The Northern Daily Times.
Liverpool, Merseyside, England, 1857-01-15 00:00:00

him ; but his hoary head bring thou down to the grave
with blood. So David slept with his fathers, and was

buried in the city of David." It would have been
better for David's reputation, and more wholesome as an
example to kings, if such deeds had slept with him.
How is it possible for a man schooled in the temper
of Christ to sympathise with the temper of David ?
Ts it a small error that in the last chapter of St. Luke's
Gospel, as any careful reader may see, the writer makes the
ascension of Christ take place on the same day ab that of

the resurrection, while the same St. Luke, in the first chapter
of the Acts, interposes a period of forty days, during
which Jesus showed himself alive to his disciples by rainy
infallible signs ? Can we, in anv fairness. call this a small
error in the infallible book ? 'We had thought that the
resurrection doctrine touched the very essence and citadel of
the faith. If such errors as these are merely small ones,
will the reverend doctor favour the world with his ideas of

what would constitute a large error ? To us every one of
these seems a G3liah. The reverend speaker considers them
only a little David. " Thou fool, that which thou sowest is
not quickened except it die"— 1 Cor., xv. 36. Which is
. _

the foolish part here, it would he unbecoming in us to say ;
but it requires no deep knowledge of botany, physiology,
or agriculture, to say that if the seed dies there is no re-
production. Shall we receive this as oracular, because it
occurs in a book alleged to be infallible, given by the
exDress d;cfation of God ? or shall we slur this over in a

t 01,,, uncritical way, and call it only a small error ?
The reverend doctor allows that the genealogies of Christ
present some discrepancies. Small ones, of course; grave
ones, we reply. St. Matthew says, there are 42 genera—
tions ; and, when we count them, we find only 41. From
David to Joseph, the husband of Mary, there are 26

generations, according to St. Matthew ; 41, according to
St. Luke. From David to Joseph, with the exception of
four names, all the ancestors of Jesus are different, I

find, in the two lists. If you ask St. Matthew who was
the grardiather of Jesus ? he replies Jacob. If you ask

St. Luke, he replies Heli. St. Matthew derives Jesus
from David, through his son Solomon. St. Luke derives

Jesus from David, through his son Nathan. There are
several other discrepancies. And, to complicate all, and
make confusion worse confounded, we have narratives of
the miraculous birth of Christ. To consider Luke's

geneology as that of Mary, and Matthew's that of Joseph's,
is plainly against the letter of Scripture. Moreover, the
New Testament knows nothing of Mary as a descendant
of David, but' distinctly affirms Joseph to have been
such. Luke, ii. 4 : " And Joseph went up from Galilee,
out of the city of Nazareth, into Judea, unto the city of
David, which is called Bethlehem, because he was of the
house and lineage of David, to b 3 taxed with Mary, his
espoused wife." It is, then, through Joseph, not through
Mary, that Jesus is traced to David. And if Jesus is linked
to David through Joseph, the husband of Mary, what
becomes of the story of the miraculous birth ? On the
other hand : if the miraculous birth is true, what is the
use, purpose, or relevancy, of .producing, as ancestors of
Jesus, men who were not his ancestors ? The miracu-
lous birth and the genealogical tables cannot stand
together. One of the two must be sacrificed ; possibly,
both. It is indifferent to our argument which. In either
case there is a mistake ; or, rather, a cluster of mistakes
in the oracle. Will it be said that all these complicated
difficulties and discrepancies are only small matters ?
They touch on the Incarnation. Is that a trivial doctrine
in the creed cf orthodoxy ? Christ's Messiaship rests partly
on his earthly desent from David. Is that a trifling tenet ?
One of the most stupendous miracles of Scripture is in the
question here. If all this is only tithe and mint, we
should be curious to know which are the weightier matters
of the law,—and what doctrines of orthodoxy are
more essential, and more central, than that of the
Incarnation ?—which, again, links itself with the hypo
statical union, and that with the Trinity ? and that
again, by fatal interdependence, with the dogmas
of vicarious sacrifice, imputed sin, and imputed righteous-
ness ? We are in the very penetralia of the temple, the
heart and centre of orthodoxy ; and we solemnly protest,
in the name of all that is serious and sacred, against being
put off with the transparent anility of calling such as these
" small errors." But, great or small, they are found in Dr
M'Neile's infallible oracle. We might reach the same con
elusion in another way. "By translation and transcription,
small errors, it is admitted, are to be found in the Bible."
The implication here seems to be, that the Hebrew and
Greek originals of our Bible were absolutely errorless and
infallible. Now, this is an assertion and an assumption
which, to say the least, are not self evident : they require to
be proved. We shall immediately endeavour to show how
difficult, or even impossible, it would be to prove the exist-
ence of an oracular book. But, for the present, we will grant
the rev. speaker his enormous assumption ; and even then it
will not be difficult to disprove the existence of the oracle.
.

Supposing., therefore, the original Hebrew siad Greek menu
scripts of the Bible to have been perfect and errorless, yet
the book has to be translated and copied, unless the
translators and transcribers are secured against possible
error, the divine dicta'ion is nneva;ling—the ()reele is lost.
an unfaithful copy of an infallible book ceases to be infallible.
To compass an oracle the multifarious translators into
English, French, German, &c., should have been secured
against mistake, and the thousands of cspyists restrained
from taking liberties with the originals. Even Dr. M'Neile
admits errors here. Granting, what has to be proved, that
the book was Orfect at first, it is not perfect now. Between
us and the supposed perfect orignal two sources of error are
interp 'seri—translations and copyings. But, in fairness, we
are not entitled to predicate the character of manuscripts
that we never saw.neverexamined,never had infour possession.
It comes to this, then —What the Bible might hove been
originally we cannot exactly tell ; but if we study impar-
tially, and in the love of truth, we can pronounce, with some
tolerable certitude, on what we find in our own language,
and that appears to some of us a long way off perfection.
We are told that the Bible makes for itself the claim
of infallibility. Supposing it did ; would this be a sound
reason for admitting the claim ? A book asserts its own
infallibility ;—therefore, it is so. The Vedahs of India
assert their own infallibility; therefore, they are so. The
Koran asserts its own infallibility; therefore, it is so.
The writings of Emanuel Swedenborg assert their own
infallibility : therefore, they are so. The Bible is to be
treated with the same fairness as any other book; but the
rules of sound reasoning are not to be warped in its favour.
In the case of no other book w suld the mere assertion prove
the infallibility. Supposing, then, a thousand texts could
have been produced from the Bible asserting its infallibility ;
they are irrelevant and ie competent. We shall be reminded
of the miracles as supporting the claim. We answer, the
Bible contains and exhibits no miracle, but only the recor3
of them—the mere report of them. The report of miracles is
one thing ; the undeniable exhibition of them to the senses
and reason of mankind is quite another. The report of
miracle, not the fact of miracle, is all that we have for the
Bible. Does this prove the book infallible ? If so, then
again, the Koran is infallible ; for it claims, at least, one
miracle—the inimitable perfection of its diction. If so,
the Indian Vedahs are infallible ; for they claim to
record miracles far more numerous and stupendous than
any registered in the Jewish and Christian Scriptures.
Our missionaries are absolutely laughed to scorn by the
learned pundits of India on account of the meagre and
beggarly list of aristain marvels and miracles. The
orthodox Christian Trinity sinks into utter insignificance
before the thirty millions of persons in Ged that make
up the India❑ Trinity. Nor if we desert the simplicity
of Unitarianism will it be easy to say where we shall
end. The assertion of a book for itself, and the record
of miracles, are not sufficient to establish the infallibility
of the book. If proved at all, this must be proved by
evidence external to the book. The mere unsupported
affirmation of a witness respecting himself cannot be
received in any legitimate court of evidence. The
miracles need support before they can land any. The
miracles are themselves a difficulty to bo surmountel.
I, for one, do not deny the competency of human testi-
mony to establish a miracle ; but the testimony must be
clear, unambiguous,and unexceptionable—not mere tradition
and hearsay. We must first be convinced that the miracles
were real, and we shall admit their validity in evidence.
Prove your infallibility of the record first, and then we will
admit the miracles; or, prove your miracles first, and then
we shall consider how far they are available for the infalli-
bility of a book. But you cannot, and you must not, prove
the .reality of the miracles by assuming the infallibility of
the book, and then prove the infallibility of thebook by assum-
ing the reality of the miracles. Yet this is the circular reason-
ing which has been followed by the Incumbent of St. Paul's.
We do not now discuss the question of the
cogency of the argument from miracles. Our
inquiry is after an infallible book, given by divine
dictation, errorless and oracular; suppose a book is pre-
sent d to Dr. M'Neile, and he can
,find no error in it, does
that prove the book contains no error ? By no manner of
means. Others, of keen, critical vision, may detect error.
Even Dr. M'Neile's assurance to the world that the Bible
contains no error, is only a declaration of his inability tofind
any. And observe the boldness and baldness of the doctor's
rationalism. On the strength of his own individual judg-
ment, his own carnal reason, his own fallible fallicies, he
believes he has found an infallible book. The fallibility
upbeat's the infallibility. The infallible book is vouched
for by the fallible judgment. The pyramid reposes on a
quagmire. Because this rationaliser can find no error,
therefore there is none. Qmod erat deinonstrandum.
Suppose, again, that no human intellect could find an
error in the able—that the united wit of man could
see no imperfection there—would even this establish its
divine dictation ? Not so. Euclid is believed to be a
hook without an error. Was it, therefore, given by
Divine dictation ? or is it the slow elaboration of
the human intellect, perfected by successive gromrters ?
Even an errorless book may still be purely human, and
divine dictation a figment. No instructed rationalist, we
trust, would be guilty of the arrogance of assuming the
divine dictation and absolute infallibility of a book on the

strength of the very feeble and fallible fact that he could find
no fault, Where, then, is infallibility, and where shall the
proof of it be found ? The self assertion of the book cannot
establish it i • the mere record of miracles cannot prove it.
My inability, or even Dr. M'Neile's inability
to detect error cannot prove it. The inabiltty
of the whole human race to detect error can-
not prove divine dictation. The thing may be
assumed, however, and asserted, and re-asserted, without-
being proved ; and this is the easer, and the orthodox
method. Let us try to place before ourselves some things
that are involved in this idea of an oracle : " Our in-
fallible chart and compass !" This implies—let, That
the pure and unclouded thoughts of God have been
conveyei to some human mind or minds. 2nd, That
these have been recorded in adequate words 3rd, That
the words are befcee us unchanged. 4th. That we have
_

reached the true and intendA meaning of the words.-
stb, That the Boot is consistent with itself, teaching
throughout one clear and harmonious system, delivering
out tru 3 and unvarnished narrative. 6h. That it accords

with all other well ascertained truths, and contains no

proved mistake or inaccuracy. If these six I hi7gs can
be satisfactorily made out, we may have an oracle ;
if °one link fail the chain is broken. The strength

of the entire chain is no greater ihan that of the
weakest link. Before I Can satisfy myself that

I have a reliable oracle, I must be able to show—
let, That the pure thoughts of Gel without any
mixture of error, have existed in one human mind, or
set of minds,—say, for example, the Hebrew prophets or
the Christian apostles. His this ever been done ? Can
it be done? How can we imagine such a thing proved?
Yet it is indispensable. I must have the pure light of
Heaven, without refraction from the atmosphere of
humanity ; the very thought, as it exis's in the mind of
God, must come to me pure, unmodified by any earthly
medium. Now, as all our ideas come to us through our
limited and falliblible faculties, and are, indeed, the mind
itself existing in successive states, they must partake
of that limitation and fallibility. The firm and
modest conviction which a man may hold of the
rectitude of his opinions is very different from oracular cer-
tainty. We must be able to raise ourselves above the
limitary conditions of human nature, in -order to reach the
very possibility of an oracle. Infallible certainty was not
male for fallible man. 2nd. The words must be fitted to
convey the exact thought of Geni,—nothing more, and
nothing less. If the language be defective, the infallible
idea is not conveyed. The true idea may be in the soul of
the prophets. but it halts, and never reaches us for wan t of
an adequate medium of communication. Can we prove
the BrocHiction to he as perfect as the ideas of God ?
If we can do this, we may be entitled to vaunt our oracle.
3rd, The words must be preserved unchanged, uncorrupted.
Grantirg that the t nought of Gad was accurately contained
in the original writing, yet if we cannot he sure that we
have the original words. there is no oracle, but only a
human record, subject to the chances and changes of all
human things, and especially of all manuscripts, which
may be more or less remote from the infallible original,
but which, in point of fact, are not the infallible
original. It has been admitted that there are errors in
the Bible. They have occurred, we are told, through
translation and transcription. Even if no more than
this is true, we have not been protected against the
possibility of error. Even a small error in our chart and
compass may set us a long way out of our course. There
have been found, up to the present time, one hundred
and fifty thousand various readings in the Bible; about
as many variations as words in the whole book. Which
is the original text no one can decide Our actual Bible
is the result of one hundred and fifty thousand errors,
some small and some great; but the real, true, original,
genuine Bible we have not. We never had it. Most
scholars have decided now that the text respecting the three
heavenly witnesses in 1 John, v. 7, oucht not to be there.

Whether we are to read " the blood of God" or " the blood
of the Lord," in Acts xx. 28, is undetermined. The last
verse of the 7th chapter of St. John's Gospel and the first
eleven verses of the Bth chapter are held to be doubtful ;
and the last twelve verses of the last chapter of St. Mark's
Gospel are missing in some ancient manuscripts of the Bible.
The hypothesis of an oracle is then a pure fiction, a pleasant
dream, an agreeable vision, a plausible theory incapable of
taking substantial form. To name no other causes
of corruption and change, the translators and copy-
ists have alone been able to take away the oracle
of the Lord, and we knownot where they have laid it,
4th. Suppose the words of God, given by divine dicta-'
tion, to be in our possession pure and unchanged, can we
now attain to infallible certainty—that is, can we inter- i
pret them infallibly? For now conies the work of
interpretation—the meaning of the oracle has to be
evolved from the language divinely dictated. The
Bible does not explain its own meaning ; the meaning is
imposed by the mind that reads it. But, unless the
reader is infallible, error may creep in now, through the
loopholes of interpretation, as before through translation
and transcription. Six men, equally learned and honest,
shall sit down to the study of the Bible, and shall rise
no with six different interpretations, meanings, or systems
which the perueal of the Bible suggested ; that is, the
oracle has suggested six different fallibilities instead of
one infallibility. The aid of the Holy Spirit will not meet
the case ; because the Holy Spirit has guided a devout
Calvinist to one system of doctrine, a devout Armenian to
another, a devout Unitarian to a third, and a devout Roman
Catholic to a fourth set of doctrines. In the• matter of
interpretation, the Romanist is theoretically more con-
sistent than the Protestant, who makes an orthodoxy the
condition of salvation. If sound opinions are essential to
salvation, there must be some authority to indicate
which are the sound ones —to divide the one true faith
from all the deadly heresies. The Romanist sees that, to
get an infallible meaning out of an infallible book, you
must have an infallible interpeter. In vain have you the
heavenly oracle, dictated by God, if you are left to
find out the meaning through your own frail human
faculties. How is it possible to attain an unerring inter-
pretation through faculties that may err? As water
cannot rise above its level, so your interpretation, however
devout, learned, and earnest, can never rise above the
level of mere human opinion. It is your earnest
and conscientious opinion, but it is not a heavenly oracle.
You think under the conditions of humanity, and your
thought may be not coincident with the thought of God.
sth. We next ask : Is the oracle consistent with itself ?
Does it deliver one clear, coherent, harmonious scheme of
doctrine ? Any self variation or incoherency would be
fatal. Now, what is the fact ? That each sect is able to
find its doctrines in the Bible, and can quote chapter and
verse. Who can deny that the Calvinism of the 'West-
minster Confession, as held by the Church of Scotland,
finds support in the Bible ; and alSo the opposite system
of Armenianistn, which Wessleyans defend. Unitarians
can produce their texts, and Tractarians theirs. Even
Mormonism is able to play at texts and scriptures, and can
vindicate polygamy and a God with human parts and
passions. People see what they like in the moon and in the
Bible. The existence of some fifty Christian sects is
evidence that no oracular certainty is to be found on earth.
The Bible contains no complete system of morals—indeed,
no system at all ; no regular code of human duties, though
it indicates a few grand spiritual principles. It embodies
the opinions of the age upon astronomy, geology, meta-
physics, and physiology, if we may apply such terms to
the contents of Scripture. If all the vaeious sects can
find more or less standing room in Scripture, then the oracle
is convic'ed of teachinZ not one plain and consistent doctrine,
but a plurality of doctrines, mutually conflicting and irre-
concilable. Such is the "infallible chart and compass,"
given by dictation of God 1-6th. It would be a long argu-
ment to enquire whether Scripture is ever in collision with
science. In the event of such collision, we know which
must ultimately go down. But, if there be any error, of
any kind, or of any amount, in Scripture, then it is not
infallible. A true Bible will be in agreement with
all other well established truths. God in Scripture
cannot contradict God in nature. We are more sure that
nature is the work of God than that Scripture is. The
authority of Nature, or the unwritten Bible, must always
be superior to Scripture, or the written Bible. For what
is written may be changed, interpolated, corrupted,
and mere word controversies may be interminable. But
the unwritten Bible is unchangeable, incorruptible,
speaking through all times and climes ; and its facts
and figures that never lie, will finally carry instruction
and conviction to all minds, and with an authority that
words, and creeds, and books, can never attain.
We believe we have already produced some examples
of Biblical error and mistake, end many more can easily be
found by any attentive and intelligent reader. The
argument is this. Though the fact of an errorless book
could not prove the book given by divine dictation ; yet the
presence of one or two undeniable mistakes places the Bible
upon the level of all other human books. An errorless
book is not necessarily divine ; but an erring book is
necessarily human. It is ruled for us, by the high
authority to which we have already so often referred, that
there is no medium between accepting the Bible as
an oracle and rejecting it as a bad book—a blasphemous
assumption and imposture. We are humbly of opinion that
a third course is open. The Bible reads to us as a book of
very composite materials, and of very unequal value. Some
pacts contain no edification, and have no fitness to us or to
our timea.; •Others will always be read so long as simplicity,
beauty, and poetry have any charms for the human mind.
But it is not what the church and the sects have sought to
make it. It is not the high and vaunted oracle and organ
of infallibility. The Bible is worth all the truth it contains—
and no more. The rev. incumbent of St. Paul's steps out of
his way to attack Unitarians. Wears informed that"if Christ
was not thiiiiSon of God, he was not even a good man—
for ha says' and my Father are one. Socinians and
Unitarians then deny the truth of Christ's words ; they
treat him as a liar. It is awful." Unitarians are able to
fight their own battles, and they need no help of ours,—

. 4 .