guishes them from other books. This cannot be more broadly and fearlessly stated than in the Quarterly Review of September last, in an article on the well-known book entitled, The Eclipse of Faith; to the clever and dashing author of which the Reviewer administers a serious rebuke for his irrational and dangerous assumption of the verbal inspiration of Scripture, while arguing against Mr. Newman's Phases of Faith. The Quarterly Reviewer says: "But there is one important topic of the 'Phases' which is less successfully met in the Eclipse.' Mr. Newman dwells much upon the historical, geological and exegetical mistakes which he supposes to be found in Scripture, and describes the process by which he was himself led to unbelief through his discovery that, in such points, the Bible was not infallible. He relates how at this period he was stopped in his descent for a time by a conversation with Dr. Arnold, who, while allowing Scripture to be fallible in human science, maintained its infallibility in moral and spiritual truth. Subsequently, however, Mr. Newman found a difficulty in drawing any line which should accurately separate the domain of science from that of religion, and he was thus led to reject the Bible altogether. In the present day this is a very common road to unbelief. The difficulty may be encountered in two ways: either by denying the existence of any mistakes in Scripture, or maintaining, with Neander, Tholuck and Arnold, that the occurrence of such mistakes does not detract from the religious inspiration of the writers. The former is the view taken by Mr. Rogers. He contends, in intire agreement with Mr. Newman, that a distinction between the Divine and human contents of Scripture is impossible,-that historical inaccuracy cannot co-exist with religious infallibility. 'Men will think it strange,' he says, 'that Divine aid should not have gone a little farther, and, since the destined revelation was to be embedded in history, illustrated by imagination, enforced by argument, and expressed in human language, its authors should have been left liable to destroy the substance by perpetual blunders as to the form.' Hence he concludes that, textual and transcriptional errors excepted, the whole of Scripture is infallibly accurate, and that all its writers were miraculously preserved from the possibility of error, whether physiological, geological, astronomical, historical or exegetical. "The argument relied on, it must be observed, is here intirely à priori. 'Men would expect that a revelation should be infallible in all respects; it would be desirable that it should be so; it would involve us in great perplexities if it were not so.' Yet surely, in a matter of this kind, it is our duty to investigate the facts before we lay down so peremptory a conclusion. Having the most cogent reasons for believing the Bible to be a revelation from God, we should carefully examine what its construction and character actually is, and not permit ourselves to decide dogmatically what it ought to have been. If we find that there are historical discrepancies and scientific inaccuracies in the canonical books, it is vain to say that their occurrence is perplexing, and it is worse than vain to explain them away, as some commentators have done, by subterfuge and evasion. We will not venture dogmatically to assert, in contradiction to the opinion of Mr. Rogers, that the apparent mistakes in Scripture are absolutely incapable of such an explanation as would vindicate them from the charge of error; but it is certain that those who have devoted the most patient investigation to exegetical study, are the most thoroughly convinced that there are some cases which do not admit of such a possibility. This is now so generally admitted, that it is acknowledged even in the standard educational works of orthodox divinity. For example: in the edition of the Greek Testament published for collegiate use by Mr. Alford, whom no one will accuse of want of reverence for the Bible, or the articles of our most holy faith, there occurs the following sentence: 'In the last apology of Stephen, which he spoke being full of the Holy Ghost, and with Divine influence beaming from his countenance, we have, at least, two demonstrable historical mistakes; and the occurrence of similar ones in the Gospels does not in any way affect the inspiration or the veracity of the Evangelists.' (Alford's Testament, Vol. I., Prolegomena.) Nor have Mr. Alford's most orthodox reviewers excepted against this statement. Such being the case, it is surely very dangerous to maintain that historical infallibility is essential to the inspiration of the Scriptural writers. This belief, if unfounded, exposes the faith of its votaries to tremble at every German commentary, every scientific treatise, and every fresh discovery of Egyptian hieroglyphics, and it is but too likely to bring them to the conclusion which Mr. Newman draws "Moreover, the apostles themselves do not lead us to suppose them infallible in matters of human knowledge. They speak of themselves as 'earthen vessels,' though employed to contain a heavenly treasure. They call themselves ‘ambassadors' charged with a message from God; and in the case of ambassadors from an earthly sovereign, the credentials would not be invalidated, nor the substantial accuracy of the communication rendered doubtful, by mistakes on details irrelevant to the substance of their commission. Even looking at the question à priori, we see no reason why men should have expected a revelation of moral and spiritual truth to supersede the researches of history or to anticipate the discoveries of science. Nay, as a fact, the heathen philosopher who most earnestly desired such a revelation, expressly guards against such expectations. He tells his disciples to expect no revelation from heaven concerning matters open to human investigation, while at the same time he encourages them to hope for Divine communications on subjects beyond the scope of man's discovery." (Quarterly Rev., Sept. 1854, pp. 473-4.) It is quite refreshing to read the avowal of such principles of sacred criticism in a book widely circulated and trusted. Their more general adoption is the only source of solid Christian conviction. Tacit unbelief reigns in default of them. The assailants of Revealed Religion never assail these views of it; but, on the contrary (with more policy than honesty), assume the high orthodox views of Scripture as the only ones admitted` among Christians, and content themselves with a wretched |