This last vie^v is not to be confounded, however, with that of those who limit inspiration to such matters in holy Scripture as directly pertain to the proper material of revelation, i. e. to strictly religious truth, whether of doctrine or practice. Among English divines, those who have asserted this form of theory are Howe {Divine Authonty of Scripture, lect. viii and ix), Bp. Williams (Boyle L(ci. serm. iv, p. 183), Burnet {A rticle vi, p. 157. Oxf. ed. 1814), Lowth (Vind. of Lie. Auth. and Insjnr. of Old and Neiv Testament, p. 45 sq.), Hey (Theol. Lect. i". 90). Bp. Watson (Tracts, iv, 44fi), Bp. Law (Theory of Religion), Tomlir.e (Theology, i, 21), Dr. J. Barrow (Bis- I sertjtcor.s, 1819. 4th diss.), Dean Conybeare {Theological
IXSPIRATIOX
614
INSPIRATION
Lectures, p. 186), Bp. Hinds (fnspinilinn of Scripture, p. 151), Bp. D.Wilson (lecture xiii on Krhhmr^. i. JOiM, Parrv {/nquiri/ into the yutiirc of the iH.yiuntidii <;/ ilic Apostles, p. 2(5, 27), and Bp. Blomrteld {Lectnns ,i,i Arts. V. XH-W ). Others have even gone so far as to avow tliat the value of the religious element in the revelation would not be lessened if errors were acknowledged in the scientific and miscellaneous matter which accompa- nies it. Among those who have held this form of the theory are Baxter (A/etkod. Tlieol. Chr. pt. iii, ch. xii, 9, 4),"Tillotson {Works, fol. iii, 449, sermon 1(58), Dod- dridge {IJn Jnspir.), Warburton {Doctr. of Grace, bk. i, ch. vii), Bp. Ilorslcv (serm. 39 on Eccles. xii, 7, Works, iii, 175), B|.. i;:iiiiloi|.h ( /,'< tn. mi Michaelis' Jntrocl. p. 15, 16), Paley ( /.V/V. .f chrlsiiuiulji, pt. iii, ch. ii), Whate- ly {Kss. OH ]>ij'. ill- St. Paul, ess. i and ix; Sermons on Fe.ftirals, p. 90; Pecul. of Christidniti/, p. 233), Hamp- den {Hampton Lect. p. 301), Thirhvall (Schleiermacher's Luke, Introd. p. 15), Bp. Heber {Bampt. Lect. viii, 577), Thomas Scott {Essay on Lnspir. p. 3), Dr. Pye Smith (Script, and Geol. p. 276, 237, 3d ed.), and Dean Alford (Proleff. to Gosp. ed. 1859, vol. i, ch. i, § 22). (For other writers who have held the same views, see Dr. David- son's Facts, Statements, etc., in defence of his vol. ii of Home's Introd. 1857.) The inadmissibility, however, of either of these limitations to inspiration is evident from two considerations: 1st, That the sacred writers them- selves make no such discrimination in their professions of divine sanction ; and it would, in fact, be subversive of the above distinction between inspiration and revela- tion ; and, 2dly, The line of demarcation between what is important to religion and what is not is too fine to be traceil by any expositor, so that we would thus unsettle our whole confidence in the truthfulness of the Scrip- tures. We therefore are compelled by the necessity of the case, no less than the positive declarations of the Bil)lo itself, to maintain that "all Scripture is divinely inspired," and not some of its parts or statements alone. At th(' same time we may, without inconsistency — nay, we nuist, in the liglit of just criticism— admit that the ])hnisr(,/(,//i/ in wliiih these statements is couched is oftentimes neil her elegant nor exact. Yet this does not impair their essential truth, as the testimony of an il- literate witness may be scrupulously truthful, although confused iu order and unscientific in form. Provided the facts are substantially given, the want of logical, rhetorical, and grammatical precision is comparatively unimportant, and forms no ground of impeachment. The mental habits of the sacred writers must be taken into accoinit in order to arrive at their meanine/, and this last, indeed, in the case of any writer, is what the reader is in search of, and of which language, whether clear or obscure, is legitimately but the" vehicle. The errors imputed to the Scriptures by certain scientific men have accordingly all been explained, sooner or later, as being merely apparent, and due to the pojiular style of the sacred writers. Even the most difficult instances of tliese, such as the omissions and general enumera- tions in the genealogies [see (Jkneai.ogv ov Ciiuist], arc susceptible of the same explanation, since these were evidently copied faithfaU;/ from ]iublic registers, which, however incorrect they may seem to us, were of uncuK'stioned currency at the time. A nicety in sti)i)i,iMg to rectify these (for, be it observed, no one was le<l into error by the transcription, since the writers, and, indeed, the whole public, were perfectlv aware of the .discrepancy) would liave been a far greater piece of pedantry than for a modern divine to pause in the midst of a quotation of Scripture to correct an unimportant mistranslation in th(! Antliori/.ed Version. Just so when our Lord and the apostle Paul freely cite passages ac- cording to the ine.xact rendering of the Sejituagint, aud sometimes even make them "the point of an argu- ment ; it is no disparagement either to their intelligence or insjiiration, but rather an evidence of their apprecia- tion of the literary aptitudes of those whom they ad- dressed. See Accommodation.
On the other hand, within the bounds of the orthodox view of inspiration, as above stated, there are two epi- thets currently employed which seem to border too close- ly upon the extravagant, and are equally unnecessary and incorrect.
1. " Plenary Inspiration" is a phrase nowhere war- ranted by the Scriptures as predicated of themselves. Christ alone was plenarily inspired (.John iii, 34) of all human beings. The term jjlenary authority would be far more scriptural and definite.