BIBLE
BIBLE
297
U necessary to Balvation. 3. Perspicuitat. The B. i< self-tipIaDatory. Passages may be more or less obscure, out these must be explained by means of the simpler and clearer declarations. Rightly used, it requires no other interpreter. 4. Efficacia. The B. is a means of grace, having the power of converting the sinful and consoling the sad. The ■econdary attributes are neceasUas, integritat et pcrennitaa, purilas et sincerUas fontium, authen- tica di^nitas. These indicate generally that a revelation must be written, and that, in all re- spects, the B., as we have it, is the B. as it was intended to be.
It is unnecessary to pursue further the history of the idea of inspiration as applied to the B. Enough has been said to show the position which it held, and how it was liable to be modified accord- ing to the circumstances in which the Church of successive ages found itself placed. Before touch- ing, however, upon the position accorded to the B. at the present day, attention must be directed for a moment to the relation in which the question of canonicity stands to that of inspiration, since these together have determined the manner in which the B. has been received in the Christian Church. The formation of a Canon at all implies that authority is attributed to the writings in- claded in it. The history of the Canon has shown us that it was formed gradually, aa the result of local usage, which fixed and extended itself, and not as the outcome of criticism or even formal de- termination on the part of the whole Church or its more important divisions. By the end of the 4th cent., as we have seen, the B. stood practically as we have it now. Yet its limits were not settled in such a way that the Reformers of the 16th cent, felt themselves precluded from rediscussing them. Their tendency was, in the first instance, to examine this and otlier accejited usages of the Church in the light of historical inquiry. But the oppor- tunities and the material for a competent historical Investigation were wanting. The questions at issue were larf;ely decided upon the basis of feel- ing, either individual or general. The exigencies of controversy necessitated a rapid arrival at a decision which should be practical and readily in- telligible. While, therefore, it was not upon the authority of tlie Church, but tlirough an intuitive perception supposed to reside in the believing Christian, that the contents of the B. were received, the B. thus acknowledged was neverthe- less the same B. as that of the 4tn cent. And this once determined, the doctrine of Inspiration was frequently employed to lift it out of the region of historical criticism, and to make its limits and contents a matter of dogmatic delinition. Tlius we have the rather remarkable result that inspiration in the sense of a supernatural guarantee for their truth and authority is claimed for a series of writ- ings, while no claim is, or can be, made for asujier- natural determination of the precise writings wliich are to be included in the series. If the latter question isstill open to historical criticism, and must be determined, as every book on Biblical Intro- duction proves to us anew, on grounds of historical investigation, it is illlpos.^ible for a dogmatic de- finition of inspiration to be applied in more than a general way to such a series of lK>ok3 ; and in that case the question, wliat inspiration is, and what are its limits or degrees, is again opened up. So long as ins[iiration cannot be claimed for the pro- cess by whicli canonicity is determined, canonicilj' cannot be held to fix the bounds of inspiration. It is true that, as Wcstiott remarks (liiljle in the Church, pp. 293, 2!ll), the usage which fixed the Canon ' is only another name for a divine instinct, a providential inspiration, a function of the Chris- tian body'; that 'history teaches by the plainest
examples that no one part of the B. could be set aside without great and permanent injury to the Church which refused a portion of the apostolic heritage. We are now in a position to estimate what would have been lost if the Epistle to the Hebrews or tlie Epistle of St. James or the Apocalypse had been excluded from the Canon. And, on the other hand, we can measure the evils which flow equally from canonising the Apocryplia of the OT, and denj'ing to them all ecclesiastical use.'
In more recent times, and at the present day, cases may be pointed out of almost all the varieties of view on the subject which our brief historical sketch brought to light. Some carry inspiration to the extreme of literalism, some appear to deny it in any sense in which it is not applicable to poetry and other forms of art. Unreser\ed con- demnation should not he poured upon either of these extremes. The first is held not only by the unthinking multitude, — ' the indolence ot human nature,' Mr. Gladstone remarks (Z>'«</«r, iii. p. 17), ' would be greatly flattered by a scheme such as that of the verbal inspiration of Holy .Scripture,' — but by thoughtful men who have seen in it the logical conclusion of their religious tlieories; tlie second, not only by those who are inditl'erent to re ligion, but by fine spirits who have not seen the possibility or perhaps the need of anj-thing furtlier. The large majority of inquirers, however, recog- nise frankly the true inspiration of the B., and also that the determination of its nature, degrees, and limits must be the result of an induction from all the available facts.