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 bearings of truth, as witnessed to by the Bible itself, to the conclusion, that neither with reference to Science, History, Morality, nor Religion, does the Bible permit us to regard its teaching as infallible, or free from all error.

BOOK II.

WHAT REASON IS THERE FOR EXPECTING THE BIBLE TO BE INFALLIBLE?

INTRODUCTION.

THE SELF-CONSISTENCY OF TRUTH, 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 contradicting 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 unnatural 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 inaccurate and self-contradictory document to be infallible? Thus, if, on examination, we find the alleged proofs of inspirational infallibility to be at all as weighty as the evidence showing the presence of errors in the Bible is palpable, there 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 conviction. 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 infallibility in the inspired volume. This feeling of anticipation, accompanied by a certain desire that we may be able to discover 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 proportioned to the importance and improbability attaching to the conclusion in which they are supposed to involve us.

CHAPTER I.

EXAMINATION OF THE ARGUMENT FROM MIRACLES FOR

INSPIRATIONAL INFALLIBILITY.

THE first point we shall examine is, the proof of inspirational 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 perform 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 infallibility of the Bible.

As to the first statement, that the Scripture-writers performed miracles, can we be quite sure that all the sacred penmen 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 worked miracles in proof of their divine and infallible inspiration? Or, again, if Mark and Luke, 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 penman; 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

* Exodus vii. 11.