f^'jJ^V'. red <2 ^p- •^ ^^ fee -t; W»* ;vp^ wdfcfe * LIBRARY OF CONGRESS. i»»; ED STATES OF AI§i6a. 1 mmm MKaJKA^i .' r» c «M"7 ^^nvsi" immz mm ■■ mm wwmmw' r'zww - - - - -■- - -» ~Yi mm,\, ,. ;jv' s^wvWywiW * >?'5T".y?»wvv^'y.?;^:< ^^fwBggSL »V»W . "BIB* DOCTRINE OF INSPIRATION BEINO AN INQUIRY CONCERNING THE INFALLIBILITY, INSPIRATION, AND AUTHORITY OF HOLY WRIT, BY THE REV. JOHN MACNAUGHT, M.A, OXOK, INCUMBENT OF ST. CHKYSOSTOll'S CHURCH, EVERTON, LIVERPOOL. £[jiru (SetiiUtm, Hcbiserj anti Cortoicti. "Have you seen your uncle's 'Letters on Inspiration/ which I believe are to be pub- "lished?" They have since appeared as 'The Confessions of an Inquiring Spirit.' " They are well fitted to break ground in the approaches to that momentous question " which involves in it so great a shock to existing notions ; the greatest, probably, that "has ever been given since the discovery of the falsehood of the doctrine of the Pope's " infallibility. Yet it must come, and will end, in spite of the fears and clamours of the "weak and bigoted, in the higher exalting and more sure establishing of Christian truth." — Letter (Jan. 24, 1835) from the great and good Dr. Arnold, of Mugby, to Mr. Justice Cole- ridge. — Stanley's Life of Arnold, p. 317, edit. 6th. " If the word Inspiration be taken in such a sense as to include Infallibility, we can scarcely "believe that St. Mark and St. Luke were inspired." — Bp. Mars ft' s translation of MicTiaelis" Introduction to the New Testament, vol. i. p. 96, edit. 1793. LONDON: LONGMAN, BROWN, GREEN, AND LONGMANS. 1857. v % ^ LC Control Number tmp96 031661 TO ALL RULERS, TEACHERS, AND OTHER THOUGHTFUL PERSONS THIS VOLUME IS MOST RESPECTFULLY DEDICATED BY THEIR HUMBLE SERVANT THE AUTHOR. PEEFACE TO THE FIEST EDITION. By way of preface to this Essay the author has only to say that, in the course of a protracted and earnest inquiry, he has not found any one hook or teacher to give him a de- finite and satisfactory explanation of the very important term " Inspiration." There is, in one school of thought, much which has been written ably, undeniably, and, no doubt, honestly, in opposition to the common idea of In- spiration; and there is, in another school of thought, not a little which has been written truly, ingeniously, and piously in support of the common idea: but few, if any, earnest thinkers will call in question the desirableness, not to say the necessity, of some simple and self-consistent treatise which — while, on the one hand, it shall contain a refuta- tion and abandonment of what is untenable in the popular notion, and, on the other hand, an assertion and demon- stration of the true doctrine of Inspiration — shall at the same time vindicate a high reverence for the just authority of Holy Writ, and shall show how this reverence for the sacred volume is to be reconciled both with the articles of existing Creeds, and with the startling facts, bearing on Inspiration, which are made apparent by a diligent analysis of Scripture itself. The object of this Essay is thus to be destructive of pre- vailing errors ; to be constructive of a true doctrine of inspiration ; to uphold the highest reasonable authority for VI PREFACE TO THE FIRST EDITION. Holy Writ ; and to give ease and security, in Christian faith, to all piously and honestly disposed minds. How far that object has been prosecuted in a becom- ing manner, or has been effectually attained, it is for the reader to decide ; but, whatever may be the public decision on this point, it will ever be a source of happiness to the author to feel that he has given expression to his opinions candidly, and, to the best of his power, clearly. Eveeton, Liverpool, March 28, 1856. PEEFACE TO THE SECOND EDITION. In offering to the public a new edition of this work, the author takes occasion to make a very few remarks for which he requests an indulgent consideration. Many friendly and most esteemed readers have regretted that the latter or constructive portion of the work had not been placed first, so that it might have shown the Essay- ist's true and positive faith before his assault was made on the prevalent superstitions regarding the Bible. To the kindness which has been intended by the expression of such regrets, the author attaches a high value : but he is still convinced that the order which he originally adopted is the true and inevitable one; for, with reference to men's reverence for the Bible, as in all other cases of rebuilding, the old ruin must be removed before it can be possible to rear the new edifice. Besides, if a reader had not patience to peruse the whole and compare the parts of a book on such a subject as Inspiration, there would, assuredly, be little hope of allaying his prejudices by any candid course that might be adopted. On these considerations, the general plan of this second edition stands as it did in the first; and for the entire volume, as made up of several parts, the reader's patient investigation is requested. To the many Eeviewers, who have criticised and com- mended or condemned his work, the author's acknowledg- ments are due, and they are cordially rendered. Wherever Vlll PREFACE TO THE SECOND EDITION. a suggestion has been made, by friend or foe, which seemed to have any weight in it, he has gladly availed himself of its instruction. One not unfriendly Reviewer has blamed the Essayist for having failed to acknowledge that the champions of Unita- rianism had been his pioneers and precursors in the attempt to demolish the notion of Inspirational Infallibility. The Essayist can only reply, that he is not altogether unac- quainted with the published writings of Priestley, Chan- ning, Martineau, and other leaders of the Unitarian body; and that he was, and still is, wholly ignorant that a sever- ance between Inspiration and Infallibility had ever been attempted by those writers, or by any others of their school. Had he known them to have made such a distinction, he would most frankly have pointed it out, and have owned that, on the Doctrine of Inspiration, as undoubtedly on some other subjects, the Unitarians are entitled to the credit of having been leaders of enquiry in modern Christendom. The author will always remember with heartfelt satisfaction the manner in which he has been assisted and encouraged, since the appearance of the first edition, by many of his friends, as well as by not a few of the clergy and laity, previously unknown to him, whose courageous sympathy has been awakened by his candid avowal of opinions, and by the obloquy with which that candid avowal has been assailed. He is far, indeed, from wishing to pledge any one to an entire assent and consent to all things contained in this volume ; but it is to him a source of unfeigned gratification to know that he has the general approbation of many who are the chief hope of reasonable religion and intelligent theology within the communion of the Esta- blished Church ; and, among them, of such men as the PREFACE TO THE SECOND EDITION. IX Eeverend Professor Jowett, the Eeverend Professor Baden Powell, the Reverend Rowland Williams, Fellow of King's College, Cambridge, and the Reverend Henry Bristow Wilson, late Fellow and Tutor of St. John's College, Oxford. The sympathy of men like these, and the testimony of a good conscience, may well enable the author to endure the opposition of the impatient, the prejudiced, and the ill- informed. It only remains for him, in these few prefatory remarks, to tender his best thanks to the public for the readiness with which the whole of the first edition has been bought up in less than six months. Perhaps, his best mode of showing that he appreciates this favour is that which he has adopted, in carefully revising and correcting the work, so as to make it more worthy of popular estima- tion; and in publishing it in a type no less legible than before, while the form of the volume has been so far changed as to admit of its being sold at a greatly reduced price. It is hoped that the book will thus be placed within the reach of a much larger circle of readers, and that its opinions will be proportionably disseminated. Everto^' October 8, 1856. CONTENTS. INTRODUCTION. ^ge. Sec. 1. — Christ the one foundation, and the human mind with its various prepossessions the groundwork - - 1 Sec. 2. — Keason and Faith in connexion with Keligion generally and with Inspiration particularly 1 Sec. 3. — The effect of confused notions of Inspiration on the several classes of society 2 Sec 4. — The general danger to faith of such confusion, a motive for the undertaking of this Essay in the interest of Christian belief ------ 4 Sec 5. — The author's experience of benefit from the views about to be propounded ._.,.__ 4 Sec 6. — The terms "plenary," "verbal," "mechanical," " dynamical," "suggestive" and "superintendent," not empfoyed in these pages as epithets of Inspi- ration - ------ 5 Sec 7. — The confirming of faith, the removing unbelief, and the promotion of charity, are the objects of this Essay 6 Sec 8. — The arrangement of the work in Five Books - - 8 Sec 9. — Acknowledged sources whence the materials of this Essay have been drawn ----- 8 Sec 10. — The solemnity of the present Inquiry fully recognized 9 BOOK I. Does the Bible permit us to regard its teaching as Infallible f Chap. I. — The inspired Book and its supposed infallibility. Sec 1. — Importance of ascertaining the meaning of Inspiration as a characteristic of Holy "Writ 10 Sec 2. — No definition to be found ready to hand in Scripture 11 Sec 3. — Definitions of " Inspiration" in the dic- tionaries of Johnson, Kichardson, Bobinson, Eden, and Webster - - - - - 11 PAGE Sec. 4. — The signification popularly attached to "Inspiration" 13 Sec 5. — The duty of promulgating clear views on this subject ....... 14. Sec. 6. — The precise meaning of the term " Infal- lible" - 15 Chaf. II. — Scientific and Historical errors observable in Holy Writ. Sec 1. — Our investigation will not turn on the bearing of modern science on the theories of the Scripture- writers - - - - - - 17 Sec 2. — The genealogies of our Lord - - - 18 A. — Matthew's account of the genealogy of Jesus 18 1. What if errors in transcription be acknow- ledged? -..-_.. 19 2. The particular version of the Bible with which our inquiry is concerned - - - 20 3. Unsatisfactoriness of all modes of " explain- ing away " difficulties - - - - 22 B. — Luke's account of the genealogy of Jesus compared with that of Matthew - - - 22 Sec 3. — The residence of the Holy Family - - 24 Sec 4. — The supposed prophecy "He shall be called a Nazarene " - - - - - 26 Sec 5. — Hosea's words " Out of Egypt have I called my son" ------ 28 Sec 6. — Comparison of the two narratives of the temptation of Christ -• - - - - - 28 Sec 7. — Frequent discrepancies in recording the words said to have been spoken or written on any given occasion ----•• 30 A. — Example of such discrepancies in the super- scription of the Cross - - 30 B. — Example of such discrepancies in Peter's denials - - - • - - . - - 31 C. — The census by David, the purchase of Acel- dama, the hour of the crucifixion, the num- bers of the plague - stricken, are further illustrations of such inaccuracy - - - 33 Sec 8. — The people, learned and unlearned, are noticing these discrepancies - - - - 35 Chap. III. — The existence of such Scriptural Errors recognised by the learned and the pious. Sec 1. — Forced harmonies abandoned and the truth confessed ------ 36 Sec 2. — The opinions of several learned and eminent divines - - - - - - 36 A. — The opinion of ISTeander - - - 36 B. — The opinion of Bishop Burnet - - - 37 C. — The opinion of Professor Tholuck - - 38 D. — The opinion of Bishop Hinds, (Norwich) - 38 E.— -The opinion of Archhp. Whately, (Dublin) 39 F. — The opinion of another English Bishop - 40 G- — The opinion of Bp. Hampden, (Hereford) 41 Sec. 3. — These writers own to Scriptural errors in everything except Beligion - - - 43 Chap. IV. — Are there no religious errors in Holy "Writ ? - 45 Sec. 1. — Does the Bible permit us to regard its religious teaching as infallible ? - 45 A. — The history of Jael - - - - 45 B. — Some of the imprecations of Jeremiah, the Psalmists, and Paul - - - - 46 C. — The Jewish, belief or disbelief of man's life in a future world - - - - - 47 D. — The Apostolic belief as to the time of Christ's Second Coming to judge the world 50 E. — Paul's argument in 1 Cor. xv. 19, 32 - - 55 Sec. 2. — The conclusion an answer to the ques- tion of this Book - - - 56 BOOK II. What reason is therefor expecting the Bible to be Infallible? Introduction. — The self-consistency of truth in its bearings on this queston -------- 58 Chap. I. — Examination of the argument from Miracles for Inspirational Infallibility - - - - - 60 Chap. II. — Examination of the argument from Prophecy - - 62 Chap. III. — Examination of the argument from the Authority claimed for Scripture by the New Testament writers 65 A. — The opinion of the Jews on this subject - 66 B. — The opinion of the Evangelists - - - 66 C. — Alleged utterances of Jesus on this subject 67 Chap. IV. — Argument in favour of Inspirational Infallibility from the supposed impossibility of Scripture Wri- ' ters ascertaining, by natural means, many particu- lars of which they treat - - - - 76 A.— Evangelists recording scenes at which they were not present - - - - - - 77 B. — Genesis describing creation antecedent to man's existence - - - - - 79 Chap. V Argument for Inspirational Infallibility from the ex- cellence and effectiveness of Holy Writ - - - 82 Chap. VI. — Argument for Inspirational Infallibility from Scrip- tural Canonicity -------- 85 PAGE. A. — The Old Testament Canon and the Apocrypha 85 B.— The New Testament Canon ... 90 Chap. VII. — The promises by which our Lord is supposed to have guaranteed the Inspirational Infallibility of the New Testament _.----__ 94 Chap. VIII. — The argument for Scriptural Infallibility drawn from the supposed nature of Divine Inspiration - -105 Chap. IX. — The a priori argument for Inspirational Infallibility 108 Chap.X. — The a posteriori argument for Inspirational Infallibility 110 Chap. XI. — Besume and Conclusion- -Answer to the question of this Book, and outline of the method to be employed in the two succeeding Books 113 BOOK III. What is the True Meaning of the The Term " Chap. I. — Preliminary observations - - - - - - 116 Sec. 1. — The idea of "Inspiration," but not the word, is in Scripture - - - - - -116 Sec. 2. — The vague application of the terms " Ghost," " Spirit," and their equivalents in the Greek and in the Hebrew ------- 117 Chap. II. — Use of the terms "Buach" (Spirit) and "Neshamah" (Breath) in the Old Testament - - - - 120 Chap. Ill Use of " Pneuma" (Spirit) in the New Testament - 127 The difference between " Genius" and "Inspiration" 132 Chap. TV. — The use of the word Inspiration in its true and ancient sense among the Churches of Christendom - - 134 Definition of the term " Inspiration" - - -136 BOOK IV. What is the Just Authority of Holy Writ f Chap. I. — Introductory matter. Sec. 1. — The present position of our argument - 137 Sec 2. — Eeactionary disrespect of the Bible to be eschewed ...---.- 138 Sec 3 Only when intelligently comprehended can the most hallowed precepts be to us God's Word 139 Chap. II. — Special considerations urging to a study of the Bible as a most interesting and important document - 140 PAGE A.— The Bible's antiquity combined with its present bold on tbe minds of men - - - 140 B. — Tbe Bible tbe only Book which through the ages of the Reformation, the Schoolmen, and the Fathers, is pointed back to as inform- ing us of the nature, origin, and growth of primitive Christianity 141 Chap. III. — Special considerations urging to a study of the Bible as a Book of venerable authority and as a rule of Faith - 153 A. — The Bible to be revered as the handmaid of all great modern improvements - - - 153 1. of German, English and Scotch progress as contrasted with Spanish and Italian retrogression - 153 2. of the English as contrasted with the French Be volution 156 3. of the charitable and missionary enter- prises of the half century - - - 159 On these grounds Scriptural authority is main- tainable - - 161 If Infallibility be claimed, authority is insecure 161 Too probable course of a student misled by errors in a supposed infallible Book - - 163 Recognition of Scriptural fallibility the stu- dent's only safe course - - - - 165 B. — Argument for the authority of Holy Writ from its being equal, at least, to the best excel- lences of the most civilized Heathen Beligion 166 C. — Argument for the high authority of Scripture from its having excellences which contrast with the faults even of a Socrates - - 170 D. — Argument for the sacred authority of the Bible from its great and often unique excel- lences - - 176 Sec. 1. — Is it fair to point to the excellences and not to display the alleged faults of the Sacred Volume ? - - - -.176 Sec. 2. — The first characteristic excellence of the Bible is its inculcating the prac- tice of Eclecticism - 178 Sec. 3 Again, the Bible teaches that God is everywhere energizing - - - 180 Sec. 4. — The Bible emphatically teaches that " God is Love" - 181 Sec. 5. — The Bible teaches in the way of concrete exemplification rather than by the statement of abstract principles - 182 Sec. 6 The Bible prescribes not the Revo- lution of outward violence, but a silent and sure reform from within outwards - 184 PAGE. Sec. 7. — The Bible requires from each man change of mind which shall be effective of change of life ----- 185 Sec. 8. — The consummate knowledge of man and of the world shown by the Bible Writers - - - - - 187 Sec 9. — The Bible teaches the universal Brotherhood of man - . - - 188 Sec. 10 — The Bible represents man's po- tentiality of good as dependent on God, indeed, but also as illimitable for all men 189 Sec. 11. — The Bible handles, with singular wisdom, the difficult subject of Prayer - 190 Sec 12. — The Bible teaching as regards spiritual Communion with God - - 192 Chap. IV Kesume and conclusion of this Book, claiming a sacred authority for the Bible as a fallible but inspired Volume. -_.-..-- 195 BOOK V. Bearing of our Opinions on Christian Believers and Christian Ministers. Chap. I. — These views not incompatible with intelligent (so- called) Orthodoxy. Sec 1. — What, in these remarks, belongs to the clergy applies a, fortiori to the laity - - 198 Sec 2. — One, holding our views of Inspiration, may well believe in the Trinity - - - 199 Sec 3. — To believe the morally contradictory as impossible as to believe the physically con- tradictory - - - - - - - 200 Chap. II. — General considerations for the ministers of any deno- mination -------- 202 A. — We do not deny the Inspiration of the Bible - - - - - - - - 202 B. — Jesus would not dissent though he differed 203 Chap. TIL — Special considerations applying to the clergy of the Established Church of England - - - - 205 A. — We are not touched by the Law ,against Blasphemy - - - - - - - 205 B. — The Act of Uniformity condemns us not - 205 C— In the Book of Common Prayer, neither the Creeds, the Ordinal, the Liturgy, nor the Thirty Nine Articles are opposed to us - - - 206 Chap. IV. — General Kecapitulation and Conclusion - - - 214 INTRODUCTION. Section 1. — Christ the One foundation, and the Human Mind, with its various Prepossessions, the Groundwork. " Other foundation can no man lay than that is laid, which " is Jesus Christ ;" but the "foundation" itself must rest on . the ground, and be surrounded by groundworks. The natural mind of man, and its various learnings and prejudices, are the ground and the groundwork in which gospel truth, or the love of the Lord Jesus Christ is laid. The human mind is always generically the same ; but its prepossessions are too numerous and too various to be counted. Thus, though there is and can be, in our judgment, only one foundation or chief corner-stone — the adorable Eedeemer of all mankind — there are many and various groundworks which may lie under and around that one founda- tion. Some of these groundworks are, like sand, lacking in power and solidity to sustain the mighty edifice of Christian sancti- fication; and so it comes to pass, too frequently, that men who did run well fail in their course and make shipwreck of both faith and goodness. Section 2. — Reason and Faith in connexion with Religion generally, and with Inspiration particularly. The writer of these pages is fully convinced, that amongst other causes which operate as hindrances to Christian life, joy, and perseverance, one of the chief is that — if, in this B 2 INTRODUCTION. nineteenth century, we are not substituting a Book in the place of the Lord, who is the one and only foundation — we are, many of us at all events, loosening and weakening the ground on which the foundation is to be laid, by such false notions about the Inspiration of the Bible, as tend surely, though in some cases gradually, to overwhelm or overthrow the great temple of the Holy Ghost, which is the Christian man. Thus, if, as is constantly and avowedly done, the mind of man be prepared for receiving the Christian religion by an assertion, that in religion, and especially in the matter of inspiration, Keason and Faith must not be expected to har- monize, but the former must be subject to the latter, then what result is more probable than that Eeason, which is the Word [logos) of God within man, will one day make its mighty voice to be heard in spite of Faith, which, at the best, has only to do with a word of God, not within man, but from without ? Section 3. — The Effect of Confused Notions of Inspiration on the several Classes of Society. Accordingly it is daily seen, that, as we base the claims of Christianity on a theory of Inspiration which Faith is taught to grasp independently of the inherent difficulties or impossibilities against which Eeason from the first protests, so Christianity loses its hold on the several classes of our countrymen. One class, the multitudes of our population, without knowing why, cast away the intimate and effective principles of a religion which is falsely represented as contrary to common sense, that is, contrary to reason in the masses. Another class, the men of educated and logical rather than religious minds, throw away all Church communion with a system that makes Christianity contradict science and history, and sometimes even sets the Bible in opposition against morality and religion ; and so the Church loses a younger Newman, a Theodore Parker, and countless others, of worth perhaps as great, but names less known. A third class, the educated minds in which logic and piety are both strong, enamoured of their childhood's idea of Inspiration and logically following out that idea or else dreading to cast away, or rather to lose , that childhood's notion of Faith as opposed to Reason, INTRODUCTION. 3 leave the more humane and manly brotherhoods of Christianity, and seek a hiding-place, from dread self-contradiction and manifest inconsistency, in that emasculated portion of the Church, where the popular doctrine of Inspiration is secured by being intrenched in the enormous additional ideas of infal- lible guardianship and infallible interpretation for the Bible ; and thus the elder Newman, Ward, Maskell, Wilberforce, and, more than all, Manning, are now — now in this nineteenth century — -buried alive in an effete medieevalisni. Three such classes are thus lost to living, thoughtful Church communion. Two other classes remain. There are a few — it seems a very few, but no man can tell how many — who have, in manhood, cast off childhood's dream of Inspiration, and are revelling in the holy joy of a useful, believing life, not according to the letter which killeth, but according to the spirit which giveth life. These men have got away from theories of Inspiration, and the logical consequences of such theories. They are busy — -joyfully, thankfully busy — in the work of hallowing themselves in Christ, and striving to hallow others by that blessed name. In the meanwhile, until some unexpected observation or re- flection draw forth their latent scepticism, it is well for them ; but they have not mastered the subject of Inspira- tion. They have only, as appears by the absence of all clear teaching and writing on this topic, abandoned its in- vestigation as alarming and to all appearance hopeless. >. The other class, the orthodox commonplace men of stifled doubts or unsuspecting credulity, hold stoutly by their infant teaching. In some things they have become the man ; but they have not wholly put away childish things. They are still combating with windmills. They contend against the supposition of Season's supremacy over Faith, while they assert the right of private judgment which cannot be main- tained without the acknowledgment of that very supremacy. They assert that God has, by Inspiration, freed Scripture from all error ; and then, the next moment, they cannot fail to see the appearance of error in the Bible, and so they en- gage themselves in fencing with the Bible's words. Thus a large party of Churchmen have their energies chilled by the inhuman conflict between Eeason and Faith; and, from their lists, ever and again, some weary soul is fain to leave "word-fighting," and go to the unbelief which is Deism, 4 INTRODUCTION. or to the credulity which is Roman Catholicism. On all sides it will be found that every party question — and their name is legion — resolves itself into the inquiry, Where is Infallibility? or, which is the same thing, Where is child- hood's notion of Inspiration? We believe that if any man can answer this question, his mind is likely to receive, to sustain, and to build upon the one foundation. We believe that, if any man cannot clearly and intelligibly answer this question, his faith, however orthodox it may be, is in peril every moment ; for let him, at any time, discover one of the many flaws in his theory of Inspiration, and all his system is only too likely to fall in ruins with the giving way of this his theological groundwork. Section 4. — TJie General Danger to Faith of such Confusion, a Motive for the undertaking of this Essay in the Interest of Christian Belief. Under this conviction, and believing, in all humility, that we see our way clearly to the answer of this all-important question, we have laid down our opinions and their reasons in the following pages. In the course of our investigation some few of the well- known difficulties and discrepancies of Scripture must be exposed. They will in no case be intentionally treated with anything but the most reverential spirit. The existence of such difficulties is, in no sense, chargeable on us or on any modern writer. Their exposure is neither so full nor so detailed in this volume as in many a work on the Christian evidences. And, indeed, the discrepancies referred to in our pages are, for the most part, so obvious that they can scarcely have failed to strike any intelligent youth who has read the Bible twice through, and is ordinarily acquainted with religion. On these considerations we shall hardly be accused, with any justice, of making a display of Biblical difficulties. Section 5. — The Author's Experience of Benefit from the Views about to be Propounded. The views and opinions we are about to advance and vin- dicate are often summarily condemned as "infidelity." As a INTRODUCTION. . D demurrer against this condemnation, and as an encouragement to those who may be already perplexed by a partial or super- ficial examination of the doctrine of Inspiration, the writer takes this opportunity of avowing that he himself has, in times past, tried to hold and to uphold the theory which is commonly known as that of verbal Inspiration. He has tried this, and various modifications of this. He at one time believed — in common with the majority of his contemporaries — that to abandon the infallibility of Scripture was the same as aban- doning its inspiration; and that such an abandonment was inconsistent with the vows of a clergyman, if not with the faith of a Christian. Under this conviction he clung, like a drowning man, to the high doctrine of Inspiration : but ever and again he was tortured by the consciousness that his creed and his knowledge were out of harmony. For years he has been examining and reflecting on this subject of Inspiration. At last — many months since — circumstances induced him to commit his thoughts and the result of his reading to paper ; and then it was that he discovered the clue by which, for himself at all events, this mystery was to be unravelled. The following pages are a result of that discovery, and the author has thus no hesitation in avowing, that he has been obliged to think out for himself the course of thought unfolded in this book — that, in the process of his reading and reflecting, he has sometimes been on the point of abandoning the Christian faith and his clerical position — but that now, having passed through this fiery ordeal, whose dread trials none should despise that have not known them, his Christian belief and his professional and conscientious tranquillity are perfectly undisturbed. Thus, let any man faithfully, candidly, patiently go through this enquiry concerning Inspiration, and the writer is sanguine in the hope that faith, instead of being overthrown, will be restored and confirmed ; inasmuch as those props of it which were irreconcilable with Eeason, will have been got rid of, and Faith and Eeason will have been brought into harmonious action for the upholding of Christian truth. Section 6. — Several common Epithets of Inspiration not employed in these pages. It will be observed by the reader, that the ordinary epi- thets by which " Plenary " Inspiration is distinguished from b INTRODUCTION. "Verbal," and "Mechanical" from "Dynamical," are not employed in any part of this Essay. Full, or "plenary" Inspiration, whether of a book* or of a writer, we regard as necessarily synonymous with " verbal " Inspiration ; for we know no means, except by the names of things (or words), whereby thoughts can be quickened in the mind, or recorded in a book.* As to the difference between " mechanical " and " dynamical," it is broad enough. If a flute (for example), or one of Mr. Babbage's machines, or a dead man, or a man to whom the spirit was not subject, were said to be inspired, that would be " mechanical " inspiration indeed : but if a living man, without the destruction of his individual characteristics, be "moved by the Spirit," it can, assuredly, only be by a strengthening, or enlarging, or adding to the number of the faculties of that livingman — that is, by "dynamical" inspiration. Indeed, after all, if the infallibility of the Bible be regarded as an effect of the Inspiration of the sacred volume, we see not what practical good is attained when we are supposed to have learnt that that effect is produced on the general contents of the Bible (which is what we presume is meant by the advocates of plenary Inspiration), or on its every word, as is maintained by the upholders of verbal Inspiration. Or, yet again, we are at a loss to imagine what great practical good accrues to us when, as an ultimate result of our examining the subject of Inspiration, we are supposed to acknowledge the manifest truth, that the Spirit operates on man as a rational being (dynamically), and not on man as a mere machine (mechanically). On such considerations Ave have abstained from the use of the^e epithets, just as we also leave unem- ployed the fantastic distinctions between the inspiration " of suggestion" and that "of superintendence." Section 7. — The Confirming of Faith, the Removing Unbelief and the Promotion of Charity, are the objects of this Essay. It has been already said that the confirming of men in an intelligent and reasonable faith is one object at which we aim * The writer has re-perused Mr. Maurice's admirable Essay on Inspiration since these words were written: and it is to him a source of much satisfaction to find that his estimate of the value of these epithets, " verbal" and '• plenary,"' coincides with the opinion of Mr. Maurice. Indeed, if it were not for fear of involving that reverend and useful author in any blame which may attach to these pages, the writer would fain express his belief that the opinions set forth in this volume are, to a great extent, in accord with Mr Maurice's views, as only too briefly stated in the well-known " Theological Essays." INTRODUCTION. 7 in publisliing this Essay. A kindred object, which, it is be- lieved, our pages will tend to effect, has been thus quaintly but graphically described by a great writer on the doctrine of Inspiration. Leclerc's words are : — " One consequence of our " principles is, that hereby at one blow will be solved an " infinite number of difficulties, which Libertines" (i.e., Free- thinkers) " are wont to allege against the Holy Scripture, and " which it is not possible to solve by the ordinary principles. " Their mouths will be stopped, and it will no longer avail " them to object against Christians the contradictions which " are found in the Scriptures ; the lowness of the style of the " sacred writers ; the little order observed to be in many of u their discourses ; and whatever else they have been used to " say against our divines, who have in vain puzzled them- li selves to answer them. By imposing nothing upon these " men as necessary to be believed, but the Truth of what is "most essential in the Histories of the Old and New Testa- " ment, and the Divinity of Our Saviour's Doctrine (in which " there is nothing that is not conformable to right Reason), " they will be brought to acknowledge that Christian Religion "is really descended from Heaven; and will be easily inclined " to embrace that which hitherto they have obstinately re- " jectecl, because it was grounded on suppositions repugnant "to that light of Eeason by which they were guided." Thus the writer hopes his work will, with the Divine bless- ing, be a means of converting the unbeliever, as well as of confirming the believer. Another object we have in view is the increasing of charity among all Christians, who will observe and reflect that those verities, which we are apt to regard as dogmatic certainties, are, after all, just matters of belief, based respectively on more or less rational and firmly-established human opinions. Ob- viously, if any men may attain to the infinite so far as to know an infallible oracle or guide, it is right that they, who are so infallibly enlightened, should dictate to their fallible brethren; and hence arises uncharitableness, naturally enough, out of the supposed infallibility of knowledge possessed by some men. But if, on the other hand, we all can only know in part, and not infallibly, then we should all be very humble and very patient in the prosecution of knowledge for ourselves, and in the endeavour to impart to others what we think we know. Hence humility and charity should, and to a certain 8 INTRODUCTION. extent will, arise naturally from the consciousness that God alone is to be conceived of as infallible, and that all we and ours are more or less fallible. Thus, then, it is hoped that our Essay will be a means, however small, for the lessening of unbelief, and for the aug- menting of faith and charity; and assuredly, in proportion as we may succeed in these points, so will there be hope that we shall be advancing true and godly obedience to Christ and practice of His religion, which are so essential to human hap- piness, and which yet are so apt to be forgotten or neglected in the heat of controversy, where strong assertion and subtle argumentation must too frequently make up for the deficiency of light which Reason and Truth can throw on either side of the questions from time to time discussed. Section 8. — The Arrangement of the Work in Five Books. The mode in which we shall carry on our inquiry will be by asking first — Does the Bible permit us to regard its teaching as infallible'? This will be the subject of our First Book. The Second Book will furnish an answer to the question — What reason have we for expecting the Bible to be infallible? Our next point, in the Third Book, will be to ascertain the true meaning of the term " Inspiration." The Fourth Book will be occupied with an endeavour to vindicate the just authority of Holy Writ. And in our Concluding Book we shall endeavour to show the bearing of the preceding pages on Christian believers and Christian ministers. Section 9. — Acknowledged Sources whence the Materials of this Essay have been drawn. In these introductory remarks, it only remains that the author should make his acknowledgments as to the sources whence his opinions are drawn. For the materials the writer 1 lays no claim to originality ; nor yet can he say that he has merely compiled them from other books. He has read Hinds, Morell, Henderson, Gaussen, Lee, and many other works, on the subject of Inspiration: he has read some of the publications of Francis Newman, Froude, Theodore Parker, and others of a like school: he has read, and largely profited by, Leelerc's INTRODUCTION. \) Five Letters on Inspiration, and Coleridge's " Confessions of an Inquiring Spirit." These, and many other works bearing more or less directly on the subject, he has read, and tried to learn from. Some have suggested truth; others have, inten- tionally or unintentionally, warned against fallacies ; all and each have contributed some light, and to all and each the author's thanks are cordially given. Professor Tholuck is named twice in the ensuing pages ; and to his articles on " Inspirationslehre" the writer is especially indebted. But, after all, a careful perusal of the Bible itself, and much painful, but ultimately happy and truly remunerative reflection, have chiefly led the Essayist to the views now set forth by him. In the materials of this book there will be found little, if anything, which is new. That which the writer believes to be novel, and that, consequently, which induces him to ask from the public a perusal of his book, is the combination of a tolerable freedom from bias ; a fearless following of premises to their conclusions; and, after free inquiry, the candid avowal of those modified but distinct opinions regarding Inspiration which still remain in the mind of a believer and a clergyman. This combination, and the results to which it has led, the author believes to be both novel and important; and therefore he wishes the utmost possible publicity for his book. Section 10. — The Solemnity of the present Inquiry fully Recognised. A careful judgment of the serious matters, not lightly or impiously handled in these pages, is asked from the reader. It is feared that there may be some errors in the particulars of the Essay ; but, as to the general soundness of the argument, the author entertains no doubt whatever ; and he has, there- fore, no hesitation in introducing his work to public notice, with the devout supplication that God — the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost — may bless this inquiry, to the relief of many doubting minds, to the confirmation of every reader's heavenly confidence, and to the geneial extension of the kingdom of Christ. May the author not write, nor the reader think, aught that would be untrue, ungodly, or uncharitable ! BOOK I. DOES THE BIBLE PERMIT US TO REGARD ITS TEACHING AS INFALLIBLE? CHAPTER 1. THE INSPIRED BOOK, AND ITS SUPPOSED INFALLIBILITY. Section 1. — Importance of ascertaining the Meaning of Inspira- tion as a Characteristic of Holy Writ. When a volume is placed in our Lands with the solemn and very important information that this Holy Book is the Inspired Word of God, and with the further assurance that all its con- tents are the whole extant Scriptures which have been given by inspiration of God, the question naturally arises in our mind — what is the meaning of the verb "inspire," whose derivatives, the participial adjective "inspired," and the noun "inspiration," are used with such apparent force in these religious assertions ? The verb and its derivatives are by no means uncommon in expressions which, at first sight, seem to have little or no connexion with religion. Tims we hear of one man being inspired by patriotism, another by awe, and a third by music, and the " inspiration of poetry" is by no means a rare phrase. Let us not, however, be misled by a premature inquiry into the so-called secular or profane meaning of these terms ; but let our first inquiry be as to their signification when they occur in religious applications. DOES THE BIBLE PERMIT US, ETC. 11 Section 2. — No Definition to he found, ready to hand, in Scripture. The "Inspiration" of Scripture! What is meant by this use of the word ? Ultimately we shall endeavour to frame a definition of this term by examining the several meanings which it bears in the usage of the sacred penmen ; but, in the meanwhile, if we seek for a logical answer to our question, it will not be found in Holy Writ — at least, not in the form of a definition ; for the Bible is written throughout in popular, familiar phraseology, and not in the way of any philosophical system. One may find many rich and imaginative descrip- tions in the Bible, but not a single logical or scientific definition. Thus, if we adopt an accurate and idiomatic translation of a passage in Paul's second letter to Timothy, we may obtain a graphic and impressive account of the usefulness of Inspiration in the words — " Every divinely " inspired writing" (besides the sanctity which attaches to it as originating with God) "is also profitable for instruction, for "reproof, for correction, for education in righteousness, in order "that the man of God maybe thoroughly fitted for every good " work." This is an exquisitely fine description of the uses of an inspired writing ; but the passage manifestly fails to tell us what is the precise and essential meaning of divine inspira- tion, and so fails to be a definition. Section 3. — Definitions of "Inspiration" in the Dictionaries of Johnson, Richardson, Robinson, Eden, and Webster. If, then, in the absence of any Scriptural definition, we desire to ascertain the signification of this term, as it is em- ployed in our own language with reference to the Bible, the most natural method will be to consult a good English Dic- tionary. Upon doing this, the great Johnson tells us that, in a religious sense, " inspiration" means " the infusion of ideas "into the mind by a superior power;" and he quotes from Dr. Watts a fuller statement of this definition, regarded from the Christian stand-point : " Inspiration is when an over- " powering impression of any proposition is made upon the " mind by God himself, that gives a convincing and indubit- "able evidence of the truth and divinity of it: so were the " prophets and apostles inspired" Such were Dr. Johnson's 12 DOES THE BIBLE PERMIT US TO REGARD definition and illustration of our word. To the same effect, Dr. Kichardson, in his truly scholarlike English Dictionary, tells us that the meaning of the verb "inspire," in its religious acceptation, is "to give, grant, or bestow, the Spirit; (meta- " phorically) to infuse the Spirit; to actuate, guide, or direct " by the Spirit; to animate." On looking to another class of dictionaries, which are either written in the religious interest of parties, or are concerned with the modern and now popular meaning of terms, rather than with their old English usage like Dr. Richardson, or their derivative signification like Johnson, we find Dr. Robin- son, in his Theological Dictionary,* defining Inspiration as " the conveying of certain extraordinary and supernatural " notices and motions to the soul," in such a manner that "every inspired writing is free from error, that is, from ma- " terial error." Mr. Eden, in his well-known Churchman's Theological Dictionary,! defines "Inspiration" as " the breath- u ing into the soul of man, by the Holy Ghost, of certain "supernatural ideas or emotions;" and he goes on to say that, although there have been different opinions as to whether the inspiration of Scripture is plenary or limited, the meaning of the word, with reference to the Bible, is "the divine dictation "of truth to the minds of the sacred writers, whereby they " were not only preserved from error, but specifically in- " structed to communicate certain truths which God would "make known to man." Similarly, Dr. Webster, in his Dic- tionary of the English language, defines Inspiration, when spoken of the Scripture writers, as " the supernatural influence " of the Spirit of God on the human mind, by which prophets, " apostles, and sacred writers, were qualified to set forth divine "truth without any mixture of error." Now, the careful observer of these two classes of definitions cannot fail to notice that — whichever of the parties may be the more correct in the sense they attach to the word with which we are interested — whichever party, Johnson and Richardson, on the one hand, or Robinson, Eden, and Webster, on the other, may be the more in accordance with truth or antiquity — there is a notable difference between their two classes of definition ; inasmuch as the latter party put promi- nently forward the idea, that protection from all error (or, in * Publisher, Longman & Co., London, 1815. f Published by J. W. Parker, London, 1845, ITS TEACHING AS INFALLIBLE ? 13 one word, infallibility) is an essential element in the meaning of the term Inspiration as applied to Scripture ; whereas Johnson and Eichardson wholly omit to notice any such idea as being contained in the word. We are far from implying that infallibility was never included in the ideas connoted, as logicians would say, by the term Inspiration, until after Johnson's time. The Homilies and vast masses of earlier literature show the contrary. But we point to this omission of infallibility from the definition of Inspiration given in two of our best dictionaries as noteworthy ; and we ask, which class of the definitions is the best representative of our modern popular religious opinion ? Section 4. — The Signification popularly attached to " Inspiration." In answering this question we shall not weary the reader with quotations from the numerous modern treatises on Inspiration ; but we may refer to the manner in which the Bible, as the inspired "Word of God, is constantly used in the pulpit, in conversation, and even in the compositions of some among our best speakers and writers. However abstruse the mooted points of philosophy may be — however there may be a large weight of probabilities preponderating against a con- clusion — however surrounded by difficulties that conclusion may be ; yet, if only the speaker or the writer can bring a single passage of Scripture to bear against his adversary's position, and in favour of his own, he knows that his point is gained. He will have carried conviction to the minds of most of his hearers ; and, if he be a religions man, he will in all probability himself believe that there is no further room for doubt : his mind, like that of his audience, has parodied and adopted the ancient tyrannical watchword of the Church — The Bible has spoken, and the case is settled. What can support this practice of proving the improbable by a text, except the general belief that every verse — yea, every word, in the Bible is infallible ? If, in an argument, we ' should rely solely on a quotation from Locke, or Aristotle, or Cicero, or the Institutes of Justinian, we should be required to prove that the alleged dictum of these or any other wise but fallible men, was an instance in which they wrote wisely, and 14 DOES THE BIBLE PERMIT CS TO REGARD was not one of the numerous errors into wliich all men have fallen. But it is not so in quoting Scripture. Make it appear that a text applies to your case, and that one text will save you all further trouble ; because your adversary and your audience are not prepared to avow that they doubt the infal- libility of the inspired volume. This state of things is too notorious to require farther argument. Eightly or wrongly, the popular mind regards infallibility as a conspicuous and essential element in the idea of Inspiration. Section 5. — The Duty of promulgating Clear Views on this Subject. Now, we believe Inspiration, and especially the Inspiration of the Bible, to be so holy and so true a thing, that we are most anxious to state for others as clearly as, by God's help, we have been able to ascertain for ourselves, what is the real and uncorrupted meaning of this very important term; which, though of so common occurrence, is yet, as we humbly think, a term but little understood and grievously misinterpreted. We have already seen that the ordinary belief of English- men connects infallibility with Scriptural inspiration. If this belief be well founded, it is evident that the Bible, as an inspired volume, ought to be infallible. If the Bible be not infallible, and if yet it be, as we believe it is, divinely inspired, then evidently infallibility can form no essential part of the true idea of Inspiration. To the examination of the question, then, Does the Bible permit us to regard its teaching as infallible ? the remaining part of this Book will be devoted. We shall discuss this question carefully and candidly. There will be parts of oiir argument that can hardly fail to suqjrise, and, we fear, to grieve the majority of our readers ; but still, truth, and, above all, truth in religious matters, though it should be spoken in love, must not be suppressed for fear of man's displeasure, or in order to avoid giving salutary pain. If we see important truth clearly, which we conscientiously believe our neighbours either do not see at all, or see so dimly ' that they lose the benefit that ensues from the living energy of truth clearly understood and felt, it is our bounden duty — as men and Christians, not to say as ministers of God — to tell forth plainly and boldly that which has done us good, and made us happier followers of the crucified and risen One. ITS TEACHING AS INFALLIBLE? 15 It is under the persuasion that we see, and can help in showing others, most blessed and profitable Christian truth respecting the Inspiration of Holy Writ, that we have under- taken, and will unhesitatingly cany through our present inquiry — Does the Bible permit us to regard its teaching as infallible — that is, as being free from all error ? Section 6. — The precise meaning of the term Infallible. Let us be distinct as to the employment of this word "infalKble." We do not use the term captiously or over- strainedly. We shall not call the Bible fallible because it contains a correct statement of the errors of men whom it represents as fallible ; or a true record of the evil designs which were in the minds of wicked spirits, human or super- human ; though we cannot refrain from remarking here, that the observation of this truth should make those readers very careful, who are accustomed to quote Bible words as settling any question, lest they should use the words of Satan, or some evil spirit or wicked man, and think that they are using the words of the Most High. It is, however, in no narrow sense like this that we shall ask whether Inspiration has made the Bible infallible. But, on the other hand, we use this term " infallible ' ' in no lax and trifling sense. We use it — indeed, we have already used it — and we have shown that lexicographers and the people use it — definitely and precisely as equivalent to " free from all error," having no admixture of error. This is the popular acceptation of the word; and this is, necessarily, the only meaning that the word can admit of : for if you say of man that he is fallible, you mean that he is liable to one or more errors ; but if you say of man that he is infallible, you mean that he is not fallible, or not liable to any single error. This universality of meaning is inseparable from every negative term like that which we are now con- sidering. Thus, it would be incorrect and untrue to say of a man who had once, and only once, been worsted in battle, that he was invincible ; or to say of a man who had committed one, and only one, sin, that he was impeccable ; or to say of a man who had even once acted unjustly for a bribe, that he was incorruptible. Similarly, if a book consisting of a million pages had in it only one single error, you might say of that book 16 DOES THE BIBLE PERMIT US TO REGARD that it was wonderfully free from errors, or amazingly correct ; but it would be an improper and inadmissible use of language, to say that it was infallible, or wholly free from error. Such is, unquestionably, the true meaning of this term. In dealing with Scripture, however, we shall rest our alle- gation on no solitary passage, but on a tolerably broad collec- tion of passages : only it is well that we should understand, at the outset, that there may be such a comparison as more or less fallible ; but there can rightly be no such comparison as more or less infallible. A thing must be either wholly free from error, and then it is infallible ; or it must be marked by one or more errors, and then it is fallible. Our present question then, is, Does the Bible permit us to believe that its teaching is infallible ? that is, that in all which it states without disapprobation there is no error whatever ? ITS TEACHING AS INFALLIBLE? 17 CHAPTER II. SCIENTIFIC AND HISTORICAL ERRORS OBSERVABLE IN HOLY WRIT. And now to our task. As did the noble Bereans of old, so let us search the Scriptures, to see if these things, which are told us about the infallibility that is in the Bible, because of its Inspiration, be really so. Section 1. — Our Investigation will not turn on the Bearing of Modern Science on the Theories of the Scripture-writers. We are not about to lay the chief stress of our argument on the fact, that geology contradicts the account of creation's history as given in Genesis. The establishing of our conclu- sions will not depend on the fact, that astronomy forbids our believing the earth to be surrounded by a transparent but solid case, (called "rakia"* in the Hebrew, "stereoma" in the Sep- tuagint, "^rm-ament" in the English,) in which the Snn and Moon and Stars are " set," by which the waters above the firmament are separated from the waters under the firmament, and in which there are windows by whose opening the world was once deluged. We shall not rest our argument on the truth, that geography is sorely puzzled to comprehend how a deluge, which is supposed to have transformed the whole face of our planet, so that its old ocean beds became its mountain tops, can have left the well-known river Euphrates to flow on in its accustomed course, as it had done in the days of Adam and of Paradise. Nor is it because there is no mechanical or physical ingenuity which can make the apparently non-mi - raculoust history of the Ark, containing its alleged inhabi- * Vid. Gesenius' Heb. Lexicon, •f We apply the epithet " non-miraculcms," cf course, not to the whole history of the Noachic deluge, but simply to the one portion of it in which the narrator shows no sign of surprise while he informs us that duplicate specimens of all the terrestrial animals, and their provisions, were, during many months, accommo- dated in a roofed vessel 300 cubits (451) feet) long, 50 cubits (75 feet) broad, and SO cubits (45 feet) high. The ventilation was provided for by one window, and that, apparently, a cubit, or eighteen inches square ! c 18 DOES THE BIBLE PERMIT US TO REGARD tants, possible, that we shall be prepared to avow our beliel that the Bible does not permit us to regard its teaching as infallible. We shall not attempt to obtain an answer to our question out of these and numerous similar discrepancies be- tween science and Scripture ; because it might be said that science is as yet only in its infancy, and we therefore know not what its ultimate decisions may be. Besides, we our- selves, and the majority of our readers, would not be com- petent judges of the scientific principles involved in such a comparison of the Bible with the ascertained facts and laws of nature. The course of our investigation will be far simpler, and will be such that any attentive reader of the most ordinary intelligence can understand it, and can hardly fail in forming a right judgment of the case. Our references will be chiefly to the New Testament, where the history is tolerably familiar to every reader, and where the original language (the Greek) is known by multitudes. In comparatively few cases, and those sufficiently strong and intelligible, shall we have occa- sion to refer to the Less familiar pages of the Old Testament, in which the original language is known to very few scholars, and well-known to hardly any on account of the paucity of extant Hebrew books* wherein to observe the usages of many important Old Testament words. Section 2. — The Genealogies of our Lord. A. — Matthew's Account of the Genealogy of Jescs. On opening the New Testament, we are met on the first page by the assertion that "all the generations from Abraham " to David are fourteen generations, and from David until the " carrying away into Babylon are fourteen generations, and " from the caiTying away into Babylon unto Christ are fourteen " generations." Now, let us not be told, by those who wish to uphold the * By " Hebrew books" we do not refer to Rabbinical literature, of which there is an abundance; but we refer to the small number of books written in the idiom and dialect of the Old Testament writers. How little we should know of Greek if the only extant works in that language were ^Eschylus, Sophocles, Xenophon, and Thucydides, with a vast mass of the corrupt Romaic or modern Greek ! Yet such is a not unfair measure of ail we know of the Old Testament language. ITS TEACHING AS INFALLIBLE ? ]9 doctrine of the Bible's freedom from all error, that a Scripture genealogy is hut a small and insignificant matter with which to occupy the reader's time and attention : for thus to speak of a genealogy would surely be not only to abandon the in* fallibility, but even to question the wisdom of those sacred penmen who often fill up whole pages of their compositions with Hebrew pedigrees ; and who, in some instances, have repeated more than once pedigrees which, as they profess to be of one and the same person, and traced through the same line, should be, what indeed they sometimes are not, identical. If, then, we compare Matthew's assertion, quoted above, with the genealogy of Jesus as given by Matthew himself, the case stands thus : — 1. Salathiel. 2. Zorobabel, 3. Abiud, 4. Eliakim, 5. Azor. 6. Sadoc. 7. Achim. 8. Eliud. 9. Eleazar, 10. Matthan, 11. Jacob 12. Joseph, 13. Jesus. 14. Obviously, in this last column, where Matthew says there should be fourteen generations, there are only thirteen. Every man will say there is some mistake. Is the mistake in our recounting of the names? Let the reader compare these pages with his Bible. If we alter our mode of counting, and place Jechonias at the head of the third column as well as at the bottom of the second, then we must similarly place David at the head of the second column as well as at the bottom of the first ; and thus we shall vary the incorrectness, by producing fourteen generations in the third column, and fifteen instead of fourteen, as Matthew says, in the second. 1. Abram. 1, Solomon. 2. Isaac. 2. Koboam, 3. Jacob. 3. Abia. 4, Judas. 4. Asa. 5. Phares. 5. Josapbat. 6. Esrom. 6. Joram. 7. Aram. 7. Ozias. 8. Aminadab. 8. Joatham. 9. Naasson. 9, Acbaz. 10. Salmon. 10. Ezekias. 11. Booz. 11. Manasses. 12. Obed. 12. Amon, 13. Jesse. 13. Josias, 14. David. 14, Jechonias. 6 Ahaziah, Joash. Amaziah, 1. Wliat if Errors in Transcription he acknowledged? Here, however, we may be met by the supposition that, in the course of frequent transcriptions, the manuscripts may have been marred, and so one name may have been lost from 20 DOES THE BIBLE PERMIT US TO REGARD what should be the third column of fourteen generations. Such a slight corruption of the manuscripts and such an omission is, we think, a most reasonable mode of accounting for this discrepancy ; but then, let it be at once fairly stated, that if obvious errors are to be acknowledged as being in Scripture, and their existence is to be accounted for by sup- posing that the manuscripts have been corrupted, this is to admit that, whether there ever was or was not such a thing as an infallibly-inspired Bible, we at all events have no such book at the present day ; and therefore we cannot tell how nearly the same as, or how widely different from, the imagi- nary infallible original our modern Scriptures may be. 2. The particular Version of the Bible with which our Inquiry is concerned. The subject of corrupted manuscripts, however, suggests the necessity of our settling what edition, version, or trans- lation of the Bible it is with reference to which we are asking and trying to answer the question — Does the Bible permit us to believe its teaching infallible, or free from all error ? This, surely, cannot be a difficult matter. For the purposes of our argument it is indifferent which edition or translation might be adopted ; but some one Bible must be chosen, or we may be told that there is somewhere a various reading of any passage concerning which we may be arguing. We believe that every point we shall advance in this Book might be maintained with reference to any published edition or translation of the Hebrew Old Testament, or the Greek New Testament; but since it is desirable in any argument, and necessary in one that pro- fesses to address itself to the populace, to be perfectly definite in the use of terms, let us say of what Bible we now treat. When an English preacher clinches an argument by a text which he and his audience consider unanswerable, because it is drawn from an infallible book, from what Bible is it that he quotes? Or when, in popular language, men speak of the in- spired and infallible Word of God, to what book is it that they allude ? Not, surely, to a volume which we have never seen, or which may have been lost centuries ago. If the book in the preacher's hand be not itself an infallible authority — if it be only a fallible copy of some lost and possibly never-existent ITS TEACHING AS INFALLIBLE? 21 infallible original — are we wise in submitting our reason to its dogma? Nay, more, has the preacher any right to bind his fellow-creatures with its perhaps only human and erroneous precepts ? How do we know, if the book in the preacher's hand be confessed as only a fallible copy of a supposed lost infallible original, that the very verse which has just been quoted, as finally and authoritatively deciding some important religious question, be not itself one of the instances in which the fallible copy erroneously differs from the true autograph ? This is a point which might, if it were necessary, be so worked out as by itself to show the impossibility of ascertain- ing which is the infallible reading; and, of the infallible reading, which is the true translation ; and, so, the impossi- bility of proving any modern Bible to be infallible ; but the question now before us is merely to what book do intelligent Englishmen refer when they speak of the infallible Word of God ? and to this question the answer clearly is, the English authorized version, subject to a few corrections in its transla- tion. Our problem is concerned with the alleged infallibility of this inspired volume. We have already noticed one obvious inaccuracy in Matthew's genealogy as it is given in this Bible. Another observable point in the same genealogy is shown in our tabulated view of it. Matthew tells us that Joram begat Ozias ; whereas the books of Chronicles and Kings tell us that Ozias was the great-great-grandson of Joram, and that between these two kings there intervened three additional links in the chain of our Lord's ancestry. The common Jewish mode of speaking of any ancestor, however remote, as a father, might remove this difficulty if Matthew had not been at the pains to state, that "all the generations," from David till the cap- tivity were "fourteen generations." Here, then is another discrepancy in the history of the New Testament which looks like an error. It is not a little curious, and important as illustrating our subject, that, according to the book of Chronicles (2 Chron. xxi. 20, xxii. 1, 2), Ahaziah, the youngest son of king Jehoram, was two years older than his father ; for Jehoram died aged forty years, and, upon his decease, Ahaziah, aged forty-two years, began to reign.* * Doubtless, the means for correcting this error are contained in 2 Kings viii. 26 ; but this, of course, does not disprove the existence of a palpable error in the scriptural book of Chronicles, 22 DOES THE BIBLE PERMIT US TO REGARD 3. Unsatisfactoriness of all Modes of Explaining away Difficulties. We know that there are modes of explaining away these and all other discrepancies ; but we feel that they are so thoroughly unsatisfactory — not to use a stronger word — that, though they may serve as a hiding-place for the doubts of those whose conclusions as to Biblical infallibility are foregone, yet they are a terrible stumbling-block to those who bring earnest, unprejudiced minds to the examination of Scripture. B. — Luke's Account of the Genealogy of Jesus compared WITH THAT OF MATTHEW. But, yet again, before we quit the genealogy of Jesus, it should be noticed that Matthew is not the only evangelist who furnishes us with the ancestral line of "Joseph the "husband of Mary." Luke supplies another genealogy of this same "Joseph," who was the reputed father of Jesus. We have already given Matthew's genealogy. That of Lake is quite worthy of being compared with it, as may be seen in the following table : — 1. Abraham. 1">. Nathan. 29. Er. 43. Maath. 2, Isaac. 16. Mattatha. 30. Klmodam. 44. Na. Mattathias. 7. Aram. 21. Joseph. 35. Salathiel, 49. Joseph. art one of them ; them ; for thy ! for thou art a speech bewrayeth Galilean, and thy thee. speech agreeth i thereto. About one hour One of the high after, another con- ] priest's servant* fidently affirmed, saith, Did not I see Of a truth, this thee in the garden fellow also was with him ? with him; for he is j a Galilean. Thus various, again, are the records of the remarks which drew froni Peter the third denial, to the effect — Then began he to curse and to swear, saying, I know not the man. But he began to Peter said, Man, j Peter then de- curse and to swear, I know not what j nied again. saying, 1 know not ! thou sayest. this man of whom ye speak. ITS TEACHING AS INFALLIBLE? 33 Here again, as in the two former denials, there is a wide discrepancy between Luke's answer and that recorded by Matthew and Mark. Not only does Lnke say that Peter's brief denial was addressed to one particidar man, bnt Luke adds, that "immediately, while Peter yet spake, the cock " crew, and the Lord turned and looked upon Peter." That sorrowing look of pitying, almost mrreproving love, melted the denier's heart. Compunction and repentance were, ac- cording to this unmatched, exquisite narrative of St. Luke, so instantaneous, that there was no time for the cursing and swearing of which Matthew and Mark tell us, unless, indeed, the evangelists are here recording wholly different denials of Peter's. But, this idea once admitted, we shall be compelled to acknowledge at least ten different denials, for that is the number of distinct forms in which Peter's three denials stand recorded in the four gospels. As was to be expected, from what we have already seen, Matthew, Luke, and John record the first crowing of the cock after the third denial ; but Mark says this was the second time the cock had crowed. If Mark be right in this assertion, what becomes of the other evan- gelists' words, " The cock shall not crow, till thou hast " denied me thrice ?" If Mark be wrong in this matter, what becomes of inspirational infallibihty ? If Mark, an in- spired Bible writer, might err in this instance, why may not he, or any other sacred penman, have erred in recording any most important doctrine, even as they differ in then records of the words of institution in the Lord's supper, and as they widely and most perplexingly differ in their accounts of Christ's several appearances after his resurrection ? These fourfold narratives are evidently not the dictation of an infal- lible Spirit, however much they may be the compositions of four honest early Christian men, in whom the promised Spirit of their Master was powerfully carrying on His glorious work of enligktemnent and sanctification. C. — The Census of David, the Purchase of Aceldama, the Hour of the Crucifixion, and the Numbers of the Plague- Stricken, are further Illustrations of such Inaccu- racies. These discrepancies, which mark all honest contemporary records, and which thoroughly evince the fallibility of man, D. 34 DOES THE BIBLE PERMIT US TO REGAUD may be multiplied to a great extent by any diligent student who will peruse such works as Strauss's Life of Jesus, or De Wette's Introduction to the Bible. Such a reader may observe, and should reflect upon the fact, that the Book of Samuel tells us (2 Samuel xxfv. 9) that the result of David's famous numbering of the people was, that "Joab gave up the sum;" "and there were in Israel " 800,000 valiant men that drew the sword; and the men of " Judah were 500,000 men." This seems a marvellous army, 1,300,000 soldiers, for a territory less than two hundred miles long by a hundred miles broad. But what is our amazement when we find the book of Chronicles (1 Chron. xxi. 5) giving the result of the same census as, besides the men of Levi and Benjamin, 1,100,000 soldiers in Israel, and 470,000 soldiers in Judah ; i. e., 1,570,000 soldiers from Palestine alone ! Such a reader will find that there are two accounts of what gave to the field of blood its name of horror, "Aceldama." On the one hand, Matthew* tells us that the field was so called because, after Judas, the traitor, had cast the price of his treachery down in the temple and had gone and hanged himself, the chief priests bought with that head-money the putter's field to bury strangers in. On the other hand, Peter, in the book of the Arts,-- says, that Judas "purchased a field " with the reward of iniquity ; and, falling headlong, he burst u asunder in the midst, and all his bowels gushed out." A careful student may observe that the evangelist Mark says4 "it was the third hour" (that is, 9 a.m.), "and they "crucified" Jesus; whereas the beloved disciple, £ in his account of his Master's trial and death, says, that as late as " the sixth hour" (that is, at our mid-day) Jesus was yet before the judgment-seat of Pilate, and that weak, time-serving judge was still writhing under the dread of condemning "that just "man." || Or, again, such a student will observe that, in a certain plague, the book of Numbers IF gives 24,000 as the multitude who fell; whereas Paul, writing to the Corinthians about the same plague, states the victims as 23,000. * Matt, xxvii. 3, &c, t Acts i. 18, J Mark xv. 20. § John xix. 14. || Within the last few years, an ingenious, but, as we think, most far-fetched attempt has been made to remove this discrepancy by alleging that John counts his hours from midnight, and not from sunrise and sunset (G a.m, and 6 p.m. ), as do the other New Testament writers. % Numbers xxv, 9, ITS TEACHING- AS INFALLIBLE ? 35 Section 8. — The People, Learned and Unlearned, are noticing these Discrepancies. That there are in Scripture these, and a hundred other discrepancies, amounting sometimes to positive and irrecon- cilable contradictions, is what every careful student cannot fail to discover — what every reader of general literature has pointed out to hinr in Home's Introduction to the Scriptures, and in many other common books of so-called Christian evi- dences, if, indeed, he does not read of these and other dis- crepancies in the powerful, bold, and self-sacrificing language of Theodore Parker and Francis Newman ; and this, too, is what multitudes even of our labouring and mechanical classes are devouring in the lectures and publications of men like Messrs. Holyoake, Barker, and their coadjutors in "Secularism." In vast numbers of cases, alternative questions may be proposed — Did 23,000 die in the plague, or was it 24,000 ? Was the Saviour crucified at nine in the morning, or was he still on trial at mid- day ? Did Judas buy the Aceldama, or were the chief priests its purchasers ? Did the cock crow once before Peter's two last denials, and is Mark right, or did the cock not crow at all till after Peter's three denials, and is Mark wrong? Alternative questions may thus be readily framed by the score ; and whichever alternative the reader accepts, the Bible alike denies its own infalhbihty. In all such alternative questions, the conviction on our mind is, that one or other of the inspired penmen was, in each case, mistaken ; and, on whichever side the error may have been, the supposed infallibility of the Bible is equally disproved. 36 DOES THE BIBLE PERMIT US TO REGARD CHAPTEK III. THE EXISTENCE OF SUCH SCRIPTURAL ERRORS RECOGNISED BY THE LEARNED AND THE PIOUS. Section 1. — Forced Harmonies abandoned, and the Truth confessed. We know that there are devices by which it is possible to fence with these errors in the history of Holy Writ ; but, for ourselves, we have too often felt, as we were using them, that our heart misgave us lest, instead of the sword of the Spirit, which is every soul-touching word of God, we might bo holding a lie in our right hand. For ourselves, we have endured too much bitter anguish in this matter to doubt that the unsatisfactory apologies of well-meaning Christians, whose wish it is to defend what they suppose to be "the faith," have repelled many an anxious inquirer, and driven many an earnest heart into the bleak inhospitalities of unbelief. But truth is verily great ; and although the popular mind — alike of believ- ers on the one side, and of unbelievers on the other — is still far removed from logical and true views on the grand subject of Inspiration, yet there has been progress in the right direc- tion ; so that the intelligent Christian apologist of the present day, concedes to his opponent many a point which, erewhile, it was thought wise to hold stoutly by in spite of difficulty and unreasonableness. Section 2. — The Opinions of several Learned and Eminent Divines. A. — The Opinion of Neander. Hear on this subject the words of that JSTeander, who, as one of the foremost scholars, thinkers, and theologians even of Germany, and as, at the same time, a man of blameless holi- ness in the eyes of his fellow-men, was chosen by the King of Prussia to reply to the great sceptical work of Strauss on the ITS TEACHING AS INFALLIBLE ? 37 Life of Jesus. It is in opening his vindication of an historical basis for the religion of Christ, as opposed to the mythical theory of his learned adversary, that Neander writes — * " It must be regarded as one of the greatest boons which "the purifying process of Protestant theology in Germany has " conferred upon faith, as well as science, that the old mechani- " cal view of Inspiration has been so generally abandoned. " That doctrine, and the forced harmonies to which it led, " demanded a clerk-like accuracy in the evangelical accounts, "and could not admit even the slightest contradiction in " them ; but we are now no longer compelled to have recourse " to subtilties against which our sense of truth rebels. In " studying the historical connexion of our Saviour's life and " actions by the application of an unfettered criticism, we " reach a deeper sense in many of his sayings than the bonds " of the old dogmatism would have allowed." These words from the Christian apologist, Neander, fully confirm the view of Inspirational infallibility which we have so far taken, and they are in entire accordance with all which we have still to put forward on this subject. B. — The Opinion of Bishop Burnet. Lest the "old"-ness, which Neander ascribes to the opinions that he and we alike oppose, should mislead any reader into the idea that our teaching is a novelty among those who call themselves Christians, we extract the following remarkable words from Bishop Burnet's observations on the Ninth Article :f — " When an argument is brought in Scripture " to prove another thing by, though we are bound to acknow- ledge the conclusion, yet we are not always sure of the "premises, for they are often founded upon received opinions." Thus inconsistently did the old Bishop of Salisbury believe the conclusions of Scripture arguments infallible, while he admitted that parts of Scripture — namely, the premises of its arguments — were fallible, and might not be binding on us. What is new, in our views on Inspiration, is not their matter or their existence — but the clear acknowledging of them to oneself, and the candid avowal of them to other men. * English translation of Neander's Life of Christ, page 8, Bohn's edition, 1851. f Burnet on the Thirty-nine Articles, Oxford edition, 1814, p. 157, Sb DOES THE BIBLE PERMIT US TO REGARD C. — The Opinion of Professor Tholuck. The truth, of this statement will be sufficiently apparent to any reader who is moderately acquainted with the history of theology, or who will peruse two short articles of Professor Tholuck 's, which were translated in the July and August numbers of " Evangelical Christendom" in 1850.* Thus we believe that great progress has of late years been made, not in discovering new truth relative to Inspiration, but in the clearer perception and more open avowal of old truth, the existence of which has been always suspected, and sometimes manifestly felt, but which has been too long feared and suppressed. As evidence of this progress, we can adduce from the writings of four living and most enlightened English prelates, words which, even now, some well-meaning Chris- tians, whose intellects are of slow-marching power, reprehend; but which, seventy years ago, would have been censured on all sides as little or nothing less than what Tom Paine or Voltaire wanted. D. — The Opinion of Bishop Hinds (Norwich). Thus the Bishop of Norwich, Dr. Hinds, in the midst of much which is in accordance with the popular notion that Inspiration has made the Bible infallible, writes in the follow- ing terras : — -j- " To religious instruction of whatever kind is confined the " Scriptural character of Scripture — the agency of the Holy "Spirit." * * * * " It is not therefore truth of all kinds " that the Bible was inspired to teach, but only such truth as " tends to religious edification ; and the Bible is consequently " infallible as far as regards this, and this alone." * * * " Accordingly, if we wish to determine the authority of any " assertion or direction in Scripture, the rule which Scripture " itself furnishes is, that, as far as it is religious instruction, it " is infallible ; as far as it is not, its authority is that which " attaches to the work of an honest and sincere author, and " varies according to his individual circumstances, and the " circumstances of the country and age in which he wrote." * Published by Partridge and Oakey, London, t Hinds on Inspiration, pp. 151, 152. Fellowes, London, 1831. ITS TEACHING AS INFALLIBLE ? 39 E. — The Opinion of Archbishop Whately (Dublin). One of the most ingenious and instructive of modern writers, Dr. Whately, the present Archbishop of Dublin, is not sparse in his commendations of Bishop Hinds' works in general, and of the volume on Inspiration in particular ; and the Archbishop himself writes : — * " In matters, indeed, unconnected with religion, such as " pomts of history, or natural philosophy, a writer who pro- " fesses (as the Apostles do) to be communicating a divine "revelation, imparted to him through the means of miracles, " may be as liable to error as other men, without any clis- " paragement to his pretensions ; but if we reject as false any "part of the religion which he professes himself divinely sent " to teach, we cannot, consistently, believe but that his preten- " sions are either an imposture or a delusion, and that he is " wholly unworthy of credit." We do not see the force of the last part of the Archbishop's assertion. It is at least conceivable that a man might have his attention drawn to a revelation by its miracles. He might feel himself indubitably sent by God to teach that religion which had been so imparted to him through the means of miracles ; and yet he might, from a failure of perception or of memory, or from other causes, err in his mode of teaching a religion so imparted to him, and which he was so sent to teach. Thus Peter, though he was divinely sent to teach a religion miraculously imparted to him, was manifestly in error — and that religious error too — when, at Antioch, Paul "with- " stood him to the face, because he was to be blamed" for "not waiting uprightly, according to the truth of the Gospel," and for " compelling the Gentiles to live as do the Jews." On these grounds, we entirely dissent from the latter part of this quotation from Dr. Whately, which we have thought it fair to give in its entirety, lest we should seem to suppress that which a man so worthy of respect had written against the very views that we uphold. In a subsequent part of our inqvhry, the supposed connexion between Miracles and In- spirational Infalhbility will come properly under our notice. Here we would simply direct attention to the fact, that, at least in matters of history or natural philosophy, Bishops Hinds and Whately are agreed that the Bible is fallible. * Whately' s Sermons on the principal Christian Festivals, &c, p. 90 ; Note to the Sermon on the Apostle Thomas; Third Edition. J. \V. Parker, London, 1854. 40 DOES THE BIBLE PERMIT US TO REGARD F. — The Opinion of another living English Bishop. The learned and Eight Eeverend Translator* of " Schleier- " macher's Critical Essay on St. Luke," writes thus, in page 15 of his Introduction to that work: — "As the more rigid "theory of Inspiration was abandoned by the learned on ac- " count of the insuperable difficulties opposed to it by the " discrepancies found in the Gospels; so these same discre- " pancies compel us to admit, that the superintending control " of the Spirit was not exerted to exempt the sacred writers " altogether from errors and inadvertencies." These are most weighty words, and they come from a writer than whom none is more competent to express an opinion. This passage points to three different truths : — 1st. — The difficulties in the way of a rigid theory of inspi- ration are insuperable. 2nd. — These difficulties show that Scripture is not wholly exempt from error — that is, is not infallible. 3rd. — The learned have abandoned a rigid theory of inspira- tion, and have been compelled to admit that Scripture is in some measure fallible. The Eight Eeverend Prelate from whom we quote does not fix limits to Scriptural fallibility, as the Archbishop of Dublin and the Bishop of Norwich do. But we do not wish to state the case at all over-strainedly ; and so we will suppose that these three prelates go no further than acknowledging that, while the religious teaching of Scripture is infallible, the historical, the philosophical, and generally, the non-religious information of the Bible, is honestly but fallibly given. Thus, then, these prelates do not assert the Bible to be an infallible book, or a book whose teaching is wholly free from error ; but they maintain that the Bible is a book which contains fallible portions and infallible portions. It is not an infallible book ; but there is something infallible in it. Surely the line between the fallible and the infallible in Scripture should be very clearly and strongly marked ; and the truly amiable Bishop of Norwich thinks it is so. " When, "for example," he says (page 152 of his work on Inspiration), * If the reader should be at a loss to know who this " Translator" is, we may- refer hhn to a statement made in Home's Introduction to the Bible, vol. v. p. 362, ninth edition. Mr. Home's statement is repeated in very many tolerably well-known books, and has never, so far as we are aware, been contradicted by the bishop or his friends. ITS TEACHING AS INFALLIBLE ? 41 i Moses, in relating the history of the Creation, speaks of the " sun being set in the firmament, his authority for the astro- " nomical truth is only human ; the religious truth involved "in it is, that God created and appointed the sun its sphere ; " and in this the authority of Moses is infallible." Dr. Hinds gives several other illustrations, to show how clear the dis- tinction is between the religious and infallible on the one hand, and the non-religious and only human or fallible on the other. But if this notion of the fallible and the infallible be correct, it admits of wide application indeed. Not merely when the sun stood still at Joshua's bidding — not merely when the dumb ass rebuked the obstinacy of the prophet — not merely when Ezekiel lay on his left side 390 days, and then on his right side 40 days, may we say the historical truth of these narratives rests on fallible human evidence ; and it is only the religious truth involved in them which, in each case, is in- fallible. Not only may we say thus : we may go much further, and say consistently with the principle of the Bishop, that in the whole Old Testament account of the Creation, the Patri- archal Age, and the Jewish Nation, and similarly in the whole New Testament description of the Birth, Life, Death, Besur- rection, and Ascension of Our Lord, the " authority for the " historical truth is only human ; the religious truth involved " in it is," that G-od is love and that He will have all men to be saved; " and in this the authority of" the Bible "is infallible." The author and approver of these ideas are surely too clear thinkers and too good logicians not to have seen the whole width and breadth in which this principle for distinguishing between the fallible and the infallible in Holy Writ would apply. Thus entirely, then, do Bishops Whately, Hinds, and another, agree with us, that the Bible is not an infallible book, however holy, true, and profitable we may all thankfully acknowledge it to be. G-. — The Opinion of Bishop Hampden (Hereford). But we undertook to adduce the testimony on this subject of a fourth living and most learned prelate. In his Bampton Lectures,* which have been too little read and too shamefully * Dr. Hampden's Bampton Lectures. Third Edition, pp. 301, 302. Publishers, Simpkin, Marshall, & Co. 42 DOES THE BIBLE PERMIT US TO REGARD slandered, Dr. Hampden, the present Bishop of Hereford, after showing the difference by which Morality, the science of Ethics, is distinguished from Eeligion, proceeds to write thus, — " Christianity, in fact, leaves Ethical science, as such, pre- " cisely where it found it; all the duties which Ethical science "prescribes remain on their own footing, not altered or " weakened, but affirmed and strengthened, by the association "of Eeligion. And, so independent is the science of Ethics " of the support and the ennobling which it receives from " Religion, that it would be nothing strange or objectionable " in a revelation, were we to find embodied in its language " much of the false Ethical Philosophy which systems may 11 have established. This, I conceive, would appear to those '• who bear in mind the real distinctness of Religion and Moral " Science, nothing more objectionable than the admission into " the sacred volume of descriptions involving false theories of " Natural Philosophy." These words of Dr. Hampden's recognise errors in Natural Philosophy as having a place in Scripture, just as his right reverend brothers had recognised errors in the Bible on sub- jects not strictly religious. But the Bishop of Hereford, in the eloquent expression of his deep yet transparent thought, advances even a step further than his brothers on the bench have ventured. He is of opinion that there may possibly be errors in Scripture on points of morality. " It would be no- " thing straDge or objectionable in a Revelation" — (Query, does the Bible profess itself to be " a Revelation?" Does it not rather purport to be the human record of a divine revela- tion ? but, even in a Revelation, Bishop Hampden would deem it nothing strange or objectionable) — " were we to find em- " bodied in its language much of the false ethical philosophy " which systems may have established." Thus, for example, when Abraham and Isaac and Jacob are untruthful them- selves, or teach their wives untruthfulness, and the Bible praises them for their general conduct, and represents the Deity as miraculously favouring those patriarchs, but does not distinctly reprehend their untruthfulness — when the Israelites think that, under any circumstances, it can be morally right for them to slay the women and children of the Canaanites, and the Old Testament rather approves of this their thought than otherwise — or when Abraham is led to believe that child- sacrifice can be morally right, and the ethical error of this ITS TEACHING AS INFALLIBLE ? 43 belief is not shown to him — in these and many snch oases, as in the histories of Samson, Jephtha, David, and Solomon, there may, on Dr. Hampden's principle, be embodied in the langnage of Scripture much of the false ethical philosophy which systems may have established. Section 3. — These Writers own to Scriptural Errors in every- thing except Religion. So then, according to the confessions of eminent and right reverend rulers and overseers of the English Established Church, there may be errors of science, of history, and of morality in the Bible ; but still the idea of Scriptural Infalli- bility, on matters of religion, must be maintained. Now, "the learned" few may be able to perceive the nice distinc- tions between the religious, and therefore infallible sections of the Bible, as contrasted with its non-religious, and there- fore fallible sections or meanings ; but the unlearned many will surely not be able to perceive distinctly these shades of difference. If, on the ground of these recognised and palpable errors in the science, history, and morality of Scripture, our bishops had said clearly and intelligibly, that the Bible was, however excellent, yet a fallible book, we should have admired their clear-sightedness and their courage even more than we now do ; but, as it is, our ecclesiastical rulers seem to confess a great part of the truth, and then to stop short, and suddenly uphold the idea of religious infallibility being in a fallible book. We see the meaning of this distinction, and we can sympathize with the natural timidity — we would rather say, the reverential awe — of these dignitaries ; but we cannot help fearing that in the case of a religion which, like the popular conception of Christianity, has its doctrines based for the most part on historical facts, the opinions advanced by these learned and truly venerable men deal with the sacred terms " In- spiration" and " Infallibility," in a manner likely to be most injurious to the religious trathfulness and the Christian faith of ordinary intellects ; and for ourselves, we, as part of the unlearned many, are ready to exclaim — Oh ! enviable logical 44 DOES THE BIBLE PERMIT US TO REGARD perception, never to confound morality with religion! and never to doubt the mysteries of the faith, whilst all the nar- ratives of facts, on which those mysteries are based, are avowedly open to criticism and disbelief! ITS TEACHING AS INFALLIBLE ? 45 CHAPTER IV. ARE THERE NO RELIGIOUS ERRORS IN HOLr WRIT ? We cannot blame these prelates for their acknowledgments as to the partial fallibility of Scripture ; for we have seen in the Bible itself abundant reasons which compel us to agree in their confessions. The question however, still remains, as to whether the sacred volume is infallible in its religious teaching. When one has shown a Eomanist that Popes, and Councils, and Churches have erred, and therefore cannot be infallible, the constant rejoinder is — " We never said they were wholly " infallible, but only we declare them to be infallible in their "official and regular teaching." Just so it too frequently is with the Protestant : one shows him that there are errors in the Bible, and therefore that the Bible cannot be infallible ; and he, by the mouths of his choicest spokesmen, rejoins, " We do not say the Bible is altogether infallible ; but we "assert that Holy Writ is infallible in its religious teaching." Well, then, it is on this solemn question that, in the interests of truth, which we believe to be identical with the interests of Christianity, we are about to join issue with Dr. Hinds and his friends. Section 1. — Does the Bible permit us to regard its Religious Teaching as Inspirationally Infallible t A. — The History of Jael. As a case in which it is not very easy (if at all possible) to separate the religious and the moral elements, let us look first at the history of Jael, the wife of Heber the Kenite. There had been a fierce battle between the long-oppressed but now victorious Israelites, and the discomfited hosts of Jabin king of Hazor. Heber the Kenite was not an Israelite, and therefore was not necessarily one of the Canaanite's enemies. Nay, we are even told that "there was peace be- 46 DOES THE BIBLE PERMIT US TO REGARD " tween Jabin, the king of Hazor, and the house of Heber the " Kenite.'' Sisera, the captain of Jabin' s host, was compelled to flee away, on foot, for his life. In the tent of the friendly Heber he was affectionately received, with all the hospitality of the East. Belying on the good faith of his hostess Jael, Heber's wife, Sisera composed himself to sleep. Then it was that, from some motive which is not distinctly assigned, but which appears to have been fear lest the long provoked Israelites should find her harbouring their now vanquished oppressor, Jael stole upon the slumbering Sisera, and slew him by driving one of the tent nails into his forehead. Thus was she enabled, shortly afterwards, to gain credit for herself with the triumphant Jews, by showing the smitten chief to his pursuer, Barak. This whole transaction is recorded in the Bible in language worthy of the grandest tragedy ; and, moreover, an inspired prophetess, Deborah, who had foretold the manner of Sisera's death, chants the glory and the vengeance of the Canaanitish overtlu-ow ; and in this chant she recounts the deed of Jael, and sings, " Blessed above women shall Jael, the wife of " Heber the Kenite, be ; blessed shall she be above women in " the tent." We must leave Dr. Hampden to draw the lines of demar- cation between the fallible morality and the infallible religion of this history and this teaching. For ourselves, we think it perilous to attempt teaching the purest religious principles by such questionable morality without designating the deed of Jael by its true name ; and we put it to every conscience which knows humanity, or has been enlightened by the New Testament, whether the true and proper name of this scrip- turally-approved deed be not treachery and murder most base, foul, and unnatural ? B. — Some of the Imprecations of Jeremiah, the Psalmist, and Paul. The too probable religious effects of this story appear in such passages as the following ; for instance — in Jeremiah's dreadful imprecation of Divine vengeance on his enemies ;* * Jeremiah xviii. 21-23. ITS TEACHING AS INFALLIBLE ? 47 or in Psalm cix. 6-20, including the words, " Let his children " be fatherless, and his wife a widow ; let his children be con- " tinually vagabonds and beg ; let them seek their bread also " out of desolate places ; let the extortioner catch all that he " hath ; and let the strangers spoil his labour. Let there be " none to extend mercy unto him ; neither let there be any to "favour his fatherless children. * * Let the iniquity of " his fathers be remembered with the Lord ; and let not the " sin of his mother be blotted out:" or, in Psalm lviii. 6-10, which concludes with the assurance, " The righteous shall " rejoice when he seeth the vengeance; he shall wash his feet "in the blood of the wicked:" or, again, the too probable effects of teaching, which, on the principle that God's enemies are to perish, can approve a deed like that of Jael, are seen in such a prayer as that of Paul for the condemnation and punish- ment of his opponent: "Alexander the coppersmith did me " much evil; the Lord reward him according to his works." Now, of these and the numerous other imprecations of the Bible, we shall only say that, in spirit as well as in letter, they are direct contradictions of Him who said, " Love your " enemies : bless them that curse you : pray for them which " despitefolly use you and persecute you ;" and who, for his time-serving and unrighteous crucifiers, prayed, saying — " Father, forgive them, for they know not what they do." Either the sinless one, our Lord and Saviour, must be in error in this his religious teaching of love and forgiveness, or Deborah, Jeremiah, the Psalmist, and Paul, must have been in error when they religiously — or rather, it should be said, irreligiously — exemplified and gloried in their vengeful wrath and dreadful imprecations against their enemies. Which of these two parties was at fault, no sane man will doubt ; but on whichever side the error be confessed, it is a direct testi- mony of Scripture itself against the idea that the Bible is infallible, even in its moral and religious teaching. C. — The Jewish Belief (or Disbelief) of Man's Life in a Future World. The question as to man's existence after death Dr. Hampden seems to regard as quite apart from morality, a purely religious question. Let us, therefore, consider how far the teaching of 48 DOES THE BIBLE PERMIT US TO REGARD Scripture, on this subject, is consistent, and so, possibly, infallible. Every one who has read Bishop Warburton's " Divine Legation of Moses," is aware that that ingenious and most learned writer represents it as one of the peculiarities by which Judaism is distinguished from Heathenism, that, whereas it was never attempted to rule any Heathen state without the sanction of future rewards which might be hoped for by the obedient, and future punishments which must be anticipated by the disobedient, the Jews were governed by Moses and Iris successors, without any reference to a future state, by the mere appeal to that wondrous dispensation of a special Provi- dence which unfailingly cast down the wicked, and so upheld the good that the righteous was never seen forsaken, nor Iris seed begging their bread. Such was Warburton's clever argument ; and, whether he was right or wrong, he has many wise Christian men in the present day who agree with his opinion, that in a considerable portion of the Old Testament there is no distinct doctrine of a future state. Such men prove that Job's words had manifest reference to his full expectation, that he should find a physician to heal him, and restore him to health in this world. They show that the passages, generally adduced to prove that the Old Testament teaches the doctrine of a future state, require such a mode of interpretation as makes them refer to this life only; and then they go on to demonstrate that there are many passages of the Jewish Scriptures which imply that pious Jews entertained a distinct disbelief of a future life. We are not ourselves prepared to assert that such a dis- belief attaches to all the ancient Hebrew writers: but we suppose that the least attention must convince any unblinded reader that there are not a few passages in the Old Testament which give plain and unmistakeable countenance to Bishop Warburton's argument. For instance, what is the teaching of the sixth Psalm? "Keturii, Lord, deliver my soul: oh, " save me for thy mercies' sake ; for in death there is no " remembrance of thee : in the grave who shall give thee " thanks ?" H any passage like this could be found in Aristotle, or in Plato, would it not be paraded as an irrefragable proof that the wisest heathens denied the immortality of the soul? Aristotle has left on record his belief that, after death, human ITS TEACHING AS INFALLIBLE ? 49 souls are cognisant, at least in some degree, of their family's welfare or ill-fortune ; yet, because he has once spoken of death as " a sort of goal in our existence" (per as ti), that is, as a changing point, where one race is ended, and whence the start for a new life is to be made, therefore this saying of the great philosopher is handed about, among the ignorant, as a proof that Aristotle doubted whether death was not annihila- tion. What a godsenclit would be for narrow-minded, truth- fearing theologians, if they had only found Psalm vi. 5 in Aristotle instead of in the Hagiographa ! But, lest any should say that this verse from the Psalm refers merely to the body whilst it lies crumbling in the grave, and is so far from denying a future state of the soul's existence that it does not even question the doctrine of the body's resurrection, let us read the words of another Psalm, the eighty- eighth, " Lord, I have " called daily unto thee ; I have stretched out my hands unto " thee. Wilt thou show wonders to the dead ? Shall the " dead arise and praise thee ? Shall thy loving kindness be " declared in the grave ? or thy faithfulness in destruction ? " Shall thy wonders be known in the dark? and thy righteous - " ness in the land of forgetfulness ?" There can, assuredly, be no reasonable dispute as to the doctrine of this Psalm. The dead are unconscious. No mystery is solved for them. The soul goes to no brighter realm of light. " The land of the hereafter" is " the dark" and the region of forgetfulness. Nor is there any prospect of an end to this state of things. There shall be no resurrection; for the dead shall not arise and praise God. Once more, let any reader see the practical effect of this teaching on the mind of a man eminent for his piety, at a time when he thought death was at hand. Hezekiah's life was miraculously prolonged for fifteen years ; but, before he heard that such a continuance of life was in the Divine will towards him, what had been Hezekiah's sentiments in the time of dangerous sickness ? Isaiah tells us that those sentiments found utterance in such words as these, "I said, in the cutting " off of my days I shall go to the gates of the grave. I am " deprived of the residue of my years. I said, I shall not see " the Lord, even the Lord, in the land of the living. I shall "behold man no more with the inhabitants of the world." ***** " From day even to night wilt thou make an " end of me." * * * * "For the grave cannot praise thee: % 50 DOES THE BIBLE PERMIT US TO REGARD " death cannot celebrate thee: they that go down into the pit " cannot hope for thy truth." These and other similar words of despondency did the famons Hebrew monarch, Hezekiah, utter, when he feared that death was at hand to "make an end "of him." It is quite needless to prove, by quotation, that the New Testament Scriptures contradict these sombre views of death : they confessedly teach the immortality of the soul, and the resurrection of a glorified, spiritual body. Both these doctrines cannot be true. Either the despairing idea of annihilation must be true, and the hopeful thought of a better world wrong ; or, the doctrine of immortality must be true, and the thought of annihilation false. Whichever alter- native is chosen, the notion of the Bible being an infallible teacher, even of religion, is alike contravened by Scripture itself. D. — The Apostolic Belief as to the Time of Christ's Second Coming to Judge the World. There is another subject which, as being wholly unknown without the aid of revelation, and as professing to be a point in the Christian revelation, we presume that even Bishop Hampden would acknowledge to be a purely religious subject. Our allusion is to the second Messianic Advent, or the coming of God's anointed One to judgment. We are not about to discuss the question, whether the Old Testament writers were always happily exact in their antici- pations of the Christ. Our object is rather to ascertain whether the New Testament writings are infallible in their views on this one subject connected with Christianity. At the outset, it is not a little observable, that the sacred penmen represent our Lord as saying, at one time, that of the day and hour when the Lord shall come, knoweth no man ; no, not the angels of heaven ; neither the Son, but the Father only.* Whereas, at another moment, they tell us that the Saviour assured his followers that the fall of Jerusalem ; the coming of the Son of Man, with power and great glory, in such away as that "all the tribes of the earth should see" Him;f and the gathering together of his elect from the four winds, * Matt. xxiv. 36-42; Mark xiii. 32. f Matt. xziv. 30, 31. ITS TEACHING AS INFALLIBLE? 51 from the one end of heaven to the other — " all these things " shall be fulfilled''* before the then existing generation should have passed away. Now, manifestly, all those things did not come to pass be- fore the apostolic generation had passed away ; and, therefore, unless any man is prepared to think our blessed Saviour liable to err, we must believe that in this, as in other demonstrable cases, the Evangelists slightly varied the form of what the Son of God had said ; and so, unintentionally, gave to our Lord's words a meaning which he did not intend they should bear, and in which they were not true. We are the more confirmed in this belief, when we find, in the Gospels, contradictory reports of our Lord's teaching on this subject, such as those contrasted in the last paragraph. Proceeding from this point, it is clear that the New Testa- ment writings anticipated the day of the Lord, and the con- summation of all things, as an event which was to take place in the lifetime of many then upon earth. We can only pretend to give a few texts, as specimens, in proof of this assertion. Let the reader consider how often the expression "at hand," occurs in connexion with the idea of Christ's second coming to judge the world. Thus we read, " The night is far spent : " the day is at hand" (Kom. xiii. 11); and, " Let your modera- " tion be known unto all men: the Lord is at hand" (Phil, iv. 5); and, "If any man love not the Lord Jesus Christ, " let him be anathema maranatha," that is, anathema in the* day of the Lord, which is at hand (1 Cor. xvi. 22); and " The " end of all things is at hand" (1 Pet. iv. 7); and, in the very last chapter of the book of Eevelation (Eev. xxii. 10, 12), " The time is at hand." "Behold, I come quickly; my reward " is with me, to give every man according as his work shall " be." These passages, taken in connexion with the teaching of the gospel- writers, can leave no doubt in the mind of a reasonable man, as to the early period when the New Testa- ment writers expected the second advent of our Lord. Let it be remembered, too, that the words (in 2 Thess. ii. 2), " Be "not shaken in mind, nor be troubled ; neither by spirit, nor " by word, nor by letter, as from us, as that the day of Christ " is at hand," are by no means opposed to the numerous othe r passages already quoted. All that Paul here teaches is, tha-t * Matt. xxiv. 32 33. 52 DOES THE BIBLE PERMIT US TO REGARD tlie Tliessalonians should not allow the momentary expecta- tion of Christ to interfere with their active duties, or their peace of mind. Indeed, if the first eight verses of this chapter be carefully read, it will be perceived that the upshot of what they state is this : There were at Thessalonica two contrary powers at work — there Avas a spirit of wickedness, called by the Apostle "the mystery of iniquity;" and there was, opposed to this, an influence (apparently an individual influence) for good, called by Paul, " he who now letteth until he be taken " out of the way." Upon the removal, by death or otherwise, of this good influence, Paul expected that the prime mover of the wickedness in Thessalonica, called by Paul "that wicked," would stand forth as the unblushing abettor of evil, glorying in all iniquity, and doing so even in the name of God : and then, in the lifetime of those who, in the Apostle's own day, were living at Thessalonica — then the clay of the Lord should come to the overthrow of " that wicked, whom the Lord shall "consume with the spirit of his mouth, and shall destroy with " the brightness of his coming." Thus, tliis very passage, which seemed to postpone the day of the Lord, is itself an additional '' that Pan! systematically taught, as part of his religious doctrine, that Christ's second coining was to be in the lifetime of the then present generation. To the same effect we find the New Testament writers under a firm conviction that they were living in "the last days." This is unmistakeably apparent in such passages as the fol- lowing: — "Christ was manifest in these last times for you" (1 Pet. i. 20); " It is the last time ; and, as ye have heard that " antichrist shall come, even now there are many antichrists ; " whereby we know that it is the last time" (1 John ii. 18) ; " God hath in these last days spoken unto us by his Son" (Heb. i. 2). But some may say that "the last days" was a well- known Hebrew appellation for the whole Messianic epoch. Such scholars may truly say that the last days, according to Hebrew-christian parlance, set in when Jesus established his doctrine, and still continue, and will continue till the " end, " when Christ shall have delivered up the kingdom to God, " even the Father" (1 Cor. xv. 24). We readily grant that such was the Jewish custom in designating the Messianic dispensation ; but still we maintain that the New Testament writers believed that " the ends of the world were come upon "them" (1 Cor. x. 11) most literally ; and, in support of this ITS TEACHING AS INFALLIBLE? 53 our belief, we adduce one more passage in addition to those already referred to. The writer of the Epistle to the Hebrews enumerates a long catalogue of men who, in former genera- tions, " having all obtained a good report through faith, re- " ceived not the promise ; God having provided some better " thing for us, that they without us should not be made perfect." Now, let the reader ask himself what meaning these last words can bear. What conceivable blessing or "promise" was there, connected with Christianity, which would have been exhausted before the Christian epoch, if its enjoyment had been com- menced by men in the days of Isaac, or Abraham, or earlier? What promise, connected with the gospel, fails to us, though it was made good in the first century ? Does not belief still, as ever, bring peace, and hope, and joy, and holiness, which constitute salvation? Does not Paul himself declare, that knowing Christ after the Spirit, as we do, is preferable to knowing him after the flesh, as he and his contemporaries had done ? Of what promise have the bygone ages of Christianity robbed us ? In what respect are we losers be- cause Christian perfection began to be introduced into the world eighteen centuries ago ? Nay, are we not manifold gainers by the accumulated blessings that are now in the world, by reason of the patient ministrations of the Spirit through all these centuries ? Similarly, what would the men of Paul's day have lost, if it had pleased God to fulfil his glorious promises at a day long anterior to their life ? What can be the meaning of " God having provided some better " thing for us, that the elders without us should not be made "perfect?" It has puzzled the commentators to attach an intelligible meaning to these words. Let our reader try; and if he find a difficulty in making any sense of the passage, even with the advantage of their commentaries, then let him re- member that the New Testament writers expected that the end of the world, and of the human race, was to be in the lifetime of Jesu's contemporaries. Hence they argued, if Jesus, the Messiah, had come one hundred years before our time, the world would, ere now, have been destroyed — the judgment would have come — the complement of the human race would have been made up, and we should have lost the glorious privilege of rational existence and Christian hope. Thus they thought that God had done well for them in post- poning the coming of his Son till their day, because they felt 54 DOES THE BIBLE PERMIT US TO REGARD assured that the end was at hand, and that in fifty years, at the most, this world would be surceased. This doctrine of "the end" is prominent and conspicuous in the New Testament. Its being inculcated in the sacred volume is another proof, from holy writ itself, that neither in religion nor in any other subject does the Bible permit us to regard its teaching as infallible. It would be easy to multiply such proofs. They will — as they always have done — present themselves in abundance to the attentive reader of the Bible. Henceforward we entreat our reader not to shut his eyes against the truth a£ their existence — not to lay aside his reason — not to run the risk of corrupting his honest habits of thought, or weakening Iris powers of moral, intellectual, and spiritual discernment, by fencing with the verbal subtleties, by means of which it is attempted to " explain away" scrip- tural chfficulties. If God had intended his blessed book to be hrfallible, surely He would not have left on its every page the mark of fallibility.- Besides, consider the arguments for the honesty of Scripture, which are derivable from those discrepancies and contradictions which show the entire absence of anything like collusion among the sacred writers; and, again, consider the argument for the antiquity of Scripture from errors in the inspired volume, which mark the very age they come from. . This error about " the end" is a strong evidence that all the New Testament books — except the second Epistle of Peter, of whose genuine- ness, every scholar knows, there have always been more or less reasonable doubts — that every other New Testament writing was composed within a few years after the destruction of Jerusalem, in a.d. 70. If the New Testament writers had composed their books long after the destruction of Jerusalem, would they not have been more reserved in expressing their belief that the end of the world was to be a near follower, if not a concomitant, of the overthrow of the Temple and the Holy City ? If the New Testament books had been written early in the second century, or even very late in the first, would they not, like the second Epistle of Peter, have alluded to men's amazement at the delay in the coming of the Lord? "Would they not have been engaged, as part of Peter's second letter is, with pleading for more time in order to the fulfilling >f the promise ? Thus, our opinions tend to strengthen the ; >liever's trust in God and Christ and the Holy Ghost ; for IT3 TEACHING AS INFALLIBLE ? 55 they tend to show that the New Testament is a contempo- raneous, honestly written record of the events to which it alludes ; and, if the reader will only give a patient and thoughtful perusal to the pages which are to follow, we are not without a hope that they may enable him more thankfully, piously, and intelligently to study both the Old and New Testaments. E. — Paul's Argument in 1 Con. xv. 19, 32. We shall only further illustrate this part of our subject by drawing attention to what we regard as a strongly marked case of mixed moral and religious error in the writings of one who was a vigorous upholder of Inspiration, and a bright example of its glorious effects. It is in the first Epistle to the Corinthians, and in the midst of an elaborate discussion of a most solemn religious subject, the resurrection of the dead, that the Apostle to the Gentiles puts forth the notion, " If in " this life only we have hope in Christ, we are of all men "most miserable ;" and " if, after the manner of men, I have '.' fought with beasts at Ephesus, what advantageth it me if " the dead rise not ? Let us eat and drink, for to-morrow we "die." Now, let it be gravely and piously asked, what do these passages state, and what do they teach? They state that, on the supposition of there being no compensation or reward in an after world, the persecuted life of a holy man — whose motto is, Overcome evil with good — is more unhappy than the existence of the most vicious or the most base, who escapes detection and flourishes in the sordid luxury of an unhallowed rjrosperity. They teach that, apart from the hope of reward and the dread of punishment, a life like that of Sardanapalus, or of Tiberius at Capreee, is preferable to that of Paul. On these principles, men who, like the Sadducees, had no firm grasp of a belief in the spirit world, should have set them- selves to gratify their animal desires and propensities, and would only have been carrying out the maxim which became them as rational beings who were to end their existence after a while !' But, surely, to do good and patiently to endure, being buffeted for it, must always, under all circumstances that can be conceived, be a nobler and a happier course for 56 DOES THE BIBLE PERMIT US TO REGARD man, than to batten on the grossest enjoyment of vice, or to glide self- condemned and self-despised through life, amid the smiles of flatterers and the scorn of the discerning. And surely, too, Paul was no stranger to the satisfaction of being " fully persuaded in his own mind." Paul could depict the present torment of an evil conscience, and the bliss of a self- approving conscience was not unknown to him. Surely Paul knew better than this, his hypothetical teaching. Surely he had not forgotten that the gain of a holy man, such as the Christian Paul himself was, was an hundredfold, in this life, whatever he had lost for truth and righteousness' sake, even though that gain were held in the midst of persecution. Paul assuredly knew, and habitually taught, better than this exceptional and conditional teaching which he wrote to the Corinthians. If, however, you persist in supposing, contrary to and in spite of all evidence, that Paul's moral and religious doctrine, when written, was always infallible, then you involve yourself in the painful j >osition of being compelled to maintain that, in the absence of hope for a future world, the abomina- tions of a pampered profanity are a wiser philosophy — if not a deeper piety — than bravely to endure affliction in the cause of such partial light and truth as man can see in this world. But, on the other hand, grant what all the history and all the science and much of the morality of the Bible do manifestly show — namely, that, even when holy men are under the purifying and exalting influence of the Spirit of God, they still are men, and therefore they and their writings still are fallible — grant this : and then, in these mournful utterances of the Apostle, you only find that even he was wellnigh overcome by evil, and for a moment was induced to write unadvisedly, when he laboured under the vexatious questioning, and op- posed the worldly-minded unbelief and want of spirituality, of those lucre-lovino; Corinthians. Section 2. — The Conclusion, an Answer to the Question of this Book. Grant this, we say ; but in making this, as we think, in- evitable concession, and in remembering the very numerous and sometimes serious errors in Scripture, of which a few examples have been given in these pages, let us know that ITS TEACHING- AS INFALLIBLE ? 57 we are solving the problem proposed to us. Let us look on our position and see that, whatever else and however excellent may be the meaning of Inspiration, we are forced by the bear- ings of truth, as witnessed to by the Bible itself, to the con- clusion, that neither with reference to Science, History, Morality, nor Eeligion, does the Bible permit us to regard its teaching as infallible, or free from all error. BOOK II. WHAT REASON IS THERE FOE EXPECTING THE BIBLE TO BE INFALLIBLE? INTRODUCTION. THE SELF-CONSISTENCY OF TRCTII, IN ITS BEARINGS ON THIS QUESTION. Having, in the preceding pages of this Essay, recognised the untenableness of the popular belief that the Bible is, by its inspiration, guaranteed as an infallible book, let us now proceed to examine the grounds on which this erroneous dogma is maintained. Painful, indeed, will be our mental struggle, if, with the evidence of facts already laid before us as contradict- ing the notion of Biblical infallibility, we shall discover that there is a strong array of countervailing testimony which goes in support of such infallibility ; for the task must then be undertaken, of weighing the monstrously opposed masses of evidence, in order to decide for ourselves on which side the existence of truth is indicated by a preponderance. The un- natural question would then arise — Must we be guided by our senses and our reason, which show us Scriptural inaccuracies and self-contradictions, and thereby witness that Scripture is not infallible? or, — Must we bow to an overwhelming pressure of authority, and, even at the risk of stultifying reason and bidding defiance to the senses, must we acknowledge an in- accurate and self- contradictory document to be infallible? Thus, if, on examination, we find the alleged proofs of inspi- rational infallibility to be at all as weighty as the evidence showing the presence of errors in the Bible is palpable, there WHAT REASON IS THERE FOR EXPECTING, ETC. 59 must lie before us, indeed, an agonizing — a maddening — conflict between the pious inclination to submit to religious teaching, and the inevitable propensity to believe on convic- tion. If, on the other hand, however, the alleged proofs, which we are about to examine, should appear shadowy and unsubstantial, then our course of faith and of reason, with reference to Scriptural infallibility, will be plain. Thus, it is impossible to avoid feeling that, as truth is always consistent with itself, and as one unmistakeable part of truth has already shown us, by the facts of the case, that the Bible is not infallible, we shall probably find that there exists no valid reason for the popular expectation of infalli- bility in the inspired volume. This feeling of anticijoation, accompanied by a certain desire that we may be able to dis- cover plainly the self-consistency of truth, with reference to our present subject, is unavoidable; but, whatever may be the result of our inquiry, it is assuredly our duty to scrutinize the proofs in question very closely, and with a pious care propor- tioned to the importance and improbability attaching to the conclusion in which they are supposed to involve us, 60 WHAT REASON IS THERE FOR CHAPTER I. EXAMINATION OF THE ARGUMENT FROM MIRACLES FOR INSPIRATIONAL INFALLIBILITY. The first point we shall examine is, the proof of inspira- tional infallibility, which, it is said, can be drawn from Miracles. At the outset, it is clear that a writing which records the narratives of miraculous events is not thereby proved to be infallible. Those chronicles, for instance, which tell us of Dunstan's superhuman doings and sufferings, are not by any man supposed to be free from all admixture of error because they contain marvellous stories. Such chronicles may, indeed, be infallible ; but, even to establish their credibility, they require all the more testimony, because they expect us to believe what is so unlike all that we have experienced. Just so, let us forget for a moment what we have seen in the former chapter, and suppose that the Bible may be infallible. Still, its containing narratives of miracles does not prove its supposed infallibility, but rather renders an unusually great weight of testimony requisite, in order to establish the credibility of those narratives. It is not in this manner, however, that wise men endeavour to prove the Bible infallible, by an argument drawn from miracles. Their argument rather is, that the Scripture-writers performed miracles : that no man can per- form miracles, except the Spirit of God be with him : and that the presence of the Divine Spirit in a man, guarantees that man's writings as being wholly free from error. Hence, they deduce the inspirational infaliibihty of the Bible. As to the first statement, that the Scripture -writers per- formed miracles, can we be quite sure that all the sacred pen- men wrought such superhuman deeds as showed that God was with them? Who wrote the books of Judges, Ruth, Samuel, Kings, Chronicles, Ezra, Nehemiah, Esther, Job, and those of the Psalms which refer to the Babylonish captivity and other events of a far later date than David's reign ? If we know not who wrote these books, how can we know that their authors, EXPECTING THE BIBLE TO BE INFALLIBLE? 61 worked miracles in proof of their divine and infallible inspira- tion ? Or, again, if Mark and Lnke, between them, wrote two of the four Gospels and the book of the Acts, what proof have we that either of those evangelists ever wrought one single miracle ? But let it be supposed, for the furtherance of our inquiry, that every sacred penman could be shown to have been a worker of miracles. Even this would not, according to the teaching of the Bible itself, demonstrate that God was with each pen- man ; for the Bible admits that miracles, or superhuman deeds, may be effected not only by Divine aid, but even by the agency of the devil. So, when Pharaoh* called the wise men and sorcerers of Egypt, and they did with their enchantments in like manner as did Moses and Aaron, was it a good spirit, or an evil, which gave miraculous power to Jannes and Jambres whilst they withstood Moses ?-J- Or, again, those false ChiistsJ that were to " show great signs and wonders," by whose in- spiration had they their powers ? The "man of sin,"$ too, is said to have had " his coming after the working of Satan, with " all power and signs and lying wonders ;" and one of the symbolic "beasts,"! in the Apocalypse, is described as "doing " great wonders, so that he maketh fire come down from heaven " on the earth in the sight of men, and deceiveth them that " dwell on the earth by the means of those miracles which " he hath power to do :" and hi like manner, also in the same book, the three symbolic frogs IT are "the spirits of devils, " working miracles, which go forth unto the kings of the earth " and of the whole world." Xow, on the face of this Scriptural evidence, is it not abundantly clear that, according to the teaching of the Bible itself, miracles afford no proof that he who works them is assisted by the God of truth, and therefore can neither He nor be in error ? Obviously, then, we must not rest on miracles as a proof of inspirational infallibility ; for it does not appear that all the Scripture-writers exercised miraculous powers ; and, even if this were quite an established point, it would only show, accord- ing to Scripture, that those writers were aided by some super- human agency, either divine or diabolical. * Exodus vii. 11. t 2 Tim. iii. 8. % Matt. xxiv. 24. § 2 Thess. ii. 9. || Eev. xiii. 13. t Rev. xvi. 13, 14, 62 WHAT REASON IS THERE FOR CHAPTER II. EXAMINATION OF THE ARGUMENT FROM PROPHECY FOR INSPIRATIONAL INFALLIBILITY. The next argument, which we shall consider, in favour of inspirational infallibility, is drawn from a subject akin to the miraculous, and is to be dealt with in a manner similar to that resorted to in the case of miracles. The prophecies which are contained in Holy Writ are referred to ; and it is argued that no man can utter true and real* prophecies except the all- knowing Spirit of God inform his mind, or guide his pen. The Bible, it is further urged with much force, contains, true and real prophecies ; and, therefore, the authors of the Bible must have had their minds informed, or their pens guided, by the Holy Spirit : and, moreover, it is not conceivable that the Almighty should have permitted the recorders of his oracles to insert aught of then' own errors in the same books in which they wrote the divine predictions. Hence a conclusion is drawn that the Bible is inspired and infallible. Now, here again, supposing the line of argument to be in itself allowable and satisfactory, is it certain that those Scrip- ture-writers, whose very names are, for the most part, undis- coverable, were all of them men who originated true and real prophecies? Even in the case of the New Testament, Paul and John may have been genuine prophets ; but what is there to make it probable that Matthew, Mark, Luke, James, Peter, or Jude, ever uttered a single real or true prophecy ? But, again, let us assume, for the sake of our argument, that it could be shown that every Scripture-writer had enunciated at least one indisputably marvellous prophecy. What effect would this concession have as a proof of inspirational infallibility ? Scripture itself teaches that such prophecies may come from a source widely separated from the God of truth. For instance, . it is the book of Deuteronomyf which tells us that a prophet, or a dreamer of dreams, may arise and give Israel a sign, or a * By a true prophecy, we mean one in accordance with a fulfilment : and by a real prophecy, we mean a prediction as opposed to a history. | Deut. xiii. l-o. EXPECTING THE BIBLE TO BE INFALLIBLE ? 63 wonder, which, shall come to pass ; and jet the very object of that true prophetic sign may be to seduce Israel into the worship of false gods, so that it may become the bounden duty of the people, instead of hearkening to the words of that prophet, or that dreamer of dreams, to put him to death. Thus, it is manifest, that if every Scripture -writer could be proved to have uttered prophecies which the course of history had verified, or was now verifying, this would of itself be no guarantee to the believing student of the Bible that any Scripture-writer had not been a false, or a mistaken teacher. But it is not only with a general principle bearing on this point that Scripture supplies us. Numerous instances present themselves in the sacred pages, of wicked prophets, who strove to mislead men into sin, and yet were the means of giving true prophecies. In the New Testament, the case of Caiaphas is conspicuous. The inspired narrative informs us, that in a council, where the Pharisees were busy plotting against Jesus, Caiaphas used the words, " It is expedient for " us that one man should die for the people, and that the " whole nation perish not. 7 ' "This," says the same narrative, " he spake not of himself: but being high priest that year, he " prophesied that Jesus should die for that nation." Here then was, according to St. John's gospel,* a marvellous and true prophecy uttered by Caiaphas at the very moment when he was wickedly conspiring against the harmless and admir- able life of our blessed Lord. Who supposes that this true prophecy was a voucher for the infallibility of all that Caiaphas wrote or spoke ? Similarly, if all the canonical writers were known to have been true prophets, that would not prove all their writings infallible. The Old Testament, too, speaks of Balaam-j- as a prophet who foretold the coming of a star out of Jacob — the rising of a sceptre out of Israel — and the coming of one out of Jacob, who should have dominion. In these and similar forebodings, Balaam is represented, if not as foretelling the Messiah, at least as announcing, with a forecast of superhuman wisdom, the prevalence of Israel over Moab. Thus does the Old Tes- tament describe Balaam as a true prophet; and, moreover, there is everything to make it apparent that he, like Caiaphas, prophesied in the name of Jehovah, the true God. Yet it was * John xi, 50-52. f Numbers xxiv. 17-] 9. 64 WHAT REASON IS THERE FOR at this very time that Balaam "loved the wages of un- " righteousness;"* so that he " taught Balac tocastastumbling- " block before the children of Israel, to eat things sacrificed " unto idols, and to commit fornication." -J- Balaam may have been a true prophet ; but who will say that his teaching was infallible, or free from all admixture of error ? And now, after noticing the prophets Caiaphas and Balaam, and after recognising the principle laid down in Deuteronomy, let us ask what reliance can be placed on the argument drawn from prophecy in support of inspirational infallibility ? If each book of the Bible contained a true prophecy, first uttered by the writer of the book, even this would evidently be far from showing that each book was infallible. * 2 Peter ii. 15. f Bev. ii. 14. EXPECTING THE BIBLE TO BE INFALLIBLE ? 65 CHAPTER III. EXAMINATION OF THE ARGUMENT FROM THE AUTHORITY CLAIMED FOR SCRIPTURE BY THE NEW TESTAMENT WRITERS. We now proceed to the most complicated and difficult part of our subject, the argument — namely, in favour of the Bible's infallibility, drawn from the authority claimed for Scripture by the writers of the New Testament. At the outset, let us see what this argument really is. The New Testament writings are assumed to be infallible. The New Testament writings state, or imply, that the Old Testa- ment writings are infallible. Thus it is, by some, supposed to be apparent that the whole Bible is infallible. Now, even supposing that it can be shown that the New Testament does assert the infallibility of the Old Testament and of itself, what proof can be given that the New Testament is not mistaken in this very matter? To this it is commonly replied, that miracles, prophecies, and our Lord's promises of the Spirit of truth, guarantee the infallibility of the New Testament writ- ings. But we have already seen that, on the showing of the Bible itself, miracles and prophecies utterly fail in proving the infallibility of their workers or enunciators ; and in a subse- quent part of this Book we shall take occasion to examine the promises of Christ which are said to bear on this point. In the meanwhile, let us here content ourselves with asking who guarantees the exact correctness with which these promises of Christ are recorded ? The only possible answer is, the New Testament writers. Thus, then, the New Testament writers guarantee the infallible accuracy of their own narration of our Lord's words of promise, and then those words of promise are supposed to guarantee the infallibility of the New Testa- ment writings. If this be not arguing in a circle, we know no instance of that fallacy. From these considerations it is clear that no weight can logically attach to the complicated argument, in favour of scriptural infallibility, which is drawn from the authority claimed for Scripture by the New Testament writers. It is F 66 WHAT REASON IS THERE FOR as futile as if one should say all the Pope's utterances must be infallible, because he himself claims infallibility as attaching to some of his sentences. But, not to press this point, let us look closely into the argument in question. The infallibility, said to be claimed for Scripture by the New Testament, pur- ports to be claimed either by the Jews, the disciples of Christ, or by Jesus himself. A. — The Opinion of the Jews on this Subject. In the case of the Jews what is to be said? Doubtless they did, for centuries after Christ, believe their Bible to be verbally inspired, and wholly infallible. To this testify the Masoretic diligence and exactness in counting and recording the number of scriptural books, words, letters, and even vowel points. And that this feeling prevailed among the people of Juda?a, at least as early as our Saviour's time, is abundantly apparent from many passages in the gospel history. For instance, the chief priests and scribes at once fixed on Bethlehem as neces- sarily the birthplace of the Messiah; "fur," said they, "thus " it is written by the prophet." The inspired seer, Micah, had so prescribed the will of God, and his writing — it was believed — could not err. Why not? Evidently because those priests and scribes partook of the prevailing national belief in the infallibility of Holy Writ. B. — The Opinion of the Evangelists. That the Evangelists, and indeed all the disciples of Christ, should hold this part of the Jewish creed, is what was natu- rally to be expected ; and, accordingly, the sympathy of the Evangelists in a reverence for the infallibility of the Old Tes- tament is largely shown by their well-known formulary, " Now all this was done that" (hina — in order that) " it might "be fulfilled which was spoken of the Lord by the prophet." Of course we do not regard the testimony of the Jews on this, or on any other subject, as a decisive and unquestionable authority : and the value at which the opinion of the Evange- lists on this subject is to be taken, must depend on the evidence which can be produced in proof of their infallibility ; but the point to be noticed here is, that our Lord's four biographers EXPECTING THE BIBLE TO BE INFALLIBLE { 67 had their own minds strongly impregnated with this current Jewish notion. In their judgment, it was a part of piety to regard the Old Testament Scriptures as the unerring dictates of Jehovah ; so that we can well understand how, in depicting an historical portraiture of Jesus, they would delight in every possible opportunity of recording expressions, in which that holy One seemed to countenance their own favourite pre- conception. C. — Alleged Utterances of Jesus on this Subject. With these remarks, and supposing for the sake of our argument, that the four Gospels give us the " ipsissima verba " of our Lord, we proceed to enumerate and examine what we believe will be found to be fair and adequate specimens of the strongest declarations, in support of scriptural sanctity and authority, which Jesus is said to have uttered. Matthew, for instance, tells us that, in Christ's sermon on the Mount,* the words occurred, " Till heaven and earth pass, " one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law till all " be fulfilled ; ?? and again the divine preacher is represented as saying, " I am not come to destroy the law or the prophets, "buttofulfiL" The same Evangelist teLls us, how Jesus, rebuking the Jews for bidding defiance to the moral duty of filial kindness, said, " Thus have ye made the commandment of God of none effect "by your tradition/ ; f Similarly, too, in strong apparent support of inspirational infallibility, Jesus, arguing with the Jews as to the divine nature or the unique excellence of the Christ, asks them to explain how it is, if Messiah be David's merely ordinary human son, that " David in spirit calls him Lord ?"J Is it not here implied by Jesus that the inspired David could not err even in a word? Does not this saying of the Son of God prove even the verbal inspiration and infallibility of the Old Testament ? And, again, is not that other passage, from the Gospel of John, another convincing proof that our blessed Saviour held what is commonly called the highest doctrine of verbal inspiration; when he replied to his Jewish accusers by reminding them, that it could hardly be blasphemy for him to * Matt. v. 18. t Matt, xv. 6. % Matt. xxii. 43. 68 WHAT REASON IS THERE FOR " call himself the Son of God," since it was written in their law (Psalm Jxxxii. 6), " I said ye are gods." " If then," argues Jesns, " he called them gods nnto whom the word of " God came, and the Scripture cannot he broken, say ye of him " whom the Father hath sanctified, and sent into the world, "thou blasphemest because I said I am the Son of God?"* Do not these two texts plainly prove to every believer, that Jesus regarded the words of the Old Testament as infallibly inspired ? But, yet again, see how our Lord revered the words of the prophets. It was in the solemn night of his betrayal that he warned his apostles, saying,! " All ye shall be offended be- " cause of me this night, for it is written (Zech. xiii. 7), I will " smite the shepherd, and the sheep of the flock shall be " scattered abroad." And it was at the same awful period that Jesus spoke of his power to call down twelve legions of angels for his deliverance ; | "but," he added, "how then " shall the scriptures be fulfilled, that thus it must be ?" Do not these references to the prophets clearly indicate that, in the judgment of the Son of God, the Old Testament prophets spoke with an infallible prescience of the deepest mysteries of the divine will? These six quotations are, we believe, an adequate represen- tation of all which Jesus is reported to have said in support of Biblical infallibility. We have endeavoured to put them briefly, but yet with all the argumentative force they can bear. Let us now examine them in detail. The citation from the sermon on the Mount speaks of not a jot or a tittle of the law passing till all be fulfilled, and of Jesus as not being a destroyer but a fulfiller of the law. We will at once concede what it would be hard to prove — viz., that "the law" here denotes the Old Testament. One of the commands of that law (Exod. xxi. 24) is, " an eye for " an eye, a tooth for a tooth." Now, in what manner does Jesus proceed to deal with this precept ? Does he not say, " Ye have heard that it hath been said, An eye for an eye, a " tooth for a tooth : but I say unto you, That ye resist not " evil?" Does not Jesus abrogate this law of retaliation, and with it that other (Deut. xxiii. 6, 7) which permits, if it does not positively enjoin, the hating of an enemy ? And, having * John x. 35. t Ma tt. xxvi. 31. % Matt. xxvi. 54. EXPECTING THE BIBLE TO BE INFALLIBLE? 69 abrogated these, does not our Lord substitute for them the truly golden law which bids men love their enemies ? Such abrogation, or, if you choose, such "fulfilment" as this, is reconcilable with Jesu's declaration, if that declaration be modified so as to mean that the Saviour was no hasty revolutionist, hut that his object was to promote the holiness and piety of men, even as the Jewish lawgiver had desired to do. Only, Jesus would pursue this object by giving a better and more perfect law than that of the Old Testament. To abrogate thus was indeed to fulfil ; but it was a course wholly irreconcilable with the idea, that Jesus believed the Old Testament law infallible — that is, unmixed with error. To abrogate, or in any way to alter, that which is infallibly revealed by God, and infallibly recorded by man, must be to change it for the worse; and such a change the blessed Jesus, we are persuaded, never made in aught. Thus, whatever else may or may not be the signification of those conservative words about fulfilling and not destroying the law, they manifestly do not inculcate the doctrine of in- spirational infallibility. As to the next passage, that bearing on the duties of children to their parents, is not the precept, " Honour thy " father and thy mother," the commandment of God, in what- ever book it be written? Nay, was it not so awfully the commandment of God, hundreds of years before the law is said to have been given from Sinai, that Ham, according to the sacred historian (Gen.ix. 20-27), brought the curse of God upon himself and all his progeny, by dishonouring his father Noah? Surely, in whatever book it is written or not written, this duty of honour to parents is the commandment of God ; but it is hard to see by what reasoning it can be shown that such a duty being written in a book, and being spoken of in that book as God's precept, can prove the whole book to have been infalhbly inspired. In noticing the way in which Jesus quoted the 82nd and the 110th Psalms, in arguments with the Jews, we should never forget that these citations occur in arguments ; and not only so, but in hypothetical propositions. In the case of the 82nd Psalm, Jesu's argument is, If you are right in saying that the Scripture cannot be broken, and if the Scripture call some men gods, with what justice can you accuse me of blasphemy, because I do something like that which your own 70 WHAT REASON IS THERE FOR sacred and, as yon acknowledge, infallible writings represent God as not only permitting others to do, but as actually him- self doing? Assuredly, here is no statement by our Lord that the Old Testament is infallible ; but, without expressing his own view on this subject, he appeals to his countrymen on their own most hallowed convictions. So, too, the 110th Psalm is only used conditionally. The argument in which it is referred to runs thus : — You say that your Scriptures teach you that Christ is to be David's son ; and also you say that the inspired, and therefore, according to your notions, infallible David called him Lord. If Christ were to be merely an ordinary human son of David, how can you account for David, than whom you know of no greater man, calling him Lord ? Must not this Lord of David's be something more than common humanity? Must he not be divine, or in some way a supereminently great man, if your idea of Scriptural infallibility is to be retained ? Here, again, Jesus appeals to the convictions of the Jews, without at all setting the seal of his divine approbation to those convictions, any more than Paul approved the worship of God as an " unknown" God, when he used that popular idea in order to convince and instruct the men of Athens. Before we leave this passage, however, we must notice that, in Luke's narrative of this same argument of Jesus with the Jews, there is a very marked and important variation of the phrase which our Saviour is said to have employed ; for, whereas Matthew makes Jesus quote the 110th Psalm, as what " David in spirit wrote," Luke* merely represents Jesus as introducing the quotation with the words — " David himself saith in the hook of "Psalms." Who shall tell us whether Matthew or Luke is, in this instance, the more exact in his version of what Jesus said? If the inspired Evangelist, Luke, be not incorrect, Matthew must be void of infallibility, for Luke, in this very important narrative, does not inform us that Jesus said any tiling about David being " in spirit." If Luke be incorrect, what becomes of his inspirational infallibility when he wrote? On such slender bases rests the enormous dogma of scriptural infallibility. The last savings of our Lord's, which we are to examine in order to see their bearing on Biblical infallibility, are those in * Luke xx. 42. EXPECTING THE BIBLE TO BE INFALLIBLE? 71 which the Gospel- writers describe him as teaching that " the " Scriptures must be fulfilled;" that is, that the events of his life and death must take a certain form, in order to tally with the destiny which the writings of the Israelitish prophets had prescribed for him. We are fresh from the perusal of texts from Matthew and Luke, which show how little we can be sure that, in the evangelical records, we have the precise and entire words of Christ. This consideration ought, if we have any love of truth, to weigh with us when we find difficult and improbable sayings put into the mouth of the wise and gentle Jesus by biographers who, we know, delighted in uttering such difficult and improbable sayings themselves. Is it not most likely that the Evangelists, as they thought one inapplicable pro- phecy fulfilled by Jesus being called out of Egypt, and another, which has no existence, fulfilled by his dwelling at Nazareth, so also thought that Zechariah wrote about the Messiah, and that what he so wrote must be fulfilled? But some reader may ask, why call these sayings difficult and improbable? We call them so for at least two good reasons. If Jesus, whom we believe to have been the infallible Son of God, did use these words as to the "must be" of what the prophets had written, then, indeed, a maddening puzzle would present itself to drive us into unbelief, when we found the infallible Jesus implying that a book was infallible which had in it palpable errors. This is one reason why we call every passage which ascribes to Jesus the idea of prophetic necessi- tarianism, difficult and improbable. Besides, Jesus cannot have been ignorant of the conditionality of all prophecy, as laid down by the prophets themselves. It was, surely, not without the knowledge of the Son of God that Jeremiah had written those words, which should be ever borne in mind by the students of prophecy,* — " At what instant I shall speak " concerning a nation, and concerning a kingdom, to pluck up, " and to pull down, and to destroy it ; if that nation, against " whom I have pronounced turn from their evil, I will repent " of the evil that I thought to do unto them. And at what " instant I shall speak concerning a nation, and concerning a " kingdom, to build and to plant it ; if it do evil in my sight, 11 that it obey not my voice, then I will repent of the good, * Jeremiah xviii. 7-10. 72 WHAT REASON IS THERE FOR "wherewith I said I would benefit them." Nor, again, can we suppose it to have been unknown to Jesus that the in- spired Ezekiel had laid clown the same principle of prophetic interpretation as applicable to the case of individuals not less than to that of nations.* " When I shall say to the righteous, " that he shall surely live ; if he commit iniquity he shall die " for it:" and " when I say unto the wicked, thou shalt surely " die ; if he turn from his sin, he shall not die, he shall surely "live." Now, let us ask what these passages mean, if they do not mean that all prophecy — that relating to individuals not less than that relating to nations — is conditional ? The answer to this question must acknowledge, that no divinely inspired prophecy binds man by an inevitable, iron destiny, so that, if the prophet of the Lord has denounced him, he must be cursed ; and, if the seer has blessed him, he must be blessed. Rather the teaching of Holy Writ, and of our hearts, is, that the most terrible denunciations are intended, in God's mercy, to stimulate man's repentance ; and the richest prophetic bless- ings are announced as an encouragement to human effort. -With a consciousness of these prophetic principles, so clearly enunciated by the prophets themselves, and so constantly illustrated by the histories of David and his descendants, by the narrative of Ahab's repentance and the consequent post- ponement of God's curse upon him, by Jonah's dealings with Nineveh, and by numberless other pages of the Old Testa- ment; with a consciousness of these principles, and their ever- recurring fulfilment, it is impossible to suppose that Jesus intended to declare that there was a " must be," or a compul- sory necessity, in the particular manner of his death for us. Did some texts inevitably destine Judas to be a traitor? Did others compel the apostles to flee and leave their Master in his peril ? Did others necessitate the hateful injustice of the Jews who accused Christ ? and did yet another set of predic- tions bind the Romans to condemn and crucify that just man ? If so, and if this was so spoken and so meant by our Lord, then he cannot have thought the Old Testament infallible, for he must have known that the prophecies declared themselves to be conditional ; and so, if he believed that they were truly inevitable, he must have known that they had erred in pro- nouncing themselves conditional. Thus, whether we have * Ezekiel xxxiii. 13-15. EXPECTING THE BIBLE TO BE INFALLIBLE? 73 the precise words of Jesus on the subject of prophetic neces- sitarianism or not, these passages, which profess to give us Ms precise words on that subject, can afford no proof of Scrip- tural infallibility : for, either they unintentionally misrepresent what Jesus said, and so are themselves an instance in proof of Biblical fallibility; or, else, they correctly state Jesu's words and views, and, on this supposition, the Lord himself contra- dicts, and so charges fallibility on the prophets for having declared their own forebodings to be conditional when, indeed, they were inevitable. We have now examined sis of the strongest and most varied instances we can find, in which Jesus is alleged to have attributed infallibility to the Scriptures. The argument drawn from this source seems to us wholly unsatisfactory. Jesus, doubtless, revered the marvellous and holy Bible of his nation ; he, doubtless, used it to persuade and convince the Jews, to whom he addressed himself. Knowing the sanctity and authority which the Lord attached to the law and the prophets, the disciples, who so long and so entirely failed in understanding the nature of .Messiah's kingdom, were easily betrayed into the idea that Jesus shared their own superstitious belief in Biblical infallibility ; and thus they represented him as using some expressions which, apart from the other evidence of the case, might lead us to suppose that the infallible Jesus sanctioned a belief in inspirational infallibility : but, viewed in connexion with the particulars we have just been laying before the reader, even these alleged sayings of our Lord have no weight as proof — indeed, on every conceivable hypothesis, they operate in direct disproof of the dogma of Scriptural infallibility. Whether Paul, or Peter, or any others of the New Testament writers, do or do not attribute infallibility to the Bible, the infallibility of these New Testament writers must first be established, before their dictum can justify us in assenting to a dogma which is contravened by numerous and palpable matters of fact. In a word, however much authority may be duly attachable to the Old Testament, and may be attributed to it in the New Testament, Infallibility is quite a different thing from authority; and the infallibility of "the Old Testament we hold to be neither proven nor provable from the New Testament. Neither proven nor provable, we say ; because, if we have not the exact 74 WHAT REASON IS THERE FOR sayings of Jesus, the New Testament is at fault, for it fails to give us an exact record of what it professes to narrate pre- cisely ; and, on the other hand, if we have the exact sayings of Jesus, they must be so interpreted as to contradict and charge error on those who laid down the prophetic canon of conditionality. And again we say, neither proven nor provable, because, at best, we have as yet no sufficient reason for believ- ing the New Testament infallible ; and, until its infallibility be established, its assertions of opinion, by whomsoever professing to have been uttered, will not suffice to prove the infallibility of the Old Testament. A point which naturally connects itself with this part of our argument is the scriptural use of the phrase, " the Word of " God." This phrase is manifestly often employed to desig- nate Our Saviour ; but it is also sometimes used to denote certain portions of Holy Writ : and the too common English understanding of the phrase is undoubtedly as a synonym for the Bible. Now, supposing it to be granted that the Bible does call itself the Word of God, and supposing it further granted that the Bible thus claims infallibility for itself by this phrase, this would evidently be the same kind of proof of in- spirational infallibility as is afforded by the Pope when he calls himself the Vicar of Christ, and means to prove by that title, that he is as infallible as we believe our Lord to have been. Thus this argument for scriptural infallibility is worthless even on the most favourable supposition. It may be interesting, however, to some of our readers to know, that the learned-are by no means agreed that the term " Word of God" is ever once used in Scripture as a designation of the Bible. Thus, for instance, a Professor, whose candour and learning show themselves to be equally admirable, lately used these words in preaching before the University of Cambridge — " Let not "the natural metaphor, by which men call a sacred record " 'the Word of God,' ever blind us to the fact, that no text " has been found, from Genesis to Revelation, in which this " holy name is made a synonym for the entire volume of Scrip- " ture." (Rational Godliness, by the Rev. Eowland Williams, B.D., p. 298.) With this statement of a fact we perfectly agree : and, at the same time, we believe that " the Word of God" is a name often applied to several portions of our Bible. But does this make it probable that even the portions so designated are EXPECTING THE BIBLE TO BE INFALLIBLE ? 75 infallible? Take the parallel expression, "Man of God," as it occurs in the Sacred Volume. Do we ever dream of assert- ing that Moses,* or Elijah,-]- or Shemaiah,J or the Prophet of Judah,§ were infallible or impeccable because they and many others are styled in Scripture " Men of God ?■" We do not doubt whether Adam or any of his descendants were the work of Gcd's hands ; and yet we believe our first father and all men since — him only excepted in whom the Spirit of God dwelt without measure — to have been both fallible and pec- cable. If works of God may be imperfect, and if "Men of God" may be fallible, how does the name " Word of God," applied to portions of a book written by the instrumentality of man, show us that even those very portions of that book are infallible ? This notion is obviously as untenable as those we have already examined and been compelled to reject. An arduous — we believe an impossible — task it will be for any pious mind to prove the infallibility of the Bible by the manner in which portions of that book are styled " the Word " of God," or by our Saviour's references to the Old Testa- ment; but, after all, if the task should seem to be per- formed, its accomplisher will only have argued in a circle, and thereby have wrought a chain of sand. The Old and New Testaments have sometimes been compared to a work in two volumes. How would it be with such a work, if we should assert its infallibility, and, in proof of our assertion, should urge that the second volume told us its own writer was likely to be infallible, and that the writer of the first volume was certainly infallible ? There would manifestly be no logical cogency whatever in this line of argument. What greater cogency belongs to the defence of Scripture infallibility which we have just been examining ? * Deut. xxxiii. 1. f 1 Kings xvii. 24, % ] Kings xii. 22. § 1 Kings xiii. 1. 76 WHAT REASON IS THERE FOR CHAPTER IV. ARGUMENT IN FAVOUR OF INSPIRATIONAL INFALLIBILITY, FROM THE SUPPOSED IMPOSSIBILITY OF SCRIPTURE WRITERS ASCERTAINING, BY NATCTRAL MEANS, MANY PARTICULARS OF WHICH THEY TREAT. Another reason for believing in inspirational infallibility, is sometimes based on the acknowledgment which is regarded as the only possible 'reply to the question — How, bnt by Divine illnmination, were the sacred penmen enabled to de- scribe scenes of which it is highly improbable, and sometimes impossible, that they should have been witnesses ? How, for instance, did Matthew and Luke arrive at a knowledge of the angelic visits and revelations to Elizabeth and her cousin Mary? Or, how did Moses describe the process of creation, most of whose parts were older than man ? Some argue that an account of all which Adam knew was handed down to Moses by the probably oral tradition of the several long-lived patriarchs who intervened. But, even on this supposition, how did Adam or Moses learn the mystery of the first five days' work? The common answer is, that wisdom and know- ledge for ascertaining all things which they could not know of themselves, but which they have recorded, were miraculously given to the holy men of old by inspiration ; and then it is urged — Was it probable that God should condescend to reveal these secrets to Moses, and yet that he should leave Moses free to make all manner of natural mistakes in recording this and other revelations which were given to him by the Spirit of God ? As far as the d, priori probability of a revelation, and no infallible record of it, is mixed up with this argument for inspirational infallibility, we shall deal with it under the general head of the a priori argument. At present our aim is, merely to show that an answer widely different from that already alluded to can be given to the question — How, but by Divine inspiration, could mysteries like the history of creation be known to the Bible writers ? EXPECTING THE BIBLE TO BE INFALLIBLE ? 77 A. — Evangelists Recording Scenes at which They were not Present. And first, with reference to the Gospels — How were Matthew, and Luke, and the other Evangelists, able to record speeches and conversations at which it is not pretended that they were present? There are obviously two conceivable modes in which they may have been provided with materials for their narrative. On the one hand, it is quite possible that by a miracle, or supernatural exertion of his almighty power, God may have taught the sacred penmen any secrets of the past which were known only to him. On the other hand, it is possible that the Bible writers may, like Livy or Herodotus, or any other ancient historian, have gathered their information from the traditions, oral or written, which were current either in the popular mind or in the literature of their clay. By which of these two modes did the inspired writers gain their information ? The variations and discrepancies which occur in the accounts of what was said by Jesus, or those around him, lead us to the supposition that human tradition, and not Divine dictation, was the source from which the Evan- gelists, at all events, drew their information. But this sup- position becomes a certainty, in our minds, when we find Luke, at least, informing his reader whence he drew the materials of his gospel. "Forasmuch," says he (Luke i. 1-4), " as many have taken in hand to set forth in order a declara- tion of those things which are most fully believed among us, even as they delivered them unto us, who from the beginning were eyewitnesses and ministers of the Word, it hath seemed good to me also, having carefully traced out all things from the very first, to write them for thee, Theophilus, seriatim, in order that thou mightest know the certainty of those things wherein thou hast been instructed." On looking at this preface of Luke's history, there are several reflections which must arise in every thoughtful mind. For example, Luke's writing at all was a matter of " seeming " good," or of human judgment as to what was desirable; and this does not look like the urgent duty of recording what God was miraculously teaching. Luke's mode of preparing him- self for his task as a writer, was the natural one adopted by every prudent and honest author. He traced or followed out (parekolouthekoti, which is less correctly translated, " having 78 WHAT REASON IS THERE FOR " had understanding") the several events of the history he was to write. He chose the best accredited portions of the current narrative. His informants, like the informants of all his contemporaries, were eyewitnesses and ministers of the word. He says not a syllable of his having any other special source of information. He makes no reference to any instruc- tion which had been miraculously given to his companion Paul, and so transferred to him, He claims no inspirational infallibility. Yet, as he wished Theophilus to know the cer- tainty of those things in which he (Theophilus) had been instructed, would not the Evangelist, as a prudent man, have said, if he believed it, You may depend on the certainty of what I tell you, for I write, not on the information of men only, but under the infallible dictation of the Spirit of God ? That Luke should have omitted this source of Iris historical and religious knowledge, and named the other, is a kind of imprudence of which, wise men will be slow to suspect such a writer as Luke has proved himself to be. Similarly, in John's Gospel (John xx. 30, 31, and xxi. 24, 25), in passages where you would expect the sanction of an infallible inspiration to be named, if it were true, you find no allusion to any such idea; but some early Christians, who wished to remind the reader on how high an authority this narrative of the Life of our Saviour rests, have appended to its last chapter the words, " this" (probably John) " is the " disciple which testifieth these things, and we" (of course this "we" could not be John himself only) "know that his testi- " moriT/ is true." Would not these corroborators of the fourth Gospel have been glad if they could, with a good conscience, have said that this gospel rested, not only on the human testi- mony of a loving eyewitness, but that it had been infallibly written by the beloved disciple under the especial guidance of the Holy Ghost? The omissions of all reference to such a sanction in this part of John's Gospel, and in Luke's preface, can only be accounted for on the supposition, that Luke him- self, and some of John's earliest and most admiring readers, had no idea that inspiration made an inspired person or his writing infallible, Thus, then, we conclude that these two Evangelists, and, like them, all the other New Testament writers, never dreamt of infallibility attaching to then books — never dreamt of the Spirit of God dictating their sentences ; but knew well, as one of them has said, that they carefully EXPECTING THE BIBLE TO BE INFALLIBLE ? 79 and honestly obtained the best information they could, and then piously employed the knowledge they had acquired. B. — Genesis describing Creation antecedent to Man's Existence. But, for the Old Testament writers, how did they obtain their materials ? If the Almighty had seen fit to reveal to Moses, or any one else, the history of creation before man's time, of course He could have made such a revelation, and He could thus have miraculously given knowledge to the author of the book of Genesis. We do not question the possibility of God's doing anything good ; but we are not prepared to believe this or any other miracle without some strong grounds of reason. And when we come to look at the alleged proofs that God did thus miraculously tell the writer of Genesis about the days which had gone by, we find that there is no proba- bility whatever in favour of such an idea. There is not one contemporary assertion that the writer of the Pentateuch ob- tained his materials by miraculous divine intervention. Moses, we are told, received the law miraculously on Mount Sinai. The Commandments were divinely written on two tables of stone. A pattern of the tabernacle was shown Moses during his forty days' sojourn on the Mount. But who wrote the whole history of the Pentateuch? How comes it that the two copies of the fourth commandment do not tally ? They cannot both have been exact copies from the tables of stone. If Moses wrote the Pentateuch, how is it that the death of Moses is recorded in that volume ? Unless the Pentateuch was composed after the beginning of Saul's reign, how is it that we have, not only regulations for Israel as a kingdom in Deut. xvii. 14 — 20, but even the words (in Gen. xxxvi. 31), " these are the kings that reigned in the land of Edom, before " there reigned any king over the children of Israel " words which a recent critic has not unjustly called "an historical allusion " to the kings of Israel ?" We are fully persuaded that many of the words of Moses, and many precepts which Moses learned from Jehovah, are in the Pentateuch ; but why may not these instructions of Moses, together with any other extant ancient Jewish literature, have been compiled by some unknown writer during the time of the kings ? Are we warranted by any 80 WHAT REASON IS THERE FOR sufficient evidence in the belief that Joshua and Ezra intro- duced many additions or alterations into the Pentateuch, but that Moses wrote the greatest part of that sacred volume ? The only evidence to support that belief is the vaguest Jewish tradition of a comparatively recent date. But, again, the question recurs, how could the author of the Pentateuch, who- ever he was, have known such mysteries as the history of creation without a distinct revelation from heaven ? To this we reply that, from whatever source the various histories in Genesis may have been originally derived, it is quite clear that the author of the Pentateuch compiled his narrative from sundry older manuscripts of which he had gained possession. A tolerably unquestionable proof of this point, which rests on grounds as strong as can support any result of critical inves- tigation, may be seen by* the reader in Theodore Parker's English version of De Wette's Introduction to the Bible. At present we can only suggest to our reader the mode in which this point is established. It is observed that although the names Jehovah (translated " Lord"), and Elohim (translated " God' 7 ), and Jehovah Elohim (translated "Lord God"), are sometimes used, to all appearance, promiscuously in the Pentateuch ; yet there are to be found, especially in Genesis, long paragraphs in which the Deity is designated throughout by one, and only one, of these names. Thus there are whole chapters where Elohim (" God") is spoken of, and Jehovah ("Lord") is not mentioned. And again, there are whole chapters where the Deity is named as Jehovah (" Lord"), and is not once styled Elohim ("God"). Passages of the former kind are described by Hebrew scholars as "Elohistic," to distinguish them from the writings of the latter kind, which are known as " Jeho- vistic." It is remarkable that the Elohistic passages by themselves form a tolerably connected narrative, and the Jehovistic like- wise by themselves. And, moreover, it is found that there are often, in Genesis, duplicate narratives of the same event, of which one narrative is Jehovistic and the other Elohistic. The English reader may readily test this matter for himself in such cases as the following : — He will observe that one account of the creation is contained in the first chapter and in the first three verses of the second chapter of Genesis. Throughout all this passage he will find that "God" (in the Hebrew, Elohim) is the name for the Deity. EXPECTING THE BIBLE TO BE INFALLIBLE? 81 But from the fourth verse of Gen. ii. down to the end of the chapter, the term "Lord God" (in the Hebrew Jehovah Elo- him) is uniformly employed to denote the Creator ; and in all this passage we are furnished with an account of the creation, in many respects widely different from that contained in the first thirty-four verses of the book of Genesis. Similarly, a great part of the history of the Deluge is written in duplicate, with discrepancies between the two narratives. Let the reader compare, for instance, the Elohistic section in Gen. vi. 9-22, with the parallel Jehovistic section in Gen. vii. 1—5. Now, we put it to the English reader whether it is not highly probable — to the careful and candid Hebrew scholar whether it is not convincingly apparent — that the Pentateuch, instead of being written under the miraculous dictation of God, was compiled by some unknown author during the times of the Jewish monarchy, out of materials Jehovistic, Elohistic, Jehov- Elohistic, and Mosaic. How these materials originated, except to a slight extent in the case of Moses, we have no information ; but that the mysterious account of the creation was derived directly from God is now as improbable as any thing can be, when we see that it is given in duplicate, with variations, in the first four chapters of Genesis ; and that, instead of both coming from Moses, these two narratives have all the appearance of having been originally written by unknown authors at different periods, and of having been ultimately compiled, five hundred years after the epoch of Moses, by some third writer, whose name is wholly unknown to us. Thus, then, for the Gospels and for the Old Testament, there is every probability that the current traditions and literature of the several periods supplied the sacred penmen with those portions of their histories which seem, at the first glance, the least within reach of human inquiry or ingenuity. So little must we rely on the absence of all natural sources of informa- tion as a proof of inspirational infallibility. WHAT REASON IS THERE FOR CHAPTEE V. ARGUMENT FOR INSPIRATIONAL INFALLIBILITY FROM THE EXCELLENCE AND EFFECTIVENESS OF HOLY WRIT. We pass on to consider a fifth argument which is employed to prove the inspiration and so the infallibility of the Bible. The Scriptures, it is truly urged, have shown themselves of great excellence and power. They have made modern civi- lisation what Athens and the ancient world could never make it. On the revival of literature they purified society wherever the progress of the Keformation caused men to possess and read an open Bible ; while the re-discovered lore of Greece and Kome did not succeed in giving holiness, or even peace and virtue, to Florence, Rome, and Spain, because in those countries priestcraft succeeded in withholding the Bible from the people. The Scriptures, lovingly preached, have con- verted New Zealand from a haunt of cannibalism into a land of bounteous and intelligent industry. In these, and many other instances which cannot be gainsaid, the power and ex- cellence of the Bible are abundantly shown ; and then it is argued that the book, which has done and is doing so much good, must be from God, and therefore infallible. Now, that the Bible is (like every other good and perfect gift) from the Father of lights, we readily and most thankfully acknowledge — yea, we hope presently to show reasons for believing that the Bible is pre-eminently God's gift ; but we cannot see how this and its power and excellence show it to be infallible. A well- written treatise on vaccination would be a blessed boon from heaven to a people afflicted with the smallpox ; but, surely, neither its being God's gift, nor its excellence and power, would prove such a book to be infallible, or free from all error. Or, again, the force and excellence of an hydraulic engine are undeniable ; and no pious mind will refuse to acknowledge that it was by God's gift to man that such an agency was invented ; but who would dream of saying that the inventor of that agency, or any treatise in which he set EXPECTING THE BIBLE TO BE INFALLIBLE ? 83 forth — God helping him — his powerful and beneficent secret, was infallible ? So, in the case of the Bible, thankfully do we acknowledge its divine origin, its excellence, and its power ; but we are not prepared to say that its infallibility is thereby proved. Infallible it may be ; but, surely, excellence and power, which show that their possessor is from God, do not show that their possessor is infallible. Indeed, this argument for inspirational infalhbiHty is so transparently worthless, that an intelligent man would only resort to it in defence of a hopeless cause. But it may be said that the excellence of the Bible is moral and religious, and that this kind of excellence, being loftier and more akin to the goodness which our minds compel us to attribute to the Deity, proves that its originator, and, in a sense, the book which inculcates it, are divinely and em- phatically inspired. To this argument, fairly applied to all teachers and books which inculcate a surpassingly pure mo- rality and purifying religion, we are so far from objecting that we recognise and glory in its cogency. But, if it be urged that the morality and religion of the Bible contrast so wonder- fully with the degraded condition of morality and religion in all men except the writers of Scripture ; and, if on this ground it be argued that the sacred penmen could only have known and written such morality and such religion by the aid of an inspiration which made them or their books infallible, then we wholly deny the force of such an argument for inspirational infallibility ; and, in support of our denial, we point to the case of Socrates. Look at the morality and religion of that heathen man. See the confidence the dying Socrates had in God, in the Divine goodness, and in the purity and bliss of the future world, where, in the presence of the same gods whom he had adored on earth, he hoped to meet and again enjoy the society of all the departed souls of the good. We are far from saying that this morality and this religion are equal in degree to that of the Gospel. But, we say, look at the purity of this teaching, and contrast it with the hideously base immorality, and with the degrading superstitions of the society in which Plato wrote and Socrates lived, and then tell us, if comparative moral excellence prove the Bible inspired so as to be infallible, why the same consideration should not prove the writings of Plato or of Socrates also infallibly in- spired. Until we are better informed on this subject, we shall 84 WHAT REASON IS THERE FOR persist in holding it most true that excellence in any particu- lar — physical, moral, or religious — is an effect of God's mercy and goodness, and a proof of his beneficent presence and co- operation ; but, at the same time, we shall continue to believe that excellence and power are wholly different from, and of themselves by no means imply, the presence of infallibility. EXPECTING THE BIBLE TO BE INFALLIBLE ? 85 CHAPTEE VI. ARGUMENT FOR INSPIRATIONAL INFALLIBILITY FROM SCRIPTURAL CANONICITY. We shall next examine the argument in support of Scrip- tural infallibility which is derived from the Canonicity of Scripture. This plea for infallibility is of constant use among the people, as well as among theologians. If one be asked, Why do you believe that woman was made out of man's rib ? the answer is, Because the Bible, or the book of books, the greatest of all books, which is my rule (canon) of faith, tells me so. How constantly do men assume that such and such a statement cannot be erroneous, because it rests on the authority of the Bible ! Well, but let us inquire what gives the Bible such unerring or infallible authority ? Some men tell you its inspiration ; others tell you its canonicity. Some say inspira- tion proves any book to be canonical ; and with the next breath they proceed to assert that canonicity proves any book to be inspired. We deal at present, however, with those who more consistently maintain that the canonicity of any writing, or its having been admitted as one of the books of the Bible, proves its inspiration, and by consequence, as is supposed, its infallibihty. This argument goes on the supposition that we are certainly assured that great skill and care were exercised, in discerning between inspired and uninspired compositions, before any work was admitted by the Jews into their Old Testament, or by the Christians into then New Testament. A. — The Old Testament Canon and the Apocrypha. Now, with regard to the Old Testament, what do we know of the reception of any of its books into the Jewish Bible ? Who can tell us why Judges, or Esther, or Canticles, are con- sidered canonical books ? Who can show reason why the Book of the Wars of the Lord,* the Book of the Manner of * Numbers xxi. 14. 86 WHAT REASON IS THERE FOR the Kingdom,* which Samuel wrote and laid up before the Lord, and at least thirteen other Books,-}- which are referred to in Scripture as writings of more or less sacred authority, are not found in the Canon of the Jewish Bible ? And, on the other hand, there are books called apocryphal, like the Wisdom of the son of Sirach, which contain, con- fessedly, much useful and devout instruction, and which have been, from a period of very early Christian antiquity, quoted by ecclesiastical writers of various schools, with little or no less reverence than those of our Canonical Scriptures. What valid reason can be assigned for these apocryphal books being excluded from the Old Testament ? Is it known to us all, that many of the early Christian writers made citations from the Apocrypha just in the same manner as they did from the Old and New Testaments ? Do we know that the English Reformers were content to designate some at least of the Apocrypha as " the saying of Almighty God by the Wise Man,"j: and as the "Scriptures?" Do we all of us consider that these superlative titles are to this day more or less sanctioned, in the Established Church of England, as designating the Apocrypha, as is evident from their occurring in the Book of Homilies, which every clergyman is directed to read to his congregation on any occasion when it may be right to preach, and he may not be provided with a sermon of his own ? Thus, notwithstanding the marked disrespect of some modern theologians for the Apocryphal writings, the * 1 Sam. x. 25. f J. The Book of Jasher, vide Joshua x. 12; 2 Sam. i. 18. 2. Solomon's Proverbs, Songs, and Natural History, vide 2 Kings iv. 32, 33. 3. The Acts of Solomon, vide 1 Kings xi, 41. 4. Chronicles of Israel, vide 1 Kings xiv. 19; xvi, 5, 20, 27; &c. 5. Chronicles of Judah, vide 1 Kings xv. 7. 6. The Books of Samuel, Nathan, and Gad, vide 1 Chron. xxix. 29. 7. A copious Life of Solomon, by Nathan, Ahijah, and Iddo, vide 2 Chron. ix. 29. 8. Acts of Rehoboam, vide 2 Chron. xii. 15. 9. Life of Uzziah. vide 2 Chron. xxvi. 22. 10. The Book of the Kings of Israel and Judah, vide 2 Chron. xxviii. 26; xxxv. 27 ; xxxvi. 8. 11. The Book of Jehu, vide 2 Chron. xx. 34. 12. Life of Hezekiak. by Isaiah, vide 2 Chron, xxxii. 32. 13. Life of Manasseh, in the Book of the Kings of Israel, vide 2 Chron. xxxiii. 18. These and other sacred but lost, or not canonical, hooks are enumerated in treatises on the Old Testament Canon; e. g., Moses Stuart, pp. 159 — 171. X Homilies, pp. 65, 90, (Oxf. Edit. 1844.) EXPECTING THE BIBLE TO BE INFALLIBLE? 87 early Christians, many of our Eeformers, and the standard Homilists of the English Church, have no very clearly marked boundary line between the Apocrypha and the Canonical writings ; and it is from this sufficiently clear, that the so- called Christian fathers, many of the Eeformers, and the authorities of the English Episcopal Church, could not recog- nise any weight as attaching to the argument that the canoni- city of any writing establishes its inspirational infallibility ; for all these parties — if they did not entertain very distinct or satisfactory views regarding Inspiration — yet well knew the difficulties in which the whole subject of the Canon is envelop- ed, and that it rather needs support and elucidation for itself than is able to prove, or to uphold, any theory of Inspiration. But, moreover, if, from what Christians have thought about the canon as bearing upon inspiration, we turn to the history of the canon itself, we shall find such gloomy obscurity cover- ing this wmole subject, that we shall be compelled — however unwillingly — to own that inspirational infallibility must rest on some better support than the canonicity of Scripture, or it will not be maintainable at all. For the Old Testament the case stands thus : — From Genesis to Malachi, we hardly know who wrote one book. We know nothing as to the reasons for which, or the person by whom, any book was admitted into the Hebrew Scriptures. The tradition, that Ezra settled the canon, rests on no contemporaneous history; and, if it did, we are not supplied with any information as to the criteria upon which Ezra proceeded — whether he canonized all the then extant portions of Hebrew literature, which would account for books having a place in the Old Testament which never mention God or piety ; or, whether he rejected some parts of his national literature, and only canonized books of some cer- tain quality or character. The earliest positive information we have about the Jewish canon is as late as b.c 160, and is found in the preface to the apocryphal book of Ecclesiasticus. This information merely goes so far as to tell us, that besides the law and the prophets, there had been other writers who had followed their steps, and had composed Hebrew books of learning and wisdom. Among these — and apparently considered quite on a par with them — was Jesus, the grandfather of Sirachides, of whose book of Ecclesiasticus his grandson apologizes for giving a Greek translation which, as a translation, must of necessity be 88 WHAT REASON IS THERE FOR inferior to the original Hebrew. These words of Sirachides manifestly suggest a very comprehensive theory for the for- mation of the canon ; for they admit at least one apocryphal work into the Jewish Bible, and they are far from making that a final admission. Our next informant is Josephus, who speaks of three classes of Hebrew canonical Scriptures : first, the five books of Moses ; secondly, the thirteen books of the prophets, whose writings extend from the time of Moses to the reign of Artaxerxes ; and thirdly, four books which contain hymns to God and rules of life for men.* Josephus then adds — " From the time of " Artaxerxes, moreover, till the present period, all occurrences " have been written down ; but they are not regarded as en- 11 titled to the like credit with those which precede them, " because there was no certain succession of prophets." So then Josephus makes the Jewish canon depend on a " certain " succession of prophets ;" and yet he owns that, for about 400 years before his own time, such a succession had failed. During all that interval, who guarded the sacred writings from corruption ? And is it not manifest that, subsequently to the days of Joshua, and prior to the time of Samuel, there had similarly been no "certain succession of prophets?" Besides, even after Samuel, during the 500 years before the Babylonish captivity, when we know there were occasion- ally great prophets arising, what security can we have that there was a certain and unbroken succession of prophets? At all events, no such prophetical succession, with charge over the canon and the sacred writings, is alluded to in the Bible. It is not a little observable that neither Sirachides nor Josephus furnish us with any catalogue of the Jewish Scrip- tures ; and Philo Judgeus, our next informant, leaves us still more in the dark as to what he knew or even thought of the canon. Indeed, it is not till nearly 200 years after Christ, that Melito, the Christian Bishop of Sarclis, gives us a some- what detailed list of the books which in his time were re- garded as constituting the Hebrew canon. Melito's list is remarkable as omitting the Book of Esther, and as apparently including a book called the Wisdom of Solomon. About the middle of the third century, Origen, as quoted by Eusebius * Joseph, cont. Ap. i. 8. EXPECTING THE BIBLE TO BE INFALLIBLE ? 89 towards the middle of the fourth century, gives the second list of Old Testament books which has reached us. This catalogue is remarkable, as first stating that there were twenty-two books in the Hebrew Bible, then enumerating only twenty-one books, and then adding (as it were to make up the twenty-second volume) " besides these" (exo teuton) " there are the Maccabaical writings." As the volume of the twelve lesser prophets is not enumerated in Origen's list, we may either suppose that transcribers have dropped this which was his twenty -second volume, or we may suppose (which seems far more probable) that Origen purposely groups the twelve minor prophets with some, if not all the Apocrypha, and then gives the general term Maccabaic writings to this twenty-second volume which he attaches to the other twenty- one by the expression "besides these." It is Eusebius, in his history written as we have said in the fourth century after Christ, who gives us these catalogues from Melito and Origen. From the beginning of the fourth century there is no lack of Old Testament catalogues. They manifest such slight deviations from one another, and from our present received Old Testament canon, as show that the Christians of those days were not prepared to give any very exact or unanimous account of this matter. There is thus sufficient evidence to make it moderately probable, that our Old Testament tallies in the main with the ancient Hebrew canon; but, when men begin to prove so stupendous a miracle as the infallibility of Holy Writ by its canonicity, there is every thing to make us feel that the case for the Canon is scarcely able to stand erect and support its own weight, and that it is wholly incompetent to bear such a superstructure as that of inspirational infallibility. See, for instance, the way in which the subject of the Canon is con- fused, and the satisfactoriness of our common notions on that subject is shaken, by the fact that the Alexandrian Jews used a Greek translation of the Old Testament, which we still pos- sess, and which we call the Septuagint ; that this Septuagint is the book from which nearly all quotations are adduced in the New Testament; and that this Septuagint, or Alexandrian Old Testament, included Ecclesiasticus and many other books which we style apocryphal. Or, again, when it is attempted to deduce such a consequence as infallibility from canonicity, we should remember that Melito and Origen (from a.d. 170 to 90 WHAT REASON IS THERE FOR a.d. 230) furnish the first extant catalogues of the Old Testa- ment scriptures, and that these catalogues are far from being exact in their agreement. Thus the canonicit y of the Old Testament will hardly prove its inspiration or its mfallibility. B. — The New Testament Canon. If we look to the case of the New Testament, we find that the Apostolic fathers generally quote sayings of Jesus as such, without professing to extract them from any of our canonical writings. This they do just in the same way as Paul quotes the saying of our Lord, " It is more blessed to give than to u receive."* Indeed it is evident that, in the first Christian century, what Luke says in his preface was strictly true, that " Many had taken in hand to set forth in order a declaration of " those things which were most surely believed among" the Christians ; and there is every appearance which can make it probable that from these numerous and uncanonical Gospels the very earliest extant Christian writings make their quota- tions at least as readily and frequently as from any of our canonical New Testament books. When the four Gospels were written, or when they first received a degree of general reverence that was conceded to no other biographies of Jesus, we cannot exactly say ; but there is much ground for believing that this did not take place in the first century of our era ; and, on the other hand, it is probable that, by the middle of the second century (that is by a.d. 150), the four Gospels and the greater and more impor- tant portion of the Epistolary Scriptures were held in the very highest estimation. This appears frorn the works of Justin Martyr, Tatian, and others who wrote in the second half of the second century, as compared with the more genuine com- positions of the Apostolic Fathers, who wrote towards the end of the first century. But now, if we come to inquire what criteria guided the minds of the early Christians in the exclu- sion or admission of books into the Canon, all seems dark and unsatisfactory. Why four gospels, and only four, were re- garded as canonical, we know not, unless, indeed, any man EXPECTING THE BIBLE TO BE INFALLIBLE ? 91 can make up his mind to rely upon such fantastic reasons as are given by one of the Fathers, who tells us there were four gospels because there are four quarters in heaven whence the winds come, and because, in Ezekiel's vision (Ezek. i. 4-10), the "living creatures" had four "likenesses of their faces," viz., a man supposed to represent Matthew, a lion representing John, an ox symbolic of Luke, and an eagle typifying Mark. — Iren. adv. Hceres. hi. 11. That Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John, wrote the composi- tions attributed to them, we believe, merely because those compositions bear their names, which is but little proof, when it is remembered that, early in the history of the Church it was held to be no fault, but an allowable if not a praiseworthy, pious fraud, to pass off any writing, that could be useful, as coming from the hand of an Apostle or some companion of the Apos- tles. Who the three first evangelists were we have only the vaguest tradition to inform us. Why books which were read in the Christian congregations and highly esteemed, like the first Epistle of Clement to the Corinthians, and the other writings of the Apostolic Fathers, should have been ultimately excluded from the Canon, it is not easy to explain, especially when it is remembered, that down to the days of Eusebius (a.d. 320) and indeed much later, the gravest doubts were entertained as to the canonicity of the Epistle to the Hebrews, the Epistle of James, the second Epistle of Peter, the second and thud Epistles of John, the Epistle of Jucle, and the Keve- lation of John. So much, and far more, of confusion and uncer- tainty hangs over the history of the New Testament Canon no less than the Old. We have not attempted an examination of the subject of the Canon of Scripture, for that is not our present theme ; but we have probably seen enough to show us how much difficulty and obscurity environ this very important subject : and we have perhaps seen enough to show us that the broad distinction between canonical and uncanonical writings is one set up by the dogmatic definitions of man rather than by the actual differences which sever the two classes of composition. At all events, we have taken a sufficient ghmpse at the history of the Canon to convince us that the inspiration and infallibility of the Bible must be proved by some other evidence, or it will never rest securely on the canonicity of Scripture. Connected with this argument concerning canonicity is a 92 WHAT REASON IS THERE FOR feeling which, we can readily understand, will arise in some minds. What, it may be said, do you tamper with the canon of Scripture ? Would you venture to add Ecclesiasticus to the Old Testament, and, possibly, to subtract the Epistle of Jude from the New ? Do you not remember that the last book in the Bible terminates with the words : " If any man shall " add unto these things, God shall add unto him the plagues " that are written in this book ; and if any man shall take away "from the words of the book of this prophecy, God shall take " away his part out of the book of life, and out of the holy "city, and from the things which are written in this book?" Do you dare, in the face of this denunciation, to say that the history of the canon of Scripture is dark and full of doubt ? Our answer to such a challenge is, that we are convinced the system of addition and diminution alluded to in this passage of the Apocalypse, is that which takes place when men per- versely interpret the record of this vision in such ways that it may seem to condemn any good which God has not con- demned, or to excuse any evil which the God of truth has condemned. If any man wilfully distort this book, in order to make it square with his own wicked or uncharitable preju- dices, then such an one — and we would fain hope there never was such an one — seems to us to incur this dread denunciation. At all events, whatever else this passage may mean, no man of ordinary information can suppose that the writer of the Apocalypse framed his words as a conclusion of the Bible, and to put a seal on the New Testament canon ; for it is well known and all but universally acknowledged that — if it be not certain that the Apocalypse was one of the very earliest of the New Testament writings, composed in the reign of Nero — at least it was far from being the latest New Testament writing. Indeed, the popular notion — as shown in Nicholls' Help to Reading the Bible, and in many similar works — represents the Apocalypse as having been composed by John before his Epistles and before his Gospel. But, on this supposition, John would, according to our objector's idea, have excluded himself from the book of life, for he, subsequently to penning the book of the Revelation, " added unto those things" by writing three letters and a gospel. Besides, it is not only in the New Testament that we meet with such a passage as our objector urges against us. In Deuteronomy (iv. 2) we read — " Ye shall not add unto the word which I command van. EXPECTING THE BIBLE TO BE INFALLIBLE ? 93 . "neither shall ye diminish aught from it, that ye may keep "the commandments of the Lord yonr God which I command "you." Now, if the text in Bevelation closed the canon of the New Testament, must not its parallel in the Pentateuch have likewise closed the more ancient canon ? And, if so, by what right do any compositions, save the so-called five books of Moses, claim a place in the Jewish Canon ? Thus manifestly does our objector's interpretation destroy the canonicity of some of the New Testament writings, and of most of the Old Testament. We hope he will try our interpretation of Kev„ xxii. 18, 19 ; but, whether he will do this or not, his argument against us plainly fails. 94 WHAT REASON IS THERE FOR CHAPTER VII. THE PROMISES BY WHICH OUR LORD IS SUPPOSED TO HAVE GUARAN- TEED THE INSPIRATIONAL INFALLIBILITY OF THE NEW TESTAMENT. Our next inquiries will be directed to an investigation of the promises by which Jesus is said to have guaranteed in- fallibility to the New Testament writers. The first of these promises is recorded by Matthew.* It is to the effect that the twelve shall be put on trial in course of persecution, but that they need take no thought how or what they shall speak for " it shall be given you in that same hour " what ye shall speak, for it is not ye that speak, but the " Spirit of your Father which speaketh in you." This we regard as a most important passage in its bearing on our present subject. Let us notice it with an exactness proportioned to its importance. On comparing the narratives, given by Mark and Luke, of the events connected with this discourse of our Lord, it is evident that Jesus was preparing his twelve apostles for a temporary separation from himself during which they were, in six parties of two each, to preach exclusively to the lost sheep of the house of Israel. This mission was committed to the twelve, and was discharged by them as we learn from Mark and Luke. In their missionary progress Jesus forewarned them that they would " be brought "before governors and kings" (the rulers and authorities then holding power in Palestine) " for his sake, for a testimony " against them and the Gentiles." It is in prospect of these immediately impending trials that Jesus gives the twelve such a clear and full promise of Divine inspiration which should, without effort on their part, enable them for their defence. The gospels give us no detailed account of the manner in which this promised inspiration wrought in the twelve during their experimental journey, nor are we told what special occasion any of the six different parties had for its use. But this is clear that, some time before the death of Jesus, a temporary separation took place between him and * Matt. x. 19, 20 ; Mark vi. 7, &c. ; Luke ix. 1 , &c. EXPECTING THE BIBLE TO BE INFALLIBLE ? 95 his disciples, and prior to that separation he gave them a distinct promise of inspiration which was to be immediately needful and immediately available for them. Now, if inspiration made the twelve infallible, how was it that, besides manifold other errors and sins, the Apostles re- mained ignorant, till long after the death of Christ, of the plain meaning of those explicit terms in which the Lord fore- told to them his death ? If it be replied, as doubtless it may be, that this promise was special and only insured the inspira- tion of the Apostles (and their consequent infallibility) while they were actually defending themselves against persecutions in the courts of the Jewish and Eoman authorities, we would only rejoin — Well, let the same measure of criticism be dealt out to the other promises of Jesus, and you will be in a fair way to destroy all claim to inspiration on the part of Mark, Luke, and Paul ; for, according to this strict mode of dealing with the letter of Christ's promises, these holy men never appear to have received any special promise of inspiration. But few sober earnest-minded men will, we think, be dis- posed to play fast and loose in this manner with inspiration, which they regard as implying the infallibility of the inspired. Another promise of Jesus is recorded by Luke, which in many points resembles that which we have just been consider- ing. It is given in these terms :* " When men bring you unto " the synagogues and unto magistrates and powers, take ye " no thought how or what thing ye shall answer, or what ye " shall say, for the Holy Ghost shall teach you in the same " hour what ye ought to say." Here again we have a pro- vision of inspired defence against times of persecution. In this respect this promise, like the former, may be said to have been special : but what we would notice in this promise is, that it is addressed to vast masses of listeners, for the Evangelist introduces the discourse with the words, " When there were gathered together an innumerable multi- " tude of people, insomuch that they trode one upon another, " Jesus began to say unto his disciples first of all, Beware "ye," &c. Accordingly the discourse is at first chiefly ad- dressed (down to the seventh verse of the chapter) to those who were already Christ's "friends." In the eighth verse, however, the address becomes evidently more general. The * Luke xii. 1-13. 96 WHAT REASON IS THERE FOR early part had been spoken in the hearing of the multitude, though directed chiefly to the " disciples ;" but in the eighth and following verses the address is as general as words can make it. " Whosoever" is the phrase which occurs twice in three verses, and then, in the two next verses, follow the words of inspirational promise already quoted. In the midst of his discourse the thirteenth verse tells us that " one of the " company" interrupted Jesus with some selfish question. Thus there is the strongest evidence or, rather, there is the clearest statement that in this case Jesus promised inspiration to any man "whosoever," for the gospel's sake, should "be " brought unto the synagogues and magistrates and powers." Now let this promise be made as special as it can. Confine it, if you will, to an assurance of the Spirit's aid being given to Christian disciples in the time of their judicial trial only. Still there is, in the history of the Acts of the Apostles, pre- cisely such a set of circumstances described as that under which this promise guaranteed inspiration. We can accord- ingly examine the defence of the deacon Stephen before the Jewish Sanhedrim, and see, at all events, what this promised inspiration did not do for him. The Christian protomartyr, after speaking "by the Spirit" in such a way as confuted his Jewish adversaries, was brought before the council for the testimony he had borne to Jesus of Nazareth. Stephen was set on his defence.* His speech was interrupted and his life cut short by the violence of his enemies. Assuredly here, if any where, was a man to whom, and a posture of affairs in which, the promise should be fulfilled, "the Holy Ghost shall "teach you in the same hour what ye ought to say." Now, by the evidence of the first sixteen verses of Stephen's speech, how stands the dogma of inspirational infallibility? Not to lay stress upon the apparent discrepancy between Stephen's statement that the call of Abraham was prior to the patriarch's leaving Mesopotamia, and the narrative in Genesis which represents the call as if it had been subsequent to Terah's change of residence from Ur of the Chaldeans -to Haran or Charran, the inspired protomartyr says that God " gave" Abraham " none inheritance in" the land of promise, " no, not so much as to set his foot on." The Book of Genesisj records that " the field of Ephron, and the cave which was * Acts vii. f Genesis xxiii. 17, 18. EXPECTING THE BIBLE TO BE INFALLIBLE? 97 " therein, and all the trees that were in the field, that were in " all the borders round about, were made sure unto Abraham " for a possession" in the most public and binding manner. Stephen says, " God spake on this wise, That his seed should " sojourn in a strange land, and that they should bring them "into bondage and entreat them evil 400 years." This quo- tation appears to have been drawn from Genesis fxv. 13—16) : but the Book of Exodus (xii. 40) tells us with great exactness, even using the expression, " the selfsame clay it came to pass," that " the sojourning of the children of Israel in Egypt was 430 years." Once more, Stephen says, " Joseph called his father Jacob " to him and all Iris kindred, threescore and fifteen souls." The Old Testament, in two different passages (Gen. xlvi. 27 ; Deut. x. 22), assures us that " all the souls of the house of " Jacob which came into Egypt were threescore and ten." Yet again, Stephen says, " So Jacob went down into Egypt " and died, he and our fathers, and were carried over into " Sychem, and laid in the sepulchre that Abraham bought for " a sum of money of the sons of Emmor, the father of Sychem." In direct contradiction to two assertions in this passage, the Old Testament informs us that Jacob* was most solemnly buried, not at Sychem, but " in the cave of Machpelah," near Hebron ; and moreover-}- that it was "Jacob," and not Abra- ham, who " bought a parcel of a field at Shechem from the " children of Hamor, Shechem's father." Now we shall carry the convictions of every attentive, honest mind with us when we assert that this speech of Stephen's was inspired, if Christ's promise was ever fulfilled, or ever meant to be fulfilled at all. Of course, if any man say Stephen's speech was inspired, but Luke does not report it exactly, such an assertion denies the infallibility of the Book of the Acts, and so, we take it, concedes that an inspired writing may err. But we address ourselves to the so-called orthodox, most of whom now-a-days believe that inspiration makes the Bible infallible. They believe the Book of the Acts to be inspired, and therefore infallible. They believe that Stephen's speech is correctly reported to us ; and, we are persuaded, they believe Stephen was, as Scripture asserts,^ a man " full of the Holy " Spirit," and that his speech was inspired. Yet in its first * Genesis! 13. t Genesis xsriii. 19. J Actsvi. 5. H 98 WHAT REASON IS THERE FOR sixteen verses we have seen five or six contradictions of the Old Testament history. Are we prepared to say that the Old Testament is at fault, and so do we give up the idea of infalli- bility as attaching to the Jewish Scriptures ? or shall we own that the inspired Stephen, in his most exalted moment of inspiration, when he was a fearless martyr for his dear Lord and ours — when his countenance shone with more than human brightness on his assailants — when he prayed for his wicked murderers, " Lord, lay not this sin to their charge" — was even then liable to confusion of thought and shortness of memory, and so misquoted his own Scriptures ? Or shall we say, as seems most probable, that Stephen was not likely, even in the haste and confusion of addressing a riotous rabble, to make so many misquotations from the holy Scriptures, but that Luke, in collecting the records for his history, may easily, either consciously or unconsciously, have left errors in this speech, just as they had been penned by some unlearned Christian from whose document Luke transcribed them, either without observing their want of agreement with the Old Testament, or, if he did perceive this, thinking it more honest to leave them as they were shown in the document of whose general trustworthiness he was satisfied. One of these three suppositions is inevitable — either the inspired Old Testament, or the eminently inspired speech of Stephen, or the inspired historian Luke, is in error. Which- ever alternative may most commend itself to our judgment the idea of inspirational infallibility, as resting on our Saviour's promise or on any other ground, will be alike refuted. But we pass to the consideration of another class of our Lord's promises, which are sometimes urged as guaranteeing the infallible inspiration of the Twelve Apostles, and there- fore, by some strange sequence of causation, of all the New Testament writers and only of them. Jesus, it is argued, said, " As thou hast sent me into the world, even so have I also " sent them into the world." Was not Jesus an infallible teacher ? it is asked, and, if so, must not the Apostles also have been infallible teachers ? We answer that it might as well be put thus : Jesus was a sinless teacher, therefore his Apostles, whom He sent as He himself was sent, were, like him, sinless. The infallibility of inspiration cannot be proven thus. But, again, Jesus said to his Apostles,* " Whatsoever ye * Matt, xviii. 18. EXPECTING THE BIBLE TO BE INFALLIBLE ? 99 u shall bind on earth shall be bonnd in heaven, and whatso- " ever ye shall loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven:" and He said nnto them, " Eeceive ye the Holy Ghost : whose "soever sins ye remit, they are remitted unto them, and "whose soever sins ye retain they are retained."* And moreover He promised to be " with them alway even unto the end of the world." -j- These and many other such assur- ances did our Lord leave with his Apostles. Well then, it is urged, do not such grand promises as these justify us in be- lieving that, as teachers of religion at all events, if not as historians and geographers, and men of science, the Apostles must have been so inspired as to be free from all actual error, that is, so inspired as to be infallible ? Now let this question be fairly looked at. Who among the Apostles was more with Jesus than Peter ? Who had a weightier or more direct charge given to him to feed the sheep and the lambs of Christ's flock? Who but he was to strengthen his brethren when he had been converted after the denial of his Master ? Was it not he to whom especially the power of binding and loosing (whatever that power may have been) was given? Was it not he who, apparently even more than his associate John, took part in edifying the infant church of Christ on and after the day of Pentecost ? Peter, though no lord over the heritage of God, was con- spicuously eminent as an Apostle of Jesus, so that he, if any, would be sure to be infallibly inspired. But what do our Protestant friends most truly and most scripturally say to the Eoman Catholic assertion of Peter's infallibility? Are they not the very men to deny this infallibility? Do they not point, with an irrefragable cogency of logical force, to the erroneous and superstitious teaching which Peter was en- forcing, and by which he was corrupting the religion of Christ when, at Antioch, " he compelled the Gentiles to live "as did the Jews," and Paul " withstood him to the face be- " cause he was to be blamed?" If, then, all the promises of Jesus did not prevent Peter from failing into culpable error in his most urgent instructions as a religions teacher on that occasion at Antioch, what proof is there that they ever made him infallible either when he wrote or when he spoke ? It is not for us in these pages to go into and explain in detail all * John xx. 23. t Matt xxviii 20. 100 WHAT REASON IS THERE FOR the promises of Christ to his Apostles and disciples ; but, whatever was the meaning of any or of all those promises, one thing is clear, namely, that they did not imply the in- fallible inspiration even of the Apostles — how much less of all the New Testament writers — for we have seen that Peter was not free from liability to err in his religions teaching ; and, if not he, then no man else. Lest any should naturally enough think the Apostles might err when they spoke on religious subjects but yet be infallible when they wrote, it may be worth while to remind the reader that our Lord's promises of Inspi- ration have direct and explicit reference to speaking, and only attach secondarily and by way of implication to that which the Apostles or others wrote. Before we pass from the examination of Christ's promises, it will be — not necessary for the completeness of our argument — but satisfactory to the carefulness of some inquirers, if we give a brief consideration to the numerous and glorious pro- mises of inspiration contained in that last discourse of Jesus, of which the beloved disciple has preserved the only record for us. After what has been already written, our question, with reference to these most precious promises, will be simply whether their grammatical construction compels us to under- stand them as holding out the prospect of infallible inspiration to the Apostles and "those who should believe on Christ " through their word," or whether we may simply and natu- rally assign to them a less pretentious and more tenable signification ? We shall take these several promises in the order of their occurrence in the f burte enth and three following chapters of John's Gospel. Jesus, anticipating the approach of his own death, is en- gaged in consoling his Apostles. " I will pray the Father," he says,* " and he shall give you another Comforter that he "may abide with you for ever, even the Spirit of the truth," i. e. the Spirit of my revelation. Now, a preliminary question of great importance in considering these chapters is, do they hold out the hope of the Spirit's presence to the Apostles alone, or to them in com m on with all Christian believers and inquirers ? * John xiv, 16, EXPECTING THE BIBLE TO BE INFALLIBLE? 101 The analogy of Scripture inclines us to adopt the second of these alternatives: and, indeed, it is remarkable how all our Lord' s promises of the Spirit are quoted as in some sense belonging to every modern Christian by the very theologians who insist most on these promises as guaranteeing infallibility to the New Testament writers. One is disposed to say to these illogical men, If the promises made the Apostles infallible, and if the same promises are rightly applied by you to us, why are we not made infallible ? But, to return from this digres- sion, the analogy of Scripture makes it probable that these promises of inspiration are applicable to all believers as well as to the Apostles. For instance, Christ in his Sermon on the Mount says, " Every one that asketh receiveth: and he that " seeketh findeth, and to him that knocketh it shall be " opened,"* and " if ye being evil know how to give good u gifts unto your children, how much more shall your Father " which is in heaven give good things to them that ask him." Luke,-j- reporting these same promises, as spoken by our Lord on another occasion, substitutes " the Holy Spirit" in the place of the general term " good things." Thus it is apparent that, according to the Gospels, every one that asketh for the Holy Spirit receiveth Him from the heavenly Father. More- over, even in those last affecting words of Christ, which (according to John's Gospel) were addressed directly and primarily only to the Apostles, there are several expressions to show how wide were the assurances of the Comforter's advent, and how world-embracing were the sympathies which now moved in the Saviour's breast. When the Comforter came, it was " the world" he was to convince of sin, of righteousness, and of judgment. " Neither pray I for these " alone" whom thou hast already given me, " but for them " also which shall believe on me through their word, that they " all may be one as thou, Father, art in me and I in thee, that " they also may be one in us, that the world may believe that "thou has sent me."J Remembering, then, the general ana- logy of Scripture, and bearing in mind the expressions which occur in this very discourse of our Lord, we set out with a conviction that these chapters are likely to hold out an assur- ance of the Spirit's presence to the Apostles in common with all Christian inquirers and believers. * Matt. vii. 8, &c. f Luke xi, 13. t John xvii. 20. 102 WHAT REASON IS THERE FOR In this liglit the promise of the Spirit of the truth "abiding u for ever," i. e. throughout the whole Christian dispensation, becomes intelligible. In the course of our perusal of the fourteenth chapter of John, we find the words, " the Holy Ghost shall teach you all " things, and bring all things to your remembrance, whatsoever " I have said unto you."* Undoubtedly, if any man choose to interpret these expressions perversely, he can make out a promise that the Apostles, or rather that all Christians should, the Spirit teaching them all things, possess a complete ency- clopaedic knowledge of the universe and an exact recollection of all Christ's minutest and most ordinary sayings. We have seen, however, that such an interpretation is contradicted by the phenomena of New Testament composition. The question for us, then, is not what is the possible, but what is the true, common sense meaning of this promise ? Had not the disciples misunderstood all their Master's instruc- tions ? Were they not still — when this promise was given — in utter darkness as to the object of Christ's mission and the nature of Messiah's kingdom ? Were they not still hankering after right and left hand seats in some earthly court ? Was it not with the sword that they were ready to establish his throne? What knew they of the "king of truth" whose " kingdom is not of this world ? What spirit were they of who wished to destroy the unconvinced and the lost with fire from heaven ? Well, now, if, by the crucifixion of Jesus, all their mundane hopes were shaken, not to say destroyed, and if, thereupon, the Holy Spirit worked with their alarmed, disappointed, and anxious spirits, and if by his co-operation and guidance, they (and many a one besides) were brought to see the folly of thinking the kingdom of God was meat and drink — if they were thus led to recognise that kingdom as consisting in righteousness and peace and joy in the Holy Ghost, would not many an instruction of Christ's, that had been dark and enig- matic to them before, become clear and pregnant with Heavenly- minded wisdom, and so stand forth vividly and freshly in their memory where it had long lain entranced and almost dead ? Most remarkable is it that the Spirit is here spoken of, not as a revealer, but merely, though marvellously, as about to revive * John xiv. 26. EXPECTING THE BIBLE TO BE INFALLIBLE? 103 the human faculty of remembrance which prejudice had so long blinded and benumbed. Here, then, is no promise which must necessarily be understood as a guarantee of infallibility, but rather we find in these words a most intelligible assurance of re-invigora1ionto a human memory which had been palsied by the stupidity of prejudice. The next promise, which Mr. Henderson and other writers on Inspiration quote in support of scriptural infallibility, is couched in these words,* " When the Comforter is come, he " shall testify of me : and ye also shall bear witness because " ye have been with me from the beginning." We are at a loss to imagine what portion of these words can be conceived of as conveying a promise of infallibility. Two remarks, however, we make with reference to this passage; first, the inspiration here spoken of is manifestly to be given to others as well as to the Apostles, for it is to be a testimony which the Spirit will bear to men to whom likewise the Apostles, as Christ's witnesses, will bear their testimony as an auxiliary to that of the Spirit : and, secondly, that which is spoken of as fitting the Apostles to be Christ's witnesses is, not any supposed infallible inspiration, but simply their having been eye and ear- witnesses of our Lord's ministry. Then follows the promise of the Spirit as about to " convince the world of " sin, righteousness, and judgment." We do not know that there is any thing to make it apparent that the world has be- come in any way infallible, notwithstanding this gracious promise of inspired conviction. After this, we reach the last promise that is to be noticed. " When the Spirit of the truth is come he will guide you into " all the truth, for he shall not speak of himself : but what- " soever he shall hear that shall he speak : and he shall show " you things to come. He shall glorify me, for he shall receive " of mine and shall show it unto you."-j- Bearing in mind what was said with reference to the Spirit as a remembrancer, we anticipate no difficulty in interpreting these words without understanding them to imply the infallibility of the New Testa- ment. Hitherto the Apostles and others had followed Jesus from a love of his person, from an admiration of his power, and in the expectation that he would speedily take to himself great power, and reign as a temporal monarch with them for his * John xv. 26, 27. John xvi. 13, 104 WHAT REASON IS THERE FOR favourites and ministers. Now, whenever these dreams began to melt away before the light of the Messianic day, the Holy Spirit would be a guide to those who wished to follow Jesus : and, led by him, they should explore the inmost recesses of that " wisdom and righteousness, and sanctinoation and re- " demption," which Christ is made unto us by God. The future, in its general aspect of a world renovated by the gospel and of the principles of holiness and love becoming more and more widely prevalent and deeply engrained — this future, even, should thus be revealed to the prophetic gaze of Christian faith, as by the same Spirit of God, the ancient seers had been en- abled to anticipate and foretell the glorious advent of a world's Eedeemer. Throughout, too, the Spirit would glorify Jesus, for he would make it plain that all hope and all joy and all amelioration come to man and to the world through the in- strumentality, direct or indirect, of that one mediator, the man Christ Jesus. These glorious truths every believer is taught by the Spirit, and yet we are not infallible. May not the promises have been even more stupendously fulfilled to the Apostles (if they asked for and sought their fulfilment more earnestly than we do), and yet the Apostles have been fallible, like us, notwithstanding their inspiration ? The answer is too obvious to require that we should state it. We thus leave the promises of Jesus, as an argument in support of inspirational infallibility, with the remark that none of these promises re- quire — nay more, if their contexts be fairly examined, none of these promises admit of—the idea of inspiration making the Apostles or their writings infallible. EXPECTING THE BIBLE TO BE INFALLIBLE? 105 CHAPTEK VIII. THE ARGUMENT FOR SCRIPTURAL INFALLIBILITY DRAWN FROM THE SUPPOSED NATURE OF DIVINE INSPIRATION. The next argument we shall examine, in favour of Inspira- tional Infallibility, is one which is derived from the very nature of Inspiration, and which rests on the assumed impossibility of errors occurring in a book in whose pages the Holy Spirit of God is supposed to be present by the influence he exercised on the writers, and by the sanction he gives to their writings. This is an argument on which apparently much stress is laid by the upholders of Scriptural infallibility. And indeed there is a certain obvious plausibility attaching to this argument. Once let our minds be possessed with the notion that the book which, as containing the heavenly Father's teaching we rightly call the " Word of God," was indited by the Holy Ghost, and that its human authors were merely used by that Divine per- son as so many pens might be used by us — that these human authors were instruments in the hands of the Spirit, and not rational free agents — and it follows by an easy process of logic, if not by a necessary course of piety, that we should believe there can be no error in that which the All-knowing has penned. But is not this to lose sight of the palpable fact that the in- spired writers so completely retained then human faculties that each wrote in his own style and according to the pro- pensity or habit of his own disposition. Paul was earnest, logical, discursive. John was loving and intuitive. James was as thorough a legalist as one holding the Christian doc- trine of grace could be. As diverse as were the characters of these men, so, undeniably, are their extant inspired writings diverse. The Spirit therefore did not employ them to write as machines, but as human beings and free agents, even in accordance with the saying of Paul that, when the prophets at Corinth spoke, they should remember their responsibility, inasmuch as God left " the spirits of the prophets subject to " the prophets." 106 WHAT REASOX IS THERE EOR Thus, then, it is clear that, whatever inspiration was or was not, the inspirer co-operated with the inspired, but did not annihilate or even suspend the will and human personality of the inspired man. Now, on this view of the matter, how far is it necessary — nay, how far is it probable on grounds of analogy — that the inspired writings should possess the quality of infallibility because the co-operative influence of the All- wise was present in their human authors ? There are countless analogies whence we might draw an answer to this interroga- tory. Two shall suffice. In the mysterious process of animal procreation, who will deny that God co-operates ? Without his co-operation how could the embryo be created? And, when its organism is created, ayIio but God gives that vital energy whereby the new creature becomes a living being or a living soul ? In the contemplation of every devout mind, the agency of God vastly predominates over the agency of the procreating creature : and yet what is the offspring ? Is it perfect and free from all blemish because God mainly co-operated in its production ? Let a reply be furnished by the imperfections which, confessedly, are born with every brute and every man. The case of not unfrequent monstrosities of various kinds would give additional force to this consideration : but we are content to refer chiefly to the ordinary congenital imperfections of all creatures. If blemishes in the creature be not incompatible with the stupendous intervention of a Divine agency in generation, why should errors in the Bible be any more incompatible with the admirable co-operation of the Divine Spirit in the writing of that Bible ? Or, again, Scripture itself teaches us that our bodies are the temples of the Holy Ghost ; and that, if any man love Jesus and keep his commandments, the Father and the Son will come and make their abode with that man ; and, yet, where is the man, except our Lord, who has been either impeccable or iirfallible ? If, then, there be no practical incompatibility which has hindered the indwelling of Divine influence in our deceitful hearts and in our peccable bodies, why should we deem it a thing impossible that God should have inspired the human authors of Holy Writ, and yet that the writings which constitute the sacred volume should not be free from all error, that is, should not be infallible ? EXPECTING THE BIBLE TO BE INFALLIBLE? 107 Here again, then, we are led to the remark that even this, at first sight, specious argument for scriptural infallibility, drawn from the acknowledged co-operation of the Infallible One in producing scripture, is wholly inconclusive. Indeed we should notice, in quitting this part of our argument, that as no moral event takes place without some degree of Divine co-operation, forasmuch as it is in God that we live and move and have our being, no moral event (not even sins excepted) cordd be other- wise than of unmixed excellence and perfection if the sup- position, required for the maintenance of this argument, were allowable. 108 WHAT REASON IS THERE FOR CHAPTER IX. THE A PRIORI ARGUMENT FOR INSPIRATIONAL INFALLIBILITY. A very few words will suffice in dealing with the argument in support of inspirational infallibility which is drawn from d priori considerations of the improbability that such a Being, as we are constrained to believe God is, would make a special revelation of himself to mankind in Christ, and yet not secure to the world an infallible record of that revelation. At the very outset we acknowledge the a priori force of this consideration, its force, that is, antecedently to our com- paring our expectations with, and correcting them by, the facts which God has placed within the scope of our vision for the very purpose of our ascertaining the truth and so ridding ourselves of prejudices, that is, of judgments formed a priori or before we were acquainted with the evidence. God having given to one particular age a special and unique manifestation of himself and of his will towards man, it is, without doubt, antecedently probable that He will likewise have caused a special and (if it so seem to any mind) an infallible record of that special revelation. This we are ready to concede. But what then ? Are not a thousand suppositions antecedently probable, which yet experience of facts compels us to abandon as not true in effect, however probable they may have ap- peared in the prospect of expectation ? What could, a priori, be more probable than that God would prevent sin? Yet a bitter and humiliating experience compels us to own that sin, however antecedently improbable, is a dread reality. It is not too much to say that there is hardly one of our a priori expectations on any subject which the collection of ex- perience does not oblige us to modify if not wholly to reverse. In this very matter, for instance, of the probabilities attach- ing to a special revelation, it is well known that the majority of those who profess and call themselves Christians lay stress on other a priori arguments. And, indeed, is it not obvious EXPECTING THE BIBLE TO BE INFALLIBLE ? 109 that, if an infallible record of revelation be antecedently pro- bable, no less probable is it that there should have been always an infallible guardian to preserve this record and an infallible interpreter to ensure a right comprehension of it? These Eoman Catholic a priori arguments for the infallibility of the church, the councils, the popes, &c, are, as we think, rightly negatived by a due observation of the errors which have been manifest in each and all these antecedently probable recep- tacles of infallibility. In like manner, while we acknowledge that an antecedent probability exists in favour of scriptural infallibility, we are compelled also to acknowledge that the observable facts of scriptural composition wholly reverse that probability, and convince us that errors on all sorts of subjects exist in Holy Writ, and show that, however valuable and precious its pages may be, the Bible is not infallible. 110 WHAT REASON IS THERE FOR CHAPTER X. THE A POSTERIORI ARGUMENT FOR INSPIRATIONAL INFALLIBILITY. One more very popular and, we fear, very influential argu- ment for scriptural infallibility remains for us to examine. As the last was the d priori argument, or that derived from antecedent probabilities, so the argument we at present can- vass may be called the a posteriori or argument from supposed consequences. When every other consideration has failed to prove the Bible infallible, and when, on every side, it is clear that even in- spiration leaves the precious volume fallible, the final and almost universally prevailing argument is, If the Bible be not infallibly inspired, what certainty can we have about the Re- surrection of the body, or even the Immortality of the soul ? How can we be sure that we know what Christ taught or what God would have us to do ? To what authority can we appeal as a last resort in all doubts and all controversies? In disproving the infallibility of the Scriptures, are you not over- throwing the grounds of all Christian faith and even opening a road that will surely lead the persevering traveller through infidelity into Atheism ? In answer to these and similar questions we hope, in the sequel, to show how a regard for the Bible, which plainly recognises the fallibility of that inspired book, is one of the strongest safeguards against unbelief, and is likely to be a most influential propagator of the Christian religion. But, supposing we could not clear the apparent fallibility of Scrip- ture from any or from all the evil consequences which, it is often asserted, would follow upon the acknowledgment of that fallibility ; what then ? Are we so sure that the alleged but unproved doctrine of an infallible Inspiration does keep men in the church — does afford a plain and acknowledged canon of faith — does do all the good (or any of it) which it is asserted that the avowal of Biblical fallibility would undo ? Are not many men unbelievers notwithstanding the allege I EXPECTING THE BIBLE TO BE INFALLIBLE? Ill infallibility of the Bible ? Have not some been driven into unbelief chiefly by this very dogma? Do all the tens of thousands of Roman Catholic believers agree in bowing to Scripture as the alone infallible standard? Does the acknow- ledgment of the infallibility of this one standard bind in one brotherhood of agreement Episcopalians and Presbyterians, Calvinists and Arminians, and all the other sects even of Pro- testantism ? Has not each sect, and almost every individual, its own (fallible) interpretation of the infallible Book ? But, whatever may be the possible, or even the probable, evil consequences of avowing truth in reference to the popular, and, as we think, perilous notion of Inspirational infalhbility, can it be our duty to lie for God ? Must we do evil that good may come of it ? Ought we to uphold any thing, which we know to be untrue, for the sake of results which we hope will accrue to us and to the world from its upholding? Is not God great and good enough to take care of His own cause which, in Christianity as in all things, is the cause of truth? To think - of maintaining an untrue doctrine of Inspirational in- fallibility, for fear of the consequences which may follow upon the acknowledging and enunciating of the truth, shows as- suredly a most lamentable want of faith towards Him who, being Almighty, has sent forth to us His Son Jesus, the Anointed, to be the way, the truth, and the life : and thus to think is, at the same time, directly to disobey the inspired precept, " prove all things : hold fast that which is good •" and to exclude ourselves obstinately from the company of those whose duty it is to " be ready always to give to every " man a reason for the hope that is in" them. What, we may well inquire, would now have been our posi- tion and that of all mankind if a regard to consequences had prevented Jesus and his Apostles from divulging and, at the peril and price of their lives, insisting on those truths which were not inaptly described as " turning the world upside " down?" How must the existing faith of Jew and Gentile have been shaken and torn to atoms before it could be true that " old things were passed away, and behold, all things "were become new I" You send your missionary to the Brahmin, to the Romanist, or to the slaves and the slave- holders, and what consequences may not ensue ? Nay, what consequences are sure to ensue if your mission have any suc- cess at all ? Must not mother be set against daughter and 112 WHAT REASON IS THERE FOR the nearest against the dearest ? Did not Jesus so come as not to bring peace but a sword into this evil world ? If Wick- liffe, Huss, Jerome, Luther, Zuingle, Calvin — nay, if Galileo, Hervey, Jenner, or any man who has ever had any tidings startling and troublesome, but profitable, to communicate, had taken warning and desisted, from consideration of conse- quences, to himself in the way of obloquy and martyrdom, or to the world in the way of amazement and revolution, where would the improvements of modern civilization and the bless- ings of the Gospel of Salvation now lie buried and lost? A priori arguments should make us carefully examine any claim which, with their support, is made upon our belief. Arguments from consequences should make every prudent and, still more, every pious man anxiously reflect on the certainty of what he has to tell and on the importance of its truth being made known. But, when once the antecedent probabilities and the supposed consequences have so operated on our minds, they have done their proper work ; and he, who, from a regard to these considerations, conceals important truth, is putting his light under a bushel, failing to be the salt of the earth and falling under the condemnation, " Therefore, to him that " knoweth to do good and doeth it not, to him it is sin." EXPECTING THE BIBLE TO BE INFALLIBLE? 113 . CHAPTER XI. RESUME AND CONCLUSION. ANSWER TO THE QUESTION OF THIS BOOK AND OUTLINE OF THE METHOD TO BE EMPLOYED IN THE TWO SUCCEEDING- BOOKS. We have now examined the several arguments which are ordinarily advanced in support of an inspiration of the Bible which is denned as rendering that blessed book infallible. We have not attempted to open the subjects of Miracles or of Prophecy generally ; but we have probably seen enough of the Scriptural teaching on these points to assure the reader that they cannot either of them be adduced in proof of inspira- tion making the Bible infallible. We have seen that the authority said to be attributed to Scripture by Jesus cannot be understood as implying the in- falhbility of Holy Writ ; and that, if it could, we should still need some proof that we had an infallible record of what Jesus said. We have seen that the amazing excellence of the Bible no more proves it infallible than similar excellence proves any thing else, in which that excellence resides, to be free from all error and imperfection. We have seen that, instead of the History of the Canon proving the Bible infallible, that History itself needs much investigation, if, indeed, it be not hopelessly dark, so that it is rather the goodness and approved excellence of the Old and New Testaments which warrant our assenting to their canoni- city than their canonicity which assures us of their inspiration. We have seen that our Lord's several promises of inspiration may be — if indeed we should not say must be — so interpreted as wholly to exclude the element of infalfrbility from the idea of inspiration. We have seen that the common arguments, from antecedent probabilities and from supposed consequences, are altogether inadequate to support the notion of scriptural infallibility, and, 114 WHAT REASON IS THERE FOR indeed, are quite unworthy to give pause to an earnest mind which has a clear perception of some unrecognised, and per- haps unpalatable, though useful and important truth. And, yet again, we have seen that there is nothing in the idea of inspiration itself which renders it incompatible tor errors to exist in a person or in a book in which a measure of the Spirit of God is indwelling. Besides these and some other points, which have all been touched in the course of the preceding pages, we know no other argument, worth calling such, which has been, or can be, adduced to support the popular doctrine of inspirational infallibility, In our first Book we saw clear indications that the Bible contained errors in history, in morality, and even in religion. That it contains scientific errors few men of ordinary candour and intelligence are now prepared to deny. Thus, then, our present position is, that we have shown there is no reason which ought to lead us to expect infallibility, or freedom from all error, in an insj3ired book : and, moreover, we have seen that the Bible, which we acknowledge as an inspired book — yea, as pre-eminently the inspired book — has in its pages un- mistakeable proofs of its fallibility. We have, for ourselves at least, exorcised the ghost of infallibility from the Bible : but is that volume, therefore, become profitless in our eyes? Far otherwise. We value it, not because of the spurious ornaments of tinsel with which men had surrounded it, but for the real and genuine gold which the heavenly Father has placed therein. Do we cast away as valueless the writings of Thucydides, or Tacitus, or Aristotle, because they have some errors in them ? Shall we tread under foot and despise Milton, Shak- speare, or Kacine, because they are fallible ? Do we ignore the lessons of Bacon, of Newton, of Herschel, or of Lyell, of Chalmers, of Arnold, of Whately, of Neander, or of Coleridge, because neither those nor any other writers or their writings have been infallible ? Nay, does any sane and godly man despise and neglect the teaching of his Church because he may hold, with the twenty-first Article of the Episcopalians in England, that even duly summoned general councils of the universal church " may err, and sometimes have erred, even u in things pertaining unto God?" If, then, we revere and study all the so-called uninspired EXPECTING THE BIBLE TO BE INFALLIBLE? 115 books which we deem wise and good, though fallible, why, because we have abandoned an untenable and unreasonable notion of its infallibility, should we lose one jot of veneration for that best and holiest book, the Bible, to which many, if not all, of the greatest and wisest men, in modern times at least, have agreed in affixing the glorious epithet "Inspired?" Instead of adopting any such rash and unholy course of con- tempt, it will be our effort, in the next Book, to ascertain what is rightly meant by designating the Bible as inspired : and then, in another portion of our volume, we may try to answer for ourselves the question, What is the just authority of the Bible in matters of religious faith? and on what ground, if not on its infallibility, does that authority rest ? BOOK III. WHAT IS THE TRUE MEANING OF THE TEEM "INSPIRATION?" CHAPTER I. PRELIMINARY OBSERVATIONS. If, as a matter of fact, the Bible be not infallible ; and if there be no good reason which can be assigned for our supposing the sacred volume otherwise than fallible, what shall we say of the inspired writings ? And first, Do we believe the Bible to be inspired at all ? Undoubtedly we do. We are firmly convinced that the writers of Holy Scripture were inspired, and that their writings are the reflex of their own inspired minds and thoughts : and thus we most distinctly avow our belief in the inspiration of the Bible. But, as has been seen, we are assured that there is no connexion whatever between Infallibility and Inspiration. Section I. — The idea of "Inspiration" but not the word, is in Scripture. What, then, is the true meaning of this solemn and impor- tant word ? Let us, first of all, remind the reader that there is no such word as our English noun " Inspiration" either in the Hebrew of the Old Testament or in the Greek of the New. Twice, indeed, in the English Bible, the term is used, but it is not an exact rendering of the idiom in the original. Thus, in Job xxxii. 8, " But there is a spirit in man, and the inspiration of WHAT IS THE TRUE MEANING, ETC. 117 " the Almighty giveth them, understanding," the Hebrew word translated " inspiration" is, according to Gesenius, more correctly rendered by the words " breath" or " spirit." So, too, in 2 Tim. iii. 16, every tyro in Greek knows that an adjective fiheopneustos, signifying " divinely breathed") is the term which our translators have paraphrased as equivalent to " given by inspiration of God." Thus, in the two passages of the English Bible where " inspiration" is mentioned, there is no exactly equivalent noun either in the Hebrew or the Greek. Do we mean, then, that the idea of inspiration is novel or peculiar to the English ? Far from it. We hope, ere long, to show the reader that this idea is thoroughly Hebrew : but, in order to do this, it is necessary that we should point out that neither the Hebrew language nor the vocabulary of the New Testament writers expressed this grand idea by any single, abstract word like our " inspiration." If a Jew, or an early Christian, wished to say that any action was referable to some inspiration, his mode of expressing this idea was, Such and such an action was performed by such and such a spirit, good or evil, as the case might be. Answering, then, to our word inspiration neither the Hebrew of the Old Testament nor the Greek of the New has any term : but, for our words " Spirit" and " Ghost," the Hebrew had the common term " Ruach" and the rarer noun " Neshamah ;" whilst the Greek had the one word "Pneunia." Thus, then, an English reader, who knows nothing of the Bible's original languages, can thoroughly understand our present investigation if he will remember that, wherever " Spirit" occurs in our Old Testament, it is, in the original, represented generally by the word " Euach" and, in a few instances, by the synonymous word " Neshamah :" and wher- ever " Spirit" or " Ghost" occurs in our New Testament, with reference to the Deity, they answer to the one word "Pneuma" in the Greek. Section 2. — The Vague Application of the terms " Ghost" " Spirit" and their equivalents in the Greek and in the Hebrew. The next observation we would offer to the reader is that all these several terms, in the Hebrew, Greek, and English, 118 WHAT IS THE TRUE MEANING are used indiscriminately to denote things sacred and profane, if, indeed, this their usage be not an eternal protest against the prevalent belief that any creature of God can be "profane' 7 or otherwise than sacred. Thus, the word " ghost" is by no means confined to the usage in which it is employed as denoting a divine agent ; but even, in modern English, it signifies the popular idea of any disembodied human person ; and, in scriptural English, we find the expression "yielded up the ghost" as the render- ing for a Greek word signifying "died:" and the word "spirit" is by us employed, in manifold senses, to denote courage, ani- mation, alcoholic mixtures, and a multitude of other things. The Hebrew word " Neshamah" was used, Gesenius tells us, to signify the "soul" of man, any "living creature," and once to denote the "mind" (in Prov. xx. 27), or, yet again, it was employed to signify " the panting of those who are " angry :" and, in like manner, the other Hebrew term, " Euach," occurs as a name for the breath of man, the wind, the quarters of heaven, any thing vain and fickle like the wind, the vital principle, and the rational mind. Equally various are the significations of the Greek word "Pneuma;" as is well exemplified by John iii. 8. " The spirit " breatheth (our translators say with noteworthy incorrectness "'the wind bloweth') where it listeth, and thou nearest the "sound thereof, but canst not tell whence it cometh and " whither it goeth : so is every one that is born of the spirit." Thus wide and various are the significations of the several words, in Hebrew, Greek, and English, by which the agent who inspires is designated. Does the Divine agent derive his name from some resemblance which is supposed to exist between Him and man's mind, or the vital principle, or the wind ? Or, on the other hand, do these and many other created beings and energies obtain their honourable designation from the belief that they exist and have their power only by the originating and sustaining instrumentality of God, whose name is " Euach," " Pneuma," " Spirit ?" We are decidedly of the latter opinion ourselves : but, in the meanwhile, we only ask the reader to notice with what a width and consequent occasional confusedness of signification each of these terms is used. "Spirit" is not confined to denot- ing the Holy Ghost; but has several other meanings in English. OF THE TERM " INSPIRATION?" 119 So, likewise, is it with " Pneuina" in Greek and with " Kuach" in Hebrew. But, at present, our object is, if possible, to ascertain in what sense the " Kuach" of God, the divine " Pneurna," the Holy " Spirit," is spoken of? In what manner, and in what persons or things, is he said to operate ? If, by the help of Old Testament usage, or if by noticing the way in which these terms are applied in the New Testament and in the languages of Christendom, we can answer this question, we shall be sure of success in finding a true, historical definition for our modern word Inspiration ; for we shall have the ancient idea to which more recent custom has affixed this title. 120 WHAT IS THE TRUE MEANING CHAPTEE II. USE OF THE TERMS " RUACh" (SPIRIT) AND " NESHAMAH" (BREATH) IN THE OLD TESTAMENT. Let us first see how the Old Testament speaks of the Divine "Ruach," or " Neshaniah ?" Every man will be ready with the recollection that an ancient creed declares that the Holy Ruach " spake by the prophets :" and, accordingly, we find Isaiah (xlviii. 16) saying, with probable reference to himself, " The Lord God, and his Ruach, hath sent me ;" and Ezekiel (iii. 24) writes, " Then the Ruach entered into me and said " unto me," &c; and Daniel (v. 12) is described as a man in whom " an excellent Ruach, and knowledge, and understand- " ing, &c, were found." So, too, many of the minor prophets allude to the " Ruach," by whom " the Lord stirred up Zerub- " babel" (Hag. i. 14), and " in" whom " the Lord of Hosts (Zech. vii. 12) " had sent by his former prophets." Similarly Moses, Joshua, Samuel, Elijah, Elisha, and manj" other ancient prophets are declared to have been influenced by the holy "Ruach;" and, especially, the Jewish history (2 Sam. xxiii. 2) informs us that " The Ruach of the Lord spake "by David." In all these and many more passages it is obvious that the "Ruach" of God is described as in some way enabling or exciting the prophets of Israel. Was this, then, the only connexion in which the Hebrew writers spoke of the Holy Spirit ? Let us see. At the commencement of the book of Genesis we find it stated that " the Ruach of God moved upon the face of the " (chaotic) waters." The Hebrew verb, here translated "moved," occurs again in Deut. xxxii. 11; and there it in rendered "fluttereth over," with reference to an eagle cherish- ing and developing life and warmth in her nestlings. So beautifully and accurately has the scholarlike Milton given the true meaning of Gen. i. 2, when, in his invocation, he addresses the " Ruach" of God thus — OF THE TERM " INSPIRATION?" 121 " And chiefly thou, Spirit, that dost prefer Before all temples the upright heart and ptire, Instruct rne, for thou knowest; thou from the first Wast present, and, with mighty wings outspread, Dove-like safst brooding on the vast abyss, And mad' st it pregnant." Such is the earliest Scriptural reference to the Divine " Ruach." Now, either this mention of the Spirit of God " moving on the face of the waters" is meaningless and inopportune ; or, the idea is intended to be conveyed to us that, even with inert, chaotic matter, the "Ruach" is tenderly and fosteringly present, waiting to evoke and to sustain the faintest sign of life and order. If we follow out the suggestion contained in this last inter- pretation, the Old Testament will offer to our notice several passages in which the "Ruach of God" is spoken of as inspiring the various portions, animate and inanimate, which go to make up the universe. To this effect the Psalmist (xxxiii. 6) teaches us, saying — "By the word of the Lord " were the heavens made ; and all the host of them by the "Ruach (Spirit) of his mouth;" while Job (xxvi. 13) declares " By his Ruach (Spirit) God hath garnished the heavens ;" and Isaiah adopts the same idea in another application when (xxxiv. 16) he exhorts men to " seek out the book of the Lord "and read" it on a consideration that "the cormorant," "the "bittern," "the owl," "the raven," "the thorns," "the "nettles," " the brambles," "the dragons," "the wild beasts " of the desert," " the wild beasts of the island," " the satyr," "the screech-owl," "the great owl," and "the vultures" shall never "fail" to be the occupants of Idumasa, inasmuch as the mouth of the Lord, " it hath commanded, and i?z's Ruach " (Spirit) it hath gathered them" and in like manner the Psalmist (civ. 29, 30), speaking of the " fowls of the heaven," " the " springs of water," "the grass," "the herb," "the wine," "the trees," "the young lions," "leviathan," and all the inhabitants of the land and of the waters, says, "Thou" (God) " hidest thy face, they are troubled. Thou takest away their "Ruach (Spirit), they die and return to their dusfc. Thou " sendest forth thy Ruach (Spirit), they are created and thou " renewest the face of the earth ;" and, yet once more, (Psalm cxxxix. 7) the sacred penman asks, " Whither shall I go from "thy Ruach (Spirit) ? or whither shall I flee from thypresence?" and his answer implies throughout that, by His Ruach, God 122 WHAT IS THE TRUE MEANING is present and active every where, in heaven, in hell, in the nttermost parts of the sea, in the darkness and in the light, in man's "reins," in the "mother's womb," and even among the wicked to slay them ; and, quite in accordance with this Hebrew mode of speaking of the Buach of God, we find Ezekiel representing the several " wheels" and other portions of his vision (Ezek. i. 21) as moving up and down, hither and thither, because "the Kuach (Spirit) of life was in the wheels." Thus, then, we have that which, in every instance except this last quotation from Ezekiel, is expressly named as the Ruach or Spirit of God, described to us in Holy Writ as present and effective in the host of heaven, in the elements, and in the plants and animals of the earth. The pious Hebrew saw nothing strange in regarding the stars and planets as inspired to hold their fixed position or travel in their several orbits. He considered the parts of a vision which suggested truth of any kind, as inspired. He looked on the tribes of animals and plants as divinely inspired for the selection of their abode. When the heavenly Father sent down the rains alternating with the sunshine, and when " the face of the earth was thus "renewed," the religious Jew saw no profanity in tracing the rise of a fountain, the course of a stream, the growth of the grass, and the fattening of the cattle to the Inspiration of God. Just as he said (Psalm xxix.), " The voice* of the Lord shaketh " the wilderness" — " The voice of the Lord maketh the hinds "to calve and discovereth the forests;" or (Psalm cxlvii.) " The Lord covereth the heaven with clouds ; He prepareth " rain for the earth ; He maketh grass to grow upon the moun- " tains ; He giveth to the beast his food, and to the young " ravens which cry unto Him;" — just as the pious Hebrew could thankfully use these words with reference to God and " common things," so could he say — and say most truly, wisely, and devoutly — that all the processes, of change or of continuance, in matter and in life — those processes which we, in our one-sided, though true and philosophical, fashion, ascribe to "the laws of nature," or to "the principles of some " science" — were carried on by the direct agency of the Spirit " The voice of the Lord,'' in Psalm xxix., is, we believe, a designation of the thunderstorm. This, however, is so far from weakening our argument that it represents the poet as d2claring the thunder and the lightning to be God's inspired ministers for effecting various purposes on the mountains, in the plains, and among the pastures. OF THE TERM " INSPIRATION? " 123