so designated are infallible? Take the parallel expression, "Man of God," as it occurs in the Sacred Volume. Do we ever dream of asserting that Moses,* or Elijah,† or Shemaiah, 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 God'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 peccable. If works of God and "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 Testament; but, after all, if the task should seem to be performed, 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 * Deut. xxxiii. 1. † 1 Kings xvii. 24. 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 Scriptural infallibility which we have just been examining? CHAPTER IV. ARGUMENT IN FAVOUR OF INSPIRATIONAL INFALLIBILITY, FROM THE SUPPOSED IMPOSSIBILITY OF SCRIPTURE WRITERS ASCERTAINING, BY NATURAL 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, but by Divine illumination, were the sacred penmen enabled to describe 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 knowledge 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 à 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 à 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? 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 popnlar mind or in the literature of their day. 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 evangelists, at all events, drew their information. But this supposition 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 de"claration of those things which are most fully believed 66 66 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 himself for his task as a writer, was the natural one adopted by every I |