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.'