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. Robinson, 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 mate"rial error." Mr. Eden, in his well-known Churchman's Theological Dictionary,† defines "Inspiration" as "the 66 breathing 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 pre"served from error, but specifically instructed to com"municate certain truths which God would make known "to man." Similarly, Dr. Webster, in his Dictionary 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." * Publisher, Longman & Co., London, 1815. 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, or Robinson, Eden, and Webster, may be the more in accordance with truth or antiquity-there is a notable difference between their two classes of definition; inasmuch as the one party put prominently forward the idea, that protection from all error (or, in one word, infallibility) is an essential element in the meaning of the term Inspiration as applied to Scripture; whereas Johnson and Richardson 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 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 con stantly used in the pulpit and even in conversation, and 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 conclusion— 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 religious 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 and every word in the Bible are 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 was not one of the numerous errors into which 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 infallibility of the inspired volume. This state of things is too notorious to require further argument. Rightly 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 Englishmen 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 our argument that can hardly fail to surprise, 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 sup-` pressed 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. 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 undertaken, and will unhesitatingly carry 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 "infallible." We do not use the term captiously or overstrainedly. 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 superhuman; though we cannot refrain from remarking here, that the observation of this |