CHAPTER XIV.

THE BIBLE QUESTION. INSPIRATION, INFALLIBILITY. HISTORY OF MY VIEWS ON

THE SUBJECT.

A PRAYER.

Help me, O Thou Great Good Father of my spirit, in the work on which I

am now about to enter. Enable me, on the great and solemn subject on

which I am now to speak, to separate the true from the false, the

doubtful from the certain, the important from the unimportant. And may I

be enabled to make all plain. And save me, O my Father, from going too

far. Let me not run to any extreme. Yet enable me to go far enough. May

I not, through needless fear, or through any evil motive, be kept from

speaking anything that ought to be said. I am Thine, O my God; use me

according to Thy will, for the service of Thy Church, and for the

welfare of the world. I am every moment accountable to Thee; help me so

to speak that I may be at peace with my own soul, and have a sweet

assurance of Thy approbation. Fill my soul, O my Father, with the spirit

of love, of truth, of tenderness, and of all goodness. Guide Thou my

pen, and control my spirit. Grant that I may so write, that I may do

some good and no harm. May Thy people endeavor to do justice to what I

say. If any one, through error or evil disposition, should do me wrong,

help me to bear the trial with Christian meekness and patience. And may

the time at length come, when the religion of Christ, so full of truth

and love, shall be understood and embraced by all mankind, and when by

its blessed and transforming power the earth shall become the abode of

purity, and love, and bliss. AMEN.

* * * * *

It may not be amiss to state now, how far I had gone at this time, with

regard to my views on the Bible.

1. I remember a time, when I believed that the Bible in which my father

read, came down direct from God out of heaven, just as it was. I looked

on it as simply and purely divine.

2. I afterwards learnt that the Bible was printed on earth, and that it

was a translation from other books which had been written in Greek and

Hebrew.

3. But I still supposed that the Greek and Hebrew Bible was wholly

divine, and that the translation was as perfect as the original.

4. I next learned that the translation was _not_ perfect,--that the

translators were sometimes in doubt as to the meaning of the original,

and put one meaning in the body of the page, and another in the

margin,--that in other cases they had misunderstood the original, and

given erroneous translations. I sometimes heard preachers correcting the

translation of passages, and when I came to read commentaries and other

theological works, I found the authors doing the same thing.

5. I then found that there were several translations of the Scriptures,

one by Wesley, one by Campbell, and others by other men, and that they

all differed from each other, and that none of them could be regarded as

wholly correct. When I read the Notes of Adam Clarke on the Bible, I

found that he often differed from all the translators, and that in some

cases he differed from them very widely.

6. I still supposed that the originals were perfect; that in them we had

the words of God just as they came from His own mind.

7. But I afterwards found that there were several originals,--or at

least several Greek and Hebrew Bibles,--and that they also differed from

each other to some extent, and that none of them could be said to be

entirely free from error.

8. I learnt from Adam Clarke and others that the printed Greek and

Hebrew Bibles had been compiled from _manuscripts_,--or from Bibles, or

portions of the Bible, written by the hand, before the art of printing

was known.

9. I also found that those manuscripts differed from each other, in a

great many places, and that in some cases they differed on points

supposed to be of considerable importance, and that it was impossible to

tell which of the manuscripts were most correct.

10. I also learnt, that all existing manuscripts were copies of other

manuscripts, and that the real original books, the books written by

Moses and the Prophets, and by the Evangelists and Apostles, were all

lost, so that it was impossible to tell, with absolute certainty,

whether any of the manuscripts were absolutely correct,--that when the

best and ablest men on earth had done their utmost, there would still be

room for doubt as to the true reading, as well as to the correct

meaning, of various portions of Scripture.

11. I next learned that there were differences of opinion among critics

and divines as to whether certain books ought to have a place in the

Bible or not. In my father's Bible there were several books called the

Apocrypha. Some of these were very interesting. I used to read them with

a great deal of pleasure. And large portions of others, especially those

called _The Wisdom of Solomon_, and _Ecclesiasticus_, seemed as good, as

true, and as beautiful as anything in the Book of Proverbs. My parents

however told me, that those books were not to be put on a level with

the other books of the Bible,--that there was some mystery about their

origin, and that there was some doubt whether they were really a part of

the word of God.

12. I afterwards learnt though, that they were regarded as part of God's

word by the Catholics, and I continued to read large portions of them

with much satisfaction and profit.

13. I also learnt from Adam Clarke and others, that there had been

doubts in the minds of some of the ancient Christians with regard to the

right of some of the Epistles and of the Book of Revelation to be

admitted as parts of the Bible. And I afterwards found that the Book of

Revelation was excluded from the Bible by the Greek Church, and by

Luther as well:--and that Luther had but little regard for the Epistle

of James, one of the finest portions of the whole Bible as I thought.

14. I further learnt that some had doubts as to the right of Solomon's

Song to a place in the Bible, and I found that even Adam Clarke did not

believe that it had any spiritual meaning.

All these were facts; and I learned them all from Christian authors of

the highest repute for learning and piety. And so long as things went on

smoothly, they had not, so far as I can remember, any injurious effect

on my mind. But when, after having been harassed for years by the

intolerance of my brethren, I was expelled from the ministry and the

church, and finally placed in a hostile position with regard to the

great body of Christians and Christian ministers, I began to see, that

those facts were incompatible with the views and theories of the divine

inspiration and absolute perfection of the Bible held by my opponents. I

came very slowly to see this, and after I saw it I was slow to speak on

the subject in my publications; but the time to see and to speak arrived

at length.

One of my New Connection opponents, by repeated charges of infidelity,

and by statements about the Scriptures which I knew he could not

maintain, got me into controversy on the subject. Then I uttered all

that was in my mind. I showed that many of the things which he had said

about the Bible were not true,--that they were inconsistent with plain

unquestionable facts,--with facts acknowledged by all the divines on

earth of any consequence, and known even to himself and his brethren.

While engaged in this controversy I made discoveries of other facts

inconsistent with the views of my persecutors, and pressed them upon my

opponent without mercy. And the violent and resentful feeling excited by

his unfairness, dishonesty and malignity in defending the Bible, led me

probably to be less concerned for its claims than I otherwise should

have been. Suffice it to say, I came out of the debate with my savage

opponent, not a disbeliever in the Bible or Christianity, but with views

farther removed from those which he contended for, and with feelings

much less hostile to heterodox extremes perhaps than those with which I

entered it.

Among the views I was led to entertain and promulgate with regard to the

Bible about this time, were the following.

1. We have no proof that the different portions of the Bible were

absolutely perfect as they came from the hands of the writers. The

probability is on the other side. For if an absolutely perfect book had

been necessary for man, it would have been as necessary to _keep_ it

perfect, as to _make_ it perfect. And as God has not seen fit to _keep_

it perfect, we have no reason to suppose that He made it so.

2. But in truth, to write an absolutely perfect book in an imperfect

language, is impossible. And all human languages are imperfect. The

Hebrew language, in which the greater part of the Bible was written, is

very imperfect. And it seems to have been much more imperfect in those

times when the Bible was written, than it is now. And the Greek

language, in which the remainder of the Bible was written, was

imperfect. And the Greek used in the New Testament is not the best

Greek;--it is not the Greek of the Classics.

3. And both Greek and Hebrew now are _dead_ languages, and have been so

for many ages. This renders them more imperfect in some respects: it

makes it harder in many cases to ascertain the sense in which words, and

particular forms of expression, are used by the writers. With regard to

the Hebrew, we have no other books in that language, written in those

early ages when the different parts of the Bible were written, to

assist us in ascertaining the sense in which words were used.

4. The writers of Scripture differ very much from one another both in

style and matter, and their works differ greatly in worth and

usefulness. Ezekiel is much more obscure than Jeremiah; and Jeremiah is

less plain than Isaiah. Many of the figures, and some of the visions of

Ezekiel, seem coarse, and some of them appear unintelligible. And the

matter of many parts of Ezekiel's prophecies seems inferior to that of

the prophecies of Jeremiah and Isaiah. Some portions of Ezekiel are very

valuable; they are good and useful to the last degree. But other

portions, whatever value they might have for persons of former times and

other lands, have none, that I can see, for us.

5. Some portions of Jeremiah, and even of Isaiah, appear to have little

that is calculated to be of use in the present day. Indeed some portions

seem unintelligible. But many portions of the writings of both those

prophets abound in the most touching, startling, and useful lessons.

6. And so with Daniel and the minor prophets. The darkness and the

light, and things more useful and things less useful, are mingled in

them all.

7. It is the same with the New Testament. Some portions of Paul's

writings are as plain as they well can be; others are very obscure,

perhaps quite unintelligible. Some passages in the controversial

portions of his Epistles to the Romans and the Galatians, and

considerable parts of the Epistle to the Hebrews, are dark as night to

many; and I fear that those who think they understand them, are under a

delusion. And as portions of these Epistles were wrested by the

unlearned and unconfirmed in Peter's time, so have they been mistaken

for lessons in moral laxity since. And still they are used by many as

props for immoral and blasphemous doctrines.

8. And what shall we say of the Book of Revelation? Adam Clarke thought

he understood it as well as any one, yet acknowledged that he did not

understand it at all. And though there are several passages that are

both plain and practical, and many that are most wondrously and

sublimely poetical, and some few that are rich both in truth and

tenderness, yet, as a whole, the Book is exceedingly, if not

impenetrably, dark.

9. Some portions of the Old Testament history are given twice over, as

in the Books of Kings and Chronicles, and the two accounts, in some

cases, seem to be irreconcilable with each other. The numbers often

differ, and some of them seem altogether too large. The accounts agree

well enough, and the statements are credible enough, as a rule, on

matters of great importance; but on smaller matters there are many plain

discrepancies.

Some other portions of the Bible, including two or three of the Psalms,

are given twice over.

10. Then who that reads the Proverbs attentively can help seeing, that

some of them are much plainer, and calculated to be much more useful,

than others. Many of them are rich in wisdom and goodness beyond

measure; but others appear to have neither much of beauty, nor much of

utility.

11. And the Psalms are not all of equal excellence. Some contain

terrible outpourings of hatred and vengeance. Many contain fierce and

resentful expressions. And though these things were excusable in early

times, and were, in fact, not wicked, but only a lower form of virtue,

we cannot but feel their great inferiority to the teachings and spirit

of Jesus. But taken as a whole, the Psalms are miracles of beauty and

sublimity, of tenderness and majesty, of purity and piety, of wisdom and

righteousness. They are a heaven of bright constellations; a world of

glory and blessedness.

12. The Book of Job too is a mixture, and to some extent a mystery, but

it would be a great loss to the world if it were to perish. The

twenty-ninth and thirty-first chapters are worth the whole literature of

infidel philosophy a hundred times over. And many other portions of the

book are 'gems of purest ray serene,' and treasures of incalculable

value.

13. And even the Book of Ecclesiastes, while it contains many things of

a strange, a dark, and a doubtful character, has many oracles of wisdom

and piety. It contains lessons of wonderful beauty, and of great

solemnity and power.

14. There is a vast amount of wisdom and goodness in the laws of Moses.

I say nothing of the laws that are merely ceremonial: but there are

lessons of great importance mixed up even with them at times. Take those

about the Nazarites. Most of them are beautiful, excellent; and well

would it be if people even in our days would accept them as rules for

their own conduct.

Then take the laws which forbid the use of wine and strong drink to the

ministering priests. They are wonderfully wise.

And even the laws about the different kinds of beasts, and birds, and

fishes, that were allowed or forbidden as food, are, on the whole,

remarkably philosophical. Considering the time when they were given, and

the people for whom they were intended, and the ends for which they were

designed, the laws of Moses generally, are worthy of the highest praise.

15. But Judaism is not Christianity. That which was the best for the

Jews three thousand years ago, was not the best for all mankind through

all the ages of time. Compared with the religions and laws of

surrounding nations, and of preceding ages, Judaism was glorious,--but

compared with Christianity it is no longer glorious. Judaism compared

with Paganism, was a wonder of wisdom, philosophy, and righteousness;

but compared with Christianity it is a mass of rudiments, first lessons,

beggarly elements.

Hence several things contained in the law of Moses are repealed or

forbidden by Christ; still more are quietly dropped and left behind;

while other portions are developed, expanded, and exalted.

All these things, and a multitude of other things, have to be taken into

account, if we would form a correct and proper estimate of the Bible.

All these, and quite a multitude of other matters, should be borne in

mind when we are considering in what terms to speak of the Book, and in

what way to qualify our commendations of its contents. I do not believe

it possible to praise the Bible too highly; but nothing is easier than

to praise it unwisely, untruly. You cannot love or prize the Bible too

much; but you may err as to what constitutes its worth. You cannot

over-estimate its beneficent power; but you may make mistakes as to the

parts or properties of the book in which its strength lies. A child can

hardly value gold or silver too highly, but he makes a great mistake

when he fancies their great excellency to consist in the brightness of

their colors. And so with regard to the Bible. Its best friends and its

ablest eulogists can never think or speak of it beyond its real worth;

but they may fancy its worth to consist in qualities of secondary

importance, or in a kind or form of perfection which it does not

possess.

The enemies of the Bible often speak evil of it ignorantly, from the

mere force of bad example, as parrots curse: and the friends of the

Bible often speak well of it ignorantly, as parrots pray. They know,

they feel, they are sure, that the Bible is good,--that it does them

good,--that it purifies their souls,--that it improves their

characters,--that it makes them cheerful, joyful, useful, happy. Yet all

the time they fancy, because they have been erroneously taught, that the

blessed volume owes its comforting, transforming, and glorious power to

some metaphysical nicety, or to some unreal or impossible kind of

perfection.

When Christians attribute the sanctifying, elevating, comforting power

of the Bible to the fact that it is divinely inspired, they are right.

But many do not stop there. They suppose that divine inspiration has

given the Book certain grammatical, rhetorical, logical, historical,

scientific and metaphysical qualities which it has _not_ given it, and

they even attribute its superior worth and saving power to those

imaginary qualities.

It was against the mistakes and mis-statements of my opponents that I

first wrote, and it was their ignorance, or their want of honesty and

candor, that gave me at times the advantage over them in our debates on

the subject. It was for want of seeing things in their proper light, and

putting them in their proper shape before their hearers and readers,

that made their efforts to keep people from doubt and unbelief

unavailing. They, in truth, made unbelief or infidelity to consist in

something in which it did not consist, and made people think they were

infidels when they were no such thing. If they had given up all that was

erroneous with regard to the Bible, and undertaken the defence of

nothing but what was true, they might both have convinced the honest

skeptic, and strengthened the faith of Christians. But they undertook to

defend the false, and to assail the true, and the consequence was, they

were beaten, and the cause which they sought to serve was injured.

John Wesley says, that the way to drive the doctrine of Christian

perfection, or 'true holiness,' out of the world, is to place it too

high,--to make it consist in something that is beyond man's power. And

the way to drive the doctrine of the divine inspiration of the

Scriptures out of the world, is to give the doctrine a form which the

Scriptures themselves do not give it,--to change it from a truth into an

error,--to teach that divine inspiration produces effects which it does

not produce,--that it imparts qualities which it does not impart, and

which the Scriptures themselves do not exhibit.

And this is what many defenders of the Bible do. And this is one great

cause both of the increase of infidelity, and of the confidence of its

disciples.

It is impossible to prove the doctrine of the divine inspiration of the

Bible, as that doctrine is defined by many religious writers. It is not

true. And those who attempt to prove that the Bible is such a book, as

these false theological theories of divine inspiration would require it

to be, must always be beaten, in a fair fight, with an able and

well-informed infidel opponent. The man who contends that the Bible is

all that certain old theories of inspiration require it to be, fights

against plain facts, and even his friends will often see and feel that

he has not succeeded. He may say a many fine things, a many good things,

a many great things, a many glorious things about the Bible, and they

may all be true: and he may say a many bad things, a many horrible

things against infidelity, and they too may be true. And his friends may

see and feel that, on the whole, he is substantially right, and that the

infidel is essentially wrong. They may see and feel that on the

Christian side is all that is good, and true, and holy; and that on the

infidel side is a world of darkness and depravity, of horror and

despair. Still, on the one definite point, 'Is the Bible divinely

inspired according to the theory of divine inspiration laid down by

certain theologians,' the Christian will be beaten out and out,--he will

not only be confuted, but confounded, dishonored, and utterly routed.

The Bible and Christianity will receive an undeserved wound, and

infidelity will have an undeserved triumph; and many a poor young man

whose leanings were towards the Bible, and who would have liked its

advocate to triumph, will be disheartened, distressed, embarrassed,

distracted, and perhaps undone.

The true doctrine of Scripture inspiration, or of Scripture authority,

is about as applicable to the common version, and to honest Christian

translations generally, and to all the manuscripts, and to all the

printed Greek and Hebrew Bibles, as it would be to the lost originals if

they could be recovered. There is divine inspiration enough in the

poorest translation of the Scriptures, and in the most imperfect Greek

and Hebrew transcript of them ever made, to place the Bible above all

the books on earth, as a means of enlightening, regenerating,

comforting, and saving mankind. But in none of its forms is the Bible so

inspired, as to make it what the unauthorized, fanciful, impossible

theories of certain dreamy, or proud, presumptuous, and overbearing

theologians require it to be.

I have seen twenty or thirty definitions of Scripture

INSPIRATION all of which betray the Bible into the hands of its

adversaries. And it is no use expecting to convert skeptics, till those

definitions are set aside, and better, truer ones put in their place. We

ourselves pay no regard to these definitions. They are merely human

fictions. They have no warrant from Scripture, and we cannot allow

ourselves to be hampered with them.

The passage in the New Testament which speaks of the Holy Scriptures of

the Old Testament as divinely inspired, gives us no definition of divine

inspiration. It says, 'All Scripture given by inspiration of God is

profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in

righteousness, tending to make the man of God perfect, thoroughly

furnished unto all good works:' but it goes no further. It does not say

that all Scripture given by inspiration of God will be written in a

superhuman language, or in a superhuman style. Nor does it say that all

its allusions to natural things will be perfectly correct; that all the

stories which it tells will be told in a superhuman way. Nor does it say

that all the precepts, and all the institutions, and all the

revelations, and all the examples of the Book will be up to the level

of absolute perfection. What the passage _does_ say of such Scriptures

as are given by inspiration of God, is true of the Old Testament

writings as a whole, and still truer of the New Testament writings: they

_are_ profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, and for

instruction in righteousness; and they are adapted to make men perfect,

thoroughly furnished unto all good works. All this you can prove. But

you cannot prove that they answer to the definitions of divine

inspiration so often given in books of theology.

There is another passage in the New Testament which says that

'Whatsoever things were written aforetime, were written for our

learning, that we through patience and comfort of the Scriptures might

have hope.' This too is true of the Old Testament writings as a whole;

but it gives no countenance to the definitions of Scripture inspiration

given by dreamy theologians.

Peter says that 'holy men of old spake as they were moved by the Holy

Spirit;' but he does not say that everything spoken or written by holy

men, when moved by the Holy Spirit, would answer to some human dream of

absolute perfection. He does not say that the holy men, when moved to

speak by the Holy Spirit, would cease to be men, or even be free from

all the imperfections or misconceptions of their age and nation, and

speak as if they had become at once perfect in the knowledge of natural

philosophy, or of common history, or even on every point pertaining to

religion. They might speak as moved by the Holy Spirit, and yet utter

divine oracles in an imperfect human language, and in a defective human

style, and even use illustrations based on erroneous conceptions of

natural facts and historical events.

A man moved to speak by the Holy Spirit would not exhort people to be

idle or heedless; he would urge them to be industrious and prudent: but

in enforcing his exhortation to those virtues by a reference to the ANT,

he might give proof that his knowledge of the ANT was not perfect,--that

his ideas of its ways were not in every little point correct.

A man full of the Holy Spirit, and especially a man who had received of

its influences without measure, would be sure to exhort men to be very

wise and very harmless; but he might use a form of words in his

exhortation which had originated in the misconception that serpents were

wiser than any other animals, and that doves were more harmless than any

other birds. Yet the exhortation would be good in substance; and even

the form, being in accordance with the views prevailing in his times,

would be unobjectionable; and both would be consistent with the fullest

inspiration of the Holy Spirit.

A great, good man, speaking under divine impulse, urging his son in the

Gospel to resist false and immoral teachers, might say, 'Now as Jannes

and Jambres withstood Moses, so do these also resist the truth; but

their folly shall be made manifest unto all men, as theirs also was.'

Whether the men who withstood Moses were really called Jannes and

Jambres or not, I do not know. The Old Testament does not say they were.

The probability is, that Paul rested his illustration on a Jewish

tradition. But as the tradition was received as true by his people, his

lesson was just as good as if it had rested on some unquestionable fact

stated in authentic history.

And so with regard to illustrations and incidental statements and

allusions generally. Though they may rest on misconceptions, the moral

lessons and spiritual revelations into the service of which they are

pressed, may be God's own oracles, and the book in which they appear

may, as a whole, be given by divine inspiration, and be profitable for

teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for instruction in

righteousness, and conducive to all the great and desirable ends so dear

to God.

There is no such thing as absolute perfection with regard to books.

There is no authorized standard, no test, no measure of absolute

perfection for books; and if there were, no man could apply it. Of a

thousand different books each may be perfect in its way, yet none of

them be absolutely perfect. Each may have some great good end in view,

and be adapted to answer that end; and that is the only perfection of

which a book admits. And it is perfection enough.

And this perfection the Bible has. It has the best, the highest, the

most glorious objects in view, and it is adapted to accomplish those

objects; and that is sufficient. They that undertake to prove that it

has any other perfection, will fail, and both bring discredit on

themselves, and suspicion on the Bible. The Bible may be more grievously

wronged by unwise praise, than by unjust censure.

Absolutely perfect books and teachers are not necessary to our

instruction and welfare. We can learn all we need to know, and all we

need to do, from books and teachers that are _not_ perfect. We have no

absolutely perfect books on Grammar, Rhetoric, or Logic. Yet men learn

those sciences readily enough when they study them heartily and

diligently. We have no perfect systems of Arithmetic, Geometry, or

Algebra; of Geography, Astronomy, or Geology; of Anatomy, Physiology, or

Chemistry; of Botany, Natural History, or Physical Geography. Yet on all

those subjects men gather an immense amount of knowledge, make a

multitude of new discoveries, and arrive at a wonderful degree of

certainty.

And so with arts and trades. We have no absolutely perfect teachers or

books in music, or painting, or sculpture; in farming, or manufactures,

or trade. Yet what wonderful proficients men become in those arts! We

have no perfect teachers of languages: yet any man with a taste for the

study of them, may learn twenty or thirty of them in a life-time. Even

indifferent books and teachers will enable a man who is bent on

learning, to master the most difficult language on earth.

A man once asked me, 'Which is the best English Grammar?' My answer was,

'The first you come at. A poor one to-day is better than a good one

to-morrow. Begin your studies at once with the grammar you have; and you

will soon find out which is the best.' And so I say with regard to books

on other subjects. Make the best use you can of the books you have, and

you will soon come across better. And when you do come across them, you

will be all the better prepared to profit by them, than if you were to

waste your time in idleness till you can get hold of the best of all.

Besides; the book that is best for others, may not be the best for you.

And if a man should ask me, 'Which is the best translation of the

Bible?' I would say, 'The first you come at. Read any, till you meet

with others. Then read many, and, using your common sense, judge for

yourself which is best. That which does most to make you a good, a

strong, a useful and a happy man is the best.'

Some want books and teachers that will save them the trouble of study.

And there are none such. It would be a pity if there were. They would do

no good, but harm. Nothing strengthens and develops the mind like labor.

But if you had the best books possible they would not enable you to

acquire much useful knowledge, without close study, and vigorous mental

effort.

I learned Greek with the worst Greek Grammar I ever saw; but when I had

learned the language tolerably, I found one of the best Greek Grammars

in the world, and went rapidly through it, and found that it had little

to add to the information I had gained already from the poorer one.

And it is the same with regard to books on God, religion, and duty.

Books with numbers of defects,--with defects of style, defects of

arrangement, and even defects in matter, may teach you many useful

lessons, if you read and study them properly; and the best books on

earth will not teach you much if you read them carelessly.

A great deal, almost every thing, depends on the spirit or the object

with which a man reads a good book. You may read the best books to

little profit, and you may get great good from very inferior ones.

The Bible is the best religious and moral book on earth; it is, in its

most imperfect translations, able to make men wise, and good, and

useful, and happy to the last degree, if they will read and study it

properly. But there is not a better book on earth for making a man a

fool, if he comes to it with a vain mind, a proud spirit, a fulness of

self-conceit, or a wish to be a prophet. A desire to be a prater about

the millennium, the second coming of Christ, the personal reign, the

orders of angels, the ranks of devils, the secrets of God's counsels,

the hidden meaning of the badgers' skins, the shittim wood, the Urim and

Thummim, the Cherubim and Seraphim, the Teraphim and Anakim, and all the

imaginary meanings of imaginary types, and the place where Paradise was

situated, and the mountain peak on which the Ark rested, and Behemoth,

and Leviathan, and the spot at which the Israelites entered the Red Sea,

and the compass of Adam's knowledge before he named the animals, and the

fiery sword at the gate of Paradise, and the controversial parts of

Paul's epistles, and the mysteries of the Book of Revelation, and the

spiritual meaning of Solomon's Song, and the place where Satan had his

meeting with the sons of God in the days of Job, and the exact way in

which Job used the potsherd, when he scraped himself as he sat among the

ashes, &c., &c.,--I say if this is what a man desires, the Bible will

help him to his wish, and make him the laughing-stock, or the pity of

all sensible men.

And if he employs the one hundred and fifty rules of Hartwell Horne for

misinterpreting the plain portions of the Bible, and his one hundred and

forty other rules for darkening his mind, and confounding his soul, the

Bible will ruin him still quicker. A better book for trying a man, and

for rewarding his honesty, and piety, and charity, if he has those

virtues, and for making them ever more; or for punishing a man's vanity,

and pride, and selfishness, and perversity, if he be the slave of such

passions, God could hardly have given. And to try and to bless men are

the two great objects of all God's revelations.

My opponent was fond of saying that the Bible was an infallible guide.

The statement was not true in any strict and rigorous sense of the

words. And it was foolish for him to make it in an eager debate, for he

could never prove it. And he was not long in finding this out. A few

plain questions set him quite fast. The Bible is an infallible guide,

you say. We ask, Which Bible? The common version? No. John Wesley's

version? No. Dr. Conquest's? No. The Unitarian version? No. _Any_

version? No. Is it some particular Greek or Hebrew Bible then? No. Is it

the manuscripts? No. But these are all the Bibles we have.

The Bible is an infallible guide, you say. What to? Uniformity of

opinion? No. Uniformity of worship? No. Uniformity of life? No.

Uniformity of feeling, of affection, of effort? No. It does not even

require uniformity in those matters. It supposes diversity. It asks only

for sincerity, honesty, fidelity. But it is an infallible guide to all

truth and duty, you say. Has it guided you to all truth and duty? No.

Whom _has_ it guided to those blessed results? You cannot say.

But it is an infallible guide to all that truth which is necessary to a

man's salvation, you say. But there is no particular amount of truth

that _is_ necessary to a man's salvation. The amount of truth necessary

to a man's salvation differs according to his powers and privileges.

That which is necessary to my salvation may not be necessary to the

salvation of a Pagan. It is sincerity in the search of truth, and

fidelity in reducing it to practice, which is necessary to a man's

salvation, and not the acquisition of some particular quantity of truth.

The Bible is an infallible guide. To whom? To the Catholics? No. To the

Unitarians? No. To the Quakers? No. To the Church of England people? No.

To Methodists and Calvinists? No.

That the Bible is a trusty guide enough, I have no doubt, if we will

faithfully and prayerfully follow it; but to talk as if it would guide

every one infallibly to exactly the same views, or to the fulness of all

truth, is not wise. It is not warranted either by the Bible itself, or

by facts.

Besides, if a book is to guide a man infallibly, it must be made

perfectly plain; it must be infallibly interpreted. And where are the

infallible interpreters? We know of none that even profess to be such

outside the Church of Rome; and none but themselves and their own Church

members believe their professions. _You_ do not believe them. As a rule,

the claim of infallibility is taken as a proof that the man who makes it

is not only fallible, but something worse.

But if we had infallible interpreters, they would not be able to keep us

from error, unless we had infallible hearts and infallible

understandings. And we have no such things. If we had, we should neither

need infallible books nor infallible interpreters.

That the Bible is all that it _needs_ to be, and all that it _ought_ to

be, I am satisfied; but that it is all that some of its zealous

advocates _say_ it is, plain and unquestionable facts make it impossible

for any candid, unbiassed, and well-informed man to believe.

We have all an infallible guide within us, if we be true Christians. For

the Spirit of God dwells in the hearts of all true disciples of Christ.

But the infallible guide does not make us all infallible followers. The

infallible teacher does not make us all infallible learners. We are

blessed with divine inspiration, but we are not converted into machines.

Inspiration does not make us absolutely perfect either in knowledge or

virtue, still less does it make us perfect all at once. We shall learn

enough, and we shall learn fast enough, if we are faithful; but we shall

never be perfect or infallible in our knowledge in this world.

As the subject of Bible inspiration is one of great importance, and as

it is at present exciting the greatest interest, it may not be amiss

here to give a few quotations from writers who have been led to see the

doctrine in the same light as ourselves. I am unable to give the names

of some of the authors from whose works I quote, but they are all

connected with one or other of the great evangelical denominations of

the day.

The following is from "BASES OF BELIEF," by Edward Miall, one

of the best books on the truth and divinity of Christianity I have had

the happiness to read. Mr. Miall is a Congregational minister, editor of

the Nonconformist Newspaper, and Member of Parliament. As his remarks

are lengthy, we are obliged to abridge them in some cases.

'It is not needed, in order to show satisfactorily that there is a

divine revelation _in_ the record, to prove that the record is _itself_

divine. To disprove that revelation, a man must do something more than

point out marks of imperfection in the Book containing it, such marks as

would not be expected in a book written directly by the hand of God. If

it could be demonstrated that the penmen who have given us the life of

Christ, were indebted to no other aid than that supplied by the good

mental and moral qualifications which any others might possess, the main

strength of Christianity as a communication of God's mind and will,

would remain untouched.

'The discrepancies between the statements of the four Evangelists,--the

indications of individual or national peculiarities,--the modes of

describing occurrences, true because well understood in the locality of

the speaker, but not strictly true in other places,--all matters which

serve to show that the same objects have been seen by different persons,

but from different points of view, are to be allowed for as reconcilable

with a truthfulness that may be implicitly relied upon. One informant

may have blundered in geography, another may have been mistaken in an

historical reference, a third may have misquoted or misapplied some

prophetical allusion, and all may have given ample proof that they were

not free from the influence of the traditions generally received in the

places to which they belonged; but unless these peculiarities and

infirmities show a want of competency as witnesses, or a lack of

integrity, they may be dismissed, as having no bearing on the main

point.

'The question whether the Gospel records are free from blemishes found

to attach to every other record, has nothing to do with the main issue.

Our _theories_ may require them to be free from such harmless

imperfections; but our _reason_ makes no such demand.

'The memoir of a great man does not lose its use and virtue, because

written by a biographer open to some censure: nor can the life of Christ

fail of its transcendent purpose, because the writers were not in all

things infallible.

'Appearances of harmless human imperfections in the writers do not

invalidate the sacred records. For instance, if it should be found that

those faithful witnesses have given their testimony in exceptionable

Greek,--or that in some matters, not touching their main object, they

are not enlightened above the common standard of their times and

station,--or that they have habits of thought, or speech, or action,

which, though perfectly innocent in themselves, show that they are not

so far advanced in science as some,--if, in a word, it should appear

that the historic writers of the New Testament were really men of the

age in which they lived, and men of the country in which they were born

and educated, subject to the then limitations of general knowledge,--men

of individual tendencies, tastes, temperaments, passions, and even

prejudices,--wherein is the world worse for this, and in what respect

could our reason have wished it otherwise? We protest, we do not see.

On the contrary, we feel it to be an advantage, that the divine light

emanating from the life of Jesus Christ, should reach us through an

artless and thoroughly human medium. It is no misfortune, in our

judgment, but quite the opposite, that 'we have this treasure in earthen

vessels.' Such traces on the pages of evangelic history as mark the

writers for men,--honest, faithful, competent, but yet verily and indeed

men,--bring their narrative much more closely home to our sympathies,

and set us upon a more ardent search for the spirit in its several

portions, than if the story had been written by the faultless pen of

some superior being.'

Mr. Miall then refers to the errors and discrepancies in the genealogies

prefixed to two of the lives of Christ, and says, 'They are accounted

for, in our view, by the humanity of the writers. We are not bound to

regard the genealogies as infallibly accurate, any more than we are

bound to regard the dialect of the writers as pure Greek. No essential

truth is affected by either, and that is enough.'

Mr. Miall further argues that intellectual infallibility was not

necessary, and was not to be looked for, in Paul, the great expounder of

the Gospel. And he adds, 'Taking the New Testament as a whole, we are

not disposed to deny, that it bears upon the face of it, many

indications that its several writers were not entirely exempt from

mental imperfection,--but we contend that the mental imperfection which

their works exhibit, is perfectly compatible with the communication to

men of infallible knowledge respecting God, His moral relations to us,

His purposes with regard to us, and the religious duties which these

things enforce on all who would attain eternal life. And if this be

true, the record satisfies the spiritual need of man in its fullest

extent.'

We have given Mr. Miall's views at greater length, because he occupies

so high a position, not only in one of the largest religious

denominations in England, but in the country generally, and because we

have never seen any protest against his views from any writer of

influence, in any branch of the Church of Christ. Such protests may have

appeared, but we have never met with any. We may add, that while Mr.

Miall gives up the idea of infallibility, he holds that the writers of

the New Testament history were under divine _guidance_ in composing

their several memoirs of Christ.

Mr. Miall's views on the Old Testament writings we may have occasion to

notice further on.

The Rev. Dr. Parker, author of ECCE DEUS, has some remarks of a

character somewhat similar to those of Mr. Miall, but we have not his

works at hand.

Our next quotation is from a lecture on SCIENCE AND REVELATION,

by the very reverend R. Payne Smith, D. D., Dean of Canterbury. The

lecture was delivered at the request of the Christian Evidence Society,

London, and is published by that society, in their volume, entitled

MODERN SKEPTICISM.

'Revelation has nothing to do with our physical state. Reason is quite

sufficient to teach us all those sanitary laws by which our bodies will

be maintained in healthful vigor. Whatever we can attain by our mental

powers, we are to attain by them. Physical and metaphysical science

alike lie remote from the object matter of revelation. The Bible never

gives us any scientific knowledge in a scientific way. If it did, it

would be leaving its own proper domain. When it seems to give us any

such knowledge, as in the first chapter of Genesis, what it says has

always reference to man. The first chapter of Genesis does not tell us

how the earth was formed absolutely, but how it was prepared and fitted

for man. Look at the work of the fourth day. Does any man suppose that

the stars were set in the expanse of heaven absolutely that men might

know what time of the year it was? They _did_ render men this service,

but this was not their great use. As the Bible speaks to all people, at

all times, it must use popular language.'

This writer, like many others when they approach this subject, speaks

timidly, and in consequence somewhat vaguely and obscurely; but his

meaning is, that we must expect the Bible, on scientific subjects, to

speak, not according to science, but according to the prevailing ideas

of their times on scientific subjects; and that we are to regard the

Bible as our teacher, not on every subject to which it may allude, or on

which it may speak, but only on matters of religious truth and duty.

The following is from the Rev. H. W. Beecher.

'Matthew says, that Jesus dwelt in Nazareth; that it might be fulfilled

which was spoken by the prophets, He shall be called a Nazarene. No such

line has ever been found in the prophets.

'Infinite ingenuity of learning has been brought to bear upon this

difficulty, without in the slightest degree solving it.

'What would happen if it should be said that Matthew recorded the

current impression of his time in attributing this declaration to the

Old Testament Prophets? Would a mere error of reference invalidate the

trustworthiness of the evangelist? We lean our whole weight [in other

matters] upon men who are fallible. Must a record be totally infallible

before it can be trusted at all? Navigators trust ship, cargo, and the

lives of all on board, to calculations based on tables of logarithms,

knowing that there never was a set [of logarithms] computed, without

machinery, that had not some error in it. The supposition, that to admit

that there are immaterial and incidental mistakes in Sacred Writ would

break the confidence of men in it, is contradicted by the uniform

experience of life, and by the whole procedure of society.

'On the contrary, the shifts and ingenuities to which critics are

obliged to resort, either blunt the sense of truth, or disgust men with

the special pleading of critics, and tend powerfully to general

unbelief.

'The theory of inspiration must be founded upon the grounds on which the

Scriptures themselves found it. "All Scripture is given by inspiration

of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for

instruction in righteousness; that the man of God may be perfect,

thoroughly furnished unto all good works." (2 Tim. 3: 16, 17.)

'Under this declaration, no more can be claimed for the doctrine of

inspiration than that there shall have been such an influence exerted

upon the formation of the record, that it shall be the truth respecting

God, and no falsity; that it shall so expound the duty of man under

God's moral government, as to secure, in all who will, a true holiness;

that it shall contain no errors which can affect the essential truths

taught, or which shall cloud the reason or sully the moral sense.

'But it is not right or prudent to infer from the Biblical statement of

inspiration, that it makes provision for the very words and sentences;

that it shall raise the inspired penmen above the possibility of

literary inaccuracy, or minor or immaterial mistakes. It is enough if

the Bible be a sure and sufficient guide to spiritual morality and

rational piety. To erect for it a claim to absolute literary

infallibility, or to infallibility in things not directly pertaining to

faith, is to weaken its real authority, and to turn it aside from its

avowed purpose. The theory of verbal inspiration brings a strain upon

the Word of God which it cannot bear. If rigorously pressed, it tends

powerfully to bigotry on the one side, and to infallibility on the

other.

'The inspiration of holy men is to be construed, as we construe the

doctrine of an over-ruling and special Providence; of the divine

supervision and guidance of the church; of the faithfulness of God in

answering prayer. The truth of these doctrines is not inconsistent with

the existence of a thousand evils, mischiefs, and mistakes, and with the

occurrence of wanderings long and almost fatal. Yet the general

supervision of a Divine Providence is rational. We might expect that

there would be an analogy between God's care and education of the race,

and His care of the Bible in its formation.

'Around the central certainty of saving truth are wrapped the

swaddling-clothes of human language. Neither the condition of the human

understanding, nor the nature of human speech, which is the vehicle of

thought, admits of more than a fragmentary and partial presentation of

truth. "For we know in part, and we prophesy in part." (1 Cor. xiii. 9.)

Still less are we then to expect that there will be perfection in this

vehicle. And incidental errors, which do not reach the substance of

truth and duty, which touch only contingent and external elements, are

not to be regarded as inconsistent with the fact that the Scriptures

were _inspired of God_. Nor will our reverence for the Scriptures be

impaired if, in such cases, it be frankly said, '_There_ is an insoluble

difficulty.' Such a course is far less dangerous to the moral sense than

that pernicious ingenuity which, assuming that there can be no literal

errors in Scripture, resorts to subtle arts of criticism,

improbabilities of statement, and violence of construction, such as, if

made use of in the intercourse of men in daily life, would break up

society and destroy all faith of man in man.

'We dwell at length on this topic now, that we may not be obliged to

recur to it when, as will be the case, other instances arise in which

there is no solution of unimportant, though real, literary difficulties.

'There are a multitude of minute, and on the whole, as respects the

substance of truth, not important questions and topics, which, like a

fastened door, refuse to be opened by any key which learning has brought

to them. It is better to let them stand closed than, like impatient

mastiffs, after long barking in vain, to lie whining at the door, unable

to enter, and unwilling to go away. _Life of Jesus, pp. 77-81._

The Rev. G. Rawlinson, in an able lecture in defence of the Bible,

published by the CHRISTIAN EVIDENCE SOCIETY of London, acknowledges that

there are matters of uncertainty in some parts of the Old Testament

history, and says, 'The time allowed by the common version of the Bible

for all the events which took place from the days of Noah, to the birth

of Christ, and for all the changes by which the various races of men

were formed, by which civilization and the arts were developed, etc., is

less than 2,600 years. Now this is quite insufficient. How is this

difficulty to be met? We answer; a special uncertainty attaches to the

numbers in this case. They are given differently in the different

ancient versions. The Samaritan version extends the time 650 years. The

Septuagint extends it eight or nine hundred years. If more time still be

thought wanting for the development of government, art, science,

language, diversities of races, etc., I should not be afraid to grant

that the original record of Scripture on this point may have been lost,

and that the true chronology cannot now be ascertained. Nothing in

ancient manuscripts is so liable to corruption as the numbers. The

original mode of writing them was by signs not very different from one

another, and thus it happens that in almost all ancient works, the

numbers are found to be deserving of very little reliance.'

But the errors and uncertainty with regard to numbers amount to nothing.

They do not affect the Bible as the great religious instructor of the

world.

The sun has its spots, dark ones and large ones too; and the face of the

moon is not all of equal brightness; but are the sun and the moon less

useful on that account? Do they not answer the ends for which they were

made, and are not those ends the most important and desirable

imaginable? Cavillers might say, if the sun and moon were made to be

lights of the earth, why are they not _all_ light, and why is not their

light of the greatest brilliancy possible? But we too have a right to

ask, Do they not give us light enough? And is not their light as

brilliant as is desirable? Will the caviller prove that the sun and moon

would be greater blessings if their light wore more intense, or more

abundant? Men may have too much light as well as too little. If light

exceeds a certain degree of intensity, it dazzles and blinds instead of

enlightening. It is well to have a little warmth, but if the heat be

increased beyond a certain point, it burns and consumes, instead of

comforting and cheering.

The disposition of the caviller is anything but enviable, and if God

were to take him at his word, his lot would be anything but comfortable.

Happy are they who accept God's gifts as He presents them, with

thankfulness, and use them in His service faithfully, rejoicing and

trusting in His infinite wisdom and love.

What a man wants in a book are instruction, impulse, strength,

correction, regeneration, consolation, lessons fit to furnish him to

every good work, something to give pleasure, supply exercise for his

intellect, conscience, affections: and the Bible is all.

If God may employ an imperfect and fallible man to preach for him,

allowing a portion of his imperfections to mingle with his message, why

might He not employ an imperfect and fallible man to write for Him,

allowing a portion of his imperfections to mingle with his writing?

The following is from the BISHOP OF LONDON.

'The vindication of the supernatural and authoritative character of the

Bible has too often been embarrassed by speculative theories not

authorized by the statements of the Bible itself.'

'It is no reply to the essential claims of the Bible to be a

supernatural revelation from God, to show that certain speculative

theories concerning the manner and degree of its inspiration are

untenable.'

From whose works the following quotation is made, we do not remember.

'The watchword of the Reformation was, 'The sufficiency of the

Scriptures for salvation.'

'Definite theories of inspiration were seldom propounded till of late

years.

'The Bible is a revelation of spiritual truth communicated chiefly in

illustrations and figurative language, and making use of the history,

chronology, and other sciences of the age, as vehicles or helps. This

principle will explain those seeming contradictions [to science] which

result from the use of popular language, as when the sun and moon are

said to stand still, or when the sun is said to go from one end of the

heaven to the other, etc. It will also account for many actual errors in

science, chronology, and history, should such be found to exist. The

Scriptures were not intended to teach men these things, but to reveal

what relates to our connection with moral law, and the spiritual world,

and our salvation. In teaching these things, the writers availed

themselves of the _popular_ language, and the current science and

literature of the age in which they lived. As in the present day a man

may be well instructed in Christian doctrine, and have the unction from

the Holy One, while ignorant of the teachings of modern science, so

likewise it was possible to those who first received religious truth and

were commissioned to declare it. The presence of the Holy Spirit no more

preserved men from errors in science in the one case than in the other.

One may as well seek to study surveying in a biography of Washington, as

the details of geology or chronology in Genesis.

'The proper test to apply to the Gospels is, whether each gives us a

picture of the life and ministry of Jesus that is self-consistent and

consistent with the others; such as would be suitable to the use of

believers.

'Many of the apparent contradictions of the Bible may be explained by

the mistakes of transcribers, or in some other way equally natural; but,

as the Bishop of London has well remarked, 'When laborious ingenuity has

exerted itself to collect a whole store of such difficulties, supposing

them to be real, what on earth does it signify? They may be left quietly

to float away without our being able to solve them, if we bear in mind

the acknowledged fact, that there is a human element in the Bible.'

'What if many of the numbers given in Exodus should, as Bishop Colenso

asserts, be inaccurate? What is to be gained by assertions or denials

relative to matters which have for ever passed out of the reach of our

verification? And what if, here and there, a law should seem to us

strange and unaccountable; an event difficult to comprehend; a statement

to involve an apparent contradiction? What has all this to do with the

essential _value_ of the Book. Absolutely nothing, unless thereby its

[honesty] truthfulness can be set aside.

'If error were _cunningly interspersed_ with truth in the Bible, the

case would be different. But it is _not_ so. The Book, as a whole, and

as it stands, is wholesome and useful; each portion of it has its proper

place, and is adequate to fulfil its appointed end. But everything in

the Book does not take hold alike on the heart and conscience. It may be

very interesting, as indeed it is, to trace on the map the various

journeyings of St. Paul, or the wanderings of the children of Israel in

the wilderness; to note a hundred designed coincidences, etc. Yet all

this may be done without the slightest moral or spiritual benefit to the

man who does it. And, of course, all this may be left undone by others

without the slightest spiritual loss or disadvantage.'

The following may be our own.

The great thing is to use the Scriptures as a means of instruction in

religious truth and Christian duty, and as a means of improvement in all

moral excellence and Christian usefulness.

Set the doctrine of Scripture inspiration too high, and people, finding

that the Scriptures do not come up to it, will conclude that the

doctrine is false,--that the Scriptures are not inspired,--that they do

not differ from other books,--that divine revelation is a fiction,--that

religion is a delusion,--and that the true philosophy of life and of the

universe is infidelity. And the Scriptures do _not_ come up to the

doctrine of inspiration held by many. It is impossible they should. _No_

book written in human language _can_ come up to it. What they say an

inspired book _must_ be, no book on earth ever was, and no book ever

will be. And infidels see it, and are confirmed in their infidelity. And

others see it and become infidels. And Christians argue with them and

are overcome. And others are perplexed and bewildered, and obliged to

close their eyes to facts, and though they cling to their belief, they

are troubled with fears and misgivings as long as they live.

If men would be strong in the faith, and strong in its defence, they

should accept nothing as part of their creed but what is strictly true.

There are passages which speak of the sun smiting men by day, and there

is one at least which speaks of the moon smiting men by night, and both,

for any thing I know, may be literally true. But suppose it were proved

that neither the sun nor the moon ever smites men, would my faith in

Christianity, or in the divine inspiration of the Bible, be shaken

thereby? Not at all. Nor would it destroy or weaken the effect of the

passages on my mind in which those allusions to the sun and moon occur.

I should still believe in the substantial truth of the passages, namely,

that, day and night, the good man is secure under the protection of God.

A man says that he has lately been under 'disastrous influences.'

Literally, the words disastrous influences mean the influences of

unfriendly stars. But there are no unfriendly stars. Then why does he

use such an expression? Because, though it does not now in its current

meaning refer to the stars at all, it means calamitous, unfavorable,

influences. I do not believe that the sun like a strong man runs a race:

I believe its motion is only apparent,--that the _real_ motion is in the

earth. But do I therefore question the divine inspiration of the Bible

which uses that expression? Not at all; for the words are substantially

true. And so in a hundred other cases.

And so in passages of other kinds. It does not matter to me whether the

account of creation in Genesis answers literally to the real processes

revealed by Geology, or whether the account of the flood answers exactly

to past facts. Both accounts are perfect as lessons of divine truth and

duty, and that is enough.

Those who undertake to prove that every passage of the Bible is

literally true, must fail. If they _were_ all literally true, they would

never have done. There are more difficult passages, and more apparent

little contradictions, than any man could go through in a life-time. I

would no more undertake such a task than I would undertake to prove that

every leaf, and every flower, and every seed, of every plant on earth is

perfect, and that each is exactly like its fellows. God's honor and

man's welfare are as much concerned in the one as in the other. They are

concerned in neither. The leaves, the flowers, and the seeds of plants

are right enough,--they are as perfect as they need to be,--and I ask no

more. And the Bible is as perfect as it needs to be, and I am satisfied.

The following is abridged from a work entitled CHRISTIANITY AND OUR

ERA, by the Rev. G. Gilfillan of Scotland.

Mr. Gilfillan speaks of it as a 'Generally admitted fact, that there is

a human, as well as a divine element in Scripture,' and adds, 'that this

should modify our judgment in considering perplexing discrepancies and

minor objections. There are spots in the sun; there are bogs on the

earth; and why should the perplexities in a book, which is a

multifarious collection of poetico-theological and historical tracts,

written in various ages, and subject, in their history, to many human

vicissitudes, bewilder and appal us? The candid inquirer will be

satisfied if, from the unity of spirit, the truth and simplicity of

manner, the majesty of thought, the heavenliness of tone, and the

various collateral and external proofs, he gathers a _general_

inspiration in the Bible, and the general truth of Christianity. Logical

strictness, perfect historic accuracy, systematic arrangement, etc.,

could not be expected in a book of intuitions and bursts of inspiration;

the authors of which seemed often the child-like organs of the power

within. It seemed enough that there should be no wilful mis-statements,

and no errors but those arising from the inevitable conditions to which

all writings are liable. The skeptic who proceeds to peruse the Bible,

expecting it everywhere to be conformable to the highest ideal

standard--that there shall be nothing to perplex his understanding, to

try his belief, or to offend his taste, will be disappointed, and will

either give up his task, or go on in weariness and hesitation. On the

other hand, if he be told to prepare for historical discrepancies, for

staggering statements, for phrases more plain than elegant, and for

sentences of inscrutable darkness, he will be far more likely to come to

a satisfactory conclusion. And the apparent dark spots will only serve

to increase the surrounding splendor. We therefore cry to the skeptic

who purposes to explore the region of revelation; 'We promise you no

pavement of gold; you will find your path an Alpine road, steep, rugged,

with profound chasms below, and giddy precipices above, and thick mists

often closing in around, but rewarding you by prospects of ineffable

loveliness, by gleams of far-revealing light, and delighting you with a

thousand unearthly pleasures. _Try_ this pass, with a sincere desire to

come at truth, and with hope and courage in your hearts, and you will be

richly rewarded, and the toils of the ascent will seem to you afterwards

only a portion of your triumph.'

One writer gives the following definition of inspiration. 'A

supernatural, divine influence on the sacred writers, by which they were

qualified to communicate moral and religious truth with authority.'

This is tolerable.

Another writer says, 'It is a miraculous influence, by which men are

enabled to receive and communicate divine truth.'

This too is tolerable, notwithstanding the word miraculous.

Another writer says, 'There has been a great diversity of opinions among

the best men of all ages, as to the nature and extent of Bible

inspiration.'

He might have added, that these opinions have generally been nothing

more than opinions,--mere fancies, theories, framed without regard to

facts.

Another writer says, 'It should be remembered, that the inspiration

which breathes through the Book is not of a scientific, critical, or

historical character, but exclusively religious.'

He means, that while inspiration makes the Bible all that is desirable

as a teacher on religious matters, it does not, on other subjects, raise

it above the views of the ages and places in which it was written. For

he adds, 'The sacred record is not in every respect faultless. It is not

free from literary, typographical, and other defects. Nature herself,

where no one can deny the finger of God, has imperfections. The Book

presents the same characteristics as the best and highest of God's other

gifts, namely, not the outward symmetry of a finite and mechanical

perfection, but the inward, elastic, and reproductive power of a divine

life!'

The meaning of this latter vague and wordy sentence seems to be, that

the inspiration of the Bible is such as to make it a powerful means of

producing spiritual life,--real religion; but not such as to preserve it

from little ordinary human errors and imperfections.

This writer represents Dr. Stowe as saying, 'Inspiration, according to

the Bible, is just that measure of extraordinary Divine influence

afforded to the sacred speakers and writers, which was necessary to

secure the purpose intended, and no more.'

This too we can accept. It does not authorize us to expect of the Bible,

or require us to prove with regard to it, any thing more, than that it

is adapted to be the religious and moral instructor of mankind.

This same writer represents Dr. Robinson as saying, 'Whenever, and as

far as, divine assistance was necessary, it was always afforded.' This

too is tolerable.

One writer says, 'Divine inspiration cannot be claimed for the

transcribers or translators of the original Scriptures.'

We think it can. We see no reason to doubt, but that many of the

transcribers and translators of the Scriptures were as much under the

influence of the Holy Spirit,--the spirit of love, and truth, and all

goodness,--as the original writers. Our impression is, that the common

version is as truly the work of divine inspiration, as any book on

earth.

One writer says, 'The language of the whole Bible is that of

appearances. In drawing illustrations from nature, the writers could not

have been understood, unless they had used figures and forms of speech

based on nature as popularly understood. Hence the heavenly bodies are

spoken of as revolving round the earth, the ant as storing up food in

summer, and the earth as being immovable, all of which are now known to

be contrary to [strict] truth.'

This writer, like some others, feeling as if he had gone too far in

uttering words so true, contradicts them a few pages after, and makes a

number of statements which remind one of what the Apostle says, about

handling the word of God deceitfully. One would be tempted to charge him

with 'cunning craftiness,' only his craft is not very cunning. When

religious teachers act so unfaithfully, they have no right to complain

if people lose all confidence in their honesty.

We grant, however, that the temptation to keep back the truth on this

point is very strong, and we must not be hard on the timid ones. It is

not always a fear of personal loss or suffering that keeps men from

speaking freely on religious subjects, but a dread of lessening their

usefulness, of hurting the minds of good though mistaken people, or of

disturbing and injuring the Church.

But it is no use trying to cheat unbelievers. You cannot do it. They

will find you out, and be all the more suspicious and skeptical in

consequence. We must deal with them honestly; tell them nothing but what

is true, and use no arguments but what are sound and unanswerable.

Advocates of Christianity have made numberless unbelievers by teaching

erroneous doctrines, and by using weak and vicious arguments. The

Christian should so speak and act, that it shall be impossible for any

one ever to find him in the wrong.

The following is probably our own.

The historical difficulties of the Bible amount to little. They do not

affect its scope and tendency, as a moral and spiritual teacher. Nor are

they inconsistent with the doctrine that the Scriptures were given by

inspiration of God, as that doctrine is presented in the Scriptures

themselves. They may be inconsistent with the views of Scripture

inspiration taught by certain Theologians; but all we have to do is to

set the views of these Theologians aside, and content ourselves with the

simple teachings of Scripture.

Now the doctrine of Scripture inspiration as taught by the Scriptures

themselves, gives me no authority to expect the Scriptures to be free

from historical and scientific errors, or from any of those so-called

imperfections which are inseparable from human language or from human

nature. It authorizes me to expect that the Scriptures shall aim at my

moral and spiritual instruction and salvation, and that they shall be

adapted to answer that great end. It authorizes me to expect that the

body and substance of the Book shall be true and good, and that a spirit

of wisdom and purity and love shall pervade the Book, giving it a

rousing and a sanctifying power. It authorizes me to expect in it all

that is necessary to bring me into harmony and fellowship with Christ,

to fill me with His spirit, to change me into His likeness, to enable me

to live as He lived, and to labor as He labored. It authorizes me to

expect in the Bible all that is necessary to comfort me in affliction,

to give me patience, to sustain my hopes, and to support and cheer me in

the hour of death. And all this I find in infinite abundance. I find it

in a multitude of forms,--forms the most touching and impressive. I find

it presented in the plainest, simplest style. I find in the Bible an

infinite treasury of all that is holy, just and good,--of all that is

beautiful, sublime, and glorious,--of all that is quickening,

renovating, strengthening,--of all that is cheering, exhilarating,

transporting,--of all that I can wish for or enjoy,--of all that my

powers can comprehend,--of all that my soul can appropriate and use. I

find in it, in short, riches unsearchable, beyond all that I could ever

have asked, or thought. And what can I wish for more?

God has given us no perfect teachers, no perfect preachers, no perfect

churches; why should we suppose it necessary that He should give us a

perfect book? He has not given us any perfect books on medicine, on

diet, on trades, on politics, on farming, on gardening, on education, or

on poetry. Why should we expect Him to give us one on religion? As a

matter of fact, He has not done so. Our common Bible is a translation.

So are all the common Bibles in the world. And all translations are

imperfect. The translations are made from Greek and Hebrew Bibles, and

those are all imperfect. The Greek and Hebrew Bibles are compiled or

formed from Greek and Hebrew manuscripts. But these also are imperfect.

They all differ from each other. And no one can tell which is nearest to

the originals, for the originals are lost. So that whether there was an

absolutely perfect Bible at first or not, there is no such Bible now.

God Himself has so ordered things, that all the Bibles in the world,

like all the preachers, churches, and teachers, share the innocent

imperfections of our common humanity.

Suppose the original Bible to have been perfect, and to have been

preserved from destruction, only one person could have possessed it. The

rest would have had to be content with imperfect human copies. God might

Himself have written perfect Bibles for all mankind, but He did not

choose to do it. Or He might have made perfect copies of the original

Bible, but He did not choose to do even that. He might have employed a

few legions of angels in making copies of the Bible; but _that_ He did

not do. He left the work to be done by men, and men have done it, as

they do all their work, imperfectly.

Still, they have done it well enough. The poorest manuscript Bible in

the world is good enough. The most imperfect Greek and Hebrew Bible is

good enough. The poorest translation is good enough. It is so good, we

mean, that those who are able to read it, may learn from it all that is

necessary to make them good, and useful, and happy on earth, and to fit

them for the blessedness of eternal life in heaven.

There is a sense in which no translation of the Scriptures is good

enough, if we can make it better; and we have no desire to prevent men

from doing their best to improve the translations in all languages as

much as possible. But do not let them make the impression that a perfect

translation is necessary or even possible; for it is not. God has caused

the Bible to be written in such a way, He has put all important matters

of truth and duty in such a variety of forms, that any translation, made

with a reasonable amount of learning and honesty, is sure to make things

intelligible enough in some of the forms in which they are presented in

the Book.

The Bible, like the Church and the Ministry, is a great mixture of the

human and the divine. There is not a single book, nor a single passage

perhaps, in the whole volume, in which the weaknesses of man and the

perfections of God are not blended. Everywhere we have revelations of

the divine glory, and everywhere we have manifestations of human

imperfection. We have human errors side by side with divine truths. We

have neither a perfect teacher nor a perfect example in the whole Book,

but one; and of that one we have not a perfect record, either of His

teachings or His life. We have nothing but brief, imperfect, fragmentary

records of either. They are perfect enough; but they are very imperfect.

And Moses, and the Prophets, and the Apostles, are perfect enough; but

they are all imperfect. The Bible is perfect enough; but it is,

according to the ordinary meaning of the word, still imperfect.

We do not need perfection, we do not need infallibility, in anything;

and we have it not. Imperfection is better, and that we have in

everything.

And all this is in keeping with God's doings in other cases, 'The

inspiration of the Holy One giveth man understanding;' but does not make

his mind infallible. Christians 'have an unction, an inspiration, from

the Holy One, and know all things:' and yet they do not know all things;

but only those things which pertain to God and Christ: and even their

knowledge of these is acquired not all at once, or without the use of

means; but by degrees only, and by the faithful use of their natural

powers.

The Apostles were not machines. Their inspiration did not take away

their liberty, or suspend the use of their natural powers. Nor did it

teach them natural science, or history; or lift them above ordinary,

innocent errors. Nor did it cause them to learn all Christian truth at

once. They gained their knowledge by degrees. Some imagine, that the

moment the Apostles received the Spirit on the day of Pentecost, they

were perfect and infallible; whereas it took them nearly ten years to

learn that they were to preach the Gospel to the Gentiles. They had the

words of Christ, 'Go ye into _all the world_, and preach the Gospel to

_every creature_;' yet it required nearly ten years, and a special

vision, to make them understand that _every creature_ included the

Gentiles.

Nor have we any proof that the Spirit ever made the Apostles infallible

in every little matter. Paul says, when speaking of the resurrection,

'That which thou sowest is not quickened, except it die.' Now the truth

is, that the seed from which the harvest springs, does not die. It

simply expands and unfolds. His doctrine was right, but the notion on

which he grounded his illustration of it was an error. But it answered

his purpose. And there is a sense in which seed dies. It ceases to be a

seed in becoming a plant.

Bishop Watson says, 'a grain of wheat must become _rotten_ before it can

sprout;' but that is not the case. It ceases to be a mere grain to

become a plant; but it does not become rotten; it remains alive and

sound.

The Apostle is an able minister, a glorious interpreter of Christ and

His doctrine; and there is nothing seriously amiss in his illustrations;

but several of them are based on prevailing misconceptions.

Some say, 'If the Apostles were not infallible in everything, their

writings would be of no use to us. If they might err in one thing, they

might err in others, and we could have no certainty of the truth of

anything.' But that is not true. On one occasion, Paul says, 'I knew not

that it was God's high-priest.' And on another, he says, 'I baptized

none of you but Crispus and Gaius.' Afterwards he says 'I baptized also

the house of Stephanas:' and he finishes by saying, 'I know not whether

I baptized any other.' Will you say, 'If Paul could be ignorant or

mistaken about the high-priest, or the number of persons he had

baptized; he might be ignorant or mistaken on every subject?' The truth

is, a man who was so much taken up with great things, would be sure to

think but little of small things. His determination to know nothing but

Christ; would be sure to keep him from wasting his time or strength on

trifles. A man's ignorance on some points is often proportioned to his

knowledge on others. And Paul is all the more trustworthy on great

matters of Christian truth and duty, because of his indifference to

matters of little or no importance. And say what we will, the Apostles

were not infallible on every point, and they never professed to be so.

They professed to be inspired, and inspired they were, but they did not

profess to be wholly infallible, and it is certain they were not so.

And the admission of the truth on this point, will _not_ destroy our

confidence in them on others. We may believe that the Apostles were

fallible on matters of little moment, and have the fullest assurance

possible that they were right on matters of great importance.

The Apostles themselves were sufficiently assured of the truth of those

impressions which they had received about Christ through their eyes and

ears; yet neither the eyes nor the ears of man are always or absolutely

infallible. I have myself mistaken blue for green, and yellow for white;

and I recollect two occasions on which coal or jet, seemed, at a

distance, in the sunlight, as white as snow. And I have often thought

things to be moving, which were at rest; and things to be at rest, which

were moving. Yet I have the fullest confidence in my eyes. I have

sometimes been mistaken with regard to sounds. I have thought a sound to

be near, when it was far off; and I have thought a sound to be far off,

when it was near. And I have often mistaken one sound for another. Yet I

have all the confidence I need to have in my ears. Both eyes and ears

may need the help of the mind at times; but the mind is always at hand

with its help. In short, I know that all my senses are fallible; yet on

every point of moment I have all the assurance, with regard to things

sensible, that is needful to my welfare.

And so with regard to religious matters. There is nothing like

omniscience,--nothing like infinite or absolutely perfect knowledge or

infallibility in any man: yet every one may have all the information and

all the assurance on things moral and spiritual needful to his comfort

and salvation.

Our assurance of the truth and excellency of Christian doctrine rests on

something better, surer, than theological and metaphysical niceties. You

who fancy that your strong and heart-cheering faith rests on theological

theories, and that if those theories were exploded, it would perish,

are, happily, under a great mistake. Your faith, and hope, and joy,

rest on the harmony between Christianity and your souls. My faith and

trust in the outward world, and my infinite appreciation of its

arrangements, rest, not on any philosophical theory; but on the

wonderful, the perfect adaptation of every thing to my nature, to my

wants, to my comfort and welfare. Nature answers to me, fits into me, at

every point. I am just the kind of being nature was made for; and nature

is just the kind of world my being requires. They match. They answer to

each other exactly, all round, and make one glorious and blessed whole.

And this is the secret of my trust in nature.

And so it is with regard to Christianity and my soul. They are made for

each other. They fit each other. My soul just wants what Christianity

brings; and Christianity just brings what my soul requires. It answers

to my soul, as light and beauty answer to the eye, and as sound and

music answer to the ear, and the whole of nature to the whole of man.

There is neither want, nor superfluity, nor disagreement. Christianity

and my soul, like nature and my physical being, are a glorious match.

They are one: as I and my life are one. Christ is my life. Christ is my

all. And He is all that my soul requires or desires.

And this is the ground of the good Christian's faith. It is not external

or historical evidence; it is not metaphysical niceties or theories; it

is not the endless mass of jarring evidences of any kind which lie in

misty, musty, dusty volumes on the shelves of dreamy, doting divines,

that makes you feel at rest in Jesus; but Jesus Himself, whose fulness

just answers to your wants, and whose life and love just make your

heaven. It is just that, and nothing more.

There is a story of a judge who was celebrated for the wisdom and

justice of his judgments, but often censured for the weakness or folly

of the reasons which he gave for them. Many Christians resemble this

judge. They make a wise and worthy profession of faith; but when they

attempt to give reasons for their belief, they betray the most

lamentable ignorance. They _have_ good reasons, but they cannot put them

into words. They do not always know what their reasons for believing

are. The reasons they assign are not their real reasons. They believed,

and believed on good grounds, for sufficient reasons, years before they

heard of the reasons they give for their belief to those who question

them on the subject. The reasons they assign did not at first convince

them, and they are not the kind of reasons likely to convince others.

And it would be better if, instead of assigning them, they were to say:

'Well; I do not know that I can tell you the reasons why I believe the

Bible; but I have reasons. I am satisfied my belief is right. I am

satisfied the Bible is the right thing for me. I meet with things in it

that make me feel very happy. I meet with things in it that will not let

me do wrong; that will keep impelling me to do right, to do good. I meet

with things in it that support me in trouble; that make me thankful in

prosperity; that fill me with good thoughts, good feelings, good

purposes, good hopes, great peace, sweet rest, strong confidence, and a

blessed prospect of a better life. I like the Bible God: He is a great

protector, and a blessed comforter. I like the Bible story about Jesus,

and all the glorious things it says about His love and salvation. In

short, the Bible is a great part of my life, my soul, my joy, my

strength, my being, and I don't know what I could do without it. I

cannot argue. I don't know the reasons why I believe. But the Bible just

suits my soul, and I am inclined to believe that the world would be a

dark place, and life a poor affair, without its blessed revelations and

precious promises.'

Now in speaking thus, most men would really, without knowing it, be

giving the reasons or grounds of their faith. The great reason really

is, the perfect adaptation of the Bible to their nature and wants. They

believe unconsciously and unthinkingly in the divinity of nature, on

account of the wonderful adaptation of its provisions to their natural

wants. They believe in virtuous love, and honorable marriage, and family

life, and natural affections, and friendship, and society, and

government, and law, on similar grounds. The reasons of their faith are

real, and good, and strong; but like the roots of a tree, they are low

down, out of sight, under the ground. They do not reflect on them, dig

them up, bring them to the light, and give them a critical examination.

This internal evidence is gaining favor day by day. It is preferred by

the ablest modern writers to all others. It was the evidence that

vanquished the infidel socialists of five and thirty years ago. It is

the evidence that makes our modern infidel advocates wince and waver.

They hardly think it necessary to notice the historical evidences. They

know that they seldom get hold of men's hearts. But they cannot afford

to despise the internal evidences. They are a real power. Thousands are

touched by a sight of Jesus as presented in the Gospels, for one that is

moved by arguments from miracles or prophecies. Even the miracles of

Jesus owe their chief power to their benevolent character.

The ablest American writer on the Evidences of Christianity, Rev. Mark

Hopkins, makes the moral and internal evidence almost everything, and

the external ones next to nothing.

The Rev. F. C. Cooke, Canon of Exeter, in his lecture before the

Christian Evidence Society of London, says, 'The one great evidence, the

master evidence, the evidence with which all other evidences will stand

or fall, is Christ Himself speaking by His own word. It is the character

of Jesus that makes men feel that He and His religion are divine. It is

this that warms men's hearts, and wins their love, and produces a faith

full of life and power. Other evidences apart from this leave men cold,

and indifferent, or opposed to Christ.' But more on this point

hereafter.