INSPIRATION, in theology, the commu nication by the Holy Spirit, to writers and speakers, of a portion of the knowledge and feeling of God,• in such fashion that they can be communicated to other men; especially used in relation to the Bible. On the fact of inspi ration rests all attribution of divinity to the sacred writings above any others; but theories of its method and extent have necessarily changed with the advance of critical knowledge. They have never had an authoritative pro nouncement even from the Catholic Church which allows liberty of judgment on this; the Bible not holding the supreme place there as in Protestant bodies, and the latter being too divided for a credal statement on this point, by the very causes which call for one. All theories rest not only on the necessary implication of divine character in the Bible, but on two specific passages: 2 Tim. iii, 16; "Ail Scripture is given by the inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine' (Revised Version, 'Every Scripture inspired of God is also profitable for teaching,' which does not relinquish the claim of inspira tion) ; and 2 Peter 1, 21, 'Holy men of God spoke as they were moved by the Holy Ghost' (Revised essentially the same). The Scriptures were the Old Testament.
The early Church did not generally dwell on theories of inspiration, regarding it as a pas sive "ecstasy" in which divine truth was com municated, but rarely going on to its effects on the inspired writings or the methods which produced them. Origen, however, the great builder of doctrinal framework, formulated an exact theory of "plenary" or entire inspiration, which preserved the writers from all faults of memory, and left no iota either incorrect or superfluous in Scripture. But others held that all believers were inspired in different degrees; as this made all believers infallible interpreters of the Scriptures, the perilous nature of such a doctrine led to the opposite one, that there was an inspired official depositary of interpretation as well as an inspired canon of writings. The medieval schoohnen evolved the theory that there were two kinds of inspiration in the Scriptures: direct, found where moral and doc trinal truths are directly taught; and indirect, in historical passages.•whence ethical truths can only be derived by allegorical interpretation.
Regarding inspiration not as a purpose but a method, there are three explanations within the limits of orthodox Christianity: the (plen ary' or verbal, the dynamic, and what may be termed the (irradiant° theories. The remaining one, which makes the inspiration only that com mon to all human beings — who are part of the divine mind — and having no part in any special revelation, .is really not a theory of inspiration at all, as it holds that there is none; that all things are parts of the world's evolution, and the sacred writers and the Bible were evolved like the rest, though the latter is the greatest moral product of the world, and to be rever enced in the moral rank as we reverence the greatest writers and thinkers in theirs.
In the early uncritical ages of the Protestant churches, the universal and obvious theory of inspiration was the plenary. The original text of the Bible was dictated word for word by the Holy Spirit. the writers being merely penmen, or media on whom were impressed certain phrases, which must not be varied on peril of distorting the divine revelation. The words of Scripture thus transmitted are God's words, to each reader as if spoken directly to him by the Deity, and no matter to what subject they relate, be it doctrine or history, the origin of man or the duty of man. That there are different styles, corresponding to different writers, means only that God has accommodated his expressions to their natures, for his own utilities. Hence, the least particle in the Scriptures is surcharged with meaning, and if anything seems in conflict with science, history, or other portions of the Bible, it arises from corruption of text, bad translation or other change from the actual re vealed language. This is the only theory with perfect logical continuity; unhappily it can only be maintained, in face of the increasing body of knowledge of texts, facts and natural ethics, by those willing to abnegate their own right of criticism wholly in favor of their own infalli ble interpretation. Indeed, the chief argument for the latter is that the divine purpose would be defeated, if its intention in giving the reve lation were made null by the misunderstanding of fallible human faculties.