the depression and silence of the individuality of the sacred writers, as one under a power which could not be resisted, but it is human individuality purified, quickened, exalted, and in spiritual intercourse with the personal, living God.

We naturally inquire: What was the physical and mental condition of the sacred writers when in a state of inspiration? Was the inspiration continuous? Were they conscious of the presence of the divine influence when they wrote? Was that divine influence subject to the action of the human reason? Were they other than the media of communication? How did the Spirit operate on their minds? What indications had they when to write and when to cease? Was it a recognized mental impression? Was it a physical sign? Did they hear a voice? Did they behold a vision, or did they write as occasion demanded, as when St. Luke wrote his gospel, and when St. Paul wrote to the church at Corinth? It is recorded that Peter had a vision at mid-day, and heard a voice speak unto him. Paul had a vision at midnight, and heard a voice, and concluded that the "Lord had called him to preach the gospel unto them." Frequently they wrote to meet a religious emergency, which to them was an indication to write. When inspired, their individuality was intact. They were never clairvoyant, never somnambulistic, never phrenetic, as

"The poet's eye, in a fine frenzy rolling."

The authority with which they wrote is indicative that they were intelligently conscious of the presence of an influence more than human. There was no subjugation of the will and reason; the divine and human elements in their mental actions were inseparable and perfectly harmonious. Their inspiration was continuous, to the effect that all their statements are truthful; but they at times wrote when the revealing assistance of the Holy Ghost was not imparted, and his dictation not given, as when St. Paul expressed his intention to visit Spain, but was providentially hindered; as when he had forgotten whether he had "baptized any other;" as when St. John expressed the uncertainty of hope: "I hope to come to you." In their inspirational states they were sometimes dynamical, sometimes mechanical. In the former case the thought was divine, the language was human; in the

latter case both thought and language were divine, and the writer but the amanuensis of the Spirit, as when St. Paul declares, "Which things we also speak, not in the words which man's wisdom teacheth, but which the Holy Ghost teacheth;" as when St. John says: "I heard a voice from heaven saying unto me, Write, Blessed are the dead which die in the Lord: Yea, saith the Spirit, that they may rest from their labors, and their works do follow them;" and as when the Master said, "It is not ye that speak, but the Spirit of your Father which speaketh in you."

Guided by the canon of interpretation previously cited, let us turn to the record itself for our definition of inspiration. That definition is given by Christ, and is fourfold: It is the recollection of what had been said and done by himself and others. It is the suggestion as to what and how much of the past should be recorded. It is the revelation of future events and of doctrinal truth, such as transcend the realm of human thought. It is infallibility in making up the record of all that had been recalled, suggested, and revealed.

"The Holy Ghost shall bring all things to your remembrance, whatsoever I have said unto you." He was to stimulate their power of recollection to recall his words and the events of his life, which, though imperishably impressed upon their memories, had for the time being been forgotten. In this manner were recalled the lengthy discourses, conversations, and controversies, of our Lord. Such a supernatural quickening of the recollection was needful, when the dates of the Gospels are considered. St. Luke wrote in the year 64, St. Matthew and St. Mark in 68, St. John in 70. And these several accounts agree in what is written, but are unlike in what is omitted.

"He shall teach you all things." All that the Master said and did is not recorded. The writers were inspired by way of suggestion to select for transmission whatever is essential to faith and practice. Some things are given in full, others in fragments. Much is history in summary. So says St. John: "There are also many other things which Jesus did, the which, if they should be written every one, I suppose that even the world itself could not contain the books which should be written." But no uninspired man could know what to write to promote the ends of revelation. The recorder must be divinely taught to make his selections.

come," and "He shall receive Unto them were to be revealed

"He will show you things to of mine, and show it unto you." future events in the history of individuals and of nations in their relation to the spiritual kingdom of our Lord, and also such additional doctrinal truth as would be "profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness."

But that they were the only recipients of religious truth is a claim not made by themselves, and should not be asserted by us. In the Vedas of the Hindoos, in the Five Kings of the Chinese, in the Zendavesta of the Persians, in the Koran of the Moslems, and in the two Eddas of the ancient Germans, there is much religious truth, important in itself and beautifully expressed. And a reverence for Divine Providence inclines us to the belief that Zoroaster, Confucius, Sakyamuni, Socrates, and Mohammed, were providential men, called to be witnesses of God's being to the millions of their countrymen, "if haply they may feel after him and find him." They, however, have uttered no essential truth not contained in the Bible, while the sacred writers have disclosed their errors, and at the same time brought into fullness the fragments of truth which they taught, and which are points of connection with the kingdom of God. And, aside from what they taught, they have given us no proof of their divine mission.

Nor do the penmen of Holy Scripture claim that all inspiration should cease with them. While no new original truth has been given since John wrote his Apocalypse, yet the same Spirit which inspired him has inspired many since, and will inspire many others, to present old truths in new aspects of beauty and of power. In this sense the day of inspiration will abide forever, and godly scholars will ever disclose the infinite variety in infinite unity.

"He shall guide you into all truth." The infallible Inspirer would make them infallible recorders. As historians, they were to be free from mistakes, partiality, prejudice, error; as prophets, they were to foretell the future in truth and with precision. They were "holy men," and therefore would not intentionally misstate facts or record errors; they were preserved from unintentional misstatements and errors, because they were "moved by the Holy Ghost."

All things in the Bible are not revealed-only such as could VOL. CXXVII.-NO. 264.

22

not have been discovered by the unaided mind of the writer; but all things in the Scriptures are inspired, in the sense of a truthful record.

Revelation without inspiration would be too uncertain for intelligent faith.

And while it is eminently true that the Spirit did not come to guide the sacred writers into all historical, political, and scientific truth, yet it were the vitiation of the whole record to suppose that they recorded as truth the prevailing errors of their own or of former ages. They profess to record the works of God in creation, and, if their cosmogony is false, their record is worse than useless. Whether we fully understand their cosmogony is quite another thing. Infallibility of interpretation is not in the Church. The change of interpretation, on the part of exegetes, is not proof that Moses did not write with "scientific accuracy." Variations in opinions and changeful interpretations of natural phenomena are as great and as frequent as in the theological world. Newton's emission theory was "scientific accuracy" two hundred years ago, but it is not now. The future of science may be the future biblical cosmogony. Details as to the modes of the divine actions are not necessary to faith. Telescopes should not be confounded with microscopes. Both reveal the unseen, but their action is reverse. The Bible is both telescopic and microscopic. But the sacred writers do not use the telescope to reveal the animalculæ infusoria, nor the microscope to discover the moons of Jupiter. J. P. NEWMAN.

V.

THE preceding distinguished writers do not confine themselves, as the reader will notice, to answering the question which stands at the head of this theological symposium. It is impossible, within my narrow limits, to discuss the many issues raised in their essays; but their assertions concerning the test or criterium of inspiration, the right of private judgment, and the alleged intellectual tyranny exercised by the Catholic Church, are so important that they will necessarily claim a few words of comment, after I shall have given a concise answer to the question proposed for discussion.

The Catholic Church has always taught her children to enter

tain a most exalted idea of the Bible. Her doctrine about the nature and extent of inspiration is as remote from the infidel theories of modern rationalism as it is repugnant to the superstitious fancies of the Talmud.

The Fathers of the Vatican Council expound the doctrine of the Church in these words: "The books of the Old and New Testament are to be received as sacred and canonical . . . . not because, having been composed by mere human industry, they were afterward approved by the Church; nor merely because they contain revelation with no admixture of error; but because having been written by the inspiration of the Holy Ghost, they have God for their author, and have been handed down to the Church herself as such."

The answer to our question is contained in the declaration that God is the author of Holy Writ in the sense that the Lord impelled, by a supernatural action, certain men to write in such a manner that, according to the full meaning of the word, he may be called the author of the books they wrote. Revelation being simply a supernatural manifestation of truths unknown, is not always necessarily coupled with inspiration. That a book may be looked upon as having God for its author, it is sufficient that the Holy Ghost should have caused the penman to write the thoughts which He wished to communicate, no matter by what means the writer came to the knowledge of them. But revelation is not sufficient for divine authorship, as a book may contain revealed truth and still be the work of man: hence the definitions of councils, the writings of the Fathers of the Church, and modern theological treatises, are not Scripture.

It is the losing sight of this obvious distinction which has led Prof. Hedge and Rev. Dr. Newman to say that the so-called sacred books of the heathen nations which have preserved some fragments of primitive revelation were inspired. This loose phraseology is not only incorrect, but it might, after the fashion of Mr. Frothingham, be readily used by unbelievers to degrade the Bible to the level of the Vedas. We go a step further, and say that no subsequent approbation, by whatsoever authority, can make a book, written by man without supernatural help, become Scripture: it would merely, in that case, possess doctrinal authority.