The subject of Inspiration and the B. is in our time canvassed mainly in two connexions — the rights of criticism, and the question of authority in matters of faith. Christianity as a historical religion cannot be exempted from the application of the principles of historical inquiry, nor can the
B. as literature be exempted from the canons o< criticism which apply to the other religions of tha world and their sacred books. So far all reason- able persons may be said to be agreed. The difficulties which have arisen in connexion vfith criticism have resulted from the division of the critics into two schools, one of which assumes that all the phenomena of the sacred history and its record must be explained by natural causes only, that the history of the Hebrew people is exactly parallel with that of Athens or of Rome, that the life of Christ is strictly of the same order as that of Socrates ; whUe the other school recognises and allows for the element of the supernatural when it is seen at work. The one studies the Christian development without sympathy, therefore without understanding ; the other avoids presuppositions, and seeks to apprehend the facts from within aa well as from without. But the latter, no less than the former, feels that the respect due to the Christian documents themselves imposes the duty of a careful examination and appreciation of them in the light of their history. The object of criticism is not destruction only, it is a means of ascertain- ing truth, and it is not true reverence which would place the B. outside of its sphere of opera- tion.
More pressing, perhaps, than even the distrust of criticism which prevails in many quarters, is the search for authority. If the B. is not to be like an Act of Parliament, operative ' to the last and farthest extremity of its letter,' how is it to retain that quality which the Westminster Confession ascribes to it of being the final court of appeal in all controversies of religion ? How is the divine and authoritative element to be separated from the human and fallible ? How, in fact, is revelation, in the sense of communicated knowledge, possible by means of the Scriptures? We may briefly notice two recent attempts to meet this difficulty.
Denney (Studtei in Theolnfiy, Lect. ix.) quotes with approval the words of Robertson Smith, in which he gives a modern rendering of the testimonium Spirittis Saticti : * If I am asked why I receive Scripture as tlie word of God, and as the only perfect rule of faith and life, I answer with all the fathers of the Protestant Church, Because the B. is the only record of the Tedeeming love of God, because in the B. alone I find God draivintj near to man in Christ Jesus, and declaring to us in nitn His will for our salvation. And this record I know to be trxw btj the witness of Uis Spirit in my heart, whereby I am assured that noju other than God Himself is able to speak such words to my soul.' Denney, however, clearly perceives what we have pointed out above, that this is *a doctrine of the Divine message to man," not * a doctrine of the text of Scripture.' His view is that coming to Scripture 'without any presuppositions whatever,' without any 'antecedent conviction that it is in- spired,' we become convinced that it is inspired because ' it asserts its authority over us as we read,' it has ' power to lodge in our minds Christianity and it« doctrines as being not only generally but divinely true,' — its power to do this being ' pre- cisely what we mean by inspiration.' A starting-point naving been thus acquired, by ' working out from it the area of certitude may be gradually enlarged.' Having accepted the B. aa in the main inspired and authoritative, the same con- viction may be indirectly entertained regarding all which is not self-evidencing. The Canon is to be received on the general assumption that the Church as a whole is less likely to be mis- taken than an individual inquirer. Tliis is all that can be arrived at by the multitude of Christian believers, or c*n be urged upon those whose minds are perplexed upon the subject ; for the rest ' the theologian will know how to distinguish between the letter of the record and God revealing Himself through it.'
Fairbaim (Christ in Modem Tlieolocfy, p. 49«fT.) appears to rest the authority of the revelation given in the B. upon the inspiration of those through whom it came— inspiration being described as a possession of the spirit of man by the Spirit of God. This is the converse of the view last referred to. w here the revelation and the response it awakens in the mind of the hearer or reader is the guaratitee of the inspiration. Indeed, on Fairhaim'e view the relations of inspiration and revelation seem to be reversed. 'God inspires, man reveals; inspiration is the process by which God pives ; revelation is the mode or form — word, character, or institution — in which man embodies what he has received.' In tins way a position is pained from which the adaptation of religious ideas to the circumstances of a people or age may be explained. But the attention and interests of men must ever be engaged witu the revelation