shown that the real dividing line between the Orthodox theory and its opposite is not that of a so-called plenary inspiration, but that of the alleged infallibility of the Scriptures. Doubtless the majority of Orthodox believers still hold to the doctrine of verbal or plenary inspiration. But this is because such a doctrine is supposed to be necessary as a basis and support of the infallibility of the Bible. This mechanical theory of inspiration, as it has well been called, might be given up, as indeed it has been abandoned by some eminent Orthodox theologians; while the infallibility of the Bible would still remain, though limited in its applica tion to the religious and theological truths which the Scriptures contain. On the other hand, the Naturalistic theory given by Dr. Clarke does not, we believe, fully represent the view of those who are supposed to hold it. Such was not the theory of Mr. Parker, as the eloquent passage from his chapter on the Bible, which Dr. Clarke has quoted, abundantly proves. Indeed, when Dr. Clarke himself goes so far as to say, that "while there may be a wide gulf between the inspiration of the Bible and that of the Vedas, or of Homer or Plato, yet they may all belong to the same class," he has very nearly expressed the view of the Bible held by such Naturalistic theologians as Mr. Parker. Any difference of opinion as to the comparative width of the separating "gulf" may well be regarded, from a philosophical point of view, as of no importance whatever.

With respect to Dr. Clarke's third class of views, the Mediatorial, we are at a loss to know what such views are, and by whom they are held. Certainly not by Dr. Clarke himself, who, after denying emphatically the infallibility of Scripture, gives us, as his own conclusion, the statement, that we may have a "faith in the New Testament as being, in some sense or other, a revelation; as being written, in some way or other, by inspired men; as being, somehow or other, a holy book."*

Let us now put by the side of this what Mr. Parker says,

* Truths and Errors of Orthodoxy, p. 128.

in his chapter on the Excellence of the Bible: "Little needs now be said of the New Testament, of the simple truth that rustles in its leaves, its parables, epistles, where Paul lifts up his manly voice, and John pours out the mystic melody of his faith." If "simple truth" may be called, "in some sense or other, a revelation," and if Paul's manly voice and the mystic melody of John's faith can be said to have come, "in some way or other," from "inspired men," it is fair to ascribe to Mr. Parker and Dr. Clarke the same general view of the Bible," as being, somehow or other, a holy book."+

But we have wandered from our main purpose, which is not to find fault with the useful and suggestive book of Dr. Clarke, but to call attention to certain points in the equally suggestive work of Dr. Curtis. The chief service which this work will render to Liberal theology will be the awaken

Discourse of Religion, p. 373.

† Professor Parsons, in his recent work, "Deus Homo," furnishes another of these threefold classifications of theories on Inspiration. There are, he tells us, -1. "Those who hold to the literal Bible, sternly and without compromise;" 2. "Those who believe that the Bible is only a most excellent book of human composition;" 3. "Those who hold firmly to their Bible, and cannot doubt that its writers were inspired by the Spirit of God, that they wrote the words of God, and that these must be true." Those who hold this view are not, indeed, hostile to science, some of whose conclusions they cannot deny;" but they hope some way will be discovered to reconcile these apparent opposites, and "they see no other basis for this hope than the doctrine of a spiritual sense of the Word." The confusion in this classification of views is apparent on the surface. The author of "Deus Homo" is evidently to be reckoned in the class of those who hold, not only to the possibility, but also to the fact, of an infallible revelation of divine truth, as opposed to Drs. Curtis, Hedge, Clarke, and Noyes, and the majority of Liberal theologians of the present day. The only point in dispute between the disciple of Swedendorg and the Orthodox, "who hold to the literal Bible," is this: Can the infallibility of the Scriptures be best supported by the doctrine of its plenary inspiration, or by what Professor Parsons calls the "spiritual sense of the Word"? We are content to leave the doctrine of an infallible revelation to its fate between the upper and nether millstones of literalism and allegorical interpretation, while we believe, with Dr. Noyes, that “those Christians enjoy a stronger as well as a purer faith, who, giving up the doctrine of Scripture infallibility as a dream, conceding to authority its just weight, yet guarding against its undue influence, feel bound to trust their own reason under the guidance of the Holy Spirit, as the supreme judge, believing that to deny reason is to deny God.” — Introduction to Translation of the Prophets, Note, p. xci.

VOL. LXXXIII.-NEW SERIES, VOL. IV. NO. III.

27

ing of inquiry among those who have never had the opportunity to learn what modern science and criticism have done to make the old theory of Inspiration untenable. We could wish that the author had confined his discussion more closely to the special subject announced in the title, and had omitted the somewhat extensive survey which he has given of the great field of theological controversy, as well as the uncalledfor and unnecessary biographical sketches of famous theologians. We regret, also, that Dr. Curtis has not defined more clearly and exactly the nature of that Inspiration which he claims alike for the humblest Christian and the greatest prophet or apostle, for the Scriptures of heathen, no less than of Jewish, origin. In one place he tells us, that the work of the Spirit, both in the inspiration of holy writings and holy men, is "to elicit into distinct manifestation, and to quicken, the individual powers of the inspired one." Yet, in another place, we are told that the inspiration of the writers of the Old and New Testaments "gave them certain divine powers." We are still more surprised, that, in his anxiety to show what is the underlying truth in the error of Orthodoxy, Dr. Curtis has been led, in one section of his work, to claim for the Bible a "practical infallibility." Elsewhere he has met the question of Scripture infallibility squarely, and without evasion. "Where, then, it is asked, shall we find an infallible and complete revelation? And to this we reply frankly. Nowhere on earth" (p. 326). And again: "No one considers infallibility necessary or possible, practically, in any other branch of knowledge, however vital: why, then, in this, the most profound in its researches, abstract in its essential principles, and complicated of them all?" (p. 327.)

We have no desire to pursue any farther the criticism of what, after all, are but minor defects in a work whose general positions are so well maintained, and so thoroughly on the side of a liberal and rational Christianity. The cause of vital, practical religion demands of theology a frank and complete statement of what the Bible is, and what it is not. The Bibliolatry of the present day is no fancied superstition,

but a very real and formidable obstacle in the way of truth. On the other hand, the indifference of those who, in ceasing to worship the Bible, have ceased to use it, is equally hostile to the religious life. The Old Testament is fast becoming a sealed book in Christian homes; while the New is rarely made the subject of patient, careful, and candid study. "A popular introduction to the study of the Bible, accessible to all, giving all the assured results of modern criticism, all the best supported probabilities upon doubtful matters, and a summary of the most respectable conjectures on questions hopelessly inaccurate," is needed at the present time far more than the republication of old sermons and essays, however excellent, or the revision of a Bible dictionary written in the interests of a moderate, but always prejudiced, Orthodoxy. On its speculative side, the subject of Inspiration is likely to be sufficiently discussed in the great controversy, which is still far enough from being settled, between the Positive and Intuitional philosophies. But there is a practical side of the question, for whose decision those who are not philosophers cannot await the issue of these speculations. Nor is the decision so difficult as is sometimes imagined. What is needed is perfect freedom from prejudice, perfect fairness in dealing with all the facts in the case. Let those who urge that the Bible should be read like any other book acknowledge with Parker the significance of the facts, that no other collection of writings has taken such hold on the world as this; that, while famous writers on morals and religion have arisen in one century to be forgotten in the next, "the silver cord of the Bible is not loosed, nor its golden bowl broken, as Time chronicles his tens of centuries gone by." In a word, let the radical, the rationalist, and the theist frankly admit the transcendent worth of those Scriptures, to which they themselves have been indebted for so much of their highest truth and their best inspiration. Perhaps it will then be seen, that the simplest and most

* See an admirable article in the "Radical," for March, 1867, on "What the People read," a review of some popular tracts on the Bible by Spiritualists and "Infidels."

rational way to make the inspiration of other scriptures, and of all high literature, appreciated and felt, will be to lead men to a free and loving study of those Scriptures which, for moral and spiritual influence, are still the Bible par excellence of humanity.

But equal fairness in dealing with this great question must be demanded of all those, of whatever denominational name, who still hold to the doctrine of Scripture infallibility. Let those who claim for the writers of the Old and New Tes taments an inspiration "different in kind" from that of the saints and prophets of all ages and all dispensations, consider whether such a claim does not strike at the validity of all inspiration, by practically ignoring the divine presence in all history, save that of the Jews. We are grateful for Dr. Curtis' testimony, that, "in all the Evangelical denominations, a growing number of the most intelligent and influential ministers, including some conspicuously active and useful in every good word and work, are quietly drifting in the direction" indicated by the book we have reviewed.

Only on the common ground of accepting the Bible for its mighty influence and its profound religious significance, can all who have at heart the promotion of goodness and piety among men work together in this holy cause.. What of good the Bible, worshipped as an idol, and believed to be what modern intelligence knows it is not, has done for humanity in the past, shall be wholly eclipsed in the brightness of its acknowledged excellence as the grandest record of man's converse with the Infinite, the loftiest utterance of the soul's undying faith and hope.

* See an article in the Christian Examiner, July, 1867, p. 27.