passivity in which the sacred writers fulfilled their
functions, and says that they wrote nothing ' out of their own
understanding, but all things under the direction of the Holy
Ghost.' The Lutheran divines conceived it as quite natural that in con
sidering the origin of any particular, book of Scripture, the sec-
1 Kahnis, Luther. Dogm., 279.
2 Baur, Dogm.-gesch., Ill : 61.
3 Gerhard, Loci. I, c. 12, § 12.
iExplicMiber Loc. I, c. 2, § 18.

AN OUTLINE HISTORICAL STUDY. 47
ondary author should be wholly overlooked, and attention exclu
sively directed to the primary Author, the divine Originator.
b. Act of Inspiration.
According to the same theologians, the act of inspiration by the
Holy Ghost included three things : the impulse to write [i. e.,
the mere mechanical operation of writing, for as Hollaz (f 1713)
says : " The words were inspired within the prophets, not to be
understood, but to be written"], the suggestion of the matter, and
that of the words.
Thus Baier (fl695) defines inspiration as " an act of that kind
by which God supernaturally communicated to the intellect of
the writers, not only the ideas of all things which were to be re
corded, but also of -the words themselves, and of all things by '
which they should be expressed ; and then roused the will to the
act of writing." 1
Quenstedt says again : " All and everything which is contained
in the Holy Scriptures, whether in the natural way wholly un
known, or naturally, indeed, capable of being known, but actually
unknown ¦; or yet again, not only naturally apprehensible, but also
actually known, either from personal experience or from some
other source— all this was not merely written by means of infal
lible divine assistance and direction, but flowed from the special
suggestion, inspiration and dictation of the Spirit. For all which
was to be written, was suggested by the Holy Ghost to the sacred
writers in the act of writing, and was dictated to their under
standing as to a pe.i, so that it must be set down in writing with
these and no other conditions, in this and no other way."
It is easily seen that this method of conceiving inspiration es
tablished a real Docetism, through the sole activity of the divine
Spirit, and the annihilation of all human spontaneity.
c. Revelation and Inspiration.
A distinction was made between revelation and inspiration,
though it was not always kept clear and exact. It was taught
that the former relates properly to the communication of truth
before unknown, and may be made in various ways and for vari
ous purposes. The latter relates by right only to the act of writing,

; Compendium, p. 65.

48 THE DOCTRINE OF INSPIRATION :
concerns either that which was previously hidden or already dis
closed, and is effected only through the Holy Ghost.
Another distinction made by theologians of more liberal views
will be noticed below.
2. The Extent of Inspiration. ( Verbal Inspiration})
a. Citations already made show clearly the views of the High
Lutheran theologians of the seventeenth century in the matter.
Everything pertaining to Scripture, whether substance or form, was
alike the direct work of the ILoly Ghost. Prophecy, dogma,
poetry, history, — all, without exception, were included.
Thus Quenstedt : " The original Scripture is of infallible
truth, and free from every error ; or what is the same thing, in
canonical Scripture there is no falsehood, no untruth, not even
the least error either in facts or in words ; but all things and
everything which is related there, is most true, whether those
things are doctrinal, moral, historical, chronological or topograph
ical, and no ignorance, thoughtlessness or forgetfulness, no error
of memory can be, or ought to be, imputed to the amanuenses of
the Holy Ghost in their records."
Words as well as things were included. Calovius (fl686) de
clared that, ' God inspired those things which apostles and proph
ets wrote, and not only as to the sense and meaning, but as to the
words which were suggested and dictated to them, just as they
are contained in Scripture.'
Hollaz : " All words and every word which is contained in the
sacred text was inspired by the Holy Spirit in prophets and apos
tles, and was dictated to a pen."
Quenstedt: "The words themselves, and all and every ex
pression has the Holy Ghost individually suggested, inspired, and
dictated to the sacred writers."
b. The Lutheran theologians maintained that the Hebrew vowel
points were original, rather than the work of the later Massoretes,
and thus partook of the inspiration of the text.
Gerhard said that to deny that the vowels and points of the
Old Testament proceeded from inspiration would compel one to
deny the doctrine of verbal inspiration wholly.

'Kahnis, Luther. Dogm., 1:279. Baur, Dogm.-gesch., 111:60.

AN OUTLINE HISTORICAL STUDY. . 49
Calovius supported the same theory by the declaration that
' not one jot or tittle should in any wise pass from the Law,'
Similarly speak Quenstedt and Hollaz.
It thus appears, to speak briefly, that the Lutheran divines of
this period regarded every word and every letter of the Scrip
tures as the direct utterance and work of the Holy Ghost.
3. Objections Answered.
It could hardly escape the notice of these Protestant scholastics
that the views propounded and defended by them encountered
many difficulties, and were liable to serious objections ; but theo
logical ingenuity and acuteness were then, as always, ready with
a plausible answer.
a. When it was asked how on this basis the evident differences
of style among the sacred writers were to be accounted for, Cal
ovius said plainly : " The cause of different methods of expres
sion is that the Holy Spirit makes each one to speak just as he
wishes.1 Quenstedt and Hollaz point to the manifoldness of the con
tents of the Scripture which, they say, demands a corresponding
variety of style. They also assume an accommodation on the
part of the Holy Ghost to the individual peculiarities of the sa
cred writers,2 making him thereby the cleverest of imitators.
A somewhat fuller form of reply to this objection was
that the Holy Ghost, as the Lord of all gifts of utterance, could
speak as he would, and vary his style according to his pleasure.
In dictating to each sacred writer, he chose just such methods of
expression as that person would have chosen had he been writing
under a voluntary impulse. So carefully did the divine author
adapt himself to the individuality and the grade of culture of
each one.
b. To the charge of barbarisms or solecisms in style, a flat de
nial was returned.
Hollaz declares : " The style of the sacred Scriptures is digni
fied, worthy of the divine Majesty, and is disfigured by no gram
matical fault, by no barbarism or solecism. To maintain the
contrary is blasphemy."

I., p. 574.
2 Kahnis, Lather. Dogm., 281.

50 THE DOCTRINE OF INSPIRATION :
4. More Liberal Views.
A few Lutheran theologians had the courage to array them
selves against the doctrinal exaggerations of their contemporaries,
though the result was to draw upon themselves the charge of un
soundness in the faith, and even the accusation of positive heresy.
Chief among them were Musaeus and Calixtus.
a. Musaeus (f 1681) ventured to express doubts whether inspi
ration extended to the words as well as to the matter of the Scrip
tures. He even designated verbal inspiration as an undecided and
improbable opinion. But for this hardihood he was violently op
posed by the zealous orthodox divines, especially by Calovius,
and was compelled to retract his utterances.
b. Calixtus (f 1656) wished to distinguish between revelation
or inspiration in the strict sense, and mere divine assistance.
To the former he would ascribe only the chief doctrines of the
Scriptures, viz., those relating to human redemption and final sal
vation. For other things which might be learned from the
light of nature or through experience, he claimed only that divine
assistance which guarded the sacred writers from error, and en
abled them to record that which was ' consonant with fact, true,
worthy and suitable.' For these too free views Calixtus found
himself charged with heresy.1
5. The Lutheran Symbols.
The silence of the Lutheran symbolic books respecting inspira
tion has often been remarked. The explanation seems to be that
the fact is presupposed, while, for various reasons, implied in what
has been said above, no specific theory is proposed. Incidental
expressions are found in the Apology, in the Smalcald Articles,
and in the Formula of Concord, which confirm this view.
II. Reformed.
The Reformed churches of the continent were generally in'
harmony with the Lutheran in their doctrine of sacred Scripture.
Within the former a somewhat animated controversy was carried
on respecting the inspiration of the vowel-points of the Hebrew
text. The principal disputants were the two Buxtorffs, father
1 Baur, Dogm.-gesch., 111:63.

AN OUTLINE HISTORICAL STUDY. 51
(f 1639) and son (f 1664), professors at Basle, on the one side, and
Leo Capellus on the other. The former asserted both the an
tiquity and divine origin of the vowel-points, as essential'to any
true doctrine of inspiration. The latter claimed them as a later
growth upon the text, and appealed, in confirmation of his view,
to both Jewish and Christian testimonies. The orthodox opinion
was finally confirmed and formulated in the Formula Consensus
Helvetica (1675), which declares that ' not only the consonants,
but also the vowels — either the points themselves, or at least the
meaning of the points — were inspired by God.'
It is undeniable, however, that some divines in the Reformed
churches entertained less rigid views. This was particularly true
of the French theologians of the school of Saumur, who could
admit, e. g., without scruple, that the New Testament writers
had misapprehended the meaning of those of the Old, or had
fallen into errors of memory.
German Reformed theologians also, like Junius Piscator and
others, were in like manner inclined to liberal views. In both the
French and Swiss Reformed churches the radical and rationalistic
- views of Le Clerc generally found wide and welcome reception.
Pictet, e. g., professor at Geneva in 1702, taught that inspiration
in Scripture was limited to those truths which men can attain only
by the aid of revelation proper. The revelation, of course, never
extended to matter knowable by means of the natural faculties.
For these, divine guidance in preventing errors was amply suffi
cient. III. Roman Catholic.
A reaction against the exaggerated orthodoxy and. extreme lit
eralism of the Protestant theologians was inevitable, and actually
appeared in various quarters. We notice first the Roman Cath
olics. 1. The Canons of Trent incidentally refer to the Scriptures as
a ' dictation of the Holy Ghost,' but determine nothing otherwise
concerning the theory of inspiration. Ecclesiastical opinion,
however, practically declared that the Scriptures and their author
ity were dependent upon and subordinate to the authority of the
church. 2. Bellarmine (f 16-20) contended that the original commission

52 THE DOCTRINE OF INSPIRATION :
of the apostles concerned preaching and hot writing ; that their
epistles were merely occasional letters, and did not fundamentally
affect doctrine.1 He maintained that the sacred penmen formed
the determination to write from existing circumstances, and at
tributed to God such a direction or assistance only as allowed the
preservation of their spontaneity. He made a broad distinction
between the prophetic and historical writers, holding that the kind
of aid rendered to each was different, and adapted to their needs.
He says : " God aided the prophets in one way, and the historical
writers in another. To the former he revealed the future, and
assisted them so that nothing false should mingle with what
they wrote. To the latter he did not always reveal what they
should write, but only stirred them up to write what they had
seen and heard and remembered. At the same time he helped
them not to write anything false ; but this assistance did not ex
clude labor on their part." 2
All this indicates a disposition to limit the province of imme
diate inspiration as much as possible:
3. Several of the most learned papal doctors were inclined to
limit strict inspiration to the essential articles of faith,3 and to
maintain that in other matters, e. g., historical narratives, the sa
cred writers were left to themselves, and might sometimes err.
Pighius. says boldly : '"Matthew and John were able to err in
memory, and to falsify." The Jesuits were especially loose in
their views, and were ready to concede the f alhbility of prophets and
apostles. For this, however, they were condemned in 1586 by
the faculties of Louvain and Douai.
Critical investigations upon the canon and the doctrine of in
spiration we're actually instituted during this period, and were
perhaps mainly possible in the Catholic church. Those of Rich
ard Simon were especially famous, and did much to impair belief
in the divinity and canonical authority of the books of the Bible,
especially of the Old Testament.4 His opinions were certainly
inconsistent with the acceptance of the theory of verbal and lit
eral inspiration. He taught that inspiration should be viewed as

1 Kahnis, Luther. Dogm. , 1 : 277.
*De Verb. Div., 1:18.
3Haag, Hist, dee Dogm., I: 11.
4 Id. ib.

AN OUTLINE HISTORICAL STUDY. '53
an act of divine Providence, by which the sacred writers were in
general directed, and were preserved'from dangerous errors. This
and nothing more. The learned Oratorian remarked that ' it was
for Protestants only to fear and take offense at the results of crit
icism. Cath61ics could have no such scruples, because their faith
did not depend merely on the sacred text.' x
IV. Arminian.
»
The Arminians shared the Catholic breadth and looseness of
view respecting our doctrine, though from another point of view,
in the interest of reason rather than of the church. The tendency
was to limit the field of inspiration still further, though in their
doctrinal system and public writings they did not oppose the cur
rent ecclesiastical doctrine. Looseness of view among the Ar
minians was greatly promoted by intercourse and connection with
the Socinians.
1. Limborch (f 1712) expressed himself concerning the ques
tion only with the greatest caution, saying that ' as the apostles,
under the impulse of the Holy Ghost, set about their task, so also
in writing they were so far directed that they could commit no
error either in expressing the sense itself, or in recording the
words which expressed the divine sense.' 3
Other theologians showed themselves less timid.
2. Grotius (+ 1645) would concede inspiration, in the proper
sense of the term, to the prophetic writings alone, but wholly de
nied it in the case of the historical books, refusing to put them
in the same category, on the ground that historical narrative
needed no inspiration. His exact words are these: "Not all
books which are in the Hebrew canon were dictated by the Holy
Spirit. I do not deny that they were written with pious intent,
but there was no need that histories should be dictated by the
Holy Ghost. It was enough that the writer had a clear recollec
tion of the things seen." 3
He specifies the writings of Luke as an example : " If Luke
recorded only what the Holy Ghost dictated to him, why did he

*Baur, Dogm.-gesch., 111:65.
2 Theol. Christ, Lib. I, cap. IV.
3 Votum pro Pace Ecclesiast

54 THE DOCTRINE OF INSPIRATION :
make appeal to his investigations ?" 1 Grotius conceded the can-
onicity of Luke's writings, but only on the ground that in the
opinion of the primitive church they 'are true,- pious, and treat
of important subjects.'2
3. Episcopius (f 1643) goes still further, and says that the sa
cred writers might readily err, since in historical and related
kinds of composition, for which the unaided human, faculties
were sufficient, they were left wholly to themselves. To the ob
jection that on this basis they might err even in essential things,
he replies that God did not entrust matters of great moment to
human weakness, but reserved them to his' own guidance and
control.3 He argues also against the strict view of inspiration, that many
books of Scripture either contain nothing which others had not
given in greater detail, or at least are not especially edifying.
Mention is also made of the fact that the so-called canonical writ
ings were not collected in obedience to express divine command.4
4. Le Gere (f 1737), one of the most learned theologians of his
age, held that genuine divine revelation renders inspiration need
less. The prophecies themselves were communicated by revela
tion to the prophets, who carefully remembered them, but re
corded them, each in his own style, so that it could not be said
that they repeated the very words which they had heard.5
The historical books require no inspiration, and prove their ac
tual want of the same by internal contradictions.6 Equally un
necessary is the supposition of inspiration in the case of the doc
trinal books of the Old Testament ; and as for the New Testa
ment, the ' assistance ' of the Holy Ghost was amply sufficient for
all purposes.
Christ had promised that the ' Spirit of the Father ' should
speak through the disciples (Matt. 10 : 20), but this he interpreted
to refer to the spirit of holiness and steadfastness with which they
would endure persecutions, and defend their doctrine.

1 Votum pro Pace Ecclesiast
2 BaxLT,Dogm.-gesc7i., Ill, 65.
3 Institutiones, IV :1, 4.
4 -Id. IV :1, 4. Kahnis, Luther. Dogm., 1:278.
5 Sentiment* de Quelques Theol. de Hollande, &c. Haag, Hist, des Dogm., 1: 12.
6 Kahnis, Luther. Dogm., 279. Baur, Dogm.-gesch., 111:4, 21.

AN OUTLINE HISTORICAL STUDY. 55
The promise that the Spirit should ' guide the disciples into all
truth, &c.,' (John 16:13,) was explained as teaching that divine
aid would be given to strengthen the memory, and make needed
explanations of truth. The apostles did not claim inspiration or
deem it necessary to the validity of the doctrinal contents of their
writings. The views of Le Clerc here had much in common with those
of Spinoza.
It thus appears that the Arminian view of inspiration implied
a great relaxation of the strictness of the general Protestant
church doctrine ; among other things, greatly widening the field
of spontaneity and conscious personal activity on the part of the
sacred writers.
V. Socinian.
The Socinians did not by any means deny the fact of inspira
tion, but were otherwise grossly inconsistent in their views. The
Racovian Catechism (preface) teaches that ' the Holy Ghost dic
tated the matter of Scripture to the apostles, and. sometimes the
very words, so that they were his mere instruments.' Inspiration
is conceived as the immediate and coercive operation of an out
side Power upon the sacred writers, rather than the inter-pene
tration of their personality by a higher Influence, and thus the
self-conscious elevation of their human faculties to apprehend the
divine truth and will. Socinianism here occupies common ground
with High Lutheran and Reformed orthodoxy.
, 1. Faustus Socinus himself confesses that the authors of Scrip
ture wrote ' under the impulse of the divine Spirit and at his
dictation,' * yet he elsewhere says that the ' natural abilities of the
New Testament writers were abundantly sufficient for the com
munication of doctrine,' under which he would include only the
most weighty practical truths.2 He limits inspiration to essential
things, and admits without scruple slight errors of memory, which
do not in any way affect the truth of the sacred narrative. So
cinus has no hesitation in exalting the New Testament above the
Old, and in declaring that ' the reading of the latter, while use
ful, is by no means necessary.'

1 Lectiones Saerae, p. 287.
*De Auc. S. Script., c. 4. Baur, Dogm.-gesch., 111:65.

56 THE DOCTRINE OF INSPIRATION \
To the Socinians the inspiration of the Bible was a ques
tion quite subordinate in importance to that of its human and
historic credibility, and the divinity of written words was of far less
moment than that of the general Christian faith and order. They
came to feel less and less concern about difficulties and apparent
discrepancies in Scripture, and were inclined to cut and clip it ac
cording to their own subjective ideas of reason and common sense.
The ever growing looseness of view among these sectaries was
coincident with, and based upon the ever increasing breadth of
province and number of functions assigned to reason in its rela
tion to Revelation.
VI. Mystic.
The mystics of the seventeenth century, as those of the Ref
ormation era and other periods, tended to exalt unduly the
teaching of the illuminating Spirit, and to disparage the value of
the written Word. The Scriptures were treated very generally
as a merely subordinate revelation, and sometimes as a detriment
to that inward revelation which alone is true and immediate.
Thus— 1. Christian Hoburg said : " Scripture is an old, cold and dead
thing, which makes men mere Pharises."
2. Arndt : " Christ is the living book in whom we read, and
from whom we should learn."
3. Weigel : " Scripture, as such, is a dead letter, and an empty
word which sounds through the air."
4. Fox.
George Fox (f 1691), founder of the sect of Quakers, declared:
" It is not the Scriptures, but the Holy Spirit by which opinions
and religions are to be tried."
5. Barclay.
Robert Barclay (f 1690), the principal theologian of the same de
nomination, taught that ' Holy Writ is not the original source of
knowing the truth ; it is no adequate rule for doctrines and morals.
* * * It is subordinate to the Holy Spirit, from whom it de
rives its excellence.'
Even when the Bible was nominally received and confessed as

AN OUTLINE HISTORICAL STUDY. 57
authoritative, ideas were often ascribed to its divine Author, the
Holy Ghost, which in reality were only the products of a morbid
and enthusiastic fancy.
Spener (+ 1705), observing the reaction setting in among the
orthodox divines in favor of exaggerated notions of literal inspi
ration, endeavored to mediate between the two parties, and on the
true Protestant principle, reconcile the teaching of the inward
Spirit with the authority of the written Word. His effort was
to enhance the value placed upon the Bible both by the people
and the theologians.1
In his personal views he confesses, with the mystics, that the
mere letter of Scripture is powerless and dead ; but against them
he declares that, ' our feelings are not the norm of truth, but di
vine truth is the norm of our feelings. The rule of truth exists
in the divine word, apart from ourselves.' a
With equal earnestness did he oppose the dead mechanism of
church orthodoxy, and maintain the independence of the Scrip
ture writers. He says : " Assuredly the things the apostles wrote,
they understood, and did not produce sounds like parrots. But
the understanding demands its own images or ideas which it
forms, drawing them either from within or from some other
source."3 VII. Opinion in England.
Public opinion was not so generally or profoundly stirred upon
the question of inspiration either among the churchmen or dis
senters of England, as among the Lutheran and Reformed
churches of the Continent. Still the subject was not without in
terest, and some opinions were expressed which are worthy of
record. 1. Archbishop Tillotson. •
This prelate (f 1694) hesitated to declare himself, frankly re
specting the extent of inspiration. • He is not sure whether the
divine superintendence merely secured the Scripture writers

] Hagenbach, Hist Doct, II : 246.
2 Beck, Dogm.-gesch., 120.
3Consil. Theol, 1:45.
9

58 THE DOCTRINE OF INSPIRATION :
against error in the delivery of doctrine and narration of fact,
while each was left to his own style and manner of expression ;
or, whether everything written was immediately dictated, words
and phrases as well as sease, so that human authors were merely
the penmen or instruments of the Spirit. He is only clear that
the measure of inspiration was in every case sufficient to secure
the end of Scripture, viz., to inform the world of the mind and
will of God.1
He is inclined to think that Moses wrote the account of that
in which he was personally concerned without immediate revela
tion ; that Solomon, by natural and acquired wisdom, might utter
his sententious Proverbs; that the evangelists might record what
they saw and heard, or learned from others ; that Paul might
make certain local allusions contained in his epistles without im
mediate dictation. He finds probable argument for this view, e.
g., in the verbal disagreements combined with the substantial har
mony of the Evangelists, in the various readings of the Old and
New Testaments, &c.2 He finally, though with apparent hesita
tion, concludes that the Spirit of God did reveal to the penmen
of the Scriptures what was necessary to be revealed ; aud as to
all other things, that he did secure them from any material error
or mistake in what they have delivered.
Not very profound or venturesome utterances for the Arch
bishop of Canterbury and Primate of all England.
2. Burnet.
Burnet, bishop of Salisbury (f 1715), argues that inspiration
left the sacred writers to the use of their own faculties, and to
their previous customs and habits. The object of God was to
give such representations of matters of fact as might work upon
and affect belief. The order of time and strict words, not affect
ing this end, might vary according to occasion.
As to the doctrinal part, i. e., the rules of life given, or the propo
sitions laid down, all must acquiesce in them as the voice of God.
The explanations or arguments supporting these may be of vari
ous value, and are to be estimated according to their intrinsic

'Works, vol. IX: 283.
2 Id., 234.

AN OUTLINE HISTORICAL STUDY. 59
character. Burnet says, , expressly : " When the divine writers
argue upon any point, we are always bdund to believe the conclu
sions that their reasonings end in, as parts of divine revelation ;
but we are not bound to be able to make out, or even to assent to
all the premises made use of by them in their whole extent ; un
less it appears plainly that they affirm the premises as expressly
. as they do the conclusions proved by them." 1
3. Baxter.
Richard Baxter (f 1691), among the dissenting divines of Eng
land in the seventeenth century, is noteworthy for his somewhat
latitndinarian position on the question before us. He would limit
inspiration to the subject-matter of Scripture. He says : " The
Scripture is like a man's body, where some parts are but for the
preservation of the rest, and may be maimed without death. The
sense is the soul of Scripture, and the letters but the body or ve
hicle. The doctrine of the Creed, Lord's Prayer, and Decalogue
is the vital part, and Christianity itself. The Old Testament let
ter (written as we have it about Ezra's time) is tli at vehicle, which
is as imperfect as the Revelation of these times was. But as
after Christ's incarnation and ascension, the Spirit was more
abundantly given, and the Revelation more perfect, and sealed,
so the doctrine is more full, and the vehicle or body, that is, are
less imperfect and more sure to us ; so that he that doubteth of
the truth of some words in the Old Testament, or of . some cir
cumstances in the New, hath no reason to doubt therefore of the
Christian religion, of which these doctrines are but the vehicle
or body, sufficient to ascertain of the truth of the History and
Doctrine." 2
4. John Owen.
Very different from the attitude of Baxter was that occupied
by the Puritan divine, John Owen (f 1683), who was quite in ac
cord upon this subject with the Lutheran and Reformed scholas
tics of the Continent, and may be taken as an example of the ex
tremely rigid views prevalent among most of the contemporary

Burnet on the Thirty-nine Articles, 112.
The Catechizing of Families, 1683, p. 36.

60 THE DOCTRINE OF INSPIRATION :
Puritans in England. He treats inspiration from the standpoint
of prophecy, and makes it, on the divine side, to be ' an act of
the Holy Ghost in communicating his mind to the prophets.' J
From this point of view three things enter into it :
a. The inspiration of the minds of holy men with the knowl
edge and apprehension of the things communicated to them.
b. The suggestion of words to express- what their minds con
ceived. c. The guidance of their hands in setting down the words sug
gested. If either of these requisites were wanting, the Scriptures could
not be absolutely and every way divine and infallible.2
As to the extent of inspiration, he observes : " It is not enough
to satisfy us that the doctrines mentioned are preserved entire :
every tittle and iota of the word of God must come under our
consideration as being as such from God/'
Again : " The Scriptures of the Old and New Testaments were
immediately and entirely given out by God himself, his mind
being in them represented to us without the least interveniency
of such mediums and ways as were capable of giving change or
alteration of" the least letter or syllable."
Careful study shows that he intended to reject, and perhaps
with equal emphasis, two opposite errors : one, that the matter
only of the Holy Scripture was divinely communicated, while
the verbal expression was left to the natural faculties ; and the
other, that the minds of the sacred penmen were under such co
ercive influence from above that they became mere machines.
All used their own intellects and powers, and the Holy Spirit
suggested such words as were familiar to each, but yet in such
way that the words fixed upon were from him as directly and cer
tainly as if they had been spoken to them by an audible voice."3

1 Works, Carter's edition, 111:131.
2 Id., 144.
3 Id., 145.

AN OUTLINE HISTORICAL STUDY. 61
H. THE DOCTRINE OF INSPIRATION DURING
THE EIGHTEENTH CENTURY.
The ultra-orthodox doctrine of inspiration affirmed by the Lu
theran and Reformed scholastics of the seventeenth century was
during the succeeding one greatly modified and limited, — in many
quarters, wholly abrogated. Some powerful specific agencies
were at work to produce these radical changes. Among them
may be mentioned on the one side, the influence of Spinoza and
his philosophic system, as well as that of English Deism ; on the
other, the rise of Pietism. Each contributed in its own way
and measure. But more than this : the old theories seemed to
come in conflict with almost every aspect of the progressive
thought of the eighteenth century, and were outlawed by reason
of the difficulties and contradictions in which they involved their
advocates, as well as by the positive advance in criticism, exe
gesis and philosophy. The real attack on the strict Lutheran
doctrine began about the end of the seventeenth century,
and took two main directions, a historic and a philosophic. The
former concerned the doctrine of inspiration in general, and its
practical application to specific books and passages ; the latter ex
tended to revelation as well as inspiration, and partook rather of
a philosophic and dogmatic character.1 The one kind was de
termined, as just indicated, by the progress both of criticism and
interpretation, as well as by that of historical theology in general.
Most important here was Seinler, who really inaugurated the rev
olutionary epoch in German theology.2
Attacks of the second sort were probably at least an indirect
result of the influence of the writings of Spinoza, while they
were greatly furthered by the aid of the Kantian philosophy and
its application to theology.3 Each in its way contributed power
fully not only to the overthrow of old ideas, but to the develop
ment of a freer philosophical interpretation of the idea and theory
of inspiration.
As the result of the coworking of all influences there followed
a notable reconstruction of the doctrine. Henceforward inspira-

1 Miinscher, Dogm.-gesch. (Neudeckes), II: 2, 239.
2 Rudelbach, Zeitsch. fur die Gesammt. Luther. Theol, 1840, Zweit Quart, 58.
3 Miinscher, utsup.

62 THE DOCTRINE OF INSPIRATION :
tion, even among divines of reputed orthodoxy, was conceived not in
an isolated way, but as standing in organic union with the col
lective mental and spiritual life of the sacred writers. It was re
ferred chiefly to the kernel of saving truth, and to other contents
of Scripture only according to the measure of their connection
with this.1 Distinctions of degree in inspiration were also con
ceded, German theologians in general no longer maintaining the
universal and absolute infallibility of all details of the sacred
records. Accurate grouping of the various views that now demand our
notice is by no means an easy task. We may, however, begin
with —
I. The Rationalistic.
1. Pfaff.
Pfaff (f 1760) was among the earliest Lutheran theologians
who, in his treatment of the doctrine, betrayed a clear tendency
to a radical departure from rigid and traditional views. He dis
tinguished different degrees in inspiration.
a. Immediate revelation, made to the apostles and other writers
of the New Testament concerning matters either wholly or in
part unknown before.
b. Immediate direction, in the setting forth of rjarts which
were known to them before, as also in the development of doc
trine. N
c. Divine permission in presenting those things, which required
neither 'revelatiori' nor 'immediate guidance.'
This last and lowest degree was consistent with purely hu
man ideas.
2. Tollner.
Tollner published in 1772 a treatise entitled ' Die gottliche
Eingebung der heiligen Schrift,' which constitutes one of the
most important works for the history of inspiration during this
period. He sought to show that the doctrine in question is not
so vital to Christianity as commonly supposed. Revealed religion
does not stand or fall with the divine inspiration of a book, and
¦Lechler, Dogm.-gesch.

AN OUTLINE HISTORICAL STUDY. 63
excessive regard for the mere letter of Scripture must involve one
in continual doubt and perplexity, through the progress of criti
cism and general science.1 Having proved, as he thinks, by his
toric evidence that the freer view of inspiration has been the con
trolling one in every1 age, Tollner proceeds to the execution of his
main purpose, adopting therfor and making rigorous use of the
analytic method. The chief peculiarities of his view may be thus
briefly summed up :
a. There are five degrees of inspiration, and the differentiating
element in each is the measure of the supernatural divine coop
eration. These degrees he analyses and distinguishes with philo
sophical precision, though without attempting to decide what
special degree is found in a given passage of Scripture.
b. The divine authority of the Bible is ensured even without
inspiration. c. Inspiration is a ' mere synergism,' or an assistance of the
Holy Spirit, through which the sacred writers were preserved
from error, and were enabled to compose their writings in a man
ner consonant with the end in view.
d. A broad distinction is to be made between the Scriptures
and the word of God.
It need scarcely be said that the^ general results of Tollner's
investigatio s in this department were wholly favorable 40 nega
tive criticism.
3. Semler.
Semler (f 1791), founder of the School of so-called ' histor
ical biblical criticism,' took for his point of departure, morality,
or general utility as constituting the essential character of the
divine, since it facilitates. spiritual goodness in mankind.2 Moral
improvement, therefore, is the essence of all religion. The Spirit
of Christ is nothing else than the living apprehension and exhi
bition of moral truth in the fulness of its divine extent,3 and in
spiration is a spiritual - divine power of truth, or of the ever

1 Baur, Dogm.-gesch., Ill : 423.
2 Rudelbach, Zeitsch. &c, 1840, Zweit Quart, 57.
3 Von Frier Uhtersuchung des Canon, 1 : 39.

64 THE DOCTRINE OF INSPIRATION :
forth-going word of God, which he„ as it were, himself speaks
within a man, and * * * in such a manner that he becomes
sure that it is the instruction of God.'1
As matter of fact, Semler reduced inspiration from a human-
subjective point of view to a mere devout frame of mind, and
the ' testimonium Spiritus Sancti ' to the advantage to be derived
from the Scriptures for moral improvement and edification.
His practical application of these theories to the sacred canon
and to theology in general needs no exposition here.
4. Michaelis.
Michaelis (f 1791) wholly denied the orthodox interpreta
tion of the 'testimonium Spiritus Sancti' and the 'fides divina'
in connection with the doctrine of inspiration, conceding only
that a 'good sound human understanding would find in the Scrip
tures themselves the proof of their divinity.' He frankly con
fessed in his ' Dogmatik ' that, ' firmly as he was convinced of the
truth of revelation, he had never in his life experienced the wit
ness of the Holy Ghost, nor had he found in the entire Bible one
word concerning it.'
5. Griesbach.
Griesbach (f 1812) distinguished mediate natural inspiration,
general^ religious enthusiasm, and providential guidance. The
'witness of the. Spirit' in reference to the Scriptures was of less
importance in his eyes than their usefulness for the moral im
provement of man ; ' authority ' gave place to adaptedness to the
end proposed? Some idea of his doctrinal attitude may be gained
from the following passage : " The impartation of the Holy
Ghost on the day of Pentecost qualified the disciples for the
apostolic calling, and therefore for the composition of the writings
necessarily connected with it. For extraordinary occasions there
was bestowed a new, wonderful enduement of the Holy Spirit,
but in addition, the natural mental activities of the sacred writers
were preserved by Providence from serious error. How far the
individual constituent parts of the sacred Scriptures have arisen
from the one and the other source, cannot be distinguished, and
1 Id., 46.
2 Beck, Dogm.-gesch., 121.

AN OUTLINE HISTORICAL STUDY. 65
is not distinguished by the apostles themselves. Therefore the
biblical idea of inspiration is the theocratic ' in-spiriting ' of the
men, not of the writings, for they were not ' in-spirited ' to write.
6. Henke.
Henke \(f 1809) gave full and free expression to the rational
istic view, when he said that the sacred writers were moved - to
literary composition, and actually entered upon the work, from
the desire of being serviceable to others, and from the opportunity
thus presented ; that they made choice of material according to
the peculiar necessities of time and place, drew the facts them
selves from the abundant resources of their own knowledge, the
arrangement and embellishment of the same from their individual
natural endowments, and the words from the habit and manner of
speaking customary to each one.1
Every element which enters into the composition of the Scrip
tures is here referred to merely natural motives and causes.2
7. Herder.
Herder (f 1803) is most conveniently and correctly mentioned
here, both as a rationalist (though not of the school of Semler),
and as a forerunner of Schleiermacher.
He sought to do away with what he viewed as the old material
istic idea of an inspired writing. As humanity, in the genuine
sense, was to him the highest thing, so, said he, in order to hu
manize the Bible," which is the most human of all books, it must
be read in a thoroughly human way. Inspiration, according to
the orthodox interpretation, he characterizes as nonsense. A
low habit of thinking in the dark ages liked to conceive of
one who was moved by the divine Spirit, as an organ pipe through
which the wind blows, — an empty machine from which all
thoughts of its own are far removed. Cabbalistic ideas first gave
birth to the conception of a sacred writing as a connected whole.
These ideas were then propagated by the Alexandrian philosophy,
and entered into Christianity. In the conflict with heretics, an
appeal was made to an in-spired Word, and with the increase of
ignorance, the lordship of vn-spvration was founded, upon which
finally Scholasticism set it seal. The word of God is nothing

lLineam., Instit Fidis Christ, p. 39.
2Baur, Dogm.-gesch., 111:427.
10

66 THE DOCTRINE OF INSPIRATION :
else than light — insight ; among the Hebrews spirit and word
were one. The Spirit which Christ promised to his followers
was only his doctrine, his memory, his illuminated likeness.1
II. More Evangelical.
1. Stopfer.
This divine, theological professor at Berne (f 1775) says : " We
must distinguish between those parts of the sacred Scriptures
which were written by the immediate inspiration of the Holy
Ghost, and those which have been consigned to writing by his
direction only. To the former class belong the peculiar discov- ,
eries of revelation respecting the way of salvation, predictions, etc.
To the latter class belong truths already known from natural re
ligion." He adds, however : " Nor was any error permitted to creep in
with regard even to the minutest fact or circumstance. All alike
comes to us through inspiration, and is of equal precision, whether
it be 'by revelation, observation, or reasoning; if we follow the
latter, there can be no error in our conclusions, except by not
properly applying the laws of interpretation."
III. Swedenborg.
Swedenborg's (+ 1772) doctrine of inspiration is unique and ob
scure. An adequate conception of it is to be gained only from
the study of his writings, or at least from a detailed exposition of
his views by one of his initiated disciples. The reader is re
ferred, among other sources of information, to an article by Rev,
Chauncey Giles, in the North American Review, October, 1878,
pp. 314-319. Some of the following statements are taken from
that -paper.
With Swedenborg, the Scriptures and the word of God are
identical, and are divine truth itself. " If the Word were not
true," he says, " we could know nothing of God, of heaven or of
hell, of life after death, and still less of the Lord." He held
that man has no innate knowledge, but must learn everything
he knows in every sphere. Revelation, therefore, is absolutely
indispensable to teach him of beings and worlds that may exist
beyond the realm of the senses.

1 Vom-'Geist des Christ, Werhe zur Theol, XII: 235-6. Baur, III: 441.

AN OUTLINE HISTORICAL STUDY. 67
It is to be noted that Swedenborg applies the term ' word of
God,' not to our canonical books, but to another Scripture ante
dating and superior to ours. He calls it the ' Scripture of an
gels.' He advances also to another identification. As the Scrip
ture is the ' word of God,' so the ' word of God ' is the Lord
himself. As God descended in order to become veritable man in
the Son, so also does the Word — the divine proceeding from the
Lord — that is, the Lord himself, descend through three stages to
man. These stages are the celestial, the spiritual, and the natural.
In regard to those of the commonly received Scriptures which
he admitted as canonical, lie seems to have taught degrees of in
spiration, for he distinguished the immediate utterances of God
himself from those made by angels in his behalf. " The books
spoken by the Lord, by the mouths of the prophets, were the
five books of Moses, Joshua, Judges, First and Second Samuel,
First and Second Kings, the Psalms, and all the Prophets from
Isaiah to Malachi, the four Gospels and the Revelation." " The
other books of the so-called canon are good and useful, and pos
sess about the same kind and amount of inspiration generally ac
corded to the whole Bible, but they do not contain a connected
spiritual meaning, and they are not therefore the word of the
Lord, and they do not claim to be." x
All the sacred books alike stand in imperative need of a new
revelation — that of Swedenborg — to render them intelligible.
Inspiration itself is the divine choice and use of natural forms
for the expression of spiritual and eternal truth. Under the su
pernatural infiuence, speech and record alike become the faithful
reflection of the Higher and Supreme Will.
With reference to the extent of inspiration, Swedenborg would
seem to have accepted the verbal theory. At all events, he held
single words of Scripture to be of so great importance as to fear,
from the loss of the smallest of them, great peril to the whole con
nection of a passage. He appeals to the counting .of the letters
by the Massoretes as an arrangement of divine Providence for
the preservation of the Scriptures from injury.2
The same verbal theory is suggested by his view that absolutely
everything in Scripture is significant. Even the numbers and

1 JV. A. Review, October, 1878, 316. \
2Baur, Dogm.-gesch., Ill: 442.

68 THE DOCTRINE OF INSPIRATION:
the proper names have a spiritual meaning. 'Oftentimes the
Scripture authors understood their own utterances only in their
natural import, but this is of no importance. " The essential
thing is that every word spoken should be the natural exponent
of a divine truth, and that the Lord always provided for. There
is not a word in the wildest vision of the prophets, in the driest
genealogy, in the most natural precept, which does not embody
a divine truth." x
IV. Opinion in England.
The indirect effect of Spinoza's thought, and the more direct
influence of English divines above referred to, were seen in the
loose ideas concerning inspiration prevalent both among church
men and dissenters of England during the last century. The
tendency was now, as it had been to some extent before, to limit
the supernatural influence of the Holy Spirit upon the sacred
writers to the religious element of the communications, and ex
clude it from all extraneous to that province. Among the opin
ions which diverged more or less from the standards of strict-or-
thodoxy were those of —
1. Whitby.
The views of Whitby (f 1726) upon inspiration may be ar
ranged under two heads :
a. Nature.
As to its nature, it consists in such an impression by the Holy
Ghost on the brain of a Scripture writer as to impart a clear idea
of that which he wishes to communicate. Certainty is always
given that the message is from God.2
b. Extent.
Two kinds or degrees of inspiration are distinguished :
That of suggestion, involving the communication of truth before
unknown. This was exemplified primarily in the case of the proph
ets, though the apostles also, especially John, in writing the Apoc
alypse, gave evidence of the working of the same power.
That of direction. This implied such a divine superintendence
1 N. A. Review, October, 1878, p>. 318.
2 Preface to Comm. on ST. T. Dissert on Divine Authority of Scripture.

AN OUTLINE HISTORICAL STUDY. 69
as secured the sacred writers against all error, but presupposed
that the general substance of the message was previously known
by natural means — reason or education, or antecedent revelation.
Whitby would nowhere admit slips of memory on the part of
the apostles, nor would he concede that they determined practi
cal questions on grounds of human expediency, apart from the
direction of the Holy Spirit.
He contended for such a kind and degree of inspiration as se
cured perfect certainty as to the truth written, but not for the
theory of verbal, mechanical dictation.
2. Samuel Clarke. ,
Dr. Clarke (f 1729) insisted upon a careful observance of the
distinction between prophetic writings on the one hand, and his
torical and moral compositions on the other. He says that ' in
the prophetic books, where the subject-matter was entirely new
to the prophet himself, and very often perhaps not understood
by him, it is very plain that inspiration means that the whole was
dictated to the inspired writers, either in a vision, or by an angel,
or otherwise, according as it pleased God to reveal himself at
divers times and in diverse manners. But in the historical and
moral books of Scripture, wherein the writers had themselves
perfect knowledge of the facts recorded and of the doctrine
taught, it was abundantly sufficient that they had such assistance
of the Holy Spirit guiding them into all truth, as enabled them
to express their own thoughts in their own words, with an effec
tual security that they should not err in the manner of delivering
the doctrine which they were commanded to teach.1
3. Calamy.
Ed. Calamy (f 1732) held that the divine assistance given to the
sacred writers extended both to the formation of their conceptions
and the framing of their writings ; and that the assistance was of
such sort as to prevent the insertion of anything false, or the omis
sion of any necessary truth. The Spirit immediately suggested
and dictated such things as were matters of pure revelation, and
illuminated their minds in the several doctrinal and practical
truths they delivered in writing.

1 Works, vol. II: 86.

70 THE DOCTRINE OF INSPIRATION :
The Holy Ghost used the sacred penmen as reasonable crea
tures^ and made use of their judgments, memories and affections,
but they acted under his guidance in the whole of their work.
Natural difference of style and language, the Spirit did not ob
literate but permitted in the writings drawn up under his con
duct, save in some places where he thought fit to interfere in
some particular strains of majesty and authority.
Inspiration did not imply immediate revelation. One is prop
erly said to be inspired, if under such conduct of the divine
Spirit as secures him from mistake and error.1
• 4. Doddridge.
Doddridge (fl751) distinguished different kinds or degrees of
inspiration, after the manner of Whitby.
a. Inspiration of Superintendence.
This implies such a direction of the mind of a human writer
of the Scriptures, that he is made more secure from error than
he could have been by the mere use of his natural faculties.
Complete freedom from error in declaring doctrines and stating
facts implies plenary or full inspiration. Here many things may
be known and recorded by the employment of the writer's un
aided powers. The absolute truth of contents, both as to fact
and doctrine, implies full inspiration, though the words, phrases,
and manner be left to the human author, and imperfection of
style and method be the result. In a book intended to teach truth
for practical ends, such defects furnish no warrant for rejecting
its authority. The New Testament was written under this in
spiration.2 b. Inspiration of Elevation.
Where this occurs, such elevation of human powers is implied
as to make the resulting productions more sublime, noble and
pathetic than they could be as the result Of merely natural genius.
A part- of the Bible was written under this inspiration. God
only can draw the line here between the natural and the super-

1 Inspiration of tlie Old and New Testaments, pp, 30 if.
2 Dissertation on Inspiration. Works, vol. II : 194.

AN OUTLINE HISTORICAL STUDY. 71
natural. Such inspiration may ' possibly have existed in the case
of some heatlien writers.
c. Inspiration of Suggestion.
This is the highest kind, and exists when God speaks directly
to the mind, communicating what it could not otherwise know,
dictating every word, making the human author a mere auditor
or secretary of the divine. The Apocalypse and some other parts
of the New Testament were written under this influence.1
5. Bishop Warburton.
This prelate (f 1779) calls the verbal dictation theory of inspi
ration 'a spurious opinion, begotten in the Jewish church by
superstition, and nursed up by mistaken piety in the Christian,
which hath almost passed into an article' of faith.' 2 This shows
incidentally the strength and prevalence of orthodox views in
England during his day.
After stating the objections to the strict theory, and, as he
thinks, proving their validity, he sets forth his own idea of inspi
ration somewhat as follows : ' The Holy Spirit so directed the
pens of the writers that no considerable error should fall from
them. He enlightened their minds with his immediate influence
in all such matters as were necessary for the instruction of the
church, but was content to preserve them by the more ordinary
means of providence from any mistakes of consequence concern
ing those things which they had learned by the common way of
information. In short, he watched over them incessantly, but
with so suspended a hand as permitted the use, and left them to
the guidance of their own faculties while they kept clear of
error.' s
He anticipates and refutes the objection that this ' partial in
spiration,' so called, does not enable us to distinguish the parts
of Scripture which were written under the influence of the Spir
it, and those which were the product of human knowledge only.
" "W*hat matters this % " he says. "All we need to be assured of is
that every sentence of Scripture which but remotely concerns

1 Dissertation on Inspiration.
0 Works, vol. "VIII. Doctrine of Grace, 273.
3 Doct. of Grace, pp. 275, 276.

72 THE DOCTRINE OF INSPIRATION :
either faith or practice, is infallibly true'. 1 It is no matter how
truth comes to us, if only we have it fully and certainly."
He thinks the partial theory important, from an apologetic
point of view, ' to free the infallible word of Scripture from all
those embarassing circumstances which have been so artfully and
disingenuously thrown out to its discredit.' 2
6. Middleton.
Dr. C. Middleton (f 1750), though a noted divine and scholar
of the Church of England, has often been regarded as a disbe
liever in the fundamental truths of Christianity. - Not only did
his views diverge from those even of the English latitudinarians
hitherto considered, but his whole spirit and character were so
different that, with his disciple Wakefield, he deserves a place by
himself at the end of the list.
His aim seems to have been to eradicate as far as possible the
supernatural element from the Scriptures, and to subvert by any
and every possible method the received view of their infallible
inspiration. He says bitterly that the orthodox doctrine on this
subject is 'a clog and incumbrance to Christianity with all rational
and thinking men,' and ' has no other foundation but in the mis
taken sense of certain texts suggested by the prejudice of pious
men.' 3 He grounds these statements partly on the so-called evi
dence of fact, saying that ' everyone may see apparent marks of
human frailty in the Scriptures, not only in style and language,
but sometimes also in matter.'
The evangelists make not the least pretensions to infallibility,
and the apostles on some occasions distinctly disclaim it. Paul
was sometimes destitute of divine assistance in explaining partic
ular doctrines ; and contradictions exist in the gospels which are
incapable of reconciliation.4 Two examples of his style of criti
cism may illustrate his spirit and method :
" Matthew either wilfully suppressed or negligently omitted
three successive descents from father to son in the first chapter
of his gospel.5

1 Doct. of Grace, p. 277.
2 Id., 279.
3 Works, vol. II: 19, 20.
4 Reflections on, the Variations found in the Four Evangelists.
5 Works, vol. II : 24.

AN OUTLINE HISTORICAL STUDY. 73
With reference to the protevangelic promise, " men who inquire
into things will meet with many absurdities which reason must
wink at, and many incredibilities which faith must digest, before
they can admit the authority of this prophecy upon the evidence
of this historical narration." 1
7. Wakefield.
Gilbert Wakefield (f 1801) published (1781) an 'Essay on Inspi
ration,' which is thus summed up by Mr. Leslie , Stephen2: "He
argued that the inspiration of the gospel was ' unnecessary because
strength of judgment, adequate information and unbiased affection
are sufficient guarantees for historical accuracy.' It was ' inexpe
dient and improbable ' because a complete consistency would have
led to suspicions of complicity.
" It was disclaimed by the writers themselves, and cases of abso
lute contradiction could be produced. Christ wished to show the
efficacy of truth operating without supernatural advantages."
Mr. Stephen sets down the production as little more than an
imitation of the older attack of Middleton.

I. THE DOCTRINE OF INSPIRATION IN THE
NINETEENTH CENTURY.
We have already passed the dividing line which separates the
present century from the past, and here perhaps a purely histori
cal survey should stop. Yet surely the questions concerning
inspiration are living ones, and possess an interest and importance
other than that which is strictly historical. Some enthusiasts call
them the 'burning, blazing' questions of the day and hour. We
may at least be justified in presenting a sketch of the opinions of
some leading and representative writers.
I. German Rationalists.
1. Wegscheider.
Wegscheider (+ 1849) held that the power by which the Scripture
writers were enabled to fulfil their task differed in no essential

' Works, Vol. 111:183.
2 Hist, of Eng. Thought in the Eighteenth Century, Vol. II: 442-3.
11

74 THE DOCTRINE OF INSPIRATION:
respect from that possessed in common by all men as a gift from
the Almighty, and manifested in the ordinary exercise of the
moral and rational nature. He .therefore made the essence of
inspiration to consist simply in the fact that the sacred writers, in
the spirit of piety, referred to God their good thoughts and ideas,
and recorded them under divine guidance and assistance.1
2. DeWette.
This theologian (f 1849) says : " The biblical doctrine of inspi
ration does not imply the superstitious notion of an influence of
the Holy Ghost upon the sacred writers, abrogating the laws of
nature, nor the exaggerated extension of inspiration to all things
and everything in the Scriptures, nor yet the admission of their
unconditional and unlimited infallibility.
"The essential idea is rather the religious sense of the divine
working, or of the Holy Spirit, in the sacred writers, and this
indeed solely in regard to their belief and elevation of soul, not in
regard to their formation of ideas. It bore relation to historic
truth, only in so far as its knowledge was dependent upon a holy
love of truth." 2
Baur criticises this as the familiar phraseology with which
rationalism seeks to conceal the shallowness of its views.3
II. Schleiermacher.
Schleiermacher (f 1834) gave up the old ecclesiastical theory of
inspiration, and advocated views which formed on the whole its
direct antithesis. These views, utterly unsound from the stand
point of orthodoxy, were yet thought to mark essential progress
in the history of the doctrine.
Schleiermacher taught :
1. That the Spirit by which the Scriptures are inspired is not
the personal Holy Ghost, but rather the 'genius' of Christianity
individualizing itself in the sacred writers, and related to them as
the general to the particular. This theologian promptly dismisses
every question as to the more exact relation of this Holy Ghost to
the Third Person of the Trinity.
1 InstituUones, § 44.
2 Dogmatik der Luth. Kirch., p. 41.
3 Dogm.-gesch., Ill: 428.

AN OUTLINE HISTORICAL STUDY. 75
2. The idea of inspiration is to be properly understood only
from the history in which it appears. This inseparable connec
tion of the inspiration-idea and a definite history, Schleiermacher
maintains, and makes his point of departure. Cremer remarks :
"Whether his conception is sufficiently broad and attaches to
actual history, or merely to the theory of the same, is another
matter." ' ?
3. Inspiration was not a transient state, but a permanent attri
bute of the apostles— a part of their collective official activity. It
was monstrous, he held, to maintain (for the purpose of giving
special prominence to the inspiration of the Scriptures) that the
apostles were less animated and moved by the Holy Ghost in
-other parts of their official work than in the act of writing.2
Special apostolic inspiration is nothing appertaining exclusively
to the New Testament books: these only participate in it, and
inspiration in this narrower sense, as it is conditioned by the purity
and completeness of the apostolic apprehension of Christianity, so
it extends to all the official apostolic activity proceeding there
from.3 4. The New Testament, on the other hand (while strictly super
natural neither in origin nor contents), is yet the most original and
the purest expression of the new fife flowing from Christ. No sub
sequent writings can be compared with those whose authors stood
under the purifying influence of his living memory. To all later
works they must possess, in some sense, a normative significance
and relation.
5. So far as the Old Testament is concerned, Schleiermacher
taught that it proceeded not from the 'genius' (gemein-geist) of
Christianity, but from the narrow national spirit of Judaism.
Belief in its special inspiration, or in the fact of a revelation
made to the Jewish people, he regarded as inconsistent with the
advanced stage of information respecting Jewish history. Faith
in the revelation of God in Christ, he declared, was in no way
dependent upon the acceptance of the Jewish canon." He ex
plained the admission of the Old Testament books to a place in

1 Herzog, Art. Inspiration, 757.
2 Baur, Dogm. gesch., Ill: 429.
3 Id. ib.
* Id., Ill: 444.

76 THE DOCTRINE OF INSPIRATION:
the Christian canon, partly from the appeals made to them by
New Testament writers, and partly from the historical connec
tion between Christian worship and the Jewish synagogue.1
Rationalistic as these views of Schleiermacher clearly were, it is
nevertheless true that the general influence, both of the man him
self and of his doctrinal system, was opposed to rationalism, and
in favortof positive faith in a positive revelation.
III. Supernaturalism.
This was a product of the transition period, and, while main
taining old forms of expression, departed essentially from the
old orthodox Lutheran faith. The older divines had based their
theory of inspiration upon the inner necessity of the thing ; the
supernaturalists founded theirs on the promise of Christ to bestow
his Spirit on the apostles. The historical certainty of inspiration,
then, rested upon the authority and trustworthiness of Jesus as an
immediate divine teacher.2 'Supernaturalism' found the super
natural element in revelation, not in the form but in the contents
of the sacred writings. Upon revelation it laid chief stress, and
viewed the apostles as the chief witnesses thereto.8 To this school
the trustworthiness of the Scriptures was of supreme importance,
rather than their divine origin and authority. It was believed that
in the written records, the assistance of the Spirit was enjoyed
to such a degree as to preserve the authors from error in matters
of faith. In regard to non-essentials they were left to the exercise
of*their own faculties, and of course were fallible.
1. Twesten.
This divine was one of the supernaturalists attaching himself to
the school of Schleiermacher. Like Nitzsch, he professed not to
deviate essentially from the definitions, of the older theologians,
but rather to accept them. None the less does he confess a mul
titude of weaknesses in the old theory, and therefore, make the
more desperate effort to save his orthodoxy, and at the same time
preserve his allegiance to his master. He actually succeeded, like
other divines of this class, in wavering between the two."
1 Beck, Dogm.-gesch., 123.
2 Baur, Dogm.-gesch., Ill: 428.
3 Kahnis, Luther. Dogm. , 288.
4 Baur, Dogm.-gesch. , III: 430.

AN OUTLINE HISTORICAL STUDY. 77
2. Elwert.
'It was reserved for Elwert (f 1865) to develop most thor
oughly the theory of inspiration based upon principles laid down
by Schleiermacher. This view supposes the apostles to have been
inspired, only in so far as the Spirit works in them a faith by
which they appropriated to themselves the revelation of Christ,
and so far as from this, by means of faith, in the natural way of
reflection, their religious ideas and conceptions found develop
ment.' *
The differences between this later and the earlier idea of inspi
ration, are thus summed up.2
a. " The sacred writers in the composition of their works were
by no means in a purely passive condition ; they rather made use
of their natural powers and capacities, and impressed upon their
productions unmistakably the stamp of their own individuality.
b. " The possession of the Holy Ghost in the case of the apostles
was generically one with the participation of others in the same
gift'; but, agreeably to the end which was to be accomplished
through them, and conformably to their relation to the original
revelation in Christ, it was in their case pre-eminent in degree.
c. " The influence of the Holy Ghost upon them was not a
suggestion of elaborated ideas and knowledges. The Spirit rather
wrought in them the faith which was the mediating element
between their religious conceptions and the revelation of Christ.
d. " The operation of the Holy Ghost is to be referred, not so
much to individual matters as to the whole manner of thinking
and feeling on the part of the apostles, within whom he dwelt as
a permanent principle. The older theory was right in so far as it
admitted his activity in every single part : in the resolution to
write, in the formation of the thoughts and words, and in selec
tion and arrangement. But it was wrong in this, that it admitted
that relation of the divine activity at all points, equally and
immediately. e. " The idea of an unconditional infallibility of the apostolic
writings is to be abandoned. Infallible they were, in so far as
this, that they, and indeed they alone, lead the Christian soul to

1 Baur, Dogm.-gesch., Ill: 430.
2 Id. ib.

78 THE DOCTRINE OF INSPIRATION I
life in Christ, and transmit the fundamental truths in a perfectly
trustworthy way. In other respects infallibility cannot be proved.
f. " The form belongs to the individuality of the apostles, and
the influences they derived from their age. Each age has to
conceive Christian doctrine in the form peculiar to it, and to
mould it into system. If this form is penetrated with the spirit of
Christianity, then all the manif oldness of the same is unattended
with danger: For it is the way of the Spirit to exhibit itself in
manifold form. Just because it is the Spirit of Eternal Revelation,
it cannot, Christ excepted, express itself fully and completely in
any finite spirit." '
IV. More General Evangelical.
This term is intended merely as a designation of the general
views and sympathies of the writers whose names appear under
it, without attempting to define more exactly their precise theo
logical position.
1. Neander.
This divine (f 1850), declared his conviction that it was neces
sary to distinguish what is divine from what is human in the gospel
record. " I am sure," he says, " that the fall of the old form of
the doctrine of inspiration, and indeed of many other doctrinal
prejudices, will not only not involve the fall of the essence of the
gospel, but will cause it no detriment whatever. Nay, I believe
it will be more clearly and accurately understood, and men will be
better prepared to fight with and conquer that inrushing infidelity,
against which the weapons of the old dogmatism must be powerless
in any land, and that from such a straggle a new theology, puri
fied and renovated in the spirit of the gospel, must arise." 2
Neander's own view of inspiration may be gathered from the
following passage: "If we find, on close inquiry, that the
historical statements of the evangelists are somewhat obscured
by subjective influences, our estimate of their veracity need in
no wise be affected thereby. Such a result would not conflict in
the least with the only tenable idea of inspiration. The organs
which the Holy Ghost illuminated and inspired to convey his
1 Baur, Dogm.-gesch, III, 431.
2 Life of Christ, Pref. p. xi.

AN OUTLINE HISTORICAL STUDY. 79
truth to men, retained their individual peculiarites, and remained
withm the sphere of the psychological laws of our being. Besides,
inspiration, both in its nature and its object, refers only to man's
religious interests, and to points connected with it." '
2. Stier.
Stier (f 1862) attempted to vindicate the old Lutheran doc
trine of verbal inspiration, but could not avoid important critical
concessions. His theory was in some respects peculiar. He maintained that
the Scriptures give us the thoughts, not of its individual authors,
but of the Spirit,, speaking through them. Inspiration applies not
to the words but to the Word. " We possess what Christ spoke,
not indeed the very words themselves, literally understood, but as
indicated through the testimony of the Evangelists, and elevated
into the Spirit."
The Scripture is infallible so far as general tenor is concerned,
though there may be inaccuracies in minor matters. Being firm
in the orthodox faith that the Holy Spirit is the primary author '
of Scripture, Stier did not trouble himself about the canonicity of
the human authors. In his own development of the doctrine of
inspiration, he exhibited an evangelical mystic tendency.
3. Philippi.
The general sympathies of Philippi were with the conservative
and strict construction of our doctrine. Yet" he comprehends
inspiration under the more general idea of ' illumination,' i. e., the
enlightening influence of the divine Spirit upon the church, from
which, however, he is careful to distinguish it in various ways.2
He defines inspiration as ' that act of the Spirit of God upon the
human spirit, by means of which the latter becomes, as it were
the object of revelation, and is enabled to receive it pure and
unsullied ; ' or, ' that contact of the human spirit with the Spirit ¦
of God through which the revelation of the latter, in its pure and
undistorted forms, becomes the possession of the former.3
He distinguishes three degrees of inspiration — the legal, the
prophetic, and the apostolic, each higher, more complete, and

1 Life bf Christ, p. 47.
*Kirehl Glaubensl, 1:207-21.
3 Id:, 1:222-3.

80 THE DOCTRINE OF INSPIRATION:
perfect than the other.1 The last or apostolic stage is- substan
tially coincident with revelation, the difference between the two.
being ideal rather than actual.
4. Rothe.
Rothe (f 1867) maintained with steadfast determination the
revealed character of Christianity. He did indeed abandon the
old theory of inspiration, but only to undertake its scientific recon
struction on what seemed to him more sure foundations.2
To him the Bible is not the word of God, in the sense of an im
mediate communication of religious doctrine.3 It is not revelation
itself, but rather its record, in the purest and fullest meaning of the
term. It is simply the overflow of the fulness of the divine life of
its authors. The Bible is not inspired, in the old dogmatic sense of
the word, for inspiration does not relate to literary activity. It is
not a religious text-book, but rather a historical record, which, as a
constituent part of revelation,4 must be penetrated and surrounded
by the peculiar atmosphere of the same, i. e., by the divine breath
which it inhales. Nevertheless, from its historic character it must
be content patiently to abide the free scientific investigations of
historical criticism respecting the canon as a whole, and the canon-
icity of single parts ; for the great revolution in religious knowledge
which characterizes modern times finds the foundation and centre
of Christianity, not in a book, but in a person; not in a doctrinal
system, but in facts and deeds, i. e., in history.6
5. Martensen.
Martensen, bishop of Seeland, Denmark, occupies in general the
position of Rothe, though modified by the influence of Schleier
macher. With reference to —
a. The Nature of Inspiration
he holds, in the first place, to an inseparable union between the
miracle of the Incarnation and that of inspiration. Properly
speaking, they are only the two sides— one objective and the other

1 Eirchl GlaubensL, I: 223 ff.
2 Kahnis, Luther. Dogm., 287.
3 Rothe, Zur Dogmatik (1863); Dritte Abhand., 155.
i Id., 26, 129, 319.
s Id. 317.

AN OUTLINE HISTORICAL STUDY. 81
subjective — of the one fundamental miracle of the new creation,
to which the Christian church traces its origin.1
The miracle of inspiration took place on the day of Pentecost,
and was the breaking forth of the Spirit of God within the spirit
of man. The gift of tongues was essentially a state of ecstasy, but
this did not constitute inspiration. It was only its accompaniment,
and as it were a shell or husk, within which was contained, and
out of which proceeded the clear and historical consciousness of
revelation.2 Inspiration in the primitive age was not confined exclusively to
the apostles, but (distinguishing degrees in the same) was bestowed
upon them in its fulness for their official work as founders of the
church.3 Their relation to the Spirit was not one of bondage, but
rather of freedom; and in their case inspiration consisted in a pro
gressive communication of the Spirit, going hand in hand with the
progressive development both of consciousness and of freedom.*
Personality in the Scripture writers was therefore not lostj but
preserved, intensified and elevated. It is to be noted also that not
the individual, but the total apostolic consciousness can be taken
as an adequate expression of the mind of the Spirit ; and this was
raised above temporal limitations and imperfections only in regard
to the articles of fundamental truth'.6
In the Holy Scriptures Martensen finds the ripened fruit of
inspiration. He would emphasize both the union and the dis
tinction of the divine and human elements contained therein.6
The formula of the former is, ' the Scripture is the word of God;'
that of the latter, 'the Scriptures contain the word of God.'
Each is true when properly defined and explained.
b. The Extent of Inspiration.
Martensen would not extend inspiration to every tittle and
every point in the Bible.7 Something transient and casual exists
in every book of the Old Testament, and also in the New. We
cannot maintain the representative character of everything in the

1 Christian Dogmatics,

19.

2 Id.,

, 338,

339.

3 Id.

,342.

* Id..
, 342.
s Id..,
,343,
402,
403.
"Id.
,403.
'Id.:
, ib. 12
82 THE DOCTRINE OF INSPIRATION:
New Testament as a pattern for our guidance : e. g. community
of goods, combination of the agapse with the Lord's supper, &c.
Only the general practice of the church is exemplary for perma
nent guidance.1
He does not view possible or actual contradictions in chrono
logical and historical details as harmful, unless of such a kind as
to affect the substance of revelation, i. e. to distort our apprehen
sion of Christ's person, or disturb .the fundamental basis of
revealed truth.2
6. Hqfman.
This divine was inclined to a free construction of the doctrine
of inspiration.3 He regarded the limitation of the idea to Scrip
ture as unwarranted and arbitrary, and would himself extend it to
heathen writings and poets. He said that the doctrine of inspira
tion was nothing else than a ' conclusion-backward' (Riickschluss) '
from the character of the Scriptures to their origin. From this
view also resulted the theory of its infallibility. He would not
himself admit that the teaching of any single apostle was abso
lutely free from error ; much less could any one portraiture of
Christ adequately set forth the full glory of its subject. He did
affirm, however, that the collective preaching of the apostles con
tained the conditions of an absolutely errorless apprehension of
Christ. (Compare Martensen above.)1 The Bible, accordingly, is
not wholly free from error, but it is the perfectly sufficient instru
ment for attaining an absolutely infallible knowledge of divine
revelation, since it contains within itself the means of self-
purification from the errors clinging to its individual parts : i. e.
it contains the means of self -correction. This is its actual infalli
bility, and herein also lies its sufficiency.4
7. Thohick.
This theologian in his 'Essay on the Doctrine of Inspiration'
maintains :
a. That what is known as the old orthodox theory (i. e. the
high Lutheran) is in reality modern, not dating back even to the
Reformation. 1 Christian Dogmatics, 405.
2 Id., 404.
3 Schrift-beweis. passim.
4 Beck, Dogm.-gesch., 127.

AN OUTLINE HISTORICAL STUDY. 83
•,b. That it was developed as a means of furnishing to Protes
tantism a counter-infallibility to that claimed by Catholicism for
oecumenical councils and the pope.
c. That in reality it has placed in the hands of rationalism a
most formidable weapon of attack upon the church.
d. That the free conception of the doctrine, so far from being
the fruit of modern rationalism, has had its advocates in every age
of the church, and must perforce find recognition and acceptance
as the result of careful and candid reflection ijpon the text of
Scripture.1 The main part of the essay is an ardent polemic against the
received doctrine of the absolute inspiration and infallibility of
the Scriptures, evidence being drawn not only from the history of
opinion, but also from the character and constitution of the sacred
books themselves. He asserts the' clear and certain existence of
imperfections and errors in the Scriptures as we have them, but
thinks that so long as these do not touch essential matters, i. e. the
substance of revealed truth, they can do no damage to Christian
faith, nor to the doctrine of inspiration properly conceived. The
witness of the Spirit is certain to faith, and faith once become
conscious of its own essential character, unhesitatingly leaves to
science all that transcends this province.2
Tholuck's work thus appears to be mainly negative or destruc
tive. He has, however, positive convictions of his 'own, and
devotes the concluding part of the essay to a defence and proof of
his position, that a divine and infallible inspiration, i. e. a direct
and absolute witness of the Spirit, does relate to the kernel of Scrip
ture, in other words, to its properly revealed parts, including
everything that concerns the Christian doctrine of salvation.
8. Dusterdieck.
Diisterdieck published, a number of years since, a volume en
titled " Apologetische Beitrage," mainly devoted to the question
of inspiration in relation to the individuality of the sacred writers,
and their real or supposed mistakes.
He believes that they did fall into errors, e. g., such as that of
expecting Christ's near return, but holds that this did not in
any measure detract from their authority.

1 Baur, Dogm.-gesch., Ill: 439.
2 Tholuek, translated in Noyes' Theol. Essays, 105, 106.

84 THE DOCTRINE OF INSPIRATION:
"I believe," he says, "on the one hand, in a theory of in
spiration which admits the possibility of errors, not only in his
torical and other external matters, but even in matter of doctrine.
On the other hand, I reject every theory of the nature of the
Scriptures, and the inspiration of its writers as false and destructive,
which is incompatible with Paul's declaration in I Thess. ii : 13,
" When ye received the word of God which ye heard of us, ye
received it not as the word of men, but, as it is in truth, the word
of God."
9. Hengstenberg.
The views of this theologian (f 1869) upon inspiration seem in
many respects like those of ' one born out of due time,' but really
correspond with his reactionary ideas upon other matters. He
occupied very nearly the position of Philo and of Justin Martyr,
and the other old apologists.
He finds the source of inspiration in prophetic ecstasy, which
necessarily involves the cessation of human agency and intelligent
perception. The Hebrew seers were not merely passive instru
ments, but were actually rapt into a state of prophetic frenzy,
raving like the Pythian priestess or the other heathen sibyls and
soothsayers of antiquity. The other developments of Hengsten-
berg's theory can easily be imagined.
10. Van Oostersee.
This representative of the evangelical Dutch school may be
most conveniently mentioned here. He holds —
a. As to the nature of inspiration, that it was not an external, '
mechanical, blindly impelling force, but a heavenly influence in
wardly exerted upon the writers, whereby they were guided and
strengthened for self -activity.1 It did not therefore prejudice, but
rather enlarge, intensify and glorify their individuality. The
Holy Spirit took possession of each man, and used him as, accord-'
ing to the nature of his sanctified personality, he really was.
Inspiration is not to be conceived as a mere momentary assist
ance granted to the sacred writers exclusively in and during the
act of writing, but as the natural consequence of their being
1 Christian Dogmatics, I: 200.

AN OUTLINE HISTORICAL STUDY. 85
personally led by the Holy Ghost, who controlled their thinking
and working, and in this way also their writing.1
b. These men were in a special manner, ,but in varying degrees,
the organs of the Holy Ghost.
c. Inspiration extended not only to great but to little things in
Scripture, not only to the things taught, but to the words and
the whole style of speech. This is argued from the indissoluble
union of form and contents ; and archaisms, solecisms and other
peculiarities are not judged inconsistent with this view.2
d. Inspiration had its limits.
Yan Oosterzee admits real contradictions in the Scriptures, and
denies unlimited and infallible inspiration, except in regard to
that which concerns God's saving truth.3
Our study of the doctrine of inspiration as held by the theo
logians of modern Germany cannot fail to impress us strongly
with two facts : one, the strong reaction in religious minds against
the destructive excesses of theological rationalism in the last cen
tury, with especial reference to our doctrine ; and the other, the
equally strong opposition to the rigid dogma as held and taught
'by the Protestant scholastics of the seventeenth century.
Whatever the varying standpoints of the German theology of
the present age, all forms, with rare exceptions, agree in the com- .
mon demand of a fuller recognition of the human side of the
Scriptures. It generally admits in regard to the nature of inspira
tion, no genuine and fundamental distinction between the operation
of the Holy Spirit upon the minds of, the sacred writers, and
upon common Christian believers. The difference is not one of
kind, but only of degree.
As to extent, inspiration covers only what are technically called
essential truths, — room is left for endless imperfections, both of
form and of fact, provided the latter concern only minor details.
Where the line shall be drawn between the i minor' and the
'major,' is confessedly more difficult to determine.
The Bible is not, but contains the word of God. Not writings
but men were inspired.

1 Christian Dogmatics, 1 : 201.
2 Id 203.
3 Id. 202.

86 THE DOCTRINE OF INSPIRATION:
V. French Orthodoxy.
Modern French orthodoxy with reference to the doctrine of
inspiration finds its chief representatives in Gasparin and Gaussen.
Both have published treatises which have been translated into
English.1 Other writers have taken much more moderate views.
1. Gaussen,
This divine (f 1863) taught the absolute inspiration and divinity
of the Scriptures in every part — including form as well as sub
stance, expression as well as matter. He says : " The word of God
is God speaking in man, God speaking by man, God speaking
as man, God speaking for man."
In regard to Paul's assertion that " all Scripture is given by
inspiration of God, &c," he remarks : " It admits of no restric
tion ; it is the whole Scripture, all that is written (naoa Ypaiprj) —
that is to say, the thoughts that have already put on the clothing
of language. It admits of no restriction ; all Scripture is so far
a work of God that it is represented as given to us by the breath
of God, in the same manner as the word of a man is given by the
breath of his mouth. The prophet is the mouth of the Most
High." 2 Again : " The entire Bible is not only named the ' Word
of God' (6 Aoj-oc too &eou), it is called without distinction, the
' Oracles of God' (r« layta rob d-eoo). Who does not know what the
oracles were in the opinion of the ancients ? Was there then a
single word which could express more absolutely a complete and
verbal inspiration ? " 3
Gaussen professes to admit, and tries to illustrate the preserva
tion of the individuality of the sacred writers when under the
influence of inspiration. He repudiates all notion of the state of
ecstasy, and maintains their self-control. He yet refers all differ
ences in biblical accounts of the same transaction, and indeed all
the human as well as the divine phenomena, to the Holy Ghost as
their author. Immediate and universal divine efficiency, and co
existent human freedom and individuality, he affirms. To reconcile
or explain the two, he finds of course a very different matter.

1 Gasparin, " Plenary Inspiration," translated by Montgomery.
Gaussen, " Theopneustie," 1842. Eng. trans, by Kirk, 1846.
2 Gaussen, p. 345.
"Id., p. 355.

AN OUTLINE HISTORICAL STUDY. 87
2. Meylan.
M. Auguste Meylan, a Swiss Protestant pastor, published in
1877 a treatise on the Canonicity and Inspiration of the Scriptures.
His positions are, for a continental divine, on the whole decidedly
conservative. He defines inspiration as ' that action of God upon
the sacred writers, which put them in a condition to receive the
revelation in its integrity, and transmit it to us without altera
tion.' '
He disavows all sympathy with dictation theories, and allows a
human factor in the composition of the Scriptures. He admits
progress in the course of divine revelation, and degrees in inspira
tion, varying according to the requirements and circumstances of
the case. He even concedes contradictions in matters of minor
detail among the sacred narratives, but repudiates the consequences
of such concessions.
The author is unable to bring himself to the admission of the
distinctions, so generally recognized by continental writers upon
inspiration, between that element in the Bible which stands in
relation to human salvation, and that which has no connection
with it. Once, however, he seems to approximate the idea,
(p. 188.)
M. Meylan admits a difference of kind, and not merely of
degree between apostolic authors and Christian writers in general,
thus arraying himself against the the rationalists, and allying him
self with pronounced advocates of evangelical orthodox opinions.
3. Godet.
Dr. Godet, professor at Neuchatel, approving in general the
definition of inspiration given by Meylan, yet declares his con
viction that the true light can be shed upon the circle of questions
relating thereto (perhaps the most difficult in all sacred science),
only by a clear and frank admission of the distinction between
the Bible and the word of God. The Bible includes more than.
the immediate revelation of God. It contains the word of God,
but is not identical with it. Nothing can be more delicate than the
problems which grow out of this distinction, but the time has come
for the church to rise to the recognition of this important fact.2

1 Revue Chretienne, 1878, p. 57.
2Id.,ib.

88 THE DOCTRINE OF INSPIRATION:
French rationalism, in the persons of Edmund Scherer, Colani
and other writers in the "Revue de Theologie," has asserted
German freedom of investigation.
VI. Opinion in England.
We have seen that the evangelic orthodoxy of Germany has
not yet recovered from the blighting effects of the rationalistic
reaction of the eighteenth century against the dogmatic exaggera
tions and absurdities of the seventeenth. It is but fair then to
notice that in Great Britain and America a counter-revolution set
in against previously prevailing latitudinarianism, in favor of
higher, stricter and more churchly views concerning the divine
origin and character of the Holy Scriptures. The doctrine of the
plenary inspiration and infallible authority of the Bible has had
during the present century a long fine of champions, all of whom
with pious intent, and not a few with learning and acuteness, have
defended what was to them the cause of truth, and foundation of
the 'faith once delivered.' The reader will at once recall the
names of many distinguished writers, whose works are in every
reference library, and some of them the companion of every pas
tor in his study.
To attempt to sketch these views, set forth often in extended
monographs, would be impossible and useless, especially as this
sketch is not intended for the defense of imperilled orthodoxy.
The historic interest may be best served by noting chiefly the
deviations from generally received opinions, among writers and
scholars of varying schools of thought.
1. Paley.
This divine (f 1805) says : " The doctrines came to the apostles
by revelation. They were wont to illustrate, support and enforce
them by such analogies, arguments and considerations as their
own thoughts suggested.
" The doctrine must be received, but it is not necessary, in order
to defend Christianity, to maintain the propriety of every com
parison, or the validity of every argument which an apostle has
brought into the discussion." 1

1 Evidences of Christianity, Pt. Ill: ch. 2.

AN OUTLINE HISTORICAL STUDY. 89
2. Priestly.
Dr. Priestly (f 1808)' holds us bound to consider the great,
truths uttered by the apostles as from God — divine, and worthy
of the highest regard. He judges us not bound, however, to
accord like faith to the minutiae of what they mention, nor to
their arguments and reasonings either from facts or revealed
doctrines. 3. Heber.
Bishop Heber (-f- 1826) declares1 that 'mistakes in points where
inspiration does not properly apply, can by no means derogate
from the inspired character of a work, in those respects where
inspiration is either needed or promised.' He also says that ' cir
cumstances which, whether true or false, have no positive bearing
on the doctrine or character of Christ, may belong indeed to his
history, but are no essential parts of the gospel' The bishop
insists that the words of i Christ are reported by the evangelists
with supernatural and inf allible authority.
4. Parry.
Wm. Parry (f 1818) endeavored to prove that there was
no necessity for inspiration or immediate divine suggestion of
what the apostles knew already, either from the discourses of
Christ or their own observation. The Holy Spirit taught them
all things respecting "Christianity, of which they were not previ
ously in possession — the whole of that religious truth which it
was necessary for them to teach, or for men to know. Since he
preserved them from all error in what they taught and recorded,
the same result is secured as though he had dictated every syllable
of their writings. If they had been mere machines under his
direction, they could in no case have given to men more than a
perfect rule as to all religious opinions and duties, all matters of
faith and practice. But such a perfect rule we have in the New
Testament, if we consider the writers as under the Spirit's infalli
ble guidance in all the religious sentiments they express, whether
he suggested the very .words in which they are written or not.2

1 Bampton Lectures (1815), pp. 301-2.
2 Inquiry into the Nature and Extent of the Inspiration of the Apostles, &c.
13

90 THE DOCTRINE OF INSPIRATION:
5. Coleridge.
It was Coleridge (f 1834), perhaps, more than any one else, who
really domesticated in England, and put in permanent circulation
there, views on the subject of inspiration hitherto current chiefly
in Germany, and based rather upon profound acquaintance with
German metaphysical philosophy, than with the genuine science of
Christian theology. The theory propounded in his ' Confessions
of an Inquiring Spirit ' 1 is known sometimes as the ' subjectime^
and again as one form of the '•partial'' theory. Really it is both
subjective and partial.
a. He distinguishes carefully immediate divine revelation, con
tained in the Law and the Prophets (and of course absolutely
infallible), from inspiration, or the actuation and assistance of the
Holy Spirit vouchsafed to the authors of other parts of Scripture.
The latter is only the ' highest degree of that grace and commun
ion of the Spirit, which the church under all circumstances, and
every regenerate member of the church, is permitted to hope and
instructed to pray for.' In other words, supernatural inspiration,
in the proper sense of the term, belongs only to the Law and the
Prophets. b. Consistently with his view, Coleridge admits errors and
discrepancies in those rnatters which ' stand in no necessary con
nection with the known and especial ends and purposes of the
Scriptures.' c. He bases his belief in the divinity of the Scriptures, chiefly
upon the testimony of inward personal experience. 'Whatever
finds me, bears witness for itself that it has proceeded from a
Holy Spirit.'
Some younger friends and followers of Coleridge abandoned
his careful distinction between revelation and inspiration, wholly
displaced the supernatural element from the Bible, and ascribed
to it only such inspiration as is common to all believers.
6. Arnold.
One of the pupils of Thos. Arnold (f 1842) asserts that he had
no accurate, precise, and sharply defined view of inspiration.2
1 Works, Vol. V:569ff.
2 B. Price, in Stanley's Life of Arnold, 197.

AN OUTLINE HISTORICAL STUDY. 91
This may be time, and yet it may not be difficult to form reason
ably distinct impressions as to his general ideas. According to
the same authority, he found and acknowledged in the Bible an
oracle from God, a positive and supernatural revelation made to
man, an immediate inspiration of the Spirit.1
Many utterances on the subject of inspiration are found in his
'Sermons on the Christian Life: Its Course, Hindrances and
Helps.' Thus he says: "Paul had the' Spirit of God so abun
dantly that no human being ever enjoyed a larger share," and
asks, " Are not his writings most truly to be called inspired ? Can
any reasonable mind doubt that to refuse to believe his testimony
is really to disbelieve God ? " 2
While Arnold holds, however, that the Scriptures are divinely
framed and superintended, he would not have his faith depend on
the accuracy-of a date or'a minute historical particular.3 He calls
it an unwarranted interpretation of the term 'inspiration,' to
believe that it is equivalent to a communication of divine perfec
tions." In whatever points errors may be discernible in Scripture,
either it does not concern what God has done for us, or what we
are to do for him ; or, if it seems to do so, God has made some
provision for the case, to remove what it might otherwise have
had of difficulty.
The following utterances will convey some idea of his views as
to the extent of the divine influence upon the minds of the sacred
writers : " " Inspiration does not raise a man above his own time,
or make him, even in respect to that which he utters when
inspired, perfect in wisdom and goodness ; but it so overrules his
language that it shall contain a meaning more than his own mind
was conscious of, and thus give to it a character of divinity and a
power of perpetual application." *
• 7. Robertson.
The views of F. W. Robertson (f 1853), are best disclosed in
two letters, Nos. cxxxix and cxl of his " Life and Letters." '

1 Stanley, Life of Arnold, 197.
2 Sermons, p. 400.
3 Id. 398.
* Id. 399.
5 Sermon on Interpretation of Scripture, 141, Eng. Ed.
6 Harper's Edition, pp. 306-7.

92 THE DOCTRINE OF INSPIRATION :
" The prophetic power, in which, I suppose, is chiefly exhibited
that which we mean by inspiration, depends almost entirely on
moral greatness. The prophet discussed large principles, true for
all time — principles social, political, ecclesiastical, and principles
of life, chiefly by largeness of heart, and sympathy of spirit with
God's Spirit. That is my conception of inspiration.
" The inspiration of the Bible is a large subject. I hold it to
be inspired, not dictated. It is the word of God — the word of
man : as the former, perfect ; as the latter, imperfect. God the
Spirit, as the Sanctifier, does not produce absolute perfection of
human character ; God the Spirit, as an Inspirer, does not produce
absolute perfection of human knowledge ; and for the same reason
in both cases,— the human element which is mixed up— else there
could have been no progressive dispensations.
" I hold it, therefore, as a proof of the inspiration of the Bible,
and divinely wise, to have given a spiritual revelation, i. e., a reve
lation concerning the truths of the soul and its relation to God,
in popular and incorrect language. Do not mistake that word
incorrect; incorrect is one thing, false another."
. 8. Hare.
Archdeacon J. C. Hare (f 1855), in common with other repre
sentatives of the Broad-church school, attributes inspiration to the
common grace of God's quickening and enhghtening Spirit,
shared by the sacred writers in common with other Christians,
but possessed in greater measure. His general view is expressed
in a quotation which he makes approvingly from Ackermann, a
German theologian.
" Theologians have not infrequently been guilty of a gross error
with regard to the biblical idea of inspiration, from looking upon
it as mechanical instead of dogmatical. * * * Hence they
ought never to have adopted or encouraged the crude notion that
persons under inspiration were like so many drawers," wherein
the Holy Ghost put such and such things, which they then took
out as something ready-made, and laid before the world, so that
their recipiency with reference to the Spirit inspiring them was
like that of a letter box. Whereas, inspiration, according to the
Bible, is to be regarded as a vivifying and animating operation on
the spiritual faculty in man, by which its energy and capacity are
extraordinarily heightened, so that his powers of internal percep-

AN OUTLINE HISTORICAL STUDY. 93
tion discern things spread out before them clearly and distinctly,
which at other times lay beyond his range of vision, and were
dark and hidden." '

9. Maurice.
The views of Maurice (f 1872) on the question of inspiration
were determined partly by his own subjective tendency and
mystical turn of mind, and partly by his unbounded admiration
for Coleridge, and the readiness with which he yielded to the
formative influence of that profound thinker.
The nature of the operation of the Holy Spirit upon the minds
of the sacred writers was, in his opinion, essentially the same in
character with that enjoyed by Christian believers of the present
day. Thus he says explicitly: "We must forego the demand
which we make on the conscience of young men, when we compel
them to declare that they regard the inspiration of the Bible as
generically unlike that which God bestows on his children in this
day." ' He also denounces the common and orthodox course of
setting up the Bible as a book which incloses all that may lawfully
be called inspiration, and predicts that it will lead to a general
alienation from the sacred records, and a wide-spread unbelief in
Christianity.3 10. Stanley.
The late Dean of Westminster (f 1881) has usually been
regarded as a typical representative of the Broad-church school
of English theology. His later writings, however, would seem to
indicate somewhat extreme negative opinions. The first difficulty
is, that his positions are implied rather than explicitly stated in
his writings. One may feel a reasonable confidence of under
standing him, and yet hesitate to attempt the formulation of his
theoiy. For a long time his views in biblical criticism were
tacitly associated with those of Colenso ; his more recent attitude,
however, has been identified with that of Mr. Robertson Smith,
though high official station in the church may have dictated
caution in avowing it. Some of his warmest admirers have lately

1 Mission of the Comforter, 1 : 500.
2 Theological Essays, McMillau, 1853, p. 339.
3 Id., 349.

94 THE DOCTRINE OF INSPIRATION:
declared it impossible to tell from his published writings, whether
he had any faith in the supernatural or not. One has bluntly
asserted that ' he did not credit the miraculous history of Jesus
Christ himself.'
11. Joioett.
Mr. Benjamin Jowett sets forth his views on the question of
inspiration in the appendix of his Commentary on the Epistle to
the Romans. Unfortunately for the writer, this book is not now
at hand. An approximate idea of his position, however, may be
gathered from his miscellaneous theological essays, which are easily
accessible. In one,1 after enumerating various opinions enter
tained, he says : " There is no foundation for any of the higher
or supernatural views of inspiration in the gospels or epistles.
Apostolic writings nowhere lead us to suppose that their authors
were free from errors or infirmity."
It is quite in keeping with this utterance, that he should see
imperfect or opposite aspects in different books of the Old Testa-
ment, variations of fact in the gospels, and inaccuracies of thought
and language in the writings of Paul.
We now come to a group of writers, of orthodox instincts, and
generally reputed soundness on this especial question, who have,
however, this more particularly in common, that they admit dif
ferent degrees of inspiration in the sacred records. In so doing,
they follow the example of Lowth, Whitby, Doddridge and others.
12. J. Pye Smith.
Dr. Smith (f 1851) speaks first for a careful distinction of rev
elation from inspiration. The former he makes to be the 'commu-
ntcation of knowledge not otherwise attainable, by immediate
divine influence on the human mind.' The latter consists in
'qualifying the recipient of revelation to communicate the revealed
knowledge to his fellow-creatures with perfect certainty and
accuracy.' 2
Inspiration may exist without revelation, as when one by divine
appointment faithfully transmits to others information previously
1 Essay on Interpretation of Scripture. Essays and Reviews, 380.
2 Scrip. Testim. to Messiah, 1 : 24.

AN OUTLINE HISTORICAL STUDY. 95
gained through any of the providentially appointed means of
acquiring it.1
Among the author's conclusions regarding Holy Scripture are :
a. That evidence does not warrant the belief that all parts of the
Old Testament were immediately dictated by the Holy Spirit, and
possess the same kind of inspiration.2
b. Different subjects require different kinds or degrees of
inspiration. A historian, relating what he learned from various
trustworthy sources, would need divine influences of a different
nature from those required to enable one to penetrate into future
ages, or declare the hitherto secret counsels of the Deity. There
must be revelation in the one case, while in the other it was
sufficient if the writer was directed to the proper use of materials,
and was preserved from mistake and misrepresentation.3
c. It was consistent with complete inspiration that the writers
should be left to the free exercise of their own mental powers in
the use of words, phrases and manner. Individual peculiarities
would be preserved, but the matter would be of divine and infal
lible truth."
Dr. Smith held, however, that when occasion required the
divine suggestion of words or clauses, then miraculous intervention
took place.5
13. Wilson.
Daniel Wilson, bishop of Calcutta (f 1858), conceded both di
vine and human agency in the formation of the Scriptures, — the
plenary influence of the Almighty Spirit, and yet the free exercise
of the characteristic faculties of the writers.6
" He sums up his idea of the nature of inspiration as follows :
"We attribute such an inspiration to the minds of the sacred
writers as exempted them from all error whatever in the commu
nication of the divine will, and gave to every part of their
declarations its full sanction as the infallible word of God ; and at

1 Script Test &c.,l: 24.
2 Id., 27.
3 Id., 61.
*'Id. ib.
s Id., 59.
0 Evidences of Christianity, Vol. I, Lect. XIII, p. 319.

96 THE DOCTRINE OF INSPIRATION:
the same time, allowed to each writer the free exercise of all his
natural powers, and the delivery of the divine revelation according
to his own habits and associations." 1
As to the extent of inspiration, he distinguished four degrees
or kinds.
a. That of suggestion — including such communications of the
Holy Spirit as suggested and dictated minutely every part of the
truths delivered.
b. That of direction — or such assistance as left the writers to
describe the matter revealed in their own way, directing only the
mind in the exercise of its powers.
c. That of elevation — adding a greater strength and vigor to
the efforts of the mind than the writers could otherwise have
attained. d. That of superimtendency — or the watchful care which pre
served generally from anything being put down, derogatory to the
revelation with which it was connected.2
This lowest kind, being always operative in the minds of the
sacred writers, is carefully defined as to its sphere. Bishop Wilson
concludes that it reached even to the least circumstances and most
casual allusions of the sacred writers, in the proportion which each
bore to the revelation itself.3
14. Henderson.
The well known work of Dr. Henderson needs little further
reference than the notice of his five-fold distinction of degrees in
inspiration, viz.: those of divine excitement, irvoigoration, superin
tendence, guidance, and direct revelation.
He held that the part taken by the Holy Spirit was confined to
that which was necessary to make a divinely authoritative record ;
all the rest was left to men, e. g. the use of historical material and
the choice of words.
Though objecting thus to verbal inspiration, Dr. Henderson
says there is no material difference between himself and advocates
of the opposite view, as he holds the sacred writers to have been
' always secured by celestial influence against the adoption of any
1 Evidences of Christianity, Vol. I, Lect. XIII: 321.
2 Id., 323.
3 Id., 325.

AN OUTLINE HISTORICAL STUDY. 97
forms of speech or collocations of words that would have injured
the exhibition of divine truth, or that did not adequately give it
expression."
15. Browne.
Among the latest works written from this point of view, is that
of Walter R. Browne on 'The Inspiration of the New Testa
ment.' 2
This author distinguishes three distinct states of inspiration in
the writers of Scripture, as follows :
a. " Direct Inspiration, when the writer is merely transcribing
a revelation from God, made' immediately to himself ; and even in
the transcription has a supernatural power working in and con
trolling him.
b. Indirect Inspiration, when the same controlling power oper
ates, but when the matter recorded, although 'supernatural, is
known to the writer, mainly at least, by the ordinary channels of
information. This matter may be either supernatural words (as in
the case of Christ's discourses given in the gospels), or else merely
supernatural deeds, or arrangements ; anfl the extent and nature
of the controlling power will be different in these different cases.
To distinguish classes (a) and (b), we may say briefly that the
writer is in the first a messenger, in the second, a historian.
c. Preventive Inspiration, when the matters are wholly within
the writer's knowledge, and at the same time of no immediate
supernatural import, being in general a mere filling in of details!
Here the writer will simply be left to himself, to tell his story in
his own way ; and the only work of inspiration will be to prevent
the introduction of any serious error, such as could not be detected
by the readers of later generations, and might produce evil results."3
Compare also on Degrees in Inspiration.
Hill, Lectures on Divinity, p. 156.
Dick, Essay on Inspiration, p. 8; also Lects. on Theol, I: 115.
Some general similarity of view, at least upon the question en
gaging our attention, may be detected in the writings of the sev
eral divines now to be mentioned.
1 Divine Inspiration.
2 C. Keegan Paul& Co., London, 1880.
3 Inspiration of the New Testament, pp. 144-5.
13

98 THE DOCTRINE OF INSPIRATION:
16. Conybeare.
W. D. Conybeare (f 1857), held with reference to —
a. The nature of inspiration — that the influence of the divine
Spirit so guided and guarded the sacred writers as to suggest all
essential and appropriate truth, and to preserve from all error.
He rejected the notion of degrees in inspiration, as unnecessary,
and unsupported by facts.
b. The extent of inspiration — that the divine influence extended
not to verbal expression, but only to the securing of a certain and
infallible standard of religious truth, from which there could be
no appeal. In points not concerning this, guidance was not needed
nor imparted. Conybeare, for example, doubts if inspiration ex
tended to all of Paul's allusions to Jewish chronology. He
strenuously insists, however, that in matters bearing in any way
upon religion, no such allowances can be made.1
17. Alford,
The late Dean Afford (f 1871) entertained very decided opin
ions upon the question of inspiration, which he sets forth in the
Introduction to his Greek Testament, and incidentally brings, out
with great clearness in the body of the Commentary.
He says that inspiration did not make of the sacred writers
mere channels for the transmission of infallible truth. The
working of the Holy Spirit in them was analogous to his influence
on every believer in Christ, viz., in the retention of individual
character, thought and feeling, and in the gradual development
of the ways and purposes of God in their minds. As their
situation and office was peculiar and unexampled, so for its ful
fillment peculiar and unexampled gifts were bestowed upon them.
One of these, in the case of the apostles, was the recalling to
their minds by the Holy Spirit of those things which our Lord
had said.2
Our author contends that divine superintendence, as exercised
in the composition of the gospels, extended no farther than that
general leading, which, in main and essential points, ensured har
mony between the writers. He is strong in the conviction that
the phenomena of the gospels are inconsistent with the strict
1 Lecls. on Theology, London, 1836.
2 Proleg. Greek Test, Ch. I, § VI: 8.

AN OUTLINE HISTORICAL STUDY. 99
verbal theory. He admits actual discrepancies in the evangelic
narrative, and yet declares for 'plenary inspiration,' properly
understood and defined.1
His precise view of the nature of inspiration is contained in
the following utterance : " The inspiration of the sacred writers, I
believe to have consisted in the fulness of the influence of the
Holy Spirit, specially raising them to, and enabling them for,
their work, — in a manner which distinguishes them from all
other writers in the world, and their work from all other works}'' 2
18. Browne,
Bishop Harold Browne contributed an essay on inspiration to
the volume entitled " Aids to Faith," written in reply to " Essays
and Reviews."
He holds that definite theories of inspiration are doubtful and
dangerous, for the reason that while there are clearly both divine
and human elements in the complex product going by this name,
it is difficult to define the exact relation of the two.3
The human side of the Bible comes out in the different styles
of the writers, and in apparent slight discrepancies in stating
matters of detail. The few unimportant divergences which occur
are of great apologetic value, as proving among other things the
independence of the writers."
The divine side of the Scriptures, or the genuine supernatural
element, appears in infallible foreknowledge and actual predic
tions of future events, i. e. in prophecy} ¦ ¦
This undeniable fact differentiates biblical inspiration from that
of mere genius. It cannot be explained on the principle of the
simple exaltation of intuitional consciousness" (see Morell below),
but proves an actual communication of the divine will to man
kind, through the prophetic and other books of the Old Testament
as channels.
What holds good of the Old Testament, holds good also a for
tiori of the New ; for no one could contend that the apostles —

1 Prolog. Gk. Test, Ch. I, § VI: 21.
2Id.,ib.3 Aids to Faith, 349.
* Id., 356.
5 Id., 357.
e Id., 359.

100 THE DOCTRINE OF INSPIRATION:
' with Christ's own mission, with the gift- of tongues and miracu
lous powers, with the special promises of the Comforter and
guidance by him into all truth, and with the assurance of Christ's
own presence — were in a worse position, or more liable to error
than the prophets.' '
The essential thing is infallibility in things pertaining to God
and religious truth. Yet with all the pains and ingenuity which
have been bestowed upon the subject, no charge of error, even in
matters of human knowledge, has ever yet been substantiated
against any of the writers of the Scriptures.2 If the case had
been otherwise, there would still be no cause for disquietude, so
long as the supernatural element was such, both in character and
extent, as to secure infallible truth in things divine.
19. Farrcvr.
We may note here the definition of inspiration given by the
learned A. S. Farrar, in his ' Critical History of Free Thought : ' '
" Inspiration is, if analyzed psychologically, probably a form of
the ' reason ; ' but, if viewed theologically, it is an elevated state
of this faculty, brought about by the miraculous and direct opera
tion of God's Spirit : so that in this view it differs in kind, and
not merely in depth from human genius." "
A series of writers holding more radical opinions now demand
our notice.
20. Davidson.
Dr. S. Davidson asserts that inspiration did not lift maxi above
error. It did not confer upon the sacred writers the attribute of
infallibility. They were still peccable men, but, possessing the
Spirit of God in remarkable degree, were gifted with peculiar
insight into his mind.
Their own subjectivity mingled with and formed part of their
inspiration. We take them as guides to faith and practice gener
ally, without adopting all that they propounded, .or believing that
they could foretell future events."
1 Aids to Faith, 359.
2 Id., 367.
3 Bampton Lects., 1862.
4 Id. pp. 40, 470.
6 Introd. to New Testament, I: 14-15.

AN OUTLINE HISTORICAL STUDY. 101
21. Warrington.
Geo. Warrington quotes with approval in his treatise,1 Arnold's
statement that ' the faculties of an inspired man are left in their
natural state, except so far as regards the especial message with
which he is charged.'
Summing up the results of his investigations of Scripture facts
and phenomena, he declares,
a. Inspiration does not extend to the letter, but is confined to
the spirit of the Bible.
b. The divine influence does not extend to statements regarded
as narratives of matters of fact, but is confined to spiritual teach
ing, the question of personal sentiments being left undecided.
c. There is no reason to regard any portion of this teaching as
uninspired, even when colored by personal or historical influences ;
there is rather every reason to regard the whole as inspired.
22. Robertson Smith.
To most conservative scholars it can scarcely seem less than
absurd to speak of a theory of inspiration as held by Professor
Robertson Smith. Yet he professes to have such a theory, and
that the only correct one. He declares it consistent with the
Westminster standards, and variant only from their traditional
interpretation. It is rather incidentally developed than explicitly
stated in his answer to the libel brought against him in due course
of ecclesiastical procedure, and in his volume, ' The Old Testament
in the Jewish Church.' It can really be deduced only from a
summary of the results of his destructive work upon the Jewish
canon. The design and limits of this article forbid the attempt
to present such a resume.
A few apparently clear conclusions, however, may be deduced.
He professes to find both a divine and a human element in the
Bible. The latter, the larger of the two, furnishes a fair field for
the application of the principles of historical criticism. It is not
only right, but imperatively necessary, that all parts of the Script
ures wherein this element is controlling, be subjected to precisely
the same critical tests and treatment as are applied to literary
works in general. Opinions will necessarily vary as to how much
can remain of a particular passage or book after Mr. Smith has

Inspiration of the Scriptures— Its Limits and its Effects.

102 THE DOCTRINE OF INSPIRATION I
actually proceeded to exercise upon it the critical office. Infalli
bility certainly finds no province here.
The divine element in the Scriptures is left indefinite as to the
scope of its application. Apparently no more is conceded than
that it concerns such a ' knowledge of God and of his will as is
necessary to salvation.' The author would probably make it
inclusive simply of ' God's commands, threatenings and promises
addressed to our faith, and above all, of the gospel offer of Christ
to us.' The ground of faith in the divine origin and character of
the truths contained within the Scriptures is not to be found in
any external testimonies to an objective revelation, but simply
and solely in the subjective convictions of personal experience
wrought within the heart by the power of the Holy Ghost. This
being accepted, it is hard to see what functions yet remain to
supernatural inspiration.
Better, however, than any attempted analysis of the 'views of
Prof. Smith, may be a few citations from his latest published
works. Thus he says :
" The persuasion that in the Bible God himself speaks words of
love and life to the soul, is the essence of the Christian's conviction
as to the truth and authority of the Scriptures.1
" Of this I am sure at the outset, that the Bible does speak to
the heart of man in words that can come only from God— that no
historical research can deprive me of this conviction, or make less
precious the divine utterances that speak straight to the heart.
"For the language of those words is so clear that no re-ad
justment of their historical setting can conceivably change the
substance of them.
" The supreme truths which speak to every believing heart, the
way of salvation, which is the same in all ages, the clear voice of
God's love, so tender and personal and simple that a child can
understand it — these are things which must abide with us, and
prove themselves mighty from age to age, apart from all scientific
study.2 "The inspired writers were so led by the Spirit that they
perfectly understood and perfectly recorded every word which
God spoke to their hearts.3

1 Old Testament, etc., p. 4.
2 Id., p. 28.
3 Id., p. 9.

AN OUTLLNE HISTORICAL STUDY. 103
" The Bible is a book of experimental religion, in which the
converse of God with his people is depicted in all its stages, up
to the full and abiding manifestation of saving love in the person
of Jesus Christ. God has no message of love to the believing
soul, which the Bible does not set forth." '
These utterances, in their detached form, have a certain sound
and savor of orthodoxy ; but it remains true, nevertheless, that the
views of Prof. Smith, as actually applied to the canon, are subver
sive of all belief in inspiration, at least in the sense commonly
understood and accepted by the orthodox consciousness, of the
church.

The next group of writers is, if possible, still more strongly
pronounced in its expression of negative views. «
23. Morell.
Morell, a disciple of Schleiermacher, and essentially at one with
the advanced Broad-church school in views upon our subject,
distinguishes revelation and inspiration, but regards them as two
different sides of one divine act. The former is an exercise of
power by which God presents the realities of the spiritual world
immediately to the human mind ; the latter is that especial influ
ence wrought in the mind of the subject, by which he is enabled to
grasp those realities in perfect fulness and integrity. God made a
revelation of himself to the world in Jesus Christ, but it was the
inspiration of the apostles which enabled them clearly to discern
it.2 The result of the two is to produce in the human mind a state
of intuition, whose phenomena are so extraordinary, that we at
once separate them from any of the ordinary principles of human
development. Yet this agency is applied in perfect consistency
with the laws and natural operations of our spiritual nature.
Inspiration does not imply anything genetically new in the
actual processes of the human mind ; it does not involve any form
of intelligence essentially different from what we already possess ;
it indicates rather the elevation of the religious consciousness, and
with it, of course, the power of spiritual vision to a degree of
intensity peculiar to the individual thus highly favored by God.3

i Old lestament, pp. 13-14.
2 Philosophy of Religion, 148; Appleton's Edition.
3 Id.. 148.

104 THE DOCTRINE OF INSPIRATION:
Having denied to the sacred writers miraculous powers, verbal
dictation or any distinct commission to their work from God,1 he
proceeds to affirm the generic resemblance of biblical inspiration
to that of genius. Genius consists in the possession of a remark
able power of intuition with reference to some particular object,
a power which arises from the inward nature of a man being
brought into unusual harmony with that object in its reality and
its operations.2
The difference of the two kinds of inspiration lies simply in the
nature of the objects apprehended, and in the exciting cause of
the inward mental elevation to which that apprehension is due.3
24. MacNaught.
•This author carries out the naturalistic theory to its farthest
limits. He defines inspiration to be '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.' " There
is to him no distinction whatever between inspiration and genius.
He makes no question that David, Solomon, Isaiah, or Paul would
have spoken of everything which may with propriety be called a
work of genius, or of cleverness, or of holiness, as works of the
Spirit of God, written by divine inspiration.6
Every thing good in any person or thing is inspired, and the
value of any book claiming the quality of inspiration depends
upon the amount actually exhibited, and the importance of the
truths it teaches. Milton, Shakspeare, Bacon, Canticles, the Apoc
alypse, the Sermon on the Mount, and the eighth chapter of
Romans are all inspired ; but which of them is the most valuable,
and therefore most truly inspired, is to be determined by consid
eration of its character, tendency, and beneficial effects as seen
in its history.6 As above indicated, Mr. MacNaught discovers
inspiration in rational and irrational creatures, in matter organic
and inorganic. He finds it in the instinct of the owl, hears it in

lPhilos. ofRelig., 159.
2 Id. 173.
3 Hodge,' By si Theol, I: 176.
4 Doctrine of Inspiration, 196.
5 Id. 192.
6 Id. ib.

AN OUTLINE HISTORICAL STUDY. 105
the rushing of the wind, and sees it in the springing of the blade
of grass.
He is able also to argue, to his own mind conclusively, from
the lack of infallibility in these acts and phenomena of nature, to
a similar want of infallibility in the writings of inspired men.
25. Newman.
No further statement will be needful as to Mr. F. W. Newman's
views concerning inspiration than to refer to his volume, ' Phases
of Faith,' especially chaps, iv. ff. This gentleman has made the
discovery that ' a book revelation is a contradiction in terms', that
an 'authoritative external revelation of moral and spiritual truth
is essentially impossible to man ; and that what God reveals to us,
he reveals within, through the medium of our moral and spiritual

It would certainly be a sudden and violent transition, were we
to pass from the extreme rationalism of such writers as have last
engaged our attention, to a detailed consideration of the reaction
ary orthodoxy of writers like Haldane, Bannerman and others.
We shall content ourselves with a simple reference to their
treatises :
Haldane — " Verbal Inspiration of the Scriptures}''
Bannerman — "Inspiration of the Holy Scriptures."
Elliott — "Inspiration of the Holy Scriptures" (more moderate).
Given — "Revelation, Inspiration, and the Canon."
VII. Greek and Roman Catholic Churches.
Our historical sketch may properly conclude with a reference
to the doctrine of inspiration as held by the modern Greek and
Roman Catholic churches. For the views of various Protest
ant bodies on the subject, it will be sufficient to refer to the
denominational literatures, in general, easily accessible.
1. The Greek Chwrch.
Questions as to the nature and extent of inspiration are hardly
known as subjects of discussion here. All are content with the
i The Soul, p. 59.
15

106 THE DOCTRTNE OF INSPIRATION:
statement that the Holy Spirit is the author and communicator of
Scripture, and that the prophets and apostles are the media
through which that communication is made to men.1
2. The Roman Catholic Church.
The Catholic doctrine of inspiration has been recently set forth
by Archbishop Gibbons,2 and his statements may be accepted as
sufficiently authoritative.
The Yatican Council declared : " The books of the Old and New
Testaments are to be received, as sacred and canonical,. * * *
because, having been written by inspiration of God, they have God
for their author, and have been handed down to the Church her
self as such."
Catholic theologians in answer to the question ' What is inspira
tion ? ' 3 would define it as 'a supernatural help whereby God, at
various times down to the end of the apostolic age, enlightened
the minds of certain men that they might know the truths which
he wished to deliver in writing to his church, and moved their
will to write them and nothing else.'
As the Bible is not written to teach science, the sacred writers
use the language of their time. We must not look in the Bible
for what passes, for scientific accuracy in the nineteenth century.
Still Catholics hold that, rightly interpreted, the Bible is not only
infallible in what concerns faith and morals, but that, moreover, it
contains no historical misstatement or error about physical facts."

K. GENERAL CONCLUSIONS FROM THE WHOLE
SURVEY.
If now we ask what general conclusions may be safely and
legitimately drawn from that limited province of the historical
doctrine of inspiration which we have surveyed, it may be replied :
I. Inspiration, in the sense of a communication of the divine
will to men through chosen messengers, has been matter of
iBib. Sac., Oct., 1864, p. 821.
2 North American Review, 1878, pp. 324 ff.
3 Id., p. 326.
4 Id., p. 327.

AN OUTLINE HISTORICAL STUDY. 107
general belief among heathen and Christians, Jews and Gentiles
m every age. It readily responds to the triple test of Catholicity' '
viz., acceptance "semper, ubique, ab omnibus."
II. Theories as to the nature and extent of biblical inspiration
should be always, and in great measure have actually been, broadly
distinguished from the fact itself. Unanimity with reference to
the latter is the more abundantly proved by the comparative
absence of dogmatic speculations upon the former, during the
first fifteen centuries of the history, of the church.
III. Abandoning the common, but really useless attempt at a
rigid classification of the various theories of inspiration, we may
yet say with confidence that no single one has ever commanded
sufficiently general assent to entitle it tp rank (as party zealots
would have it) as 'the immemorial doctrine of the church of God.'
IY. History furnishes conclusive evidence that no doctrine of
inspiration can hope for general acceptance in the church, which
fails to accord full recognition to the co-existence, co-activity and
harmonious relation of the two factors! — divine and human  in
the same.
All efforts wholly to displace, or unduly to exalt the one or the
other, will be met by a more or less prompt, and certainly a strong
reaction against the sole supremacy of this, and a like re-assertion
of the factor which is denied or undervalued. The doctrine in
its historical development has given evidence of a kind of self-
corrective power, which, in the long run at least, is sure to make
its presence and efficient operation manifest.
Y. If the truth of the foregoing statement be conceded, it is
plain that the doctrine of inspiration, properly so called, can have
nothing to fear from the attacks of modern biblical criticism, be
they those of avowed rationalism, of pseudo-evangelicalism (whose
loud professions of allegiance to confessional standards scarcely
suffice to conceal its really negative spirit and intent), or of reac
tionary orthodoxy and bigotry.
The trend of opinion at the present day is, as seen above, toward
a fuller recognition of the human element in the Scriptures ; and
bold assertions are made of errors manifold in fact, and even in
doctrine (which in a historic revelation like the Bible arises out of
fact), but it is to be rememered on the other hand :
1. That scepticism in every age, thus far, has found, as concern-

108 THE DOCTRINE OF INSPIRATION:
ing attacks upon the Scriptures, that assertion was one thing,
but proof and carrying of general conviction quite another.
2. That its assaults have uniformly resulted in establishing the
truth denied, upon a more solid basis than before, and, by clearing
it from misapprehension and ambiguity, in securing for it more
complete and symmetrical development than would otherwise
have been possible.
If the outcome of present controversies should prove different,
it would indeed be ' a new thing under the sun.'
It is matter of fact that to-day, as the result of the very criti
cism which is viewed in so many quarters with alarm, and pend
ing the solution of many difficult and disputed questions, the
general fabric of the Scriptures, 'apart from the question of
its inspiration, stands on a firmer footing than it did a century
ago.' This, by the unwilling confession of rationalism itself.
Surely then, simple-hearted faith in the divine oracles may well
rest quietly, thank God for that ' whereto it has already attained,'
and take courage for the future.

MISCELLANEOUS WORKS ON THE SUBJECT OF INSPIRATION :
Curtis, Human Element in tlie Inspiration of the Scriptures. Appletons, 1867.
Lewis, Divine-Human in the Scriptures. Carter & Bros., 1860.
Jamieson, Inspiration of the Holy Scriptures. Edinburgh, W. Blackwood &
Sons, 1873.
Lord, Inspiration not Guidance or Intuition. Randolph, 1858.
Wordsworth, Inspiration of Holy Scriptures. London, Rivingtons, 1851.
Lee, Inspiration of tlie Scriptures — Nature and Proof. Carters, 1857.
See also :
Westcott, Introduction to tlie Study of tlie Gospel, pp. 1-42. MacMillan.
Hodge, Systematic TJieology, I: 151-82.

INDEX OF AUTHORS.

Page.

Abelard,

. 31

Erasmus,

Agobard, .

30

Eusebius of Caesarea,

Alford, .

. 98

Euthymius Zigabenus,

Anselm,

31

Aquinas, Thomas,

. 31

Farrar, A. S., .

Arndt 

56

Pox, G.,

Arnold, Thomas, .

. 90

Fridegisus,

Athanagoras,

18

Gaussen,

Augustine,

. 26, 27

Gerhard, .

Baier,

. . 47

Gibbons, Archbp.;
Godet,

Barclay,
Basil (the Great),

. 56
27

Gregory (the Great),
Griesbach,

Baxter, .

59

Grotius,

Bellarmine,

51

Browne, Bp. Harold,
. 99
Hare, J. C,
Browne, W. R.,
97
Heber, .
Bugenhagen,
42
Henderson,
Bulliriger, .
42
Hengstenberg,
Burnet, G., .
. 58
Henke,
Buxtorffs, .
50
Herder, .
Hofmann, . * .
Calamy,
. 69
Hoburg,
Calixtus, .
50
Hollaz,
Calovius,
. 48, 49
Calvin,
41
Irenseus,
Cassiodorus, .
. 26
Jerome,
Chrysostom,
26
John of Damascus,
Clarke, 8., .
: . .69
Josephus, .
Clement of Alex.
15, 16, 20, 23
Jowett, .
Coleridge,
. 90
Junilius, .
Conybeare, W. D.,
98
Justin Martyr, . 1
Cyprian,
. 16
Le Clerc,
Cyril of Jerusalem, .
15
Limborch,
Davidson, 8.,
. 100
Luther, .
DeWette,
74
Mac Naught,
Doddridge, .
. 70
Maimonides, .
Diisterdieck,
83
Martensen,
. 77
Maurice,
Episcopius,
54
Melancthon,
Page. 37
. 23, 25
. 30
100
. 5630
. 86
. 46,48 . 106 87
. 26 64
. 53
i . 92
. 89
96
. 8465
. 65
82
. 56
47, 48, 49
14, 15, 22
27
. 2910
. 94
28
15, 18, 19, 22
. 54
5338
. 104
. 35, 30
8093
40
INDEX OF AUTHORS.

110

Page.

Page.

Meylan, ....

. 87

Smith, J. Pye, .

94

Michaelis,

64

Smith, W. Robertson, .

. 101

Middleton, ....

. 72

Socinus, F.,

55

Miltiades, . . .

20

Spener, .

. 57

Mohammed, ....

. 4

Spinoza 

55,61

Morell, . . .

103

Stapfer,

. 66

Musaeus, 

. 50

Stanley,

93

Stier,
. 79
Neander, .
78
Novatian,
. 22
Swedenborg,
66
Origen, 15, 16, 20
21,23
Tauler, .
. 33
Owen, .
. 59
Tertullian,' . 14, 16, 17, 19, 22, 23
Theodore of Mopsuestia,
. 27, 28
Paley, . ...
. 88
Theodoret,
. 26, 27
Parry, . .
89
Theophilus,
14, 15, 18
Pfaff, .
. 62
Tholuck,
. 82
Phillippi, ...
79
Thomas Aquinas,
31
Philo, . 11,
18, 19
Tillotson,
. 57
Pictet, .
51
Tollner, .
62
Pighius,
. 52
Twesten,
. 76
Piscator,
51
Plato, . ...
. 6
Yan Oosterzee, '.
84
Plutarch,
7
Priestly, . .
. 89
Wakefield, .
. . 73
Warburton,
71
Quenstedt, 46, 47,
48* 49
Wegscheider,
. 73
Robertson,
. 91
Weigel,
56
Rothe, ...
80
Wessel, .
. 35
Whitby, .
68
Sakya-Mouni (Buddha),
. 3
Wiclif 
. 34
Savonarola, ...
34
Wilson, Bp. Daniel, .
95
Schleiermacher,
. 74
Semler,
61,63
Zoroaster,
. 3
Simon, R., .
. 52
Zwingle,
. 40
YALE UNIVERSITY LIBHARY

3 9002 08844 9997

?