religion whose first principle is the fear of the Lord, the writers apply their minds now to the ordinary questions of conduct in the household and in society, now to the world's ultimate enigmas of sin and suffering, of life and death, and nearly always as sages observing, reflecting, and even speculating, rather than as seers coming forth from God's immediate presence with authority to publish new truths in His name. Yet in some of the noblest passages of Job, where a great mind wrestling with deep and difficult problems is rewarded, if not with a satisfying solution, at least with glimpses of Divine greatness and goodness which make life's mystery bearable, and in such passages as the eighth chapter of Proverbs, where Wisdom is personified as God's Master-workman in creation, the inspiration may be regarded as primary.

(g) In the Book of Esther, whose canonicity was long disputed by the Rabbis, and which Protestant Christian theologians accepted only in deference to Jewish tradition, inspiration is at a minimum. A certain vague doctrine of providence is presupposed, but God's name is never mentioned in the story, and no spiritual interpretation is attempted, while the massacre over which the reader is invited to gloat sends him, by reaction, either to the critical verdict that one is here perusing romance and not history, or to the higher criticism of Marjory Fleming, But then Jesus was not then come to teach us to be merciful' (John Brown, Hora Subseciva, Edinburgh, 1882, iii. 214). The Song of Songs is instinct with at least the highest poetic inspiration, and, though the allegorical interpretation which secured it a place in the Canon is regarded by Protestants as a mistake, it cannot but be welcomed on other grounds, such as its passionate delight in nature, its enthusiastic praise of a pure idyllic love strong as death and mightier than the grave.

To sum up: the old doctrine of the equal and infallible inspiration of every part of the OT, with its correlated doctrine of the absence of inspiration from every book outside the Hebrew canon, is now rapidly disappearing among Protestants. There is, in reality, no clear dividing line between what is and what is not worthy of a place in the Scriptures. If some of the books of the Apocrypha could be admitted into the canon, few would be found to object.

It is out of the question to say that the Book of Esther is wholly filled with the Spirit of God and the Book of Wisdom wholly devoid of it.... Just as there is a descending scale within the Canon, there is an ascending scale outside it.

Some

of the books in our Apocrypha might well lay claim to a measure of inspiration' (Ŝanday, op. cit. 2581.).

Further, our leading authority upon the Apocalyptic books finds in their contribution to the doctrine of immortality a genuine product of Jewish inspiration,' and in the ethics of some of them an advance upon the highest morality of the OT and a preparation for the Sermon on the Mount (R. H. Charles, Eschatology, London, 1913, pp. 179, 226 ff.).

6. In NT.-The writers of the NT were as conscious of their own inspiration as those of the OT. The apostles, like the Lord, spake with authority. They were not pedants like the scribes. Whether they used tongue or pen, they somehow knew that their minds were under the control of the Spirit of God. (a) St. Paul's claim to teach is based on a special call and a special endowment. The gospel which he preaches was not received from man, but came to him through the revelation of Jesus Christ (Gal 112). He had no need to confer with flesh and blood. His inspiration was primary, immediate, and personal. Having drunk at the fountain-head, he affirms that he and others who share his inspiration speak 'not in the words

which man's wisdom teacheth, but which the Holy Spirit teacheth; comparing spiritual things with spiritual' (1 Co 218). Like the OT prophets, he can in general distinguish clearly between the revelations of God and his own opinions. After expressing his preference for the celibate life, he adds, and I think also that I have the Spirit of God' (1 Co 740). Evidently there is a borderland between inspiration and uninspiration, a region in which he has to tolerate, if he cannot welcome, difference of opinion, because the oracle is silent. On some important points-e.g. 'concerning virgins' he has no commandment of the Lord, but can only offer his own judgment for what it is worth (v.25). When he is about to give advice to the brother who has an unbelieving wife, or the woman who has an unbelieving husband, he is careful to premise that his counsel is based merely on his own sense of the fitness of things: But to the rest speak I, not the Lord' (v.12.). When, however, he admits that he speaks after the manner of men' (dv0púπivov λéyw, Kaтà ǎν0ρwπоV Xéyw, Ro 61o, 1 Co 9, Gal 315), he implies that, unless he chooses to descend from a privileged position, he speaks and writes under a Divine influence to which most men are strangers. (b) If the writers of the other Epistles do not directly refer to their inspiration, this is apparently because their authority has never, like St. Paul's, been questioned and resisted. When St. Peter, St. James, and St. Jude teach and command, warn and exhort, they expect to be believed and obeyed. St. John's claim to first-hand knowledge of Christ and His gospel is peculiarly impressive:

'That which was from the beginning, which we have heard, and our hands have handled, of the Word of life... declare we which we have seen with our eyes, which we have looked upon, unto you' (1 Jn 11.3).

(c) The author of the Apocalypse makes a strong, explicit claim to inspiration. He is a prophet, and his book a prophecy (13 107. 11 2261. 9. 181.). The things of God are revealed to him when he is in the Spirit' (110 42 173 2110). His letter to each of the seven Churches is what the Spirit saith.'

(d) Like the OT historians, the Evangelists did not depend on inspiration for any of the facts which they wished to record.

The Prologue to the Gospel of St. Luke is in this relation

singularly instructive. It indicates that a narrator required to thus be able to trace the course of all things accurately from be in touch with 'eye-witnesses, and ministers of the word,' and the first, before he could write in order.' Papias of Hierapolis indicates the source of St. Mark's information by saying that this evangelist, having become interpreter of St. Peter, wrote down, as far as he remembered accurately, the things said or done by Christ' (Eusebius, HE III. xxxix. 15).

Inspiration cannot, and there is no reason why it should, do the work of memory and research. It rather makes its presence felt in the spirit which was breathed into the evangelical narratives, and which is exhaled from them by the receptive reader. Two of the evangelists, according to tradition, were themselves apostles, and the other two belonged to the apostolic circles, St. Luke being the companion of St. Paul as St. Mark was of St. Peter. But behind all the narrators was the Spirit-filled Church, and many parts of the Gospels are doubtless not the composition of the evangelists themselves, but their transcripts from vivid traditions, first oral and then written, which had taken definite shape within the Church as the result of the apostles' own preaching and teaching. It may be assumed that the Logia of the Synoptic Gospels come, as a whole, directly from Christ Himself, whose words are the standard of the highest inspiration. While the Divine power which seized the OT prophets was intermittent, and even that which worked in the apostles was not without breaks and flaws, the inspiration of Jesus was continuous and perfect. His words are revelations which touch the common heart of mankind as no other utterances of human lips. He is

the incarnate Word, and no part of the Bible can be profitably used as a rule of faith and life until it proves itself to be in harmony with His Mind and Will.

7. Non-inspired Bible passages.-Tried by this standard, there are not a few passages in the Bible which cannot be regarded by Protestants as in any true sense inspired. Its sixty-six books certainly have not all the same measure of the Divine fire. Yet the old phrase 'the inspiration of the Bible' continues to have a real significance, which is thus expressed by Sanday:

It may be hard to sum up our definition in a single formula, but we mean it to include all those concrete points in which as a matter of fact the Bible does differ from and does excel all other Sacred Books. . . . And if we are asked to define the measure of this special influence, we can see it reflected in that wide margin which remains when the common elements of the Biblical religion and other religions have been subtracted and that which is peculiar to the Bible is left' (op. cit. 128, 140).

8. Inspiration in the Church and individual.— The last matter is the bearing of the doctrine of inspiration upon the living Church and the individual believer. Every Christian is inspired in so far as he is enlightened and renewed by the Divine Spirit. It is sometimes maintained that there is a distinction in kind between the inspiration of the apostles and that of the ancient or modern Church. This is probably a mistake. The real distinction is one of degree rather than of kind. The inspiration of an apostle should be conceived as that of a common Christian raised to a higher power in proportion to his clearer vision of Christ, his closer fellowship with Christ, and his deeper devotion to Christ.

This must be insisted on, that the inspiration of the NT writings is not due to the mysterious endowment of a few choice souls, but must be traced to the inspired life of Christian believers of greater or less intensity according to the moral and religious condition. If the Church of Christ to-day were as a whole cleansed and renewed, so that a like receptivity for the divine truth and grace were secured, who can doubt that the divine activity in the presence and power of the Spirit of God in man would once more be made manifest?' (A. E. Garvie, A Handbook of Christian Apologetics, London, 1918, p. 66).

LITERATURE.-W. Sanday, Inspirations, London, 1896; R. F. Horton, Inspiration and the Bible, do. 1888; C. A. Briggs, The Bible, the Church, and the Reason, Edinburgh, 1892; W. N. Clarke, The Use of the Scriptures in Theology, do. 1906; Marcus Dods, The Bible, its Origin and Nature, do. 1905; James Orr, Revelation and Inspiration, London, 1910; P. Gardner-Smith, 'Revelation,' in The Parting of the Roads, ed. F. J. F. Jackson, do. 1912, p. 328 ff.

J. STRAHAN. INSPIRATION (Roman Catholic doctrine).—I. In ascertaining what is meant and must be understood by inspiration in Roman Catholic doctrine, we are helped by several dogmatic definitions issued at different times. For the Catholic these are documents of the greatest possible weight and authority, next to the texts of the Scriptures themselves, since they are accepted by all, within the Church, as pronouncements of an infallible authority. All are of a comparatively recent date -from which it is plain that the doctrine of inspiration remained for many centuries a universally recognized tradition, and that it was only later, under the pressure of accidental and historical circumstances, that it was considered necessary to crystallize it, partially at least, into a defined dogmatic form.

and only God whom the Christians adore reveals Himself in both Testaments alike, and that they are, therefore, of equally Divine authority. Several similar declarations were made later, at different times, explicitly stating the belief of the Church in the Divine authorship of the books of Scripture, for the detail and text of which H. Denzinger's Enchiridion Symbolorum" (Freiburg, 1911, nos. 348, 421, 464, etc.) may be consulted.

The first definition, however, in which the doctrine of the Divine authorship is stated with use of the word 'inspiration' is the decree of the Council of Florence for the Jacobites (1441), in which we read (Denzinger, no. 706) that the Roman Church

'Unum atque eundem Deum Veteris et Novi Testamenti, hoc est, Legis et Prophetarum atque Evangelii profitetur auctorem: quoniam eodem Spiritu Sancio inspirante utriusque Testamenti Sancti locuti sunt.'

This decree evidently marks an important doctrinal advance, since it not only asserts, as a dogma of faith in regard to the Scriptures, the Divine authorship, but explicitly assigns inspiration as the peculiar mode by which it exercises itself. The same assertion was afterwards renewed by the Vatican Council in the following terms:

'Si quis sacrae Scripturae libros integros cum omnibus suis partibus, prout illos sancta Tridentina Synodus recensuit, pro sacris et canonicis non susceperit aut eos divinitus inspiratos esse negaverit: A. S.' (Denzinger, no. 1809; for the Tridentine Decretum de canonicis Scripturis, see ib. no. 783f.; cf. also the

present Pontiff's condemnation of the Modernist assertion, Nimiam simplicitatem aut ignorantiam prae se ferunt, qui Deum credunt vere esse Scripturae sacrae auctorem' [ib. no. 2009]).

To the doctrine of the Divine authorship we find here added the important statement that inspiration must be held to extend to the books in their entirety and including all their parts. It remains, therefore, established as an undisputed dogma of the Catholic Church that God is the author of the Holy Scriptures through this peculiar mode of influence to which the Church gives the name, borrowed from the Vulgate,' of 'inspiration.'

2. The texts that we have quoted thus far establish the belief of the Church in the fact of inspiration. But, in order to understand what is meant by it, and what is the nature of the fact expressed by that name, we must have recourse to another doctrinal pronouncement a definition of the Council of the Vatican, which is both very explicit and very guarded. After having once more re-asserted the Divine character of the books of the two Testaments enumerated by the Council of Trent and contained in the Vulgate, as extending to all their parts, the Vatican Council adds, by way of explanation:

Eos vero libros] Ecclesia pro sacris et canonicis habet, non ideo, quod sola humana industria concinnati, sua deinde auctoritate sint approbati; nec ideo dumtaxat, quod revelationem sine errore contineant; sed propterea, quod Spiritu Sancto inspirante conscripti Deum habent auctorem (Denzinger, no. 1787). It is plain, from this definition, that in the inter excluded. The first is that of what has been called subsequent pretation of what is meant by inspiration two hypotheses are inspiration, a theory propounded in 1582 by the two Jesuits L Lessius and J. du Hamel, in the following terms: Liber aliquis... humana industria, sine assistentia Spiritus Sancti scriptus, si postea Spiritus Sanctus testatur ibi nihil esse falsum, efficitur Scriptura Sacra.' Manifestly the Council rejects the notion of books which were originally human in authorship being raised, by a subsequent approbation, to the dignity of excluded by the above definition, is the theory held, at a later sacred Scriptures. The second hypothesis, which is also date, by another theologian, J. Bonfrère, and proposed by him in the following terms: Hoc modo potest Spiritus Sanctus scriptorem dirigere, ut in nullo eum errare fallive permittat; illi esset adfuturus. This way of conceiving inspiration makes it practically identical with the assistance of the Holy Spirit which the Church understands to accompany the Supreme Pontiff in his ex cathedra definitions, both guiding and pre

1 Cf. 2 Ti 816 'omnis scriptura divinitus inspirata' (râoa ypaón leóπvevotos); 2 P 121 Spiritu sancto inspirati locuti sunt sancti Dei homines' (ὑπὸ πνεύματος ἁγίου φερόμενοι ἐλάλησαν ἀπὸ θεοῦ ἄνθρωποι).

of the Thomistic axiom, while, of course, claiming to remain, both at heart and in word, perfectly orthodox.

As it would be tedious to enter upon a detailed historical account of the various phases of the question, we shall content ourselves with recalling a simple distinction, in which, in our opinion, might be found a means of conciliation between the opposing parties. If and whenever it is the manifest intention of a sacred author authoritatively to teach us a fact, however slight or unimportant, in any department whatsoever, the principle of Thomas Aquinas must find its full and irresistible application. Thus, to use a comparison of Thomas Aquinas himself, if it should be definitely the intention of the Scripture to teach us authoritatively that Samuel was really the son of Elkanah, it is impossible that the statement should be erroneous, and that Samuel should have been in reality the son of another. There are, however, obviously many cases when such an intention is absent, and can be introduced only by arbitrarily forcing one's private view on the text; the author writes in conformity with received historical or scientific views, which are evidently immaterial to his purpose. Who could, for instance, without assuming to himself the role of an authori

tative interpreter of the mind of the sacred writer, maintain that the latter certainly meant to teach us that, at the battle

of Gibeon, the sun itself stood still in the heavens in the literal sense of the words, and that any other interpretation of the text is positively excluded?

Briefly, to assert in an absolute manner that error is compatible with inspiration in the mind of the sacred writer is to adopt a position which most Catholic theologians would characterize as 'erroneous' or 'errori proxima,' as being indirectly opposed to the Catholic dogma of inspiration. To maintain, on the other hand, that every statement in the Scripture must be taken as strictly accurate in the literal sense in which it appeared in the original text seems unnecessary, besides being out of harmony with many clearly established and well authenticated facts.

It will be enough to note here, by the way, that no one nowadays thinks of claiming inspiration for any of the versions of Scripture, either the Septuagint or any other; and, indeed, the decree of the Council of Trent declaring the Vulgate of St. Jerome 'authentic' (pro authentica habeatur) means only that, being sufficiently accurate for the purposes of Catholic theology,

it is adopted by the Catholic Church as its official version.

6. The question of the compatibility of inspiration with error being thus disposed of by denying the possibility of any falsehood being authoritatively asserted in the Scripture, even by mistake, it becomes comparatively easy to answer the various questions raised concerning the extension of inspiration to the various classes of subjects contained in the Scripture. There is really no necessity for any classification whatsoever. Everything that is contained in the sacred books-be it dogma, moral precept, historical statement, quotation, or the words themselves-was clearly selected and put there by a mind under the actual influence of inspiration. Inspiration, therefore, must be indeed, ought it to have stopped short at anything understood as extending to everything; for why,

in the sacred text?

Leaving out of account the desire to avoid im. puting to the Holy Spirit a certain number of supposed erroneous statements in matters not strictly religious-a desire which apparently haunts some minds-there is no class of things contained in the Scripture to which there is any apparent reason to deny the benefit of the influ. ence of inspiration, except perhaps the words themselves, those material particles, so to speak, of which the text is composed. Verbal inspiration, indeed, is denied by a large number of theologians, but mainly on two grounds: (1) it seems impossible, on that hypothesis, to account for the diversity of style, which is so marked between two different authors; (2) because most theologians are averse to the notion of dictation, which they con

1 The recent condemnation of the Modernist proposition that 'inspiratio divina non ita ad totam Scripturam sacram extenditur, ut omnes et singulas eius partes ab omni errore praemuniat' expressly reproves that opinion (Denzinger, no. 2011; the pronouncement of the Commissio Biblica 23rd

June 1905 may also be consulted in this connexion [ib. no. 1980]).

sider inseparable from that of verbal inspiration. But, for any one who has read and understood our exposition of the theory of the instrument, as applied to the case of inspiration, those difficulties do not exist. Inspiration is the same in all sacred writers, in kind at least; but its result, the style and wording of the Divine oracles, ought nevertheless to be different, owing to the natural differences that exist between the various free and conscious instruments. An Isaiah and a Jeremiah, a Matthew and a John, write under the same pervading Divine influence, but each one in his own natural way, modo proprio. Moreover, the same theory has nothing in common with the conception of a dictation of God to the sacred writer. For to inspire is to illumine, and to illumine is not to dictate. Instead, therefore, of conceiving of a kind of dimin ished inspiration, stopping short at the selection of the words, we ought to conceive of a supernatural influence full and one, pervading the sacred writing throughout, and casting its Divine splendour on everything contained in it, even the most minute particles of the sacred text. There is no necessity to assume that inspiration enlightened the mind of the sacred writer in regard to his thoughts only, but abandoned him to his own natural industry when endeavouring to give literary utterance to his Divinely inspired conceptions.

LITERATURE.-J. B. Franzelin, Tractatus de divina tradi tione et scriptura 2, Rome, 1875; F. Schmid, de Inspirationis Bibliorum vi et ratione, Louvain, 1886; D. Zanecchia, Divina inspiratio Sacræ Scripture, Rome, 1898; L. Billot, de Inspiratione Sacræ Scripturæ, do. 1903; C. Pesch, de Inspira tione Sacrae Scripturæ, Freiburg, 1906; P. Dausch, Die Schriftinspiration, do. 1891; K. Holzhey, Die Inspiration der heil. Schrift in der Anschauung des Mittelalters, Munich, E. L. VAN BECELAERE.

1895.

human source.

INSPIRATION (Hindu).-Indian authorities and scholars in their references to the Hindu writings draw a clearly marked distinction between Scripture, revealed and inspired, and other compositions which, however great their antiquity and Worth, have, in their judgment and in accordance with the verdict of tradition, no valid claim to divine inspiration, or to direct derivation from a superThe former are śruti, that which is heard, the human ear receiving the divine voice, and communicating its message direct to men by the pen or by oral teaching. The latter are smrti, that which is stored up in the mind, learning acquired by observation and study, which is then delivered as the ripe fruit of human intelligence and application, moulded and fashioned at the writer's will, and presented as the reasoned contheir theme and style, or however high the regard clusions of his meditation and thought. The writings known as smrti, therefore, however choice in which they are held, occupy an entirely subordinate position of authority. They furnish no prooftexts, and, great as their popularity may be, they may not in a formal and strict sense be drawn upon for the establishment of rule and doctrine. The theory formulated with regard to śruti, on the other hand, assumed and taught a doctrine of literal and verbal inspiration, as consistent and exacting as has elsewhere ever been conceived. In practice the line was not seldom overstepped, especially in regard to works which appealed to the general taste and inclination, and enjoyed in consequence a wide popularity. In many instances these gained and retained a hold upon the allegiance and affections of the people, and especially of the non-priestly classes, which lay entirely outside of any theory or dogma of inspiration limited in its application to certain books and to these alone. The volume of śruti, however, was absolutely closed, and was incapable of either addition or

diminution.

The language also that is employed with regard

to the Vedas is sufficiently definite to remove all doubt as to the religious estimate which the writers themselves placed upon them. For, although in certain passages a degree of inspiration appears to be claimed for other and later works, yet in more formal doctrine and practice the distinction was always observed between the Vedic writings which possessed authority as śruti and other compositions, in the production of which the mind and skill of man played the predominant part. Thus in Brhad. Up. II. iv. 10 it is said that the Rigveda, Yajurveda, Samaveda, Atharvangirasas, Itihasa, Purana, and other works have been breathed forth from Brahman alone. The same theory is expounded elsewhere in the same Upanisad, not always with an identical enumeration of texts. A definite doctrine of inspiration is assumed and stated, e.g., by Ramanuja on Vedāntasūtras, II. ii. 43: the Veda. on account of its nonhuman character, is raised above all suspicion of error and other imperfections'; and the Veda, therefore, is the final authority and court of appeal on all questions of teaching and interpretation. The epithets applied to the Veda appear to be intended to convey the same idea, e.g. imperish. able,' 'eternal,' etc. And the most comprehensive and profound teaching is enunciated when the Veda, or the syllable Om, which is the beginning and the end of the Veda, is identified with Brahman. The same thought also is poetically expressed when it is elsewhere said that the deity is resident in the sacred text."

A further indication of the sacred character attached to the Vedic writings was the elaborate provision made in the schools for the exact preservation of the letter of the text. Apparently each of the schools had its own traditional recension, of which the members of the school were jointly and severally in charge, and which it was their office and duty faithfully to bear in mind, and to communicate orally to their disciples. The Vedic texts, therefore, were committed to memory by all; and the precise and perpetual recitation of them was their safeguard, and a sufficient check against alteration even in the least detail of the accepted order and form of words. Moreover, as an additional precaution against accidental variation, the sacred text was learnt and recited not only directly, but also according to a method known as kramapāṭha, or 'serial reading,' in which each word was repeated twice in progressive order, with the preceding and also with the succeeding word. An extension of the same method, which further illustrates the anxious care with which it was sought to secure the ipsissima verba of the sacred text, was the jaṭāpāṭha, 'twisted' or 'inverted reading,' in which each successive pair of words was repeated three times, in one instance in inverted order. Moreover, the verses and words of the hymns were laboriously counted, and the records preserved in the works of the Sanskrit grammarians; these numbers are found to be in agreement with the extant texts. It was in har. mony also with this conception of the peculiarly sacred character of these writings that the communication of them to Sudras, or out-castes, was strictly forbidden." They were the heritage and 1 Brhad, Up. IV. v. 11; cf. Śañkara on Vedantasūtras, 1. i. 8, a text which he interprets to mean that Brahman is the source of Scripture, the latter being defined as consisting of the Rigveda and other Vedas, with the works subsidiary to them. CL. SBE xlviii. (1904] 435, 478 1., 529 f. 3 Satap. Br. x. iv. 1. 9.

Manu, iii. 284, puratani, rendered 'eternal' by G. Bühler (SBE xxv. [1886] 127), but perhaps connoting rather high antiquity, and the dignity and authority which the texts accordingly were believed to possess.

Baudhayana, II. x. 17. 40, IV. i. 26; cf. Vasistha, xxv. 10. I [Laksmi] reside... in the sound of the Veda' (Inst. of Vipu, xcix. 14 f.).

Te.g., 'The Veda must not be recited in the presence of a VOL. VII.-23

possession of the twice-born,' and might not be carried beyond the circle of the elect, lest defilement in any form should reach them. Parallel instances to this scrupulous limitation of the circulation of a sacred book or books are numerous among other peoples. A sūtra of the Vedanta prohibits to Sūdras the hearing or studying of the Veda.1

Further, it would appear that the method of revelation, as it was conceived by the Hindu authors themselves, and the descriptive terms employed with regard to it were intended to imply the same sacred and inviolable character of the text. The rsis, the ancient poets and seers of the Vedic hymns, are said to have 'seen' (dṛś) the sacred texts which they then conveyed to men. Although in some instances they claim in so many words to have been the authors of the hymns which bear their names, the claim is disallowed, as far as the play of individual character is concerned, or the application of human intelligence and skill. Their part is limited to that of exact recorders of a message in the ordering of which they have no share, as regards either subject-matter or form. Their merit is that of faithful transmission of the words and teaching which the eye 'saw.'" No doubt the language employed is to a very considerable extent figurative and metaphorical. The 'eye' is the eye of the mind. The figure, however, in harmony with the universal tendency of thought and language, became obscured, and was literally interpreted. The mental or spiritual vision was transformed into a real 'seeing' of the actual letters and words, presented to the eye in material form. It is not improbable also that to the mystical meditative temperament of India a strong capacity for visualizing the creations of the mind may have played a considerable part in the elaboration of the metaphor, and have contributed not a little to its ready acceptance and popularity. Moreover, in India and, it may be said, to the Eastern mind in general, inspiration is much more a matter of men than of books or of the written word. The Veda was regarded, indeed, as the source and spring of all knowledge, and the teaching which it conveyed was the final and infallible standard of practice and belief. Even so, however, the veneration with which the Vedic text was regarded by the people as a whole hardly equalled the strict and anxious care with which the Jewish Rabbis erected a hedge' about the Law. In part this was due to the fact that the sacred writings were so jealously guarded by the Brahmans, and screened from profane knowledge, that to the great majority of the Hindus they were and always have been invested with attributes of distance and mystery rather than accepted and known as a guiding presence and authority in the life. The theory of the inspiration and inerrancy of the scriptures was universally taught and received, being denied only by the nāstikas, the atheists Sūdra' (Vasistha, xviii. 12); 'Let him not recite (the texts) indistinctly, nor in the presence of Sudras' (Manu, iv. 99). 1 Vedantasūtras, 1. iii. 39; cf. Sankara's comment and citation of passages (SBE xxxiv. [1890] 228 f.).

2 Cf. Manu, xi. 244: the sages. obtained (the revelation of) the Vedas through their austerities'; and ib. 234. Bankara (on Vedantasūtras, 1. iii. 30) quotes the authority of earlier writers that the ten books of the Rigveda were 'seen' by the ancient rsis; and elsewhere asserts the same of the mantra and brāhmaṇa portion of the Veda (on I. iii. 34). Rāmānuja seems to make an attempt to combine the theory of inerrancy with a natural belief in the effective authorship of the poets: The eternity of the Veda admits of being reconciled with what scripture says about the mantras and kändas of the sacred text having "makers," and about Rishis seeing the hymns. ... the Rishis... thus gifted by Prajapati with the requisite powers ... see the mantras, and so on... perfect in all their sounds and accents, without having learned them from the recitation of a teacher,' etc. (SBE xlviii. 332 f., on Vedäntasūtras, 1. iii. 28). To the rsis themselves, in their divine or semi-divine character, worship was offered.