2. Traces after a time begin to appear of a disposition, (α) to admit that the inspiration ought to be regarded as appertaining to the proper material of the revelation, viz. religion; but at the same time to maintain firmly the full inspiration of the religious [pg 474] elements of scripture. This view occurs in the allusions of the writers just named, and existed in the seventeenth century in the Helmstadt school of Calixt in Germany, and the Saumur school of Amyrault, Cameron, and Placæus, in France; and is stated decidedly by a series of writers in the English church. Some of the latter go so far as to avow, (β) that the value of the religious element in the revelation would not be lessened if errors were admitted in the scientific and miscellaneous matter which accompanies it. This admission increased after the speculations of Spinoza and the pressure of the Deist objections.
3. A third theory was suggested by Maimonides, which was revived by Spinoza, and has been held among many of the rationalists in Germany, and has lately appeared in English literature: this theory is, that the book does not, even in its religious element, differ in kind from other books, but only in degree. It will be observed that a wide chasm separates this view from either of those named under the second head; the only point in common being, that in all alike the writers agree that the nature of inspiration must be learned from experience, and not be determined antecedently by our own notions of optimism, without examining the real contents of revelation. Coleridge would by many be considered to give expression to this third theory in his Confessions of an Inquiring Spirit. Perhaps however he hovered between it and the one previously named; being anxious rather to identify inspiration psychologically with one form of the Νοῦς or “Reason,” than theologically to confound the material of revelation with truth acquired by natural means.
It is not the purpose of this note to discuss the true view of inspiration; but merely to state the historic facts. The writer may however be allowed to repeat what has been already implied in the preface, that he dissents entirely from the third of these views. To him there seems evidence for believing that the dogmatic teaching implied on religious subjects in holy scripture is a communication of supernatural truth, miraculously revealed from the world invisible. Cfr. p. [29].
On the subject of inspiration, in addition to the works above named, instruction will be derived from the sources indicated in the Essay on Inspiration in Bp. Watson's Tracts, 1785, vol. iv. pp. 5 and 469; and from Dean Harvey Goodwin's Hulsean Lectures, first course, lectures vii. and viii. The first of the above-named views is stated in Gaussen's work on Theopneustie, and on the Canon; the third in Morell's [Philosophy of Religion], c. iv; and in the first three essays of Scherer's Mélanges de Crit. Religieuse.
A list of those theologians who have held the second class of views above named, together with the extracts from their writings, is given by Dr. S. Davidson in his Facts, Statements, &c. concerning vol. ii. of ed. x. of Horne's Introduction, 1857; and Mr. Stephen, in his defence of Dr. R. Williams, 1862, has quoted some [pg 475] of the same passages, and added a few more (Def. pp. 127-160.[1086]) As the reader was referred hither from Lecture [III]. p. [114]. for the proof of the assertion there made, that this theory had been largely held in the last century in England, it seems fair here to add the references. At the same time this list is not given with the view of endorsing the views of these writers, but merely to prove the accuracy of the assertion in the text of Lectures [III]. and [VIII].
Among English divines, those who have asserted the form of the theory named above as No. 2 a, are, Howe (Div. Author. of Scripture, lecture viii. and ix.); Bishop Williams (Boyle Lect. serm. iv. pp. 133, 4); Burnet (Article vi. p. 157. Oxford ed. 1814); Lowth (Vind. of Dir. Auth. and Inspir. of Old and New Testament, p. 45 seq.); Hey (Theol. Lect. i. 90); Watson (Tracts, iv. 446); Bishop Law (Theory of Religion); Tomline (Theology, i. 21); Dr. J. Barrow (Dissertations, 1819, fourth Diss.); Dean Conybeare (Theolog. Lect. p. 186); Bishop Hinds (Inspir. of Script. pp. 151, 2); Bishop Daniel Wilson (lect. xiii. on Evidences, i. 509); Parry (Inq. into Nat. of Insp. of Apost. pp. 26, 27); Bishop Blomfield (Lect. on Acts v. 88-90).
Among those who have gone so far as to hold the form of the theory above given as No. 2 b, are, Baxter (Method. Theol. Chr. part iii. ch. xii. 9. 4.); Tillotson (Works, fol. iii. p. 449. serm. 168); Doddridge (on Inspir.); Warburton (Doctr. of Grace, book i. ch. vii); Bishop Horsley (serm. 39 on Ecc. xii. 7. vol. iii. p. 175); Bishop Randolph (Rem. on Michaelis Introd. pp. 15, 16); Paley (Evidences of Christianity, part iii. ch. ii); Whately (Ess. on Diff. in St. Paul, Ess. i. and ix; Sermons on Festivals, p. 90; Pecul. of Christianity, p. 233); Hampden (Bampton Lect. pp. 301, 2); Thirlwall (Schleiermacher's Luke, Introd. p. 15); Bishop Heber (Bampt. Lect. viii. p. 577); Thomas Scott (Essay on Inspir. p. 3); Dr. Pye Smith (Script. and Geol. 276, 237. third ed.); Dean Alford (Proleg. to Gosp. ed. 1859) vol. i. ch. i. § 22.[1087]
It will be observed however, that both these classes of writers are separated by a chasm from those which belong to the third class above named; inasmuch as they hold inspiration to be not only miraculous in origin, but different in kind from even the highest forms of unassisted human intelligence.