ployed to designate 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 inspirational 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 Reve"lation, in which this holy name is made a synonym "for the entire volume of Scripture."-(Rational Godliness, by Rev. Rowland 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 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. § 1 Kings xiii. 1. 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 enabled to describe scenes of which it is penmen 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 dif ferent 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 |