_The Bible nowhere makes any such claim of infallibility for itself._
The prophets did indeed use the habitual formula, "Thus saith the Lord."
So did the false prophets, as well as the true. It was the common formula
of prophetism, indeed, of the Easterns generally when delivering
themselves of messages that burned in their souls. The eastern mind
assigns directly to God actions and influences which we Westerns assign to
secondary causes. We are scientific, they are poetic. We reach truth by
reasonings, they by intuitions. No one can follow the processes of the
intuitions. To the mystic mind they are immediate illuminations from on
high, inspirations of the Spirit of God. In the realm of law we trace the
action of natural forces, and are apt to think there is nothing more. In
the realm of the unknown we feel the supernatural, and are apt to think it
all in all.
The great prophets themselves did not accept this language of other
prophets unquestioningly. They denied the claim unhesitatingly when
satisfied that the messages were not from on high. They distinguished
between those who came in the name of the Lord; and so must we. They tried
the spirits whether they were of God; bidding us therefore do the same.
Tried by the severest scrutiny of successive centuries, of different
races, the great prophets prove to have spoken truly when they declared,
of their ethical and spiritual messages, "Thus saith the Lord." If ever
messages from on high have come to men, if ever the Spirit of God has
spoken in the spirit of man, it was in the minds of these "men of the
spirit." But they made no claim to infallibility, or if they did, took
pains to disprove it. Every prophet who goes beyond ethical and religious
instruction, and ventures into predictions, makes mistakes, and leaves his
errors recorded for our warning. We must try even the inspired men, and
when, overstepping their limitations, they err, we must say, Thus saith
Isaiah, Thus saith Jeremiah.
No biblical writer shows any consciousness of such supernatural influences
upon him in his work as insured its infallibility. Nearly all these
authors begin and end their books without any reference to themselves or
their work. The writer of the Gospel according to Luke thus prefaces his
book:
"Forasmuch as many have taken in hand to draw up a narrative concerning
those matters which have been fulfilled among us, even as they
delivered them unto us which from the beginning were eye-witnesses and
ministers of the word, it seemed good to me also, having traced the
course of all things accurately from the first, to write unto thee in
order, most excellent Theophilus, that thou mightest know the certainty
concerning the things which thou wast taught by word of mouth."
This is the only personal preface to any of the Gospels, and it is
thoroughly human. There is not even such an invocation as introduces
Milton's great poem.
These writers at times, after the fashion of the older prophets, affirm
that they speak with divine authority; but they also as expressly disclaim
such authority in other places. St. Paul is sure, in one matter referred
to him, of the mind of God, and writes:
"Unto the married I command, yet not I, but the Lord," etc.[2]
Immediately after he writes, as having no such assurance:
"To the rest speak I, not the Lord."[3]
Later on in the same letter he is so uncertain as to add to his judgment:
"And I think also that I have the spirit of God."[4]
Again, in the same connection, being conscious of no divine authorization,
he gives his own opinion as such:
"Now, concerning virgins I have no commandment of the Lord, but I give
my judgment."[5]
Eighteen hundred years after he wrote, men insist that they know more
about St. Paul's inspirations than he did himself. Against his modest,
cautious discriminations, our doctors set up their theory of the Bible,
clothe all his utterances with the divine authority, and honor him with an
infallibility which he explicitly disclaims.
The New Testament writers use language which seems, to our
theory-spectacled eyes, to ascribe an infallible inspiration to the Old
Testament books. But the words have no such weight. The Epistle to the
Hebrews opens with the words:
"God, who at sundry times and in divers manners spake in time past unto
the fathers by the prophets," etc.[6]
The author of the Second Epistle of Peter writes:
"For the prophecy came not in old time by the will of man; but holy men
of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost."[7]
Such passages as these command the instant assent of all who reverence an
ethical and spiritual inspiration in the prophets, and a real revelation
through them, and they command no other belief.
In the first Epistle General of Peter we read:
"Concerning which salvation the prophets sought and searched diligently
who prophesied of the grace that should come unto you; searching what
time or what manner of time the spirit of Christ which was in them did
point unto, when it testified beforehand the sufferings of Christ and
the glories that should follow them."[8]
Any idea of a progressive revelation implies that there was a light
coming on into the world, which to them of olden time showed dimly a
mystery into which they strove to look further. A vision of ideal goodness
rose before them. It rested above the ideal Israel, chosen and called of
God for a holy work. It shadowed that righteous servant of God with
sorrow. The lot of the elect one was to be suffering. Thus the world was
to be saved to God. This the great Prophet of the Exile saw. Christ's
coming filled out this mystic vision, and it is fairly translated into the
terms the Epistle uses.
The prophets were, in such lofty visionings, under an influence beyond
their consciousness.
"The passive master lent his hand
To the vast soul that o'er him planned."
All other passages claimed in support of the notion of an infallible Bible
fail on the witness-stand.
There is positively nothing in the New Testament which lends a reasonable
countenance to such an amazing theory.
Even the stock argument, used when all other quotations failed, disappears
in the honesty of the Revised New Testament. People who know no Greek see
now that Paul did not write "All Scripture is given by inspiration of
God"; but
"Every Scripture inspired of God is also profitable for teaching for
reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness."[9]
This is precisely the claim to be made for the Bible, as against the
exaggerated notions cherished about it. It is good for--all forms of
character-building. Its inspiration is ethical and spiritual. The test of
the inspiration of any writing in it is its efficacy to inspire life with
goodness.